Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- . <br /> <br />." <br /> <br />~ of Paris <br /> <br />Study of Lake Crook <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />March, 2001 <br />I <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />3.3.3 Recommendations Concerning Option 2. While certairùy the least expensive 'first cost' <br />of the three development options, Option 2 is not without its long term costs, The loss of nearly <br />$4.0 ,million in revenue nom land sales is nothing to be taken lightly. The significance of <br />estimated taxes to all taxing entities nom Option 1 ($1.1 million annually) and Option 3 ($4.2 <br />million annually) cannot be overlooked by even the most zealous conservationist. <br /> <br />The development of the south shore for public <br />park use is an essential element of all three <br />developnzent options. It is the nature of north <br />shore and west shore developments that renlain in <br />question. <br /> <br />... <br /> <br />We do not believe that under Option 2 the city should allow control of so much of the public land <br />to rest \vith one entity, that is, Archers for Christ. As much as \ve may agree with their charter <br />and purpose, to withhold five to seven hundred acres of land nom the public does not seem to <br />be good public policy. Under Option 2, each of the gun or archery clubs would have fixed, hard <br />boundary leases covering what they need for target ranges and clear zones as well as <br />improvements to the land such as parking lots, storehouses and meeting rooms, For the balance <br />of the property, we favor a shared use \vhere Archers for Christ and shotgun hunters can use the <br />property outside their fixed boundary leases during specific competitions or hunts but not to the <br />exclusion of the public the rest of the year. Proper installation of gates and signs along the <br />hikelbike trail and around the perimeter of other property can signal the public that there are <br />special events being held and to refrain from using the trail that day. <br /> <br />The development of a formal south shore park and eventually a north shore park will require the <br />expansion of park maintenance staff \vithin the city and the purchase of more vehicles and <br />equipment for their use. For this reason, we have not recommended the full formal development <br />of Lake Crook as a public park like Whiterock Lake is to Dallas or Town Lake is to Austin. As <br />attractive as paved jogging trails and wide, open, closely cropped grassy fields may be, the Paris <br />city staff\vould simply be overwhelmed by the manpower and money needed to maintain such <br />a park. A large natural habitat <br />park requiring very little <br />maintenance is ideal for most of <br />the property under this Option 2. <br /> <br /> <br />Option 2 is, in our opinion, a <br />better short term plan for the next <br />five to ten years, Parts of Options <br />1 and 3 where residential' . <br />development is contemplated may - <br />be desirable permanent elements in , <br />the future. We do n?t see some of 1 '. .._."A:~~ J ."'¿"'. <br />the elements of OptIons 1 through F .... .; .' . <br />3 as being mutually exclusive. '.' . <br />There is a lot of land out there! <br /> <br />'.. <br />, ". <br />. - :."; , <br /> <br />Figure 11 Group picnic shelter at Lake Crook <br />Page 31 of 45 <br />