HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.3.24 Parks and Rec Commission Minutes - Joint Meeting CC Workshop1 | Page
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS Joint Meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission
and City Council Workshop
City Hall 2077 West Larpenteur Avenue MINUTES January 3, 2024 at 6:30 P.M. A. CALL TO ORDER: 6:35 P.M.
B. ROLL CALL: Jeff Yager____X__ Mike Bradbury__X___ Eric Brenton__X___ Paula Mielke__X___ Tom Faust__X___ Randi Lundell__X___ COUNCIL LIAISON:
James Wassenberg ___X___
STAFF PRESENT: Kelly Nelson___X____ Jack Linehan ___X__ 1. Community Park Renovation
Linehan introduces Bob Slipka from WSB (project manager), and Haley Koesters
and Matt Lynse of HCM Architects.
Bob Slipka says he looked at Concept 3 from the layouts initially presented, which
was the preferred concept, and then gave three updated variations of that.
He explains that the immediate needs expressed were that the building, parking lot,
and playground would be addressed. In Concept 1, he points out the play area is
small to medium in size and would be relocated closer to the building. The tennis
court would not be touched. The baseline cost is $3 to $3.5 million. The basketball
court would be repaved and restriped in its existing location. The four add-on
items listed as Bid Alternates (small shelter, large shelter, splash pad and basketball
improvements) make Concept 1 an all-in cost of around 4.4 million dollars.
Concept 2: Most of the main pieces are staying the way that they are. The splash
pad and play container are enlarged in this concept so the price increases. The
parking lot and building are the same size as in Concept 1.
Concept 3: This concept adds a skating area to the project. Although not
refrigerated, the pad would extend the life of the ice.
Lundell says that she likes all of the park layouts but suggests taking into
consideration the walking paths near/around the playground for dog walkers so
that they do not have to pass through but can walk around.
Haley Koesters of HCM Architects adds that the ice rink currently at Curtiss Field
could be something added onto the Flex Lawn space in either Concept 1 or Concept
2.
2 | Page
Leehy asks if it is known where the water source would be in relation to the
Community Gardens or for flooding the rink.
Slipka says that water improvements would be done as part of the building
construction but it wouldn’t be difficult to add a hydrant in.
Bradbury says he loves the multipurpose splash pad and ice rink in Concept 3 but
wants to confirm that both can share that space. He adds that we would likely run
into the same problem we run into at Curtiss, which is the challenge to keep the ice.
Linehan shares that putting a liner on the tennis court and flooding it to avoid
paving additional space was also an earlier consideration.
Slipka says that they have budgeted for rubberizing the entire play area as
inclusivity has come up multiple times.
Faust asks Bob if he can speak to the cost of the splash pad / ice rink combo
presented in Concept 3.
Slipka says it’s budgeted to be a splash pad as well so the slab isn’t the same. If you
have to figure out cutting costs, we may have to do the splash pad at a later date.
Leehy wonders what a comfortable capacity of play is for the splash pads in
Concept 1, 2 and 3.
Slipka says that with 1,000 square feet, that would equate about 15 people.
He mentions that he’s done systems with interacting ground-level play as well
(locks and dams).
Faust says that we keep talking about a splash pad and wonders if we have data
from the public that is in favor of having a splash pad.
Mielke says that from the survey data, a splash pad was the most suggested
amenity.
Bradbury suggests there may have been a bit of bias since every layout shown to
the public included one in the initial drawings.
Mielke says that we have no feedback about an ice rink because that was not shown
in any images previously.
Meyer says that from an informal Facebook post he made, a playground was the
most popular, followed by a splash pad.
Leehy asks if Meyer’s Facebook post came before or after the City’s survey, once
layouts were shown with possible amenities included in drawings.
Meyer says the Facebook post was approximately a week prior to the City’s survey
being published.
3 | Page
Bradbury wants to build for future use and not just the now. He wants to ensure
that we can afford the upkeep so that amenities don’t fall into disarray.
Slipka says that it’s important to have foresight. Using Concept 1 as an example,
maybe the playground is done now and a splash pad is added later.
He goes on to say that there are regulations that mandate the distance a restroom
can be from a splash pad. So, that has been taken into consideration when laying
the park amenities out.
Wassenberg says it makes sense to prioritize the amenities and determine
affordability.
Bradbury says that is how the previous Parks and Recreation meeting ended. The
commission wanted the building, playground and parking lot to be a priority.
He adds that if you look at Concept 3 and retain the green space now for a future
ice rink, you could maybe add a skating loop to connect the tennis court to the
playground area, etc.
Linehan asks Bob Slipka to comment on whether anyone in Minnesota has a splash
pad within the skating area (multipurpose area). The inspiration photos the City
had seen were from areas outside of the state.
Slipka says that Coon Rapids has a rink that has piping in it but they didn’t invest
in the chiller for it. Faribault is doing a skating loop right now but it’s not going to
be a fountain or splash pad.
Lundell says she likes a skating loop but it’s not conducive to playing games on
other than racing.
Bradbury says he wouldn’t solely do a loop; he’d retain space to add a loop in to a
future expansion.
Wassenberg would like to see the City use a liner to extend ice use.
Koesters suggests trying out the rink that is currently at Curtiss Field over at
Community Park in the interim.
Meyer asks what the plan is for the tennis courts.
Slipka said that there are no plans to touch the tennis courts.
Bradbury and Leehy comment that adding lights and a backboard to the tennis
courts would be nice.
Leehy asks for confirmation that we used to have separate rinks at Curtiss Field to
separate hockey players from pleasure skaters.
Bradbury confirms this.
4 | Page
Mielke comments on the baseball field. The Parks and Recreation Commission had
opted just to leave it for now. A future renovation phase could take a look at that
space and how best to use it.
Yager feels Concept 3 might be the best bet for phasing in amenities. But, he
wonders if there are any savings to doing certain projects at the same time as
another.
Slipka says that overall, not really.
Wassenberg says we should consider what we can do now and then think about
what we might do if we have or receive additional funding.
Mielke asks if there is a way to price out what it would cost to put a liner on the
tennis court and use that as an ice rink.
Lundell wonders what the wear and tear on the tennis court would be.
Meyer says that pickleball is probably twice as popular as tennis. Is there a way to
have it?
Lundell mentions how the neighbors in Falcon Woods were concerned about the
noise. But, that was also coming from an earlier concept, when that court was
positioned near their backyards.
Bradbury says if you were to stripe one part of the tennis court, the noise level
wouldn’t be the same as having multiple pickleball courts.
Wassenberg says that we can decide that at a later date.
Meyer asks commissioners and the Council to consider the placement of a band at
an event like the City’s Ice Cream Social. Where would we do that?
Wassenberg would like to touch on how we heat and cool the building.
Matt Lynse of HCM Architects says they have started talking to their engineers. He
shares that the State of MN has allowed heat exchangers in the water table and
they’re way more efficient. He estimates 4 to 6 wells needed and in the $70,000 to
$100,000 range.
Mielke asks for an update on the size of the building, wondering if the building is
not being reduced in size, as it still appears large in the current images.
Lynse says the square footage has been reduced from an earlier plan of 2,900 to
approximately 2,500 square feet.
Lynse asks the Council and Parks and Recreation Commissioners if they want the
Community Room to face out into the park or onto Roselawn.
The consensus is for it to face out into the park.
5 | Page
Lynse then walks the Council and Commission through two floor plans for the
building. The main difference is the roof slope. Lynse explains that one of them is
more favorable for solar, although the picnic shelter area would still provide an area
for solar panels.
Leehy asks if there would be grills located under the picnic shelter.
Lynse suggests not having them under the shelter. Instead, there would be
counters to place Crockpots instead.
Linehan shares that the smaller picnic area will need to be removed and replaced to
allow for the parking lot construction. The idea would be to add grills in that area.
Leehy asks about standing snow on the roofline.
Lynse says that the roof has a 4 -12 pitch and it’s a proven technology. It would
have ice and water shield and 30-year shingles.
Lundell asks if the Flex Room could swap locations with the Storage Room so that
the Flex Room has a view of the playground AND the Community Room is south-
facing into the park.
Faust asks Matt, of HCM Architects, for his preferences.
Lynse thinks the Community Room should face the park. He likes the first and
third rooflines shown.
Slipka says that depending on the size of the splash pad, some park buildings house
mechanics in a building and some have an exterior box.
Gustafson asks if the splash pad water could be captured and reused for the
Community Garden.
Slipka says that would be a flow through system but you could have a 1,000-gallon
underground tank to capture water for the gardens. He adds that with regular
maintenance, you can get about 20 years out of a splash pad.
Linehan asks if there’s a point where we might get close to triggering the need for
stormwater.
Slipka says he doesn’t have an answer right now but conversations have been
started. He shares that the larger the splash pad, the more likely.
Linehan reminds the group that these are all ideas on paper. If you like a circular
splash pad but Concept 3’s playground size, that’s moveable and changeable.
Linehan goes on to share that the Council has agreed to budget $3.5 million. $2
million will be paid in cash with $1.5 million in rebate bonds. The debt service of 20
years would be manageable and residents would likely feel a minimal tax increase
with it.
6 | Page
The two wild cards are that we have requested one million dollars for bonding in
2024, but we likely wouldn’t find out until July. The second part of that is that the
City will apply for a $350,000 DNR grant (funds would be 100% matched by the
City). We will apply for that again this March. The possibility would be to fund a
future phase item from that.
Faust asks for confirmation that the idea would be to ask HCM and WSB to keep
placeholder spots in the park for future buildouts as dollars are awarded in the
form of bonding and/or grants.
Linehan confirms this.
Wassenberg suggests we confirm what the fixed items are. Then, to determine the
size of the variable items and then rank those by preference.
Yager says that the best-case scenario is that you get 10 weeks or so of skating with
a concrete pad. He wonders if we want to retain green space and have a more
temporary skating area instead.
Linehan says he would like the Council and Parks Commission to get down to two
concepts instead of three.
Wassenberg points out that there are two flex lawn areas in Concept 2 from WSB.
The Commission and Council favor Concept 2 of the park layout, with
modifications. They would like to reduce the size of the splash pad shown.
Faust says that we had a lot of good discussion on the multi-use plaza. Do we want
to get a bid on the multi-use or just the splash pad?
Meyer said he’s in favor of pricing out just a splash pad since we have a great ice
rink nearby in Roseville.
Leehy asks if we want the large shelter orientated like it’s shown in Concept 1 or in
Concept 2?
Wassenberg says Concept 2.
Linehan says we are essentially merging Concepts 1 and 2. Looking at Concept 1, if
we shrink the shelter’s width and reorient it, increase the playground’s square
footage up to potentially 7,500 square feet, and shrink the distance between the
building and the shelter, the result is a merging of Concepts 1 and 2.
Wassenberg adds that in order to keep the functionality of the large picnic
structure, it might be helpful to keep the length of the building to create the
walkway.
7 | Page
D. ADJOURNMENT: 9:26 PM
Commissioner Lundell motioned to adjourn; Approved 6-0