Parks board, Elks cooperative agreement sent to council

Friday, March 2, 2012

By Ralph Pokorny/Nevada Daily Mail

The Nevada Parks Board and the Nevada Elks Lodge are getting closer to a joint project to turn Davis Park on Centennial Boulevard into a military themed park.

During their Wednesday night meeting the parks board signed a memorandum of understanding with the Nevada Elks Lodge to set out the operating rules for the project. The agreement will be considered by the city council during their March 6 meeting.

Shirley Ann Bastow, who is on the sub-committee the parks board set up to work with the Elks Lodge, told the parks board the sub-committee met on Tuesday night and discussed the installation of the large garrison flag the Elks Lodge plans to have erected on a tall flagpole that will be visible from U.S. Highway 71.

Bastow said State Representative Barney Fisher has acquired flags from each of the five branches of the military and will donate them to the project.

"We want to put the five flags around the large garrison flag," she said.

Bastow said that Lance Christi, who is also on the sub committee, has been investigating getting some kind of military equipment for the park.

"It could cost between $15,000 and $20,000 to get a howitzer for the park," she said.

In addition to the flags and the military equipment, the plans are to move the caboose from its current Earp Park location to Davis Park.

Bastow said that Warren Schooley has checked and found a company that can move the caboose for $8,600.

The caboose, which was originally placed in Earp Park in the 1970s for use as a visitor center, is in need of some work to preserve it and when it is moved it will need to have a concrete pad on which to rest the wheels, instead of just a gravel bed like it has now.

Bastow said it was never used for a visitor's center because of its lack of handicap accessibility.

"We (the Elks and parks board) will have to work separately, but together. But it should end up looking like one park," Bastow said.

Dana Redburn, parks and recreation director, told the parks board that the parks department will be removing about 60 tree stumps from the North Campus, Marmaduke, Walton and Radio Springs parks this year and them replacing the trees.

The city plans to hire someone to come in and grind up the tree stumps and then use the wood chips as mulch in the parks.

She said that a forester from the Missouri Department of Conserva-tion has offered to help them select appropriate trees.

The board also voted 4-1 to appoint a sub-committee of Jeff Post, a city council member and two members of WAGS and Lisa Miller to discuss establishing a dog park in Nevada. Karen Polon voted no, saying that since there was no funding currently available for this project, she did not want to waste people's time.

"Once you get the community involved you never know where funding will come from," Post said.

Comments

View 14 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Don't see how this is legal.

-- Posted by sam floor on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 6:33 AM
this is what makes this an awesome community. The city isn't taxing it's subjects to get what they want, instead we get a civic group of our people making something happen we can all believe in.

I applaud Karen's caution and fisical responsibility, while acknowledging Mr Post, though I fear the shell games of the recent past in this matter.

Sam why can't a civic group contribute to the renovations of a local park so long as the city retains ownership and control? Besides they make as much sense as many of the decisions made by the regime in the past two years anyway lol

-- Posted by USS_Missouri on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 7:42 AM
If the city is making plans to move the caboose, you can bet their plans include building the new public safty building in this location.

-- Posted by resident65 on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 9:46 AM
The way this land was donated to the city, this probably doesn't meet the agreement.

-- Posted by sam floor on Fri, Mar 2, 2012, at 9:54 AM
Exactly Sam floor and resident65, I personally saw a blueprint mockup once that depicted the entire block bounded by Austin, Ash, Cherry, and Adams Streets as the possible location of the public safety building and other municipal offices, i.e., city hall, etc...think back to the wild west days of Harlan Moore, INTERIM city manager, remember?? Our very own chainsaw Al Dunlap, hired gun of Fortune 500 Wall Street firms who will ax, chop, cut, and bludgeon any workforce, budget, etc...to his employer's delight. Oh, and in that same mockup, Earp Park was reduced to just a patch of green surrounding the existing yet revamped *cough* fountain. I'm pretty sure Earp Park has a few more fans and loyalists than the city reckons can be persuaded if this is indeed their intended location to build...I for one will protest vehemently.

-- Posted by mvenice on Sat, Mar 3, 2012, at 6:27 AM
I will say that is the best plan they have put forth yet. How does the 165000 dollar piece of property figure into this? Why is it this government keeps getting bigger in a community that keeps getting smaller?

-- Posted by USS_Missouri on Sun, Mar 4, 2012, at 1:23 AM
Mvenice why would you be opposed to a revised Earp park? It makes more sense to me than the purchase/atrocity that was committed. I will admit the best plan would be more of a renovation with a movement of the current building footprint into the park. This was an idea I endorsed from the start.

-- Posted by USS_Missouri on Sun, Mar 4, 2012, at 4:52 PM
Because the land was donated for use as a city park by the Earp family, not to be torn up and torn down as the city sees fit. In fact, there's a greater concern and that would be the city setting a precedent when it comes to how they will later handle any property previously donated. No one in their right mind would donate land to the city if they knew the city would just sell it and sell out down the road. The city parks director at the time, Robin McHughs, wanted to sell the Postelwaite Park acreage because it was seldom used but irony of ironies, the city hadn't even put forth a good faith effort to develop it as a park! Like I said, when it comes to our public DONATED park lands, I will fight vehemently any plan to tear them up or tear them down.

-- Posted by mvenice on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 9:52 AM
Did I miss something. This article is about improving parks not doing away with them and certainly not selling them. I would also ask if there is any documentation provided with the donated land to let the city government 50 years down the road know with what intention the land was donated and if they choose not to use it for that purpose who it should be returned to.

-- Posted by ccmom on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 10:20 AM
Seems I can remember when Leonard Hester donated land to the city at the corner of Cedar and Atlantic,for a park, and it doesn't look like they ever did anything productive with it.

-- Posted by resident65 on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 7:48 PM
Venice is talking about the loss of Earp park to make the first component of the new city complex. With such a contingency in place then I would have to agree deferring to honoring the promise made when the gift was granted to the city. Good call MVENICE. CC missed the part where the question about Earp Park was asked. The only reservation about the first park in question is that the city keep it a park and retain control which is what they appear to be doing. Better choices than typically come out of the council chambers

-- Posted by USS_Missouri on Tue, Mar 6, 2012, at 10:11 PM
This was a park board meeting, not a council meeting.

There have been suggestions to move the caboose, but as you can tell, these are initial conversations. Any park board recommendation still has to go before the council for a vote.

There are no plans to get rid of Earp Park; not sure how someone can interpret possibly moving a caboose to mean Earp Park is done away with entirely.

-- Posted by tfallin on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 2:24 PM
Tfallin, if you will please re-read what I wrote, I specifically said I had seen some blueprints back when Harlan Moore was interim city manager and yes, downsizing Earp Park had been proposed so that the city's fire and police departments could expand to the west, southwest, and north from their present location. I'll be curious to see if removing the caboose is the first step toward implementing the blueprint's specifics...you so know the Nevada Garden Club was the first to provide landscaping, foliage, shrubs, trees and other items to Earp Park back in 1973, yes?

-- Posted by mvenice on Fri, Mar 9, 2012, at 5:56 PM
I even endorsed the plan to expand that way until Mvenice apprised me of the park agreement. I still stand in favor of renovation of construction. Many of you need to read the conversation. to understand what she has said. Some need to read it to see how it disproves the lies they told you all last spring.

-- Posted by USS_Missouri on Sat, Mar 10, 2012, at 3:28 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register