Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/06/1979 • � CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PARK COMMITTEE MINUTES NOVEMBER 6, 1979 • PRESENT: Chairman Joe Bell, Committee Memberst Joanne Hollenbeck, Bob Naegli, Carolyn Rodriguez, Ginny Sterling, Ellen Milos, Councilmember Marlis Overgard and Mike Bassett ABSENT: Dave Miller l. Chairman Bell called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. (unbelievable!) 2. Minutes of the October 16, 1979 meeting were approved as written. 3. Memo from City Administrator on Park Bonds - A memo was distributed to the Park Committee from the City Administrator that included general information with respect to the sale of bonds, specifically the park bonds approved by voters in March of 1979. Mike Bassett briefly reviewed the memo and suggested that the Park Committee Members take the memo and review it thoroughly and then direct whatever questions or concerns they have to the Administrator or Finance Director. The Park Committee Members elected to review the memo at the meeting rather than delaying it until the next meeting. General discussion ensued concerning why the park bond funds had not been sc�.ld and the repercussions for the park development program at this point. Joe Bell questioned why the Park Committee was not informed sooner of the non- sale of bonds. He indicated it was the general understanding of the Park � Committee that the bonds were sold. Mike indicated that bond sale transactions are a very technical procedure as is defined in the memo from the Administrator. He indicated that additional communication could have occurred between himself and the Park Committee with respect to the bonds. The determination as to when bonds are to be sold must be the responsibility of the City Administrator and Finance Director upon approval and concurrence of the City Council. The City Staff should be given the flexibility to make decisions that they are trained to ma.ke or the operation of the City would be seriously jeopardized. He indicated that neither he or the Park Committee have the expertise to determine when or when not bonds should be sold for public projects. Joe was concerned that the Park Committee was not being listened to and that they should have been informed prior to this time that the bonds were not sold and the reasons why. The design development phase of the park improvements program was discussed with various members expressing concern with the design documents that they have reviewed to date. Mike Bassett indicated he was also concerned with some of the design of the parks and that fact that maybe InterDesign was over-designing the parks at this time. He reviewed the portion of the contract that indicates that the design development phase will not be completed until the project is acceptable to the owner or in this case the City. InterDesign will be required to re-design areas that are not acceptable to the Committee at this time. The fees being paid to InterDesign were discussed and Mike indicated that 8% is the customary fee charged by Consultants for this type of project. He reviewed the selection process a�nd all firms interviewed at that time indicated a fee of • approximately 8% of the total project. He indicated the unique situation at hand is that InterDesign is probably performing more work than is necessary but whether they performed very little work in the design area or an extensive amount as they are doing the 8% fee would be the same. Bob Naegli asked if the �o�.tract • � Park Committee Minutes November 6, 1979 . Page - 2 could not be re-negotiated that they are doing work that is not necessary. Mike indicated that the existing contract cannot be re-negotiated but that we can ensure that the product is acceptable ta us before they receive full payment. He indicated that the InterDesign will be present at the November 20th meeting to re-review some of the parks. Joe Bell indicated that the Park Committee should decide which parks to go over at that meeting. MOTION: by Ginny Sterling that we discuss the first 10 parks on the list given ta the V.A.A. at the November 20th meeting with InterDesign. Seconded by Joanne. Discussion - Bob Naegli indicated that he had strong feelings on spending $100,000 of park funds at this time. He feels that the paving of the Westview parking lot, pathways and types of similar projects are maintenance expenditures and should not be taken from the park funds. Mike indicated those items were included in the bond program and must be paid for from bond funds. Ginny Sterling asked what items would be coming out of the $100,000 in bonds if the bonds were sold? Mike indicated he would submit a list and that list is as follows: Bond Brochure Costs $650, Restore Farquar Barn $2,655, InterDesign Schematic Design Phase $6,260, Shade Trees $5,825, InterDesign Design Develop- ment Phase $15,650, Westview Parking Lot and Paths $25,295, Hockey Lights at Galaxie estima.te $9,000, Fill and Grading at 139th & Galaxie $8,900, Grading . and Fill at ScottHighlands $1,428 = Total $75,663. 4. Carroll Farm Property - Paul Blais, Planner from Dahlgren and Associat.es was �resent to discuss with the Committee their plans for the Carroll Farm Property at County Road 42 and Pennock. He submitted a memo to the Committee (see attached). Mr. Blais presented four schematics as to where the park could be located in the property. All the park locations were in the center area of the 160 acres. He mentioned that he had previously met with the staff and that they have strongly suggested that the park should be on the southeast corner of the plat along ��42 and Pennock. Mr. Blais then proceeded to explain the merits of putting the park in other than that location. Joe Bell indicated that the Committee strongly feels that his plans are not what they Urant. He indicated that approximately two years ago the Park Committee reviewed this park location in depth and determined that a larger City park is needed with good visual and physical access from �642 and the commercial area. The Park Committee discussed the problems with locating a park in the middle of the plat in that it would become more of a neighborhood park than a larger central community park. The Park Committee was also very concerned with the developer's proposal to locate commercial property west of Pennock �venue and strongly disagreed with that philosophy. Mr. Blais indicated that through proper design ;and ' location it would be unnecessary to gurchase any additional property in that the I4 acres to be dedicated would be sufficient. Mr. Bell indicated that whether the City develops a park on the 14 acres or 25 acres is at this point irrevelent to where that will be located. � � • • Park Committee Minutes November 6, 1979 Page - 3 MOTION: Bob Naegeli that the Park Committee recommends to the Planning Com- mission that dedication for the Carroll Farm Property be located in the southeast corner of the property abutting County Road 42 and Pennock Avenue. Joe Bell seconded. DISCUSSION: Joanne Hollenbeck believes that we should amend the motion to explain why we desire it in that location. Joe Bell stated that such reason- ing could be included in a recommendation and not in a motion. Mike Bassett indicated that in other park locations the City has taken a park dedication with an option to buy additional acreage at a later date if it is determined that the additional property is needed for the proper design of the park. Possibly the option could extend for 24 months after the approval of the final plat and if the option is not executed by that time then the property owner could develop the land according to the zoning or over-zoning existing on it. VOTE: 5 yes, 1 no. GYnny Sterling indicated that she voted no in that she believes we should specify the southeast quadrant rather than the corner of 42 and Pennock. Mr. Blais indicated that his client dosen't buy using that corner at all for park purposes. Joe Bell indicated that he will take the Park Committee recommendation to the Planning Commission meeting on December 5 at 7:00 p.m. Any and all committee members are welcome to attend. � 5. Park Ordinance - A copy of the ordinance as revised by the Urban Affairs Com- mittee was submitted to the Park Committee so that they, in turn, would be aware of the changes made by Urban Affairs. The ordinance will be forwarded on for Council consideration at the December 13 Council Meeting. The Park Committee will be further discussing the ordinance at their December 4 meeting. 6. Joint Meeting With Burnsville - The joint meeting with the Burrisville Park. Conunittee has definately been set up for November 15. An agenda will be pre- pared by the two Chairma.n and the Park Directors of the respective communities. The next Park Committee Meeting will be November 20 at City Ha11 at 7:00 p.m. 7. Qther Items - Bob Naegeli asked what we should do with the bond mess. MOTION: by Ginny Sterling, seconded by Carolyn Rodriguez that the Park Committee recommends that InterDesign after ha.ving finished the deszgn development phase, to the City's satisfaction, that they not continue on the construction document phase or any other phase of the program until further notice. VOTE: Unanimously approved. MOTION: by Ellen Milos, seconded by Joanne Hollenbeck that the Park Committee recommends that no further expenditures be made regarding the park development program in excess of the $100,000 in bonds that is proposed to be sold in the � near future. VOTE: Unanimously approved. Mike recommended that the Park Committee go back to their May 15 minutes and read them through in that it defines some of the discussion that we had with � � Park Committee Minutes • November 6, 1979 Page - 4 InterDesig�; prior to approving their contract and their responses to some of the work that they would be performing. MOTION: by Sterling, seconded by Carolyn Rodriguez to adjourn at 9:45 p.m. � �