Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSkate Park - Minutes from Commission MeetingsLast Updated: February 4, 2005 Skate Park Minutes from Commission Meetings ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- July 25, 2002 Skate Park Project Gunn said that those members of the Commission that went on the tour, got to see different type of equipment and materials used at various skate parks. Kroeger took pictures and they are on a CD. He will forward to Lee to distribute to Commission members. He also stated that the parks he visited seemed to be well controlled. Gunn said that they all seemed to be in good shape. Kroeger Commission needs to consider the maintenance of the skate park. Wooden (which was well liked by the kids), pretty easy to maintain, Metal would involve constant painting. Gunn stated that she would like more information from Ramp Rider, the price listing etc. New Brighton has True Rider and they installed the wooden type of skate parks; but of course wood is more expensive. Lee stated that compost material is the new wave type. Gunn showed a group of kids the “Skate Way” plans and they rearranged a few things and liked the design that cost approximately $50,000. May be we can enlist the help of parents to put it together? Kids want the skate park and so do the parents. Where should it be built? Lee said that some of our parks already have the infrastructure required. Kroeger stated that skate parks they toured were not located around residential areas; they were away from people. Gunn said that our parks were the only places we can choose from. Lee suggested that it go behind the Community Center on the backside of the parking lot. Gunn asked what about Greenfield Park? No one seems to use the tennis courts, but it is closer to houses. Kroeger suggested that we could ask that question in the survey. Gunn asked does the Commission want to wait that long because the survey won’t go out that quickly. The tennis courts are not used that often and it would be feasible to cut back on a tennis court. Kroeger stated that if the skate park fades in the future, we can turn it back into a tennis court. Gunn thought that Groveland would be the best location. Good visibility. Houses are there but across the street. Lee stated that the Public Works Department is randomly checking the usage of the tennis courts. He also suggested that we could use one of the tennis courts on a 1 year trail basis for the skate park. That way the City won’t be spending money on infrastructure and because it’s not permanent, the equipment can be moved. Kroeger stated that most courses are concrete or asphalt. 1 tennis court would be considered a mid-sized skate park (comparing to what they saw on the tour) and it would be a good minimum approach. Need to get the input of the surrounding residents that would be affected by the skate park. Lee said he met with 3 out of the 4 property owners. 1 owner was not happy about the idea because they utilized the tennis courts. 2nd owner said he didn’t think it was a problem. 3rd property owner thought it was a great idea. Gunn stated that the Commission will need to make a decision on what area we want to dedicate as a skate park and then proceed to talk with the affected property owners. Kroeger said that the Groveland site has pad, fencing and is highly visible. Community Center area will cost more because of the needed pad and fencing but it is located well. Lee suggested listing the 3 proposed sites along with pro’s/con’s of each. Kroeger also suggested SilverView Park. Gunn said that SilverView has no visibility. Could also utilize Hillview Park for a skate park in the summer and dismantle in the winter. Gunn how long does the Commission want to stretch this out? Must be part of budget process for 2003. Suggest $55,000 in case we have to do some paving and fencing work. Kroeger suggested listing pro’s/con’s of the 5 sites (Groveland, Greenfield, Community Center, SilverView, Hillview) and email them to Lee by the week of August 5. Also can add the survey questions. Lee will put this recommendation in for the 2003 budget and the Commission can continue with research on the skate park. Gunn said to email Lee by August 8, 2002 your pro’s/con’s of each of the proposed skate park sites and list your survey questions. No official motion was made, nor 2nd. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- September 26, 2002 Skate Park Project Lee reiterated from the last meeting that there were 5-6 locations that were discussed for the skate park. Commissioners were to list pro’s and con’s of each location and come to the meeting with this information. Szczepanski said to refer to the handout in the packet. How about the location between City Hall and Water Tower? Lee suggested trying it out at Groveland or Greenfield Park. No permanent structure alterations would be needed. We can see how it works; is it successful or if there problems with the neighbors, vandalism, etc. Long asked if it would be a possible to construct another hockey rink; would it be a problem maintaining it? Lee replied that it wouldn’t be a problem, but the money will need to come out of the park dedication fund. Gunn asked if it’s necessary to spend that amount of money. Lee said by using the Groveland or Greenfield site, a trial run can be made without spending a lot of money. Kroeger stated that there are a lot of places with good facilities but they are being used and are close to the neighbors. Lee suggested narrowing the sites to 1 or 2 and then have a neighborhood meeting. Kroeger asked what the criteria should be for narrowing it down? Gunn stated cost. Kroger suggested Hillview and Groveland, both are highly visible. Greenfield is right on the property lines (tennis courts) and this may be too close to the neighbors. Gunn thought Groveland or Greenfield sites would be the best due to the existing surfaces. Lee stated that the recommendation to the Council should include that the Park and Recreation Commission will evaluate the site in the fall of 2003 with local residential input included. Szczepanski suggested having the Police Department patrol the area more. Let’s take a vote from all of the commissioners on which park site to use for the skate park: Gunn Groveland Silvis Groveland Kroeger Hillview Long Groveland Kunz Hillview Szczepanski Groveland Direct Staff to hold a neighborhood meeting regarding Groveland Park as a trial area for a skate park (loss of 1 tennis court, noise levels); also have available samples of types of skate parks available. Then recommend to Council the area, costs and equipment that’s necessary. Motioned: Kroeger 2nd: Gunn Discussion: Before the end of November 2002 and the committee members should make every attempt to attend the neighborhood meeting. Motion unanimously passed. November 21, 2002 Skate Park Szczepanski asked if everyone had an email that was sent out by Lee, 11-8-02? All agree on the Groveland Park tennis court location. Szczepanski proposes an additional site and utilizing the outside Community Center basketball court. Mayor Rich Sonterre came to the meeting. Sonterre stated that the council has talked about it and the Community Center makes sense because of the lack of people that use the outside basketball courts. Dazenski, Roepke, Gunn all disagreed. Roepke stated that they are used quite frequently. Sonterre stated the City doesn’t have a lot of tennis courts and the Community Center has a security system. Kroeger agreed that security and safety is a good standpoint. Gunn stated that the base is not suitable for a skate park and that $55,000 is budgeted for the equipment. If this doesn’t work out, we aren’t out that much because the equipment can be sold and the tennis courts can be utilized again. With the Community Center site a new base would need to be put in. Kroeger asked if we could then go back to a basketball court if it didn’t work out? Dazenski stated yes. Szczepanski asked how big of an area is the Community Center as opposed to Groveland Park tennis courts; tennis courts have the bigger area. Should the Police Department be on site or around at all times if this is still a concern? Gunn said that Groveland Park is out in the open, houses are around it and the tennis courts are fenced in. Roepke stated that the YMCA has no staff after 7pm. Dazenski said that the lights are on at Groveland Park and are controlled by a timer and will shut off at 10pm. Sonterre stated that the skate park should be a monitored site and what about changing the hours at the Community Center? He also asked what other sites were visited by the committee? Kroeger listed the sites. Sonterre stated that Shoreview and Roseville liked having a tie to their Community Center. Coon Rapids doesn’t staff and they’ve had problems. Kroeger stated that his concern is about security, noise and lights. Sonterre asked if the exit door by the basketball court could be used so there would only be 1 access in and out of the park? Should we charge people to use it? Dazenski asked what about bathroom calls; people will not remove their skates to go into the Community Center. There is a satellite at Groveland Park. Kroeger thought the neighborhood meeting should still take place. Gunn stated that $55,000 was approved for 2003. Sonterre agreed but also said that the Park Dedication account could be used if necessary. Kunz stated that he does not want to take out a tennis court. Dazenski replied that in order to use the basketball court at the Community Center, the surface will need to be redone and that would cost approximately $18,000-20,000 because of its size. (It’s uneven – a 6 inch drop.) This doesn’t include the costs for fencing, landscaping and irrigation. Sonterre asked how many pieces does the equipment consist of? Gunn replied 7. Sonterre said that Mounds View isn’t the size of Coon Rapids, should it be smaller? Keep it at a modest entry point and if growth is needed, so be it. Gunn replied that is why the committee decided on this size; it’s bigger than New Brighton but not like Coon Rapids or Shoreview. Szczepanski agreed this is an entry level size park. Dazenski said that after talking with people, these size jumps, etc, are what they would want. Sonterre asked Dazenksi if the Parks Department could level off the Community Center area with blacktop? Dazenski replied yes. Sonterre asked if it should it be monitored for safety? Coon Rapids has a sign that states you are fully responsible if hurt, etc. What about having the users sign a liability waiver? Have the parents of the underage users sign it and keep on file at the Community Center. He also suggested having the users of the park to go through the lobby, past the front desk and with the camera’s, that’s adequate monitoring. Kroeger wants to abide by the decision to have a neighborhood meeting. Roepke asked if it would include the residents of Bronson Drive too? Kroeger replied yes. Szczepanski stated that he liked the security issue with having it close to City Hall and Police. Roepke stated that wherever we put it, the kids will come. Szczepanski would like it to be centralized in the City. The committee discussed the sizes of the proposed skate park. Kroeger stated that we could expand it if need be at the Community Center. Dazenski replied not really, there isn’t a lot of room to expand. Sonterre asked how long will the skate boarding fad last? Gunn replied that’s why the tennis courts at Groveland make sense because it could be put back as a tennis court. Kroeger asked where should the skate park go? Szczepanski suggested voting. Gunn replied we’ve already done that. Sonterre stated that whether the residents of Groveland do or do not want the skate park, the committee must make their decision on what is best for the City. In your opinion, what would be the better recommendation for the City as a whole. Gunn asked how close will the skate park be to the Community Center building? She expressed concern about the graffiti and damage to the walls. Sonterre stated that it will be televised by the camera. Dazenski said there would be nothing to vandalize at Groveland except the fence. The Community Center has block work and that would have to be sandblasted. He thinks there is a great potential for grafitti on the building. Also, there is not an existing water source, would we put in a fountain? Or should they come in the building all of the time? Dazenski also expressed his concern about using the emergency exit. There is a reason it is there; what does the fire code state? Motion to abandon Groveland Park as the site for the skate park and look more seriously at the Community Center. Motioned: Kunz 2nd: Szczepanski Discussion: None Motion unanimously passed. Followup: Direct Staff how to maintain a secure skate park at the Community Center. What is the building code regarding emergency exits. Kroeger motioned to direct Staff to find out what it will take to prepare the surface for skating. Also what it would take to provide a secure control in and out. 2nd by Szczepanski Discussion: Gunn would like a finding as to the impact of taking out the basketball court. Kroeger said this could be included when talking to the neighbors. Kroeger: Agree to amend motion. Motion unanimously passed Sonterre presented an “Outstanding Community Service Award” to Frank Silvis. Sonterre left the meeting. January 23, 2003 Skate Park Lee stated that he emailed the Commissioners a memo outlining the costs for modifying the Community Center basketball courts to construct a skate park. Kroeger asked if the slope repair is needed? Suggested addressing this question as we get further into the project. Does the fence need to be 10 feet high? Lee stated that a 6 foot fence would be the minimum height due to the possibility of BMX bikes being tossed over the fence to use in the course. The City of Coon Rapids has problems with this because of a 4 foot fence they had. Kroeger asked about the impact of using the emergency door as an exit door to the park. Lee replied that an emergency exit door cannot exit into a fenced area and that the door would have to be moved. Kroeger stated that the key cost is the surface preparation. Will it impact the basketball players if repaired? Roepke asked how much bigger is Groveland compared to the Community Center. Kroeger: Groveland 107x119 and Community Center is 34x104. Kroeger inquired on how the surface is at the Groveland tennis courts. Cracks? Will this need to be repaired too? Definitely need feed back from the residents regarding a skate park placement. Lee stated that a skate park meeting notice will be placed in the March/April 2003 Mounds View Matters. Long asked why was the Silver View Park basketball courts decided against. Dazenski replied because of the lack of visibility and therefore vandalism. Groveland doesn’t have a lot of vandalism because of the surrounding homes and visibility. Silver View has problems with vandalism. Also the basketball courts at Silver View are used greatly. Kroeger reiterated that the skate park meeting notice will be broadcasted in the following: March/April Mounds View Matters Cable New Brighton Bulletin City’s Web Site Electronic Message Board Lee will bring this to the Council at the March 3 work session to get them up to speed on this project. Kroeger asked if the Commissioner’s wanted to discuss the supervision issues of the skate park now or at another meeting? It was decided by the Commission to bring ideas and concerns to the next meeting regarding supervision, access, and rules for the skate park patrons. Also, ideas as to how the Commission would like the skate park meeting conducted on March 6, 2003. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- February 27, 2003 Skate Park Kroeger stated that the skate park meeting is on March 6, 2003 at the Community Center and he asked how the notification of the meeting was distributed to the community. Lee replied that residential mailings, within 500 feet of the Community Center, were sent out, a notice was published in the New Brighton Bulletin, Mounds View Matters and the St. Paul Pioneer Press, it was put on the city’s web page and electronic message board. Kroeger stated that the committee needed to discuss the details for the meeting on the 6th. Lee stated that it will be a general format with a brief presentation and then open up to questions and answers. Kunz stated that it will be important to get feedback from the residents. Kroeger would like written comments. Lee stated that he is already working on a feedback form and that it can either be filled out at the end of meeting or mailed back to the City. Kroeger asked who facilitate the meeting. Silvis suggested Lee and the Committee agreed. Kroeger suggested that the next step after the meeting will be to compile the feedback from the residents and put it in a proposal to the Council. Kroeger asked if a 10 foot fence is needed. Roepke said the purpose of the fence is to keep the kids from climbing it when the park is unattended. Kroeger stated the following skate parks charge/don’t charge: Don’t Charge: Andover, Centerville, Coon Rapids, Maple Grove Charge: Shoreview, Big Lake Lee said the question will come up, “will it be a success?”. Kroeger suggested asking cities that have skate parks: would they do it again? Lee asked if it will be supervised and will the City charge to use it? Kroeger stated that is the question and we will need the public’s input to decide. Roepke stated that he believes it should be supervised if it is located at the Community Center. Kroeger asked would that apply if the skate park was located elsewhere? Should the skate park be kept open during the Community Center hours or longer. If longer, hire someone to monitor? Kunz thought the City should charge to use the skate park because we charge to use the basketball courts at the Community Center. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- March 20, 2003 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. Kroeger added to the proposal that the City is losing two ½ 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. 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- April 24, 2003 Skate Park Project There is nothing new to discuss regarding the skate park. This was presented to Council at the April 7, 2003 Work Session. The next time this gets brought up will need to be done by motion. Commissioners wanted to perform a thorough review of the parks budget. Staff has not received any additional feed back since the update was presented to the City Council on April 7, 2003. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 22, 2004 Skate Park – Initiate discussions on this topic. This item is currently in the City’s Capital Improvement Program scheduled for 2004. It was not recommended in 2003. Does the Commission want to proceed with this, delay it, or remove it from the Capital Improvement Program? Spend a lot of time on this already. It might be good to let it “simmer”. Delay it until we find a suitable location of financing. As presented last year, this was planned to be supervised. Public Meeting was held, at the following Park and Recreation Meeting it was decided not to proceed with it. Maintenance of the park would be derived for the City’s general fund. There were other financial needs of the City. Motion to not discuss it at the present time: Long 2nd: Edmond Amended to look at it one year from now. Change it in the City’s Capital Improvement Program from 2004 to 2005. Motion passed unanimously