Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutP&RAC Minutes 1992 09/14PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 I. ROLL CALL AND CALL TO ORDER. Chair Killen called the meeting to order at 7:30pm. Committee members Martens, Grote and Coyle answered the roll call. Chair declared a quorum present. Also attending were Melanie Krumm - Recreation Department, Mr. Dorrell Larson - Garnett Beach Homeowners Association, and Mr. Jerome Mapp of Ida-Ore Planning and De'~,elopment Association. II. PARKS AND RECREATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT - JEROME MAPP, IDA-ORE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION. Mr. Mapp explained that he had been asked to take over and finish the City of McCall's comprehensive plan that had been started in 1987. At this time Chair took a break from the comprehensive plan and informed Mr. Dorrell Larson that the committee had just received the City Attorney's legal opinion on the Garnett Dock situation. Chair, with consent of the committee decided to defer the Gamett Dock issue to the next meeting as to have time to review the City's legal opinion. Mr. Larson and Mr. Dave Dean will be notified as to the date and time of the next meeting. Committee discussed problems with the draft master plan including pages needing to be numbered, objectives being the committees master plan goals, the long length of the plan, the differences between a Master Plan and a Comprehensive Plan, the terminology of goals, policies and mission statements, and consistencies as to weather this is for Valley County or the impact area. Chair with consent of the committee ask for the draft to be reduced in size, a tenth(10) goal be added, and the draft be faxed to member Grote for distribution prior to next meeting. III. MINUTES -AUGUST 18, 1992 After review and discussion Grote moved to adopt the August 18, 1992 minutes with minor format and spelling corrections(adopted copy attached). Seconded by Martens, and the motion carried. IV. STAFF REPORTS a. Committee received copy of last months minutes with Council action items attached. Very helpful. b. Krumm had with her a written summer evaluation. Committee asked to have a copy attached to the next meetings agenda. In addition committee asked for the following to be attached to the next meetings agenda. 1. Policy for volunteer coaches. 2. 92-93 proposed budget. 3. Written report on Toys for Tots Battle of the Bands. 4. Krumm's internship report. 5. Recreation Directors summer evaluation and user hour figures. V. NEW BUSINESS a. Ballard Smith - Purchase of swing set for Legacy Park. Chair to contact Administrator on status of the swing set, Mill Park the preferred site. Old McDonald's equipment discussed. b. David and Susan Schuff - Purchase of picnic table for Legacy Park. Money to be donated upon City's commitment to purchase the remaining five(5). c. Open container law in McCall parks. After discussion of the current open container law in McCall Parks Grote moved to request City Council's approval for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee investigate alternatives to the current ordinance, that would allow responsible alcohol consumption in city parks. Seconded by Martens, and the motion carried unopposed. VI. OLD BUSINESS. a. Brian Chapman memorial drinking fountain. Member Coyle quoted a price of $549.00 dollars to purchase the handicapped accessible drinking fountain. Chair will contact Mrs. Chapman with this figure, after checking with Bill Keating - Public Works Department. b. Legal Opinions on Garnett Beach, Muir/Gould dock building, and Davis Beach docks deferred to next meeting. Having just received the legal opinion. c. Report on Toys for Tots - Battle of the Bands. To be attached to next agenda. d. Sportsman's Dumpster. Grote reported that Mr. Findlay does want to cut the tree near the dumpster down. Furthermore Mr. Findlay in upset with the fact that he did not receive a phone call about the plans to locate a Volleyball Court at its current location. After discussion concerning the possible request for legal action committee decided to put this issue on the next agenda and ask Mr. Findlay to attend. e. Old Golf Course Clubhouse appraisal. Is it in the new 1993 budget? f. Free Bird House from Mrs. Frazee. City Council approved last meeting chair to contact. VII. MASTER PLAN. a. Chair with consent of committee decided to look at objectives 1-4 at their next meeting. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS. a. Payette Lakes Trail System Report. National Guard will be working on September 26-27, October 3-4. One(l) mile last year, plus two(2) miles this year of prepared path on Warren Wagon Road. County to pave next year. Bridge in place at Dead Horse Creek. Grant prepared in spring may still have life with Department of Transportation. Chair will continue to follow. b. Chair informed committee that she wants to step down from the Chair responsibilities. Committee asked staff to report on the following at their next meeting. 1. Term of office for members in the committee. 2. Committee By Laws. c. Planting of 1500 Daffodil Bulbs. Committee decided that the bulbs could be placed at Legacy Park, Mill Park or along border at Rotary Park. IX. NEXT MEETING. October 19, 1992 - 7:30pm. Items for next agenda. 1. Review Recreation Program. 2. Committee By Laws. Respec~ully Submitted Kathy Killen, Chair Committee discussed the congestion created by the Triathlon and the exclusive use of the park and informed staff that next years Triathlon is to make a presentation to the committee if they desire to use Rotary Park. 6. BIRD HOUSE - FRAZEE Chair informed the committee that Mrs. Frazee had approached her and offered the city a fairly large bird house if they would like to put in the new park. Committee discussed locations it could be placed and decided they would have to see the bird house prior to finding a location, but all agreed it could make a nice addition to the park. Grote moved to recommend council accept the offer of a free bird house from Mrs. Frazee. Seconded by Scoff and the motion carried. VIII. OLD BUSINESS 1. Dock building on parkway - status of Muir, Gould leases. Committee discussed the rumor that Mr. Gould was planning on having several logging truck loads dumped during the winter due to his having $86,000 worth of dock building orders for 1993. Committee went on to discuss their concerns with the current operations including the following problems; a. Truck traffic on the bike path. b. Gould's expanding business c. The question as to whether or not this is appropriate use. d. The extreme mess. e. The inappropriate use of the public lake front. f. Safety concerns. g. No monetary charge or written agreement. Committee all agreed it is imperative to have a legal opinion immediately on this inappropriate use of the public lake front. Grote moved to recommend council direct city legal staff to immediately develop a legal opinion concerning the city's policy and written agreements which may exist with Muir, and Gould anyone else along the parkway. Seconded by Scott and the motion carried unopposed. 2. Sportsman's Dumpster It has come to the attention of the committee that the Sportsman's owners may be trying to have the large tree on the South West corner of Legacy park cut down. Grote volunteered with consent of the committee to have a talk with the owners to discover their position on the tree as well as the dumpster. Chair informed the committee she has talked with the Health Department concerning the dumpster and they are investigating. YOUTH PROGRAMS SUMMER EVALUATION 1992 BY MELANIE KRUMM PEE-WEE TEE-BALL 1. THIS PROGRAM WAS HANDLED BY MELANIE KRUMM, SCOTT SWAN, AND JEAN FITZGERALD. THE THREE COACHED AND INSTRUCTED THE DIFFERENT TEE-BALL TEAMS. 2. THE LENGTH OF THE SESSIONS WAS 30 MINUTES. THE TIME OF THE SESSIONS ARE HELD SHORT DUE TO THE SHORT ATTENTION SPAN OF THESE PARTICIPANT AGES 6-8 YEAR OLDS. 3. SKILLS THAT WERE TAUGHT ARE THE FOLLOWING: BATTING, THROWING, RUNNING BASES, SLIDING, POSITIONS, AND HOW TO EXECUTE A PLAY TO 1ST AND 2ND BASES. 4. ALL TEE-BALL GAMES WERE HELD ON THE GRASS IN THE OUTFIELD OF "A". THIS SEEMS TO WORK WELL BY USING A SMALLER PLAYING FIELD. 5. TEE-BALL WAS HELD AT 12:30-1:15, AND AT 1:30-2:15 6. THE COST FOR THIS PROGRAM WAS $12.00. MINOR LEAGUE BASEBALL 1. THERE WERE THREE TEAMS INVOLVED IN THE MINOR LEAGUE THIS YEAR. WITH A RANGE OF 15-19 PARTICIPANTS ON EACH TEAM. 2. COACHES FOR THESE TEAM WERE VOLUNTEERS IN THE COMMUNITY MOSTLY PARENTS OF THE PLAYERS. 3. EACH TEAM WAS SPONSORED BY LOCAL BUSINESS AND RECEIVED T-SHIRTS AND HATS. 4. THE TEAMS TRAVELED AND PLAYED AGAINST OTHER TEAMS FROM RIGGINS, NEW MEADOWS, COUNCIL, AND CASCADE IDAHO. 5. EQUIPMENT WAS HANDED OUT TO COACHES ON THE FIRST DAY OF PRACTICE MAY 22, AT FAIRWAY PARKS BY CRAIG BAKER. 6. RULES WERE ESTABLISHED BY THE HEARTLAND LITTLE LEAGUE. 7. AGE GROUP IS 10YEAR OLDS AND UNDER. 8. THE MINOR LEAGUE PLAYED ALL OF THERE GAMES ON "B' FIELD. A. PITCHING 40 FT. B. CATCHERS MUST WEAR GEAR. C. STEALING IS ALLOWED ONLY IF THE BALL GETS PAST THE CATCHER. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL 1. THERE WERE THREE TEAMS INVOLVED. 2. TEAMS WERE SPONSORED BY BUSINESS AND COACHED BY VOLUNTEER PARENTS. 3. TEAMS COMPETED AGAINST RIGGINS , NEW MEADOWS, COUNCIL, AND CASCADE. 4. TEAM WERE HANDLED OUT EQUIPMENT AT THERE FIRST PRACTICE BY CRAIG BAKER. 5. RULES AND REGULATION WERE ESTABLISHED BY THE HEARTLAND LITTLE LEAGUE 6. AGE GROUP IS 13 YEAR OLDS AND UNDER. 7. THE MAJORS PLAYED THE MAJORITY OF THERE GAMES ON "A" FIELD. A. PITCHING 46 FT. B. HELMETS WERE REQUIRED BY ALL BASE RUNNERS. C. STEALING AND LEADING OFF IS ALLOWED ONLY AFTER TIdE BALL HAS CROSSED HOME PLATED. 8. THE SESSION WAS STARTED EARLIER THIS YEAtL TO HELP CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THE SUMMER MONTHS. THE SESSION WAS STARTED ON MAY 18TH AND RAN THROUGH THE SECOND WEEK OF JULY. GIRLS SOFTBALL JUNIOR LEAGLrE 1. AGE GROUP 12 YEAR OLD AND UNDER. 2. COACHED BY VOLUNTEER PARENTS. 3. PLAYED AGAINST RIGGINS, NEW MEADOWS, COUNCIL, AND CASCADE. 4. RULES WERE ESTABLISHED BY THE HEARTLAND LITTLE LEAGUE AND J.O. SOFTBALL ASSOCIATION. 4. PITCHING DISTANCE WAS 35 FT. 5. NUMBER OF INNINGS PLAYED 5 6. 8 RUN RULE PER INNING WAS THE MAXIMUM SENIOR LEAGUE 1. AGE GROUP 15 YEAR OLDS AND UNDER 2. COACHED BY PARENTS AND SPONSORED BY LOCAL BUSINESS. 3. PLAYED AGAINST THE SAME TEAMS AS THE JUNIOR GIRLS DID. 4. RULES WERE VERY SIMILAR WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS. A. PITCHING DISTANCE 40FT B. NUMBER OF INNING PLAYED 6. C. STEALING AND LEADING OFF IS ALLOWED. UMPIRES WERE THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE: SCOTT SWAN, ROBERT DOBSON, TED EPLEY, KEVIN BOLLAR, AND MELANIE KRUMM SKY HAWK SOCCER CAMP 1. HAS BEEN VERY POPULAR, HOWEVER THIS YEAR THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH INTEREST THIS CAMP WAS CANCELLED DUE TO LACK OF PARTICIPATION. 2. ONE FACTOR THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR NEXT YEAR IS TO ADVERTISE MUCH MORE TO DRAW INTEREST IN THE COMMUNITY. 3. THERE WERE ONLY 22 PLAYERS SIGNED UP FOR THIS SKYHAWK CAMP. SUMMER SOCCER LEAGUE 1. ALL GAMES WERE PLAYED AT FAIRWAY PARK. 2. THIS PROGRAM WAS ORGANIZED BY MELANIE KRUMM. THERE WERE TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO HELPED INSTRUCT AND REFEREE THE SOCCER GAMES. SCOTT SWAN AND JEAN FITZGERALD. HAVING JUST THREE INSTRUCTORS WORKED OUT JUST FINE. ONE INDIVIDUAL COULD TAKE A BREAK WHILE THE OTHER TOW COACHED A GAME. 3. THE FIRST FOUR DAY OF THE SEASON WE SPENT IN CLINIC. DUE TO THAT FACT THAT NOBODY ATTENDED THE SKYHAWK CAMP. 4. THERE WERE FOUR (4) JUNIOR SOCCER TEAMS, FIVE (5) MIDGET SOCCER TEAMS, AND FIVE (5) PEE-WEE SOCCER TEAMS. 5. THE DWFERENT AGE GROUPS PLAYED AT THE FOLLOWING TIME. A. MIDGET 9:30-10:30 B. JUNIOR 11:00-12:00 C. PEE-WEE "A" 12:30-1:00 D. PEE-WEE"B" 1:15-1:45 OUTDOOR BASKETBALL 1. OUTDOOR BASKETBALL CAMP WAS HELD AT THE COURTS BY THE HIGH SCHOOL. 2. THE AGE GROUP WAS 10-12 YEAR OLDS. 3. THIS PROGRAM RAN FOR TWO WEEKS. STARTING AUGUST 31-SEPT 10. 4. THE COST OF THIS PROGRAM WAS $10.00 5. THERE WERE 35 PLAYERS THAT PARTICIPATED IN THIS NEW PROGRAM. 6. THIS PROGRAM WAS EXTREMELY POPULAR WITH THE KIDS. THERE WERE MORE BOYS THEN GIRLS IN THE PROGRAM. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A GIRLS PROGRAM ONLY. BECAUSE AT THIS AGE GIRLS AND BOYS REALLY DON'T LIKE EACH OTHER. I FEEL THAT HAVING BOTH A GIRLS AND BOYS BASKETBALL PROGRAM WOULD BE BENEFICIAL. DEPARTMENT OF LAW Date: To: From: Re: MEMORANDUM September 10, 1992 Parks & Recreation Commission City Attorney Private activities along East Lake Street Docks at Davis Beach and proposed for Garnet St. Basic Situation The State law generally recognizes that an owner of property abutting the water is entitled to access to the water in front of that property to the exclusion of any other person who is not a owner of that property. Property lines are deemed extended from the point where the property line hits the shore into the water in a direction at right angles to the shore. The City is the present owner of the vacated portions of East Lake Street, which have been committed to park use under Land and Water Conservation Fund restrictions. The users of the water area, Kevin Muir and Brok Goul, each have a permit from the City issued to them prior to the commitment of the land to park uses. Additionally, each has a permit from the Department of Lands which Mr. Petzak assures us is revocable should the City revoke the relevant City permit. Garnet Street presents a second situation. Here the City is the abutting owner of the street right of way which extends to the Lake, and still has legal status as a street right of way. A dock exists in this location, belonging to a former client, Mr. Swanson, who is embroiled in ongoing controversies with the owner of the land and home to the immediate north. (Whether Swanson's dock is entirely within the right of way lines extended, or is partly in front of this neighbor's land, is an issue requiring survey; there are possibly competing surveys.) Davis Beach is a third situation which presents a little complexity. The beach is shown on the 1916 plat as "Davis Park," but was not dedicated by the plat. The plat is therefore ambiguous as to whether the Park was intended as a beach for public use, or as a beach for subdivision use. The complexity was cleared up (probably) by a deed acquired by the City from the subdivider in July of 1947, some 31 years later. Muir. and Goul. East Lake Str~¢t The permits issued to these gentlemen are not for a specified term of months or years, and are in fact silent on the question of when and for what reason they may be terminated other than for breach. They could not lawfully have been made permanent, without meeting the legal requirements for alienation of City land, which were not met. It is therefore my opinion that they may be terminated on reasonable notice, and with or without cause. Reasonable notice would include a span of time for the permittee to make alternative arrangements. As suggested by the City Administrator, their attorney has been advised that a termination of these permits is in the works. Garnet Street waterfront A street right of way presents the City with the same considerations and opportunities which led to creating private rights in Muir and Goul along E. Lake Street. The littoral rights belong to the City from the dedication of the street in 1916 by the plat. A street is for transportation and compatible other uses, such as utilities. In my opinion, a dock is a logical extension of the transportation use; it permits those using the public street to continue onto the public waters. Whether and under what circumstances you would wish a public/private dock to be at this location is a "business" decision, not a legal one. Davis Beach The dock uses may or may not have arisen before the 1947 deed to the City; research in this regard remains to be done. Should the dock use have arisen while the land was private property, then the City deed might be subject to a prescriptive easement for the docks and for access to the docks. While both docks have been rebuilt from time to time, the property right would be access to the water and the right to have a dock, that is, a right pertaining to the use. The State takes the position that replacement of a grandfather right dock requires a permit, while replacing its deck, or replacing its floating support structure, one without the other, does not forfeit grandfather rights. Such grandfather rights, of course, have to do with regulation of the use of state waters, not title to land or interests in land. The City has in the past taken the position that the docks do not enjoy any rights superior to the Beach right. Until proved otherwise, that is certainly the appropriate stance. There is no point in surrendering public rights. It is my understanding that the owners of the more northerly of the two docks are negotiating with the owner of the land adjacent to the North, with an eye to moving the northerly dock onto private property. I am also told that use of a dock at this more northerly location during the 40's and 50's is recalled by persons who were small children at the time. The person who physically built the first dock is deceased. The southerly dock has yet to be researched.