Staff outlines Dawn Drive pocket-park concepts and multi-stage costs; committee asked to prioritize amenities

David Montgomery Scott, the Parks & Recreation director, presented conceptual design options for Dawn Drive, a city-owned parcel the department and PRAC have discussed since 2022. David said the two-parcel site totals about 2.2 acres and includes an old service road and adjacent multifamily housing that make it a strong candidate for a neighborhood park.

David told the committee that conceptual pricing ranged widely depending on scope. He said a mid-range concept that includes a picnic shelter, restroom, playground and perimeter walk has a quoted cost of "$1,400,000" in the materials he showed. A more ambitious concept that adds splash play, shade structures, a small active-play court and perimeter fencing was presented with a higher-end figure in the staff materials (presented in the transcript as "2.1, $38,000,000"), which staff characterized as a larger-scope estimate to illustrate scale and to motivate a phased approach. David also noted the minimal swing-set concept and argued for designing a complete park plan up front so future phases do not require later ripping out earlier work.

The committee discussed practical priorities for an initial construction phase. Members repeatedly proposed the same "no-regret" elements: an accessible perimeter walking path, accessible parking and restrooms with utility hookups if feasible. Committee members asked staff to identify which amenities should be included in a Phase 1 package (David observed design costs are typically a percentage of construction costs and that phasing construction drawings can reduce near-term design expense).

The discussion considered funding sources and maintenance. David said these park investments would be capital projects (CIP) and therefore separate from Parks & Rec operating budgets, and he confirmed there are conversations about using tree mitigation funds to help seed design and construction (a tree mitigation balance was discussed in the meeting at roughly $903,000). Members asked staff to show maintenance, water and utility implications for each phase; David said he would include those line items and circulate the PowerPoint and cost breakdowns for PRAC review.

Without making a final decision, the committee asked staff to return with draft priorities and construction-ready cost breakdowns so PRAC could vote on a prioritized Phase 1 recommendation and, if appropriate, present a coordinated funding request to City Council.