Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPK PACKET 09082003CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PARKS COMMISSION AGENDA September 8, 2003 7:00 P.M. Conference Room I. CALL TO ORDER. II. ROLL CALL. III. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 11, 2003 PARKS COMMISSION MINUTES. IV. REPRESENTATIVES FROM URS WILL BE PRESENT. V. REPORTS: A. Community Services B. School Board C. Sports Boosters VI. OTHER BUSINESS. VII. ADJOURNMENT. Reminder: The Parks Commission meetings in September and October will be cablecast practice runs. The November meeting will be viewed "live" to St. Anthony residents. 1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 2 r PARKS COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 4 5 August 11, 2003 6 7:00 p.m. 7 Conference Room 8 9 The Commission toured Central Park area with URS Representative, Rich Koechlien from 7:00 10 p.m. to 7:45 p.m. 11 12 I. CALL TO ORDER. 13 Chair Jindra called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. and welcomed everyone in attendance. 14 15 H. ROLL CALL. 16 Present: Chair Carol Jindra, Vice Chair Doug Koehntop, Commissioners 17 Julie Gebhardt, Colleen Hallada, and George Wagner. 18 19 Absent: Commissioners Dan Ganley, Jan Jensen and George Wagner; City 20 Council Member Amy Sparks. 21 22 Also Present: Public Works Director Jay Hartman; Consultant Maurice 23 Anderson; Representative from Community Services Diane 24 Skrivseth; Representative from Sports Boosters George Zurbey; Representative from the School Board Ms. Dunn Dunn; 26 Independent Contractor Rich Koechlien (URS). 27 28 29 III. APPROVAL JULY 14, 2003 PARKS COMMISSION MINUTES. 30 31 Mr. Zurbey stated that he had two corrections. He referenced page two, first line, referring to 32 Mr. Anderson asking what was changed since the project start; it should read that Mr. Zurbey 33 asked for the changes. 34 35 Mr. Zurbey stated that at the last meeting he submitted hard copies of email communications 36 between himself and the Mayor to the recorder. He stated that he specifically requested that the 37 emails be included as attachments with the meeting minutes and asked why they were not 38 included with the final draft. Ms. Sullivan stated that she would check on where the hard copies 39 were located and include with the August 11, 2003 meeting minutes. 40 41 Motion by Vice Chair Koehntop, second by Commissioner Hallada, to approve the July 14, 2003 42 Parks Commission Meeting Minutes as amended. 43 44 Motion carried unanimously. 45 4 44 45 Parks Commission Meeting Minutes August 11, 2003 Page 2 1 IV. REPRESENTATIVES FROM URS. 2 3 A. Central Park Discussion 4 5 Chair Jindra asked Mr. Koechlien to review their list of concerns and update them on their 6 progress for resolution. Rick Koechlien, URS, reviewed the punch list items and provided status 7 for each item with the Commission 8 9 Vice Chair Koehntop stated that the Commission would like to know the cost of the trees before 10 they begin to ask for donations. He asked Mr. Koechlien to get a bid on the trees from North 11 Metro in order to give them a better idea of the cost. Chair asked if better off financially to go 12 thru the school. Mr. Koechlien suggested utilizing someone other than North Metro. 13 14 Public Works Director Hartman asked the Commission to clarify the number of trees. Vice 15 Chair Koehntop stated that he did not have the exact number noting that Council Member Sparks 16 would like more trees along the parking lot in addition to more trees at the south end of the 17 practice field. He asked Ms. Dunn to discuss the trees, as an agenda item, with the School 18 Board. Ms. Dunn explained that the School Board does not want to do anything additional, 19 outside of the plan or process, until the items that should be done are completed. She stated that 20 she would discuss their concerns with the School Board. Z.z. Mr. Anderson asked for further clarification as to why they have a separate road and why they 23 have to drive across the free skating area in order to get to the hockey rink. He noted that the 24 area appears not to be level and expressed concerns regarding the flooding process during the 25 winter season. Public Works Director Hartman reviewed the access points with the Commission. 26 He also reviewed the grade process for the hockey rink stating that it is level enough and should 27 be fine. 28 29 Mr. Zurbey referenced the punchlist and asked what the x's under the URS column meant. Mr. 30 Koechlien explained that the x's indicate that the item has been completed. 31 32 Commissioner Gebhardt asked if some of the shoddy work could be attributed to the number of 33 new employees. Mr. Koechlien clarified that the problem areas had nothing to do with the new 34 employees. He reviewed the issues with the Commission stating that they are in the process of 35 cleaning up the area. 36 37 Vice Chair Koehntop asked for clarification of the watering process noting that the North Metro 38 driver was not able to access certain areas because the smaller roads did not accommodate his 39 watering truck. Public Works Director Hallman clarified that they would have to use pickups to 40 access these areas and reviewed with the Commission. 41 42 Commissioner Gebhardt suggested, for future consideration, that the group deciding additions to the park areas also consider incorporating handicap access at the same time. Parks Commission Meeting Minutes August 11, 2003 Page 3 1 B. City Council/Parks Commission Joint meeting 2 3 Chair Jindra reviewed the joint meeting between City Council and the Board with the 4 Commission. She provided information handouts to the Commission for their review noting that 5 it is a policy that the Park Commission would like to see in place. She reviewed the Central Park 6 Planning Summary with the Commission that included the recommended process to use when 7 making additions to a park. She stated that it also addresses another issue, the dugouts and 8 concession stands. She stated that the Commission would like to see dugouts installed 9 professionally that would include soil tests prior to installation. She stated that the Commission 10 would also like to have some involvement in the decision process for materials to be used. She 11 stated that information on the meeting is included in the July 29th Focus News. 12 13 Mr. Zurbey asked if any decisions have been made on the process. Chair Jindra stated that no 14 decisions have been made at this time noting that a meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 12, 15 2003. She reviewed the issues to be discussed with the Commission. 16 17 Mr. Anderson clarified that it was made very clear at the last meeting that the Commission is 18 asking for a policy or procedure to be developed that would address changes and how they 19 should or could occur in the park. 20 Ms. Dunn asked if the City Council or School Board had reviewed any of the suggestions. Mr. Zurbey explained that Randy left it that they would make the final decisions and that a 23 Committee would be put together to assist in the decision process. 24 25 Vice Chair Koehntop asked if there would be any advantage in passing a resolution regarding 26 their concerns to present at the Board meeting tomorrow evening. 27 28 Mr. Anderson referenced the motion made at the last meeting. Vice Chair Koehntop 29 acknowledged and asked Ms. Dunn to take the motion to the Board meeting for further 30 discussion. Ms. Dunn explained that she did present the Commission's motion at the last Board 31 meeting and reviewed the discussion with the Commission. 32 33 Vice Chair Koehntop asked Ms. Dunn to restate the motion and their concerns. He explained 34 that he would like to be sure that their concerns are restated and made clear to the Board. Ms. 35 Dunn stated that she would pass their concerns on to the Board. She also suggested that 36 Representatives from the Commission attend the meeting and present their concerns to the Board 37 themselves. 38 39 Vice Chair Koehntop stated that he would like to add an additional sentence to the original 40 motion. He clarified the motion stating that the Park Commission is politely asking for their 41 consideration on this issue. 42 Motion by Vice Chair Koehntop, second by Commissioner Hallada, to request consideration from the School Board, a continuance in the interest of park safety, function and aesthetics 45 Parks Commission Meeting Minutes August 11, 2003 Page 4 1 Motion carried unanimously. 2 3 C. Update - Silver Point Park 4 5 Public Works Director Hartman provided the Commission with an update for Silver Point Park. 6 He stated that the fields have all been hydro seeded, noting that not much is growing yet. He 7 stated that the utilities are installed. He reviewed the basketball net installation stating that the 8 hockey boards would go back in and that they plan to provide both hockey and recreation skating 9 this season. He stated that they are looking at an October 1, 2003 completion date. 10 11 Chair Jindra asked if the area would have to be re -seeded if the grass does not fill in well enough 12 before hockey season. She also asked who would be responsible if they did have to re -seed. 13 Public Works Director Haitinan stated that they would have to re -seed and that it would be the 14 City's responsibility. 15 16 Mr. Zurbey suggested identifying the location for the free skating rink area. Public Works 17 Director Hartman stated that Staff would review and determine the best locations for future 18 discussion with the Commission. 19 20 V. REPORTS. 2,L A. Community Services. 23 24 Community Services Representative Diane Skrivseth was not present. 25 26 B. School Board. 27 28 School Board Representative Ms. Dunn stated that she has nothing new to report. 29 30 C. Sports Boosters. 31 32 Mr. Zurbey stated that one of the largest issues with the Booster Club is whether the park 33 is going to be completed on time. He stated that he has received several questions from 34 parents who have expressed concerns regarding the traveling time to scheduled games. 35 He stated that he discussed his concerns with the Mayor via email and reviewed the email 36 exchange with the Commission. 37 3 8 Mr. Zurbey stated that the Booster Club has turned down all requests for charitable 39 contribution until they have a better understanding of what the process would be for 40 charitable contributions. 41 42 VI. OTHER BUSINESS. 44 Mr. Zurbey noted the back fences and benches at Wiltshire Park stating that they look great. 45 Parks Commission Meeting Minutes August 11, 2003 Page 5 1 VII. ADJOURNMENT. 2 Motion by Vice Chair Koehntop, second by Commissioner Hallada, to adjourn the meeting at 3 8:45 p.m. 4 5 Motion carried unanimously. 6 7 Respectfully submitted, 8 9 10 Bonita Sullivan 11 Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. .Message Page 1 of George Zurbey From: Hodson, Randy [hodson@edcsolutions.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 11:16 AM To: George Zurbey Cc:'jhartman@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us'; 'asparks@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us'; 'shall@ci.saint- anthony.mn.us'; 'jfaust@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us';'bthuesen@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us'; 'dhorst@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us'; 'mmornson@ci,saint-anthony.mn.us' Subject: RE: Central Park George, appreciate your bringing this to my attention as well as the councils. I took the comments that you wrote: There are many questions that come to mind. Some of them are as follows. What is the new schedule? When can we expect a completed park? What is on the punchlist that was to be put together June 30th? Where is the accountability for AGAIN not completing this project on another revised schedule? When will we get the results that all of us are expecting? How can we be assured that what we are told will happen this time? as being cynical....lf this is not correct then, 1 apologize for misinterpreting them. I have observed at several meetings, the way in which you approach topics and handle people, and I find your methods less than encouraging or positive. Maybe I have been observing this during times that you were extremely frustrated with the progress being made on this $2.7 million dollar project. I believe the Central Park Project will be a success. Do we have some issues to clear up? Certainly Are they able to be resolved through constructive conversation? Absolutely and I would like to continue to do so. As for rny response being_a deflection of the issue at hand, i will challenge you once again. DON'T EVER ACCUSE ME OF THAT, and if you feel that you have to, you better have the ability to do it to my face. I take this park seriously George, as well as the other projects that are going on in this city. l find it interesting that your email and voice is the only negative one that I have heard from the commission. And you, as an nontaxpayer in St. Anthony to have the audacity to challenge my intentions. Well the issue at hand has been forwarded to Sue and Jay. NO, I have not heard from them yet but l know I will. l will keep you posted on this. Original Message From: George Zurbey [mailto:george©uvcolor.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 7:11 PM To: Hodson, Randy Subject: RE; Central Park Randy, Unfortunately, I don't have the opportunity to deal with non work related issues during the work day. Therefore, I could not respond to you. I'd like to respond to the comments that you've made. The e-mail that was sent this morning was purely factual unless someone can dispute the facts that were presented. It was intended to alert you of the issues as well as to find out what, if anything, is being done to move this project to a timely completion. As a member of the Parks Commission, 1 would suggest that the information and answers requested are appropriate and legitimate questions and answers that a member of the commission should have or ask. Regarding the suggested complaints from commission members, I will bring your e-mail to the meeting on Monday, read it to them, and ask the commissioners if any of them have had issues with my "negative attitude". If they have issues, we can talk about and address those concerns in a courteous and professional manner after the meeting. For the record, I did check with the chair of the commission, and she had not heard of any complaints. 7/1(1/71)r11 Message Page 2 of Regarding the suggested complaints from residents, I am more than willing to discuss those issues with you as long as they are specific and not general. I'll ask you to do what you ask us to do. Put the specifics in writing so I have a basis for a conversation and we can meet face to face to discuss the issues. However, I would like an additional representative from the Boosters present at the conversation so that there's no confusion as to what is talked about and what is said. I feel like the response 1 received is a deflection of what the real issue is here. The real issue is is what is the City leadership doing to hold the architects and the contractor accountable for a timely and satisfactory completion of this project. The questions asked this morning are all relevant to the timely and satisfactory completion of the project. 1 did not get a response from Ms. Hall or Mr. Hartman to the questions that were asked. Did you? George Original Message From: Hodson, Randy[mailto:hodson@edcsolutions.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 8:36 AM To: George Zurbey Subject: RE: Central Park George, Could you please give me a call at my office. I'd like to talk about this. Your negative attitude has been a detriment throughout this entire process. I have had several complaints from residents and commission members echoing the this concern. If anything you have been a wedge, dividing any possibility of cooperation between this team, I've forward your email on to Sue Hall and Jay Hartman since Mike is on vacation. I'd like to follow-up on this as soon as possible. Randy Hodson Original Message From: George Zurbey [mailto:george@uvcolor.comj Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 7:43 AM To: mmornson@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us Cc: rhodson@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us; alumniguy©nwc.edu Subject: Central Park Mr. Mornson, At the joint meeting of the Parks Commission and the City Council held on June 9th, Rich Koechlien of URS gave us a timeline for the completion of the Central Park project. Please refer to the minutes of that meeting on page three lines 20 through 27, We were told that the landscaping would be completed by the end of next week. The parking lot, trails and basketball court would begin next week. All above ground equipment was to be completed within the next week and the project was to be substantially completed within the next three weeks, at which time a punch list was to be put together and the growth of the grass was to be assessed, This time table was given to us after we had been told earlier in the year that the project would be substantially completed by June 1. June 30th has come and gone, and by the looks of things, very little haE been accomplished over the past four weeks. it appears that none of the items that we were assured woulc be completed at the latest by June 30th, are complete. On a tour this past Sunday, the only progress appeared to be a portion of the curbing for the parking lot. Trails were not done, landscaping was not started other than tree stakes being put in place, the basketball court was not done and so on. In addition, there continues to be erosion issues, the grass is not filling in adequately, and the practice football field appears to becoming a bed of weeds. These are the bigger items. Smaller items such as the pitchers mound on the varsity field have not been addressed and there appears to be no grass growing on the 7/10/2003 Message Page 3 of infield of the varsity field where new dirt was put in place to eliminate ponding. In response to council member Sparks' question about the landscaping at the last City Council meeting, you responded that "everything was on schedule". They are clearly not on the schedule given to us four weels ago. Is there another schedule the Commission is not privy to? Concerns are growing every day that the park and the fields are not going to be completed this year and be playable next year. We need results. There are many questions that come to mind. Some of them are as follows. What is the new schedule? When can we expect a completed park? What is on the punchlist that was to be put together June 30th? Where is the accountability for AGAIN not completing this project on another revised schedule? When will we get the results that all of us are expecting? How can we be assured that what we are told will happen this time? Would you please address in writing back to me, the answers to the issues that have been raised in this e- mail? Thanks, George Zurbey Sports Booster Representative on the Parks Commission. 7/10/2001 To: Jay Hartman Public Works Director City of St. Anthony Village From: Richard Koechlein, URS Subject: Response to George Zurby Email Dear Jay, The purpose of this memo is to respond to the email George Zurby sent to Mayor Hodson and the city counsel members. In reference to the scheduling, as you know the upper parking lot was not able to be milled and overlayed as planned. We had to replace the pavement in the upper parking lot. So to make these changes we had to get new estimates, revise our plans and evaluate which plan to go with. As everyone knows there is no money for additions so I was not ready to have them start on the parking lot until we knew exactly what the cost would be and if we could afford it. In delaying the parking lot it delayed the rest of the remaining items left to do in the park. The same contractor that is installing the parking lot is installing the basketball court and finishing the trails adjacent to the plaza. Veit was not able to finish the grading and seeding around the plaza until those trails have been finished. In the same respect, the landscape contractor could not start the landscaping around the plaza and did not want mobilize twice. They have staked a majority of the trees around the park and Doug Koehntop and I have been out there twice adjusting and re -staking the trees. We will not start the punch list until all items at the park are complete. It would be a waste of time to do a punch list prior to Veit completing there work. There are several other areas around the park including turf establishment, erosion issues and weeds that all need to be addressed. Yes, I did say that they were planning on completing the parking lot, trails, basketball court, and landscaping within the last month, but as you know sometimes the schedules have to be adjusted to deal when issues arise. In conclusion, the parking lot issue has delayed the completion of several other items in the park. There is nobody that want's to get this park project done than me, but if there is an issue like the parking lot that adds an expense to the already depleted budget I won't hesitate to delay construction until we find a fiscally responsible solution. If you have any questions please contact me at 612-373-6886. Cern. aI Park Project Appropriation: $2,704,100.00 St. Anthony High School $20,681.25 Total Revenue $2,724,781.25 Hard Costs: Central Park Construction - Veit City Hall Irrigation Park Building - Thompson Homes Central Park - Contingency Park Building Contingency Total Soft Costs: URS - Planning & Design SEH - Engineering/Planning Total Additional Hard Costs: Common Excavation Common Borrow Contaminated Soil/Disposal Soccer Goal Posts Erosion Control Fence Lab, Testing - Soils Analysis Environmental Field Supplies Lead/Oil Drum Disposal Additional Lighting Foundation Practice Soccer Field Total Additional Soft Costs: STS Consultants - Soil Borings STS - Construction Testing URS - Environmental Services Bond Issuance Pollution Control Advertisement for Bids Maurice Anderson Total High School Change Orders: Irrigation System Install Jug Filler/Drinking Fountain Trail Between H.S & Pavillion Intall Asphalt @ H.G. Gym Entrance Total Central Park Project - Totals $1,661,762.13 $28,100.00 $453,096.90 $34,000.00 $25,000.00 $2,201,959.03 $269,050.00 $55,000.00 $324,050.00 $9,520.00 $36,988.00 $25,153.58 $3,000.00 $4,674.25 $1,500.00 $295.00 $3,500.00 $30,000.00 $10,000.00 $124,630.83 $6,646.00 $5,000.00 $13,500.00 $23,881.54 $2,362.50 $390.10 $1,680.00 $53,460.14 $2,721.25 $650.00 $14,190.00 $3,120.00 $20,681.25 $2,724,781.25 06/30/2003 Expenditures Balance $1,376,218.43 $285,543.70 $26,695.00 $1,405.00 $436,234.70 $16,862.20 $28,190.69 $5,809.31 $0.00 $25,000.00 $334,620.20 $248,603.70 $55,000.00 $7,839.12 $30,602.73 $20,803.83 $2,412.04 $3,919.56 $1,206.02 $301.50 $2,864.30 $24,874.14 $8,291.38 $6,646.00 $2,520.00 $3,500.00 $30,786.54 $2,572.50 $641.40 $3,960.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,324,683.59 $20,446.30 ($0.00) $20,446.30 $1,680.88 $6,385.27 $4,349.75 $587.96 $754.69 $293.98 ($6.50) $635.70 $5,125.86 $1,708.62 $21,516.21 $0.00 $2,480.00 $10,000.00 ($6,905.00) ($210.00) ($251.30) ($2,280.001 $2,833.70 $2,721.25 $650.00 $14,190.00 $3,120.00 $20,681.25 $400,097.66 Silver Point Park Building/Engineering Budget Expenditures Balance $25,700.00 $25,700.00 Veit Construction Contract Change Orders Budget: Central ParkNeit Contingency Additional/Hard Costs $0.00 $1,661,762.13 $158,630.83 $1,820,392.96 $1,661,762.13 $34,000.00 $124,630.83 $1,820,392.96