Minutes - Environmental Policy Board - 09/10/2007

Home

Environmental Coordinator Anderson stated one of the things that needs to be discussed is generally speaking, does the Board feel the focus should just be on open space. He questioned what should be included. He asked the EPB to begin thinking about that prior to the work session. Acting Chairperson Max asked if Board Member Sibilski was willing to be the spokesperson for the EPB. Board Member Sibilski agreed and stated open space would be his number one priority. The park part of it is already getting funding via park dedication requirements. The EPB may wish to include some funding for restoration to improve the quality of an acquired property or some of the properties we already own. Acting Chairperson Max stated his priority would be to preserve, protect, restore and provide access. The open space needs some accessibility and some learning stations. Board Member Sibilski stated he would want a trail to access the open spaces or another form of accessibility. The trails perhaps could come out of park dedication funds. Acting Chairperson Max stated there are some three-sided kiOSKS with educational information for the residents. It's a passive park land with educational opportunities at a very reasonable pnce. Board Member Harvey stated the land could be purchased with the money from the open space referendum; the money to put a trail to it could be obtained from the park dedication fund. He wouldn't want to see the land developed for a ball field. He questioned whether the uses of land purchased for the open space referendum could be included. Environmental Coordinator Anderson stated the ballot language would have to be very clear and the actual expenditure would be governed by policy. Board Member Harvey stated we are pushing this initiative to protect the land and perhaps the language in the referendum needs to reflect the plan. Board Member Sibilski stated Ms. Pierson would be very helpful as she has done this many times. Acting Chairperson Max stated he has two opinions regarding the parkland. He believes the park system has enough land but it may not be in the correct places. Environmental Coordinator Anderson stated the park dedication requirements were at some point amended to include a cash option so that odd remnant parcels weren't the only option for park land. Also, any parcel that is dedicated as park land has some protections attached to it that make it very difficult to make it anything other than park land. Environmental Coordinator Anderson stated he believes the Park and Recreation Commission has the same vision as the EPB. Board Member Sibilski stated it is a good point because in ten years, a new Council and new commission/board members could determine a different use for the parcels unless the wording is Environmental Policy Board / September 10, 2007 Page 5 of8