Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-13-16 Special Elbel Committee MinutesOFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK KAREEMAH FOWLER, CITY CLERK Special Advisory Committee for Elbel (Golf Course) 26595 Auten Road, South Bend, IN 46628 April 13, 2016, 6:01 P.M. Committee Members Present: Jo M. Broden, Randy Kelly, Karen White, Aaron Perri, Dan Farrell Committee Members Absent: Other Council Present: John Voorde, Regina Williams- Preston Others Present: Jennifer Coffman (City Clerk's Office), Kathleen Cekanski- Farrand (Council Attorney), Michael Schmidt (Attorney for the Park Board) Councilmember Jo Broden called the Special Advisory Committee for Elbel to order. The Committee introduced themselves, and Councilmember Broden explained that copies of the agenda were available in the front of the room. Councilmember Karen White began by thanking members of the Advisory Board, the Administration, staff, and the citizens for their input, she stated that the process has been excellent. Councilmember White gave a recap of the expectations, guidelines and how the Advisory Committee would be able to address the issues before them. Councilmember Randy Kelly recapped the minutes of the last meeting on March 28, 2016. He began by thanking the Clerk's Office for providing comprehensive minutes. The minutes of the March 28, 2016 meeting are available online and in the Office of the City Clerk. Highlights include: Openings have been posted for the upcoming season at Elbel, season pass sales have reached around $100,000 so far, the golf system just rolled out a new website, and Elbel's concessions has received a five (5) star rating from the Health Department for the third consecutive year. Elbel for Everyone presented on the current and complementary uses of the park, and Aaron Perri gave a presentation on the path forward from Elbel from the Department's perspective. Councilmember Kelly moved to accept the minutes as written, and Councilmember White seconded. The minutes were accepted unanimously by the Committee. 455 County-City Building - 227 W. Jefferson Boulevard - South Bend, Indiana 46601 Phone 574- 235 -9221 - Fax 574- 235 -9173 - TDD 574- 235 -5567 - wtiv%v.SouthBendIN.gov JENNIFER M. COFFMAN ALKEYNA M. ALDRIDGE EMILY SEXTON CHIEF DEPUTY/ CHIEF OF STAFF DEPUTY/ DIRECTOR OF POLICY ORDINANCE VIOLATION CLERK Parks Department Attorney Michael Schmidt asked how the Committee would like him to frame his presentation on the legal aspects of Elbel. Councilmember White asked about the ownership and authority of Elbel Park. Mr. Schmidt explained that there was a disconnect with where the Parks Board was coming from, and with what the community understood as the Parks Board's obligations according to the statutes. The initial step was the Park Board's statement to the Mayor that it is up to him to decide what to do with the land. At that point, it is up to the Mayor to bring forth a resolution to the Council to make the determination of whether or not to sell the property. As that process evolved and we had excellent involvement from the community, the next stage of the discussion started to veer its way toward a lease, which is governed by 36- 10 -3 -11. Essentially, the Park Board has great authority and flexibility to enter into leases of parks property absent Council or the Mayor's specific approval, just as the Park Board can enter into any contracts. There are some limitations. Leases cannot extend past fifty (50) years, but they do have flexibility when it comes to leases. Right now, we are trying to determine what the best long term use of this land is. From a legal perspective, if there is going to be a sale of the land, there is clearly a process that involves the Park Board making a recommendation, then it goes to the Mayor's Office, then it comes to the Council who is the ultimate authority on deciding whether or not to sell park property. Councilmember White clarified that in terms of the lease agreement, the Park Board can make that decision without going to the Mayor. But if any park land were to be sold, then that process would be that the Park Board would make a recommendation to the Mayor, then the Mayor would send a resolution to the Common Council to approve. Mr. Schmidt stated that Councilmember White is correct. The Park Board's only authority in a sale is to make a recommendation, and the Mayor cannot single - handedly sell parks property without Council approval. If the Council does not approve the resolution, the land does not get sold. It is a checks and balances of power. Councilmember Broden asked a clarifying question regarding the threshold for leases. Mr. Schmidt referred to the first bullet point under the statute, under 35- 10 -3 -11 that states the board may enter into contracts and leases for facilities and services, then it lists a variety of other powers that the Park Board has, then it says that the Board may lease any buildings or grounds belonging to the unit, located in a park to a person for a period not to exceed fifty (50) years. Further in the statute, there is reference to a $25,000 threshold. If the yearly lease rate is under $25,000, then it does not need the Mayor or the Common Council's approval. Councilmember White asked when Elbel Park was given to the City, were there any expectations regarding deed restrictions. Mr. Schmidt stated that there were none that he was aware of. 2 Some of the confusion is that the Park Board is unique and has some of its own governing statutes. When you co- mingle the process of the Board of Public Works when it comes to disposing of property, it is easy to confuse the statute. Councilmember Broden asked Mr. Schmidt who owns Mud Lake. Mr. Schmidt stated that the lake itself is a public body of water, where the ownership comes into it is really where you access the lake. If there's a public access point for the lake, then you can get on the lake. That does not give you the right to just get out of the lake on anybody's private property. You can do a variety of activities on the body of the lake, because the water itself is public, but you have to have a public access point to get on the lake. There is a variety of ways to work this out should the Council decide that it's going to sell the land or eventually move forward with some sort of lease arrangement to maintain access to that lake for the public. If there is private property all the way around that lake, then while the water is still public, there is no ability for the public to access that public body of water. So right now, the north end of the lake abuts private property, and the west and the south should be part of the public access point. Councilmember Broden clarified that the recreation use depends on the availability of the public access points. What is public access defined as? Mr. Schmidt explained that to the extent that there is any means available to getting onto the lake from public property it is public access. You cannot traverse over somebody's back yard and drop your kayak or canoe in without a pre- existing easement. Committeemember Aaron Perri asked whose responsibility it is to maintain the public water, especially in the case that they would find invasive species in the water. Mr. Schmidt explained that the DNR would probably tell us they have the ability to regulate the waterways, but that doesn't mean they would take the responsibility to maintain them. Councilmember Broden asked if there are any easements granted off of the private property that abuts the lake, and Mr. Schmidt explained that there were none. Councilmember John Voorde asked if the tree nursery had been sold, and Mr. Schmidt stated that he didn't believe it had been sold, and that they are in the preliminary process to try to protect the tree farm from sale, but he doesn't know if the final area plan and parcel has been signed off on, everything has gone to a holding point right now. If the tree farm were to be sold, it would come to the council for approval. If they were to subdivide it, they could do that on their own. Larry Magliozzi, Executive Director of the Plan Commission, we do have a plat on file that has been submitted to plat off the tree farm, but it is on hold. A subdivision process is not a subjective review, it is a very objective review. If you meet all of the conditions, you get platted. There are certain items on the plat that need to be resolved, and those haven't been resolved yet. We just heard last month or more that the City is going to put it on hold, so it is just sitting in our drawers waiting for action by the City. Nothing is official yet, technically it is still in review. Once the city decides to move forward, they will correct what needs to be corrected on the plat, then they will sign it and it becomes official. Councilmember Broden asked Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand to explain the other municipalities that operate under similar statutes within the state of Indiana. Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand first stated that she wanted to commend the committee for their work. There is a lot of information in Dropbox, and it is very commendable that we have one source to have access to all of it. Second Class Cities in Indiana have the option to operate under two separate chapters of Title 36 of the Indiana Code. Back in 1982 there was mandate from the Indiana General Assembly that you had to pass ordinances at the second class level to establish all of your various departments, bureaus and divisions by a certain date. This was very lengthy, and the title of the section that specifically incorporated which state law the City of South Bend would operate under, says adoption of applicable statute; it doesn't even say the Park Department. The City elected since 1982 to operate under this particular chapter of the state law. A small comparison of the governing law is on file in the City Clerk's Office. One of the common themes that came through the meetings you've had already, is whether or not we can be more creative in regard to getting more input from the public. When you look at how the boards are established, there is a difference on what option you have. The municipal board, like Mishawaka, has four (4) members that are appointed by the Mayor, they have to have an interest or knowledge about Parks and Recreation, and they have the same criteria that only two (2) members of the board can be of one political party, however they can also have outreach with regard to the library and the school corporation because of the joint uses for track and golf There is a difference between what state law you are opting on. The Second Class City common councils have the opportunity, because when you opt, you have to do it by ordinance through a public venue, and there is not a penalty to change at a certain time. Specifically Elkhart and Mishawaka have the authority to create advisory councils that work in keeping with the actual municipal board itself and they can also have special committees. They can be assigned specific topics, and they can also sit with the board and have discussions and debates, however, they do not have the opportunity to vote. That is a significant difference to the state law that South Bend is operating under. Some of the municipal powers given to both boards as far as the differences involved, for the Mishawaka and Elkhart situation, there are mandated specific recommendations and annual reports that go right to the Mayor and the Common Council each year. A similar opportunity for such sharing of information is not required by state law for South Bend. The section about the fifty (50) year lease, under my reading of the law, is that particular law only applies if the City of South Bend would have opted under Chapter 3, not Chapter 4. However, it is very specific with regard to sale, that it is an ordinance, my reading of the law, that would be required if there is any sale of the property and probably the best example of that is when property was sold for the Adam's High School extension. 11 There are significant differences depending on what the City elects to operate under. The one that may be a safety net for everybody, is a provision of Title 36 which I referenced right at the bottom, and the agent of the City who deals with the disposition of the property, my understanding is the Board of Public Works, and therefore they have the authority to dispose of property pursuant to this particular chapter. However if certain thresholds are met, with regard to more than $50,000 of a sale, and if a lease has more than $25,000 of value in a particular calendar year, then my reading of the law is that not only is the Board of Public Works involved, but also the legislative body of the Common Council would be involved in both of those instances. I see that as being all encompassing for any park or recreation. Michael may totally disagree with me, but the one thing that I noticed in the minutes is that Councilmember Kelly is the chair of the Parks and Recreation Committee. If you want the best possible thing for the City, you can continue doing all of the yeoman work that you've already been doing, but if it makes some sense to look at are we operating under the best possible state law, and perhaps change our local ordinance, that perhaps could be a task that Councilmember Kelly's committee could look at the same time the special committee is looking at the Elbel situation. I'm just throwing that out as opportunities you may or may not want to get into. Councilmember Voorde stated that it sounds like Chapter Three (3) offers more protections than Chapter Four (4) in the public input. Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand explained that there are differences with regard to vehicles for public input. Committeemember Perri stated Chapter Three (3) puts it into the code that Advisory Councils and Special Committees can be formed. Chapter Four (4) doesn't address it, but it doesn't preclude that from happening. Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand answered no, but it sets forth a mechanism that is very clear under the state law that the board, the council, and the mayor would not have an option to say no to those. Once the board decides that yes, it is feasible that we have this problem, we would need these experts, and they can run with it and they would have a viable role under state law. Councilmember Voorde stated that prior to 1982, Park Commissioners named the Park Superintendent. After 1982, it became the Mayor's appointment, just as any other Department Head. Does Chapter Three (3) provide for the Mayor making this appointment, or the Park Commissioners? Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand stated that she didn't get into the weeds with the appointment of the Park Commissioner, but it is statutorily set forth, and that could be something again if there is some interest in learning about the differences or similarities of the two state laws, but there are some differences. Councilmember Voorde asked, we can't as a Council arbitrarily say that we think we ought to increase the size of the Park Commission, because numbers and compositions are specified in state law. Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand said that under both chapters, you have very little flexibility with regard to how those boards are constituted. 5 Councilmember Broden clarified that the issue of leasing is still unresolved. Mr. Schmidt stated that Statute 10 -36 -3 applies to all municipalities, and 36 -10 -4 was adopted by the City, and they should be read together. Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand disagrees with that conclusion. With regard to the members of the board, the members of our board can only be removed for cause, for the members of the Mishawaka or Elkhart examples, the cause is very specific with regard to what it is. There are so many differences between some of the policies and procedures that I don't think you can encompass them all. I didn't find any case authority on this or Attorney General's opinions, but that's something I'm continuing to pursue. Councilmember Broden stated that there should be some clarity before we move forward. Mr. Schmidt stated that there are still protections for the Park Board with regard to leasing under 36- 10 -4 -9, which Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand has cited. There is flexibility for the Park Board to enter into lease agreements. Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand added that 10 -4 -9 does not carve out a role at all for the City Council. Mr. Schmidt stated that 36 -10 -3 does not have a role with leasing parks property. But consistently across the board, it is a check to the powers of the legislative body of the city that you cannot sell land without public approval. Mr. Schmidt stated that the takeaway is that everybody is going to be on the same page with what the process is if there is going to be a sale, and if the ultimate decision is a lease, we still have to work that out. Committeemember Perri presented an update from TJ Mannen on the progress of Elbel Golf Course for this season. The course opened up earlier than they thought it would be able to due to nice weather. April 4th and 5th the course was closed for a few days to do the deep tine aerification process to all the greens and some top dressing and over - seeding on the greens. This is treating the course with more care than it has been in recent years. They've been working on the drainage and healthy growth of the green, in particular Green #15 which has been closed and will remain closed for the next couple of weeks. It will be open by May 1St at the absolute latest. We thank everybody for their patience. We want to do a grand reopening once everything is back to where we are real proud of it, so that's scheduled tentatively for April 29. We'll do some fun food and beverage event out in the clubhouse, so we're looking forward to that. In terms of operations, we're trying to streamline some things in the clubhouse. We are combining the pro shop operation with the golf registration where you pay your green fees. We are working on the tee boxes, reshaping everything, and loosening the soil for play to help reduce the maintenance and drainage and reduce the use of chemicals. This presentation is available in Dropbox and in the Office of the City Clerk. We'll have a free movie night, night golf, disc golf at Studebaker, and we're trying to leverage the fact that Elbel has been in the news a lot, and we actually have more outings scheduled there than we've had in recent years. We currently have fourteen (14) outings scheduled. We've also reallocated some advertising budgets throughout the Park Department to make sure that the 0 course is getting its fair share of marketing. We are also using social media to our advantage in the marketing of Elbel. Councilmember Broden addressed the Draft Summary Recommendations. Recommendation One (1): Engage a Golf Course Management Consulting Firm for all three (3) courses to asses. Committeemember Perri explained that Elbel is part of an ecosystem of the parks and also of the Golf Division in particular, so we're spending some time looking at Elbel's operations. I think it's prudent to look at all three (3) courses in harmony, and look at how they can work together efficiently. The largest cost of any golf course is the greens and turf management, so we're engaging a firm to help us with that and looking at a capital improvement plan that really spells things out over the next five (5) to ten (10) years. The consulting part comes in on the management side of things when we look at our position within the marketplace, our rates, best practices, marketing strategies, looking at the complementary use and seeing what's feasible and how we could get extra revenues from that, or what should be free and wouldn't interfere with golf. Engaging the users is going to be very important throughout this entire process as well as talking to local golf communities. Recommendation Two (2): I think it's important whether we continue to operate this in house, lease it, or sell it, we need to understand what we're dealing with. We've heard from many experts about the special features that are present out at Mud Lake. We'll be getting a full inventory of the flora and fauna, understanding the water quality, understanding how our care of the course and the property impacts the natural environment out there. It is important how we catalog that and have a process for how we care for and maintain the property. When we zoom out from Elbel, I also committed that we'll be looking at a natural resource management plan over the next year for all of our major parks. Councilmember Broden mentioned that Committeemember Perri had specified that the natural resource management plan would be done by June 2017 and she asked if he wanted it included in the recommendation. Also, what about cross department collaboration. This was a move from a voluntary effort to a paid consulting effort. Committeemember Perri said sure, it will be important to engage volunteers, but if we are looking at our accreditation, and to look at any type of potential funding, we'll really need to make sure we have the experts in play as we're developing the natural resource management plan. We will have to spend some resources to make that a reality. We have some preliminary conversations with Orbis Environmental Consulting about how we can creatively engage the public in the process. The cross department collaboration is important. The Office of Sustainability will be a great resource. The date of June 2017 is a pretty firm deadline for us, because that is when our reaccreditation is due. We want to have fifteen (15) to sixteen (16) months to be able to do that. We need a growing season to do the environmental consulting, but there are some things that only grow this time of the year, so if we want to get a good inventory of all of those things, we need to start that sooner or later. Recommendation Three (3): The existing work product of the Special Advisory Committee on Elbel, the ongoing engagement of local experts, we may want to input city departments, key stakeholders and the public must be integral /embedded in the contractual terms of City hired consultants. Councilmember Broden said that this is a very intentional recommendation. It will be great to have the consultants, but we don't want to lose the energy of the volunteers. Recommendation Four (4): Park Department and Park Board, in conjunction with public input, update the City of South Bend Five (5) Year Park Master Plan. Consider formation of advisory or standing committees. Councilmember White stated that this goes back to the need to assure and clearly define how the public input can be received but also be part of the planning process. As you look at the work that is before the park department, park board, and also the City at large, standing committees can really assist with gathering information. We'll want to encourage and maintain the levels of interest and support for Elbel and all of the parks that we'll be looking at during this process. Committeemember Farrell stated that as a member of the Park Board, he is very excited about getting the input from the community. He is a big believer of having the standing committees around the events that the parks run so that they are hearing the voice of the people and making decisions based on that voice. Recommendation Five (5): Mr. Perri stated that we will manage and maintain the golf course throughout 2016 and we'll budget for Elbel the same for 2017. Future use decision is differed at this time. We're not talking about sale or lease or management contract. We're not making any of those decisions today, but we're going to budget for the most costly scenario for 2017. There won't be a scenario where you would see us put nothing in the line item for Elbel. We will have resources dedicated to Elbel. Committeemember Farrell asked when the FY2017 budget is going to be set. Councilmember White explained that the budget process will begin with a kickoff from the Administration in April or May. Prior to that time, the Council members will be asked to identify what they would like to see in the budget. The actual budget hearings will most likely take place in July and August. It is important that as we do move forward, we identify funds in the budget for Elbel so we don't have to ask for additional appropriations. The Council cannot increase the budget, but it can reduce the budget. Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand stated that the absolute deadline is prior to November 1 st Councilmember White mentioned that all of the information from last year's budget process is online if anyone would like to review it to learn about the budget process. Recommendation Six (6): Our time frame as directed by the resolution expires on April 15tH The Park Board and the South Bend Common Council could adopt parallel resolutions extending the oversight of this committee through FY 2016. Or we could disband the committee and just have progress report updates to be integrated into the public meeting agendas for both the Park Board and Common Council's Parks, Arts, Recreation and Culture Committee. The last would be a hybrid of above, something that might meld the two options. Committeemember Farrell stated that option number two (2) works best for the Park Board, because it allows them to use their existing meeting time, and it enables them to take the feedback from the standing committees and integrate the ideas and programs into an existing structure. Councilmember Kelly stated that his fear is that what they are becoming now is redundant to what the Park Board and his PARC committee is doing. This committee has been very useful in terms of allowing for public input and making solid recommendations. This process doesn't have to end, but we just need to make recommendations the Park Committee can act on in ways that are appropriate, rather than stepping on the toes of the committees that are already in place. I would be interested in pursuing the second bullet point, so that our advisory committee doesn't extend into an oversight committee. Councilmember White needs a level of confidence and clarity when it comes to progress reports and updates. When you look at our committee structure at the Council level, our committee time is very short. What would the reports look like and how much time would be allotted when you bring the reports in front of the two bodies? You have to make sure that there is adequate time to give the reports and receive feedback as well. Committeemember Perri stated that between the two entities, there would be three (3) meetings every month with agendas that could be dedicated to these reports. It comes down to logistics when you are talking about all of the different meetings. Councilmember White stated that we spend a lot of time putting all of the information together, and it can't get lost in the other work that we do. Councilmember Kelly stated his confidence in Aaron and the rest of the board. He wants to allow people to do the jobs that they were asked to do. Councilmember Broden said that because there has been so much need for fact finding and engaging in consultants, she believes that the outcome of the public process will give options that will have to be decided upon. Looking forward, if the consultants are doing the work on the management side, the ecological assessments are happening, I want to have a good and robust discussion that relies on the expertise that we have heard before. Two more meetings in the late summer or early fall of the folks that have been tracking this issue and the work that we have done that has incorporated the public, along with the experts will allow the task to be valuable, adding faithfulness to the process, and bringing about something substantial and something the public could buy into. It keeps the issue among the same players, and we'll still have the opportunity to make a recommendation of the options that are there. It will still be advisory and allow us to make the recommendation. Councilmember Kelly stated that the players are part of his concern. The full Park Board and the full PARC Committee isn't here. Aaron has already started the consulting process, so I think it is even more important that those folks be involved. This can act as a springboard to what I expected this committee to do. Committeemember Perri stated that the first consulting agreement does conclude with a public meeting to report on the findings, similar to how we've asked that public engagement be embedded into the contractual terms. I can ensure that public reporting is embedded in there, too. Councilmember Voorde offered support to Committeemember Farrell's suggestion that a regular report be incorporated into the committee agendas. There needs to be some specificity as to what each of the committees are to do. It seems that there should be a committee for golf interests and a committee for ecological interests like standing subcommittees, and they have an opportunity to report. Get a little structure, and put it in the agenda as an agenda item, and you're home free as long as the committees do their jobs. Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand stated that regardless of what the special committee decides, based on Recommendation Six (6) and the various options, any council member could ask me to draft the resolution that extends this and that could be on the next agenda. Councilmember White stated that the most important part of this is that communication must continue, input that we don't want to lose, the hard work that's been done, and that we have a structure in place that will facilitate communication and transparency. There's no saying that I won't choose to be on one of the standing committees. If the Park Department goes in that direction, the standing committees must be clearly defined. Committeemember Perri stated that the Dropbox will stay alive, and that we could continue to add to it. Laura Fuderer, 18485 Garwood Ct., is the conservation chair for the South Bend/Elkhart Audubon Society. To me, an assessment indicates the identification of the ecological health of the property. I'm disappointed that Recommendation One (1) doesn't ask the consultant to keep an eye to the ecological impact of those procedures. I wish that it suggested that the firm consider the cost and feasibility of certification by Audubon International which would involve putting into effect sustainable practices of golf course management. I would remind everyone that Audubon International is not affiliated with the Audubon Society of which we are a chapter. Committeemember Perri stated that it is important to recognize that the natural resource management plan will include the ecological threats, techniques to mitigate those, that's going to be very important to us everywhere. Councilmember Broden asked if we could incorporate those into one, and Committeemember Perri said yes. 10 The Committee discussed incorporating the Audubon International accreditation, which they determined is not off the table. Jennifer Betz, 511 S. St. Joseph St., wanted to express support for Council Woman Broden and Council Woman White's suggestion about continuing the Special Advisory Committee. We're here because there was a betrayal of public trust and we were having to hold officials accountable who weren't elected, and that proved very difficult. I know we're in a different place now, but I worry about the fact that it will take some time to build the public trust back, and I think the Special Advisory Committee has been a wonderful foundation, and it would rebuild public trust to have those recommendations go into the body that has been dealing with all of this in the first place. Remember that originally when Elbel for Everyone formed, our original requests were ecological integrity and public access. We've gone back into the discussion about lease and sale this evening, but I want to remind you that parks aren't necessarily about making money, that's not what parks are for. They are there for the common good, for the good of our city. Chris Cobb, 215 E. Pokagon St., Speaking to the matter of the structure of Recommendation Six (6) and how oversight is going to be continued, it seems that for the progress report update option to function well, it depends greatly upon what kind of standing committee structures are put into place. I find it unsettling that we would move away from the special advisory prior to the formation of the more permanent standing committees, and with merely a recommendation that the formation of the standing committees be considered. It sounds like the Park Board is inclined to act upon this, but it still seems like there is a gap in the process. It would facilitate that transition for this advisory committee to continue that function until such time as a permanent rather than ad hoc set of advisory structures are established. I am conscious that nothing in the recommendations has engaged deeply with the matter of the educational value of Elbel. I am concerned that that value would be lost in the process. Catherine Osborne, 517 River Ave., wanted to thank everyone for their work so far, and echo the others by asking the committee not to lose focus. This process was not driven by the Parks Board, it was driven by Community Investment. Remember that we are talking about disbanding the Special Advisory Committee now, and sending this extremely sensitive matter back into a process that didn't serve it so well the first time around. It seems like having an unofficial but morally weighty recommendation from the Special Advisory Committee at the end of the summer once the data has been gathered. Jerry Niezgodski, 1113 N. Elliot, asked if the document Mr. Perri presented would be online, and Mr. Perri said that it would be added to the Elbel Dropbox. As a golfer, I want to see Elbel remain a golf course. It is a great ecological resource besides being just a golf course, though. There was a lot of time for years where the 18th green had water encroaching on it. For years, we saw development adjacent to the golf course, and the water level went down. Now it looks more like a marsh than a lake. If housing is built where the tree farm is now, you can say goodbye to the lake. If you are interested in preserving that land, you better keep your eye on the proposal to sell the tree farm. 11 Committeemember Perri clarified that the subdivision is on the table, and it isn't to have the tree farm change hands, it is actually to protect the property, so the tree farm is protected. Jason Banicki Critchlow 3322 W. Ford St. thanked the committee for the hard work they've put into this. We forget sometimes that there are people involved when talking about selling or leasing the course. I am the grandson of a man who worked forty -two (42) years for the Park Department, who raised a family of eight (8) on a City worker's salary. It's nice to think about the dollars and cents, but we have to remember in a City that's hurting for quality paying jobs, with good benefits, that the golf course provides this opportunity for people to support their family. Not only do I want to see the golf course stay, I want to see it stay in City hands. Once we lease it out, it becomes easy to get rid of it completely. We're talking about people's livelihoods and their ability to support their families. Councilmember White stated that it appears there is a consensus on Recommendations One (1) through Five (5). Councilmember Broden stated that she wanted to add the point about environmentally sustainable course maintenance with regards to operations and management as part of the golf course management consulting because it is consistent with the voices they've heard from Elbel for Everyone. Councilmember Broden stated that the staff point is significant, particularly because we are looking for efficiencies across three (3) courses. Are there clearly delineated job descriptions and goals? We need to make sure that's not an oversight. We also have some union labor involved, so we need to be very conscious. The Committee discussed adding the date of June 2017 as the due date for the Natural Resource Management Plan to Recommendation Two (2). Committeemember Perri believes that one of the consulting groups will be able to produce a portion of that for Elbel by this fall. The Committee decided to add interdepartmental collaboration to Recommendation Three (3). Councilmember Kelly asked where we would add the designation as an Audubon International designation, and the committee decided to add it to Recommendation One (1). The committee discussed crossing out the word "consider" in Recommendation Four (4), and adding the educational component to the stakeholders section in Recommendation Three (3). Councilmember Broden commented that the educational value hasn't been looked at very closely, and related to that, the alternative use of Elbel Park and the idea of leaving room for the Heinz Trust or the Indiana Land Trust to step in and fill a need. I wonder if we need another recommendation that allows that track to be followed. Committeemember Perri stated that the whole idea was for us to come together and put together some recommendations, get everyone on the same page and working from the same set of information, and reboot a process that was messy from the start, then make some recommendations to move it forward in a healthy process. The recommendations do that, but 12 this doesn't give us the answers. If it is a sell or a land trust, it will come back to the Council. All of those decisions will have to be informed off of this data gathering. I think we have a whole new road map going forward. Councilmember Kelly restated that discussing staffing and more oversight gets us into the weeds, and makes it more of an oversight than an advisory committee. These are strong recommendations, and I trust the process and the people involved that it will move ahead well and transparently. The committee discussed Recommendation Five (5), and added that future use decisions are deferred at this time but will include public access and ecological integrity. The committee decided to break Recommendation Six (6) into two parts. Six (6) "A" would refer to the extension of the Special Advisory Committee, and Six (6) "B" would pop the issue back into the respective Park Board. Committeemember Farrell interpreted it as progress reports that will be brought to the Parks Board, the Common Council and the Parks Committee. Councilmember Broden looked to amend Six (6) "A" to be an extension through joint resolution, and looking at two (2) meetings, specifically once the consultants are done with their work in late summer early fall with a rollout of the consultants' findings, then have further recommendations to vote upon by the committee. It would bring our responsibility full circle because we don't have the data within the 45 days. Committee Member Kelly moved to accept Recommendations One (1) through Five (5), and they were accepted unanimously by a voice vote. Mr. Perri moved to approve Recommendation Six (6) "B" with progress reports on a monthly basis to both the PARC Council Committee and the Park Board. Committee Member Kelly seconded it. The motion passed by three (3) to two (2) (Committee Members Broden and White). Committee Member White clarified that we must make sure that the structure is clearly articulated and have ample opportunity to look at the structure in regards to making sure that the public and the council and the members of the advisory committee understand it. Committee Member Kelly asked that any council member come to him as PARC Committee chair if they feel like anything is missing or needs to be done. Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand explained that within forty -five (45) days of the first meeting, you are to simultaneously send your recommendations to the Mayor, the Council, and the Park Board. 13 The committee discussed how to address the questions that were asked by the community, and decided to go back through the minutes to compile the questions and answers to make sure the respective bodies have them. Committee Member Kelly gave a special thanks to Committee Member Broden for spearheading this committee and process, and he thanked Committee Member White as well. Committee Member Broden adjourned the meeting at 8:02 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Randy Kelly, Chairperson, PARC Committee 14