Loading...
040902 PK AgPCITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002 7:00 P.M. • AGENDA 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING A. Roll Call Arnst Youn Callies Bartlett Meyer Palesch B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Minutes of March 12, 2002(Att. -#2A Draft Summary) B. Park Commission Informational Meeting With Sports Organizations Minutes of March 20, 2002(Att. -#2B Draft Summary) C. Park Commission Work Session Minutes of March 26, 2002(Att. -#2C Draft Summary) 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 4. REPORTS A. Report on City Council Meetings of March 25 and April 8 (Council member) B. Review Written Opinion by Planning Director for Dugout at Freeman Field 2 — (Att.- #4B)(Brad Nielsen, Planning Director) C. Report on City Council Action Regarding South Tonka Little League Requests for Improvements (Brad Nielsen, Planning Director) 5. HIGHWAY 7 RIGHT OF WAY PROPERTY_ (Brad Nielsen, Planning Director) 6. DISCUSS NEXT STEP FOR PARK MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR 2003 7. STATUS UPDATE ON FREEMAN PARK PARKING LOT - (Att.47)(Larry Brown, Public Works Director) 8. SET DATE FOR PARK TOURS • Saturday, June 1 or Saturday, June 8, 2002 9. DISCUSS WORK SESSION FOR APRIL 23 MEETING 10. DETERMINE PARK LIAISON FOR MAY 11. NEW BUSINESS Council Liaison: April: Meyer 12. ADJOURNMENT May: ? i • CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002 MINUTES 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 P.M. 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Chair Arnst called the meeting to order at 7:31 P.M. A. Roll Call ate . �Y �i Present: Chair Arnst; Commissioners Meyer, Bartlett, Palesch, and Young; City Engineer Brown and City Council Liaison Lizee Absent: Commissioner Puzak and Callies B. Review Agenda Palesch moved, Meyer seconded, approving the agenda as submitted. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of February 12, 2002 • Meyer moved, Young seconded, approving the Minutes of February 12, 2002 as submitted. Motion passed 5/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. 4. REPORTS A. Report on City Council Meeting of March 11, 2002 Meeting Lizee had nothing pertinent for Parks to report. 5. DISCUSS LITTLE LEAGUE REQUESTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS Chair Arnst introduced Gordon Lindstrom, stepping in for Brian Tichy, of South Tonka Baseball to share the attached STBB requests for Freeman Park projects 2002. Freeman Park Repairs: (Refer to the attached list for item numbers) In reference to items #1 and #2 STBB will pay for the repairs. Meyer moved, Bartlett seconded, recommending STBB move forward with the replacement chain link fence on top of the backstop for field #1 and the fencing repair near both dugouts of field #3. Motion • passed 5/0. wig REGULAR PARK COMMISSION MEETING March 12, 2002 Page 2 of 6 Improvements for Freeman Park: (Refer to attached Item #`s) 0 Based on the recommendation of Engineer Brown, items #1 and #6, which extend the chain link height for field #1 and the installation of colored tubing on top of all field fencing, were moved to the Improvements by Permit section of the Project page. As a safety measure, there was no objection to the installation of tubing, however, color was an issue. The Park Commission agreed that no bright colors would be acceptable and that STBB would need to work with staff to find a suitable shade. Items #2 through #5 were discussed next. Item #2, installing a bottom bar along the fence on field one; item #3 installing warning track along the fence on fields #2 and #3 to prevent injury (but using caution to keep clear of sprinkler heads in the track line); item #4 installing seed and straw in the infield foul territory of field two; and item #5 removing the old chain link fence on top of the batting cage and replacing it with netting instead for field three. Palesch moved, Young seconded, that the Park Commission recommends to staff their support for STBB to complete items #1 and #6 with staff approval and CUP. Meyer amended the motion to include that STBB work closely with staff to coordinate items #2 - #5 under Freeman Park Improvements in order for them to go to Council. Palesch seconded the Motion. Motion passed 510. Brown recommended that a sketch be provided to staff regarding item #4 of Improvements before any work is done. Meyer moved, Palesch seconded, that item #4 be amended to include a drawing be submitted to staff prior to the work being done. Motion passed 5/0. 0 Chair Arnst made it clear to Mr. Lindstrom that STBB must work with the City Engineer on the Sprinkler head issue in regard to Item #3. Engineer Brown suggested that he and STBB go for a walk to examine the potential placement issues. Chair Arrest then asked whether STBB would accept responsibility for any damage to sprinklers that might occur in regards to the warning track. Mr. Lindstrom indicated that yes STBB would accept responsibility for damage and fix it. He added that STBB would also be willing to join Engineer Brown for a walk of the fields prior to installing the warning track. Freeman Park Improvements by Permit: (Refer to the attached Item #'s) As the discussion moved into the Improvements by Permit section, Chair Arrest pointed out to Mr. Lindstrom that the Park Commission is currently reviewing its Park Master Plans for each Park, which may impact some of the requests made by STBB. She cautioned him that the Commission may be hesitant to make certain improvements to the parks before it has been truly determined what each master plan will look like. Mr. Lindstrom explained item #1, using tarps similar to those used on field #2 for the dugout roofs on field #1. He indicated that they already own the green tarps and would like to use them for weather protection. It was determined that this could potentially require a CUP and staff would need to check with Planning Director Nielsen. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that item #2, the installation of a new electronic scoreboard on field #1, would be consistent with the one used on field #3. Engineer Brown indicated that a CUP would be required, as well as, the installation of a permanent underground wire running to the scoreboard. He voiced his concern over the is proposed placement of the scoreboard due to potential issues with adjacent property owners. Chair Arnst felt REGULAR PARK COMMISSION MEETING March 12, 2002 Page 3 of 6 • it necessary to table the item based on the proximity to neighboring properties. She asked staff and STBB to research the property line and clarify its position before any more discussion on this item continues. Item #3, extending the poles and adding the netting on the 1 st base side of field #2 would merely require a fencing permit. Item #4, extending the poles on the 3rd base dugout to allow for tarps was tabled due to the previous denial for a variance by the Planning Commission and potential issues with the adjacent property owners. Chair Arnst recommended that this issue be sent to Director Nielsen for review and a written opinion be provided to the Commission and scheduled for discussion on its April agenda.. Item #5, which would require a CUP, was tabled. Mr. Lindstrom described the temporary scorer's booth that exists on field #2 and the role it, and the P.A. system, plays at tournament time. Commissioner Meyer asked if STBB holds a permit for that structure. To which, Mr. Lindstrom replied they do not. Engineer Brown also noted that P.A. Systems in the parks are not allowed. After some discussion, the Park Commission agreed that before any consideration be given to allowing a permanent scorer's booth, the existing temporary non - permitted structure must be removed. Meyer questioned the need for a permanent scorer's booth, another structure, used only during tournament time. Brown reiterated to STBB that the Commission would not be receptive to looking at any improvements until the structure that is there without permit is removed, as well as the P.A. system, and STBB follows the appropriate channels to acquire a permit. Mr. Lindstrom, while deferring to Mr. Tichy, believed that the intent was to remove the structure when not in use and store it for tournament time. Chair Amst affirmed that the existing structure be removed, not stored in the park, and that STBB come back to talk about a permit at that time. • Item #6, allowing for seasonal sponsor banners at all fields was tabled. Lindstrom maintained that baseball is expensive and it would be beneficial to offer this opportunity to sponsors. He added that Bennett Park offers this as a way to generate revenue. Referring to a memo from Director Nielsen, Chair Arnst pointed out that not only would a sign permit be required, but also changes to the City Sign Ordinances and six different zoning codes would need to be made. Palesch believed that the City has strong feelings over advertising in their public parks and she could not support such an endeavor. Bartlett agreed. Young, however, stated that he didn't want to close the door to advertising if an organization would like to pursue it. Palesch moved, Young seconded, to accept item #1 and allow the use of tarps on field #1 with the approval of Planning and the required CUP. Motion passed 5/0. Young moved, Bartlett seconded, that the Commission recommends that the fencing permit for item #3 be granted. Motion passed 5/0. Lindstrom stated that he was unsure whether items #7 and #8, which involved bright orange seasonal outfield fencing and seasonal batting cages, were being pursued by STBB at this time. Chair Amst pointed out that, having already reviewed Cathcart Park's Master Plan, the Commission could not support these requests. The Park Commission stated that the park is already at capacity and that they would like to keep it the neighborhood park that it is. With that in mind, the Commission believed that Cathcart Park should remain a little league park for now. Shorewood Funded Improvements were the next projects examined by the Commission. Chair Amst noted that she had already discussed with Brian Tichy the improbability of item #1 occurring. Currently, the City is working to blacktop the parking lot and experiencing mitigation problems with the Watershed, therefore it is unlikely the pathway will be blacktopped any time soon. She stated that the City REGULAR PARK COMMISSION MEETING March 12, 2002 Page 4 of 6 needs to work out the parking lot issues as its first priority. Brown stated that item #2, grass seed and straw for fields #1 and #2 would be possible. • In reference to item #3, the spigot at the concession stand, will not happen according to Engineer Brown. Brown stated that without sanitary sewer, the health department won't allow it. Lindstrom said that concessions have been bringing in water to make coffee, clean -up, etc. but questioned if any solution was viable. Brown stated that he wished he could solve the problem, but other than installing costly sanitary sewer, it was unlikely. Palesch moved, Young, seconded, recommending the City seed/straw the grass area between field #1 and #2 in August. Motion passed 5/0. It was agreed that a list of outcomes to the evening's discussions be shared with Brian Tichy, the designated STBB contact, as soon as possible. 6. DISCUSS OPTIONS FOR REVIEWING SCHEDULING PLAN FOR 2003 Chair Arnst recommended that a special work session regarding park management and a scheduling plan for 2003 be set up. It was agreed that March 26, at 7 PM would be the brainstorming session. 7. CONCESSION STAND PROPOSAL Engineer Brown introduced staff person Twila Grout to share the Concession Stand proposal. After much research, Twila has found that running concessions can be quite a profitable endeavor for a City. She stated that after speaking to many Company's and Cities, she believes the City can run its own operation, hire its own part time employees, purchase the equipment, and obtain copies of team schedules in order to run the Concessions roughly May to October. Brown concurred, stating that having someone else run the concessions poses logistical problems, as well as, less profit to the City. He stated that while Charlie Davis would run the inventory, what's needed is for him to put together a mini - business plan. Brown indicated that while some investment up front will be necessary and he needs to talk to the health department about their requirements, the profit margins are amazing. Chair Arnst voiced her support stating that the City will know not only the mechanics of the operation but will realize the profits as well. Palesch stated that she believed if we have the people willing to do it, let's do it, but perhaps on a smaller scale. Palesch moved, Bartlett seconded, that the Commission recommends to Council that staff moves forward and develop a business plan for Concessions at Eddy Station. Motion passed 510. Brown complimented Twila Grout on her initiative to research and make this project happen. Liz6e added her support. She stated, as a parent who spends a great deal of time at Freeman Park, it would be nice to have food options available at the Concessions. 8. PARK MASTER PLANNING A. South Shore Community Park 0 REGULAR PARK COMMISSION MEETING March 12, 2002 Page 5 of 6 • Young stated that he was impressed by how well used the park is and how clean the City is able to keep it. He added that the level of supervision the young folks have pleased him. Chair Amst was pleased to state that this is one of the most well used parks in Shorewood. Brown reported that the burming and rule signage is not complete. He added that he will contact Ken Dallman and the American Legion to follow -up and check on the sign status. Landscaping will be completed after the signage. Lizee questioned whether fencing along Highway 7 had been proposed. It was determined that while the current emphasis of the park is a Skate Park, there is a large green space for people to picnic in. The population served focuses primarily on youth aged 0 -12 accompanied largely by adults and grandparents. No deficiencies were noted and many were pleased with its services. In regard to recommendations for further action it was mentioned that: Fencing along Highway 7 be examined Burming, landscaping and signage be finalized Well/water service be pursued The green space remain green - as promised to neighbors, no further intensity of usage Keep equipment small for the youth Post the Rules sign ASAP 9. DISCUSS CONCEPT OF SATURDAY PARK TOURS FOR 2002. Chair Arnst gave a history of park tours, maintaining that while the to -do list portion has lost its importance, the need to reexamine the parks as we evaluate the Master Plans has not. Everyone seemed receptive to picking a May or June Saturday date to visit all the Parks at one time. • 10. DISCUSS SETTING SECOND MEETING DATE FOR MAY May 29, 2002 at 7:00 P.M. was chosen for a second meeting date in May. It was then agreed by all to move the meeting time for all regular and work sessions to 7:00 P.M., rather than 7:30P.M. 11. NEW BUSINESS Brown reported that the City will be bringing in John Shardlow for a presentation on Saturday, April 27, 2002 from 9 AM- 2 PM at the South Shore Center. Brown asked the Commissioners to arrive a few minutes early at the next meeting in order to take a group photo. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meyer moved, Palesch seconded, adjourning the Regular Park Commission Meeting of March 12, 2002, at 9:52 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson RECORDING SECRETARY • Freeman Park / South Tonka Baseball Projects March 2002 Location Freeman Field #1 Freeman Field #3 Location Freeman Field #1 Freeman Field #1 Repairs Item # Proiect 1 Repair and/or replace chain link fence on top of backstop 2 Repair fencing near both dugouts Item # 1 1 Freeman Fields #2 & #3 2 Freeman Field #2 3 Freeman Field #3 4 All Fields Location Freeman Field #1 Freeman Field #1 Freeman Field #2 Freeman Field #2 Freeman Field #2 All Fields Cathcart Cathcart 5 Improvements Proiect • Extend chain link on south end of dugout on third base and on west end of dugout on first base side to protect players /coaches from throws Insert bar at bottom of fence at same end to keep fence from curling up Install warning track along fence to help prevent injury Seed/straw infield in foul territory (also in August) Remove old chain link fencing on top of batting cage (use netting to keep balls in cage) Install colored tubing on top of fence to help prevent injury Improvements by Permit Item # Pro 'ect 1 Use tarps similar to those used on field #2 for dugout roofs 2 Approval to install new electronic scoreboard on field #1 3 Extend poles on 1 st base side to height of backstop /utility poles (add netting to prevent foul balls from hitting spectators) 4 Extend poles on 3rd base dugout to allow adding tarp similar to that on first base dugout 5 Approval for scorers booth behind backstop 6 Placement of seasonal sponsor banners along fencing 7 Install seasonal outfield fencing 8 Install seasonal batting cage :7 0 C Shorewood Funded Improvements Location Item # Project Freeman between 1 Blacktop path from parking lot at concession stand to Field #1 & #2 Shorewood Oaks entrance Freeman between 2 Seed/straw grass area in August Field #1 & #2 All Fields 3 Add water spicket at concession stand near drinking fountain • �J INFORMATIONAL MEETING AGENDA SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION, SPORTS ORGANIZATIONS, AND MINNETONKA COMMUNITY EDUCATION SERVICES MINUTES City Engineer Brown convened the informational meeting at 7:01 P.M. 1. INTRODUCTION OF ATTENDEES A. Facilitator - Mark Koegler HKGI, and Associates B. Park Commissioners - Chair Arnst, Commissioners Callies and Puzak Staff - Public Works Director Brown; City Administrator Dawson; Boyd Bailey, Engineering Department; and Twila Grout, Park Secretary C. Sports Organization Representatives Present - Adult Softball - Gerry Gordon, John Seamans, and Gordon Lindstrom South Tonka Baseball - Brian Tichy and Mark Williams Tonka Football Association - Roger Lenahan MCES - Deb Malmsten Minnetonka Girls Softball Assoc. - Jeff Bailey and Julie Deitering Tonka United Soccer Assoc. - Jerry Rawel and Bill Sorteberg 2. PRESENTATION OF ISSUES FOR SHOREWOOD PARKS A. Overview of Issues (Larry Brown - Public Works Director) Engineer Brown welcomed everyone and began by giving a brief history of park and management issues. He stated that the Park Commission and City of Shorewood would like to begin to address these issues in a partnership effort with the Sports Organizations. The existing issues have evolved over a number of years, and while it may not be easy to resolve them, Brown believed by getting all the parties together they may be able to come up with compromises. B. Presentation of Adopted Facility Use Agreement Brown referred to the agenda packet, identifying the various pieces therein. First, were the Ordinances for Public Parks and Recreation Areas. Next, he pointed out an Amendment to City Ordinance No. 381, which raises the fine for the operation of motorized vehicles in Parks or on Public Grounds to $200. Followed by the Tournament Application and fee schedule, which had not changed. Brown continued, referring to the last piece, the Memorandum Agreement. He stated that the Athletic Facilities Memorandum Agreement was the same standard agreement they had seen before and was required to be executed by all the organizations. Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Rd Shorewood, MN Wednesday, March 20, 2002 7:00 PM PARK COMMISSION AND SPORTS ORGANIZATION INFORMATIONAL MEETING Wednesday, March 20,2002 Page 2 of 6 The Facility Use Agreement was next. Brown indicated that this set of regulations explains most of the issues that the City has been focusing on. While he believed many of the rules were self explanatory, he did explain several key regulations. For example, he pointed out that while it may be obvious that tournament permits and fees require a 15 -day lead time, newer issues like driving on the fields may not. Brown stated that an amendment to the City Ordinance raises the fine for driving on the fields to $200., due to damage incurred last year to the irrigation system. The word needs to get out about the fine and driving on the fields to league volunteers. Another problem stems from the disposal of paint cans in the parks trash receptacles. Brown maintained that even though the City has asked time and again that paint cans be disposed of elsewhere, they still wind up in the parks, and no sooner do the sports organizations leave, youth find those cans. The used paint cans then end up as graffiti covering the City's new building. Just that day, Brown said that he had been over to view a side of the building covered with graffiti. Finally, Brown referred to the new 15 minute separation rule between activities in an effort to try to ease the parking issues and manage our green space. He stated that the City realizes it has a limited area and hopes this will minimize impact. C. Review of User Fee Update As a prelude to the user fee update, Brown maintained that over the years the use of Shorewood's parks has intensified, while the City itself is all developed out. This intensified use, after tallying costs and projecting out, accompanied by the lack of revenue from development has warranted the adoption of a user fee. The Park Commission has spent a great deal of time negotiating this territory and while they realize this to be a controversial issue, the City has adopted a $10 user fee for 2002. Brown pointed out that the Ordinance was adopted in January, however, admitted that he had inadvertently missed notifying the Sports Organizations of the change at that time. With this in mind, realizing that some organizations have already begun registration, Brown has recommended to Council that the 2001 fees remain in effect until June 1 st, 2002. Therefore, Sports Organizations whose seasons begin after June 1 st, 2002 will be affected by the User Fee change at that time. D. Presentation by Mark Koegler of Field Inventory and Parking Study Brown stated that the City is in a precarious position, forced to manage the beautiful resources that exist at Freeman Park with the need for parking. Additional constraints exist, for example, there is a limited amount of parkland at Freeman, and even though the City is working to expand parking at the south end, the Watershed is extremely aggressive about its ponding requirements. By working with the various Sports Organizations and managing the park correctly we hope to minimize the impact on the park itself. Mr. Koegler presented the field inventory and parking study for Freeman Park. He began by sharing his affiliation with the City and stated that the agenda of tonight's meeting was to balance the Policy or administrative side with the physical side of Freeman Park. PARK COMMISSION AND SPORTS ORGANIZATION INFORMATIONAL MEETING Wednesday, March 20,2002 Page 3 of 6 In his overview, Koegler stated that they began their study by examining the Original Freeman Park Master Plan, comparing it with the current use of the park and the standards used in other communities, and finally offering some general observations and recommendations. Koegler reported that one of two problems seems to exist at Freeman. They have found that these include a shortage of off street parking and/or the overuse of the facilities creating an excessive parking demand. The concurrent use of all facilities today, was never imagined in the 1980's when the master plan was created. Koegler continued, sharing general recommendations for parking which include a series of incremental changes over the next 2 -3 summer seasons for evaluation. His group suggested creating a "working model" approach to solving the problems, which avoid any undo hardships on any particular sports organizations. The recommendations Koegler suggested include, the staggering of game times by 15 minutes, something that was tried with limited success in approximately 1997. The expansion of parking lot #4, after working out the details with the Watershed, which will add an additional 76 spaces. Taking it a step further, Koegler expressed the possibility of managing the park and use of its facilities consistent with the available parking threshold. The desire would be to create an excessive parking supply, with a 25% excess, which can be adjusted as needed. One final note, Koegler reiterated to the Sports Organizations that the Park Commission views them as partners in this effort. To that end, the Commission invites them to pencil in July 23, 2002, for an evaluation meeting night in which draft recommendations for Freeman Park and its future might be discussed. E. Questions and Answers Bill Sorteberg, of TUSA, admitted that TUSA may have contributed to the parking problem last year by allowing two extra groups to practice on a nightly basis, after their fields were damaged. He believed that TUSA usage numbers could be cut by one third on a nightly basis this year. Mr. Sorteberg added that the staggered start times of 6 and 7:15 P.M. will be used. John Seamans, Adult Softball, inquired whether staggering double headers was necessary since these games are played back to back typically. Brown indicated that a break was necessary for several reasons. First, the players need breaks to change fields if necessary; second, administratively, staggering all games will be required; and third, some people will be leaving the park even from double headers. Gordon Lindstrom, Adult Softball, asked if the organizations need to submit their schedules to the City or MCES and stated that they have no idea what other sports leagues are doing. Brown replied that the first step, staggering games, will be accomplished with MCES's help this year. In the future, the City will be investigating the best way to handle the scheduling and other issues. Brown believed it to be a good idea to supply the City with a copy of the schedules so that they know what's happening and can answer inquiries they receive. PARK COMMISSION AND SPORTS ORGANIZATION INFORMATIONAL MEETING Wednesday, March 20,2002 Page 4 of 6 replied that the first step, staggering games, will be accomplished with MCES's help this year. In the future, the City will be investigating the best way to handle the scheduling and other of issues. Brown believed it to be a good idea to supply the City with a copy of the schedules so that they know what's happening and can answer inquiries they receive. John Seamans, Adult Softball, pointed out how congested the "circle" is during drop off and pick up times, and inquired whether that area could be made into a one way. Brown stated that this was a great idea that would be further investigated. He added that South Lake Police, and the Fire Marshall, get very upset about cars parked in the fire lanes and insist that this change. Brown reiterated that the City will be requiring rosters, user fees, the memorandum agreement, and facility use agreement, stating that Twila Grout, Park Secretary, will be the main contact, with he as the backup. Mark Williams, STBB, asked if there was talk of coordinating user fees with other communities. He stated that with kids using parks in several communities, the league is being hit up for user fees everywhere. Brown felt this was an excellent question, adding that they are considering changing the fee structure to simply charging a team fee. Koegler asked Mr. Williams if they play in other jurisdictions and what they've been seeing occur. Williams replied that they play in three to four communities who are all wanting to collect their share. Brian Tichy, STBB, replied that they are collecting a flat fee, like Shorewood. Koegler clarified the point by asking if STBB is currently paying and charging their players to play in all of these different communities. Mr. Williams said that they are not doing so, yet, but it looks like they're headed in that direction. Koegler stated that this brings up an interesting dynamic not necessarily considered before. Puzak acknowledged that the Park Commission had considered this issue in a past meeting. They determined that the only alternative to make it truly equitable would be to install parking meters so that only people that are there are paying the fee. He stated that this was not received well by anyone, neighbors, participants, etc. Brown stated that he is open to suggestions regarding this issue and pointed out that what will probably occur at some point is a uniform application user fee all the way across. Administrator Dawson added, that the maintenance costs involved in running the parks far exceeds the user fees, which are merely used to offset expenses. Julie Deitering, Minnetonka Girls Softball Assoc., was concerned that some teams, like East Tonka Little League, may only use a field at Freeman Park one time during the season, and would be required to pay a user fee. She stated that they do not charge user fees at Bennett. Brown maintained that extensive surveys of those using the parks were performed. Specifically, East Tonka Little League, who said they only used the park once, were found using them often. Chair Amst asked if she could clarify this issue. She stated that based on the fact that East Tonka Little League was scheduled to reserve those fields every night from 5 - 9 P.M. five nights a week, whether or not it was the same team, is not the issue, its the fact that they have reserved that field for them. It is on this basis we charge them the user fee. The issue is not whether it's PARK COMMISSION AND SPORTS ORGANIZATION INFORMATIONAL MEETING Wednesday, March 20,2002 Page 5 of 6 looking between all the groups, the staggered scheduling is field by field. There are only so many spaces allotted per field per evening, we want a minimum 15- minute exchange for people to pick up and leave, while new people are entering the park. John Seamans, Adult Softball, stated that this is easily enough accomplished. The umpires can dictate the 15- minute spread. Brown maintained that this solution is the least obtrusive resolution we've come up with at this time. He continued that the City is hopeful this will be the easiest method to execute and monitor for success. Gordon Lindstrom, Adult Softball, claimed that in 1997 the staggered start times applied only to soccer. He maintained that Adult Softball never staggered its' times and merely rotated teams. Brown reiterated that with the limited success realized in 1997, this year, with all the leagues rotating, the results should be even more encouraging. Mr. Lindstrom felt that simultaneous starts made the most sense. Puzak repeated that simultaneous starts aren't the issue because, once again, the 15- minute staggered times are per field. Finally, Koegler pointed out that the one user not present at this evening meeting was the casual user. The park facilities must lend themselves to those casual users who do not participate in the active sports leagues and simply want to enjoy the trails or other facilities. He upheld that a balance must be struck which effectuates a few spaces for these individuals. Bill Sorteberg, TUSA, reiterated the suggestion for a one way area for drop off and pick up. 3. ADJOURNMENT Brown thanked everyone for attending the informational meeting, stating that he looked forward to a successful partnership. He closed the meeting at 8:07 P.M. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson RECORDING SECRETARY CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2002 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING RA , Chair Amst opened the work session at 7:02 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Arnst; Commissioners Palesch, Meyer, and Bartlett; City Engineer Brown; City Council Liaison Mayor Love Late Arrival: Commissioners Callies and Puzak Excused Absent: Commissioner Young B. Review Agenda 2. DISCUSS PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR 2003 Chair Arnst stated that the purpose of the evenings meeting was to give the Park Commission the opportunity to talk through ideas for better managing the Parks next year. Included in the packet is a memo submitted by Engineer Brown, which suggests alternatives and general tasks numbered one through eleven for the 2003 plan. Referring to the memo task number 2, Meyer asked if MCES, Minnetonka Community Education Services, held its annual scheduling meeting with the sports organizations as promised. Chair Arnst replied that, while no meeting was held, scheduling by MCES took place. Based on what they did last year, MCES went ahead and filled in the block scheduling for this season. Meyer questioned the reasoning behind this, after the City had indicated on several occasions their interest in attending the seasonal meeting. Chair Arnst agreed, the City, including herself, Meyer, and Twila Grout had asked to be included. This meeting, however, did not happen. Chair Arnst reminded the Commission that they agreed to work with MCES this year based on the premise that they would hold a public meeting for scheduling. It was our assumption that the meeting would happen. Palesch asked if the lack of a meeting could invalidate what MCES has done. She wondered why we could not state that MCES acted without authority and therefore not accept their work. With that, Chair Arnst reiterated the need to discuss other options this evening and introduced Engineer Brown. Brown reported that, over the past few days, he and staff had been examining alternatives. He spoke to other cities, researched tasks and the time commitment involved for scheduling, as well as, the coordination of ball - fields, and liaison services for the City. After incorporating the feedback from those cities with the issues facing Shorewood, he developed a list of tasks listed below, numbered 1 to 11. 1. Generating database 2. Preparation and conducting seasonal meetings with sport organizations 3. Issuance of agreements and rules 4. Collection, review and acceptance of agreements and rules 9-vgc_' PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Page 2 of 10 5. Perform the analysis of field dedication versus resources available 6. Receipt and review of team rosters 7. Generate, distribute, and track invoices for user fees 8. Issuance of "field permits" to utilize the facilities 9. Game cancellation notifications 10. Administrate tournament policies 11. Handle general field issues and complaints Other cities estimated that these tasks equate to approximately 150 - 225 person hours each spring and fall season. They also reminded Brown that "You get out of it what you put into it." Briefly Brown cited the three alternatives. The first alternative, to continue with MCES, who has not provided the continuity of communication or services that the City of Shorewood desires, has been deemed unsatisfactory. The second alternative is to contract services out to an independent contractor. Brown stated that this alternative may be cost effective, providing the communication and operating controls the City desires. He added that by providing a clear list of expectations in the RFP, request for proposals, the requirements of the contractor can be made up front. The third option is to provide these services "in house." Brown noted at various times during discussions of Park Management, the topic of increasing the Park Secretary, Twila Grout's, position to include park - scheduling duties has been discussed. As indicated in Brown's memo, currently, Twila has already been devoting almost 50% of her time performing park duties, rather than the budgeted 25 %. With the perceived burden of an additional 150 to 225 hours per season, it is unlikely that the Park Secretary position can handle the additional responsibility. Brown maintained that if the service were to be an in house service, additional staff would be required to perform such duties. However, based on the current financial constraints of the park system, it is unlikely that a full time position could be substantiated. Therefore Brown pointed out that the City is faced with either contracting services, or hiring a part time Park Coordinator to carry out these tasks. Mayor Love voiced his concern over properly inventorying the Park Secretary's time. If she has been spending half of her time working on Park matters, the budget should be amended to reflect these numbers. The Mayor continued that while Twila has been performing many of the tasks in the memo, originally, the Park Foundation was set up to do so. The Park Foundation was to function with the cooperation of Sports Organizations. Due to the sports organizations lack of involvement, the Park Foundation was restructured. Meyer questioned who currently performs these bullet point tasks. She pointed out that after numerous meetings with MCES, the only areas she felt they were fulfilling were items 1 and 2, generating a database and conducting the seasonal meeting, which did not occur. Mayor Love stated that some confusion exists over the user fees and park regulations. Brown stated that is why the City held the Sports Organization Information meeting in order to clear up any confusion among the organizations in the first place. • PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Page 3 of 10 • Chair Amst reported that in the meetings held with MCES, very pointed questions were asked to find out what they do. The answer MCES kept repeating was that all they do is scheduling and hold the annual scheduling meeting, which did not happen. Mayor Love asked if the City has created a situation where administering the permit user fee outweighs the benefit of what's generated. Chair Amst indicated that the process remains, someone needs to administer and collect all the paperwork, and the fee collection does not detract from that fact. Brown pointed out that 50 - 60 hours were spent last year collecting rosters. He then suggested a simplified approach of collecting a team user fee. Mayor Love agreed that the argument for a team fee, which would simplify collection and be less labor intensive, is persuasive. Brown stated that the user fee just changed to $10, and it might be a good idea to let the dust settle before changing to a team fee. He added, however, that sports organizations are now becoming more familiar with user fees across the board. Meyer again questioned what capacity MCES fills. Brown replied that they fulfill tasks 1, 2, and possibly, 5 to a degree. Chair Arnst asked if this list of tasks represents a baseline, or general job description for a part-time position or contractor. She complimented Brown, stating that the list provides the City with a basis of what is needed. Callies arrived at 7:31 P.M. Palesch referenced the first alternative, remaining with MCES, and stated that she would vote not to go with them. Chair Arnst asked if all present were in agreement, to which everyone replied they were. Brown countered that, while MCES did not put together what the City required, it did have to spend time contacting the sports organizations to confirm the scheduling. Callies stated that adding additional responsibility to the Park Secretary position or staff was unfair. Mayor Love agreed, stating that Grout is already overworked and "maxed out ". Brown reiterated that due to the number of issues at hand, Grout has been spending a great deal of time on Parks, which causes her other responsibilities to slip. Brown acknowledged that what remains are the other two options, either hiring a part time person at $15,000 - $18,000 to handle this, or contracting someone to provide these services. Mayor Love asked whether a specific RFP could be put together or if an intern could handle the responsibility. Brown discouraged the use of an intern for this position due to the intensive re- education element and short-term nature of the intern position. Mayor Love found the idea of an independent contractor an attractive solution. Brown answered that definitely the position could be attractive to a contractor who could work from home, as long as the City was comfortable with it. Palesch believed that a number of people in varying positions would be interested in providing this service. Chair Amst suggested putting together an RFP and/or an ad for a part time position. Meyer asked if the City had a preference over a part time or contracted person. Chair Arnst believed that a contractor could meet the requirements more cost effectively than hiring a part time employee of the City. Mayor Love suggested that the Commission generate a list of the problems and what it wants done, not alone but together with the City Council at a joint meeting, in order to answer questions and agree upon a solution. Chair Arnst believed that the list provided in the memo is what the Commission has been 10 talking about, and stems from the many discussions of what we need. She stated that these are the issues PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Page 4 of 10 that the Commission faces, that Twila Grout and staff faces, those that have been missing in trying to deal with the sports organizations and balance the use of the parks. Mayor Love asked how Twila's time would be effected taking away these responsibilities, and by doing so, is there some measurable goal to see if staff has spent less time. He pondered if she would revert to her regular quarter time schedule. Brown answered that he would assume that would be quite possible. The Mayor believed that if they were to choose one of these options, there would need to be a measurable goal of Twila spending less time on Park issues. Brown stated that those goals could be realized rather quickly, as Twila would not need to be spending all of her time tracking down organizations. Brown did caution that over the past two years, the Park Commission has been more active than ever before. Therefore, Brown could not attribute the entire 25% increase in time strictly to sports organizations. Chair Arnst asked how overseeing the Concessions would effect Twila's time allotment. Brown pointed out that the Concessions would be a joint effort between he, Charlie Davis, and Twila Grout. Chair Amst observed that the responsibilities would be spread around. Brown added that if a part time position were created in house, it would be nice to add some of the concession duties to the job description. Chair Arnst then inquired over the amount of time required of a contractor or part timer for sports scheduling. Brown indicated that the obvious early spring and fall scheduling hours would be required, along with a spattering of hours throughout the seasons. Brown stated that every City he spoke to reported that they were in direct contact with their sports organizations two or more times a week during the season. Although the crunch time would occur in the spring and fall, Brown maintained that it is more than a twice a year position. Handling the coordination of tournaments etc., problems, and weather related issues would require more time. Meyer added that, to her knowledge, these were not things MCES was doing currently. Mayor Love asked what size City's Brown had been in communication with. Brown identified Chanhassen, West St. Paul, and Mendota Heights, who all had the resources to bring the position in house. Mayor Love stated that he could see the appeal of an independent contractor, someone who could be evaluated in a year and discontinued if need be. No real commitment exists as in the case of an employee. Mayor Love then asked if conversations had taken place with Excelsior about their Park needs. Brown stated that they hadn't pursued this avenue because Excelsior has no real need for field scheduling. Mayor Love voiced his desire to discuss the regional problems faced by Cities with regional parks to encourage a cooperation amongst cities. While Chair Arnst appreciated the effort, she did not want to slow the process of restoring balance to our parks. Mayor Love, on the other hand, did not want to see the City expending its resources heading down one path, when the eventual goal is to look at things in a broader picture. Brown pointed out that he had taken that avenue with Tonka Bay and Excelsior in regard to a Rink Supervisor. A partnership that failed after the ice went bad for Tonka Bay. Brown added that, after meeting with other communities last year, there was not much buy -in for the concept of joining efforts for sports scheduling. Meyer stated that last summer steps were taken when the City met with Deephaven, Excelsior, and others only to find little support for a joint Park Coordinator. Mayor Love believed that those meetings focused on field design rather than the broader issue of parks and what kinds of problems or staffing they could use. Meyer pointed out that in the meetings she was referring to, the City of Chanhassen's Park Manager was present as a resource, while they discussed the Park Manager position with the other Cities. She added that Administrator Dawson was also present. Mayor Love stated that he was not present at those PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Page 5 of 10 meetings. Brown continued that the individual cities present at that meeting did not understand the problems that Shorewood faced, nor bought in to how it affected them. Chair Arnst asked if staff could develop a specific job description and budget for the position, followed by writing an ad and an RFP to check response. Brown suggested they pursue placing the ad first, then wrestle the issues down, and get response from that before writing an RFP. Chair Arnst maintained that task #2 on the memo should remain a part of the City's responsibilities. Her intention was that last weeks sports organization meeting would be the first annual staff driven meeting. Brown agreed that this is an important informational meeting reinforcing the relationship with the City. Mayor Love questioned whether task items #9 - 11 would remain City or contracted responsibilities. He viewed these items as somewhat on -call needs. In the case of tournament policy enforcement, that duty should remain public works. Chair Arnst asked if Brown would remain the enforcer of policy. Brown believed that the up front paper, phone work, and follow -up would be part of the part time position, however, public work would enforce policy. Meyer reiterated that the service position would not be responsible for surprise inspections and enforcement's. Mayor Love agreed that the position must have realistic expectations bestowed upon it. Chair Arnst pointed out that from a practical standpoint, Brown and Davis, of Public Works, have been the authority figure at the parks and should remain so. Puzak arrived at 8:14 P.M. Mayor Love asked that the discussion be brought to Council before any ads are run in order to have the issues heard, voted upon, and whatever the solution, the Commission has total buy -in from the Council. Chair Arnst voiced her concern that if Council votes down the three alternatives what else is there. Mayor Love stated that he believes that in reality, only two options exist, and it is only prudent that the Commission divides the 11 tasks into specifics and present their idea to Council. Mayor Love asked to see concrete end goals of where the Commission is going with these alternatives and how to measure the results. He felt confusion exists between the Council and Commission. Chair Arnst was unclear where confusion could possibly exist after the process that has been followed. Callies interjected that step one seems to be to her to look at getting someone else to provide our scheduling services, either by an ad or RFP. This recommendation should then be sent to Council for their input. She believed that what Mayor Love, and Council, is stating is that they would like to hear our recommendation, whether they will or will not agree with it, they would like to give us their input before we proceed. Chair Arnst was concerned that if the answer from Council was no, what the next step might be. Callies suggested that the Commission face that hurdle when they come to it, and not before. Mayor Love stated that he wasn't indicating that there would not be support, however, he has heard that budgeting might be an issue. He added that in the long run it would be better to take a path that we've all agreed on. Furthermore, he added that tonight he walks away with a better idea of some things than before. Puzak stated that we have no budget, there is no money budgeted for this position. Chair Arnst pointed out that, while this is correct, they would be requesting money for the 2003 budget. Mayor Love stated that the budget can be amended to reflect what and where the dollars are, money might merely need to be moved around. Brown indicated that the budget process begins in July and, in this case, we have the chicken and egg scenario. We need to advertise to solicit response and interest from people, while we go through the budget cycle. PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Page 6 of 10 Chair Arrest suggested staff specifically define the position and tasks, get an idea of the costs, and solicit informal responses. Brown stated that once the budget is approved, the ads could be run. Callies asked when a person would start in the position. Brown indicated that a person would need to be on line by Mid - January. Meyer asked what the costs might be and if the position would be hourly. Brown stated that logically the position would probably be billed hourly not to exceed a certain amount. Puzak stated that before anyone is hired the Commission needs to write down what's being done, what we want changed, what we want done, and then we have to figure out if getting from point A to point B is worth any money. Brown interjected that before Puzak arrived this evening, Brown had shared that staff had contacted a few other Cities to get their feedback on the tasks of their Park Position and reconciled those with Shorewood's issues as reflected by his memorandum. Chair Arnst identified the tasks numbered #1 - 8 as those that would make up the skeleton of the position. Callies mentioned that one additional issue exists that is not contained in the memo. The issue of equity of allocation of field usage should be added. Mayor Love agreed that if this problem exists, then it becomes a policy issue, one that needs to be addressed by Council. Chair Arrest pointed out that, according to MCES, the equity issue and field use balance, should be able to be addressed at the seasonal sports meeting. Brown stated that an equity process tries to divide the fields proportionately. There is only a finite number of jellybeans, or fields, and the object is to divide them up proportionately so that everyone leaves equally unhappy because we have more kids than jellybeans. Puzak maintained that we couldn't hold the sports scheduling meeting independently without the other parks present. Brown agreed that, while we don't know if we want to be the umbrella for everyone and it is hard to coordinate, we need to become an umbrella operation for our fields with all the growing pains that go along with it. Puzak cautioned that he did not want to be the first City to help tip over the MCES organization by withdrawing from it. MCES might decide they are through struggling with this issue if others follow. Brown pointed out that we are not the first, Chanhassen withdrew and has its own scheduling meeting. Meyer added that Bennett does the same thing. Mayor Love pointed out that if equity is a matter of just one team, that can be handled readily; but if the deeper question is, that we don't have the resources to meet all of the demands of the adults, kids, and special education groups we have, we reserve the right to express a voice in this to see that its being met. On the other hand, in some of the conversations he's had with other City's, he's heard some attitudes he didn't like. For instance, the view of Chanhassen, who runs their own meeting, is that if they were having the difficulties Shorewood is facing they would tell those people not to play on their fields. Mayor Love stated that he wants to avoid adopting this same parochial view. While we have the right to make sure that our voices are being heard and our resources are being used to meet the greatest demand of our South Shore residents, we need to be sure to stay at the table with others. Mayor Love also pointed out to Puzak that we would not be the first to withdraw from MCES, in fact, four others before us have done so. He added that the scheduling facet is only a small part of MCES's value. It is a great organization, which has accomplished many great things, although they may have failed to meet the expectations that we had. Callies questioned how big an issue equity is. Mayor Love was unclear whether it involved only girls' softball or if it is a bigger issue. Chair Arnst pointed out that in this case the girl's softball league is made up of 520 girls and is currently the only equity issue that we know about. Last fall Southwest Christian Academy inquired over field use. Chair Arnst asked whether we need to define a policy based on the number of kids that exist in a league. Mayor Love stated that while he has no facts on the matter, if there is an equity issue that is a big deal to him. Chair Arnst pointed out that fields 1, 2, and 3 are baseball and 4, 5, and 6 are softball. Puzak asked if the girls softball league is on the field use list at all. PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Page 7 of 10 Chair Arnst replied that they are scheduled on their practice field, however, had asked for more Freeman time for their games. Puzak stated that if they were at the meeting and this is what they negotiated they got a pretty good deal. Meyer and Chair Arnst reiterated that no MCES meeting took place. Puzak could not address how, without the sports MCES scheduling meeting, this field use inventory got drafted. Brown maintained that they have a long way to go to determining equity and policy decisions, a subject that won't be decided upon tonight. Brown stated that an individual in the contracted position would begin to understand the issues related to scheduling over time. Guidelines would need to be established by staff to determine this better at a later date. Brown believed, however, that equity was irrelevant to this evening's discussion. Callies disagreed, stating that equity is one key issue that MCES failed in and we need to determine other issues and policies before we hire someone else unless we want them to fail as well. Mayor Love stated that this issue would be dealt with, either individually or by policy. Chair Arnst noted that this and other matters would need to be discussed at another time. Brown reminded the Commission that the purpose of this work session was to discuss Step 1; what alternatives are there, get buy -in or feedback from Council, get the budgeting, and then further define the policy issues. Palesch suggested investigating the possibility of recruiting a team of volunteers to assist with the position. Mayor Love questioned the prospect of blending responsibilities with MCES. He wondered if this could offer a viable alternative and suggested staff look into this further. Mayor Love believed that Minnetonka currently blends responsibilities with MCES, allowing them to do they're scheduling. Palesch inquired whether the group of Park Commissions from across the country that we joined might have any further suggestions. Staff will investigate. Chair Arnst inquired over the next step. She asked if Mayor Love would be hosting the Joint Meeting that he had suggested with the Park Commission and Council. Mayor Love recommended clearly defining what the needs and goals are, and then the alternatives that the Commission sees for accomplishing those, to what measurable degree, then offer a dialogue in which a problem and solution can be agreed upon. Puzak suggested putting into effect an equity policy to ensure there is some fair way to schedule. He was very hesitant to get into scheduling and would like to see us help MCES be successful. Mayor Love suggested that the Commission move forward with the opportunity to find a better way to expand our partnership with other cities. Puzak created his own field equity equation to look at the usage, before realizing that some information was contained on the other side of the sheet, which he thought might be used to assist in considering equity. For argument sake, Meyer added that in some instances, people might be interested in equity on their side of town. Puzak disagreed heartily. Meyer admitted this was an exaggeration, but maintained that equity is a larger issue. Chair Arnst stated her concern, that if MCES this year, of all years, was not aware of the City's concerns and our expectations they never will be. We were in three meetings with them, following a thorough PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Page 8 of 10 process, where we very clearly told them what it is that troubled the City, equity was one and process is was another. These meetings were with the head of MCES. Chair Arnst believed they could not have made it clearer what their concerns were and continues to have a concern not just over equity, but also the process that they used to come up with it. In a year when they know they are under scrutiny, MCES still arbitrarily chose to can process and produce this product. She believed strongly that there is no way the City could ever make them to be held accountable. She added that even at the Sports Organization Information meeting they were shocked that we would ask them to watch the schedules. Puzak asked how do we fix MCES. Chair Amst replied that it is not the City's job to manage MCES. The Commission has been clear with them, and for whatever reason, they have not heard us, or perhaps they can't do, it. Mayor Love stated that while he has no reason to defend MCES, however, he does need to take a look at what our resources are and what our goals are and how do we know when we have succeeded when we got there. The failure with this giant MCES organization, as the Mayor could see it, is that they have failed to listen to us. Chair Arnst noted that our scheduling is just a miniscule piece of what they do, what MCES really does is programs, and this is just unimportant in the scheme of things. Chair Amst stated, once again, that the next step is to meet with the Council, having defined our needs, defined our goals, and defined alternatives. Puzak added define the problem, to which Chair Arnst reiterated that is what the needs address. Puzak disagreed, stating that in his view, if there are needs and they are already being met, there is no problem. He would like to hear it in terms of a problem that needs to be solved. Mayor Love pointed out that we are back to the eleven things on the memorandum. Puzak insisted that these are things that MCES doesn't do. Chair Arnst stated that is the problem. Puzak maintained that they'd never do these things and insisted that hiring someone to do them wouldn't happen either. Mayor Love felt it fair to say that if the Park Commission, and he believed the Council, could agree that these are important, the needs could be something we could all come together on. Puzak stated that he wouldn't give anyone $5.00 for generating a database. Commissioner Meyer and the Mayor both agreed, and found it interesting that generating the database is the one thing that MCES said they do. Mayor Love once again pointed out that if the Commission and Council could agree that these were important tasks, then we know what needs to be covered, and we could determine what our available resources are, be it money or staff, to get it done. Puzak repeated that he did not want to waste one more meeting, one more special meeting, or one more minute on this subject. Puzak maintained that he has never heard of a problem. Palesch stated that he might not want to hear the problem. Puzak did not see the need to acquire a database, nor did he see why the seasonal meeting was on the list as it was already done by the City. Mayor Love stated that, in fairness, prior to Puzak's arrival, the Commission already removed items 2, and 9 - 11 as items that could not be put to another organization. As he addressed the remaining items, Puzak persisted in his belief that it wasn't worth fixing the problems. He maintained that he would not spend any money in order to solve the problem he doesn't see exist. Callies noted that while she can appreciate that Puzak does not see the problem, there are five others here this evening that do and have a different view, and are not about to stop everything simply because one of the group disagrees. Puzak then asked what happened to the last three votes in which they voted not to do anything this year. To which everyone replied they are not meeting to discuss this year, instead they are working on getting a bigger budget for 2003. Puzak then asked why they are meeting on this subject now. He suggested waiting until the end of the summer and see how it goes and talk about it next fall. Chair Arnst indicated that fall would be too late, the budget process begins in July. She added that the motions that the Commission made held them accountable to come up with a plan by July 1 st in order to incorporate it PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Page 9 of 10 • into the budget process of 2003. Mayor Love interjected that he believed it useful to begin talking about it now, setting the goals, determining what paths we might choose to take and budgeting for it. Setting up an excellent direction for next year. He stated that, while he can understand some of the problems that MCES has had, (not defending them), on the other hand, they are not meeting expectations. This is a good chance to look at ourselves, our commitment, and look at the budgets we have and decide what we can solve. Maybe its all of the items, perhaps 2 or 3, but lets figure out what we are trying to solve so that we can evaluate them and start working towards solutions that we can point to. The Mayor appreciated the attempt to start the discussion early and begin the dialogue ahead of time with an outline of discussion points. Puzak reiterated that he still does not understand the problem. First, he said the problem was parking, to which they spent $3,000 - $5,000 to study the parking; and now, it's the whole equity issue, which he is willing to look at, but it's a moving target and he was unsure what needs fixing. Chair Arnst asked Brown to confirm that staff generated the outline of what they need to help them in the memorandum which Brown presented this evening. Brown agreed. With this in mind, Chair Arnst cited eighteen issues which she pulled out of the minutes from the last joint Council and Commission meeting regarding scheduling and MCES, some of which did involve parking and traffic which we've worked on, but other things keep cropping up. Chair Amst maintained that as stewards of the park they ought to create a balance and have a grasp on the management. We ought to be able to solve our own problems without having to rely on MCES communicating with us in a timely fashion. She agreed these issues do act like moving targets. Brown stated that "the moving target" analogy fits because all of these issues are interrelated and we get an opportunity to concentrate on one of them at a time. Now it may seem we are concentrating on administrative problems because we just had our sports information meeting and its fresh off the press. Brown maintained that by focusing on one issue at a time, the issues of managing parking, field equity, and how people get in and out are not diminished. He noted that these are all interrelated because it is the whole administration of our parks. Brown stated that it just so happens that tonight we are trying to chip away at the "pink elephant" in the room, one bite at a time, and this just so happens to be the bite that we chose. We will be going down the list of all the issues, to start to try and sort through this, and it's going to get messy. He concluded that we have to start somewhere. Palesch agreed wholeheartedly that the Park Commission needs to regain "control" of the Parks. Mayor Love reasoned that "balance" would be a better goal than micromanaging. He continued that while he does agree there are problems at Freeman, he does not buy into all of them, and hopes that Puzak hears that as well. He agreed that the energy that staff has been expending on Parks could be put to better use. Chair Arnst pointed out that the Park Commission has completed two very big steps. They have accomplished the parking and feasibility study and held the first annual user group meeting. Brown agreed, stating that the results of those will be used in addressing equity issues. Once again, he referenced his jellybean analogy earlier, everyone wants proportional space but we need to fit together the pieces with equal dissatisfaction. Puzak stated that he simply views the problem as parking. One that will be solved once we get the additional 50 parking spaces the City is negotiating with the Watershed. With 50 more spaces, they is should be able to have simultaneous uses of all fields. He suggested focusing our energy here, and not on scheduling. In Puzak's opinion, this is step one, which will solve the scheduling issues if we just look at PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Page 10 of 10 it at the end of the year. Mayor Love maintained that, while they are close to negotiating the additional 50 spaces, these are not all it will take to solve everything. Brown reiterated the team user fee concept versus roster collection, which required 50 - 60 hours of Twila's time last year. Puzak alleged that we shouldn't have wasted our time doing so, and instead should have just taken what we got and not tracked the rest down. Mayor Love believed that if the collection process was that complicated we need to simplify it, as discussed earlier tonight. Assessing a fee based on the average size roster seemed to the Mayor a good compromise. Puzak argued that the organizations do not have their rosters in the first one to two months of the year and cannot pay the user fees Director Burton wants to have billed in January. Meyer asked whether registration still takes place in November and why it is so difficult to pay based on an average roster size. Mayor Love agreed that once the rosters were then filled later, credits could be distributed etc. Puzak asked why we just couldn't work with these (sports organization) people. He stated that the Sports organizations would help us out with anything if we just ask them, or they can make our lives miserable too. Mayor Love appreciated Puzak's comments, adding that the City is well on its way to forming partnerships with its user groups. The Work Session closed at 9:28 P.M. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson RECORDING SECRETARY 0 • • • CITY OF MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SO 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 474 -3236 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhaII @ci.shorewood.mn.us Brian Tichy /Gordy Lindstrom Brad Nielsen 22 March 2002 RE: Ball Field Improvements — Freeman Park FILE NO.: 405 (Parks — Freeman) This is to document the work that South Tonka Baseball is authorized to perform at Freeman Park, per our on -site meeting yesterday. Based upon the Park Commission's direction, you will: 1. Replace the chain link top of the Field 3 batting cage with netting similar to the cages on Field 2. 2. ` Place safety tubing on the top rail of the outfield fences (as your budget allows). You will attempt to locate green tubing. Otherwise a blue similar to the scoreboard will be used. 3. Install warning tracks for Fields 2 and 3, under Larry Brown's supervision, after road restrictions. You agree to correct any damage that may occur to the irrigation system. I suggest you contact Larry as early as possible once the snow is gone (it should be by July!) to schedule an on -site meeting with him. 4. Replace the chain link mesh on the end of the Field 3 batting cage and install a bottom rail to hold the chain link in place. 5. Fill in chain link mesh on the south end of the third base dugout and the west end of the first base dugout on Field 1. 0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER S2.7 Memorandum Re: Park Improvements 22 March 2002 • 6. Install tension wires at the bottom of the fencing of the batting cage at Field 2. 7. Remove the temporary scorers booth behind the Field 2 backstop. Future use of this type of structure at tournament time will require Park Commission approval. 8. Install taller steel poles along the third base side of Field 2 for future awning (awning subject to revised CUP). 9. Extend steel poles on third base side of Field 2 between backstop and batting cage , and install netting to contain foul balls. We will: 1. Schedule a public hearing for the May Planning Commission to discuss revising the CUP to allow awnings over the dugouts at Fields 1 and 2 instead of the roof structures previously approved. Since the Planning Commission will no doubt rely on the Park Commission's input, we will also schedule this for formal Park Commission recommendation at one of their April meetings. 2. Design some type of directional signage for the south and north entries to the Park at Eureka Road, in conjunction with the closing of the Highway 7 access. This • will likely be similar to DNR brown signs with off white lettering. 3. Determine where a scoreboard can be located on Field 1, using survey information on file at City Hall. Based upon that location (at least five feet from any property line), you will return to the Park Commission with a plan showing the size and design. Based on the Commission's recommendation, you will apply for a sign permit from the City Council. 4. Place this memorandum on the City Council's consent agenda for 25 March, since Council approval of certain items was suggested. Thank you submitting a detailed project list and for taking the time to meet with me on the site. It is always useful to see where the actual work will take place. If you have any questions relative to any of the above, please call me at 952- 474 -3236. Cc: Park Commission Craig Dawson Larry Brown Brian Tichy • -2- • MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO. Park Commission Brad Nielsen 11 March 2002 South Tonka Baseball Projects 405 (Parks) Our office has been asked to review and comment on a list of projects proposed by South Tonka Baseball. Although some of the suggested improvements are quite simple and require no extraordinary approval processes, all items on the list should be subject to Park Commission approval. Following are items which require some level of approval or permit: b� ✓• Fencing. Any new fences or extensions of existing fences require a fence permit. Historically we have not charged a permit fee for this work. This includes the extension of the netted area along the property line intended to keep foul balls off of private property. Prior to issuance of such a permit, staff would want to know that the Park Commission has approved of the locations. • Scoreboards. These would require a sign permit approved by the City Council. The sign could not contain any advertising and the Park Commission should recommend the size, design and location to the City Council. \ • Dugouts. South Tonka received a conditional use permit to construct two dugout shelters on Field #1 and one shelter on Field #2. A variance for a second dugout on Field #2 was denied. The approval of the C.U.P. was based upon a specific design and certain construction materials. The use of tarps for these dugouts would require a modification to the C.U.P., and would involve a new public hearing. • Scorers booth. Any new buildings require a conditional use permit. The Planning Commission would undoubtedly want the Park Commission's recommendation on this item. Construction of the booth itself would require a building permit. • Memorandum Re: South Tonka Projects 11 March 2002 • • Signs /banners. When Shorewood's current zoning regulations were adopted in the mid 1980's, the City specifically chose not to allow advertising signs in parks. This is in keeping with a relatively restrictive sign policy for the City as a whole. Keeping in mind that parks are located in residential zoning districts, neither business signs or advertising signs are allowed. Even in commercial zoning districts, signage is limited in number, area and size. Advertising signs are only allowed where the product or service is actually offered on the property. This policy has been the basis for the elimination of three out of seven previously existing billboards (we are still working on the others). According to the City Attorney, a change in this policy complicates our enforcement of the sign regulations. In other words, if it's alright for the City to display such signs, why not home occupations? Why couldn't homeowners rent space to businesses? Nevertheless, if the Park Commission is interested in pursuing this concept, the following sections of the Shorewood Zoning Code would have to be amended: - 1201.03 Subd, l l.b.(2)(d)(Prohibited Signs) would have to be changed to allow banners, pennants, etc.beyond what is allowed for a temporary sign permit (one sign, seven days at a time, twice in any 12 -month period). - 1201.03 Subd. l Lb. (2)(f) would have to be changed to allow signs to be attached in any manner to trees fences utility poles..... • - 1201.03 Subd. 11.c.(3) would have to be changed unless no signs were placed on any of the fences along the west side of the park (a five -foot setback is currently required from property lines. - 1201.03 Subd. 11.c.(4) would have to be changed to extend the time limit for portable signs, banners, pennants, etc. beyond seven days at a time, twice in any 12 -month period. - 1201.03 Subd. l 1.d.(1)(c) would have to be modified, eliminating billboards and advertising signs from the list of "prohibited signs ". - 1201.03 Subd. 11.e.(1) would have to be changed to allow advertising signs or banners within residential districts. The Planning Commission would hold a public hearing to consider this amendment. Their recommendations, comments from the public, and the Park Commission's recommendations would be considered by the City Council. Approval of the amendments would require a simple majority vote by the City Council. • Batting cages. Although it can be argued that the level of activity associated with a batting cage would warrant higher scrutiny, we have treated these in the past as simple fence permits. Prior to issuing such a permit staff would want the Park Commission's approval of the proposed location. • -2- Memorandum Re: South Tonka Projects 11 March 2002 • It is hoped that this memorandum will serve to avoid future misunderstandings regarding the various City approval processes. If there are any questions relative to anything herein or if you would like further clarification, please do not hesitate to ask. Cc: Mayor and City Council Planning Commission South Tonka Baseball • r� -3- • CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 474 -3236 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityha11@ci.shorewood.mn.us • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Park Commission Craig Dawson, City Administrator FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works DATE: April 4, 2002 RE: Setting Date for Public Information Meeting For Freeman Park Parking Lot/South Access Closure After many months of discussion with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), it appears that approval is likely for the Freeman Park Parking Lot and South Access Closure Improvement Project at the next MCWD meeting. Based on final feedback provided by MCWD and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN/DOT), the final touches to the plans are being completed. As such Staff will be presenting the plans to the Park Commission and City Council for review and approval in April. Staff is recommending that a public information meeting date be set for Monday, April 29, 2002, from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., at Shorewood City Hall. Staff will seek input from the City Council and Park Commission during their regular meetings, to determine if this date is acceptable. ��® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER C"