Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/19/1978 ,�"' : ! l,.-'i � ` • � CITY OF APPLE VALLEY • PARK COMMITTEE MINUTES DECEMBER 19, 1978 PRESENT: Dave Miller, Joe Bell, Ginny Sterling, Bob Naegeli, Ellen Milos and Joanne Hollenbeck; Mike Bassett. ABSENT: Roger Wangen. 1. Vice Chairman Sterling called the meeting to order, 2. Minutes of the December 5, 1978 meeting were approved as written. 3. The agenda was reviewed and under item 7, discussion of time for the meeting was added. Ginny Sterling stated that she would like to explain her abstentions at the last meet- ing at this time. With the first motion to reconsider she stated that she abstained because she did not feel it should be brought up again. The second motion regarding the format she stated that she feels that you should put what the park system really needs in Part A, the next important items in Part B and additional in Part C and they should be contingent on A passing before B passes, etc. She feels the Park Committee knows what is going on and if we feel there should be an athletic complex, then it should go in Part A. Put in Part A whatever is the most important. She doesn't feel they should be giving a choice because the Committee has studied all the information • and Part A should be what is most important. Ellen Milos stated that is initially the way she felt, however, after considering the situation she feels now that the way the school presented their bond issue giving people a choice is better. Bob Naegeli stated that he doesn't feel that they should compare the park bond issue to the school bond issue. Joanne Hollenbeck stated that she called the library and according to their comments the motion at the last meeting when three people abstained passed -- it is a matter of interpretation. The Committee felt that it should still be discussed again. 4. DISCUSSION OF BOND ISSUE FORMAT Joe Bell stated that he feels that a Part 1 - 2 - 3 bond issue that is put clearly to the public with none of it contingent will be the least confusing to the voters. He stated that he has always felt that way and since receiving Mike's memo feels more strongly about it now. If we get a positive vote for the athletic complex and not for developing the parks in eastern Apple Valley, then that is what the people want. Bob Naegeli doesn't feel that they should be given that choice; he is concerned about the special block voting group and he doesn't feel the athletic complex is worth defeating the development of the regular parks. Joe stated that the only other alter- native is putting everything in one question. Dave Miller stated that he agrees with Bob; the Committee should decide which is more important, we can't neglect the parks that we now have -- put everything together in one package. Joe Bell stated that he isn't against the one question; however, if you have individual questions they have to stand along and not be contingent on one passing before the next one can. Dave questioned including minimal park development along with the athletic complex then • you would get some.other things if you pass that part. Ginny stated that she is in favor of minimal development in the parks and the athletic complex being in one question; additional development in a second question. Bob Naegeli stated that he is concerned about costs and what you will cut. He is concerned about the "piece meal" type thing. He also questioned what the VAA really needs -- what are their greatest needs. �- � - - ' ,Page ��2 G��� , Park Committee Minutes • � ° 12/19/78 . Mike Bassett stated that the VAA doesn't know what they need; the City can't relegate the authority -- we need to decide what is needed in the park system. He added that the architect that did the cost figures stated that you don't want to segment development I in the parks; if you need to cut the dollar figures cut out the total development in some ' parks rather than some development in each park. He recommended doing a good job in ' ten parks rather than a little development in sixteen parks. Bob Naegeli questioned the feelings of the City Council and the bonding authority. Mike stated that he spoke with the City's financial consultant and he feels there will not be a problem with up to $2 million; if you propose to go over that they would have to take a closer look at the situation. Bob questioned if that was the City's total bond- ing ability; Mike Bassett stated that he basically said that is what could be done for parks. Mike Bassett reviewed the Cost Figures on the "Cost Estimate Summary" (see attached) which was prepared by an architect. He noted that you need to add the costs for planning, engineering and bond issue costs of about 15% and yau will co�ne up with a � total of $1,350,000. He stated that he is presently working with the school district I� on the athletic complex in an attempt to determine how much additional land should be purchased and establishing some kind of a plan. At this time he feels the Committee should work with the figures for park development and also determine the format -- that needs to be resolved. He noted that all of the items included in the Five Year Park Systems plan are reflected in the "Cost Estimate Suuunary". There was some dis- cussion on the location of the tennis courts and hockey rin�.s. The standards were also reviewed. Mike stated that the bond issue format has to be easy for the public to � understand. He stated that he feels very strong that each question should be distinct and stand on its own merit. He recommends that the key components go into one question; if we need to cut do as the architect has recommended and cut the entire development of a particular park. He stated that one question could be the development of the undeveloped parks which would be approximately $950,000 including planning, engineering, etc. A second question could be for development of the existing parks which would be approximately $400,000 and the third question for the athletic complex for $450,000. There would be 18 existing parks in one question and 13 undeveloped parks in the other question. Ginny Sterling reviewed her previous thoughts regarding the basic development in question 1, the additional development such as tennis courts, hockey rinks, etc. in question 2, and the frills or additional items in question 3. Bob N. stated that he still felt that the questions should be contingent on A passing before B passes, etc. Mike Bass"ett stated that he is cc�ncerned about trying to speculate on how people are going to vote; and he is not in favor of having the parts "wired" together -- he feels that confuses people. He feels that if the park development can`t stand on its own merit then people don't want it. Joe Bell stated that he likes the clear questions and is in favor of the $4�0 ,000 continued development of the existing developed parks; $950,000 development of the undeveloped parks and the $450,000 for the athletic complex. Ellen Milos noted that the undeveloped parks are not all located in one area, but they are scattered around the City. Bob Naegeli stated that App1e Valley has a heavy voting athletic group and is concerned about that block vote. Joanne H. stated that she doesn't feel that the VAA will vote for only an athletic complex. She does feel that you let the people decide what they want. She noted that the people that attended the meeting � in February weren't from the new areas of AV -- they were people from the older more established areas and they are in favor of additional park development. Those people are interested and they are goin.g to vote. The Park Committee will have to do some ground work on the east side to show the people over there what they are proposing. . , Page �`3 ', Park Committee Minutes • • December 19, 1978 ! Mike Bassett stated that he doesn't feel that the City Council will approve a question that is over a million dollars. He noted Mike Garrison's comment at the public meeting about putting a bond issue together that addresses the needs of the Park System. Auster- ity is what we will hear from the Council. Bob Naegeli stated that he is concerned about the athletic complex being the lowest dollar figure; the lowest dollar figure in his mind should be what we need the most if we are going several questions. Joanne H. stated that she feels that all three parts could pass. Mike Bassett stated that the only differ- ence in this bond proposal and the previous one is that inflation f actor and the additional development of the athletic complex. Ginny questioned having one question with a 1 .5 million dollar figure; Mike stated that he doesn't think the Council would go along with it; people would like to have more than one choice and he feels that we should give them a choice. Dave Miller stated that he used to try to figure out 3aow people will vote, but he knows you can't. He can understand the 1.8 million dollar in one package but he is concerned about it passing in one part. Mike B. noted that there seems to be a frustration recently from the people in the newer parts of AV that don't have developed parks -- we need to "tap" that area a little and they should turn out to vote. Bob Naegeli stated that he doesn't feel that each of the three parts proposed are equally important. Joe Bell stated that he disagreed; they are equally important and you are giving the voter a choice and the proposal is clear as to what they are voting for. , The Park Committee has to contact the voters and sell all three parts. The information needs to be presented to the people and explain the needs of the City as we see them. He feels that we would lose if we go with one question. Mike stated that AV is a young community with a young population and organized athletics are a part of the community. We have to give the people an opportunity for the additional facilities. He noted that one of the cardinal rules of the "Bond Survey" was that the governing body supports . the proposal unanimously. He feels that they are starting on the wrong foot if we start with a split vote on the Park Committee. Bob Naegeli stated that he feels that it should be one question or Part A contingent on Part B, etc. He would hate to see a big athletic complex and no park development. There was some discussion about asking the Council for a second question with the last proposal. Dave stated that he goes along with the three questions each standing on their own merit. He stated that he can see three groups each voting for each of the three parts; maybe we will be surprised with certain people picking up with certain parts, all three:might pass. Bell asked Bob's opinion on going to the Council with three parts. Bob questioned what if the Council doesn't buy it -- then what is the option. Mike B. suggested meeting with the Council to get their feeling prior to going to the regular Council meeting that way you could get input from the Council regarding their thoughts. Dave Miller stated that he doesn't feel that the Park Committee should be worrying about how the people will vote or how the council will vote at this point -- just put together the proposal that we think is the best. Joe Bell stated that he feels the Park Committee is offering what is the most important to the voters -- he understands Bob's feelings, but would like to have his vote in favor of the three part proposal. Ginny stated that she thinks part of the development of the undeveloped parks should be included with the athletic complex question. She suggested selecting some of the parks at scattered locations to include with the complex,. Joanne is concerned about people voting N0 if their park isn't listed, Ginny suggested "watering" down the park development and including the athletic complex in the first question and making part 2 contingent on part one. Mike Bassett stated that when they started work on the Systems Plan they cut it down to a "bare bone" type of development; there are somethings that can be taken out, but very little. Everything that is included in the proposal is , needed. Ginny reinterated her feelings about the three parts and having • one contingent on the other -- she added that people weren't confused in 1971 . Mike stated that people were confused about why they didn't get the things that were in the second part. The way we are proposing the three questions it can be easily explained. Ginny stated that she doesn't think the Park Committee should be concerned about people understanding it. Mike stated th�t it has to be clear because of the dollar figures that we are talking about. Bell stated that we have to let the voters decide, if it is clear they know and they have to answer to it. � Page-.��4 � � ;- r� Park Committee Minutes • • � 12/l.9/78 � Joanne stated that she would like to have it all on one question, however, that doesn't seem practical and she doesn't feel that one question should be contingent on the next question. People should vote fo� it if they want it and if they don't we have to assume that they don't want it. The Park Committee needs to work the new areas and explain to the residents what they aresproposing. She noted that alot of the "athletic people" live on the east side and they will vote for more than one thing. She is in favor of the three parts. Ellen; Milos stated that initially she was in favor of the cantingency, however, she is not ;.comfortable with it. Each part is important and they can all pass. She feels the contingency voting is almost chicanery; a sneeky way of say we want everything or nothing. It is a way of getting people to vote the way you want them to and she doesn't feel that is fair -- we need to give people the right to choose, Dave Miller stated that he has thought about the contingency thing the last couple weeks and changed his mind. He also corlsidered his position on the Park Committee and what is expected of him. He stated that he has decided that it is not up to him to decide for the people in the community as to what they should have in their park system; he feels the park committee is in trouble if they try to do that -- let the people decide what they want. Ginny Sterling questioned the trails and funds for the parking lot at i�Iestview. Mike stated that they had come up with a real arbitrary figure for trails and they are not in the five year plan. Right now we have found a new way of developing the trails by putting them along the collector streets; a trail will be built with the upgrading of Galaxie and also with 140th Street. He stated that some of the bond � issue money could go for trails if the bids come in lower than expected and also within the five years the City is bound to get some grant monies; he feels the Committee first has to decide the format then spend some time on the dollar figures. Bell stated that he would like to see the Committee united. Ginny stated that what- every way the format is going to go that is what she will work for. MOTION: of Bell, seconded by Hollenbeck to present the bond issue in a thre� part proposal; Part A would be for development of the undeveloped parks, Part B would be for additional development in the existing developed parks, Part C would be for land acquisition and development of an athletic complex on the east side of Apple Valley. Each part would stand on its own merit and would not be contingent on each other; the simple majority will rule on each question. Bob Naegeli stated that he feels we are close, he feels the Committee should try to pare down: what we have and let it go in one question. He is concerned about appealing to certain groups. He feels it is a cop out to set with three questions and if you think it is all going to fly, then why not put it all in one question. Pare it down and go with one question -- state this is what we feel we need. Joanne H. stated that she would rather see two out of three parts pass than nothing. Ellen feels that it could all pass in thr,ee parts, but she feels it will go down if it is all in one question. You have to give people a choice. VOTE ON THE MOTION: YES - 4 - NO - 2 (Sterling & Naegeli) . Sterling noted that since that is what passed she will support it and work for it. * 5. REVIEW BOND ISSUE TIMETABZE Mike Bassett reviewed the Timetable and stated that the Committee is very close to the proposal at this time. The Timetable was discussed and the Committee discussed presenting their proposal to the Council in early January. I . Page ��5 Park Committee Minutes • � � 12/19/78 • Mike suggested that the Committee go through the figures -- he will send out a memo regard- ing what might be eliminated from the initial cost estimates. There was some discussion regarding the January schedule. 6. DISCUSS BOND ISSUE PRESENTATION PROGRAM. � Mike stated that he would like the Committee members to think about philosophy in this I situation. Review the merits of going to thirty different locations, give some thoughts , to Coffee Parties, get some precinct captains and possibly tackle the situation in that ' manner. There was some discussion regarding having several large meetings at City HalZ rather than going from one group to another. 7. DISCUSS MERITS OF A BOND ISSUE AD HOC COMMITTEE. It was noted that the Committee has discussed this. Mike stated that he feels it has some merits; the SOS Committee for the school bond issue did pay dividends. He stated that the committee would have to be a group of people that you know where they are coming from. The committee would have to be people who are in favor of the park committee's proposal. 8. DISCUSS JANUARY MEETING DATES & TIMES. The Committee discussed the Januar meetings. On January 2, 1979 the Park Committee Y will go over dollar figures and come up with a firm proposal. The Committee agreed to meet on Saturday morning, January 6, 1979 at 10:00 a.m. to finalize their presentation • to the City Council which they propose to have on the Jazuary 11, 1979 Council agenda. The Committee agreed to schedule three regular meetings in January for the 2nd, 16th, and 30th. The main item on the agenda for the 16th should be the finalization of the Bond Issue Presentation. Starting times for Park Committee meetings were discussed. MOTION: of Naegeli, seconded by Miller to start the Park Committee meetings at 7:30 p.m. starting with the first meeting in January of 1979. YES - S - NO - O. MOTION: of Naegeli, seconded by Bell to adjourn. �