CC_Minutes_2011_1024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 24, 2011 Page 21 Karen Radjek, SW RV Ms. Radjek noted that there was no park close to their home except the Evergreen Park ballfield; and asked that the City Council define the difference between a ballfield and a park, opining that ballfields required a lot of maintenance, while parks didn't. As a life-time member of FOR Parks, Ms. Radjek noted that she was a frequent fundraiser for parks not anywhere near her home simply because she valued parks so much. Ms. Radjek expressed her confusion, with the obvious controversy of both of these issues, why they were grouped together and not con- sidered as separate issues; and opined that residents should be allowed to vote on both issues. Ms. Radjek opined that, without organized sports, parks were less ex- pensive to maintain; and further opined that irrigation systems could actually save water and money in the long run. Ms. Radjek noted the significant volunteer core available in the community, and their creativity in problem solving, as well as ball associations and organizations; and opined that if you participate in those sports, you should help maintain those fields; and again questioned if it was fair to push this through without asking the public to vote on the parks portion. Mayor Roe closed the Public Hearing at approximately 9:35 p.m.; and thanked all for their comments; and reviewed the three (3) actions before the City Council to- night. Council Discussion Mayor Roe summarized and reviewed the questions raised by the public; and asked that Councilmembers address those questions and comments as part of their position statements and approach to the various issues and upcoming requested actions to follow. Mayor Roe asked if the City Council adopted a resolution tonight amending the Plan or adopting the ordinance, was there any restriction that they had to issue the other two (2)bond issues subsequent to the first one. Both Mr. Miller and Ms. Ippel responded negatively. Mayor Roe questioned if the City approved the $10 million bond at this time with the amendment to the Plan, would the City be obligated to issue the other bond is- sues targeted to be issued if proceeding, basically questioning the timing for the second and third bond issues. Mr. Miller noted the tentative time line as set out in the RCA, with $10 million anticipated for issue in November of 2011; with another issue in the spring of 2012, and then depending on a number of factors, returning with another issue the end of 2012 and leading into 2013; with the City Council making the final deter- mination for final consideration and action of remaining bond issues. Mr. Miller advised that the rationale for and structure of this bond issue process and schedule was to allow all $27 million of the financing improvements to be deemed bank