Loading...
032597 PK MIN CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PARK COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1997 7:30 P.M. MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Colopoulos called the meeting to order at 7:33 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Colopoulos; Commissioners Wilson, Dallman, and Arnst; Council Liaison McCarty; Administrator Hurm; City Engineer Larry Brown; and Commissioner Puzak arrived at 8:50 p.m. Absent: Commissioner Bensman. 3. REVIEW AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 25, 1997: Commissioner Arnst had several changes: Page 1, item #5, third sentence, add “in the state” after the word “accidents”; Page 2, item #5, third paragraph, change the fifth sentence beginning with “Ms. Schaff...” to reflect her police vs. pedestrian safety concern; page 3, item #7, third paragraph, first sentence, change “decide” to “discuss”; page 3, item 7, fifth paragraph , change “report” to “memo from Mike Hammer”; Commissioner Wilson requested a change on page 3, item 7, ninth paragraph, reword to reflect the detailed conversation between Mr. Harrison and Commissioner Wilson; Commissioner Arnst requested a deletion of paragraph 5 on page 4 beginning with “Hurm questioned...”; page 5, item #10, second paragraph, to include Mr. Reutiman’s first name “Bob”; and page 5, item #12, to include the reason for Little League’s delay in payment for park services. Commissioner Arnst moved, Dallman seconded, to approve the minutes of February 25, 1997 as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Work Session of March 11, 1997: Commissioner Arnst had several changes: Page 3, item #4, second paragraph, change second sentence to “Planner Nielsen said that at an ‘open house meeting’, look...”; same paragraph, fifth sentence to delete “focus group” because this is a different kind of group; page 3, item #4, fourth paragraph, to clarify ...“LRT in the summer of 1995.”; page 4, first paragraph, to include information about wood chips for a trail surface; SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1997 page 2 page 4, second paragraph, second sentence to read “The City has to provide...”; page 4, fourth paragraph, second sentence, change “construct” to “examine”; and page 4, sixth paragraph, to read “...signage specifications of allowed uses...”. Commissioner Dallman moved, Wilson seconded, to approve the minutes of March 11, 1997 as amended. Motion carried unanimously. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor. 6. MANOR PARK LIGHT A memo dated 3/17/97 from Commissioner Bensman was reviewed. It highlighted comments (via phone contact) from neighbors adjacent to the Manor Park proposed light location. The comments were in support of the new light. City Engineer Larry Brown handed out a diagram of the pond at Manor Park and had placed an influence graph for the lights on the diagram. The light was placed approximately 8-10 feet off the water surface on the graph. Different contour levels or light levels were evident on the water. Shorewood ordinances reference light level maximums, and the proposed light is well within those tolerances. Brown recommended a wooden pole to support the light. A picture of the proposed floodlight refers to a shoebox fixture in which you do not see the light source from the side. There is an existing light by the corner of the warming house. During the 1996-97 skating season, rink attendants had noted difficulties seeing skaters at the other end of the rink due to poor lighting conditions. Brown requested the Park Commission consider removing the existing light and provide two new fixtures in order to be consistent between the two lights. There are some floodlight adjustments available; for example, raising a bracket 1-2 degrees (where you still don’t see the light source) has a dramatic effect on throwing the light forward. Brown also indicated that this is a 400 watt light which is less than what’s out there now. Commissioner Dallman moved, Trettel seconded, to recommend to City Council to add the new light and replace the old one with an identical light as proposed by City Engineer Brown. Motion carried unanimously. 7. FREEMAN PARK CONCESSION TRAILER - RFP’s One business proposal for the Freeman Park Concession Trailer was received from Minnetonka Community Education Services (MCES): Todd Strot, Program Coordinator. Todd Strot was not able to attend this meeting. SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1997 page 3 MCES noted the contract dates for the trailer will be May 4, 1997 through July 19, 1997. Colopoulos was concerned that softball and soccer events may extend beyond the middle of July. Colopoulos stated that Strot will need to respond to this concern. Commissioner Dallman asked if Strot could be supported by the City instead of Community Services in order to channel all of the profits toward a permanent concession building (instead of the proposed 50/50 split of net profits between MCES and the City of Shorewood). Commissioner Dallman requested City staff to research insurance concerns for Strot and the concession trailer if supported through the City or the Park Foundation. Administrator Hurm noted that the City is not in the concession business. He said that after speaking with Dan Kuzlik (MCES Director) and Todd Strot, they may be persuaded to “seed” the funding of the permanent concession building. Involvement by MCES, the City of Shorewood, or the Park Foundation may induce cooperative efforts between the soccer and softball organizations to eventually sponsor this concession service. Commissioner Arnst inquired about the financial reporting technique. This will need to be addressed by Strot prior to approval of this business proposal. She noted that MCES will assume all product liability and all insurance will be maintained under MCES’ umbrella policy. Commissioner Wilson moved, Dallman seconded, to recommend to City Council to approve the business proposal from MCES to provide a concession trailer provided that they supply satisfactory answers to concerns such as: ? Will MCES pay wages for concession workers? ? Financial reports will be submitted in what kind of format? ? List of products to be sold ? What specifically is covered under the insurance policy and what are the liability limits? Discussion followed with Commissioner Dallman noting that clarification was needed if MCES, the City, or the Park Foundation would be the sponsor for Strot’s proposal of the Pepsi concession trailer. Commissioner Wilson withdrew his motion. Commissioner Dallman withdrew his second to the motion. Commissioner Dallman moved, Wilson seconded, that MCES clarify the following issues and respond in writing: ? Will MCES pay wages for concession workers? ? Who will be sponsoring the trailer (MCES, City of Shorewood, or ? Park Foundation)? ? What specifically is covered under the insurance policy and what are the liability limits? ? Financial reports submitted in what type of format? ? Provide a list of products to be sold SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1997 page 4 Following receipt of the responses to these concerns, the Park Commission will be able to determine whether or not we should accept this proposal. Commissioner Dallman stated that if we assume MCES will cover all the costs for running the concession trailer (including the required insurance coverage), and after all expenses are paid, they are going to present the City with 50% of the net profits, then the City ought to consider hiring Strot directly in order to retain 100% of the profits. Costs should be the same for MCES as they would be for the City. Administrator Hurm illustrated two scenarios in which a hypothetical $15,000 net profit was realized. One scenario illustrated MCES supporting Strot; whereby $7,500 profit goes to MCES and $7,500 profit goes to the City of Shorewood. The other scenario illustrated the City supporting Strot; whereby the City received $15,000 profit to go toward a new concession building. Commissioner Arnst questioned the City’s loyalties to MCES. Chair Colopoulos stated that if MCES were to take over complete responsibility of the labor issue: finding people to man the concession stand; making sure that if someone doesn’t show up that they find a replacement; opening and closing; payroll, etc. - that’s worth something to us as a service. Chair Colopoulos was not sure that it is worth 50% of the profits, but it’s worth something. If this is what MCES is offering, we need to consider the the fair market value of this. Administrator Hurm assumed that Strot would perform the same service for MCES as he would for the City. He suggested that the Park Commission pursue both options for review. Administrator Hurm clarified that MCES became involved because Strot works through MCES in his function as Director of the Adult Softball Association. MCES also has some experience with concessions. Chair Colopoulos noted that this is a business experiment in that someone needs to share the risk portion of the equation of profits or losses. Administrator Hurm will talk to Strot regarding who he can/will work for: MCES or the City or if the Park Foundation would like to oversee this concession trailer? He will set up a meeting with Strot, Kuzlik, and Commissioner Dallman. Commissioner Dallman suggested these concerns be addressed prior to the next Park Commission meeting on April 8, 1997, and a recommendation be made at that time. This time frame will allow a recommendation for the City Council’s consideration at the April 13, 1997 meeting. All voted aye for the motion at hand. Motion carried unanimously. 8. TRAIL PLAN REVIEW Administrator Hurm presented a Trail Plan Review: Initial Packet. This packet highlighted some dynamics of citizen participation. He asked the Commission to review the memorandum SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1997 page 5 regarding “Citizen Participation - Recent Literature Research.” Following a discussion, he stated that the citizen participation process attempts to include as many people as possible who may be affected by a project, and recommendations should be made to allow as many “win-win” situations as possible. A project objective would be to get as many “consent” opinions as possible because those affected with a proposed project would have helped design the solution(s). Chair Colopoulos and Commissioner Dallman noted that the Trail Plan was designed in 1992. Commissioner Dallman questioned what hampered its implementation at that time and whether the Park Commission needs to start over. Administrator Hurm replied that a Trail Fund did not exist in 1992, and the Trail Plan notes that trail construction was to be completed simult- aneously with road reconstruction. Major roadways which have proposed adjacent trails have not been reconstructed since 1992. Some proposed street projects are also tied to State Aid funding. Commissioner Wilson inquired about the origination of a trail plan. Administrator Hurm stated that the trail plan arose from the Comprehensive Plan; Transportation section. This section recommends that the safe movement of bicyclists and pedestrians be considered when planning for streets (page TR-6). Commissioner Arnst stated that while the citizen involvement materials were valuable, one important question had not been addressed, that being the right-of-way problems on Smithtown Road. She questioned whether the Park Commission would move forward with any more planning until the properties have been identified. Chair Colopoulos said it could present a “brick wall”. Commissioner Arnst agreed, saying that if the properties were numerous, the cost of condemnation might make building the trail impractical. Administrator Hurm explained that in a worst case scenario, the time frame is okay. He said the City’s position at this point is there aren’t right-of-way problems. Putting the matter in perspective, only one-half of the right-of-way would be necessary for the trail . There are no right-of-way questions on half or two-thirds of that. there are some properties where there may be challenges that may have to be worked out. Hurm said from a legal perspective, there are different interpretations. Commissioner Arnst asked how many pieces of property had potential problems. Administrator Hurm said he did not know. He would have to count them. He also indicated that he has asked the City Attorney for a legal opinion on the properties. Commissioner Puzak said that the right-of-way question needs to be answered. He said there were two important pieces of information: (1) we are thinking about a trail, do we have the ability to do it; and (2) the motivation to build the trail. he referred to a survey done by the City where a preponderance of the community said they wanted a trail. Commissioner Arnst asked if there was a list of properties that could be available to the Park Commission. Hurm said that could be provided. Commissioner Puzak said that we need to SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1997 page 6 identify and answer the fundamental questions before we spend more time looking at building a trail. He said there were always ways to solve the problem if you know what the issues are. Chair Colopoulos and Commissioner Arnst agreed that the Park Commission needs to know before going into the project, what the problems will be. Administrator Hurm recommended a subcommittee to work with him to revise the steps on the trail plan, submit a time line, review what has been done and the data to develop the step process. The subcommittee will consist of Administrator Hurm, and Commissioners Puzak and Arnst. Steps in Trail Plan Review (page 8 of the Trail Plan Review packet) was discussed. Commis- sioner Puzak noted several other concerns: ? Ability to build (right-of-way) ? Do we want the trail? ? Accuracy of 1992 data compared to 1997 opinions ? Costs politically, financially, and legally ? Awareness of the “Not In My Back Yard” syndrome ? Identification of the size and location of a trail (on-street yellow stripe, sidewalk, off-street) Commissioner Trettel wants to involve computerized drawings of proposed trails. A cost estimate of this technique was requested. Administrator Hurm will work with Commissioners Puzak and Arnst to develop information on what has already been done and to develop the steps to go forward. Commissioner Dallman moved, Arnst seconded, that Administrator Hurm work with Commissioners Puzak and Arnst to gather information and to get a time frame for trail planning to be distributed at the May 13, 1997 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 9. REPORT ON PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ON SNOWMOBILE LAKE ACCESS Copies of minutes from Planning Commission meetings held on February 18, 1997 and March 4, 1997 were available for informational purposes. 10. CITY COMMUNICATIONS PLAN A copy of the adopted Communications Plan was included in the Commission packet for informational purposes. SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1997 page 7 11. FOOTBALL FIELD SOD STRATEGY Administrator Hurm reported on his conversation with Jim Wilson representing the Tonka Football Association, regarding the $5,200-$6,000 expense to sod the football field. It was suggested that the Football Association, the Tonka Men’s Club, the American Legion, and the City of Shorewood be approached for donations to fund this project. The Football Association has committed at least $1,000 toward the sod project. Administrator Hurm suggested that these requests (for $2,000) be made in writing as soon as possible. 12. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Trettel had a request from Vine Ridge Road neighbors to put a backstop on a portion of the tennis court wall to be used for rollerblade hockey games. Children would be using tennis balls as hockey pucks, and rollerblading on the asphalt. This request will be forwarded to the Public Works Department. Administrator Hurm had received a request from a resident willing to partially fund the cost of a basketball hoop at Manor Park. The comment was also made to Commissioner Bensman during her telephone survey. During the park tour in May 1997, Commissioners are requested to review this possibility. Concerns of vandalism were discussed. 13. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Dallman moved, Arnst seconded, to There being no further business, adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P.M. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1997 page 8 April 29, 1997 Memorandum To: Park Commission From: James C. Hurm RE: Clarification on the March 25, 1997 Park Commission Meeting Minutes At the last Park Commission meeting Commissioner Pat Arnst submitted a sheet of additional minutes for the March 25, 1997 meeting. In those minutes I was attributed as saying that it is the City’s position that we do not have right-of-way problems on Smithtown Road. That clearly did not come across as I had intended. Therefore I feel further explanation is in order. Pat Arnst asked the question: “I think there is a lot of valuable information here, but there is one question that keeps coming up in my mind and that is: What are our right-of-way problems on Smithtown Road? Do you know the answer to that? I think if we have seven or eight pieces of property that we have a definite problem with, how much time do we want to spend until we have resolved what our problems are in that area?” That question deserves a much more thorough and thoughtful response: There are clearly a whole range of issues to be addressed regarding an off-street trail on Smithtown Road. Potential right-of-way conflicts is one of a number of potential problems: ? There are strong feelings against an off-street trail by properties along the route. ? The City’s policy generally has been to incorporate trail construction with the reconstruction of a street. Smithtown Road is no longer scheduled for reconstruction. ? Funding mechanism – because Smithtown Road is not scheduled for reconstruction, State MSA funds cannot be used. This then would affect the fund balance in the City’s trail fund, thereby affecting other potential trail projects. ? There have been lengthy petitions both for and against an off-street trail. A trail would need to be designed around existing trees, boulders, bushes, and mailboxes. ? There are significant drainage concerns that a trail design would need to take into consideration. ? Some homes are very close to Smithtown Road, raising privacy concerns and causing a shift of the trail. ? Some landowners may now claim ownership to what had been State right-of-way over many decades. At some point when we know how much right-of-way will be needed, we will need to SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1997 page 9 identify and talk with those who feel they own and should receive compensation for that right-of- way. It is good to have a committee of the Park Commission work with staff to devise a schedule for reviewing the Smithtown trail question. I am not convinced that right-of-way questions are any more pressing than any of the other questions and challenges before the Commission.