My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC - Minutes - City Council - 9/19/2006
>
City Clerk
>
Permanent Records
>
Permanent
>
CC - Minutes - City Council - 9/19/2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2020 12:18:47 PM
Creation date
11/12/2018 2:42:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC - Minutes
Department
City Clerk
Sub
Clerk Records
Content
Minutes
Committee Status
Current
Document Type
City Council
Meeting Type
STUDY SESSION
Meeting Date
9/19/2006
Retention
Permanent
Retention Type
Permanent
Security
Public
Scanner
Conversion
Scan Date
9/19/2006
Record Series
GS1016, #10260
Conversion Meeting Type
STUDY
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Prescott City Council Study Session—September 19,2006 Page 5 <br /> recreation impact fees and could not be used on streets and some cash <br /> money was involved because the plan could not all be attributed to new <br /> growth. <br /> Councilman Roecker noted the city hired consultants for everything and <br /> asked Mr. McCasland if his department had the time and expertise to do <br /> this project and Mr. McCasland responded they had neither the time nor <br /> expertise to do a project of this size. <br /> Diane Simpson Colebank was asked to explain the project and she said <br /> the City of Prescott was their very first client 16 years ago and they had <br /> worked on the previous study and on the design of improvements to <br /> Willow and Watson Lakes;this would be a community plan—not what her <br /> company thought Prescott should have;there would be a lot of input from <br /> the public, citizens committees, stakeholders, special interest groups, etc. <br /> and the first thing to be done was a survey. <br /> Councilman Blair asked what a stakeholder was and what benchmarking <br /> meant and Ms. Colebank replied it was anyone who felt they had an <br /> interest in the process, such as the Little League groups, soccer groups, <br /> the equestrian community, the trails groups, and bicycle groups just to <br /> name a few and to benchmark meant to look 5 to 10 years in the future <br /> and what the future needs might be; Phase I would be gathering input to <br /> understand the citizens' vision and what perceived needs were; Phase II <br /> would be to come up with three alternatives to present to the community; <br /> then the Preliminary Master Plan would be prepared; then look at the <br /> Capital Improvement Plan and how to fund it because you didn't want to <br /> have a plan that couldn't be implemented; the implementation would be <br /> accomplished over a 5 to 10 year period,just as the last plan was; and <br /> would be funded through grants and other funding mechanisms. <br /> Councilman Blair remarked this was not just a parks master plan,but a full <br /> recreational plan and he asked to see the scope of work Logan Simpson <br /> Design would provide. <br /> Mr. McCasland clarified there was a misconception when special interest <br /> groups are mentioned; the community was made up of many special <br /> interest groups - fishing, trails, boating, Little League, soccer, aquatics, <br /> any group interested in a specific activity was a special interest group; <br /> citizens would be able to participate in coming up with what they wanted to <br /> build and have here in 10 years; it took 9 months just to plan for the lakes; <br /> and the plan had to mesh with all the different city plans. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.