Loading...
2006-11-14 Regular Meeting KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PARKS & RECREATION COMMI REGULAR MEETING -NOVEMBER 14, MINUTES IE rc; IE U WJ IE IR1 JAN J 2 2007 l~ BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Parks & Recreation Committee was called to order at 7:00p.m. by VICE CHAIR FOREMAN on November 14, 2006 in the KIB School District Conference Room. ROLL CALL [~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[~~~~~~~~I~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~] [ Mike Sirofchuck-Chair i i Xi! Duane Dvorak i t::~~p~~)~~~~~~~!~h~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C~:~~~~~~~~~:~:~~~~~~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~~~~~g~~~~!!~~Q~~~!~p~~~~!~Q~P!:~~~~] i Pam Foreman i X! i [ Sheila Smith ! [R~~{~}~~!~!~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~:I:~~~~~~~~~~~~~:I:~~~~~~~~~~~~:~:~~~~~:I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C~~~~~~g~~~~!!~~Q~~~!~p~~~~!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~] ! Jeff Huntley j X! ! I ___ _______ _ ___ _ _ __ _ ________________J [:~~!~I~~:~~E~~~!~!L:::::::::::~:[::::::~::::::::[:::::::::::::::::::::I:::::::::::::::::::C:::::---::-------::::::::::::-:::---:-:::-::::::::--:-:-----------------1 [ Andy Schroeder i X! i [ i t---------------------------------------------------r-------------------1------------------------1---------------------1---------------------------------------------------------------------------1 ! Cassandra Juenger ! ! X!! _______________J r---------------------------------------------------..,.--------------------,------------------------,.---------------------,,----------------------------------------------------------- ., 1 Vacant ! I I I I ~'-"-:",~~-.-.;,..----,..-,..1 A quorum was established. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COMMITTEE MEMBER SALTON STALL MOVED TO APPROVE the agenda as presented. The motion was SECONDED by COMMITTEE MEMBER FOSTER, and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING COMMISSIONER FOSTER MOVED TO APPROVE the minutes of September 12, 2006, September 26, 2006, and October 24, 2006. COMMISSIONER SALTON STALL SECONDED the motion, and it CARRIED unanimous voice vote. AUDIENCE COMMENTS AND APPEARANCE REQUESTS There were no audience comments or appearance requests. OLD BUSINESS A) Draft Recreational Amenities Ordinance COMMITTEE MEMBER FOREMAN said she attended the P&Z Special Work Session. The Commission had a lot of questions regarding one section. She proposed that we figure out how to phrase it so we can get it through Planning & Zoning. 11/1412006 Parks & Recreation Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 10 Dvorak said it was 17.XX.030 General Regulations. He said they wanted to know about the application of the ordinance geographically where it would apply, and the magnitude of subdivision that would kick it in. Dvorak said on the subdivision application form in the fee box it stated up to 12 lots is the rule. After 12 lots the fee goes up. It seemed like a natural dividing line between what we consider a small scale subdivision from a large scale subdivision. There won't be many subdivisions with more than 12 lots in the existing urban suburban area, which leaves retrofitting pocket parks into the existing neighborhoods. For new areas where there are still open spaces, newer large subdivisions would be born with pocket parks built in. This can be a natural trigger, it's already on the fee schedule. COMMITTEE MEMBER SAL TONST ALL suggested making it by the size of the land rather than by the number of lots. Maybe by the acre. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN asked how many lots to an acre. Erin Whipple said 5 lots to an acre in town in Rl or R2. Dvorak stated that looking at subsection B. the last sentence says "improvements are typically only required when specifically identified in a formal land use plan." If we were to adhere to that it would only be applicable when it's including a plan in addition to it's based on a number of lots or lot size. There's more to think about than lot size. COMMITTEE MEMBER SALTONSTALL wondered how to make it always applicable. The developer would have to give money to a pot or it always applies ifthere is more than an acre. COMMITTEE MEMBER FOSTER it's pretty self explanatory, "it shall apply to all lands within a mile of a designated populated area, according to the U.S. Census." For instance, is Old Harbor in the U.S. Census? So we are talking about villages too. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN said that hasn't even come up. COMMITTEE MEMBER SHROEDER pointed out inconsistencies starting with subsection A.- Applicability, "the chapter shall apply to all lands within a mile of a designated populated area," and then in subsection C.-Density Calculations it says "for the first 10 lots created outside of a mile of a designated populated place, 10% of the land shall be dedicated as either a pocket park or open space or any combination of the two." There is nothing that says what applies to the lands within a mile of a designated place. There is no provision here for anything that is within a mile of a designated populated area. Dvorak said we need to take it a section at a time. Building codes apply within a mile of a maintained road system. That applies to Chiniak, Pasagshak, Narrow Cape, Chiniak Highway, Monashka Bay Road, but it doesn't include Saltery Cove Road or Antone Larsen Road. That is our definition of the road system from a building code standpoint. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN said she expects to see development areas come up in Kalsin Bay, Omar's land, and native land that come open. Ifwe don't write this carefully none of this will apply to any ofthose areas. Do we think (inaudible) should apply if there is development of 10 lots or more in Kalsin Bay. Maybe we should look at our intents, are we only talking about already developed areas or are we trying to look far enough into the future to talk about some other areas too. Whipple said we need to tie it to the zoning code because there are urban and rural zones, but zones can be changed. Dvorak said we do want to incorporate pocket parks and open space in for the future, but if you're a mile off the maintained road system then you're probably not in a high traffic area. If you were in a high traffic area you would no longer be a mile off the road system, whatever road you use would be a part of the road system, and if you are that far back off the road chances are you are surrounded by open space. However, in subsection F it says "the following recreational amenities requirements apply to all residential zones." Perhaps in terms of applicability in subsection A. we should say "all residential zones except Conservation." 11 /14/2006 Parks & Recreation Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 10 The Conservation zone has a five acre lot minimum to allow for agriculture, fishing activities, set-net sites, and small scale lodges. With a five acre lot minimum he questions the need for open space amenities in that scenario. When you talk pocket parks, you are talking quasi public amenity. You are talking about people who want services from the Borough, and when people who live on 5 acre lots a mile off the road system don't want services or pay higher taxes. We can't project services to remote comers. If it involves Borough staff planning for these things you have to focus on areas where the highest number of people are. That may be where the census thing came from. He has a hard time grappling with the populated area definition because it's not similar to any of our codes. The expectation of services in rural areas is different. COMMITTEE MEMBER SHROEDER suggests taking Dvoraks' suggestion to try to get something that works for the place that we wrote this ordinance for, the City of Kodiak and the road system. If we inadvertently include some people that should be excluded P&Z will point that out. Tonight we should try to find some kind of metric, whether it's zoning or a number of lots with this mile radius, we figure out applicability, and if the ordinance does apply what should be done. Dvorak said he will just say "within a mile of the maintained road system" He will make notes here. When you talk about road system, you are talking about year round maintenance that requires snow removal or grading in the winter. COMMITTEE MEMBER FOSTER said the only place people are really concentrated is within city limits. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN said today we are, but what happens 10 years from now when this code hasn't changed and Lesnoi land opens up in Middle Bay and Kalsin Bay. COMMITTEE MEMBER FOSTER said we are still limited with the space that we are going. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN asked if we continue the sentence under A. Applicability to say "this chapter shall apply to all lands within a mile of a maintained road system," and strike the rest of the sentence. It was the consensus that all members agreed they liked that language. Dvorak stated the Borough has adopted Parks & Recreations'(inaudible) on a area wide basis, which means the Borough doesn't exercise any park authority within the City of Kodiak or second class cities within the Borough. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN said this is not a Parks & Recreation ordinance. If this passes it becomes a subdivision ordinance. Dvorak said you get to define through the applicability section of where it applies. When we require water and sewer improvements to be made in areas where it's available the subdivider has to create and construct amenities, which are then dedicated back to the public. Same with the roads. This is that type of situation where the land would be dedicated back to the public even though it may be maintained at the local level. The Borough would accept the dedication but we can't accept dedications in other cities. If a pocket park were dedicated in Old Harbor, it would be dedicated back to the city of Old Harbor. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN said it talks about pocket parks being the responsibility of the neighborhoods. Dvorak said to maintain not to own. If you want to have it applicable within the cities then we have to go to the next step and create some clarifying language that says "subject to acceptance by the local community" because the Borough can't accept the dedication within the city limits. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN said in the worst case scenario, the city annexes a lot of land when this is in subdivision code, but we can't enforce it within the City's' new annexed land. Dvorak explained if the land has already been dedicated to the Borough, part of the annexation would cover the transferring of assets. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN said what if it's undeveloped land that they annex. It's Borough land non dedicated, they annex it in then a developer wants to develop it, and then they develop it. Will this apply? 11/14/2006 Parks & Recreation Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 10 Dvorak stated it depends on how it's defined. If you say it's applicable in the city then ultimately the city has to decide whether they are willing to accept the dedication at the time of the subdivision. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN said what if the city won't accept the dedication. Dvorak said it gets more complicated when you have more governments involved. Whipple asked if there can be options if the city doesn't want it can someone else take ownership of that green space, such as a non-profit or the Borough. Is there anything that says the Borough can't own green space in the middle of city limits? Dvorak said there are lots of kinds of ownership. The Borough could buy it and take title to the land, but the Borough can't take a dedication to it. When the property owner dedicates land to the public they don't always get titled the way they normally get titled. A dedication is vacatable through 16.60 of the Borough code. If there is an unused road right of way people can request a vacation. There is always a kind of reservation on that land that it can't be dedicated, but it can be vacated. The Borough doesn't have the same kind of title as it does as when it buys land. COMMITTEE MEMBER FOSTER said in this language if we put "any Borough land that gets turned over to the City that portion of those lands, if there's a subdivision, it does apply. It doesn't have to be owned by the Borough as long as there is a park. COMMITTEE MEMBER SHROEDER said if we leave the city alone (inaudible) jurisdictional issue. Is that where our core lands are and what can we do about those. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN said most subdivision activity has happened outside of city limits. City limits seem to expand after that happens which maybe that solves this problem. FOREMAN asked Dvorak what subsection B Determination of Improvement means. Dvorak stated he recommends striking that and replacing it with "subject to Parks & Recreation Committee review and applicable plans" so it doesn't have to be specific. You could look at the general development pattern-densities, whatever other amenities may be included in that area, what kind of transportation improvements, schools, and so forth. Then you can make a call what kind of need there is on a case to case basis. He doesn't see Borough Land Use Plans as the way to go at this initial stage. On the last page, under Implementation Policies, this is where it talks about dedications for improvements. Dvorak believes some of these amenities if not all of them will be coming to the Parks & Recreation Committee anyway. He feels they should make the call as they see it, just like a required site plan review before the committee. Let the developer take the first cut, and then fine tune it according to the ordinance, assuming they have prepared their site plan in accordance with their interpretation of the ordinance. The committee members were in consensus that sub-section B of the General Regulations shall read "the determination of the type of recreational facility recommended will be as determined by the Parks & Recreation Committee after a public hearing review and will comply with any applicable provisions of any plan designations." Dvorak stated you can choose from the 3 options: open space, pocket park, or trail or path amenity. You get to choose what would be most appropriate or needed amenity in that instance. The reference to applicable provisions of any plan designation doesn't mean you have to be limited to a specific identified park improvement but that you can look at the plan designations and see what works best for that neighborhood or subdivision. You get to pick it on a case to case basis. Dvorak said the goal is to get this on the December Planning & Zoning Commission. agenda. It would be nice to get it back before the commissioners step off because of the end of their term. They have some passing familiarity with this, in particular the commissioners that were at the special work session. We can tune this up at your second meeting assuming everyone will be there. It is already on the December P&Z agenda. We can finish this up at your meeting on November 28th, then circulate it by email, and try to facilitate the review process. 11/14/2006 Parks & Recreation Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 10 VICE CHAIR FOREMAN asked who IS available for our next meeting. Sirofchuck will be back and hopefully Cassandra will be here. Dvorak said he will be gone also. COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOSTER and HUNTLEY said they are leaving a couple of days after Thanksgiving. Dvorak stated this is the only real section that got significant discussion at the work session, and when they referred it back to Parks & Rec they were really talking about just this section. COMMITTEE MEMBER FOSTER said he feels they already have it figured out. What we talked about first worked for him, B. they just took care of, and C. we are going to strike because of A. COMMITTEE MEMBER SHROEDER said to strike C. entirely. COMMITTEE MEMBER FOSTER said it's outside a mile so applicability says we're dealing with a mile. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN said we got rid of that and we focused on the first 10 lots. Sub section C is our spot where we may be able to say how many lots. Not just any subdivision, if someone subdivides and creates only 5 lots is it reasonable to expect them to put a park in. No. Are you going to make this applicable to any size subdivision? She thinks sub section C is where this should be figured out. Get rid of "created outside a mile." "For the first 10 lots created 10% of the land shall be dedicated as either a pocket park or open space, or any combination of the two." Is that how you want to phrase it? VICE CHAIR FOREMAN asked Dvorak if we had already covered this. Dvorak said when he looks at 17.XX.040 Pocket Parks sub section A, pocket parks shall be at least ~ acre. If he is looking at 10 % of land area ~ acre is about 10,000 square feet and some change. If we are talking about 10% of 11,000 then you are talking about 111,000 square feet, it is about 2 to 2 12 acres. COMMITTEE MEMBER SAL TONST ALL said 2 12 acres is about 10 lots. Whipple said in an R zone. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN said if she has 2 acres in an urban area, 2 acres equals about 10 lots. Is it reasonable to expect that she will take 10% of that 2 acres, which comes up to 8,712 square feet. Is it reasonable to expect she would take slightly better than 1 lot? COMMITTEE MEMBER FOSTER said it is ~ acre. Whipple said it is not ~ acre. Dvorak was saying 10% doesn't necessarily equal ~ acre. If you go for 10% and leave pocket park at ~ acre you may never get a pocket park, you may get a green space or a trail. Dvorak said he doesn't know why we have 3 options here when sub section C only offers pocket parks or open space or any combination of the two. Why aren't we taking advantage of all three options. COMMITTEE MEMBER SHROEDER agrees with Dvorak and would also add trails, and once we end up with square footage, the minimum which is about.2 acres or about 9,000 square feet. We know the developer is not going to want to improve it, but we will be the body that allows him to leave it as an open space. Maybe we can set additional criteria for once this kicks in if it's 8,000 or 9,000 square feet they can leave it as open space, once it gets to 20,000 square feet they can do some real improvements on the land or a trail. It becomes more meaningful once the square footage increases. The more the developer develops in the area the more we need a recreational amenity. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN said Schroeder is saying that is the point where some kind of financial amenity kicks in. COMMITTEE MEMBER SHROEDER said since we have this review capability, we have our guidelines but what we expect from this set aside our expectations will be based on the surrounding populations, size of 11/14/2006 Parks & Recreation Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 10 area, and the proximity of other amenities. We can set our criteria for what will be done with the set aside land. Dvorak said the language for sub section C in striking the first part of the sentence to the point of 10%, so it reads "10% of the land shall be dedicated as either a pocket park, open space, pedestrian way, or any combination of the three." You get 10% and if it turns out 10% is less than l4 acre then you can't take advantage of that option. However, if you end up with more than l4 acre you could have a pocket park or any combination of the three as you see fit. You look at the plan and at the context, and then decide what amenities are needed. Whipple asked if that was 10% regardless of how much land they are developing or how many lots they are creating. Dvorak said 10% is at least a way to trigger this. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN said if they develop an acre then the 10% kicks in too, is that what you are saymg. Dvorak stated yes. Whipple said the only concern she would have is if someone comes in with a large lot, 16,000 square feet and wants to split it in half. Does he still have to give 10%? A lot of what comes through is people who originally purchased a large lot, in an area where the minimum lot size is 7,200 square feet, and they've decided to subdivide in half to sell the other half to his brother in law. There should be a minimum at which this kicks in. Dvorak referred to the subdivision application form and said we have different subdivision procedures. Where it says staff use only, there is the preliminary plat procedure up to 12 lots, and the 12 lots only applies to the fee schedule. Preliminary plat procedure is the same regardless of the number of lots. Below that is the abbreviated plat procedure, it is for small scale subdivisions where you may be moving a lot line or you can subdivide up to 4 lots which includes the remainder of the mother parcel. Another sentence would be appropriate to say" 1 0% of the land area shall be dedicated as either a pocket park, open space, pedestrian way or any combination of the three. This chapter will not apply to subdivisions which qualify for the abbreviated plat procedure." VICE CHAIR FOREMAN repeated it for clarification, "this chapter shall not apply to subdivision eligible for the abbreviated plat procedure." Is that correct? Dvorak said yes. It was the consensus for sub-section C of General Regulations to read "10% of the land area shall be dedicated as wither a pocket park, open space, pedestrian way or any combination of the three. This chapter will not apply to subdivisions which qualify for the abbreviated plat procedure." COMMITTEE MEMBER SHROEDER asked if our working number is 5. Whipple said it means your working number is 28,800 sq. ft., or 4 lots, or just over 12 acre. COMMITTEE MEMBER SHROEDER asked if it is truly pocket parks, open space, or any combination of the three, are we going to have any guidelines for what the improvements shall be. Are there any provisions for us to influence what they do with open space? VICE CHAIR FOREMAN asked if they want to put guidelines in that tell us or future counterparts that there should be some requirements that there are some improvements. Whipple said that's what the review is. COMMITTEE MEMBER SHROEDER asked if we influence it or do we let it happen. We could say we don't have any trails here or open spaces. We want only 5% of your land, but we want you to improve it. 11/14/2006 Parks & Recreation Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 10 Whipple asked Dvorak if this ordinance will provide this kind of flexibility. Dvorak stated he doesn't know, it's one of those ordinances that until it's actually tested by the public and developers, it's kind of hard to anticipate. He thinks they have crafted a fairly flexible program. Whipple said from start to where you are now, is to have something that doesn't have a house on it. If it never gets playground equipment on it or geo-surfaced across the trail there will still be an open space. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN proposed they move on from C and go to D. Dvorak stated this refers to the nature of subdivision where you could have different forms of ownership, such as partnerships. For example, two different property owners who own 5 acres each, but they wanted to develop a 10 acre subdivision. They will vacate the lot line between their 2 parcels, and then make 20 lots. When we get the final plat, we get the certificate to plat which is like a limited title search and it will say as to parcel 1 these are the owners, and it could be husband and wife have the fee ownership and then the beneficial interest may be assigned to Wells Fargo Mortgage Company. As to parcel B, it could be owned by a single developer in fee simple with no mortgages. So there are 2 parcels owned by 2 different parties that came together for one project. The numbers will be crunched on the whole project. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN asked for any comments on D and E. She then read sub section E. Dvorak said it's a variation ofthe theme. With the language change in C it is clearly all three options, it just restates it. Sub section B supports this. It sends a message to the developer that he could propose a mix and match scenario. He suggests leaving E alone. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN stated we would review it under B, make a recommendation to the commission, and then the commission would have the final say. In B, do we need to make a reference that after this public hearing review Parks & Rec makes its recommendation to the commission? Dvorak said sub section B will read "the type of recreational facility recommended to the Planning & Zoning Commission will be determined by the Parks and Recreation Committee." VICE CHAIR FOREMAN read sub section F. She asked Dvorak ifhe recommended removing Conservation zones. Dvorak stated this should be considered for removal .It should apply to all residential zones except Conservation. It's a 5 acre lot minimum and is intended for really rural areas. COMMITTEE MEMBER SALTON STALL asked about Boy Scout Lake. Whipple (inaudible) Dvorak stated the bulk of that property is currently zoned R2. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN said part of the Comprehensive Plan process is to look at things and determine whether there are some recommendations for zoning and code changes, if we are specifically referring to the Conservation zone here assuming it means what it currently means which is 5 acres, and then it changes. Would we automatically go back to review this again. Dvorak stated if the Conservation zone were changed we would need to go back and do a global word search. This caveat would only apply within 1 mile of the road system. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN asked what the residential zones are. Dvorak stated there's Rl, R2, and R3. Then there's RRl and RR2. COMMITTEE MEMBER TCHERSICH (inaudible) VICE CHAIR FOREMAN asked if we need to tweek pocket parks shall be at least a ~ acre in area based on our previous conversation that is under the next 17.XX.040. This is now subdivision. 11/14/2006 Parks & Recreation Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 10 Dvorak said the next time you see this it will be 16.XX and oriented in a new chapter in the subdivision code. Whipple said because this is suppose to be ADA accessible you might want to talk to Engineering & Facilities to find out what the smallest pocket parks with benches, trash cans, and that sort of thing are because there are new standards for playground equipment. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN asked Dvorak ifhe has any recommendations for the size thing. Dvorak stated a ~ acre is 10,890 square feet. If you wanted to round it out you could. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN said she wants to have it clear. She has a Yz acre and 10% would be 26,000 sq. ft., so on a Yz acre subdivision this wouldn't happen. Whipple said a Yz acre subdivision is barely going to meet your minimum. Dvorak said that figure is 21,780 sq. ft, and 2,178 sq. ft. would be 10% of that. COMMITTEE MEMBER SALTONSTALL said the smallest we're going to get is 2800. Whipple said you are not excluding people with smaller sizes from putting other developments in there. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN said she is trying to clarify when we're required to (inaudible). Whipple said some developers if they have to give up the land may very well go to the expense (inaudible) open spaces or putting in some. COMMITTEE MEMBER SALTONSTALL said a pocket park means it's going to have to be a subdivision bigger that 2 Yz acres. COMMITTEE MEMBER SHROEDER excused himself from the meeting at 8:40. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN asked what is the key to kick in an abbreviated plat review. Dvorak stated the abbreviated plat procedure is established in KIBC 16.30 and you have to be creating 4 lots or less to qualify. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN asked Dvorak if everything would be changed to reflect Title 16. Dvorak stated in terms of formatting, we can make the edits or we can do a markup to allow for edits to be seen. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN asked Dvorak to tweek it with the tracking capabilities, and if it's possible to get it to us a couple days before the next meeting. B) Safe Routes to School Presentation Dvorak stated to save time he will email the PowerPoint presentation to the members. The Trail Improvement Technical Assistance grant from National Park Service will be contacting us to set up a program, but in the meantime, they sent us material that talk about kids getting to school. Dvorak will email this material to the members also. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN proposed to keep Safe Routes to School on the agenda under Old Business for next time in case someone has trouble viewing the presentation. NEW BUSINESS A) Parks Budget Review Dvorak stated this was an item that was requested by Cassandra Juenger, our newest member, and she wanted to know what the parks maintenance budget is. COMMITTEE MEMBER JUENGER was going to come up with a work plan for the rest of the fiscal year after looking at how much money is available, and discussing where the money should be spent to get our parks back into shape. We obtained these from the 11/1412006 Parks & Recreation Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 10 department budget. Parks operation and maintenance is part of Engineering & Facilities, it's part of Building and Grounds, and it has 1 maintenance person, Dave Weinand, for all buildings and grounds. The budget has $6,900 in contracted services for things like plowing and graveling the parking lot in the winter. If we hire someone to do things that Weinand can't do then that money comes from contracted services. What you have is $16,065 for the entire year of park operations and maintenance of which we have spent $4,934.57 as of the date of this printout. We've expended 24% of the budget and that represents about 1/3 the year. You can see the breakdown, and on the last page you will see some journal entries that represent hiring someone for repairs. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN asked what the total amount of acreage of parks. Dvorak said rather than coming up with some sort of work program for the rest of this year, staff's recommendation is if you want to get into the business of making recommendations on the day to day operations of park maintenance is to think next fiscal year. Try to get into next fiscal years' budget some serious dollars and come up with a plan of how it will be applied. Lastly, follow it along through the process to the Commission and then to the Assembly. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communications. REPORTS A) Meeting schedule: . November 28,2006 regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the KIB School District Conference Room. . December 12, 2006 regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the KIB School District Conference Room. Dvorak stated the Borough web site is being updated. The list of Parks & Rec Committee member hasn't been updated for some time. Committee members should check out the website from time to time, and notify staff if you see anything that needs updating. The website address is www.kib.co.kodiak.ak.us.Itis part of our new web re-design, we will be getting a new user friendly address that is a lot smaller. Dvorak also said the consultants will be here in December. If you are on their list you should have been notified already. Dvorak announced that Bud Cassidy will be the new Community Development Director once a replacement is hired for Engineering and Facilities. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN finds it very encouraging that someone local has been hired. VICE CHAIR FOREMAN encourages everyone to attend the Comp Plan meeting. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. COMMITTEE MEMBER'S COMMENTS Kevin Foster said he will be going out of town, and probably won't be here for the December 12th meeting. Foster inquired about teleconferencing the meetings and would like the packet emailed to him early so he can be up to speed during the teleconference. Pam Foreman said we already asked for a draft of Recreational Amenities so we could have time to review it, and it would save us time if people could read the minutes and packet ahead of time. If nothing else, setting the agenda is between the chair and staff. Dvorak stated he suggests setting a target for what day you need it by in order to have time to read it. If we don't have a clear target it's hard for us to make it happen. We will start with the agenda and see how that goes. 11/14/2006 Parks & Recreation Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 10 Kevin Foster said for him the agenda would be fine, just so he knows what is going on at the meeting. Pam Foreman said how about the agenda by Monday afternoon, if not Tuesday morning at the latest. If there are things like the Recreational Amenities then Monday afternoon so we have at least a day. Don't worry about the minutes just send the packet material. Jeff Huntley said some of the members are about to expire. Is the process still the same? Smith said the Clerk's office has the applications. Andy Schroeder asked when they have to apply by. Pam Foreman said the Assembly will review committee appointments in December. Dvorak stated they cancelled their 2nd meeting in November, but they need to have the appointments done before the end of the year. Their next meeting is December 2 with the work session 1 week prior on November 28th and the agenda deadline is the Friday before that, which would make it Thanksgiving week. There is also an outstanding vacancy so go out there and collar some people. Hans Tchersich said the minutes from September 26th should show him as excused. Pam Foreman said she attended the P&Z Special Work Session. They were digging in depth trying to finalize the Womens Bay Comp Plan. Part of the conversation was concern about Jack & Lee Lakes area, and trying to come up with a realistic trail plan for that specific area because it's like a corridor for ATV users and some motocross bike users. She thinks they will be coming to this committee looking for some ideas and help on trying to come up with a realistic plan that will accommodate the needs of the users. Foreman suggested having a Bells Flats person on the committee. Take a look at the comprehensive plan. Foreman will not be here for the P&Z meeting on December 20th" but she will be here for the work session on December 13th. ADJOURNMENT VICE CHAIR FOREMAN requested a motion to adjourn. COMMITTEE MEMBER HUNTLEY MOVED TO ADJOURN the regular meeting. The motion was SECONDED by COMMITTEE MEMBER SAL TONST ALL, and CARRIED by unanimous voice vote. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. By: ATTEST \S)\\f'AOn ~~ Sheila Smith, Secretary Community Development Department KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH P ARKS ~ RECREA TI0N CO MITTEE ~/ ./ I . . <-, ,- By: i I ',..'/ . .... ( [Mike Sirofchuck, Chair DATE APPROVED: January 9,2007 11/14/2006 Parks & Recreation Meeting Minutes Page100f10