Loading...
032800 PK MIN CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2000 7:30 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Co-chair Arnst called the meeting to order at 7:50 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Arnst, Co-Chair Themig; Commissioners Puzak, Dallman, Bix and Young; Acting Administrator Brad Nielsen; Mayor Woody Love Also Present: Don Sterna of WSB & Associates; Ellen Luken, Architect Absent: Commissioner Berndt Later Arrivals: Councilmember Chris Lizée B. Review Agenda Themig moved, Puzak seconded to approve the Agenda. Motion passed 6/0. 2.APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES A. Joint Meeting With Sports Organization of January 31, 2000 Puzak moved and Dallman seconded to approve the Minutes as presented. Motion passed 5/0 (Themig abstained). B. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of March 14, 2000 Commissioner Bix asked for the following changes to comments she made at the March 14 meeting to more reflect the intent of her statements: ? Page 2, Item 4B, Paragraph 6: Change first sentence to: “Commissioner Kate Lynch Bix asked what the minimum state aid requirements are for a sidewalk and for a trail”. ? Page 7, Paragraph 3: Change last sentence to: “The building is more than what we budgeted for, so either we can’t build it –or- if we really want it, we need to find the funds.” Bix moved and Young seconded to approve the Minutes as amended. Motion passed 5/0 (Themig abstained). 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. PARK COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2000 - PAGE 2 4. REPORTS A. Report on City Council Meetings of March 13 and March 27 There was no report on the Council meeting of March 13. Commissioner Themig attended the March 27 meeting, updating the Council on the progress of various park projects. He reported that the Council stressed that they want the Park Commission to continue to move forward with plans. The Council also wants the Commission to come to a consensus on the issue of fees for sports associations and the overall funding for the building. B. Report on Parks Foundation Joint Meeting March 16, 2000 Commissioner Dallman reported that the Foundation reviewed the plans and cost estimates for the proposed Freeman Park structure. Their consensus was to get an alternate bid on the picnic pavilion, but to preserve other features of the building as originally designed. The Parks Foundation has committed to raise $10,000 per year to donate toward capital improvements and park maintenance. 5. REVIEW CIP FINANCING OPTIONS AND PLANS FOR BUILDING A. Questions for Architect / WSB Engineer Chair Arnst explained that a memo has been provided with cost projections for four different scenarios of payment terms and design options for the building. The consulting engineer and architect were present to answer further questions. Arnst said her hope is to come to a consensus and prepare a recommendation to Council at this meeting. Themig asked the engineer and architect for their impressions of the plans and cost estimates. Ms. Luken explained some background on the design process and some of the differences in the initial estimate and changes from that design. Much of the cost estimate increase is in materials designed for vandalism protection and security. (Security fixtures are worth about $1,800 extra per fixture.) She stated that the current estimate is somewhat conservative and hopes the price will be better than the estimate. A breakdown of costs was provided as follows: Picnic Pavilion $52, 900 Concession Multipurpose Room $77,600 Toilet Rooms $240,822 Ms. Luken said she thinks we have the best solution for the application. She described some of the various materials, which were selected for their durability and explained why she recommends them. Even though the cost is greater initially, the long-term maintenance issue is important. Themig asked about the cost differences in wood exterior over cinder block vs. burnished or rock-face block only. Ms. Luken said the block would be more expensive or equal. She proposes changing the bathroom to regular block and use an epoxy-type of painted coating. She offered some possibilities for cutting costs in floor surface, countertops, window design, plumbing, method of heating, etc. PARK COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2000 - PAGE 3 When asked about the value of reducing the size of the building as a way to reduce costs, Ms. Luken said the savings are minimal. Also, the size of the concession area is already smaller than what she thinks it should be for the number of people it may need to hold. Themig asked if there would be any problem with adding the picnic pavilion at a later time. Ms. Luken said it is a possibility, with some foundation work being extended from the main building as part of the initial package. The later cost to add the pavilion would end up being higher than the $52,900 that would be saved initially. Chair Arnst said she agrees that this design would be a quality, no-frills building. There was discussion about alternate plans for the sink in the concession area. Ms. Luken recommended getting a bid alternate for items they may want to drop from the project. She also suggested that someone check with Minnegasco on the cost alternate to run gas to the structure as lower cost heat source. There was some discussion about timing with the sewer/water project. Themig asked if accommodations were made to include a telephone. Mr. Sterna said there is a stub for a phone line and it is being looked into. Mr. Sterna reported that he spoke with the park director for the City of Prior Lake to compare costs with a recently constructed park building. Although some of the amenities are different, it did verify that this type of structure is very expensive. The higher initial cost for industrial grade materials is necessary considering long-term maintenance issues. It’s a case of pay now or pay later. Ms. Luken stated that her estimator said that his estimates on similar structures for other cities are consistent with this one. The durability and quality of this type of building is going to cost more than a garage structure. Acting Administrator Nielsen reported that the City Council has looked at the 4 scenarios for financing and constructing this building. All 4 depend upon inter-fund borrowing. He also commented that the funding source estimate of $15,000 per year from park dedication fees is probably double the amount it actually will generate. There may also be variables in some of the other revenue sources. Nielsen also pointed out that the General Fund Contribution of $10,000 per year may be affected by the City’s budget constraints. Themig asked what, philosophically, the City should provide in services and amenities. Mayor Love said that the Council has discussed this. He commented about levy limits and legislation that factor into this type of expenditure. The Council, while aware of future budget concerns, is encouraging this project as long as it can show some solvency. Themig said his dilemma is in supporting something that will put a burden on future Park Commissions. Mayor Love agreed with the statement, however this kind of project can stimulate the community to work toward projects like this in the future. He cited the example of creative fundraising done by the City of Excelsior. Arnst asked for discussion on the 4 funding scenarios. Themig pointed out that the 10-year financing plan, including the canopy still shows a fund balance of some amount as early as 2001 according to these projections. He added that this is the building the Park Commission has said they want and we should go for that and commit. PARK COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2000 - PAGE 4 Arnst said her feeling from the joint meeting with the Council and Parks Foundation was to do the entire building, rather than doing it in phases. Themig asked if they discussed the fact that there is already a picnic shelter at Freeman. Dallman said they consider it to be separated from the people who use the soccer/softball end of the park. Puzak said he supports the building, the toilets, and the concession stand, which will partially fund the building and will bring the support of the sports organizations. He feels the pavilion is optional. He suggested building an overhang 8 feet out and then add 16 more feet if the funding is available in the future. He cannot support $13,000 for a stainless steel sink because its worth is the equivalent of a half of a skate park. Puzak also asked why add heat capability for a warming house if funds will not be available for a skating rink in the future. He cautioned against putting all the eggs in this basket. With a zero balance remaining, there may not even be money to support a flooded free skate area. Arnst asked if the idea of an 8-foot canopy would work. Ms. Luken said at that point that they would just as well go out the full 24 feet. The building can be designed to support a future canopy with an extension of the foundation. She explained how a bid alternate works. There was consensus to replace the $13,000 stainless sink with a simple wall-hung stainless sink in the plan. It was also suggested to eliminate the granite countertops in the bathrooms and use wall-hung sinks there as well. Commissioner Young asked about the intentions for a skate park. Chair Arnst provided background as to how the idea came about and Shorewood’s role in the Youth Coalition. She said there is very strong interest. Puzak added that there is a legitimate need, as demonstrated by petitions and other past events. Arnst said she was initially in favor of leaving the canopy off of the building, but after discussion with others and the points made at this meeting, she is now more committed to the full structure. She asked the Mayor if the Council is looking for a vote on one of the 4 scenarios. Mayor Love said the Council is also seeking input on where some of the funds will come from. Commissioner Bix pointed out that park dedication fees are not reliable, plus the Commission would be relying on the Parks Foundation. On the other hand, the user fees and concessions are viable things, but Bix said, she wants to feel better about them. She asked about the user fee and its value over time, adding that without more information, it’s hard to plan. Themig said even if we come to consensus to build the full building with either the 7 or 10 year payment plan, it’s not a done deal because it has to go out for bid. It would be important right now to at least move the concept of the building forward and continue on in discussion of how to pay for it. Bix stated she agrees that the structure would be a nice addition to Freeman Park, but the question of how to pay for it is still a concern. PARK COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2000 - PAGE 5 Mayor Love said, currently the project has the Council’s support. They need to know what the Commission thinks the building needs to include. Secondly, they will not vote for it unless they know how it’s going to be paid for. The Council is looking for reliable streams of revenue. The concession stand needs to be an income source and not just an amenity that loses money. The Council will depend upon the Park Commission to monitor revenues, such as the $10,000 that was committed by the Parks Foundation. He encouraged the Commission to first decide what they want to build and then go to the Council who will support it if they can see how the building will be paid for. Ultimately the Council will have to decide if it is a sound financial project. Themig pointed out that the building has been on a master plan for a long time. In looking at the big concept, he believes they should move forward and then figure out funding details. There was further discussion about how to proceed through a recommendation and funding decisions. B. Recommendation to City Council Puzak stated that there have been various suggestions for reducing costs and he is trusting that staff and consultants will work out the “wants” and the “needs” in the building proposal. Given that, Puzak moved, Themig seconded that the Park Commission recommend that the full building be constructed with financing over 10 years. Themig asked to add a friendly amendment that when it comes to soliciting bids that they take the canopy as a separate bid. Puzak said he is leaving it to staff and the experts to take out as much as they can (such as the $13,000 stainless steel kitchen sink / counter), while staying within health and building code requirements. Ms. Luken said she could modify the language accordingly. Puzak asked that the architect make changes as needed and as discussed. The friendly amendment was accepted and the motion passed unanimously. Engineer Don Sterna asked about the Vine Hill trail meeting with the neighbors. Puzak said the plan is acceptable to everyone and thanked him for his work to incorporate specific requests and preferences. There was some discussion about placement of a crosswalk on the north end of the trail. Sterna will discuss details with City Engineer Brown. There was a short break. PARK COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2000 - PAGE 6 6. SPORTS ORGANIZATION FEES A. Review Our Goals for the Fees Chair Arnst reviewed the background and purpose of the Park Use Policy. A meeting with the sports organizations on January 31, 2000 took place to let them know about funding issues with parks. Arnst explained that costs and needs vary from one sport use to another. Themig explained the Options for Recovering Costs for Providing Above Base Maintenance. Another option is a “per-participant” fee structure. Commissioner Bix asked how user fees have been collected in the past. It was explained that the system was voluntary. She also asked about the percentage of participants who use the park facilities that are not Shorewood residents. Given that 61% of users are from outside of the Shorewood tax base, Bix stated that she thinks it is fair to have that group help contribute toward the use of the facilities. Commissioner Young asked how neighboring communities fund their park facilities. Puzak stated that we are not funding parks, but the wear, tear and maintenance plus operating expenses. Some other Cities’ methods of collecting user fees were described. Themig stated he wants to make sure that non-Shorewood residents are not singled out. Bix said she was suggesting that the sports organizations perhaps should pay a fee that is not voluntary, but depending upon the cost of use. B. Develop a Formula for Cost Recovery Arnst said the sports organizations have indicated willingness to contribute to the cost of wear and tear for their use. The two issues are; (1) come up with a formula that is fair, and (2) create a policy if it’s not paid. Puzak summarized the process that was used to calculate fees for base maintenance and for providing extra maintenance for the various sports. He proposed that everyone who registers for an organized sport be charged a $4 user fee (the cost of a pair of socks) to join a league that plays in Shorewood parks. He estimated that the revenue stream from that would be similar to the maintenance costs (at approximately 3,250 athletes). Puzak moved that the Park Commission have a user fee assessed at $4 per athlete assessed to the sports organizations per season. Dallman seconded. Discussion: Puzak pointed out that the advantage is equality for everybody. The disadvantage is that it may not be exactly true to the cost for each sport. Themig suggested considering a different scale for resident vs. non-resident. He also thinks adults should be charged more than a child should. Puzak said he is not comfortable with distinguishing one city from another. Shorewood is part of a larger community. Themig agreed. There was discussion about the cost of $4 relative to the total registration fees the associations charge their players. Arnst supports the idea of one fee across the board for its simplicity. Bix said she liked the $4 “socks fee” and Young agreed, but preferred a $5 socks fee. Themig encouraged a higher fee for adult socks. PARK COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2000 - PAGE 7 There was discussion about how such revenue would be applied to park maintenance costs and how it relates to the overall park budget. Mayor Love encouraged using a $5 figure, reminding the Commission of the delay in implementation. Puzak agreed that, because assessing the fee would occur at the time of registration, such revenue is a year away from being a reality. He is not opposed to a $5 fee. Puzak withdrew the motion (with Dallman’s approval). Puzak moved that the Park Commission recommend to Council that the City of Shorewood assess a $5 per athlete user fee against the organizations enrolling athletes to play in the City of Shorewood parks. Dallman seconded. Motion passed unanimously. C. Next Steps for Implementation, i.e., meeting with organizations individually A letter will be sent, as a follow up to the meeting of January 31, 2000, to each of the sports organizations that the funding formula will stay as is for this year (as a voluntary donation), but change to a mandatory fee for the next year. A meeting will take place with each individual sports organization to discuss the policy in detail. Meetings will be set up in 30-minute increments during an evening in May and will be in work session format. Arnst and Puzak will compose a letter to the sports organizations. The Commission will discuss “enforcement” issues at their April meeting. Arnst brought up other funding ideas which had come up in discussion with sports organizations. She would like to research concession options as a revenue generator and asked for help to investigate. Staff will be asked to do some checking. Themig will also offer some information. 7. DISCUSSION OF PARK COMMISSION GOALS FOR 2000 Table until April. 8. REVIEW TO DO LIST Table until April. 9. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 10. ADJOURNMENT Themig moved, Puzak seconded to adjourn. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10: 30 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Connie Bastyr, Recording Secretary