HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-06-17 Park Board Packetoe
\�cORPORP'��
1888
AGENDA
Regular Meeting of the Edina Park Board
� Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 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
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
* Tuesday, May 12, 2009, Park Board Minutes.
II. NEW BUSINESS
A. *2010-2014 Capital Improvement Plan.
III. OLD BUSINESS
A. Community Gardens.
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
1
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.
2
Memo
To: Edina Park Board
From: John Keprios, Direc or
Edina Park and Recre 1 Department
Date: June 5, 2009
Re: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 2009, PARK BOARD MEETING STAFF REPORT.
Enclosed you should find the following items:
1. Tuesday, May 12, 2009, Park Board Minutes.
2. Wednesday, June 17, 2009, Park Board Agenda.
3. Proposed 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Plan for the Park and Recreation
Department's General Parks.
4. Proposed 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Plan for Braemar Golf Course.
5. Proposed 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Plan for Braemar Arena.
6. Proposed 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Plan for the Edina Aquatic Center.
7. Proposed 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Plan for Edinborough Park and
Centennial Lakes Park.
8. 2009-2013 Adopted CIP.
9. General Parks Unfunded Projects.
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 CITY HALL
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
The Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 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. On a personal note, thank you all for
accepting my request to move the June meeting to the 17th to accommodate my schedule. I
sincerely appreciate it and I promise to never do that again! Thank you.
II. NEW BUSINESS
A. *2010-2014 Capital Improvement Plan
Enclosed is a copy of the proposed 5 -year Capital Improvement Plan projects for the
various enterprise facilities and the general parks for the years 2010-2014. Within the
General Parks CIP, the new CIP proposed projects are highlighted in yellow. Due to a
shortfall in revenues plus much lower than expected levy limits imposed by the State
Legislature, we have been directed to re -prioritize our Capital Improvement Plan
projects to lower expenditures for the next five years.
For the General Parks CIP, staff is proposing a number of changes, additions and
deletions from the 5 -year plan that was approved by the Park Board in 2008. As you
will notice, yearly totals have been reduced each year as follows:
2010
2011
2012
2013
Approved in 2008 $715,000
$600,000
$630,000
$530,000
Proposed in 2009 $430,000
$465,000
$440,000
$505,000
If the State Legislature lifts levy limits and if the economy turns around, there may be
additional funding in the future. If not, then additional reductions may be necessary.
As you will notice, I am suggesting that we put on hold the Park Shelter Building
Improvements for Pamela Park until additional funding is available. I am suggesting
the same for the overall master plan for Countryside Park; however, I am proposing
that we replace and relocate the Countryside Park playground equipment and add phase
#1 pathways in 2012 for an estimated $330,000.
The relocation of the hockey rink for Walnut Ridge Park is actually a 2009 CIP project;
however, it is our recommendation to delay that project until 2010 due to our financial
situation.
I am recommending renovation of the Countryside Park west parking lot in 2012.
Currently their congregation is the most frequent user of the parking lot.
Unfortunately, Colonial Church told me that they are not interested in assisting us
financially with that project. They are not legally obligated to pay for maintenance of
the lot; however, we have been plowing it in the winter months for their church
services even though we are not legally obligated to do so. We may reconsider that
service from here on.
I am also proposing the expansion of the three parking lots at Pamela Park in the year
2013, which is one year after the renovation of the senior athletic field and one year
prior to the addition of the new athletic field. It would be vitally important to have
adequate parking in place when and if the new athletic field is constructed.
I am also proposing to delay the development of the new Pamela Park athletic field
until 2014 for a number of reasons. We need adequate parking in place when the field
is completed. The replacement of playground equipment and start of phase #1 of the
Countryside Park master plan should in my view take priority over the addition of
another new athletic field. In my view, if athletic groups wish to have the field
developed sooner, they could consider a fund-raising effort. I also believe that the
renovation of the parking lot at Garden Park should take higher priority and is in need
of major renovation no later than 2011, which is why I am suggesting moving it from
2012 to 2011.
I am proposing that we can delay the pathway renovation at Todd Park and the
replacement of playground equipment at Chowen Park from 2010 to 2011 without
experiencing any significant problems. This again is more for financial reasons.
2
It is my intent to give a brief summary presentation of the General Parks proposed CIP
at the Park Board meeting. I have asked all of our Enterprise Facility Managers to also
give brief presentations to explain their proposed Capital Improvement Plans. Each of
their proposed 2010-2014 CIPS is also enclosed.
Formal Park Board action is requested on this agenda item.
III. OLD BUSINESS
A. Community Gardens
I have had very limited time to study this matter this past month due to a number of
reasons but mostly because it is our busiest season and the daily problem solving
workload tends to consume the overwhelming majority of every day. I didn't mean for
this to sound like whining but it truly has been inordinately busy.
Having said that, I have spent some time exploring the issue and I would like to suggest
a couple ideas at the Park Board meeting mainly to get more input from the Park Board
and a bit more direction.
As you will notice, I am proposing that the Park Board approve the recommendation to
budget $30,000 to develop our first Community Garden. Through my limited research I
have found it to cost between $10,000 and $50,000 or more to develop a quality
Community Garden depending on the amount of auxiliary infrastructure is already in
place, such as, parking, access to water, proper soils, grade, etc. I will be prepared to
give some verbal recommendations at the June 17 Park Board meeting.
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 be giving a brief verbal updates on upcoming events.
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.
Minutes of the
Edina Park Board
May 12, 2009
Edina City Hall, Council Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Hulbert, Jeff Sorem, Ray O'Connell, Randy Meycr, Bill Lough,
Keeya Steel, Dan Peterson, Rob Presthus
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jennifer Kenney, Ben Pobuda, Todd Fronek
STAFF PRESENT: John Keprios, Janet Canton, Ed MacHolda
I. APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 14.2009 PARK BOARD MINUTES
Dan Peterson MOVED TO APPROVE THE APRIL 14, 2009 PARK BOARD
MINUTES. Ray O'Connell SECONDED THE MOTION. MINUTES APPROVED.
II. NEW BUSINESS
A. Edina Garden Council Presentation — Diane Bomsta, president of the Edina Garden
Council and Deb Armstrong, president of their youth and a member of "Friends of
Garden Park" presented some information to the Park Board about the Edina Garden
Council and gave a power point presentation. Mr. Keprios thanked the Garden
Council for everything they have contributed to the city and noted that they are an
amazing group and he really does appreciate everything they do.
B. YEA Corp Proposal for Chowen Park — Mr. Keprios gave a power point presentation
to show the brief history on where they are to date with the YEA Corp proposal for
Chowen Park. He pointed out that this really is a request to privatize parkland; it is
not the same concept as a community garden, it is completely different. He pointed
out that currently there is no policy or ordinance that prohibits this type of use for a
park. He explained that they have privatized parkland in the past because the golf
dome wasn't always owned by the City of Edina; however, the city always owned the
property. Therefore a precedent has been set in past practice. He indicated that
because there is no written policy on how to deal with these they are dealt with on a
case by case basis.
Mr. Keprios pointed out that as his Staff Report states he recommends that the Park
Board recommend to the City Council that the YEA Corps request be approved for a
one-year trial basis with the following conditions:
1. The site must be well kept, clean and safe for all park users at all times.
2. YEA Corps must provide liability insurance that includes the City of Edina as an
additional insured.
3. After one growing season, YEA Corps must make another formal request to be
granted use of the site for the following year.
4. If denied the right to continue to use the space for a garden, YEA Corps must
restore the site to its original grass condition at their own expense.
He noted that he further recommends that the YEA Corps be held responsible for all
of their own expenses. In other words, they must pay for and provide their own soils
and materials needed to construct the garden.
Mary Helen Franze, 5717 Chowen Avenue, noted that she would like to make two
points. First, when they talk about metal in design it's really chicken wire. Secondly,
in terms of self-sustaining operations this is a new non-profit and they are vigorously
fundraising in any way they can as well as all of their projects use resourceful
practices. She noted they are teaching the youth they can attempt to do anything if
they are resourceful and put together good prudent working skills and practices. She
indicated that Edina Hardware is going to donate some items. Therefore, if the city
does not want to cooperate with donating and delivering pesticide free soils they do
have a back-up plan.
Mr. Sorem asked Ms. Franze if she is confident they can uphold the conditions staff
has stated as far as maintenance, clean-up etc. to which Mr. Franze replied absolutely.
Mr. Hulbert stated that he loves the idea but he keeps struggling with the use of
public land and does feel it sets a little bit of precedence. Mr. Hulbert asked if any of
the parents might be willing to donate a little bit of their backyard for this project but
hold their meetings at the park. He indicated that he is also struggling with the safety
of a three foot fence with poles that are sticking up in right field of the little ball field.
Mr. Hulbert commented that he has been driving around trying to think of areas in
Edina that could possibly be turned into a large community garden.
Mr. Lough stated that from the beginning he thought this was a very good idea in
concept. He noted that he doesn't look on this as a community garden but rather as
an education opportunity for kids which is something that does. fall within Park and
Recreation. He commented that he doesn't see this as any sort of precedent or
potential okay for anything that might resemble a community garden in the future
without other kinds of work or research, presentations and proposals going into it
first. He explained that if he limits this in his mind to an educational effort for the
kids in this particular park area and with the residents going along with it and with the
exceptions that have been stated, there is a difference between a community garden
and an education project.
Mr. O'Connell stated that he is strongly in favor of this because it involves young
people. He pointed out that they still have control and understand the precedence
situation because they've gone through it several times on the Park Board. He
explained that in some previous situations there was a strong attempt to completely
privatize a large plot and in essence to disaggregate such a beautiful piece of
property. Mr. O'Connell commented there are always two sides to the questions and
feels in this case the benefits outweigh any negatives.
Ms. Steel stated that her issue would be accessibility of the public because she
believes there is a place for organizations as far as community gardens. She indicated
2
that with the focus on education perhaps a partnership with the school might be a
• much more appropriate place since it would be for the children.
Mr. Peterson MOVED TO RECOMMEND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO
THE CITY COUNCIL. Ray O'Connell SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED. Approved: Jeff Sorem, Ray O'Connell, Bill Lough, Dan Peterson, Rob
Presthus Denied: Randy Meyer, Joseph Hulbert, Keeya Steel
B. Community Gardens - Mr. Keprios indicated that at the last Park Board meeting there
was a request that staff look into the possibility how to go about developing a
community garden and what process should be used to establish appropriate sites. He
noted that Chairman Fronek asked him to at least explore what it might cost to hire a
consultant to which he found out it would cost approximately $15,000 to do a study
and doesn't think they should go down that path. Mr. Keprios pointed out that
community gardens never surfaced through the Needs Assessment Survey and asked
the Park Board if this is a priority they want staff to direct time and resources to. He
noted that if the Park Board does want to go down this road he believes staff can
probably come up with at least a pilot site with the help of staff and volunteers. He
commented that in addition they will need to have the resources to develop and
maintain the garden site as well as have budget dollars and equipment. Mr. Keprios
explained that they will also need to have resources and a system to administer and
manage equal access to these garden plots. However the most difficult challenge will
be to find an area that is acceptable to those who live closest to the proposed site. Mr.
Keprios asked the Park Board for a little more direction and then give the staff the
charge to figure out a place for it.
Mr. O'Connell stated that he would suggest they wait until they get the results from
the YEA Corps pilot project and then take a harder look at it in September. He added
that currently they have a lot on their plate.
Mr. Presthus agreed with Mr. O'Connell and stated that he thinks it can be put off
until next January after they've received more information.
Mr. Hulbert asked Mr. Keprios what he would expect to get out of $15,000 if they
hired a consultant. He also asked wouldn't staff have a pretty good idea if there are
any potential areas without having to hire a consultant. Mr. Keprios replied that he
thinks staff, with the help of volunteers, may be able to come up with a site that
would work without having to spend $15,000 on a consultant if they want to go in
that direction. Mr. Hulbert stated that he thinks having a community garden would be
a great thing if they could just find a good spot for it.
Mr. Meyer stated that he thinks there are two issues. First, he thinks they need to
come up with a structured policy regarding privatization of public land so that it is a
little more straightforward when the Park Board needs to deal with these issues.
Secondly, with regards to the community gardens he is concerned -that if they put this
off until the fall the reality is that only gives them three or four months to the
beginning of next year to pull something together and because it's such a large issue
he doesn't think that is a realistic timeline. He noted that he thinks they need to
3
conduct some basic research and really think about if this is something they want and
start to put it out to the public because he thinks they are going to get a lot of
feedback and input as a result of this.
Mr. Peterson informed the Park Board that he found "raised beds" on the internet that
a lot of community gardens around the country use. He noted he would like to see
what those cost as well as if groups would buy into it. He indicated that he thinks a
lot of sites could work with these raised beds.
Mr. O'Connell stated that he is not in favor of deferring this for a long period of time.
He suggested that each Park Board member look at their assigned park and see if
something might work. He also suggested talking to the Garden Council and maybe
there is an area they could use at Arneson Acres for a community garden. Mr.
O'Connell stated that he would like to get some more viable information and possibly
get some concrete results.
Mr. Keprios stated that it sounds to him there's a consensus to have staff move
forward with volunteers, such as the garden council, and come back in August or
September with a site than can be debated. Mr. Keprios explained there is a lot that
comes into play with soils, raised beds, resources, etc. He noted that he thinks they
can come up with one or two sites by the September time frame.
Mr. Lough indicated that he would like to know what processes or alternative
processes are used in the set-up and management of community gardens from the
standpoint of the city and more importantly from the standpoint of park and
recreation. He asked what are things to be cognizant, what are the expenses that are
involved, how is the management conducted, etc. He asked Mr. Keprios if the Park
Board could get some type of concise presentation about the way staff would envision
this is going to operate. He indicated that he thinks this would help a lot and then
they could move toward coming up with a site. He noted that he wouldn't like to
solicit too much public input or interest at this point until they know what direction
they are going. He commented that he would like to get ahead of the curve before it
rolls them over.
Mr. Lough MOVED FOR STAFF TO DO SOME RESEARCH TO DETERMINE
EXPECTED MANAGEMENT, LOGISTICS AND EXPENSES INVOLVED IN
ESTABLISHING A COMMUNITY GARDEN AS WELL AS RECOMMEND
CRITERIA OR POLICY TO FOLLOW THAT ADDRESSES THE USE OF
PUBLIC LAND FOR SUCH AN ENTERPRISE. Rob Presthus SECONDED THE
MOTION.
Ms. Steel stated that she would like to add that they look for opinion on it and engage
the public so that when they come back they will have a greater idea of who wants to
be involved and possibly what areas show the most interest.
Mr. Keprios stated that he needs more information on what process to use for public
input. Ms. Steel replied that she is looking for an informal process and is not
expecting a mailing but to find something to at least make sure the public is aware of
4
it. Mr. Keprios suggested that possibly they do a press release and request public
input on the issue and take that approach. Mr. Meyer commented that sounds like a
great idea but another question they may want to ask is for input on whether they are
looking for one big plot or for a few plots around town. He stated he thinks the key at
this point is to keep it simple and include more information.
Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Keprios to sum up what it is he is hearing. Mr. Keprios replied
it is his understanding that the Park Board would like staff to research what the costs
are and resources needed to develop a community garden and also study what all is
involved and needed to administer and manage a community garden program offering
more so than where the garden is going to be located. Mr. Keprios stated that he
will study the best practices used by other communities in administering a community
garden program and the processes they use. Mr. Keprios also stated that he will
solicit public input to gauge the need and desire for a community garden and ask for
the community's general recommendations on the topic.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
C. Pamela Park Scoreboards and Batting Cage — Mr. Keprios gave a power point
presentation on Pamela Park. He informed the Park Board the Edina Girls Fast Pitch
Association (EGFA) has requested an additional batting cage and pitching tunnel
basically for the safety and protection of anyone using the park. Mr. Keprios pointed
out that EGFA recently came forward and have offered to donate money to put up
three electronic wireless scoreboards. He showed the Park Board a picture of what
they would look like. Mr. Keprios explained that as far as this donation goes it would
need to be accepted by the City Council via resolution before they can move forward.
Mr. Keprios indicated that he sent out letters and a map to all of the neighbors who
live within 500 feet of the softball fields which ended up being approximately 75
households. He noted that to date he has received three e-mails and one letter to
which none were favorable toward the project. Mr. Keprios explained that Pamela
Park is characterized as a Community Playfield and it is the largest of eight
community playfields in Edina. He noted that all of community playfields have at
least one or more scheduled athletic activities such as soccer, football, baseball,
softball and hockey.
Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that he did hear some comments that the
process they used was inadequate and wasn't given to enough households and it
wasn't time -wise long enough. He commented that if the Park Board agrees with that
assessment and is not satisfied with the notification process then his recommendation
would be to delay the decision at least on one, if not both, the scoreboards and batting
cage/pitching tunnel projects.
Mr. Presthus asked if they would consider possibly doing just one scoreboard this
year on field #1 where the high schools girls play. Mr. Keprios replied that he feels
that could be a reasonable option worthy of consideration.
Mr. Sorem asked what the needs are for three scoreboards and asked if tournaments
are held there. He also asked if all three scoreboards will be needed at the same time
and if it would be cost effective to install all three at once. Bruce Johnson, EGFA
President, replied that since the fences were put in down the foul line last year that
has improved the facility and made it safe. This summer they have two tournaments
scheduled at Pamela Park. He also commented that when they host league games
during the summer they can often have three games going on at the same time. Mr.
Johnson stated that as far as cost this is a project they were thinking they might do as
a partnership with the schools and possibly the school could contribute to it as well.
He indicated he is not the treasurer but he knows they have the funding right now for
one but most likely two. They do not have the funds to do all three this year.
Mr. Meyer stated that what he thinks he is hearing from the neighbors is that this is an
aesthetics issue. He asked Mr. Keprios if they have looked at putting in some
evergreens behind these or if they could try to do something to make it less intrusive
as a part of the overall park. In addition he asked if the scoreboards could be
mounted a little lower so they aren't quite as intrusive or obvious from someone
walking by. Mr. Meyer noted that he is just looking to see if there are ways they
could make it aesthetically a little more appealing or pleasant to the neighbors.
Mr. Peterson asked if they've thought about putting the three scoreboards behind the
home plates and use it as a triangle labeled fields #1, #2, #3. Mr. Johnson replied that
they would be open to looking at anything because the scoreboards do not need to be
put in one specific location.
Karen Amundson, 5905 Oaklawn Ave., indicated that she has been an Edina resident
for 42 years and commented how very disappointed the situation at Pamela Park has
arisen and the lack of involvement with the neighborhood. She noted that the vast
majority of her neighbors have not had any opportunities during the planning sessions
to give any input whatsoever. Mrs. Amundson pointed out that black fences were
installed at Pamela Park without the knowledge of this community knowing that it
was going to take place. She also stated that beyond the aesthetics of the fence they
have also noticed a big change in the lack of use relative to winter cross country
skiing and other activities on the north end of the park due to the fence being
installed. Ms. Amundson asked whether these changes were appropriate in light of
how this is gong to change the character of this neighborhood park. She explained
that her concern is two -fold; was a fair process of review made available to residents
to be viewed and second the merits of proposed changes. She commented whoever is
on the task force committee representing the neighborhood have not been engaged
with the neighborhood. Mrs. Amundson also noted that the minutes from the March
10`h Park Board meeting stated "the mission is to hopefully get a consensus from the
task force so that they will be ready to go out to the greater community to seek their
input and invite them to the Park meeting", she stated that never occurred. In fact,
this is the first invite in which they have been notified to express their opinion. She
stressed that she is strongly opposed to the scoreboards being installed and in addition
she has no idea how the park will be used and has no idea of any long-term plans, she
added that her greatest fear is that this will virtually turn Pamela Park into a sports
complex. Ms. Amundson informed the Park Board that she has a petition signed by
approximately 50 neighbors on such short notice opposing the installation of these
scoreboards. She requested that there be a time out so that neighbors can be heard.
Steve Aura, 5900 Oaklawn Ave., stated that he was surprised to get a letter that was
mailed to only a handful of residents that live within 500 feet of the actual playing
surface at Pamela Park. He noted that when he went back to the minutes of June
2008 it was noted there would be a meeting with the whole community to have their
say regarding $400,000 that would be put into the fields. He stated that it was also
mentioned in the November 2008 minutes again that there would be a Pamela Park
neighborhood meeting. He indicated that this is the first he has heard of any meeting
to discuss this issue. Mr. Aura pointed out that for a 10 x 10 spot at Chowen Park
notices were sent to people who live within 1,000 feet of that park. He commented
that they never received a letter when they put in 3,000 feet of fence. He indicated
that he thinks things are getting slid in little by little and before they know it there
will be a big complex with scoreboards and lights. Mr. Aura stated he is asking for
this to be put off a little bit until there is a system that involves the neighborhood
people, not just the people who live near it but also the people who use the park and
let them be heard.
Lawrence Anderson, 6012 Oaklawn, noted that he has lived across the street from
Pamela Park for 11 years and considers it a huge privilege. He stated the thing that
really appealed to them when they purchased their home was the openness of it. He
commented that he thinks every one of the 759 houses that live within 1,000 feet of
the park use and enjoy the park. Mr. Anderson commented that along with the
privilege comes a trade-off because it is a multi -use park/community playfield but
feels there is a good deal of balance right now. However, it does seem to get busier
every summer. He noted when the park is busy there is a lot of traffic and he is
concerned from a safety standpoint of kids running back and forth across the street.
Mr. Anderson indicated that people in the general neighborhood treasure the park and
therefore would ask that the Park Board really consider before they add scoreboards
and before they change the character of the park because once those scoreboards are
put in place there is no going back and when he hears the words "sports complex" it
really concerns him.
Mr. Johnson commented that he has lived in Edina for 22 years and lives
approximately six blocks from Pamela Park. He explained that EGFA does not want
to turn the park into a sports complex and they do not want lights because it doesn't
fit in that neighborhood and games can be finished before dusk. He noted that he
likes the small community park feel as well. He pointed out that EGFA is just
looking for some improvements to help their program and the high school's program.
He added they are always open to discussion and when Mr. Keprios suggested the
Pamela Park taskforce EGFA informed him they would like to sit in on those
meetings and listen to as many of the neighborhood people as they could.
Dorvom Amundson, 5905 Oaklawn Ave., stated that he appreciates the games but he
doesn't think there needs to be big scoreboards. He asked couldn't there be a
chalkboard that someone could put the score on. He noted that it would save money
and it would be a simple thing to do. He stated there are other ways of showing the
parents what the score is.
7
Luanne Kuna, 6008 Oaklawn Ave., noted that she lives right across the street from
Pamela Park and she thinks they need to think about their parks and preserve them to
be parks and not try to commercialize them. She stated that she realizes there are
community events that are happening at the park but when they start putting up
electronic things that takes away from the general setting of the park and she feels
they need to preserve that.
Mr. Hulbert indicated that there doesn't seem to be a problem with the batting cage
and pitching tunnel. He noted that the issue just seems to be with the scoreboards and
commented that he likes the idea of trying one scoreboard and see how it goes. He
added that he also likes the idea of putting in some evergreens to make it more
aesthetically pleasing and would like to come to some sort of compromise with the
neighborhood.
Mr. Presthus stated that he would like to at least see them move forward with the
batting cage and pitching tunnel at this time.
Mr. Meyer asked who would be using the scoreboards to which Mr. Johnson replied
that EGFA because that is their primary location as well as the high school and
EYSA. He commented that staff would know if there are any other groups that use it.
Mr. Meyer stated that it seems aesthetics is the biggest issue. He noted that he thinks
there needs to be a little more homework done to look at where they need it, is there
potential interference with other activities and just make sure that we put these in the
right place as well as plant trees around them or behind them. Therefore, he thinks
there needs to be a little more thought put into it and hear some input from the
neighbors. He commented that if this is the path they want to go down they need to
think it through and find the best alternative.
Mr. Lough pointed out that he has heard the words "aesthetic" and "sports complex"
so in addition to everything that's been said to some degree he agrees with trying to
find a compromise. He stated that he thinks it needs to be referred back to some
group and try and work through what that compromise is.
Ms. Steel commented that as Mr. Johnson pointed out he's not sure they even have
the money to go ahead with three scoreboards. Therefore, a little more of a concrete
plan would be helpful.
Mr. Peterson indicated that he thinks the people and groups who use Pamela Park
need to have a meeting. He noted that he is not qualified to determine whether it is
500 ft. or 1,000 feet but this group needs to talk about what their needs are and what
the residents needs are and try to reach a compromise.
Mr. O'Connell asked if they've looked at portable scoreboards that could be on a
trailer when games are in progress. Mr. MacHolda replied that was one of the options
• they presented to the Pamela Park task force and the issue was storage of those
portable scoreboards.
N.
Mr. Keprios first publicly apologized for the way the fencing was handled and noted
that it was wrong and they won't make that same mistake again. He explained that
the Park Board has tried to discuss a policy to try to address a proper notification
process so that doesn't happen again.
Mr. Keprios explained that the way parks are getting developed now is there are
competing interests groups that want more and want better, they want to be like their
neighboring communities. However, it's not always as well received and accepted by
the neighborhoods and noted that he understands both sides.
Mr. Keprios commented that now he would like to explain the purpose and history
behind the task force which consisted of ten residents, three staff and three
consultants. He pointed out that four of them are just residents at large who are users
of the park who had an interest in helping decide acceptable parameters for the park
from other interest groups. Mr. Keprios explained that the reason why everyone isn't
notified at this stage in the process is because they need to at least get something on
paper to then notify the greater community which is the next agenda item and after a
few months get community input and move forward. Mr. Keprios pointed out that the
reason this is on the agenda tonight for a decision is because it's been offered up as a
donation and was not part of the plan from the start. He commented that the batting
cage is funded to go into the ground this year as part of the Capital Improvement Plan
and knowing that the neighborhood had not been notified of that park improvement
yet, he felt they needed to include that as well. Mr. Keprios informed everyone that
regarding all of the other plans; the neighborhood will be adequately notified and will
be given a lot of time to provide feedback.
Mr. Keprios indicated that portable scoreboards might be an option and he would be
happy to work with the user groups and neighbors to see if there is a compromise
rather than have it become an "us" and "them" issue. Mr. Keprios asked the Park
Board if they could delay the decision on the scoreboards and give staff a chance to
revisit it and see if they can come up with an option that serves the competing
interests.
Mr. Presthus MOVED TO RECOMMEND GOING FORWARD WITH THE
BATTING CAGES AND PITCHING TUNNELS AND DO WHAT MR. KEPRIOS
SUGGESTED FOR THE SCOREBOARDS. Ray O'Connell SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED.
D. Pamela Park Task Force — Mr. Keprios went over some of the work the Pamela Park
task force has done to date and noted that not much has changed. He pointed out that
process -wise the plan is to get this information in a little better detail and in written
form from the architect and with the help of staff to get it on-line so that the public
can access it. He noted they would also like to get copies that people can come in and
view. He would recommend notifying everyone who lives within 1,000 feet of the
park as well as do a press release and then wait a few months to let the people get
educated and involved because we want their opinion and input. Mr. Keprios
informed the Park Board that it will be awhile before any funding becomes available
but they need a starting place.
9
Mr. Keprios indicated that he would like the Park Board to come to a consensus to
give staff the direction to start putting a little more information together and get it on-
line. He noted that he would like input from the Park Board on a notification
procedure in how to address these. He noted that he would basically like to have a
public input meeting (public hearing) in an October or November time frame.
Mr. Meyer suggested there be some basic dialog with the neighborhood that would be
informational in showing the layout, process, etc. because there seems to be a lack of
that. He noted that this way when people come to the hearing they will at least have
some background as to what is going on. He suggested possibly even meeting at the
park with the neighborhood to which Mr. Keprios replied he thinks that's a great idea.
Joseph Hulbert MOVED TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO
NOTIFY THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS PROPOSED INCLUDING A PRESS
RELEASE AND PROVIDE INFORMATION ON LINE AND HAVE STAFF
CONDUCT A CITIZEN INPUT MEETING AS PROPOSED. Dan Peterson
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Sorem commented that he wouldn't mind see it go out to the user groups as well.
Mr. Hulbert added that amendment.
MOVED TO HAVE A COMMUNITY MEETING WITH RESIDENTS WITH
USER GROUPS AND REQUEST THAT STAFF WORK ON ALTERNATIVE
SOLUTIONS TO SHARE AT THE MEETING AS A POTENTIAL
COMPROMISE.
III. OLD BUSINESS
A. Revisions to Relationship Document — Mr. Keprios reminded the Park Board that this
was on an earlier agenda to which the decision was delayed until some research could
be done to see if we would be well served to be in alignment to whatever the school
districts policy is on the exclusion criteria for background check results. He explained
that what he learned is that the school district really doesn't have one that addresses
the issue and that they are dealt with on a case by case basis. Mr. Keprios stated that
he would still like to go with his recommendation and follow the National Recreation
Park Association guidelines that he and the athletic associations thought were
appropriate so at least there is a time frame more specified for each crime.
Randy MEYER MOVED. Dan Peterson SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
IV. UPDATES FROM STAFF
A. June 2009 Park Board Meeting — Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that he just
learned that the Finance Department has a rather aggressive Capital Improvement
Plan process scheduled. He noted that he would really like to be at the June Park
Board meeting when it is discussed and noted that he will be out of town on the date
10
of the Park Board meeting. Therefore, he asked the Park Board if everyone would be
okay if they moved the June Park Board meeting to Wednesday, June 17`h at 7:00 pm
in the Council Chambers. Ray O'Connell MOVED TO HOLD THE NEXT PARK
BOARD MEETING ON JUNE 17TH AT 7:00 PM. Randy Meyer SECONDED THE
MOTION. Mr. Lough noted that he will not be able to attend on that date. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:15 PM
11
C
Lm
N
0
41*
Irl
o
O
NI
W
p
O
CD
O
Y Y Y
cn
y L cu co m
C cn C6 a n
O
O
O
(U L, a- 5 cu cu
It
a
caC c
EH
r
E cu �-aQ
00000
O
I
W
Z
00000
� O
C> 2) C C c .� E
O ,= ca
O
O
O
C >'� aQ-a� m
C x X
O O O O O
CUC C C
U U C 0 0>
C6
N
_0
5 N� ca O m 0
OOCn0C
a
J J J O
p O� 0) 0)=
ch- CD M
Y� Y Y J
O
E E C J
C
t0 O CB O
C (U L
:3+cu cts
a O a CB
Ch
�c O 3
LO
ooC) cz
==Ua— a- a- n -
�aCioom�
z EU)z a -z
ta
r
CD 0
O
CD
O O O
O
O
O O O
N
O
lO (D �
to
CD CD CD 0
O
CD CD CD 0
O
O
O O O O
O
N
O L (5 O
L6
NO O O O
0 0 0 0
O O O O
O CT CT C
CDOMU-)
N
..r
U
W
Y
L
Y Y Y
cn
y L cu co m
C cn C6 a n
O Y
(U L, a- 5 cu cu
a
caC c
vi (j L � CU cu
a_ a.
J
E cu �-aQ
c -a L�
>m
> ,c70
i pU'
Z' O O o O c6
O+uV '�
W
Z
Y
ca m o
C C n.. H
� O
C> 2) C C c .� E
O ,= ca
W
, C
O O cnn- o>
O
C >'� aQ-a� m
C x X
(DI
CUC C C
U U C 0 0>
a>
L Q LU UJ
_0
5 N� ca O m 0
cn
0 0 m J O p cm
L a
> L >
U
U' c c
J J J O
p O� 0) 0)=
C C -0O�
Y� Y Y J
E E C J
C
t0 O CB O
C (U L
:3+cu cts
a O a CB
0:3�c
�c O 3
u- >m
L *•- O O «, Q
ooC) cz
==Ua— a- a- n -
�aCioom�
z EU)z a -z
O
O
O
O
M
J
H
O
City of Edina, MN
Capital Improvement Program
• 2010 thru 2014
PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT
Department Project# Priority 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total
Park & Recreation
Pamela Park: Renovate senior athletic field
PK -00-033
n/a
330,000
330,000
Chowen Park: Playground
PK -02-041
n/a
120,000
120,000
Walnut Ridge Park: Hockey rink relocation
PK -04-003
n/a
90,000
90,000
Todd Park: Pathway renovation
PK -05-009
n/a
45,000
45,000
Pamela Park: New athletic field with lights
PK -07-004
n/a
400,000
400,000
Lewis Park: Pathway lighting
PK -08-006
n/a
30,000
30,000
Bredesen Park: Pathway renovations
PK -09-002
n/a
250,000
250,000
Natural resources inventory assessment
PK -09-005
n/a
50,000
50,000
100,000
Garden Park: Parking lot renovation
PK -09-006
n/a
250,000
250,000
Walnut Ridge Park: Hockey Rink Relocation
PK -10-001
n/a
60,000
60,000
Community Gardens
PK -10-002
n/a
30,000
30,000
Countryside Park: West Parking Lot Renovation
PK -10-003
n/a
60,000
60,000
Countryside Park: Playground & Pathway
PK -10-004
n/a
330,000
330,000
Pamela Park: South Parking Lot Expansion
PK -10-005
n/a
40,000
40,000
Pamela Park: North Parking Lot Expansion
PK -10-006
n/a
45,000
45,000
Pamela Park: West Parking Lot Expansion
PK -10-007
n/a
60,000
60,000
Park & Recreation Total
430,000
465,000
440,000
505,000 400,000
2,240,000
GRAND TOTAL
430,000
465,000
440,000
505,000 400,000
2,240,000
P' i
City of Edina, MN
Capital Improvement Program
2010 thru 2014
PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT
Department
Project#
Priority
2010
2011 2012 2013 2014
Total
1,130,000
GRAND TOTAL
260,000
265,000
195,000
205,000
LI—C-1 urse
1,130,000
Braemar & Braemar Exec: Parking Lot Resurfacing
GC -06.001
n/a
75,000
75,000
150,000
Braemar: Maintenance Equipment
GC -10-001
n/a
145,000
150,000 155,000 155,000 155,000
760,000
Braemar: Miscellaneous Equipment
GC -10-002
n/a
40,000
40,000 40,000 50,000 50,000
220,000
Golf Course Total
260,000
265,000
195,000
205,000
205,000
1,130,000
GRAND TOTAL
260,000
265,000
195,000
205,000
205,000
1,130,000
Page I
City of Edina, MN
Capital Improvement Program
2010 thru 2014
PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT
Department Project# Priority 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total
Arena
Refurbish West Arena
A-04-001
n/a
1,200,000
1,200,000
Dehumidification System
A-07-002
n/a
300,000
300,000
Parking Lot Repair
A-08-004
n/a
100,000
100,000
Install Underground Irrigation
A-08-005
n/a
100,000
100,000
Building Fagade
A-08-006
n/a
100,000
100,000
Replace Building Skate Tile
A-08-007
n/a
100,000
100,000
Replace Zamboni
A-09-002
n/a
130,000 130,000
Repairs & Maintenance
A-10-001
n/a
25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 100,000
Evaporative Condenser
A-10-002
n/a
75,000 75,000
Water System Repairs
A-10-003
n/a
60,000 60,000
Replace Zamboni
A-10-004
n/a
130,000 130,000
Arena Total 1,900,000 100,000 155,000 85,000 155,000 2,395,000
GRAND TOTAL 1,900,000 100,000 155,000 85,000 155,000 2,395,000
Page 1
City of Edina, MN
Capital Improvement Program
2010 thru 2014
PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT
Department Project# Priority 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total
lt`quatic Center
Flowrider AQC-03-001 n/a 700,000 700,000 1,400,000
Upgrades and Replacements AQC-10-001 n/a 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000
Aquatic Center Total 750,000 750,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 1,650,000
GRAND TOTAL 750,000 750,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 1,650,000
Page 1
City of Edina, NIN
Capital Improvement Program
2010 thru 2014
PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT
Department Project# Priority 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total
Edinborough/Centennial
EP Replaster Pool
ECL -00-017
n/a
70,000
70,000
CL Paver Replacement
ECL -06-004
n/a
40,000
40,000
CL Replace HVAC Units
ECL -06-005
n/a
25,000
25,000
EP Theater Curtain and Rigging
ECL -06-006
We
26,000
26,000
EP Replace Carpeting
ECL -06,007
n/a
12,000
12,000
CL Paint Amphitheater Structure
ECL -07-003
n/a
16,000
16,000
CL Signage improvement
ECL -07-004
n/a
20,000
20,000
EP Adventure Peak Renovation
ECL -07-006
n/a
25,000
25,000
EP Floor Scrubber
ECL -07-007
n/a
7,000
7,000
CL Paint South Park Railings
ECL -08-003
n/a
28,000
28,000
CL Renovate Putting Greens
ECL -08-004
n/a
40,000
40,000
CL Replace Cracked/Broken Concrete
ECL -08-005
n/a
12,000
12,000
EP Security Camera System
ECL -08-007
n/a
12,000
12,000
EP Torrent Floor Machine
ECL -08-009
n/a
8,000
8,000
EP Soft Play for Great Hall
ECL -08-011
n/a
30,000
30,000
EP Park Sound System
ECL -08-016
n/a
27,000
27,000
EP Weight & Aerobic Equipment
ECL -08-019
n/a
6,000
6,000
EP Pool and Wall Tile
ECL -08-021
n/a
80,000
80,000
CL Replace Ice Resurfacer
ECL -09-003
n/a
10,000
10,000
CL Amphitheater Speakers
ECL -09-004
n/a
14,000
14,000
CL Centrum Planter Beds
ECL -09-005
n/a
16,000
16,000
CL Centrum Fountain Remodel
ECL -09-006
n/a
30,000
30,000
CL Add Restroom Facility
ECL -09,007
n/a
120,000
120,000
CL Replace Park Sound System
ECL -09-008
n/a
32,000
32,000
CL Replace Concrete
ECL -09-009
n/a
15,000
15,000
EP Theater Floor
ECL -09-011
n/a
24,000
24,000
EP Exterior Arch Brickwork
ECL -09-012
n/a
20,000
20,000
EP Outdoor Storage Shed
ECL -09-013
We
15,000
15,000
EP Lift to Birthday Party Area
ECL -09-014
n/a
30,000
30,000
EP Track Floor
ECL -09-015
n/a
60,000
60,000
EP Parking Ramp Concrete & Drain Tile
ECL -09-016
n/a
28,000
28,000
EP Portable Concession Stand
ECL -09-019
n/a
25,000
25,000
EP Upper Commons Seating Area
ECL -09-020
n/a
10,000
10,000
EP Adventure Peak Remodel
ECL -09-021
n/a
25,000
25,000
CL Replace Concrete
ECL -10-001
n/a
10,000
10,000
CL Centrum Building Wall
ECL -10-002
n/a
15,000
15,000
CL SP Irrigation
ECL -10-003
n/a
10,000
10,000
CL Floating Dock
ECL -10-004
n/a
12,000
12,000
CL Security Camera System
ECL -10-005
n/a
25,000
25,000
CL Centrum Planter Beds
ECL -10-006
n/a
20,000
20,000
EP Driveway - Cul De Sac
ECL -10-007
n/a
75,000
75,000
EP NE & SE Doors
ECL -10-008
n/a
40,000
40,000
EP NW & SW Doors
ECL -10-009
n/a
40,000
40,000
EP West Sidewalk Replacement
ECL -10,010
n/a
25,000
25,000
Page 1
Department Project# Priority 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total
EP North Sidewalk ECL -10-011 n/a
Edinborough/Centennial Total
GRAND TOTAL
30,000 30,000
333,000 243,000 325,000 152,000 207,000 1,260,000
333,000 243,000 325,000 152,000 207,000 1,260,000
Page 2
CD O
0 O
CD
M
O
O
Ir-
O
O
ch
O
0
C
M
N
�
EA
0
0
0
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
r-
OI
O
CO
O
O
lC�
O
M
N
M
N
O
CD
O
CD
O
CD
O
O
�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
LO
O
lf)
O
O
N
to
O
0
0
0
0 0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
CI
O
�
O
O
O O
tO
f 1
�y
CN
N
N CIA m
r -
ti
vl�
CD
CD
CD
0
CD
CD
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
p�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CD
OLO
0 O
CD
O
L
M O
L
O
to
Y
Y
00
O
a
O
N
CB
N
E
M
(0
c
�
a -
r
C:Y
iii
O
O
U
a'
°
cn co
L
° co a, �
{i
/N'4
V I
N
CO
O 0
L
�
(6
Q
O
U
��/
I..L
< m
�l
/�
0- LL
O
� >
Q%
Q�
CL
04
06
M
c a
O
�
ai
: �
c°
L-
M o
J
-0
C
cnQ
m
U
W
ci
O
-p
L O_�
�(D
c
O= 00..��o2S
f
m
_N
`�
Y>
L'
O
Q J cn
m 1
C ' z L
,
cn
Z
Q
L
��—
//e�co h
o f-
1 3
1 c
a) c
LLJ
C7
W
m
S
LL
a
1
+- +�
°�J
(n °
a
> O in U)
a ��
�'
>
(D
o
o
Q)
0U
tn�
o
° �
O>
aEi_0
0
C
�U
L C
Q~
O
U
O
U .� C>
m LL �
O
�
E C
N
�C
Q- U
O
cn O
L
U
Q
O
+�
O
+
O O N�
'=
dB
Cl)
Q
m
O O
>
>
J
JL '
JLLQ
>
m
O
= �Osn
O
1
�>--i
�3>--/ L
-0 D
QU
r
LL
n a-
I 0
Z 0-
a_ a>
Z a- L.L U
m
a- v)
r
General Park lin-Funded Proiects
Countryside Park master plan (phase #2) $ 700,000
6 new park shelter buildings $ 3,000,000
Pamela Park shelter building expansion $ 450,000
Artificial turf field at Pamela Park $ 1,200,000
Van Valkenburg Neighborhood Park $ 500,000
2 outdoor artificial ice rinks $ 2,300,000
New pathways @ six parks $ 1,000,000
Small neighborhood skate park $ 75,000
Two off -leash dog park areas for small dogs $ 60,000
$ 9,285,000