[Wilbur]

Yikes. I suspect part of the spread is the difference between an architect's vision of something wonderful and RMA's approach, as mentioned by Rod, of finding ways to accomplish something nice but not necessarily wonderful on a limited budget and with kind help from the OE school and others. I think, without knowing more, that Bob Kjome is on the right track with the suggestion it be rethunk as a phased, scalable thing: some fundamentals now, with a long term plan to flesh it out when more funding becomes available. Starting out with a tot lot may meet the highest need, given that Riverview is a great park for older kids who can easily get themselves over there.

I'm more intrigued by the referenced rediscovery that the Parks Development Agreement draws some distinction in funding available for "community parks" as distinguished from "neighborhood parks. It sounds like it may be a provision guaranteeing that part of a developer's park contributions for a particular development will be used for an amenity in/near their development, where it will help their sales , rather than on something miles away on the other side of a river. I intend to study up on that. So far I see another refreshing sign that finally, some 30 years into our existence, we're finally starting to read the documents and deal with the details, whether they be good, bad or ugly.