Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP April 26, 2001 CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.· ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304· (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 Special Joint City Council & Park and Recreation Commission Meeting April 26, 2001 7:30 PM 1. Mayor to Call to Order 2. Discuss Bonding for ParksfTrails, Continued 3. Discuss DNR Grants, Continued 4. Discuss Selling & Leasing of Park Property, Continued 5. Discuss Position of Park & Recreation Director, Continued 6. Discuss Weekend Tournaments of the Athletic Associations, Continued 7. Discuss Proposed Ordinance 229 Amendments & Policies & Duties of the Commission (New) 8. Other Business 9 10. Adjournment CITY of ANDOVER ANDOVER JOINT CITY COUNCIVPARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 16, 1001 - MINUTES A Special Joint Meeting of the Andover City Council and Park and Recreation Commission was called to order by Mayor Mike Gamache on April 26, 2001, 8:10 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Councilmembers present: Mike Knight, Ken Orttel, Julie Trude Councilmember absent: Don Jacobson Park Commissioners present: Chairperson Valerie Holthus; Commissioners Paul Anderson, Dave Blackstad, Christ English, Al Grabowski, Dave O'Toole Also present: Finance Director, Jim Dickinson Assistant City Engineer, Todd Haas Public Works Superintendent, Frank Stone Parks Department, Kevin Starr City Administrator, John Erar Others DISCUSS BONDING FOR PARKS/TRAILS Mr. Dickinson referenced his letter that the methodology of bonding for park improvements is an option. The City would assess at least 20 percent of the cost of the combined improvements, though he would recommend 35 percent. If done, it should be done early in the project process, not as an afterthought. It appears about $1.5 million could be bonded at a minimum commitment over the course of 5 to 10 years, which is a minimum of 100 park dedication fees. That is probably attainable; but in looking at the future development, he cannot guarantee there will be that steady stream of revenue from developing lots. There are not that many plats coming on schedule at this point. At this time, Mr. Dickinson stated he would recommend against going for a bond until there is some certainty that there will be a positive revenue stream. If there is not enough money from park dedication fees, the Council would have to be prepared to make the bond payments from the General Fund. His feeling was, though, that the Council wanted to stay away from a tax levy. Councilmember Trude stated it is nice to have the parks and trails completed when residents move in. A complaint she hears is that the trails are not connected. Would there be a benefit to using this fmancing to get the trails connected? Mr. Davidson stated it is the comfort level of the Council. If it feels there will be enough park dedication fees in the next five to seven years, this is a possibility. If the development is not there, it would have to come from the tax levy, Councilmember Trude understood this is a tool that may be available. She thought want needs to be done is a lot of overall planning of the park system to reflect when the community is fully Special Joint City Council/ Park and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes - April 26, 2001 Page 2 (Discuss Bondingfor Parks/Trails, Continued) developed. Mr. Davidson again noted there are a lot of issues that need to be discussed before he'd recommend going forward this type of financing. Mr. Erar stated his experience is that growing communities generally do not rely totally on park dedication fees for debt service. He'd prefer the planning be done. He also concurred with Mr. Davidson on using park dedication fees as the primary source of revenue to underwrite the cost oflong-term debt. Councilmember Trude noted in Shadowbrook, which was developed in 1995, there still isn't any park improvements. That park dedication money was used elsewhere, and that is not the only neighborhood in which that was done. At some point she'd like to see the neighborhood money put into the system for that development; and those neighborhoods who haven't paid to pay the tab. Mr. Erar agreed the park dedication fees are used to play catch up - what needs the most attention now. The City won't be able to rely on dedication fees as a permanent source of financing because some day development will stop and that revenue stream will dry up. Typically cities will either raise taxes or go out for referendums for park projects. Commissioner Blackstad pointed out the capital improvements each year varies from $30,000 to $50,000, which is woefully underfunded to try to repair and replace existing parks in the City. The park dedication fees shouldn't be used to solve problems, but it should be coming from capital improvements. The dedication fees should be going to the development that it came from or to regional parks. They have been getting farther and farther behind because the capital improvement money isn't there. Councilmember Trude felt a good question to ask the residents in the survey is what is their vision of Andover's parks. Would they prefer regional or local neighborhood parks? Commissioner Blackstad stated for years they were told the City didn't want neighborhood parks because there isn't enough manpower to maintain them. Mr. Haas noted the capital improvements plan and priorities were submitted to the Council in March. Next week the Park Board will be getting an update on the financial status of the dedication fund. He pointed out there are no sketch plans scheduled for development in the year 2002, so there may be no park dedication fees for parks for next year. Discussion was on issues relating to a park improvement referendum, not wanting to compete with a possible school referendum in the fall, and deliberating the possibility of a vote in conjunction with a sports complex that has been discussed. It was agreed to table this for now with the understanding that more information will be forthcoming with the establishment of a task force on a sports complex. DISCUSS DNR GRANTS Mr. Haas stated he and Mr. Erickson met with Jon Olsen, Anoka County Highway Department, regarding the possibility of a signal at Sycamore and the entrance to Bunker Lake Boulevard. The county is concerned with that location because it does not meet warrants because of its close proximity to the railroad tracks and to the intersection at Prairie Road, which may possibly be Special Joint City Council/ Park and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes - April 26, 2001 Page 3 (Discuss DNR Grants, Continued) signalized in the future. The grant money is only good until April IS, 2002, so the City must proceed quickly if it is going to be used. If a tunnel is built under Bunker Lake Boulevard to connect the City's trail with Bunker Prairie Park, the county is willing to assist with the site restoration. State aid money that could be used for the tunnel is tied up in the extension of Andover Boulevard. In further discussion, all agreed an underpass would be more reasonable than a signal, that it would be the best way to get the people across Bunker Lake Boulevard safely. It was also agreed to proceed with the tunnel quickly to take advantage of the DNR grant. Part of the funding will be political, agreeing the county should be approached for more support. Also, some of the funds allocated for trails that may not realistica!ly be constructed this year could be diverted to this project. Mr. Dickinson was asked to come up with financing options. DISCUSS SELLING AND LEASING OF PARK PROPERTY Me. Haas reported in reconsidering two parks for selling and leasing, the Park and Recreation Commission has determined that both parks should remain as parks. The Cedar Creek Estates Park is heavily wooded, so it was agreed to preserve it as open space. Removing the restriction would cost $6,000 to $7,000, so the decision has been to do nothing at this time. The Council agreed. DISCUSS POSITION OF PARK AND RECREATION DIRECTOR Reference was made to Mr. Erar's merno on the issue of the potential need for a Director of Parks and Recreation, recommending a strategic planning process that would lead to the identification of service related needs and desired policy outcornes before suggesting additional staffing. He stated typically it cost $1,100 to $2,SOO for a consultant to facilitate the planning process, which consists of one or two sessions with a follow-up report. He also suggested if the Commissioners have any questions in mind to ask the residents, forward them to Mr. Haas so they can be used as a part of the survey being done. Several Park Commissioners agreed it would be appropriate to wait until a long-term plan has been established before going into a process of considering a Park and Recreation Director. Commissioner English felt the Park Board needs to talk about options, study Mr. Erar's memo and develop a plan of how to implement his suggestions. Possibly a consultant would be beneficial to get a long-range strategic plan for parks and trails after a survey has been done and they receive the financial advice on the revenue stream for parks. Council agreed with that proposal, advising them authorization can be given for consultants or legal advice as they request it. Special Joint City Council/ Park and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes - April 26, 2001 Page 4 DISCUSS WEEKEND TOURNAMENTS OF THE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATIONS Mr. Stone stated he and Mr. Haas met with representatives of the baseball and softball associations and have resolved many of the problems. The associations will be taking care of all their weekend tournaments. The Council agreed. DISCUSS PROPOSED ORDINANCE 119 AMENDMENTS AND POLICIES AND DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION Mayor Gamache felt the issue to amend the Park and Recreation Commission Ordinance regarding absences should be put on hold for awhile. With three new Commissioners, it may not be an issue. Attendance was an item stressed by the Council at the recent interviews for Commissioners. Another issue was an item raised by Commissioner English as to whether or not the Park and Recreation Commission is a park board or an advisory commission. The City's attorney has advised it is an advisory commission. The last issue was raised by Chairperson Holthus regarded an amendment to the ordinance on codes of conduct. The Mayor stated he personally likes to see the Commissioners involved in sports organizations. They bring valuable opinions and ideas to the Commission and are a useful tool to the City Council. He recalled there have always been members of different organizations on the Park Board, and he was not inclined to prohibit that. In viewing the Commissioner's meetings, he hasn't noticed any issue before them that justified any conflict of interest. Chairperson Holthus didn't see the issue as Commissioners being active in a youth organization. She felt it is a conflict of interest when a person uses the parks to make money while they are on the Park Commission. She is not talking about the small amount made during refereeing, etc., but when thousands of dollars are made running tournaments or running a league. She felt that may affect a vote, especially if that person uses one park and a vote is needed to allocate dollars to it. Councilmember Orttel noted by State statute, someone is not allowed to vote if he/she is affected financially. It is a conflict of interest. He agreed if there is a conflict of interest, it would affect the credibility of this body. The job of the Chair if aware of a conflict is to ask that person to step down for the vote. If there is truly a conflict of interest, it should be forwarded to the legal counsel. Commissioner Blackstad stated this has been an issue for years concerning one individual. Knowing how much that person makes working for the youth organization, it is not a lot of money; certainly not the thousands of dollars that has been rumored. Chairperson Holthus stated she is not talking about a specific situation. Commissioner O'Toole didn't think there has been any abuses regarding conflicts of interest. He thought the Chairperson wanted to amend the ordinance to prevent it ITom happening in the future. The Council again noted that State statute sets up the guidelines regarding conflicts of interest. Also, the Commission advises and makes recommendations to the City Council. The Council has the final authority. No change was made to the ordinance. Special Joint City Council/ Park and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes - April 26, 2001 Page 5 (Discuss Proposed Ordinance 229 Amendments and Policies and Duties, Continued) Discussion was also on the statement at the top of the Park and Recreation Commission's agendas pointing out to those present that they are an advisory board to the Council. That statement is not on any other agenda. It was agreed to remove that statement from all future agendas, as there is no need for it. Discussion was on Ordinance No. 229A. Commissioner Blackstad noted the sentence that was removed, "The Commission shall be responsible for coordinating maintenance, improvements, upkeep and operation of all City parks." He suggested that item be added back into the ordinance, because that is a major function of the Park Board. Part of the problem has been they do not know what is being done in parks. In a recent meeting with Mr. Stone, it was agreed a big part of the problem was lack of communication. They would like to be kept informed of park activities on a regular basis. Commissioner O'Toole disagreed with adding that sentence back into the ordinance. He didn't see the Park Board coordinating the parks, but they do need to be made aware of what is going on, changes being made, etc. Mr. Erar agreed it is a matter of communication. Staff is responsible for the operational and maintenance activities. It is a matter of policy that the Commissions and Council be made aware of what is going on. Commissioner English suggested they be kept informed of all matters including the programs relating to parks and recreation. He hoped Mr. Starr or Mr. Stone could meet with the Commission once a month to talk with them about the activities in the parks and trails and to provide their input on items. Mr. Erar agreed that is something that needs to be done. He will talk with them and with Mr. Haas about getting that information to the Commission. Discussion returned to attendance. The Commissioners noted it has not been an issue in recent months; but they pointed out most of them do donate their time to other organizations, and sometimes there are conflicts. Council agreed it is not an issue at this point in time, applauding the volunteer efforts the Commissioners have made in the community. They suggested if it does become an issue, they should bring the item to the Council for consideration again. Motion by Trude, Seconded by Knight, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 4- Yes, I-Absent (Jacobson) vote. The meeting adjourned at 9:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,~~L Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary