Loading...
031202 PK AgPCITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002 7:30 P.M. • AGENDA 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING A. Roll Call Youn Meyer Puzak Callies Bartlett Arnst Palesch B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of February 12, 2002(Att. - #2A Draft Summary) 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 4. REPORTS A. Report on City Council Meeting of March 11, 2002 Meeting i 5. DISCUSS LITTLE LEAGUE REQUESTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS(Att.45) 6. DISCUSS OPTIONS FOR REVIEWING SCHEDULING PLAN FOR 2003 7. CONCESSION STAND PROPOSAL (Att. - #7) 8. PARK MASTER PLANNING (Att.48) A. South Shore Community Park 9. DISCUSS CONCEPT OF SATURDAY PARK TOURS FOR 2002. 10. DISCUSS SETTING SECOND MEETING DATE FOR MAY 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. ADJOURNMENT Council Liaison: March: Arnst April: Meyer C� CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • PARK COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2002 7:30 P.M. MINUTES pst CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Chair Arnst called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Arnst; Commissioners Meyer, Bartlett, Puzak, Callies, Young and Palesch; City Administrator Dawson; City Engineer Brown; and City Council Liaison Lizee B. Review Agenda Chair Arnst moved item #6; discussion regarding the Minnetonka Community Education Services proposal, before Reports, item #4, due to Commissioner Callies need to leave early. Meyer moved, Puzak seconded, approving the Agenda as amended. Motion passed 7/0. C. Introduction of New Members Chair Arnst welcomed new Commissioners Bartlett and Palesch. • 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTE A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of January 8, 2002 Puzak moved, Callies seconded, approving the Minutes of January 8, 2002, as submitted. Motion passed 7/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. 4. DISCUSSION REGARDING MINNETONKA COMMUNITY EDUCATION SERVICES PROPOSAL Chair Arnst took a moment to review the history between MCES and the City of Shorewood for the new Commissioners. She pointed out that, as promised by MCES, a proposal was to have been given to the City by January 21, 2002, for review. The date was revised until February 1, 2002, with no avail. There still is no proposal on the table from MCES to date. Administrator Dawson interjected that the Community Education Director is out of the country until late next week and wouldn't have a proposal to submit until then. Lizee stated that the City Council recommended MCES be allowed to submit its proposal by the close of work Tuesday of next week. Chair Arnst cautioned that timeline constraints would mean that the Park Commission would not see the • proposal as a Commission until February 26 and the Council until March 11. She stated her concern over the availability of a back up plan. If the Commission does not approve the proposal at that late date, what are the ramifications, is there a plan B. Chair Arnst reiterated the need to have a Plan B in position. She questioned if Plan B would suggest that staff • and Engineer Brown take responsibility in house, either by hiring a director, which is outside the budget, or carry the burden themselves. Callies asked if the proposal they await from MCES includes more than scheduling. Puzak maintained that according to his recollection, the Commission already agreed to have MCES continue as it had done in the past this year. Meyer did not recall that an agreement had been reached over MCES doing the scheduling. Chair Arnst questioned whether staff could handle the added responsibility of the scheduling piece only. Brown replied that if it is a directive by the Commission and Council that staff does so they will have to try. He maintained that the added responsibility is more than merely shuffling around the scheduling. Callies asked if it was realistic to require Brown or the Park Secretary, Twila Grout, to take on even more responsibility than they have now. Brown repeated that it would be a vast challenge for staff and require a large commitment, especially the first year, but it could be possible. Meyer asked what added responsibilities would be required of staff. Brown replied that other than scheduling, the added duties would include the collection of insurance forms, communication accountability, user fee collection, the new memorandum agreement, and some special event coordination. These things were originally intended to flow through MCES. Lizee, once again, asked the question who do we want managing our parks, MCES, who has not even expressed interest, and who has not lived up to our expectations, by clearly mismanaging our parks in the past or do we enable our Park Commission to determine the alternatives. • Palesch wondered if MCES was paid for its services, and if not, she commented one gets what they pay for. Dawson mentioned that up until the past two years the City paid $3,500 annually to MCES for its services. Over the last two years, however, MCES has declined payment. Callies suggested that the Park Commission looks at other options, contacts other Cities to find out what they have done and make suggestions for down the road. Callies moved, Puzak seconded, that the City continue with MCES' basic scheduling services this year and investigate other avenues or create a plan of how to manage the Park system for next year. Palesch added that she believed the Commission should certainly look elsewhere. As a new Commissioner, and having reviewed many recent Minutes, she found it apparent that MCES does not want to do what the City is asking. Chair Arnst stated that the Park Commission has been aware of this problem for a long time and as stewards of the park, have discussed the MCES issues at every meeting over the past year. In her opinion, process has been followed as much as possible, always resulting in the same conclusion, which is that MCES is not responding to our needs, they did not even submit a proposal in a timely manner even after we invited them to. Chair Arnst declared that the City has been remiss, the citizens look to them to provide a pleasant and manageable experience and we've not done so. To go another year with MCES, puts staff in a compromising position. There have been problems with staff trying to manage the scheduling and MCES, and Chair Arnst was extremely disappointed that this relationship should continue. Meyer reiterated that, over the past year, many meetings have taken place with MCES that have revealed their • lack of interest. Callies agreed, however, stated she saw no other real alternatives for this year and felt further • investigation resulting in recommendations for 2003 was necessary. Puzak suggested putting a time limit of making recommendations to the Council by October. Chair Arnst called for a vote with an amendment to have recommendations by August. Dawson suggested that if potential budget implications would be tied to the recommendations these would need to accompany the proposed budget going to Council in mid to late July. Meyer amended the motion to have recommendations for Council by July 1st, 2002. Puzak seconded. Motion passed 4/3, with Palesch, Meyer and Chair Arnst dissenting. Callies left the meeting at 8:03 P.M. 5. REPORTS A. Report on City Council Meetings of January 14th, January 28th, 2002 and February 11, 2002 Brown reported that there was a resolution adopting the 2002 User Fee Schedule and a Resolution accepting the final improvements for the sewer and water project through Freeman Park. He pointed out that the project is nearly completed. The City Subdivision Ordinance draft was examined and passed at the subsequent meeting. Dawson added that there was an amendment to the Lawn Fertilizer Ordinance which moved the compliance dates back until next year. With that, Dawson expects great support in the Senate environment committee meeting later this week. Brown concluded the January 14th report with news that the Lake Linden Drive feasibility report was adopted. • In regard to Parks, Brown reported that the January 28th City Council Meeting focused on the hardcover limitations being examined by the Planning Commission. It also addressed the public safety site at 24140 Smithtown Road, immediately East of the public works facility, in which there was a comp plan amendment modifying the site from a low to medium residential site to a Public Purpose site. The EDA, Economic Development Authority, has been focused on giving the Cities the ability to finance that facility. Brown stated that at the February 11th meeting, Ted Shaw was appointed the MCES advisory board representative, spring clean -up day was discussed, and finally, approval was given to the final draft of the Subdivision ordinance. Dawson reported that the City of Tonka Bay was voting this evening whether to include the police department at the public safety site. The hope is that the conditional use permit will come up on the April or May agenda with some sort of ground breaking ceremony in late summer. The City Council also discussed establishing a ward system during its work session yesterday. The system would be staggered and instituted over the next few years. Dawson continued, adding that the Council looked at a draft list of priorities, which will likely be accepted at the next City Council Meeting and forwarded to the Commissions after that. Finally, Dawson invited the Commissioners to attend the Community Visioning Process Public Workshop, next Thursday February 21st from 7 - 8:30 P.M. at the South Shore Center. Chair Artist had one final question regarding the City Council Meeting of February 11th. She asked what the Council's rationale was for giving MCES an additional five days to submit their proposal at this point. Lizee replied that while she did not agree that there was a rationale for it, the position of the Council was to give MCES some leniency to get the report in. Dawson interjected that comments made last evening in support of standard or fair business practices dictate that notification be given and an opportunity for remedy be offered, i.e. five days. • 6. DISCUSSION OF PARK MANAGEMENT & PLANNING A. Review Freeman Park Field Inventory and Parking Study Without reviewing the entire proposal, Brown stated that the report pinpointed the problems at Freeman Park and offered several recommendations. The question of overuse versus the shortage of parking was addressed within the report. Brown agreed with the observation on page 5, that the concurrent use of all facilities creates a demand for parking that exceeds original expectations. The existing supply of 314 spaces will accommodate all of the facilities at a one space per participant standard assuming a reduction for youth activity. If managed correctly there should be enough parking. Brown went on to share the standards from surrounding communities. Brown then shared with the new members the State of Minnesota's requirement that the Freeman Park access to Highway 7 be closed. Through the State's cooperative agreement program, the City would be compensated approximately $52,000 for the closure and construction of the new parking lot. As of late, however, Brown pointed out that the Watershed District and the City have been in a debate over the necessity for ponding, which will treat the water running off the new parking lot. If they do not come to an agreement by July, the City may lose the money from the state. As displayed by the Koegler report, a solution to manage the parks, which includes the new parking lot, will need to be realized by July or we lose the state dollars. Meyer questioned, now that we've voted to use MCES, who will implement the recommendations. Are we going to rely on them to implement the 15- minute staggered start time. • Puzak viewed the July deadline as a high priority. He believed the potential loss of $50,000 was of great importance and wanted to see much effort put into solving the engineering issues that exist. Brown assured him that he and the Mayor are spending a great deal of time on this matter. . Palesch moved, Young seconded, to implement the four recommendations in the Koegler report as soon as possible. Palesch withdrew this motion and amended it to read as follows. Palesch moved, Meyer seconded, that the Commission recommend to Council that they direct staff to communicate to MCES the implementation of suggestion number one of the Koegler report for the 2002 season. Motion passed 6/0. Puzak moved, Palesch seconded, that the Commission ask staff and Council to focus their energy on expanding the overflow parking into lot 4 and negotiate as many spaces that water quality management will allow before the state deadline. Motion passed 6/0. Puzak moved, Palesch seconded, to accept the recommendations of the Koegler Report and keep items 3 and 4 in consideration as we move forward with the Park Management Process. Motion passed 6/0. B. Review Recommendations on Draft User Policies Brown presented the revised Draft User Policies for consideration. Puzak questioned whether the fine reflected in the policies prevents the City from collecting the damages incurred by people driving on the fields. Brown indicated this would not be an issue and is addressed elsewhere under motor vehicle prosecution. Puzak moved, Meyer seconded, to accept the revised facility use agreement and forward it to City 0 Council for implementation. Motion passed 6/0. • C. Review Ordinance for Motorized Vehicles Driving on Fields or Green Space Palesch moved, Meyer seconded, to accept the language changes of City Ordinance 801.06 Subd. 3 to raise the fine from $35.00 to $200.00, and Subd. 2 to include both striped and/or posted parking stalls. Motion passed 6/0. D. Review Park Management Matters Memo of January 8, 2002 Chair Arnst presented the Park Management Matters memo and timeline for discussion regarding park scheduling and asked for comment. The general consensus was to add the July 1st deadline. E. Discuss Mn Recreation & Park Association Membership Chair Arnst suggested membership to the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association. She indicated that a past park commissioner, Mark Themig, recommended the Agency and asked the Commission to discuss membership. At $250, she believed the program would be a valuable resource to the Commission. Palesch moved, Young seconded, that the Park Commission recommend joining the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association. Motion passed 4/2, with Meyer and Puzak dissenting. F. Discuss Other Ideas 7. DISCUSS/PRIORITIZE PARK COMMISSION GOALS FOR 2002 is Chair Arnst, in referring to bullet point two of the Park Goals memo, recommended adding the July 1st deadline once again. Other suggestions included, the completion of the Lake Linden Drive trail investigation, further exploration for concessions at Eddy Station, and the addition of a parking lot at Freeman Park. 8. CONSIDERATION OF SCHEDULE OF PARK LIAISONS TO CITY COUNCIL Park liaisons to Council meetings for 2002 were assigned to volunteers as follows: February Callies July Bartlett March Chair Arnst August Young April Meyer September Callies May Puzak October Chair Arnst June Palesch November Meyer December Puzak Both Chair Arnst and Engineer Brown suggested that the new Park Commissioners be given an orientation and consider attending a City Council meeting in advance of their liaison duties in order to observe the reporting process. 9. DISCUSS APPOINTMENT OF PARK LIAISON TO PARK FOUNDATION According to Administrator Dawson, a Park Commissioner must serve as one of the Directors to the Park • Foundation. With this in mind, Chair Arnst asked for volunteers. As no one volunteered at this time, she asked members to keep it under consideration until the next meeting. 10. RECOMMENDATION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR FOR 2002 • Meyer moved, Palesch seconded, to retain Chair Arnst as the Park Commission Chair Person. Motion passed 5 10 11, with Chair Arnst abstaining. Young moved, Meyer seconded, to retain Vice -Chair Puzak in his current position. Motion passed 5 10 11, with Puzak abstaining. 11. NEW BUSINESS Brown reported that minor damage had occurred at Eddy Station once again this past week, and that the ice at Cathcart had gone bad and been closed. Gordon Lindstrom, a representative from South Tonka Little League was in attendance, and asked when the March meeting with the sports organizations might occur. Chair Arnst could not give him a definitive date until the Park Commissions February 26th meeting in which the agenda and issues for that March meeting would be discussed. She hoped for the second or third week of March, before spring break. Lindstrom encouraged the Commission to set the date soon, due to the fact that some organizations will have already begun to schedule by then. 12. ADJOURNMENT Bartlett moved, Palesch seconded, adjourning the Regular Park Commission Meeting of February 12, 2002 at 9:17 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson RECORDING SECRETARY C] • Freeman Park / South Tonka Baseball Projects March 2002 Repairs Location Proiect Freeman Field #1 Repair and/or replace chain link fence on top of backstop Freeman Field #3 Repair fencing near both dugouts Improvements • Location Proiect Freeman Field #1 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 Freeman Field #1 Insert bar at bottom of fence at same end to keep fence from curling up Freeman Fields #2 & #3 Install warning track along fence to help prevent injury Freeman Field #2 Seed/straw infield in foul territory (also in August) Freeman Field #3 Remove old chain link fencing on top of batting cage (use netting to keep balls in cage) All Fields Install colored tubing on top of fence to help prevent injury Improvements by Permit Location Freeman Field #1 Freeman Field #1 Freeman Field #2 Freeman Field #2 Freeman Field #2 All Fields Cathcart Cathcart Location Freeman between Field #1 & #2 Freeman between Field #1 & #2 All Fields Proiect Use tarps similar to those used on field #2 for dugout roofs Approval to install new electronic scoreboard on field #1 Extend poles on 1" base side to height of backstop /utility poles (add netting to prevent foul balls from hitting spectators) Extend poles on 3' base dugout to allow adding tarp similar to that on first base dugout Approval for scorers booth behind backstop Placement of seasonal sponsor banners along fencing Install seasonal outfield fencing Install seasonal batting cage Shorewood Funded Improvements Proiect Blacktop path from parking lot at concession stand to Shorewood Oaks entrance Seed/straw grass area in August Add water spicket at concession stand near drinking fountain LI • Shorewood Parks Master Plan Review Step 2 South Shore Community Park 1. Current emphasis of the park: Facilities include: 0 Skate Park 2. Population served • Primarily youth 3. What are the deficiencies in service and /or opportunity? 4. Recommendations for further action: • CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 474 -3236 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityha1I @ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Park Commission, Mayor and City Council Craig Dawson, City Administrator FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works . DATE: March 8, 2002 RE: Consideration of Concession Operations at Freeman Park Hand in hand with the Eddy Station building has been the concept of running a concession business • from this building at Freeman Park. The "seasoned veterans" of the Park Commission are aware that the City is counting of concession revenue to pay for a portion of the capital outlay for the building. Not having a concessionaire operating out of Eddy Station is a negative impact for the budget of the building. Over the past two seasons, City Staff has solicited various vendors or organizations to run concessions at Eddy Station. To date, this has been to no avail. Therefore, Staff is proposing to bring the business in house. While the preliminary concept and operations have been discussed at length with the key Staff members that would be involved with this, final plans have not been compiled. At this point in time, the concept warrants the feedback of the Park Commission and City Council. While it is not the intent of this memorandum to layout all of the details that have been discussed, the primary operation would be conducted as follows: Operations • Twila Grout, Parks Secretary will schedule employees similar to what is being done with rink attendants • Charlie Davis, Parks Supervisor will manage the logistics of the building, equipment, and stocking of products and machines. • Funds collected at the close of the business day will be deposited in a drop safe. Mr. Davis will • help track inventory versus sales. 4 0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER • 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: i,\,✓• 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. b • 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. b • 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 92 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. 0 Memorandum Re: South Tonka Projects 11 March 2002 C. 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. 11. 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. I 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. l l.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. l l.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. 1 l.d.(1)(c) would have to be modified, eliminating billboards and advertising signs from the list of "prohibited signs ". - 1201.03 Subd, 1 Le. (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 is 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 • • -3- f LAKE "7 MINNETONKA C / � i I ` C PL . OF GREENWOOD GIDEON'S BAY Duac I ,� ,; �c , ; - ST ALBANS BAY G .•,•• �� �,, �XCELSIOR BAY �> ISLANa• Q o g .• G•••• �p ••.•. •,. PART i .a...........■ a ......... ■ MURRAY ST ►1 ``�A�P!N ...:: 1 ' BRAC I LA a a y + a ` ST / • s �y, sTl�as a y a I" HOLLY LA a. a a a y i a (1 a . `CITY OF SHOR W OD : %;, , CITY OF CHANHASSEN r ' No A PARK ' VINE ST • a y a a a • a 1St. ALBANS CIR ,• 2. CIR. d. y r •+ a \ . ti �. ``R�?#•., EXCELSIOR Bt-�' •' ��.� Lb sipa' l ��l 2. y - 1. a ` a - Cla WELD CIR g y�P a a a a a a a IILV kK a a y a t a ay a a EETY'R� V � sw c rel a a a a a a , a a • • • a ` a :� a ■� i : a z a COVINGTON CT r\ •_ ln4. • • • 1. ,�,N 1. CHESTNUT TER. 2. WHITNEY CIR. 3. ELBERT PT. A. McXINLEY PL. Y H1 y RDD . .p ■ ■ O ' ' ' HILLS W a . • 7t a U -• a a ■ : p ZE a • 2. y - 1. a ` a - Cla WELD CIR g y�P a a a a a a a IILV kK a a y a t a ay a a EETY'R� V � sw c rel a a a a a a , a a • • • a ` a :� a ■� i : a z a COVINGTON CT r\ •_ ln4. • • • 1. ,�,N 1. CHESTNUT TER. 2. WHITNEY CIR. 3. ELBERT PT. A. McXINLEY PL. • t L N z DO cf cr Ix U w o CO 0 0 OD CO 00 fn 1 6 \ % Concept Plan ��L ll T to A I ban Park • 0. 0 SHOREWQ 1. mini ramp 3'H x 12'Wx 221 2. launch ramp 2'H x 4'Wx 51 3. Quarter pipe 3'H x 8'Wx TL 4. half pyramid w1ledge 2'H x 19' W x 221 5.lcw box 1'Hx4'Wx81 B. straight rail 18 "H x 4'Wx 20'L 7. Law bank 3'Hx8'Wx8'L 6 6 t Park Commission • Mayor and City Council March 9, 2002 Page 2 of 2 Capital Outlay Staff has checked on typical products and requirements. In addition to the chips, candy and snacks, Staff is researching pricing and Minnesota Health Department requirements for the following: • Hot Dog roaster • Popcorn machine • Soda dispensers • Refrigerator /freezer The Health Department has specific requirements of the facility and appurtenances, dependant upon the types of products sold. These requirements are still being researched. Certainly there are pros and cons to the City bringing this type of operation in house. The pros are that the City will receive 100 percent of the profits. In addition, the employees conducting the business will be under the supervision of City Staff. Hopefully, this will minimize problems of the • operation. The cons are that the City will have to front the initial start up cost of the machinery and products. If approved in concept, Staff would return to the Park Commission and City Council with an abbreviated business plan showing the up front costs, loan payback schedules, and a forecast of revenue and expenditures. The action that is requested at this time is to provide feedback as to whether Staff should continue to develop the concession business plan for Eddy Station. Larry Brown will present this item at the meeting and provide a framework of the issues in greater detail. •