Parks and Recreation Commission

Meeting Minutes

November 7, 2013
6:30 p.m.

 

PRESENT:      Azer, Boehm, Diedrick, Doneen, Gelbach, D. Holt, M. Holt, Stoner, Wall

ABSENT:        Simbeck notified staff ahead of time about being unable to attend

STAFF:           Anfang, Brokke, Evenson, Johnson

OTHERS:        Gary Grefenberg, Michael Schroeder, Tim McILwain, Tim Wold

  

1. INTRODUCTIONS

 

2.  ROLL CALL/PUBLIC COMMENT

Gary Grefenberg spoke on behalf of the 75 households affiliated with SWARM (South West Area Roseville Monitor) in regards to Renewal Projects proposed for the Southwest quadrant of  Roseville. Mr. Grefenberg made it very clear that he was not speaking on behalf of all of Southwest Roseville, just for the SWARM association membership.

·       Grefenberg recognized the efforts of the Commission and the Parks and Recreation department to involve our community throughout the Master Plan and Renewal Program processes and truly appreciates the level of engagement that has taken place.

·     Grefenberg spoke of the disappointment by SWARM in the recent ranking of
potential Pathway Projects by the Public Works Commission.  Earlier in the planning process the County Road B Pathway was listed as a high priority, the most recent ranking places the County Road B Pathway as #40 out of 40.

o    Grefenberg reminded the Commission that County Road B is a major artery in Southwest Roseville and the most important connection in SW Roseville.

o    There currently is no easy pedestrian access to Brimhall School, Fairview Community Center or Evergreen Park due to no pathway, no sidewalk and no striped shoulder.

o    Residents in this area have been asking for a sidewalk along County Road B for 20 years.

o    Grefenberg is asking the Commission to give consideration for ranking the County Road B pathway higher.

o    Grefenberg also voiced concern about the level of involvement by the
Pathway Committee and Public Works Commission in relation to their lack of involvement in earlier Master Plan work.

o    Commission Chair Holt recognized and thanked Grefenberg for his efforts to share information in SW Roseville and encourage engagement among
neighbors.

o    Brokke talked briefly on how the trails and pathway Renewal Program funds will be used based on what takes places with the County Road B-2 pathway and its final costs.

·       Grefenberg spoke to the openness of the NRATS meetings and the feeling he has had that the group is not open to all for comments and recommendations.

§  Brokke briefed the group on the history of the NRATS (Natural Resources and Trails Subcommittee).

§  Over time, the initial Natural Resource and Trails Work Group
indicated that they were most interested in actually doing work on
Natural Resource projects and less interested in meetings. Because of this, NRATS (Natural Resources and Trails Subcommittee) was
formed with representatives of the Public Works Commission and
Parks and Recreation Commission who agreed to work together to
coordinate the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as it relates to
pathways and connections and the Pathway Master Plan as well as
review projects.

• Grefenberg is also concerned by recent talks of land acquisitions in SW Roseville and feels the pace of acquiring a location for future parks may be out pacing current neighborhood engagement.
• Grefenberg said they want to be a part of the discussions regarding spending funds in SW Roseville and would like to meet
   as a group before a final commitment is made for land acquisition.
• Brokke spoke of the Master Plan guidance for development in SW Roseville.  Three strategies are identified; small parcels, large parcels and connectivity.
  As parcels become available we will consider their fit within the Master Plan guidelines.
• Staff recognizes there is more work to be done and community
  meetings will be scheduled, the plan is to get SW Roseville back
  together after the 1st of the year.

 

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 1, 2013 MEETING

    Commission Recommendation:

    Minutes for the October 1, 2013 meeting were approved unanimously.

 

    Following the approval of the October minutes, Matt Johnson, the recently hired Recreation Supervisor introduced himself and talked a little about his background.

 

 4. PARK & RECREATION RENEWAL PROGRAM

Brokke introduced design and consulting team members present to discuss most recent work on the Renewal Program. Michael Schroeder with LHB was in attendance to talk about park shelter designs, Tim McILwain from HCM Architects was present to discuss the park  building designs and Tim Wold from SRF was at the meeting to provide information on courts, fields and site work.

Brokke shared that the Renewal Program is moving relatively quickly at this point, it is important that we get final plans and specs completed in an effort to get proposals out early in 2014. Designs for the buildings and shelters are more than 50% complete; the design team will review all structures with the Commission tonight. The plan is to bring a set of plans to the Council on November 25 and to have plans completed in early December.

 

Schroeder talked to the Commission about how the team is working to develop the enclosed buildings and open shelters. Schroeder walked through the shelter plans for Victoria Ballfields, FORParks and the Foundation Shelters. Design includes using the existing truss system, maintaining an iconic design element but reworking the structures to provide increased lighting and improved amenities and imagery. The Design Team will also carry over the design element from the truss system to the CP Lexington Restroom Building to continue the imagery and visually connect Central park facilities.

McILwain reoriented the Commission to the design process through a written memo outlining;

• Building Planning-Key Concepts

• Image/Style of Buildings and Roseville Parks

• Building Form and Imagery Concepts

 

McILwain talked about how the enclosed building designs create a very identifiable
Roseville style so that structures across the community are easily identified. The buildings will not look exactly the same; the buildings are designed for a specific site. Locations are aligned with park connections, surround natural amenities and park features. Each building includes a large bay element that serves as a beacon to the community. The design helps make a bigger impact with a smaller structure through the roofline which provides for meeting room volume (as an example). High glass provides an open and airy feel.

 

50% Plans for Villa, Sandcastle and Oasis Parks were shared. These buildings are designed to accommodate 30 people at tables, approximately 50 people standup reception style. The main gathering areas will be multi-use and serve as ice rink warming space during the winter months.

 

50% plans for Autumn Grove Park and 90% plans for Lexington Park were presented.

McILwain talked to the Commission about the orientation of the buildings and the reasoning for facility layout. Lexington and Autumn Grove buildings are 2200 sq. ft. with the gathering room coming in at 900 Sq. ft., these buildings have a separate warming room that will be used for youth programs during the non-ice seasons. An electronic sketch-up of Lexington Park was shared to give Commissioners a more dynamic view of the building and its internal and external components.

 

Brokke explained that there were no designs for the Rosebrook site because of possible consideration for use of the Press Gym site. Brokke also reminded the Commission that the 50% designs may still need some adjustments.

 

Evenson reviewed and updated the Commission on the Contractor Request for Proposal (RFP's) process.

• Proposal packages are nearly 100% complete

• ASU will be presenting Best Value materials at a November 14 meeting for contractors

• RFP will be released mid January

 

Evenson briefed the Commission on recent NRATS efforts;

• Natural Resource projects are focused on those with high potential for success

• Natural Resource and Trails group members 139 participated in a great event on

November 2. Thirty people took part in a "Buckthorn Blaster" event that included a one hour information/education session led by expert natural resource staff and

followed up with two hours hauling cut Buckthorn from a designated site in Reservoir Woods

• Future Natural Resource projects will be evaluated based on the level of sustainability
• The trails discussion at the most recent NRATS meeting has led to future discussions that will look for ways to meld information from the Parks & Recreation Master Plan and the Trails Master Plan

 

Evenson gave a rundown on the status of other Renewal Projects;

·         Stantec continues to work through the Natural Resource considerations and
opportunities to maximize the funds allocated to this area in the Renewal program

·         Playground designs have been completed by the staff at Landscape Structures

o    Park staff have removed the playground at the Victoria Ballfields to prep the         area for the first Renewal Program playground installation

·         Soil borings have been completed

·         Public Works continues to work on the surveys

·         Staff has decided on 80? x 180? for the dimensions of the neighborhood hockey rinks.

 

5. PARK DEDICATION RATE REVIEW

Brokke explained that Roseville?s park dedication fees are about average of the comparison communities. Park dedication fees are generated from residential and business development and redevelopment. The purpose of the fees is to accommodate for the impact on parks and recreation infrastructure due to increased use from more residents or business community.

The Capital Improvement Program/Park Improvement Program and the investment being made is an important factor when considering Park Dedication Fees. State law directs that funding is used for capital improvements. In the past park dedication funds have been used for land acquisitions as well. The last time the park dedication fees were raised was the residential fee in 2011 and Commercial in 2012.

 

Commission Chair Holt talked to the importance of an annual review of the fees.

Commissioners agreed that now is not the time to raise the fees. No action taken on this item.

 

6. PARK BOARD DISCUSSION

Brokke spoke in response to the commission?s earlier request for more information on the Capital Improvement Program and the Park Improvement Plan. Chris Miller, Finance Director, provided a memo to the Commission and Brokke outlining Parks and Recreation specific Capital Improvement Programs and Park Improvement Plan. The memo addressed program background information, a brief discussion of the 20-year Parks and Recreation CIP, an overview of the PIP and capital asset replacement financing options. Commissioners agreed that it would be helpful for Finance Director Miller to come in and talk with the commission.

Brokke explained that the current maintenance budget is about $1M annually. CIP funding is a 20-year program meant for larger items such as buildings and structures, playgrounds, bridges and boardwalks, as a few examples. The current CIP listing suggests a $51M investment over the next 20 years. The Renewal Program covers the first 3-4 years of the current 20 year program, after that it is estimated that the cost would be $1.5M annually to maintain our current resources and keep things within the expected life cycles. The CIP also includes about $200,000 annually in pathway maintenance and an additional fund for vehicle replacements. Brokke also mentioned that the Golf Course and the Skating Center each have separate CIP programs.

 

The PIP program takes care of natural resources along with other small park maintenance projects like aglime for ball fields. Staff are working with the recently acquired asset management software to better manage resources and track maintenance needs. 

·         Commission Chair Holt inquired into the PIP name - wondering if this is the best terminology to use seeing how this program deals mainly with maintenance work, perhaps a new name would help the community better understand the program.

·         D. Holt asked Brokke to explain the difference of how CIP and PIP programs would be handled between a park board and the current parks and recreation commission.

o    A park Board would be more involved in the budget allocations. It would be expected that board members would better understand the intricacies of a budget. A park board would be more responsible for the actual budget development and recommending levy levels to the Council.

7. 2014 DRAFT CALENDAR

Commissioners agreed to move forward with the recommended calendar and address
possible conflicts as they arise.

 

8. STAFF REPORT

            Brokke reported;

·         The Villa Park Watershed project is nearly completed.

o    The park building time frame is not yet finalized, looks as if most work will be done in 2014.

·         Staff are using a planned approach to SW Roseville, this includes incorporating  Master Plan information as a guide.

o    Staff will pursue options as they come up and will definitely engage the community in the future.

·         The Roseville Communities for a Lifetime process is continuing, next meeting  is November 16.

·         OVAL opens Friday, November 8!

·         Roseville Visitors Association (RVA) OVALuminations will take place on Friday, November 8 at 6:30pm. Thanks to the RVA for their longtime sponsorship of this program.

 

9. OTHER

·         M. Holt announced the upcoming FORParks Holiday Gala will take place on November 14 at the Skating Center. The evening will feature amazing entertainment, great food and beverage all mixed into a fun community social. 

    Meeting adjourned at 9:25pm

    Respectfully Submitted,

    Jill Anfang, Assistant Director