Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCPR-08-28-06(Approved: ` /92- CJ ) CARMEL /CLAY BOARD OF PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEETING MINUTES August 28, 2006, 6:00 P.M. CARMEL /CLAY PARKS & RECREATION ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 1411 E 116TH STREET, CARMEL, IN 46032 MEMBER ATTENDEES MEMBER ABSENTEES OTHERS S Dillon T Tolson A Kostrzewa J Engledow M Westermeier P Chester M Klitzing S Shapiro C Broderick J Rosensteele D Grisham J Ketterman J Hagan D Dutcher K Forman (left at J Miller (left at 6:55 for School Board meeting) 6:20) I. ROLL CALL II. CALL TO ORDER The regular board meeting of the Carmel /Clay Board of Parks and Recreation was convened at approximately 6:00 p.m. on August 28, 2006 pursuant to notice. S Dillon called the meeting to order. Other board members present: J Engledow, P Chester, S Shapiro, J Rosensteele, J Ketterman, D Dutcher and J Miller. T Tolson was absent. NOTE: Hereinafter these minutes will state the motion, followed parenthetically by the name of the one who made the motion (listed first) and then the one who seconded it. For example the motion would read, "It was moved to approve the minutes...etc. (Rosensteele, Tolson)." When a motion is carried but not unanimously, the results of the vote will be listed i.e. "(Rosensteele, Tolson; 8 to 2, with one abstaining). When the motion was carried unanimously, a "C -Un" will be added — i.e. "(Rosensteele, Tolson; C -Un)." Board Comments. The Agenda was amended to allow the Carmel Clay School report in light of J Miller's need to leave to attend the 7:00 School Board meeting. (P Chester, J Rosensteele; C -Un). Joe reported that the [elementary school] Principals gave the Extended School Enrichment program a great report, adding that he thinks that things are going very well over all. He noted that one of the parent complaints is that [the School Board] did not fully consult the community [before changing programs]. Using his experience on the Park Board, Joe reported that he had suggested to the School Board that it publish its process regarding a water company easement for the soccer fields. M Westermeier mentioned that as Michael will also be leaving early for the school board meeting, any questions for him should be addressed early on. III. ACTION ITEMS A. Claims — Jim Engledow Claim Sheet August 28, 2006 (Engledow, Rosensteele, C -Un). M Klitzing explained the use of two (2) cell phone carriers: the ESE program uses cell phones under a separate and less expensive contract than that offered through the City [of Carmel]. He also explained the entry "pre- approved claims" as those claims [such as utilities] recognized by the Board as requiring processing prior to Board approval. A Kostrzewa confirmed that backup forms track petty cash. J Engledow cautioned against spelling errors that separate names and therefore claims defeating the purpose of the alphabetical alignment. B. Financial Reports (tabled from August 14, 2006 meeting) — Jim Engledow. Motion to Accept. (Engledow, Rosensteele, C -Un). M Klitzing agreed to review the fund from which ESE claims were paid. C. Central Park Matters: Mark Westermeier and Michael Klitzing Page 1 of 6 1. Aquatics Decking: Resolution 8- 28- 06 -04: Determination of an Emergency and Unforeseen Circumstances. Mark explained that the indoor concrete contractor failed to provide a uniform broom finish around the indoor pools as specified in the bid package. Based on the unknown extent of sealant maintenance and health and public safety related issues as well as aesthetics, sandblasting was not endorsed by the Architect as an acceptable fix. CPPMC reviewed this issue and voted to recommend the use of ceramic tile to correct the error and to collect remediation dollars from the contractor. With a credit back and some contingency funds, all consultants agree that the tile produces the better finish and adequately addresses the maintenance cost and health and public safety concerns. While contingency funds are available, this expenditure takes it to a level that we will require watching. D Grisham distributed for the Board's consideration, Resolution 8- 28- 06 -04, as well as the pertinent provisions of the public works law that address emergency and unforeseen circumstances. She reported that while the outcome with the concrete contractor is uncertain, the Construction Manager is of the opinion that this circumstance could not have been foreseen, and that as the order time for the corrective tile is imminent and necessary to stay on the current installation schedule, the nature of this situation warrants a declaration of emergency exists as set forth in the Resolution and as defined in the public works law. Kent Forman concurred with the explanation. A motion to waive the reading of Resolution 8- 28 -06 -04 was made, (Ketterman, Dutcher, C -Un), followed by a motion to move it into business. (Ketterman, Dutcher, C -Un). Deb referred to the handout and addressed the process to be followed once an emergency is declared to be present and the inapplicability of the change order limit when circumstances were not foreseeable allowing the Board to proceed without using the formal bidding process. She explained that the quotes will be obtained from two primary contractors already working on the Central Park project identified in the resolution [McCammak Tile, Inc. and Santarossa Mosaic & Tile Company, Inc.], and that the Board can authorize its President to enter into a contract for the approximate cost of $150,000 needed for the change. After Mr. Forman confirmed that the cost should not exceed $150,000 and J Rosensteele noted that "outdoor" should read as "indoor", the Board approved the Resolution as amended. (Ketterman, Engledow, C -Un). To accommodate Michael's expected departure to attend the School Board meeting, the Board amended the agenda to address the Food and Beverage Policy at this time. (See below for further discussion regarding Central Park.) D. Food and Beverage Policy. Referring to the appropriate cover sheet in the Board packet, M Klitzing summarized each section in the order of appearance and noted all changes on a newly distributed copy. 1. Section 1: Purpose. Motion to approve: (Engledow; Chester C -Un.) 2. Section 6: Alcoholic beverages in the Monon Center. Michael explained that the policy addressed all of Central Park with the flexibility to permit alcoholic beverages in specific areas of the "Monon Center" which was clarified to include the outdoor aquatics area (definition will be added to the final policy.). Discussion included special events in different areas including the outdoor pool area and the cafe under the special use permit process. Michael confirmed that the caterer would have the responsibility to check IDs. He also confirmed that this policy does not change the alcohol consumption prohibition in all other parks which at J Ketterman's request, will be added to the Policy as the last paragraph in Section 6. The Board approved Section 6 as amended. (Dutcher, Ketterman C -Un.) 3. Park Rules: Resolution 8- 28 -06 -03 to amend park rules regarding alcohol. Michael explained that the proposed amendment allows the Food and Beverage policy to address exceptions to the general park rule that alcohol consumption is not allowed in any park. This method provides consistency between park policies and with the existing City Ordinance [prohibits alcohol on only the Monon]. The Board waived the reading of Resolution 8- 28 -06- 03 and entered it into business. (Dutcher, Rosensteele, C -Un.) Discussion included the observation that "use" was prohibited but "sale" was not addressed. The question whether the rule change should include "sale" and "consumption" in the rule change for all parks did not result in a motion. The Board approved Resolution 8- 28- 06 -03. (Shapiro, Dutcher, C -Un.) 4. Section 3: Monon Center Catering. Michael reported that the policy reflects the changes discussed at the 8 -14 -06 Park Board meeting and addressed a few more offered by B Page 2 of 6 Bosma. As written, the policy anticipates one (1) exclusive caterer and allows catering in other areas to the exclusion of the general public. He explained that the Department is responsible to schedule rooms in the Monon Center as well as their set up, tear down and clean up. Michael explained that an exclusive caterer under the terms of a Qualified Management Agreement ( "QMA "), is expected to produce the largest potential share of gross sales: at least 6% of sales including upgrades. A QMA requires a maximum term of two (2) years with a one (1) year automatic "out" for the benefit of the Park Board. D Grisham explained that the QMA terms would include the Board's typical default/termination provision that allows it to terminate prior to one (1) year. Other terms will require the caterer to provide any additional equipment needed to serve banquet functions and general food cleanup. Catering off truck is anticipated and will be considered and included in the QMA. S Dillon refreshed memories that the catering kitchen has no stove or no dishwasher but is equipped with a walk -in refrigerator and electrical outlets for warming ovens. Any cooking can be done in advance or in the truck. Sue reported that several of the catering facilities she visited related problems with multiple caterers. Michael refocused the Board on its decision to use a single exclusive caterer or multiple exclusive caterers. J Hagan questioned the reference to the Non Reverting Program Fund which she believed should be referred to instead as the "Non reverting Operating fund ". The Board approved Section 3 as amended to refer to the Non reverting Operating fund. (Ketterman, Rosensteele, C -Un). RFP for Caterers. The Board next approved a motion to issue a Request For Proposal for an exclusive caterer consistent with Section 3 as approved. (Rosensteele, Chester C -Un). 5. Section 4: Indoor and Outdoor Concessions. Michael explained that the private use limitations as well as the pro -forma projections influenced the recommendation to have the Department staff run the concessions. A change to the Non Reverting Operating fund reference was suggested. The Board approved a motion to approve Section 4 with the fund reference change. (Rosensteele, Chester, C -Un). 6. Section 5: Beverage Provider. This section addresses the entire park system. It allows staff to select an exclusive beverage provider and negotiate other benefits to parks in the way of promotional pieces. A change to the Non Reverting Operating fund reference was suggested. The Board approved a motion to approve Section 4 with the fund reference change. (Ketterman, Shapiro, C -Un). RFP for Beverage Providers. The Board next approved a motion to issue a Request For Proposal for Beverage providers consistent with Section 5 as approved. (Rosensteele, Engledow C -Un). 7. Section 7: Food in the Monon Center. With only the noted exceptions in the policy, Michael confirmed that the intent is that no outside prepared food will be allowed in the Monon Center. To address risk management issues, food will be available at the cafe, concessions (like birthday parties) through a catered event or vending machines. The Board approved a motion to approve Section 7 as presented. (Rosensteele, Chester, C -Un). 8. Section 8: Use of Tobacco Products. Michael explained that the Carmel City Ordinance prohibits use of tobacco inside public buildings, pools and sports arenas. He recommended taking the prohibition a little further to proclaim the Monon Center to be a smoke free facility. After he confirmed that there was no park rule against smoking, many of the Board members expressed an interest in addressing that at the next Park Board meeting. A request was made to prohibit tobacco use in park equipment. The Board approved a motion to approve Section 8 as amended to prohibit tobacco use in park equipment. (Shapiro, Chester C -Un). 9. Section 9: Food and Beverage Vendors in Parks. Michael explained that the Meeting House was not included in the prohibition because staff anticipated that the non profit users might have an occasional need to bring in and sell food items. J Hagan suggested that the Board insulate the Director from making exception decisions by substituting "Board" for Page 3 of 6 "Director" in the last paragraph of Section 9. The Board approved a motion to approve Section 9 as amended. (Dutcher, Shapiro, C -Un). 10. Resolution 8- 28 -06 -01 Regarding the Establishment of a Food and Beverage Policy. The Board took no action on this Resolution; consensus seemed to be that it would consider it after it considered the Cafe issues. E. Revenue Policy. After addressing some typos and clarifications provided by B Bosma [page 4(a) "potion" should read "portion ", page 6, Section 6 should read "...financing of the Carmel /Clay park and Recreation System" and on page 6, section 7, the word "recover" should read "recovery'], D Dutcher offered his own suggested clarifications: Add "frequently" immediately after Whereas in the 6th whereas clause; in the 7th whereas clause, delete "must be" in the first line and add the word "can" after Board in the 2 "d line and delete the word "and ". J Hagan suggested that the "Board" review the user fees annually. Michael answered Joan's question about license or user fees by saying that there are none currently to avoid limitations. He clarified that Clay Township renters should be included in the lower resident fee structure; D Dutcher suggested that clarification be provided in the footnote. J Hagan suggested deletion of the reference to "City of Carmel residents" as unnecessary since the City is wholly within Clay Township. Once again, it was suggested that the "Board" approve any fee modifications. The Board approved a motion to waive the reading of Resolution 8- 28 -06 -02 and enter it into business. (Ketterman, Dutcher C -Un). The Board approved a motion to approve Resolution 8- 28-06-02 regarding the Establishment of a Revenue Policy [with the Revenue Policy amended as discussed]. (Engledow, Chester C -Un). Action Item C 2 Central Park Flooring: (The Board returned to the Central Park matters.) 2. Flooring. M Westermeier referenced the coversheet and the Williams letter in the Board packet. He summarized the Architect's findings to be that while both the original and muted color palate would work, the originally selected color palate seemed to show better in the stained concrete. A return to the original color palate will not add cost to what was originally proposed to the Board. $54,000 is a place holder in the contingency fund to upgrade from rubber to terrazzo. The Board approved a motion to approve the Architect's revised mixture of terrazzo and stained concrete. (Rosensteele, Dutcher, C -Un). 3. Other. No other issues were addressed. F. Monon Security Camera Equipment: Monon South Trail Head Tower — Mark Westermeier. Without requesting action, Mark reported that he has come full circle on the process to be used to install a tower and security camera system at the south Trailhead and has decided to proceed with the original Board approved bid process in lieu of other options. G. National Institute of Fitness — Services Agreement to provide program instructors Michael summarized the review of all park programs including an instructor pay comparison with other providers in the community. The nonexclusive services agreement with NIFS is a great opportunity for the Park Department to partner with a reputable provider, increase cost recovery and free up staff time of those coordinating that activity. Under the NIFS contract, NIFS will provide all instructors for the designated programs. NIFS hires, provides substitutes, etc. C Broderick projected that the NIFS agreement will provide a savings of 50% per class which D Dutcher suggested be tracked. Colleen described the various passes (passports) noting that the top level pass would also allow users to take classes at no additional cost. Other benefits of the agreement include the Park Board's ability to change the scope to allow for flexibility and to benefit from NIFS provided insurance coverage. Dan mentioned that he belongs to NIFS and endorsed the organization; he noted 3 typos in Appendix A. Deb reported that this agreement passes the QMA requirements for the tax code provisions governing the bond. The Board approved a motion to approve the services agreement with the National Institute of Fitness with Exhibit A amended as noted. (Engledow, Rosensteele, C- Un). H. Marketing Plan 2006 -2007 — Mark Westermeier M Westermeier reported that Miller White, the consultant of choice because of Chris Jefferson, originally proposed to provide the Department with a baseline of information to put together a business plan for Park Board consideration and approval. What staff received was an internal Page 4 of 6 document to guide the staff, not a comprehensive plan to follow. It has been modified as planning has progressed. The statistics and research were helpful. C Broderick reported that the Guest Services Supervisor job description is finished and will be posted closer to the end of the year. Mark confirmed that the Department is using the text only graphic of the logo. J Ketterman asked about give -aways to which Mark responded that a policy will come to the Board. In response to Joan's inquiry about a Grand opening event, Mark reported that several levels of Grand Opening events are being planned with the major event being the Board's grand opening. D Dutcher reacted to the plan as interesting; it triggered the thought that there are a lot of issues that the Board would like to have input on and asked Mark to present an update or recommendation as to how this document will be utilized. J Rosensteele asked to see the business plan. Mark reported that Colleen is working on components of the business plan including pricing, etc. which when tied together will represent the Department's business plan. The business plan is considered on a pro forma basis. No other center in the US is close to the cost recovery that we are expecting. Typically, restrictions impact the recovery. The Board approved a motion to acknowledge receipt of the marketing document. (Engledow, Rosensteele, C -Un). I. Audit Report – Debra Grisham Deb referenced pages 5 and 6 of the audit report in the Board packet which addressed the Public Works project regarding the roof of the Administrative Offices. Since neither the Board nor the Department attended the exit interview, the opportunity to comment on the audit report prior to finalization was lost. S Dillon reported her conversation with Mr. Hartman, the State Examiner, who said that the review was of the Clerk Treasurer and that perhaps she should have given us the chance to comment. The Board has options: it could write a protest letter or a letter requesting that its representatives be included in future exit interviews. D Grisham suggested that because there was no finding of any criminal activity, the Board should acknowledge the report and ask to be present at future exit interviews. The Board approved a motion to address a letter to Mr. Hartman with a copy to the Clerk Treasurer, asking that the Board be invited to future exit interviews. (Engledow, Ketterman, C -Un). J. Use of Central Park Video by Omni Productions S Dillon reported that Microsoft was planning to introduce a new video technology similar to streaming that will target governmental channels similar to Carmel's channel 16. Omni Productions, the producer of the Central park Video (A Walk in Central Park), has requested the Park Board's permission to allow it and Microsoft to use the video at trade shows to demonstrate Microsoft's new technique for which the Park Board cannot expect any payment though the national exposure would be worth something. The Board approved a motion to permit Omni Productions and Microsoft to use the video on the limited basis as described and for no longer than 1 year unless extended by the Park Board. (Dutcher, Chester C -Un). IV. ATTORNEY'S REPORT —D Grisham. No report. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Food and Beverage Policy - Michael Klitzing or Mark Westermeier • Section 2: Monon Center Cafe • Philosophy o Cafe vs. destination restaurant • Operating Model o Service of Alcohol o Hours of operation • Equipment and Furnishings o Vendor provided vs. Board provided furnishings S Dillon suggested that the Board is to identify the role of the cafe for purposes of writing the RFP and addressing the pro- forma. She added that the things to think about are the service of alcohol, hours of operation and the furniture provider. Michael described that he has viewed the cafe as a destination restaurant. Its patrons are Page 5 of 6 expected to be park users and others who would come for lunch from area office buildings and other locations. He envisioned something like a Panera with suitable lunch foods. He considered it to be walk -up style order and pick up of prepared food to be consumed at a cafe table . Within that view, he sees the cafe operated by an third party vendor... a step above concessions... using restaurant food beyond the typical parks concession food for which he expects to receive a fixed monthly rate plus a percentage of sales. Over the last year in conversations with B Bosma, Michael's thought process was that fewer limitations promotes more interest in such operations. For instance, he doesn't want to preclude a franchise vendor who is required to use a certain look of furniture. The cost savings realized if supplied by a vendor is also a plus. The Board will provide all operating equipment. Sally observed that most food providers are more concerned about the equipment than the furniture. Michael reported that the equipment specifications were bid and could not be changed. Outside seating accommodates approximately 50 patrons. Mark described the cafe with the video presentation. The many observations included the following: 1. As regards furniture: • The Park Board should control the look and replacement of the furniture; 2. As regards destination: • if it is a destination, it is lunch only with the ability to offer after workout meals; 3. As regards alcohol: • the cafe is much more open and integrated in the Center than was realized; • there is a concern about control; • teenage servers would be eliminated; • The pro -forma did not identify the restaurant type; • alcohol is inconsistent with a park setting; • alcohol is served in similar locations like the zoo. • alcohol service may encourage more adults to use the Monon Center as a gathering place. • concerned about the message it sends to the community and the political implications. • reluctant to say go ahead. • The alcohol will not be so visible. • Public Officials should weigh in. Michael and Mark reacted to the observations by offering the following comments: • The cafe has a separate feel and believe it could be controlled; • a destination restaurant would contribute significantly to the revenue; • Adults are the predominant users of this facility. Other than the aquatics and birthday parties, the focus is on adult programs. Our target is to not compete against Dad's Club who provides most children's sports programs in the community. • The Board's decision has an economic input but is a philosophical Board decision. • From a pro forma standpoint, alcohol service gives us a better opportunity for success. Michael suggested that the Board allow the use of alcohol to be optional in the RFP to see what we get. More investigation and fact gathering will be done prior to the next Board meeting. VI. BOARD COMMENTS a. Master Plan. While it remains a significant priority, Central Park is requiring full attention. b. Drug Fee Zone. S Shapiro inquired about modeling the School's drug free zone. Mark responded that parks are part of the legislation that increases the punishment regarding drug activity in places where children gather. VII. ADJOURNMENT A motior wass made adjgJrj t pgproximately 9:00 p.m. (Ketterman, Engledow C -Un.) Signature: Z1,4.44 Date: Q-0- -06 Signature: j� g% SEZ. Date: 12_ S 2oaG Page 6 of 6