The URL can be used to link to this page

1995-01-10 Parks and Rec Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AGENDA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 1995 - 6:30 P.M. ** 6:30 o'clock p.m. ** 1. Call to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Approval of December 13, 1994 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes. 4. Request for Improvements at Valley View Heights Tot Lot * Dave Ayers 5. Park Vision and Philosophy Discussion * Continue Discussion of Recreation Programming - Shelli Morgan 6. Discussion of T -Ball Improvements at the Water Tower Lawn 7. Presentation of Final Plans and Specifications for North Kensington Park (Scheduled for 7:30 p.m.) * Joni Giese, Landscape Consultant 8. Updates * Ivy Hills Park Landscape Bidding * Parks Reservation Policy * Monthly Parks Report * Networks to the River * Articles Related to Park Dedications and Fees 9. Adjourn. Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 452 -1850 with requests. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO January 5, 1995 To: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assist: =—�" Subject: Request for Improvements at Valley View Heights Tot Lot DISCUSSION The Parks and Recreation Commission discussed a request in December from Mr. Dave Ayers, of the Valley View Heights neighborhood, for further improvements at the tot lot that is located in this neighborhood. (Please see attached letter from Mr. Ayers.) At the December meeting, the Commission requested that City staff research the park improvements that have been made at Valley View Heights since the referendum and to invite Mr. Ayers to appear on tonight's agenda to discuss this park. Attached, there is a memorandum dated 12 -21 -94 from Guy Kullander outlining the referendum improvements that were represented for this park and that were installed, including costs and staffing estimates. Staff cannont find any documentation that representations were made to Valley View Heights Tot Lot prior to the passage of the 1989 Referendum. (Please see attached Referendum flier.) The first representation of improvements to this park is in 1990 when $2,000 for "enhancements" was included in the neighborhood park improvement cost estimates. In 1992, a bid award for signage, bleachers and picnic tables included $2,400 for amenities (not specified) and to establish a maintainable grass surface for Valley View Heights Tot Lot. (Please see Guy's memo for details.) Also attached is a letter inviting Mr. Ayers to tonight's meeting and a copy of the 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan for the Parks System. ACTION REQUIRED The Commission should meet with the representatives of the Valley View Heights neighborhood and discuss the improvements for thi rCC, te-S4 OAC. DAVID L. AYERS* HAROLD H. RIEHM DAVID R. NEWCOMB, JR. AYERS & RIEHM LAWYERS SUITE 2330 AMERICAN BANK BLDG. 101 EAST FIFTH STREET SAINT PAUL. MINNESOTA 55101 FAX: 16121 222-1844 TELEPHONE: (612) 222-8400 December 2, 1994 Mr. Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant Mendota Heights City Hall 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: Valley View Heights Park Dear Mr. Batchelder: This letter is to inquire about the availability of Referendum funds to fulfill (what I recall to be) a Referendum promise, regarding the Valley View Heights Park in my neighborhood. As a former citizen member of the Mendota Heights Referendum Committee, it is my recollection that $3,000.00 was allocated for improvements to the'Valley View Heights neighborhood park. Notwithstanding other concerns that the City may have regarding maintenance of this property, this promise was made and relied on by many of my neighbors who voted in favor of the Referendum. The concern now, several years after the Referendum and all the "priority" spending, is that the Valley View Heights Park is left without any significant improvements. While it is true that the City did install a couple of benches, a picnic table and a bike rack, I suspect the cost of these items, if they were even charged against the $3,000.00, is minimal. Therefore, if Referendum funds are still available, I request an allocation for the Valley View Heights Park. Having discussed various ideas with my neighbors, it appears that the most appropriate improvement would be a basketball hoop with a small cement (or asphalt) slab. At present, the neighborhood park is used primarily by pre- schoolers and very young elementary schoolers. The addition of a basketball court would re-vitalize the park by encouraging activity by adults, teens, middle school, and older elementary school children. Consistent with the Referendum slogan, the park could provide "something for everyone". I assure you that such an addition would be much appreciated and regularly used by neighborhood families. * Also Admitted in Wisconsin Mr. Kevin Batchelder Page Two December 2 1994 On December 16th, our neighborhood is holding its annual holiday party. If possible, I would appreciate your response prior to that date, so that I can report to neighbors at that gathering. I look forward to hearing from you by mail or telephone. Thank you for your attention and consideration. Yours trul DLA:jag P.S. There has also been neighborhood discussion concerning the construction of a Valley View Heights "neighborhood designation" sign at the Tom Thumb Boulevard entrance (the site where the original sign was located). In the event that the neighborhood wants to proceed with this idea, I would appreciate your advice or direction regarding the procedure that must be followed in order to legally place such a structure and otherwise comply with city requirements. Thanks again. DLA December 7, 1994 Memo To: Kevin BAtchelder From: Guy Kullander Regarding: Improvements made to Valley View Heights Park Several improvements to the park have occured over the past several years.- 1. Installation of approximately 180 feet of storm sewer 'to prevent drainage from the street which eroded the turf areas in center of the park. The outfall of this storm sewer is beyound the bank on the east side by the trail. EstimAted cost was $5000. 2. Placement of fill and topsoil by city crews plus seeding. This consumed about six mandays of labor plus equipment. Seed did not take. Possibly due to poor topsoil used. 3. Private landscape contractor hired to level site, fill in low spots, and sod areas along roadway to prevent more errosion from street runoff. Approximate coot was $ 2500. 4. Additional topsoil was brought in to level uneven areas and overseeding has been done by city staff on three occasions. 5. Four or five trees have been planted in the park using prices and trees from the boulevard tree program which were replaced because homeowner was unhappy with the tree but it was still alive. Our cost was approximately $200 for the transplanting. 6. The bituminous trail was installed and landscape plantings along the abutting property line at that homeowners request. 7. A park name sign and permanent benches were installed for about $750. 8. Additional pea rock was brought in to make the surfaceing deeper and less likely to result in an accident from falls. This cost approximaetly $250 plus park crew time to haul and spread. Referendum funds for this park was $3,000 which included any city staff time and mics. supplies. Upcoming needs in this park would be to enlarge the timber edge materials to accomidate current safety fall distance guidelines. This is estimated to be about $2,000. Also a path and transfer points to meet ADA will be required. Estimated cost of $3-5,000. A concret halfcourt, similar to other parks, would cost $5,750. City of Mendota Heights December 21, 1994 Memo To: Park and Recreation Commission From: Guy Kullander, Parks Project Manager Re: Valley View Heights Park Improvements BACKGROUND The commission requested the billings dates for various improvements made at this park which were specifically charged to the Parks Referendum Account. August 1990 - Haul in topsoil to construct berm along roadway to direct water to street catchbasin. Topsoil also used to fill in low areas in open field. Rototill area and seed. Sod also used in boulevard area along berm. Cost $1585.00 - Purchase and installation of two benches, a trasher, and bike rack. Cost $1283.00 July 1992. July 1992 - Purchase of picnic table to be located in park during summer and stored at Public Works Facility during winter. Cost $202.00 plus staff time. November 1990 - Installation of five trees by contractor that had Boulevard Tree Planting contract for that year. Three of the trees were live trees replaced by contractor due to slow growth and only a transplant cost was charged to city. Two new trees also planted at this time. Cost $ 540.00. This was charged to a general "Neighborhood Parks Improvements Fund" that was used for non-specific enhancements. August 1989 to present - Staff time charged to this park for various efforts and coordination amounts to approximately $340.00 (Current efforts have been charged to Special Park): REFERENDUM FUNDS The amount of funding for ammenities for this park was from $1,500 to $2,000 plus overhead and contingencies of 20% to 25%. The total general amount found in several memos was $2,400. =immaA Why is this referendum being proposed? Mendota Heights Park - Referenclumc Yesterday Mendota Heights last passed a park referendum in 1971. The neighborhood parks we have today resulted from that referendum. Our population has grown 40% since 1971 and our needs have changed. More boys and girls are playing T -ball, softball & baseball. Our older youth need softball & soccer fields. More adults are interested in wallcing, cycling and playing ball. All of us have become more interested in recreation and concerned about our health. Our existing park system cannot begin to provide for our children, youth and adults. Today For the past several months, a 25 member Parks Review Commmittee has been working to determine the park needs of the community, and to recommend a program of acquisition and development. The Mayor, City Council and Parks Commission have unanimously endorsed their recommendation. Passage of the first question on the ballot, $2.7 mil- lion, will meet the needs of today by: • Upgrading the existing neighborhood parks and developing 3 new ones on land already owned by the City. • Constructing several miles of connecting links of pedestrian/bicycle trails. • Developing a 27. acre, community recreation complex, including ballfields, on land being dedicated to the city. • Providing for development (jointly with School District 197) of a ballfield complex adjacent to Sibley High School. • Permitting the City to acquire a third site for ballfields and other community park needs. Tomorrow: Even if the first question passes, there will be additional park needs for the future. The second ballot question on August 15th will be for an ad- ditional $700,000 of bonding authority. Approval of that question will be forward looking, creating the authorization for the City to act quick- ly in acquiring future park land and making improvements as oppor- tunities arise. The City will not issue the bonds and begin taxing for debt repayment until such time as the monies are needed. Parks, Trails, Ballfields: Something for Everyone C Vote August 15th What will the 2.7 Million in Question 1 provide? Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails : See Map on facing page •Oghborhood Park and Ballfield Improvements: Ivy Hills • Half Court Basketball • Play Structure Additions • Reseeding of Play Field • Additional Landscaping • Asphalt Parking 2. Wentworth • Half Court Basketball • New Play Structure • Additional Landscaping • Asphalt Parking 3. Victoria Highlands (new park) • Half Court Basketball • Play Structure • Ball field, backstop, benches • Benches, Trash Receptacles • Landscaping • Asphalt Parking 4. Marie • Half Court Basketball • New Play Structure °. Improved Play Field • Asphalt Parking 5. Valley • Half Court Basketball • New Play Structure Improved Play Field Asphalt Patting 6. Mendakota (new park) • Asphalt parking lot • Landscaping • Two full size Softball fields • Play Structure 7. Curley Park • Landscaping, picnic table • Benches, trash receptacles 8. Rogers Lake • Half Court Basketball • Volleyball Court • Horseshoes • Canoe Launch • New Play Structure • Additional Landscaping • Asphalt parking 9. Friendly Marsh • Wildlife Viewing Blind • Elevated Viewing Platform • Interpretive Signing 10. Friendly Hills • Half Court Basketball • New Play Structure • Regrading, enlargement and seeding of Play Field • Landscaping t pig 11. Hagstrom -King (new park) • Benches, Trash Receptacles • Landscaping • Ballfield grading & seeding, backstops and benches 12. Kensington Park (new community park) • Three full size Softball Fields • Two large Soccer/Football Fields • Comfort Station Restrooms, storage, concessions • Play Structure ' . • Picnic Shelter • Landscaping • 190 Asphalt Parking Spaces 13. Sibley Park (new park) • Proposed joint facility. with ISD 197 • Proposed Facilities to be determined by School District 197 and City of Mendota Heights: • sed: Two Softball, One Base- ball and One Soccer Field • Comfort Station: • Restrooms, storage, concessions . • Play Structure 14. New Park • Bonding Authorization to ANuke Additional Site for Ball kields and Other Community Park needs What will the $700,000 in Question 2 provide? Funding authorization to buy land for future needs and to complete our park system. We must be able to negotiate and act quickly to acquire park land as it becomes available. The City will not issue the bonds or begin taxing for debt repayment until the monies are needed. Future citizens committees may determine Mendota Heights needs a senior citizen center, more hockey rinks, scenic overlook, more trails, community center, etc., but if the land is not purchased now these possibilities can- not even be considered. How much will the Park Referendum cost me? Todays Assessed market value Question #: Maximum annual tax increase 20 year bonds, starting 1991 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 #1 #2 #1 #2 #1 #2 $40 $8 $84 $17 $129 $25 Above figures include estimated operating and maintenance coats. How. much will the Sibley Clean -up Cost? *(Worst Case Scenario) Todays Assessed market value $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 Maximum annual tax increase 1991 and beyond ** $9 $19 $30 *This assumes that zero dollars will be forthcoming from insurance, federal clean -up or litigation sources. However it is anticipated that a substantial amount will be available from these sources. Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail Map Neighborhood Park Locations ACCE MINN -APO ACCESS TO ST. PAUL REFERENDUM :OFF ROAD TRAILS EXISTING OFF ROAD TRAILS FUTURE: OFF ROAD TRAILS ON ROAD TRAILS ACCESS TO LILYDALE PA S TO . PAU LT i F . I T rrrr. l� fa 441/4.01N, Sy�� HIII HI e § . s 114... it m►�� q� .�r•......ran....ra \ \t3 `Ip Gg `"IGO ]IIU11�► � —' 1 ` W..;: 'L .1 1 1.12= mL _—ii �'v it � - •V t 9 lid: i ililW 1111111111.1. . Viiii• x. �Millll�� Aiwa. ;Midi MIL ACCESS TO BLOOMINGTON V ACCESS TO EAGAN AND MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY Where do 1 Vote? POLLING PLACES Precinct 1: Somerset School Precinct 2: Dakota County State Bank (former Council Chambers) Precinct 3: Mendota School Precinct 4: Henry Sibley High School Board Rm. Precinct 5: Royal Redeemer Lutheran Church Precinct 6: Fire Station What are the Questions? Question 1: Shall the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota be authorized to issue its general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $2,700,000 for the acquisition and bet- terment of parks, consisting of neighborhood and community parks, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and community ballfields? Question 2: If the above proposal is adopted, shall the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, be authorized to issue additional general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $700,000 for the acquisition and betterment of parks, consisting of neighborhood and community parks, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and community ballfields? Note: Question 2 cannot pass unless Question 1 is approved. What if 1 will be out of town on August 15th? You can vote ahead anytime during business hours at City Hall, or Saturday, August 12 between 1:00 and 3:00, or Monday evening August 14 between 5:00 and 7:00. Where do I get more informa- tion? Call City Hall at 452 -1850, or at- tend the informational meeting on Wednesday evening, August 9 at 7:00 PM at City Hall. City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve •Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 POSTAL PATRON MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 AND 55120 Bulk Rate U.S. Postage PAID Permit No. 6166 St. Paul, Mn. 55118 CARRIER ROUTE PRESORT City of Mendota Heights December 14, 1994 Mr. Dave Ayers Ayers and Riehm Lawyers Suite 2330 American Bank Building 101 Past Fifth Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 Dear Mr. Ayers: Thank you for your letter of December 2, 1994 regarding Park Referendum improvements for Valley View Heights tot lot in the Curley Neighborhood. This letter was copied and provided to the City's Parks and Recreation Commission at their December 13, 1994 meeting. The Parks and Recreation Commission discussed this item and reviewed Guy Kullander's memorandum of response. (Please see attached.) The Commission felt that any representations to the neighborhood should be honored and desired to discuss this with yourself and members of your neighborhood at their January meeting. Please consider this letter an invitation to appear at the January Parks and Recreation Commission meeting to further discuss your concerns. The meeting will be held at 6 :30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 10, 1995 at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve in the Large Conference Room. The Commission also directed staff to further investigate the amount and the dates of improvements for this tot lot, as well as, any documents that might outline intended improvements or commitments for this tot lot. Any results of this investigation would be available to yourself prior to the meeting. Please contact me at 452 -1850 during the week of January 3rd to arrange for a copy. I look forward to assisting you on this issue and I hope that you and other representatives of the neighborhood will visit with the Parks and Recreation Commission on January 10th. Sincerely, Sc/A/Gui-4°--- Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant 1101 Victoria Curve • 1Viendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK SYSTEM FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Expenditures Proposed for 1994 PARK/ITEM 1. 14 Parks or facilities - Safety & Regulatory Signage 2. Landscape plantings for land dedication at Ivy Park 3. Grade Swales and Ice area to drain 4. Upgrade Wentworth Park play equipment. Add accessible elements. Handicap park north of Highway 110 5. Replace wood bridge In Valley Park with steel and wood bridge. Council approved 1993. 6. Connect hard court to street or trail in Rogers Lake and Friendly Hills Parks. ADA upgrade. 7. Repair rubberized play surface at Mendakota Park Safety Issue 8. Enlarge free skating rink - add lights and poles as necessary at Friendly Hills Park & ADA Improements 9. Improvements to North Kensington Park 10. Install 2 grills in South Kensington Park 11. Sod for repairs at Kensington soccer fields Proposed 1994 Expenditures GENERAL FUND . SPECIAL PARK REFERENDUM $5,700.00 See 1994 City. Budget $300.00 $10- 15,000 $10,000.00 $2,000.00 $22 to $27,300 NOTE: The only expenditure listed In this document that has been approved by Council is Item #5 for calender year 1994. $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $2,000.00 $25,000 $600.00 $450.00 $37,250 MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK SYSTEM FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Expenditures Proposed for 1995 pg 1 1. Switch/relocate warming houses at Ivy and Wentworth Parks. Make ADA improvements such as ramps, railings and pathway. Remove excess poles and lights at ivy Park. 2. Develop wildflower planting areas in 4 parks Valley, Copperfield Victoria Highlands and Marie Park 3. Install 2 benches near pond In Ivy Park 4. Install concrete bleacher pads In two parks 5. Construct rock landscape wall at berm near south entrance to park 6. Develop, print, distribute and display park & trail maps - 11 locations 7. Construct enclosures for Port - A Poties In two parks 8. Construct enclosures for Port A Potie in Mendakota Park. Upgrade materials to match existing structures 9. Wildflower maintenance & expansion 10. Enhance trees and landscape plantings in two parks per year 11. Resurface tennis court at Rogers Lake Park 12. Replace 3 wood bridges with culverts or steel bridges - safety and ADA issue GENERAL FUND SPECIAL PARK BEEERENatim $1,500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $300.00 $500.00 $3,500.00 $12 to 25,000 $6,000.00 $600.00 $1,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,500.00 MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK SYSTEM FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Expenditures Proposed for 1995 pg 2 13. Install 2 grills in Wentworth Park 14. Reroof shelter in Valley Park 15. Repaint hard court in Rogers Lake Park & Friendly Hills Park 16. Replace 2 of 5 benches in Rogers Lake Park 17. Resurface basketball court at Mendakota Park 18. Enlarge balifield waming track. One per year - 5 total 19. Replace trees at Mendakota Park 20. Replace two grills removed/damaged in Rogers Lake Park 21. Construct picnic shelter in Wentworth Park 22. Raise Power Lines at S. Kensington Park 23. Construct tennis court at Hagstrom King Park Proposed 1995 Expenditures GENERAL FUND SPECIAL PARK $600.00 $1,500.00 $300.00 $700.00 $1,500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $600.00 $24,400 to 37,400 $12 to 18,000 $22 to 28,100 REFERENDUM $25,000.00 $35,000.00 $65500.00 MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK SYSTEM FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Expenditures Proposed for 1996 1. Enhance tree and landscape plantings in two parks 2. Wildflower maintenance 3. Enclosures for Port -A Poties in two parks 4. Concrete bleacher pads in two parks 5. Reroof shelter In Rogers Lake Park 6. Paint/stain structures in Mendakota Park 7. Replace 1 of 5 benches in Rogers Lake Park 8. Resurface tennis court in Ivy Falls Park 9. Modify tennis court fence opening to meet ADA at Wentworth Park 10. Replace wood bridge with bit. walkway in Rogers Lake Park 11. Resurface trail thru Rogers Lake Park 12. Enlarge warning track one per year - 5 total 13. Reshape gravel trails in Friendly Marsh Park and Copperfield Ponds 14. Resurface Lexington Ave. trail 15. Construct picnic shelter in Friendly Hills Park Proposed 1996 Expenditures GENERAL FUND $500.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $2 to 4,000 $350.00 $3,500.00 $500.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $500.00 $1,500.00 $2,500.00 $20 to 22,350 SPECIAL PARK $12 to 18,000 $12 to 18,000 REFERENDUM C $0.00 MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK SYSTEM FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Expenditures Proposed for 1997 1. Enhance tree and landscape plantings in two parks 2. Wildflower maintenance and expansion 3. Enclosures for 2 Port-A-Poties 4. Concrete bleacher pads in two parks 5. Paint/stain structures at Kensington Park 6. Resurface tennis court at Marie Park 7. Construct two wayside rest areas with benches In Valley Park 8. Replace two of 5 benches in Rogers Lake Park 9. Expand sprinkler system at Mendakota Park 10. Enlarge warning track 3rd of 5 total 11. Seal coat trail In Valley View Heights Park 12. Seal coat Mendota Heights Road Delaware to Dodd 13. Upgrade play equipment in Hagstrom King Park ADA & Safety 14. Bench along Victoria Trail 15. Basketball hoop at S. Kensington Park Proposed 1997 Expenditures GENERAL FUND $500.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $2,500.00 $3,500.00 $700.00 $6,000.00 $500.00 $500.00 $5,000.00 $22,200.00 SPECIAL PARK REFERENDUM $2000.00 $5 to 8,000 $500.00 $500.00 $8 to 11,000 $0.00 MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK SYSTEM FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Expenditures Proposed for 1998 1. Enhance trees and landscape plantings in two parks 2. Maintain and expand wildflower plantings 3. Enclosures for 2 Port -A Poties 4. Concrete bleacher pads at two locations 5. Resurface tennis court at Friendly Hills Park 6. Install two horseshoe pits at Rogers Lake Park 7. Enlarge warning track at Mendakota Park 4 of 5 8. Repair /replace rubberized surface at Mendakota Park 9. Restripe parking lot at Kensington Park (every 5 years) 10. Enhance tree plantings at Kensington Park 11. ADA upgrades to Marie Park warming house Proposed 1998 Expenditures GENERAL FUND SPECIAL PARK $500.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $3,500.00 $500.00 $3 to 5,000 $200.00 $500.00 $2,000.00 $13 to 15,200 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 REFERENDUM C $0.00 MENDOTA JIMEMPAfflisSISIEM FIVE YEAR CAPITAL'IMPROVEMENT PLAN Expenditures Proposed for 1999 1. Enhance trees and landscape plantings in two parks 2. 'Mldflower maintenance and expansion 3. Enclosures for 2 Port -A Poties 4. Concrete bleacher pads in 2 parks 5. Resurface tennis courts In Wentworth Park 6. Resurface (seal coat) 8 park parking lots 7. Restripe 8 parking lots and hard courts 8. Seal coat trails in Ivy Park, Mendakota Park, Friendly Hills Park and Hagstrom ling Park 9. Modify /upgrade play equipment to meet ADA in Valley Park 10. Enlarge warning track at Civic Center Field last of 5 fields 11. Modify trail grades from Park Place to Valley Park Proposed 1999 Expenditures GENERAL FUND $500.00 $`500.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $3,500.00 $4,800.00 $1,225.00 $7,000.00 $500.00 $20,525.00 SPECIAL PARK REFERENDUM $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $0.00 ■ CITY OF MENDOTA H NIGHTS MEMO January 5, 1995 To: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assis Subject: Continued Discussion of Recreation Programming DISCUSSION At the December meeting, Sheffi Morgan, Recreation Programmer, reviewed the City's recreation programs and the evaluations of these programs to describe their current state of activity for the Commission. The Commission discussed joint planning with neighboring communities, passive recreational activities and additional programs that could be added. The Commission directed staff to research staffing levels of similar sized communities, to generate ideas on the most feasible or practical programs that could be added and to explore joint program ideas with neighboring cities. Attached you will find an informal survey of some similar sized Minnesota cities listing their populations and their full-time staffing components. Also attached is a brief list of Recreation Programming ideas. This list includes programs that staff has either been contacted about or is aware that there might be a demand for. Skein will be present Tuesday evening to continue this discussion with the Commission. ACTION REQUIRED Discuss recreation programming and provide staff' with any appropriate direction. -SURVEY OF RECREATION STAFFING 4ANUARY 6, 1995 CITY POPULATION POSITIONS Arden Hills 9,513 • Director of Parks & Recreation • Program Supervisor Champlin 18,244 • Parks & Recreation Director • Park & Public Works Director • Recreation Supervisor Chanhassen 12,863 • Recreation Supervisor • Program Specialist/Senior Citizen Coordinator Chaska 12,251 • Director of Parks & Recreation • Athletic Programmer • Arts & Special Events Coordinator • Facility Manager Columbia Hts 19,055 • Director of Recreation • Youth Program Coordinator Elk River Area Rec. 12,041 • Recreation Coordinator Falcon Hts 5,293 • 1 person (not known) Farmington 6,347 • Director of Parks & Recreation • Recreation Programmer Hastings 16,032 • Director of Parks & Recreation Hutchinson 11,865 • Director of Parks & Recreation • Recreation Specialist • Youth Services Director • Facilities Manager Little Canada 9,081 • Director of Parks & Recreation CITY POPULATION Marshall 12,026 Lino Lakes 10,056 Mound Mounds View New Ulm POSITIONS • Park Supervisor • Assistant Director • Parks and Recreation Director • Recreation Supervisor 9,652 • Parks Director 12,638 • Director of Parks, Recreation & Forestry • Athletic Supervisor 13,302 • Director • Recreation Program Supervisor • Facility Manager/Ass't. Director Prior Lake 11,876 0 Director of Parks & Recreation • Program Specialist Robbinsdale 14,429 0 Director • Recreation Supervisor • Senior Program Coordinator • Athletic Supervisor • Aquatic Supervisor Rosemount Savage Shakopee Vadnais Hts 9,750 o Director of Parks & Recreation • Ass' t. Director of Parks & Recreation 11,775 • Parks & Recreation Director • Program Supervisor 12,344 0 Recreation Assistant • Program Supervisor 11,420 • Parks Superintendent • Recreation Programmer RECREATION PROGRAMMING IDEAS Passive -Parent/Child Build a Bird House - scheduled for April 1, 1995 -Arts and Crafts in the Parks - may duplicate what ISD 197 offers -Fire Arms/Gun Safety Class - Possibly in conjunction with Police Department - CPR/First Aid Certification Class - Trips in conjunction with other Cities - possibilities include theatres, sporting events and shopping events. Active - Junior Golf League - with WSP and SSP at Par 3 Course -Line Dancing - Gymnasium space would be needed - Basketball Leauge - Gymnasium space would be needed - Aerobics - Gymnasium space would be needed -Horseback Riding - at a local Ranch To: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Guy Kullander, Parks Project Manager Subject: T-Ball Fields at Public Works Maintenance Facility Use of the grass area east of the Public Works Garage for T-Ball fields would require the installation of two backstops at a minimun. The grass could be maintained on a regular basis as are the other city ball fields. Painted foul lines and staked bases should be adaquate for this level of play. Estimated cost for back stops, bases, field preperation would be approximaetly $2,500. Removal of existing turf and installation of ag-lime for base paths and batters boxes would add another $1,000 to the cost but would require considerably more maintenance time and expense on the part of the park maintenance crews. RECOMMENDATION I recommend the commission consider only the installation of backstops and use of painted lines for the first year. If the fields work out the installation of ag-lime could go ahead after the T-Ball season is over. ACTION REQUIRED If the commission so desires they should determine a funding source recommendation and request council to instruct staff to prepare a plan to add two T-Ball fields on the unused grass area east of the Public Works Facility. 1 1 H .›-I 4 El I I H I 0 1-1 W I-1 - - I I -'O ---1 I 4 4 C.) 44 1 , 1 o 1 . 1 a r4 o 1 0 I • I u) z w I > 1 0 4 4 14 Z 1 I O ril ril 1 0 1 HE-4 4.1 1 tn I 44 Z O . H I ,I I 4-1 ft4 I al I 44 Z I s-I I tt4 1 1:11 CO I 1 I g a I 1 E-4 IX ct 0 44 I 4 tz i 43 a 91 -1 I 1-4 4 Mt 0 to I 1-11 H H LOT(40 -50 Cars) - ••■• .11. •M■ OMR olsOw IMO OM. /MO a IN I fa ON. ONO •••■ uortrePeW *4; ozi. ----. 1 •1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITY OF +1VIL'NDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO January 5, 1995 To: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Ass Subject: Presentation of Final Plans and Specifications for North Kensington Park (Scheduled for 7:30 p.m.) DISCUSSION Ms. Joni Giese, landscape consultant, has prepared the Final Plans and Specifications for the development of North Kensington Park. These plans are based on the Concept Plan, as approved by the City Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission in August. Joni will be present to provide a formal presentation of the plans including an illustrative plan, a plantings plan, a grading plan and a cost estimate plan. The illustrative plan will include the details for the benches, crosswalks, overlook, shelter and culvert outlets. This plan includes the use of the sandstone rocks available from Acacia Cemetery. The budget is $25,000 for a "backyard concept" with a potential of $15,000 for a shelter. As the Commission will recall, the Concept Plans are based upon a year's worth of consideration by the Commission, a number of neighborhood meetings and the input of an ad -hoc committee consisting of Council member Jill Smith, Commissioner Stan Linnell, Guy Kullander, Parks Project Manager, Joni Giese and myself. The Concept Plans that were approved in August were very well received by the residents who have attended the neighborhood meetings and the City Council meetings, with the exception of the need for and the location of the shelter. Attached you will fmd a copy of a September 10, 1994 petition from residents in the neighborhood opposing the shelter. This petition was received at a Council meeting following approval of the Concept Plans. The Council directed Joni to include the shelter as an add - alternate option in the Final Plans so that it could be further considered as part of the approval process for the Final Plans. The Commission's original recommendation had been to wait a year after construction of the park to consider the shelter. ACTION REQUIRED The Commission should receive the presentation from Joni Giese, landscape consultant, meet with the neighborhood representatives and discuss the final plans. If the Commission so desires, they should make a recommendation to City Council to approve the Final Plans and Specifications for North Kensington Park. MAA January 4, 1995 Mr. Daniel Rostratter 2483 Stockbridge Road Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Dear Mr. Rostratter: City of Mendota Heights I am writing to notify you that the presentation for the Final Plans and Specifications for the development of North Kensington Park will occur at the Park and Recreation Commission meeting scheduled for January 10, 1995 at 7 :30 p.m. in the Large Conference Room at City Hall, located at 1101 Victoria Curve. As discussed in my October 10, 1994 letter (attached), I was to notify yourself and Mr. Diehl regarding all pending action on the North Kensington Park development plans. Ms. Joni Giese, our landscape consultant, has prepared the Final Plans based upon the approved Concept Plans and she will be prepared to present illustrative plans, planting plans, grading plans and a cost estimate plan at the meeting on January 10, 1995. The illustrative plan will include details on the benches, stonework, culvert outlets and the shelter. She was directed to include the shelter in the Final Plans and Specifications as an option, or add - alternate. In this fashion, a decision can be made regarding the shelter as the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council review the plans. In addition, Ms. Giese has included crosswalks, traffic control signs and stop signs for pedestrian/bicyclists as the trail crosses Stockbridge Road in response to your suggestions at an earlier meeting. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviews the plans and makes a recommendation to City Council, who has final decision making authority. When the Parks and Recreation • Commission recommendation reaches City Council, the Council will be asked to approve the Final Plans and Specifications and authorize staff to seek competitive bids for construction. Should you have any questions, or concerns, please contact me at 452 -1850. Sincerely, Sa±teA.0, Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant cc: Mr. Roy Diehl, 2501 Stockbridge Road 1101 Victoria Curve • Mendota Heights, MN '55118 452.1850 /AAA A City of Mendota Heights October 10, 1994 Mr. Daniel Rostratter 2483 Stockbridge Road Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Dear Mr. Rostratter: I am writing to you in response to the citizen's petition that you presented to the City Council at their October 4, 1994 meeting. Thank you for submitting this petition and addressing your concerns to the Council. As you are aware, the City Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission have discussed whether to include a shelter in the plans for the development of North Kensington Park. In approving the Concept Plan, the City Council discussed the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission to reserve the consideration of the need and location of the shelter until one year after the park construction occurs. The City Council's decision at the time of Concept Plan approval was to have the landscape architect include the shelter in the Final Plans and Specifications as an option. An option in the Final Plans can either be accepted, or rejected, when the plans are reviewed. The Final Plans, when completed, will appear before both the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council for review. At this time, it is anticipated that a final decision will be made on the shelter during consideration of the Final Plans. I also want to let you know that copies of the citizen's petition will be made available to the Parks and Recreation Commission so that they are aware of your concerns. As requested at the. Council meeting, Mr. Diehl and yourself will be notified of any pending action on the North Kensington Park development plans. At this point, our landscape architect is still drafting Final Plans and Specifications, based on the approved Concept Plans. Should you have any questions, or need further clarification, please contact me at 452 -1850. Sincerely, (6/AA--, Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant cc: City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission 1101 Victoria Curve • Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452-1850 September 10. 1994 Mayor Charles Mertensotto Members of the Mendota Heights City Council Members of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights. MN 55110 Dear Friends: We. the undersigned residents of the Brentwood and Kensington neighborhoods are officially petitioning the City of Mendota Heights not to construct a picnic shelter /structure in the North Kensington park. We are strongly opposed to the picnic structure for the following two reasons: 1) Lack of a picnic structure in the nearby Hagstrom-King and Friendly Hills parks -- both of these parks have the infrastructure (parking lots) and the amenities (tennis courts. basketball courts, playgrounds, ect.) to support/require the picnic shelters. The North Kensington park will no(have either the infrastructure or the amenities to support/require the picnic shelters. In these days of limited budgets and high taxes. we believe a cost/benefit analysis would support construction of a picnic shelter in either the Hagstrom -King or Friendly Hills parks: before construction of a picnic shelter in the North Kensington park. Additionally. picnic shelters are available in South Kensington park only a short distance from North Kensington park. 2) North Kensington Backyard Theme/Concept -- in prior meetings with the City of Mendota Heights Parks Commission and City Council. we were informed the North Kensington park would be a passive park "an extension of the backyard for the adjoining residents ". Collectively the residents have supported this concept, however, the residents have sternly voiced opposition to the construction of a picnic structure in the backyard concept for the North Kensington park. Additionally. the picnic structure raises security /safety issues for the residents as a gathering place in the evening (additional lighting expenses would have to be incurred and the structure would have to be visible from Mendota Heights Road). One incident has already taken place in the park where an adult male attempted to lure children to the existing phone building in the park. because this happened during the day. residents observed the incident and the. police were called avoiding a potential disaster. Again. we strongly oppose the construction of a picnic structure in the North Kensington park and appreciate your listening to the immediate residents concerns in this matter. Sincerely; 2 . k 3 S & KA,AkLle g ,9cre c)50/ cL- 4 • • -1111abil 111) /1.4.41L.A.AM -4111■.. "1".. fdare,e, 2S23 /id .21qt /A) in'r-fiz 49ff as-)3 .5-Toc •L biQ 2eit. A , .5 o / 372 '6 a sr14) 53 rm o/711- lD if 1/ // .‘2 1(_ c - 1.2 • a5-71 SAC H Prink) kL 7- • LiX 5 / DaiwYekt 6-0(3 CtAke-moo7---- AT ; 4/ ' • • • *",?! • "'S....7 1., •=7T"'"*"."1"""■•••••.. . \•. t . • \ • ! (Th. • 7 `• ft^ C.1a_ CLIV,. C-,4- 1 .:47, . ;_ ) r) - /211" / .. 41.;t,ai7v) ...-{N.7,:: X7 ..,....-.: / v i / / ' ---... -• , ,e,-(6. 'LA t----- (-... ) • , ,• ••3 • f • 7 „ 4......) , , • .. , ... 17 • 7.....,,-,,..4.,--, ..i--• ..4'1, L..i . 5C---1 .1 .. • , , J.. Lto,.z, -;=•;:‘,-;1-t-tt, .1:',../....Z . 504- (L' 1G " )111 ,..-7••••• • 2 .5- / e77 (6A-m-x-/tazie / / (P30; 4 11 1,1 US SUPREME COURT DECISION HAS LITTLE IMPACT OWN WETLANDS...REGULAIION Submitted By: Matthew B: Seltzer, Assistant Attorney General, State of Minnesota . • Copyright 1994, State of Minnesota, Office of the Attorney General . A recent United States Supreme Court decision on the "takings" issue that made headlines across the country will have little impact on wetland regulation, floodplain - ordinances, zoning, and other. forms of landuse control. hi Dolan v. City. Of Tigard, 62 U.S. • Law Week 4576 -• (June 24, 1994), the United States, Supreme Court held that the City of Tigard, Oregon had not justified its requirement that a. retail developer deed a floodplain greenway and • pedestrian/bicycle- ,path to the public in exchange for • permission to " expand.her store. ' The Court ruled ' that, absent a sufficient showing that the dedication of - the greenway was justified by the impact of the proposed project, it .would be a taking of property in violation Of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. • • condition that she dedicate a public greenway within the floodplain. The city further required that the greenway corridor include portions at a suitable elevation for a public pedestrian/bicycle pathway. - The•city justifiedthe dedication under the city's development code, arguing that customers and employees of the expanded store could utilize the pedestrian/bicycle pathway as a means of transportation to offset some of the traffic demand on nearby streets. The city also found that the anticipated increase of storm . water from the paving and expansion of the parking lot justified the need to manage the floodplain for drainage purposes. The suit was brought by an owner of a plumbing and electric supply store in the central business district of Tigard, Oregon. A creek flows through a corner of the property. The area within the creek's 1p0 -year • floodplain is unusable for commercial development. The property owner wanted to double the size of her store . and pave her parking lot. She also planned to someday add an additional building and further expand the parking lot. The city granted her a redevelopment permit on the The United States Supreme Court found that the requirement . -that a developer • dedicate property must-be justified by the impact of the proposed project. The Court said that it must first be determined whether an "essential nexus" exists between the government's Purpose in requiring Ale dedication and the actual condition imposed:"The Court went on to find that if such anexus•exists, it then must be determined whether there is a "rough proportionality" between the required dedication and the impact of the project. The Court said that "no precise mathemarical calculation is required, but the city must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent-to the impact of the proposed development. " - • • .The Court said the city had failed to prove that the additional traffic generated by the development was reasonably related.to its requirement that the property owner dedicate a pedestrian/bicycle pathway easement. The Court further found that there was no justification for requiring a public greenway for flood control _ purposes because the goal of keeping the floodplain undeveloped could be satisfied just as well by floodplain. zoning. This decision helps clarify the standards that apply when the goVernment requires a dedication of property • to the public in exchange for development rights. • • However, this decision has little impact upon landuse regulations such as the federal and state wetland laws which control the use of the land but do not literally require the owner to deed property to the public. Under well- established principles from numerous federal and state decisions, a landuse regulation is not 'a taking of property unless it deprives the,owner of use of -the . owner's entire parcel of property. This basic principle is unaffected by the Dolan decision. In fact, the Dolan decision affirms landuse regulation. The Supreme Court distinguished development exactions like the required bike path dedication in the Dolan case from "the commendable task of landuse planning; made.: necessary by increasing urbanization particular in . metropolitan areas.', Even if a governmental entity goes beyond mere regulation and requires a dedication of floodplain as a condition for development, it may be justified in many cases under the principles stated in Dolan. The Supreme Court said, for example, that if-the proposed store • expansion had somehow encroached on existing greenway.. space in the city, it would have been reasonable, to require that the property, owner to provide some alternative public greenway space on her property -or elsewhere. If a proposed development does not encroach upon an existing greenway, a dedication requirement would still be upheld-under the Dolan decision if local officials show that the dedication is - justified by the impact of the development. A`ssistant Attorney General Matthew B. Seltzer,- (612) 296 -0692, represents the Minnesota Board of Water and Resources and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in wetland and other water-related regulatory programs. WETLAND REFERENCE MATERIALS - With the Wetland•Conservatiori Act now in full swing; / a lot of people who previously didn't know a Prairie .4 • Submitted by: Doug Nouris pothole from a bump in the road suddenly find that they need to know a lot more about wetlands. Even people who are already knowledgeable about wetlands in • general may find that they need information on a ce aspect, such as wetland restoration methods, or how t determine the water storage capacity of a particular wetland basin. Fortunately, there is a large body of literature available to improve one's general understanding of wetlands and to address many of the specific questions that come up. Following is a list of • some of the best references commonly available today, arranged by general topic. • GENERAL. REFERENCE EXT Eggers, S.A. and D.M. Reed. 1987. Wetland Plants and Plant Communities of.Minnesota and Wisconsin: Arr�ny Corps of Engineers; St. Paul District. 201pp. (For information on •obtaining a copy, contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, 190 5th St. East, St. Paul, MN 55101.) Miller, C. and N: Goetzinger, eds. 1993.. Minnesota Wetlands: A Primer on Their Nature and Function. • Minnesota Audubon Council, St. Paul. 23pp: •(For • information on obtaining a copy, contact the National Audubon Society, 26 E. Exchange Street, Suite 207, St. Paul; MN 55101.) • • . Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink.• 1993. Wetlands, edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York: 722pp. (Available through bookstoresor libraries:) • van der Valk, A.G., ed. 1989. Northern Prairie Wetlands. Iowa State University Press; Ames. 400pp. ( Availablee through bookstores or libraries) - RESTORATION AND CREATION _ Eggers. S.D. 1992. Compensatory Wetland • Mitigation: Some Problems and Suggestions for - Corrective Measures, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. 62pp. (For information on obtaining a copy, contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, 190 5th St. East; St. Paul, MN 55101.) ■ Hammer, I.A. 1992. Creating Freshwater Wetlands. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Fla. 298pp. (Available from Lewis Publishers, 1 -800- 272 - 7737.) • Kusler, J.M. and M.E. Kentula, edsf 1990. Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 594pp. (Available from Island Press, 1- 800- 828 - 1302.) By Bernard P. Maley It is an ironic circumstance of baseball and softball that professionally skilled, experienced players who are gen- erally aware of field - related risks play on groomed, maintained fields, while a growing number of amateur and youth participants, many inexperienced in field haz- ards, play on inadequately designed or poorly maintained fields. In many cases, baseball and softball programs, for all ages and levels, are being conducted on fields that do not have, or cannot sustain, basic safety features or protection. In one midwestern town, for example, the local high school field was at one time the only facility available to host the school base- ball program, the town's summer baseball leagues and Little League programs. Unfortu- nately, while grass covered center and right field, the entire left field area was paved with asphalt, those areas serving as a parking lot to an adjacent school building when the field was not in use. This park was used exten- sively until the late 1970s, and contained not - uncommon field conditions for that time. Today, the list of hazards to players posed by inadequate field design and poor maintenance is still exten- sive, and facility- related injuries are as great a threat to players and spectators as injuries that occur from the play of the game. Facility or field defects include concrete slabs and manhole cov- ers located along base lines, metal and concrete incinerators located too close to playing fields, metal spikes and broken pipes in the field of play, glass or debris located on or around the playing field, unprotected dugouts and benches located too close to base lines, and lack of padding on fences, poles, walls or backstops. All these are potential liability problems for many organized programs that sponsor softball and baseball leagues. Players in organized softball or baseball programs share a common legal status in relation to field conditions. They are consid- ered "invitees," legally designated as per- sons to whom a reasonable amount of care is owed by the facility operator. Facility or field operators include cities, towns, counties, park and recreation boards or private entities that operate baseball and softball facilities. Facility operators are obli- gated to provide invitees a reasonable amount of attention to field conditions. While the degree of care may vary according to the players' level of ability and maturity, the operator cannot merely rely on a player's ability to recognize field defects. Invitee status usually means that the facil- ity operator has received some benefit, usu- ally economic, from the use of the field. If the field operator is receiving rent, league sponsorship fees or other team fees, the players are considered invitees. Also, when a public field (usually operated by a city. county or state agency) is reserved specifically for league play. the players may be con- sidered invitees. This is a liability concern for public fields baseb eratars ants Jonuoiy 1995 ATHLETIC BUSINESS 59 that often restrict use by the general public in order to sponsor their leagues. For public agencies that operate soft- ball and baseball programs, providing reasonable care means spending money, manpower and time on field preparation. It requires maintenance efforts to water and drag the fields, to place padding on walls and poles, to install and maintain fencing in front of team bench areas, and to explicitly warn players about sprinkler heads or covers. Another part of the obligation is to repair field defects, including the fill- ing in of ruts, repair of fencing and removal of rocks. An ever- growing number of softball players are participating on undersized fields, including Little League fields, as community administrators forced to work with a shrinking amount of avail- able revenue for field maintenance and preparation have had to make do with what they can afford. It is not wise, how- ever, for field operators to assume any type of field is adequate for any level of play. The design of a softball or baseball field must be evaluated according to the level of play occurring there. An ASTM (American Society for Test- ing and Materials) committee on soft- ball facility standards has proposed • High visibility colors • Rugged heavy vinyl • 100% plus guaranteed RGUEST 3 3 5 IRISH Whose job is it to keep your players safe? FENCE GUARDTM is being used at colleges, military bases, high schools, parks and little leagues. "Thanks to Fence Guard, the ball player walked away with only minor bruises." Ron Tole, President Nottingham Little League, New Jersey SAFETY -LINE MARKERTM is a permanent alternative to paint or chalk lines on grass fields. Used on baseball outfields, volleyball courts, golf courses and other sports fields. SAFETY•EDG CURBINGTM TIMBER SAFETY COVERTM Safe on = Helps prevent playgrounds r splinters from running or I -"`-'"y, wood rpm r bike paths surfaces Prompt Delivery Nationally or Worldwide L EDGINGS RECREATIONAL ECRREE ATI ON: 60 ATHLETIC BUSINESS January 1995 TIMBER CAPTM Covers sharp or splintered wood corners Please call or write for samples and literature 1. 800 - EDGINGS (334-4647) in U.S. and Canada 1. 708. 833.3033 • FAX: 1. 708.833.0816 124 E. ST. CHARLES ROAD • VILLA PARK, IL 60181 Circle 53 on Reply Card some minimum design standards. These were developed as a response to the liability concerns resulting from field- related injuries. One proposal sug- gests a size classification for facilities based on pitching speed, player abili- ties, gender and age. Additionally, a new( safety designation has been proposed called the "outfield safe zone," the area beyond the outfield barrier, fence or mark. Of course, even improved design standards and features have little value without proper maintenance. Many public agencies now market their facilities, something that became a necessity when operating and develop- ment budgets were cut. There are legal risks, however, associated with the mar- keting of public facilities. Immunity protection previously enjoyed by public facilities can be com- promised by their efforts to market themselves. In the first place, many states have t=eal property exceptions that specify that immunity does not pro- tect defective conditions in public facili- ties. The campaigns to market public facilities, however, run the additional risk of transforming protected field maintenance decisions to ministerial acts that are not protected by immunity. In some states, recreational use immunity will not protect public facili- ties that sponsor ball leagues. Accord- ing to recent decisions reached in Hupf v. City of Appleton [ 165 Wis2d 215, 477 N.W.2d 69 (1991)] and Kloes v. Eaq Claire Cavalier Baseball [170 Wis.2d 77 \, 487 N.W.2d 77 (1992)], sponsoring a league means, in addition to fees or rent, that the public agency that oper- ates the field accepts team registra- tions, maintains the fields and provides umpires, scorekeepers, bases and balls. There is legal opinion that public facili- ties that utilize promotions and market- ing should not enjoy the same liability protection as public agencies that pri- marily rely on tax revenue for their sup- port. Another significant legal change affecting softball and baseball facilities is the recently compromised assump- tion of risk defense. [See "Assume Noth- ing," page 10.] When a baseball or softball spectator has paid admission to the game, the eco- nomic benefit to the facility establishes the spectator as an "invitee." That was reaffirmed in Licause v. City of Canton [42 Ohio St. 3d 109, 537 N.E.2d 1298 (1989)], where it was determined that invitee sta- tus relied on whether an admission fee to a softball game was required. However, the economic benefit to a sport or recreational facility is not solely distinguishable by an admission fee. one case, a landowner was held liable-- for the death of a young girl when she drowned in the landowner's lake. The furl and her family used the lake free of charge, but the girl was found to be an "invitee" because the landowner oper- ated a store and marina located just across the road and therefore expected to benefit economically from those who came to use the free recreational area. "Premises liability" refers to the rea- sonable care given for the maintenance and management of the entire baseball or softball area, including safety stan- dards, sanitation codes, fire codes and seating maximums. It includes protec- tion from broken toilet and rest room fixtures; wet or slippery substances on walkways; accumulated moisture on steps and aisleways; inadequate lighting in parking lots, entrances and exits; loose nails and screws on bleacher seat- ing; rest room doors and entrance and exit doors that swing into walkways; and water fountains, poles and fixtures that protrude into walkways. Spectators are supposed to be rea- sonably protected from two types of risks — defects in the facility itself and lack of protection from the participa- tory risks of the game. The protection owed spectators is different from that owed to players. Spectators are always owed reasonable protection from par- ticipatory risks, while players generally assume the risk of injury from participa- tory risks, depending on their experi- ence and maturity. There are three main elements to the legal obligation of protecting spectators from participatory risks — the field operator has to design and install safe barriers, has -to maintain those safety features and has to warn spectators about the risks of play. For example, the most important safety barrier for softball and baseball fields is a backstop, the primary protec- tion afforded spectators from foul balls. First, the backstop must meet industry standards for height and material, stan- dards that may vary depending on the type of ball field. Second, backstops and other protective fencing have to be main- tained and repaired by the field opera- tor. And finally, the field operator should provide clear, written warnings regard- ing foul balls, and should also provide verbal warnings prior to the first pitch. There are five legal obligations that a softball or baseball field operator owes to invitees. 1. Inspection of the Facility. This safety obligation is the founda- tion for all other legal obligations. If the field is not effectively inspected for player and spectator safety, the rest of an operator's legal obligations cannot be accomplished effectively. Inspec- tions are designated as routine or ran- dom, general or specific, and structural or operational. For players, the duty of inspection includes all areas that players are expected to use. It is important to remember that players are likely to have greater use of the facility than spectators (for example, locker rooms). Therefore, the range and routine of inspection for players may be more extensive than that for spectators. In regard to spectators, there are cer- tain areas that need more extensive and timely inspection than others. For example, spectators are expected to use parking lots, walkways, entrances and exits, bleachers, concessions and rest rooms. Those areas should be rou- tinely inspected for maintenance or structural problems. Additionally, the duty of inspection means that the facil- ity will inspect for faults or flaws in pro- tective screens, glass, boards or other barriers intended to protect the specta- tors from participatory risks. 2. Warning of Unknown Risks or Dangers. This is a unique legal obligation for a couple of reasons. First, it is not just owed to invitees; it is owed to all per- sons using the field regardless of who benefits from its use. Second, it refers only to facility defects, not participatory risks. This obligation relates directly to the facility, not the game. There are risks that are not obvious to players, such as obstructions located URTICE® Mandatory Equipment for Maximizing Athletic Performance & SafetyTM TURFACE Controls Moisture: Preventing Vinouts and Missed Practices TURFACE MVP and TURFACE Quick Dry absorb their weight in water and improve drainage, making muddy, slippery conditions a thing of the past. Additionally, during dry weather, TURFACE slowly releases its absorbed water to surrounding areas, keeping infields moist longer and reducing rock hard and dusty conditions. TURFACE Reduces Compaction: Making Fields Safer Athletes playing on compacted infields are faced with unsafe running and sliding hazards, as well as the risk of bad ball hops and poor fielding conditions that affect performance. TURFACE MVP, with its high porosity and strong angular shape, fights compaction, keeping infields firm enough for solid footing yet resilient enough for safe, consistent play. dve your athletes the chance to perform at their highest level with the #1 choice of major league stadiums. Cirde 54 on Reply Card TURFACE Reduces Maintenance Efforts By reducing compaction, and controlling moisture, TURFACE Sports Field Conditioners make it easier to maintain athletic fields. They free up valuable time for coaches to coach and for groundskeepers to meet the high demands placed on them. Introducing NEW TURFACE MoundMasterTM TURFACE MoundMaster is the highest quality, most .. — durable packing clay available. Preformed into easy to use blocks,'TURFACEMoundMaster is ideal for -• renovating and maintaining pitcher's mounds and f- „/ batter boxes. Give your field the winning advontoge '_ / , this Spring with this exciting new product) r For Information Call 1- 8A0- 654 -8793 January 1995 ATHLETIC BUSINESS 61 close to base lines. There are also risks that are not obvious to spectators. In Rispone v. Louisiana State University [637 So.2d 731 (La. App. 1994)], after a spectator was severely injured when he fell on a non - uniform step on a tempo- rary grandstand, a court found that the defendant university should have pro- vided a warning about the step. The rationale behind this obligation is that the facility is in the best position to be aware of, or to discover, facility defects. Therefore, liability rests with the field operator to warn players and spectators of any dangerous conditions. This legal obligation is a critical com- panion to the inspection obligation. If it is impossible for the facility to fix a haz- ard once it has been discovered, the facility has the responsibility to desig- nate and warn of risk. Any area under repair should be clearly marked with precise directions and warnings for players and spectators. 3. Fadlity Maintenance and Repair. There is a duty to maintain or repair the facility independent of the inspection process. In other words, there is a proac- tive obligation to maintain the facility, not merely a reactive obligation to fix defects that have been discovered. Legally, play- ers and spectators may assume the facil- ity is being operated according to a comprehensive maintenance plan. This obligation is often confused with some aspects of participatory risks. For example, a baseball player assumes the risk of injury from falling in the field' (participatory risk); the player does not assume the risk of injury if it was caused by an improperly maintained field. Similarly, a spectator runs the risk of injury from a foul ball. However, that spectator does not accept the risk of a foul ball that passes through a hole in the backstop created when the back- stop was not reasonably maintained. 4. Player and Spectator Safety. There are three components to this obligation, relating more to facility oper- ation than design and maintenance, but critical safety elements nevertheless. First, the facility has to provide reason- able supervision of its events and activi- ties. Second, the facility has to respond quickly and effectively to emergency medical situations. Finally, the facility has to hire competent personnel. For the last element, a facility is expected to provide a staff that has the same competencies or abilities as the facility management itself. A player or spectator should be able to expect the same facility care and attention from a staff person as it would from management personnel. It means, therefore, that a facil- ity's staff must be competent to perform all of the legal obligations discussed. 5. Advising of Participatory Risks. A facility must advise spectators regarding participatory risks associated with baseball and softball. In other words, spectators have to be made aware of participatory risks before they expose themselves to risks. Many facili- ties post warning signs regarding the participatory risks associated with foul balls, but as stated above, it is prudent for the facility to also make public announcements to complement the posted warnings. The key to advising the spectator of participatory risks is to ensure the message is clear, concise and effectively delivered. That is why many baseball parks will provide an announce- ment regarding foul balls just prior to the first pitch of the game. Usually at that time, most spectators are in their seats and are attentive to the message. Facility defect, participatory risk, invitee, assumption of risk, comparative negligence, and immunity exception — critical jargon for softball and baseball field operators. The words and phrases reflect a growing awareness, concern and resolve by field operators to effec- tively deal with their legal obligations to players and spectators. Bemard P. Maloy is an associate pm- lessor in the Department of Sports Man- agement and Communication, Division of Kinesiology, University of Michigan, 401 Washtenaw Ave., Ann Arbor, MI 48109, 313/747 -2687. QUALITY FROM THE GROUND UP: For all Your Stadium Needs" For more than 50 years, the tradition of quality at Sturdisteel has been based on our commitment to our .. customers to research, design, engineer, fabricate and install the finest seating available at fair and competitive prices. Studisteel's expert craftsmanship of permanent grandstands, portable bleachers and aluminum stadium seats sets the standard in outdoor seating. RECENT INSTALLATIONS: Reading Phillies Ft. Wayne Wizards Kane Co. Cougars Reading, PA Duluth - Superior Dukes Duluth, MN Ft. Wayne, IN Abany Pole Cats Albany, GA Geneva, IL Tacoma Athletics Tacoma, WA A Division of Schultz Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 2655 • Waco, TX 76702 -2655 1-800-433-3116 (USA) • 1- 817 -666 -5155 FAX 1- 817 -666 -4472 62 ATHLETIC BUSINESS January 1995 Circle 55 on Reply Card Polytarps • Lightweight AND economical! • Solids and reversibles (climate friendly!) • Sizes from golf greens to soccer fields! Compliments our complete line of vinyl covers, patented zipper systems, geotextiles, grids and more! Call for your free package now. 1 -800 -621 -0146 TOLL FREE M. PUTTERMAN & CO., INC. 4834 South Oakley • Chicago, IL 60609 312- 927 -4120 Circle 56 on Reply Curd