Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-11 Park Board PacketEDINA PARK BOARD TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2006 7:00 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM (Upper level) EDINA CITY HALL AGENDA *1. Approval of February 14, 2006, Park Board Minutes. *2. Needs Assessment Survey — Request for Proposal. 3. Updates. a. Edina Youth Sports Taskforce. b. Courtney Fields Shelter Building. 4. Orientation — Power Point Presentation. 5. Other. *6. Adjournment. *These are agenda items that require or request Park Board action. City Hall 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424-1394 Park and Recreation Department www.cityofedina.com City of Edina 952-826-0367 FAX 952-826-0385 TTY 952-826-0379 Memo To: Edina Park Board. From: John Keprios, Direc Cr Edina Park and Recreatio1 Department Date: April 3, 2006 Re: TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2006, PARK BOARD MEETING STAFF REPORT. Enclosed you should find the following items: 1. Tuesday, February 14, 2006, Park Board Minutes. 2. Tuesday, April 11, 2006, Park Board Agenda. 3. Needs Assessment Survey Request for Proposal. 4. Needs Assessment Surveys Background Information. 5. Needs Assessment Survey List of Consultants. 6. Memo from Tom Horwath; City Buckthorn Management Plan. The following is the monthly staff report concerning each item on the agenda with the exception of Approval of the Minutes and Other. "Other" is listed on the agenda for other information items (not requiring formal action); last minute items that may come up between now and the Park Board meeting, plus, cover any other concerns of Park Board members and/or attendees. PARK BOARD MEETING IN THE COMMUNITY ROOM EDINA CITY HALL 4801 WEST 50TH STREET The Tuesday, February 14, 2006, Park Board meeting will be at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Room at Edina City Hall. If you are unable to attend, please call either Office Coordinator, Janet Canton, at 826-0435 or me at 826-0430. NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY - REOUEST FOR PROPOSAL Enclosed is a copy of the proposed Request for Proposal (RFP) that staff is suggesting to be sent to five different consulting firms who may have an interest in providing their professional services to conduct a needs assessment survey. As you will notice, the deadline for consultants to respond to the RFP is April 24, 2006. Also enclosed is the list of five prospective professional consultants who would receive the RFP. Staff recommends that the Park Board feel free to edit the RFP, as well as, suggest any additional consultants who you feel should be considered. Three of the five consultants listed have websites that you can access for more background information. All five consultants have community needs assessment survey experience. Formal action is requested on this agenda item. -1- e ORIENTATION - POWER POINT PRESENTATION I will be giving the Park Board an orientation presentation of the Park and Recreation Department and an overview of Park Board issues, challenges, procedures, and code of ethics. The Park and Recreation Department overview includes several photos of the park system plus general budget highlights. This orientation is intended to inform Park Board members about the various programs and facilities that make up the Park and Recreation Department. The orientation is also intended to better define the roles and responsibilities of the Park Board. I believe you will find this presentation to be interesting and informative. No formal action is requested on this agenda item. UPDATES Ed MacHolda, I and Youth Sports Taskforce/Park Board members will give the Park Board verbal updates on: a. Edina Youth Sports Taskforce. b. Courtney Fields Shelter Building. No formal action is requested on this agenda item. OTHER This is also an opportunity for Park Board members and residents to address other concerns. -2- EDINA PARK BOARD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2006 7:00 P.M. EDINA COMMUNITY ROOM EDINA CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Andy Finsness, Linda Presthus, Todd Fronek, Jeff Sorem, Mike Damman, George Klus, Mike Weiss, Karla Sitek, Ray O'Connell MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Johnson, Gordon Roland STAFF PRESENT: John Keprios, Ed MacHolda, Janet Canton OTHERS PRESENT: John Henry, Jean White, Idelle Longman, Jeannie Hanson, Dianne Plunkett Latham, Helen Woelfel, Martha Rice, Jill Hartman, Lincoln Shea I. APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 10, 2006 PARK BOARD MINUTES Andy Finsness MOVED TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 10, 2006 PARK BOARD MINUTES. Karla Sitek SECONDED THE MOTION. MINUTES APPROVED. II. UPDATES A. Gymnasium Construction — Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that the gyms are under construction and are moving right along. He noted that to date they have had some change orders totaling approximately $90,000 but they are still in good shape. Mr. Keprios stated that even with the $200,000 contingency that, if necessary, they have there is still approximately an additional $200,000 as a fall back position in bonding funds plus they are earning interest on the bonds. Therefore, financially they are going to be fine. Mr. Keprios indicated that the Joint Powers Oversight Committee would like to develop a couple of protection canopies to better define the entrance to the two gymnasiums so that people will know where to park. He noted that there will be a concession stand which will have an outside wall and will be located between the gym and lobby. He commented, however, that they still need to find funding for the concessions equipment. Mr. Keprios stated that they did a change order to go back to the base bid to ensure that they have the best quality floor. B. Edina Youth Sports Taskforce — Mr. Weiss noted that he has received a lot of feedback from the community regarding the Youth Sports Taskforce. He indicated that he has talked to approximately 10 to 12 people who have watched it and have a commentary on it one way or another. Most of them did state that they think the Youth Sports Taskforce is a lot to do about nothing. Mr. Weiss stated that the latest update in terms of the Youth Sports Taskforce is they have finished their committee meetings and will draft a recommendation to bring before the Park Board next month. Mr. Klus stated that the recommendation will probably go before the Park Board at their April meeting. Mr. Klus noted that the only thing they are waiting for is to get back public testimony and depending on that they could possibly pass a draft onto the Park Board at next month's meeting. Mr. Klus informed the Park Board that they are now down to trying to write the relationship agreemep_t. He noted that there has been some criticism in that they don't want this to be a staff document that is just a rubber stamp by the committee. Mr. Klus stated that he will write the first draft before the Youth Sports Taskforce meets at their work session on Saturday, February 26th from 7:00 am to 9:00 am. He noted that Park Board members are welcome to listen or participate. He stated that they may open it up to public comment but that they are going to try to put it into some type of a written document before then. Ms. Presthus asked if the purpose of the document is to recommend whether or not there should be a Youth Sports Oversight Committee or is it how should the Park Board relate to athletic associations. Mr. Klus replied that it could be either or both. He noted that they have identified those issues that they think are important to the inter -relationship. He noted that he doesn't think everything will end up in the document because that is still up for debate. He explained that after they've identified those issues from the athletic associations and taskforce committee they will then incorporate that into the document. He noted that at the last meeting it was just too difficult to try to incorporate everything. Therefore, he will write up a document so that there will be something for the committee to react to because otherwise it's just too hard for people to visualize how it will all fit together. Mr. Klus stated that once the document is complete he doesn't think it will be that much different than the current document which was written in 1977. It will just be written with more up-to-date terminology. Mr. Klus commented that at their meeting they looked at a document that was written in 1980 about youth sports in Minnesota and the issues are still pretty much the same with the exception of girl's sports which was a huge issue in 1980. He pointed out that he doesn't think from the 1970s to today there is a lot of difference in what's going on in youth athletics. Mr. Weiss stated that he doesn't agree, he thinks it is a whole new world out there and would answer Ms. Presthus' question differently. He indicated that he thinks the mission of the Youth Sports Taskforce is best defined as determining the roles of the Athletic Associations, the Park Board and the Park and Recreation Department. He noted that is the mission statement, that's what they'll decide to do and as a part of that they will look at the relationship agreement and the facilities use agreement. Mr. Klus stated that the facility use agreement is not part 4 of their mission to which Mr. Weiss replied no, it's not. However, from the standpoint that if they are going to use these facilities then they will be affected by it. Mr. Klus indicated that there has been a lot of confusion and rightly so on the Facilities Use Agreement versus the Relationship Agreement and what the differences are. He noted that at the last Youth Sports Taskforce meeting it was tough to delineate the two differences and that's what they have to do. Mr. Weiss commented that what he thinks they are looking to do is say these are the Athletic Association duties, these are the Park Board duties and these are the Park Department duties. He noted they talked more about delineating who does what. Ms. Sitek added that an offshoot of that is whether or not there will need to be an oversight committee. Mr. Klus commented that he thinks that belongs in the relationship agreement, at least as a mandate, to what they feel needs to be done because that's part of the relationship between the Athletic Associations, Park Board and City. C. Todd Park Hocked — Mr. Klus stated that as a Park Board they've received a lot of emails over the last couple of months. He noted that what distresses him is the City Council decided to do a two year review of this, however, that two year deal seems to come under quite a bit of scrutiny over the last month or so. He indicated that Mr. Keprios has spent a lot time listening to the neighbors concerns as well as trying to set up criteria of how they are going to monitor the rink at Todd Park. He noted that what concerns him the most is people need to realize that this is a two year process and not a two month process. Mr. Klus pointed out that the City Council could turn around and change their decision to which he personally would be disappointed because the Park Board has spent so much time on this issue. Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that the reason this is on the agenda is because a Park Board member requested it be put on the agenda. Mr. Keprios handed out a memo to the Park Board which reflects the results of a meeting he had with Vince Cockriel and Mayor Hovland at 6:00 am on Friday, February 3`d He noted that they visited three different parks with a light meter reader because they have been receiving a lot of complaints that the light readings are too high at Todd Park. Mr. Keprios explained that they have reduced the total number of fixtures being used from eight to four, which is using only two on each pole. In addition, they've invested in both visors and hoods to create more of a spotlight effect to minimize the splash and glare. He noted that they've done everything they can do to minimize it to a point where the general rink is now actually dangerously dark. Mr. Keprios indicated that they took a meter reader reading at a neighbor's house who has been very vocal about the lights being too bright and found that with the lights on and off there was no difference in the meter reading. Mr. Keprios noted that he has copied all Park Board members on all emails he has received so that everyone can stay informed because the Park Board will be asked to give a recommendation prior to the report that's due in 2007. Mr. Keprios 3 stressed that they have pretty much done all that they can do with the lights at Todd Park. Ms. Sitek stated that she requested this be on the agenda because she feels Mr. Keprios should not have to put up with this anymore, it's getting to be a bit much. She noted that possibly they could recommend something to the City Council that they let the park be as it is for the next two years. She added that she thinks it's ridiculous for Mr. Keprios to have to go to a park at 6:00 am and take light meter readings when it's obviously too dark. Ms. Sitek commented that she has driven by Todd Park at night and it is very dark. She indicated that if they are going to run a trial two years then it should be run like all of the other rinks. Mr. Keprios noted that he asked the police if they have received any calls regarding the Todd Park hockey rink and their most recent call was someone informed the police that they found two kids on the hockey rink unsupervised. Ms. Presthus stated that Mr. Keprios has taken more than his share of what he's had to deal with on this and she commends him for keeping his patience and treating this as a very serious issue. He's done a great job and she would like to thank him on behalf of the Park Board for doing that and for all of the time that he has spent on this. She stated that she hopes that the people who do like the hockey rink at Todd Park will also call. She noted that she has seen a couple of emails and has verbally heard from people that they do like it, unfortunately, it's the people who are negative that have the loud voices who are doing the complaining. The people who are happy don't say anything because they are happy and she hopes that Mr. Keprios will hear more from them because they are also out there. Mr. Keprios responded that he appreciates all of the comments; however, it's not about him and staff but rather serving the community. He feels that staff has assembled a pretty fair and reasonable proposal to measure the pros and cons about having a hockey rink at Todd Park, plus some criteria to determine the pros and cons of placing an outdoor hockey rink at alternate locations. Mr. Keprios noted that he has been routinely meeting with a couple of representatives from the Todd Park neighborhood who represent the neighbors who don't want the hockey rink. Mr. Keprios stated that the Park Board will be called upon again when the time is right but currently this is the direction they are heading. Mr. Klus commented that in one of the emails a group of people from Todd Park indicated that the Mayor was wishing that some things were going to happen there this season. Mr. Klus stated that he confronted the Mayor and asked him why he is talking to these people about doing something when they already have an agreement. He noted that the Mayor replied to him that he doesn't even know these people and has not talked to them. Mr. Klus stressed that they need to be very careful about what they hear and read and make sure it's accurate. Mr. Klus stated that he knows Mr. Keprios and his staff will do the best that they can with this no win situation with some of those folks. 4 III. NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY — COMMITTEE REPORT Mr. Finsness informed the Park Board that prior to the Park Board meeting tonight a group of Park Board members met to start to talk about the needs assessment survey and how they should proceed. He noted that they need to think about how the comprehensive plan should fit into a needs assessment survey. He explained that they discussed whether they should be preparing a comprehensive plan first and then assessing the public or should they assess the public and then finish their comprehensive plan. Mr. Finsness stated that they unanimously decided that they should do a needs assessment survey first and then prepare their comprehensive plan required by the Met Council. Mr. Finsness pointed out that they didn't talk about specifics regarding the needs assessment survey but did talk about how they should go about getting input. He noted that before they decide which consultant firm can help them with their survey they should first narrow it down to three firms to choose from. He commented that in the past they have used Decision Resources which they may want to use again or they may like to get a fresh approach from someone who has done this somewhere else. Therefore, they are going to look at three or four companies to do an RFP and get some input as to how they can pull this kind of data out of the public. Mr. Klus asked if they discussed the timing of any of this to which Mr. Finsness replied no. Mr. Finsness stated that they did talk about whether or not they felt they were under the gun to get this done in the next two to three months and they decided they do not need to get it done that fast. They agreed they should take their time and do it right, however, there will be a time frame laid out so that it does not go on forever. Mr. Klus noted that he assumes they are going to continue on with the approved 2006 Capital Plan and not change anything because he thinks it's important for the community to know where they are going to spend the dollars this year. Mr. Klus commented that this way if the community feels there are some areas they are concerned about they could still come to the Park Board and talk about those areas. Mr. Fronek pointed out that their next action is Mr. Keprios will come up with the RFP for the committee to look at and move forward as open as possible. Mr. Keprios stated that they touched on some really great ideas. He noted that the strong interests of the group were of course programmed facilities but they also discussed water quality, natural resources, including our urban forests and be sure that it's in sync with updating their comprehensive plan. He stressed that they need to be ready to present this to the Metropolitan Council by the September 2008 deadline. Mr. Keprios stated that they thought they would measure the need first and then dial that into the comprehensive plan in which the Park Board will be very involved. Mr. O'Connell stressed that they have a lot of work to do and because of the changes that are occurring they need to recognize those changes and that's why they need a good consultant. He added that with a new consultant they would have a fresh approach. 5 Jeanne Hanson, 6708 Cornelia Drive, asked if a survey will be done by mail to every resident of Edina or hasn't that yet been decided. Ms. Presthus responded that part of the RFP is to ask the research firms how they would go about doing this survey and it could be a combination of things. There may be small focus groups, phone surveys, door to door surveys, internet surveys, etc. She noted that it is up to the research company to tell them their best practices and how to get the most statistically significant data. Ms. Presthus pointed out that in a survey like this typically not every household goes through a full survey. She commented that they are going to rely first on getting the RFP from the people who are the professionals in this field. Ms. Hanson asked when the residents would be able to give their input on what questions they would like to see on the survey. Ms. Presthus replied that there are about four steps they need to complete first before the survey is actually written. She noted that first they need to find which process they are going to use to go about doing this. Mr. Finsness commented that the most important question is if a specific question isn't on the survey, then that interest isn't addressed. Ms. Presthus pointed out that the survey wouldn't go before the community without first receiving some kind of community input. Jean White, 5290 Villa Way, asked if the Metropolitan Council would evaluate the land use within the park and any possible changes to the recreational aspect versus the natural aspect of the park. For example, would they have to submit a change if they are going to move some dirt. Mr. Keprios gave Ms. White a copy of the Comprehensive Plan as it exists today and noted that it would essentially be an update of the current plan. He indicated that he believes it shows all of the park land in Edina and how it is categorized. Ms. White asked if the public has a specific area that they wanted to see, for example, invasive species. She asked how the public would be able to give their input on that to which Mr. Keprios replied that he's sure that there will be adequate opportunities for public input. Mr. Keprios explained that during our initial park development years the focus has been on land and facility development to serve program needs. We really don't have a detailed management plan for preserving natural resources, or a long-range water quality and urban forestry management plan. He commented that is something that they have discussed in their assessment meeting and is something they will look at. Ms. White stated that she would encourage they go in that direction and appreciates the Park Board's consideration. IV. OFF -LEASH DOG PARK — VAN VALKENBURG PARK Mr. Keprios reminded the Park Board that they have already formally given their okay for an Off -Leash Dog Park at VanValkenburg and so has the City Council. He informed the Park Board that they did not get the donation money they were hoping for, however, they were able to get funding for it through their 2006 operating budget. Mr. Keprios stated that there has been enough lapse of time since the Park Board first gave their okay on this and therefore wants to make sure that no one now has a different view. Z Mr. Klus read the Park Board's previously approved motion. Todd Fronek MOVED TO APPROACH THE EDINA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ON GIVEN THAT WE CAN GET FUNDING WE WILL AGREE THAT WE WILL BUILD THE INTERIM OFF -LEASH DOG PARK AT VAN VALKENBURG PARK ON THE CONDITION THAT WE WILL MATCH IT. IF THEY CAN COME UP WITH $5,000 OR WHATEVER HALF IS THAT WE WOULD AGREE TO BUILD THE OFF -LEASH DOG PARK. Karla Sitek SECONDED THE MOTION. Todd Fronek AMENDED HIS MOTION TO INCLUDE BOTH RESIDENTS AND NON-RESIDENTS, RESIDENTS PAYING A $25.00 FEE AND NON-RESIDENTS A $50.00 FEE. Karla Sitek SECONDED THE AMENDMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Klus noted that tonight what they need to do is get a motion on the table to approve this since it is now coming from public money and not from private funding. Linda Presthus MOVED TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE OFF -LEASH DOG PARK AT VAN VALKENBURG PARK WITH THE OPERATING FUNDS APPROVED BY COUNCIL. Todd Fronek SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. O'Connell commented that he gave Mr. Keprios a copy of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune which emphasizes the need for dog parks, how they should be handled and the success the surrounding communities have had with them. He stated that the need is there and we will have to monitor the success of this project. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. V. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Mr. Keprios opened up nominations for Chair of the Park Board. Linda Presthus NOMINATED ANDY FINSNESS. Mr. Finsness accepted the nomination. Todd Fronek NOMINATED GEORGE KLUS. Mr. Klus accepted the nomination. Ray O'Connell MOVED TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS. Mike Damman SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED Mr. Keprios took a ballot vote and stated that Andy Finsness is now Chair of the Park Board. Mr. Keprios opened up nominations for Vice -Chair of Park Board. Linda Presthus NOMINATED Mike Weiss. Mr. Weiss accepted the nomination. Ray O'Connell MOVED TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS. Todd Fronek SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Keprios stated that Mike Weiss is now the • Vice Chair of the Park Board. 7 Mr. Keprios thanked Mr. Klus for all of his years as Chair. Ms. Presthus stated that she would like to officially thank George Klus for the great leadership that he has provided the Park Board, he has done a wonderful job and put forth a wonderful effort to the community and they appreciate everything he has done for the Park Board. VI. ADJOURNMENT George Klus MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:50 P.M. Karla Sitek SECONDED THE MOTION. MEETING ADJOURNED. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY SECTION I — GENERAL INFORMATION A. OBJECTIVE The purpose of the Request for Proposal is to solicit proposals from consulting firms to conduct a needs assessment survey among Edina residents. The goal is to obtain information from citizens in a variety of areas (environmental, program and facilities). The City proposes to obtain this information from a random sample telephone survey that would project to 95% accuracy on the direction the Park and Recreation Department should focus. B. ISSUING OFFICE AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR Please address all correspondence regarding this RFP to John Keprios, Director of Edina Park and Recreation Department, 4801 West 501h Street, Edina, MN 55424. Telephone number: 952-826-0430. Following the signing of the contract all communications concerning the contract must also be directed to John Keprios, Director of Parks and Recreation. C. INCURRING COSTS The City of Edina is not liable for any costs incurred by the prospective firms prior to signing the contract. D. PROPOSALS To be considered, each firm must submit a complete response to this RFP, using the format provided in Section III. An official authorized to bond the submitter to its provisions must sign the proposal in ink. The proposal must include a statement as to the period during which the proposal remains valid. This period must be at least 60 days from the due date for this proposal. E. ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROPOSAL CONTENT The contents of this proposal will become contractual obligations, if a contract ensues. Failure of the selected consultant to accept these obligations may result in cancellation of the award. Request for Proposal Page 2 F. SELECTION CRITERIA 1. Qualifications 2. Proposal 3. Commitment to Complete the Tasks within the Required Timeframe 4. Cost for the Services G. SEALED PROPOSAL RECEIPT Proposals musts arrive at the Park and Recreation Department office on or before 4:30 p.m. April 24, 2006. H. DISCLOSURE All information in submitters' proposal except the analysis is subject to disclosure under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 "Minnesota Government Data Practices Act." I. RIGHT TO REJECT PROPOSALS The City of Edina reserves the right to reject any and all proposals in whole or in part and to waive any formality or technical defects in the best interest of the City. In determination of award, the qualification of the proposal submitter and the conformity with specifications of services to be supplied and delivery terms will be considered. Selected individuals or firms will be given the opportunity to discuss in more detail their qualifications and past experience with City project and proposed timeframe to accomplish a task. SECTION II — WORK PROGRAM A. DETERMINE PURPOSE OF THE CITYWIDE SURVEY Consultant will be responsible for obtaining information from the City staff to determine what the potential questions will be on a needs assessment survey, and to determine what format the questions in telephone survey should be given in order to determine most accurately how people feel about those questions. The general topics to be addressed include: 1. Would residents support a more costly and more aggressive Buckthorn abatement and urban forest management program? 2. Are the current programs meeting the needs of the individuals? 3. Are the facilities able to meet the needs of the programs and if not where are improvements needed? Regarding park facilities: A. Are the facilities maintained at a level that meets expectations? Request for Proposal Page 3 B. Is there an adequate number of facilities? C. What facilities should be added? D. What facilities should be replaced or eliminated? B. DEVELOPMENT OF SURVEY AND MEETING REQUIREMENTS The consultant will be responsible for meeting with the Needs Assessment survey committee and staff to develop a draft survey to address those particular issues that would be reviewed by the Park Board and the City Council. The consultant should expect to meet with the committee 3 to 4 times throughout the entire process. The consultant should expect to meet with the Park Board once prior to conducting the survey and once after. The consultant should also expect to attend two City Council meetings. C. PROVIDE A SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF THE SURVEY Once the draft survey is approved the City will determine when the survey will take place. Once the Council authorizes the contractor to proceed with the survey the City needs to know how much time it will take to complete the survey and provide the City with the survey results. SECTION III — INFORMATION REQUIRED IN ALL PROPOSALS A. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS 1. State the name and the address of the individual(s) who will perform the work. 2. Manpower — include the number of personnel by qualification that will be employed in the work. 3. State history of the firm, in terms of the length of the existence. B. PAST INVOLVEMENT WITH SIMILAR PROJECTS List specific types of experiences your firm has had in developing and designing similar surveys for municipalities. List the name of the person responsible for completing the survey that is referenced. C. QUOTATION FEE State your firms not to exceed fee for the tasks listed in Section II, and include all travel expenditures within this not to exceed fee. List the types of services included in your proposal. The fee would be made in two payments: Request for Proposal Page 4 a) The first payment would be for developing the draft survey. b) The second payment would be for completing the actual survey and providing a written and oral summary of the results of the survey to the Park Board and the City Council. The fee quotation should be broken down into costs for work listed in a) and cost for b). D. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATOR Include the name and phone number of the individual in the organization authorized to negotiate the proposed contract with the City of Edina. E. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COMMENTS Include any other information that you believe to be pertinent and not specifically asked for in this RFP. F. BACKGROUND INFORMATION To assist the consultant with determining an appropriate scope of services, the following is important background information about the City of Edina and its current Park system: 1. Population 47,425. 2. 40 Parks. 3. 1,553 acres of parkland. 4. Recreation Enterprise Facilities include: a. Braemar Golf Course. b. Braemar Golf Dome. c. Edina Aquatic Center. d. Fred Richards Golf Course. e. Edinborough/Centennial Lakes Park. f. Braemar Arena. g. Edina Art Center. 5. City Council — Mayor plus 4 Council members. 6. 11 Park Board members (Advisory to City Council). 7. 345 Park and Recreation Department staff. 8. $10.5 million Park and Recreation annual budget, including enterprise facilities. Please visit the City of Edina website for more background information on the Edina Park and Recreation Department at www.cityofedina.com. 0 NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEYS In the past 17 years, there have been three professional surveys implemented. The 1988 survey was a very comprehensive survey to measure the community's opinions about current and proposed recreation facilities and services. The 1999 survey was part of the 20/20 Vision strategic plan process. The 2000 survey was specifically done to gauge the level of community support for a proposed referendum. It is recommended that needs assessment surveys be implemented once every five years. The survey results provide very valuable information in the planning process. Spring of 1988 Frazee Research Associates conducted a very comprehensive parks and recreation needs assessment survey by mail to 1,864 dwelling units, including 301 apartment units. In addition, questionnaires were sent to 169 youth athletic association board members. The City Council appointed an eleven volunteer member Park and Recreation Taskforce Committee as part of a strategic planning effort to answer the following issues: • Do the City's park and recreation facilities meet the needs of our residents? • Are parks maintained to an acceptable level? • Are park programs properly financed through a system of fees and charges? As a result of the survey and taskforce process, a document named "Jupiter and Beyond" was created that became a valuable strategic planning guide. That community opinion is now 17 years old. Summer of 1999 Decision Resources telephone surveyed 400 residents as part of the 20/20 Vision process that addressed a variety of issues facing the City of Edina. There were 114 questions. There were several questions that dealt with parks and recreation. For example, residents were asked to rate park maintenance, condition of trails and sidewalks, and recreational programs. The survey also asked residents if they thought Edina currently had too many or too much, or too few trails and bikeways, and parks and open spaces. Questions #75- 90 dealt strictly with park and recreation opportunities in Edina. For example, residents were asked if they felt they were well informed about the Edina park and recreation system; how they rate park and recreation facilities in Edina (excellent, good, fair, etc.); their family's use of various park and recreation facilities and programs; and would they favor or oppose the City constructing and operating an Activities Center, which would include a senior center, gymnasiums, performing arts theater, a library, and physical fitness equipment. Spring of 2000 Decision Resources conducted a telephone survey to determine the level of community support for proposed parks and recreation facility improvements. The survey asked questions included: • General satisfaction of current overall quality of existing facilities and maintenance of those facilities. • Their favorite outdoor recreational activity. • What they like most about living in Edina. • Sufficiency and adequacy of existing park and recreation facilities. • Do they believe that property values increase as a result of quality park and recreation facilities? • Opinion about proposed referendum improvements on the Community Center Campus and park proposals. • Willingness to pay higher taxes for facility improvements. • Their current use of park and recreation facilities. • Level of support for proposed park bond referendum. Needs Assessment Survey Consultants: Bill Morris & Diane Traxler Decision Resources, LTD. 3128 Dean Court Minneapolis, MN 55416 (612) 920-0337 Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. 123 N. 3rd Streeet Minneapolis, MN 55401-1657 (612) 338-0800 www.hk >i.com John Schamber, President MarketLine Research, Inc. 1315 5th Street SE Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612) 767-2584 Elaine Tatham, President Leisure Vision/ETC Institute 725 W. Frontier Circle Olathe, Kansas 66061 (913) 829-1215 www.etcinstitute.com Ananda Mitra Management Learning Laboratories 163 Linbrook Drive Winston-Salem, NC 27106 (877) 789-5247 www.m-l-l.com Date: January 3, 2006 To: John Keprios Director of Parks and Recreation From: Thomas Horwath Edina City Forester Re: City Buckthorn Management Plan The following report is submitted for proposed recommendations and clarifications of management principles and strategies for the control of Buckthorn species which are infesting extensive portions of Edina's woodlands and other parkland environments. The recommended management proposals will hopefully serve as guidelines for labor efficient and cost effective management strategies for present and future designated Buckthorn control sites. The proposals are submitted with predominant emphasis on control work within wooded parklands, where Buckthorn infestation is greatest and most 40 destructive in these high value environments. The proposals are made to be compatible with the obligation of city management personnel to preserve and protect these natural areas, functioning by natural laws, known and unknown with all of nature's complex interactive relationships. The proposals are devised in a manner which balances necessary intervention with an awareness that too much intervention can be an unnecessary waste of valuable resources at the least, or destructive rather than beneficial at the worst. They are devised to be an improvement to both the health and aesthetics of these valuable environments. Finally these proposals are presented based on studies of written research, personal attendance of classes relating to Buckthorn control, personal field research and observations, and general knowledge and experience within the forestry field over the last twenty six years. One of the first objectives of a management program is to choose the most appropriate sites, based on environmental conditions and values, that would benefit the most from long term intensive management. It is necessary to understand that any initial control work must be followed up with future control work. If not, succeeding populations of Buckthorn will re -infest most areas from a long term viable seed bank already present on the forest floor, and reintroduction of seeds, spread by birds, from outside the control area. If there is no future control work planned, all initial efforts will be lost. In 2004 the Parks Department purchased an independent inventory and assessment of all parks to determine the extent of Buckthorn infestation and recommendations for prioritizing parks for control work. With the extensive labor and/or other resources needed, but at this time very limited, it is necessary to concentrate available resources in prioritized areas. The inventory listed nine parks as recommended for high priority. At this time five of these parks have had Buckthorn removal work done by volunteers and park staff personnel. The purpose of this report will be to recommend management strategies and clarify principles which are devised in a manner to protect and preserve those natural areas and be cost effective and labor efficient. Now, by discussing control work done in some of these areas, I hope to clarify an evolved management plan useful throughout selected control areas. Van Valkenbum Park The wooded area of Van Valkenburg Park is largely comprised of Red and White Oaks with a density of nearly closed canopy. The density of sub -canopy shrub level is 80-90% Buckthorn. Although Buckthorn grows in multiple forest types and other environments, it grows particularly well within valuable stands of oaks. Buckthorn also grows best when receiving between 20% and 80% available sunlight. One reason Buckthorn may thrive so well around oaks, even in closed -canopy situations, is that oaks break leaf bud and leaf expansion is later than other tree species. Thus more light is available to Buckthorn at their earlier bud -break period. For the natural control of Buckthorn's vigour of growth and regeneration, the sun/shade ratio should be carefully monitored and used. Buckthorn is able to germinate in very low light situations, but from areas I have observed the growth rates have been diminished and, in my opinion, this situation allows for greater competitive advantage of other desirable species. For future shade control and preservation of the natural functions and succession of plant populations in these natural areas, Buckthorn removals should be done in manner to protect all other plant species. Buckthorn control work is beneficial in two ways. First, and most important, is to protect or improve the overall health of the woodland plant communities it is infesting. Buckthorn diminishes the health of plant communities through overcompetition for available water, nutrients and space. Buckthorn infested areas create near mono -cultures and thus reduces diversity which is an important health function. Secondly, control work is beneficial for aesthetic appeal within these valuable natural areas. Therefore, it seems only prudent that any management plan devised should be directed towards prioritizing limited resources to the immediate goal of both health and aesthetic improvements. An obvious initial priority at this site was to design a path, largely cut through Buckthorn, which would serve as a function for immediate recreational hiking use for residents, and define and assist the area of future control work. Hiking paths are best made permanent by being continually compacted with foot traffic. Paths also help limit compaction in other areas of the control zone, thus adding protection to other plant species which we desire to maintain as undisturbed as possible. A necessary function of any city forestry program, or operations, is the prioritization of work load. That is: available, nominal resources must be directed towards maximizing the benefits of tree health and aesthetics. Necessity always seems to outpace the ability to provide. As earlier stated, parks have already been prioritized for control work. In Van Valkenburg I have also prioritized the areas within the larger control area where Buckthorn removal is most beneficial for immediate health and aesthetics purposes. Since Buckthorn adversely affects tree health through over competition, it is reasonable to assume that tree health could be most improved by concentrating Buckthorn removals within the areas of the drip lines of trees (from the tree trunks to the furthest most spread of individual tree canopies). Such a strategy will optimize tree health benefits in an expanded area and, by not drastically increasing the amount of sunlight in the control areas through complete eradication of Buckthorn, will work to naturally control the density and vigor of Buckthorn regeneration, or other undesirable successive plant species. This prioritized thinning method also increase aesthetics values in an expanded area. Future control work, necessary in any control area, can be planned to further thin Buckthorn while protecting all other successive plant species and controlling a shaded environment. Another management plan within this area, and applicable in other control areas as well, is the identification and elimination of female, berry producing plants, to reduce seed sources for future regeneration. This repeated, gradual thinning process, utilizing uprooted and chemical stump treatments, helps eliminate the perceived necessity to chemically broadcast the forest floor, which is indiscriminate in plant species mortality, and interferes with natural succession. Overuse of chemicals is also potentially hazardous to the health of the trees we are working so hard to protect. Garden Park/Todd Park — Neighborhood Volunteers and City Personnel Partnership For the last couple of years neighbors of two parks have organized volunteer Buckthorn removal efforts in the wooded areas of Todd and Garden Parks. At both sites city staff personnel assisted with training, tools, chemicals for stump treatments, and disposal of Buckthorn. For this labor intensive task of Buckthorn removal, volunteerism is essential. The extensive task is beyond the capability of staff personnel only. Other necessary and routine functions of staff precludes or severely limits use of staff labor and time. An alternative to contract services for Buckthorn control must be realistically assessed for the potentially enormous annual and long term financial costs. Also management prescriptions, strategies, efficiency and efficacy, must be reviewed, approved and closely monitored by city management staff. Quality of services provided and management goals are not guaranteed by simply paying for professional services. Definition of goals, management directives and oversight must always be considered the ultimate responsibility of city personnel within these high value and important environments of the parks system. Volunteer training is a necessary prerequisite prior to any authorization of any Buckthorn • removal in any park. I have conducted training for volunteers for the last couple of years. It is essential that volunteers be well informed and obedient to management directives. Careless, untrained work in these environments can adversely affect the sensitive balance of nature which we must strive to protect. Buckthorn control must be managed as intervention operations rather than as overaggressive interference operations. Of course the first instruction is Buckthorn identification and a directive that only Buckthorn is to be removed. All other plant species must be protected as carefully as possible. Buckthorn removal is done by mechanically uprooting the shrubs, or cut near ground level and chemically stump treated to avoid aggressive re -sprouting from the roots. Important details are related to volunteers which are intended to maximize efficiency of labor; control the future natural successive forces in a manner most possibly predicted and desired; and to continually heighten the aesthetic value of the woodlot throughout the extended process. Among such details are instructions to shake dirt from roots back into holes when pulling out Buckthorn, cut stumps as low to the ground when chemical stump treatments are used; and avoid drastically altering shade canopy ratios towards too much sunlight. Fundamentally, volunteers are asked to perform in such a manner as to leave the area with as few signs of intervention activity as possible, except, of course, for the obvious and beneficial reduction of Buckthorn. Prior to approval of any volunteer agreement, volunteers must be informed about the long term commitment to control work. The initial removal of existing Buckthorn is only the beginning stage. Re -infestation will occur, in varying degrees, and must be planned for so that the initial effort will not have been wasted. In most cases there is no sense in beginning any control work unless future control work can be guaranteed. The current work load and extent of infestation is far beyond the capability of city staff personnel, as will be also the future mandatory follow-up control work. Any future proposals of extended or additional control areas must consider the ability and dedication of volunteers to perform continuing, necessary control tasks, and the capability of staff personnel to assist them. Quality, efficiency, efficacy, and capability must be maintained throughout the management process in order to achieve the desired goals. While volunteerism is an integral part of Buckthorn control, it is essential that volunteers at every site be carefully managed so as to keep focus on the directives. All decisions regarding what and how to remove undesirable vegetation are management level decisions, and should not be altered or exceeded. The goal is to balance a necessary intervention for health and aesthetic improvement while at the same time preserving and protecting the natural order and functions of these natural environments. Concluding Remarks Any proposals concerning Buckthorn management from concerned citizens or other parties, presented to elected or appointed officials, should be reviewed by staff management personnel for comment prior to approvals. The scope and complexity of this issue needs to be carefully, wisely and strongly managed throughout the process to optimize any and all realistic goals. Since Buckthorn is invasive on private property as well, and control necessitates a joint public and private commitment, education of the public is also vital. To this end I will do my best to help educate the citizens of Edina, through available channels of communication with administrative approval and cooperation. Inaccurate information and ill considered advice can lead to wasteful labor and expenses in the least, or to environmentally harmful and destructive performances at worst. Such circumstances have already been witnessed. Unbridled warnings of urgency can easily adversely affect the quality of management that these great and high value environments deserve and require. Summary Statements • Volunteerism is a vital component of Buckthorn control plans. Volunteers must be well trained and obedient to all management directives throughout all phases. • All active and future proposed control sites will require future management beyond initial clearance or thinning of existing Buckthorn. Commitment to this necessary labor should be guaranteed prior to expansion of control areas. • Overextension of control areas, beyond realistic labor capabilities of staff personnel and/or volunteer labor can risk failure of initial efforts. • Buckthorn control zones should be approved based on environmental conditions to assure that areas which would benefit the greatest are first controlled. • Each control area is unique and thus management prescriptions and directives should be devised for each site utilizing both general principles and site-specific strategies. • Areas should be managed in a manner that preserves and protects the natural order and functions of each site. The necessary intervention of Buckthorn removals must be balanced against unnecessary or overaggressive interference with the natural order and succession inherent within each site. • Patience, resolve and persistence are required for this long-term commitment. The degree and quantity of infestation throughout the city necessitates a long term, intensive management effort carried forward through succeeding turnovers of staff personnel, elected and appointed city officials and changes and additions from the volunteer source. Summary of Tree Work Performed by City Personal February 14, to December 7 , 2005 Compiled and Written by Mark Spain TOTAL NUMBER OF JOB ORDERS 238 TREES TRIMMMED 177 TREES REMOVED 402 TREES PLANTED 14 (A) TREES TRIMMED 45 JOB ORDERS 177 TRIMS Maintenance 17 Job Orders 88 Trims 5 Ash 28 Buckthorn 8 Silver Maple 1 Red Oak 2 Basswood 2 Willow 8 Cottonwoods 16 Boxelders 7 Lilacs 11 Elms Storm Damage 11 Jobs 21 Trees 5 Willow 4 Elms 7 Cottonwood 3 Ash 1 Red Oak 1 Bur Oak Creek Jobs 8 Jobs 23 Trees 6 Boxelder 5 Cottonwood 4 Elm 1 Ash 7 Willow Clear View Jobs 9 Jobs 45 Trees 5 Boxelder 12 Buckthorn 2 Willow 1 Elm 6 Red Oak 3 Basswood 4 Cottonwood 2 Ash 3 Apple 4 Amur Maple 3 Spruce (B) TREE REMOVALS 138 JOB ORDERS 402 TREES Dutch Elm Disease Removals 68 Job Orders 203 Trees 203 Trees 2841" Dia. at breast height Oak Wilt Disease Removals 3 Job Orders 4 Trees 4 Trees 87" Dia. at breast height Dead, Hazard, or Declining 67 Jobs 195 Trees 195 trees 1578" Dia. at breast height 16 Willow 323" 42 Boxelder 151" 1 Silver Maple 30" 12 Spruce 99" 2 Poplars 33" 3 Apple 32" 6 Red Oaks 140" 2 Bur Oaks 50" 14 Cottonwoods 203" 12 Elms 47" 52 Buckthorns 124" 1 Russian Olive 20" 4 Amur Maple 23" 1 Scotch Pine 20" 18 Cedar 180" 2 Sugar Maple 25" 7 Ash 78" STUMP REMOVALS 6 JOBS 33 TREES 8 Spruce 18 Buckthorn 4 Ash 1 Willow 2 Elms PLANTING JOBS 5 JOBS 14 TREES 11 Spruce 2 River Birch 1 White Pine BRUSH PILE PICK UPS 44 JOB ORDERS LOADS OF MULCH DELIVERED 4 LOADS 120 Yards March 9, 2006 Minneapolis Gordon Hughes, City Manager City of Lakes City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Office of the City Coordinator Edina, Minn. 55424 Steven Bosacker Tom Haimenin City Coordinator g, City Manager City of St. Louis Park 350 South 5th Street— Room 301M 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. Minneapolis MN 55415-1393 St. Louis Park, Minn. 55416 Office 612 673.3992 Fax 612 673-3250 Dear Gordon and Tom, TTY 612 673-2157 steven.bosacker@ci.minneapolis.mn.us I am writing to respond to your letter of January 19, 2006 and bring closure to the conversations between Minneapolis, Edina, and St. Louis Park about a dog park lease. The City of Minneapolis cannot enter into a lease for a dog park on City of Minneapolis property at 401h and France at this time. The City is beginning a strategic analysis of all its land including the 40th and France parcel. As you may know, the City originally acquired the 40th and France property with the intention of developing it as a fresh water storage pond for Minneapolis. As a part of the strategic analysis, City of Minneapolis engineers have been asked to determine if 40th and France is still germane as a necessary part of assuring a Minneapolis water supply. The outcome of this analysis will allow a decision to be made on the City's long-term plans for the property. When the analysis is completed we will let you know of the results. My staff agreed that dog park discussions have been lengthy and time consuming. I would like to respectively thank both Edina and St. Louis Park for the effort. The dog park proposal represented a good example of the way in which local governments can collaborate to serve their communities. That this particular concept did not proceed should not deter us from similar efforts in the future. Sincerely, Steven Bosacker, City Coordinator cc. Steve Kotke, Deputy Director of Internal Services John Keprios, Edina Parks and Recreation Director Cindy Walsh, St. Louis Park Parks and Recreation Director calf City Information and Services /parknotice www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us Affirmative Action Employer o City of Edina 4801 W 50' ST Edina, MN 55424 Dear Reader, I question the need for a dog park. Granted other communities may have such a park. Do we really have to have everything that any other community has? I see dogs running in the parks now so I assume all of our parks are for the purpose of whatever the people choose. Saturday, February 25, 2006, I happened to go past Highlands Park twice. Both times there were dogs running around without a leash. Granted the humans were also in the park or on the edge. There are also numerous people who walk their dogs past the house using a 30 - foot or longer leash thereby allowing the dog to make extended trips into yards adjacent to the roadway. We of course are then cleaning up after dogs we don't own. I can only hope that if there is a dog park paid with my tax dollars then other dollars would be used to enforce the leash laws that are already on the books. Sincerely, Arthur J. Felker 5500 Merritt Circle Edina, MN 55436 February 26, 2006