Loading...
PRC 2017 07 25 CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 25, 2017 Chairman Scharfenberg called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT:Steve Scharfenberg, Cole Kelly, Rick Echternacht, Jennifer Hougham, Karl Tsuchiya, Meredith Petouvis, Lauren Dale and Grant Schaeferle. Jim Boettcher arrived late. MEMBERS ABSENT:None. STAFF PRESENT:Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent; Katie Favro, Recreation Supervisor; and Adam Beer, Park Superintendent APPROVAL OF AGENDA:Chairman Scharfenberg approved the agenda as presented. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Scharfenberg: Todd, National Night Out. Hoffman: Thank you Chair Scharfenberg, members of the commission. National Night Out is st next Tuesday, August 1. There’s about 40 National Night Out events scheduled in our community. Some of you may recall that Beth Hoiseth formerly coordinated this event. With her retirement now it’s Chelsea Petersen, Assistant City Manager that’s coordinating with the neighborhood block captains. So it’s an opportunity for neighbors to get together but then they also request law enforcement visits. The posse goesout so horses go out to probably 20 or so of these parties and then it’s an opportunity for City Council, department heads and then commissioners to go out as well so if you would like to go out and tour you’ll be paired up with either probably a firefighter or a law enforcement member and you would ride along in the fire truck or ride along in the police car most likely and go visit 3 or 4 neighborhoods and then return back to City Hall so there’s a group meeting before it all starts. You’ll be introduced to whoever you’re paired with and then you’ll go out and tour and it’s just a great way to talk with neighbors. They’re going to find out who you are and if they’re interested in parks and trails you’re going to hear about it. It’s a great way to communicate with the public so it’s not mandatory but if you’re interested just email me and/or Chelsea Petersen directly. Scharfenberg: And then the one other thing I would add is a reminder that we all received th invitations I believe for the combined commission tour which is on Tuesday, August the 8. If you have not responded yet to City Hall regarding that please do so in the next week. One other reminder, in reviewing the Minutes from last week, or from last meeting is to hit your mics. I Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 noticed I think I goofed up on that one and didn’t have my mic on so when you want to talk remember to turn on your mic. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. Scharfenberg: With that any visitor presentations this evening? Todd, please come forward. State your name and address. Todd Neils: Good evening. My name is Todd Neils, 990 Saddlebrook Curve, Chanhassen, Minnesota. A number of you I haven’t had the opportunity to meet yet. What you’ll find is that I often pop my head up around this time of year when CIP is in conversation so having said that I’d like to start off by telling you that I am representing both the Dugout Club and the Chanhassen Athletic Association. We as the Dugout Club work to enhance fields within the community with a number of projects that we’ve completed over the last several years and was on the Chanhassen Athletic Association Baseball and Softball Board for 14 years and still involved in the community in that regard. I want to start by reading quickly recap of the two tournaments that the baseball and softball association just held with rave reviews from the outside participants. In 2000, and this is from the softball specifically. In 2017 CAA Softball hosted two tournaments with extreme success no doubt helped by the facilities available at the Chan Rec and Lake Ann. In June we hosted 38 teams in the Chan Challenge ranging in ages from 8U to 14U. In July we hosted 16 team state tournament solely at Lake Ann which was equally as successful. We had a wide range of weather conditions over the weekend including a line of thunderstorms that brought a couple inches of rain and wind. With only a 4 hour delay we were able to continue and finish our tournament while other cities around the southwest metro had to cancel their’s. The field’s did a great job of absorbing the water where we didn’t have to do a ton of work to get the fields in playing shape. This was preceded by a day of hot weather and heat advisories. We were complimented often about the many shaded areas available at Lake Ann. One parent from a visiting team commented how Lake Ann was a park more than a ball complex. We received many handshakes and compliments from the coaches and fans on how Lake Ann was a terrific facility and the tournament was very well run. One team took advantage of Lake Ann, of the lake after the games were done for the day and visited the beach. The infield sprinklers were such a nice luxury to have during the dust, to keep the dust down and playing surface from turning into concrete like infields. Many parents, coaches and even umpires complimented and thanked us for running the sprinklers on the field. The most glaring thing missing today at Lake Ann is an indoor bathroom facility. It should be at or near the top of the improvement list at Lake Ann to make things even better. I’ve been involved in other area city youth associations and is not as great of a relationship as I’ve noticed with the one between the CAA and the City of Chanhassen. I couldn’t believe the City would do such things like marketing fence lines and placing the pitching rubber at the correct distance. This would not have been done by the city where I was previously a part of. The relationship is a great one of trust and helpfulness in both directions and I hope it continues for many years and that’s from Brannon Weigle who ran the softball tournament. So I think that in itself we should commend Adam Beers and his staff as well as the council or the commission for allowing the 2 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 great relationship to continue to foster. Secondarily if you don’t mind indulging me I have a second one from the baseball tournament. I want to take a moment to provide a few statistics and comments around the 2017 state baseball tournament. This year we had a record number of participants hosting 36 teams from around the Twin Cities and throughout the state of Minnesota. We played 79 baseball games over the course of 3 days utilizing the fields at Lake Ann and Chanhassen Rec Center. With the cooperation from Mother Nature I believe we put together one of the best state tournaments I’ve ever witnessed. This statement is solely based upon the sheer number of comments out of the blue from parents and coaches traveling to our facilities. In today’s athletic environment sport complexes are popping up all overyet they don’t come close to competing with the charm and character that Lake Ann has to offer. There were comments about being a first rate facility that had grass infields, batting cages and scoreboards. I had at least 10 different people approach me with very positive feedback on what we are building here in Chanhassen and to those of us who go and coach in other communities and participate at some of the super complexes I’m proud to call Chanhassen our home field. I did field a few comments around having it all but not having respectable bathrooms. We really get hit on this topic each year and should discuss where it falls on the priority list. The City of Chanhassen Park and Rec crew have done this for a long time and clearly have developed a great working relationship with CAA and we hope we can continue for many years. There have been some recent hires by the City over the last couple of years that have been great from our perspective, specifically Adam Beers and the team he’s assembling. Having the collaboration between the City and the CAA allows over 1,200 kids each year in our community to grow in many ways and for this we thank you and that’s from Shawn Cameron who ran the baseball tournament so again thank you from the baseball side as well. I wanted to dovetail with the presentation. I know you have a long meeting so I want to be as brief as possible but I wanted to dovetail in the fact that I’ve been on the panel that has helped put together what’s before you tonight. One of the things that I was a bit alarmed by when I had an opportunity, because I was, I unfortunately missed a meeting was the fact that lighting at our largest fields is a, is in a 5 to 10 year bucket and I want to give you a little history real quick. Not history necessarily but a look forward to what we face in coming years. With these change of boundaries that are occurring next year between Chanhassen and Chaska High School districts within District 112 we are severely at risk of losing Carver Field as a place to utilize for our 90 foot base paths. In addition to that because the th High School League or the high school teams run into deep into May. May 20typically. Fields are not available during practice or game nights and are not necessarily accessible to holdgames which means that while we only have 8 teams our season is pinched in such a manner that games st can’t start until approximately May 21and typically end in the end of June so you have approximately 5 to 6 weeks of game play where you can actually utilize those fields. In 2014 I approached the commission and it was approved that with partnership of CAA that lights would be considered and put in at Lake Susan Park. I come again armed with a commitment from the CAA that is willing to fund up to 25 percent of the lighting project at Lake Susan Park. I understand from speaking to Mr. Scharfenberg last week that this commission is under a tremendous amount of strain this year based on some trail connections that need to be made. However I think it’s, we’re at a crossroads and a critical point within the association with the loss of Carver Field and the high school, I should say in addition to that the Junior Legion program is 3 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 also interested in using Lake Susan Park so up to 7 to 10 nights per year so as you can see the number of fields and teams. The number of teams increases and the number of fields decrease and we’re going to be in a seriously difficult situation as it relates to field space as early as next year. I’d like the commission even with it’s challenges to consider putting in the CIP for next year and possibly 2019 lighting at Lake Susan Park so that we can continue to grow our baseball program and at this point will field questions. Scharfenberg: Todd first of all I want to say thank you for sharing those comments that you received through the various representatives from CAA that run those tournaments. The CAA and the Dugout Club should be commended for the work that you’ve done over the years with the fields at Lake Susan and at Lake Ann because that collaborative effort between the Dugout Club, CAA and Parks and Rec have really added some nice amenities to the ballparks so when we hear those nice comments it’s wonderful to hear those and you guys need to be thanked for doing that work as well. With respect to just quickly with respect to your comment about something in the budget for 2018 and then you said 2019, just I guess I was a little confused. Are you saying money in both years? So if you could just clarify that please. Todd Neils: Of course. So as part of the commitment that the CAA is making the expectation and we’ve already approached MuscoLighting who would likely be furnishing the lighting at the parks. We’ve already approached MuscoLighting and the expectation is that we will be able to have a capital financing where we can fund it over a number of years. Obviously it’s difficult for a youth association to write a large check in one shot so our expectation and have been given a commitment that we’d be able to do that. Now my suggestion in regards to 2018 and 2019 was where I understand that the City typically likes to write a check and be done. Maybe with the challenges in 2018 could leg it into a two year period where they make a balloon payment in 2019 and make a partial payment in 2018 to kind of offset the challenges that you face in the CIP for next year. Again I think that at this point particularly as the Park and Rec monies decrease in size from where they were a number of years ago that creative thought process might be necessary. Scharfenberg: Okay. Anybody else have any questions for Todd? Kelly: You said you approached the lighting company. What did they say and maybe Jerry can answer this question better is what was the last cost we had on the lighting at Lake Susan? Todd Neils: The estimate that we received in 2014 was $240,000 of which again CAA will pay 60 of that. Kelly: So that was what year? Todd Neils: 2014. Kelly: Okay. So you’d expect it to be a little higher than $240,000 at this point. 4 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 Todd Neils: Potentially. Kelly: Thanks Todd. Nice presentation tonight too. Todd Neils: Thank you. Scharfenberg: Anybody else have any questions for Todd? Todd I’m sure that we’ll be discussing this as part of our agenda tonight so thanks. Todd Neils: Thank you. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:Boettcher moved, Echternacht seconded to approve the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated June 27, 2017 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 9 to 0. REVIEW DRAFT PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM, HKGi. Scharfenberg: I think Gabrielle is going to be here from Hoisington-Koegler. Hoffman: So Chair Scharfenberg, members of the commission, as you recall this effort started not quite a year ago but close. Last September-October we got going in earnest on the City’s first ever Parks and Recreation System Plan development and so we appreciate the past involvement of the commission and also the committee. Two of your members, as you recall are on the advisory committee. Chair Steve Scharfenberg and then Jim Boettcher on the advisory committee and that’s been a group of 10 or plus people that’s fluctuated throughout the year that it’s met even on a more regular basis than the commission so tonight it’s your first opportunity to review the draft document. It’s a complete document in a draft form. The advisory committee th met last week on the 18to review this document and Gabrielle will talk about some of those comments that they had that evening. We’ll also touch on the comprehensive, the parks and open space section of the Comprehensive Plan tonight so we’ll touch on that. And as we go through the document it’s long so I would encourage you to pick out your favorite spots to talk about and find time and interrupt Gabrielle and others just to interject your comments and so that’s going to be the most productive. If we try to wait until the end that’s going to be a lot of comments all at one. And with that Gabrielle Grinde from Hoisington-Koegler Group. Thank you. Gabrielle Grinde: Thank you Todd. Is this the plan over here. Hoffman: Jerry will put it up there. 5 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 Gabrielle Grinde: So you’ve received the draft document in your packet for tonight but most of the information at the beginning and middle of the plan has already been brought before you in past meetings so I’m not going to spend time going over some of the introductory contentin the plan. The main issue for tonight is to go over the recommendations and priorities in the implementation chapter and the advisory committee did meet last week, as was talked about. Most of the edits that were discussed include some rewording of things. Some figure numbers. Table numbers. Adding a few statements here and there for overall the plan was generally accepted with the exception of the discussion about the Lake Susan lighting as a priority in the mid-term rather than the short term. Sothe goal for tonight is to get your input on overall the plan. If there are any issues you might have with the content in the first several chapters we can certainly change that and then discussing the implementation and priorities and I can briefly run through the content that we wanted to review. Can you zoom out a little bit? Ruegemer: I don’t think I can. The sirens are going off. Hoffman: Oh for. Ruegemer: Tornado warning. That’s why we were outside. Hoffman: Well we are in the tornado shelter. It’s that back hallway so be sky aware. Echternacht: …meet last week? Gabrielle Grinde: Yeah. Echternacht: July. th , yep. On Tuesday. Gabrielle Grinde: 18 Hoffman: Well isn’t this exciting. Storm warnings and park system plans. Gabrielle Grinde: Yeah that’s good enough. Hoffman: They can see it on all their monitors. Gabrielle Grinde: Okay that’s good. So the chapters you can see we have the introduction, trends, existing conditions, the vision statement and the guiding principles. Hopefully you’re familiar with that. The guiding principles of stewardship, connectivity engagement and adaptable which were the over arching themes and then Chapter 5 is really the meat of the plan. It gets into the goals and the policies and initiatives and these are all summarized in the comp plan chapter which you received as well. So getting into the goals and policies, did anyone have any comments or questions on any of the goals and policies that are listed in the plan? 6 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 Boettcher: And you said this already has the recommended changes that we brought up last week? Are they already in here? Gabrielle Grinde: This version no. Boettcher: Oh this one doesn’t. Gabrielle Grinde: This hasn’t been edited yet. Boettcher: Okay. Gabrielle Grinde: If there’s no questions or comments on the goals and policies we can get into the implementation section. The priorities you can see have been organized in 3 terms.The short term is the next 1 to 5 years. The mid term is 5 to 10 years and the long term is 10 plus years. And then there are ongoing priorities which is mostly operations and management issues and then there are trail gaps as separate priorities. So you can see on the next page capital investments. There’s approximately 6-7 items that are included in the short term, the 1 to 5 years. The cost low indicates a low range and the cost high is a high range so in terms of bidding out to contracting you could, the cost could fall somewhere inbetween there. Could be low. Could be high depending on a number of factors so that’s what that indicates. Then in the mid term you can see is where the field lights are in Lake Susan and also mentioned tonight was restrooms at Lake Ann. They’re also in the mid term, the 5 to 10 years. Hougham: A question for you on this page. Up top in the short term there looks to be like 2 splash pads. One is a destination splash pad at a community park and the other one, second to the bottom it’s just splash pad. Is that suggesting two separate ones? Gabrielle Grinde: Yes it is. Hougham: Okay thank you. Gabrielle Grinde: Then you can also see in the mid term there is a year round signature recreation facility. There has been the recommendation in this plan to do a study for a Recreation Center. A signature Recreation Center which would need to be done prior to constructing the facility but you can see the cost is very wide ranging in there. $25 to $50 million and at the bottom of this capital investment total, the total of all the costs you can see without the facility in width because it does create a big jump in the overall number. Are there any other questions on the capital investment initiatives? Hoffman: Everybody recall how this list was developed? Through the public input process. Okay. 7 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 Gabrielle Grinde: So regarding the Lake Susan lighting, the advisory committee for this planning process has agreed to let the park commission tonight give direction on this item and if it’s desired the advisory committee could meet againto revisit this plan. Otherwise if the changes are minimal from the park commission they won’t meet again and we will make the changes that were listed in the memo and then make any changes by the park commission tonight and then the plan will go onto the City Council. So it is important for you to discuss if this plan needs to be revisited by the advisory committee. Hougham: Todd maybe, or Steve before we start discussing any of this and before our CIP discussion can someone just review what the next steps are after this. So it goes to City Council for approval but then how do we act? How do we move forward with what’s here? Hoffman: The plan is the plan. The action is the next step and that’s up to the Park and Recreation Commission. Kelly: I think it’s what we come up with collaboratively, we send it onto the City Council and of course when you see a price tag like $5 million for the next 5 yeas and then we have to send suggestions on where that money’s going to come from would be if we make that recommendation. Scharfenberg: Right so whatever action we take tonight, if we pass it on with a vote on it and agree that this is good, it would go onto City Council to address I think in September right? At their September meeting so once it’s adopted, once the plan and that is adopted then the question is, is which one of these items or some of these items do we put in CIP or do we finance through other means and you know if that’s some sort of bonding or referendum. I mean that’s kind of the conversation I think we would have to have with council probably at one of our next sessions is okay, you know we’ve got this plan. There are priorities that we as a group think are, would like to see happen sooner rather than later and here’s kind of what wewould like to do. And like Cole said you know kind of run it up the flag pole and see what kind of push back that you get on some of this stuff. Hougham: Okay. Kelly: So I have a question and Gabrielle I don’t know if you’re the best answer or Steve and Jim can answer this because I mean if we do send something forward to the City Council obviously we’ll have to recommend a referendum or the City do some bonding and I don’t see the City doing bonding every 5 years for this so I’m wondering why we didn’t load the front part a little higher to say I think the City should bond or referend for $10 or $12 million and here’s the things we need to do with it and maybe that’s something we have to work out here because I’m thinking we should front load because it’s not going to, bonding and referendums don’t happen a lot in Chanhassen as we look through the history and my thought is we front load a little more and say here’s what we’d like to do if you’re going to borrow the money or have a referendum here’s everything we want to do. Especially if you’re going to have a referendum I 8 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 think you’d want to front load more. And if it’s bonding of course the City can kind of direct us and say no we’d rather bond for $5 million or $10 million or whatever it is but I think we’re better off front loading more money, and again not something unreasonable because it’s, but I think we should be more in the $10 to $12 million area is my thinking. Scharfenberg: Yeah and Jim and I, I think how you view those items that are on page 6-65 of the plan, my response to that would be just because something is in the mid term doesn’t necessarily mean that it can’t be moved forward either tonight if we feel that’s, we would like to see some of that done. I’ll just say again that the advisory group, with the exception of the lighting at Lake Susan was kind of okay with where things stood but if there are items that this group feels should be moved up because I know the rest, Jim and I have seen this but the rest of you haven’t seen this until just recently kind of where all those were placed. Where those place holders were put so certainly if there’s things and I don’t disagree with you Cole that if you’re going to give a number and try to get a number to do some work that some of thatstuff should be pushed forward. Petouvis: I actually do have a question about how the time line was created. How were things slotted into short term, mid term and long term? For example the splash pad is in short term. Nature play and field lights are in mid term. How were those decisions arrived at? Gabrielle Grinde: That was based on community input. You know what the highest priorities came, what had the most hits in terms of the online community engagement. The community open house and thenthe advisory committee reviewed all that information and determined where things would fall. Hoffman: Just an update on the storm. It’s overhead right now until 8:15 is the tornado warning. It says to seek lower level rooms away from windows so we’re doing pretty good and. Tsuchiya: It doesn’t look like a tornado then? Hoffman: No but it’s raining heavy. Ruegemer: The sky looked a little crazy to the east. Hoffman: To the east that’s good, it’s past us. So I’m not saying we’re fine but that’s the update. You’ve got 10 minutes to wait and then the tornado’s over. Scharfenberg: Does anybody else have any other questions as to the prioritization of the capital investment initiatives? Hoffman: And some commissioners have mentioned and others you can move things around in this list. You’re the last stop. You’re the most knowledgeable about what’s going on as Gabrielle stated and many of you were there, this is what generally people said was most 9 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 important to them or they valued. Some of these priorities have to do with you know just the likelihood. Some of that plays into what the timing of that particular might happen. Some things have to wait because of an opportunity. You just can’t go out and do it, whether you wanted to or not so you push them off to a longer term to hope that that opportunity arises. And moving forward you can make a recommendation to approve this plan with zero discussion about the dollars. That’s a decision of the commission. If you want to send this up and say hey City Council you should approve this and we think you ought to bring $20 million dollars along with it, that’s going to decrease your chances of getting an approval. If you say this is our plan. We don’t know how we’re going to fund it. We know we can fund it at least annually based off of our CIP. Our annual CIP. We take this as a document and say okay, now we have some priorities and so we’re going to chipaway at this. City Council if you feel strongly and you want us to look at other alternative financing methods when you approve this why don’t you let us know or we’ll talk about it at our next future meeting and that’s up to you as a commission to decide how you want to approach that. Gabrielle Grinde: Also you should note that there are tables on the following pages that have short, mid and long term priorities so the capital investment initiatives is not only where the short term priorities are listed. The next table is plans and studies so an accessibility plan, a master plan of Lake Ann and the recreation facility study would all be in short term. And then operations and management initiatives, which would mostly be performed by staff, there’s short, mid and long term initiatives. Then there’s ongoing initiatives and then trail gaps at the end and so you can see there are a lot of trail projects that are listed in this plan separately from the capital investment projects. Echternacht: Well Ithink if we are going to try to increase the dollar amount into the short term to go to City Council with then we should look at some of the items in the mid term or all the items and see which ones we as a commission would like to see moved forward to a short term period. Kelly: I’m kind of in agreement with you. Just looking at it, and again we have to work out the numbers and Todd do we have until August to finalize this? So I mean just. Hoffman: Two separate discussions. CIP and then the master plan. So there is scheduled another review of this document if you don’t finish tonight in August and your CIP will not finish tonight but there’s, you do need to finish in August. Kelly: Right, that’s what I figured. Okay thank you. So this is how I’d look at it, and again I haven’t played with the numbers so I couldn’t give it all to you. I don’t see a need for two splash pads. I’d take out the cheaper splash pad. I’d take out the city wide Rec Center because that’s too expensive. I would take out, let’s see what else. Scharfenberg: And Cole just for clarification purposes. When you say take out. 10 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 Kelly: I’m looking at saying here’s what we want to do right away. We want to do $10 or $12 million so I’m taking some things out and then I’m going to add just about everything in the mid term and I’m going to add one thing from the long term. Scharfenberg: How about we just instead of using the word take out we say shift because when you say take out I get the impression that you want to eliminate it and I don’t think you’re saying that. You’re just saying shifting them from different levels. Kelly: Right. Right and again, yeah let’s say, we’ll say shift. Scharfenberg: Okay. Kelly: They’re in the long term. However many years that is. 10-15. So move the second splash pad out. Move the Recreation Center out for $25 to $50 million. I’d want to add back in the Bandimere lighted artificial turf for a million to a million eight. And somewhere along the line I probably want to spend more money on trails than we are right now. And so everything in the mid term, other than the city wide I think we would, let’s see. Permanent restroom by Klingelhutz Memorial Pavilion, don’t we have in the shelter that’s there, don’t we have, do we have bathrooms in there or not? Scharfenberg: Not by Klingelhutz no. Hoffman: Just at the beach. Kelly: Okay. So I’d have a question mark on that one. I’m not sure if I’d move that back or not especially if we’re going to put another one at Lake Ann which Ithink we should do. So that one I might move out. And then so we’re subtracting and adding back, we’d have to play with the numbers but I mean that’s just starters for discussion. That’s how I look at it because then you know if some of our places, if Lake Ann and Bandimere and Lake Susan are going to be you know world class places why are we waiting for it? Why don’t we put bathroom facilities there right away. You know get, make a recommendation for about $10 or $12 or whatever it adds up to and saybecause I think that’s something reasonable that the City Council might look at. You know you throw out numbers of $12 to $37 million and we’re going to get a lot of interesting looks I think and so I want to throw something that I think that they would have to look at. I mean they’re going to have to look at you know the survey because there was a lot of input and it’s what people want and again, now I was reading through parts of the survey and I can’t remember which part I was reading but it said 9 out of 10 people and I was thinking about that. That’s not, that’s10 respondents. Not people. Gabrielle Grinde: Right. Kelly: Okay. So the people that responded heavily want certain things and I know the City Council likes to know what the city people want and I know there was a lot of work done to get a 11 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 lot of people in the city to respond to this survey, and again you’re only going to get a certain cross section but this is what we have to go on and I don’t see a reason you know because if we just show the, throw the short term at them, if we can come up with the cost is low at $2 million they’re still going to have to do bonding or something. Why don’t we throw something at them where they, we say bonding is an option and I also think we should say that a referendum is an option. That we support that. I would at least and again these are my thoughts to get the discussion going but I don’t know, I don’t see a reason to wait on a lot of these things. If we’re going to do it let the people vote on it. Let them put their vote where their money is and let’s roll it out. If the people say no we don’t want it, well then we’re back to the drawing board and asking for less money and maybe bonding but, and again the City Council has to move forward and say we want to do a referendum with you know, we’re just going to make recommendations but my first recommendation would be let’s bond for, or let’s do a referendum for $10 or $12 million and see what the city wants. I think people, you know we have wonderful facilities and there’s just a few things left to get them to the point where you know we are a world class city. We want to be a world class plus one city and to stay a world class city you’ve got to stay up on these things so those are my thoughts. Scharfenberg: Anybody else have any comments? Hougham: Yeah I guess I was kind of approaching it from a slightly different way. I’m not opposed to that view Cole. One thing I am in contention with a little bit though is the rec facility itself. Before I think just moving that back I would be interested in doing the study. I would like to get more information to see if people really are behind it. I mean we heard a lot of comments wanting it but they were also different wants. There was aquatic. There was hockey. There was just recreation. So I think the study would help provide us what direction. What people were actually willing to pay. So before I think I would want to push the City Council towards a $10 to $12 million dollar deal I would like to see that study to see if it is worth pushing for that rec facility. Because otherwise like Cole is saying they’re not going to do that every 5 years. It would be another 10-15 years before they would approach that amount. So my recommendation would be to probably wait until that study has been completed. Do some of the short term things here in the next year and then revisit it once that study is complete. Echternacht: Well is it something that we could go forward with and saying that we want to do short term this $10 to $12 but we also would like to do what you just mentioned to see if that Rec Center, what numbers we can get out of there and then based upon that perhaps being added to the amount that we’ve come forward with, that $10 to $12. Because I hate to see it, us wait for this survey because this is going to take a time for that to take place I would imagine. Hougham: Would it be like a year cycle? Hoffman: Yeah something like that. Are commissioners flipping the page and looking at the plans or studies? 12 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 Hougham: Yeah. Hoffman: Yep so that’s where the Recreation Center study is in short term, accessibility and ADA audit and then the complete master plan for Lake Ann. Kelly: I like the Highway 7 study being in there. Jennifer what I would agree with you on is what we should probably do in the short run is add some money back to upgrade our facilities at the Rec Center and study, the problem is it’s a long term study and how much money is the City Council willing to throw at that and you really, that kind of money that’s going to be a major, major effort and I don’t think they have the bonding capacity for that but I wouldn’t know that. So that would be a referendum. Maybe a separate referendum from our referendum. Hougham: And I think that’s something I would like to come out of the study too is current facility versus long term facility, what would people be happy with? Just updating the current facility versus complete stand alone, completely new. Is that something that can be all wrapped into one or is that separate? Hoffman: Sure. Hougham: Okay. So yeah I agree. Kelly: But I think we should put some money in now for upgrading and I don’t know what that number is because there were a lot of comments about the Rec Center. You know facilities and there’s probably a few things we can do you know to upgrade and I don’t know if that’s going to go you know half million to a million but I know once you start adding on that gets very expensive. Scharfenberg: So Cole just so I’m, to clarify you’re actually indicating that another under short term there would be a thing entitled or a caption entitled recreation renovation or upgrades. Kelly: Or updates. Upgrades I like that better. Scharfenberg: With a dollar amount associated with that. Kelly: Yeah low cost to half a million, high cost a million. Hoffman: We’re doing face lifts right now we’re year 4 into a 5 year face lift at the Rec Center. That’s $25,000 a year but that’s simply to face lift stuff. Kelly: Right. 13 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 Tsuchiya: I have a question about the community parks. So right now the community parks are Bandimere and Lake Susan. Or Lake Ann and is Lake Susan considered a community park as well? Hoffman: Yes. Scharfenberg: Yes, and Bandimere. Tsuchiya: Yeah so there’s 3. Scharfenberg: Right. Tsuchiya: Okay. And is there discussion or was there, has there been discussion about adding a fourth before everything is developed in the city or are we looking at maintaining the 3 we have? I realize, I’m just wondering if that’s a possibility. I realize that’s an expensive proposition. Hoffman: It’s been bantered about but the likelihood is fairly low just because of the availability of open space and land so, but it’s been chatted.You know it’s been talked about. It’s been bantered about. Tsuchiya: Okay, and I ask because I’m wondering if a lot of the projects listed in short and mid term, maybe there’s cost savings if that was wrapped into development of a new community park with some of these features that aren’t in existence right now. Hoffman: Currently Karl it’s under a long term. Tsuchiya: The three, yeah. But that would just be I don’t know, is that the $1 to $3 million? Hoffman: Correct. Tsuchiya: Okay. And then I don’t know, Gabrielle can you, what is, what composes that $1 to $3 million in this situation? Is that just acquisition of the actual property itself and then some development of ballfields, soccer fields, kind of your standard athletic facilities? Gabrielle Grinde: Yeah that would, I don’t know if we have it listed exactly what the components would be but yeah it would be the development of a park similar to Lake Susan or Bandimere with a few ballfields. Parking. Play area. Land acquisition I don’t believe is included because we weren’t looking at a particular site. Do you know Todd if that’s right? Hoffman: Yeah there’s a lot of variables in this. This cost would likely go up if you were all inclusive with land acquisition. Where it is.How the land was acquired. Sometimes we receive land through park dedication or donation but it’s out there. It’s a discussion topic and again the likelihood, so the challenge is we’re having a lot of discussions over how we’re going to finish 14 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 up what we currently have and then long term, this is a 20 year plan so we’re talking about you know what should be do in the next 5 years. Well this plan…20. If an opportunity arises where there’s a chance to acquire a new community park site, if it’s in the plan you know whatever the number is, the numbers can show up. Well it’s a million dollars in acquisition. Then you can build a park for $2 million you can build a park. But if it costs you $3 million to acquire the land and everybody thinks it’s a good deal at the time then you…that full $3 million. That’s just an unknown… Since it’s in the plan and it keeps everybody’s interest level. If you think we’re done, this commission thinks we’re done. You don’t want to invest, or at least consider investmentin the future community park site then you would take it out. Tsuchiya: Okay. The only thing in that regard that I would maybe recommend adding is in the plan study initiative a study into adding a community park, if that’s something. I don’t know wasthere a lot of community feedback about that? I can’t remember. I don’t think that was going to say on the radar and I think the 3 we have are outstanding right now but. Scharfenberg: I would say Karl in response to that the biggest response regardingkind of that issue was the whole expansion of Lake Ann in the Prince property. I think you know that kind of isn’t necessarily adding a park but I think most of the responses from people were you know dealing with that piece of property and doing something with that. Tsuchiya: No absolutely, yeah. Scharfenberg: Yeah. Tsuchiya: I think that’s a fantastic opportunity too so yeah. Scharfenberg: Correct. Tsuchiya: Okay, that satisfies me. I was just curious. Scharfenberg: Okay. Hoffman: And the last comment there, there’s really only 3 or 4 parcels of land that would even be acceptable for that use and none of them are currently being talked about as a future community park so… It’s always nice to have a possibility when you’re talking about a plan and so it’s the golf course. Bluff Creek Golf Course. There’s some property, the Holasek property which is currently under, it’s been purchased. It’s under a development plan. It’s not being planned as a community park site and then you knowthere’s some land around Lake Ann which is open space or nature, natural preserve so… so the likelihood of adding more ballfieldsat a park happening is not very big. Petouvis: Todd along the lines of the Lake Ann possible park expansion. I see the plan and study but I don’t, maybe I’m missing it. Any money or any prioritization of actually doing 15 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 something there so I would think that maybe it would hit somewhere in the mid term plan. Should there be a place holder beyond the plan and study phase? Hoffman: Certainly can be. Hougham: There is a place holder for the trail loop. The 1.23 mile Lake Ann loop. Petouvis: And is that what we would see mostly as the cost factor there besides acquiring the land? Hougham: Would the land come through park dedication when that parcel is developed? Hoffman: That’s currently unknown. Hougham: Is potentially I think. Scharfenberg: Where is that Jennifer on the thing? Hougham: I don’t think that’s in here. The trail loop is under trails for $260,000to $750,000 but that’s just for like the paved trail and that’s not for the land acquisition. Kelly: So I noticed the plan doesn’t have a lot of trail extension. It does have user enhancement and it does have a study for Highway 7. I also noticed when I was reading through here it said for every dollar we spend on trails we get a health care benefit of $3 so I’m thinking we should be throwing a lot of money at trails in this plan. But in that trails we’ve got what, $250,000 to $750,000. That looks like that’s more user enhancement and then a study for Highway 7, is that right Todd? Hoffman: Correct. Kelly: And of course Highway 7, the issue with that is if Victoria doesn’t finish off their portion is it worth us finishing off our portion because you’re still have to cross Highway 7 at some point and that’s what we were, you know one of the things people said is to make trails so you don’t have to cross many roads. Highway 7 would take, alleviate crossing Highway 7. And of course if you cross 7 then you can go, they’ve got an underpass you know up in Victoria and Excelsior but that doesn’t help us in Chanhassen so I think that’s something that should be looked at but we can’t do it if Victoria doesn’t come on board. It’s just like the trail going down Galpin. I think we were ready to finish off our side and then Shoreview City Council. Hoffman: Shorewood, yeah. Kelly: Shorewood excuse me, bailed on what they were going to build so it didn’t make any sense for us to finish that off. 16 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 Hoffman: And we were a party to their contract and they didn’t… Kelly: And I don’t see anything here to finish off Bluff Creek. Is that kind of all going to be in the road construction or do we not know about that right now? Hoffman: It’s currently scheduled for 2019. Kelly: Okay. And is it going to come out of the road budget mostly? Hoffman:That’s yet to be determined. That would be our hope but no guarantees. Kelly: Okay so we don’t need to really discuss that for the 20 year plan. Scharfenberg: Alright so just to kind of summarize with respect to the initiatives, if I understood Cole some of the recommendations that you were making were moving up, did you have specific items that you thought should be moved up to short term? Kelly: Well what I would do other than the, you know we added in facility upgrades and we want to keep a study in there obviously. Otherwise I don’t see a need not to move everything that’s in the mid term up to the short term and say here’s what we want to move forward with if, I mean if we’re going to ask the City to bond or do a referendum I think we want to go with a bigger number than $2 to $5 million. Of course $2 to $5 million they might say well we can bond that easy so, and move forward so I don’t know. I’m looking to hit the, get the ball where we say this is what we want. We want to do it now. Wewant the city to be improved. The experience in Chanhassen no matter where you go is a fabulous experience. And then if they turn us down and we come back to the drawing table and say okay, here’s our short term agenda. We think you can afford $2 ½ million to do this or bond for this or whatever so that’s my thinking. Is let’s go for more and we can agree for less because our 5 year plan isn’t, I mean if it gets to $5 million it is kind of big and again so some of the things as we get, as we move forward. You know we say here’s everything we want in here and here’s the low cost, here’s the high cost. Once we get costs at some point we may have to take a few things out because they’re going to say okay here’s your number and then we have to work aroundthat number. But I’m thinking all the stuff would be beneficial in the short run and. Boettcher: Did you want to move Bandimere up too then? Kelly: And I want to move Bandimere up. And again we may be pulling some of this stuff out but that’s where I want to start because then the City Council, they have to have a discussion are we going to bond? Are we going to do a referendum? Or are we sending it back to them to say here’s your number. Come up with that and come back to us. 17 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 Petouvis: I’m trying to piece together the whole big picture of the next 20 years and what we want or need to go to the council for approval of what we need to goto residents to do a referendum, or however we’re going to fund all of this and there are a lot of great ideas. A lot of really big asks and a lot of money that’s going to need to come to just maintain what we already have because if we don’t maintain what we have then our grade A rating is going to sink. So I’m sitting here, I’m getting nervous about how much we want to do and all the great ideas but the tolerance at the council level and the resident level for funding all of this over the course of the next 20 years. I think we have to be really careful and strategic about what we ask for when and I think the discussion of the Rec Center makes me particularly nervous because it is such a big number and I think that, we need to really think strategically about are we going to ask for this at some point in the, I mean 20 years really is the near term. It will go by like that and if we are going to ask for it then we need to be careful about what we ask for now so I don’t want us to get too gung ho. I want us to really think about how it’s all going to play out. Boettcher: Not to be a purveyor of doom but without even being at any of the past meetings you’ve actually called it out. We’ve labored over this. I think, I don’t know if Steve was at the meeting. Rick was there. I was there 3 years ago when we had done two work sessions I think between this group went to the council with something for, I’m thinking $1.4 million which we thought easy peasy. And we came out and basically got the okay for 10, I think it was 10 shade trees at Bandimere Park so the issue that was brought up earlier about the Rec Center, you know this was all done by people that were in feel good mood thinking well I want aquatics, senior center, walking trails, pickleball, everything you know, Eden Prairie mini me over here. Petouvis: But I only want to pay $12 for it. Boettcher: But right, nobody said how are we going to pay for it so I think doing the study, number one going back and telling people here’s what it’s going to cost you. $300 a year extra in taxes, whatever but also with the council they’re going to look at yeah, that’s not going to happen so we do have to be careful. Petouvis: Right. Boettcher: We can’t go in with a huge number. I mean expectations for me is that we go in with $5 million, $7 million, whatever and they’re going to say probably not so we’re going to have to have Plan B. Steve can pull it out of his pocket. We’ve got Plan B for $3 ½ million. We do maintenance through CIP and we make something work. I mean it’s tough. We have this, we’ve never had this discussion at this level in 6 years that I’ve been at the group.Steve’s been in here a lot longer. Cole’s been here a lot longer but what I’ve seen in 6 years it’s been pretty frustrating to go in thinking you know mom and dad are going to sign off on the report card. Petouvis: Right. Well you know just sitting in at the work session is my first meeting as a park and rec commissioner. I sit here and question should we even have thatline item of the Rec Center? I mean is that, does that damage our credibility somehow because we know that people 18 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 want it when they’re in the great, yeah let’s have Chan be like everybody else around us but then when it comes down to the nitty gritty nuts and bolts of paying for it, there’s a big gap between I’ll pay $12 or whatever the number was versus what it really will cost per resident so is it even responsible to have that? Hougham: I would, I will still argue the other opinion that we did this study and we asked citizens for their responses and it would be irresponsible of us not to pursue it further. Boettcher: True but to push this for my. Hougham: I don’t think we would push it. Boettcher: And we’re not pushing but to present this, I mean I’ve been on this side of the table and the other side of the table through my career in the automotive industry and somebody comes up to you and says, as an engineer here’s my design. We’re going to do this in this car and by the way we’re going to have to add $3,000 to the sticker price. VP’s heads start to spin like that but if you say well here on the back side we’re going to collect it by blah, blah, blah so if we can come back to these same, what 1,300? Was that the number that responded? And of the people that responded to the survey and they come back and say, too hard a hear in taxes. No big deal. Then you have more of a consensus. Here you’re going in happy go lucky but you still don’t, nobody’s got the credit card in their pocket to pay for it. So I think if you’re going to go in with a huge number you’re going to also have to be able to say people are willing based on our study to cover it. If you don’t do that then I think we’re 86’d. Scharfenberg: Todd you want to make a comment. Hoffman: I do. Thank you Chair Scharfenberg, members of the commission. Perhaps this is because we have the CIP on the same evening but I think we’re getting ahead of ourselves. My recommendation to the commission is that you focus on this document as adocument. This is not just the property of you or the City Council. This is the property of the community that you represent. I think you have a responsibility to deliver this in a complete fashion without sending it with a conversation about how it’s going to be funded when it hits the City Council’s lap. This is a document, a planning document. Some of it might never happen. Lots of it might happen. How it happens we do not know today. You do not have to send this with a funding recommendation tothe City Council for their approval. It likely will just complicate what it is which is a plan. Hougham: So with that, oh go ahead. Petouvis: I understand Todd exactly what you’re saying. When I think of a plan I think of something that we have put together and that will be executed. Is this perhaps more, should I be viewing it more as a wish list of the community and we will deal with this wish list as we are responsibly able to. 19 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 Hoffman: Correct. It’s a 20 year plan and there’s going to be a variety of, so the priorities are important because if here’s money in the park fund and you’re going to be talking about the park CIP this is a document you can use to decide on priorities. Conversations with the neighbors at the end of your driveway are input that you can decide and what are priorities. Your own personal beliefs and then once it goes to the City Council they have to take a look at that annual CIP. Could a future referendum come out of this? Certainly. Any document like this, once it becomes a public document people are going to want to see what the response is. If the response is overwhelmingly supportive and people say we’re excited about this. We’ve been waiting for a long time to see the City put something like this together. Let’s make this happen then there might be a referendum or other bonding. If this is not received well in the community, people say you know you people are a bunch of pie in the sky thinkers. I know we provided input but you know so how it’s going to happen into the future it’s simply a plan. It’s not a financing document. It’s a plan. Hougham: With that I guess I would make a recommendation that we move field lights for Lake Susan up to near term and I’m good with the rest. Hoffman: I also thinkCommissioner Petouvis has a valid discussion point. Lake Ann, you’ll notice it’s in the text. It’s over on the left hand side. It’s in the text it talks about Lake Ann specifically. The expansion. There’s a study for Lake Ann but there is not currently a line item for Lake Ann expansion… Scharfenberg: So the two expansion items I think that we had were Lake Ann, some money in a category for Lake Ann expansion and then Rec Center upgrades. Those were the two that I think everyone were kind of in agreement on adding those two for sure. Petouvis: And I know I touched on this earlier. Was the splash pad really that high a priority or that popular an item that it would be the major expenditure in the near term? Gabrielle Grinde: Yeah there was a lot of desire for outdoor aquatic facilities. Splash pad is a lot less expensive than a full pool and a pool was talked about as part of the Rec Center study and so the splash pad was put in to serve those needs as an outdoor non-lake aquatic facility. Scharfenberg: Meredith if you look at page 3-21 it says there, it’s got the top 3 desired facilities was natural play, indoor pool, outdoor pool so I think that’s kind of what you’re referring to right Gabrielle? Gabrielle Grinde: (Yes). Petouvis: Okay so just an outdoor pool alternative? Scharfenberg: Right. 20 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 Petouvis: Okay. Hoffman: Commissioners do you know where the lion head drinking fountain is? At Lake Ann Park. So today we took a bike ride through. I rode a bike with Marty Walsh. We went on a bike ride to take a look at some future comprehensive trail plan segments and there was a couple of moms in. They had about 5 kids and they had a pen jammed in the water hydrant because if you turn on the water hydrant and jam a pen in there then that was their splash pad for about a half hour so that was the Lake Ann splash pad today and it was creating a mud hole so didn’t have a lot to say about that. The kids were having a great time but that was today’s splash pad. Our fountain is often the splash pad if you ever witness that in the fountain. Sometimes they come lock, stock and barrel with swim suits and change and stay right here so they’re a popular amenity. They have been talked about a great deal in our community and there is a plan currently on our, in our files for one at Bandimere Park as a potential location. There could be other locations as well. Scharfenberg: Gabrielle, getting back to the plan itself. Is there anything else specifically that you wanted to touch on? I would like you to talk about on the back about the section relating to future initiatives. Kind of the idea generation. If you could speak to that a little bit. Gabrielle Grinde: Sure. So on page 6-78 we put in a diagram showing if people, citizens from the community come in with an idea for a park or program that the parks and recreation department would operate. There’s a form for how they could go about deciding how to evaluate their idea and then how it would go through the staff and commission and City Council process to actually come to fruition so there’s the diagram on page 6-79 which shows the steps and then page 6-80 to 6-81 is a form that the staff could have on hand to hand to someone that comes in or emails or calls them with an idea. So it goes through questions such as will it serve an unmet need? Does it fulfill needs in the community through community engagement? Does it support healthy living? Will it satisfy goals and policies within the City Comprehensive Plan? Things like that so we thought this would be helpful for city staff to reduce some of their time to respond to ideas that come in. Petouvis: Gabrielle when we got to the second page, the additional information page on 6-81. Gabrielle Grinde: Yep. Petouvis: Is that to be filled out by the City or by the resident making the request? Gabrielle Grinde: The resident. So they could have help from city staff if they’re unclear. Petouvis: Okay because I was looking at action steps and then list additional resources and as a resident myself there’s no way I could fill in those sections. 21 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 Gabrielle Grinde: Yeah, yeah and this is just comprehensive so it wouldn’t, you wouldn’t need to fill out every single box but just the ones that you would know the answers to. Scharfenberg: And then the last item that I’ll just touch on again is on page 6-75. We don’t have anything there yet. We’re still waiting on that information regarding maintenance and when are we anticipating Todd that that will be available? Gabrielle Grinde: I actually just met with Adam tonight and it’s 90 percent there. Scharfenberg: Okay. Gabrielle Grinde: A lot of the costs are variables so we’re trying to be conservative on how much things actually cost. As general capital you don’t know, when you put in a playground you don’t know if it’s going to be $50,000 or $100,000 because there’s lots of variables in terms of buying equipment and bidding it out so we have it pretty much done. It just needs a final run through by staff and then should get it pretty soon. Scharfenberg: Okay. Hoffman: Yeah but you’re… Gabrielle Grinde: So the table that would fill up these 3 pages but there’s probably 20 items per page. Hoffman: Few hundred items so the playground, all the playgrounds in there, all our fences, retaining walls, every piece of equipment and then when you see it it’s going to be equipment for…so you know what is our equipment playground fences and what’s a facility so a ballfield or something of that nature. A volleyball…it’s separated out so it’s easily distinguishable and we have a good layout of which year they should be replaced and what the amount is so that’s one of the main reasons that this study began was because some of our equipment. So if you take a look at the plan, Roundhouse and Sunset Ridge Park are in the negative one so when should they have been replaced? Scharfenberg: Okay. Anybody else have any questions or Gabby do you have anything else that you want to cover? Kelly: Can I interrupt? Scharfenberg: Yeah. Kelly: Steve I have a thought for you. Taking Todd’s previous comment is we do want to present everything to the City Council that’s here so we don’t want to micromanage what they see and don’t see. I was thinking what we should do is just have two categories. Short term and 22 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 long term. Not put any years with it. So here’s what we want to see done in the short term. Here’s what we are looking at in the long term and then let the City Council wrestle with the timeframe. Just a thought. Scharfenberg: Well that would be something I think ultimately that would have to go back to the advisory committee to talk about and since we’ve got some additional changes, we weren’t going to meet in August but I’m thinking maybe it would be worthwhile to have another meeting and talk about some of that stuff. What do you think Jim? Boettcher: With everything that’s come up tonight I think we’re bringing up so many questions that we never talked about at the advisory committee meetings. Scharfenberg: Okay. So why don’t we bring some of those things, set up a meeting. I think we had a date already set didn’t we Todd? Boettcher: Right. Scharfenberg: Do you remember right off hand what date that was? th Gabrielle Grinde: The 10. th Hoffman: The 10. th Scharfenberg: The 10, okay. So let’s reset, if we can send out another meeting notice to th everybody to let them know that we are going to meet on the 10and we’ll bring some ofthese suggestions. Not some of them, we’ll bring all of these suggestions back to the advisory committee and then back to Park and Rec one more time, is that right? Hoffman: Correct. Scharfenberg: We’d discuss that at the end of August I take it. Okay.Alright, thank you everyone for that discussion. Thank you Gabby for coming tonight and facilitating those discussions and we’ll be back in a month and talk about some of this stuff and hopefully have an agreed upon plan to pass onto council. Gabrielle Grinde: Thank you. Scharfenberg: Thanks. And I would just make an additional comment. Members if you’re, commission members if you just can looking through this, some of this stuff and you have, something pops up that we didn’t maybe talk about tonight, just feel free to email myself or Todd or Jim and we’ll certainly discuss that information at our next meeting. 23 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 Hoffman: Chair Scharfenberg we would like to touch on the comp plan section, just so you see it. Scharfenberg: Okay. Hoffman: So we’ll have Gabrielle come up. Jerry will load it up and just so you see it. When Gabrielle starts I’ll have her explain where the Comprehensive Plan sits in relation to this document. Gabrielle Grinde: So the Comprehensive Plan chapteris an abbreviated list of the goals and policies that are in the park system plan and the intent is that this is a document that gets approved by the Met Council so you don’t want all the details that’s in the park system plan to go into this because if you have to make changes. If you have to make an amendment. Go back to the City Council, Met Council and so forth so this is essentially a summary of the highlights of the park system plan. Hoffman: This would be your primary document if you’re dealing with developers. Questions about what the park system, once this is approved so people would reference the Comprehensive Plan but this would be the master document. Gabrielle Grinde: So you can see that it goes through some of the inventory. Park classification. The main requirements by the Met Council are to include a map and inventory of the system. What are the parks that the City runs? And then what are the regional facilities? Trails. Trail search areas and regional parks that are within the city so that, those items are included and then there is a summary of some of the needs assessment findings and then priorities for the future. So you can see it’s much shorter than the system plan but includes the major components. So the regional trail search corridors are on a map. The park classifications. Goals and policies. But then it does not include the costs associated with all the initiatives. Are there any questions on the comp plan chapter? Hoffman: Lacking a master plan or a park system plan thecomp plan is the document that staff has been using for the past 50 years in planning parks and trails in our city so it is an important document but this is obviously got more detail and so this will become even a better planning document into the future. Scharfenberg: Thanks Gabby. Hoffman: Thanks Gabrielle. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL, 2018-2022 PARK AND TRAIL ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP). 24 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 Scharfenberg: Alright, our next order of business is consideration for CIP for 2018 and 2022. Todd. Hoffman: Thank you Chair Scharfenberg, members of the commission. So now we can jump right into talking about numbers in great detail for 2018 to 2022. So it’s hard to believe we’ve passed the 2020 mark and now we’re planning out to 2022 and as we’ve had conversations in the past this is a 5 year lookout but obviously the most important year is the coming year 2018 so it’s always a good time to reflect on where has recent activity taken place in parks and trail acquisition and development in our community. What have you accomplished? I never want you to lose track of what you have accomplished. I know it’s a daunting task to take a look at what is yet incomplete and what the future holds but you also have been very successful in bringing public recreation services to the community so I want you to make sure that you concentrate on that as well. Some news since we’ve last met is that the City Council did approve the budget amendment for the Fox Woods trail connector last evening so in total that’s an $805,000 project for that section of trail. There’s $37,000 in water connection money that’s going to happen and so that expenditure is represented accurately in the spreadsheet that Commissioner Kelly has passed out so that was approved last night. It wasa work session item. I have a power point that I have condensed and I’ll send that to commissioners if you’re interested in taking a look at what was presented at last night’s City Council meeting and that was approved on consent, and they were kind of in a rock and a hard spot. The City had entered into a development contract with Gonyea Homes. They had paid $266,000 in park fees and then the cost once the trail was designed just increased over the $400,000 so, so you’re aware how staff estimates typical trail connections. We estimate by a lineal foot trail connection and so we use about $100 per foot. On this one we knew it was going to be much more complex so we used a $400 per foot which we thought would accommodate that so that’s 1,000 feet. $400,000. But when the final design was prepared MnDOT became involved. There’s a lot of engineered back fill that needs to go into this and so the engineer calls this a 100 year wall. This is no longer a standard form of construction because of MnDOT’s specifications and so the project is expensive because it’s, it has, it’s a 100 year wall and it’s a big block wall so that’s what’s going on with that. When you enter into this conversation tonight the very next thing in line is now last night you also have, you made a recommendation to enter into a development contract for Arbor Glen. This is just north of Foxwood. The council approved that last night. That recommendation probably goes back a few months or perhaps a year because Arbor Glen has been in and off the agenda. On and off the agenda and it’s the housing just north of Foxwoods and that will create the next section of trail. I don’t have that dollar amount estimate for you but I will be working with their engineer in the design and presenting that cost estimate to this commission so you can advance that to the City Council as a part of this CIP process. So that’s the next… Kelly: Excuse me, what year will that be? Hoffman: So that should be 2018. They’ll construct it in 2018 and the City will pay for it in 2018. The Foxwoods trail will be developed, constructed this summer and paid for likely in 25 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 December of 2018 or January of 2019. Or excuse me, 2017 and January of 2018. So getting into some of the other particulars. The park dedication fund balance is currently at $1.3 million. That’s down from a balance of $1.8-$1.9 last year. Revenues to date have just really not even got off the map yet so $15,000. There’s a variety of things yet to be coming in so West Park was approved. If you remember West Park. It’s the housing down on the Klingelhutz Farm so that’s been approved. There’s a check coming along with that. We’re looking at the Mission Hills senior housing. That’s in the hopper. Has not yet come in. So there’s a variety of things that are out there where those dollars just haven’t been generated yet because the final plat has not been submitted. So we still, last year we did $523,000. I can’t say that we’re going to do that again this year but I’m certainly hoping we’re going to make the $200,000 that is budgeted or do better than that. You understand that there’s other funding mechanisms as well. The general fund is paying for some excess general fund dollars are paying for the completion of the 2014 to 2018 neighborhood park picnic shelter project and we’re in our second to last year of that. So the next page is what’s currently programmed. You know them in some detail. I’m not going to go through them item by item except to point out that in 2020 that Bandimere Community Park shelter at $640,000 will have to get bumped out. It will have to get put into the future or some other equivalent dollar amount to account for these trail projects on 101, both the Foxwoods connector. The budget amendment there and then the ArborGlen. It’s the largest targeted dollar amount. You could take a look at some other things as well. And then the next paragraph is the programmed items utilizing other funding sources and then down at the bottom we start talking about improvements that are not currently programmed but will need to be. The Arbor Glen pedestrian trail and retaining wall that has to be, since this report was written that project was on the council agenda. Off the council agenda and so it’s finally been approved and so that we need to fund. Athletic field lighting is mentioned. The Galpin Boulevard trail extension. We don’t have control over that. That’s a Shorewood project that we were going to add on our dollars and they’re no longer interested in doing it. Highway 7trail extension. It’s expensive. We need Victoria. Lake Ann Park expansion study. We looked, we talked about Lake Ann Park expansion we talked about on your tour. Archery re-use. If you want to utilize that space for something else you would have to talk about that. Lake Susan Park shelter refurbishment. We have operating bathrooms there but they’re getting old. They’re over 30 years old and so we get comments about their current condition. Rec Center expansion study. We talked about that. Roundhouse Park. Round house refurbishment. The building itself needs significant work. And then Sunset Ridge Park playground and playground border and resilient surfacing. That’s the one of two that I mentioned that is currently at negative one at leastby our plan that we’ll be delivering to you so it’s a year past due for replacement. And then as always individual commissioners can either say you’re not in favor of something or that you want to add something else to these lists and so the recommendation tonight is to account for the forecasted budget increase to $805,350 for Foxwoods. It’s recommended that the park commission consider delaying the Bandimere Community Park shelter beyond 2022 and consider adding Arbor Glen pedestrian trail and retaining wall projects, Sunset Ridge Park playground and playground border and resilient surface replacement project and the Lake Ann Park expansion study or the 2018 CIP. Furthermore it’s recommended the commission request staff identify cost estimates for 26 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 eachof these projects for delivery at your August meeting. And I’ll stand for questions and look forward to hearing from the commission on this item. Echternacht: Todd I have a question on the Arbor Glen wall. If that doesn’t have to be that 100 year wall that we had to do on Foxwood. Hoffman: It’s in MnDOT right-of-way. It will be the same design as the other one so half of it is currently being built with Foxwood’s on the north side of their entrance road and where it stops Arbor Glen will pick up and build their half of it and it’s still the same design. The MnDOT wall design since it’s in MnDOT right-of-way. Echternacht: Okay. Boettcher: Todd what was the cost of the Lake Ann Park expansion study? Hoffman: I think we have scheduled $40,000 to $60,000 in the plan, yep. Boettcher: 40 to 60, okay. Kelly: I just want to mention the form I handed out. The proforma. I just, all I did was take what Todd made recommendations and made the changes there. That’s why we have money at the end of the budget just so everybody could see what it looked like with Todd’s changes. Todd question for you. Sunset Ridge is minus one. The capital replacement fund, when is that scheduled to come out of that fund? Hoffman: Well the capital replacement that we’re doing as a part of the study is just a conversation point. Kelly: No I know but isn’t it scheduled at some point down the road? Hoffman: Yeah it’s scheduled negative one so it’s scheduled. Scharfenberg: It will be the first one wheneveryou decide to do it. Hoffman: Yep. Scharfenberg: But if we make a recommendation to the council they could do it as part of replacement right? Hoffman: It’s not in our current CIP. Kelly: Okay so we could put it in the CIP that’s not the Park and Rec CIP. 27 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 Hoffman: Correct. Kelly: Okay. Hoffman: You could say we want to do this with some other funding source. You decide. Kelly: Okay. Out of the capital refurbishment fund. Hoffman: (Yes). Kelly: Okay. Scharfenberg: And they just have to budget for it. Hoffman: Correct.And we’re at that point where it’s just a decision. Should we wait until the whole conversation about the full you know hundred items happens or do you want to start with that one now? Scharfenberg: Anybody elsehave any questions for Todd? Todd one question with respect to the Arbor Glen item. In terms of a place holder value, do you have a number in mind as to what we would put towards that? Hoffman: Not tonight. Petouvis: What’s the distance of the trail? Hoffman: It’s approximately 1,000 feet which is similar. It’s a little less than that but it’d be similar to the last one we talked about. Petouvis: So $800,000. Hoffman: No it’s because paying for one piece of wall, the Foxwoods, the primary cost is that to get down to the underpass, which is again as I expressed to the council last night, working with developers to build these trails is a good plan. Previous to that type of approach we allowed developers to finish their development. Build the roads. Start moving their people in and then the City would come in after the fact and let a contract.Design a trail and that got people really excited. We were grading things and running into utilities that we weren’t planning for because youknow they didn’t plan for that trail either. Just wanted to get in and get done so doing it this way is a good plan. The cost here is because you have an underpass underneath 101. That’s a huge investment. People want to get to that underpass. This neighborhood wants to get to it. It just happens to be probably the most difficult section of trail in the city is going to be built to get you to it. You have a tall wall. It’s almost as tall as this building, this ceiling on one side and a tall wall thesame height on the other side and you’re going to put a trail on the bottom of it to 28 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 get down to grade. So it just happens to be everybody here has driven up that hill on 101. You know what that little hill is and now you’re going to build a trail through on one side of it. And so it’s not going to be $800,000. It will be between zero and $800,000 for sure. I’d say between $200,000 and $800,000. Kelly: We’re starting to get you narrowed Todd. Hoffman: We’ll get you a number. We’ll have an engineer’s estimate. We won’t have a full blown feasibility study and probably not even a full blown plan because they’re not there yet. We’ll get you an accurate estimate based on… Petouvis: Is there any sense in, and I’m only brain storming. Given what happened with the Foxwood trail, would tweaking the timing of planning the Arbor Glen trail so that it comes before everything else is done with the Arbor Glen development, would that help minimize costs? Hoffman: The developer will build it so the development contract says you will build it as a part of your development. When they build it, when it’s completed is up to them. Once they complete it they send us a bill. We pay the material costs. We don’t pay all the machinery costs, the labor costs so the development contract they’ll likely build it in 2018 but you know some developments start out slow and it could be built in 2019 and so it’s just all depends on how that plan moves forward. We’re not in charge of that. Petouvis: Okay. So it’s a little different than the Foxwood trail in that regard maybe? Hoffman: Nope. Petouvis: No? Okay. Hoffman: Very similar. So Foxwoods, they would have built it earlier but the permitting took so long that it just, they really wanted to be done and ready to go last probably March and then the permitting through the watershed district, the State of Minnesota, other regulatory agencies just took so long it drug out. The design got finalized, the MnDOT review got finalized, the price increased and then we went into this whole conversation. So I think it’s important for the commission to know that City Council heard it from our attorney last night. They were in a tough position so say they said we’re not in the mood to pay this extra money, we’re under contract so the developer at that point, they had the choice to just go build it and send us a bill and you know so that’s the kind of position we’re in. It’s the same position we entered into last night on Arbor Glen. We’ve done this many, many times. Camden Ridge. You know the Preserve. All over. Developers are in building houses. We ask them to build a trail. We say we’ll pay for the material costs and it’s worked out very well. This is a, I would call it a bump in the road and it’s a bump in that road that does come along. A big bump. 29 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 Scharfenberg: Anybody have any items beyond what staff has recommended in terms of CIP that they would like to see added in? Kelly: I think if we add in Arbor Glen it’s kind of hard to find money for anything right now to add because I’m trying to figure out where we’re going to get the money for Arbor Glen. That project’s going to have a certain amount of money that comes with it? Hoffman: It will. Kelly: But we don’t have it so that $200,000 to $800,000 some of that will be offset by. Hoffman: Yeah, what is there? About 40 units in there. Kelly: A couple hundred thousand? Okay so we’re down to zero to $600,000. So if we put a place holder in for $500,000, $400,000 does that make sense? Hoffman: Yeah for a month. Kelly: Until we get the real number. So that means to me that we’ve got to take Bandimere sport court out of 2018 because there’s no money for it. Scharfenberg: Which technically with respect to the planning and the master plan you know that’s something that if you’re going to talk about, council about like we have in the past as Jim mentioned, finishing off Bandimere, that would be an item that you would potentially do so I would agree with that. Kelly: Because that gives us $225,000 back. I know Todd Neils asked us to talk about the lighting at Lake Susan but there’s no money for that right now and I would think it’s the same answer that Steve just gave on the sport court is it’s in the master plan and we’re goingto figure out where in the master plan it is after you guys have your next meeting and we get presented to again and then we’ll make the decision next month but I just don’t see a spot or money in the CIP to move forward or to really discuss if it’s worthputting in at this time. Petouvis: I have a question about the plans and studies that are in the system plan for the Lake Ann expansion and the Rec Center concept. Are those, I know there’s no money but are those things that we want to try and slot in? Do they fit in within the CIP? Is that where we would put a plan or a study or do those go in a different pocket? Hoffman: No. Kelly: Our CIP. Petouvis: Okay. 30 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 Hougham: Yeah the Rec Center study is the only thing I don’t see in there right now. Petouvis: Okay. Hougham: Like in the short term that I would be in favor of adding especially since it would help us with the Rec Center upgrades that we would be looking to do in the short term. Potentially. Kelly: Right. Hougham: And that would be a lower number item to add. Tsuchiya: I have a question for Todd. When we were on that tour the other month at Lake Ann we talked about the parking lot outside the soccer fields. Do you remember how much that would be? How much the estimate came in at? Hoffman: That’s an old estimate and it was around $170,000 so that’s a quarter of a million dollar project probably. It’s very needed. It’s been floating around and it just continues to get bumped because you know the public makes do by parking up on the lawn or parking on, it’s going to, it’s the best place to do expanded parking. Lake Ann needs expanded parking. It just hasn’t risen to the top as a cash outlay. It’s also, parking lot expansion at Lake Ann is a possibility to finance out of pavement management and so I think as a group we’ve been waiting to see that maybe one day you know the pavement management fund could pay for that instead of park dedication dollars. Tsuchiya: Okay. Would that be something ifI would ask staff then to get an updated estimate on and feasibility, is that possible? Hoffman: Absolutely. Boettcher: What was the number of parking spots? It seemed like I remembered it was around 30? Hoffman: Yeah it added about 27. Boettcher: Okay. Hougham: Is that something we need to ask to have a conversation with that group on? Scharfenberg: What group? Hougham: The pavement group. Do we need to ask them? 31 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 Hoffman: You typically don’t get a venue with Paul Oehme but. It’s one of those things where if it happens you’d be lucky. Take it as a gift. Kelly: So just looking at the numbers, when we take out Bandimere sport court, we add in $225,000 which takes us up to about oh $425,000 and then you add say another $200,000 for Arbor Glen so we’re up to about $625,000 and Arbor Glen could possibly take 100 percent of that which would put our budget at zero by the end of the year so we need more than $200,000 to come in Todd. That’s your mission going forward. Go drum up business. So I don’t know what we can add in after that. I don’t think. Hoffman: This is exactly the conversation I anticipated so I think you’re right on track. It’s not a great place to be but it’s reality. Kelly: Now Todd do we spent a full $10,000 on picnic tables and park benches every year? Hoffman: Not every year. But it’s a pretty safe bet by the time boy scout projects come in we go to most of the boy scout projects out of there, whether they’re grills or benches or tables and we’re always replacing and buying so sometimes we spend 8. Sometimes we don’t. Sometimes we spend 10. Kelly: Okay so it’s whatever we spend. Hoffman: Yep. Kelly: And I don’t really know that we want to cut down on trees. I remember when I started we were spending $25,000 a year on trees and we cut that down to $15,000 in the budget a number of years ago and I assume we’re spending the full $15,000 and. Hoffman: We do. Kelly: And I think Jill Sinclair has some coming out of her budget too. Hoffman: Far more than $15,000. That’s just our contribution. Kelly: Right. Hoffman: She’s doing far more than that. Reforestation efforts because of Emerald Ash Borer. We just lost another beautifulash tree the other day. Dutch elm tree and so we’re, we always have more tree projects than we have cash. Kelly: Okay. That answered that question. I just had to ask. Thank you Todd. 32 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 Scharfenberg: Any other discussions? Hougham: Where do we land on the Lake Ann study and the rec study and the playground? Are we going to ask the playground to come out of the other funds? Kelly: Yep because I mean the playground needs to be done. I mean if we had enough money I’d take it out of our budget because it needs it badly but we don’t have a budget to take it out of. Hougham: Okay. And then do we just want to leave the two studies on for now and we can discuss again next month? Kelly: Yeah because I don’t know that we’re going to have the fundsto. Hougham: No I don’t either but. Kelly: And again if Todd rustles up a little more business maybe. Hougham: Go sell some property Todd. Hoffman: Build some houses. Scharfenberg: Okay. Todd are you good with what we’ve given you so far tonight? Hoffman: I am Chair Scharfenberg. Just advise me to table this discussion until your next meeting. Scharfenberg: Okay we’ll do that. Hoffman: You should take a motion. Scharfenberg: Can we have a motion to table our discussions for CIP until next meeting. Kelly: So moved. Scharfenberg: Second? Boettcher: Second. Kelly moved, Boettcher seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission tablethe 2018- 2022 Park and Trail Acquisition and Development Capital Improvement Project (CIP) to the August meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 9 to 0. 33 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 TH RECREATION PROGRAM REPORTS: 2017 4OF JULY CELEBRATION EVALUATION. Ruegemer: I think Katie’s going to do that one Chair Scharfenberg. Scharfenberg: Okay. th Favro: Thank you Chair Scharfenberg and commissioners. This year’s 4of July celebration th marked the 34year of this annual event and it is the most anticipated community event of the year with an estimated of 70,000 people at least enjoying one aspect or part of the 3 day event. This event continues to just grow and be very successful. It went again without a hitch this year. It’s always great to see everybody really pulls together. Organizations and businesses in the community along with the people and they really want this event to be successful and everybody looks forward to it so it’s really great to just kind of see a community come together and celebrate for this great event. I just want to thank everybody who went there or participated or volunteered. I know we had a couple commissioners volunteer for some aspect. We really, with the small staff that we have it’s pretty incredible the things that come off because everybody does try to pull their weight and so we heavily rely on the number of volunteers we got so we just want to thank anybody who volunteered or went to the event. It means a lot and I think everybody is what kind of makes it special and helps out. I just want to open this up, if you guys have any questions. Scharfenberg: Anybody have any questions for Katie? Hougham: Nope. We attended a lot of the different events. Just one comment for the carnival. We went on Family Night and we got there kind of early just because we have little kids so we went early. It seemed like a lot of the rides were shutting down but they shut them down I mean just for safety concerns and they seemed to fix things and get them back up. Favro: Oh okay. Hougham: But I don’t remember that happening in years before so maybe just next year when you talk to them just review safety guidelines. I don’t know and it was a little iffy getting back on the Ferris Wheel after it had just been shut down so. Favro: Yeah absolutely. Hougham: But it was a great night. Favro: Yeah definitely want our rides iffy so that’s good. Thank you. Scharfenberg: Anything else for Katie? I would just say again Katie and the rest of the staff, th you know again the July 4celebrations that went on are wonderful. They highlight our 34 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 community and thank you for all the hard work that you guys do to pull all of that off. It’s no small feat to do that and you guys do it every year so thank you. Favro: Thank you. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS.None. COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS.None. ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET. Scharfenberg: Do we have anything else other than the administrative packet? Anything out of the administrative packet? Jerry as usual good reviews for the picnic shelters. Hoffman: There’s $52,000 for you. First page. It’s coming in. Scharfenberg: Todd I saw the incident report on the swimming incident at Lake Ann. I think that’s the first one I’ve seen ever. Is that something that they fill out when they have a drowning or a drowning incident? Hoffman: Yeah Jerry can, we talked about that. There hasn’t been any this year and I don’t recall any in recent past. That’s not to say that there hasn’t beenincident reports. I just felt it important that if we receive those we include those in your packet. Scharfenberg: Yeah, thank you. Hougham: Maybe a question on that. It happened outside of the swimming area but they obviously were like in the middle of the lake. Is that like covered by the lifeguards or is that just? Hoffman: The lifeguards aren’t going to let somebody drown in the center of the lake. They’re going to respond if somebody yells at them. Ruegemer: Correct. Hougham: They weren’t just outside though. Hoffman: Correct. Hougham: I mean I know they’re not going to let them drown but I just didn’t know if they had any concerns about that. 35 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 Hoffman: If it’s something they can recognize, if it’s you know way far away and they can’t actually recognize what’s going on they may call 911 and say hey, we think there’s something going on on the other side of the lake. We can’t recognize what it is. If they can easily identify that there’s something going on that they can respond to they’ll clear the water and then they’ll respond. Scharfenberg: Go ahead Jim. Boettcher: One thing for Adam. A friend of mine lives down by Lake Susan. She’s asked me a couple times, first last year I guess she was asking about, there was some brush and stuff that had gotten out on the trail. You guys went and took care of it. Now she’s talking about trail maintenance and I was wondering do you know where the Lake Susan trail is at as far as the pavement replacement schedule? Because she said it’s, she’s been living there 20 some years and it’s never been repaved that she knows of and it’s places where it’s buckling and cracks and stuff. Hoffman: The condition, trees and those type of things that fall under park maintenance. The condition ofthe trails itself is under pavement management which is an engineering division so that section of trail is the one they’ve been receiving the most comments about. Most complaints and inquiries about so I don’t know where Paul has settled on. If he’s going to patch it or if he’s going to include it in the future street maintenance project but he’s getting a lot of calls on it and in general condition, trail condition calls are increasing because of the age of our trails and so they’re talking about ramping up that particular part of our infrastructure management and when we’re talking about all the playgrounds and all that, there’s no funding source for that currently. The goal or at least one of the concepts is to take the street pavement money currently allocated. Move that into park replacement program and then authorize this fee on the utilities and so this franchise fee on the utilities and so if you’re out talking to council members or talking to your neighbors or talking to others who are interested about how is the City going to finance these things into the future, we can charge a franchise fee on the fact that utility companies have their utilities in our right-of-way so that’s in city right-of-way and we can charge a franchise fee. That will generate you know a little bit on everybody’s bill and then that’s put into a pool of money and then that would pay for streets and then the street money that is currently allocated would come over and pay for park replacement and so that’s not a done deal. It’s just a conversation and that’s so you know pavement management is in place right now. They don’t always do trails. They do a lot of roads as well and I can tell you there’s not enough money for everything every year and so how it gets allocated is based on the pavement condition index and trails are going down in the overall condition and that’s one of the worst ones so thanks for bringing that to my attention. And you know Mr. Oehme, you can see him at church and let him know. Boettcher: He skipped out. I was sitting right there waiting for him. He’s 6 foot 9, it’s not easy for him to sneak out. Hoffman: Thanks Jim for bringing that up. 36 Park and Recreation Commission –July 25, 2017 Boettcher: That was all I had. Scharfenberg: And Adam your crew did do some, like they didsome sealing didn’t they last year on part of the Lake Susan trail? Beer: The street. Scharfenberg: No but they did, on the trail itself they did some sort of a patching. Beer: In the park itself. Scharfenberg: Yeah. Beer: They did a portion of a slurry seal. Hoffman: So that’s the street pavement management program. That’s not parks. Scharfenberg: Okay, alright. With that does anyone have a motion to adjourn? Boettcher moved, Hougham seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 9 to 0. The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Recreation Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 37