Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/28/1978 � , . r � � • . � CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PARK COMMITTEE MINUTES JUNE 28, 1978 PRESENT: Ginny Sterling, Mike DesParte, Bob Naegeli , Joe Bell , Dave Miller, Mike Bassett. ABSENT: Roger Wangen & Ellen Milos. Vice Chairman Sterling called the meeting to order. There were no corrections to the minutes from the June 14, 1978 Joint Meeting. The Park Committee members toured several parks at 6:30 p.m. tonight. They visited Farquar Hills Park; Mike Bassett reported that the City Council authorized purchase of the optioned four acres. They also visited the park in the Diamond Path Addition and the park located at 139th Street & Johnny Cake Ridge Road. Mike Bassett asked the Committee members to discuss their "Plan of Attack" for the next few months. The Park Dedication Ordinance and the Trail Plan will be refered back to the Park Committee for their review and recommendations in the next few months durT;ng the Update of the Comprehensive Plan. The big item that needs to be looked into �s the forming of the bond issue -- the Timetable and attached memo need to go to the Council for their concurrence to go ahead with plans for a bond issue. From there the Corr�nittee needs to look at the goals and policies with respect to the bond issue and review the Comprehensive Plan System Plan. That is the basis for the bond issue. From there we determine construction �costs and what we want to include• how man uestions etc. The total dollar amount should , � Y9 be to ether and bm' d su itted to the Cou ' f m im his Fall . Sterlin aske g ncil or approval so e t e t g about the dollar amount for the bond issue; will it be the same as last year? Mike Bassett stated that at this point he doesn't feel they should concern themselves with cost; he asked the Cornrnittee to look at the park system and determine where the needs are. ' Bell asked why the Committee did not go a two part issue last time. Sterling stated that the Corr�nittee did not approach the Council until very late regarding the Bond Issue in two parts. Naegeli stated that the Park Committee went to the Council initially with three or four figures. The $970,000 proposal did not include Alimagnet acquisition; however, the Council approved the $970,000 and asked that Alimagnet be included. Then the Comrnittee reviewed the proposal and eliminated in some areas to include the $60,000 for Alimagnet acquisition. He also noted that the Committee wanted to go to the p�tblic in the Spring; the Council asked them to go in the Fall . He noted that the Park Corranittee did not want to include the $60,000 for Alimagnet acquisition as they felt there were other priorities which were more important and there is a great deal of land in the park there at the present. It was late in the summer when the proposed to the Council to go a two-part issue. Bell stated that he felt that was one of the reasons why the school bond issue failed the first time and that was because people did not have much of a choice. This last time there was a greater chosee. He would like to see a two or three part issue. Bell stated that �e would hate to jeopardize the entire bond issue by putting it all on one question. Sterling agreed that two or three parts would give everyone a real say. There are alot of people who will vote no if they don't �ike one small thing. The Corr�nittee felt that the Council would go along with a two-part issue this time. Naegeli stated that the Park Committee went to the voters with actual dollar figures -- they did not include any possibilities of •grants that could be received by the City. ��. Bassett stated that the priorities should be reflected in the Park Plan. In the past the Committee took each particular area and looked at it and stated this is what we have and this is what we need for the next five years. Then they listed the needs and put prices to them. Page #2 '� Park Committee Minutes • � `�� �/28/78 , Sterling asked if the needs have changed in the last year. Do we need as many ball diamonds -- ' '�maybe we need more soccer fields. There was some discussion regarding the purchase of property for an athletic complex and not having funds for development. The Corr�nittee felt that they might be able to get a grant for development of an athletic complex. They also discussed the detailed plans of the parks being included in the brochure. Naegeli did not feel the topography lines should be on the drawings. The Park Committee could have the detailed information, however, they did not feel it needs to go in the brochure. The lack of interest in the public meetings was discussed. Naegeli stated he felt the Committee had better response from the civic groups. The Committee spent a great deal of time discussing the last bond issue activities and problems. Ginny Sterling recorrnnended that a short letter be sent to the presidents of all•�the Civic organizations. Usually the pres�dent will read the l�tter to the members of the organization or pass it around. The letter could state that the Park Committee would like the support of the organization and also remind them to vote. The Committee could also visit some of the groups. Mike DesParte questioned the survey. The questionnaires were never finalized. The Committee voted to have a surve howev r f' ifi s. The Timetable , e the have never inalized the s ec c was discussed. The conc�pt plans need to be reviewed to see if we still want the same items. They discussed having the acquisition and development of an athletic complex as Part B of the Bond Issue. Ginny & Bob felt that it should be if Part A passes, then Part B can pass; if Part A fails, Part B cannot pass. Bell pointed out that it should be a choice situation. The school location was also discussed and development of a complex adjacent to it. The priorities need to be determined. Mike DesParte recommended that at the next meeting the Park Committee begin to review the �Five Year Park System Plan and use the priorities that are established there. Then continue on the schedule which was prepared. He feels that it is important for the Committee to set up a time limit and accomplish so much in a certain amount of time. Ginny reviewed Mike DesParte's recommendation. Basically the Committee will review the Five Year Plan, park by park, giving a time limit on discussion of each park and also beginning with the already developed parks. Then following that the month of August the Corrrnittee can look at the concept plans and co�rdinating the notes from the review of the Five Year Plan the members can discuss any changes they wish to make. DesParte felt that the plan and the concept plans should be reviewed simultaneously to be most effective. Bell suggested that the Committee set a goal as to where they want to be the end of August. The Committee discussed meeting nights and the conflict on Wednesday evenings with the Planning Commis�ion. MOTION: of DesParte, seconded by Bell that the Park Committee meet on the first and third Tuesdays of each month at S:OO p.m. Vote: Yes - 4 - No - 1 (Naegeli) . Naegeli noted that he voted No because he prefers to meet at 7:00 p.m. in the winter months. The Park Committee agreed to meet on July 5, 1978 and July 18, 1978 at 8:00 p.m. They will review the concept plans for the 17 developed parks in Apple Valley in July. It was agreed to cover any other items that may come up prior to the review of the park plans at the meetings. Mike DesParte suggested that a time limit be set. This will be a preliminary review of the parks. It was suggested that Park Committee members tour the developed parks on their own time rather than trying to do it prior to a meeting. �he Committee discussed having an extra meeting in August and changing the meeting back to 7:00 p.m. in September. MOTION: of Naegeli , seconded by DesParte that the meeting be adjourned.