Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-01-1979 Park Board Minutes PARK BOARD October, 1979 Minutes but no agenda or packet n October 1, 1979 The regular meeting of the Park Board was called to order by Vicechairman Tom Shaughnessy at 8:05 p.m. , October 1, 1979. Members present: Charles Cheesebrough, Larry Crouse, Peter Scherer and Ken Johnson. Members absent: Chairman Ina Liljedahl , Gary Foster, and Council liaison Richard Zelinka. Also present were Mayor Karth, arriving at 8:30 p.m. , and Ken Gourley from the Planning and Zoning Commission. The first item on the aqenda was the approval of the minutes from the last three meetings. Mr. Scherer moved to approve the minutes of the August 6, August 20 and September 6 meetings. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. Zelinka was not present to dive his report from the Council . The next item of business was the discussion and review of the proposed budget. The Council had cut the parks budget, and Mr. Shaughnessy noted there was not too much the Park Board could do about it. It was possible the City Administrator would revise the budget with the Council ' s approval later on. Mr. Scherer moved to accept the budget. Mr. Cheesebrough seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. Scherer noted the Parks budget was up $5,000 from last year, and Sunrise Park rink would come out of the 1979 budget. Don Volk was checking on lighting and labor from the hockey club for the rink. There was no information back on this yet. In reference to the LAWCON grant, Mr. Crouse reviewed the information contained in his letter, and brought the Park Board up to date on where the matter stood: On the first of September, the Park Board had received notice of a meeting at which they could appear in regard to the LA'WCON grant; however, before the meeting took place, f1etro ,•�, denied the grant because the City didn' t meet their criteria. Mr. Crouse and Mrs. Liljedahl had discussed this, and both felt the meeting should be attended despite the denial , if only to meet with some of the people who made the decision and to try to get a better idea of what they were basing it on. Mr. Crouse had put together some objections to Metro's decision; after talking with Mr. Johnboys and a member of Metro Council , it seemed that the grant was being denied because of the interpretation of two or three different things. There seemed to be some real problems there, and Mr. Johnboys had suggested that it be pursued at the meeting with Metro, or that the Council or City Attorney write a letter of objection and request an appeal . Since that time, Mr. Zelinka had not been available to discuss or review the matter, and other Council members had been contacted, but there had been no response back from the Council to date. Mr. Crouse felt the issue of the rejection of the grant should have been addressed more immediately, and that the Park Board alone, as it was not a governing body, could not take the matter back to Metro. This would require Council action. Mrs. Liljedahl had thought perhaps it was the intention of the Council to wait for the Metro meeting in January, as had been discussed at the last Park Board meetinq; However, Mr. Crouse felt if the rejection of the grant were not addressed now, there would be little or no recourse, as the meeting in January dealt with the criteria for a new year. If this grant were denied on the basis of Metro's criteria, then in all probability the City could not expect to get any other grants in the future. Nr. Johnson noted that in reading over the Council minutes , Mr. Zelinka' s presentation had been somewhat brief and had not addressed the whole issue. The Park Board had in the past been accused of not being, progressive, but in this case, not only was the budget cut, but there was no support back from the Council on the Park Board's initiative. Mr. Crouse indicated that according to Mr. Johnboys , Metro Council could make their own rules , but they had to stay within state and federal guidelines; Mr. Johnboys had given the impression .^ that Lino Lakes might have a case here. However, the Park Board could not proceed in the matter without direction from the Council . Page 2 Park Board October 1, 1979 ,.. The possibilities of sending Mr. Crouse and Mrs. Liljedahl to the Council as represen- tatives was discussed; Mr. Crouse indicated they were still waiting to hear from Mr. Zelinka on whether the Council would hear them or not. October 9 was the next Council meeting, and Ptir. Crouse was unable to make it. Mr. Shaughnessy suggested that Mrs. Liljedahl and himself attend the Council meeting to present the problem directly. Mr. Scherer suggested Mayor Karth be called and requested to come to the meeting to try to clear up the communication problem on the LAWCON issue: this was done. Mr. Crouse indicated he had explored other areas of grants , and there was a slight possibility of getting something through the Environmental Council . He had informa- tion available on solar energy efficient buildings , tax credits, and so forth. A lot of the grants were not really for the type of building proposed, but there was some possibility because there was a federal granting agency in the area of energy efficiency buildings, and there were several examples of similar grants. There were also private grants--not public money--that were available. Mayor Karth arrived at 8:30 p.m. to talk to the Board on the LAWCON grant situation. Mr. Shaughnessy indicated the Park Board had requested the Council take action on this , either by sending a letter to Metro Council protesting the refusal of the grant, or by directing the City Attorney to do so. Mr. Crouse indicated that Mrs. Liljedahl had felt that Metro Council had been on the defensive when she spoke to them, and also Mr. Johnboys had given the impression that the City had cause to request a review or an appeal on the basis of Metro's criteria being inconsistent. Mr. Johnboys was with the State Planning Office that administered the federal money, and had done the site review for the grant application. He had said that there had been many complaints about the criteria, but that no one had pursued the matter to date, in terms of Metro' s criteria being consistent with state law. Mayor Karth felt this should be put in the form of a motion that the Council draft the letter to Metro with these kinds of questions in it; however, Mr. Crouse felt it would be sufficient to request a review or an appeal without addressing the specific questions in the letter; otherwise, Pietro could respond that they felt the grounds were insufficient, and there would then be no recourse. Mayor Karth felt the basis or reasoning for an appeal should be included. Mr. Johnson noted that the Park Board had already made a motion to that effect at the last meeting, but that it didn't seem to have been brought up at the Council meeting. Mayor Karth indicated that the next Council meeting was October 9, and suggested that a Park Board member get a copy of the minutes and underline in red pencil the things that should be brought up before the Council and put it in his box in the office. The recording secretary was asked to have the minutes in the office by Friday. This will be done by Mr. Shaughnessy. Mr. Crouse moved to request the Council to write a letter requesting Metro Council that the City would like to appeal their decision on the refusal to grant the project. Mr. Scherer seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. It was noted this was the second time this had been discussed, voted on and approved. The letter should be directed to Charles Weaver, chairman, and Marilyn had the information and address. Mr. Crouse asked Mayor Karth for his opinion as to the possibilities of the Park Board becoming an elected body, and also as to how the communication gap could be resolved. This concern had been raised earlier in the summer when the all-purpose building had first come up, as to the liaison carrying through for the Board, or at least getting back to them on questions raised; in the last two or three months there had been a lack n of this kind of cooperation. Also, in reference to the budget, the Park Board had expected someone from the Council if Mr. Zelinka couldn't attend; the meeting that had coincided with the City Administrator interviews could have been moved to another night, but again there had been a lack of communication. He also noted that it had taken Page 3 Park Board October 1, 1979 n two months to get Council approval to spend the money for the sprayer when the money was there, and the Park Board had thought it feasible. By the time the approval came through, it was too late in the year to spray. It was felt this issue should be resolved; either there had to be. better communication, or the Park Board could possibly become a more independent or elected body, managing its own budget, and only reporting to the Council . Mayor Karth understood that under the City's form of government, the Park Board could not become an elected body. Mr. Scherer indicated that he had spoken to the Attorney General 's office on this, and they had said it was possible, but that it would have to be brought to the Legislature. However, there were provisions for this and it would be just a matter of communication between the legislative officials and the local community Council . Mayor Karth felt communication would be improved if the Park Board had two meetings a month, and also emphasized that if no one pushed on decisions, they would probably be passed over. Mr. Scherer noted that last summer he had been appointed liaison to the P & Z, and the Clerk had been requested to notify him if there was any Park Board business on the agenda for either the Council or P & Z. He had never been contacted, although he had stopped into the office before meetings , and they had said they would get something out to him. Mayor Karth felt that Mr. Scherer should have double- checked, and suggested he call the office the day of the meeting and ask if there was anything for him on the agenda. In reference to the budget, Mayor Karth indicated the Council had laid out City prior- ities as far as money in the following order: Roads, Police, Administrator and office, and Parks. If anything was cut from the budget, Parks would be the first to go. Regarding the sprayer, the request was to take it out of the budget, rather than out of funds , and Mr. Schneider then had to verify the park fund had any money left in the budget. Mr. Scherer said that he had been at one of the Council meetings when this was discussed, and had indicated that there was a surplus of Park Board money, but no action had been taken. Mayor Karth indicated there was some feeling at the Council level that Park money should be used for acquisition of park land. Mr. Crouse felt that was unnecessary as the park was getting the land it needed without buying it. Mayor Karth felt the Park Board should outline the uses intended for the money, and gave some examples. c �aKes There was some discussion aboouf s Park, and Mayor Karth felt it would run $25,000 to $30,000 to clear the undergrowth. Mr. Shaughnessy indicated that the Jaycees would be helping on that, so the costs would be minimal with the exception of the grading. In answer to whether a plan had been drawn up, Mr. Shaughnessy indicated Don Volk had volunteered to help on this. Mayor Karth felt the Park Board should be doing the planning as to what exactly should be done, with Don Volk supervising the actual clearing. Mr. Crouse indicated a plan had been prepared and the cost estimates and final plan were yet to come back to be finalized. Mr. Scherer noted that City employees working on park projects were paid by the Park Board; Mayor Karth indicated that most of this went to spraying or mowing, but that Don Volk' s time was not paid for. Mr. Scherer felt that if necessary, the Park Board could cover the time spent on supervision of projects. Mr. Johnson noted there was a part-time person in the budget, and perhaps he could carry out Park B aar�d�r ues nd supervise projects. Mayor Karth asked for a cony of the plan for `s ar and Mr. Crouse indicated it was laid out in the Five-Year Plan for progress year by year. The result would be a light activity park, with swings, monkey bars, picnic sites, parking for 30 cars, n possibly a softball field or an area that could be used for softball , and eventually a beach and fishing dock. Mayor Karth felt that a boat launch was called for with the channel there, and should have been included rather than the swimming beach, which would be expensive considering the marshy shoreline; Mr. Crouse indicated that Page 4 Park Board October 1, 1979 �-� the County Park was developing boat launch sites, and also that the beach was the last step in the plan. Mayor Karth noted there would be additional expenses such as rock for the parking lot, posts, etc. , and asked if theBoard had drawn out a map with locations and so on for the different projects. Mr. Shaughnessy indicated that the clearinq and grading came first on the step-by-step projection plan. The Five-Year Plan was discussed, and Mayor Karth was qiven a copy . Mr. Crouse indicated the priority was the multi-use building, and secondly updating the multi- use building area. This would be primarily the recreation rink and reversing the ballfields. Otherwise, most steps in the Five-Year Plan were concurrent on a yearly basis. Mr. Johnson noted that the grant would also have included some of the other park projects in addition to the all-purpose building. The first item on the plan, the tot lot at Sunset Oaks , had already been completed by Roy Stanley. The ball- fields at Lino Park were discussed, and the Park Board no longer felt these should be reversed. The next item was developing the parking lots , updating the tot lot, and maintenance at Sunrise Park. Mayor Karth noted there was some feeling at Council meetings that the Park Board should spend the money on improving the already existing parks like Sunrise rather than spending the money on the new land, such as Grover' s Park and so on. Sunrise Park in particular needed some work done on it. Mr. Crouse asked Mr. Gourley if he had any thoughts to express on this ; Mr. Gourley felt that for a number of years there had been a lack of communication between the Park Board and the P & Z, and had also not been aware there was a liaison for the P & Z. Mr. Gourley was also given a copy of the Five-Year Plan, and Mayor Karth was aiven a copy of the Action Plan. He asked about item No. 12, in reference to the holding pond owned by the state. Mr. Johnson indicated this was being used as a n holding pond over by the Correctional Institute, and would possibly be donated. Mr. Shaughnessy suggested the Park Board consider tennis facilities for some of the parks. Mr. Scherer raised the issue of the $1,100 cash value in lieu of land, and felt the land was actually worth much more than that. He also brought up the possibility of taking the land and holding it for resale. The latter was not generally felt to be feasible. Mr. Shaughnessy suggested the land value be set at what it would sell for on the market; However, Mr. Scherer pointed out that the developer had to invest a certain amount of money to bring the land value up, and Mayor Karth agreed that the value had to be based on the raw land before it was platted. He felt the Council would take action if this was put in the form of a motion; the Park Board indicated there was already a motion on record. Mr. Johnson noted the Council had also been requested to review the possibility of tacking the fee on to the building permit. Mayor Karth indicated that one of the objections was the questionable legality, and the possibility of someone contesting it. Mr. Scherer said that he had contacted the Attorney General 's office on this, and they had said that if there was an action, it would have to include all communities in a class action suit, and also, since most communities were using that system, there would have to be a law that specifically forbid it. The fee that had been suggested by the Park Board in the original motion was $150 per permit. Mayor Karth felt thatat the present rate of 10-15 permits per month for 5 months ($7,500) plus about $5,000 for the remaining months, the total of about $12,500 a year was at least equalled by the present system. He noted that the $1,100 per acre figure had been decided last year and the park fund was now at $60,000. Mr. Scherer felt that at this point there was a fund established, and the Park Board could now change to the other system; it would ,yeild $150 per building site, and when sewer service came in, the subdivisions would provide additional income over a period Page 5 Park Board October 1, 1979 of time. Mayor Karth felt that collecting park funds for subdivisions would be in essence collecting twice on a piece of property. Mr. Shaughnessy read the minutes from the May 17, 1979 meeting in reference to the motions passed at that time, and noted that the Park Board had never received an answer back from the Council . Mr. Karth indicated that the Council had felt that it bordered on illegality, and that the present system was bringing in more money because of the amount of land that was being platted or yet to be platted. Also, the Council had felt that getting the money up front was generally a better idea than getting it through the building permit process. In addition, the building permit fee would not enable the parks to develop until after the homes were already there; it would be a good system for maintenance money, but not for development. Mr. Karth also felt there was nothing to stop a citizen from sueing Lino Lakes alone, despite the fact that several other communities were using the system. Mr. Crouse felt that this situation might be possible, and a citizen had the legal right to sue, but the feasibility was rather remote. In reference to increasing the land value for park dedication, Mr. Crouse felt the fee should be raised automatically every six months or year as inflation increased, t O keep up with the cost of living; more specifically, ten percent of the established fee, to be reviewed every six months. Mr. Karth suggested this be laid out ina dollar amount in a schedule format to cover one or two years. Mr. Scherer indicated he had discussed this with one of the developers who had said he would have been willing to pay more than ten percent; Mr. Karth felt this was not the typical developer. There was further discussion on this. Mr. Crouse moved to recommend that the Council increase the fee by either a percentage or a certain dollar amount, $150, twice a year begin- ning at the first of the year, January 1, and reviewing it to see if it was applicable before July first of that year, to be reviewed by the Park Board. The land value would then stand at $1,250 as of January 1, 1980. Mr. Crouse later amended the motion to drop the percentage amount. Mr. Shaughnessy suggested the first year have only one boost, and after that time, twice-yearly boosts. The possibility of having only one review a year was discussed, but Mr. Johnson felt the yearly increase with the six-months review was more desirable. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mr. Scherer had a letter dated August 22, 1979, concerning the plat for East Birch Addition, and a copy was given to Mayor Karth. This matter had been settled at the last Council meeting, but Mr. Scherer felt that there should not be a recurrence of this type of misunderstanding. The Park Board never received the actual plat in this case, and yet were supposed to have made a decision on it. They had been talking about the east side of the freeway where there was room to get sufficient land for a park, but in this particular area, it would be under 5 acres and there was to be a tot lot or park a matter of 500 feet away. Mr. Scherer felt it did not seem to be feasible, and also that no one else should speak for the Park Board. Mayor Karth asked if the Council had approved the Five-Year Plan; Mr. Crouse indi- cated the Council had approved the writing for the grant, which could be seen as implied approval . Mr. Gourley indicated that the P & Z had been waiting for the plan to incorporate into the Comprehensive Plan, and would be dealing with this in Nov- ember. Mr. Crouse noted the Park Board had not been aware of that. Mr. Shaughnessy moved that copies of the Five-Year Plan be sent to the P & Z and Council before their next meeting and that the Council take action on the plan by the end of October so that the plan could be forwarded to the P & Z for review and insertion in the Compre- hensive Plan. Mr. Cheesebrough seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Page 6 Park Board October 1, 1979 Mayor Karth indicated that the City Administrator would be hired by November, and would be able to help make the grant-writing process easier and also would have some information as to what grants were available; He would also be able to help on the appeal process. Mr. Shaughnessy felt the letter to Metro should be handled before November. Mr. Scherer moved to adjourn at 9.55 p.m. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor. Potion declared passed. n