Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-11-09 Park Board PacketCity of Edina EDINA PARK BOARD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2004 7:00 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM EDINA CITY HALL AGENDA * 1. Approval of October 12, 2004, Park Board Minutes. *2. McCarthy Athletic Field Proposal — Greg Ettinger, President Edina Football Association. 3. Updates. A. Indoor Athletic Field Facility. itB. Gymnasiums. *4. 2005 Capital Improvement Plan. 5. Park Assignments Presentation — Karla Sitek. 6. Other. *7. 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 952-826-0367 FAX 952-826-0385 TTY 952-826-0379 Memo To: Edina Park Board. From: John Keprios, Director Edina Park and Recreation Department Date: November 2, 2004 Re: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2004, PARK BOARD MEETING STAFF REPORT. Enclosed you should find the following items: 1. Tuesday, November 9, 2004, Park Board Agenda. 2. Tuesday, October 12, 2004 Park Board Minutes. 3. Memo from Gordon Hughes to Kenneth Dragseth. 4. Email to EBA Participants from EBA. 5. Letter from Mike Koj etin, Managing Agent for Laukka Management, Inc. 6. Letter from Roger Anderson, resident of Village Homes at Centennial Lakes. 7. Letter from Steven Lillehaug to West 70th Street residents. 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, November 9, 2004, 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. McCarthy Athletic Field Proposal — Greg Ettinger Edina Football Association President Greg Ettinger has asked to be on the Park Board agenda to discuss the McCarthy athletic field, which is located next to Kuhlman Stadium at the Edina Community Center east campus. I have not heard directly from Mr. Ettinger and therefore am not aware of exactly what he is asking of the Park Board; however, I understand that he would like to see the School District's McCarthy athletic field converted into an artificial turf field. McCarthy athletic field used to be a multi-purpose athletic field that served as a baseball field, football practice field, as well as track and field event uses. As part of their successful referendum projects, the School District has renovated the natural grass area between Southview Middle School and Concord Elementary School and developed a varsity level baseball field, which used to be served by the McCarthy field. The old McCarthy athletic field site has been renovated to serve primarily as a natural grass multi-purpose athletic field for football, lacrosse, and track and field. The field is owned and maintained by the Edina School District. Formal Park Board action may or may not be requested on this agenda item. UPDATES I will give the Park Board verbal updates on: A. Indoor Athletic Field Facility. B. Gymnasiums. 2005 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) I understand that the Park Board chose to delay action on the proposed 2005 Capital Improvement Plan until the City Council made a decision about the proposed indoor athletic field facility at Braemar Park. As you already may or may not know, at their October 19th meeting, the City Council decided to reject the feasibility study proposal by Anderson Johnson Associates mainly due to the lack of perceived need and/or commitment on the part of the future facility users. Of the roughly 1,200 prime hours available for sale between the middle of October and the middle of April, resident user groups were willing to commit to less than 250 total hours of use. The City Council has therefore tabled the matter indefinitely. Therefore, I would like to propose the following three projects to be funded under the 2005 Capital Improvement Plan: 1. Renovate the Braemar multipurpose athletic field. $312,000 2. Replace the maintenance garage at Courtney Fields. $92,000 3. Replace the playground equipment at Kojetin Park. $110,000 TOTAL $514,000 BRAEMAR ATHLETIC FIELD RENOVATION It is my recommendation to renovate the Braemar athletic field to a premier sand/peat natural grass athletic field similar to the three Lewis Park athletic fields; which includes screening of the top 36" of existing soils to remove all debris, introducing an additional 9" of engineered sand/peat topsoil, provide and install a new underground irrigation system, and corrugated polyethylene pipe drain tile, and grade to seed -ready conditions. These new sand/peat athletic fields have proven to be durable, safe, dependable, and will continue to last as long as we continue to maintain them at a premier level. The cost to renovate the Braemar athletic field is anticipated to cost approximately $312,000. COURTNEY FIELDS MAINTENANCE GARAGE The existing maintenance garage at Courtney Fields in Braemar Park is in need of replacement. The building is too small for the large amount of field maintenance equipment and irrigation system controls to safely protect the equipment and operate efficiently. The small wooden structure is approximately 30 years old and no longer serves our secured storage needs. The plan is to replace the worn building with a larger metal and/or block building with secure metal doors. We have experienced break-ins with the old building that have resulted in costly repairs and theft. A new building will also provide for proper storage space for fuel and chemical storage that meets OSHA standards. We believe we can construct a sound replacement building with adequate secure storage for $92,000. KOJETIN PARK PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT The Kojetin Park playground equipment was installed in 1991. We try to get between 15 and 20 years of use out of our playground equipment. Because the Kojetin Park playground equipment is primarily wood construction, it has deteriorated faster than the metal playground sites that are older models. As a result, the existing playground equipment at Kojetin Park is clearly in need of replacement more so than all other structures in the system. As you will notice in the playground equipment replacement list that Alden Park is scheduled for replacement in 2006; however, for the past five years it was scheduled for replacement in 2005. The priorities change as the structures wear at different rates. The Alden Park structure is still sound and safe for use; however, it is in need of some paint to get by one more year. We anticipate that we can replace the playground equipment at Kojetin Park for $110,000. I recommend that the Park Board approve the proposed 2005 Park and Recreation Department Capital Improvement Plan. Formal Park Board action is requested on this agenda item. PARK ASSIGNMENTS PRESENTATION- KARLA SITEK Park Board member, Karla Sitek, has been assigned three parks to visit and make recommendations for short and long-term improvements: 1. Rosland Park 4300 West 60h Street 2. Strachauer Park 6200 Beard Ave. 3. Yorktown Park 73rd Street and York Avenue Mr. Michael Weiss will be giving a presentation on his needs assessment findings to the Park Board at the December 14th meeting. His parks are Braemar Park, St. John's Park, Normandale Park, and Browndale Park. OTHER This is also an opportunity for Park Board members and residents to address other concerns. 1"17►/:\7::.:•'• 7:00 P.M. EDINA COMMUNITY ROOM EDINA CITY HALL OCTOBER 12, 2004 MEMBERS PRESENT: George Klus, Karla Sitek, Alice Hulbert, Floyd Grabiel, Linda Presthus, Jeff Sorem, Andy Finsness, Mike Weiss, Mike Damman MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Ed MacHolda, Janet Canton OTHERS PRESENT: Idelle Sue Longman I. APPROVAL OF THE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 PARK BOARD MINUTES Linda Presthus MOVED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 PARK BOARD MINUTES. Andy Finsness SECONDED THE MOTION. MINUTES APPROVED. II. UPDATES A. Gymnasiums - Ms. Presthus informed the Park Board that a meeting was held last Friday which consisted of Doug Johnson, Ken Dragseth, Tim Walsh, Jeff Johnson, John Keprios, Gordon Hughes, Scot Housh, Jim Hovland and herself. She noted that the school is now ready to talk about gymnasiums especially since they are starting with the construction as well as wanting to get rid of the but and therefore will need a space for Kids Club, etc. She explained that if they are ever going to want to do anything now is the time to actually think about building gyms in order to save on construction costs. Therefore, they opened the discussion again. Ms. Presthus stated that Mr. Housh was very proactive from the City Council and took a lot of the lead on this along with Ken Dragseth. Ms. Presthus explained that the school is looking at building two gyms to which one is at the Edina Community Center and would be built in conjunction with the large gym and the small gym. Ms. Presthus indicated that the other gym they are proposing would be put at South View. She noted that it would be built on the south side in order to take advantage of common heating, maintenance, etc. versus a stand alone situation. She stressed that if they decide they want to do this and want to save money they need to act quickly and decide within the next 45 days because that is when they are putting in the footings. • Ms. Presthus informed the Park Board that Mr. Dragseth also noted that they are discussing the possibility of building a multi-purpose room underneath the gym at South View to which there would be some savings in doing this. She stated that they are talking about primarily using this area as a teen center. Dr. Hulbert asked if the city would be paying for this or would the school be paying for it. Ms. Presthus replied that the city would be paying for it to which it could be done without a referendum. Ms. Presthus indicated that the first step they needed to do was to go back to the athletic associations and see if the need is still there and if they are willing to do it. She stated that the City would cover the operating costs which would amount to approximately $50,000 a year. She explained that would mean user fees would have to be increased in keeping with the philosophy that the users pay for their needs. Therefore, before they go any further they need to know if the associations are willing to do this because if they aren't, then they can't do it. Mr. MacHolda stated that he was not at the meeting that Ms. Presthus was at, however, he did attend the meeting on Monday morning with Jim Hovland, Scot Housh, Dick Ward (President of the Edina Basketball Association), Greg Bjork (representative from the Edina Girls Traveling Basketball Association) and John Keprios. He noted that Marcia Friedman, President of EGAA, was unable to attend but did talk to Mr. Keprios via phone later that day. Mr. MacHolda indicated that as Ms. Presthus stated earlier they are on a very fast track here. He indicated that the City Council wants to know if these associations are behind this before they proceed to which the three parties indicated that they are. Although it would not be their ideal situation they realize that it would be adding two more basketball courts into the system. Dr. Hulbert asked what do they see as ideal? Mr. MacHolda replied that in the basketball community what they feel would be ideal is to have consolidated facilities versus decentralized because it would be a lot easier to run a tournament. However, they did recognize that adding two full size gyms would be a tremendous asset to the community and their programs. Mr. MacHolda indicated that they were asked if they felt the operational expenses were insurmountable to which they replied no. He noted that there is obviously a concern because you get to a point where how much can you actually charge a participant in order for them to be able to still participate. However, what he did hear from the meeting was that they are willing to go forward and they want to be part of the process. Mr. Klus asked Mr. MacHolda what the hourly rate would cost to run basketball to which he replied that currently they are being charged $3.00 a hour. Mr. MacHolda noted that it's his understanding that whether the two new gyms are added or not the school is looking to increase the hourly rate. However, they have not been told what the new rate is going to be but would guess it will be somewhere between $15.00 and $20.00. He added that the expense would be incurred across all of the gyms and not just the new ones. Mr. Klus asked Mr. MacHolda how many hours of rental would be needed in order to break even with the $50,000 a year in operational expenses. Mr. MacHolda replied that he doesn't have current numbers, however, at the time of the 2001 referendum the 2 various groups were purchasing approximately 3,755 hours. He noted that number has since gone up because the spring basketball program has expanded. Mr. Klus asked if the $15.00 fee would be per participant or per hour to which he replied it would be per hour. Mr. Klus asked so the city would need to finance the construction of these two courts as well as cover all operational expenses. Ms. Presthus commented that another option they are looking at is raising money through private donors and using the Edina Foundation as the conduit to help offset the operating expenses instead of putting it all back on the user fees. Dr. Hulbert asked if they might get more user fees if they have longer hours. She noted that she remembers when her kids were in basketball they had a hard time getting access to the gyms because often times the schools were closed when they wanted to rent the gyms. Mr. MacHolda stated that has been a difficulty in the past because there always had to be a custodian with a boiler license at the site to which that is not the case anymore. Dr. Hulbert asked if they are renting it out as much as there is a demand for. Ms. Presthus replied that the problem they've always had is weighing how much quality time the people want as well as their family values versus sports. She noted that most people don't want their 10 year-old playing basketball at 10:00 p.m. Mr. MacHolda pointed out that the associations have always recognized that Wednesday nights are religious education nights. Therefore, the preferred key days for basketball are Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. He added that the traveling basketball participant really can't participate on Friday, Saturday and Sunday because they are often in tournaments. Mr. MacHolda explained that they have shifted the in-house 7th/8th grade boys to play one of their two days on Saturday mornings. In addition, the 6th graders will play one of their two days on Friday night. Dr. Hulbert suggested that maybe there are other adult groups that would be interested in using the non -peak times. She asked is there any way they can bring in more money by having expanded numbers? Ms. Presthus replied that with all of the AAU developmental programs that are offered outside of the Basketball Association that if it's made known that gym time is available they probably could fill more hours. Mr. Klus stated that he thinks the biggest problem is in order to pay $50,000 a year in operating expenses they are looking at 3,300 hours of gym space that will need to be rented. Ms. Presthus commented that they need to keep in mind that all gyms will be charged the same amount. Ms. Presthus explained that there is a huge joint powers agreement as well as a lot of other legal documents. However, the big thing right now is to find out if this is still something the associations are interested in talking about. The City Council needs to look at the positives and negatives to find out if it will make it. She noted that they need to look at all of the reasons why the referendum failed the last time and find out what has changed since then. Mr. Klus asked when this will go before the City Council to which it was noted November 1St. Mr. MacHolda commented that Mr. Hovland and Mr. Housh were very hopeful that the associations who are interested in these gymnasiums would come in numbers and support this proposal. Ms. Presthus explained that on November lst the City Council will decide whether or not they want the agreement to go ahead and continue talks and bring it into public hearings. She noted that doesn't mean that it necessarily will happen. 3 Ms. Sitek indicated that it sounds like the schools have no use for this, however, she thinks if it's sitting right there in their schools they are going to want to use it. She asked wouldn't they have to pay us then to which it was noted that yes they would. Ms. Presthus explained that the school needs assessment indicates they have no need to build two gymnasiums and that is why they cannot justify building them. However, there is a little problem with the hut. Ms. Sitek asked isn't the school kind of digging themselves a hole because if they are going to make us pay for everything then we are going to have to charge them if they use it during the day. Ms. Presthus replied that they are aware of that. Mr. Klus pointed out that Mr. Keprios has not asked the Park Board for anything tonight. He noted that because this is on such a fast track he thinks the whole process will be done outside of the Park Board. Mr. Klus stated that if the Park Board has a position on this it needs to be stated tonight in order to give the City Council the Park Boards feedback. Mr. Finsness indicated that he thinks this is exactly what the Park Board has been wanting for years. Therefore, if they could do something in conjunction with the schools and build more gymnasiums and have support from the athletic associations then that is exactly what they should want as a Park Board. Mr. Weiss noted that he thinks it's great. Mr. Damman noted that he is for it. Mr. Sorem stated that he thinks this is exactly what he has heard everyone needs. Ms. Sitek noted that they should do it if they can swing it. Andy Finsness MOVED THAT THE PARK BOARD FULLY SUPPORTS THE STUDY AND INITITIAVE BEING CONSIDERED BY THE CITY AND THE PARK SYSTEM AND THE SCHOOLS. Mike Weiss SECONDED THE MOTION. Dr. Hulbert noted that she likes the "being considered" part because she doesn't think we have all of the information right now to say it 100% but getting there is important. Mr. Finsness indicated that the only consideration he has is parking because it is pretty tight when you start getting crowds. Ms. Sitek replied that she thinks parking will get better because right now there is a lot of construction going on. Ms. Presthus commented that they are still going to have the concern with the Edina Community Center neighborhood. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY B. Indoor Athletic Field Facility Feasibility Study - Mr. MacHolda indicated that he sent a letter to the following athletic associations regarding an indoor athletic field study; Edina Baseball Association, Edina Soccer Association, Edina Soccer Club, Edina Football Association, Edina Girls Fastpitch Association and the Edina Lacrosse Association. He noted that he has received written confirmation from two of the six groups as well as a verbal confirmation from a third. He stated that hopefully by Friday he will have heard from everyone. Mr. MacHolda indicated that the Baseball Association does have an interest, however, they do not know how many hours and are sorting through that right now. He commented that he would guess they would want to use it in 4 the spring for try -outs and during the winter months for batting. Mr. MacHolda stated that the Edina Soccer Association has verbally declined being a user. He noted that the Edina Soccer Club has confirmed that they would be willing to commit to 100 hours, however, they would not rent the whole field but rather just half of the field space. He stated those are the hours they are currently using at Holy Angels. Mr. MacHolda pointed out that they see those hours as a base number and that potentially teams and coaches will pick up additional hours along the way. He indicated that he has received in writing from the Edina Football Association that they would use approximately 10 to 15 hours. However, Mr. MacHolda stated that he thinks that number is a little on the high side for them and noted that they see it as a potential championship venue late in the season and when there is bad weather. He indicated that he hasn't received anything in writing from the Girls Fastpitch Association but knows that they are currently using the High School's field house which has a batting cage as well as they can also use that for a lot less money and it is currently meeting their needs. However, the president has indicated that it might be fun to run a couple of tournaments during the winter season and obviously defer their expense amongst the number of teams that they could entertain. Mr. MacHolda noted that currently he has only been able to exchange voicemails with the Edina Lacrosse Association. He noted that in his sense he thinks they could equal or maybe even exceed what the Edina Soccer Club has formally committed to. He added that Lacrosse is definitely a sport that's on the rise. Mr. MacHolda informed the Park Board that he did talk to Steve Dove at the Edina High . School and was told that the school's interest would really only be for two weeks in the spring for two hours a day and would be used for baseball. Mr. Klus asked if Rugby is a school sport to which Ms. Sitek replied that the problem with Rugby is kids can letter in it in high school, however, the school pays for nothing. Mr. MacHolda indicated that in talking with the other domes in the area, Plymouth, Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, Holy Angels and Woodbury he found that November and December are light in terms of rental time and January, February and the first part of March are the peak months. After that it starts to drop off. Mr. MacHolda pointed out that Mr. Keprios did receive a written proposal from Anderson Johnson for approximately $24,000 to do a feasibility study on the indoor athletic field. Mr. Klus commented that what he thinks he is hearing from staff is that they are still pretty negative on the idea of building a permanent structure at Braemar. He noted that he thinks one of the concerns is are there enough users to pay for it. He noted that he thinks it's only going to work if there are enough private donations to help make it work. A structure like this is going to take private dollars. Mr. Klus stated that we all know in the back of our minds that the ideal location would be to put a bubble over at Kuhlman field because it would solve a lot of issues but have been told that's not probably going to happen. Mr. Klus indicated that he thinks the Park Board needs to ask the City Council and staff how many more years do they wait and continue to push this or do they just wait and hope for something better down the road. He noted that up until now the Park Board's position has been we are tired of waiting, let's get something done, let's go out and find out how much it's going to cost and try to raise some money. Mr. Klus stated that Mr. Keprios needs to go to the City Council and get the money approved before he can do this type of study. This is not something that Mr. Keprios can just sign and get done. He noted that he thinks Mr. Keprios has done the right thing in asking staff to make sure that we have enough hours to support something like this. He commented that Mr. Keprios is concerned about spending $24,000 of the city's money if this is not going to work and that is why Mr. MacHolda is checking on the rental hours with the associations. Mr. Klus asked Mr. MacHolda how many hours he thinks it will take in order to make this work to which he replied 1,200 hours. Ms. Presthus indicated that when she added up the hours she came up with 250 hours to which 100 of those would be using half of the field. She stressed that does not cover operations. Mr. Klus explained that the concern of the City of Council is why are we asking to take away a premier athletic field to which he replied to them where else is there that they can play soccer other than at Braemar. Mr. Klus stated that he knows there are a lot of other places where they can play soccer in this community and they are talking about one field. He noted that he's challenging the City Council by saying the Park Department has done a tremendous job of rehabbing fields over the last five years to which Lewis Park is a prime example. Therefore, why don't we do something at Pamela Park or Walnut Ridge Park, why don't we put some of those same dollars to some of our other parks where we have the land. Mr. Finsness asked Mr. Klus why are you telling the City Council that, why aren't we telling ourselves that because doesn't the Park Board make that kind of a recommendation on the capital budget. Mr. Klus replied that we do, however, Council Member Kelly was saying that he has a concern about losing a good, grass field but at the same time the staff and city have said that is the only spot where it can be put, the Park Board was told this is the location. Mr. Finsness asked that is what Mr. Keprios told us to which Mr. Klus replied yes. Therefore, City Council approved Park Board's request to go ahead with a feasibility study. Mr. Klus added that the Edina Hockey Association stood up and said they were against it because they want that to become a fourth sheet of ice. Mr. Klus stated that the community has been asking and asking for more training sites and this is the only location they've been told by staff that they have to consider. Dr. Hulbert indicated that the associations may be asking for this, however, they are not coming up with very many hours to which they want to use it. She commented that it sounds good and everyone likes something new but if they aren't able to pay for it that's a big concern. Mr. Klus explained that they are now in a situation where Mr. Keprios will go back to the City Council and inform them that it will cost $24,000 to do a feasibility study. At the same time, however, Mr. MacHolda has stated that he is only finding X amount of dollars. Mr. Klus noted that Mr. Keprios has been concerned throughout this whole process that none of the associations will come out and support it at the time when it's needed to be supported. Mr. Klus commented that he did state to the City Council that if this is truly needed the community will stand up and support it. Mr. Grabiel indicated that he thinks they should go ahead with the feasibility study because that's what it's designed to find out. Mr. Finsness asked if the feasibility study would tell ril us what the need is as well as the cost to which Mr. MacHolda responded no it will not tell us what the need is. He commented that the feasibility study is a site feasibility study. Mr. Klus noted that $24,000 is a lot of money just for a feasibility study to which Mr. Finsness added especially if we are hearing that no one is going to use it. Mr. MacHolda pointed out again that staff has communicated that they feel the best location for this is at the Kuhlman campus. Mr. Weiss stated that he personally doesn't like it, it's the setting that makes it beautiful. Mr. MacHolda added that the field itself is terrible because it holds so much water and that's why it's on their capital plan. Mr. Weiss pointed out that he thinks the kids get a much bigger kick out of playing their championship games at the high school rather than at Braemar because they can emulate their high school heroes. Mr. Weiss indicated that the one thing that has changed a lot since last year is now they have year-round turf at Kuhlman Field and soon they'll have year-round turf at Valley View. He noted that one of the tough things is being able to get people out on the fields in April who want to use the fields but now a lot of that has been alleviated because of the turf. Mr. Weiss pointed out that he thinks the needs assessment has probably changed quite a bit from what they proposed even six months ago. Mr. MacHolda commented that the School District wants people to use these artificial surfaces for a fee of $25.00 an hour without lights and $75.00 with lights. He noted that he has run this by the field use people and it doesn't seem to be an issue with them. Mr. Finsness suggested that they see how these new fields do and play it out for a couple of years. He stated that if the information they have received is accurate and they are only coming up with a couple of hundred hours they probably should wait. He noted that personally he can't see spending $24,000 on a feasibility study. Mr. Weiss commented that they need to keep in mind that the hours they've been presented with do not take into account any kind of private enterprise to which he thinks there would be ample opportunity for clinics, camps, etc. Ms. Presthus pointed out that again they need to consider that there are now a lot of domes out there to which we would be the second one in our area. She noted that she doesn't think they can look at it as a revenue generator from anyone outside of the city. Mr. Grabiel stated that nobody seems to be able to come up with a concept that there are going to be enough people who want to use this to make it worthwhile. Ms. Sitek stated that she has always felt that Kuhlman is the place to have it and she thinks they should wait especially if there may be a chance that could happen at Kuhlman somewhere down the road. Mr. Damman indicated that he has said all along he doesn't believe it belongs at Braemar. Mr. Sorem stated that he thinks they should wait because most of the school programs would only would need to use it for a few weeks a year, either at the end of football season or the beginning of spring. The rest of the time they would be searching for ways VA • to fill it with outside groups, adult leagues, etc. Mr. Sorem noted that there are now five bubbles in the metro area so there's going to be a lot of competition. Mr. Klus replied that he doesn't look at it as competition with other communities but rather how are we going to use it within our community. Dr. Hulbert stated that she doesn't think Braemar is the right place for it and that they should wait and see if they might eventually be able to get it at Kuhlman. Mr. Finsness stated that he would like to go on the record and say he doesn't want it at Kuhlman because there is already too much traffic there. Mr. MacHolda pointed out that he thinks a greater need in the community is to have another artificial surface that would have lights and noted that he thinks McCarthy field would be a great venue for a field with lights. He explained that the reason he thinks they should put in lights is because what it really does is adds another green space versus taking one away. Instead of a field being closed at 6:00 pm because you've lost the day light people would be able to play later. He added that it's also the same quality every day versus having puddles on the field. Mr. Klus commented that he would rather see turf put at Pamela with possibly a fence around it because it would be used more by the community. He noted at the Community Center they already have a turf field, they don't need another one. Mr. Weiss asked Mr. MacHolda if the five dome facilities he mentioned are full to which he replied no. Mr. Weiss asked what is their usage to which Mr. MacHolda responded that Minnetonka has sold approximately 712 hours out of 1,150 hours. Mr. Klus asked Mr. MacHolda if he would e-mail the Park Board members on what his findings are from the associations by the end of the week. III. 2005 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Mr. Klus informed the Park Board that Mr. Keprios has indicated that the wooden play structure at Kojetin Park is rotting and needs to be replaced. Therefore, he has switched Kojetin Park to be replaced in 2005 and have Alden Park's playground equipment be replaced in 2006. Mr. Klus noted that on the 2005 capital improvement plan Mr. Keprios is also renovating the athletic field at Braemar Park as well as a new maintenance garage at Courtney Fields for a total of $514,000 in improvements for 2005. Mr. Klus indicated that what he was looking for from the Park Board tonight is a recommendation on the 2005 capital improvement plan. Mr. Klus asked the Park Board to think about their previous discussion of looking at permanent turf fields. Is this something we may want to look at versus renovating the athletic field at Braemar Park. Mr. Klus noted that he thinks if they pass the 2005 capital improvement plan right now it will stop the building at Braemar and allow them to renovate Braemar's field. He explained that the only concern he has about this is the hockey association really wants a fourth sheet of ice and may be looking at that in the next five years. Mr. Klus noted let's say we renovate the field at Braemar and it does become the site for the next hockey rink, it would be a huge waste of money. Mr. MacHolda commented that he thinks they need to look really hard on forfeiting any green space because they are already short green space and they only keep adding more programs. Mr. Finsness commented that renovating Braemar field was not on the 2005 list for last year. Mr. MacHolda explained that the field renovation was removed from 2005 and the baseball concession stand building was moved up a year, however, it was recommended to Mr. Keprios to put the field renovation back in place in the event the multi-purpose building is built. That's dollars put towards the building and if not the field is renovated and the baseball concession stand building is put back to 2006 where it originally was. Mr. Finsness stated that he doesn't know why they should approve 2005 capital improvement plan when there is a sort of a caveat there. He noted that he doesn't know if they should be approving this until it's decided whether or not they are going to go ahead with the feasibility study. Mr. MacHolda pointed out that this was the City Manager's recommendation. Mr. Klus stated that he also has a problem with this if it's up in the air and that they should play things out one at a time. He noted that the only reason he is saying they should not approve that part of it tonight is because of what else is on the table. Mr. MacHolda pointed out that it is Mr. Keprios recommendation to keep the $312,000 budget for this field in place to either pay for the renovation of the field or go towards converting the field to an artificial surface within a permanent building. Dr. Hulbert asked $312,000 isn't just going to sit there if it's not tagged for something to which Mr. MacHolda replied that is correct. Ms. Presthus commented that as long as the money goes toward changing it or fixing it otherwise it's just going to deteriorate and no one will want to play football games there. She noted as long as the money would go one way or the other let's leave it there. Linda Presthus MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO KEEP THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AS PROPOSED IN KEEPING THE $312,000 BUDGETED FOR THE BRAEMAR FIELD IN PLACE TO EITHER PAY FOR THE RENOVATION OF THE FIELD OR GO TOWARDS CONVERTING THE FIELD TO AN ARTIFICIAL SURFACE WITHIN A PERMANENT BUILDING. Karla Sitek SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Klus commented that if they are not going to build a permanent structure there then why not put a permanent field there even if a building does go over the top and put the money towards an artificial surface. Mr. MacHolda replied that again an artificial surface would cost short of one million dollars and has a life expectancy of 8 to 10 years. However, if you look at the renovated area at Lewis Park it's the same one that Blake has and they are on their 201h year with and it only cost $312,000. Mr. MacHolda indicated that he thinks for the dollar it makes more sense to continue what they've been doing at Lewis Park. Mr. Weiss stated that he would be hesitant to do this because if they renovate the field there will never be a permanent structure there as well as there is a good chance that hockey would take it out for their fourth sheet of ice. He indicated that there are a lot of questions on what's ultimately going to happen to that space. He noted 9 that maybe they should move the Courtney ball fields up one year and put the $300,000 towards that. Mr. MacHolda explained that the problem with doing that is they want to do Courtney ball field #4 at the same time they build the new Braemar concession building. He commented that Mr. Keprios for a brief period did have those dollars in 2005 and he was shot down. Mr. Klus stated that there is no assurance that they will get that money in 2006 either and because of that he cannot support this motion. He noted that he doesn't want to waste money on this when they don't know what's going to happen. There are a lot of things that $300,000 could do with our parks next year and doesn't think they need to challenge people to look at that. Mr. Weiss commented that they will know by the November Park Board meeting what the city has decided to do so maybe they should wait until then to make their decision. Mr. Grabiel indicated that they could table this until they find out when they have to have their recommendation. Andy Finsness MOVED TO TABLE THE MOTION. Mike Weiss SECONDED. IN FAVOR TO TABLE: George Klus, Floyd Grabiel, Mike Weiss, Andy Finsness, Alice Hulbert, Jeff Sorem OPPOSED: Linda Presthus, Mike Damman, Karla Sitek MOTION TO TABLE PASSED. Mr. Grabiel indicated that as long as they are talking about capital improvements he would like to go on the record that nothing is being done at Arneson Acres until 2007 and the parking lot at Arneson Acres will not be done until 2009. He pointed out that for whatever reason Arneson Acres has now become a voting site, which is awful. There is only one handicapped parking spot in the lot and it's just horrible. Therefore, if the city is going to start using Arneson Acres for things like this they are going to need to move it up the list because it definitely needs some work. IV. PARK ASSIGNMENTS PRESENTATION — LINDA PRESTHUS Ms. Presthus indicated that her park assignments were Kojetin Park, McGuire Park, Sherwood Park and Weber Park. She noted that the first one she visited was Kojetin Park which is located on 44th Street and was originally called 44th Street Park but was renamed after Bob Kojetin, former Edina Park and Recreation Director. She indicated that when this property was purchased by the city it contained a building to which it was set on fire by vandals and had to be torn down. Ms. Presthus indicated that it was almost the site of the Art Center back in the 1960s. She noted that Kojetin Park sits on 2.69 acres and has an old wooden playground equipment as well as benches for sitting. It also has an unfinished baseball field and an open grass area. She noted that it is scheduled for new playground equipment in 2005. Ms. Presthus stated that it really is a little neighborhood park and kids are always playing at the playground area. Ms. Presthus indicated that McGuire Park is located at 691h and McGuire and is actually behind Calvary Church. She noted that the park was constructed in the 1950s and was on 10 a very low area, which was very wet and was later reconstructed in the early 1970s. She noted the park sits on two acres and was the first park to have concrete placed around the playground equipment. She stated that it is a neighborhood park, which has benches and a grassy area. She pointed out that new playground equipment is scheduled for 2007. She added that there is also a little hill that is used by small children for sliding in the winter. She commented that the park does have a drinking fountain but it doesn't have any water. Ms. Presthus pointed out that Sherwood Park is a neighborhood park that serves an area called Ridgeview Heights and at one time it did have a small skating rink. She explained that when Grandview Square went in the neighborhood asked for a bigger park and new playground equipment. She noted that city compromised with them and a took a little bit of their land and gave them new playground equipment. She noted that Sherwood Park sits on 2 acres, it has playground equipment, a baseball backstop and a small field for playing soccer/football. It also has restrooms, picnic benches, grills and a water fountain. She commented that she did not see anyone when she was there. Ms. Presthus indicated that Weber Park is located at 42nd Street and Grimes and was named after the first constable of the City of Morningside. She noted that it was refurbished and reconstructed in 1980. At that time the old section of the Morningside School Building was demolished and the cooperative purchase agreement was made with the School District for buying the remaining property. She explained that the City then resold a new portion of Morningside school and demolished the old portion, which is now the open corner site of 42nd Street and Grimes. Ms. Presthus indicated that the tennis courts were built in 1968 and there is a fence that was put in between the Church property and the park property to try and curb vandalism as well as cars from driving back and forth. She stated that Weber Park is a heavily scheduled park and there are a ton of people there all of the time. Ms. Presthus commented that Weber Park sits on 12 acres and has two softball fields and one baseball field, a full size hockey rink, a general skating area and a new warming house. She pointed out that it's scheduled for parking lot repair in 2009. Ms. Presthus showed on a map the area they have discussed about having an open dog park. She added that Golden Years Montessori School is right next to the park to which those kids heavily use the playground equipment. She also noted that the park has beautiful paths back in the woods. V. ADJOURNMENT Floyd Grabiel MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:45 PM. Karla Sitek SECONDED THE MOTION. MEETING ADJOURNED 11 Memo To: Kenneth Dragseth, Superintendent of Schools From: Gordon Hughes, City Manager Date: 10/19/2004 Re: Gymnasiums On behalf of the City, thanks for taking the time to meet with us on October 8th with respect to the prospect of constructing gyms on the Community Center/Southview campus. We enjoyed meeting with Tim, Jeff, Doug and you concerning this important topic. At the meeting, I agreed to respond to the District's guidelines concerning the construction and operation of the gyms. The purpose of the memo is to outline our thoughts on these guidelines. CONSTRUCTION The position of the District is: • All costs associated with the gym project must be borne by the City. A "needs assessment" for new gyms, undertaken by the City and approved by the Council, must be presented to the School Board for their discussion and decision on whether or not to proceed. • Not more than two gyms, located on the Community Center campus, architecturally compatible, and constructed and designed by the District. At the meeting, you presented conceptual plans illustrating the possibility of constructing a gym at the Community Center and a gym at Southview. Your architect provided a preliminary cost estimate of $4.12 million for all costs, including design, for the two new facilities. As an option, the Southview gym could be designed to accommodate a lower level space that could serve as a teen center or some other use in the future. This option would add $1.3 million to the project cost. In response to your guidelines and concept plans, we agree with the general positions outlined above, in particular that the costs associated with constructing the gyms would be a City expense. At the meeting, we distributed data collected in past years concerning the demand for gym time by our various athletic associations and n U community programs. We believe that these data will be the basis of the needs assessment that will be presented to the Council and Board of Education. In our view, ample evidence concerning the need for these facilities was prepared in connection with the 2001 referendum proposals. Testimony from user groups will clearly validate that this need has not diminished. Your concept plans illustrating a gym at the Community Center and a gym at Southview is an exciting concept, and one that we had not previously identified. We are pleased with this concept and our athletic association representatives have indicated their support for this idea. We are not particularly intrigued with including a lower level to the gym at Southview at the present time. If the District believes that this is a desirable addition, the City would not object. However, we believe it should be viewed as a District cost. The concept of a teen center in the community should continue to be evaluated with the assistance of the youth. Hopefully, a suitable location can be found that will enjoy support from the youth and the community. As we discussed at the meeting, the City would propose to finance the construction of the gyms with lease revenue bonds. I believe that the District has used this financing tool (or a similar one) with respect to past school improvements. These bonds are "annual appropriation bonds" in that the Council must each year appropriate funds and levy a tax for the purpose of paying that year's debt service. Lease revenue bonds would require that the District provide a ground lease for the gyms together with access and parking rights to the City for a period of years. The lease would provide that the District would act as the City's "agent" for the purpose of designing and constructing the gyms and would own the gyms subject to the lease. It would provide that the District would control design, architecture, construction management and so forth. We assume that the District would allow the City to offer design comments and would allow us to sign off on the functional aspects of the gyms. The term of the bonds is unknown at the present time, but could extend to 20 years. Our bond counsel advises that the term of the lease typically extends beyond the term of the bonds. However, the ground lease would terminate whenever the bonds are fully repaid. We have had preliminary discussions with the City's financial consultant who believe that these bonds will be marketable even though they will be for a use that is not considered to be "essential purpose" in the eyes of the investment community. OPERATION OF FACILITY The position of the District is: • All operating costs including ongoing maintenance must be borne by the City. 0 Page 2 • Any use by Community Education or any other District program will be billed back by the City to the District. • The City will do all the scheduling of these gyms. • The Director of Community Education must agree to parking needs for events. The position that the City must assume the burden of operation and maintenance costs for the gyms isn't new and is understandable. We would suggest that we use the attached Facilities Use Agreement that was drafted in 2001 as a model for defining the respective responsibilities of the District and the City. Some parts of this agreement are no longer valid, but other parts such as paragraph 3.04 on page six seem to apply to the proposed gyms. At our meeting, we discussed the method used to schedule time in the two new gyms. It is important to us that the two new gyms be scheduled and managed in a manner that is identical to all other gyms in the District. I believe that this was conceptually agreeable to both the City and the District and would make the most sense to our customers. Incumbent in this approach is the consideration of adequate parking supply as it relates to other Community Education events on the campus. At our meeting, we discussed alternative approaches to user fees. In our opinion, the best alternative is essentially that described in the attached Facilities Use Agreement. In this case, the District would increase the rental rate on all gyms throughout the District in an amount needed to defray the operational costs of the two new gyms. This seems to be the fairest way of assigning the added burden to our users. It is very important that all gyms are rented for the same rate so as to avoid a situation where users avoid renting the two new gyms due to a higher price. After our meeting, we met with representatives of the community user groups that would rent a majority of the gym time. As noted above, these groups are supportive of the approach to add two gyms as proposed. Clearly, the biggest concern of these groups is the operating cost burdens that will fall to them. I would request that Jay Willemsson and John Keprios refine the operating cost estimates together with the expected District and Community Education use of the gyms in order to provide an accurate anticipated rental rate. We can then take this to the next level of discussion with our user groups. PROCESS At our meeting, we discussed a possible process and schedule for carrying this discussion to the next level. After your review of this memo, I suggest that we meet again to determine if we have conceptual agreement. I would then like to place this on our November 1, Council agenda to determine if the Council wishes to proceed. I assume you would do likewise with the Board of Education. I agree with Tim's concept of then having a joint Board/Council hearing to take testimony and determine 0 Page 3 if we should go forward. If so, the Council could then order the bond sale and proceed with the transaction. The schedule for footings and foundation work at Southview complicates things because of the rapidly approaching winter. The additions of the gyms will necessitate an amendment to the conditional use permit which was previously granted by the City for the school projects. There is not a good way to expedite this other than to schedule its consideration by the Planning Commission the end of November and consideration by the Council the first part of December. (If we're lucky, maybe December 7th.) In addition, the need to fund the installation of the footings will probably precede the receipt of the bond proceeds. Therefore, the City may have to finance the cost of the footings subject to reimbursement from the bond proceeds. Perhaps a get together with the District's architect may allow us to refine the schedule for all of the pieces that need to come together this fall. Thank you again for meeting with us and considering our comments. Please do not hesitate to call if I can answer any questions. • Page 4 Janet Canton Prom: info@edinabasketball.com ?nt: Sunday, October 31, 2004 8:09 PM o: Janet Canton Subject: EBA Supports new gym opportunity Reply -to: info@edinabasketball.com Dear EBA participant: Please take a minute to review and respond to this information. For the last 8-10 years, the EBA has held the position that Edina is in need or more, newer, better gym facilities. The ability to run a growing, quality program such as ours requires new facilities to meet demand. Other Edina programs that use gym space have similar needs. In the mentioned time period, the EBA has supported 3 or more separate initiatives that have included: -----Blue ribbon facility report to add 4 plus gyms in Edina (report approx. 1997) -----The 2001 City park referendum which included 4 new gyms -----A proposal in 2003 by the EBA to have the City acquire old NW tennis club off Cahill road and convert to gyms. Unfortunately, none of those plans have been realized. On Monday, Nov. 1 the Edina City Council will discuss a current proposal to add two new gym at current gym sites in Edina. The EBA and other users would be responsible to help ay for costs of maintenance and operation of these facilities. THE EBA WHOLLY SUPPORTS THIS PROPOSAL AND IS PREPARED TO CARRY OUR SHARE OF COSTS. We need your help to show the City Council that this is a much needed and wanted improvement. We need you to show your support by A) attending the City Council meeting or B) communicating your support. Please consider attending the City Council meeting and supporting this proposal. The meeting begins at 7 p.m. on Monday, Nov. 1 at City Hall and the agenda is available at www.ci.edina.mn.us (go to City Council, go to Agenda, see item VI.B.) If you cannot attend, please show your support by sending an email of support: You can simply say: 'I understand the City is considering adding two gyms for the use of EBA and other youth sports associations. I am a resident of Edina, a paricipant in EBA programs and I support the addition of these community assets.' Emails of support can be sent directly to City Hall at EdinaMail@ci.edina.mn.us OR you can email support to info@edinabasketball.com THANK YOU AND PLEASE TAKE THE TIME AND INITIATIVE TO SUPPORT THIS PROGRAM E-mail Services provided by Youth Leagues USA ''isit our website at http://www.youthleaguesusa.com o find out more about online sport management solutions. 1 VILLAGE HOMES AT CENTENNIAL LAKES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. Telephone: (952) 831-8325 Fax: (952)253-3352 October 22, 2004 City Of Edina Mr. John Keprios & Edina Park Board 4801 West 501h St. Edina, MN 55424 RE: Centennial Lakes Park Walking path Dear John & the Edina Park Board: 3300 Edinborough Way #202 Edina, MN 55435 E-mail: info(wlaukka.corn Website; www..1_aukka_coin The Village Homes at Centennial Lakes Board of Directors recently reviewed a letter from one of their homeowners at their recent Board of Directors meeting and have asked me to forward this to you. The Board agrees with Mr. Anderson's attached letter concerning dangerous situations that could occur when walkers, bike riders, skate boarders and roller bladers are using the same path. We encourage the Park Dept. and the Edina Board to find a solution to this increasing dangerous situation. We look forward to your response. Sincerely, For The Boa d of Directors Mike Kojetin Managing Agent LA UKKA MANAGEMENT INC. Enclosure Dangerous walk ways Fri, Aug 27, 2004 8:35 AM Subject: Dangerous walk ways -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Board of Directors of the Village Homes at Centenial Lakes Condominium Association From Roger Anderson 7440 Edinborough Way 4309 Subject: Bikers , Skate Boarders , Rollar Skaters on Centenial Lakes Park pathways. Thank you tv, a,)1 y ,ovr h_ rd w,7rk " lgake our co' mmunity a wonderful place to live. I walk our park pathways regularly. On a number of occations bike riders have passed me from behind with no warning. It is a narrow path. If I had taken one step to the side I would have been knocked to the hard asphalt. The same has happened with skate boarders and rollar skaters. The present situation is out right dangerous. The fact of this danger is clear as other parks provide separate paths for bikers and walkers. With one path, bikers. skate boarders and rollar skaters should be banned for safety from the pathway. I phoned Mr. Shirley of the Park. He said present situation is under review. I would urge the Board to make your convictions known to the Park Board on this important subject. Present situation is simply dangerous. Thank you. Sincerely *,,?� aa-z�� PAY@ 9 1p€ j October 14, 2004 City Of Edina West 701h Street Residents Edina, MN 55435 Re: Resident Information Letter West 701h Street Sidewalk Project Dear Resident: The Edina City Council has awarded the referenced project to Bituminous Roadways, Inc. and is scheduled to begin construction within the next two weeks. This project consists of completing the missing segment of sidewalk along the south side of West 70th Street from 300 -ft west of West Shore Drive to the Highway 100 frontage road. The project includes reconstructing the Arneson Acres Park driveway and will impact the existing berm and trees along West 701h Street adjacent to the park. The project is fully funded by the State Gas Tax Fund. The project is scheduled to be completed in two stages. Stage 1 consists of removing the required trees and shrubs, preliminary grading and constructing a retaining wall adjacent to Arneson Acres Park. This work is scheduled to begin within the next few weeks and is scheduled to be completed by November 17, 2004, prior to winter. Stage 2 consists of completing all utility work, sidewalk, concrete driveway aprons and reconstructing the driveway to Arneson Acres Park. This work will not be started until the next construction season (Spring of 2005). The project is scheduled to be fully completed by July 20, 2005. All potential schedules are subject to varying factors such as other utility company's work, subcontractor schedules and, most importantly, weather. You have possibly seen our surveying stakes in the area — please do not tamper with these stakes. Preservation of the surveying stakes is very important as they provide field instructions to the Contractor. Please contact Chris Smith, project inspector (952-826-0444 or e-mail csmith(aD_ci.edina.mn.us) or Steve Lillehaug, project engineer (952-826-0445 or e-mail slillehauga-ci.edina.mn.us) with any questions or concerns. Thank you for your continued patience through this project. The City of Edina and Bituminous Roadways, Inc. thank you in advance for your patience through this project. Sincerely, s� I 'Steven L. Liehaug, PE Edina Traffic Engineer / Assistant Engineer c: Wayne Houle,PE, Public Works Director/City Engineer Edina Parks Department Edina Public Works City Hall 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424-1394 www.cityofedina.com 952-927-8861 FAX 952-826-0390 TTY 952-826-0379