Laserfiche WebLink
WORKSHOP MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />MARCH 10, 2021 <br />2 <br />Fischer asked if adding additional parking would be considered one of the big-ticket items. <br />Shields explained that additional parking was not identified as one of the primary needs, but <br />parking can be discussed at the end. He reported that the improvements that have risen to the top <br />are a multi-use facility, water feature, artificial turf, lighting and a new playground. <br />Mr. Shields reviewed the potential benefits of a multi-use facility and showed several examples <br />from other cities. Dave Miller stated that a multi-use facility has been an important focus point <br />but asked if Pioneer Park would be the right place or if there were other options. Fischer added <br />that a community building would be amazing and he strongly supports this idea but was not sure <br />if Pioneer Park is the right location and noted that the City could lease space for many years for <br />the cost of building a multi-use facility. <br />McGraw stated that this park has a lot of athletic features and asked why we are calling it a <br />community park. He suggested that maybe we need to decide what Pioneer Park should be, and <br />if it is really an athletic complex, then maybe a gathering space does not belong here. The Parks <br />& Rec/Community Services Manager explained that the Parks Master Plan and the 2040 <br />Comprehensive Plan classify Pioneer Park as a Community Park. He stated that it is very <br />common for a community park to include athletic features. <br />Torkelson stated that Pioneer Park does not have good connection or transit options, is off the <br />beaten path, and not connected to anything else. He suggested that Pioneer Park may not be the <br />best location for a multi-use facility. Parks and Recreation Commissioner Ray suggested the <br />possibility of removing one of the ballfields and using that space to expand the existing building <br />and add parking. The Parks & Rec/Community Services Manager stated that we would likely <br />lose most of the tournaments since they utilize all four fields. <br />The presentation moved on to discuss the possibility of a water feature. Maddie Dahlheimer <br />stated that a water feature was not part of the initial Parks Master Plan, but it was mentioned <br />many times during the community engagement process. She explained that there are many <br />options for an interactive water feature, and they could be incorporated into the park. <br />Particularly of interest was a misting station near the softball fields and possibly including a <br />small interactive water feature somewhere else in Pioneer Park. There was general consensus <br />that a water feature be included in the RFP. <br />Bolton and Menk presented the pros and cons of installing artificial turf on the soccer field. The <br />Public Works Director explained that the soils are poor so the field does not drain well. He <br />stated that drain tile was added several years ago, but it is still a struggle getting the water to the <br />drain tile. He explained that a cheaper option is to gradually inject sand in to the field and <br />eventually there would be a better base that would drain better. He stated that the grass would <br />still take a beating from use, but it would hold up better if it was not so wet all the time. He <br />stated the cost would be about $30,000 over the course of three years and staff is planning to <br />move forward with this unless we decide on the artificial turf instead.