PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
January 11, 2006
Present: Commissioners D. Amarotico, Eggers, Gardiner, Lewis, Rosenthal; Director Robertson; Superintendent Gies; Superintendent Teige; City Council Liaison A. Amarotico
Gardiner called the study session to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Parks Office,
Robertson reminded commissioners that a park master plan is a guide developers utilize to navigate through the park planning and development process. He requested feedback from commissioners on various elements outlined by the landscape architect, which he stated the architect would use, in addition to his own expertise, in the creation of the final park master plan design.
Discussion Among Commissioners
Commissioners again reviewed each of the three plans (A, B, and C), comparing and contrasting various features. As with the previous study session, they focused primarily on elements in plans B and C. Robertson summarized his understanding of the thoughts expressed by the commission at the previous study session. Due to time constraints, the group was not able to review all of the items and they agreed to continue the discussion at a subsequent study session.
Items discussed included the kids’ play area, community garden (size and location) and its potential expansion, riparian areas and buffers around them, the barn, and open areas.
Commissioners debated adding more community garden plots at the site and suggested a 33% expansion of the area.
Several citizens provided input, especially in terms of the community garden portion of the park site. The commission agreed to continue the discussion at the February study session.
COMMUNITY GARDEN POLICY
Teige reported that the Community Garden Subcommittee met four times for the purpose of formulating a draft policy for the garden. She thanked the subcommittee members for their involvement, read aloud the proposed policy, and requested feedback from the commission.
Discussion Among Commissioners
Commissioners expressed various opinions about the draft policy. The topic of tenure (limited versus unlimited) was debated at length. Most commissioners expressed a desire for unlimited tenure, as staff records indicated that waiting lists for plots moved fairly quickly and the “core group of gardeners/volunteers” (who would be evicted from the garden should tenure limits be imposed) were invaluable to the garden in terms of its educational elements and its long-term vision.
Several citizens provided input, strongly expressing their desire for unlimited tenure and for future expansion of community gardening opportunities within the city.
Staff agreed to review the draft policy again at the January regular meeting, adding the requests expressed by commissioners. Commissioners agreed to come to the meeting prepared to debate each item and to give a final vote.
BUDGET – PROSPECTIVE GOALS
Robertson reported that he met with the five commissioners individually and prepared a “Prospective Goals” document based on those discussions. He distributed that document, along with a list of revenues and expenditures for the Parks Department dated November 2005. Finally, he volunteered to write a press release outlining the 2006-2007 budget process and inviting citizens to attend the January 23 regular meeting and provide input to the process.
ADJOURNMENT – By consensus, with no further business, Gardiner adjourned the meeting at 9:05 PM.
Respectfully submitted, Susan Dyssegard,