Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOMMISSION_MINUTES_2003-03-20Park and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes March 20, 2003 Meeting Called to order: Krueger Roll Call: Kunz, Edmond, Kroeger, Silvis, Roepke, Dazenski, Mendoza Absent: Szczepanski, Long, Lee (Steve Dazenski swore Robert (Bob) Edmond in.) Approval of the February 2003 minutes Motioned: Silvis 2nd: Long Due to the potential length of the meeting, Rick Wriskey, Forester, was asked to give his report. Wriskey updated commission regarding year 2002 and reiterated that we have a joint powers agreement with New Brighton. (We share his time: New Brighton, 70% and Mounds View 30%). Wriskey explained that he has been concentrating on the disease oak wilt and is working on trying to curtail the spread of it. (Late 1980's lost 20-25 trees per year to oak wilt, currently it is 50 trees.) The DNR has given the City a matching grant fund of $5,000.00 to combat oak wilt. Dutch elm disease is affecting about 20 trees a year. -Dana Mendoza arrived at the meeting. - Mounds View has the "Tree City USA" award and has been awarded it 21 years in a row. Tree replanting will occur on the County Road H2 project this year. (2 trees for every 1 tree removed.) Wriskey stated that there is no longer a "Garden Club" and that he'll do his best at maintaining the City Hall entrance. Silvis asked Wriskey where the major oak wilt problem is. Wriskey responded that it is on the North side of Highway 10. The commission thanked Wriskey for his report and time. -Steve Dazenski swore Dana Mendoza in. - Unfinished Business Kroeger stated at the March 6 Skate Park Meeting, there were approximately 40 people that attended. Kunz thought that most everyone at the meeting seemed to be in favor of the skate park. Kroeger replied that there were 2 people in attendance that were questioning the need for a skate park. The concerns expressed by others: • Increased police calls • Liabilities • Budget costs (constraints) • Existing park usage low • YMCA management issues • Finance trouble currently with the Community Center • Graffiti • Existing parks need improvements • Lack of parental supervision • Keep costs at a minimum Dazenski thought the commission should address the questions/concerns. Silvis felt more people were for the skate park than against. Mendoza thought that he couldn't really make any comments because of the lack of information on his part. Comments from the audience: Jordan spoke to the commission. He thought the skate park is a good idea because there ' isn't a place to skate board now. He feels that the users of the park will not graffiti it and that they can "police it" themselves. He also thinks more people will start skate boarding. Roepke asked Jordan how he felt about charging for the park .... yes or no. Jordan replied that he thought it would be no problem but obviously if the skate park is a good one people will have no problem paying to use it. Kroeger asked Jordan if he has looked at the asphalt at the Community Center; big enough for a skate park? Jordan stated yes. Eric agreed also that a skate park would be a good idea. He felt it is close enough to bike to if located at the Community Center and that the area at the Community Center is big enough. Mendoza asked Eric if kids use their bikes at the skate parks? Eric stated at Pike Lake they do. Kroeger explained that this skate park would not allow bikes. Mendoza asked would we want to do that? This way, it would keep the park occupied if both types were allowed. Kroeger felt it wouldn't be a good idea. Jordan spoke again and said that the bikes do destroy the skate parks. Kroeger asked if we propose this to the council will we need to decide on a design? We only have so much money in the budget to do improvements and to buy equipment. Kroeger doesn't know if the skate park would need to be supervised but we should use current Community Center fee structure to use the park. Dazenski expressed concern about kids skating in the parking lot or on Bronson Drive if they can't afford to pay to get into the skate park. Roepke commented that if the user is 9years or younger, they must have an 18year old with them. (This is the rule at the Community Center.) Kroeger asked to go over the list of tasks to perform to construct a skate park. Dazenski supplied the following information: Asphalt: No changes needed but would probably need a seal coat and small patching. $1000 Fencing: 4 sides, 6 foot fence. $4500 Irrigation: Need this and some landscaping. $1500 Lighting: Need another one installed coming from the east side. $2000 Entrance door: Reserve this option. $8000 Security camera: $1000 Signage: Yes $400 Trash receptacle: Yes $720 Benches: Yes $1800 Restroom and Drinking fountain: Yes to both.$700 Estimation of costs: $21,720 (doesn't include portable bathroom rental costs) Equipment: $33,000 Silvis motioned to present this to council. Kroeger asked what exactly? Should we recommend that a usage cost be implemented too? ($3 non-resident, $1 resident) Hours of operation only when the Community Center is open? Include infrastructure costs/needs ($21,720). What is left over would then be used towards the purchase of the equipment. Dazenski and Roepke both agreed that if the skate park is open after the Community Center hours, it would cost approximately $21,000 extra to operate. Rich Sonterre spoke to the commission. Sonterre does not want to lose any programs or facilities and was wondering if the commission would consider using any surplus of funds after the construction of the skate park to put towards additional asphalt at another park for the stand-alone basketball hoops that will be removed from the Community Center if the skate park is constructed. Dazenski replied that it could be done. Kroeger stated that an addendum to the proposal could be worded stating that there will be additional asphalt laid at another park to relocate the basketball hoops removed from the Community Center. Sonterre also suggested that the excess or surplus could be put back into the park dedication fund or put the money towards an inspector that will be inspecting all of the parks and shelters. Kroeger asked the commission for their opinion. Silvis agreed with the asphalt placement for the basketball hoops. Kroeger thought the proposal to the council could recognize that the City is losing a basketball court and may want to address in the future the need to replace it. Dazenski stated that Greenfield Park would be the best choice. Krueger added to the proposal that the City is losing two'/2 court basketball courts and the commission will probably be pursuing replacing them elsewhere in Mounds View. Sonterre stated to also dedicate any surplus at that time of the proposal to the council. Kunz moved that any surplus funds after the infrastructure and equipment purchases of a skate park be set aside for the relocating of the basketball hoops removed from the Community Center to another park in Mounds View. (The park location will be determined later.) Kroeger 2nd the motion. Discussion: Edmond stated he doesn't see any reason why the hoops could not sit idle for a while. Kroeger reiterated that there is a lot of interest in the skate park by the community. But, he also has concerns regarding the existing conditions of the parks. Two shelter buildings need to be addressed and he is concerned about spending this money at this time on a skate park. Mendoza expressed that he has reservations about making a decision now. He doesn't know enough information on the conditions of the parks, etc. to make a decision on a skate park. Kroeger stated that the commission should now take a vote on the motion presented. Mendoza: Abstained Silvis: Aye Kroeger: Nay Kunz: Aye Edmond: Nay Kroeger stated that he would like to see existing buildings taken care of. Need an inspector to evaluate the buildings. 0 Sonterre stated that this probably wouldn't occur until 2004 (inspections). Also he mentioned that the motion failed when it's a 2/2 vote and the commission will have to re- motion. Silvis stated that the Park Dedication Fund is drying up because of the lack of areas that can be built up in Mounds View. Sonterre said that's not true. Properties are going through the motion of redevelopment, etc. and that more money will go into the Park Dedication Fund. He also expressed his disappointment in not having a skate park in Mounds View. New Business Kroeger asked if Park Dedication Funds could be used for the building rehabilitation of Random and Groveland? Mendoza asked if the City has someone in-house to inspect the buildings? Dazenski stated yes but that she's overloaded now and thought it would be better to get someone from the outside. The buildings are in terrible condition and no rehabilitation will work. The siding is rotted and the roof condition is horrible at Groveland. Random has structural damage. Mendoza asked if the usage of the buildings could be assessed to determine what building will get the attention. Mendoza made a motion to have the City's inspector inspect the Groveland and Random Park shelters to determine if they are currently safe for operation. Kunz: 2nd Discussion: Kroeger asked if this task should be completed by the next meeting? Mendoza agreed. Motion unanimously passed. Edmond asked why there is a locked fence at Greenfield Park. Roepke stated that we have had problem with people damaging the field and it was necessary to lock it. The key is kept at the Community Center and anyone wanting to use it would just need to obtain it from them. Kunz asked what a regular full size hockey rink would cost? Dazenski stated that he will find out the cost. Commission and Staff Reports Kunz reported that the YMCA Executive Committee met and started to evaluate the management agreement with the City. They are half way through the report and he'll report back more as it is finished. 5 Kroeger asked if the bylaws were changed and implemented or brought to the council yet? Mendoza and Edmond requested a copy of the current bylaws. Future Agenda Items Kroeger asked for the 2003 Park Dedication Funds Budget. He thought that for the 2004 budget recommendations, the skate park could be an item at that time. Roepke will get the 2002 usage summary of all the parks. It will also include building usage vs space usage (volleyball etc) Kroeger asked if recreational sport usage would be on that report too? Roepke replied yes for 2002. Next Meeting will be April 24, 2003 Silvis motioned to adjourn 2nd: Kunz Motion unanimously passed Respectfully submitted by: Tracy Juell