Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-28-05APPROVED Members Present: Mike Eliason, Mark Jacobs, Eric Johnson, Phillip Sterner Members Absent: Leslie Defries Staff Present: Dan Schultz, Director of Parks and Recreation and Sonja Honl, Recording Secretary Student Volunteer: Philip Harris Others Present: Jeff May, Finance Director CALL TO ORDER: Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: None. APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 28, 2005 AGENDA: MOTION by Johnson to approve the February 28, 2005 agenda. SECOND by Sterner. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Motion passed. 3. APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 24, 2005 MINUTES: MOTION by Eliason to approve the minutes of January 24, 2005. SECOND by Sterner. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Motion passed. 4. AUDIENCE INPUT: None. 5. DISCUSSION (Response to Audience Input): None. 6. OLD BUSINESS: a. Investment of City Funds – Finance Director Jeff May was in attendance to discuss the City’s policy on investing funds, specifically Parks Dedication. Schultz explained that typically May receives funds, asks Schultz about cash needs for upcoming projects, and then invests the funds according to how soon they’ll be needed. Schultz referred to the City’s policy on investing which lists the criteria we use: safety, liquidity, and rate of return. Finance Director May then explained in more detail how funds are invested, and reiterated what Schultz had said regarding the City’s investment policy, with the safety of investments being the most important criteria. The City follows state statute in our investing, and invests primarily in cd’s and government securities. The interest we receive is based on the type of investment and length of time until maturity. Schultz provides May with a schedule of upcoming projects and May invests in terms that follow this schedule. The Commission asked if May could provide them with the interest we’re receiving. May said that he keeps a schedule of maturity dates, and he will provide the Commission with the maturity dates and interest earned for several months so they will have a better idea of how much interest is accruing. b. Park Signs – Schultz provided color prototypes of the different sizes of signs that would be used for a community park, a large neighborhood park, and a small neighborhood park based on the sign style approved by the Commission at last month’s meeting. Schultz recommended adding a white, routered border to break up the solid green color of the signs. Schultz also provided a colored drawing of the Innisfree Park sign proposed by CPDC that included the new City logo. Schultz will ask that the City logo be centered on this sign, instead of in the lower corner as submitted. The Commission liked the sign prototypes and agreed with the recommendation to add the white border. As far as landscaping, the signs will be raised, with a small retaining wall and landscaping around them. The signposts will be of the same material as the signs. Park signs that will be installed in 2005 are Birch, Bloomfield, Claret, Jaycee, Winds, and the Family Resource Center, (and Innisfree Park, to be installed by CPDC). The 2005 budget for park signs is $10,000, and the cost estimate for the signs is $7,400. We may be able to purchase one more sign in 2005, based on the remaining funds. The budget for 2006 is $12,000, which should cover 10 or 11 more signs. MOTION by Eliason to approve the final park sign designs with the addition of a white border. SECOND by Johnson. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Motion passed. Schultz asked to go over the sign placement. He reviewed maps showing the locations and alignment of signs at each of the parks that will be getting new signs. Once the signs are ordered, we should have them in six to eight weeks for installation in early spring. Schultz will bring this item back at that time for a decision on whether City staff or a contractor should install the signs. Sterner asked whether “Welcome To” could be included on the medium-sized signs, as there seems to be room for it. Per Schultz, “Welcome To” will only be included on the largest signs. Schultz will bring back an actual sign prototype to the next meeting so the Commission can see how the sign will really look and make sure it’s o.k. before all of the signs are ordered. c. Naming of City Parks – In the past, parks have been named for the nearest road, for the development where the park is located, for a past land owner or historical reason, or for a sponsorship (Jaycees or Lions). Schultz contacted the Rosemount Historical Society for information on past landowners and historical people, etc. that might apply to the naming of the city parks in the Meadows of Bloomfield and Harmony Developments. The past three landowners for the Meadows Development property were Minea, Murnaine and McMenomy. The past owners of the Harmony Development property were Elliot’s, Brockway Glass Co., and Wintz, Co. Schultz contacted other cities to see how they handled sponsorship of parks. None of the cities he contacted had a policy on this and they also didn’t have many requests for sponsorship. The City of Rosemount worked with the Lions and Jaycees individually when parks were named after them, and there was no set criteria. Schultz recommended naming the park in the Meadows Development “Meadows Park” and the park in the Harmony Development either “Brockway Park” or “Harmony Park”. There was discussion regarding both park names: whether there should be a contest to name Meadows Park, whether there should be separate names for the disk golf course and the park in the Harmony Development, and whether Brockway or Harmony would be more a more appropriate name. Sterner suggested that if Brockway was used, small signs with historical references could be placed in the park to explain the significance of the Brockway Glass Plant/Golf Course in Rosemount’s history. It was decided to have separate motions for naming each park. MOTION by Sterner to name the Harmony Development Park “Brockway Park”. SECOND by Eliason. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Johnson said that this was the first he’d heard of including signs in the park explaining the Brockway history. He liked the idea and thought that this should be kept in mind when we design the parks – he would want to commit to doing this if the park was named Brockway. Jacobs clarified that this was a new idea brought up by Sterner. Schultz clarified that both sides of the park would be named Brockway – Brockway Disk Golf Course and Brockway Park. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Motion passed. Schultz will contact the historical society for more information on the Brockway history. He has seen small, resin signs with pictures on them that would be suitable. The signs are inexpensive and vandal/weather resistant, so upkeep would not be an issue. Johnson suggested that the signs on the disk golf course side explain the Brockway Golf Course history, and the signs on the park side explain the Brockway Glass Plant history. Discussion continued on having a contest to name the Meadows of Bloomfield park or naming it for someone in public service or otherwise historically significant to the City of Rosemount. The Commission decided to hold off on naming the park until this could be discussed further. Schultz will bring back information on public service personnel/historical figures in Rosemount’s history to the next meeting. 7. NEW BUSINESS: a. RFP’s for Park Projects – Schultz reviewed the projects coming up this spring: a 20’ x 20’ sun shelter, a 12’ x 12’ sun shelter, and play equipment for the city park in the Meadows of Bloomfield Development; and an 18’ x 32’ sun shelter in Camfield Park. Schultz provided photos of the shelters and play equipment options being considered. The sun shelters we’re looking at for the Meadows of Bloomfield park have metal posts and roofs. The sun shelter at Camfield Park would have an asphalt shingled roof similar to that of the amphitheater, due to the number of trees in that park (leaves would get caught in the ridge on the metal roof). The playground equipment we’re looking at could have a fire engine/station theme. There were several options with different components and features to choose from. Staff will send out RFP’s in the next few weeks, and bring the results back for discussion. MOTION by Sterner to recommend sending out the RFP’s for the sun shelters at the city park in the Meadows of Bloomfield Development and Camfield Park, and for the play equipment at the city park in the Meadows of Bloomfield Development. SECOND by Johnson. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Motion passed. c. Director’s Report – The Parks Improvement Fund Balance as of January 31, 2005 was $1,283,263.67. No parks dedication fees were received this month. Interest was $3,544.56. Athletic Complex Land Search - We have narrowed down the search to two or three sites on the east side of Rosemount. Schultz met with DCTC and is trying to come up with a couple of options to bring to the City Council Work Session on March 9. Community Facilities – A feasibility study on St. Joseph Church has been completed. Schultz hopes to bring this to the March 9, 2005 Council Work Session. Schultz will also discuss the Facilities Task Force recommendations for a pool, second sheet of ice, etc., at the work session. The City Council would like the Parks and Recreation Department to be involved in downtown beautification. There is also currently no one to maintain the flower garden at Central Park. There might be an opportunity for a Commission member to attend meetings to resolve these issues. The Glen Rose Development concept was approved. The trail alignment for this development needs to be discussed by the Commission. We had hoped to close on the Wiklund/Bester property this Thursday. Our grant application was pulled on Friday, February 25, because the DNR had issues with the use of the $50,000 grant. The application was rewritten and resubmitted to the DNR. Schultz asked the Commission if they would agree to use $50,000 from parks dedication if we do not get the DNR grant. At this time we do still expect to receive the grant, but if we don’t Schultz would need to notify the City Council that what the Commission had originally approved wasn’t going to happen. Schultz felt that based on the time and effort put into this project and the quality of the property, the project was worthwhile. He would recommend using parks dedication funds if we do not receive the DNR grant. The Commission agreed that the project was worthwhile and parks dedication funds could be used. Johnson asked Schultz to let the Commission know at the next meeting what happens regarding this item. Johnson asked if there was any word regarding Sterner’s replacement for the Commission. Per Sterner, they are interviewing candidates and should have a replacement starting in April. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Eliason to adjourn the meeting. SECOND by Sterner. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Motion passed. The meeting was adjourned at 8:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Sonja Honl, Recording Secretary