Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 27, 2001 TENTATIVE AGENDA CITY OF SHAKOPEE ADJ.REGULAR SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MARCH 27, 2001 LOCATION: 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Jon Brekke presiding 1] Roll Call at 5:00 p.m. 2] Approval of Agenda 3] Approval of Consent Business — (All items noted by an * are anticipated to be routine. After a discussion by the Mayor, there will be an opportunity for members of the City Council to remove items from the consent agenda for individual discussion. Those items removed will be considered in their normal sequence on the agenda. Those items remaining on the consent agenda will otherwise not be individually discussed and will be enacted in one motion.) *4] Approve Hiring of Planner I 5] Joint Meeting with the Park and Recreation Advisory Board 6] Presentation by the Shakopee Fire Relief Association 7] Other Business 8] Adjourn t f L/ CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum T: Honorable Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Hiring of Planner I - GIS MEETING DATE: March 27, 2001 W01 1 Council is asked to approve the hiring of Peter Vickerman to the position of Planner I- GIS to fill the position vacated by Beth Thorp. Mr. Vickerman has agreed to accept the position at Step 1 of the Planner I pay grade, and his start date is expected to be on or about April 23, 2001. Mr. Vickerman's most recent experience is with the City of St. Louis Park, and he is expected to bring a good balance of planning and GIS skills to the position. Offer and pass a motion approving the appointment of Peter Vickerman to the position of Planner I -GIS at step 1 of the Planner I pay grade, subject to a pre - employment physical and 6- month probationary period. Council/Parks Shakopee City .' Recreation 2001 Joint Meeting March 27, Agenda 1) Facilities and Recreation a) Community Center Use and Proposed Fitness Equipment Enhancements b) City /Sports Association Relationships c) Proposed Skate Park Location and Design 2) Natural Resources a) Acquisition of Land Outside of MUSA b) Funding Options for Park Development 11S'-3__� CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director Date: 22 March, 2001 Subject: Community Center Use and Proposed Fitness Equipment Enhancements INTRODUCTION City Council approved $50,000 in the 2001 Operating Budget for enhancements in the Community Center fitness equipment. At this time, City Council and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board are asked to review possible scenarios for the location of the enhancements, discuss the impact these scenarios will have on existing and future use, and determine the merits of adding additional equipment. BACKGROUND In the original Community Center plans, the fitness and weight equipment was to be located in the lower level corridor, outside the gymnastics room. Near the end of construction, the decision was made to convert a lower -level storage room into the weight room, due to the space constraints in the corridor. Today, members and guests frequently ask about the possibility of adding fitness and weight equipment. Over the past five years, an additional Freeclimber fitness machine, ab /crunch machine, and two treadmills have been added to the equipment. However, with the current designated facility use, adding more equipment in the current locations is not practical due to the lack of available space. Current Facility Use Analysis The following is a breakdown of our current facility use, for the period March 23, 2000 through March 22, 2001. Room Number of Bookings Total Hours Rented Annual Revenue Rotary Room 415 1241 $1,988 Multi- Purpose Room 219 892 $1,886 Gymnastics Room 134 600 $360 East Gym 380 908 $743 West Gym 51 282 $612 Public Access Studio n/a n/a $7,200 (The current facility use policy, adopted by City Council in 1996, provides up to six free rentals for many organizations, such as local non - profit, quasi - public, civic and youth organizations, etc.) Rotary Room The Rotary Room continues to serve as our primary rental room, hosting a significant number of meetings, recreation programs, weekly senior cards, etc. Multi- Purpose Room Although the Multi- Purpose room still serves as a space for some meetings, organizations choose this room primarily because the Rotary Room is already booked. The primary use of the room is for activities such as boxing, aerobics, recreation programs, pre- season sports conditioning, etc. One significant change in facility use that occurred in 2000 was the relocation of the high school wrestling program and youth Mat Club to the high school's multi- purpose room. This opened up the Community Center Multi- Purpose room for more activities. In 2001, Golden Gloves Boxing was relocated from the basement of the Youth Building to the Multi- Purpose room, and our aerobics program was relocated from the gymnastics room to the Multi- Purpose room due to issues with the mat in the gymnastics room. Finally, this room has been identified by the City Clerk as a potential polling location for a new precinct, which goes into effect in 2002. However, there may be other locations in the area that are possibilities. Gymnastics Room The primary purpose of the gymnastics room is for our gymnastics program. Of the 600 hours of use, 187 hours was allocated to gymnastics, 112 to adult aerobics (now moved to the Multi- Purpose room), and 262 hours for cheerleading practice. Gymnasiums To a large extent, sports associations, high school teams, and recreation programs are the key users of the east gymnasium. Although booked occasionally in the past, the west gymnasium is our primary gym for drop -in use, and will be working to ensure that it is available as much as possible for this use in the future. Public Access Studio In 1996, the City entered into a lease agreement with Public Access Corporation for space in the Community Center, with the intention of increasing its visibility. The current lease provides $7,200 revenue for the space. The facility is open from 3:30 p.m. -8:00 p.m. Monday- Friday. Possible Locations for Fitness Expansion The funds requested in this year's budget could provide approximately 15 pieces of equipment. However, a decision should be made regarding whether the Community Center, in it's current design, can support this use. When the concept was proposed in the budget process last year, one option presented was the use of the multi- purpose room. After further consideration, three options are being presented for discussion, with positives and negatives for each: Option 1: Convert the multi - purpose room in room. Positives ■ Multi- Purpose room can accommodate both aerobics and additional fitness /weight equipment. ■ Area is segregated and less visible from other uses, a concern that we hear from current users. ■ Windows over arena would provide some viewing for fitness equipment users. • Use of this space for aerobics would open more space for gymnastics. • Space could continue to be used for boxing. :o a shared fitness, weight, and aerobics Negatives ■ Use would displace current renters and users from multi - purpose room. ■ Pay use areas would be split: gymnasium on lower level, fitness /weight equipment on upper level. ■ Controlling access to room may pose issues. Option 2: Convert the gymnastics room into a shared fitness weight and aerobics room, and shift the gymnastics program to the multi - purpose room. Positives ■ Facility space would be used more. Negatives ■ Gymnastics program would be downgraded to a tumbling program only, because other equipment cannot be used in the Multi- Purpose room. Option 3: Convert the multi - purpose room into a shared fitness weight and aerobics room; relocate Public Access Studio to another facility. Positives Negatives ■ Would gain a meeting space of ■ Public Access Studio would need to be approximately the same size as the relocated to another facility. Rotary Room to balance the loss of the Multi- Purpose room. Other Possibilities • Building expansion • Adding a second floor above the gymnastics area. • Pursue public /private partnership. REQUESTED ACTION City Council and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board are asked to review possible scenarios for the location of the enhancements, discuss the impact these scenarios will have on existing and future use, and determine the merits of adding additional equipment. # Sa sate To: Mayor and City Council Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director Date: 22 March, 2001 Subject: City /Sports Association Relationship INTRODUCTION As you may be aware, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board began discussing the Relationship between the City and the Sports Associations that serve City residents. City Council and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board are asked to discuss the role that the City should play in sports association activities. BACKGROUND The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board began discussing the relationship between the City and sports associations in November. This discussion began because questions have been raised (both recently and in the past) regarding what expectations the City has of associations, what services the City provides, and the fees associations pay to the City. Present City /Sports Association Relationship The City currently provides a variety of services to associations, including: • Promoting association in catalog, school flyers, newspaper, cable TV. • Developing flyers and provide copying services. • Accepting and processing registrations in department's software system. Produce rosters for associations. • Acting as a clearinghouse for participant questions and answers. • Scheduling facility use for associations, including priority use for school district facilities. • Developing practice and game schedules for the following associations: o Youth Baseball o Boys Basketball o Youth Softball o Youth Volleyball o Youth Football o Adult Softball o Girls Basketball o Adult Volleyball • Providing one bulk mailing for associations. • Providing support during the season in day -to -day administrative issues. In some cases, mediate grievances between association and participants. • Providing storage space, when available. • Providing league standings (adult associations only). Associations are then charged a fee to cover the costs of these activities. Currently, the fee is $16 /participant for youth associations, and $180 /team for adult volleyball and basketball, and $322 for adult softball. (Note: Shakopee Youth Hockey Association does not pay this fee; the association conducts many of these activities internally.) The benefits of this system include: • The availability of staff for participant customer service. • The ability to monitor and have a general knowledge of association activities. • The receipt of revenue that helps support the Recreation Fund. (2001 estimated revenue is approximately $30,200 from youth associations, and $30,300 from adult associations.) Disadvantages of the system include: • A considerable investment of staff time to provide these services, estimated to be 45- 50% for Judy Techam and 25% for Sherry Dvorak. • At times, the public perceives that the City runs the association activities. It should be noted that the level of service we provide to associations is somewhat unique. Some communities (such as Chanhassen) have a very informal relationship with associations. Typically, these communities provide a staff liaison and limited administrative support. In another example, Burnsville works with a non - profit governing board, the Burnsville Athletic Club, which provides the majority of administrative support by means of paid staff. In this case, the City only provides a staff liaison. Issues Under Review The Advisory Board asked staff to develop proposals to address four issues (see attachment for complete details): 1. The criteria used to designate sports associations as "City- Affiliated ". 2. The expectations for City - Affiliated sports associations. 3. The services provided to City - Affiliated sports associations. 4. The fees that should be charged for providing these services. The Advisory Board reviewed this information and held a joint meeting with all associations on March 12, 2001. At this joint meeting, we presented the issues and sought feedback from the associations. The most significant discussion focused on two issues: • The liability associated with providing these activities, and the City's role in this liability. • How a background check program for coaches would be structured, and who would pay for this program. Liability Some associations were under the impression that because the City collects a fee for association administrative services, the City's liability insurance covers associations. In order to clarify this, City representatives met with the City's insurance representative, Sue Sichmeller. As Ms. Sichmeller explained, the City is not liable for association activities (nor ever has been) unless there is willful and wanton negligence on the City's part. Ellen Longfellow, attorney with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust, confirmed this information and provided further clarification. According Ms. Longfellow, the City has three options: 1. Associations become City activities: City assumes liability for the activities and activities are covered under the City's insurance. 2. Associations remain non - profit organizations, but operate as an instrumentality of the City (City controls the Association's budget and operations): City assumes some liability and associations must be specifically named on the City's insurance policy to be covered. 3. Associations remain non - profits, totally separate from the City: City assumes no liability (unless negligent) and associations must supply their own insurance coverage or waivers, but can contract with the City for administrative services and /or use of City's property. Although it's the City's choice, Ms. Longfellow recommends option #3, and that the City develop an agreement with each association outlining the responsibilities of the City and the Association. This would be a written document that would be regularly updated as the association's governing board turns over. In addition, she recommends that we revise our current waiver, which is outdated. Background Checks The National Child Protection Act of 1993 authorized background checks on Child Service Workers, and State Statute 299C.60 further defined background checks. These statues allow checks, but do not require them for recreational programs. The City currently conducts background checks on new employees; however, the City does not background check volunteer coaches for internal programs. Organizations such as the City of Minneapolis background check both their employees and their volunteers. These organizations are setting standards that the City currently isn't meeting. There are several options for conducting background checks: • Bureau of Criminal Apprehension ($15 fee) • National organizations • Service providers (many available on the Internet, $15 -$100) • Police Department staff • Parks and Recreation Department staff using Police Department resources The issues that the associations had regarding background checks include who interprets the background check, how to pay for the checks, and how to ensure that the information remains confidential. Hockey and Soccer currently conduct background checks on some or all of their volunteers through their affiliation with state or national organizations. No other associations conduct these checks. REQUESTED ACTION City Council and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board are asked to discuss the role that the City should play in sports association activities, including the desire to require background checks for association volunteers, and give direction to staff on how to proceed. There are at least three options to consider: 1. Become more involved with associations and either designate associations as instrumentalities of the City, or have their programs become City programs. 2. Clarify the relationship between the City and associations, with a formal agreement between each. 3. Continue the current relationship and level of service with no agreement. City of Shakopee Sports Association and Sports Club Affiliatior PROPOSED CONCEPT #1: CRITERIA USED TO DESIGNATE AN ASSOCIATION OR CLUB AS CITY - AFFILIATED 1. An association or club must provide a comprehensive program that serves all skill levels, from recreation /instructional to competitive. Issue: The City's goal is to ensure that all levels of participation are available for a particular sport. Applies To: Youth Associations 2. Recreational or instructional programs must provide equal (fair) playing opportunities for all participants. Participants should be treated the same, and all participants should have an opportunity to play different positions. Issue: Fair playing opportunities need to be provided for all participants. Applies To: Youth Associations 3. Each association must use a standardized registration form provided by the City, which contains the City's participant waiver. Issue: The City provides space and administrative services for the program, and is not responsible or liable for sports association activities. All participants (or parti'cipant's parents) must sign a waiver acknowledging this. Applies To: Youth and Adult Associations 4. Each association will sign a facility use agreement, which contains a waiver. Issue: The City provides space and administrative services for the program, and is not responsible or liable for sports association activities. All sports associations must sign a waiver acknowledging this. Applies To: Youth and Adult Associations 5. Only one association per sport will be designated as the city - affiliated association, and the Park and Recreation Advisory Board will serve as the panel that would review requests for city - affiliation, should more than one group want to be affiliated for a particular sport. Issue: The City has limited resources to accommodate participation and can accommodate only one association for each sport. Applies To: Youth and Adult Associations PROPOSED CONCEPT #2: EXPECTATIONS OF CITY- AFFILIATED ASSOCIATIONS OR CLUBS Once an association is determined to be affiliated with the City, the following expectations will be established for all associations: 1. Develop and submit selection procedures and participation guidelines for competitive programs. Issue: Guidelines should be developed that outline how participants are selected, and how participation is determined for all competitive programs. Applies To: Youth Associations 2. Provide coaches training that covers the following aspects of sport: • Skill development o League rules • Coach, participant, and parent o Discipline policy etiquette o First aid Issue: Volunteer coaches need to be trained. The City could provide a universal training program for all associations, or require that each association provide this training for their coaches. Specifics on this program need to be determined. Applies To: Youth Associations 3. Conduct background checks on all coaches and association representatives. Issue: State law enacted in 1991 provides a mechanism for a background check of employees and volunteers who work with children. Although not specifically required by law, many Park and Recreation agencies require background checks for these employees and volunteers. The City is concerned about the welfare of the children it serves, and background checks would help ensure their welfare. Specifics on this program need to be determined. Applies To: Youth Associations (coaches and association representatives), Adult Associations (association representatives only) 4. Provide verification of non - profit status, bylaws, and an annual financial report to the City. 5. Develop and use democratic procedures to fill board roles. 6. Hold an annual meeting and notify all participants. Issue: The City needs to ensure accountability of associations that are affiliated with it. Applies To: Youth and Adult Associations 7. Institute a parent, coach, and participant code of conduct program. 8. Develop and use written procedures in handling grievances. Issue: Issues of parent, participant, and coach behavior need to be addressed before a situation arises. The City could implement a universal code -of- conduct program, or require each association to develop their own. Specifics on this program need to be determined. Applies To: Youth and Adult Associations (participant only) 9. Conduct participant evaluations and submit a season -end evaluation, to be reviewed by the Park and Recreation Advisory Board. 10. Submit written requests for facility improvements by May 1 of each calendar year. This information will be discussed by the PRAB and, when approved, included in the department's operating budget or CIP request. 11. Attend an annual meeting conducted by the City to discuss association activity. Issue: The City wants to help you meet your needs in providing programs. These requirements help the City understand current issues, as well as plan for the future. Applies To: Youth and Adult Associations 12. Conduct setup /takedown /maintenance of facilities for associations as needed. Applies To: Youth and Adult Associations PROPOSED CONCEPT #3: SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CITY The City provides two levels of service to sports associations: standard services and a higher level of optional services: 1. Standard ■ Promote association in catalog, school flyers, newspaper, cable TV. ■ Schedule facility use for associations, including priority use for school district facilities. Facility rental fees are waived for direct association activities. If an event does not involve sports association participants, the rental fee would be charged. ■ Provide support during the season in day -to -day administrative issues. In some cases, mediate grievances between association and participants. ■ Provide one bulk mailing per calendar year. ■ Provide free meeting space for annual meeting. ■ Prepare billing for City services. ■ Coordinate annual meeting for all sports association officers. 2. Optional ■ Act as a clearinghouse for participant questions and answers. ■ Provide one additional bulk mailing for associations. ■ Assist in preparing administrative documents, such as bylaws, annual reports, etc. ■ Develop flyers and provide copying services. ■ Accept and process registrations in department's software system. Produce rosters for associations. ■ Develop practice and game schedules. ■ Provide storage space, when available. ■ Provide league standings (adult associations only). 3. Services that could be provided by either the City or the Association. (To be determined.) ■ Provide code -of- conduct program. ■ Provide background check services. ■ Provide coaches training program. PROPOSED CONCEPT #4: FEES Youth Associations • If an association selects the standard and optional services, the association would pay the current $16 1participant fee. • Associations selecting only the standard level of service would be charged a reduced rate of $10 /participant. • All non- residents of Shakopee subject to the designated non - resident fee. • For associations such as the Hockey Association that pay rental fees, these charges would be considered part of their rental payment. Adult Associations • Basketball and Volleyball: $180 1team for standard and optional. $110 /team for standard only. • Softball: $322 /team for standard and optional. $200 1team for standard only. • All non - residents of Shakopee subject to the designated non - resident fee. Issue: Any change in fees would impact the department's budget, and should be implemented at the beginning of the next calendar year. S, a . v6 r 7 I . MAJIMAI To: Mayor and City Council Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director Date: 22 March, 2001 Subject: Proposed Skate Park INTRODUCTION City Council and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board are asked to discuss the proposed location and design for the Skate Park. (The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board will be considering this information at their March 26 regular meeting and providing a recommendation to City Council.) BACKGROUND A youth skate park committee approached the Park and Recreation Advisory Board in 1999 to ask for the construction of a skate park in Shakopee. The Advisory Board discussed and included an $80,000 request in the 2001 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which was approved by City Council in the fall of 2000. The skate park committee continued to meet to identify potential locations for the skate park, as well as the skate park design and operating policies. Three potential locations were identified, including Lions Park, Scenic Heights Park, and the Community Center. After reviewing the three potential sites, the committee recommended the Community Center site as the ideal location, due to its proximity in the community, accessibility by bike trails, availability of parking, and resources of the Community Center complex (restrooms, vending machines, staff, etc.). The proposed site for the skate park is an open area adjacent to the parking lot along Fuller Street. This site has adequate space and good terrain for constructing the skating surface (pad). It also has good visibility from the Community Center and Fuller Street. Proposed Design (see attached plans) The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust, the City's insurance provider, has two classifications for skate parks: Tier 1 and Tier 2. Tier 1 skate parks limit skating surfaces to three foot or less in height. The League considers these parks similar to park play equipment in terms of risks, and therefore does not require fencing, constant supervision, or additional insurance premiums. Tier 2 skate parks have ramps that are over three feet, and require fencing, supervision, and additional insurance premiums. The proposed design for the City of Shakopee is a Tier 1 park, mounted on a 130' X 100' asphalt pad, with a four -foot high berm along Fuller Street. The Youth Skate Park Committee has also developed a concept design for the type of ramps. The actual ramps selected will depend on the construction cost of the pad, and the equipment manufacturer that is selected. Neighborhood Input Zoning for the proposed location (R1 B), allows for recreational facilities such as the skate park. However, residents along the Fuller Street side of Atwood Court, Atwood Street, and Hennes Avenue (16 households) were mailed an informational letter on February 21 st on the proposed site to make them aware of the project. These residents were also invited to attend the February 26 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting to comment on the plan. Three residents attended the meeting and another called with questions. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and Youth Skate Park Committee held a follow -up open house on Monday, March 12. Six residents attended the open- house. The residents raised several questions and concerns: 1. What would be the hours of operation? 2. Would there be nighttime use (lighted)? 3. What kind of supervision would be provided? 4. Could the park be located at an alternative park location, like Lions Park? 5. Is it possible to locate the skate park closer to the building? 6. Could the pad be lowered to "below grade "? 7. What type of trees would be planted on the proposed berm. 8. Could a security camera be mounted on the Community Center to increase surveillance? The following are the responses to the concerns that have been raised: Hours of Operation The intent of the park is to have it used during daylight hours only. Current park ordinance permits park use from 6:00 a.m. -10:00 p.m. It maybe appropriate to consider hours that reflect daylight hours (sunrise to sunset). Nighttime Use Nighttime use would not be permitted. Supervision Constant on -site supervision is not planned. General supervision would be provided by Parks and Recreation and Community Center staff. Alternative Park Location /Alternative Community Center Site In discussing skate parks with staff from other communities (Chanhassen, Northfield, Maple Grove, Shorewood, Chaska), a regular suggestion is to locate skate parks in a visible area. Neighbors have suggested an alternative location, such as Lions Park, or moving the park closer to the Community Center. We believe that proposed site at the Community Center is the best location because if its visibility, proximity in the community, accessibility by bike trails, availability of parking, and resources of the Community Center complex (restrooms, vending machines, staff, etc.). Lower the Pad Below Grade In order to ensure adequate drainage, the pad must remain at grade. Type of Trees on Berm We are proposing primarily coniferous trees for the berm. Security Camera Neighbors asked about the possibility of installing a security camera on the Community Center to monitor activity. The vendor who installed our current system indicates that we have the capacity for additional cameras, and that cost would be approximately $800- $1,000. However, he cautioned that we need to test a camera and various lenses to determine if we can achieve adequate resolution at that distance. REQUESTED ACTION City Council and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board are asked to discuss the proposed location and design for the Skate Park. It is anticipated that a concept plan will be presented to City Council for approval at their April 3 meeting. �' �_. Shako s k a tepa rk ITEM # ITEM NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION 1 Mini ramp s fined to Mini ram 3'H x 16V x Approx 441 2 Piano 3'H x 8'W x Approx 81 3 Piano 3'H x 8'W x Approx 81 4 Bank Ramp 3'H x 8'W x 91 5 Bank Ramp 3'H x 8'W x 91 6 BanK Ramp 3'H x 8 x 91 7 Fl box w Led e 2 x 4'W fl boxes w /led e= 2'H 3'H w /led e x 8'W x 22L 8 Short Fly w/ planter 18 "H .30 "H w /led e.x 8'W.x221 . 9 Half Pyramid w led a ends only 2'H 3'H w /led e x 11'W x 221 10 Sine 2'H x 8'W x 101 11 Kink Rail 2'H x 2'W w/legs x 20 round rail 12 Quarter Pie 3'H x 8'W x 91 13 Bank Ramp 3 x 12'W x 91 14 Quarter Pie 3'H x 8'W x 9'L 15 Bank.Ramp 3'H x 8'W x 91 16 Quarter Pie TH x 8'W x 91 17 uarter'Pi e 3'H x 8'W x 91 18 Bank Ramp 3'H x 8'W x 91 19 Wedge 18 "H x 8'W x 7'L 20 Straight Rail 18 "H x 4'W w le s x 201 21 Lowbox 1'H x 4'W x 81 22 Pie 3'H x 8'W x 91 23 - Quarter Quarter Pie 3'H x 8'W x 91 24 Quarter Pie 3'H x 8'W x 91 FILE: G:\2001_ENGINEER[NG PROJECTS\2001 Skate Park \[2001 skate park engineering estimate.XLS]Eng_Est 2001 SKATE PARK ENGINEERS ESTI ATE COMMUNITY CENTER SITE ( FULLER STREET) ITEM UNIT NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS PRICE 1 Mobilization LUMP SUM 2 8' Bituminous Path (Includes 2" Type 41 Bituminous SQ. YD. 1.00 Wear Course & 4" Class 5 Aggregate 100% Crushed 1.00 150 Limestone) 9.00 3 Connect to Existing Storm Structure (Core Drill) EACH 4 Sodding Lawn Type (Includes 4" Topsoil) SQ. YD. 5 Common Excavation (P) CU. YD. 6 Class 5 Aggregate Base (100% Crushed Limestone, 8" SQ. YD. $ Thick) 422.31 7 Type 31 Bituminous Base Course Mix, 1 1/2" Thick SQ. YD. 8 Type 41 Bituminous Wear Course Mix, 1 1/2" Thick SQ. YD. 9 Bituminous Material for Tack Coat GALLON 10 6" Draintile w/ Filter Sock LIN. FT. 11 Seeding ACRE SUBTOTAL 5% CONTINGENCIES SUBTOTAL W/ 5% CONTINGENCIES f $ 26,001.81 $ 1,300.09 $ 27,301.90 $ 27,301.90 3/23101 2001 skate park engineering estimate.XLS Page 1 of 1 UNIT TOTAL QTY. PRICE PRICE 1 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 150 $ 9.00 $ 1,350.00 1 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 220 $ 2.75 $ 605.00 422.31 $ 1.00 $ 422.31 1490 $ 4.50 $ 6,705.00 1450 $ 3.25 $ 4,712.50 1450 $ 3.50 $ 5,075.00 73 $ 2.00 $ 146.00 405 $ 15.00 $ 6,075.00 0.6 $ 1,100.00 $ 660.00 $ 26,001.81 $ 1,300.09 $ 27,301.90 $ 27,301.90 3/23101 2001 skate park engineering estimate.XLS Page 1 of 1 A m N 0 f r A m m C o O 'n O z m o -� N� O m x N O .... _ O O o a ]] G `c m O o p O o v A x H° N O A 0 0 OZ O A Z p Z Z m N m C 0 O Rl f -i .T C C m A O O O z p A➢ O r< C n Z O A l 2 O 2 -1 C n f C y CA'� ~�pZZ -5m xO p Z mrA I l l Z �m A V Rt SiN 2 A S Z m V OOS p Z m p_�m2 Z A'�O O mA'i -i1 mm ~ m y y VI�m -1 Zr CAmprZ� C�aA pOm-< NAZO >> Z >yD= AApA I ZS m O m O m m 0 'T) S O O '� O 0 0 S~ y o C Z z r -i O� N N C O- Z f Z A O T S m z r mf a p N z m v C O 'I 2-°i ' m° mEl =22Om ;D �y�xmmZ = A7�Z OjDA.TpI rZTmm yy A S x p A r --1 m 2 ° p A --I A 0 0 O O m ''I 0 m Z m m m -� Z C) Z O S m RWr1 r D r V Z O m Z Z N L7 S m m Z N IN/-1 A `� ( 2 m 2 �� r< A m VI n l { m x m m v x f A I p o O C m m oZ_ ry> _! m 0 o zz mmmo z .0>., m O Z m O mO 47 r p m < j 000 Z n m m 0 X N 10 m m . m I I c� D �� �mr➢ C Z N o O m N O p 0 p (/l � rm°1 �Z N �= A BO O m m zFz mm j rN� -'m` m ZI n a m A o m n z A m S GO N D o r o ° r A z W ° ° m O a O , r (� G N O 11 o v v I l e 0 'F8 'F� I ®° T 0° W OO N © ®° • I.,, 1 �� if 1f ii 0 o Ln m m z II If ( e o N 'f` W II fi FF t7 I¢I 1 -I m -t c> ROnD m II II 8 I r`"i 35 I A o y I� IF I fl II j 8 I 9 O 0 MM lgy4 C HAPAR RI W a s \\ s 0 " z ARRiSDN '" < ST. L \. w O <Clq a y VAI N HURE FI�--STST.��u\ ADISON T . ! — ' I- UINCY S < d,� O t^ O > Ir Sl. ' r' l 0 .p Sl. �y M _ / /� h =1 ST.MARK'S lJ // `C"�r� tl I, � \ o � N R BA s sT. 4 Y sT. sT. U1 -I C VK O EPER �t(� � I� ��' 1 Y ST. m s Utl �L'`��J zN 'D y scow < i- - 1 m � „ F Eon .� Z s. . , o` ^� v NE h e�` y T Ili f• �" ^iF,� ' SOMM MLLE (I ,e TDVNL[NE t ` 1 _ SPENLE In nr _ — - -- O � ` S E l � O o�uF< ,, < _ •' ; f iI> ��i�MG`� HENNEPIN C Z D C/) — p N II° _ ��nHES rEan sr . P C �E�xS'• — �n�0 � ��� r 1 I O u /% 111 CLOVE NES TA.� _��. �'G�' 7.011 N 5T. — FT S 1 O {.o( y l ; 'G,'` / .�km�` �IDAKDTA ST. ._ ➢AKDTA I , < 1 �' }y1 11� T tii 1 ST O I 4 n I I �•�,11.PRATR7lE1,11 ��� ` l n 4 I RPIRIE., , I H ESN sT. '' c C �) ur�JL .� ° ^� RAIRl T. ST�rZOH ®� 1'<�`��''' 1 C--) O ' s�G[ Rt -KO n3 Tr I! Il1atlHElO9 r— Ll / HA VI I I ARS[HALL ➢ !� TR. 0 ^ O C� IHLE ST. / �> C �J�p ' o f L @� MILLE $L C� I S / �.1��UI- VIKM4 EL_�L ICS -0 N AxanN sT. n �gRgZ S� V e V �� RUBY LA. . MERRI r � € _ � T P I �7 �Trzelrs 7lD 0 �. g?�y _.n xI�$$�. au NL.E66uS�� ,--� -T SAPP HIR I I r� LLL W �n SPRUCE f• —� T 7 ST 1 v J -I R1 ��,, s I I-�'r�II , ERAI HST. � /� F DIAY. '� „'�' ,,A i SHENANDDAH DR. --' il s N �t , . pe=r ' 1N 3 U CANTERBURY DD-S BWO. < 5 INDUSTRIAL iy a • . I cr. v `nD fD cn p { N I (%Y N Im v n m mNZ nn mnW ° Sim o n l r, I Z ° z=1 _ f „ v D Z o (./) v S A A 0 � m r N � = o N- m° c m III Z v a z m x _+� D T O A ° my,Zl o� o z D r cn °' m —'� y00 Am zy m m C , N m O p -D1 z = y I, In. IM m z c Z T W° `� r O FZO G� W CJ Z�= OZ A ° N D 0 I� m mDy ° OD Z OND �n D p ° z nr v m ° m vI TJ y C A= 5 O .ZI D OR C) D{ N O y O rn Z Z Z Z A . N C- N 1 t fn 3 1 1 z O o D X c �t^ i m - m z + n r O OX N O N j A ! 1 C os o m xA n A m O z N N D = N DC. _ v N o D m A A O m ° m m 00 wz i D z z c c r A p 0 0 m 0 m A 0 a I� 'A t D] DRA INAGE, C ONT RO L CO.S ULTMTS jo D tl•q y L Dat CENTER ppF FA 1-21 ARENA CONSULTING & CONSTRUCTION, INC 7441 G.LY LNE MM DRAWM SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA I X M=YN PAM M 5MM OECKM UP. Z30 Z 133H5 lye -AB 0 3NO3HO 099LL 'ON 'fiab s }O(3 Q d F— � � Z W O r U J Y ¢U U w A3NOl 'd 3Ofk1B S - lId13(I '8 NV-ld M23MHaWaAMZ E12H® S z Z Q F IOOZ :ON 103f0ad NLH NMY80 w n Z Z Z •o ulBu3 11 ,o D IDIS ay, ,o M ay, ,opunI �pgeP ,aa a "d a 0 paa3al6aa AMP o wo uo uo Q d d>i d d d 31 d ?I S r w 1001 HOiitlW 3Ltl0 HL21 A8 03NOIS3 m ry W .0 < Q I oa. 1p 4. .apun 4i i 41 /41- -* A .. gana I a q yl d pq W Q LL w A `J S NQ IS I/ \3O a W I W w • III��II — II z V I 1111111 N Q II II�� � O N II U) U) O _ _0= W Q w 0 N O Q I�I Zz w II Q oo U U M� Q� @j 0 Q� => x� N 00 �m CD0 Li Q > 11 Z mot- O CO F- c) CO CO 0 I x l l m � LLJ o� z� Li EXISTIN 8" PV SANITARY X co 0o O O 0 O � r7 rrj rn 00 00 00 0 0 00 9 n o r In O o w L 00 0 ao C14 v O I I v 11 11 11 n ral '1 Q N w O II m w w Of O W Z co E J W W U C') 0 Qf U p U U U Z Q N Q O � W U M O- J >-u cn cu L O L o X ;o p 0 o 00 .0 (D to II > > > Z Z z 00000 O' O O d 0 0 Lq loo O N 00 X X » d- » »- N CD CJ ��� J- J - V O� w Q d F— � � Z W O r U J Y ¢U U w W a s m W m -10 r Ld W Q F �W ! l w n Z Z Z w ¢Qa d -j 0_ W m U N m ry W .0 < Q d pq W Q LL w a W I W w • III��II — II z (nl z �D O C,) 0 > U) Z X � Li Fh O O A) 814 18 ��' 00 812 806 IS HK ONLSI I w Li N c0 c9 > O O CO N c� co O co 0 O) Go = w � z 30 �w O J U q U W z = N K U w m W U 3� 0 v° W n_ N r U J �a J (U 0_ W aw � W J (n v I~ o = m Q V I D O z D mcl� 00 Z • N Ifil V - 1 6 1 1 , l � 4. } o r U O� w � � w w w m W m -10 F �W J Z Z Z w ¢Qa d -j 0_ W C7 U W Z oo D r J w • III��II — II z ._ 1111111 II II�� � O U O _ _0= W Q o-- Lo II— I�I Zz w II Q oo U U M� Ifil V - 1 6 1 1 , l � 4. } o r To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark McQuillan, Natural Resource Director Subject: Joint Meeting with Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Date: March 27, 2000 INTRODUCTION At previous City Council Workshops, Council expressed a need for developing a plan or strategy for acquiring land for future community parks. The cost of land in MUSA areas has skyrocketed in the last two years, thus, making it very expensive to acquire large parcels of property. Therefore, it makes good sense to begin investigating possible locations outside the MUSA area for potential park sites. I will briefly review the Comprehensive Parks Plan and ask that you consider the following policy questions for discussion. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Where should future community parks be located and for what purpose (program)? 2. Should the City consider land only within the City proper? 3. Should the City consider a partnership with a neighboring township and locate a future park in a neighboring township? For example, Louisville Township. 4. Or, should the City consider acquiring land in a township for a future City park and pay for it with City funds only? 5. What kind of timetable does the City Council wish to establish for identifying potential parkland and then acquiring it? 6. What will be the funding source for the acquisition(s)? ACTION STET) Discuss these policy questions and provide direction for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on how ypu wish them to proceed. ark J. cQuillan Natural Resource Director SHAKOPEE FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION Schedule of Funding Progress, Contributions and Expenses December 31, 2000 Historical Trend Information Historical trend information designed to provide information about Shakopee Firemen's Relief Association's progress made in accumulating sufficient assets to pay benefits when due is presented below: 1995 represents net assets available for benefit at cost Revenues by Source Expenses Over Funded Investment Benefit Administrative State Aid (Unfunded) Income(loss) Net Assets Pension Pension $ 63,999 Available Benefit Percentage Benefit 1999 for Benefits Obligation Funded Obligation 2000 $1,640,303 $1,957,499 84% $(317,196) 1999 1,578,896 1,615,693 98% (36,797) 1998 1,313,586 1,373,400 96% (59,814) 1997 1,171,288 1,153 414 100% 17,874 1996 976,295 1,028,217 95% (51,922) 1995 801,527 903,920 89% (102,393) 1995 represents net assets available for benefit at cost 11 Revenues by Source Expenses By Type City Investment Benefit Administrative State Aid Contribution Income(loss) Payments Expenses 2000 $ 63,999 $ 65,211 $ (62,991) $ $ 4,996 1999 61,397 32,973 175,922 4,994 1998 55,214 12,224 184,896 104,969 5,237 1997 51,643 39,854 151,603 43,416 4,999 1996 52,260 42,385 98,377 31,419 4,896 1995 39,502 - 43,400 32,193 11,660 3,791 11 FIRE CALLS IN .. 340 1. CALLS IN 1; FIRE CALLS IN 1 1 1 464 4444 CITY CONTRIBUTIONS 1995: $43,400 1996: $42,385 1997: $39,854 1998: $12,224 1999: $32,973 2000: $65,211 .• 1 • l • . 7 Mound Maple Grove Maple Wood Chaska Savage Eagan Eden Prairie $92,360 $142,367 $98,374 $104,393 $72,009 $135,343 $327,166 Based on average increases, 1998 -99 figures, from the Minnesota Office of the State Auditor, the Shakopee Fire Department Relief Association would like to request the following: PER YEAR OF SERVICE AMOUNT 1997:$2688 1998:$3062 1999:$3347 2000:$3847 2001: $4400 (proposed) 2002: $5000 (proposed) 2003: $5750 (proposed) 2004: $6600 (proposed) 2005: $7500 (proposed) The Shakopee Fire Department Relief Association, in addition to all pre - existing requirements of Shakopee Firefighters, would like to require all active members to maintain a 35% or higher call attendance to qualify for a credit year of service.