Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 02/22/1984

Home

I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I Minutes - Quad City Recreational Board Meeting Page Two large park called Central Park. Discussion followed regarding the process of grant applications from LCMR and LAWCON..Mr. Brandenburg pointed out that there are a number of different alternatives and avenues to pursue when filling out a grant application whereby credit can be given not only for the land but all the labor and engineering that has gone into construc- tion of the park. This money could then be used to construct part of their active athletic complex. Discussion followed regarding the grant applica- tion process and the fact that the reason Anoka had been successful in get- ting a number of grant applications is that they have been using the com- munities and townships around them as part of the population for generating users. Mr. Brandenburg informed them that the grant applications in no means include any of the neighborhood or neighboring communities. The grant applications deal strictly with the boundaries within the City mak- ing the application. 2. Mr. Schrantz and Mr. Nichols explained that a number of the residents in Andover participate in three or four different organizations, such as the North Metro Soccer Association, Amoka Soccer Association, Soderville and .:Ham Lake Athletic Associations, and that the City of Andover does not have its own athletic youth organization. He pointed out that their largest athletic field or complex is directly behind .the Andover City Hall. There is a soccer field and ball field. .There are no lights and no underground irrigation. He explained that last year was the only year that Fritz Ander- son had requested the use of any fields for the organized recreation program. Discussion followed on the use of fields and the percentage ratio by the participants in the four cities, The question was raised as to what the City of Anoka would do if any neighboring communities decided not to participate in the programs or do anything regarding the u~e of facilities and take the stand that everything is just fine the way it is. Mr. Zahn stated that he has talked to members within the Anoka Athletic Association and the members felt that if that were the case, the City of Anoka'$ programs could operate very effectively on their own, thus providing extra space for practices and saving the cost of replacements and maintenance of facilities. The discus- sion then switched to the opt%on of using fees. One community was in favor of assessing fees to the participants but another community was strictly against the non-resident fees because it tends to discriminate and restrict participation by individuals that cannot afford to pay. Mr. Brandenburg pointed out that the optimum success would come from a program where all communities jointly used the facilities of each community and that we should do whatever possible to help in the development and construction of these facilities. 3. The Committee then discussed the problem of not having enough time and staff to adequately prepare grant applications in competing for these funds. Mr. Brandenburg and Mr. Schrantz pointed out the success of Andover in getting two separate grants for the development and construction of the tennis courts in Andover. Mr. Brandenburg handed out the City of Anoka's updated Compre- hensive Plan and explained the tremendous amount of work that goesinto put- ting this together. He pointed out that the labor for this work was done through the Jobs Program funded by the Federal Government and the Community Development Block Grant Funds. The City of Anoka hired an employee whose main purpose was to do this type of work and Mr. Brandenburg suggested it may be worthwhile for other communities to research this avenue in helping prepare and put together their own recreational and comprehensive plans and update that which they already have. Mr. Brandenburg stated that he would check with Mr. Louis Jambois at the State Planning Agency to see what area