Loading...
040208 PK MIN CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION SHOREWOOD CITY HALL WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2008 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1.CONVENE PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING Chair Davis convened the work session meeting at 7:01 p.m. A.Roll Call Present: Chair Davis; Commissioner Young, Norman, Quinlan, and DeMers; Public Works Director Brown Absent: Commissioner Trent and Hensley; City Council liaison Wellens B. Review Agenda 2.DETERMINE QUESTIONS FOR RESIDENT SURVEY As a guideline, Brown indicated that Council member Wellens suggested that each Commission submit approximately ten questions each and the Council create an additional twenty. Brown suspected that the survey would grow but cautioned that if it becomes too broad or lengthy participation will decline. DeMers shared copies of the 2002 survey, as well as, a survey from New Jersey that he had in his possession. Chair Davis suggested that the Commission decide it’s goals for the survey and base its questions on obtaining those results. She stated that she wished to find out not only what amenities people are using, or not and why, but also the quality of their experience. She inquired whether they should include questions with regard to the trails. Quinlan felt it relevant to find out how people are using the trails as well as parks, especially in light of proposed improvements at Manor Park. Chair Davis noted that it would be helpful to find out what infrastructure or programming folks want, inform them of the costs of some needed improvements, such as the tennis courts, and gauge whether there is interest to proceed with these improvements. Since there are finite funds available for improvements, what needs to be done? Norman asked whether the online survey would give the Commission the opportunity to expand on each specific park rather than just offer up yes or no questions. Chair Davis supposed that the demographics section would be a part of the larger overall survey. PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2008 PAGE 2 OF 4 Young stated that he would want to learn how the Commission should allocate its funds based on what parks or equipment folks find inadequate. He believed they must determine what facilities are being used and how frequently. That being said, Brown suggested they use something similar to questions #3 and #5 on the 2002 survey in some version. Young felt the Commission needed to be more specific by framing questions which pinpoint which courts are kept and which get eliminated, for instance, so that the City makes a responsible decision. Brown suggested a statement such as, if you use the tennis facilities, which location or facility would you be more inclined to use, Badger, Manor, or Cathcart. In addition, he suggested people be given an opportunity to list other things in the park system they would use or do use. Norman framed it as such, are there any amenities that are not currently offered by our parks that you would like to see – and list options to check, as well as, a location to write in a suggestion. DeMers stated that he wished there were picnic facilities, shelters, and barbeques in the parks, as he is forced to go elsewhere to enjoy these amenities. He suggested these be inserted into the options piece of the survey, as well as, bike racks. Brown wondered whether the Commission needed to address passive use. Chair Davis suggested a section inclusive of trails, asking where people would like to see them or whether they use them be added. Young disagreed, stating that his personal preference was to focus on the parks themselves. He pointed out that the available dollars would not make a dent in the funds needed for the construction of trails and cautioned this may merely open a can of worms as it is too wide a subject to tackle here. Quinlan pointed out that, in his opinion, the average citizen is not aware that the trails are not a part of parks. He was still interested in at least hearing how people use trails to access the parks or within the parks themselves. Chair Davis suggested they focus on the daily, weekly, monthly, use of parks as opposed to the number of times a year as in the 2002 survey. She asked whether residents could take the survey more than once on line. With regard to the quality of the parks, the Commission liked the idea of open ended questions with some options to check and spur ideas. What do you use or what is lacking were critical issues during discussion. PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2008 PAGE 3 OF 4 Brown suggested a what are we missing or what would get you to use the parks approach in one question, another which hints at curb appeal, and still another tennis specific. Chair Davis focused further in on questions #3 and #5, according to the parks that you use, she suggested that each be divided up specifically online so that people could answer park specific questions on a separate page. DeMers concurred noting that if a resident were to click on a specific park that would take them to a different screen containing more park specific questions. Young asked what the City Council foresaw as a framework for the survey, he felt it would be helpful to have City Council input whether this is the direction they would like to see the Commission headed with regard to its portion of the survey. In addition, he suggested the Commission contact surrounding communities and look at other parks we frequent to determine a wish list of improvements we might make in Shorewood or find out how other communities gauge the interest of their residents. Brown stated that staff has been charged with putting together a rough draft and that the Council hopes to review the first draft at their meeting in two weeks. Brown agreed, urging Commissioners to visit parks they go to in order to see what we are missing or determine their draw. He indicated that he would try to touch base with his contacts at Chanhassen to discuss their park improvement and residential survey results. The Commission preferred a 1-2-3-4-5- rating system, or an Agee- Disagree- Don’t Know format. Following the introduction, section two should focus on and breakout each individual park. For example; Below is a list of Shorewood Parks, please provide information for the parks that you use, questions would then evaluate specifics such as frequency of use, ease of locating, safety, what amenities do you use with a check off list, programming, what facilities are lacking – with a brief list and a blank, etc. At the back end of the park breakout, specific questions about the tennis courts and overall programming could be included such as; The Shorewood Park Commission and City Council want to utilize the funds that we have to ensure they are put to their best use, where do you see the priorities being – list things that are considered priorities, tennis courts, picnic shelters, etc. If a proposed centralized tennis facility were moved to one location, where would you like to see this be? Have you attended or participated in the Community events, which have you attended, (skateboard camps, kiddie shows, music in the parks, arctic fever, etc) and/or what else would you like to see offered. PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2008 PAGE 4 OF 4 How do you typically hear about Shorewood events? Chair Davis urged Brown to send the Commissioners a rough draft of the proposed survey as discussed this evening when complete for editing and suggestions. 3. REVIEW CITY ENGINEER’S PARK PROJECTS ESTIMATED COSTS – Brown pointed out that if everything was plugged into the 2008 budget, the total expenditure would be over $294,300. Brown pointed out that although the analysis provides the Commission with a framework of costs, there is little else to do with the document at this time until priorities are set. Quinlan asked whether staff was aware of how much improved consistent signage would run in order to brand Shorewood parks with similar curb appeal. Brown stated that the signage in the budget was merely for metal signs and that he would investigate other contractor options. Norman stated that he would like to see Shorewood start a dialogue with Chanhassen about Cathcart Park, especially in light of the proposed improvements and the necessary dollars to complete them. He believed they need to consider their options. 3.ADJOURN The Commission adjourned the Work Session Meeting of April 2, 2008, at 8:35 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson Recorder