Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-09-14 Park Board Packetowe'ILII i)o t7 � • rNroRPOPATV 1888 . AGENDA Regular Meeting of the Edina Park Board Tuesday, September 14, 2010, 7:00 P.M. Edina City Hall Council Chambers 4801 West 50th Street PARK BOARD MEETING PROCEDURES During "Public Hearings, " the Chair will ask for public comment after City staff members make their presentations. If you wish to speak on the topic, you are welcome to do so as long as your comments are relevant to the discussion. To ensure fairness to all speakers and to allow the efficient conduct of a public hearing, speakers must observe the following guidelines: •Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes or less. The Chair will modify presentation times, as deemed necessary. *Try not to repeat remarks or points of view made by prior speakers and limit comments to the matter under consideration. *In order to maintain a comfortable environment for all those in attendance, the use of signs, clapping, cheering or booing or any other form of verbal or nonverbal communication is not allowed. PARK BOARD AGENDA WELCOME NEW STUDENT MEMBERS II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES * Monday, August 9, 2010 Work Session. III. NEW BUSINESS A. *2011-2015 Capital Improvement Plan. B. Park Assignments. C. Community Advisory Team Report — Member Ellen Jones. IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS During "Public Comments, " the Chair will ask to hear from those in attendance who would like to speak about something not on the agenda. Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes or less and cannot speak to an issue for which a public hearing was previously held and closed or a matter scheduled for a future hearing. Individuals should not expect the Park Board to respond to their comments. Instead, the Park Board might direct the matter to stafffor consideration at a future meeting. V. UPDATES FROM STAFF (information only — no action requested) A. Veterans Memorial Committee. VI. PARK BOARD COMMENTS VII. * 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 else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. * These are agenda items that require or request Park Board action. To: Edina Park Board From: John Keprios, Director Edina Park and Recreation Department Date: September 8, 2010 Re: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2010, PARK BOARD MEETING STAFF REPORT. Enclosed you should find the following items: 1. Monday, August 9, 2010, Park Board Work Session Minutes. 2. Tuesday, September 14, 2010, Park Board Agenda. 3. 2010-2014 CIP. 4. 2011-2015 Proposed CIP. 5. 2011-2015 Shown by Category 6. Unfunded Capital Park Projects. 7. Page 24 of Needs Assessment Survey "Allocation of $100 for Edina Parks and Recreation Facilities. " 8. Page 26 of Needs Assessment Survey "Parks and Recreation Services that Should Receive the Most Attention." The following is the monthly Staff Report concerning each item on the agenda with the • exception of Approval of the Minutes, Public Comment and Park Board Comment. PARK BOARD MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS EDINA CITYHALL 4801 WEST SO STREET The Tuesday, September 14, 2010, Park Board meeting will be at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at Edina City Hall. If you are unable to attend, please call either Office Coordinator, Janet Canton, at 952-826-0435 or me at 952-826-0430. I. WELCOME NEW STUDENT MEMBERS We welcome and thank our two newest student members to the Park Board: Austin Dummer and Felix Pronove. They each will serve a one-year term and do not have voting rights. I will be giving them both the generic Power Point Presentation orientation as new incoming Park Board members at 6:15 p.m. on the 14`h prior to the Park Board meeting. Thank you Austin and Felix for serving and welcome aboard! II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES * Monday, August 9, 2010 Work Session. The Park Board is asked to read the minutes from this Work Session and feel free to make any changes or corrections that may not accurately reflect the discussion that took place on August 9, 2010. • Park Board action is requested on this agenda item. III. NEW BUSINESS A. *2011-2015 Capital Improvement Plan. Enclosed is a copy of the proposed Capital Improvement Plan projects for the next five years. The items in green shade are those projects that have been newly added this year to the CIP. The two projects in yellow shade are projects that have been previously recommended but I am suggesting they be moved on the schedule. I recommend that the Countryside Park parking lot renovation be moved from 2012 to 2011 due to its advanced deterioration. I recommend that we do the Natural Resources Inventory Assessment all in 2012 rather than $50,000 in 2011 and another $50,000 in 2012. 1 recommend that for two reasons. We are likely to get a better price by completing the project all in one year. Secondly and more importantly, I suspect that the new Edina Energy and Environment Commission may want to suggest a slightly different approach to the Natural Resources Assessment. There have been discussions and suggestions regarding a new tree ordinance and Forestry Board which might affect the methodology of the Natural Resources Assessment. Delaying the start of that process for one year I believe would be beneficial. There are six new projects (highlighted in green) proposed to be added to the 5 -year CIP list of which three of them should be done next year. The outdoor basketball courts at Weber Park and Countryside Park have deteriorated beyond repair and are in need of renovation. We were originally planning to resurface these courts using our 2011 operating budget dollars; however, the courts are now beyond resurfacing and need to be rebuilt. Luckily, we were able to successfully receive a $60,000 grant this year to help us replace the hockey rinks at Walnut Ridge Park and Pamela Park. That should allow enough funding to cover the cost of renovation of these two basketball courts in 2011. I am also recommending replacement of our 30 year old east greenhouse at Arneson Acres Park in 2011. We have two greenhouse units at Arneson Acres Park; however, the older of the two is energy inefficient, the block foundation is crumbling and we are fearful that the facility will not survive another year. It has a lessor roof load capacity than code requires today and has too flat of a roof pitch to shed the snow properly in the winter which causes a safety hazard especially with the worn and dated plastic roof material. We had planned on making this a Garden Council fundraising project; however, they do not have adequate funds to cover the costs plus pursue their desire to pay for a new master plan for Arneson Acres Park. The purchase and installation of a new replacement greenhouse is $30,000. Another new project added to the five-year plan is the renovation of the Rosland Park pathway. We had hoped to get by with a seal coat of the pathway in two years covered by our operating budget; however, the age and deterioration are demanding a complete renovation of the pathway which is beyond what our Paths and Hard Surfaces Budget can endure. Therefore, we have added $250,000 to the 2012 CIP to renovate the pathway at Rosland Park. We are recommending renovation of the comfort station at Bredesen Park in 2013. There are numerous plumbing issues with the building and unfortunately it is due to a poor mechanical design that will require significant interior wall and floor demolition and rebuild to correct the ongoing expensive plumbing problems. The total renovation will be close to $150,000; however, we anticipate that the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District will pay for half of the project as they paid for half of the building when it was first constructed. If the Watershed District turns down our grant request next year, we will propose more dollars in the 2013 CIP next year. I am proposing that we replace the Normandale Park shelter building in 2015 and I anticipate it will cost approximately $650,000 at that time. Please know that these cost estimates are our best guess and we have not spent money to hire professional cost estimators to determine what these projects will cost. Some projects end up under budget and some over budget. There are many variables in each project that can change the project cost from one year to the next. What is more important for the Park Board is to have a discussion about the proposed priorities. I admittedly struggle with some of my own proposals because there are so many other unfunded projects that we would like to provide the public but don't anticipate having adequate funding. I suggest that the Park Board debate whether the replacement of Normandale shelter building is the next highest priority or should it be completing the master plan at Pamela Park or Countryside Park or Van Valkenburg Park first? The reasoning my staff convinced me of is that Normandale Park shelter building should be of higher priority because we have the most children in the playground program in attendance at that park. It appears that the Normandale Park neighborhood has recently increased its population of youngsters. The park gets high usage both scheduled and non-scheduled use by residents and neighbors. We do not spend resources to do general park use counts so we do not have hard data on which parks get the most unscheduled use. Placing the Countryside Park shelter building and hockey rink higher on the CIP priority list is an option. My biggest concern with that scenario is if we build those new facilities only to find that the recession continues, levy limits are kept in place and we are not able to afford to maintain another hockey rink and shelter building. I believe that our proposed 5 -year CIP reflects the community's priorities that were validated in the Needs Assessment Survey conducted just a few years ago. I have enclosed copies of two pages of the survey results. On the page titled "Parks and Recreation Services that should Receive the Most Attention, "the slide is titled 11Q22. Which Parks and Recreation Services Respondents Think Should Receive the Most Attention from City of Edina Officials Over the Next TWO Years. " Clearly the overwhelming top two choices are "Maintenance of Edina Parks" and Number of walking/biking trails. " The same top two priorities were validated in resident responses that are shown on the page titled "Allocation of $100 for Edina Parks and Recreation Facilities. " The top two are again maintenance and trails. $1,330,000 of the Capital Improvement Plan dollars over the next three years is devoted to "Maintenance of Edina Parks" which equates to 72% of the entire CIP funding. 95% of the CIP in 2011 is maintenance (repairing or replacing existing worn infrastructure); 54% in 2012 and 70% in 2013. We are proposing to spend $535,000 (CIP dollars) on pathways over the next three years which is 29% of the entire CIP funding (not including operating budget • dollars dedicated to paths and hard surfaces). For the past several years, we have focused a lot of our resources and energies to maintaining existing infrastructure and keeping that the priority above building new additional amenities. In our fully developed park system, the biggest and most expensive challenge is to maintain existing infrastructure and replace worn outdated amenities with new and vibrant facilities that keep the parks inviting, welcoming, fun and safe. In short, the overwhelming majority of the CIP over the next three years is on maintenance with a focus on pathways. If the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail becomes a reality, the amount of resources spend on trails in Edina over the next several years will be substantial. To help prioritize the numerous needs and desires for capital improvements, I have enclosed a document that shows the projects listed in priority under the following categories: 1. REPAIR OR REPLACE WORN INFRASTRUCTURE (maintenance) 2. VETERANS MEMORIAL 3. NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY ASSESSMENT 4. DEVELOP NEW PATHWAYS AND PATHWAY LIGHTS (trails) 5. COMPLETE COUNTRYSIDE PARK MASTER PLAN 6. COMPLETE PAMELA PARK MASTER PLAN 7. COMPLETE VAN VALKENBURG PARK MASTER PLAN Veterans Memorial is shown as a high priority because the intent is to complete the project with donated dollars, with the exception of the proposed $30,000 for seed money. The Natural Resources Inventory Assessment is shown as a high priority because it has been requested by the Park Board as a high priority project. I place maintenance as the number one priority which is highest on the priority list for Edina residents as validated by the Needs Assessment Survey. Pathways/trails are high on the list for the same reason. Please do not assume your duty as a Park Board member to be a "rubber stamp" for staff recommendations. Our recommendations should be challenged and questioned. If there are other park improvements that you feel should be higher on the priority list, then I strongly suggest that the Park Board have a dialogue on those recommendations. I have also included a list of $4,330,000 worth of "Unfunded Capital Projects, " many of which are warming house buildings in need of replacement. In addition, the Park Board may have other park improvement ideas/suggestions that are currently not on the list. This is an important function of the Park Board to be a sounding board for the community in prioritizing these large resources. Your thoughtful time and energy spent on this challenge is greatly appreciated. Formal Park Board action is requested on this agenda item. B. Park Assignments For the past several years, Park Board members have been assigned a few parks and those assignments have been posted on the City's website. When the Park Board first volunteered to take on these assignments, the goal was to take digital photos of their assigned parks and give a presentation to the entire Park Board at a formal monthly meeting on their findings and recommendations. The Park Board successfully completed that task for all parks. Since then, previous Chairmen have suggested that the ongoing purpose for these park assignments should be for Park Board members to visit those assigned parks, meet with park users while wearing your name tag and ask questions about their desires for park improvements. The website also suggests that residents with park concerns should contact the Park Board member who is assigned that particular park. I suggest that the Park Board reconsider this practice and eliminate park assignments for a few reasons. When residents have concerns about specific parks, they should contact staff. Currently when residents are encouraged to contact the Park Board member assigned to a particular park, the matter ends up with staff anyway, which it should. My point is I want the Park Board to remember that your role is to suggest policies and not burden yourself with day to day upkeep and other management and staff related responsibilities. I'd prefer that Park Board members educate themselves about all parks and not be overly focused on just a few. As for asking and soliciting resident input on park matters, I'd prefer that we continue to routinely survey our constituents in a professional manner to give us scientifically validated data on how residents feel about programs and facilities. That should be the source we should rely on for making policy decisions rather than you take on the burden of attempting to do that at each assigned park. When we have significant proposed changes for parks, we routinely inform neighbors and conduct either open houses or public hearings on solicit resident input. Again, please keep in mind that the Park Board and City Council dictate policy and it's staff s duty to carry it out. I recommend that we discontinue park assignments for Park Board members. I request that the Park Board have a majority consensus on this recommendation one way or another. C. Community Advisory Team Report — Member Ellen Jones Park Board member Ellen Jones will give the Park Board a verbal report on the results of their • latest meeting of the Community Advisory Team which is working to recommend a process to decide what to do with the former Public Works Building site that has been vacated. No formal Park Board action is requested on this agenda item. IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS During "Public Comments, " the Chair will ask to hear from those in attendance who would like to speak about something not on the agenda. Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes or less and cannot speak to an issue for which a public hearing was previously held and closed or a matter scheduled for a future hearing. Individuals should not expect the Park Board to respond to their comments. Instead, the Park Board might direct the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. V. UPDATES FROM STAFF Staff will give a verbal update on the following items: A. Veterans Memorial Committee. No formal Park Board action is requested on this agenda item. VI. PARK BOARD COMMENTS This is the opportunity for Park Board members to provide comments on park and recreation related matters not on the regular agenda. .7 Minutes of the Edina Park Board Work Session August 9, 2010 Edina City Hall, Community Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Todd Fronek, Dan Peterson, Bill Lough, Randy Meyer, Joseph Hulbert, Keeya Steel, Louise Segreto MEMBERS ABSENT: Jennifer Kenney, Rob Presthus, Ben Pobuda, Ellen Jones STAFF PRESENT: John Keprios, Ed MacHolda, Janet Canton I. DONATIONSIMEMORIALS POLICY Mr. Hulbert informed the Park Board that he thought it would be a good idea to have a work session to discuss policies for donations and memorials. He indicated that during the past year they have had two memorials. One was for Timothy Nunn, a 14 year old who passed away unexpectedly. The second was for Dwayne Lindberg, a member of the Bike Edina Task Force, who passed away. He noted that currently there is a donations/memorial policy in place with specific dollar amounts. Mr. Hulbert indicated that in some cities they literally have a catalog where if you donate X amount you can get a park bench or X amount you can get a water fountain, etc. He commented that he also thought it might be a way for the city to prioritize items that are important to them so that they are not wasting time and resources on certain donated items that maybe aren't important to them. Mr. Hulbert pointed out that as an example there were some challenges with the Timothy Nunn memorials. The neighborhood raised money to surprise the Nunn Family with improvements at the York Park baseball field where Timothy liked to play ball. Mr. Hulbert noted there were some beautiful improvements made. However, there was a large concrete structure, which staff did a nice job of putting together, but it looks like a tombstone. He commented that in theory something like that could be there for 300 years unless someone moves it, whereas if it were a park bench with a 20 year life cycle it would naturally turn over on its own. Mr. Hulbert pointed out that some cities will say in their policies that things that are going to be constructed should not be in open spaces/right-of-ways and should be made out of green materials, etc. He stated that he would like to come up with a way that people who want to make a donation to the city have a frame of reference of what is within reason and what is asking too much. Ms. Segreto stated that she thinks directing giving would be a great idea because she thinks a lot of people who are trying to make a donation can't come up with an idea and if they had a wish list maybe that would help. Mr. Keprios replied he has thought about that; however, for most people to give $5,000 scares them away. He noted that to come up with a wish list that's affordable is very challenging. He commented that what he has learned through the years is that what's most important to those who want to donate is a permanent plaque because it's part of their grieving process. It really doesn't matter what the amenity is, they want the plaque. Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that he did make some mistakes in the process with the Nunn Memorial. He explained that when the neighborhood approached him about making improvements at the baseball field in memory of Tim Nunn to surprise the family. Mr. Keprios informed them that it's never going to be a scheduled field; it's a minimally maintained small area. He also informed them that it's a minimum $5,000 donation to have a plaque. The neighborhood raised the money and it went through the Edina Foundation. He explained that it was supposed to be a surprise but word leaked out and when construction started the Nunns stopped the contractor on the field and told him to stop working because it was supposed to be a grass infield to look more like a little league baseball field and not a multi-purpose baseball/softball field like we have at other small unscheduled fields. Mr. Keprios noted that the grieving parents came in his office in tears and he tried his best to make it a positive experience for all involved. He said that his first lesson was you can't make these things a secret; you must bring the family into it at the beginning of the process. He noted that he did make sure the family was aware that it was not going to be called the Timm Nunn Field to which they agreed "In Memory of was fine. He explained that to name a park or facility requires Park Board and City Council approval. Mr. Keprios noted that his second mistake was when a staff member, who is really good with concrete, drew up a plan to put the plaque on which the Nunn family really liked. In hindsight he felt that he should have gone with his original plan to place the plaque on a flat rock surrounded by flowers. He noted that they had to redo what they already did to have the field the way the Nunns wanted and so they had to get involved in change order pricing with the hired contractor and commented that there were some other challenges when dealing with a grieving family. Mr. Hulbert asked if having some policy would have helped in that situation. For example, it cannot say anything more than "In memory of or it can't be any more than so many inches, or you need to pick from specific items, or the city prioritizes what they want to have done. Mr. Keprios replied that he thinks part of these things should be left to staff to deal with; however, we admittedly may make some mistakes but will hopefully learn from those mistakes. Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Keprios what the Park Board can do to help. Mr. Keprios replied there currently is a policy in place that helps him. Mr. Meyer asked what tools could have been in place that could have helped with the Dwayne Lindberg Memorial. Mr. Keprios responded that the Lindberg Memorial plaque was a departure from the current policy. He noted that he was directed to put the plaque in place. He pointed out that there was no money donated; however, there is a plaque on stone at Centennial Lakes that says "In Memoriam, Dwayne Lindberg, Member of the Bike Edina Task Force 2006- 2010." He stated that in this case, the City Manager directed him to purchase and install the plaque as requested by a City Council member. Mr. Keprios pointed out it's not an ordinance it's a policy so another policy would not have helped in that case. He stated that the policy that's in place now does detract from what would otherwise be filling the parks with plaques because to the donor the plaque is more important than the park amenity. Ms. Segreto asked what if something was done besides a plaque. What if they did a brick in place of a plaque at Arneson Acres, that way you wouldn't be turning away donations. Mr. Keprios stated that gift bricks are a good fundraising method for larger projects like the gazebo at Arneson Acres Park. We have not used that method for ongoing donations. Mr. Keprios pointed out that what the current policy has eliminated is donating a tree that costs approximately $100.00 but the donor wants to place a $200.00 plaque at the base of the tree. If a mower hits it the city is responsible to replace it. That is what they've been able to avoid with the current policy. Mr. Fronek asked if they could put a policy in place with regards to a material change in the park that when a donation is made there are conditions and certain steps that need to be followed. Mr. Meyer asked if something is changing in the park and the improvements need maintaining, does the city allow for those costs as part of the process. Mr. Keprios replied that with the Nunn Memorial had it been requested to have a grass infield at the very start he would have rejected it and they would have been done with the issue. Mr. Meyer asked if there is a policy that they could put in place so that not only are they requiring the cost of the impact but also the maintenance over a period of years. Ms. Segreto stated that she doesn't think anyone will want to get hooked with that. Mr. Meyer replied probably not, but that they could structure it in such a way that they say the cost of implementation is X and with the special trimming that will need to be done in the next five years the total number is 2X, would you like it or not. Mr. Keprios indicated that he has talked to the Park Foreman and City Forester and they have decided to increase the charge of donated trees so that it will cover the cost of future maintenance as well as administrative and forester time. Mr. Lough asked what the recognition is for donating a tree to which Mr. Keprios replied that in the past they would put a plaque in concrete next to every tree that was donated, however the current policy has eliminated that. Mr. Lough asked when the tree dies if the plaque goes too. Mr. Keprios replied the way he has been handling it is when a tree dies that has been donated and has a plaque he contacts the family and asks if they want to donate money for a new tree and continue on. If they choose not to then he gives the family the plaque. Mr. Meyer asked if they are going to a standard plaque or is it always specific per project. Mr. Keprios replied it's been specific per project. Mr. Meyer asked would it help to have something standard for e.g., an 8 x 8 inch brick with "In Memory Of' and up to 20 digits. However, if you're donating $50,000 or more you may be able to pick out something different. He noted that if people are picking out something every time they make a donation that takes a tremendous amount of staff's time. Mr. Meyer suggested saying there are 100 spots available to place a tree, they are $1,000 each and we are going to put 3 a 10 x 10 paver in the ground. Pick the one you want and it will be installed within the next six months. Ms. Steel stated that if recognition really is the key to getting donations maybe they need to be more creative in giving that recognition and it would be different for every park. She noted that she thinks they need to be a little more creative than just putting a plaque next to every tree. They need to help people think about different ways of donating to the parks. Mr. Peterson asked Mr. Keprios what happened when they closed the "Brian Wippermann Gun Range". Mr. Keprios replied that when the new training facility was built they named the training room the "Wippermann Training Room" and the plaque is still there. Mr. Peterson asked what the situation is with the couple that left over $300,000 to Braemar Golf Course. Mr. Keprios replied it's in the Braemar Memorial Fund. Mr. Meyer asked where is the Braemar Memorial Fund to which Mr. Keprios explained that it is held by the City of Edina under an agreement approved by the City Council. It is in the City coffers and it's in a specific fund that's a dedicated fund which the City Council voted on and approved. The language is very specific that it cannot be used to pay off debt or used for operating fund things. It needs to be used for things that the golf course could otherwise not afford to do. Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that regarding plaques they are in all shapes and sizes throughout the park system. He noted that, if the Park Board wants, he could try to come up with something that says on certain donations the size of the plaque would need to be limited to 8 x 10, etc. Ms. Segreto asked Mr. Keprios if a standard donor contract would make his life easier. She noted that they would address everything that's problematic in the contract. Mr. Meyer indicated wouldn't they be doing themselves a favor if they said here is our ten year vision for each of these parks and these are the things we are going to do. You are welcome to do one of these things. If you would like to do something outside of this you will need to jump through some more hoops. Mr. Keprios commented that they have their capital plan but that they are really large dollar items and thinks that, if the Park Board wants, he could work on a wish list of smaller more affordable items for donors to choose from. Mr. Meyer indicated that he still likes the idea of donating trees at $1,000 each. He noted doing this would be more of a process versus going around taking pictures, etc. and spend countless hours with these requests. Mr. Lough asked of the handful of donations that have met the requirements for a plaque in the past two years how many would have not gotten it if there was no plaque. Mr. Keprios replied he does not know the answer to that off the top of his head. Mr. Lough asked, "What is the City's obligation to the citizens of the community in recognizing 4 fellow citizens in memorials through plaques in the park?" Mr. Keprios responded that is for the Park Board to decide. Mr. Lough stated it's a two sided question, what if they were to raise the amount to $50,000 before they can get a plaque and everything else goes into the general fund or Park and Recreation Fund. Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Keprios if a contract had been there would it have avoided a lot of issues and maybe the contract thing is a starting point for them. Mr. Keprios replied that's a wonderful idea. Mr. Fronek commented that just to streamline the process maybe they should unload some of the work on the Edina Foundation because that's what it's there for. Mr. Fronek indicated that if all of the donations could be funneled through the Edina Community Foundation it may be a better way to deal with them. Ms. Segreto stated that there was reference in the Edina Policy about a large plaque displaying the names of all large donors that was never erected. She asked if this is something they should do now. Mr. Keprios explained that at the time of the policy they were going through the anguish of what to do with the old building. Should they renovate it or tear it down and therefore was directed to not do a large plaque at that time. He noted that when they first moved into the new city hall everyone was directed to not hang anything on the walls so nothing has been done. Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that his advice at this point would be to drop the whole language about the recognition board. Ms. Segreto commented that if it was standardized and the names were up for five or ten years maybe that would satisfy a donor. Mr. Keprios pointed out that all donors are listed yearly on the city website and quarterly in the About Town as well as they are given letters and are recognized at every City Council meeting so there is public recognition, it's just not on a permanent plaque. Ms. Steel indicated that she thinks there is a sentimental connection with the neighborhood parks and donations that are made. Therefore she doesn't know if a central city location would really meet the wants of all the people donating. Mr. MacHolda indicated that maybe there is a section of the city's website welcoming donors. He suggested someone from communications explore where places like the Guthrie for e.g. are going out and getting these donations as well as find out how they give recognition. Mr. Lough stated that one of the nice points of this discussion is that it's really trying to do something for Edina and contributing money for Edina and less so about the memorial and remembrance part of it. Looking at doing something for the city but not invest a lot in plaques. Ms. Steel asked the Park Board to keep in mind there is a task force that is currently looking at considering a Veterans Memorial. Therefore she doesn't want them to come up with a policy that is in contradiction with what they are doing. Mr. Keprios indicated that there is a big difference between honoring those who made the ultimate sacrifice for your country versus grieving a lost loved one. Ms. Steel commented that she still thinks they need to think about if there is any future donations to that or recognitions having to do with the memorial as well as what specific things can be replaced during its lifespan. Mr. Keprios stated that he is still not clear on how the Park Board feels about the elimination of the permanent plaque that is currently in the language of the policy. He asked the Park Board how they would feel if he took a shot at tweaking the current policy to include a contract as well as put something in there about a minimum donation for specific items. He noted that as staff they will work toward a wish list so that people can make it simple rather than going case by case. He asked as far as recognition with plaques, "Should it be left at a $5,000 threshold?" Mr. Meyer replied to maybe raise it a little bit but he would like to see something really, really simple that is pre -done and straightforward. Mr. Fronek indicated that he definitely thinks there needs to be a threshold, whether it's an automated thing where if you donate X amount you get this. However, if the donation is $50,000 or more then there can perhaps be a little bit more back and forth. He noted that would be valuable staff time for those larger donations. Mr. Meyer commented that regarding plaques he still doesn't think they should be doing custom plaques. He noted that maybe if the donation is $20,000 and up then you get an 8 x 10 plaque, if it's less than $20,000 it's a 3 x 5 plaque. Ms. Steel indicated that in her vision a wish list would take care of all of this. It would just be the cost, location of the item, what recognition if any would be on it and the lifespan. The donor would know everything up front when they are shopping for an item. Mr. Keprios explained that as an example when the neighbors of Fox Meadow came forward wanting to develop the area into a park. They were able to raise a lot of money and get it done but they also wanted their names on a plaque, which ended up being a good size plaque. He noted that he could see this same thing happening at Van Valkenburg Park where the neighborhood wants to see the park developed and finished. What should that standard be? Ms. Steel replied that personally she thinks that things outside of the wish list should come to the Park Board to be fully vetted to have a good discussion so that everyone knows what is going on and has gotten their ideas across. Mr. Meyer asked how much funding is required to do what they want to do. Mr. Keprios replied approximately $300,000 to $400,000 for what they plan to do. He commented if they get motivated to raise money and do the whole thing, what do you do for those who donated? Mr. Fronek replied that's why they would have the threshold, if it's above $50,000 then the Park Director, Park Board and City Council should have a certain amount of leeway to figure out some sort of plaque or memorial that would be appropriate for a gift of that size. Mr. Meyer asked how many people would be donating, 3 or 50 to which Mr. Keprios replied 50. Mr. Meyer noted that he would have the plaque that says "Renovated by the neighbors of the park, 2010". He commented that he thinks they need to keep it simple. Ms. Segreto stated that she thinks they need to be able to make an exception when they want. 0 Mr. Lough indicated that for part of the policy he thinks they ought to consider the idea that they would like to increase participation among all of the citizens of Edina and encourage people to give something. He noted that he thinks they need to start a list and publish the list of people who give to the City and give a lot of hoopla to that list. He stated that you want to build that habit at a low level, $50, $100, etc. and then someday someone is going to turn around and give $5,000, $10,000 or $300,000 because they were reminded each year how much they appreciate the city and what has done for them and their families. He would like for people to start to consider building a habit of giving and getting recognition through their name on a list. Mr. Keprios pointed out that they already have a great program that does that. He stated that he knows there will still be people who will want something meaningful to them and their loved ones at a specific park that is not on the list. He asked how he should handle those requests. Mr. Meyer suggested he tell those people that he Park Board requires the Park Director to work only on equipment/materials that are part of their ten year vision for each park unless the gift is over $100,000. He stated that they need to have a framework that Mr. Keprios can operate with. Mr. Peterson commented that he doesn't see the reason why someone cannot have a plaque if they've donated a water fountain, bench, etc. Mr. Fronek indicated that if it meets a certain dollar amount they can. He added there are a thousand different ways for people to be memorialized, it doesn't necessarily need to be in a park or on city land. Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that they will get special requests like the one Park Board just approved for Willard Ikola at Braemar Arena. He noted those types of things he will continue to bring to the Park Board to rule on. II. NAMING PARKS AND FACILITIES POLICY Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that the naming of parks and facilities has always been the City Council's call on a case by case basis, there is no written policy. He asked if this might be a discussion to have in a work session with the City Council. Mr. Keprios stated that naming things is strictly politics and something that as a matter of practice staff stays away from. Mr. Meyer suggested that if it is brought up at a public hearing to name something after someone for the first time that the actual approval cannot take place for at least six months. This way something doesn't just show up on a building. There should be a separation timeline between when somebody is leaving or retiring versus when it can happen. Ms. Segreto asked why would the City Council approve that, why would they want to have their hands tied. Mr. Meyer replied because he thinks it's in their best interest so that it is not done out of emotion. Mr. Hulbert noted that he read some cities are no longer going to change the name of parks. However, facilities are still on the table for discussion. He noted that he does like the idea of having a timeline before naming of something can be approved. 7 Mr. Keprios indicated that he thinks the difficult thing for future Park Boards and City Councils is that it's difficult to change the name of a real estate that's been named after someone. It's a little different when it's a building because buildings have a life expectancy and eventually have to be rebuilt and then it's an appropriate time to rename it. At what time does it feel okay to rename a park? Mr. Peterson indicated that since Braemar Golf Course Manager John Valliere is retiring after 40 plus years of service he would like everyone to think about renaming the nine - hole golf course to the "Valliere Golf Course." He pointed out that Mr. Valliere has done so much good with Braemar Golf course and especially with the Sister Kenney Golf program. He noted that it wouldn't cost much to redo a plaque above the little pro shop and someday when they are out of scorecards reprint them to say "John Valliere Executive Course." Dan Peterson MOVED THAT MOTION. Todd Fronek SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Fronek indicated that he thinks these are exactly the types of situations that a policy should be written for. Mr. Hulbert commented that he thinks one of the reasons they are talking about this is to kind of slow it down a bit. Mr. Meyer stated it comes back to his window of reality where they should wait six months. At that time after everyone has thought about it and talked about a half dozen other options, then decide what it is they would like to do for Mr. Valliere and what really makes sense. Todd Fronek MOVED TO ACKNOWLEDGE MR. VALLIERE'S SERVICE TO THE CITY OF EDINA AND AS APPROPRIATE AND CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR EITHER NAMING A FACILITY OR PROVIDING SOME SORT OF RECOGNITION FOR THE SERVICE THAT HE HAS GIVEN. Dan Peterson SECONDED TODD'S MOTION AND WITHDREW HIS ORIGINAL MOTION. In Favor — 5 — Todd Fronek, Dan Peterson, Randy Meyer, Joseph Hulbert, Keeya Steel Against — 1 — Louise Segreto Abstained —1 — Bill Lough Mr. Lough noted that since he is not completely familiar with the extent of Mr.Valliere's service to the city, therefore before voting for such a motion he would like to see a brief write up as to what it is and why they are voting and therefore has abstained. Keeya Steel MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO WAIT TO APPROVE THE NAMING OF FACILITIES AND PARKS FOR SIX MONTHS AFTER THE DEPARTURE OF CITY STAFF OR THE PASSING AWAY OF A RESIDENT. Mr. Meyer asked Ms. Steel if this is a motion that she would like to see pass now or is it part of a policy they are thinking about incorporating. Mr. Lough stated that for purposes E3 of a working session he would be willing to pass something that says my sense of the group is we are trying to slow this thing down and extend the period. Ms. Steel noted that her hesitation is sending that recommendation forward and not having any accompanying policy. Mr. Meyer pointed out that since Ms. Steel voted yes for the recommendation she can bring this up again because she wants to change her vote and see if it fails the second time around. Mr. Fronek stated that he thinks they are talking about two separate issues. He thinks one is recognition on behalf of the Park Board for Mr. Valliere's service. Secondly does the Park Board want to recommend a particular policy to the City Council in terms of naming parks and/or facilities? Mr. Fronek stated it might be helpful to implement a six month cooling off period. Mr. Peterson stated that he can see why the City Council would want to commemorate Gordon Hughes right away and name the pavilion at Centennial Lakes after him. He did an incredible job for the city as has Mr. Valliere. He doesn't see a need for a cooling off period. He sees a cooling off period for the death of a loved one who may want something out of the ordinary but can't quite get the $5,000 or $10,000. Maybe the grieving process will change their mind during those six months. Ms. Steel pointed out to her it actually seems like increasing the importance of the service of that person because by waiting six months and then having a ceremony and really recognizing the person. Ms. Segreto noted that she has a procedural issue question as to whether Ms. Steel can amend the motion that was passed. Mr. Meyer noted that she supported the motion and she is choosing to switch her vote so she can call up the motion again and see if there is support to vote it down. Mr. Hulbert stated that he thinks the City Council wants to have the flexibility when it comes to naming of parks or facilities. Mr. Lough asked if the Park Board would typically look at naming a park or facility before it goes to the City Council for a vote or does it bypass the Park Board altogether. Mr. Peterson replied they are just an advisory Board and if the City Council wants the Park Board's advice they will ask for it. Ms. Steel indicated that she thinks the discussions are going to take place regarding peoples' retirements or passing away no matter what. She stated that giving people time to really discuss which parks or facilities have meaning to this particular person have everyone included and take a little time to think it through. She commented that she is fully confident in the City Council's decision to pick the appropriate place, she is just asking for a little more time and not streamline it as soon as someone retires. Mr. Meyer indicated that maybe it's not appropriate tonight but at the next formal Park Board meeting recommend that they wait a minimum of six months from the person's separation of employment or duty from the city before any naming rights are considered. Ms. Steel stated that she approved the recommendation because she does believe Mr. Valliere should be recognized and should be considered for having something named after him. However, at the same time she also believes that there needs to be some waiting time to fully think it through and get other people's input. Mr. Hulbert added that they may even find a better idea. Mr. Hulbert commented that when he initially saw that the promenade bike path was going to be named after Dwayne Lindberg he thought that was a pretty big gesture. He noted that in that case it may have been a good thing to wait the six months before doing anything. Mr. Hulbert asked if this could be put on the agenda for the next Park Board meeting. Mr. Keprios replied that what he hears the Park Board saying is that they prefer a waiting period and therefore the language that he will put together will be from the comments he has heard that the waiting period would begin the day that a suggestion is made regardless who the person is. Also, formal action wouldn't be taken for six months after the day that it is proposed and the departure. Mr. Meyer indicated that in addition to the six month waiting period so that it isn't an emotional response but what about the costs and long term implications. He gave the example what if they wanted to put up a 12 x 24 bronze plaque and it's coming out of the city fund what are the financial implications of that. Mr. Keprios asked Mr. Meyer if he is suggesting that the dollars should come from another source. Mr. Meyer replied possibly but more so he thinks in understanding of what the long-term cost implications are in terms of either city manpower or recognitions. Mr. Keprios replied that typically in naming of things there really are not a lot of costs. Mr. Keprios asked the Park Board to think about a couple of things between now and their next meeting. In addition to a waiting period give some thought to whether the policy should state that the person should be deceased before naming a park or facility after them. Also, give some thought to perpetuity once you name something, does it always have to be that name or do you want to put a sunset on it. He indicated that these are just some ideas he has heard kicked around in other naming policies. Mr. Meyer indicated that he thinks what Mr. Keprios is struggling with is sometimes when they name something down the road nobody remembers who they are and is it a value. He suggested that maybe the language is something along the lines of we are naming this park for a minimum of 50 years and after that it can be changed. Mr. Keprios indicated just so he understands what the Park Board would like him to work on the naming of facilities. He asked if they would like him to come up with something to look at for the September meeting. Mr. Peterson and Mr. Hulbert both replied yes. Ms. Segreto replied she is not expecting anything, she doesn't think they should get into it. Mr. Hulbert asked Mr. Keprios to tell them what he comes up with and they can talk about it at their next meeting. Mr. Keprios replied that he is happy to work on whatever the Park Board would like him to do as staff. He just wants to make sure he is doing what it is they are requesting of him. 10 Ms. Steel noted that she thinks it might be valuable to meet in a work session setting again. She suggested meeting an hour before the next Park Board meeting. Mr. Hulbert asked Mr. Keprios if that gives him enough time to work through the memorial donation ideas. He replied that may not have it completely ready but that the wish list will be ready. Mr. Hulbert asked about having another work session after the next Park Board meeting to which Mr. Keprios replied that would help a lot. Mr. Hulbert also suggested that they try to have another work session so that they are not trying to cram everything into an hour. III. PARK BOARD COMMENT A. Three Rivers Park — Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Keprios if there is any chance the Park Board could meet with someone from Three Rivers Park to give them all the up-to- date information. He indicated that he knows currently there are a couple of different plans and routes. He noted that he thought it would be helpful to understand what they are currently proposing before the joint meeting that is currently scheduled for September 29th. He commented they could do it in another work session type setting. Ms. Steel asked if there are documents available that speak about the issues that would be helpful and asked if they could be sent out electronically. Mr. Keprios pointed out that as of today there are three options that will be presented at the joint work session. He noted that it is now staff's mission to come up with the pros and cons of each option. He indicated that he will see if Kelly Grissman from Three Rivers Park District can meet with the Park Board one hour before their September 14th Park Board meeting to bring the Park Board up-to-date on everything. Mr. Peterson asked what role the Park Board plays regarding the bike path. Mr. Keprios replied that he thinks they are just asking for the Park Board to voice their own views on this. They are not looking for any specific recommendations from the Park Board yet at this time. MEETING ADJOURNED 11 z Q r 0 C:) o 0 O 0 O o O N O O p o o O rt O ,D bF} M rl 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 M 0 M 0 Q- N• 0LO CO O CD M LO LOO EA r NI O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O o N O O CO O O - O to r rl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N O N LO t7 O LO O LO oLO M O L6 0) EA 0 0 CD 0 CD O O � O JCCD O ON O O OLO N ti N M M C O E!3 O O E m > (D LL OO C) C C O m M (n CC O C O E L) E U 0 E N Q. Q x Q L) N � J W W W 0 C Q L O Q O N Q Y O ' O) J O J O J m a- -00 m >�l O Cif +� 2>1M O W O 0 O (n }O- Y m N CJ 3 C O O O > J > (n>, a) 2)" a _ 0) 0 > C6 W > O T M W W a- Y >1 m a) M W L = o N �' m U a. O O N U m a m a Df m Z> LL m a. i � CB a O� � i � LY ° N N � (0 Y � m -1.1e m m � J +-ca c O J Q �` c O J Q ? c �' c m a. N m N m N m O Q Q Ri -0 E Q O � O O m m O 1- Q m :3 O D O E3 M N E M E m E m N ~ O co Q- UI—ZC�> ZUU W JaWo_ Z U) 0 N � Ir - CD NI MI O N O O O CD 0 0 0CD 6 C 0 Ln Cn LO O to CD O O O O O O O O a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O L6O O O L.() 0 0 O f- M cc M � d' Cfl 00 00 M CC> LO 6q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (.C) N 00 00 N CD CD i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C v O O O O O O O O O O T LO LO 0 0 0 LO 0 0 to �j � N N M M r1 N M 00 N LO LO N r N M 0 d LO r r r r r � Q CD 0 CD N N N N N > O CE O O O O (D � LLO Q m O W O O O 0 v o 0 0 : 0 m o Cl)o V) Q cu >L O 0 O C (0 (B U)ON O O N C O N L O I+. O > 0 U C M C CU C 2 Q O > C� O o c a� Q- 0 0) a � i J T-- (n 0 0 0 W x W X 0 V) CU 0 O W 0) O o U _0 T c O w L 0 >0 U N Q >0 O .0 J J J (B (6 n m 7 m (a > > i C O � N L (13 � C= "- 0) 0)_� C CL fO O a� : o 0 0 U (0 cn e- C a� N U 3 v O > J - Y O c L O O O (0 p (0 v O C in Ln 1 (n � � = (B C O � 1 1 O L O O N E E (0 m co N ca � a' O i (� co Y � � (n Z > � (0 L W N 0` L (B 1 p L Y 1 LL O d N c) Q O Y Y (B O 70_0 N ^^m Y m ^^(B ^^(B O (� o v @ (n L /� in L (n tea) LL In Cn C LL m LL LL � '� (B L O L � /� I..L � � � L L (n (� ll (a (Q (� Q � � N � c O c c c O N (n 5 Q c 3 o o m o 0 o c`u aZ is o 0 0 (D c�a c�a 0 0 °Q) CU U Q 0 U F— C7 > Zcj� U U m a- J d d a. Z z E— (D 2011-2015 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (Categories in order of priority) • 1. REPAIR OR REPLACE WORN INFRASTRUCTURE • Todd Park pathway renovation 2011 • Garden Park parking lot renovation 2011 • Countryside Park basketball court renovation 2011 • Weber Park basketball court renovation 2011 • Chowen Park playground equipment 2011 • Countryside Park west parking lot renovation 2011 • Arneson Acres Park Greenhouse Replacement 2011 • Rosland Park pathway renovations & improvements 2012 • Renovate comfort station at Bredesen Park 2013 for $75,000 (shared expense with Watershed District — total project costs estimated at $150,000) • Replace warming house/shelter building at Normandale Park 2015 • Replace warming house/shelter building at Arden Park (future date) • Replace warming house/shelter building at Highlands Park (future date) • Replace warming house/shelter building at Strachauer Park (future date) 2. VETERANS MEMORIAL • Veterans Memorial at Utley Park 2011 3. NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY ASSESSMENT • • 100% to be completed in 2012 (as opposed to 50% in 2011 and 50% in 2012) 4. DEVELOP NEW PATHWAYS AND PATHWAY LIGHTS • Countryside Park pathway 2012 • Lewis Park pathway lighting 2013 • New pathway for Highlands Park (future date) 5. COMPLETE COUNTRYSIDE PARK MASTER PLAN • West parking lot renovation 2011 • Playground 2012 • New pathway 2012 • New outdoor hockey rink (future date) • New warming house/shelter building (future date) • Upgrade west baseball field (future date) 6. COMPLETE PAMELA PARK MASTER PLAN • Renovate senior athletic field 2013 • South parking lot expansion 2013 • North parking lot expansion 2013 • West parking lot expansion 2013 • New athletic field 2014 • Renovate/expand warming house (future date) 7. COMPLETE VAN VALKENBURG PARK MASTER PLAN • Playground equipment and amenities (future date) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln Ln O Ln 1.0 Ln Ln N O m �o � Ln �o V� N Ln m Q H O H � bn o ti 0 ,4 � o, o mon 0-,4:3Q) o � bo •� � 3 0 3 c a 2 a aa.a b u Q) V)a Q�x ci)UUU� • Allocation of $1 00for Edina Parks and Recreation Facilities Respondents were asked how they would allocate $100 among seven categories of funding for Edina parks and facilities. The following summarizes key findings: ■ Respondents indicated they would allocate $30 out of every $100 to the improvements/maintenance of existing parks and recreation facilities. The remaining $70 were allocated as follows: development of new walking and biking trails ($26), development of new indoor community facilities ($15), removal of buckthorn from city parks ($9), development of new outdoor and indoor sports facilities ($7), development of a new indoor nature center ($5), and the development of a new outdoor uncovered artificially refrigerated hockey rink ($4). Respondents chose to allocate $3 to other facilities. Q20. How Respondents Would Allocate $100 In Extra funds If Made Available for the City of Edina by percentage of respondents Improvements/maintenance of existing facilities Develop new walking/biking trails Develop new indoor communities facilities Removal of buckthorn from city parks Develop new outdoor/indoor sports facilities Develop new indoor nature center Develop new outdoor hockey rink Other Source: Leism-e VinonETC Institute (October 2(06) $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 Executive Summary - 24 Parks and Recreation Services that Should Receive the Most Attention From the list of 17 various parks and recreation services provided by the city of Edina, respondents were asked to select the three they feel should receive the most attention from the City of Edina officials over the next two years. The following summarizes key findings: ■ Based on the sum of their top three choices, the parks and recreation services that respondents feel should receive the most attention over the next two years are: maintenance of Edina parks (54%), number of walking/biking trails (54%), the City youth programs (15%), and number of nature conservation areas (15%). It should also be noted that maintenance of Edina parks had the highest percentage of respondents select it as their first choice as the parks and recreation service that should receive the most attention over the next two years. Q22. Which Parks and Recreation Services Respondents Think Should Receive the Most Attention from City of Edina Officials Over the Next TWO Years by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top three choices Maintenance of Edina parks Number of walking/biking trails The City youth programs Number of nature conservation areas Number of Edina parks Quality of outdoor athletic fields Quality of outdoor swimming pools Qualtiy of indoor athletic fields Quality of programs/facilities for adults age 55+ Availability of info about Edina programs/fac. The City adult programs Fees charged for recreation programs Number of City baseball/softball fields User friendliness of City website Number of City soccer fields Ease of registering for programs Ot"er Ec ra Programs. i.e. services. trips. etc. 54% 54% 15%; 15%, 12% 12% 9% 9% 6% 6%; 4% 4% 3% 3% 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% MMost m2nd most 03rd most Source: Leisure Vision= ELtitute (October 2006) Executive Summary - 26