Loading...
PRC 2017 08 22 CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2017 Chairman Scharfenberg called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT:Steve Scharfenberg, Cole Kelly, Rick Echternacht, Jim Boettcher, Jennifer Hougham, Karl Tsuchiya, Meredith Petouvis, Lauren Dale and Grant Schaeferle STAFF PRESENT:Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent;and Katie Favro, Recreation Supervisor PUBLIC PRESENT: rd Gabrielle Grinde123 No. 3Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, 55406 Todd Neils990 Saddlebrook Curve (Recording of the meeting began at this pointof the discussion.) Scharfenberg: …talked about, Todd had sent out an email earlier today about an incident that happened at the Chan Elementary tennis courts. Somebody playing there had slipped and fallen apparently on some weeds. Not necessarily on a crack so several of us met with Todd at 7:00 and kind of just reviewed and looked at the courts. Adam and his crew had already been to the courts and had eliminated the weeds that were present and so we looked at those courts and there are cracks that run throughout the courts I would say none of which Ithink would require any sort of immediate repair because they represented some sort of a hazard or a fall hazard. So I think it’s something that we’ll just, I think Todd you said they’re up for repair when? Hoffman: 20-21. Scharfenberg: Okay. Hoffman: So they need to last quite a few more years. Scharfenberg: And they were, it was repaired you said in 2014? Hoffman: Correct. Scharfenberg: Okay. Anybody else have anything they want to add? Okay. Hoffman: All of our courts are on a 7 year schedule for crack filling and overlay. Park and Recreation Commission –August 22, 2017 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Scharfenberg: Any changes to the agenda for tonight? If not could I get a motion to accept approval of the agenda? Boettcher: So moved. Scharfenberg: Moved by Commissioner Boettcher. Do I have a second? Tsuchiya: Second. Scharfenberg: Second from Commissioner Tsuchiya. The agenda has been approved. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Scharfenberg: Public announcements. I will just make one announcement. The Chanhassen Red Birds qualified forthe Class B Statement Championship which is being held in Green Isle and Hamburg. In very exciting fashion on Friday night won their first game against Sartell with a walk off grand slam home run by one of their players so they now play the Dundas Dukes in Hamburg on Friday night at 7:30 so if you don’t have anything to do on Friday night and you’re looking for a little bit of baseball action head down to Hamburg. It’s a beautiful field. It’s kind of like Field of Dreams down there. Right next to a corn field and so it’s an exciting time for town baseball. Any other public announcements? Seeing none we’ll move onto visitor presentations. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. Scharfenberg: I think we have one tonight from Todd Neils. Please come forward. State your name and address. Todd Neils: Thank you Commissioner Scharfenberg. My name is Todd Neils, 990 Saddlebrook Curve in Chanhassen. I came to your last month with a request for lighting at Lake Susan fields in hopes that we could possibly include that in the 2018 CIP. 2018-2022 CIP and what I understand there is not enough funds within the budget to accommodate it in 2018 a lighting package at Lake Susan. I’ve done some additional investigation and talkingabout the lighting further. What I found is that a couple things. The first is the $240,000 that I stated last month is really a turn key $220,000 so obviously a savings of $20,000 for a lighting package. Secondly, and probably more attractively the, if the lighting goes in next year the bill for the lighting is not due until 2019 so effectively it could still be included within the CIP for the 2019 budget year. Muska Lighting does offer a, I should say the never decreasing park dedication fund pool, Muska Lighting does offer a financing package anywhere from 3 to 10 years and with the City’s outlay of $165,000, if they chose to go that route, that would effectively mean that they would owe approximately $33,000 annually over a 5 year period which would be approximately, memory 2 Park and Recreation Commission –August 22, 2017 serves $4,000 in interest on an annual basis which means that it would provide additional opportunity to do other projects within the community while still funding the needs of lighting that field. Scharfenberg: Okay, any questions for Todd? Kelly: Todd that $220,000 figure which is what, $20,000 less than we had before, is that good through 2018 or is that good for 2017? Todd Neils: From what I understand it is 2018. Kelly: 2018. Todd Neils: Again the CAA has committed 25 percent so that would be $55,000 from the CAA baseball/softball, baseball association specifically and the City’s portion of that would be $165,000. For those commissioners that are unaware on what the Dugout Club but also the CAA has done in the community over the past several years, the CAAbaseball and softball’s committed $50,000 in enhancements to the parks over the past several years as well as putting in hundreds of hours to also continue in that effort to enhance those fields even to the extent that this last Saturday we had 16 people out at Lake Susan Park doing some, let’s call it touch up work that was sort of needed and so with that we would hope that the commission would be responsive to the needs of the association and it’s lights needs. Scharfenberg: Any other questions for Todd? Kelly: That $4,000 in interest each year, what interest rate is that at for 5 years? Todd Neils: 5 percent. Kelly: 5 percent. And I assume the CAA on their side is planning on doing a 5 year deal with Muska Lighting for their? Todd Neils: There’s actually been, there’s actually been conversations that the CAA would cut a check in the amount of the due bill in 2019. Kelly: For the $55,000? Todd Neils: Correct. Kelly: Oh so you’re not going to be delaying any payments, okay. Todd Neils: That is one option that has been discussed. 3 Park and Recreation Commission –August 22, 2017 Kelly: Okay so it’s not set in stone at this point? Todd Neils: Correct. Kelly: Is that what they’re looking to do so they don’t have to worry about it in the future? Todd Neils: I think that members of the association have talked to business leaders and are trying to put together funding. Kelly: Okay. Todd Neils: In addition to funds from the CAA Baseball Association. Kelly: And if the CAA was going to cut a check today what could they cut a check for? One- fifth? Todd Neils: I think that conservatively probably half. Kelly: Half, okay. Todd Neils: If in factit had to do that. Kelly: Right, okay. Thank you. Scharfenberg: Any other questions for Todd? Thank you Todd. Todd Neils: Thankyou. Scharfenberg: Okay, moving on. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:Boettcher moved, Petouvis seconded to approve the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated July 25, 2017 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 9 to 0. APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL, ADOPT PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM PLAN. Scharfenberg: Gabrielle is here tonight from Hoisington-Koegler to speak to us about the last meeting that the advisory committee and those updates. Gabrielle. Gabrielle Grinde: Since the last time we met the Parks and Recreation System Plan Advisory Committee met one more time and reviewed the priorities in the system plan and made some 4 Park and Recreation Commission –August 22, 2017 revisions which I will cover in thispresentation. And then Meredith Petouvis provided us with some detailed comments which was appreciated and so those edits were all included in the most recent draft of the plan which you received in your packet. So I will be reviewing the components of the plan and then going through the pages in detail.So the project process you know started last June over a year ago. It’s been 14 months. We’ve had 7 advisory committee meetings. Three meetings with the Park and Recreation Commission. Two meetings with the City Council. Online engagement which covered 3 questionnaires. Over 1,500 responses. A social pinpoint site with many more comments. Several pop up meetings at park events and meeting with the Planning Commission and then we had a community open house this last spring with over 70 attendees so a lot of input from various sources went into this plan. So now an overview of the plan in general is that it is a valuable and necessary planning tool. This is the first parks and recreation system plan for the City of Chanhassen but it is a tool that is used by many cities across the state and country. It’s a tool that increases and promote the efficiencies of parks operations and management by listing all in one place the goals, values and initiatives for how to manage and operate the system. It includes a consensus of input from staff, the community and the elected officials so it shows the community that we actually listened to what they said and put it all in the document for everyone to see. And then it’s a summary of the City’s goals and values for parks and recreation. And the plan itself is a graphic format and it’s organized with maps, tables and imagery to explain the content and the initiative. Six chapters. 89 pages. It includes a 4 page executive summary which you received in your packet for tonight and then it has guidelines for investments and it’s not a budget recommendation but it does have cost estimates that are guidelines for the park commission to use in the future. So this is what the first few pages of the plan looks like including the executive summary. Any questions on the overview of this? The introduction includes several components talking about the importance of parks and recreation and the importance of the system plan. The purpose of the plan. What the project planning process was and then some coordinated efforts which were part of this process which are the Comprehensive Plan chapter for Parks and Open Space and the Park System Inventory document. This is what the introduction chapter looks like. The park inventory is a separate document. It was a document that was updated from a previous edition which had been completed several years ago. It includes detailed pages which you can see in the bottom right corner here of every park identifying the components within each park so it’s a good encyclopedia of what’s all in the Chanhassen park system. And then the comp plan chapter is an abbreviation of the parks and recreation system plan and it is to be included in the City’s Comprehensive Plan which will be completed next spring I believe. Any questions on the introduction? The next chapter is the trends chapter and the trends are, I believe what was presented to you in one of the first meetings talking about recreation trends in general. Memorable experiences. The importance of place in parks. Connecting with nature. Green alternatives. Transient. The idea that people are moving more in today’s society and so parks and recreation needs have more awareness for the citizens of the city. Pinched budgets which is something that every community is dealing with. Aging actively. Many communities are aging and so they need to respond to their aging population. Engaging new generations. Weight loss and active living in parks. Informal adult recreation such as trail, walking, running. New and non-traditional courts suchas pickleball, group fitness events and races and then the convenience 5 Park and Recreation Commission –August 22, 2017 of recreation programming and parks close to home and then safety is of high importance in parks and recreation. This is what the trends chapter looks like. There’s a little more detail on each of those trends with images from the City of Chanhassen. Any questions on what the trends chapter includes? The existing conditions chapter is next. This is the comprehensive chapter with several maps and statistics including the park systeminventory. A context of the community. Demographic information. A history of the system. The park classification including community parks, neighborhood parks, specialty parks and preserves and then a summary of the needs assessment which is the community input that was received and comparisons with other communities.This is what the existing...looks like. And some of the edits that we made were to be stages to make some of these improved graphics more clear in terms of the responses. Then you can see the set of maps that’s included and this also includes regional components of the system. Or regional components of park and recreation that are within the city. Any questions on the existing conditions? The vision chapter. Kelly: I do, I’ve got aquick question. Actually it’s for Todd. On existing conditions which comes out of the capital improvement fund, we’re not submitting anything for capital improvements along with this at this time are we for the City Council? Hoffman: No. Kelly: Okay. Thank you. Hoffman: There’s a, in the end there’s another document that’s including both the new items that we’re talking about in this document and then there’s a maintenance replacement plan and so that could be considered you know a portion of thatso those are. Kelly: So is the maintenance plan part of this plan? Or is it going to be separate and done at a separate time? Hoffman: Separate document, yep. Kelly: Okay. Scharfenberg: But it’s included in this. There’s a section regarding maintenance. Hoffman: Yep there is. Kelly: Thanks Todd. (Due to technical difficulties a portion of the discussion was not recorded.) Gabrielle Grinde: …there’s funding options and sources information and then general capital operationsand maintenance cost which is a table with general costs that we use as a guideline for 6 Park and Recreation Commission –August 22, 2017 future improvements to the park system and then the last section is the project review process which is, laid out a system for how new ideas can come into the system. Scharfenberg: So just to touch on that particular topic, the advisory committee did take into consideration the comments that had come out of our last park and rec commission meeting and discussion of moving some of the items up into the short term list and keeping others back in the long term. We kind of as the advisory committee discussed I think at length you know the difference between short term, mid term, and long term and in the end I think we all kind of agreed that keeping things short term and long term was fine. We thought it was significant to keep in the dollar amounts on the high end and the low end because we did that right? Yeah. Jim anything else that you want to comment on regarding that? Boettcher: That was the biggest thing was the short term and long term only. Keep some of the confusion out of there so the priorities are just catalogued. I think we changed, we now have 4 in long term is that correct? I believe that was the last, yeah. That’s the only other thing I’d have. Scharfenberg: And the understanding again you know with respect to those projects is that they can be, they can come and move forward at any time as a particular project depending on what the commission feels is something that needs to be addressed so. Go ahead Gabrielle. (Due to technical difficulties a portion of the discussion was not recorded.) Scharfenberg: …that presentation. Anybody have any questions for Gabrielle? Kelly: Is that going to be at their work session meeting or is it going to beat a general council meeting that this is presented? th Hoffman: Work session. Probably at 5:00 or 5:30 on the 11and this item is scheduled for approval by the City Council that evening on the consent agenda. Kelly: Thank you. Scharfenberg: Anybody else have any other questions regarding the park plan? Kelly: I like the changes that you made that we had discussed in the last meeting and I think we were supposed to forward to Jim for your general meeting. The one thing I noticed you kept in there, and again it can stay in there. It can come out. Just a matter of how we think the City Council’s going to look at it as we’ve got you know the Rec Center in there for what up to $55 million or something like that. I can’t find it at the moment and. Gabrielle Grinde: $25 to $50. 7 Park and Recreation Commission –August 22, 2017 Kelly: $25 to $50 thank you Gabrielle, and my only question to the group is, should that stay in? I know we’ve got a survey in for $50,000 or $75,000 which I think should stay in. And that could lead to other things but, and I just want the group to think about how is the City Council going to look at the whole plan and if we take out $25 to $50 million out of the plan is it going to present better and that’s my only question to the council at this time. Scharfenberg: Well again I’ll just speak to that, that particular issue and I think it’s, I would turn your attention to, what section was it? Hoffman: It’s in the page of summary of planned initiatives if you’re looking for the totals. Scharfenberg: Well there was the comment in here again about the, and I think it’s more, it goes to one of the memos that’s in the back talking about one of the meetings that again this was all put together again with the input of the City and all of those surveys that were done regarding needs and stuff like that and that’s where that, the Rec Center, that’s where that information is coming from is you know we agreed as a council to include facilities as part of this, that was being done and you know that’s what people spoke to in terms of the surveys that they completed and so I think it’s important to keep that in given the input that people had. Kelly: Okay, I can agree with that Steve. Scharfenberg: Okay. Petouvis: This is a little bit of a tangent but at the last meeting I had asked about the Lake Ann expansion and the fact, it’s very similar. We have money in for a master plan for Lake Ann but then we don’t have money, and I don’t think it’s in the revised copy unless I’m missing it, for actually implementing a master plan in Lake Ann so I think just personally if we’re going to have the Rec Center in there as funding we should probably have the Lake Ann expansion as well. Kelly: Correct me Todd if I’m right or wrong, a lot of the Lake Ann expansion that we’re talking about has to do with the development of a couple properties. That hasn’t happened yet because those properties haven’t been sold. Is that the expansion we’re talking about? Hoffman: Correct. It would be the expansion will occur whenever development occurs in both the Gorra and thePrince parcel and so those are the only two parcels involved in the future expansion, proposed expansion of Lake Ann Park. It would be to the west and north. It will likely be a combination of park dedication and likely some density transfer. It could be cash purchase so there’s a variety of things to be considered and it could all happen with no dollars being exchanged. Kelly: Right. 8 Park and Recreation Commission –August 22, 2017 Hoffman: It could happen with $10 million dollars. Kelly: So what I’m saying is because we’re not in a situationright now where we can, we have access to that land it’s kind of hard to put a dollar figure in there, especially normally when it should come out of our budget you know depending upon where our budget is at at the time and depending upon the deal that the City makes with the developer, which Todd’s an expert at, and so I would think it’s kind of hard to put it in there right now. That’s just my opinion. Not to say that we can’t for future expansion but it’s hard to know without what the developments aregoing to be. What’s available to us. You know obviously we all want to see a trail get in there and we’re going to do what we can to make that happen and I think the City would be on board with that even if we had to find other funds at the time but to say well we know it’s going to come up at some point, and it will but we’ve got a lot of things that could come up at some point in the city and trying to fund something that we don’t have access to is, would look difficult to me,I don’t know. I don’t know what other people think. Gabrielle Grinde: Yeah I think we can put, we can reiterate or insure that we have reiterated in the plan that the priorities are flexible and that it’s not a budget since future plans and studies may affect the future capitalbudgets. Tsuchiya: I do like the idea of putting it in there though that’s more of a place holder. Just to show that the commission and the body is conscience of it. I mean I understand yes it’s difficult to estimate out with so many unpredictability’s there. However because of the draw that Lake Ann provides and just how much improvement would come to the actual park system with the completion of the trail around the lakes and expansion of the park system to the west there, yeah that opportunity could come up at any point but I think this being a plan for short term and long term as we have it there, we don’t know where it’s going to come in but adding this as the fifth item in the long term section I think makes a lot of sense and just you know if you need to put an asterisk by it and say, you know best estimate I think that’s pretty clear at that point but I think it’s definitely something I would like to see in there because this is going to be a public document so I want everybody to know you know we do have,you know there’s no firm plans but we are conscience of that ability to expand at that point. Kelly: Todd how would that, if it’s in writing and developers know that it’s in writing how does that affect our negotiations with them when they say well you already have these plans in place. Does that look bad? Does it not look bad? What’s, from the City’s standpoint is that advantageous for us to have it in writing or is it not advantageous? Hoffman: It’s advantageous to have it in the plan. I’m neutral to negative to putting a number in there because then they’re going to gravitate towards that number and say you have these, you have cash set aside so why are you telling me you want to acquire this via some other manner. Some of that mechanism. The acquisition of those properties might be before the plan, it might be after the 20 years. It might be before the 20 years. And if there is a dollar amount involved it’s likely to be so large that it could not be budgeted simply out of a park dedication fund. It 9 Park and Recreation Commission –August 22, 2017 would probably require a referendum of some sort and if the deal was struck where everybody was in agreement and just took a referendum of the citizens to vote, that vote could take place. The number is identified. Whatever that number is so we can, you could put zero to $10 million. You could put you know $10 to $15 million. It’s just hard to say what the eventual outcome of that negotiation would be, if anything. If a single buyer comes and purchases either of those properties as an estate lot again then they could go into another 20 to 30 to 40 year holding cycle and nothing will happen as far as the Lake Ann expansion. There’s just a lot of variables. Speaking to it in this document is a good thing. It’s already been identified on previous Comprehensive Plans as far as a mapping document and that’s a good communication tool so we’ll have it mapped here. There will be a map that shows the general expansion area. The plan itself could, we have one established plan already on file from 2000 and, about 7 years ago. About 2009-2010 that speaks to a variety of different scenarios out on that property. How it may develop. How we could acquire land. It’s a challenge to put a number on it. The plan may identify a number if that plan gets some momentum and that’s funded, that could identify a variety of different scenarios. It still might not put a dollar amount on it but it may put an acreage amount. It may say you know under this scenario 20 acres of property would need to be acquired. You know what does that 20 acres worth? $100,000 an acre? $200,000 an acre? Quarter million dollars an acre? Just depends on when it all comes in and how it’s valued. Kelly: Todd could we put a place holder in and just put pricing unknown? Hoffman:You could, sure. Kelly: Meredith would that be something you’d like to see? Petouvis: I think that would be better than nothing since we do have the wish for a plan. An after plan in the shorter term, I think that would be perfectly acceptable. Kelly: Make a note when you’re doing up the, when you’re doing up the motion to add that in that way. Scharfenberg: Anybody else have any other questions about the plan that they want to discuss? Hoffman: We’d just like to draw, the page that says summary plan initiatives, that’s where some of the dollar amounts are noted for those that are interested. Summary of plans. It has the purple boxes and then down in the bottom. So the total short term, long term, ongoing trail gaps. There’s two numbers. There’s the low cost, $42 million and then if you take out the Recreation Center build out it goes down to $17 million and then the high cost $95 million if you take out the Recreation Center build out you’re down to $45 million on the high. And then justto the left it speaks to the $8 million dollars that’s being estimated for maintenance repair and replacement and that’s on the current system and so those are the dollar amounts and they’re all identified by specific item. They’ll be available for the City Council to review and then how they choose to, how this commission chooses to, especially on the, this commission doesn’t get heavily involved 10 Park and Recreation Commission –August 22, 2017 in operations and maintenance recommendations. That’s really a City Council decision. You can certainly send them a recommendation on that but traditionally you’ve been dealing with new improvements, capital and CIP improvements on the new side. But that’s where the dollars are at least characterized and noted as a part of the executive summary. Boettcher: Something there, if you look at that cost, the one you were just referring to Todd. Total $42 million on the low side without the Rec Center $17 million so you took out $25 but on the high side if you take out the Rec Center you’re dropping $50. Gabrielle Grinde: Because the Rec Center low estimate. Scharfenberg: Low and high for the Rec Center. Boettcher: Can you put that in there? I mean it looks. Gabrielle Grinde: Oh to identify, yeah. Boettcher: Yeah, just the difference. Kelly: It says total without signature facilities so I think that means the Rec Center. Boettcher: Right but here’s $25 million and there’s $50. Kelly: Oh okay, yep I see what you’re saying. Boettcher: So it’s not called out. Kelly: Got it. Call it out. Gabrielle Grinde: And subtracting that. Scharfenberg: Anything else anyone wants to comment on? Kelly: You know Steve I think we pretty well hashed out in the last meeting the changes that we were really looking for and I’m ready for Meredith to put together a motion if she is, and nobody else has any comments. Petouvis: I move that the Park and Recreation Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Parks and Recreation System Plan with the addition in the Priorities Section, long term capital investment initiative of a place holder without dollar value for Lake Ann potential expansion. Kelly: I second the motion. 11 Park and Recreation Commission –August 22, 2017 Scharfenberg: We have a motion and a second. Petouvis moved, Kelly seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Parks and Recreation System Plan with the addition in the Priorities Section, long term capital investment initiative of a place holder without dollar value for Lake Ann potential expansion. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 9 to 0. Scharfenberg: Thank you Gabrielle for coming tonight. Thank you for all of your work for, if you would let Rita know also for Hoisington-Koegler for coming to the meetings. Thanks again to all the advisory committee members for Jim’s time and it was a good group of people to work through a very interesting plan and I’m happy with the way that this has all turned out. th Hoffman: Please attend the work session on the 11as our advisory committee members are invited as well so that’s in the Fountain Conference Room and we’ll be doing this presentation in an updated fashion to the City Council that evening. Answering their questions and take it from there. Gabrielle Grinde: Thank you. Kelly: Todd just note I’m in Chicago that night so I can’t be there. Hoffman: Alright, thank you. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL, 2018-2022 PARK AND TRAIL ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP). Scharfenberg: Todd I’ll turn that over to you. Hoffman: Thank you Chair Scharfenberg, members of the commission. This evening staff is presenting their recommendation for 2018 to 2022, park and trail acquisition development capital improvement CIP or capital improvement program. The commission, the proposed motion is that the commission approve a 2018 to 2022 park and trail acquisition and development capital improvement program CIP totaling $1,405,000 to complete the following projects. I’ll go over these and describe them in some detail and then answer any questions you would have after those descriptions. So next year 2018, annually we identify two items and those are for every year. Picnic tables and benches and tree planting. So there’s a variety of things that come out of picnic tables and benches. Boy scout projects. Gold Award projects. We always buy and replace table slats, bench slats, those type of things and so sometimes we don’t invest all those dollars. Other times we do and then tree planting. We’re continuously replacing trees and even more so now with the Emerald Ash Borer program where we’re cutting down some trees. If you recall we’re taking the worst third of our ash trees. Removing them and then attempting to replace those right 12 Park and Recreation Commission –August 22, 2017 away. Some examples of that, you’ll see in place at Lake Ann where we took down every other ash tree around the ball fields and planted a new tree and those are doing quite well already. In 2018 neighborhood park picnic shelter initiative, $80,000. That’s the last year of the picnic shelter initiative and those dollars are not park funds. Thoseare general fund dollars that are left over at the end of the budget cycle for the city and then utilized to install those shelters. We’ll see two installed as a part of this program next year. The last two and then one additional shelter will be installed at Manchester Park under that separate budget item which is next. So next year Manchester Park playground and picnic shelter, that’s budgeted at $125,000 to pay for the concrete border, picnic shelter base, the picnic shelter itself and then playground equipment and some landscaping so at that dollar amount the estimated total dollar amount for a contractor was $250,000. We’re doing it for about half of that acting as the general contractor ourselves. You’ll see our crew out there installing the playground instead of a hired crew and Adam will be doing the bidding of the project and so that’s a good way to keep costs down. Arbor Glen is the trail, the second half of the trail down on Highway 101 so the Arbor Glen Highway 101 trail reimbursement, the estimated cost came in at just around $75,000 to $80,000 and so being in the position we were last time around, not necessarily trusting that figure at this point so we have increased it to $150,000. It looks like a good estimate and so it likely will come in at that $80,000 range but we want to make sure that we’re covered on that so we don’t end up in a budget amendment situation like we did this year. The reconstruct County Road 61 from Trunk Highway 101 to Charlson Road. That’s the Eden Prairie project so you head into Eden Prairie on 61 and there will be a trail that’s built from the new bridge all the way over to the Eden Prairie line and then it will continue into Eden Prairie and this $150,000 is our portion of the park fund money to help pay for that trail. That trail along there so that’s non-negotiable. It didn’t happen last year. It got moved forward. Didn’t happen last year because there was still some studies. The most recent one was the Rusty Banded Bumblebee I believe that delayed it for a year so the project is now back on track and those dollars will be taken out of this fund once the project is completed. Scharfenberg: Todd what side of the road will that be built on, on 61? Hoffman: The trail will be on the north side. Scharfenberg: Okay. Hoffman: That road will, you won’t recognize that road. It will be a brand new road. It will be very nice and so it will take out the flooding that occurs in that area. So with the investment in the bridge, you have a bridge that doesn’t flood but now you have a street that floods to get past the bridge it doesn’t make a lot of sense so that’s another project between the State of Minnesota, the counties. Carver County, Hennepin County, Eden Prairie and Chanhassen. 2019 we bring back the picnic tables and tree planting and then finish up Bandimere Park. Or excuse me, tennis court rehabilitation. There’s $150,000 and again that’s already scheduled and that’s non-park dedication fund dollars. You will note that in 2021, even though the tennis court plan says there’s going to be refurbishment, it’s currently not budgeted and so that will have to be 13 Park and Recreation Commission –August 22, 2017 budgeted in a future year in 2021. And then the last item in 2019 is to finish out the new portion of Bandimere Park and so the City came in and acquired the two lots. Did all the grading work out there and then this would put in a sport court. Our recommendation is to put a single tennis and 4 pickleball identical to the court that’s at Roundhouse Park to finish out the new portion of Bandimere Park and that cost is at $245,000. Boettcher: So Todd will these courts, can you move them like we’re doing at others? Make it two tennis courts or 6 pickleball or is it going to be stationary one tennis, 4 pickleball? Hoffman: Just identical to Roundhouse so it’d be one tennis and 4 pickleball. Boettcher: Same as Roundhouse. Hoffman: Same layout and the site is ready. There’s currently 2 feet of sand ready to accept a sport court at that location. If you want to change the configuration you’re certainly able to do that or if you decide as a commission not to do that projectthat’s certainly something you can consider as well. 2020 we have picnic tables and tree planting and then the Arboretum trail on Highway 41. Pedestrian cost share and again that $140,000 is just a number that we received early on in the County’s projections so it’s a Carver County project. It’s going to be very complex. When things are complex it’s only likely to go higher and but the County cannot tell us at this point what that final cost share will be. It includes a trail from Century Boulevard in front of Life Time Fitness along the south side of Highway 5 and then a pedestrian underpass which is somewhat complicated at 41 just on the south side of Highway 5 and then a trail into the Arboretum all the way up to the entrance to the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum. It’s over a million dollar project. Probably close to a million two right now and again the cost is likely to increase and our share is currently $140,000. 2021 picnic tables and tree planting. Chanhassen Nature Preserve trail extension and that has been moving out for years. It’s at $90,000 dollars. It may move out again. In the development contract for the last lot, if you’re familiar with again it’s on Century Boulevard. It’s Mamac Systems. Mamac Systems and then just to the northof that is an empty lot. When that empty lot is built that developer has an obligation to finish the trail connection and then we need to pay for the materials. They do all the grading. All the professional design work and then we pay for the materials. Chanhassen Recreation Center fenced dugouts and backstops and so we’ve had pretty thorough discussions throughout the years from the users of the Chanhassen Recreation Center baseball diamonds that we could add additional safety and additional comfort for the players at that location and that number, the $150,000 would accommodate that so the additional safety fencing, ballfield, outfield fencing and then the dugouts similar to what you see at Lake Ann Park. 2022 would be just a plain year. Based on ifyou see the funding delineation in this funding diagram there’s really no room to put anything else in, and that’s just based on you know over 5 years we don’t know what our income is going to be. It’s currently showing at $200,000 a year which is conservative. We’re likely to make that or exceed that every year but you just can’t tell so that’s where, we’re just going to leave that for now until we figure out in the next few years how income in the park dedication fund comes in. So if you go to the graph, you know the blue line which is the fund balance is on 14 Park and Recreation Commission –August 22, 2017 a precipitous decline but it’s not hitting rock bottom. We’re just you know with that $200,000 as an estimated revenue you can look back at the history. So 2016 $523,000. 2015 $292,000. 2014 $447,000. 2013 $797,000. The only year was back in 2009 when the downturn really took hold that we were underneath that $200,000 at $83,000 so our belief is that the fund will perform better on the revenues. You’ve also had some you know pretty big significant years if you look at the years of the million dollars or more. You’re going to strike that figure in 2017 and that’s basically has to do with the 101 trail project down on the Foxwoods Addition. If you look back at 2012 that was a million dollar investment year. 2010 a million dollar investment year so some significant improvements completed in the park system but as we’ve talked there’s never enough to go around and so those are the estimates we have for cash and those are the recommendations for CIP projects. I’d be happy to address questions and then listen to the discussion from the commission and await your recommendation to the City Council. Scharfenberg: I’ll open up the questions for Todd relative to the proposed CIP. Anyone? I’ll raise I guess one issue I guess in light of the presentation made tonight again by CAA relative to lighting. The fact that the CAA is willing to you know put forth $55,000 of their own money to pay for that and I think Todd Neils had indicated at the last meeting that they’re losing fields available to them in Carver. Is that something that we want to consider adding that as a project and potentially moving something else out? Kelly: Well looking at the funding, where we’re at and if we do decide to fund it over 5 years it’s $37,000 a year. $33,000 plus the $4,000 for interest so roughly is my guess $37,000. We have the funds to do that right now and if the receipts come in higher, as Todd said we expect the receipts to come in higher. We can always say let’s get rid of this and get it off the books in any one year where we say we’ve got the funding to just be rid of it. It will save us some money in funding. The other thing is ifyou, if we wait a few years the cost is going to go up. You know we always put a place holder of 20 percent more for if we’re going to put it off for a couple years we’ve got to add 20 percent so I think it would be wise to add it into the CIP. We can afford $37,000 a year for the next 5 years starting in 2000, the payments start in 2019. I’d just as soon start paying them in 2018 because that’s one interest payment we don’t have to make and depending upon what the commission would like to do I think it’s something we should add in because we do need the extra time which gives us an extra field and it’s something we can afford to do right now and it’s going to help our community. In the long run I think we want lights there anyways so I’m for adding it in on that basis. Hougham: Thanks. I am also for adding it in and I’m okay with that option. With the 5 year plan. I think the other option, I mean the only other option that I see to fit in would be to move Bandimere out another year and put, pay it, if we paid it in full in 2019 but it got built in 2018. Scharfenberg: Anybody else? Todd. Hougham: Todd is that feasible? Does the City do that? 15 Park and Recreation Commission –August 22, 2017 Hoffman: No I would recommend as a commission if you’re going to talk about funding is that you fund it. I don’t believe our Finance Director’s going to make a recommendation that we finance and pay interest on $165,000. Hougham: Is that feasible though Todd earlier had said that if it was installed in 2018 the bill could be paid in 2019? Hoffman: Oh sure yeah, we’ll always pay the bills late yeah. Hougham: So that’s the only other option I see is to move Bandimere out a year and the only reason I think I’m okay with that is that with the other short term commitments as part of the park recommendation plan if we did put some kind of bonding together to cover that $5 to $10 million that the Bandimere Park courts could be part of that. Kelly: Jennifer I can agree with you. Let’s move Bandimere back a year and put this in and get it done now. We can pay for it in 2019 and it will done in 2018 and we’ll have the use of it. Hougham: Yep. Scharfenberg: Anybody else have any comments? My thought just on the whole lighting and moving numbers around is, when I look at Bandimere and I look at the sport court in relation to the plan, the Comprehensive Plan that we’ve been talking about and putting together and talking about potentially a referendum or bonding for some sort of larger project, and I know we have as a committee have talked about in the past about completing Bandimere you know and kind of finishing that out and if you put that together as a package saying you know we would like a shelter at Bandimere. We would like the sport court. If it goes beyond that I don’t know with a warming house but if we talked about you know finishing off Bandimere we don’t have the money to do that obviously. We don’t have the money to finish it out but if we say ultimately let’s do that and we want to come up with a funding source to do that, that would be I think a way to do that. It takes that off, you know out of the CIP for the time being and you could insert the lighting kind of as a place holder there. I’ll just kind of throw that out there. I just was kind of thinking about that. Boettcher: And we have the option like Todd said with revenue probably going to be higher than projected. I would agree too to put the lighting instead of Bandimere. If we’ve got the funding throw Bandimere back in. We can amend this at another point in time but I think too, I mean with CAA willing to come up with the dollar amount I think we need to jump on it plus the reduction in the price from $240,000 to $220,000. It’s not going to get any better. Hougham: Yeah I would agree with Jim. I think at this point in time I’d rather leave the Bandimere sport court in just since we can amend future years and it’s just something we would discuss with the City Council when we presented this. 16 Park and Recreation Commission –August 22, 2017 Scharfenberg: Any other discussions regarding the CIP? So if Iunderstand what we’re looking at doing is adding a place holder of $165,000 for 2018 for lighting at Lake Susan. Kelly: No we’re putting it in 2019 and moving Bandimere sport court to 2020. Scharfenberg: Okay. Hoffman: If you want the project to be constructed in 2018 you’ll need to put it in 2018. Kelly: But it won’t have to be paid for,even though it doesn’t have to be paid for until 2019? Hoffman: Correct. Kelly: Okay. Hoffman: You can’t. Hougham: Can we put an asterisk by that so City Council knows that? Payment plan or. Hoffman: We don’t, until we work out the contract it must go… Scharfenberg: We’re not going to know. Hougham: Okay. Scharfenberg: So it will be a place holder in 2018 for lighting at Lake Susan. Possibly to be paid off in 2019 and still moving, I take it still move Bandimere back to 2020. Kelly: Yeah I think we need to move it back to 2020 and then if things look better next year we can move it back up to 2019 but I think at this point that’s what we have to do. Scharfenberg: Okay. Hoffman: And Lake Susan is contingent on a $55,000 payment from the Chanhassen Athletic Association. Kelly: Steve can I go ahead and make a motion? Scharfenberg: Does anybody else have any other comments? Go ahead. Kelly: Okay I make a motion that the Park and Recreation Commission recommends that the City Council approve a 2018 to 2022 Park and Trail Acquisition and Development Capital Improvement Programtotaling, the number’s going to go up by $165,000 so it wouldbe 17 Park and Recreation Commission –August 22, 2017 $1,570,000 to complete the following projects. We put in the lighting for $165,000 in 2018 with a little asterisk or star that it can be paid in 2019 and we move the Bandimere Park sport court from 2019 to 2020. And Todd do I need to put, I don’t need to put anything in about the payment from CAA or do I? Hoffman: You’re going to want to make that project contingent on thatcontribution. Kelly: Okay. And then the lighting at Lake Susan is contingent on the $55,000 payment from the Chanhassen Athletic Association. Scharfenberg: We have a motion from Commissioner Kelly. Do we have a second? Boettcher: I’d second it. Scharfenberg: Second from Commissioner Boettcher. Kelly moved, Boettcher seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommends that the City Council approve a 2018 to 2022 Park and Trail Acquisition and Development Capital Improvement Program (CIP) totaling $1,570,000 to complete the following projects: AMOUNT 2018 Picnic Tables/Benches$10,000 Tree Planting$15,000 Neighborhood Park Picnic Shelter Initiative$80,000* Manchester Park Playgrounds and Picnic Shelter$125,000 Arbor Glen Hwy 101 Trail Reimbursement$150,000 Reconstruct Cty Rd 61 from TH 101 to Charlson Road$150,000 Ballfield Lighting at Lake Susan Park contingent on contribution of $165,000 $55,000 from Chanhassen Athletic Association 2019 Picnic Tables/Benches$10,000 Tree Planting$15,000 Tennis Court Rehabilitation$150,000* 2020 Picnic Tables/Benches$10,000 Tree Planting$15,000 Arboretum Trail and Hwy 41 Ped Underpass Cost Share$140,000 Bandimere Park Sport Court (1 tennis & 4 pickleball)$245,000 18 Park and Recreation Commission –August 22, 2017 2021 Picnic Tables/Benches$10,000 Tree Planting$15,000 Chanhassen Nature Preserve Trail Extension$90,000 Recreation Center Fenced Dugouts and Backstops$150,000 2022 Picnic Tables/Benches$10,000 Tree Planting$15,000 TOTAL *indicatesfunding source other than park fund$1,570,000 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 9 to 0. Scharfenberg: Motion passes.Next on the agenda I believe is the administrative packet. Todd anything? Petouvis: Steve can I? Scharfenberg: I’m sorry. Petouvis: Can I interject with a question? Sorry. Scharfenberg: Absolutely. Petouvis: Todd you had spoken earlier to the fact that the Park and Rec Commission historically has not been involved in operation and maintenance issues. Did I? Hoffman: Budgeting. Petouvis: Budgeting for that? Hoffman: You make a lot of recommendations. Petouvis: Okay. Hoffman: This is not involved in capital replacement so this body does not say hey the playground out at Roundhouse Park is looking shoddy. We ought to ask the City Council to replace that and so but the park system plan is doing that and there’s some discussion on how to finance that and so it may or may not happen. There’s currently a franchise fee conversation going on. Franchise fee tags on a little bit to all the gas and some of the bills in the city that 19 Park and Recreation Commission –August 22, 2017 you’re paying for in utilities and then that money could be collected and help to pay for roads and then some of the road money currently would be freed up to help pay a bond or a levy each year for playground replacement. Fence replacement. Shingling buildings. Those type of things and so that’s all being discussed as a part of the park system plan I presented to City Council. What actually happens to that in the future is unknown so time will tell. Something I would suggest you do is you just talk to your council members about that when you see them or send them a note that you’re interested in that and that you’re aware that it’s part of the park system plan and that you would be interested in seeing that funded in the future. Petouvis: Okay, thank you. Hoffman: You’re welcome. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS.None. COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS.None. ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET. Scharfenberg: Anything Todd with respect to the administrative packet? Hoffman: Nothing in particular. I read through it today and just a lot of nice, very nice comments from our picnic shelter reservations. There’s a thank you from the Rotary. You also received as a follow up to an invitation to breakfast next Wednesday. If you can make it to the Rec Center I believe they’re catering Chick-fil-A that morning and that’s a way to say thanks and to build that, continue to build that relationship between the City and the Rotary Club of Chanhassen. Something that became a note of interest is the Fawn Hill development and that trail connection that was abandoned. That became a topic of interest as a part of that neighborhood discussion so if you go to that map it says deleted from trail plan. That’s a blue line and then removed. That actual asphalt was removed. That section because it dead ended into a wetland and so the Meadows at Longacres and the Longacres development was put in just at the time the wetland laws were enacted in the State of Minnesota and this trail was built through a wetland section and then terminated in a wetland section and there was no way that the City could continue to build that other than if you built a 1,000 foot-1,500 foot boardwalk and so that trail section was abandoned and obviously that upset some of the neighbors that had anticipated that that connection would be made. You have two alternatives. You need to go th around on West 78Street to the south or up around Longacres Drive or Hunter Drive to the north to gain access east and west in that location so that has been removed from the trail system map and I just wanted to make the commission aware. Boettcher: Todd can you show that? I didn’t, for some reason I didn’t get the map in my packet. Hoffman: This one? 20 Park and Recreation Commission –August 22, 2017 Boettcher: Yeah I didn’t get it. Hoffman: Copier error. Kelly: Yeah hasn’t thatbeen removed for about a year? Hoffman: Or more. Kelly: Yeah I thought it had been taken out some time ago because I could no longer go down it. Scharfenberg: Alright, do we have a motion for adjournment? Hougham moved, Tsuchiya seconded to adjournthe 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 at 8:40 p.m. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Recreation Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 21