Although one city councilman believes a new subdivision on Powell’s south side should have its own park, the rest of his colleagues aren’t so sure.

At a March 2 meeting, the Powell City Council decided that, rather than requiring the developer of the Autumn Grove subdivision to provide land for a park, the city will instead take a cash payment that can be used for existing parks.

The subdivision is being developed by Erik Petersen on vacant land just south of Monroe Street and east of Southside School. At Petersen’s request, the city council recently annexed 13.7 acres that may eventually host 69 homes; the first phase will involve the construction of 25 houses just off Monroe Street, between South Day Street and Road 8H.

Whenever land is annexed into the City of Powell and subdivided, the city requires the developer to either provide a piece of land for a park that’s equal to 6% of the size of the subdivision or to pay the city 10% of the raw land value of the subdivision.

Councilman Tim Sapp called on the council to take the park land.

“The future growth is [in] that direction,” Sapp said, adding, “parks are needed in residential communities. It’s a hell of a thing for a community to have a park in it.”

Mayor John Wetzel said he didn’t disagree with that sentiment, “but I think we have enough parks for our residents” while the cost of maintaining them continues to rise with inflation.

“My thought would be we continue to support the parks we have and do it well,” Wetzel said, recommending the city take the cash.

The rest of the council also preferred the payment.

Councilman Steve Lensegrav noted that Autumn Grove’s western edge borders Southside School while its eastern edge is just across the street from Southside Park, which covers more than 4 acres.

“[I] can’t see us developing another park in such a short proximity to that big one,” Lensegrav said.

Sapp suggested that as Autumn Grove expands, the city could continue gathering pieces of land from the developer to form one centralized park for the subdivision further to the south; Petersen has said he intends to eventually build more homes to the south, predicting the development could grow to include 200 homes over the coming decades.

However, at the March 2 meeting, Petersen noted he’s only annexing 13.7 acres right now.

“If you guys want a park later, we can discuss it then,” Petersen said of any future phases. “This one is right there by the other park.”

That thinking was echoed by Councilman Zane Logan and backed by the majority of the council.

Councilman Troy Bray also preferred a cash payment, but indicated he doesn’t like the city requiring land or money for parks.

“[I’m] opposed to increasing the cost of housing artificially,” he said.

In contrast, Sapp unsuccessfully pushed for requiring greater contributions from developers last year.

Parks push

Appearing before Powell’s Planning and Zoning Commission in April and May 2025, Sapp argued the city should start requiring developers to either provide a completed park on the land (rather than just the property) or pay 10% of the property’s “finished” value rather than its “raw” value.

It would be a significant difference: Petersen said the raw value of one of his lots is around $2,200 while the finished value is roughly $50,000, raising the per lot payment from $220 to $5,000.

Sapp said the city needs more funding for its parks, which he described as aging and old.

Noting that Powell already has roughly 125 acres of park land, Sapp said his goal wasn’t to add more, but to find “a better way to work with the parks we’ve got.”

However, the proposed hike was met with resistance from Petersen and the planning commission last year.

“It’s just a dead tax that goes right to the people that are buying a house,” Petersen said at an April 2025 meeting. 

He indicated that Sapp’s proposal would raise the cost of the homes in his Autumn Grove subdivision by roughly $4,900 — and he said it wasn’t a fair way to pay for the city’s parks.

Multiple planning commission members agreed the fee hike wasn’t equitable.

At the May 2025 meeting, Petersen further argued that the city has “three times as much land for parks as they need right now. And that’s a big part of why it’s breaking the city.”

“But I also think by having more parks, we make our town much more welcoming,” offered commission member Thom Miller.

While no one disagreed, multiple people noted that the city has yet to develop all of its park land. Fellow commission member Scott Shoopman pointed to the 10.5 acres on the western edge of town that have been set aside for Centennial Park but remain vacant.

Right now, “it’s a mountain of freaking 200-foot tall dirt,” Shoopman said, asking, “Does that make our city lovely?”

City Administrator Zack Thorington told the Tribune last year that Centennial Park will likely need to be built in phases — both as the surrounding area is developed and as funding becomes available. Nearly all of the land surrounding the park is currently vacant, with most still in agricultural production.

A 2-acre plot for Cedarwood Park — located south of Cedarwood and Basil drives — has also mostly remained a farm field since being given to the city in 2009. While there was a proposal to sell the property back to the developer in 2019, the idea was vehemently opposed by nearby residents and dropped.

Finding a way to fund parks

During last year’s discussions before the planning and zoning commission, it was noted that the one-time cash payments from new developments don’t generate enough revenue to maintain the existing parks.

Commission member Ronn Smith crunched some numbers and concluded the payments have a miniscule impact on the parks’ $933,000 annual budget, referring to the fees as “a joke.”

“I mean, we might as well get rid of it,” Smith said at the May 2025 meeting. “If we’re not going to charge an amount that has an impact on the city’s budget, then why do it at all?”

“If that was a motion, I’ll second it,” quipped City Building Official Ben Hubbard.

At the April 2025 meeting, longtime commission member John Campbell said research shows houses near parks are more valuable, which brings some additional property tax dollars for the city. However, those dollars also fall well short of the parks’ maintenance costs.

Trying to generate sustainable revenue for park maintenance “might be like the attempt to try and come up with affordable housing: It can’t be done,” Campbell mused.

With no one on the commission supporting Sapp’s proposal to raise the fees required for parks, it was not forwarded on to the council. However, Sapp told the Tribune last fall that he hadn’t given up on the idea.