Parks committee reviews draft five‑year CIP, debates Elkhorn vs. Pershall and funding limits

The Parks Committee on [date not specified] reviewed a draft five‑year parks capital improvement program and debated which large new-park project to prioritize amid constrained revenues.

City staff described how the CIP flows from 20‑year infrastructure master plans into an annually updated five‑year implementation plan. “It starts at the highest‑level step, which is our infrastructure master plans,” staff said, noting those master plans are aspirational and do not always have guaranteed funding attached. Staff emphasized the plan’s role in converting long‑range vision into near‑term projects funded by system development charges (SDCs) and the general fund.

City finance staff provided the revenue context: “Every time a house is built, they gotta cut a check for just under $7,000,” and a multifamily unit is roughly $5,000, producing about $2.5 million a year in park SDCs under an assumption of roughly 400 housing units per year. Staff cautioned those are forecasts that can vary year to year and that occasional “banner” building years can materially change available SDC revenue.

Committee members compared two large park candidates. Elkhorn faces planning barriers tied to urban growth boundary and annexation requirements, while Pershall lacks direct access from the west side of the canyon. A committee member framed the trade‑off as philosophical: Elkhorn is a conventional new park; Pershall includes natural‑area considerations that would be harder to restore if lost.

Staff said some projects in the draft are already effectively committed (developer‑funded parks and projects now in construction, such as Central Dry Canyon and the Well 9 park component). For items not yet scoped, staff urged the committee to define project scope and costs before adding new line items. As staff put it, the practical step is to “add a project” to the CIP with a defined scope and an estimated cost so it can appear on the spreadsheet used for prioritization.

The committee did not take a formal vote on a park choice. Members asked staff to distribute the draft spreadsheet and supporting slides, and staff agreed to prepare project sheets for suggested additions — including a scope and cost estimate for any proposed North Dry Canyon work — and return those for discussion at the committee’s December meeting so the committee can offer a recommendation to council by January. Staff plans a formal presentation of the CIP to the council in February.

The meeting also recorded routine procedural actions: the draft minutes were approved and the committee adjourned after scheduling discussion on whether to hold a January meeting.