Lights at the ballfields approved by the Parks committee

[nana]

There is about $300,000 or a bit less left in the Parks Committee fund. The committee has been working on the preliminary stuff for the neighborhood park in the Greens on the South (the South does only have one park--Riverview). Cost estimates greatly exceed the entire balance remaining in the Parks Fund.
I would strongly urge all the South moms and dads and kids to attend Thursday's Parks Committee meeting (4 p.m. at RMA) to have some equal weight given to how the nearly depleted Parks Funds will be spent.
Feisty, DB and a couple others have mentioned the O & E expenses which follow such construction, whether it be by donation or from community assests.
Maybe the new rule should be, "If you wanna play, ya gotta pay!"

[Wilbur]

They might be well advised to show up tonight at the Board meeting. This looks like a full court press. The train may have left the station by Thursday.

[DBCooper]

Originally Posted by wakeupcall

What's the big rush? I don't understand why this decision is being pushed through so aggressively. One day the parks committee is talking about a community park for the children of the south and the next day they have dumped that idea and decided to spend $100,000 of our money to put in lights over in the north. I vote no.

Something is really fishy here. Mike Martel says, we have to do it now. He says he will find the rest of the money. Where from? Summerfest? Total $250,000 ! Is this the same Mike Martel who let the bulldozers in the back gate without permission?

Hey, my family won't use a lighted field, why do we have to pay for it. My friends over there don't want the light pollution and no one has even asked them if it matters. What is it going to cost you and me to pay for the SMUD bill?

Tell the RMA board to stop and take a look and let the members decide. Don't be pushed into this without checking out everything.

Without tipping my hand as to tonights meeting let me just say it is not only the perception of rushing into this but the wag the dog aspect as nothing of this expense i.e. the O and M or the increased electricity for the FY09 budget was discussed at the budget workshop by the very people who just approved this expense in the Parks committee. Tonight will be memorable.

[MoonMan]

Originally Posted by DBCooper

Tonight will be memorable.

I think most meetings with DB-Coop and G-Bear will be memorable if this all keeps up!

Are we headed back to 6 hour meetings? If so, we need to have the RMA meetings on the web ASAP so that we can scan through the topics and not have to tape/review the old school way.

Can someone get on that? I'm pretty sure it was recommended 1+ years ago, and may span back to the Chris Peterson election (if not before).

As for the ball fields, this is one of those 1/2 n 1/2 deals it seems (some large portion of the community won't like the outcome).

[Wilbur]

Originally Posted by MoonMan

If so, we need to have the RMA meetings on the web ASAP so that we can scan through the topics and not have to tape/review the old school way.

A laudable goal, and one which should be more palatable now that there is a member area behind a password, where the conflicts need not be broadcast to the entire world.

[DBCooper]

Originally Posted by MoonMan

I think most meetings with DB-Coop and G-Bear will be memorable if this all keeps up!

Are we headed back to 6 hour meetings? If so, we need to have the RMA meetings on the web ASAP so that we can scan through the topics and not have to tape/review the old school way.

Can someone get on that? I'm pretty sure it was recommended 1+ years ago, and may span back to the Chris Peterson election (if not before)

No I hope we arent headed that direction but we shall see. Meetings should have an agenda and things should be accomplished within them. If they do draw out to 6 hours then I would want something coming out of such a long session. Its not unlike a baseball game though with extra innings almost guaranteed. If they are memorable then I would hope more people get involved and thereby enrich the process by participation in committees or in the BOD. If that happens then half my agenda will have been accomplished.

[Robin]

Some nice comments on ".com". We do have other priorities. I do not like the rush, power push through of the RMA board. I agree that the South has been shorted. Why not more Soccer and Baseball and Basketball and tot lots there...they've got the property!

[Kevin]

Actually, there is no more room in the South for additional fields. The Greens park is too small for either sport (for organized games or practices; pick-up stuff, sure) nor do I think the intent of the park plan is to make it an "active" park like Stonehouse.

Lighting the fields, in essence, provides "new" fields that just can't be built anywhere else in RM and at a cost we could not match even if we had the acreage.

There is a reason for the rapid movement -- an immediate need for the space, dropping construction costs, the availability of companies and volunteers to do the work, and unprecedented momentum among organizations to get it done. None of this has been secret, I have attended two public meetings on it and there have been others.

There should and will be a plan in place for those who use the lights to pay for them; that will help to limit unneeded use of the lights and to ensure the long-term involvement of the sports and users in the maintenance and upkeep of the system.

Questions should be asked and answered, but delay for delay's sake -- a common tactic around here -- will lead to nothing getting done.

The Greens Park is absolutely needed, but is tied up by a number of reasons, including the delay of development in RM. Both the lighting of Stonehouse and and the Greens park will get done -- they are not mutually exclusive. It seems prudent to accomplish the lighting, a project that can provide an immediate benefit and address a community need (OK, not all of us need lighted fields, but come to the park some Saturday or Sunday before dismissing its value), while we work towards the Greens Park.

Armor on, fire away!

[joaquinmurieta]

What is the demand of these new lights? Is there a waiting list for activities to be played at night? Often when I come over the hill at night I see the lights on and no one's home (in this case no one is at the park).

Or is this a case of 'if we build it, someone might use them' ?

Not exactly the fiscal time to be spending money on what I consider a luzury at this time. Please use our funds wisely....

[joaquinmurieta]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Questions should be asked and answered, but delay for delay's sake -- a common tactic around here -- will lead to nothing getting done.

Delay for delay's sake? I would rather consider it wise fiscal planning and not buying something that may incur long term costs and not be used. Incredible that we can throw a few hundred thousand at some lights but try to get some money for what a very determined group has tried (skate park) and good luck.