Special Planning Committee Meeting

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Special Planning Committee met on April 21, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. to consider matters related to park planning and development. During the meeting, the committee heard two presentations on master plans, both delivered by Stinnett. The first presentation on the Parks Master Plan was informational in nature, while the second presentation on the Hisle Park Master Plan resulted in committee approval. The committee took three votes during the session and heard five public comments from members of the public. Overall, the meeting resulted in one approved action item regarding the Hisle Park Master Plan.

Attendance

Present: Gorton, Blues, Ellinger, James, Lawless, Beard, Feigel, Stinnett, McChord

Absent: Gray

Late: None

Votes and Decisions

The meeting resulted in three unanimous motions, all of which passed.

Motion to Accept Hisle Park Master Plan in Concept 58:44

Ellinger moved to accept in concept the Hisle Park Master Plan, seconded by Beard. The motion passed unanimously with all nine members voting in favor: Gorton, Blues, Ellinger, James, Lawless, Beard, Feigel, Stinnett, and McChord.

Motion to Establish Ad Hoc Committee on Parks Funding 1:47:53

James moved to establish an ad hoc committee to work on various funding mechanisms for parks, seconded by Feigel. The motion passed unanimously with all nine members voting in favor: Gorton, Blues, Ellinger, James, Lawless, Beard, Feigel, Stinnett, and McChord.

Motion Regarding Parks Master Plan Administrative Reorganization 2:00:47

Blues moved to ask the General Services Link to look at the Parks Master Plan recommendation of administrative reorganization, seconded by McChord. The motion passed unanimously with all nine members voting in favor: Gorton, Blues, Ellinger, James, Lawless, Beard, Feigel, Stinnett, and McChord.

Budget and Financial Actions

The meeting addressed a significant capital project for park development. An estimated cost of $6,400,000 was discussed for the complete development of the Hisle Farm property as a park. This appropriation represents the full scope of work needed to transform the property into a functional public park facility.

Public Comment

Several councilmembers raised questions and concerns regarding the master plan, its implementation, and funding mechanisms.

Master Plan Approval and Legislative Role

Councilmember James questioned the council's legislative role in approving the master plan, expressing confusion about whether the plan is binding and how it integrates into the budget process. She requested a flow chart to clarify the council's responsibilities. 1:24:16

Implementation and Funding Strategies

Councilmember McCord emphasized that the master plan falls short of being a true vision document and criticized the lack of actionable implementation steps. He advocated for immediate, practical funding strategies and highlighted the need for a "Safe by Design" initiative. 1:38:00

Changing the Funding Environment

Councilmember Blues stressed that the council's primary responsibility is to change the funding environment for parks, arguing that community-wide support and dedicated revenue streams are essential for meaningful progress. 1:43:29

Private Funding and Partnerships

Councilmember Beard cautioned against overestimating the financial capacity of the equestrian community, noting that many operations are small and lack significant revenue, making large-scale philanthropy unlikely. 1:04:21

Parking Regulations

Councilmember Lawless clarified that there is no ordinance against parking on grass in public parks, only in residential front or side yards, and confirmed that such parking is permitted during events. 1:43:19

Contested Items

Council's Role in Master Plan Approval and Funding

Councilmembers engaged in a heated discussion regarding the legislative authority and responsibilities surrounding master plan approval and funding. Members expressed confusion and concern about their specific role in the approval process, particularly questioning whether the master plan would be binding once adopted. Several councilmembers requested clarification on how the master plan interacts with the annual budget process and what authority the council actually holds in implementing its provisions. The discussion reflected uncertainty about the relationship between long-term planning documents and year-to-year budgetary decisions.

Funding Mechanisms and Revenue Generation

While councilmembers reached consensus on the necessity for new funding sources, they divided on the practical feasibility of specific revenue mechanisms. Members disagreed about the viability of dedicated taxes, impact fees, and private partnerships as funding tools. A particular point of contention involved the reliance on the equestrian community as a significant revenue source, with some members questioning the realism of this approach. The split vote on funding mechanisms reflected broader uncertainty about which revenue strategies could realistically be implemented and sustained.

Parks Master Plan — Stinnett

Jerry Hancock presented the updated Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan to the meeting. 5:56

Presentation Overview

The presentation focused on modernizing the parks and recreation system, moving away from operational models established in the 1960s toward a contemporary approach designed for greater efficiency and effectiveness.

Key Recommendations

The master plan included several strategic recommendations:

• Organizational restructuring to improve system management and operations
• Programming enhancements to better serve community needs
• Funding strategies to support sustainable operations and growth
• Implementation of planning districts to organize service delivery
• Development of self-sustaining revenue models to reduce dependency on general fund allocations
• Increased emphasis on community engagement and participation

Outcome

This agenda item was presented as informational, with no formal action or debate recorded. The presentation provided the governing body with an overview of the comprehensive planning effort and the proposed direction for the parks and recreation system.

Hisle Park Master Plan — Stinnett

Jerry Hancock presented the Hisle Park Master Plan for the 280-acre property that was donated in 1989. 6:28

Plan Overview

The master plan outlines development for the Hisle Park property with a focus on low-impact, passive recreation. The proposed facilities and features include:

• Trails
• Equestrian facilities
• Archery areas
• Educational components

Development Cost

The projected development cost for the master plan is $6.4 million.

Committee Action

The committee approved the Hisle Park Master Plan in concept.