Mystified, not disgruntled

John V. Albertella

2008-05-06 15:57:23

I am pleased to see the Times-Democrat take an avid interest in the Eva Walker Park upgrade and redevelopment project.

We can all be very proud of efforts by members of the community, staff and the town’s park design consultant in forging a sustainable plan to upgrade its appearance, add child- and family-friendly amenities and encourage greater usage of the park — and notwithstanding the mayor’s incorrect and unfair suggestion that I somehow would benefit personally from this project or any other (and his oddly ignoring that advocating for the park is part of my responsibility to my constituents), I stand by my support for continued full funding and redevelopment of Eva Walker Park.

By the way, I’m less “disgruntled” than I am mystified why the project is threatened.

Conceived before I took office, the Eva Walker redevelopment project came to life in November 2004 at the first of two information and planning meetings attended by a wide cross section of residents and other stakeholders from the community.

With the help of their input, town staff, a park design consultant and several members of the town council culled through a wide-ranging list of ideas and concepts.

In 2005, two initial plans were developed before a third and final plan, that took into account additional comments from staff and a second citizen’s meeting, was placed onto the town’s 2007 – 2012 Capital Improvement Plan for consideration by the council in 2006.

Though comprehensive in nature, this final plan succeeded in achieving a responsibly cost-effective and sustainable balance of wishes, wants and needs — that if adopted by council, would be completely transformational in nature and go a long way to assure increased usage and enjoyment of the park by the entire downtown community.

Carrying a price tag of $618,340 (which included a 20 percent contingency of approximately $100,000), the council adopted the plan in 2006 and immediately authorized $181,000 for the first of a three-year phased build-out.

Phase I was completed on schedule, but still left the council to authorize $225,060 for phase II in 07-08, and $212,280 for phase III in 08-09.

By 2008, however, only $25,000 for phase II engineering studies were committed beyond phase I — still leaving approximately $410,000 in improvements for which funding was yet to be committed.

Which brings us to where we are today: A scheduled $184,000 phase II expenditure in 2008/09 for an observation deck and park entrance on Horner Street, concrete plaza areas, additional connecting trails, new playgrounds (a tot lot and a second for older children), extensive landscaping, brick seatwalls, brick paving, rubber playground surfacing, gazebo and site furnishings such as park benches and ornamental pole lights.

But the mayor appears determined to cut $50,000 earmarked for the two playgrounds and a gazebo from the $184,000, while also eliminating phase III spending of $212,000 all together, covering picnic tables, benches, a permanent restroom and storage structure, and a children’s play water feature. The question is why deal in half measures?

Is it necessary to slash the project in half due to inadequate funding? Not as I read the numbers: The Town’s FY 2009 budget projects yet another revenue surplus, despite a transfer of $2.1 million to subsidize annual operating losses at WARF.

Is it necessary to slash the project in half in order to avoid a tax increase? Not at all. At $.015 per $100, Warrenton ranks as the lowest-taxed locality in the entire state and will continue as such even while fully funding the project.

Would full re-investment in Eva Walker Park be disproportional to other investments for recreational facilities? Again, not even close.

At $30+ million and counting, the town’s new WARF facility dwarfs the planned Eva Walker Park upgrade in cost and scale.

Is it consistent with town planning? Absolutely.

According to the 2000 – 2025 comprehensive plan adopted in 2002, goals were established “To provide a balance of recreation facilities that meet the needs of all the residents of the town,” with a prominent objective being “To ensure an equitable distribution of recreational facilities to include neighborhood parks, pocket parks, playgrounds and tot lots.”

Can we build it out according to plan for less money? Very possibly.

In 2006, when phase I bids came in, the building boom was already winding down and some economies were realized. That trend is likely to bring more savings this year and next.

Is there a better plan for Eva Walker Park? Not inconceivable to be sure, but given the extent of community and professional involvement in developing this plan (and citizen reaction to your coverage), I see no compelling reason to turn away from our commitment to the park and stated goals to improve recreation opportunities for all residents.

Parks and other public services are essential to the community structure and quality of life, as well as to our long-term economic vitality. They support existing and planned developments and contribute to the health, safety, education, enjoyment and general welfare of Warrenton’s residents, business owners and visitors.

John V. Albertella,

Ward One Representative

Warrenton Town Council