NRRCMinutes-20071009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of Hastings Natural Resources and Recreation Commission Minutes City Hall Volunteer Room October 9, 2007 – 6:00 pm 1) Roll Call at 6 pm: Commissioners Miller, Nelson, Popp, Rohloff, Schommer, Vandehoef and Vaughan, Parks and Recreation Director Bernstein, Superintendent Smith. 2) Approved August meeting minutes. Motion by Popp. Seconded by Vandehoef. Passed unanimously. 3) Setting Agenda: Bernstein added “Levee Park Construction” and “Trail Request” under New Business, and “Trail Lights” under Old Business. The agenda item, “Freitag Property” was moved to Old Business. Motion to approve revised agenda by Popp. Seconded by Schommer. Passed unanimously. 4) Departmental updates were passed out to the commissioners. A question was raised about the new sign at the Civic Arena and its placement. The new sign will be moved so that it is higher and closer to the front, and therefore more visible. The existing shrubs will be trimmed back and staff is talking to the city electrician about the possibility of lighting. 5) Joint Powers/Budget: A copy of the Joint Powers Agreement and the latest budget was distributed to the NRRC for their review. The agreement was originally approved in 1973, with the latest revision having taken place in 2001. The agreement includes all youth and adult recreational programs, including the Senior Center. Bernstein mentioned that Community Education pays half of the cost of our warming house attendants, and that the school district recently agreed to pay 30% of the cost of the new floor at the arena. Schommer referenced Article 7 regarding the 70/30 split of costs of capital improvement projects, and asked if the school district paid 30% of the new bleachers at Vet’s Park that went in 2-3 years ago. Bernstein didn’t remember for sure, but said that he doubted it. He doesn’t believe the school district has paid 30% for any of the capital improvement projects the city has done since he has been here. Either party can say that the project is not of benefit to them when approached by the other side for a project, and therefore not participate. Bernstein cited a couple of examples of times he had approached the school district for projects and had been turned down, i.e., the tennis court repairs and the Kennedy ice rink. He also mentioned that the school district has funded some of their own projects, not billing the city for 30%. These projects were the athletic fields at the new high school and the irrigation project at the middle school. Bernstein wondered if the agreement is still beneficial to both parties, as it seems that we are each tending to fund our own projects. Nelson questioned whether the Joint Powers Agreement was being followed anymore. Bernstein commented that he feels there is selective use of the agreement. Vaughan believes that this agreement has been of benefit to both parties and to the community, although he does question the necessity of the city paying player fees for athletic leagues to Community Ed. Bernstein agreed that cooperation between the school district and the city is vital, and that the new Park Comp Plan reflects that. Vaughan recommended that the NRRC continue to review the agreement and discuss it nd further at a future meeting. Staff also mentioned that we have the 2 highest league fees in Dakota County due to the necessity of paying $26 per player to Community Ed. Bernstein also commented on the issue of private organizations making money using public facilities. Vaughan stated that the City of Eagan had just made a policy which charges fees to private organizations using public facilities. Schommer stated that although this agreement is clearly written down, it seems to be selectively used. He recommended that the agreement be revisited to make sure it is still beneficial to both organizations. The NRRC requested that this topic be added under “Old Business” at the November meeting so that the agreement can be reviewed further. Bernstein invited any NRRC members who are interested to join the Joint Powers Board. 6) Park Dedication Fees: Staff developed a spreadsheet showing what other surrounding communities charge in the way of park dedication fees. Bernstein mentioned that since we haven’t had any new development in town for quite a while, we haven’t been collecting any new park dedication fees. He explained that when the original plat is approved, the developer pays the park dedication fees. So even if we see new homes being built in Hastings, we could have already collected that money quite some time ago. Schommer stated that we are one of the cheapest in the area in terms of park dedication fees, and that maybe this could be a draw to get more development in town. Bernstein commented that City Council recently asked the Planning Director to review the city’s park dedication fees for possible revision. He also mentioned that prior to his arrival, the city was challenged by some local developers and actually lowered our park dedication fees. Vaughan mentioned that Eagan does Park dedication and Trail dedication as two separate things, and that it works well. Bernstein welcomes a discussion on separating our fees out like that. He stated that the Parks & Recreation Dept. maintains the trails and that we are getting more involved with the development of new trails as well. Vaughan asked when the last time we had a bond referendum for the parks was. There was a referendum for the pool, but it failed. So, park dedication money or general revenue is what has been building new parks in the city. Bernstein commented that as our inventory ages, we may have a difficult time maintaining the high standards which our residents have come to expect. He also mentioned that he plans to hold quite a few more neighborhood park meetings next year to get residents involved. Vaughan emphasized the need to look at future financing needs. Schommer mentioned that we may need to consider “naming rights” in order to generate more revenue. Nelson agreed that we need to be creative with our funding and revenue options, but stressed the need to look at long-term solutions. Once things are named, the revenue is gone. Vaughan agreed that we need to be proactive rather than reactive. He asked how park facilities are doing in terms of maintenance. Smith commented that we