Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/23/2006 PRC Minutes1 1 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION HEARING BOARD ROOM OF S.C.A.Q.M.D.ITHE GOVERNMENT CENTER 21865 Copley Drive MARCH 23, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Dave Grundy called the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the SCAQMDIGovernment Center Building Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Owens led the Pledge of Allegiance. ADMINISTRATION OF OATHS OF OFFICE: Administered by Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Dave Grundy, Lew Herndon, Benny Liang, Ruth Low and Ted Owens. Staff Present: Bob Rose, Director of Community Services; Anthony Jordan, Parks and Maintenance Superintendent; Ryan Wright, Recreation Supervisor II; Sara West, Recreation Services Manager; Alison Meyers, Recreation Specialist; Krista Berentis, Community Services Coordinator/Athletics; and Marisa Somenzi, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. REORGANIZATION OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION — a. Selection of Chairman Nominations were opened for Chairman: Commissioner Owens nominated Dave Grundy. There were no other nominations offered. Without objection, Dave Grundy was unanimously selected by voice vote to serve as the Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission. b. Selection of Vice Chairman Chair/Grundy opened nominations for Vice -Chairman Commissioner Liang nominated Commissioner Ted Owens There were no other nominations offered. MARCH 23, 2006 PAGE 2 P&R COMMISSION Without objection, Ted Owens was unanimously selected by voice vote to serve as the Vice Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE: None Offered. CALENDAR OF EVENTS: As Listed in the Agenda and reported by CSD/Rose. CONSENT CALENDAR 1.1 Approval of Minutes of February 23, 2006 Regular Meeting. C/Herndon moved, C/Liang seconded to approve the minutes of the January 26, 2006 meeting as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Liang, Owens, Chair/Grundy NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Herndon, Low ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 3. OLD BUSINESS: 3.1 Draft Park, Athletic and Facility Use Policies and Procedures — CSD/Rose presented staffs report and recommended that the Commission receive comments, continue its review of the Draft Park, Athletic and Facility Use Policies and Procedures Document and take action or continue the matter as appropriate. Darryl May, AYSO Regional Commissioner, said the organization has between 1200 and 1300 children ages 4 to 18 that p#ay soccer on an annual basis and some play year-round. He thanked CSD/Rose and RSII/Wright for the draft document, a document that is a work in progress. He said he was concerned about the change regarding field allocation because park space within the community is a very limited and coveted resource. He said he felt that the 60 percent threshold for residency was too lenient. If the goal of the revision was to give a higher priority to organizations that have a greater density of D.B. residents 60 percent would not accomplish that goal. Obviously, residents should have first priority for use of the City's park space. However, there are many organizations that have diluted ranks and it seems inherently unfair to organizations with a high density of D.B. residents forthe City to set the bar at such a low threshold. Typically the smaller organizations have fewer D.B. residents participating. If D.B. fails to set high standards for residency 60 percent does not accomplish the ultimate goal. VC/Owens asked if he had a recommendation for an appropriate percentage and Mr. May responded that a 75 percent residency requirement would be appropriate. He urged the Commission to consider collecting rolls from groups that use the City's facilities to confirm residency. In addition, sanctions should be imposed for falsifying residency ratios and in his opinion MARCH 23, 2005 PAGE 3 P&R COMMISSION organizations that falsify their rolls/ratios should be prohibited from using the fields for one year. AYSO for example could not afford to be without fields for a year and his organization would be compelled to provide the proper information. Also, due to the demographics, some organizations may be requesting field space in neighboring communities and nothing in the allocation process questions whether that is occurring. C/Low asked how his proposal of 75 percent would apply to a smaller group and would it not encourage certain groups to discourage kids from playing that would dilute their group? Mr. May responded that the residency requirement does not necessarily preclude organizations with low residency from getting field allocation. It merely adds a layer of priority for field allocation. C/Low said she was more concerned about kids being discouraged from enrolling simply because the group was being moved down in the priority ranking and therefore, the organization would not recruit in certain areas and include certain kids. It could be that the kids in neighboring communities desperately needed to be on these teams. Mr. May said he had the luxury of being a part of AYSO where everyone plays. In his organization there are no cuts — no player is turned away. C/Low pointed out that if the policy were too strict it would have the affect of turning kids away. Mr. May said he respected C/Low's argument but he disagreed with her reasoning. John Rivera, President, FCI, a small soccer group that competes year-round. His organization currently has about 200 members in its program. He said he was not prepared to speak to his organization's concerns because he did not understand the subject of tonight's meeting. First and foremost the organization is an extension of AYSO and his group would not reach even the 65 percent threshold. Three of his 12 teams consist of 90 percent D.B. residents and some of the other teams might drop to 20 percent. Across the board his group is probably at the 40 percent ratio. His position has always been to work with the other groups within the community. D.B. does not have the field necessary to accommodate all of the groups. The goal of the sports organizations is to promote athletics forthe kids within the community as well as from outside of the community and keep them active, His biggest concern was field efficiency. Mr. Rivera responded to C/Herndon that the organizations would like to have lighted fields in D.B. and there are only four lighted fields at this time — Heritage, Peterson, Pantera and Lorbeer and nobody wants to go to Lorbeer but the teams practice there because the fields are lighted. Most kids want to practice from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and most of the younger kids practice from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. During the winter it is dark. However, during daylight savings it would not be an issue. FCI practices only in D.B. ' Mr. Mays responded to CJHerndon that he and Mr. Rivera share resources. The coveted resources are the lighted fields during the winter months and there are not enough lighted fields to accommodate everyone. During the summer months he has a large number of younger kids that practice during 4:30 and 5:30 p.m. The U10 and U12 ranks practice under the lights after MARCH 23, 2006 PAGE 4 P&R COMMISSION dark. Mr. Rivera responded to C/Owen that he was very surprised that the Pomona Unified School District would allow their field to be used during school time because it was in very bad condition. His organization offered to seed and mow the field but have always been told it is the school district's policy never to let unauthorized individuals on the field. The City put lights on the field but the field is an eyesore and he hoped that the Pomona Unified School District would come to realize that the facility was important to the community and needed to be upgraded. CSD/Rose responded to VC/Owens that the maintenance of the field is an issue. Because of the lights Lorbeer gets more use than any of their other junior high school facilities and the additional use has resulted in the extreme deterioration of the field. D.B. feels obligated to participate in the ongoing maintenance and improvement of the facility and has offered its services to Pomona. Mr. May said he was aware of the limitation of lighted fields. David Prather, D.B./Walnut Valley Soccer said he has worked with both of the previous speakers and that all three groups share the same fields. He felt that 60 percent was a little high because his club has 10-12 teams and 13 out of the 15 players on his team are D.B. residents. These players are ver�r competitive and continue to play on varsity teams in high school. His 7 grade daughter made the 8`h grade team as a starter. She started playing in AYSO, a great program. Three of his children play in AYSO. Typically, players want to stay close to home but because of the diversity the team as a whole would not be able to meet the 60 percent goal. If every city adopted a 60 percent policy it would discourage kids from joining these types of organizations. As a coach he has taken pride in the fact that the City was able to produce top players and if fields and facilities are not provided for kids to be able to practice and participate at a higher level there will be no opportunity for players to make it to state and national levels. While there is a lot of talent in the area it takes dedication and hard work to move up. Mr. Prather recommended the City consider the following: If an organization has two teams out of eight teams that meet the 60 percent D.B. residency criteria, rather than allocate field space for the entire organization it would make sense to him that D.B. field space be allocated for just those two teams rather than the entire eight teams for example whether or not those particular two teams met the percentage criteria. He is a national D license coach and if he took his team and joined a national organization there would be no city in which his team could practice because he would never be able to meet the residency requirement. C/Low wondered if the creative accounting method Mr. Prather proposed would be possible. CSD/Rose said his method could be done. MARCH 23, 2006 PAGE 5 P&R COMMISSION C/Low asked Mr. Prather to compare the size of his organization to AYSO. Mr. Prather explained that AYSO members participate primarily in the summer and fall and have 1200-1300 players playing in the fall season. His organization has about 180-200 players and his organization plays year- round. Putting it another way his organization probably has as many practice periods as AYSO in one calendar year. C/Herndon asked Mr. Prather to explain the difference between his and Mr. Rivera's organization with respect to age and level of play. Mr. Prather responded that they are identical. At one point they were in fact one club that was split. C/Herndon asked Mr. Rivera if his organization was similar to Mr. Prather's in that he would have some teams that consisted of mostly D.B. residents and other teams that consisted of fewer D.B. residents and Mr. Rivera responded yes. As previously stated he has three teams that are primarily made up of D.B. residents. Mr. Rivera said that the problem was finding field space for practice Monday through Thursday. Mr. Prather wanted to understand that all three teams were working together to resolve these problems and Mr. Rivera responded "yes." The primary issue is the level of play. He can put three teams on half of an outfield to run a good practice. There is no way to segregate an entire outfield between the three organizations. The field allocation is done in January and the peak time is July. The intent of these organizations is to provide a good atmosphere for the kids. Mr. Herndon wanted to know why the Commission was hearing only from soccer people and not from football, softball, etc. Chair/Grundy said that the packet included comments from other groups that he would read into the record. Chair/Grundy asked if the groups used fields in any other cities. Mr. Rivera said that FCI does not because it is a D.B. based team. The team practices in D.B. and the game field is at Neil Armstrong. Mr. Prather responded that his team has field space in Walnut for practice and gaming and has never been given a field for gaming in D.B. Chair/Grundy reported that various individuals wrote or emailed their comments to the Commission. An individual from NJB wrote that the policies and procedures guide looked good to him and in his opinion, since the percentage threshold was relatively low (60 percent) it appeared to him that a resident would be defined as a person that lives (primary residence) in D.B. Chair/Grundy said that Richard S. Dixon, D.B. Little League recommended that the policy specifically be recommend with a more balanced approach of how lighted fields are allocated for in -season play. Based on his analysis Mr. Dixon offered two possible scenarios 1) possible reallocation based solely on participation numbers with no weight given for open participation if the percentage of D.B. residents are in their season; 2) possible reallocation based on weighting all factors, participation numbers, open participation, residency and season. He concluded that based on his analysis (other than DBGS), DBLL be allocated its fair -share of lighted fields. CSD/Rose stated that on page 4, definitions of the proposed policy, staff MARCH 23, 2006 PAGE 6 P&R COMMISSION added a definition of D.B. residents to wit: a person who resides witnin the city limits of the City of D.B. and whose residency could be verified with a driver's license, state issued I.D. card or utility bill from the parents. Allocation of the fields is an art and not a science. In another City where he previously worked CSD/Rose allocated fields on a scientific basis because there were 28 parks available. In D.B. there are very few parks and lots of organizations vying for their use. D.B. is very fortunate because the organizations work together and are willing to share and have worked out the use of the fields. CILow said she heard CSD/Rose say the system was working fine. CSD/Rose said that what the City needed was more facilities. CILow said it sounded to her that the way staff has been allocating the use and the way that the organizations were working together worked. CSD/Rose agreed. CILow wanted to know why the Commission was considering adding a residency requirement if the process was working? CSD/Rose said there was always the possibility of other groups seeking use of the City's fields and a 60 percent requirement may discourage other users from coming into the City. For example, a few years ago a team from Placentia wanted to practice in D.B. because they had one player from D.B. and felt they should be able to use a facility for their program. They wanted a lighted field several nights a week during Little League and Girls' Softball season and it was a very unrealistic request. CSD/Rose said that the 60 percent requirement would give him the opportunity to turn down such a request. This particular team appealed his decision to the City Council. The 60 percent provides a measurement to say no when necessary. CILow asked why a response that there was no vacancy was not sufficient? CSD/Rose said it was the answer that staff gave them and the team ended up getting lighted fields. CILow asked if it were possible to adopt the policy piecemeal. CSD/Rose responded yes depending on what the Commission would like to recommend and that ultimately, the full recommendation would go to the City Council for formal approval. Chair/Grundy said that for the benefit of the new Commissioners he would provide some background on this matter. He stated that he has personally served on the field allocation subcommittee for the past four years and has attended most of the meetings and has witnessed firsthand how the process works. He agreed that it is an art and that the groups have cooperated and worked together to share the limited amount of facility space. There is definitely pressure and vying for a limited resource. The Sports Complex Task Force looked into increasing the fields in the City. Unfortunately, the City is limited by geography and is boxed in with respect to the number of fields and amount of land available that can be used for athletic facilities. These factors have caused the City to look inward for solutions while the City continues to search for more usable field space. Also, during consideration staff and the Commission decided to review how other cities approach this matter. He participated on the ad-hoc committee that helped formulate the policy recommendations and the ad-hoc committee added the residency requirement for use of the athletic fields. The committee considered more MARCH 23, 2006 PAGE 7 P&R COMMISSION stringent policies but felt this would be a good compromise and a step toward benefiting those who live in the City without excluding others. The way the policy was written was not to exclude but to give priority. C/Herndon applauded the coaches. He asked how "organization" was defined in the document and CSD/Rose responded on Page 4 d. "Qualifying User Groups" so it excludes separate teams as qualifying as organizations. C/Herndon asked if the qualifier could be reduced to "teams" within organizations rather than "organizations" only. CSD/Rose responded that if there were two of the eight teams on the field there would be no way to know if those particular teams were made up of primarily D.B. residents. C/Herndon said he understood that the organizations would be able to provide assurance that the residency requirements were met. CSD/Rose said that from staff's point of view the paperwork would not be an issue; rather, it would be who would actually show up on the field at any given time. Chair/Grundy said that if the D.B. ratio were 40 percent for example, and only 4 teams rather than 10 were allowed to participate in the allocation it would achieve a reduction in the overall number that would participate. He believed C/Herndon's recommendation was a creative way of addressing the organizations' concerns. RSII/W right referred the Commissioners to Page 8 of the manual. Assuming a percentage, group C would be the organizations that would be below the percentage. Chair/Grundy explained that if the allocation allowed either of the two organizations to present a subset to say that this was the group that the City wanted to allocate space to the City would have excluded the group that was primarily non-resident based. CSD/Rose believed that Chair/Grundy and C/Herndon were saying that if an organization meets all of the other requirements and a couple of the teams could prove to be above the 60 percent threshold even though the entire organization was not over the 60 percent threshold those teams would move to the "B" level priority rather than remaining in the °C" group. Chair/Grundy agreed and felt that if organizations voluntarily excluded the portion of their organization that did not qualify it would effectively accomplish the City's intent, CSD/Rose agreed. Mr. Rivera asked how the City would define where his teams practiced if he had three teams in Category B? Chair/Grundy responded that it would be negotiated to the specific situation and rather than including it in a policy it might work better to not be so specific to allow for the maximum flexibility and effectiveness. Chair/Grundy felt that the organizations would not see any appreciable difference in field allocation because no matter what was adopted, the intent of the policy was not to exclude but to set order to the priorities. MARCH 23, 2006 PAGE 8 P&R COMMISSION Mr. Rivera said he understood but pointed out that Page 9 reads: "applicant shall not transfer, assign or sublet the use of permit fields or apply the use of on behalf of another person or organization." Technically, under this paragraph he could not sublet it to D.B. AYSO or D.B./Walnut Valley Soccer and he would not want to risk losing the field permits for his organization. CSD/Rose said the provision was included so the City would know what was going on. As long as someone calls RSII/Wright to tell him about the pian it would be of no concern. He would not want AYSO or FCI to have the field approved and then staff find out there was a men's football tournament being played on those fields instead. Chair/Grundy said that it was not intended that the provision be actively enforced during the allocation negotiations but in terms of the bargaining, if there is a clear understanding that certain organizations with high residency get priority then the organizations must maintain the priority and not shift off the priority. If there is an agreement within the organization it becomes the allocation and the organizations should not be subletting without permission from the City. C/Low said she disagreed with the statement that the City had no intention of enforcing the "transfer" provision because a City policy must say what it means and mean what it says. Otherwise, it opens the policy to challenge. CSD/Rose repeated his statement that the City follows the policy to the letter. The statement means that the City needs to be notified of any change in the use so that the City can determine whether it wants to transfer the allocation. C/Low said in that case "without the express consent of the City" should be inserted and RSII/Wright responded that the second portion of the last sentence reads: "must be approved by City staff and the revised facilities permit will then be issued." C/Low asked if staff had cleared the 60 percent requirement with the City's Attorney and CSD/Rose explained that the City Attorney reviews the policy before it is presented to the City Council and that the document should be as complete as possible before it is forwarded to the City Attorney. CILow asked if it was legal to include a percentage and CSD/Rose responded "yes." C/Low asked if there was a legal minimum or maximum percentage and CSD/Rose said he knew of cities that had gone as high as 80 or 90 percent. Chair/Grundy stated that other cities have instituted far more stringent policies than D.B. is considering. CSD/Rose said that Walnut was at 51 percent; Placentia is 60 percent; Yorba Linda 60 percent; and Anaheim 75 percent. C/Low asked if Items 1 through 6 on Page 8 were in priority or random order. RSII/Wright responded that the items were in descending order. C/Herndon recommended the Commission establish subsets and that participation be allowed based on the subset. VC/Owens felt that clause f' addressed that and allowed flexibility for the groups to work together for field scheduling as well as notify staff of their intentions. He felt the clause also provided for notification to the City so that the City would be aware of who was using its facilities. MARCH 23, 2006 PAGE 9 P&R COMMISSION C/Herndon said he did not believe that the two items were equal and what he was suggesting was that under the definition of "organizations" that within an organization, D.B.. based teams within that organization could qualify under the residency requirements. Some teams might be in Walnut in the same organization but two or three teams in D.B. have a majority of D.B. residents. He recommended that the policy allow for those D.B. based teams to qualify under the residency provision. Chair/Grundy said he was open to looking at the recommendation and whether it could be included in a provision of the policy to allow for reasonable administration. He concluded that this would not be worked out this evening and he recommended that the Commission continue to review the document, return it to the ad hoc subcommittee or, take the document into a study session. VC/Owens said this policy was not unique to D.B. He asked Mr. Rivera if he had teams from Glendora and whether they were seeking facilities in Glendora. Mr. Rivera responded that the teams practice in Glendora and the game field is at Neil Armstrong. CSD/Rose responded that C/Herndon's suggestion to break out individual residential teams, the non-resident teams that are not using D.B. facilities could be left out of the count. Mr. Prather felt the requirement was not necessarily addressed at the three organizations represented here tonight because the process works well for them. There has been a proliferation of organizations coming into D.B. looking for park space. He reiterated that he believed the Commission would be wise to take this working document into a study session. He felt that looking at specific teams within organizations was a great solution and at the same time the Commission should look at a new way of splitting up the fields or allow organizations to work together to split the fields. Chair/Grundy asked for feedback about how the Commission would like to proceed and discussion ensued. C/Low recommended that the Commission pick a date for further discussion, either by study session or another regular meeting when the agenda was not so large. It seemed to her that the Commission could focus on certain items rather than discuss the entire document. Chair/Grundy said his opinion was that the Commission had received a lot of input and had achieved the goal of presenting a working draft of the policy. He agreed that the Commission needed to work through the document based on the input. Since all of the Commissioners seem to have an interest in continuing to offer recommendations he would recommend that the document be taken to a study session and not wait for the next regular meeting. With Commission concurrence, Chair/Grundy asked SAA/Somenzi to coordinate a study session date to continue review of the draft document. MARCH 23, 2006 PAGE 10 P&R COMMISSION C/Liang commented about the proposed rental fee for the picnic area (Page 6 Item 1.b) and suggested that the fee could be a cleaning deposit instead of a rental fee because the City's concern is that the users clean up after themselves. If staff determines that the area has been satisfactorily cleaned up the City could refund the deposit. CSD/Rose pointed out that b. and c. refer to rental fee and cleaning deposit and asked if C/Liang's recommendation was intended to have just the cleaning deposit? C/Liang felt that all reservations should have a cleaning deposit, not just larger groups. RSM/West asked if the Commissioners agreed that the non-residents should be charged $50. C/Low said she was not opposed to any of the proposed fees. C/Herndon felt a rental fee of $25 was rather insignificant especially with staff's involvement. 2. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 2.1 Recreation Program Report — RSII/Wright 2.2 Diamond Bar Community Foundation Oral Report — RS/Meyers 2.3 Youth Master Plan Oral Report — RS/Meyers C/Low asked if the slide representation contained expenditures or a combination of expenditures and revenues. RS/Meyers responded that the $85,000 was an expense and the $244,000 Department of Education grant cover the balance of expenses. The $130,000 was a two and one-half year grant and the funds assist with the administrative costs and paying the youth tutors. C/Low asked if this was a year round program and said she thought the City was partnering with the church. CSD/Rose said the Church operates the program and the funds come from the federal government. RS/Meyers said that the amounts represented were amounts the program expected to spend and that not all of the funds have been spent at this point. VC/Owens asked if the community collaborative involved any Walnut High School students who live in D.B. RS/Meyers said no because the collaborative was not aware that students were given a choice whether to attend D.B.H.S. or Walnut H.S. until VC/Owens brought it to their attention and the collaborative is now working closely with WVUSD to determine who those youth might be. The program could be opened up to see how many youth would be interested in joining. CSD/Rose reported that the winners of the logo contest would be recognized at the April 4 City Council meeting. 2.4 Parks Report -- PMS/Jordan CSD/Rose reported that at yesterday's staff meeting Phil Williams, one of PMS/Jordan's staff members, was awarded the Dorothy Schmidt Exemplary Customer Service Award. MARCH 23, 2006 PAGE 11 P&R COMMISSION 2.5 CIP Program Report — CSD/Rose 1 a. Trail and Trail Head Development at Sycamore Canyon Park —. b. Sycamore Canyon Park ADA Retrofit— Phase III — Chair/Grundy wondered whether the cost estimates would change if the work was delayed until after the Concerts in the Park series and CSD/Rose responded that it would be an issue. However, staff would include wording about "when the project is constructed" and include the dates in the specifications so that the contractor is aware he is bidding for those dates. c. Lorbeer Ball Field —Artificial Turf/Restrooms — CSD/Rose reported that after recent discussions with the PUSD staff concluded that the available funds could be used to improve Lorbeer with turf instead of artificial turf and also allow the City make improvements to other fields. CSD/Rose responded to Chair/Grundy that PUSD was concerned about artificial turf at Lorbeer because it would mean that the district's best facility would be at a middle school instead of a high school. However, the board seemed open to working with the City to improve the turf field with the help of the City. Chair/Grundy said he hoped the City would move forward with the field improvements. CSD/Rose reported that the City offered to install a separate water meter and the City would pay for the meter and the water that flows through it as well as provide ongoing maintenance similar to the level of Pantera and Peterson parks. 4. NEW BUSINESS: None 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chair/Grundy asked staff to prepare an agenda item for the next meeting to select new subcommittee members. C/Liang welcomed the new Commissioners. C/Low said she looked forward to serving on the Parks and Recreation Commission. She enjoyed the conference last week and learned a lot about what Parks and Rec is all about and it's all about having a good time and serving the community. C/Herndon also attended the session in Ontario and found it to be very helpful. One of the sessions was on artificial turf and he was very impressed to learn how artificial turf increases the utilization of facilities and reduces the injuries as well as ' other advantages. He proposed that staff investigate artificial turf and in six months make some recommendations about whether the City should seriously consider artificial turf for its facilities. CSD/Rose responded that staff would be studying how to use the funds that were intended for Lorbeer Middle School and staff could include a study of artificial turf in connection with upgrading other facilities in the MARCH 23, 2006 PAGE 12 P&R COMMISSION longer term. VC/Owens welcomed the new Commissioners. He also attended the CPRS Awards and Installations Banquet last Saturday and participated in the award ceremonies during which the City received the award for the design of the Diamond Bar Center. Chair/Grundy welcomed the returning and new Commissioners. He praised staff members for their involvement with the Sycamore Canyon Trailhead and said that it looked fabulous and that it was great to see the parking areas filled. He congratulated the City for receiving the Design Award for the Diamond Bar Center and said that he appreciated everyone's participation in tonight's meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Upon motion by CILow, seconded by C/Herndon and with no further business before the Parks & Recreation Commission, Chair/Grundy adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m.