My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PK PACKET 09112000
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Parks and Environmental Commission Packets
>
2000
>
PK PACKET 09112000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/7/2019 9:00:04 AM
Creation date
8/7/2019 9:00:04 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
Parks Commission Meeting Minutes <br />August 14, 2000 <br />Page 3 <br />1 disturbances in the plan. Those issues could be easily approached at the September Parks Com - <br />2 mission meeting. <br />3 Ganley noted a suggestion by someone at the VillageFest that if an aggressive seeding program <br />4 is implemented by August of the redevelopment year, the park might be able to be ready for use <br />5 by the end of the next June or July. The possibilities and contraindications of this suggestion <br />6 were discussed. <br />7 Jindra asked City Council Liaison Brian Thuesen if there had been conversation between the <br />s Council with regard to the redevelopment of Central Park. Jindra asked if the Council would <br />9 consider a referendum to raise the money, and Thuesen responded it was too early to tell the di - <br />10 rection the Council would take on the issue. <br />1 I Koehntop inquired of Thuesen if a levy increase would be considered. Thuesen noted that there <br />12 has been significant discussion regarding levy limits by the Council, and it would be difficult to <br />B tell about the decision about which'the Council would arrive. <br />14 Dunn noted that there has been ongoing discussions between the Mayor, Superintendent of <br />5 Schools, and City Manager regarding funding and financing for Central Park. <br />16 Thuesen offered the Commission several options regarding funding that he could foresee happen - <br />17 ing: <br />18 --A general obligation bond; <br />19 --Taking from the general fund reserves. <br />20 --The City is still in hopes of a park grant; <br />21 --Explore the potential of borrowing from the water filtration fund; and <br />22 --Bring the issue to the voters. <br />23 Andra inquired if the Commission wanted to give a type of statement to the Council regarding <br />24 the plan, as a type of disclaimer. <br />25 Thuesen advised against this idea and noted that the Parks Commission was in charge of devel- <br />26 oping a plan for Central Park and the Council is in charge of accepting or not accepting the plan. <br />27 He noted that if there were disgruntled residents because of the plan, the Council would take the <br />28 consequences for approving the plan, and not the Commission. <br />29 Hartman reiterated that the Commission is simply in charge of making recommendations to the <br />30 Council, and the financing and details of that sort would be the Council's decision. <br />1 Ganley relayed a comment he had received from a resident that the school and Central Park reno- <br />32 vation should not be involved together in this project. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.