Board of Park Commissioners

Board of Park Commissioners Regular Meeting Minutes Monday, November 19, 2018 3:00- 5:00 P.M. C I T Y o OF 455 N Main WICHITA City Hall 1 st Floor Board Room Wichita, Kansas 67202 Members Present: Troy Palmer, Bill Ramsey, Alejo Cabral, Hoyt Hillman, Eddie Fahnestock, Tori Deatherage Members Absent: Ty Ta bing City Staff: Troy Houtman (Director, Park & Recreation), Penny Garding (Clerk), Elizabeth Harlenske (Assistant City Attorney), Reggie Davidson, Larry Hoetmer, Troy Hendricks, David McGuire (Park Staff) Guests: Bill Washburn, Jeff Leonard, Richard Schodorf, Cindy Renard, Jay Pfeiffer Item Descri11tion Call to Order Troy Palmer, President, called the meeting to order at approximately 3:03 p.m. Announcements There were no Announcements. Public Comments There were no Comments. 1 Approve Minutes A. Recommended Action: Approve, sign and file minutes of the October 8, 2018, Board of Park Commissioners Regular Meeting. Motion by Ramsey, second by Hillman, IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED to approve, sign and file the minutes of the October 8, 2018 Board of Park Commissioners Regular Meeting (6-0). B. Recommended Action: Approve, sign and file minutes of the October 19, 2018, Board of Park Commissioners Special Meeting. Motion by Hillman, second by Fahnestock, IT WAS VOTED to approve, sign and file the minutes of the October 19, 2018 Board of Park Commissioners Special Meeting (5-0 with 1 abstention). 2A Sherwood Glen Project - catholic Charities - Houtman Houtman stated there is a presentation to inform the board about a project that is being worked on. The property used to belong to the school district. The City leased this property for the police training site. There is a playground that was considered part of the neighborhood playground area. The property is changing hands. Hoetmer will share more about that. There has been a request to continue to have presence there and we will most likely get a donation of land to continue a presence with a playground park. BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING November 19, 2018 Page 1 of 15 Hoetmer stated Sherwood Glen Park was in existence previously. The property was originally leased to the City by USD 259 as the Law Enforcement Training Center. It is in the process of being transferred in ownership. This was developed with the Sherwood Glen Neighborhood Association. The property is in transition and has been listed for sale. This park has been in existence for 15+ years. It is a popular venue with the neighborhood. Once the property was put on the market the neighborhood had concerns about the park and its future. Today we have Bill Washburn, Vice President of the Sherwood Glen Neighborhood Association and Jeff Leonard, Chair of Catholic Charities. They have asked us to help them with some rough ideas. They have been communicating with the Sherwood Glen Neighborhood Association. They have some concerns about the future, but also had some good input. Hoetmer shared a presentation. The area is bounded by Womer and N Meridian, and is just south of K-96. This site plan is on the west side of the parking lot. We are talking about the site south of the location, there is some existing playground equipment, swings, basketball court, picnic area and a fitness center. They have been working to figure out a way to relocate the playground. The area it is currently in is not going to work with future plans. A rough concept of the plan was displayed. There are no particulars of what the playground will look like yet. The northwest corner is a spot where they can fit a playground. This is just showing idea of what it might look like. There is pipeline easement that crosses through this site that restricts some of the development. There is a smaller portion on the south end where we could put an exercise pod or a sport court with a basketball goal. This was a park that has been in existence for a great number of years through a lease agreement with USD 259. There is nothing written in stone about this, it is just an idea of the possibilities. This group would like feedback from the Park Board today. They will continue to take this to District VI, present it to MABCD and go through the normal approval processes. This is the first step in the process to see if this is something the Park Board would accept as a future idea. They have looked at other areas within the District. It is the only park amenity close to this neighborhood. Houtman asked what is the square footage of the property that is being donated. Hoetmer responded probably one-quarter to one-half acre. Palmer inquired if this would come back to the Park Board. Houtman·responded this is property we used in past as a park even though it was owned by the school district. Palmer inquired how we used it. Did we put a playground on it? Houtman responded yes, we did. It is a permanent playground that was installed. We got funds from the neighborhood and most of the funds came from the Park BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEITING November 19, 2018 Page 2 of 15  Department. It won't come back to the Board of Park Commissioners. Eventually the deciding factor goes to the Council. When he takes it to Council he would like to say the Board of Park Commissioners has seen it and support the arrangement. Motion by Hillman, second by Ramsey, IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED to support this process (6-0). Palmer stated everyone's time is important and some of the board members need to leave early. He would like to move the MacDonald Golf Course to the top of the Continuation of Prior Business Motion by Palmer, second by Deatherage, IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED to the MacDonald Golf Course RFP to the top of Continuation of Business (6-0). 3C MacDonald Golf Course RFP - Houtman Palmer stated it appears no one indicted on the sign in sheet that they wanted to speak. Houtman stated the Request For Proposal for proposals to purchase this property went out two and one half weeks ago. We had a preproposal meeting at the sight. Per Purchasing standards, there was a sign in sheet. That is public information and is available for anyone to see who was actually present. The bids come in on November 27. We had decided that on the next Park Board meeting on December 10 there would be a decision rendered. It was suggested to help facilitate this and to have everything discussed at the meeting, that we have a committee to review the offers. We could have three people from this board and others to review the proposals and bring the recommendation to the board. We would put up all the information about who proposed, what they proposed, what's good, what's bad, what is a positive aspect and what might be a negative aspect so it can make the discussion flow better for the next meeting. Palmer added the RFP process through the City is you get a scorecard, correct? And the committee scores that. Houtman responded yes, we place different weights on criteria regarding what is important for the sale. It is not all based on the dollar they are offering, it could be other things they are presenting as well. When proposals come in on November 27, staff will receive those and hold them until we meet with the committee to review them. He proposed Monday, December 3, 3:00 to review the RFPs. _Houtman stated we had a Golf Advisory Committee meeting last Thursday. There were two items they brought that they felt were important. They want to facilitate the review and bring the reviews to the Park Board. The other one is they want a full comprehensive review of the golf system to do a SWOT analysis and look at the pros and cons of what we are doing right now. The basic idea was some kind of outside professional review of the golf system. Palmer inquired if the Golf Advisory Committee still coming with a plan on December 10. Schodorf asked to address that. Schodorf stated they met and were looking at creating a comprehensive plan. The Golf Advisory Committee has been in the process of introducing suggestions that BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGUlAR MEETING November 19, 2018 Page 3 of 15 they feel will substantially increase the revenue and have the capability of substantially reducing the cost of the current system. They are looking at redoing the entire pass system. The golf passes represent roughly 50% of play. The money received from that is disproportionately small. In order to avoid just raising cost, because that is counterproductive, we would look at completely redoing the system where the pass system would be based on 12 months of the year. They feel this would result in a $250,000-$500,000 increase in revenue. They believe they can cut cost by an equal amount. The problem is we don't know if you sell MacDonald Golf Course if those numbers will work. The sale of the golf course cannot be had in a vacuum. You have to look at all the underlying effects that it would have on the quality of life in this community of people who play. One suggestion from staff is the elimination of the use of city water. That recommendation went to a Division of the City that makes money selling us water. It was turned down with no discussion of why. As you look through this process from standpoint of the initial sustainability of golf to the RFP process to the decision making there is more years of real estate experience on the Golf Advisory Committee than the entire Real Estate Division. We have worked on proposals for the City but we are not asked. You end up with system that is disjointed and decisions are made, like the decision, made in human error, which turned MacDonald Golf Course into a goat ranch for 18 months. We have to make changes. But the way it is set up is not conducive to making those changes. We don't have say in the budget. We have Pros that are nothing more than desk help. They spend most of their time behind desks being clerks. First Tee has raised an incredible amount of money, but we are now putting that in jeopardy yet that was part of our long term plan. We didn't want the long term plan. It gets down to you have to empower people to come up with plan, we have competent staff. Things don't get done, there are decisions that are made that are totally against what should work. Cindy has the proposals that the Golf Advisory Committee requested. He can tell you that thw $26M it would take to revamp the clubhouses is crazy. Would not support that or even $500,000. We can do an incredible amount by enlisting the people who love the game and would like to be involved and donate to change the clubhouses. We can get years out of our system, they are not falling apart they are just unimproved. Let us do something, give us a chance. Palmer responded so you are telling us they are not going to have a proposal. Schodorf stated we do have a proposal, we've had proposals all along. We would like to sit down and tell you what those proposals are and why they will work. Palmer stated that is what we are hoping to have on December 10 before we decide on accepting an RFP or not. Wasn't that our original agreement that the Golf Advisory Committee was going to come on December 10 and bring a plan? If that plan wasn't going to be sustainable then we were going to talk about the RFP. The Golf Advisory Committee was unsure what authority they have to direct city staff to come in and if the board is saying that BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING November 19, 2018 Page 4 of 15 they have the ability to direct city staff to cut areas and to make that proposal, we would be glad to. The bottom line is it is there. Palmer responded you don't have the authority to tell city staff to cut things, but you can put that in your proposal and why you think if we cut this it would make this affect, we would like to see that. At that point we will decide if we are going to take the RFP chosen if there is one or do we take the Golf Advisory Committee's recommendation. That is what we are looking for. What you are saying right now makes it feel like we are not going to get that. Schodorf responded they will make assumptions regarding closing the course. In the end the question comes down to if we have the ability to say here are the assumptions, we think the bottom line will straighten out. Palmer inquired if everyone's understanding was that the Golf Advisory Committee was going to come back with a proposal and at that time we were going to decide. His recommendation is to try to hand that off to the City to say if some of those assumptions can happen, because if you come in and say we are going cut administrative costs by 50% I doubt they are going to agree to that. Some of those assumptions we will look to them to say if it is possible. If they say no, that is what we are going to have base our decision on. Schodorf responded if we recommend that we use storm sewer, the improvements in digging the deeper ponds at MacDonald will help in that area because there are flood problems in College Hill. That will allow us to water that course completely from the ponds. It will allow for better course conditions. People react to the better conditions and will play more. And, between restructuring the pass system and those recommendations put MacDonald in a position where it makes money. Palmer stated that, based on history of having ponds dug, he needs to make sure the cost associated with digging that pond deeper is in the synopsis. Schodorf stated that synopsis has already been done. That proposal is already on the table. Palmer responded that is the stuff we want to see. We have been kicking this down the road for seven years, we are getting nowhere and still losing money. Schodorf added he put in the memo he has no trouble getting with the three amigos, the two Troys and Mark Manning, and Eddie. We can do this. Deatherage stated of all this talk we've seen very little substance come out of it. Palmer added his understanding is that we are going to see that meat. Ramsey stated we would love to see that prior to. Before we even look at the RFP we would want that in front of us and before we see the results we can have that in the back of our minds. Palmer responded it would not be fair for the people who submitted the RFP because we didn't say we are going to look at this first. We said we said we are going to look at the RFPs and at the Golf Advisory Committee's recommendation. And at that point this board will make a decision on what direction we go. Ramsey asked Schodorf, you said you are going to revamp the pass system and increase revenues by $250,000-$500,000. How do you substantiate that? Schodorf BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING November 19, 2018 Page s of 15 responded that is a difference in the amount of play that get paid. You have a pass system that says we are going to sell a senior pass at $XX and then you pay a little bit each time. We set down and came up with the numbers and that tells us how many dollars we get on that versus what it would cost to pay full pay for that. What you end up doing though is you are getting it 12 months of year. People will sign up for something. That is $65/month. That is all I have to play to get the money out of it. You make the mathematical computation to what you are getting now, the same number of people, how many passes do you have to sell in order to generate. This would replace all passes. If they don't want to pay and be part of that they will pay the full amount. We make money either way. We get money year round and we encourage people to play more. Ramsey stated he is well versed in building companies around subscription models. Is something being built into this when they want only three months. Schodorf responded it would be year-round, it is not an option. In addition to that we are going to improve the product. If you look back at sustainability the model said in 1980 140,000 rounds were being played in this community. We improved the courses under an $8M bond issue, which is what caused it to go to 200,000. It stayed at that for a period of time but we never put any more money in and it started to slide down because people react. The Golf Division did a survey of the golfers and what you got back is the conditions are what they care about. Right now it would be really easy to change the clubhouses. The furniture that is 30-40 years old. It is really just chairs with tables. The perfect model to look at is the Kansas Coliseum versus the lntrust Bank Arena. Improve it and they will come. We don't reach out to the golfers in the community and say let's support golf in this town, you are the golfers. Ramsey stated you are speaking as business owner, entrepreneur that knows how to run a business, the City is not. This is not a condemnation against the City, but they have proven themselves to not be the best choice to efficiently and effectively run a golf course that works well. Keeping that in mind, are they best person to run a golf course. Schodorf responded Cindy will tell you no. There are other models that are highly successful. That is not against City staff, the problem is you have so many different people who have a say. When it comes down to a City department versus an Enterprise Fund, the Enterprise Fund loses ever time. You can have competing interests. He is not telling you Public Works in making the decision on not doing the work doesn't have the interest that is best for them. By corollary be best for the people who buy water. Changes have to be made in a way that when you look at the budget, if we can't stand on our legs as an enterprise fund, that is the model we have. If you are going to do that, allow us to make adjustments and recommendations that carry weight. We should come back and tell you... one thing he cannot do is tell you if you tell me those changes are not to be made because you don't have the power to do that, then we lose, either way. Some of the things you can do, there are retired people in this community. While he BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING November 19, 2018 Page 6 of 15 was at DA's office, all of his intake personnel were volunteers. Have some imagination when you run this. Palmer stated Schodorf said it and Ramsey validified it, the City should not be in the business of running golf courses. Now we have someone who wants to run a public golf course and we are saying we don't want to do that. Isn't that contradicting what you two just agreed that the City can't run a golf course? Schodorf responded there are other models besides just the one you are suggesting. The cities have entered into agreements with nonprofits to run. Schodorf stated his problem with the sale is would you sell Central Riverside Park if someone offered you some money. Ramsey responded there is not a valid reason to do that. Schodorf responded part of the entire quality of life in the community is tied up into who we are and what we have. Palmer stated it is not going away. Schodorf responded it does go away. When you are selling off part, there is a Pottery Barn rule: all sales are final. Don't sell something off that doesn't belong to you. This belongs to the people of this community and you need a reason for selling it. Palmer responded a half million dollars is a reason, $100,000 per year in loss. As a businessman if you were losing $100,000 a year would you keep your business open. Schodorf responded he would change it. We were forced to keep Clapp. We brought to this group a plan to completely redo the golf course. The motion we only heard in the press was to bury it so deep that nobody would ever see it. That is a response to a serious effort to rebuild the golf course. We have had since then, losses well over half million dollars. We were being told that isn't our ability, we can't close that course we have to keep the losses. That is not fair. If we had closed that, if the situation at Mac hadn't occurred. It is human error. But, to sit down and say we've put all of this effort into First Tee. We got people to buy into it. At that meeting, one of the bidders said "I don't plan to allow ... , those kids will tear up my course." That was a statement heard by a host of people. We owe First Tee something. If you are down to three courses, our pass system will not work. You cannot sell passes for one side of town. He would like to come back with a complete approach saying if you do this, if we can get off City water, why not. If we could help flooding, why not. Ramsey asked why did the Golf Advisory Committee not start putting these things into place when they knew Clapp was on the cutting block. Why did they not bring us these plans or types of things to rescue that golf course before we had to take drastic action? Schodorf responded we did, when we had an offer to sell, for almost $2M, the corner of Harry and Oliver. Ramsey responded based on recollection of that; that was heavily contested by the neighborhood itself. Schodorf responded we went out to them and said this is the map to making good business decisions. We told them, what is your Plan B? Anybody who could look at an operating statement could tell the course is going down fast. We had three approaches. We made the pitch and it was you may not like QuikTrip, but this is the chance to save it. Their response was it's a park. The City should support it because it's a park. It was not a business BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING November 19, 2018 Page 7 of 15 decision. We came back to the board saying it is not a park. That may be where it is headed, it is still open. If we are dealing with four courses and we won't even include what we think First Tee will do, because we can't quantify that. We can point out where we spend money right now that we shouldn't have to spend. If he cannot, on paper prove to you that two years down the line that the numbers will be considerably better, then fine. Palmer stated the board looks forward to seeing it on December 10. Cindy Renard stated, with all due respect, December 10 is just a couple weeks away. We have had plans to grow the game and do things that Schodorf is talking about. Part of the big picture is the First Tee program and the revamped golf pass. All of these things are up in air because of the RFP. This RFP has come in in the midst of all this. It is just untimely to sell a course before we look at our big picture. We want to get it right because there is no going back. Last meeting we determined that once it is sold it is gone forever. There will be no funds to buy back if things don't go right. We need to look at our model. We all agree this current model is not sustainable. We can no longer afford the enterprise system. We have 30% administrative fees, 30% salaries, and only 40 cents of every dollar goes back to our golf courses. We can't afford this anymore. There are different models out there. The National Golf Foundation has helped cities that have these different models. They evaluate things and we can help in that process. We can find ways to run our golf courses more efficiently and reduce these costs and make golf affordable and sustainable. One idea is to make this a nonprofit corporation. Get rid of some of these high administrative costs. Nonprofits are free to pursue private funding. But we do have to do something, it just can't happen in just a couple of weeks. Palmer responded you can bring that information and certainly bring "in a perfect world you could do this". We have to decide. We can't keep kicking it down the road. Renard responded in agreement and stated they want to be part of the process. That is why we made the motion that the Park Board assign the Golf Advisory Committee, along with three members from the Park Board to be the review committee for this RFP. We have competent and knowledgeable members on the committee. This is a monumental decision, we have to get it right. Palmer responded there isn't anyone on the board that disagrees that we have to get it right. What is the right way is what we have to figure out. That is why we were hopeful to see a package. Schodorf and he have talked about what you are trying to accomplish, what you are able to prove or disprove, how to be sustainable and how to move forward. Everyone on the board is open and willing to that. If you can come back with a plan that everyone can look at maybe we do have a chance. Renard responded if it was that easy we would not be here. Palmer stated seven years ago this was a conversation too. We keep having that conversation - if was easy. Renard stated in that time we have had different BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGUlAR MEETING November 19, 2018 Page 8 of 15 ideas. Palmer asked how they have worked out. Renard responded they didn't transpire. Troy has come to our meetings numerous times with the ideas of dredging out the ponds, making the short course at MacDonald, putting in three holes at Clapp. There have been numerous ideas. The season pass thing has been going on for a year but they are afraid to implement it because we don't know how many courses we are going to have. Palmer stated you can still use the numbers we have four just for a good number. Renard asked if you have looked at the numbers of First Tee. Those numbers should convince you this is not the time to pull Mac away. Within in three to four years there will be a huge influx of fourteen to sixteen year olds using our golf courses. Right now there are 22,000 elementary kids being exposed and they expect that to grow 1% to 2% each year. That's why they built at Mac. They hope to reach out to, along with the school system, churches, youth organizations and YMCA. At the Y they have 90,000 kids. Within three years their goal is to have 1,000 kids a week at Mac. First Tee has given a huge gift with that driving range. By itself, it will generate $50,000 for the course. The City has just invested $1M in the fencing around it. There are a lot of inner city kids who are going to be introduced to the game. This is going to affect not only First Tee but also Wichita Junior Golf. To not have access to the course they are right next door to. Houtman asked how do we know that though. Renard responded we don't know that, but we know that the City will support it. Why do we want to give that away? This could be the shot in the arm we need for Wichita golf. Houtman stated he is just trying to present both sides of the story. Until we get the proposals, we may have someone who wants to spend more money into youth golf and more time promoting First Tee and the Wichita Junior Golf program. There is more than one group that is interested in this RFP. We don't know. Renard responded that is why the board would like to be engaged in that process. Fahnestock made a motion based on the recommendation from the Golf Advisory Committee that the Park Board assign the Golf Advisory Committee to be the selection committee with three members of the Park Board. And, a representative from First Tee to review the First Tee portion of the proposals that come in for the RFP. Ramsey would contend that one of the members of the Golf Advisory Committee is already a representative of First Tee. Schodorf stated that is correct. Palmer requested clarification on the motion that the whole Golf Advisory Committee? Fahnestock stated the motion is that the Park Board assigns the GAC to be the selection committee with three members from the Park Board to review the proposals from the RFP. Deatherage asked not just three members from the GAC, but the whole entire committee. Ramsey made a substitute motion that there would be an equal number of representatives from both committees. Palmer seconded that motion. Fahnestock stated the Golf Advisory Committee feels under-utilized. We have had one member step down because he feels he has been underutilized for the years he has put in. He is worried that if they BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING November 19, 2018 Page 9 of 15 aren't involved, he doesn't want to lose the GAC. Palmer stated he understands, but we don't need this process to take four or five days. If you have 7-12 people, Schodorf added he does not have a problem with it. What you do is you evaluate the proposal, you don't decide on it. When it is coming to a determination of whether or not it hits the marks that have been laid out it becomes easier. Palmer stated there has been a motion, a substitute motion and a second. Fahnestock asked if he had to accept the substitute motion. Ramsey stated we have to vote on the substitute motion first. Cabral stated it would be a committee of six, three from the Park Board, Ramsey added and one of the Golf Advisory Committee members would need to be from First Tee. Ramsey added everyone on the Park Board feels the same way about First Tee, we understand what a gift that is. Fahnestock stated he likes the substitute motion and the GAC is in favor of it. Hillman stated the members on the Golf Advisory Committee have spent a lot of time thinking about this process. It is important to include a diversity of their group as well. They felt that since they were already a subcommittee to look on this, their committee could be augmented by members of the Park Board. That is the original motion and he prefers to support that one. Schodorf stated the reason it could work is if you have three members of the Park Board and three of the GAC, you need to swing somebody one way or the other. It provides more credibility than it does with one side having all the say. For the process to work, having equal amounts puts both on same playing field. It allows for orderly convincing of the merits of the individual questions. Palmer stated there has been a motion, a substitute motion and a second. Harlenske stated you still have the first motion on the table. Fahnestock withdrew his previous motion. Schodorf stated he would like to allow the GAC to appoint its own members. Palmer asked to have those three in place by Monday, December 3. Palmer made the motion that Ramsey, Cabral and Fahnestock are the Park Board members. Schodorf stated, not representing the Golf Board, but as a member, he would like to meet with city staff to come up with numbers that can be adjusted. As an example, we pay almost $80,000 for Police and Fire. We have had only three or four calls in the last 16 years. You can't handicap a system, saying we are going to treat you as an enterprise fund over here and as a department over here. Harlenske stated there is a motion on the floor that has not been voted on. Before we go back to discussion we need to vote. Palmer stated his motion is that Ramsey, Cabral and Fahnestock be appointed to the RFP committee, along with two GAC and a third GAC with ties to First Tee. Hillman second. Motion by Palmer, second by Hillman, IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED to approve the Park Board appoint three members, Ramsey, Cabral and Fahnestock, and the Golf Advisory Committee to appoint three members, one of those representing the First Tee, to the RFP committee (6-0). BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING November 19, 2018 Page 10 of 15 Houtman stated if you want to talk to staff, we are more than willing to talk to you. We have shared all the information we have. Any time you want to meet with us, we have been there and will continue to be. Schodorf agreed, he just wanted to make sure. Houtman stated that has nothing to do with the Board, he is talking about staff interactions and communications. He will make that happen. Schodorf stated he is asking them to make sure if they come back, they are not wasting anyone's time. Deatherage added we can make those issues and solutions known so that they are out there and aware of them. Houtman added they do have influence, they are appointed by councilmembers. They share this information with their councilmembers. Schodorf responded the way he understands the overall discussion, you are going to take that into consideration, whether or not to authorize the RFP. If it is not, then what is the purpose? Ramsey stated you have a good idea of what we are and are not allowed to do. We don't get to say this is how much money the City is going budget for the golf system. As you are preparing your master plan, you need to keep that in mind and don't bring something we don't have the authority to do. Schodorf stated that is the problem. He can set down and he can come up with something showing golf can operate in the black. At that point you are saying that will influence your decision on how you are going to vote on whether or not to sell the course. Ramsey responded his only point is you know what we can and cannot do. If you come to us and say you need to hire more people here and get rid of this person over here. Schodorf stated you have budget items you don't use. Palmer stated that is why you get those questions early to them so we can get some answer. Palmer stated if that is your only case, and sure it is not, is to get rid of that part of it, knowing that the City is probably not going to let that happen. Schodorf responded why handicap something. Palmer responded they don't make policies for the City and this is a policy. Schodorf responded you make decisions and you are saying we need to sell it because the model is bad. Ramsey stated what I hear you say is that somebody could run this better than the City could. He agrees that our staff is completely competent. They are not business people, they have to operate within department versus the fund. They do a great job with what they have. Schodorf added their hands are tied right along with yours. The City Council appointed you for a reason. They really do want to listen and they want you to take that back. They would be willing put off the sale of MacDonald until they talk to you to see if it makes economic sense to run golf as a business. He just wants to have someone listen and say it makes sense. Ramsey stated he is curious why none of you have asked for time in front of City Council to make a plea to do more with the golf system. Schodorf responded he has requested meetings with different councilmembers and have yet to hear back on a variety of different issues. Ramsey responded he is sure that, as a citizen, anyone can request time to speak to Council on the Tuesday morning meetings. Renard added a lot of what they always say is BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING November 19, 2018 Page 11 of 15 Park Board holds the deed. Palmer responded if you talk to them and say we are spending $80,000 in the golf system on Fire and Police, why is that. Schodorf responded when we were formed we requested to be subcommittee of the City Council. We were told no, you are a subcommittee of the Park Board. When he has gone back to them and said he would like to look at... they always say you have to talk with the Park Board. That is why all of our motions since he has been on the board have all been with this body. The communication back down, cannot tell you how many motions we have passed that we never heard an answer to. It works both ways. Ramsey responded that is why we have a liaison back to the Golf Advisory Committee who should be passing down any of that information. He does not recall anyone from the Golf Advisory Committee at a Park Board meeting until recently. Schodorf stated the perfect example is the pass system. We passed that 9 months ago. We felt we made the case and it doesn't get done. Hillman stated we did a presentation of that and he thinks it is held up in Finance. Palmer stated he is sure the Park Board thought it was a great idea. Ramsey stated that information should have come back down to the Golf Advisory Committee. Hillman stated it did. Deatherage stated the last we heard they were going to fine tune it and determine prices but they just wanted our blessing to work on it a little longer. Schodorf stated the idea of digging ponds started in 2014. Hendricks stated the issue with the ponds was the cost was going to be between $800,000-$900,000 and who is going to fund that. We can't fund it and Stormwater says they can't. Schodorf stated Stormwater said they wouldn't fund it. He feels he can prove that flooding in the area justifies the expense. It is not being funded because it is not in the best interest of the department that sells the water. This community is crazy for not understanding you are the key to future. We are an outlayer, we are an enterprise fund that has cash that some departments would like to have because it helps them. Ramsey stated his understanding, based on a recent communication from Schodorf is that you have resigned from the Golf Advisory Committee. He would tell you, as a private citizen, you are given time to speak to City Council and relay some of this information in a public forum where everyone can hear it and see it and know there is some issue there. Schodorf responded he has been asked to reconsider his resignation, but not by anyone on the board. Fahnestock left the meeting at approximately 4:10 p.m. Candia Smith inquired about speaking on the previous item. Palmer responded no one marked yes, they wanted to speak. Smith inquired if her name was erased? Palmer stated it has nothing marked by it. Smith stated it was regarding Mac and the RFP. Palmer responded we cannot make any motions now for it. Smith, from the audience, stated everyone is a little frustrated with the whole operation. We keep speaking the same thing for seven years. BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING November 19, 2018 Page 12 of 15 3A Wichita Rowing Association Building Update -Townsend Houtman stated Townsend is going to do the presentation. Townsend stated he is giving an update on the Wichita Rowing Association's proposal that was approved by the Board of Park Commissioners in 2016 for a permanent facility in Central Riverside Park. Since that initial vote there have been some additional developments with the WRA and the Park Department. What we looked at originally and you approved was putting a permanent facility in the current foot print of the temporary facility. After a number of discussions it was determined to be better to rotate the facility 90 degrees and move it slightly to the north east. Wichita Rowing Association is currently at a point where they are ready to commence construction of the building as early as next year. We have established a supplemental site plan with a site location that will work for them better and is a better fit in the park. Houtman added we brought this to the Park Board before and received support for this and support from councilmember Claycomb. We are going to take it to the DAB again. It does not take any trees down. The new foot print is a reduction of square footage. Palmer inquired if we are building it or is the City building it. Houtman responded no, they have the land now. Townsend stated they plan to take it to the DAB on December 3. There will be one adjustment to a tree on site. There are three others that can be removed and transplanted to another location. We do currently have a long term lease with WRA. They have been looking for this project since 1974. 3B Bylaws Amendments - Harlenske Harlenske stated she asked Garding to email you a delineated copy of the proposed bylaws draft document. The new language is underlined. Language that is going to be removed is the strike through font. There are a couple issues that she is asking for input on. On page 5, as mentioned at the last meeting, in 2017 there was a significant amendment made to Section 2.12.020 of the City Code, which put all the boards on the same calendar year. All terms end on March 31, new ones begin on April 1. This was as a result of the change in local elections passed by the Kansas legislature. This will give a new councilmember a chance to get established in their position and then make board appointments. There are old terms and terms in conflict with this section of city code. You will see a lot of reference to the City Code. You can access them from the City's website. Section 2.12.010 and 2.12.020 provide most all of the provisions for the board's operation, terms of office, terms of officers and things of that nature. The Board of Park Commissioners is unique in your powers and duties. That is Article 2. She kept those the same and they come from 2.12.350 that sets forth the duties of the Park Board and because of the nature of this board you have different duties than some of the other boards because you were once an autonomous board. She did not make any changes there. She incorporated what is in the city code, did a lot of referencing and rearranged where things were located. BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEITING November 19, 2018 Page 13 of 15  There are set provisions on how to remove board members in the city code and those must be followed. Ours was a little different than that so she referenced that. A lot of just clean up language. No change in the quorum on page 4. She added in just to make it clear that the board serves without compensation. She would like your consideration on page S Section 2, the annual election of officers shall be held, normally in the September meeting, but we need to change that because of the change in terms. She put May, June, July, what are your thoughts on when that selection should take place. Any new councilmember would be seated in January. Their appointment ideally would be made in order to take their position by April 1. Do you think a month is enough for everybody to think about who they want to hold offices? Palmer responded two months so you have time to get a committee and the process. Harlenske stated there to, do you want to keep the nominating process. It is a small board, you can talk amongst yourselves who wants to do what. If you feel the nominating committee is useful. Ramsey stated he does not see why we have it. We are a small committee we can nominate at the bench and go from there. Harlenske stated it puts an onus on the president to reach out and say who would like to be next year's president. She put it out there for you to consider. Palmer stated it is working, it is not broken, don't know if it is the best way. Harlenske did not find a nominating process on any other city boards. Ramsey added the Planning Commission, which is a larger board than this, it is just openly discussed, nominations are taken and votes are taken. Houtman left meeting 4:20 p.m. McGuire seated at board in his place. Deatherage inquired on Article 4 Section 2, the last sentence where it says "not to exceed one year for a maximum two consecutive terms. What is that one year? Harlenske responded the term of office shall be one year. That is required by city code. You can be president for two one year terms. Palmer stated leave the nominating committee as is. Harlenske stated you say have the meeting to elect in June. Then the slate of officers would be presented at the June meeting, not the September meeting. Hillman inquired on the front page when you cross things out in Section 2, appointees must be permanent residents of the city of Wichita, he would like to see that back in. Harlenske responded okay, that is required by the city code that is why she took it out. Hillman responded a familiarity with the city parks and the experience of living here is important to the quality of our decisions, whether we happen to be in the particular district or not is up for other decisions. You need to be a permanent citizen of Wichita to serve on this board. Ramsey stated it is built into Section 2. She is replacing it saying you have to see Section 2.12 .... which already states you have to be a citizen. Hillman responded okay. Harlenske responded yes, it • has been moved, yes, that is a requirement of city code. However, it does not say a "permanent" resident, it just says "resident" "shall reside within the city". Hillman BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING November 19, 2018 Page 14 of 15  stated he accepts the interpretation of the code. Ramsey inquired about Article 3 Section 1 where it designates where we meet. Can we make that more generic? Harlenske responded "unless otherwise specified" is on the next page. As long as we specify where we are going to meet and it is included on the Agenda. She will take out the underlines, put in June reference, leave the nominating and send out. It should be ready for a vote in December. McGuire stated Houtman had to go to meeting at the Library. He recommend postponing the Updates until next month. Discussion regarding the Park Board members' sponsorship of trees for the Park's A Night with Santa event. 4 Recreation Update (Reggie Davidson) Update postponed until December 10, 2018 regular meeting. 5 Golf Update (Troy Hendricks) Update postponed until December 10, 2018 regular meeting. 6 Golf Advisory Committee Update (Eddie Fahnestock) Update postponed until December 10, 2018 regular meeting. 7 Wichita Parks Foundation Update (Troy Houtman) Update postponed until December 10, 2018 regular meeting. 8 Pawnee Prairie Park Update (David McGuire) Update postponed until December 10, 2018 regular meeting. 9 OJ Watson Park Committee Update (Troy Houtman) Update postponed until December 10, 2018 regular meeting. 10 Aquatics Master Plan Update (Troy Houtman) Update postponed until December 10, 2018 regular meeting. 11 President's Update (Troy Palmer) Update postponed until December 10, 2018 regular meeting. 12 Director's Update (Troy Houtman) Update postponed until December 10, 2018 regular meeting. Adjourn There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 4:26 p.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on Monday, December 10, 2018. BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEmNG November 19, 2018 Page 1s of 15