06-06-1983 Park Board Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Pa,xk Board June 6 , 1983 Page Two would be ranked, not the usage and Mr. LeBlond felt there would be very little , if any , changes in the ranking of the usage . She said the re- sponses could be rechecked, if it is thought necessary . Mr. Flannery suggested that the use of the Parks be calculated as a separate statistic. He will alAo put together an article for the news- paper. The comments from the surveys are to be typed and included in the next Park Board packet. Mr. Flannery and Mrs . LeBlond will put together an arthicle for publication on the results of this survey . (Clerk 's note : There are many persons , such as I, that do not use the Parks and distort the figures on that questions #10) . COUNTRY LAKES PARK Chairman Johnson asked what is the next step for this Board in conjunction to the development of that Park? Chairman Johnson felt that the 51% response on the survey indicated that the Board should proceed with the development of this Park. He asked for comments from other members of the Board. Mr. Lindy noted that the Lake is completed weeded at this point and they are so bad that even a sail boat cannot be used. The cost of $1 . 00 per front foot was an estimated cost for treating the lake for the weeds . Mr. Lindy noted that many lakes are having this problem. Mr. Lindy noted that sailing, boating and canoeing was a part of the consideration for the LAWCON Grant , what happens if these things cannot be provided due to the status of the Lake? This was discussed by Chairman Johnson . He felt that if it becomes im- possible to install a beach , that portion of the grant would probably be deducted from the total funds . Mr. Scherer felt that for what is gained from this park in relationship to what is put into it , wouldn ' t it be better to develope it as a passive park and put no more than nescessary ? He said if it wasn ' t for the Grant , he would be in favor of dumping this park and expending the money on some other park . Mr. Schumacher said the next phase would to recommend to the Council to authorize plans and specifications for Phase 1 of the development . Mrs . LaBlond so moved. Seconded by Mr . Lindy , The vote on the motion ended in a tie . Mr. Arntzen was asked for his reasons for abstaining which he stated. He felt this park was not developing in the way planned and it could be a very expensive park. Mr. Lindy was concerned with the maintenance cost of the park also the crowding of the lake was a concern .