Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-11-1979 Park Board Minutes Vie' SPECIAL PARK BOARD June, 1979 Minutes but no agenda or packet June 11, 1979 The special meeting of the Park Board was called to order at 7:05 p.m. , June 11, 1979, by Chairman Ina Liljedahl . Members present: Tom Shauahnessy, Peter Scherer, Larry Crouse, and Charles Cheesebrough. Members absent: Ken Johnson, Gary Foster, and Council liaison Richard Zelinka. Also present were Don Volk, Marilyn Anderson, and Gene Mobley. Don Volk presented the preliminary plans for the all-season recreation building for Lino Park. Mr. Mobley gave an estimated cost based on square footage of $66,960. This cost estimate does not include things like lights , doors , interior and exterior finishing, etc. , which will need to be addressed after the basic floor plan is approved. Elevations will also need to be done. Mr. Mobley out- lined several alternatives for the Park Board on these. Larry Crouse presented a summary of the information he had gotten on the grant situation: There are available, in general , two types of grants; one is state, and one federal (HUD). As a municipality, Lino Lakes has about an even chance of getting one; and perhaps in the range of 50-70%, the rest being local funding. The grant would not actually be available until next spring or summer. There is no top limit on grants , and they can be for an individual project or for an over- all basic park development. Finished facilities , sophisticated recreations, and anything that competes with private enterprise will probably not receive grants. They look at the whole area or locality when considering grants , so there is some variability in the type of things that are fundable. Very basic things are the most fundable. Anything that has a usable facility, even if very primitive, is considered a formal park development. Mr. Crouse felt they would probably have very serious doubts about funding if the building was put up this summer or if the money had been appropriated already; the probability of reimbursement was not good. In some areas , if they are running short of funds , they can apply for a grant to finish the project. He was not sure of the situation if 50% of the cost were applied for in a grant, and 50% paid out of park funds. Also, letters of support from groups and people in the community, the school district, Churches, etc. , would be helpful . Basically, however, the project would have to be delayed a full year for a grant to come through (if at all ). The Park Board felt this would not be a good idea--to delay the project for a year on the possibility of getting a grant. If a grant was not received, costs would rise by about 15% for the one-year delay. Once the basic information was put together for the grant, then grants, written and justified, could be applied for every year. It was suggested that a bond be floated to cover the cost of the building, as the Park Board did not want to use the entire amount of dedicated funds on this one project. The present amount in the Park Board funds is $49,893. Mr. Shaughnessy suggested solar power be used for the building. This would also increase the possibility of getting a grant. Mr. Mobley would be able to get full assistance for this. The building, as designed, would accomodate 200 people (both floors) . This was felt to be sufficient for the next 5 years. The building is expandable in several directions. There was some question about the area for selling concessions (from inside to outside) as being too far off the ground. Mrs. Anderson suggested the possibility Page 2 Park Board, June 11, 1979 of a summer building just for concessions. As far as the well was concerned, Don Volk said the water tests out and could be used, even if it had to cover the distance over to the proposed building site. A well can only serve one building at a time; same with the sanitary system. (No possibility of using the well from the Municipal building. ) Don Volk did not know about the water pressure, although this can easily be determined. A bigger pump may be needed, and there is some question if the well is big enough to handle a bigger pump. Masonry was felt to be more economical for the exterior of the building, perhaps accented with wood. The proposed site for the building was north of the parking lot. Mr. Mobley suggested a plot plan be done, and the necessity of checking with the fire department to see if they can get the vehicles in there, and so on. In review: 1. The Park Board felt a bond issue should be floated for the $66,900. 2. A grant should be applied for, but not counted on. 3. The location would be just north of the present parking lot. (As part of the plan proposed by the University) 4. The building should have solar heating. 5. The building would have a masonry structure (less vandalism problems, lower insurance rates, more economical ) 6. The building (both floors) would accomodate 200 people. 7. It has full handicapped facilities (ramps, toilets). 8. The building is planned for 4-season use. 9. There are outdoor facilities (restrooms) accessible only from the outside, with no access to the inside. 10. The Park Board felt the cost for Greg Carlson, who drew up the preliminary plans , to do the rest of the work on this would run under $1,000. In compari- son, an architectural firm would run about 10% of the building cost, or $6,000. Greg Carlson's plans would have to be certified by the City Engineer. Mr. Shaughnessy moved that the Park Board submit their recommendations as outlined here to the Council . Mr. Crouse seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. Mrs. Liljedahl will present these recommendations to the Council at their meeting immediately following the Park Board meeting. Mr. Crouse will review the grant situation for the Council . The meeting was adjourned at 8 p.m.