Loading...
PR 06/14/1976 - 31212� e SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Peterson, Dave Har.ris, Leonard Moore, Jan Seeger Harvey Wagar MEMBERS ABSENT; None OTHERS PRESENT: Jerrold Boardman - City Planner Robert Divine - Citizen Kathy Dlvine - Citizen Ed Dunn, Chamber of Commerce Chairperson Bob Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. It was the conse:tsus of the Commission to set a recess time of 9:30 p.m. APPROVl�L OF AGENDA. The �o*pmission agreed to only discuss the two items on the agenda: � . �.., 1. REVIEW FLOW CHART FOR COr1PREHENSIVE PARK PLAN � 2. DISCUSSION ON PROJECT COMMITTEES REVIEW FLOW CHART FOR COMPIZEHENSIVE PARK PLAN This special Parks & Recreation Commi.ssion meeting was called by Bob Peterson at the recommendation of Jerrold Boardman, to go through the Parks & Recreatior. Comprehensive Park Plan Flow Chart and to look at the possibilities of establishing some neighborhoad project committees. Mr. Boardman stated that on the flow chart, they are looking aL a possible time period of the Comprehensive Park Plan of 12/20/76 for the City Council. He said this had been revised somewhat after finding out that the Parks & Recreation Comm.ission had already set up a project committee for the overview of recreaiionai needs. The Commission will Zook at the recreational programs suggested by this project committee and see how these programs relate to the citizen's needs. He said tl:at the staff did an analysis of what they thought were feasible recreation neighbor�►oods and came up with 13 neighborhoods. They would like to set up some project commit�ees in each one of the 13 neighborhoods. These project cotmnittees would analyze recreational €acilities within their neighborhoods and indicate what they woul� liice grovided for recreation in each neighborhood. He said that this would tie in very well with the project commi.ttee the Commission has set up for recreation. hapefully, this project committee can be put together in a couple of weeks so infarmation can be given to the over��ie�a project committtee and then they can come up with some ideas around the end of September or October. He said he thinks the Commission has set a time period of the end of October for ^� input from the overview committ�e. He woul.d recommend that the Commission move that time period up to the end of September to meet the December date for the City Council. , SPECIAL FARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 14, 1976 Page 2 Some of the Commission members felt this might be a problem because of vacations, etc., during the summer months. Mr. Peterson also felt that it would be vexy difficult to move the October date up and get the type of job done that the Co�nission really wants. Mr. Boardman stated that they may have to set the same date for the Neighborhood Project Committees. He had anticipated the Neighborhood Project Committees' formulation and ideas prior to the time the Commission comes in with the over- view committee, but they should probably be brought in at the same time. Mr. Peterson stated that tonight the Commission is acting on: If the Commission wants to create these Neighborhood Project Committees; we have to determine the scope of the project committees; and ho�+r they are going to be formulated. Mr. $oardman explained the solid and dotted lines on the map. The solid lines represent neighborhoods...the dotted lines represent areas within that neighbor- hood and should be represented as part of the neighborhood. The dotted lines are indicated that way because of the different characteristics of the neighbor- hood as well as the different facilities and service areas. Mr. Boardman explained the Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Flow Chart to the Commission indicating the Parks & Recreation function, the Project Com�ittee function, public input, and the City Staff function. Through this process, the City Staff will.be putting input into various stages of the Comprehensive P.lan and bringing things in at various times for the Park & Recreation Cou�ission'"s Review. DIS�USSION ON PROJECT COMMITTEES Mr. Boardman reviewed the purpose and scope for the Neighborhood Project Committees that he.had prepared for the meeting. . Mr. Harris expressed concern about the probability of the Commission finding :S-9 people per committee (approximately 117) people to serve on project committees. Ms. Seeger asked the question of whether at any time all the project committees could meet at the same time with the Parks & Recreation Commission. She felt it would be of great value for the different neighborhoods to meet to discuss. Mr. Peterson stated that according to the ordinance, all the project co�ittees that are created report to the Parks & Recreation Commission so if the Commission feels that at some point in time they wanted to have a meeting of every neighbor- hood commitee it is well within the scope of this Commission, but it wauld be the Co�nission's determination as to what it wanCs ta do. � n � � SPECIAL PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSIO: MEETING 14, 1976 e 3 Mr. Boardman suggested that the Parks & Recreation Cammission may want to hold a meeting initially to give each Neighborhood Froj ct Committee the same direction and may want to monitor that direction to see how t is going. Mr. Peterson stated that the reports from the Neig i�orhood Project Committees should be written up and back to the Commission an to the Recreation Project Cflmmittee no later than October 1. He said the Co ission needs to have time to digest it and do something about it, and the Re reation Project Committee wants to look at it and see how it fits in with th ir evaluation. Mr. Boardman stated he felt alot of it would depen Commission gets from the project committees. If t on the project committees and things run smoothly, problem. But, he added, if the Commission runs in committees, the Commission may have to look at a l the time period of February for going to the City to put together a capital improvements program to on what kind of reaction the e Commission gets good response the �ctober 1 date will be no o problems with the project ter date. He �elt that with ouncil, it still allows time o into the next budget year. Mr. Peterson personally felt that the Neighborhood Project Committe�'s reports should be done a month ahead of the Recreation Co ittee to give the Recreation Committee a ehance to use that in their report bef re it comes to.the Commission. He felt that the Commission must have that one mon h lag in between the target dates for the two different groups. Mr. Moore asked Mr. Boardman the question that sin e there are only five Cornmission members and 13 neighborhood areas, how ould the Commission formulate the project committees for those areas with which he commission members are �ot acquainted. Mr. Boardman stated that the main thing in these a chairperson within each neighborhood. The chairpe like for his committee. Also, Mr. Boardman said h about the project committees asking for some respo Recreation Commission or to the Staff. He also st could help. as is to first locate a on may have people he would would advertise in the paper e to either the Parks & ed that maybe the City Council Mr. Harris had the suggestion that maybe the Commi sion co.uld take a look at the 4verview Committee and in the selection of tha committee, ask the members for some suggestions as to people who live in thei areas. Mr. Boardman stated that other mecnbers of other c areas could maybe supply some names, too. � I ion who live in certain SPECIAL PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 14, 1976 Page 4 �� Mr. Peterson stated that from a procedural standpoint what the Commission should do is stay with the agenda. Since the Rlow Chart has been reviewed, the Commission is now aware of what the Flow Chart is to accomplish, and the Commission has talked about scxne dates, then the Commission should start picking some dates and work back or els� decide that it is going to have 13 Neighborhood Project Committees. If the Commission decides that it is going to do that, it should go to the rTeighbor- hood Project Committee sheet as given for reviewal and either adopt or make any additions to it as far as scope for the project committees and then the Commission can go back to the Flow Chart and set dates. He fe:.t that before the Commission starts worrying about people, it should decide it it is really going to need them. Mr. Harris stated he felt the only way the thing is going to get off the ground is to work from a cammittee of one. The Parks & Recreation Commission chairperson or the Parks & Recreation Commission should select one chairperson from each area and 1 et each chairperson select his own people. The Conunission could give a hand by offering its suggestions if it knows any people. Mr. Peterson stated that the Commission should be responsible for getting the chairpersons for the Neighborhood Project Committees; and the Administration, the Commission, and the Staff be responsible for at least one orientation session with these chairpersons. He feels this is a must if the project is going to get underway. At the orientation meeting, the chairpersons would get the scope of thei'r,xesponsibilities.as defined by the Commission. But, he added, for the Cou�ission to pick 7-9 people for each area,it would take until October to just � get that job done. � MOTION by Dave Harris, seconded by Jan Seeger, that the Commission will have 13 Neighborhood Project Committees and that the Commission will try to select one chairperson from each neighborhood project area. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motioa carried unanimously. Mr. Moore stated he didn't feel that the Commission should determine who the chairperson for each project committee should be. He felt the project committees should pick their own chairpersons. Mr. Peterson pointed out that the way the ordinances are set up, he is sure that if this Coma►ission establishes project cou�ittees that it has the responsibility ta see that they are chaired and moving. The ordinance was first written that every project coma►ittee had to have a commission member act as a chairperson and it was only after a considerable amount of debate with the City Council that the ordinance was changed to read that the commissions may appoint a chairperson or a commission member can serve if they so desire. At this point in time, he doesn't think our ordinance is really set up to allow the Commission to create projecC co�ittees without appointing a chairperson for them. Mr. Peterson again stated that the Commission should decide what they want for scope. �� n SPECIAL PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETINGz JUN� 14 L1976 Pa�e 5 Mr. Harris stated that the Commission s�ould make he scope as general as possible and very basic; for instance, what do the e people have in their parks, what would they like to see, and what would they w nt to change in terms o� the program. Mr. Boardman stated that it should not be so gener 1 that the Commission would have the problem of not getting enough information to get the program together. The three areas he listed for scope were made main y on the basis of what he felt was needed in order to put together a good pl n and to get those people thinking. Ms. Seeger asked if these people would be given a�ost figure so they could determine the type of facility they could afford t put in. Mr. Harris answered by saying that he didn't think they should be told how many dollars. He stated that these people should just ome up with as many ideas as they want.and that the Parks & Recreation Co�issi n would then set the priorities. Ms. Seeger felt this was a mistake. She said she elt the decision should be based upon money, amount of time the facilit; woul be used, how many are going to use it, the ages of the people in the neighborh od, anc� how long will they be able to play tennis or baseball. � Mr. Peterson suggested that the Cammission delete '�Keeping in �ind the cost/ benefit factor." in Item ��3 under Scope. Mr, Boardman stated that it was put in that way be�ause he wanted the people to think realistically. Mr. Wagar stated his concern about the year-to-yea budget. He said Che Commission can make all kinds of comprehensive pla s and get them down in black and white, but it is wasting its time without a fi ancing system--eith er bonding, capital improvements project, etc. Mr. Boardman stated that once the Commission has a plan or set program showing a definite need in the community and what areas ar lacking or not lacking, there is always the possibility vf Federal funding �here is the possibility of a bonding issue, but it is not popular in Fridl y and probably will never be. MOTION by Harvey Wagar, seconded by Leonard Moore, that the Commission accept the "Scope" as listed except that in Item l the wo d"existing" be inserted to read as follows: 1. Evaluate present facilities for recreatin services to the neighborhood. {Keeping in mind existing pace available on park property.) 2. Evaluate possible changes in usage of pre�ent 'facilities, keeping in mind maximum use of space available. 3. Establish realistic priority listing of a ditional recreation needs for the neighborhood, keeping in mind the cos /benefit factor. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carr�ed unanimously. �� SPECIAL PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 14, 1976 Page 6 ,�•, � Mr-. Boardman stated that the Neighborhood Project Committees will be dealing mainly with their own neighborhood and the mini-parks within their areas. Tho�e parks that have been designated as city-wide parks or regional parks will not come under the jurisdiction of the Neighborhood Project Committees. The th�ee parks that would not be considered are Locke Park, North Park, and Islands of Peace. Each Co�ission member volunteered to take certain areas and try to find chair- persons for those areas. They are as follows: Recreation Neighborhood Areas Harvey Wagar - 2, 6, 10, 13 Leonard Moore - l, 3, 7 Dave Harris - 4, 7, 8, 12 Bob Peterson - 5, 9 Jan Seeger - 11 (will also submit names to the Commissian • members €or other areas) MOTION by Dave Harris, seconded by Harvey Wagar, that the Commission will recommend that, the Neighborhood Project Committees be no more or no less than 5-9 members depending upon how large or small the areas are. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried u•nanimously. Mr. Petersan asked Mr: Boardman to malce sure that an article is run in the paper � so that any interested citizens may respond to Gity Hall. �� Mr. Boardman also volunteered his time to hold an orientation session for the 13 chairpersons. ED DUNN'S PROPOSAL Mr. Ed Dunn,Chamber of Commerce, sat in on the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting for a short time to .cite a problem he has and for which he needs advice. He stated that in January a group of people from the Fridley 4�ers advised the �City that it needed a bandshell. A package was hurriedly put together because the deadline for state fu�ds was February 1. On June l, the City received a letter from the Minnesota American Revolution Sicentennial Commission and they granted $5,000. This is not enough for a bandshell. Since then, there has been one fund .raiser which did not bring in much money, and the poxtable band- shell idea was scrapped. He stated that if the Parks & Recreation Commission would like to consider a proposal for land or something where a matching grant kind of thing could be done, the $S,OOO could be obtained and put into escrow or something. He said the $5,000 is pretty well designated for a ba�dshell as a bicentennial project. If the designacion could be changed and the $5,000 could be kept, then it would go wherever it is needed--possib2y to the Parks S� Recreation Commission. He said he has also been contacted by several companies wha have an interest in the bicentennial and, because of the grant, are willing to assist in s�e areas. SPECIAL PARKS RECREATI.ON COMMISSION MEETING 14, 1976 Page 7 � Mr. Peterson suggested that Mr. Dunn contact a man amed Clark Theilmann who speaks for several associations (hockey, softball, tc.). They have put together some money and a lot of people have donate free labor to put up a building in Madsen Park. Mr. Theilmann contacted Mr. Peterson to see how the Commission felt about this building accomplishing t e purpose of both a warming house and a place for storage. This would certainl be a bicentennial project; and, if it could be changed somewhat, there could b a pretty good city bui-lding and the associat�ons in town could have their stora e facilities all in the same building. Mr. Harris stated that he had talked to several me ers of the Lion's Club and he felt they would be in favor of supporting a proj ct of that type. Other suggestions mentioned were the new bikeway sy tem and that the nature study people are always looking for help. Mr. Dunn stated that if the Commission has any furt er ideas that they call him at the office. i ` i `�� . I"�1 Mr. Peterson asked that further discussion of Dunn' proposal be put on the agenda for the June 28, 1976, meeting. ADJOURNMENT: � MOTION bp Dave Harris, seconded by Harvey Wagar, to adjourn the meeting at 9:27 p.m. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the m tion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted G�.G�.� Lyn e Sa�a Recording Secretary �