Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-05-1979 Park Board Minutes PARK BOARD November, 1979 Minutes but no agenda or packet i"1 November 5, 1979 n The reaular meeting of the Park Board was called to order at 8: 10 p.m. , November 5, 1979 by Chairman Ina Liljedahl . Members present: Peter Scherer, Tom Shaughnessy, y Gary Foster, and Ken Johnson. Also present were Don Volk, and Mr. Schumaker, City Administrator. Members absent: Council liaison Richard Zelinka, Larry Crouse, and Charles Cheesebrough. Mr. Scherer moved to approve the minutes of the October 1 regular meeting. �1r. Shaughnessy seconded the notion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. ,'Mrs . Liljedahl reviewed the current situation with the four-season building, and indicated it would not be possible to construct the lower level of the building alone, as had been sugaested at the joint Council meeting, because city code did not allow this; the upper level would have to be blocked in as well , althouah not necessarily finished. In order to get an idea of the price range, she had brought the original plans of the two-story building around and had to date received one quote of S28,000 for all the brickwork (all cement work) , which did not include any carpentry. This was felt to be. hiah. Mr. Scherer raised a question which had previously been discussed, as to the effectiveness or viability of people in the community donating time on the structure, which would reduce the costs. There had been an offer to donate the excavating and dirt work. He suggested the possibility of contacting the contractors in the community to donate a day or two of time. It was felt there might be some problems with this, such as unreliability, and, for instance, in getting all the blocks laid (8-9,000 blocks) . There was also the ques- tion of Council approval . Mr. Shaughnessy asked whether Mr. Locher had ever written the letter to Metro Council on the classification criteria; Mrs . Liljedahl indicated she had not seen a cony, and it was noted he had been supposed to forward a copy to the Park Board. Mr. Schumaker, the City Administrator, was present and introduced by Mrs. Liljedahl . He indicated he was familiar with LAWCON grants , having worked with the program for Sauk Rapids. They had been successful with four out of four grants. As he understood it, Lino Lakes had been classified as a rural town center, a concept which Metro applied to communities which in the nast had been established on their own rather than as a suburb. Geographically, Lino Lakes must be connected with a small , older farming community close by. It was felt this could be Centerville. Mr. Schumaker indicated that as this was his first day as City Administrator, he had not had time to research this yet, but Dlanned to talk with Phyllis Hanson and Marty Jenson, the two individuals handling recreation and open space at Metro Council . He felt that considering the growth factor in Lino Lakes, there was an obvious need for this type of parks development, and the best option was to get the rural town center classi- fication changed. There was also the possibility of some type of variance. However, Metro had aiven a variance to a rural town center once, which had caused a great deal of trouble, and they did not plan on doing so again. Mrs. Liljedahl felt Metro was somewhat up in the air about Lino Lakes, and also the city had not taken the time to get involved, and that greater communication was necessary as just knowing how to write the grant was not enough. She felt someone should represent the city at the meeting Metro was holding in January or February to review their criteria for the next year. Mr. Schumaker felt that the City Council generally put parks and recreation at the bottom of the funding list because it was not a serious need or eminent health threat compared to a fire truck or snow plow, or something of that nature. Therefore, he felt any funds the Park Board did have should be considered very valuable unless there was a large source of revenue coming in on an annual basis. If the Park Board did Page 2 Park Board November 5, 1979 �-� have these funds, it was usually advantageous for them to go to the state for match- ing funds (LAWCON or state legislative funds) . If the present fund of $60,000 was spent, it would take five years to build up again to provide that type of facility elsewhere. Sauk Rapids had passed a $200,000 bond issue four years ago, and had been living off that ever since; he felt that this had been an aid in their applica- tions, in showing the community was interested in the development of narks. The state liked to see municipalities using their own money to participate in these programs as much as possible, for instance, at a 50 percent or 35 percent match, depending on what type of application it was. Saying that parks would be budgeted next year at $20,000 for the city's part of the match was less effective in a grant application than if the money was on hend in some type of fund that's been created for the development of parks. The state liked to see the Park Board provide the funds or have them on hand prior to the submittal of the application. He felt the Park Board should not deplete their entire fund on one project, leaving nothing for the future. Mrs. Liljedahl briefly reviewed the present status of the four-season building for Mr. Schumaker, indicating that the Park Board wanted to go ahead with it this year. It was felt that the project had been discussed for many years , and had been constantly delayed; after all the work that had been done on it, it should be pursued. There had been many requests from different organizations--Scouts , 4-H, senior citizens-- for some type of community center or place to meet. The school was completely booked up, and these organizations had no other place to meet other than in private homes. It was felt it should be shown that the money being put into the park fund was going to work for the parks and do something for the community. The Park Board had considered the costs involved with waiting, which would be much higher than if the building had been done when it should have. It was indicated the cost figure was about $35,000 just to rough it in. Mrs. Liljedahl indicated they would like an answer from the Council as to whether they could proceed at this point or not. .Mr. Schumaker felt there were several reasons why the Park Board should wait until spring on the building, the first being that the overall costs of construction during the winter were much higher. Secondly, if the $60,000 were invested over the next four or five months at the high interest rates , this would be a good hedge against inflation. Thirdly, it would give him some extra time to work with the state, and to see exactly what the status of the rural town center was. He had talked to one individual who had siad he wasn't aware of any legal opinion as far as what the criteria was for a rural town center. Hopefully Lino Lakes could get classified out of this category. Also, it would give him more time to become familiar with the project. Mr. Foster felt that if the building were delayed until spring, then real- istically there wouldn't be any reason to start it until the following fall , the reason being that the upper level wouldn't be completed, and the lower level being primarily a warming house. He noted that construction costs had gone up about 25 percent last year, which was more than the income, or moneys coming in. Mr. Schumaker asked if there were any plans for park development in the planned urban service areas; the Park Board indicated that Country Lakes and Shenendoah were both in that area. Mrs. Liljedahl indicated that Country Lakes was a big project and would require funding, but that when she had spoken to Phyllis Hanson, she had said this would not be eligible for funding, despite the sewer and water service there. Mr. Foster brought up the idea that had been used with Sunset Oaks, where the Park Board took less land in certain areas and in turn the developer put in the facilities. This way, the developer ^ would have something to offer the residents as they came in. He felt that if the Park Board continued to take money, by the time they were ready to develop the parks, there was never enough money, but if they took land, there was no money to develop them either. Page 3 Park Board November 5, 1979 n Mr. Schumaker suggested the possibility of taking a few lots out of plats and getting into the real estate business, thereby making more money for parks development than if the smaller cash amount was taken. Mr. Scherer indicated this had been discussed several times , but the feeling had been that it wasn't legal or right for the Park Board to do. However, although the attorney had been present during the discussion on this at the joint Park Board and Council meeting, he had not given an opinion on it. Mr. Schumaker indicated it was somewhat complex and lengthy, but that generally when you have park land dedicated in a plat, you couldn't turn around and sell it unless the receipts from that property were taken to develop or buy addition park land. Mr. Menkveld, present in the audience, indicated he felt the narks dedication was a good thing, but noted that there were places where developers had taken it to court, and no longer had to pay park money. Mr. Scherer noted the City of Saint Paul was selling parks because they felt it was no longer equitable; these were sold at the going price, and were dedicated parks and had been operated as parks. Don Volk felt that had the building been put on the ballot, it would have been passed, and the same would have been true of a bond issue. He and Marilyn had seriously brought this up at one of the budget meetings, but the Council had not felt it should be done. He also noted there would have to be work done on the building plan as far as handi- capped facilities, which would need more room. There were several plats before the Park Board for their consideration. The first, Forest Glen, was presented by Mr. Gilbert Menkveld. The final plat had been previously approved, but not filed or signed. This, however, was the first time it had been before the Park Board. This was located on 74th Street and Lilac, right next to Sunset Oaks. Mr. Menkveld indicated that at the Council meeting, they had felt the park in Sunset Oaks was all that was needed, and they preferred cash in lieu of land. Mrs. Liljedahl read from the minutes of the P & Z special meeting on the park plan concerning park acquisition in this neighborhood. It was felt the Sunset Oaks area was sufficient and better located. Mr. Shaughnessy moved to recommend that cash in lieu of land be accepted, but noted the cash value situation would have to be straight- ened out. Mr. Menkveld felt the higher cash value recently set by the Council would not apply in this case. Mr. Foster seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Next for consideration was the James Schilling plat, Wollen Estates, located north of Main and west of Lake Drive. Mr. Johnson noted there was no park land or facilities in this area other than the school and City Hall Park. The minutes of the P & Z special meeting were consulted for this area, and Mrs. Liljedahl read the pertinant sections. The merits of different lots for park dedication were discussed. Mr. Shaughnessy moved to recommend land be accepted for park dedication, specifically lots 7, 8, and 9, although dependant on specific information on the total acreage of the plat. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Next for consideration was the proposed industrial park, north of 35-W bordering Lilac Street. Cash in lieu of land was suggested as it was right on the freeway. Mr. Scherer suggested accepting land for investment purposes. Although Council did not at this time agree that the Park Board could do this, it was felt they could refer any ques- tions back to the Board. Mr. Scherer moved to accept land on this plat, preferably the upper north area because of the street access. Mr. Shaughnessy seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Next for consideration was Ken Rehbein's Arena Acres , off Fourth Ave. and north of Main Street. It was suggested land be taken as there was no park land ,yet in this area. Mrs. Liljedahl felt that if land was taken, trails and woodsy types of things Page 4 Park Board November 5, 1979 ^ should be put in rather than ballfields or organized activities. This could be preservation of the natural wooded area for an additional park. Mr. Scherer felt land should be taken for investment ourooses. . The total dedication would be 2 and 8/10 acres, and it was felt the lots on the east side were preferable. Mr. Johnson moved to recommend land in lieu of cash, preferably in the southeast corner of the plat, lots 15, 16, and 17. Mr. Shaughnessy seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mrs. Liljedahl suggested it would be an ideal time of year for the Park Board to go out and look around at the different narks, as this hadn't been done since last fall . Don Volk felt it would be a good time of year to look at Country Lakes , as the leaves were down and it would not be too marshy. The date was set for Monday, November 12, at 9:30 a.m. , to leave from the Municipal Buildinq, as being the time most convenient for all those present. Mr. Schumaker vsas invited to go, and he indicated he would. Don Volk will also be able to attend. If it was raining Monday, the trip would be postponed. Mrs. Liljedahl reviewed her presentation to the P & Z special meeting on the park plan, which was basically a synopsis of what the Park Board was doing. She noted one of the biggest problems the Park Board faced was a lack of communication with the Council and other boards. For example, the Five-Year Plan had been sent out in August, yet they had said they had never seen it. Mr. Schumaker indicated that he planned on putting together the agenda for all the boards and attending all the meetings, trans- ferring information and making, presentations. He asked how information was transmitted presently, and was told it went through the Council liaison, who had time at the Council meeting to present the business of his board. The Council also got copies ^ of the minutes. However, this process present somewhat of a problem, as the information and requests were not getting passed on, and answers were not coming back. There was a lack of contact. Mr. Schumaker felt that each question the Park Board raised should be presented to the City Council at the next meeting to take action on or request additional specific information. Mr. Johnson, noted there had been some discussion at the joint meeting about having a Park Board member or the chairman as a liaison rather than a Council member, to carry Park Board business directly to the Council . However, as Mrs. Liljedahl pointed out, the Park Board was asked to do an awful lot as a volunteer group as it was, and to be asked to attend regular Council meetings to put through routine plats and so on, to make sure it was done right, was asking too much, although there was no objection to extra meetings on specific items like the four- season building. Mr. Schumaker indicated that it would be determined later whether the liaison system would be kept, but felt there would be no need for it, as he would be attending all the meetings. Mr. Shaughnessy asked how he stood on expenses for each meeting, attendance, and so on. Mr. Schumaker indicated that with qas prices going up, people felt they should at least get their carfare paid. The Planning Commission in Sauk Rapids got $10 a meet- ing, plus $35 for special meetings, and the Park Board qot S10 a meeting as well , although he was unsure about special meetings . He felt $10 was a minimal amount, and noted many communities paid $25 or so for each of their boards . Mr. Scherer had contacted the League of Municipalities, and they had said the Planning Commission and Park Board, in their opinion, were administrative bodies, and the only control the Council had was in appointing people to the committees, who would then serve their terms. Otherwise, Council control was through the amount of money they allotted the boards, and since the Park Board had their own fund, there would be no Council control . Mr. Schumaker raised the question of how these funds were received, and Mr. Scherer indicated they came directly to the Park Board, to be used for Page 5 Park Board November 5, 1979 ,..� capital outlay for improvements or acquisition only, and not for maintenance. In the League of Municipalities ' opinion, the Board was responsible for the expendi- ture of their treasury. It was noted the Park Board had had no means of getting money until just two years ago when the set amount of cash in lieu of land was esta- blished. Mr. Schumaker indicated that he has always found the Park Board and Planning Commission to be advisory committees to the City Council , and had never had anybody contest that the Council didn't have the. final. say. If the Park Board was sincerely concerned about it, an opinion should be gotten from the City Attorney, and also something in writing from the League of Cities and the Attorney General 's Office relative to that matter. Mr. Scherer indicated the League of Cities would be send- ing something in writing. Don Volk noted that the ordinance stated that the Park Board was an advisory committee, and Mrs. Liljedahl indicated City Ordinance No. 57A explained the workings of the Parks Commission. The clerk is requested to send a copy of this ordinance out with the mi!iutes to all Park Board members. It was also noted this should be given to all new Park Board members. Mr. Scherer noted that the majority of the Council would be changing the first of the year, and it was felt this was another reason to co ahead with the building this fall , as otherwise it would have to be presented all over aqain to a new Council . It was felt that some type of committment from the Council should be gotten one way or the other, as to whether the Board could go ahead with the plans. The bids would have to be handled by the Council . Don Volk had figured the time period necessary for the plans, bids, and approval , which gave a completion date sometime in March, which would eliminate the use of the building for this year. Mr. Schumaker indicated the next step in the matter was to get authorization from the City Council to obtain plans and specifications; once these were done, they would be reviewed and the Council requested to approve them; if they approved them, the next step was to request bids on specifications. Don Volk felt it would be March or April before bids were let out, and at that time there were a lot of contractors looking for jobs. Also, the winter construction costs and inflation would offset each other. Nlrs. Liljedahl moved to request permission from Council to get the final plans and specifications from Greg Carlson. Mr. Scherer seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. Shaughnessy moved to adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Mr. Foster seconded the motion. All were in 'favor. Motion declared passed. The Clerk is requested to send out notices for the Park Board meeting on Monday, November 12, at 9:30 a.m. , at the Municipal Building.