The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009-08-11 Park Board Packeto� e tit 0m • t�OORPORF'��9/ lass AGENDA Regular Meeting of the Edina Park Board Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 7:00 P.M. Edina City Hall Council Chambers 4801 West 50`h 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 * Wednesday, June 17, 2009, Park Board Minutes. II. NEW BUSINESS A. *Pamela Park Master Plan. III. OLD BUSINESS A. *Community Gardens Policy. 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. N'. UPDATES FROM STAFF NT 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, Director Edina Park and Recreation Department Date: August 4, 2009 Re: TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2009, PARK BOARD MEETING STAFF REPORT. Enclosed you should find the following items: 1. Wednesday, June 17, 2009, Park Board Minutes. 2. Tuesday, August 11, 2009, Park Board Agenda. 3. Emails from Christopher Gerber. 4. Email from Douglas Rose. 5. Email from Greg Allison. 6. Email from Jim & Vick Kollross.doc 7. Email from Karen & Dorvin Amundson. S. Email from Karen Kitchen. 9. Email from Luanne Kuna. 10. Email from Mary and John Everett. 11. Email from Peg Caron. 12. Email from Sue Nissen. 13. Email from Tom Lyons. 14. Email from Tom Schauer. 15. Email from Dianne Plunkett Latham. 16. Letter from Jim Arnold. 17. Letter from Pat Meyers. 18. Letter from Eric Hansen. 19. Edina Energy and Environment Commission Resolution explanatory version. 20. Edina Energy and Environment Commission Resolution short version. 21. June 30, 2009 Letter to Residents of Pamela Park Neighborhood. 22. Proposed Park Improvements to Pamela Park. 23. Minutes from the July 30, 2009, Neighborhood Input Meeting. 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 Tuesday, August 11, 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. II. NEW BUSINESS A. *Pamela Park Master Plan Process: In follow up to the Park Board's action taken at the May Park Board meeting, the Edina Park and Recreation Department on June 30, 2009, mailed approximately 997 letters to property owners whose properties are within 1,000 feet of Pamela Park. The letter requested their input on the nine different proposed park improvements and also invited them to attend a neighborhood input meeting which took place on Thursday, July 30, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The same was mailed to all Edina's youth athletic associations. A press release was submitted to the Sun Newspaper and notices were placed throughout the park. This process was used in an attempt to efficiently reach the neighboring properties and user groups to ask for their input on a variety of long-range proposed park improvement plans for Pamela Park. Rather than notify over 1,000 residents each time a park improvement is to be considered, it seemed to make sense to establish a long-range plan for residents to consider and provide feedback on and have the opportunity to attend one meeting. Approximately 25 residents attended the neighborhood input meeting on July 30th. The meeting began with a presentation by staff explaining all of the proposed park improvement projects and accepting questions during the presentation. After the presentation, there were a number of residents who chose to speak and provide their input into the proposed park improvements. Four Park Board members attended the meeting; Todd Fronek, Benjamin Fox Pobuda, Ray O'Connell and Daniel Peterson. As you will notice from the minutes, there were representatives from the Edina Soccer Association, Edina Soccer Club and Edina LaCrosse Association that provided input. There were several residents who gave their input regarding the plans and most were very supportive and asked excellent questions. Edina resident Bill Leskee gave the audience a detailed presentation on his desire for the master plan to include a community garden at Pamela Park. A representative of the Edina Energy and Environment Commission (EEEC) also spoke at the meeting and read and presented a Resolution of the EEEC that opposes the majority of the proposed projects including the proposed parking lot expansions, athletic field renovation, development of a new natural grass athletic field and the concept of converting the senior athletic field into an artificial turf field. There were 15 written responses plus the EEEC Resolution response to my June 30th letter requesting community input. All written responses are attached to this Staff Report. As you will notice, the most common concern about the proposed nine projects centers around the difficult economic times we are experiencing and residents suggest that we should either delay or eliminate as many projects as possible. There was feedback regarding the need for curbing while others feel that curbing is not necessary and residents should park on the grass during the few peak parking events. Residents wrote and testified that the hockey rink should not be re- located because they disagree that the nature trail is improperly aligned and there was a concern about consuming more open skating area. There was a request for better bicycle parking facilities. A resident expressed a desire for hard surface walking paths like at Bredesen Park. 2 One resident wrote that an artificial turf field is too expensive and not fitting for a community park. More than one resident has expressed a need for an improved park shelter building in the future. There is also an expressed need for additional storage for playground program equipment and athletic association and Edina High School Fast Pitch Softball program equipment. Sustainability and concern for the environment was also expressed as an important issue to incorporate into the master plan. One resident requested that there should be a long-range plan to remove and manage buckthorn in the park. Water quality, using green building materials, permeable hard surfaces, energy efficient lights and other sustainable practices were expressed as a priority for the master plan. I believe that the process to date has been thorough, transparent, comprehensive, public and positive. We have utilized professional architects and engineers to craft a master plan with feedback from staff and a focus group consisting of athletic association representatives and neighborhood residents. Hockey Rink Boards and Lights: As explained in the list of proposed projects mailed to residents, "This project calls for the relocation of the hockey rink approximately thirty feet to the west and thirty feet to the south of its existing location. The existing hockey rink is worn and in need of new boards and light fixtures and standards. The current location of the hockey rink is too close to existing trees that have a shallow root system that is detrimental to the hockey rink surface. The current location of the hockey rink also hinders the proper alignment for the nature trail that was added long after the hockey rink was established." Park Maintenance staff has been replacing the worn and broken boards to keep the rink safe and playable. One location problem has been the invading shallow roots from nearby willow trees and volunteer growth that work their way into the hockey rink. Another problem has been that the shallow water table and soft sub -surface tend to move the hockey rink support posts and lighting standard bases due to frost movement. As a result, it becomes difficult to keep the hockey rink boards flush with the ground to contain water when flooding the rink in the winter. The lighting standard bases have deteriorated to a point where they need to be replaced. Therefore, it seemed to make some sense to move the hockey rink 30 feet to the west and 30 feet to the south to move further away from the shallow roots and on to slightly better sub -soils. Residents spoke and/or wrote against the recommendation to relocate the hockey rink and some felt strongly that the rink should stay in its current location. Residents commented that the rink is in good enough condition that it should not be rebuilt until it is absolutely necessary. Residents expressed concern that by moving the hockey rink it would consume too much open skating area. The truth is that the there is enough space to maintain the same size or larger open skating area even if the hockey rink is moved to a new location. Residents expressed that vegetation should be thinned out (volunteer trees/shrubs be cut down) and the nature trail should be permanently located to the east of the hockey rink in its current location and leave is the hockey rink in its current location. 3 The Edina Energy and Environment Commission stated in their Resolution that; "We recommend this relocation, with the provision that environmentally -acceptable lighting (such as solar) be installed. " My staff and I are not familiar with any outdoor hockey rink lighting system that uses solar lighting. I believe that this recommendation requires extensive research to determine the amount of solar panels needed to collect enough sunlight energy to operate the needed candle power for the outdoor hockey rink during the winter months. If we were to invest in this type of lighting system, it would obviously be substantially more expense upfront and would change the character of the park. If we were to invest in this type of lighting system, it would be my recommendation to host another community input meeting or Public Hearing to inform the public of this proposed installation as it would most definitely impact the look and character of the park. We always make it a priority to choose the most energy efficient lighting available when replacing indoor and outdoor lighting. I question if there in fact is a solar lighting outdoor hockey rink system that has been proven to be environmentally acceptable, economically feasible and actually work in this climate. If the Park Board is seriously interested in pursuing this concept, I would ask the Edina Energy and Environment Commission to do the research and recommend a source and show the Park Board the scientific data to help you make an informed decision. According to Craig Gallop of Musco Lighting Company (a nationally recognized outdoor athletic facilities lighting company), the technology for solar lights for outdoor hockey rinks does not yet exist. Based on the fact that there are enough residents concerned about relocating the hockey rink, it is my recommendation that we make the necessary repairs and replacements to remain operational and leave the hockey rink in its current location. This means that the lighting standards, energy efficient light fixtures and bases be replaced. It also means that the hockey rink support posts that have been pushed up due to frost heave be removed (replaced where necessary) and re -installed in their current location. Only those boards and posts in need of replacement will be replaced. I also recommend that we cut the volunteer growth next to the hockey rink and cut a nature trail to the east of the hockey rink as proposed by the neighborhood. The nature trail will be somewhat limited to any expansion in width in the future to the east of the hockey rink because of the sharp grade change within six feet of the hockey rink. Having the nature trail cross to the west of the hockey rink becomes an unsafe scenario during the winter months. The purchase and installation of the light standards, bases and energy efficient light fixtures is expected to cost approximately $40,000. The replacement and reinstallation of the hockey rink posts and boards in need of replacement is expected to cost approximately $5,000. This is a project that cannot be delayed. Staff recommends that this be a 2010 project. Paved Trail Access to Playground: This is a project that proposes to create a hard permeable surface path from the south and west parking lots to the playground equipment. Staff estimates total paved trail project costs to be approximately $30,000. There is a need for hard surface accessibility for park users to access the playground equipment area from the west and south parking lots. People with mobility issues and those with strollers are just two examples of the need to provide a safe hard surface access to the playground equipment from the south and west parking lots. n There did not seem to be any significant objections to this proposed project. The main concern was that the hard surface paths be made of permeable materials so that water would run through the surface. Staff recommends that this project be part of the master plan; however, it should be delayed until funding is available. Artificial Turf Field: In my view, a decision should be made as to whether or not an artificial turf field is an appropriate park amenity for Pamela Park and whether it should be considered part of its master plan. To date I have been a strong supporter of this park improvement that has been expressed a need by our rectangular field athletic associations. Through this process I have come to have a different opinion about the issue. In my view, the majority of the youth athletic associations that stand to benefit the most from this amenity have not shown a strong commitment and desire for this project. It may well be the number one priority for the Edina LaCrosse Association; however, I don't see that same burning desire within the other athletic associations and rectangular field user groups which have the greatest number of youth participants. I'm not convinced that an artificial turf field is environmentally unfriendly to a point where it should not be developed. Even so, there are a number of other reasons that I suggest that the artificial turf concept be removed from the master plan for Pamela Park: • • The School District is considering development of several additional artificial turf fields on their properties at the High School Campus and Edina Community Center Campus. Athletic associations could benefit from those fields and should be encouraged to help fund raise to make those become a reality. • Pamela Park already experiences a regular problem with unauthorized non-resident use. The addition of an artificial turf field will likely escalate that problem and put a significant taxpayer investment at risk. • Some residents have expressed a concern over the barriers needed to protect an artificial turf field and the opposition to the change of character to the park. • Some residents have expressed the concern of losing more of the open grass play area of the park that is currently not bordered by fencing or barriers. • There is concern about future replacement costs of artificial turf. • Current technology has still not resolved the issue of the artificial turf becoming extremely hot during sunny hot mid -summer days. If the youth athletic associations expressed a stronger desire and if the neighborhood expressed more support for the artificial turf field, I might feel differently about the matter today. It is my recommendation to remove the artificial turf field project from the master plan indefinitely. I ask that the Park Board debate the issue and vote on whether or not the artificial turf field should be part of the long-range master plan at this time. 5 New Athletic Field: This is a proposal to add another rectangular shaped athletic field (300' by 160') to serve primarily (but not exclusively) the sports of football and soccer, lacrosse and rugby. As shown on the Master Plan map drawn by Anderson/Johnson Associates, this natural grass field is proposed to be positioned northwest of the existing rectangular athletic field. This is a smaller grass athletic field (smaller than a regulation football field) that will be used as primarily a practice field (which is how the area is currently used); however, this smaller field can also be scheduled for younger athletic game events. Before this project could be considered, a feasibility study was conducted in 2007. A number of constraints were identified within that area, the least of which were the delineation of wetlands and the elevation of the storm water flood plain. A topographic and wetland delineation survey was ordered. It was determined that the field could be constructed, although the field size would need to be smaller in size (300' x 160') than the existing field to the east (380' x 225'). The total project cost is estimated to be approximately $400,000. The number one identified need for youth athletic programs is the need for additional scheduled field time for the multiple sports (football, soccer, rugby, lacrosse and ultimate Frisbee) that all compete for the same rectangular athletic field. The demand for these fields has grown significantly over the past decade or more for a variety of reasons. Youth are exposed to organized athletic opportunities at a much earlier age than ever before and opportunities for girls in athletics have also grown significantly. The existing open space is currently used as a practice field; however, the area is uneven and unsafe. At the July 30`' Neighborhood Input Meeting, youth athletic association representatives stated that children have experienced serious injuries on this uneven grass area due to its existing uneven condition. Throughout the Task Force process and neighborhood input process, there has been very little opposition to this proposed park improvement. In their Resolution, the Edina Energy and Environment Commission oppose the development of a new athletic field. They state that: "This development is unnecessary since the specific area is already being used by kids as a natural practice field; and it is unnecessarily costly at a time when the city has environmental goals through ICLEI (and when Edina's population of families with school age children is already less than 25%)." I strongly disagree with the Edina Energy and Environment Commission's recommendation as it considers Edina's "environmental goals" as more important than the safety of Edina's children. I don't disagree that the project should be placed on hold due to the economy; however, in my view it should still be part of Pamela Park's long-range master plan. The Commission states that "Edina's population of families with school age children is already less than 25%." I'm not certain whether their point is that serving Edina's children should not be a priority because they are only a minority in Edina's population demographics and/or that resources would be better spent on the elderly and/or the environment instead. I recommend that the development of a new athletic field be included as part of Pamela Park's long-range master plan. I also recommend that this project be kept on hold until funding becomes available. n • Parking Lot Expansions and Renovations: If the new rectangular athletic field becomes a reality, it is staff recommendation to expand the north, south and west parking lots as proposed. Additional parking is needed to keep visitors from parking on the grass during peak use periods. Parking on the grass is in violation of City Code. Unauthorized vehicles that are driven through parks are a violation of City Code and that is also inherently dangerous to the driver and the public and can be damaging to park property. If the new rectangular athletic field does not become a reality, it is staff recommendation that only the north parking lot be expanded mainly for safety and efficiency purposes. The west parking lot renovation includes removal of existing asphalt surface, developing a new sub -base, installing a new wear -course of asphalt followed by a finish coat of asphalt and adding concrete curbing around the perimeter. The plan calls for an expansion opportunity to add 37 more parking stalls to the west lot. Total project costs are expected to be approximately $60,000. It is anticipated that the west parking lot will be in need of total renovation in the year 2013. Concrete curbing is also proposed to deter people from parking on the grass or driving through the park. The north parking lot project proposes to improve the flow of traffic into the north parking lot (near the park shelter building), create more parking capacity where possible and stripe the lot to make parking safer and more efficient. The existing north parking lot does not have well defined parking stalls, which leads to an inefficient and unsafe parking lot. As a result, park users park unlawfully on the grass. During high peak scheduled activities, there are not enough parking stalls to accommodate the demand. Additional parking stalls will make the lot safer, more efficient and keep park patrons from parking on neighborhood streets. Renovation of the north parking lot is expected to cost approximately $45,000. The poor design of the north parking lot needs to be addressed whether the new athletic field is built or not. The parking lot on the south end of Pamela Park is proposed to be expanded and redesigned to accommodate the parking demand. The redesign will include striping of the parking lot to make more efficient use of existing parking. 20-23 additional parking stalls are proposed to be added to the south parking lot. Option #1 would add 23 additional spaces; whereas, option #2 could add 20 additional spaces. Option #2 appears to be preferred over option #1; however, young trees would have to be relocated. Staff disagrees with the Edina Energy and Environment Commission's assessment that these trees cannot be successfully relocated. Renovation of the south parking lot is expected to cost approximately $40,000. Some residents who testified at the July 301h meeting agreed that curbing should be included in the master plan for the west parking lot as proposed. Those same residents also suggested that split rail fencing should be added to the plan to deter violators from parking on the grass and/or driving through the park. Residents testified that they support the parking lot expansions to help reduce on street parking as well. The Edina Energy and Environment Commission Resolution states: • "Expansion of three parking lots (total cost c. $145,000). We do not recommend any of these expansions. The overflow parking, held in the proposal to be a problem "on occasional 7 evenings " should continue to be on the grass or even on neighborhood streets during this brief time out of the year. Parking lots and the rain and run-off from these impermeable surfaces are now recognized as one of the most important sources of water pollution. (Removing the natural filtration function ofgrassy areas creates the problem.) In this case, removal of trees is also contemplated by the Park and Rec proposal, though the number of these "young trees" is not specified. These trees, planted as part of Edina's "carbon footprints woods" by citizens along with members of Friends of Edina Nature Center, are already too old to be transplanted with assurance of success. Construction of additional parking lot surface would almost certainly kill even more trees as construction equipment rolls over their roots (root systems extend much farther from the trunks than the branches do). As the now -configured parking lots require repairs, we recommend that the city replace them entirely with permeable pavement, allowing rain and run-off to filter through the soils before flowing into the waterways. We do not recommend curbing since that virtually prevents the necessary parking on the grass during the infrequent overflow periods. Further, we do not recommend paint striping of the lots since, as the paint wears off, particles of it enter the waterways. " I strongly disagree with the Edina Energy and Environment Commission's recommendation to encourage the public to drive and park on the grass. This is in violation of City Code and is inherently dangerous to the public and hazardous to the park and its facilities. I fully support the recommendation to use permeable pavement materials; however, I strongly disagree that striping should be eliminated because of their claim that "the paint wears off, particles of it enter the waterways. " Striping in a parking lot is essential to make the most efficient and safe use of a parking lot. Our City Engineering Department highly recommends curbing in our parking lots for a number of reasons including environmentally sound reasons. Curbing helps contain and direct heavy metals and undesirable fluids to where they should be directed as opposed to simply running onto the grass. Curbing also deters asphalt edges from deteriorating. If the new athletic field is not approved, it is staff recommendation to eliminate the expansion proposals for the west and south parking lots. Due to the economy, staff recommends that we include these parking lot projects as proposed in the master plan but delay construction until funding becomes available. Senior Athletic Field Renovation: This project includes renovation of the existing senior athletic field grass turf (the rectangular athletic field with lights) to a more sustainable natural grass field. The exact same renovation has been done to three athletic fields at Lewis Park and one athletic field at Braemar Park with great success. These renovated sand/peat athletic fields allow for desirable grasses to develop a deeper root growth and as a result they can withstand more play and reduces our dependence on pesticides. The down side is that these fields do require more fertilizers and more irrigation to maintain a healthy stand of grass. Sand/peat engineered grass fields have superior drainage which allows for play soon after a rainfall and maintains a safer athletic field surface for the public. The growth of youth and adult athletics and the birth of new field athletic sports (rugby, lacrosse, ultimate Frisbee, etc.) has placed a greater demand on the rectangular shaped athletic fields. To withstand the greater demand, these athletic fields need to be better engineered to withstand heavier use loads. These new sand/peat athletic fields have proven to be more • sustainable and tolerant to increased play and longer seasons. Throughout the public process, the main objection expressed by residents is whether this is a necessary expense. The Edina Energy and Environment Commission's Resolution states: "We do not recommend this alternative. The "more irrigation and fertilizer" required, as per the Park and Rec proposal, will damage the waterway more even than the use of `fewer pesticides" that are held to result. Again, this expenditure does not reflect our city's best environmental priorities." I challenge the Commission's assessment that the amount of phosphorous free fertilizers and additional water needed to sustain a newly renovated sand/peat field is worse than our current practice of fertilizers, pesticides and water currently needed to sustain healthy athletic turf on the existing field. Furthermore, it seems that we will be unable to meet our residents' expectations if the existing field is not renovated or converted to artificial turf. Renovation is anticipated to cost approximately $330,000. I recommend that the renovation of the senior athletic field be part of the Pamela Park master plan; however, it should be delayed until funding is available. Park Shelter Building Improvements: This is a long-term project that proposes to expand the existing park shelter building to meet • current park shelter needs and desires of the community. With the assistance from the professional architect/engineering consulting firm of ATS&R, it was determined that an expansion of the existing park shelter building is more cost effective than demolition and new construction. Four different concept drawings were proposed for consideration, all of which include much needed additional storage, plus a larger and more user friendly room for community gatherings, meetings and skate changing, plus a kitchen/concessions area, drinking fountain and outdoor picnic patio space. Funding for this project is not anticipated to be available within the next five years. When funding is available, the expansion will require more study and community input before a final plan is selected. With the assistance from the professional architect/engineering consulting firm of ATS&R the Pamela Park Task Force and staff concluded that it is in the City's best interest to expand the existing park shelter building to meet the identified park shelter facility and storage needs and desires of the community. It was determined that there is a need for an additional 500 square feet of storage for recreation program equipment and athletic user groups' equipment. There was also an expressed need/desire for a more user friendly community room space with a kitchen/concessions area to serve community group meetings and gatherings as well as athletic user groups. A shaded concrete patio was also expressed as a need/desire as part of the facility expansion. Through the public input process, the only objections to this proposed park improvement were regarding spending tax dollars on this type of project during tough economic times. Most residents that expressed an opinion agreed that they would prefer an improved shelter building. W The Edina Energy and Environment Commission Resolution states: "We recommend this, with the stipulations below. Several architectural firms known for their expertise in green remodeling and green new construction should be approached for bids along with the firm mentioned in the Park and Rec proposal and the question of remodeling vs. new construction should be re -addressed. A green building such as this can be a showcase for citizens and used for a range of activities such as skate -changing, community meetings and events, display space for information on the Pamela Park city/watershed improvements and on the water testing and carbon woods projects, etc. Trees for summer shade and winter wind -break should be planted around the structure (see below). Once its budget is final, two percent of the amount should be allocated to public art and two percent to the purchase and planting of 6-8 foot native trees and the maintenance of them." Project costs range from $340,200 to $410,200 depending on which of the four options. It is staff recommendation that this park improvement project be part of the long-range master plan for Pamela Park; however, I recommend that it should be delayed until funding becomes available. Once funding becomes available, there should be a comprehensive process to include a committee of neighborhood residents, staff, consulting architects and others if so desired to be part of a design committee to make recommendations to the Park Board. Timing, the Economy and Priority: Unfortunately, economic times have changed things dramatically since we began this process approximately two years ago. Faced with State Legislature imposed levy limits, significant reduction in Building Permit revenues and significant reduction in tax revenues due to delinquent property taxes, the City of Edina now has to face some challenging economic times. Therefore, it is my recommendation that we still decide on an appropriate master plan for Pamela Park with the understanding that we develop only those park improvements that must be done for safety sake or for any other reason that causes it to be of utmost high priority and is fiscally prudent. I further recommend that the Park Board agree to a priority in which the master plan should be developed so that when funding becomes available the priorities will have already been established. Granted, these priorities can change in the future when funding finally becomes available, but I still believe it is important to have the long-range priorities identified and in place for Pamela Park. Of the nine park improvements proposed, I recommend the following list in order of priority: 1. REPAIR HOCKEY RINK AND REPLACE LIGHTS (2010) 2. PAVED TRAIL ACCESS TO PLAYGROUND (when funding is available) 3. SENIOR ATHLETIC FIELD RENOVATION (when funding is available) 4. NORTH PARKING LOT EXPANSION (when funding is available) 5. SOUTH PARKING LOT EXPANSION (when funding is available) 10 6. WEST PARKING LOT RENOVATION AND EXPANSION (when funding is available) 7. NEW ATHLETIC FIELD (when funding is available) 8. PARK SHELTER BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS (when funding is available) 9. ARTIFICIAL TURF ON SOUTH ATHLETIC FIELD (Eliminate from the master plan) Until the economy turns around and funding becomes available, staff will continue to make repairs to existing parking lots on an as needed basis as opposed to total renovations. Formal Park Board action is requested on this agenda item. III. OLD BUSINESS A. Community Gardens At the July 21, 2009 City Council meeting, the Council voted 4 to 1 against the Park Board's recommendation to approve YEA Corp's request to develop and maintain an organic vegetable garden plot at Chowen Park. The Council has also asked staff to recommend a policy that addresses community gardens and future similar requests such as this one. Although the City Council did not direct me to have the Park Board vote on a staff proposed policy, I am asking that the Park Board debate the issue and give the City Council your recommendation. After giving this much thought, I recommend that we adopt a policy that does not permit vegetable gardens of any kind in any Edina public park. I have come to this recommendation for a number of reasons. First and foremost, Edina is a first ring suburb of Minneapolis and a fully developed community with no remaining vast areas to develop as desirable park land for additional active and/or passive recreational activities, including community fruit and vegetable gardens. Therefore, the addition of vegetable gardens would need to be placed in a park setting that would have to either displace an existing recreational use or consume open green space. Past experience has taught me that there truly is no ideal area to develop a community garden in Edina's existing public park property that would not be controversial. We instead would encourage residents to develop fruit and vegetable gardens on their own private properties, as YEA Corp has done this year. Open green space is an extremely valuable amenity to the community. We currently spend significant manpower and equipment resources each year to construct and remove an entire outdoor hockey rink at Todd Park for that very reason. Over two decades ago, the Edina Park and Recreation Department proposed a community garden area for Melody Lake Park; however, the neighborhood strongly opposed the proposal which was then quickly dropped. At no time during the recently completed Needs Assessment Survey process did the request for community gardens surface. I recognize that there are several Edina ll residents with a passion for fruit and vegetable gardens; however, the desire for community gardens was never brought forward during the process and therefore I maintain that the overwhelming "community need" and support for this activity in Edina's public parks does not exist. This is not to say that the Edina Park and Recreation Department or the City of Edina does not support the concept of vegetable gardening or the promotion of improved access to nutritious foods such as fruits and vegetables. The Edina Park and Recreation Department supports the Edina Garden Council's efforts and Edina Energy and Environment Commission's efforts to promote and educate the community on proper methods to develop vegetable gardens on their own private property. As stated in Dianne Plunkett Latham's enclosed email; "Last April the Edina Garden Council and the Edina Energy and Environment Commission collaborated on a presentation on vegetable gardening. The EGC is already planning such a program for next year. " The Edina Park and Recreation Department supports and sponsors this effort by providing public facilities at no charge to the Garden Council and Edina Energy and Environment Commission to host such events. The City of Edina's Park and Recreation Department and Health Department have partnered with the Cities of Richfield and Bloomington to successfully secure grant funding to promote improved access to nutritious foods such as fruits and vegetables in an effort to license and facilitate the development of new Farmers' markets and promotion of their use. The City of Edina is dedicated to promoting health and increasing availability of locally grown fruits and vegetables to Edina residents. It is staff recommendation that the Park Board recommend to the City Council that we adopt a policy that does not permit fruit and/or vegetable gardens of any kind (including community gardens) in any Edina public park. 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. 12 Minutes of the • Edina Park Board June 17, 2009 Edina City Hall, Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Jennifer Kenney, Ben Pobuda, Todd Fronek, Ray O'Connell, Randy Meyer, Dan Peterson MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph Hulbert, Jeff Sorem, Bill Lough, Keeya Steel, Rob Presthus STAFF PRESENT: John Keprios, Janet Canton, Ed MacHolda, Tom Shirley, Ann Kattreh, Larry Thayer, Todd Anderson, John Valliere I. APPROVAL OF THE MAY 12, 2009 PARK BOARD MINUTES Dan Peterson MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 12, 2009 PARK BOARD MINUTES. Ray O'Connell SECONDED THE MOTION. MINUTES APPROVED. II. NEW BUSINESS A. 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Plan — Mr. Keprios gave a power point presentation on the 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. Keprios explained to the Park Board that they have been asked to reduce the dollar amounts all across the board for a is variety of reasons. He commented that we are experiencing revenue shortfalls and we are also faced with levy limits for at least the next couple of years. Mr. Keprios went over the proposed reduced dollar amounts for the general parks CIP for 2010-2014. He pointed out that better than 90% of their CIP is basically maintenance and very little for what would be "new additional" projects. Mr. Fronek asked Mr. Keprios if the community garden would be something that would be self-sustaining or will it continue to be a drain on resources. He asked if it would be $30,000 well spent or is it something that needs to be pushed out another year. Mr. Keprios responded that it becomes a choice of priority and that the $30,000 is for infrastructure and not for operating. He noted that he would like to think they can operate it with existing funding within the operating budget and added that he doesn't think it would be a significant drain on their resources. Mr. Keprios explained to the Park Board that, after doing some research, he thinks they could put in a community garden at Yorktown Park right next to the skate park for $30,000. He informed the Park Board that the YMCA is developing a new building and during construction they are going to continue to maintain their old building so for parking they intend to use Yorktown Park and convert the grass area into some type of hard surface parking lot. He noted that he spoke with the YMCA's Executive Director Greg Hanks who was very receptive to the proposal to have the YMCA pay for the development of a community garden when the temporary parking area is restored to its original condition. The $30,000 would be to cover any utility expenses needed to bring water to the site. The YMCA would pay for all other costs associated with developing the community garden. Mr. Keprios shared that Mr. Hanks stated that the YMCA has members interested in gardening and felt that the YMCA and the Edina Park and Recreation Department could possibly partner on a collaborative community garden program. Larry Thayer, Manager of Braemar Ice Arena, went through all of the items for the Arena's proposed CIP for 2010-2014 and pointed out that 2010 will be a big year because they are going to essentially refurbish the West Arena. Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that it's important to understand that the enterprise facilities rely on a different source of funding for their CIP dollars and it doesn't really compete with the general parks' CIP. The enterprise facilities are a separate fund to which they have to rely on either their own revenues or in some cases revenue bonds that they are then obligated to have to pay back through future revenues. He noted that the bottom line is they don't compete with each other so they are not quite as subject to the shortfalls that they are going to find in their operating budget that funds the general park CIP. Mr. Keprios commented that he is pleased to say that Braemar Arena has now made its last revenue bond payment. We have been waiting until now to replace the refrigeration system because we can now afford to take on new revenue bond payments. Tom Shirley, Manager of Centennial Lakes, went through all of the proposed projects for the CIP for Centennial Lakes for 2010-2014. He noted that they will mostly be working on and maintaining their existing infrastructure. Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that the source of funding for operations, maintenance and capital improvements for Centennial Lakes and Edinborough Park actually comes through a variety of sources. Tax increment financing was used to create the trust fund at the time of development. Centennial Lakes Park also relies on fees and charges, interest earnings from the trust fund and the annual maintenance fees paid by the residential and commercial properties within the development. He noted that currently there is no revenue bond scenario as there is with the arena and golf course. Mr. Keprios commented that trust fund started out at around 9 million dollars and is now down to approximately 4 million dollars. Ann Kattreh, Manager of Edinborough Park, went through all of the proposed items for the CIP for Edinborough Park for 2010-2014 and noted that like the other facilities they are focusing on just maintaining and replacing existing infrastructure. Mr. Peterson asked Ms. Kattreh if they keep user counts, if they have been affected by the economy and what typical revenues are generated over the course of a year. Ms. Kattreh replied that they do keep very close counts and that numbers have actually been very good. She noted that their revenues are slightly up as well as' the number of people using the park. Ms. Kattreh added that definitely their revenues have slightly exceeded their expectations even given the economic situation. John Valliere, Braemar Golf Course Manager, informed the Park Board that currently they are just struggling with some of their debt because they did a lot of expansion a 2 few years ago and so basically that is what they are contending with now. He then went through all of the items on the CIP for the golf courses for 2010-2014. Mr. Keprios commented that he would really like to commend his golf course staff for the wonderful job they do in running the golf course as well as their ability to pay the bonding debt that they face. Mr. Keprios explained that back when they had to borrow money to make these improvements (purchase of Fred Richards Golf Course, expansion of the regulation golf course and expansion of the clubhouse) the thinking was that each year they would have another increase in revenue and greens fees so that more money would be available to make larger bond payments and therefore they back ended their bonds which are in their absolute high water marks coupled with the downturn in the economy. Their third challenge is that golf courses in general are overbuilt and the golf course industry as a whole, regardless of the downturn in the economy, is down for just that reason as well. Mr. Keprios stated that they are facing three of probably the biggest financial challenges the golf course has ever faced. He noted his staff is doing a marvelous job of bringing in the revenues given the challenges they are facing. Mr. Meyer asked if any consideration has been given to refinancing that debt so you don't defer too long some of the other upgrades you would like to do. Mr. Valliere replied that he did go to the finance department and asked that question to which he found out it has already been redone one time and they are not able to do it again. Mr. Peterson asked what the user count is in a typical year at the three golf courses. Mr. Valliere replied that at the regulation course it's in the 63,000 to 65,000 range. He noted that it has been as low as 62,050 and as high as 87,000. He noted that the executive courses used to be in the high 20,OOOs and now they are in the low 20,OOOs. He added that presently they are approximately 4,500 rounds ahead of last year; however last year was not a good weather year. Mr. MacHolda explained to the Park Board that in looking at the CIP for the Aquatic Center they are requesting to delay the flow rider addition and begin the project at the end of 2010 instead of the 2009 season. When the project was approved, the economy was much different and therefore now recommend to push it back a year. Mr. Meyer asked Mr. MacHolda if they are doing this because the thinking is they may not have as strong of a season as they were planning. He also asked how the season passes are holding up compared to a year ago. Mr. MacHolda replied that currently there are 7,000 names with season passes which is down. He noted that for the past two years they've had approximately 10,500 at the conclusion of the season. Ray O'Connell MOVED TO APPROVE THE GENERAL PARK FACILITY AS WELL AS ALL OF THE ENTERPRISE FACILITIES AS DISCUSSED AND OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Dan Peterson SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 0 II1. OLD BUSINESS A. Community Gardens — Mr. Keprios commented that in addition to what he said earlier he still intends to do some more research and get a little more detail on community gardens. Mr. Keprios noted that he thinks he covered most of what he wanted to on how community gardens are managed, operated and the cost to administer, etc. He stated the he does think Yorktown Park is a viable site, although there may be others that have not yet been considered. Mr. Keprios indicated that he also intends to attempt to research and validate the need and desire for community gardens. B. Chowen Park - Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that the Chowen Park issue has been delayed until the second meeting in July for the City Council. Mr. O'Connell pointed out that he voted on the prevailing side of the Chowen Park situation and was thinking of making a different motion. He indicated he would like the Park Board to reconsider their action, conduct another mailing and address the issue again in July. Mr. O'Connell explained that he has received several calls from people who said they did not get the notice. He commented that he voted for it based on emotion; however, now looking at the Chowen situation and with the additional publicity that was in the newspaper, he thinks there would be enough time to put out an additional mailing to a broader area and that's his motion. Mr. Fronek asked Mr. O'Connell what exactly is his motion to which Mr. O'Connell replied MOVE TO CONDUCT ANOTHER MAILING TO A BROADER AREA AND BRING THE MATTER BACK TO THE PARK BOARD FOR RECONSIDERATION. Motion died for lack of second. Mr. Meyer asked Mr. O'Connell what he was hoping to accomplish by the additional mailing. Mr. O'Connell replied the complaints he received were from people who live more than 1,000 feet from the park. Mr. Meyer asked Mr. O'Connell what distance he would suggest to which Mr. O'Connell replied for this situation he would suggest 3,000 feet. Mr. Meyer asked if the goal of the additional mailing would be to have a hearing as part of the Park Board meeting to get more input. Mr. O'Connell responded that they need to give consideration on any of these types of things to the public at large because they are paying the taxes and continuing the upkeep. Therefore we owe them every benefit we can give them within reason. Mr. Meyer asked if the City Council will conduct a hearing at the July 21" City Council meeting. He noted that he wants the opportunity for people to speak but he doesn't want to duplicate something just to duplicate it. Mr. Keprios commented that it's up to the City Council whether they choose to delay a decision and conduct another public hearing. Mr. Meyer asked Mr. O'Connell if the reason he is suggesting this is because there is not another public hearing scheduled and therefore there may not be another chance for public input. Mr. O'Connell replied that is correct. 0 Mr. Peterson indicated that there are plenty of chances at the City Council meeting for comments. He noted that he still thinks they should try it for a year and see what happens. Mr. Meyer asked if they did a mailer to the 3,000 feet how many homes would that include to which Mr. Keprios replied that he really did not know; however, thinks it would a minimum of 900 homes. Mr. Meyer stated that he understands what Mr. O'Connell is trying to accomplish; however, he doesn't know if that is the best use of staff time and taxpayer dollars to do something we've already been through but at the same time he wants to allow people to have a chance to be heard. Ms. Kenney suggested to Mr. O'Connell that at this point since he has had direct communication from six people who felt they didn't have the chance to present their opinion on the idea that you recommend to those people that they contact the City Council. She added there is still an opportunity for them to contact the City Council. She stated that if there is enough public out cry the City Council may decide to have a public hearing. Ms. Kenney indicated that at a minimum they would be able to contact the City Council directly with their concerns so that they didn't feel like they hadn't been heard by anyone. Mr. Keprios stated that residents may still submit their views in writing to him either by email, postal mail or fax. In turn, we copy written comment on to all Park Board members and City Council. Mr. Peterson asked Mr. Keprios if when he does a mailing is a notice posted at the local park property so that those who don't get the mailing but use the park can see that something is coming up. Mr. Keprios replied that is a practice they have used in the past; however, it was not done in this case. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:30 PM. John, I am unable to attend tonight's meeting. However, I believe it is material that "requests "from the immediate proximity of the park for these projects have been handled in an ad hoc manner with insufficient records to justify millions of dollars in expenditures. I believe this reflects upon those who have been charged with overseeing this process. I suggest that they stop the process, backup, start over acquiring adequate justification against the claims that they made in your letter. Otherwise, we will continue to be disorganized and forcing hard-working taxpayers to cough up yet more money than they already are for projects that appear to be the whims of a few. John, I know that you are simply the messenger in this and what I wrote above is not reflection upon you. You have been very efficient and responded very quickly to my questions regarding your letter. Please pass this letter to the project decision -makers. They need to know that when they claim that so many want these projects they must come to the table ready to explain exactly who and how many want them. If the vast majority wants them then the projects should proceed. If they cannot prove the vast majority wants them the projects should not get past the paper upon which they were proposed. Christopher Gerber, CFA (Edina Resident) Private Wealth Partners, LLC Phone: (952)230-1340 Fax: (866) 734-4311 Private Wealth Partners, LLC 400 South Highway 169 Suite 170 St. Louis Park, MN 55426 Esse Guam Videri 0 Private Wealth Partners, LLC does not accept buy, sell or cancel order by e-mail, or any instructions by e-mail that would require your signature. Information contained in this communication is not considered an official record of your account and does not supersede normal trade confirmations or statements. Any information provided has been prepared from sources believed to be reliable but is not guaranteed, does not represent all available data necessary for making investment decisions, and is for informational purposes only. This e-mail may be privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than an intended recipient is unauthorized. If you receive this e-mail in error, please advise me (by return e-mail or otherwise) immediately. Christopher Gerber, LPL Financial, Private Wealth Partners, LLC, and Private Wealth Advisors, LLC do not offer tax or legal advice. We recommend that you seek qualified tax and legal counsel before making tax and legal decisions. Securities offered through LPL Financial (LPL), Member FINRA/SIPC From: John Keprios[mailto:JKeprios@ci.edina.mn.us] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 12:24 PM To: Christopher Gerber Subject: RE: Park "improvements" proposed for Pamela Park Christopher: I do not have have copies of specific written requests for each proposed park improvement. These proposed improvernents are the results of mostly verbal requests from special interest groups and the results of the Task Force recommendations. I encourage you to attend tonight's meeting to learn more about each project and voice your opinions for the record. John Keprios, Director Edina Park & Recreation Department 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 Voice: (952) 826-0430 Fax: (952) 826-0385 jkeprios@ci.edina.mn.us "We Create Community through People, Parks and Programs" From: Christopher Gerber[mailto:christopherw.gerber@lpl.com] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 12:14 PM To: John Keprios Subject: RE: Park "improvements" proposed for Pamela Park John, thanks for your quick reply! I assume that they have a copy of the specific requests for these projects and how many people requested each one. Can I get that information? Christopher Gerber, CFA Private Wealth Partners, LLC Phone: (952)230-1340 Fax: (866) 734-4311 Private Wealth Partners, LLC 400 South Highway 169 Suite 170 St. Louis Park, MN 55426 Esse Quam Videri Private Wealth Partners, LLC does not accept buy, sell or cancel order by e-mail, or any instructions by e-mail that would require your signature. Information contained in this communication is not considered an official record of your account and does not supersede normal trade confirmations or statements. Any information provided has been prepared from sources believed to be reliable but is not guaranteed, does not represent all available data necessary for making investment decisions, and is for informational purposes only. This e-mail may be privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than an intended recipient is unauthorized. If you receive this e-mail in error, please advise me (by return e-mail or otherwise) immediately. Christopher Gerber, LPL Financial, Private Wealth Partners, LLC, and Private Wealth Advisors, LLC do not offer tax or legal advice. We recommend that you seek qualified tax and legal counsel before making tax and legal decisions. Securities offered through LPL Financial (LPL), Member FINRA/SIPC From: John Keprios[mailto:JKeprios@ci.edina.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:42 PM To: Christopher Gerber Subject: RE: Park "improvements" proposed for Pamela Park Mr. Gerber: Thank you for your email. I will forward your comments to the Park Board and City Council. Regarding your question about "the expressed needs of the neighborhood and the community at large" referred to in my letter, there are no petitions that have been circulated around Pamela requesting any of the proposed park projects. A 10 member Task Force was formed consisting of a resident neighbors and representatives from youth athletic associations to use as one vehicle in the process to validate need and share ideas. The Edina Park and Recreation Department receives requests for park improvements on a regular basis via email, phone calls, office visits, letters, etc. My experience has been that most petitions more often than not are circulated to oppose a project or program rather than to request something positive to enhance a park. John Keprios, Director Edina Park & Recreation Department 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 Voice: (952) 826-0430 Fax: (952) 826-0385 jkeprios@ci.edina.mn.us "We Create Community through People, Parks and Programs" From: Christopher Gerber[mailto:christopherw.gerber@lpl.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:17 PM To: John Keprios Subject: Park "improvements" proposed for Pamela Park John, I am in receipt of and have reviewed your request dated June 30, 2009. It appears that your suggestion to relocate the hockey rink and lights and to renovate the 2013. W. parking lot has some merit due to proximity to natural boundaries (hockey rink) and, in the parking lot's case, due to wear. The suggestion in your letter that concrete curbing is necessary and will successfully deter parking on the grass or driving through the park is superfluous. There will remain several thousand feet of non -curbed surface easily allowing anyone to accomplish what this curb project is established to deter. Additionally, we have laws that deter exactly what you're suggesting. Therefore, you should eliminate the curb project thereby saving several thousand dollars. However, if there is evidence from police records showing that this is a frequent activity, perhaps there is merit to enforcing the laws before spending more money on curbing which would only provide marginal deterrence based on pro rata square footage of the park footprint. In your letter you said that there are "expressed needs of the neighborhood". This, I assume, is in the form of a petition signed by the vast majority of neighbors bounding the park. I would like to see this petition to confirm that your letter states the truth. How can I obtain a copy? Additionally, I would like to know what percentage of the bounding neighbors this petition represents. The reason that I request this is before authorizing spending literally millions of dollars it is smart to be certain that you are stating the truth in your letter (A trusting but verifying attitude only makes sense when spending this kind of money, nothing personal). You can attach a copy of the petition to this e-mail and reply, or fax it to me at 866-734-4311• I look forward to receiving it. Thank you for your attention to this matter as well as your diligent work for the Park and Recreation Department. Christopher Gerber, CFA Private Wealth Partners, LLC Phone: (952)230-1340 Fax: (866) 734-4311 Private Wealth Partners, LLC 400 South Highway 169 Suite 170 St. LOUIS 'ark, MN 55426 Esse Guam Videri Private Wealth Partners, LLC does not accept buy, sell or cancel order by e-mail, or any instructions by e-mail that would require your signature. Information contained in this communication is not considered an official record of your account and does not supersede normal trade confirmations or statements. Any information provided has been prepared from sources believed to be reliable but is not guaranteed, does not represent all available data necessary for making investment decisions, and is for informational purposes only. This e-mail may be privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than an intended recipient is unauthorized. If you receive this e-mail in error, please advise me (by return e-mail or otherwise) immediately. Christopher Gerber, LPL Financial, Private Wealth Partners, LLC, and Private Wealth Advisors, LLC do not offer tax or legal advice. We recommend that you seek qualified tax and legal counsel before making tax and legal decisions. Securities offered through LPL Financial (LPL), Member FINRA/SIPC -----Original Message ----- From: Douglas Rose[mailto:douqIas.rose<<-earthiink.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 2:45 PM To: John Keprios Subject: Proposed Pamela Park renovations Dear Mr. Keprios, I am writing to comment on the proposed changes to Pamela Park. I am a 6.5 year resident of the Pamela Park neighborhood residing at 5800 Halifax Avenue South. Below are my comments on the specific proposals. 1) Relocation of hock rink/lights I oppose this proposal. The move would eliminate existing "supplemental skating area currently directly west of the rink. During many winter afternoons, the rink is already overcroweded with skaters. The cost is excessive relative to a simple re -surfacing of the exisiting rink. I use the nature trail regular and have never found it improperly aligned. 2) west partking lot renovation - no issues 3) 2014 New athletic field I object to this proposal. In the past new years, usage of the park has increased dramatically with the enhancements to the softball fields and with the Edina Soccer Association's usage of the open spaces. This additional usage has resulted in substantially more traffic, noise, and litter. I object to formalizing the expansion of the usage through development especially given the fact that the existing fields are frequently not utilized. 4) South partking lot renovation - no issues 5) North partking lot renovation - no issues 6/7) For the same reasons as #3, I object to the artificial field. I moved to the Pamela Park neighborhood because of access to a neighborhood park. An artificial field would make the park capable of hosting tournaments further raising traffic. I support any proposal to allow existing fields to be more tolerant to increased play (e.g. #7) although I have concerns about the additional fertilizer's effects on the surrounding wetlands. 8) Paved access to playground I've raised two children from birth to age 6, commuting from the Northeast corner across the grass fields. So I speak from experience in saying stroller access need not be an excuse to allow paved access. Access for users with mobility issues are a different issue; however, one paved access route, from the west, should be more than enough to serve the demand. We should strive to preserve green space and not pave a path from the south. In addition, many sledders use the hill from Brookview into the park. I have safety concerns about having a paved path bi-sect the route of the sledders. 9) Park Shelter building improvements As noted previously, we should avoid expansion of the shelter to facilitate concessions as this would add to traffic and litter. There are plenty of other locations in the city where 'tournament ready' facilities exist. The shelter is however in need of upgrades. Thanks for the opportunity to input. Please contact me with questions. Doug Rose 952-920-9513 From: Allison, Greg [mailto:gallison@carlson.com] Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2009 8:12 AM To: John Keprios Subject: Proposed Improvements for Pamela Park Mr. Keprios, I received a letter which describes the proposed improvements to Pamela Park. I suggest that bicycle parking facilities be included adjacent to each automobile parking lot. With better bicycle parking facilities, more people will be comfortable riding to the park and fewer automobile parking spots will be used. My daughter and I live several blocks from the park and often ride our bikes to soccer games and practices. I believe that the bike edina task force report includes suggestions regarding the most appropriate type of bicycle parking for Edina. Greg Allison 5829 Fairfax Ave Edina MN 55424 Thu 7/2/2009 8:23 AM Email from: li�imkollross@.msn.com To: John Keprios What is the City of Edina Administration thinking of in looking for ways to spend money on a project that can be delated or cut? When citizens get notices such as your letter dated June 30th, 2009 it makes people feel like there is not integrity whatsoever in people employed with The City of Edina. People are financially stressed in this period of economic downturn that we haven't seen since the great depression. It certainly isn't a time to be looking for needless projects to spend taxpayer dollars on recklessly. All recreational spending should be curtailed. The water/sewer rates in Edina represent costs way over the national average, homes are being maliciously taxed at inflated values to generate more revenue and to allow this reckless spending and excessive salaries to city workers. Why not send a letter to the citizens of Edina showing plans to make 20% cuts in park spending in these economic times rather than being oblivious to what's happening in todays economy. This is what the real world is doing. Jim & Vick Kollross 4220 Valley View Road Edina, MN 55424 From: Amundson, Karen [mailto:Karen.Amundson@idq.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 10:36 AM To: John Keprios Subject: Pamela Park Hi John. We so wanted to be at the Park Board meeting on Thursday, but had another commitment. Our only concern as far as the upgrades to the park besides the scoreboards is the parking lot on Oaklawn. We are in favor of it, but only if the trees remain. From the drawing it appears that they would not be removed. Without trees it really would have an impact on the character of the neighborhood. It helps create somewhat of a buffer. As you begin putting together the master plan for Pamela, we greatly appreciate you taking this request into consideration. Thank you! Karen & Dorvin Amundson 5905 Oaklawn Avenue Edina, MN 55424 952/830-0303 952/920-7748 Try a freshly -made DQ Waffle Treat today! IDQ Companies DISCIAIME This transmission is intended only for tnc person rtam d a bo,xe and c y cnntain privileged, confidential or proprietary business information. Please notify me immediately by phone o; e-mail, J you have leceited this transmission in enor. If you have received this in error, copying, distributing, or any disclosure of this transmissit3n and its contents is prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your assistance and i apologize for any inconvenience Original Message ----- From: Kitchen, Karen [mailto:Karen.Ki.tclzeri, ParkLNFicoll.et.com] Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 6:35 AM To: John Keprios Subject: Pamela Park Improvements I am opposed to spending money at this financially instable time for park improvements that are not safety-related. Edina has been moving ahead with construction on upgrading the sewer and water run-off systems which encompassed a hefty amount being footed by the its citizens. That expense I understand, but in an economy where even Edina residents are concerned about losing their jobs, I cannot support these park improvements. Perhaps there can be some sort of a user fee, but to pave a road to a playground? Artificial turf? Really? Edina needs to be sensitive to what it asks of its residents in more financial assessments. Infrastructure improvements are one thing, but park improvements that are not related to safety concerns are another. My work place, a hospital and clinic system, just let go hundreds of people, and many salaried workers, including Edina residents, have had their salary cut through "furloughs." It is really not the time for moving ahead with this project at Pamela Park for what I see as "wants" rather than needs. Karen Kitchen PRIVACY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain business confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If this e-mail was not intended for you, please notify the sender by reply e-mail that you received this in error. Destroy all copies of the original message and attachments. From: Luanne Kuna [mailto:luanne.kuna@virtualrad.com] Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 8:40 PM To: John Keprios Subject: Proposed Park Improvements for Pamela Park Hi John, Before commenting on the proposed improvements, ► would like to reiterate a comment that I have made twice before but have no reply from the Park District. The new playground construction is in progress and I have to say that the new colors (brown and green) are a nice improvement over the previous playground. On the playground drawings that I have seen there are two "funbrellas" in the plan. I am hoping that these were eliminated from the playground plan, per the resident input. I feel that they will be an eyesore and very unnatural choice for a sheltered area in our park. Please let me know what the status of the funbrellas is. Thanks, Luanne Kuna 6008 Oaklawn Ave. Edina, MN My feedback regarding the proposals is as follows: 1. 2010 Relocate Hockey Rink and Lights Comment: no objection 2. 2013 West Parking Lot Renovation and Expansion Comment: No objection, however, would NOT want to see existing trees removed to accommodate expansion. 3. 2014 New Athletic Field Comment: This area is already being used for younger game events this spring/summer which has resulted in the majority of the younger participant parents parking on Oaklawn Ave., even though there are plenty of available spots in the parking lot. As they are parking on both sides of the street, a traffic problem is presented as two cars cannot pass from opposite directions. Some deterrent for these lazy parents needs to be put in place. 4. 2015. South Parking lot expansion. Comment: No objection. Perhaps the young trees could be relocated near the playground to offer some screening/aesthetic improvement. I would add that evergreens planted around the playground equipment would also improve help offset all of the equipment. 5. 2013. North Parking Lot Expansion. Comment: No objection as long as parking isn't expanded along the road. When cars are parked along the road it is dangerous for walkers entering the park. 6. Artificial Turf on South Athletic Field Comment: Object. Artificial turf and any additional fencing are not fitting for a community park. This type of arena is appropriate for school properties, not parks. People come to parks to be in natural settings. Many residents of Edina work in jobs five days a week, 40-60 hours a week and need to have a place to retreat to beyond the walls of office buildings. The parks and recreation department of our community needs to serve all residents, not just the athletic associations. The parks are what we do well in Edina and in Minnesota. To destroy their natural beauty would take away a major component in the quality of life in this part of the country. 7. 2014 Senior Athletic Field Renovation. Comment: No objection. 8. 2013 Paved Trail Access to Playground Comment: Perhaps if the new playground had been positioned close to the south parking lot, both the street parking and handicap access would not be an issue. If the path would be drawn closer to the edge of the woods, it would not stick out so much, nor interfere with the open field. Many park users run through the open field in pickup games and kite flying. I think that a paved path could present chance for kids to trip and fall, unless it is along the edges of the park. 9. Park Shelter Building Improvements Comment: Support this project and would like to see it moved up in priority with the other proposals. The shaded picnic table area would e a nice addition to the park. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. Mary and John: Thank you for your email; much appreciated. I will forward your comments to the Park Board and City Council. John Keprios, Director Edina Park & Recreation Department 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 Voice: (952) 826-0430 Fax: (952) 826-0385 jkeprios@ci.edina.mn.us "We Create Community through People, Parks and Programs" From: Mary Everett [mailto:meverett@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 9:06 AM To: John Keprios Subject: Pamela Park Improvements Mr. Keprios I respectfully would like to respond to your letter regarding Pamela Park. My husband and I are 100% against the extensive improvements you are proposing. One reason is that during this economic time it seems frivilous that the City of Edina can continue to spend and spend and spend when many of it's residents are out of work (we are not one of them but we are well aware of the struggles of many friends)! Edina has beautiful parks and we have many wonderful choices but I am beginning to believe that unless everything is state of the art for the city of Edina, it is not good enough. I agree that we need to keep up with our parks and maintain them in good order and keep them safe for our residents however with the enormous referendum that was passed for the schools and fields, etc. I just do not agree with spending more on something like this right now, especially to the extent you are intending. My own church, Our Lady of Grace, was in the middle of a large capital campaign when the economic conditions changed. That church has set aside what they had raised for needed maintenance but in light of the economic conditions has suspended their campaign and the remodel and additions they were proposing and this community is largely made up of Edina residents as well who have said no to this frivilous spending during this time. Our property values are dropping, taxes are going up, there are basic needs of our residents that are not being met so at this time we would ask that the city reconsider this proposal and either put it aside for now until the economic situation improves, maybe a year or two from now and then readress it, or at the least, improve on only the minimum requirements to keep the park safe. Thank you. Respectfully, Mary and John Everett 5600 Park Place Edina, MN 55424 Mary 0 From: Caron, Peg[mailto:Peg.Caron@CO.RAMSEY.MN.US] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 11:03 AM To: John Keprios Subject: Pamela Park Hi, I am one of the neighbors of Pamela Park who received your request for input on the park proposals. I've lived in Edina since 1992, and I've always been amazed when I walk with my friend in Bredesen Park how much nicer it is for walking than Pamela. Now I read your plans, and the focus seems to be on people with school-age children and their parking and playing options. I read nothing about how the non -parents, especially the many retired folks in my neighborhood, could personally benefit. Several of my neighbors walk at least once a day, and yet the walking trail at Pamela near the tennis courts is little more than a cow path. So that is my suggestion, rather than ripping up more grass for expanded parking, and focusing only on the fields. People who do not have kids in the Edina schools should have their needs met in other areas. Thanks for considering my views. From: Sue Nissen [mailto:sgnissen@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 11:22 AM To: John Keprios Subject: Pamela Park Comment John, From what I've seen of the updates to Pamela Park they look fine. My concern is as a homeowner on 58th Street. I know there will park traffic and probably more with the updates. My comment is bigger than just your park traffic, but your updates beg the question: What will or can be done to keep traffic on 58th Street flowing within the speed limits? The nights that Pamela is in heavy use it's like a freeway around here so I can tell you that part of the speed problem is park goers. Part is just regular traffice. Has this been considered? If not, with whom should it be considered? There are probably other streets and residents that feel the same way. I would believe that everyone loves a park but would like the respect of those people in vehicles going to and from the park. Sincerely, Sue Nissen 4408 West 58th Street From: tom.lyons@mchsi.com [mailto:tom.lyons@mchsi.com1 Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:23 PM To: John Keprios Subject: Thoughts on Pamela Park Proposal John, I appreciate your recent letter regarding the proposed improvements to Pamela Park. I'd like you to understand that I do support the maintenance and upgrade of our community parks to ensure we meet the increasing needs of youth athletics and community activities. I live a block from the park and welcome the chance to discuss my thoughts directly if you are interested or want additional input on changes to the proposal. After reviewing the plans enclosed with your letter, I have a few thoughts: 1. What is the proposed source of funding for this proposal? The city's budget went up 6% in 2009 with no tangible increase in service levels. The total cost of these proposals is between $1.375M and 2.245M, or 4-7% of the city's 2009 operating budget ($32.4M.) I appreciate the transparency with which you have shared these proposed expenditures, I also intend to be very frank about the proposed funding. I do recognize this is a discussion for the city council, but I encourage your involvement in that discussion as we evaluate how to pay for this. 2. The additional athletic field to be used as a practice field seems smaller than required • for many sports, yet the proposal still costs $400K. I don't understand the approach. I trust current demand for an additional field is a reality, but I am not one for going half- way on arguably minor improvements which leave my original need unsatisfied. The proposal to renovate the full-size field at the park is $330K, yet this smaller practice field costs 21 % more? The space is already a grass field and the proposal does not include new lighting, so what is the $400K for? I'm not sure why practices can't take place on the current grass field. Let's paint some stripes on it and save some money. If there is truly a need for another athletic field, then build another athletic field. Please do not spend 120% more to get 80% of another field. 3. Artificial turf is nice, so is a Cadillac. I drive a 7 year-old truck, not a Cadillac, and so do most of my neighbors. Like many these days, I am watching my budget, making sound investments that only pay solid returns, and challenging every expenditure for its' necessity. The kids need a field, not the TaJ Mahal. If non-profit groups are doing fundraising for this field, great, they can raise the whole $1.2M for the field and related security improvements. If they don't raise the whole $1.2M, the proceeds they do get can offset the $330K for grass renovation since the public is already paying for all the other upgrades to the park. Please use some common sense here. Many residents of Edina will not use Pamela Park or this field regardless of whether it is grass or turf. Would you really spend four times as much on the turf in your own backyard if you had to write the check? I'm not opposed to community investments, but now your asking me to spend four times as much and then put it in my neighbor's back yard since I don't even use it? I don't think I can be any more clear on this point, I do not want to pay for this. 4. Paved access trails are needed throughout the park. Access to the facilities and play areas is a good investment and $30K seems like a reasonable amount. Get this done in 2010 though, not 2013. 5. I grew up playing hockey on a rink just like the one in the park. I have to wonder if it "needs" to be moved right now. I also wonder if the boards and lights "need" to be replaced right now, or if moving the rink is a reason to replace some aging equipment. If this were my money (which it is, actually) I'd wait until it absolutely had to be replaced. It's (only) $60K, but I'd want to be sure it "needs" to be replaced before I'd spend a penny relocating it. Put another way, will it last another year? If the answer is yes, then don't relocate it yet. If it wasn't put in the right location to begin with, perhaps that is a lesson to be reconsidered as we discuss all these other improvement projects in the park. My inclination on this one would be to remove the root problem now and leave the rink where it is until it must be replaced and then relocate it at that time. 6. Adequate parking is a necessity, but in my opinion, using the grass for overflow parking on the rare occasion when the park has several large events is not such a bad thing. It provides additional green space the other 360 days a year. Additional parking is probably warranted in the park, I just don't want to spend a lot of money to ensure no one ever has to park on the grass again. Sometimes those demand spikes may occur and the grass is there for the occasion if we need it. 7. $41 OK for improvements to the park shelter creates lots of questions for me. First, what's wrong with the old park shelter? It may be more cost effective to add-on than to demolish the existing building, but you are leaving out an obvious third option — keep the existing structure, add a storage shed and some picnic tables. Second, what is the payback on this investment? I don't believe this is a building that will be used for youth athletics, is it? My sense is that it is for meetings and public gatherings, etc. So, how do the projected increases in user fee revenues compare with the proposed cost estimates? I imagine there is little tangible public benefit to this expenditure. A shiny and new public park shelter is much more exciting than adding a storage shed behind the existing building, but it is not warranted. I don't see any reason for a concession stand, which will then require staffing and ultimately result in more tax dollars to cover this new line on the operating budget. If you need to sell concessions during tournaments and such, a trailer designed specifically for that purpose can be rented fro the weekend and costs a lot less than $400K. Third, what is "desire of the community"? Who in the community wants to spend nearly a half -million dollars on a picnic shelter? I am challenging my personal expenditures every month in an effort to absorb increases in my health insurance and taxes while my employer not only skips the annual raise but is now considering wage reductions. Why in the world would I want a better picnic facility, so I can enjoy my peanut butter and jelly sandwich at a shiny new picnic table? Remember my 7 -year old truck? It's paid for a few years ago, but I'm really not sure where I'll find the money for a car payment if I need to upgrade to a 5 year old truck when I reach 200,000 miles on it next year. Let's put some common sense on what is a desire and what is a need. I desire to eat my dinner at a nice new picnic table, but I need to reduce my expenses so I don't have to move to a less expensive community. Fourth, do you expect the consulting firm would recommend anything other than the city moving ahead with this project? Obviously, they will make some money on developing the plans and managing the project. They are not impartial and should be no part of the decision making process. Get a proposal and leave it at that, I wouldn't even want the appearance of a consulting firm helping you to justify this proposal, even if it was a sound investment. Overall John, you may be sensing that I don't favor these improvements. That's actually not true. I firmly believe in making sound investments in the community. Putting some money into this aging park is not a bad idea. All too often though, a proposal such as this, can become a wish -list of projects that seek to appease many small factions of people in the community. It is politically unpopular to hold the reigns in on this type of expenditure, because a few vocal constituents will seek to be heard as though they represent the whole community. In this economic climate especially, I think prudent and necessary investments in our community, youth athletics, and park infrastructure can make sense. Ultimately, I cannot get behind every item in this proposal as I would not be willing to spend my own money on some of these initiatives. In fact, it is my money, and I only ask that you spend it more carefully than you would your own. With sincere regards, Tom Lyons 6120 France Ave So 612-750-2453 tom.lyons@mchsi.com From: JOAN SCHAUER [mailto:schauer123@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:36 PM To: John Keprios Subject: Re: Pamela Park John, noticed today on our walk thru pamela park that it didn't take long for vandals to deface the new playgroung equipment. I hope this is a lesson for edina parks and any decision to spend a million plus dollars on any soccer field at pamela park ... Tom Scahuer From: Dianne Plunkett Latham [mailto:Dianne.Plunkett.Latham@Comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 4:41 PM To: EdinaMail@CI.Edina. MN.US Cc: James Hovland; Joni Bennett; Scot Housh; Mary Brindle; Ann Swenson Subject: Opposition to Chowan Park Vegetable Garden Proposal 7-21-09 Jennifer — Please forward to the School Board and Park Board. I have CC'd the City Council. Dianne Dear Members of the Edina City Council, School Board and Park Board, I am writing to express opposition to the Chowan Park garden request made by the YEA Corps. As past President of the Edina Garden Council (EGC) and Vice Chair of the Edina Energy and Environment Commission (EEC) I am a strong supporter of youth gardening and of sustainable agriculture. This project as proposed, however, accomplishes neither objective while disabling the community from utilizing public space. I am instead proposing other alternatives that accomplish both the objective of youth gardening as well as sustainable agriculture. Youth Gardening The Chowan Park garden as proposed by the YEA Corps allows a private group exclusive use of a public area while precluding the many public uses traditionally intended for the area (ball games, dog walking, etc.) . The 16' x 20 'vegetable garden plot requested would not be large enough to have much impact on local youth gardening education. To have a realistic youth gardening training program, I propose that it be done through our schools using the Kenny School (5720 Emerson Ave., Mpls) as a model. See Kenny's gardening web page for this K-5 school at: http://kenny.mpis.kl2.mn.us/Garden Day 2007.html The Kenny school has created an attractive garden of mixed perennials, annuals, shrubs, trees and vegetables. The kids learn about gardening and composting. The parents at Kenny school also become involved and learn as well. Edina's Cornelia school has a perennial garden which was installed and is maintained by students and parents. With little effort, vegetables could be added to this garden. Each participating Edina school would need a parent or teacher to coordinate the garden. The Edina Garden Council donated the surplus annuals, perennials and vegetables from its 2008 plant sale to the Kenny school for their youth gardening program. I am sure that EGC would be happy to do so for any Edina school that would like to begin a youth gardening program. I and other EGC members would also be happy to give programs on various gardening topics for any school gardening program. In fact, the EGC has a youth gardening club, the Sprouts, for which EGC already plans a variety of gardening activities. The advantage of having a youth gardening program through the schools, as opposed to a private group like the YEA Corps, is that all youth in Edina can participate in a garden near their home. Our schools have real estate in all neighborhoods and can accommodate many more youth than the 8-12 kids in the YEA Corps. Small private groups like the YEA Corps are better served by utilizing their members' residential property as they are currently doing. Sustainable Agriculture By sustainable agriculture I am referring to agricultural methods, which produce crops without pesticides, without inorganic fertilizers and which are grown and consumed locally. As a consequence of the YEA Corps Chowan Park request, some residents have requested that the concept be expanded to a system of community gardening whereby residents are allowed to sign up for garden plots in city parks. This concept has the same problems mentioned above, namely private use of public property. With no written Park and Recreation community gardening policy in place, there are too many unresolved issues to even consider proceeding. Those having residential property can easily practice sustainable agriculture on their own property. Those living in multifamily units can petition their landlord to allow community gardening plots. This is being done at 7500 York and it is an amenity that attracts residents to the facility. Suggesting that community gardens are necessary because they facilitate sustainable agriculture is misguided. The number and size of plots is miniscule compared to the number of residents who need to participate to truly achieve sustainable agriculture. Instead, programs teaching residents how to grow vegetables in their own yards is what needs to be encouraged. Last April the Edina Garden Council and the Edina Energy and Environment Commission collaborated on a presentation on vegetable gardening. The EGC is already planning such a program for next year. More such programs are needed. If every resident does their part to grow their own vegetables, similar to the Victory garden program of the 1940's, we can substantially reduce the amount of Cot being produced by the use of inorganic fertilizers, by pesticides and by the need for transportation of crops from far -away places. The Edina Garden Council is a strong supporter of community beautification by funding and growing the seeds for the plants used in the city's nearly 100 public gardens, as well as by planting the flowers for 8 of these gardens. The community gardens as proposed are not likely to add to park beautification. Conclusion In summary, please vote against the Chowan Park YEA Corps vegetable garden proposal and support a program of youth gardening at our local schools, as well as supporting programs for sustainable agricultural practices on residential property. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Dianne Plunkett Latham, 7013 Comanche Ct, Edina MN 55439-1004 Dianne.Plunkett.Latham@Comcast.net /Ywo��- te Mick OqZ6 An�z 6MV40&x�b/�J/quf" ;ZA16 �-w� iy4V v 7 30w9 muea;�' ,,J ,�e ,e 17, "4-" la 'yictt�z M&t /ma,& h�t C�e C#WW-6 a4�b _A4-& U4?�;& G��G� /G�✓�Uvtel �i/�i�l .� �D�ZJJ U/y)a� %zI, �Si9 . �G�i%yL mo vn, r%cGt -G� /Vo �ro 6#wui4 Alo A,l'ti e � lhrnkKiF✓.S� eefl June 30, 2009 Dear Resident Neighbor and/or User of Pamela Park: City Of Edina The Edina Park Board and Edina Park and Recreation Department invite your input regarding a variety of park improvements proposed for Pamela Park. You may provide your input into this process in a number of ways: • Attend the Pamela Park Neighborhood Input Meeting scheduled for Thursday, July 30, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Edina City Nall. • Send me your input in writing by email at Jkeprios ci,,ci.edina.mn.us. • Send me your input in writing via postal mail to: John Keprios, Director Edina Park and Recreation Department 4801 West 50`h Street Edina, MN 55424 • Or send me your input in writing via fax to 952-826-0385. I ask that you please submit your comments in writing to me by no later than Wednesday, August 5, 2009. As shown on the enclosed list and map, there are a number of park improvements proposed for Pamela Park that are being considered by the Park Board to better meet the expressed needs of the neighborhood and the commur�f- At laruP, Anticinated project costs are staff's rough estimates and the proposed cc �ndation. Once the community input process is comf Patricia Meyers final 6312 Halifax Ave S master plan for park improvements. The n, Edina, MN 55424 1 to prioritize the proposed projects, evaluate ft VAY AND NEUTER i0 SAVE LIVES 17dations * . �.,. . to the City Council. This matter will be pi, )9, Park Board agenda for consideration. As always, the public is welcome to attend all Park Board meetings. Your input on this matter is greatly appreciated. Many thanks" Si ely, sp�� iv10 A✓r--/�7/ r �v 2 14 I �' ohn Keprio , D rector Edina Park and Recreation Department (952)826-0430 f ,IKeprios'rrci.eclina.ml�.us City Hall 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424-1394 Park and Recreation D www.cityofedina.com A pv �� R1 )9- 67 7- 5; - s y- � 52-826-oA7 AX 952-826-0385 i TY 952-826-0379 r c7 Backgrounder As commissioners of Edina's Energy and Environment Commission, we have read with interest the Proposed Park Improvements for Pamela Park sent out for comment to Pamela Park neighborhood homeowners earlier this month by the Park and Recreation Department. Since significant environmental improvements to Pamela Park have been made in the recent past (a cooperative project between the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City of Edina) that have resulted in water quality improvement to the lake,* and, since the park includes some 75 trees planted to reduce Edina's carbon footprint,** we want to be sure that these efforts and results will not be subverted or diminished. Our advisory opinions are the following, with numbers referring to those in the Park and Rec proposal: 1. Re -location and lighting of the hockey rink (cost c. $60,000). We recommend this relocation, with the proviso that environmentally -acceptable lighting (such as solar) be installed. 2, 4, 5. Expansion of three parking lots (total cost c. $145,000). We do not recommend any of these expansions. The overflow parking, held in the proposal to be a problem "on occasional evenings" should continue to be on the grass or even on neighborhood streets during this brief time out of the year. Parking lots and the rain and run-off from these impermeable surfaces are now recognized as one of the most important sources of water pollution. (Removing the natural filtration function of grassy areas creates the problem.) In this case, removal of trees is also contemplated by the Park and Rec proposal, though the number of these "young trees" is not specified. These trees, planted as part of Edina's "carbon footprints woods" by citizens along with members of Friends of Edina Nature Center, are already too old to be transplanted with assurance of success. Construction of additional parking lot surface would almost certainly kill even more trees as construction equipment rolls over their roots (root systems extend much farther from the trunks than the branches do). As the now -configured parking lots require repairs, we recommend that the city replace them entirely with permeable pavement, allowing rain and run-off to filter through the soils before flowing into the waterways. We do not recommend curbing since that virtually prevents the necessary parking on the grass during the infrequent overflow periods. Further, we do not recommend paint striping of the lots since, as the paint wears off, particles of it enter the waterways. 3. Development of an additional athletic field (cost c. $400,000). We do not recommend this project. * As measured by the volunteers of the Conservation League of Edina, who have conducted water quality testing of two-four of Edina lakes regularly over the summers of the past seven years. ** This "carbon footprint woods" was created by the volunteers of Friends of the Edina Nature Center; each tree will, on average, remove one ton of carbon from the atmosphere over its lifespan. This development is unnecessary since the specific area is already being used by kids as a natural practice field; and it is unnecessarily costly at a time when the city has environmental goals through ICLEI (and when Edina's population of families with school age children is already less than 25%). 6. Installation of artificial turf, along with structures to prevent vandalism of it (cost: $1,200,000). We do not recommend this installation. In addition to creating a less -permeable surface (please see above for our comments), artificial turf wears out and cannot successfully be recycled. Neither is raising funds for replacing it regularly a realistic plan. Further, in hot weather, some of its chemical elements volatize and outgas. Any source contemplated for funding at this level should instead be approached with more environmentally -positive proposals. 7. Re -grading, re -soiling, and re -seeding the existing space (offered as an alternative to above in the Park and Rec Proposal) (cost c. $330,000). We do not recommend this alternative. The "more irrigation and fertilizer" required, as per the Park and Rec proposal, will damage the waterway more even than the use of "fewer pesticides" that are held to result. Again, this expenditure does not reflect our city's best environmental priorities. 8. Construction of two paved paths to the playground equipment (cost c. $30,000). We recommend this, provided that permeable pavement be used. 9. Expansion of the park shelter building (cost: $340,200-$410,200). We recommend this, with the stipulations below. Several architectural firms known for their expertise in green remodeling and green new construction should be approached for bids along with the firm mentioned in the Park and Rec proposal and the question of remodeling vs. new construction should be re -addressed. A green building such as this can be a showcase for citizens and used for a range of activities such as skate -changing, community meetings and events, display space for information on the Pamela Park city/watershed improvements and on the water testing and carbon woods projects, etc. Trees for summer shade and winter wind -break should be planted around the structure (see below). Once its budget is final, two percent of the amount should be allocated to public art and two percent to the purchase and planting of 6-8 foot native trees and the maintenance of them. ResolutionNote on July 27, 5-6 pm As commissioners of Edina's Energy and Environment Commission, we recommend that the City Council, in their consideration of the Proposed Park Improvements for Pamela Park (Park and Recreation Department), take the following actions: 1) Approve the relocation of the hockey rink (using environmentally -positive lighting); the enhancement of the park building (using green remodeling or green new construction); the construction of hard surface paths to the playground equipment (using permeable pavement). 2) Not approve the expansion of any of the three parking lots; the construction of the new athletic field; the field remodeling using artificial turf or the (offered) alternative renovation of the field. Signed, Date: C -A �qZ A, �1 ok e N U0 �y • rN�RroM'� June 30, 2009 City of Edina Dear Resident Neighbor and/or User of Pamela Park: The Edina Park Board and Edina Park and Recreation Department invite your input regarding a variety of park improvements proposed for Pamela Park. You may provide your input into this process in a number of ways: • Attend the Pamela Park Neighborhood Input Meeting scheduled for Thursday, July 30, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Edina City Hall. • Send me your input in writing by email at Jk.epriosC}ci.edina_mn.us. • Send me your input in writing via postal mail to: John Keprios, Director Edina Park and Recreation Department 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 • Or send me your input in writing via fax to 952-826-0385. I ask that you please submit your comments in writing to me by no later than Wednesday, August 5, 2009. As shown on the enclosed list and map, there are a number of park improvements proposed for Pamela Park that are being considered by the Park Board to better meet the expressed needs of the neighborhood and the community at large. Anticipated project costs are staff's rough estimates and the proposed construction schedule is staff's recommendation. Once the community input process is complete, the Park Board will decide on a final master plan for park improvements. The next step will then be for the Park Board to prioritize the proposed projects, evaluate funding alternatives and make recommendations to the City Council. This matter will be placed on the Tuesday, September 8, 2009, Park Board agenda for consideration. As always, the public is welcome to attend all Park Board meetings. Your input on this matter is greatly appreciated. Many thanks. Si ly, ohn Keprio , ri ector Edina Park and Recreation Departinent (952)826-0430 JKel rios(a ci.edina..mn.us City Hall 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424-1394 Park and Recreation Department www.cityofedina.com 952-826-0367 FAX 952-826-0385 TTY 952-826-0379 u w F . W + ' a �i Fwg. I I g� Q 1 O w� NRw I Nw§ _x < w g r .. = i� uK If J3 nn a \ rq$ ,Sw`� z � j so w PROPOSED PARK IMPROVEMENTS FOR 1. 2010 RELOCATE HOCKEY RINK AND LIGHTS Description: The Edina Park and Recreation Department is planning to relocate the hockey rink approximately thirty feet to the west and thirty feet to the south of its existing location. This relocation of the rink and lights will cost approximately $60,000. This project is being proposed as a 2010 Capital Improvement Plan project. Need/Justification: The existing hockey rink is worn and in need of new boards and light fixtures and standards. The current location of the hockey rink is too close to existing trees that have a shallow root system that is detrimental to the hockey rink surface. The current location of the hockey rink also hinders the proper alignment for the nature trail that was added long after the hockey rink was established. 2. 2013 WEST PARKING LOT RENOVATION AND EXPANSION Description: The west parking lot renovation includes removal of existing asphalt surface, developing a new sub -base, installing a new wear -course of asphalt followed by a finish coat of asphalt and adding concrete curbing around the perimeter. The plan calls for an expansion opportunity to add 37 more parking stalls to the west lot. Total project costs are expected to be approximately $60,000 which is currently part of the 2013 Capital Improvement Plan. Need/Justification: The west parking lot will be in need of total renovation in 2013. Concrete curbing is needed to deter people from parking on the grass or driving through the park. Additional parking is needed to keep visitors from parking on the grass during peak use periods. 3. 2014 NEW ATHLETIC FIELD Description: This is a proposal to add another rectangular shaped athletic field (300' by 160') to serve primarily (but not exclusively) the sports of football and soccer, lacrosse and rugby. As shown on the Master Plan map drawn by Anderson/Johnson Associates, this natural grass field is proposed to be positioned northwest of the existing rectangular athletic field. This is a smaller grass athletic field (smaller than a regulation football field) that will be used as primarily a practice field (which is how the area is currently used); however, this smaller field can also be scheduled for younger athletic game events. There are no plans to include athletic field lighting for this new smaller rectangular athletic field. Before this project could be considered, a feasibility study was conducted in 2007. A number of constraints were identified within that area, the least of which were the delineation of wetlands and the elevation of the storm water flood plain. A topographic and wetland delineation survey was ordered. It was determined that the field could be constructed, although the field size would need to be smaller in size (300' x 160') than the existing field to the east (380' x 225'). The total project cost is estimated to be approximately $400,000; however, funding will likely not be available until at least 2014. Need/Justification: The number one identified need for youth athletic programs is the need for additional scheduled field time for the multiple sports (football, soccer, rugby, lacrosse and ultimate Frisbee) that all compete for the same rectangular athletic field. The demand for these fields has grown significantly over the past decade or more for a variety of reasons. Youth are exposed to organized athletic opportunities at a much earlier age than ever before and opportunities for girls in athletics have also grown significantly. The existing open space is currently used as a practice field; however, the area is uneven and unsafe. 4. 2013 SOUTH PARKING LOT EXPANSION Description: The parking lot on the south end of Pamela Park is proposed to be expanded and redesigned to accommodate the parking demand. The redesign will include striping of the parking lot to make more efficient use of existing parking. 20-23 additional parking stalls are proposed to be added to the south parking lot. Option #1 would add 23 additional spaces; whereas, option #2 could add 20 additional spaces. Option #2 appears to be preferred over option 91; however, young trees would have to be relocated. This expansion is currently part of the 2013 Capital Improvement Plan. Total project costs are estimated at approximately $40,000. Need/Justification: On occasional evenings, there is not enough parking capacity to serve scheduled programs and as a result, park users are parking on the grass. The new additional small rectangular athletic field is also expected to require some additional parking capacity. 5. 2013 NORTH PARKING LOT EXPANSION Description: This project proposes to improve the flow of traffic into the north parking lot (near the park shelter building), create more parking capacity where possible and stripe the lot to make parking safer and more efficient. Total project costs are estimated at approximately $45,000. Need/Justification: The existing north parking lot does not have well defined parking stalls, which leads to an inefficient and unsafe parking lot. As a result, park users park unlawfully on the grass. During high peak scheduled activities, there are not enough parking stalls to accommodate the demand. Additional parking stalls will make the lot safer, more efficient and keep park patrons from parking on neighborhood streets. This expansion is currently part of the 2013 Capital Improvement Plan. 6. ARTIFICIAL TURF ON SOUTH ATHLETIC FIELD (date TBD) Description: This project proposes to install artificial turf on the existing (380' x 225') natural grass rectangular athletic field with lights (the South Field). If approved, this project would require some form of protection from vandals from driving on the artificial turf field. The preferred protection barrier would be either a stone bench system (similar to that at the Edina High School artificial turf field) or bollard system (similar to bollards with chains at Arden Park and Creek Valley Park. This would protect the field from vandals and eliminate the need for perimeter fencing. The total project cost is estimated to be approximately $1,200,000; however, public funds will likely not be available within at least the next five years unless funds are donated. Need/Justification: The demand for youth athletic programs on rectangular athletic fields has grown to a point where there simply are not enough fields available to accommodate the demand. Natural grass fields need to be rested in order to maintain safe and healthy turf. Artificial turf fields can withstand the over -scheduling demand. If artificial turf is installed on this field, it is vitally important to protect the investment by making the field more vandal resistant. Measures must be taken to deter vandals from driving their vehicles on the artificial turf to protect the investment. 7. 2013 SENIOR ATHLETIC FIELD RENOVATION Description: If user groups decide not to fund raise for converting the senior athletic field (the large soccer/football field with lights) to artificial turf, then the plan is to renovate the existing turf to a more sustainable natural grass field. The exact same renovation has been done to three athletic fields at Lewis Park and one athletic field at Braemar Park with great success. Renovation consists of re -grading the existing field to ensure proper drainage; import new specially mixed sand/peat soils over proper spaced drain tiles and irrigation and seed with a strong athletic field grass blend that will establish deep roots to deter weed growth, which reduces our dependence on pesticides. Renovation is anticipated to cost approximately $330,000 and is currently part of the 2013 Capital Improvement Plan. If user groups decide to fund raise to convert this senior athletic field to artificial turf, then this renovation will not be necessary. Need/Justification: The growth of youth and adult athletics and the birth of new field athletic sports (rugby, lacrosse, ultimate Frisbee, etc.) has placed a greater demand on the rectangular shaped athletic fields. To withstand the greater demand, these athletic fields need to be better engineered to withstand heavier use loads. These new sand/peat athletic fields have proven to be more sustainable and tolerant to increased play and longer seasons. The fields require more irrigation and fertilizer; however, less pesticides. 8. 2013 PAVED TRAIL ACCESS TO PLAYGROUND Description: This is a project that proposes to create a hard surface path from the south and west parking lots to the playground equipment. Staff estimates total paved trail project costs to be approximately $30,000. Funding for this project is not anticipated to be available until 2013 or later. Ideally the project should be done in conjunction with the parking lot expansion projects currently scheduled for 2013. Need/Justification: There is a need for hard surface accessibility for park users to access the playground equipment area from the west and south parking lots. People with mobility issues and those with strollers are just two examples of the need to provide a safe hard surface access to the playground equipment from the south and west parking lots. Staff proposes to fund this project out of the 2013 operating budget. 9. PARK SHELTER BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS (date TBD) Description: This is a long-term project that proposes to expand the existing park shelter building to meet current park shelter needs and desires of the community. With the assistance from the professional architect/engineering consulting firm of ATS&R, it was determined that an expansion of the existing park shelter building is more cost effective than demolition and new construction. Four different concept drawings were proposed for consideration, all of which include much needed additional storage, plus a larger and more user friendly room for community gatherings, meetings and skate changing, plus a kitchen/concessions area, drinking fountain and outdoor picnic patio space. Project costs range from $340,200 to $410,200 depending on which of the four options. Funding for this project is not anticipated to be available within the next five years. When funding is available, the expansion will require more study and community input before a final plan is selected. Need/Justification: With the assistance from the professional architect/engineering consulting firm of ATS&R the Pamela Park Task Force and staff concluded that it is in the City's best interest to expand the existing park shelter building to meet the identified park shelter facility and storage needs and desires of the community. It was determined that there is a need for an additional 500 square feet of storage for recreation program equipment and athletic user groups' equipment. There was also an expressed need/desire for a more user friendly community room space with a kitchen/concessions area to serve community group meetings and gatherings as well as athletic user groups. A shaded concrete patio was also expressed as a need/desire as part of the facility expansion. Y L L L C) O O ,[ L N CU O O N O Cl ^cc 5 O O - '^` O O O LVLU/ O d' ' c m C E Q. oa aQ�� Q 64 MI U- W W � j O O O O O T- O O O O O O O O O O i ca O N a- > _H O O L O U Ln O H M It CD ti M Iq N � N r � N EA C) OI O O O O O O N O O O O CD Y L L L L LL LL ,[ L N CU _� m CT LL C E E ^cc 5 E - '^` O O O LVLU/ � ' c m C E Q. oa aQ�� Q L U- W W � j O J J J c(� ALL U /) c t-+ C i ca cn J a- > _H U O ami o o Q) =ofcnzz O H Pamela Park Improvement Meeting July 30, 2009 Edina City Hall Council Chambers Staff Present: John Keprios, Donna Tilsner, Janet Canton Park Board Present: Todd Fronek, Dan Peterson, Ben Pobuda, Ray O'Connell Meeting began at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Keprios informed the residents that the purpose of this meeting is so that the residents can give their input and views on the proposed Pamela Park Improvements. He noted that they are looking to gather community input to establish a long-range master plan for Pamela Park. Mr. Keprios gave a power point presentation and went over the following proposed improvements for the five year plan: 1. Relocate the hockey rink and lights (2010). 2. West parking lot renovation and expansion (2013) 3. New athletic field (2014) 4. South Parking Lot Expansion (2013) 5. North Parking Lot Expansion (2013) 6. Artificial Turf on South Athletic Field (date TBD) 7. Senior Athletic Field Renovation (2013) 8. Paved Trail Access to Playground (2013) 9. Park Shelter Building Improvements (date TBD) A resident commented that a lot of the times there are multiple sports going on at one time (softball, fast pitch, soccer, ultimate Frisbee, etc.) and asked if Pamela Park is the only park that has that many activities. Mr. Keprios replied he would say Braemar Park outdoes Pamela Park but that Pamela Park is probably the second busiest park in the system. He explained that when the city first developed the park system it was their philosophy that they wanted kids to have easy access to their local park and that's why they are built the way they are and that's why they are programmed the way they are. He pointed out that there is no other place for them to go and develop a complex of athletic fields. Unfortunately Edina is a fully developed first ring suburb and they don't have any more park land to develop into athletic field complexes. The demand keeps growing but we simply don't have the supply. A resident asked if some things could be put at the existing Public Works site to which Mr. Keprios replied it is something that could be considered however, he does not think it would be politically acceptable. Mr. Keprios pointed out that back when the Needs Assessment Survey was done the number one most requested amenity was trails and the second most requested amenity was to have more indoor recreation space or a community center. He commented that some residents have expressed a desire to look at converting the current Public Works site into a community center. Mr. Fronek asked about hockey rink being on the 2010 schedule to which Mr. Keprios replied that they could look at possibly just patching it and delaying it one more year. However, pretty soon they are going to get to a point where the light standards are going to fall over and added that they really can't make ice on an uneven surface. Mr. Fronek informed the residents that the current Park Board recommendation has been to include the hockey rink relocation in the 2010 Capital Improvement Plan budget. He noted that it has not yet been approved by the City Council. Mr. Fronek explained that the Park Board is trying to establish a long-term guide that will be done in phases. He added that with this guide there is always going to be an opportunity whether the economy changes or the dollars just aren't there that things are most likely to happen on a year by year basis. A resident pointed out that it's obviously going to take more man hours to get the Pamela Park hockey rink started and maintained because of the current gaps and problems. He asked if the city would actually end up spending more money than if they were to just move it, fix it and get it done. Mr. Keprios replied that it really doesn't make sense to pour more money into something that's not going to last. The resident stated that the rink can be patched, he just doesn't want to see spending good money after bad so maybe it should be funded now and get it done right so more money is not being spent down the road. Bill Leskee, 5900 Wooddale, gave a power point presentation and introduced the topic of community gardening and stated that he thinks Pamela Park would be a great location for a community garden. Collin Brinkman, 4510 Casco Avenue, (President of the Edina Soccer Club) informed the residents that the Edina Soccer Club (ESC) is the traveling soccer program in Edina and stated that depending on the year they have anywhere from 600 to 750 kids that play soccer. He indicated that their participants range in age from 7-18 and that they have two seasons, summer and fall. Mr. Brinkman indicated that they are a huge user of the big rectangular fields and with the expansion of more team sports and more usage patterns it's very difficult to get field space. He commented that their teams are on the fields anywhere from three to five days a week during the summer so it's a significant amount of usage. Mr. Brinkman pointed out that the city has done a great job with the fields at Braemar and Lewis Park. However, the problem with those sand peat fields is they need rest and if they don't get rest they turn into crummy fields. He added that the fields take a tremendous pounding and if you walk on the fields you'll see that there are huge pot holes to which there have been a number of kids who have broken their ankle, clavicles, etc. from hitting a pothole and falling down. Mr. Brinkman stated that he is an advocate of artificial turf and that because of the usage it gets it's not going to decline, usage is only increasing. In addition, he feels they are a lot safer and commented that Pamela Park is one of the only options that can hold a field of this size. 01 Lane Kent, 5733 Zenith Avenue So, (President of the Edina Soccer Association) informed the residents that the Edina Soccer Association (ESA) is the in-house soccer program in Edina and added that there are approximately 3,000 kids in the program. Therefore, when you include the ESC there are approximately 3,700 kids in the community that play soccer. Mr. Kent explained that they are basically fighting for scraps to get a playing field for all of the kids. He noted that the really young kids played in a pretty low area next to the senior field. He stated that it was not very desirable but fortunately there were no injuries. Mr. Kent indicated that he is an advocate for the plan that the task force put together. He commented that they are out of space and that he would estimate that the ESA spends over 1,000 hours in the spring/summer season. He added that they have really young kids who don't start their games until 8:30 at night just because there is nowhere to put them. Mr. Kent stated that they have never had to put a cap on their enrollment but it is something they are strongly considering because they are just out of space. He explained that with the proposed renovation it would provide some much needed additional space so that the program could continue to grow. He noted that the ESA is strongly advocating for these proposals even though they will be phased in over a number of years. Mr. Fronek asked Mr. Kent assuming that the south field was artificial turf how would that change the ESA as far as scheduling, what contribution would it have? Mr. Kent replied that a space like that could be divided into a few fields for the younger kids to play on which could possibly free up one of their locations for another activity. A resident who lives across the street from Pamela Park indicated that he has noticed that especially on Sunday nights during the summer months there seems to be a lot of organized soccer being played especially on the senior field. Mr. Brinkman stated that an ESC Board member who lives across the street from Pamela Park has informed him that frequently groups from outside of the city who are unauthorized are using the soccer fields. He has called the police a number of times to ask them to leave the fields. Mr. Brinkman commented that he knows it's a pretty tough thing to control and added that the same thing also happens at Lewis Park. Mr. Keprios responded that if anyone witnesses this again they need to call the police because if a group does not have a permit in hand they will get booted. He stated that short of putting up a fence that's really the only way it can be enforced and we don't want to do that. Mr. Keprios pointed out that there is a written policy that states no non-resident groups can rent these athletic fields. Gene Persha, 6917 Cornelia Drive, indicated that he thinks of Pamela Park as a mini - regional park for Edina because it affects more than just the neighborhood because of its size. He noted that he likes the master plan and is strongly in favor of the curbs for the parking area. He commented that one of his concerns is that the foliage needs work it needs more flowers, natural foliage and possibly some type of rain water gardens. He noted that he would encourage experimenting with things like that. Mr. Persha commented that one thing he has always thought Pamela Park lacked was paved walking paths. 3 Steve Fox, 5101 Indianola, indicated that Mr. Keprios asked him to be on the task force committee because he represents the Edina Lacrosse Association and works with staff coordinating their fields. He commented that they are small compared to soccer, but they do have some very similar situations. He noted they do not have a fall season other than clinics; however, they do have a very short spring season that starts at spring break. He stressed that they would love to see another turf field in addition to Kuhlman. He noted that the turf fields are not only safer with regards to injuries but would also be free of snow a lot more rapidly so they would be able to start practicing a lot earlier. In addition, games would not need to be canceled because of rain they would only need to be delayed and/or canceled if there's lightning. Mr. Fox indicated that he thinks staff did a great job with this and they would love to see this go forward once the money is available. Jackie Whitbeck, 6128 Brookview Avenue, indicated that as far as the parking lots go she thinks they are maxed out and that all three parking lots do need to be expanded; however, she's not sure about the curb issue, she would still need to be convinced about that. She stated that regarding the warming house she does think expanding that would be a wonderful addition. Regarding the hockey rink she would need to be convinced why moving it 20 feet in one direction would make it out of the wetlands area or why that would be any better than it is now. Ms. Whitbeck stated that what she thinks needs to be done is to maintain the trees that are around the hockey rink and cut them all down and just go in there. She added that they are all just young growth willows and cottonwoods that have sprung up since the rink was put in. She commented that the lighting is pathetic and that it definitely needs replacing. Therefore if it doesn't affect the wetland you could keep the rink where it's at and reconfigure the trail behind it. She pointed out that she only saw one broken board but otherwise it seemed pretty well intact. Regarding the community gardens she doesn't think there is any room for one at Pamela Park and is not sure how feasible that would be. She indicated that the jury is still out on the artificial turf because she worries about the health issues with blood, sweat, goose droppings, etc. as well as it isn't a natural siphoning area so she would need to be convinced how that would work and doesn't see it being a real positive thing. Janie Westin, 6136 Brookview, indicated that she doesn't think moving the hockey rink will solve the problem with tree roots because they will still have the same issues. She commented that she is for leaving it where it is and perhaps put in a rubber skirt around the perimeter inside so ice can form easier. As far as the hockey rink goes she would like to see the boards replaced as needed because it would be less expensive. Ms. Westin commented that she does think new lights need to be put in and suggested putting them on pylons so that the same thing won't happen again in five years. She also suggested taking out all of the trees that have grown up and perhaps put in some natural shrubs to help encourage the wildlife and birds. Regarding the parking lots she thinks that every one of them needs a curb and it would also be good to put in some type of split rail fence or some sort of perimeter to keep the joyriding teenagers out of the park because a lot of times they are in there zooming through the park. Regarding artificial turf she does not think that's a good idea economically and she questions the sanitary nature of it as far as it being a bacteria sponge. She pointed out that she is a big fan of clover and would like to see clover seed put into the mix of whatever is reseeded in the park. She likes the idea 0 of a permeable hard surface trails to the playgrounds. She agrees that the park shelter building does need to be redone. Ms. Westin pointed out that she likes the natural area of the park which accounts for approximately half of the physical acreage and would like to see that continue to be an integral part of the park; however, buckthorn and mulberry (both invasive species) are starting to take over the park and asked if something could be done about that that's not just occasional volunteer efforts that have been done in other Edina parks. She noted she would really like to see some sort of policy for this. Lastly, she does love the garden idea. Julie Risser, 6112 Ashcroft Avenue, indicated that she is at this meeting as a member of the Edina Energy and Environment Commission. She noted that she would really like to commend the city for what they have done at Pamela Park. She stated that she is very happy with the idea of enhancing the park building and only using green remodeling or green new construction, however, remodeling would be much better. Ms. Risser pointed out that the Edina Energy and Environment Commission passed the following resolution at their July 27th meeting: "As commissioners of Edina's Energy and Environment Commission, we recommend that the City Council, in their consideration of the Proposed Park Improvements for Pamela Park (Park and Recreation Department), take the following actions: 1. Approve the relocation of the hockey rink (using environmentally - positive lighting such as solar lighting); the enhancement of the park building (using green remodeling or green new construction); the construction of hard surface paths to the playground equipment (using permeable pavement). 2. Not approve the expansion of any of the three parking lots; the construction of new athletic field; the field remodeling using artificial turf or the (offered) alternative renovation of the field." Ms. Risser stated that she is excited to hear about the garden and commented that it would be wonderful to think about rain barrels. She indicted that she is very excited to hear that a committee will be formed to start planning the new park building and noted that she hopes someone from the Energy and Environment Commission could serve on that committee. Mr. Keprios asked how many members are on the commission to which Ms. Risser replied they now have 11 members. Mr. Keprios asked how many holders voted against this to which Ms. Risser replied that it was complete in favor of it; however, only a quorum (six people) were in attendance when it was voted on. She added that Mr. O'Connell did sign it even though he was not at that meeting. 5 Lawrence Anderson, 6012 Oaklawn, indicated that he is here on behalf of the neighbors who live across the street from Pamela Park. He noted that they really support Edina athletics and as he stated in a previous meeting, asked if it would be possible to have some type of balance in how the park is used. He stated that from what he has seen and heard the park is going to be converted, probably out of necessity because of the demand, into what he would call a sports complex and it would become less of a neighborhood park. He pointed out that because there are so many sport activities that are using the park he is seeing a more frequent high density usage of the park and therefore agrees they really need to expand those parking lots. He commented that one thing he has noticed that, even when there is plenty of parking available, people don't use the lots, they tend to park on the street because it's the path of least resistance. He asked if they could try to figure out a way to encourage people to use the parking lots as much as possible. He explained that as a resident when people are parking on both sides of the street it's difficult to drive up and down and sometimes even difficult to get into your own driveway. Therefore, he would like to work with the city and try to figure out a way to try to get folks to use those parking lots as much as possible. Mr. Keprios thanked everyone for attending the meeting and stated that he heard some great comments. He pointed out that they are not likely going to be building anything new anytime soon due to economic conditions but it's great to get comments because it will help them better plan for the future. Mr. Keprios indicated that this will be discussed at the August l lt" Park Board meeting to which everyone is welcome to attend. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 pm Michelle Horan Member of the Recycling and Solid Waste Work Group A subcommittee of the Energy and Environment Commission mhoran1(a comcast. net 952 9290165 Recycling in the Parks There is much agreement that recycling needs to happen at our Edina parks. However, recycling will not just happen by putting recycling bins at every park. The key is to educate and change the behavior of those using the parks. Because organized sports bring in many of the users of the parks we would like to approach these associations and present a new way of handling recycling: each team appoints a family to be responsible for collecting all recyclables during their game. If recycling bins are not yet at the park then the family will bring the recyclables home for curb side recycling. Our goal is to meet with the association presidents of each sport and present this process. Each association will then have to pass this on to each coach. If any of these associations have coaches meeting we would like to present this directly to them as well. We will be in the process of creating a power point to aide in the presentation. Michelle Horan manufacturing: 2107 Stewart Road August 6, 2009 PO Box 260 Muscatine, IA 52761 563/263-2281 800/756-1205 Fax: 800/374-6402 Web: w-ww.musco.com Email: lighting4musco.com John Keprios Park and Recreation Director City of Edina 4801 W. 501h Street Edina, MN 55424 Re: Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program Budget estimate for Pamela Park Hockey Rink Lighting Thank you for your interest in Musco's Green Generation Lighting® technology. We are pleased to assist you in applying for the EECBG grant monies to fund your project. Use of Musco fixtures will result in reducing your (city's/county's) use of energy, a reduction in fossil fuel emissions, the creation or retention of jobs in America, and provide operational efficiency of the lighting necessary for your sports programs. This estimate outlines the benefits, products, and services Musco can provide and is for your preliminary planning purposes. This estimate includes lighting equipment, installation and underground wiring . Musco will provide our Light -Structure Green" — engineered from foundation-to-poletop in 5 Easy Pieces — and Control -Link® systems Light -Structure Green System Benefits 50% Less Operating Cost: $74,612 is the projected 25 -year life -cycle operating cost savings for your project with a savings of $5,129 in energy, 57.4 metric tons of CO2, and 79,905 in kW hours. Musco's Light -Structure Green reduces life -cycle operating costs by half or more compared to prior technology designed for the same light levels, through energy efficiency, plus controls and maintenance savings. See attached 25 -year Life Cycle Cost for details on how this savings was calculated. 100% Maintenance Free for 25 years: Musco's Constant 25TM comprehensive product assurance and warranty program covers 100% of your maintenance costs, including parts and labor, for the next 25 years. Guarantees light levels, group re -lamp replacement, system monitoring, spot maintenance, and on/off control services. This program is backed by our Lighting Services Team, dedicated to maintaining our customer's sports lighting facilities. 'fighting ... We Make It Happen. 3 Budget Estimate <Project ID # here> Page 2 of 2 • Control & Monitoring System: Control Link provides flexible control and solid management of your lighting system. On/off control of your lighting system is provided via an easy-to-use web site scheduling system, phone, fax, or email. Our trained Control -Link Central"" staff is available toll-free 24/7. Musco will monitor the performance of your lighting system, and if fixture outages that affect playability are detected, we will contact you and dispatch repair technicians. • 50% Less Spill Light: Cuts spill light by 50% compared to Musco's prior industry- leading technology. To ensure your lighting system does not have a negative impact on your community, Musco's system will minimize off-site spill light. We estimate your lighting project will cost $38,000 within +/- 10%. Pricing is based on August 2009 pricing and is subject to change. This estimate is for budgeting and initial planning purposes only and is based on site unseen. Budget Estimate Criteria • Field size of 200'x 85' for hockey rink plus skate area • Guaranteed light levels of 25 footcandles, within +/- 10% per IESNA guidelines. • 240 Volt, 1 Phase electrical system • Structural code and wind speed = 2003 International Building Code, 90 MPH. • Musco is a lighting manufacturer and not an electrical contractor. Installation estimates are based upon projects similar in scope. • Getting electrical power to the site, coordination with the utility, and any power company fees are responsibility of the owner. • Standard soil conditions. Rock, bottomless, wet or unsuitable soil may require additional engineering, special installation methods and additional cost. Thank you for considering Musco for your sports -lighting needs. We look forward to helping you make your project a success. I will be in touch with you to follow-up; however, please don't hesitate to contact me immediately if you have any questions. Sincerely, Crai Ilop Musco Sports ighting, LLC Phone: (763)533-2030 E-mail: craiq.gallop(a)musco.com Fax: (763)533-2030 i City of Edina Pamela Park Hockey Rink Lighting John Keprios 6 -Aug -09 Total kWh Metric Tons of CO2 Typical Floodlighting Equipment Exhibit A Your Savings 173,745 93,840 79,905 124.7 167.4 57.4 Energy $12,636 $7,507 $5,129 Group Relamp Lamp Maintenance Controls - Energy Controls - Labor $4,469 $0 $4,469 $3,750 $0 $3,750 $1,264 $0 $1,264 1 $60,000 $0 $60,000 25 -Year Life -Cycle Cost 1 $82,119 $7,507 $74,612 Customer Provided Energy Data: Energy Cost per kWh Annual Operating Hours Technology Specific Data: Musco Green Fixture Qty. Average kW demand per fixture Useful lamp life hours Typical Floodlighting Fixture Qty. Average kW demand per fixture Useful lamp life hours Assumptions Life -cycle costs are based upon the assumptions given by the customer above. Any variation in this date will change the life -cycle cost proportionately. Typical Floodlighting Equipment total kWh includes base operating hours plus extra kWh consumed if no controls system included. Musco guarantees the average Green Generation Lighting system kW per hour and useful life of the lamp_ Carbon dioxide (CO 2) is emitted by the power plant when generating the total kWh used by the lighting system. Generating one kWh of electricity in the United States emits an average of 1.583 lbs of CO 2. One metric ton equals 2,204.6 lbs. Source for CO2 calculations: http:11Www.epa.govlcleanenergy/energy-resourceslrefs.html (4-15-09) © 2005, 2009 Musco Lighting SD -7200-2 000O mus We Make It Happen Controls Data: $0.080 Controls Energy Savings 10% 300 Labor Rate per Hour $10.00 # On/Off Cycles per Year 60 Labor Hours per Cycle 4 8 1.564 Lamp Maintenance Data: 5000 Lamp replacement cost $125 13 including parts, equipment & labor 1.62 3000 Life -cycle costs are based upon the assumptions given by the customer above. Any variation in this date will change the life -cycle cost proportionately. Typical Floodlighting Equipment total kWh includes base operating hours plus extra kWh consumed if no controls system included. Musco guarantees the average Green Generation Lighting system kW per hour and useful life of the lamp_ Carbon dioxide (CO 2) is emitted by the power plant when generating the total kWh used by the lighting system. Generating one kWh of electricity in the United States emits an average of 1.583 lbs of CO 2. One metric ton equals 2,204.6 lbs. Source for CO2 calculations: http:11Www.epa.govlcleanenergy/energy-resourceslrefs.html (4-15-09) © 2005, 2009 Musco Lighting SD -7200-2 000O mus We Make It Happen 4. John Keprios City of Edina 4801 W. 501h Street Edina, MN 55424 Subject Line: Energy Efficiency Funding for Softball and Baseball Re -lighting. As you are likely aware, the federal stimulus funding includes an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) program available through the Department of Energy (DOE). We want to make you aware that energy efficiency sports lighting, such as Musco's Green Generation TM lighting, is an eligible activity under the program. This program provides grants to U.S. local governments, state territories, and Indian tribes to fund projects that reduce fossil fuel emissions, reduce total energy use, and improve energy efficiency. To see a list of Minnesota cities, counties and tribes who meet population requirements and allocated amounts, please visit www.eecbg.energy.gov. The direct formula grant application deadline is 6/25/09 at 8pm EST. There is also roughly $10.6 million for the State of Minnesota of which 60% will go to cities and counties that do not meet the large city/county population requirements. The state will apply for its allocation and will make funding available to organizations not receiving direct allocations at a date later this summer. For details contact your State's Energy Office or visit: http://www. state.mn.us/portal/mn/isp/home do?agency=Energy The grant criteria include choosing technologies that offer the greatest efficiencies in energy conservation. Musco's energy efficient Light -Structure Green® offers these significant advantages: 50% savings of operating costs through reduced energy consumption and an automated on/off Control -Link® system 100% of maintenance costs eliminated for 25 years, including lamp replacements 50% less off-site spill and glare, you remain a good neighbor protecting the environment and helping You can access information regarding EECBG by visiting the website: www.eecb.g.energy.gov. If you are interested in including energy efficient sports lighting into your application, please contact us at (763)533-2030 we will work with you to provide support information for your application. Thank you Craig Gallop