Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPark and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes 07-24-1979M I N U T E S JOINT CITY COUNCIL, -PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING July 24 1979 PRESENT:: Mayor Hunt, Councilmembers Davenport,, Neils and Hoyt, PRAC ChairpersonRiceandCommissionersBrass, Terry Threin4, Guddal, Johnson, Mullan, Edwards and Chesebrough, Manager Willis, Park Director Born and Admin- istrative Assistant Boyles.. The meeting was called. to order at 7:45 by Mayor Hunt., Chairperson• RiceresentedinformationregardingthepurposeofthemeetingincludingacomprehensivereviewofelementsinPlymouth's current park planning process includingthe data base andassumptionsusedforcurrentplanning. The presentation incded an examinationofthe. City's current populattion, park system and recreation programming whichhasbeendevelopedtomeetexistingneeds. He also suggested, for discussion purposesthatfuturedirectinsforenhansingtheParkandRecreationplanningactivitiesinclude: full utilization of the Capital Improvement Program; strengthening of therelationshipbetweentheRRACandthestaff;.flexibilit.R in>the park tier system; additional emphasis on park developmentt concurrent with ro ert developmenttheCity; revision in Park Dedication Policy;p ' ayfie within examination of new and unique financial resources; initiation of pment aoP,plauth infosystem; and emphasis on increased collaboration between the PRAC and school districtswithintheCity. Following Rice's presentation, Hunt suggested that the•meetinitemsysuggestedfordiscussionbtheCitCouncil.indicatediProgress by reviewing see the PRAC endorse and comment upon staff n his desire tofrecommendedrecreationdprogrartmingandsourcesoffundingeachyear. 9 Neils indicated that he has concern that recreation programs do not RECREATION' expand upon themselves until the City begins providing; programswhicharenotjustifiedbyparticpation. He further stated that it NG' would be beneficial to, have a sort of "road map" by which hong rangeProgrammingobjectivescouldbeestablishedandscheduled. Hunt indicated that he would Pike to see a "sunset" principle forprogrammingsothattheyexist00ya, long as they can sustain themselves. Brass indicated that this process is presently, being followed butthattheresultsofthis -review are not forwarded to the -Council. Rice indicated concern that the PRAC and the City make substantiaeffortstocoordinateitsplanningwithschooldistrictsandother PRAC recreation interests,within the City. Willis commented it was his CHARGE belief that school districts will continue to fund eligible programs. through Community Education but that the City would be looked toincreasinglytoprovideprogramsforwhichnoschooldistrictrevenuebasecanbefoundfor. Neils stated this issue should be addressedina. policy statement so that consistency in response to schooldistrictsandotherrecreationinterestscanbemaintained. Rice recommended that representatives from the staff, PRAC andCouncilgettogetherwithschooldistrictrepresentativestoestablishsomesortofconsistent, cooperative Stance in relation to this policy. 1 r Joint Counc.i1-PRAC MeetingJuly24. 1979 4 Page 2 Davenport 'asked whether Rice's comments should be included as part of thePRAC's.charge under Item 3. Hunt indicated that he would like to see the ParkandRecreationAdvisoryCommissiontakeresponsibilityforexploringanyandalltraditionalandinnovativecommunitybasedresourcesforfundingparkimprovements, including other public and private interests Revisions to the present PRAC cha a whi hI9c were discussed and recommended PRAC CHARGEforinclusionwere. 1) to promote collaborative involvement 4thdistrictsandothercommunityintereststoreduce unnecessary school y programduplication, provide appropriate facilities and insure consistency of Cityrecreationpolicyandprograms; 2) Recommend to City Council policiesregardingappropriateuseofparkandrecreationfacilities3)AnnuallyreviewCityrecreationprograms, and recommend 'to Council the phase out orintroductionofprograms; 4) Encourage cooperation and active participationofcommunityserviceorganizationsandcitizengroups; in development andmaintenanceoffacilities. Willis introduced revisions in•the Park Dedication Policy indicating thatsignificantchangesweremade: to the Policy to encourage and require developerstoputinbasicpark. system amenities concurrently with their development aswellastoprovidedeveloperswithafirmunderstanding; of their responsibilitiesatthebeginningoftheirdevelopmentproject. Willis explained that the Public Works Reserve Fund is a tem^orarymechanismtohelpfundparkimprovementswithin -the City by making a taxlevyforthispurpose. The Council will consider the initiation of suchafundinthecourseofrevisingthe1980budget. FRAC and the Park andRecreationDepartmentshouldgiveappropriateconsiderationtothispotentialsourceoffundingwhendraftingtheFiveYearParkCIP. Neils stated that he would like to received from PRAC engineering; standardsdictatingtheminimumconditioninwhichparkfacilitiescompletedbythedevelopermustbeturnedovertotheCity. Born responded that the staff is in the process•of preparing some design andengineeringstandardsthatshouldbeavailablelaterthisyear. Rice commented that the present standards emphasize developments done by theCityandthatemphasisnowmustalsobeplacedonimprovementsprovidedbydevelopers. Hunt expressed his desire. that park facility planning always remain flexiblesothatparksmaybeadaptedtochangingrecreationneeds. Neils desires that City developments park facilities follow as closely asPossibletotheturnoverofsuchfaci'Aties by the developers so that the parkdevelopmentprocessisamutuallyreinforcingpublicandprivateeffort. Hunt 'indicated that in this process the PRAC must recognize that developmentplansarenotnormallyfinalizeduntillateinthedevelopmentprocessand, while we may be specific in terms of, the content of the park,, the location oftheparkmaychan9e. PUBLIC WORKS RESER-VE FUND duly 249 1979 kPage .` . Millis suggested that, PRAC begin reviewingg park, development. plansin.RPUO*s earlier than the Planning CommissiOn so that their recommendationsareavailabietothePlanningComissionatthetimeof thepublic, information meeting. Neils 'urged that PRAC work, with the staff to develop an annual, plan ofpublicimprovementstodeterminewhereparkdevelopmentcanbeaccomplished. Hunt agreed with Neils' comments and suggested that an; appropriate timeforPRACtomeetwouldbeJustafterapprovaloftheCapital: ImprovementBudget. He, further suggested that quarterly reviews should be held todetermineprogresswhichhadbeer, made towards yearly objectives. Born reviewed. the proposed, 1980-84Park and Recreation . CIP. 1980-84 CIP Davenport indicated his concern that an alternate CIP should be providedwhichdoesnotrelyonbondingforasubstantialportionofthe; improvement Rice suggested that past park development emphasis has beenonfull completionofparksandthatfutureemphasisshouldbeplaced' upon staging developmentonayearlybasisasfundsbecomeavailable. Hunt agreed with the staging concept and suggested that this could befurtherintegratedwiththeconceptofpublicimprovement: work in conjunctionwithimprovementsprovidedbythedeveloper, volunteer, work and City contract. Born suggested that a consultant might be hired to help PRAC establish awell-rounded park planning process and procedure. Neils expressed his concern that if a consultant is used that the expectationandoutputmust :be specifically itemized. Hunt indicated it was most productive to use multiple -developer contributionsinparkdevelopment. He also felt that walking neighborhoods should continuetobeusedasabastfortheparkplanningprocessinconjunctionwithContinuousmonitoringoftheanticipatedinstallationofutilitheCity• ties within Rice suggested that perhaps a.binder notebook (could be established foreachwalkingneighborhoodtoprovidetheCommissionwithanideaoftheexistingfacilitiesintheneighborhoodandthestatusofdevelopment. Willis reviewed a, variety of existing PRAC policies and suggested that it CITY COUNCILcouldbeappropriateforthePRACtoreviewtheexistingPoliciestoPARKPOLICIESdeterminetheiradequacyandsuggesttotheCouncilanyadditionsordeletionswhichmaybenecessaryinlight, of changing conditions. Neils indicated that. he would like to see the issue of maintaining marshesaspublicwildlifesanctuariesaddressedinpolicyform. PRAC members agreed that written policies would, be reviewed and revisedandreturnedtotheCouncilwithrecommendations. 1Y 24, 1919 page,, l TM a e s Hunt caanented that the PRAC should remain sensitive to the fact that{* collected park dedication fees from one area should be used to provide facilities for that area rather than to provide facilities for other , residents., Threi* introduced. the Park, Public Information Program and commented PARK PUBLIC that people do not understand park facilities presently available INFORMATION arra the direction in which the City, is travel l i ng in terms of park PROM facility construction. The objectives: of the Park Public Information Program are increased resident knowledge of park facilities, balanced usage of these facilities, and to obtain more input from residents of park development and secure additional support for a bond issue for further park development.; The program itself will consist of a slide -sound presentation which would provide information; on existing park facilities, park needs, anticipated City growth and the direction in which the park system must move to meet that growth. Further, current methods of financingwillbeexploredasabasisfordiscussiontopicswithattendingresidents. The entire presentation will be placedin modules which will allow portions to be cut out for special purpose meetings. The program will also include the administration of a survey in the spring of 1480 to assess the effectiveness of the program. Rice indicated that he wound like Council approval to proceed with a study for imp'lementation of the Park Pubic Information Program and alter- natives for future Council consideration. Hunt indicated that he would definitely like to see a Park Public Information Program containing park information for resident consumption. He further indicated that an amount of up to $5,000 could be considered for completionofthisproject. Rice .reviewed the objectives which he: had original'iy stated for the + ` CONCLUSION meeting at the outset. Generally speaking, it. was his belief that most of the issues had been discussed and that the meeting had resulted in,a better understanding between the Council and the PRAC. Councimembers concurred that the content of this meeting had provided a foundation on which future Prac and Council interaction could be strengthened and as a means: through which the park planning process can be improved -to obtain; maximum effectiveness in,park developoent. The next* Council, b PRAC study meeting wa$ set for Thursday. ^October 11 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.