Laserfiche WebLink
Cit~ of Paris Stud~t, pf Lake Crook March, 2001 <br /> <br />3.3.3 Recommendations Concerning ~ption 2. While certainly 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 from land sales is nothing to be taken lightly. The significance of <br />estimated taxes to all taxing entities fi.om 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 />development options. It is the nature of north <br />shore and west shore developments that rentain in <br />question. <br /> <br />We do not believe that under Option 2 thc city should allow control of so much of the public land <br />to rest with one entity, that is, Archers for Christ. As much as we may agree with their charter <br />and purpose, to withhold five to seven hundred acres of land fi.om the public does not seem to <br />be good public policy. Under Option 2, each of the gun or archery clubs would have fLxed, hard <br />boundary leases covering what they need for target ranges and clear zenes as well as <br />improvements to the land such as parking lots, storehouses and meeting rooms. For thc balance <br />of the property, we favor a shared use where 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 />hike/bike trail and around the perimeter of other property can signal the public that there are <br />special events being held and to refrain from nsing 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 within 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 staffwould 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 />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 <br />the future. We do <br />the elements of Options I through. <br />3 as being mutually exclusive. .., .. <br />There is a lot of land out there! <br /> Figure 11 Group picnic shelter at Lake Crook <br /> <br />Page 31 of 45 <br /> <br /> <br />