10-29-07 Item 8B, Sheehy Tennis Court Discussion

Home Browse Search

Sheehy Tennis Court Future Options 2 Page 2 could be added near the site for enhanced nature viewing. If the City decides to designate this as a public park, staff does recommend that this court be placed on the City hard court maintenance schedule. After speaking with the vendor that examined the court, it was their opinion that the court could be maintained in a safe and playable condition with regular resurfaces. There are some areas of the court that are in need of leveling due to the subgrade. However, these areas could be managed by resurfacing on a regular schedule. The estimate to resurface the court was approximately $6,500. Reconstructing the courts would be problematic and costly due to the soil conditions under the court. 3. Tear out the teuuis court aud maintain the area as open space. The 2002 Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan proposed to remove the tennis court, add benches near wetland, maintain as open space, and explore the possibility of adding unpaved trails. After site observations and research, staff has concluded that it seems highly unlikely that a walking trail could be built in this area. The soil conditions and the wetland would require a floating bridge or board walk and that would be a very high cost to construct. The estimate cost for City Staff to remove the tennis courts is approximately $9,317.60. A breakdown of costs for this was included at the last meeting. 4. The City could order an appraisal of the area of the land that the tennis court is located and offer to sell or convey that portion to Arden Hills #3 Association. There is no guarantee that the Association would be interested in purchasing this portion of land. The Arden Hills No.3 Association has expressed that their first choice is for the tennis court to remain and for the Association to have exclusive use through a lease. The City Council tabled the Sheehy Tennis Court decision and directed staff to invite the Arden Hills No.3 Association to the October PTRC meeting for further discussion. On October 23, 2007, the Association was represented by three neighbors and did submit a letter of request to the PTRC from the Board President, Bruce Eisenmenger. The Association information is included for your review (Attachment 8B-3). As stated in the attached letter, the Association's first choice is for a long term lease to be considered. The letter does not include any commitments from the Association regarding maintenance. However, they did indicate at the PTRC meeting that if a long term lease was granted that they would be willing to resurface and repair the court. Staff did seek further consultation from the City Attorney on option four and did present and discuss this information with the PTRC and Association representatives. The City Attorney did confirm that if the City desires, the land can be sold. However, the City does not have the authority to convey property for a nominal consideration, unless the conveyance is to another govemmental unit. The Planning Commission would also need to review any proposed transaction of this land. The Attorney General has determined that the City cannot convey land