Loading...
110999 PK MIN SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1999 7:30 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Co-chair Dallman called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Co-chairs Dallman and Arnst; Commissioners, Puzak, Berndt and Themig; City Administrator Jim Hurm; Councilmember Scott Zerby It was noted that Commissioner Mary Bensman has resigned from the Park Commission effective November 5, 1999. B. Review Agenda Commissioner Themig asked to include an item (4D) to report about the Minnesota Recreational Parks Association conference. Co-chair Dallman requested an item to discuss ideas for the winter maintenance of the LRT trail per request of the City Council. It will be added under item #7. Commissioner Puzak asked to do a quick report on design ideas for a skate park. That will be item 4E. Arnst moved, Berndt seconded to approve the agenda as amended. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of October 26, 1999 Arnst moved, Themig seconded to approve the Minutes with the following change: Page 5, Paragraph 6, Line 2—Change "right-a-way" to right-of-way. Motion passed 5/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. Park Commission November 9, 1999 - Page 2 4. REPORTS A. Report on Vending Machine Administrator Hurm reported that the vending companies who were contacted by staff were less than enthusiastic in their response. There was discussion on the reported comments from the various companies. Council member Zerby pointed out that there can be substantial cost for electricity to operate a machine. There were also comments about the potential cost of vandalism, especially since it is intended to place the vending machines in outside locations for greater accessibility. Commissioner Arnst asked about up front costs, such as security deposit. Themig explained that the vending company fully maintains the machines and keeps them stocked. The City is given a percentage of the profit for placing the machine on its property. Hurm said there will be more information available at the next meeting, but so far two of the three cities that were polled about keeping vending machines outside have not had a good experience. Themig explained how vending machines can be secured to prevent vandalism. Midwest Vending, which seems to be the preferred option, provides a way to cage and bolt their machines. Hurm said that additional cities will be called for further research. A draft RFP (Request for Proposal) will be prepared for the Commission's review at their next meeting. It was agreed that the idea of vending machines is still of interest. B. Report on Recycling Commissioner Berndt reported that she has new information about plastics. She stated why she feels as a citizen that plastic should not go into an incinerator or land fills. E-Z Recycling does have 90-gallon recycling drums with lids, which they empty weekly. The cost is $20 per drum each month, which would total about $200 for all the Shorewood parks. One possible plan is that the City could provide the drums at each park and collect all of the recycling for pick-up at the public works facility. Berndt feels that, by putting drums in parks, we would be educating youth about recycling and setting a standard for them to follow. She also explained how the recycling program in the City of Minnetonka operates. To cover costs, Berndt suggested the idea of user fees or profits from concessions. The next step is to find a way to work with the sports organizations. Themig agreed that the City should recycle, especially since residents are asked to do it at their homes. Berndt commented that there is time to research the subject further since a program would not be implemented until springtime. Themig asked if there is a possibility of staff collecting recycling from the parks. Hurm said there are reasonable options. Co- chair Arnst asked Commissioner Berndt to prepare information on funding options for Park Commission November 9, 1999 - Page 3 discussion at the next meeting. Berndt agreed, adding that as a citizen, she feels that sports organizations should be more responsible for the problem. C. Report on Request for Proposals for Concession Sales in the Multi-Purpose Building Administrator Hurm presented a draft RFP, stating that it is difficult to do since we don’t know when it will be open. Co-chair Dallman thought that someone in the concessions business would like to be considering a proposal around the first of the year so this is not too far in advance. Hurm said that the little league association has indicated interest in operating the concession stand. Co-chair Arnst commented that the presentation of the RFP is very dry and would not encourage much response. She suggested jazzing it up with a few more adjectives to increase the appeal. Hurm agreed. Themig pointed out that with most RFP's, you don’t have to worry about selling it. But we may have to be more sales-oriented on this, saying it’s a great opportunity. Arnst added that the draft RFP does not indicate how large the audience would be. Puzak said you also need to tell vendors what facilities they will have available (freezers, grills, etc.). The topic of licensing was also discussed. Puzak suggested that the City ask prospective vendors to partner with us on the design of the kitchen area. To incorporate this into the RFP, ask applicants if they have design capability and ask for suggestions for equipment. Puzak also suggested checking with the people at BayView Event Center in Excelsior for concession sales and advice. Dallman agreed. Themig pointed out that often the product supplier will provide equipment for their products. Hurm said that would be helpful, however the equipment would not belong to the City, in which case we may not be able to rent out the facility. Themig agreed that it may not work to rent out the facility when other users have their inventory and equipment there. On the plus side, Puzak pointed out that the vendor would have to maintain their own equipment. There was discussion about securing the vending area from the rest of the building for rental. Council member Zerby asked why there had been talk about sharing profits with the Shorewood Park Foundation. Hurm said it would depend on the future role of the Foundation and how funds are to be used. That would be up to the Park Commission and City Council. Dallman explained that when the first RFP was done, that was the intent because the Foundation was going to fund the construction of the concession building. Hurm asked if the general consensus of the Park Commission is that money from concessions would go to the general fund. The Commissioners said yes. Zerby also mentioned that January 4, 2000 is a bad time for the deadline and suggested it be pushed out further. Hurm agreed. Themig suggested February 1, 2000. Hurm said it Park Commission November 9, 1999 - Page 4 is usually 6 to 8 weeks after the RFP is approved and sent out. Dallman said that would be fine. Themig suggested submitting a market study, even though it may be too sophisticated for the level we are going. He also commented that the insurance requirements have changed. Hurm said he will bring that question to the City attorney. Dallman asked if the agreement would go per calendar year. Hurm said it may be longer—2 to 5 years. D. Report on Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association Conference Commissioner Themig reported that he attended the MRPA conference and suggested that the City of Shorewood may want to consider becoming a member. The Association is becoming a strong advocate for parks in the State. Themig offered to bring more material to the next meeting, if appropriate. Themig attended one session on skate parks by a group that assesses risk. He explained that they have tier 1 and tier 2 facilities. The session was good and he will pass on the information to Commissioner Puzak. There was also a vendor that helps coordinate or produce signs, if the Commission wants to do advertising in the parks. Themig brought a handout for the file. Also, the DNR had information on grant timelines. Some applications are due at the end of January. Themig explained there are two processes. February 28 is the trail grant deadline, so we need to move soon. Other grants are available for obtaining conservation easements. Themig recommended that City staff start working on grant applications. He especially thought the Smithtown trail segment may be a great possibility for funding. Themig said there was a group from the Center for Energy and Environment, which focuses on renewable energy for parks. He thought it might be a good resource for Commissioner Berndt and passed on some information to her. Hurm said he would coordinate grant information for staff, saying that there is a need to be careful about timing. It's tough to apply for a grant for a project that isn’t yet approved. It has to be thought through and presented appropriately. He said it would be presumptuous to apply for a grant before the trail process is far enough along, (citing the example of the Vine Hill Road trail). Themig said he was talking about the west end of Smithtown, which is a go except for funding and design details. If not now it’s a whole year away. He recommended at least an informal request be sent in now. Hurm said okay. Berndt added that she has heard from parents of Minnewashta students who are anxious for a trail. 8:25 City Engineer Larry Brown arrived. E. Update on Skate Park Design Park Commission November 9, 1999 - Page 5 Commissioner Puzak distributed information from the November 4 meeting of the Skatepark Design Committee, including a draft drawing for a possible design. There were 4 teens and a few adults at the meeting. Puzak explained that he presented the concept of the big picture that this is a park first, not just a skate facility. He showed a list of things they wanted to cover as they design the park. The plan is to be a tier 1 level facility in order to avoid insurance costs and supervision requirements, etc. These are all issues to consider in design. Matt Pike's friend, Tim Hughes, has been involved in other parks and visited them to do research. He created a drawing of phase 1, which Puzak showed to the Commission. The budget is $28,000 for that much if done by the vendor. They will try to get it down to a budget of under $20,000. Puzak described some of the details of the design, saying it is a good concept. He also reported that the group is doing a great job and making good progress. The next meeting is Saturday, November 20. Hurm said that it still has not been determined if a Conditional Use Permit will be needed for the project. He doesn't think one is technically needed however there still needs to be communication with neighbors. He also reported on the status of fundraising for the project. Greenwood, has set aside $600. Tonka Bay has agreed to $1,500. Shorewood will give $7,000. Excelsior has questions. Deephaven has shown interest. Mayor Love also indicated his company may donate funds. And there are the efforts of the Park Foundation. Co-chair Dallman brought up the improvements to the Little League field at Freeman Park. There will be a public hearing and an application for a variance. Dallman also said that the City Council has agreed to waive the application fee, but will have to go through the process in order to add the dugout. 5. UPDATE ON THE TRAIL PLANNING PROCESS, RIGHT OF WAY RESEARCH AND VINE HILL/COVINGTON DESIGN Engineer Larry Brown has met with Don Sterna of WSB and has been assured that plans are nearing completion. They are at the point of doing some revisions. Brown added his own personal caution to remind the Commission that design professionals and consultants need time to see if a plan makes sense besides meeting technical criteria. He cited the example of problems resulting from time pressure on the Eureka Road watermain project. In the case of the Vine Hill/Covington trail and the Freeman Park building, Brown is of the opinion that WSB knows the City's priority and he does not want to push more than needed. They have committed to have both projects ready to bid in the spring. Park Commission November 9, 1999 - Page 6 Co-chair Arnst asked Brown if he is feeling pressured. Brown replied that the items have reappeared over the last three agendas and he just wants the Commission to know we are not letting the project slide. He wants to reiterate that we have good professionals and are working hard. Arnst acknowledged the point and said they keep this on the agenda to keep the Commission thinking of it and to keep it alive and current—not to apply pressure. Brown said that he and Mayor Love talked about the Freeman building. There is a lot of energy going toward this project, along with the trail plan. It is important to everyone and must be kept in the public eye so they do not lose interest. Themig said he thinks a spring bid is realistic, but asked Brown if he thinks they need to extend the timeframe. Brown said it will be ready for a February or March bid, which is good timing. Zerby said there are lots of things going for bid at that time and asked if that is unusual. Brown said it is optimum timing and is not unusual. Co-chair Arnst asked about the progress of the rights-of-way research. Brown said he met with the attorney's assistant this past week. They need to spend more time at Hennepin County, but hope to have a good feel in the next three weeks or so. Brown will provide an update at the December Park Commission meeting. Puzak restated the need to solicit help of a partner who knows the food service industry in planning the final design of the Freeman Park building. Brown said that is one thing we have going for us—we have a design professional who knows lots of other industries. As we seek vendors, we will also work with those who offer suggestions. Hurm brought up the potential Smithtown west trail segment, saying we want that to go as smoothly and timely as possible. The big thing is to research right-of-ways. We need to keep in mind a timeline to anticipate the next controversy. 6. REVIEW USER FEE PROPOSALS Commissioner Themig handed out information on the base costs for park maintenance and explained the additional costs generated by the various sports organizations. He then described the park-use policy and cost estimates for the various uses. The policy states that the City will provide basic park facilities. Improvements made by sports associations become the property of the City. Themig also explained about exclusive use and reservation fees for exclusive use. The calculations were explained for the individual sports. It was pointed out that the cost is high to provide hockey facility, yet their use is only a portion of the available time. Themig also explained the “Options for Recovering Costs for Providing Above Base Maintenance” chart. With this there is an even fee, and it is easy to administer, but not the fairest method. Option 3 is the most reasonable plan. It recognizes the City as a partner Park Commission November 9, 1999 - Page 7 so each pays 50%. This covers some of cost the City is incurring but also provides exclusive use. Hurm said each association is currently paying $3500 per year. An immediate problem is that some organizations are not able to always pay even that amount. He cited the example of adult softball and asked if you do not allow them to play the next year if they can’t pay. Themig suggested another option of offering the facility to some other group who can use it more efficiently. Puzak complimented Themig on his work, saying it is the beginning of fact-based decision making. Themig said this has been in the discussion phase for over a year. The Commission should move forward with a proposal and talk with the associations about this data. We need to decide where we stand with this, and also need input from the City Council on what their expectations are. Another question is what happens to this income. Can the Commission redirect the funds? Puzak pointed out the disparity between the various organizations in how they have paid (or not) in the past, pointing out that it is a mixed bag. He would like to invite them to meet with the Commission, show them the present data and ask how they can help. Puzak urged they try to negotiate a win/win situation based on their ability to pay or provide services in lieu (such as manning the concession stand). We do not want to crush their ability to play. Arnst mentioned that if all are together, there could be conflict over perceived inequity. Puzak said if the data is true, no one can contest it. We just need a good facilitator and then mediate toward a middle ground. Dallman agreed it is a good idea to have a joint session with all together, rather than individually. Themig said there are a couple of questions to answer: Are we moving toward user fees for athletics? If so, we need to talk with them about it. If they can’t fund the cost, they need to look at the activity to provide fewer fields and schedule better. Puzak agreed, suggesting they may need to offer space to someone who can use it more effectively— redivide the pie based on usage. Engineer Brown explained that his data was based on square footage. He could not quantify wear and tear on fields. The ability for organizations to pay the fee is based on the numbers who use it. Yet the intensity of use does not parallel the numbers of players in an area. Themig said you then lose the factual data that was used to justify the fees, which was focusing on what it costs to provide the facility. Puzak said he is more comfortable with basing fees on the actual cost and agreed that we may need to re-divide the resources based on the actual need. It’s the right direction to allocate resources based on the actual use. Park Commission November 9, 1999 - Page 8 Hurm spoke in defense of Engineer Brown's point about intensity of wear. In the example of soccer, where the fields are more heavily used than softball, perhaps the soccer fee should be more because of intensity of use. Themig said they did factor in additional labor above base cost. It’s not our role to say how the organizations generate revenue to cover this—whether a per-capita fee or some other way. Puzak suggested staying as close to the City’s costs as we can and partner with the sports organizations to allocate the resources to optimal use. It’s the right thing to do. Arnst asked how to structure the meeting. Dallman said we have the numbers. Just present the information. Puzak stated this is about ongoing maintenance cost (not improvements). Just put it out there and work with them to make it as equal as possible. Arnst asked if it is our desire to hear them agree on that night? Puzak said it’s the beginning of education. Here’s what we know and the goal is user-based funding. Arnst asked what if they don’t like it. Puzak replied that's okay. Then we talk about how to make it palatable. Themig pointed out that basic facilities come out of taxes. The various sports activities are asking for more than basic facilities. It’s worth something for them to have the facility. Zerby brought up the point that it may be unfair to sports organizations, since we are not charging for other play facilities such as playgrounds or tennis courts. Themig explained that those are included in basic park equipment. Hurm added that those facilities are not reserved either. Themig said it is like a picnic shelter, where they are getting a guarantee of exclusive use during a set time, plus they have a great facility. There was further discussion about distribution of facility vs. need. Hurm suggested inviting Deb Malstem who schedules for Minnetonka Community Education and Services to attend the meeting. Puzak said we might need a facilitator such as Mark Koegler. There was discussion about what information to present to them. Council member Zerby said he thinks the Commission is going in the right direction and that the City Council would probably agree, but he can’t speak for them. That is just his feeling. Arnst asked if, administratively it is going to be difficult to administer. Hurm said in the case of hockey, it might need to be tracked. Overall, it is not a real nightmare. Arnst asked which organizations have paid so far this year. Hurm said that not all have and listed the various ones, explaining that it can sometimes take months. There was further debate about the idea of a mediator and what qualifications to seek in choosing one. It was decided to involve a facilitator. Staff will look for one and report at the December meeting. 7. IDEAS FOR WINTER MAINTENANCE OF THE LRT TRAIL Park Commission November 9, 1999 - Page 9 Administrator Hurm explained that the City Council has asked if the Park Commission has a preference on how to maintain the trail for winter use. Zerby explained that the Council voted to plow the trail until December 15 to initially let people know of the change to no snowmobiles on the trail. It was also thought that there may be difficulty with plowing just half of the width. Dallman said the Council is looking to the Commission to see if their thoughts make sense. Puzak expressed his thoughts on why he believes the trail should be fully plowed for the entire season. He said they must do something dramatic for at least the first two snowfalls to get the message out there that the trail is gone for snowmobiles. There will be good- intended, well-educated snowmobilers who have a 1999/2000 map who think they can go there. The City needs to plow the surface down to dirt for at least the first 2 snowfalls. (He commented that the City of Tonka Bay is thinking about reopening the trail in their city, which would complicate the matter further.) Puzak went on to say that some snowmobilers might not venture out until January after the ice is frozen. If the trail is no longer being plowed, what do you do about them? The first year is going to be a mess. He does not know how to solve it. If you want compliance, plow it. Then by the end of winter or by January 15 or so, we can sense if we can allow other uses. Dallman asked about doing two parts of the trail in two segments differently. Puzak said that is not a solution because half of the snowmobilers will come equally from either direction. Arnst said this is a transition year and everyone will need to be patient. Zerby said one concern is that by plowing the trail entirely, we would be taking away a couple of activities and restricting it to pedestrians and horses. Arnst pointed out that it is not a permanent restriction, but a necessary part of problem solving. Puzak said they must first decide what they are trying to do. If they are going to be successful in changing the use of trail, they first have to stop snowmobile traffic. Nothing else can happen until it is successfully stopped. The only way is to plow it. It would not be fair to ticket a snowmobiler after the maps have been printed to indicate snowmobile accessibility. At least not for a while. Zerby asked if the trail is plowed completely, would the Commission recommend salt and sand as needed. Puzak said staff should be empowered to solve that question in their own judgement. Arnst agreed with Puzak and recommended his wording for a newsletter article to explain why the trail will be plowed. Puzak added that people are coming from all over the place on snowmobiles. The City needs to educate about the change by plowing the surface. Zerby pointed out that the trail is the last priority in the order of roads for plowing. Themig agreed with the recommendation to plow until it is determined that snowmobiling has stopped. Park Commission November 9, 1999 - Page 10 Puzak acknowledged that for skiers and snowshoers, there will be problem. The decision to plow is making it safe for them in the long run—not stopping them altogether. Berndt agreed. There was further discussion about wording a recommendation. Puzak again encouraged some patience because snowmobilers won’t show up on the trail until the ice is safe. Arnst said she would like to have the City continue to get resident comments and suggested they perhaps survey people on the trail. Themig suggested a sign could be posted to ask for comments. Dallman asked if it would be okay with staff to change the policy in mid-winter. Brown said it is no problem. Zerby added that the City Council agreed to listen to the Park Commission's recommendation and be adaptable. They also suggested a wintertime trail walk and follow-up report. There was consensus that a winter walk would be good. Dallman recommended that the Council authorize the trail to be plowed fully until after a winter trail walk in January and all agreed to that idea. Arnst suggested a second component to plowing, which is constant communication about the trail use for this winter. Puzak added that there will be complaints about snowshoeing and skiing not being an option. This will need to be explained. Hurm clarified that the final determination of trail surfacing for the entire season will be after a winter walk, probably some time in January. Until then, plowing will be the plan. This will be communicated in the City newsletter, along with a reminder to people to clean up after their dogs. 8. REVIEW OF TO DO LIST There were no questions or updates. 9. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 10. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 11. ADJOURNMENT Themig moved, Puzak seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed 5/0. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Park Commission November 9, 1999 - Page 11 Connie Bastyr Recording Secretary Park Commission November 9, 1999 –Page