Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPark and Recreation Advisory Commission Packet 01-12-1978PLYMOUTU PARK AND RECPEATIDN ADVISORY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING, January 12, 1978 AGENDA Chairraan: Dick Williams Those expected; Frank Barroct _ Alvan Brass Delores Durand_ Barbara Ft Nards Marvin Setten. _.,...... James Duddal Robert Troemel _ Jon Bary 1. Gall to aider: ?:3O pm - Councti Chambers Z. Minutes - December 81 1977 3. Annual Report Review 4, Parks ;Development Criteria a policy relative to development based upon level rteighborhood development b Neighborhoods without nt i ghborhood park development 1. age; of development. 2, level of development S. Park Development Specifications 6. Central Park Discussion 7. Trail's priorities 8.. Oakwood Communications and Design Request 9. Grants Memo lO. Revised CIP 11. Other, 6ussiness 12. Adourni-tent MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLYMOUTH PARKS A'ND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION December 8, 1977 The regular meeting of the Plymouth Park. and Recreation Advisory Cottanission was called to order b chairman Dick tOliams at 7:45 pill in t}te conference room of the City of Plymouth city offices, MEMBERS PRESENT Frank Barron, Barbara Edwards, Marvin Getten, dam`s Quddal Robert Troemel, Chairman Dick 1,111liams, and Director Jon Born, MEMBERS ABSENT: Alan Brass, Delores Durand.. The minutes of the November 3, 1977 meeting were approved as published.. Chairman Williamsinformed the Cotnrtission of the progress ;n negntiations for the Oakwood School site, The City Council will decide whether to accept. the School District's offer for the 19 acres on Monday, December 1. C, 1977, Bon Born has been asked to draw it a site design. School District 281 will plot be approached regarding the NE community playfield site until the decision on School District Za4 propertty has been made. Che Departmental Operations Report knell be, delayed until the January meeting. Gail Krieger has requested to return to her position as Recreation Supervisor. A notice for the vacancy was published in the MRPA and the. Director willconsiderherrequestalongwiththeetherapplicantsforthejob.. The: City Council approved staff's recommendation to provide access, to the; East and Blest Medicine Lake Beach areas for ice fisherman. MI HUTES OAltiG'O DEPARTMENTAL QPEPIkTIONS REPORT ACCESS MEDICINE LAI The City Council approve*, aupport of the staff's recottttttendation to apply to SN01*10;;ILE the Department of Transportation for a snowmobile trail corridor ort HighWay CORRIDOR 55 The corridor will extend from NW to Std from the: west to the east city limits, Ttie staff also requested a right of .qay easetttent from Chi.cacla Western Rai troadfora, cross country ski trail to extend the Lace Line trail to Medicine Lake, The railroad. had requested such stiff requirements that the City will not be able to comply. The City has had problems with developars regarding; land dedicated to the city for park purposes,. The staff has develoued specifications to solve settle of the problems.. The Park and Recreation AdOsory Cdttrtission decided: before they could pass these specifications on to, the Planning Commi ssiort and City Council for implettten`t`.atiott they should view the document., The specifications will be included in the january agenda packet. Staff has provided some questions they would like answered regarding Central Park, The list is to be used as a guideline to think about until the next meeting in January when the subdect will be discussed. Included in the packet were maps showing the^areas of Mission Ridge--Ptission Hills and Ravenwood-Glenloch.Parks These areas will be developed as parks in the 1978-82 CIP. The Commission requested for the next tteetint,: A list of all park sites dedicated and the dater we received the land What is the policy for development of nei;thborhood parks? If the City can sell extra parcels of land and if there are any available CROSS COUIT` IS\T TRIAIL DGUICAT= SPECIFICCI " IP JANUARY 11EL'rlE" 4 Pa jev 2 Parks and: Recreation Advisory Commission December 8 1977 Requests have been; made for lighted tennis: courts .t Oakwood Elementary School. OAKWOOD A request has been made for a kicking wall by the Wayzata Soccer Association, Said requests will be taken into consideration when the site is developed, Some Mems for the January meeting include: Central Park, Trails, Development JANUARY Specifications, Annual Report, i NDA r - Being ; no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.. 1 Resectfully submitted; l Kallyidy, y Secretary DATE: TO', EROW SUBJELT< CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3025 HARBOR LANE, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55441 TELEPHONE (512) 55.9-2800 Januar 6,; 19;18 MEMO Park anF Recreation ,advisory Commission Jon J. Born, irirector of Parks and. Recreation Parks Devel'opr)nt Cribe i'a 0 The general "rule of thumb" though not an adopted policy implies that when a given heighborhood attains 25' of its anticipated saturation the development of the park for that areais sequenced into the Gaps t l Improvements Program.. At the time that the neighborhood attain: SON' of its anticipated saturation it is then scheduled fol- development ordevelopmentthroughdesignandfinancialapproval. This "rule of tlltnnb" applies to all i er classifications of parks from neighborhood Parks and cottmtuni ty pl ayfi el ds to comm'unity parks. Staff errored uhen preparing the trap identifying parks and; other sites for maintenance under the neighborhood parks designation, staff included l axendin and Ponderosa ON, 9N) as neighborhood parks. These sites should be designated as open space natural areas. Clenloch (Ravenwood) was identified as an. open space natural aroa and should be designated as <a veighboriiood park site, The attached map illustrates th(l part: sites and their respective designations. The, map key identifies community parks and the Commission should remember that conultunit parks contain elentents of the ne ghborhood.parks and community playfields when studying the .map. Therefore, when applying the "rule of thumb" for parks development, the following neighborhood si t ,s are listed in order o F priority for development. 1) Creekwood 100% 1976-1.979 2) Shiloh 50H 1979 3) Glenloch 501% 1980 4) Mission Hills -Mission Ridge 25% 1981 5) Schmidt. Lake 25% 198? Staff recommends that the above sequence be used.for neighborhood parks development in the 5 ,Year CIP ending in 19821 4 m 41 1,471 1A Ilk L I bv% J, IN, Z)tWillft - 11.222 h.t"41 PARK & TRA,IL PLAN carni park0 nediuM pa(k PLht.. Semipublic trails p1pouthplymouth NTE TO: FROM.' SUBJECT, CITY OF PLYMOUTH 6 3025 HARBOR LANE, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55441 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 January 5, 1978 RgEPA, 0 Park and Recreation Advisory Comission Jan J. Born, Director of Parks and Recreation Central: Park Discussion to December, 1977,, staff forwarded correspondence to the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission identifying eight questions which could be asked/answQred relative to Central 'ark development. The questions were posed from staff's viewpoint and no doubt the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission has others, Staff's questions are as follows -z l) Should Central Park, as proposed in April, 1977, be developed? 2) Is the general design for Central Park, as proposed in April,. 1977, still vat i d? 8 If Central Park iz. developed, when shnuld it be undertaken and, ,shy? If Central Park is developed, flow should it be funded? 5 14hat should be the .sequence of development relative to facility priorities? Should the site be developed in total at ore time as opposed to staged d e v e 1 opinan .? G) Should promotion techniques and materials be revised? 7) Howe can citizen participation/involvement beimproved? 8) Should a questionnaire survey be used prior to continuing with CentralPark plans? Staff was requested to obtain information relative to current land holdings at the.Central Park site. The attached design illustrates present land holdings outlined with the heavy, dark line The dotted line represents land being presently acquired through Contract for Deed. On January 12 1977 staff will identify other parcels -of land for which current appraisals have been received and for which purchase offers will be made Planting Department staff has indicated that approximately 1'0 acres will he received through parks dedication during the course of Central Parr acquisition. The parks CIP identifies parks dedication fund expenditures of $35,000 for five years from 1978-82 for Central Park acquisition, Staff anticipates acquisition to he completed no later than 1982 depending upon; appriisals, negotiati,ors and other sourct s of revenue. Staff is studying the possibility for LAIJXON chant application. Page 2 January 6 1478 In response to the eight questions posed in December, 1977 staff responds in the following manner, . 1) In response to the first question, staff would recommend that Central Park be developed though not until 1982. If the facilities proposed in the 1978-82 CIP can be constructed, the facility, deficit for Pl'yioouth will be caught up Stith facility needs of 138Z.. z 2) The design concept for Central Park is still validfrom the facilities. need standpoint as well as the engineering standpoint. The design concept also effectiv(:ly maximizes the use of the land. Staff recotniiends that the: design concept not be changed. 3) If Central Park is developed, it should not be u.nde:taken prior to 1982 because of the following; a. Completion of land acqu ition. b. Consideration of the 1978-82 Cip components and their construction c, pevelgment of a departmental track record relative to parks operations and maintenance. 4) If Central Park is developed, staff continues to recoi=nd financing construction. through bonds and grants 5) Because of economics of oottstructian, staff continues to support develoument of tate site in total at one time as opposed to staggered -staged construction over a period of several gears,. This theory has peon supported in the past by the Council , Co"lli ssion and. Staff. 6) Several techniques and mentods were used in the promotion of the, Central Patel; Bond Election: at Plymouth Report b. large information tabel of d c. Small information sheet dealing with key questions d. Public information rneetings e; newspaper editorials f. hozaeowners Associations or neighborhood meetings g. Green "support" flyer Staff believes that the public had: every opportunity co become involved anchor informed on the issue and voted not out of ignorance but rather out of a "feeling" relative to a departmental image., Staff bel'i'eves some refinements could be made relative to materials distribution: Father than conducting public inform tion meetings, staff suggests an intensified effort be made in conducting neighborhood. Homeowners Association meetinns. 7) If Homeowners Associations/neighborhoods were contacted earlyl a support base could be developed to assist with promotion of the election. Or, former comvn ssion members could be contacted for SUPP 't. Pace3` January 6, 1978! 8y) A survey mai,} have merit if the: correct information, is sought and if the instrument contains validity and reliability. A survey could help interpret why the 1977 election did not pass; where and what the opposition was.. A survey could help interpret the campaign strengths/weaknesses, A survey is definitely not a panacea but developed and implemented correctly it can become an invaluable asset to aid decision making,. Staff would support the, use of a survey to aid in decision making relative to future bond elections. In sun!mary, staff believes that, Central Park is still a valid issue to place before the electorate but before doing so several key questions must be answered prior to attempting the election, Three major areas in which the. questions fall are: strategy, tactics and organizational concepts, The Part. and Recreation Advisory Commission no doubt has otherquestions which need answers. In any event, staff requests the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission's action in the form of a decision regarding: 1 Should Central, Park 2) Should Central Park 3) When should Central be developed? be developed through Park be developed? a bond issuance requiring an election? r t W c tt ` a y[ , l `R,.M k r i M 4 x+El n1 4 Vtt.\!, h.M i. • \. ! ,a 11 W ,r" -c" W tNtvR4A1 NAtVIts, uveae ara>;rs t t CDN r—o"R 4 Y tj•a ..»c zcrwcv sC `'# g^k r, la ,... >rt/tiN: 14 af N r 'S y•. +\ y, "1* !)t f Y e : W ,:,.. lt per\ ` ;} J _ ` A a ,+ ; v N +•.N : . F ,;,'`° r• » ,. ,'1^y ,` t1uP.i fir... R i,,.(, a „ ;. ir+tWl. , { AA N, u . W a v.. «+, r. +. ti r. • y 1' ` t Va+W+ e `.\T .*`;•,```: L Ft. v ! IDiCA ilIL31 + kLmrs 1CDnitL[ wood"+ t«. • n rCiett+, --' tw lw.as ayyw \\t kK, . h nk" _` r.«t ,'t-,...,,„.."-,,.,. , s. v0 ' ..:":. 1....t * [. c.w V '.s-. .: .../ :<..." ,..R:ac»..*=.r "•",.4_ E i1C C . k ,a LW -+r. V,._-vc.....--i, '. w w:.x-x'` !• ...^-'rti. ' A tll [..r,I - t•a f Aa,Sv y`"'—•+-vti v . ti#rco".W %'L.w` .r".." ,=. '^+ } 0.1 fY "'. t wXtWP. r1Y 1. 8 t lw. r r!f ,„r''t rrV 4M r.11Aly ., .. x` _.+ • a..,.w< ,.\ '.. i •C r'a a{^ i11 rtitiJt' 44, plymbuth t central park m:1 tl@& RI, ommq: Tum -0— r.r.. # A U At . W -k". a N CITY OF PLYMOUTH, 3&'S I'ARBOR LANE, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA a5el! TELEPHONE (612) 559.2803 fI M. , QATC. January 6, 1978 Toz Park and Recre tton Advisory Commission Fa0Mz Jon J. Bore., Director of :Parks and Recreation SUBJECT* Trails Pri uary 6, 1978 Page 2 Staff, in working with the Plymouth Polars and the Northwest Trail Association is. in the process of acquiring State of Minnesota CMN DOT) approval to develop a: snowmobile corridor along bath sides of TH55 extending from northwest to southeast from; the west city limits to the; east city limits. A review of priorities as related to the aforetrentioned corridors when viewed from areas of respui,sibilitlos should help to place prlcorities in perspective. Multi -use Corridors; - Items which are primarily the responsibility of others ire as follows. County 1 cross comittri ty Rogional corridor County, 24 and County 9 cross community Gleason Lake Collector Centurion Company and Van Ceckhout to be. completed by 12,48 Elm Creek Regional Rikewav Intersections 3, TN 55 and South Shore Drive 4. County 24 and TH 101 5. TN 55 6. TN 55 and County Road 9 0. Vicksburg and Shenandoah Lanes Luce Line TH 55 at. Fernbrook and Xenium Ri. ewky Construction County 73 from County 15 to City limits Ridgeraomit Ave. - Assi'stanco from Minnetonka Temporary Bike Routes a., County 9 (TH 55 to 1-494) b County 49 from Maple Grove to County 10 Snovmiobile Intersections a, none shared. b, intersections 1-8 shares= with horthwnst Trail Association Snoigmobile Trails 1-7 shared cons.trLtctiott Horse trail in 4ersecti ons A. and. B none shared' l,rse trail construction 5. Regional Trail A review of the i tems which ei ther share costs; or are not tai thin Plymouth's area of responsibility reveals a glide varilety of items eligible for Plymouth's involvement. Page 3. Janue'ry 6, 1978 There are 81 miles of proposed trails with approximately 10.5 in place. Of the 81 proposed miles, 20 are Regional', 20 are Cross` Community, 20 are Collectors and 21 are local Trails, Of M, 10.5 in place, 1.5 are Regional, .S are Cross Community, IS are Collectors and 5.Q are local trails, During the 19178-82 CIP $144,000 "local dollars" are programmed for trail. development expenditures. Staff is concerned with development of trails when other, capital improvement projects may havea. higher priority relative to total department development and in the fact that serveral GTP grant applications for 1978did not receive funding. For these Projects to be constructed, cuts will have to be made someplace and staff believes more of a positive impact can be trade through parks development as opposed to trailsR development. Therefore staff will prepare a Noised Parks CIP reflecting a parks development program, StafF therefore desires a moratorium on trail development until there are sites to develop trails to. Staff would like to see the existing trails better identified and marked. TO: F ROW SUBJEOTt CITY CSF PLYMOUTH 8 3025 HARBOR LANE, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55441 TELEPHONE (612) 559.2800 Y 1 January 6, 1,978 Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Jon. J. Born, Director of Parks and Recreation Oakwood Community Playfield The following correspondence was directed to Captain Dennis Robbie by W. James G. Willis, City Manager indicated the City's request for National Guard assistance in developing the Oakwood Community Playfield, Staff is preparing corresondence directed to the City Council requesting authorization to develop design concepts for community playfields at Oakwood, LaCompte Green and the northeast site. 1 CETT O PLYINOUM i December 30, 1977 Captain Dennis Robbie Commr,ding Officer iieadquartors and Headquarters Company 367th Engineering Battalion Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 55111 Dear Captain Robbie: The. City of Plymouth is c:t=cntl.y- planning, for the construction of a. community park and playfield on a site, of approximately 19 acres, This site is being cq aired from the Wayzata School 11istrict and is adjacent to their Oakv, )od: Elementary School here in Plymouth. An important pa -x;.- of this bark imp— cove-meat project will involve the m ming of a. substantial amount: of dirt'. on, tlxc site., It: has boon brought to ray attention that the. National Guard: h«s on previous occasion undertaken community projects involving the )loving of dirt for public projects. I would request that you consider wort-ing with officitzls of. the City of Plymouth as we plan fov the i proveiaent of the Oakwood comunit), pari: situ with the hope in mind that: your fovces would be able to undert:aka a substall-4 tial portion of the earth, preparation. If you believe that this work project would fulfila training, and other needs of your units, e would be pleased to work with you to provide a worthwhile project:. Yours truly, W `J`--7'S-r. trii s' G. Willis C J&inager JG11 j f. f cc,. Jon Horn -- Chuck Dillcrud a".?811ARBOR i.ANIE. PLYMOUTH, ,tlN:r$t?`I't:f5=;41 '1rlL'HdONE (612) 559.28U0 CITE' OF PLYMOUTH 9 4 3025 HARBOR LANE, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55441 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 DATE: January 6, 1978 TO: Park and Recreation. Advisory 'Commission FROM. Jon. J.. Born, Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Grant Applications 1978 The attachedmemo directed to Chuck Gi1lerud, Planning Director illustrates the fact that the 1978 CIP is in jeopardy in that the grants: applied for we're not, reeei:ved The attached memo illustrates the 19:8 parks CIP, grant proposals and an analysis of the grants funding process.. CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3025 HARBOR. LANE, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 554; TELEPHONE (61.2) 559-2800 QATC January 4 1978 TO: Charles Di ll erud FROM Jon. Born SUBJECT: Grant Applications The 1,978 Parks C.I.P. reflects $227,000 in proposed improvements. Of this total, $113,500 (50%) was in State/Federal grants to assist in development. The list illustrates the proposed improvements, cost estimates, and sources of funds. A. Parks (LAWCON) Grants Local Total 1. Zachary Lane Cor;ni- Pl ayf iel d 670 SCO 9 00 2. La Compte Corm.. Pl ayf el d 30,000 10,000 409000 B. Trails (in Parks) (LAWCOR) 1. Meadow Lawn 4,400 4,400 88"800 Imperial Hills 1,015 11015: L,030 C. Trails (on Public R,O.W.) (MW D.O.T.) 1.; Niagra Ln. 16,960 25,440 42,400 2. Cty. 6 Underpass 660 990 1,650 3. Grean Oaks to Imperial hills 39724 5,586 9,3'10 40, Signs 350 350 5.: Design 2,126 2,126 D. Other, improvewnts 1. Central Dark. Acq. 35,000 2 Special 29000 3., Creekwood Neighborhood Park 109000 S.W. Comm. Playfiel'd 4. Design - Dev. 10,000 Items Al & A2 were revievied and ranked 12th 13th by the State Planning Agency for funding in, 1978. However, fund revenues were available to fund only the top seven. (7) projects which were submitted by the communities other than Plymouth. The top seven (7) are as follows: 1 Shingle Creek - Brooklyn Paris 2. Laddie. Lake-'6'laine 3. Hidden Halley - Savage 4. Central Park - Inver Grove Heights: 5. Lotus Lake. - Chanhassen 6. Pat°i ck Eagan - pagan 7. Weaver Lake - Maple Grove January 4, 1978 Memo page 2 Attachment l illustrates the rankings and estimated: costs while. attachment: 2 illustrates the narratives associated with the projects which were recammendpd for funding. Out of 38 applications, seven (7') were recommended for fundin•,, The. Community Pl ayfi'el d applications for Plymouth ranked high in accessab i' ity and need'. Of the top seven, two ranked high in preservation of natural resources, two ` inked high in access to water, two ranked high in recreation potential and one rank,.d high in several factors. Attachment 3 illustrates the criteria utilized i rt ranking the projects and the points awarded Plyr!zuth's applications.. Staff made application for grants, for trails in parks for B1 and 62. Attachment<. 4 illustrates correspondence notifying staff that the City of Plymou4h`s request. was not funded as we were ranked 15th out of 30 applications, Staff has trade application to the Minnesota Department of Transportation for trails on public night of Way.. The appl i cati ors will receive final review in either uanuary or February, 1578. In impact, & dollar magnitude, the trails in parks. do not have the impact that the Comanuni ty P'l ayfiel ds do. Therefore, staff is faced with attempting to develop two playfields (NE. area & La Compte) without the assi!-Rance of grants to defray local expenses. It was Lstimatcd that both sites would total $130,000 for develcnaant NE Area: $90,000' and La Compte: $0,000)-, The ([:rants ;ure for $97,500 and the 1ocz match was to be $3,12,500. Several Icy questions ovist be r aol ved prior to 7ttc`.i t i nc, to the 1979 Park's Capitill. Tmproveoinent Program. 1. Why did the grant applications not receive funding? 2. What do tre aced to. do differently for the funding success of subsequent appl,cations if anything? 3. L,hat developmental opt hxZ-,, are opc:n!closed now that the grants will not be received? 4. Should subsequent CIP's be prepare1 differently relative to "Cho. iahilosop y of granas and localfunding? Our applications did not receive. funding primarily because of two factors: i. 'The abundance of quality of appl i ciltions. 2. 'ihe charge in percentage distribution of funds from 1977 to 1978 relative to fully developed areas (38,00 to 490) and areas of planned urban'izat'ion 38% to 30%)R January 4, 1978 Memo page 3 A review of attachment 4 illustrates, that of a total score of 105, our applicationo, received 55 points. Our weakest. areas., relative o points awarded, were fiscal affort index, protection of natural resources, access to water, health and safety to users:, maste, plan/site. plan and provision of deficiencies. The fatter item, even though playfields are rated by the SCORP as a deficiency, the components of i; playfield proposal must he rated deficiencies by SCORP to be awarded maX3munt, points. Now can we improve subsequent applications? 1. Present input relative to percentages and criteria at Metro Council Criteria Meeting in March/April., 1978. 2. prepare site plans for proposals.. 3. Involve citizens with letters and attach, to applications i.e.. athletic groups, H.O.A.'s, etc.) What options are av rilable to fund the: two playfields totaling an estimated 130,000? 1. Localfunds $32,500 2. CDRS (Unspecified/' Non -al Incated) 54,000 3 Creekwood 'Nei keboehai d 10,010 4 .. Trills .4.10" D, total $120,500 I propose that. funds for Creekwood Neighborhood Park and trail funds be realloca4c.d for Co=unity Parks. At -the sane time I propose a reduced: level of develol mant tc coincide to funds actually available. Further,, I recommend that the philosophy towards grants and the CIP h, revised to reflect the fact that grt.nts are not a sure bet for funding assistance. I reco.ar;wnd that ititure CIP's be prepared on the assumption that grana, will be applied for but i'f not received that souryes of local funding will be assured. Without this assurance of funding, the CIP is in constant jeopardy and does not allose for continuity or progressive parks development cosipatable. to Community needs. 4 TADLS Iv CC191NED MMKING -- STATE .PUNNNING AG ,iCY lit) : eT 7POT.T^^t..v COLTUC.Z.L* r^ully Developed Area Approx nate Allocation M2,000(49%)) c. / iiou SPA Project 2' 1 3 1. Marshall -Webster - St. Paul Ref. 249.97' 5 5 1 2, Airport Site - So,. St. Paul :-jef. #500?, 4' 4 6 3. Dunning Recreation Area - St. Paul ltof. 14994119 - 2 4. Orchard Park - St. Paull ac -f. 449983395. Parc Site Wiest Robbinsc ale Ref,, 049Q46756. Taft P -t k - Rich ,ald Ref, T499112117. Shingle Cree; Brooklyn Ceate- Refs r.t34610104B. Athletic Fields--.Gea'olis Par:: .F,d' Ref. :9783879. Case & Duluth ---St. Paull' :5ef. 4 995761010. Langford Pork -- St. Paul! Ref. x4996111111.: Hale/Armatace, Minneipolis4 Ret. 44977 Area of Planned Ur-banization Approximate Allocation* if l000 (3 0,1;) 6. 2 5 1. Shincjle Creek Broot-lyn Parr Re, =48364, i 7 2. Laddie Lake B?aireY'd Ref. ;48772623. Bidden, Valley Savage Ref, '485314834. Central. Park - Inver Grove Yeigz s Rei'. 449109S4S. Lot.Vs Lake - Chanhassen Ret`, 4494£ 20 15 1 6. Patrick Sagan Eagan Ref. =49541, 7 9 7. Feaver Lake Maple, Grave Ref. '-497110116S. Vivian 8horevie,v Reil, 44916.E a 7 4 16 9. Central Park - Roseville Rex 449253121411. Woodridge Cottage Grave L'3 Rev. 44E902522101? Zachary Mayfield - Plyr..m th Ref. 14:901lfi1.6 15 14. R=sev Co. Rnviron.ter<tal Sur)port Pac,'zage Ref. 141987115301$, 1%1.chae1 Lane maplawood3 R -f. 4.4976333416. Civic Center - ;i nnet 1 1, 3 R; j , 14984S, 16 4_4 13 17. Buchanan Spri.rig Lake Park Fief. -49-115102919, Manor Park - Shorewood 'Ref. 4sOQ1. 8 1': 26 20. Shwmee Park: - woocbury .Re'. -492119124 ?.1. NiLchall La%a Ec kA Prai-le 5F. Rex. '4925C1722. Ncynolds Playgrou;t:. Blo' inatun Rr>_ 11885825. 2 1-9 23, I"riendly Hil?s Pt :;k en; -.ta Iit*A,_-hos333 11 24. va nais iiei ht` RC`. 450 C,3 M DUPJAC;V,C1`tE AK1L1Ci>V1CiS r=%l COM"W31TI<t',S PlItZKED:. 10. Ene;les Playf.ie.ld - Maple Grove fief. 44970 13:. L Coro4e PlaYfield &*lynouth Ref. J';9*0b1, B18,. Shenrocc - ShOrevieW 17af. e4916s P:;,,:,lINING APP,LYC.Ve1OUS HcXnigh4 Field-V'o.St,P .ul,. RQf. 94.986 17alley Pa k-Xandota Heights, Ref. k492.50 Rice Lt%e-Golder, 'la;lley, Ref. =d915 t.xrie Park-4.andotj Heights, Ref. &4925B Edaaek,mter-iriulev, Ref. 44960: Crai9/CCY,=0Z-,s/T,W't2'. \o_irhboxhco.€ P:s-P=idlay, Ret. Total Project Cost 252,450 400,000 207,360 197,500 55,400 10,000 180,000 385,,000 123,200 86,900 50,000 620,250 100,000 16'0,000 2.5,000 300,000 140,500 130,000 98,770 300,000 219,230. 90,000 220,000 100,000 298,688 87,400 45,007 JA Om) 1rvsGr'O xG, OC;t Vent wort`x PIeA-mendota 11C.1Qr Victoria Co Z.111nity Part -Victor a. ef,: -r4906NorthPar?;-,:endota FFeirhts, lief'. 64925.. Studer Part Excelsior, ti.cf. 4»111 x4961 Outdoor Ar..-h=-ThLatre-Ne F:c ,, r. f . t"S70 Cheri Lar e-Vridloy" Re -C. x4960i't Z:reestaniina G'rototh Cente_s Agproxir ate A],locatior_ 000(153)) 2 1 2 2 1. O'Dowd Lake, - Shakopee Ref. 7-%5000 130,000 3 4 3 1 2. Send Point Beach - Prior Lake ref. 14852 62,800 4 3 5 3. 4, P-osesrount Reis; 14926 125,000 5' 6 4 Sunny acres - Anoka Rc-4., 44941 49,E20 6 5 5. Fountain Park - Belle nlaine Ref. x5014 13,50066. City dump - .lordan* Pei. :5114 100,620 Rural Approxima to A110C-11,ion $108,000( 5 .) 2 3 1 1, Reid Paz; - L;Ilm El a Rpi'. =4901o' 2 2, 2.« Dayton Sitc 3 ReZ 100,000 G 1 5 1 4 19 3. S. 4931' Loretto Al::a,'.k tic Field - Loretta *ci. u.. k`ta.:c';s Trn12 40,000 12 9 l.L. 1'"a:r. - S'.':. Francis Raf. Lak:land - Re:`.. 14969 44958 51,600 15, 8 35 3 8 12. Rairhat, Pa~: p1ar.,t t Lri: - :4753 1,61000 17 13. Randolph -: Reg. 4.J23. 201OU0 5543.00 26- TABLE 2R TABLE IV (continued) - Ar-MZulm "TL2CATSChS LinzoA Park - Linwood - Ref, f,922' uufis:i park -Lake Elmo Ref.46ir aantrevil, Park - Lahe Elmo 1' Rol°. $4968 Dayton, Site 2 . Ref. :4986 Norc: od - Pei. ±4986; Pobble Park rake Elmo Tabl,yn, Park Lake Elmo 11'1 Pete's Fill Elco Hayton site 1 Pioncer Memorial park - 1.arsiian 5JACksonPark - :,ackson 5 Wwestc.00d Hill_ - St. Louis Park - Was submitted. for k553,00o :or an ent ron«a_rtal educationbuild -,ng- (S5Qo,Ooo) and $55,00o for trails.. The building is ineligible and; t:je trails ::erea,valuated and ranked under the trail funding program; Bassett Creek Park - Crystal - was submitted for tennis co=:.tts anti trails. These have been. ranked, Uner EF other respective grunt programs. Oakdale Parr; - Oakdale. - has sub:;iitted for trail's only. _Pis project WaSr ranked under the trailfunsgprogrzua, Anoka County submitted an applicatioirLot Linood Island Pea:onal Part . V.."s p=ojedt is ineligibleduetobeingregionalandthereorewzsunr .. An.. 1) These pwojec's involve developing athletic courts c. rrorttion of file pplicction wasrankedundertheathleticcourt. grant program, 2) Lurniilg.-St- Prul involved developing tennis courts. At the same t -me ;;he st. Paul SchoolDistrictF625submittedanapplicationfordevelopmento: tiLnnis courts througz theath1C ` is CCUs t gams pr'C)gram, lire SM., Paulaplll C=t'Q:r EoI t R ilii LS 44i':.'. S Ira., Fa : the at'r15 ei:ic court gi4"it Z)rogr-113. Only om- 0' -"t -he t., o at t?';r .Z'y will 1,,' :,,ul-.e.t'Ci :Cts' development of Coures at Donning. T--O e 'a l portions of tileso applicz;wiazxs a=che: rankad under: the trail grz;zit progrz- .. The sMinncaVoliz Park Hord ctt5:,.i.tttd tierce apF,:ea Park arell is incl gable- as regiiaas. Ont nlre appl-cat 1 roc l'7i r .; f cn.3 w. -s rnrazdzae- '"`1e =wpcalir., .ic 1s forathiet-5c field lighting and totlots at 11z:le/Uiaz,o.ti and az,;,t111ge partially in-oi iiCd«Ca:LL5 aiC'Qlon,', tom. s:r''". Tl105L'r1Ltr't`.loYr.a 06 the: s1J+1 `,Ct;.:Ci.^. at IeakC:Qiteim2,s involve Ly"i:%Zti'. IOCal, not icgiOnal, =.,Creation items. The athictic eld lc -ht,, r, c^,G 4ot'.o' S ,>kG T tL`.,r, not iundad undtx regional funds and 'therefore sieould ^ot be deleted as: Leir.g ii cliGible , i 5) The Council's be=rrlo,:me:'t rrant;::ork Chewer discourages, deve oT:zxit in that '-Rural .C vice Aro The Prami:ewoxk, Chapter urges that` urban g_o.rth outside the -Metropolitan Urban Scrrvice Ar6a. and Freestanding Grot,tix Centers ta:;e.1, place in rural to:.n cezlie;-s. Thereforee in support of the, -O, policy Concepts, applications iron rua1Z tos.;i cenleas ttr•e rinked higher than applications in, the, remainder of the rencra2 rural tzsa area. MIn 4 M1. Y +ami.. a « w w. .. M FR.r» - w .. .. a,,.w.. " .. R.. Rw y w\.• - rh,s r.ay . w. s a Shingle Creek Brooklyn 'ark $180,000 ?a`, !4856 The C-Ity of Brooklyn ?ark is requesting f-unds for the acquisition and davelopm nt of. 80 aces of addEt onal land in the Shingle Creek Park Project. Plans i•aclud.c the4 devaloaLcnC o: d :?g and wildlife ares, rascoration of naxshlands, trail systea lo V the cree-c'res;toration, beautification and dredging or Shingle C..reek, dol;rn stream, rishin +3 ,:2£5, refovescaatick-i saloti- the creek. Signs. picki-v- 3C7. t`•Z?r. observa.ti'on are s and ,v eral r-st areas, bLi project r --*s high in protection of natural resources. The'trail develqm-mrat °par,.tion -,as re+Fe : ed, to the trail grant proGrzt:4- Lataddie Lace Sla=-i-me - S100.000 hey:. ' x377 The City of Bla a is reqtastinS devalC."Ct.ent v, -,ds for Laddie Lako Inclit ed in the ,lass for develooment a_a a pa;:sing lots, park shelter build?ng. trail,,: and boar; :: Ik, lardscapLa;r:. two to-maiscourts, play3.ound. „iauipme ;t a, kal'lfit,OL,d, cancra landing and dock, observation, build nQ, sur, and renc ,-a1. A ll project ranked high in accessibility, need and SCO*? deficiency saUsfactioV.. The ath4et c cot is and trails were referred to the athletic coux t Za mes and trti.l grant. programs. Riddeti `Talley Sam*ase - $160.000 - hef =!55 _,.. The City of Sara -e is requesting funds for the acquisition, of 35 acrL:. of land to be designated as rrridden valley Pa;k, on tce C= d a t\i Vf.r, Rec=eation;-.1. urea` 4 o,. posed for tllhe. pzrk inzl}ude carpi11f-,, s!jdj:t-ItOaSoo---iln- uicn2.cldn-- , and bY-,* anal crots-coua-cry ski inr trails, bilis project. macs high is creed.. --creation potent aZ. ani site s•\:itah_li.ty. Cie —ral '?ark - Tn%,er Grove iaeit"t-Its $25.000 h. keF 4910 1;n4 1 l•.rOVe Ha2CiltS i,S XCQL''Cstlidg y4.1d_• to aL...;u .r.c' 10 a.,..r lZr t'•" be, desigr:ated ,ice Cr.,i hall Paa= Z!L` ;l4: a_` tr uL1 . «='.^=C:«nN, 5i:a cipa, cour. a9 t: i des Va'iS.-%e r:•cr <:t«c' . T1:15 prC`JfCc`=-x.;.. bLzb rf.'CrC.a;l»zoLl noGa;:l4zal silo preservation OI: i.-,.11+i'a6l ZC«Cat"' .,. 0,010 - 830 1g63beawC`:'1_~. »{La. -sen y.......... ------•• r--' 4. rile citL of CE si:z a_ssen is requestiu-afunds to acquire. 30 acres or I<.LtG on L, L*r :!« to be des1:2Qa. IfP= park t:,fia., i< 1:eAa,i.oLlr 3 11 sc$ pro,)osCf: is z he Dal.,. 2 basc!.aI shoeir£:,, And p= laC1 121e.. This project T' 4:s hi -0111.`t ;pZOV'ItI.`11 access11-o water an 1::LL 4+U1 t 1L;_"`? i Y rLl .i'a'a'» ..+.jam• 0.0n1aC:ick Ea4t PzLr- mF `Q SG Tne City of £a -an. is recuesti:r. funds for tha acquisition, of 34 acres of nddztic, ;a ` park tar:cl c '?'atrick :pagan Park. Tha s a citi.on. will, imPrOVe' access to the pazk :om the west a.m :supply needed area for a playFrouzdr Recreational uses oraieos t', for Caw park zu cc rc avid field, ga=es, nature srucy. hiking, sciing And p aigro=d acc:.viries. Tb.e project r.xnks high in.rec-cat'on pQrent asl and suLtabil,ty'. J'L30 .'J':30 'J.ei -''!,971 is `` c....------=-•'-""" c ,: :, V „, n..... - -- -a : 1 1 ** f ) .+f wIr i w} \Trevi C o }, a 4 fi..ae' O ./cmiti%a.,w % 1 kt: arVm•. R4 Ctzv o 'e ,s rQV a C.^. . i..1, 4..£1, a i.Jt'1 0. C;7 [ <? k.. _T+.a'T Cl0 mann piaas, Eo CCtf' 3 -a crag. t?c, , k Lni: IuLe 3 J'' :a:.ca7`use a! 1C: cc—.- Par'- c - .- 4.Trzy. ,avre;Rn lot, dOC}ii$ LIi Gh G 2 u $%gi ld, pla}t.`i?L2LaG;. <.CIG` a::lC sCc?tSTr.. alts nraiRt}c`ci =znks igh lit L: ed, brovid;-n!r access a0 :.a!'=r. an tt.CS.C:ICLC r I:AWCON XND LC L? CRAN7 C.zz •!.1LA ria for Acqqui3irior. and. Deveio` .enc Applicants Fiscal E_tort Ladex X Per Canit&l Recreation Expenditures B. S,atus..o« Local Gave==ert Services 1.. Abil tla Zo Maintain Z. Caoi'tal, Faro e. e:1C Prot -=i and budget ado, ted p:Jjecr tusc be n-cluded for ooi.:.;.$) 3. Rtgul,ations for procectia o: naca: al 'resources C. Citizen parelc:ipation in project or plan dei:elowr-en:.: D. Serji-e Area M. 1. Accessible by fooc 2. Azc ss .b? e by bit- c 3. Accessible by c= 4. Accessible by gcblzc sper-_cica Sa mac. l 'ear-, I. A. -D. i.. C -Zite,r:,a, A'Or 2cquiaitio' Projects E. deed rte aroject 1. "cgLisitioil will hel- p " tiS y an overall def t:«pT1GyillthattypeQrfacil _y Ln exi:C _n5syst=. Acq,,%' Slt ioa vi.11 21:113: a<.t:.£ a'r" u ire zic, C. -_y, bu i t1.i o: t:lr_ tr t: of t)-_OjeCL ilt e: i^tc-C 4, 1* i e:U i.0 Cl ^. '£ ls» w old is ',s to Cutr • is needs C. Pro je.rc C;::r ctcr.wics 1, Site is well SW CBd E= recl-'e tion t35r in: ter -as of soils, slopes, Veget-tion, =j o.:hier ::hy, oa.I 7. Sate <_s adjacent to na,cei• bod? .es or Nater couwses. 3- Sita X.$ nilvsically suited T,o =14 cip"c- <?Gf I V':C:•r L`zcG . 4. tiCC12A"iZC''on -;ill t^.reserva, or restore uat*uraZ 3. Site is consistant: with inLer;kd Use. 6. A pralitUna:7 --ite plan has been developed to sho 1Q- es*rct kcn-Awc. POiNiS 3 3 a S 5 Mlni C Pla - C L:.re;.a:- Soca! 1V. f:cici rR Pax' 1' e 3 Gi 1 1 3 4 t- 4 3 0. l 4 4 3 0 p 1 1 3, 31 points 15 IQ I0 i l? 1p site and activiti relaci.onship 5 Subtotal Pact Ii, -G. 74 coirits. Crier ;,. Zor Development Projects eed f I. Dev%,lonment :ill sac._sf^j ooiit^.ra l 4e' Eicf-enc? i.l the 2t:•:::lg system. ]. i Z. Jev e? otMenc will satis:y overall ae iciuoc r x 1 -.ha i }2a a : 91213 :lCZ .Il L..e 2 2 71v S S.Cy. % " a S'.=t:t•:_ e :feed !or P. -c07 :c 014 3 0 l .. t Ui• r1'1u n f i' 1C. Project C.haracteri s tics rOINTS 1 3 s .rr S will per etuate. protect, arc restpte, natural. irc characte mastics la 2, (Project Will prey%dn arcexs to U. Vt::r bpdicx ca: wat r. caau=as to 3. I'rojett is c ccessary J."or halt', ,%nd sa t; of users Q. PrOJ e4c vi ll -prov-ide for w•erzeati a zct:,` ty deMi- C1K?2;C."..es Zar tt:1 x.;3or :tl:1t` rive z1au` 5. A ma$ter plat: 01 t le $ to haa: been deNejoped includ n phasinS or cevelopmeat: xC , i. Sitcftct%i.y re]t:iansiiio is: consistent atad wpcll,, suited. for, intc-acted dLve at nt+red relrpt;:tt Io Su +t atal 2C. -At 111. I. X. 74 points M zo::us °OIN S, Awarded ar Catmissioaks Reco=eltda.tion Sit ti 1. ` ,;nt dar.e a i ein ]cyst to I1a-el t~rt; varus oizts Project: is an e-\istirS tar..lity being redeveloaed to i;;cicdatheottitit}= naecls; o the cldarlY and t;ha hand-cap.+ec , 5 f i' s .lf. MINNESOTA, -WTATt PtAMM1Mr, A6EMc1C • cAmioL iQUA.RE twOING i $,T. 'PAUI M1NNLS0TA M101 k QNEMNVI December 1a, 1977` Mr, Jots ftmi 7 Di rector, Parks & Racreati:n 3G?5 Harbord Rlywuth P nnc ata 5: 41 -' s La:x; RE: Trail Development Grant Application city Of Fl3imouth' Dear Mr. porn; The. Office of T,ocal and Urban Affairs has now completed screening, applications for 1978 trail applications in acco7clznce witil st;1te rules and recomend:ations of t1le .metropolitan, cotancil In addition, the Metropolitan Council m aviewed and evaluated your application and provided us with a priority ran kin, of all projects. Unfortunately, your application did not rank high enough for funding this spring,. Withll Moro ap l cat .ons tha, do? last; for fundinq rust be made. T k-exa into consi3erz;tioa 121 il wkia'cr this deterAiration were such factors as; miniza with inconpatible activitiestaccess to tau ::tan 1,g ,at uraa or man --made. featuxes f, 'grails that:, 1.i j -.k e' _sting or x lpns a t.raa 3. systei'asr fewest miJes or nearjzy facilitics, aoress:i ai,la.i=Y e: el a.va lab li-Ly ,o the general pnblic. tfhe: Ratropolit an Coo -no- 1 also rankod the applications using and thy: cxt;-lit to which housing objectives are being xoit. in the coil wilitie tp al,ti yp for the graft:. ` Attached is a, list of projects Hiatt are being funded for spring 191a Gor3stY »ct ons If you desire sac ditional infoxiu tion concerning tt 7.,a pj.-oje,:t or assistance on mature groje t applications, please contact the 1'a,rks and, Recreation -Grants Section, OffIce of Local and Urban Affairs, State Planning agency=. St. Paul., Minnesota (61,^/2 11G 4703) 57.racer W I -- Ott Ce f cle Enclosure Director and Urban. Af ;L irs AN CQUAL OPPORTUNITY EW..FLOY[ M wrz ict or LoCAA AND UREAN AFFAIRS PARKSAND RECREATION GRA14TS SECTION FX 1978 TMILS LAWCON/BONDINC riceLrck Area I,jilly Ikveloped Areas rs ar Pro`i ect a Trac wrz ict or LoCAA AND UREAN AFFAIRS PARKSAND RECREATION GRA14TS SECTION FX 1978 TMILS LAWCON/BONDINC riceLrck Area I,jilly Ikveloped Areas rs ar Pro`i ect Tvme, of Trac 1, Crystal Bassetl Creek Hiking` Pebble Park 2. Brooklyn Center Shingle Creek Biking, Hiking 3, Hopkins Valley Park Biking, Hiking 44 5t.. Paul Furness Parkway Biking, Hiking 5., m1nneapolis zhing-Le Creek. Bik 4ng I Hik atj 6 Ropkins Oak Park Biking, Hiking 7. Rai%£ .e ,d stood Lake H`ikinq, Wheelchair 8' St.. .Louis r -ark Westwood IIS.' 1s Hiking 9. Hopkins Shady Oak 13iking Iliking B. Planned. GrbarizatiOn Areas l.. Blaine oak Ridge Comm 'earl: Biking, CC Skiing, Hikin l Har, an Rahn..-Tlioma,s Lake Biking, Hiking Loci c Park oakd l"'.- Park Bi Ungzag T?'ik.*%nq C v.Mtti C -CWT tors i.#.I A,4t\ jt U011'.4,.rcl4 1t !! Tahpa 7. 4 D., Rural Areas I rake E1,1110 sunfish Lake Pax'k Biking, CC: Sly 5XKjr llik ng 2, Lake-E1mc, Pebble Park Hiking, Hiking .. 3.: Lake Lla, So Mash Co Landf—a l CC Skiing • , h. Lake rlWe Demoni--xevilla Park hiking 5. Lake 3311no Tahjl.ti•n Park rli iAlg,. Flik.ng w 11/23/77 w CITY CSF PLYMOUTH 10 3025 HARBOR: LANE, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55441 TELEPHONE (812) 559.2800 DATE< Januar 8, 1978 MEMO TO* Park and Recreation. Advisory Commission FROM; Jon J. Born, Director of 'Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: 1978-82 Parks CIP Staff has reviewed the 1978-82 Parks CIP based on the probability of obtaining grants to assist with development of the proposed projects. The projectproposals submitted for grant assistance: in 1978 Deere not funded as staff had hoped that they would be The problem appears to be the volume of other high quality applicants. and though Plymouth's applications ranked high., they did not rank high enough,to qualify for funding assistance. The: trend towards high quality applica- tions: does not appear to be declining and staff estimates that the volume of these applications will continue to increase and that fewer applications will be funded due to the dollar amount of the individual applications.. Grants have not been a sure thing" but are even more hazardous now to predict much less to base a CIP upon. In the past, Plymouth has developed the CIP assuming that the grants will be received, This philosophy works only when grants are received but when grants are not received, as with this year, the total CIP is placed in jeopardy,, Staff believes the CIP should be developed assuming that grants will not be received though applications for grants will be submitted. Therefore, future CIP's would reflect a large amount of "local` funds channel -ad towards development., If the grants were not received, the CIP would not be in jeopardy and if the grants were received:, a surplus in the CIP would result Staff considers some elements of the 1978-52 Parks CIP more important than other elements in terms of serving more of the population per dollar expended and recreation opportunities available. By not obtaining the grants as planned, the 1978 Parks CIP isseriously compromised in that $227,000 was proposed in projects with $113,500 being the grants matching share to the "local" funds of $113,500. Through an extension of reasoning, the entire 1978-82 Parks CIP is compromised. if the present CIP development philosophy is adhered: to and the trends being set for receipt of grants are true. Staff has considered the dilenxna.of the 1978. Parks. CIP and the composite 1978-82 Parks CIP and recommends a less aggressive approach to certain of the Parrs CIP elements by restructurinathe1978-82 Parks CIP relative to project sequencing and reliance upon grants. Staff has assumed that only "local" funds are of importance, andthat grants applications will be prepared, Therefore, rather than reflectinga1978.-8? Parks CIP of $1,345,000 with grants totaling $593,500 and "local" funds totaling $751,500, staff recommends a CIP reflecting projects totaling $751,500 and all but $54,000 coming from "local" funds be adopted. This reromilendation reduces the scope and magnitude of the 1973-82 Parks CIP but stays within the financial limits approved earlier by Council. page 2 January 6, 1978: Attachment I illustrates the approved 1978-82 Parks CIR cash flow. Attachment 2 illustrates staff's recommended revision to the 1978-82 Parks CIS' cash glow. Attention is drawn to the 12-31-77 balance which is larger than was estimated. in August, 1977 thereby resulting in a smaller deficit at the end of 1982 in the revised Parks CIP. Attachment 8 illustrates staff's revised Parks CIP proposal in terms of projects, sequence and source of funds. Attachment 4 illustrates the revisions, modifications or -deletions made to the 9-19-77 Parks CIP for the period from 1978 to 1982. The major changes, are reflected by the absence of a trails construction program, design of East. Medicine Lake Park, reduction in the central area corniunity playfield expenditures, deletion of the new NE community playfield and a centralized community park. In the latter instance, staff originally assumed the Parker's Lake site would have to be purchased; therefore the request for $140,000 in 1982. Staff realizes that revising the 1978-82 parks CIP is a dramatic step, however, it is a necessary one if the entire 1978-82 and subsequent Parks CIP's are not to be completely compromised. Staff requests your understanding of the problem; its magnitude and scope. The original Parks CIP proposed certain projects along with. grant funding assistance. Since the applications for 1978 were not approved and further in that the other 1978-82 CIP projects are similar, it would seem to indicate a low probability for grant funding assistance in the future for the 1978.82 Parks GIP Your support of the revised 1978-82 Parks CIP is requested. From here, staff will present the revision to the Planning Commission and ultimately to the Council for direction. Faced with the reality of the 1978 applications and the possibility offuture Parks CIP grants, staff recommends a less aggressive approach to the 1978-82 Parks CIP. Phis approach has resulted, in reducing the number, scope and magnitude of Parks capitol improvements and at the same time adhering to, the financial limits approved. by the City Council. An alternative would have been to adhere to the original 1978-82 Pares GIP and request further Council funding assistance to allow for rants not received'. Staff finds this to be an objectionable practice and prefers to adhere to the financial limits approved by Council thereby adhering to fiscal responsibility. Balances Balance 12-31-77 1978, Revenues 1978 Expenses Balance 12-31-78. 1979 Revenges 1979 Expenses Balance 12-31-79 1980 Revenues 1980 Expenses Balance 12.-31-80 1981 Revenues 1981 Expenses Balance 12-31-81 1982 Revenues 1982 Expenses Balance 12-31-52 Di s, dbuti on 1 PARK DEDICAT10R FUND CASH MW SU1141ARY A B Trails, Communi ty Central Parks b Park PlaYfields 0... 20,510 35,000 23,000' 35,000 68,500 0- 24,990) 35,000 23,000 35,000 72,006 0.-- 73,990) 35,000 23,000 35,000 1029000 0- 152,990) 351.000 23,000 351,000 57,000 0- 186,990) 35,000 23,000 35,000 67,000 0- 2309990). 5Q 33% u Q 9/19/77 A l* A Neighborhood Parks 19,360: 12,000 10,000, 21,850 12!000 80,000 46,150) 12,000. 40,000 74,150) 12,000 40400 102,150) 12,000 40,000 130,150) 0 17% To.als`x 40,360 70,000 113,500 3,1.40) 70,000 187,000 120,140) 70,000 177,000 227,140) 70,000 1:32?000 289,140) 70,000 142,000 351*140) Trial Balance 12-31-77 1978 Revenues 1978Expenses Balance 12-31-78 R 1979 Revenues 1979 Expenses Balance 12-31-79 1980 Revenues 1980 Expenses Belance 12-31-80 1981 Revenues 19811 Expenses Balance 12-31-•81 1982 Revenues 1982 Expenses Balance 1.2-31-82 REVI55D PARKS CIP CASH PLOW AS OF 1-6-78 33% Trails, 50% Communi ty 1,79 Central Parks h Neighborhood Park Playfields 64,111 67,957 8,969 35,000 23,100 111900 35,000 88,000 0- 64,111 3,057 20,869 35,000 23,100 11,900 359000: 102,000 80,000 64,111 75,643) 47,231) 35,000 23,100 11,900 35,000 128,500 40,000 64,111 181,243) 75,331) 35,000 23,100 110900 35,000 21000. 401000 64,111 160,143) 103,431) 35,,000 23,100 11000 35,000 21000 40,000 64,111 139,043) 131,531) 1 Assumes CORS Grant available in 1578 for expenses on NE Community Pl'ayflelds. This amount reflects "local" funds only 7 Total S141,,037 70,000 123,0001 88,037 70,000 217,000 58,963) 70,00 203,500 192,463) 70,000 77,000 199,463) 70,000 77,000 206,463)1 2 r r REVISED PARKS CIP A3 OF 1-6-78 ESTIMATED COSTS PARK DEDICATION FUND OTHER. 1978:; Central Park Acquisition Parks Special Funds LaCompte Green NE Community Playfield Deson Community Plavfeids 1979: Central "Trails & Park Com Parks NP 35,000 $35,000 2.000 21000 40,000 40,000 00000.0 36,,000 $54,000 CDRS in.nno 10.000 Central Park Acquisition $35,000 SN Community Playflel 1OO,0O0 Shiloh Neighborhood ',wk 40,000 Creekwood Neighborhood Park 40,000 Parks -Special Funds 2,Q00 217,000 35,000 l 00,000 Q0,000 40,000 2.000 1980 ; Central Park. Acquisition $ 35,000 $35,000 Community Playfield-Central area 126,,500 $126,500 Neighborhood Park. Construction 40,000 40,000 Parks Special funds 203,500 2,000 21000- 203,500$35,000--, 1981: Central Park Acquisition $ 35,000 $35,000 Neighborhood Park Construction 40,t?00 40,000 Parks Soeciai Funds 2,000 $ 21000 S 77.00 T5 2,000 S40,90 198? Central Park Acquisition $ 35,000 $35.000 Neighborhood, Park Construction 40,000 Parks Special Funds 2,000 _- $ 2 TOTALS 40,000 751,500 $175,000 $322,500 $200,000 54,000 DELECTIONS AND/OR MODIFICATIONS TO 1978-82 PARKS CIP AS OF 1-6178 ESTIMATED COST LOCAL GRANTS 1978 -Trail Constructlon, 40,000 240000 16,000 Creekwood Neighborhood Park 10 000 55 1000 10,000 14-000 6 1979 -Trails 500000 30,000 20,000 East Mt-licine Lake Park Design 30 000 UT 151000 tea QOQ 15 000 3?,0 0 1980 -Trails 40tO00 30,000 1 20,000 Conviuni ty Pl ayfi el d 73,500 24 500 49 000 1981 -Trails 50,000 301DOO 20,000 New NE Community P1aytield 100 G00 Q 25,000 T5,00 75,000 X95 1000. 1982 -Trails 50,OOO 30,000 20,000 Comm city Plalrfields 140,000 351000 105,000 TOTALS 19011000 $65,000 $ 25,000 593,500 $253,500 $340,000 4.