Laserfiche WebLink
SILVER VIEW PARK <br />PATHWAY (CONT'D) <br />G= <br />Mayor Hankner stated that the City Council <br />had asked staff to research every aspect of the <br />letter. She further stated that there is a <br />change in population and a need to look at <br />plans, re-evaluation and resident's interests so <br />that this park can be removed from the <br />controversial arena. There will also be a need <br />to find funding for those items not in the <br />Long Term Financial Plan. <br />Commissioner Trettel suggested that if a re- <br />evaluation of people's interests were initiated <br />by way of a survey, that survey should be of a <br />random sampling of residents. Silver View is <br />a community park rather than a neighborhood <br />park and is intended to serve the entire <br />community rather than just those residents <br />living with its boundaries (as is the concept of <br />neighborhood parks). <br />Chairperson Burmeister re -stated that he had <br />found items from previous meetings dating <br />back to the conception of Silver View Park <br />with dates, meetings and motions. <br />Mayor Hankner stated that we need to figure <br />out what to do in 1989 not 1981, and try to <br />stick to it. It might be a reaffirmation of <br />plans that are in place or move things ahead. <br />What are we going to do as good planning in <br />this park as a community as a whole. <br />Mayor Hanker stated that if the pathway is <br />going in perhaps asphalt should be re- <br />considered. <br />Resident David Rademacher stated that the <br />planning process is badly flawed. Go back to <br />the original plan. Why was there a bridge <br />and different shelter? What was planned at <br />the other end? If we're going to do it, do it <br />complete. <br />Chairperson Burmeister responded that the <br />lake was constructed much different than the <br />original plan and that changed the other end <br />and the path. <br />