02-07-84 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 51
Agenda February 7, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Discussion Item Regarding Regional Parks
Council Members:
Approximately ten years ago, the Metropolitan Parks Act was
adopted by the Minnesota Legislature. The purpose of the act was
to provide funding for the acquisition and development of Regional
Parks. As a result, the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area now
has approximately 47,000 acres of land in 40 designated regional park
areas. These regional parks are located in, and operated by three
major cities and seven county governments.
At present the operation and maintenance of regional parks is
40 carried out and paid for by the city or county government operating
parks. Recently, however, the cities of Minneapolis and Bloomington
and the County Park Reserve District have initiated discussions re-
garding a plan for joint funding of the operation and maintenance of
regional parks. Don Fondrick, Director of Community Services, has
participated in these discussions.
Several issues arising in these discussions have potential im-
pact for the City of Richfield, as indicated by the following questions:
1. Are there parks of regional siqnificance that do
not now carry the title of "regional park"?
Richfield's wood Lake Nature Center, for example,
may fall into a category such as this since there
are relatively few nature interpretative centers
in the metropolitan area, and because the Nature
Center is used by a great number of residents out-
side the City of Richfield.
2. Should there be some sort of special tax or other
financing plan to support the operation and main-
enance of reqional parks?
The Hennepin County Park Reserve District is presently
• considering a proposal to collect two mills of property
taxes countywide for the operation and maintenance of
all regional parks in Hennepin County. Richfield resi-
dents would pay a portion of this property tax levy,
Council Letter No. 51
-2-
February 7, 1984
but the revenue would be divided between the Hennepin
County Park District, the City of Minneapolis, and
the City of Bloomington, the agencies presently oper-
ating designated regional parks in Hennepin County.
3. Should there be a reassessment or an alternate approach
to regional parks and the services they provide?
This might involve for example, a more concentrated
approach in major population areas, including first
tier suburbs, such as Richfield, since the majority
of regional parks are now located either in the core
city (Minneapolis with its chain of lakes regional
parks), or in outlying areas of Hennepin County where
most regional parks are located.
4. Who are the users of these parks?
•
•
The City of Minneapolis, for example, estimates that
50% of the users of the chain of lakes regional parks
come from outside the City of Minneapolis, but gener-
ally live in Hennepin County. Further, Hennepin Coun-
ty estimates that over 50% of the users of the Hennepin
County Park Reserve District are from the City of Minne-
apolis. Other park areas which have not been designated
as regional parks, including Richfield's Wood Lake Nature
Center, also estimate a high percentage of users from
locations other than the community where the park is
located. This question is a central issue regarding
who should pay for the operation and maintenance of
regional parks.
Attached are three newspaper articles addressing these topics
which report on suggested methods of resolving the issue of paying
for operations and maintenance of the parks. Also attached is a copy
of a preliminary report, prepared by the Hennepin County Park Reser-
ve District, which addresses some of the issues discussed by a tech-
nical advisory task force, some of whom discussed these topics. In
reviewing the task forces' report, the council may pay particular
attention to discussion of Issues five, six and seven.
The Richfield Community Services Advisory Commission has also
had brief discussions related to these issues, and has invited
Charles Smith, park planner for the Metropolitan Council, to the
commission's February 13, 1984 meeting for further discussion. It
also appears likely that state legislation will be proposed which
addresses the issue of funding regional park operation and mainten-
ance costs. For these reasons, this matter has been brought before
the city council for discussion prior to the time a Legislative
Position Statement may be needed.
City staff has not formulated a preliminary position statement
which the city council can react to. However, would council support
the following points if there is a good degree of certainty that the
Council Letter No. 51 -3- February 7, 1984
Park District, Minneapolis and Bloomington are successful in ob-
40 funding for regional parks?
1. There should be standards established to determine
what open space qualifies as a regional park (size,
non-resident usage, etc.)
2. Local control should remain with the unit of govern-
ment where the park is located
3. Funds from any special tax levy for regional parks
should be shared with cities which operate facilities
that meet regional needs and standards.
Respectfully submitted,
- r
John G. Cartwright
City Manager
JGC/ej a
•
•
DRAFT
0 REPORT -OF TECHNICAL ADVISORY TASK FORCE
ISSUE l.: CHANGING RECREATION PATTERNS AND INTERESTS
Discussion centered around the need for information on the leisure
needs and interests of the public. The need was seen for evaluation of current
programs as well as broader information on leisure interests and trends. It
was suggested that public park and recreation agencies should be more pro-
active in responding to trends such as the current "wellness" phenomenon.
The following specific population groups/recreational interest areas
were identified as growth service opportunities for the public park and
recreation agencies to treat as market areas:
1. Senior citizens
2. Pre-retirement older adult work force
3. Physical fitness
4. Women's sports
5• Adventure programming
is Conclusions/Recommendations of the Task Force:
• Specific demographic and other appropriate research data needs
to be applied by public park and recreation practitioners with
regard to servicing leisure interests.
• Dissemination and sharing of pertinent data and methods of
evaluating programs would enhance cooperative and joint efforts
to improve the recreation services delivery system.
ISSUE 2: ROLE OF THE DISTRICT AND MUNICIPAL
PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENTS
There was a strong feeling among the representatives on the Task Force that
the District should not get involved in program areas that have traditionally
been the role of municipal park and recreation departments. Some concern was
expressed that the District might be compelled to establish municipal type
facilities or get into more municipcitype programs due to demand or the
District's desire to increase awareness, use, or revenue. The Task Force felt
that the role the District has taken (complimentary to the municipal role),
in combination with the municipal role provides a very high level of service
to the citizens of Hennepin County.
The Task Force supported the District's provision of specialized instruction
programs where the District, because of its resources, could best offer such a
program (i.e., cross-country skiing).
Page 2
With regard to use by municipal park and recreation departments of
District facilities and programs, members of the Task Force suggested that the
District "package" more of its programs so they can be more readily understood
and easily utilized by municipal programmers.
The Task Force saw opportunity for further cooperation between the District
and municipal park and recreation departments to expand recreational opportunities
and avoid duplication of effort. Support-was expressed for cooperative programming
in such areas as wellness programs, adventure programming, and outdoor skills
instruction culminating in municipally-sponsored trips or outings (i.e., camping
skills). It was suggested that District staff meet with municipal program staff
to put together programs responsive to the needs of the clientele within an
identified municipality, with District staff serving as the facilitators and
municipal staff as the programmers. One municipal representative said he might
consider assigning one of his recreation supervisors to work part time with the
District in developing joint programs to better serve his community.
Conclusions/Recommendations:
° The Task Force supported the District's role in providing natural
resources-based outdoor recreation opportunities, non-duplicative
of and complementary to municipal park and recreation facilities and
programs.
Cooperative programming between the District and municipal park and
recreation departments should. be'expanded, resulting in provision of
greater recreation opportunities to the benefit of County
taxpayers. •
ISSUE 3: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO DISTRICT PARKS AND FACILITIES
The consensus of the Task Force was that the availability of public trans-
portation (or lack thereof) is not a significant factor with regard to use of
District facilities. It was felt that people do not want to be dependent on bus
transportation (particularily for leisure pursuits). It was felt that people
want to drive to the parks to be able to come and go as they choose and not be
dependent on bus transportation.
With regard to District provision of buses, it was the consensus of the
group that the provision of District transportation would not make a significant
impact on the amount of use. This was based on the fact that municipal programs
currently organize such bus excursions and pass all costs such as transportation
on to participants. It was suggested that discount rates be offered to groups
coming by bus, whether they be church groups, neighborhood groups, or other
types of groups. One comment in favor of a District-owned bus was the benefit
that might be derived from a traveling billboard
Conclusion/Recommendations:
The Task Force did not feel that provision of public transportation
to District parks would significantly affect user origin patterns
or increase use.
Page 3
ISSUE-4: MARKETING PUBLIC AWARENESS AND STRATEGIES
The Task Force generally accepted the District's statement of the need
to increase awareness of District facilities. The municipal representatives
did state they felt many of their constituents were not aware of the Park
Reserve District and District parks, facilities, and programs. Many also stated
they experienced a similar (although slightly lesser) awareness problem within
their own communities.
The Task Force suggested a number of marketing efforts the District might
try to increase awareness and use:
1. Promotion in each municipalities park and recreation brochure or
community newsletter..
2. A "People's Walk" where each city might create a program to bus people
to a District facility for a Volksmarch type activity
3. Selling of District Annual Parking Permits at City Halls and Community
Centers
4. Promoting of District programs in coordination with municipal programs
on municipal park and recreation department sponsored and produced
cable TV programs, or production of such a program by the District
5. District column in senior citizens' monthly newsletters
6. Permanent or traveling display and information booths at major
shopping centers
0
7. Use of portable display and information booths at city community
centers
8. Displays at all Hennepin County libraries
9. Paid advertising
10. Target communities for special promotion of the District, including
a free "sampler" day
11. Purchase of billboa.rd space on MTC buses
0
Task Force members suggested that county/regional parks should be open for
programming by any park and recreation agency within the County, regardless
of who the operating agency is (including Minneapolis regional parks), as long
as operating policies and procedures are adhered to in programming. This would
give all County residents greater sense of ownership in all county/regional parks.
It was the general feeling of the Task Force that the District's outreach
efforts should be applied equally to all municipalities. More specifically, the
group did not support offering of special outreach programs aimed specifically
at residents of the City of Minneapolis.
Conclusions/Recommendations:
• --General awareness of the District, its facilities and programs should
be increased through a variety of marketing strategies and promotional
efforts applied equally throughout Hennepin County.
Page 4
ISSUE : PARK RESERVES AND MOST DEVELOPED COUNTY/REGIONAL PARKS
ARE LOCATED OUTSIDE THE MORE DENSELY POPULATED CENTERS.
DOES THIS CAUSE A PROBLEM? IF SO, WHAT CAN BE DONE
TO ALLEVIATE THE. PROBLEM?
The Task Force felt that the following factors affect use of county/
regional parks in order of degree: distance from population, travel time,
programming, and general awareness. Transportation options were felt by most
to be an insignificant or non-existent factor, with the exception of serving
senior citizens and handicapped populations. It was felt that public trans-
portation could become a factor if a "Chain of Lakes" type regional park area
were developed in the first tier suburbs.
The Task Force generally felt that people use a particular park because
of the existence of a particular activity or combination of activities they
want to participate in. People will generally go to the closest park where
this activity is provided. In order to attract them to a park farther away,
something unique or different must be provided.
Some Task- Force members felt that suburban people are also using "Chain-of-
Lakes" parks because many of these suburban people grew up in the City and are
going back with their families to parks familiar and meaningful to them. This
return to the City may change as the suburbs become the "home" of upcoming
generations.
With regard to increasing and broadening use of District parks, the Task
Force felt that programming, targeting of the needs of specific population groups,
and promotion would be effective.
With regard to relieving use of the Minneapolis system, the Task Force did
not feel that attempts by the District to draw use away would significantly
decrease pressure on the Minneapolis regional parks. It was observed that
regional parks in Minneapolis provide different kinds of recreation experiences.
It is faddish to go where large numbers of people recreate, and Minneapolis parks
have strong traditional ties. They felt that the only way to possibly draw
people away from the Minneapolis regional parks would be to create the same
experience, including the "social" aura. It is questionable whether this could
be done because the resources and design of the Minneapolis system may not be
able to be duplicated, because of history of use of the Minneapolis regional
parks, and because of the lack of ability to dictate the phenomenon of popularity.
It was also the consensus of the group that even if similar attractions could be
created, that use would rise to meet opportunity and pressure on the Minneapolis
system would not be relieved. Some Task Force members felt that over the long
term, some relief might be provided as use patterns change and more similar
opportunities become available elsewhere.
Members of the Task Force, however, recognized the need for social gathering
points within densely populated areas. They felt these should be provided on a
County/Regional basis rather than at the municipal level because people don't
recognize political boundaries in socializing plans. Generally, these social
gathering points should be water-based resources. 49
Page 5
F
Suggestions of some Task Force members included the following:
• Some of the outlying District parks could be held in a stewardship
state to make operating dollars available for closer in parks.
• A greater awareness is needed of the uniqueness of park reserves
and how they serve the whole county in a way different from the
county recreation area or regional parks.
• Hyland Lake Park Reserve should be reviewed for possible change of
classification to a regional park, be redeveloped, along with Bush
Lake and Anderson Lakes, as a new "Chain-of-Lakes" type park of
the future.
• Medicine, Fish, Eagle, and Bryant Lake Regional Parks could be
developed as "social recreation"-type parks.
• Some Task Force members felt more money should be pumped into the
Chain-if-Lakes. Regional Parks so.that the parks could withstand a
greater degree of intensive use.
• Hennepin County Park Reserve District fees might be a negative
factor to participation. The District should explore the impact
on use of the parking fee and gate house.
Conclusions/Recommendations:
• The Task Force felt that the nature and role of District parks and
park reserves dictate their location and that this generally does
not cause a problem except for certain less mobile segments of the
population without their own automobiles (i.e. senior citizens,
handicapped, etc.).
Wit regard to increasing and broadening use of District parks, the
Task Force felt that innovative programming, targeting of the needs
of specific population groups, and promotion would be effective.
• It was the consensus of the Task Force that efforts by the District
to relieve pressure on Minneapolis regional parks would have no
significant short-term impact.
• The District should assume responsibility for development of county/
regional parks and special facilities which will serve as social
gathering points and leisure services delivery places in densely
populated areas.
0
ISSUE 6: WHAT MUNICIPAL PARK AREAS AND FACILITIES
(BESIDES THOSE IN MINNEAPOLIS) ARE MEETING RECREATION NEEDS
OF PEOPLE WHO DO NOT LIVE IN THE CITY
WHOSE FACILITIES THEY ARE USING? •
The following facilities were identified as meeting regional needs:
Brooklyn Center: Twin Lakes (Note: Parking is not available on site,
but people cross highways and fences to swim and boat
there. There would be strong local opposition to any
regional park development.)
Mississippi River access south of Highway 694
Community Center Swimming Poor (More non-resident
members than resident members)
Trail Corridor from Minneapolis to North Hennepin
Regional Trail Corridor
Champlin: Mississippi River access
Edina: Braemar Golf Course
Golden Valley: Brookview Golf Course
Country Clubs
Brookview Picnic Area
Hopkins-Minnetonka: Shady Oak Beach
Maple Grove: Weaver Lake (The 350-car lot is full weekdays and weekends.) •
Plymouth: Medicine Lake Beach
Richfield: Rt'eh Acr-es.-Gotf-Course
WoodzxLLaker.Nature Center
Robbinsdale: Community Center \
. Sochacki Park - potential trail use
Municioal reoresentatives indicated that although non-resident use of
certain facilities and programs is significant, in many cases it is not viewed
as a problem because fees are charged for the activities. Task Force members
indicated they :rould feel differently if there were no fees. Suburban softball
programs, however, have many Minneapolis and non-resident players, causing a
shortage of fields in some communities.
The Task Force members suggested that the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space
Commission and the Metropolitan Council re-evaluate criteria for funding regional
park facilities so some of the facilities listed above cculd be funded.
Conclusions/Recornrmendations:
• Suburban communities should look at doina more cooperative programming
and possibly sharing of major facilities.
0
Page 7
ISSUE 7: CAN THE APPARENT INEQUITY OF USE
BETWEEN THE REGIONAL PARKS IN THE MINNEAPOLIS SYSTEM AND THE
HENNEPIN COUNTY PARK RESERVE DISTRICT BE ALLEVIATED TO SOME EXTENT
BY DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIAL USE FACILITIES?
The group had difficulty dealing with this issue because they didn't see
"inequity of use" as a problem in itself.
The Task Force generally felt that the District could attract a broader
base of users, specifically targeted populations, and increasing numbers of users
by developing special use facilities and through programming efforts.
The Task Force felt that whether the problems accompanying so-called
"inequity of use" can be resolved with special use facilities depends greatly
on what the facilities are and where they are located.. They felt that to address
the so-called problem, special use facilities should be located in Minneapolis
and first-tier suburbs, in other words, in major population centers. The District
should look at projects that have county/regional and local significance and where
operations may be shared with municipalities.
In developing special use facilities, it was cautioned that the District
must work carefully with park and recreation departments of local governments
so that suburban citizens don't feel the District is taking over their grass-
roots operations.
• Some recommendations for special use facilities included speed skating/bandy
rinks, wave pools; outdoor amphitheaters, major softball (tournament type) complex
domed year-round picnic areas/parks; other large group reservation picnic sites
that could hold one to two thousand people; specialty sports facilities of
county/regional use.; courses for trail bikes, motocross, ATC's; conservatories.
Suggestions for major special events included major cross country ski races,
rock concerts, etc. It was felt that this would relieve "inequity of use'! by
increasina awareness of and drawing new users to District facilities, but that
it would not relieve Minneapolis' "overuse" problems as being experienced in
Chain-of-Lakes regional parks.
Conclusions/Recommendations:
• The Task Force saw, as part of the District's role, development of
special use fac.ilities and. programmed major special events. (The local
cities may also do major special events in regional parks or work on a
cooperative basis.) The Task Force did not relate this role of the
District to specific efforts at alleviating the "inequity" problem with
the City of,Minneapolis.
0
Page 8
ISSUE 8: ARE THERE AREAS IN THE FIRST TIER SUBURBS
THAT COULD BE ACQUIRED AND DEVELOPED AS REGIONAL PARKS
THAT COULD BE ACQUIRED AND DEVELOPED AS REGIONAL PARKS
The following areas were identified:
° Part of Fort Snelling State Park - Old polo grounds/golf course
Legion Lake/Taft Lake/Mothers Lake area in Richfield
• Meadowbrook Golf Course in St. Louis Park
• Mississippi River accesses listed in Issue 6
• Twin Lakes
Members of the Task Force felt there is a need for a 50-year plan to get on
and use Lake Minnetonka and surrounding Lakeshore, that a major park is needed,
regardless of expense and time it takes to become a reality. ;
•
•
•
;
1
^vr?.•.•..:rv ..r ?v :r.y.. a Wi+rr? J 7YYV+?"114 "fr?ii'lirrrRf'irvf`vvt?ill?V?i
- .. .. -i/1Ffr? 'ikvis3l'6'+iti ? ii?M'J'?1'vkJ[Yl;?•yi•?'?1??'v?'W ? ?' , .
• r'
,??, ?j ,t ;;?4? Fr i t f h `;,? s-: Minneapolistar and -Tribune
C o*mmunity.,,
Tuesday
a r .. t e 1 tt: ' Decembljr20! 1893. ' I .
_ _ - ? ;-.i- L .1. + - ? 1 .??r}? yr ^ P'1t l.i<:1.1 t.l ??. ??, ;.
- .. , Ter. •- •?, .m •a: e?:w h•a ,r.. ... ?--. _ S _' : , ..
.. ` ! ^?' , ,,Tv_ ....+•.+?•-? ? aatsrram?r.?ucr.a:c<s ::v.:•.?..........tfr"•R?'F.Ji.?,Ii"..t..J...=.«.
a1rd iallc nal pa rk s em ima ?k wider tax base
'l!c
Y, t '
p(1,y I.aurle Blake 17 Percent from throughout gilt can no longer afford to bear Ibis began ton dross IAtil b
,.., , ..... ,. A by paid an estimated $1.5 million to $5. commission has a good Idea of how ? .
31?ft Wrllpr „?ouaty. burden," Hilinleyersaid. voting to prepare an operallon'und mllli0q. regional maltey uhould be dlsirtbul-
maintenance position paper to pre- ed out is less clear about where It
In the summer of 1082, resWents of Mlnlkehal a Park, another regional.' Minneapolis Is not alone. spnl to the Legislature Ibis March. Under the proposed 2 mill plan. Mln• sgould came from, said Bob Nelher-
the mtelropolllan area' made pork within the city, bud 195,000 . aeupolis would receive $1.5 million eui, Volropolllao Council director of
1,390,0of vislis to the Minneapolis . visitors that summer -11 percent of It's been almost to years silica pre The Hennepin County Park Reserve and Bloomington $250,000, according ° parks and upon space.
SNeln of takes parks, according to a Weak train Milkneapalls and moll of Metropolitan Parks Act provided ' District will do the same. Last week to Judith Anderson, county park re-
btgifopoiltua Council survey. ilia rest from the greater metrapalt- funds to preserve land for regional It drafted Its own regional. parks pro- berve district chairman. The funds would probub?y he al rib-
talk area. Currently, cities and calm- parks. Since Ilion about $111 million ' posul. It proposes that llennepin tiled according to the acreage, 14
:.Although The parks are within the lies with regional parks pay In oper- has been spent to buy land and de- Counly.collect 2 mills for regional ' The eouuty 'tow bus legislative au- and current operating budget of the
f lly% jurisdiction, they are regional ate and maintain them v/Ilh properly : vetop 11 for recreational life, Siva of Y P 4t N The
y„ . . j: parks Td that It some a like. lhurp to collect (mill for. regional various arks N Aerc t Sald•
parks flint draw visitors from all luxes, ' moue lrecll to Minneapolis for its; parks, 'All of it goex djrecll (q Ito money ould bq collected lbrou h a
";'{tyCr Hennepin County.' `'. T Now there are 47,080 acres-in the ' regional parks. ''some moaey also , park reserve district to maintain numbr of sourcel. Including fe-
"We'ro over-used," said Pulrlcla Hill- t system bill no plan exists for spread- would go to Bloomington. whleb bas 21,000 acres of reglomd county parks glomal properly tax, a Ieglslupve.ap-
1ie council's survey shows that 01 meyer, chairman of The Minneapolis lag the cost of park operation and ' 2,000 acres of regional' parks, note- outside Minneapolis and' Blooming- propriallon, or user fees. Tho oplions
percent of the 1882 visitors came Parks Baurd. "Highly over-used. maintenance regloowide. bly Bush Lake Park. In 1083, Bloom- ton. will be cat troll In January.
q*Irym Minneapolis, 22 percent from lagtpn paid $280,000 for regional
11te first-ring suburbs and the other "The city of Minneapoll» laxpuyerti -Monday, like Melropollfim Council . parks operation and Minneapolis For its pert, the metropolitan parka
'Commission
Q
seeks aid Since 1974, $121 million in state and
regional funds have been spent
But
acquire and develop Parks.
'
for work maintaining and operating the Sys*
teen's more than 47,000 acres have
been left' to the taxpayers of the
on ????5 three cities and seven counties
where the parks are located. In
?7 many cases this has left parks with- .
out proper maintenance or recre-
ByLaurie Blake .? ational facilities.
Staff Writer
In Minneapolis, for example, there
The Metropolitan Parks and Open are delays in replacement projects.
the Minneapolis Park
t
Space Commission Monday proposed o
according
that the state of Minnesota turn over and Recreation Board.
the $18.6 million a year it gets from'
the sales tax on candy and soft
in Hennepin County, the park re-
drinks to the agencies running parks serve district is asking the county for
The district
in the state. more money this year-
contingent upon
Thursday
They proposed that half the money
0 ,
voted last
Minneapolis Park Board endorse-
k the county for 2 mills to
; be used to maintain and operate 4 ment,.to as
Minneapolis. Bloom'
regional parks in the metropolitan
b
f divide among
d the park reserve district
area, and that the rest
e used
or ington an
d maintain regional
parks in the.rest of the state. to operate an
Parks.,
In addition, the commission pro-
posed that the Metropolitan Council ?
District chairman Dave Latvaaho
trict will continue to work
di
give revenues from the entire .5-mill
property tax authorized for park de- s
said the
through the county until convinced
h is
velopment in the metropolitan area
v
ark
i
i
fo
s
t
th
ri •
that the regional funding approac
outgoing chairman
However
e comm
ss
on
r
a
ou
p
o. ,
better.
Anderson said the regional
purposes. Judith
the ideal long term salu-
h i
s
approac
The two proposals would allow the tion.
t commission, which has been in-
rn about regional funding
volved almost solely with park acqui-
l
t
b
i one conce
r Hennepin County, with its
th
eg
sition and deve
opment,
o
n
i
rk
i
d i e
is whe
veloped park system, would
d
mprov
ng an
ng pa
s..
maintain e
highly
ve to compete for funds
h
The commission did not suggest park a
eventually
with other counties that might in-
mainte-
if
entrance fees because many cities ,
crease their parklands
available, Lat-
and counties oppose them and they nance funds were
are difficult to administer, according vaaho said.
to a report by the council's parks
head of the
staff
John McBride
Nethercut said regional funding
,
.
commission, said the agency didn't would more equitably spread the
ark system.
tire
object to special purpose fees. such p
cost for the en
as those for golf courses and Henn-
'
le idea of the regional sys•
h
-
pin County
s ski area. o
The w
tem is that in a good many instances,
The commission will hold a public county lines are not the determining
eople go to a park.'
hearing on tie proposals. It plans to . factor of where p
submit recommendations to the Met- he said.
ropoiitan Council, asking that the
1984 Legislature give the issue to a
joint subcommittee for possible legis-
lative action in 1985, McBride said.
The two taxes would pour $15.1 mil-
lion into the metropolitan area's re-
gional park system in 1985: $9.3 mil-
lion from its share of the soft drink
and candy sales taxes and $5.8 mil- •
lion from the .5 mill property tax.
The regional funding would supple-
ment, not replace, local operation
and maintenance funds, according to
Bob Nethercut, council director of
parks and open space.
•
Y
-Minneapolis Star
Established 1867
8A
and Tribune
Roger Parkinson Publisher and President
Joel R. Kramer Executive Editor
Frank Wright Managing Editor/ News
Tim J. McGuire Managing Editor/Features .
Robert J. White Editorial Editor
Saturday, January 14, 1984
A questionable way to
Parks are wonderful places to relax, but paying for
them creates acute political tension. Minneapoli-
tans, for example, not only support their own city
park system but pay 35 percent of the costs of
running the Hennepin County Park Reserve Dis.
trict (even though studies indicate that 44 to 60
Percent of the people who use the city's regional.
parks live outside the city while only 10 percent of
' the users of Hennepin County's regional parks are
Mianeapolitans). That's clearly unfair.
On the east side of the Twin Cities area, Washing-
ton County has been reluctant to develop, regional
parks because the cost of operating and maintain
tog them- would fall on county residents while most
park users presumably would come from Ramsey
County. Washington.County's failure to-carry out its
allotted share of regional. park development, says
the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commis-
sion, leaves a gap that deprives many Twin Cities
residents of recreational opportunities. That's im-
fair too.
The commission hopes to solve both problems, plus
what it says is a shortage of money for park
operations, by persuading the Legislature .to dedi-
cate candy and soft-drink sales-tax revenues to the
purpose. That would bring in about $18.6 million a
year, half of which would go to metropolitan area
parks, half to parks in the rest of the state. The
money now goes Into the state's general fund.
Precedents exist for dedicated, state-wide park
funding for acquisition and development. But be-
fore the Legislature extends the practice to the
financing of park operations, It should consider
whether the problem is really so acute and wide-
pay for parks
spread that no other answer is feasible. If the
problem is mainly between Minneapolis and its
suburbs, and between Washington County and St.
Paul and its suburbs, couldn't intergovernmental
agreements produce a solution that is fairer, less
costly and just as effective?
Regional parks do draw users from a multi-commu-
nity area. But that usage is usually subregional, not
region-wide; people mostly use the parks closest to
• them. And the parks are owned and operated by
counties and cities, an arrangement no one now
proposes to change. '
Even if park-financing problems are so widespread
that regional or state-wide financing is necessary, it
would be unwise to make an open-ended commit-
ment of revenues from a particular tax source. A
limited use of dedicated funds may be acceptable
for such one-time investments as the purchase and
development of parkland. But operating and main-
taining a park is a government service that re-
quires constant review for efficiency, need, priority
and renewed funding. An assured and constant
source of revenue such as the one proposed might
relieve park operators of the need to run their
parks at highest efficiency.
Minnesotans rightly put a high priority on their
parks and give their park agencies an unusual
amount of political independence and financial
security. But before the Legislature accepts the
proposal to dedicate candy and soft-drink sales-tax
revenues to park operations, it should look for
other, less sweeping solutions that would work as
well.
Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission
January 25, 1984
TO: Interested Citizens and Government Officials
300 Metro Square Building
Seventh and Robert Streets
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
6121291-6401
The Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission is preparing recommendations
for the Metropolitan Council and the Legislature regarding funding for the
operation and maintenance of regional parks. We have drafted a Position Paper
and would like to get public comments on this matter before finalizing our
recommendations. To do this, we are scheduling a public forum at 3 p.m. and
7 p.m., Monday, Feb. 13, 1984, to hear comments from interested agencies and
persons.
We welcome your comments. Copies of the position paper can be obtained by
calling 291-6464. If you wish to speak at the Feb. 13 meeting, please call our
secretary, Sue Ayers, at 291-6401, so that we can put you early on the agenda.
Sincerely,
J
C
JRM:sa
0
0
Established by the Minnesota Legislature
as an agency of the Metropolitan Council
0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 50
February 7, 1994
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Storm Water Control Planning and Financing
Improvements and Maintenance
The Minnesota Legislature adopted two acts which continue to
have significant impact on the City of Richfield related to planning
and financing of storm water improvements and maintenance. The
Storm Sewer Utility Act provides for financing maintenance and
capital projects. The Metropolitan Storm Water Management Act
(MSWMA) mandates planning for storm water control and also allows
property tax levies outside the levy limits to pay for storm water
planning and improvements. The Management Act (MSWMA) was adopted
in response to a number of conflicts which arose between neighbor-
40 ing communities regarding the legal responsibility for storm water
leaving one city and entering another and also in response to an
increase in public awareness and concern regarding water quality
in lakes and rivers.
According to provisions of the Management Act, the following
planning steps are required:
1. All areas of the city must be organized into water
management organizations (WMO) by December 31, 1983.
(Richfield is a member of 3 WMO's).
2. Each WMO plan must be prepared by December 31, 1985.
3. Each WMO plan is to be reviewed by the affected cities
and counties, the Metropolitan Council, the Department
of Natural Resources, the Pollution Control Agency and
the Minnesota Water Resources Board.
4. The local city-wide plan for storm water control must
be prepared based on each of the three WMO plans, and
5. The local city-wide plan must be submitted by the WMO
to the Minnesota Water Resources Board for approval.
• The first step, establishing a water management organization
(WMO), was accomplished prior to the December 31, 1983 deadline.
Most of Richfield is a part of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed Dis-
trict or the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. These two
Council Memorandum No. 50 -2- February 7, 1984
existing organizations are continued. The previously unorganized
portion of Richfield, specifically the southeast corner which
drains into Wilson and Christian ponds, was combined with a prev-
iously unorganized portion of Bloomington into which Richfield's
water from this southeast section drained. This created a third
district in Richfield known as the Richfield/Bloomington Water-
shed Management Organization. The joint powers agreement for this
WMO was adopted December 19, 1933. -,The attached map outlines the
three management organizations now operating in Richfield.
The next required step is to have a WMO Plan prepared by
December 31, 1985. Actually, plans must be prepared for each of
the three water management organizations, as well as a local city
wide plan. It, therefore, seems practical to prepare for all
four plans at the same time. Although some studies have been done
over the years related to storm water problems throughout Rich-
field, this information is not necessarily complete nor in a form
to be used in preparation of plans. Such a task is beyond the ex-
pertise of the city staff, and the time constraints are another
limiting factor. Staff, therefore, recommends that the engineering
firm of Orr-Schelen-Mayeron be hired to analyze the city's storm
sewer system and prepare the surface water management plans. The
estimated cost of this analysis and plan encompassing the entire
city is $20,000. It is proposed the funding for this study come
from the Sewer Utility Fund. The Sewer Utility Fund (page E. 26
1984 Budget) allocates $100,000 for storm drainage capital outlay
projects.
The next step for the city council and staff will be to an-
alyze the completed engineering plans for each of the three WMO's
and to make a determination as to which projects will be financed
by the Water Management Organizations (not city financing) and
which projects will be financed by the City of Richfield. The
Richfield projects can be financed either by a property tax
(Management Act) or a land area fee (Storm Sewer Utility Act).
As indicated, the Management Act (MSWMA) allows property tax
levies outside the levy limits to pay for storm water planning and
improvements. To put this into perspective, should the area of
Richfield that is now part of the Richfield/Bloomington Watershed
Management Organization be taxed at the same level as the Nine
Creek Watershed District, over $10,000 would be generated per year.
The Board of each WMO typically makes the policy decisions related
to the allocation of funds derived from such taxing power. While
this provides a broader base for accumulation of funds, it also
provides a broader area for expenditure of funds.
The second act to have impact on the city was the Storm Sewer
Utility Act (SSUA). This Utility Act provides cities with a fund-
ing mechanism for the cost of construction and maintenance of storm
water improvements. Under its provisions, cities may charge a fee
for the provision of storm water disposal service. The advantages
41 of the SSUA financing mechanism over the property tax levy provided
under the Management Act is that it can be implemented sooner and
charges can be established relating to the level of services
Council Letter No. 50
-3- , February 7, 1984
provided rather than a tax on property value. For example, an
asphalt parking lot with a relatively low property value may con-
tribute a large amount of storm water runoff, while a property
of higher value may contribute little storm water runoff. The
Utility Act would allow the city to establish fixed charges accord-
ing to the amount of storm water runoff contributed to the city's
system. Further, the Utility Act provides that on-going mainten-
ance of the storm water control system could be charged through
utility fees as well as the cost of constructing the improvements.
Because the storm sewer utility fund would be local, the local
government would have the control for allocation of funds unlike
the WMO which puts the control of allocation with the board and
local funds may or may not be spent in the particular municipality
where the funds were collected. Also, improvements financed by the
property tax levy authorized the Management Act could probably not
begin until 1986 after the WMO and the local storm water management
plans were approved. In contrast, provisions of the Utility Act
can be implemented as early as 1984.
The Management Act and the Utility Act can also play an im-
portant role for the City of Richfield with regard to financing
the repairs or replacements to our existing storm water system. An
infrastructure study is now underway by city staff to determine our
needs so that subsequent budgets for maintenance and capital may be
based on the results of the staff infrastructure study portions re-
lated to the storm water system in the city. The infrastructure
study is proposed to be done primarily by city staff except when
the expertise of an outside consultant is needed to provide base
data and/or projections based on the data available. The staff
proposed agreement with OSM includes engineering services for the
WMO mandated surface water management plans and the city's infra-
structure study.
All of the items outlined above relate to an overall storm
sewer study plan. This planned approach involves a consultant,
staff, advisory commissions, the city council and other agencies.
Much of the work included in the planned approach is proposed to be
done through the recommended agreement between the city and OSM for
analysis of the city's storm water system and preparation of surface
water management plans. The following is a brief outline of the
proposed approach to storm water control and maintenance:
GOAL: Provide Adequate and Efficient Control of Storm Water
•
OBJECTIVES:
-Meet all requirements of the
Management Act;
-Implement an equitable storm
-Provide adequate information
Study
Metropolitan Storm Water
sewer financing plan; and,
for Richfield's Infrastructure
Council Letter No. 50 -4- February 7, 1984
ENGINEERING AND FINANCING STUDY
The Procedure for Accomplishing the
Objects for Each WMO
1. Inventory
A. Existing System
1. Update "as-builts"
2. Pond inventory
B. Present Problems
1. 1978 OSM Study (to be divided into the various
WMO Districts)
2. Maintenance history
C. Surface Area Calculations
D. Land Use/Zoning
1. Existing
2. Proposed
E. Costs
1. Maintenance - given various levels of service
2. Capital - given various levels of service
F. Water Quality Analysis
2. Analysis
A. 100-year flood elevations of ponds
B. Pipe size adjustments to five and ten-year design
C. Identify landlocked areas which do not have overflow
swales
D. Identify private "backyard" low spots
E. High water elevations of ponds
3. Alternatives
A. Maintenance levels vs. costs
B. Capital Improvements vs. costs
C. Alternative storm sewer utility rates
•
Council Letter No. 50 -5- February 7, 1984
4. Review and Approval
A. Staf f
B. Community Services Advisory Commission
C. City Council
D. Other Agencies
4. Implementation
A. Adopt council resolution authorizing a financing plan, 1984
B. Submit Infrastructure Study Analysis, March, 1984
(storm water only)
C. Implement upgraded maintenance schedule, 1984
D. Water Management Organizations plans approved by
Water Resources Board before December 31, 1985
E. Local city-wide plan approved after each WMO plan
is-apptoved, December-1985
F. Make needed capital expenditure
It is recommended that the city council
tice of utilizing the Sanitary Sewer Utility
sewer maintenance and capital expenditures.
First, the Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund has a
(surplus).
s, 1986
eliminate the past prac-
Fund for financing storm
There are several reasons.
very small balance
Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund
January 1, 1984 beginning balance $ 64,998
Estimated revenues 1,254,526
Total Revenues $1,319,524
Less Eependitures 1,206,280
12/31/84 Year-end estimated balance $ 113,244
Second, the sanitary sewer charges are collected to pay for
the collection, transmission and treatment of waste water. The
sanitary sewer charge is based upon water usage.
Third, the city at some time will have to make major repairs
or replace sanitary sewer mains. If the Sanitary Utility Fund does
not build up a reserve, future city councils will have to raise
rates even greater to finance repairs and replacements. The in-
frastructure study that is underway will provide estimates on the
future financing requirements.
Council Letter No. 50 -6- February 7, 1984
The city also has a history of charging storm sewer mainten-
ance work to the General Fund when work is performed by park and
street crews. In the future budget years, the city council will
have a number of alternative financing methods available to fin-
ance storm sewer maintenance and capital projects. These alter-
natives are:
1. Continue to
2. Continue to
3. Implement a
(Management
4. Implement a
5. Any combina
charge the Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund;
charge the General Fund;
property tax levy in each WMO district
Act) ;
utility charge city-wide (Utility Act);
Lion of the above.
The issue before the city council is what method or methods for
financing storm sewer projects (engineering studies, maintenance,
capital improvements) is best?
SUMMARY
At this study session, the city council is asked to consider
these issues:
1. Should the city undertake all four storm sewer engineering
studies?
0 A. Nine Mile Creek Watershed District
B. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
C. Bloomington/Richfield Watershed District
D. Coordinated Citywide Plan (A +B+C)
2. Should the city employ OSM at an estimated fee of $20,000
to prepare the plans outlined in ( 1 ) above?
3. Should the engineering fee be paid from the Sanitoary
Sewer Utility Fund ($100,000 is budgeted)?
4. Should the $20,000 engineering study be considered a loan
from the Sanitary Sewer Fund to be repaid by the revenues
collected under the Management Act or the Utility Act?
5. How will future storm sewer maintenance and capital im-
provements be paid for?
A. Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund
B. General Fund
• C. Management Act (property tax)
D. Utility Act (land area fee)
E. Some combination of the above
Council Letter No. 50 -7- February 7, 1984
6. Should the city discontinue the practice of using the
Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund and/or the General Fund
for financing storm sewer maintenance and capital im-
provements?
The city staff recommends "yes" on issues 1-3. City staff
also recommends that future storm sewer maintenance and capital
projects be financed by either revenues from the Management Act or
the Utility Act.
Re-spectfu lly submitted,
John G. Cartwright
,City Manager
-? J
JGC/ej a
0
•
n
O
N
A ° 2
A ti ti ? ti 1 H ti H ti y N `!
ti <
0
0
0
/ V
Tn
m
v
O
i m ,..
1 X
C ? O
z m T
1 <r
s ?O
z
z
XERXES AVE - -
ate -
WASHBURN 't - - -
VINCENT 0
UPTON LZ__',. --_,_-
THOMAS IL
SHERIDAN
RUSSELL I? ?.
QUEEN I' _ - -
PENN AVE
OLIVER -`--
NEWTON ?•I ?? t--?-- `-?r
MORGAN
LOGAN
_ 7-7 L_J
KNO%
JAMES L-?-
IRVING
HUMBOLDT
GIRARD ?L-
Y i P
,- ?
EMERSON
COLFAX
DUPONT
I? O CI \
OLFA
I
BRYANT I I
ALDRICH I
LYNDALE AVE. lllJ???' ?I ??
GARFIELD
HARRIET I
GRAND L?L? ??? uuu?'
PLEASANT (
--1.-'I ---
711
PILLSBURY
WENTWORTH
13LAISDELL rI ?? ?D
NICOLLET
Ist
STEVENS
2nd __? !I ?.'°®ila".
?
3rd I?J' CLINTON
I LII I I??I,
4th u?---?! I?uL-JI?L?I
5th 'l?l\IJ
FI
PORTLAND AVE. i ?!`SII?I ?-
OAKLAND II, iL-?I- -_
PARK
COLUMBUS II ?I !I
CHICAGO
^1
ELLIOT '1,I7l? III III
10 rn
II 11,
ICI ?i I 121n
1 to I
3
I4 in
15th N
BLOOMINGTON j.? t?--
`I Ir-
16 t h
IB ih
111//-------???99Br
CEDAR AVE _--
LONGFELLOW --"' '-L3L R----- -- _._ _
A
2 Am - - A
m T T ° p
Zz
?'--- - °---_ XERXES AVE.
WASHBURN
-7L _9 VINCENT
--_','I UPTON
THOMAS
,N
SHERIDAN
RUSSELL
QUEEN
?J L- s-s. ?.? Q r= J
r- - r- - PENN AVE.
OLIVER
F l' NEWTON
L-
MORGAN
r-? -•? ?jF?''? r ---? ?! LO G A N
KNO%
JAMES
IRVING
"oa?i ?J L<? Ir -III II
- ` HUMBOLDT
GIRARD
FREMONT
o ?? ?Y. I lid EMERSON
0
DUPONT
4 a/7 ??? III COLFAX
i
BRYANT
ALDRICH
\ v (6? 1 I
LYNDALE AVE.
U ! ?1I III GARFIELD
L-? L---I HARRIET
L't
1 GRAND
('? ?? Imo, II
®?IL'-? I'?-• ?`?lY -fit` PLEASANT
PILLSBURY
?? ??"? LJ? II WENTWORTH
I II
BLAISDELL
NICOLLET AVE.
Cam'' ?? - -1
STEVENS
god
3rd
CLINTON
4th
5th
PORTLAND AVE.
OAKLAND
PARK
II; COLUMBUS
<-? ?I I? x III CHICAGO
I 1 m o
Z ELLIOT
d1 ? I??IJII ?I II 10to
Hill,
l L,
- J 13 th
'I L_J L'?u I 1 4 1 n
15 to
BLOOMINGTON
16th
7, 17th
- - j _ -- - CECAR AVE.
-_ L - ?r_^TA 7r LONGFELLOW
19th
20th
y ! ?,.? _ r
21 s,
-? STANDISH
IF- I _ 23 rd
-? -m--gym ? a+ m m m
N A
r
0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office Of City Manager
Council Letter No. 49
February 7, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Consideration of Alternative Street lighting Improvements
and Methods of Financing for 66th Street Between Penn
and Xerxes Avenues
Council Members:
Assessment policies for improvement projects have been traditionally
addressed at the time each project is being proposed. Assessment policies are
arrived at by looking at what funding is available, what past assessment
policies have been and what assessment policy would best fit the particular
project under construction. The reconstruction of the 66th Street and Penn
. Avenue intersection has been on the capital improvement program for a number of
years. In anticipation of this project, new sidewalks and street lights were
not installed at the same time as those at Portland Avenue and Nicollet
intersections with 66th Street. At the time it was anticipated that a special
assessment would be used for financing the improvements at Penn and 66th Street
intersection.
After this determination in 1980 to use special assessment financing for
sidewalks and street lights at 66th and Penn, the concept of an intersection
improvement project expanded into a traffic control improvement project and
expanded beyond the 66th and Penn intersection to include all of 66th Street
from Penn Avenue to Xerxes Avenue. It appears there are four ways the project
could be approached:
1. Retain the present street lighting system with maybe a few
additional light poles. Northern States Power Company provides
mercury vapor lighting currently in this area.
2. Have NSP upgrade the lighting to high pressure sodium.
3. Expand and upgrade the lighting system and other improvements
with the city funding the project with special assessments to
benefitted properties.
4. Expand and upgrade the lighting system and other improvements using
city/state/federal funding sources thereby reducing or eliminating
48 the need for special assessment.
Council Letter No. 49 -2- February 7, 1984
The first three options are based on the premise the project is primarily
residential in nature. This means that 66th Street, Penn to Xerxes, is
primarily available for accessiblity to residential properties. The fourth
option, however, is based on the premise that the project is primarily for the
purpose of mobility. This means that 66th Street, Penn to Xerxes, is primarily
available as a benefit to regional transportation.
It is the opinion of the staff that the fourth option or approach is the
more accurate in terms of mobility versus accessiblity. The fourth approach is
the recommendation of staff because it provides the greatest opportunity for
improvement at the least cost to the resident, the project will improve the
traffic capacity of 66th Street and the Penn/66th Steet intersection, and the
improvement project will reduce vehicular accidents.
At the time the special assessment hearings were held on the intersection
project for lighting and sidewalks, FAUS funding was not available. The fact
that FAUS funding and gas tax monies are now available to fund all the
construction costs on 66th Street from Penn to Xerxes Avenue, underscores the
concept that this project is one of traffic mobility rather than one of
residential accessibility. Should the determination be made that the purpose
of the project is mobility rather than accessiblity, and FAUS funding is used
for improvements, any special assessments previously authorized for such
improvements could be rescinded or cancelled. Whatever final determination is
made by the city council for financing these improvements on 66th Street from
Penn to Xerxes could establish a policy which will be used as a basis for
40 financing street lighting for all of 66th Street (and other streets as well).
At the present time, it is the recommendation of staff that due to the
intensity of development and resulting traffic, 66th Street from Penn Avenue to
Xerxes warrants a higher level of lighting somewhat similar to that of the
L/H/N and other county arterials such as Lyndale Avenue, Penn Avenue, Nicollet
Avenue and Portland Avenue. The more residential areas of 66th Street, from
Penn Avenue to 35W for example, currently have adequate levels of lighting
somewhat higher than other residential areas in that large lights are on
intersection corners, slightly greater luminaries are used and lighting units
are somewhat closer together. Should the type of development and related uses
change the "flavor" for sections of 66th Street and should sources of funding
change in some way and should there be particular requests related to sections
of 66th Street, consideration could again be given to particular policy related
to street lighting and other matters along 66th Street.
Questions that the council is being asked to address are:
1. The proposed project is designed to improve traffic capacity
(mobility) rather than to improve the street for adjacent
property owners (accessiblity)?
2. The project will be financed by 75% FAUS (Federal Aid to the
Urban System) monies and 25% local monies (state collected,
locally shared gas taxes) and not by special assessment?
Council Letter No. 49 -3- February 7, 1984
0 3. The city staff should continue with plans to hold neighborhood
meetings on this project.
One final note, the staffs of Edina and Richfield have agreed to jointly
finance an engineering study of possible storm sewer relief projects on 66th
Street between Penn Avenue and France. OSM is conducting the study. A future
report will be made to the council so that any council approved storm sewer
improvements can be incorporated into final design plans.
pectful y tt1)
John G. tw 'ght
City Manager
cc: Community Services Director
JGC/eja
Note: The installation of new sidewalk is minimal and only occurs within the
intersection portion of the project. 66th Street widening will only take
additional right-of-way on the north side of 66th Street. City staff
recommends curb and gutter plus sidewalk construction be financed by FAUS and
gas tax monies.
•
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Letter No. 47
February 7, 1984
Subject: Discussion Traffic Problems Penn Avenue/76th/494
Council Members:
During the early part of 1982, citizens expressed concerns to the city
council regarding traffic movement, traffic volume, stop signs and other
traffic issues related to 76th Street, and their impact on surrounding
residential properties. Since that time, the cities of Richfield, Bloomington,
Hennepin County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation have been
studying and evaluating the traffic problems on Penn Avenue from 76th Street
southward into Bloomington, and identifying various improvements which would be
likely to result in smoother traffic flow in this area.
The purpose of this discussion item is to review the current thinking
regarding these traffic problems and their potential solution. FAUS funding
could be available for improvements to reduce traffic problems in this area.
Therefore, it is expected the Richfield City Council will be requested to
endorse a concept for the area to be submitted with the FAUS funding request in
the near future. At present, staff has only been addressing the conceptual
solution of these problems, not the specifics. When funding is secured, the
creation of specific plans will be discussed and brought to the city council
for review and action.
- '14
ohn G. COt
City Manager
JGC/eja
i /'
GGao-Z'-
•