09-06-1979 Park Board Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

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