Loading...
021202 PK MIN CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2002 7:30 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Chair Arnst called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Arnst; Commissioners Meyer, Bartlett, Puzak, Callies, Young and Palesch; City Administrator Dawson; City Engineer Brown; and City Council Liaison Lizée B. Review Agenda Chair Arnst moved item #6; discussion regarding the Minnetonka Community Education Services proposal, before Reports, item #4, due to Commissioner Callies need to leave early. Meyer moved, Puzak seconded, approving the Agenda as amended. Motion passed 7/0. C. Introduction of New Members Chair Arnst welcomed new Commissioners Bartlett and Palesch. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTE A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of January 8, 2002 Puzak moved, Callies seconded, approving the Minutes of January 8, 2002, as submitted. Motion passed 7/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. 4. DISCUSSION REGARDING MINNETONKA COMMUNITY EDUCATION SERVICES PROPOSAL Chair Arnst took a moment to review the history between MCES and the City of Shorewood for the new Commissioners. She pointed out that, as promised by MCES, a proposal was to have been given to the City by January 21, 2002, for review. The date was revised until February 1, 2002, with no avail. There still is no proposal on the table from MCES to date. Administrator Dawson interjected that the Community Education Director is out of the country until late next week and wouldn’t have a proposal to submit until then. Lizée stated that the City Council recommended MCES be allowed to submit its proposal by the close of work Tuesday of next week. Chair Arnst cautioned that timeline constraints would mean that the Park Commission would not see the proposal as a Commission until February 26 and the Council until March 11. She stated her concern over the availability of a back up plan. If the Commission does not approve the proposal at that late date, what are the ramifications, is there a plan B. Chair Arnst reiterated the need to have a Plan B in position. She questioned if Plan B would suggest that staff and Engineer Brown take responsibility in house, either by hiring a director, which is outside the budget, or carry the burden themselves. Callies asked if the proposal they await from MCES includes more than scheduling. Puzak maintained that according to his recollection, the Commission already agreed to have MCES continue as it had done in the past this year. Meyer did not recall that an agreement had been reached over MCES doing the scheduling. Chair Arnst questioned whether staff could handle the added responsibility of the scheduling piece only. Brown replied that if it is a directive by the Commission and Council that staff does so they will have to try. He maintained that the added responsibility is more than merely shuffling around the scheduling. Callies asked if it was realistic to require Brown or the Park Secretary, Twila Grout, to take on even more responsibility than they have now. Brown repeated that it would be a vast challenge for staff and require a large commitment, especially the first year, but it could be possible. Meyer asked what added responsibilities would be required of staff. Brown replied that other than scheduling, the added duties would include the collection of insurance forms, communication accountability, user fee collection, the new memorandum agreement, and some special event coordination. These things were originally intended to flow through MCES. Lizée, once again, asked the question who do we want managing our parks, MCES, who has not even expressed interest, and who has not lived up to our expectations, by clearly mismanaging our parks in the past or do we enable our Park Commission to determine the alternatives. Palesch wondered if MCES was paid for its services, and if not, she commented one gets what they pay for. Dawson mentioned that up until the past two years the City paid $3,500 annually to MCES for its services. Over the last two years, however, MCES has declined payment. Callies suggested that the Park Commission looks at other options, contacts other Cities to find out what they have done and make suggestions for down the road. Callies moved, Puzak seconded, that the City continue with MCES’ basic scheduling services this year and investigate other avenues or create a plan of how to manage the Park system for next year. Palesch added that she believed the Commission should certainly look elsewhere. As a new Commissioner, and having reviewed many recent Minutes, she found it apparent that MCES does not want to do what the City is asking. Chair Arnst stated that the Park Commission has been aware of this problem for a long time and as stewards of the park, have discussed the MCES issues at every meeting over the past year. In her opinion, process has been followed as much as possible, always resulting in the same conclusion, which is that MCES is not responding to our needs, they did not even submit a proposal in a timely manner even after we invited them to. Chair Arnst declared that the City has been remiss, the citizens look to them to provide a pleasant and manageable experience and we’ve not done so. To go another year with MCES, puts staff in a compromising position. There have been problems with staff trying to manage the scheduling and MCES, and Chair Arnst was extremely disappointed that this relationship should continue. Meyer reiterated that, over the past year, many meetings have taken place with MCES that have revealed their lack of interest. Callies agreed, however, stated she saw no other real alternatives for this year and felt further investigation resulting in recommendations for 2003 was necessary. Puzak suggested putting a time limit of making recommendations to the Council by October. Chair Arnst called for a vote with an amendment to have recommendations by August. Dawson suggested that if potential budget implications would be tied to the recommendations these would need to accompany the proposed budget going to Council in mid to late July. Meyer amended the motion to have recommendations for Council by July 1st, 2002. Puzak seconded. Motion passed 4/3, with Palesch, Meyer and Chair Arnst dissenting. Callies left the meeting at 8:03 P.M. 5. REPORTS A. Report on City Council Meetings of January 14th, January 28th, 2002 and February 11, 2002 Brown reported that there was a resolution adopting the 2002 User Fee Schedule and a Resolution accepting the final improvements for the sewer and water project through Freeman Park. He pointed out that the project is nearly completed. The City Subdivision Ordinance draft was examined and passed at the subsequent meeting. Dawson added that there was an amendment to the Lawn Fertilizer Ordinance which moved the compliance dates back until next year. With that, Dawson expects great support in the Senate environment committee meeting later this week. Brown concluded the January 14th report with news that the Lake Linden Drive feasibility report was adopted. In regard to Parks, Brown reported that the January 28th City Council Meeting focused on the hardcover limitations being examined by the Planning Commission. It also addressed the public safety site at 24140 Smithtown Road, immediately East of the public works facility, in which there was a comp plan amendment modifying the site from a low to medium residential site to a Public Purpose site. The EDA, Economic Development Authority, has been focused on giving the Cities the ability to finance that facility. Brown stated that at the February 11th meeting, Ted Shaw was appointed the MCES advisory board representative, spring clean-up day was discussed, and finally, approval was given to the final draft of the Subdivision ordinance. Dawson reported that the City of Tonka Bay was voting this evening whether to include the police department at the public safety site. The hope is that the conditional use permit will come up on the April or May agenda with some sort of ground breaking ceremony in late summer. The City Council also discussed establishing a ward system during its work session yesterday. The system would be staggered and instituted over the next few years. Dawson continued, adding that the Council looked at a draft list of priorities, which will likely be accepted at the next City Council Meeting and forwarded to the Commissions after that. Finally, Dawson invited the Commissioners to attend the Community Visioning Process Public Workshop, next Thursday February 21st from 7 - 8:30 P.M. at the South Shore Center. Chair Arnst had one final question regarding the City Council Meeting of February 11th. She asked what the Council’s rationale was for giving MCES an additional five days to submit their proposal at this point. Lizée replied that while she did not agree that there was a rationale for it, the position of the Council was to give MCES some leniency to get the report in. Dawson interjected that comments made last evening in support of standard or fair business practices dictate that notification be given and an opportunity for remedy be offered, i.e. five days. 6. DISCUSSION OF PARK MANAGEMENT & PLANNING A. Review Freeman Park Field Inventory and Parking Study Without reviewing the entire proposal, Brown stated that the report pinpointed the problems at Freeman Park and offered several recommendations. The question of overuse versus the shortage of parking was addressed within the report. Brown agreed with the observation on page 5, that the concurrent use of all facilities creates a demand for parking that exceeds original expectations. The existing supply of 314 spaces will accommodate all of the facilities at a one space per participant standard assuming a reduction for youth activity. If managed correctly there should be enough parking. Brown went on to share the standards from surrounding communities. Brown then shared with the new members the State of Minnesota’s requirement that the Freeman Park access to Highway 7 be closed. Through the State’s cooperative agreement program, the City would be compensated approximately $52,000 for the closure and construction of the new parking lot. As of late, however, Brown pointed out that the Watershed District and the City have been in a debate over the necessity for ponding, which will treat the water running off the new parking lot. If they do not come to an agreement by July, the City may lose the money from the state. As displayed by the Koegler report, a solution to manage the parks, which includes the new parking lot, will need to be realized by July or we lose the state dollars. Meyer questioned, now that we’ve voted to use MCES, who will implement the recommendations. Are we going to rely on them to implement the 15-minute staggered start time. Puzak viewed the July deadline as a high priority. He believed the potential loss of $50,000 was of great importance and wanted to see much effort put into solving the engineering issues that exist. Brown assured him that he and the Mayor are spending a great deal of time on this matter. Palesch moved, Young seconded, to implement the four recommendations in the Koegler report as soon as possible. Palesch withdrew this motion and amended it to read as follows. Palesch moved, Meyer seconded, that the Commission recommend to Council that they direct staff to communicate to MCES the implementation of suggestion number one of the Koegler report for the 2002 season. Motion passed 6/0. Puzak moved, Palesch seconded, that the Commission ask staff and Council to focus their energy on expanding the overflow parking into lot 4 and negotiate as many spaces that water quality management will allow before the state deadline. Motion passed 6/0. Puzak moved, Palesch seconded, to accept the recommendations of the Koegler Report and keep items 3 and 4 in consideration as we move forward with the Park Management Process. Motion passed 6/0. B. Review Recommendations on Draft User Policies Brown presented the revised Draft User Policies for consideration. Puzak questioned whether the fine reflected in the policies prevents the City from collecting the damages incurred by people driving on the fields. Brown indicated this would not be an issue and is addressed elsewhere under motor vehicle prosecution. Puzak moved, Meyer seconded, to accept the revised facility use agreement and forward it to City Council for implementation. Motion passed 6/0. C. Review Ordinance for Motorized Vehicles Driving on Fields or Green Space Palesch moved, Meyer seconded, to accept the language changes of City Ordinance 801.06 Subd. 3 to raise the fine from $35.00 to $200.00, and Subd. 2 to include both striped and/or posted parking stalls. Motion passed 6/0. D. Review Park Management Matters Memo of January 8, 2002 Chair Arnst presented the Park Management Matters memo and timeline for discussion regarding park scheduling and asked for comment. The general consensus was to add the July 1st deadline. E. Discuss Mn Recreation & Park Association Membership Chair Arnst suggested membership to the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association. She indicated that a past park commissioner, Mark Themig, recommended the Agency and asked the Commission to discuss membership. At $250, she believed the program would be a valuable resource to the Commission. Palesch moved, Young seconded, that the Park Commission recommend joining the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association. Motion passed 4/2, with Meyer and Puzak dissenting. F. Discuss Other Ideas 7. DISCUSS/PRIORITIZE PARK COMMISSION GOALS FOR 2002 Chair Arnst, in referring to bullet point two of the Park Goals memo, recommended adding the July 1st deadline once again. Other suggestions included, the completion of the Lake Linden Drive trail investigation, further exploration for concessions at Eddy Station, and the addition of a parking lot at Freeman Park. 8. CONSIDERATION OF SCHEDULE OF PARK LIAISONS TO CITY COUNCIL Park liaisons to Council meetings for 2002 were assigned to volunteers as follows: February Callies July Bartlett March Chair Arnst August Young April Meyer September Callies May Puzak October Chair Arnst June Palesch November Meyer December Puzak Both Chair Arnst and Engineer Brown suggested that the new Park Commissioners be given an orientation and consider attending a City Council meeting in advance of their liaison duties in order to observe the reporting process. 9. DISCUSS APPOINTMENT OF PARK LIAISON TO PARK FOUNDATION According to Administrator Dawson, a Park Commissioner must serve as one of the Directors to the Park Foundation. With this in mind, Chair Arnst asked for volunteers. As no one volunteered at this time, she asked members to keep it under consideration until the next meeting. 10. RECOMMENDATION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR FOR 2002 Meyer moved, Palesch seconded, to retain Chair Arnst as the Park Commission Chair Person. Motion passed 5/0/1, with Chair Arnst abstaining. Young moved, Meyer seconded, to retain Vice-Chair Puzak in his current position. Motion passed 5/0/1, with Puzak abstaining. 11. NEW BUSINESS Brown reported that minor damage had occurred at Eddy Station once again this past week, and that the ice at Cathcart had gone bad and been closed. Gordon Lindstrom, a representative from South Tonka Little League was in attendance, and asked when the March meeting with the sports organizations might occur. Chair Arnst could not give him a definitive date until the Park Commissions February 26th meeting in which the agenda and issues for that March meeting would be discussed. She hoped for the second or third week of March, before spring break. Lindstrom encouraged the Commission to set the date soon, due to the fact that some organizations will have already begun to schedule by then. 12. ADJOURNMENT Bartlett moved, Palesch seconded, adjourning the Regular Park Commission Meeting of February 12, 2002 at 9:17 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson RECORDING SECRETARY