12-18-86 Agenda & Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• -5- 3. Oakwood picnic shelter. A small open air picnic shelter is propose. at Oakwood Park to encourage use of the site and • allow people an opportunity to picnic in a relatively densely populated residential area. 4. City Hall multi-purpose court. This multi-purpose court would complete the City Hall Park grounds and provide one last amenity for the large community picnics and festival celebrations that are held at City [tall Park. 1992 1. Woodcrest tot lot. The tot lot equipment is currently 12 years old at Woodcrest Park and in 1992 will be 17 years old nd in need of re lacement. 2. Lambert multi purpose court. This is the last multi-purpose court proposed in the City park system and would complete the development at Lambert Park. 3. Hockey lights at Hillview Park. The current hockey lights at Hillview Park are in extremely poor condition and are over 15 years old which will make them 20 years old in 1992. The new system that we propose would be energy efficient and not only would it greatly decrease our electrical costs, but it would provide a higher level of "foot candles" in the rink area. 4. Oakwood Park play area. The play equipment at Oakwood Park • is eight years old in great need of repair and replacement. This was the last wood system that we have in the City and would be replaced with a metal, steel or aluminum system. 5. Floating boardwalk at Silver View Park. This item would place the entire trail at Silver View Park on park property and would greatly enhance the trail experience . The board- walk that we wouldbe looking at would be similar to the walkway at the Springbrook Nature Center or Roseville Central Park. By adding this dimension at Silver View Park, we would able to expand the program possibilities to include bird observation decks and other areas for nature identification along the trail area. In addition, we would like to recommend that a joint meeting be established with the City Council so that we can identifyspecific P is funding sources to meeting the capital improvement plan as out- lined . As you are aware, we have been unsuccessful with our past park referendums and it is our recommendation that the City Coun- cil begin to look at a permanent, long range solution to funding park improvements. That recommendation was formalized at the July 21 Commission meeting. At that meeting, a formal motion was passed unanimously recommending that the Park Commission recom- mends to the City Council that a goal of $500 ,000 be established for the park dedication fund with the dollars to be accumulated over the next five years. Interest from the park dedication fund, in the amount of $35,000 - $40,000, would then be used to supple- ment other City funding sources for developing long range capital improvement projects. Possible methods for establishing the park dedication fund over the next five years would be: