Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-13 Park Board PacketAGENDA CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA PARK BOARD CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Tuesday, September 13, 2011 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes — Regular meeting of August 9, 2011 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 some 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. Revised Turf Management Plan — Energy & Environment Commission B. Enterprise Facility Business Plans C. 2012 Enterprise Facility Budgets D. 2012-2016 Capital Improvement Plans E. Donations Policy and Naming of Parks and Facilities Policy Working Group F. User Fees Working Group G. Artist Finalist for Veterans Memorial Sculpture VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS VIII. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 0 IX. STAFF COMMENTS A. Sports Dome Study Working Group Update B. Edinborough Park Study 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 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PARK BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL AUGUST 9, 2011 7:00 PM L CALL TO ORDER Chairman Hulbert called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm IL ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Deeds, Fronek, Jacobson, Jones, Lough, Meyer, Peterson, Segreto, Steel and Chair Hulbert ILL APPROVAL OFMEETINGAGENDA Motion made by Member Fronek and seconded by Member Deeds approving the meeting agenda. Ayes: Deeds, Fronek, Jacobson, Jones, Lough, Meyer, Peterson, Segreto, Steel, Hulbert Motion carried. IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA Motion made by Fronek and seconded by Member Deeds approving the consent agenda as follows: IV.A. Approval of Minutes —Regular meeting of July 12, 2011 Ayes: Deeds, Fronek, Jacobson, Jones, Lough, Meyer, Peterson, Segreto, Steel, Hulbert • Motion carried. V. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS VA. DONATIONS POLICYAND NAMING OF PARKS AND FACILITIES POLICY WORKING GROUP Member Jones informed the Park Board that she continues to publicize the fact that there is a group that will be working on policy development on naming and donations. She noted that their first meeting will be on September 12'h from 12:30 to 1:30 pm and that they plan on meeting the second and fourth Mondays September and October. She added that she encourages people to bring their lunch and make it a real work session over lunch. Member Jones pointed out that if anyone in the community or on the Park Board is interested in being a part of this working group to contact Janet Canton at City Hall. Chair Hulbert asked if this will be publicized in the Sun Current to which Member Jones replied yes they have sent a press release to the Sun Current. VB. USER FEES WORKING GROUP Member Steel informed the Park Board that it's pretty much the same as Member Jones stated about the donations and naming work group. She explained that the user fee working group will focus on the fee scales and costs associated with the facilities. She added that these meetings will also be held over the lunch hour on the first and third Wednesdays of the month in September and October. Member Steel indicated that they are also looking for members of the public as well as they are looking for user groups to provide input as well. Member Jones indicated that she has been going over the youth athletic association's relationship with the Park Board. She asked Mr. Keprios if it would be possible to get the athletic association's financial statements before their first meeting. Mr. Keprios replied to just let him know what it is exactly they would like and he would be happy to provide them with either an electronic and/or hard copy. V.C. SPORTS DOME STUDY COMMITTEE Chair Hulbert informed the Park Board that there have been a couple of public meetings in regards to the Sports Dome proposal. He indicated that the City Council has requested that the Park Board put together a work group to study the need for such an athletic facility. He commented that he thinks they have learned recently that there is a need for these types of facilities. Members Fronek, Deeds, Jacobson, Hulbert and Jones stated they would like to participate in the work group. Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that he sees this as a two-part process. He noted that Ann Kattreh has been assigned the duty to be the lead staff person to put the study together and she is going to see this through from start to finish. Mr. Keprios explained that the first thing the City Council would like to see done is have a public facility inventory of all of the City of Edina's publicly owned recreational facilities. He stated that secondly they would like the work group to determine the feasibility of putting a sports dome or bubble in the City of Edina on one of their publicly owned properties. Mr. Keprios indicated that the City Council has allocated up to $20,000 to help them with the study and as he sees it that money would go into the feasibility part; what it is going to cost to prepare the site, to build the facility, how would it be financed and what would it cost to operate. He stated that these are the kinds of details that these consultants are experts at and is where he thinks these dollars should be spent. Mr. Keprios indicated the rest of it with the committee's input and direction Ms. Kattreh and staff will collect the information the group would like to have because there are a variety of directions this may play out. Member Meyer stated that he thinks they were very specific about mentioning city owned or managed facilities and asked if they will take into account school district facilities. He added that it may factor into this because some of the associations use the school district facilities as well. Mr. Keprios replied that Ms. Kattreh and he asked the City Manager that question to which Mr. Neal agrees it is an important part of the study. Therefore, although the City Council did not direct us to inventory School District facilities, he agrees with Mr. Meyer that School District facilities should be part of the study. Member Deeds made a motion, seconded by Chair Hulbert approving the working group for the Sports Dome Study Committee. Ayes: Deeds, Fronek, Jacobson, Jones, Lough, Meyer, Peterson, Segreto, Steel, Hulbert Motion carried. VD. 2012-2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS Mr. Keprios gave a power point presentation on the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the Park and Recreation Department. He noted that the Park Board will be receiving CIP's for the enterprise facilities for the September Park Board meeting. He indicated that the CIP is a five year plan but a one year budget and although they try to anticipate how they are going to spend their money five years from now the City Council only approves budget dollars for one year in advance. He added that although he won't be asking the Park Board to vote on this until next month's meeting he wants to go over some information for the Park Board to think about and/or ask questions before the September meeting. Mr. Keprios informed the park Board that a survey was done in 2006 that had a 95% level of confidence with a plus or minor error of 3.4 which is phenomenal for a community survey. He stated that the number one thing on the list was the maintenance of parks so before they build anything new they need to be sure they have money in the budget to cover the maintenance and upkeep of the parks. He noted that recently a Quality of Life survey was completed about how the residents feel about their services and facilities in Edina and the results show that residents feel very good about their parks and programs. Mr. Keprios indicated that one thing on the schedule for 2012 is the "Natural Resources Inventory Assessment" and noted this was something that didn't come from staff but was Park Board driven from several years back. He stated that as staff he would recommend that the Park Board hold off on this N because it would cost approximately $100,000 to do a study like this similar to what was done in the City of Northfield and in fact that is where the idea came from. He indicated that a former Park Board member was the Director of Resource and Park Planning for the City of Northfield. He commented that it seemed like a great idea at that time; however, the reason their study was done in the first place was because Northfield was going through a very strong growth period and they were very sensitive about the types of lands they were going to convert to development. He pointed out that is not the case or scenario for Edina. Therefore he is recommending that Park Board delay or completely pull this off the map for now, largely because of their economic times as well as it's not something he feels is high on the priority list. Mr. Keprios went through the master plan at Countryside Park and explained that to complete the master plan they would need to replace the shelter building with a new one as well as put a hockey rink back in but, this time, in the correct north/south orientation. He pointed out there are no dollars in the CIP to do this; however, he recently learned that it sounds like the "Waters Development" at Colonial Church is going to happen and with that there will be just under $700,000 going into the Developers Fund. Therefore there will probably have enough money to do almost the entire master plan. He commented that his question to the Park Board to think about is should we use that money to complete the Countryside mater plan in the next year or two. Member Meyer asked if the 2012 projects are the same ones that Park Board approved last year without changes to which Mr. Keprios replied that is correct. Chair Hulbert noted that it states parking lot expansions at Pamela Park in the 2013 CIP and asked if the west parking lot was going to be made wider because it's really tight. Mr. Keprios responded that the Pamela Park master plan shows 37 additional spaces on the west parking lot, 23 additional spaces on the south parking lot and 15 additional spaces on the north parking lot. Chair Hulbert commented that his daughter plays soccer there and parking is really crazy and people ask if they can park on the grass area where the open skating rink is. He asked if perhaps they could put some Class 5 gravel in that area so there could be more parking now. Mr. Keprios replied that is something they can look at if it's really bad but that they will be expanding those parking lots in 2013. However, if it is really that bad they could maybe look at doing something on a temporary basis. He added he will consult with the City Engineer and traffic safety folks to make sure they would not be creating an unsafe condition. Member Deeds asked if they have considered a turf field where the proposed field is located given drainage issues and wear and tear. Mr. Keprios replied they did consider that but after a lengthy public process with the neighborhood it was decided it would not be a very good fit for that neighborhood to have artificial turf. He noted that what they wanted was to have a field like those at Braemar and Lewis Park which are exceptional fields and wonderfully drained but they are on sand peat. He commented that Pamela Park does not have that surface but it could possibly be converted to a sand/peat athletic field. Member Jones asked if in the plan they are adding any fields they don't currently have. Mr. Keprios replied in the master plan for Pamela Park they are adding a more defined field because the current field is not a very safe field. Member Jones asked is this being proposed for 2014 to which Mr. Keprios replied yes, the new athletic field for Pamela is not any different from what they approved last year. Mr. Keprios added that isn't to say it still can't be changed because priorities can change; however, they feel 2014 is a good time to have it done. Mr. Keprios explained that there are still a lot of things that are needed or desired in addition to the 5 year CIP. He noted that the Edina Baseball Association has a wonderful wish list of some improvements . they would like to make at the Courtney Ball fields and if you total it up it comes to approximately 1.5 million dollars. He informed the Park Board this is something they will be hearing a lot more about 1;3 because they anticipate it to be done through some fundraising efforts and could be added to the list of unfunded projects. Mr. Keprios went through the unfunded CIP park project for the Park Board to think about before their next meeting. Member Deeds stated that before they get serious about this next month could the Park Board get some usage data and demand data regarding hockey versus the rectangular fields. He noted he thinks they may have to make some potential trade-offs because which one are we shorter of. Mr. Keprios replied that he would be happy to get that data but doesn't know that it necessarily becomes either one or the other. He noted that he thinks that will come out as part of the facilities inventory that Ms. Kattreh is heading up. He commented that with some direction he thinks that would be a good question to ask them to do but that he would happy to get that for them. Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that they will be hearing more from all of their enterprise facilities managers at the September meeting. He noted that in addition to the enterprise facilities' CIPS they will also be acting on their proposed fees and charges and requesting review and comment on their proposed budgets. Member Lough asked Mr. Keprios how unfunded projects become funded; are they added into the fifth year of a five year plan and they slowly progress their way forward. Mr. Keprios responded that is exactly how it happens and that the City Council relies very much on the Park Board's input to make that happen. Member Lough asked what puts the dollar limitation on what they might choose to do. For example why wouldn't they just roll all of it forward to this year, what is the process by which the funding actually takes place? Mr. Keprios replied he doesn't have a very good answer to that other than he hears when the request for funding is too high and needs to be lowered. He stated there is no policy in place that shows how much money they get. Member Lough asked if typically that money comes from the general fund or donations. Mr. Keprios explained that is a great question for the Finance Director, its tax money bottom line but the funds it draws from the Finance Director would need to explain and he would be happy to invite him to a Park Board meeting to explain it. Member Lough indicated that maybe this would be something for a subcommittee because he would be interested in the process. Member Deeds replied he would also be interested as well as he is a little curious about how the endowment for Edinborough Park is being managed and the return on it. Mr. Keprios stated he would encourage Mr. Deeds to meet one on one with the Finance Director on how that is managed because there is a portfolio with many pages that shows a variety of funds. Member Steel indicated regarding the "Natural Resources Inventory Assessment" she is trying to think of it in terms of capital improvement and asked if an assessment would generally be included in the CIP. Mr. Keprios explained the reason it's there is because it's too big of an item to fall into the operational budget that's approved by the City Council and that's the only other source of funding that they could really draw from. Member Steel asked so capital improvements are just limited to maintenance and infrastructure type of things and if they were to have another type of assessment they would include it in the CIP if it was a large sum. Member Steel explained that what she is trying to understand is how an inventory assessment contributes to improving capital versus another inventory assessment and where do they draw the line as to what should be considered a capital improvement. Mr. Keprios replied that he thinks in this case because it was Park Board driven from the start there was really no other fund to take care of that project because it seemed to be a high priority at that time. Other than their capital improvement plan there is no other budget to draw from. He noted that arguably it may or may not be a capital improvement but it is more or less that that is where the money is available. Member Steel commented so if they were to choose to not include this in the CIP there would not be a funding source for this particular project in the next couple years or could they request funding in a couple of years. Mr. Keprios replied that they certainly could request that it come back and be funded at a future date that :1 would be a very appropriate recommendation. Chair Hulbert asked could they remove it and use those funds for some unfunded capital improvements that may potentially be a greater benefit to the community. Mr. Keprios replied that is going to become your decision as a Park Board at the September meeting. He added that he would encourage the Park Board members to talk to their neighbors, friends, etc., and find out what they may feel is important in the list of priorities. Member Segreto asked Mr. Keprios if she could receive a copy of the Park Board minutes so she can see how this came about and what the concerns were at that time. Mr. Keprios replied he will do that as well as give her the survey booklet that was conducted for the City of Northfield. Member Segreto stated that she can understand the reluctance to do a 100% coverage inventory of Edina but she also wants to be sensitive that there are some environmental areas especially in wetlands or perhaps around Nine Mile Creek. She noted that there is a bike trail that is being constructed and perhaps if they could get a square footage of what it is they want inventoried that the price may go down and there would be more room for it in the budget. Mr. Keprios replied that Three Rivers Park District has spent over $50,000 to study the environmental effects of putting the trail where it is currently proposed. The Three Rivers Park District learned from that they do not need to take the next step which would be to conduct an Environmental Impact Study. He pointed out that it is the Watershed District's duty to determine what the impact on wetlands will be, so this really wouldn't cover that anyway. He indicated this is really more of the natural woodlands which are mostly at Braemar and many other parks with wooded areas. Member Segreto stated that she will read the study and be prepared to perhaps discuss it at the September meeting. Member Jones stated that in looking at the CIP she would like to try to make sure that they stick with their priority criteria and for the next meeting she would like to see the schedule for replacement of all of the playground equipment, as well as the warming houses. Mr. Keprios replied that Mr. MacHolda has done a great job in keeping an intelligent, well thought out schedule of playground equipment replacement. He stated that the replacement plan itself doesn't go beyond 10 or 15 years but explained that one of the problems is some of the equipment will last 20 to 30 years or more so it's not that it absolutely has to be replaced but it gets to an age where the neighborhoods say they would like the newer and better equipment that they saw in another park. He pointed out there is a schedule they have been following and they are almost caught up and he will be sure the Park Board gets a copy of that schedule. Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board in terms of the older shelter buildings it really becomes a judgment call. He explained the reason he throws that out there is because he is proposing only one gets replaced in the next five years. He stated that if the Park Board would like to change that it's an old battle of priority of which is more important because they were all built the same year. He noted that it's going to become the Park Board's recommendation when you think they should be replaced or is there something more important that should happen before that and so there is no schedule on the shelter buildings. Member Jones asked Mr. Keprios if he could give her the dates they were built to which he replied yes. Member Jones asked if the monies from the "The Waters" need to be used at Countryside Park to which Mr. Keprios replied no, it could be used for something else if the Park Board and City Council choose to do so. Member Deeds asked Mr. Keprios if they are at the end of the useful life for the golf dome. He explained the reason he asks is because if there is currently a consultant studying Braemar Golf Course and there is the possibility of a sports dome would it be possible to extend its life another year or two before spending that $460,000 since there is a potential for changes. Mr. Keprios replied that he just had a conversation with Todd Anderson, Manager of Braemar Golf Course, who informed him he would like to adjust his proposed CIP to not replace the building. He noted that Manager Anderson would like to purchase and install only the structural steel needed to support the dome and yet maintain the structural integrity of the building. This would give the dome something to hang onto rather than the wood 5 structure. He added that Mr. Anderson feels he can get several more years out of that building by making that investment to which it will cost significantly less. Member Meyer commented that in looking at the unfunded CIP projects it shows $400,000 for additional landscaping and asked how many projects does that include? In addition, are those things they should be chipping away at on some sort of ongoing basis. Mr. Keprios replied there isn't a specific plan as far as landscaping that he can show the Park Board. He explained that former Park and Recreation Director, Bob Kojetin, always told him they never got to the final plan of the Park Development because they never had the funding to finish what he sees as the landscaping. He noted that $400,000 could be spent literally on landscaping to plant trees, shrubs and flowers although he thinks that would be a lot. He commented that this project is completely staff driven from notes and history. Member Meyer stated that he thinks because it is such a large amount it never gets done. He suggested spending $50,000 or $25,000 a year on landscaping and it would start to make some of that happen. Mr. Keprios commented that he should probably adjust that number and that his staff actually does a great job of chipping away at it by planting trees, shrubs, etc. so they do slowly pick away at it but there are still a lot of projects that he sees out there that can still get done. Member Meyer commented that he sees lighting listed and asked if any of the items are safety issues because if there are they may want to consider making those a higher priority. Mr. Keprios explained that the one they are still addressing is the question of proper lighting for the Courtney ball fields. He noted that lighting the fields was done five or six years ago. He indicated that it has been brought to their attention, even though they had the Edina Baseball Association (EBA) involved in the design, that the EBA feels that the upper level lighting is a little dangerous and that they lose sight of the baseball during night games on really high fly balls. He commented that in his 34 years he has never heard of a player getting injured from not seeing a ball coming out of the dark sky. Mr. Keprios stated that they do prioritize the safety items which he thinks they have done and are listed on the schedule. Member Deeds asked staff whether lighting would be a fairly inexpensive way of extending their ability to use some of the fields given where they are running into a lot of congestion. Mr. Keprios responded that it's clearly a lesser expensive method than trying to create new green space somewhere. He explained that the problem they run into with lighting is which field do you light and is it politically palatable. He added that when the parks were initially built they were located in neighborhoods where kids could walk to the park. Edina did not build large athletic field complexes in non-residential areas similar to other newer communities. When you start putting up lights in these parks it can be difficult. Member Meyer stated on the various projects on the CIP he is noticing different funds where the funding is coming out of. He noted that four of them list the construction fund as the source and asked where do those dollars come from? Mr. Keprios replied that those again are great questions for their Finance Director to explain how does the construction fund get funded and why it is called that? Member Steel indicated she would like to hear from the Finance Director on how their budget falls within the City of Edina. What is the percentage that their CIP constitutes? Year to year are the City priorities reflected in their year to year CIP? She noted she understands they come from a need basis but is there a bigger overall city plan. Mr. Keprios replied that is a complex question to answer because funding comes from so many sources, there is state aid for roads, special assessments, etc., where they do and don't compete for dollars. He pointed out that for many years they used to get $150,000 a year and that was their CIP they had to live with for the year. He noted that all of the large maintenance items had to wait and he credits Gordon Hughes, former City Manager, for turning that around. It wasn't until his era that they started to get some significant dollars. He indicated that when he first became Park Director he recognized that they first needed to keep up with what they have in place before they build anything new and so Mr. MacHolda and he work hard to get a referendum which they did and it passed for 5.5 million and it ended up being mostly maintenance. Mr. Keprios stated that R since then they've heard from their voters we should not go to a referendum for maintenance but find ways to maintain existing infrastructure without having to borrow money. He commented that he thinks they've done a good job of trying to continually improve that fund to where they can afford to do more things. Members Deeds asked if there is a source that is generating donations to help support Edina Parks and Recreation. Is there a place where a citizen can contribute and donate to a tax deductible 501 (C) 3 organization that could potentially help with some of this? Mr. Keprios explained there are two: the City of Edina itself and the Edina Community Foundation. Member Meyer asked if the $300,000 that is listed in 2016 at the Aquatic Center a major update or just a plan modification. Mr. MacHolda replied it's actually a replacement of the play structure in the zero depth pool. Member Meyer asked staff if they could get some guidance in the unfunded CIP projects. He asked if they could pick out the top 20% or top third because maybe they could start plugging in some of those items and help to start build up some priority. He commented if there are any other smaller projects that are not on the list to please add them. Member Peterson asked how much a used Zamboni would be worth. He also asked why it can't be rehabbed or maybe the company could take theirs and fix it, clean it up and replace the parts and give it back to them. Mr. Keprios replied that would be a great question for the arena manager at next month's meeting. Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that they will be called upon at their next meeting to make some tough decisions. He noted it's an important part of what the Park Board does in prioritizing for the community where the dollars ought to be spent next year with the capital dollars they have at hand. VI. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Member Lough indicated that their student member, Felix Pronove, sent the Park Board a very good email and would like to have it included with the minutes. Member Lough made a motion, seconded by Member Steel to have Felix Pronove's e-mail included in the August Park Board minutes. Ayes: Deeds, Fronek, Jacobson, Jones, Lough, Meyer, Peterson, Segreto, Steel, Hulbert Motion carried. Member Peterson stated that it seems like they spend an enormous amount of money on parking lots. He suggested maybe they look at the possibility of having a joint committee between the Park Board and Transportation Commission. He noted maybe they could buy 10 good buses, bus the teams and families to the various parks. He commented that it seems to him they would save an awful lot of money. VII. STAFF COMMENTS VIIA. Golf Course Study Presentation —August 30, 2011 Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that the golf course study will be presented on Tuesday, August 30th at 5:30 pm in the Council Chambers. He asked that the Park Board members please attend. He noted that Richard Singer will be presenting his findings and his recommendations. He indicated that once he receives the written report he will forward it on to the Park Board members. VIIB. Edinborough Park Study Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board they have hired ATS&R to conduct the study. He noted that Susie Miller will be the lead staff person working very closely with it and that it should be completed in 7 December at the latest. Mr. Keprios added that ATS&R did a great job in the interview and that he thinks they will do an excellent job. VII.C. Veteran's Memorial Update Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that the Veterans Memorial Committee received 13 submittals for the artist/sculptor for the eagle focal point of the memorial. He indicated that the committee, with the help of the Edina Public Art Committee, was able to narrow it down to four for interviews. After the interviews it was unanimous to enter into a contractual agreement with Robert Eccleston from Lake Placid, New York as their artist/sculptor, to which he was very pleased with the outcome. Member Meyer asked what is the fundraising status with the Veterans Memorial Committee. Mr. Keprios replied that the fundraising has not kicked off yet, it's kind of the cart before the horse thing. The committee is waiting until they have a plan to show prospective donors before they kick off their fundraiser. He indicated that there is a committee that is working towards a plan on what type of process they are going to follow. He added that a lot of it is coming up with names and getting people involved. Mr. Keprios stated that they are not going to be able to spend a dime until they have money in the bank and that the Edina Community Foundation is the keeper of the bank. Member Jones asked what is the process and timeline for the committee to show the Park Board the plan. Mr. Keprios replied as soon as they have decided on the final plan they will make a formal presentation and recommendation to the Park Board. He stated that at that point they will have a recommendation for the public process to then take place. He indicated that the Public Hearing will definitely take place at the City Council meeting; however, they would like to have an Open House similar to the Nine Mile Trail Open House and so that process will be brought to you for approval. There being no further business on the Park Board Agenda, Chair Hulbert declared the meeting adjourned at 8:13 pm. q:3 REPORURECOMMEN DATION To: EDINA PARK BOARD From: John Keprios, Director Park and Recreation Department Agenda Item Item No. VI. A. Action Discussion Date: September 13, 2011 F-1 Information Subject: Revised Turf Management Plan — Energy & Environment Commission ACTION REQUESTED: The Edina Energy and Environment Commission (EEC) requests that the Park Board recommend that the City Council adopt the EEC's revisions to the Turf Management Plan (Attachment A). INFORMATION/BACKGROUND: The Edina Energy and Environment Commission formed a Working Group which they called The Turf Management Task Force to update and revise the Park and Recreation Department's Turf Management Plan. Their proposed revisions are shown in Attachment A. The EEC also solicited the Edina Health Advisory Commission's input. Copies of their email responses are included in this packet. Park Maintenance Superintendent Vince Cockriel and I also responded to the proposed changes in a co-authored email which is also included in this packet. 1 ATTACHMENTS: • Turf Management Plan Revised June 2011 (Attachment A) • August 2, 2011 email from Dianne Plunkett Latham • August 3, 2011 email from Carolyn Peterson • August 3, 2011 email from Julie Mellum • August 3, 2011 email from Mary (winklavelle@comcast.net) • August 3, 2011 email from Matthew Doscotch • August 4, 2011 email from Carolyn Peterson • August 4, 2011 email from Julie Mellum • August 6, 2011 email from Matthew Doscotch • August 22, 2011 email from John Keprios • August 22, 2011 email from Germana Paterlini • August 22, 2011 email from Dianne Plunkett Latham 2 (Attachment A) EDINA PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TURF MANAGEMENT PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Revised June 2011 Introduction The City of Edina owns and maintains over 1,500 acres of beautiful park land, wooded areas and open space within its city boundaries. Approximately 600 acres are grassy areas that are routinely maintained on a mowing schedule. In addition, the Edina Park and Recreation Department also maintains many acres of highway islands and boulevards. Part of the maintenance responsibility includes controlling undesirable and/or injurious pests, such as weeds, insects and fungus to an acceptable level of tolerance. Some of the Edina Park Maintenance Department turf management practices that have been used in the past have included the use of fertilizers and herbicides. Terminology By dictionary definition, pesticides are chemicals used to kill pests, such as insects and rodents. Herbicides are chemicals used to eradicate (kill) plants, such as weeds and grasses. In fact, the term "cide" means killer. The word "pesticides", however, is commonly used as the term that includes all the "cides" in the industry, such as fungicides, insecticides, and herbicides. In other words, all herbicides are considered to be a type of pesticide. There are 18 major pesticides that are used in approximately 2,100 different lawn care products. Selective herbicides are chemicals that are designed to eradicate specific plants, such as broad leaf weeds, while not harmfully affecting other plant species that share common turf, such as desirable grasses. One of the most commonly used selective herbicide chemical is 2,4-D. Non-selective herbicides are chemicals that are designed to eradicate all "green" plant life. In other words, Non-selective herbicides, such as Roundup (a water soluble Non-selective herbicide brand name manufactured by Monsanto Company), are used to kill all green plants, such as all turf grasses and weeds. Non-selective herbicides essentially block the photosynthetic process in plants. Turf areas that have been treated with Non-selective herbicides can be re -turfed (seeded or sodded) within a week after application. Non-selective herbicides are commonly used to kill green growth around trees and under fencing to eliminate the need for labor intensive grass/weed trimming. Organic herbicides are non -chemicals, often plant -based such as corn gluten, that work by inhibiting root formation at the time of germination. The timing of application is very important for the treatment to be effective. Turf must be treated before weeds germinate. Organic herbicides have low or no toxicity for humans and animals and break down rapidly in the environment after application. Histo One of the turf management practices that has been used by the Edina Park Maintenance Department to control weeds and other undesirable grasses has included broadcast applications of selective herbicides by licensed herbicide applicators. This practice has long been viewed as an economical approach to weed control. The largest grassy areas of the Edina Park System have typically been treated with selective herbicides (sprayed on in a liquid form) once per year in the Spring. These large area applications have been carried out by Edina Park Maintenance staff who have been trained and licensed by the Minnesota State Department of Agriculture. The smaller areas, such as roadway triangles and islands, that are more labor intensive to maintain, have been annually treated with selective herbicides in the Spring by contracted turf care companies, such as True Green ChemLawn. The heavily scheduled athletic fields throughout the Edina Park System have typically been treated with selective herbicides in a liquid form in the Spring and have received an application of weed and feed granular (combination fertilizer and selective herbicide) in the Fall of the year. Fertilizers are typically applied once or twice annually to turf areas in need of nutrients to maintain healthy grasses. Fertilizers are not herbicides and are not considered to be a member of the "pesticide" family. Fertilizers are essentially nutrients (food) for grass plants. The large open grassy areas throughout the Edina Park System have not been treated with fertilizers in past practices, mainly due to economic reasons. In the past, the Edina Park and Recreation Department has used non-selective herbicides, such as Roundup, to eliminate green growth around trees, under fencing, around hockey boards and in cracks that develop in tennis courts and hard surface areas, such as basketball courts. This practice has been an economical approach to grass and weed trimming, mainly for aesthetic purposes. The eradication of weeds and grasses that develop in cracks in tennis courts and hard surfaces courts has been done for two main reasons: 1 Eliminate hazardous play surface conditions (safety reasons). 2 Minimize further damage to the hard surface area (economic reasons). The main goal of the Edina Park and Recreation Department's turf management plan has long been to maintain safe and aesthetic turf in the most economical fashion allowed by law. The Edina Park and Recreation Department's past practices have been carried out by hard working, dedicated and well trained maintenance personnel who take great pride in their work. The City of Edina and its Park Maintenance Department have always been concerned and conscious of the impact of its turf maintenance practices on human and animal health and the environment. Because the most important factor in applying herbicides is safety (especially that of children), the Park and Recreation Department has voluntarily made (and continues to make) changes in its own methodology in the application of herbicides to help minimize herbicide exposure to children. During the Spring of 1994, several concerned residents questioned the potential health hazards associated with the Edina Park and Recreation Department's turf management practices. At the Edina City Council meeting on Monday, June 20, 1994, the Edina City Council directed staff to work with Edina Community Health Advisory Committee (ECHSAC) to establish a plan and a process that addresses the concerns of the use of herbicides on City owned property. ECHSAC July 13, 1994, Meeting The ECHSAC met on Monday, July 13, 1994, to discuss this issue. After lengthy discussion, it was determined that the goal should be to find alternative methods of turf management to control pests, such as weeds, that require considerably less or no herbicides. The issue regarding the potential health hazards and environmental impact associated with the use of herbicides was discussed and there was clearly debate on both sides of the issue. It was determined by the ECHSAC that, at this point in time, there is not enough undisputed conclusive evidence that suggests that the Edina Park and Recreation Department's current use of herbicides does or does not pose potential health or environmental hazards. Therefore, the recommendation of the ECHSAC was for the City of Edina to establish a turf management plan that errs on the safe side of herbicide use. The action taken by the ECHSAC at that meeting was as follows: Bob Wilkins MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT WORK WITH THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IN CREATING A CLASSIFICATION OF PARK PROPERTIES AND RECOMMEND AN APPLICATION PROCESS THAT WOULD LIMIT AND REDUCE USE OF HERBICIDES IN RESPONSE TO CITIZENS CONCERN. AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO HERBICIDE USE, THE COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS INVESTIGATING INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM), A PROGRAM EMPHASIZING FERTILIZING, SEEDING, AND MOWING. THIS PROGRAM WOULD BE REVIEWED BY THE COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR IMPLEMENTATION IF THERE IS PROVEN EFFECTIVENESS. Audrey Runyan SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED. At the August 1, 1994, City Council meeting, the Edina City Council directed the staff to research and recommend a plan to reduce the use of herbicides on public properties and present the recommendations initially to the Edina Community Health Services Advisory Committee. The ECHSAC was asked to review staff s recommendations for alternatives for turf management during the month of December, 1994. The plan was to then have staff take the ECHSAC's recommendations to the Edina Park Board at the January, 1995, Park Board meeting. The Edina City Council has further directed that the matter then be brought before the Edina City Council on Monday, February 6, 1995. At the November 16th ECHSAC meeting, the ECHSAC was concerned about the long term effects of herbicide use, as well as, recommending a realistic and acceptable plan using preventative measures that will benefit people 20 to 30 years from now. The ECHSAC determined that there is good reason to establish a plan and policy that reduces the amount of herbicide use on public and private lands. Through this study, it was learned that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registers, rather than licenses, herbicides and pesticides. Therefore, the EPA does not guarantee the safety of the products they review. The EPA can, however, require testing of products and recently stipulated, for example, that the 2-4, D manufacturers repeat an animal -cancer study. The EPA has also asked the industry to take voluntary risk -reduction measures while the study proceeds. According to the 1993 General Accounting Office (GAO) Report, the EPA is more concerned with the health effects of one-time or short-term exposures to MCPP and dicamba along with 2,4-D (which are "licensed herbicides" currently used by the Edina Park and Recreation Department). The 1993 GAO Report also states that dicamba and 2,4-D are deemed "restricted use candidates" by the EPA due to groundwater concerns. The one fact that is most commonly misunderstood by the public is that an EPA "licensed herbicide" is not necessarily "safe" with regards to human and /or environmental health. Through this study we have further learned that the EPA has not yet developed guidelines to assess the health effects of human exposure to pesticides after they are applied to lawns. In particular, the EPA is concerned about the persistence of pesticides in the environment and potential effect on children, who may have more contact with treated lawns than adults (1993 GAO report). Edina Park Board January 10, 1995 Meeting At the January 10, 1995 Edina Park Board meeting, the Edina Park Board took the following action: Mr. Fee MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT WE ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ECHSAC AND RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY ADOPT THE TURF MANAGEMENT PLAN AS PRESENTED IN THE REPORT SUBJECT TO ANNUAL REVIEW OR SOONER IF DETERMINED NECESSARY. John Dovolis SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES There are various but limited turf management practices that promote healthy grass growth and turf stability while minimizing weed growth without the use of herbicides. The goal is to create a strong and healthy grass that dominates weed growth. Ideally, the goal is to maintain healthy turf grasses while controlling the percentage of pests (weeds) within a predetermined tolerance level without the use of herbicides. Desirable grasses need four main elements to survive: 1 Air 2 Water 3 Food (nutrients) 4 Sunlight Grasses cannot survive when any of the above elements are absent. The most important element is air. In other words, if soil is too compacted, grasses cannot breath. The second most critical element is water. Desirable grasses do not compete well against weeds and undesirable grass plants in drought conditions. The fact is that weed plants (such as knotweed) and undesirable grass plants (such as sandbur) are typically much hardier plants than desirable grasses (such as bluegrass or ryegrass). If left to nature without any interference of turf maintenance, weeds and undesirable grasses will eventually dominate the turf. In some cases, a weed dominated turf can lead to unsafe or intolerable turf conditions for certain turf users, such as softball, baseball, soccer and football players and golfers. Integrated pest management practices that help desirable grasses best compete with weeds are as follows: 1 Irrigation 2 Aeration 3 Proper drainage 4 More frequent mowing schedule whenever possible (ideally never cut more than 1/3 of the grass plant each cut) 5 Set mowers higher (cut grasses ideally at 2 ''/2") 6 Proper fertilization schedule (more frequent and smaller quantities per application, plus proper timing) 7 Over seeding (slit seeding) 8 Top dressing 9 Use most durable grass seed mixture selections 10 Sodding where practical 11 Minimizing thatch where needed 12 Spot use applications (as opposed to broadcast applications) of least toxic herbicides only in cases where the intended activity would be intolerably compromised or when an economic or potential human injury is at risk To achieve the goal to use the least amount of herbicides possible, staff is proposing the following IPM based turf management plan: TURF MANAGEMENT PLAN (GOALS) 1 Identify existing pests, such as weeds, and their current percentage make up of existing ground cover. 2 Identify stressed areas of turf and evaluate IPM based options for treatment of the problem. 3 Establish a classification of Edina's public -owned park lands and open space and establish a weed tolerance level to each property. 4 Establish reasonable investments needed and desired to assure best results utilizing IPM based principles in turf management. 5 Routinely monitor and analyze success of IPM based turf management program in writing: a Identify the pest (weed) and the size (density) of its infestation. b Keep records of effectiveness of treatment on solving each turf problem; irrigation, fertilization, mowing, aeration, dethaching, and, as a last resort, use of least toxic chemical. c Keep records of citizen complaints and comments related to turf management program. 6 Develop a list of acceptable management strategies for eradication of weeds when weed dominance exceeds predetermined tolerance levels, such as: Predetermine a list of herbicides that are effective against the targeted pest (weed) but is least disruptive to the environment, and human and animal health. Use methods of selective spot treatments instead of broadcast treatments whenever possible. Post signage before, during and after applying herbicides. Apply herbicides only as a last resort. Consult a professional turf restoration professional before determining that herbicides are necessary. It is recommended to continue this practice for a minimum of two years. Making sure that herbicides are applied by only licensed herbicide applicators. 7 Designate a responsible individual (or individuals) for making decisions to carry out and evaluate the turf management plan. 8 Educate full-time maintenance staff as to best turf management practices using integrated pest management approaches to pest control. In other words, become self-reliant to avoid long-term reliance on consulting expertise. 9 Promote and educate the public as to responsible effective private lawn care practices. Encourage the public to implement integrated pest management practices on their private properties. Turf Management Task Force The Turf Management Task Force was formed in September 2010 at the request of the Energy and Environment Commission (EEC) as a response to Edina residents' concerns on the use of herbicides in parks and children play areas. The Task Force consisted of one member each from the EEC commission, the Community and Health Committee and the Park Board. The City was represented by the Superintendent of Parks. The Task Force reviewed the original Turf Management Plan and evaluated how it \Nas implemented from 1994 to date. It was discovered that herbicides were not always applied according to the plan. Residents' concerns about excessive dandelion weeds in untreated areas (classified as "C" in the plan) had prompted treatment of those areas with one-time sprang of the herbicide 2.4 D early in the spring_ Organic herbicides have been shown to be as an effective non-toxic alternative for lawn care. Unlike chemicals, however. organic plications require additional attention to proper timing and weather conditions. Typically, it takes three to four seasons to eliminate weeds, compared with just one application per season for the chemicals. The Turf Management Task Force concluded that organics can be easily intepgrated within the current turf managementpracticed by staff. Organics will be the environmental preferable alternative to treating areas that have 25% tolerance for weeds and are located at or near children play areas. The revised plan uses a new label "O" to indicate turf areas that will be treated with organics. Signs will be posted near children play areas to make it known that they have not been chemically treated. The Turf Management Task Force recommends re\ iewing turf management practices eveLy five years. \\ ith the goal of progressively decreasing the use of chemical pesticides. WEED TOLERANCE CLASSIFICATION FOR CITY OF EDINA OWNED PROPERTY WEED TOLERANCE CLASSIFICATION FOR CITY OF EDINA OWNED PROPERTY In 1995, the City of Edina adopted the following standards to Edina's public -owned parklands and open space. Next to each classified public land or open space, is a suggested category (A -D) designation as to the level of weed tolerance proposed for that particular area. In turn, each classification dictates the type of turf management needed for that specific ground cover. The definition of each category is as follows: CATEGORY A These areas shall have a 0-5% tolerance for weeds. In other words, herbicides will not be applied to these ground covers until weed growth makes up 5% of the total ground cover and it has been determined that there are no other reasonable methods of weed control. CATEGORY B These areas shall have a 15%-25% tolerance for weeds. In other words, herbicides will not be applied to these ground covers until weed growth makes up 15%-25% of the total ground cover and it has been determined that there are no other reasonable methods of weed control: CATEGORY C These areas shall have a 100% tolerance for weeds. In other words, herbicides will not be used as a means to eradicate weeds with the exception of noxious weeds or other exotics mandated by State Law. If necessary, where needed or desired, these areas will undergo a returfinent (restoration),-) which will replace or restore existing ground cover. CATEGORY D These are areas that are subject to special herbicide applications, such as eradication of noxious weeds as mandated by Minnesota State law and the creation of oak savanna forests. In essence, all public -owned and private -owned properties are subject to category in the event that noxious weeds are present. CATEGORY O These areas shall have a 15%-25% tolerance for weeds. These areas are scheduled and non- scheduled athletic fields located near schools or untreated areas. It is desirable to reduce the amount of chemicals in these areas to avoid unnecessary health and environmental risks. These areas shall either be treated with organics, or revert to category C. These areas are indicated below as "O/C" *These areas were changed from staff's recommended category "B" to category "C" by the Edina Community Health Services Advisory Committee. These were changed for reasons of minimizing potential herbicide exposure to children (Cornelia School fields, Creek Valley School fields and the Yorktown Park field next to the Southdale YMCA). 10 CATEGORY I GOLF COURSES: • Braemar Golf Course (36 holes) A • Braemar Golf Driving Range A • Normandale Golf Course (9 holes) A 2 FLOWER GARDENS: • 72 different sites throughout park system A • Formal Gardens at Arneson Acres Park A 3 SCHEDULED ATHLETIC FIELDS (CAN BE LOCKED/SECURED): • Braemar soccer field (one field) A • Courtney Fields Baseball Complex (4 fields) A • Garden Park baseball field (one field) A • Van Valkenburg Park Softball Complex (3 fields) A 4 MULTIPLE -USE SCHEDULED ATHLETIC FIELDS: O/C48-14 • Cornelia School softball fields (2 fields) O/C±4e-9 • Cornelia School baseball field (I field) O/C±4e-13 • Countryside Park baseball fields (3 fields) B • Creek Valley soccer fields (3 fields) O/C*te B • Garden Park softball field (1 field) B • Garden Park soccer fields (2 fields) B • Highlands Park soccer field (1 field) B • Highlands Park softball field (1 field) B • Lake Cornelia Park softball field (1 field) HOC • Lewis Park soccer/football fields (2 fields) B • Normandale Park baseball field (1 field) B • Pamela Park baseball fields (2 fields) B • Pamela Park softball field (1 field) B • Pamela Park soccer fields (2 fields) B • Todd Park softball field (1 field) HO/C • Weber Park baseball/softball fields (5 fields) B • • Wooddale Park baseball/softball field (1 field) Y@4,Aawn Park saitb&4-4ekl � B G *Vel eta 5 MULTIPLE -USE NON-SCHEDULED ATHLETIC FIELDS: (one field each) • Alden Park O/C48-14 • Arden Park O/C-te-B • Birchcrest Park O/C4" • Chowen Park O/Cte-B • Heights Park 11 O/C Arneson Park (arboretum and general grounds) Braemar Arena grounds area Braemar Golf Dome grounds area Bfi an \iT7.�_„ n Gun Ranee • Kojetin Park C -Q ',,.., ani , treatment) O/C A • Normandale Park Coe -B • Sherwood Park O/C te-13 • St. Johns's Park O/C -t" • Strachauer Park O/C4" • Tingdale Park O/C4&B • Walnut Ridge Park O/C4-8-13 • York Park O/C4&B 6 SPECIAL USE MAINTAINED FACILITIES (Outdoor areas): • • • • Arneson Park (arboretum and general grounds) Braemar Arena grounds area Braemar Golf Dome grounds area Bfi an \iT7.�_„ n Gun Ranee A B C C delete • Centennial Lakes A • Edina City Hall A • Edina Art Center RO/C • Edina Fire Department A • Edina Public Woks Building grounds A • Edinborough Park (one acre exterior area) A • Frank Tupa Park (historical site) O/C4e-134 • Williams Park (historical site) CB (a..gani . t .o^tmen!' O/C 7 MAINTAINED OPEN PLAY AREAS/OPEN GREEN SPACE: • All 38 parks (approx. 400 acres) C 8 DESIGNATED PICNIC AREAS: • Lake Cornelia Park C • Braemar Park C 9 PLAYGROUND AREAS: • 24 playground equipment sites C 10 MEDIAN GRASS AREAS (ISLANDS AND TRIANGLES): • Frontage roads B • Boulevards B • Triangles/medians B • York Ave. Island B 1 I WOODED/NATURE AREAS: • Braemar Park savanna forest areas D • Bredesen Park C MA • Lake Cornelia Park 12 NON -MAINTAINED OPEN SPACE/WOODED AREAS AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS PARK LAND: C • Fox Meadow Park (park land) O/C • Garden Park Addition (open space) C • Highlands Park O/C • Krahl Hill (open space) C • Lincoln Drive Floodplain (open space) C • Moore Property on Melody Lake (open space) C • Todd Park O/C • Walnut Ridge Park C 13 HARD SURFACE AREAS: • Basketball courts (8 sites) A • Parking lots A • Pathways A • Tennis courts (15 sites) A 14 INDOOR PARK AREAS WITH PLANT GROWTH: • Edinborough Park (trees, shrubs and flowers) A • Arneson Park greenhouse (primarily flowers) A 15 PLANT GROWTH IN AND AROUND LAKES, PONDS AND CREEKS: • Islands D • Shoreline D 16 OUTDOOR HOCKEY RINKS: • 10 sites C 17 AREAS WITH NOXIOUS WEEDS: • Public -owned property D • Private -owned property D The premier athletic fields that are classified as "A" all have two things in common: 1 Irrigation 2 Fencing Because all class "A" athletic fields have irrigation, they require the least amount of herbicides (and possible) (delete) to maintain healthy turf with very few weeds. Irrigation is an important tool and key component in implementing IPM based turf management practices. The only irrigated athletic fields that are suggested to have a class "A" tolerance to weeds are those with fencing. If herbicides are ever needed to maintain their 5% weed tolerance, the entire area can be locked and secured from users during and shortly after herbicide applications (typically 13 24 hours as recommended by herbicide manufacturers). This practice will minimize the potential human exposure to herbicide chemicals. There are currently five (5) irrigated athletic ball fields that are suggested to have a `B" classification for weed tolerance because they do not have security fencing: 1 Garden Park soccer fields (2 fields) 2 Lewis Park soccer/football field (1 Feld) change to (3 fields) 3 Pamela Park soccer fields (2 fields) There are currently three (3) irrigated athletic ball fields that are suggested to have a "O/C" classification for weed tolerance because they are located next to Creek Valley Elementary School:. 1 Creek Valley soccer field (3 fields) The `B" classification irrigated athletic fields will rarely (if ever) need herbicide applications to maintain a weed tolerance of 25%, whereas, the non -irrigated class `B" athletic fields present a greater challenge to control weed dominance without the use of herbicides. The main reason for the recommended `B" classification for the five irrigated athletic fields is due to their lack of fencing to secure access to these areas. With proper equipment, labor and materials, IPM based turf management practices should dramatically reduce or eliminate the use of herbicides on all irrigated athletic fields. The "Hard Surface Areas" have an "A" classification for 3 main reasons: 1 Undesirable weeds that grow in cracks on hard surface areas can create an unsafe surface for users. 2 Non -treated weeds in hard surface cracks can lead to further hard surface damage which could lead intolerable or unreasonable economic injury. 3 Human exposure to spot treatment herbicide use on hard surface areas areis very minimal (exposures are typically limited to footwear). At this time, none of the class "C" turf areas have irrigation except the three Creek Valley soccer fields. If this Turf Management Plan is adopted, it is staff s recommendation to direct the Edina Park Maintenance Department to use IPM based turf management techniques to maintain these class "C" weed tolerance areas to as high a standard as possible without the use of herbicides-_ and using oraanics when needed Even though these are classified to have the highest level of tolerance for weeds, it is staff s recommendation to attempt to maintain the best turf possible with the available resources and labor (without the use of herbicides). Without irrigation, even good turf management cannot avoid eventual domination of weeds, however, good turf management can successfully deter the inevitable. The length of time for which a good turf management program will succeed on non -irrigated turf depends on turf use, and soil and weather conditions. 14 As mentioned earlier, all property within the City of Edina boundaries (public or private) are subject to a "D" classification if noxious weeds are present. Under the Minnesota Noxious Weed Law (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 18, Sections 18.75 to 18.88), there are teqhirteen noxious weeds that have been deemed by the Commissioner of Agriculture to be injurious to public health, public roads, crops, livestock. In addition, there are any number of fifty-one (5 1) secondary weeds that may be added to the noxious weed list by the Minnesota Commissioner of Agriculture without a hearing or upon petition by the Edina City Mayor and approval by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. The following is a list of the ten -thirteen noxious weeds: Common Name Botanical Name 1. FieldBindweed c,..,.,,.lvUl..... 2. Hemp Cannabis sativa 3. Loosestrtfpurple t yth ,Beef.a of vifgatum 4. Poison ivy Rh r-adiewis 1. Yellow Star Thistles ll airs..•. v ..', afe Centourea solstitiolis L. 2. Grecian Fox3lo\ e. Digitalis lanata Ehrh. 3. Oriental Bittersweet. Celastrus orbiculatus Thunb. 4. Leafy purae Euphorbia esula (L.) 2-5.Canada Thistle, Canada Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. 3.6.Musk Thistle ask Carduus nutans (L.l 7. Plumeless Thistle Carduus acanthoides (L.) 8. Garlic Mustard .4111aria petiolata (Bieb.) 9. Purple Loosestrife Lvthrum salicaria, virQatum (L.), 10. Wild Parshnip, Pastinaca saliva L. 11. Common Tansy Tanacetum vulgare (L.) 12. Spotted Knapweed Centaurea stoebe spp. micranthos 13. Poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans (Ktze.) CONCLUSION It is reasonable to expect that the Edina Park and Recreation Department will likely receive many complaints about increased visible weeds in the parks, however, this should not be viewed as a lack of the program's success. A moratorium on herbicide use is not a practical, realistic, or responsible approach to turf is Formatted: Font color: Text 2 Formatted: Font color: Accent 1 management and weed (or pest) control. As previously mentioned, if left to nature without any interference of turf maintenance, weeds and undesirable grasses will eventually dominate the turf. It would be economically unreasonable to routinely replace ground cover with new turf in efforts to avoid use of all herbicides in all areas at all cost. An IPM based Turf Management Plan is the most reasonable approach to a reduction and, in some cases, elimination of herbicide dependency. To be successful, citizens should be expected to accept higher weed tolerance in many areas of the park system that have previously been managed at a relatively low weed tolerance level. It is reasonable to anticipate that the most visibly noticeable presence of weeds will be the few weeks in early spring when dandelions (annuals) have flowered. As pointed out at the December 14, 1994, Edina Community Health Services Advisory Committee meeting, there are approximately 4,700 acres of privately owned and maintained residential lawn turf and approximately 150 acres of commercial lawn turf. Combined, there are approximately 4,850 acres of privately owned and maintained lawn turf within the City of Edina, which is about 800% more ground cover than that which is maintained by the Edina Park and Recreation Department. The point is that public education regarding environmentally conscious approaches to lawn care is an important part of this proposal. 16 From: Dianne Plunkett Latham [mailto:Dianne.Plunkett.Latham@Comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 10:13 PM To: Ed MacHolda; Sherry Engelman; Joseph Hulbert; Ellen Jones; Germana Paterlini; John Keprios; Mary Jo Kingston; Vince Cockriel Subject: EEC Proposed Revisions to the Turf Management Plan 8-2-11 Dear Edina Park and Recreation Board and Community Health Committee, The Turf Management Task Force has proposed revisions to the Turf Management Plan. These proposed revisions were presented to the Edina Energy and Environment Commission (EEC) at its 7-21-11 meeting, where they were unanimously approved. Find attached the proposed redlined document. The EEC requests that the Park Board and the Community Health Committee place the attached proposed document on their agendas at their earliest convenience. Any comments should be relayed to Germana, Paterlini, Chair of the Turf Management Task Force. EEC has scheduled a Sept. 20 Work Session with City Council to consider the attached proposed revisions as well as to consider other EEC proposals. Thank you to all who participated on the Turf Management Task Force and to the Park and Recreation Board, as well as the Community Health Committee for considering the proposed document. The Turf Management Task Force and the EEC look forward to your response. Dianne Plunkett Latham Chair, Edina Energy & Environment Commission 7013 Comanche Ct Edina MN 55439-1004 952-941-3542 ® From: Carolyn Peterson [mailto:peterson9818@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 2:17 PM To: Sherry Engelman; aiqureshi@hotmail.com; ebsifferlin@comcast.net; gjjohnson3@comcast.net; jeffbartleson@gmail.com; jbeuerlein02@yahoo.com; mellum.julie@gmail.com; kumarbelani@gmail.com; mary jo kingston; mdoscoi@yahoo.com; winklavelle@comcast.net Subject: RE: EEC Proposed Revisions to the Turf Management Plan I've had a chance to review. One editorial comment, on page 5, the heading of Integrated Pest Maagement should have an (IPM) after it, as this anacronym is used throughout the document from page 5 on. My other question is that I didn't see any mention of thedog park at Van Valkenburg-unless I missed it. Otherwise I agree. Thanks. Carolyn From: Julie Mellum [mailto:mellum.julie@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 5:43 PM To: Sherry Engelman Subject: RE: EEC Proposed Revisions to the Turf Management Plan Hi Sherry, Like IKu►nai:, I'd like to see all ti -Lie "natural" products used for turf management eventually, because "natural", "green" and "organic" don't really mean anything if they contain -my toxic chemicals. But these changes are good for starters. Ultimately products such as corn gluten would be a healthier, safer choice for air, water and public health. Julie From: winklavelle@comcast.net[mailto:winklavelle@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:25 PM To: Sherry Engelman Subject: Re: EEC Proposed Revisions to the Turf Management Plan Sherry, This is a lot to digest. I tried to read and understand it but am not sure what I am agreeing to. I think that I will support the committees findings and recommendations! Mary From: Matthew Doscotch [mailto:mdoscol@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:28 PM To: Carolyn Peterson; Sherry Engelman; aiqureshi@hotmail.com; ebsifferlin@comcast.net; gjjohnson3@comcast.net; jeffbartleson@gmail.com; jbeuerlein02@yahoo.com; mellum.julie@gmail.com; kumarbelani@gmail.com; maty jo kingston; winklavelle@comcast.net Subject: Re: EEC Proposed Revisions to the Turf Management Plan Thanks for providing the revised plan for comment. I have a few observations. I presume that this added statement is intended to indicate that the treatment was not consistent with the plan: "Residents' concerns about excessive dandelion weeds in untreated areas (classified as "C" in the plan) had prompted treatment of those areas with one-time spraying of the herbicide 2,4 D early in the spring." It may be useful to explicitly say that. Are there citations that can be added to the following statement to support the claim: "Organic herbicides have been shown to be as an effective non-toxic alternative for lawn care." That could head off at least one objection that may be made to the revised plan. I am not sure that I fully understand the O/C designation. How do you decide whether to use organics? How does the city budget for this when it appears to be discretionary whether the organics will be applied? Why didn't Normandale Park's designation change to O/C when every other location in that category did --why did it change to B only? Is there a plan to handle questions on why certain locations did or did not receive the organics designation? Am I correct in reading that most of the areas that changed to "O/C" previously contemplated chemical use? If under the revised plan nothing is done to treat weeds at those locations, will residents accept the potential diminishing aesthetics. Was the city actually treating the newly designated "O/C" areas with chemicals in prior years? If not, then perhaps this is not an issue. Additionally, since "Typically, it takes three to four seasons to eliminate weeds, compared with just one application per season for the chemicals", it seems to me that having a discretionary O/C system of application may be a challenge and ultimately waste resources if other factors (e.g., budget) force you to stop applying one year. It seems to me that you would really need a system that followed through with treatment once it was started. Lastly, while I am an advocate for organic treatment (I have two kids that use several of the Edina parks), did the Task Force evaluate the potential cost of organics? It is my understanding that organic forms of treatment can result in a significant cost increase. Maybe this is not an issue that is evaluated at this stage of the process or something the Task Force was asked to do. just thought it may be a relevant consideration. Matt Doscotch From: Carolyn Peterson [ma iIto: peterson9818@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, August 04, 20119:44 AM To: Sherry Engelman; aiqureshi@hotmail.com; ebsifferlin@comcast.net; gjjohnson3@comcast.net; jeffbartleson@gmail.com; jbeuerlein02@yahoo.com; mellum.julie@gmail.com; kumarbelani@gmail.com; mary jo kingston; mdoscol@yahoo.com; winklavelle@comcast.net Subject: RE: EEC Proposed Revisions to the Turf Management Plan I apologize for being scattered in my reply. I have been wondering about the background information contained in the document. The document says that in 1995, our committee made recommendations to the park board to develop a turf management plan and to address the use of herbicides and pesticides. But there isn't any discussion about what happened after that, and why it was decided that a new task force needed to address the issue now. Is the Health Committee on record as endorsing organic turf management in the past? Were changes made in Edina's turf management plan to address whatever the concerns were in 1995? As Matt pointed out, there's no recent research in the proposed revised plan that indicates that the practices now in place have determined to be risky to children, adults, or animals. thanks for your patience. Carolyn From: Julie Mellum [mailto:mellum.julie@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 10:01 PM To: 'Carolyn Peterson'; mdoscol@yahoo.com; Sherry Engelman; aiqureshi@hotmail.com; ebsifferlin@comcast.net; gjjohnson3@comcast.net; jeffbartleson@gmail.com; jbeuerlein02@yahoo.com; kumarbelani@gmail.com; 'mary jo kingston'; winklavelle@comcast.net Subject: RE: EEC Proposed Revisions to the Turf Management Plan hello All, i\fany products these days claim to be "green", "natural", "organic" or "non toxic". Manufacturers are jumping on the "greenwashing" bandwagon, whereby they claim their products are "non toxic" or "green", but there is no clear definition of what's really green, for that matter. Many are exceedingly toxic, when they claim to be anything but. I ].earned this doing extensive research on "organic" vs. "non toxic" lawn chemicals for the former Air and Water Quality group. l,ven the sc, called "organic" products contain mane hazardous chemicals that were specifically mentioned in some material safety data sheets. Our government does not require manufacturers to disclose what is in their lawn care products or in personal care products, etc., so it's hard to know for sure what toxic chemicals may be in the product. If there are VOC's, however, (volatile organic compounds) that have a noticeable odor or fragrance of any kind, you can be fairly certain they are toxic, regardless if they are labeled as organic or anything else—and contain hormone disrupting, carcinogenic chemicals. It seems to me that killing dandelions because some people object to them is contributing to our water and air pollution problems at the expense of public health. The public needs more education on this topic. Julie From: Matthew Doscotch [mailto:mdoscol@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, August 06, 20112:22 PM To: Sherry Engelman Subject: Re: EEC Proposed Revisions to the Turf Management Plan Sherry, I had a couple additional comments to those I already provided I noticed that Countryside Park remained a "B" when it has play structures adjacent to the green space for toddlers 2-4 ages (an age group with a potentially higher likelihood of herbicide ingestion). It seems the type of play structures adjacent the park should be taken into consideration for the categorization. Did the Task Force consider whether more city employee time was needed to apply the organics compared to the traditional herbicides? I read some information that indicated that depending on the organic it may take several applications in a single season to control weed growth. Did the Task Force consider conducting a pilot program at a few locations to assess cost/time maintenance and effectiveness? This may be a good option as a first step to the modification of the Turf Management Plan. Matt On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 8:47 AM, John Kep rios <JKe rios ci.edina.mn.us> wrote: Dianne, Management Plan. Vince Cockriel suggesting updates to the Turf ree on the following Thank You and the EEC for s egted changes and additions and we both ag and I have reviewed the Sugg concerns: " the following sentence should be removed; Under the section titled "Terminology, to put statements such have, low or no toxicityfor humans and d animals and break own "Organic herbicides h ter application. It is not necessary a Management Plan because it suggests rapidly in the environment of ests that we have data to support as that within the Turf h ant dies could challenge and become controversial whereas such statements that such a statement. IlTurf there is no benefit in making recommend removal of the sentence undedes have beenshownto be as an • Similarly, led we reco ►►Organic herbicides Management Task Force,' that states; n care." Again, there are likely studies including effective non-toxic alternativefor lawe results would challenge that our own experience with organic herbicides whos statement. 'Turf Management Task Force" there is a sentence stating e not at Under the section titled la areas to make it known that they "Signs will be posted near children Play oppose that practice for a number of reasons but �► Vince and I opP lace signs in the been chemically treated. practice.We believe it is wasteful to p mainly because we feel it is bad the public about what a w er1e We do not apply parks for the sole purposIt also e er educfore ace signs in every park ns in suggests that we should therefore p I categorically oppose having any more sig speaking 1 believe that it is our charge to pesticides. Philosophically p Ido strongly needed and necessary• cautious about our parks than is truly possible; however, I am be the best stewards of the enve throughout the parks • section, we promoting , causes" via signage „ O, F' The last two sentences state that "Weed Tolerance Classification for City of Edina OwnedProperty"a Under the Category o C, These have concern about the new proposed or revert to categ rJ' "These areas shall either be►trWeeuggh organics,indicated below as C. est that instead it read; "Th ese areas shall either are indicated below as O/ o B. These areas a be treated with organics, or revert to categ r1' �,s stated early in the suggests that if organic treatments are not effective then OB." EEC's proposed language ,► cases, a weed dominated turf can Teed ll, soccer and these athletic fields must live under r a 100% tolerance or we s ement Plan, In some Turf Manag or certain turf users, such as softball, a intolerable turf conditionsfor Management Task Force is " The EEC's Turf football players and golfers. and acceptable for specific scheduleod anrt d "On - appropriate recommending that it is ° to the community's expectations and best led athletic fields to become 100 /o weed tolerant. We don't Supp scheduled and believe it to be contrary ea be added to the updated interests. Valkenburg Park off -leash dog ar ed for weed. • We agree that the Van version as a "Category C" that is 100% tolerant for weeds and never spra 0 We agree that the Edina Park Maintenance Department the Turf Management Plan is followed in accordance ment should change its practice to Turf Management Plan e with the ensure that must be a directive from the Edina City Council to alter Practice. Those changes in polic Y• Any deviations from the Y will then become part of the the plan and/or Do you wish to have this matter on the September public record. October 11 th meeting? John Keprios, Park & Recreation Director 952-826-0430 Fax 952-826.0385 ._- Nepf10HI- edgy=m ..For Living, Le; 13, 2011 Park Board agenda or wait until the From: Germana P[mailto:germana.paterlini@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 22, 20112:14 PM To: John Keprios Cc: Dianne Plunkett Latham; Ed MacHolda; Sherry Engelman; Joseph Hulbert; Ellen Jones; Mary Jo Kingston; Vince Cockriel; Jesse Struve; Scott Neal; Karen M. Kurt Subject: Re: EEC Proposed Revisions to the Turf Management Plan John, thank you for your comments. Please see my reply below: On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 8:47 AM, John Keprios <JKeprios cr ci.edina.mn.us> wrote: Dianne, Thank you and the EEC for suggesting updates to the Turf Management Plan. Vince Cockriel and I have reviewed the suggested changes and additions and we both agree on the following concerns: • Under the section titled "Terminology," the following sentence should be removed; "Organic herbicides have low or no toxicity for humans and animals and break down rapidly in the environment after application. " It is not necessary to put statements such as that within the Turf Management Plan because it suggests that we have data to support such statements that other studies could challenge and become controversial whereas there is no benefit in making such a statement. This is not an ad hoc statement: according to the EPA: "No adverse effects to humans are known or expected from use of corn gluten meal in pesticide products. (see their website for corn gluten) We use the EPA as our standard in all our statements. • Similarly, we recommend removal of the sentence under the section titled "Turf Management Task Force" that states; "Organic herbicides have been shown to be as an effective non-toxic alternative for lawn care. " Again, there are likely studies including our own experience with organic herbicides whose results would challenge that statement. See above • Under the section titled "Turf Management Task Force" there is a sentence stating that Signs will be posted near children play areas to make it known that they have not been chemically treater! 11 Vince and I oppose that practice for a number of reasons but mainly because we feel it is bad practice. We believe it is wasteful to place signs in the parks for the sole purpose of educating the public about what we don't do. It also suggests that we should therefore place signs in every park area where we do not apply pesticides. Philosophically speaking, I categorically oppose having any more signs in our parks than is truly needed and necessary. I do strongly believe that it is our charge to be the best stewards of the environment possible; however, I am cautious about promoting "causes" via signage throughout the parks. The goal of the ECC is to educate the public that natural beauty can be achieved without the use of unnecessary chemicals (toxic or not). The purpose of the sign is to demonstrate this philosophy, not to scare the residents. We can work together in wording the signs. • Under the "Weed Tolerance Classification for City of Edina Owned Property" section, we have concern about the new proposed "Category O. " The last two sentences state that "These areas shall either be treated with organics, or revert to category C. These areas are indicated below as O/C." We suggest that instead it read; "These areas shall either be treated with organics, or revert to category B. These areas are indicated below as O/B. " EEC's proposed language suggests that if organic treatments are not effective then these athletic fields must live under a 100% tolerance for weeds. As stated early in the Turf Management Plan, "In some cases, a weed dominated turf can lead to unsafe or intolerable turf conditions for certain turf users, such as softball, baseball, soccer and football players and golfers. " The EEC's Turf Management Task Force is recommending that it is appropriate and acceptable for specific scheduled and non-scheduled athletic fields to become 100% weed tolerant. We don't support that recommendation and believe it to be contrary to the community's expectations and best interests. This will water down the intent of the revisions and of the original Turf Management Policy 0 We agree that the Van Valkenburg Park off -leash dog area be added to the updated version as a "Category C" that is 100% tolerant for weeds and never sprayed for weed. OK We agree that the Edina Park Maintenance Department should change its practice to ensure that the Turf Management Plan is followed in accordance with the policy. Any deviations from the Turf Management Plan must be a directive from the Edina City Council to alter the plan and/or practice. Those changes in policy will then become part of the public record. Do you wish to have this matter on the September 13, 2011 Park Board agenda or wait until the October 11 `h meeting? My recommendation is for the Park Board to vote ASAP. But I refer the decision to Dianne Best Regards, Germana John Keprios, Park & Recreation Director *.r 'y952-826-0430 j Fax 952-826-0385 (�-' I' JKeoriosna ci.edina mn us www.EdinaParks.com ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business • From: Dianne Plunkett Latham [mailto:Dianne.Plunkett.Latham@Comcast.net] Sent: Monday, August 22, 20113:38 PM To: 'Germana P'; John Keprios CC: Ed MacHolda; Sherry Engelman; 'Joseph Hulbert'; 'Ellen Jones'; 'Mary Jo Kingston'; Vince Cockriel; Jesse Struve; Scott Neal; Karen M. Kurt; Jan Johnson Subject: RE: EEC Proposed Revisions to the Turf Management Plan 8-22-11 Thank you for your comments John, Vince and Germana. I will add these comments to the 9-8-11 EEC agenda for discussion. EEC has also received a comment from Health Commissioner Jan Johnson requesting that Bredesen Park be added to the C/O category. At the 8-11-11 EEC meeting, EEC voted to adopt Ms Johnson's recommendation and added Bredesen to the C/O category, as well as adding the boulevards surrounding Bredesen Park to the C/O category given that these boulevards are adjacent to the walking and biking trails at Bredesen. The balance of the Community Health Committee's comments will be forwarded to me by Sept. 9. John - Please keep the Turf Management Task Force report on the Sept. 13 Park Board agenda as I have scheduled the task force report on the Sept. 20 EEC/City Council work session agenda and the Park Board's comments are important to the deliberation. Thank you to all for your efforts in updating the Turf Management Plan. Dianne Plunkett Latham Chair, Edina Energy & Environment Commission 7013 Comanche Ct Edina MN 55439-1004 952-941-3542 o e y tEsee REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: EDINA PARK BOARD Agenda Item Item No. VI. E. From: John Keprios, Director z Action Park and Recreation Department Discussion Information Date: September 13, 2011 Donations Policy and Naming of Parks and Facilities Policy Working Subject: Group ACTION REQUESTED: Park Board Member Ellen Jones recommends the Park Board approve the proposed list of candidates who have volunteered to serve on the Donations Policy and Naming of Parks and Facilities Policy Working Group. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND: With City Council approval, the Park Board established a Donations Policy and Naming of Parks and Facilities Policy Working Group. To recruit volunteers, the attached Press Release (ATTACHMENT A) was printed in the Edina Sun Current and the Minneapolis Star Tribune. ATTACHMENTS: Press Release (ATTACHMENT A) contact: jennner nennerotte, t.ommunications of riarKCung vIrouvr Phone 952-833-9520 • Fax 952-826-0389 • Web www.CityofEdina.com (ATTACHMENT A) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE PRESS RELEASE Park Board seeks volunteers Edina, Minn., Aug. 2, 2011 — The Edina Park Board seeks volunteers for two new working groups. The Park Board recently established two working groups: • Donations and Naming Working Group. The working group will propose policies and procedures for naming and renaming City parks and facilities and accepting donations. The working group will meet from 12:30 to 1:30 p.m. the second and fourth Mondays in September and October. The first meeting will be Sept. 12, 2011. • User Fee 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. This working group likely will meet from 12:30 to 1:30 p.m. the first and third Wednesdays in September and October. Those residents interested in serving on a working group should write to edinamail@ci.edina.mn.us or call Janet Canton in the Edina Park & Recreation Department at 952-826-0435 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Letters of interest can also be sent to Edina Park Board, Edina City Hall, 4801 W. 50th St., Edina, MN, 55424. Please indicate the working group(s) that is of greatest interest to you. -30- City of Edina a, 4801 West 50th Street * Edina, MN 55424 • 0 REPORT/RECOMMEN DATION To: EDINA PARK BOARD Agenda Item Item No. VI. F. From: John Keprios, Director Park and Recreation Department F1 Action F] Discussion Information Date: September 13, 2011 Subject: User Fees Working Group ACTION REQUESTED: Park Board Member Keya Steel recommends the Park Board approve the proposed list of candidates who have volunteered to serve on the User Fees Working Group. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND: With City Council approval, the Park Board established a User Fees Working Group. To recruit volunteers, the attached Press Release (ATTACHMENT A) was printed in the Edina Sun Current and the Minneapolis Star Tribune. ATTACHMENTS: • Press Release (ATTACHMENT A) GOntact: jennlier Cenneroue, a..omm Unicauuru Of 1 -141 -Krung vu -- Phone 952-833-9520 • Fax 952-826-0389 • Web www.CityofEdina.com (ATTACHMENT A) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Park Board seeks volunteers PRESS RELEASE Edina, Minn., Aug. 2, 2011 — The Edina Park Board seeks volunteers for two new working groups. The Park Board recently established two working groups: • Donations and Naming Working Group. The working group will propose policies and procedures for naming and renaming City parks and facilities and accepting donations. The working group will meet from 12:30 to 1:30 p.m. the second and fourth Mondays in September and October. The first meeting will be Sept. 12, 2011. • User Fee 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. This working group likely will meet from 12:30 to 1:30 p.m. the first and third Wednesdays in September and October. Those residents interested in serving on a working group should write to edinamail@ci.edina.mn.us or call Janet Canton in the Edina Park & Recreation Department at 952-826-0435 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Letters of interest can also be sent to Edina Park Board, Edina City Hall, 4801 W. 50th St., Edina, MN, 55424. Please indicate the working group(s) that is of greatest interest to you. -30- City of Edina a 4801 West 50th Street . Edina, MN 55424 Proposed Volunteers for the Naming and Donations Working Group: David Mesenbourg Bob Kojetin Tom Gump Andy Otness Rick Ites Ray Giske Proposed Volunteers for the Facility Users Fee Working Group: Susan Lee John Connelly Bob Kojetin Tom Gump Suzanne Kerwin Rick Ites Bob McGarry, Jr. REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: EDINA PARK BOARD Agenda Item Item No. VI. G. From: John Keprios, Director Park and Recreation Department M Action F-1 Discussion F-1 Information Date: September 13, 2011 Subject: Artist Finalist for Veterans Memorial Sculpture ACTION REQUESTED: The Edina Veterans Memorial Committee recommends that the Park Board approve the Committee's recommendation to hire Robert Eccleston as the sculpture artist for the Edina Veterans Memorial. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND: With assistance from the Edina Public Art Committee and Edina Art Center Director Diana Hedges, the Edina Veterans Memorial Committee reviewed thirteen (13) different submittals from artists who responded to the "Call for Design Sketches." 1) ELIZABETH ANDERSON Annandale, MN 3) TOM BREWITZ Newport, MN 5) ROBERT ECCLESTON Lake Placid, NY 2) JEFF BARBER Roberts, WI 4) JOHN CURRIE Edina, MN 6) STEVEN FAIRFIELD St. David, AZ 1 7) JAMES GABBERT Eden Prairie, MN 9) STEVE HEMINGWAY Minnetonka, MN 8) CAPRICE K. GLASER St. Paul, MN 10) DEAN HOLZMAN St. Paul, MN 11) LARRY & PAULA JENSEN 12) STEVEN LEEMAN & JACQUELINE VERETTE Guthrie, MN Corcoran, MN 13) NICK LEGEROS Minneapolis, MN At the June 17, 2011 Edina Veterans Memorial Committee meeting, the Veterans Committee voted to select four finalists to interview: Jeff Barber, John Currie, Robert Eccleston and Caprice Glaser. On August 4, 2011 the four finalists were interviewed in person at City Hall with the exception of Robert Eccleston who was interviewed via telephone as he resides in Lake Placid, New York. The interview panel consisted of Veterans Committee Chairman Mike Goergen, Architect Bob Kost, EPAC Chair Lois Ring and I served as Staff Liaison. In the end, all interview panelists agreed without hesitation to recommend Robert Eccleston as the finalist. Robert Eccleston was the chosen finalist for a number of reasons some of which included: • Significant experience working with Veterans Memorial Committees. • Significant experience working closely and successfully with architects. • Proven talent in designing high quality bronze sculptures of eagles and numerous other types of sculptures designed specifically for Veterans Memorials. • Willingness to compromise and change his design to meet the desires of the committee. At the end of the interviews, it was noted that Robert Eccleston had received the most first choice votes among the entire Veterans Memorial Committee at their June 17, 2011 monthly meeting. Once the City of Edina reaches a contract agreement with Robert Eccleston, he will receive the $500.00 stipend for being the winning artist. The Golden K Kiwanis Club donated the $500.00 to pay the finalist artist the winning stipend. At their August 19, 2011 meeting, the Veterans Memorial Committee voted unanimously to select Robert Eccleston as their sculptor artist of choice. The committee also voted to approve an eagle figure for a sculpture focal piece. The artist will be asked to work closely with the project architect Bob Kost to provide at least two structural design options that will include an eagle figure for the committee to choose from. Mr. Eccleston has proposed entering into a contract in a two phase approach. The first contract he proposes to develop the design for the sculpture and create a maquette 2 (miniature of the monumental size sculpture) for $3,800.00. Phase two would be a contract to sculpt, cast in stainless steel or bronze, deliver and oversee the installation of the monumental size sculpture based upon an agreed upon price and timeline. The phase one contract for $3,800.00 will be written in a manner that makes it clear that the funding must come from donations raised by the committee and that the City of Edina will not be held liable to cover any shortfall in fundraising. The artist understands the funding is from private donations and that the City of Edina will not be held liable for any shortfalls. Mr. Eccleston has designed and built numerous Veterans Memorial sculptures under similar conditions. The maquette will allow the artist to generate an accurate price and timeline for the monumental size sculpture. Artists have been told that the budget for a focal should be approximately 10% of the entire project cost. In other words, the budget for the monumental sculpture should be approximately $40,000. Once created, the maquette can be used as a marketing tool to raise additional and remaining funds needed for the memorial. If the Park Board and City Council approve the Edina Veterans Memorial Committee's recommendation to hire Robert Eccleston as the sculpture artist for the Edina Veterans Memorial, then staff will draft a contract for phase one of the development for $3,800. The contract will be between the City of Edina and artist Robert Eccleston. ATTACHMENTS: • 5 sketch proposals of eagles submitted by artist Robert Eccleston. 3 2 t, t ;"/�' �`if,/ � 9 . � � � . � � � . \� � � . � . � � � � .. . . :� � \� .» ayw :+ �» � ..�� : � .. \ <� � .� \�` Ecckjtton proposal 1 T From: suckowziemer@comcast.net [mailto:suckowziemer@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 12:14 PM To: John Keprios; Lynette Biunno Cc: barbarahoganson Subject: Fwd: Request to please keep the Countryside Park Ice Rink Open this Winter Hello John, Our family is very interested in keeping the Countryside ice rink open this winter. We have two children 8 and 12 who would like to use the ice rink. Thank you. Holly Ziemer and Steve Suckow 5900 Olinger Blvd., Edina Z From: Judith Rodgers [mailto:Judith.Rodgers@wayzata.kl2.mn.us] Sent: Monday, September 12, 20118:24 AM To: John Keprios Subject: skating at Countryside Good morning, John. Please do whatever you can to open the Countryside skating rink this winter (and for the future). My family (grandchildren, their friends and 1) skated there many times in past seasons and we have been disappointed to see the recreational rink not available the last two years. We can walk to the park so it makes a wonderful, healthy outing on a winter's evening. We love the warming house. There were times last winter when we thought about going and would have but other parks were too far away—or too "formal" so we ended up staying inside—not good. Don't you think the Countryside a Judith Judith Rodgers, 6100 Arbour Lane Edina, Mn 55436 Media Specialist Wayzata Central Middle School 205 Vicksburg Ln N. Plymouth, Mn. 55447 763-745-6048 From: Steve and Linda Enck [mailto:slamenck@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, September 12, 20118:21 PM To: John Keprios Subject: Countryside Park Ice Rink Hello John, I want to share a request with you. Please consider opening Countryside ice rink this winter. My family and I have really missed having it flooded. We used it for many years and we have not found a similar rink that allows for both hockey players and recreational skating with off street parking. Due to its great accessibility to neighborhood families and to Highway 62 1 hope you will consider opening it this winter. Thank you for your consideration. Linda Enck From: Christine Henninger [mailto: Christine. Hen ninger@genmills.com] Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 10:29 AM To: John Keprios Subject: Countryside park skating rink Hi John, I would like to encourage you to consider providing Countryside park with a skating rink this winter. We have not had a skating rink for several winters now, and it would be great for our kids to be able to walk to the local rink, like other neighborhoods have had the opportunity for the last several years. Please let me know your thoughts on this request. Thank you! Christine Henninger 5816 Jeff Place Edina 763-293-3734 (work) From: Dorothy Pool [mailto:dorothy@q.com] Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 11:11 AM To: Lynette Biunno Subject: oPEN THE ICE RINK AT COUNTRYSIDE THIS WINTER, IT HAS BEEN SO POPULAR!!!! Dorothy Pool From: John St. Pierre [mailto:jstpierre6005@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 12, 20112:05 PM To: John Keprios Subject: Counrtyside park John, Please consider re -opening the ice rink this year. We formally skated on the rink on a regular basis. We see it as an important activity for the neighborhood families. Thanks, John & Jeanne St. Pierre (952) 929-0175 istpierre6005@gmail.com From: K Ostman [mailto:ostman44@msn.com] Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 10:53 PM To: John Keprios; Lynette Biunno Subject: Countryside skating rink Mr. John Keprios and Edina City Council: I have lived in the Countryside neighborhood for most of my 60+ years. Having an ice skating rink in the neighborhood is important to young children. When I grew up in this area there was no ice skating rink, but my dad made one in the backyard (he had 11 acres so there was space for a skating rink)and we also skated on the pond that used to be on the corner of Tracy and Olinger. My children spent many nights and weekends skating at Countryside. Aides who worked at Countryside School and lived in the area would be there sometimes on a weekend afternoon and would visit with my children. My youngest who was given a plastic hockey stick at the age of four thought she could not skate without that hockey stick. There were many pickup hockey games in the hockey rink. It was a fun safe place for them to get fresh air and exercise. It was a place they could walk to. My children are all adults now, but the young children in this neighborhood deserve an ice rink and the same chance to make memories. Money is tight for everyone and ice skating is an inexpensive sport. A young child can get hours of enjoyment from a used pair of skates. It is a past time that can be enjoyed by all family members. I would suggest that if Edina does not have enough money to keep an ice rink open at every park, that they rotate so that the neighborhood rink is opened at least half time. Maybe one park has the rink opened on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday and the other park has the rink opened on Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday. Everyone in Edina contributes to the parks. There is a warming house at Countryside, lets use it. Lets flood the skating area and let these youngsters and their families ice skate, at least half time. Sincerely, Karen Ostman 5917 Olinger Road opened this winter to please email John Keprios, Director of Park and Recreation at ikeprios@ci.edina.mn.us and City Council at edinamail@ci.edina.mn.us From: Barbara Hoganson [mailto:barbarahoganson@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, September 11, 20119:30 PM To: John Keprios Cc: davestrand@comcast.net; jerry.greene@gmail.com; Scott Neal; Lynette Biunno Subject: Request to please keep the Countryside Park Ice Rink Open this Winter John, I don't know what the plan is for the Countryside Park ice rink is this winter season. And don't know if you are already aware of this request, or if this is even an issue. Some residents in the Countryside area have expressed they do not want Countryside Park ice rink closed again this year. Countryside has been closed the past two winters. People understand city budgets are tight, but they feel it would be nice if the budget is still an issue, that this year they ask if this sacrifice can be shared elsewhere. Some young families have moved near Countryside Park so they could use the Park year round. It was requested to ask all other concerned residents that would like the Countryside skating rink opened this winter to please email John Keprios, Director of Park and Recreation at ikeprios@ci.edina.mn.us and City Council at edinamail@ci.edina.mn.us to share your thoughts. Thank you, Barbara Hoganson 952-926-1763 From: Merlin1954@aol.com [ma iIto: Merlin 1954@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, September 11, 20119:34 PM To: John Keprios Cc: Lynette Biunno Subject: Countryside Ice Rink Hello, I join my neighbors in requesting that Edina neighborhoods share in the need to close some facilities from year to year. The Countryside Park ice rink has been unavailable to its residents for two years. It is someone else's turn. That's only fair. Thank you. Donna G. Callender From: FranzSr@aol.com [mailto:FranzSr@aol.com] Sent: Monday, September 12, 20119:30 AM To: John Keprios Subject: Countryside Park skating rink As cross the street neighbors of Countryside Park, we request that you open and maintain the ice skating rink this Winter. If Edina can spend 700,000.00 on a Countryside Park renovation, which is totally unnecessary, according to all users, we can spend some money on a skating rink. Franz and Joanie Burris 5832 Olinger Blvd. (BUCKTHORN STUDY) Edina Parks Priority Rankings High Priority: Van Valkenburg, Arden, Normandale, Highland, Garden, Melody Lake and Lake Cornelia. The parks listed above get the highest priority according to our standards by having high quality natural areas. These areas have the greatest diversity and quality trees along with a quality herbaceous layer. These parks may have higher percentage of buckthorn infestation and require the most hours of removal but I believe have the greatest potential of reclamation from buckthorn. Van Valkenburg is a great example of an oak savanna. By removing all the vegetative buckthorn material from the site it will look cleaner and in the future, after a few years of herbicide treatment, the buckthorn seedlings could be managed by the use of prescribed burns. Burning controls the buckthorn seedlings and enhances the native herbaceous layer. Oak savannas are one of the rarest natural ecosystems we have in Minnesota and when possible we should try to maintain the quality examples we have left. Arden Park is a great park with oak woods along the west side of the creek. I believe the removal of buckthorn would greatly enhance the park along with educating citizens of the importance of buckthorn removal. The removal should not affect many neighbors and you would have a quality oak woodlot for people to enjoy. Normandale is a great park with oak woods on south and west facing hillside. There is good herbaceous layer and nice tree diversity. A buckthorn removal would affect some of the neighbors but would greatly enhance the parks woodland. Highlands and Garden Parks are beautiful parks in Edina. The Highlands Park itself has a lot of specimen trees with buckthorn growing up in them and on the northeast corner has great oak woods. Garden Park lacks specimen trees but has a large diversity of trees including oak woods and cottonwoods. Garden Park would also benefit from buckthorn removal by the park entrance for better visibly. Melody Lake is an underdeveloped park that is hidden away in its neighborhood. There is a great potential in keeping this park a natural area for all to enjoy. Lake Cornelia is a park that has it all. I believe it a highly visited park with its aquatic center and large natural area with the lake in the middle. The buckthorn removal here should include cut/slash and cut/chip/haul in the highly visited portions of this park. Middle Priority: Pamela, Todd, Lewis, York, Creek Valley, Heights, Walnut Ridge, Wooddale, Utley and Arneson Acres. The middle priority parks get a mid -priority ranking by their lower quality natural areas. These areas have a lower diversity and not as desirable trees as the high priority natural areas, plus a minimal herbaceous layer. The removal of buckthorn from these woodlots is still important, but when ranking all the parks, they do not rank as high in importance when compared to the high priority parks. Some of these parks include specimen trees that have buckthorn growing under them as well as infested natural areas. Low Priority: Alden, Browndale, St. Johns, Birchcrest, Countryside, Sherwood, Cornelia School, Frank Tupa, Bob Kojetin, Chowen, Weber, Lake Edina, Fred Richards Golf Course, Fox Meadow, Bristol, Yorktown, McGuire, Strachauer, and Tingdale. These parks have the lowest priority ranking due to the nature of their buckthorn infestation. Buckthorn is common on the woodland edges of these parks and generally is not very heavily infested. The buckthorn removal in these low priority parks would make great community involvement projects because of their lower hour requirements for removal and minimal impact they would have on the overall appearance of the park. The removal of buckthorn is important within all the parks, the final decision of which parks get cut first is ultimately up to the Edina Parks System. The above priority list is an inventory of buckthorn and a guideline in determining a plan for the removal of buckthorn within the park system of Edina. Some factors that need to be considered prior to buckthorn removal areas follows: the quality of the natural area, percentage of infestation, preferred buckthorn removal process and equipment required, economic limitations and amount of time allotted to complete the removal process. The biggest keys in the removal of buckthorn are having a long term management plan, flexibility and persistence. The removal of buckthorn is the first step in a journey of reclaiming our natural woodlots.