Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 04-04-1988 Special4 AGENDA JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PRAC MEETING 5:30 P.M., MONDAY, APRIL 4 DINNER WILL BE SERVED 1. Community Center 2. Plymouth Creek Soccer Field Other MEMO CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 DATE: March 23, 1988 TO: James G. Willis, City Manager FROM: Eric J. Blank, Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: COMMUNITY CENTER The purpose of this memo is to help the Council and PRAC agree on the process and timing of the planning phase of the community center project. I will not be addressing the funding of the project. I will be sharing with you the following: 1. A history of the project to date. 2. Questions/issues. 3. Planning steps. By the conclusion of our meeting, I hope the Council will provide both PRAC and staff with direction on further planning for this project. Please keep in mind that this is a very large and complicated project which under the best possible circumstances would not be open to the public until the fall of 1990 or later. Even with that time line, more than seven years will have passed since the Council and PRAC first discussed the project. History In the fall of 1983, the City Council directed PRAC to begin planning for the community center. The firm of BRW was selected by Council to provide technical assistance. PRAC decided that a citizens committee should be formed to study this project. Steve Chesebrough, a member of PRAC, was asked to chair this committee. A copy of the City Council's charge to the citizens committee is attached (Exhibit A). During the spring of 1984, over 100 people participated with their attendances at one or more of the committee meetings. Many other citizens participated by filling out questionnaires and providing feed back to committee members. A 12 -step process was prepared for the committee to follow (Exhibit B). In June of 1984, the citizens committee report was presented to the Council. A citizen petition calling for a referendum was presented to the Council in July and an August referendum date was selected. As they say, "the rest is history." e COMMUNITY CENTER Page 2 In the fall of 1986, the Council asked PRAC to prepare a new plan for the community center. This was to be completed by July 1, 1987. The Commission began discussion of this subject at their Jaivary and February meetings. PRAC was then asked to stop any further discussion until after the fire station referendum. The fall elections, lack of a Plymouth Creek park master plan and the pending community survey further served to delay the planning process. Ouestions/Issues We now must address the key questions/issues about this subject: 1. Is the 1984 building plan still valid? 2. What is the best building site? 3. How important is the issue of recovering operating costs through fees? 4. Public/private partnership? 5. Consultant to provide cost estimate and other key information. 6. Citizen involvement in planning stage. 7. Petition received last October -keep open lines of communication. 8. Planning Steps What planning steps may we consider pursuing at this time? 1. PRAC update the 1984 plan. 2. Hire consultant to provide technical assistance and necessary cost estimates. 3. Pursue the siting of the building - hand in hand with Plymouth Creek Park planning. 4. Tour some facilities - Calgary, Edmonton, Denver, Milwaukee, Chicago, Wisconsin Dells, Eden Prairie, Edina, Apple Valley, Brooklyn Park, etc. 5. Hire consultant to prepare economic feasibility study. 6. Develop model/concept plan. 7. Public meetings to review content of plan. COMMUNITY CENTER Page 3 V 8. Follow up survey work to further solicit public reaction to plan. 9. Work with library and other interested groups to develop coordinated long range plan. Planning in any form is an art which requires setting goals, time lines and a commitment from many people to work toward a common goal. In November of 1986, the City Council met with PRAC and expressed their desire that a community center would be the next important city facility, following the successful passage of a fire station referendum. At this time, clear direction from the Council to PRAC and staff is needed establishing a proposed time line for the planning phase of the community center project. ZE DRAFTIL L Exhibit A January 17, 1984 CHARGE TO COMMUNITY CENTER CITIZENS COMMITTEE It is the desire of the Plymouth City Council that a broad-based citizens committee be established to examine the entire question of the feasibility of a community center for Plymouth. The citizens committee is charged with the task to determine the need, interest, and support for the development of a community center. If the committee determines there is need, interest and support for this type of facility, they should: 1. Review and rank all possible facilities which may benefit Plymouth. 2. Determine a preferred list of facilities from the above ranking of all possible facilities. 3. Prepare estimated construction costs and operation and maintenance costs for facilities on their preferred list. 4. Review alternatives as they relate to the operation and maintenance of facilities and relate these alternatives to those outlined in the report titled, "Mayor's Task Force on Park and Recreation Program Financing." The City Council may, at a later date, ask the citizens group to design an approach to acquaint the community as a whole with this project and its associated costs. The citizens committee should have its final report prepared for the City Council by June 15, 1984. Exhibit B January 17, 1984 OUTLINE OF PROCESS FOR COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PHASE I (two to four meetings) Acquaint citizen groups with other community centers - this will be WA accomplished by on-site tours. B: Acquaint citizen groups with Plymouth's park system plan and Plymouth Creek Park along with downtown Plymouth - include information about population, existing facilities, etc.; review and expand on list of possible facilities. Citizen group review and list pro's and con's of each possible facility. B. Citizen group select best ideas to be included in first draft of preferred facilities. Staff prepare preliminary report on the cost of building and operating similar facilities in metropolitan area. Copies of first draft report sent to Council and Park and Recreation Advisory Commission for review and comment. PHASE II (two to three weeks) Citizens take draft list of preferred facilities back to their respective homeowner associations (HOA's) or groups for review and comments. They may do this by way of a questionnaire or group meeting or both. Desired result is a ranking of preferred facilities to be reviewed further. Also, they should bring back a list of questions that members of the HOA's, clubs, etc., think the citizens' review group needs to discuss and have answers for. PHASE III (two to three meetings) Citizen study group reviews priority list returned from HOA's, clubs, athletic associations, etc. From this, they prioritize new list of facilities to be studied. They should now begin further study of the pro's and con's and economics of each facility on list. Also, the group should review and start to formulate answers to the questions submitted by the community groups. B. Informal presentation of material to Park and Recreation Advisory Commission and City Council for their review and comments. PHASE IV (two weeks) A. Final draft of proposed facilities and research to date taken back to HOA's, clubs, etc., for their review and comment. Each group is asked to comment if they wish, whether they would like to see the City proceed with this project. B. Informal public hearing is held to solicit further public comments. Process for Community Involvement Page 2 rk* PHASE V (two to three weeks) A. Citizen committee uses the comments of community groups to put together their final report. This report would outline which facilities will have final development, operation and maintenance cost estimates prepared. Final report made to Park and Recreation Advisory Commission and City Council. PHASE VI (three to four weeks) A. Architect may be hired by City Council to prepare cost estimates, review site location and prepare concept renderings. PHASE VII (two weeks) A. Citizen group reviews results of architect's work and makes recommendations to Park and Recreation Advisory Commission and City Council to add, delete, modify project, etc. E. Public hearing held to present final plan and solicit public input. PHASE VIII A. Based on citizen recommendations and Park and Recreation Advisory Commission's review, City Council makes decision to move ahead or wait on project. 9 IF PROJECT IS A GO: PHASE IX A. Final cost estimates are prepared. PHASE X A. Citizen groups begin process of acquainting community with the facts regarding this project. PHASE XI A. Vote on bond referendum. PHASE XII (16 to 24 months) A. If yes vote, --sell bonds, prepare bid package, award contract, construct building.