|
Planning group rejects county parks analysis
By Christy Scott
The Alpine Sun
ALPINE — Parks were the hot topic at
the last Alpine Planning Group meeting held Oct. 26. Planning
group members discussed the proposed Parkland Dedication
Ordinance (PLDO) fund increase, as well as the second Alpine
Parkland Suitability Analysis.
PLDO fees are charged to developers in unincorporated
areas to mitigate some of the environmental impacts, by
providing money to be used for local parks. The county collects
the one-time fees and either uses the money directly for county
parks — with the advice of the local planning board — or teams
up with a local parks district or a school district.
The money can be used for acquiring land or building
improvements such as playgrounds, ball fields and swimming
pools, according to Matt Bohan, the county parks department
development director.
“Dealing with the PLDO funds, this group has sent the
county what we think, that there is basically a consensus that
no one wants to pass this cost onto residents,” said APG Parks,
Recreation and Conservation chairman Brad Bailey. “The
15-thousand or so residents that are here already are going to
get a pass, but those last few thousand more homes in the
community are going to carry the burden of this increase.”
Planning group members were concerned that this is a
tax on residents, however, according to Matt Bohan, the PLDO fee
is charged only on new developments and developers, not on
remodel projects or current residents.
The APG already gave input to county on this issue when
it was first presented to the group several months ago. Since
then, county staff has reconsidered the fee to include an
incremental increase over several years.
Some APG members were also concerned that the money
raised in Alpine would be used to provide parks for areas
elsewhere in the county, however, according to parks department
staff, this is not the case.
The county is split up into more than 20 Local Park
Planning Areas (LPPAs) and the money gathered from building
permits in an area is reserved for that area.
“All of the money collected in an LPPA, must remain in
that LPPA, to be used for parks,” Bohan said.
The Alpine Park Planning Area PLDO coffers currently
hold $361,000, to be used to acquire land or develop parks.
The increase in fees would bring much more money into
the Alpine area to develop more park space. The county goal is
to reach three acres of park space for every 1,000 residents in
any area.
“We have been complaining for years that we don’t have
parks in Alpine, and the reason has always been that we don’t
have the money,” said Jane Fitz. “But if we turn this money down
what guarantee do we have that we’ll have money in the future?
Sometime, somewhere, we have to get the funds.”
Despite this however, the group voted to deny the
request for the increase in PLDO funds (9-3).
Alpine Parkland Suitability
Analysis
Bailey also reported to other APG members about a
presentation by county parks department staff Brad Roberts in
regards to the second Alpine Parkland Suitability Analysis.
The subcommittee’s parkland priority list, submitted
each year to the Parks department, specified five sites that the
community wants to look at for an active park.
In January, county supervisors voted to instruct parks
staff to conduct feasibility studies on land in Alpine for the
purposes of an active park, specifically a 40-acre and 10-acre
site, which are being offered by Alpine resident Tom Dyke.
Dyke, who owns a drilling and blasting company in
Alpine, has publicly offered to donate 40 acres behind Crown
Hills to be used as an active park site.
The Dyke properties are among five sites in Alpine that
have been focused on for possible park use. Certainly the most
controversial has been the proposal to use a portion of Wright’s
Field as an active park site and/or high school.
The study presented by Roberts included several new
sites that were not specified by the park subcommittee, as well
as determinations on those that were. Some planning group
members were not happy with the analysis findings, which
excluded both Dyke properties and Wright’s Field.
According to Bailey, the subcommittee rejected the plan
and sent it back to the county.
“They’ve got properties here that they’ve removed,
without a good explanation,” Bailey said. “They did not put
Wright’s Field on here, so it’s in direct conflict with what
we’ve asked them to do.”
“The reasoning on the Dyke 40-acre site is that it’s
just too expensive,” Bailey said. “Even though it’s free, it’s a
donation, apparently it’s too expensive.”
According to the analysis, the Dyke 10-acre site is
located too closely to Dyke’s blasting business. The site
however, unofficially known as Tom Dyke Park, has been used for
many community events over the years, including a yearly
dog-show, art festivals and fairs.
Subcommittee members questioned Roberts as to why
Wright’s Field has been removed, and he stated that it was at
the request of Rene Bahl, the county’s parks and recreation
department director.
“We already voted on this,” Bailey said. “This is
despicable, this is a slap in the face. They haven’t done
anything.”
Bailey wants to see the study returned to the county,
Wright’s Field and the two Dyke properties included, and the
study completed. Member Mark Price agreed that the study needs
to be done, on Wright’s Field in particular.
“If nothing we need to do the study so that we can see
what’s really out there, not just what people are saying is out
there,” he said.
Price questioned the environmental overlay on the
property saying that no environmental studies have been done on
the land recently. He said that the most recent study conducted
was part of the golf course project that, nearly 15 years ago,
was planned for the land.
“Perhaps the county has decided that we’re all stupid,
when we keep insisting on Wright’s Field and they’re constantly
telling us to forget about it,” said Jane Fitz, referring
letters from the county.
On three different occasions the county has told the
APG that the land is not suitable for either development or an
active park. According to the one letter from Bahl, sent to the
APG in July 2005, “As stated in previous correspondence, the
county does not support developing Wright’s Field into an active
park.”
“They’ve pointed out that Wright’s Field is not going
to be available for this park. I think it’s time that we
listen,” Fitz said.
Price again argued that no recent studies have been
conducted on the land, and that this study goes against what the
planning group asked for.
“The letters are coming from the head of the county
parks — a staffer, but they do not in any way reflect the
supervisor, who’s authorized the survey,” Price said. “It’s a
slap in the face of the supervisor to have this employee make
determinations, send letters out, and usurp the community.”
“What biological, what environmental studies is this
woman using, this employee of the county… what official study is
she using to make determinations that is affecting an entire
community.”
After some discussion the group decided to table any
vote on the issue until after a meeting with Jacob could be
arranged to raise the concerns about the study.
 E-mail
Christy Scott
|
Staff
