Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-24-1984 PTRC Agenda - Minutes • 1 • AGENDA Regular Parks & Recreation Committee Meeting Village of Arden Hills Tuesday, July 24, 1984 07.3u) Village Hall Call to Order & Roll Call Introduction of Secretary 3 - North Heights Lutheran Church Development Presentation r/ 4 - Park Dedication Discussion 33 L/ 5 .- Council Report )o �repeau Park - "Hesserly Plan" r s -es8•fur cer�ro) dev,J Gp Park Dedication Report C;:"e,41 V/Parkway Feasibility Study Approval Mana.,ement Goals Study - Fall Program Review & Approval vl"8 — 1985 Budget j:iwc►udt COS.] - Park Committee Member Resignation � ,.�' ' �� WA7„c CFO- Misc. Business Tennis Court Progress Corridor for Karth Lake Circle & Nursery Hill Lane �►�•�� � �� 11- Adjournment • r Minutes of Regular Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting Village of Arden Hills Tuesday , June 12 , 1984 - 7 : 30 p .m. Village Hall Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Sand at 7 : 38 p .m. Roll Call Present - Sand , Dreyling , Klick , Kostishack , Messerly , Otto , Sather Absent - Anderson , Enrooth , Gillies , Tuggle , Wild Also Present - Buckley Approval of Minutes Comments regarding the Park Tour (May 8 , 1984 ) ; no official minutes were recorded during the tour. The Committee appreciated walking through Crepeau Park . Members were impressed with the large mature oaks and natural beauty of the area . The proposed plan for developing nature paths and wild flower areas throughout the park is an appropriate and desirable use of the area . • Don Messerly is willing to check with consultants regarding the planning and development of wild flower areas . Some residents have expressed an interest in donating some flowers from their gardens for Crepeau Park . The next appropriate time for planting wild flowers is Mid-September to October 1st . Otto moved , seconded by Messerly , that some "native" flowers be purchased at that time for planting ; $ 1 , 500 is budgeted in 1984 for Crepeau Park development . Motion carried unanimously . Messerly is also going to check with the Rice Creek Watershed District regarding the possibility of raising the water level of one of the ponding areas to provide an area for marsh flowers and water fowl . Messerly is also interested in organizing a bird watching club for interested residents . Charlie Tooker Report The Committee ' s discussion of the Tooker report centered in three areas : Programs for Seniors Presently all seniors programs at the Edgewood Community Center are available to residents . Additional effort should be made to provide leisure activities such as hiking clubs , trips , bird watching and other possible activities for seniors . Interest Survey An interest survey should be developed and mailed to Village residents ; the results would help in determining future programs and park development . Minutes of Regular Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting Tuesday , June 12 , 1984 - 7 : 30 p .m . • Page Two Bequest Brochure The Committee elt the development of a bequest brochure could have some long term benefits for the Village . Report on Tennis Courts Buckley reported that the tennis court contracts have been signed by T .A . Schifsky Company . Construction will start when weather and soil conditions are favorable . 10 Year Park Improvement Review Buckley reported on the 1984 Park Development . 1984 projects that will be completed this summer are : - Single tennis court and basketball court at Hazelnut and Floral Park . - Double tennis court and basketball court at Cummings Park . - Installation of basketball backboards and tennis practice boards at Cummings , Floral , and Hazelnut Parks . • - Installation of play climbing structure at Cummings Park . - Up-grading of pedestrian corridors at Chatham Addition , and corridor linking Indian Oaks Court to Norma Avenue . - Some trees and shrubs will be planted at Hazelnut , Cummings , and Perry Parks . - Arden Oaks Park Area should be seeded this fall if grading is completed . - Some pathway improvement and native flowers planted at Crepeau Park . 1984 projects delayed until later years are west access to Ingerson Park and grading at Crepeau Park . These items are delayed so the money could be directed toward the construction of tennis and basketball courts . Miscellaneous Business There was no miscellaneous business . Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8 : 59 p .m . • Minutes of Regular Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting Tuesday , June 12 , 1984 - 7 : 30 p .m. Page Three 1985 Park Improvement Proposal The Committee reviewed the Parks Improvement projects listed on the 10 year guidelines scheduled for 1985 , and after good discus- sion , recommend that the following projects be considered for 1985 completion . Hazelnut Park A-dditional trees and landscaping $ 500 Arden Oaks Park Seeding or sodding 1 , 500 Play equipment (delayed to 1986 ) Cummings Park Trees and landscaping 500 Ingerson Park West access to park 10 ,000 Play equipment 8 ,000 • Crepeau Park Pathway 1 ,500 Native flowers and possible grading 6 ,000 Soccer Goals 3 , 000 Trails 4 ,500 (up-grading trail surfaces , benches , signs ) 36 , 500 Arsenal softball fields 51 ,000 ( if property is available ) Miscellaneous Business There was no miscel aneous business . Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8 : 59 p . m. • • TO: Parks Committee FROM: Tom Mulcahy DATE: July 12 , 1984 There were several matters of interest to Parks Committee members that were acted upon by the Council last Monday evening, July 9 , 1984. I want to share the news with you because I am so pleased with the results. First, the Council endorsed the "Messerly Plan" for Crepeau Park; we approved $1 , 500 for improvements, including plantings consistent with the plan that Don prepared last April. Don made a wonderful presentation and I am very enthusiastic about this development. Second, we secured the agreement of a developer of two industrial parcels to pay into our park fund 10% of the • appraised value of his raw land--about $40, 000 over a five- year period. Third, the Council approved (3-2) my long-standing proposal for a study of the feasibility of a system of parkways in Arden Hills. I have enclosed a copy of my remarks , the proposal and the motion that the Council passed. Please note that the proposal calls for involvement by members of the Parks Committee and Planning Commission who might be interested in serving on the Task Force. I have very much appreciated your support for this project. I am confident that the effort will be worthwhile and have very beneficial long-range effects on the quality of our environment in Arden Hills. Enclosure v cc: John Buckley Orlyn Miller Planning Commission • • TO: Council FROM: Tom Mulcahy SUBJECT: Parkway Study DATE: July 9 , 1984 I would like again to bring before the Council my proposal that we authorize a conceptual design study that would look into the possibility of a system of parkways in Arden Hills . I believe that a professional study--under the direction of the City Planner and involving a task force that includes interested members of the Planning Commission and Parks Committee--could give us needed direction in preparing a long range plan for a parkway system to be integrated into the City' s existing Transportation Plan. This idea has been perking in my mind for over two years . It ' s time it had professional study and evaluation. The planner and members of the Planning Commission and the • Parks Committee have the necessary expertise and interest to look at the possibilities and to come up with feasible recommendations for long term action. These things take time--to study, to secure citizen and professional input, to generate awareness and support--and, I think, that it' s time to get that process started. Orlyn Miller and I have prepared the attached proposal for a Parkway Plan Study and I request your favorable consideration. The estimated maximum cost of this activity is $2 , 500 . I propose that it be funded from the Parks Capital Fund and from Planning Consultant funds and that the work begin immediately. I believe that the study would take several months and we would have a report in early 1985. Funding should be provided in the 1985 budget. TRM: -)mg Attachment • • PARKWAY PLAN STUDY City of Arden Hills OBJECTIVE Preparation of a long-range plan for the development of a parkway system for Arden Hills to be incorporated into the Transportation Plan. APPROACH The initial investigation/planning stage should include the following tasks : 1 . Establish basic goals and objectives of the parkway system. 2 . Identify potential parkway routes. 3 . Establish typical "cross section" of parkway road and right--,of-way requirements. 4 . Evaluate the existing streets, rights-of-way, and . adjacent development of potential parkway routes to determine the physical and financial feasibility of parkway construction. 5 . Meet with County Traffic Engineer and City Engineer. 6 . Prepare planning graphics for discussion purposes (potential routes, typical cross-section, problem areas) . 7 . Summarize mutual findings and recommendations in brief report to City Council. A Task Force comprised of members of the Planning Commission and Parks Committee and a Council liaison is suggested as group to work with the Consultant on this planning project. COST Not to exceed $2 , 500. TRM/OWPI:pmg 7-9-84 • Motion I move that the City Planner be authorized to study the concept and feasibility of a parkway system for Arden Hills for implementation as part of the Transportation Plan of the City, such study to include the formation of a task force consisting of interested members of the Planning Commission, the Parks Committee and the Parks Liaison Councilmember; such study to cost no more than $2 ,500 and include the following activities: 1 . Establish basic goals and objectives of the parkway system. 2 . Identify potential parkway routes. 3 . Establish typical "cross section" of parkway road and right-of-way requirements. 4 . Evaluate the existing streets, rights-of-way, and adjacent development of potential parkway routes to determine the physical and financial feasibility of parkway construction. 5 . Meet with County Traffic Engineer and City Engineer. 6 . Prepare planning graphics for discussion purposes (potential routes , typical cross-section, problem areas) . 7. Summarize mutual findings and recommendations in brief report to City Council. TRM:pmg 7-9-84 v ion • July 9, 1984 Management Goals for 1984 ohn T. Buckley Council Maintain open communications with Council members through: - frequent contact with Council liaison - written memos supporting all requests for expenditures -, written reports for: summer programs winter skating youth and adult fee programs diseased tree program so that Council members are knowledgeable of program philosophy, programs offered and program participation Parks and Recreation Committee Promote and encourage Park Committee members' active involvement In: - determining program goals and philosophy . - determining program activities and content - setting park/trail goals and development through the preparation of 10 year park/trail development program, and annual evaluation and review of 10 year program - developing a gift and endowment program - secure approval for Crepeau Park Development Plans Trail Development A special effort will be directed toward the maintenance and development of the pedestrian trails during 1984 and 1985 - study and evaluation of excisting ano future traii program - the agricultural lime surface on the Arden Trail will be graded every four weeks from April through October - all trails with grass surfaces will be mowed every four weeks from April through October - sitting benches will be installed along the major trails - trail maps will be published semi-annually Program Development Plan and conduct a community interest survey this fall or winter covering: • - evaluation of present programs - now program needs and interests - when and how Arden Hills' residents use the parks and trails Page Two • Volunteer Coaches Clinic The coach is the single most important factor in determining whether a child will have a positive or negative experience while playing in an athletic activity. Therefore , a coaches clinic will be developed to : - teach sports skills - teach .psychology of working with children Employee Evaluation Full -time park employees will participate in an annual performance evaluation .by 12-1-84. 1Ietro olitan Park aCommission s nd Open Space • 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 612/291-6401 July 1984 TO: Metropolitan Area Citizens and Government Officials The Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission., working with the regional implementing agencies, has scheduled a series of 12 joint meetings to hear from the public about the recreation open space system in the seven-county Metro- politan Area. The meetings are a first step in considering revisions needed for the Metropolitan Council "s Development Guide/Policy Plan for Recreation Open Space. A meeting schedule is attached. The commission has invited implementing agency board members to sit with them to hear from the public about what is good and not so good in the policies guiding acquisition and development of regional parks. At the meetings, any comment will be welcome, whether verbal or written, on any topic concerning regional parks. Time has been reserved at the end of each meeting for dis- cussion by the policy board members present. During the time period for meetings, July 17 through Aug. 23, the commission will also accept written comments, sent to 300 Metro Square, 7th and Robert Sts. , St. Paul , 55101. • The commission has developed a paper suggesting several issues surrounding pur- poses and goals of the system, how it should be funned and by what pr'orities, and about its future development. If you would like a copy, please call the Council at 291-6401. Following these meetings, the commission will begin to discuss and resolve the issues and to prepare a revised Development Guide/Policy Plan for submission to the Council for public hearing. After the hearing, currently scheduled for November, the commission plans to recommend, and the Council plans to adopt, a revised recreation open space plan. Your participation will be important and very welcome. You can also help by publicizing the meetings. Enclosed is a news release, which you may find useful . Sincerely, /l Jo McBride C it JM:vld • Established by the Minnesota Legislature as an agency of the Metropolitan Council r 5.30.84 • RECREATION OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT GUIDE/POLICY PLAN ISSUES PAPER INTRODUCTION The Metropolitan Council is reviewing its Policy Plan for Regional Recreation Open Space and will adopt a revised plan by early 1985. The Council seeks com- ments about the strengths and weaknesses of the current plan and also seeks new issues which people believe should be considered in the revision. This issue paper is the first part of that public process. It has been prepared by the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission to prompt discussion at a series of public meetings in July and August, 1984. The goals from the 1980 plan, with some questions, are listed as a first issue, followed by a series of specific issues received from individuals and agencies. Issues were selected to provoke public reaction as well as to list what the commission and Council hope to hear about. The commission is confident that other issues exist and hopes they will come forward during the meetings. The meetings will also give the public a chance to speak for or against any specific or general topics they believe should be considered about the regional recreation open space system. Following the meeting, a revised draft policy plan will be developed and circulated for a public hearing, currently scheduled for November of 1984. After the hearing, a final revised policy plan will be reviewed and adopted. BACKGROUND • In 1974, following extended discussion, the Minnesota Legislature passed the Metropolitan Parks Act. The law makes the Metropolitan Council , with the advice of the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, responsible for preparing and adopting a policy plan for a regional recreation open space system. The parks act requires periodic Council review of this policy plan. The first policy plan was adopted as a chapter for regional recreation open space in the Council-s Metropolitan Development Guide in 1974. Following extensive discussion, the plan was revised and adopted again in 1980. The regional recreation open space system is implemented by 10 agencies-- counties, municipalities and special park districts. Implementing agencies are eligible to receive grants from the Council for acquisition and development of regional parks in accord with master plans which the agencies prepare. The Metropolitan Council reviews master plans for consistency with the regional recreation open space system policy plan and then approves them. The imple- menting agencies own and operate the regional parks. 3 3. The regional system lies within a larger metropolitan system, all the pub- licly available open space in the Metropolitan Area, regardless of owner- ship. The plan calls for a regional system which provides approximately equal access to parks, in distance or time traveled, for everyone in the region. It also calls for equity of service, that is, everyone should be able to find parks which provide about the same kind of service, across the region. Should the equity apply to the entire metropolitan system, to the regional recreation open space system, to the municipal or local system, or to some combination of the above. Where is the greater problem? Where is change needed most? 4. Research shows that certain sub-populations in the region visit regional parks less than might be expected, especially elderly, minority, low income and teens. What are the barriers to their use? Must the plan call for identification and removal of barriers to use more, or differently, than it does? Are there other things the plan should call for to remedy the apparent problem? 5. Is the year 2000 target for a completed system plan reasonable? Appropriate? Feasible? 6. A major Council task has been obtaining adequate funds for the system. Should that task become a formal goal of the Council? What is the appro- priate task, exactly? • 7. Should the Council adopt a goal calling for a more active (pro-active) posture to park and recreation issues in the region? In what areas might stronger leadership or activity applied earlier be of benefit to the regional system? 8. Minnesota has stressed the importance of tourism and economic development in public projects including arks. Should the Council -s goals add this P P J 9 P directive to the regional system goals? Clearly, regional parks can and do function in this area. 9. The State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORN is in revision and a similar national plan review (ORRC II ) may begin soon. Should the plan outline an increased role for the regional and metropolitan system in a state and national framework? What concerns need to be met? ISSUE 2. Is the system acquiring the right parks in the right places at the right times and is it providing the right facilities withinthem? This question is one which is asked, appropriately, every time a policy plan/ system plan for any public service is opened for discussion. Subquestions follow rather predictably: Has acquisition proceeded at an appropriate rate, too fast, or too slowly? Is the planned completed system too large, too small , incorrectly guided in . the places being acquired, or correct? 5 Related Questions: I . In your opinion, what are the greatest needs for the regional system? Where are problems the greatest? 2. Are the categories for priority the most appropriate statements the Council can make to direct the acquisition of land and development of facilities for regional recreation open space? 3. Do the categories and the goal and objective statements of the Council match? Do both direct the system to the same point and will it meet regional needs for recreation open space? 4. Is the process by which priorities are decided adequate and appropriate? How might it be improved? ISSUE 4. Should there be a change in the scope of the regional system or the Councils role in implementing the system? The regional recreation open space system emphasizes natural resource based recreation opportunities (picnicking, swimming, boating, fishing, trail uses, camping and nature interpretation) . A few existing special uses include a zoo, a conservatory and a floral display garden. • Regional system components now are: o Park Reserves - large, open, natural areas. o Regional Park - moderately large, open spaces with good recreation resources such as lakes. o Regional Trail Corridors - linear parkland for trail activities. o Regional Historic Parks - areas of regional historic importance. o Regional Special Recreation Use Areas - areas which support unique recreation uses for the region. Related Questions: 1. Should the system incorporate more special recreation uses? If so, what kind? 2. Would providing some special attractions in certain parks encourage use or redistribute use to new parks? Would that be desirable? 3. Does the region have a responsibility for unique or unusually large rec- reation facilities now provided by municipalities? What would the benefits or drawbacks be of bringing these into a regional plan? 4. Are there some traditionally municipal facilities that are not being ade- quately provided or might be discontinued? What are they? Is there a regional responsibility for these? 5. Are the current classifications and definitions of regional system com- ponents appropriate? Should some be deleted or others added? Should some be modified? t ' 7 • The second type, fees charged for entry, for parking, or other fees which have the effect of admission fees, have received more attention. Most of the imple- menting agencies do not charge such fees. Of those which do, some charge only for certain sites, others charge for all vehicles entering all parks. Some collect by parking meters, some by daily and annual stickers. Related Questions: 1. Are general fees for regional parks appropriate, or should basic entry be free for all users? 2. Are fees which have the effect of general admissions discriminatory against user groups such as low income, minorities, physically handicapped, and peo- ple who do not live nearby, as opponents say, or, are they basically fair in that they are paid by those who use the parks most, as proponents say? 3. If it is reasonable to charge a general fee, would it make sense to apply a uniform entrance fee to all regional parks? Should it be the same as the state park fee? Should it be an actual statewide park sticker with revenues shared by state parks and regional parks? 4. What is a reasonable mechanism to charge a regional park user fee (if one is desirable)? Could it be a license rather than a parking sticker? Would something like the Winter Carnival and Aquatennial badge system work? Any other ideas? • ISSUE 7. Is there a need for a comprehensive marketing plan for the regional open space system? a s the Council s appropriate role in ace i a ing public use of the regional recrea ion open space system. Offering a balanced system, with equitable recreation opportunity across the Region, may not be enough. A low level of awareness could be a problem. Some- times, a problem is in what people perceive to be limits on their use. The 1980 policy plan accurately states that there is no general public image of a comprehensive regional park system. Policy 23. The Council will coordinate, with the implementing agencies, a public information program to make the public more aware of the regional recreation open space system. Public information efforts of the implementing agencies are mostly localized-- dealing only with parks and programs in their jurisdiction and usually aimed specifically at their constituents. The Council coordinates a limited infor- mation program about the regional system, in concert with the implementing agencies" programs, to make the public more broadly aware. Simple dissemina- tion of information probably does not meet the public-s need. One increasingly frequent suggestion is for the Council to coordinate a system marketing plan with the implementing agencies which sets regional objectives including deter- mining potential audiences, informing potential users and evaluating program response, all throughout the regional system. • A sample objective might be greater public identity for the regional recreation open space system. The Council is selecting a logo for regional recreation open space. The logo could become an identifier, universal in the regional system, clearly marking all opportunities in all regional facilities. 9 Related Questions: 1. Should the Council seek an answer now to this problem of the future, or must the future take care of itself? 2. Is the problem one which could be met by an investment or set-aside program begun now? Is there a useful model of a "public trust" which could be adapted? 3. Should the Council and the commission take a pro-active role, working with other levels of government to find a solution? ISSUE 9. Is there a need for guidelines for service levels for development and or operation and maintenance in regional parks? Metropolitan Council staff, working with staff from implementing agencies, have developed draft guidelines for service levels (GSL) for both development and for 0 & M. The GSL delineate both the quantity and quality of service which facilities in regional parks will provide (development) , and the quantity and quality of service which they can sustain through the maintenance they receive (0 & M) . The documents are working drafts, to be tried and adjusted in use. Ultimately, proponents feel that GSL offer a way to measure and predict the quality as well as quantity of service returned from investment in regional recreation open space. Opponents say the measures may be so imprecise at the • outset as to be meaningless, therefore, misleading to persons attempting to use them. Some view GSL as undue infringement on implementing agency prerogatives, feeling that, as owners and operators, the implementing agencies alone should set service levels in the regional parks for which they are responsible. A draft suggests the definition of appropriate level of service as follows: A level of service which meets all health and safety needs, provides an aesthetically pleasing environment, maintains the quality of both natural and built resources, and permits a satisfactory recreation experience up to the facility"s designed capacity and lifetime. Both Policy 22 and the 1980 text get to "levels of service" in the areas of development and 0 & M. However, the current plan has no definition nor are any levels set. Related Questions: I . Is it important that the regional system meet minimum acceptable service levels throughout? Who (and how) decides what they are? Is the suggested definition (above) appropriate? Adequate? 2. Is the difficulty of developing usable service level guidelines such that they are worth pursuing or not? 3. If usable GSL can be written, should they become part of the policy plan? • (The Council has other separate guidelines which are not part of policy plans. ) 11 The intent seems plain. Some municipalities have stated that their access to master plans has come only after the agency has adopted the plan, making subs- tantive change to meet their concerns improbable. If this has happened, it is not consistent with policy. From another point of view, some implementing agencies cite cases in which municipalities have delayed plan approval unduly in some cases insisting upon conditions which work against the agency or the regional interest. Some imple- menting agencies have been prevented from installing needed improvements, even developments for which the municipalities had given earlier concept approval . There are differences in the laws which control implementing agencies from one jurisdiction to another and some of these have, on occasion, blocked an implementing agency from going ahead with regional projects. One major effect some municipalities have exerted upon regional open space has been special assessments levied against parks. The Council , the commission and some of the implementing agencies have stated increasing concern over the pro- cess by which municipalities have made special assessments against regional parkland, questioning if they were based upon actual benefits to the park. Other concerns are about how assessments should be paid and when they should be set. One remedy suggested is that the municipality and the implementing agency could agree to treat the master plan as a conditional use permit, possibly meeting at once concerns on the part of the municipalities, the implementing agency and the Council about the current planning process. Related Questions: 1. How much control over regional park development should municipalities have? What happens if more than one municipality is involved? 2. Are the problems real and large enough to be worth bothering about? 3. If an implementing agency and municipality agreed to treat a regional park master plan for development as a conditional use permit, would it help resolve the problems cited? 4. Is there a simpler and, therefore, better way to deal with the concerns? 5. What are the "pluses and minuses" to a municipality from a regional park located within or adjacent to its boundaries? ISSUE 12. How much leadership does or should the Council -s recreation open space program provide in the area of affirmative action and minority usiness enterprises? Currently, the policy plan for recreation open space does not address this issue. In its recent contracts, the Council (May 1983) has inserted language as follows: The Council shall not discriminate. . .on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, affectional or sexual preference, age, political affiliate, marital status, or status with regard to public 13 2. Should master plan preparation, as a matter of course, incorporate preparation of an EAW? 3. If yes, should it be prepared and circulated separately or should it be required as part of a master plan, the contents of which are spelled out in the policy plan? ISSUE 14. To what extent should revenues from non-recreation use of regional parklands be controlled? Some implementing agencies have realized revenues from non-recreation activity on land purchased for regional parks. Most comes from continuing existing uses. Agencies have collected agricultural land rent or crop shares. Some have rented or leased buildings. A lesser amount has come from sale of build- ings and equipment. It"s important to remember that the implementing agencies are the owners and operators of the regional park. According to the 1980 policy plan, the implementing agencies are restricted to using such revenue for costs which are grant eligible. Policy 20 states: Grants to implementing agencies will be made for acquisition and development as follows: o Acquisition grants will include land costs, relocation assistance, land stewardship, utility assessments and fees for services performed • by other than agency staff. o Revenue from interim land uses will be used by the agency for grant- eligible costs. o Grants for development will include improvements within the regional parks, park reserves or trail corridors of recreational facilities, utilities, landscaping, roads and parking, building construction, and maintenance facilities to serve the particular unit; as well as natural resource rehabilitation within park reserves. o System-wide improvements are grant-eligible. When such eligible system-wide facilities are also used for other than regional park purposes, the regional funding will be on a negotiated prorated basis. Barring plan change, if 0 & M grants become part of the regional program, interim revenues could presumably support 0 & M. The 1980 plan does not allow revenues from interim uses to be applied to 0 & M. Certain of the implementing agencies suggest that the plan mistakenly assumed all regional parks were purchased undeveloped and that no recreation use could occur until regional development grants are made. Interim management of parks is confined to stewardship because no operation is believed to be feasible in the undeveloped parks. In fact, several regional parks have been put into service in the interim between acquisition and development, creating operating costs which policy says cannot be supported by interim revenues. The • agencies feel they should be permitted to use interim revenues to support interim 0 & M costs. • Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission Joint Public Meetings Schedule SUBJECT: Issues for Revision of the Regional Recreation Open Space Development Guide/Policy Plan For information, contact Jack Mauritz, 291-6602 Date: Tuesday, July 17, 7:30 p.m. With: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Place: Northeast Park 16th and Pierce Street, N.E. , Minneapolis Date: Thursday, July 19, 7:30 p.m. With: Washington County Board of Commissioners Place: Washington County Government Center, Board Room Stillwater Date: Tuesday, July 24, 7:30 p.m. With: Anoka County Board of Commissioners Place: Anoka County Courthouse, Commissioners Board Room Anoka Date: Thursday, July 26, 7:30 p.m. With: Dakota County Board of Commissioners • Scott County Board of Commissioners (and Hennepin County Park Reserve District) Place: Burnsville Government Center, City Council Chambers Burnsville Date: Tuesday, July 31, 7:30 p.m. With: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Place: Sumner Olson Council 900 - 8th Ave. , N. (8th & Bryant) , Minneapolis Date: Thursday, August 2, 7:30 p.m. With: Ramsey County Board of Commissioners Place: Maplewood Government Center, Council Chambers Maplewood Date: Wednesday, August 8, 7:30 p.m. With: Bloomington City Council and Hennepin County Park Reserve District Place: Bloomington City Hall , Council Chambers Bloomington Date: Thursday, August 9, 7:30 p.m. With: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Place: Hosmer Library 347 E. 36th St. , Minneapolis i 5 n-.. 9<L NEWS For more information contact the Public Information Office 612/291-6464 Ken Reddick For Immediate Release: 291-6422 Public Meetings to be Held Friday, On Region 's Park System June 29 , 1984 Area residents will have an opportunity this summer to help shape parks policy for the Twin Cities Area. The Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, working with regional implementing agencies, has scheduled a series of 12 joint public meetings on the parks and park reserves. The meetings are the first step in revising the • Metropolitan Councils Development Guide/Policy Plan for Recreation Open Space "The meetings will give the public a chance to speak for or against any topic they consider important to the regional park system," said John Mauritz, Council park planner. Some topics that may prompt discussion, he said, include land acquisition, maintenance of regional parks and the fairness of park user fees. The Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission will co-sponsor each meeting with the implementing agency listed below. Each meeting will begin at 7: 30 p.m. The schedule is: --July 17 , Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, Northeast Park, 1615 N.E. Pierce St. , Minneapolis. —July 19 , Washington County Board of Commissioners, Washington County Courthouse board room, 14900 61st St. N. , Stillwater. - --July 24 , Anoka County Board of Commissioners, Anoka County Courthouse board room, 325 E. Main St. , Anoka. more • TO: Council FROM: Tom Mulcahy SUBJECT: Parkway Study DATE: July 9 , 1984 I would like again to bring before the Council my proposal that we authorize a conceptual design study that would look into the possibility of a system of parkways in Arden Hills. I believe that a professional study--under the direction of the City Planner and involving a task force that includes interested members of the Planning Commission and Parks Committee--could give us needed direction in preparing a long range plan for a parkway system to be integrated into the City' s existing Transportation Plan. This idea has been perking in my mind for over two years . It ' s time it had professional study and evaluation. The planner and members of the Planning Commission and the Parks Committee have the necessary expertise and interest to look at the possibilities and to come up with feasible recommendations for long term action. These things take time--to study, to secure citizen and professional input, to generate awareness and support--and, I think, that it ' s time to get that process started. Orlyn Miller and I have prepared the attached proposal for a Parkway Plan Study and I request your favorable consideration. The estimated maximum cost of this activity is $2 , 500 . I propose that it be funded from the Parks Capital Fund and from Planning Consultant funds and that the work begin immediately. I believe that the study would take several months and we would have a report in early 1985. Funding should be provided in the 1985 budget. TRr2:pmg Attachment • • PARKWAY PLAN STUDY City of Arden Hills OBJECTIVE Preparation of a long-range plan for the development of a parkway system for Arden Hills to be incorporated into the Transportation Plan. APPROACH The initial investigation/planning stage should include the following tasks: 1 . Establish basic goals and objectives of the parkway system. 2 . Identify potential parkway routes. 3 . Establish typical "cross section" of parkway road and right-of-way requirements. • 4 . Evaluate the existing streets, rights-of-way, and adjacent development of potential parkway routes to determine the physical feasibility of parkway construction. 5 . Meet with County Traffic Engineer and City Engineer. 6 . Prepare planning graphics for discussion purposes (potential routes, typical cross-section, problem areas) . 7 . Summarize mutual findings and recommendations in brief report to City Council . A Task Force comprised of members of the Planning Commission and Parks Committee and a Council liaison is suggested as group to work with the Consultant on this planning project. COST Not to exceed $2 , 500. TRM/OWM:pmg • 7-9-84 • Motion I move that the City Planner be authorized to study the concept and feasibility of a parkway system for Arden Hills for implementation as part of the Transportation Plan of the City, such study to include the formation of a task force consisting of interested members of the Planning Commission, the Parks Committee and the Parks Liaison Councilmember; such study to cost no more than $2 ,500 and include the following activities: 1 . Establish basic goals and objectives of the parkway system. 2 . Identify potential parkway routes. • 3 . Establish typical "cross section" of parkway road and right-of-way requirements. 4 . Evaluate the existing streets, rights-of-way, and adjacent development of potential parkway routes to determine the physical feasibility of parkway construction. 1 . 5 . Meet with County Traffic Engineer and City Engineer. 6 . Prepare planning graphics for discussion purposes (potential routes, typical cross-section, problem areas) . 7. Summarize mutual findings and recommendations in brief report to City Council. TRM:pmg 7-9-84 • •lA --July 26, Dakota and Scott County Boards of Commissioners, and Hennepin • County Park Reserve District, Burnsville City Hall council chambers, 1313 E. Hwy. 13, Burnsville. --July 31 , Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, Sumner Olson Council, 900 8th Av. N. , Minneapolis. --Aug. 2, Ramsey County Board of Commissioners, Maplewood City Hall council chambers, 1380 Frost Av. , Maplewood. --Aug. 8, Bloomington City Council and Hennepin County Park Reserve District, Bloomington City Hall council chambers, 2215 W. Old Shakopee Road, Bloomington. --Aug. 9 , Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, Hosmer Library, 347 E. 36th St. , Minneapolis. --Aug. 14 , St. Paul City Council, St. Paul Seminary, Room 203, Brady Center, 2260 Summit Av. , St. Paul. --Aug. 20. St. Paul City Council, St. Paul Technical Vocational Institute auditorium, 235 Marshall Av. , St. Paul. --Aug. 22, Hennepin County Park Reserve District, Golden Valley City Hall council chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Rd. , Golden Valley. --Aug. 23, Carver County Board of Commissioners and Hennepin County Park Reserve District, Chanhassen City Hall council chambers, 690 Coulter Drive, Chanhassen. Following the meetings in July and August, the commission will develop policy plan revisions. A public hearing on the revised plan is scheduled for November. For a paper discussing issues surrounding the system"s purposes, goals, funding and future development, call the Council at 291-6401 . -30- MPOSC Joint Public Meetings Schedule Page 2 . Date: Tuesday, August 14, 7:30 p.m. With: St. Paul City Council Place: St. Paul Seminary Brady Center, Room 203 2260 Summit Ave. , St. Paul Date: Monday, August 20, 7:30 p.m. With: St. Paul City Council Place: St. Paul Technical Vocational Institute, Auditorium, St. Paul Date: Wednesday, August 22, 7:30 p.m. With: Hennepin County Park Reserve District Place: Golden Valley City Hall , Council Chambers Golden Valley Date: Thursday, August 23, 7:30 p.m. With: Carver County Board of Commissioners (and Hennepin County Park Reserve District) Place: Chanhassen City Hall , Council Chambers Chanhassen 14 Two arguments against-freeing up interim revenue use are: - Policy should not endorse management which is aimed at generating maximum revenue over a prolonged period. That is not the purpose for which the land was acquired. - Interim uses could be viewed by surrounding municipalities as a source of tax revenues. Land put into recreation open space has been removed from tax rolls for a public use. If it is used as a revenue generator by other use for some extended time, the municipality from which the land was removed might feel it has a supportable claim. Related Questions: 1. What limits, if any, are appropriate to place on generation and expendi- tures of revenues earned from non-recreation activity in regional recrea- tion open space? 2. Is generation of revenue a reasonable use of part of a regional park if it supports recreation services elsewhere? i • SA2082-PHOPNI 5.30.84 i 12 assistance or disability. The Council shall act affirmatively, through its minority business enterprise program, and otherwise, to promote and enter into contracts with minority business enterprises (MBEs) , and firms having effective, implemented affirmative action programs. The clause in the Council -s regional and open space acquisition and development grant contracts, since 1974, is as follows: g. The Grantee agrees to comply with all applicable laws relating to nondiscrimination, affirmative action and public purchase, involvement and use. In particular, Grantee agrees not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, reli- gion, sex or national origin and to take affirmative action to assure that applicants and employees are treated equally with respect to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment, lay-off, termination, rates of pay and other forms of compensation, and selection for training. In 1984, the 1975 clause appears less than adequate. Related Questions: 1. Does the Council-s current recreation open space program provide adequate leadership in Affirmative Action and Minority Business Enterprise (AA/MBE) questions? 2. Would any of the following alternatives better the status quo? • - Insert an AA/MBE clause in the policy plan as an added objective? - Require an AA/MBE statement from the responsible implementing agency as a content element of each master plan? - Require proof o n aldequ�e Irma 1ve Action and Minority Business Enterprise program as a contract element for all subsequent regional recreation open space gr—an — - as ove3— - None of the above? - Another way? ISSUE 13. How much environmental information should be required in regional park master plans? In recent years, some park master plans have been challenged over the adequacy of their review for environmental impacts from the proposed development. The challenge often has come from local resident groups. The plans have generally withstood the challenges. In at least one case, review of the planning process showed that preparation of the master plan had gathered the equivalent of the information needed to prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) under Minnesota environmental laws. Related Questions: 1 . In your opinion, does the current regional master planning process ade- quately address environmental concerns about park development? 10 ISSUE 10. What"s the status of local or municipal recreation open space in the metropolitan system? What should the Council s involvement be in i Working from municipal comprehensive plans, the Council has assembled data, and will report on the condition of local recreation open space in terms of what acreage is provided, in what categories, by planning areas (MOF zones) . The report will help to identify municipal recreation open space needs in the region and should help in priority development for grant reviews. The report will not be adequate to complete a comprehensive regional plan for local or municipal recreation needs. Much of what local recreation provides is in the form of facilities, that is, built resources, necessary for active recreation. That part of recreation demand in the Region will require continuing Council study to complete future reports. Related Questions: 1. Is it appropriate and important for the Council to analyze and coordinate local efforts in the metropolitan recreation system? Would it be helpful to the region? 2. Would Council-offered technical assistance help communities do more effective long-range planning for recreation services? 3. Related to issue 11 as well as issue 10; should there be rewards to those communities which grant consent to regional park acquisition and develop- ment within their jurisdiction and, conversely, should there be penalities to those which do not? • 4. Is it correct to state that municipalities more often need active recrea- tion facilities rather than the recreation open space which the regional plan tends emphasize? How strongly is this true? How might the Council "s recreation open space plan change to help with problems? 5. Would it be helpful to local recreation agencies and their users if a program were developed which coordinated the needs of local agencies with programs available in the regional recreation open space system? ISSUE 11. What is an appropriate level of municipal participation and control in the developing regional regional recreation open space system. The 1974 parks act says that: . . . (the implementing agency) . . .shall prepare, after consultation with all affected municipalities, and submit. . .a master plan. The policy plan uses similar language in policy 9: Each implementing agency is responsible for preparing a master plan for each regional system unit assigned to it by this policy plan. An imple- menting agency shall present the master plan to affected local units of government and addresss their concerns prior to submission to the Council . 8 Related Questions: • 1. Should there be an effort to: - identify programming being offered in regional recreation open space? - identify potential users for programs being offered? - match users and programs by alerting potential users? - evaluate user response to programs and recommend ways to make them more compatible with expressed needs, plus suggest new programs to meet unmet needs? In other words, should there be a coordinated, system-wide, regional marketing program for recreation open space? 2. What role in a coordinated marketing program is appropriate for the Council? For the implementing agencies? 3. Is it appropriate for public agencies to "sell " users on tax-provided recreation facilities? 4. Specifically, would it be a good idea for the Council to require that all regional parks and facilities be identified by a conspicuous, well- publicized logo? ISSUE 8. Should there be a program for long-term capital maintenance in regions parks? • In regional parks which pre-date the regional system, especially in Minneapolis and St. Paul , facilities constructed in WPA days have reached the end of their life. They're important in the regional system; 50 years use by people across the region, and from outside, has established a tradition. Rebuilding these facilities will take place over the next 10 years, using regional funds. No major issue is anticipated as long as regional development funds are adequate. What is not established is how future redevelopment in the regional system is to be funded. Structures, roads, and bridges built with regional funds will require attention starting about the year 2010. Given that the regional sys- tem, from 1974 to 1983, spent approximately $34 million regional dollars for development, and from 1984-2000 anticipates spending $100 million more, the required funds will be significant. As a specific example from the past, a recent estimate set the 1940 investment at Como Park, including zoo and conservatory, at $662,000. Using a conserva- tive inflation value, the 1940 facilities would cost approximately $7.5 million in 1983 dollars to build today. More zoo and park additions will bring the total anticipated expenditure at Como Park, Zoo & Conservatory, by 1990, to approximately $20 million. The current CIP anticipates a total investment, regional and other sources, of approximately $175 million to completely develop (and/or redevelop) regional recreation open space by year 2000. If a 50-year life span is assumed for all development, what will be needed in the years 2025-2050? It has been said that • our present generation has mortgaged America, to the detriment of the genera- tion which follows, who must retire the mortgage. Can regional parks be an exception to that problem? 6 ISSUE 5. What"s needed for regional operation and maintenance funding • ,policies? In 1984, the Council adopted a position statement on regional 0 & M funding for parks and declared an intent to seek legislation in 1985 which would authorize a program of supplementary 0 & M grants to implementing agencies and provide state funding, therefore the discussion on pages 31-34 of the 1980 Policy Plan is no longer current. Policy 22 reads: The regional recreation open space system should be analyzed and- recom- mendations formulated to achieve equitable outdoor recreation opportunities and consistent operating policies throughout the Metropolitan Area financed by an adequate, stable and equitable revenue source. By adopting its position, the Council responded to several 1980 policy questions including: - The Council determined that there is a need and that a solution lies in a supplementary program of regional 0 & M funding. - The goals of the proposed program include: o Facilitating system plan implementation. o Meeting acceptable levels of service system wide (a definition is provided) . • o Reducing undesirable differences in costs and needs for 0 & M in the system. The Council has suggested a stable source of state funds for the program which it believes will be adequate and fair. Related Questions: 1. Do you agree with the Council -s position on 0 & M funding? What do you recommend? 2. What policies are needed to guide a regional 0 & M funding program? 3. How should 0 & M in regional parks be measured? How can one tell what services and/or levels of service are appropriate? 4. What safeguards are necessary to a regional 0 & M funding program? How should they be provided? ISSUE 6. Is it appropriate and fair to charge fees in regional parks? The current policy plan does not mention fees charged regional park users by implementing agencies. Fees charged are primarily one of two types. The first is fees for special recreational services, product sales, or revenue from con- cessions for special services or sales. These have not been questioned except in the appropriateness of the kind or level of activity for some single enter- prise. Basically, there seems to be agreement that special services should be paid for by users. 4 Has development proceeded at an appropriate rate, too fast, or too slowly? Are developments being placed in the right areas? Are the right kinds of developments being built and are the priorities appropriate? The system has given priority to acquisition over development. Is that still a correct point of view, or should development receive higher priority than it now has? What measurements should the Council use in addressing questions about rate of development? What are the important questions to answer? ISSUE 3. How should priorities be set for the recreation open space capital improvement program. As part of its task in establishing a CIP for regional recreation open space, the Council has established a priority list. Six categories, which correspond to demands identified in the Council "s recreation resource program, are as follows: A - Region-wide functions necessary for continuing the system. B - Acquisition of parcels critical to completion of the planned system. C - Development of certain facilities including: o Deteriorated high use facilities; o Essential components of'a high priority project; o Projects in areas with gross service deficiencies; and • o Public access to high quality resources. D - Specifically designated (by Metropolitan Council ) regional trails and special uses. E - Support facilities which provide no direct service to users. F - Lower priority acquisitions and developments. The list is used to assign priority but is not absolute in itself. Experience has shown that (1) all the high priority projects in the CIP cannot be accom- plished in a single biennium, and (2) not all projects in any category are immediately ready. Some can only be accomplished in the more distant future. Hence, some category "D" projects, ready immediately, may be funded despite the fact that there are unfinished category "B" projects. Projects receive prior- ity both by the category to which they are assigned and by the biennium to which they are allocated. A separate priority process is used for projects after the Council finds out what funds are available for a specific biennium. At that time, an implementa- tion plan shows, as specifically as possible, when each project is to be funded in the time period according to anticipated revenues. The implementation plan is adopted by the Council yearly to reflect available capital . Revisions to both the CIP and implementation plan are made following consulta- tion by the commission and the Council with implementing agencies and other • interested persons, preparation of a draft for hearing, a public hearing, preparation of responses to comments at the hearing, and preparation of a final draft which is considered and adopted by the Council following commission and Council recommendations. ISSUE 1: Are the Purpose and Goals Statements in the 1980 plan appropriate? PURPOSE AND GOALS (from the 1980 plan) • The purpose of the regional system is to provide recreation open space that will meet the outdoor recreational needs of the people of the Metropolitan Area. Consistent with this purpose, the Council has eight goals for the regional system to be accomplished in conjunction with the implementing agencies: 1. Plan and provide regional facilities within the framework of the larger metropolitan recreation open space system and facilities provided by the private sector. 2. Acquire park reserves to protect and manage at least one representative example of each of the eight major landscape types found in the Metro- politan Area and develop recreational facilities consistent with natural resource protection. 3. Acquire and develop regional parks, park reserves and regional trail cor- ridors sufficient to meet facility needs for the variety of experiences possible for swimming, picnicking, fishing, boating, camping, trail activ- ities, and nature study and appreciation. 4. Provide regional special recreation use areas within regional parks and park reserves to meet identified regional needs when consistent with the overall purpose of the facility. • 5. Improve public awareness and accessibility to the regional system through improved public information, expanded non-auto access (that is, transit and bike) and accommodations for handicapped people. 6. Provide equitable levels of recreational service throughout the Metropoli- tan Area, finance the capital and operating costs of the regional system and secure a continuing funding authority. 7. Provide ongoing opportunity for citizen participation throughout the plan- ning and operation of the regional recreation open space system. 8. Support general Metropolitan Council goals for development of the Metro- politan Area by locating and scheduling park acquisition and development in coordination with schedules for other metropolitan services. This system plan is aimed at meeting regional recreational needs to the year 2000. Questions: 1. Are the goals stated for the regional recreation open space system appropriate? What do you think the goals should be? Should there be more priority given to certain goals? Which ones; and in what order would you arrange them? 2. Is the need for a "balanced" system an appropriate goal ? If so, is it adequately stated in the plan?