Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Parks Recreation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

County offers to fund splash pad; Alma City weighs water costs, maintenance and vandalism risks

Alma City Commission · March 10, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Commissioners discussed a county parks board offer to fund construction and routine maintenance of a splash pad in Alma City while the city would provide land and pay water and electricity. Questions centered on water usage, sanitation systems, meter sizing, vandalism and long-term liability.

A county parks board has offered to fund the construction and maintenance of a splash pad in Alma City, but commissioners said they need clearer agreements on water, electricity, liability and design before accepting the gift.

Staff described the parks board proposal as an offer to pay construction and to provide personnel for opening, closing and routine cleaning; the city’s financial commitment would be limited to paying water and electricity and providing the site. Staff said earlier installations in other jurisdictions ranged from systems that pump fresh water directly into sanitary sewers to systems that include recirculation and filtration. ‘‘They’re estimating construction costs in the $300,000–$350,000 range,’’ staff said, adding that adding a recycling system could add roughly $120,000.

Commissioners pressed for specific operating figures. Staff provided examples: Carson City’s system used about 93,000 gallons per month and Emily City averaged about 227,500 gallons per month during a four-month season; another county site reported daily usage as high as 60,000 gallons. Using Alma City retail water rates, staff estimated annual water bills in the low thousands depending on meter size and season length.

Several commissioners said the city should not assume responsibility for day-to-day maintenance response time. One noted that even if the county maintains the feature, residents will contact city offices first if equipment fails or the site looks unclean. Commissioners also raised vandalism, insurance and liability concerns; staff said agreements would need explicit maintenance response requirements, indemnification language and clarity on whether county staff would be dispatched or the city would bill the county for interim repairs.

Commissioners debated equity and local priorities. Some argued that county millage funds already contribute to county parks and asked whether the city’s contribution of water costs effectively means the community is paying twice for county services; others said a locally sited splash pad could improve access for residents who lack transportation to more distant county parks.

No formal decision was made. Staff will request more detailed written terms from the county parks board, including meter-size estimates, electricity usage, insurance arrangements, and whether the county’s personnel would be dispatched from nearby parks or a central crew. The commission said it wanted to see a formal proposal and draft agreement before taking action.