Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPark and Recreation Advisory Commission Packet 06-12-1980Plymouth Park and %=eatica Mml issica regular Meeting of June 12-# 1980 Plymouth CLty Hall 0ouncil awkexs Time: 730 pvm. A 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of minutes 34 Visitor presentations: a. Athletic Association -representatives b. tethers - Doc, Mmaaell, c. Rick. Busch 4. report an past council actions a. Approved playfield contracts 5. Unfinished business a. Playfeld - update b. 1981 budget C. C.I.P. d. Vitt course - update 6. New, :business a., Zachary and kdgewunt playfield, b. Nw platy C. '%Icw P.T.P. d. 284 Commmity Education - Betty' update 7. Canm ssion presentation 8. Staff vomtamications 9. Adjournomt Minutes of the. Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, Nhy 1, 1980' The 'rear meetingof the Plymouth Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission was called to orde by Chairmari, Face ,at 7:.30 p.m.. on May 1, 1980 in ,he City Council Chanbers Director Blank inyroduced the new secretary in Parks and Recreation, Nancy Helgeson. Members present: Brass, Terry, Edwards, Chesebrough, Mullan IN *ers absent: Threinen Others present.: Frank. Dvorak., and staff of the Parks and Recreation Department; Eric Blank, Director; Jane Thorston, Recreation Supervisor; Rick Busch, Athletic Specialist, and Nancy Helg0son, Secretary, 7 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Chesebrough pointed out several misspellings in the minutes of April. 17, 1980; motion made to approve minutes by Commios over Edwards, seconded by Con ssioner 'ferry. Vote taken: All Ayes. 3. VISITOR PRESMATION Jane Thorston presented Quarterly Reports for Spring and Winter, and discussed new classes being offered. Commissioners had questions regarding increased enrollment in this year's classes, and how to make the public even more aware of programs being offered. Several suggestions were made. including a separate flyer inside the Plymouth Report, a brochure mailed out independently of the Plymouth.Report, flyers sent to area schools, ora Welcome Wagon, presentation for newcomers to Plymouth. Jane also mentioned that some community residents were interested in a Family Fare excursion on a larger scale; specifically a summer trip to Aspen. A local travel agency is willing to put together a package including air fare, lodging, and car rental for $250-300. Director Blank voiced concern that this program shoulcin.tt conflict with any already establishedagencies in Plymouth.. Rick Busch explained that he will be attending Athletic Association Board meetings in an, attempt to solidify the-rolationship between the Associations and the Parks', and Recreation Department. He further explained his role in Athletics and in Parks and.Recreation. In. the discussion that followed, several commissioners .felt that there needed to be more programs for youth and adults. Chairman Rice pointed out to the Commissionthat it is their responsibility to present to the. Council the leisure time needs of thecitizens of Plymouth and.that perhaps the content of the Recreation program needs to be changed.. It woes; decided that this item needs to; be put on a future agenda so that a. larger block of time can be devoted to this issue. Therefollowed soma discussion of which, athletic ;programs are sponsored by an Association and which are city sponsored. Comniss Chesebrough would like to see a small section of the Flymauth Report devo,,-d to the explanation of this division of sponsorship. Chairman Rice asked that the minutes reflect the Comnissim's appreciation for the presentations given by Rick and Jane. d REPORT ON PAST COUNCIL ACTIONS Playfields were yr»;%rented by consultants. to City Council and they werevery pleased. Their vm -n question was, were the Athletic Associations aware of any changes or alterations that have been: made in the preliminary concept plans. Park and Recreation Commission Regular Meeting - May 1,, 1980 Page 2 i The plans and.: specs went out for bid on the 19th, and the Council will award i bids on May 27th. Ground breaking should begin around the 9th of June. Several commissioners feel that the groundbreaking should have media coverage and other foms of advertising. Director Blank pointed out that at any new site for a park, a sign will read "Parks in Progress." Council approved.sale of bonds i at 7.31%-.. S. UNFINISUED BUSINESS i A. Discussion on vita courses. The Optimist Club is interested in working with - e- Clty 7m some way. Question was raised as to where first course should be placed: in playfields or neighborhood parks? Chairman. Rice asked, that three levels be considered in order to focus discussion: i, -does concept of vita course make sense; if concept makes sense, shouldn't it be formally reflected into the park tier system or trails; if it is part of the plan, where in terms of priority should it fit? Chairman Rice asked for a motion on concept of vita course; Commissioner Terry made motion to study it further and supports implementing it into one of the playfields Commissioner Chesebrough seconded motion. Vote taken: all Ayes. Further discussion involved where similar courses are now located, cost of maintaining courses, and how to prevent vandalism.. Comrnissio vers questioned where first course should be located.. After several suggestions, i' general consensus was that it should be at Fetnbrook site. Lotion made by Commissioner Edwards to put it in Fernbrook; Commissioner Terry seconded motion. Vote taken: all Ayes. B. Fla fieldUpdate. Commissioner Chesebrough questioned whether any additional land a to be purlased or leased for Ridgemount. No definite answer was given and discussion was dropped. C. C.L.P. 81-85. Director Blank passed out C.I.P. worksheets, requesting that each commissioner take it home and list 30 needs being somewhat specific. These needs should then be prioritized, with high priorities going under years 81 and 82, medium priorities under years 83 and 84, and loo: priorities under i year 1985. Director Blank asked that commissioners bring lists back to next meeting for further discussion. Director Blank then made presentation on allocation of funds for the parks and various components of the budget. Stated that he would like to see Council adopt a tax mill levy to .fund development of parks. Chairman Rice asked that Staff: 1) do a basic reexamination of the building i blocks of the planning process, 2') examine the elements of the park tier system, 3) an examination of the process followed in planning for the future,. and 4) re-examine the forrrula for distribution of funds as it relates to use of park dedication dollars. These findings should be brought back to the i Commission for their combined study. The deadline for presenting C.I.P. to the City Council is June 13th.. For this purpose, a.special PRAC meeting is scheduled for May 22nd at 6:30 p.m. in i;he small conference room. It was i decided that the regular June meeting should be postponed until. June 12th because of various school graduations being held on June Sth. i 6. NEW BUSINESS A. New Plats. No discussion. B. 1991 MWCON Grant Ap lication. Director Blank has submitted a LAWCON grant, to h4prove East Medicine La -Ice Beach including a 100 -car parking lot, curbs and gutters, bathhouse, trail and landscaping. R L Park and Recreation Corm.?ysion 1980Regularlnwing - May 1, Page 3 7. C{WQSSION PRESENTATION Chairman Rice explained the purpose. of this item for future agendas. 8. STAFF PRESENTATION Director Blank reiterated his plans to continueto meet with various AthleticAssociation Presidents. 5. AMITIONAL UNFINISHED BUSINESS haixman'Rice would like to review the final versions of P.I.P. at the May 22nd. meeting. Director Blank voiced his concern over lack of boats and only one lifeguard per beach at East and West Medicine Lake. If the funding needed to improve safety at these two beaches does not come through, Director Blankmay propose closing the West beach. 9., ADMUM44T Motion made to adjourn by :on nissioner (hesebrough, seconded by Com :ssioner Brass. Meeting was adjourned. at 10:30 p.m.: Pl}mouth Park and :Recreation Advisory Commission; Regular Meeting of July 10, 1980 Plymouth City Nall Council Chambers Ti: 7:30 p.m. AGL'NOA t. Call to order Z. Approval. of minutes 3. Visitor presentations a. Athletic Association.repres.entatives b. Others c. Rick: and Jane 4 Report on past council actions a. Playfield shelters. b. Optimist Club donation c. ` Music iin PlymD th. S. Unfinished business a Playfield-update b. 1981 budget-update c. C.I.P'. - S year d. Shiloh and Gleanloch parks-update 5 New business a.. P-. 1. P b. New plats c.. Park plan-update 7`. Commission. presentation 8. Staffcommuiicat)L:..', 9. Adjournment Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Park and Recreation Advisory Commission, June 12, 1980 The regular meeting of the Plymouth Park and Recreation Advisory Commission was called to order by Chairman. Rice at 7:40 p.m. on June 12, 1980, in the City Council Chambers. Members present: Threinen, Brass, Terry, Edwards, Chesebrough, Mullan Others present: Frank Dvorak; staff of the Parks and Recreation Department: Eric Blank and Rck.Busch; homeowners from Shiloh; Doug Kesatie, president of the Tri -Comm. Homeowners Association; and Don Maxwell, AN AC Association 2. APPROVAL OF I4IINUMS Commissioner Terry made a motion to approve minutes of ray 1, 1980; seconded by Co=dssioner Chesebrough. Vote taken: all, Ayes. 3. VISIIDR; PRESENTATIONS a) No Athletic Association representatives were present. b) Shiloh homeowners made presentation to the Commission and staff regarding problems with water run off around their homes, which is leading to wet basements and standing water around playground equipment making equipment unavailable for children in the neighborhood. They asked that the Comassion look into this problem and contact parties responsible about solving the problem. Director Blank said that engineer is looking at possible solutions. Chairman Rice requested that engineer share solutions with the citizens of Shiloh, and that a report be prepared for the Commission .for next meeting listing responsibilities of contractor. Commissioner Chesebrough would like a map of the area included in report. Doug Kesatie, Tri -Comm president mentioned other Shiloh problems including stolen play equipment, equipment not being useful for all ages, dead trees, poor landscaping, etc. Director Blank said that trees will be removed and replaced, play area has been resanded, play equipment will be replaced, and problem,with skating area will also be checked to determine who's at fault, either the City or the contractor. Don Maxwell of the AMIAC Association made a proposal for a trail around Medicine Dake. He asked that the City of Plymouth, in regard to the trail, 1) establish an ove-rall plan and timetable, 2) amend the joint powers between the City and the Hennepin County Park Reserve District, 3); begin use of one-way treet designation on selected trail segments, and 4) relocate County 24 Following Mr. Maxwell's presentation, Chairman Rice suggested a joint meeting between staff, the Commission, and Hennepin, County park Reserve District. Discussion continued on the trail, with safety in.using':he trail. and long range desire fUr recreational opportunities around the trail being the main concerns of the citizens. Chairman Rice requested that any information on the trail be passed on to the. Commission and for staff to con%mene a meeting with the Hennepin County Park Reserve: District. Mr. Maxwell then; asked that a Medicine Lake trail be placed on future PRAC agendas. c) Rick Busch informed the Commission that Session I of the Recreation program had begun and,,new'activities included: tennis leagues, golf leagues, weight training and; softball all-star games. Rick also mentioned the staff's interest in beginning a mail -in registration system for some programs. Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Regular Meeting - June 12, 1980 Page 2 4., REPORTON PAST COUNCIL. ACTIONS a) &proved playfield contracts. Playfield contracts have been: awarded excluding, heer buildings. S UNFINISHED BUSINESSIna) Plfffield- te. Director Blank explained the proposed; begets for Phases land it is project. He said that in order to balance the budget, it may be necessary to transfer $125,000 from the Park Dedication Central, Park account. He further explained that a .field change was necessary at the Oakwood playfield site in order to reduce the number of trees that would have to be removed. the last change that was discussed was that the proposed shelter building at Plymouth Junior High; would also be relocated at the request of the Robbinsdale School District. b) 1981 budget. Handouts of the proposed 1980 recreation,budget were given to the. commission along with a grief review.. Following this, Director Blank presented a slide show depicting recreation programs which 4,uld be typical of our p oposed 1981 budget. He reviewed for the Commission a by -participant cost breakdown of the existing recreation programs and how, the addition of 105 acres of playfields'will affect this cost per. participant. The new programs which the director has proposed. fear 1981 include four playgrounds one mobile playground unit, one puppet; wagon, an expanded beach and, skating programs. 1Follow lig this presentation, Commissioner Threinen moved and Commissioner Edwards seconded the motionto support a eventation ity funded recreation progam with inplementatian of the 1981 budget., c . CIP worksheets were passed out an an'exp_anation of the deveropment by year was, presented by the director. One of the concerns raised by the Commission was a lack of, finding for planning of park system or individual park sites as needed, with the main focus being on the implementation of an overall City park plan. The Commission felt very strongly that a plan should be implemented as soon as possible and. a consultant hired during 1980 to begin working on this project. Chairman Rice asked if it was possibly; to met volunteers or non-professional consultants to work on updating the Comprehensive Park plan in order to sawve money. The Commission did not think that this was feasible. I,t was asked whether Eric felt that he had the time to work on this project. The answer here again was that Eric's. time is really taken up by the playfield projects, and he would nothave the time at this point to draft a Conprehen-- sive Park plan. Commissioner Threinen moved and Commissioner Edwards, seconded a motion to reconTto t e i Council that` 1 u re a consultant usFi 1980 available funds to do a TehensivearRlan,_ . ey Tt t this shout begin as soon as possible. iidssioner%i 1man requested that the consultant study the. advantages. and disadvantages of bistalling a public boat launch and a trail system for Medicine Lake. The- Commission wanted to make it clear to the City Council that in the year 1981 four neie.borhood park sites represewted two sites which were being tarried over from the year 1980 and two new sites would'be developed General discussion followed whereby the following motions were made: Commissioner Chesebrough moved and, Casmissioner Mullan seconded: to foi"W to a :)urcil. the 5_xtal IEero—v-ement Pro am as RTesented and amen at -the une meeting. Chairman Rice than asked for motion on apo i.cy to support the recommendation to the City Council on modification of the existing park dedication formula. Commissioner Edwards moved and Commissioner 1hreinen seconded a moti.on tsurt the 1 eater j2ark icatosas outlined in eiecto s-te a 3 3tions carried, all, Ayes Park and Recreation AdvisoryCommission Regular Meeting- June 12, 1980 Page 3 d) Vita ' course- te. The vita course proposal.will be presented June 13 to tie ut pOptimist Club. If it is successful, it will be presented to the City Council at their meeting w -July 7 6. NEW BUSINESS' a) Zachary and Rid nountla fyf elds. Held over for a future meeting. b) New plats. None. c) V.T ld over for a future meeting. d) 7TUrmumity Education. Commissioner 1hreinen announced that by-laws are drawn up an s -c ng committee has looked into where classes are; going to be held. 7. tSDWISSIGN .PRESENTATION Chairman Race suggested that the Park and. Recreation Advisory Commission members, show strong support to the City Council and residents for the proposals outlined, in the 1981 City budget for park and recreation activities. Commission members asked to be kept informed when the City Council wouldd be reviewing the budget so they could be presentiatsomeofthemeetings. 8. STAFF 00*MICATIONS lStaff will be: reviewing contractual services with SCS regarding senior citizen activities. 9. AWOURh' FNf Nbtion to adjourn made by Cor rdssioner Chesebrough; seconded by Commissioner Mullan, The meeting adjourned at 12':00 midnights 9.G CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55441 TELEPHONE. (612) 559-2800 MEMO DATE: June 13, 1980 TO. James G. Willis, City Manager FROM, Fred. G. Moore City Engineerineer SUBJECT: Request for Correction of Drainage Problem in Shiloh Park SUMMARY 1 Attached is a petition received from some residents in the Shiloh, Addition concerning a drainage problem in the Shiloh Park. Also attached is a drawing we have prepared showing the location of the petitioners and also the proposed solution to the problem. At the present time the final development of the Shiloh Park is under construction. The City is grading and seeding the portion of the park immediately south of 30th Ave. The developer of the area, Lundgren Bros.,, has under construction the remainder` of the trail from Holly Lane westerly to the existing trail that has been constructed the length of the park. With the grading in the northerly part of the park a berm has been constructed along the east side of the park to contain drainage, within the park property. This was necessary because of a drainage problem on the 28th Place cul' -de -sac. This drainage change only changes the flow of the runoff from approximately one and one-half acres of the park. At the present time the drainage of the park is southerly from 30th Ave.. to the east - west trail corridor between 28th Avenue and 28th Place. At this location part of the drainage flow continues southerly and part of the flow turns easterly on the trail to Holly Lane. Because of concerns with erosion problmrs on the steep grade southerly of the east -west trail, it is proposed that a majority of the water will flow easterly to Holly Lane along the trail right-of-way. A portion of the flow would continue southerly as is taking place at the present time. With the flow of additional water along the trail to Holly Lane it is proposed that a swale would be constructed along the northerly side of the trailand a berm would be constructed along the southerly side of the trail. A typical cross section of this construction is shown on the attached drawing. Memo - James G. Willis June 13, 1980 Page Two The property owners which have had a water problem with the past heavy .rains have been along the southerly side of this proposed construction. With the construction of a swale to carry the water and a berm to prevent the water from flowing into their yards, it will correctt the drainage problem. The developer has completed a portion of the grading and will complete the entire project i_n the near futur-. P.E. Fre G. ogre , FGM:bw Attachments. Petition Drawing 1_ Location of Petitioners zo IF, p ,y 12 Q 2 n'aS 1 19 Q—* n) ! 11 1 \ to .. t 14, tT' 17 ts Tl i 2 3 ! 'oit 7 r. 10 0411 r l M 1 NIR.I E D AVE N0, t 2. s ,-y' acs rr Gs H .- y OUTIOT l ` t S $ 13 9 V q 101 i lS' It ES 4 '* z; 14 4 PO I T TA t 1 tat J 10 i l 12 l b ti 4a `4 F 1. S V s-tom ,•' \ 20-t!/ / 6 w 4 U4 Ie F ! 7 CO 2 x J r a 2 10 tac O'UTI,QT H' 2 t a z 9 J 1 pON'DE R0a-' 0 1 1 1 3 s s a OUTLOT 0 J fi 21P -t1 F` 1 v . © 6 nUTCOT tQ-30 P s, - , 2 yF " t1- 2 , LAN 7'r ! i0 11 12 t s MM s 1 ! .,i ilsit• . i} f 4 41 tp l •.xa , ,i(Q.i` a+i ^• .; y r .rr a.,yv. t:.tyt+* tai. S H I o H Pa..rk rI n'O.Se i-A.. a a r U1 !# i2 Proposea a,tra-ding t -Liiaa'' .. ham` •`' , jr ' i. :,. Cly S ?..Fi T. N. p. dt• ; L.^ def ; 22la*1c,. o i„ ; 4,, c" iNt•tt. F2d.tt ,tT!! blT v1, ;•. ; 5 tl.F.. sI d9`y G r 44110107 30lj S .? r. til 'F %I r v • `W/ : to 1 577 `A ' (y a. 1 . 4 P. w l'1. 1 ,p a8 .i/ t 9t k f 9 'S ' ." 1` a„ V *aL i, 1F y , Jp i w ,R O ! V ~ *w +t 1• D•A W •lib• 2 LOW u o y O _ .Kt j .. r,,, w ` 175.53 • ">,.. tsc.t fo a y tom} SFS 14' t'irt{F ?J i 1747 w tw' F »» 107" of l w v N [ r4 t+: as aa`tr it3d' 1073: it.t3i ttt,6 tr.t TTt at a as (wn wa , w• • iir + el 4k N' PIZ c, fall r: +. Q l'1 < y ^ .w, ..o...# .. y t,1. +,} } 1,.. Ya t4'.," 7 . , 1.' _C1 t• cz.0. Cross 64.c.+ion t t t t t t Troi! all J, , r +++,,yy ..r a ,- _ate is w L V¢ r -t' cad 10 1f t TR l1Il4Ct tME ttl iitUli%1110N SUit;1l'r1190R --. KAVPNI ^.illiGl!l! ...., r AItlIE IC sU!'EtlYISOt ----- hiKlC SA[ETY IllsWISWAiNE AMSiA;iT 1wl in C on* to 3 O Metra Square Building, 7th Street taz'xd Robert; Strout, Saint Paul, Minnesota 551()1 tTO: FY 8:1 LAWC0N/LCM.R Grant Applic-ants Subject:: Review of FY 181, LAWCQN/LCMR Grant Applicatior_s Arezt G1::, :?.t1-033 Enclosed for your information are the draft staff recommendations to the yetropol tan parks and Open Space Commission regarding Fy 1981 LAWCQN/LCMR grant applications. This year we have also enclosed a copy of the Council's Criteria for RevieW of Local Park Grant. App lications F"y 1.981 for the p oject(s) you submitted,. This shows how the Council's 'recreation cri,terie were used in evaluating your application. An explanation of the: staff's scoring technique; is attached, entitled FY 1981 LAWCONrLCM Grant - scoring Techniques. We encourage you to rev Gra-at- 7___ 1_e_ the criteria work- sheet. Pleascall me at 291-e36Q daring the week of June 23-27 to discuss any quest -Ions you have regarding the worksheet,. k,s; a reminder to you, a public meet:.ng for presenta.ttons concerning your application(s) and to hear comments and recoiwgen- ati0ns :egarditag the preliminary LAWCdN%LCMR grant ranking` has: been schedus.ed for lune 30 at 7:00 P.M. 114, the Council Chambers. Because th ra are approx;mately 50 communities who applied for grants, a time lair, t or ten, minutes per community has been set for mating statements. '"his. will allow time for Commission members to ask: questions. Evalurtion of your application will. not be prejudiced if you, choose not to make a prLsentation, If you do plan to speak on. June 30 please reserve a spot on the agenda by calling Parks and Open Space Division at 291-6401 Presentations will be scheduled in the order they are received. We have tentativel scheduled the Metropolitan Darks and Open Space Commission to take action on the LAWCQNfLC,MR grant ran;c:ngs on July 7. That meeting may be postponed to July la to. allow sufficient time for revision of staff recommendations based on input from discussions cn, the criteria worksheet and the public meeting presentaLons. You Will receive a copy of any revised recommendations; and a notice of the Commission meeting early in July: Sincerely, Arne Stefferud Park Planner cc: Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission RAgency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Developmeat of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Arnett Comprising oka County.. Carver County 0 Dakota County 0, iennepin County 0 Ramsey County 0 Scott County 4k V1 iNihtngton, County r FY 1981 LAWCON/LCMR GRAFT SCORING TECHNIQUES Criteria; 1.A..1., Distance (in miles) Staff used State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation maps to find the nearest similar facility north, south, east and west of the project. An average of the four distances was; used as the service area. In cases where there was no similar facility Within three miles, we used 3+ as the distance. The State Planning Agency (SPA) application form asks for the distance to the near,est similar facility. we used direct distances not over the road mileage so our numbers may not always match with what was submitted in the application. Criteria.: I.A..l b.., Population Staff used the population data submitted by the applicant.In some cases we added population since the facility served more than the project location community. Criteria; I.A.2., Accessibility r' An -site visits of the project showed staffwhat major obstacles to providing access by foot, bike or auto to the project's service area were present. We, looked at Metropolitan Transit Commission bus route: maps to determine accessibli.ty-by transit. Criteria. I.A.3., Uniqueness:: of Project in System Self explanatory. For acquisition or development projects adjacent to existing, similar' facilities we used Section d., Facility provided elsewhere; this project will not replace." Criteria: I.A.4.a.,; Demographic Char} We compared the population data provided in the application with the service area of; the project. In some: cases, the applicant gave the population for the entire city, even though the project was only serving a neighbcrhood. No points were awarded in those cases. The other two components are self explanatory. Criteria; I.A.4.b., Service to Predominant User Groups Self explanatory. Acquisition projects received points in section a. If project described total park development, it also got points in. Section b Criteria: X.A.S., System Acreage rFor acquisition projects, tete total acreage of all parkland: developed and undeveloped) under the city's jurisdiction was divided by 1979 Metropolitan Council population estimates orrwhattheapplicantprovided. r ; Expenditures and Debt of the Cities (1.978) . The highest ratio of expenditures to revenues for theose cities applying is multi- plied by a constant to make it equal.. to 30, the maximum number of points for this category._ The ratios of the remaining appli- cants are multiplied by the sameconstant. to spread the points. If you have any questions on this matter, call Charlie Smith ph. 291-6522). Criteria: 'II.I.B.I., Budget Points were awarded if the applicant's capital improvement program (CIP) budget had been adopted prior to submission of the application and the project was included in the CIP. Criteria IV.B.2.1 ResourceR gaulations Self explanatory. Only ordinances which were in effect at the time application was submitted were counted. Criteria; Program, History Self explanatory. Criteria: 7II.A. , Fiscal Effort The expenditures fiscal effort: caculatior. results in a ratio of recreation to total revenue in a city. Expenditures are the sum of four categories: l., Ten year average capital expenditures (I'tem 1 - Fiscal; Effort Worksheet) . 2. 1980 ope.rati.ng costs (Item 2 - Piscal Effort Worksheet). 3. 1980 school district recreation costs (Item 3 - Fiscal Effort Worksheet) 4. 1978 regional system operating costs (Council files). Revenues are the sum of five categories: 1. Property tax revenues, adiusted for valuation differences; 2• Intergovernmental revenue 3. Fess and charges 4. Enterprise revenue 5. Other revenue receipts All revenues come, from the State Auditor's Report on Revenue, Expenditures and Debt of the Cities (1.978) . The highest ratio of expenditures to revenues for theose cities applying is multi- plied by a constant to make it equal.. to 30, the maximum number of points for this category._ The ratios of the remaining appli- cants are multiplied by the sameconstant. to spread the points. If you have any questions on this matter, call Charlie Smith ph. 291-6522). Criteria: 'II.I.B.I., Budget Points were awarded if the applicant's capital improvement program (CIP) budget had been adopted prior to submission of the application and the project was included in the CIP. Criteria IV.B.2.1 ResourceR gaulations Self explanatory. Only ordinances which were in effect at the time application was submitted were counted. Y CAZ.,3I.1 m 3.*'i'Ir 'OT CC.1L `?11n c"+i.`T' , un:C -,'v,-, ly. 123 A Local - 113 3arvi:a Ars& a. Discaacs Ciu Kilas? 20 Cf a + aura 0 .2 T . +0 1.0 c'°nulacicm - 20 s.f ra1 3 000- 20 , 230y 7r40fK "002 9000+ i5000- ..._40 Is 1000 400 20000• 20000- 6000 112000- 3ZSaco2:3000_ Moo 3000 1._000 l: 730- 3000- 13000 13000- +000 GMo_ z100044002000020000' 5000 1-2000 3 Sao- 23 9 10000 l0000- U0002000. w?oo b7303000000 '3000 X000 $000 230 1000 30005 5000 1000- 2000- 3300200010000, 10000 2000 X000 2_a loon' 5000 4000 1000 - COO a 1 i ease 1 I., Systssa Acr•a=e - 13 poiau' awarded according to `either the total, acraa;e of local roe-zeation sand per 1400 .population in Lbe appli ant's jailed-.:rice Acquisition projec a), or -h*, areage,of developed 2oCa1 recreation ILAnd ra- 1,000 ap' polulation La the, aii:ant°s isdictiatz (davelocaent prokeccs) Cowbinaclsn projects .rill Sac =e dater w=b+r of aairts ::etiiilaod. s these tko methods, The, poiilacswe be awarded accord as c* r3i o1luw ag s,csssM. csa_so,'_OQ ?ooulati, "pout : 0-3; r+I 3-7 lz yy ii Sa 2 14 or =va, 31 Zion-Lacai - 10 Sys, a similar sac :on, for area a another similar .du ?sdi,ction (!our oond::ions) 1 Urics area izcludos part. of another coasasuti.t7,; Same arra is Mat presentlT served $7 saa.thar similar, iAcil'%c.-7 \ 3. Residents of Zhis area can use cbe pro j eco wi.haue diseri=iM&tiQu - Residents of this area are included, in programs: without: discri-mination" a, + row. conditions met too b., Thies conditions met 7 Z. NO canditions met d. One Condition neo 1 4. 3owr eat- Q A. sa'uble or iatandad use 20 h. Topog:xphy - 10 a,. Totally suitable Z4 t b. par;iallp ea=table 3 c. Major Portion unsuitable 7 vegetation - 10 f a.. Tocall7 suitable; k1O b. ParallT aisab2a 3: cr Major portion unsuitable Sw Suitable for `!ul: ple active-: as and :'.tiaap:a Season k ` .' pea •acti*r ties -. i0 (..,ac.:s a. unor;aa: ed acti-r==:aa (pidsic c h;, cr`?r , s^a; k skac_-5) s b. Organised. acalet;,_s 5 c , passive (Mac-= k... y, a. other 2 I b. ' 'Aatlaads - 1. a. Sberelime Page I , 11%. AS=Zs :D 20TA=1?!0 Ia. A, Park wsiatenance - is L. Park M acaaaaaca scarf 13 Citizen Participatica. I: a. Saparate budsac, reports to "ark sad Recreation Director -,413 a. Adrisorr bode 2 b- Policy body, - 3- b Sepwata kudSat,- :spore to Public arks, acct - 14' I' c. Ma separate budget, part of Public storks - S d. volwntaar 2 C. spacial lwh"is - Tv"s, 8ea1:h/S4fe? ?actors Of Sita - 3 f. Program - 30 II. each) 11bcrsatian. and park, staff ' - 10 a. Pcxk sad Recraat on Director(separate progran director' and budget) Itamova ban;srcus i; an Lb, Odrav° - city planner - 3; Um ve danserous, 4traion 2. ProgrAn B story-- 20 Separaca park araas a. Program for this type park in, the syscsm -Q9I to Sigmi iaant 3aturai lav ,oamsnc or b., Mm's fac?.:it7 411 3e act;:va17 programed 10 Scenic Issources - i3 1) For all aps - 5 For ail araaans - 5 a. 4004.31 peairia, eclands, Slu:fs, .1064plai s, goad (3 440nk up, to M a. Fiscal S0fort'- 30 11 < Plaaaias Candi.oa. • 2G budpac adapted - 1. G' '?:oject Facluded • 3 Z. Resource Regulations: - 10,' a. $hade tmea, •_` b. ' 'Aatlaads - 1. a. Sberelime d. Consoxvaacy dishcclap4 preservation - 1. Ia. Wk dedication b L Citizen Participatica. I: a. Adrisorr bode 2 b- Policy body, - 3- c. Seminar for this; p4 --k S1C. spacial lwh"is - I. Tv"s, 8ea1:h/S4fe? ?actors Of Sita - 3 I each) tastrcams Itamova ban;srcus i; an lancing Um ve danserous, 4traion Separaca park araas Prataccs or, 'rovidas ,1c:oma to Sigmi iaant 3aturai lav ,oamsnc or Scenic Issources - i3 a. 4004.31 peairia, eclands, Slu:fs, .1064plai s, goad (3 440nk up, to M METROPOLITAN COUNC.I. Suite 300 Metro, Square: Building, Saint, Paul, Minnesota 55101. MEMORX DU TO Metropolitan Parks and Open, Space Commission FROM: Parks and aper. Space Staff, Arne Stefferud DATE: June 16 11-480 !` ' SUBJECT: Review of FY X81 LAWCON/LCMR preliminary Grant Applications I. INTRODUCTION; The Metropolitan Council, has received, preliminary applications: for Federal Land and Water Conservation (LAINCON) and State Legislative Commission an Minnesota. Rescue es (I,C grants yo:_ review. These grant funds, are intended for acquisition and development of park, facilities. II+ AUTHORITY TO REVIEW Applications for Federal Land and Water Conservation Funds LAWCON) and State Legislative Commission on. Minnesota Resources (LCMR) grants fall under the provisions of Office of Management and Budget Circular A795. This circular requires that applications by local governmental units for federal categorical aids be submitted to the regional clearinghouse for review and comment as to their consistency with regional plans. The Metropolitan Council has been designated as the A:-95 review clearinghouse in the Metropolitan Area. Minnesota Statutes Section 4,73.:181, Subd., 2 directs the Council to review and approve or disapprove: the use of monies made available for land acquisition, to local units of government from the land and conservation funds, the: open; space program of HUD, the National. Resources Account, in the state treasury..." The Council is required to approve the use of these monies if, the use: conforms with the system of priorities establishedby law as part of a comprehensive plan for the development of Parks-* Minnesota Statutes Section 473-147p Subd. 1, requires the Council to. adopt along -range system policy plan for Regional Recreation open Space as part of the Development Guide and requires that the. Regional Recreation Open Space Policy Plan substantially conforms to the policy statements, goals, and standards in the Development; Guide. Thus, the Council must approve or, disapprove: the use of mond!; :set forth in. Section 473.181, Subd. 2, biased on the policies set forth in the Council's Regional Recreation Open Space Policy Plan. a B., COMMISSION AND COUNCIL REVIEW SCHEDULE Copies of this staff report have been. sent to the applicants. The following schedule was established by the Commission and Council for review of the applications. June 1.6 Submittal, of staff report to the Commission and applicants. June 30 Public meeting to hear comments from applicants regarding staff recommendations. July 7 Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, to act, on staff recommendations July 17 Physical Development Committee to act on recommendations of the Commission. July 24 Metropolitan Council, to act on recommendations of the Physical. Development Committee After independently ranking the projects, SPA and, Metr000litan Council staff jointly ranked the projects for a final recom- mended priority for funding. In some cases several projects were tied after combining SPA and Council ranking. Ties were broken by using one of the following factors: Acquisition projects received pr,i,ority over development projects Projects having a higher Metropolitan Council recreation ranking received priority.. Initial development projects have priority over redevelopment projects. The sponsor's past performance in implementing other LAWCON/ LCMR Grants The top -:ranked; communities are programmedfor a 50 percent. LAWCON grant and a;25 percent state grant with a 25 percent local, share. After, the -allocation of state funds are expended, the remaining communities will be programmed for a 50 percent LAWCON grant with a 50 percent local share until the LAWCON funds are expended. To the extent that.LAWCON/LCMR funds are available, the appli- cations, in order of their approved priority, Will be, submitted by the State Planning Agency to the Heritage. Conservation: and Recreation Service for a LAWCON grant and to the LCMR for a, state grant. Recommended priority ranking of projects is shown on Attachments 2 through S. 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2. That the minimum parking capacity of the boat launch facility be as follows; a. Lake Anne Ref. No. 8:343-1 - six car/trailer spaces b. 3urandt's Lake, Ref. No. 8364-1 ten car/trailer spaces Note: This requirement was requested for FY 1980.funding to acquire this boat. launch site.) c. That the Burandt's Lake facility be developed and in operation by October 1982. d. That the Lake Ann,facility be developed and in operation within one yeasa of acquisition. As noted previously, DNR or the Council have funding respon- sibility for, boat launch pFcjects on Lake Minnetonka. Using the Development Guidelines from the Cooperative; Program., staff found: a. b That the boat launch project sponsored by the City of Mound (Ref. No. 8344-2) was suitable for development and should be funded by DNR. The existing parking area for the, launch (undeveloped) may need to be expanded. and there may be, a need to dredge the lake bottom for the ramp. Conversations; with Mound City staff indicate these modificationsto the project can be done. The rest of the city's application (improving another, parking lot and community center) was ranked separately as a park project.. That the project sponsored by the City of Wayzata Ref. No. 8258-1) did not provide adequate parking due to the small size of the site (1.17 acres) and the design, which calls for only eight or nine car/trailer spaces. This project shouldnot be funded by DNR. The Cooperative Water Access Program delegated funding respon- s. bility for placing accesses on,Lake Minnetonka to the DNR or the Metropolitan Council. Lake Reshanau was not considered a priority lake. Consequently, the access project was ranked along with other park projects! As a condition for, giving top funding priority for boat launch projects, the three agencies adopted development and operation: guidelines. It is also txpectd that grans for beat launch. projects would be used in a.timely manner. Therefore, the following grant conditions are appropriate. 1. That development and operation of the: boat launch facilit- ies be consistent, with the guidelines of the Cooperative Program for Providing Public Access Sites on.Metropolit n Area :,akes 1 1 1 1 1 1 2. That the minimum parking capacity of the boat launch facility be as follows; a. Lake Anne Ref. No. 8:343-1 - six car/trailer spaces b. 3urandt's Lake, Ref. No. 8364-1 ten car/trailer spaces Note: This requirement was requested for FY 1980.funding to acquire this boat. launch site.) c. That the Burandt's Lake facility be developed and in operation by October 1982. d. That the Lake Ann,facility be developed and in operation within one yeasa of acquisition. As noted previously, DNR or the Council have funding respon- sibility for, boat launch pFcjects on Lake Minnetonka. Using the Development Guidelines from the Cooperative; Program., staff found: a. b That the boat launch project sponsored by the City of Mound (Ref. No. 8344-2) was suitable for development and should be funded by DNR. The existing parking area for the, launch (undeveloped) may need to be expanded. and there may be, a need to dredge the lake bottom for the ramp. Conversations; with Mound City staff indicate these modificationsto the project can be done. The rest of the city's application (improving another, parking lot and community center) was ranked separately as a park project.. That the project sponsored by the City of Wayzata Ref. No. 8258-1) did not provide adequate parking due to the small size of the site (1.17 acres) and the design, which calls for only eight or nine car/trailer spaces. This project shouldnot be funded by DNR. do not have the financial capability to provide the. same level of recreation service as a Freestanding Growth Center. The Ofbowd Lake project should compete with pro- jects sponsored by other. Freestanding Growth Centers and, therefore, should be ranked along with those projects., in the future, projects located in the Rural Area but sponsored by Freestanding Growth Centers or communities in the Area of Planned Urbanization should be reviewed using Development;Framework Policy (passive vs, active) to determine eligibility for funding, but should be ranked in the spons-oring community's planning area. 3. Burandt's Lake Boat. Launch-Waconia (Ref. No. 8364-1) Although the Burandt's Lake boat launch. project is recommended for top priority funding, the Metropolitan. Counciladopted: the following recommendation for the FY 1,980 application to acquire the, site: That Waconia, prior to development of any facilities other than the boat 'launch at. the Lake Burandt site, must. annex the site within the city limits in, accordance with prior Council actions concerning Waconia's Comprehensive Sewer Flan." D. SIXTY PERCENT QUALITY THRESHOLD In order to encourage the funding of high quality projects, the Council adopted the following review criteria:; That the recreation criteria.be applied and that a rojectPPp must receive 60 percent or more of the available points to be considered for funding." (To be determined upon, completion of ranking process.) Note Sixty percent is the suggested "duality threshold." The staff will, evaluate the suitability of the sixty percent "cut-off after reviewing, the applications and may recommend appropriate adjustments. Using the 6.0 percent quality threshold, projects must receive at least 225 poin s on recreation criteria. out of, a possible 375. A summary of applying the threshold is shown below. Fully Developed Area: out of, the first ten projects ranked, projects ranked 7th and 10th did not meet the threshold. Out of 16; projects ranked, all but five meet the requirement:. (See Attachment 2. Area of Planned Urbanization: Of the first ten.ranked projects, a,1 set the quality three old. Six projects did not meet the threshold out of 18 projects. ranked (see Attachment 3). Freestanding Growth Centers: out of the seven projects ranked, all but t e seventh met the quality threshold (see Attachment. 4). h 3,1 9- 6. in, the event any policy planning area has unused funds after all quality projects (over 60 percent) are funded, the excess shall be redistributed to the other planning areas in proportion to the Policy Area Allocation Percentages (No. l above). 7. That the recommended project review criteria shown on Table B. Attachment 1, serve as the basis for the recrea- tional criteria ranking. 8. That the recreation criteria be applied to all projects sponsored by communities in the Fully Developed Area, Area of Planned Urbanization, and Freestanding Growth Centers. 9.<' That applications which:meet the general guidelines for boat launches on the lakes identified on Table A, ;attachment 1, would be given priority for funding as follows: a. From the amount (not to exceed 15 percent of total available grant.funds) taken "off the 'top" prior to allocation. of funds to planning areas in accord with Recommendation No. 1 above. b. If: additional funds beyond this 15 percent are neededY in order to fund. al.l qualified boat launch projects, these funds, shall be taken from the planning areas in which the qualified boat launch projects are located in proportion to the total project, cost of the qualified boat launch projects located in each planning area. 1Q. That a community with a boat launch project ranked forThayP ., funding also be eligible for an,additional project grant. 11. That the following Metropolitar.,Development Framework criteria be applied: a. All applications from Rural Centers will be considered active and; passive). b In those parts of the Rural Service Area outside of Rural Centers, only applications for passive recreation. will be, considered. C. In setting priorities among quality projects from Rural Centers, the proposed Freestanding Growth Centers will be given priority over applications from other Rural Centers when demonstrated needs are similar or greater in the proposed Freestanding Growth Center.. I. Applications from Rural Town Centers wouldbe ranked' with considered applications from; communities outside of: the Rural Town Centers on the: basis of recreational. project review criteria. 12. That projects located, in the Rural Area but sponsored by a Freestanding Growth Center or a community in the Area of Planned. Urbanization be ranked in the sponsor, community's planning area. Funding criteria in Recommendation 11 shall be applied. m Page I of Q Attachment l METROPOLITANA COUNCIL LAWCON LCMR CRITERIALITN Fiscal Year 1:981) AdoptedMarch 13, 1980) 1.. That funds available (after a maximum of 15 percent, of available funds are used, for qualified boat launch projects) will be allocated by planning area based on: Fully Developed Areas ............. 49! Areas of Planned Urbanization....34i Freestanding Growth Centers...,... ll Rural Areas ...................... 63 (Max. $100.,000) The 15 percent allocation process for lake access funds will be useO for FY 181 applications. This allocation process will be reviewed and evaluated prior to any decision regarding its use in future years.) 2. That housing performance be applied as one-third weight on the final staff rankings. 3. That there be a grant maximum of $200,900 in the Fully Developed Areas, $150,0.00 in the Areas of Planned; Urbanization, and $50,000 in the Freestanding Growth Centers: and Rural Areas. In any planning area, the grant maximum may be doubled if all qualified projects in that area are funded, prion to redistribution, of unused funds to other planning areas in accord with Recommenda tion No. 6 below. 4. That, recognizing the need for flexibility in administering the grants, State Planning Agency have the discretion of awarding approximately ten percent in excess oof the grant maximum,and that. the State Planning Agency ;report annually to the Commission as to the impact of the grant maximum limitation and exceptions needed. - 5. That there be ,& limit of one grant per community in all areas but the Fully Developed Area with the exception noted in. Recommenda- tion No. 10 below. 6. That in the eventany policy planning area has unused funds after all quality projects (over 60 percent) are funded, the excess shall be redistributed; to the other planning areas in proportion to the Policy Area Allocation Percentages (No. I above). kk i Revised Lakes for Public Access LAWCON/LCMR Priority Ranking* Map No. Lake and County Acreage 1. Ann, Carver 120' 2. Bass, Hennepin 175' 3. Bone, Washington 206 4. Burandt, Carver 138 S. Clear, Washington 400 6. Crooked, Anoka 130 7. DeMontreville, Washington 156 S. Dutch Hennepinp 170 9. Glen, Hennepin 170 10. Jane, Washington 159 11_i, Josephine, Ramsey 110 12. Langdon, Hennepin 168 13. Little Long, Hennepin; 104 14. Long, Hennepin 279 1.5 Lotus, Hennepin 254 i16 Lucy, Hennepin 137 17. Miller, Carver - 145 l$. Mitchell, Hennepin 116 19. Netta, Anoka 2 20. Olson, Washington 100 2432.1. Orchard, Dakota 22. Pine Tree, Washington 174 23. Sunset, Washington 124 24. Thole, Scott 131 25. Upper Twin, Hennepin 130 26. Virginia, Carver 239 i The lakes are; listed alphabetir.¢111y with F the map number being the key V. the lake location on the map mailed previously. t Page S of 9 Attachment '1 GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR BOAT LAUNCHES ACCESS. FEATUREDEVELOPMENT C1JIDELINES' 1. Parking space for vehicle - One space for each 20 acres of lake surface with trailer - 750 square feet (15' x 50') where parking spaces are; unmarked 500 square feet (10` x 501) where parking spaces are marked r. 2, Boat launch ramp - Each. ramp 12 feet wide Not more than 20 parking spaces per ramp Maximum of four ramps per access site r- dater depth of two feet within 20 feet of hake shore 3. Turn -around - Dimension - 15' x 50' 4. Roadway 22, feet wide fo'r two-way traffic. 1.1 feet wide for one-way traffic 5. Buffer zone 700 square feet per parking space (;exclusive of parking space, ramp, turn -around and road' way) for purpose of screenina access from residential development OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES' 1. Open at beast 18 hours a day between 4:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight, 2. No fees charged for launching craft. g 9 an y 3. Where an access is provided within a park, uniform fees shall be charged to all users, regardless of residence. 4. No, special Iregulations teat do not apply equally to the: riparian boater. SITE SUITABILITY GUIDELINES Access site development should not result in major negative environmental impacts. On some lakes, access oppcartunities may be limited to properties which are low and wet, steep, or have other characteristics that make them difficult to develop. Public agencies shouldy to acquire accesses which do not require excessive dredging, filling, and other shoreland modifications or roadway cuts and fills which may result in erosion or be visually unattractive,; f I Page 7 of 9 Attachment 1 Points 35.5 34.0` 34.0 33.0 33.5 33 0 3.1.5 30.0 30.0 29.0- 29.0 2.9.0 28.5 2$.0 2 8.., 0 27.5 27.0 26.0 26.0 25.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 23.0 23.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 21.0 21 0 20.0 2U ..0 20.0 20.0 20.0 2.0.0 19.0 19.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL LAWCON/LCSR HOUSING PERFORMANCE RANKINGS (FY '1,981) Final Ranking of Communities Based on Revised Housing,Performance Criteria, 7/20/79 See. Explanation at End of Table) CommsnitY Points Community St. Paul 86.0 Excelsior Minneapolis 84.5 Mendota Farmington 73.0 Chanhassen South St. Paul 71.0 Savage Chaska. 67.0 S . Francis; Robbinsdale: 66.0 Burnsville Mound 65.0 Eagan T% -P, Hastings 63.5 Lakeville Richfield 63.5 Roseville Oakdale 62.0 Woodbury North St. Paul 62.0 Maple Grove Hopkins 61.0 Osseo Anoka 60..0 Apple Valley St. Louis Park 60.0 Little Canada Rosemount 59.0 Lexington Shakopee 59.0 Cottage GrovetBrooklynCenter57.0 Champlin Fridley 56.5 Mounds view Waconia 55.0 rem Lake Oak Park Heights 55.0 Watertown TNP Golden Valley, 53.0 Lino Lakes Coon Rapids 53.0 Shoreview Columbian Heights 53.,0 Lake St. Croix Beach Bloomington 52.5 Marine -On. -St, Croix. Plymouth 5.1.5 Prior Lake Maplewood 51.0 Hampton Wayzata 51.0 Lake Elmo New Hope 50..0 Watertown Eden Prarie 49.0 Coates Edina 48.5 Empire TWP BrooklynPark 48.0 Castle Rook TWIP West St. 'Paul, 46.0: St. Anthony - Forest Lake 46.0 Mahtomedi Minnetonka 46.0 Douglas TWP Blaine 44.0 Vermillion Stillwater 44.0 Vermillion TWP Crystal 43.0 Spring Park New Brighton 43.0 Marshan TWP St. Paul Park 42.0 v'adnais Heights Jordan, 41..0 Circle Pines Andover 40.0 Young America TWP Inver Grove Heights 39.5 Hampton TWP White Bear Lake 38.0 Ham Lake TWPtRandolph` 36.0 Ramsey TWP Points 35.5 34.0` 34.0 33.0 33.5 33 0 3.1.5 30.0 30.0 29.0- 29.0 2.9.0 28.5 2$.0 2 8.., 0 27.5 27.0 26.0 26.0 25.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 23.0 23.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 21.0 21 0 20.0 2U ..0 20.0 20.0 20.0 2.0.0 19.0 19.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Attachment 1 Page 9 of 9 ri Explanation 1. The preceding table indicates the points that will be utilized in determining the housing rankings -. This housing ranking istaane -third weight in the Metropolitan Council's priority ranking for funding, Z. If you have questions or potential changes in your com-. - ty's point total these. must be by May 2 for consideration in the FY 1981 grant review process. No changes will be considered after May 2, 1980. 3. Specific questions or information concerning this table should be directed to the Metropolitan Council Housing staff at 291-6303. 4.. The criteria system,for awarding housing points will be revised during the later part of 1980. Any questions or input regarding this may also be, directed to the, Metropolitan Council Housing staff. i I.agan Rahn Park Attachment 3 8 4 11 Yes FY 181 LAWCdN/LCMR GRANT RANKINGS 8344-1 13 8 7 AREA OF PLANNED URBANIZATION (Grant Iden Prairie Maximum: 150,000) 17 13 3 Yes 6 hamplin- Ref. 8324-1 16 18 2 S nsor Pro eco No. MC/R MC/H SPA. 60% Final Cost ple Valley Farquar.Lake 8325-1 3 3 6 Yes, 1 97,720 80,000 E. Medicine ake 8331-1 2 1 8 Yes 2 194,650ruth ury Carver Lake Park 8321-1 6.5 11 1 Yes 3 51217 I.agan Rahn Park 8338-1 8 4 11 Yes 4 Mound Mound Bay Park 8344-1 13 8 7 Yes 5 Iden Prairie Miller Park 8259-1 17 13 3 Yes 6 hamplin- North River'Fk. 8324-1 16 18 2 Yes 7 horeview Commons Park 8309-1 6.5 10 10 Yes 8 195,000 99,327 523,000 48,300 233,928 hg Lake Nelson Lake Pk 8313-1 14 17 5 Yes 9 75,000' aple Grove Rice Lake -Fish 8360-1 1 5: 18' Yes 10 145,125 Lake Tsai Ixcelsior Commons. Park 9342-1 4 2 21 Yes 11 50,000 Laine Eastside Park 8352-1 9 7 20 Yes 12 80,000 Lino Lakes County Lakes Pk. 8365•-1 22 24 4 No 148.,950 loon Rapids Pheasant Ridge 8348,-1 19 14 14 No 34,850 Park hite Bear Lk. Matoska Park 833:3 Y. 15 16 12 Yes 13 57,328 Little Canada Spooner Park, 8332-1 10.5 12 16 Yes 14 55,000 lhanhassen Randy Herman 8347-1 20 20 15 No 110,000 Field Minnetonka Minnetonka Ath. 8345-1 24 19 22 No 187,000 Field t. Paul Park Hastings Park 8320 1 23 21 24 No 31,000 undsview, Silver View Park 8330-1 Project not ranked due to complica- tions in amending previous grants l - for this site, Wayzata Wayzata Bay Park 8258-1 Project not ranked because boat llaunch development guidelines cannot be met. uplicate applications not eligible for funding are: Blaine -Eastside. Park 8313-1), Maple Grove -Cedar 'Island Elementary School Playfield (8361), White ear Lake-Podvin Park (8334-1) and Woodbury -Tamarack Natural Center (8322-1). to Key on Attachment 2, for gable heading definitions. Attachment. 7 FY 181 LAWCON/'LCMR Grants Housing Performance Ranking Among Applicants Fully_ Developed Area Area of Planned Urbanization (contd.) 1. St.. Paul 15., Little Canada 2. Minneapolis 16.- Moundsview 3. South St, Paul 17. Maple Grove 4. Richfield 18. Champlin 5. Fridley 19. Shoreview 6. Brooklyn Center 20. Woodbury Robbinsdale Freestanding_ Growth Centers 8 St. Louis Park 1.. Farmington 9. Columbia Heights 2. Shakopee 10., Roseville 3• Rosemount. Area of Planned Urbanization 4. Anoka and; Waconia 1. Mound 5. Prior Lake 2. Excelsior 6. Lakeville 3. Coon Rapids Rurall Area 4. Plymouth 1. East Bethel, Mayer and Rogers 5. Eagan 2. Elko 6. Minnetonka 3. Carver 7. Eden Prairie 4. Loretto and CenterviII@ 8. Wayzata 5. New Market 9. Blaine 6. Medina 10. St. Paul Park 11. Apple Valley 12. White Sear Lake 13. Long Lake and Chanhass :n 14. Lino Lakes