Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes ADVISORY PARK BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 6, 2006 Present: Bill Akan, Ted Bowen, Bill Gogolewski, Jim Michelson, Larry Pasquini, Jim Schwochert Excused: Bryan Bain, Kay Hansen, Terry Wohler Staff: Thomas Stephany, Director of Parks; Al Wenig, Recreational Director; Vince Maas, Parks Operations Manager; Bill Sturm, Landscape Operations Manager/City Forester; Trish Wendorf, Parks Office Manager Chairman Michelson called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. A quorum was determined to be present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Bowen for approval of the January 9, 2006 minutes, as distributed. Seconded by Akan. Motion carried 6-0. 1) Pollock Community Water Park 2006 Fees Pollock Community Water Park Committee members, Eileen Connolly-Keesler and Bill Wyman, were present to answer any questions of the Board. Mr. Stephany reiterated his memorandum of February 3, 2006 (copy of said memorandum on file at the City Parks office and made a part of these minutes). Discussion ensued relative to resident vs. non-resident fees. Mr. Wenig stated the School District boundaries extend further than the City of Oshkosh boundaries as their boundaries include various townships beyond the City limits. Ms. Connolly-Keesler concurred with not charging a non-resident fee. She stated some of the original donors of the project do not live within the City limits or Winnebago County. Mr. Gogolewski stated the charts submitted did not reflect the fees charged at the Berlin or Omro Aquatic Centers. Mr. Stephany stated he listed the water park operations that were consistent with the size of the Oshkosh facility – Berlin and Omro are smaller operations. Mr. Gogolewski stated he was in favor of not charging a non-resident fee, Mr. Schwochert stated it doesn’t make sense for people that live in Fond du Lac, Omro, Neenah, or Appleton to drive to Oshkosh and have to pay a non-resident fee, when they already have their own water park. He would not support a nonresident fee. Discussion ensued relative to daily fees. He stated it is proposed to have two sessions per day and to keep the water park open from noon to 8 PM. Most water parks close during the dinner hour, but he would propose to keep the water park open because the concession stand would be in operation. Mr. Pasquini inquired as to what age is considered “youth”? Mr. Stephany stated he considers “youth” to be between the ages of 3-17. Discussion ensued as to the 25¢ fee of each daily ticket and $1 fee of each season pass to be applied toward the endowment fund. ADVISORY PARK BOARD MINUTES PAGE 2 FEBRUARY 6, 2006 Ms. Connolly-Keesler stated her office received several calls requesting that the fees be kept low as most families have 2-3 children and the admission charges would be too steep for them if they are more than $2-$3 per child. She also stated the first year or two will contain a lot of unknowns and the Oshkosh Foundation would welcome the City to come back to the Foundation for monetary assistance if there is a huge deficit. She would like to keep the fees low so that everyone could afford to visit this new facility – she did not want to see this facility out-price itself. Mr. Stephany stated the fees should not be too low because they would be hard pressed to raise them in the future – the City should make sure the fees that are charged are reasonable. Mr. Schwochert inquired if staff had an idea of what the lifeguard expense would be. Mr. Stephany stated Mr. Wenig and Veronica Robinson of the Recreation Department anticipate a cost of $135,000 (maximum). maximum). He stated he feels the utility costs will be the highest expense. Mr. Pasquini inquired what happens to any potential profit from the water park? Mr. Stephany explained the intent is that any profits would be put back into the water park account similar to the other revenue producing accounts within the Parks system. Mr. Akan stated that no water park has ever been a money-maker – it is not a money-making venture. Mr. Bowen inquired if the 25¢ endowment charge would be assessed on the lap fees as well and Mr. Stephany stated that is not being proposed. Mr. Bowen and Mr. Schwochert concurred with the water park committee members and stated they would prefer that the 25¢ endowment fee be included in the $3 for youth and $4 for adult admission fees. Mr. Akan concurred and stated each person in Oshkosh should be able to afford to swim and/or use that facility. Discussion ensued relative to season passes and it was the consensus of the Board that the proposal of staff was acceptable. As for the “family family pass”, the Board preferred that it be described as a “combination of four family members”. Discussion ensued relative to water park rentals as well as the state mandates for the number of lifeguards required for the facility. Mr. Wenig stated it would conceivably save the public money if the rentals were tailored to their specific needs. Ms. Connolly-Keesler inquired what nights were proposed for “special events”. Mr. Stephany stated the intent is for Friday and Saturday nights up to 10-10:30 PM. Mr. Bowen inquired if other staff would be necessary other than lifeguards? Mr. Stephany stated the renters would have the option to open the concession stand. Mr. Bowen stated he feels comfortable with the fees being proposed for the water park rentals. Ms. Connolly-Keesler stated they are shooting for a June 10th opening of the water park. Motion by Akan for approval of the Pollock Community Water Park Fee Proposal as modified – no difference between resident and non-resident; daily fees are $3 for Youth and Seniors and $4 for Adults; age categories are defined as ages 3 and under are free, ages 3-17 are considered “Youth”, ages 18-59 are considered “Adult”, and ages 60+ are considered “Senior”; night session fees are $2 Youth & Seniors and $3 Adults for 3 hours between the hours of 5:00 & 8:00 PM and lap fees are $1.50 from 11:00 AM to 11:45 PM; the daily fees include the 25¢ endowment fee; and the season pass includes the $1 endowment fee. Seconded by Pasquini. Motion carried 6-0. ADVISORY PARK BOARD MINUTES PAGE 3 FEBRUARY 6, 2006 2) Menominee Park Amusement Rides Fees Mr. Stephany reiterated his memorandum of February 3, 2006 (copy of said memorandum on file at the City Parks office and made a part of these minutes). He stated that there are State mandates for railroad track repairs, which is expensive; and staff is spending considerable sums to repair old equipment to make them safer. Mr. Maas stated that the parts for the train are special made and there is only one vendor in the country that has them available. He added that the wheel axles alone are very expensive. Mr. Stephany stated that the train had broke down for 18 straight days last year and that affected the revenue greatly. Mr. Gogolewski inquired as to the cost for a new train engine? Mr. Maas stated he had not looked into the option for a brand new engine, but he imagined it to cost approximately $20,000. Mr. Bowen inquired as to the revenue of the leased rides (Elephant and Jet Plane) and if those rides were proposed for leasing for the upcoming season. Mr. Stephany stated because of the electrical upgrade, the leased rides were two months late in starting their operation and approximately $1,000 was lost in projected revenues. He did not intend to lease the two rides for the upcoming season. Mr. Maas stated when you weight the costs of labor, plus having the public wait in line for staffing purposes, there is a potential for lost revenue. Motion by Pasquini for approval to raise the amusement ride prices by 15¢, from 70¢ to 85¢ per ride for the 2006 season. Seconded by Schwochert. Motion carried 6-0. 3) Parks Maintenance Discussions Mr. Maas distributed copies of two handouts titled, Park Inventory Items in Poor Condition and Park Inventory Items in Fair Condition (said handouts on file at the City Parks office and made a part of these minutes). He also distributed a sheet titled, CIP Criteria for Major Improvements and a spreadsheet titled, Parks Department Capital Improvement Program -Major Repairs & Property Improvements (both documents on file at the City Parks office and made a part of these minutes). He requested that the Board members review the documents and then prioritize their choices for CIP projects for the next few yeas. After the Board had prioritized their choices, Mr. Maas would obtain estimates and put the plan into motion. Mr. Pasquini inquired if the Board’s feedback should be presented at the March meeting or if they should submit their lists before the next regularly scheduled meeting. Mr. Maas requested that the Board members give their lists to Trish Wendorf, Parks Office Manager, as soon as possible. He also requested that Ms. Wendorf send the material out to the Board members who were not present at tonight’s meeting. Mr. Akan stated that some of the suggested listed projects are tied into the Riverwalk project. Mr. Maas stated the spreadsheet was done before knowledge of the Riverwalk project, so the Board should not include those items in their lists. Mr. Akan stated that the Riverwalk project project might not be completed for ten or more years and inquired if some of these items that are tied to the Riverwalk could wait ten (10) years? Mr. Maas stated there is nothing we can do with that because they are tied to the Riverwalk project. Discussion ensued as to what are considered maintenance issues and what are considered major improvements or projects. Mr. Stephany reminded the Board that CIP projects should meet the guidelines of a cost over $25,000 and have a life expectancy of ten (10) years. ADVISORY PARK BOARD MINUTES PAGE 4 FEBRUARY 6, 2006 CITIZENS STATEMENTS There were no Citizens’ Statements. PARK DIRECTOR/STAFF REPORTS There were no Park Director’s or Staff reports. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, Motion to adjourn by Gogolewski; Seconded by Bowen. Motion carried6-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Trish Wendorf Recording Secretary