HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1980/05/01City of Mounds Viaw
Parks and Recreation Commission
Thursday, May 1, 1980
6:30 p.m.
Mounds View City Hall Council Chambers
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, Minnesota 55112
A G E N D A
1. Call to Order
2. Approvat of the March 27, 1480 minutes
3. Chairman's Report
4. Councilmember's Report
5. Visitor Presentation
6. Off3cia7 swearing in process - City Fdministrator Anderson
7. Edgewood Jr. High Development Agreement
8. Summer Brochure Copy
9. Comprehensive Plan Update
10. Staff Report
11. Adjournment
i
Minutes -2- Mnrch 27, 1980
Direc[or Anders n revSewed [he propused coneultnnt choice
procees for,future Silver View development
Planning Director Anderson reviewed blob s[udies as prepared by Saunders-
Upda[e Thelden and Asaociates Inc. Concern w.as expressed about the
re-designing of parks whivh has been suggested by [he plannere.
The park survey will be concluded by Apr11 3.
Spring The Spring Brochure of recreaeion activi[tes was reviewed by
Hrochure Program Supervlsor iLvalheim.
Sa[ellites Commissioner Linke m de a mo[Son [a adop[ ehe pmvieion of
for Summer sa[ellites at eigh[ ballfield eites lncluding: O kwood, City
Baseball Hall, Lam6er[, Nillview, Edgewood, Grovela d, Pinewoad and Red Oak.
Program Cummisaioner Dennehy seconded [he moClon. Mo[ion paesed
unanimously.
9 ayea
0 nayes
7une - Pazke Program Supervisor Kvalheim reviewed the ac[ivitiea that the
and Recreation City of Mounds Viev will parcicipate to celebrate the
Mon[h month of June;as Parka and Recreation month. The City oY
Mounda Viev Ss one of four citles acting ae e model for other
participa[ing coumunities.
Staff Report Direc[or Anderson reviewed tM1e a[aff report with apecial emphaei9-
given to the date change of che "e^escival In [he Park° from .
July 13 to July 20.
Adjournmen[ Comniseioner Weflen made a motion to adjourn the mee[ing at
9:10 p.m. Motion was aeconded by Commisaioner Scott. Motion
passe4.
9 ayee
0 nayee
r
x,.,,,.
s nuw.
I
I
A Nw
O `
5'
Y
y
1 m
L
rrew,
t1
fA KI11U
RY'S.:.3 :r..xc.AV:...n.> E-I11TN N
0 HI4H h6N OL
6UCKTOP SUIIFACE
PIAY ARFA
f+
Q 4Gf PdpGO
tD6iWOQD Jh HI6H 5LH001,
I
UT1' 0 FIOUtlDS VIC
MOUfIDS VIEW .
M111fIt50TA
i
DEPAflTMENT OF PARKS,
RECREHTION ANO FORESTRV
Cif o ou o s Ve i
qqMSEVCOVNTY,MINNE50TA
1001 NIGNWAV 10
MOUNOS V IEW, MINN. 55f II
MEPU TO: Baxry Bauer, Director af Community Education, Mounds View School
Diatrict 11621
PROM: Bruce Anderaon, Director of Parka, Recreatian S Forestry, City
of Moimds View
DATE: February 16, 1978
RB: Development of Edgewood Jr. High School Outdoor Facilities
Man fwctiona as a total organism. Each experience and each learning
opportunity leaves a lasting imprint on his total being. They not only
make changea in his or her meatal or physical being but also in [heir
social and emotional attitudea. For a fruitful and puxposeful liviag,
man must be an active participant in more phasea of educational and reczea-
ional endeawrs and e cperiences than those foimd merely in the classroom
during his school years." *
It was with those wozds in mind that the combined planning efforta of City
OEficials, School Administrators, Phy-Ed Teachers and Community Educators
began the project of developing a master plan for the outdoor facilities
at Edge aood Jr. High.
TAe firat phase of planning began by assessing the erziating facilities in
relatioa to the preaent and future demands on the site. There presenely are
two major users of the Edgewood School site. that being the day school program
ead municipal athletic programs.
A rough drawing of [he existing facilities can be found in Addendum A. As
can be no[ed the site presently has one baseball iield, 3 softball fielda,
4[ennia courts and one football field. It should be noted that Edgewood
Jr. High has the only tennia courts and official foo[ball field located
vithin the boundaries of the City of Mounds View.
The preaent condition of the baseball and softball fields fe at 6est
deplorable. The tennis couxts are presently in need of resurfacing and the
net posts should be ceplaced due to poor construction. The football field
although freshly sodded in 1576, is also in poor condition, because of
misuve and poor mainteaance procedures.
After reviewing the existing facilities it was determined that becauae of the
high demand that the fields are presently experiencing, we could not cut baek
in the number of facilicies. So rather Uan revamp tLe entire area, [he planning
Plannin¢ Areas aud Facilities for Heal[h. Physical Hducation and
Recreation. The Athletic Ins:itute. 1966.
Memn to Barry Bauer Page 2
eam began to laok a[ how we could maximize the use of the enisting facilities
without reducing the playing area.
1T.e key ingredients became the overlapping of field areas for different spor[
seasona and relocatiag the existing facilities to allow for greater comm mity
access.
The following timeline. cos[s and ra[ionals axe broken down on a per year
basis that extends over four years: '
1978 - The planning teams number ane priority was the establishment oi
turf, which would allow for a good fouadat3on frvm which to build all
futuze facilities. The major item that vas felt a necessity in establishing
turf-wae the Snstallaiion of an mdergro md irrigation syatem which vould
greatly assiat in the establishment of turf and allow for pzoperly managed
maintenance pragram. The major consideratioa or drawback in the irrigation
syatem centera aro md the poteatial shortage of water in fu[ure years.
Thexe arn 3 reasona why we felt an irrigaeion system would be of the
gseateet benefit:
1. Will reduce the overall maintenance program, 2. The water costs
are reduced by havlag the system deaigned for one specif3c facility,
3. It is [he anly proven way to establish and maintain turf on a
heavily used athletic facility.
T4e to[al coat of the irrigation system will be about $15,000.00 including
design, fixturna, installa[ion and warranty.
Before [he irrigation sys[em can be installed a comprehensive grading plan
will be developed, followed by complete re-grading of the site. The projected
coexs for the engineer consul[ant work including the final grade plan is
1,000.00 aad the ac[ual grading is projected at $5,000.00.
The eatablishment of turf would coat about 57,000.00 which includea seed,
fertilizer, blarlc dirt and disc-anchoring.
The fival cast vould be ag-lime for the infields of [he baseball area
@$600.00/field or 52,400.00.
A recap of the 1978 projec[ions is as falla as:
Development of grading plan $1,000.00
Gcading $5,000.00
Irrigation System $15,000.00
Turf eatablishment $7,000.00
Ag-lime for infields $2,400.00
Total $30,400.00
1979 - The major project proposed foz 1979 is the conatruc[ion and relocation
of the four tennis courts. As staied the existing courta are in gz.at need
of repair including resurfacing, fencing, color coaCing and new fence poete.
The exieting plart pmposea [hat the four exiating courte be used for
basketball, hard court surface for wlleyball, four equare, etc. or as
practice courts or overflow courta.
Memo to Barry Bauer Page 3
There are three major reasons for relocating che new courts to the
Northweat corner of the s<hool proper[y:
1. The existing eourts were laid out incorrec[ly and do not
have a fawra6le relationship wi[h [he sun.
2. The nea tennia court loca[ian would allov for be[ter community
inwlvement crith increased parking and visibility.
3. The new locatiort will decrease vandalism on [he echool site.
The nev tenais cour[s aite will consist of four "championship" courta
with fencing, color coating, lighting aad bang boarda for echaol aad
overflow use.
The total coat for the tennia court installations ia projected at $50,000.00.
The total cost would be divided between the City and School Dis[rict vith
the Ciry's ahare coming from a matching granc.
A cost breakdown for 1979 is as follws:
Asphalt
Lighting
Feacing
Color Coaring, ne[
posta, etc.
Total
20,000.00
15,000.00
10,000.00
5,000.00
550,000.00
1980 - Phase three of [he Edgewood pzoject would consist of the development
of a four lane -y mile track around the football field.
There preaently are only tvo tracks in the entire achool district, both
of vhich axe located at the Eigh School site. Aftez apeaking with achool
district pereonnel, it appears that track and field is one of the largest
and faatest groving after school programs offered in Che achool dietsict.
The addition of a track at Hdgewood wuld be a great asaet and would apen
up exteneive program poasibilities bo[h at the day school and comnunity level.
The coat of the track would be approximately 510,000.00.
The other major project for 1960 would be the upgrading and replacement of
all miacellaneous equipment:
Resurface old tennia courta
Purchaae bleachere and playera
benches for all fields
Develop a trailway system
throughou[ che si[e
Totel
S 7,000.00
S 5,000.00
S 3,000.00
15,000.00
Memo to Barry Bauer Page 4
There is presently only o¢e set ot hockey rink boards sou[h of Hwy. 10
so a setond rink is proposed in 1980 at Edgewood Jr. High. The rink
would consist of knockdown boards which would serve as an outfield fence r
for the adjacent soi[ball field in the su r.
The hockey zink would be a non-li[ facili[y a[ this [ime which could
eaeily be li[ in fu[ure years. In addition to [he proposed ho[key rinlc,
the C3ty vould continue to maintain a pleasure skating zink also.
Uinter ska[ers mould be served by the sheltet building projected for
builing ia 1981.
The total cos[ foz the hockey boards would be $4,000.00.
A recap of the pcoposed 1980 projects would be:
Iustallation of 4 lane track $10,000.00
Putcheae of bleachers and players benches $ 5,000.00
Resurface of old tenais courts $ 7,000.00
Develop a trailway system $ 3,000.00
Rnockdow hockey rink . $ 4,000.00
Total $29,000.00
1981 - The major praject far 1981 will be the building of an outdaor
mil.ti-purpoae building including; bathrooms, equipment storage and a
amall eo wipr meeting room.
The buildiag wuld be located near the termis courts and skatiag rink
aad would serve as a"pro shop" in future years vhe¢ additional courta
are added, as vell as a winter wazming house.
Appro dma[ely 1200 square feet would be required which would be broken
dow as follovs:
300 equare feet res[room facilities
600 square feet storage
300 aqwre feet co wity room, warmi¢g house, tennis pro ahop
The cost breakduon for the building crould be as fallows:
Po mdation $ 3,000.00
Basic frame $17,500.00
Plumbing S 5,000.00
Electrical $ 2,000.00
Total 530,500.00
Concluaion - The to[al coat figuree for the four year capital impmvement plan
ae projected are:
1978 S 30,400.00
1979 50,000.00
1980 29,000.00
1981 30.SOO.GO
Total $139,900.00
Nemo to Barry Eauer Page 5
At this [ime [he City would contribute $25,000.00 towatds the [ennis court
mnstruc[ion aith the Schools undexwriting the remaining $114,000.00. Ia
additioa to the City's financial contributlon che City would serve as [he
general contrac[or and provide onsite inspections and in-house engineering needs.
There are [wo major areas [hat have not been addressed at this point:
1. Hain[enance of the facility incluing mowiag, breakdowns, future repaira
end general upkeep.
2. Joint povers agreement outlining cost, time usage and geueral contsol.
Both of theee iasuea ahould be dealt with in depth by a task force establiahed
through Co unity Hducation consiating of both City and School peraonnel.
In addition [o the text portlon of this report we have included a varlery of
bmchures fxom different menufacturers ou[liaing some of the posaible equipment
deaigns, stylee and cos[s in Addendum B.
M overviev concept plan with facility locations can be found in Addendum C.
If you have any q estions concerning this proposal, feel free to give me a
call at 784-3055.
t
June 12> 1978
Mayor Pickar pointed out that there are several plantings which have died. Mr•.
Johnson replied that several had died and that several had been cut down for
Christmas trees, and that they would agree to planting another type of shrub.
Administrator Achen reported that the estimated cost of plantings to restore iiie
area would be 54,000. Mr. ohnson replied that they would agree to a security
agreement in the amount of $4,000.
Councilmember Baumgartner pointed out that the Planning Comnission had recamnended
approval of the building permit with the stipulation that the original plantinys
schedule be adhered to and additional ptantings put in. Councilmember Baumgartner
added that he did not want to specify the type of trees to be planted and that he
felt that a$4,000 security bond would be adequate to insure that suitable plant-
ings were put in.
Page 7
Councilmmnber Rowley agreed that she did not want to specify the type of plantings.
MSP (Rowley-Pickar) to adopt Resolution # , authorizing the building permit
for Smith Transfer, with a development agreement being required for $4,000 to
cover the cost of replacing the plantings. 4 ayes
DEVELOPMENT OF DUTOOOR FACILITIES AT EOGEWOOD JUNIOR H7GH - OINT POWERS AGREEMENT
Administrator Achen reported that the Park and Recreation Department has spent a
considerable amount of time negotiat9ng with the Mounds View School Distr9ct on
improving the outdoor facilities at Edgewood ,]unior High. He added that the joint
powers agreement provides that the City will be responsible for programming use of
the outdoor facilities and that the schedule will be based on priority of use.
pdministrator Achen added that the only questionable part of the funding arrangement
is that the City is committed to funding $25,000 in 1979, whicn wilt hopefully be
covered by a State grant, but that the City would still be responsible for the
25>000 if the grant falls through.
Mayor Pickar asked how much use the City would have of the facilities, in canparison
to the school district. Park Director Anderson replied that the City will have a
good amount of use of the ball fields, tennis courts, track and hockey rink, and
that the school would have the use during the day, during school and the City would
have tbe use after hours and during the times the school was not using the facilities.
Councilmember Rowley questioned who would be responsible for the upkeep of the
facilities. Park Director Anderson reptied that at this point the City is under no
obtigation but that they might get more involved in the future.
Louncilmember Baumgartner questioned what the need was for knock-down hockey boards
since they were available at Woodcrest and Sunnyside. Park Director Anderson
replied that the boards can be used for other activities, such as soccer.
Attorney Meyers reported that the statute authorizes chools and cities to enter
into joint poaers agreements but recomnended that the insurance agency be contacted
to have a rider put in the policy.
Counciln ember Baumgartner asked what action had been taken for the 525,000 grant.
Park Director Anderson replied that the criteria had not been made available yet
but if the requirements remained the same as the previous year, the chances for the
City receiving a grant looked good.
June 12, 1978
iy
P.slge 87
MSP (6aumgartner-Zie6arth) to approve the Joint Pmuers Agreement between the
City and Independent School District k621 re9arding the use of the outdoor 4 ayes
facilities at Edgewood Junior High.
JOINT CURB CUT POLICY
Administrator Achen reported that the issue was brought before the Council due to
a request for a permit to install a permanent driveway in a location that now has
a joint driveway, between duplexes.
Mayor Pickar noted that the Planning Lommission had voted 4 to 3 against allowi g
joint curb cuts and recomnended separate curb cuts.
Councilmember Baumgartner explained that when the duptexes were built, the City
must have approved a curb cut plan of some sort which approved these joint cuts.
and the City would have a problem now in saying the people couldn't have the n.
He added that he would 7ike to see joint curb cuts but separate drivewdys and that
they be about 30' apart, 5' from the property lin2s.
Official Rose explained that the sites would be able to maintain the 5' setback,
a d that the City would require two parking spaces per duptex. Ne added that
tliey could either have joint curb cuts and separate drivewdys or separate curbcutsanddriveways, or joint curb cuts and joint driveways.
Offiicial Rose explained that Staff is tryin9 to require that the driveways be of a
hard surface to alleviate problems with sand and erosion.
Administrator Achen pointed out that there is an ordinance which prohibits joint
curb cuts and joint driveways. Official Rose added that in the three years he has
been with the City he tould recall only two times that the Planning Canmission has
atlowed 3oint driveways. He added that there is a driveway ordinance which would
require tAe dr5veways to be of a dust free surface.
Official Rose expiained that the City is enforcin9 the housfng code and requiring
code compliance wherever necessary. He added that he had checked through the Drodect
file and spoken to the engineer who was with the Lity at the time the joint cuts
were approved M t could find no indication why the joint cuts were allowed.
MSP (6aumgartner-Ziebarth) to allow the joint curb cuts but have a separate driveway
and parking area and that the side yard setback requirements Ce met. 4 ayes
Admfnistrator Achen recommended ±hat the Council establish the maximum depth of the
joint driveways. Official Rose added that there is a 30' right of way and that the
separation should begin at the property line and that he recomnended it complete
its required width within another 20'.
MSP (Baumgartner-Ziebarth) to amend prevtous motton to add that the driveway split
would be at the property tine and that tbe full 10' setback separation be at a pofnt j..
20' from the property H ne. The reason for allowing the joint curb cuts is that sane .
previous Councii actSan allowed the joint curb cuts. 4 '
Neil Loeding asked what the difference was between separate or joint curA cuts. MayorPickarexplainedthattlieissuewasadeterminationofhowtheCouncilinterpreted
the ordinance. .,_,
RESOLUTION NO. 902
JDIP T POSIERS AGREEFIENT REGARDING
USE OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT N0. 621 OUTUOOR FACILITIES
RESOLUTION OUTLINING TNE DEVELOPt4EMT OF THE OUTOODR FACiLITIES
AT
E06EWOOD JR. HIGH SCHOOL
c. . . .._ , .. , .
iHIS AGREEMENT. Made this 12th day of J n , 1976 between the
LITY OF MOtlh0.S VIEW, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY"and.ItI4EPEN0ENT SCH00l.:
i"'A.:
DISTRICT N0. 621. hereinafter referred to as the"SCHDOL DISTRICT". .
WITNESSE7H:
NHERE0.S Schaol Oistrict owns and operates Edgewood Junior High School in
the City, the premises of which include certain outdoor facilities, said school
sites delineated in red ort the map attached hereto and made a part hereof as
Exh9bit A, and ,
WHEREAS, it is the mutual desire of the School, District and the City to
eooperate for the purposes of permitting said Outdoor Facilities'to be used fqr
the edueation and recreation activity prograr s of the School District and the .
City. and . .. •
ifHEREAS, the School District and the City desires to fil), grade and gene'ra11y
up-grade the Edgewooi r. High School outside facilities to permit utilization. ,
not only for the pupils of.the School District, but also for the citizens oF the
School Distriet and of Lhe City,
NOd,THEREFORE, UE IT RESOLVED, That in consideration for the fore9ofng
recitals and mutua' covenants and promises herein set forYh, it is hereby agreed ,
by anA between the chool District and the City as iotlows:
Fage 2- Joint Powers ( Ptounds View City - Edgewood Jr, Nigh)
2. Installation, upgrading and re air. P Thz City agrees
to handte a11 the ptanning, development and in-kind cost for the
following 4 year project outlining the development of outside
facilities at Edgewood Jr. High School. The actuat cost of the
4-year project will be shareel by the School istrict and the City ' .
as indicated on a yearly 6asis.
Estimated Cost Souree of Revenue
1978'y'Edgewood 3r: Nigh Complete re-grading $ 5,000 E 5,000 - Distriet .
of site , s „ . ;, .
Irrigation system 15,000 ' 15,000 - District
Top dress and re-seed 15,000 15,OQ0 - pistrict `
all turf areas
Ag-lime for infields 2,500 2,500 - District '
1979 Edgewood Jr. High Construct four new
tennis courts - asphalt,
lighting, color coat,
fencing, and etc. •
1980 Edgewood Jr. High
37,500 $37,500 - Distriet
y50,000 $25,000 - Distrfim
25,000 - Fbunds Vie
Sub Total '50,000
Resurface old tennis j 7,000
courts
Installation of 4 lane 10,000
track
Purchase of bleachers 5,000
and benches
Oevelop a trailway system 3,000
Kr ockdown hockey rink 4,000
Sub ?otal E29,000
19 t1 EdgewooA dr. Hic h Construct an outdoor
mulY.i-purpase 6uilding
300 sq. feet restroor
facility
600 sq. fcet storage
300 sq. feet connunity
room, warming house
30,500
a
530,500
25,000 - District `
f25,000 - qound Vien;'s
7,000 - Distrfct
4,000 -,District '
6,O J0 - Mounds Vi
5,000 - DisYriet ,.
3,000 - Distriet a.'
Y,uvv - vra n cc .
523,0 - District
6,OOD - Mounds Vie+
525,500 - Dtstrict
5,000 - Fiounds e+
SZ5,5p0 - Dtstrict
i -:'age 3- Joint Pawers (tdounds Yiew City - Edc ewood Jr. High)
2. Easement for egress an i inqress_ Schoo1 District hereby grants to the
City. its agents and employees, and participants in its recreational
9.
activities. programs or events an easement for egress and ingress to
said Ou!side Paciltities so long as ihis Agreement is in effect.
Indemnifiea ion.
a. Sehool Disttict's Sndemnification of City.. The Sch4o1 Distriet
q . .
hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City against any
aW all claSms for dama9es. of whatever nature, arising f;om or in
r:oMequence of the duties it has assumed hereunder and also
n.tsin9 from or in consequence of its operation, supervision,
control or conducting of any of its recreational activities,
programs ar events or related activities utilizing said Outside
Facilities.
b. City's Iredemnifica*ion of School Uistrict. City hereby agrees to
Sndemnify and hotd harmless the 5chool District agafnst any
and all claims for damages of whatever nature, arising from or
in eonsequence of the duties it has assumed hereunder and also
arising,from or in eonsequence of its operation, supervision, control
or'eonBucting of its recreationat activities, programs or events
or related activities uti7izing said Outside Facilities.
c. Nature and Extent af Ind.mnification. The 4ndemnificatibn set
forth in the previous two subpara9raphs of this Paragraph 3 shalt
protect the indemnitee and its successors, from and against ar y
and a11 actions, proceedings, claims, demands, costs, Camages and
expenses, including reasonaAle attorney fees o:hich it may pay,
sustain or incur.
uyc ti -. .wuL .:,iwe u ,INJIIYi .e1 i bi y • cuyoWUOd JY. Nlyhf .: 1
4. Ise af facilities. The School Distrid hereby grants to the City -
perm5ssion and license to conduct at such times, after school hours
and on weekends, as will not interfere with regular schoul curriculum
and retated activities, on said 'Jutsid Facilities, such recreatioqal
activities, programs, or events, as the City.desires to conduct to
utiiize the 0ut6ide Faeilities for the optimum benefit ofi citizens
living eithin the Scfiool District in general.and citizens of the
City is p iicular: To this end, Lhe School District shall upon
exec seio» Uf t6is Agreeinent furnish the Parks and Recreation Director
of Yhe rity with a'schedule of the dates and times on which the School
pistrict may be utilizing the said 0utside Facilities in connection
with its regular schn l curriculum and related activities. The City's
r . . _. . . Parks and Recreation Departmeni will upon this end issue the School
District a Facility Use Permit for times available.
5. Tern:ir:atiort. The parties may terminate this Agreement, prior to the
end of its terms, by the mutual agreement of the School District and
the City, or by either party giving the other sixty (60) Gays prior
written notice of termination.
6. Duration. This agreement shall be in force and ofi effect upon its
executinn by the respective parties following authorizaYjon by
Resoiution of the governing bodies Lhereof and shalt thereafter remairt
in futl force and of effect for a period of four (4) ypars. It may
be renewed thereafter by the mutual t!ritcen agreement of the parties.
7. Binding Effect. This Agreement shati be 6indin upon thQ parties and
their successors.
i_
ritiage 5- 5oint Powers (Mounds Yiew City - Edgewood Jr. Nigh)
r'"
1N WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement
to 6e executed ors their behalf by their respective undersigned officers, as
duty authorized by their resp ctive governing bodies, as of the day and gear
first a6ove Mritten.
i;
i," (
t0'rpprate.Sg
xi fI) ':1.i,
1 .i
u,'. 1 ' 'ij j
i' . ,..;
Wrporate Sea1p
0
CITY OF MOUNDS YIEW ,
t.
By 'iseL
Its Mayor
By i
s Clerk ' '
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRIC7 H0. 621
BY i
Its Chairman . ">'{
Its Clerk ,
RESOLUTION NO. 902
VVlI'll fVVILR MaRCCiiirii wr]n iiiv
USE OF IND'cPENDENT SCHOOL DI57RICT N0. 621 OU7 OOR FACILITIES
RESOLUTION OUTLINING THE UEVELOPMEt47 OF TFIE OUTODSIR FP,F.LI7IES
AT
EDGE4lOOD JR. F1I6k SCHOOL
i
iHIS AGREEMENT, Made this 12tk day of _ Jan' , 1978 between the
CITY OF p10UMD5 YIEW, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY"and.ItIREPENOENT SCH00l..a
DISTRICT N0. 621, hereinafter referred to as the "SCHOOL DISTRIC7". .
y;_._... .. .;,,, . ,
i_r .,...:. .... _...,.,.:, ,.-: . . ' .
NITNESSETN:
NHEREAS School District owns and operates Edgewood dunior Higy School in
the City; the premises of which inciude certain outdoor faci)iti s, said school
sites delineated in red ort the map attached hereto and mada a part hereof as
Exhibit A, and
WHEREAS, it is the mutual desire of the School. District and the City to
cooperate for the purpases of permitting said Outdoor Facilities'to be used for
the edueation and recreation activity programs of the School Uistrict and the -
City, and . ., •
HHEREAS, the Schooi District and the Lity desires to fill, grada and gene'ra11y
up-grade the Edgewood Jr. High School outside faci)ities to permit utitization
not only 4or the pupils of.tAe School District, but also for the citizens of the
Scfioot District and of the City,
N05f,THEREFORE, DE IT RESOLYED, That in consider tion for the foregoing
recitals and mutual covenants and promises herein set forth, it is hereby agreed°, '
by and betvrzen the Schoal District and the City as fo)lows:
Page Z- Joint Powers 10unds view cfty - Edgewood Jr. hignj
1. Installation, upgrading and repair. The City agrees
to handle all the planning, development and in-kind cost for the
folloNing 4 year project outlining ihe development of outside
facilities at Edgewood Jr. Higb School. The actual cost of the
4-year project witl 6e shared by the School Uistrict and the City '
as indieated on a yearly basis. ;
EsYimated Cost Source of Revenue
1478'' Edgewood Jr: High Complete re-grading " ' E 5,000 $ 5,000 - Distrr'ct :
o€ site .
Irrigation system 15,000 ' 15,000 - District
Top dress and re-seed 15,000 15,000 - pistriet '
all turf areas
Ag-lime for infieTds 2,500 2,500 - UistrieL
37,500 $37,500 - Uistriet
1979 Edgewood Jr. High Construc*_four new 550,000 $25,00 - Distri_ '
tennis courts - asphalt, -
lighting, color coat, 25,000 - Mounds Vieo
fencing, and eCc. •
Sub Total . .'$50,OOG $25,000 - District
25.000 - tlound Yierr'
j''
1980 Edgewood Jr. High Resurface old tennis s 7,000 ; 7,000 - District ?.
courts
Installation of 4 tane 10,d00 4.000 -.Dist iet
track b,00D - Mounds Y4.'
Purchase of 67eachers 5,000 5,000 - District
and benches
evelop a trailway system 3,000 3,000 - District
e
Knockdown hockey rink 4,000 4,000 - District " i
5ub Total 29,OQ0 523,Q00 - District
b>Od0 - 9ounds View
1981 Edgewood Jr. Nic h Construct an outdoor s30,500 25,500 - District .';
multi-pur ose building ' % _„
306 sq. teet restroon 5,000 - Nounds i ':-
facility ',
600 sq. feet storage
300 sq. feei connunity .
room, warming house
5.500 525,500 - Oistrict -%
t.
age 3 Joint Powers (P4ounds Yiew City - Edgewood Jr. High)
2. Easement for earess and inaress School District hereby grants to the
City, its agents and employees, and participants in its resreational
activities, programs or events an easement for egress and ingress to
said Qutside Facilities so long as this Agreement is in effect.
3. Indernnification.
a. School Distriet's indemnification of City._ 7he School istrietr.:c? - _ . . . . . .
hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City against any
and all claims for damages, of whatever nature, arising fram or inr,. ri . . . . . _ : . . ,
consequence of Lhe duties it has assumed hereunder and also
arising from or in consequence of its operation, supervision,
contro7 or conducting of any of its recreational activities,
programs or events or related activities utilizing said Outside
Facilities.
b. City's Ind mnificat9co of School District. City hereby agrees to
indemnify and hold harmless the School Drstrict against any
and all claims for damages of whatever nature, arising from or
in censequence of the duties it has assumed hereunder and also
arising,from or.in rnnsequence of its operation, supervision, eontrol
c.
or'conducting of its recreational activities, programs or events
or related activities utilizing said Outside Facflities.
Nature and Extent of lndemnification. 7he indemnifieatfbn set
forth in the previous Y ro subparagraphs of this Paragraph 3 sha11
protect the indemnitee and its successors, from and against aqy
and a11 actions, proceedings, claims, demands, costs, damages and
expenses. including reasonablf attorney fees t,hich it may pay,
susYain or incur.
4. Use of Facilities. The School District hereby grants to the City
permission and license to conduct at such times, after school hours -.
and on weekends, as will nut interfere r ith regular school curriculum
and related activities, n said Outside Facilities, such reereational
aetivities. programs, or evenYs, as'the City.desires to conduct to
utilize the Out3ide Facilit es for the optimum benefit of cStizens
living.w9thin the Schooi District irt general.and citizens of the "
City in particular:''To this end, the School Di trict shall upon
execution of this Agre nent furnish the Parks and Recreation Uirector
of the t9ty with a schedule of the dates and times on which the School
Oistciet may be utilizing the said Outside Facitities in connection
aith its regular schoa: curriculum'anC related activities. The City's
Parks and Recreation Departmrnt will upon this end issue the School
District a Facility Use Permit for times availabte. r
5. Termir.ation. The parties may terminate tfiis Agreement, prior to the '
end of its tettns, by the mutual agreement of the School District and
the City, or by either party giving the other sixty =60} Gays prior
Written notice of termination.
6. Uuration. This agreement shall be in force and of effect upon its
exeeution by the tespective parties following authorizatijon by
Resolution of the gorerning bodies thereof and sha11 thereafter remain
in full force and.of effect for a perio9 of four (4) years. It may
be renewed thereafter by the mutual written agreement of the parties.
7. Bindinq Effect. iA:s Agreement shall b 6 nding upon the parties and
their successors.
i%-`
5
1
J
l age 5- Joint Powers (Mounds View City - Edgewood Jr. High)
j
IN WITNE55 WNEREOF, the parties hereto have cau5ed this Agreement
to 6e executed on their behalf by their respective undersigned officers, as
duiy authorized hy their respective governing 6odies, as of the day and year
first ahove writLen.
1'rparaiz',Seal )
aP
Corpomte Seal )
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
BY /' t
s Its 14ayor
By ` I' a YR Ct1
s f.lerk
s
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT N0. 621 t;
It Chairn!an . .
gY n j `
Its Clerk `"
MEMO T0: City Residents '
n
nbe.
FROM: dlcting tity Adminis!rator#%t;
f
DATE: June 25, 1979
RE: Upgrading of Edgewood Jr. liigh Schoot outdoor facilities
To better assist you i reviewing our progrss to date on the outdnor facilities
of Edgewood Jr. Hfgh, I have prepared the fallowing figures and time line foryourrevtevrforyorrperusal:
1. Surveving - Compteted 9/7/78
N. C. Hoium and Associates -$1,945.00
2. Gradinc - Camoleted 9/8/78
Glenn Rehbein Excavating - E71,200
3. lrriqation Svstem - Completed 9/12/78
Aqua City Trrt9ation - E16,700
4. To dress and re-seed all turf areas - Compteted 9/15/78
Environmental Lawn and Turf Inc. - s9,500
5. Ag-lime for infields - Compteted 9/14/78
J. L. Sheily Co. - S2>460
6. )ace backstoos - Purchased 12/6/78
Game T1me - 52.000
7. Installation of backstops - Completed 6/1/79
U. 5. Steel Supply - j3,521
Th:s canpleted phase 1 derelopment of Edgewood Jr. High.
Phase 2 includes: '
1. Fina1 turf establishment ;1,300.00.
2. Backstop Snstaltation $3,921.00.
3. Installatton of four lane running track E10,000.00.
4. Development of bituminous trailway system 53,000.00.
5. Purchase of efght players benches E3,040.00.
SUBTOTAL . . . . . 520,261.00
lOX Contingency . . . 2,026.10
522.287.10
Phase 2 is slated for completion September 1, 1979.
Phase 3-wst of the construction of four lit tennis courts - E50,000.- completed in 198ff `:
Phase 4-1981 constructian of the buitding of and outdoor multi-purpose Duilding
inciudes: Dathrooms, equipme t storage, and a sniall comnunity meeting room.
The cu t for building would be as follows:
Foundation E 4,000.00
Basic Frame E17,500.00
Plumbing ; 5,000.00
Eleetrical Y 2,000.00
TOTAI s30,500.00
The project is being financed through the joint cooperative effort of the
City of Mounds Ytew and School District 621. Total proJKt costs for all four
phases is approximately 5746,592, Drok n down as follows:
ihase ! - i43,805
Dhase 2 - =22,287
Phase 3 - S50,UOD
Ph35e 4 - 30,500
The Ctty will be providing S36;OG.00 ia casA and approxlmstely ;32.000.00 in
4n-kSnd services, the Schoal District w111 be paying 5110,592.
At tM s p int in time, the City of Mounds View has been maintaining the athletic
area, but thSs is an tssue that is being raised at present as to who will be
responsible for future malntenance.
U H U
4 N Y C
b O N op
O N O £
1 1 0
00 00
O O N O
01 N vl
N N
6O
h
r.
JjPw
Op
a
s
a a .a
N
O
Y
a
s
S ' o
3 8.:..
e
i000
iy°n°u°n
8 '
J
0
3 q
d .i
1 1 U U
pa
q ii
y N N
f1 O O
I 1 1 1 1
no °000
O' 000
N u f D O QNIN
N t0 N
I 41 O O IM ' H
n N I
paa
U
m
u
e
S
m .
F O
u
a
m
O1i
W
U a
ux
u.{dp uyPRN
1 1 HO
o °o .- w
I O O O U
O .1
eO1 e i U a
rn K N U
O
O
N
u
AF
AN
O O
O O
N O
aT O
N N
ON
K
0 0
H F °dC
N
N N C9
i
3
u
1
Ya
O
8
q
ai U
N O N
ti N
N y N
iG Yp H
H H
P__ ma
v
3
u .i
N N
a .SCN
1 1
O O0000
N
N
OO
N
My
90U
p
CL- Y
w0
m
m
8
M
M
a
a
0
Y -- ,\d
c"
yi
M u:i
p uuy o o
Y H +N C YN yi NN N
N O .W W p N N b N N
oa %oax°aoo qs ` n
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
o O . O o O O O a a o o
O O C O O O O U O O O
O O O O O O U O O O ' O
Il N 1 V' N /1 n O M O O
N .y
NN @ NN N
i
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
o O O o O o O O
O h M Y1 O O O.
1 N fl
N N t? / v!
I / i
p
V
H H
a
U
N qy A6O ~ Y
m a.
ap1 M b
C ! U U N
Y O Y .
o a
o q
u
yy
qY
9 Yp Y Y'
4 C m
OG M O
a
0
i
Y
e'a
u
N
V
U
u
YC
N
8
u
w
0
w
N
u
p Y
N
1 Q
O . N
0 o v
p H
O .S 1
rn N V
O O O
O O O
O 0 ri
N m N
N N M
a
N
A,-, N
O tqOOOO00
N N
W
O O
O O
G: O
V H
4t N
N
H F H
y
0m
PN
O
O
I o
g a
E
b .
FJ-ai i
N. Ux4
m1y O O
qG.i.
pCl
j n ]
Y r
Wt
qqqq i9 7
0 Cp a1 N O .Cp,•
00M9 W
O 0000<
8Ip OY I00<
O n Ml' r
M
N M N
i
5
q 8So o
0 N N M
O ri V M
j •
N
e
N
i
y Z ;
M11Me
Fy'1
S
b ii
ta1
O J
UF I
O O O <
N 00<
ry N
1N N
h b
w w
0o .
O
O1 °
w
N d:
rl O y
q0p
Ub iC
O .mi O
M y
q
U
0 0 o O O
O OON YI
Im
l N P INH V
N N b
a
g 88 o
A NN „
a q w
o~i' Oni P N
1 nl nl 'I
i
1 i
E Y OF
u w .._ .
O OO OO
O Oy
T O
N M
I
1
F
O v i O N Idb
N
b5 I
o o
Io °o2mo0
Ob N 0 1 ri h
I N
o
0 0
o 0 0 0
qG F '
9 N
i o
0 0
w n° i°rt o 0
M N .'1
M
S N
pY
P
O O A
0
q
g 8
93 M
q
I f O O O
ap q O '1
N
ep/
M
L'
OOO
O
N
00
N
N
0
w
0
o
1
N
O
O
m
q
O
S
N
O
8.
pN
S-°,urxkrs •T1 alden G Associotes, hc.3740 Lrxjeq [31 d., St. ouis, Ma 63108,314 5343990
sTT.
l ls"
Type of Communicotion
Meeting Report
Locotlon
Mounda View City
Presenl
8rvce Andereon
Donna Hor+men
Wayne Burmeister
Jerry Linke
Judy Rowley
Frank Silvie
Gary 11 ahie
Hall ' Representitg
City of Mounds view
Park Cormnieaion
Paik Commiasion
Perk Coimniesion
City Council
Park CoimiSeeion
STI
Report
a
April 10, 1980
Regordinq
Mounda View City Wide Pazk
System Plan
Disl ibution
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
W pose
To review eite analyais and concept layout plans of five city perka
Rasum6olDisc sslons vith city residente
1. No city reaidenta attended the meeting, eo plana of
Cireenfiald, Hillview, Lambert, Ardan and City Hall
Perka vere reviewed briefly with Donna Bowman and Judy
Rowley. Meetinq aae then ad ourned.
Unless wrinen ob ecllon Is
ona woek we slwM auum
coMalned harein ore au
Reporled by "0. v
Paqe 1 d 1
o axlers-Thokhn G Associotes, Inc.3740 l'ridell BI d., St. laas, Mo 63108,314534 3990 ':
sT Tz:.
l ls"
Report
aApril 3, 1980
Regording
Mounds View City Wide Park
System Plan
Type of Communicolion
Meeting Report
Locatlon
Mounda view City Hall •
eserV RepreseMing Disldbullon
ruce Anderao n City of Mounda View X
wayne Burmeister Park Cortmiiseion X
Marllynne Dennd'u'y Park Co mmiseion
Gordon Fedor Paik Comnieeion
Gordon Kuluvar Park Cortrtniseion
Jerry Linke Park Commiesion
Frank Silvis Park Commiasion
Lloyd Scott Pask Convnission
Wayne Weflen Park Cormniesion
Gordon Zebarth City Council
r aTUShieS.T.I. '
To revieW site analyais and concept layaut plans of Sne city parks
Resume ol Discussions
1.. 5TI reviewed all of the parka by flrsk presenting the aite
analysis of each park, listed future potentials,•existing
facilitiea and current probleme. Thene concept plana were
preaented for each park ehowing general locationa, sizes and
relatiCnehips of proposed future park activltiea and facilities.
Also shown for each park were propoeed traila, as they connec!
perk facilitiea and ae they relate to the propoeed overall cily
wlde trail eyetem plan.
Propoaed city wide Bicycle Trail Plan was approved aa
eubmitted. •
The parka were presented in Lhe following ordec: Oa]cwood,
Lambest, Hillview, Groveland, Ardan, City Hall, Greenfield,
Woodezeet and Random. . .
A, Oakwood, Lambert, Noodcrest and Random were generally
appzoved ae preeented.
B, Groveland, Hillview, City Hell, Arda yn2S,r IERdg pl s eeeWed within; :
ona week we sholl ossume slalemeM
contoined herein ore oceepled.
RePoAed W L Tu. ie .
Page 1 d ?
Report
STiTz.
l ls
a
Apr11 3, 1980
Regardinp .
Mounds view City wide Park
System Plan
were also generally rpprpved as preaented
With the following exceptions:
1. Groveland - Indicate the word "sheiter" by picnicing.
2. Hillview - Need to explain to city residents that
general ekating rea can be used in aummer-
time for softball user parkin as a short
range solution to the parking problem.
3. City Hall - Electrical outleta ehould be provided in
large picnic ahelter. 9ata11te toileta can
be covered with a wood frame "park-like"
stxvcture that wi11 allow toileta to be
anily removed, replaced, and maintained
inatead of buildfng a parmanenG toilet
facility. '
4. Ardan - Picnicing on island shovld be unorganized
picnicing (o kablea or grilla etc J to
minimize water related accidente.
5. Oreenfield - Read uat picnic area eo it does not cross
creek. Indicate aree to the eaa! of picnicinq
as nature etudy inatead of buffes.
4. List`total park aceraqe on each concepi plan.
5
Uniess vnitlen ob ectlon It receW d WIM1M
one week we shall aswm dalwnenM
eOMOined herein.a s aCC9pNd
R a, Cssy Tushi
Pops — d _.2_.
DATE
70
fROM
April 16, 1980
Public Works and RPCrea4ion c mittee
SUBJECT:
Margaret Thorpe
j1
Executive Assistaryt j , , i'
Planning 5 Deveto me t
Lakeside Park and B2ach
Following your request at the March 17, 1980 Committee meeting, I
have revizwed the request of the Parks and Recreatton Department to
develop the appropriate legal basis under which the County Nould
assume full responsibil9ty for Lakeside Park and i:each facility".
On March 28, Tony Lrea, Bernie Edmonds, Jim Kavaloski and I went to
the Park and inspected the facilities. We atso met with members of
the Lakeside Park Cammission, the Mounds View City Council, the
SprSng Lake Park City Councit, and the Director of the Mounds View
Parks and Recreation Department. In addition, i sought additional
information and clarification about the Park and the requesi for
Ramsey County to assume responsibility for it fran a variety of
sources.
t.+.
This review indicates that the decision as to whether or not Ramsey
County should assume responsibility for Lakeside Park and Beach remains
a policy judgment, which oniy the members of the Board can make. The
fnformaiion originally presented by the Department is substantiatly
correet. Ramsey County must weigh its responsibility to provide
appropriate services to its cltizens against its resportsiDility to
manage the sSZe and cost of those services. The Department's infor-
mation, along wfth the additional informatton I have obtained, reveals
no ma or reasons for not assuming responsibiliiy for the Park other
than that of increased County program costs.
Rrt*a rer+s:ak
In response to several questions raised at the March 17 meettn9, I vrould
offer the follrnring addiNonal informetton and analysis wMeh msy assist
you in raching a declsicn. Also attached is a memorandun fran the
Direeior of the Mounds View Varks and Reereatto Dep rt ne t, out11 1
his reasons for proposing that the County assume responsibillty Ior the
Park.
Lakeside Cark and Beach
Apr11 16, 1980
Page 2
1)
Probably not. As Earl Marlow indicated in his memo to Tony Crea (March 17
documentation), the precedent for County operation of swimning beaches
already exists. 11 of the 13 beaches in the County are owned and oper-
ated by us. A 12th beach is owned by the City or l•Ihite Bear Lake but
operated by us under contract. Thus, to assume ownership and/or oper-
ation of the Lakeside Park Beach would be consisterit with County respan-
sibitity for swimming beaches. It should be possible, in the future, to
say, in effect, "We do beaches, but we don't do parks."
2) WAat would it reall cost Rams°, Coun to assume responsibility for
La es de Park and Beach?
The Department estimated, in the original documentation, an annual cost of
38,000. This figure inclides maintenance and operations costs, additional
staff, and capital expenditures (allocated over 5 years). The Department
atso referred to a potentiat E90,000 expenditure for a new beach house.
Not mentioned was the possibility of higher patrol costs for the SAeriff.
in 1979 tAe actual operating costs for Lakeside, according to the Park
Lommission, were 528,760, including capital improvements. This resulted
in a deficit to the Commissian of E7,300, since income was only $21,440.
The Cammission's 1980 request to the twa City Council's was E22,325. (I
do have the complete breakdown of the 1979 costs and of the budgets for
1979 and 1980: however, the copy was no[ reproducible. I will bring them
to the committee meeting.) The basic difference between our Department's
estimate and the 1979 costs of the Commission is thc addition of a full-
time M and 0 worker and a slight increase in capital improvement costs.
While the present beach house is not a tuxurious facility, it does not
require immediate replacement. Because of ¢he limited kitchen facilities,
full food service cannot be provided; state health requirements will limit
food sales to prepackaged items such as potato chips, popcorn, candy, etc.
Food cooked on tAe premises would be prohtbited. Except for this restrictton,
there are no state or federal requirements that would force replacement or
substantial rehabilitation of the beach house. The qualTty standards re-
ferred to Tn the Department's documentation are strictly those which Ramsey
County has established tn its park program. Thus, replacemen! or remodelfna
of the beach house wauld be solely at the County's option if we became the
owner of the beach.
In summary, it 1s probable that it will cost Ramsey County an additional
E30,000 to f40,000 per year over the nezt several years to assume operattons,
maintenanee and capital improveme ts for Lakeside Park and Beach.
3) Do eo le ouLside of Mounds View and S ring Lake Park use the beach4
AF6t a out use v ros dentsof _ no a ount t_. Shou Ano a_ ounty sAare ,,,.'
e) The Lakeside Perk Commission, as Mr. Anderson's memorandum indicates,
Lakeside Park and Beach
April 16, 1980
Page 3
believes that signiflcant numbers of peopie from ovtside the t o cities
do use the Park. Their data is limited, however, it does show that about
25% of the participants in swimming lessons were fran other localities.
Most of that 25% were from out4de Ramsey County.
b) The fact that part
that a significant
largely irrelevant
sibility:
of the Park and 8each are located in Anuka County, and
percentage of the users are from Anoka Lounty, may be
to whether or not Ransey County should assume resp.;i-
1) The precedent of ownership of park land outside of Ramsey County was
estabtished when the Lilydale Regional Park, part of which is Sn
Dakota County, was purchased.
2) Ramsey tounty has no fees for park use at any of its parks, whether
for non-residents or residents. Anyone may use any af the parks
without cost. We have no way of knowing how many residents of other
counties, or even other states, use for free other Ramsey County Parks.
The main difference between our other parks and the LakesiAe Park is
that He know people from other counties use Lakeside. Two other
county parTc operations, at Mhite Bear Lake and at Beaver Lake, are also
near county lines and probabty are used by resrdeiats of ather counties.
3) In its regSonal park studies, the Metropolitan Council noted that
Ramsey County residents use parks in surrounding counties than do
residents of those countSes use Ramsey County's. This pattern is
wholly understandabte, given the small size and heavy urbanization
Ramsey Lounty.
more
of
c) 1 spoke rith Ralph McGinley, Anoka County Administrator, with regard to the
possibilities of Anoka County's role in the Lakeside Park. He indicated
thai Rnoka Caunty does ot wish to assume operation of the park because
of the precedent that it would set. Unlike Ramsey County, Anoka does not
presently operate the swimming beaches in the county. For Moka to Uke
over Lakeside Park would be to set a precedent that might force eve tual
county takeover of all municipal recreation facilSties, as Anoka cannot
draw the line between beaches and parks that Ramsey can.
He indicated, however, that discussions of possible cost-sharing 6etreen
Anoka Coun!y and Ramsey County could take place. He indicated that Anoka
Lounty vrould be will5ng to talk with Ramsey County about the Park and
Beach, as he sees cooperation between the two counties as a different
situation than a transfer of responsibility from the municipalities to
Anoka County.
4) Should we defer a decision on the Lakeside Park unti_1 the Parks and Retreati
It is not neeessary to do so. The regional park system is si4nificantly differ-
ent fran Lakeside Park. Each of the regional park sites wSil involve multiple
reereational facillties and encompasses large land areas. There witl be eomplex
Lakeside Park and Beach
Aprit 16, 1980
Page 4
alternatives to review for that system, as well as different potential revenue
sources. Lakeside Park is a small park with simple facilities where Lhe oper-
ations and maintenance costs are easily estimated. Moreover, it is a fully
developed park, which the regional parks are not. In other words, the regional
park system is an entirely different level of service, and Lakeside Park should
be viewed alongside existing county beaches and parks, not alongside the far
more canplex regional system.
In summary, the only significant reason not to assume responsibility for I.akeside
Park is that it will probably require expenditure of an additional 830,000 to
40,000 annually for operations, maintenance and capital improvement oa the park.
This expenditure should be weighed against the request of citizens in ihe north-
west corner of the county for service assistance. It may be worth noting also
that the above $30,000 to $40.000 is not a net increase in taxes paid by citizens.
Rather, the City of Mounds View and the City of Spring Lake Park should be able
to either reduce their taxes by 817,000 or provide 817,000 in other local
servites as a result of transferring responsibility for this beach to the County.
If the Comnissioners decide to assume responsibility for Lakeside Park, they
should direct the Parks and Recreation Department to:
r
a) Negotiate ith the Lakeside Park Lomnission and the two Cities to
reach agreement on ownership, operations, maintenance, and activities
direction for the beach and park. At present, the Lakeside Park
tartmission sponsors numerous activities, such as swimning lessons, r"
which are not part of county beach programs. The Lomnission should '-
be fully responsible for continuing these if Ramsey County becomes
responsible for operations and maintenance. The ne9otiated agree-
ment would be returned to the Board for final approval.
b) Review the present allocation of county maintenance and operations
staff to determine if, in fact, the addition of another futl-time
person is required to handle Yhis beach. It may be possiDle to
reduce the net cost to the taxpayers of tne county to little more
than the present E7.300 deficit of the LommSSSSOn 1f present staff
could be aliocated in a more efficSent manner to service this beach
and park.
c) Include any additional security costs in the final cost estimates
for the beach.
MT:gb
cc: LommSssloner Robert Orth
Larry Brown
Tony Crea
Bernard Edmonds
Bruce Anderson -
OIP.HI IFNTUI Y iUS,
fll l'XCrll IIiN /NI I IIII(:i ll\'
Cif of oun s Ve
RAMSEYCOUNTY,MINNF.SOTA
ZCDI HIf.HWAV 10
MOUNDSVIEW,MINN 5511
IBM1ln56
MEMO T0: Parks and Recreation Commission
FROM: Bruce R. AnJerson, uirector
Parks, Recreation and Porestry Department
DATE: June 25, 1980
RE: Commission Packet
The enclosed Commission pucket is not totally complete,
t"' as you are missing the last four pages of the survey breakdown
and the minutes from the June 17, 1980 meeting.
Those addi tional matcrials iaill be distributed at the
meeting tomorrow. I apologize for any inconvenience this may
cause you, but once again I am finding myself extremely back-
logged.
4'
G1ITEWAV
June 25, 1980
C f of ounds e
flAMSE V COUNi. MINNESOTA
90 NIGNWqV 10
MOUNOS VIEW,MINN.55110
186]O55
Dear Parks & Recreation Commissioners:
Enclosed is your packet of information for the June 26, 1980,
Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. The major issue we
have before us this evening is the final review of the park
master concept plans and to review the capital improvements
budget. To assist in this review process, Mr. Gary Tushie and
Mr. Barry Thalden, representing Saunders-Thalden s Associates,
will be available for comments and any final modifications the
Commission would like to make.
The major project that will be outlined will be to prioriti2e
the capital improvements program on a five year basis as well
as each individual park site.
If you have any questions regarding the enclosed informaYion,
please contact me at 789-3055, ext. 37.
Bruce K. Ander n, Director
Parks, Re on 5 Forestry
BItA/bc
Enclosures
City of Mounds Vicw
Parks and Recreation Conmiission
Thursday, May l, 19U0
6:30 p.ni.
Mounds View City Hall Council Chambers
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, Minnesota 55112
A G E N D A
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of the March 27, 1980 minutes
3. Chairman's Report
4. Councilmember's Report
5. Visitor Presentation
6. Official sweariny in process - City Adininistrator Anderson
7. Edgewood Jr. High Development Agreement
8. Summer Brochure Copy
9. Comprehensive Plan Update
lU. Staff Report
11. Adjournment
Call to Order
MINUTES OF THF.. PROCECDINGS OP TNE
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNOS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Regular Sesaion
March 27, 1980
Mounds View City Hall
Councll Chambers.
6:30 p.m.
The Mounds View Parks and Recrea[ion Commisaion was called
to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Wayne Burmeister.
i
Roll Call Conunissioners present - Chairman Burmeister, Co issionere
Linke, Bowman, Kuluvar, Weflen, Scot[, Dennehy and Silvls. _.
Councilmember present - Councilmember 2iebarth
S[aff present - Director Anderson and Progrem Supervisor
Kvalheim.
Visitors present - Dr. Christiansen, Director of Community
Educa[ion District If621; John Os[luad, Coordina[or of Com-
munity Education District lIb21; Mr. Leonard, Principal of
Edgewood Jr. High School; Mr. Snowden, Aasistant Principal and
Mr. Long, Mounds View resident.
Minutes Co mniesioner Weflen made a motion to approve the minutes and
Coimnissioner Silvis seconded [he motlon. Mo[ion paseed.
9 ayea
0 nayes
Viaitor's
Presen[ation
Silver View
Perk Upda[e
Director Anderson reviewed the 7oin[ Powers Agreement wi[h the
Mounds View Scfiool Distrlct I1621 and the Ci[y of Mounda View as
the issue stands [o date.
Dr. Christiansen also addressed the Joint Powers Agreement and
highlighted the issue of cooperation between Ci[y and School
Dis[rict. lohn Os[lund also expresaed great satiafaction with
the Jo1nt Powera Agreement.
Commissioner Silvie mede a motion to accept the conditiona of the
maintenance isaue of the Joint Powers Agreement and ved that
the Maintenance.Reaolution be submitted to the CiCy Council foz
acceptance. Comoisaioner Scott seconded the motion. Motlon pa9sed.
9 ayea
0 nayes
Director Anderson reported that the preliminary approval of Che
concept plarta of Silver View has been glven by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
Commiaeioner Linke made a motion that, becauae we, ae a Patk
Co iseion, have a deep desire to provide the citizens of
Mounda View with both varied and the beat recreational fac111t1es
posaible, we are now formally adopcing the poeition that "Oak Lake''
be made a recreat3onal lake in view of the non-recreational pond-
or swamp as auggested by the developer. Commissioner Swtt
seconded the motion. Motion paseed. ..
9 ayee
0 nayee
i
Minutes -Z' March 27, 1980 .
Mrector Anderson reviewed the proposed consultan[ choice
process for future Silver Vierw development
Planning Director Anderson reviewed blob studies as prepared by Saunders-
Update Thalden and Associates Inc. Concern was expressed about :he
re-designing of parks which has been suKBested by the planners.
The park survey will be concluded by April 3.
Spring The Spring Brochure of recreation activi[ies was reviewed by
Brochuxe Program Supervisor Kvalheim.
Satellitea Commissioner Linke made a motion [o adopt the provision of
for Summer satellites a[ eight ballfield sites including: Oakwood, City
Baseball Hall, Lambert, Hillview, Edgewood, Groveland, Pinewood and Red Oak.
Program Commisaioner Dennehy seconded the motion. Motion passed
unanimously.
9 ayea
0 nayes
Sune - Parke Program Supervisor Kvalheim reviewed [he activitiee that the
and Recreation City of Mounds View will participate to celebrate the
Month mon[h of June;as Parke and Recrea[ion month. The City oY
Mounds View is one of four cities acting as a model for other
participa[ing coimnunitiea.
Staff Report Direc[or Anderson reviewed the s[aff repor[ vith speciel emphasl---
given to the date change of the "Featival In the Park" from -
July 13 Co July 20.
Adjournment Co iseioner Weflen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at
9:10 p.m. Motion was seconded by Commiseioner Scott. Motion
passed.
9 ayes
0 nayes
cau ders-Tl oklen G Associates, hc.3740 Lindell Bl d., St. Louis, Mo. 63108,314 534 3990
ST Tz
l ls"
Type of Communication
Meeting Report
Locatlon
Mounde View City
PreseM
Bruce Anderson
Donna Bowman
Wayne Burmeiater
Jerry Linke
JuBy Rowley
Frank Silvie
Gary Tuehie
Hall ' Represenling
City of Mounds View
Park Commiaelon
Park Commiasion
Park cormniesion
City Council
Park Commisaian
STI
Report
a
April 10, 1980
Regardlrp
Mounds View City Wide Park
System Plan
Dislribufion
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Purpose
To review elte anelyeis and concept layout plans of five city parks
Resume ol Diseussions Nith city cesidente
1. No cily reeidenta attended the meeting, so plana of
6reenEield, Hillv ew, Lambert, Arden and City Hall
Parke were reviewed briefly with Donna Bowman and Judy
Rowley. lleeting waa then adjourned.
Unless writlen ob eclion Is receWed +'hln,
ona week we sholl ossume slatemenri
contained herein are acce ted•
RepoAedbY ri Tushie
Page 1 ot 1
Scxmders-TY akhn Associates, Inc.3740 L'dell Bird., St. Louis, Mo 63108,314•534•39a0
sT Tz.
l ls"
er
Report
oa+aApril 3, 1980
Regarding
Mounda View Cit} Wide Park
System Plan
Type of Communication
Meeting Report
Locatlon
Mounds View City Hall •
eserd Represenling Dlslribution •
ruce Anderso n City of Mounds View X
Wayne Burmeiste{ Park Cormnission X
Marilynne DennelSSy Park Commission
Gordon Fedar Pa=k Co mnisaion
Gordon Ruluvar Park Cominission
Jerry Linke Park Commiseion
Frank Silvia Park Commission
Lloyd Scott Park Cormnission
Wayne Weflen Park Co nission
GorBon Zebarth City Council
s
ahie S.T.I.
To review site analysis and concept layout plans of nine city parks
Resume ot Diseussions
1. STI revlewed all of the parks by first presenting the eite
aaalyais of each park, listsd future potentials,•existing
Pac111tiea and current problems. Then, concept plana were
psieserited'for each parR shoaing qeneral locahians, aizee an8
relatlaneh3ps of proposed €uture park activitles and facilitiea.
Alsoiehown for each park were proposed traila, as they col nest
pss°k lacilitiea and as they relate to the propoeed overall city
wide'lYail ayatem plan.
2. P=oposed oity wide Bicycle Trail Plan was approyed aa '
suD nitted. • -
3. Tha parkx wete presented in the following ordeY: Oakwood,
Lambert, Hillview, Groveland, Ardan, City Ha21, Greenfield,
Woodcreat'and Random. , .
A, OakrYOOd, Lambert, Woodcrest and Random were generally
approved ae' preaented.
H. Groveland, Hiliview, City Hall, Arda y,sRdg p s receWed wiMln,
one week we shall assume slalemeMs
coMained herein are accepted.
Repo y, 6arv Tuehie
Page 1 0l ?
ST Tz
l ls"
Report
B
April 3, 1980
Regardinp
Mounds view City Wide Park
System Plan
were aTso qenerally apprOVed ae preeented
r+ith the following exceptions:
1. Groveland - Indicate the word "Shelter" by picnicing.
2. Hillview - Need to explain to city reaidents that
general skating prea can be used in swmner-
tlme for softball uaer parkinq aa a short
ranqe solution to the parking problem.
3. City Hall - Electrical outleta should be provided in
large picnic shelter. Satalite toilets can
be covered with a wood frame "perk-like"
structure that wi'll allow toilets to be
easily removed, replaced, and maintained
instead o building a permanent toilet
facility. '
4. Ardan - Picnicing on island ahould be unorqanized
picnicinq (no tablea or qrills etc.) to
minimize water related accidenta.
c 5: fireenfield - Readjust picnic area eo ii doea not croee
1
creek. Indicate area to the eaat of picnicing
as nature study inetead o£ bufEer.
M .. F . . . . .
List dl park aceraqe on each concept pian.
sr :
4`
Ki...'_' .
L;:AS..
I( :.M.:
wr:,....;:'i. .
r
Untess wriMen oblection Is raesNed wHhb
one week we:han oaume atalemanlc
coMOined herefn ore aceep ed.
RaP bV ciesy Tushis
Pope —ot _
DATE
70
FROM
SUBJECT:
UM][Y('.l.Y/NIY
April 16, 1980
Public Works and Recreation Cnmmittee
Mar9aret Thorpe
Executive Assistan ' , , .'
Planning & Developme t
Lakeside Park and B ach
i
Following your request at the March 17, 1980 Committee meeting, I
have reviewed the request of the Parks and Recreation Department to
develop the appropriate legal basis under which the County would
assume fu11 responsibility for Lakeside Park and Beach facility".
On March 28, Tony Crea, Bernie Edmonds, Jim Kavaloski and I went to
the Park and inspected the facilities. We aiso met with members of
the Lakeside Park Canmission, the Mounds View City Council, the
Spring Lake Park City Council, and the Director of the Mounds View
Parks and Recreation Department. In addition, I sought additional
information and clarification about the Park and the request for
Ramsey County to assume responsibility for it fran a variety of
saurces.
x+...+:x...:+..
This review indicates that the decision as to whether or not Ramsey
County should assume responsibility for Lakeside Park and Beach remains
a policy judgment, which only the members of the Board can make. The
information originally Dresented by the Department is substantially
correct. Ramsey Lounty must weigh its responsibility to provide
appropriate services to its citizens against its responsibility to
mana9e the size and cost of those services. The Department's infor-
mation, along with the additionat information I have obtained, reveals
no major reasons for not assuming responsibility for the Park other
than that of increased County pro9ram costs.
wt+*k+:+++•x+•
In response to several questions raised at the March 17 meeting, I would
offer the following additional information and analysis which may assist
you in reaching a decision. Also attached is a mmwrandum fran the
Direttor of the Mounds View Parks and Recreation Oepartment, outiining
his reasons for proposing that the County assume responsibility for the
Park.
Leeids D r4 anA Rparh, u c..
April 16, 1980
Page 2
1) If we assume responsibility for Lakeside Park and Beach, will
a prECedeM that will force us eventuall, to take over all mur
Probably not. As Earl Marlow indicated in his memo to Tony Crea (March 17
documentation), the precedent for County operation of swimning beaches
already exists. 11 of the 13 beaches in the County are owned and oper-
ated by us. A 12th beach is owned by the City of Llhite Bear lake but
operated by us under contract. Thus, to assume ownership and/or oper-
ation of the Lakeside Park Beach would be consistent with County respon-
sibility fer swimming beaches. It should be possible, in the future, to
say, in effect, "We do beaches, but we don't do parks."
2) What vrould it really tost Ramsey County to assume responsibility for
Lakeside Park and Beach?
The Department estimated, in the original documentation, an annual cost of
38,000. This figure includes maintenance and operations costs, additional
staff, and capital expenditures (allocated over 5 years). The Department
also referred to a potential $90,000 expenditure for a new beach house.
Not mentioned was the possibility of higher patrol costs for the Sheriff.
In 1979 the actual operating costs for Lakeside, accordinq to the Park
Commission, were $28,760, including capital improvements. This resulted
in a deficit to the Comnission of $7,300, since income was only 521,440.
The Commission's 1980 request to the two City Council's was $22,325. (I
do have the complete breakdown of the 1979 costs and of the budgets for
1979 ana 1980; however, the copy was not reproducible. [ +ill bring them
to the committee meeting.) The basic difference between our Department's
estimate and the 1979 costs of the Commission is the addition of a fult-
time M and 0 worker and a slight i crease in capital improvement costs.
While the present beach house is not a luxurious facility, it does not
require immediate replacement. Because of the limited kitchen facilities,
full food service cannot be provided; state health requirements will limit
food sales to prepackaged items such as potato chips, popcorn, candy, etc.
Food cooked on the premises would e prohibited. Except for this resLrictSon,
there are no state or federal requirements that would force replacement or
substantial rehabiii±ation of the beach house. The quality sCandards re-
ferred to in the Department's documentation are strictly those which Ramsey
County has established in its park program. Thus, replacement or remodeling
of the beach house would be solely at the County's option if we became the
owner of the beach.
In summary, it is probable that Tt will cost Ramsey County an addTtional
30,000 to E40,000 per year over the next several years to assume operations,
maintenance and capital improvements foi Lakeside Park and Beach.
3) Do oeoole outside of Mounds Uiew and Spring Lake Park use the beach?
a) The Lakeside Park Conmission, as Mr. Anderson's memorandum indicates,
Lakeside Park and Deach
April 16, 1980
Pa a 3
believes that significant numbers of people from outside the two cities
do use the Park. Their data is limited, however, it does show that about
25% of the participants in swir,ming lessons were fran other localities.
Most of that 25X were from outsde Remsey Lounty.
b) The fact that part
that a significant
largely irrelevant
sibility:
of the Park and Beach are located in Anoka County, and
percentage of the users are from Anoka Lounty, may be
to whether or not Rar.sey County should assume respon-
1) The precedent of ownership of park land outside of Ramsey County was
established when the Lilydale Regional ark, part of which is in
Dakota County, was purchased.
2) Ramsey County has no fees for park use at any af its parks, whether
for non-residents or residents. Anyone may use any of the parks
without cost. We have no way of knowing how many residents of other
counties, ar even other states, use for free uther Ramsey County Parks.
The main difference between our other parks and the LakesiAe Park is
that we know people from other counties use Lakeside. Two other
county park operations, at White aear Lake and at Beaver Lake, are alsc
near county lines and probably are used by residents of other counties.
3) In Sts regional park studies, the Metropolitan Council noted that
Ramsey County residents use parks in surrounding counties than do
residents of those counties use Ramsey County's. This pattern is
wholly understandable, given the small size and heavy urbanization
Ramsey County.
more
of
c) 1 spoke with Ralph P1cGinley, Anoka County Administrator, with regard to the
possibilities of Anoka County's role in the Lakeside Park. He indicated
that Rnoka County does not wish to assume operatio of the park because
of the precedent that it vrould set. Unlike Ramsey County, Anoka does not
presently operate the swimning beaches in the county. for Anoka ta take
over Lekeside Park vrould be to set a precedent that might force eventual
county takeover of all municipal recreation iaciiities, as Anoka cannot
draw the line between beaches and parks that Ramsey can.
4)
He indicated, however, that discussions of possible cost-sharing between
Anoka County and Ramsey County could take place. He indicated that Anoka
County would be willing to talk with Ramsey County about the Park and
Beach, as he sees cooperation between the two counties as a different
situation than a transfer of responsibility from the municipalities to
Anoka County.
unti
lt is not necessary to do so. The regional park system is sianificantly differ-
ent from Lakeside Park. Each of the re9Sona1 park sites witl involve multiple
recreational facilities a' encompasses large land areas. There will be canplex
Lakeside Park and Beach
April 16, 1980
Page 4
alternatives to review for that system, as well as different potential revenue
sources. Lakeside Park is a small park with simple facilities where the oper-
ations and maintenance costs are easily estimated. Moreover, it is a fully
developed park, which the regional parks are not. In other words, the regional
park system is an entirely different level of service> and Lakeside Park should
be viewed alongside existing county beaches and parks, not alongside the far
more complex regional system.
In sumnary, the only significant reason not to assume responsibility for LakesideParkisthatitwillprobablyrequireexpenditw•e of an additional 830,000 to
40,000 annually for operations, maintenance and capital improvement af the park.
This expenditure should be weighed against the request of citizens in the north-
west corner of the county for service assistance. It may be worth noting also
that the above $30,000 to $40,000 is not a net increase in taxes paid by citizens.
Rather, the City of Mounds View and the City of Spring Lake Park should be abletoeitherreducetheirtaxesby817,000 or provide $17,000 in other localservicesasaresultoftransferringresponsibilityforthisbeachtothe County.
If the Comnissioners decide to assume responsibility for Lakeside Park, they
should direct the Parks and Recreation Department to:
a) Negotiate with the Lakeside Park Commission and the two Cities to
reach agreement on ownership, operations, maintenance, and activities
direction for the beach a d park. At present, the Lakeside Park
Commission sponsors numerous activities, such as swimming lessons,
which are not part of county beach programs. The Cortmission should
be fully responsible for continuing these if Ramsey County becomes
responsible for operations and maintenance. The negotiated agree-
ment would be returned to the Doard for final approval.
b)
c)
MT:gb
Review the present allocation of county maintenante and operations
staff to determine if, in fact, the addition of another full-time
person is requTred to handle this beach. It may be possible to
reduce the net cost to the taxpayers of the county to 1lttle more
than the present $7,300 deficit of the CommlSSion 1f present staff
could be allocated in a more efficient manner to service this beach
and park.
Inctude any additional security costs in the final cost esttmates
for the beach.
cc: Comnissioner Robert Orth
Larry Brown
Tony Crea
Bernard Edmonds "
Bruce Anderson -
Uf YAHI MI IJT U! I'AR1.S
fiCCRF/TON qNIJ FOqESiRV
May 21, 1980
Cit o M'ou s Iliev
qpMSFYCOUNTY,MINNESOTA
9901 MIGMWAV t0
MOUNOSViFW,MiNN 5511]
19FJ055
Dzar Parks and Recreation Commissioners:
Enclosed is your packet of inforination for the May 22, 1980 meeting
scheduled for 6:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. As there are
only three agenda items I would assume we should be completed with our
meeting no later than 8:00 p.m. if we begin right at 6:30 p.m.
If you have any spere time between now and Thursday evening yuu
might want to swing by Lambert Park and see the new trees that we have
instalted along Jackson Road.
If you have any questicns regarding the enclosed packet, feel
free to give me a call at 784-3055.
Bru e`e K. Andersv D
Parks, Recreation and
BKA/sw
Enclosure
1
E