HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-01-2017 PRC Item 3, WalkerU (�M
'
JSP
From: Kathie Walker < FEB L 7 2011 L
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 2:26 PM
To: Advisory Bodies SLO (CITY CLERK
Subject: Parks and Rec, March 1, 2017, Agenda #3
Last year the city of SLO had a surplus of $6.9 million dollars. On June 14, 2016, Council made a decision about what to do with this one-
time windfall. Staffs recommendation was to spend a great majority of the money on administration - things such as a new software program
for the city. Some council members asked that a majority put toward the PERS liability, citing the forecast that there would be shortfall once
the points were lowered in December. (It turns out that's exactly what happened.) Ultimately, Council voted to approve Staffs
recommendation (3-2, Rivoire and Carpenter dissenting) with one concession due to public comment.
That one concession was to set aside $900,000 for a long-awaited neighborhood park in the Anholm neighborhood which has been promised
to those neighbors for over 40 years. It was the ONLY area in town with the "unmet need for a park" from the General Plan in the 1970's and
remains unmet today.
The reason given for the city's failure to build a park in the neighborhood was that the city didn't have a lump sum amount of money in order
to purchase the property whenever properties came available for sale. Over the years, many properties were lost and only a few vacant
properties remain.
Many people testified during public comment during the council meeting on June 14th, asking that the money be set aside for a neighborhood
park. Many others send correspondence which can be read here. Residents outlined the unfulfilled promise and asked that enough money be
set aside to enable the city to jump on a property when it was available for purchase.
After some negotiations, Council decided to dedicate $900,000 toward the purchase of a park in the Anholm neighborhood. Although
neighbors felt this sum may not be sufficient, they were relieved that some money was set aside for the park.
Today I read the Parks and Rec Agenda for the meeting on March 1, 2017 and was disheartened to see that they are recommending that
$200,000 of the $900,000 set aside for the Anholm park, be reassigned. The request for seems underhanded and sneaky. When Council
appropriated the $900,000 for the park, it was a compromise from a much higher amount. A concession when much more money was
requested because land in that neighborhood is expensive.
I feel the $900,000 should remain dedicated to the Anholm park, as promised. I urge you to read the Council correspondence and listen to the
public testimony from the meeting on June 14, 2016. It will enlighten you to the process, how the city decided to spend the extra $6.9 million,
and the clear promise made to the public set aside the $900,000 for the most immediate purchase possible of land in the Anholm
neighborhood. Please do not reassign this money.
Thank you,
Kathie Walker