Ascot Park, Ballfield, Electrical

New Search

DRAFT October 12, 1993 Post - It'" brand fax transmittal me_ mo 7671 ' `' Dept. TO: City Council Fax# 9 FROM. ?? ????????????7?? SUBJECT: Lighting of Ascot Ballfield Recently questions have arisen on what process was used in making the decision to install lights at Ascot Ballfield. In Don Bishoff's October 11, 1993 the idea was expressed that staff kept the plans secret to avoid stalling the project. While there are certainly area residents in disagreement regarding staffs decision to not solicit public comment, this is a disagreement regarding the need for public comment on a specific project and not a staff plot to avoid such. Staff felt this authorization was already in place in the Council adopted Parks and Recreation Plan (P &R Plan). The P &R Plan designates Ascot Park as a Community Park. In the hierarchy of the park system this means that it is a park of community -wide significance, for use by people throughout the city. This is in comparison to a small neighborhood park expected to be used primarily by those living in its immediate vicinity. On page 55 the P &R Plan describes lighting of sports fields as one of the appropriate amenities for our Community Parks under the section "Facilities and Features ": "Sports fields - (e.g., softball, baseball, soccer) with lighting, spectator areas, off - street parking and other support facilities. The project to light Ascot came about due to a system failure which occurred at Kincaid ballfield last winter. During a storm a light fixture broke loose from the cross arm and fell to the ground. This unexpected event prompted staff to have a consultant with expertise in wood poles examine the lighting systems in all our ballfields to determine the extent of wood rot and possibilities for further hazardous failures. The conclusion of this study received in May was that wood rot was extensive and immediate action was needed. The extent of the deterioration made maintenance of the existing systems too cost prohibitive. The remaining alternatives were lighting system replacement or discontinuing providing this service. A staff team representing the various divisions was assembled in June to determine a course of action. This staff team was comprised of Recreation Division Director Doug Post, Maintenance Support Manager Johnny Medlin, Parks Maintenance Manager Dick Morgan, Parks Planner John Etter, and Engineering Division Landscape Architect Louis Kroeck. This team discussed alternatives and possible funding sources. It was discussed that newer Ascot Ballfield was a much better facility than is the case at Kincaid. Ascot was judged a better facility due to off - street parking, restrooms, a larger buffer between the fields and abutting homes, and better spacing of the athletic fields. While