Loading...
04-09-96 PRX I / - PERC'=-ITAGE OF PARTICIPANTS COMMUNITY RESIDENT PARTICIPATION COMPARATIVE TOTAL REGISTERED PARTICIPANTS IN 1995 = 3610 TOTAL PARTICIPANTS IN EACH MUNICIPALITY ELK RIVER - 1619 DAYT ON - 56 OTSEGO - 656 RCGERS - 123 ZIMMERMAN - 204 HASSAN TOWNSHIP - 385 LIVONIA TOWNSHIP - 335 OTHER - 232 PERCENTAGE OF PARTICIPANTS ° 6 /° ■ ELK RIVER 100; — OTSEGO i 3% ZIMMERNIAN 1% !j 47% LIVONIA TWP I 9% I i I DAYTON i � I 5% RCG ERS i = HASSAN TWP I 19% (® OTHER i ELK RIVER 47% OTSEGO 19% ZIMMERMAN 5% LIVONIA TWP 9% DAYTON 1 % ROCKS 3% HASSAN TWP 10% OTHER 6% Page 1 Otsego 1995 - Registered Participant Data City of Otsego "Numbers do not include : Open Gyms Winter/Spring 1995 236 Summer 1995 305 Fall 1995 115 Total- 656 participants The following are programs that we administer as well, but we have not to date 'tracked' the individual participants. ( they register as a team ). We have made the following determinations. ( Otsego population percentage determined at 18 % of I.S.D. 728 region. ) Actual Estimate of parts. Otsego % -Women's Volleyball - Winter/Spring 1995 6 Teams 36 6 Fall 1995 9 Teams 54 9 -Mens Volleyball - Winter/Spring 1995 12 Teams 72 13 Fall 1995 9 Teams 54 9 -Men's Basketball- Winter 1995 8 Teams 64 11 -Co-Rec Softball- Summer 1995 12 Teams 144 26 'These numbers also exclude open gyms in EIk River - which served approximately 2500 in 1995. ( Otsego percentage of those users would equal 450 ) Other Beneficiariesof Community Recreation Board services ( none of these figures were included in the numbers of 2articivant data above ) -Youth Association Coop - Boy's Youth Baseball 1100 - Youth Soccer 1000 - Girls Softball 360 Travel Baseball 80 Service includes:Field scheduling / management, assistance with registration and advertisement, advocacy, clearing house. -Outdoor Ice Rink supervision 4 rinks in 1995 -General assistance / service for various recreational programs they include: Boy's Basketball, Girls Basketball, Youth Hockey, Co-ed Volleyball, Swim Club, Tennis Assoc., Youth Football, Youth Wresding, Adult Softball. ( 4 Past and Current offerings: Gymnastics Range S20-30 Open Gyms, ( youth, teen, S1/youth adult, family) 51.50/Adult Baseball mini camp $13 Youth volleyball Range S13-20 Open weight room S1/youth 51.50/adult Coaches training S20/coach Preschool fun S30 Just 04" Fun $30 T -ball ( day and evening) $30 Outings Range S10-30 Track and Field S32 Entertainment in parks usually free Co-Rec softball Team entry of $120 Penny Carnivals Free Fantastic Fridays $25 Organized playgrgpnds (SPORT) Range $20-30 Basketball camps $30 Golf Range 530-45 Tennis Range S12-17 "Ride the Rec" S17 (transportation to park site) $20 Parent/Child opportunities- SO -5 at a park Start Smart $20 PROGRAMS UNDER CURRENT DEVELOPMENT "Lock - ins non-traditional uses of building to serve in similar capacity that a community center would Increased transportation to programs Official / referee training Increased teen aged opportunities Rollerblade ( in-line skating events / opportunities (facility development to accommodate) Equipment rental organization in concert with some programming ( Ex. skating, x -country skiing ) Summer time daycamp Intergenerational programming opportunities Football Camp S25 Sandlot volleyball Team entry fee 540-60 Scavenger Hunt FREE Tennis fun day FREE Dash n' Splash S21person S3/family Men's volleyball Team entry fee 5185 Men's basketball Team entry fee 5385 Womens volleyball Team entry 5100- 150 intramural (Jr. Sr. high S15-20 VB, BB, football) Cross country skiing S20 Indoor walking S6-12 Adult flag football Team entry fee $50 Skating lessons S10-15 Hayrides S3/person S8/family Special events SO -5 Downhill skiing S75-80 Bike rodeo FREE Safety camps S20 Cheerleading camps S12-20 Soccer Clinic S11 Family/Special events w/other- S0-5 community organizations Youth bowling $20 Pillo Polio $15 Otsego Local Programming Scavenger Hunt Skating lessons Hayrides Bike rodeo Safety camps 'Ride the Rec" Entertainment in the parks Ice rink staff supervisors Winter Fest '95 -'96 Easter Egg Hunt ( planned for April '96 ) Haunted House ( planned for October '96 ) Other Beneficiaries -Youth Association Coop - Boy's Youth Baseball 1100 - Youth Soccer 1000 - Girls Softball 360 - Travel Baseball 80 Service includes: Field scheduling / management, assistance with registration and advertisement, advocacy, clearing house. -Outdoor Ice Rink supervision 4 rinks in 1995 -General assistance / service for various recreational programs -Boy's Basketball, Girls Basketball, Youth Hockey, Co-ed Volleyball, Swim Club, Tennis Assoc., Youth Football, YouthWrestling, Adult Softball. MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Baillargeon, Chair, Park & Recreation Commission FROM: Phyllis Cokley, Business/Finance Directo SUBJECT: 1996 ISTEA Grant Information DATE: April 5, 1996 In response to your request for information regarding the 1996 ISTEA grant, I have attached the Request for Council Action To Consider Options For The Park Trails Grant, presented to the CAy Council at their January 22, 1996 meeting. The supporting information is also attached for your reference. The City Council approved Scenario II, the scaled down version, eliminating land acquisition. They also approved funding option two, using anticipated park development fund revenues for 1996 and 1997 and borrowing the balance from the City's MSA Fund to be paid back over a three year period. The total project costs estimated at the time of council consideration was $270,453 with the City's share anticipated at $99,772. As I stated earlier, the City's share would come from park dedication revenues and property taxes for the next five years. It is anticipated that the project will begin late in 1996. The City Council approved the Park Development Fund budget at their February 26, 1996 City Council meeting. You will find the budget on page 39 and 40 of the Adopted 1996 Operating Budget document provided to you. The 1996 budget anticipates engineering expenditures only on the 1996 ISTEA project as actual construction is projected for 1997. I have also attached for your information, two engineering items that will be discussed at the April 8, 1996 City Council meeting. These items address the current status of the Otsego Prairie Park Grant and the trail alternatives for the 1996 ISTEA project. I hope this information will give you the background you need for your upcoming Park and Recreation Commission meeting. If I can be of further help, please feel free to call me. LIMP CITY OF OTSEGO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPT. MEETING DATE COUNCIL ITEMS FINANCE JANUARY 22,1996 ITEM NO: ITEM DESCRIPTION PREPARED BY 10.2 CONSIDER OPTIONS REGARDING 1996 ISTEA GRANT FOR PARK TRAILS P.COKLEY Merland Otto, Hakanson Anderson Associates reviewed the City's 1996 ISTEA grant request and the required City share of the project at the December 11, 1995 City Council meeting. At that time the City Council directed Merland Otto to meet with Larry Koshak and myself regarding possible funding sources for the required City share and to bring a recommendation to the December 27, 1995 City Council meeting. We met on December 19, 1995 to review the original project, various scaled down options and possible funding sources. At that time it became apparent that a more indepth analysis of the City's MSA Construction Fund was necessary to make an appropriate recommendation to the City Council. At the December 27th meeting the City Council was requested to table this issue until the January 22, 1996 City Council meeting. Larry Koshak has reviewed all of the City's MSA road and street construction projects. This analysis was done to determine the status of each open project and the fund balance of each project. This analysis provided us the ability to determine the amount of unencumbered MSA construction funds available. Larry has estimated that if the City gets the 1996 apportionment as anticipated the MSA construction funds available in 1996 should be approximately $582,000. Larry Koshak and I also reviewed the City's MSA Construction Fund. That is the accounting fund that all MSA construction project transactions have been recorded including the special assessments received. The January 1, 1995 cash balance is $78,268. Assuming all special assessments are received and all construction projects are closed out, the projected balance at the year 2000 would be $136,000 plus the interest to be received on special assessments. The most recent estimates of the Park Development Fund anticipate that there will not be any left over funds available for the City's share of the 1996 ISTEA grant project. The 1996 budget anticipates $15,000 in general property taxes and $20,000 in park dedication fees. It is my understanding that the City Council wanted to keep the tax levy for park development fairly stable, therefore, the 1997 budget projections would include $15,000 from a tax levy and a conservative estimate of $10,000 in park dedication fees. These estimates would provide approximately $60,000 for the City's share in the next two years. In summary, the possible 1996 funding sources are 1) MSA Construction - $582,000, 2) City MSA Fund - $75,000, and 3) Park Development Fund - $35,000. The City's share of the complete project (scenario I) as submitted in the grant application is $132,245. In scenario II, which would eliminate land acquisition and use Nashua and Palmgren, the City's share of the project would be $99,772. In scenario I, approximately $61,700 of the City's share of the project is MSA eligible, leaving approximately $66,500 to be funded through other methods. In scenario II approximately $76,600 is MSA eligible, leaving approximately $23,192 to be funded through other methods. (Please review the attached outline as submitted from Merland Otto.) The following is a summary of the above information and possible funding options. In all cases it is recommended that the project is extended over two calendar years. Scenario I - Complete project - Total cost $316,820 - City share $132,245 Funding Options: 1. Use MSA construction funds for eligible costs of $61,700, use the anticipated Park Development Fund revenues for the 1996 and 1997 budget year and borrow the balance of approximately $6,500 internally fromidte City's MSA Fund. This interfund loan could be paid back with 1998 Park Development Fund revenues. 2. Bond for the City's total share of the project. This option would require a referendum. Scenario II - Scaled down project - eliminate land acquisition - Cost $270,453 - City share $99,772 Funding Options: 1. Use MSA construction funds for eligible costs of $76,580, use the anticipated Park Development Fund revenues for the 1996 budget year for the balance of the City's share, $23,192. 2. Use the anticipated Park Development Fund revenues for the 1996 1997 budget year, $60,000 and the balance of the City's share $39,772 to be borrowed from the City's MSA Fund over a three year period at an interest rate of 6%, to be paid back with 1998, 1999 and 2000 property taxes and park dedication fees. 3. Bond for the City's total share of the project. This option would require a referendum. The enclosed table summarizes the project costs and the funding sources, including MSA eligible and non -eligible costs. Obviously some combination of MSA construction funds (less than eligible costs), Park Development Funds and interfund borrowing could be done. It is recommended that the City Council consider the above options and authorize the City's engineer, Merland Otto to finalize the grant and proceed with the project. Total Project Cost City Share MSA Eligible Non -MSA Eligible Scenario I PROJECT COSTS Scenario I Scenario 11 (Complete Project) (Eliminate Land Acquisition) $316,820 $270,453 $132,245 $ 99,772 $ 61,741 $ 76,580 $ 66,493 $ 23,192 FUNDING SOURCES 1) MSA construction funds - $61,741 1996, 1997, 1998 Park Development Fund -$66,493 2) Referendum Scenario II 1) MSA construction funds - $76,580 1996 Park Development Fund -$23,192 2) Park Development Fund 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2,000 (to be funded in 1997 through interfund borrowing from City MSA Construction Fund - $99,772 3) Referendum JAN 17 196 1630 HAKANSON ANDERSON ;$.G�IABLQI Complete segments as submitted In application (Recommended by Parks Commission) ISTEA Project Construction Cost : $246,100 Fed. Grant Funds : 8184,575 City Funds : 881,526 plus land and engrg" "$81,525 Constriction (26% of construction) $248,100 21,500 Land acquisition 21,500 48.220 Engineering (20%) 48,22Q $132,245 Total Project $316,820 Discussion has been to finance MSA eligible costs with MSA funds. The Parks Commission recommended that non -MSA segments be financed and paid back over a ten year period from park dedication receipts. A breakdown of MSA/non-MSA follows: edSA Eliaible t03 (Page Avenue) 0.5 miles - bike lanes $20,900 104 196th & Ohland) 1.92 miles - bike lanes 84,480 CSAH39 & 42 Bypasses 24,000 Bike route signs BS20 Historic town hall 8129, 980 Contingency @10% 12,998 Engineering @ 20% fig$ Non-MSA/Park $168,974 Napier Avenue bike lane 824,347 Page Avenue south of 85th 20,900 Offroad trails 22,500 Trail amenities 16,500 Historic town hall 9.500 $93,747 Contingency @ 10% 9,375 Engineering Q 20% 19.213 $124,887 Land Acquisition $21,600 P.2 once.+ P.3 Englneering $45,209 $45,209 MSA CormbixMon 142,978 107,233 35,745 Nan -MSA Constrvctlon 103,122 77,342 25,780 Land Acquisition 21.500 21.500 $312,809 $184,575 $128,234 MSA Related Engineering $25,996 MSA Construction 35.745 $61,741 Non -MSA Ensineering $19,213 Non -MSA or (off system const) 25,780 Land Alcqulshlon 21-500 $66,493 once.+ P.3 JAN 17 '96 16:31 HWANSON ANDERSON Eliminate Land Acquisition, Use Nashua & Pslmgren 103 (Page Avenue) 820,900 104 (981h & Ohland) 84,480 CSAH 39 & 42 Bypasses 24,000 Bike route signs 600 101 (Nashua Avenue) 31.240 $161,220 Contingency @ 10% 16,122 Engineering @ 20% 32,244 Non -MSA $209,586 Palmgren (4,000 LF) $18,687 Pakngren link to school 3,000 Frail amenities 18,500 Historical town hall 9.500 $45,667 Contingency @ 10% 4,567 Engineering @ 20% 2,133 $59,367 Land Acquisition (340 x 35 = .27A) 11500 1921 iSTEA zu MSA Construction $177,342 $133,007 $44,336 MSA Engineering 32,244 32,244 Non -MSA Construction 50,234 37,676 12,559 Non -MSA Engineering 9,133 9,133 Land Acquisition 1.500 1.500 $270,453 0170,683 $99772 MSA 876,580 Non -MSA 23"192 $99,772 �C� 17 � e :� . jact P.4 ENGINEER'S ITEM 9.3 PARK AND REC IMPROVEMENTS TRAIL LINK TO SCHOOL PROPERTY A part of the FY96 ISTEA Project includes linking 85th and Page Avenue with the Otsego Elementary School property. Four possible alternatives have been proposed at various times. At least three, and possibly all, require some private land acquisition. Alternative 1 uses the existing partial right-of-way for the extension of Page Avenue south of 85th and then turns east for a quarter mile. The east/west quarter mile would be located on Mr. John LeFebvre's property necessitating purchase in fee or easement. The use of federal funds for construction would require that the City hold fee simple title. r , The second alternative, approved. by the City Council, was Palmgren Avenue and 83rd Street as a link and would tie into the school property by a short segment east of Country Ridge. This would require the acquisition of approximately 300' of right-of- way from property which is also owned by Mr. LeFebvre. The third alternative would use the existing paved shoulders along 85th Avenue for a quarter mile then turn south. The southerly link requires the acquisition of a quarter mile of ROW along the east side of the Country Ridge subdivision. A disadvantage of this alternative is that crossing of 85th would occur approximately 300' west of Parnell Avenue rather than at an intersection. This could possibly be resolved by either crossing at Parnell and extending a trail parallel to the road or by signage at the trail crossing. This quarter mile segment would also be on land owned by Mr. LeFebvre. A fourth alternative would use the existing paved shoulders of 85th to the CSAH42 ROW. A bit trail would then parallel 42 to the east side of the school property. Dependent on the back slope, utility pole locations, and ROW of 42, acquisition may not be required. In a worse case situation a relatively narrow strip along the ROW may be required. The school favors this option since it would bring children to the front of the building and connecting with existing circulation. The advantages and disadvantages of each are summarized as follows: ADVANTAGES Alternative 1 Existing ROW for half the distance. • All off road • Controlled intersection crossing at 85th & Page. DISADVANTAGES • Acquisition is 100% local cost. • Cuts across a field access at A, Y4 corner. • School needs to construct trail on school property to get to building. ADVANTAGES Alternative 2 • Lowest cost dependent on acquisition of 300' link. • Crossing of 85th at intersection. DISADVANTAGES • Not a direct link. • No planned improvements to Palmgren & 86th to facilitate bike/ped traffic. • Acquisition is 100% local cost. • Cuts across a field access at A, Y4 corner. • School needs to construct a trail on school property. ADVANTAGES Alternative 3 Simple, straight route to school property. DISADVANTAGES • Uncontrolled crossing at 85th needs to be address. • Overlaps field access road. • Acquisition is 100% local cost. • Cuts across a field access at Y4, A corner. • School needs to construct a trail on school property. Alternative 4 Possibly no acquisition required. • Links directly to school roads/walkways. • Offroad trail • Can have controlled crossing at 85th. DISADVANTAGES • Quarter mile plus longer than other routes. • May still need sliver of acquisition dependent on obstructions, slope, how they fit with ROW. Consider which route Council may want to negotiate with Mr. LeFebvre if appropriate. OT709 r " ENGINEERING ITEM 9.3 PARK IMPROVEMENTS OTSEGO PRAIRIE PARK Council members had expressed interest on the tasks remaining for Otsego Park in 1996 to meet grant requirements. The following outlines major tasks and responsibilities as they have been discussed through the Parks Commission. Otsego Prairie Park '96 Improvements for Grant Project ESTIMATED TASK RESPONSIBILITY COST Haul AG lime & spread \ Public Works $5000* for two south ballfields Turf Establishment Volunteers (Drag, Seed & Mulch) Install backstops two fields Contract $4000 Purchase and install timbers, Volunteers $200 walk to play area Purchase and install HC sign Public Works $100 Install bituminous walkway Contract $7000 *Some of this has already been purchased and hauled. OTHER ITEMS NOT IN GRANT Seeding in wooded area Volunteer Install volleyball, horseshoe courts Volunteer Install BBQ grills Volunteer It is our understanding that the City Council is interested in contracting the seeding and mulching of the park. I contacted Tom Baillargeon to confirm whether the equipment necessary to do the work is available. He will double check and get back to me. This information should be available prior to the Council meeting. I also contacted John Hopco, former Northrup King Turfgrass Specialist (12 years) and now an independent contractor. Our concern is with spring planting on sandy soils without any irrigation. His opinion is that we would be better off simply seeding a cover crop (oats or rye) this spring and slit seed our regular mix in the fall. We agree that without irrigation that a fall seeding would be best. If Council agrees, the best thing to do would have the Parks Commission volunteers do the cover crop seeding and possibly contract for final seeding this fall. • ?, I also have contacted several contractors. One will not bid without irrigation or watering provisions. We hope to have quotes available at Monday's meeting. OT703.gra