Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCPR-05-23-06(Approved: £113106 CARMEL/CLAY BOARD OF PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEETING MINUTES May 23, 2006, 7:00 P.M. CARMEL CITY HALL, CHAMBERS ROOM ONE CIVIC SQUARE, CARMEL, IN 46032 MEMBER ATTENDEES MEMBER ABSENTEES OTHERS S Dillon M Westermeier S Shapiro D Grisham P Chester Michael Klitzing T Tolson Alan Armstrong J Rosensteele J Engledow J Miller (late for roll call) J Ketterman (late for roll call) D Dutcher I. ROLL CALL II. CALL TO ORDER The regular board meeting of the Carmel /Clay Board of Parks and Recreation was convened at 7:00 p.m. on May 23, 2006 pursuant to notice. S Dillon called the meeting to order. Other board members present include S Shapiro, P Chester, T Tolson, J Rosensteele, J Engledow, J Miller, J Ketterman and D Dutcher. 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)." III. ACTION ITEMS Pursuant to a request, a motion was made to reverse the order of consideration of Items C and D on the Agenda (Shapiro, Dutcher C -Un). A. Minutes: 1. T Tolson asked if anyone had any corrections to the Minutes. D Grisham informed the Park Board that the minutes were revised with comments received prior to the meeting from Mr. Tolson and distributed at the members' seats for their review. Mr. Engledow asked about the completion of the blanks regarding action item A(2) taken at the April 24, 2006 meeting; Ms. Grisham responded that the correction was made in the minutes of the April 24 meeting and were ready for signature. A motion was made to approve the May 9, 2006 Regular Park Board Meeting minutes as amended from the draft sent out in the pre- meeting packet (Tolson, Rosensteele, C -Un). B. Claims: J Engledow 1. Claim Sheet May 23, 2006. Mr. Engledow explained the late charge presented for approval by the Ford motor company due to a late payment under the terms of lease purchase agreement. Mark Westermeier reviewed the fact scenario supporting the payment of the claim. Ms. Grisham responded that late payments are supported in Indiana law and specifically referenced the prompt payment statute. (Engledow, Rosensteele, C -Un). C. Central Park Matters: a. Becker Landscaping Contract ($60,164.00 Change Order )- Alan Armstrong Alan referred to the handout distributed to the Park Board members at the beginning of the meeting, attached hereto as Appendix A. He summarized the handout and reported that the CPPMC had voted unanimously to recommend approval of a change order to the Becker contract in an amount not to exceed $60,163.06 for the revised wetland and pond revisions to the scope of work to accommodate the increase in actual wetland acreage to be consistent with the IDEM Page 1 of 4 permit. He reported that the change in the aggregate does not exceed the legal change order limit. A motion was made to approve a change order to the Becker Landscaping contract (5 -1) in the amount not to exceed $60,164.00 for additional wetlands plantings required by the IDEM permit and to authorize the President or Vice President with the assistance of the Park Attorney, to sign all appropriate documents when final amounts are determined. (Tolson, Rosensteele C- Un). b. Gaylor Electrical Contract ($254,672.00 Change Order) — Alan Armstrong Alan referred to the handout distributed to the Park Board members at the beginning of the meeting, attached hereto as Appendix B. He summarized the handout and reported that the CPPMC had voted unanimously to recommend approval of a change order to the Gaylor contract in an amount not to exceed $254,672.00 for the site lighting completion and the new work required as a result of the settlement with Duke Energy FKA Cinergy Services, Inc. He reported that the change in the aggregate does not exceed the legal change order limit. J Rosensteele asked D Grisham if a change order was the appropriate mechanism to address site lighting as opposed to a bid. D Grisham asked Mr. Armstrong if the site lighting work was part of the Project's original electrical scope of work or if this was new work. Mr. Armstrong replied that the work was not included in the initial construction documents that were bid as unknowns kept it from being ready, that the change order work is integral to the work scope under Gaylor's present contract but that he needed to check his notes and talk to Kent Forman to be certain of an accurate reply. D Grisham recommended to the Board that it approve the change order request contingent upon confirmation that a change order is the correct method by which to contract for it. Mr. Miller and Mr. Engledow expressed support for such clarification and advised that the answer be obtained as soon as possible. Mr. Engledow also requested clarification about the Gaylor letter reference to the exclusion of the fuses and fuse - holders from the price. A motion was made that the Park Board approve a change to the Gaylor electrical contract (4 -17) in the amount of $254,672.00 for the completion of the required site lighting, including the $14,134.00 for the installation of the 1300' of 4" conduit for the same so long as the Park Board attorney can verify that this work does not need to be separately bid and if it does, that she is authorized to advise the Construction Manager and the Owner's Representative to bid it out as quickly as possible. (Tolson, Engledow C -Un). c. Vectren Easement — Deb Grisham Deb Grisham referred to the agenda item summary sheet and reported that the CPPMC had recommended approval of authorization to negotiate and execute a nonexclusive easement agreement with Vectren as the particular location had not yet been identified. The Carmel Clay Park Building Corporation authorized its President to execute all documents necessary and appropriate to effect the easement. Authorization from the Park Board confirms any steps necessary to effect the easement. Mr. Engledow moved that the Park Board authorize the Park Board President and /or the Vice President, its professional contractors and the Park Department Director to negotiate a gas line easement with Vectren for the provision of natural gas service to the Central Park facilities upon reasonable terms in a form approved by the Park Board Attorney. (Engledow, Chester,C -Un). A motion was made that the Park Board authorize its officers to execute any and all documents reasonable and necessary to effect a gas line easement with Vectren for the provision of said services to the Central Park Facilities. (Engledow, Chester,C- Un). D. 2007 Budget - Mark Westermeier Mark presented the three budgets: the Carmel Clay Parks and Recreations Budget, the Extended School Enrichment Program Budget and the Central Park Budget. He reported that he was willing to discuss this in any format but that as the Park Board reviews the 3 together, they will be able to see the blending of the budgets. The Carmel /Clay Parks and Recreation Budget. Mark first focused on the operations budget and clarified that it reflects annual rather than monthly projections. M Klitzing offered that the new software will allow monthly budgeting. Mr. Engledow drew attention to the increase in the new category of retiree health plan contributions which include a reimbursement to the City of Carmel for lack of prior year contributions to the City's plan; future years will see an apportioned cost. Mark also addressed increased benefit costs attributed to family plan elections. J Miller requested 2006 -to -date spending to allow the Park Board to understand how costs are accruing. Page 2 of 4 Mark explained that some items are limited by ceiling increases of 3.7 %; the presented format is as required by the City. Mr. Rosensteele suggested an extra column reflecting 2006 expenses and while Mark agreed to do this, he noted that he uses the prior year's (2005) budget/actual expenditures as opposed to the current year -to -date numbers. He next summarized that the City of Carmel generated the numbers for worker's compensation insurance, other insurance, retirement and projected increases. He confirmed that this budget reflects no revenue projection as the City and Township jointly fund it. He further explained the budget process for this budget, the 3.7% maximum increase and reminded the Board that the integration of all budgets would likely be sufficient if all projections are met. Sue Dillon reminded the Board as to last year's experience and the Board's responsibility to request sufficient monies to cover the Department's fiscal needs as determined by the Board regardless of a suggested ceiling. The Extended School Enrichment (ESE) Budget. Mark next summarized the ESE budget. He reported that the new projections for cost recovery are approximately $50,000 over the original projections. It represents more part time staff than full time staff on which point Mark elaborated. While the legal answer to the question about what the revenue can be used for is at the Park Board's discretion toward any park programs, J Miller and D Dutcher emphasized the expectation of the School Board that ESE generated revenue would be reinvested in the ESE program which approach M Klitzing agreed was appropriate. The Central Park Budget. Mark next addressed this revenue based budget making it different from the general operations budget. The budget addresses the 3 components: the Monon Center, the Aquatic Center and the grounds. He noted that payroll comprises 67% of the budget so budget numbers may be off in other areas. Some projections like contractual services and capital expenses will be influenced by warranty coverage and outright purchases. There are no reliable projections for budgeting, though Meridian, the MEP architect, offered to supply some cost information, which had not been received to date. Mark next told the Board that he had reported to the Council's Park and Recreation Committee that he would need approximately $2 million but now believes that the Township will be able to cover costs. He next reported that Impact Fee Fund collections are approximately $750,000 ahead of initial projections and that the COIT incomes expected form the Park Bond is around that same number. In answer to J Miller's question about the Central Park budget goal, Mark confirmed that the facilities in Central park are intended to be 100% cost recovery consistent with the City Council's expectations and J Engledow shared his understanding that both fiscal bodies are under the impression that after 3 or 4 years, the Central Park facilities will be cost neutral. He noted that a large portion of the park is not revenue generating. Park maintenance has always been tax supported. Mr. Miller cautioned that it is critical to use the correct terminology in referencing which of the Central Park components are expected to be cost neutral; Mr. Dutcher agreed that the time to do that consistently is now. Mark agreed that one way to make sure that the revenue generating portions are accurately and effectively operated is to bring staff in, train them properly and bring the facilities on slowly. He noted that staff is still working on pass cost structure and has arranged with the Township for start up operation cost coverage which can be repaid interest free over time. Mark answered J Rosensteele's concern about capturing all the costs by stating that certain cost estimates are not available due to the architectural uniqueness of the facilities and that the numbers presented are based on the best information available. He expressed a higher level of confidence in the revenue projections than in the expense projections. J Engledow encouraged staff to keep after the real numbers. Over the last 2 years, Mark has been providing the projections and long term goals to the elected officials to help them prepare for this very budget consideration. A motion was made and seconded to approve all three (3) budgets as attached in Appendix C for presentation to the Park Board's fiscal bodies. (Ketterman, Rosensteele C -Un). E. Bus Transportation Contract — Michael Klizing Michael explained the need to provide school bus transportation for the 2006 summer day camp program. In compliance with the Park Board's Purchasing rules, staff obtained 3 quotes (see Memorandum of Record summarizing the quotes attached as Appendix D) from qualified bus services providers and recommended Safe Passage of Westfield, Indiana as the lowest responsible and responsive quoter who quoted $13,039.00 for all scheduled field trips. He explained that he was requesting Park Board approval as the total contract amount exceeds the Page 3of4 Director and Assistant Director purchasing limit of $10,000. He also reported that the transportation costs are covered in the participant's registration fees and will be paid from the non - reverting program fund. Mr. Rosensteele asked if the appropriate process was followed. Mr. Miller offered that services do not require quotes. Ms. Grisham agreed and stated that she believed that the correct process was followed. A motion was made to approve the quote from Safe Passage for the provision of transportation services for the summer day camp program in an amount not to exceed $13,039.00. (Ketterman, Rosensteele C -Un). A motion was made to authorize the President to negotiate and sign a services agreement with Safe Passage pursuant to the terms in the quote and the state law and approved by the Park Board Attorney. (Ketterman, Rosensteele C -Un). VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS — Mark Westermeier made the following report: A. Injury at Central Park: A masonry worker was treated for an injury. B. Monon Use: People on or along the closed portion of the Monon Greenway had to be redirected; speed limit and dog cleanup signs have been or will be installed this week. C. AT &T: The City and the Utility appear to be in disagreement about why the conduit the Park Board paid for within and along the east side of the Monon has not be used and new conduit laid along the west side. Mark has been in contact with the City engineer's office. The installation work is very close to the Central Park facilities. Some damage was reported to have occurred inside the skate park area from the installation; Mark needs to investigate. Mark clarified that the City owns the Monon Greenway through Central Park and will benefit from the fiber optic cable that will be available through the conduit. The Park Board may see some benefit as well. Mr. Dutcher reported that he has encouraged the inclusion of fiber optic locations and access points within the Comprehensive Plan D. 116th Street Improvements. Mark reported that he was told that there was going to be further delay. E. Lenape Trace and West Park Request for Quotes will go out regarding the playground removal and trail reconstruction; F. Homeowners Association Meetings: Brookshire and Lexington Farms hosted Mark to speak about Central Park; G. Realtors Century 21 Sheeks Meeting: M Klitzing reported his invitation to present. XI. BOARD COMMENTS AT &T: Mrs. Chester asked about notice requirements from the City and utilities when they access and occupy any portion of the Monon. Mark responded that he is willing to work with all involved. D Grisham noted that the Management Agreement with the City specifically required notice prior to any work on the Greenway. S Dillon and J Ketterman agreed that the Board should require it. D Dutcher made the point that he does not want the lack of a formal response to waive any rights and protections to which the Park Board is entitled. Impact Fee Fund: S Shapiro asked Mark to explain his comments about the inclusion of certain parks in the Zone Improvement Plan. Mark and Deb summarized that there must be a link between the fee payers (new homeowners) and the park services that are required as a result of their arrival. Mark summarized his discussion with the builder's association representatives regarding the inclusion of some of the parks which discussion did not involve West Park. School Board Action: Mr. Miller reported that the School Board voted to abolish the pool at Carmel Middle School and replace it with green space. Plan Commission: Mr. Dutcher reported that the comprehensive plan public hearings were on an aggressive schedule. XII. ADJOURNMENT A motion was mad to a•'► at approximately 9:25 p.m. (Miller, Shapiro, C -Un) Signature: I� Date: 2.6 Jug 0.1)a6 Signature: 0 Date: — - D _G Page 4 of 4