Future of Community Park uncertain after survey

The results of a survey convinced Lewiston city officials not to put a bond for upgrades at Lewiston’s Community Park on the Nov. 7 ballot.

Fewer than 100 of 930 people who completed the survey in July and August backed a general obligation bond for the park near Lewiston’s high school, according to a recently released report from the city of Lewiston.

The most common reason listed against the bond was “I don’t want my property taxes to potentially go up,” followed by “there are other priorities facing the city,” according to the report.

Those priorities, identified by 160 survey takers, were roads, water, sewer, stormwater, maintenance and repair of current assets, lower taxes, public safety and more businesses, according to the report.

Anyone could take the survey, but respondents were overwhelmingly city of Lewiston residents, with some Nez Perce County residents and a handful listed as “other” in the report.

“At this time, especially if it’s affecting property taxes, there’s very minimal support for a bond to go forward,” said Tim Barker, Lewiston’s parks and recreation director.

A bond of $45 million would have cost $68 per year per $100,000 of a home’s value in excess of the homeowner’s exemption, according to the report.

The $45 million would have covered grading the entire site and many amenities such as a 125,000-square-foot space for events like farmers markets, a destination playground, a splash pad, four baseball fields with another playground, and a regulation-size soccer field that could be used for other purposes, Barker said.

Each of those areas would have had bathrooms, picnic tables, parking and other features, he said.

And even if a $45 million bond could win voter approval, an estimated $50 million would still be needed if the city completes everything in a plan for the park.

Among the items in the plan are additional athletic fields, an amphitheater area for weddings or concerts and $10 million in contingencies.

Not doing anything with the site isn’t a possibility, Barker said.

A total of 150 acres of the 187 acres at Community Park have to be developed for outdoor recreation because of designations through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a grant program through the National Park Service managed in Idaho by the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation, Barker said.

Of the 150 acres, 62 acres are designated that way because the city used a $200,000 grant from the fund for part of the about $700,000 the city paid to acquire the land for Community Park in 2004, Barker said.

The remainder of the requirement involves a city transfer of the same designation from Airport Park where the city leases land from the Lewiston-Nez Perce County Regional Airport, he said.

The transfer happened because the city wanted the designation to be at a location where it owned the land and had control over it, Barker said.

Given the lack of support for a property tax bond for Community Park, the city is going to have to look at alternate funding sources, he said.

Exactly what those sources could be isn’t clear.

Scholarships and donations followed by grants were the most popular options among the survey takers. The third choice was an auditorium district.

Each of those options comes with challenges, Barker said.

Right now the city’s ability to get grants is limited because it is out of compliance with the rules for the $200,000 Land and Water Conservation Fund for Community Park property because it hasn’t developed the land for outdoor recreation, he said.

The city can’t apply for additional money from the fund, Barker said.

Plus, being out of compliance with the rules of that grant make other agencies such as Idaho State Parks less likely to award the city money, Barker said.

The auditorium district has a different set of issues. It would have to be approved by voters and would tax stays at lodging.

More than 200 of the survey takers indicated they didn’t know enough about it to support creating one and close to another 200 stated they were opposed to the district’s creation or they didn’t want a lodging tax, according to the report.

Even if an effort to create an auditorium district was successful, other resources would be needed to complete the plan for Community Park as it exists now.

The last time city officials checked, the district would generate about $400,000 a year, Barker said.

At that pace, it would take more than 110 years for the city to get $45 million in revenue from it.

“We’re going to need to look at some alternate funding sources,” Barker said. “Instead of identifying this project as one massive project, or two really large phases, we’re going to need to break it down further just so it’s a little more palatable, and people can understand the different amenities within the park.”

Williams may be contacted at ewilliam@lmtribune.com or (208) 848-2261.