The URL can be used to link to this page

1 Approval of Minutes - FebCHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2001 Vice Chairman Berg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Berg, Jim Manders, Rod Franks, Jay Karlovich, and David Moes MEMBERS ABSENT: Jan Lash and Mike Howe STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Karlovich moved, Moes seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated January 23, 2001 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CHANHASSEN LIBRARY~ APPOINT REPRESENTATIVE TO PARTICIPATE IN PLANNING MEETINGS. Hoffman: Thank you to Chair Berg, members of the commission. This body has expressed an interest in being, or participating in the development of the library. The Chanhassen library. I've inquired with City Manager Botcher on how he would like to see that happen and his recommendation is that a representative from the Park and Recreation Commission be appointed to attend the public planning meetings. There's two more meetings left. Are on March 10t~, this coming Saturday or a week from Saturday at 9:00 a.m. and Tuesday, March 27th at 7:00 p.m. and I know, well both of those are held here in the City Council Chambers so if you see fit you can appoint a representative to that body. Berg: So we're looking for a volunteer or to appoint. Franks: Is this just someone from this commission in attendance or is this someone from this commission being an active participant in what the library board or this planning committee, I guess I'm a little. Hoffman: Somebody being an active participant of those public meetings. It's not an official appointment. Franks: Not an official appointment. Hoffman: No. Manders: Is this Tuesday the 27th, is that like the same time as this meeting? Hoffman: Same time as us, yeah. We got bumped and I think we'll be meeting upstairs so. You can all attend that night if you choose to reschedule. I attended the first one. For a $6 million product, there was probably about a doze of us in the audience. Not a very big representative sample of the community but very interesting meeting. Nice job on tht presentation. But those are the people that are having, at least from what I'm gathered, the people in the audience are playing the direction for this library in look, feel, color, quantity, quality, upstairs, downstairs so it's an important process. Berg: Is there anyone who would care to volunteer to. Ruegemer: Did Jay raise his hand? Kariovich: No. I'm a basketball coach right now. I'm kind ofmaxed out. Berg: Okay, the right hand side of the table is evidently clear. Did you have time to think of an excuse yet, either one of you? Franks: Well I'm going to be out of town on the 27th but I'm available on the l0th. Moes: Well I heard the 10th was taken. Berg: It's unfortunate that it's the same night. Karlovich: Well I could do the 27th meeting. Berg: Could you? Okay. Sounds like we're set. Thank you. Hoffman: I'll be at both of them. Berg: Thank you very much. Karlovich: How can you do that? Hoffman: Excuse me? Karlovich: How can you be at both on the 27th? Hoffman: Well I'll be at the first half hour of the 27th. These meetings by the way are going to be returning to 7:30. We had a meeting at 7:00. The agenda's never been changed back so I compliment you all on reading that 7:00 but we will be going back to 7:30. Berg: I was wondering what happened with that. Hoffman: Well we switched in December I think and just never got put back. SCHOOL DISTRICT 112 REQUEST TO UTILIZE CITY SOCCER FIELDS FOR FALL SCHOOL SEASON. Ruegemer: Thank you Chair Berg. Fred, would you like me to go through the whole report? Berg: Just give a couple highlights. We don't need to, maybe get Mike up here to plead his case. Ruegemer: The cliff note version of it. That's how I got through college, what the heck. To make a long story short, in 1999, November School District 112 did pass a successful referendum. A good portion of that, or a portion of that was for field improvements, namely at the middle school and the high school. There were some other projects that were sprinkled in but the bulk of it was at the two locations that we had mentioned. Roughly about $935,000. We did go through a facility's task force that met throughout the course of the year. In 2000 starting in I believe March or April and going to August. Kind of reviewing and making recommendations as to kind of what is the best use of the money and that would make the most sense to do that. Through that process the school district has made the deternfination on once the recommendation was made to the school board to go ahead obviously with the project. The bid documents I believe are already out on the streets and they're getting finalized at this point. And what the school district has decided also, instead of phasing the projects, they're going to really kind of bite the bullet so to speak and just take them, take all the fields down at one time. Kind of live through those pains and move on. Hopefully have available fields back again in the fall of 2002. What Mike Warren, he's activity's director sitting behind us with the Chaska High School is here tonight asking if the City of Chanhassen could assist through that process. Since they will be losing soccer fields and practice space at their current locations, basically they were kind of coming in the City of Chanhassen to see if we can assist in kind of facilitating their needs for their soccer programs. The JV and the high school programs are going to be taken care of down on the campuses down at the high school, middle school areas, and then they're looking for field space for the B and the JV programs. Both boys and girls. Totaling 8 teams and that's 4 teams per level I guess. B and JV. In a facility scheduling standpoint from the city it's a request that is relatively easy to accommodate the times that they have requested. It's during really after the school is done for the day and is done before the community based groups start for the evening. So it's an easy thing to accomplish if the Park and Rec Commission chooses to grant the request tonight. Looking at a number of different areas, the rec center, the fields out there. City Center Park right here. Lake Ann, Bandimere, and just listed a few concerns. Just with the watering ban that we would kind of leave it up to staff to work with Mike and the high school if the commission does approve their request. And kind of to not so much earmark fields tonight but kind of look to the future and let us kind of make that decision once the fields are kind of up and going again after the water tower and that gets completed. So that is our request, and really it's my concerns is really to have those fields or grant the practices and games on irrigated fields so we can kind of manage that process. So. it's staff's recommendation that the Park and Rec Commission approve District 112's request for soccer fields roughly August 13th through mid-October. And also staff recommends that specific locations not be designated at this time and we'll certainly work with School District 112 in coming up with a usable plan so they can accommodate their activities in the near future. Berg: Okay, thank you Jerry. Before we have Mike come up are there any commissioners who have questions of Jerry specifically? Franks: I'm assuming by your recommendation Jerry that this is not intended to conflict with any of the already scheduled users on these fields? Ruegemer: No. Franks: Well it sounds kind of like a no brainer. Karlovich: I agree. Maes: On the pre-season, being a 4 hours a day and that early in the morning, late in the afternoon? Ruegemer: Talking to our park maintenance crews, I think Mike is somewhat flexible on that is from what I gathered before. Talked with our park maintenance crews. It's certainly my recommendation that we do that in the latter half of the day so we can still get mowing of grass completed. Aerating, fertilization. A lot of those field maintenance types of issues because that is after our summer season gets over with. We're kind of in that window of opportunity where it can really kind of gain momentum again before the fall season starts. So we really do need that time in the morning to accomplish our goals with the fields. So to answer your question David, it'd be better to have the 4 hours on the tail end of the day. Moes: Would that still be ending at 5:30 then? Ruegemer: Yeah, I think that's somewhat flexible but yes. We would end at 5:00-5:30. Moes: I just know the community soccer starts about mid August and we've got the 6:00 start time there so ending at 5:30 gives a half hour transition for those leaving and those coming then. Ruegemer: Sure. Berg: Other questions of Jerry. Manders: One other questions on this watering thing. I mean supposedly the water tower problem or whatever that is is supposed to be fixed up by mid June and this doesn't start until the middle of August so I'm presuming the fields that we're talking about already have sprinkler type set-up's so there shouldn't be problems with field use or anything? Ruegemer: Right. I mean we do have some time inbetween when we can start watering again. Approximately 2 months from that so we can make up ground again so it's relatively easy... Berg: Okay. Mike, is there anything you want to say or ask? Add? Mike Werner: I'm here to answer questions. Appreciate your support on this. Berg: Mike, do you want to come up to the microphone and state your name and. Mike Werner: Mike Werner, Activities Director at Chaska High School. People have asked me why we made the decision to take everything down at once because basically that's what we're doing except for our practice football field and our main stadium. What is now our football stadium is where we'll actually be playing our varsity soccer games this fall as well so that's going to be heavily used. And the answer to the question of why we did it is, the history and Fred knows something about this, on these public projects is if, my concern was if we tried to phase things in and just take a couple fields down at a time and then do a couple the next year, is that the money would be gone. The money would go to other projects. We know that those building projects in the school district are, there always seems to be a ways that the money goes to good use but it goes and my concern was that if we didn't get this project done and put it off, there would probably, some of the money would not be there for fields in a year or 2 years. So that's why we decided to take them all down. The expectation is that we'll start work on those fields as soon as we can in the spring. They will construct over the summer. They will seed in late summer so given the fall growth time, next spring, next summer, we certainly expect all our fields to be up and going again for the fall of 2002. Manders: So what is it that you're doing? I mean it doesn't describe it much. Mike Wemer: We are, what is now our soccer stadium at the middle school is going to be completely renovated. That will be torn out, rebuilt, new bleachers put in. There are new lights already that were installed. An area just west, just south of middle school west is going to be constructed into a soccer field. That was used for practices. It's just kind of an open area now. The area east of our current soccer stadium on the middle school campus is going to be renovated into additional soccer space. There will be 3 new soccer fields built on the middle school campus. Those aren't currently being used but they'll be built and then our existing practice space at the high school. When that area was constructed it's clay. There probably was not, I think they did the best they could when they built it but it's not a good turf surface so that area's going to be renovated. Not torn up completely but turf managed, whatever that is. So that's why those areas are not available. Berg: Any other questions for Mike? Hoffman: I have a couple. Who is the consultant on the fields? Is it, the field consultant is the same guy we used? Don Hotfieid? Mike Werner: Yes. Hoffman: And are you asking Chaska for any additional city fields or are they not available for your use? Mike Werner: There are no fields available. There's a field at Bluff Creek. Not Bluff Creek. There's a field at Jonathan Elementary that is a possibility. I've looked at other options, if this commission would not find this acceptable, and there are various fields around small areas that we could use and we could bus students to. The part that's appealing about the, if we could use the Chanhassen fields is that we could run a couple of buses to a couple of locations and do the bulk of our practice areas there as opposed to running to a small space here and a small space there. The City of Chaska right now really does not have many open spaces when we take down all the school fields. Berg: Other questions for Michael? Franks: You know you're going to have to pay up later. Mike Werner: As I alluded to in my last paragraph, we have had an excellent relationship with the Chan and Chaska Soccer Association. We'll have quality fields there and to the best of my ability you certainly want to continue in that cooperation spirit with the City of Chanhassen. And I remembered where I was too. Berg: I wasn't going to bring that up. I think this is important to do too. As Jerry said it's a no brainer but it's also I think, because of what sort of what you just alluded to. It's important that Chanhassen keep establishing an identity with the district and willingness to work because we're just as much a part of the district as any other community and it's good, I think it's good to have that give and take back and forth. Karlovich: Yeah, I think we need to view it as an opportunity, not a burden and to just advise staff to do everything possible to accommodate our school district. Mike Wemer: And we want to work with you. For example, I would guess the coaches would probably in that pre-season, they prefer to practice in the morning. Depending upon the weather, it's a little cooler. They get going, but we understand the issues of the field. We'll take the block of time whenever it's available and likewise in after school situations. If there are times or particular days when for some reason or another you need to get on those fields sooner, we'll work with you. That's certainly our intent. Berg: Okay, thanks Mike. Mike Werner: You're welcome. Berg: Is there a motion? Moes: I move we approve staff's recommendation that the Park and Recreation Commission approve the request for School District 112 to utilize the City of Chanhassen soccer fields from August 13th to mid- October, 2001. And that specific locations not be designated at this time and that staff will work with School District 112 to determine the specific locations depending on field conditions due to the watering ban. And this determination will be established far enough in advance as to not hinder School District 112's planning for the upcoming fall school season. I guess I'd also like to add that, based on the notes that are here, that activities would be completed by 5:30 to allow transition to the community based youth soccer programs. Berg: Is there a second? Karlovich: Second. Moes moved, Karlovich seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission approve the request for School District 112 to utilize the City of Chanhassen soccer fields from August 13th to mid- October, 2001. Specific locations will not be designated at this time and staffwill work with School District 112 to determine the specific locations depending on field conditions due to the watering ban. This determination will be established far enough in advance as to not hinder School District l12's planning for the upcoming fall school season. School District 112 activities shall be completed by 5:30 to allow transition to the community based youth soccer programs. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT FOR THE INT WATER SKIING TOURNAMENT AT LAKE SUSAN. Ruegemer: Thank you Chair Berg. The INT is requesting to have another tournament out at Lake Susan again this year. Last year we did move the date earlier in June, and that's approximately about the same date as what this year's request is. Moving it from July to early June really mitigated a lot of those types of situations that we incurred in the past and I think everybody was happy last year with that. This year's request is Saturday, June 2na and Sunday, June 3rd. That tournament out there roughly about the same time again. Same type of format. I don't know what else there really is to say. We'll have the same conditions kind of identified that we identified last year through the neighborhood meetings with the zero tolerance behavior types of issues. Notification to residents. A lot of those types of things have been identified here and INT is more than willing to police that themselves in order for the tournament to continue. After last year's tournament, I don't know ifI heard really any comments back from the tournament other than they were happy the tournament was moved earlier in June. School was still in session. The weather is not super warm yet for boating but it really did work out good. The residents again of the lake were notified of the INT's request. They were mailed the memo that was prepared. That list is attached to your agenda item and I did not receive one phone call in regards to that. So I'm not sure if Todd did or not but I did not receive a phone call so I'm assuming that people were satisfied with the attempt of INT last year and staff's recommendation that we approve the request again for the INT for June 2nd and 3rd with the reservation fee being the same, $250 a day with a total of $500 and then a $1,000 kind of damage deposit. Manders: Do you recall how many years this has been now? Ruegemer: This is their fifth or sixth. Manders: I seem to recall that there was a bunch of issues from earlier years but. Berg: Considerable flack last year before they changed the date. Manders: Yeah. But this last year it seemed to take care of business? Ruegemer: The biggest thing was the monitoring of the access. Not really letting people onto the lake during the tournament but all of that was rectified last year. Manders: Okay. Berg: Yeah, weren't there people around the lake or something that wanted to jump on and try the course themselves or something and that creating a problem. Ruegemer: You bet .... 4th of July and it just wasn't the best situation. Just kind of an FYI for the commission too. The INT plans on putting in and taking out the course every day so they're not going to have a permanent course.., leave it in the water overnight so therefore they do not need a permit from the Carver County Water Patrol. Berg: Jim, do you have any other questions? Manders: Nope. Berg: Jay? Karlovich: No. Berg: Rod? Franks: I think it speaks for itself that there's nobody here to talk about it. And no calls. Moes: When was the notice sent out? Ruegemer: Last Wednesday or Thursday. Franks: I mean when there were problems we had a house full of people and it's obvious that they dealt with it successfully so. Berg: Dave, anything? Okay. Motion. Franks: I move that the Park and Recreation Commission approve INT's request for a public gathering permit to host their waterski, wake board, knee board tournament at Lake Susan Park on June 2nd and June 3rd of 2001. Also that 1NT pay the reservation fee of $250 per day to reserve the Lake Ann pavilion for their tournament headquarters. And then also that 1NT be required to submit a $1,000 deposit check prior to the event to cover any unforeseen damages. Berg: Moes: Berg: Is there a second? Second. Todd you had something you wanted to say. Hoffman: Point of clarification. That the commission recommend to the council. The council is the only one that can approve the public gathering permit. Franks: Yes. Franks moved, Moes seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council approve INT's request for a public gathering permit to host a water-ski, wake-board and knee-board tournament at Lake Susan park on June 2 and 3, 2001. INT shall pay the reservation fee of $250 per day to reserve the Lake Susan Pavilion and submit a $1,000 deposit check prior to the event to cover any unforeseen damages. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 2001 4TM OF JULY FIREWORKS CONTRACT. Ruegemer: Thank you Chair Berg. The City of Chanhassen is planning on contracting through Melrose Pyrotechnics again this year. We've used Melrose for a number of years now. Very satisfied and happy with their performances. It's here tonight at, they have a contract here in the sum of $21,000 which was budgeted in our recreation program budget in 2001 budget cycle so it's staff's recommendation that we approve Melrose Pyrotechnics contract in the amount of $21,000 tonight. The show will take place on Wednesday, July 4th, which is consistent with other years at 10:00 p.m. Which is dusk. Manders: How does this budget compare to prior years? Is that the same? Franks: Last year especially. Ruegemer: We did $20,000 last year. Franks: And that was up, wasn't it? Ruegemer: From $14,500. We did $20,000 for 2000 so. Hoffman: Corey is just optimistic. Berg: He's already signed the contract. Karlovich: Corey already put down 21 G's of his own. He wants to get reimbursed. Berg: Any other questions? Moes: On this, I read the contract. Do we get like 20 minutes worth or 25 minutes worth? Ruegemer: We can dictate that. Typically we gauge and do like an 18 to 20 minute show. Approximately. That time frame kind of allows constant mortar rounds and it really, there's really no lag time or lull time in there and I think it's more of an effect on the show. You can drag it out to 45 minutes if you wanted to. Moes: No, what I was getting at was last year we increased the budget and I think it went to 20 or 25 minutes and maybe it was that length of time the previous year for $14,000. The thought that jumped to my mind was, without specifically seeing in here how long the show is or what sorts of things they include in there, we're paying $21,000 and then shooting from the hip that we're going to get a nice 20 minute show or are they going to come back with a 15 minute show this year for $21,0007 Hoffman: We talk to them about that. 20 minutes seems to be about right for, you know the more bang in the air at a certain time and if you go any shorter than that people feel a little bit cheated. They've taken an hour, hour and a half to get into position and they're going to take an hour to get out of the parking lot so. Franks: I guess what we're thinking, and I'm with you is, are we going to get that many more shells for $20,000 as opposed to the $14,500. Is that kind of what? Moes: Well that, I mean I'm okay with the $21,000. It's just that last year $21,000 got us 20 minutes. This year does it just get us 15 minutes without seeing it in the contract here. I don't know. I'm reading it and I don't see anything other than it's costing us $21,000 for the show, of which I'm not sure what the show is. Hoffman: Did they include a shell list this year? Franks: Because they have in the past. Berg: They have in the past. Ruegemer: They have in the past. Manders: It seems to me that it isn't the time component, it's the shell component...whichever direction you want. Ruegemer: Would you like a follow-up at next month's meeting? Kind of a shell count and. Franks: Personally you know I don't know if I need to get that detailed about it, just so long as it's same or similar as it was before. If we're looking at something where it's slightly less than what we got last year for less money, then I think that's something we need to take a look at. But I mean if we're looking at same, similar or more then. Ruegemer: I would think it'd be very comparable to last year's. Moes: And I can go down the path assuming that it will be comparable with last year, although without seeing it I don't want to make a. Berg: It's a good question. I think at the very least it's worth mentioning to Melrose that it's a concern of our's that we'd like to... Karlovich: Did you get cheated earlier today or something? 9 Moes: I read it, I speak my mind. I think it's perfectly legitimate Jay. Hoffman: I'm surprised Jay didn't come up with some legal mumbo jumbo for us with the contract. Karlovich: I'm sorry, the contract's... Berg: So much for commission politics. Commission government. Any other questions? Is there a motion? Manders: I would move that we accept the recommendations for the 4th of July fireworks. Berg: A second? Franks: Are you moving that the city approve the contract? Manders: Move that the city approve the contract, yeah. Karlovich: Or we recommend that the City Council authorize Corey to execute the contract on behalf of the City. Franks: Much better. Berg: A second? Franks: I'll second it. Manders moved, Franks seconded that the Park and Recreation.Commission recommends that the City approve the contract for Melrose Pyrotechnics in the amount of $21,000 for the 4th Of July fireworks display at Lake Ann Park. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ROUNDHOUSE RENOVATION RESPOND TO CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION FOR ADDITIONAL REVIEW~ SCHEDULE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. Hoffman: Chair Berg, members of the commission. On Monday, February 12th the City Council voted to have the Park and Recreation Commission review the round house renovation project for financing and renovation options. Council was uncomfortable investing the $121,000-$119,000, the amount of the contract in the project. I think what we're facing is that we have new members on the council that have not been along for the last what, 2 ½ years worth of investigation and work put into the round house and so they have some apprehensions in investing those kind of dollars in the structure, without feeling comfortable. In order to feel comfortable they would like the commission to talk about it some more and investigate possible other options for the work and then also to meet with the neighborhood to hear first hand whether or not they're comfortable at this level of financing in renovating the project or would they, the last time the neighborhood reviewed the project, it was closer to an $80,000. And so that's what the direction from the City Council is. We have an opening on March 13th, and that's only to meet with the neighbors, only if the commission reaches some sort of a consensus this evening on a position that they would like to start with with the neighborhood that evening. If you do not, we recommend that you delay that time, or that date til a future time. City Council has set a 90 day window for the commission to work on this new recommendation. Included in your packet you have a letter, it's an e-mail from Linda back out to some of the neighbors that had corresponded with her. Talking about their recommendation on Monday, February 12th. There is a response to an editorial by Greta Carlson talking about some issues 10 that she was concerned with. And then there is a variety of information including some of the e-mails that came in on the City Council item and then a variety of background information concerning the project. Time to put your work aprons on and I'll turn it back to you Fred. Berg: Okay. Why don't we start Dave with you, and let's just start doing some brainstorming as to where we think we want to go with this and what you culled from any of these e-mails and other correspondence and see if we can't come up with some direction that we'd like to go here. Moes: Can we also ask questions of staff? Berg: Please, yes. Moes: A couple of the notes seem to talk about volunteers, coordinating that and I thought I read through here and maybe I didn't pick up on it that we had talked at one point in time about a volunteer brigade of some sort and I thought I kind of pushed that aside due to some specific reasons. I wasn't sure what those were again. Karlovich: I think it was lead paint. Moes: The lead paint? Hoffman: Lead paint on the exterior and just the whole magnitude of the project. It's not that a volunteer efforts, if you meet with the neighborhood and talk about a volunteer effort and someone from the neighborhood is willing to head that up, that can probably, that could probably work out. What it would take is some individuals from the neighborhood who have experience in construction and renovation and some equipment and those types of things because really to get some dollar value out of it they would have to have some significant experience a. nd equipment.to invest in a volunteer effort. It's a pretty substantial project once you get into it and so there needs to be a coordinator and the city cannot go out there and contract with a private individual, a contractor and then say oh by the way, you're going to be working with a volunteer brigade. I do not have the ability to go out and manage a project of this magnitude with a volunteer, but if there is someone from the neighborhood who is a contractor or works in the industry and would be willing to do that, that's a possibility. Moes: What would our insurance risk be on that? Hoffman: Same as any other volunteer project. Moes: The roof falling in or. Karlovich: I think you have quite a bit of coverage from the League on everything that you do as long as you take safety precautions. If you call them up and ask them if you should do it, they'll tell you not to do it though. Hoffman: We're not a member of the League. Karlovich: No? Hoffman: No. Karlovich: Wow. Really? 11 Hoffman: They're St. Paul. Karlovich: That's a first. Berg: Dave, some more? Anything else? Moes: Do I make comments or where are we at with this? Are we positioning? Karlovich: I think we've got to go towards fund raising. Berg: Let's hear all of your ideas. Questions, comments. Moes: Well the volunteer effort was one that seemed to be somewhat of a, not consistent theme but came up a couple of times throughout the, I got concerns about whether someone can really take that one and follow it all the way through. I mean it sounds like a monumental type ora task and it would take a lot of coordinated effort, almost the full time job so I'm not leaning real heavily that way. As I read through the other information, and maybe in my mind I put the things into two categories. I had individuals that wanted to see it restored and spend the money for something to look at, and the historic value and the name. Then on the other side I saw people that would prefer spending money on things to use. That were actually things that they could go and use facilities that they could take advantage of versus something to view as a historic landmark of the city. And when I balance those two off I find myself leaning towards the spending money for something that the individuals can use versus viewing a round house. That's where my mind set is right now so, that kind of summarizes where my thoughts are. Berg: So spending up to that $119 or $120,000, whatever it would take to. Moes: Well if it's that or I mean we started with 40 and then it went to 80 and we're at, is it 125 or I think I saw the 125,000 so I know we did pull the 40 from one bucket and we got 40 from I think a secondary budget and now we're even above our two buckets worth of money if I'm in sync with the total numbers there. So whether it's the initial 40, the 80 or the total value that we're looking at now, utilizing those dollars for something to put into the park, or facility to use the additional playground. Something of that nature. Berg: Okay. Rod. Franks: Todd, I liked the work that you did in putting this together. Nice and clear. Easy to understand. The thing that struck me is, where did I see it? You know the option to where if we just would have put in a separate structure. Bulldoze it and put in a, I can't find the amount now. You had that somewhere around 30 to 50 or 60,000. So I guess my thinking is, since that park is designed around having some form of a structure there, to bulldoze it, even if we go for the tear down option and put something else, then the park is just not going to look right without that structure, some structure there being the focal point. And with the money that's already been invested in building around that plan, that's a financial responsibility too is to get that in. So for my line of thinking, we're already on the hook for that, just to split that number like the 40, $50,000 range anyway. So I mean we're already going to be in that deep to get some kind of a structure there. So my thinking is to start with at least that amount and figure out it is we best utilize that kind of money to get what it is that we want. Whether that's the renovation or whether that's a new structure that meets the needs. My personal preference would be to keep the round house there and renovate it into a useable building. I personally don't really care for the option of just the iow cost, band-aid option. I don't think that that really serves us all that well. It's just going to get 12 more expensive to do and we're looking at the City's financial issue as really not being resolved in any significant way for 2 to 6 years so that money's just not going to materialize anywhere so if we're going to do it, kind of like the school district. Let's do it now because that money is going to go someplace else. So whether we're going to tear it down and put something up or we're going to really work hard to get it renovated, I think we ought to do it. I had some question Todd about the status of the 40 plus 40. I've just gotten so confused about where those monies have come from and where exactly they are. Hoffman: Okay. The only money in the back for this project is $40,000 from the original 1997 referendum. And if you look at that, approximately $10,000 of that, just slightly over that has already been invested in the architectural and engineering work. So we have $30,000 in the bank. Beyond that, the rest of the money is, any additional money beyond, above and beyond that it would be a request or a recommendation to the City Council to invest those dollars. Franks: And that money would come from the 410. Hoffman: 410, park dedication. Franks: And so in our 2000 CIP is where we set aside the additional $40,000? Hoffman: Correct. The books have been closed on that. Franks: So the books are closed on that. Hoffman: Correct. Karlovich: If I can interject a question? Franks: Yeah. Karlovich: Without this being done this summer, how much are we even doing? We've normally had like $200,000 to a quarter million dollars worth of projects and now we don't have the 101 trail and without this what, approximately how much are we doing and what are we down to? Hoffman: Dollar amount? Karlovich: Dollar amount. Hoffman: There's $20,000 for the Stone Creek playground. $35,000 for the improvements at the skate park. $65,000 for the trail at Marsh Glen. There's a couple of other smaller projects so. Berg: That's 120. Hoffman: Yeah, up over $120,000. Franks: So Todd if the books are closed on this other $40,000 from our capital improvement projects budget what is the process that the City Council goes through to approve the expenditure of that money? Hoffman: Budget amendment. City Council can amend the budget at any given time. The commission could come up with a project in the middle of the year and recommend that a quarter million dollars out 13 of park dedication be invested in this project because it's here and it's now and we want to do it and the council could approve it. Approve that project. Franks: So in approving, was the 2000 capital improvement project recommendation from the commission approved by the City Council? Hoffman: Yes. Franks: And so do they need to then do a budget amendment or do they just need to authorize spending the money? Hoffman: The 2000? Franks: No, I mean the 40,000 in our capital improvement. Karlovich: Do we have 70 in the bank or do we have 30? Hoffman: 30. The money was approved as a part of the 2000 CIP. It was expended. The project, that went forward and it goes off the books... Franks: Oh it goes off. Berg: So we have to put it back into the 2001 CIP? Hoffman: Correct. Franks: I see. Alright, thank you. Berg: It seems like we have more credibility if we've been putting it in the CIP instead of like you said, if there's something that comes up that we have $250,000 to spend, that does make us look rather silly. Or not, I'm not sure what the work I'm looking for but not very wide in terms of how we spent the money. It seems if we demonstrate to the council that we're putting it in the CIP for 2000, because of the changes we weren't able to do it. That does show that we've been doing some planning for it and not just willy nilly going out and spending 50 or 60 or $119,000 because it's something that's on a whim. Hoffman: I don't believe that the 80,000 has ever been questioned. If this project came in at $80,000 it would have been approved that night and we would have been moving forward. Berg: Okay. Well that's good to know. Franks: See then this is what I'm not understanding then is how did we go from, because I was under some impression that, that as well. But now we're going from $80,000 back down to zero and it's like every expenditure on this whole project is being questioned. I mean that's the way, you know it's like now we have to, we've already looked at the options and decided and looked at $80,000 spending up to that level and so now it's, then it went higher to $120-25 and so now we are looking at going all the way back to zero again than looking forward. Hoffman: The only two options we really looked at is the all or nothing. We looked at all. We said we want to do it right. We want to do it all and that came up to $121,000 and doing nothing is obviously at the opposite scale. The council has said we will not support, ! got a sense for. Well they don't support 14 the $125,000 and I get a sense that they don't support tearing it down based on some of the comments from the community so they want to go back and find some middle ground. They didn't spend a whole lot of time talking about the dollars. They spent time talking about philosophically they have a hard time spending those kinds of dollars when it hasn't been talked about with the community that that's what it would take. We bid it twice. Unfortunately the architect was off in their estimate. We hired him, brought him in. Paid the money and their estimate was Iow. The market price is high. Construction labor and materials right now are, as you all know, at an all time high. This is a small project. You pay more per square foot. They started bouncing around some dollars per square foot and it's almost absurd the cost that it takes, if you calculate this by square foot. I don't think that's a valid argument but those kind of shock factors made the council uncomfortable and they want to make sure that it's a prudent expenditure before they move forward. Franks: Are there any other cities that are, are neighboring cities doing any projects like this? Hoffman: Renovation of the round house? Franks: Well any kind, other kind of renovation projects or similar type of construction projects. I'm wondering, or do we have other projects that we can combine together with one contractor. Hoffman: We don't have any other projects similar to this. Economic to scale and on this kind of project are difficult to find. I mean there was some reference in a letter about buying materials with other projects and doing work with other projects and it's just such a unique, individual project that in order to accomplish that, you're just not going to see a whole lot of economies. Berg: Anything else? Jay? Karlovich: If we do some type of, or any type of fund.raising or get the neighborhood involved in that, what do you think we can, what are some different ways in which we can like have a Save the Roundhouse fund or I don't know, we've been like the depot or selling bricks or something like that. Does the staff have any ideas like that or is there something where we can get the neighborhood to help us out with that or is that just going to raise like $10,000 or $20,000 and we're still going to be way short or what is your feeling on that? Or would it be more politically acceptable if we raised $10,000 or $20,000 and at least try to reduce the cash outflow from $125,000 maybe back down to $100,000 and we essentially pay a little bit more for our historic preservation. I think at least for the record, first of all I think the reason that we went forward with this project was to at least pay a little bit more for historic preservation due to the fact that we don't have many other projects going on in the year 2000 but I think that if we maybe get some fund raising going, I think maybe the e-mails coming in would be more positive than negative. Or what are your thoughts on that? I'm just rambling now. Hoffman: Sure. Fund raising is always a positive on any project. It's getting something started. It shows some real desire and initiative. Councils look upon that in a favorable light. We've had conversations at a staff level about the likelihood of success in a fund raising effort and prior to hearing from the neighbors I don't want to say it cannot happen, but it's a neighborhood setting without business frontage typical to raise a considerable amount of cash because the majority of that, dollars on these type of projects historically would come out of businesses. Your industrial park users, those type of places, and to take a neighborhood focus and attempt to expand that on the community and say, you know you'll get some recognition and this is a big thing for this community. It's going to be a difficult sell I would think. You just start adding up the numbers and let's say we get 100 contributors at $10.00. 100 contributors at $100, it takes a lot of, it takes a good deal of contributions to make something happen. The depot, Todd Gerhardt, Assistant City Manager managed that process. Time consuming. The dollar 15 amounts were tough to pull out of the community. You sell the bricks. You do it downtown and have some real central historic value to the community. A majority of that money came out of businesses. A smaller percentage came out of individuals so I don't see that can be highly successful with the round house, but you never know who's going to write a check so it doesn't hurt to ask the question I don't think. The other thought in that area is, given the dissention among the neighbors, somebody's going to have to be pretty brave to stand up and say, I'll take on the challenge of raising the $30,000 when at least a percentage of my neighbors think we're crazy. That's going to take a bold individual. Berg: Anything else Jay? Karlovich: That's not what I wanted to hear. Hoffman: Realism. Karlovich: I'll pass it on. Berg: Okay, Jim. Manders: A question on there's been a number of e-mails and so forth. I don't know what kind of input they had at council when this was discussed. Was there any people in attendance talking pro or con on this or was it just? Hoffman: Who spoke that evening? I believe Dave Headla may have spoke. I take that back, it was not a public hearing so I don't believe. Berg: There was more discussion of the two weeks before I think when I was there and Mike was there. Manders: I guess I only bring that up just based on what's been talked about here tonight and obviously what Linda's asking for is, it seems to me that they just want a more public sense of support, either to say hey we as Chanhassen want this or we don't want it and just to get some better statement out there instead of them making this decision in a vacuum. Same way that I think we're going. And reading through the e-mails there's, I don't know if you can say it's split 50/50. I don't know what it is but we just need some type of a hearing is what they're really after. But coming out of that, I don't know that you're going to get much participation but if you don't, I think that says something too. That unless there is a stronger sense of commitment to this from the community, they're not going to ante up the $120,000 or whatever it is. Talking about options, I guess maybe tongue in cheek, we need to sell some ads for Pepsi and wrap that building in Pepsi can or something. Franks: Could we spell the name right? Target Center. Manders: Or Budweiser or, is that more palatable? Karlovich: How about like Round-up or something? Hoffman: Round-up round house. Manders: Well you know the post office is going to start selling ads so we can't be too far behind. Karlovich: If it's torn down and just a round new structure is built instead of refurbishing, how much does that cost as opposed to just your vanilla warming house or? 16 Hoffman: A round building? Karlovich: Yeah, round building. Hoffman: Walled, furnace. It will cost more than the $121,000. Karlovich: Really? More than to refurbish. Hoffman: I mean you're starting over. Karlovich: Yeah, I guess I didn't know if that would be cheaper to just tear it down...kind of look like the round house. Hoffman: Well first of all to build a round structure, the cost escalate dramatically and so, you can build a box out there for $75,000-$80,000 probably. Enclosed with walls and trusses and one story slab and those type of things but if you go to a round structure, the costs are going to go up and above what you're talking about now. The neighborhood meeting, if it feels like we've done it before, we have and if you look back in the information in the packet, on Tuesday, July 27, 1999 the Park and Recreation Commission was to review this structure assessment for round house. That memorandum stated to the neighborhood that the two obvious alternatives are to spend the money needed to refurbish the structure or demolish it. So the council, especially Councilman Peterson was interested in making sure that we make that perfectly clear to the neighborhood that we're down to either fix it up in some fashion or tear it down and we want to make that decision and move on. Karlovich: Is there any wisdom in, instead of having the meeting right away, maybe possibly doing like a press release to try to at least get a little article in the paper that the meeting is upcoming and try to get a good turnout here? Hoffman: Sure. We have time to do that. Karlovich: I'm speaking out loud, does that make sense? I'm just afraid... Hoffman: But they may not run it. They just did that for the council meeting so they may in fact not run it. The mailing list, we did the direct mailing to all the residents in that area. Melissa Gillman, the reporter from the Villager has shown interest in the story so she may choose to run another story or side line to it but we have no control over that. Karlovich: But if we direct staff to put together a press release and maybe put together the article. Sometimes they just run what you give them. Berg: I think it's a good idea. Franks: Is that something the staff would be able to do Todd? Hoffman: Absolutely. Franks: Some of the facts, figures. Make it easy for them. Kind of people like Melissa or one of the other... 17 Karlovich: Just try to get a headline that, you know the round house will live or die. Hoffman: Live or die. Yep. Berg: I have a couple questions I guess. Jim, were you done? I'm sorry. What about the idea of getting a college involved with it? Does that help in terms of having a coordinator and someone who could, we could turn that into a South Hennepin Tech kind of project, or is that just blowing, spitting in the wind? Hoffman: No. No, those kind of things can be looked into. It's nice to have a closer connection. A lot of times with those things come to bear it's because it seems like there it is. You know it's in the community and so now we have to go out and, you have to go approach them and talk about the project and then timing and those type of things but it's not out of the question. Berg: Is there somewhere we can approach those people and get a feeler for it? Hoffman: Yep, pick up the phone. Any ideas of the institutions? Berg: Well I would think South Hennepin to start with. Well, is Dunwoody too far away? Hoffman: I don't know. Berg: Do the trades have, like an apprentice program, something that this could maybe be seen as something that could be an apprentice training type of program with some oversight from. Karlovich: Doesn't the U need some money too? Manders: Well that's what I'm wondering if the Arboretum, is there any? Karlovich: ...on the Highway there a little bit in Victoria. Isn't that the University property? Hoffman: Yes. Franks: Does the women's correctional facility in Shakopee have a work training program? Hoffman: I don't think so. I'll make some phone calls and we can have that information when. Berg: Sarcasm duly noted. Franks: Brian Klingelhutz hasn't shown any interest or anything has he in managing a project like this? Hoffman: Neal? Franks: I mean Neal. Hoffman: The contractor? Franks: Yeah. Hoffman: I've talked to Neal off and on about the project since we first took the round house over. He's interested in doing the work but I mean it's a for profit company. It's just how far are you going to get? 18 At $25,000, previous bidding limitations was $25,000. Now it's $50,000 so under $50,000 we don't have to go to public bid. And so you can approach any local contractor and say for time and materials, take $50,000 and see how far you get, or give us estimates on far you think you'll get and we could take 3 or 4 estimates from local contractors and make it happen that way. We knew we were over those amounts so we went to the public bidding arena and bid it twice and 121 is as low as we could get. Obviously, any time you get into the public bidding arena, things escalate because the architect wants to cover themselves. They want to make the project that's reasonably attractive and they are proud to put their name on. The engineers that get involved say hey, I'm an engineer. Professional trade. I'm going to make a recommendation on making sure this building is sound and safe and is not going to fall down. Cost escalate. Our local inspectors get involved. They say oh, well you're going to need to do this and you need this and you need that. Any time you go to that bidding level, costs do escalate so I think if we get out of that realm, costs can come down but there's some risk taking involved. You're not guaranteed the final product. Bringing in a neighborhood coordinator you cannot give them more than $50,000. You'd be going around the public bidding regulations so if you find a neighborhood coordinator and say, here's 50 grand, make it happen. That's a possibility. Karlovich: That seems scary. Hoffman: Seems what? Karlovich: Scary. Hoffman: Yeah. Berg: There's the possibility we'll give him the 50 and he'll spend it and we're not any closer than we are before they started. Well I have one other thought to throw out and I think you probably all know where my bias is in terms of keeping it or razing it. W. hat would the.rest of the commissions feelings be about just doing what we have to do, the maximum to the exterior so it's not a functioning building but in fact we are preserving it? And we are making it as nice looking as we can with the staining and the pure wood, etc, etc, and not doing anything with the interior other than making it structurally sound. Karlovich: What does that get us down to in cost? Hoffman: There's some estimates. Berg: Isn't that around somewhere between 60 and 80,000? Hoffman: Report January 30, 2001 to the Scott Botcher from myself. It's about 4, 6, 7, 8 pages into it. The first option we talked about was just buying time. Just let the structure stand as is. In fact that's what we're currently doing. The second option was just simply bare bones, replacing the roofi Painting the exterior. Some demolition clean-up costs in there of 3 to 5,000. Roof framing, 4 to 5,000. Roofing, 5 to 6,500. Exterior painting for a total of 22 to $31,000. However that option does not include windows and doors which would just simply be boarded over and painted so you invest $30,000 to paint the structure, put a roof on and have boarded up doors and windows. That's about the minimum that you would need to do to preserve the structure. Karlovich: But that's painting that doesn't. Hoffman; That doesn't clear coat it, strip it, right. The architect's recommendation number 3 is much more in depth and that's the 60 to 82,000. At that point you have to start thinking, now you're close to, 19 you're 2/3 of the way there and you still don't have a building that you can open the door on so that's a little bit hard to swallow. Karlovich: Is there any way you can do that and then we can budget for, can it be done in 2 parts? Well it's just going to add to the cost. Do the exterior and then do the interior later or? Hoffman: Yeah, we're so close at that point. We talked, Jan talked about that early on. Doing the outside and then the inside or the inside and then the outside and we talked about the construction of this building, once you demolish it and rip the roof off, we've got a block ground foundation and walls. There's nothing that says that you can't do this in two phases. Berg: I'm just concerned that I think it's going to be a real hard sell to get the $120,000 from the City Council. Hoffman: Yeah, I'd share that concern. The real wild card here is what the neighborhood's going to respond to. That's what the council's looking for. They're newly elected and they want to hear from their constituents. Moes: What, using the North Lotus Lake shelter as a benchmark, what did that run? Hoffman: Just over $30,000 for the concrete and shelter. Moes: It's an octagon. It's not round. Hoffman: Round shelter. I don't think they make them round but we might be able to custom order. Moes: No, the reason I ask the question is because in some of the, I mean the e-mails people were mentioning the demolition and the putting up of another shelter so I assume that would be one question that would be raised when they bring, I mean when the community comes is tell me what a new shelter costs and what do I get for it and I was using that as a benchmark and for that, just looking at it aesthetically it's very appealing for $30,000 you get this shelter with a nice surface area. It's not enclosed and it unfortunately doesn't have the round house legacy to it, but I was reading that some people were going down that path as well as the other people going down the path of restoration. Berg: But you said $30,000 to tear it down? What would it cost to tear it down? Hoffman: Cost to tear it down, I don't have a hard number on it but I think the numbers that have been thrown around have been high. Majority of the cost is in the landfill. 10-15,000 and it could be done. Berg: So we're looking at $40,000 to tear it down and put up a nice, warm cement, steel girder structure. With the historical significance of 2 months. Hoffman: That's correct. Franks: So one of the things we have to decide today is whether to go ahead with the meeting on the, what did you have here? Hoffman: 13th. 20 Franks: 13th or to actually put that offa little bit longer and check into some more of these options. I think it's important for us to hear from the neighborhood as well and anybody else in the community actually that would like to come out and talk so I like the idea Jay really of getting that, somehow getting that in the newspaper. Whether that's an article or press release or something. And I'd also like to provide the people that do show up with some ideas of creativity, to start their thinking as well. So some of these options that have come up today about involving an institution or, that's why I brought up the idea of like a Neal Klingelhutz type. I experienced construction at a summer camp once where we were building cabins. One designed by an architect and the engineer and the other one designed by the construction manager and to the people coming to the camp who could not tell the difference, and the one by the architect was twice as expensive to build. And so I'm wondering if there's not just kind of common sense construction approach to this kind of a project as well that really will give us a similar product to the regular person driving by on Minnewashta Parkway, but is really going to come in a lot cheaper. And I don't know if that works here or not. Karlovich: I think Todd maybe also to do our job as the commission too is to I think try to look forward a little bit. In addition to getting neighborhood input, which is going to be tear it down from one guy is going to say and then another guy in the neighborhood is going to say no, it should be there. It's always been there. My grandmother always used to visit it. I think we should at least come back with some choices to the council and I think this number 3 may be what some type of even sketch, because I think most of the commission here would, if we lose on the doing it right the first time and getting it all done, we'd at least we'd feel like we had some historic preservation if we at least got the exterior done. Berg: That's where I was leading with my question. Karlovich: Right. But I think the process they want us to go through or come back to them is you 'know, tear it down. Maybe partial or do it all and then also supply them with some type ora consensus on community input. Hoffman: I think there's easily 5 or 6 options. Perhaps more that I'll flush out and put them on boards. Put them into a packet. Put them into the mailing that goes out to the neighborhood and bring them in and then it's up to you at that point, once you hear that, I'm assuming then you'll as a commission make a recommendation on one of those but then send up the others that were considered and move forward. Franks: Can that be done by the 13th? Hoffman: Sure. Karlovich: But do we want to rush it to the 13th to get our article? Berg: Would we be better served to have those things presented at our next meeting and go for the first or second week in April to have a community meeting? Does that still give us enough time? How does that sound? Franks: So we'd take a look at what kind of options that you've been able to come up with and then. Hoffman: In March. Franks: March, and then set it for a community meeting in April. Manders: That seems having that article in the paper before the meeting would be the right route too. 21 Franks: It gives maybe the newspaper a little bit more flexibility to fit it in as well. Moes: And what's our time requirement to get back to the council? I heard 90 days earlier. Hoffman: Yep. Moes: So that gives us until May? Hoffman: Yeah. Moes: So having a meeting with the neighborhood the first of April? Berg: The first or second week in April. Moes: And then are we deciding that evening or do we need to have something recommended to the council, our meeting the end of April? Berg: No, I would think you'd make a recommendation that evening and send it straight to the City Council. Moes: Okay. That's fine. I just didn't want you caught short on the back end if there were more things that we needed to do because I agree we certainly want to provide the education and the information to the neighborhood. It sounds like if we build that in up front then they're coming prepared and we've got, we're not being caught on the back end and having to do things quickly. Karlovich: Well it sounds like we have a process then I don't know,, we need to get that newspaper article and our options by next meeting. Berg: Right. Karlovich: Or not the article, but at least the press release or what we're going to try to do there. Hoffman: I'll hang a banner. Franks: Do we need to get a sign permit for that? Hoffman: No. Public meeting scheduled to determine the fate of the round house. Franks: When you are to name the press release Todd, just as a courtesy, could you give me a call when you're turning that in? Hoffman: Yep. Berg: Do you need a motion to table Todd or can we just? Hoffman: Motion to table would be, let's see. Motion to bring information back at the next meeting and then we should establish that date. First Tuesday in April would work better for me I think. I don't know if we've got a calendar. The 2nd or the 9th. The 9th is on too. 22 Manders: The first Tuesday is actually the 3rd. Hoffman: The 10th would be fine. Berg: The l0th, is there a motion? Hoffman: Actually table to March 27th and then establish that other meeting. Berg: Establish a public meeting for Tuesday the l0th. Kariovich: I don't know ifI have a conflict there either. I can run out to the car and see. Moes: So moved. Berg: Is there a second? Manders: I'll second. Moes moved, Manders seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission table action on the roundhouse renovation and direct staff to bring options to the March 27, 2001 meeting, and schedule a neighborhood meeting for April 10, 2001. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. RECREATION PROGRAMS: A. FEBRUARY FESTIVAL EVALUATION. Berg: Corey not being here, Jerry are you going to take the ball? Ruegemer: I will present. Basically I would just open it up to the commission input of how the event went. Details were somewhat comparable to last year. I think we had roughly about 1,000 and some change last year, we did about 900 this year so it's about the same. Consistently every year. Any other general comments as far as how your perception of the events was? Berg: It seemed to go very smoothly, from what I could tell. I always judge lots of time by how the prize board works, and that seemed to be fine. I don't think, for what it's worth, I don't think his idea of announcing prize winners by their name is a very good one. Because it was my sense anyway that, and it could just be that I was the one doing the talking but it seemed that it was appreciated when there wasn't a lot of talking, and to be reading all the names all the time, it would be a pretty steady barrage of names versus numbers, I think. I would, do what you want but I think it's at times a little bit intrusive. Ruegemer: Okay. Kind of like the radio station, less talk, more music. Okay. Franks: Could you just hang a fish on Charlie Eiler's line so I could quit listening to him whine about never catching a fish. Year after year after year. Ruegemer: Rent a scuba diver and hook a fish. Berg: It'd be worth it. 23 Hoffman: Let him whine. Berg: He wins every raffle that we ever have up here anyway, for crying out loud. Ruegemer: I think he went dry this year, first time. Berg: Any other comments on the Feb Fest? B. DADDY/DAUGHTER DATE NIGHT EVALUATION. Ruegemer: Another popular event. We had two nights this year, February 8th and 9th. Those were both filled to capacity and we certainly could have taken, we had people on the waiting list who could have, if we had... We're going to look again to next year to expand that somehow. I think we can squeeze additional people in. Additional couples and expand on that event. It's been a really good event. It does fill up pretty fast for registration and we'll look to improve and expand next year. Berg: What's the ages for the daughters? I know I've asked before but I never remember. It's just for young kids, right? Ruegemer: Right, yeah. We're looking at early elementary age kids. Franks: I think the oldest daughter was about 8 or 9. Maybe 9 is out. Ruegemer: Corey wants to expand it to the older girls with their fathers. Berg: Does he? Some high school kids in there? Ruegemer: Older than that. Co-eds. Berg: Any questions on the daddy/daughter dance? Franks: Just to pass onto Corey to, you know the catering was fine but if there was a way to really kind of gear that more towards the 6 year old palate and digital dexterity you know, I thin it would have been a lot easier because I saw a lot of dads, including me were working pretty hard. Hoffman: To get some food. Franks: Oh man yeah, that was pretty tough so I mean macaroni and cheese would have been a better choice than trying to pull the chicken offthe bone. Hoffman: French fries and hamburgers. Franks: French fries and hamburger. Chicken nuggets, yes. ! mean that kind of thing would be really nice. And I know that on the night that ! was there, they have to get cleaned up with the food and everything because the dance and they don't want things around but you know a lot of us dads, including myself were on the scope for a cup of a coffee after dinner and it was gone. And the caterers were like just, I mean they were sorry because they hadn't anticipated that, an adult might want a cup of coffee after dinner. Hoffman: And some chocolate. 24 Franks: And chocolate. There was not enough chocolate. The chocolate didn't stay around long enough either. Ruegemer: No hard candy, more chocolate. Franks: No hard candy but more chocolate. But I mean I'm being kind of funny but I really mean it about maybe looking, because I know a caterer could easily accommodate that kind of thing. It'd probably be easier for them as well. Berg: Anything else for the dance? Let's go to the Easter Egg Hunt. C. 2001 EASTER EGG CANDY HUNT. Ruegemer: Easter Egg candy hunt is more of a kind of update, FYI. This year's event is going to be starting April 24th out at the Rec Center. Hopefully the snow will be gone by then. Berg: 14th. Ruegemer: I'm sorry, the 14th of April. Splatter Sisters already are booked for that. They're a good group. Very lively. So Corey's in the process of the flyer and that is done. It's just a matter of kind of getting that information out to the schools. We'll do that early to mid-March. We'll get all that information out to the schools. The coloring contest information. A lot of that kind of details of, as you get a little bit closer. Berg: Okay, questions. Comments. Thank you Jerry. ADMINISTRATIVE: A. ICE RINK PARTICIPATION NUMBERS. Ruegemer: Just had Corey do an FYI, just for an update for the commission as to where we're at kind of numbers wise for the rinks. We are still open at 3 warming house locations. North Lotus, City Center Park and the Rec Center and the rest of the areas we're just kind of plowing offand maintaining. With the numbers being low at Chan Hills and Round House, we basically closed those warming houses for the season and if people want to skate during the light hours they certainly can do that but, and that's kind of where we're at right now. It's, we're kind of going on a week to week basis right now. This is really the longest we've been open for quite a long time so, we'll keep going. Berg: It looks like the numbers, I was looking at the totals for the different parts, it looks like there's a considerable number using Roundhouse which could certainly justify having a warming house there on a permanent basis. It certainly could be used a lot during the winter time. The round house could be for that. Hoffman: It's easy to see any time you put a hockey rink in, your numbers go up dramatically. Chan Hills is struggling. Ruegemer: And we can talk about that too at the end of the skating season. We talked internally on the staff we'll maybe, it certainly would be the commission's decision to either eliminate the warming house 25 at Chan Hills and potentially move that over to Sunset Ridge. Maybe that'd be a better use for a warming house...and that sort of thing for that so. Franks: Well it starts to make sense when the pleasure rink was put in at Chan Hills the east and west Lake Susan developments weren't in existence. And so geographically speaking that was about the only neighborhood south of 5 and west of 101 before Audubon that you could plunk a skating rink in. But you know you look at how isolated Chan Hills is and look how much more populated it is along Powers, that makes more sense to start to move it over there. Hoffman: We'll also have a conversation about all of the outside skating rinks, outside of the main areas. Examples, Meadow Green Park sees very little use due to it's proximity to City Center. Why would you stop at Meadow Green if you can just drive down the road and go to a warming house and a facility with two pieces of ice so it's not an inexpensive activity for the city to provide and I believe the last time I ran some of the numbers on the use, it was around $7.00 per user when they stepped onto the ice so it's not inexpensive. So for us to be responsible in using those resources we need to investigate, the last time we did that we took the rink away up at Minnewashta Heights and then a couple years later they begged it back so, that's been the last time we changed anything as far as locations for rinks. Manders: How does that fit with, I mean there's a lot more neighborhood rinks or what are you saying? Hoffman: Sure, there are other neighborhood rinks without warming houses that are not listed here. Those locations Jerry are. Ruegemer: Rice Marsh, Meadow Green. Hoffman: Minnewashta Heights. Pheasant Hills. Ruegemer: Pheasant Hills. Sunset Ridge. Berg: There's not one in Carver is there? Carver Beach. Ruegemer: Yeah. Hoffman: So those are all other locations without warming houses. Manders: So proportionately you probably spend maybe not as much on them but probably close to as much to support those. Berg: Okay, moving along. B. CITY COUNCIL ACTION~ ARBORETUM VILLAGE~ PULTE HOMES. Hoffman: On Monday, February 12th the City Council voted 3-1-1 to table Arboretum Village until March 12th. That's this coming Monday night. City Council directed staff to do 5 things. One work on a park dedication. They wanted to see a full compliment of land versus fees. Maintaining the trees south of West 78th Street and shown recently down to about 50% of where it was. And three, affordability of maintenance. Can we do it and how can we do it? That refers to payments on the south side of West 78th Street. They're guaranteed to sell at a certain rate the first time around but then can the city do anything to maintain affordability in the second and third sale. Four, the gateway accent. They wanted to accentuate the entrance into Chanhassen from the west. And five, compliance. Make sure that the 26 proposal complies with the Bluff Creek Overlay District and the Highway 5 Corridor Study. We met that day back on February 15th at 3:00 with Pulte to talk about some of those issues. I have a plan here dated 2/21/01 from Pulte and we'll talk about the current proposal before the City Council on Monday night. I'll make reference to my recommendation to City Manager Botcher based on that proposal and then also, do we know who's assigned that evening? Is it Rod? Franks: No, I went last time. Hoffman: Jay? Karlovich: I can't go on Monday's. Hoffman: Okay, so we're going to have to check that to make sure that we have someone there to speak on behalf of the commission on the Pulte. Moes: I'm not sure if it's me or not. Hoffman: I'll go check the list once we get this thing off the road. Manders: Is that on the 12th? Is that when you're saying it is? Berg: Yeah. Hoffman: Did anybody see on the news...Pulte? There were 3 or 4 news stations here for a combination of Pulte and the Christmas tree light issue. Franks: I was part of the crowd shot on the morning rtews. My sister in law called me. What are you doing on the news? Moes: I think it was Channel 9 that had the Christmas lighting. Hoffman: So this is the proposal that was before the council on the 12th February. It's the one that Park and Recreation Commission reviewed and made a recommendation to approve. The areas in green are the green space or open space areas as a part of that plan. And then it also includes the area off to the north, the full wetlands and then there's a treed outlot which...So that's the old one. New proposal. Obviously the most notable identifications on here are the highlighted area in yellow. What that represents over the previous plan are new open space areas so that would speak to two directives or requests by the City Council. The first being, they wanted to see the trees remain in the full block on Highway 5, and then additional or full park dedication be granted as a part of the proposal, or be sought as a part of the proposal. Some other issues or other identifications noteworthy here is the park dedication at this location. This is directly east of Bud Olson's house. Sheriff Bud Olson. It's called Outiot D. 3 acres. And the other public park dedication they've called out is 13.3 acres and that includes the area north of the Markert property. The yellow and then continuing on down to the street grade at this location, around and then following all the way down to the street here again, park dedication. So we're talking about this long, linear strip. This is the most notable area of the park dedication that is new and currently this is an agricultural, under tillage and then this area down through here is the other larger trace of area that is noted as park dedication. The numbers are here at the top. Pulte is getting park dedication proposed is 16.33 acres, so that includes this 13 and the 3 up here and what they're required, based on the number of housing units on the proposal is 9.84 acres and so they are giving in excess of another, just around 7 acres in addition to what they would be proposed. The trade-off would be full 27 credit or park dedication which is, park dedication is around $500,000, just under that and then the trail dedication makes up the remainder of the $140,000. Other new amenities to this plan is a trail connector on the east side of the property. These two trails, the north wetland trail and east wetland trail cost approximately $140,000. $145,000 and so there would be a trade-off there, park dedication. Or excuse me, trail dedication would pay for the construction of those and so when you get down to it you would have trails, park dedication and then no fees would be collected as a part of this proposal. My staff report is not complete so I'm certainly open to hear the viewpoints from the commission and then again, I'll go upstairs and find out that person representing the commission that evening, will be given an opportunity to speak the viewpoints of the commission on this proposal. Manders: So what does the gateway question, or what would be addressed there? Hoffman: Excuse me? Manders: The gateway accent, how is that being addressed? Hoffman: By the council and through the Planning Commission. I don't know what they were. They were talking about a community feature down here. They have just a little bit additional eyebrow property down here. I don't know what they would come up with as far as their focal point there. Berg: And we lost the totlot you said? Hoffman: Yep. Totlot here is gone, replaced with this open space area. The other two totlots remain. The product was also changed, if that's of interest to you. Just these are now twin homes instead of the quads. And the unit reduction was a total of 37 units reduced on the project. Berg: And most of the yellow areas there would have.to be passive won't they? Hoffman: All, you know a majority of them. This could be an active area, but I don't think that's the desire of the council. They want to buffer the Bluff Creek. They've shown us, well a picnic shelter there. Obviously if we accept these areas as public then we're responsible for the maintenance of those areas and there would have to be a management plan developed for that area. Berg: Seems like a high price to pay. For the park dedication fees. Hoffman: March 12, Jay is currently scheduled so if he cannot be there, the commission will have to assign another representative. Moes: Todd, can you go over the trail dedication. You're talking $140,000. Hoffman: Approximately, yep. I don't have the numbers. Moes: That's the cost. Are they putting in the trails and that's their cost of doing that and therefore that would be considered part of the dedication fees or? Hoffman: These are the public trails, and then internal trails are private. They have to pay for the private trails. The city needs to pay for the public trails and then to do that we would use their park dedication dollars that they would be paying us. Moes: Oh, okay. 28 Hoffman: They pay us the dollars. We either have them build the trail, which is generally the way we go and then we credit. We don't collect them. It's a wash. They pay for the trails. We don't collect their fees. Franks: So those trails are planned on being constructed as a part of this project? Hoffman: Yes. Franks: In lieu of collection of the trail fee. Hoffman: Correct. And you don't have to do this trail on this east side. They've proposed that. There's a sidewalk on the cul-de-sac and so there's some redundancy there. In addition, you can move on down to 41 and then gain access back at this trail loop so you have this, you know this is, let's see. This one is about 80. This one is about 40 to $60,000 to construct this loop and so, and there are some natural issues of destruction here. The environment down through that corridor to make that trail happen so. Berg: Is there a trail along 417 Hoffman: Here? Berg: Yeah. Hoffman: Yes, we will need to, building it won't go in as a part of this project. The City will be responsible for that connector. The State should take it's, well they don't show it here but we need to make that connection right through there. Berg: If we didn't do it on the east, could we transfer those funds to do it on 417 Hoffman: Sure. Berg: Then we'd have the sidewalk and we'd have our loop? Franks: What was their rationale for making that eastern trail connection? Hoffman: I don't know. I haven't talked with Dennis about it. Franks: Because I mean it just, I don't know why they would be proposing putting a trail through their twin homes back yards when they have a sidewalk in the front yard. Berg: Maybe that's the reason. They'd rather have the riffraff on the outside. Moes: To make sure my mind is in sync here. The trail dedication, I mean the two trails that are being talked about, approximately $140,000, give or take, and they would either build them and incur that cost or we would be required to build them and they would fund it? Okay, good. Either way those trails are part of the total package deal. One side or the other builds them and are funded the $140,000 of which. Hoffman: That's the proposal they have. Karlovich: Where do we want the trails? 29 Hoffman: Well this trail is not a part of our comprehensive plan, but this trail is. The north trail is. So we see it as a desirable additional amenity. Karlovich: But we've still got to pay for it though. Hoffman: Correct .... need to do it. If not, this is an amenity here paid for which they're the same use as this. It's just not quite the same experience but you're going to get the same experience up here and it's going to go for a mile this way so. I really don't see the value. Manders: In terms of green space with this plan, how many acres are you saying that we're adding in here? 3 or 4 spots up there? Hoffman: Yeah. Adding 6. I think we're going up to about 42 acres of open space versus about 36 on the previous plan. Manders: So how much of that are we going to incur in terms of park space? Are we incurring all that for. Hoffman: Out of 42 we would get 16.3. Manders: 16.3. And so the project itself requires something like 9 acres so we have a plus 7 acres or something. So is that 7 acres then going to come out of our pockets as a city or is that still going to be funded by this project? Hoffman: ...to the city. Just above and beyond the 9 acres. They've identified. Manders: So there's some cost to the city. They aren't going to just give us 7 acres without something? Hoffman: Sure they will. That's the proposal. No cost to the city. There's much more, even up and above the 16.33 acres they've got another what, 30 acres of open space on the proposal. Outlot E is all open space that they'll retain in a conservation easement. They retain the entire wetland and the area down here. This private amenity and this private amenity so that's just how they do the line. I don't know if they've done that to try to sweeten the deal and make it look better so they can seek approval from the City Council. I don't have the mason why they stated 16.3. The best example I can give you is if you recall Stone Creek. When Stone Creek development came in, the commission sought to have a park right on the central portion of that and you only had capacity to take like 4.1 acres or 3.9 acres. They came back and said we're going to give you 9, or 7.5 or whatever it was, it was a much larger amount but we're going to give it to you back here in the back side. That's what they wanted to do so the commission had to struggle with that. That may be some of the same thinking here. They want to get this thing approved. Well giving you 9 acres, we're giving you 16 acres so there's. But that's only speculation on my part. Berg: Any other questions? Karlovich: I just got to go, and it doesn't look very good. It looks worst. Franks: Tell me. 30 Karlovich: Well it looks like we're losing an awful lot of money and we're losing a totlot and I guess we got some more trees and we got some other unusable open space that they get credit for. I don't know, I can't say that this is a lot better deal for the city from at least a park and rec standpoint. I've got to run. Berg: Okay, we'll see you next week. At City Council, don't we have...Any other thoughts Jim? Manders: My opinion is that it's, whether it's better or worse for the city, I don't think that's the statement as it is, depending on which age bracket you're trying to satisfy. As far as the city's concerned, I think we're better off, ifI was living out there, I'd want this as opposed to all the extra totlots. We don't have tots to fill those lots. So it depends on your perspective where you're coming from as to what the benefit is here. And I suspect that the council would need to view it that way as well. Is to say, okay what is our priority here? Is it to look at their demographics of who's going to be living out there and how are we going to satisfy? I mean how many kids and if they go this route without the totlots, then there may be very possibly a negative impact because where are those kids going to play. There isn't going to be a spot necessarily if they pull out those totlots or we need to address those in these other open areas, some how. Hoffman: Well the plan just pulls out one totlot and it's the totlot which was questioned most strongly about it's necessity anyway because it's up against the. Manders: That was that top one up there? Hoffman: Yeah, the top one. Up against the. Manders: So the other ones in the center, that all stays? Hoffman: This stays here. Manders: Yeah. Hoffman: And this one down here. Manders: Okay. So then I have even less, I don't think that this is such a poor option personally. Franks: Their demographic statements, if I remember correctly are that the children are not moving into the single level twin home unit. That is like their empty nester unit. Manders: I don't know who had less, or is more reluctant, I think maybe Rod when we passed this the last time, and I kind of subscribe to that notion. I'm not trying to say what Rod was thinking there but my thought is that, you know there's a lot of money being generated by this development and there aren't many options for those people to go anyplace. And so if we just take that, I don't know, half million dollars and run and spend it someplace else building round houses, I don't think that's such an equitable choice. And we need to input more into this development because it is a little bit separated from any other access routes. You've got highways on both sides and trails possibly will connect at some point but to the elementary school I think is probably your primary option for more active play. And that's, I don't know, probably what. Not a mile or a mile away. Trail wise. So I think you do need to consider some kind of self sufficiency here. Berg: I'm just not sure that the $500,000. 31 Manders: That's maybe a big tag. Berg: That they're getting any more than they had before. We're getting some agriculture up there in the corner. We're getting some trees, and we're getting that small little yellow thing by the wetland there to the west of the wetland. I'm not so sure that that really adds an awful lot in terms of use for the people that are already there anyway because the totlot that's gone, it made more sense when it was going to be apartments because that's where the kids were going to be but I...I don't think there's going to be a lot of kids up there anyway so that's maybe a wash. And I don't see that the residents are gaining anything else and we're losing a lot of money that could be used here and other places for some buffer that I'm not sure is needed in the first place. Moes: Help me understand, we're losing the money? Berg: We're giving up park dedication fees. Moes: The $500,000 we're giving up by accepting this plan, less the $140,000 on the trail side, so in essence $640,000 is, but we're getting a trail. Berg: We're getting the trail so it's about 500. Moes: ...lumping it together but a trail maybe not quite where we want it though. Franks: That's the one correction. Moes: So we're looking at a total cash flow of $640,000 that right now has been spent for us. Franks: It was the park and trail dedication together was $500,000.. Park and trail, that's gone up as of last meeting so park and trail dedication together is about Hoffman: $640,000. Manders: So when this first item where it says a full compliment of land versus fees is desired, is that council saying that? Hoffman: Yep, City Council. That was their motion then that evening. Berg: What does that mean? What does number 1 mean? Full compliment of land versus fees. They want to know, weigh one versus the other? Is that what they're saying or what? Hoffman: Yeah, they wanted to see the city obtain as much park dedication, as much open space as possible using park dedication versus fees. So they wanted to see the city utilize it's tools, it's park dedication, which based on this proposal only equals 9.84 acres and say we want that 9.84 acres preserved. And what they turned around and said is we'll give you 16.33 in public open space ownership. Berg: So for the council it's not an issue of whether we should or not, it's matter of what we can get for the $500,000? Hoffman: That's how I, that's how they stated that evening I believe. They wanted to seek full park dedication versus fees. 32 Berg: Is it possible for us to, just thinking off the top of my head, to craft some sort of motion. Do we have enough people? To voice opposition to that. Voice opposition to the automatic spending of the park dedication fees instead of the buffer. Hoffman: Well you can craft whatever kind of motion you'd want, and receive an affirmative vote on it and that would need to be delivered by a park commission member on that evening. Berg: Is that an exercise, well I'm not going to ask that question. Hoffman: That's what the council expects to see from the commission that evening. Berg: Okay. Okay. Would we like to try to word a motion to that regard? Hoffman: To be clear on what the council has asked, they have asked staff to go back and work with the developer. They did not ask the commission to go back and work with the developer so your forum to meet with the City Council is to go to the meeting that evening and voice your position. Berg: Okay, that answers my question. Any other questions or comments regarding this issue? Franks: You know it's so funny is, what's so frustrating for me to see this is, you know all along I always thought everything north of West 78th Street was fine. That that didn't need to be changed. And it was south of West 78th Street that really bothered me and I see here that we're getting the rest of those trees but you know it looks like the same plan with all the changes being made north of West 78th Street, where that already looked okay. Moes: Well I think they put in a little bit of a curved path. Franks: They did put a little curve to the trail, you're right. They did make that. Berg: Who said they don't listen? Leave it to Dave to find that. Anything else? Moving on. Franks: What kind of recommendation then is staff looking at making regarding this updated proposal? Hoffman: I was out of the office today. I'm starting with, the basis of my recommendation will be on the cost that we are getting off, the opportunity cost that we are incurring to make this happen. I see value in this location here and I see value in this location here. I don't see any value in granting park dedication for this property right here, other than there is a nice view shed down through this area. At least for a short period of time. Once this is grown up with trees, you're not going to have that view shed anymore to the Bluff Creek. Public ownership over conservation easement is nice. But if you are accomplishing what you want to see happen, and that's preservation of land, relinquishing a little bit of that control to a conservation easement I don't have a problem with and so I'm going to split the middle. I'm going to seek that we preserve some of those park dedication dollars. The Council would like to see this area. Not geographically but ecologically this area makes the most sense for preservation. In the corridor, if you can imagine yourself inside the wetland here and you're traveling this way as an animal or whatever you want to be traveling in the corridor there, that's what's going to be there. Coming up and onto this upland area and then back down onto the other side, this is a peninsula that sits out on here. Ecologically this makes sense. It provides some upland habitat in a larger wetland area and so it stops development there. I can see that from an enhancement of the Bluff Creek corridor. Often times, an example has been made onto, or I've heard the example made comparing this development to Arboretum Village. 33 Arboretum Business Park. The Steiner development south of Highway 5 where we not only took maximum park dedication, but then we invest tax increment dollars beyond that to buy additional land to preserve that 100 acres of wetland and woods around the O' Shaughnessy, Chanhassen Nature Preserve area. I see similarities but it's not the identical situation. We are not preserving a mature oak forest and wooded knolls in a contiguous fashion to Bluff Creek. We are taking small remnants of property around the fringe and using very precious park dedication dollars, or park dedication fees to accomplish that so I want to make sure that's done wisely. Berg: Anything else? Franks: Well you know, I don't know if, even like dealing with the southern stand of trees, the way that they split that down actually preserves the majority of the view shed as you're driving by on Highway 5. Which, I mean that makes, that's okay to me. People aren't going to use that for a lot of passive recreation anyway I don't think. So to give that up but yet to enhance that center park area, the totlot area, would have been for me a better compromise than granting all of the trees and then. Hoffman; It never was discussed as a, I don't think it has any merit at the City Council. Franks: I like the idea if we're going to forego all of our park dedication fees, then that in this neighborhood would we supply for them the same types of neighborhood park and recreational opportunities that other neighborhood parks get? The active and passive areas together. The play fields and the...and I kind of don't see that here. Hoffman: It's not here. Franks: Well I mean that was, you know that was in a sense my whole point of proposing in the prior development, not necessarily to get as much land as possible but to get land in a good, usable way for the people that are going to live there so their amenities are consistent with the other neighborhoods that we have here in town. This is nice that we're getting all that land but I think it still runs into kind of the same philosophical problem. And maybe it's the best that can happen. If you take that into consideration when you develop your recommendation I would personally appreciate it. Hoffman: Okay. Berg: Maybe you can make it to the meeting that night too and express it again. Anything else before we move off of this? Dave? Moes: Nothing more. Berg: Okay. COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS. YMCA RECOMMENDATION~ CITY COUNCIL RESPONSE~ ROD FRANKS. Berg: Rod, you have something on the Y? Franks: Well I wish that I had something on the Y. You know it came up as the last agenda item at a very long and torturous council meeting and everyone was just really exhausted and so this really didn't get quite the showing that it might have, other than that it was my impression that council agreed with getting some form of questioning on the community survey but maybe not specifically regarding a 34 YMCA by name. Is that Todd, sound consistent with what may have been talked about after the fact the next day? Hoffman: Yep. Franks: And I really was not given an opportunity to provide any kind of input into the discussion that took place about that so. Hoffman: Yeah, Rod offered to speak on behalf of the commission and it was late. Franks: They were just so tired. Hoffman: They didn't want to get into it. Decision Resources was hired last night as the survey provider. Council will...those questions and again the questions regarding any recreational future in the city I think are going to be generic and so it's not going to say a YMCA. It's going to say would you be in favor of building a pool or a fitness center, community type center facility. Franks: My concern personally is that's going to miss the boat a little bit. Berg: Yeah, mine too. Franks: So for a couple of reasons, yeah. For a couple of reasons. One is in that kind of tax attitude that rightfully many of us have in this town, we're not going to all be interested in funding, building a rec center, which is what people are going to assume. Instead of building a partnership with an entity, whether that's the YMCA or some other entity that's going to bear almost, well all the operating costs and a lot of the construction as well, which I think is a different idea. And then something also like the Y which brings into it a lot of community service as well as providing an amenity. Hoffman: ...discussion for next Monday night, your joint meeting and then also, remember that's going to be at the tail end ora very long day for the City Council as well so you may not have the full attention, all cylinders clicking that evening. They start at 11:55 that day and they go til 10:00 at night or 9:30 at night with you folks... Berg: What else are we going to talk about that night? Hoffman: YMCA. What else has been talked about? Council's driving the agenda so. As far as I know today. What else did they mention? They tabled something and said we're going to talk about the Y. Manders: Probably Roundhouse. Hoffman: Roundhouse. There was one other item on the last meeting. We'll send you an agenda. Berg: Okay, good. ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET. Berg: Anything in the administrative packet? Hoffman: A couple of different, just newsworthy items. Just from visiting with some colleagues yesterday. Lakeville has recently purchased a church that they are going to convert into an art center for 35 the City of Lakeville. Interesting concept. I know cities struggle with how can they come up with a facility for the arts. If you think of a church. Berg: It was recommended. Talked about once. Hoffman: Yeah. Yeah. You have the sanctuary for the performing arts and the classrooms for the other arts and Lakeville is doing that. City of Savage passed a referendum, I believe the number was 4.5 or 5 million for investment into a community center type facility. From what I understand their decision has been to purchase a piece of land. Give the land and remaining money to Lifetime Fitness and they will enter into contract with Lifetime. Franks: What city? Hoffman: Savage. Similar to Champlin. So a couple of pieces of news from out in the real world. Berg: Anything else? Entertain a motion to adjourn. Franks: Just one quick thing. I loved the information about parks, open space as a viable financial alternative to development. And if there's any way to continue to pass that kind of information up the line, I think that would be really helpful. Hoffman: You've got it. Whenever we see it. Note on the back page on the administrative packet. That park dedication fees went up 25%. There has not been a significant increase in those in about 4 years. That's the reason the Pulte number jumped from about $500,000 or $520 to $640 so you can see the impact on just a single development. Moes moved, Manders seconded that the Park and.Recreation Commission adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Rec Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 36