Loading...
121001 CC WS Min . . . CITY OF SHORE WOOD WORK SESSION - JOINT MEETING OF THE PARK COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2001 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE WORK SESSION MEETING Chair Arnst, of the Park Commission, called the joint City Council meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. A. Roll Call City Council MembersPresent: Late Arrival: Councilmembers Zerby, Lizee, Turgeon, and Garfunkel Mayor Love Park Commissioners Present: Chair Arnst; Commissioners Puzak, Callies, Bix, Young, and Meyer Commissioner Dallman Late Arrival: Also Present: City Administrator Dawson; City Engineer Brown; Finance Director Burton; and Mr. Koegler ofthe Hoisington Koegler Group B. Review Agenda Chair Arnst 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 Arnst 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, JOINT MEETING OF THE PARK COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11,2001 Page 2 of 10 . soccer has asked for the fields to be redressed, girls softball has come onto the scene asking for more field 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 Arnst 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 Arnst 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 Arnst noted that the Park System ranks 4th 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 Arnst 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 balal1ce. He indicated they hope to come back to present their report to the Commission in January. . Mr. Koegler referred to the issue, as Chair Arnst 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, JOINT MEETING OF THE PARK COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11,2001 Page 3 of 10 . 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 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 Councilor 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. JOINT MEETING OF THE PARK. COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2001 Page 4 of 10 . However, as they started further negotiations on this matter, staffing issues emerged at MCES, which has caused them to back off of scheduling altogether. 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 Arnst 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 ofland 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, . . . JOINT MEETING OF THE PARK COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2001 Page 5 of 10 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. 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 JOINT MEETING OF THE PARK COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11,2001 Page 6 of 10 . 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 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 . . . JOINT MEETING OF THE PARK COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11,2001 Page 7 of 10 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. 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 1st. 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 $15,000-$30,0000, 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 Arnst 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 .' . . . JOINT MEETING OF THE PARK COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2001 Page 8 of 10 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 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 $15-$30,000 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 ! . . . . JOINT MEETING OF THE PARK COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2001 Page 9 of 10 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 ifthe Park Commission has formally asked the Council not to use MCES. Chair Arnst indicated no. He then asked for staff input. 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 ifthere 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 , ( ,.... . . . JOINT MEETING OF THE PARK COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2001 Page 10 of 10