The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2010 10-19 PRA AGENDA Brooklyn Center Parks and Recreation Commission Tuesday, October 19, 2010 7:00 p.m. Community Room #221, Brooklyn Center Community Center I. Call to Order 7 :00 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes- September 21, 2010 5. City Council Liaison Report 6 New Business * Tobacco Free Youth Recreation- Presentation * Hennepin County Youth Sports Grant Application- Soccer Field 7 Old Business * Centennial Committee Requests- Update - Renaming of Central Park to Centennial Park - Central Park Bandshell Location *2011 -2025 Capital Improvements Program- Planned Park Improvements - Council Recommendation * Adopt -A -Park- Fall Clean -up- Report & Set Next Meeting Date and Agenda November 16, 2010 R Adjournment MINUTES 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 SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 COMMUNITY ROOM #221, COMMUNITY CENTER CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Sorenson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Sorenson, Commissioners Ebert, Lee, and Shinnick were present. Commissioners Peterson, Russell and Starling were absent and excused. Also present were Centennial Committee representatives Keith Lester and Janis Blumentals, City Council Liaison Marl. Yelich and Community Activities, Recreation and Services Director Jim Glasoe. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Sorenson asked Council Liaison Yelich if the Council Liaison Report could be moved to later in the agenda, to allow the Centennial Committee requests to be heard first. Councilmember Yelich agreed. By consensus, the agenda was approved as amended. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — May 18, 2010 There was a motion by Commissioner Shinnnick, seconded by Commissioner Ebert to approve the minutes of the May 18, 2010 Park & Recreation Commission as presented. The motion was passed unanimously. CENTENNIAL COMMITTEE REQUESTS Renaming of Central Park to Centennial Park Chair Sorenson reported that the City Council, at their work session on August 9 ", had heard a number of requests from the Centennial Committee and had referred two to the Park and Recreation Commission. Chair Sorenson noted the first was to provide a recommendation on the request for a name change of Central Park to Centennial Park. The second was the City Council favors the construction of a privately funded bandshell and wanted the Commission's recommendation regarding a suitable location in Central Park. Chair Sorenson asked Centennial Committee Chair Keith Lester to speak to the first request. Mr. Lester indicated the Centennial Committee was requesting the City consider renaming Central Park to Centennial Park, as it would be a tangible way to commemorate this once in a lifetime occasion. Chair Sorenson asked for Commission input and added that Commissioner Peterson was not able to be in attendance at the meeting, but had forwarded his thoughts. Chair Sorenson noted that Commissioner Peterson wanted "to see healthy dialogue on the cost issues involved in the proposed name change, along with the rationale for that expense (what benefit are we really going to be receiving? And what cost are we really willing to pay for that benefit ?)" Commissioner Peterson also wanted to know if there had been any thought to funding of programs to use the bandshell? CARS Director Glasoe reviewed the history of name changes for Brooklyn Center parks and the anticipated costs of the name change, noting the largest expense would likely be signage. Mr. Glasoe noted the main park signs are made of recycled plastic and were purchased in 2007 at a cost of $1,650.00. Mr. Glasoe estimated adding a new sign at Central Park in 2010 would be approximately $1,800.00. Mr. Glasoe pointed out the current sign was purchased with grant funds from the Hennepin recycling Group, which provides annual fluids for purchase of goods made from recycled materials. Mr. Glasoe added that, similar grant fiends are still available for 2010 and are budgeted in 2011. CARS Director Glasoe reported that staff had also taken a look at costs associated with changing any printed materials and website, but noted past practice was that these changes were made in the course of normal updates, and as a result, costs were minimal. Chair Sorenson noted an issue related to park name changes, specifically regarding how names are displayed on the internet and on other organizations maps. As examples, Chair Sorenson noted Garden City, Central and Twin Lake Park were wrong on various online map software sites. Software such as Bing snaps, Google maps, MapPoint etc. have some names wrong. Chair Sorenson continued that even Three Rivers Park District has the old name for Twin Lake Park on their Regional Park Trail map. Some discussion ensued regarding finding out how to correct this information. Commissioners discussed the proposed name change at length; with most noting they were supportive of the request. After additional discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Shinnick, seconded by Commissioner Ebert recommending to the City Council that Central Park and Central Park West be renamed as Centemnial Park. The motion passed unanimously. Central Park Bandshell Location Chair Sorenson indicated the second item to be discussed was the location of a bandshell at Central Park. Chair Sorenson noted the City Council had already voiced support for a privately funded bandshell at Central, but was looking for the Commission to provide guidance on the location. Centennial Chair Lester introduced Janis Blumentals, who he noted had agreed to provide architectural design services for the Centennial Committee pro bono. Mr. Blumentals shared with the Commission potential criteria for selecting a bandshell location. These included visibility, access and parking, orientation, sound, seating, site drainage, utilities and lighting. CARS Director Glasoe provided an aerial map of Central Park and noted four locations that staff had identified as options. The Commission discussed each of the options at length. After considerable discussion there was a motion made by Commissioner Shinnick, seconded by Commissioner Ebert that current site of the portable "Snowmobile" is identified as the preferred location for a permanent bandshell. The motion passed unanimously. Following the motion on location, there was some discussion about how programming and maintenance expenses related to the bandshell might become an issue once it is constructed. CARS Director Glasoe reported that Mr. Blumentals and the Centennial Committee were looking for Commission involvement in the ongoing design of the bandshell. Mr. Glasoe indicated that he was looking for a Commission member to be part of the "building committee ". Commissioner Lee indicated she could assist if the meetings were held during the day. Commissioner Ebert offered her assistance, but only if the meetings were held after 5:30 p.m. Mr. Blumentals is to contact the commission chair with the meeting schedule. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT Councilmember Yelich reported he was happy to announce the groundbreaking for the new FBI headquarters had taken place in August and that construction was underway. Councilmember Yelich indicated the City Council had established the tax levy increase for 2011 at 2.42 %, noting most of the increase would be borne by cominercial properties. Councilmember Yelich added that, because of decrease in residential property valuations, this increase would amount to a net city tax decrease for the median household in Brooklyn Center. Chair Sorenson asked about the status of televising the City Council work sessions. Councilmember Yelich responded that the City Council had discussed the idea, but that a majority of the Council did not favor televising the work sessions. TOBACCO -FREE YOUTH RECREATION- MEETING REQUEST CARS Director Glasoe shared a letter from the Tobacco -Free Youth Recreation Program requesting a meeting with the Commission to discuss their program. Mr. Glasoe noted that the Commission had worked with the Tobacco -Free Youth Program in 2004, ultimately recommending to the City Council a Resolution designating certain park areas as "smoke free during youth programs. Mr. Glasoe added that the group had offered to provide signs indicating that the areas were smoke -free, but the Commission was not comfortable with the sign verbiage. Mr. Glasoe noted the Commission had identified alternate language, but the issue had not gone forward, as no funding source had been identified. After some discussion, the consensus of the Commission was to have CARS Director Glasoe invite representatives of the Tobacco -Free Youth Recreation Program to the October meeting. 2011 -2025 CAPTIAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM- Planned Park Improvements CARS Director Glasoe reviewed the proposed 2011 -2025 Capital Improvements Plan, noting that only a few changes had been made since last year's plan. Mr. Glasoe noted those changes were included in yellow on the CIP spread sheets. Mr. Glasoe noted the most significant change for the planned park improvements was moving the West Palmer Lake shelter building ahead of the Northport shelter in the schedule of improvements. CARS Director Glasoe added that he would be bringing the item back to the Commission in October for a recommendation. Chair Sorenson asked about the moving of the Evergreen Park basketball court, as it was not included in the plan. CARS Director Glasoe indicated he would speak to the Director of Public Works regarding the costs associated with moving the court and would report back at the October meeting. ADOPT -A -PARK CLEAN -UP Chair Sorenson noted that the Commission would need to clean Marlin and Lakeside Parks one last time this fall as part of their Adopt -A -Park commitment. Chair Sorenson asked if any of the Commissioners would be available on Tuesday, September 28 at 6:00 p.m. to conduct the cleaning. All available Commissioners were asked to meet at Marlin Park at 6:00 p.m. on the 28 ri, SET NEXT MEETING DATE By consensus, the next meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission was set for October 19, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. in Community Room #221 of the Brooklyn Center Community Center. MEETING ADJOURNED Commissioner Shinnick made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lee to adjourn the meeting at 8:21 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. A Policy Maker's Guide to Tobacco -Free Policies for Community Park Systems O , W, 11 t,,. l 4 s ;., atx. �.1 �gg ,:, «?. w ''� rsr p .. 1 � �n J P h i !✓/ / r 4 v(i: 'F• 'ts'u',df ,�'tl ,r�y,�,t'�i, eNtr# 3 s,� d „A'rr ,..p , i Jxfa�� x• � Si fir}, rn 1 1 2 r fi f t, �m Xa +c6F z'3'r f �,� t f \ }t : [".r / x .IfF �,, i N,� ✓ 1 y !,i a �,t ^4 All / iEr } L� � A' J (�� •` IAA � ....�. '�^� .�P� 9 ��C� .• lyr �1' �S}.. A Sr p. r �. �., 1 r 1 1 r J 1 • - of • - • ••• • -- •• •• Tobacco -Free Parks: For a Healthy Community Playing Tobacco Free: Tobacco -Free Policies For Park & Recreation Areas Tobacco -Free Park and Recreation Tobacco -Free Park and Recreation Areas Promote Health Policies Work • Parks are established to promote healthy Over 100 Minnesota communities have adopted tobacco -free activities. The purpose of park areas is to promote policies for their park and recreation areas. In 2004, the community wellness, and tobacco -free policies fit with this University of Minnesota surveyed Minnesota residents to idea. learn about the level of support for tobacco -free park and recreation policies. Minnesota park directors were also • Cigarette litter is dangerous. Discarded cigarettes interviewed to ask how they felt about tobacco -free policies. pollute the land and water and may be ingested by toddlers, Here are the study's key findings: pets, birds, or fish. • Tobacco -free policies help change community What Minnesota residents say: norms. Tobacco -free policies establish the community norm that tobacco use is not an acceptable behavior for • Most Minnesotans support tobacco -free park and young people or adults within the entire community. recreation policies. 70% of Minnesota residents support tobacco -free park and recreation areas. In •Tobacco -free environments promote positive addition, 66% of golfers and 73% of families with children community role modeling and protect the health, support these policies. safety, and welfare of community members. • Policies should prohibit all forms of tobacco. 79% • Secondhand smoke harms everyone. Secondhand of residents supported tobacco -free policies that prohibit smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in all forms of tobacco use, including spit tobacco. children and adults who do not smoke. • Parks should be tobacco free at all times. Just • Secondhand smoke is harmful in outdoor settings. over half (53 %) of respondents supported the prohibition Several studies have found that secondhand smoke levels in of tobacco use in parks at all times. outdoor public places can reach levels as high as those found in indoor facilities where smoking is permitted .1,2 • Community members support policy enforcement. 79% of Minnesotans felt that policies • Policies provide consistency among community should be enforced by asking violators to leave park athletic facilities and groups. The majority of areas. 64% felt that violators should be fined. community sporting events are held at either city or school athletic facilities, and nearly all school districts prohibit tobacco use on their entire grounds. Also, many local What Minnesota park directors say: athletic associations have tobacco -free policies but use city facilities and would benefit from a city-wide policy. • Park directors overwhelmingly recommend adopting tobacco -free policies. 90% of park directors in cities with policies reported that they would recommend tobacco -free policies to other communities. • Nearly all park directors personally supported The Tobacco -Free Youth Recreation Initiative tobacco -free policies. Out of 257 park directors, Tobacco -Free Youth Recreation (TFYR) is a • 96% wanted to provide positive role models for youth. recreation -based tobacco prevention program that • 92% wanted to reduce youth opportunity to smoke. assists recreational groups in promoting healthy • 92% wanted to avoid litter from cigarette butts. tobacco -free lifestyles. TFYR offers free assistance in • 89% wanted to promote community well- being. tobacco -free policy development and implementation. • Policies reduce litter and maintenance costs. 58% Contact TFYR for policy assistance or more of Minnesota park directors in cities with policies reported information! cleaner park areas. • Policy enforcement and violations are not issues. In Minnesota communities with a policy, few park Association for Nonsmokers — Minnesota directors (26 %) reported compliance issues and 74% ' 2395 University Ave. West, #310 reported no problems with park users violating the policy. St. Paul, MN 55114 -1512 (651) 646 -3005 r Klepels NE, Ott WR, Switzer P- (May 2007). "Rat-Time Measurements of Outdoor Tobacco Smoke Particles." Journal of Air & Waste Management Association 57. www tobaccofreeparks.org 'Callfornfa Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board. (2003) 'Technical Support Document for We Proposed tfyr@ansrmn.org Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant: Part A," Technical Report Chapter 5, pp. V6 -V19. ' Klein EG, Forster A, Outley, CW, McFadden, B. (2007). "Minnesota Tobacco -Free Park Policies: Attitudes of the General Public and Park Officials." Nicotine & Tobacco Research 9, SI, pp.49 -55. 2 As • 79 80 - 50 I 48 34 26 22 19 98. 7 18 10 21 32 27 65 23 63 14 _. 54 69 Policy Key 58 52 25 39 62 11 ## =City -owned parks with a tobacco- 55 66 $ 28 68 free policy (110 policies) 91 8 109 3 = County -owned parks with a 78 tobacco -free policy (5 policies) 88 8 64 110 ` 71 = — All city -owned and county -owned _ iss�_, — 77 13 ``` "' parks have a tobacco -free policy 42 9 , 83 16 L (1 policy) 59 = Three Rivers Park District 5 j' .y �. 29 95 Native American Reservations 76 B (1 policy) 35 x„ 4 r 106 See Metro Map for policies in 89 Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, 102 " �._ " Ramsey, Scott, and Washington y.._ - 105 Counties (39 policies) 47 41 43 9 73 90 3 zanap eriz 31 u,tt�e�xa; , FVR ^. 75 97 October 2010 3 Minnesota Communities with Tobacco -Free Parks, sorted alphabetically 73 Adrian Nobles 2 -27 -06 106 Lester Prairie McLeod 10 -13 -09 25 Aitkin Aitkin 6 -2 -03 44 Luverne Rock 4 -13 -04 90 Albert Lea Freeborn 11 -13 -06 38 Mahtomedi Washington 12 -3 -03 64 Alexandria Douglas 5 -23 -05 1 Maple Grove Hennepin 1 -1 -93 57 Andover Anoka 9 -21 -04 61 Maplewood Ramsey 1 -24 -05 53 Anoka Anoka 7 -6 -04 47 Marshall Lyon 5 -17 -04 70 Arden Hills Ramsey 9 -12 -05 74 Mendota Heights Dakota 3 -6 -06 85 Ashby Grant 7 -5 -06 107 Minneapolis Hennepin 5 -5 -10 19 Aurora St. Louis 4 -1 -03 51 Monticello Wright 6 -14 -04 31 Austin Mower 7 -2 -03 42 Morris Stevens 3 -9 -04 66 Battle Lake Otter Tail 6 -14 -05 84 Mounds View Ramsey 6 -27 -06 80 Baudette Lake of the Woods 5 -8 -06 34 Mountain Iron St Louis 8 -18 -03 8 Baxter Crow Wing 3 -1 -02 24 New Brighton Ramsey 5 -27 -03 22 Biwabik St. Louis 5 -12 -03 69 New York Mills Otter Tail 8 -8 -05 3 Bloomington Hennepin 6 -18 -01 81 North St. Paul Ramsey 5 -16 -06 11 Brainerd Crow Wing 6 -6 -02 36 Nwd Young America Carver 9 -22 -03 28 Breckenridge Wlkin 6 -16 -03 108 Orono Hennepin 8 -24 -10 95 Buffalo Wright 4 -16 -07 6 Owatonna Steele 12 -1101 26 Buhl St. Louis 6-3-031 68 Parkers Prairie Otter Tail 7 -18 -05 63 Callaway Becker 5-10-051 52 Pelican Rapids Otter Tail 6 -29 -04 89 Canby Yellow Medicine 11 -8 -06 110 Pine City Pine 9 -2 -10 46 Champlin Hennepin 5 -10 -04 37 Plymouth Hennepin 10 -28 -03 54 Cloquet Carlton 7 -20 -04 35 Prinsburg Kandiyohi 9 -9 -03 7 Cohasset Itasca 1 -22 -02 49 Ramsey Anoka 5 -25 -04 40 Coon Rapids Anoka 2 -17 -04 4 Richfield Hennepin 9•-1 -01 48 Crookston Polk 5 -25 -04 60 Robbinsdale Hennepin 12 -7 -04 87 Crystal Hennepin 9 -19 -06 2 Rochester Olmsted 11 -1 -00 76 Dassel Meeker 4 -3 -06 103 Rosemount Dakota 12 -16 -08 67, Dayton Hennepin 6 -14 -05 5 Roseville Ramsey 12 -1 -01 77 Donnelly Stevens 4 -3 -06 97 Round Lake Nobles 5 -8 -07 14 Duluth St. Louis 2 -12 -03 13 Sartell Stearns 10 -28 -02 17 Eagan Dakota 3 -25 -03 33 Savage Scott 7 -15 -03 43 Eagle Lake Blue Earth 4 -•5 -04 45 Shoreview Ramsey 5 -3 -04 12 Eden Prairie Hennepin 9 -17 -02 98 Silver Bay Lake 5 -9 -07 56 Edina Hennepin 8 -17 -04 20 Spicer Kandiyohi 4 -2 -03 78 Elbow Lake Grant 4 -3 -06 86 Spring Lake Park Anoka 7 -17 -06 59 Elk River Sherburne 10 -18 -04 9 St. Cloud Stearns 5 -13 -02 75 Ellsworth Nobles 3 -13 -06 92 St. Francis Anoka 1 -2 -07 27 Eveleth St. Louis 6 -3 -03 30 St. Paul Ramsey 7 -1 -03 41 Faribault Rice 2 -25 -04 10 Virginia St. Louis 5 -31 -02 23 Fayal Township St. Louis 5 -20 -03 91 Wendell Grant 12 -4 -06 55 Fergus Falls Otter Tail 8 -9 -04 101 West St. Paul Dakota 4 -14 -08 102 Gaylord Sibley 5 -29 -08 71 Wheaton Traverse 1 -26 -06 15 Golden Valley Hennepin 3 -4 -03 100 White Earth Becker 8 -16 -07 32 Grand Rapids Itasca 7 -14 -03 79 Williams Lake of the Woods 4 -10 -06 93 Ham Lake Anoka 1-2-071 29 Willmar Kandiyohi 6 -16 -03 83 Hancock Stevens 6 -12 -06 99 Windom Cottonwood 7 -17 -07 94 Hardwick Rock 2 -13 -07 105 Winthrop Sibley 10 -5 -09 96 Hastings Dakota 5 -7 -07 58 Wolverton Wilkin 10 -12 -04 62 Henning Otter Tail 5 -3 -05 104 Woodbury Washington 3 -25 -09 88 Herman Grant 10 -16 -06 16 Zimmerman Sherburne 3.17 -03 72 Hermantown St. Louis 2 -10 -06 18 Hibbing St. Louis 3 -31 -03 A Rock County Rock 5 -18 -04 109 Hinckley Pine 8 -3 -10 B Three Rivers Park Dist Hennepin 1 -6 -05 82 Hoffman Grant 6 -5 -06 C Anoka County Anoka 7 -12 -05 21 Hoyt Lakes St. Louis 4 -8 -03 D Washington County Washington 5 -23 -06 50 International Falls lKoochiching 5 -28 -04 E Olmsted County Olmsted 1 -23 -07 39 Kent lWilkin 1-1-041 F Dakota County Dakota 5 -22 -07 65 La Prairie 11tasca 6-6-051 Lower Sioux Redwood H Ramsey County Ramsey 05 -13 -08 4 0 ✓�� Y k• t S � t ' ,k ] ..�S :.hYcku Rya;. '_:�b.,:x.?2, .dSS dFIYI ' Y a sb y......... ......�'�J N'q S r" ��.J ¢. c, � .,4 st�c'r• � -'.' a�i�rq j� &,ice �asn'� � tt3�r � + a � 1 � �• - r ►fir `tS).N9N, Prt,r KI ��t �+.. i y� + ,'' ",' :4 A ihA,,. ,of +'.�1'�+.J.�L'��.^•il.uh*r�." ,.. h z _ - �r. �.�Yif ��<� ?� 'r�rti�`��,r'�Ua� 's S• � ..� � � ♦ _ b�� .� r F r fit t�' � �_.3�� h•` �� a � � $ �, .fit r, �+� q��i ` ,cad �+kd�� '4 :�� I ti A1,.L � iL' J t1j. _ NTI, 1Si d n � �" yak ■It� W y � a tol e 1" t r y { L " rT A Jilt L+@rtlJ3yv�r�}at�diL49i .. _.... .......,' vt r-I�'•�! °':w�."a _��"n}. ikF ^ 3 w ^ta a. l i :� � �' '� � wI✓;��tG•sf�dA/'�k��,"^`�S�5��'� �i�rj � ,��T�� MR r 4 � ffi�l � nr t,.. f�\ Frequently Asked Questions about Tobacco -Free Policies for Park Areas in Minnesota What is current Minnesota state law on In addition to signs, communities notify their residents in smoking outdoors? a variety of ways: local media, newsletters, policy There is currently no state law that regulates tobacco reminder cards, recreation brochures, policy statements use in outdoor areas. sent to sports associations, and coaches' trainings. Are local governments able to enact Are existing policies working? policies restricting tobacco use? Yes! According to a 2004 University of Minnesota survey Neither federal nor state law prohibits local governments of Minnesota park directors in cities with such policies, from regulating tobacco use outdoors.' 88% of park directors reported no change in park usage (no loss of park users), 71% reported less smoking in What is the difference between a park parks, and 58% reported cleaner park areas. policy and an ordinance? What effect do tobacco -free park policies In general, park policies are rules regarding city or have on youth? county-owned park property that are established by Research has not been completed on this particular local park boards and are often approved by city topic, but in general, tobacco -free policies help prevent councils or county boards. Generally, those who ignore youth tobacco use, particularly by establishing tobacco - park policies do not receive a fine, but are asked to free community norms and by providing adults the refrain from using tobacco or leave the premises. opportunity to be tobacco -free role models throughout Ordinances are local government enactments that the community. regulate people or property and carry a penalty such as a fine for violations. Ordinances often on inate from a What other benefits result from tobacco - recommendation passed by the park board free policies? Cig filters are not biodegradable, so they do not For both park policies and ordinances, tobacco use is decay and cannot be absorbed by the environment. A prohibited on park property. policy reduces park and beach litter and protects toddlers from ingesting filters that are discarded. In Should a policy cover all property and Minnesota, smoking - related debris accounted for 62% of activities or just youth events? total debris during a 2005 coastal cleanup. In Minnesota, both types of policies exist, but the recent Will policies keep from using trend is toward all property policies because they may p p some people le p g be simpler for citizens to understand, rather than to public park and recreation areas? determine which activities qualify as "youth events." Tobacco -free policies for park areas ensure that all citizens have a healthy recreational environment. How do other Minnesota communities People go to parks to exercise or relax, not to use enforce their policies? tobacco. Smokers work, eat, shop, travel, and reside in Minnesota communities with tobacco -free park policies smoke -free environments every day. No court has post signs in their park areas that announce the policy. determined that smoking is a constitutionally protected These signs provide communities with the ability to rely right. on community and self- enforcement. Many tobacco users look for "no tobacco" signs. These signs empower Aren't tobacco -free policies for parks a everyone using the parks to provide friendly reminders needless regulation? about the policy to violators. Signs also help to eliminate These policies are similar to those prohibiting alcohol the need for any law enforcement presence. The and litter or requiring that pets be leashed. It is the majority of Minnesota communities with policies have duty of policy makers to enact policies that protect the utilized Tobacco -Free Youth Recreation's free signs. health of their citizens. 3 Perry, C (1999) Creating Health Behavior Change How to Develop C"nrntunity- Wicle Nogratnr Jot Youth. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch (5/4/00) Legal opinion letter to Peter 4 The Ocean Conservancy (2006) Intet national Couval Cleanup 2005 Minnesota Vogel Summary Report. [Online) Available: http:Hwww coastalcleanup org y League of Minnesota Cities (2003) Hanclbook for Minnesota Citiev, [Online] 5 Tobacco Control Legal Consortium (2004) "Legal Authority to Regulate Smoking Available: http: // wvw Imnc org /handbook/chapter07 pdf and Common Legal Threats and Challenges " 6 Allay 2007 - ;UNIVERSITY OF' NNESOTA SCH;OOL OF P HEALTH SCHOOL ;OF KINESIOLOGY Division, of Epidemiology. &Community Health Division of Recreatron & Sport Studies 1300'5 . S'econd Street #300 1900 University Avenue SE Minneapolis, MN P,5454 Minneapolis, MN 55455 TOBACCO -FREE PARKS AND RECREATION STUDY Summary of Findings Park areas in Minnesota are used regularly by state residents. Tobacco use restrictions in outdoor environments such as parks and recreation areas are being established in Minnesota and other states across the U.S. The purpose of this study is to describe the support for tobacco -free park policies in Minnesota. To learn more about the public's perceptions of these policies, we conducted a survey of Minnesota residents. We also interviewed park and recreation professionals to ask specific questions about tobacco -free policies in Minnesota. Is secondhand smoke a problem? Yes. Secondhand smoke is a recognized cause of acute and chronic diseases in nonsmokers, and is a major source of indoor air pollution. Secondhand smoke is also responsible for an estimated 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 38,000 heart disease deaths in nonsmoking individuals each year in the United States. The most effective approach to reducing secondhand smoke exposure is to establish smoke -free environments. Research has suggested that the adoption of smoke -free policies creates a change in social norms around smoking, helps smokers reduce consumption or quit, and helps keep youth from starting. Public support for tobacco -free parks A survey was sent to Minnesota residents by mail in summer 2004. Of the 1,500 respondents, 75% had used any park area in the past month. Overall, 70% of those surveyed supported tobacco -free policies for outdoor park and recreation areas. The attitude of Twin Cities metro area residents was not different from residents living in other parts of the state. Respondents expressed support for tobacco -free policies to: • Reduce litter in park grounds. • Avoid the health effects of secondhand smoke. • Preferences for tobacco -free park Discourage youth smoking. • Establish positive role models for youth. policies among Minnesota residents, 2004 • Promote community well— being. Prohibit all forms of ` I I R&, tobacco � w ,� -109 t , f Polio components Policy p Prohlbll tobacco in all e,r, o We also asked residents about the outdoor areas r w' � y'�rr d��a'•'1ra {t <" , 53/ components of tobacco -free park policies Prohibit tobacco during r 1 . ?Tq ,. �. 'wW�E 81% (shown, right). Most people supported strong Youlhorienledevents p olicies that rohibit tobacco use in outh �� "rryt,� �r { �� o p y Prohibit tobacco In outdoor , , r �, �r Ali 8 /o areas, and asking policy violators to leave areas used by youth �w.., , >> r „ .o-�ef�sis misi.3ni epxv t. park areas. Just over half (53 %) of Enforce policy by asking K ��il �.r �,�,, a "rYf�Y+3�� g% respondents supported the prohibition of violators to leave tobacco use in all arks at all times. Smokers p Enforce policy by giving �,_ o were the only group generally less supportive violators a fine r� €� L ? ��{ s4 0 of these policies. of 10%u zo% 30i aoi 50% soi 70% eoi so Golfers Thirty -five percent of our sample were golfers. Most golfers (81 %) were non - smokers, and 74% of non- smoking golfers supported tobacco -free park policies. We found that being a golfer did not make a difference in support for tobacco -free policies, but being a smoker did. How do park staff in communities with an existing park policy feel about the policy? 7 In the summer of 2004, we interviewed 257 park directors from cities and counties in Minnesota's 200 largest cities. Overall, 70 communities reported a tobacco -free policy, which represents 36% of communities surveyed. Park directors with policies had positive experiences, as most reported that park policies were "not difficult" to pass, and 90% would recommend such a policy to other communities. Changes after implementation When park directors were asked about changes after tobacco -free policy adoptions: • 58% reported less litter in park areas. • 74% reported no problems with policy violators. • 88% reported no changes in park usage. • For those reporting a change in park use following the policy, 71 % reported an increase in usage. Difficulty in passing a tobacco -free • Publicity about the policy was reported to be adequate (86 %), park policy, Minnesota 2004 and few (7 %) reported any negative publicity. Not at all Enforcement difficult - 51% Not very Enforcement was an area of worry for nearly all park directors without a difficult - 37% policy. However, in communities with a policy, few park directors (26 %) reported compliance problems. Staffing was an issue, as 74% reported too few staff to enforce the policy and /or monitor all park areas, r. Park director support Out of the 257 park directors interviewed, nearly all personally. somewhat supported tobacco -free policies. Reasons for their support included: difficult - 9% • 96% wanted to establish positive role models for youth. very difficult - 3% • 89% wanted to promote community well - being. • 92% wanted to reduce youth opportunity to smoke. • 92% wanted to avoid litter from cigarette butts. Major Conclusions: • The majority of Minnesotans support tobacco -free park and recreation policies. • Park staff have experienced few problems and many benefits with the policies, and overwhelmingly recommend tobacco -free policies to other communities. This study was conducted by the University of Minnesota, Schools of Public Health and Kinesiology, in partnership with Tobacco -Free Youth Recreation and the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association, and supported by the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco. For more information, contact study coordinator Liz Klein at klein L e i.umn.edu or call (612) 626 -1799. P�O ppRK ASSO �qT�o� _r- December 2005 8 IiF1ir +.cU' li[C ' >.4Ut €t XfLRG51'1tlN City -Owned Outdoor Recreational Facilities Model Tobacco -Free Policy Section 1: Rationale WHEREAS, the City believes that tobacco use in the proximity of children and adults engaging in or watching outdoor recreational activities at City -owned or operated facilities is detrimental to their health and can be offensive to those using such facilities; and WHEREAS, the City has a unique opportunity to create and sustain an environment that supports a non - tobacco norm through a tobacco -free policy, rule enforcement, and adult -peer role modeling on City -owned outdoor recreational facilities; and WHEREAS, the City believes parents, leaders, and officials involved in recreation are role models for youth and can have a positive effect on the lifestyle choices they make; and WHEREAS, the tobacco industry advertises at and sponsors recreational events to foster a connection between tobacco use and recreation; and WHEREAS, cigarettes, once consumed in public spaces, are often discarded on the ground requiring additional maintenance expenses, diminish the beauty of the City's recreational facilities, and pose a risk to toddlers due to ingestion; and WHEREAS, the City Park & Recreation Board determines that the prohibition of tobacco use at the City's recreational facilities serves to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of our City. THEREFORE, be it resolved that tobacco use is prohibited in outdoor recreational facilities. No person shall use any form of tobacco at or on any City -owned or operated outdoor recreational facilities, including the restrooms, spectator and concession areas. These facilities include [insert specific facilities here, e.g. playgrounds, athletic fields, beaches, aquatic areas, parks, and walking /hiking trails]. Section 2: Enforcement 1. Appropriate signs shall be posted in the above specified areas. 2, The community, especially facility users and staff, will be notified about this policy. 3. Staff will make periodic observations of recreational facilities to monitor for compliance. 4. Any person found violating this policy may be subject to immediate ejection from the recreation facility for the remainder of the event. Section 3: Effective Date This policy statement is effective immediately upon the date of adoption, which is , 20_. Appropriate City Official Date 9 i PLYMOUTH, MN PARKS AND RECREATION SUBJECT Plymouths Parks and Recreation Tobacco -Free Policy POLICY STATEMENT The City of Plymouth Parks and Recreation Department is committed to the quality of life for all residents, therefore, we believe that: 1. Tobacco product use in the proximity of children, youth and adults engaging in or watching recreational activities is unhealthy and detrimental to the health of others. 2. Tobacco products once consumed in public spaces are often discarded on the ground, thus posing a risk of ingestion to toddlers and causing a litter problem. 3. As parents, leaders, coaches, and officials we are thought of as role models, and the use of tobacco products around youth has a negative effect on their lifestyle choices. TOBACCO —FREE FACILITIES No person shall use tobacco products on city -owned parkland, park facilities, open space or joint city /school district properties, except within the confines of a vehicle in a designated parking area. COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES The emphasis on enforcing the Tobacco -Free park policy is through voluntary compliance: 1. Appropriate city -owned parkland, park facilities, open space or joint city /school district properties will be signed. 2. Plymouth Park and Recreation staff will meet with activity organizations and /or leaders or coaches to discuss the policy and to distribute flyers with the "Tobacco Free" regulations. 3. Plymouth Park.and Recreation staff will make periodic observations of activity sites to monitor compliance. 4. Plymouth Park and Recreation will take an active role to encourage the surrounding communities to adopt the "Tobacco Free" policy, so that we may act as a united front to ensure the health and wellbeing of our community. Date of Adoption: 10/28/03 10 City of Champlin Park & Recreation =. Tobacco -Free Park System Policy 1. Guideline Statement City of Champlin Parks and Recreation Tobacco -Free Policy is designed to protect the health, welfare, and safety of our park patrons. 2. Policy Statement The City of Champlin is committed to the quality of life for all residents, therefore, we believe that: • Tobacco product use in the proximity of children, youth and adults engaging in or watching recreational activities is unhealthy and detrimental to the health of others. • Tobacco products consumed in public spaces are often discarded on the ground, thus posing a risk of ingestion to toddlers and causing a litter problem. • As parents, leaders, coaches, and officials, we are thought of as role models and the use of tobacco products around youth has a negative effect on their lifestyle choices. 3. Tobacco -Free Facilities The City of Champlin does not allow the use of tobacco products on City -owned park land, recreational facilities, City facilities, and open space. 4. Compliance Procedures The emphasis on enforcing the Tobacco -Free parks and recreation policy is through voluntary compliance: • Appropriate City -owned park land, recreational facilities, open space will be signed. • City of Champlin staff will meet with activity organizations and \ or leaders or coaches to discuss the policy and to distribute flyers with the "Tobacco Free" regulations. • City staff will make periodic observations of activity sites to monitor compliance. 5. Adoption date: May 10, 2004 11 Maple Grove Parks and Recreation Board Maple Grove, MN Policy for Usage of Public Parks, Recreation Facilities and Equipment General Regulations Maple Grove Parks and Recreation Board is committed to providing quality leisure opportunities that meet the interest and needs of all City residents. This section of the policy governs general regulations so as to ensure the proper use of all parks and recreation facilities and so that all residents may equally enjoy their visit. 1. All activities and events held at a park or recreation facility must comply with all City Codes and regulations that apply. 2. All activities must be for wholesome leisure time activities. 3. Tobacco use is prohibited at all public buildings, park property and ISD #279 property operated by the Board through a joint powers agreement. 4. Alcoholic beverages are prohibited except upon Board approval. The Board will consider requests for alcoholic beverages only from clubs, charities, religious groups and other non - profit organizations whose activities are significantly conducted in the City of Maple Grove. Persons interested in this request must review City Code 22 -66 with staff. S. The sale of articles, items or services is prohibited except upon Board approval. Persons interested in this request must review City Code 22 -65 with staff. 6. Gambling of any kind including but not limited to bingo, pull -tabs and raffles may not be conducted without approval from Park Board and demonstration of compliance with all City and State Codes. 7. All outdoor events must take place between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. An event may extend beyond Park curfew times, only upon approval and written on the permit. Consideration for extended use will be based on adequate supervision and safety of participants. 8. Users must place all trash in designated garbage cans. Events requiring additional garbage pick -up other than the routine maintenance may be assessed a service fee. 9. Items brought onto the park property for temporary use must be delivered and removed or properly disposed of by park user; nothing can be left in the park overnight without prior approval. Approved 11/20/03. 12 x y • � ry ,. -i, ....... .. . �, t ._:i o . ,w.... �,....�.� .� ...! ,::9 . .. ...4 ,,,:� �..�1 .: . . «a ...'r .,.` »,�' ..,. ,r . .� �, , a ,. ( ,S e S ti r 1( .. 4..JSO Y -- ' {re ?e� P i f .:: A well publicized policy informs park users about the reasons why the policy has been adopted and helps enforce the policy by reducing violations. Let Community Members Know a . Post Signs 2� About the Policy l WE X93 The most important way to In addition to posting signs, park and recreation staff has used a variety publicize your tobacco -free policy is ofineans to educate citizens about their tobacco, -free policies: by posting signs. • Staff notification of the new policy and setting procedures for If you have not done 011►sfr handling violations. so already, contact '" • Bookmarks or small notification cards explaining the policy Tobacco -Free Youth distributed by park staff or community members to park Recreation to order °""''" �. >.<<�•�„�,�u users. metal tobacco -free signs. • Articles in a local or regional newspaper, as the result of a The following locations are news release or reporters' coverage of city council meetings. suggested places for posting your tobacco -free signs: 9 Park and recreation department and city newsletters. Fencing around playgrounds • Recreation program brochures, catalogs, and announcements. • and fields • Rulebooks or policy statements that are distributed to sports • Backstops league administrators, coaches, officials, parents, and • Picnic shelters participants. • Restrooms • Concession stands • Other fact sheets or educational articles about tobacco and • Parking lot entrances secondhand smoke distributed at coaches' meetings, in • Beach entrances mailings, or through newsletters. • Lifeguard stands . Postings on the recreation department's or city's website. • Hiking trail entrances • Skating rink warming houses . Public address announcements at recreation events, or public service announcements on local radio stations or public access �. cable channels. :r Ask for Assistance! Kick -off celebration or community event with tobacco -free pledges, activities, etc.,, Potential dates for this event: These groups will assist you in March /April —Kick Butts Day; May 31 —World No Tobacco Day; publicizing your tobacco fi°ee policy: Thursday prior to Thanksgiving —Great American Smoke Out. • Tobacco -Free Youth Recreation, (651) 646 -3005, yf T a Please note: computer artwork files are available from TFYR • Your local tobacco -free coalition for the tobacco free sign image. • Your local public health agency 13 Fre S i g ns! Minnesota cities that adopt comprehensive tobacco -free policies for their recreational facilities and park property can order FREE metal 12" x 18" tobacco -free signs from I +vyNn TFYR to help with policy implementation. To qualify for the signs, the tobacco -free policy must include: Nv • A list of all the facilities it covers To acco Use • A statement that all forms of tobacco OnThis use are prohibited Park Property • An enforcement plan that includes a) rtiaw� You. user and staff notification; and b) signage. Tobacco -Free Signs Please contact Tobacco -Free Youth Recreation to find out how a tobacco -free policy for parks and outdoor recreational facilities can benefit your community. For technical assistance in policy development and suggestions for tobacco prevention strategy implementation, contact: Brittany McFadden, Program Director Tobacco -Free Youth Recreation 2395 University Ave. West, Suite 310 St. Paul, MN 55114 -1512 ! (651) 646 -3005; bhm(a 14 Please contact the people listed below to find out how a tobacco -free policy for outdoor recreational facilities can benefit your community. For suggestions or feedback from communities who have implemented tobacco-free policies, contact: Plymouth Parks & Recreation Department Diane Evans, Supt, of Recreation 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55447 (763) 509 -5220; devans @ci.plymouth.mn.us Coon Rapids Parks & Recreation Department Bruce Thielen, Public Works Director 1831 — 111 Ave. NW Coon Rapids, MN 55433 (763) 767 -6578; thielen @ci.coon- rapids.mn.us Morris Community Education Cindy Perkins, Director 600 Columbia Ave. Morris, MN 56267 (320) 589 -4394; cperkins @maes.morris.k12.mn.us Grand Rapids Parks & Recreation Department Dale Anderson, Director 420 N. Pokegama Ave. Grand Rapids, MN 55744 (218) 326 -2500; danderson @ci.grand - rapids.mn.us 15 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN TOBACCO -FREE YOUTH RECREATION PROGRAM INITIATIVE Tobacco-Free Youth Recreation Program initiative has offered to WHEREAS, the Tob gr areas as "no smoking" during organized provide signs for use m City parks to post g g youth activities; g Y and j WHEREAS, encouraging tobacco -free areas around organized youth activities would promote better and healthier environments for youth in City parks; and WHEREAS, it is proposed that the City place donated tobacco -free zone signs that would encourage tobacco -free areas around organized youth activities in Brooklyn Center parks. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the acceptance of tobacco -free area signs from the Tobacco -Free Youth Recreation Program Initiative be and hereby is authorized and be it further authorized that the placement of such signs in City parks be undertaken in an effort to encourage smoke -free areas in the vicinity of organized youth activities in City parks. June 28, 2004 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Hennepin Youth Sports Program RFP 2011 Background Hennepin County is seeking local units of government interested in developing facilities for amateur sports or recreation. Legislation authorizing the building of the new Twins stadium allows Hennepin County to grant approximately $1.7 million dollars this grant cycle to Hennepin County communities to assist with developing these facilities. These grants will be made through the Hennepin Youth Sports Program. Purpose The purpose of these grants will be to allow municipalities, park districts or school districts to create, expand or improve sport or recreational facilities to enhance opportunities for athletics and recreation. No grant awards may be used for ongoing expenses, such as programming services or operating and maintaining the facilities. Charter schools must enlist a local unit of government to sponsor their application. Criteria These criteria will be among those considered in evaluating grant applications: • Need for the facility • Population and number of people served • Leveraging non - Hennepin County funds and in -kind contributions • Sustainability, including ongoing operating funds • Inclusion of environmental improvements • Partnerships among local units of governments and between local units of governments and non - profit sports organizations • Timeline and demonstrated ability to perform • Equitable distribution throughout the county Examples The following are examples of potential projects: • Baseball and softball fields • Soccer, football and lacrosse fields • Skate parks • Disc golf courses • Playgrounds Partnerships Hennepin County will favor proposals that support, create and enhance partnerships both between public entities as well as those with private organizations. Operating agreements that expand hours and programs, bring new users to the facility, and provide opportunities that do not currently exist in the community will be preferred. Grant Amount Awards will range from $15,000 up to $325,000. Respondents are required to provide snatching funds br in -kind contributions. Matching fund amounts will be a criteria considered in grant awards.. Grant Administrator The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners will make the grant awards to respondents. The Board has contracted with the Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission to administer the application process. Previous Applicants Those who have previously submitted applications, which did not receive a grant, may resubmit their application by forwarding the document, by the deadline, with a letter from the original sponsoring local unit of government indicating the action is known, authorized, and within the scope of the original resolution. Twins Community Fund Grants Starting with the 2011 grant cycle, additional grant funding for baseball and softball projects is available from the Twins Community Fund. Applicants interested in applying for these funds should review the criteria at the Twins Community Fund website after September 24, 2010 at 11ttp, ww.ttivin / or the MASC website at iittp://www.mnspgl.ts-Org/gr LI!L..J2rQ&r-qID.htqI Applicants must apply to BOTH Hennepin County and the Twins Community Fund to take full advantage of this opportunity Updates The latest updates can be found at htt www.rrulspor rant,_, ro ram_htm. Deadline All proposals must be received by 4:00 PM on Monday November 1, 2010. Contact Prospective responders who have questions regarding this RFP may contact: Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission 1700105th Ave NE Blaine, Minnesota 55449 Stephen Olson, Program Director solson @ 763 -785 -3639 Lynda Lynch, Grant Administrator ly @mnspor org 763 -785- -5631 Mark Erickson, Program Manager merickson @mnsporls.org 763- 785 -5662 Hennepin Youth Sports Program Application Form Local Government Unit (legal name) City of Brooklyn Center Local Government Unit Official Curt Boganey, City Manager Mailing Address 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway City, State, Zip Code Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Telephone Number (763) 569 -3300 Email Address cboganey @ci.brooklyn - center.mn.us Minnesota Tax ID Number 8020866 Federal Employee ID Number 41- 600511 Name of Project Central Park Youth Soccer Field Authorized Representative Jim Glasoe, CARS Director Mailing Address 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway City, State, Zip Code Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Telephone Number (763) 569 -3407 Email Address jglasoe @ ci.brooklyn - center.mn.us EXECUTION IN WITNESS THEREOF, the respondent has caused this application to be executed on the day of , 2010. A _ By Legal Name of Respondent Its Table 2 Capital Improvement Program (2011- 2025) August2,2010 Option C - Advanced 2012 project by one year, held other projects. Special Street MSA Storm Drainage Sanitary Sewer Water Street Light Capital Projects Other To Be Total Project Project Assessments Reconst. Fund Fund Utility Utility Utility Utility Fund Funding Sources Determined Cost 2011 Logan Neighborhood Reconstruction $972,000 $906,000 $0 $873,000 $395,000 $750,000 $54,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,950,00 Shingle Creek Pkwy Street Improvement $0 $0 $680,000 $30,000 $0 $34,200 $0 $0 $D $0 $744,20 T raffic Signal Replace at SCP and 1 -94 ramps $0 $0 $303,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $303,00 Storm Water Ponds 12 -002 & 12 -003 Dredging $0 $0 $0 $120,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,00 Storm Water Pond 12 -005 Rehab $0 $0 $0 $49,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $49,000 W est Palmer Park Building Replacement $0 $0 $0 $D $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $D $0 $300,00 Willow Lane Park Youth Soccer Field $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $119,500 (A) $169,50 Capital Maintenance Building Program 2011 $0 $0 $0 $0 $69,600 $9,200 $0 $0 $0 $460,100 $538,900 Unity Avenue Reconstruction $181,000 $240 000 $0 $89,000 $15,000 $206 000 $13,000 $0 $0 $0 $744,000 EastiP_almer Lake: Neighborhood :Reconstrucbor,,a..` w _s$766,0001 y$0 . 4 :$756 000 5 s•. _ _ $39¢ OOD� ,T' $315,000, $40 ;ODO , ; - _ . $0, _ ,$0, '_ i ; „ . , $0, v ,= $860,000 a .. 1s 2011 Subtotal $1,921,000 $2,006,000 $983,000 $1,917,000 $824,600 $1,314,400 $107,000 $350,000 $119,500 $460,100 $10,002,600 Notes: (A) Anticiapted Hennepin County Youth Sports Program Grant submittal ($119,500) 2012 Evergreen Park Fence & Court Reconstruction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $77,000 $0 $0 $77,00 Evergreen Athletic Field Lighting Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $105,000 $0 $D $105,000 Northport Park Building Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $295,000 $0 $0 $295,00 Storm Water Pond 18-001 Rehab $0 $0 $0 $155,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $155,00 Storm Water Pond 46-001 Rehab $0 $0 $0 $39,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,000 Capital Maintenance Building Program 201: $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,500 $28,500 $0 $0 $0 $228,000 $276,00 2012 Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $194,000 $19,500 $28,500 $0 $477,000 $0 $228,000 $947,000 2013 Baseball Backstop Replacements $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 Replace Traffic Signals at 66th Ave & Hwy 252 $0 $0 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,00 Storm Water Pond 60-001 Rehab $0 $0 $0 $17,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,000 Capital Maintenance Building Program 2013 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $125,500 $0 $0 $0 $636,000 $761,500 Humboldt Ave N (53rd to 57th) Reconstruction $260,000 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $90,000 $28,000 $0 $0 $0 $478,000 Kylawn Park Neighborhood Reconstructior $1,358,000 $866,000 $538,000 $878,000 $1,005,000 $958,000 $51,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,654,00 2013 Subtotal $1,618,000 $866,000 $688,000 $895,000 $1,105,000 $1,173,500 $79,000 $20,000 $0 $636,000 $7,080,500 2014 Central Park Tennis Courts Resurfacing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,000 $0 $0 $75,000 Capital Maintenance Building Program 2014 $0 $0 $0 $0 $62,000 $96,000 $0 $0 $0 $92,000 $250,00 Storm Water Pond 50-001 Rehab $0 $0 $0 $69,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $69,000 Willow Lane Trail Reconstruction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $40,000 51stAvenue (at Brooklyn Blvd) $50,000 $60,000 $77,000 $30,000 $35,000 $35,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $292,00 angstad Park Neighborhood Reconstructior $1,515,000 $1,002,000 $397,000 $965,000 $1,075,000 $1,005,000 $52,000 $0 $o $0 $6,011,00 2014 Subtotal $1,565,000 $1,062,000 $474,000 $1,064,000 $1,172,000 $1,136,000 $57,000 $115,000 $0 $92,000 $6,737,000 2015 Baseball Fence Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 $0 $0 $35,00 Freeway Park Trail Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,000 $0 $D $28,000 Capital Maintenance Building Program 2015 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,500 $139,000 $0 $0 $0 $337,000 $479,50 Lions Park Trail Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $57,000 !2 $0 $57,000 63rd Avenue North Reconstruction $0 $2,009,000 $0 $112,000 $90,000 $53,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,550,00 Freeway Park Neighborhood Reconstructior $1,085,000 $1,040,000 $0 $937,000 $880,000 $820,000 $45,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,807,00 2015 Subtotal $1,371,000 $1,040,000 $2,009,000 $937,000 $995,500 $1,049,000 $98,000 $120,000 $0 $337,000 $7,956,500 G:WdministrationlBudgetX2011XPW 2011 BudgetXCIP 2011 \100802_2011 DRAFT CIP Table 2.Wids i Table 2 Capital Improvement Program (2011- 2025) August 2, 2010 Special Street MSA Storm Drainage Sanitary Sewer Water Street Light Capital Projects Other To Be Total Project Project Assessments Reconst. Fund Fund Utility Utility Utility Utility Fund Funding Sources Determined Cost 2016 Evergreen Park Trail Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 Brooklyn Blvd City Entrance Signs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,000 $0 $0 $12,000 Capital Maintenance Building Program 2016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $124,500 , $19,500 $0 $0 $0 $154,500 $298,50 Storm Water Pond 12 -004 Rehab $0 $0 $0 $67,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $67,000 69th Ave Greenway & Cahlander Park Fence Rehab $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $65,000 $0 $0 $65,000 Emer Generator Replacement for Lift Station No. 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $73,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $73,00 W ater Tower No. 3 Painting $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,105,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,105,00 Freeway Blvd West Reconstruction $235,000 $0 $215,000 $0 $D $0' $0 $0 $0 $0 $450,00 Palmer Lake West Neighborhood Reconstruction $975,000 $660,000 $0 $1,200,000 $813,000 $753,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,451,00 2016 Subtotal $1,210,000 $660,000 $215,000 $1,267,000 $1,010,500 $1,877,500 $50,000 $127,000 $0 $154,500 $6,571,500 2017 W est River Rd Trail Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $115,000 $0 $0 $115,00 aterTower No. 2- Painting $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,00 Lift Station No. 9 Force Main Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $415,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $415,00 Capital Maintenance Building Program 2017 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $294,000 $319,000 Evergreen Neighborhood Reconstructior $1,527,000 $700,000 $1,195,000 $1,500,000 $710,000 $1,305,000 $65,000 $0 $0 $0 $7,002,00 2017 Subtotal $1,527,000 $700,000 $1,195,000 $1,500,000 $1,125,000 $2,330,000 $65,000 $115,000 $0 $294,000 $8,851,000 2018 Central Park East Trail Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $98,000 $0 $0 $98,000 ater Tower No. 1 Painting $0 1 $0 S0 $0 1 $0 1 $550,000 $0 $0 $0 I $0 $550,00 Capital Maintenance Building Program 2018 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 $23,000 1 $54,000 $0 $0 $0 1 $438,000 $515,000 Firehouse Park Neighborhood Reconstructior $1,903,000 $1,050,000 $405,000 1 $2,116,000 1 $827,000 1 $735,000 $70,000 $0 $0 I $0 $7,106,00 2018 Subtotal $1,903,000 $1,050,000 $405,000 $2,116,000 $850,000 $1,339,000 $70,000 $98,000 $0 $438,000 $8,269,000 2019 Park Playground Equip Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $203,000 $0 $0 $203,00 Capital Maintenance Building Program 2019 $0 $D I $0 $0 $3,000 $13,000 $0 $0 $0 $540,500 $556,500 Interstate Neighborhood Reconstructior $1,120,000 $1,025,000 1 $0 $1,670,000 $1,090,000 $1,020,000 $48,OD0 $0 $0 $0 $5,973,00 2019 Subtotal $1,120,000 $1,025,000 $0 $1,670,000 $1,093,000 $1,033,000 $48,000 $203,000 $0 $540,500 $6,732,500 2020 Park Playground Equip Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $207,000 $0 $0 $207,000 Capital Maintenance Building Program 2020 $D $0 $0 $0 $7,000 $47,500 $0 $0 $0 $935,500 $990,000 Logan /LilacI59thAvenue Reconstruction $450,000 $0 $1,075,000 $0 $46,000 $150,000 1 $20,000 I $0 $0 $0 $1,741,00 Grandview Neighborhood Reconstructior $2,070,000 $950,000 $305,000 $1,465,000 $1,175,000 $1,100,000 $84,000 $0 $0 $0 $7,149,00 2020 Subtotal $2,520,000 $950,000 $1,360,000 $1,465,000 $1,228,000 $1,297,500 $104,000 $207,000 $0 $935,500 $10,087,000 2021 Park Playground Equip Replacement $0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $211,000 1 $0 $0 $211,00 Capital Maintenance Building Program 2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $107,500 $111,00 Ryan Lake Industrial Park $335,000 $165,000 $0 $437,000 $211,000 $541,000 $32,000 $0 1 $0 1 1 $0 $1,721,00 2021 Subtotal $335,000 $165,000 $0 $437,000 $214,500 $541,000 $32,000 $211,000 $0 $107,500 $2,043,000 2022 Palmer Lake Trail Mill and Overlay $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $180,000 $0 $0 $180,00 Capital Maintenance Building Program 2022 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,000 1 $42,500 $0 $0 $0 $412,000 $458,500 Northwest Area Neighborhood Mill & Oveda\ $125,000 1 $215,000 1 $0 I $35,000 I $25,000 I $25,000 I $0 I $0 $0 $0 $425,00 2022 Subtotal $125,000 $215,000 $0 $35,000 $29,000 $67,500 $0 $180,000 $0 $412,000 $1,063,500 G:Wdministration\Budgel\2011\PW 2011 Budget \CIP 2011 \100802_2011 DRAFT CIP Table 2:xls Table 2 Capital Improvement Program (2011- 2025) August 2, 2010 Special Street MSA Storrs Drainage Sanitary Sewer Water Street Light Capital Projects Other To Be Total Project Project Assessments Reconst. Fund Fund Utility Utility Utility Utility Fund Funding Sources Determined Cost 2023 Capital Maintenance Building Program 2023 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,500 $8,500 $0 $0 $0 $624,000 $637,00 51stAvenueReconstruction $74,000 $137,300 $0 $25,000 $30,000 $30,000 $7,500 $0 $0 $0 $303,80 53rd Avenue Reconstruction Area $353,300 $408,000 $401,000 $143,200 $145,000 $155,000 $40,200 $0 $0 1 $0 $1,645,70 Lyndale Avenue Reconstruction Arez $100,100 $185,900 $0 $30,000 $30,000 $25,000 $11,000 $0 1 $0 1 1 $0 1 $382,00 2023 Subtotal $527,400 $731,200 $401,000 $198,200 $209,500 $218,500 $58,700 $0 $0 $624,000 $2,968,500 2024 W oodbine Neighborhood Reconstruction $523,418 $785,127 $110,530 $63,970 $585,910 :5 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,019,98 Humboldt Avenue North Reconstruction $91,374 $0 $137,061 $21,100 $127,530 $65,100 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $452,165 Freeway Boulevard Street Mill & Overlay $43,000 $59,390 $0 $5,110 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $107,5Q Earl Brown/Opportunity Area Street Light Replacement $0 $0 $0 $D $0 $0 $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $75,000 Capital Maintenance Building Program 202A $0 $0 $0 $0 $31,600 $27,000 $0 $0 $0 $239,500 $298,10 2024 Subtotal $657,792 $844,517 $247,591 $90,180 $745,040 $993,130 $135,000 $0 $0 $239,500 $3,952,750 2025 Orchard Lane East Utility and Street Improvements $1,639,000 $884,000 $214,500 $47,500 $1,340,000 $4,125,00 69th Ave. N. Utility and Street Improvements $590,000 $452,000 $56,300 $139,400 $582,300 1 $1,820,00 Capital Maintenance Building Program 202: $24,000 $20,000 $177,000 1 $221,00 2025 Subtotal $2,229,000 $884,000 $452,000 $270,800 $210,900 $1,942,300 $0 $0 $0 $177,000 $6,166,000 TOTALS $18,629,192 $12,198,717 $8,449,591 $14,056,180 $10,832,040 $16,340,830 $903,700 $2,223,000 $119,500 $5,675,600 $89,428,350 G:V\dministration\Budgel\2011\PW 2011 Budget\CIP 2011 \100802 2011 DRAFT CIP Table 2.)ds