The results of community consultation to gauge public interest in the proposed Mega Park on the corner of Ospika Boulevard and 22nd Avenue are in with a total of 2,244 residents providing responses to the online survey.
In a report prepared for city council, staff says the survey shows overall there appears to be support for the park at the proposed location as it will provide options for outdoor recreation and activity but comments also point to concern about the costs associated with the project.
Over 77 per cent of respondents supported the location and only 10 per cent of respondents said they did not want the park at all.
When asked if respondents would be in favour of the park knowing there would be an annual cost to the city’s operating budget 74 per cent said "yes" and 14 per cent said "no".
However, the comments provided by respondents to this question were 9 per cent positive, 54 per cent neutral, and 36 per cent negative.
The proposed Mega Park is a project spearheaded by Prince George Community Foundation, Rotary Club of Prince George and Colliers Project Leaders for a multi-use park that would include a pump track, junior and youth adventure park, spray park and senior-friendly outdoor fitness stations.
The survey showed that four of the six park features had over 50 per cent of respondents ranking them as “I want it no matter the cost” and those were the two adventure parks, the spray park and an accessible playground.
They did not include the pump track or the senior-friendly outdoor equipment.
The proponents first presented the idea to council on March 14 and requested the city work with the project team on next steps and staff then identified Ospika Boulevard and 22nd Avenue as a proposed location.
The city then launched a survey which was available online from May 26 to June 9 to gain a sense of the level of interest in the park and location.
Although respondents favour the park knowing there would be an increase to the annual cost to the city operating budget, the report notes the comments throughout the survey consistently indicate concerns regarding the cost of the new park (short-term and long term) and point out that focus should be placed on the needs of existing infrastructure (for example parks, park equipment, capital projects related to infrastructure).
The city says the costs associated with the park are not fully known at this time.
“The cost of design and purchase of play structures would be funded by these partners,” a previous statement issued by the city said.
“The city would need to take responsibility for the park, including costs for providing the land and the services to the property such as water, sewer, power, and other park amenities such as parking and washrooms. The city would also be responsible for ongoing maintenance and insurance costs.”
The proponent has provided the upfront costs for the park features, however, the are other upfront costs to consider such as the site preparation and site servicing.
Further cost analysis is required to understand the full lifecycle cost of adding a new park to the city’s inventory, including ongoing operations, maintenance, and eventual replacement.
There will be financial implications related to this project both in the short term and long term.
Administration recommends that the city should conduct a full lifecycle analysis of the financial implications of the proposed park to facilitate an informed review and consideration of the proposed park project.
City council will discuss the results at its next meeting on Monday, July 25.
