Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParks and Recreation - 06/05/2006 APPROVED MINUTES PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MONDAY,JUNE 5, 2006 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: John Brill, Chair; Geri Napuck(arrived at 7:10 P.M.), Vice Chair; Rob Barrett(arrived at 7:15 p.m.), Tom Bierman, Lee Elliott-Stoering, Jeffrey Gerst, Randy Jacobus, Ian Mackay and Michael Moriarity COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks and Recreation; Stu Fox, Manager of Natural Resources; Laurie Obiazor, Recreation Manager; Lyndell Frey, Recreation Coordinator 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. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Lambert asked that a report on the arson at Prairie View Park and the Round Lake Water Quality be added to the agenda. Motion: Elliott-Stoering moved, seconded by Moriarity, to approve the agenda as amended. The motion carried, 7-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —May 1, 2006 Elliott-S toering asked that on Page 5 the minutes show discussion regarding Round Lake Beach operation and that the reopening of Round Lake not only be based on water quality but also on the completion of the storm pond work. Lambert said staff will continue to monitor the lake into 2006 and at that time they will make the decision as to whether or not they will open the beach in 2007. Lambert explained that the report referenced the Barr Engineering report which included adding a pond at Round Lake Park and improvements to the pond on the west side. Elliott- Stoering stated that the minutes should include an update on the progress of those projects as well as testing of the water quality prior to opening the beach. Motion: Bierman moved, Mackay seconded, to approve the May 1, 2006, Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission minutes as amended. The motion carried, 7-0. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION June 5, 2006 Page 2 IV. APPROVED MINUTES —April 3, 2006 Lambert explained that the April 3 minutes were included in the Commission's agenda because they had been amended and approved at the May meeting. The Commission will now have an approved set of minutes from the April 3 meeting. V. REPORT OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION—May 2 and May 16, 2006 Lambert reported at their May 2 meeting, the City Council took the following action: • Dedicated May as Senior Awareness Month • Approved the limited-use permit for non-motorized recreation trail • Approved the Birch Island Park improvement process At the May 16 meeting, the City Council: • Awarded bid for reconstruction of tennis and basketball court at Prairie East Park • Awarded bid for reconstruction of Homeward Hills Park tennis court VI. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION—May 8 and May 22 Fox reported that at their May 8 meeting, the Planning Commission approved a variance to permit a side-yard setback of eight feet for a house addition. This variance does not have any bearing on any park issues. The Planning Commission also approved the plans for development of the remaining area of Hennepin Village, known as the Eden Bluff Business Park for a three- story office building adjacent to Highway 212. The affect of this development is that there will be park dedication fees generated when the various phases of this approved project are brought in for a building permit. Fox further reported that at their May 22 meeting the Planning Commission approved a variance to allow a deck setback of twenty feet. The result has no impact on any park related issues. VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATION A. REVISING STARING LAKE SKI TRAILS Fox explained that Eden Prairie High School is requesting various revisions to the Staring Lake Ski Trails. Fox provided the Commission with background on the trails and the events that have occurred over the years with regard to these trails. He stated that staff feels that the proposed revisions to the trails have some merit. The first request is to reroute the ski trail start location. They are proposing to move the trail start to a location off of the west leg of the main parking lot and to bring the trail head around the tennis court parallel to Staring Lake Parkway. Staff does support this revision since it eliminates the conflicts of the ski trail starting adjacent to the building and puts the ski trail beginning adjacent to the parking lot. It will give separation of the skiers and the sledding hill. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION June 5, 2006 Page 3 Fox further explained that also included in this revision proposal is a request to extend the ski trail parallel to Pioneer Trail and to cross the main entry road. Staff does not support this requested extension of the trail. While it may be advantageous for the person grooming the trail, it would cause major safety conflicts between vehicles and skiers crossing the primary entry road into this park facility. Fox stated that the third proposed revision is to provide a groomer turn around. Staff fully supports the request to clear the fallen debris and to create this groomer turn around area. Doug Boonstra, Nordic Ski Coach, explained that the trail does end at Pioneer Trail and they are not proposing that the trail cross the main entrance road but that it end there and start on the other side of the road. This would allow the skiers to take their skis off and walk across the road rather than have to go down an additional 30 to 50 feet to get to the starting point. The road will not be groomed and it will not be more convenient for the groomer but more convenient for the skier. Lambert asked how the groomer would be able to turn around at the end of the trail without having to go onto the road. Boonstra said there would be an oval in the quadrant of grass to allow the groomer to turn around. Bierman questioned how they would avoid the backup of traffic coming in and out of the park when skiers are walking across the road. Boonstra responded that there are only one or two ski meets a year and the trail head start of the race would be on the west side of the parking lot. This proposed trail change would be where the loop is located. Skiers will not start or finish at this location. Lambert explained that staff does not support having the trail cross the park entry road. If they have a trail that ends and starts across the road, you will have people who will want to make the connection and they will not remove their skis to cross but will ski across it. Jacobus asked if this revision is not approved, would it affect High School training. Boonstra responded that it will not affect their training. He indicated that they feel there would be less conflict with skiers and traffic if they were allowed to cross the park entry road at this point rather than at the entrance and it would be more convenient for the skier. Bierman pointed out that there are signs in the park that instruct walkers to stay off the ski trails. He asked if those signs could be removed during the summer months or change them to read during the ski season. Fox indicated that those are City signs and that they should probably cover them during the off season rather than remove them. Barrett asked if the City has any problem with the ski team holding one or two meets during the year. Lambert said they do not as long as they know when they will occur. Barrett also asked if there are on-going problems with the current trail and its crossings. Lambert responded that there do not appear to be any problems and people now understand that this is a multi-recreational park. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION June 5, 2006 Page 4 Jacobus pointed out that there is already a walking trail across the entrance. He asked what difference this proposal would make and questioned what is the concern. They already have a trail that is plowed for walkers. Lambert explained that it would not be an issue if the trail truly ends at the road and skiers would remove their skis and walk across. Staff is assuming that eventually a connection would be made whether the trail is groomed or not. It is a snow packed parking lot and recreational skiers would go across the road. Skiers cannot stop as quickly as walkers and they will assume that vehicles should stop for them. Motion: Motion was made by Moriarity, seconded by Napuck, to recommend to the City Council that the proposed cross-country ski trail rerouting at Staring Lake be approved as follows: The ski trail start at the westerly edge of the primary parking lot and proceed around the tennis court/basketball court complex and parallel Staring Lake Parkway and connect with the existing ski trail at the bottom of the hill adjacent to the westerly parking lot; and that a "maintenance loop"be cleared to connect the trails in the vicinity of the Grill ball field complex. The motion carried, 9-0. VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. COMMUNITY CENTER ADDITION Lambert reported that the Parks Commission and City Council have previously reviewed the concept plan for the Community Center addition which was based on the same recommendations of a citizens committee that evaluated the needs and cost estimates for the 2004 referendum. A town meeting was held and staff met with Community Center members and users, recreation staff and maintenance staff and developed a plan and program for what these groups would like to do in that building. The cost for the building as programmed exceeded the budget by approximately $2.1 million. The cost for this addition came in at $8,760,000 and the budget was $6,650,000. The $8,760,000 cost does not include any funds for furnishing the building. Lambert explained that staff has developed a recommendation for cuts or alternates equaling $1,575,500. These items are on the perimeter of the building and would not affect the building design. Lambert further explained that after meetings with the various groups, approximately 10,000 additional square feet of requested building space was added. The average square foot cost is approximately $110 compared to $100 per square foot estimated in 2003. Also, cost for certain materials have increased over 20 percent in the last two years. Lambert said the architect has provided a list of options for the Commission to consider in reducing the cost of the facility. Staff is also asking the Commission to consider authorizing at least $1 million in additional funding from the park dedication funds and to provide alternates for features that could be included if the City obtains favorable bidding or features that could be added in the future. Del Erickson, architect for the Community Center Addition, presented an overall plan of the site showing how the building relates to the existing site and with proposed additional parking and relocation of the ball field. Bierman asked how many people would be able to occupy this building at any one time. Erickson responded that in terms of capability, they are estimating approximately 400 to 500 people other than during hockey games when up PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION June 5, 2006 Page 5 to 1,200 spectators can be accommodated. Bierman questioned the number of restrooms and asked that they look at the restroom sizes and locations downstairs and at the number of stalls in the restrooms. He also asked that they plan ahead should there need to be an evacuation of the building and that there are adequate emergency exits. Mackay asked how much of the $8,760,000 is for the third ice rink. Erickson responded that the third ice rink is not included in this estimate. The cost estimate for that rink is $3.3 million and is separate from these numbers. Since the third rink is a big enough power user, new electrical service will be required. This electrical service was included in the cost of the Community Center and they are now recommending that they reduce the electrical service, omit the room and make a separate service for Rink III. This would result in a deduct of$145,000 from the original cost estimate. The existing electrical service is able to handle the Community Center addition. Erickson reviewed with the Commission the list of potential reductions and indicated the impact on the use of the Community Center should these items be removed. Napuck questioned the number of lockers. She asked if with the reduction they would be going from 138 lockers in each locker room to 107. Lambert explained that that is correct if they were all full sized lockers,but they would not all be full lockers. There would be a certain percentage of full lockers, half lockers and boxes. In response to a question from Jacobus, Lambert indicated there are 400 Community Center members. Erickson explained that these lockers are not private lockers and the number of lockers should be adequate. Elliott- Stoering asked if the reduction of the size of the locker room and fitness center is directly related to the redesign of a wet corridor. Lambert answered that they are directly related. Barrett asked if the wet corridor is new to the plans. Erickson explained that users do need to get out of the locker rooms to the pool. This would also allow for the addition of an outdoor pool some time in the future. Barrett asked what would happen if they eliminated the multi-use gym and fitness center. Lambert responded that those are the two main reasons for doing a Community Center renovation. If they did not do these two items there would be no reason to add to the locker rooms. Erickson said by not doing the gym the cost would be reduced $1 million. Barrett said he feels by eliminating the suggested items, they are affecting everything and no one will be happy. If they remove one major item, they will be able to build everything else to its highest quality. He pointed out that one of the reasons for doing this addition was to make good locker rooms and now it appears as though they are squeezing them in. Mackay said he is disappointed in the process and that they do not have the modified plans in front of them. He said he does not understand why they need to take $1.5 million out of a budget that was not discussed. It appears as if they are removing facilities to facilitate traffic patterns and they seem to be losing programs. Mackay said he is not clear that this is the direction to take. He said he would like to back up and discuss why they need to take this much money out of the budget. Lambert said his memo included in the Commission's agenda explained the funding and possible options. Mackay pointed out that$1.7 million is budgeted in Capital for Cedar Hills. He asked if this is money that is allocated. Lambert explained that when the City collects park dedication funds from residential property, the PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION June 5, 2006 Page 6 City is required to spend that money in that neighborhood park to develop it. If they don't do that, they may be required to pay it back. They do not have many options for use of park dedication money. There is money available for things like the Community Center that come from office and industrial development and some from residential development. The City did make a commitment to the Metropolitan Airports Commission that they would purchase this area for the neighborhood park. Mackay said it has been suggested that they consider doing future add-ons. He asked how those add-ons would be funded. Lambert said they could look at General Fund reserves or at future park fees. The current park money is committed and projects are underway in terms of planning. They are also committed to the renovation of one soccer field at Miller Park with the intent to renovate the rest of the fields at a later date. Mackay said it appears that they are cutting things that are around the edges of the building and it does not seem to make sense. Mackay said he cannot rationalize why they are going this way. It appears that they are removing racquet ball courts that are highly used only because of traffic flow. Elliot-Stoering said it would be helpful to her if they did a comparison of what was originally proposed and what they are now proposing. She said it would be nice to see how the budget went from$6.6 million to $8.7 million. Erickson explained that the program space increased. If they were to remove the racquetball courts and meeting room there would still be the cost of demolition and replacement. It would be better to work with the existing structure. Barrett said they have discussed add alternates. This was also discussed when the original Community Center was built but nothing has actually been added. He said it is not likely that they will come back with an additional$500,000 to do the add-ons at a later date. Whatever they do now is what they will probably have in the future. Jacobus said he agrees with Barrett and if they cut any more than $800,000 they will seriously reduce the quality of what they are trying to produce. He asked if this Commission could recommend increasing the budget. Lambert said they could ask the City Council for additional funding. Staff can only recommend funding that is currently available. He also pointed out that the original square footage recommendation was on the locker rooms only. They are still above their original recommendation with the fitness center. Moriarity suggested that they look at not relocating the Round Lake baseball field. This would give them an additional $1 million. Lambert said this would result in the elimination of a very important facility from the High School program and a critical program from the baseball program. Moriarity said the High School has not provided the City with any funds for this project. There has been some criticism in the past that the City puts a lot of money into school activity facilities. If this is a community facility they need to put the money into the Community Center from which the school benefits. If they don't do the Community Center now, they will not do it later. Jacobus said he would not support eliminating the baseball field. He feels this is a critical field to the Baseball Association. Napuck said if the City Council presented in the referendum that there would be a walking track and racquetball courts, those are the last things that should be cut. People voted on this assuming that these facilities would be part of the Community Center and having to PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION June 5, 2006 Page 7 relocate the baseball field and parking lot came up after the fact. Perhaps they need to look at relocating this field by using General Fund monies. Lambert pointed out that the City Council decides how General Fund monies are spent. Funding resources for the baseball field and parking lot should come out of the park funds. Staff has looked at other options for this baseball field and found that it will still cost$1 million for relocating it. Mackay asked if they could use some of the referendum money for park acquisition for Cedar Hills to finish the Community Center. Lambert explained that this would result in their not doing some of the improvements they have committed to. Mackay suggested that they delay development of Cedar Hills. They could acquire the land as it becomes available but not develop it until there are sufficient funds in the Park Fund. Lambert responded that that is a possibility. They could look at the revenue collected from those residential homes in park fees and a portion of that could go to community facilities like the Community Center. Brill pointed out that this portion of the referendum was passed with 54 percent of the vote and money was allocated for the purpose of renovating the Community Center for a cost of $6.6 million. They have now started at $8.7 million and are working back to $7.5 million. They are still not at the $6.6 million approved. The sentiment of Eden Prairie residents is no new taxes. The community allocated $6.6 million and this group has not gotten down to that level. Lambert explained that the residents did vote for a walking track and racquet ball courts. The cost to provide those things is more now. They are not talking about raising taxes but using existing money in the budget for Park and Recreation services and to decide the best way to allocate those funds to provide services to this community. Moriarity said one possibility would be to take out the multi-use gym and slide the racquet ball court up to the locker room. Lambert said the common facility that defines a community center is a gym. A gym is the major program spot you have in the entire building to accommodate a wide variety of activities that makes a Community Center and he would strongly recommend that they not remove the gym. Moriarity pointed out that the Community Center is located right next to a facility that has six to eight gyms. Lambert responded that the public does not get recreational use of those facilities. Barrett said they would be creating new programs because they currently don't have a gym. Lambert said they would be developing programs such as open gym for basketball and volleyball, instructional recreational programs, etc. Elliott-Stoering said she agrees that it is important to have the gym, especially during the winter months. An unidentified member of the audience said he feels it does not make sense to have a walking track at the Community Center when you have 60 different machines in the fitness center. That is where the people will go. Jacobus said if they add a small track around the rink it is not a significant addition and he would recommend that they remove it from the plans. If they doubled the size of the walking track a lot of people would use it. Barrett said in the previous referendum they said they would have a walking track for seniors. Motion: Motion was made by Moriarity, seconded by Mackay, to eliminate the revised design to create a wet corridor within the existing structure and to eliminate the reduction PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION June 5, 2006 Page 8 of the number of lockers and family lockers or the locker room and fitness center by approximately 400 square feet each and 50 fewer lockers. The motion carried, 8-1 with Jacobus voting nay. Motion: Motion was made by Moriarity, seconded by Barrett, to add as a bid alternate the walking track for future consideration. The motion carried, 9-0. Motion: Motion was made by Moriarity, seconded by Napuck, to omit skylights. Elliott-Stoering said eliminating the skylights would change the feel of the fitness center. Barrett said he did not feel there was enough of a cost savings to eliminate the skylights. Vote was called on the motion. The motion failed, 1-8 with Moriarity voting aye. Motion: Motion was made by Moriarity, seconded by Barrett, to keep the skylights. The motion carried, 9-0. Motion: Motion was made by Moriarity, seconded by Mackay, to add as a bid alternate a folding partition and gym divider for future consideration. The motion carried, 9-0. Motion: Motion was made by Mackay, seconded by Bierman, to include racquetball courts. The motion carried, 8-1 with Barrett voting nay. Motion: Motion was made by Barrett, seconded by Elliott-Stoering, to eliminate the mini- gym space. The Commission agreed that this should be a bid alternate. Barrett amended his motion to include the mini-gym space as a bid alternate for future consideration. Elliott- Stoering seconded the amendment. Vote was called on the amended motion. The motion carried, 8-1 with Jacobus voting nay. Motion: Motion was made by Moriarity, seconded by Mackay, to add as a bid alternate the construction of a normal solid wall rather than a glass wall for the racquet ball courts. The motion carried, 8-1 with Jacobus voting nay. Motion: Motion was made by Elliott-S toering, seconded by Mackay, to omit the second floor rear access to rink one seating and use standard bleacher existing or new with rink side access. Barrett said he feels this would change the feel of the arena. Vote was called on the motion. The motion carried, 6-3 with Barrett,Jacobus and Bierman voting nay. Motion: Motion was made by Bierman, seconded by Elliott-Stoering to not reduce the lobby and dining area by 400 square feet. The motion carried, 8-1 with Jacobus voting nay. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION June 5, 2006 Page 9 Motion: Barrett moved, seconded by Mackay, to omit the multiuse room and rearrange the team rooms for Rink III on the east end of Rink III. Lambert pointed out that this would create a gap between the Community Center and Rink III for future inclusion. This would probably require putting something other than brick on these three-sided walls. This would also result in a different look. Staff would recommend that this be an alternate and it could even be used as unfinished space. Barrett amended his motion to include the multiuse room. Mackay seconded the amendment. Vote was called on the motion and the motion carried 7-2 with Jacobus and Elliott-Stoering voting nay. Motion: Motion was made by Moriarity, seconded by Barrett, to keep the elevator. The motion carried, 9-0. Motion: Motion was made by Barrett, seconded by Elliott-Stoering, to use high quality lockers and ceramic tile finishes in the locker area. Barrett amended his motion to include this as an alternate. Elliott-S toering seconded the amendment. The amended motion carried, 9-0. Motion: Motion was made by Elliott-S toering, seconded by Barrett, to move the electric service to the third ice rink budget. The motion carried, 9-0. Motion: Motion was made by Mackay, seconded by Barrett, to reduce the mechanical per the May 24, 2006, memorandum. The motion carried, 9-0. Motion: Motion was made by Moriarity, seconded by Barrett, to recommend taking up to $2 million from existing and future Park Dedication Funds for Community Center construction by delaying Cedar Hills development and to remove remaining fund balance. Elliott Stoering questioned if Cedar Hills is where they want to take the money from. She suggested that they look at delaying improvements to Miller Park. Lambert said this is something the Commission will look at each year. Cedar Hills Park will eventually be developed. Vote was called on the motion with all members voting aye. The motion carried, 9-0. B. COMMUNITY CENTER PARKING LOT & BALLFIELD RENOVATION Lambert explained that Jan Anderson of Hansen, Thorp, Pellinen, Olson, Inc., engineer for the project was present to discuss the Community Center Parking Lot and Ballfield Renovation. Lambert further explained that staff originally recommended the elevation of the existing baseball field and existing softball Field#5 be lowered in order to make a relatively level parking lot and maximize the space to fit the relocated baseball field. The estimated cost for that plan was $3.2 million. Since that time, staff has requested the engineer to provide several alternative plans that would require a balanced grading plan. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION June 5, 2006 Page 10 Lambert stated that staff is now recommending approval of Scheme F for the renovation for an estimated cost of$1.4 million. He said that staff would continue working with the engineer to make the field and parking lot as efficient as possible. Mackay said he is concerned that Scheme F does not allow you to get to the front of the ballfield without going through the entire parking lot. Barrett said he agrees and feels that Scheme D flows much better. Mackay said that he likes the way the main entrance in Scheme D comes to the center and the side entrance is located on Eagle Way. Napuck asked what the cost difference is between Schemes D and F. Lambert answered that it is approximately $100,000 more for Scheme D. Brill suggested that staff work with the engineer in developing a plan similar to Scheme D that would make it as efficient as possible. Motion: Motion was made by Barrett, seconded by Mackay, to recommend a variation of Scheme D to maintain the flowability with adjustments made to remain within the budget. The motion carried, 9-0. C. WADING POOL FEASIBILITY STUDY Lambert reported that William Deneen of USAquatics was present to discuss the wading pool feasibility study. This study indicates that revenue bonds issued for the construction of a wading pool could be paid off in 12 years. Lambert indicated that staff is not comfortable with moving forward with this project at this time given the other questions that exist with this site. Staff is recommending that they wait until they have Round Lake up and running again to see if they still have a strong demand for a pool. Brill asked if there would be any significant savings if they constructed the wading pool at the same time as the Community Center renovation. Lambert responded that there would not be a great savings because this pool is separate from the Community Center. They will extend the utilities to the edge of the building so that the pool could be added without disturbing the operation of the building. Barrett asked how the consultant arrived at the revenue estimates. Deneen explained that the numbers were based on the standards used nationally by parks and recreation and the percentages are based on the demographic census. This information was used specifically for wading pools. Barrett questioned if there are other facilities like this in the area. Deenen responded that there are no stand-alone wading pools existing but the percentages used would be about the same for the age group. The percentage is based on the population under the age of 9. Barrett said he has an issue with these numbers since there is no similar facility to base the revenue on. Lambert said he agrees and stated that what they are projecting is the number of people that would come to that pool on a particular day whether or not another pool is there. Lambert questioned how they would be able to get real numbers. Barrett said he did not feel they could accept this study without a parallel situation for comparison purposes. Lambert said PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION June 5, 2006 Page 11 the Commission would be accepting the feasibility study and staff is recommending that the Commission table any action until some future date. Motion: Motion was made by Barrett, seconded by Bierman, that based on past voter decisions, the necessity for building up Round Lake and questioning revenue numbers based on no similar situations, they table consideration of a wading pool indefinitely. The motion carried, 9-0. D. COMMUNITY CENTER THIRD RINK Lambert reported that the cost for a third rink has now increased from$3.1 million to over $3.3 million. City staff is assuming that the City would have to budget approximately an additional $300,000 to match the difference if in fact the project does cost the estimated $3.3 million. The City Council has agreed to spend $1 million. Lambert indicated that the additional funds could come from increased rental rates. Bierman questioned if they could issue 25-year revenue bonds to obtain the additional funds. Lambert said he would have to check with the Finance Department to determine if this is feasible. Motion: Motion was made by Barrett, seconded by Gerst, to recommend the approval of the concept design for a third rink addition subject to the Hockey Association providing $1 million toward this project and that the City Council take the remaining $300,000 out of the General Fund reserve. The motion carried, 9-0. E. BIDS FOR PARK SIGNS Fox reported that the sign project was started two years ago. Fifty signs were bid out with the low bid being at$151,930. MOTION: Motion was made by Napuck, seconded by Gerst, to recommend that the City Council award the bid for the park entry signage program to Sign Source, Inc. in the amount of$151,930. The motion carried, 9-0. IX. NEW BUSINESS The following items were provided to the Commission for informational purposes only: A. BIRCH ISLAND PARK PLANNING SESSION B. TENTATIVE PARK TOUR FOR JULY 10 X. REPORTS OF STAFF A. DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION June 5, 2006 Page 12 The following items were presented to the Commission for informational purposes only. 1. Veterans Memorial Committee Minutes of May 9, 2006 meeting 2. MRPA Award of Excellence—Staring Lake Park Archery Range 3. Senior Center History Tour Information B. MANAGER OF RECREATION SERVICES 1. Service Area Report—Lyndell Frey—Adult Athletics Frey presented an overview of the Adult Athletics program including adult sports, youth sports, field scheduling, park attendants and special events. C. MANAGER OF PARKS AND NATURAL RESOURCES The following items were presented to the Commission as informational items. 1. Tamarack Trail Sidewalk Reconstruction 2. Goose Management Program —2006 3. Staring Lake Doi Park Update 4. Arson at Prairie View Park Fox reported that the warming house had been destroyed by fire at Prairie View Park. The estimated cost for the loss was between $35,000 and $40,000. They are investigating the incident as arson. Staff will be looking to get another temporary construction trailer at this location. Lambert reported that there had also been a fire at Homeward Hills Park damaging a retaining wall and that a satellite had been burned at Hidden Ponds Park. 5. Round Lake Water Ouality Lambert reported that the DNR check Round Lake last week and found it to be clear water up to 12 feet deep and that there are a large number of crappies and sunfish in the lake. PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION June 5, 2006 Page 13 XI. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Commission is scheduled for Monday, July 10 at 5:30 p.m. for the Parks Tour. XII. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Gerst moved, Brill seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried 9-0. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.