Loading...
010802 PK AgPCITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2001 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING A. Roll Call Bix Meyer Puzak Callies Dallman Arnst Youn B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission and City Council Work Session Minutes of December 11, 2001 (Att. -#2A Draft Summary) B. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of December 11, 2001 (Att. - #2B Draft Summary) 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 4. REPORTS 5. DISCUSSION OF PARK MANAGEMENT & PLANNING (Follow -up to joint meeting with Council) A. Review and Discuss Administrator's Memo of 12- 19- 01(Att.45A) B. Report on Freeman Park Field Inventory and Parking Study -(Mark Koegler- Hoisington- Koegler) C. Report on MCES Interest in Field Scheduling for 2002 -(City Administrator Dawson)(Att. - #5C) D. Review, Discuss and Make Further Recommendations on Draft User Policies- (Engineer Brown)(Att. - #51)) E. Review, Discuss and Prioritize Issues as Defined at Meeting of 12 -11 -01 (Att. -#5E) F. Develop Time -line for Resolution of Issues G. Discuss Other Ideas 6. DISCUSS PARK LIAISON FOR LAND CONSERVATION ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 7. APPOINT PARK LIAISONS FOR FEBRUARY CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS 8. NEW BUSINESS Council Liaison: January: Meyer 9. ADJOURNMENT February: ? ^ E CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION - JOINT MEETING OF THE PARK COMMISSION 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. AND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2001 MINUTES Et ,, 1. CONVENE WORK SESSION MEETING Chair Amst, of the Park Commission, called the joint City Council meeting to order — .. -- _ A. Roll Call C7 City Council MembersPresent: Councilmembers Zerby, Lizee, Turgeon, and Garfunkel Late Arrival: Mayor Love Park Commissioners Present: Chair Amst; Commissioners Puzak, Callies, Bix, Young, and Meyer Late Arrival: Commissioner Dallman Also Present: City Administrator Dawson; City Engineer Brown; Finance Director Burton; and Mr. Koegler of the Hoisington Koegler Group B. Review Agenda Chair Amst reviewed for those present that the City Council had a work session relating to MCES, Minnetonka Community Education Services, approximately two weeks ago. At the request of the City Council, a joint work session was scheduled with the Park Commission to discuss their concerns on the topic. Chair Arnst continued by giving an outline for the first phase of the meeting. She pointed out that the meeting would include an overview of the issues that the Park Commission has experienced and discussed, information gained from several recent meetings with MCES, additional comments from Commissioners, a parking and traffic study update given by Hoisington Koegler, questions from Council, and finally, discussion on how to move forward on the Park Management issue.. Mayor Love arrived at 7:04 P.M. 2. REVIEW AND DISCUSS MINNETONKA COMMUNITY EDUCATION SERVICES RECREATION & PARK PLANNING Chair Amst began by sharing a few years of MCES history. In her experience, the first inclination of future issues with MCES arose in the summer of 1997 when it was noticed that parking was a problem at Freeman Park. With this new knowledge the Park Commission asked MCES to schedule games farther apart to avoid overlap. Again in 1998, the City had similar problems, so the City Administrator went directly to the sports organizations to get the games scheduled farther apart. In 1999, letters were sent out to sports organizations and MCES early on requesting fifteen- minute spacing between games. 1999 saw better success. Once again, in 2000 and 2001, the parking issues got out of control. While the City has asked for Police enforcement, it has been difficult to get. Over the past five years, increased pressure put on the facilities by increased numbers of users and demands of those users has also had a dramatic effect. For example, Little League has wanted to add an additional field by using the adjacent softball fields, soccer has asked for the fields to be redressed, girls softball has come onto the scene asking for more field JOINT MEETING OF THE PARK COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2001 Page 2 of 9 time, and this year we've received a request from Southwest Christian Academy to use our soccer fields in the fall. That's a total of seven different organizations that were in our parks this year. In addition, Chair Amst noted that this year we've implemented the user fee, which requires dedicated staff time and attention, and we have opened Eddy Station. Although there is no concessionaire at Eddy Station yet, we would like one, which will also require additional staff commitment and oversight. Finally, Chair Amst cited a collection of other matters that have happened this summer, ranging from outhouse impoundment to dugouts being built without permits. Lastly, she added that the Park Commission has focused a great deal of attention on MCES as it relates to the scheduling. The Commission learned that MCES was not doing what they thought they had been doing over the course of the year in the way of scheduling and communicating with the City and user organizations. Through a series of meetings this summer, it was apparent that the expectations that the City viewed as contracted responsibilities did not align with the expectations of MCES. The City also learned that MCES will not do this to the level it is asking for without a considerably higher annual commitment, and in fact, there have been internal discussions at MCES whether it will continue doing the scheduling at all. In an effort to come to a mutual understanding, MCES provided a proposal for the tasks that they could provide. Currently, however, the MCES staff person who performs the field management and scheduling for Shorewood has been cut from full time to a three - quarter -time position. In summary, Chair Arrest noted that the Park System ranks 4"' in the City's expenditures. Parks need • management, they need Council's attention and commitment to restoring balance to them for all users. With that, Chair Artist turned the floor over to Mark Koegler to share the status of the Freeman Park field inventory and parking study. Freeman Park Field Inventory and Parking Study - Mr. Koegler of Hoisington Koegler. Mr. Koegler reported that representatives of Hoisington Koegler are in the process of examining the facilities that are there, the parking associated with that, the kinds of activities that take place, the scheduling, and the time overlaps in order to see really what Freeman Park can sustain. What level of activity on a nightly basis, or specifically the peak periods that occur, can the park handle? He indicated that Hoisington Koegler is targeting more of the normal community use of the park, not necessarily the tournaments which can tip the scales. One of the other things they are looking at is balance. He indicated they hope to come back to present their report to the Commission in January. Mr. Koegler referred to the issue, as Chair Amst pointed out, that the park serves a wide number and variety of users. This, in turn, literally forces athletic events to occur nightly throughout the peak season, thereby excluding a percentage of the population who might not play soccer or baseball but would like to do something else. So far, part of the research they have conducted has been inventorying what other communities have been doing, which has been scattered all across the board. Koegler shared that the majority, though, seem to operate similarly to the Freeman Park scenario, with little separation between games. He pointed out, however, that there are some communities that could possibly be held up as models. The City of Minnetonka has instituted a fifteen- minute gap between scheduled events. While Hoisington Koegler will not get into the nitty -gritty of whether MCES is the right party ultimately to be involved in the administration and scheduling of the parks, they will look at it from an objective perspective to determine what this park can sustain. The question then to the City is whether they go back to MCES, share the results of the study, ask them if they will move closer to the needed level of service, or do you look at other alternatives, using this study as a tool to achieve the City's goals. The analysis will continue and Mr. Koegler will return in January to present his findings to the JOINT MEETING OF THE PARK COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2001 Page 3 of 9 • Commission. City Council and Park Commission Discussion and Questions Mayor Love asked whether the Park Commission has taken a stand as a board about the problems at Freeman Park. Chair Arnst indicated that up until now they have been in the discovery phase. Koegler added that the work that Hoisington Koegler has performed thus far has not been either constrained or guided by any directives from the City Council or Park Commission. They have simply been trying to look at Freeman Park as a collection of certain facilities, with a certain amount of acreage, a certain amount of parking, and how this all fits together. Mayor Love asked to clarify if the study will give the City the tools to measure what the potential goals could be, whether we are over or under capacity in some areas, etc. Koegler indicated that the research they have done to date has involved some interviews with staff, for measured and anecdotal information. Frequently, staff knows the parking habits of users at peak times and these insights all add value to the study. Koegler believed that the least that may come out of this analysis for the City is a pathway of how to manage the park. They will have a grasp on what impact all of these activities have on the park, what the facility can handle now and options of how to alter it to achieve the goals. The study could become a tool for further dialogue internally, preceding definitive dialogue the City may have with MCES regarding the scheduling. Meyer asked how long the process would take. Koegler indicated they only recently started the process and they will be back to present their results to the Park Commission on January 8, 2002. • Young inquired whether Hoisington Koegler plans to interview any of the user groups. Koegler said they have not done so. He maintained that the material capacity of the park should not be influenced by the user groups. Mayor Love asked whether there were problems at the other parks. Chair Arnst noted that due to the relationship with the Church nearby, Cathcart's parking issues have been avoided. Callies wondered what other parks MCES schedules. Chair Arnst specified Manor, Cathcart, Freeman, and Badger. Bix commented that the trends show that disproportionate field usage issues exist, and smaller groups are entitled to more time and use of the fields than they receive. Mayor Love questioned to the extent that MCES is aware of our issues. While he was unsure of what the consensus of the Commission was, or what the solutions are, he asked Administrator Dawson to share his views. Administrator Dawson stated that from discussions held with MCES, they had felt they were meeting expectations and weren't aware that was untrue. They essentially felt they were doing the job they had always been hired to do, and had had no feedback to the contrary until recently. Dawson indicated that dialogue had been started to share with MCES what the City's expectations are. MCES has said that they do offer added -value services to other cities currently. Dawson believed that while MCES has always offered the same block scheduling, over the years differing expectations have emerged from each group. After those discussions, neither the City nor MCES has offered a formal proposal for review. He indicated that he has informally presented a list of the issues and expectations from the City. Puzak added that the City has even gone so far as to offer to purchase scheduling software for MCES. However, as they started further negotiations on this matter, staffing issues emerged at MCES, which has caused them to back off of scheduling altogether. JOINT MEETING OF THE PARK COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2001 Page 4 of 9 0 Commissioner Dallman arrived at 7:24 P.M. Dawson maintained that the level of administrative support that MCES was willing to provide did not meet the expectation of the City. The City anticipated MCES would act as a Park and Recreation Coordinator; however, this is outside the level of service provided by MCES, especially due to cutbacks at MCES. Zerby stated that it seemed to him that our parks are reaching their capacity and that some tough policy decisions are going to need to be made. He indicated that with more users coming at us, we may need to turn some people away if we can't fine tune the usage. While he was unclear whether efficiencies were being lost, Zerby noted that there are more demands on the park than ever before. Mayor Love recognized that the capacity seems to nearly be being reached; however, he questioned whether we know who is specifically not being served by the parks. Mayor Love asked Mr. Koegler if studies exist to support that girls sports, the handicapped, or other areas are not being served right now. Koegler indicated that those questions are not a part of the study they are charged with currently. Chair Arnst pointed out that the only way we know who is not being served is when they come to us. She clarified that in the last meeting with MCES, they did offer an outline indicating that for no additional fee they would serve as mediator between us and the sports organizations to resolve any differences we may have. For an additional fee, MCES offered to provide us with the services that we thought we had been getting all along, rather than continuing to provide us with the block scheduling. She maintained that MCES has not stepped up to the plate to offer any additional services and, has in fact, objected to the level of "micro- scheduling" (MCES's term) that the City has asked for. Dawson added that they did not offer any dollar amount in order to provide that service either. Mayor Love asked where the park scheduling falls. Chair Amst indicated that in her opinion it all falls under the umbrella of Park Management and she did not view MCES going down that road. Meyer reminded everyone that we have a limited plot of land and questioned whether it is being divided up into more spots than it should be. Chair Arnst agreed and stated that this will be addressed by the Koegler study. Meyer asserted that MCES has no idea of what or how many games are being played on a piece of land at any given time. Brown concurred, adding that Tonka United Soccer Association (TUSA) every year divides the fields up, which has brought about some liability issues. There is concern over the use of green space that they insist on utilizing outside of the designated fields. In reference to tournaments, TUSA has gone so far as dividing the fields up into 13 fields. Even though the City has stated their objections to this use in the past, they continue to do so. Callies stated that she viewed the study that Hoisington Koegler is doing as a very important ingredient for us in determining what the parks can handle; however, she viewed the MCES issue as somewhat of a separate matter. She maintained that the basic information that will be obtained from the study will help nevertheless to plan with MCES. Callies agreed with Chair Arnst that what the parks are begging for is park management under a parks and recreation director. More is needed than what is being provided by the limited staff person of three - quarter time at MCES sitting at a computer blocking nights without any real coordination of these events. She asked what the point of their service was, if they do not know how many people are using the fields, smaller organizations are being left out, and coordination and communication are lacking. Puzak pointed out that MCES does have the capability of scheduling to the field level, such as fields 1, 2, or 3. He maintained that is done where we have identifiable space; for instance, Little League has the original Freeman Park which is pretty ingrained in tradition, construction, and the fact that they have helped to build and maintain it. He argued that MCES does assign specific organizations to specific fields. JOINT MEETING OF THE PARK COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2001 Page 5 of 9 Where some of the trouble comes from is that the City has not chalked out specific fields for soccer. He said that Tonka United Soccer, for instance, was more or less given the 10 acres at Freeman to divide as they like, which they have divided typically into 3 -8 fields. He viewed resolution of this problem to be chalking the fields ourselves marking them in such a way that they cannot play more than three or four fields. Callies asked who is the "ourselves" he refers to, what staff person is going to be there. Puzak noted that question has yet to be resolved. Brown commented that he has been involved in 30 to 40 conversations regarding field space of what they are to use and not to use with everyone from MCES down to coaches. He pointed out that this is part of the management issue with MCES. It became apparent that the City would say one thing to MCES and the coaches would say that they never heard it. Brown said that it got to the point that they were saying the same thing to both MCES and every coach they met up with. Brown indicated that no sooner would they tell coaches not to play in a certain area, they would find the teams over there anyway. He also recognized that at those times, although he would like to shut down the whole program, it would not be constructive. Mayor Love asked if this issue lent itself more to the enforcement problem they have at the parks. Brown indicated that almost certainly the largest problem that exists is the overlap of games back -to -back, which in turn causes the parking issues. The police recognize that these problems exist during overlap and literally throw up their arms on the enforcement issue and don't want to deal with it. Brown maintained that, hopefully, if the City can get its arms around the management issues of the park, that will relieve the police of having to deal with and enforce the parking overlap issues. . Turgeon referred to the comment made earlier by Commissioner Puzak, that the Little League teams feel they own the fields. She believed that the block scheduling lends to this possessiveness by giving them blocks whether they are utilizing the fields or not. We may need to get creative in order to get multiple uses out of fields that are sitting unutilized. The parks represent an asset to the City which represents 6% of the budget, we have no control over its use, and we are relying on an agency that is unsure of whether or not it wants to provide this service at an additional cost or not, because it is in a state of flux internally. She questioned the logic that we, as a City, are willing to take $200,000 of Shorewood's money and give management of it to an organization who is internally in a state of flux and say, here, handle this asset for us. That logic gives the City no control over how the fields are being used, who's using them, to what extent their being used; but the City's paying the damages that occur and we are relying on staff to confiscate toilets etc. She questioned what sense it made to be relying on an agency to handle this much of the City's money and we have no say so, we're not being heard, we have no input into the decisions that are being made, as to who even gets to use the fields. For instance, girls softball has submitted a request letter with little success, she pointed out, that is not east or west softball but all inclusive to all Minnetonka girls, and only plays at Bennett Field. Mayor Love stated that he clearly agreed that these issues need to be addressed. However, he found difficulty knowing that, prior to eighteen months ago, this was not an issue he had heard about before. He still believed no formal process had been followed yet. While he agreed that hiring someone might be a good idea, he was hesitant due to the fact that the City is in joint powers agreements for police and fire, trying to work out issues with its public works department, and that no one City alone offers the critical mass to accommodate a parks position. He maintained that other cities like Excelsior, Tonka Bay and Deephaven have parks which, although do not carry the same scheduling problems, someday may want to . form alliances with Shorewood to hire an individual to cover broader park issues. He questioned how we are serving the general area with these regional parks. Lizee agreed that the problem is a regional one; however, she believed also that putting the importance of JOINT MEETING OF THE PARK COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2001 Page 6 of 9 building these alliances before we figure out management is putting it in the wrong order. She stated that we have seen that the park uses have grown beyond what MCES is capable of taking care of and they are not willing to do it, even after we offered to provide the software to make it easier. She maintained that we need to take back ownership of our parks, figure out the scheduling, get some software, and contact people or a business able to help us. She'd like to show that the City can get some order back to the parks, get some recognition, take care of things, schedule things, so the parks serve the majority of the public. All of these goals will eventually lead to other communities sharing in and getting into a partnership with us down the road. She didn't believe that forming partnerships first was a necessary step to regaining control themselves. The Mayor stated that, while he valued Lizee's point, the way he would approach the issue would be to identify the problem in the community as a whole and build partnerships from there. Lizee maintained that while partnerships in concept are wonderful and necessary, there is a central lack of communication and anything else between the City and TUSA, for example. Both the City and TUSA communicate via MCES, who doesn't seem to know anything. She believed the partnerships Mayor Love referred to could be built down the road. Callies concurred with both the Mayor and Lizee that the relationship with MCES is not working and that it is not performing the job the City wants. She added, however, that it is a bigger issue, the parks are used by many people regionally. Callies said that it sounds to her as if this problem calls for a neutral someone to control the parks, a person in the capacity of a park and recreation director. Bix asked whether it was possible to try for a collaboration with the organizations. She wondered if a joint effort between the groups, or a task force, could sit down and negotiate the usage. Mayor Love stated that everyone is in agreement that there is a problem, but not everyone agrees on what the problem is, and the solution better have a long -term effect. In regard to Freeman, the problem has evolved over the past twenty years, and none of us seems to have a full picture of what seems to be involved here. Chair Arnst was dismayed that Mayor Love's comment that no one seems to have a full picture of the problem was coming from one of the bodies charged with overseeing the parks. The Mayor agreed that the City ought to get a full picture, but questioned where the process had been to do so. Chair Arnst maintained that this joint work session was an effort to develop part of that formal process tonight. She continued that she is hearing that there is simply not just one particular problem but many different facets to the problem. She added that, until she feels confident that the Park Commission has the authority to move forward and that it will see change if it comes up with recommendations, the issues won't move forward. She maintained that the Commission needs to have buy -in from the Council and would like to hear their thoughts this evening. Puzak agreed that the issues were multi- faceted. He stated while Mr. Koegler can answer the "how many" question, and once the Highway 7 access is closed more parking will be available, we need to address the "who ". He wondered how the City could give others the opportunity to get their foot in the door. Steeped in tradition, the who in field usage needs to be revisited. Mayor Love shared that, based on communication with other cities, there is not much sympathy on the impact of field use in the community. On the other hand, the issue of "who" is being served garners much interest. This, in addition to the user fee, generates a great deal of interest from other communities. The user fee itself may be an avenue to further explore as an opportunity for funding the staff to look after the parks. JOINT MEETING OF THE PARK COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2001 Page 7 of 9 • Puzak voiced his concern over hiring someone and spending more money seeing the state of the economy now. He was nervous to see the City get into committing roughly $15,000 for a part-time person or $33,000 for a full -time person to manage parking at this point. He felt a balance needed to be achieved between what the magnitude of the problem is and how much money the City is willing to invest in order to make it go away. Chair Arnst pointed out that there would be much more to the added staff position than Puzak's perception, including management of rink attendants, scheduling, managing concessions at Eddy Station, field use issues, etc. To this, Puzak stated his support for a self - funding position. Turgeon and Lizee both maintained that a back -up plan is necessary to have in place in case MCES does not step up to the table to offer the services any longer. Lizee stated that while she sees that Puzak`s dilemma could be something the City faces down the road, what we are looking at first of all, is that scheduling begins January 1 st. That's when everyone signs up, whether it be soccer, baseball, or softball. That is when MCES begins to spin out scheduling. Lizee continued that what we are seeing from MCES is that they've cut their administrative person back to three - quarter -time, they've indicated they may not be really interested in doing that anymore - we might be interested in doing it if you give us more money, but we really can't tell you now if we're really interested at all. There is a problem here. She added that we've offered to buy the software program, an investment that MCES was not interested in. At this point, to start out, she maintained that the City does not need to hire a Park Director or Coordinator at $15,000430,0000, but simply we need someone that has a computer or a service that can run lists and put this program to work. Zerby suggested starting out once again with a wish list of what we want and find the best way to achieve it. Start a bidding process with MCES and others to determine if MCES is the best person at the right price or is Option A hiring an internal person a better alternative. He felt people were bashing MCES saying they could not do the job. To which, Lizee and Turgeon replied, it was MCES itself who said they couldn't do the job or perhaps even want the job. Zerby then added that the job needs to be further defined. Lizee stated that the Park Commission has been talking about these issues and has come to the Council for some direction. Over the past six months or more they have had meetings with MCES who has not been receptive to any of the changes or input. Zerby maintained that the job still needs to be defined whether we hire someone or not. Garfunkel agreed with Zerby, stating that he has not seen any formal written direction. Mayor Love indicated that he had not attended any formal meetings with MCES and questioned whether any formal directives had been presented by the Park Commission at any of the meetings they'd had. Chair Arnst pointed out that they had met three times at City Hall with MCES, with other Mayors, and City Administrator Dawson. Mayor Love questioned what directive they took to the meeting from their board. Chair Amst said that they first attended the meeting with Administrator Dawson to hear what MCES defined their role to be and we defined what we wanted them to do for us. She maintained that these meetings are how they learned the information they have now. The meetings did not proceed, and Chair Arnst said the Commission did not give MCES any further direction. Meyer added that the Chanhassen Park Coordinator was present at one of the meetings to help define the problem and work through it. Mayor Love stated that he had been involved in many of the informal conversations and gained a great deal of information from the meetings. They learned that the joint powers agreement with MCES is really non - existent, it was discovered that there has been a problem with communication, among other JOINT MEETING OF THE PARK COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2001 Page 8 of 9 issues brought up this evening. Mayor Love agreed with Zerby that identifying the problem so that we can have a meaningful long -term solution is necessary. He did urge caution over hiring an individual whose burden of cost will be a great deal more than the $15 - 30,000 mentioned. Lizee pointed out that those costs are projected out into the future and that what really is being addressed tonight is to talk with the Park Commission who is interested in putting together, with input from the Council, some policies that they have been asking for from the Council for several months. She noted that the Park Commission has asked for individual input from Council Members and staff via e-mail and it is necessary to respond to that tonight with direction or solutions. She stated that the $15430,000 fee for hiring someone is not what's being discussed tonight, they are not at that stage. Lizee stated that what is necessary this evening to discuss is how to regain control and start managing the resources we have. Mayor Love asked what staff input had been. Brown indicated that there has been informal input through the MCES meetings with the Park Commission present and that these issues have been brought up at Park Commission meetings over the past six months. Mayor Love stated that while everyone has interest in seeing if there can be long -term solution, a self - funding solution would be great, but we have no short-term solution. He asked if the City would prefer to simply give more guidance to MCES, or try to do extra services on its own through out sourcing, and if so, is there money to do that. Garfunkel upheld the need to address the policy issues. He stated that the requirements are yet to be defined, even though we've identified the parking problem, a field usage problem, etc. There is a policy issue over whether we are going to allow organizations to run our fields for us, whether someone else will, or we ourselves will. Puzak agreed that clear definition of the issues needs to exist before solutions can be addressed. He went on to say that, currently, it seems MCES is the only act in town, and do we try to lead them through the process that is unique to Shorewood or go elsewhere. Mr. Koegler added that getting your arms around the whole issue or all of the issues is very difficult. Callies asked if there were other communities that have similar policies in place that we could use as an example in addressing our questions. Turgeon stated that Mark Themig would be a good person to speak to and gain input about what exists or what is out there. She cautioned the Council and Commission that MCES does not seem to be an eager player in this game. Turgeon encouraged the Commission to find out MCES's willingness to provide services, then put that together with the Koegler capacity study. She voiced her concern that the City has created a problem for itself by postponing getting this thing going and now we're getting to a crunch time again with all these sports teams coming to us in the spring and we will not have any control, or policy, or standards in place. She strongly urged the group to determine tonight what is the first step and what needs to be done. Zerby asked the Park Commission to determine what it wants first, compare it to the Koegler study, and then give Council an opportunity to find the best way to get it done. He felt the Council was committed to solving the problem but it needs to know what it is that the Park Commission wants. He sees that the parks are being well used, but not everyone is getting access, which to him is a policy issue. The capacity issue will be addressed by the Hoisington Koegler study. Mayor Love asked if the Park Commission has formally asked the Council not to use MCES. Chair Amst indicated no. He then asked for staff input. JOINT MEETING OF THE PARK COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2001 Page 9 of 9 • Brown pointed out that MCES should be more than a once a year calendar administrator. He identified many areas interwoven with the position mentioned, including enforcement, lack of authority, cooperative or joint rink attendant supervision, the management of fields, attendants, and Eddy Station, and finally, the level of time and energy spent by staff on these issues has been exhaustive. Meyer believed it was important to regain control of the parks to ensure that the people using the fields realize that they do not own them; that instead, they are privileged to use them. She went on to encourage the use of someone checking to ensure the policies are being enforced. Mayor Love asked if there was a record of teams who had not paid their user fees last year, and if so, policy should warrant they not be granted or scheduled use of the fields the next time around. Chair Arnst asked if there was any short-term action suggested by the Council. Callies pointed out that we've been down the road with MCES before and asked if it was really necessary to do more fact gathering. Mr. Koegler suggested, due to time constraints, a short-term fix guiding MCES through the 2002 season on a limited basis, while determining what steps or direction to take for the long term. Chair Arnst asked that both short-and long -term discussion be added to the January agenda. Brown encouraged the Park Commission to take more action in 2002 by meeting with the leaders of the sports organizations and informing them of the City's base expectations. Mayor Love asked if there was a consensus to direct staff to gather the basic rules, along with a letter that invites the coaches and organizations to a meeting making them aware of the City's base expectations. He suggested letting them know that at this meeting the City of Shorewood will be taking a serious look at policy, overall issues, and would like them to be a part of this dialogue to come up with solutions. Turgeon suggested this meeting take place prior to March or as soon as the coaches have their team rosters. Meyer suggested that the City conduct the meeting, rather than MCES, in order to relay our message. Chair Arnst asked staff to compile a list of potential policies /rules and contact MCES to find out what they will do this year for athletic scheduling in order to move the process forward. 3. ADJOURN Chair Arnst closed the meeting at 8:35 P.M. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson . RECORDING SECRETARY CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • PARK COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2001 7:30 P.M. OR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING WORK SESSION MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING aRi ` F T Chair Arnst called the meeting to order at 8:44 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Arnst; Commissioners Puzak, Meyer, Callies, Bix, Young, and Dallman; City Council Liaison Garfunkel; City Administrator Dawson; Finance Director Burton; and City Engineer Brown B. Review Agenda Per City Engineer Brown's request, Item #5 was removed from the agenda and postponed until January, and Item #7B, a discussion regarding Eddy Station vandalism, was added. Puzak moved, Callies seconded, approving the agenda as amended. Motion passed 7/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES is A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of November 13, 2001 Dalhnan moved, Puzak seconded, approving the Minutes of November 13, 2001 as submitted. Motion passed 7/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. 4. REPORTS A. Report on City Council Meetings of November 26, 2001 and December 10, 2001 Council Liaison Garfunkel reported on the November 26, 2001 City Council meeting. At the meeting, he stated that there was a presentation by Mark Themig; staff was directed to prepare a feasibility report for the Lake Linden Drive trail request; Council happily accepted a conservation easement from Dan Riesen; they approved the funding for the police station; and finally, the Glen Road /Amlee Road drainage was discussed. Brown expanded on the Glen /Amlee Roads drainage issue. He indicated that the ongoing studies have presented several options, all of which however, are in direct conflict with the Gideon Glen project. The Council did not approve the studies but asked they be taken back to the drawing board to include the goals of the Gideon Glen project. Brown maintained that there will be no easy solutions, but they will continue to endeavor. r PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2001 Page 2 of 4 , Administrator Dawson reported that City Council approved the supervision of the rink attendants agreement last night during the December 10, 2001 City Council meeting. He added that Cub Foods came in for a pre - application discussion, which is expected to be returned in January; Tom Skramstad was reappointed as the City's liaison to the LMCD; budgets were approved; and the City will be at the Watershed District regarding the Gideon Glen project on Thursday, December 13, in order to be a part of their capital budget. Finally, Dawson reported that the Community Visioning process is moving forward, and invited the Commission to attend a Community Vision Forum on February 21, 2002, at the South Shore Center. He added that a voluntary survey will be posted on the community's website to share comments as well. Brown clarified that the Cub Foods proposal that is coming back in January is for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the rezoning of the property. This is not to say that the entire site plan is up for approval at this point, it is to say whether or not the Planning Commission and City Council are willing to recommend and approve the Comprehensive plan amendment only. Depending on what happens then, Cub Foods will have to follow the same process as it did before. B. Report on Land Conservation Environment Committee Callies reported that the LCEC has not met for two months and there is nothing to report. She also asked if she could remove herself from the Committee, since they don't meet often and her husband is a committee member. She did add that it might not be necessary to have a liaison present at all their meetings and she could, at times, merely present her husbands' notes. She also volunteered to write occasional articles for the newsletter. Chair Arnst said they would discuss a liaison alternative in January. IR C. Report on Park Foundation Meeting of November 15, 2001 Dallman reported that the Foundation has met and they've sold a few more bricks from the newsletter advertisement. They plan to meet again later this month. 5. MASTER PLAN REVIEW A. Status of Report on Traffic/Parking Study for Freeman Park Removed from the Agenda. 6. REVIEW STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON SPORTS ORGANIZATION USER FEE INCREASE Chair Arnst reported that staff is recommending that the Park Commission increase the user fee from $5. to $10. per person, per sport, per season. She asked for the boards' thoughts on the request. Burton added that the rationale was the City of Shakopee memo indicating that their similar services warrant a greater fee and the fact that the Park Fund is operating at a deficit. Puzak stated that, while the request is not unreasonable, it is necessary due to the fact that the Commission has not done its part to raise funds through its concessions at Eddy Station and the Park Foundation has failed to meet its financial commitments to the City. While he was uncomfortable with the bar being raised, he felt he could support it. Chair Arnst agreed with Puzak, citing that an alternative solution is necessary. The concessions, once again, is • budgeted to achieve $3,000 next year and Chair Arnst hoped that they will do their best to find a PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2001 Page 3 of 4 concessionaire for 2002. She indicated that while she was not enthusiastic about a 100% increase in the fee, she would support the increase this year but not again next year, especially, if the increase is due to the Park Foundation missing the mark on their commitment once again. Young asked what sort of return the City was seeing on the vending machines. It was noted that the machines have generated roughly $300 per statement. Bix stated that from her observations there are viable concessionaires out there among the sports organizations. For instance, the girls softball and soccer groups led her to believe that there might be interest to do some sort of shared concessions operation. Bix voiced her concern that it's in bad faith to raise the user fee by doubling it the second year. Puzak brought up the idea of splitting the difference in the increase by charging $7.50 rather than $10. Dawson stated that due to levy limits the City Council asked if the Park Commission would be willing to bump up the user fee to $10 with the intent that they restore balance to the park improvement plan and regain the outlay from Eddy Station. Burton noted the reality that if the Park Department is going to move ahead, the Park Foundation will need to meet its 10 -year $10,000 annual commitment, or once again, increases in the user fees may be requested down the road. Callies questioned whether we could justify the need to boost the user fee via advertising. By noting in the IS newsletter and paper that the user fees will run $7.50 if someone or organization steps forward to run the concessions, or $10 if there is no support. She felt communicating that we have to raise fees due to these shortfalls may justify it to the public. Young stated that he is in support of the $10 user fee and felt they started to cautiously at $5 last year. Meyer wondered if the end users are even aware that the user fee exists. She was unclear if organizations lump it into their fees or supply registrants with a breakdown. Puzak stated that many organizations break it out due to tax requirements. Meyer asked if it were easier in the long run to bill per team versus per player. Brown indicated that staff cannot spend the enormous amount of time working on the rosters next year as they did in 2001. Dallman felt he could support the $10 user fee if he had some sort of guarantee that it stay the same for two years. Callies moved, Young seconded, to authorize a $10 user fee per person, per sport, per season. Motion passed 6/1, with Bix dissenting. Burton noted that the billing would occur based on the rosters of last year. The assumption will be based on past data, with the ability to make adjustments where necessary. • i PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2001 Page 4 of 4 • 7. APPOINT PARK LIAISON FOR JANUARY CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS Meyer will serve as liaison to the City Council on January 14 and 28, 2002. 7B. Eddy Station Vandalism Brown reported that just the night before, many things were burnt, busted, carved upon, plus, a fire was started in a garbage can under the canopy. With the Commission's support, Brown plans to pursue the installation of video surveillance equipment, cameras, or whatever it takes to catch the vandals. The incidents of vandalism always occur roughly at the same time and the City has an idea of who is to blame, however, evidence is necessary to catch the guilty parties. Chair Arnst reiterated the Commissions support. Support she believed they had given to Brown several months ago to pursue whatever measures staff deems necessary. 8. NEW BUSINESS There was none. 9. ADJOURNMENT Bix moved, Meyer seconded, adjourning the Regular Park Commission Meeting of December 11, 2001 at 9:35 P.M. Motion passed 7/0. 0 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson RECORDING SECRETARY CITY or SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 474 -3236 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhali @ci.shorewood.mn.us I # a UVCox ".1 1Ii> -u1 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council Park Commission Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator 6 Larry A. Brown, Public Works Director /City Engineer �( December 19, 2001 Summary of Joint Meeting, December 12 There was a wide - ranging discussion of issues related to scheduling of the City's recreation facilities • and of Freeman Park at the joint meeting. The consensus course -of- action that resulted from the meeting is summarized below: • Hoisington Koegler will complete the carrying capacity study of Freeman Park by the January meeting of the Park Commission. Information from that study will identify problems and frame issues to be addressed. • Management of parks needs to be improved. These changes should be considered before making physical alterations to the parks. • Especially in just the few months before spring, making changes in the way of providing the recreation scheduling service it is too big of a transition for all involved. • MCES will provide scheduling services for 2002, provided that it chooses to still be in the business of scheduling of municipal recreation facilities. • The MCES involvement will be considered an interim solution; future involvement will depend on decisions made after the evaluation of alternatives developed during 2002. • The City will hold a meeting with the leaders of all organized athletics associations and MCES to review policies and rules regarding the use of City facilities. They will be strongly reminded that they have a privilege to use City facilities, and failure to follow rules and • policies will result in revocation of that privilege. Changes in the intensity and/or scheduling of use may be required of the associations, based on review of the HKGi study. �� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 2 • There is a need, or at least a preference, to look at park/recreation facilities in the larger geographic area as a system of what is available, so that any changes in the use and scheduling of Freeman Park will not be done in isolation. Also, this identification of inventory may show advantages of municipalities working together. Concurrence among cities may open other opportunities — e.g., shared new staff position, or contracting arrangement. The range of changes to be considered should be as open as possible. It could be that some new management rules are sufficient to take care of the parking issues at Freeman Park. It may be the case that more active management and monitoring of the parks are necessary, thus requiring additional staffing or contracting for services. There may be unmet or unidentified needs we should be doing in providing park and recreation services, and that adding staff would make possible. • How to be sure that new groups/organizations /associations into the system of being assigned facilities remains an issue. • • • CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 474 -3236 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Park Commission FROM: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator ct). DATE: January 4, 2002 SUBJECT: MCES's Services for 2002 I have attached e-mail correspondence I received from Dan Kuzlik, Director of Minnetonka Community Education and Services. In short, MCES is planning to provide the same level of scheduling services of municipal recreation facilities in 2002 as it did in 2001. Its staff will soon be presenting a proposal for park/recreation management services, which could be provided at additional cost to the City or a consortium of cities. MCES would view the cost -basis as the need to provide additional staff for discrete (and discretionary) services, similar to the way that it provides lifeguard services to cities operating public beaches. �.� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER - - -- - Craig Dawson From: Dan Kuzlik <Dan. Kuzlik@minnetonka.kl 2.mn.us> • To: <cdawson @ci.shorewood.mn.us> Cc: Betty Jenkins < Betty.Jenkins @minnetonka.kl2.mn.us >; Deb Malmsten < DebMalmsten @minnetonka.k12.mn.us> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 4:49 PM Subject: MCES Facilkity Scheduling Craig, It was good speaking with you today. Let me reiterate some of the points of our conversation. First, Minnetonka Community Education and Services (MCES) is not planning to discontinue our facility scheduling services to municipalities in our school district who are currently receiving these services. Having said that, I must also state that our services include only allocating facility space to user groups in our community, and does not include park and recreation management. However, I do appreciate that there has been some discussion in Shorewood regarding what resources would be needed to have MCES provide a higher level of services which might include park and recreation management. As I promised to you during our telephone conversation, I am directing my Youth Programs staff to develop a proposal to this effect. Our plan is to have this proposal to you by January 21. At your suggestion, I will have our youth program staff contact Larry Brown to obtain additional information regarding the scope of services that would meet Shorewood's needs. Please contact me at your convenience if you need to provide me with additional information prior to January 21. Take care, Dan Daniel E. Kuzlik, Executive Director Minnetonka Community Education and Services Minnetonka Public Schools 5621 Highway 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 (ph) 952- 401 -5043 (fx) 952- 401 -5011 1/4/02 . City of Shorewood's Facility Use Regulations In an effort to maintain safe conditions for all park patrons and insure that the City facilities are used appropriately, the City of Shorewood has set in place the following regulations for the use of the City's facilities. • Field or rink use will not be allowed until the city has received the player roster, certificate of insurance, memo agreement and user fee. • A City of Shorewood tournament permit and fee shall be submitted to the City a minimum of 15 days prior to the tournament. Tournaments shall not conflict with the other regularly scheduled activities for the facility. • All leagues, associations, or groups using the facilities must provide the City with a single contact that is to serve as the representative for the organization activities. • Games shall be scheduled to provide a 15 minutes break between games or warm -up sessions. • No driving of motorized vehicles is allowed on the fields or green space. Individuals caught driving on the fields will be fined $200.00 for each offense. • It is the responsibility of the sports organization to clean up after tournaments. If the City performs the cleanup, the sports organization will be charged for the . time, materials and labor for this service. • Users of the park are not allowed to make alterations to the facilities or terrain. • Facility improvements that the associations may want to make can only be completed after following appropriate required steps. • Using green space outside of the designated fields is not permitted. • Disposal of paint cans shall not be done in the facility trash receptacles or on the park site. It is the City's desire that all of the patrons who use the park facilities are able to enjoy the park system safely and conveniently. These regulations have been set in place to achieve this goal. By reading and acknowledging that the organization has read the regulations and agree to adhere to them, continues the privilege of utilizing the park system. Failure to follow these regulations will result in suspension of the use of the facilities.. I hereby certify that I am the primary representative for the league or group desiring use of the City's facilities, and that I have read the above regulations and agree to conduct the activities in accordance to the regulations above. Furthermore, I acknowledge that failure to adhere to these regulations shall result in suspension of use of the facilities for a 1 year period. Name Date Representative for what League/Association Contact Number • CITY OF 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 474 -3236 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityha11@ci.shorewood.mn.us TO: Park Commission FROM: Pat Arnst RE: Park Management issues from December 11 joint meeting. DATE: December 29, 2001 As a result of the December 11 meeting with City Council, the following park management issues were defined by the group. Following, for discussion purposes, is a listing of those items. The order of listing does not indicate any priority. No consensus was reached on their relative importance or resolution: • Parking/traffic • Police enforcement of "no parking" r Unauthorized alterations to and construction of facilities • Exclusion of individual users and /or organizations • Blanket scheduling of fields and coordination of activities • Unclear relationship with MCES • Liability issues caused by improper use of green space for playing fields • Lack of park management • Uncertainty about who uses the fields • Poor direct communications between City and organized users • Uncertainty of exactly who "we" or "ourselves" are when referring to the City • Breakdown in communication between MCES /City /Organizations • Perceived "ownership" of field space by certain organizations • Should Shorewood work in partnership with other cities to resolve its park issues? • Regaining control and balance of the park management • A balanced approach between the problem and management resolution • Management of $200,000+ annual budget, rink attendants, tournaments, and concessions, in addition to scheduling and oversight • Staff time involved in oversight of collection of rosters, insurance certificates and user fees • Enforcement of park rules and policies when developed: who does it? The group did agree that further action should be taken on the following items, and results discussed at the January 8 Park Commission meeting: Uncertainty about MCES continuing it's service to city — Dawson to contact MCES and confirm status No clearly defined policies l �.tImforRsparts,uga.nizations who use the parks —Brown to develop a draft for Park Commission review, discussion and recommendation at 1 -8 -02 �Vc�, -f t • MEMORANDUM Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. MIN ffin To: Shorewood Park and Recreation Commission and Staff From: Mark Koegler Subject: Freeman Park Parking Analysis Date: January 8, 2002 Residents of Shorewood and the surrounding area use Freeman Park for a variety of active and passive recreational pursuits. Over the past 15 years, the city of Shorewood has constructed ball fields, shelters, trails and other facilities that make Freeman Park one of the premier community parks in the western Twin Cities area. Because the park has some of the finest ball fields and open . turf in the area, it is heavily used for adult and youth sporting activities by a number of local organizations. is In recent years, intense usage during the summer months has resulted in serious parking problems. At peak times, parking has occurred outside of designated areas including along interior park roads, along Eureka Road and across pedestrian trail areas. This overflow parking poses safety issues both within the park and in the adjacent neighborhood along Eureka Road. The Shorewood Park Commission and City Council initiated this study to objectively examine the parking capacity of the park. Information generated from this analysis will serve as one of the tools to recommend future changes to alleviate problems caused by overflow parking. rroblem and Analysis App Simply stated, a parking problem exists at Freeman Park. Parking outside of designated off -street parking lots causes operational and safety concerns. At a general level, the parking problem might be due to one of two conditions, l) a shortage of off - street parking or 2) over use of facilities creating excessive parking demand. In order to investigate these and other factors affecting parking in Freeman Park, this analysis will follow an incremental approach that will examine: • The original park master plan • Current use of the park • Standards used by other area communities • General observations and recommendations • The parking analysis will focus on parking demand generated from active recreational activities. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401 -1659 Ph (612) 338 -0800 Fax (612) 338 -6838 Subject: Freeman Park Parking Analysis Date: January 8, 2002 • Page 2 Passive uses such as hiking generate a need for parking, however, the amount of demand is insignificant compared to the demand generated by active facilities. Original Master Plan The master plan for Freeman Park that was prepared in 1990 has generally guided development of facilities for the past decade. The plan, shown on Exhibit 1 identified a number of major active park facilities. These facilities and their associated parking demand are identified below. Softball Fields — the plan identified the three softball fields that exist today. Maximum parking needs generated from these fields can be calculated as follows: ■ 6 teams @ 16 players each = 96 parking spaces Soccer Fields — The original master plan identified two soccer fields and a football field area that could double as a second youth soccer field. Since football has not been a programmed activity in Freeman Park, parking demand is calculated as follows on the basis of three soccer fields: 6 teams @ 12 players each = 72 parking spaces • Since soccer is largely a youth activity, consideration could be given to reducing the parking demand by 25% to reflect carpooling. This results in the need for 54 parking spaces. Baseball Fields — The master plan identifies two Little League fields and one Babe Ruth baseball field, all of which exist today. Maximum parking needs generated from these fields can be calculated as follows: ■ 6 teams @ 15 players each = 90 parking spaces ■ Since Little League and Babe Ruth baseball are youth activities, consideration could be given to reducing the parking demand by 25% to reflect carpooling. This results in the need for 68 parking spaces. Multi -Use Buildin The master plan called for the construction of a multi -use building adjacent to the softball field area. In the summer of 2001, the Shorewood Park Foundation opened Eddy Station, a multi -use building that contains both indoor and outdoor picnic space, restrooms and a concession area. Assuming use of the building by a group not at the park for another activity, Eddy Station is likely to generate the following parking demand: ■ 50 people at 1 space per 3 people I 7 parking spaces. One parking space per three 0 Subject: Freeman Park Parking Analysis • Date: January 8, 2002 Page 3 people is a common zoning ordinance parking requirement for places of public assembly and reflects carpooling. Picnic Shelter The picnic shelter located north of the Little League fields generates parking demand identical to that of Eddy Station: ■ 50 people at 1 space per 3 people =17 parking spaces Tennis Courts The original master plan called for the construction of four tennis courts immediately north of the Little League parking area. Had the courts been constructed, they would account for the following parking demand: 4 courts (2 double /2 single) —12 users =12 parking spaces • Note: The parking demand calculated above is based on one parking space per player per activity unless otherwise noted. Based on the uses identified ahcwls_ Freeman Park has a - planned parking demand generated from active facilities that ranges fr9w264 to 304 spaces. Parking Supply The Freeman Park master plan identified off - street parking in five locations throughout the park. All parking lots were accessed via an interior park road that looped through from Eureka Road to Highway 7. As shown on Exhibit 1, the following parking lots were planned: Lot 1 84 spaces Lot 2 130 spaces Lot 3 50 spaces Lot 4 50 spaces Lot 5 41 spaces Total 355 spaces When the master plan was completed in 1990, concurrent use of all of the active recreational facilities was not envisioned. For example, soccer was thought to be a predominately fall activity • largely occurring after completion of both the softball and baseball seasons. As a result, it was generally felt that the parking supply would reasonably serve the planned facilities. In fact, the plan Subject: Freeman Park Parking Analysis Date: January 8, 2002 Page 4 allocated an excess parking supply of parking spaces based on one spacer per participant. Freeman Park today differs in a couple of ways from the master plan that was nrepared in-1990. Parking lot 5 was never constructed reducing the actual existing parking suppLvto:314 spaces. The loop road was modified due to an adjacent residential development and now ts.net cdr&nuous though the park. While the road modification does not impact the parking supply, the two separate park access points does create a more difficult situation for park patrons in conveniently accessing all parking areas. Exhibit 1 - Freeman Park Master Plan • r� LJ CJ Subject: Freeman Park Parking Analysis • Date: January 8, 2002 Page 5 Current Park Usage Current activities in Freeman Park differ from the expectations that existed when the original master plan was assembled. The two most significant changes involve the concurrent use of all active park facilities including baseball, softball, soccer and picnic /multi -use buildings and the expansion of the use of the soccer areas in a manner that was not articulated on the original plan. The concurrent use of all active facilities creates a demand for parking that exceeds original expectations. However, the supply of existing parking (314 spaces) will accommodate all of these facilities at the one space per participant standard assuming a reduction for youth activity carpooling. The calculation related to this conclusion is as follows: Adult Softball 96 parking spaces Youth Soccer Fields (3) 54 parking spaces Youth Baseball 68 parking spaces Multi- Use/Picnic Buildings 34 parking spaces • Total 252 parking spaces he original master plan assumed that three soccer fields would be striped in the open turf area just northwest of the softball fields. Based on scheduling information from Tonka United Soccer for the Spr: ng/Summer period in 2001, five fields were striped for soccer on Monday evenings and six fields were delineated for games on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday evenings. On Thursday evenings, Shore wood staff has actually counted up to 13 soccer fields in use a one time. This expanded use of the soccer field area in combination with the use of other field areas has exceeded the supply of off - street parking. The following offers a comparison of the demand for parking generated by the youth soccer fie4s: 3 fields — 6 teams @ 12 players each = 72 spaces, reduced by 25% for carpooling = 54 parking spaces (original assumption) 6 fields —12 teams @ 10 players each =120 spaces, reduced by 25% for carpooling 90 parking spaces (based on Tonka United's schedule) 13 fields — 26 teams @ 10 players each = 260 spaces, reduced by 25% for carpooling =1 ?5 parking spaces (based on staff observations) Adding the current soccer use scenarios to the use of other facilities generates the following existing parking demand: Adult Softball 96 parking spaces • Youth Soccer Fields (6/13) 90/195 parking spaces Youth Baseball 68 parking spaces Subject: Freeman Park Parking Analysis Date: January 8, 2002 Page 6 Multi- Use/Picnic Buildings 34 parking spaces Total 2881393 parking spaces With an existing parking supply of 314 spaces, the parking supply ranges from +26 spaces to —79 spaces at one space per participant. Other Area Community Standards In order to provide some level of comparison to parking standards used in other communities, a survey was conducted of seven other cities. The cities of Chanhassen, Plymouth, Mankato, Champlin, Northfield, Chaska and Minnetonka were chosen because all have active community park facilities and sporting programs that resemble those in existence in Shorewood. The following chart illustrates the results of the survey: Exhibit 2 — Sample of Community Standards City Parking Method of Scheduling Notes Spaces per Calculation Field Chanhassen Baseball and Soccer 3 Soccer Fields Schedules back to back Problems during overlap Bandimere 40 per field in 2 3 Ball fields games, does not stagger Start times & Tournaments. Park lots- one large and 240 stalls times. People tend to park op the one small Averaged them side of the road rathei than High parking demand time walk from the forth x lot depends on # of games and schedule Plymouth 60 (ball field) 1 parking space per Games scheduled back to Conservative tiatio player per field x 2 back 45min overlap time Mankato 45 (ball field) 1 parking space per Games scheduled back to player per field x2 back and then reduce the amount to account 20 minute overlap for carpooling (softball) Overlap time is less than it might be because people are aware of the parking problem and tend to arrive and leave close to game times A little more time between baseball ga .nes - less overlap • • Subject: Freeman Park Parking Analysis • Date: January 8, 2002 Page 7 • City Parking Method of Scheduling Notes Spaces per Calculation Field Champlin 40 -50 (ball field) One space per player Games scheduled back to Fields in a commercial Same general rule of per field and then a back area might need less thumb for soccer few extra for overlap Overlap 20 -30 minutes parking because they can (30 players at a use existing on street time) parking or share lots. People in residential areas generally complain about on street parkin Northfield 39 -46 (ball field) 3 youth baseball Games scheduled back to 26 (soccer) 139 space lot (46), back. Parking problem (planned) 1 regulation during overlap for softball baseball 45 space but not baseball lot 2 softball fields and 1 picnic shelter 87 spaces (39) New soccer complex with 6 fields and 160 s ace lot Chaska 30-60 spaces per At least One space Games scheduled back to Parking problem depends field per player per field back on perception. People do and up to 2 spaces not want to walk far to p er player per field their destination Minnetonka 38 stalls per field 2 adult softball, one Lights are turned off at There tends to be more regulation baseball 3 staggered times forcing the carpooling for youth 44 stalls per field little league fields game times to be staggered games than adult games would serve their and one regulation and they schedule games 15 needs even at the soccer field served by minutes apart to help with busiest times 248 parking stalls the overlap and 20 curbside stalls The parking survey reveals a number of interesting facts that need to be considered in analyzing parking in Freeman Park. First, the cities noted used a parking standard that ranged from 1 space per participant to two spaces per participant. Applying the two space standard to Freeman Park would result in substantially increased parking shortfalls. Secondly, the survey highlights a problem that exists in most of the communities. The problem is overlap. Due to a number of factors including the desire to maximize the use of fields, the efficiency of hired game officials, and other items, most baseball, softball and soccer games are schedule back - to-back resulting in an overlap at the conclusion of one game and the beginning of the next game. Only Minnetonka seeks to manage the overlap by staggering game schedules by 15 minutes. Most communities either realize that they are going to have a parking shortfall during the overlap period or try to provide enough parking to account for overlap • periods. Games at Freeman Park are scheduled back - to-back creating overlap problems. Subject: Freeman Park Parking Analysis Date: January 8, 2002 Page 8 General Observations This analysis focused on examining parking problems in Freeman Park in order to determine if a shortage of off -street parking exists or whether or not existing facilities are being overused. Depending on one's perspective, the information contained in this analysis might lead to the conclusion that one or both of these conditions are applicable. The issue primarily influencing the parking shortage in Freeman Park is the fact that the park is being used in a manner that differs from that envisioned in the original master plan. It is being used more intensively than the original design both in terms of the concurrent use of park facilities and the more intensive use of the areas in the park devoted to youth soccer. If the City of Shorewood wants to at least reduce the parking problems in Freeman Park, consideration needs to be given to adding additional off - street parking and/or reducing the number of activities that are occurring on a concurrent basis. Exhibit 3 — Potential Parking Expansion — Lot 4 • • • HIM 1� lit „ . �;�� , ,.,, "oi l e� • • • Subject: Freeman Park Parking Analysis • Date: January 8, 2002 Page 9 Freeman Park has been actively developed over the past ten years in a manner generally consistent with the master plan. Substantially increasing the supply of off -street parking is not likely to occur since added parking would need to displace passive areas in the park that are now devoted to open space, wooded areas and trails. It is important to maintain a balance of both active and passive facilities to serve a broad range of community interests. Additional parking might be supplied by constructing Lot 5 that was shown on the original master plan. A more realistic possibility is the expansion of Lot 4 that can be accomplished due to the reorientation of park access roads. Exhibit 3 illustrates the expansion of this lot. The expansion of the southern parking lot would add a net of 76 additional parking spaces bringing the total off -street parking supply up to 390 spaces. Assuming that Freeman Park has the ability to accommodate a total of 390 off -street parking spaces and assuming that the City wants to avoid parallel parking along the park road as well as Eureka Road, the use of all park facilities needs to correspond to a parking capacity of 390 vehicles. Use of recreational facilities, therefore, needs to be balanced to create a demand not significantly exceeding 390 parking spaces. Before examining potential ways to accomplish this balance, the issue of overlap needs to be addressed in Freeman Park. The communities surveyed responded that they experience overlap periods generally ranging from 20 to 40 minutes at the start/completion of games. This means that parking demand will be at its peak during this time period. Other communities accommodate overlap by either staggering game times or more commonly, by constructing additional parking. While all communities acknowledged that it is impossible to meet all peak parking demands, for example tournaments, most try to reasonably accommodate parking by using a standard that exceeds one space per game participant. The examples cited include Plymouth who uses a 2 space per participant standard on the high end to Champlin on the low end who uses one space per participant and provides "a few extra spaces" to accommodate overlap. Shorewood could address the issue of overlap by staggering game times by at least 15 minutes. In 1997, games in Freeman Park were staggered by twenty minutes and the result was a decrease in parking problems. Staggering games should help parking shortages but is unlikely to alleviate all problems. Changes in park usage may also be necessary. Recommendations The following recommendations are offered for consideration by the Shorewood Park Commission and City Council: • Implement a series of incremental changes over the course of the next two or three summer seasons to effectuate changes in Freeman Park. By implementing incremental changes, the City can avoid Subject: Freeman Park Parking Analysis Date: January 8, 2002 • Page 10 undue hardships on sports organizations while allowing a "working model" approach to solving the parking problem. Suggested increments include: ■ Initiate staggered game times of at least 15 minutes. ■ As soon as practical, expand parking Lot 4 consistent with the prepared concept plan. Prohibit parking expansion beyond Lot 4 in order to preserve the passive areas within the park. ■ Plan on the use of a total parking supply that "builds in" an excess capacity to accommodate overlap periods. Initially, a 25% excess capacity could be used. This number might be increased to 35 %, 50% or higher depending on the results that are achieved. ■ Manage the use of active facilities consistent with available parking. The management of active facilities consistent with available parking becomes the challenging part of solving the parking problem. For example, building in an excess capacity of 25% results in an available parking supply of approximately 310 spaces out of a total of 390. This would accommodate the scenario outlined earlier in this report that examined the concurrent use of three softball fields, six soccer fields, three youth baseball fields and both the picnic shelter and Eddy Station. These facilities would use a total of approximately 288 of the allocated 310 spaces. A 25% overlap excess would not accommodate the use of 13 soccer fields that have been observed in the past by staff since such usage would require 393 parking spaces, 83 spaces over the allocated limit. Under this approach, the use of facilities could vary among all of the uses providing the total parking demand does not exceed the identified threshold. If it becomes necessary to increase the parking overlap threshold to 35 %, the allocated parking space count would drop to approximately 290 spaces. A 50% overlap threshold would result in an allocated space count of approximately 265 spaces. Both of these alternatives would further reduce the amount of activities that could be scheduled in the park. This analysis is intended to facilitate a discussion about parking problems in Freeman Park and the identification of specific solutions. The next steps in carrying this issue forward should include a meeting with the various affected sports organizations that use Freeman Park to seek their ideas and input and a meeting with MCES who actually conducts most of the facility scheduling in the park. Under the present organizational structure, the cooperation of both the sports organizations and MCES is imperative in solving the parking problems that currently exist. One final note: The standards and numbers used in this analysis are not hard and fast rules. They are, however, generally accurate and should be appropriate for use as a guide in discussing viable options for solving existing parking problems. 0