Parks Commission Agenda Packet 02-19-1992
.
.
.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PARKS COMMISSION
Wednesday, February 19, 1992 - 7:00 p.m.
Members:
Fran Fair, Dick Frie, Bruce Thielen, Larry Nolan, Roger
Carlson
. "':)
Call to order. lu~b~P
t <.. f<Li uv'\(),.'^ I. (" l ~G
Adopt agenda. OtL I 't" ~ 't: r
considerat~of approving minutes of the special meet.' held
January 8, 1992, the special meeting held January 21~9l992,
and the regular meeting held February 5, 1992.
1.
2.
3.
Consideration of recommending postponement aquatic center
study and recommend opening of dialogue betwee local units of
government with the goal of defining commu ity recreation
needs and defining cooperative strategies for meeting needs.
4.
5.
Consideration of recommending installatio
lighting. (Roger Mack report)
6. Adjourn.
-) . { 0 (~ ; "-0- t t+-I; l ~
~6. tec:5t
of ballfield
L..IJ I 87 {J&IIO"" ....c...S
flrr.." J41051c.{'', <
~
'I , 1'1
.
~ ,
~
MONTICELLO
250 East Broadway
P. o. Box 1147
Monticello, MN
55362-9245
Phone: (612) 295~2711
Metro: (612) 333~5739
Fax: (612) 295~4404
MEMO
FROM:
Parks Commission
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator ~.~.
February 14, 1992
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Regular meeting of Monticello Parks Commission rescheduled
from Wednesday, February 19, to Thursday, February 20
.
The regular meeting of the Monticello Parks Commission has been
rescheduled from Wednesday, February 19, to Thursday, February 20. The
meeting has been rescheduled because most of the firms that submitted a
water aquatic study proposal will not be able to be interviewed on
Wednesday because the City of Golden Valley is conducting a similar
interview process on that same day. It is, therefore, proposed that we
move our regular meeting back one day.
I plan on following this notice with a complete agenda packet to be
delivered to you on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. If you should
have any questions, please give me a call.
.
.
.
.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PARKS COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 8, 1992 - 7:00 p.m.
Members Present:
Fran Fair, Bruce Thielen, Larry Nolan, Dick
Frie, Roger Carlson
Members Absent:
None
3. Consideration of minutes of the regular meeting held
November 20, 1991.
A motion was made by Fran Fair and seconded by Roger Carlson
to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held
November 20, 1991. Motion carried unanimously.
4. Consideration of minutes of the special meeting held
December 4, 1991.
A motion was made by Fran Fair and seconded by Larry Nolan to
approve the minutes of the special meeting held December 4,
1991. Motion carried unanimously.
5.
Consideration of requesting Ci tv Council authorization. to
conduct aquatic center feasibility study.
Tom Schaffer and Richard Greenlee and Steve reviewed
a refined plan for development of an aquatic center.
Assistant Administrator 0' Neill asked how many people the
facility could serve at one time. Greenlee noted that 400
people could use the site at anyone time with sufficient
parking for one car for every four people, which is the
standard ratio of parking per user. O'Neill asked how the
size of this facility compares to other facilities. Greenlee
noted that the pool proposed has half the water surface of the
New Hope pool. O'Neill asked why the cost of this facility at
$1.5 million is similar to Winona when Winona developed a pool
at least 30% larger than the pool that is proposed. Greenlee
noted that the cost shown in the concept plan does compare
with Winona on a cost basis, as a portion of the Winona pool
development cost was not reported.
At this point in the meeting, the amenities associated with
the concept plan were reviewed. It was the consensus of the
Parks Commission to include all of these items in the
information submitted to Council.
Parks Commission asked if operating costs can be covered fully
by operating revenues. Richard Greenlee noted that past
experience has been with other communities that operating
Page 1
.
.
.
Special Parks Commission Minutes - 1/8/92
costs can be covered by revenue if the facility is properly
designed to meet the demand. If the water park facility does
not have the amenities it needs to attract people, it might
fail to generate revenue sufficient to offset operating costs.
Greenlee noted that one goal of the feasibility study would be
to show how much revenue can be created given the market
demand in this area.
Attached and included with the minutes is a report submitted
by City staff to the City Council which summarizes information
obtained at the Parks Commission meeting regarding the concept
plan and associated feasibility study.
After discussion, a motion was made by Fran Fair and seconded
by Brad ~le to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
~l""'iQ 1\.c.".1.......
1(-<1;( ~-, ~
Jef1"Jri, Neill
Assistant Administrator
Page 2
~-
.
Council Agenda
1/13/92
8. Consideration of authorizing preparation of aquatic center
feasibili ty study and consider establishment of Aquatic Center
Development Task Force. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Parks Commission is recommending that the City Council
authorize preparation of an aquatic center feasibility study
and consider establishing a task force charged with providing
input during the feasibility study process.
The following report summarizes preliminary information
gathered by the Parks Commission and is the basis for the
Parks Commission recommendation that the City study the issue
further via a formal feasibility study. This report includes
information regarding the need for the aquatic center,
potential design, construction schedule, and cost information.
AQUATIC CENTER NEEDS ASSESSMENT
.
A number of factors motivated the Parks Commission to
investigate the possibility of developing an aquatic center.
These factors, as follows, seem to indicate that the need for
such a facility needs to be investigated further.
1. As you recall, a few months ago Patricia Bogart requested
that the City develop a wading pool. She noted that
wading pools in other communities get a lot of use, and
the need for this type of facility is evident. In
response to Bogart's idea, the City Council directed the
Parks Commission to review the concept and report back to
Council. The Parks Commission reviewed the concept of
developing a wading pool for toddlers and concluded that
it does not make sense to study development of a wading
pool without first reviewing the potential development of
an "aquatic center" that would serve all ages.
2. In addition to the specific request made by Pat Bogart,
a number of other factors seem to indicate that the
majority of the citizens would like to see the City
develop an aquatic center. For instance, the citizen
survey conducted in 1988 showed that 56% of the
Monticello residents indicated that they supported
development of a pool (now more commonly referred to as
an aquatic center). In addition, members of the Parks
Commission and Council have been contacted individually
from time to time by citizens that have expressed an
interest in city development of a municipal pool.
.
11
.
Council Agenda - 1/13/92
3.
It has been shown by other communi ties that a(]natic
centers are tourist attractions that draw people from
areas outside the city. Bringing people to town that
would not have otherwise visited could result in spin-off
benefit to some retail and commercial business.
PRELIMINARY DESIGN (See Attached Schematic)
The Parks Commission has been aided in development uf the
preliminary concept plan by Richard Greenlee of Indeco und Tom
Schaffer of Associated Pool Builders. These two individuals
have worked cooperatively on municipal pool projects in the
past and volunteered to assist the Parks Commission wi "Lh plan
development. Their assistance has enabled the Parks
Commission to develop relatively detailed information for your
review at no cost. Both have become involved in the project
as a strategy to improve their chances of becoming formally
involved in the project and compensated accordingly. Please
note that although their assistance is greatly appreciated,
the City is not obligated to award the job of preparing the
feasibility study or spec's to either one or both of these
individuals.
.
The concept plan attached results from considerable discussion
conducted at the Parks Commission level and is a concept plan
only. It is the purpose of the feasibility study to review
the ideas and concepts in great detail and develop a refined
aquatic center plan. This concept plan was prepared for the
purpose of providing the City Council with an idea of what
kind of amenities could be included in an aquatic center at
what cost. It becomes a starting point for discussion only.
GENERAL SITE INFORMATION
The concept plan prepared requires approximately three acres
of land. The aquatic center pool capacity is 400 people.
Included in the three-acre site is sufficient room for a 100-
stall parking lot. The design of this facility is patterned
after facilities recently installed in other communities in
the state of Minnesota and is roughly sized to match the
projected demand created by a community with a population of
5,000 to IO,OOO. Again, further analysis of the demand for
this facility is necessary via the feasibility study, and it
is very possible that the size and configuration of this
concept plan could change significantly as a result of the
feasibility study.
.
12
.
Council Agenda - 1/13/92
"AQUATIC CENTER" VERSUS A "POOL"
An aquatic center is different in concept than a municipal
pool in that it includes many amenities in addition to the
basic swimming pool. The added amenities are included to make
the facility attractive for use by people of all ages and
thereby maximize facility usage. Following is a preliminary
list of aquatic center amenities that might be included in the
aquatic center.
Wet Sand Area
The concept plan includes development of a wet sand area
used primarily for toddlers and young children which
consists of a small wading pool with a sand bottom. The
water in the wet sand area is filtered and is cycled
through a small fountain in the sand area. The wet sand
area is designed to provide a place where children can do
all the things that they would be able to do on a sandy
beach. There is room for 35 to 40 children to play in
the wet sand area at anyone time.
.
Zero Depth Wadinq Area
The concept plan shows an area where a toddler or a
handicapped person can enter the water at zero depth with
the depth slowly increasing as the individual moves away
from the edge of the pool.
Dump Slides
For the older children, two "dump slides" are shown which
are covered slides, the top of which stand ten feet above
the water surface.
Water Slide/Flume
The concept plan shows a 30-foot high water slide
featuring a number of curves. This type of slide is very
popular and creates a significant amount of user demand
and associated revenue.
Sand Volleyball Court
The concept plan shows a volleyball court area adjacent
to the pool which would be used only by those using the
aquatic center. An outside shower would be installed
that would wash sand off of people using the volleyball
.
13
.
Council Agenda - 1/13/92
court prior to entering the aquatic center. This is a
very popular feature in other aquatic center facilities
and tends to attract older children and young adults.
Walk-in Steps/Hydrotherapy/Water Aerobics
The concept plan also shows an area that includes walk-in
steps to the pool. Along side the walk-in steps imbedded
in the pool wall are water jets that can be used for
hydrotherapy. In addition to this feature, there is an
area that is well suited for water aerobics. These
features will tend to attract older adults.
Other Features
.
Other features worth mentioning that could be developed
with this aquatic center include sun decks, shade decks
with large umbrellas providing a place for parents to sit
out of the sun, six swimming lap lanes 25 yds 7 ft wide,
a concession area that includes year-round picnic tables,
bathhouse facilities, and lifeguard rooms. Finally, no
diving board is proposed with this aquatic center, as it
has been found that diving boards add significantly to
insurance costs.
LOCATION
A major purpose of the feasibility study is to determine where
the best location would be for the aquatic center. There are
a number of potential locations scattered throughout the
community, including the 4th Street Park, Outlot A of Country
Club Manor, Outlot A of Meadow Oak, the vacant property across
from the Legion Club, and others. Proper site selection is
very important and must consider such things as impact on the
neighborhood, proximity to collector roads, visibility, and
acquisition cost. Again, these issues will be studied as part
of the feasibility study.
COST IMPLICATIONS/FINANCING
The cost to construct the items noted in the concept plan is
estimated at $1.5 million. This cost does not include
potential additional cost to acquire land. It is proposed by
the Parks Commission that the project be financed via bond
issue, which would require a referendum. At this time, the
preliminary schedule calls for the referendum to occur
probably in April or May of this year.
.
14
.
Council Agenda - 1/13/92
PROJECT IMPACT ON CURRENT CITY DEBT
Attached in the supporting data is a graph which reveals the
aquatic center debt impact on the existing current City debt.
This chart assumes that the $1.5 million debt is financed over
15 years at 6%. This results in an annual debt service of
$150,000. As you will note on the graph, debt service on
projects already completed prior to 1992 is dropping
significantly due to completion of debt repayment associated
with projects completed in the late 1970's. Adding the
aquatic center debt to the existing debt will result in a
reduction in the pace of the overall debt retirement.
Therefore, development of this facility will not result in an
increase in the City debt service and will not result in an
increase in taxes. Again, what it does result in is less of
a decrease. According to Rick, for a $70,000 home, in 1993 a
taxpayer could expect a $21 decrease in taxes due to debt
retirement. If the bond issue passes, the decrease is reduced
to $14 for a $70,000 home. In terms of the City debt service
portion of the property tax, it appears that the timing is
right from a financial standpoint for developing this project.
.
According to Richard Greenlee, experience has shown that in
other municipalities, the revenue derived from aquatic center
operation is not sufficient to retire the debt associated with
constructing the facility. Therefore, it should be made clear
up front that the cost to develop the structure will be borne
entirely by the taxpayers and will not be recovered through
user fees.
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION COSTS
It has also been demonstrated in other communities that the
revenue derived from user fees can be sufficient to offset the
cost of operating the facility. One of the major purposes of
the feasibility study will be to locate and size the facility
to match the expected demand, thereby making it an efficient
operation which generates revenue equal to costs. In other
communities, it appears that the average cost to operate this
type of facility is $1 per square foot. The concept plan you
have shows 64,000 sq ft, which results in a $64,000 per year
annual maintenance and operation cost. This cost will be
analyzed as part of the feasibility study.
.
The staffing required to operate the concept plan as shown
would require one pool manager that would be working full-time
during the swimming season. This person would likely be a
school teacher working during the off-school season.
15
.
Council Agenda - 1/13/92
It would also be necessary to hire six to eight part-time
employees for staffing the lifeguard duties, concession areas,
etc. These employees would likely be young adults making
minimum wage.
Finally, a City employee would need to be trained and licensed
to operate the mechanical systems. It is estimated that
during the summer months, this employee would need to dedicate
10% to 15% of his time toward pool maintenance activities.
According to Roger Mack, this additional work load would not
require hiring of additional full-time staff.
PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE
.
The Parks Commission has established a relatively aggressive
schedule for completing the aquatic center. Again, the
schedule will be a subject of the feasibility study and may be
ref ined as part of the feasibility study process. The
preliminary schedule proposes that the feasibility study be
initiated immediately with completion to occur in six weeks.
It is suggested that a referendum be conducted in April or May
of 1992. If the referendum passes, plans and spec's would be
prepared which will take 60 days, followed by a 30-day bidding
period. The hope would be to break ground in August of 1992,
with the qrand openinq to occur on Memorial Day, 1993. Under
this schedule, the City has the added cost of conducting a
referendum ($700) prior to the general election in November of
this year. However, this added cost would likely be offset by
the savings that the City would likely experience due to
better bid prices for a construction project that would start
in the fall of 1992 and end in the spring of 1993.
FEASIBILITY STUDY EXPECTATIONS
As of the writing of this memo, I am working with Indeco in
preparing a detailed description of expectations regarding the
feasibility study. Following, however, is a general outline
of the items that will be covered in the proposed feasibility
study.
1-
2 .
3 .
4 .
. 5 .
6 .
Review existing data and commission interview.
Assessment of program needs.
Site assessment and recommendations.
Preliminary facility design.
Operational and construction costs.
Conclusions and recommendations.
16
.
Council Agenda - 1/13/92
Attached with the supplementary information is a letter from
Richard M. Greenlee of Indeco. In his letter, Greenlee
outlines general topics to be covered in the feasibility study
at a cost not to exceed $10,000. It should be noted that
Greenlee and an associate, Tom Schaffer of Associated Pool
Builders, met with the Parks Commission on three separate
occasions to assist the commission with its planning. An
excellent rapport has been established between the commission
and Greenlee and Schaffer. It is the view of the Parks
Commission that Indeco should be employed to complete the
feasibility study without contacting other qualified
engineering firms. It is somewhat unusual for the City to
select a consulting engineer without opening up the project to
other bidders; however, in this case the Parks Commission
feels it makes sense because of the excellent rapport between
the commission and Richard Greenlee. The commission is
convinced that Greenlee has the experience and capabilities to
complete the study. The commission does not feel that the
$10,000 price tag is excessive, and there is no need,
therefore, to obtain quotes from other consultants.
.
I am in the process of contacting the cities of Golden Valley,
Bloomington, Minneapolis, and Edina regarding Greenlee's
experience and performance. This information from references
will be available at the meeting on Monday.
The cost to conduct the feasibility study is not in the 1992
general fund budget. However, reserve funds are available to
finance the feasibility study. In the event the project
proceeds, the bond proceeds can be used to reimburse the
general fund for the cost of the feasibility study. If the
referendum fails, the City will have to finance the
feasibility study out of the general fund.
Attached you will find a rough draft of a detailed description
of the feasibility study tasks and objectives. This
description will be the basis of a contract with Indeco or
will become the basis of the aquatic center RFP depending on
Council's decision.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
.
City Council is asked to make three decisions: 1) The first
decision is on whether or not to move the matter forward by
preparing a feasibility study; 2) If the City Council wants
the feasibility study to be prepared, then it needs to decide
whether or not to immediately select Indeco (Richard Greenlee)
to prepare the report, or should the City prepare a request
for proposals form and submit it to other consultants in more
17
.
Council Agenda - 1/13/92
of a competitive bidding process; 3) If Council wants to move
forward on this matter under #1 or #2 above, then it needs to
determine if it would like to establish a task force; and if
so, determine what the makeup of the task force should be.
The Parks Commission has recommended that the commission be
the core of the task force with four additional people placed
on the task force, two of which being Council members and two
more from the general population. It was suggested that the
additional could include a senior citizen such as Ben Smith
and possibly a representative from the USA Swim Club.
Decision 1:
Al t. # 1 :
Motion to authorize Richard Greenlee of Indeco to
prepare an aquatic center feasibility study at a
lump sum cost not to exceed $10,000 subject to
preparation of a detailed agreement outlining the
scope of the feasibility study.
.
Under this alternative, City Council agrees that
there is sufficient cause to justify further study
of development of an aquatic center. This
al ternati ve calls for selection of a consultant
without contacting other consultants via the
request for proposals process.
The Parks Commission supports this alternative
because of the excellent rapport developed between
Greenlee and the commission. The recommendation is
made assuming all references are excellent. I am
checking those references and will provide a report
on Monday. The Parks Commission is confident that
Greenlee will do a good job, and there is no need
to add cost to the project by undertaking a lengthy
consultant selection process. Selecting a
consultant in this manner will expedite the process
and is perfectly legal; however, it is not
consistent with the process normally followed.
Alt. #2:
Motion to authorize City staff to prepare a request
for proposals for an aquatic center feasibility
study to be submitted to pool design engineers/
consultants.
.
Under this alternative, City Council would take the
position that a feasibility study should be
conducted; however, the consultant conducting the
study should be chosen through a standard selection
process.
18
.
Council Agenda - l/l3/92
Normally, a number of consultants are asked to
provide a quote on City projects before the City
Council makes its selection. This provides the
City with the opportunity to compare costs and
capabilities. There is no legal requirement that
the City get quotes from other consultants;
however, it may be a policy that the Council may
wish to keep.
Requiring that the City get quotes from other
consultants would add time to the process; however,
it is not likely that the added time necessary to
prepare a refined RFP and obtain quotes would not
push the opening date past Memorial Day, 1993.
Again, although the assistance provided by Richard
Greenlee of Indeco is greatly appreciated, the City
is not obligated to hire him because of time he has
already spent on the project. He certainly will
have an advantage if the City goes out for bids due
to the good relationship already established with
the Parks Commission.
.
3 .
Motion to deny authorization to conduct a feasibility
study.
The City Council could take the position that the Parks
Commission has not sufficiently demonstrated the need to
consider development of an aquatic center. It could be
argued that the tax increases associated with recent
county and school bond issues are such that despite the
fact that City debt is decreasing, overall debt is
increasing; therefore, added cost to the taxpayer is not
proper at this time. In addition, despite the fact that
the overall City debt is decreasing, there are numerous
projects as outlined in the supplemental data in the
draft 5-year capital improvement plan that will be
developed in the next few years. Council may take the
position that many of these projects may take precedence
over aquatic center development. The financial resources
needed to conduct future projects should be preserved;
therefore, development of the aquatic center should be
discouraged.
Decision 2:
.
If the City Council desires to move forward at this time under
both alternatives #1 and #2, it needs to determine if an
aquatic center task force should be established. If so, the
membership needs to be established. The Parks Commission
19
.
Council Agenda - 1/l3/92
requested that two Council members consider sitting on the
task force. Please discuss and identify other individuals
that you feel we should contact to serve.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Ci ty staff recommends that Council order preparation of a
feasibili ty study because it is our view that there is
sufficient evidence to suggest that an aquatic center is
needed and desired by the citizens of Monticello.
Furthermore, the timing of this project is good relative to
upcoming reductions in City debt levels.
Staff is concerned, however, about awarding the feasibility
study directly to Indeco without first obtaining quotes from
other consultants. There may be another firm available that
will do the same work at a lesser price, and there may be a
firm that has better qualifications. Furthermore, the delay
created by obtaining quotes will not substantially impact the
project time line.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
.
Aquatic center concept plan; Feasibility study description;
Graph showing impact of aquatic center debt on existing debt
load; Aquatic center preliminary budget; Letter from Indeco
regarding feasibility study cost proposal; 5-year capital
plan.
.
20
.
.
.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PARKS COMMISSION
Tuesday, January 21, 1992 - 4:30 p.m.
Members Present:
Roger Carlson, Fran Fair, Bruce Thielen
Staff Present:
Jeff O'Neill, Roger Mack
1. Consideration of proposals submitted by various architects
outlininq costs and scope of services associated with desiqn
of West Bridqe Park warminq house.
Roger Mack provided the Parks Commission with a sketch plan
showing a refined plan for development of a warming house/
community room and restroom facility to serve East and West
Bridge Parks. Mack went on to review the proposals submitted
by three firms for preparing detailed plans and specifications
for the building.
After discussion, a motion was made by Fran Fair and seconded
by Bruce Thielen to recommend proceeding with the preparation
of plans and specifications based on the sketch plan prepared
at an approximate cost of $60,000. Motion carried
unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
CJ;fO~
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
.
.
.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PARKS COMMISSION
Wednesday, February 5, 1992 - 7:00 p.m.
Members Present:
Dick Frie, Bruce Thielen, Roger Carlson, Larry
Nolan
Members Absent:
Fran Fair
1.
Receive staff update on process of selectinq consultant to
conduct feasibility study on development of water park. AND
3.
Review Council request that the Parks Commission develop a
City policy outlininq City participation in development and
operation of an ice arena.
The Assistant Administrator informed the Parks Commission that
at the most recent Council meeting, Council had received
testimony from members of the Hockey Association. The
Association expressed the desire that the City investigate the
possibility of developing an arena. Council directed City
staff to refer the matter to the Parks Commission for further
study and determine to what extent the City should be applying
resources toward development of an ice arena.
O'Neill also noted that, at the same meeting, some Council
members expressed serious concern regarding the potential cost
of the aquatic center and some members also noted that the
input they received from citizens regarding the aquatic center
proposal had not been positive.
Members of the School District administration and Board spoke
to the commission.
Shelly Johnson informed the Planning Commission that at the
prev ious School Board meeting, it was determined that the
Buildings and Ground Subcommittee (Herbst, Vandell) should
meet with the Parks Commission to express a willingness to
meet with the City and other jurisdictions for the purpose of
identifying park needs and defining opportunities for mutual
benefit and cooperation.
Russ Vandell stated he is excited about the aquatic center and
noted there must be an opportunity to team up with the City.
For instance, the aquatic center could be located near a
future arena so as to allow for joint parking.
Jim Herbst noted that the City and School should work hand in
hand toward development of an all-purpose arena.
Page 1
.
.
.
Special Parks Commission Minutes - 2/5/92
Dick Frie stated that it makes sense to develop a partnership
and develop an ongoing relationship that will allow the
City/School/Township to work together in meeting the park and
recreation needs of the community in an efficient manner.
Members of the Hockey Association mentioned successful
cooperative efforts by other communities to develop civic
centers. Gene Opatz stated if we work together as a
community, we can get it done.
Mark Holmes noted that the aquatic center is not as desireable
because it can only be used three months per year.
Bruce Thielen reminded the group that hockey arenas can be a
financial drain on the community. He outlined problems with
the Delano and Buffalo facilities.
Joe Havel stated that many of the problems can be overcome by
proper facility design and good management. When analyzing
risk, we should look at the good facilities and not just the
ones that have suffered losses.
Russ Vandell agreed. There are places that have done things
the wrong way. We need to take a look at what is possible,
identify the pitfalls, and do a first class job.
Dick Frie noted that he has researched a number of facilities.
The common theme of success stories is that successful
ventures were cooperative ventures.
A general discussion ensued.
After discussion, a motion was made by Bruce Thielen and
seconded by Larry Nolan to recommend that Council direct City
staff to organize a meeting between the City, School, and
Townships (Monticello, Big Lake, Silver Creek, Becker, Otsego)
for the purpose of defining area recreation needs and for the
purpose of identifying opportunities for satisfying needs in
a cooperative, cost efficient manner. Motion carried
unanimously.
2. Review Council action on West Bridqe warminq house.
After discussion, a motion was made by Bruce Thielen and
seconded by Roger Carlson to table further recommendation to
Council pending preparation of additional cost figures.
Motion carried unanimously.
page 2
.
.
.
It was the
development
resemble a
because of
Highway 25.
Special Parks Commission Minutes - 2/5/92
consensus of the group to ultimately recommend
of a structure that will look nice and not
garage. It should be attractive, particularly
the high visibility of the structure from
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
Page 3