By Kellen Olshefski

Editor

The topic of Tasch Park made its way back to the table as the only item on the agenda at the Feb. 25 meeting of the City of Elkhorn Municipal Services and Utilities Committee.

While the council had previously approved plans to refurbish the park with new ball fields and move playground equipment to another area of the park, the idea of putting in two new fields at Sunset Park and cleaning up the one at Tasch Park was brought before the committee at its last meeting. At that time, it was indicated the city could likely put in two new fields, refurbish the existing one at Tasch Park and turn Tasch Park into a more neighborhood friendly park for a lower cost.

City Manager Martin Nuss brought both the approved plans and a quick proposed design, which he said was nothing more than a quick proposal and could be stripped down, to Monday night’s meeting.

“I think the important thing is that none of this is take it or leave it,” he said. “Any of this can be adjusted. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing.

“If somebody has better ideas, we’re all for it. This was just our first blush on what could work.”

Mayor Brian Olson questioned where the inclusion of a gazebo, sidewalks and lighting at the park, totaling about $60,000, came from after being involved in the previous discussion.

Nuss said Monday night that the cost of the fields is substantially less and the discussion was the money that wouldn’t be spent on the two fields could be used to improve Tasch Park.

“That’s where all those other things come in,” he said. “That was the discussion of what we’d like to see that park be if there’s not going to be two baseball fields.”

Nuss said doing three tee-ball fields, backstops would be smaller and three of them installed, would only cost the city $19,000, compared to the more than $120,000 for the original planned two fields at Tasch Park.

Alderman Scott McClory questioned what happened with the council’s original vote.

City Administrator Sam Tapson said it’s not that the city is ignoring the vote, it’s just that through some conversations post-vote, it seemed like there were options that would give the city “more bang for their buck.”

For the complete story, see the Jan. 28 edition of the Elkhorn Independent.

 

Comments are closed

Sorry, but you cannot leave a comment for this post.