Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(2) <br />bonding indebtedness limits. He further stated three alternativeso <br />l.) with the School District 2.) with surrounding villages and <br />cities and 3i) with private enterprises and added that perhaps there <br />could be more, especially with special interest .groups such as Lake <br />Region. Gunderman felt that the City of New Brighton, even if it <br />wanted to, does not have enough money to build an arena alone. .Lake <br />Region asked if it were possible to work the arena into the 5-year <br />plan. Gunde"rman stated that ~.t would be up to the Council and not the <br />Park Board and that monies available already have priorities. Dahl <br />added that many of the projects that the Park Board has in the .Capital <br />Improvements Budget are for relatively fewer dollars and feels there <br />is nothing to trade off for the amount of expenditure for an ice arena, <br />perhaps a feasibility study. Smith discussed the merits ~f various <br />types of bonding programs. He stated we must be realistic about what <br />an arena will do in New Brighton and that zt must be more than a hockey <br />facility ... such as a civic center. <br />Dick Keister, representing Lake Region Hockey from New Brighton, <br />expressed his group's interest in an ice arena in the City. He <br />explained to the Board that the group would like to see a continuing <br />plan which would probably involve a feasibility study. <br />Gunderman expressed that a need exists for those most directly concerned <br />to become involved or there is no chance for action. Suggestions from <br />Sullivan, Weissman and Dahl concluded that a committee must be formed <br />to work year-round with all alternatives and possible fundings, <br />including joint action with other municipalities or school districts. <br />29th Street and Vermont Preliminary Concept Approval - Gunderman <br />stated that the purpose was to come up wi h tenative plans that the <br />Park Board can take to the citizens next month as their final suggesti~. <br />Park Board reviewed the park schematics for both sites Residents <br />representing the 29th Street site offered their suggestions and criti- <br />cisms of the tenative plan. A primary concern was the loss of trees. <br />It was requested that the Department investigate the street vacation <br />of 29th Street N.W. and making the site one park instead of two <br />separate pieces of land. <br />Motion by Smith for closing 29th Street N.W., if that is what the area <br />residents desire. Seconded by Dahl. Motion carries> Ll- - ayes, <br />0 - nayes. <br />Gunderman commented that it was vitally important that the area <br />residents of the 29th Street site decide whether or not to keep the <br />debated-upon trees. Dick Ginkel asked that long-range needs be <br />considered in the final drafting of the plans. <br />Dahl brought up the fact that the hard-court area at the Vermont site <br />was deleted on the park schematics and was originally requested by <br />the area residents. It was felt that the plan should be redesigned to <br />scale and to include the hard-court area, if space permitted. Gunder- <br />man added that the proposed funding does dictate planning for this site. <br />