Loading...
1991-04-09 Parks and Rec Comm Agenda Packetiy ) CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AGENDA APRIL 9� 1991 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of March 12, 1991 Minutes 4. Mayfield Heights Trail - Discussion of Feasibility 5. Mendakota Park - Bid Alternate on Tennis Courts 6. Mendakota Park - Play Equipment Proposals - 8:00 P.M. 7. Verbal Updates a. Correspondence from ISD #197 Access Project b. "Mendakota Park" c. Bid Award for Construction of Mendakota Park d. St. Thomas Academy - Tennis Courts e. Trail Maps f. Adopt -A -Park g. Park Ordinance h. Park Inventory 8. Adjourn CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 12, 1991 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on Tuesday, March 12, 1991 in the City Hall Conference Room, 1101 Victoria Curve. Vice -Chair Vicki Katz called the meeting to order at 7:05 o'clock p.m. The following members were present: Katz, Damberg, Hunter, Lundeen, Kleinglass and Spicer. Chair Huber arrived late. Staff members present were Parks Project Manager Guy Kullander and Administrative Assistant Kevin Batchelder. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Lundeen moved approval of the February 12, 1991 Parks and Recreation minutes. Commissioner Spicer seconded. AYES: NAYS: MENDAROTA COMMUNITY PARR Parks Project Manager Guy Kullander stated that the bids for construction of Mendakota Park had been opened on Monday, March 11, 1991. Kullander stated that there had been intense interest in this construction project and that 57 bid packages had been sold at $25 apiece. Kullander stated this money would return to the Parks Referendum Fund. Kullander stated that 12 contractors had bid on the project and that Friedges Landscaping Company, out of Lakeville, had been the low bidder. Kullander stated that the bids had been examined to determine if the numbers were correct. Kullander stated that the City estimate for the project had been $480,000 and that the -low bid submitted by Friedges Landscaping was for $408,531, Kullander stated that Friedges is ready to begin work. Staff will recommend that City Council award the bid to Friedges Landscaping on March 19, 1991. The Commission discussed the low bid with Parks Project Manager Kullander and queried Kullander about Friedges Landscaping and their ability to complete a quality project. Kullander stated that references had been checked on Friedges and had come back positive. Kullander stated that the references had been four metro area cities and Dakota County. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 PARR BUILDINGS every year. Kullander stated that the soils in this area are of sand and are stable and that a good six inch sub base was specified. Commissioner Spicer moved Co recommend not to include the bid alternate providing concrete for the basketball court in the park construction. Commissioner Damberg seconded the motion. Kullander stated that the plans for the three park buildings in Mendakota Park are almost ready, that modifications had been made to satisfy the building code. He stated a column in the middle of the comfort station had been added to provide a vent for the bathrooms. Kullander stated that once the plans and specifications are ready, that the bids from suppliers and subcontractors would be sought. Kullander described the proposal package that would be used for seeking bids from playground equipment suppliers. The Commission inquired if Earl Anderson and Co. would be used again this year. Kullander stated that the City was required to seek competitive bidding for any project over $15,000. Vice -Chair Katz stated it was healthy to have competition for the bidding, even though everyone was extremely happy with the product provided by Earl Anderson. Kullander stated he would have the bidders provide presentations, if the Commission so desired. Kullander stated that once a bid is awarded the equipment has to be ordered and that the play equipment might be installed later in the summer. Kullander stated that at the last meeting the Commission had discussed a name for Mendakota Park. Staff had been using the name Mendakota Community Park and had sought Commission approval. Kullander stated that the parks crews were inquiring so they could build the sign. Kullander stated that West St. Paul city crews did the carving of our park signs and that now would be a good time to have this done before they are busy with summer duties. The Commission discussed the merits of Mendakota Community Park and Mendota Heights Community Park as names for the park. The Commission felt that usually parks are named after the neighborhoods AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 VERBAL UPDATES ADJOURN if the fence was eliminated that field would never be used for softball. Commissioner Lundeen stated that the commission had gone with a pinwheel design after considering soccer and softball. He stated the pinwheel design was decided on in order to provide softball fields and that other alternatives providing more soccer had been disregarded in favor of the pinwheel. Commissioner Spicer stated that if Kensington ever comes on line that soccer will be provided there. He stated that Mend -Eagan soccer has sufficient fields now. Commissioner Lundeen moved to recommend that the outfield fence stay in place and be constructed. Commissioner Hunter seconded the motion. Guy Kullander stated that the City had been contacted by Gopher State One Call about providing a park clean up along the lines of Adopt -A -Highway. He stated Gopher State wants to provide this civic benefit. Batchelder stated that a spring clean up or adopt -a -trail would be a good idea and that the City would look into this as a program and begin recruiting other business or civic groups. The Commission felt this was a wonderful civic event and that they remember the Cub Scouts being recognized for a park clean up or two. Kevin Batchelder stated that the Mayfield Heights residents were encouraging the City to move forward on determining the feasibility of a trail connection to their neighborhood. Batchelder stated that the Commission, during their priority setting discussion in January, had recommended that this trail section be fulfilled, if possible. Batchelder stated that the engineering office would provide a feasibility study and contact the neighbors for trail easements for next months agenda. Batchelder stated that the City was providing a visiting University of Minnesota Professor, Joan Nassauer, with the City Hall Council Chambers, on April 11 at 7:30 p.m. for an Ecological Yard Seminar in conjunction with Arbor Day. There being no further business, the Parks and Recreation Commission adjourned at 8:00 p.m. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO April 4, 1991 To: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative AssistaY(tq�t�J Subject: Mayfield Heights Trail Discussion of Feasibility INTRODUCTION The Parks and Recreation Commission directed engineering staff to investigate the feasibility of a trail link to the Mayfield Heights neighborhood at their August 14, 1990 meeting for the purpose of including this trail section with 1991 trail construction. At the January 8, 1991 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission re-established construction priorities for 1991 because of the scope of constructing a community oriented park - Mendakota Park - and decided not to pursue any trail construction in 1991. However, the Commission directed staff to fulfill the Mayfield Heights trail, if possible. (Please see attached August and January meeting minutes.) Engineering staff has investigated the feasibility and cost of constructing a trail link from Mayfield Heights to Douglas Road. The only feasible location to provide a trail link to the neighborhood appears to be that bordering the City's holding pond, a map of which is attached. Engineering staff is indicating the cost to be between $14,000 and $24,000 depending on the acquisition of easements. (Please see attached Feasibility Report and Trail diagram.) James Danielson, Public Works Director, has contacted the two homeowners from whom easements would need to be acquired in order to construct this trail link. Mr. Nonnemacher, the owner to the west of the proposed easement, and the Hoffmans, owners of the lot to the east of the proposed easement, have indicated they are not interested in providing an easement through their property and that they do not desire to have a trail located on their property. Without the consent of the adjoining property owners, acquisition of trail easements becomes difficult and costly to the City. The City of Mendota Heights is not letting any trail construction contracts in 1991, the exception being Mendota Heights Road trail which will be built in conjunction with that Minnesota State Aid (MSA) street widening and utility project should it be �I a ^ _! Q G, PGE o o�o-0v o p \\ 6ki 00 I M50o- 2 2 p10-5 ¢ ix 2 LU sJ Cz3clo oz�oo— 20 1 21 . D A I = MAYFIELD 21i-U3 50 r\ / I Uo- oZ HEIGHTS AN& z/0-0 3 � iz2 p p / 013 5'2 045, � 00pp w / Ioz3ocl� 07G D y `�qM V To 1 LILYDALE I _ _ �go_o3 170-03 0 0 I R O 1_ 17 IA') OZ3�'n- c23cw- P -- _ hc: G 05tb- I %G� p-0 L i4 3 / i%e s ,o 0. 3 03 130-0 �30 ROAD " �76¢0Z- «0�0 0 4 0 bf ode-ot oio--oz tio- o.� o I o8o-o a D1 e G G -r!3 t7�0-O( IY�:--, A 10 9 I ti 100-01'4. LIV r( d 9 R0 Ap- 19 21 �� _. S � A ' ./ a C �. A D r r D Z 3 D x Z w -r ��In✓'��' ..i✓ :�., ,�fz v�G,-, --"_ Mn S7 � j0/!'NO ., - 7J IT CUR - 20" POPLAR � j BUSHES - 5� INE t©t I` O POPIAR WALLI N � - O fi�A LE 4 IT P qF BANK N E I � H T S 2 SHRUBS � M.� -}� L A T 3- - y---- � - ��- - _ I T _ y __ _ � 60" EL � —i_ _L_. FENCE iti�v N � N � C -''1 POST �w o - 0 20 a:o, _ ---- � - IU `N" � cno N BI --N � ^7 4"APPLE �' � ELM � 3 -�(' 3 � ��._ BAPPIE `_ 0 III _ hI D. �L : ' - 7"PLUMB � � — � � I � GPAPE VINE�'ETOLUMB �� Itl 1NY� z� _ � - - � N .. SHRUB KI ELM 1. '1� � "6 GPPlE c 4 ` '-t 3a L n LIUCHEOGE ,. TS f F -� Z 4"APPIf -B"ELM i"PINE � �j' p- 9"BOl( EIOE q'b1 - �, ! G C`VR��- ` � LIGNT POST O_J � � '� .vMH$3 .._ _ ._ � C+GG dI ✓ L-J • � 1"APPLE _ -_.-:> _._, 3 BVSNES 12 ELM <'�'•- �' �F`.ISS `.��=7 �'S _ P PILL � � ( IL ' '... _ -�. ' - IRON i .: a .. �. ��3 � � .,N 't, � 7. SE W. �N._� Y.�cI v� b �Y.�4 12�81T.OW�^ L�__ r ^_]RP�P� _ J r � -. w 26O25-E mI_ �'-'I 1O RTREE m 5, IRON �� ,_ _ _ /�� __ ____-_ � I 10"TREE. �. O I' i `��. 214 WILLOWS 26025-H � � °� M A I E L D H E I Gt+;T, }" a ^' t. ��� r.. N N ,.,r � w � �6 F�/ , LAN E RET WAI�i � N �.n..35�k .�,� 209.681 BIT.OWY. I � \ -�� f �--6 �.v FB 3 1 _ � , -� o Ni i:x�..,r - -"! v `, �5 Ht t4�o our holding pond, which he stated was swampy. Administrative Assistant Batchelder stated that staff could investigate the feasibility of a trail link here, or other options for Mayfield Heights, and consider it as an addition to the 1991 project for trails construction. He stated that when City Council considers the trail project for bid advertisement for 1991 they could consider adding this trail segment to the referendum. Vice Chair Katz opened the floor to the petitioners present to discuss the proposed trail addition. There were sixteen residents to present their petition. Ms. Judith Phillips spoke for the residents and stated that Mayfield Heights is a combination of new and old Mendota Heights residents, many with children or grandchildren who desire access to the new parks facilities without having to use Highway 13 for bike or pedestrian travel. Ms. Phillips stated that there used to be a pathway to Douglas that was eliminated when the last lot was developed. She stated that since that homeowner has installed landscaping, the residents stopped using the path out of respect for the homeowner and that the pathway has grown wild. She stated that Hwy. 13 is the only access and that it is a very busy road as a result of the business uses along it. She listed the different business uses along Hwy. 13, She stated the neighborhood was confined to vehicle access. She stated her concerns for safety and that she desired to be put into the parks like the rest of the community. Another resident mentioned the Shiely gravel pit had lots of traffic with large trucks and that this was no place for children on bicycles. Another resident stated that the old pathway was there in 1961 and was used for years and inquired if this gave their neighborhood easement rights. Commissioner Spicer stated that he felt the resident was referring to prescriptive rights and that it was not applicable to this case. Commissioner Spicer stated that he was not adverse to exploring the feasibility of adding this trail segment to the referendum improvements. He stated he sympathized with the neighborhoods concerns, however, he felt the Commission needed more information, particularly the availability of trail easements from the adjoining property owners and the cost of construction, given the slope and soil concerns. ,Jciti. FS . lea t costly. He stated the remaining major segments of trail would be completed as highway and street projects are undertaken. Kullander stated that his memo outlined all the remaining trail segments and park improvements and he desired the Commission to set priorities for each project so that preliminary cost estimates could be prepared, if necessary. He stated that the funding from Question one will be substantially depleted by the construction of Mendakota Park and that the Commission should set priorities for each project so they can be fulfilled in that order as the remaining funds run out. Chair Huber stated that it boils down to which remaining items are built or not. Kullander stated that the Second Question monies were originally earmarked for land acquisition and development of the third ballfield site (Kensington). Kullander stated that Special Park Fund monies could be used for high priority items. The Commission discussed the budget for Question One. Commissioner Hunter agreed with staff that the obligations of the Question One had been fulfilled. He _stated that one item, the Mayfield Chair John Huber stated that the Commission should decide what priorities exist and let available money follow it until exhausted. Huber stated that Mendakota Park was priority number one. The Commission concurred. Kullander led the Commission through the list of projects remaining. The Commission identified four trail segments to consider for priority. The Delaware trail from Marie to Highway 110 was declared a medium priority, Dodd Road from Wagon Wheel to South Plaza was declared a medium priority, Mayfield Heights segment was declared a lty and all MSA funded trail segments were low priority. The Commission decided to trail segments. The Commission discussed the use of Special Parks Fund monies for referendum uses. The Commission asked staff for a report on the fund, the interest it earns, and any recent draws upon the fund. The report would be used to discuss guidelines for use of this money. CITY OF MENDOTA "EIGHTS MEMO April 4, 1991 To: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assistahl(5 ) Subject: Mendakota Park Play Equipment Proposals DISCUSSION On Monday, April 8, 1991, the City will receive proposals from vendors of play equipment for Mendakota Park. These proposals to supply the City are based upon the specifications and plans drafted by Parks Project Manager Guy Kullander at the direction of the Parks and Recreation Commission. The object of the plans are to provide up to $70,000 worth of equipment in our new community park. The Request for Proposals offered the opportunity for any vendor to meet with the Parks and Recreation Commission to discuss the play equipment they would be offering to fulfill the City's Request for Proposals. As of this writing, the City is aware of two vendors interested in making proposals. They are the Earl Anderson Co. and Flanigan Co., both of whom have indicated that they wish to make a presentation to the Commission. ACTION REQUIRED Meet with the play equipment vendors, receive the presentations on our Request for Proposals and make a recommendation to City Council about awarding the play equipment project at Mendakota Park. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO April 4, 1991 To: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assist n Subject: Mendakota Park - Bid Alternate on Tennis urt DISCUSSION At the March neeting, Guy Kullander, Parks Project Manager, submitted the bid alternates that accompanied the Friedges Landscaping award winning bid for construction of Mendakota Park. The attached bid alternate indicates a price of $23,900 for construction of the tennis court. At the direction of the Commission, staff contacted Mr. Keith Heaver, a Mendakota Estates developer, to see if the neighborhood association was interested in dedicating the land and participating in the City's bid price for the tennis court. Mr. Heaver has indicated that the association is willing to pay the price on the tennis court, but that they cannot afford to buy the lot in order to dedicate it to the City. Its cost is estimated to be $30,000. They have indicated that a possibility would be to subdivide 20 to 30 feet of the lot, dedicate the 30 foot strip and place the tennis court on city park land between the high power lines and the remaining private lot. There is a map attached that shows the tennis court site in that manner. The engineering staff has staked out this proposed location for the tennis court for those of you who wish to visit the site. The blue ribbons on the stakes indicate the corners of the fencing that would enclose the tennis court. while this option is feasible, there are some drawbacks to this location. Six pine trees would have to be relocated and the tennis court, would be quite close to the power line easement and towers. The remaining single family lot would also be quite close to the tennis court and the proposed berm would not fit. A subdivision, or lot split, approval would be necessary for this option to proceed and legal agreements would need to be negotiated and signed before any work could commence. Timing appears to be the biggest constraint. ACTION REQUIRED Discuss the options of providing a tennis court in Mendakota Park and make a recommendation on the bid alternate of tennis court construction. 11 i 1 11 I� I I t I I 1 i 1 A 1 J _ i 1 I / NSP EASEMENT " J II it m :i I I i i t a� � � '� I •. tLI g j 14 AQ 2 �>v o �o FAN Al rr °�\-- �c „r;I—,al a�i��Nd�. �cacA�t-Ia� �llg� CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO April 4, 1991 To: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assista tR Subject: Verbal Updates Guy Kullander and myself will be discussing or providing additional information at the meeting on the following subjects: 1. Correspondence from ISD-197 Access Project - I have attached a letter of interest regarding handicapped accessible play structure in our parks from an Access Project Advisory Council member and Guy's response. The Commission should be proud that these concepts have already been covered and provided for in our play equipment. 2. "Mendakota Park" - The City Council overruled the Commission's recommendation to name this Mendota Heights Community Park by reaffirming their earlier decision to name our new community park as "Mendakota Park". 3. Bid Award for Construction of Mendakota Park - The City Council awarded the park construction bid to Friedges Landscaping, the low bidders, for Mendakota Park for the amount of $409,000. 4. St. Thomas Academy - Tennis Courts - The City Council followed the Parks Commission's recommendation to allow the St. Thomas Academy tennis team to reserve the Friendly Hills and Rogers Lake park tennis courts. Councilmember Cummins expressed some hesitation about this action and directed staff to contact St. Thomas about their construction schedule. 5. Trail Maps - Guy will provide an update. 6. Adopt -a -Park - Staff has been working with Gopher State One Call about cleanup of a park or trail segment. They have indicated a desire to clean along Valley Trail. Staff is working on a draft agreement. More details will be provided on Tuesday evening. 7. Park Ordinance - Preliminary work on Park Policies and a Park Ordinance will be presented on Tuesday evening. 8. Park Inventory - A draft of a Park Inventory will be distributed for review and follow up discussion. +� y e�y _ /. e. A Social Entity for Mainstreaming TOM JAMBOR RICHARD GARGIULO Playgrounds, or as they are called today, outdoor play environments, continue to have a special fascination for youngsters in spite of the dramatic increase in indoor recreational ac- tivities, such as home computers and video games. Playgrounds en- dure as meetingsites forchildren, a place where youngsters can be alone or be with friends. An out- -: door play environment is a virtual magnet pulling children toward it, an oasis in which a child can -ex- plore, practice skills, use imagina- tion, role play, problem -solve, and share, as well as develop physical abilities. Yet playgrounds are not alwaysenticing despite the fact that they have existed, itt.some form, .for generations. Once _given little attention ,byeducators and re searchers, these man-made adap- tations to the natural environment are now under increased scrutiny. " The evolution of the playground has been an interesting phenome- non (Frost, 1978). Atone time chil- dren's play needs were satisfied by the natural environment. School and park officials decided that spe- cific areas for play would be more suitable; so began the genesis to standardized and, in some in- stances, dangerous metal play equipment often constructed over maintenance free, but bone crush- ing, asphalt or concFete (Aronson, 1984; Chknging Times; 1981;"Frost and Henninger; 1979; Langley and Crosado, 1982). Today these play- 78 JOPERD—Occo6er 1987 a The neod for sacral inferadion and communimtion mifh peers provides the common bond of rhi[dhood. materials. To decrease the possibilit}' of an accident, hard and rough sur- faces should be positioned so that contact is made as a matter ofuansition in play. Do not place woodchips next to concrete. There should be a progression from the softest to the hardest surface. For example, place woodchips next to grass, grass next to timbers, and timbers next to concrete. Use bright colors and sharp con- trasts in color for visual cues and stimulation for partially sighted children. Avoid metal in situations where it will get very hot or very cold. Use of moving equipment and climbing to heights should be closely supervised. fir"=�3�.�� .t.�`,�'z�-. �, �..;,, �,,,a,'�"�-i�*,"� '�.v�:. The opporfuoxity (a plop is the medium through which children, regardless of individ:ea7 differences, groin, develop, and [earn.. \, Hearing inzpai�rd children --��As iPi(h-�The�-risuiill}• impaired, the hearing impaired child needs a pla}' environment that concentrates on the senses. • \When providing swings, see- sat+•s, slides or other movcmcut apparatus, area guard rails are necessary. Deaf children are un- able to hear the warning of an impending collision or danger. Ina +yell -designed pla}' em�i- romnent modifications are neces- sary to accommodate the child with special needs. Yet, it is the need for social interaction and_communica- non wt[h veers -that provides the children ave the same basic to socialize rega�less_o>� abihtres or disabilities, am ptaygioundis an ideal vela meet this new. Social tainstreaming Play, therefore, can easily be- come the format for a natural mainstreaming experience. As children interact, friendships are established between children with special needs and those without, and new found similarities soon be- come evident to all participants. As children play they seek their own level of competence and usually at- tractindividuals who have like skills and needs. This process not only enhances social relationships and physical participation but also stimulates cognitive operations such as decision -making and prob- lem-soh'ing. As children take risks and physically challenge their envi- ronment, they do so as emotional beings. Children soon learn, via trial and error, about the justices and injustices of their social world and quickly develop alternative means for dealing with variousjoys and fiusnations. Social interaction is the core from which other areas of eve opmen exten and ma- tu The child at play is testing the challenges of childhood. `4ti11 he or she be successful, be liked, be ac- cepted? This, of course, is the ulti- mate risk for any child, let alone 22 )OPERD—October 1987 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Conformance with these design requirements for accessible ramps and platforms, railings, head and body entrapment spaces, surfacing materials, and links between a structure and the terrain, is essential. Ramps 1. Ramp Inclines To ease wheelchair transit in most situations, the Federal Safety Standards require a 12 foot run for every 1 foot of elevation (1:12 ratio). However, the stan- dard is often slow for children who are used to a wheelchair, or have the upper body strength to handle a 1:8 or 1:10 ratio. All our ramps, including those with steeper inclines (which can be more slippery), are built with wooden floor boards close to one another, running per- pendicular to the direction of movement, so wheelchairs will not get caught in the spaces between the boards. 38 in. 17 in 2In. min. 3. Ramp Width Ramps should be a minimum of 3'6" wide for one wheelchair, 6 feet wide for two. Please speak with us about appropriate ramp widths for your installation. 4. Ramp Railings To accommodate wheelchairs, we supply both sides of any ramp with rails at three heights: 38",1711er and baseboard level, to prevent small wheels or crutches from slipping off the platform; edge. Vertical railing will be supplied on request. link playground to main path However, for certain groups, these general criteria may not be appropriate. 7b best serve your needs, and provide maximum safety for all, we are available to discuss your unique circumstances, Wfiden � ��• oor boards 2� \ ma*' 2. Ramp Length Ramps should never be longer than 20 feet without a landing between segments. This is both for rest and for the safety of a child who might pick up speed when ebm- ing down even a 1:12 grade- Because much ramping is required to reach plat- forms 3 to 7 feet high, we make our ramps playful, with interactive surfaces with waves and mov- able elements. It is best not to level a site to make it wheelchair accessible. Instead, to reduce the length required for ramps, take advantage of any existing slope, dig down, or add a slope to flat terrain. Shorter ramps and land- scaping help soften and blend a structure into the environment. make use of terrain to rausee _elope ohooae ��ebrlacing materiel. carefully ryest. ;:_ 5. Markers It is wise to pro- vide visual and tac- tile markers at the begmning and end of all ramps. be thought out beforehand. City of ......� Mendota Heights March 27, 1991 Ms. Tracy Westman Access Project Advisory Council Independent school District 197 1897 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Ms. Westman: Your letter of concern was forwarded to me by City Administrator Tom Lawell. I felt a response from me, on behalf of the Park and Recreation Commission, would be helpful in understanding our park improvement goals. Referendum funds were used in 1990 to install new playground equipment in seven neighborhood parks at a cost of $20,000.per installation. Provision -was made :in each of these parks to install `a hard ;surface bituminous"pathway into the border area and•end ata ramp or stairway; of, the"; structure... This was to - provide'"a.hard surface"access"point for children with lessIF restrictive accessibility; needs. ;a:. To address the needs of children with special accessibility needs the Park and Recreation Commission decided in 1989 that when a new community park was constructed it would contain a large play structure with components suitable for use by handicapped children. ..This play area will be in the.Mendakota;Park to -be built in 1991. Grading of,.the,park will -begin :sometime in April with the play.. - IF I components.to"be,instaIv-lled sometime'between;July,and-September. "... IF I, The Commission heard a presentation by Earl F. Anderson and have budgeted $70,000 to construct a play area similar to the one in Richfield._- (Catalog with this area highlighted enclosed) This play area will be the premier play area in the City of Mendota Heights.and will be accessible to all ability levels. I'vealso included a copy of the proposal currently being considered by the Park and Recreation Commission. The City, by State<:.Statute, must, allow all companies to compete for this contract and we are looking forward to some`.imaginative approaches. ^.