Price tag too high for parks ‘dream plan’

A recent master plan for Mountain Brook’s parks and recreation included everything from new playing fields and adult classes to a community center. The $42 million price tag attached, however, “is beyond what [the city] will spend,” City Council President and Park Board liaison Virginia Smith said.

 However, there are aspects of the preliminary plan created by consultants at Lose & Associates the city will consider carrying out, according to Smith and City Manager Sam Gaston – including the purchase of land to create more parks and playing fields.

 “There are several [components] the city can budget for over the next several years,” Smith said.

 A draft of the plan, presented by Lose representatives at an Oct. 27 public meeting, calls for $13 million in renovation and Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, $10 million for a community center, $19 million for new parks and greenways and $140,000 for design studies and development for standards of the parks.

 The mayor, city council and park board are pleased with the work done by Lose, but they think some of the recommendations “may not be feasible,” Gaston said in a telephone interview on Nov. 5. 

“This is the dream plan,” he said. “That will be discussed, and some things may be taken out.”

 No date has been set for Lose to present a final draft of their plan to the city council.

 At the October meeting, Lose representatives said that Mountain Brook, in addition to renovating old facilities and building new ones, should offer more structured activities – particularly walking trails and other adult sports activities – to attract more users to the parks

 “Your adult population is being underserved, and if you do programming for adults, they will use the parks,” Lose President Chris Camp said in a later interview.

 Lose also recommends that the parks and recreation department hire additional staff to create regular programming, including classes and other events. The department presently has 16 staffers devoted almost entirely to maintenance, according to Gaston. 

“Programming for adults is a basic service for a parks and recreation department,” Camp said.

 Lose based the plan on responses to an online survey by about 1,160 Mountain Brook residents, comments at a public meeting in late June and input from a 24-member steering committee comprised of city staffers, business people, seniors, members of local athletic and arts groups and others.

 Athletic groups in the city, including soccer and lacrosse teams, often tell officials that they need more playing fields, according to Gaston and Smith.

 “Most groups would like more practice time,” Smith said. “If the city is able to find more field space at a price that makes sense, we ought to consider it.”

 Camp, however, said the city does not necessarily have a “deficiency” in the number of fields when compared to national standards but can make better use of those facilities. 

“You have field space to use, you just need to program it differently and allocate some time for public access… for activities other than just youth sports,” he said.

 But Mountain Brook needs about 100 additional acres of park space, according to Camp. 

“We are not saying that you can find 100 acres in Mountain Brook because it’s so developed, but finding more park land and finding more greenways would go a long way to alleviating that shortage,” he said.

 As a solution, Lose recommended that the city purchase parcels of land adjacent to the city.

“We will have to look at where we can buy some land that will be easily accessed by our residents,” said Gaston, who cited the old 15-acre Mountain Brook Swim and Tennis Club, which is up for sale, as a possibility.

 The interest in extra parks and programming was balanced by Gaston’s doubts about spending $10 million on a community center. 

“Do we really need it?” he said, citing the presence of two country clubs, the Jewish Community Center and several fitness companies in Mountain Brook. “It was not that overwhelming about the community center in the survey results. Is it better to buy more land for park and athletic fields?”

 Smith expressed surprise that the survey showed some support for a community center, which would include a swimming pool. 

“That idea was put forth about a decade ago, and the residents ultimately did not put up the monetary support to create a viable partnership,” she said, referring a failed attempt to raise about $8 million to build a community center on land the city owned on Vine Street.

 Mountain Brook resident Linnea Robinson Israel expressed support for the proposals and decried the city’s “lack of recreational space.”

 “I know $42 million is a lot of money,” Israel said. “I do think it would be a good long term investment in the quality of life of our citizens.”

 She mentioned some of the “lovely” athletic and recreation facilities built recently in Homewood, Pelham and Vestavia. “It would be nice if we could offer those amenities to our citizens,” she said.

 No monies for the project are part of the city’s 2015-2016 budget, according to Gaston. However, some routine improvements – including new fencing and bathrooms – are being carried out or planned at some school athletic fields, according to Parks and Recreation Superintendent Shanda Williams. 

“Most of Mountain Brook’s facilities are great, but there are some things that could be improved,” Williams said.