Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Park and Recreation Commission Minutes <br />July 19, 1989 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />-------------------------------------- <br /> <br />6. Park Master Plan Interviews <br /> <br />6.1. Dahlgren, Sharlow and Uban <br /> <br />Dahlgren, Sharlow and Uban firm was interviewed at 7:30 p.m. <br /> <br />6.2. Barton-Aschman Association, Inc. <br /> <br />Barton-Aschman Association, Inc. firm was interviewed at 8:10 p.m. <br /> <br />6.3. Sanders and Associates, Inc. <br /> <br />Sanders and Associates, Inc. was interviewed at 8:50 p.m. <br /> <br />6.4. Urbanalysis <br /> <br />Urbanalysis was interviewed at 9:30 p.m. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Following the interviews, a discussion was held by the Commission on the <br />pluses and minuses of each firm and their proposals for an Elk River <br />Parks Master Plan. It was the general feeling of the Park and Recreation <br />Commission that the Sanders and Associates firm could most likely provide <br />the best document at the lowest cost, but it was also the general <br />feeling of the Commission that the Dahlgren, Sharlow and Uban firm would <br />be the most effective group in selling such a plan to the public in order <br />to pass a bond referendum for the funding of park projects. <br /> <br />It was the consensus of the Park and <br />the Barton-Aschman Associates Inc. <br />further consideration for completing <br />PI an . <br /> <br />Recreation Commission to eliminate <br />firm and the Urbanalysis firm from <br />the City of Elk River Parks Master <br /> <br />Discussion took place regarding the need to check references of the <br />Dahlgren, Sharlow and Uban firm and the Sander and Associates, Inc. firm <br />and further that the Commission needed additional input from the City <br />Council as to how many funds were available for the project. This <br />information was required because it was all accepted fact that the <br />Dahlgren, Sharlow and Uban firm would be more expensive than the Sanders <br />and Associates, Inc. firm. The Commission felt comfortable with the <br />Sanders and Associates, Inc. firm size and dollar amount matching the <br />City's needs, but was not confident in that firms ability to sell the <br />plan to the public in order pass a bond referendum. The Commission <br />requested the City Administrator to check references and to discuss the <br />issue with the City Council and to have this issue on its 8/2/89 agenda. <br /> <br />7. <br /> <br />General Review of the 1990 Parks and Recreation Commission Budgets <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The City Administrator indicated that the 1989 Parks and Recreation <br />Commission budgets would look very similar to adopted 1988 budget. There <br />would be modest increases for travel and conference, consulting services <br />and hopefully additional funds for miscellaneous improvement projects <br />that are unexpected. <br /> <br />8. <br /> <br />Other Business <br />