Park districts ask commission to back $7,500 per‑lot developer contribution to fund sports park and trails

March 12 — Joe Giordano, chair of the Warren West Park District, and representatives of the Taylor West Weaver Park District asked the Western Labor Planning Commission to support a baseline developer contribution of $7,500 per lot for new residential subdivisions. Park leaders said rapid growth in the unincorporated area will outpace existing parkland and that the contribution would be used to acquire and develop larger, regional park facilities.

"We're kind of at an inflection point," Joe Giordano told commissioners, saying the district currently serves roughly 800 residents on 6 acres of parkland and that planned nearby development will increase demand. He said the park district ran two methods to estimate need — preserving historical open‑space percentages and a facilities‑cost approach — and both produced a per‑lot contribution around $7,500. "So through these two different methods, we came to that $7,500 number," Giordano said.

Giordano described a near‑term priority of a 25‑acre sports park with multiple fields; the park district provided ballpark cost estimates, and commissioners and staff discussed a construction budget in the range of roughly $9 million to $10 million for a fully developed sports complex with parking and restrooms. Staff and the park representatives said the $7,500 figure would primarily buy land and limited initial improvements; additional grant programs or state funds (including GRAMA and other sources) would be sought to finish development.

Planning staff and commissioners focused on process and enforceability. County planners told the commission that a letter from a park district could support a rezoning recommendation but that the county should require a fully executed development agreement before a rezoning reaches the county commission for final approval. A planner advised that the developer’s agreement with the park district be attached as an exhibit to the county’s development agreement so the county can enforce the park contribution and escrow requirements. "If they have the contract, we're done. If they have the letter, you know we've given them the contract. And then before the rezone's approved by the commission, we would ask that the contract be done," a staff member said.

Commissioners and staff also discussed how a per‑lot donation could affect developer pro formas and density choices. One commissioner warned a fixed contribution might incentivize higher density to offset costs; park leaders and staff responded that higher density typically increases the number of front doors and therefore the total contribution, and that the districts want to preserve larger, usable park parcels rather than scattered small open spaces.

The park districts discussed alternatives and implementation mechanics: accepting land instead of money on some projects, allowing negotiated credits when developers provide on‑site, usable parkland, and using escrow or plat‑recording conditions so contributions or land dedication occur before parcels are recorded or building permits are issued. Staff recommended that if the park district and developer sign an agreement, that agreement be appended to the county development agreement and executed before the county commission acts; plat recording or building permits should not proceed until the parks district is satisfied with the commitment.

No formal vote was taken. Commissioners asked staff to research the legal mechanisms and to bring clearer guidance — including sample contract language, recommended timing (letter at planning commission, executed agreement before county commission), and a recommended threshold for handling special cases (riverfront, in‑corridor open space, or donated land instead of cash).

"We're trying to be logical in that number," Giordano said. Commissioners invited the park districts to present their parks master plan and cost estimates at future meetings and recommended that park districts meet with county planners and the commission to refine a standard process that could be applied consistently across developments.