10-06-88 Parks Comm MinutesCl
PARKS COMMITTEE MEETING
October 6, 1988
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
COMMITTEE MEMBER ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Noel Furlong
Roger Hopkins
John Gunnerson
Jim Atkinson
Glen Neier, City Attorney
Mike Baker, Parks Director
Mayor Ed Kennedy
Dan Johns
Weldon Plympton
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Furlong at 4:20 P.M.
Chairman
Furlong presented the new draft copy
of the Lakers Baseball
Lease that he had received from Dan Johns.
It was decided
that
Chairman
Furlong would go through the changes
in the Lease one by
one
and the Committee could say "Yea" or "Nay".
C. Gunnerson asked
why
don't we
go through the whole thing because he
didn't know where
the
Committee
stands on the entire Lease.
Johns' new draft copy says for a term of 20 years. Johns stated they
wanted more than 5 years because completing that field is at the
expense of the Lakers and they thought the additional time was justified
as the finances and improvements and completion of the field were
consistent with what the Council was doing with the Golf Course.
Johns stated there is also the termination language in there in case
of default, so it's not 20 years without any recourse. He said we're
talking about review twice a year, so he thought 20 years was not
unreasonable. Furlong said he thought the Committee understood that.
He stated that the Golf Course Lease, which is now signed, sealed and
delivered has a 5 year review of terms and conditions. Gunnerson
stated the Golf Course Lease is 20 year with every 5 years a review
of terms and conditions. He asked if the Lakers would have a problem
with that? Johns said he didn't have a problem with reviewing it
every 5 years, he just didn't want to have to re -negotiate the entire
lease. He said the Lakers were going to have to go for some financing
because the figures they were being told presently for completing the
grandstands, which they hope to get done because they are scheduled
to host state tournament next year, is around $30,000. He said they
were seeking what they could in the way of donations and contributions
but people in businesses get hit up a lot for those types of things,
so they're going to need some additonal financial help, and they'd
like to go to the bank with some assurance that they've got more than
5 years to pay off a $30,000 loan. He said the idea behind the
Lakers was not to be a money -making organization but to make enough
money to provide a baseball program for high school athletes.
• Furlong asked what they would consider as an 'alternative. Johns said
a 5 year lease would give them the ability to renew, option it for
two 5-year periods every 5 years.
-1-
Gunnerson said that was one of the big things with the Golf Course,
. trying to obtain loans, and the banks are not going to do it today
unless they know that you're going to be there for awhile. If you've
got some security and are not in a situation where you can't be
cancelled in 5 years and change hands, etc.
Furlong said he had no problem with the concept of a renewable lease,
but he had a real problem with the concept of a 20 year lease. He
said things could change mightily in 20 years in Kalispell.
Furlong went on to say that there would be essentially no income from
this property for whatever the term of the lease. He said there
isn't a year goes by that the members of the Lakers in labor and
materials don't vastly contribute more than 1% of the income. Johns
said he agreed with Furlong but since the Lakers were going to have
to undertake completion of the project he didn't consider that as
income but that the Lakers did contribute that much in time and
materials each year.
Furlong then moved on to Item No. 1: Use, Compliance with Laws,
Signs. Furlong read in the third sentence "and other specific purposes
approved by the Lakers" which conflicts with the sentence in No. 3
stating "shall be only with the mutual consent of the City and
Lakers." Johns said the easiest way to fix that is to change "approved
by the Lakers" to "approved by the parties".
Item No. 2: Under Maintenance and Repairs the old lease said the
• City would perform the following services: a) Fertilize, mow and
maintain outfield... The new lease says a) Fertilize, mow, irrigate
and maintain outfield... Furlong said he thought the intent there was
that the fertilizing, mowing and irrigating would be at the expense
of the City. Johns said the Lakers had proposed to pay for water
that was used at the concession stands and that was flushed in the
toilets. He said they didn't want to pay for water that was used to
irrigate the sod. He said the City's able to turn on that water just
as well as the Lakers and there was no control over what the water
bill's going to be if we're not controlling the turns on the valve.
lie said they were also being asked to develop the 2nd field down
there which means seeding instead of sodding which is going to take a
lot of water to get that grass growing, and they would like to have
some leave from paying for the irrigation water that goes on that
field. Hopkins said he agreed with that except that in the lease it
states the Lakers have primary use of that field and it ties up that
field for a particular time for a particular purpose and he thought
it was properly the responsibility of the Lakers to cover the expense.
Johns said this field was constructed with the purpose to replace old
Griffin Field and the watering of that field was not paid for by the
organizations. Hopkins said there was a major change now in that we
are giving the Lakers a lease for the use of this brand new field for
a particular period of time for a particular purpose. He said that
was a significant enough change that it obligates the lessor to the
costs. Johns said we'll pay for the water, you finish the field and
• build the stands. Hopkins said maybe that's an obligation the City
might have to consider. He said this field in his mind was conceived
-2-
originally as a multi -use field, such as soccer, football, use for
• major events. He said there needs to be more flexibility in this
lease to allow for other purposes. He said the soccer association
would like to use the field. He said by this lease only the Lakers
could say who could use the field at a certain time period. Johns
asked how do we address the issue of soccer cleats and football
cleats, if the outfield sod gets ripped up, how is it going to get
repaired and who is going to repair it? Hopkins said all the agencies
have an obligation for a certain fee for use of the field. He said
the idea he's coming more and more around to is that the City should
retain management of the field.
Gunnerson said the City was doing all the maintenance and we should
make the decision as to who can play on the field. Johns said he
didn't see where the City was paying for everything, what about the
grandstands? Gunnerson asked what assurance does the City have that
whoever the Lakers would permit on the field are going to be compatible
to maintaining it as a quality baseball field? Johns asked how do we
know that if the City's in control of it and we put $30,000 into it
this year that next year it's not going to be a piece of junk?
Hopkins stated that the City Council would advise Mike Baker to see
to it that the field is available as a baseball field on those
occasions when there are no other things going on or according to
your schedule and that's the City's obligation. Gunnerson said if we
find out that a soccer team had played there and tore up the field
then it's over, they don't play there anymore. Johns said Mike Baker
•is doing a fine job maintaining the field, that 1988 was the first
year he hadn't had to call off a baseball game because there was too
much water on the field. Furlong said that Mike Baker and the Parks
Crew have 19 other pieces of property plus the airport to maintain
and everything should be maintained on a rotation basis, but what's
going to happen when that rotation doesn't fit in the Lakers schedule,
does he drop whatever he's doing and rush out and do that? Baker
said that in the spring of the year one of the priorities is to get
the ball fields in order. So far they haven't had their priorities
overlap yet. They may have an emergency or a problem arise in some
other area which will be addressed on a fire drill basis.
Hopkins brought up the idea of a limited lease for a certain period
of months a year.
Baker said this was the first year that the Parks Dept. is being
charged for water usage and that had not been budgeted for and is a
problem. As long as there's a competent parks director or manager,
there never will be a detrimental use on that field. He said maintaining
the turf would be a high priority in keeping the baseball field a
prime facility.
Item 3. No changes.
Item 4. Furlong suggested a potential compromise regarding the issue
• of pristine use of the baseball field. What if we maintain the
current baseball field as. a baseball complex or any other compatible
use, and that's by mutual consent, and develop the 2nd field as a
multiple use complex to include 2 soccer fields for multiple use. He
-3-
drew a diagram showing his plans. He said the other use of the 2nd
field could be planned around a secondary baseball field. Johns said
they just wanted to be sure that Griffin Field was used for compatible
use that would not cause destruction of a $200,000 investment. He
said as he didn't have any problem with the multi -use, it would
increase greatly the capacity of having two baseball games going at
the same time. There was some discussion about having a baseball
mound on a soccer field. Furlong said he thought soccer was played
before or after the baseball season. Baker said the possibility of
bringing soccer in there would benefit the people very well because
of the fact that there's 800 participants and the revenue from that
could be put into developing combined soccer and baseball field.
Furlong went on to say that we could require that tennis shoes only
be allowed on the field. Johns said his only concern was maintaining
the quality of the field. There was further discussion on soccer
becoming a high school sport and developing more fields for that. It
was agreed that there was the possibility of some kind of a compromise
on the additional development of the 2nd field and make it an all -complex
field. Johns said the Lakers would be willing to participate in
that.
Item No. 5: Furlong said there was an addition of "discharged into
the City's treatment facility".
Personal Property: There was some discussion on this but no changes
were made.
• Insurance: Furlong asked what if the Lakers allowed others to use
the facility at times other than the baseball season, what does your
liability do then? Johns said what they would do is require them to
have their own insurance.
No. 8: Default and Termination: Furlong said the big change was the
proviso limiting us in enforcing cancellation of the lease. Number
one is the change from 30 days in the original lease to 60 days with
the proviso that, regardless, we couldn't do it during the calendar
year of a baseball season. Johns said his big concern there was
having the rug pulled out from under them when they have their
baseball season all scheduled. If we've got a problem let's wait
till the season is over.
Furlong said he would like to propose to the committee that we have
the Mayor direct Mike Baker, with the assistance of our City Attorney,
sit down with Dan Johns and give them our input and attempt to hammer
out an agreement that meets our concerns about these issues, then
come back with a negotiated agreement. Furlong said this committee
is honor bound to present it to the Council with this committee's
recommendation for adoption.
Gunnerson said he was in favor of this and he didn't think it was too
tough to come up with a compromise.
• Hopkins asked if this committee was empowering this negotiating team,
is this committee bound when it comes back from the negotiating team,
and when it goes to the Council floor it can be amended in any way,
shape or form? Furlong said yes, there was no way out of that.
-4-
Hopkins said he thought this was an admirable suggestion. Johns said
• he had no problem with that at all, he just wanted to feel comfortable
that whatever we reach agreement upon doesn't come back to go through
this process and the same disagreements. Neier said at least today
we have it on paper, he could definitely see places where we could
straighten it out. Baker said he would agree with Glen, we have been
given the guidelines and wishes of the committee and his interest is
to bring something back that the committee is in favor of and that's
what he would negotiate for with the interest of the City.
Johns said everybody's objective was to come up with something that
is an asset to the City. There was further discussion on the merits
of the new baseball field. Johns then left the meeting at 5:30 P.M.
MOTION: Roger Hopkins moved that the Parks Committee create a nego-
tiation committee and have the Mayor direct Mike Baker and Glen Neier
to negotiate with Dan Johns and come back with an agreement to
present to the Council. Gunnerson seconded and it passed unanimously.
•
• -5-
NEGOTIATION STRATEGY
• Furlong made a motion that we go for a 5 year lease with three
consecutive 5-year renewals.
Furlong stated he was willing to give the Lakers the 1% of gross
revenue and Laker ticket concession stand, which means no income, but
he is not willing to give them water, or fertilizer or city service
free and clear. The Mayor asked if this meant the one field.
Furlong said no, it was the whole complex. He said that was something
that should be in the negotiations, they should pay for that water,
etc. during season times. If they are using the other field they
should pay, if we're both using it, the cost should be split. Baker
said currently there is no irrigation on the other field. It was
decided to negotiate that item. Furlong said if they wanted to put
their own fertilizer on the field he had no problem with that, also
the mowing. Gunnerson stated he disagreed with that, the point of
fertilizing was not just for their period of time, it was for the
benefit of the entire period of time. He said as far as mowing the
outfield he didn't think there was any problem, but as far as mowing
the infield, he said we should put in that they maintain the infield
and the City maintains the outfield area and fertilization and mowing
of the outfield area, and they should pay for the irrigation during
the time they utilize it. There was some discussion of the cost of
fertilizer and what other treatments had been put on the grass.
Baker stated he felt they should fertilize twice a year. He said if
it wasn't for the baseball field it wouldn't have been developed to
• the point it is right now, we would have put the money in other
areas. Roger Hopkins said he wanted it clarified, does irrigate mean
that the Parks Dept. is simply going out and watering the field, or
is the Parks Dept. going out and watering the field and paying the
bill? He said if this means that the City is responsible for the
bill, he does not agree with that. Gunnerson said that the if the
City is irrigating, the Lakers should be responsible for the bill
during the time that they utilize that field. Furlong asked what
sense it made for the City to put expensive fertilizer on the field
when the Lakers could do it almost for free? Baker said if we put
the responsibility in the hands of the Lakers, they're going to be
ruled by their checkbook and might have to cut back on maintenance.
Mayor Kennedy said he would rather keep it all in Mike's hands, no
matter who pays for it, to be sure it's done right. It was decided
to add "irrigation" to No. 5, Utilities.
It was noted that Item #1 conflicted with Item #3, the word "Lakers"
should be changed to "parties". Parties are designated in the first
paragraph.
Item #3, Primary Use. Furlong stated that at in 20 years it's not
unfeasible that a pro team could come here and that could mean major
bucks for the City. Hopkins asked if that could be an item allowable
for re -opening the Lease, if some minor league expressed interest in
Kalispell. Furlong said only every five years, if they want us to
• stick to it. Gunnerson said he agreed with the Mayor that there
should be wording in there to prevent that.
Hopkins stated he had another concern --he said the Lakers had said
• all along they wanted to get some kind of compensation for the
investment they have in bringing the field up to par. He said he
felt that there should be some kind of formula in here that they
should be compensated only for the amount that they are indebted for
completing the field, and perhaps after that according to the annual
maintenance. Furlong said he liked that concept but he didn't think
it would work for the reason that we give them 1% less labor and
materials and you take 50 people down there working all day and then
you compute that into an 8 hour day at the standing rate and you
never will get that kind of money. Gunnerson said all you're doing
in something like that, you've got somebody there that doesn't have
any money anyway, then they're sitting there trying to develop a
field along with the City and all we're doing is trying to put the
noose a little bit tighter and raise them 3 inches off the ground.
Hopkins said up until the point they become profitable. Gunnerson
said let them become profitable. The Mayor said then we could
re -negotiate. Gunnerson said it's not going to be in 5 years.
Furlong said he had another concern, he said if he was a stubborn
Laker, and somebody wanted to use that field and he didn't think it
was a compatible use, he would just make the fee so exorbitant that
they wouldn't use it. He said he thought the City had to have some
insight, some voice, in what fees are going to be charged. He
thought the fee should be reasonable, but the Lakers could make the
fee so high that it wouldn't be used. He said maybe Mike and the
Lakers could establish use fees or something of that nature. Baker
said he wasn't really so sure that the City owes the Lakers any
• concessions because we already provided them a $200,000 facility and
we haven't sold Griffin Field yet. He said there's no guarantee what
the old field will go for. He said he had some problems with the
soccer people paying the Laker people and then the money stopping
there and not the best interest of the field taking place.
Furlong stated he had a compromise suggestion for alternate uses:
Alternate uses will be coordinated internally by Parks Director and
the Lakers and then you can build in a fee schedule. He said that
the kids in this town playing soccer deserved the same kind of
consideration as the Lakers. He thought a fee would take care of the
sundry items, such as a guard, that somebody could go down there and
make sure that there is no destruction to the property, but to charge
them a fee we should have some kind of handle on it. The Mayor asked
if we were talking about charging fees for the second field? Furlong
said yes. The Mayor said maybe we should not include that second
field. Furlong said if you wrote it so we have input into what the
fee is, and coordinate the use, 1 think we are protected. Baker said
fees would have to be approved just like the swimming pool and golf
course fees. Everyone agreed with that.
Baker stated that the main field now has padlocks on the gates. He
said he was a firm believer that it's a City park and he felt that
for unorganized play that City park should be open. He said if
someone was going to vandalize it they would find a way to get in.
• He said he was concerned about the locking up of the facility.
-7-
Gunnerson said he disagreed, he was concerned that if it was open it
welcomed more vandalism. Furlong agreed with Gunnerson, he said we
have an unenclosed field right now. Furlong said he thought there
ought to be two keys for the Lakers and the City, and if somebody
wants to use that park, they check out a key and then we'll have a
record of who's using it. He said we put an awful lot of money into
that baseball field to allow somebody with a bicycle or motorcycle to
go in there. He said he would rather have it locked at least until
we get the whole thing developed. Hopkins said he agreed with Mike,
it's a City park and it should be open. He questioned the legality
of locking it. Furlong said we padlocked the golf course, you can't
get on it without consent, he wasn't criticizing that, he was only
criticizing that we can't get consent. He thought we had a right to
lock the field. Baker said the golf course was a specialized use,
what are you going to play on a golf course besides golf? He said
what he was talking about is the open green space that's meant for
athletic turf, for outdoor sports and activities. That's conducive
to other play besides just baseball. Gunnerson said he agreed with
Mike, if the City was the one that was going to go in there and put
those bleachers in, and the toilets and facilities... Baker said
they put those dugouts in which was $15,000. Furlong said primarily
it was built for baseball, actually it's multi -purpose and there
should be a fence around the whole perimeter, and he thought for
right now it should be locked to protect our investment: Baker said
maybe we could look at this again after we get the whole thing
finished.
• item A. Furlong said this was where he proposed the multi -use
concept. He said he thought for what the Lakers were getting on the
first field, they are obligated to develop the 2nd field, with our
help or the soccer association's help. He said they have to be aware
that they are going to share a major portion in the development of
that 2nd field.
Furlong said for the record he disagrees with our paying for all the
water. Hopkins said he thought we should go back to the original
language. Noel read the original language, which reads :"The City
shall provide electricity, water and sewage facilities to the leased
property. The Lakers shall pay for the cost of water, sewage facilities,
garbage collecting, and electricity usage. It was only after they
got the bill they tried to get out of it. Furlong said it was
his feeling that they should pay for this.
Baker asked if there was going to be a trade-off, such as the Parks
Dept. mowing for the Water Dept., did he see us going to strictly an
irrigation policy, the only reason we're paying for the water is
because the meter is in there. Is there ever going to be free water
again for the City itself, or is this the trend that you see going
through? Furlong said there's no free water and there's money expended
for that water. Furlong said what he felt should be done is the
staff ought to be directed to come up with one policy, so we don't
fight with every policy that we have. Baker said we are doing
something different in every area, so we have to work towards
ff:Z
consistence. Furlong said sometimes its nothing more than a paper
• transfer, but it still has to be accounted for.
Personal property: Furlong said Dan Johns had everything listed in
there including foodstuffs, grandstand, fencing, bases, including pegs.
He said he was suggesting if worse came to worse, if the lease was
violated or if they gave it up, the potential of paying for those
major improvements, that even if the City had to take over the
grandstand, it's nonsense for that grandstand to be torn out and
moved, and then we have to turn around and build another one.
Hopkins said the grandstands were part of the facility and did not
belong to the Lakers because they're getting all these fees for
numerous uses out there and ostensibly this offsets the cost of
building the grandstands. He thought the grandstands should be struck
as personal property. Baker said the fences should be struck also.
Insurance: Furlong said the City has general liability insurance and
fire insurance, and the Lakers carry general liability for the portion
of the year that they use it, and if anybody else uses it they have
to have liability. Gunnerson said if any other entity uses this
facility they should have proper insurance. Baker said we should put
in there that if anyone else uses it they have to supply a waiver of
insurance upon any organized activity leasing the facility.
Hopkins said that the fact that they are leasing this facility for
year around use, they could get some needs for subletting this facility
at times when they're not using it, yet they're only paying liability
insurance at the times they are using it, and still getting fees from
other groups and requiring that they get their own liability insurance.
Furlong said that was standard practice. Hopkins asked if they
happen to sublet the field during the time of the Lakers regular
season, does the Lakers insurance cover that other guy? Baker said
no, they have their own insurance. Any organized activity will have
their own insurance and they will be responsible to provide proof of
it.
Item #8. Default and termination. Furlong said if the problem got
serious enough that we felt compelled to initiate a default, then he
didn't think the continuation of the season should stand in the way.
Hopkins said he still had a problem with a year-round full time
annual lease with the facility. He said he'd rather see the City
have total control and give them the use arrangement or he would
rather see a lease for the time they actually have their season.
Gunnerson said the problem with that is the City will be rebuilding
the bleachers. Hopkins said he didn't see any difference between the
Flathead Jazz Organization building an $85,000 amphitheater and the
Lakers building bleachers for a facility we just spent $200,000 on.
Furlong agreed but said the City does not have the manpower, personnel
or money for total control. Hopkins said what the Lakers need to
remember is that they wouldn't have a field now if it wasn't for the
positive efforts of the City.
• Meeting adjourned at 6:10 P.M.
Shirley Hughes, Recording Secretary
IWI