03-20-85 Parks Comm Minutes4:10 P.M. CITY DEVELOPMENT/ March 20, 1985
PARKS COMMITTEES
The combined committees met on this date in the Conference Room at City Hall. Present
• were City Development Chairman Saverud and member of both committees C. Manning; Parks
Chairman Springer and committee member Nystul, Mayor McDowell, CDC Director Gallagher
and Roger Hopkins, DIL.
Complex Selection
C. Saverud chaired the meeting, the purpose of which was to discuss complex site selec-
tion and an evaluation process for future park selections.
C. Manning stated that he felt we need some form to be used an evalative tool to con-
sider all things such an ingress, egress, proximity of roads, school, etc. in the plan-
ning area.
C. Springer said that he questions the need for, the value of, and the time consumption
involved in a lengthy evaluation criteria. When talking about a recreational facility
for the benefit of the City, why delay sending it off to various committees --somewhere
the City Council has to make a decision and be accountable for it. He agrees that in
annexations there is an absolute need for that type check list, but here we are looking
at acquisition of property for the use and benefit of the city.
C. Manning stated that he is looking for some way to get input from a check list when
the change of use of land, sale of land or acquisition of land is involved to determine
whether use is compatible to long range planning of.the community ... a means to take in-
to consideration things which may otherwise be overlooked.
C. Nystul stated that he does not object to preparing an outline of things to be con-
sidered such as distance from city, ingress and egress, utilities, present use,contour,
etc. He suggests asking various departments to consider and comment on acquisition/
• location of a facility being placed on a parcel of land. This input will give a reason-
able basis of departments responding to what affects them.
Administratively, C. Saverud states that we should be doing this. The chief executive
of the City, probably, should present the Council with a proposal including pros, cons,
staff input -both positive and negative comments- and ask for Council decision. We
should start to implement that process. We have technical people on the payroll, pro-
fessional people who have to deal with the consequences of Council decisions on a day-
to-day basis. We ought to get their input in this process. He agrees that we should
not have a lengthy, time-consuming boondoggle. Tell department heads we are consider-
ing a particular piece of property for a particular purpose, give them a week or 10
days to get input to the Mayor's office. He will then compile and present results to
Council.
C. Springer agreed that proposals should start with committee, be given to staff with
minimum points to address --with a time limit -in an outline, and be brought back to
committee. In his estimation, establishing such a format is literally, the first
affirmative step towards uniform organization.
Motion
C. Springer moved that C. Manning be delegated the authority to produce that kind of
format. Seconded by C. Saverud. All voted aye. C. Manning will bring the first
draft of the outline back to committee.
After a brief discussion by CDC Director Gallagher on the progress of the proposed
Post Office sites, the meeting adjourned at 4:40 P. M.
Markie Sabol
Recording Secretary