Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-02-01 Park Board Packet• 41 0 • I\J V9 . �C�RYORA�� iaea // EDINA CITY COUNCIL AND EDINA PARK BOARD JOINT WORK SESSION Tuesday, February 1, 2011 5:00 p.m. Community Room, City Hall AGENDA I. Veterans Memorial Future Maintenance Expenses IL Facility User Fee Per -Participant (Gyms, Outdoor Rinks and Athletic Fields) III. Braemar Golf Course Consultant IV. Roles and Responsibilities of Boards, Commissions and Staff V. The Future of Edinborough Park and Centennial Lakes Park • ,J To: Edina City Council, Edina Park Board and Staff From: John Keprios, Director Edina Park and Recreation Department Date: January 27, 2011 Re: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2011, JOINT WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT. The following is background information concerning each item on the Joint Work Session Agenda scheduled for 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 1, 2011 in the Community Room, City Hall. I. Veterans Memorial Future Maintenance Expenses • The proposed Veterans Memorial Ordinance, Resolution, agreement and architect contract are all on the Council's February 1, 2011 meeting agenda. At the Council's January 18, 2011 meeting, the Council expressed concern about who should be held responsible for future maintenance expenses. This may be part of a larger issue that questions the current policy and practice of accepting donations. Should all donations require that the donor be held responsible for the donated park amenity's future maintenance expenses or that the initial donation cover all future maintenance expenses up front? The immediate question is should the Veterans Memorial have a future revenue source other than taxpayer dollars to maintain the proposed memorial project? On January 18, the Council expressed that a Public Hearing be scheduled for a future Council meeting to address the issue of the proposed design, location and maintenance costs associated with the proposed Veterans Memorial. This might also be a good time to discuss the public process for this proposed project. Should the Park Board also conduct a Public Hearing? Should staff conduct an Open House and who should be notified in these cases? II. Facility User Fee Per -Participant (Gyms, Outdoor Rinks and Athletic Fields) The "Athletic Facility Per -Participant Fee" was last raised in 2007 when it went from $8 per -participant to $9 per -participant. Prior to that change, the fee was raised in 2002 from $7 per participant to $8 per -participant (a five-year period). A $1 increase in the Per Participant fee would bring in an additional $10,000. We • currently take in approximately $110,000/year with this fee. • The main reasons staff did not propose an increase for 2011 are: We reduced our athletic field services last year by eliminating some part-time staff positions for budget saving measures. My fear is raising fees and delivering less service would not be well received by our constituents. Any increases in fees during these challenging economic times are not being well received from our residents, which is the main reason why most of our proposed fees are flat this year. This fee was first established by the City Council in 1987 and was set at $5.00 per - participant. The matter was first brought to the Park Board; however, the Park Board unanimously voted against the idea. The Council disagreed and passed the fee with the intent to cover a portion of the Park Maintenance budget. The fee was never established with the intent to cover all maintenance expenses. The City Council has expressed some interest in significantly increasing this fee to cover more of the costs associated with providing these services. This is a good issue for the Park Board and Council to debate in a Joint Work Session environment. III. Braemar Golf Course Consultant At their January 11, 2011 meeting, the Park Board voted to recommend hiring the National Golf Foundation to conduct a study and analysis of Braemar Golf Course and its operations ® for a fee of approximately $19,500 as proposed by Chairman Joseph Hulbert. The Park Board also brought forward and passed a recommendation to form a Task Force to work closely with the consulting firm throughout the study as proposed by Vice Chair Keeya Steel. The dialogue and debate in the deliberations of this proposal is whether or not the new Golf Course Manager Todd Anderson and his staff be given an opportunity to propose plans and make changes and improvements to the Golf Course to ultimately improve profitability. Some patrons of the course also stated that there are plenty of volunteer resources available to assist with a study and provide suggestions for improvements. There are credible arguments on both sides of the issue that are worthy of debate and discussion. IV. Roles and Responsibilities of Boards, Commissions and Staff Through the proposed Golf Course Consultant issue brought forward by Park Board Chairman Joseph Hulbert, it seems appropriate to have a dialogue about what exactly are the expectations of our Board and Commission members and how they should interact with staff. Proposing new and innovative ideas and proposals by Board and Commission members is a good thing even if staff does not necessarily support those ideas. Boards and Commissions are not looked upon as rubber stamps for staff s ideas. In other words, this is not to discourage those ideas and proposals regardless of staff s opinion. • Although well intentioned, Board and Commission members at times take initiative to conduct staff -related work which can lead to a dysfunctional and/or inappropriate public process. Everything we do is public and needs to be transparent. It can become dysfunctional and inappropriate when Board and Commission members contact professionals directly and request quotes and proposals. It is the Board and Commission members' duty to make recommendations to the City on policies and governance matters. Board and Commission members do not have any authority to secure quotes or proposals from vendors. It is staffs responsibility to secure quotes and proposals. If a Board or Commission member wishes to suggest that a Task Force or Committee be formed, the proper procedure is to request staff to place the item on their agenda and provide background information so as the body can make an informed decision. Again, the intent is positive but it is important to work with staff on how best to bring these ideas forward. It is inappropriate for members to bring these types of recommendations to an official meeting without prior notification with appropriate background information. V. The Future of Edinborough Park and Centennial Lakes Park Edinborough Park and Centennial Lakes Park have operated at a loss financially since their beginning. To reduce Edinborough's financial losses, the Council approved a move to begin charging all park visitors an admission fee to enter the park. In 2003, the small indoor ice rink space was converted into what is now one of Minnesota's greatest indoor playgrounds, Adventure Peak which has been an excellent revenue producer. The operational losses of Edinborough and Centennial Lakes Park have always used their • Trust Fund balance to cover the subsidy. That Trust Fund will be completely gone in a relatively short period of time (three to five years). A number of actions to debate in a Joint Work Session include: • A future source of revenue to continue to provide the facilities and services at Edinborough and Centennial Lakes Park (i.e. tax subsidy, utility franchise fees, increase in maintenance fees to property owners in the TIF district, etc.) • Renovations at Edinborough that may reduce operating expenses but bring in additional revenues (other park uses i.e. convert pool to a less expensive venue) • Reduction in services at Edinborough and/or Centennial Lakes Park The purpose and value of the programs and facilities offered at Edinborough and Centennial Lakes Park and a preferred course of action are important topics worthy of dialogue at the Joint Work Session.