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.