Parkville reversed course on lighting at the proposed ballfield project at Platte Landing Park after a lengthy and sometimes testy virtual special meeting of the board of aldermen last week.
In recent weeks, the board approved an application for a parks capital project from Platte County Parks and Recreation to build ballfields in Platte Landing Park. While fields of some kind have long been planned for the park, the scope of the application remitted to the county has come under fire from the public. In part, the concerns are due to a misconception that the park’s fields would be privatized or commercialized, but others contend the lighting would cause the most trouble.
Parkville aldermen Brian Whitley, Phil Wassmer and Tina Welch called for a special meeting of the board, held after the Tuesday, March 16 regular meeting.
Wassmer said the group called for the meeting due to the public response to the proposal, including the creation of a Facebook page dedicated to “saving” the park.
With the wetland restoration project now complete, he said residents and park visitors alike can envision the impact of bright ballfield lights in the park.
Members of the public who have spoken to board members have all stated opposition to the lighting, he said, not the ballfields themselves.
“I think it would be wise of us from a public relations point of view to get together as a board and decide if we’re going to pursue lighting in the park,” Wassmer said.
Whitley said upon reading the application to be submitted to Platte County, there were specific numbers cited for ballfield lighting and said he wanted to clarify the intended uses of the grant funds.
Alderman Dave Rittman was in agreement, stating the application seemed to contain more specifics than had been discussed at earlier meetings.
Board president Marc Sportsman, who presided over the meeting, reiterated the city’s previous statements saying no decisions had been made regarding the lighting. The application served to reserve the money from the county, but the city would not be bound to the specifics outlined, he said.
“The public does not want lights and it sets off a chain reaction of distrust and disbelief from them,” Wassmer said in response to Sportsman’s comments.
Sportsman said his personal concerns are in building a decent restroom facility, perhaps raising the fields further out of the flood zone and other items.
Welch said the project has grown in scope since the approval of the city parks sales tax and the public doesn’t want a major, commercialized ballpark complex with bleachers, lighting, concessions and concrete parking lots.
“There are 68 people waiting right now to talk and we should let some of them talk,” Welch said.
Rittman called for compromise, suggesting the board could build public trust by removing the ballfield lighting portion of the application.
Plumb agreed that the lighting portion should be pulled
An hour into the meeting, the board also learned the current grant application did not include a permanent restroom facility, prompting groans from members.
“Oh no,” said mayor Nan Johnston, who jointed the meeting late, with the board agreeing a permanent restroom facility was necessary.
Rittman suggested splitting the money earmarked to lighting between conduit for security and utility lighting and a permanent restroom facility.
After hearing comments from members of the public both at city hall and via teleconference, the board voted unanimously to amend the application, removing the field lighting piece and instead asking for funding for permanent restroom facilities, light concessions and maintenance storage.