Laserfiche WebLink
Parks and Assistant Public Works Superintendent Riverblood commented that the rectangles use <br />about 330 feet, which is the largest field size. He noted that many sports use smaller fields so that <br />could then work. He stated that there are other elements such as topography and wetlands that <br />hamper some of the other areas. He stated that the full-sized fields could be available for fall <br />soccer or football when there is not the same need for softball. He noted that these are simply <br />concepts to think about possible expansion. <br /> <br />Councilmember Riley stated that the first question was whether the City wanted to buy land, which <br />was not recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission and therefore this appears to be <br />concepts based on what the City could accomplish through park dedication. <br /> <br />Parks and Assistant Public Works Superintendent Riverblood confirmed that initially the Church <br />asked if the City wanted to purchase 11 acres and the Commission was not comfortable purchasing <br />the property without knowing the needs which led to the notion of ghost platting. He stated that <br />input was then received from the Athletic Association as to its needs which led to the discussion <br />related to park dedication through development instead. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove commented that she brought forward expenditures in the budget for <br />last month related to $4,800 for Central Park expansion. She asked for additional details on those <br />costs. She asked if a wetland delineation was recently completed for all City property. <br /> <br />Parks and Assistant Public Works Superintendent Riverblood commented that he did hire a <br />consultant to complete the configurations in order for the Commission to review plausible land use <br />for the park. He stated that the time for the consultant to complete that service, review the City’s <br />wetland delineation, setbacks and other requirements had an hourly cost of $120 and a total cost <br />of about $4,700. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove asked if this process would be followed for any park process and not <br />just this instance. She stated that a while back there was discussion related to the City not needing <br />to purchase land here and instead develop the Lake Itasca Park and asked for additional input. <br /> <br />Parks and Assistant Public Works Superintendent Riverblood commented that it is important to <br />have concept plans for park planning. He stated that the potential for further developing Lake <br />Itasca is still there. He noted that the primary question had more to do with whether to purchase <br />raw land at a cost of $500,000 or whether the Commission would be better served by using those <br />funds in a different manner. He stated that the Commission agreed that planning in more of a <br />strategic manner would make more sense. He stated that there is not real urgency to purchase <br />more land as expansion could fit together with future development. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove commented that this park already has more features such as irrigation <br />and increased parking. She stated that she would like to have more accuracy on how much land <br />would be provided through park dedication and whether there would be an additional land cost to <br />the City. <br /> <br />Parks and Assistant Public Works Superintendent Riverblood noted that additional details related <br />to park dedication would be known when a sketch plan or preliminary plat is actually submitted. <br />City Council Work Session / March 23, 2021 <br />Page 2 of 7 <br /> <br />