HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-09 Park Board PacketCity of Edina
EDINA PARK BOARD
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2001
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
EDINA CITY HALL
AGENDA
* 1. Approval of August 14, 2001, Park Board Minutes
2. Recreational Facilities Referendum Analysis — Jim Van Valkenburg.
3. Adaptive Recreation Program Presentation — Susie Miller, Adaptive Recreation
Supervisor.
*4. 2002 Capital Improvement Plan.
5. Other.
*6. 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, Direct
Edina Park and Recreati Department
Date: September 26, 2001
Re: OCTOBER 9, 2001, PARK BOARD MEETING STAFF REPORT.
Enclosed you should find the following items:
1. Tuesday, October 9, 2001, Park Board Agenda.
2. Letter from Jim Van Valkenburg and Fred Richards.
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.
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES REFERENDUM ANALYSIS
Former Mayors Jim Van Valkenburg and Fred Richards voluntarily interviewed five
individuals who actively opposed the Recreational Facilities Referendum. Following the
interviews, Jim and Fred wrote a letter of recommendations for your consideration as we
continue our challenge to meet the community's recreational facility needs.
Mr. Van Valkenburg will be present to give his comments and answer any questions.
These two gentlemen were gracious enough to take on this task unsolicited for the purpose of
helping the Park Board find ways to meet the demand for improved and additional recreation
facilities. Please know that I concur with their recommendations, however, I also
recommend that the Park Board consider hosting a well-publicized public hearing so that
every resident perceives to have had the opportunity to provide input into the process. On the
other hand, a professionally crafted scientific survey may negate the need for a public
hearing.
No formal action is requested on this agenda item.
2
ADAPTIVE RECREATION PROGRAM PRESENTATION
Susie Miller, Adaptive Recreation Supervisor, will be in attendance to give the
Park Board a brief overview of our adaptive recreation program offerings. As
most of you know, we are a member of a four -city consortium called the
Adaptive Recreation/Learning Exchange (ARLE) with the cities of Edina,
Bloomington, Eden Prairie, and Richfield. We have cooperative programming,
share facilities, and treat our special populations as though they all live in the
same community (no non-resident program fees for any ARLE program for those
who live in one of the four cities). Susie Miller also works with the summer
playground program, safety camp, 4t' of July parade, Familink, and other special
events.
2002 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
At their September 4 1h meeting, the City Council approved the 2001 Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) for all departments, including our general parks and all enterprise facilities. We
are now on schedule to have the 2002 Capital Improvement Plan approved by the City
Council at their December 4, 2001, meeting. The Park Board has already made a
recommendation to the City Council on the general parks and Edina Aquatic Center 2002
'Capital Improvement Plan, however, the 2002 CIP for the Golf Course, Edinborough,
Centennial Lakes, Arena and Art Center still need Park Board approval.
The five-year capital improvement plan for the enterprise facilities reflects the facility
manager's proposed facility improvements for the next five years.
Park Board action is requested on this agenda item.
OTHER
This is an opportunity for Park Board members and residents to address other concerns.
OA
I.
II.
EDINA PARK BOARD
7:00 P.M.
CENTRUM BUILDING
CENTENNIAL LAKES PARK
AUGUST 14, 2001
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom White, Floyd Grabiel, Karla Sitek, Andy Finsness
Make Damman, Ardis Wexler, Linda Presthus, George
Klus
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dave Fredlund, John Murrin
STAFF PRESENT: John Keprios, Ed MacHolda, Janet Canton, Tom Shirley
OTHERS PRESENT: Bill Morris, Diane Traxler
APPROVAL OF THE TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2001 PARK BOARD MINUTES
George Klus MOVED TO APPROVE THE TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2001 PARK BOARD
MINUTES. Floyd Grabiel SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ardis Wexler made grammatical changes on pages 5, 6, 7 and 8.
MINUTES APPROVED.
EDINBOROUGH PARK/CENTENNIAL LAKES PARK PRESENTATION —
TOM SHIRLEY
Tom Shirley, Manager of Centennial Lakes/Edinborough Park, handed out the business
plan for Centennial Lakes/Edinborough park that he put together along with Eric
Anderson, Assistant City Manager. He pointed out that the plan explains what they are
currently trying to do as well as points out some of the different issues they will be facing
in the near future.
Mr. Shirley indicated that this year both Edinborough Park and Centennial Lakes Park
have been very successful. The Edinborough Great Hall has been packed with people in
the wintertime and Centennial Lakes Park has been full of people in the summer as well
as with ice skaters in the winter. Mr. Shirley explained that at Centennial Lakes
approximately one out of five people using the park at any given time are from Edina.
He added that people are coming from 15 to 20 miles away to use the park. He stated
that at Edinborough Park one out of four people using the park is from Edina.
Mr. Shirley pointed out that they break down their different amenities into revenue
generating and non -revenue generating. He stated that last year at the 18 hole
environmental putting course they did approximately 27,000 rounds. He noted that this
year they are down just a little bit because of the weather. Mr. Shirley commented that at
Edinborough Park they have the skating rink, indoor pool, running track and banquet hall.
He stated that the Great Hall is their largest money maker which last year generated
approximately $150,000. Last year all but two Saturdays were rented for the Great Hall
on the weekends.
Mr. Shirley explained that at Centennial Lakes their room rentals have also become very
popular. He noted that between May and November there were only two Saturdays
available. He indicated that they also do a lot of business rentals Monday through
Thursday. Next month there is only one day that hasn't been rented.
Mr. Shirley stated that at Centennial Lakes this year they are going to end up with
approximately 5,000 paddle boat rentals by the end of the season. He indicated that they
also have a concession stand in the summer by the paddle boats and the Centrum
Building concessions stand gets busy in the winter during the outdoor ice skating season.
Mr. Shirley commented that croquet has picked up a little bit this year but it is still not up
to where they would like it to be and they are monitoring the area to see what happens.
Mr. Shirley indicated that the main non -revenue generating amenity they have at
Edinborough Park is the large play area in the Great Hall. He noted that when the
weather is not cooperating they are extremely busy. He stated that the indoor play
structure is very busy year around, however, it is 14 years old and we can no longer find
replacement parts for worn or broken equipment. He added that it is the most heavily
used play structure in the city. He noted that so far they have lost one slide and are
getting ready to lose a couple of other things. Unfortunately, the space limitations are
going to really cause some problems because there isn't a lot of room.
Mr. Shirley noted that the pathway system at Centennial Lakes is 1 % miles around and
heavily used by walkers and joggers and added that it's picking up all the time. He stated
that currently they have 28 swinging benches around the park
Mr. Shirley commented that fishing at Centennial Lakes has been fun to see developing.
There are a lot of fish in the lake and currently they are offering a couple of programs
with the DNR where the kids can sign up for fishing programs. He noted the DNR is
going to be coming in to sample the lake to see what kind of fish they have and will start
monitoring the oxygen levels of the water because they are hoping to put in some large
mouth bass next year. He pointed out this is all being done for free because the DNR is
trying to promote fishing for children in Minnesota.
Mr. Shirley pointed out that the Edina Model Yacht Club is based out of Centennial
Lakes Park and they currently have 140 members. They typically sail three to four nights
2
a week with some special programs during the summer. He noted they are a very active
group and a lot of people go there just to watch them.
Mr. Shirley stated that the outdoor skating rink is also very popular, however, last year
they dropped in numbers because of the cold weather.
Mr. Shirley pointed out that last year they had a record year for their association fees,
building rentals, green fees, equipment rental and concessions. He noted that even with a
record year they came up with a bottom line of approximately $143,000 in the red. He
explained that everyone now realizes that this is probably as good as it's going to get.
Therefore, they are now trying to figure out what can be done to take care of that deficit
in-house. They are looking at possibly now charging a fee for some of the areas that
currently have no fee such as the Great Hall play area to capture some revenue. The vast
majority of people that are there are in there for free. These are some of the things they
are going to be looking at. Mr. Keprios indicated that the good news on the financial
statement is that, since Mr. Shirley took over as manager, he has been able to reduce the
deficit each year. Mr. Shirley keeps finding new ways to generate income and reduce
expenses.
Mr. Klus asked about the association fees to which Mr. Shirley explained that all of the
different residents and businesses pay a monthly fee to us. Ms. Presthus asked if the fee
changes to which Mr. Shirley replied that the residents pay a flat fee of $15.00 that will
always stay at $15.00, however, everyone else does have a cost of living increase built
into their association fee. Mr. Damman asked if the association fees are continuous or
limited to which Mr. Shirley replied that the association fee goes on forever.
Mr. Finsness asked if the surveys that were done which indicated that one out of five
people in the park is an Edina resident combined both summer and winter to which Mr.
Shirley replied yes.
Ms. Presthus asked about catering. Mr. Shirley explained that they allow any licensed
caterer to come into the building, however, they charge 6% of the food costs just to be
there. Mr. Shirley also noted that they have a beverage service that they contract with
and they receive $1.00 for every person that comes in the door for weddings, etc., which
is also a revenue source for them.
Ms. Presthus noted that last year Centennial Lakes hosted an after Sweetheart Dance
program that was a terrific program. However very few people came and the reason she
thinks is because it wasn't very well publicized. She asked if there was another way it
could be promoted a little more for the coming year. Mr. Shirley indicated that he will
work again this year with Donna Tilsner, Recreation Supervisor, and they will do a better
job at getting the word out this coming year.
Everyone thanked Mr. Shirley for the great job he and his staff have done for Edina.
3
III. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES REFERNDUM ANALYSIS — DECISION
RESOURCES
Mr. Keprios introduced Bill Morris and Diane Traxler from Decision Resources to the
Park Board. He indicated that Decision Resources were incredibly helpful throughout the
whole referendum process. He stated that upon request he asked Mr. Morris and Ms.
Traxler to attend the Park Board meeting to give a quick snapshot of what happened.
Bill Morris explained that ten days prior to the referendum they did what they call a fast
track survey. This survey was able to determine which groups were in favor and which
groups were opposed as well as what the general direction was. Unfortunately, at that
point in time there was great momentum on the opposing side. Mr. Morris stated that
there were a number of things that came into play in this referendum that they haven't
seen in other referendums they have worked on.
Mr. Morris commented that the first thing is there was a very well organized opposition.
The opposition was in fact so good that ten days prior to the referendum they actually
contacted more people than the supporter groups had. Mr. Morris indicated that the city
did a great job in terms of what it set out to do which was to provide information. By the
time the referendum occurred 84% of the people surveyed indicated that they had
received the city information and felt they were knowledgeable enough to make a
decision.
Mr. Morris pointed out that three groups were really the key in this referendum. One
group was the opposition who mobilized very, very effectively and those were the people
living outside of the Edina Public School District but within the City of Edina. The
reason why so many of those people were against it was because they did not see
anything in it for them. Therefore, the people whose children were not in the Edina
School District as well empty nesters living in those school districts overwhelmingly
indicated that they would vote no on the referendum.
Mr. Morris stated that a surprise occurred with respect to households containing school
age children who actually attended the Edina public schools. He explained that usually
the referendums in the past the school district routinely has been able to hold 85% to 95%
of those households in the various bond referendums. This time, however, we lost 40%
of those households. The key reason dealt with the operating costs issues. Voters were
fearful that the school district would have too great a risk in assuming potential operating
losses associated with the new facilities, which would result in the loss of certain school
programs. The opposition did a very good job of talking about certain programs that
might be at risk. He indicated that no one was actually sure if the school district would
be required to cover X amount or Y amount. In the telephone survey that was done
residents were aware that there may be reason for concern and rather than take a chance
the easiest thing to do was to vote no.
The third factor that came into play was there were a lot of older empty nesters that were
• well organized. The key there was they thought that much of this was going more
4
towards the schools which in short took out things that they would have liked to have
seen. As a result, they voted no because they felt it was too heavy on the athletic
programs.
Mr. Morris pointed out that these three groups then provided the amount of the margin
that was necessary for the vote no to carry the election. He stated that there was enough
uncertainty that the majority did vote no.
Ms. Traxler indicated that Mr. Keprios did a great job of going out to the various
meetings and community groups and keeping the people informed. Ms. Traxler stated
that she felt that unfortunately there was a certain lack of enthusiasm among the some of
the people who volunteered to work with the vote yes group.
Mr. White asked Decision Resources if in their survey they asked the people what school
their kids attended. He noted that it was his impression that a lot of parents with kids
who attended the French Immersion School were very much against it. Ms. Traxler
replied that they were aware that a lot of the French Immersion parents were unhappy.
She noted that they divided the survey by school district but not by individual schools
because the sample wasn't large enough to do that. Mr. White stated that it was his sense
that a lot of Edina teachers weren't in favor of the referendum and that a lot of people
listened to the teachers. Mr. White asked if people in the survey were asked if anyone
was providing an influence on them as to how to vote and what was influencing them.
Mr. Morris replied that they did ask whether or not they had been contacted and if so by
whom. He stated that the no group did a much better job of contacting even non -Edina
public school portions of the district. He added that the opposition basically knew where
the key votes would be in terms of the people who said there is nothing in it for us.
Mr. White asked if there was any sort of polling done after the election. He also noted
that he has heard that the school district is considering another referendum even as early
as this fall. Ms. Traxler stated that they are not aware of any upcoming Edina School
District referendum and Decision Resources has not been contacted to do any follow up
polling at this time.
Mr. Grabiel asked Decision Resources if they learned anything that might suggest that a
referendum done by just the City would have done better if it were not combined with the
school district. Mr. Morris pointed out that certainly the key on this was the confusion
over operating costs. Had the operating costs question not come up in terms of having an
impact on the school budget it would have taken away one of the key arguments that was
used by the no group. He noted that you are always going to have people who are going
to vote no because of the tax increase. However, it is our belief that the operating cost
issue is what cost the referendum.
Ms. Presthus asked Ms. Traxler on what basis she made the statement that she didn't feel
the associations had enthusiastically participated. Ms. Traxler replied that of all of the
associations that were asked to do phoning only various ones showed up. She indicated
5
that in order for the referendum to pass they needed to have support from the people who
are on the sports organizations and that support did not show up at the campaign.
Mr. Keprios indicated that the referendum lost by a 7% margin and asked Decision
Resources what is typically advised given this percentage of a loss as to when to come
back with another referendum. Mr. Morris responded that with a 3% to 4% margin of
loss they typically recommend coming back very rapidly. Given that it is a 7% difference
it is going to require a different proposal, although not in its entirety. It would need to
change enough so that people understand that you are not going back to the same thing.
Mr. Keprios commented that what he found interesting was that in the 1996 referendum
there were less than 4,700 voters total who showed up at the polls and there was not one
negative letter sent to the editor and yet 23% of the voters voted no. In this referendum
there were 13,000 voters who showed up for the special election and over 5,700 voted
yes. The interest was extremely high, however, the organized opposition was successful
in recruiting enough no votes to win the day.
Mr. White asked Decision Resources if they think it makes more sense to have the
referendum as part of the general election or does it make more sense to have a special
election. Mr. Morris replied that he did discuss that issue in passing with a couple of
people from the city. He indicated that one thing you want to avoid is being put on the
ballot the same time a school district also has a referendum on the ballot because
invariably what happens throughout the metro area is that the voters will typically
approve one or neither and rarely both. The one thing with a general election is that the
turnout is usually very high. Mr. White commented that it seems to him that with a
special election the people who are motivated to vote are going to get there and especially
if they are going to vote no they are going to make every effort to be there. But the
people who maybe aren't motivated either way might likely vote yes. Mr. White pointed
out that he didn't find the yes voters to be as for the referendum as he found the no voters
to be against it. He commented that it just seems to him that if you had it in a general
election you get a better turnout and have a better chance of success. Ms. Traxler pointed
out that during a general election it is severely important how the ballot is worded
because if a person walks into a balloting booth totally unaware there is a referendum on
the ballot, that wording is going to sway the voter one way or another. Mr. Morris noted
that the focus of the campaign changes if you have a special election because the focus
then becomes turnout which means your focus is to make sure that your supportive
people get out and vote. In a general election, the focus becomes a city-wide information
campaign to make sure that nobody goes to the polls uninformed because an uninformed
voter will vote no.
Ms. Presthus pointed out that there is legislation out that is trying to stop all special
referendums and they can only be put on general elections. This is something to keep in
mind because there might not be the option to hold a special election next session.
Mr. Keprios indicated that the Park Board is going to talk about how they can identify
Is
and meet our recreational facility needs. He noted that some of the suggestions they have
rel
come up with is possibly meeting with the School Board, meeting with individuals who
have actively opposed the referendum and those who have supported the referendum.
The Park Board has also asked about doing a follow-up community survey and
establishing a sub -committee or task force. Lastly, they will give a report with their
findings and recommendations to the City Council. Mr. Keprios asked Decision
Resources if they could offer any advice on that approach.
Ms. Traxler stated that she would not recommend another joint effort with the school
district because it simply did not work in this case. Also, if park and recreation needs
money in the near future it certainly would be better to go for a lesser amount.
Ms. Wexler asked Decision Resources what the chances are of the school district going
for another referendum with a lesser number. Ms. Traxler commented that she does not
know what the school district's plans are at this point in time. Mr. Morris indicated in
order for the school district to be successful they are going to have to find on-going
funding sources for additional operating expenses, since that became the key issue in the
referendum. The school district will have to find a way to fund additional operating
expenses incurred from any new school district athletic facilities without taking money
away from their current programs.
Mr. Grabiel indicated that following the election there were letters in the paper apparently
from people who had voted no who indicated that the city should come back with another
referendum. He asked Decision Resources if they had any ideas or could suggest
anything as to what the people of Edina are looking for in terms of parks. Are they
looking for more soccer fields, a senior center, and community theatre. Mr. Morris stated
that the survey was not a needs assessment survey. Mr. Morris replied that the survey
asked how they felt about their parks in general and then asked for their input on specific
proposed projects. Two items that really stuck out that people questioned were the
bubble at Kuhlman Stadium and the concessions stand at Braemar Park.
Ms. Traxler stated that in answer to Mr. Keprios' question that certainly the Park Board
will want to gather all of the information they can. When talking to the opponents find
out what motivated them.
Mr. White indicated that it seems like the school district is going to try for a referendum
this fall and asked Decision Resources what their recommendation would be as far as a
time frame on when to have another referendum. Ms. Traxler replied that she wouldn't
do one right away. However, after a well -crafted new package has been put together she
would not recommend having it any earlier than next spring.
IV. PROCESS TO MEET IDENTIFIED RECREATIONAL FACILITY NEEDS
Mr. White indicated that one of the first things we need to do as a group is figure out
what we are going to do next. First, do we want to approach this as one large group or do
we want to form sub -committees and then figure out a plan of action? If we say we want
to have sub -committees, then maybe each can be assigned to a different thing. If we only
7
have one sub -committee then that might affect people's willingness to be on the sub-
committee knowing that they are going to have to do 8 different things.
Ms. Wexler commented that she agrees with Decision Resources in terms of time in that
it would be just awful to try to put something together for this fall. She noted that her
initial reaction is to go for it again and do it next spring and the major ground work would
be laid now in terms of what it is we want to do and which groups we want to approach
and so on. She stated that a lot will depend on what the school district does this fall and
what happens to them.
Mr. Klus indicated that the Mayor is challenging the Park Board and therefore he hopes
that we can all find a piece to do and prioritize everything and bring back to the group to
discuss. He noted that he thinks that even in light of the new capital improvement plan
funding there are a lot of future items that need to get done. He pointed out that there are
a lot of things the Park Board can do as a whole group and he hopes everybody takes a
part in it.
Ms. Sitek indicated that she thinks first we need to figure what we are going to do before
we decide how we are going to do it.
Mr. White asked Mr. Keprios if he thinks there is stomach for another referendum. Mr.
Keprios responded that he was just informed that the school district is in fact going to
have a referendum on the general election ballot this fall. The referendum will not
include funding to renovate or develop any new recreational facilities. Mr. Keprios
indicated that he also knows they are not going to have any facility increases for facility
uses for the next year. Mr. Keprios commented that, if we are serious about offering
another referendum in the near future, there are a couple of things he thinks need to be
done. We need to better understand what motivated people to vote no and we need to
take time to establish a well thought out Plan B. He indicated that he thinks we need to
go right back to the very beginning and start with a needs analysis. How important are
each and every one of these improvements that can't be funded through a capital plan.
Then we need to hire someone like Decision Resources to test the water and see if we are
on the right track.
Mr. Klus asked if we develop that list or do we let them develop the list. Mr. Keprios
replied that it is our charge to develop what we perceive to be the need because we have
already identified and validated certain needs. He indicated that the big item is the gyms.
We need to ask how do we maintain it, how do we operate it and where does the money
come from.
Mr. White indicated that his only problem is if we meet once a month by the time we get
something of this magnitude done it will be 1 %2 years. Mr. Damman suggested that the
Park Board could meet more often. Mr. White indicated that he thinks we have to know
where we are going in a year and that he thinks having a referendum next spring is maybe
too soon. Mr. Klus noted that at the same time he would hate to see it 1 '/i year away
because he thinks we are going to have to work hard on it to get it done and he would
M.
hate to see it take too long and lose momentum. Mr. White commented that he thinks
meeting once a month spreads it out too long.
Ms. Wexler indicated that she would like to see a referendum next spring and would not
like to see it put off and assuming it would take place in May we have eight months to
put it together. She suggested that by next month's meeting everyone bring back a short
list of five different groups and/or activities of things that should be addressed in terms of
building support for this referendum. At that time maybe we will have a clearer idea of
whether it can be done in the next 8 months. Mr. White stated that we would really only
have four months to work on this because the City Council would need to see it by
January and meeting only once a month he doesn't think it would be possible. Ms.
Wexler again stated that she thinks there is enough time before May where we can get a
lot of things done.
Mr. Finsness asked Mr. Keprios if we still need a referendum with the money we will be
getting. Mr. Keprios replied that the question becomes if you are going to do a
referendum what is going to be included, what are we going to ask for the voters to
approve. Mr. Keprios pointed out that of the 35 million dollars only 8 million dollars of
that money was to renovate existing facilities on city property and only 1.3 million
dollars were earmarked for new additional recreational facilities on city -owned parkland.
Therefore, only 9.3 million was for city park improvements and the rest was for the
school district. It would be his opinion that the voters told us that at the very least 16
million to renovate school projects is something that's not our responsibility. We need to
• decide how much we want to include. In other words, is there a need for the city to build
a new black box theatre or performing arts center, do we want to own and operate new
gyms, and if so, where would they go. These are some tough questions that still haven't
been answered. We should not hurry up and rush into another referendum because the
same people who voted no last time are likely going to vote no again next time unless we
present them with a different package that appeals to them.
Mr. Keprios indicated that finding sufficient funding for operating expenses is a
complicated issue. A quick fix like just raising revenues through fees and charges may
not be a simple solution. He recently heard feedback from the youth basketball
community that if they are going to be charged a fee that is too high, then they are going
to go to another community to play basketball. Their lack of willingness to pay a higher
user fee suggests that maybe they don't need new additional gym time quite that bad.
Therefore, maybe their programs ought to be using more Friday nights and weekends or
maybe they don't need as many gyms as they had originally proposed. Mr. Keprios
stated that he would agree that the city could have a referendum in the spring and he
thinks it could pass but he doesn't think that accomplishes what is cast in front of them.
Ms. Wexler commented that she could live with doing it next November but she would
not want it to go any further than that.
Mr. Keprios pointed out that another thing that people really need to understand is that
the most significant additional operating expense wasn't the new gymnasiums. It was the
new pool proposed for Valley View Middle School. Mr. Keprios explained that, for
01
those voters who live within the City of Edina boundaries but not within the Edina
School District boundaries, we should not be asking them to vote for any improvements
on Edina School District property. He noted that if we propose to make any
improvements on School District property, those same people will vote no again.
Mr. White again commented that the one thing that we need to do is identify what needs
to be done and this is the group to do that. He asked if this group needs to go out and
meet with everybody on the list or should we speed up the process by sending small
subgroups of people to meet the people on the list. He noted that while we decide what
needs to be done we can all come back with the information from those people and say
these are what the vote no people said here's what the vote yes people said. He added
that this will impact what we ultimately think needs to be done.
Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that former Mayors Jim Van Valkenburg and Fred
Richards have offered to meet with some of the identified vote no folks and give you a
report and noted that he feels the Park Board should encourage them to do that. Mr.
White commented that they are a great resource but feels it is something that the Park
Board needs to decide and feels if they do this that there would need to be some Park
Board members along with them.
Mr. Grabiel indicated we already know what the vote no people didn't like about the
referendum and therefore he doesn't see why we should meet with them. It seems the
better way to approach this is to figure out what we want to do for park and recreation
and then enlist those people and talk about what we think we need to do. We need to
start pre -selling these things to the groups who were opposed to the whole package to
begin with. We need to identify what we want to do as a Park Board.
Mr. Klus stated that he doesn't think Fred Richards and Jim Van Valkenburg are going to
talk to them to find out why they voted no, he thinks they are going to help us to solicit
their support and what we are going to be doing as a City in the future. Mr. Grabiel noted
that we need to guide this to let people know what it is we think we need to start with and
see how it goes. We should not include in the proposal those things that we already know
no one is going to vote for.
Mr. White commented that another reason why he thinks certain people were opposed to
the referendum was because they didn't feel like they were part of the process.
Therefore, if they feel they have some ownership over this from the beginning and adopt
some of their ideas he feels they will be less likely to oppose a referendum.
Ms. Presthus indicated that we have identified the needs, we've done a tremendous
amount of work on the needs, and we know what they are. We also know what we can
afford to pay for ourselves with the money they've given us so we can now take some of
those things out. She noted that we can right away take out the ADA compliance items
as well as some other items. However, it will become an issue for the Park Board
because people will say you were trying to make us pay for every bit of this and now you
are saying that the city has found some money. It will become an issue. Mr. Keprios
10
replied that the city now has to borrow a lot of money to remodel city hall and make the
move from the Police Department to the library. The city was hoping to pay for more of
that with cash, but because the referendum failed, we now have to go to a borrowing
scenario where we are mortgaging our future so that we can have a capital plan today.
Ms. Presthus suggested that a survey be done, using someone else, to ask the voters if it
was structured right and what they think we need first of all. We could give them a list of
items that they could rank. Mr. Klus asked haven't we already done enough surveys,
you just said we already know what our needs are. Ms. Presthus replied that we don't
know what the voters think our needs are. She indicated that she is not suggesting asking
them what else they would like. She suggested that the survey should ask that, if a new
referendum were formed, which of the following items would you like to see included to
improve our city. Mr. White stated that, if we can do a survey, we should because the
more information we have the better.
Mr. Klus indicated he thought the Blue Ribbon Committee did this for us the last time.
Ms. Presthus explained that they identified what the associations thought they needed and
not what the voters thought. She indicated that she did not think the voters were
represented.
Mr. White asked for a consensus on what the Park Board would like to do right now. Mr.
Klus stated that he thinks they should have Fred Richards and Jim Van Valkenburg plan
on meeting with the vote no people in a positive way. Ms. Presthus indicated that she
agrees it would be a good public relations move because more than anything it will keep
the vote no people on board but noted that she feels a Park Board member does need to
be there with them. Mr. White and Mr. Klus both noted they would like to attend that as
well.
Mr. White asked if it makes any sense to meet with the school district. Ms. Presthus
commented that a benefit in meeting with the school district would be to find out what
their plans are. Mr. Keprios replied that he can get that information for the Park Board.
Mr. White commented that he would like to have a joint meeting with the School Board
because they are a player in this and it may be very productive. Ms. Presthus noted that
there is a School Board election this fall. Mr. White proposed that they wait on that issue
and discuss it after the School Board election.
Mr. White asked about meeting with the people who actively supported the referendum
and noted that he doesn't think that needs to be done between now and the next Park
Board meeting to which everyone agreed.
Mr. White indicated that he does agree with Ms. Presthus and would like to do a
community survey. He asked if the Park Board wants to look at the questions before it
goes out and asked if one could be done within the next six weeks. He asked Mr. Keprios
if a list of questions could be provided at the next Park Board meeting. Mr. Keprios
stated that he thinks a sub -committee needs to suggest a survey and determine the timing
11
of it. Mr. White stated that a sub -committee needs to be created to put together a survey
to bring before the Park Board at the October meeting.
George Klus MOVED TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING SUB -COMMITTEE TO
WORK ON THE COMMUNITY SURVEY: LINDA PRESTHUS, ARDIS WEXLER,
FLOYD GRABIEL AND TOM WHITE. Andy Finsness SECONDED THE MOTION.
V. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Ms. Presthus asked if all of the ADA compliances are going to be done this year. Mr.
Keprios replied that the dollars will be allocated for them but because we are getting so
late in the season they will probably not all get done. Mr. Keprios commented that there
is $648,000 to spend in 2001 and there obviously is going to be a lot of carry over
projects into next year.
Ms. Klus asked if the playground equipment at Edinborough Park is in this year's plan
because it sounds like there is a real need for it. Mr. Keprios explained that the capital
plan for the general parks does not include any enterprise facilities, which are covered
under their own capital plan with a separate funding source. He noted that a new
playground at Edinborough is set for 2003 for $86,000. Mr. Keprios pointed out that the
current plan is to convert the ice rink into a unique tot lot. He indicated that the plan will
be brought before the Park Board and noted that it will change the character of the park.
Ms. Presthus asked if Heights Park was always in the playground equipment renewal for
this year. Mr. Keprios replied that Heights Park originally was not scheduled for this
year but because the slide was broken and could not be replaced because replacement
parts for that structure are no longer available. Therefore, it has been rescheduled and
will be replaced this year.
Mr. White asked the Park Board if they have any additions or deletions for the 2001
capital improvement plan.
Linda Presthus MOVED TO APPROVE THE 2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
Mike Damman SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. White asked Mr. Keprios if he would like a motion for 2002 as well in order to get
things started to which Mr. Keprios replied that would be great.
Floyd Grabiel MOVED TO APPROVE THE 2002 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
Ms. Presthus indicated that she would rather see the soccer fields at Lewis Park be done
before the playground equipment at Normandale Park. Mr. Keprios replied that's a great
question and that's part of the debate.
Ms. Wexler asked can we approve the proposed 2002 plan in principle this meeting and
make some variations at the next meeting. Mr. Keprios replied yes.
12
•
Mr. White indicated that he thought the senior center furnishings were $100,000. Mr.
Keprios indicated that originally the senior furnishings were $400,000 in the referendum,
however, the bids came in low enough on the construction of the senior center that we
were able to accomplish a lot of the permanent fixture furnishings through TIF money.
Therefore, the CIP will fund $150,000 next year and the seniors are going to contribute
over $70,000 of their own money for furnishings.
Mr. Finsness asked doesn't it make sense to have all of the athletic fields done at once to
which Mr. White replied he would also like to see Lewis Park get started and put off
some of the other items. Mr. Keprios pointed out that these are politically sensitive
issues and he feels that the Normandale neighborhood will disagree with that approach.
Mr. White asked if it would be possible to put off working at the Rosland Park parking
lot for a year and work on the central field at Lewis Park for 2002. Mr. Keprios replied
that the central field at Lewis Park is obviously not in real good condition, however, the
parking lot at Rosland Park is in very rough condition. Also, they cannot take out too
many athletic fields at one time. He noted that he will ask engineering about this and
have an answer by the next Park Board meeting.
Mr. White asked to make a friendly amendment to the motion that we consider moving
the Rosland Park parking lot and Normandale Park playground to the 2003 plan and
move the central athletic field at Lewis Park to the 2002 plan.
Andy Finsness SECONDED THE AMENDMENT.
Mr. Grabiel commented that the friendly amendment is something we can consider and if
it doesn't work because we have too many athletic fields out then the staff will do what it
needs to do.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT
Mr. Keprios indicated that the enterprise facilities can wait until the next Park Board
meeting with the exception of the Aquatic Center for 2001, which is every critical.
Floyd Grabiel MOVED TO APPROVE THE AQUATIC CENTER CAPITAL PLAN
FOR 2001. George Klus SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Keprios explained to the Park Board that the water slide has been condemned for the
rest of the year. Mr. White asked if it is still in the plan to put in a little zero depth L
shaped area and asked how much that would cost. Mr. MacHolda replied that the cost for
that is approximately $240,000 and it is not being put in because he is tapped out and is
already borrowing money. Mr. MacHolda pointed that he has three amenities that are
coming in that he sees primarily as revenue generating amenities. One is the water slide
replacement that will now actually have two flumes. Second is to replace a one meter
13
diving board with a cable ride and the third item is to add a dry play area adjacent to the
wet play area for young children.
Mr. White stated that the only thing he is not in favor of is the cable ride because he
thinks it will screw up the deep end too much for people who are swimming laps. Mr.
MacHolda explained that he has given this a lot of thought and feels that we don't have
an amenity for the 10 to 15 year old age bracket and that is an age group that really needs
something.
Mr. White MOVED TO ADD AN AMENDMENT TO DELETE THE CABLE RIDE
FROM THE AQUATIC CENTER. MOTION FOR AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK
OF A SECOND.
MOTION CARRIED.
VI. OTHER
A. Disc Golf Facility - Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that he was approached by
a Boy Scout looking for an Eagle Scout project and wants to put in a practice disc golf
facility at Rosland Park. He noted that he informed the youngster that he has to find a
way to help us fund the project and recruit professional help willing to design proper
placement of the baskets. He indicated that it will have six baskets or so just to get kids
hooked on it and see where it goes from there.
B. Iron Kids Triathalon — Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that Mr. MacHolda is
working very hard with a group to have the first Iron Kids Triathlon that will take place
this Sunday at Rosland Park. Ms. Presthus asked what is the age group to which
MacHolda replied it's for kids from ages 7 to 14. There are two different categories, the
7 to 10 year olds participate in a 100 meter swim, 3.1 bike race and a .6 run. The kids
from ages 11 to 14 participate in a 200 meter swim, 6.2 bike race and a 1.2 run.
Everything is held right at Rosland Park. Ms. Presthus asked if this is the only one being
held in the Twin Cities to which Mr. MacHolda replied it's the only one being offered in
the state.
Mr. Keprios commented that he has received only two negative comments from some of
the residents who feel there are getting to be just too many large special events at Rosland
Park that require alternate routes for traffic.
C. Baseball - Mr. Keprios handed out an article to the Park Board that comes from the
Star Tribune. It indicates the past -time of baseball is fading and kids are showing more
interest in non-traditional sports such as skateboarding which is up 118%.
D. Fifty Meter Pools — Mr. Keprios handed out an article that Mr. MacHolda clipped out
about 50 meter pools being a dinosaur. It makes the argument that the real money
makers are the leisure pools because that's where the numbers are. It's a great article.
14
E. Money Donations - Mr. Klus indicated that he would like for the Park Board to
discuss sometime in the future what can we do with individuals and organizations that are
willing to give the City of Edina Park and Recreation money to help build items in the
parks. He indicated that he knows of two households that would be willing to give
$40,000 to the city to develop a basketball court. He noted that he would like to find a
way to funnel that money appropriately into the city. It would be great if we could get
outside help for our capital needs.
Mr. Klus also noted that some of the service clubs he really believes are willing to give
larger sums of money to provide bigger amenities which would make a real difference to
the community and indicated he would like to see us challenge those groups. Mr.
Keprios added that he recently challenged the Lions Club to raise $100,000 to replace the
showmobile for which they would get their name back up on it.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Ardis Wexler MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:40 P.M. Karla Sitek
SECONDED THE MOTION. MEETING ADJOURNED.
15
James Van Valkenburg
4204 Philbrook Lane
Edina, MN 55424
922-2982
September 24, 2001
Edina Park Board
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
Dear Park Board Members:
On Tuesday, September 18, 2001, Fred Richards and I met with and interviewed five
Edina residents who actively opposed the Recreational Facilities Referendum. This self-
appointed two -member committee took it upon ourselves to learn more about why the
referendum failed in order to offer our unsolicited, but hopefully constructive,
recommendations to the Park Board on ways to meet the community's recreational
facility needs.
We probably did not learn any additional reasons for the referendum's failure than what
you already know. Be that as it may, to meet our community's current and future
recreational facility needs, we respectfully submit the following recommendations:
• Do not partner with the School District in future referenda.
• Effectively demonstrate real needs before asking the community to support
another referendum (Even though a stand alone park referendum may pass,
voters need to be better convinced that prudent needs exist).
• Approach all new facility construction and operating expenses with a user fee
philosophy (those who benefit today, pay today philosophy with a view that new
facilities must pay for themselves).
• Continue to explore public/private partnerships and fund-raising opportunities as
a means to meet capital needs where it is feasible.
• Explore opportunities to make weekend and/or weekday evening use of School
District's gymnasium facilities available and affordable.
• Do not offer another recreational facility referendum for at least two years.
• The next recreational facility referendum should be less than $9 million.
• Future recreational facility referenda should reflect more conservative
approaches to meeting facility needs to avoid the stigma or perception of elitism.
Multiple school districts within our city limits is problematic for City run referendums
that propose improvements on Edina School District property, especially where there
might exist the potential for dual, or overlapping, governmental responsibility for
supervision and maintenance of such facilities. The School District should pay for its
capital and maintenance needs and the City for its own. Public perception was that the
partnership with the School District, though well intentioned, would establish additional
recreational facilities requiring operating and maintenance dollars which in turn would
compete for future public dollars otherwise available for education in the eyes of the
voters.
From feedback to us as individual, we sense that there presently exists excess capacity in
currently available public gymnasiums. If this is in fact the case, we would suggest that
gym users utilize more Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays before any future proposals are
submitted to the community for building more gymnasiums. We sense that this single
particular issue needs further analysis by your Board.
We hope that these insights might be constructive to the Park Board's continuing efforts
to meet the park and recreational needs of our residents. We do not intend to pursue any
further rehashing of the past but certainly are willing as interested residents to assist your
Board, the Council in pursuing future municipal opportunities, as you and the Council
may deem appropriate.
Sincerely, _
;Jim an Va en
CC: Mayor and City Council
Sincerely,
Fred Richards
What Is Inclusion*
Inclusion Is:
1. Having the same choices & opportunities for recreation programs
that other people have, regardless of disability
2. Being accepted & appreciated for who you are as a unique
individual including your strengths & your weaknesses
3. Being with friends who share your leisure interests, not
your disability
4. Being a valued customer & welcomed participant in community
recreation programs, regardless of ability levels
5. Recreation facilities & areas that are accessible & easy to use
by everyone
6. Providing the necessary individual adaptations, accommodations,
& supports so every person can benefit equally from a recreation
experience in the community
Inclusion Is Not:
1. Putting large groups of people with disabilities in one program
2. Disrupting the natural proportions of individuals with &
without disabilities in the community
3. Special, labeled programs such as "Handicapped Gym"
4. "Caring for" or "Looking after' people with disabilities instead
of facilitating equal opportunities for equal participation that
include risk and challenge
*adapted from Anderson, Brown, Soli, UND/NDPR Dept., Strategies for Including
People with Disabilities in Park & Recreation Opportunities, 1996
WELCOME TO HOLLAND
by Emily Perl Kingsley
I am often asked to describe the experience of raising a child
with a disability, to try to help people who have not shared that
unique experience to understand it, to imagine how it would feel. It's
like this...
When you're going to have a baby, it's like planning a fabulous
vacation trip to Italy. You buy a bunch of guidebooks and make
wonderful plans. The Coliseum, the Michelangelo David, the gondolas
in Venice. You may,learn some handy phrases in Italian. It's all very
exciting.
After months of eager anticipation, that day finally arrives.
You pack your bags and off you go. Several hours later, the plane lands.
The stewardess comes in and says, 'Welcome to Holland.'
"Holland?P", you say. "What do you mean Holland? I signed
up for Italy! I'm supposed to be in Italy. all my life I've dreamed of
going to Italy."
But there's been a change in the flight plan. They've landed in
Holland and there you must stay.
The important thing is that they haven't taken you to a
horrible, disgusting, filthy place, full of pestilence, famine and
disease. It's just a different place.
So you must go and buy new guidebooks. And you must learn a
whole new language. And you will meet a whole new group of people
you would have never met.
It's just a different place. It's slower -paced than Italy, less
flashy than Italy. But after you've been there for a while and you
catch your breath, you look around, and you begin to notice that
Holland has windmills, Holland has tulips, Holland even has
Rembrandts.
But everyone you know is busy coming and going from Italy, and
they're all bragging about what a wonderful time they had there. And
for the rest of your life, you will say. 'Yes, that's where I was supposed
to go. That's what I had planned'
The pain of that will never, ever, ever go away, because the
loss of that dream is a very significant loss.
But if you spend your life mourning the fact that you didn't get
to Italy, you may never be free to enjoy the very special, the very
lovely things about Holland.
Emily Perl Kingsley, Emmy - award winning writer and activist for the
rights of people with disabilities, was the guest speaker at the 1989
JARC annual meeting.
CITY OF
ST. Louis
PARK
September 12, 2001
Belinda Davis
Park Community Planner
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board
400 South 4`h Street, Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Dear Belinda:
The City staff representatives from St. Louis Park and Edina met to discuss a joint
powers agreement with the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. As a result of the
meeting, Tom Scott, City Attorney for St. Louis Park, drafted an agreement. I am
attaching a copy of the joint powers agreement between the Minneapolis Park and
Recreation Board, the City of Minneapolis, the City of St. Louis Park and the City of
Edina for an off -leash park. This agreement would be for the area located at 40`h Street
and France Avenue.
The City Mangers, Police Chiefs and Parks and Recreation Directors of St. Louis Park
and Edina believe that this agreement addresses our concerns. If the Minneapolis Park
and Recreation Board gives their approval to this agreement, we would like that approval
in writing. We would then forward the agreement to our respective Parks and Recreation
Commissions and City Councils. At this time, the joint powers agreement has been
reviewed and recommended for consideration by City staff and not the City Council
members of St. Louis Park and Edina.
I am also including the letter from you dated May 22, 2001 supporting the issues we had
identified in earlier correspondence. We would need assurance from you that the nine
conditions listed in that letter would be done before the approval is granted from our
cities.
If you have questions, please feel free to contact me at (952) 924- 2541 or John Keprios
in Edina at (952) 826-0430. We will wait to hear from you before we pursue this any
further with our City Council or Commissions.
SincerJ�)y,
CindyWalsh
Director of Parks and Recreation
Parks and Recreation Department
3700 Monterey Drive St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2671
Phone: 952-924-2540 Fax: 952-925-5663
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE MINNEAPOLIS PARK AND RECREATION BOARD,
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, AND
CITY OF EDINA FOR AN OFF LEASH DOG PARK
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the Minneapolis Park and
Recreation Board ("MPRB"), City of Minneapolis, City of St. Louis Park, and City of Edina.
RECITALS
• Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59 authorizes political subdivisions of the State to enter
into agreements for the joint and cooperative exercise of common powers, including
those which are the same except for the territorial limits within which they may be
exercised.
• The purpose of this Agreement relates to the operation of an off leash dog park located
at 40`h Street and France Avenue in St. Louis Park and Edina. The property is owned
by the City of Minneapolis. The MPRB will operate the facility subject to the terms and
conditions of this Agreement and other applicable regulations.
• The undersigned political subdivisions find it in their common interest and benefit and
in the interest and benefit of their citizens to enter into an agreement concerning the
operation of the park.
NOW, THEREFORE the parties agree as follows:
1. Development and Operation. The MPRB will construct, operate, maintain, and
provide physical upgrades to the dog park conforming to the requirements of the City Codes of
St. Louis Park and Edina. The initial park development plans and any subsequent modifications
must be approved by St. Louis Park and Edina.
2. Police Service Responsibility. The Minneapolis and MPRB Police Departments
are responsible for responding to all calls for police service and animal control enforcement
occurring within the dog park.
In the event of an emergency, the Minneapolis Police Department or the MPRB Police
Department, can call on the police departments of St. Louis Park and Edina to provide law
enforcement support to the park. If for any reason a police department cannot respond to a call
95223 1
to the park with enough resources as quickly as may be needed, one of the other cities should
be notified and dispatched immediately.
The Chiefs of Police of the undersigned political subdivisions are hereby authorized to
develop procedures and protocols to implement the purposes of this Agreement as well as to
meet service needs within their respective jurisdictions.
No charge shall be made to either party for assistance rendered under this Agreement.
Provided, however, that in the event the political subdivision that is requesting assistance under
this Agreement is reimbursed for said personnel, equipment, or any other costs, from a party
or parties responsible for the emergency, or otherwise reimbursed by a third party source, then
reimbursement, on a pro -rata basis, shall be made to the responding party for any equipment
or personnel charges. Proper written documentation of expenses must accompany a request for
reimbursement.
3. Operating Committee. An operating committee is established to implement this
Agreement. The committee will consist of one representative from each political subdivision.
4. Off -Leash Tags. Residents of St. Louis Park and Edina will be allowed to
purchase Off Leash Recreation Area ("OLRA") permits at the Minneapolis resident rate and
may use other open OLRA sites in Minneapolis.
5. Indemnification. Minneapolis and the MPRB will indemnify and hold harmless
St. Louis Park and Edina from any and all claims, including attorneys fees expended in defense
of such claims, relating in any way to the operation and maintenance of the dog park.
6. Termination. This Agreement will be for a two-year trial period. The two-year
trial period will begin on the date that the park opens. After two years, it is the intent to
continue the agreement if all parties wish to continue.
7. Effective Date. This Agreement shall be considered executed and effective on
the date that the last participant party executes the Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the political subdivisions, upon authorization of their
respective governing bodies and signature of their officers indicated below, have caused this
Agreement to be duly executed effective on the dates entered below.
Dated:
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
By:
Its:
95223 2
•
By:
Its:
Dated: MINNEAPOLIS PARK AND
RECREATION BOARD
By:
Its:
By:
Its:
Dated: CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By:
Its:
By:
Its:
Dated: CITY OF EDINA
By:
Its:
By:
Its:
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
Campbell Knutson
Professional Association
1380 Corporate Center Curve
317 Eagandale Office Center
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
Telephone 651-452-5000
TMS
95223
3
October 5, 2001
John Keprios
Ed MacHolda
City of Edina Parks & Recreations
Edina MN
Dear John & Ed:
The Edina Soccer Club (ESC) board has decided to take a more active role in improving
our outdoor field conditions and in pursuing a multi-purpose dome at the present Braemar
golf dome site.
As both of you well know from the May referendum process, there is the need in Edina
for more and higher quality fields. We continue to get complaints from opposing
traveling teams and suffer field -related injuries to players.
And, despite the growing interest in competitive soccer, the board is finding it necessary
to reduce the number of teams the club will field.
We (ESC) are willing to help in many ways. We look to you for guidance and specific
direction.
The board and soccer community includes involved individuals with experience in fund
raising, finance, and civil engineering. The board is willing to commit some money
immediately and is open to helping raise new funding.
Some of the thoughts we've discussed as ways to help include:
1. Civil Engineers Kenny Horns (Board Member) and Dan Rectenwald
are willing to study the Braemer Golf Dome conversion to a multi-
purpose facility. They could prepare rough preliminary budget and
feasibility analysis.
2. The club would like to pay to have most areas of Pamela Sr. Field
re -sodded. (estimate cost $3,000 - $6,000)
We are delighted on the Park Board's decision to upgrade Lewis Park! We want to share
responsibility for further improvements, because it is certainly needed. Please call me or
Kenny Horns and let us know your response.
Sincerely,
Charlie Gits
Edina Soccer Board
MEMORANDUM
TO: Department Heads
FROM: Craig Larsen
SUBJECT: 2000 Census Data
DATE: September 5, 2001
Attached you will find the most recent census data released for the City of Edina
by the U.S. Census Bureau. Included you will find comparisons from previous
census years to tract the growth of the City.
The U.S. Census Bureau website (www.census.gov) can provide you with
additional information regarding their activities. Also, the League of Minnesota
Cities (www.imnc.org) has done a great job of comparing Edina's 2000 data with
data from 1990.
We expect to receive a more detailed breakdown of the data by census tracts
within the next few months. If you have any questions regarding the information
provided, don't hesitate to contact me at ext.460 or Joyce Repya at ext. 462.
•
Table DP -1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000
Pographic Area: Edina city, Minnesota
or information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, and definitions, see text]
Subject
Number
Percent
, ,
47,425
100.0
Total population ......................
SEX AND AGE
21,729
45.8
Male ....................
25,696
25,696
54.2
54.2
Female ......................................
2,546
5.4
Under 5 years ...............................
3,142
6.6
5 to 9 years .................................
3,221
6.8
10 to 14 years .............••• ..•,,,,,,,,.,.
2,575
5.4
15 to 19 years ........................................
1,427
3.0
20 to 24 years ...................
4,153
8.8
25 to 34 years ...............................
7,034
14.8
35 to 44 years ...............................
7,552
15.9
45 to 54 years ...............................
2,684
5.7
55 to 59 years ...............................
2,326
4.9
60 to 64 years ...............................
4,776
10.1
65 to 74 years ...............................
4,405
9.3
75 to 84 years ...............................
1,584
3.3
85 years and over ............................
44.5
(X)
ears .................
Median age (y ••••••••••
36,587
77.1
18 years and over ............... .........
16,227
34.2
Male ....................
20,360
20,360
42.4
42.9
Female ....................................
35,735
21 years and over ......................
12,139
25.6
62 years and over ................. ..........
10,765
22.7
65 years and over ............................
4,068
8.6
Male ......................... ............
6,697
14.1
Female........ . ...........................
RACE
One race ......................
..............
White....................................
Black or African American .................. .
American Indian and Alaska Native...........
Ascan ..................
Asian Indian .............................
Chinese .................................
Filipino .............. ......"*...........
Japanese ................................
Korean ...........................
Vietnamese ...............................
Other Asian' ............................
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander... .
Native Hawaiian ..............••••••••••••
Guamanian or Chamorro................. .
Samoan.................................
Other pacific Islander 2 ............. • • • • • •
Some other race .......................... .
Two or more races ...................... • • • • •
Race alone or in combination with one
or more other races. 3
White.......................................
Black or African American .....................
American Indian and Aiaska Native .............
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander..... .
Some other race ...............
..............
46,917
44,712
546
62
1,418
415
386
85
66
227
76
163
14
2
6
6
165
508
98.9
94.3
1.2
0.1
3.0
0.9
0.8
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.3
Subject
HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACE
Total population ..........................
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) ................
Mexican ...................................
Puerto Rican ...............................
Cuban....................................
Other Hispanic or Latino ....................
Not Hispanic or Latino ...... I .................
White alone ................................
RELATIONSHIP
Totalpopulation ..........................
In households ................................
Householder ...............................
Spouse...................................
Child......................................
Own child under 18 years ................
Other relatives .............................
Under 18 years .........................
Nonrelatives ...............................
Unmarried partner .......................
In group quarters .............................
Institutionalized population ...................
Noninstitutionalized population ...............
HOUSEHOLD BY TYPE
Totalhouseholds ........................
Family households (families) ...................
With own children under 18 years ..........
Married -couple family .......................
With own children under 18 years ..........
Female householder, no husband present.....
With own children under 18 years ..........
Nonfamily households ........................
Householder living alone ....................
Householder 65 years and over............
Households with individuals under 18 years .....
Households with individuals 65 years and over . .
Average household size .......................
Average family size ...........................
HOUSING OCCUPANCY
Total housing units .......................
Occupied housing units .......................
Vacant housing units ..........................
For seasonal, recreational, or
occasional use ............................
0.3
1.1 Homeowner vacancy rate (percent) .............
Rental vacancy rate (percent) ..................
HOUSING TENURE
45,144 95.2 Occupied housing units ..................
696 1.5 Owner -occupied housing units .................
146 0.3 Renter -occupied housing units .................
1,656 3.5
33 0.1 Average household size of owner -occupied units,
290 0.6 Average household size of renter -occupied units
Number I Percent
47,425 100.0
539 1.1
177 0.4
57 0.1
39 0.1
266 0.6
46,886 98.9
44,367 93.6
47,4251100'0
47,135 99.4
20,996 44.3
11,303 23.8
12,5861 26.5
10,586 22.3
737 1.6
181 0.4
1,513 3.2
534 1.1
290 0.6
262 0.6
28 0.1
20,996 100.0
12,878 61.3
5,569 26.5
11,303 53.8
4,753 22.6
1,226 5.8
647 3.1
8,118 38.7
7,149 34.0
3,888 18.5
5,704 27.2
7,677 36.6
2.24 (X)
2.91 (X)
21,6691 100.0
20,996 96.9
673 3.1
3021 1.4
0.5 (X)
2.5 (X)
20,996 100.0
16,072 76.5
4,924 23.5
2.42 (X)
1.66 (X)
Represents zero or rounds to zero. (X) Not applicable.
' Other Asian alone, or two or more Asian categories.
aiian and Other Pacific Islander categories.
2 Other Pacific Islander alone, or two or more Native Haw
3 In combination with oneor
more of the
because the individuals s may report more thmbers an one race d to more than the total population and the six percentages
may add to more than 100 percent
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Cid
O
C�
C11
O
CD
O
O
O
CD
W
O
r�
W
CD
O
N
O
O
O
N N W W -Ph .p 0
C11 O Ln O Ul O 0 O 0 O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N
Lrl
T
O
i
rmqL
O
G�
O
rMIL
O
1
N
O
O
O
%wampopo
0
rMIL
l<
O
-h
m
C.
V
m
O
ri
2)
e
OOOMN%
O
O
O
N
O
W
O
O
IL
O O O O O O
CD 0 0 CD 0
CD
0�0 d' N
uoileindod
T
1 _
1
LO
Iq
LO
1
� N
U
a�
tr) Q v�
M �
0
mt o
M
1
N
0
N
1
O
N
Q)
r
1
LO
1
O
I?
VI
1
N
O
1
N
N
U1
1
W
DW
N VI
C
C7 4�h
(D U1
� 1
m 61
y
U1
Cil
6
Y
a)
U1
44
Y
�1%1
T
Percent of Population
N
O N � O O
N �
O CO
O CD
O O
v
rmok
rMIL0
0
0000\ �h
"M
co r.L
co _.
O
O
op
O
�i
!T
O
CD
0
rMOL
I<
�h
m
C.
v
CD
U)
0
rMIL
2)
'apt
OOOo000o000
0000000000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O Ln O LO o Ln O Ln O Ln
LOd'd'MMNNT-T-
U
i
O
O
O
N
U
\
•
•
jv.
•
OOOo000o000
0000000000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O Ln O LO o Ln O Ln O Ln
LOd'd'MMNNT-T-
U
i
O
O
O
N
U
Year
a) mm -400 to O
O O O O O
CD
CL
D
c0
CD
c�
0
N
0
0
0
0
rr
0
-h
m
CL
A�
i
CD
0
rMIL
2)
O
CJ7
O
0
N
to
O
0
D
0
CD
N
w
0
w
Ln
0
Ln
Year
a) mm -400 to O
O O O O O
CD
CL
D
c0
CD
c�
0
N
0
0
0
0
rr
0
-h
m
CL
A�
i
CD
0
rMIL
2)
m
Wo
0
0
W
IN
W
U)
a
4-
0
0
V
0
0
C)
N
I
CD
LO
L
CL
0
0
L �
0
I
I
d' M N r' 0
oldoad
Rw
Cl
CD
r
S
0
r
0
CD
cn Tl-
lo
E
L
Houses
.-� & N N N
'-1 CO W O N
1983
.< 1985
CD
% 1986
1990
2000
I
r.
O cn
c ..
cn
(Q I,
C
c
%oft/ •
N
CD
O
c�
C
rMIL
G)
O
co
W
O
1
N
O
0
O
%ammow
0
rMILh
m
CL
V
CD
O
r�
RI
O
�
CDO
V
0
1
N
1
CD
0
d'
■
W
00
O
O
■ _
V
n
O
N
RI
V
0
1
N
1
CD
0
d'
RI
LJ
�0
C
CD
cn
00 W
V M
V
W
00
4
V
W
v ■
!D
7
0
m
0
A
0
0
mh
m
C.
v
m
0
2)
i