Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977 06-21 PRMMINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JUNE 21, 1977 CITY HALL Call 'to Order The Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Johnson at 7:18 p.m. Roll Call Chairman Johnson, Commissioners Velasco, Schroeder and Nyquist. Chairmen Johnson noted that Commissioners Kiefer and Hickman had previous committments and were excused. Also present were Councilman Kuefler, Park and Recreation Director Gene Hagel, Landscape Technician Bob Hill, and Administrative Assistant Brad Hoffman. Approval of Minutes The Secretary informed the Park and Recreation Commission 3-15-77 that because of problems with the Xerox machine, copies of 4-19-77 the minutes would not be available to the Park and Recreation 5-17-77 Commission for their approval at this time. It was further stated that copies would be made available to the Commission members for their review and that the minutes would be re- viewed at the July meeting. Report of Twin Beach Commissioner Nyquist. reported that she had met with Diane Park Proposal by Schake from Park Service Area Five. Commissioner Nyquist Commissioner Nyquist further reported that there was a concensus of approval among the Park Service Area Committee for the Twin Beach Develop- ment Plan, Commissioner Nyquist then added that a parking lot for Twin Beach Park with an entrance at Indiana Avenue was strongly supported in her Park Service Area. She also noted that the Park Service Area Five Committee requested a lifeguard at the beach and proposed that cars be charged for parking with the proceeds from the parking going towards the cost of the lifeguard and possibly towards keeping the skating rink opened in the winter months, Commissioner Nyquist then reported on the priorities estab- lished for Lions Park and Happy Hollow Park by the Park Service Area Five Committee,. The first park covered was Twin Beach. She noted that lighting the entrance of parking areas had been given a rating of ten (10) and lighting the walks and apparatus areas was given a rating of eleven (11). She farther stated that surfacing of parking lots was given a rating of fifteen (15), walks fourteen (14), and apparatus area thirteen (13) She also indicated that the ball wall backboard was given a priority rating of 4A. She then -1- 6-21-77 covered Happy Hollow Par} noting that the lighting of the apparatus area and walk area had been given a rating of eleven (11) . That surfacing walks had been given a rating of twelve (12) and the surfacing of apparatus areas had been given a rating of thirteen (13). She further added that signs were ranked fifteen (15) and thw bell wall backboard as 3A. Chairman Johnson stated that it was his hope that the Commission could review the already established de- velop~ment priorities for each park on a park by park basis and make all necessary final changes at this meeting. The Commission then turned to review each park starting with the playgrounds. Lions Park, no changes from the established priority list- ing. East Palmer, no changes. Firehouse, no changes. Riverdale Park. Commissioner Schroeder noted that the shelter building had been x'd out, indicating the presence of a building at that park. He inquired as to the status of the building a't the park. Park and Recreation Director Gene Hage1 stated that there was a temporary building at the park. He further stated that the options available to the Park and Recreation Commission included recommend- ing the `remodeling of the temporary structure to the erection of a new, permanent building. Commissioner Nyquist inquired whether or not a development theme ex- isted for Riverdale Park. Again, Park and Recreation Direc- tor Gene Hagel replied that there was no specific theme for Riverdale Park, but that all the parks would make use of wooden structures and other apparatus to enhance the natural-look as such in each park. He further explained that each park would have its own unique characteristics to compliment the natural environment of each park. Twin Beach Park was reviewed with no changes in the priority ratings except as noted in Commissioner Nyquist'-s report. Happy Hollow. Again, the Commission reviewed Commis- sioner Nyquist's priority reportings and passed favorably on those priorities. Brookiane Park was then reviewed. Commissioner Johnson stated that he and Commissioner Dawn Kiefer would be meet- ing with the =Park Service Area Committee to discuss Brooklane Park. Landscape Technician Bob Hill there made a brief pre- Finalization of Park Priorities 0 • 0 -2- 6-21-77 • sentation to the Commission offering sketched conceptualismw of the development of, the park- Park and Recreation Director Gene Hagel added that some discussion with the school would have to take place, which at this time had not occurred Co ~l He further added that plans for the park had been done at, • the request of three (3) area,mothers and the school princi- pal. He stated that there were two (2) needs at Brooklane Park. First, there is a need for playground apparatus, and second, there was a need for improved ball fields. Chair- man Johnson inquired if the field ,pt,Brooklane was marked for football. Park and Recreation Director Gene Hagel re plied that the fields are marked for football, and that the fields do sustain a great deal of,use during the season. Orchard Lane, no changes from the established priority list. Bellvue Park, no changes from the established priority list. Freeway Park. Commissioner Nyquist inquired whether or not the situation with the shelter building was,the same as with Riverdale Park. Park and Recreation Director Gene Hagel replied that the situation was the same.-_ A discussion then ensued as to whether or not one could assume that shelter, buildings included toilet facilities. Commissioner Schroeder indicated that it didn't matter because such facili- ties were most often -locked. Councilman Kuefler then added that he would like to see toilet facilities available on a twenty-four hour basis.. The Commission then took up the • question of the priority ratings for each of the playfields,, Commissioner Nyquist noted the low priority ratings given for signs in the parks. Commissioner Vela sco replied that it was his feeling that signs would be defaced by individuals in the park, and that was the reason for the low priority rating. A brief discussion then followed relative to signs in the parks. A Mr. Jerry Olejar, 2406 55th Avenue North, asked to speak to the Commission. He then inquired as to the reasons for closing the skating rink at Lions Park.. He indicated that the cost to maintain a skating rink could not be that much. Com- missioner Velasco stated that money was not the considera- tion, but rather the conservation of,fuel was the-prime consideration. He also noted that the criteria for the selection of parks to retain skating rinks was based upon usage patterns and location of the rink. A brief discussion then ensued relative to the merits of closing skating ,rinks, the selection of parks, and-cost factors. The first park to take under consideration was Willow Lane. Commissioner Schroeder reported on the tennis court lighting problems at Willow Lane, noting. that.people in the area felt that no, problem would exist as long as .the lights were turned -3- 6-21-77 out at a reasonable hour. Park and Recreation Director Gene Bagel noting the six (6) priority rating for football field upgrading, stated that it would be impossible to maintain football fields at the level desired because the same fields were Bused for softball in the summer and as a hockey rink in the winter. Chairman Johnson requested' that the problems of maintaining the football fie'l'd gat this park be reflected in the minutes for future reference. West Palmer. No changes'were recommended by the Com- mission. Kylawn Park. The tennis court lighting at Kylawn Park was given an overall rating of sixteen (16). Park and Recreation Director Gene Hagel gave a brief presentation relative to tennis court lighting costs, noting that the source of his information was from Southerland Associates. Garden City. Park and Recreation Director Gene Hagel noted that the horseshoe area was in bad shape. No prior- ity changes were recommended. Northport Park. Commissioner Nyquist noted the need for signs in that park. No other changes were recommended in the priority ratings. Evergreen Park.' Commissioner Nyquist made note of the fact that tennis courts were presently being built in-Evergreen Park. She further referred to the present priority rating of one (1) for tennis courts under the Evergreen priority rating system. Following a brief discussion, tennis courts were removed from the priority list for Evergreen Park. Chairman Johnson noted that both tennis court lighting and plant mate- rials had received a priority rating of thirteen (13). She re- quested that the minutes reflect that observation and that Commissioner Hickman clarify that rating at the next meeting. Grandview. Following a brief discussion, the Park' and Recreation Commission felt that the list of priorities for Grandview Park were appropriate. Chairman Johnson expressed to the Commission his feelings as to the next logical -step toward the completion of the park priority tasks and its eventual presentation to the Council. Chairman. Johnson stated that he would like to have the staff prepare a current cost estimate based upon the final priority ratings for each "park for the next Commission meeting. Chair- man Johnson then inquired of Councilman Kuefler about a pro- posed joint Commission meeting sometime in July, and if it would be appropriate to discuss the tentative park development plan with Conservation Commission at than time. Council- mart Kuefler then replied' that the intent of the proposed joint 0 • Discussion of Priority Associated Costs -4- 6-21-77 commission meeting was to review and to explain the new Metro Land Planning Act to the various commissions. Council- man Kuefler further stated that he was of the opinion that such a meeting would afford the Commission an excellent opportunity to present their park development plans to the Conseniatlon Commission. Following a lengthy discussion relative to costs estimates, Chairman Johnson indicated to the Commission that the re- ports should be submitted to the City Manager's office. It was further stated that if the costs estimates for the total package estimated by the Park and Recreation Commission ' were comparable (within fifteen percent) with the estimate from the City Manager's office, the report could be submitted to the City Council. It was also noted that the total costs of the Park Development Plan could not be allowed to have an adverse effect upon the City's level of bonded indebtedness The City Manager's office was to review the plan making and indepth cost projection, provide associated maintenance costs and define the appropiate or desirable level of bonded indebtedness for this particular project. Chairman Johnson reflected that he felt that the Commission could have the Manager's review and recommendation back by the August. Park and Recreation Commission meeting. Councilman Kuefler stated that he felt that such a timetable was not possible with the 1978 budget preparation now going on.: He • further stated that he thought September would be a more, suitable target date. Councilman Kuefler also added that. he felt that when the Park Development Plan was offered :to the public for a vote,. that it should be a, two (2) part question. First, does the public support the bonding and expenditure of funds for the park development as proposed, and second, do they support the additional maintenance and operation costs associated with the development of the parks under the present levy limit. Commissioner Velasco then inquired what would be the Commission's next step should the Man- ager's report not be favorable to the cost estimates of the Park and Recreation Commission's report. Chairman Johnson then stated that the Park and Recreation Commission would again review the priorities and eliminate the appropiate low level priorities to meet the Manager's recommendations. Park and Recreation Director Gene Hagel noted that costs estimates are based upon unit costs, and are as close as you can get without actually going to specs. Councilman Kuefler requested Park and Recreation Director Gene Hagel to develop costs estimates based upon the park classification system. For example, what is the total pack- age cost for the development of all playgrounds, playfields, Central Park, and.the trail system. Chairman Johnson noted that neighborhood parks had the number one development -5- 6-21-77 °iority with Central Park being number two and all others .sere considered third. Chairman Johnson also requested ,!hat Park. and Recreation Director Gene Hagel also develop -costs estimates based upon the priorities. For example, the cost for developing all parking lots, all tennis courts, ,all walkways and so forth. The next item of discussion was the format and. presentation of the development plan to did City Council. Following a brief discussion, Commissioner Velasco inquired if there was a good time of year to go to the voter with this issue. Chairman Johnson stated that they would send out feelers to determine the level of support in the community, Councilman Kuefler noted that if we can get some support they would go with it, if not, they would not push it at this time, but bring it up at a later date when the support would be there. After a brief review of the presentation, it.was agreed that the pre- sentation to the Council would be timed with the appropiate support from the community., Commissioner Velasco moved, Commissioner Schroeder seconded the adjournment of the meeting at 9:45 p.m. The vote was unan- imous. t 0 Discu-lion of Format For Park Priority Pre- sentation to the Council Adjournment • Chairman 0 -s-- 6--21-77