Loading...
112601 CC Ws(2) AgP ~ = ::?l I z 0 Fb ~ "". .. ~ ~ ~ B ~ 0 (;,) ;;. 5 - 7i (.) ~ - - ~ ~ -< (.) ~ I t 1111 3~]!~ ~ <E ..~ ~~ ~ . J , , . CITY OF SHOREWOOD , .' 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 · www.cLshorewood.mn.us · cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council ^ Al\ Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator Vv November 20, 2001 MCES Issues; Recreation Facilities Programming . The community education movement started around 1970 in Flint, Michigan, in part to integrate the use of city and public school facilities, and thus avoid duplication of services and the expense of redundant construction. During the 1970s, Minnetonka Independent School District No. 276 and the cities it serves began the local community education program. Today, MCES is a $4.2 million operation, with all but $800,000 coming from program revenues (i.e., user fees). . When established, there was evidently an understanding (as no one seems to be able to find any formal, written agreement) that the cities would contribute $0.50 per capita of population to MCES; . some believe this level was a symbolic commitment to support MCES. It is also unclear that this contribution was to be for services to schedule recreation facilities; however, this fee has been included with invoices for other MCES services (e.g., lifeguards), and the larger cities - Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, and Chanhassen - have stopped making their contributions as they provide extensive recreation programming services. For 2001 and beyond, MCES has decided not to invoice cities for their contributions (which, for Shorewood, would be $3,700), as the $12,000 or so in revenue was inconsequential in its overall budget. MCES Issues City Council and Park Commission have identified problems with the intensity of use of park facilities, especially in light of the City's stewardship responsibility for these community assets. The City of Shorewood has relied on Minnetonka Community Education and Services (MCES) to coordinate the scheduling of its recreation facilities. Earlier this year, concerns had been expressed by City Council and Park Commission regarding the level and quality of these services provided by MCES. City staff and, later, members of the Park Commission met with MCES staff to frame issues and explore alternatives. It was readily apparent that the City and MCES had different expectations. This difference may be explained partly by the large amount oftumover over the years on City Council, City staff, Park Commission, and MCES staff. People brought different assumptions and expectations of what each other did, and did not have a regular process of communication to validate or modify their expectations. n ~J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ;ff~ , 4.~ Park Use/MCES November 26,2001, City Council Work Session Page Two Scheduling: According to MCES, it began assigning blocks of time in City parks to sports organizations years ago; each organization was responsible for managing and scheduling its teams. As MCES had not received much feedback to do anything differently, it assumed that this approach was meeting the City's needs and expectations. It had not been requested to substantially enhance its services, and thus had not made changes in the types or level of resources to perform this function. As the District needed to make budget adjustments for the 2002 fiscal year, it reduced the staff level from 1.0 to 0.75 positions to perform the tasks of an essentially clerical coordinator. The City expected (or assumed) that MCES had greater sophistication. For example, it believed that MCESshould have the capability of scheduling game times for the sports organizations. (Later, upon fmding that MCES did not have this capability, the City offered to purchase the necessary software for it. MCES evidently did not have the staff resources to provide the enhanced services with this software tool.) The City also believed that MCES was visiting parks to ensure they were being used properly by the groups assigned to them; MCES had not considered this to be in its scope . of basic services. While the City expected MCES to manage the scheduled organizational use of the parks, MCES saw itself as a broker of park availability. The City had also expressed concerns about the process to incorporate new groups or activities in the park use schedule. MCES admitted that it could make improvements in announcing its winter organizational meeting, at which all sports organizations are scheduled for the upcoming year. MCES relied on cities and the public's general knowledge of its existence to have new groups contact MCES regarding the winter organizational meeting. If a group is not involved in this park assignment meeting, it will have to wait until the following year to be included. MCES does have a criterion that new groups are community-based- Le., open for anyone to join and participate - rather than exclusive or closed in its membership, in order to be scheduled. During this information-gathering process, the City requested the involvement of other cities in the MCES service area. Representatives of Chanhassen, Deephaven, and Excelsior attended these meetings. At this point, it appears that Shorewood is the only city with concerns about the intensity . ofMCES's scheduled use of its park facilities. Alternatives: The key to ensuring the proper use of the parks is to have staff present in the parks to monitor how organizations are using them. This person would also need to have authority to require organizations to conform to park use rules and policies. 1) MCES staff suggested that it could provide a more appropriate and higher level of service. It could assign recreation coordinators rather than administrative support staff. In so doing, the MCES could be at city parks and monitor use. To have this type of service, the City of Shorewood would need to spend considerably more than the $3,500 annual commitment it has made toward Community Education. 2) It may be possible to contract with another municipality to provide recreation programming/ coordinator services. In recent informal conversations with my counterparts, they have not indicated much interest in this arrangement. } .Pilrk UselMCES '. November 26,2001, City Council Work Session Page Three 3) The City may wish to authorize an additional position on the City staff. At this point, it would appear that the position should be seasonal. Staff would appreciate direction or ideas of other tasks this position could be responsible for, in order to make it a year-round position. If the position were seasonal, there would be issues of continuity of staff from year to year. 4) These responsibilities could be assigned to current City staff. It should be noted that staffis generally working at capacity, and other services would be stretched thin or perhaps foregone. With alternatives 3 and 4, the Council would need to decide whether it would be a prudent investment to develop staff capacity to perform recreation coordinator functions. With alternatives 1 or 2, the City could pay for the services by organizations that have capacity and experience. . There are budget issues with all of these alternatives, particularly as tax levy limits stay in effect. One consideration would be to raise the activity registrant user fee (aka "sock fee"). The fee of $5 per registrant per season did raise more revenue than expected in 2001, despite the difficulties in the first-year administration of these fees. These revenues are targeted to defray the cost of Eddy Station and the level of park maintenance needed because of the use by sports organizations. Doubling the fee would still not come close to funding the additional maintenance required, let alone the cost of adding staff or contracting for services in coordinating the use of City parks. One of the philosophies in making public parks available for organized athletics is to provide affordable access for people to participate. In theory (and according to some empirical studies), people - especially youth - who are involved in these activities are less likely to be involved in anti- social behavior as youths and as adults. It is less expensive subsidize organized recreation and foster the respectful behaviors they value, than to pay in the long-run for criminal justice and social programs. . Park Use Issues Changing Community Expectations: The City's parks - particularly Freeman - are being intensively used, especially from early spring through mid-July, and in the fall. This intensity of use is manifested most by the availability of parking, or rather the lack of it. Historically, there has been an emphasis on developing and programming parks for active uses, like those of organized sports associations. In recent years, residents have increasingly expressed concern about the carrying capacity of parks and the consequent responsibility of stewardship of these public properties. They have also noted the value of the passive uses and enjoyment of parks, and the appropriateness of including these uses in park development and management policies. The Park Commission is currently developing a Comprehensive Park Plan in light of these changing needs and expectations of the City's park system. Its proposed plans and recommendations will be valuable in developing new policies for the park system. Supply and Demand: There is a finite amount of park land available in the South Lake Minnetonka area (including Chanhassen and Victoria). There is also a seemingly incessantly increasing number of residents and teams to use the limited number of fields for practices, games, and tournaments. Overcrowding of fields is not an experience unique to Shorewood. Park UselMCES November 26, 2001, City Council Work Session Page Four ,.,. ., ~~ The City could change the authorized levels of use of Shore wood parks by organized sports associations. Presumably, this change would be a reduction in the level of use of the parks. The City would be under considerable pressure from sports organizations and parents to restore park use to historic levels. There may be interest in providing additional park space, for active or passive uses. It may be preferable, for example, to acquire land for new passive uses and emphasize existing parks for active uses. There may be a call for referenda to issue bonds for such park acquisition and development. In summary, there are immediate issues related to the management of City parks for organized recreation. In Freeman Park, for example, better management may mitigate the need for such . structural changes as adding parking. Management measures should be pursued before considering physical alterations. Changes in managing park use will be effective in the long-term as the City articulates expectations of the parks, individually and as a system, and gains concurrence from residents and users of Shorewood parks. Ideally, these expectations and policies should be developed first, so that any changes in managing park use will support them, and not often need revision. ) .