12/11/01
Attn: Assembly Members
I have reviewed an email by Mr. Dave Manzer regarding two alternate sites that have been proposed for Simonian Little League ball fields. Following is a copy of this email, which Mr. Manzer sent to his Simonian supporters to inform them of what to say in testimony. His statements are shown in red. I have inserted my comments in black for your consideration.
Hopefully this information will assist you in coming to a favorable conclusion to vote against amending the existing FNBP plan to include high intensity sports fields on the 25 acres in question located in the SW corner of the park.
Cortland A Broberg PE CE/LS; 15 year veteran of Little League; retired
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: David S. Manzer [<mailto:akland@alaska.net>]
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 6:43 PM
> Subject: IMPORTANT ASSEMBLY MEETING TUESDAY NIGHT!
>
> Friends of Simonian Little League,
>
> Tuesday night, December 11 we have another important
Assembly meeting.
> IT'S ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO SIGNED UP TO
TESTIFY AT
> THE NOVEMBER 20th ASSEMBLY MEETING BUT WEREN'T ABLE TO
BECAUSE TIME RAN
> OUT TO RETURN ON TUESDAY. The majority of those remaining on
the list
> to testify are our opponents so we desperately need your
help.
>
> If you did not get a chance to attend the November 20th
meeting you can
> still testify. Please show up on Tuesday and sign up
beginning at 5
> PM. I will let you all know in another e-mail before Tuesday
how many
> hours will be allotted for testimony on Tuesday. It may work
out that
> all you have to do is show up, sign in and then return to
testify at the
> next Assembly meeting. Yes folks, we're in for a long haul.
Please
> stick with us! These kids depend on you.
>
> Our opponents are advocating on their website, in flyers and
in letters
> to the editor that the Community Park be located either at
the proposed
> Safeway site at 88th & Dimond or at a parcel owned by
Art Simonian
> between our current fields east of Lake Otis and Dowling
Road. One of
> these sites is a ruse and the other higly unlikely for the
following
> reasons.
>
> The Safeway site: This is a ruse. This NOT the same site
evaluated in
> the Land Design North report. At the time Land Design North
produced
> their report this was a contiguous 25.8 acre relatively
square-shaped
> parcel. Now Safeway has a contract to purchase the entire
25.8 acres
> and wants to sell a narrow L-shaped piece on the east and
north of the
> parcel. Only 10 acres or less will be available for
ballfields and the
> total carve-off that Safeway wants to sell is approximately
12 acres in
> size. Land Design North's MINIMUM size for a parcel to meet
the cut as
> a Community Park with ballfields was 15 acres. The strip of
land left
> is simply too tight for fields and parking. It will not
allow for all
> the other Community Park amenities like a playground and
picnic area.
> Not to mention that we'd be playing next to an asphalt
jungle and large
> box retail store.
Comment
Let’s get real and talk about putting in
ball fields and a soccer field at one location and construct a
playground, picnic area and small parking lot near the Abbott
Loop Road trailhead in FNBP. Also why do they ask for 25 acres in
Bicentennial Park when it was determined they can actually get by
with 15 acres? As far as price is concerned land will not get any
cheaper. Remember that MOA has determined they need additional
Parks and Rec land in this area so why not buy it now. You can be
sure that funding will always be perceived as a problem in future
years as well as today.
How about price? I understand that Safeway is asking between 3
and 4
> million dollars for this 12 acres. Good deal for the
Community? I
> don't think so. Not with 3,500 acres of municipal park land
right down
> the road. Where's the money going to come from? So when our
opponents
> advocate this site on Tuesday night please bring these facts
up. I have
> already testified so I won't be able to. They are trying to
get people
> to believe that the ENTIRE 25.8 acre piece is still
available for a
> Community Park. That is simply not true and we need to point
this out.
> This site is NOT a reasonable option.
>
> Art Simonian's Land: This is a highly speculative idea. Mr.
Simonian
> and his agent, Lottie Michaels, are asking $2.6 million for
a portion
> (yet to be determined but maybe 20 acres) of this 28 acre
parcel.
> According to the Land Design North report, 50% of this
parcel is Class C
> wetlands. In a conversation I had with Mr. Simonian he told
me that 4
> to 5 feet of peat sits on that parcel. Please remember the
nightmare
> cost and time overruns experienced in developing the Klatt
Road
> ballfields due to deep peat on the property.
Comment
This site is located right next to the existing SLL fields. It is centrally located to the SLL population. The 25 acres they desire in FNBP is located as far away from the population center as you can possible get and still stay within the SLL boundaries.
As I understand it half of the Simonian site is currently filled in and ready for topsoil. Let’s also remember that existing SLL ball fields are constructed on similar class C wetlands. This is not the big problem that Mr. Manzer wishes to portray here. I assisted in constructing SLL’s T-ball field on the same peat that he refers to and it did not seem to be a big problem. They can utilize waste material from MOA projects around town to fill a sure-charge over this area and this material could be obtained free of charge. It will settle out and provide a suitable site.
If they feel that peat must be removed they could use it to manufacture topsoil, sell the topsoil and thus defray some of the costs of the project.
> How about costs? The Land
Design North report pencils in development
> costs of this parcel at approximately $200,000 more than the
> Bicentennial Park site. That puts this parcel in at $2.8
million
> dollars more expensive than the Bicentennial Park site.
People familiar
> with the property have told me that they feel the Land
Design North
> report underestimated the costs of developing this parcel.
In addition
> to the peat problem, access is not good and apparently water
does not
> run to the property.
Comment
Why not let SLL volunteers do some work to cut down the costs. $2,000,000 for development in Bicentennial Park sounds like Mr. Manzer expects MOA to construct the ball fields and turn them over to SLL free of charge plus have maintenance provided. Exactly how much of this work is going to be paid for by public funds and exactly what work/expenses/services will SLL be responsible for? This point needs specific delineation, in writing, before there is any vote on amending the park plan to allow construction of ball fields on the proposed 25 acres of FNBP or for providing land at any other location for SLL use.
Also, what do we get for what is spent? I understand they plan a paved parking lot for any where from 160 to 200 vehicles. Let’s not pave the parking lot, cut down the size of it and thereby reduce a very expensive item.
> Where's this $2.8 million
coming from? A bond in April is a very risky
> proposition. Last year's Parks bond passed only after a
recount and we
> didn't even know the results until May. This year's Parks
bond is the
> largest in many years and contains many much needed items.
Will the
> voters, in much tougher economic times this year than last,
approve the
> acquistion of a 2.6 million dollar piece of private property
for a park
> when there's 3,500 acres of municipal park land down the
road. In
> summary, the Art Simonian piece is a highly speculative and
expensive
> proposal.
Comment
If Mr. Manzer is so concerned about using park land rather than purchasing land why can’t they use one of the many areas that are currently available on public land other than the 25 acres of prime forested land located in the SW corner of FNBP? Section 16 along Abbott Road is designated for sports fields. Land is available east of Service High school. Lesser quality land is also available north of the 25 acre parcel that is being so dearly coveted.
> While we remain open to
any realistic and viable solution that will
> provide for a Community Park with 4 ballfields in one
location by May of
> 2004, we simply can't hang our hat on ruses, red herrings or
> unrealistic, highly speculative solutions. It's time to
approve the
> reasonable, shared use of a tiny portion of Bicentennial
Park.
Comment
Mr. Manzer has incorrectly portrayed a time line of 2004 as something SLL is saddled with because Mr. Simonian has suddenly decided to use their current site for other purposes. The truth is Mr. Manzer states he has been "working" on this since he first knew about it three years ago. Failure to perform after a 5 year notice to vacate certainly does not justify destroying 25 acres of prime park land to construct ball fields.
Another notable point is that I can personally verify discussions occurred among SLL board members way back in the 1980’s about the fact that the existing fields were located on private land and that another location should be obtained. So the truth is that SLL leaders were well aware of the situation for many years and failed to act in a timely manner.
This time line can readily be extended past 2004. All that it means is SLL leaders will be inconvenienced because they must find alternate locations to play on until one of the many available parcels is provided, details are worked out and the fields are completed.
Ø Please show up Tuesday to help our
cause. And for those of you who
> haven't had a chance to e-mail or call ALL of the Assembly
members with
> your thoughts or write letters to the editor please, please
take a few
> minutes to do so now. Some Assembly members are counting
e-mails and we
> are behind. Even though we have overwhelmed our opposition
with
> approximately 1300 written comments in support of this
proposal
> apparently not all Assembly members give equal weight or
even
> recognition to these comments so your e-mails are important.
Comment
Ø For the past month a few people have circulated a petition throughout Anchorage for the purpose of determining who is in favor of having MOA "reconsider the location of Simonian Community Park" and leave the proposed 25 acres as is. I do not have the exact tally but it is currently in the neighborhood of 1100 signatures. I would not call this "overwhelming " the opposition. We found that only 5% to 10% of the people contacted favored ball fields.
Numbers bandied about are quite interesting. If one peruses various MOA documents you find that in months past there was a claim of 2300 or 2400 signatures in favor of the ball field location. Later it was 1200 signatures. Now it’s 1300 signatures. It appears that SLL has been loosing ground on signatures, or to say the least they have some questionable numbers. Testimony at the P & Z meeting ran nearly 2 to 1 in favor of NOT constructing ball fields on the proposed 25 acres.
Stay informed! Get on the FOBP maillist. email Sandra Talt.