Loading...
032602 PK WS MIN CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2002 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Chair Arnst opened the work session at 7:02 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Arnst; Commissioners Palesch, Meyer, and Bartlett; City Engineer Brown; City Council Liaison Mayor Love Late Arrival: Commissioners Callies and Puzak Excused Absent: Commissioner Young B. Review Agenda 2DISCUSS PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR 2003 . Chair Arnst stated that the purpose of the evenings meeting was to give the Park Commission the opportunity to talk through ideas for better managing the Parks next year. Included in the packet is a memo submitted by Engineer Brown, which suggests alternatives and general tasks numbered one through eleven for the 2003 plan. Referring to the memo task number 2, Meyer asked if MCES, Minnetonka Community Education Services, held its annual scheduling meeting with the sports organizations as promised. Chair Arnst replied that, while no meeting was held, scheduling by MCES took place. Based on what they did last year, MCES went ahead and filled in the block scheduling for this season. Meyer questioned the reasoning behind this, after the City had indicated on several occasions their interest in attending the seasonal meeting. Chair Arnst agreed, the City, including herself, Meyer, and Twila Grout had asked to be included. This meeting, however, did not happen. Chair Arnst reminded the Commission that they agreed to work with MCES this year based on the premise that they would hold a public meeting for scheduling. It was our assumption that the meeting would happen. Palesch asked if the lack of a meeting could invalidate what MCES has done. She wondered why we could not state that MCES acted without authority and therefore not accept their work. With that, Chair Arnst reiterated the need to discuss other options this evening and introduced Engineer Brown. Brown reported that, over the past few days, he and staff had been examining alternatives. He spoke to other cities, researched tasks and the time commitment involved for scheduling, as well as, the coordination of ball-fields, and liaison services for the City. After incorporating the feedback from those cities with the issues facing Shorewood, he developed a list of tasks listed below, numbered 1 to 11. 1. Generating database 2. Preparation and conducting seasonal meetings with sport organizations 3. Issuance of agreements and rules PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Page 2 of 10 4. Collection, review and acceptance of agreements and rules 5. Perform the analysis of field dedication versus resources available 6. Receipt and review of team rosters 7. Generate, distribute, and track invoices for user fees 8. Issuance of “field permits” to utilize the facilities 9. Game cancellation notifications 10. Administrate tournament policies 11. Handle general field issues and complaints Other cities estimated that these tasks equate to approximately 150 - 225 person hours each spring and fall season. They also reminded Brown that “You get out of it what you put into it.” Briefly Brown cited the three alternatives. The first alternative, to continue with MCES, who has not provided the continuity of communication or services that the City of Shorewood desires, has been deemed unsatisfactory. The second alternative is to contract services out to an independent contractor. Brown stated that this alternative may be cost effective, providing the communication and operating controls the City desires. He added that by providing a clear list of expectations in the RFP, request for proposals, the requirements of the contractor can be made up front. The third option is to provide these services “in house.” Brown noted at various times during discussions of Park Management, the topic of increasing the Park Secretary, Twila Grout’s, position to include park- scheduling duties has been discussed. As indicated in Brown’s memo, currently, Twila has already been devoting almost 50% of her time performing park duties, rather than the budgeted 25%. With the perceived burden of an additional 150 to 225 hours per season, it is unlikely that the Park Secretary position can handle the additional responsibility. Brown maintained that if the service were to be an in house service, additional staff would be required to perform such duties. However, based on the current financial constraints of the park system, it is unlikely that a full time position could be substantiated. Therefore Brown pointed out that the City is faced with either contracting services, or hiring a part time Park Coordinator to carry out these tasks. Mayor Love voiced his concern over properly inventorying the Park Secretary’s time. If she has been spending half of her time working on Park matters, the budget should be amended to reflect these numbers. The Mayor continued that while Twila has been performing many of the tasks in the memo, originally, the Park Foundation was set up to do so. The Park Foundation was to function with the cooperation of Sports Organizations. Due to the sports organizations lack of involvement, the Park Foundation was restructured. Meyer questioned who currently performs these bullet point tasks. She pointed out that after numerous meetings with MCES, the only areas she felt they were fulfilling were items 1 and 2, generating a database and conducting the seasonal meeting, which did not occur. Mayor Love stated that some confusion exists over the user fees and park regulations. Brown stated that is why the City held the Sports Organization Information meeting in order to clear up any confusion among the organizations in the first place. PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Page 3 of 10 Chair Arnst reported that in the meetings held with MCES, very pointed questions were asked to find out what they do. The answer MCES kept repeating was that all they do is scheduling and hold the annual scheduling meeting, which did not happen. Mayor Love asked if the City has created a situation where administering the permit user fee outweighs the benefit of what’s generated. Chair Arnst indicated that the process remains, someone needs to administer and collect all the paperwork, and the fee collection does not detract from that fact. Brown pointed out that 50 - 60 hours were spent last year collecting rosters. He then suggested a simplified approach of collecting a team user fee. Mayor Love agreed that the argument for a team fee, which would simplify collection and be less labor intensive, is persuasive. Brown stated that the user fee just changed to $10, and it might be a good idea to let the dust settle before changing to a team fee. He added, however, that sports organizations are now becoming more familiar with user fees across the board. Meyer again questioned what capacity MCES fills. Brown replied that they fulfill tasks 1, 2, and possibly, 5 to a degree. Chair Arnst asked if this list of tasks represents a baseline, or general job description for a part-time position or contractor. She complimented Brown, stating that the list provides the City with a basis of what is needed. Callies arrived at 7:31 P.M. Palesch referenced the first alternative, remaining with MCES, and stated that she would vote not to go with them. Chair Arnst asked if all present were in agreement, to which everyone replied they were. Brown countered that, while MCES did not put together what the City required, it did have to spend time contacting the sports organizations to confirm the scheduling. Callies stated that adding additional responsibility to the Park Secretary position or staff was unfair. Mayor Love agreed, stating that Grout is already overworked and “maxed out”. Brown reiterated that due to the number of issues at hand, Grout has been spending a great deal of time on Parks, which causes her other responsibilities to slip. Brown acknowledged that what remains are the other two options, either hiring a part time person at $15,000 - $18,000 to handle this, or contracting someone to provide these services. Mayor Love asked whether a specific RFP could be put together or if an intern could handle the responsibility. Brown discouraged the use of an intern for this position due to the intensive re-education element and short-term nature of the intern position. Mayor Love found the idea of an independent contractor an attractive solution. Brown answered that definitely the position could be attractive to a contractor who could work from home, as long as the City was comfortable with it. Palesch believed that a number of people in varying positions would be interested in providing this service. Chair Arnst suggested putting together an RFP and/or an ad for a part time position. Meyer asked if the City had a preference over a part time or contracted person. Chair Arnst believed that a contractor could meet the requirements more cost effectively than hiring a part time employee of the City. Mayor Love suggested that the Commission generate a list of the problems and what it wants done, not alone but together with the City Council at a joint meeting, in order to answer questions and agree upon a solution. Chair Arnst believed that the list provided in the memo is what the Commission has been talking about, and stems from the many discussions of what we need. She stated that these are the issues PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Page 4 of 10 that the Commission faces, that Twila Grout and staff faces, those that have been missing in trying to deal with the sports organizations and balance the use of the parks. Mayor Love asked how Twila’s time would be effected taking away these responsibilities, and by doing so, is there some measurable goal to see if staff has spent less time. He pondered if she would revert to her regular quarter time schedule. Brown answered that he would assume that would be quite possible. The Mayor believed that if they were to choose one of these options, there would need to be a measurable goal of Twila spending less time on Park issues. Brown stated that those goals could be realized rather quickly, as Twila would not need to be spending all of her time tracking down organizations. Brown did caution that over the past two years, the Park Commission has been more active than ever before. Therefore, Brown could not attribute the entire 25% increase in time strictly to sports organizations. Chair Arnst asked how overseeing the Concessions would effect Twila’s time allotment. Brown pointed out that the Concessions would be a joint effort between he, Charlie Davis, and Twila Grout. Chair Arnst observed that the responsibilities would be spread around. Brown added that if a part time position were created in house, it would be nice to add some of the concession duties to the job description. Chair Arnst then inquired over the amount of time required of a contractor or part timer for sports scheduling. Brown indicated that the obvious early spring and fall scheduling hours would be required, along with a spattering of hours throughout the seasons. Brown stated that every City he spoke to reported that they were in direct contact with their sports organizations two or more times a week during the season. Although the crunch time would occur in the spring and fall, Brown maintained that it is more than a twice a year position. Handling the coordination of tournaments etc., problems, and weather related issues would require more time. Meyer added that, to her knowledge, these were not things MCES was doing currently. Mayor Love asked what size City’s Brown had been in communication with. Brown identified Chanhassen, West St. Paul, and Mendota Heights, who all had the resources to bring the position in house. Mayor Love stated that he could see the appeal of an independent contractor, someone who could be evaluated in a year and discontinued if need be. No real commitment exists as in the case of an employee. Mayor Love then asked if conversations had taken place with Excelsior about their Park needs. Brown stated that they hadn’t pursued this avenue because Excelsior has no real need for field scheduling. Mayor Love voiced his desire to discuss the regional problems faced by Cities with regional parks to encourage a cooperation amongst cities. While Chair Arnst appreciated the effort, she did not want to slow the process of restoring balance to our parks. Mayor Love, on the other hand, did not want to see the City expending its resources heading down one path, when the eventual goal is to look at things in a broader picture. Brown pointed out that he had taken that avenue with Tonka Bay and Excelsior in regard to a Rink Supervisor. A partnership that failed after the ice went bad for Tonka Bay. Brown added that, after meeting with other communities last year, there was not much buy-in for the concept of joining efforts for sports scheduling. Meyer stated that last summer steps were taken when the City met with Deephaven, Excelsior, and others only to find little support for a joint Park Coordinator. Mayor Love believed that those meetings focused on field design rather than the broader issue of parks and what kinds of problems or staffing they could use. Meyer pointed out that in the meetings she was referring to, the City of Chanhassen’s Park Manager was present as a resource, while they discussed the Park Manager position with the other Cities. She added that Administrator Dawson was also present. Mayor Love stated that he was not present at those PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Page 5 of 10 meetings. Brown continued that the individual cities present at that meeting did not understand the problems that Shorewood faced, nor bought in to how it affected them. Chair Arnst asked if staff could develop a specific job description and budget for the position, followed by writing an ad and an RFP to check response. Brown suggested they pursue placing the ad first, then wrestle the issues down, and get response from that before writing an RFP. Chair Arnst maintained that task #2 on the memo should remain a part of the City’s responsibilities. Her intention was that last weeks sports organization meeting would be the first annual staff driven meeting. Brown agreed that this is an important informational meeting reinforcing the relationship with the City. Mayor Love questioned whether task items #9 - 11 would remain City or contracted responsibilities. He viewed these items as somewhat on-call needs. In the case of tournament policy enforcement, that duty should remain public works. Chair Arnst asked if Brown would remain the enforcer of policy. Brown believed that the up front paper, phone work, and follow-up would be part of the part time position, however, public work would enforce policy. Meyer reiterated that the service position would not be responsible for surprise inspections and enforcement’s. Mayor Love agreed that the position must have realistic expectations bestowed upon it. Chair Arnst pointed out that from a practical standpoint, Brown and Davis, of Public Works, have been the authority figure at the parks and should remain so. Puzak arrived at 8:14 P.M. Mayor Love asked that the discussion be brought to Council before any ads are run in order to have the issues heard, voted upon, and whatever the solution, the Commission has total buy-in from the Council. Chair Arnst voiced her concern that if Council votes down the three alternatives what else is there. Mayor Love stated that he believes that in reality, only two options exist, and it is only prudent that the Commission divides the 11 tasks into specifics and present their idea to Council. Mayor Love asked to see concrete end goals of where the Commission is going with these alternatives and how to measure the results. He felt confusion exists between the Council and Commission. Chair Arnst was unclear where confusion could possibly exist after the process that has been followed. Callies interjected that step one seems to be to her to look at getting someone else to provide our scheduling services, either by an ad or RFP. This recommendation should then be sent to Council for their input. She believed that what Mayor Love, and Council, is stating is that they would like to hear our recommendation, whether they will or will not agree with it, they would like to give us their input before we proceed. Chair Arnst was concerned that if the answer from Council was no, what the next step might be. Callies suggested that the Commission face that hurdle when they come to it, and not before. Mayor Love stated that he wasn’t indicating that there would not be support, however, he has heard that budgeting might be an issue. He added that in the long run it would be better to take a path that we’ve all agreed on. Furthermore, he added that tonight he walks away with a better idea of some things than before. Puzak stated that we have no budget, there is no money budgeted for this position. Chair Arnst pointed out that, while this is correct, they would be requesting money for the 2003 budget. Mayor Love stated that the budget can be amended to reflect what and where the dollars are, money might merely need to be moved around. Brown indicated that the budget process begins in July and, in this case, we have the chicken and egg scenario. We need to advertise to solicit response and interest from people, while we go through the budget cycle. PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Page 6 of 10 Chair Arnst suggested staff specifically define the position and tasks, get an idea of the costs, and solicit informal responses. Brown stated that once the budget is approved, the ads could be run. Callies asked when a person would start in the position. Brown indicated that a person would need to be on line by Mid- January. Meyer asked what the costs might be and if the position would be hourly. Brown stated that logically the position would probably be billed hourly not to exceed a certain amount. Puzak stated that before anyone is hired the Commission needs to write down what’s being done, what we want changed, what we want done, and then we have to figure out if getting from point A to point B is worth any money. Brown interjected that before Puzak arrived this evening, Brown had shared that staff had contacted a few other Cities to get their feedback on the tasks of their Park Position and reconciled those with Shorewood’s issues as reflected by his memorandum. Chair Arnst identified the tasks numbered #1 - 8 as those that would make up the skeleton of the position. Callies mentioned that one additional issue exists that is not contained in the memo. The issue of equity of allocation of field usage should be added. Mayor Love agreed that if this problem exists, then it becomes a policy issue, one that needs to be addressed by Council. Chair Arnst pointed out that, according to MCES, the equity issue and field use balance, should be able to be addressed at the seasonal sports meeting. Brown stated that an equity process tries to divide the fields proportionately. There is only a finite number of jellybeans, or fields, and the object is to divide them up proportionately so that everyone leaves equally unhappy because we have more kids than jellybeans. Puzak maintained that we couldn’t hold the sports scheduling meeting independently without the other parks present. Brown agreed that, while we don’t know if we want to be the umbrella for everyone and it is hard to coordinate, we need to become an umbrella operation for our fields with all the growing pains that go along with it. Puzak cautioned that he did not want to be the first City to help tip over the MCES organization by withdrawing from it. MCES might decide they are through struggling with this issue if others follow. Brown pointed out that we are not the first, Chanhassen withdrew and has its own scheduling meeting. Meyer added that Bennett does the same thing. Mayor Love pointed out that if equity is a matter of just one team, that can be handled readily; but if the deeper question is, that we don’t have the resources to meet all of the demands of the adults, kids, and special education groups we have, we reserve the right to express a voice in this to see that its being met. On the other hand, in some of the conversations he’s had with other City’s, he’s heard some attitudes he didn’t like. For instance, the view of Chanhassen, who runs their own meeting, is that if they were having the difficulties Shorewood is facing they would tell those people not to play on their fields. Mayor Love stated that he wants to avoid adopting this same parochial view. While we have the right to make sure that our voices are being heard and our resources are being used to meet the greatest demand of our South Shore residents, we need to be sure to stay at the table with others. Mayor Love also pointed out to Puzak that we would not be the first to withdraw from MCES, in fact, four others before us have done so. He added that the scheduling facet is only a small part of MCES’s value. It is a great organization, which has accomplished many great things, although they may have failed to meet the expectations that we had. Callies questioned how big an issue equity is. Mayor Love was unclear whether it involved only girls’ softball or if it is a bigger issue. Chair Arnst pointed out that in this case the girl’s softball league is made up of 520 girls and is currently the only equity issue that we know about. Last fall Southwest Christian Academy inquired over field use. Chair Arnst asked whether we need to define a policy based on the number of kids that exist in a league. Mayor Love stated that while he has no facts on the matter, if there is an equity issue that is a big deal to him. Chair Arnst pointed out that fields 1, 2, and 3 are baseball and 4, 5, and 6 are softball. Puzak asked if the girls softball league is on the field use list at all. PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Page 7 of 10 Chair Arnst replied that they are scheduled on their practice field, however, had asked for more Freeman time for their games. Puzak stated that if they were at the meeting and this is what they negotiated they got a pretty good deal. Meyer and Chair Arnst reiterated that no MCES meeting took place. Puzak could not address how, without the sports MCES scheduling meeting, this field use inventory got drafted. Brown maintained that they have a long way to go to determining equity and policy decisions, a subject that won’t be decided upon tonight. Brown stated that an individual in the contracted position would begin to understand the issues related to scheduling over time. Guidelines would need to be established by staff to determine this better at a later date. Brown believed, however, that equity was irrelevant to this evening’s discussion. Callies disagreed, stating that equity is one key issue that MCES failed in and we need to determine other issues and policies before we hire someone else unless we want them to fail as well. Mayor Love stated that this issue would be dealt with, either individually or by policy. Chair Arnst noted that this and other matters would need to be discussed at another time. Brown reminded the Commission that the purpose of this work session was to discuss Step 1; what alternatives are there, get buy-in or feedback from Council, get the budgeting, and then further define the policy issues. Palesch suggested investigating the possibility of recruiting a team of volunteers to assist with the position. Mayor Love questioned the prospect of blending responsibilities with MCES. He wondered if this could offer a viable alternative and suggested staff look into this further. Mayor Love believed that Minnetonka currently blends responsibilities with MCES, allowing them to do they’re scheduling. Palesch inquired whether the group of Park Commissions from across the country that we joined might have any further suggestions. Staff will investigate. Chair Arnst inquired over the next step. She asked if Mayor Love would be hosting the Joint Meeting that he had suggested with the Park Commission and Council. Mayor Love recommended clearly defining what the needs and goals are, and then the alternatives that the Commission sees for accomplishing those, to what measurable degree, then offer a dialogue in which a problem and solution can be agreed upon. Puzak suggested putting into effect an equity policy to ensure there is some fair way to schedule. He was very hesitant to get into scheduling and would like to see us help MCES be successful. Mayor Love suggested that the Commission move forward with the opportunity to find a better way to expand our partnership with other cities. Puzak created his own field equity equation to look at the usage, before realizing that some information was contained on the other side of the sheet, which he thought might be used to assist in considering equity. For argument sake, Meyer added that in some instances, people might be interested in equity on their side of town. Puzak disagreed heartily. Meyer admitted this was an exaggeration, but maintained that equity is a larger issue. Chair Arnst stated her concern, that if MCES this year, of all years, was not aware of the City’s concerns and our expectations they never will be. We were in three meetings with them, following a thorough PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Page 8 of 10 process, where we very clearly told them what it is that troubled the City, equity was one and process was another. These meetings were with the head of MCES. Chair Arnst believed they could not have made it clearer what their concerns were and continues to have a concern not just over equity, but also the process that they used to come up with it. In a year when they know they are under scrutiny, MCES still arbitrarily chose to can process and produce this product. She believed strongly that there is no way the City could ever make them to be held accountable. She added that even at the Sports Organization Information meeting they were shocked that we would ask them to watch the schedules. Puzak asked how do we fix MCES. Chair Arnst replied that it is not the City’s job to manage MCES. The Commission has been clear with them, and for whatever reason, they have not heard us, or perhaps they can’t do it. Mayor Love stated that while he has no reason to defend MCES, however, he does need to take a look at what our resources are and what our goals are and how do we know when we have succeeded when we got there. The failure with this giant MCES organization, as the Mayor could see it, is that they have failed to listen to us. Chair Arnst noted that our scheduling is just a miniscule piece of what they do, what MCES really does is programs, and this is just unimportant in the scheme of things. Chair Arnst stated, once again, that the next step is to meet with the Council, having defined our needs, defined our goals, and defined alternatives. Puzak added define the problem, to which Chair Arnst reiterated that is what the needs address. Puzak disagreed, stating that in his view, if there are needs and they are already being met, there is no problem. He would like to hear it in terms of a problem that needs to be solved. Mayor Love pointed out that we are back to the eleven things on the memorandum. Puzak insisted that these are things that MCES doesn’t do. Chair Arnst stated that is the problem. Puzak maintained that they’d never do these things and insisted that hiring someone to do them wouldn’t happen either. Mayor Love felt it fair to say that if the Park Commission, and he believed the Council, could agree that these are important, the needs could be something we could all come together on. Puzak stated that he wouldn’t give anyone $5.00 for generating a database. Commissioner Meyer and the Mayor both agreed, and found it interesting that generating the database is the one thing that MCES said they do. Mayor Love once again pointed out that if the Commission and Council could agree that these were important tasks, then we know what needs to be covered, and we could determine what our available resources are, be it money or staff, to get it done. Puzak repeated that he did not want to waste one more meeting, one more special meeting, or one more minute on this subject. Puzak maintained that he has never heard of a problem. Palesch stated that he might not want to hear the problem. Puzak did not see the need to acquire a database, nor did he see why the seasonal meeting was on the list as it was already done by the City. Mayor Love stated that, in fairness, prior to Puzak’s arrival, the Commission already removed items 2, and 9 - 11 as items that could not be put to another organization. As he addressed the remaining items, Puzak persisted in his belief that it wasn’t worth fixing the problems. He maintained that he would not spend any money in order to solve the problem he doesn’t see exist. Callies noted that while she can appreciate that Puzak does not see the problem, there are five others here this evening that do and have a different view, and are not about to stop everything simply because one of the group disagrees. Puzak then asked what happened to the last three votes in which they voted not to do anything this year. To which everyone replied they are not meeting to discuss this year, instead they are working on getting a bigger budget for 2003. Puzak then asked why they are meeting on this subject now. He suggested waiting until the end of the summer and see how it goes and talk about it next fall. Chair Arnst indicated that fall would be too late, the budget process begins in July. She added that the motions that the Commission made held them accountable to come up with a plan by July 1st in order to incorporate it PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Page 9 of 10 into the budget process of 2003. Mayor Love interjected that he believed it useful to begin talking about it now, setting the goals, determining what paths we might choose to take and budgeting for it. Setting up an excellent direction for next year. He stated that, while he can understand some of the problems that MCES has had, (not defending them), on the other hand, they are not meeting expectations. This is a good chance to look at ourselves, our commitment, and look at the budgets we have and decide what we can solve. Maybe its all of the items, perhaps 2 or 3, but lets figure out what we are trying to solve so that we can evaluate them and start working towards solutions that we can point to. The Mayor appreciated the attempt to start the discussion early and begin the dialogue ahead of time with an outline of discussion points. Puzak reiterated that he still does not understand the problem. First, he said the problem was parking, to which they spent $3,000 - $5,000 to study the parking; and now, it’s the whole equity issue, which he is willing to look at, but it’s a moving target and he was unsure what needs fixing. Chair Arnst asked Brown to confirm that staff generated the outline of what they need to help them in the memorandum which Brown presented this evening. Brown agreed. With this in mind, Chair Arnst cited eighteen issues which she pulled out of the minutes from the last joint Council and Commission meeting regarding scheduling and MCES, some of which did involve parking and traffic which we’ve worked on, but other things keep cropping up. Chair Arnst maintained that as stewards of the park they ought to create a balance and have a grasp on the management. We ought to be able to solve our own problems without having to rely on MCES communicating with us in a timely fashion. She agreed these issues do act like moving targets. Brown stated that “the moving target” analogy fits because all of these issues are interrelated and we get an opportunity to concentrate on one of them at a time. Now it may seem we are concentrating on administrative problems because we just had our sports information meeting and its fresh off the press. Brown maintained that by focusing on one issue at a time, the issues of managing parking, field equity, and how people get in and out are not diminished. He noted that these are all interrelated because it is the whole administration of our parks. Brown stated that it just so happens that tonight we are trying to chip away at the “pink elephant” in the room, one bite at a time, and this just so happens to be the bite that we chose. We will be going down the list of all the issues, to start to try and sort through this, and it’s going to get messy. He concluded that we have to start somewhere. Palesch agreed wholeheartedly that the Park Commission needs to regain “control” of the Parks. Mayor Love reasoned that “balance” would be a better goal than micromanaging. He continued that while he does agree there are problems at Freeman, he does not buy into all of them, and hopes that Puzak hears that as well. He agreed that the energy that staff has been expending on Parks could be put to better use. Chair Arnst pointed out that the Park Commission has completed two very big steps. They have accomplished the parking and feasibility study and held the first annual user group meeting. Brown agreed, stating that the results of those will be used in addressing equity issues. Once again, he referenced his jellybean analogy earlier, everyone wants proportional space but we need to fit together the pieces with equal dissatisfaction. Puzak stated that he simply views the problem as parking. One that will be solved once we get the additional 50 parking spaces the City is negotiating with the Watershed. With 50 more spaces, they should be able to have simultaneous uses of all fields. He suggested focusing our energy here, and not on scheduling. In Puzak’s opinion, this is step one, which will solve the scheduling issues if we just look at PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Page 10 of 10 it at the end of the year. Mayor Love maintained that, while they are close to negotiating the additional 50 spaces, these are not all it will take to solve everything. Brown reiterated the team user fee concept versus roster collection, which required 50 - 60 hours of Twila’s time last year. Puzak alleged that we shouldn’t have wasted our time doing so, and instead should have just taken what we got and not tracked the rest down. Mayor Love believed that if the collection process was that complicated we need to simplify it, as discussed earlier tonight. Assessing a fee based on the average size roster seemed to the Mayor a good compromise. Puzak argued that the organizations do not have their rosters in the first one to two months of the year and cannot pay the user fees Director Burton wants to have billed in January. Meyer asked whether registration still takes place in November and why it is so difficult to pay based on an average roster size. Mayor Love agreed that once the rosters were then filled later, credits could be distributed etc. Puzak asked why we just couldn’t work with these (sports organization) people. He stated that the Sports organizations would help us out with anything if we just ask them, or they can make our lives miserable too. Mayor Love appreciated Puzak’s comments, adding that the City is well on its way to forming partnerships with its user groups. The Work Session closed at 9:28 P.M. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson RECORDING SECRETARY