My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-06-2017 Parks & Rec Commission Minutes
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2017
>
04-06-2017 Parks & Rec Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2019 9:21:50 AM
Creation date
5/25/2017 11:38:25 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION <br />April 6, 2017 <br />also visit Pioneer Park to check out space for the wow park and the <br />drinking fountain project from the prioritization list, if time allowed. The <br />Commission agreed. <br /> <br /> The City Administrator reported that P & R/Community Services Manager <br />Shearen had gotten three different proposals for play equipment in <br />Spooner Park based on the $115,000 budgeted dollars. He noted that the <br />standards have changed, but Spooner Park currently has a concrete base <br />and sand, and the sand often washes out in the rain due to the grading of <br />the park, which slopes down. The City Administrator noted that there was <br />a large discrepancy between the costs and play structures from the three <br />quotes. He presented option one by Landscape Structures which included <br />two play areas, one for younger children, and one for older children. He <br />noted there is a large amount of open space, but the structures had to <br />maintain a minimum of six feet of fall space between structures and the <br />curbing. The City Administrator presented option two by Game Time. He <br />noted his seven year old grandson had looked at the proposals and chose <br />this one as his favorite because “there was more stuff going on”. The City <br />Administrator mentioned option two did not use the entire budget. He <br />explained Game Time had a purchasing contract with USC which <br />provided lower pricing on pay equipment. The City Administrator <br />presented a third option which was a taller structure with three sections, <br />and the cost was just under $150,000. <br /> <br /> He noted each option presented good qualities, but he wanted to come up <br />with an engagement process to involve residents. The City Administrator <br />proposed asking the students at Arbor Day for their opinions on the <br />options. He also noted the Little Canada Recreation Association seemed <br />interested in helping out with the project, and there may be additional <br />costs involved to make an ADA accessible path to the equipment. <br />Horwath asked what the timeline was for the project. The City <br />Administrator said the project could be completed as early as Canadian <br />Days, but he wanted to make sure there was enough time to hold an <br />engagement process. The City Administrator explained Game Time had <br />stated they need about a six week lead time on the project. Therefore, if <br />the Commission wanted to have it built by Canadian Days, they would <br />have to choose by early June. He also mentioned Game Time also offered <br />the opportunity to have a “community build”. The City Administrator <br />stated Game Time would provide most of the equipment, but about 50 <br />volunteers would be needed. He noted that the equipment is fairly easy to <br />put together because it locks into place. The City Administrator explained <br />a community build would also lower the project cost by about $15,000. <br /> <br /> Horwath asked if the sod would be ready by Canadian Days, or if the foot <br />traffic would wreck it. The City Administrator noted that the City could <br />tear out the old equipment and it would probably only take one day. He
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.