Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2015 01 14

Home Browse Search

Open Space Advisory Board Minutes November 12th, 2014 Page 4 of 7 Missy agreed with Mike's point that recreation facilities, the golf course, etc. should be specifically excluded in the language of the document. Malcolm replied to Tom's comment #3 (note: OSAB's comments from before the meeting were included in the packet) that he has changed the language in the draft policy document so that it ranks spending priority as follows: first, the top three targeted acquisition properties, then if money is remaining, secondarily, Open Space and Parks - related spending, with parks listed last. Missy suggested that we maintain flexibility in the language to have the priority be acquisition or real estate interest, such as purchasing right of first refusal options. The rest of the board agreed. Joe felt that flexibility would be helpful. Laura liked the two tiered priority list, as it keeps some budget flexibility in the second tier. Tom re- emphasized that he feels strongly about honoring the original intent of the ballot that the majority of the fund go to Open Space land purchase and land management, not Parks. He feels that the City needs to come up with a separate budget line for Parks. Marianne Heany (1117 LaFarge Ave) reported that she was involved in organizing the original ballot measure in back in 1992. She reports that Open Space was the sole intent of the original ballot, never Parks. Malcolm asked for a discussion about the document's section 2.b. where it discusses a per acre value to be recommended /determined by OSAB. Tom had some concerns since it would be subjective. Mike reminded OSAB that we are an advisory board, so if OSAB were to try to somehow game the system, the City Council and the City Manager would detect it. Christopher liked the language of this section. Helen liked that the board would review property prices, even though OSAB members aren't expected to be experts. Jeff felt like there is a pretty tight range on open space property values, so it probably wouldn't be too easy to manipulate this. Also, if a property owner wants more, they might not be able to get it, given zoning constraints. Spencer cautioned that the board remembers the purview of OSAB. Tom suggested that his written comment that Parks should be no more than 20% of the fund's annual outlay was intended to be somewhat tongue in cheek and he doesn't have a specific ratio in mind, though he feels it should be significantly less than the 75% of the annual fund outlay that Parks receives currently. Tom does see the value maintaining some flexibility in this ratio, but he feels like there should ultimately be a separate funding stream for Parks. Laura said that if Lafayette had an appetite for a separate sales tax for Parks and Recreation in addition to an Open Space Tax, then perhaps Louisville would too. Mark Persichitty (1402 Taft Place) commented that he voted for the tax thinking that Open Space and Parks were both covered in the tax and he isn't particularly concerned with the ratio. X. Discussion Item: Open Space 2015 Capital Improvements & Operation Budget Ember listed all planned CIP plans in the packet. 6