Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />An outline f~r discussion for discussion was provided (See Attachment I). <br /> <br /> ' <br />Mr. Goodr~ohi!referred to A.4. Legal Responsibility of that outline and <br />reviewed,"inidetail, 'Recommended Procedures To Keep Out Of Court', <br />Attachment I! to these minutes. <br /> <br />Members thenibegan to review Part A Economic Development,~Se~t~on-l~.Financing, <br />of the outline. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec ~eferred to grants and stated that there seems to be money out <br />there, a~d Ramsey does not qualify for any of it. <br /> <br />Mr. Schnelle~replied that the interceptor is a fantastic gain by grant money, <br />Ramsey C0~mu~ity Development Block Grant is almost $100,000 and if Ramsey <br />developed~ a Park in the urban area, or developed a pasSive park, we would <br />qualify~for~park grants. <br /> <br />Mr. Don~Van ~tated that it is the consensus of the Park Board that passive <br />parks a~e no~ needed in Ramsey, there is a need for active parks. Mr. <br />Donovan. aisOlstated that since the last park bond issue, the idea of bonding <br />for parks isino longer appealing; that Council left the Park Board out on a <br />limb when the bond issue became controversial. Ramsey does not qualify for <br />grants,when We do get grants, based on matched City funds, Council decides <br />not to match the funds. <br /> <br />Mr. Donovan stated that he attended the Quad City Park Board Meeting on <br />Monday, Jan~ry 30, 1984 and the idea of charging Ramsey for 3park useage <br />came up andlMr. Donovan stated P~msey's opposition to that idea based on <br />the fact~that Anoka does receive park grants and Ramsey dollars contribute <br />to those ~grants. Mr. Donovan stated that Anoka argued the point that <br />maintenance of the parks is costly, $7000 for resodding for instance, and <br />25% of the p~ogramparticipation is Ramsey. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated that he really doesn't feel the bond issue failed because <br />people d6n't!. want parks, they just didn't like the dollar figure. <br /> <br />Mr. Ippe! no~ed that the RYAA has grown fantastically and it has put real <br />pressureion~he Anoka park system. He stated another problem as being <br />those pe~son~ involved in these recreational programs think there is no <br />end to %he services that can be offered to the participants. <br /> <br />Councilmembe~ Van Wagner inquired if a park bond issue couldn't be included <br />on the ~next election. <br /> <br />I <br />! <br />I <br />! <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Donoyan~eplied that a ~ark bond election would need a tremendous amount <br />of public s~pport; people are asking for parks but they are not doing anything. <br />The idea of a park bond should be sold by the people themselves, not the Park <br />Board. Don'~t think it should be on the ballot. <br /> <br />Mr. GoO~Xich and Mr. Schnelle stated that Parks would be one of the City's <br />goals to be discussed further. <br /> <br />Mr. Raatikka then referred to A.l.d. (Economic Development, Financing, <br />City P~rtici~pation in Costs), and inquired as to what will be the City's <br />participating costs for trunk lines for sewer and water. Our policy says <br />we are n~t i~oing to assess people outside the area that is served. If the <br />City participates it would have to come out of General Revenues. <br /> <br /> C/January 31, 1984 <br /> . Workshop Meeting <br /> ~ ~.~ ~!ii~ Page 2 of 5 <br /> <br /> <br />