Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-14-2009 NRRC 02 Feb MinutesCity of Hastings Natural Resources and Recreation Commission Minutes Parks & Recreation Conference Room February 10, 2009 – 6:00 pm 1)Roll Call at 6 pm: Commissioners Flaten, Schommer, Miller, Smith, Vandehoef and Tessmer-Tuck, Parks and Recreation Director Bernstein. Absent: Commissioner Rohloff, Superintendent Smith 2)Approved January meeting minutes. Motion by Miller. Seconded by Tessmer-Tuck. Passed unanimously. 3)Goals and Objectives – Director Bernstein will be sending out a copy of the proposed NRRC Goals and Objectives with revisions via email. This topic will be placed on the March meeting agenda. 4)Departmental updates were reviewed with NRRC members. Oliver’s Grove Title Transfer – The property that Oliver’s Grove sits on is owned by the Hastings Economic 5) Development and Redevelopment Authority, not the City of Hastings. Director Grossman is planning to bring a resolution forward to City Council transferring the title of that property to the City of Hastings. Oliver’s Grove is listed in the Parks Comprehensive Plan and has been maintained as a city park for many years. 6)Levee Park Committee Update – Director Bernstein has been attending a variety of MNDot meetings regarding the new bridge. There has been some discussion surrounding the proposed pedestrian/bike exit from the Hwy 61 bridge to the downtown Levee Park area. A map with some proposed sites for a spiral loop ramp were reviewed. Due to the need for the ramp to be ADA compliant and of a certain grade, the spiral is estimated to be 70-100 feet in diameter and about 40 feet high. Director Bernstein does have concerns about this large footprint in an area with limited space, although he does support the need for some type of pedestrian/bike entrance and exit closer to downtown that MnDot’s 4 Street th access. One possibility would be to place the ramp under the new bridge. There may be a more feasible alternative than the spiral concept, including the idea of a switchback. The estimated cost for the spiral concept is about 3.5 million dollars which would not be funded by MnDot. Director Bernstein believes that if the only ped/bike exit is located at 4 th Street, the City needs to create some type of attraction in Levee Park that would draw people back into the downtown area. Commissioner Flaten commented that he feels 3.5 million is too much money for this project and that people who are biking wouldn’t mind biking back a couple of blocks to get to the river. Director Bernstein also mentioned the issue of how to get people safely across 2 Street in this scenario. There is a potential to put a trail leading people from 4 ndth Street through downtown to the river trail, but we need to do this in the safest manner possible. It might be possible to put some type of pedestrian crossing on 2 Street by the Mississippi Belle with a marked crosswalk, flashing lights, etc. nd Commissioner Schommer appreciates the historic concept of the spiral ramp, but thought the cost was too great. Commissioner Vandehoef agreed and commented that this spiral wouldn’t look like the original one-loop spiral bridge anyway. Commissioner Miller feels that an exit from the bridge down to 2 Street is very important, but thought that a nd switchback design might fit better and be more cost effective. Commissioner Flaten commented that there is a spiral in Eagan and there are many more all over the metro area. Commissioner Smith mentioned that bike riding through the downtown area is very pleasant and it is important to allow access in some manner. Commissioner Tessmer-Tuck asked if there would still be vehicle entrances/exits before 4 Street with the new bridge, and could we possibly use those in th some way to allow ped/bike access. Director Bernstein replied that they are in current plans, but that MnDot is examining them as they need to make sure that they allow safe turning radiuses for buses. The NRRC also received copies of three conceptual plans for what the Levee Park redevelopment could look like. Director Bernstein explained that all three designs had basically the same features, but in different locations. The commissioners all agreed that scheme #3 was the plan they liked the best, which features the visitor center in the middle of the park with other possible amenities (labyrinth, gardens, river walk, winter skating, water playground, outdoor theater, etc.) located throughout the park. It was very important to the Downtown Business community not to lose any parking and all three plans dress up the parking areas with plantings. Commissioner Miller liked that scheme #3 had a great view of the river from the visitor center. Although there is currently no funding available for this redevelopment, the City wants to have a plan in place for the future. There are an assortment of programs working with the National Parks Service to obtain funding for the visitor center and the Levee Park project. Cost estimates really depend on what we do and whether or not visitor center goes in. If we proceed with the concept, open meetings would be held to get input from residents. The bridge project will only pay to fix the areas that it disturbed during the construction. Director Bernstein mentioned that he envisions this proposed visitor center as a trailhead, especially with all of the trails that are in the works that would link to Hastings. Commissioner Vandehoef commented that it would be nice to create a skating loop or something different than the traditional skating rink. Commissioner Smith thought it might be good to investigate having ice skating in the winter and roller/inline skating in the summer. If any commissioners have any other comments on the Levee Park redevelopment, they’re encouraged to email Director Bernstein. 7)Parks & Recreation Scholarship Program – Staff is considering making changes to the scholarship program for 2009. When the aquatic center was established, the City received money from the Children and Family Learning Department. A stipulation of the grant was the establishment of access for low-income families. The grant had no termination clause – as long as we own and operate the facility, we need to abide by the grant terms. The scholarship program had very loose criteria from 1999-2006. In 2006, staff developed an application process with eligibility criteria based on the reduced/free school lunch program. During 2008, 75 applications were received to the total of almost $11,000, although only about $7,500 was redeemed by applicants. The number of applications received has increased by about 20 per year. Since there are no dedicated funds for this program, the money comes right off the top of the operation of the pool. The majority of scholarship funds are used for season passes and punch cards, with a couple of families using the money for swimming lessons. Staff came up with four potential options to change the program for 2009 so that low-income families could still have access to the pool but at a lesser cost to the City. The grant guidelines read that the City must “provide free or reduced rate use to families at or below 150% of the federal income poverty guidelines.” Staff’s desire is to allow access, but the way the scholarship program is currently functioning, it could end up eating up any profit that the pool makes. This would mean that taxpayers would have to foot more of the bill. Possible options to change the program included: 1) Allow scholarship funds to only be used for swim lessons; 2) Allow scholarship funds to only cover a percentage (possibly 50%) of the season pass/punch card and the individual would make up the difference; 3) Continue the program as is, but by soliciting funding from outside sources; or 4) Issue each family 2 punch cards per season, regardless of family size. All options would have the possibility of seeking funding for the program from local business or organizations to minimize the impact on the City. Commissioner Flaten questioned whether this money is actually being lost as it is being redeemed by low-income families who otherwise would most likely not be able to come to the pool at all. If the scholarships are done away with, there wouldn’t be more money coming in. Commissioner Tessmer-Tuck agreed with him. Director Bernstein agreed that in theory this is correct, but that the money still needs to be accounted for in the City’s accounts and that the money comes out of the pool budget. Commissioner Schommer added that families who are given scholarships do spend money on concessions when they are at the pool. Commissioner Flaten was also concerned that by using the scholarship money only for swimming lessons, more staff would have to be hired to handle the extra load on swim lessons. Director Bernstein explained that our swim lesson classes are already offered to our full capacity, and that they are first-come first-serve, so no additional staff would need to be hired. Commissioner Schommer stated that we do need to look at fiscal responsibility for the City. Commissioner Miller emphasized that the economy is tight for everyone right now and it is not a good time to be asking local businesses for money. If someone volunteered to fund the program, that would be great, but this is a bad time to be soliciting donations. The majority of commissioners seemed to prefer option four, but some hybrid options were also mentioned. For instance, we could offer option 4 but ask local civic organizations (Lions, Legion, Rotary, etc.) to fund the program. Commissioner Vandehoef stated that this is done in Inver Grove Heights, although now may not be a good time to ask organizations for funds. But it is something to keep in mind for the future. Another option was to offer applicants either two free punch cards or a 50% discount on their season passes. Director Bernstein mentioned that he had brought this issue before the Parks & Recreation Committee of Council on Feb. 2. The Committee requested more nd options, so Director Bernstein will bring the NRRC’s recommendations back to the Committee on the 17. If any th commissioners have more thoughts or ideas on this program, please contact Director Bernstein. MOTION to adjourn. Next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 10 at the Parks & Recreation Office. th Adjourned at 7:29 p.m. Minutes submitted by Kristin Behrens