The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPark and Recreation Advisory Commission Packet 05-14-1992Regular Meeting of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission May 14, 1992, 7:00 p.m. 5:30 Dinner with City Council Followed by Joint Meeting AGENDA FOR REGULAR MEETING, 7 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Visitor Presentations a. Athletic Associations b. Staff C. Others 4. Report on Past Council Action a. Approved demolition of silos at Parkers Lake 5. Unfinished Business a. Volunteer program - continue discussion b. Park development projects - update C. d. 6. New Business a. 1993-97 C.I.P. - review draft b. Pick date for park tour C. Review sidewalk and trail draft plan d. 7. Commission Presentation 8. Staff Communication 9. Adjournment Next regular PRAC meeting - June 11 I Minutes of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting April 9, 1992 Page 10 Present: Chair Anderson, Commissioners Burk, Gutzke, Johnson, Waage, Wahl, Watson; staff Bisek, Blank and Pederson; Councilmembers Edson, Tierney, and Vasiliou 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Anderson called the April meeting to order at 7 p.m. in the Council Conference Room. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Waage and seconded by Commissioner Wahl to approve the minutes of the March meeting as presented. The motion carried with all ayes. 3. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS a. Athletic Associations. None were present at this meeting. b. Staff. Mary Bisek made several announcements including that staff is busy working on summer programs, which will be advertised in the May issue of Plymouth News; swimming lesson registration is scheduled for Saturday, May 16; the spring Ballet and Tap Recital is May 20; a new spring Shape -Up Challenge gets underway the week of April 13, with city employees competing with other companies located in Plymouth to earn points; the International Folk Arts Celebration held March 21 was well organized, with five or six groups providing entertainment and about a dozen or more crafters displaying and selling their handcrafted items. Attendance was disappointing, but could have been due to the snowstorm. 4. REPORT ON PAST COUNCIL ACTION The Council voted 3-2 to deny the acquisition of the Forster property. The Council felt the money could be better spent on the acquisition of property in northwest Plymouth. Council also recommended that an aquatic study be done on Parkers Lake during 1992, with the possible application of the chemical Sonar to control milfoil to be done in 1993. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Volunteer program - continue discussion. Commissioner Waage reported that she had not had time to contact Mayor Bergman for more information on the role PRAC should be taking in the volunteer program. She stated she would be calling him within a day or two and would report back at the May meeting. PRAC Minutes/April 9, 1992 Page 11 6. NEW BUSINESS a. Review request from Hewitt -Peterson to purchase land for park. Hewitt -Peterson and Associates approached city staff recently requesting that the city consider acquiring approximately 10 acres at a cost of about $208,000. This land is located north of County Road 9 just west of 494 and east of Fernbrook Lane. The city currently owns two other parcels of wooded land in this same area. In addition, the City's comprehensive plan does contemplate that more land in this area will be acquired via park dedication when the property to the north is developed. Larry Liles, representing Hewitt -Peterson, stated that this land was platted once already, in 1988, but that the Planning Commission reguided the property from LA 3 to LA 2, so those plans were later scrapped. In order to build there now, a lift station would have to be installed, which is quite costly, and something the city has indicated they are not very eager to do. Another option is to run the sewer lines down from the north, also a costly venture and not a very practical one from the city's standpoint. Commissioner Burk asked Mr. Liles for an estimate on the cost of the homes that would be built on this site, if the city did not buy the land for park purposes. Mr. Liles estimated. somewhere between $150,000 and $200,000, with the lots selling for about $40,000. Commissioners asked Director Blank what the future plans are for the land the city currently owns in this area. He stated that nothing definite has been proposed for this site. He also stated that PRAC needs to decide if it is appropriate at this time to acquire more of the woods than what is proposed in the comprehensive plan, if the asking price is reasonable for this property, and to also keep in mind that part of this property would likely be obtained through park dedication when the land is developed. Commissioner Burk indicated that he felt the asking price was too high, and if he was asked to make a recommendation right now, he would vote against purchasing the land. Commissioner Johnson indicated he would rather see the money spent on the development of West Medicine Lake City Park, which has been in the comprehensive plan for many years. Commissioner Wahl stated the land is a valuable piece of property and the city should acquire it for future park purposes. He also believes the asking price is a matter the Council should negotiate, not the Park Commission. Councilmember Edson commented that the price of property should not be mentioned during PRAC discussions when considering a particular property's acquisition. PRAC Minutes/April 9, 1992 Page 12 Commissioner Watson stated she needed more time to consider the acquisition, because PRAC had been given the information just two days prior to the meeting. Commissioners agreed that before they can make any decision, they want to know the assessed value of this property, who owned it before, and the history of the property up until now. They also want to know what funds are available to acquire property. Director Blank responded that this information will be part of the CIP discussions, which will begin during the May meeting. Commissioners unanimously agreed that they could not make a decision at this time. The representatives from Hewitt - Peterson stated they would be willing to wait for an answer for at least 30 days. The Commission discussed this timeline and decided that it might not be sufficient either, so they suggested that Director Blank inform Mr. Liles that they may not have an answer for him until after they've had a chance to review the CIP, scheduled for PRAC discussion during the months of May, June and July. Councilmembers Edson, Tierney and Vasiliou agreed that asking for a decision with such a short time to consider it, was not very practical. They also stated that Hewitt - Peterson's plans to come before the Council by April 20 was not very realistic, since they have not presented their proposal to the Planning Commission yet, either. Councilmember Edson indicated that the Council is interested in long term development and the acquisition of land. However, before PRAC makes recommendations to acquire more land, the Council wants to be sure that PRAC definitely sees a need and has a plan in mind for the land. He stated that he voted against acquiring the Forster property, because he did not see a definite need for it, and he also believes land acquisition should be considered in northwest Plymouth. He also was not comfortable with the parks portion of the CIP being changed at the last minute. He further stated that the Council would like to see PRAC take an aggressive role in debating the long range goal for parks, identifying land in northwest Plymouth that is needed, developing existing land and maintaining current facilities. The Council would also like to have more communication with PRAC and would like PRAC to hold something similar to Town Meetings in order to get the views of the citizens, the athletic associations, etc. Councilmember Tierney indicated that she voted in favor of purchasing the Forster property, because she had been assured that it was what PRAC wanted. I PRAC Minutes/April 9, 1992 Page 13 Councilmember Vasiliou stated she voted against the acquisition, because no one could answer how access to this property was going to be obtained. She further stated that a turn lane off County Road 9 would cost approximately $92,000, which she didn't believe had been considered in the overall price. She also remarked that during Town Meetings, the residents are not indicating any needs when asked if there is anything the City should be providing them. The most verbal residents"are those that want trails kept free of snow in the winter. b. Request for use of soccer field. A resident of Plymouth contacted Director Blank regarding the use of a soccer field on a regular basis for an adult team comprised of people from all over the metropolitan area. When he was informed that our fields are in such great demand by Plymouth residents that we are unable to schedule them for outside groups, he indicated he'd be attending the PRAC meeting. Since he was not present and hasn't contacted the Parks Department since his initial conversation with Director Blank, there was no need to discuss this item further. 7. COMMISSION PRESENTATION Commissioners questioned Director Blank about what items would be discussed at the joint meeting. Director Blank stated it was up to the Commission to decide, but that one of the items will be the sidewalk -trail plan prepared by Strgar- Roscoe-Fausch, who will also attend the meeting. Director Blank also indicated that a petition has been received by the City from residents living along Ridgemount Avenue near Wayzata East Junior High and Sunset Hill Elementary. Some of these residents live in Plymouth and some in Minnetonka. They are requesting that the two cities jointly construct an off-road trail along Ridgemount to provide safer access to these two schools. The trail plan calls for a striped trail on the road, which is what is currently maintained here. 8. STAFF COMMUNICATION Director Blank stated that work on the new 10th Avenue Park began on Monday, April 6, and that as soon as the road restrictions are lifted, on or about April 13, crews will move into Shiloh and Gleanloch neighborhood parks to begin work there. Work will also begin again on Parkers Lake and Bass Lake Playfields. The Council would like PRAC to recommend which trails should be plowed next winter when they begin their budget work for 1993. The Council is often receiving calls from residents asking that the new trail along Schmidt Lake Road be part of the snow removal plan. PRAC Minutes/April 9, 1992 Page 14 Councilmember Tierney remarked that the athletic associations are in need of some place to store their equipment. She commented that there are three small garden -type storage sheds on Oakwood School property, but this is not sufficient or very secure. She wondered what other cities do in terms of storage of athletic association equipment. Director Blank responded that staff had conducted a survey of other cities, and the results will be shared with the Council and PRAC. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:41 p.m. Regular Council Meeting April 20, 1992 Page 141 MOTION was made by Councilmember Vasil:L , seconded by Councilmember Edson, to= -adopt RESOLUTION NO. 92-242 ORDERING.PREPARATION OF PRELIMINARY REPORT, STREET.IMPROVEMENTS, SCHMIDT LAKE ROAD - VICKSBURG LANE -TO FERNBROOK LANE; FERNBROOK LANE - SCHMIDT LAKE ROAD TO 47TH AVENUE; CITY PROJECT NO. 907. Motion carried on a roll call vote, four ayes; Helliw 11 a Park Director Blank requested that the Council provide direction on whether the silos at Parkers Lake Playfield should be improved or demolished. A bid of $29,000 was received for upgrading the structures. A bid of $4,500 was received for demolition. He recommended that the silos be retained and upgraded because they are of historical value. Councilmember Vasiliou asked if the silos are technically of historical significance. Director Blank responded that they do not qualify for designation on the National Historic Register, but they are of historical significance to Plymouth. Councilmember Edson stated his primary concern with retaining the structures is safety. There is no effective way of preventing people from climbing the structures. Director Blank stated signage prohibiting climbing would be posted and the silos would be lit from an adjacent parking lot, but he agreed that the potential for climbing is there. He stated that the silos could be removed at any time in the future if problems do occur. The Council discussed the potential hazards and nuisances involved with retaining the structures including safety and graffiti. Councilmember Vasiliou stated it would probably cost more to have the silos removed in the future after the park is developed. She stated concerns with ongoing maintenance, as well as safety. RESOLUTION 92-242 ORDERING PRELIMINARY ENG. REPORT FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. 907 Item 8-E Parkers Lake Playfield Silos Item 8-F 4 Regular Council Meeting April 20, 1992 Page 142 Councilmember Helliwell stated that the silos should be maintained for their historical value to the community. MOTION was made by Councilmember Helliwell to upgrade the silos. Motion died for lack of a second. MOTION was made by Councilmember Vasiliou, RESOLUTION 92-243 seconded by Mayor Bergman, to adopt RESOLUTION APPROVING NO. 92-243 APPROVING DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL OF DEMOLITION AND SILOS IN PARKERS LAKE PLAYFIELD. REMOVAL OF SILOS IN PARKERS LAKE Motion carried on a roll call vote, four ayes; PLAYFIELD Helliwell nay. Item 8-F The Council reviewed the list of pending and Counca-M-3.rectives completed 1992 Council Directives. Item 8-G-1 Manager Willis updated the Council on the status Public Safety of the select 'on of a Public Safety Director. Director Selection stated Counci embers will be given the opportunity tot eet the finalist candidata Councilmember Vas iou commended Denn' Paulson for the job he is ing as Acting P lic Safety Director in the inte 'I MOTION was made by Cou cilmemb Vasiliou, seconded by Councilmemb r Hel well, to accept the Council directives r o Motion carried, five ayes The Council reviewed t Cap'tal Improvements and Project Status Project Status Report Reports Item 8-G-2 Manager Willis rep rted that th concrete forming Public Safety work is being in alled for the lic Safety Building Building. The ntractor expects o have the building enclo d by early July. Manager Will' reported that Minnega o completed Union Terrace Gas installation of gas mains along Union Xerrace Main Installation Lane on April 16 and 17. The proposed adway was slightly realigned in an effort to protect trees. In response to a question from Councilmember Vasiliou, he stated staff has Regular Council Meeting April 20, 1992 Page 144 Councilmember Vasiliou reported on a recent meeting of the Wayzata Plymouth Chemical Health Commission. She presented a report prepared bey the City Clerk and City Attorney addressing questiong raised by the Commission relating to licensing\ef liquor servers and liquor server training. Commission believes licensing £ servers woul instill responsibility on th server, as wel as the business. The Wayzata Plyrkuth Chemical Healt mmission has asked the Ci Ciuncil to consi r licensing servers in on and of -sale establ' ents, similar to Bloomin n, and to are in the responsibility for roviding s er training. Councilmember Vasil u stat d she is unsure whether the City sho ld b involved in training, but the server licen 'ng iseems reasonable. She stated that servers i Bloomington welcomed the licensing from the st 'dpoint that they previously were uns a if they had the legal right to refuse se ice Councilmember E on stat d licensing liquor servers would Ovide ad 'tional accountability and make peop a aware of roblems inherent in liquor esta „ ishments. CCR : Item Adcensing for Liquor Servers - Wayzata Plymouth Chemical Health Commission CouncilmrfLb6r Helliwell su ested that staff present report on this to c to the Council for disco ion. Councilmember Vasiliou stated the Wayzata Music in Plymouth Plymouth Chemical Health Commission is interested in participating in Music in Plymouth. She asked Civic League member Edson to carry this message to the Music in Plymouth planning committee Councilmember Tierney stated that at a previous Communication Council meeting when the Council considered the Concerns - Forster property acquisition for park purposes, CCR Role she felt left out of the process. She stated there seemed to be an understanding among three members of the Council, and no communication was provided to the Councilmembers from PRAC Council Coordinating Representative (CCR) Edson that there were concerns with the acquisition. Regular Council Meeting April 20, 1992 Page 145 She stated that the Council will be.considering another acquisition at a future meeting. Before that occurs, the Council should discuss what communication should be occurring between PRAC and the Council and the role of the CCR. She stated that in the Forster property consideration, had the PRAC members known there was some problem with the acquisition from Councilmembers' perspectives, PRAC members may have attended the Council meeting to share their reasons for supporting the acquisition. She stated that perhaps PRAC was left out of the process also. Councilmember Edson stated that PRAC considered the Forster acquisition in 1991. The Council directed staff to negotiate the purchase with the Forsters so PRAC was not involved further. He stated that he believes the role of the CCR is to facilitate communication between the Commission and the Council. He stated that a good time to discuss communication concerns and expectations of PRAC is at the joint meeting scheduled for May 14. An issue that should be discussed at that meeting is the timing of capital improvement projects. PRAC considers and recommends capital improvements in June or July. The Council considers those improvements almost a year later. In the Forster situation, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) was amended by staff and the Council months after PRAC made its recommendation. PRAC did not have an opportunity to discuss the priorities established in the revised CIP. Councilmember Vasiliou stated that PRAC has been instructed not to look at issues from a financial perspective, but rather from a community need perspective. Her vote to not acquire the Forster property was made for financial reasons and related to access to the property. Councilmember Helliwell agreed with Councilmember Tierney that there was a communications breakdown on the Forster property issue. Councilmember Tierney stated the Council should evaluate this issue to determine where communication improvements can be made. Regular Council Meeting April 20, 1992 Page 146 Councilmember Edson stated that he receives the agenda, not a full packet of informat' , f FRAC meetings. Councilmember Edson requested that he Council schedule a joint mee ing with th The HRA would like to discuss egal opi ons regarding senior housing recently receiv,d by the HRA and the senior housing issue in neral. The Council established a ee 5:00 to 5:30 p..m. The C n i liquor license server r,Cluir the joint City Council iRA me i The Council establi ed a mee Grove City Counci 'on June 22 on May 4 from 1 discuss the At 5:30 p.m. is scheduled. with the Maple 7:00 p.m. Manager Willis reported on the upc8,tning DARE graduations.,/ He asked Councilmembei's_to notify staff if they will be able to attend the ceremonies Joint Council/HRA Meeting Item 8-K Meeting with Maple Grove City Council Item 8-K DARE Graduations Information Memo Item 8-L Councilmember Tierney suggested that the Council Athletic direct PRAC to consider the issue of athletic Association association equipment storage. She stated that Equipment Storage according to a survey recently conducted by Information Memo staff, many cities are doing something to Item 8-L accommodate storage of associations' equipment. PRAC could meet with the various athletic associations to determine their needs and to locate property or a building for sufficient storage. Councilmember Vasiliou asked if the athletic associations feel this is a need. The City should not create a need by initiating the issue if it is not of concern to the associations. Councilmember Tierney stated it has historically been a concern of the associations and the Council should communicate with FRAC and the associations about the issue. She stated she will discuss the issue with athletic associations. . Regular Council Meeting April 20, 1992 Page 147 Councilmember Tierney will communicate with the athletic associations regarding this issue and report back to the Council. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. 9(//CliteL Clerkity MEMO CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 DATE: May 8, 1992 TO: PRAC EJ, FROM: Eric J. Blank, Director of Parks and Recreation , SUBJECT: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET Attached for your review and discussion is a fairly inclusive list of all capital items which may be considered for the next five years. You may be aware of other items you would like to see added to this list for further consideration. When the Commission takes its park tour in a few weeks, these sites will be the basis for that tour. At your June meeting, I will attempt to put cost figures associated with as many of these projects as possible for further review and discussion by the Commission. I have also included copies of the 1991 C.I.P., plus the original and revised copies of the 1992 C.I.P. A summary of the park dedication fund is also included. EB/np Attachment 1 DRAFT PARKS C.I.P. 1993-97 I. Land Acquisition A. #9 playfield site B. #10 playfield site C. Woods between Fernbrook & 494 II. Existing Undeveloped Land A. Mud Lake Neighborhood Park B. 22nd Avenue Neighborhood Park C. Co. Rds. 101 & 24 Neighborhood Park D. Northeast Neighborhood Park E. Fernbrook Neighborhood Park III. Redevelopment of Existing Parks A. West Medicine Lake Park B. Hemlock Neighborhood Park IV. Individual Projects A. Tennis courts -Plymouth Creek Park B. Playgrounds 1. Plymouth Creek Park handicapped accessible 2. West Medicine Lake Park 3. Schmidt Lake Park 4. Mission Hills Park 5. Timber Shores Park C. Fishing docks -East and West Medicine Lake Parks D. Shelter building-Ridgemount Playfield E. Parking lot expansion -Zachary Playfield V. Citizen Requests A. Trail-Ridgemount Avenue B. Landscaping -East Beach C. Tennis courts -Shiloh, Green Oaks, Turtle Lake, and Heritage Neighborhood Parks VI. Special Facilities A. Outdoor pool and/or indoor pool B. Golf course C. Ice rink D. Senior center E. Field house F. Nature center VII. Trails (see maps) 1991- 1995 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM PARKS MAP PROGRAM NO. YEAR DESCRIPTION 1 1991 Shiloh Park Redevelopment 2 1991 Gleanloch Park Playground 3 1991 Plymouth Creek Park - Tennis Courts 4 1991 Fazendin Neighborhood Park - Bridge 5 1991 Four seasons Park - Bridge 6 1991 Ridgemount Playfield - Irrigation 7 1991 10th Avenue Neighborhood Park Development e 1991 Trail Improvements 8 1991 Parkers Lake and Bass Lake Playfields 9 1991 Zachary Playfield Land Acquisition 10 1992 County Road 9 and Fernbrook Lane Neighborhood Park Acquisition/Development, 11 1992 West Medicine Lake Park Development - Phase I 12 1992 Trail - Zachary Lane from Old County Road 9 to County Road 10 1992 Trail Improvements 13 1993 Mud.Lake Neighborhood Park Development 14 1993 West Medicine Lake Park Development - Phase II. 15 1993 Ridgemount Playfield Shelter Building 1993 Trail Improvements 16 1994 County Road 101 and County Road 24 Neighborhood Park 17 1994 Plymouth Creek Park - Dredging of Pond 1994 Trail Improvements 18 1995 Vicksburg Lane and 22nd Avenue Neighborhood Park Development 1995 Trail Improvements all PLYMOUTR 1992 - 1996 Capital Improvement Plan 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD PLYMOUTH MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 550-5000 CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 92-204 ADOPTION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 1992 - 1996 WHEREAS, the City Council has developed a Capital Improvements Program for the year 1992 through 1996; and WHEREAS, said proposed program has been reviewed by the Planning Commission as to consistency with all local comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, said proposed program has been reviewed by the public at a public hearing conducted on February 26, 1992. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA: That the Capital Improvements Program for the year 1992 through 1996, Schedule C is hereby adopted as the official Capital Improvements Program for the City of Plymouth. Adopted by the City Council on April 6, 1992 MAP PROGRAM N0. YEAR 1992 - 1996 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM ARKS DESCRIPTION 1 1992 Forester Land/Co. Rd. 9 Acq. 2 1992 Co. Rd. 9/Fernbrook Ln. Neighborhood Park Acq./Dev. 3 1992 Trail Improvement 4 1993 Forester Land/Co. Rd. 9 Acq. 5 1993 Mud Lake Neighborhood Park Dev. 6 1993 Trail Improvement 7 1994 Trail - Zachary Ln. from Old Co. Rd. 9 to Co. Rd. 10 8 1994 Co. Rd. 101/Co. Rd. 24 Neighborhood Park Dev. 9 1994 Trail Improvement 10 1995 Trail Improvement 11 1995 N.E. Neighborhood Park Dev. 12 1996 Vicksburg Ln./22nd Ave. Neighborhood Park Dev. 13 1996 Trail Improvement PARK C.I.P 1992-96 REVISED FOR PROJECT ORIGINAL PLANNING COMM. 1992 Plymouth Creek tennis court 250,000 0 Trail improvements 50,000 50,000 Co Rd 9/Fernbrook land acq. 250,000 250,000 Forester land acquisition 0 287,500 550,000 587,500 1993 West Medicine park phase I 250,000 0 Ridgemount shelter 120,000 0 Forester land 2nd payment 0 195,000 Mud Lake neighborhood park 165,000 165,000 Trails 60.000 60,000 595,000 420,000 1994 Zachary trail 110,000 110,000 Cc Rd 24 neighborhood park 165,000 165,000 Trails 65,000 65,000 West Med park phase II 500,000 0 Plymouth Creek pond dredging 500,000 0 1,340,000 340,000 1995 Trails 75,000 75,000 NE neighborhood park 0 100,000 75,000 175,000 1996 Vicksburg & 22nd Ave park 100,000 100,000 Trails 75,000 75,000 175,000 175,000 TOTALS 3,075.000 1,697,500 REDUCTION 1,377,500 PARK DEDICATION FEES Actual 1989 $742,000 1990 557,000 1991 375,000 218 Y1219 Projected 1992 350,000* 245,000 105,000 1993 400,000 280,000 120,000 1994 400,000 280,000 120,000 1995 350,000 245,000 105,000 1996 350,000 245,000 105,000 Does not include $90,-000 from sale of land. The above figures do not include the $500,000 in playfield trust fund. 1/1/92 #218 $471,267 219 254,784 trust fund 500.000 Est. fund balance $1,226,051 CITY OF PLYMOUTH SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL TASK FORCE REPORT APRIL 22, 1991 The purpose of the financial task force has been to review the financial history of the city, evaluate Plymouth's current financial position, project the City's future financial needs and make recommendations to meet the future financial needs of the City. CONCLUSIONS: The City of Plymouth has been well managed on a fiscally conservative basis. The City has utilized available funding methods in an effective manner without overextending itself with general obligation bonds or tax increment financing. Due to the anticipated continual growth of the City, the general fund levy limitations currently mandated by the state (an annual increase of 3% plus one-half of population growth) will create general fund deficits in future years. Under these limitations the City's portion of total property taxes will continue to decrease. 3. Cuts in State Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aids (HACA) will be less serious for Plymouth than for many other cities. HACA accounts for approximately 12% of Plymouth's 1991 budget, other cities may receive as much as 50% of their revenue from HACA. 4. The capital cost of new and replacement streets, sewer and water infrastructure has been and can continue to be funded through special assessments and utility charges. 5. Through prudent management of its financial resources the City has built substantial reserves which are available to fund future capital improvements. As summarized on the attached schedule, the City's estimated December 31, 1990 fund balances were $85 million. We believe $13.6 million of these funds are available for current and future capital improvement projects. By the year 2004 an estimated additional $7.1 million in interest earned on special assessments will be available for capital improvements. RECONIMEENDATIONS: 1. Maintain a general fund reserve of 40% of the annual budget to meet short- term revenue shortfalls or unanticipated one-time extraordinary expenditures. The current balance of $3.9 million is approximately 40% of the current budget. 2. Before committing to major new capital projects the City should also evaluate their impact on future operating and maintenance costs. 3. $13.6 million of the City's current discretionary funds should be used to establish a permanent Capital Improvement Fund (CIF) for funding major new capital projects. A minimum balance should be maintained in the CIF by limiting expenditures. 4. Financial forecasts beyond one year are necessary: a. The City staff should develop five year summary operating revenue and expenditure projections for all budgeted funds. b. Establish a formal strategic planning function that will work with the City Council to analyze and select goals and objectives for the City. 5. Establish a Contingency/Disaster Recovery Plan for all phases of City government. 6. Analyze the City's operational effectiveness including the quality of service, functional organization, staffing levels, performance standards, etc. Since government isn't faced with the market place economics of the private sector, it is critical the city's human resources be managed for maximum effectiveness. 7. Seek to increase citizen participation and input in all aspects of local government including voluntary participation in park and recreation activities and membership on City commissions and committees. 8. Several specific capital projects were referred to the financial task force for input. We believe that the public works, public safety and related City Center improvements are needed and would be properly funded through the Capital Improvement Fund. We also recommend that these projects should be built in phases so as to minimize the construction of excess space before it is needed. Prior to the development of the Parkers Lake and Bass Lake Playfields, we recommend that the City more fully assess the current needs for such expenditures. These parks should also be built in phases so as to minimize over building these facilities. 9. Obtain broad-based citizen input and consensus before undertaking any further work on a community center. 10. The City Council should refrain from purchasing the site for the proposed senior citizen housing project until such time as a market study and feasibility study have been completed. The City should consider the cost to taxpayers versus the benefits and risks. 11. To carry on the function begun by the Financial Task Force, the City Council should appoint a permanent Financial Advisory Committee. A City of Plymouth Financial Task Force Report Analysis of Fund Balances as of December 31. 1990 Public Safety 3,700,000 Public Works 3,800,DDO Parks (1) 3,000,000 10,500,000 1) May be partially funded from future park dedication fees. Estimated Fund Unencumbered Required Recommended Discretionary Balance Caamitted Balance Reserves Reserves Reserves General Fund 3,900,000 3,900,000 3,900,000 0 Recreation 18,000 18,000 18,000 0 Police State Aid 178,000 215,000 37,000) 37,000) 0 Building & Equipment 1,500,000 104,000 1,396,000 1,396,000 0 Forestry 15,000 15,000 15,000 0 Parkers Lake Cemetery Maint 49,000 49,000 49,000 0 Transit System 130,000 80,000 50,OOD 50,000 0 Community Devel Block Grant 47,000 47,000 47,000 0 Project Administration 828,000 828,000 428,000 400,000 City & Community Parks 830,000 830,000 330,000 500,000 Neighborhood Parks 379,000 379,000 379,000 0 Park Replacement 60,000 60,000 60,000 0 Public Facilities 1,221,000 1,221.GaO 1,221,000 0 Housing & Redevelopment _ 25,000 25,000 25,000 0 General Obl. Debt Sery 89,000 89,000 89,000 0 Tax Increment Bond Debt Sery 6,111,000 6,111,000 6,111,000 0 Special Assess. Debt Sery 27,000,OOD 27,000,000 27,000,000 0 Gen. Capital Proj Const 310,000 310,000 310,000 0 Minnesota State Aids Const 862,000 862,000 862,000 0 Special Assessment Const 13,858,000 13,858,000 13,858,000 0 Permanent Improv Revolv. 12,341,000 800,000 11,541,000 1,200,000 10,341,000 Vater 5,900,000 5,900,000 4,500,000 1,000,000 Sewer 2,800,000 2,800,000 2,800,000 400,000 Central Stores 180,000 180,000 180,000 0 Central Equipment 1,875,000 1,875,000 875,000 1,000,000 Risk Management 4,500,000 4,500,000 4,500,000 0 Parkers Lake perpetual 70,000 70,000 70,000 0 65,076,000 1,199,000 83,877,000 48,325,000 z z{ 21,911,000 13,641,000 Estimated future interest earnings 1991 through 2004 7,135,000 20,776.000 Proposed Projects: Public Safety 3,700,000 Public Works 3,800,DDO Parks (1) 3,000,000 10,500,000 1) May be partially funded from future park dedication fees. PROGRAM REVENUE/EXPENSES THROUGH MARCH 31, 1992 SUMMARY QUARTERLY RECAP Rev Rev Bdgt YTD 27% 8704 3788 19% 406766 130476 21% 415470 134264 Net Revenue Bdgted YTD 44% Total Direct 32% 158290 Exp Exp Exp Category Bdgt Bdgt YTD 201 Total Programs 115397 78988 21397 202 Total Programs 453658 248476 46567 TOTALS 569055 327464 67964 QUARTERLY RECAP Rev Rev Bdgt YTD 27% 8704 3788 19% 406766 130476 21% 415470 134264 Net Revenue Bdgted YTD 44% 70284 17609 32% 158290 83909 32% 88006 66300 25%` -- 53% 75% Total Direct 1st 2nd 3rd 4th of Bdgted Bdgted Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Bgt YTD Total Revenue 415470 415470 134264 0 0 0 32% Total Expenses 569055 327464 67964 0 0 0 21% NET 153585 88006 66300 0 0 0 75% QUARTERLY RECAP 1991 COMPARISON Total Direct 1st 2nd 3rd 4th of Bdgted Bdgted Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Bgt YTD Total Revenue 394438 394438 122909 0 0 0 31% Total Expenses 538641 304019 59854 0 0 0 20% NET 1 144203 90419 63055 0 0 0 0% 25%` -- 53% 75% PROGRAM REVENUE/EXPENSES THROUGH MARCH 31, 1992 Total Direct 201, Exp Exp Exp Rev Rev Net Revenue Category Bdgt Bdgt YTD Bdgt YTD Bdgtd YTD 001 Warming Houses 16244 13165 11472 87% 0 0 0% 13165 11472 87% 002 Adaptive 4986 3476 3708 107% 0 0 0% 3476 3708 107% 003 Adapt Mainstream 703 200 0 0% 0 0 0.% 200 0 0% 007 Beaches 32581 25756 0 0% 0 0. 0% 25756 0 01% 011 PITS 12412 8559 0 096 1575 0 0% 6984 0 0% 015 Puppet Wagon 8187 4621 0 0% 0 0 0% 4621 0 0% 016 Senior Citizens 10939 8159 3868 47% 1000 1080 108% 7159 2788 39% 022 Special Events 23353 13765 104 1% 2475 0 0% 11290 104 1% 027 Just For Kids 1998 1287 15 1% 1854 0 0% 567 15 3% 028 Arts Festival 3994 0 2230 0% 1800 2708 150% 1800 478 27% 201 TOTALS 115397 78988 21397 27% 8704 3788 44% 72651 18072 25% PROGRAM REVENUE/EXPENSES THROUGH MARCH 31, 1992 Total Direct 202 Category Exp Bdgt Exp Bdgt Exp YTD Rev Rev Net Revenue Bdgt YTD Bdgted YTD 010 Equipment Rental 636 125 0 0% 258 0 0% 133 0 0$ 101 After School Pro 3979 460 709 154% 1050 1318 126$ 590 609 103% 112 Pavilion Rental 2252 613 0 0% 1442 121 8% 829 121 15% 150 Aerobics 4856 1960 0 0% 4079 0 0% 2119 0 0% 151 Fitness Classes 2292 400 250 63% 1100 404 37% 700 154 22% 153 Arts & Crafts 5258 2285 181 8% 2073 453 22% 212 272 128$ 164 LeBody Shop 17069 14190 1593 11% 18997 3346 18% 4807 1753 36% 175 Family Activit 2224 448 0 0% 1345 0 0% 897 0 0$ 178 Clubs 493 160 0 0% 413 0 0% 253 0 0% 185 Youth Dance 11265 5039 3482 69% 7814 4589 59% 2775 1107 40% 190 Drama/Music 2765 873 612 70% 1092 705 65% 219 93 42% 192 Firearm/Snowmbl 1922 486 0 0% 581 156 27% 95 156 164% 193 Body Cond/Yoga 4662 1550 0 0% 3205 0 0% 1655 0 0% 200 Gymnastics 14129 9457 1384 15% 11301 1778 16% 1844 394 21% 212 Jazzercise 32905 28016 8178 29% 33751 11480 34% 5735 3302 58% 216 Am Karate 7481 3699 825 22% 4315 2429 56% 616 1604 260% 235 Sailing 2639 1082 0 0% 1906 967 51% 824 967 117$ 236 Total Workout 3535 1092 260 24% 1313 347 26$ 221 87 39% 250 Special Events 5605 1987 0 0% 3621 44 1% 1634 44 3% 252 Fire & Ice 11593 2619 2505 96% 2690 2965 110% 71 460 648% 254 Fun Fitness 3848 1405 641 46% 1874 1273 68% 469 632 135% 290 New Programs 8486 2480 115 5% 4318 160 4% 1838 45 2% 291 Systems Improve 34823 5900 1244 21% 2000 621 31% 3900 623 16% TOTALS 180102 86326 21979 25% 110538 33156 30% 24212 11177 46% PROGRAM REVENUE/EXPENSES THROUGH MARCH 31, 1992 Total Direct 202 Exp Exp Exp Rev Rev Net RevenueCategoryBdgtBdgtYTDBdgtYTDBdgtedYTD 050 3 -Man BB 5178 1446 565 39% 5459 1345 25% 4013 780 19% 051 5 -Man BB 6492 5067 4121 81% 8423 0 0% 3356 4121 123% 052 Open Gym BB 1229 500 77 15% 1236 780 63% 736 703 96% 053 Unoff 5 Man BB 1892 1088 0 0% 2400 0 0$ 1312 0 0% 055 Ice Skating Inst 1033 304 294 97% 824 140 17% 520 154 30% 060 4 -Man FB 1916 305 0 0% 1978 0 0% 1673 0 0$ 064 Golf Inst 3183 2160 0 0% 4944 1704 34% 2784 1704 61% 071 T Ball/Youth SB 14701 8568 0 0% 15035 0 0-% 6467 0 0% 076 Broomball Lg 1935 324 184 57% 989 0 0% 665 184 28% 078 4 -Man Hockey Lg 1782 171 140 82$ 694 0 0% 523 140 27% 080 Tennis Instr 7378 4528 0 0% 10300 876 9% 5772 876 15% 081 Adult Tennis Lg 1609 76 0 0% 556 44 8% 480 44 9% 082 Jr Tennis Lg 2275 958 0 0% 1529 0 0% 571 0 0% 083 Tennis Tourn 1108 304 0 0% 618 0 0% 314 0 0% 085 Instr Soccer 915 404 0 0$ 1638 0 0% 1234 0 0$ 091 VB Instruction 1506 995 0 0% 1360 0 0%- 365 0 0% 093 Power VB 3035 1424 1009 71% 2916 0 0% 1492 1009 68% 094 Unoff VB Lg 6879 3147 1154 37% 7210 245 3% 4063 909 22% 105 Summer Softball 49919 36952 3998 11% 80000 74995 94% 43048 70997 165% 106 Fall SB Lg 7995 5069 0 0% 12751 0 0% 7682 0 0% 108 SB Tournaments 1979 0 0 0% 3090 0 0% 3090 0 0% 113 Field Rental 3742 0 0 0% 8734 25 0% 8734 25 0% 114 Park Concessions 2532 1140 0 0% 2083 1195 57% 943 1195 127% TOTALS 130213 74930 11542 15% 174767 81349 47% 99837 69807 70% PROGRAM REVENUE/EXPENSES THROUGH MARCH 31, 1992 Total Direct 202 Exp Exp Exp Rev Rev Net Revenue Category Bdgt Bdgt YTD Bdgt YTD Bdgted YTD 086 Indoor Soccer 1322 350 0 0% 873 0 0% 523 0 0% 087 Fall Soccer 15827 10198 0 0% 16373 0 0% 6175 0 0% 090 Wallyball 2819 1595 640 40% 2369 829 35% 774 189 24% 158 Beach Concess 7468 4769 64 1% 6036 112 2% 1267 48 4% 182 Ski Lessons 3138 2200 0 0% 2510 0 0% 310 0 0% 186 Disc Day Camp 12385 8495 0 0% 11809 0 0% 3314 0 0% 187 Exp Day Camp 6348 3900 0 0% 3838 0 0% 62 0 0% 208 Ski Trips 18777 12895 8080 63% 18794 6314 34% 5899 1766 30$ 251 Gym, Swim, Movie 4857 1905 550 29$ 3399 1671 49$ 1494 1121 75% 260 Swimming Instr 26602 19864 0 0% 26690 0 0% 6826 0 0% TOTALS 99543 66171 9334 14$ 92691 8926 10$ 26520 408 2$ PROGRAM REVENUE/EXPENSES THROUGH MARCH 31, 1992 Total Direct 202 Exp Exp Exp Rev Rev Net Revenue Category Bdgt Bdgt YTD Bdgt YTD Bdgted YTD 072 Have a Ball 3790 1220 0 0$ 2101 616 29$ 881 616 70$ 111 Pre-school Spec. 5104 2179 48 2$ 3708 370 10$ 1529 322 21$ 160 Bits & Pieces 3417 492 243 49$ 1372 548 40$ 880 305 35$ 174 PITS Friday Spec 3915 1825 0 0% 2897 0 0$ 1072 0 0$ 196 Getaway Trips 5809 3951 496 13$ 4153 379 9% 202 117 58$ 201 Music/Everyone 8115 5546 1791 3216 6798 2810 41$ 1252 1019 81$ 205 Plym Pedestrians 2208 213 5 2$ 324 144 44$ 111 139 125$ 213 Small Change 2816 1887 579 31$ 2359 1142 48$ 472 563 119$ 223 Play Pals 5377 2096 0 0$ 3044 0 0$ 948 0 0$ 225 Playtime Disc. 2685 1540 550 36$ 1834 1036 56$ 294 486 165$ 255 Birthday Party 564 100 0 0$ 180 0 0$ 80 0 0$ TOTALS 43800 21049 3712 18$ 28770 7045 24$ 7721 3333 43$ PROGRAM REVENUE/EXPENSES THROUGH MARCH 31, 1992 Total Direct Wayzata Exp Exp Exp Rev Rev $ Net RevenueProgramsBdgtBdgtYTDBdgtYTDBdgtedYTD 301 Beach 14639 11619 0 0% 0 0 0% 11619 0 0% 303 Tennis 1027 516 0 0% 975 0 0% 459 0 0% 360 Swim Lessons 24364 17879 0 0% 23456 0 0% 5577 0 0% 399 Admin Fees 0 0 0 0% 15599 0 0% 15599 0 0% TOTALS 40030 30014 0 0% 40030 0 0% 10016 0 0% CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 DATE: May 8, 1992 TO: PRAC FROM: Eric J. Blank, Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: HEWITT-PETERSON LAND At your last meeting, you had a proposal from Hewitt -Peterson to purchase approximately 20 acres of property for future park land. You requested that staff provide you with some additional information about this property. The basic facts are: the site is approximately 19.43 acres in size. The City assessor is carrying an estimated value on it of approximately $110,000 and it pays annual taxes of approximately 5,500. The current owners picked up the property in a foreclosure in 1990. The City has no record of what they paid for that acquisition. The attached graphic shows a preliminary plat that was approved on July 11, 1988. You can see the configuration of two condominium buildings on the south portion of this property and the property that was proposed at that time to be dedicated for City park. EB/np attachments PONDSC - Plo-5 INTERSTATE 494 BERKSHIRE LPTl L4 1. III TYPICAL TOWNHOME DET k;L 3 rLANE 1 rx i BERKSHIRE LPTl L4 1. III TYPICAL TOWNHOME DET k;L 3 rLANE 1 15-118-22 21 0003 ADDRESS _ SCHOOL DISTRICT LOT BLOCK 43715 1600 281/0 L/8y I /! : r SEC. 15-118-22 41. OWNER OR OCCUPANT ADDITIONAL NOTES: i 7.. V Millar WATCH FOR. BUILDING PEF IN 18— / 7 / (_ /._ IN IS— /1 DATE NUMBER G1 I _Sr 'Z.. -Q IIN 1B l_.Cl i.i [ eT. V l V_J_L' V 1 I` BILDGS. INC MPLETEI IN 18 ''..Sf VN 33 I N I IN IB— ESTIATED MARKET 'VALUE xaxrEno YEAR ADJUSTED MARKET VALUE 331/3% LAND MSTRUCTURE VzzTOTAL YE9 NO 19 LAND STRUCTURES MACHINERY TOTAL ASMTAG P YR IMP DEF titIIS i2 0 p I 0 Oi — ILr i1 0 toL v Qo O O c:- 1 MEMO CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 DATE: May 6, 1992 TO: Eric Blank, Director of Parks & Recreation FROM: James G. Willis, City Manager SUBJECT: PETITION FOR SOUTH SHORE DRI LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS Attached is a copy of a memorandum which I submitted to the City Council recommending that the petition be referred to the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission for their consideration for inclusion in the proposed 1993-1997 Park Capital Improvement Program. I would appreciate your sharing this information with PRAC as they consider future park capital improvement requests. JW:kec cc: S.F. 8/1/92 MEMO CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 6-J DATE: April 27, 1992 for City Council Meeting of May 4, 1992 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: James G. Willis, City Manager SUBJECT: PETITION FOR SOUTH SHORE DRI LANDSCAPING 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Receive and refer the petition for South Shore Drive landscaping to the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission for consideration with the 1993-1997 Capital Improvement Program. 2. BACKGROUND: Approximately two years ago, residents residing south and west of the East Medicine Lake beach park requested that the Council consider increased landscaping to buffer their homes from the light industrial uses to the southeast of their properties. The Council reviewed this matter as part of the 1991 budget deliberations, but did not include the requested funding. No consideration of the request was undertaken with the 1992 budget. Homeowners in the vicinity have again submitted a petition with respect to this matter, copies of which have previously been provided to the Council. 3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: I recommend this request be referred to the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission PRAC) in order that they may consider it as part of the overall park component of the City's 1993-1997 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). PRAC will soon be considering the next CIP and I believe it is appropriate that this request be included on their list of possible projects. It is, therefore, recommended that the Council, by motion, refer this to the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission for their consideration as part of their review and consideration of the 1993-1997 Park Capital Improvement Program. JW:kec A MEMO CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 DATE: April 23, 1992 TO: James G. Willis, City Manager{per FROM: Eric J. Blank, Director of Parks and RecreationC/ SUBJECT: PETITION FOR SOUTH SHORE DRIVE LANDSCAPING I received a call from Bridget Jodell the week of April 13 with regard to this subject. She indicated her desire to, once again, ask the City to fund this project as part of our 1993 capital improvements program. At her request, we sent her a copy of the landscape plan prepared by Don Kissinger. I will await further direction from you and the City Council on how you wish to proceed with this petition. For your information, the cost for doing the work in 199.0 was 5,240 with our labor and $11,340 by contract. EB/np April 20, 1992 Dear Mayor Bergman and Council Members; The residents of the South Shore Drive of Medicine Lake wish to resubmit their proposal for the "Landscaping Improvement Plan" submitted to the City of Plymouth during the 1990-1991 fiscal year. You may recall that Eric Blank and the city landscaper met with commu- nity residents prior to the proposal. At that time, project funding was denied. None of the community residents received a copy of the plan, nor were we officially notified of the Council's disapprovel. Since the 1990-1991 request, residents continue to view unsightly business establishments, accompanying noises, and numerous vehicles. This problem has continued since the establishment of The Ryerson- Gruman Steel complex in the 1960's, The structure continues to be an "eye -sore" to all citizentry utilizing the lake for water, biking or walking purposes. The area continues to be widely used. Conse- quently, the proposed landscaping project would beautify the city's largest lake and benefit its users. We do wish, however, to thank Mayor Bergman and the council for their efforts in passing the city's noise ordinance and approving the N.S.P. Substation's landscaping project adjacent to the South Shore Drive. Both actions have served to improve the problems adher- ent to business-inductrial zonings in residential areas. In this regard, we ask for continued support in our request that the council approve the proposed "Landscaping Improvement Plan" along the South Shore Drive. We would also request a copy of that proposal. c.c. Eric Blank APR 21'19 ` 1My6Ly,V##J# Sincerely, South Shore Drive Residents We request that the city council approve the "LandscapingImprovementFlan" along the South Shore Drive. U JUooz CLI.Li'L. O I/C.Zt-t'. U O i SG t'te _ '.•L rT' n V h /6L/-) /Y 1 I000F 4- SC ,, o U 3 c o 1-e S%r ULE 01 Y Lil. c[ : 3 ..n F f =., x :sa ? !• v t w . i.. de ' sq}'.« a'a lc rsf_:. '^.CY +•, Ei.;i., DATE: June 14, 1990 TO Eric Blank. Director_of Parks and Recreation FROM: Don Kissinger, City Forester SUBJECT. SIGHT.. AND NOISE SCREENING RECOMMENDATIONS SOUTH END OF EAST MEDICINE LAKE PARK After visiting the above mentioned park and obtaining !data bf.the area - proposed to be used as a screen, I have come up with these recommendations The best situation for a sight and noise screen is a layered approach which;. has the tallest plants in the middle or at one end. Since we cannot plant any trees `behind :the pea shrubs, which are next to the railroad;tracks,;we should plant' the tallest trees in the middle (the recommended trees, are Colorado Green, Spruce) `'They can grow to a matureheight' of-60-75°feet which will . pinedefinitelyscreenthefactoryandismoredensethanany type species, since the spacing of these trees should be at least 20 feet.`.> I recommend Amur Maple shrub/treeszto be`planted.in front of the' h II{. . spruce. to fill the gap M j:, Gy ' V `Yi IsY3'gf' .i fix' Ye^' a'rk `5!lbetweenspruce <See enclosed sketch) MM`CC r\' 4 1h 'L'N'& NFF St'f FgY ( b'P F .i pfd rcF?_£ } x3. rna ', U t .:. }{N""sz p " SY`" x r . ."' or fromFthe,maintained;grass=to'theTheareasbehindthe.chain.link`fence, railroad track; whichshas:portions devoid of trees or'shruba,-should be planted with .the same species`of shrub* that is pre seni2''(Siberian Pea Shrub) Therele,- feeG:Ghat isfopenapaceZ4n tbis*,area he shrubs#.y :. mature height and`width`is approximate y-12 feet If thisas;the factories- property, we would have to receive their permission to, pp lant trees z z -• , '" r ,. -':S ey'R. Ti?k4.o" k'€ ',,, know . the : uture sof thaE: s_I .'it : s < o> e: p an a , s 2,300 to $5,000 6. With the recommended planting scheme we will have correct spacing for the health of the trees and shrubs plus a dense pyramidal affect to direct noise upward and fill all site gaps. We must remember that to achieve a total screening affect it will take several years. In figuring the cost, I computed a reduced price where we would buy the material wholesale with no warranty on their health and plant them ourselves or a price where everything is contracted out and has a one year warranty. With the less expensive method we would need labor which is at a premium at most times of the year, plus we have no warranty should any trees die. The more expensive routes limitation is that of price. w;c.'B'Ia nk ?%t ' EriBl l June 14,'1990 Page Two - The plant ourself method would cost approximately $5,200 The contracted route would-,-be-7$1 1 300 t The number of,plants and their -corresponding prices s• "t areYwritten beloia v"' "r Cyafki r xa q aZ<<n ttruG=t'p a' 'i t a z 3'y PRICE PRICE PLANTS LABOR LABOR 12.00 $32.00 24 Siberian Pea Shrub 2-3' $288.. $768. ParkAzvmx Company ofWaywta4_en CORPORATE OFFICE: 742 TWELVE OAKS CENTER . 15500 WAYZATA BLVD. • WAYZATA, MN 55391 -,PHONE 612/475-1700 REG: FOX FOREST TOWNHOMES... 1798 Magnolia Ln.N.,Plymouth,MN PUBLIC ACCESS TRAIL THROUGH FOX FOREST 55441 5/9/92 MR. Eric Blank Parks and Recreation Director c/o PLYMOUTH CITY HALL 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Eric: Pursuant to our phone conversation on Friday, May 8th, I am writing to request the City of Plymouth continue the blacktopping on the public access path going through Fox Forest Townhomes. We are requesting that it be finally finished by the tracks until it ends at Medicine Lake Road. You have a lovely walkway that has just recently in its history, been beautifully attended to once we got together on the path itself and it is a pity to leave it unfinished. So many residents of Plymouth enjoy that walkway that we are looking forward to seeing your dedicated Parks persons out here to finalize. Hoping you'll attend to this as soon as possible, and please contact me with your decision, I remain, Te el y /yours, rilyn Lambert ESIDENT MGR. of FOX FOREST TOWNHOMES ab:lm GGOVT LOT 5 OVT LOT 4 4 10 Pogo of 'MEDICINE LAKE A6. F 4) sl W P® 2 22) T o 2 (a) orf• 0. its, .0m.t KAA C4G 1. 1 LK W W AO lO 1X t40RTHwESTERt4 RR I 4P OT M NO III SLWESE BAY EAST TA too 113) 41) Ilil .4[CAGO ul NORTHWESTERN 4,Zl•— ury lTo EV m..w. GOVT LOT44 5 2mm ws May 5, 1992 David Domaas 15910 46th Ave N Plymouth, MN 55446 Dear Mr. Domaas: CITY OF PUMOUTR Mayor Bergman has forwarded your resident feedback form to me for review and comment. The current Comprehensive Park Plan does not contemplate a neighborhood park within the Fawn Creek or Oxbow developments. However, a neighborhood park is shown on our Comprehensive Plan near Holly Lane west of your development. If the golf course were to be rezoned for residential property, I suspect a central location for a neighborhood park may be considered at that time. I will pass on your concerns to the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission. Thank you for taking the time to attend a town meeting. If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to call me at 550- 5131. Sincerely, Eric J. Blank Director of Parks and Recreation EJB/np cc: City Manager Communications Coordinator PRAC 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 550-5000 RESIDENT FEEDBACK FORM Please use this form if you have a question or concern which does not appear on the Town Meeting agenda to which you would like the City to respond and/or investigate. if you provide your name, address and phone number, we will advise you of our actions and findings with respect to your concern. NATURE OF CONCERN: (i}-iit CH I-Lba:) ACTION YOU DESIRE THE CITY TO TAKE: NAME: 2VC 4 Ik5-f i,j ADDRESS: City) (zip) PHONE NUMBER: , / Z S (-% 0 April 10, 1992 Marie Reed 18720 30th Ave N Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Marie: CITY OF PLYMOUTR Mayor Bergman has forwarded your resident feedback form from the March 30th Town Meeting to me for review and comment. I will be sending your comments to the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission, as well, so that they are aware of your request. On your feedback form, you requested information on two items. First, a night light near the playground, and second, a tennis court in Green Oaks Park. As a general rule, we do not install lighting in our neighborhood parks for two reasons: 1) the cost of acquiring and operating an ongoing security light, and 2) we have found that security lights become the primary target of vandalism. Thus, they tend to be somewhat self defeating in their purpose. I have asked our park maintenance division to provide me with some information with regard to the vandalism they have recorded at Green Oaks Park, so that I can get a better idea of the types of problems we may be experiencing there. There may be some other course of action we could take that would be less expensive than having a permanent light fixture in the park. Sn order to secure a tennis court in Green Oaks Park, -'I believe the best procedure for you to follow is to submit a petition with as many signatures as possible, to the City Council and the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission. However, before you begin the petition drive, let me give you some background on this issue. The City's comprehensive park system plan was developed around the concept that the more active recreation programs such as tennis, baseball, soccer, etc., would be located in community playfields rather than in neighborhood parks. The City Council has had requests in the past for tennis courts in neighborhood parks, and has consistently indicated that they did not wish to add tennis facilities at the neighborhood park level. As recently as last year, the Shiloh neighborhood park residents requested tennis courts at Shiloh Park and were turned down by the City Council. The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission will begin deliberations on the five year capital improvement program (CIP) at their May 14 meeting. They will also be reviewing and 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 550-5000 Marie Reed Page 2 April 10, 1992 discussing the CIP at their June and July meetings. If you wishtoproceedwiththisrequest, you should submit your documentation by May 6, so that the Park Commission can consider your request along with the other requests and projects they have under review throughout the entire community. Thank you for taking the time to attend the Town Meeting, and I appreciate hearing your feedback on these two subjects. If I can be of any further assistance to you, please feel free to contact me at 550-5131. Sincerely, SY, 4,6,< Eric J. Blank Director of Parks and Recreation EJB/np cc: City Manager Park Commission a memo from:; GARY WALTER J K MEMO CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 DATE: April 2, 1992 for Council Meeting of April 6, 1992 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: James G. Willis, City Manager SUBJECT: RECEIPT OF PETITION TO UPGRADE RIDGEMOUNT AVENUE WITH SIDEWALKS 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Refer the attached petition and request to the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) for their consideration and recommendation. 2. BACKGROUND: The Council has received the attached materials from concerned citizens of both Plymouth and Minnetonka residing along Ridgemount Avenue, as well as the Principals of Sunset Hill Elementary and Wayzata East Junior High Schools. Essentially, the petition requests that the cities of Plymouth and Minnetonka jointly construct sidewalks off the paved roadway along Ridgemount Avenue. 3. PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: The City's trail system plan provides for three classes of trails: Class I trails are separated from the roadway; Class II trails are striped along the roadway; and Class III trails are generally located along the interior of neighborhoods on their own corridors or along neighborhood streets. There is an existing Class II trail along Ridgemount Avenue from Zachary Lane to Plymouth Road. This trail was constructed several years ago in conjunction with the City of Minnetonka. The trail provides for pedestrian traffic along the edges of the roadway. Park and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) is currently completing its review of the trail system plan. It is appropriate, in my view, to refer this matter to PRAC in order that they may be aware of the interest of the neighbors and the two schools. The Commission can review this request and make their recommendations to the City Council. RECEIPT OF PETITION TO UPGRADE RIDGEMOUNT AVENUE WITH SIDEWALKS April 2, 1992 for Council Meeting of April 6, 1992 Page 2 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: I believe it is appropriate for this matter to be referred to PRAC for their review and consideration. Once they have reviewed this matter, they should report their recommendations to the City Council. In the event additional trail construction is recommended by PRAC, that recommendation should be forwarded to both the staff and the Planning Commission in order that it might be considered in the 1993 - 1997 Capital Improvement Program. JW: kec To: David Sonnenberg, City Engineer, City of Minnetonka Dan Faulkner, City Engineer, City of Plymouth From: Rick Jensen, Resident of Minnetonka Bill Hartman, Resident of Plymouth Date: March 17, 1992 Subject: UPGRADING OF RIDGEMOUNTAVE. We are submitting the attached petitions for City Council review of upgrading Ridgemount Ave. During the days March 12-17, 1992, we contacted the residents on Ridgemount Ave. and other neighboring streets and received 87 signatures approving this petition. In addition, we are submitting two attached letters, one from the local Sunset Hill Elementary Principal and one from the Wayzata East Junior High Principal. The following if a breakdown of the results obtained from those residents that have property along Ridgemount Ave.: 1. On the Minnetonka side: Number of homes 45 Signatures.obtained 41 Turn -downs 2 11201 Ridgemount Ave. 11609 Ridgemount Ave. Unable to contact 2 11917 Ridgemount Ave. 12017 Ridgemount Ave. CIM a 20,92 2. On the Plymouth side: Number of homes 22 Signatures obtained 18 Turn -downs 2 12440 Ridgemount Ave. 11616 Ridgemount Ave. Unable to contact 2 10 Vinewood 11220 Ridgemount Ave. We also submitted the petition to St. Mary of the Lake Church. The Business Manager will review with their committee during the April 11 meeting. A total of 67 signatures were received from residents with property on Ridgemount Ave. An additional 20 signatures were received from residents living next to Ridgemount Ave. No turn -downs were obtained from residents living next to Ridgemount Ave. During the presentation of the petition, numerous complaints were received from residents regarding Ridgemount Ave. These complaints are: 1. Traffic does not adhere to the 25 mph speed. 2. Many homes have water drainage problems with their basements and property due to the method of drainage along Ridgemount Ave. 3. Children, both from the Elementary and Junior High, do no stay in the bike path lanes and are constantly in the street making it difficult for the driver of the vehicles. 4. The road surface has many holes, expecially the western half. cim WR 20'92 5. The sun in the late afternoons blinds the drivers as they procede westbound up the hill past the Junior High. Many students are walking from school during this time, especially during the winter months, making the road dangerous for the students. 6. Many buses use Ridgemount Ave. and don't adhere to the 25 mph speed. 7. The curbing is broken down along the road. 8. The storm sewers are not able to handle the water problems from the street. We believe these matters and the attached petitions should be submitted to each of the Citys' councils and that, as stated in the petition, a feasibility study should begin as soon as possible. In addition, since Ridgemount Ave. is used by the parents, teachers and administrators of the two schools, and residents of Minnetonka and Plymouth use the Ridgemount Park, and residents of neighboring communities use St. Mary of the Lake Church, any upgrading to Ridgemount Ave. should be funded by the cities and/or state governments. Assessments should not be imposed on the property owners along Ridgemount Ave. CIM 0 2092 March, 1992 City of Minnetonka Mayor and City of Plymouth Mayor City of Minnetonka Council and City of Plymouth Council REGARDING: UPGRADING OF RIDGEMOUNT AVE. N. We, the undersigned residents of Minnetonka and Plymouth and other interested parties, request the City of Minnetonka and the City of Plymouth to,undertake a feasibility study to add a walk path and upgrade the street. We bel6ve the current street configuration is a dangerous environment for children walking toKrom the Sunset Hills Elementary, Wayzata East Junior High and Ridgemount Park. We request that this project be started ASAP and thatthe upgrade qualify for Municipal State Aid funding and not be assessed to the property owners. i& - 9 z (s 9a pq cf': 1 T- - ---a- ADDRESS iis7zc G r nM \ `V V T -<A 11ya5 7Z v6e-^cv. r 1W -4V . 'n4,rm 09u v'YUS /Pr,a tiy' /S'v 6. f1<r9 cim MAR 20'92 46E March, 1992 City of Minnetonka Mayor and City of Plymouth Mayor City of Minnetonka Council and City of Plymouth Council REGARDING: UPGRADING OF RIDGEMOUNT AVE. N. We, the undersigned residents of Minnetonka and Plymouth and other interested parties, request the City of Minnetonka and the City of Plymouth to.undertake a feasibility study to add a walk path and upgrade the street. We be*ve the current street configuration is a dangerous environment for children walking to/from the Sunset Hills Elementary, Wayzata East Junior High and Ridgemount Park. We request that this project be started ASAP and that the upgrade qualify for Municipal State Aid funding and not be assessed to the property owners. DATE 3' 3 0/3 3y/ 3 SIGNATURE ADDRESS Q,,,z%% y. /. G ll ilJl, eI7't7.7" ./7". • /.' alau, i' jZ o R c C# tre71( Qtins tasao 3/// 0%vG i cv,- F /Ire.¢ P- 10422- twz-k c XX . v{ GIM MAR 20'92 411 March, 1992 City of Minnetonka Mayor and City of Plymouth Mayor City of Minnetonka Council and City of Plymouth Council REGARDING: UPGRADING OF RIDGEMOUNT AVE. N. We, the undersigned residents of Minnetonka and Plymouth and other interested parties, request the City of Minnetonka and the City of Plymouth to.uundertake a feasibility study to add a walk path and upgrade the street. We beiLe the current street configuration is a dangerous environment for children walking to/from the Sunset Hills Elementary, Wayzata East Junior High and Ridgemount Park. We request that this project be started ASAP and that the upgrade qualify for Municipal State Aid funding and not be assessed to the property owners. DATE SIGNATURE ADDRESS iQ A 3 J ial a t - 3 2 ol 5-,?L 19,1- 305 So Sv ss B /'f4- r l Y- Aet, oO1 SknJe-f Zr. ). fY1 ICq, 505 SLJJ sCf Ur S M 1 '- 3or. JAG,. '_Q,:7%x" 3U > March, 1992 City of Minnetonka Mayor and City of Plymouth Mayor City of Minnetonka Council and City of Plymouth Council REGARDING: UPGRADING OF RIDGEMOUNT AVE. N. We, the undersigned residents of Minnetonka and Plymouth and other interested parties, request the City of Minnetonka and the City of Plymouth to: undertake a feasibility study to add a walk path and upgrade the street. We a the current street configuration is a dangerous environment for children walking totfrom the Sunset Hills Elementary, Wayzata East Junior High and Ridgemount Park. We request that this project be started ASAP and that the upgrade qualify for Municipal State Aid funding and not be assessed to the property owners. SIGNAI RE ADDRESS r -m Rr wcah S fi+AlCw Jcyj. 26 30 C1 dXjVOk7,4.ve ,t)j oCj e2 q3 il9ri Z; ti ynZ- March, 1992 City of Minnetonka Mayor and City of Plymouth Mayor City of Minnetonka Council and City of Plymouth Council REGARDING: UPGRADING OF RIDGEMOUNT AVE. N. We, the undersigned residents of Minnetonka and Plymouth and other interested parties, request the City of Minnetonka and the City of Plymouth to undertake a feasibility study to add a walk path and upgrade the street. We belewe the current street configuration is a dangerous environment for children walking to/from the Sunset Hills Elementary, Wayzata East Junior High and Ridgemount Park. We request that this project be started ASAP and that the upgrade qualify for Municipal State Aid funding and not be assessed to the property owners. DATE SIGNATURE Ami 3 - 3 /S/f da u9za j ic-.lchtr. fill,, i ADDRESS i Stu, 11, c e -In Jit. ., IN m IITKA MEMO TO: City of Minnetonka Mayor and City of Plymouth Mayor FROM: John Greupner Principal Zz" Wayzata East Junior High School DATE: March 16, 1992 It has come to our attention that parents and residents in our neighborhood are interested in upgrading Ridgemount Avenue. The upgrades would include pathways to increase the safety of walkers along Ridgemount. As a principal, I strongly support this request and encourage strong consideration of the safety issues. We receive calls every year from drivers and neighbors concerned about students walking dangerously close to traffic. Please consider us supportive of the proposal and willing to assist in a feasibility study. JG:mm cim WR 20'92 WAYZATA EAST JUNIOR HIGH 12000 RIDGEMOUNT AVENUE WEST PLYMOUTH, MN 55441-5899 (612) 476-3060 FAX: (612) 476-3134 March 1992 City of Minnetonka Mayor and City of Plymouth Mayor City of Minnetonka Council and City of Plymouth Council REGARDING: UPGRADING OF RIDGEMOUNT AVE. N. As principal of Sunset Hill I support the area residents' drive to have a sidewalk installed along Ridgemount Avenue. We currently use a Safety Patrol to ensure safe passage across Ridgemount but we can do nothing to guarantee a safe place to walk. A sidewalk would certainly solve this problem. I hope you consider the residents' request. Sincerely, 4c 1/ 41 C Gary K. Kipling Elementary Principal Sunset Hill Elementary CIM 0 20'92 Z March 18, 1992 Mr. Kim Bergman, Mayor City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Blvd. c Plymouth, Mn 55447 Dear Mr. Bergman: I am a resident of Minnetonka. I have been working with Bill Hartman, a resident of Plymouth. We have been working with Dan Faulkner, City Engineer, and residents of Minnetonka and Plymouth regarding the upgrading of Ridgemount Ave. As you may be aware, Ridgemount Ave. is the dividing line between Minnetonka and Plymouth. On the Plymouth side of Ridgemount Ave., two schools are located within approximately one-half mile from each other; Sunset Hills Elementary and Wayzata East Junior High. Next to the Junior High is Ridgemount Park. This park is used by the Junior High and the Plymouth/Wayzata community services for youth activities. Students from both the Minnetonka side and Plymouth side attend these schools. Several years ago, Ridgemount Ave. was striped for walking lane on both sides of the street. These lanes are part of the street. The intent was for a safer place for students to walk to/from the schools. However, because of the walking lane being part of the street, drivers of vehicles find students walking in groups on the street where vehicles are to operate, making it very dangerous for both the drivers and the students. Several residents in my area have questioned why the two cities have not installed off-street walk paths. As a result of our discussions with Dan Faulkner, a petition was drafted and distributed to the residents whose property borders on Ridgemount Ave. The Minnetonka side has 45 homes, of which 41 signed the petition, 2 refused and 2 we were unable to contact. The Plymouth side has 22 homes, of which 18 signed the petition, 2 refused and 2 we were unable to contact. The petition was distributed the days of March 12-17. We received signatures from 88% of the homes located on Ridgemount Ave. We also received letters from the two Principals of the schools supporting the petition. A large property owner, St. Mary of the Lake was presented with the petition and it will be proposed at their April 1 I committee meeting. On March 17, we presented Dan with copies of the signatures and a Memo recapping our petition results and a listing of some of the complaints of residents regarding Ridgemount Ave. On March 17, I also met with David Sonnenberg, City Engineer for the City of Minnetonka and presented the same data. Dan informed us that the petition was coming at a good time since planning was underway for road upgrades around the same area for 1993, and that City Council would be soon looking at the 1993 capital improvements programs. We feel it necessary that the upgrading of Ridgemount Ave. be included as one of the projects to be done in 1993. Many residents of both Plymouth and Minnetonka feel that our neighborhood cim NPR 20'92 1 - Q)— area has been ignored for capital improvements and maintenance by the two cities. I believe this attitude is largerly the result of poor roads and inadequate walk paths for students and residents to use. We ask for your support on this petition and that it be included in the 1993 capital improve- ments program. In addition, we feel it is very important for both cities to work together in accomplishing this task. Please call me at 542-9383 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Rick J nsen 101 Sunset Drive South Minnetonka, Mn 55343 CIM WR 20'92 t } JOINT CITY COUNCIL/ PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING i May 14, 1992 5:30 p.m. I. Sidewalk/Trail Plan Presentation by Strgar Roscoe Fausch II. Identify Community Needs Analysis Tool: Survey (telephone or written) Focus Groups III. Long Range Planning Land Acquisition Park Development Fiscal Resources IV. Other MEMO CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 DATE: May 8, 1992 TO: Mayor & City Council, Park and Recreation Advisory Commission FROM: James G. Willis, City Manager SUBJECT: IDENTIFY COMMUNITY NEEDS ANALYSIS TOOL: SURVEY FOR FOCUS GROUPS In 1982, 1985 and 1987, the City Council commissioned the administration of telephone surveys through the firm Decision Resources, Inc. These telephone surveys consisted of over 100 questions in an effort to receive resident feedback on the quality of existing services, as well as to plan future services. A copy of the 1987 survey is attached. The survey was administered to some 400 Plymouth residents using random sampling technique, which provided a validity level of ± 5 percent. This means that the results of the survey were thought to be accurate to a level of plus or minus 5 percent when projected to the entire population. The 1991 proposed budget contained funds (approximately $9,000) to conduct another telephone survey. Because of funding concerns, as well as questions on whether the telephone survey was the most valid tool to use for this purpose, the City Council has elected not to conduct an additional survey. The Council has charged the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) with the responsibility of providing a report on what types of special facilities may be needed to serve Plymouth's current and future population. Presumably, the definition of special facilities includes community -wide resources, which may include golf course, pool, ice rink, senior center, exercise facility, or other indoor or outdoor activity areas. The City's Comprehensive Plan does not address special facilities. Instead, its focus is primarily upon various types of outdoor, passive and active recreation areas. The results of the PRAC report would be incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan, and from there, into the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) at the appropriate time. DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. 3128 Dean Court Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 PLYMOUTH CITY SURVEY Track/Issues/Demos Hello, I'm of Decision Resources, Ltd., a nationwide polling firm. We're talking with people in Plymouth today and would like to ask you a several questions on a confidential basis. (DO NOT PAUSE) A. Are you registered to vote in Plymouth? 1. Approximately how long have you lived in Plymouth? Yes (CONTINUE) ....... 100% No (THANK 8 TERMINATE).O% LESS THAN ONE YEAR ..... 5% 1 - 2 YEARS ........... 19'/. 3 - 5 YEARS ........... 22% 6 - 10 YEARS .......... 26% 11 - 20 YEARS......... 19% OVER TWENTY YEARS ..... 20% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 0% 2. In what city and/or state was your immediate prior residence located? PLYMOUTH; 6% MINNEAPOLIS; 12'/. SOUTH SUBURBS; 7% RURAL MN; 12'/. WEST SUBURBS; 11% OUT OF USA; 3% MIDWEST; 15% REST OF USA; 11'/. NORTH SUBURBS 19% 3. As things now stand, how long in LESS THAN ONE YEAR ..... 4% the future do you expect to live 1 - 2 YEARS ............ 4% in Plymouth? 3 - 5 YEARS ........... 12% 6 - 10 YEARS .......... 10% OVER TEN YEARS........ 52% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... 19% Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. Let's start oldest to youngest. 4. First, persons over 55? 5. Other adults? 6. High school aged 7. Junior high aged children 8. Elementary school aged 9. Pre-schoolers? 0; 79% 1; 10% 2+; 12'/. O; 10% 1; 23% 2; 56% 3+; 12% 1 O; 82'/. 1; 15% 2; 4% 0; 90% 1; 10% O; 78'/. 1; 14% 2; 8% O; 81% 1; 11% 2; 9% 0 L, h 19. Do you consider property taxes in EXCESSIVELY HIGH ...... 13% Plymouth to be excessively high, RELATIVELY HIGH....... 37% relatively high, about average, ABOUT AVERAGE ......... 41% or comparatively low? COMPARATIVELY LOW ...... 4% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 5% As you may know, property taxes are divided between the City of Plymouth, Hennepin County, and your local public school district. 20. For each dollar of property taxes UNDER TEN PERCENT# ...... 7% you pay, about what percentage do 10% TO 20%............26% you think goes to city govern- 21% TO 30%............17% ment? 31% TO 40% .............9% 41% TO 50% .............6% 51% TO 60% .............1% 61% TO 70% .............2% OVER SEVENTY PERCENT ... 1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... 31% 21. Overall, would you rate park and EXCELLENT.............41% recreation facilities in Plymouth GOOD..................44% as excellent, good, only fair, or ONLY FAIR..............6% poor?. POOR...................4% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 3% I would like to read you a short list of government services, and have you tell me, for each one, whether you are generally satis- fied or dissatisfied with that service.... IF "DISSATISFIED" IN QUESTIONS #21-28, ASK FOR EACH ONE: 29. Why are you dissatisfied with ANIMALS; 13% PLOW LATE; 5% POTHOLES; 5% PARKS LITTERED; 2% PEOPLE RUDE; 2% SLOW; 4% 3 SATIS DSSAT BOTH/ D.K./ NEITH REF. 22. Park Maintenance 92% 3% 1% 5% 23. Snow Plowing 85% 9% 1% 4% 24. Police 91% 5% 1% 4% 25. Fire Protection 85% 3% 1% 11% 26. City Street Maintenance 87% 8% 4% 1% 27. County Road and Highway Maintenance 8B% 9'% 1% 2% 28. Animal Control 74% 19% 2% 6'/. IF "DISSATISFIED" IN QUESTIONS #21-28, ASK FOR EACH ONE: 29. Why are you dissatisfied with ANIMALS; 13% PLOW LATE; 5% POTHOLES; 5% PARKS LITTERED; 2% PEOPLE RUDE; 2% SLOW; 4% 3 IF "YES," ASK: 41. What was the nature of your most recent inquiry, that is, what information or service did you need? CLASSES; 3% PARK-REC; 6% PERMIT; 7% SEWER -WATER; 3% COMPLAINT; 8% STREETS; 5% TAX INFO; 4% CODE INFO; 4% OTHER; 6% DON'T KNOW; 3% 42. Which department or official did you contact first about this inquiry? PARK-REC; 6% BLDG INSPECTION; 5% SPEC. PERSON; 2% POLICE; 8'/. CITY HALL; 9% PUBLIC WORKS; 7'/. OTHER; 5% DON'T KNOW; 7% 43. In general, were you satis- SATISFIED.............42% fied or dissatisfied with DISSATISFIED ............ 7% the way your inquiry was DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 0% handled? IF "DISSATISFIED" IN QUESTION #43, ASK: 44. Why were you dissatisfied? NOT HELPFUL; 4% RUDE; 1% SLOW; 2% The Plymouth park system is composed of trails, larger city parks, community playfields, and smaller neighborhood parks. Of these four types of facilities, which do members of your household use? 45. Trails 46. Larger city parks 47. Community playfields 48. Smaller neighborhood parks USE NONUSE D.K./REF 59% 40% 1% 56% 43% 1'/. 40% 59% 1% 58% 42% 1% 49. Do you feel that the current mix YES...................89% of recreational opportunities NO.....................7% sufficiently meets the needs of DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....4% the members of your household? IF "NO" IN QUESTION #49, ASK: 50. What additional recreational opportunities would you like to see the City of Plymouth offer residents? PRESCHOOL; 2% POOL; l% TRAILS; 3% TEENS; 1% 5 60. In general, do you feel that the YES...................74% City enforces its codes fairly NO....................10% and consistently? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... 16% 61. How would you rate the general EXCELLENT.............53% appearance of your neighborhood GOOD..................40% excellent, good, only fair, ONLY FAIR..............7% or poor? POOR...................1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 0% 62. Do you feel your municipal water COMPARATIVELY HIGH .... 23% and sewer charges are compara- ABOUT RIGHT ........... 55% tively high, about right, or COMPARATIVELY LOW ...... 6% comparatively low for the Metro- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... 16% politan Area? 63. Other than voting, do you feel YES....................72% that if you wanted to, you could NO.....................21% have a say about the way the City DON'T KNOW/REFUSED...... 7% of Plymouth runs things? There has been a substntial amount of commercial and industrial development in Plymouth. 64. Do you feel that the pace of TOO RAPID.............22% commercial and industrial devel- ABOUT RIGHT ........... 66% opment in the city has been too NOT FAST ENOUGH........ 7% rapid, about right, or not fast DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 6% enough? 65. Does the development across the WELL-PLANNED.......... 67% city seem well-planned for the DISCONNECTED .......... 14% future of Plymouth or a series BOTH (VOL.) ............ 5% of disconnected projects? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... 14% 66. Do the more recent commercial and BLEND.................77% industrial developments aesthet- DO NOT BLEND .......... 15% ically blend with the natural DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 8% landscape, or not? 67. Do you currently separate recy- YES...................54% clables from the rest of your- NO....................46% garbage? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 0% IF "YES" IN QUESTION #67, ASK.: Which of the following materials do you recycle? YES NO D.K. REF. 68. Glass? 38% 16% 1% 0% 69. Newspaper and cardboard? 50% 4% 0% O% 70. Metal and aluminum? 44'/. 10% 0% 0% 7 75. Would you favor or oppose re- placing the curbside recycling pick-up program with a system in which the City contracted with haulers to collect all refuse, and the collectors later separated recyclable materials from other trash? FAVOR.................41% OPPOSE................47% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... 12% Another approach would be to offer incentive to residents to do their own separation.... 76. Would you favor or oppose the FAVOR..................70% city arranging to base garbage OPPOSE................24% collection fees upon the amount DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 7% of refuse a household sets out, so that households which recy- cled would be charged less? 77. Are there safety hazards in the City of Plymouth which particularly concern you? (IF "YES," ASK:) What are they? NO; 73% HAD ROADS; 4% NO SIGNS; 2% SPEED; 5% WATER; 1'% NO LIGHTS; 3% HWY 55; 2% DUMP; 2% KIDS; 2% OTHER; 6'% On another topic.... In the past, the City has considered building a community center containing recreational facilities and meeting areas. DK/RF 78. Do you support or oppose the STRONGLY FAVOR........ 25% building of a community center SOMEWHAT FAVOR........ 29% in Plymouth? (WAIT FOR RE- SOMEWHAT OPPOSE....... 18% SPONSE) Do you feel strongly STRONGLY OPPOSE....... 20% that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 9% I would like to read you a list of facilities that could be included in the community center. For each one, please tell me if you would strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose its inclusion in the complex. 82. An indoor ice skating rink? 16% 33% 35% 11% 5% 83. A multipurpose gym- nasium? 17% 43% 27% 10% 4% 19 ST FAV FAVOR OPPOS ST OPP DK/RF 79. A senior citizen center? 21'% 54% 14% 7% 4% 80. A county library? 22% 46'% 21% 7'% 4% 81. An indoor swimming pool? 17% 37% 31% 11% 4% 82. An indoor ice skating rink? 16% 33% 35% 11% 5% 83. A multipurpose gym- nasium? 17% 43% 27% 10% 4% 19 92. What additional services would you like to see offered? MORE BUSSES; 11% DOWNTOWN; 4% LIGHT RAIL; 2% OTHER; 4% 93. Do you currently use the Park and DON'T USE/NO .......... 80% Ride Service? (IF "NO," ASK:) DON'T USE/YES......... 10% If parking lots were closer to USE CURRENTLY .......... 8% your home, would you be more DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 2% likely to use the service? 94. How would you rate the City's EXCELLENT.............19% overall performance in communi- GOOD..................54% cating key local issues to resi- ONLY FAIR.............18% dents in its publications and on POOR...................4% cable television -- excellent, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... b% good, only fair, or poor? 95. What is your primary source of information concerning city government in Plymouth -- news- papers, radio, television, city publications, neighbors, or something else? NEWSPAPERS ............ 50% RADIO..................1% YES...................88% TELEVISION.............7% publication, CITY PUBLICATIONS ..... 37% NEIGHBORS..............4% Parade"? SOMETHING ELSE......... 1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 2% IF SPECIFIC MEDIA IN QUESTION #95, ASK,: 96. Could you tell me which (newspaper/radio station/tele- vision station/city publication)? DON'T KNOW; 10% "PARADE"; 27% SAILOR; 30% STRIB; 13% POST; 13% CH. 37; 3% OTHER; 3% IF "SOMETHING ELSE," IN QUESTION #95, ASK: 97. What is that other source? FRIENDS; 2% 98. Do you recall receiving the bi- YES...................88% monthly city publication, NO....................11% Plymouth on Parade"? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 1% IF "YES" IN QUESTION #98, ASK:' 99. Do you or any members of YES....................79% your household read NO......................0% Plymouth on Parade"? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED...... 2% IF "YES" IN QUESTION #99, ASK: 100. What types of information do you seek and what kinds of articles do you read in "Plymouth on Parade"? SCAN; 11% READ ALL; 23% REC; 13'/. EVENTS; 10% ISSUES; 11% RECYCLING; 3% OTHER; 4% DK; 4% 11 107. What is the occupation of the head of this household? PROFESSIONAL -TECHNICAL; 25% OWNER -MANAGER; 40% CLERICAL -SALES; 15% BLUE COLLAR; 11% RETIRED; 7% SCATTERED; 2% 10B. What is your present marital SINGLE................12% status, please? Are you pre- MARRIED...............84% sently single, married, divorced DIVORCED...............3% or widowed? WIDOWED................1% REFUSED................0% IF "MARRIED" IN QUESTION #108, ASK: 109. Do both spouses work outside YES...................53% the home? NO....................31% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 0% 110. How many full-time or part-time employed members of this household work in the O; 69% 1; 22% City of Plymouth? 50,001-$60,000.......16 2; 6% 3; 3% 111. How many full-time of part-time employed REFUSED................9i members of this household work outside the 0; 15% 1; 39% City? 2; 39% 3+; 7% IF MORE THAN ZERO IN QUESTION #111, ASK: 112. In what cities do they work: PLEASE SEE TYPED SHEET FOR THIS INFORMATION 113. Can you tell me approximately what is the level of income for all members of your household before any taxes? Is the total annual income: READ CHOICES #1-#7) BELOW $10,000..........1 10,001-$20,000........3 20,001-$30,000........6 30,001-$40,000.......18 40,001-$50,000.......17 50,001-$60,000.......16 60,001-$70,000........7 OVER $70,000..........23% DON'T KNOW.............2% REFUSED................9i 113. Sex (BY OBSERVATION: DO NOT ASK) MALE..................49% FEMALE................51% ZONES; PCTS. 1, 12, 15, 16; 26% 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7; 40% 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14; 35% 13 ulel CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 DATE: April 23, 1992 TO: Plymouth Park and Recreation Advisory Committee FROM: John Edson, Council Coordinating Representative At your meeting on April 9, 1992 I presented to you some thoughts from the City Council regarding input the Council would like to receive from PRAC. I am following up with this memo to put in writing some of those thoughts. 1. The council would like the committee to evaluate priorities for park land acquisition and development. It is the City Councils responsibility to evaluate the financial aspects of acquisitions and developments but it is difficult to do this without the input from your committee as to the short and long term needs and priorities for the use of these facilities. We understand that your committee reviews its capital improvement plan in June or July of each year. Just this month the Council approved the City wide capital improvement plan for the next 5 years. Because the original draft of the park portion of this capital improvement plan showed a deficit in the park dedication funds, the council directed staff to change the plan so that the deficit was eliminated. In this process certain projects which your committee had approved were eliminated by staff. At this point the council would like the committee to revisit the park and recreation capital improvement plan and reestablish its priorities for the projected moneys available. The capital improvement plan is a guide. It is a plan which should be flexible but also should provide a general direction for us to follow. PRAC should make recommendations to the council in the near future so that the council has this guide post to measure future acquisitions against. Please keep in mind that one of the councils top priorities is to acquire land for future development of playfields in northwest Plymouth before land prices get out of line. Memorandum to PRAC April 21, 1992 Page 2 2. The Council would also like PRAC to solicit citizen input into the development of future park and recreation facilities. This might be through public hearings or through focus groups of citizens selected at random. This task may be the most difficult of all. In this process you should explore the differences between wants and actual needs. Take inventory of what we have, determine that we utilize our facilities to the maximum before we expand. Of course we must be sure that we do not over use our facilities to their detriment. All of our fields need resting time to preserve and restore the turf. The Council looks at PRAC as an advisory committee which should provide its input and recommendations to the Council before final park and recreation decisions are made by the Council. This communication can be accomplished through me as the Council coordinating representative or through the minutes of your meetings which all Council members receive or through memos sent to the Council on a specific topic. We should be proud of the facilities we have today. Prudent management of these facilities and of our funds for future expansion is absolutely necessary because of the severe budget constraints which are placed on the City. Your careful consideration and recommendations of the items listed here will help the City Council make the correct decisions for the long nun_ Last, but certainly not least, the Council appreciates the hard work and commitment that each member of the committee has given the City. If we can help you in any way please let us know. Open communications between the Council and the advisory committees is important to an efficient and effective government. We look forward to discussing these and any other topics you desire at our joint meeting in May. r CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 DATE: April 28, 1992 TO: Mayor a City Council FROM: James G. Willis, City Manager SUBJECT: PLYMOUTH PARK SYSTEM PLAN - SLEGY FOR LAND ACQUISITION TO MEET FUTURE NEEDS 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the City Manager to develop a mechanism by which future park land acquisition needs can be identified in accordance with this memorandum. 2. BACKGROUND: The City's Park System Plan contemplates the need to acquire, and ultimately develop, additional park land as the community grows and matures. One of the key elements in the long-term acquisition strategy involves site identification and acquisition in advance of development. The Council recently confronted this issue when representatives of U.S. Homes sought a Land Use Guide Plan amendment and preliminary PUD approval on a parcel of property which was identified in the park plan as a future community playfield site. The Council concluded that the cost of that property, given the imminent development pressure, would be excessive and directed that we consider another site not undergoing development pressure. 3. PRIMARY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: The City's park plan contemplates the development of additional neighborhood parks and community playfields to correspond with city growth. In the case of neighborhood parks, the sites are generally flexible, and subject to the development pattern which occurs around them. Because the land for neighborhood parks is normally dedicated as part of the development process, there is little need for. the city to establish -a long range plan for site specific acquisition. L, PLYMOUTH PARK SYSTEM PLAN - STRATEGY FOR LAND ACQUISITION TO MEET FUTURE NEEDS April 28, 1992 Page 2 In the case of larger parks, such as community playfields, the park plan identifies the need of approximately 30 to 50 acres per site, depending upon likely use and natural features. Given this acreage, the intensity of the use, and the concerns about access, these sites are more specifically located on our park plan. The identification of these future acquisitions serve to inform the public where such facilities might most appropriately be located. They. also signal to landowners the City's intent to acquire property in the future, thereby exposing the City to the potential of higher acquisition costs. As in many areas of public policy, there is a balancing act between the public's need to fully develop plans for its future community needs on the one hand, while seeking to protect the public's financial exposure on the other. If the City clearly identifies one or more sites for future park land acquisition, it signals its intent to landowners. This may have the affect of curtailing development of the site because of the "cloud" the City's long range plans place upon it, placing the landowner at a disadvantage. others may see it as a signal of the City's willingness to pay a premium to acquire the site for public purposes. If the City actually acquires large park sites well in advance of development, then both of these concerns can be adequately resolved. If we hesitate, then both concerns work against us by increasing land costs and undermining orderly community development. A primary objective of city policy must be to identify one or more general sites for each future community playfield which might'be suitable for our long-range park needs. The park plan can serve to meet this objective. Once one or more sites have been identified, the City or agents acting on its behalf, would contact the owners of the property and negotiate the acquisition of the land. If such actions are taken well in advance of impending development, the City's acquisition costs should be reduced. I believe the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) and City staff should work together to develop a list of potential community playfield sites which are projected to meet the City's future needs in accordance with the adopted Park System Plan. h 4 PLYMOUTH PARK SYSTEM PLAN - STRATEGY FOR LAND ACQUISITION TO MEET FUTURE NEEDS April 28, 1992 Page 3 Once specific sites have been identified, the City Manager should authorize appropriate City staff members or agents working on behalf of the City to obtain purchase options on the property in order that the terms and conditions of the acquisition can be clearly identified before committing large sums of public money to the process. The option agreements would be referred to and reviewed by the PRAC which would make its recommendation to the City Council for possible acquisition prior to the expiration of those options. The City Council would then consider the acquisition. I believe the foregoing procedure would provide the opportunity for the community to obtain future park land at a more reasonable cost as compared to waiting until the land was under development pressure. It would require close cooperation between PRAC, staff, and City Council to ensure that the appropriate sites, once identified, were optioned so as to protect their long-term future public use, and minimize acquisition costs. 4. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: I recommend that the Council endorse the process laid out in this memo in order that the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission, City staff, and Council may move to address the issue of acquisition of future community playfields park lands. JW:kec Steve Dietz 5000 Jonquil Lane Plymouth, MN 55442 Re: BANNERS AT ZACHARY PARK Dear Mr. Dietz: This letter is in response to your telephone call with regard to the banners that are displayed at the Zachary Park. The Zachary softball complex is rented out approximately four to five times each summer to softball teams, or to corporations such as Honeywell, for the purpose of putting on tournaments. At this time, the City has no policy prohibiting the display of banners on outfield fences during these tournaments. The City policy, however, does allow the sale of beer at Zachary Park during these special events, with a permit from the City Council. In most cases, the sale of the beer is handled by the Plymouth Lions Club. Under these conditions, it would seem somewhat inconsistent to allow the sale of beer but not to allow the advertisement of beer during those special events. We also have many other corporate sponsors, such as Wilson Sporting Goods, Coca-Cola and Pepsi, that more typically are the sponsors of these special athletic events. Barring any type of City policy, it is difficult for me to discriminate from one corporate sponsor to another. Steve, these types of tournaments have been going on for the last 10 years at Zachary Park, and to the best of my recollection, you're the first individual to raise a concern with corporate advertising during special events. Perhaps this matter should be reviewed by the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC). I would be happy to meet with you to discuss this further, or you might wish to send a letter, or appear in person before PRAC to let them know your concerns. Please let me know if you wish to appear at a PRAC meeting, so I can schedule you on their agenda. Thank you for taking the time to let me know your thoughts on this matter. 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447, TELEPHONE (612) 550-5000 Sincerely, Eric J. Blank Director of Parks and Recreation EJB/np cc: City Manager Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Cedar Avenue townhomes approved,. 46 r z A plan for townhouses at Cedar Avenue and the Zoo Road in - o it terchange was approved by the Apple Valley City Council at its a March 27 meeting. The Oxford Hollow development will be buil{.'. by Good Value Homes. ' u.: jZ 31 Apple Valley sets park -fees - a a Beginning in 1993, it will cost $35 per day for each field for youth p tournaments on Apple Valley city Gelds. The fee will be charged4toanyorganizationthatchargesanentryfeeandbringsinteams a from outside Apple Valley. The Apple Valley City Council ap- proved the fee, which was recommended by Randy Johnson, director of parks and recreation in Apple Valley.