Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parrot Island topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board weighs audit, county lease and $2.6M–$2.7M completion plan for Parrot Island waterslides
Summary
Directors debated an agreed‑upon‑procedures audit of Parrot Island operations and whether the city should accept a county offer to hand over its ownership share. Staff outlined a local‑contractor plan to complete waterslides at roughly $2.6M–$2.7M total and a motion was placed to bring that funding decision to the next voting meeting.
The board had an extended discussion about Parrot Island that covered three linked issues: a proposed agreed‑upon‑procedures (AUP) audit to probe operational and financial controls, a county proposal to lease its ownership share to the city, and competing options to complete waterslide installation after earlier bids returned far above available funds.
Audit: Amanda Strange, the city’s internal auditor, and Dina Enfield, chair of the Audit Advisory Committee, recommended an Agreed‑Upon Procedures engagement for the board. They said an AUP — a targeted series of procedures performed by the city’s external auditors at the board’s direction — would be faster and less costly than a full financial or forensic audit while allowing the board to test specific concerns (cash receipts, disbursement controls, maintenance practices). If the procedures turn up evidence of wrongdoing, the board could pursue a full financial or forensic audit or legal action.
County lease and management: Staff briefed the board on a 50–50 city‑county arrangement in place until 2032 and a county proposal (now expired) to lease its share and let the city assume sole management. Directors debated tradeoffs: some argued sole ownership could enable revenue enhancements (for example, expanded concessions or targeted events) and improved long‑term sustainability; others urged protecting the city from taking on disproportionate maintenance liabilities without a county buyout or clear terms. Directors asked staff to present redlines for negotiation and to require that any transfer protect city investments and specify cost‑sharing for future obligations.
Waterslides completion and funding: Staff recapped the procurement history: sealed bids returned in October exceeded available installation funds by more than $2 million, and the board had earlier purchased slide components that remain in storage. Royal Ridge, a local contractor, proposed a $1,739,935 package to install concrete foundations, site plumbing and an optional pump house; engineering and staff estimated pool equipment and piping would add about $600,000 and site finishes (fencing, sidewalks, landscaping) another ~$350,000, yielding an all‑in estimate near $2.6M–$2.7M. Available sources include $655,000 unspent from the original appropriation and roughly $760,000 in parks fund interest; staff said the remaining ~$925,000 gap could be covered from the city’s general fund balance without dipping below the board’s target reserve.
Director Rigo moved to place the staff recommendation (the $2,689,935 completion package described in the memo) on the next voting‑meeting agenda; the motion was seconded and the board agreed to place the item on a vote. No final appropriation was made in the study session. Directors also asked administration to continue seeking buyer interest for the slide components and to refine cost and scheduling details for prompt action in advance of the 2026 operating season.
