CC PACKET 03242009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes March 10, 2009 Page 5 1 bang for the buck. Ile stated Minneapolis has been brought up with the splash deck, which he 2 does not think is comparing apples to apples. St. Anthony parks are not like Minneapolis parks; 3 they do not serve as many residents, and serve a smaller area. Ile stated his position that there is 4 not enough value adding the splash deck to the project. It would be a small population 5 percentage that would be using the splash deck. There is splash deck available at Central Park, 6 which is very reachable to many residents. A Councilmember Roth stated his support of including the splash deck in the improvement project. 9 He pointed out that a comment had been made that it was now or never for the splash deck to be 10 put into the park. He stated Emerald Park sits on the north side of the City, and there is a natural I 1 barrier with 37°i Avenue, the railroad tracks and a lot of industrial property for some of the 12 citizens on the north. This barrier does not exist for people on the central and south sides of the 13 City. 14 15 Councilmember Gray stated if they redo Emerald Park the City will still have three very nice 16 parks. As far as attracting people to St. Anthony, he is not sure that having a splash deck will add 17 anything. The additional $196,000 for the splash deck would benefit very few people considering 18 St. Anthony as a whole. There is a splash deck at Central Park and there are many things that 19 $200,000 could be spent on. There are youth groups that are raising money to do things like 20 refurbish the gym floor, put a curtain in the gymnasium, and get a score board for girls softball. 21 Those things have a much higher impact at a lower cost than a splash deck, and the City is not 22 funding them. 23 24 Mayor Pro Tem Stille stated they cannot carve out the $200,000 from this bond issue and spend 25 it on things like the gym; it is part of the project. They are in a unique situation with regard to 26 rates and financial structure so that the impact to the taxpayers will not be any different until 27 2022. This is a chance to do it right. He stated 37°i Avenue and the railroad tracks separate this 28 park from Central Park, which has a splash deck. As far as usage goes, Ile believes there will be a 29 lot of use by the residents. When his kids were young he was at this park three times per week 30 even though he lives south of 37°i. 31 32. Councilmember Thuescn stated there are valid discussions on both sides, but he feels strongly 33 that the splash deck is not necessary. 34 35 Motion by Councilmember Gray, seconded by Councilmember Thuesen, to adopt Resolution 09- 36 030; Awarding the Bid for Emerald Park Reconstruction Without the Splash Deck. 37 39 yes— 22, h ays 22 (Sffille and Roth )< Yl®Liam failed. 39 4.0 Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Stille, seconded by Councilmember Roth, to adopt Resolution 09- 41 030; Awarding the Bid for Emerald Park Reconstruction With the Splash Deck, 42_ 43 City Manager Morrison advised if the motion to award the bid for the Emerald Park 44 Reconstruction Project does not pass, his recommendation would be to postpone action on item 45 511 until the next City Council meeting, as there is a cost savings benefit of including the