HomeMy WebLinkAboutPrioritizing Park DevelopmentAttachment C
~~pF BOU~Q
PRIORITIZING PARK DEVELOPMENT ~ ~°~~~~~~
Pahs'&Iier~eazmm
2.2.~6
Setting Priorities for the Development of Undeveloped and Partially Developed Parks
The Parks and Recreation department developed criteria to analyze the relative need,
opportunities and constraints for developing undeveloped parkland. The process is intended to
be fleixble to respond to changing conditions and new opportunities. In determining priorities
for park development projects, the Parks and Recreation Department considers the following:
A. Demonstrated Need
Does it fill a gap in an already underserved area? Does it fill a priority need identified in
the 2005 Parks and Recreation Survey or in other sources?
B. Development Constraints
Is the site ready for design and development with no significant physical or legal
constraints?
C. .25 Cent Sales Tax Analysis
Does it meet an unmet ballot measure commitment?
D. Collabarative Opportunity
Is there a high potential for partnership?
E. Maintenance Dollars Identified
Have maintenance dollars been identified and earmarked for this project?
F. Population Served
Does the area have a high percentage of low income residents and/or children, youth,
and seniors? Is it high density?
G. Revenue Potential
Will the development have revenue potential (rental of fields, etc.)?
H. Development Efficiency
Will development be more efficienU cost-effective if timed with other public projects?
1. Environmental Constraints
Are there environmental constraints on the property that would need to be mitigated?
). Project Status
Is the project partially built?
PARKS AND F2 ECR EA?~Q~i, .. ...7 HE 6EN EPITS ARc ENDLESS:
Prioritizing Park Develpment, page 2
Ilraft Prinriti~atinn nf lln(~PVe~ODe[~ d11(~ P'dCtld~~V ~eVe~Opet~ PdCkS
.,,~ ... . ................. ... . . .
~
p
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
v
~
~ ~
d F'
d
u, ~
O
~
~ g°
•
~
e
Z
~ y
~
'y., ~ y
i
.~
~H
~
~ C
~
C y
~„
"o,
O
Q ~ ~
R C
a ~ ea
4 a
~ c y
c c ~ o u a
i
E= ~
`~' ~7
~;
~e
~ ...
~ ~
~ O
a: e
o
~
'-
=°a
S a R
y ._
ti y
~ .
~~ ~ m
, o v
d
~
Undeveloped Parksites ~ ~ p v N 0 ~ c ~ p"~' W v a .~
~ ~ ~ rs a`
1. Area III
1997
City-191
Yes (3)
Yes(12
15)
D
2. Alpine 1998 ~'ocket-.3 ~
3. Dakota Ridge 2000 Neigh-3 Yes (1) Yes (6) A
4. East Bolder Phase 2 1985 Com-15 Yes (2l Yes(10) es(12) Yes(16) B
5. Eben Fine East 2001 Nocket-.5 ~
6. Elks 1999 Neigh-7.9 Yes (1) Yes (6) Yes(11 es(13) B
7. Foothills Phase 3 1985 Com-12.5 Yes(10) es(12) Yes(16) B
8. Heatherwood 1985 Neigh-5 Yes (4) Yes (6) ~
9. Hickory (portion) 1999 Packet-.7 ~
10. Holiday
2003
Pocket-1.1
Yes (1)
Yes (7)
Yes (9)
A
11. Mesa Memorial 2002 ~'ocket- 1.7 ~
12. Sinton 1993 Pocket- J ~
13. Valmont 1997 City - 119 Yes (2) Yes (5) Yes (8) Yes(10) es(12) D
14. Volet 1987 Neigh- 7.2 Yes (1) Yes (6) Yes(11 esf13) B
15. W of Justice Center 1972 Nacket- 2.5 es(14) D
.
-
Note: Shaded areas are a negative, all others are positive.
CharY Lebend:
A - Demonstrated Need
fl) Underserved area within city limits on Service Area Map
(2) High recreation facility need met - multipurpose fields
lprogrammable)
B - Development Constraints
(3) Area III - not available for development
(4) Nut in city limits
(51 ;lcces5 road not readv
needed to comply with slaes tax bal-
orative Oppartunity
~orhood cost sharing proposed
partnership proposed Isee BVSD Facilility Needs
F - Population Served
(9) High level of affordable housing, families with children
G - Revenue Potential
110) Sports field rentals
H - Development Efficiency
(11) Floodplain work will prepare site for park development
I - Environmental Constraints
(12) Prairie dogs on site
(13) Floodplain work needed prior to park development
(14) Environmental hazards
(15) Threatened and endangered species
J - Project Status
i16) Significant portion of park built
Assessme~U
E - Maintenance Dollars Identified
none identified at this time
Prioritizing Park Uevelpment, page 3
Draft Prioritization Results
Priority Groupings ss of pluses « of minuses Funding Plan
Priority Grouping A(0 minuses and at least one plus) _ Fiscally Cc~nstrained
Holiday Pocket Park _ 3 ~_
Dakota Rid~;e Pocket Park 2 ~
Priority Grouping S(only 1 minus and more than 1 plus)
Elks Neighborhood Park _ _
3 ~
1 Action Plan
Violet Neighborhood Park 3 1
East Boulder Community Park Nhase 2 3 ~
Foothills Community Park Phase 3 2 ~
Heatherwood Neighborhood Park _ . _ ~ !
~ ~
Note: completion of any Priority Grouping B park Jssumes that the "minus" listed can be miti~ated
Park site can potentia!ly move to Priority Grouping A if "minus " is mitigated and funding identified
Priority Gr~ing C(0 minus, 0 plus) - in alphabetica! order , Action Plan
Alpine Pocket Park 0 0
_ _
Eben Fine East 0 0
Hickory Pocket Park 0' 0 _
Mesa Memorial Pocket Park ~ o
Sinton Pocket Park ~ 0~ 0
Note: Could move up to priority grouping A with an identified co!laborative opportunity. _
Priority GrouPing D(more than 1 minus, or 1 minus and 0 luses) Vision Plan
~
ValmontCityNark 3 _ 2~
_
West of Justice Center _ _~
Area III Cit Park ~_
~~ ~' _
3
~