Agenda - Council - 09/11/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I) Park Commissioner regular meeting minutes dated June 20, 2001. Motion carded. Voting Yes: Chairperson Cook, Commissioners Olds, Johns, LmMere and Ostrum. Voting No: None. COMxYHSSION BUSINESS Case #1: Approve Park Dedication Development Agreement for Centex Addition ParksfUtilities Supervisor Boos stated that at the July I2, 2001 meeting the Park and Recreation Commission agreed that the developer of Centex Addition met the land dedication directives discussed in May, which were shown on the preliminary plat submittal. The Commission had also directed staff to meet with Mr. Dan Blake of Centex Homes to see if a more comprehensive and detailed development agreement could be negotiated wherein park improvements could be caused concurrent with the phasing of the plat. I-Ie presented the proposed development ageement and reviewed the detail of that agreement. Mr. Boos reviewed the advantages of including the improvements as a phase one project and explained that the City's policy is that 50 percent of the park dedication goes into the recreation district where the development is occurring and the other 50 percent goes into the City wide fund, but in th/s case they recognize that due to the size of the development the 50 percent that would typically go into the City wide fund should stay within the development. Motion by Commissioner Ostrum, seconded by Commissioner Johns, to approve the concept of the proposed development ageement for Centex Addition. Motion canded. Voting Yes: Chairperson Cook, Commissioners Ostrum, Johns, LmMere, and Olds. Voting No: None. Motion by Commissioner Ostrum, seconded by Commissioner Johns, that the Park Comm/ssion recognized that the recreational districts are an important mechanism for park development and they further recognize that certain monies may be needed beyond the neighborhoods. The Park Commission recognizes the value of the City wide fund and importance it has to Capital Improvements of that recreational district, but they also realize that this district did not benefit from Capital Improvement Projects or Park Funds when it was originally developed. The Park Commission feels strongly that all funding coming from the Centex development should be used to improve, this recreational district. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Olds. Voting No: None. Chairperson Cook, Commissioners Ostrum, Johns, Ldvlere, and Case #2: Review the Parks Five-Year Capital'I,.mprovements Plan (CIP) Parks/Utilities Supervisor Boos stated that each year dur/ng the summer, the Park and Recreation Commission begins the C~ process by examination of the current five*year plan. The C~ is revised to reflect opportunities and changing priorities, and'proposed projects are added to the last year of the plan, which in this case is 2006. After the Commission is comfortable with the Park and Recreation CommissionA&ugust 9, Page 2 of 5 -164- I I I I I, I I I I I I I