Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council agrees to solicit master‑planning proposals for Barker Park; staff outlines phased, impact‑fee approach
Summary
City staff proposed a phased master plan for the 35‑acre Barker Park, starting with a $200,000 design paid from impact fees and subsequent multi‑year construction in phases. Council gave direction to staff to run an RFP for design services but did not commit funds beyond existing impact‑fee budget authority.
City Manager John Call presented a phased approach to developing 35 acres at Barker Park and asked the council whether staff should issue a request for proposals for a master plan and design.
Call said the council previously budgeted $200,000 (capital) this fiscal year to complete design documents that would let a contractor build park features to a contractor’s set of construction drawings: "So first phase, master planning, talking about where who you know, getting some more community engagement, taking that information we've gotten from the Barker Park Committee... and actually getting it down on paper so a contractor can use it." The design would include grading, utilities, ADA‑compliant pathways and a recommended phasing plan and cost estimates.
Call presented a conceptual phasing and rough cost assumptions: an ‘‘island’’ 4‑acre phase estimated at about $1.2 million (at $300,000 per acre), a 4‑acre area around proposed pickleball courts at roughly $2 million, and a larger 15‑acre sports‑field zone estimated near $5 million. His total ballpark was roughly $9–$10 million versus the 2015 estimate of $6–$7 million. He recommended excluding higher‑maintenance elements such as a splash pad from early phases because of long‑term operating costs.
Staff and council discussed funding sources including impact fees, grants (for example, RAMP), donations, naming rights and the possible sale or use of underutilized city parcels (including roughly six sellable acres near the equestrian area) to accelerate construction. Call emphasized that issuing an RFP would not commit the city to spending beyond the already budgeted design funds and that if the council desired, staff would return with a consultant agreement for council approval.
Council members expressed support for a phased approach but cautioned against dedicating all parks impact fees to Barker Park given other known park commitments (for example, property the city purchased near Mason Cove). Council member comments also emphasized parking planning, maintenance costs and opportunities for volunteer and in‑house construction as cost‑saving measures.
Ending: The council signaled support for staff to issue an RFP for a Barker Park master plan; staff will return with consultant proposals and a contract for council approval and will continue to align impact‑fee projections with park commitments.
