11.16.06minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7. Unfinished Business (Continued) b) Facility Guide Update – Sent to printers. 3,000 copies. c) Rental Fee Structure – Continued discussions. A draft of the City’s fee schedule for 2007 was th introduced to the City Council on November 6. The City Council has a few question pertaining to park field and park building rental:  Adding political/civic groups to the classification list: YMCA Advisory Committee suggested leaving them as resident/non-resident, for-profit/non-profit would be enough  Should the rates for Class IV users be increased? No, need to stay competitive  Why does it cost half as much to rent park buildings versus a park shelter? This is weekend rates for City Hall and Silverview d) Field Use Fee Structure: See attached fee schedule 8. New Business: a) T-Mobile’s proposal to construct a building and antenna pole at Groveland Park th Kari Brown, representative for T-Mobile, was present at the November 6 Work Session. She presented a plan and answered questions pertaining to the proposal to construct a building along with a 100' pole that would have antennas mounted on it in Groveland Park. These plans are include in the packet. Please note that the plans indicate a 15’X20’ building (not 10’X12’). Kari Brown was present at this Park and Recreation Commission Meeting. See attached notes. Commission considerations: *Pole in the city park for 30 years *aesthetics; landscaping around pole and structure, as well as overall park aesthetics affected by structure and pole in the park *proceeds going to Park Dedication Fund vs. to general fund. Steady income from this contract into Park Dedication Fund could be a benefit, relieving the burden of using other city funds for future park projects (i.e. Special Project Fund) *neighborhood acceptance *no degradation to existing or future park usage *functional benefit to park *no limitations to park use now or in the future *future DNR grant money may be limited because a park has something besides a public use facility. *precedence of using other parkland for similar purposes Supporting rationale: Kunza, Long, Arel, Kunz: supportive if proceeds to Park Dedication Fund, cabinet is attached to existing park building with attractive fencing and landscaping, and pole put in proposed trees up to 100 feet. Kroeger: supportive if pole is up to 100 feet, aesthetically pleasing, neighborhood supportive, funds to Park Dedication Fund, no degradation of existing park land, has a functional benefit to park (i.e lights could be mounted), no future limitations to park use or future financial support Palm: while agrees with above supportive comments/conditions, Palm is NOT in favor of this proposal due to concern with setting precedence Aukee: not present IF ANY OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING RATIONALE IS DENIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, THE OPINIONS AND SUPPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS WILL BE AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL.