Loading...
Memo-Downtown Park Improvements PUBLIC WORKS . CITY OF HOPKINS Memorandum TO: COPY: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Steve Mielke, City Manager (J/ Ray Vogtman, Superintendent Parks and Forestry January 13, 2003 Downtown Park Improvements The City Council work session on January 14, 2003, will review the status of the Downtown Park improvements. The improvements budgeted for and approved for Downtown Park included: 1. Benches, trash receptacles and tree grates 2. A stage/shelter type of park building 3. New pavers in the center circular area of the park e 1. The benches, trash receptacles and tree grates have been purchased and are in inventory. The ten estate series dedication benches have sponsors. Henry Pokorny and Bob Miller are gathering information and money from the sponsors. In addition to the ten straight dedication benches, City staff has modified the sixteen sets of 360. benches to accept dedication plaques. Once the work is completed on the first ten, we will begin work on the 360. dedication benches. 2. Two concepts for the park shelter building have been prepared for the City by Brauer and Associates. The Park Board I representatives of Music in the Park and the Hopkins Area Jaycees have received the two concepts. City staff has been given direction by the City Council to work with these two groups (Hopkins Area Jaycees and Music in the Park) in particular. The Hopkins Area Jaycees are exploring some alternatives to the tents they currently use on City Lot #300. I have been working with this group to document any additional interest by the Hopkins Area Jaycees in any significant long-term solutions. City staff will be prepared to propose these solutions at the work session. As a result of the additional concerns and delays, no clear choice for a shelter building in the park has emerged. 3. All work for the ordering of pavers and installation is on hold. The shelter building must be resolved before we can develop any plans for the pavers. There is also a plan growing for the sale of dedication pavers, which must be addressed. . These improvements and other questions the City Council Members may have will be discussed in further detail at the work session. . November 19, 2002 417 Fanndale Road West Hopkins, MN 55343 Phone: (952) 938-5306 Fax: (952) 988-9978 E-mail: dnieman@isd.net To: Honorable Mayor & City Council City of Hopkins From: Dick Niemann Just a few other thoughts as a result of the fine joint CouncilfBoard/Comnllssion meeting held last night. . 1. It might be a beneficial thing to have the city newsletter contain a short section from each Board, reporting on past and future projects. Tbis would publicize the Board's Wbrkand stir interest. in getting more people to serve on boards. It would also let people comment on proposed actions before they come before the Council. 2. 1 do not feel that the Council is close enough to the Boards - I feel "insulated" from them by staff personnel. This is not to criticize the jobs being done by the staff liaison people, but I feel more direct communication between. us is needed. The council will soon be asked to vote on an ordinance change to fOIIDalize the current practice of not having a Council member also serve on the Boards. I can understand the reason for this, but also feel it hurts the unity we are trying to achieve. One solution might be to have a Counci1person assigned to each Board as a resource and who could be invited to meetings only when major items are to be recommended. On the Park Board, for instance, I would like to have a member present when we prepare our final CIP recommendations in order to better convey OUT intent and the reasoning them. I am concerned that a staff person (or anyone person) can adequately convey that information and may instead convey his or her own biases on the subject. It would also be a means for the Council to convey back to the Boards items that the Boards should be aware of ie, budget limitations, etc.. 3. Another communication means that might enhance unity is to provide feedback to the Boards on the disposition of their recommendations, so that the Boards know their suggestions were considered and the reasons for their adoption or rejection. I heard some people at the meeting voice their frustration over the lack of such feedback. Perhaps we could use a Board Recommendation Form that would state the recommendation, the reasons for it, approximate costs, etc. and would also provide for a "Disposition" section wherein the Council could explain their action and reasomng. These forms could be prepared by the Board or the Staff person but would be signed by the Board Chair ~ assuring us that we knew exactly what the Council was being told. A Board member's name could also be shown for the Council to contact if they wanted to know more about that issue. These are personal observations and opinions and not necessarily those of the Park Board. although I will share this memo with them. .