HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-06-12 Park Board PacketAGENDA
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
PARK BOARD MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes — Regular meeting on Tuesday, May 8, 2012
V. COMMUNITY COMMENT
During "Community Comment, " the Park Board will invite residents to share relevant
issues or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The
Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and
topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be
addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or
Board Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board might refer
the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting.
VI. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Edinborough Park Study Recommendations
B. User Fee Policy Working Group Recommendations
C. Sports Dome Working Group Phase II
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
VIII. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
IX. STAFF COMMENTS
X. ADJOURNMENT
The city of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need
assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something,
please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
MINUTES
OF THE MEETING OF THE
PARK BOARD
HELD AT CITY HALL
MAY 8, 2012
7:00 PM
L CALL TO ORDER
Chair Steel called the meeting to order at 7:07 pm
II. ROLLCALL
Answering roll call were Members Dan Peterson, Kathryn Peterson, Jones, Steel, Jacobson, Hulbert,
Deeds, Segreto, Weicht, Neville
III. APPROVAL OFMEETINGAGENDA
Member Dan Peterson made a motion, seconded by Member Hulbert, approving the meeting
agenda.
Ayes: Dan Peterson, Kathryn Peterson, Jones, Steel, Jacobson, Hulbert, Deeds, Segreto
Motion Carried
IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA
Member Dan Peterson made a motion, seconded by Member Hulbert approving the consent
agenda as follows:
IV.A. Approval of Minutes — Regular Meeting of Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Ayes: Dan Peterson, Kathryn Peterson, Jones, Steel, Jacobson, Hulbert, Deeds, Segreto
Motion Carried
V. COMMUNITY COMMENT
None
VI. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
VIA. Naming of Parks and Facilities Working Group Recommendations
Member Jones went over the "Summary Document" that the working group put together and thanked the
Working Group: Member Hulbert, Andy Otness, Bob Kojetin, Ray Giske, David Mesenbourg, Tom
Gyump and Rick Ites for their many, many hours of service.
She informed the Park Board that the working group reviewed both naming and donation policies
throughout the United States and went through the many different intricacies of their situations that
might apply to Edina and reworked them. She indicated that as of the last Friday they received some
more comments from the public that she has noted in the blue markup.
Member Jones indicated that there currently is no formal naming policy in the City of Edina and pointed
out that the City Council approved the Naming and Donation Working Group after hearing several
concerns from residents about the current practice. She added that naming and dedication requests come
up several times a year to which staff is currently aware of four naming proposals.
Member Jones stated that after going through the current practice and concerns the working group
recommends that the City develop a single naming and dedication policy for all City facilities. She
noted they are not recommending that the City rename current facilities to meet specifications in this
policy. She pointed out the working group recommends that the Park Board approve the "Naming
Dedication Policy" as well as they recommend that the City develop an "Application for Naming and
Dedicating Facilities" and a "Petition to the City of Edina" as shown in concept in the Appendix of the
policy.
Andy Otness gave the Park Board a summary of the Naming Policy and stated that the City Council has
the sole authority for establishing formal names and dedicating any city facilities. She pointed out that
facilities are described as anything the City controls: parks, buildings, major features, streets and
amenities. She noted the second thing the policy states is that the City Manager's Office will have sole
responsibility for keeping a record and managing the naming and dedication process.
Ms. Otness indicated that they also felt what the policy did was set out principles for naming and
renaming and dedications and that naming would be reserved for exceptional circumstances. She noted
that in their original meetings they had a whole gamut of people who felt things should be restricted or
completely open and so that part of the policy represents a collaborative decision.
Ms. Otness informed the Park Board that a lot of the discussions revolved around the naming and
renaming for exceptional individuals and the working group decided within the policy that the naming
should be based on the contributions to the City rather than the circumstances of their death. Secondly,
it was decided there should be a time period after that person has died or ended their relationship with
the City to reflect upon an individual's legacy before that naming process would begin. The name of an
individual will be considered for a park only if that person has been deceased for 100 years and
influenced Edina's history or has naming for him/her as a condition made by the donor of actual land
for the park.
Ms. Otness pointed out there is another category of naming besides parks and that is that an individual
be considered for a building, major feature or street if that person either was or is currently a resident of
Edina, has made a significant contribution over a period of several years to the general public interest
and has ended his or her substantive formal relationship with the City or has passed away five years
prior to the initiation of a naming process or the name could be considered if it was requested as a
restriction of a significant extraordinary major gift to the city like the donation of land.
Ms. Otness pointed out with regards to naming for entities no City facility, except a major feature, shall
be named for a business entity as a condition for a donation to the City. This is to minimize the
confusion and cost to the City for updating signage and maps. Name of business entities shall be for a
fixed period. Names of business entities operating on City property shall be subject to City Council
approval and will not require a petition process.
Ms. Otness informed the Park Board that lastly public support for name requests should be demonstrated
with a petition process. The working group recommends that the naming and renaming requests require
300 signatures and any dedication requires 100 signatures. In addition, the public and specifically the
facilities neighborhood will be informed of a naming request and an opportunity will be provided for
their input and comment.
Member Jones thanked Mr. Kojetin for all of his work on compiling the names and donations of all the
parks. Mr. Kojetin gave the Park Board a brief history on the compilation report he created. He noted
that he thought it would be good to have one central location where a record is kept with the history of
the parks and donations where people can go to find this type of information. He noted that he will
continue to work on the book as long as he can because there is still a lot more to be added. He noted
that most of this information will be stored at the Edina Historical Museum.
Member Segreto indicated that on top of page two of the "Naming and Dedication Policy" where they
talk about the philosophy of the City and give an order of preference for naming she feels that each of
those categories is really important and is not sure why there needs to be a preference. Member Jones
replied they wanted to make sure the order of preference represented something that would first honor
maybe a natural place and that's where the geographic location thought connected to it and kind of
wanted to make sure they didn't lose sight of the geographic nature of the community before they went
2
on to more of a people nature of their history which happens to be the events and the people that affect
the history. Member Segreto commented that she was very moved by Mr. Kojetin's report and seeing
the names of people who have been very important to this community that she would be hard pressed to
see that if they were to order preference they would be listed third and therefore would hate to see an
order of preference within policy. Member Hulbert replied they came up with what they felt was a kind
of a logical order of significance but that isn't to say that geographic location necessarily has to be
number one.
Member Segreto indicated that a facility named for an individual who had something happen to their
reputation, should have the name changed according to the new guidelines. She stated that puts them
into a position of when exactly it should be changed and should that person have the right to clear his or
her name in court or in the community. She noted that maybe it would be sufficient to say "The City
Council reserves the right to change the name in the event the individual has fallen into disrepute".
Member Segreto commented that most of her comments are going to be geared to giving the City
Council the discretion and looking to the guidelines to sway them in a direction rather than requiring a
name change.
Ms. Otness informed the Park Board that she recalls this discussion came up right after the Joe Paterno
events in Ohio. She stated that she is not a "legal person" but knows there is a difference between
saying "reserves the right" or "shall" or "may". Therefore, they decided to craft this as they felt at that
time and that it would be reviewed by the City attorney for the legal distinction.
Chair Steel suggested the Park Board discuss each page.
Page Three -
Member Segreto asked the working group on the top of the page where it states "to be considered
historic a person should be deceased for at least 100 years" how they came up with that number because
100 years seems really, really long to her. Member Hulbert responded they viewed naming parks and
land a huge honor and so to have a park renamed for you they wanted there to be some time to reflect,
although 100 years might be a little long. Member Deeds commented that he would go with something
like 25 years to reflect a little bit.
Member Jones indicated that what it came to actually was what makes something historic is it 100 years,
50 years or 25 years. Member Segreto responded that actually it's not duration that makes it historic, it's
what they do and the impact it makes that make it historic. Member Hulbert suggested going with 25
years to which Member Kathryn Peterson replied 25 years is more reasonable. Ms. Otness noted impart
was that it would be a legacy that had lasted and maybe that's the language "that will last" because how
do you define legacy.
Chair Hulbert noted it seems to be a general consensus 25 years is a good number. Member Segreto
commented that she sees "100 years" in the next paragraph "No park shall be named or renamed for an
individual unless that individual, was a resident of Edina, has been deceased for at least 100 years .. "
and so her comment would be the same.
Member Segreto indicated in the next paragraph where it reads "The naming and renaming of a building,
major feature, or street shall occur no sooner than five years after that person has ended his or her
substantive, formal relationship with the City" five years may be too long and she would like to see it cut
to three years. She noted that after someone retires or leaves the City there could be some circumstances
especially if someone has a health problem. Member Hulbert responded there were some people that felt
pretty strongly that it should be until the person was actually deceased but they did all agree there should
be some kind of cooling off period. Chair Steel asked how this compares to other cities that were
researched to which Member Jones responded in most cities the person needs to be dead. Member
Hulbert added that Edina is pretty rare in that they names facilities and buildings after people who are
still alive. Member Jones commented that when they first crafted the policy it did say you needed to
have been deceased before anything could be named after you and kept it for months. However, when
they reviewed the policy they decided to change it in light of the way Edina deals with their parks which
is different than the way other cities do. Member Hulbert commented that he thinks sometimes there is a
rush to immediately honor and bestow those people with honors right away. However, in reality we
know that three or five years go by quickly and if that award is really merited it will still be there three to
five years down the road which gives them a little time to reflect and make sure things are what they
thought they were.
Page Four — No changes made
Page Five
Member Segreto asked in regards to the 300 signatures that would be required to start a petition is that
what the research bore out in terms of other municipalities? Member Jones replied she believes it is
similar to what Denver's policy is. She explained the reason for it is to find out what the level of support
and commitment are for the name and they settled on 300 signatures. Member Segreto asked would that
mean then if a City Council member wanted to initiate a name change or name something they would
have to get 300 signatures. Member Jones replied yes, unless they wanted to go against policy to which
that would be noted. Mr. Keprios commented that it's very difficult trying to put a comprehensive
policy together because you it will likely be changed in the future but at least it will help by serving as a
guideline for the City Council.
Member Deeds noted that to him it seems reasonable to need to have 300 signatures because there does
need to be a certain level of interest and support and this puts a barrier up there to make people work a
little bit more.
Page Six — No changes made.
Member Jones informed the Park Board that the "application" is just a concept draft and they are not
dictating to the City how to write their procedures for internal processing. She noted that she did send it
to the City Manager and Assistant City Manager asking for their comments.
Page One — Went back to page one since it was skipped.
Chair Steel thanked everyone for their hard work.
Member Deeds commented that under the major gifts, page 4, if they look at the Hornet's Nest proposal
is that going to be named the "Hornet's Nest" or are the people who are involved going to be recognized
since they are essentially paying one-quarter of the capital costs which is a one million dollar donation.
He noted his concern is the policies in this area may be so tight that they eliminate a chunk of flexibility
that will allow the City to pursue major gifts. He stated there is a pretty stiff requirement in the policy,
(page 4 second #1) stating "Payment -of the capital costs for constructing or ins"a ting a major feature".
To him under # 1 it implies 100% of the capital costs. Member Jones responded they should define
"major feature" because you are comparing it to a building and there are two definitions in that section.
She noted that the paragraph Member Deeds read is the guideline for major features which would
include ball fields, swimming pools, playgrounds, etc. Member Deeds pointed out in regards to the
Sports Dome they are seeking a gift for the Sports Dome and naming rights for the Sports Dome. He
noted it's a three million dollar undertaking so this would imply they would have to raise 1.5 million
dollars in order to give the naming rights away and that is his concern. Chair Steel asked Member Jones
if she thinks it would be considered a City facility which would be covered under the previous
paragraph. Member Jones replied that she would consider the Sports Dome to be a building.
Member Deeds stated for example you have two million dollars' worth of renovations at the ball field
and if they were able to get a sponsor who wanted to put in a million dollars, would we give them the
name of the ball field. He indicated that yes, he would think he would give them the name of a ball field
for one million dollars even if it's not covering the full two million dollars. That is his only concern
4
with the current wording because it's a pretty tight policy. He suggested changing it to say "a substantial
portion" or something like that. Member Jones replied you could change all of #I under that paragraph
to "Payment of a substantial capital cost for constructing and installing". Chair Steel commented that it
also helps that it does say "likewise as a guideline but not a limitation". Member Deeds indicated that he
just wants to give it as much flexibility as possible. Member Hulbert added that he thinks when it comes
to larger items like the "Hornet's Nest" City Council is going to do what they see fit.
Member Dan Peterson indicated that he has thought all along that the naming proposition was a solution
in search of a problem and he continues to believe that. He noted that he wants to thank everyone who
served on the working group and that he holds the Park Board members most dearly; however, he is
going to vote "no" because there is no proof to him that the current system is broken and needs to be
fixed. He stated that he has nothing but the highest respect for people who run for public office and the
five people who serve on the City Council, current, past and future, are pretty good people and he
doesn't want to tie their hands to a policy which has some problems. He commented that he thinks
they've done a good job and he doesn't get too concerned in a city of almost 50,000 and only a few
people don't like the name of a certain park or pavilion. He noted there is always going to be
disagreement and they get past it and move along.
Member Hulbert stated that he agrees, they do have excellent City Council members past and present but
situations have occurred in the past that with a lack of policy it would have helped both members of the
public and staff as well. Member Deeds responded that he agrees and actually thinks they are doing the
City Council a favor, they will still have the decision whether they are going to adopt it or not, but it's a
policy and a guideline that they can vote to override anytime they want to. He commented that they are
essentially giving City Council the shot to say well, wait a minute we have a policy here, let's think
about this and provide some level of rationality and a little more consistency to the process. He stated
that he thinks the working group has done a great job on this.
Member Deeds suggested that the information from Mr. Kojetin's booklet be put on the City's website
in a searchable form because it would be a great service and so people who are searching for relatives or
something will be able to find it. Mr. Keprios replied that's an excellent suggestion and would be a great
project for the Historical Society to work on with the Communications Department.
Member Deeds made a motion, seconded by Member Segreto, that where it states 100 years on
page 3 that it be replaced with 25 years.
Ayes: Dan Peterson, Kathryn Peterson, Jones, Steel, Jacobson, Hulbert, Deeds, Segreto
Motion Carried.
Member Segreto made a motion, seconded by Member Deeds, that on page two in the paragraph
headed "Renaming City Facilities" that the second paragraph be deleted and that the third
paragraph be amended to read "notwithstanding the above, the City Council reserves the right to
change the name of any named city facility in order to maintain consistency with the entire policy
and flexibility to change the name of a facility named after an individual who has fallen into
disrepute and whose name no longer lends honor and dignity to the facility".
Ayes: Dan Peterson, Kathryn Peterson, Jones, Steel, Jacobson, Hulbert, Deeds, Segreto
Motion Carried.
Member Deeds made a motion, seconded by Member Segreto, that they amend on page four the
second #1 to read "Payment of substantial capital costs for constructing and installing a major
feature".
Ayes: Dan Peterson, Kathryn Peterson, Jones, Steel, Jacobson, Hulbert, Deeds, Segreto
Motion Carried.
Member Deeds made a motion, seconded by Member Hulbert to approve the Naming_ and
Dedication of City Facilities as amended.
Ayes: Kathryn Peterson, Jones, Steel, Jacobson, Hulbert, Deeds,-Segreto
Nays: Dan Peterson
Motion Carried.
VI.B. Donations Policy Working Group Recommendations
Member Jones gave a quick background on donations and noted that currently Edina has two donation
policies; one is from 1995 "Donations, Sponsorships and Advertising Policy" and there is also a
"Donations and Memorial Policy" that was adopted in the year 2000. She indicated that the City does
not currently have citywide written standards for accepting donations or procedures for processing and
recording donations. She explained that the working group would like to provide a welcoming and
efficient system for uniformly and responsibly accepting, recording and acknowledging donations of
money, material, goods and services. She stated that the working group is recommending that the City
should replace the two existing donation policies with the proposed donation policy dated April 25,
2012.
Member Jones explained that the working group recommends that the City should develop a citywide
uniform donation application and agreement form as well as create new sponsorship and advertising
policies. She indicated that they also recommend that the City develop a donations pamphlet showing
benches and other items that the City needs in order to make the process of donating easier and
welcoming. In addition, they recommend that the City enhance their volunteer programs to increase
resident donations of their time and services towards the improvement to the community. Member Jones
also pointed out that they recommend that the City should evaluate and enhance the way it recognizes
donors of goods and services. The goal of this would be both to encourage and increase donations to the
City and to promote citywide consistency.
Member Segreto commented that her biggest concern is that their donation policies not have a "chilling"
effect on people who are interested in donating. Member Hulbert replied that currently they don't think
the people in the public really understand what the policy is and how they can make donations. Member
Jones noted one of the things they are most excited about is having a list of items of what the City would
like in the system whether it's gazebos, park benches, etc. Member Segreto responded that she agrees
and also agrees that they need guidelines; however, as she goes through the guidelines there are a few
areas that create a "chill" that she would like to talk about.
Member Segreto pointed out that on page one she would like to see "real estate" included under the
definition section of "potential gifts". Member Jones responded "real estate" is listed on the second page
but agrees it would be good to put on page one as well under "Definitions".
Member Deeds indicated on page one he has a concern on the authority because prior policy states that
the City Manager could accept anything up to $5,000 and now essentially has to act to accept everything.
Mr. Keprios replied that now under State Law the City Council must approve all cash, real estate, goods,
etc.; however, they do not have to approve volunteer services. Mr. Keprios explained to the Park Board
that the $5,000 was put in there when the policy was created to intentionally start reducing the additional
number of plaques in parks and the working group is now recommending that the threshold go up to
$10,000 with the exception of benches.
Member Segreto indicated that on page two when she read the first paragraph it was a little off-putting in
the third line where it states "the City is not here to accommodate gifts", of course the City is not but she
doesn't feel they actually have to say that. She commented that she has the same reaction to some of the
language regarding building shrines to donors; it makes her feel uncomfortable and feels "heavy
handed".
9
Chair Steel responded that she thinks that it is a document that will be read by potential donors so she
agrees. Member Deeds noted that he also agrees with "All gifts should be in keeping with the mission,
ordinances, philosophy of the policies of the City. The development of public facilities is expected to
be the result of careful planning and quality construction". He noted that he thinks they should take out
"Donor recognition should not compete for attention, nor attract attention, etc." and noted that you don't
want to turn a donor off through this. Member Jones asked Member Deeds if he would delete "City
facilities are to be enjoyed and used by all citizens and are not to become shrines to donors,
memorialized persons or business entities". Member Deeds replied he would keep "City facilities are to
be enjoyed and used by all citizens", but he would not do the rest of that. Member Jones asked if he
would keep "donor recognition should not compete for attention or attract attention". Member Deeds
replied that he doesn't think they need to call that out.
Member Segreto commented that in keeping with the same comment she does agree that donations
should not be burdensome to the City and she does agree that donors should understand the City's policy
for upkeep and retention. She stated that if they have a good donor contract they could incorporate their
concerns in that contract and not have it be in the opening paragraphs that donors will need to read
before they make their gift. She noted her recommendation would be to delete in the second paragraph
the second and third line and would also recommend deleting the second paragraph and the third line.
Chair Steel asked Member Segreto to read it for Park Board's clarification.
Member Segreto stated that she would delete "acceptance procedures should ensure that donations not
become burdensome to the City and that donors understand the City's policy for upkeep and retention.
For donations of material items, all installation, and recognition costs should be included in the cost of
the donation". Member Jones asked if that will be somewhere else in the policy. Member Hulbert
commented they should at least make sure that it's in the contract. Member Jones added that the reason
they have this is really to welcome and establish a policy that will be easier than it currently is that was
their full intent in welcoming. She noted that if the words are not welcoming she just wants to make
sure that the features that they wanted are in the policy and as she looks at that she thinks those things
are written up in the guidelines. Member Segreto stated that if this is in the contract then when there is a
donor, especially a significant donor they could sit down with the City and probably negotiate some of
these items and so put it in the contract and then it's there to be discussed rather than in the opening two
paragraphs.
Member Segreto indicated that on number three page three it says "the donation covers the full costs for
purchase, recognition, installation and required maintenance during the expected life span of the feature
that", has a much more positive tone. Chair Steel asked Member Segreto if she would like to make a
motion for the lines she would like to see deleted on page two.
Member Hulbert asked Member Segreto those are the lines you wanted you stopped at "should be
included with the cost of the donation", what about the next sentence where it says "the city reserves the
right to charge maintenance costs", Member Segreto replied that she would leave the "city reserves the
right to charge maintenance costs", that's for maintenance or repair costs.
Member Segreto added where it states "The City should not become burdened by pledged gifts that are
not obtained" she doesn't think they have to say they were "burdened" but rather should say "pledges
should not be considered donations" and leave it at that. Member Hulbert responded that he thinks that
was more in line with gifts because he has heard of stories of people just donating items to the City that
the City doesn't even need.
Member Deeds commented that the line they are referring to is simply talking about people that pledge
and then never fulfill that pledge and so he thinks they only have to say "it should not be considered
donations".
7
Member Segreto made a motion, seconded by Member Hulbert, to recommend that on page two
in the second paragraph the second line reading "acceptance procedures should ensure that
donations not become burdensome to the City and that donors understand the City's policy for
upkeep and retention" be deleted. Additionally, the third line in that same paragraph reading
"for donations of material items all installation and recognition costs should be included with the
cost of donation" should be deleted. In that same paragraph the sentence beginning "the City
should not become burdened by pledged gifts that are not obtained and therefore" be deleted and
a period inserted. The line will then go on to read "Pledges should not be considered donations".
Ayes: Dan Peterson, Kathryn Peterson, Jones, Steel, Jacobson, Hulbert, Deeds, Segreto
Motion Carried.
Chair Steel informed Member Segreto she is going to bump her up to the first paragraph if you want to
do the same because she had deleted a third line "not to accommodate gifts" and then started with
deletion on the fourth line "and are not to become shrines" and deleted the renaming of that paragraph.
Member Segreto made a motion, seconded by Member Hulbert, to recommend in the first
paragraph third line, delete the words "not to accommodate gifts". In the fourth line of that same
paragraph delete "and are not to become shrines to donors, memorialized persons or business
entities". Delete the next sentence "donor recognition should not compete for attention or attract
attention away from the purpose for which the facility was created".
Ayes: Dan Peterson, Kathryn Peterson, Jones, Steel, Jacobson, Hulbert, Deeds, Segreto
Motion Carried.
Chair Steel asked Member Segreto to do a quick motion on the first page about real estate.
Member Segreto made a motion, seconded by Member Deeds, to recommend on page one in the
definition section that "real estate" be inserted anywhere in the definition of gifts.
Ayes: Dan Peterson, Kathryn Peterson, Jones, Steel, Jacobson, Hulbert, Deeds, Segreto
Motion Carried.
Page 2 other items
Member Segreto noted that at the bottom of the page # 1 it says "The donation shall meet a true need for
the City" and stated that she thinks it's hard to understand what "true need" means so instead say "The
donation shall be in the best interest of the City". Member Hulbert replied that he thinks it accomplishes
the same thing. Member Deeds noted that he questions, given that the City Council has to accept all
donations anyway and vote on them, do they even need that line in there. Mr. Keprios pointed out that
the City Council doesn't have to accept all proposed donations, they can reject whichever ones they
choose. Member Deeds responded he means do they need that first line in there because in that case
they are going to review them all anyway, particularly major donations, as to whether they meet the
needs of the City. Member Hulbert replied that maybe it will let people know so that it doesn't come as
a surprise to them. Member Jones stated that she thinks Member Segreto's wording was friendlier and
their intent is to be welcoming. Member Jones pointed out that what they were trying to get at with the
wording was what if someone has created something and wants to give it to the City but the City has no
place for it and doesn't really want to accept it then the City Council would have a reason to say "no".
Member Segreto commented that she agrees and maybe it should say "the donation shall be in the best
interest of the City" and just leave it at that.
Member Segreto made a motion, seconded by Member Hulbert, to amend on page two the
paragraph numbered #1, that the language be deleted and substitute language that reads "the
donation shall be in the best interest of the City" inserted in its place.
Ayes: Dan Peterson, Kathryn Peterson, Jones, Steel, Jacobson, Hulbert, Deeds, Segreto
Motion Carried.
93
Page Three —
Member Segreto indicated that she would like to see number three say "The City shall consider the costs
of the installation and if required maintenance" rather than "The donation shall cover the full costs".
Member Jones responded that she understands Member Segreto is trying to be a little more lenient but
this piece is about what the actual donation should cover. Member Segreto suggested saying "The City
shall consider all costs associated with the gift". Member Jones pointed out that she is talking about
when they fill out that donation form what they are talking about is what the total donation should be and
there's a calculation there. Member Segreto commented that is why she thinks they need to be real clear
in the contract that the City will not ensure that a tree will be around in that location in perpetuity and
that the City will not be held responsible for replacement. Member Hulbert commented that he sees
what Member Segreto is saying but he doesn't read #3 as being really negative but rather thinks it's just
being clear in explaining what is expected along with the gift. Chair Steel asked Member Segreto if she
would like to make a motion to which Member Segreto replied no.
Member Segreto indicated that she would delete #5, #6 and #7. Member Hulbert asked her why she
would want to delete them. Member Segreto replied again because to her it's "chilling". In #7 where it
reads "The donation does not require the purchase of a burdensome amount of additional items in order
for it to be useful" seems "chilling" they either accept it or not because she has full faith in staff and City
Council about whether or not we should accept something we can't take care of.
Chair Steel stated that to her it seems to conflict a little with #3 and therefore maybe they need to beef up
#3. Member Deeds noted that because they have #3 he doesn't think they need #5, #6 or #7 to which
Member Segreto noted she would be fine with that. Chair Steel asked the Park Board if there were
suggestions of anything they should add to #3. Ms. Otness informed the Park Board that when they
went to compile this they used all of the suggestions and comments that came to the working group and
so they decided as a group to put it in as they received those suggestions or comments and so that is
where the language came in, it wasn't intended to be "chilling". Members Deeds suggested for #3 they
could put "... and require repair and maintenance during the expected life" which takes out one of the
#5, #6 or #7.
Ms. Otness informed the Park Board that when they went to compile this they used all of the suggestions
and comments they received and so for some of those they actually put in the language that they
received and that is where some of the language came in. It wasn't intended to be "chilling", they
wanted to include what they received.
Member Segreto made a motion, seconded by Member Dan Peterson, to recommend on page three
that #3 shall be deleted in its entirety and substituted with the following: "The City shall consider
all costs associated with the gift including but not limited to the full cost for the purchase,
recognition, installation (if required) repair and maintenance during the expected life span of the
feature".
Member Jones commented that she liked it with the exception she would like to switch to "The
donation" instead of "City considers".
Member Jones made an amendment to the motion, seconded by Member Segreto, to recommend
that instead of beginning the sentence with "The City shall consider to "The donation should
cover" and then follow it with what Member Segreto said.
Ayes to Amendment: Dan Peterson, Kathryn Peterson, Jones, Steel, Jacobson, Hulbert, Deeds, Segreto
Motion Carried.
Ayes to Motion: Dan Peterson, Kathryn Peterson, Jones, Steel, Jacobson, Hulbert, Deeds, Segreto
Motion Carried.
�i
Member Deeds made a motion, seconded by Member Hulbert, recommending striking #5, #6 and
#7 on page three.
Ayes: Dan Peterson, Kathryn Peterson, Jones, Steel, Jacobson, Hulbert, Deeds, Segreto
Motion Carried.
Member Deeds made a motion, seconded by Member Segreto, to strike #15.
Member Jones asked she is just curious as to why you don't want #15 in there. Member Deeds replied
the wording in terms of "creating a shrine" that if they are going to do that he likes the wording from the
paragraph they took out which said "donor recognition should not interfere with the use, etc." . He
stated that if the Park Board thinks that is covered by #9 then they do not need to worry about it, they
just have it in the one. Member Jones commented that this is actually "the public should refrain from
creating a shrine" it doesn't have to do with a donation as it does with having people deposit flowers or
other things at a City amenity. Member Deeds commented that is appropriate then for guidelines for
donations, if that's a whole different issue. It is not part of the guidelines for a donation. Member
Kathryn Peterson commented that it's not really in their control anyway.
Ayes: Dan Peterson, Kathryn Peterson, Jones, Steel, Jacobson, Hulbert, Deeds, Segreto
Motion Carried.
Member Deeds indicated on #17 he thinks it's difficult to name things you don't want to have happen
and thinks if it were a general statement such as "donations and sponsorships will be gratefully accepted
as long as they do not challenge the public sense of common decency and good taste". He commented
that they need to support their local businesses and it's very difficult to say these things aren't good
because there could be other things that could come up so just stick with common decency and good
taste. Chair Steel asked if # 17 is redundant with #I that says "The donation should be in the best interest
of the City" to which Member Deeds replied he also thinks that covers it.
Member Dan Peterson made a motion, seconded by Member Hulbert, to delete #17.
Ayes: Dan Peterson, Kathryn Peterson, Jones, Steel, Jacobson, Hulbert, Deeds, Segreto
Motion Carried.
Member Segreto indicated that #8 states "The donation does not present a real or perceived conflict of
interest for the City or its employees" and she is okay with "conflict of interest" but she is not so sure
about "perceive". Member Jones replied that was actually a request by Karen Kurt, Assistant City
Manager, and is not sure why she wanted to insert "real" or "perceived" but has a feeling it's because it
gives the City the opportunity to decline a donation.
Page Four -
Chair Steel asked how you define "large scale" donation. Member Jones replied they didn't define it
and that is one of those areas that as you write the policy you try to give some flexibility to the City
Council and boards. She commented if you think it needs to be defined she would be open to discuss
and define it. She added that originally they did not have "large scale" in the policy and it seemed as if
they were creating record keeping and all sorts of unnecessary bureaucracy.
Page Five -
Member Deeds indicated he is curious about the blue section because it would seem to him that naming
ball fields after people is kind of traditional. Actually, in a lot of cities for somebody who has been
instrumental in one of the leagues or something for years and who has put in a lot of energy and effort in
a field is named after them. Member Jones responded that came up because people had mentioned that
they felt that walking through a park should not feel like walking through a cemetery and they were
10
concerned about memorial plaques being in places where they don't expect to have people think about
somebody's loss and so that's why that was included in here.
Member Segreto commented that she sort of agrees with Member Deeds that it seems logical that our
athletic facilities would naturally follow the names of people who have been very successful in a sport.
Member Hulbert noted that there is concern about how memorials are displayed. Member Deeds stated
that they have City personnel who are responsible for approving the installation of donations and
memorials. Member Hulbert commented that the concern is more the construction and placement of
memorials more so than naming of fields.
Member Jones commented that she does understand that's what most people do when people donate
frequently and it's because someone has passed away. She noted that she would like to hear more
discussion on it because as she stated earlier everything written in "blue" just came in last week and has
not been discussed as a working group. She indicated that she didn't want to disregard someone who
has taken the time to comment on the policy.
Chair Steel asked Member Jones so donations could be made for living people in these areas to which
she replied correct. Chair Steel asked what would be the difference in appearance between the donations
versus the memorials. Member Jones explained there would possibly be this is "in memory of'. Chair
Steel noted it would be the text, correct but you would still see a plaque walking by, right, in either case
at first glance when you are walking through the park. Member Jacobson commented that she
personally doesn't think they need that statement at all.
Member Deeds made a motion, seconded by Member Jones, strike the statement in blue under
"Installation" that begins with "potential sites for donations ..." on page five.
Ayes: Dan Peterson, Kathryn Peterson, Jones, Steel, Jacobson, Hulbert, Deeds, Segreto
Motion Carried.
Page Six
Mr. Keprios noted that one of the things he would like the Park Board to consider in looking at the
adoption of this policy is how many plaques are enough for a park and is it possible to have too many
plaques and at what point does it interfere with the real purpose of the park. He pointed out that the
proposed language permits memorial plaques on all park benches. He commented that as the Park Board
is coming up with a policy to recommend to the City Council, he asked the Park Board to think about the
park experience; what is a park and how and what do you want a visitor of a park to feel during their
experience in the park. Member Hulbert responded that he thinks they would all agree that there can be
too many.
Member Hulbert indicated that the working group wants to have uniformity of sizing of plaques and the
way the benches look so there is symmetry throughout the park system. He noted that he thinks they
agreed they didn't feel it was necessary to put a plaque on a tree that someone donated. He noted the
simple acknowledgment of a donated tree could maybe put on an online registry for certain things like
trees and try to keep the park experience about enjoying the park and not always about being a shrine or
a memorial. He added that as the community ages there are going to be more requests every day.
Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that often times when a donation is offered, the plaque is clearly
more important to the donor than the proposed new park amenity. Do we really want every park bench
in the entire park system to have a plaque on it that states "In Memory Of'? Mr. Keprios noted that he
is curious how the working group decided that it is okay to have those plaques on all benches but no
other similar amenities of equal value such as picnic tables or water fountains. Ms. Otness replied she
didn't think their discussion was as detailed as that. She indicated that they were thinking most people
who would like to donate an amenity to the park are mostly interested in donating benches and they were
11
not necessarily aware of requests for anything else. Mr. Keprios responded that the way he reads it is if
you donate a bench you get a plaque but anything other than that has to be $10,000 or greater. Member
Jones pointed out they currently have many plaques less than $5,000 as compilation boards and so the
difference is that yes, you can be recognized on a board with other donors and that is consistent with
what is part of the current policy. Mr. Keprios asked Member Jones to explain what that means.
Member Jones explained that there is a recognition board at the Edina Senior Center as well as there are
other types of recognition boards throughout the Parks System where people's names are listed. For
example, Fox Meadow Park listed the donors of that park. She noted that currently they have this as a
policy and noted that in the beginning they recommended that the City come up with consistency and a
policy for recognition and really didn't want to get into too many details in the policy. She stated that
she does think they could as a City look at the policy of recognizing the donors in a more consistent
fashion and they don't want their parks totally filled up with signs. Member Hulbert suggested saying
something like "donation of recognition items follow the following criteria" and then come up with a
definition sometime at a later date as to what a recognition item is with the help of staff. He asked as a
Park Board do they want it to include water fountains, park benches, gazebos, etc. Chair Steel
commented that it looks like the last line of page six states "Recognition for tree donations shall be at the
discretion of the Director of Parks ...".
Member Deeds stated that he doesn't think at this level they can establish that level of detail in a policy
unless they want to go through and say how many plaques will be at each park. He noted on page five
under "Installation" it states "City personnel shall be responsible for approving the installation of
donations" which means you have the right or somebody in your office has the right to say you know
you may want it in that park but we have 47 plaques in that park right now and so we are not going to
install it there. Mr. Keprios replied that he would not want this director or the next director to be
burdened with this discretion because it opens the door to a perception of favoritism where we simply
have to be fair and consistent. Member Deeds asked do they do a certain number of plaques per acre
because they have a lot of different parks with a lot of different sizes and with a blanket policy given the
diversity of what they are talking about doesn't make sense.
Mr. Keprios explained the main reason he established the existing policy in the first place is because he
felt there were too many plaques in the parks and so he made it simple. A donor needed to cross that
$5,000 threshold and the current policy accomplished that. For $5,000 you could get a bench but there
are not too many people willing to give $5,000 for a bench that only costs $400.00; however, for many
people if they can't have a plaque they won't donate.
Chair Steel asked Mr. Keprios if he would recommend that they make a statement on preserving the
integrity of the park or get rid of the bench section or both. Mr. Keprios replied that he thinks the policy
that has been in place with the $5,000 threshold works, the intent was to limit more and more plaques.
Member Jacobson indicated that on page three #9 it says "the donation shall not interfere with the
intended current or future use of the facility" but rather say "the donation should not interfere or detract
from... " that really is supporting what you want with the word "detract". Mr. Keprios replied again
that it should not be at the discretion of the Parks Director, it should be consistent.
Member Jones stated there are a couple of issues being raised. First is the concern over plaques on park
benches and noted that there are some parks that allow plaques on benches but not on the part that you
see as you approach the bench but rather on the backside. She noted that could be a policy because she
thinks park benches are going to be something that we really want to encourage and welcome donations
as the City approves its "Living Streets Policy". As the "Living Streets Policy" gets funded the City will
be looking for additional park benches.
Member Hulbert suggested changing it from "The City may recognize donors who have donated
$10,000" to "The City may recognize donors who have donated $5,000". Member Jones pointed out
12
that goes in the opposite direction of the point you were making. Mr. Keprios stated that the $5,000
threshold works because they still get donations. Member Hulbert indicated that if you drop it down to
$5,000 and take in the following paragraph that says "donations and benches shall be recognized
according to the final criteria ..."
Member Deeds suggested taking "park bench" out and keep the $5,000 in. He noted they need to make
an initiative separately and suggested they put out a map where all of the benches are that the City would
like to have and put them up for bid starting at $400. He commented that he doesn't mind every bench
being named they can start an auction for the benches in terms of where they are located and how many
they want. He noted they could start a "sponsor a bench" or "buy a bench" program and raise money
and put it on the City's website talking about the program and leave it open for auction and see what
they get. Mr. Keprios asked Member Deeds if he is suggesting they get a plaque on the bench to which
Member Deeds replied he doesn't see any problem with having plaques on every bench in the City if it
gets sponsored. He commented that in terms of having plaques on the ground and other places yes, he
thinks you are right that is much more problematic and that is where the $5,000 kind of hurdle comes in.
Chair Steel noted that she likes Member Deeds approach but wouldn't this policy prohibit a bidding
program like that if it didn't get to the $5,000 mark. Member Deeds commented he thinks if they take
the stuff out about the benches and it just says for a plaque which it doesn't.
Member Jones indicated the next paragraph states "Donors of benches shall be recognized according to
the following criteria: standard recognition plaques shall be used on donated benches to promote
consistency in cost, size, type and mounting with plaque language approved by the City. Bench plaques
shall be a maximum of 3 inches high by 6 inches wide". Member Jones commented that she thinks it
works within this policy. She noted what she is hearing is some reluctance about the language of
$10,000. She commented that she doesn't know how the Park Board feels about the third paragraph and
would like to hear their comments.
Member Hulbert noted that he thinks the bidding process sounds a little bit complicated in how they
would coordinate it and thinks they should just change it from $10,000 to $5,000. He also pointed out
that he thinks 3 inches by 6 inches is bigger than what the working group had talked about and thought
they had talked about small discreet plaques and not something you could read from 20 feet away.
Member Deeds commented that he thinks 3x6 is fine to which Member Jones replied it's a maximum of
3x6 but that she would happy to make it smaller.
Member Jones proposed to keep the bench paragraph and would be curious to hear if somebody wants to
speak to the third paragraph. Member Deeds asked Mr. Keprios if he is suggesting that $10,000 is too
high and would he like to keep it at $5,000. Mr. Keprios responded that he would recommend it but that
$10,000 would certainly further reduce the number of additional plaques and donations in the future.
Member Jones replied that if he thinks it will reduce the number of donations that is not what her intent
was for writing the policy. She pointed out that the current policy has recognition on a board with
ranges of donations with your name among other donors; however, that board was never built so what
they are doing is changing the current policy which would put people's names on a compilation board
centrally located to allow individual plaques. She noted that her thinking was they don't really want that
many plaques all over the parks and so if they are not going to be putting a name on a compilation board
but are going to allow individual plaques then they should raise the donation amount. Therefore, that
was her logic if you want to suggest that they create an actual compilation board so that people could
donate and have their name for a $5,000 donation then maybe that would be another way to get around
it.
Member Deeds commented that whether it's $5,000 or $10,000 is it being suggested that somewhere in
every park they could have something that would have a sign on it listing the big donors, is that what
they are potentially trying to do? Member Jones replied that the original policy that they are rewriting
13
had that wording in it and had one board centrally located and not one in each of the parks. Mr. Keprios
explained the concept was to make it look like a challenge and when people walked in to City Hall they
would see the board; however, after the new City Hall was built, they were told that there was no wall
space available in the new building to attach a donations board onto and so it never happened.
Member Jones pointed out that they need to keep in mind that this is a citywide policy and so they want
to make sure that they don't craft it specific to parks so this would be similar to if someone were
donating to the Police or Fire Department, etc.
Member Deeds made a motion, seconded by Member Segreto, to change it from $10,000 back to
$5,000.
Ayes: Dan Peterson, Kathryn Peterson, Jones, Steel, Jacobson, Hulbert, Deeds, Segreto
Motion Carried.
Member Hulbert noted again that 3x6 inches is really large and it's going to be first thing you notice
when you see that bench and therefore would like to talk about moving it or having it be at the discretion
of staff so that there is consistency in plaque size. Member Jones suggested to Member Hulbert to
propose that the paragraph include a wording something like "smaller than or as small as possible".
Member Deeds stated that he doesn't see what the problem is with having it 3x6 it's large enough for
people to read he doesn't see what's wrong with having somebody say "In Memory of Joe Smith" and it
being a 3x6 versus it being on 1x2. Member Segreto stated that even if the plaques are on the backs of
the benches, especially those that are surrounding a lake facing toward the lake, if you are a runner and
you are running on the path it can be really distracting so she disagrees.
Member Jones commented that she agrees they should be as small as possible. Member Hulbert replied
that it doesn't have to be as small as possible but he has seen some plaques out there that are no more
than about 4 square inches. Chair Steel asked is there a suggestion on the size of the plaque?
Member Hulbert made a motion, seconded by Member Deeds to have the plaques be 6 square
inches.
Ayes: Dan Peterson, Kathryn Peterson, Jones, Steel, Jacobson, Hulbert, Deeds, Segreto
Motion Carried.
Member Dan Peterson made a motion, seconded by Member Deeds, to approve the policy as
amended.
Ayes: Dan Peterson, Kathryn Peterson, Jones, Steel, Jacobson, Hulbert, Deeds, Segreto
Motion Carried.
VI. C. Veteran's Memorial Sculptor Contract
Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board they are not as far along as he had hoped but between pledges, in-
kind donations and cash they are at approximately $170,000. He proposed to the Park Board that they
recommend to the City Council to allow them to sign off on a contract with the sculptor once they have
exceeded $100,000 cash in the bank. He commented that they are not going to allow a shovel in the
ground until they have all of the money and in-kind committed. He noted that the reason for this is
unfortunately the sculptor needs nine months to build it.
Member Dan Peterson made a motion, seconded by Member Deeds, for approval of that.
Member Segreto asked are they making a motion to approve the contract to which Mr. Keprios replied
yes under those conditions. Member Segreto noted that there were three issues that she brought up at the
last meeting that have not been incorporated in the contract and she believes the discussion was that
everyone thought they were sort of important.
14
Member Segreto made an amendment to the motion, seconded by Member Deeds,. to add a
paragraph for delivery date, the sculpture shall be completed and delivered to the City on or
before and we could put a blank there but the City should put an outside delivery date. On the
second page of the contract at the bottom of the venue for disputes right now the dispute venue is
stated to be Essex County New York and she would like that to read Hennepin County Minnesota
and that the prevailing party should be entitled in addition to such relief as may be granted to a
reasonable sum for out-of-pocket expenses, arbitration fees, and all the rest that is written in that
sentence. She is adding out-of-pocket expenses and arbitration fees.
Member Deeds asked if this contract has been reviewed by the City attorney to which Mr. Keprios
replied he intends to do that. Member Deeds suggested they defer until reviewed by the City attorney.
Mr. Keprios noted that he will forward Member Segreto's recommendations to the City attorney to look
at.
Member Segreto made a motion, seconded by Member Dan Peterson, that regarding the copyright
that the sculptor will retain the copy to the sculpture except that the City shall have the right to
use images of the sculpture for the purposes of fundraising and promoting the Veteran's Memorial
and also to use the images of the sculpture in city publications.
Member Jones stated that she thinks this issue was brought up before about the fact that while we have
the funding for the sculpture we don't yet have funding for the installation of the patio and courtyard
where this is going to be placed and would like the Park Board to have a discussion about how everyone
feels about committing themselves to this. She pointed out that "Donation Policy" allows for the City to
contract for these types of things but it needs to go through the City Council so that City Council realizes
where we are on that contract and what we are suggesting. Therefore, she would go by what they just
passed which is to say this needs to go to City Council. She added that she would word it more to make
suggestions to our policy which requires approval of City Council with the amount needed to complete
the project clearly stated and available in the budget. Mr. Keprios noted so that would be $400,000 to
which Member Jones replied yes, that would be part of the statement going to City Council that if we
want to approve of this that the City does have the funds to cover this in case we don't.
Member Hulbert noted that at this point they are only approving the construction and installation of the
sculpture if they secure the financing for that, which is what they are requiring that they do. He stated at
this point he is comfortable knowing that it's a commitment to the funds, not just a pledge to the funds.
Chair Steel commented that they have an amendment to be voted on and then this sounds like a more
general discussion. Member Jones noted that it's just a discussion at this point, she is not adding an
amendment she is just clarifying a statement.
Chair Steel stated let's vote on the amendment first and then continue on.
All in favor of Member Segreto's amendments:
Ayes: Dan Peterson, Kathryn Peterson, Jones, Steel, Jacobson, Hulbert, Deeds, Segreto
Motion Carried.
Member Deeds suggested that they further recommend that the contract not be signed until there is
$100,000 of the $400,000 total needed in the Edina Foundation and so the $400,000 is stated clearly
there for the City Council.
Member Deeds proposed an amendment to the motion, seconded by Member Dan Peterson, that
in the line that reads "I further recommend that the contract not be signed until there is a
minimum of $100,000 in the Edina Community Foundation Veteran's Memorial account" be
changed to read "Until there is a minimum of $100,000 of the $400,000 needed in the Edina
Community Foundation's Veteran's Memorial account".
15
Ayes: Dan Peterson, Kathryn Peterson, Jones, Steel, Jacobson, Hulbert, Deeds, Segreto
Motion Carried.
All in favor of the motion:
Ayes: Dan Peterson, Kathryn Peterson, Jones, Steel, Jacobson, Hulbert, Deeds, Segreto
Motion Carried.
VI.D. Reschedule November Park Board Meeting
Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board under the new "Religious Holiday Policy" because the November
Park Board meeting falls on the third day of Diwali of the Hindu religion they will need to find an
alternate date for their November Park Board meeting.
Member Segreto asked for the Park Board members who may not be able to attend on a different date
will that affect their attendance because she feels they make a commitment to serve on a certain date and
to the extent that they start moving this date around she thinks that the move date should not be counted
in their attendance requirement. Mr. Keprios replied he doesn't disagree and thinks that a
recommendation should be brought to the City Council if you establish November 19th as the date for the
November Park Board meeting and that it doesn't count against your attendance record of 75%. Chair
Steel pointed out that if you run into canceled meetings you are kind of running the risk of not being able
to make up for it so it goes both ways. Chair Steel added that if members are not able to attend a Park
Board meeting she will ask them to weigh in if they know it's on the agenda and they can't vote on it.
Member Deeds made a motion, seconded by Member Hulbert, to accept November 19`h as the new
meeting date.
Ayes: Dan Peterson, Kathryn Peterson, Jones, Steel, Jacobson, Hulbert, Deeds, Segreto
Motion Carried.
VII. Correspondence and Petitions
Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that he is still periodically receiving emails that continue to be
added to the master list for both the Hornet's Nest and the Edinborough Park Study. He noted he will
continue to periodically forward those emails on.
VIII. Chair and Board Member Comments
Member Hulbert noted that they had some soccer games at the Braemar Soccer field and all of the
parents were raving over the condition of the field.
Member Kathryn Peterson informed the Park Board there was an article in the online Star Tribune
regarding the Hornet's Nest which she sent to Mr. Keprios so he could send the link to the Park Board
members.
Member Jones asked if there is any word about the Golf Dome or Sports Dome. Mr. Keprios responded
that they expect to see a full report in the next day on the Sports Dome and he thinks that the preliminary
results show that it's possible but extremely expensive and more than likely not feasible to even just
have a sports dome and clearly there is not enough room for a combination sports dome and golf dome.
He noted that it looks like the direction they are going to have to head is to rebuild the golf dome in its
current location. He noted that it makes the most sense financially and if they don't end up putting in a
sports dome at the Braemar site next to the Gun Range they are going to have to go to Plan B. Member
Kathryn Peterson asked will they have an opportunity to have a discussion around the results of their
findings to which Mr. Keprios replied he would hope so, yes.
Member Deeds asked is the Sports Dome Working Committee now done. Ms. Kattreh replied that she
doesn't think they can say that officially.
16
IX. Staff Comments
Mr. Keprios asked the Park Board to look at the Gallagher Drive roadway improvement packet that he
handed out. He noted the packet is what the City Engineer, Wayne Houle, presented to the City Council.
He pointed out that it includes one of the first sections they are going to develop knowing that the Nine
Mile Trail is coming their way and that it would significantly narrow Gallagher Drive in order to make
room for a 10 foot wide path on the east side of Gallagher Drive between West of France and north of
Parklawn. Mr. Keprios stated that Three Rivers Park would pay for approximately $125,000 of that.
Member Hulbert asked if they are doing some work in that area is there anything that the golf
management would like to do to improve the signage to bring more visibility to Fred Richards Golf
Course. Mr. Keprios replied they could certainly ask and asked Member Hulbert what he might have in
mind. Member Hulbert replied he doesn't have anything in mind but he has heard people say it's kind of
hard to find to which Mr. Keprios agreed, it's a tough location. Mr. Keprios explained that they have to
abide by their own sign ordinance so they are limited that one sign you see is what you get.
Chair Steel asked as the Nine Mile Creek project goes forward what is the Park Board's role as little
segments are decided. She commented that she knows the Transportation Commission weighed in and
wondered if they are going to be asked to weigh in on certain sections. Mr. Keprios replied that the Park
Board will get to weigh in when there are decisions to be made of any alternations of route but he thinks
the Park Board has already given a recommendation and approved a route and this has not deterred from
that. However, if there is something that is different from what you've already recommended it would
come back to the Park Board. He stated that he thinks the next step will be that Three Rivers has to
secure some federal grant money which isn't expected until about 2014.
Mr. Keprios updated the Park Board that the City Council approved the Park Board's recommendations
regarding the proposed Hornet's Nest project. The first meeting with our attorney is scheduled for
tomorrow to talk about a memorandum of understanding and begin the process of figuring out the details
of how the project will be designed and built.
Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that the City Council approved your recommendation on the
"Aquatic Center Priority Use Policy". He noted that the policy stayed pretty much the same, which
states a 75% residency requirement for the Edina Swim Club.
Chair Steel commented that she wanted to add she pulled the User Fee's Working Group
recommendations from tonight's agenda.
Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that they had to delay the Edinborough Park Study and that it will
be in the Park Board's June 12t` agenda along with the Working Group recommendation.
Mr. Keprios asked the Park Board if they would like to hear from Kevin Staunton on the Grandview
project next month to which Chair Steel replied she thinks they should probably wait on that.
Mr. Keprios showed the Park Board and went over the proposed master plan for Countryside Park. He
commented that he was told that the chances of the Waters Development happening is 50/50 at best but
he still thinks it's going to happen someday. He pointed out that the Countryside Park master plan has
some minor changes; however, he would still like to run it by the Countryside Park Neighborhood Group
and the Park Board for input. Therefore, if you have any thoughts on this he would appreciate it either
by a phone call or email.
Meeting adjourned at 9:52 pm.
17
lA
/+1
oe�0
t7 �y
• j�cORPORA�i��
1896
REPORTIRECOMMEN DATION
To:
Park Board
Agenda Item
Item No. VI. A.
From:
John Keprios, Director
Parks & Recreation Department
F] Action
�71 Discussion
z Information
Date: June 12, 2012
Subject:
Edinborough Park Study Recommendations
ACTION REQUESTED:
Review and discuss the staff recommendation to improve the cost recovery percentage
at Edinborough Park. The recommended plan keeps the pool and fitness facilities,
renovates the current locker rooms, adds a locker room, and reduces operating
expenses by reducing trees and plants. All Park user fees will be increased, including
admissions, birthday parties and pool rental.
INFORMATION/BACKGROUND:
The Park Board and City Council held joint work sessions on January 3`d, 2012 and
March 20th, 2012 to review reports prepared by the consulting team of ATS&R and
Ballard*King which made recommendations to improve the cost recovery rate of
Edinborough Park. At the conclusion of the March, 20th, 2012 work session, staff was
asked to prepare a recommendation to the Park Board and the City Council.
Staff is recommending several changes to Edinborough Park in an attempt to:
• Increase the cost recovery percentage
• Improve the function of the pool, locker rooms and lower level of the Park (grotto)
• Increase handicap accessibility
• Increase Edina resident use of the pool and playpark
• Provide much needed updates to the facility
The recommendation includes the following:
POOL
• Keep the pool and fitness facility
• Complete capital improvement updates needed to replace the pool shell and
replace the pool deck tile and wall tile and add air conditioning in the track.
• Renovate the locker rooms to add a new locker room in the space of the existing
pool storage room and combine the current men's and women's locker room into
one large locker room.
PARK
• Remove large trees in Park — approximately 38 trees. Many of the trees are from
the original construction of the Park and have either outlived their life expectancy
or have become so large that they are looking tired and have become a safety
hazard. Most tall Norfolk Pines are being held up by support cables. The large
trees were not expected to live more than 7 years in the indoor Park setting.
Many have been there over 25 years.
• Renovate the lighting system to significantly improve energy efficiency and
significantly reduce energy costs. This becomes an option with the removal of the
large trees. The large trees require the existing lighting qualities and levels.
• Reduced staffing levels needed for horticultural maintenance.
• Fill in the lower level of the grotto. This would eliminate our handicap accessibility
barrier and provide a much larger, more usable space. The lower pond would be
filled in, reducing maintenance costs; however, public art displays could be
added.
INCREASE REVENUES
• Increase the pool/track and playpark daily admission rate by $1.07 per person
(from $6.44 to $7.51) and increase the 10 admissions pass by $10.73 (from
$53.64 to $64.37).
• Increase the weekend Adventure Package birthday party rate from $139.46 to
$151.19 and increase the weekday Peak Package birthday rate from $85.82 to
$96.55.
• The Edina Swim Club is willing to make a large financial and time commitment to
rent additional pool time. Edinborough's pool would become "home" to the Edina
Swim Club. The proposed annual financial commitment from the swim club is
$53,010 for a 43 week season.
• Increase the pool rental fee from $30/hour to $45/hour or $7.50/hour/lane.
This proposal requires a much smaller capital expenditure than the option to fill in the
pool. $582,000 is required to provide larger locker rooms and $189,500 is needed to
resurface pool and replace wall and deck tile.
It would cost $1,654,100 to fill in the pool, provide a toddler play structure and add
birthday party/meeting rooms. This option, while keeping the pool, also maintains a
valuable community asset for kids, adults and seniors.
Filing in the pool would provide significant assets in a toddler play space and much
improved birthday party/meeting rooms. The cost recovery for this option is 86% in
2014 and 72% in 2018, compared to 84% in 2014 and 70% in 2018 for the pool option.
Staff believes that we may have an opportunity to negotiate some continued association
fees with the Marriott and Corporate East. The Edinborough Condo Association would
also have the ability to continue association fees or the condo residents could pay
individually to utilize the pool and fitness facilities. Those revenues are not factored into
the budget projections.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Financial Projections
wm�4
CN
CN
I
m
Q
v
z
0
1 4- O d 5 �5 O o
a Q.FD
° o h
No�• CFQ 7-
N CD N ¢, N p IL O rr
�y�y- O � ,-+ CfQ �• .��-3' O � `.PG' by `_" �
CD
11
O
CrD rD cD O dP. N CD Q -
r+ O
It O Y .�
'PL P-•� rr p� CD UIQ
5 `C OIt
0 CD
N
CSD ` `C3 t1 O UV�Q V�Q proi
O proi Q' Ct)
(D OrL
b7 >✓ r�r
CD
cn
•d b cn
`n ° y a ° cn CD
CD
CD
� rL p r� C)0 CrQ p `C
C(D cCDD
(A
CD rD
CD
�• CD ,..r CD O rpt F27
� CD C' rtCD
O P- n PI CL
CD rn U�q
CD
° 7 CD
=y (D CDrb CD N
CD I O
p " ¢ nr
C° 1�p' CD CDCD
aq
0 CD CD N �
o r* � o cu �, o
rt
rn CD
n Oy O CD '" CA CD
o O�
CD
P7,
¢ r O
>v �
r+
z
IM
4
7
QJ
bb
�
U
c�
c
a�
i
+-
�
U
V
cd
Cd
0-4
C)
N
O
¢,
O
a
co
co
cn ' i
'—'.•a
a�
;L-4cn
s-4
rz
O
CIS
—4
bA
cn
N
'� N
O
O
�
• �
bA
�
��.,
• �
b.0+
o
+
4-j
bA
o
.-4
w
U
U
U
w
rd
V
Q
�r
�-
OU
U
•
•
•
•
•
C/) -
P-�
0
m
z
m
�a
w
I
m
�..
r r
rD
ZS
O
;S
O
O
cn
rD
CDrD
cn
C
O
d
p
O
O
n
�•
r -r
�
r+
�
�
n
C
cn
n
OJ
r+
O
0
rn
z
co
C
'O
W
I.
N
a E
.r- 0
U O a3
0 L C
E (D a+
.%
O
00-
C a)
CL
{
Ul>o Um
CLR
DEQ W ? c 1
4 g
40 I
r~
a I71`i
- PPP
J a
r•
m n v
CL
e �
'+ fes(• i 4
_-311_
.. t
60
IF
rim
— V 4L 4
Tw
f a
a ,
O
aro
4 =. -
n fi 'n
m
o_
7
v
z
to
0
r -e.
3
W
CL
5'
2
f r:! •
S
IF
rim
— V 4L 4
Tw
f a
a ,
O
aro
4 =. -
n fi 'n
m
o_
7
v
z
to
0
r -e.
3
W
CL
5'
2
f r:! •
V�,Sor
d
0
U
E
O Y
LU
rr s
r r
In
.• `i
j k ■ , ]
251 �JBS3 r (.1 ■ �: , .,,^. -�
dwCu til -
J err �
� i ..Y _ ■ O � �7 d s 1131
o. • o, r E d k q r
W
T
uj
luewdlnb3
a-
�
'r �a
Q. a 9� 0 � • ■o s •
■'��*Imam■ss . ,
�_._.__..—.ku.
0.2 yS
x°
0
7
z
2i
M
70
LU
I
0
z
m
a
w
I.
�
ry)
En
En
CD
�
�-' .
r •
N
CD
CD
C7'
A)
crq
Ul
cn
n
h
rrr
"�
cn
461)-
{}\,o
\,o
�
rD
rj
c
6
¢
O
T
O
�rD„
O
rD
W
p
N
O
O
~s
O
O
'crC
O
O
CD
T
+
W
-G�
CD
�P
V
p
o
�
�D
o
r+
�
u-,
�
rD
�-
cn
~
cn
r -L
O
Qo
�:3
LSU\,
Q'.
= O 00 O
I-- CY) O N
00 CO CO O
m c V Ln ti
CL Lo o 0 0
co IKT ti IKT
N (m O ti
m -KI- 0 00
LL M N O
ti ti 00 0-)
d' M M M
+' LC) co LO M
1� f— 00
N
C O O
LO Ln �
I..
C)) (3)
c
d
O
Cl)
1` I-- 00
00 00 00 C)
C37) CD — 0')
W r Lp
L r
cc l` L` L`
m 6) 00 r -
r+ M
U LO
N
_
O 0~0
vLO
E M
r_C
O w o a
9,) 0�
c�o
o 0 C�
w
w cm o
a)_
0
C)
L
-0 U)
O L p
m`W�F-
c
c
a)
U
C
a)
(n
a)
�j a3 O
CU N
LL.i
d (6 a)
W
Y 0 O
O
C O FD
Q
W U Z
I
m
a
Z
co
0
O
�
n
�
�D
Q
v.
�
n
n
r-� •
o
�
I
m
a
Z
co
0
LJ
03
a� t4-4
;M, o
o ct
co
u
cno
oA
Cd IIC$
+� ;-4
0 0
U
3
� o
a �
V �
•O �
U �
�w
;-4 O
•� O
U
0 v;
U
.
0
a
w
K
CrQQ
.
°
8
C3
fu
i
ai
0
I
t �Fy . 1 n f
"AN.
Ao .
"k5
w r
n
r
"
tr
K
3
• a-weww ' .. t4R.a r��
{
'may
a G'
e
.0
4
"k5
w r
n
r
"
tr
K
3
• a-weww ' .. t4R.a r��
{
A:`3�= � `� fix,' r � --�-. i'•'
A
x
i
A:`3�= � `� fix,' r � --�-. i'•'
A
a
t z
fir,
,i!
y
AA
4r, !� _
wFiAw,
A I
Y ,
•
`, �. i
near .
r ���' � � ►� .� WSJ
w. A �S
"te J 1
I
.!Z
1r
i
jr I
q �.� .. i����..• .lie. �S
Re
l�
1
df
F.
m
Hv,
n
OTIt
V�
40
"A41
q �.� .. i����..• .lie. �S
Re
l�
1
df
F.
m
Hv,
n
OTIt
V�
40
117��� ( • t : _. � ��, k� �.. 888 _
W,
ir41
+JeF' y■?�c,�y� �, ,
� c I
.y r
r�
[I�
V
CITY OF EDINA
\\ .
r
Edinborough Park Study
Financial Projections
Page 1 - Baseline Projections
Page 3 - Pool and Track/Fitness Option
Page 5 - Playpark Option
Page 7 - Playpark and Artwalk Option
I Page 1
EDINBOROUGH PARK
Baseline Scenario
Capital Improvement Projects: Assumed inflation 2.60%
2009*
2010*
2011*
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Replace Carpeting
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Projected
Projected
Projected
Projected
Projected
Projected
Operating revenues
Security Camera System
EP -08-007
Track Floor
EP -09-015
North Sidewalk
EP -10-011
Park Boiler
EP -12-003
Pool and Wall Tile
EP -08-021
Concessions sales
$ 29,386
$ 29,328
$ 52,975
$ 175,000
$ 185,000
$ 189,600
$ 194,300
$ 199,200
$ 204,200
$ 209,300
Memberships
57,078
52,515
54,436
56,000
56,000
57,400
58,800
60,300
61,800
63,300
Admissions
563,735
569,591
654,971
550,000
550,000
563,800
577,900
592,300
607,100
622,300
Building rental
143,442
163,492
208,865
150,000
150,000
153,800
157,600
161,500
165,500
169,600
Equipment rental
7,814
11,397
15,261
8,500
8,500
8,700
8,900
9,100
9,300
9,500
Association fees
203,245
217,122
202,423
212,100
214,200
224,800
228,700
232,700
200,300
47,200
Total revenues
1,004,700
1,043,445
1,188,931
1,151,600
1,163,700
1,198,100
1,226,200
1,255,100
1,248,200
1,121,200
Operating expenses
COGS
40,055
42,164
70,603
99,000
105,000
107,600
110,300
113,100
115,900
118,800
Personal services
666,921
677,701
637,146
783,210
797,479
821,400
846,000
871,400
897,500
924,400
-Staffing reduction
-
-
-
-
(17,000)
(17,500)
(18,000)
(18,500)
(19,100)
(19,700)
Contractual services
386,027
31-6,198
308,998
331,500
335,000
343;400
352,000
360,800
369,800
379,000
Commodities
175,145
148,342
169,991
182,200
187,700
192,400
197,200
202,100
207,200
212,400
Central services
39,573
38,495
51,850
56,424
57,096
58,500
60,000
61,500
63,000
64,600
Depreciation
98,750
128,994
160,199
159,500
166,700
182,400
197,100
213,300
232,000
243,100
Total expenses
1,406,471
1,351,894
1,398,787
1,611,834
1,631,975
1,688,200
1,744,600
1,803,700
1,866,300
1,922,600
Operating loss
(401,771)
(308,449)
(209,856)
(460,234)
(468,275)
(490,100)
(518,400)
(548,600)
(618,100)
(801,400)
Nonoperating revenues, (expenses),
and transfers
Interest income
37,364
73,650
95,866
40,500
32,700
24,600
16,100
7,000
(2,900)
(14,500)
Miscellaneous
1,125
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Transfers
250,000
102,091
150,963
125,000
271,700
209,100
172,300
253,900
169,700
183,300
Total nonoperating
288,489
175,741
246,829
165,500
304,400
233,700
188,400
260,900
166,800
168,800
Change in net assets
(113,282)
(132,708)
36,973
(294,734)
(163,875)
(256,400)
(330,000)
(287,700)
(451,300)
(632,600)
January net assets
-
-
-
2,636,318
2,341,584
2,177,709
1,921,309
1,591,309
1,303,609
852,309
December 31 net assets
$ 2,636,318
$ 2,341,584
$ 2,177,709
$ 1,921,309
$ 1,591,309
$ 1,303,609
$ 852,309
$ 219,709
Non -GAAP cash reconciliation
Change in net assets
$ (113,282)
$ (132,708)
$ 36,973
$ (294,734)
$ (163,875)
$ (256,400)
$ (330,000)
$ (287,700)
$ (451,300)
$ (632,600)
Depreciation
98,750
128,994
160,199
159,500
166,700
182,400
197,100
213,300
232,000
243,100
Capital expenditures
(512,510)
(194,949)
(179,628)
(125,000)
(271,700)
(209,100)
(172,300)
(253,900)
(169,700)
(183,300)
Other accruals
(117,470)
29,854
Change in cash
(644,512)
(168,809)
17,544
(260,234)
(268,875)
(283,100)
(305,200)
(328,300)
(389,000)
(572,800)
January 1 cash
-
-
1,350,112
1,089,878
821,003
537,903
232,703
(95,597)
(484,597)
December 31 cash
$ 1,350,112
$ 1,089,878
$ 821,003
$ 537,903
$ 232,703
$ (95,597)
$ (484,597)
$ (1,057,397)
Expense recovery
71%
77%
85%
71%
71%
71%
70%
70%
67%
58%
Capital Improvement Projects: Assumed inflation 2.60%
Concrete repairs
EP -09-016
Replaster Pool
EP -00-017
Track Air Conditioning
EP -11-005
Exterior Entryway Doors
EP -11-007
Upstairs Restroom Remodel
EP -11-009
Replace Carpeting
EP -06-007
Lift to Birthday Party Area
EP -09-014
Adventure Peak Remodel
EP -09-021
Adventure Peak Wave Slide
EP -11-006
Interior Entryway Doors
EP -11-008
Pool Boiler
EP -12-002
Security Camera System
EP -08-007
Track Floor
EP -09-015
North Sidewalk
EP -10-011
Park Boiler
EP -12-003
Pool and Wall Tile
EP -08-021
Adventure Peak Renovation
EP -11-010
Pond and Waterfall Renovation
EP -12-004
Fill in tree rings
NEW
Window washing
NEW
Facility Maintenance
NEW
POS System
NEW
Replacement Equipment
NEW
Hot water heater & holding tanks
NEW
Scissors lift
NEW
Facility Repair
NEW
Total
32,300
125,000
71,800
66,600
82,000
30,800
12,600
42,000
26,300
26,300
63,000
12,600
43,100
70,000
32,300
26,900
88,300
33,100
22,100
20,500
26,300
110,400
28,300
141,400
23,200
15,100
145,000
$ 125,000 $ 271,700 $ 209,100 $ 172,300 $ 253,900 $ 169,700 $ 183,300
* Edinborough Park's finances were combined with Centennial Lakes in one fund through 2011 and were separated into two funds starting in 2012.
In order to show comparative historical data in this format, certain assumptions and estimates were made by the Finance Department for fiscal years 2009-2011.
6/4/2012 G:\Budget\2013 Budget\Edinborough study\Edinborough study.xlsx
Edinborough Park
Baseline Scenario
$1,500,000 Assumed 2012-2018 Construction Fund Subsidy of $1,385,000
O �
$1,000,000
i
$500,000
� O
$(500,000)
$(1,000,000)
w
♦
40%3
$(1,500,000)
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Projected
Projected
Projected
2009'
2010'
2011'
2012
2013
2014
2015
... Expense recovery
71%
77%
85%
71%
71%
71%
O*A
Cash balance
Projected
$1,350,112
$1,089,878
$821,003
$537,903
$232,703
100%
90%
80%
70%
58°b 60%
0
SO% d
♦
w
♦
40%3
♦
♦
30%
♦♦
20%
10%
kProjected
O*A
Projected
Projected
2016
2017
2018
70%
67%
58%
........._..._.—_ ....... .__...._....
$(95,597)
........ _._._......__.,.._..........____.._....
$(484,597)
$(1,057,397)
Page 3
EDINBOROUGH PARK
Pool
and Track/Fitness Option
2009*
2010*
2011*
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Projected Projected
Projected Projected _ Projected Projected
Operating revenues
Concessions sales $ 29,386
$ 29,328
$ 52,975
$ 175,000
$ 185,000
$ 185,000
$ 189,600
$ 194,300
$ 199,200
$ 204,200
Memberships 57,078
52,515
54,436
56,000
56,000
60,000
61,500
63,000
64,600
66,200
Admissions 563,735
569,591
654,971
550,000
550,000
563,800
577,900
592,300
607,100
622,300
-Rate increase -
-
-
-
76,000
77,900
79,800
81,800
83,800
85,900
Building rental 143,442
163,492
208,865
150,000
150,000
153,800
157,600
161,500
165,500
169,600
-Rate increase -
-
-
-
-
26,000
26,700
27,400
28,100
28,800
-Swim club
-
-
-
-
53,000
54,300
55,700
57,100
58,500
Equipment rental 7,814
11,397
15,261
8,500
8,500
12,000
12,300
12,600
12,900
13,200
Association fees 203,245
217,122
202,423
212,100
214,200
224,800
228,700
232,700
200,300
47,200
Total revenues 1,004,700
1,043,445
1,188,931
1,151,600
1,239,700
1,356,300
1,388,400
1,421,300
1,418,600
1,295,900
Operating expenses
COGS 40,055
42,164
70,603
99,000
105,000
110,000
112,800
115,600
118,500
121,500
Personal services 666,921
677,701
637,146
783,210
797,479
821,400
846,000
871,400
897,500
924,400
-Staffing reduction -
-
-
-
(97,000)
(99,400)
(101,900
(104,400)
(107,000)
(109,700)
Contractual services 386,027
316,198
308,998
331,500
335,000
343,400
352,000
360,800
369,800
379,000
-Staffing reduction -
-
-
-
24,000
24,600
25,200
25,800
26,400
27,100
-Lighting efficiency -
-
-
-
(40,000)
(41,000)
(42,000
(43,100)
(44,200)
(45,300)
Commodities 175,145
148,342
169,991
182,200
187,700
194,400
199,300
204,300
209,400
214,600
Central services 39,573
38,495
51,850
56,424
57,096
58,500
60,000
61,500
63,000
64,600
Depreciation 98,750
128,994
160,199
162,700
175,400
211,400
244,100
254,800
264,900
272,900
Total expenses 1,406,471
1,351,894
1,398,787
1,615,034
1,544,675
1,623,300
1,695,500
1,746,700
1,798,300
1,849,100
Operating loss (401,771
(308,449)
(209,856)
(463,434)
(304,975)
(267,000)
(307,100)
(325,400)
(379,700)
(553,200)
Nonoperating revenues, (expenses), and transfers
Interest income 37,364
73,650
95,866
40,500
32,700
29,800
5,200
3,500
1,500
(1,900)
Miscellaneous 1,125
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
Transfers 250,000
102,091
150,963
210,000
364,000
125,200
172,300
143,500
186,700
183,300
Total nonoperating 288,489
175,741
246,829
250,500
396,700
155,000
177,500
147,000
188,200
181,400
Change in net assets (113,282)
(132,708)
36,973
(212,934)
91,725
(112,000)
(129,600)
(178,400)
(191,500)
(371,800)
January 1 net assets -
-
-
2,636,318
2,423,384
2,515,109
2,403,109
2,273,509
2,095,109
1,903,609
December 31 net assets
$ 2,636,318
$ 2,423,384
$ 2,515,109
$ 2,403,109
$ 2,273,509
$ 2,095,109
$ 1,903,609
$ 1,531,809
Non -GAAP cash reconciliation
Change in net assets $ (113,282)
$ (132,708)
$ 36,973
$ (212,934)
$ 91,725
$ (112,000)
$ (129,600)
$ (178,400)
$ (191,500)
$ (371,800)
Depreciation 98,750
128,994
160,199
162,700
175,400
211,400
244,100
254,600
264,900
272,900
Capital expenditures (512,510)
(194,949)
(179,628)
(210,000)
(364,000)
(917,600)
(172,300)
(143,500)
(186,700)
(183,300)
Other accruals (117,470)
29,854
Change in cash (644,512)
(168,809)
17,544
(260,234)
(96,875)
(818,200)
(57,800)
(67,100)
(113,300)
(282,200)
January 1 cash -
-
1,350,112
1,089,878
993,003
174,803
117,003
49,903
(63,397)
December 31 cash
$ 1,350,112
$ 1,089,878
$ 993,003
$ 174,803
$ 117,003
$ 49,903
$ (63,397)
$ (345,597)
Expense recovery 71%
77%
85%
71%
80%
84%
82%
81%
79%
70%
Capital Improvement Projects: Assumed
inflation
2.50
Lighting retrofit
EP -12-001
65,000
Pond and Waterfall Renovation
EP -12-004
20,000
Concrete repairs
EP -09-016
153,800
Replaster pool
EP -00-017
71,800
Track air conditioning
EP -11-005
66,600
Upstairs restroom remodel
EP -11-009
30,800
Replace carpeting
EP -06-007
12,600
Lift to birthday party area
EP -09-014
42,000
Adventure Peak remodel
EP -09-021
26,300
Adventure Peak Wave Slide
EP -11-006
26,300
Pool boiler
EP -12-002
12,600
Security Camera System
EP -08-007
43,100
Track Floor
EP -09-015
70,000
North Sidewalk
EP -10-011
32,300
Park Boiler
EP -12-003
26,900
Adventure Peak Renovation
EP -11-010
33,100
Exterior entryway doors
EP -11-007
90,500
Interior Entryway Doors
EP -11-008
67,900
Fill in grotto & tree rings
NEW
125,000
Ramp to track
NEW
41,000
Window washing
NEW
26,300
Upgrade pool tank & deck tile
NEW
189,500
Provide larger locker rooms
NEW
582,000
Facility Maintenance
NEW
110,400
POS System
NEW
28,300
Hot water heater & holding tanks
NEW
23,200
Scissors lift
NEW
15,100
Facility Repair
NEW
145,000
Total
$ 210,000
$ 364,000
$ 917,600 $ 172,300
$ 143,500
$ 186,700
$ 183,300
* Edinborough Park's finances were combined with Centennial Lakes In one fund through 2011 and were separated into two funds starting in 2012.
In order to show comparative historical data in this format, certain assumptions and estimates were made by the Finance Department for fiscal years 2009-2011.
6/4/2012 GABudget\2013 Budget\Edinborough study\Edinborough study.xlsx
Edinborough Park
Pool and Track/Fitness Option
$1,500,000
Assumed 2012-2018 Construction Fund Subsidy of $1,385,000
l00%
90%
$1,000,000
`
80%
%
70%
70%
$500,000
%
t
60%
d
b — ——
—�
50%
r
40%
$(500,000)
- 30%
20%
$(1,000,000)
30%
0%
$(1,500,000)
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Projected
Projected
Projected
Projected
Projected
Projected
2009'
2010'
2011'
2012
20131
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018 ._.I
Expense recovery
71%
77%
85%...___
71.6
g4,6
_ ..-...
82,6
....--.
81.6
... .......$(63,397).......
79.6
70%
1
Cash balance
_...
.......
$1,350,112
$1 089,878
_ _80.6
$993,003
I __ $174,803 ,
$117,003
$49 903
__...
$(345 597)
Page 5 EDINBOROUGH PARK
Playpark Option
Expense recovery 71% 77% 85% 71%
Capital Improvement Projects: Assumed inflation 2.50%
Lighting retrofit
2009"
2010'
2011'
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
EP -06-007
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated Projected Projected
Projected Projected
Projected
Projected
Operating revenues
Track Floor
EP -09-015
North Sidewalk
EP -10-011
Park Boiler
EP -12-003
Adventure Peak Renovation
EP -11-010
Exterior Entryway Doors
EP -11-007
Concessions sales
$ 29,386
$ 29,328 $
52,975 $
175,000 $
185,000 $
190,000
$ 194,800 $
199,700 $
204,700 $
209,800
Memberships
57,078
52,515
54,436
56,000
56,000
57,400
58,800
60,300
61,800
63,300
-Eliminate pool
-
-
-
-
-
(25,000)
(25,600)
(26,200)
(26,900)
(27,600)
Admissions
563,735
569,591
654,971
550,000
550,000
563,800
577,900
592,300
607,100
622,300
-Rate increase
-
-
-
-
76,000
77,900
79,800
81,800
83,800
85,900
-More admissions
-
-
-
-
-
98,000
100,500
103,000
105,600
108,200
-Eliminate pool
Building rental
-
143,442
-
163,492
-
208,865
-
150,000
-
150,000
(21,000)
153,800
(21,500)
157,600
(22,000)
161,500
(22,600)
165,500
(23,200)
-Rate increase
-
-
-
-
-
26,000
26,700
27,400
28,100
169,600
28,800
-More parties
Equipment rental
-
7,814
-
11,397
-
15,261
-
8,500
-
8,500
42,000
12,000
43,100
12,300
44,200
12,600
45,300
12,900
46,400
Association fees
203,245
217,122
202,423
212,100
214,200
224,800
228,700
232,700
200,300
13,200
47,200
Total revenues
1,004,700
1,043,445
1,188,931
1,151,600
1,239,700
1,399,700
1,433,100
1,467,300
1,465,600
1,343,900
Operating expenses
COGS
40,055
42,164
70,603
99,000
105,000
115,000
117,900
120,800
123,800
126,900
Personal services
666,921
677,701
637,146
783,210
797,479
821,400
846,000
871,400
897,500
924,400
-Staffing reduction
-
-
-
-
(97,000)
(99,400)
(101,900)
(104,400)
(107,000)
(109,700)
Contractual services
386,027
316,198
308,998
331,500
335,000
343,400
352,000
360,800
369,800
379,000
-Staffing reduction
-
-
-
-
24,000
24,600
25,200
25,800
26,400
27,100
-Li efficiency -Lighting y
-
-
(40,000)
(41,000)
(42,000)
(43,100)
(44,200)
(45,300)
-Eliminate pool
Commodities
175,145
148,342
169,991
182,200
-
187,700
(20,000)
192,400
(20,500)
197,200
(21,000)
202,100
(21,500)
207,200
(22,000)
Central services
39,573
38,495
51,850
56,424
57,096
58,500
60,000
61,500
63,000
212,400
64,600
Depreciation
98,750
128,994
160,199
162,700
173,600
229,200
283,300 _
294,000
304,100
312,100
Total expenses
1,406,471
1,351,894
1,398,787
1,615,034
1,542875
1,624,100
1,717,200
1,767,900
1,819,100
1,869,500
Operating loss
(401,771)
(308,449) (209,856) (463,434)
(303,175) (224,400)
(284,100) (300,600) (353,500) (525,600)
Nonoperating revenues, (expenses), and transfers
Interest income
37,364
73,650
95,866
40,500
32,700
29,800
(16,900)
(17,400)
(18,100)
(20,200)
Miscellaneous
1,125
-
_
-
_
Transfers
250,000
102,091
150,963
210,000
292,200 _
197,000
172,300
143,500
186,700
183,300
Total nonoperating
288,489
175,741
246,829
250,500
324,900
226,800
155,400
126,100
168,600
163,100
Change in net assets
(113,282) (132,708)
36,973 (212,934)
21,725
2,400
(128,700 (174,500) (184,900) (362,500)
January 1net assets
-
-
-
2,636,318
2,423,384
2,445,109
2,447,509
2,318809
2,144,309
9,959,409
December 31 net assets
$ 2,636,318 $
2,423,384 $
2,445,109 $
2,447,509
$ 2,318,809 $
2,144,309 $
1,959,409 $
1,596,909
Non -GAAP cash reconciliation
Change in net assets
$ (113,282) $
(132,708) $
36,973 $
(212,934) $
21,725 $
2,400
$ (128,700) $
(174,500) $
(184,900) $
(362,500)
Depreciation
98,750
128,994
160,199
162,700
173,600
229,200
283,300
294,000
304,100
312,100
Capital expenditures
(512,510)
(194,949)
(179,628)
(210,000)
(292,200)
(1,787,600)
(172,300)
(143,500)
(186,700)
(183,300)
Other accruals
(117,470)
29,854
Change in cash
(644,512)
(168,809)
17,544 (260,234) (96,875) (1,556 000)
(17,700) (24,000 (67 500) (233 700)
January 1 cash
-
-
-
1,350,112
1,089,878
993,003
(562,997) (580,697) (604697) (672,197)
December 31 cash
$
1,350,112 $
1,089,878 $
993,003 $ (562,997) $ (580,697) $ (604,697) $ (672,197) $ (905,897)
Expense recovery 71% 77% 85% 71%
Capital Improvement Projects: Assumed inflation 2.50%
Lighting retrofit
EP -12-001
Pond and Waterfall Renovation
EP -12-004
Concrete repairs
EP -09-016
Track Air Conditioning
EP -11-005
Upstairs Restroom Remodel
EP -11-009
Replace Carpeting
EP -06-007
Lift to Birthday Party Area
EP -09-014
Adventure Peak Remodel
EP -09-021
Adventure Peak Wave Slide
EP -11-006
Security Camera System
EP -08-007
Track Floor
EP -09-015
North Sidewalk
EP -10-011
Park Boiler
EP -12-003
Adventure Peak Renovation
EP -11-010
Exterior Entryway Doors
EP -11-007
Interior Entryway Doors
EP -11-008
Fill in grotto and tree rings
NEW
Ramp to track
NEW
Window washing
NEW
Infill pool/play structure/mtg rooms
NEW
Facility Maintenance
NEW
POS System
NEW
Hot water heater & holding tanks
NEW
Scissors lift
NEW
Facility Repair
NEW
Total
65,000
20,000
125,000
80%
86%
83% 83%
153,800
66,600
30,800
12,600
42,000
26,300
26,300
43,100
70,000
32,300
26,900
33,100
41,000
26,300
1,654,100
110,400
81% 72%
90,500
67,900
28,300
23,200
15,100
- 145.000
$ 210,000 $ 292,200 $ 1,787,600 $ 172,300 $ 143,500 $ 186,700 $ 183,300
. Edinborough Park's finances were combined with Centennial Lakes in one fund through 2011 and were separated into two funds starting in 2012.
In order to show comparative historical data in this format, certain assumptions and estimates were made by the Finance Department for fiscal years 2009-2011.
6/4/2012 G:\Budget\2013 Budget\Edinborough study\Edinborough study.xlsx
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
d
c
a $-
c
u
$(500,000(
$(1,000,000)
$(1,500,000)
Expense recover,
Cash balance
.... _............
__— _.
Edinborough Park
Playpark Option
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
0
50% y
c
d
n
40% w
30%
20%
10%
0%
Page 7 EDINBOROUGH PARK
Playpark and Artwalk Option
Expense recovery 711% 77% 85% 71%
Capital Improvement Projects: Assumed inflation 2.50%
2009'
2010`
2011'
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Replace Carpeting
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Projected
Projected
Projected
Projected
Projected
Projected
Operating revenues
North Sidewalk
EP -10-011
Park Boiler
EP -12-003
Adventure Peak Renovation
EP -11-010
Exterior Entryway Doors
EP -11-007
Interior Entryway Doors
EP -11-008
Concessions sales
$ 29,386
$ 29,328
$ 52,975
$ 175,000
$ 185,000
$ 190,000
$ 194,800 $
199,700
$ 204,700 $
209,800
Memberships
57,078
52,515
54,436
56,000
56,000
57,400
58,800
60,300
61,800
63,300
-Eliminate pool
-
-
-
-
-
(25,000)
(25,600)
(26,200)
(26,900)
(27,600)
Admissions
563,735
569,591
654,971
550,000
550,000
563,800
577,900
592,300
607,100
622,300
-Rate increase
-
-
-
-
76,000
77,900
79,800
81,800
83,800
85,900
-More admissions
-
98,000
100,500
103,000
105,600
108,200
-Eliminate pool
-
-
-
-
-
(21,000)
(21,500)
(22,000)
(22,600)
(23,200)
Building rental
143,442
163,492
208,865
150,000
150,000
153,800
157,600
161,500
165,500
169,600
-Rate increase
-
-
-
-
-
26,000
26,700
27,400
28,100
28,800
-More parties
-
-
-
-
-
42,000
43,100
44,200
45,300
46,400
Equipment rental
7,814
11,397
15,261
8,500
8,500
12,000
12,300
12,600
12,900
13,200
Association fees
203,245
217,122
202,423
212,100
214,200
224,800
228,700
232,700
200,300
47,200
Total revenues
1,004,700
1,043,445
1,188,931
1,151,600
1,239,700
1,399,700
1,433,100
1,467,300
1,465,600
1,343,900
Operating expenses
COGS
40,055
42,164
70,603
99,000
105,000
115,000
117,900
120,800
123,800
126,900
Personal services
666,921
677,701
637,146
783,210
797,479
821,400
846,000
871,400
897,500
924,400
-Staffing reduction
-
-
-
-
(97,000)
(99,400)
(101,900)
(104,400)
(107,000)
(109,700)
Contractual services
386,027
316,198
308,998
331,500
335,000
343,400
352,000
360,800
369,800
379,000
-Staffing reduction
-
-
-
-
24,000
24,600
25,200
25,800
26,400
27,100
-Lighting efficiency
(40,000)
(41,000 )
(42,000)
(43,100)
(44,200)
(45,300)
-Eliminate pool
_
_
_
(20,000)
(20,500)
(21,000)
(21,500)
(22,000)
Commodities
175,145
148,342
169,991
182,200
187,700
192,400
197,200
202,100
207,200
212,400
Central services
39,573
38,495
51,850
56,424
57,096
58,500
60,000
61,500
63,000
64,600
Depreciation
98,750
128,994
160,199
162,700
172,600
230,000
286,900
297,600
307,700
315,700
Total expenses
1,406,471
1,351,894
1,398,787
1,615,034
1,541,875
1,624,900
1,720,800
1,771,500
1,822,700
1,873,100
Operating loss
(401,771)
(308,449)
(209,856)
(463,434)
(302,175)
(225,200)
(287,700) (304,200)
(357,100) (529,200)
Nonoperating revenues, (expenses), and transfers
Interest income
37,364
73,650
95,866
40,500
32,700
29,800
(19,000)
(19,500)
(20,300)
(22,400)
Miscellaneous
1,125
-
-
_
_
_
-
Transfers
250,000
102,091
150,963
210,000
251,200
238,000
172,300
143,500
186,700
183,300
Total nonoperating
288,489
175,741
246,829
250,500
283,900
267,800
153,300
124,000
166,400
160,900
Change in net assets
(113,282)
(132,708)
36,973
(212,934)
(18,275)
42,600
(134,400) (180,200)
(190,700) (368,300)
January 1 net assets
-
-
-
2,636,318
2,423,384
2,405,109
2,447,709
2,313309
2,133,109
1,942,409
December 31 net assets
$ 2,636,318
$ 2,423,384
$ 2,405,109
$ 2,447,709
$ 2,313,309 $
2,133,109
$ 1,942,409 $
1,574,109
Non -GAAP cash reconciliation
Change in net assets
$ (113,282)
$ (132,708)
$ 36,973
$ (212,934)
$ (18,275)
$ 42,600
$ (134,400) $
(180,200)
$ (190,700) $
(368,300)
Depreciation
98,750
128,994
160,199
162,700
172,600
230,000
286,900
297,600
307,700
315,700
Capital expenditures
(512,510)
(194,949)
(179,628)
(210,000)
(251,200)
(1,897,400)
(172,300)
(143,500)
(186,700)
(183,300)
Other accruals
(117,470)
29,854
Change in cash
(644,512)
(168,809)
17,544
(260,234)
(96,875)
(1,624,800)
(19,800) (26,100)
(69,700) (235,900)
January 1 cash
-
-
1,350,112
1,089,878
993,003
(631,797)
(651,597)
(677,697)
(747,397)
December 31 cash
$ 1,350,112
$ 1,089,878
$ 993,003
$ (631,797)
$ (651,597) $ (677,697)
$ (747,397) $ (983,297)
Expense recovery 711% 77% 85% 71%
Capital Improvement Projects: Assumed inflation 2.50%
Lighting retrofit
EP -12-001
Pond and Waterfall Renovation
EP -12-004
Concrete repairs
EP -09-016
Track Air Conditioning
EP -11-005
Upstairs Restroom Remodel
EP -11-009
Replace Carpeting
EP -06-007
Lift to Birthday Party Area
EP -09-014
Adventure Peak Remodel
EP -09-021
Adventure Peak Wave Slide
EP -11-006
Security Camera System
EP -08-007
Track Floor
EP -09-015
North Sidewalk
EP -10-011
Park Boiler
EP -12-003
Adventure Peak Renovation
EP -11-010
Exterior Entryway Doors
EP -11-007
Interior Entryway Doors
EP -11-008
Fill in grotto and tree rings
NEW
Window washing
NEW
Infill pool/play structure/mtg rooms
NEW
Add 1/6 mile Artwalk
NEW
Facility Maintenance
NEW
POS System
NEW
Hot water heater & holding tanks
NEW
Scissors lift
NEW
Facility Repair
NEW
Total
109,800
65,000
20,000
125,000
80%
86%
83% 83% 80% 72%
153,800
66,600
30,800
12,600
42,000
26,300
26,300
43,100
70,000
32,300
26,900
33,100
90,500
67,900
26,300
1,654,100
109,800
110,400
28,300
23,200
15,100
- 145.000
$ 210,000 $ 251,200 $ 1,897,400 $ 172.,300 $ 143,500 $ 186,700 $ 183,300
. Edinborough Park's finances were combined with Centennial Lakes in one fund through 2011 and were separated into two funds starting in 2012.
In order to show comparative historical data in this format, certain assumptions and estimates were made by the Finance Department for fiscal years 2009-2011.
6/4/2012 G:\Budget\2013 Budget\Edinborough study\Edinborough study.xlsx
Edinborough Park
Playpark and Artwalk Option
$1,s00,000 Assumed 2012-2018 Construction Fund Subsidy of $1,385,000 l00%
'w♦ 90%
♦ _
$1,000,000 ` �'� �
` 80%
72%
70%
$500,000 `
60%
c
50%
40%
$(500,000)
♦ 20%
$(1,000,000)
10%
$(1,500,000) ,,, ' .--- A— -- 0%
Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
2009 .2010• 2011• 2012 2013 20142015 2016 2017 2018 {
» Expense recovery 71% i 77% 85% 71,6 80% 86% 83 1 83% 80% 72%
._,___.....................................,_ _..__._. ,,.__._.__.___......................_..__.....__. _. ._ r .__ __ _ .__ . ......- .. ..
_
.. _... ..... .. . ,. ..
Cash balance $1,350,-112 $1,089,878 ( $993,003 $(631,797) $(651,597) $(677,697) $(747,397) $(983,297) _�
ore
�y
\�COAPOP.A���
rase
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION
To:
Park Board
Agenda Item Item No. VI. B.
From:
John Keprios, Director
Parks & Recreation Department
z Action
F� Discussion
Information
Date: June 12, 2012
Subject:
User Fee Policy Working Group Recommendations
ACTION REQUESTED:
The Park Board's User Fee Working Group is proposing a variety of recommendations
as it relates to the per participant fee for Edina's youth athletic associations as shown in
Attachment A.
INFORMATION/BACKGROUND:
The Park Board's User Fee Working Group (UFWG) spent several months studying the
justification and purpose for the per participant fee for Edina's youth athletic
associations and decided on the following mission as shown in Attachment A:
"The Working Group will evaluate current fee scales and costs associated
with facility use, while also developing policy that may be currently lacking
for potential user groups."
In short, staff supports all of the recommendations proposed by the UFWG with one
minor exception which is 3. B. that states:
"We recommend that associations that exclusively use enterprise facilities
are exempt from the per participant user fee and residency requirements,
because they pay competitive hourly fees to use these facilities."
I agree that youth athletic associations that exclusively use enterprise facilities should
be exempt from the per participant fee; however, the City Council has already
determined that there should be a residency requirement for the Edina Swim Club which
is set at 75%. The UFWG's recommendation would be contrary to current Council
imposed policy.
The UFWG's hard work and proposed recommendations are greatly appreciated. Staff
recommends that the Park Board approve the UFWG's recommendations with the
exception of the residency requirement exemption language in 3. B.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. User Fee Working Group Recommendations
B. Youth Athletic Associations Matrix Appendix
User Fees Working Group Recommendation— 5/16/12
Mission of the User Fees Working Group
The Working Group will evaluate current fee scales and costs associated with facility use,
while also developing policy that may be currently lacking for potential user groups.
Background
The City's current practice of reporting Park and Recreation Department expenses related
to athletic associations' use of City facilities did not allow us to determine variable costs by
athletic association.
The City has four documents outlining the City's relationship with its youth athletic
associations: Priority Use of Edina's Scheduled OutdoorAthletic Facilities Policy (2007),
Priority Use of the Edina School District's Gymnasiums Policy (2007), Priority Use of the Edina
Aquatic Center Facility Policy (2012), and the Relationship Document (2012).
Per participant user fees currently are assessed to all youth athletic associations that use
outdoor athletic facilities' or gymnasiums. The Park Board recently increased the per
participant user fee to $11 per participant for 2012, up from $9 in 2011. Total revenue
from per participant user fees for youth athletic associations in 2010 was $95,697. Total
revenue from participant user fees for City adult athletic program in 2010 was $14,368.
Appendix lists Edina youth athletic associations, the facilities they use, whether or not
they pay the per participant user fee, estimated participants and any hourly fees that they
pay.
The hockey association is assessed a per participant user fee in addition to a fee for the use
of the Braemar facility, because the association also uses the outdoor hockey rinks.
Youth athletic associations may rent City and Edina Public Schools gyms, in addition to
paying the per participant user fee.
In 2010, the City's total field maintenance cost was $327,171.
Following a review of the City Council's 2012 revision of the Priority Use of the Edina
Aquatic Center Facility Policy and the Relationship Document, the working group
discovered two discrepancies:
1. The Relationship Document provides an exception to team eligibility for the Swim
Club. Other clubs make decisions based on ability as well, but are not included in
this exception - the Edina Volleyball Association and Edina Soccer Club.
2. Edina Basketball Association functions like Edina Baseball Association providing
house and traveling leagues for all ages. However, Edina Girls Athletic Association
also offers house league basketball. This conflicts with the "one youth athletic
association per sport" rule.
Not the Edina Swim Club
User Fees Working Group Recommendation— 5/16/12
Recommendations
The User Fees Working Group makes the following recommendations regarding the City's
youth athletic association policy.
1. Per participant user fee
a. Without further information on variable field maintenance costs, we support
the current per participant user fee practice for City recognized official youth
athletic associations2 who use outdoor athletic facilities (green spaces and
outdoor hockey rinks)3 and City -owned gyms where all participants are
assessed the same fee.
b. We recommend staff annually document variable maintenance costs, staffing
costs, capital improvement needs, and in-kind donations by association. This
information will be used to justify future user fee increases.
c. We recommend that per participant user fee increases take effect the
following fiscal year and the fee may not be raised two consecutive years in a
row. This will allow the youth athletic associations more time to adjust their
budgets to accommodate user fee increases.
2. Financial reporting
a. Existing priority use policy documents require youth athletic associations to
submit their financial statements annually. Currently, there is significant
variation in the format of these submissions. We recommend that the
associations submit a financial reporting form developed by City staff.
b. We recommend that the associations be required to report the percent of
youth residents participating in their association along with their financial
statement, since no formal residency reporting method exists at this time.
3. Youth athletic associations that use enterprise facilities
a. Since a second priority use document was recently created for the Edina
Aquatic Center, we recommend creating a third priority use document for
Braemar Arena. This document should recognize Braemar City of Lakes
Figure Skating Club as priority use youth association, and include the Edina
Hockey Association. This document would include similar guidelines outlined
in the existing priority use policy documents.
2 "Priority Use of Edina's Scheduled Outdoor Athletic Facilities Policy", page 2
3 This does not include golf courses, Edina Aquatic Center, or tennis courts
2
User Fees Working Group Recommendation— 5/16/12
b. We recommend that associations that exclusively use enterprise facilities are
exempt from the per participant user fee and residency requirements,
because they pay competitive hourly fees to use these facilities.
4. Tournament policy
a. We recommend that City staff monitor and report these costs separate from
regularly scheduled events.
3
in C
LD
N
^
N
00
-1
00
IDQ
z
vi
G)
00
N
O
^
LD
M
Q
z
N
O
C 0 7
N Ln
O
ll)
O
N
O
u
. 0 o2i
£
-r
0
v v u
- .
N
O S
y
d N N
•--i
N w
.--i
; 00
-4
N
1-1
> m
>_
7 "O U
L
i
N
7
N
U W
�
00
V �
'O
7
O=
O
m L 7
N
U N
N
N
a
3
n v
Y
v `o C
N U m
o
io a
vi
a�
OD Y
v= U
v
N N
N
3= :
m
F
U
W O
U
m
^
o
_
•V
O N
m
U
O
m
L
N T W
J W L
C
U
m m
N
L
m
L
U ?� �+
L
4i
U 'D S
O
a U
''71,1
m tib-• Q^1 V V1 lD
'a N eN-1 N -4
7 i/T t/T L} V? L?
m
a
EL
u
O
m
CL
m Ln
i/}I i/TI i/TI i/?I Ol
i/?
>I >I >1 ZI >
6
O
u
'O
aU
N i
N Ln
L
C
vii L
c6 m
'O
u
. 0 o2i
£
N
0
v v u
- .
N
O S
y
fo S
W
N w
; 00
E C E
U N
W O
> m
>_
7 "O U
L
i
N
7
N
U W
�
� C
'O
7
O=
O
m L 7
N
U N
N
N
a
3
n v
Y
v `o C
N U m
o
io a
vi
a�
OD Y
v= U
v
N N
N
3= :
m
F
U
W O
U
m
^
o
_
•V
O N
m
U
O
O
L
N T W
J W L
C
U
m m
N
L
m
L
U ?� �+
L
4i
U 'D S
O
a U
''71,1
4=
N 3
J N
-6
C
N 0
N
O m
025
� E
E
'O
T
NCL),
N
to
2
-E
W
Y
.6
W
�
i 'a
O
4J F
t'
-O U
L O
d— O
co
w
Y
'�
L
N
U
m
E
m
z
kn
•@
'L U
30
r C
t
m
N
N N
Q
02S
m 'O
N a
7 O
N C
2
W
LL
m w
U E
0 0
> U U
m tl0
2
N
'O m
0
Ln v C
S U
v
)
�
f1.-
N
O
w
N
1
m
f`o
U
W
a)
m t`-
41
O
z
m
G
U
m
W
7
Y
u
Y
_c
m
"'O
U
L
m
7
MQC
0
—
2
O
U
L
Y O
m
—
O
i
00
O
O
i
N
Q
uu
ON
�
OOu
0C
m
O C
NT
'QaOco
+
-2
ro
'ci=
i
O
�
.
Q
co .
iOm
U
N
>mO
O O
Ov
CO O
O
m O
n
O 0
m
m
CQQ
N
C
C
Q
U Q
C
W
WC
W
:D
W
W
W
W
0)W Wb7D
M
W
W
W
O
W
Ln
m
o�e�
• I�CORPOP����
lB9s
REPORT/RECO M MEN DATION
To: Park Board
Agenda Item Item No. VI. C.
From: John Keprios, Director
Parks & Recreation Department
Action
Discussion
Information
Date: June 12, 2012
Subject: Sports Dome Working Group Phase II
ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff recommends that a Sports Dome Working Group be reconvened to address Phase
II as directed by City Council.
INFORMATION/BACKGROUND:
At their June 5th meeting, the City Council approved staff's recommendation to
eliminate the South Metro Training Facility location as a potential site for a sports dome.
The Council also approved staff's recommendation that the next step in the process be
to reconvene the Park Board's Sports Dome Working Group to continue Phase II of the
Sports Dome feasibility study which involves locating a feasible site.
Staff recommends that the Park Board appoint new volunteers members to the Sports
Dome Working Group to fill any vacancies that might be created by those who choose
not to continue to serve on the Working Group.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Sports Dome Feasibility Study — Phase Two Site Location Study
Report/Recommendation
o�e�
0
• jh�oxroP�'���
,888
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION
To: City Council
From: John Keprios
Park and Recreation Department
Agenda Item Item No. VILD.
N Action
Discussion
Date: June 5, 2012 Information
Subject: Sports Dome Feasibility Study - Phase Two Site Location Study
ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff recommends that the City Council eliminate the South Metro Training Facility site
as a potential location for a sports dome. Staff further recommends that the Council
authorize the Park Board's Sports Dome Working Group to reconvene for the purpose
of recommending alternate sites for the Park Board and City Council's consideration.
INFORMATION/BACKGROUND:
At their April 3rd meeting, the City Council directed staff to proceed with the Phase Two,
(Location Phase) of the Sports Dome Feasibility Study. The Council also directed staff
to first study the feasibility of the City owned site south of the South Metro Training
Facility before studying the feasibility of any other sites. The concept of co -locating both
a sports dome and a golf dome was also considered for this location.
Staff proceeded with the Phase Two consultant contract with the Cuningham Group and
Anderson -Johnson Associates on a time and material basis, not to exceed $12,000. On
May 9, the City received the Phase Two report from the Cuningham Group. The report
is attached.
In summary, the consultants found the site to be physically possible as a sports dome
site but not large enough to accommodate a sports dome and golf dome.
The main areas of concern on the site are as follows:
• Because the site is located in a valley, significant grade corrections and retaining
walls would be needed to create a large flat site.
• There are soil issues related to the known lead -contaminated soil storage.
• The existing site serves as a much needed temporary staging area for dumping a
variety of debris such as street sweepings, construction soils & debris, recycling
concrete and asphalt, storm damage, tree debris, etc.
• The need to relocate an essential cold storage facility (large City -owned trucks
and equipment) to another location within the City.
The consultants were asked to provide costs for this site that would be above and
beyond the cost of a more "typical" dome site. Those costs total $1,207,000 and do not
include costs to remove the lead in the holding area, the stabilization/removal of
dumped waste and relocation of the cold storage building. This site would require site
correction costs of up to 25% or more than that of more typical sites that do not have
significant soil and grade correction challenges. Also without the ability to move the
Public Works cold storage facility to the site of the existing golf dome, we no longer
have a suitable site to relocate that much needed facility. The fee to complete this study
totaled $8,500.
City Engineer Wayne Houle has hired Braun Engineering to complete a Phase 1
Environmental Site Assessment to evaluate the site for indication of recognized
environmental conditions and to assist in satisfying All Appropriate inquiries (AAI)
criteria and requirements. The report is attached. Findings show that the following
environmental conditions exist:
A gun range consisting of an indoor range, an outdoor pistol range, and an outdoor
shotgun range was located at the Site from the mid-1970s until the mid- to late -1990s.
The area of the current stormwater retention pond was a former trap shooting range.
The shooting range was orientated in a way so that the earthen embankment acted as a
backstop for the lead shot that was fired. A vegetated area on the central portion of the
Site, west of the cold storage building, is where lead contaminated soil excavated during
the construction of the stormwater retention pond has been encapsulated. According
the MPCA VIC Program database, a Deed Notification Restrictive Covenant (Deed
Restriction) was issued for the Site on January 3, 1999. The Deed Restriction prohibits
any development of the Site which would expose or disturb the contaminated
subsurface without receiving prior written approval from the MPCA or its successors. In
addition, it was reported that the potential exists for additional areas of lead impacted
soil to be located in the embankment east of the stormwater retention pond.
Considering the Site is the location of a potential redevelopment that would disturb the
encapsulated lead contamination soil and require earthwork activities to take place in
the location of the former shooting range east of the current stormwater retention pond,
it is our opinion the encapsulated lead contaminated soil and the potential for additional
lead impacted soil to be encountered at the Site to be considered recognized
environmental conditions.
Historically a large dump was reportedly located on the central and southwestern
portions of the Site. A dump (Edina Street Sweeping Dump) was identified in the
regulatory report. Considering the Site has been occupied by the city of Edina Public
Works Department, which includes the Street Department, the potential exists that the
location of the Edina Street Sweeping Dump may be mis-plotted and actually located at
the Site. Debris reportedly had to be removed prior to the development currently at the
Site. The recycling of concrete and asphalt from street projects in the city of Edina takes
place at the Site. Two large piles were observed on the central portion of the Site. The
eastern pile consisted of pieces of asphalt and concrete and the western pile consisted
of recycled asphalt and concrete that was processed on -Site. The potential exists for
asphalt and concrete to be buried at the Site associated with the on -Site recycling.
Based on the information obtained and aerial photographs reviewed during this
assessment, the potential exists for buried debris to be located at the Site and is
therefore considered a recognized environmental condition.
Based on the Cuningham Group's findings, the South Metro Training Facility site is
physically possible but in staff's opinion the site is not financially feasible and it would be
problematic to relocate the temporary dump site and cold storage building. Therefore,
staff recommends reconvening the Sports Dome Working Group to recommend to the
Park Board and ultimately the City Council an additional one to three sites to be studied.
Once the additional site or sites are approved by Council, the Cuningham Group and
Park and Recreation Consultants, LLC would be hired to complete an additional location
phase analysis of the chosen site(s). As with the Phase Two study of the South Metro
Training Facility site, each site will be analyzed for parking, access/traffic, neighborhood
and environmental impact. They will create a scenario for development of each potential
site addressing scope of construction and estimated project costs, including
approximate land acquisition cost, if any. If sites involve partnering (e.g. between
School District and City), scenarios would include assumptions around ownership,
management and maintenance responsibilities. The consultants could also develop
evaluation criteria and use criteria to identify preferred site and adjust the Phase One
pro forma to reflect anticipated site-specific costs and operations for the preferred site.
Their contract and fee would have to be re -negotiated.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Braun Engineering Report
• Cuningham Group Report