Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Minutes Page 4 <br />October 3, 2016 <br />----------------------------- <br />indicated she understands the city puts in money for programming and outlined the policy <br />for determining GRRL programming funding. Mayor Dietz indicated he would like GRRL <br />to provide a list of each city’s contribution towards programming. Ms. Pundsack noted Elk <br />River provides the highest programming contribution. Mayor Dietz added he is not <br />proposing to cut the city’s programming contribution; however, he did encourage the <br />Council not to increase that amount. <br /> <br /> Page 2, 3 (Library Facility) – Mayor Dietz didn’t like the wording in this section because <br />the city owns the library building and the agreement shouldn’t have to state the city is <br />allowed access. <br /> <br /> Page 2, 2 (Equipment and Furnishings) – Mayor Dietz stated the agreement states all <br />equipment and furnishings need to be approved by GRRL. Ms. Pundsack explained this is <br />not an issue in Elk River but in some lower funded communities the equipment and <br />furnishings are very old and not appropriate for the library setting. <br /> <br /> Mayor Dietz indicated he is hesitant to approve the agreement as he believes it is weighed <br />heavily in GRRL’s favor. He explained his understanding is Big Lake also has some <br />concerns and their administrator attended a GRRL Board meeting. Ms. Pundsack stated <br />the direction of the GRRL Board is for cities to come together to let GRRL know the <br />requested changes. She noted GRRL has received signed agreements back from three or <br />four cities. <br /> <br /> Mayor Dietz indicated he would send Ms. Pundsack his list of concerns. Ms. Pundsack <br />stated that would be helpful and noted it might be easier to hold a meeting with the cities <br />involved to get all the changes. Mayor Dietz stated he would be happy to attend a GRRL <br />Board meeting to discuss. He asked the Council to postpone this item until the agreement <br />has been rewritten at which time the Council can review. <br /> <br />8.2 Skate Park Design <br /> <br /> Mr. Benoit presented the staff report. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Westgaard questioned how the estimated cost compares to the budget. <br />Mr. Benoit explained the skate park is included in the referendum as part of the $2 million <br />park improvements. Mr. Benoit noted the current estimate is slightly higher than the <br />$350,000 dedicated in the park priorities; however, costs can be reduced by performing <br />some of the work in house and also by seeking in-kind donations. He added removing <br />colored concrete from the project would also save money. Mayor Dietz indicated he works <br />in the concrete industry and colored concrete can cost up to 50% more than regular so he’s <br />confident removing it would reduce the cost. He added he may be able to speak with his <br />employer about potential donations. <br /> <br /> It was noted nominal grants may also be available but if the referendum does not pass the <br />Parks and Recreation Commission would need to discuss how to move forward with <br />funding this project. <br /> <br /> <br />