This week, there were 2 meeting of subcommittees of the Park’s Department and they looked at changing or creating policies in about a dozen different areas. There’s some exciting stuff and perhaps, some that could be worrisome. Take a look!
THE TWO MEETINGS
The first meetingmeeting I attended was the Long Range Planning Subcommittee. They actually met. Unfortunately, I think I witnessed and open meetings violation where they voted on something that wasn’t on the agenda. It was only embarrassing because there was an alder and a former alder that were 2 of the 5 committee members. They also did a lot of talking about the form they used to work on the policies, which I’m going to skip over. Finally, they did have documents with the topics they were talking about, but they were not available to the public. I asked for copies of the policies they were discussing, and staff told me they didn’t exist, which was true. But, there were documents they handed out that had some of the basics of these issues. I didn’t follow up to get them.
The second meeting was the Habitat Stewardship Committee, but they didn’t have quorum, for the third month in a row, which is unfortunate as they are talking about issues I have heard many in the community talk about.
MEMORIAL POLICY
Ed Jepsen reported he did an internet search of policies across country and focused on similar cities or progressive cities, there is a lot out there, run from extremely simple to very detailed, one to many pages, some go through city staff process, others have no memorials, some categorize parks. He has 20 pages of notes. Unfair to drop that on staff. He said wanted to break it down into smaller amount of issues, help staff but not write it. Should he put in basic points with options? He talked about some of the examples of issues – Seattle has no memorials, others could give a memorial but done to design standard and passed through staff, and in some cases they have a parks gift list – park by park. Do we want a gift list for 260 parks? He would argue they could identify parks of a certain category – historical, Warner and Elver mega parks, neighborhood parks, and then create a standard you want to apply might that would be different in different parks. Over memorializing parks a consistent issues. Some allowed plaques, some did not. Recognition could go on book, kiosk, website, etc. Olbrich is another example of a different kind of park, was going to break it into tiers and make it generic, brief and to the point.
Keven Briski, Parks Superintendent says that we take Jepsen up on his research and boil it down and staff would review it. Want to vet it with staff to ID particulars for what might or might not work in our system and establish a policy, write a policy and bring it back to the board.
Kay Rutledge (parks staff) says yes we need staff involvement to determine what is working in the system.
Briski says they could put it in the meeting/communication process, identify one staff person to champion it and bring it through the committee process.
Stephen Webster, the chair says they’d like to hear updates on how it goes, he’d like to see a summary of research or raw document. Raw document, unless Jepsen wants to organize it.
Webster asks about desired outcome, what level of abstraction? Policy changes or analysis and recommendations. Thought would develop list of what they do in parks, and second was policy changes, felt better with the second one.
Jepsen says why undertake it if we aren’t going to change the policy. Have committee members here to argue for it at the parks commission. On number one, it was for staff, he says it refers back to another point, it’s an implementation issue. Staff will have ongoing effort to provide input. Not just an individual list of priorities. Have it reflect community values.
Webster says that when all is done and said, we will have more done than said. Hard to say in beginning of process but they may decide nothing needs to be changed.
Joe Clausius asks if there is a prioritized list. Ed explains how they could do a more general donation, educate the public more broadly. Sometimes get into facility, it could be major thing like the pool. Trying to think beyond benches and trees.
Grant Frautschi says marketing vs. acceptance type issue, this list vs. donations to specific things, policy should encourage people to support parks, always try to remind people that parks are unique, to force them into specific boxes might not be right cuz they may want to donate to their specific park.
Briski says it is called a gift catalog, predetermining what you need and marketing to people so they have an opportunity. When they say “I’d like to make a donation, what should I give”, then they could select out of the catalog, rather than the bench and the tree, it could be a landscape amenity, bubbler, something we are planning for and then choose to give.
Webster says trying not to be too prescriptive.
Rutledge says that staff had a question about should we be allowing plaques on the tribute or memorial, should we have a plaque by a donated tree or bench, and that is the only thing not addressed here.
Jepsen says was going to add that to the more detail.
David Wallner says that there is a place if small and maintenance issues are minimal.
Jepsen says that there might be certain parks, when is it tasteful or not tasteful, but need to decide how many, how big, etc. How do you want this to be perceived over generations? We’ve had an ad hoc policy up to this point, but is that the way we want to continue, yes recognize everyone, but small neighborhood parks maybe yes, but if think over memorialized then a central kiosk.
Bill Bauer (parks staff) says that people come to them and want to do a play ground, but want to donate less than $1000 and that is a tree or bench. Playground is $2 – 3K, drinking fountain could be $5 – 15K, very little of that interest, might have to do with marketing.
Jepsen says that in Canada they can buy a bench for $20,000 and it will be there in perpetuity.
Briski says they do it at Forest Hill Cemetery.
PARKING REGULATIONS IN PARK PARKING LOTS
Wallner says he met with Briski and Rutledge, Rutledge volunteered to put the form together. They have a conversation about who should fill out the form. He says the practice does reflect the original ordinances that impact the parks. Talked about how lots and parks are unique, Brittingham etc. This is a good summary of the discussion, is it going to be a potential fundraiser? Certain parks, only a handful, where we have problems, football Saturdays and commuters are part of the problem. Makes sense to have a broader system which we don’t have now. They will do a survey, don’t know when start that with the rangers.
Briski says there is no consistent policy, time has expired on review of some of the policies and good opportunity to reevaluate to see if there is different trending, handful used as commuter lots, that’s good, some challenges in other areas as well, what will the policy be on that. Football Saturdays, parking lots used that we do enforce, don’t enforce in others, now that have a ranger program and can have enforcement, it would be good to review parking issues holistically – we have a regulatory enforcement side. [Sigh, the “park ranger” program originally was supposed to be outreach staff to deal with homeless, but now they are out doing surveys of parking lots. Very disappointing.]
Jepsen asks how it would impact Yahara Station type issues.
Briski says there is an issue with construction work crews using it which is different than Yahara. They need to look at what are our parking regulations for current parks, what new issues would be in the vision and valued and evaluated on its merits, to the extent already using it, might have a whole new set of policies connected to it. Last policy in 2007, very much looked like done before. Could be a change on a case by case basis to address the problem. So, trying to come up with one policy to address the issues. Parking pass or uniform limited to three hours, would address construction commuter and football Saturday. Vilas is real issue, 3 hours for Vilas between 8 – 5 Monday thru Friday, doesn’t address Saturday and Sunday. The zoo is inundated on football Saturday and they put attendants in park to enforce parking rules and around park property, and they manage the parking lot for the zoo, and they are concerned about tailgating in that spot, and users of the zoo that cannot get there. We don’t currently ticket. In the relationship with county and Vilas Zoo would like to keep it available for patrons, even if not a uniform policy a procedure could try to adopt it
Frautschi says three hours are too short, think of the Mallards game or boat parking – they should have a rule of thumb by locations.
Briski says not likely to be everywhere all the time, policy earlier to make exceptions, astute users will call us on our inconsistencies, they ask why inconsistent, requires public information –ticketing will just upset people.
ICE RINK ENHANCEMENT
Webster talks about the process availability and quality of ice in the city, no updates since last met, since committee is skating (ha ha) and now researching, will do a review of 09-10 skating season after this skating session.
Briski says it has been going great, weather conditions ideal across whole system, fielding thanks, appreciative people. They are grateful for the impromptu photographs in the papers that promote that you can rent skates, constantly providing info to press. With adopt-a-ice, West Moorland very positive, very excellent, collaboration with field staff – communication network happening between the two. Outside of West Moorland has been overwhelmingly successful, haven’t taken those ice rinks to the experience level with West Moorland, they are doing more sophisticated work on the rinks – maintenance and creation – others are just snow removal. It is so important in 1st 24 hours, staff couldn’t get to it because they were snow plowing and dealing with bike and park paths and crosswalks. Briski says they told the volunteers where to put the snow and that worked out well.
Webster says they have gotten lots of good feedback. Climate and commitment of staff to improved quality is at the root of the whole thing. They need to look at lessons learned, he talks about skating with a woman that had input on how it worked as a volunteer, she would like to do more than shovel, hopes the engage the community for lessons learned.
Briski says they should do a SWOT analysis to streamline info you need and use it. He also says that for the volunteers there is lots of room to grow, just wanted to start there.
ALCOHOL BAN IN THE PARKS
Clausius says he is fundamentally opposed to banning alcohol in parks, alcohol isn’t the problem it is certain groups of people and we never gotten back in once they banned it. Law park came up after he was on city council, 12 month trial and problems still there, would like it documented one way or the other, wants to find out practice of banning alcohol not best solution, can we do something else, need to know what the alcohol related problems? 26 parks banned it, because banned it, declined, have problems remained the same or escalated, wants to start with police data, talk to criminologist, park rangers input, and take the data and determine if bans work fine leave the policy, if not working and problems continuing. He says they should ban the individuals not alcohol in the parks. Rutledge was a great help. He talked to library staff and says it works well, and possibly we should look into it, park rangers would have to keep track of, not sure police could do that, this is a jumping off point and need to revisit it, the subcommittee had periodic meetings and just rehash the same thing and just continue on an individual basis.
Briski says that he has followed up, asked city attorney to give an opinion on what library is doing and other downtown establishments regarding behavior, would like to give that info as continue to meet, looking into it, issue we talked about and need to follow up on. One area of interest that came out.
Wallner says they have the ad hoc committee report, they have a copy, more issues than just the banning or enforcement – environmental, social services and police. Didn’t recommend city wide ban, commission is split on it, interesting discussion on it. Comes to them a couple times a year, and they approved a couple.
Clausius doesn’t think a total ban, neighborhood parks should be ok, one size policy won’t work.
Briski says that data will show you it gets pushed around the city, becomes less simple, moves from park to park, that is what the raw data is . . . personal observation too. Its a small number of individuals – 20 people, there is a social component too, one of things we do with rangers and officers is they give them information on where help is – not just about chasing our tail and it’s about helping. [It’s sad they don’t realize that giving people a list of programs that have long waiting lists isn’t going to be helpful]
ROLE OF VOLUNTEERS
Jepsens says on the role of volunteers, fell behind, becomes a little more problematic, like memorial policies, Olbrich would have special rules, landscape and dif than special event or whatever – needs more time to work on it.
Briski says that they have staff working on the issue, vision for volunteer program, good one in place, driven by people who come to them, want to identify volunteer project. They need to establish value of volunteers, where and when can we use them and when are they more trouble than they are worth,
UNENFORCED RULES AND REGULATIONS
They can’t remember exactly what this is.
Wallner says it was related to alcohol originally, no one owns it.
Chair says over time, drive around the square, you see 100 signs telling you what to do, have a tendency to pass rules and regulations and lose track and look at what we have on books that are like blue laws, not trying to be against rules and regulations and wants to review them.
Shouldn’t they assemble their rules?
Staff says she has that.
Some says they are all ordinance based, other than parking, and alcohol, only ones hot button issues, to go through them systematically would be a good public policy.
Wallner says that there was the new one about homeless property – new idea – that has been referred now says Briski.
Briski says new issue in November was bikes on tennis courts – also working with bike polo, trying to find a spot for them.
Wallner says he’ll write it up – Webster will work with it
BEHAVIORAL STUDY OF PARKS
Webster says we haven’t done anything, they have no baseline data about who is using parks – information less but high perception idea of data. Need trend analysis. Classic research project says Webster, hoping students could do this, survey design – not without cost, which is why put in costs, may need to pay a professor unless it already exists
Wallner asks when did user survey – staff say 5 or 10 years.
LAKE WATER LEVELS
The committee member that left was going to work on lake levels.
Briski explains the city passed a resolution and DNR did a study, its a mixed bag, DNR sets high levels, they have high and lows, county controls locks, county controls at the end of the day. They did a communication system – they are changing the date to raise and fall the levels, happened all through last spring summer and fall with relatively no issues, they did have a dry summer, not hot so not evaporation. The communication network meets monthly based on weather conditions instead of fast and hard date. Two springs ago, too much water early in season.
Wallner says county talked about changes.
Briski the issue is filled with politics and situation resolved, in place communication – they take it off their list.
ISSUES NOT TALKED ABOUT AT HABITAT STEWARSHIP COMMITTEE DUE TO LACK OF QUORUM
– No signs in Trees Policy
– Mulching of Trees
– New Species for Street Tree Plantings
– Trimming Trees Near Solar Panels
– Madison Fruits and Nuts (For more on this see this article)
– City of Madison Parks Volunteer Guidelines
