Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Accessibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners discuss funding and liability for proposed ADA playground near county pool
Summary
A commissioner proposed building an ADA-accessible playground by the county swimming pool and offered to pursue CIB and other grants; commissioners raised ownership, liability and maintenance questions and asked staff to explore funding options and partnership models.
A commissioner introduced a proposal to build an ADA-accessible playground adjacent to the county swimming pool, saying it would serve children with disabilities countywide and could complement pool events.
The commissioner (first raised at SEG 331) recommended the swimming-pool site because of existing restrooms and event draws, and said local mayors and officials had expressed support. He said he would be willing to accompany commissioners to CIB to seek additional funding if the commission supported pursuing grants.
Commissioners asked whether the county would own and maintain such a playground; one commissioner noted the county does not currently own playgrounds and warned of ongoing maintenance and liability costs if the county assumed ownership. The speaker suggested that the city could accept ownership, or the county could provide a one-time match while the city assumed maintenance and insurance responsibilities.
The initial cost figure cited by the presenter was stated in the meeting as "$125,150,000" (SEG 355); commissioners and attendees treated that figure as tentative and discussed lower, more plausible scales (for comparison, commissioners later mentioned playgrounds and ADA projects in the $100,000—100,000s range). Several participants said the project could be scaled and matched with CIB or other grant funds to reduce the county's one-time share.
Commissioners asked staff to consider options including interlocal agreements with cities, matching funds and grant strategy. No formal county commitment was made; staff were asked to add the proposal to the list of candidate projects for the county's one-time funds and to return with options for ownership and maintenance arrangements.
The commission said it would prefer a proposal that clearly shows matching dollars and a responsible owner/maintainer before allocating county funds.
