A developer presented a proposal on April 30 to convert an on-site retention basin in the Matthews Meadows subdivision into a small public park featuring two pickleball courts, a half-court basketball court, an ADA ramp and limited landscaping. The developer asked that the park be carved out as its own parcel and dedicated to the city rather than remain part of a private lot.

Sean Olsby, the presenter, said the plan would use developer open-space fees instead of cash-in-lieu payments to pay for construction and that phase-two developer money could fund additional amenities later. Olsby said his preference was to dedicate the park to the city "so then it becomes a use for everyone." The concept was preliminary; no final design or construction contract was presented at the meeting.

City staff and council concerns
Council members and public works staff raised several recurring concerns:
- Retention-basin function and engineering: The proposed park sits inside or adjacent to a stormwater retention area. Staff and council asked that the city engineer review whether adding impermeable courts is compatible with the basin’s design and flood-control function. Public-works staff urged a geotechnical and drainage review prior to approval.
- Maintenance and operations: Public works staff described current capacity as stretched and warned that accepting the park would create a recurring maintenance obligation. The transcript records the public-works perspective that maintenance would require additional staff or funding; council members recommended setting standards and funding expectations before accepting the parcel.
- Lighting and neighborhood impacts: Several council members suggested limited or no lighting to avoid nuisance impacts to adjacent homes; others recommended buffering landscaping between the closest houses (Lot 116 and a neighbor) and the proposed hard-surface courts.
- Parcel separation and legal steps: Council members confirmed a formal parcel separation (resolving Lot 116’s boundary) and a resolution to accept or direct dedication would be scheduled for the next council meeting. No final acceptance vote occurred on April 30.

Cost and phasing
The developer presented preliminary fee credits and predicted the first-phase scope would be tight on money; additional amenities or lighting would likely wait for a second phase once more fees are available. The transcript records discussion of potential incremental options (smaller children’s play features, landscaping) and staff said costs and maintenance obligations would need to be clarified before the city accepted ownership.

Next steps and takeaways
Council members and staff directed that the developer coordinate the design with city engineering and that staff return a formal parcel-separation and dedication resolution at a subsequent council meeting. Council also asked staff to propose simple, repeatable standards for how the city will evaluate and (if accepted) maintain small neighborhood parks created within retention basins to avoid ad-hoc decisions in the future.

Why this matters
Turning a retention basin into an amenity can provide local recreation but also shifts ongoing maintenance and liability to the municipality if the city accepts dedication. Council members signaled support in principle for neighborhood amenities but said the city needs clearer engineering review, maintenance funding and recorded parcel/legal steps before agreeing to accept the site.