HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-10 Park Board Packetcity of Edina
EDINA PARK BOARD
TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2001
7:00 P.M.
EDINA ART CENTER
AGENDA
* l . Approval of Tuesday, March 13, 2001, Park Board Minutes
2. Tour of Edina Art Center & Presentation — Diana Hedges, Art Center Director.
• 3. Recreational Facilities Referendum Update — John Keprios.
4. Priority Use Of Edina's Schedule Outdoor Athletic Facilities — John Keprios.
*5. Police & Fire Training Facility, Braemar Park Site — Tom White.
*6. Off -Leash Dog Park Study and Proposal — Greg Ingraham, Ingraham &
Associates.
7. Edinborough Park Use Study.
8. Other.
*9. Adjournment.
These are agenda items that require or request Park Board action.
City Hall (952) 927-8861
4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (952) 826-0390
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424-1394 TDD (952) 826-0379
Memo
To: Edina Park Board.
From: John Keprios, Direcr
Edina Park and Recreat' n Department
Date: April 5, 2001
Re: April 10, 2001, PARK BOARD MEETING STAFF REPORT.
Enclosed you should find the following items:
1. Tuesday, April 10, 2001, Park Board Agenda.
2. Tuesday, March 13, 2001, Park Board Minutes.
3. Off -Leash Dog Area Feasibility Study.
4. Proposed Draft For Priority Use of Edina's Public Facilities.
5. Centennial Lakes Ice Skating Rink Report.
6. Edinborough Park Survey Results.
7. Proposal for Edinborough Park.
8. Letter from Wayne Houle, Assistant Public Works Director
STAFF REPORT
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.
TOUR OF EDINA ART CENTER AND PRESENTATION
As requested by the Park Board, Diana Hedges, Art Center Director, will give the Park
Board a tour of the Art Center, including the Peggy Kelly Media Arts Studio, followed by a
brief presentation regarding the services provided and the Art Center's current and future
challenges.
Board action is not requested on this agenda item.
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES REFERENDUM UPDATE
If time pen -nits, I would like to show the Park Board the power point presentation that
describes the proposed referendum. This is infonnational presentation that has been and will
continue to be given to numerous groups prior to the referendum.
0
Formal Park Board action is not requested on this agenda item, however, your input is
•requested.
PRIORITY USE OF EDINA'S SCHEDULED OUTDOOR ATHLETIC
FACILITIES
Enclosed is a revised copy of the document mailed to all youth athletic association
presidents. As you will notice, the proposal focuses on specific outdoor athletic facilities
that either have been or are anticipated to be in need of a formal policy when it comes to
prioritized use. I ask that you review the numerous changes and additions, and make
recommendations for further changes, deletions or additions. With that input, we should be
prepared to meet with all youth athletic association presidents at our May Park Board
meeting.
Formal action will be requested on this issue at the May Park Board meeting.
POLICE & FIRE TRAINING FACILITY, BRAEMAR PARK SITE
Park Board Chairman, Tom White, has asked that this issue be placed on the Park Board
agenda for discussion. For background information, the City of Edina was recently awarded
a $500,000 grant from the State of Minnesota to help fund this multi jurisdictional police
and fire training facility project. The City of Edina would offer the land at the former Gun
Range site, plus approximately $200,000 in capital improvement dollars to cover Edina's
share of expenses. The City of Bloomington would pay over $2 million, the City of Eden
Prairie over $1 million, and the Metropolitan Airport Commission would fund
approximately $1 million.
Mr. White suggests that the Park Board pass a recommendation to not support any
development on that park property that is not park related. Please know that, as staff, I am
cast in a role that cannot support that recommendation at this time.
Park Board action is requested on this agenda item.
OFF -LEASH DOG PARK STUDY AND PROPOSAL
As mentioned at the March Park Board meeting, the City Council directed staff to study the
feasibility of off -leash dog park sites in Edina and in particular Creek Valley Park. I hired
Greg Ingraham, Ingraham and Associates, to perform the study and make recommendations.
His findings and recommendations are enclosed in his report. Mr. Ingraham will be present
to review his findings and recommendations and answer questions.
As you will notice in the findings, there are no ideal sites that have significant acreage for an
off -leash dog park site. However, there are sorne options as he has pointed out. The
Braemar Park site would be the best alternative if the site were available to develop for that
2
3
purpose. In my view, the Van Valkenburg Park is marginally acceptable due to its size and
affects on the aesthetics of the park. Walnut Ridge Park has great potential except I believe
it would be extremely difficult for that neighborhood to embrace and support that land use.
Lastly, I believe that the Creek Valley site is a possibility to experiment with on a trial basis.
If the Park Board would like to designate that area as an off -leash dog park site, I would
recommend that it be free and open to the general public on a trial basis after having a public
hearing on the matter. I suspect that the concept would get mixed reviews, however, public
input is critical on these issues.
Park Board action is requested on this agenda item.
EDINBOROUGH PARK USE STUDY AND PROPOSAL
Enclosed is a copy of the results of a study conducted by Edinborough Park staff regarding
use of Edinborough Park. As a result, Edinborough staff are recommending significant
changes in park operations, such as, charging for entrance into the park and provide new
amenities that cater to larger numbers for fiscal reasons. I ask that the Park Board review the
data because it will be an issue that will likely be addressed later this year.
No formal action is requested on this agenda item at this time.
OTHER
This is an opportunity for Park Board members and residents to address other concerns.
3
• EDINA PARK BOARD
7:00 P.M.
BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE
MARCH 13, 2001
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Damman, Floyd Grabiel, David Fredlund, George Klus,
Linda Presthus, Karla Sitek, Ardis Wexler, Tom White
MEMBERS ABSENT: Andy Finsness, John Murrin
STAFF PRESENT: John Keprios, Ed MacHolda, Janet Canton, Todd Anderson
I. APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 13.2001 PARK BOARD MINUTES
George Klus MOVED TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 13, 2001 PARK BOARD
MINUTES. Linda Presthus SECONDED THE MOTION. MINUTES APPROVED.
II. BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE PRESENTATION - TODD ANDERSON,
ASSISTANT MANAGER
Todd Anderson, Braemar Golf Course Assistant Manager, gave the Park Board a tour of
the locker rooms, clubhouse and pro shop. He also showed the Park Board the architect's
current drawings of the remodeling that will take place in the fall.
Ms. Presthus asked if there are any predictions on how much the weather is going to
affect the revenue this year. Mr. Anderson replied that the last couple of years they have
had early season starts and late season finishes. Ms. Presthus asked how many rounds
Braemar usually has in a year to which Mr. Anderson responded that for the whole
complex it is somewhere between 140,000 and 145,000. He noted that revenue could
definitely become an issue this year. Mr. Damman stated that typically Braemar leads the
Twin Cities in number of rounds to which Mr. Anderson added that actually they lead the
whole state by far in the number of rounds for a public golf course.
Mr. Keprios pointed out that the golf business is very big in Edina. The staff at Braemar
is responsible for 45 holes which include 27 championship holes as well as 9 executive.
In addition they are also responsible for a driving range, golf dome, practice greens and
rental of the clubhouse, which is a year round business. He added that the Braemar staff
does a wonderful job.
Mr. Grabiel asked Mr. Anderson if they are seeing the kind of usage at Fred Richards that
they had expected. Mr. Anderson replied that the numbers are growing, however, it's not
where they would like it to be. Therefore, they have been more proactive in promoting
the Fred Richards Golf Course than Braemar basically out of necessity.
Ms. Presthus asked how the golf dome is doing to which Mr. Anderson responded they
are having a big year, especially because of the weather. It hasn't been this busy in
March in a number of years. He indicated that the high school golf team just started
practicing on Monday so it is busy all of the time. Mr. Anderson pointed out that there
are a lot more golf dome facilities in the area than there used to be and therefore we have
a lot more competition. Ms. Presthus asked if anyone has ever thought of doing anything
different with the dome. Mr. Anderson responded that they have run a soccer program in
the past, however, it is not as profitable because of competition from other domes in the
Twin Cities that cater to soccer.
Ms. Wexler asked if any other teams use the golf dome to which Mr. Anderson replied
there are approximately 8 to 10 other teams that use it as well. Mr. Keprios pointed out
that Braemar offers the Edina High School free use of the dome as well as free tee times.
He noted that in return the city receives free use of all gymnasium time. However, the
free use of gymnasium time will change if the referendum passes because the school is
going to need to start charging us for gym time to help cover their new additional
operating costs associated with the new gyms.
III. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES REFERENDUM UPDATE - JOHN KEPRIOS
Mr. Keprios inforriied the Park Board that the City Council has voted to have a special
election for voters to decide on a $35,800,000 recreational facilities referendum that will
take place on Wednesday, May 16"'.
Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board of what will and will not be in the referendum. He
noted that the bubble will not be part of the referendum. However, the City Council still
has the option to approve bonds without voter approval to fund construction of a bubble
in the future. We may study the dome further and maybe put it at another location
sometime in the future. He noted that they also took out the resilient artificial turf
proposed for the middle field between South View and the Community Center. Instead,
the plan is to renovate that grass field. As a result, the City will be guaranteed access to
the field, and noted that it would be used primarily by smaller kids.
Mr. Keprios explained that the total referendum package shows that it is over 40 million
dollars, however, 6.1 million of it is going to be paid for by the school district. He noted
that a portion is being used for building classrooms and other educational purposes. He
stated that there are some savings to the school district by doing this in cooperation with
the referendum.
Mr. Keprios indicated that also in the referendum will be a 25 meter by 25 yard pool with
a connecting diving area with a removable bulk head at Valley View Middle School. He
stated that the Edina Swim Club has submitted a letter to fully support this proposal and
will rent all pool time available in Edina first before going outside of the community.
Mr. Keprios handed out information regarding what the impact on property taxes which is
based on assessed property values.
Mr. Keprios noted that tomorrow is the first meeting with the Joint Powers Organization
Board, which consists of; Mr. MacHolda and himself from the city staff, Mike Kelly and
Linda Masica from the City Council, Jay Willemssen and Doug Johnson from the School
District staff and Peyton Robb and Colleen Feige from the School Board. He explained
that their job as a board, should the referendum pass, is to build everything on school
property. The $9.3 million proposed for improvements on park property is not the JPO's
responsibility. He indicated that the JPO's first charge is to hire a construction manager
and after that they will start hiring architects. Mr. White asked if an architect will have
been selected before the referendum occurs on May 16' to which Mr. Keprios replied
yes.
Mr. Keprios pointed out that he has scheduled a meeting for next Thursday to which he
has basically invited everyone who is interested in the referendum to attend to see a
presentation. After the presentation if people want to form a "Vote Yes" committee they
can certainly do so. He explained that legally he cannot orchestrate one or spend any
City resources to support a vote yes effort.
Mr. Keprios stated that Decision Resources suggest that people need to get out and sell
this otherwise it's not going to pass. Ms. Wexler asked if the School District is officially
• going to be part of the "Vote Yes" committee. Mr. Keprios explained that Gordon
Hughes, City Manager, has asked that the School District assist with the vote yes
initiative because the City cannot.
Mr. White asked if John Murrin is still going to be the liaison from the School Board to
the Park Board. Mr. Keprios replied that he hasn't heard anything from the School Board
regarding the liaison position. Mr. White noted that he will call John Murrin to find out
what the situation is because it would be helpful if a school board member were present
to find out a little more what their perspective is on this.
Mr. Klus asked what the Park Board's role has been in the past regarding referendums.
Mr. Keprios replied that first he would like to know what, if any, public meetings the
Park Board feels need to be held regarding the proposed projects. He indicated that he
would suggest sending out notices to the residents of the Pamela Park neighborhood
because he is concerned about their reaction to the lights that are being recommended for
the softball fields. He stated that he will also be talking with Rotary Clubs, League of
Women Voters, etc. Mr. Keprios pointed out that, if the referendum passes, then the Park
Board will become very involved. He noted that he will be bringing in plans and asking
for input. Mr. White commented that it's his understanding that individual Park Board
members could be on the "Vote Yes" committee and could go out and try and sell the
improvements that are part of the referendum. Mr. Keprios replied that as an Edina
resident anyone can do that but it is not a Park Board required duty. Mr. Keprios
indicated that, due to State law, he cannot be involved with the "Vote Yes" committee.
Mr. Keprios stated that there are people who publicly oppose the referendum. Mr.
Fredlund asked on what basis are people wanting to see this fail. Mr. Keprios replied that
one of the biggest concerns is they don't believe the school is going to be able to meet
their operating expenses. He noted there is another group of people who live in Edina but
are in a different school district and feel they shouldn't have to pay for these
improvements. Mr. White commented that he has heard that a lot of people feel that the
schools are somehow unfairly benefiting from this because everything is being built on
school property. He noted that he doesn't think people understand that it's public
property either way.
Mr. Damman brought up the point that some of the issues that have been raised are valid
issues and we need to be sure that we have answers to these questions. He noted that the
issue about the school district not having enough money with users fees to cover the costs
of the new facilities is a valid point. Currently the school district can barely afford to
cover their textbooks how are they going to run the facilities, where is the money going to
come from. We need an answer for that. Mr. Keprios replied that his answer to that is
the "Facilities Use Agreement" states that they have the right to charge whatever they
need to make up their incremental additions in operating expenses. He noted that the
school district has also informed him that they have budgeted for what they see as their
share of the incremental additions.
Ms. Wexler asked what would happen if the referendum passes and the school district
can't hold up their end. Mr. Keprios replied that his guess would be they would have to
charge higher rates to facility users or perhaps they might decide to charge for fields that
they never charged for before.
Mr. Klus asked what percentage of voters are expected to vote on the referendum to
which it was noted approximately 8% of the registered voters. Mr. Keprios stated that he
thinks it's going to be a close vote. According to Decision Resources, if a "Vote Yes"
committee doesn't get organized and get information out to the residents, the referendum
will fail.
Ms. Wexler asked if Decision Resources has looked into the total number of seniors
(people over 65) who have voted in similar referendums across the country. Mr. Keprios
explained that, with regards to the senior population, $400,000 has been set aside for
furnishings for the new senior center scheduled to be complete early next year. He
indicated that the Senior Citizen Advisory Committee is trying to organize and get the
seniors behind this to support the referendum. He commented that he recently had a
question from a senior who stated he didn't like the idea of the referendum because it is
too youth oriented and there is not enough for the seniors. He indicated that his response
to the gentleman was that the community did inform the Blue Ribbon Committee of what
they wanted to see in the referendum. He pointed out that there are a lot of things for the
seniors in addition to the furnishings for the new senior center such as walking paths, a
new small performing arts theater, renovation of the ECC auditorium, expansions to the
Edina Art Center, and numerous other general park improvements. Mr. Keprios pointed
out that the community of all ages has told us what is needed. He also noted that not
11
everyone realizes there are greater participation numbers now because kids are starting
organized sports at a much earlier age and there are also more females playing in
organized athletics. That is the reason the third sheet of ice was built at Braemar.
Mr. Grabiel indicated that he agrees there is probably too much emphasis on organized
youth athletics and so on and so forth but that's the way it is. The fact of the matter is 20
years from now the seniors will be selling their homes and unless Edina continues to be a
premier community the way it is now people are not going to be moving into Edina and
buying homes. This is important for both now and for the continued growth of the
community.
Mr. Klus asked Mr. Keprios if the Pamela Park neighborhood is the only neighborhood
who should have a special presentation to which Mr. Keprios replied at this point in time,
yes. Mr. White asked that he thought for the last referendum that all of the
neighborhoods were given a presentation. Mr. Keprios explained that he learned a lot
from the last referendum and feels that the number of presentations was overkill and
potentially counterproductive. Mr. Keprios stated that in this case he thinks he would be
very remiss if he didn't have a meeting with the Pamela Park neighborhood group.
Mr. Keprios thanked Mr. White for writing such a wonderful letter to Mayor Maetzold.
IV. PRIORITY ACCESS TO PUBLIC FACILITIES
• Mr. Keprios asked the Park Board for their feedback on the rough draft policy of the
"Guidelines for Priority Use of Edina's Public Facilities". He added that this is going to
become an even bigger issue as these facilities are developed if the referendum passes.
Mr. Keprios noted that even if the referendum doesn't pass this has been and always will
be an important issue that needs to be formalized. He indicated that at the April Park
Board meeting he would like to invite the athletic association presidents to attend so we
can hear what their responses are to this draft. He explained that this really does a couple
of things for us. It will tell us who will have first, second and third priority to these
public facilities as well as list some stipulations to which some are new and some are not.
Mr. Fredlund asked what the current policy is to which Mr. Keprios replied there is no
written policy. It has been the staff who has determined who is first, second, etc. He
stated that they have put their own teams before the school teams and whether that's right
or wrong is a debatable issue. Mr. Grabiel asked if the draft pretty much states what is
currently being done to which Mr. Keprios replied that as far as the priority list he would
say it's pretty accurate to what is being done now. As far as the demands on the athletic
associations, there are definitely some new demands.
Ms. Presthus noted that one of the requirements listed is that coaches need to go through
a training program and pointed out how that can become quite costly depending on
exactly what it is they need to have training in. Mr. Keprios responded that this has never
been required before and he isn't so sure that it necessarily needs to be a certified
program. Mr. White suggested that the city attorney look over this issue because if
5
somebody does something wrong because they weren't properly trained the city may be
held responsible. Mr. Fredlund asked isn't that why there is liability insurance. Mr.
Keprios explained that the State of Minnesota offers some immunity, however, it's
somewhat limited but it avoids the associations from having to take out enormous
liability policies. He indicated that he has always felt that coaches need to go through
some kind of training for the health and safety of the kids. Ms. Presthus indicated that
she thinks the language needs to be more specific.
Mr. Klus asked if all the athletic groups in Edina are non-profit to which Mr. Keprios
replied they are all non-profit but not all have the 5010 Federal IRS tax status. Mr. Klus
asked Mr. Keprios who he is trying to keep out by using the word non-profit. Mr.
Keprios responded that he wouldn't use the term keep out as much as prioritize. He
noted that we may not tell the public that they can't use the facilities but we can prioritize
their access to the facilities. Mr. Klus stated that he feels there is no reason to use the
word non-profit because every athletic group is basically non-profit. Mr. White indicated
that is not necessarily true. For example if someone has a gymnastics club that is their
primary income and is for profit as opposed to the hockey association or baseball
association where no one is getting any money out of it. Mr. Grabiel stated that there are
groups that could be profit oriented and they are going to have a lower priority than a
community based non-profit group. However, they are not necessarily going to be
prohibited from using the facilities.
Mr. White indicated that priority #7 is for private schools and churches located in Edina
during the designed primary season. Applicable tournament, league fees and guidelines
will apply. Therefore, if for example OLG has a little league team with 100% Edina
residents they get priority #7. He stated that there may be a problem saying that because
you are a catholic school you get priority #7. He noted that he feels the city attorney
should review that one as well.
Ms. Presthus asked about the requirements of organizations that are authorized to receive
permits to hold tournaments on municipal park property. She asked if Edina were to host
an AAU tournament as a fundraiser for them would they be able to do that because it is a
tournament. Where would that fall to which Mr. Keprios replied he doesn't have an
answer for that because it is a debatable issue.
Ms. Presthus asked if municipal park property excludes basketball courts. Mr. Keprios
replied that they don't promote renting out basketball and tennis courts. However, the
school district in the past has reserved some of our outdoor basketball courts for some of
their programs. Ms. Presthus pointed out that a basketball coach has used them for profit
situations i.e., basketball camps. Mr. Keprios noted that is an issue and there is no
current policy for that type of situation. He indicated that the courts are designed for the
general public at no charge and are considered a public good, not a revenue generating
facility.
Mr. Grabiel asked if he understands correctly that once a group schedules their facilities
they cannot come back at a later date and take something away that has been scheduled
• by a different group that has a lower priority. Mr. Keprios replied that is correct and he
will add some language to that effect about the inability to pre-empt once a group has
scheduled their programs.
Ms. Presthus commented about the point that no more than one major tournament or
special event will be scheduled at any one time and asked if that means someone couldn't
run a tournament at Van Valkenburg and one at Braemar at the same time. She asked if it
means per site or per what? Mr. Keprios replied that a lot of this language was taken
from the Roseville and Eden Prairie's policies and commented that he will revisit the
language to better reflect the intent.
Mr. Grabiel stated that it's his understanding that this policy is to provide guidance on
how to set priorities. However, it's not going to bind staff from exercising their
discretion on how to schedule certain things. Mr. White suggested putting some language
in the policy to that effect as well.
Ms. Presthus asked what it means where it states no organization will be allowed to
sublease City facilities without City approval. The City will not authorize subleasing for
profit, or for programs that compete with City programs. Mr. Keprios explained that it
means the city didn't build these facilities for the primary purpose of allowing groups to
make a profit by having non-residents use them. Resident participation would take
precedence over a sublease for profit. Ms. Presthus noted that it states it will not be
allowed ever to which Mr. Keprios replied that the language can be changed if the Park
Board so desires. Mr. Grabiel asked Mr. Keprios if the PGA wanted to run a major
tournament at Braemar you would figure out a way to do it to which Mr. Keprios replied
yes.
Mr. White asked Mr. Keprios if a new draft will be ready for the April Park Board
meeting. Mr. Keprios indicated that he will have a revised draft ready for the next Park
Board meeting and noted that the athletic associations will receive a copy of it as well
before the Park Board meeting. He stated that he will explain to the athletic associations
that this is a rough draft and that we basically just want to get their feedback so that a fair
and equitable policy can be formed that is acceptable to everyone. He noted that
ultimately it will be the Park Board's decision. Mr. White asked if the Park Board needs
to make a recommendation stating they are in favor of developing some guidelines and
that they realize that the current draft does need some work and that we want to get some
feedback from the athletic associations. Mr. Keprios commented that staff is willing to
continue on without a formal policy if that is the Park Board's position. Mr. Grabiel
pointed out that he thinks there needs to be a policy because it sounds like there have
been problems in the past and there will continue to be problems.
Floyd Grabiel MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL
FOR INCREASED DEMAND ON PUBLIC PARK FACILITIES THE PARK BOARD
DIRECTS THE STAFF TO DEVELOP A POLICY TO PRIORIZE USAGE OF THE
FACILITIES.
7
Mr. White added an amendment THAT THE PARK BOARD WILL DISCUSS THIS
WITH THE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATIONS AT THE APRIL PARK BOARD MEETING
AND BRING THIS BACK FOR FINAL APPROVAL BEFORE THE PARK BOARD
BEFORE THEY ARE FINALLY ADOPTED. Linda Presthus SECONDED THE
MOTION.
Mr. Klus commented that he doesn't think a motion is needed as long as it's on the
agenda and brought back to the Park Board. Mr. White commented that he would like the
athletic associations to know that the Park Board would like their input on the policy
before it is adopted in its final Conn.
Ms. Presthus indicated that she is not aware of any of the athletic associations charging a
non-resident fee. She noted that she didn't think non-residents were even allowed to
participate in the programs. Ms. Sitek stated that perhaps some things should not be in
the policy because we may be stepping on some of the athletic association's feet. For
example, non-residents who don't attend an Edina High School will have to pay a non-
resident fee. She pointed out that the Hockey Association and Basketball Association
don't allow non-residents to participate at all. Mr. White suggested rewording it to say
that the associations can develop their own rules regarding resident and non-resident fees.
All in favor: Tom White, Andy Finsness, Karla Sitek, Floyd Grabiel, Ardis Wexler,
Linda Presthus, Mike Damman
Opposed: George Klus
MOTION CARRIED.
V. OTHER
A. Bandy - Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that Mr. MacHolda submitted the
bandy players an invoice for their ice time this year. He noted that the bandy players
indicated that they felt they should only have to pay a portion of the bill because there
was snow on the ice a couple of times and they had trouble with the nets one night. Mr.
MacHolda commented that in November when the bandy players came to him with their
facility request he billed them $120.00 per hour for their games. However, instead of
paying the invoice in November they sent in a deposit and indicated that they would pay
the balance at the end of the season because you never know what is going to happen
with mother nature. Therefore, at the end of the season he received a very small portion
of what was due along with a letter. The letter basically stated how much they felt they
should have to pay, which in essence was about 50% of what they were invoiced. Mr.
MacHolda indicated that in the last paragraph of the letter they stated that they were very
sorry this long-term relationship, call it 22 years, needed to come to an end. Therefore,
he feels that the bandy club knew about the referendum on the table and the plan to
redevelop the Lewis east field. Mr. MacHolda stated that in a sense that is why he thinks
they stiffed the City approximately $2,000 to $2,500, not because the ice wasn't worth
$120.00 an hour. Mr. MacHolda noted that if the referendum were to fail then he knows
most definitely they will be knocking at his door. Ms. Sitek asked Mr. MacHolda if he
would say no to which he replied that he and Mr. Keprios discussed it and decided that
they would create a general skating rink just short of what the bandy rink is.
Mr. Grabiel indicated that he has been supporting keeping the bandy program and not
turning that field into an exclusive soccer field because it's an adult activity and he feels
it's a good thing. However, if they are going to shoot themselves in the foot he feels they
should go find another place to play. Mr. MacHolda pointed out the bandy players have
paid less than what the Edina residents pay because every person that steps foot on a field
or ice pays $7.00 per participant. He also noted that the majority of the bandy players are
non-residents and therefore do not pay taxes in Edina.
B. Dog Park - Mr. Keprios indicated that the City Council has directed him to study the
feasibility of off -leash dog parks. Therefore, he has hired a consultant to go out and study
the whole city and meet with the animal control officer. He stated that he will make a
recommendation with his findings at the April Park Board meeting. Mr. White clarified
that this is for a different dog park than the one that they have been discussing to which
Mr. Keprios replied yes. This dog park would be owned, operated and maintained by the
City of Edina.
Mr. White noted that several people have asked him if they could have people parks that
don't allow dogs so people don't have to watch so closely where they step to which Mr.
Keprios replied he gets that phone call about once a week during the spring and summer
months. Mr. Keprios replied that it's a serious issue.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
George Klus MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:40 P.M. Karla Sitek
SECONDED THE MOTION. MEETING ADJOURNED.
9
Off -Leash Dog Area Feasibility Study
Ingraham & Associates was hired by the City of Edina to evaluate locations within the
City for a potential off -leash dog area. As part of the study process meetings were held
with the Edina Animal Control Officer, Braemar Golf Course staff and Edina Park staff.
Site visits were made to city park and open space sites and cities and counties that operate
off -leash dog park areas were contacted. The following is background information, a
site -by -site comparison and our recommendations.
Introduction and Background Information
What is an off -leash dog area?
An off -leash dog area is a defined area where dogs are allowed to play and walk off -
leash. Dog areas or dog parks are designed to allow an exercise area for dogs and act as a
social area for pet owners. Current city regulations require dogs to be on a leash or
within a fenced yard.
Off -leash dog areas can be controversial as there are perceptions of problems (noise,
traffic, pet waste) from adjacent property owners and potential displacement of other
recreational uses. Site selection is the key to a successful off -leash dog area/park. Dog
areas/parks can also be established on a temporary basis with a periodic review to
determine their suitability and performance. The dog area/park can be open to the public
or can be open only to permit holders. The advantage of a permit -only system is to allow
better communication with area users. The disadvantage of permit -only use is the
administrative requirements for the city and the dog owner and the enforcement
requirement for the city to check for valid permits. No cities or counties in Minnesota
restrict use of their dog areas to residents only.
Why have an off -leash dog area?
There are an estimated 7,000-8,000 dogs in Edina. Approximately 6,000 households in
Edina have dogs (28% of the city population). Few of these people have property large
enough to allow a dog to get significant exercise. As awareness of other communities'
off -leash dog exercise areas increases, citizens are asking for a local off -leash dog area.
Ingraham & Associates Inc. 1
City of Edina — Dog Area Feasibility Study 4/03/01
Off -leash dog areas/parks provide an area for dogs to run. Some people currently use city
parks, golf courses and school property to let their dog run off -leash. This is in violation
of city regulations that require dogs to be on a leash or within a fenced yard area. The
City Animal Control Officer issues warning and citations for violations of the leash and
pick-up regulations. Citizens ask, "Where can I let my dog run off -leash?" There is a
demand for off -leash areas.
Where are existing off -leash dog areas/parks located?
Oil leash dog parks are relatively new to Minnesota. There are off -leash dog areas/parks
in Bloomington, Hennepin Parks, Ramsey County, and St. Paul. Several metro area cities
are currently considering dog exercise areas. The City of Minneapolis is proposing to
locate several dog parks in existing parks and on city lands. One proposed site is an off -
leash dog area on Minneapolis Water Works land next to Weber Park in the northeast
corner of Edina. The site is designed to serve Minneapolis residents, but it would also
serve some St. Louis Park and Edina residents. From Edina's perspective it is not the
most convenient location.
What are the maintenance and enforcement requirements for an off -leash dog area?
Dog areas/parks are relatively low maintenance. The level of maintenance is similar or
lower than a typical public park. Emptying trash containers and periodic mowing are the
® main maintenance activities. Pet owners pick up dog waste and place it in trash
containers. Operating experience in Minnesota shows that there are few issues, and the
enforcement requirements are low.
What are the costs of building a dog park?
Constructions costs depend upon the site characteristics. Costs can range from less than
$10,000 to close to $50,000 depending upon the amount of fencing and the need for a
parking lot. Smaller sites will need to be fenced. If the site does not have parking, a
parking lot would have to be built. Other expenses are signs and a picnic table.
What are the attributes of a good off -leash dog area?
➢ A large enough area to allow dogs to obtain exercise (+ 2.5 acres is desirable).
➢ A flat open area of at least one acre.
➢ Suitable buffers or separation from adjacent uses (similar to other public park
uses).
➢ Good visibility and access.
➢ Adequate parking (15-20 spaces).
➢ A fenced area or other suitable boundaries.
➢ An involved citizen group to help set up and operate the park.
➢ Other desirable, but not essential features such restrooms and a drinking water
supply.
Ingraham & Associates Inc. 2
City of Edina — Dog Area Feasibility Study 4/03/01
Candidate Site Evaluation
Due to the developed nature of the city there are few options for suitable off -leash dog
areas. Based on discussions with city staff and an evaluation of city land, the following
sites were evaluated as potential off -leash dog areas: See the attached map for site
locations.
Creek Valley Park - The north portion of the park next to Highway 62.
Braemar Park - The southwest corner of the park, south of the arena and within the
Public Works outside storage area.
Walnut Ridge Park - The central area of the park, within the loop trail.
Van Valkenburg Park - The lower area near the pond in the northwest corner of the
park. Located between the parking area and Lincoln Drive.
See the attached maps of each site showing potential dog area locations.
Site Evaluation
Ingraham & Associates Inc.
City of Edina — Dog Area Feasibility Study
3
4/03/01
Creek Valley
Braemar Park
Walnut
Van
Park
Ridge Park
Valkenburg
Park
Site size
2.3 - 4.6 acres
3.5 acres
3 to 4 acres
1.7 acres
(approx.)
Open flat area
NO
POTENTIALLY
YES
NO
Neighborhood
GOOD
POTENTIALLY
FAIR
GOOD
compatibility
GOOD
Access and
GOOD
GOOD
FAIR
GOOD
visibility
Displacement
NONE
SOME
SOME
NONE
of existing
activities
Existing
SOME
NONE
NONE
SOME
fencing/barriers
EXISTING
Existing
YES
YES
YES
YES
parking
Fencing
#1 = 1,100 ft.
1,400 feet
1,400 feet
800 feet
required and
#1 = $11,000
$14,000
$14,000
$8,000
estimated cost
#2 =1,900 ft.
#2 = $19,000
Ingraham & Associates Inc.
City of Edina — Dog Area Feasibility Study
3
4/03/01
is
Recommendation
The site evaluation shows that there is no one ideal location for an off -leash dog exercise
area in Edina.
The Creek Valley site has the best combination of features, but is an irregular site with
little flat area. It has existing parking, is very visible, has convenient access and is
compatible with adjacent land uses (Hwy 62, the park and school). The primary
drawback is the small site size and lack of flat open terrain. Two options exist in Creek
Valley Park:
41. A linear area along the north edge of the park. The area outside the hockey and
skating area is 2.3 acres and is primarily rolling terrain. The water tower would be
inside the dog exercise area.
#2. An area located around the hockey rink and open skating rink. The area could
function as a dog exercise area in the spring, summer and fall and a skating area in the
winter. Dog areas are typically used in the winter so some signage, management and
enforcement may be needed to prevent conflicts and dog use in the winter.
Areas # 1 and #2 could be combined during the summer.
The Braemar/Public Works site has the potential to be a suitable site, but it requires
extensive grading, fencing and reconfiguration of the public works open storage area.
The area south of Braemar Boulevard would need re -grading and a fence would be
required between the public works driveway, golf course and nature trail to the east and
public works storage area to the south. The dog park area could be constructed as part of
a re -configuration and aesthetic upgrade of the public work storage area. This area is also
contemplated for a regional police and fire training facility. There would not be room for
the training facility, dog exercise area and the public works open storage area.
Walnut Ridge Park has an area in the center of the park that is suitable for dog use. The
central area of the park is not used for active or programmed recreational uses. The low
wet soils make turf management and active recreation use (i.e. ball fields, soccer, etc.)
difficult. It would require a fence around the inside of the loop trail. The biggest
drawbacks of this site are the somewhat hidden access to the neighborhood park and the
location within a developed residential neighborhood. The dog use area would be
approximately 200 feet from the nearest home.
The northwest corner of Van Valkenburg Park has an area around a small pond that is
somewhat suitable for dog use. The area is small and slopes toward the pond, but is not
used for any other recreational uses. The area is located between the lower parking area
and Lincoln Drive.
Ingraham & Associates Inc. 4
City of Edina — Dog Area Feasibility Study 4/03/01
•l■R9110[:
I N G R A H A M
S 5 0 C I A T F5
f�
A
'C
d �
LL o
cd C0
a�
c
p O
0 C N
t
CO) a C6
W N
O L
0 0
El -
so
691 xwAh H
kA
u
u
G
v
w
Lcc
O
m�
oma
N
M UJ N
O L
cv
002
C�l El C�:D U
(-,-) ) e(.
111"`"'ttt���itt���111111 li
_C
LA
I
W
H
0-4d
ll.
JA1�J4 �(�zloaNaaNO'1
E
Q
7-
.0
-�
T
ow •.>
AC
I�
,
O
i
:•:i
;NTIAL SITE
O
f
f
\ lsun, SToRAE�
Braemar Park Site
Off -Leash Dog Area Feasibility Study
City of Edina, Minnesota
March 28, 2001
/ SAVAn/N�
CcxlRn�
1
+ 1
i
Planners & Landscape Architects
(612) 377-2500
PRIORITY USE OF EDINA' S SCHEDULED OUTDOOR
ATHLETIC FACILITIES AND RECOMMENDED
GUIDELINES
(rough draft document)
PURPOSE AND INTENT
The main purpose of this document, which suggests guidelines for priority use of parks
and facilities in the City of Edina and guidelines for your association's program
offerings, is to provide for health, safety and welfare of the public in a manner that is
fair and equitable to all residents.
It is the intent of this document to gather input from groups and individuals to assist the
Edina Park Board in establishing a policy that grants priority use for exclusive or
ongoing use of Edina's municipal park property and encourages youth athletic
associations to provide programs in a manner that is in keeping with the Edina Park
Board's philosophy.
PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS OF ORGANIZATIONS THAT
RECEIVE PRIORITY USAGE FOR PROGRAMMED USE OF THE
CITY OF EDINA'S SCHEDULED OUTDOOR ATHLETIC
FACILITIES:
Definition
For purposes of this proposal, scheduled outdoor athletic facilities are meant to include
the following City -owned scheduled outdoor athletic facilities:
• fields
• basketball courts
• hockey rinks
The City reserves the right to determine if an outdoor athletic facility be shall
considered "a scheduled facility" or not. In other words, the City may decide that it is
in the public's best interest to periodically not schedule specific outdoor athletic fields,
basketball courts or hockey rinks. Examples would include the need to rest a field for
maintenance or safety purposes, or make specific outdoor athletic facilities available to
the public at large due to demand.
Outdoor athletic City -owned facilities that are not meant to be included under this
proposal are:
• golf courses
• Edina Aquatic Center
• tennis courts
• batting cages
ORGANIZATIONS WHICH REQUEST SPECIAL PERMITS TO
OFFER ONGOING PROGRAMS ON SCHEDULED OUTDOOR
ATHLETIC FACILITIES ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH
THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES:
1. Organizations must be Edina based, non-profit, public service groups. "Edina" is
defined as located or based in Edina. "Non-profit" means a not-for-profit
organization as defined by State statutes. "Public service group" is defined as a
group organized to provide a public service to the entire community, or all
individuals in the community within the age group being served. Non-profit status
is important because Minnesota State Law 604A.11 grants limited immunity from
liability for those associations registered and qualified as a non-profit organization
under State statutes (see attached copy).
2. Organizations are to deposit a copy of all bylaws, Article of Incorporation under
Minnesota State statutes governing non-profit organizations, and all other
documents which govern their operation (i.e. policy statements, grievance
procedures, scholarship and grant applications, etc.) at the Edina Park and
Recreation Department so that those documents may be available for public review.
3. Organizations are to make all information concerning the governance of their
programs available to participants upon request.
4. Meeting of the organization's governing body, except those which deal with
personnel issues or litigation, are to be publicized in advance and open to
participation to all program participants.
5. The election of the organization's governing body is to be a process
which is open to all program participants.
6. Organizations are to be adequately prepared for dealing with participants that have
special economic, physical or social needs.
7. Organizations are not to discriminate against program participants or
applicants in any manner.
2
REQUIREMENTS OF TEAMS NOT AFFILIATED WITH AN EDINA
NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION REQUESTING RESERVATION OF
A SCHEDULED OUTDOOR ATHLETIC FACILITY:
1. Team must be composed of a minimum of 50% Edina residents.
2. Facility reservations will be limited to their home games only, or their team
practices with a maximum of one time per week.
3. Fees will be established by the Park Board and City Council.
4. Park Facility Use Permit required.
REQUIREMENTS OF GROUPS FOR SINGLE USE REQUESTS OF A
SCHEDULED OUTDOOR ATHLETIC FACILITY: (i.e., Edina Cub Scout
and Girl Scout Groups, Edina Church Groups, Edina Neighborhood Groups,
Edina Businesses)
1. Fifty percent (50%) of the participants must either live or work full time in Edina.
2. Fees will be established by the Park Board and City Council.
3. Park Facility Use Permit required.
PRIORITIES:
Organizations that meet the above stated guidelines that are requesting special permits
for single use or to offer ongoing programs on a City -owned scheduled outdoor athletic
facility will be granted the opportunity based on the following use schedule, and within
the adopted standards for number of uses per team.
PRIORITY #1:
City Programs (Examples: City offered adult programs, summer playground programs,
basketball programs and special events open to the entire community.)
PRIORITY #2:
Youth teams (18 and under) that are members of non-profit organizations that have the
following guaranteed in their bylaws:
1. 90% Edina residents. Edina youth residents are defined as individuals 18 years
old and under who live in Edina or who go to school in Edina.
3. Association or Club is a non-profit organization as defined by State statute.
4. The Association or Club must file a financial statement with the City each year
that will be made public upon request. This statement must indicate revenue,
expenditures and fund balances.
5. Association is open to all Edina residents and must offer equal opportunities for
participation.
6. All board meetings are open to the public (with the exception of personal issues
and litigation).
7. The organization must have an open process for parents to discuss concerns or
recommend changes to the organization.
8. Teams are playing during the designated "primary season."
PRIORITY #3:
Edina School District Programs (Examples: curriculum programs, interscholastic team
practices, games, tournaments, etc.)
PRIORITY #4:
Non-profit adult teams or organizations that have 25% or more Edina residents during
the designated primary season. Edina adult "residents" must either live or work full-
time in Edina.
PRIORITY #5:
Edina non-profit public service groups who use the facilities to raise money for the
benefit of the entire community.
PRIORITY #6:
Businesses and neighborhood groups located in Edina during the designated primary
season.
PRIORITY #7:
Private schools and churches located in Edina during the designed primary season.
PRIORITY #8:
Non-profit youth teams or organizations that have 60% or more Edina residents during
the designated primary season.
PRIORITY #9:
Priority #2 teams during a secondary season.
4
PRIORITY #10:
All other Edina teams on a first come, first served basis after higher priority teams have
had an opportunity to schedule each season. All teams must be composed of at least
50% Edina residents and requests must be made by an Edina resident. Edina adult
"residents" must either live or work full-time in Edina.
PREEMPTION CLAUSE
It is the intent of this proposal to avoid preemption of scheduled events once an outdoor
athletic facility has been reserved and all requirements are met. However, the City
reserves the right to preempt a scheduled event on a scheduled outdoor athletic field
when in the City's judgement the preemption is in the community's best interests.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
1. Fees for use of scheduled outdoor athletic facilities will be subject to change
each year at the discretion of the Edina City Council.
2. The City will establish dates each year by which teams must commit requests for
field reservation use in order to utilize their priority status. After that date, fields,
or facilities will be reserved on a first come, first served basis.
3. If teams or organizations are at the same priority level, then the team or
organization that serves the highest number of Edina residents will receive the
higher priority status in terms of field, rink and court reservations.
5. The number of major tournaments or special events allowed by each youth
association will be determined by staff on an annual basis.
6. Any organization which fails to provide for and follow the guidelines set forth
above, or provides false information on a permit application, is subject to
revocation of its permit at the discretion of the Director of the Edina Park and
Recreation Department.
7. No organization will be allowed to sublease the City's scheduled outdoor
athletic facilities without City approval.
RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES
For all organized youth athletic associations in Edina, the following guidelines are
strongly encouraged but not mandated by the Edina Park Board and City Council:
1. That all boys and girls receive an equal opportunity to participate in any activity at
whatever ability level they may play.
2. Have fun.
3. Build good sportsmanship and character.
E
4. Learn basic fundamentals of the sport they participate in.
5. Be a good team member.
6. Learn to accept discipline.
7. Have a reasonable amount of practices and games.
8. The Edina Park and Recreation Department staff should encourage the use of
volunteers on the Board of Directors, as well as, in the coaching, because we believe
in the philosophy of citizen involvement.
9. Selection of members to serve on the Board of Directors and as coaches should be
based on the prospective member having the understanding of the basic program
for all ability levels and all ages.
EDINA PARK BOARD STATEMENT OF PHILOSOPHY AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING USE OF ETHNIC, RELIGIOUS, OR
RACIAL NAMES OR SYMBOLS:
The Edina Park Board recognizes and celebrates the diversity of our community. In
doing so, the Edina Park Board encourages all youth athletic associations to respect our
community's ethnic, religious and racial diversity by honoring the following guideline:
"That no program, event or activity offered by an Edina youth athletic
association will use any ethnic, religious or racial names or symbols which may,
in the opinion of those groups, create or perpetuate stereotypes which distort or
degrade such groups. Programs whose express purpose is to explore and
celebrate the positive special contribution of such groups should be considered
acceptable and honorable."
EDINA PARK BOARD STATEMENT OF PHILOSOPHY AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DRUGS, ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO
It is the belief of the Edina Park Board that the role modeling of parents, guardians,
teachers and coaches has a significant influence on youth attitudes toward the use of
alcohol, tobacco and drugs. It is the Edina Park Board's philosophy to encourage
parents and coaches to do their best to always display positive and healthy role
modeling behaviors while interacting with youth.
Therefore, the Edina Park Board strongly encourages each Edina youth athletic
association to take the following actions:
1. Establish a drug, tobacco and alcohol policy that reflects a zero tolerance approach
to illicit drugs, tobacco and alcohol use by its youth participants.
6
• 2. Require that parents (and coaches) sign a statement that acknowledges that they
have read and understand the association's current drug, tobacco and alcohol policy.
3. Include in the association drug, tobacco and alcohol policy the following statement
that:
• Coaches and parents are strongly encouraged to not consume alcohol or tobacco
while interacting with youth while on traveling team trips (examples include while
traveling together on a bus, socializing in a hospitality room, etc.) .
• For those adults who insist on bringing alcohol and/or tobacco on team trips, it is
strongly encouraged to make every attempt to keep the alcohol and/or tobacco out of
reach and out of sight of the youth at all times.
Action number three (#3) is not to be considered as an enforceable policy, but rather, a
strongly encouraged positive role model behavior. The Edina Park Board strongly
encourages each youth athletic association to take this very seriously and do their part
to help develop positive and healthy attitudes in our youth with regards to drugs,
tobacco and alcohol.
Your youth athletic programs provide important assets in youth's lives, which result in
reductions in at -risk behaviors. The Edina Park Board applauds and appreciates your
efforts to build these positive assets that develop healthy kids and a healthy community.
7
Centennial Lakes Ice Skating Rink
Days Open
Concession Sales
Skate Rental*
Sled Rental*
Total Revenues
Estimated Attendance
1999-00 season 2000-01 season
58 73
$12,901 $12,749
$13,200 (8800 pairs) $21,995 (7332 pairs)
6,799 (2266 sleds) $9,186 (1838 sleds)
$32,900
32,000 skaters
$43,930
28,000 skaters
*Skate rental price went from $1.50 in 1999-2000 to $3.00 in 2000-01. Sled rental went from $3 to $5.
Hometowns of the Top Ten users of CL Ice Rink*
1.
Minneapolis
19%
2.
Bloomington
18%
3.
Edina
16%
4.
Eden Prairie
7%
5.
Richfield
6%
6.
St. Paul
3%
7.
Minnetonka
2%
8.
Burnsville
2%
9.
Eagan
2%
10.
SLP/Shakopee/Chanhassen
2%
*Based
on sampling of 1560 people.
27% of people surveyed drove more than 10 miles to get to Centennial Lakes.
Help us to best meet the needs of our customers!
Please take a minute to complete this short questionnaire.
"lease drop form in the box. Your response is greatly appreciated!
How often do you come to Edinborough Park?
First time here
Once a week
2 or more times per week
Which amenities draw you to Edinborough Park
Tot Lot Ice Rink
Great Hall Track
General Park Other
What do you like most about Edinborough Park?
Monthly
Several times per year
Other
]Swimming Pool
Theater Programs
What services or amenities would you like to see added at Edinborough Park?
El11bo.row i1 Pa�t
C I T Y O f f D I N A
Currently there are many areas of the Park that are available at no charge (i.e. Tot Lot, Great Hall.).
If a minimal user fee were implemented for these areas to help fund improvements, what do you feel would
'-e an acceptable fee?
F-1 so ❑$1 F1 $2 ❑$3
How did you hear about Edinborou h Park?
❑Family/Friend Live nearby
Radio City publications
Other
Newspaper listing
Other
How far did you travel toet to Edinborough Park?
❑ Less than 1 mile 1-5 miles ❑ 510 miles ❑ Over 10 miles
City where you live?
Would you like to be entered in a drawing for a free Edinborough Park Punch Pass? ❑ Yes ❑ No
This pass is good for 10 admissions to the Pool, Track and Skating Rink—a $35 value!
Name:
Street:
Phone Number:
Other Comments/Suggestions:
City:
Zip:
Edinborough Park Survey Results
How often do you come to Edinborough Park?
First Time Monthly Once a Week Several Times 2 or More Times
Per Year Per Week
40 98 138 95 123
Which amenities draw you to Edinborough Park?
Tot Lot Ice Rink Pool Great Hall=7
Track
293 131 139 208 70
General Park/ Other
Variety
243 3
..6.....q& +&k Dnrlr')
Other
17
Theater Programs
128
VV[a U%j yVu 111r%6.
Park Environment/
Clean
Free
Track
Rink
Staff
Atmosphere
9
12
229
44
37
11
10
15
VarietyFish
31 1 11
Ir . 1:1- 4-- -os -nrJrinrl a+ Frlinhnrnuah?
VVfIIatZ0t:IVIt.C..7 U1
Larger Tot Lot
Clientele
8
Great Hall
67
Programs/
Concerts
53
Tot Lot
51
Pool
40
Location
19
VarietyFish
31 1 11
Ir . 1:1- 4-- -os -nrJrinrl a+ Frlinhnrnuah?
VVfIIatZ0t:IVIt.C..7 U1
Larger Tot Lot
C1111CG111�-
Food
Exercise Equip.
A.C. in Track
Locker Room
Whirlpool or
4
Expansion
Sauna
90
35
14
2
10
15
Ramps
Wading Pool
Lockers for coats
4
11
4
If user fee was implemented to fund improvements, what would be acceptable fee?
$0 $1 $2 $3 Other $.50 - $5 Season Pass
136 190 95 26 13 10
Donation No R 41ponse
How did you hear about the Park?
Family/Friend Live Nearby Newspaper Radio City Publications Other
221 206 6 2 18 35
Special EventWork
7 1 11
How far did you travel to get to the Park?
Less that 1 mile
1 - 5 miles
5 - 10 miles
Over 10 miles
56
148
1 105
1 68
City where you live?
- Edina
Minneapolis
Richfield
Bloomington
Eden Prairie
St. Louis Park
1
148
1 85
1 35
1 71
1 26
13
Minnetonka
Burnsville
St. Paul
Chaska/Chanh.
Plymouth
1
Eagan
1
11
1 9
1 7
1 4
5
9
Mendota Heights
Savage
Lakeville
Outstate
1
Maple Grove
1
Brooklyn Park
1
3
1 9
1 5
10
3
2
Rosemount
Excelsior
Wayzata
West St. Paul
Inver Grove
1
Shakopee
1
2
1 2
1 2
1 2
2
2
Moundsview
Hastings
Apple Valley
Medina
Cottage Grove
Robbinsdale
1
1
1 2
1 3
1 2
1 1
3
White Bear Lake
South St. Paul
Golden Valley
1
1 1
1 1
Summa
Who Responded? The survey was available in the Park for 7 days.
Total Responses
514
Edina Residents
Non -Edina
No Response
148
337
29
29%
66%
6%
Would Edina residents pay to use the Park?
Yes
No
No Response
Donation
84
40
22
2
57%
27%
15%
Less than 1%
All Respondents - Would you pay to use the Park?
Yes
No
No Response
66%
26%
1 8%
Proposal for Edinborough Park
• Secure lower level at Edinborough Park by installing three doorways at the top of
the south and western sets of stairs. Also install doorways to Great Hall. Cost is
approximately $23,000.
• Install "Rainbow Play Equipment", or similar style of freestanding equipment, in
existing ice rink area. Cost is approximately $25,000 including protective
flooring.
• Install divider curtain in Great Hall to make this area more multi -use. Cost is
$6,000.
• Add General play items in Great Hall. Smaller portable basketball hoops, mats,
large balls, etc. Cost of $3,000.
• Charge admission to lower level of Edinborough Park; Great Hall, Tot Lot,
former ice rink area, and grotto. Admission charge of $1.50 per person for Edina
residents, $3 per person for non-residents. Maximum of $5/resident family and
$10/non-resident family. Annual family pass available to residents only for $25.
• Admission charge to the Park's current fee based areas — pool and track — would
remain at $4 for residents, but would change to $5 for non-residents.
• There would be no admission charge for the "commons" areas on the upper level
of Edinborough, nor a charge for concerts and cultural programs.
• Current development members, (homeowners, hotel guests, Corporate center,
etc.) would not get access to the lower level as part of their pass. They could add
the use of the lower level to their pass for a yearly fee of $15. The exception
would be Hotel guests, who would pay a daily fee of $1 per person. (We would
need to look at the contracts that we have with the different partners to see exactly
what we can and cannot do with fees.)
Benefits of this proposal:
1. Increased revenue for the Park.
2. Source of funding for Park improvements.
3. Take better advantage of the Park's strongpoint of being an indoor park.
4. Securing the lower level would give us much greater control over the
types of activities that occur in the park. I.e. photo shoots, birthday
parties.
5. An admission charge would allow us to control the number of people that
are using the Tot Lot and Great Hall, both of which are often overrun by
large groups, especially daycares.
6. The burden of helping pay for the facility would be shifted more toward
the user, which 74% of the time is a non-resident.
Concerns:
1. Concept of free, public park would be compromised.
2. Political implications of charging admissions and eliminating the ice rink.
3. Contractual concerns.
Pamela Park Area Residents -,* '
�1 y' CfI1_l
Edina, MN J
April 2, 2001
RE: Resident Update Letter No. 1
Pamela Park Water Quality Improvement Project
City of Edina Contract No. 00-2 (ENG)
Dear Resident:
We would like to update you on the status of the above -referenced project. The City of Edina, the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), and RKI, Inc. would like to thank everyone for their
continuing patience with this project. Please refer to map on reverse side for improvement locations.
The three northerly ponds are now excavated and the pedestrian bridge and pond outlet structure are now
in place. The Contractor will be back later this spring to touch up the sides of the ponds and construct the
nature path. The landscaping around the ponds and along the nature path will commence in May. The
pedestrian bridge will remain closed until the nature path opens sometime in June. The area where a
culvert was installed on West 58th Street remains rough; however the street remains open to traffic. This
area will be repaved when the pavement plants open in late April.
The two sediment basins located at the southeast and southwest corners of Pamela Lake are also
complete and functional. The dredging of Pamela Lake is temporarily on hold due to the extent of peat
material present in the bottom of the lake. This softer than normal peat material extends to depths of more
than 30 feet in some places, therefore making it very unstable for the Contractor to traverse their
equipment onto the lake to dredge. The City of Edina along with the MCWD are committed to this project
and are currently looking into alternative methods to dredge Pamela Lake next winter. We will do
everything we can to minimize disruption to Pamela Park and the surrounding area.
If you have any questions regarding this project please contact me at 952-826-0443. If you do not reach
me directly please leave a voice mail message and I will return your call; or you can e-mail me at
whoule(a ci.edina.mn.us; or visit MCWD's web site: http://www.minnehahacreek.org/f-Projects.htm
Again, thank you for your patience and understanding as we all work towards providing improved water
quality within Pamela Lake and the Minnehaha Creek area.
Sincerely,
Wayne Houle, PE
Assistant Public Work Director
City of Edina
c: City of Edina Mayor & Council
MCWD Board of Directors
City of Edina Park & Recreation Board
City Hall (612) 927-8861
4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 826-0390
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424-1394 TDD (612) 826-0379
POND 1
West 58th
St.
Minnehaha
1_
Creek
POND 2
;
rJ-
POND 3
Pedestrian
\
Bridge
`.�
at Outlet
Prairie
Plantings
I
♦
r00*
Proposed
Nature
Trail
SEDIMENT
BASINS
West 62nd St.
Key Messages—Short form draft April 4
• City and School District are working together to improve the quality of life
for everyone in our community
This provides facilities and space to meet the many and varied needs and
interests of people of all ages in Edina.
The real investment is in the people and their quality of life and that takes:
—Physical health—a decent park and recreation system open to all
—Intellectual life —theater/auditorium, little theater, Edina Arts Center,
learning opportunities for children and adults through k-12 and Community
Education to be a community of learners
—Spiritual rejuvenation— trails and open landscape for solitude, relaxation and
contemplation
• This is a sound investment of tax dollars
Investing financially now will provide the resources needed to repair and
maintain current recreational facilities and parks, develop new facilities for
which need has been established, and create income-producing facilities which
will provide support for future operational and maintenance costs.
Maintaining and improving public property ensures the future of a community
where people will want to live and work. This investment will result in
value back:
In people moving in, businesses and customers for businesses
Good property values for homeowners and business owners
• This meets real needs defined by the people who live and work in Edina
This proposal is a response from elected officials and staff who listen, respond,
and work everyday on behalf of residents and business owners to meet their
needs.
• This decision was not made lightly
This proposal has been brought forward based on input received from all
segments of the community through an open process of receiving ideas,
determining need, analyzing costs and measuring opinion. This is what took
place over the past year:
— City Council and School Board meetings
—A professional, independent opinion survey (stratified, random sample)
—Input from architects sought by elected officials to supplement staff research
—Recommendations from the Blue Ribbon Committee composed of community
leaders who heard presentations from some 30 separate representative groups
—A well-publicized public hearing
• Honoring the past, designing for the future
This is, finally, an investment in people and the future of this community.
It follows on the tradition of creating a good community in which to live and
grow. Half a century ago residents had the foresight to invest resources in the
creation of spaces for everyone to use.
I
Key thoughts and words
City/school partnership
City Referendum with construction on city and school property
Avoids duplication of facilities
Aging infrastructure
New and renewed facilities
Cooperative project
Innovative and prudent
Vision and foresight
Honoring the past by investing in the future
Sound financial planning
Guaranteed community access through the facilities use agreement
The improvements will benefit everyone in the community
4-10k-� ),C-ttjJ-�
4t�� . "-6,
l o && rn�sSe, �-
-�irvl.�ss m n:5LLn p u b . e -m,
7, -1-151 -1-151-2, -- X409