Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-06-1979 Park Board Minutes PARK BOARD September, 1979 Minutes but no agenda or packet September 6, 1979 The regular meeting of the Park Board was called to order at 7:58 p.m. by Chairman Ina Liljedahl . Members present: Tom Shaughnessy, Larry Crouse, Peter Scherer, and Ken Johnson. Members absent: Gary Foster, Charles Cheesebrough, and Council liaison Richard Zelinka. Also present was Don Volk. The budget worksheet was reviewed, and Mrs. Liljedahl asked if there were any questions , changes or additions to be made. Mr. Scherer moved to accept it, and Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. In reference to the hockey rink at Sunrise Park, Mr. Shaughnessy had researched the dimensions and provided the following figures: These were 200 feet long by 85 wide, and the sideboards should be 40-48 inches in height. Mr. Crouse felt that a pleasure rink could be put up with the option of upgrading it to a hockey rink if that became necessary. Don Volk had some information to present on the proposed hockey rink. The old rink had been torn down, and the south rink was the one still standing, and would be repairable for two to three years. The Hockey Association would be sending a list of the items that needed to be done on this , and these would include repairing the equipment doors , grading, replacing some support posts and patching some areas in plywood. The biggest expense would be the grading. The expenses for a new hockey rink would be high. The only written quote available was on lumber, which would run $4,283.50. These were 2 x 12s with a 40-year guarantee and treated against rotting. Hardware needed to put the rink together would run $835.04. An electrician had not been available to look at the lighting yet for rewiring, so there was some question on the estimate for that. Mercury fixtures were more expensive, by about a third, but would be more efficient than incandescent lighting; in one years ` use, the savings would run about $1,000, and they would pay for themselves in a little over a year. It was questionable whether the present 200 amp service could handle two rinks. There were 12 incandescent fixtures on the present rink and the new rink would require 12 mercury fixtures. If incandescent lights were used on both rinks , a 400 amp service would be needed, but the 200 amp service could be adequate if the mercury fixtures were used on the new rink. Also if the wiring from the old rink could be used, the costs would be cut by about $1,500. However, these things could not be determined until an electrician looked at it. The estimate would run about $5,000 total for lighting alone, and the total cost for the new rink would run $10-11,000 for materials and handling of fixtures and wiring. Don Volk had talked to a member of the Hockey Associ- ation, and they had not been aware that they were going to be asked to provide the labor for the rink. Otherwise, labor would run roughly $2-4,000. Mrs. Liljedahl asked if the Hockey Association had provided any figures or estimates on how much more they would be using the rink, and questioned if two hockey rinks were really needed in view of the costs. Mr. Crouse suggested a pleasure rink be constructed so that at some time it could be converted into a hockey rink; Don Volk felt that there was a definate need for a pleasure rink in that area, but that unless the Hockey Association had a large growth, a second hockey rink was not needed other than to practice on. Mr. Johnson asked what the difference in cost would be between a pleasure rink and a hockey rink; Don Volk suggested that the railroad ties on hand be used as a border to flood against, which would eliminate any costs other than grading the interior for a pleasure rink. There would be no cost involved for lighting as there were four 1500-watt incan- descent lights from the old rink, and this would be sufficient. Mrs. Liljedahl sug- gested that the rink be made the size of a hockey rink; she also felt the rinks should not be placed side by side like they have been in the past, and asked if there were some way of enforcing no hockey skating on the pleasure rink. Don Volk indicated that the only way to handle that would be to employ someone to supervise the rink. Also, there were no set hours for the warming house, and the only time it was open was when hockey was being played. Don felt there was sufficient money in the budget to employ a high schooler at minimum wage to.man the warming house, for instance, three or four Page 2 Park Board September 6, 1979 hours in the evening and on weekends and holidays. The Board generally felt that the costs for a second hockey rink were too high and it could not be handled at this time. Don Volk also pointed out that there would be two more parks to maintain next year, which was an additional cost. These would be the Stanley park in Sunset Oaks , and Shenendoah park, which was larger. At present the mowing was on a strict 2-week sched- ule to cover all the parks; although another tractor for maintenance was not on the 1980 budget, it would be needed by the next year, as well as additional help on main- tenance. He noted that the work on the park in Sunset Oaks had just been finished, and Mrs. Liljedahl felt it should be noted that Mr. Stanley had done a wonderful job on the park. There had been nothing done yet on Shenendoah Park, and Mrs. Liljedahl asked if there had been a time stipulation on completion. The Park Board felt that the lighting for the second hockey rink would be worthwhile looking into and reviewing, although it was felt that in view of the costs and the fact that it was not needed that much, the second hockey rink would not be put in at this time. The only item that needed to go through the Council on the pleasure rink would be the grading, which Don Volk estimated at about $300. This would include surveying at about $125. Generally, grading was needed once every three years , so this would be an intermittent expense. Don Volk suggested that the grading and sur- veying for both the present rink and the pleasure rink be handled together for a total of $600, and presented to the Council that way. Mrs. Liljedahl so moved, and Mr. Shaughnessy seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. The second hockey rink would not be put up at this time; a pleasure rink would be put up, and the old hockey rink repaired. Mr. Crouse asked that benches be provided for chang- ing skates and so forth when the warming house was not open. Don Volk felt this would not be a problem, and they could be put together either from the railroad ties or some old benches on hand could be rehabilitated for the purpose. Don Volk noted that a slab had been laid underneath the shelter, and several members had noticed that the park was used frequently, both by groups and informally. Don Volk pointed out that any playground equipment despite size or condition made a great deal of difference in the use of a park. Mrs. Liljedahl suggested looking at updating and replacing playground equipment in the various parks , and perhaps taking a trip around to review them as far as better or more suitable equipment. Don Volk had available some brochures on items that had been included in the 1980 budget; these were the landscaper and ballfield drag, and lime and ballfield markers. Presently the City had chain-link drags at the parks, but these were not adequate for any land- scaping. Next on the agenda was discussion pertaining to the LAWCON grant denial . The City had received a letter from Metro Council to the effect that the grant would not be consid- ered for funding due to the fact that it was a general rural use area and an active recreation project. Mrs. Liljedahl had talked to Phyllis Hanson from Metro, and had gotten a more complete explanation of the reasons for the denial . The City was consid- ered "general rural" because there were no sewer or water services available, and be- cause of this classification, only a "passive" grant would be considered. Lino Park was considered "active" because it had a ballfield and other recreational acitivities proposed in the future. Under this criteria, Country Lakes would also be considered active because in the future it too would be used for something other than passive. Passive uses would cover things such as putting in a nature trail through swamp land, ^' and never using the area for anything else but that. Mrs. Liljedahl had gone through the material from Metro that had come with the grant application, and the only refer- ence to these criteria read, "All applications from rural centers will be considered, Page 3 Park Board September 6, 1979 10-*N active and passive," and "those parts of the rural service areas outside of the rural service centers, only applications for passive recreation will be considered. " Mrs. Liljedahl felt it was not very clear, but it was this wording that the rejection of the grant had been based on. There had been no further defination of active and pas- sive uses. She also felt that the part of the grant dealing with nature trails and upgrading of the area were passive and therefore still valid; however, Phyllis Hanson had said that despite that, it was still an active park, and outside of a rural center. Under these criteria, a grant would not be possible in the forseeable future. The Metro meeting had not been attended because the letter of rejection had been received before that. Mrs . Liljedahl recommended that a Metro meeting coming up in February be attended. At that time Metro reviewed the new criteria for the next year for grants, and if the City wanted to have a voice in that, or contest it, that would be the proper time. She also suggested preparing for it by doing some background work beforehand. She also suggested that Mr. Locher look into the situation, as it was a federal grant, yet Metro was controlling who was being considered for it based on their own criteria and not the government's criteria. Mr. Crouse felt that there must be an appeal process and that this should be explored if only to learn more about the reasons for denial , since there seemed to be some con- tradictions. He had spoken to Mr. Johnboys about the situation in terms of the Metro criteria being discriminatory and not very just, and it had seemed to be his feeling that the criteria had perhaps not been worked out well enough, and that the City had a right to ask why the grant had been denied, and to appeal that. He had also felt they had a right to a meeting with Metro; there had been a meeting of the Board that set ,-� the criteria to discuss projects at 3 p.m. the day the letter had been received which could have been attended, but Mr. Crouse felt there had not been enough time to do so. He pointed out that the City is in the Metro area, yet considered rural because there was no metropolitan center, and because of this their criteria were not being met. Also, Metro Council itself was responsible for the lack of sewer and water services, and yet the City did have sewer service available about half a mile away. The forsee- able future had been used as a criteria in determininq active, non-fundable parks , yet the possibility of sewer becoming available in the forseeable future had not been considered. Mr. Shaughnessy asked what the definition of a metropolitan center was, and Mr. Crouse said it would be a rural center like Wyoming--a town center without sewer sercive. These could be considered for active recreation, but for some reason, Lino Lakes was not considered a rural center, since it was in the Metro area and did not have sewer service; however, sewers were available within the City, and Lino Park was in the town center, considering the major crossroads and the population concentra- tion, other than that in the far south, or Centerville. Mr. Crouse had prepared in writing his thoughts on these contradictions in the Metro criteria, to the effect that they seemed to have been applied in a discriminatory way. He would have a copy of this available for the Park Board. He also pointed out that if these criteria had not been applied uniformly in any instance, or if they could be caught in any mistakes in apply- ing it in a discriminatory manner, there was a federal law which then determined that Metro was at fault and the grant would have to be reviewed. Mr. Crouse noted that the grant was federal money, and that it could be delegated to the legislature or county rather than to Metro Council . Metro handled it now, as they had the administrative perogative and was felt to be the most appropriate agency, but that if they did not fulfill their function properly, they would be in an uncomfortable position. Mrs. Liljedahl indicated that there was a list which the Park Board had of all the differ- ent areas that have been considered or are being considered, and suggested these be checked for areas similar to Lino Lakes to see if the criteria had been applied in the same way. She also noted that the downstairs facilities would not have been considered Page 4 Park Board September 6, 1979 i'I, for funding because of the lack of sewer and water, and the upstairs would not have been considered because it was general use. Don Volk suggested that the Park Board find out which areas in the Metro area were categorized the same as Lino Lakes , and send those communities letters asking if they have applied for or received a LAWCON grant and if so, what was the grant awarded for; rather than working through Metro, the Park Board should work through the municipalities and also find out if they had received any grants in the past. Mrs. Liljedahl noted that there were ten areas classified general rural on the list. . It was also mentioned that these communities might not be willing to cooperate. Don Volk indicated that Anoka County was planning on spending large amounts of money on the county park in Lino Lakes , and asked if they had applied for LAWCON to cover this, as it was an active recreational use, and Anoka was considered general rural . There was some question as to whether this classifica- tion was for Anoka City or Anoka County. Mr. Crouse suggested that the criteria situation be looked into immediately in terms of handling it before all the funding was allocated, as this would create a different kind of problem. Mrs. Liljedahl felt that Mr. Locher should be asked to look into the legalities, and the fees would have to be put up to Council ; The Park Board would need the approval of the Council to pursue the matter in any case, as it concerned the City as a whole. Mr. Shaughnessy moved that the Council be furnished with whatever they needed in order to process the matter further, and that it be made a priority matter. Don Volk suggested this be amended to request that the Park Board be given the authority to do whatever necessary to investigate the matter. Mrs. Liljedahl felt the legal aspect should also be handled by Mr. Locher. Mr. Crouse felt that initially a letter requesting clarification of the criteria and its application should be sent, either by Mr. Locher or the Council . Mr. Scherer felt the grant should not be counted on, and that the Park Board should go ahead with the building. Mr. Crouse suggested that 30 days be taken to investigate the LAWCON matter, and if Metro' s position remained unchanged, the Board should make a decision on the building. Mrs. Liljedahl felt the issue with Metro did not only con- cern the building for Lino Park, but any future grants as well , and the criteria should be looked into and changed if possible. If action wasn't taken at this point, the City would not be in a position to pursue it later on. Mr. Shaughnessy repeated his motion to have the Council look into the matter. The motion was seconded by Mr. Johnson. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mrs. Liljedahl noted that any of the Park Board members could be contacted concerning this, and felt it should be handled as soon as possible. Mr. Shaughnessy had received a call in reference to the shed on the park property where the house had been comdemned, as to whether it could be removed to the new residence; he had referred them to Mr. Zelinka. Don Volk noted that the shed was well-built and in good condition, and had been used for storage. Mr. Shaughnessy asked if moving the shed would require a permit. Mrs. Liljedahl had also received a call about one of the parks being locked up; Don Volk indicated that they had probably been referring to the driveway gate, which was always locked as it was for City us.e only. Mr. Shaughnessy raised a question as to the piece of park land indicated on the map for East Birch. Addition, and asked what the reasons had been for choosing that parti- cular piece, as. it was located near the Centerville boundary, which was commercial property. He had thought a different piece had been chosen. The July 2 minutes were consulted on this and Don Volk indicated it had been discussed as a playground/tot lot type of thing for children. Mr. Shaughnessy noted that there was a 5-acre park in Page 5 Park Board September 6, 1979 Centerville nearby. Don Volk felt that as this was undeveloped, it should not be considered, and when it was developed, the Park Board had the option of selling the lot. Also, Lino Lakes should not plan on benefiting from what Centerville may or may not plan to do, and with 35 home sites , a tot lot was needed. Mrs. Liljedahl noted that in Apple Valley, there was a policy that a certain number of tot lots were required to be put in by the builder per so many homes. Don Volk also pointed out that in Chicago, they were going through the process of buying corner home sites to put in tot lots, and there was a policy of so many tot lots per a certain number of blocks. Mr. Scherer felt that the Board had too many small lots for parks, considering that the minimum lot size was 1 acre. Mrs. Liljedahl felt, however, that the Park Board should provide certain services, one of which was organized tot lots for children. Mr. Scherer felt maintenance for these was expensive, and wouldn't leave enough funds for development. Don Volk indicated that the idea for tot lots was to put in zero- maintenance equipment so only the mowing was necessary. He also pointed out that when sewer and water become available, the 1-acre lots would be split, and the play areas for children would have to be provided for. Mr. Scherer again suggested that land be taken by the Park Board rather than cash, and held as an investment to be sold later. Mr. Crouse was in favor of taking land rather than cash because of the low valuation which reflected land values of several years ago, and not its present worth. Mr. Scherer asked if the land could be handled in this way; Mr. Crouse recalled that Mr. Zelinka had indicated it could be done, but Mrs. Liljedahl felt that there were res- trictions on this type of thing, and thought it should be looked into further. Mr. Shaughnessy raised the question of whether taxes needed to be paid on the profits if and when the land was sold. Don Volk felt that the land could not be taken with the intent of reselling it, but it could be taken with the intent of providing some kind of park facility. In reference to the LAWCON grant, the matter would beinvestigated and if by the next meeting there was no further information or possibility of something being done this year on the grant, then a decision on the building would be made at that time. Mr.. Crouse suggested that there were possibly other areas thatcould be looked into such as rebates or tax allowances. This had been discussed before the LAWCON grant was applied for, but had never been pursued, such as the solar heating or other features that would be cost and energy efficient. Also important was the construction, and the possibility of adding these features at a later time, and also having the building expandable. He felt these things should be addressed. Don Volk will be looking into some of these other areas, and Mr. Crouse will check into any other money available or rebates and so forth for solar heating, energy efficient construction, and so on. Mr. Scherer moved to adjourn at 9:25 p.m. Mr Shaughnessy seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed.