Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParks and Recreation - 01/02/2007 APPROVED MINUTES PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION TUESDAY,JANUARY 2, 2007 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Heritage Rooms 3 & 4 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: John Brill, Chair; Geri Napuck, Vice Chair; Rob Barrett, Tom Bierman, Lee Elliott-Stoering, Randy Jacobus, Jeffrey Gerst, Ian Mackay and Michael Moriarity (arrived at 7:50 p.m.) COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES: Alexa Redfield and Kristie Pederson COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks and Recreation; Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources; Laurie Obiazor, Recreation Manager; and Carol Pelzel, Recording Secretary I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Chair Brill at 7:00 p.m. On behalf of the Commission, Brill welcomed the new Student Representatives and asked that they introduce themselves. Redfield and Pederson presented a brief background and explained their reason for wanting to be on this Commission. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion: Gerst moved, seconded by Barrett, to approve the agenda as presented. The motion carried, 8-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —December 4, 2006 Motion: Elliott-S toering moved, Gerst seconded, to approve the December 4, 2006, Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission minutes as published. The motion carried, 7-0- 1 with Barrett abstaining because of absence from that meeting. IV. APPROVED MINUTES —November 6, 2006 V. REPORT OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION—December 19, 2006 Lambert reported that the City Council took the following actions at their Decmeber 19 Council meeting: PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION January 2, 2007 Page 2 • Authorized the expenditure of$7,450 from the 2007 CIP (liquor store revenue) for signs in the Richard T. Anderson Conservation Area; • Adopted a resolution to petition Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District for Mitchell Lake water quality improvement project; • Approved the Baseball Association's request for Round Lake Baseball Field Stadium; • Approved the water quality report for Round Lake Beach and authorized the expenditure recommended by this Commission to open the beach next year. In response to a question from Barrett, Lambert explained that when the City decided to own liquor stores, the decision was approved with a commitment that the proceeds from these stores will be used for parks and recreation. These funds have been going into the General Fund. Elliott-S toering suggested that this Commission revisit where these funds are being spent. Lambert said that when receipt from cash park fees drops significantly, they may want to revisit this issue. He pointed out that if the Legislature does approve the sale of wine in grocery stores, they will see a dramatic drop in revenues from the City owned liquor stores because nearly half of their business is from the sale of wine. VI. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION—December 11, 2006 Fox reported that the Windsor Plaza project was approved. This project is a redevelopment project directly west of the Eden Prairie shopping center. It will consist of a multi-store office, retail facility and the Amoco gas station will be redone and a parking ramp will be constructed. VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATION VIII. OLD BUSINESS IX. NEW BUSINESS A. RECOMMEND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES CONTRACT WITH RJM FOR COMMUNITY CENTER/ROUND LAKE PARK/BIRCH ISLAND PARK PROJECT Lambert reported that as staff was going through the planning process for the Community Center, Round Lake and Birch Island, their original recommendation to the City Manager was to bid the project in the conventional manner and deal with a general contractor. After several meetings and considering how all of these projects are interrelated, it was determined that it would be a full-time job for a City staff person to manage these projects. Staff decided that they needed to look at using the construction manager process. A general contractor takes five to ten percent of the total cost of the project for profit. With the construction manager process, they don't have a general contractor but the construction manager works with the architect to design the building and to look at ways to make it more economical to build. They will also pose a lot of challenging questions to the architect and the City. The construction manager will be a contract employee of the City and will bid all of the sub- contractors to do the job. It is the construction manager's responsibility to bring the job in at PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION January 2, 2007 Page 3 the bid amount. The City will ask the construction manager to give them a guaranteed not-to- exceed amount for the project. Lambert said because of the complexity and magnitude of this project, staff feels the construction manager process is the only way for them to proceed with this project. This process will also give the City more control and relieves a City staff person from the responsibility of monitoring all of these different things. Lambert pointed out that by using a construction manager versus the general contractor, there would be no additional costs. The construction manager cost is approximately 4.2 percent of the total project cost. Jacobus asked if the general contractor takes a five percent cut of the entire project cost and a construction manager would take 4.2 percent, couldn't they have a staff person devote one- quarter of their time to this project for less cost. Lambert explained that they do not have anyone on staff who has the knowledge or time that a construction manager has to have for this project. Jacobus asked if this is the way to go, why would they ever use a general contractor rather than a construction manager. Lambert responded that for smaller jobs it would cost more to have a construction manager than a general contractor. Lambert said they are not suggesting that by having a construction manager they will be saving the City money but it will not cost the City any more money than having a general contactor. This project has a $13 million budget and they have asked the construction manager if this is a reasonable budget and if the project can be done within this budget including their cost and they said it could be done. Most cities that do a project of this size use the construction manager process. Fox explained that they are not getting just one person for the construction manager. They are getting the assistance of an entire firm and several people within that firm will be working on different parts of this project. Lambert further explained that they will have one and some times two full-time construction supervisors working on this project plus a construction manager on-site. Elliott-S toering said it may have been different had the City hired someone at the beginning of this whole process. Lambert responded that they could not hire an individual to do what they are asking this company to do. The construction management services are not done by an individual but by a firm. Gerst said the issue appears to be that staff originally thought they could handle this internally. Lambert explained that they would be going from a general contractor being supervised by a City employee to a construction manager supervised by an employee but the construction manager is contracted by the City. The City will rely on them to make decisions to keep this project within budget. There will still be a point person that is an employee of the City, however, that person will have the construction manager working for the City to keep the project on time and within the budget. Fox pointed out that there will be multiple City staff people involved in various phases of this project. Staff will be drawn in to assist and guide the construction management people at different times. Elliott-S toering asked if there is a consequence or penalty to the construction manager if this project is not completed on time or does not come within budget. Lambert said there is no penalty and they will not know the cost until the bids are open. They will have a signed contract stating that the bids will not exceed the approved budget. The construction manager PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION January 2, 2007 Page 4 will review the bids with the architect. Bidders will be pre-qualified including the subcontractors. Napuck asked what the relationship would be between the construction management firm and the architect. She asked how add on's would be handled. Lambert explained that the construction manager would review these plans with the architect and will then take them to their trades and internal people for review to see if they have suggestions/recommendations to enhance the project or to save the City money. The construction manager's goal is to come in under budget. Brill asked what their incentive is to do that. Lambert said the construction manager has indicated that their incentive is their reputation. If they save the City money, the City will probably hire them again because of their reputation. The way they stay in business is to do a good job. Brill said Moriarity questioned if there is any concern that the construction manager will exercise too much control over this project. Lambert responded that the construction manager cannot change any materials without City approval. Bierman asked if the construction manager will be the one selecting the winner of the various bids. Lambert responded that selecting the bid winners will be regulated by Minnesota law. The City has to select the low bidder but they will have the bidders pre-qualified. The pre-qualification will eliminate getting someone who has never done something like this before. Bierman asked if the construction manager's fee would change if the bids came in higher or lower. Lambert explained that their 4.2 percent fee is based on the project cost which is estimated at$13 million. Barrett questioned what the total amount of money is that is going to be spent on this project. Lambert explained that$6.6 million was approved in the referendum for the Community Center, and the City Council approved $7.6 million. The architect, Del Erickson, explained that the $13 million also includes $3.5 million for the third ice rink and $2 million for site work which was not part of the referendum. He explained that by having a construction manager, the City does not have to get involved with the sub contractors. Erickson reviewed with the Commission the various items included in the proposed charges of the construction manager. Bierman said it appears that the risk versus reward is not that great. Erickson explained that the construction manager's risk isn't that great. He said that as far as reward is concerned, if the construction manager does a good job, they will receive good references for their next job. Barrett said he still has some concerns about the total cost of this project. Lambert explained that$1 million for the third rink will be from the Hockey Association and the $2.5 million balance will be from revenue bonds. The cost for moving the baseball field is estimated at$2 million and the City will be refunded $300,000 from the Watershed District for the NURP pond. Lambert indicated that they will be spending approximately $9.5 million on this site with $3 million of that money coming from park dedication fees. He stated that in the next couple of years they will be spending approximately $21 million in park projects. Barrett said the referendum was for$6.6 million but they are spending $9.5 million. Lambert PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION January 2, 2007 Page 5 explained that for many years, 50 percent of the revenue from park dedication fees was from commercial and industrial development. These park improvements benefit the people who work in the City. They are allowed access to the Community Center and its programs as well as participation on baseball and softball teams. He said it makes sense to use park dedication revenue for this project. Brill said they could get into some discussion about whether or not they are doing this in the right order. He asked if they should have approved the site plans prior to hiring a construction manager. Lambert explained that the site plans have not changed since the last time the Commission looked at them. The plans are basically the same as those approved by this Commission two months ago. Motion: Bierman moved, seconded by Mackay, in lieu of the general contractor approach, to recommend approval of a Construction Management Services contract with RJM for the Community Center expansion/Round Lake Park Improvements/Birch Island Park improvement project. The motion carried, 9-0. B. SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR EDENVALE PARK, FOREST HILLS PARK AND PRAIRIE VIEW PARK Lambert explained that the only substantial change made to these plans was to the Prairie View Park building location. Fox displayed the site plan for Edenvale Park. Barrett questioned the number of trees being removed. It appears that they are removing all of the trees on this site. He asked what the replacement ratio would be for the trees. Fox responded that there is no way they can redesign this park without losing the trees. The tree loss is based on the total area of the property which is 160 acres and based on that, the tree loss is very small. Fox said there is a landscaping plan and they are trying to replace those trees in the best way they can. Fox explained that the neighbors were concerned that they still want to have a recreational field at this location. The plan is to have the field remain as a low recreational field. This field will serve the neighborhood kids; the Baseball Association will not schedule games at this park because of the field orientation Deb Hetherington, 7252 Sunshine Drive, thanked staff and the Commission for listening to the neighbors. They are very happy that the ball field was brought back. However, they do have some concerns with the amount of tree removal that will be occurring. She understands that some of the trees have to be removed in order to get the ballpark and hockey rink in but is concerned that they will not be replaced. Fox displayed the path located in the park and the location of the trees. He explained that in order to get everything in this park, the existing trail has to be removed. They will try to preserve as many trees as possible and they will replace some of the trees. Hetherington said they have lost many trees because of the surrounding wetlands and they don't want to see additional trees removed from this park. They would like to see as many remain as possible. Fox said that unfortunately, when they try to improve a neighborhood park they will lose some trees. There is little or no way to PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION January 2, 2007 Page 6 accommodate existing trees when putting in a new facility. Barrett asked if there was a way to redesign the trail to save the trees. Fox said they need to consider the drainage plan when redesigning the trail. Fox displayed the site plans for Forest Hills and Prairie View Parks and presented the proposed improvements to the parks. Motion: Bierman moved, seconded by Napuck, to recommend approval of the plans submitted on January 2, 2007, for Edenvale Park, Forest Hills Park and Prairie View Park. The motion carried, 9-0. C. COMMUNITY CENTER EXPANSION SITE PLAN REVIEW Lambert presented an overview of the site plan for the Community Center. He said they had originally talked about a land swap with the School District. The School District decided they did not want the land adjacent to Oak Point School, so the swap was changed to land west of the community center. The proposal has not yet been approved by the School Board but School staff is recommending approval. Lambert explained that the site plan has not changed from the last time the Commission reviewed it. Moriarity asked if the City's new Community Center Manager has reviewed these plans. Lambert said she has been reviewing the plans and has had some questions. Brill asked if there are any issues with the road going into school property. Lambert responded that staff has had some concern that when school lets out the students will cut through the Community Center because they are using the parking lot. If this does become an issue, they could add a gate that would be closed at certain times of the day to control the traffic. Pederson said she parked at the Community Center last year and she does not think this would be an issue because it is difficult to turn left out of the Community Center. In response to a question from Elliott-S toering regarding lighting of the parking lot, the landscape architect, Jan Anderson,responded that the lighting plan is not complete but they do intend to have lighting in the lower parking lot. Mackay asked if the traffic flow would be done with signage. Lambert explained that there will be a signage program. Once people use this facility they will figure out where they are going. Lambert explained that bids will be opened on March 8 and the results could possibly come before this Commission on March 13. Moriarity suggested that they look at not putting an irrigation system in the proposal and perhaps request that the Soccer or Football Associations fund that part of the project. He said this would be another source of income. Lambert said he would not recommend approval of this plan without irrigation. Bierman asked why the land swap issue has not been resolved prior to this time. Lambert explained that they proposed this land swap almost a year ago. At that same time the School District was looking for a site for the Anderson School House. As part of the presentation, Lambert said he suggested that they use one end of the parking lot to place the school house on. They thought this was a good idea but later found that this site would require soil PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION January 2, 2007 Page 7 correction and additional funds to have the school house located at this site. The School Board did not want to do this at this point and the whole land swap became very complicated. Lambert said he never should have suggested the placement of the school house on this site. Bierman thanked Lambert for the explanation and said he hopes they get a new Park Director who has the honesty and integrity that Lambert just displayed. Motion: Motion was made by Napuck, seconded by Barrett, to approve the Community Center site plan dated January 2, 2007, as proposed. The motion carried, 9-0. D. SITE PLAN REVIEW OF ROUND LAKE PARK BASEBALL FIELD & PARKING LOT RENOVATION,AND BIRCH ISLAND PARK IMPROVEMENTS Lambert reviewed the site plan of Round Lake Park baseball field and parking lot renovation. Brill asked if there will be a net along the left field line of the baseball field. Lambert said there would not be a net. They are concerned with balls going onto County Road 4 and will put some nets up on this field. Lambert explained that these site plans will also be submitted to the Watershed District for their review. Lambert reviewed with the Commission the site plan for Birch Island Park Improvements. Motion: Motion was made by Gerst, seconded by Moriarity, to recommend approval for the site plan dated January 2, 2007, of Round Lake Park baseball field renovation,parking lot expansion, NURP pond construction and the improvements to Birch Island Park. The motion carried, 9-0. X. REPORTS OF STAFF A. DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES 1. Notice of Neighborhood Meeting on County Road 4 Bike Trail Lambert explained that included with the Commission's agenda material was a copy of a letter sent to the residents whose property abuts the trail on CR 4 north to Crosstown. The letter invites them to a special meeting on January 9 at 7 p.m. They will review the plan at this meeting and have the designing engineer review the entire process. Staff would like to have all of the concerns regarding this trail resolved before they go out for bids this spring. Barrett questioned why there would be a trail on both the east and west sides. Lambert explained that they do not want people to have to cross CR 4 since it is an extremely busy road. 2. Resident Letter Rmardins! Review of Site Plans PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION January 2, 2007 Page 8 B. MANAGER OF RECREATION SERVICES 1. Outdoor Center Newsletter(FYI) 2. Senior Center Echoes (FYI) C. MANAGER OF PARKS AND NATURAL RESOURCES 1. Shade Tree Disease Advocate (FYI) IX. NEXT MEETING County Road 4 Neighborhood Informational Meeting —January 9, Heritage Room, 7 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Commission is scheduled for Monday, February 5, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. X. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Barrett moved, Gerst seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried 9-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.