Loading...
071399 PK MIN CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1999 8:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Co-Chair Arnst called the meeting to order at 8:13 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Co chair Arnst; Commissioners Puzak, Themig and Berndt; Mayor Love; Council members Garfunkel, Lizée and Zerby; City Engineer Larry Brown Absent: Co-Chair Dallman; Commissioners Colopoulos and Bensman B. Review Agenda It was agreed to move agenda item #6 to be discussed under item #8. Puzak moved, Themig seconded to approve the agenda as amended. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Joint Meeting with City Council Minutes of June 22, 1999 Co-Chair Arnst offered her compliments (for the record) on the quality of the Minutes. Puzak moved, Berndt seconded to approve the Minutes as presented. Motion passed 3/0 with Themig abstaining. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor. 4. REPORTS Commissioner Puzak reported that he has received information from a company, which is selling some used skate park equipment. There have been no further meetings or other activity on the skate park project since his last report. Park Commission July 13, 1999 Page 2 5. DISCUSSION ON THE BLITZ (TRAILS, FREEMAN PARK BUILDING AND SKATE PARK) Arnst explained that the Commission has discussed a number of large projects over the last several years, and had considered the approach of a “community blitz” at its June 22 joint meeting with City Council. Council member Garfunkel had missed the meeting and was present at this meeting to share his concerns and learn more about the idea. Also, since the June 22 meeting, Mayor Love has talked with the City Finance Director about the concept of inter-fund borrowing. Garfunkel clarified that he would have been able to attend, but was not aware that the meeting was a joint meeting with Council because of a miscommunication. He has concerns on a couple of levels. One deals with the language of the resolution and the other is the actual request. He asked for background information as to the intent of the request because he doesn’t have enough detail to approve the projects and move ahead. He added that the language indicates a request for approval and he does not have enough information to make a judgment. Engineer Brown commented that at the last meeting he heard the Park Commission wanting support of a package with the hope that we work together and see these through to completion. The request was not for blanket approval. Staff was directed to draft a resolution to bring to the City Council, but the Park Commission did not get to review the draft before it was delivered to Council. Mayor Love added that in talking with some of the Commissioners, the idea was to garner support and momentum for the projects. Perhaps the Resolution can be re-worded to better express the intent, which was to show support. Arnst explained that the Commission has been hashing over the issue of adding a park building at Freeman for couple of years. Plus, they want to keep the momentum going for the trail process. Now, the more recent idea of a skate park is one where the Commission wants to build community support. They felt they needed to do something creative to get things done. The Commission thought, by asking the Council for support, the added participation and excitement would build momentum for all three projects. She agreed that the Resolution needs some word-smithing. Garfunkel expressed that perhaps he is just hung up on the language. As the resolution currently stands it is not something he could personally approve. He thinks the process is moving along for trails, and as far as funding, he would like to step back and look at what the Commission is trying to do. If there is not enough money, they need to get feed back from residents. Arnst stated that they need about $240,000 for the park shelter, which is already in the CIP. The total package needs roughly another $200,000. Garfunkel said that is a Park Commission July 13, 1999 Page 3 significant amount and we do need to put out there what we’re talking about so folks will know. This means presenting the building plans to show something tangible. He reiterated that he understands the intent, but doesn’t think this captures it. The words “immediate completion” also concerned Council member Garfunkel and will need some clarification. The other problem word is “blitz” which he noted is not just a sports term, but is a negative word from history. The actual definition in the dictionary is “a sudden destructive attack." He feels it is an inappropriate word for this purpose. Council member Zerby asked if the word “rally” is preferred. Garfunkel said it is a better word, adding that we live and die by the words we use, so careful wording is important. Co-chair Arnst suggested that the Commission do some word-smithing and come back with another draft of the resolution. Garfunkel also pointed out that the work on trails is in process and some funding is already in place. He asked what else needs to be done there. Mayor Love agreed that the general intent must be clear so we do not go back and forth in meetings. Arnst explained that the Park Commission is simply trying to get the City Council involved. Garfunkel said the Council is always involved. Love added that the skate park is not in process or funded. The hope was to get fire under other people to excite them about all of the projects. The idea is that the combination of the projects will create momentum for the skate park idea. Garfunkel said to get the nuts and bolts together and start doing it. If he is shown the deal, he is happy to go along with it. He asked specifically on the multi-purpose building, what are we waiting on. Just by moving along on that will build excitement. A resolution is not really needed here. Commissioner Themig added that the Park Commission is doing staff roles. In other cities the City Council chooses an idea, gives it to staff for plans and then it goes to the Commission. What he envisioned is that the Commission is looking for enthusiasm and vision from the City Council to go ahead. Garfunkel stated that he voted for a trail process 1 1/2 years ago and it is now in place, so just move ahead with it. Arnst explained that the Commissioners feel something has been missing. They have been uncertain. One thing that ties her hands is the CIP. She has not been able to think outside of that box and is trying to do that now and is asking for the Council’s support. Garfunkel pointed out that there are limited resources and we have to live within the budget, however we do have the money to do some of these projects. Mayor Love commented that the dialogue is good and we will all be working together to solve some issues. He personally felt that if the Park Commission came to the City Council with a plan for future revenue sources, there could be inter-fund borrowing. Garfunkel added that if they present the plan and the costs, the Council can then say, we’re short here and can step in and borrow from there, etc. He needs to see a plan. Park Commission July 13, 1999 Page 4 Concepts are fine and he has already agreed to most of them. He thinks the skate park is a great concept, but we need a plan to see if it’s feasible. There are a lot of what-ifs. Council member Lizée said that from the last meeting, her impression is that the Commission wanted the support and enthusiasm of the Council to get public support. Maybe the Commission has felt they have been out on a satellite and there is a need to create a partnership with the Council and both Commissions. Puzak pointed out that the Commissioners authored only a motion, not the resolution. It was written around the motion, but the Commission is not a party to the resolution. The spirit of the Commission's intent is in the motion. We asked for focus because the three projects are large and would be stressing staff and the budget. The Commission wanted to involve the City Council before moving ahead so they can know if the next steps are okay (details and funding, etc.). Garfunkel told the Commission to bring a plan with the price tag and then it can be hammered out. The Council is in agreement on that. Love pointed out the intent, as we looked at the building, talked about details and how to trim, is to go with the lowest responsible bid. This is a way of showing in a reportable way to the community what we want to do. Puzak explained that some of the things the Commission needed help with are; resources, time, and the focus of more than just the Park Commission. We are able to say we have identified these items as a community asset and are now asking for help to move ahead. He reviewed the status of the three projects and the needs for proceeding. In order to get a skate park going, the Commission needs Mayors, Administrators and Commissions of all cities involved. The purpose of a blitz was to get the attention of all and that is what was asked for in the motion. Arnst asked Garfunkel if he had other questions. His comment was that he would not do it this way by lumping all of the projects together. People will react differently to each of the projects. Disconnecting them would be more productive and would generate more awareness and lasting interest from the public. Themig said the problem when talking about individual items is that the funding of one affects the scope of the other projects. When we look at the CIP, one project disables the other projects because of limited funding. He added that the Council is looking to the Commission to be visionaries on projects, rather than solve nuts and bolts. Garfunkel said he sees the Council’s role as policy-makers. This is a fiscal policy issue. Mayor Love felt it is the role of the Park Commission and City Council to work together to create the vision and show it to the community. He hears the Park Commission saying they feel isolated from the Council in dealing with the projects and that projects compete with each other. If there is a determined plan and funding source, the project should be a go. The skate park will take the effort of several Park Commissions. Once activity is Park Commission July 13, 1999 Page 5 shown they can also generate the interest of perhaps the Excelsior Area Chamber of Commerce and the American Legion Post. Council Member Lizée felt that because the various projects appeal to different groups, it would be better to keep them together. Zerby said priority is something the City Council needs to set. Garfunkel added that maybe the Commission is looking to the Council for a way to prioritize these projects. Or is the bottom line that we have more wants than resources in staff, money, or community support? Then we have to take one step at a time. Engineer Brown commented that he has a problem with some items under the Funding Source Summary of the CIP. There are suggestions of policies, which do not have a history, such as Organization Building Surcharge or Sports Organizations-Maintenance. Love agreed that before the Council would consider inter-fund borrowing, those policies would have to be tightened up. Brown added he wants to make sure everyone knows there are still hurdles to jump through. Love said he feels inter-fund borrowing is fiscally responsible. Garfunkel called it fiscally possible. Love said there would have to be a reasonable pay back schedule. Garfunkel said the concepts are fine, but he would need to see details. Arnst reiterated that the Park Commission's intent was to ask the Council to share their enthusiasm. We know there are hurdles and a process—and by natural order the projects will not happen all at the same time. They have shared their excitement and continue to ask the Council for their support. Garfunkel said he appreciated being heard. Love asked him if there was a resolution that met the things they have talked about, would he support it. Garfunkel said yes, but he would not know for sure until he could see the document. He added that he agrees with the projects themselves. Themig asked Garfunkel if he has concerns on any of the projects. Garfunkel said he has some concerns on the trail segment for Smithtown. It is unclear where the trail starts and ends and it seems to connect to nowhere. Themig pointed out that it goes to the LRT. Brown explained that the original discussion was to stop at Strawberry Lane, but after cost estimates were in, the Park Commission asked to see a bid for a trail to the LRT. Garfunkel was okay with that idea. Mayor Love said he hears a consensus on the projects, but it is going to take some working through the details. Success is already apparent because they are having good dialogue. Zerby asked what it would take to get the park building to move ahead. Brown said he would next go to the Planning Commission with the conditional use permit. Garfunkel asked for plans or drawings so the Council can direct the Planning Commission to proceed. Park Commission July 13, 1999 Page 6 Brown clarified the procedure, stating that on the next City Council meeting agenda there would be a motion to support the concept plan. Garfunkel added that they can work on details afterward. Once it is out there as a concept, it can later be trimmed if needed. Commissioner Berndt asked for clarification on the skate park idea. Puzak said it is for use by both roller blades and skateboards, adding that the kids will hopefully work on the design. Themig reported that the City of Shoreview just completed a skate park and it is described as a success with a lot of merit. Puzak views the skate park as almost a community service project, somewhat like the Southshore Center. This one is hopefully teaching young people to get involved in community service. Council member Garfunkel suggested making a resolution contingent on the participation of other cities. That puts the ball in their court. Once we put up our $5,000, we can ask others to contribute. Arnst asked who would go to the other cities. Mayor Love said he will, plus they can form a team. Brown asked if anything else needs to happen before approaching the other cities. The Council agreed to put it on their next agenda. Brown asked the Park Commission for input on a draft resolution. Arnst will review the draft and fax her suggestions. Garfunkel thanked the Commission for hearing his input. Trail Design and Cost Estimates Engineer Brown introduced Don Sterna of WSB. Mr. Sterna displayed drawings for two options of the Smithtown trail segment designs and presented cost estimates. He stated that the goal is to get the trail from the future Victoria trail segment to Minnewashta School and also to extend to the regional trail. They were working with the idea of an off- street trail of 6 foot wide bituminous along one side (south) of Smithtown Road. Mr. Sterna reviewed terrain issues, explaining that the trail is mainly staying along the edge of the road because of safety concerns when a trail leads away from road. The plan includes a 6-foot boulevard, which may need to be reduced to 4 feet in some spots. Brown noted that part of the challenge has been that the first concept included a crossing on Smithtown and the Commission asked to see cost estimates for keeping the trail along one side of the road. When reviewed there were found to be a number of hurdles (ditching, etc.), plus costs are significantly more. Mr. Sterna added there are a lot of impediments along the way. In some areas it makes sense to install 6 inch bituminous curb to direct drainage. There are also some trees impacted with this plan. Brown added that the extent of tree removal will not be known until later. Drainage is the bigger issue. One way to get an agreeable trail in there may be through addressing drainage problems. The downside is that it adds a substantial cost. Right of Way may be another issue in some places. Brown explained that in parts where we are constrained by rights of way, curb and gutter was also undesirable. However, a bituminous curb and gutter—rather than concrete— may not be as much of a problem to those who prefer the rural feel of the neighborhood. Council member Garfunkel asked Park Commission July 13, 1999 Page 7 where rain and water run-off would go. Brown said there would have to be a storm sewer system. Sterna added that it would require work with Watershed Districts. In preparing the cost estimates, WSB tried to make a stab at easement costs where applicable. Themig pointed out that if a trail goes in and we work with homeowners, the City is providing a trail which a lot of them want, and at the same time, addressing their water problems. Brown reiterated that because the area is basically flat, the only way drainage will be solved is with a storm sewer system. This adds a major cost, but it may win some people over to the idea of street reconstruction. Mr. Sterna pointed out that Smithtown is a heavily used street. Brown said that MSA funding requires an 8-foot width for trails. Sterna added that the use of MSA funds would mean having to meet their criteria for the street as well. Bituminous curb may or may not qualify for funding. Garfunkel pointed out that either way, water needs to be diverted somewhere. Arnst asked what needs to be accomplished next. Brown gave an overview of costs for both options. Sterna explained that the second sheet shows figures for the segment from Strawberry Lane to the LRT. For the entire segment from Victoria to the LRT, the 2 figures have to be combined. The estimate just to Strawberry Lane is $260,000. There are definite challenges to overcome. In some places the only way to deal with it is with the 6- inch bituminous curb. The second plan is a look at just widening out a 6-foot shoulder to create an on-street trail. Council member Lizée pointed out site problems for traffic in areas near her neighborhood. Brown explained that WSB was asked to put a plan together from the technical aspect only. Crossings are undesirable. The City hears often about speeding on Smithtown. Brown suggested that there may be a spot to break down the long stretch of road, emphasizing that he is not saying that stop signs will necessarily slow traffic down. Yet it is something to be considered. Arnst asked what happens with speeds when you add pedestrian traffic along the side. Sterna replied that anytime you can separate pedestrians from vehicle traffic, obviously safety is much better. Mayor Love asked if there were no permitting issues for the Watershed when the trail is separate from the road. No, was the reply. Brown added that because of privacy and easement concerns of the residents, he did look at an on-street option. The Park Commission desires an off-street trail. Co-chair Arnst asked if there are MSA funds available if the trail is off-street. Sterna said that MSA requires a minimum 8-foot width. Plus there are other requirements. Brown added that for a state project, the City has to go through a much larger process. Arnst asked if money is available in a separate fund if we incorporate stormwater management into the trail project. Brown said that the City has a stormwater management Park Commission July 13, 1999 Page 8 plan and they are currently identifying key projects to prioritize. Sterna added that if you are looking at using MSA funds, a portion of the storm sewer is eligible for funding. There are design caveats you have to meet. Puzak said that if considering MSA funds would require an 8-foot wide path, we need to go back to the neighbors and walk the site again with that option in mind. At the last walk, we were talking about a 6-foot path. Sterna said that a big hurdle is the drainage issue. Puzak said it is a cost we should be addressing anyway. It is an existing problem which some residents expressed that at the last walk. Sterna said that there seems to be drainage concerns and sections of the roadway that need to be reconstructed anyway, so do you incorporate both problems at the same time and avoid having to go back later. Brown pointed out that the condition of Smithtown Road is taking on a more “rural character” every day. Also, the City has pressure to use state aid funds. In the next 5 to 7 years Smithtown will have to undergo roadway reconstruction. Local roadway funds are available for some of the City streets. Love asked if Smithtown would have to be widened to be improved with MSA funding. Brown said it would be a minimum of 26 feet if curb to curb. If there was no curb, MSA requires ditching, etc. Mayor Love pointed out that people want the road improved, but speeds kept down. Yet, when the road condition improves, speeds tend to increase. Garfunkel added that people have a false sense of security when there are curb and gutter on a street. Themig asked if the addition of a trail at the time of street improvement would lessen safety concerns for pedestrians. Sterna offered the idea of doing a curb on one side and ditch on other side. Brown commented that the other issue is clear zone. Brown added that he sees overwhelming support for a trail segment on Covington and Vine Hill, which is a great opportunity to bolster community support for the trail concept in Shorewood. It was thought that this segment could be done this year. Maybe the Smithtown segment can then be allowed more time for the Park Commission and City Council to sit down in work study. Arnst added that people would need to see numbers for costs to residents with or without MSA funding. The bottom line is what is it going to cost and does it go into my space. Brown said Smithtown is scheduled for reconstruction from Country Club Road to Eureka in 2001. The road will continue to deteriorate over the next 4 or 5 years. However, there are other needs that are higher priority for the next few years. The state is urging the City to utilize MSA funds or loose them. Smithtown Road is scheduled for the year 2001 at 1.1 million dollars. Council member Garfunkel said the road is good now, and asked if it is prudent to rip it up to rebuild. Themig commented that the State says the City is not using available street funds now. Park Commission July 13, 1999 Page 9 Mayor Love said that every year we are seeing more pressure to get MSA standards to be more flexible. The MSA requirements do not always meet local needs. Garfunkel added that yes, the money is available but it comes with strings attached. Brown noted this year, for the first time, he has seen MSA flex in reducing the clear zone from 30 feet to 10 feet on areas with lower speed limits. Sterna asked why put in a trail if you don’t solve the existing drainage problems. The tricky part is with easements, especially where there are mature trees. We can look at alternatives to solve the drainage problems. Brown said the hurdle would be to get Mn/DOT to accept Smithtown as a 30-mph road. He asked if that is practical. Love said the City of Minneapolis does work with moving hefty trees with good rate of success and asked if Shorewood could get that equipment. Brown said he thought transplanting trees larger than 4 to 6 inch diameter gets questionable, depending on the type of tree. Love thinks that is reasonable to look into as an option. Sterna said that a tree with 8” diameter is the biggest you want to move. Trees are a big issue. Some can be moved back. 10:15 Council member Garfunkel exits. Brown asked to clarify the direction for the projects under consideration: Covington and Vine Hill trail, Smithtown Road, and Freeman park building, and the skate park. What he heard on the park building was to add 12 feet to the picnic pavilion area. The Commission agreed on that point, as well as the addition of at least one more stall in the womens restroom. Brown said he has clear direction on the two resolutions, but is less clear on the Commission’s “assignment” regarding the 2 trail segments. Arnst said as far as the Covington / Vine Hill project, the Commission has gotten comments and is still collecting comments. Themig suggested that draft resolutions on the park building and skate park be prepared for the next Park Commission meeting. Then we have a chance to review the drafts and forward them to the City Council. Trail construction is a year out anyway. Sterna recommended that if the Commission wants to have chance for public involvement, that they stay with plans and bids. He said to get their ducks in row this year, (survey, plans, etc.) and let out for bids in early spring. Brown added that he does not see that approach as a derailment of the whole process. He suggested to authorize WSB to collect data and come out with a design and continue in the preliminary design process. Get the survey and preliminary plan done so it’s ready to bid on January 1. Themig said we still have a policy issue in terms of design on the table from Vine Hill folks who want concrete walks. Brown said that does not impact alignment or preliminary plans either way. Puzak asked if they could bid in October for construction in April. Brown explained why that would likely not achieve a good bid result. Puzak asked how we can make as much progress as possible. Brown said to do a good project should take Park Commission July 13, 1999 Page 10 14 to 18 months. Themig added that the key is to bid at the first of the year and pointed out that the Commission has made progress toward that goal. Sterna said the trick is to be ahead, but not too far ahead. It seems like residents want to have more information and another look. That would be very tight to do yet this year plus it eliminates the chance for residents to have another look. He asked if some of the cost is to be funded by assessments from residents, saying that would change the process. Brown explained further about what that entails. Puzak commented that it doesn’t change the decision time, but the implementation process. Other questions were raised about costs on the Smithtown trail plan, other data needed and further definition of the concrete/bituminous issue for Vine Hill. Themig said he talked to one person who is concerned about his property value and the condition of bituminous in a few years. It seemed he was not that concerned about the additional cost of concrete for himself. Brown suggested, in the interest of conserving time, we can work on the feasibility report and draft of policy concurrently. Themig asked if the City Council would be comfortable with the Park Commission asking for additional consideration for Smithtown Road. Love and Lizée said yes. Themig suggested to move the Covington / Vine Hill project ahead and look at the long-term plan for Smithtown. Lizée pointed out that the City has promised residents that Smithtown is on an equal plane with the Vine Hill project, adding that the two projects have very different considerations Arnst asked what is the next step. Themig said it sounds like we need four separate resolutions. Mayor Love said bringing resolutions to Council leads to joint work sessions. Dialogue is critical. Brown said that to prepare feasibility reports would be the resolution. He was still unclear about the Commissions intent for Smithtown at this point. Love suggested more work sessions for Smithtown. Brown said he will go to the City Council with a park shelter concept plan. On the skate park and Covington / Vine Hill projects he will order feasibility studies and ask to authorize a survey for Vine Hill at the July 26 Council meeting. Sterna asked if there is a current policy that trails will be bituminous and, if they are looking at upgrades to concrete, what is the policy for that. Brown said that staff will bring a draft policy to the Park Commission for their consideration. 10:37 Mayor Love and Council member Lizée exit. 7. PARK FOUNDATION A. Is It Fulfilling its Intended Purpose? Park Commission July 13, 1999 Page 11 Co-chair Arnst explained that in January the City Council asked the Park Commission to appoint a representative to the Park Foundation. They also asked the Commission to look into the purpose of the Park Foundation. At the same time, the Commission is looking into alternative funding and some big projects. She asked the Commission to put some ideas on the table for their vision for the Park Foundation and how they can help us with parks. One idea is to come up with visions, give them over to the Foundation, ask if they can do something within a timeline, and then come back to see where it sits. Themig suggested giving the Foundation the idea of the skate park as their number one focus. Puzak said it may confuse them since they have been working toward the concession stand goal to raise $10,000. He felt that a reason for not seeing a lot of productivity is because of the expectations we have set. He added that the Commission has ignored the Foundation as requests have come from Little League by not including them in the process. There was further discussion on where the help is needed and the most appropriate project in which to involve the Foundation. The skate park is a multi-city project, which may work well with the Foundation, which is a group without borders. Themig suggested asking the Foundation to commit to $5,000 and ask the other cities for contributions as well. Arnst said she would like the Foundation to also help with public relations. Puzak cautioned not to throw too much too fast at them. Themig considers public relations as a role of the Park Commission. Puzak brought up the fact that the Foundation’s role has been so intangible. The intentions in a document are wonderful, but old. The words are there, but words don’t make things happen. Themig added that by asking for dollars they will be out there promoting. Arnst asked what would be the timeline. Puzak recommended a joint meeting with the Commission and Foundation members. Themig suggested a March 1 deadline for their contribution toward the park building. Puzak cautioned the Commission to not put out a goal too quickly on the skate park. Brown said the land ownership is just a small technicality. The title transfer should be recorded soon. Puzak said that the City has not asked much of the Foundation and it would be too quick-paced to throw both projects at them so suddenly. Berndt added that the Foundation will need a timeline in order to plan fundraising. Arnst suggested a joint meeting and asked about the idea of asking for a general donation of $15,000 per year for parks. Themig recommended they be committed to a specific project. Puzak agreed that it may be harder for the Foundation to work toward funds that are not earmarked. Themig suggested reviewing the original charge to the Foundation. B. Decision on Continuing or Changing the Foundation Arnst reviewed the ideas so far considered. Park Commission July 13, 1999 Page 12 Themig recommended to communicate their request and have a joint meeting to get idea of their commitment and to take a look at the whole structure of the Foundation. The Commission needs to give a charge first, then request a meeting and have some communications. Ideas for joint meeting time and agenda were discussed. It was agreed to meet at 6:30 p.m. on September 14 for one hour. The request will be presented for $10,000 by March 1 for multipurpose building and $5,000 for skate park at some other time. 6. REVIEW OF A DOCUMENT FOR TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP OF PARK IMPROVEMENTS Co-chair Arnst asked the Commissioners to review the document (Att. #6) for the next agenda (August 10). 8. USER FEES It was agreed to move this to the next agenda for discussion on how to put teeth to balancing the budget. With the help of the Mayor and Council, the Commission can do its part. ISLAND NEIGHBORHOOD WALK (Non-Agenda Item) The Commissioners looked at a draft letter to Island residents regarding the island neighborhood walk and discussed changes. Commissioner Themig will revise and forward a final draft to City Hall. A date for the walk is set for Saturday, July 24. 9. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTING REPRESENTATIVE TO THE LAND CONSERVATION ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE Commissioner Berndt volunteered to be the representative from the Park Commission. Themig moved to recommend to City Council the appointment of Paula Berndt as Park Commission Representative to the Land Conservation Environment Committee. Puzak seconded and the motion passed 4/0. 10. CONSIDER REPLACEMENT OF CHUCK COCHRAN AS PARK COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO THE PARK FOUNDATION Deferred to the August 10 meeting. 11. REVIEW OF TO DO LIST Park Commission July 13, 1999 Page 13 Commissioner Themig said he had information on aerators for the Manor pond and he will pass on a brochure to Engineer Brown Brown has received a preliminary design for the magic square along with pricing information, which he will present at the next meeting. 12. OLD BUSINESS There was none. 13. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Berndt said she is checking on recycling containers for Freeman Park, which would be for disposal of plastic items. Themig mentioned that the Park Commission had checked on recycling containers once before and found that the waste from Shorewood goes to the Hennepin County incinerator and is sorted there anyway. Puzak pointed out that the value is what we could be teaching youngsters by example. It was suggested that recycling could be incorporated into the building at Freeman. Berndt reported that the director at Peeper Meadow invited visitors to learn about pond restoration for the Manor pond project. Council Liaison Zerby reported that the scouts are painting the park trash cans tomorrow. 14. ADJOURNMENT Themig moved and Puzak seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed 4/0. The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Connie Bastyr Recording Secretary