Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/02/27 Agenda & Packet A CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW • PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA February 27, 1992 City Hall Chambers 6: 30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2 . APPROVAL OF JANUARY 23 , 1992 MINUTES 3 . CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT . D' 4 . COUNCILPERSON'S REPORT > 'kyf,tt 5. RSCC> `I 6. VANDALISM > RIAI/d0 7. ICE SKATING RINKS> 8 . TRAILWAYS ADVOCACY GROUP PT f\ p 9 . GOLF COURSE UPDATE > 41, 10. OTHER BUSINESS 11. LAKESIDE PARK 12 . ADJOURNMENT NEXT MEETING WILL BE HELD ON THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 1992 . FORESTER WRISKEY WILL PRESENT HIS YEAR END REPORT. 111 , 7=7 OF Ill - Phone: (612) 784-3055 • I vU Fax: (612) 784-3462 February 19, 1992 Dear Parks & Recreation Commissioners; Our regular February meeting will be held on Thursday, February 27, 1992 at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall Council Chambers. We will spend half an hour discussing business. At 7:00 p.m. we will host a joint meeting Spring with the S rin Lake Park Recreation Commission. We will be discussing the operation of Lakeside Park. The minutes of the last meeting are enclosed. Also, is a letter regarding the permit request from the Corps of Engineers regarding the land north of Hwy 118. I have also sent a proposed budget recommendation for Lakeside Park. This will be discussed and explained at the meeting. I also will be updating you on activities of the Parks, Recreation & Forestry Department. III If you are unable to attend the meeting, please call to notify me at 784-3055 ext. 20. The joint meetings with Spring Lake Park Recreation Commission traditionally are enlightening because of the opportunity to exchange ideas and brainstorm. Sincerely, ----7,e,..,___ - (.1--t=1407 Mary Saarion, Director Parks, Recreation and Forestry 0 PRINTED WITH 7�^ SOYINK,- 2401 Highway 10 • Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 (UG(,�J] recy.ied paper r , MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Phone: (612) 784-3055 • V�Uv Fax: (612) 784-3462 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA January 23 , 1992 6: 30 p.m. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6: 30 p.m. by Chairperson Burmeister. ROLL CALL: Commissioners present: Chairperson Burmeister, Commissioners Silvis, Trettel, Stevenson, Dentz and Starr. Councilmember present: Councilmember Wuori Staff present: Director Saarion RSCC: The Commission reviewed the tape of the RSCC, as produced by the Task Force. The Commission endorsed the continued work regarding the planning of a Regional Senior Community Center and recommended to the City Council the approval of the resolution. The Commission expressed their • interest in the project and encouraged continued publicity regarding the RSCC. Commissioner Silveis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Stevenson to recommend the continued work of the RSCC. The motion passed, 7 Ayes, 0 Nayes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Silvis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Stevenson to approve the minutes of November 7, 1992 . Motion passes. 7 Ayes, 0 Nayes. REPORTS: No reports by the Chairperson or Councilmember. GRANTS: Director Saarion reported on the grants that are currently being prepared and will be submitted in February. The probability of grant awards is always tentative, but it is hoped that if several are submitted, perhaps one or more will be funded. LAKESIDE PARK: Director Saarion reported that the next meeting will be held jointly with Spring Lake Park Recreation Commission as agreed last Fall. The meeting will specifically deal with the operations • at Lakeside Park this summer. A budget proposal will be given to both Commissions for discussion. PRINTED WITH j<R,� SOY INK 2401 Highway 10 • Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 ��LLCC.J•J retyIed paper VOS A final recommendation will be needed to $ . decided so that it can be presented to botri'one: (612) 7843055 • �[ � Councils allowing enough time to schedule old 02)e784-3462 for the operations of Lakeside Park in summer 1992. OTHER BUSINESS: Commissioner Dentz inquired about the progress of the golf course. Staff reported that the permit had been submitted to the Corps of Army Engineers. However, there is a hold on the permit request. ' It is unknown when the reply regarding the permit will be returned. SEH had surveying work done on the site to mark the permit requests in the occasion that the Corps would visit the site for observation. TRAILWAYS ADVOCACY GROUP MEETING: The TAG met at 7: 00 p.m. and the Commission was in attendance. The minutes of this meeting is attached. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Silvis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Dentz to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed, 7 Ayes and 0 Nayes. The meeting was adjourned after the TAG meeting at 9: 15 p.m. • NEXT PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE HELD ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27 AT 6: 30 P.M. AT CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THIS WILL BE A JOINT MEETING WITH THE SLP COMMISSION REGARDING LAKESIDE PARK OPERATIONS. PRINTED WITH �� i SOVINK_ 2401 Highway 10 • Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 r9 recycled paper .Arrseri •CINEERS I ARCHITECTS■PLANNERS 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE,ST PAUL,MINNESOTA 55110 612 490-2000 419 January 23, 1992 (152223246. �o Ce,j 9 F2 Mr. Ric Minetor, ca � �� Public Works Director <<p1s8L9 s. �' City of Mounds View 24(1 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 Dear Ric: According to a recent conversation our staff has had with the Corps of Engineers, the Mounds View Municipal Golf Course application for a permit has been placed on hold. This delay is occurring because the Corps of Engineers nationwide permits have expired and they have no valid nationwide permits to grant. Because of disagreements between • the Corps of Engineers and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency about conditions on the nationwide permits,there will be a delay in the renewal of the Corps' nationwide per- mits affecting all current nationwide permit applications. This delay is not related to the changes in the state wetland regulation under the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991. The Mounds View permit has been placed on hold because it will most likely be granted under the nationwide permit program. It is not known how long the negotiations between the Corps and the MPCA will con- tinue. If an agreement can be reached relatively soon it is not unlikely that the permit could be granted within 60 to 90 days, an average period for permit processing. We will be notified by the Corps of Engineers when the nationwide permits have been reinstated. We apologize for this inconvenience, but the possibility of this problem occurring was unforeseen. If you have any questions regarding this permit process, please call me at 490-2064. Sincerel , Randy Thoreson, Project Manager/Senior Planner RRT/cih • cc: Joel Schilling, SEH Dan Boxrud, SEH SHORT ELLIOTT ST PAUL, C,ylac_WA=q__ HENDRICKSON INC. MINNESOTA ✓iSCONS!N FUND DEPT, �iU l r Form BUDGET REQUEST Object Title Account No. 110 Description Dent. Team Council Request Proposed Approved 31-.P 2o - Do /49/ Carr ems 39c . /7 esrd rims s}i}i 3;390•oa Estimated 19 Administrators Use Only : (enter on Form Z) FUND .sem 5DEPT. 10 ke5;d li'/-.. . Form B BUDGET REQUEST Object Title p/z. 5-7/..4.4" Account No. �Q DescriptionDept. Team Council Request Proposed Approved Nile"-r e44Ce. 11&,5 ej / #D 40 3 it.q/v/4/ . . . ' , . i/ / iE-G vALreQs • 1 83.oo . cy i ds X 7Ars/caa y x /3 e-14/.5X O4i 42.-51174tr & /1 ' 4 i ...114114141-4111 ?"1 0 G16 ....-- I.... . 14 i 41, I / 13''d / / ___ Estimated 19 Administrators Use Only : (enter on Form Z) iii -,75.8 . DO FUND ,,?�'�?� DEPT. I4ke /e 7Q,-.4Form B BUDGET REQUEST I Object TitleAccount No. e...30 4n 4iirrS r Description Dept. Team Council Request Proposed Approved . O?t 'c X � �f��. 00 fg7Q/� 41) Estimated 19 1 Administrators Use Only : (enter on Form Z) 1,/947.DC _ FUND DEPT ��k����d T4/''� Form BUDGET REQUEST Object Title Workevs Account No. 45-2, Description Dept. Team Council tiv Request Proposed Approved 587. D© , . ( 9 7 /5 6..31 — n Estimated 19 T Administrators Use Only : (enter on Form Z) /,&. �/ FUN ---,*5 DEPT. ,Z4,4--e5,-de, _42,,. (2/42�l Form B BUDGET REQUEST Obi ect Tit Ie ( helico/ /li Tsylen71- Account No. l.) 10 Description Dept. Team Council Request Proposed Approved DAI Ay'rn�'f moo.De) .51)/fz2tri app , pp Brh e �� ` G e�is - S .1!5`.: ©d -4 --- - Estimated 19 _ Administrators Use Onl r : (enter on Form Z) '.32-c..66_ • Form FUND -5—� _ DEPT. jaK ,tde 7cr ,k_ B BUDGET REQUEST Object Tit I e 6)/efrzehdeiq s,,,/42/res Account No. X60 1111 Description Dept. Team Council Request Proposed Approved S�Q�S /40- 49c)7 weJ5 . 7i*]L/Pe,D cY-' /Ifzsc 4111 Estimated 19 Administrators Use Only : (enter on Form Z) 4,4.00 FUND �,W' DEPT. 74.,./ Form B / BUDGET REQUEST IObject Title TeE l©w,e 3--er// e... Account No. Description Dept. Team Council Request � .OProposed Approved P40/?� 5e-r1/�c� Maa r ljor � Estimated 19 Administrators Use Only : (enter on Form Z) ( .DO FUND DEPT. 44 KeS/Cfe- ii/e 61/.,2) Fo nn BUDGET REQUEST Object Title E -ems/CiTY Account No. 3.2/ Description Dept. Team Council Request Proposed Approved Jt/ • 1 • — — Estimated 19 Administrators Use Only : (enter on Form Z) irtse. 0 • FUND 5.� DEPT. ',()5/We- 4142/ Form B BUDGET REQUEST Object Title 4-fuS,c &nee/704 Account No. 35-2 Description Dept. Team Council Request Proposed Approved itii Estimated 19 ' Administrators Use Only : (enter on Form Z) 1/1„7..)• 0O 0 L Form FUND S DEPT. . 5/We Ak-k (�4-7B BUDGET REQUEST Object Title �,, dUe 16.S7 D.0-!SIII Account No. SIP Description Dept. Team Council Request Proposed Approved /17a, -- A 5 7" b1 4b -.9Q, ik t „?e,g.40-0 end. -9.47a 15 X 15 .60/sire /145 A/F•De _ e./7 ' de ai-iwifr /7-.9.ed_s . ill Estimated 19 Administrators Use Only : (enter on Form Z) " A • • PRELIMINARY REGIONAL SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER REPORT • TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. RESULTS OF THE CITIZENS' SURVEY 4 III. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING FUNDING AND ORGANIZATION 8 IV. FUTURE STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10 V. CONCLUSION 12 S • • I. INTRODUCTION In August of 1991 , the City Councils of Fridley, New Brighton, Mounds View and Spring Lake Park passed an identical resolution establishing a senior center task force that was charged with investigating the feasibility of establishing a regional senior citizens' center for the four communities. The purpose of this report is to update the City Councils of Fridley, Mounds View, New Brighton, and Spring Lake Park on the progress of the Regional Senior Citizens Task Force. In meeting their overall responsibilities, the Task Force was asked to identify programs and services that might be offered in a multi-jurisdictional senior citizens center facility to address the proposed location of a regional senior citizens center. Additionally, the Task Force was asked to develop recommendations regarding staffing and planning a senior citizens center that would serve the four cities. The City Councils also recognized that the Task Force should investigate coordination of the existing senior service providers within the four cities and develop recommendations for resolving any problems that might exist regarding the provision of senior services. Finally, the City Councils instructed the Task Force to determine what legal authority would be used to establish a regional senior citizens center, and to assess the • kind of governance that would be set up to direct a multi-jurisdictional senior citizens center. With this charge in mind, the Task Force met for the first time on September 12, 1991 , and have met eight additional times since then. At the first meeting, the Task Force selected two co-chairpersons and developed rules of operation for their meetings. They also reviewed their charge and began to designate topics to be discussed at additional meetings. Since the Task Force began its work, a number of topics and activities have received the Task Force's primary attention. Initially, the Task Force was very interested in communicating with seniors and with the • public as a whole. A press release was developed to describe the work of the Task Force. The group established a committee that produced its own cable television production, speaking engagements were scheduled with groups of senior citizens and other community organizations, and a citizens' survey was commissioned. In addition to looking to focusing on community relations, the Task Force has also spent considerable time looking at funding recommendations. At their meeting on October 9, 1991 , the Task Force discussed the range of funding options. On October 17, 199/, a number of the Task Force members met with our state legislative delegation to • 2 • discuss the potential for enactment of special district legislation. Also on October 17, 199 , another group of representatives from the Task Force attended a senior issues forum that was hosted by about twelve State legislators. At the forum, the Task Force had an opportunity to explain the project and state their need for special district legislation. As the attention of the Task Force turned from special district legislation to a joint powers arrangement, representatives met with Representative Wayne Simoneau to seek his personal support in drafting and circulating a bill during the 1992 session of the state legislature. Representative Simoneau very kindly agreed to help the Task Force and made available the services of Mr. Gary Currie, a Senior Analyst with House Research. The special legislation has been reviewed, approved by the Task Force, and submitted to each of the four City Councils for their review and approval. • . - _ -• - . . - .•, = - - - _ , . : . hie Task Force will proceed to introduce a bill on or about February 17, 1992. In addition to spending a great deal of time drafting special legislation, the Task Force also commissioned a citizens' survey. Several of the meetings were devoted to discussing the drafting of the survey research questionnaire and the survey research results. The main purpose of the survey was to determine overall levels of support for the project, and • to secure the support of the State legislators and the City Councils. 3 Another topic of considerable importance for the Task Force has been the meetings with senior providers. Representatives from the Task Force met with the Metropolitan Council, as well as with another providers to determine under what circumstances a wide variety of primarily Title 3 funded programs might continue to be provided in the proposed multi- .i jurisdictional senior citizens center. More recently, the Task Force has begun to focus on site selection. At the last meeting, - Task Force vie - • a videotape of five recommended sites. Additionally, •-(- group discussed site selection criteria. In the near future - - group expects to ' -•.h each of the criteria and as a grou.• • apply site selection criteria to the five p • .osed sites. II. RESULTS OF THE CITIZENS' SURVEY The Task Force hired Decisions Resources, Ltd., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, to conduct a surve o esidents in the four communities. Decision Resources randomly selected a total of 500 individuals from the four communities. The sample was stratified to include 100 residents from each community and an additional 100 senior citizens from across the area. A telephone survey was conducted between December 3 and 11 , 1991 . Overall, the survey concluded that there was strong and widespread support for the construction of a regional senior citizens center. The survey 4 • also concluded that there was a relatively large number of residents who could be expected to use the regional senior center. The survey research concluded that the population as a whole had an average age of 44.4 years. Among these residents, a regional senior center was deemed either a top priority or a major priority by 51 percent. Additionally, 17 percent of the sample reported that there were members of their household or nearby relatives who would be very likely to use the facility. An additional 25 percent indicated that family members and nearby relatives were somewhat likely to use the facility. It was discovered that the average resident would be willing to drive 12.4 minutes to reach a regional senior citizens center. Locating the regional senior citizens center outside the boundaries of the city of residence did not seem to be an obstacle for most of the respondents. Surprisingly, a majority of the residents were willing to see their property taxes raised by an average of $11 .50 per year to fund the construction and operation of a regional senior citizens center. Although 21 percent were unwilling to pay any taxes, 28 percent expressed a willingness to see their property taxes raised by as much as $20 per year. In contrast to the population as a whole, the senior residents had an average age of 68.5 years. For these residents, a regional senior citizens center was deemed a top priority. It was deemed a major priority by 52 • percent. An additional 28 percent called the regional senior citizens center 5 • a minor priority. Of the se ior' -ampled, 30 percent reported that there were members of their household or nearby relatives who would be very likely to use the facility. An additional 38 percent indicated that family members and nearby relatives were somewhat likely to use the facility. According to the surveyors, approximately 46 percent of the senior households in the area can be expected to use a well publicized senior citizens center. The seniors also demonstrated a willingness to drive an average of 12.5 minutes to reach the regional senior citizens center, and like the population as a whole, most of the potential users told us that they were in the 6 to 15 minute driving range. Although the seniors are much more • likely to use a senior center than the population as a whole, they seem to be somewhat less willing to support it with 9xes. A majority of the seniors, however, would be willing to see the taxes raised by $8.38 per year to fund the construction and operation of the center. Although 32 percent of the senior citizens were unwilling to pay any additional taxes, 22 percent indicated that they would be willing to pay as much as $20 more per year for the funding of a regional senior citizens center. The survey also revealed that support for a senior citizens center was fairly widespread within each of the four communities. There were, however, some differences from community to C mmunity. In response to • 6 • the portion of the survey that asked about use of a regional senior citizens center outside the respondent's city boundaries, 10 percent of the respondents from Spring Lake Park said they were either much less likely or somewhat less likely to use the facility. The other three communities had somewhat similar responses. Thirty-two percent of the residents of New Brighton were either much less likely or somewhat less likely to use a facility outside their city boundaries. Thirty-five percent of the residents in Mounds View and 37 percent of the residents of Fridley responded in a similar manner. Support for a regional senior citizens center was strong in all four communities. Eighty-one percent of the respondents in Mounds View and 5 Spring Lake Park support a regional senior citizens center. While seventy- six percent of the respondents from Fridley supported the regional senior citizens center, 67 percent of the respondents from New Brighton favored a regional senior center. Willingness to pay additional taxes ranged between $10.25 among New Brighton respondents to $12.70 among the Fridley respondents. Both Spring Lake Park and Mounds View respondents indicated that they were willing to pay an average of $10.50 in additional taxes to support a regional senior citizens center. S 7 • III. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING FUNDING AND ORGANIZATION While initially the Task Force was inclined to support the creation of a special service district that would have both taxing and borrowing authority, as we discussed the issue with bond counsel, we began to reconsider the special district option. We also noted from the citizens' survey that approximately 1/3 of the survey respondents objected to the creation of a special district. As a result of the two phenomenon, the Task Force moved in the direction of a joint powers approach for the funding for a regional senior citizens center. In order to provide a joint powers approach that would ensure the establishment of an adequately funded regional senior citizens • center, the Task Force identified a number of provisions that would be included in special legislation. The special legislation was to be presented to the State legislative delegation and ultimately, to the legislature for approval. The proposed special legislation that was developed and approved by the Task Force had three major provisions. It asks that a portion of each city's expenditures for the regional senior citizens center that is above and beyond what is currently being expended in the cities for senior services be assessed outside the individual cities' levy limits. The proposed legislation also asks the legislature to allow the Task Force to issue general obligation bonds without a referendum. Finally, it asks the 0 8 • legislature to declare that the indebtedness created for a multi-jurisdictional senior citizens center does not count against the debt limits of any individual city. In addition to drafting special legislation, the Task Force has also contemplated the provisions of a joint powers agreement. At this point in time, the Task Force appears to be headed toward a recommendation that would give the joint powers governing board the authority to approve budgets within limits established by the joint powers agreement. Basically, those limits would consist of the budget for the first year of operation and would be adjusted annually for any changes that have occurred in the Consumer Price Index. • The Task Force is also recommending that each City's share of the costs for operating the regional senior citizens center be derived from a formula whereby a city's percent of total population and its percent of senior population (population over 60 years of age) are divided by two. The quotient constitutes the percentage of total funding for which the individual city is accountable. Although all the details for the joint powers agreement have yet to be worked out, we envision that City Council control of a multi-jurisdictional senior citizens center would be through the appointment of members to a governing board, as well as through the joint raising or lowering of expenditure limits. It is also expected that a city's commitment to the joint • 9 • powers agreement would correspond to the length of time over which bonds are issued. In all likelihood, we will be recommending a twenty-year commitment. While it is possible for the joint powers organization to dissolve or for individual members to terminate, we expect that it will be possible only at the expense of continuing the individual city's financial commitment. Special legislation for the regional senior citizens center is to be presented shortly after the State legislature reconvenes. Resolutions that have been passed by each of the four City Councils will be attached to the legislation, and we will seek to have the legislation considered in committees in the House and Senate. • • IV. FUTURE STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Not surprisingly, not all of the lengthy charges that the City Councils addressed pertaining to the multi-jurisdictional senior citizens center have been filled. The Task Force is just beginning to look at site selection and expects to continue to address site selection during the next two meetings. The goal is to ultimately recommend a site through the application of site selection criteria to the five recommended sites for the proposed regional senior citizens center. ID 10 The Task Force is also continuing its work with senior service • providers. To date, the representatives of the Task Force have spoken to the Metropolitan Council, and have had conversations with the two organizations that provide congregate dining services in both Ramsey County and Anoka County. We have also spoken to representatives of School District 621 regarding the coordination of their senior activities with the coordination of activities of the regional senior citizens center. A subcommittee of the Task Force has developed a long list of other organizations that will need to be contacted and surveyed regarding the potential for their cooperation and coordination. During the weeks ahead, representatives of the Task Force will continue to meet with these • organizations and will provide a comprehensive report of opportunities for coordination and cooperation among the service providers. While the survey results indicated general satisfaction and support for a variety of senior center services, the Task Force as a whole has yet to make decisions regarding future services. As the Task Force examines these services, it will also be looking at a number of operating issues. The final report will contain proposals for staffing a regional senior citizens center, as well as a refinement of senior center budget projections. In addition to focusing on future operations of the senior center, the Task Force will also address a number of issues regarding governance of a regional senior citizens center. The issues include determining the size • 11 . 1 • of a regional senior citizens center governing board, as well as the terms of office for governing board members, and the proration of governing board seats among the four cities. Finally, the Task Force will focus its attention on the facilities that will be built to house the regional senior citizens center. Once site selection has been completed, we will be in a better position to determine whether or not we are going to build or lease a facility, as well as to identify the kinds of facilities that will be constructed or leased. While we had hoped to finish our work by now, it is becoming io increasingly clear that we will need another s to Wit-weeks to provide a final report and recommendations from the Task Force. • V. CONCLUSION The Task Force has been a very congenial group that has been meeting bi-weekly to deal with a wide variety of issues related to the establishment of a multi-jurisdictional senior center. We have looked primarily at community support, and have worked very diligently toward the identification of funding and organizational requirements for a multi- jurisdictional senior citizens center, and have begun to assess the extent to which existing senior service providers can be coordinated. While we realize that we have much work yet to do, we are also encouraged by the strong show of support that was found in the survey, as • 12 • well as by the amount of citizen interest that continues to be displayed for our project. We would like to take this opportunity to thank the City Councils for their financial support of the citizens' survey, as well as for their support for the special district legislation that we are proposing to introduce in the near future. We apologize for not having this report prepared until February 15, 1992. We hope you will understand the need for the additional time. Respectfully submitted, MEMBERS OF THE REGIONAL SENIOR CITIZENS' CENTER TASK FORCE • 4IP 13