HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-03-14 Park Board PacketEDINA PARK BOARD
YEAR 2000 TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 2000
EDINA PARK 7:30 P.M.
BOARD MEMBERS COUNCIL CHAMBERS
EDINA CITY HALL
Andrew Herring, Chair
Tom White, Vice Chair
Andrew Finsness
David Fredlund AGENDA
Floyd Grabiel
Scot Housh
George Klus
Charles Mooty * 1. Election of Officers.
John Murrin, III
City of Edina
Linda Presthus *2. Approval of Wednesday, February 9, 2000, Park Board Minutes.
Karla Sitek
*3. Skate Park.
*4. First Tier Regional Trail - SRF Architects.
5. Lewis Park Bandy Rink - American Bandy Association.
*6. Memorials/Donations Policy.
7. City/School Referendum Update.
8. Community Education Services Report - Linda Presthus.
9. Other
*10. Adjournment.
* These are agenda items that require or request Park Board action.
City Hall (612) 927-8861
4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 826-0390
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424-1394 TDD (612) 826-0379
Memo
To: Edina Park Board.
From: John Keprios, Director
Edina Park, and Recreation Department
Date: April 6, 2000
Re: APRIL 11, 2000, PARK BOARD MEETING STAFF REPORT.
Enclosed you should find the following items:
1. Tuesday, April 11, 2000, Park Board Agenda.
2. Tuesday, March 14, 2000, Park Board Minutes.
3. Petition from the Richmond Hills Neighborhood Association.
4. Letter from John Menke.
5. Grandview Square Development Plans.
6. Sherwood Park Plans.
7. Proposed Donations/Memorials Policy.
8. Anderson/Johnson Architect's Dome Study Results.
1). Memo and Pamela Park maps from Wayne Houle, Assistant City Engineer.
REMINDER:
THIS MEETING IS AT CITY HALL
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.
YOUTH ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION PRESENTATIONS
As per the Park Board's request, I have invited and scheduled all youth athletic
associations to attend a Park Board meeting to give a brief presentations about their
program and share their needs with the Park board. This meeting will entertain four
youth athletic association:
Edina girls Traveling Basketball - Jim Simons.
2. Edina Girls Fastpitch Association - Dick Glover.
3. Edina Baseball Association - Dale Nelson.
4. Jr. Olympic Volleyball - Jeannie Masotto
Park Board action is not requested on this agenda item.
GRANDVIEW SQUARE - SHERWOOD PARK
The Grandview Square Development is the name given to the development proposed
by Opus Corporation and Ron Clark Construction on the property now owned by the
City of Edina. The majority of the property was purchased by the City from Kunz Oil
and Lewis Engineering and the proposed development requires acquisition of
additional properties currently owned by small businesses. As you may recall, this is
the development that will include the construction of a new Senior Citizen Center and
library. This will in turn allow the City to acquire the Hennepin County Library
building and property next to City Hall, which is needed for expansion and renovation
of City Hall.
The development is located within a tax increment district which provides the funding
vehicle for the public improvements, which include a senior center, library, roads, park
improvements to Sherwood Park, and addition of a new Town Square Park in the center
of the development (referred to as "Plaza/Green Space" on the drawings). As shown on
the plans, the private development consists of mainly offices and four-story residential
complexes. A copy of the proposed plan is included in this mailing.
The current plan proposes to use a section of the Sherwood Park property. This
proposal was presented to the residents of the area at an open house meeting on March
27 at Our Lady of Grace Church. The residents were very disappointed with the
proposal because of the encroachment into existing parkland.
On Wednesday, March 29, the Planning Commission received a presentation from the
developers and then received input from residents, although it was not an official public
hearing. The majority of the discussion centered around the encroachment of the
existing park land. After lengthy discussion, the Planning Commission passed the
following recommendation to the City Council:
Commissioner Ingwalson moved to recommend preliminary rezoning approval
and final development plan approval subject to:
1. Final rezoning
Z Final Site Plan approval
3. Final Plat Approval
4. Development Agreement
5. Developer's Agreement
6. Watershed District Permits
7. Two-way street system instead of proposed one-way system (northwest side
adjacent to senior center)
8. Eliminate parking on the cul-de-sac on the south end of the project to
provide turn -around for emergency vehicles.
9. Access is to be maintained to the well house on park property, and revise
plan to preserve park in its present location and size.
Commissioner Lonsbury seconded the motion. Ayes; Lonsbury, Runyan,
Ingwalson, Workinger, Johnson. Nay, McClelland. Commissioner
McClellend commented that she believes the plan presented this evening is a
good plan, but needs more solid information before making her decision.
The Planning Commission's recommendation of revising the plan to preserve the park
in its present location and size inspired the developers to go back to the drawing board
and revise the plan. A copy of the revision is enclosed for your review. The first
colored drawing is the existing park, incorrectly named "Richmond Hills Park. The
second colored page is the developer's proposal that was shown to the neighbors on
March 27. The third colored drawing is the newly revised plan (labeled "Park
Reconfiguration"). The 4`" colored drawing shows the "Park Area Analysis," which
shows the before and after effects on parkland. Ron Clark and his staff will be at the
Park Board meeting to present the revised plan.
To provide you with a little background on Sherwood Park, it is approximately 1.55
acres in size and is designated as a mini -park. The property was originally acquired by
the City for development of a well and additional surrounding property was later
acquired to make a small mini -park for the neighbors of Richmond Hills. A mini -park
is characterized by a size of approximately 2 acres or less and is designed to serve
primarily the needs of pre-school age children, although it may provide facilities
designed to serve the recreation needs of other age groups. A mini -park is considered
to have a service area of/4 mile radius. Sherwood Park is located approximately 1,700
feet from Garden Park and approximately 2,600 feet from Highlands Park. Garden
Park is 18.74 acres in size and is characterized as a Community Playfield. Highlands
Park is 44.05 acres in size and is also characterized as a Community Playfield. A
community playfields are defined as a parks that "typically range in size from
approximately 20 to 60 acres. These parks are designed to provide facilities for diverse
recreational activities for young people and adults, although a section is also typically
set aside for smaller neighborhood children. Community playfields have a service area
of 9-16 square miles."
Originally a small skating rink was flooded for the neighborhood at Sherwood Park and
a few small pieces of playground equipment were added. Each year the neighborhood
has their annual neighborhood picnic in the park for which the City provides additional
picnic tables. The small outdoor skating rink was discontinued in the mid 1970s. The
current playground equipment was installed in 1991. The playground equipment has
been scheduled for replacement during the year 2005 or 2006. Judging by the its signs
of wear and by comments from neighboring businesses, the playground equipment
clearly gets used on a regular basis. The park also has a small permanent grill and two
moveable picnic tables. There are no restrooms or picnic shelters in the park.
The open grassy area with the backstop is used primarily during non -school hours
(evenings, weekends and summer days). There are no scheduled activities at Sherwood
Park, such as, organized athletics or summer playground program. Its use appears to be
similar to other open grassy areas in other mini -parks, such as, Chowen Park, Tingdale
Park, and Birchcrest Park.
The Water Department maintains a well on the property on a daily basis. There is a
small brick building (pump house) on the property that contains the equipment needed
for the well. The current development would require relocation of the existing
maintenance road to the pump house. To avoid the loss of green space to accommodate
a relocated maintenance access road for the pump house, the new path could be
constructed with a geo-grid sub -surface material. This product is used on Braemar Golf
Course to allow for light truck use on grass areas without damaging the turf.
Another important function of Sherwood Park has long been to act as a buffer of open
space between the residential homes of Richmond Hills neighborhood and the
commercial district. I believe it is safe to say that several residents treasure the park for
its function as a buffer as much as for its function as active or passive park use.
It is important to note that no one, including the developers, prefers a plan that requires
use of the existing parkland. There is, however, a need to create enough tax increment
in the development to afford all of the proposed public improvements. There are many
interests involved in this complex development. When considering the proposal, we
must consider the needs of:
• Surrounding neighbors.
• Future residents of Grandview Square.
• Future Senior Citizen Center participants.
• Future library patrons.
• The Hennepin County Board (library needs).
• Future office tenants.
• The Developers.
• The community as a whole.
My view of the reconfiguration plan is that it has a significant negative impact on the
park's function as a buffer. It does, however, have a slightly lesser negative impact on
the park with regard to park uses (playground, ball field, open play and picnic area).
All of the park uses are accommodated (essentially relocated) in the reconfigured
design, however, the playground equipment site is in a much less desirable location.
The playground equipment is fairly close to a road and a driveway which poses safety
concerns. The play experience may not be any different for children using the new
playground equipment in its new location, however, the park experience for the
supervising adults would feel cramped or crowded. The open play area is in some
respects an enhancement over the existing longer but somewhat more narrow finger of
open space. If graded properly, the new reconfigured open space area lends itself to
play that is a little less linear than the existing open space area.
Other positive aspects of the reconfigured plan include new playground equipment, a
new small picnic shelter, newly graded and sodded and/or seeded open play area and
new landscaping around the entire perimeter of the park. The addition of a new
pathway in the park and a connection to the new Town Square Park, Senior Center and
Library is also a plus for the neighborhood. The new Town Square Park will likely be a
passive park similar to Rice Park in St. Paul which is nestled in the center of a
downtown development that includes the Ordway Theater, the St. Paul Hotel,
Landmark Center and offices. The Town Square Park will not be best served as a
replacement ball field open play area or playground equipment site.
Tt is my recommendation that we ask the developers to work further with the City to
explore other possible alternatives in efforts to sacrifice even less and, if possible, none
of the existing parkland at Sherwood Park. This may result in a debate over the
potential loss of opportunity to build a library and/or Senior Center at that site or the
possibility of compromising the size of the proposed Town Square Park.
Unfortunately, the financial requirements do not allow the alternative of simply
eliminating that portion of the development in numbers of residential units from the
project. To meet all the needs of all interested parties, there will clearly need to be
some compromises.
Park Board action is requested on this agenda item.
DONATIONS/MEMORIALS POLICY
If time permits, I would ask that this issue be addressed by the Park Board. Please refer
to previous staff reports and minutes on this item. I will give a verbal summary at the
meeting.
Park Board action is requested on this agenda item.
CITY/SCHOOL REFERENDUM UPDATE
I will give the Park Board a verbal update on the referendum and results of Decision
Resource's findings.
COMMUNITY EDUCATION SERVICES REPORT - LINDA PRESTHUS
I ask that Linda Presthus give the Park Board a brief report on the last Community
Education Services Board meeting. Thanks Linda!
OTHER
This is an opportunity for Park Board members and residents to address other
concerns.
EDINA PARK BOARD
7:30 P.M.
EDINA ART CENTER
FEBRUARY 9, 2000
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom White, Dave Fredlund, Chuck Mooty, Floyd Grabiel, Karla
Sitek, George Klus, Andy Finsness, Scot Housh, John Murrin,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Andy Herring, Linda Presthus
STAFF PRESENT: John Keprios, Ed MacHolda, Donna Tilsner, Janet Canton, Diana
Hedges, Bradley Benn
OTHERS PRESENT: Debra Lynner, Pete Anderson, Jim Simons, Neil Weikart, Jack
Galvin, Mary Cederberg, Brad Hanson, John Witzel, Megan
Grande, Jeff Bohlig, Pete Sieger, Jim Van Valkenburg
I. APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 11, 2000 PARK BOARD MINUTES
• George Klus MOVED TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 11, 2000 PARK BOARD
MINUTES. Floyd Grabiel SECONDED THE MOTION. MINUTES APPROVED.
II. INTRODUCTION OF NEW PARK BOARD MEMBER SCOT HOUSH
John Keprios introduced the new Park Board member, Scot Housh. Mr. Housh indicated
that he grew up in Edina and has used a lot of the park and recreation facilities throughout
his life and is glad to be a member of the Park Board.
III. TOUR OF THE ART CENTER
Mr. Keprios introduced Jim Van Valkenburg, Chairman of the Art Center Board; Diana
Hedges, manager of the Edina Art Center; and Bradley Berm, assistant manager. The
Park Board then went on a tour of the Art Center and was given a handout on the history
of the Edina Art Center.
IV. BILL JENKINS
Mr. White explained that Bill Jenkins has been on the Park Board for the past 12 years
and last month was his last Park Board meeting. Mr. White noted that while Mr. Jenkins
was on the Park Board he had a great deal of knowledge about certain issues and a great
deal of history which was very helpful to the newer members. He indicated he is very
appreciative of his service. Mr. White informed the Park Board that Mr. Jenkins is going
to receive a plaque and a gift from the Park Board at the Volunteer Awards Reception.
Mr. White then asked everyone to chip in for the gift. Mr. White then passed around a
resolution for everyone to sign that will be given to Mr. Jenkins along with his plaque and
gift.
V. CITY/SCHOOL REFERENDUM
Peter Sieger, architect with TSP One, Inc., gave a brief background on the firm and then
gave a presentation on what the proposed plans are at this time. He indicated that they
currently have a pool study underway and hope to have the results from that the end of
the week so it will be done in time for the city council meeting on February 15'h
Mr. Sieger explained that there has been a demand for recreational facilities of all
varieties for quite some time. He indicated that in 1997 there was a citizen's group who
gave a proposal to the city. In response to that the Park and Recreation Department did a
study in 1998 which brought recommendations that lead to TSP One's involvement in the
study. Mr. Sieger stated that at that time the conclusions from the Park and Recreation
study indicated that to satisfy the need for gymnasium space in the community the best
alternative would be to have some type of a joint city/school district partnership,
involving the expansion of facilities at one of the school's campuses. He noted it was
determined that the community center would be the strongest candidate. Therefore, their
charge was to look at the community center campus, along with the decision makers from
the city and school district, to determine how the community center campus could be
expanded to respond to the need for recreational facilities.
Mr. Sieger explained all of the different items that were looked at and then showed the
different plans they came up with. He noted that the group collectively came to the
conclusion that it makes a good deal of sense to expand the new field house south and
because it is a crowded site to only have three gymnasiums instead of four. In addition a
new gymnasium would be added on to Concord Elementary.
Mr. Sieger indicated that initially they looked at wood flooring for the center court and
synthetic surfaces for the two side courts and running track. However, they are now
looking at having all wood flooring with the exception of the track and the new
gymnasium at Concord Elementary which would have synthetic flooring. The plan is
also looking at putting in new flooring as well as reconfiguring the two courts at South
View Middle School in order to have more sideline space. In addition to this they are
looking at renovating the existing locker rooms, support facilities, and the lower
concourse level concession area. Mr. Sieger also indicated that the plan is looking at
renovating the existing community center theatre.
Mr. Sieger stated that all of the Park Board members have received the report and the
estimated cost of the project, using a traditional design bid construction delivery method,
will be about 15.6 million dollars for the base improvements. He noted that they have
also looked at what is called the "fast track" project delivery method which would
overlap design and construction and would save time and money. Therefore, for the base
facilities documented in the report using the fast track approach, it is estimated at
approximately 14.8 million dollars.
• Mr. Sieger explained that the base option includes three new gymnasiums at the
community center with an elevated running track, entrance at the south end, an upper
2
concourse level that leads into the existing Community Center as well as a new
gymnasium at Concord Elementary. It also includes storage support spaces, concessions
and those kinds of things which will be achieved by renovating the existing community
center facility.
It was asked how many parking spaces are currently at the community center to which
Mr. Sieger replied he doesn't have that number but his recollection is that there will bean
additional 100 spaces.
Mr. Keprios indicated that if he remembers correctly of the four options the one that the
task force zeroed in on was the three gym field house without the upper walking track.
It's a relatively compact version of what was considered. He also commented that he
doesn't know if the issue of what type of flooring has been fully resolved yet. He noted
that part of what drives the option of putting the track at an elevated level is because if we
have a wood floor we cannot put a track at grade level. Therefore, if the track is at grade
level than the two outside gyms would need to have a resilient surface with only the
middle gym having a wood floor. If this happens then in a sense you've eliminated it as
an ideal site for soccer and you don't have the best facility for basketball. Mr. Keprios
stated that in his view you either go with a complete resilient surface or else have a
premier basketball facility with a wooden floor and an elevated track.
Mr. Housh asked what is the demand for an inside walking track. Mr. Keprios replied
that he doesn't have those numbers but noted that it would be the largest indoor track in
Edina and there would be opportunities for the general public to use it with access to the
locker rooms. He noted that there would be an entry fee for open gym, which we
currently do not have in Edina. Also, seniors would take advantage of an indoor walking
track. He also commented that it would maximize the facility if the walking track is
elevated because there would be maximum use of both the gym floors and track at the
same time. Mr. Fredlund asked what would be the circumference of the track to which
Mr. Keprios replied it would be approximately 8 laps to the mile. Mr. Keprios also
indicated that Edinborough Park's track is considerably smaller than what this one would
be. Mr. Murrin asked Mr. Keprios if he thinks they really need to maximize the
suitability of this gym, wouldn't it still be a nice suitable facility if there wasn't a running
track. Mr. Keprios replied that you could, however, when it's open gym to the general
public and people want to run, they are going to be interfering with the people playing
basketball.
Mr. Mooty commented that he doesn't know if an elevated track is suitable or not.
However if there is an elevated track then possibly, if the school district agrees, seniors
could walk during the day while classes are being held and the seniors would feel that
they are not being a disruption to the activities below.
Mr. Sieger added that the track would not be suitable for running competition but only for
walking and jogging. Mr. Keprios commented that to maximize the facility, regardless of
the type of flooring, he would like to see the elevated track. Mr. Murrin stated that it
costs $900,000 to put in an elevated track. Mr. Mooty indicated that would be a good
question for the survey that's being put together. See if there is a demand in the
community for a track.
Mr. Keprios explained that the professional firm Decision Resources has been hired to go
out and survey the community by phone on a random basis to determine what the
salability is of what's currently on the table. It will show what the strengths and
weaknesses are and what are the heavily supported elements and what elements may kill
the project. They will be interviewing 400 people of all age groups in a 15 minute phone
interview. This survey will give us a good look at where we are at.
Mr. Housh asked what is McCarthy Field being used for today. Mr. MacHolda replied
that it is used primarily as the training site for the high school football team. Baseball is
almost exclusively played on city fields, Braemar and Garden Park. Football totally
destroys the turf in the fall and come spring it's basically all dirt. The area is also used
for track and field for training for the shot and discus, therefore, there is very little
baseball played there. Once in awhile in the summer Mickey Mantle, etc. may use it as a
practice field. Mr. Mooty indicated that he thinks the concern is from the baseball
community that they would like to retain a field on the main campus. He stated that it
would be nice if McCarthy field could still be multi-purpose for soccer and football in the
outfield and still be able to play baseball on the infield.
Mr. MacHolda noted that he thinks Steve Dove would like to get his sports back on
campus so they are not traveling to Braemar and Van Valkenburg. He noted that both the
Valley View and South View baseball fields need total renovation as well as McCarthy.
He also noted that the city's fields are stressed. Mr. Klus asked what is happening with
the fields at the high school. Mr. Mooty explained that those fields are not playable in
any type of game setting. He noted that the question is if those fields are renovated what
additional capacity is there. Do we have a shortage of baseball fields right now. Mr.
MacHolda replied that there is a shortage of intermediate size fields. He pointed out that
Braemar was never intended to be a practice facility, solely a game facility, and right now
the baseball association and high school program do overlap.
Mr. Mooty asked if during the summer when the school is obviously not utilizing the
baseball fields are the baseball association's programs going to be able to access those
fields from the standpoint of having better fields and more fields than we currently have.
Mr. MacHolda replied that it would be a huge improvement for baseball because first of
all Braemar is solely a game field that is booked seven days a week. Therefore, there is
no place to practice and there's hardly a spot to find a field for a game. So yes, if Valley
View and South View were renovated it would be a huge improvement to the baseball
program.
Mr. Murrin asked if there will be backboard facilities at the tennis courts that are
mentioned. Mr. Sieger replied that he believes with the tennis courts at the community
center they are looking at the consolidation of improvements including: lighting, seating
and he believes they have considered backboards. Mr. Murrin noted that he feels
backboards are very important and help people to learn to play tennis. Mr. Keprios
commented that's a great point, however it was one item that did get cut. However, if
that is your recommendation to put it back in the mix he would suggest that it be a wall
made out of concrete to lesson the noise factor, it would not deteriorate as fast and it
would not need a lot of maintenance.
11
Mr. Keprios asked Mr. Sieger to explain where they are at with the charge they have been
sent on to look at the pools. Mr. Sieger indicated that the pools at Valley View and South
View have been looked at and that Valley View is in greater need of improvements. He
pointed out that South View is in relatively good condition. He noted that the drawbacks
for both pools are that there are only five lanes and for competition you need to have
eight lanes. Also, there is inadequate depth for diving at South View and there is
marginally adequate depth at Valley View. Therefore, he stated that they have been sent
on a charge in addition to assessing the condition of the two facilities to recommend what
kind of improvements are appropriate.
Mr. Keprios asked the swimming world what are the ideal measurements for a
competitive pool. Mary Cederberg, resident, indicated that ideally the pool should be 25
meters by 25 yards so that it's almost a square pool. She noted that during the short
season you swim yards and during the long season you swim meters. Ms. Cederberg
commented that another concern from the Swim Club is for competition you need cold
water pools and when their program overlaps with the park and recreation programs the
water is warm and therefore they have swimmers with health issues the next day. For
high school competition they need exclusive cold water pools that are not accessible to
warm water sports. Ms. Cederberg noted that when she talked to the swim coach at the
high school she found out that they have enough swimmers needed to maintain a new
facility and renovate Valley View. The Edina Swim Club and others would use these too
because there is a lack of swimming facilities. It was also noted that a separate diving
well is needed because they cannot have practices at the same time.
Mr. Housh asked if other communities have these kind of facilities to which Ms.
Cederberg replied that Edina is one of the communities that is the furthest behind. Mr.
White commented that he thinks you can have swimming practice and diving practice at
the same time, it might not be the ideal situation but it can be done.
Mr. Mooty asked if there were two pools couldn't the divers be in the current pool and
the swimmers use the new one. Mr. Sieger noted his concern is what is the long-term
status of the outdoor pool. Mr. Keprios responded that a lot would depend on whether or
not we have fulfilled the needs of the competitive swimmer. Ms. Cederberg commented
that for the 50 meter competition the Swim Club would still need access to it because it's
the only 50 meter pool in the southwest metro area. She also noted that a lot of other
communities rent Edina's outdoor swimming facility. Mr. Sieger noted that eventually
some updates are going to be needed at the outdoor facility.
Mr. Witzel asked if anyone has done a study to see what the difference in cost would be
between a 50 meter pool with a bulk head diving system on one end compared to a 25 by
25 pool with a separate diving well. He noted that the two structures aren't nearly the
same size but the cost and maintenance issues might not be all that different. He noted
that with a bigger pool there is a tremendous advantage for use because you can practice
with 16 to 18 lanes sideways. This way you can use it for competitive purposes as well
as educational and recreational purposes. He pointed out that you double your use and
the price difference might be relatively marginal. Ms. Cederberg stated that from a swim
perspective currently there is a lack of pool space in Edina that is for cold water
swimming.
Mr. White asked Ms. Cederberg if the request is for a new pool and a diving well. Ms.
Cederberg replied there is a need for a diving well because currently at Valley View it's
10 ft. and the regulation is going to 12 ft. She also explained that at the 50 meter outdoor
pool at one end it's actually too shallow for entry. Mr. Mooty asked if the deck could be
lowered versus building a whole new diving area. Mr. Sieger replied that it's very costly
to add lanes and to add depth. It would probably be cheaper to build a new one.
Mr. Keprios handed out a sheet that included everything that is currently being looked at
to put into the referendum as well as the approximate cost which are fairly accurate. He
explained that where the pool costs are listed he took a shot in the dark and is not sure
where they are headed with the pool. It is just a starting point, they are not the architect's
numbers.
Mr. Keprios indicated that since his staff report he has met with the city manager and the
school representatives to resolve one of the stumbling blocks which is how to pay for the
operational expenses to run the community center field house. He pointed out that the
total figure in the report by the architect is about $138,000 to $140,000, which includes
the operational expenses for Concord as well. Mr. Keprios stated that the current
understanding with the school district is the city would come up with approximately
$90,000 on an annual basis and the school would pay for whatever additional operating
expenses there would be. Therefore, that is why the athletic associations were asked to
meet prior to the Park Board meeting because this is on a fast track. They need to find
some creative ways to come up with the money and to see if there is some support and
commitment out there. Mr. Keprios noted that Mr. Mooty has stepped up to the plate and
there is a plan in place that could cover the operational expenses.
Mr. Mooty explained that he thinks the approach that would be pursued would be to
receive partial funding from the various athletic associations that utilize the indoor
facilities. That would probably create somewhere around a $20,000 to $25,000
commitment on an annual basis by those athletic associations. The remaining $70,000
would be derived from private donations and a foundation would be set up to provide the
$70,000 annual commitment. Mr. Mooty indicated that raising a %2 million dollars would
easily make a ten year commitment and raising one million dollars would create at least a
20 year commitment. Therefore, the charge would be that we go out and raise private
dollars to support the ongoing costs or at least to subsidize a portion of the cost that
relates to that amount. He indicated that he believes going out to the community for
private dollars to help subsidize the project for operating costs is a doable mission. Mr.
Murrin asked Mr. Mooty if he is able to help with that effort and is it something that he
would be personally committed to which Mr. Mooty replied yes.
Mr. Klus asked if the city is willing to put some dollars towards the operational costs.
Mr. Keprios responded that the city's commitment for the operational expenses would be
whatever adult programs would use the facility. The city would be a player, but a very
small player.
Mr. Keprios indicated that one of the questions that is still up for debate is what kind of
flooring should be put into the gymnasiums. Mr. Housh asked which court would be the
premier game court for the high school team. Mr. Mooty replied he thinks the approach
would be that the girls high school games would still be at the high school facility and the
2
boys high school games would still be at the community center. Potentially due to
capacity needs maybe all games would be at the new field house, however, that wouldn't
be the plan right now.
Mr. Keprios commented that whatever flooring is put in there should be an elevated track
to get the maximum use out of it. He noted that he could make an argument for either
type of flooring. Mr. Housh stated that if it's going to be used primarily for basketball it
should all have wooden floors. Ms. Sitek commented that she hasn't heard anything
good about the synthetic kind of flooring. Mr. Mooty noted that if we are going with a
fundraising element to have a state of the art type of deal than a wooden floor is going to
be more appealing to the group that he is going to go before.
Mr. Klus stated that he agrees we should go with the best we can but he is not sold on a
track because there is already a smaller track at Edinborough and he doesn't see what
another undersized indoor track is going to do for the community. There are already
enough places for walkers to go whether it be the mall or Edinborough and therefore he is
not sold on the indoor track. Mr. Klus commented that if the track was regulation size
and could be used for multiple purposes for races than he would be more inclined to be
for a track. Mr. White indicated he agrees, he doesn't like the short tracks because it
seems to take forever to run the same distance.
Mr. Grabiel indicated he has two questions. First, what is the opposition to upgrading the
auditorium. Secondly, how many families in Edina are going to benefit from these
projects, the gymnasiums and swimming pool. Who is benefiting by all of this money we
are asking for from the public. Mr. Weikart, Edina Basketball Association President,
indicated that there are 1,100 boys who play basketball in grades 1-8. It was noted that
there are 500 girls who play in grades 2-9. That's about 1,600 kids who are playing
basketball not counting the kids in grades 10 through 12 who are with the high school.
Mr. Murrin asked Mr. Weikart if they favor the community paying for the need of this
kind of expansion. Mr. Weikart replied that he thinks it's good, however, we need to
watch the costs and be careful. We definitely need more gyms and it would be a great
investment. Mr. Murrin asked Mr. Weikart if he thinks the basketball community would
be interested in private contributions for operating expenses that might be necessary. Mr.
Weikart explained that the Basketball Association have made capital improvements to the
existing school gyms and as an association through their normal youth fund would be
able to help support some of the operating costs. He would guess the amount to be
around $5,000 to $7,000. He noted that personally he absolutely would contribute as well
as try to get other people to do so as well.
Mr. Keprios asked Ms. Cederberg what the numbers are for swimming. She noted that
living in Minnesota swimming is essential in her mind. Therefore, there are a couple of
issues, you have the competitive swimmer and you have the school district. Mr. Keprios
asked how many swimming participants would benefit by the pool. Ms. Cederberg
indicated that it would include all of the junior high students and whoever else is utilizing
those pools. She stated that in her mind it's non-negotiable because at this point these
facilities are about to be shut down because of some of the issues. She noted that in terms
of people it's hard to say. There are over 150 families currently in the Edina Swim Club
and they probably turn away that many because there are not adequate facilities. Ms.
Cederberg also pointed out that there are developmental programs that have gone outside
7
the community because there is inadequate space. She also noted that there are 77 girls
on the high school swim team and is not sure how many boys. Mr. Keprios indicated that
soccer has the largest amount of participants with 3,000, baseball is similar to basketball
and there are approximately 600 in youth football. He noted that football and soccer
share the same facilities. Mr. MacHolda indicated that there have been inquiries for
rugby and lacrosse but there haven't been any fields available for those sports to take
place. He also noted that there are many adult participants who get turned away on a
daily basis because there are not enough facilities available.
Mr. Keprios commented that he feels it's safe to say that the referendum is really there for
33% of the population. Approximately 33% to 35% of the homes in Edina have children.
He stated that one of the arguments is that we need to be premiere to be competitive to
draw young families into Edina. Therefore, to keep these people we need to upgrade our
facilities and the majority of this current proposal is not to build new facilities. We need
to upgrade what we currently have and restore the pride in Edina that's always been here.
Mr. Keprios noted that in response to the question about the auditorium that is just his
opinion. He stated that as the Park and Recreation Director he doesn't see a strong push
and desire to upgrade the auditorium to make it a premier 974 seat theatre suitable for
high profile performing arts. He indicated there is already a 250 seat theatre at
Edinborough and an outdoor amphitheater at Centennial Lakes as well as other
auditoriums in the schools. He noted that he agrees it does need renovation, however, he
has not heard overwhelming requests from the community to have that type of facility.
Mr. Keprios commented that it is still included as part of the Decision Resources Survey,
they are going to ask people if they perceive it as a need for the community and will ask
if they support it. He noted that he could be the lone soldier on this because he knows
that the city council is very much in favor of it but the community has not been writing
him letters and phoning him like they are for the other facilities. Mr. Murrin indicated
that the school board is getting a lot of those letters because it is the largest auditorium
facility in the city and does need to be renovated. He noted that there really isn't any
other theatre that can do major performances. Mr. Murrin noted that the current
auditorium accommodates 300 while the new facility would accommodate 900. He also
noted that he has heard this is important and the approach to some degree was to try to get
a different group of people behind the project who have a different interest other than just
sports. Mr. Keprios commented that if the survey shows the support is there than it
should probably be included in the referendum.
John Murrin MOVED THAT THE PARK BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE CITY
COUNCIL TO PURSUE A REFERENDUM TO MAKE RECREATIONAL FACILITY
IMPROVEMENTS ON SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY THAT INCLUDES ALL OF
THE STAFF'S PROPOSED PROJECTS PLUS THE AUDITORIUM
IMPROVEMENTS AND TENNIS COURT CONCRETE BANG BOARD AT THE
COMMUNITY CENTER TENNIS COURT SITE CONTINGENT UPON
SUCCESSFUL RESOLVE TO COVER ANTICIPATED OPERATING EXPENSES
FOR THE FIELD HOUSE. THE PARK BOARD ALSO RECOMMENDS
RENOVATION OF THE INDOOR POOLS AT THE MIDDLE SCHOOLS AND, IF
FOUND TO BE FISCALLY PRUDENT BASED ON THE CONSULTANT'S
FINDINGS, THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW INDOOR 25 YARD BY 25 METER
COMPETITION POOL WITH SEPARATE DIVING WELL AT THE VALLEY VIEW
MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE. THE PARK BOARD FURTHER RECOMMENDS THAT
THE $4,500,000 WORTH OF RECREATIONAL FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS ON
CITY PROPERTY AS PROPOSED BY STAFF BE INCLUDED IN THE
REFERENDUM.
Andy Finsness SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Keprios commented that with the theatre the cost would increase $972,000 bringing
it to 27.3 million dollars.
Mr. White asked the Park Board if there needs to be any more discussion on the 4.5
million dollars for park improvements. Mr. Keprios pointed out that the reason why it is
now 4.5 million and not 4.1 million is because he wanted to make sure that his estimates
are correct on the replacement of the Courtney ball field complex building. He wants to
make sure he doesn't underestimate the cost of the project.
Ms. Sitek indicated that she is still worried about the operating costs and having that up
in the air bothers her. Mr. Mooty replied that he feels the approach would be that it
would have to be in place before a vote could be taken. Sometime between now and the
referendum it would have to be solidified or else we wouldn't have it. Mr. White asked if
the city is looking at paying $90,000 for operating expenses and the school is picking up
the rest, is that anywhere near realistic looking at the fact that we may be adding another
pool. Mr. Keprios commented that the deal does not include the operational expenses for
the pool. The deal was with the exception of the pool because we don't know what those
numbers are at this time.
Ms. Sitek asked if an amendment could be made to the motion. John Murrin ADDED
TO HIS MOTION SUBJECT TO COMING TO TERMS ON THE OPERATING
EXPENSES.
Mr. Klus indicated that he thinks there needs to be a cap on what is recommended
because he feels we are starting to get a little high at 27.3 million. He noted that he
would like to see all of the items done with the exception of the elevated track. However,
he would like to see there be a dollar limit. He is concerned if the people will vote for a
bond issue that is this big. Mr. Keprios stated that Decision Resources will help the city
council find the comfort level that is out there. Mr. Klus asked if the city is depending on
Decision Resources that much for that type of feedback. He asked how much weight do
they really hold, isn't it supposed to be a representative sample of the city. Mr. Murrin
commented that when they did it for their bond for the school district their prediction was
99.9 accurate. They are very good at judging success and failure.
Mr. Mooty stated that the Park Board is only making a recommendation to the City
Council they are going to put in or take out what they want. We are here to say we are
conceptually in support or not in support of this.
Mr. White clarified his understanding of Mr. Murrin's motion to adopt the items listed on
the project cost sheet, that was handed out by Mr. Keprios, in addition the remodeling of
the theatre and the bang board for the tennis courts. Also add Ms. Sitek's amendment
W
which Mr. Murrin approved that the whole thing is subject to obtaining funding for the
operating expenses.
Mr. Grabiel commented that it's good to have baseball, basketball, etc. for the kids but
it's also important to have community theatre and music. He stated that he was happy to
see the letter from the 50 year old who played soccer because community recreation and
parks is not all about kids, it's for adults too and we need to also focus on that. Mr.
Housh pointed out that there are adult men's basketball leagues. Mr. Grabiel stated that
life is not all about kids and people playing sports it's about other things as well and as a
Park Board we need to pay attention to some of these other things as well. He
commented that he is not being critical but is just making a point.
Mr. Sieger indicated that for the theatre the construction cost is $974,000 but the total
project will be approximately $1,295,000. He explained that there are construction costs
and there are soft costs which include architect/engineering fees, site designing,
engineering testing fees, occupancy costs, furniture fixtures, equipment, and so on which
are outside of building construction.
Mr. Klus again indicated that he is not in favor of an elevated track. If there is going to
be a basketball facility then don't do a halfway job by having an undersized track. There
are enough places where people can walk and run in Edina. He feels it's a waste of
money to put in an undersized track because he doesn't feel it will get used. Mr. White
agreed saying he doesn't see a lot of people using the track either. Mr. Klus noted that he
would like to see an amendment made to throw out the elevated track. Mr. Housh stated
that he thinks everything should be put in and the let the city council decide if they want
to take something out. Mr. Murrin noted that if there isn't an elevated track there are
going to be problems with people interfering with basketball. Basketball will have a lot
more proper use if there is an elevated track. Mr. Mooty stated that he thinks what Mr.
Klus and Mr. White are saying is are people going to use the track regardless of whether
it's on the floor or elevated. Mr. Keprios commented that he believes that there are many
people who will use the indoor track and it will maximize the facility.
Jeff Bohlig asked if anyone has considered as part of this facility a product that would
generate a positive cash flow. He explained that there are 3,000 kids in Edina who play
soccer. They rent a facility at Holy Angels for $30,000 a year, that's cash that goes
elsewhere because there are no facilities to use in Edina. He indicated that they have a
three month winter time season where they run camps, clinics and training/skills sessions.
He noted that the kids cannot use the gyms because the wood surface doesn't work for
soccer. He pointed out that Holy Angels is a private school in Richfield where they put
an artificial surface down six months out of the year and put a bubble over it. He noted
that it cost $1.1 million to build and in three years they had a positive cash flow and now
it's making money for their school. He noted that it not only serves their physical
education classes but is used for baseball, softball, track & field, football, soccer, and
even senior citizens come in and use it during the day. He noted that the Edina Soccer
Club's single largest expense is renting that facility.
Mr. Mooty indicated that a bubble makes sense if you put it over at Braemar. Mr. Bohlig
stated that the soccer community would like to see it over by Kuhlman field. Mr. Mooty
replied that he doesn't think a dome could be put in that area, the neighborhood would
10
never go for it. It would have to be at Braemar because it's in an environment where
nobody can see it and you're already tied into the Braemar facilities.
Mr. White stated that he thinks that's a good point and he's not against it. The more
facilities we have for everyone the better. However, we need to make a vote on what is in
front of us at this time. He commented that he is certainly open to talking about a bubble
in the future, but not tonight.
EVERYONE IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
VI. OTHER
A. Election of Officers - Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that next month will be
the election of officers for Chair and Vice -Chair. He indicated that Mr. Herring asked
him to share with the Park Board that he has been asked to attend a management college
on the east coast and will be gone for ten weeks. Therefore, he will miss the April and
May meetings but still has a strong interest in serving on the Park Board.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
George Klus MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:00 P.M. Karla Sitek
SECONDED THE MOTION. MEETING ADJOURNED.
11
Petition
To: Edina City Council
From: Richmond Hills Neighborhood Association
Subject: Grandview Square Development
We, the residents of the Richmond Hills neighborhood oppose ceding any portion of our existing
neighborhood park, "Sherwood Park", to the "Grandview Square" development. It is of vital importance
to us that you remember, as we do, that the City Council stated that the park would be left intact , a
commitment also made by the Ron Clark representative at the late -fall neighborhood presentation
meeting!
On March 27, 2000, OPUS/Ron Clark presented its site plan to the Neighborhood Association. It was a
shock to observe that "Sherwood Park" was dramatically reduced in size by four-story condominiums!
This is completely unacceptable. We all believed in good faith that the developer would honor the
commitment made to preserving Sherwood Park, as indicated on the plan he created and presented to
the Association and the City Council in late fall -- a plan he used to gain our approval and support. (See
attached site plan and overview).
A considerable number of Association neighbors pointed out at Council meetings and in letters to the
Council the need for keeping the park intact. Those reasons included:
1.) The park is a Vital part of this neighborhood.
- people buy homes here because of the park.
- there is a growing number of children in the area, who need and use the park.
- we hold neighborhood functions there.
- our grandchildren enjoy it.
2.) The park acts as a "buffer" between our neighborhood and the higher -traffic, commercial
area.
- this need will be even greater with the increased congestion and traffic generated from
the new development.
- Sherwood Park was initially proposed by developers as offering a good "buffer"
between the existing neighborhood and a new development, indicating to us
acknowledged understanding of its importance.
3.) The proposed residential buildings taking over the park area are four stories high, totaling
approximately 52 feet! If allowed to be developed as proposed, they would be an overwhelming
presence to all nearby housing and tower over the entrance to our existing neighborhood.
4.) The park at our entrance meets a BASIC NEED. This is a unique land -locked area and we
have no practical alternative for a park. We use and enjoy Sherwood Park. We have been told
throughout this matter that both the developer and the City Council would respect the needs of
the citizens who live in the area. It has always been Edina's practice to carefully consider these
needs. Please don't let indifference or financial appeal outweigh them.... "'
.�
0
Q)
.0
0
U
U
a
0
\
�L
a
y
0
m
u
c
m
u
c
o
d
a\i
a
d�
o
a
�
N
h
U'
UW
U
J
J
V
y
y
a
a
�
IL
z
'�
tJ
W
c
c
y
7
0
8
VJ
7
CL
Z
v)
Z
r�l
M
0
<
0
0
(D
o
0
(D Ckl
Mr.,
V) z
, Q a
3
c
(D
=r
0
(D
Z
C
3
cr
CL
aL
to
Ll ca
fA
0
Z
0
0
(D
D
3
rD
z
m
CL
OL
0
z
Q
a
3
(D
c
(D
=r
0
0
fD
y, .
(D
Z
Z
C
c
3
ty
CL
CL
CL
CL
0
(D
o
0
(D Ckl
Mr.,
V) z
, Q a
3
c
(D
=r
0
(D
Z
C
3
cr
CL
aL
to
Ll ca
fA
0
Z
0
0
(D
D
3
rD
z
m
CL
OL
0
I
r
0
4)
0
u
o
0
IL �
a
NIS
N
M
o
U
N
0 V)
CL
N
u
U
c
0
4
\
m
a
N
LGI
z Z75 z��
U
�
U
ly
0
�J
i
y
�
h
a
�
a
z
b
LGI
z Z75 z��
0 4 cQ
f~
o
(D
``
N
h
�v
rr �
ti
O
(D
z
{�
z
C
N
a
!.
a
CL
cy\
a
�}
m
tD
tD
N
`1
T
N
n
O
a
■ro
o
N
Q
0
a
O
CD
z
c
Cr
�D
1
D
CL
a
1
N
N
v D
3
(D c m
7 \' 7 C
3 9J `� 3
cr
CL �� a -r I L
CL OL c
N N Y
C�-
.si
Vl
syr
�
ti
A
n
A
fD
tD
tD
Q
cD
v.n
W
CL
a)
O
O
CL
Ci]
a�
0
m
0
U
r ✓ J
U
a
o
�
c
0
Z
d
C
d
1
a:
r,
7' V
U
c
�
U
c
Q
3
CL
2
n`
V7
Ji
\lV
W
S
0
O
-4
OI
ti
^
r ✓ J
C
�
Z
d
C
d
�
�
4
C
�
r,
7' V
N
a
3
o
z
�
;Z70
El
t
Ji
W
S
0
O
m
O
U
o
o
CL
N
u
u
0
IL jv
'O
r ✓ J
C
�
Z
d
C
d
�
�
4
C
�
7' V
N
a
o
z
�
;Z70
El
t
m
O
U
o
o
CL
N
u
u
0
IL jv
A
N
W
S
0
O
-4
S
�
a
d
,4
z
N
� 3
Q �
_ z
M0
cQ
z
N
z_
m
., m
`N
o
o
Z
Z
cQ
N
�
�
Q
Q.
Q.
a
y
N
r
� s
c7Z
n
UI
n
�U
Vl
�
O
A
A
N
"O
Z
SA
U3
Q
Q
0
r
Q.
m
Q
�
a
47
D
Z75 -
C:
0
CL
0
z z
(D
o o
c
0)
in
Yf�
N
0
U
0
O
4r
�
�l
0
z z
(D
o o
c
0)
in
Yf�
N
a
m�
C E C
a� a 6
�, z
2
LI1
N
v
i
IM
�a
0
Q
v
d
Cyd
y
Z
d
m�
C E C
a� a 6
�, z
2
LI1
N
m
a
U
CD
d
a
U
V}
y
�
w
rn
CL
CL
d
1
m
^� d
CD
(D
u
c
u
c
CL
r�
C
y
N
•`a
i��r
a
U
CL
Imo^
U
U
IZZ
a�
a
�
iri
Z
J
in
Nn
rA
N
IL
(\1
m
^� d
VN IVL'. J
C
•`a
i��r
a
'S�
CL
IZZ
a�
a
iri
Z
in
VN IVL'. J
0 1 :�-
U,
0
Qs
I
a
10
D
March 29, 2000
Edina Planning Commission
Edina Park Board
Mr. John Keprios, Director of Parks and Recreation, City of Edina
Dear Planning Commission and Park Board Members and Director Keprios;
I write to request that you reject the current Opus/Clark proposed development plan, and instruct them to
submit a revised plan which takes no land from Sherwood Park.
Last Fall, during the process of selecting a developer for the Kunz -Lewis site, Opus Northwest and Ron
Clark Construction's original proposal for their development, "Grandview Square", entirely eliminated the
existing neighborhood park, Sherwood Park.
Their second proposal, presented to the HRA, the City Council, and the Richmond Hills neighborhood in a
neighborhood meeting, left Sherwood Park as it currently is.
As you will recall, residents of Richmond Hills expressed their concern to this developer and to the City
Council that land in Sherwood Park not be used in this development. Both the developer and the City
Council gave assurances that existing parkland would not be used in this development.
On Monday March 27, 2000, I attended a presentation by Opus/Clark at Our Lady of Grace. Their most
recent proposal involves "reallocating" a very large piece of Sherwood Park to their "town square" and
siting four story condo/townhouses on the park.
They claim that this will increase parkland; further they claim the neighborhood will have access to the
"town square". At best, these claims are a pleasant fiction.
Opus/Clark's current proposal eliminates useful park space. This space is currently used by the
neighborhood. In addition to the variety of sports, including but not limited to football, volleyball, soccer,
baseball, and softball, played or practiced by neighborhood children; that space provides a wide open play
area for kite flying, Frisbee, running, etc. Such space is not readily available elsewhere in the area.
The Richmond Hills neighborhood uses the existing Sherwood Park. It is the only city park readily and
safely available to children in the neighborhood. In addition to recreational activities, Sherwood Park has
served as a gathering place for neighbors and a wonderful location for birthday and graduation parties (my
son's university graduation party was held there).
Sherwood Park has also been a buffer between the existing single family homes in Richmond Hills and the
business activity of the Grandview area.
I described the developer's claims regarding their use of the Park as, at best, a pleasant fiction. By changing
Sherwood Park's present space, there will no longer be sufficient open space for athletic or recreational
activities (other than jogging in place). Even though access is provided from the remnant of Sherwood Park
to the proposed town square, I doubt children & adolescents will be welcome there—even should they
desire to use that limited space. By several accounts, Mr. Clark believes that proximity to park areas such
as Sherwood Park are a detriment to his developments, or at least to their expeditious sale. He may well be
correct. I suspect that means he will seek to actively discourage uses of the Park and the town square which
provide this effect.
Neighborhoods and neighborhood parks are important to the quality of life here in Edina. The preferences
of the existing neighborhood should be a concern of the Council, the HRA, the Planning Commission, and
the Park Board.
Please reject the developer's proposal and clearly indicate that no current land in Sherwood Park is to be
used in this development.
Sincerely,
John Menke
5301 Pinewood Trail
Edina, MN 55436
612-922-2608
PROPOSED DONATIONS/MEMORIALS POLICY
Giving appropriate recognition to the donor(s) will always be an important factor when
accepting donations. I propose that donations (and/or memorials) be recognized in a
manner based on the amount or dollar value of the donation. In other words, I propose
that all donations greater than $300.00 but less than $5,000 that are accepted by the City
of Edina be recognized.by:
1. Displaying donation, name of donor, name or names of those given in memory of (if
applicable) on the City's web site for one calendar year (January 1 -December 31).
2. Displaying donation, name of donor, name or names of those given in memory of (if
applicable) in the City's About Town publication once during the calendar year (the
first edition of each year).
3. Sending a letter of appreciation from the Mayor to the donor(s) for their contribution.
4. Keeping a pennanent record of the contribution in the archives of the Edina Historical
Society.
For donations of $5,000-$24,999, I propose that they be recognized by:
1.
Displaying donation, naive of donor, name or names of those given in memory of (if
applicable) on the City's web site for one calendar year (January 1 -December 31).
2.
Displaying donation, name of donor, name or names of those given in memory of (if
applicable) in the City's About Town publication once during the calendar year (the
first edition of each year).
• 3.
Sending a letter of appreciation from the Mayor to the donor(s) for their contribution.
4.
Keeping a pennanent record of the contribution in the archives of the Edina Historical
Society.
5.
Permanently displaying the name(s) of donor(s) on "CONTRIBUTORS TO THE
EDINA PARK SYSTEM" board under the bronze category.
6.
Upon request, displaying a permanent bronze casting of the name of the donor and
accompanying language at a location approved by the Park and Recreation Director.
For donations of $25,000 or more, I propose that they be recognized by:
1. Displaying donation, name of donor, name or names of those given in memory of (if
applicable) on the City's web site for one calendar year (January 1 -December 31).
2. Displaying donation, name of donor, name or names of those given in memory of (if
applicable) in the City's About Town publication once during the calendar year (the
first edition of each year).
3. Presenting an engraved plaque of appreciation by the Mayor to the donor(s) for their
contribution at an appropriate time and location, i.e. a ribbon cutting ceremony, a City
Council meeting, or All Volunteers Awards Reception, etc.
4. Keeping a permanent record of the contribution in the archives of the Edina Historical
Society.
5. Permanently displaying the name(s) of donor(s) on "CONTRIBUTORS TO THE
EDINA PARK SYSTEM" board under the appropriate category, i.e. Silver, Gold or
Platinum.
6. Upon request, displaying a permanent bronze casting of the name of the donor and
accompanying language at a location approved by the Park and Recreation Director.
The permanent display board that gives recognition to those who have made significant
contributions to the park system would have the following categories:
CONTRIBUTORS TO THE EDINA PARK SYSTEM
PLATINUM $100,000 or more
GOLD $50,000 - $99,999
SILVER $25,000 - $49,999
BRONZE $5,000 - $24,999
Those who have contributed less than $5,000 at one time would not be placed on this
permanently and publicly displayed board. Those who have collectively contributed
more than $5,000 over a period of time (but never $5,000 or more at any one time) would
still not be placed on the board. I propose that this permanent display board be placed in
the Council Chambers or its adjacent hallway. If the Park Board prefers to have this
display in a park setting instead, I propose that it be displayed at Edinborough Park. Both
locations are secure and highly visible by the public.
I would further propose that the display board be retroactive to include all those
individuals, businesses and organizations who have made significant contributions
(bronze, silver, gold or platinum) to the park system in the past. This would require some
extensive research, however, I believe that the results would be appreciated and
worthwhile.
This proposed policy is not to be confused with the naming of parks, facilities, amenities,
programs, or events. This should be considered by the Park Board and City Council on a
case by case basis.
ANDERSON -JOHNSON
ASSOCIATES,
INC.
Landscape Architecture • Site Planning • Civil Engineering
March 14, 2000
John Keprios
Director of Parks & Recreation
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424-1394
Re: Fabric Dome Structure
Edina Community Center Campus
Dear Mr. Keprios,
On Monday, February 28, 2000, you authorized Anderson -Johnson Associates, Inc. (AJA) to
consider the options of placing a fabric dome structure on sites within the Community Center
campus. Three optional site locations were to be considered. They are described as follows:
Option No. 1 - Kuhlman Field to be substantially enclosed including the football/soccer field
and the eight -lane running track.
Option No. 2 - Kuhlman Field, to enclose the area within the track oval from three feet inside the
track running surface (east and west sides) and terminating ten feet beyond the football end zones
(north and south).
Option No. 2A - Same as Option No. 2 above except extend the north and south ends of the
fabric structure to follow the curved arc of the running track.
Option No. 3 - North Practice Field. Enclose a re -constructed practice field located between the
Community Center and Southview Middle School buildings.
To determine the feasibility of each site, AJA researched the availability of appropriate fabric
structures. A manufacturer and product was subsequently selected that was high in quality and
that had a long history in fabricating, installing and servicing fabric dome structures. The
manufacturer also had a number of structures in place and functioning satisfactorily in the
Minnesota area. Although other manufacturers and products are available, our feasibility
considerations are based on one manufacturer assuming others would adapt appropriately.
THE DOME STRUCTURE
The dome is a fabric structure constructed of high strength flame resistant PVC coated polyester
material. The fabric structure generally has a ten year pro -rated warranty provided by the
VALLEY SQUARE OFFICE CENTER • SUITE 200 • 7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD • MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55427
PH (612) 544-7129 • FAX (612) 544-0531
0
I
manufacturer. The useful life expectancy is considered to be eighteen to twenty years.
THE MECHANICAL SYSTEM
The mechanical system required to heat and inflate the dome structure is located outside the ,
structure enclosure. The remote system provides a complete station of controls, heat exchangers
and air chambers necessary to convey the warm air through underground ducts to the dome
structure.
THE LIGHTING
Interior lighting is provided by a high intensity metal halide indirect lighting system. The system
utilizes optical reflectors to maximize lighting uniformity on the playing surface. The light level
on the playing surface is approximately 45 to 50 foot candles.
THE SITE IMPACTS
Placing the fabric structure has a number of physical impacts on any given site. Those impacts
are:
Anchoring - The very nature of a hot air inflated structure requires substantial anchoring to
secure its position and to keep it grounded. Anchoring is accomplished by constructing a
concrete grade beam (two feet wide and four feet deep) continuously along the outside perimeter
of the structure.
Snow Removal - Continuous removal of snow from the perimeter of the structure is critical.
Space must be provided to allow access for removal and for storage of snow throughout the
winter snow season. Snow removal is generally accomplished by hand operated power snow -
throwing equipment. Care must be taken not to damage sensitive surfaces existing at the dome's
perimeter:
Mechanical Area - Heating, air handling and control systems require adequate space outside the
dome structure. The location must be accessible for the initial installation and for subsequent
servicing. An area approximately 60 feet by 30 feet is required.
Storage Area - Storage space must be provided for the fabric, lighting system and other
components during the period the structure is down. The storage can be "outside,"but will
require an area approximately 25 feet by 25 feet.
Access - Access to the dome structure must be provided for users and spectators, including
handicapped persons. An enclosed walkway is generally provided to a point of controlled entry.
The point of controlled entry is often a small building housing a facility manager and public
toilets.
Playfield - Placement of the dome structure over a playing field requires the field surface consist
of a synthetic turf material. Natural grass can not survive within a domed environment.
THE SITE CONSIDERATIONS
Option No. l
Placement of a dome structure at Option No. 1 location can be accomplished; however, there are
a number of site conditions that make this location less desirable. They are addressed as follows:
Size - The overall dimensions of the structure would be approximately 280 feet wide by 600 feet
long with a total floor space of 151,175 square feet. The height of the structure, impacted by its
length and width would be approximately 90 feet. The structure may physically and aesthetically
appear forced on the site.
Initial Cost - The initial cost of the structure would be higher due to its size. The cost of heating
and air handling equipment would be greater as reflected by larger capacities necessary to
accommodate larger dome volume.
Operating Cost - The continuous operating costs would be higher as reflected by the larger
mechanical equipment and the greater volume of interior space to heat and inflate.
Storage Space - Additional space would be required to store the additional fabric and equipment
generated by a larger dome structure.
Snow Removal and Storage - Perhaps the most constraining factor of Option No. 1 is the
inability to remove snow from the structure's perimeter. The structure would be anchored
immediately adjacent to a four foot high spectator control fence allowing no space to access
snow, removal equipment.
Option No. 2
Placement of a dome structure at Option No. 2 location can be accomplished with limited
constraints. They are addressed as follows:
Size - The overall dimension of the Option No. 2 Dome would be approximately 210 feet wide
and 380 feet long, with a total floor space of 79,800 square feet. The height of the structure
would be approximately 65 feet.
Initial Cost - The initial cost would be 53% less than Option No. 1 due to reduced size.
Operating Cost - The operating cost would be less than Option No. 1 due to reduced volume.
Storage Space - The storage space required would be less than Option No. 1 due to reduced
material.
Snow Removal and Storage - Adequate space is available to access snow blowing equipment.
Snow storage would be accomplished on the east and west running track straight-aways and in
the end areas within the track oval.
Owner must be aware that extreme care must be exercised when removing snow at the dome
perimeter from the track edge. Owner must also be aware that snow stored on the running track
will delay the use of the track for early spring training until snow melt occurs. Snow storage may
also cause uneven water patterns on the track surface.
Option No. 2A
Placement of a dome structure at Option No. 2A location can be accomplished with limited
constraints. They are addressed as follows:
Size - The overall dimension of the Option No. 2A dome is approximately 212 feet wide by 520
feet long, with a total floor space of 99,736 square feet. The height of the structure would remain
the same as in Option No. 2. The additional space would allow for simultaneous multi -sport
events.
Initial Cost - The initial cost would be 23% greater then Option No. 2, but less than Option No.
1.
Operating Cost - The operating cost would be greater than Option No. 2 but less than Option No.
1.
Storage Space - The storage space required would be greater than Option No. 2, but less than
Option No. 1.
Snow Removal and Storage - Similar to Option No. 2 with the exception that all removal and
storage must occur on the running track.
Option No. 3
Placement of a dome structure at Option No. 3 location can be accomplished with limited
constraints. They are addressed as follows:
Size - The overall dimension of the Option No. 3 dome is approximately 180 feet wide by 320
feet long, with a total floor space of 57,6000 square feet. The height of the structure is
approximately 60 feet.
Initial Cost - The initial cost would be 18% less than Option No. 2.
Operating Cost - The operation cost would be less than Option No. 2.
Storage Space - Storage space for the dome fabric and other components is unavailable at this
location without the loss of approximately three parking stalls.
Mechanical Space - Space for heating, air handling and control equipment is unavailable at this
location without the loss of approximately three parking stalls.
Snow Removal and Storage - Adequate space is available to access snow blowing equipment at
perimeter of the structure. Some snow storage may occur on parking lots adjacent to the dome.
Setbacks - The 50 foot setback requirement from Southview Lane on the north will impact the
length of the structure. If a dome structure were to be constructed at this location it would
prohibit future use of the site for regulation football.
ESTIMATED COSTS
Option No. 1
Initial Cost $1,815,000.
Operating Costs, per season $60,000 to $70,000
Take down and set up, per season $17,000 to $18,000
Option No. 2
Initial Cost $969,000.
Operating Costs, per season $30,000 to $35,000
Take down and set up, per season $12,000 to $13,000
Option No. 2A
Initial Cost $1,194,000.
Operating Costs, per season $40,000 to $45,000
Take down and set up, per season $13,000 to $15,000
Option No. 3
Initial Cost $793,000.
Operating Costs, per season $25,000 to $30,000
Take down and set up, per season $10,000 to $11,000
The above considerations provide a description of optional locations, unique constraints at each
location and an estimate of costs. We trust this information will assist you in drawing
conclusions and in making a critical programming decision. Thank you for allowing us to
continue serving the City of Edina.
Respectfully submitted,
ES, INC
A
C]
DATE: April 6, 2000
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF EDINA
TO: John Keprios - Park & Recreation Director
FROM: Wayne Houle - Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: Utility Improvements Regarding Pamela & Strachauer Park
Attached you will find two maps showing utility improvements as they affect the above two
parks.
The sanitary sewer project was initiated from the sanitary sewer backups that occurred during
the summer of 1997. The purpose of this project is to provide relief to the northerly trunk
sanitary sewer that exits the City at Xerxes Avenue and West 54th Street by redirecting
sewage to the trunk sanitary sewer at West 65th Street and Xerxes Avenue. The sanitary
sewer lift station located at the southerly end of Pamela Park will be reconstructed to gain
more capacity for this sewer diversion. A pipe or forcemain will then be constructed from
Pamela Park to the trunk sanitary sewer at West 65th Street and Xerxes Avenue.
The proposed storm water quality ponds and the lake dredging of Pamela Lake was initiated
by local residents and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The impetus for
this project is to improve the water quality of Pamela Lake and provide new regional water
quality ponds for storm water that currently drains directly into Minnehaha Creek. Funding for
this project will be mostly from MCWD.
Both projects will not directly affect the scheduled play areas of either park. Status of the two
projects are:
Sanitary Sewer Project: Plans and Specifications are complete. Bids will be taken end
of April with a end of May construction start.
Storm Water Quality Ponds: Preliminary Plans are complete. Permits will still need to
be acquired from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Department of Natural
Resources, Army Corp of Engineers, and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The
permit process might take up to six months. We expect construction to start late fall
and into the winter.
I will be available for the May Park Board meeting to answer any questions you or any Park
Board member may have.
o e
Cn
\\CbR6PnOa ��//
DATE: April 6, 2000
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF EDINA
TO: John Keprios - Park & Recreation Director
FROM: Wayne Houle - Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: Utility Improvements Regarding Pamela & Strachauer Park
Attached you will find two maps showing utility improvements as they affect the above two
parks.
The sanitary sewer project was initiated from the sanitary sewer backups that occurred during
the summer of 1997. The purpose of this project is to provide relief to the northerly trunk
sanitary sewer that exits the City at Xerxes Avenue and West 54th Street by redirecting
sewage to the trunk sanitary sewer at West 65th Street and Xerxes Avenue. The sanitary
sewer lift station located at the southerly end of Pamela Park will be reconstructed to gain
more capacity for this sewer diversion. A pipe or forcemain will then be constructed from
Pamela Park to the trunk sanitary sewer at West 65th Street and Xerxes Avenue.
The proposed storm water quality ponds and the lake dredging of Pamela Lake was initiated
by local residents and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The impetus for
this project is to improve the water quality of Pamela Lake and provide new regional water
quality ponds for storm water that currently drains directly into Minnehaha Creek. Funding for
this project will be mostly from MCWD.
Both projects will not directly affect the scheduled play areas of either park. Status of the two
projects are:
Sanitary Sewer Project: Plans and Specifications are complete. Bids will be taken end
of April with a end of May construction start.
Storm Water Quality Ponds: Preliminary Plans are complete. Permits will still need to
be acquired from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Department of Natural
Resources, Army Corp of Engineers, and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The
permit process might take up to six months. We expect construction to start late fall
and into the winter.
I will be available for the May Park Board meeting to answer any questions you or any Park
Board member may have.
{
w
4 ' ''"""` ` { --
1 '! 5 R� �•.
;IitMM'S�w��Mlrr�*IK��yp.Y r� _ rkt.�.i;'a'
1
.41
FT
ew • 7� Y i=w.
m
s
I,
i
, .as:.:.'�.w;vti+l :.".`r.?..rirwar..a_.. r 'M �!= �'�' / tt► i. —
Prra=1 n
t 1 y!
r
POND ! Pdq S
r
C
`t- � f
it
Patrick & Anne Marie Olk
5315 Pinewood Trail
Edina, MN 55436
Home Phone (952) 922-6393
April 07, 2000
Edina Park Board
City Hall
4801 West 50th St.
Edina, MN 55424-1394
Re: Grandview Square and Sherwood Park
We are writing to you regarding the Grandview Square development. On March 27, 2000, OPUS/Ron Clark
presented their current plan to the residents of our neighborhood. We were very disappointed to find that the plan
has changed to include much of Sherwood Park for residential construction. The developers are proposing four
story condominiums to be constructed in Sherwood Park along Sherwood Road and ending approximately 65 feet
from single family homes.
Not only does this park get used extensively by our neighborhood, it is one of the reasons why we purchased our
current home. In addition, the park's layout provides a nice buffer zone between our neighborhood and the
existing commercial property (soon to be Grandview Square). We feel strongly that Sherwood Park should be left
alone and not included in this development. As you may already know, the Planning Commission at their March
29th meeting voted not to use the park as part of this development. We also do not want the park to be
reconfigured to allow the residential portion of the Grandview Square development to be closer to single family
homes in our neighborhood. The park will provide a nice transition from multi -family to single family residences.
The height of the proposed residential buildings adjacent to the park is especially concerning. Four story buildings
towering over the entrance to our neighborhood and nearby homes, clearly isn't in the best interest of our
neighborhood. We would like to see the developers create multi -family residential units less than four stories high
along the park property.
We understand that the layout of the site plan which was presented to the City Council when it selected OPUS/Ron
Clark for the Grandview Square development last fall, had to be revised to address the requests of the Hennepin
County Library. (We have attached the original site plan and the most recent site plan for your review). We do
like the latest proposed relocation of the Library/Senior Center, but not at the expense of the park land. We hope
that the requests of the library and the financial goals of OPUS/Ron Clark do not outweigh the needs of current
residents in this Edina neighborhood. Given the most recent site plan, we would like to have the condominiums
removed from the park land and to lower the building height of the remaining residential units bordering the park.
If that is not possible, we propose that the development use the original site plan (dated 10/6/99) and still limit the
height of the residential units closer to the park.
As Mayor Maetzold said in the spring edition of About Town "Edina's infrastructure - streets, utilities, parks and
public buildings - are the essential components of the foundation of our city. The quality of life in a city is defined,
in part, by its infrastructure." Please do not allow Sherwood Park to be used as part of this development and please
limit the height of the condominium units close to our park. This area is where we - and nearly 50 other families -
have made our home for many years. Our Edina neighborhood would like to maintain its quality of life.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
s1
Susan M Burchfiel
5237 Richwood Dr
Edina MN 55436
Phone 928-0880
John Kepios, Director
Edina Park and Recreation Department
City Hall
4801 West 50t' Street
Edina MN 55424
Dear Sir:
Subject: A Local Resident's Input on Losing Sherwood Park
Please do not let the Grandview Square development project take our Sherwood Park. Leave it as a
local community park.
The park is loved and used by many in the local community. The local dads pitch baseball to their
young sluggers. The local moms watch their children play on the equipment. The local retirees and
their dogs scamper about the park. I savior the park's little corridor of trees and the little `green
space' it provides in a vast metropolitan area.
x`mily chose to move to Edina 6 years ago because Edina was a beautiful city with a wonderful
" syste We chose to buy our home because a local park was within walking distance.
�Y
w
Sh"erwood ::irk makes our community abetter place to live. Please do not let a developer take our
xn ere
san Burchfiel
Edina Girls Fast Pitch Association
Parent Handout
April 2000
President Dick Glover
Vice President Brad Bolin
Secretary Paula Meyer
E
Introduction
Welcome to the Edina Girls Fastpitch Association (referred to as EGFA).
EGFA is a non-profit corporation existing to provide a developmental program of organized Fastpitch softball for
girls ages eight through high school who reside in the community of Edina. Programs are designed for each age
level beginning with the 10 & Under girls program and running through 18 & Under girls program. EG FA exists to
provide a beneficial, enjoyable program and to promote the healthy development and self-esteem of every young
athlete in a team environment.
EGFA is affiliated with the Suburban Fastpitch League and Minnesota Sports Federation (MSF), which serves as
the local association of the Amateur Softball Association (ASA). ASA'USA Softball is recognized by the United
States Olympic Committee as the national governing body for softball.
We are a volunteer organization and as such, we are always looking for ways to improve the program and would
welcome additional volunteers. Please assist us in making the 2000 season a huge success.
Goals of the EGFA
EGFA, consistent with its Articles of Incorporation and By -Laws, is organized to provide eligible girls with many
hours of healthful, safe enjoyment in a team experience, whereby they will:
1. Learn good sportsmanship, understand fair play, and 'develop the ability to accept victory or defeat
graciously;
2. Develop individual Fastpitch softball skills to the best of their ability;
3. Develop team skills, knowledge of the game, and an attitude of team participation, loyalty, and
responsibility;
4. Participate in an independent Fastpitch softball program which compliments and supplements their
respective school program;
5. Participate in an organized program of fun in athletics for children from the ages of eight through high
school.
EGFA does not extend its jurisdiction controls beyond the normal Fastpitch softball season (spring tryouts through
September) with the exception of its optional Fastpitch Winter Clinics. Tournaments, trips, special clinics, league
play, etc., which follow or precede EGFA's "season" are outside EGFA's supervision and control.
Responsibilities — Players and Parents
Parents' Responsibilities
Parents are expected to help with duties that involve the operation of their team which may include:
a. Team manager
b. Team statistician
c. Score board operators
d. Team sponsor contact
e. Coordinator for Edina invitational tournament
f. Coordinator for out-of-town tournaments
g. Helping to call parents or players if a practice or game is rescheduled or cancelled
2. Commitment is an important factor for a successful season. Commitment involves not only players
and coaches, but equally, the parents and families of the players as well. During the Fastpitch softball
season activity conflicts may occur. However, we ask parents to understand that a player's participation is
crucial for the overall success of the team. Players must be in attendance at every practice, game,
and tournament. Parents keep in mind your child may have been selected over someone else's child.
3. Because the EGFA is a non-profit organization, the future growth and opportunities of the program comes
from its ability to raise funds. Every player's family is required to assist with the annual fund-raiser.
Parents' involvement with this is crucial to the success of the EGFA program. Your comments, ideas and
input are welcomed.
A fund-raiser buy-out option is available for each player, payable with a separate check at the time of
registration. All checks will be held until after the fund-raiser. If a player sells more than the agreed
amount during the fund-raiser the check will be returned to the player's family.
4. When an EGFA team sponsors a tournament, every player's family is required to work at the tournament
to help make the EGFA sponsored tournament a success for our players and our community.
Parents are urged to contact an EGFA Board member regarding their concerns. A list of Board members
and phone numbers are attached.
Players Responsibilities
1. Players will purchase their appropriate uniform to be used for games only and are responsible for keeping
the uniform clean and presentable. During the season the should not be modified in any way.
2. Players are responsible for providing their softball gloves, ASA*USA approved cleated shoes, base sliding
pads and batting gloves.
3. Bats will be provided to the team, hcwever, a player may wish to use their own bats. Bats should be
clearly identified as being an `official" softball bat.
4. Certain specialty equipment such as catchers equipment (glove & protective gear) may be supplied by
EGFA. Players shall concern themselves with the maintenance thereof.
Attendance
Players must attend the scheduled practices and games, or notify the head or assistant coaches to be
excused. Failure to attend practice sessions and games may, at the option of the coach, affect playing
time.
2
Substance Abuse
EGFA has and enforces a zero tolerance substance abuse policy. The Minnesota State High School rules
on alcohol, controlled substances and tobacco will be followed. This will apply to use at any time and
place during the season. The disciplinary sanction for violation of such rules shall be immediate
suspension for such period as the EGFA Grievance Committee determines.
Etiquette — Players and Parents
Players
1. Any inappropriate behavior of an EGFA player on or off the field while involved with or associated with any
EGFA clinic, practice, game or other activity (including fighting, stealing, shoplifting, vandalism, etc.) will
not be tolerated. Players engaging in such behavior are to be immediately reported to the EGFA
Grievance Committee. A disciplinary sanction of suspension will be used where deemed appropriate. All
violations of a local law or ordinance are to be reported to the appropriate police department.
2. Players should never verbally, or by gesture, criticize your coach, your teammates, the opposing team, or
umpires. A disciplinary sanction of suspension will be used where deemed appropriate.
3. Profanity of any kind can not be used or tolerated. Use of profanity may cause your team to be penalized
with an "out" or the player's ejection from the game. A disciplinary sanction of suspension will be used
where deemed appropriate.
4. Players who fail to comply with the stated guidelines and rules of the EGFA may result in permanent
suspension from the team or EGFA program at the discretion of the EGFA Grievance Committee.
Parents
1. Abusive conduct is contrary to the goals and mission of the EGFA program and cannot be tolerated.
Additionally, it may also result in forfeiture of the game to the opposing team.
2. Abusive conduct to coaches may result in the permanent suspension of parents from attendance at
practices, games, tournaments or EGFA program at the discretion of the EGFA Grievance committee.
3. Use of alcohol or other mind -altering substances around players and coaches is prohibited. Use of these
substances may be violation of local ordinances and laws. Violation may result in disciplinary sanctions, at
discretion of the EGFA Grievance Committee.
.4. As a parent, if you see something that bothers you, promptly and discretely call the matter to the attention
of the coach or appropriate EGFA Board member. The season is short and the EGFA Board wants a
positive experience for your daughter and all players on the team. If the coach or board member does not
remedy the situation, follow the procedures outlined under Section 19.0 Grievances.
Harassment Policy
EGFA believes that every participant has the right to an environment free of unwelcome verbal or physical
conduct which harasses, disrupts, or interferes with the individual's performance or which creates an intimidating,
offensive, or hostile environment. EGFA will not tolerate its members engaging in this type of behavior. Any
member participating in such negative conduct will be subject to appropriate corrective action which may include
termination from all activities.
Member Harassment means — unwelcome conduct directed toward a member that illegally discriminates against
that member, unreasonably interferes with an individual's performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile or
offensive environment.
3
Sexual Harassment means — unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical
conduct of a sexual nature where:
a. Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly as a term or condition of an
individual's participation; or
b. Submission to or rejection of such conduct is used or threatened to be used as the basis for
participation; or
c. Such conduct unreasonably interferes with an individual's performance or creates an intimidating,
hostile or offensive environment.
Guidelines
If you become aware of a situation involving unwelcome and inappropriate behavior directed toward you or
another participant, report it immediately to your coach, parent or a Board member.
If for any reason you do not feel that you can speak to your coach or parent about the situation, please report to a
Board member or the EGFA Grievance Committee.
Upon receipt of a complaint under this policy, EGFA will initiate an investigation of the situation. The investigation
will document the responses of all individuals involved.
Disciplinary Action
Any disciplinary action taken in response to the findings of a harassment complaint will be based on the individual
circumstances of each situation. Disciplinary actions may include, but are not limited to written warnings,
suspension or legal action.
In addition, if it is determined that a person has falsely and intentionally accused someone of harassment,
appropriate disciplinary action may be taken, which may include suspension or legal action.
12
Members of the Board
Dick Glover
942-0191 President
Brad Bolin
944-8920 Vice -President
Paula Meyer
944-0471 Secretary
Eva Fix
944-6706
Rob Little
828-9604
Dennis Luoto
942-9522
Bill 'Lykken
943-1212
Mark Nordling
929-5169
Harriet Peterson
920-6127
Sandy Rosequist
920-4076
Scott Rosequist
920-4076
Carol Rothe
920-4504
Paul Schroeder
829-5894
12
EDINA GIRLS FASTPITCH ASSOCIATION
INTRODUCTION:
Edina Girls Fastpitch Assn. Is a non-profit corporation existing to provide a
developmental program of organized Fastpitch softball for girls ages eight through High
school who reside in the community of Edina.
GOALS of the EGFA
1. Sportsmanship, understand fair play and develop the ability to accept victory or defeat
graciously
2. Develop individual's fastpitch skills to the best of their ability.
3. Develop team skills, knowledge of the game and an attitude of team participation,
loyalty and responsibility.
The EGFA represents about 100 Edina girls and families who are participating this year.
We are fielding 6 teams this spring. One IOU, two 12U, one 14U one 16U and one 18U
team. Each team can have anywhere's from 12 to 15 players on them
Our season runs from the first week of May through the State Tournaments in the first
part of July.
Our fielding comes from three major sources. Players registration fees. Our annual flower
sale and three Edina Fastpitch tournaments we hold each year at the Vanvalkenberg
complex. This years IOU and 12U tournament is May 19,20,2 1. and we have 24 teams
from throughout the metro area coming in. It is known as one of the premier tournaments
held each vear
If you want to see some great games, and great sportsmanship, come to any of these
tournaments. You'll see pitchers who are 12 and 13 years old launch a pitch from 35-40
feet towards a batter at about 45-50 mph. And you'll see batters who can hit those
pitches.
Challenges to the EGFA
Playing field accessibility.
We realize that we are a small association by other association standards and the Park &
Rec. has been nothing but great in helping us gain access to fields for practices, but in
April and May Edina's fields get a lot of use between fastpitch, slowpitch and adult
softball. Pamela park would be our preferred set of fields for games and practices as that
is where the batting cage is located.
'the upcoming bond bill passes later this year it will help relieve some of the congestion
iq the future.
Player accessibility to the sport.
Many of the other communities we face have no slow pitch programs.
Eden Prairie, Burnsville, Lakeville to name a few, have only in house and travling
fastpitch programs.
However, all is not doom and gloom for the Edina Girls Fastpitch program.
In the last three years alone we have had two different age level State Championship
teams, and three others who have finished with second place in the State and one third
place.
Ours is a growing program.
Edina Baseball Association
Purpose
Provide Edina youth with opportunities to learn and play baseball.
Goals
Learn to play baseball.
Have fun.
Promote a sense of personal accomplishment.
Learn important life values such as leadership, cooperation, sportsmanship, and determination.
2000 Registration Summary
' Several 10 year-old teams will play 2 weekend tournaments
2000
House
Traveling
Age
Age Reg
House
Teams
Traveling
Teams
7
145
Pony League
12
-
-
145
8
135
Cactus League
9
-
-
135
9
175
Grapefruit League
16
-
-
170
10
127
Northern League
11-
127
11
122
National League
7
36
3
86
12
106
American League
6
33
3
73
13
122
Prairie League
7
26
2
96
14
103
Pacific Coast League
5
28
2
60
15
(above)
(above)
15
1
16+
51
Sr. Rec.
2
M. Mantle
17
22
Am Legion
12
Total
1086
' Several 10 year-old teams will play 2 weekend tournaments