Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council members question location, cost and scope of proposed pump track; staff say $77,990 pulled from park contingency and surplus
Summary
Council debated Item 8 — a proposed pump track — focusing on the project's location, accessibility, and uncovered site costs; staff said $75,000 would come from the FY26 contingency and the remainder from small surpluses, with construction estimated to begin after a four‑month manufacturing period.
Council discussion of Item 8 at the June 15 Committee of the Whole focused on where a proposed pump track would be built, how it would be funded and whether the vendor quote covered all site work.
Council member Jaeger asked whether the quoted $77,990 would be taken from multiple park CIP lines and contingency; staff said yes, explaining they intend to take $75,000 from the FY26 parks contingency and the balance from small surpluses in recently completed park projects. John (staff on the call) said: "So the other $2,900 will not impact this year's budget in the various parks" and confirmed the contingency withdrawal would occur in FY26.
Council members pressed on which site features were included in the vendor price. Staff responded that drinking fountains, seating and other add‑ons were not part of the present contract and would be pursued later, possibly from FY27 contingency funds, sponsorships or surplus balances and would require council approval.
Councilmember Jerry said he disagreed with the proposed location, citing pedestrian and bicycle access issues (narrow 4‑foot sidewalks) and questioned how easily residents would reach the site by bike or on foot. "I disagree with this location. I don't think it's the right place for it," he said. Staff acknowledged the concern and noted the project is intended as a proof of concept for a multi‑generational gathering area.
Members also asked whether demolition of the existing ball field, erosion control, landscaping and tree removal were included in the contractor quote. Parks and public works staff said much of the demolition and basic seeding work could be done in‑house to reduce cost; they added that shade trees west of 23rd would not be disturbed. Staff estimated manufacturing would take roughly four months after approval, with installation in mid‑ to late October if timing and contractor schedules align.
No final decision to build or to change the site was recorded in committee; staff said any expansion of scope or add‑on features would be subject to future council direction and possible change‑order or separate procurement actions.
