Loading...
101299 PK AgPCITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12,1999 7:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING A. Roll Call Puzak Bensman Dallman Amst Themig Berndt B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of September 14, 1999 (Att.42A Draft Minutes) B. Park Commission/Park Foundation Joint Meeting Minutes of September 28, 1999 (Att.42B Draft Minutes) THE 3. MATTERS FROM FLOOR 4. REPORTS A. Report on Trails and Multi - Purpose Building (Att.-44A) B. Council Consideration of Recommended Policy on Trails (Vine Hill Road) C. Howard's Point, Edgewood and Grant Lorenz Walk of October 2, 1999 5. DISCUSS PARK FUNDING OPTIONS (Att.45) 6. DISCUSSION ON THE CONCESSION BUILDING AND OPERATION OF THE MULTI- PURPOSE BUILDING AT FREEMAN PARK 7. REVIEW OF TO DO LIST (Att.47) 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. ADJOURNMENT Council Liaison: October — Berndt November - DaRman % *-I • CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14,1999 7:30 P.M. saw MINUTES VI 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING a Co -chair Dallman called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Co- chairs Dallman and Arnst; Commissioners, Puzak, Berndt and Themig; Administrator Jim Hurm; City Engineer Larry Brown; Council member Zerby Absent: Commissioner Bensman B. Review Agenda do There were no changes to the agenda. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of August 24,1999 Puzak moved, Arnst seconded to approve the Minutes as presented. Motion passed 4/0 with Berndt abstaining. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor. 4. REPORTS Administrator Hurm reported on the City Council meeting of September 13. The Council had asked if the Park Commission has a recommendation on when to fill the vacancy left by the resignation of Commissioner Bill Colopoulos. If filled now, the position would be up for reappointment in February 2000. (The terms of Colopoulos and Amst are due to expire at the end of 1999.) is Commissioner Dallman asked if the opening would possibly last only 3 months, would it r Park Commission September 14, 1999 Page 2 make sense to appoint someone for that short of a term. Themig said it seems to be better to wait until the natural end of the year to fill the position. Puzak and Arnst agreed. Zerby added that the Council would probably rather go through the appointment process only once. Puzak moved that the Park Commission recommend that the City Council does not fill an interim 3 months for the vacated position of Bill Colopoulos, and do it instead in February for a three year term. Arnst seconded. There was no further discussion and the motion passed5 /0. Administrator Hurm also reported that resident, Duane Laurila came to the council meeting and said he has been to several county meetings about horses being allowed on the LRT trail in the winter months. He has the impression that it's up to the city to allow or not allow horses on the trail and would like to see Shorewood include horses for trail use during the winter months. Hurm checked with Karen Bowen of Hennepin County Parks and she reiterated her past statements that horses are not allowed on the LRT. On the permit it says horses can not be on the trail. Hurm explained that six years ago, when the County took over the abandoned rail property, this was an issue. The City lost and horses were eliminated. Hurm will inform the resident that it is not the City's prerogative to allow horses. The topic of a permit for winter use was also discussed at the Council meeting. The City • has until October 15 to apply to the County. The Council would like to meet with residents who live along the trail to get their input on snowmobile activity and issues. A comment sheet will be provided for those who can not attend. Berndt asked who is to oversee the meeting. Hurm said the City Council plans to conduct it as an informal time to give opportunity to people to express their feelings about snowmobiles and how things have gone. A date is set for the first Monday in October. Commissioner Themig asked for an explanation about the winter use permit. Hurm said that each City must apply for specific use of the trail segment within its boundaries for 5 months of winter. During that time, the County does not patrol or maintain the trail. Commissioner Berndt asked what will happen if a majority of residents who respond are in opposition to snowmobiles on the LRT. Hurm replied that the Council would make their decision accordingly. Puzak asked if the Council would override the work of snowmobile task force. Hurm stated that the intent is only to get input. Council member Zerby said he believes the intent is to notice residents along the trail as well as to put out a public notice of the meeting. The concern is that the task force recommendations have not been utilized completely, and it is a valid instrument to maintain. 44 Park Commission September 14, 1999 Page 3 • Berndt pointed out that residents living along the trail would feel they are more heard in a small meeting than when it is a larger, public meeting. Puzak stated that he defies the City Council to not notice that meeting. Hurm said that the meeting would be officially noticed, as all public meetings must be. Zerby added that the Council was presented with the report on snowmobile enforcement for last winter. The Council feels that enforcement is as good as it can get. They want to get input from residents with that in mind. Puzak agreed that it would be good data. Engineer Brown reported that the Council also approved the Conditional Use Permit for the multi purpose building proposed for Freeman Park. 5. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PARK & TRAIL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Administrator Hurm reported that in a meeting with the Youth Coalition, a proposal was made to ask each of the area cities to contribute to the skate park an amount equal to $1 per resident for each city. Matching funds from other community sources will be sought. For Shorewood's "per head" contribution, the amount needed is $7,000. The skate park entry in the Project Schedule therefore, needs to be adjusted from $5,000 to $7,000 and moved to the year 2000 column. Other items moved from 1999 to 2000 are Park Building at $200,000 and Sanitary Sewer at $50,000. Engineer Brown explained that he has asked the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for $50,000 to make roadway changes in Freeman Park which would allow the closure of the Highway 7 entrance. MnDOT suggested a submittal of a Cooperative Agreement be made this winter for 2001 construction. Dallman asked if that means that MnDOT will give the City $50,000 toward the cost of the parking lot. Brown said yes, that's what we are shooting for. Final approval will not be known until the spring of 2000 because it is a lengthy process. Brown mentioned the option to put temporary barriers up within the park to block traffic from using the Highway 7 entrance, but noted that it might take away incentive for MnDOT to help with the solution to a permanent closure. Themig asked if we could borrow from elsewhere in order to make the improvements more quickly. Brown said the concept is there, but it is a bit risky since we are not sure of what MnDOT will do. There was further discussion about temporary options for traffic flow and ways to maximize safety and keep the dust down for the new neighbors within the senior housing development. Brown said he will continue to work with MnDOT and notify them of our intent to apply for the $50,000. Dallman asked if the $78,000 should be moved to 2001. Brown suggested keeping it in • the year 2000 because information from MnDOT is speculative and there may be W Park Commission September 14, 1999 Page 4 opportunity to do the work earlier than 2001. Hurm suggested that the figure of $78,000 • be raised to $128,000 and then show a $50,000 revenue from MnDOT in the Funding Source Summary. Dallman asked if the Freeman parking lot is going to be blacktop. Brown said yes, that is what was talked about. Dallman asked if a pond would be required. Brown explained that, according to the draft Stormwater Management Plan, it might not be required when considered on a regional basis. Berndt asked how difficult it is to keep up a gravel surface. Brown explained that dust complaints would be more of a problem than surface maintenance— especially with the new housing. Themig said he thinks it would be unneighborly to not tackle the problem next year. Hurm commented that there are some techniques to cut down on the dust, such as closing a traffic lane and other applications to the gravel surface. Themig noted that the Park Commission did put forth a recommendation to the City Council to close that road. Brown said he has put the word out on the street to contractors who may have bituminous millings to apply to the gravel and there has been some response. He reminded the Commission that keeping the Highway 7 access open represents leverage with MnDOT to get the money needed to construct the lot. The Funding Source Summary was reviewed. $50,000 will be added to the year 2000 as money from MnDOT. Brown agreed to place it in 2000, but said construction will likely be in 2001. The Sewer Fund Transfer of $50,000 will be moved to 2000. Zerby asked if the park dedication fees of $37,000 will be in this year. Hurm said yes, because it is due at the time the plat is filed. In fact, there will probably end up to be a little more than $37,000 for the year. Arnst asked if donations of $10,000 are not anticipated after 2000. Hurm said it has been built into the Organization Building Surcharge of $10,000 each year. The $10,000 under Donations in 2000 is the amount that the Foundation has been challenged to raise toward the building at Freeman. Arnst pointed out that the title of "Organization Building Surcharge" is misleading and was to be changed, per previous discussion. Ideas were discussed and it was agreed to change the name to "Alternative Revenue Sources" in order to be kept generic. Brown suggested that there be a footnote as to what this is. It was agreed that there should be some suggestions to provide direction. The name, "Concession Rental' is to be changed to "Concession Revenue." Arnst asked if the amount for Sports Organization Maintenance should increase with time. Hurm said the reason it is kept at $12,000 is because over the last 5 to 6 years this 40 Park Commission September 14, 1999 Page 5 • is where it has been. Also, the sports organizations are being challenged in other ways. There was discussion about increasing the amount with inflation at 3% per year. Brown explained that the CIP is organized around today's' dollars. He recommended they stay away from increasing for inflation. Inflation reflects both in the revenues and costs so it's a wash. Hurm added that costs vary from year to year. Puzak pointed out that the CIP is reviewed each year and they would have the opportunity to increase figures if needed. He recommended they go with staff's suggestion. Puzak asked if the "Transfer to General Fund" category could be indicated as the Sports Organizations' Maintenance Fee for clarification. Hurm said yes. Dailman explained that the Park Foundation is challenged to contribute $10,000 and also to fill in as needed. Arnst moved to accept CIP Project Schedule and Funding Source Summary as changed in tonight's discussion. Puzak seconded and the motion passed 510. Funding Summary — Trails Brown stated that MSA requires a minimum trail width of 10 feet, however, the City can ask for a variance to 8 feet. For comparison, Commissioner Berndt asked about the width of the trails in Freeman Park. Brown said they are 6 to 7 feet wide. Brown explained that, to take advantage of state aid, the City must identify the project to Is the State at least 1 year ahead of construction. They would first have to design a project in order to seek state aid approval. This involves having the design, cost estimates and rights of way in hand. He cited the example of a plan done by the City of Chanhassen, which involved considerable expense. Berndt noted that plans have to be done anyway. Brown said the more costly element is acquisition of easements, which would have to be done ahead of time. Brown reported that the trails for Covington and Vine Hill are well underway and they plan to bid the project out in January or February for next construction season. The Smithtown west portion is also slated for next year. One question remains regarding past opposition when trails were considered a few years ago. The City Attorney has someone examining the rights of way issue. That question needs to be looked at before application to the state. Berndt commented that safety is becoming a greater concern along Smithtown. Puzak asked if there is a point where the road is considered substandard and would be due for reconstruction. Brown said that today Smithtown is well out of MSA standards, however, the State will not mandate that the city upgrades. More likely, citizen petition will drive the need to upgrade. Arnst asked when Smithtown is scheduled to be rebuilt. Brown said it is book marked at 2001, but was put out as a challenge to address rights of way issues. 0 Zerby asked if the Smithtown project was split into east and west segments. Brown said Park Commission September 14, 1999 Page 6 that out of convenience from a project management standpoint, the walking trail (LRT) is the division point. From a technical standpoint, the eastern portion is worse than the west as far as site distance issues and road condition. Project Schedule Commissioner Themig noted that we have big project for 2000 (Smithtown west construction) with no funding. He asked why not shift the trail project to 2001 with the road improvement to be done at the same time. Brown replied that, from a technical standpoint, it does make sense to build a trail when the road is ripped up. However, in previous CIP's, the road was slated at that time, yet the Park Commission decided to separate the trail process from the road project. Puzak pointed out that future trail segments will also be halted until funding sources are found other than MSA, which comes with a set of standards that make it more inflammatory to residents. Berndt felt that safety is a primary reason to not wait until Smithtown is due for road reconstruction. Themig agreed that the safety and increase of livability should take precedence over politics. He asked where is the leadership from Council. Zerby replied that he is pro - trail. The Council has been hammering the property rights issue for a long time. It comes down to a "not- in -my- front - yard" situation. Puzak replied that this is why we have developed the trail process and it's working. We need to build a segment of Smithtown so people can see it and use it, and then in 2002 or so, we can continue with new funding sources. The Commission is doing the right thing in the best possible way. He felt they are getting the process going and getting it done amicably. Arnst added that the Commission must make sure they have a step forward at each meeting, no matter how small. Brown stated that we are in design process, so the project schedule is correct. The outcome of the rights of way issue in not yet known, Design costs are all slated for the first year in the Project Schedule while waiting on critical information. We don't know how long that will take. Themig stated that it is good to hear that we are moving ahead on the rights of way issue. Co -chair Arnst suggested that the project schedule description, "Potential projects that have met with local opposition" should be changed. (The Commission and residents have not even walked these segments yet.) Dallman suggested eliminating the heading. Then leave items k,1, and in under "Projects that have been identified as need further study and are not far enough along for costs estimates." The Commission agreed. Puzak pointed out that a group of people asked how to get their street off the map of potential trails. Since they have walked the island and came up with alternative ideas and no trail, there should be a distinction for that in the Project Schedule. Dallman suggested they label project h (Enchanted Island) as "No trail planned at this time" and move it up to be with project g. Projects needing further study will be those marked i, j, k,1, and m. 0 Park Commission September 14, 1999 Page 7 • Puzak moved and Berndt seconded to approve the Funding Summary and Project Schedule dated 8/19/99 as discussed and amended. The motion passed 510. 6. TRAILS / FREEMAN PARK MULIT PURPOSE BUILDING A. Covington/Vine Hill Status— Discuss/recommendation on assessing for concrete for a segment of trail along Vine Hill Road Commissioner Puzak suggested formulating the Commission's recommendation and presenting a motion to City Council for the ultimate decision. Based on the fact that concrete is more expensive than bituminous, there is probably a consensus to a base facility financed with tax dollars. Beyond that, residents can opt to upgrade to meet their customized requirements. Puzak stated that he recommends, as a matter of policy, that the City of Shorewood will build bituminous trails that are 8 feet in width. Neighbors may want to supplement to concrete and the City would accept those if a contiguous string of neighbors want to get together and be assessed for the upgrade. Hurm pointed out that there could be areas that are narrower than 8 feet. Puzak said that we will work around obstacles where needed, but the standard is 8 feet. Themig asked for discussion about why this is the standard and what about other components of design, such as retaining walls, etc. Points were made about aesthetics, wearability, cost and ongoing maintenance. Dallman asked what is the definition of "contiguous." Puzak replied that it would depend on each individual case. The project will be bid both ways and it's up to neighbors to figure it out what they want together. Arnst pointed out the possibility that the City of Minnetonka may plan to upgrade Vine Hill Road in 5 years and the trail investment could be lost. She agrees with base trail of 8 -foot wide and blacktop surface. As far as other features, Brown stated that the pricing of retaining wall options varies from time to time. Currently stone and block are almost equal. Themig said this is a case where we can be amiable to flex with design needs, as long as there is some consistency. Brown agreed the retaining wall ends up to be a nice feature for residents and the City. Puzak said the City Council would make the final call. The Park Commission is to meet with neighbors and make the recommendation. Dallman brought up the question of having the same or different standards for other projects such as Smithtown. He thinks the Commission should say the standard is 8 foot bituminous and that's it. He doesn't want to be judge each time someone petitions for a variation. Themig agreed that there is a consistency issue. There was further discussion on how to negotiate options for trails and what possible S problems may occur. Puzak pointed out that the Commission has a commitment to work Park Commission September 14, 1999 Page 8 with neighbors around design issues, according to the trail process. Themig asked how • that effects the neighbor in the middle of the block who disagrees. He feels it is not fair to put that pressure on someone to be in that situation. Themig reviewed the reasons for choosing bituminous as a base; Limited funding, Durable surface for a trail, It is consistent with other west metro community trails. Brown pointed out that there are analyses on roads, but not on trails as far as durability. In comparing the City's policy for road standards, it would be consistent to allow residents to pick up the difference in cost if they want a higher standard. Themig moved to recommend to City Council that the standard surface for trails, constructed as part of the trail process would be bituminous and 8 foot in width due to the limited funding, proven durability and consistency with trail construction in other west metro communities. Residents may petition to exceed the standard, but will be expected to fund the difference in cost. Puzak seconded and asked for a friendly amendment that we recognize its suitable durability. Dallman questioned the use of the word, "petition" and it was suggested to change to the word "request." Brown pointed out that the word "petition" is accurate once it reaches the legal process. It was agreed to leave the statement as is. There was also discussion about the definition of "contiguous" and who would determine what qualifies. Brown explained a definition according to public improvements, which i says that for two ends of a street to be designed the same all those in the middle would have to comply. Therefore, there is not a resulting "zebra effect." Puzak stated that the Commission is here to facilitate and present the best design package to Council. Then it's up to them to make the final call. Themig withdrew his motion, stating that he does not support an option of two materials. Hurm suggested a statement as part of the recommendation could say that the intent is to have a continuous project. Variations and standards for a series of properties can be considered. Themig asked that someone else restate the motion. The Commission worked together on the wording of the motion. Puzak moved to recommend to the City Council that the standard surface for trails constructed as part of the trail process would be bituminous and 8 foot in width. This basic standard is recommended for the following reasons: limited funding, suitable durability and consistency with trail construction in other west metro communities. The intent is to have a consistent appearance. Variations in standards for a series of properties will be considered. Residents may petition to exceed the standard, but will be expected to fund the difference in cost. • Park Commission September 14, 1999 Page 9 Themig made a friendly amendment that requests[Variations in standards for a series of properties] will be considered provided affected property owners are in agreement. Puzak accepted the amendment. Themig seconded. There was no further discussion and the motion passed 510. B. Smithtown West Status This topic has been discussed with the Project Schedule under item 5. C. Plan of Action for Fall Engineer Brown reported that staff has requested that the landmark is to be bidding in spring. Because there are many things on the table he asks that we make spring 2000 a deadline, but allow freedom to not set specific dates. Arnst asked about the attorney's schedule on rights of way issues. Brown said they expect a report at the next Council meeting. Arnst asked that the attorney be notified that the Park Commission is also very interested in the outcome of their study. Arnst also asked about the status of the DNR grant. Themig said applications are due on February 28 of each year. He hopes to have the application prepared by October or November. • Co -chair Dallman asked about the status of the Freeman Park building. Brown explained that he has followed through with the plan as approved by the Park Commission and City Council, with the recommendation to include three stalls in the restroom and add glass block for natural lighting in the bathrooms. The building will be constructed with a block base and lap siding. He explained that the primary concept for the building (which did not show modifications later made by the Park Commission) was used for demonstration at the Comprehensive Plan open house meetings. Dallman asked if there will be an exterior door for the store room. (9:50 p.m. — Council member Zerby exits.) Brown showed a drawing indicating that the building has been extended 5 feet more for storage and has an extension of the canopy area. Themig clarified that the extension of the canopy area was a Park Commission recommendation and the additional bathroom stall and glass block skylight was a Council request. Brown said that he talked to Don Sterna, the consulting engineer about having a design for final Council approval in time for their next meeting. They will present a request for Council approval to move ahead with the final design. 7. PREPARE FOR SEPTEMBER 28 MEETING WITH PARK FOUNDATION 0 Hurm explained that a letter was sent to members of the Park Foundation to notice the Park Commission September 14, 1999 Page 10 upcoming meeting. A draft letter from the Park Commission was reviewed for discussion and consensus about what to send prior to that meeting. Hurm also asked for feedback on changes to the visual presentation for the upcoming meeting. The presentation included a review of the Park Foundation bylaws and purpose, a graphic showing spending for park maintenance, sources of funding, and the trend in capital. Themig said it is good information to show why the sports organizations' contributions are needed. However, the purpose should be to show the larger picture, not all the details that have been included. Puzak added that it might create problems to point out the discrepancy between donations of the different organizations. Themig agreed, saying that is a whole separate issue, which is not for this purpose. Dallman suggested using a summary of base costs for all organizations so none are offended, and compare that with the total revenue to demonstrate the need. Hurm asked about how to incorporate the issue of rink expenses. Dallman said that's a good one to show to the hockey association. Totals for ice costs can be included on a separate line for the Foundation meeting, but not labeled as hockey expenses. Dallman recommended using a summary of park needs for this meting and explain that the Commission will meet on an individual basis with each of the organizations. Themig asked how to present the funding source ideas. Puzak said it should be in a hand- out for a separate mailing with a cover letter to suggest that the meeting is to help us with developing even more ideas. Arnst stressed that the goal of the meeting should be at the top of the letter. It must be made clear that the purpose of the meeting is: 1) To review the financial history of park operations, and 2) To set goals for the Park Foundation. Arnst said it is important to keep in mind that the Foundation is separate from the Sports Organizations. Themig agreed they do not want to confuse maintenance fees for sports with other fund raising matters. There was further discussion and Puzak summarized the focus to; 1) Review the financial condition, 2) Show the plans for the parks and the need to raise more money, and 3) Choose the best individuals and organizations to work on the fund raising ideas that have been identified. Amst suggested that the introduction at the meeting would be that we are here because we have funding issues. The next step is to review the Foundation's history and the Park's financial history. Then consider the brainstorm ideas, and finally, see where the Foundation fits into the picture. Puzak suggested that it comes down to saying, "This is where we are (graphics), this is where we need to be (goal), this is how we close the gap (action item). Then ask who can do what. Dallman recommended that Amst will put it all together and chair the meeting with the Foundation. The Foundation will be sent the brainstorming list with the cover letter. . Park Commission September 14, 1999 Page 11 • Themig suggested that the graph for Capital Improvements should represent also what our plan is for 5 years, to show this is a long -term problem. He also asked that they include trails. There was further discussion about how to do the graphics for the presentation. Brown asked if it is fair to incorporate trails, since that would be asking the Foundation to support more than just the parks. Themig said the need for funding trails would be a good thing to include so they know that there is more going on than just the parks. Puzak thought that trails should be mentioned, but not to give excessive data. Brown recommended they start out with a beginning balance, add revenues over the five next years, and then plot the expenditures on the same graph. Themig agreed that this would give the long -term, bigger picture. Puzak added that it would show the ever widening gap between revenue and expenditures for the future. 8. OLD BUSINESS A. Review of a Document for Transferring Ownership of Park Improvements It was agreed that the draft document called Acceptance and Indemnification Agreement is accepted as prepared and presented. 0 B. Review of To Do List The Commission scanned through the To Do list, naming items which have been completed. They asked that those be marked with the date of completion, rather than removed from the list. Revisions to the list will be made by staff, with an updated version to be presented at the October meeting. Engineer Larry Brown stated that he will have a report on the status of the Old Market Road crossing for the October meeting. C. Consider Replacement of Chuck Cochran as Park Commission Representative to the Park Foundation It was agreed that a Representative to the Park Foundation may be appointed at a later date, since this is not a pressing need. D. Review Recycling Memo Commissioner Berndt stated that she acknowledges the cost of recycling at parks. While it is known that aluminum is sorted out of the park trash, she would like to check on ways to dispose of plastic. Commissioner Puzak commented that the plastic is likely burned . along with the trash at a facility where alternative energy is produced, so it is not i ,. Park Commission September 14, 1999 Page 12 completely gone to waste. E. Player Benches at Manor Park Baseball Fields There was discussion about the source of this request. There being no known need or interest in having benches at the Manor Park ball fields, it was agreed to scratch this item from the list of planned park improvements. F. Manor Park —Sign Where the First City Hall was Located Tabled to a later meeting date when Commissioner Bensman will be present. 9. NEW BUSINESS A. Designate Liaison to City Council Meeting for October to Replace Bill Colopoulos Commissioner Paula Berndt will attend the October City Council meetings as Park Commission representative. • B. Designate Liaison to Planning Commission to Replace Bill Colopoulos Administrator Hurm explained that Park representation at Planning Commission meetings is is typically on an as needed basis. It was agreed that a liaison will be appointed as the need occurs. 10. ADJOURNMENT Puzak moved and Themig seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed 510. The meeting adjourned at 10:44 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Connie Bastyr Recording Secretary • CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION/PARK FOUNDATION COUNCIL CHAMF --- JOINT MEETING 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28,1999 MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION/PARK FOUNDATION MEETING Co -chair Arnst called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. r% A. Roll Call • Present From Park Commission: Co- chairs Amst and Dallman; Commissioners Berndt, Puzak, and Themig; City Administrator Hurm; Council Liaison Zerby Absent: Commissioner Bensman Present From Park Foundation: Gordy Lindstrom (Member at Large), Brian Lieffers (Tonka United Soccer), Don Kronberg (American Legion), Don Kelly (Rotary Club), Brian Tichy (South Tonka Little League), Bill Keeler (Member at Large), Jim Wilson (Tonka Football Association) Absent: Scott Hanson (South Shore Softball), Robert Noren (Senior Representative), Don Aslesen (Mtka Youth Hockey Assoc.), Tad Shaw (Mtka Comma Education Service), Jim Lattemer (Tonka Men's Club) Commissioner Arnst explained the reason for the meeting was to: • Review the purpose of the Park Foundation, • Go over the cost history and financial future on the maintenance, operation and improvements of the parks and trails, • Discuss options of park improvements that have been developed by the Park Commission, • Get input and set goals for the Park Foundation to raise some funds and develop a timeline. Commissioner Themig showed an overview on the purpose of the Park Foundation, its goals, and the costs to maintain the parks. Park Commission September 28, 1999 Page 2 Commissioner Arnst explained that the Park Commission had a brainstorming session in August and came up with the "Options for Financing Park Improvements." The Park Commission needs money to finance the trails, Skate Park and Freeman Park Multi - Purpose building. The Commission has approached City Council to seek their support. Council agreed to explore funding options as long as the Park Commission agreed to look for additional revenue sources. The "Options for Financing Park Improvements" has not been brought to City Council, nor has the Park Commission as a group discussed any of the options. Commissioner Dallman explained that the Park Foundation talked about the park building 8 or 9 years ago and at that time the estimated cost was $40,000. Now it is at $250,000. Construction of the multi - purpose building will begin in the spring. Another project is the trails. The trail for Vinehill/Covington will start in the spring. It was asked if the city could work in conjunction with Minnetonka on Vinehill. Commissioner Dallman said that it has been looked at, but Minnetonka said it might be several years before they will do anything. It was explained that MSA funding is one way to go for trails. Mr. Keeler stated that it is hard to visualize as trails, they sound more like sidewalks. Also, it is hard to categorize trails into parks. Commissioner Puzak explained the Youth Coalition and their intent to build a skate park. The coalition consists of business leaders, churches, schools, youth and South Lake cities. The two locations being considered are Manitou Park and the Old Highway 7 Rest Area North of Old Market Road. The range for building a skate park is from $25,000 to $300,000. The youth felt that the Old Highway 7 location is not difficult to get to and that the trail is not that far away. There is also a stoplight on Highway7 to use for crossing. The plans for the multi- purpose building for Freeman Park were reviewed. The Park Commission is hoping to get bids in February and start construction in March. It was explained that there would not be an ice rink right away, but hopefully in the year 2001. Mr. Keeler asked why the free skating had to wait and suggested the parking lot area be used for skating in the winter. The Park Commission didn't see why free skating would have to wait and will review this option. In previous meeting there was discussion on how the Park Foundation talked about starting a fundraising project and getting a brochure once there was a building. Foundation fundraising is going door -to -door, corporation -to- corporation to raise funds for the parks. Mr. Wilson expressed that this Foundation has been in existence for a while and there has not been an effort. He feels that there is going to have to be someone hired to do the fundraising. Mr. Keeler stated one problem is that corporations or individuals want to give to the community where they are located. A second problem is usually the company will tell you they will match what you give, but there is no seed money to do this. There are • really no businesses in Shorewood. Thirdly there is not enough effort. f Park Commission September 28, 1999 Page 3 The Legion and Tonka Men's Club is donating $2,500 each and the Foundation hopefully will come up with the other $5,000 for the park building. The money has not been received from the Legion or Tonka Men's Club as the Foundation is still waiting to proceed and see what the other organizations come up with. It was asked if $5,000 is a realistic goal. One of the problems is going out to the community and saying the money is for the parks. The first reaction is that it is the City's responsibility. It is a lot easier to say we need $25,000 for a skate park. It is a different appeal than thinking it's for fertilizer for one of the parks. Having figures and brochures makes it even more appealing to get funds. Jim Wilson apologized for being out of touch with the football organization. He explained that he is a football coach and hasn't been invited or knows if there is a board that meets, nor does he know if the football league has any money to donate. He stated that he would make some phone calls and see. It was explained that the Park Commission wasn't looking at the organizations individually but as the Foundation collectively. Mr. Keeler explained that some were At Large and they represent the city and the others are on the Foundation because they have the same interest. He added that the Park Commission needs to come up with a figure and let the organizations and Foundation know what they need. Commissioner Puzak explained that the Park Commission needs help with raising funds for two items: 1) the multi - purpose building and 2) the skate park. He asked if the Park Foundation could commit to raising money. Mr. Keeler stated that you need to show the people what is being done and then ask them for donations. He said he could go out and ask but he needs something to show people. There was discussion about going to the organizations for user fees and maintenance fees. It was said that a large number of people using the parks are non - Shorewood residents and that is one thing against Shorewood. Some communities contribute less than Shorewood. Tonka Bay and Spring Park contribute very little space. Excelsior, Deephaven and Greenwood do not provide any green space for organized sports. This would be good information for user fees. Mr. Wilson suggested that the Park Commission explain to the sports organizations that there is maintenance and capital improvements, etc. and this is the dollar amount expected. Fees have to go up just like the organizations charge more to play the sport. The Park Commission has to say this is what you want, you cannot say give us what you can afford. One of the reasons for the Park Foundation is to find other sources of income. So much of Shorewoods Park Foundation is based on the one established is Roseville in the 1960's. They have a lot of different ways to raise money, such as charity balls, golf outings; a lot of community based activities. It was suggested doing something like Excelsior did with Park Commission September 28, 1999 Page 4 bricks in the playground. A fundraiser like that could be done with the multi- purpose building or Skate Park. The Roseville Park Foundation started not with just parks. It was community -based activities. A lot of the people got involved in the fundraising. The spirit of it caught. Roseville has an advantage because businesses are there, where Shorewood has very few businesses. Some ideas that were brought up were to figure out activities that can generate enthusiasm for the people that live in the South Shore community. Ideas were: golf outings, buying a brick, silent auction, and raffle tickets. Council Member Zerby asked if the Park Foundation has the spirit to do this. It was felt that they do have the spirit and maybe it's the skills that are lacking. Or perhaps there is not the leader to say this is the idea and this is how we should do it. Maybe a professional organizer is needed. Commissioner Berndt stated that the multi - purpose building could be a destination for non - organized sports and people on the trail. The multi - purpose building could generate money from people stopping along the way to purchase something. Commissioner Themig explained that the Commission talked about user fees and that is the next step after the Park Foundation starts the fundraising. Also, the Commission will look at other ways to generate revenue. It was asked again if the Park Foundation was willing to move this forward and if they had the excitement to keep the process moving. . Mr. Lieffers of Tonka United Soccer stated that he was drafted by Tonka United to sit on the Foundation as a representative. If he had known that the purpose was to knock on doors and raise money he would have said no. If he has to raise money, he will not do that. He is here to listen to things that are going on and bring it back to Tonka United and represent Tonka United's view at the park meetings. He stated that Tonka United does not want the building out at Freeman. Tonka United wants to spend money on the fields, not on the building. They are not going to pay for the building or the Skate Park. They will pay for irrigating the fields and what involves soccer. He thinks this is what the board would want him to tell the Park Commission. Soccer will not use the building. The games are an hour and then they are out of there. The City can view soccer as potential customers but not as a funding source. Mr. Keeler asked if the soccer organization would be willing to work the concession stand a number of night/games for part of the user fees to raise money. Mr. Lieffers stated that they would not, that it would be easier to just give the money. In further discussion it was explained that the Park Foundation is a fundraising group. Commissioner Puzak explained that the, sports organizations are the key partners and customers and they should be represented on the Park Foundation. Mr. Lieffers commented that Tonka United should have said that they want someone that can be active in fundraising. 0 Park Commission September 28, 1999 Page 5 • Commissioner Themig mentioned that he did not know the history of how the Park Foundation originally developed. Was it the Park Commission's initiative or group of residences? Mr. Lindstrom explained that Shorewood did not have enough money to improve the park facilities and the idea was to get people involved in using the facilities such as organized sports and other organizations. Mr. Lindstorm also mentioned that for user fees you could have parking meters or a season pass, but feels that neither one of these are very convenient at Freeman Park. He stated that baseball generates a lot of revenue from their concession stand. Commissioner Arnst questioned if there was reluctance to participate in the fundraising. The consensus was no. Mr. Keeler asked to sort out what the Park Commission wants the Park Foundation to do. He doesn't feel the Park Foundation should be asking for user fees. It was confirmed that the Park Commission is .not asking for that. Commissioner Puzak summarized that the Park Commission does not want the Park Foundation to help in the user fees. The Park Commission will do that. What the Park Commission is trying to focus the Park Foundation on is: 1. Are you aware of your role? 2. Asking for help on the two projects (multi - purpose building and the Skate Park). The Park Commission needs money for these two projects. The question was asked again, is the Park Foundation interested in raising money? Consensus is yes that this is part of the Park Foundations purpose. If the members of the Park Foundation are not willing to be involved then they should step down and appoint someone else. It was suggested that maybe the Park Foundation should invite a professional fundraiser to show how to go about fundraising. Mr. Keeler said he is willing to knock on doors and go places if there is an organizer who can lay everything out and the Foundation knows what they are doing. He also mentioned that' he would be willing to work on grants if there was someone who knew how to write grants. It was asked if City staff could help with the two items that Mr. Keeler asked for; grant writing and putting together a pamphlet. Staff could help in these two areas. In further reviewing the "Options for Financing" it was determined that number 8 "grants ", and number 9 "private donations" is part of the Park Foundation. Number 10 "Corporate Sponsorship" could also be part of the Park Foundation. Number 14 "Lawful Gaming" the Legion donates to the City/Park Foundation. The Legion and Tonka Men's Club are both strong advocates for youth and children projects. It was asked what the status of number 11 "General City Funds" was and also the . background of the referendum in 1992. It was explained that the referendum was for a warming house at Cathcart, and for projects at Badger, Freeman and Silverwood Parks. Park Commission September 28, 1999 Page 6 The total for the projects was around $900,000. Around 70% of the Shorewood residents were against the referendum. There was a very small voter turn out. In the end the projects were completed but it took a little longer without the referendum. It was determined that the information acquired tonight needs to be brought back to a Park Foundation meeting and reviewed. Commissioner Puzak will get a copy of the skate park plan/brochure to Mr. Kelly. The Park Foundation will meet Thursday, October 14,1999. The Park Foundation will meet the second Thursday of each month while they get things going. Dave McNally was mentioned that he would be a good motivator and that the Park Foundation may want to invite him to one of their meetings. Mr. Lieffers commented his general observation tonight is that there is zero dollars in the fundraising. If the Park Commission has to count on the Park Foundation for dollars he didn't hear any commitment for dollars. Mr. Kelly stated that the objective wasn't looking for a commitment in dollars. Mr. Lieffers thought that Tonka United Soccer would not use the multi - purpose building during the tournaments, and that softball might rent the building. Mr. Kelly said it could be possible the City wouldn't allow beverages in the park except at the concession stand. Mr. Lindstrom stated that there are a lot of non- residents at the Shorewood Parks and to ask the Shorewood taxpayers to pay for all the improvements when there are so many non - Shorewood residents using the parks is not fair. This is one of the reasons for the Park Foundation to generate some revenue. Mr. Lieffers asked if user fees are a Park Commission issue. Commissioner Puzak explained that user fees are on going and the projects that the Park Commission is asking for help is a capital improvement. Mr. Keeler commented that the zero amount is wrong. He did not say he would donate money but he will help raise money. The meeting adjourned at 9:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Twila Grout Recording Secretary ll% �l To: Park Commission & I I - v } From: Twila Grout, Public Works Secretary %A Date: October 5, 1999 Re: Agenda Item 4A - Trails and Multi- Purpose Building at Freeman I have talked with Engineer Brown regarding the status of the multi - purpose building and trails. Engineer Brown stated that the status of these two items has not changed since the last Park Commission meeting of September 14, 1999. . If there are any changes prior to the meeting Engineer Brown will report on them. • F r -- I LJ • Options for Financing Park Improvements 1. Foundation Fundraising Pros Cons • Community building • Needs project leader • Tax advantages • May not apply to on -going • Non - taxable maintenance • No tax -payer opposition Points • Mostly project specific 2. User Fees — Sports Organizations— Tournament Fees Pros Cons • Established users are in place • May not pay — voluntary • Steady income potential • Could reduce sports organizations' • Philosophy of "user pays" voluntary improvements • Doesn't take into account their other donated efforts • Hard to be fair • Higher expectations? • Improvements may not benefit the contributing organization Points • Project specific and park specific • Needs to be designated by Council for the Park Fund • Chase for tournaments 3. Concession —Sales & Rental Pros Cons • Sustainable source of revenue • Need to manage it • Amenity to park • Sustainable source, but not steady or • Makes the park a destination consistent (business risk) Points • What is the profit margin? 95 4. Parking Fees at Freeman Park Pros Cons • Raises substantial amount of • Costs money to manage money • Unkind and unfriendly • Possible towing fee percentage • Has potential for backlash from the • Has potential to be the most fair community • Could help solve parking problems • Neighborhood impact • Enforcement is a problem Points • Consider raising tournament fee instead • Charge during peak times (limit fees to certain hours) 5. Tower (PCS) Revenue Pros Cons • Revenue from any tower on park • Neighborhood concerns property should go to park fund . Aesthetics • Very viable and lucrative Points • Consider tower for wayside rest area at Old Market Road and Highway 7 • Need to ask for necessary ordinance chanszes 6. Transfer Fees Pros Cons • Sustainable and lucrative • Requires legislative approval • Needs administration Points (None) • • 7 Park Dedication Fees Pros Cons • Already in place • Diminishing Points (None) 8. Grants Pros • Funds are available • No objection from tax payer Cons • Grant - writing / Administration cost • Project specific • Could be strings attached • Unpredictable Points (None) U 9. Private Donations (including land) Pros Cons • Non -tax payer money • Might be project specific or have • Provides tax deduction for donator strings attached • Need solicitor, leader or group • Could end up with "white elephant" Points (None) 10. Corporate Sponsorship and Advertising Pros Cons • Potential exists • Could be strings attached • Not tax money • Possible public opposition • Potentially unsightly • Needs leadership Points (None) �J 11. General City Funds Pros Cons • Justifiable expenditure of tax • Up to City Council discretion dollars for a valued amenity Points (None) 12. Liquor Store Profits • Pros Cons • Positive contributions for liquor • No profit at present time operations • Public perception ( "sin tax ") Points (None) 13. Allow Liquor Permits for Events (like the Southshore Center) Pros Cons • Can specify conditions • May have negative public • Source is specific to user perception • Requires ordinance change Points (None) 14. LawfuI Gaming Pros Cons • Potential for substantial income • May have negative public . • Partnership building perception (sin tax) • New found source • Limited to one site (Legion) Points • Legion already contributes to community • Could approach Southshore Center 15. Vending Machines Pros Cons • Could be built into concession • Vandalism potential building for security . May impact city staff • Open beyond concession stand hours • Potential is there. Only work is to draw a contract • Potentially low administrative cost • Could be at multiple locations Points • Vending machine company deals with complaints and maintenance i • 16. Park Event and Shelter Rentals Pros Cons • Good public relations for parks • Need leader and champion • Facilities are in demand • Staff time required • Needs coordination • Heavy use of parks Points • Freeman Park could be a great location for a corporate event 17. Youth Programming Pros • Amenity and service to community Cons • Need part time director Points None • C� Park Commission Meeting Follow -up Checklist Park Commission Meeting;of 9/14/99 List Action taken Mtg. Done Issues , ! Date Policies for dealing with sports organizations 6/22/99 1999 To Do List Done • Create a written legal document that transfers ownership of 7/13/99 improvements to the City. Sept/Oct. Larry B. proceed with the research, design and cost estimates on Magic Referred to LB – LB will come up with 8 -10 -99 Done Square for Cathcart Park Park Comm. approved plans8- 24 -99. ideas and bring them back to the Park Commission (5- 25 -99) LB has 8 -24 -99 preliminary design and pricing, will present at 8 -10 mtg. Park booklet - Mark Themig volunteered to work on this. First draft will be prepared by 10 -1 -99 6/22/99 Consider a sign at Manor Park stating that this is where the first City Hall Pat Arnst will check with Mary Bensman 6/22/99 was located. on her interest in following up on project. Sept. mtg. Baseball fields at Freeman Park - Discussion on Poles/Nets installed for Administrator Hurm is going to follow -up Done protection of foul balls going into neighbor's yards.Atty. has drafted with neighbors by sending a ltr. to meet easement agreement on installation of netting - Property owners need on a certain date /time (6 -99) Sent follow - to sign. up Itr. 7 -2 -99. Policy for next season regarding security at warming houses. Refer to LB First successful trail segment completed 1999 To Do List Page 2 Fark Commission Meeti"94 !99 1999 f �TQ Do" List Action taken Mtg. Done Issues Date 2000 CIP 8/13/99 1999 To Do List Done 8/24/99 Explore Trail Collaboration with Greenwood & Excelsior 1999 To Do List Done Multi- purpose building construction LB will work on different plans and bring 1999 To Do List • Explore partnership with Senior Center /youth for operating back to Park Commission (5- 25 -99). LB concession stands will sch. on planning comm. mtg. for a conditional use permit and public • Consider night time lighting policy* hearing (6 -22 -99 mtg). City Council • Consider liquor policies* mtg. 8/23/99. *These issues, among others yet to be identified, need to be considered as a pro- active measure. They may arise as a result of the completion of a multi- purpose, multi - season facility that will invite more diverse use than the picnic shelter alone. Cathcart Park — Sign saying "No Parking on Grass" LB will look into Freeman Park — Proposed batting cage, signs and relocation of storage 5 -25 -99 Park Tour. Larry B. is working Done shed with Gordy Lindstrom 6- 8- 99 -STLL Postpone projects until later in the season. Freeman Park — Map for trail 5 -25 -99 Park Tour Freeman Park — Closure of road along field #2 5 -25 -99 Park Tour 8 -10 -99 Crescent Beach — Add sign Qoint with Tonka Bay) 5 -25 -99 Park Tour Manor Park and Badger Park — Aerator for pond. 6 -22 -99 mtg. Pat Arnst 6 -8 -99 Park Tour will do further research regarding clean up of ponds. Wayside Rest Area — Seal the well 6 -8 -99 Park Tour Wayside Rest Area — Look at property as a possible skate park 6 -8 -99 Park Tour Ask qW Ah • . • 3 Smithtown West LRT — Look at keeping the trail on the south side of I LB will take another look at keeping Smithtown west of the school and have a crossing at the school. Also, look trail on south side. He will also look into extending the trail to the LRT for cost and obstacles, etc. (6 -8 -99 mtg) into extending the trail. r Enchanted Island Neighborhood walk to familiarize with island issues Neighborhood walk July 24 9:30 Wayside Rest Area — Check on the walkway /trail from stop light to across 6 -8 -99 Park Tour — LB will look into the the ditch possibility Silverwood Park — Fill in the holes around the blocks by the swing set area 6 -8 -99 Park Tour Check on painting stripes at Christmas Lake access parking lot 6 -8 -99 Park Tour Prepare project schedule and look at Smithtown segment and LB will prepare a project schedule. LB CovingtonNine Hill trails (6 -8 -99 meeting) is ordering feasibility studies and ask to authorize a survey at the July 26 City Pending Council meeting. Smithtown West LRT — Look at keeping the trail on the south side of I LB will take another look at keeping Smithtown west of the school and have a crossing at the school. Also, look trail on south side. He will also look into extending the trail to the LRT for cost and obstacles, etc. (6 -8 -99 mtg) into extending the trail. r Enchanted Island Neighborhood walk to familiarize with island issues Neighborhood walk July 24 9:30 July 24, 9:30 a.m. Done St. Albans Bay Rd Check with Greenwood on joint trail July? Done Edgewood/Noble Neighborhood issue walk 10 -2 9:30 Yellowstone Pending Oct. Mill St. Check on issues — County Rd, connection with LRT Sept/Oct Grant Lorenz Neighborhood issue walk 10 -2 9:30 Howards Point Rd Neighborhood issue walk 10 -2 9:30 Smithtown/E of LRT Not this year (1999) Joint meeting with Park Foundation Sept. 28 @ 7:30 Done I I � Wayside Rest Area — Improve the barrier along Highway 7 /parking area 6 -8 -99 Park Tour — Referred to LB 0 0 0 R f ar