Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/05/2002 - Special Minutes - Parks BoardStaff Present: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks and Recreation; Eric Ploeger, Assistant Director; Peter Lamont, Recreation Superintendent; Peter Vanecek, Senior Park Planner; Kris Lehde, Staff Assistant. Board Members Present: John Nichols, Chairman; Bill Davis; Larry Farnsworth; Glen Davis; Don Allison; Glenn Schroeder; Jon Turton; Laura Wood, Alternate. Guest: Bob Schmidt, O'Malley Engineers. 1. Call to order: John Nichols called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. 2. Pardon — possible action regarding requests for absences of members from meeting: There were no members absent from the meeting. 3. Discussion, consideration, and possible action regarding potential capital improvement projects for park facilities: Steve Beachy said that the purpose of the meeting was to gather input from the Board pertaining to possible future Capital Improvement projects. He referred to the potential future Capital Improvement project list that was submitted to the Board prior to the meeting. He said that the list consists of general project ideas that were generated by Parks staff. He added that the list was not prioritized and cost estimates would need to be further refined. Steve said that there are a couple of big projects that would set the stage for the project requests (i.e. Veterans Park and Athletic Complex project and the new South Community Park that is adjacent to the landfill). Steve said that the City's list of potential Capital Improvement projects would be presented to the City Council on March 14' and that Council wo! appoint a citizens' committee to review the projects on March 28 1h . ( Update: T,',,:. c: :edule for presentation of the initial list ofprojects to the City Council has been Inw from the March 14` Council Workshop Meeting to the March 28` Workshop A,ceiing. The appointment of the citizens' committee has been moved from the 11"Irch 2? Workshop Meeting to the April 11` Workshop Meeting). He speculated ''gat the bond issue would generate approximately $30 -35 million (depending on th current tax rate), and based on history, Parks and Recreation could receive approximately $5 million. Steve said that one of the more difficult projects that the Board would need to review is the Veterans Park and Athletic Complex project. He added that the Needs Assessment would set the stage for the projects that would occur during the next phases of the park. Glen Davis said that the City Council has expressed an interest in having the park completed as soon as possible. He asked if having a Phase II and Phase III project plan for the upcoming bond issue would be feasible. Steve said that the Board would need to determine how the phasing should be done to complete the entire park. He added that two (2) factors the Board would need to look at are: 1. What are the needs for the park? 2. What are the priorities for the park? The Board briefly discussed the draft of the Veterans Park and Athletic Complex Needs Assessment. Eric Ploeger said that it would be beneficial to get an idea from the Board of what elements should be included in additional future phases of the park. He reminded the Board that Phase I would include six (6) soccer fields, two (2) softball fields, the main entry road, a parking lot at the memorial, a parking lot at the soccer fields, a maintenance building, and a restroom facility. After some discussion, the Board came to the general consensus that there should be three (3) additional phases to complete the park: 1. Phase II should include three (3) softball fields, a pavilion with additional parking, and a portion of the trails project. 2. Phase III should include the remaining soccer fields, a parking lot, and road extension. 3. Phase IV should include the last softball complex and additional amenities. Steve said that the Needs Assessment would be amended to incorporate the Board's suggestions and would be brought back to the Board on February 12 for - );) roval. Bill Davis suggested that the City look into the possibility of encoura,.;ing private concessionaire partnerships to assist with funding for the park. Steve said that another potential large project would be the development of the new "South" Community Park that is located on Rock Prairie Road adjacent to tl:c landfill. This 65 -acre community park site was acquired to serve park zones 9, 11, and 14. He added that once the landfill closes, it would become part of the park acre _re (adding approximately 182 acres). He explained that the landfill could not be pen 1 :..tcd, thus swimming pools and ball fields could not be constructed on it. Howes ,;r, the land could be used for observation areas, parking, or remote control airpla; Steve added that it would take approximately five (5) to six (6) years for the landfill to close. Steve said that one of the City Council strategies is to come up with a p'an for the community park site (refer to "Potential Elements for Master Plan Derr 'nptnent'). Eric said that the development of the park would be determined by the rn. - of that Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Special Meeting Tuesday, February 5, 2002 Page 2 of 3 area as potential development occurs over the next ten (10) to fifteen (15) vcars. He added that utilities should be in place within the next several ye; -, before development occurs. Larry Farnsworth expressed concern about spending upcoming bond m )ncy on a project that is adjacent to an open landfill that may not close for anoth five (5) years. Laura Wood agreed, and added that there are current neighborhood Darks that need to be developed. She doesn't think that it would be feasible at this point to take funds away from Veterans Park and Athletic Complex and other park projects to develop a park site south of town that may not have developm. w :v 1 it for another ten (10) years. John N. added that Kris Lehde would prepare ' :ot sheet for the Board to complete. If the Community Park rates high, then tl. � potential elements for development would need to be prioritized. Steve and Eric briefly discussed the items on the potential future Capital Improvement Projects draft list that was distributed to the Board (refer to "Potential Future CIP Project Summary FY2003 -2008 and individual "Capital Improvement Request" sheets). The Board discussed the methodology of how the projects should ' initially prioritized on the ballot sheet. After some discussion, the Board c. i- to the consensus that the numbering on the ballot sheet should be from 1 -5 (1 ',eing the highest score, and 5 being the lowest score). An effort should be made to divide the 38 projects on the list evenly (i.e. 8 -1's, 8 -2's, 8 -3's, 8 -4's, and 6 -5's). Kris asked that the ballot sheets be turned in by Friday, February 8 in order to develop the master priority sheet. 4. Hear visitors: There were no visitors present at the meeting. 5. Adjourn: The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. k Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Special Meeting Tuesday, February 5, 2002 Page 3 of 3