New Search
Cost estimates made in 1989 for the proposed projects have been estimated at 1994 <br />construction prices. Design and engineering costs are included. Costs associated <br />with citizen involvement in developing conceptual plans are not included. <br />In summary, just the high priority projects from the 1989 plan total more than $25 <br />million. If one added medium and lower priority projects, the cost would be much <br />greater. <br />ATTACHMENT 2 - PARK DEVELOPMENT COSTS - 1994 <br />Attachment 2 is a listing of park development costs in 1994 dollars. The attachment <br />presents general per acre park development costs assuming a 2.5 acre minimum <br />area. Also included are lump sum costs for recreational developments such as gyms, <br />playgrounds, and multi - purpose sports fields, along with per mile costs for bike paths, <br />jogging paths, and parking. <br />ANOTHER WAY OF THINKING ABOUT THE LISTS <br />One possible way to think about projects on the lists is to group them. Possible <br />categories include: 1) open space acquisition —i.e., buying land for the future; 2) park <br />development- -i.e., playground development; 3) recreation improvements- -i,e., pools <br />and recreation centers; and 4) gyms and sports fields. There is some cross -over <br />between categories, but the groupings form an easy way to think about how best to <br />proceed. The Council may have priorities within these categories and within the <br />various planning districts of the City that become clear as you discuss the issue. <br />OTHER THOUGHTS <br />Operating Expenses. Acquiring additional land for parks and open space, developing <br />existing parkland, and providing more recreational amenities all involve additional <br />operational expenses, in addition to any fees /revenue that may be generated. A good <br />analogy is the new Library. Just as it will be impossible to open a new library without <br />an increase in operating expenses, it will also be impossible to provide additional <br />parks and recreation services without considering the need for additional personnel <br />and materials and services to operate and maintain the new facilities. <br />Partnerships. Staff would suggest that the City look for all opportunities to partner <br />with other units of local government and non - profit agencies in the metropolitan area <br />whenever possible and to place a high priority on such partnerships. Due to time <br />constraints, staff were only able to provide you with a listing from the City's 1989 plan. <br />There are no doubt other projects that are as needed and, in fact, may be less <br />expensive to develop and maintain, as projects listed in the plan. For example, we <br />must form a closer partnership with School Districts 4J and 52. The development of <br />sports fields on their property, using non - profits (such as Kidsports) to manage and <br />R! <br />