Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-01-14 Park Board PacketCity of Edina EDINA PARK BOARD Tuesday, January 14, 1997 7:30 p.m. Manager's Conference Room AGENDA 1. Approval of December 10, 1996, Park Board meeting minutes. 2. Edina Aquatic Center. 3. Parks Referendum Projects Update. 4. Other. *5. Adjournment. * These are agenda items that require or request Park Board action. City Hall (612) 927-8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 927-7645 EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424-1394 TDD (612) 927-5461 Memo To: Edina Park Board. From: John Keprios, Director Edina Park and Recreation Department Date: January 6, 1997 Re: STAFF REPORT. Enclosed you should find the following items: 1.January 14, 1997, Park Board Agenda. 2. December 10, 1996, Park Board Minutes. 3. Revised Parks Referendum Projects List. 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 in case last minute items come up between now and the Park Board meeting, plus, cover any other concerns of Park Board members and/or attendees. EDINA AQUATIC CENTER RENOVATION At the December Park Board meeting, Park Board Member Andy Herring requested that the Edina Aquatic Center renovation project be placed on the agenda for discussion. Therefore, the following is a review of the project as it stands today. On Wednesday, October 16, 1996, bids were opened for the renovation of the Edina Aquatic Center. Renovation plans and specifications included replacement of the worn filtration system, replacement of the bath house and expansion of the wading pool. The bid package consisted of a base bid, one deduct alternate (wading pool playground equipment) , and five potential add alternates. The only add alternate that staff recommended and subsequently was approved by City Council was for the addition of ceramic tile in the shower areas of the bath house. Ceramic tile is deemed necessary to meet current City Health Codes. The City Council also approved staff's recommendation to accept the deduct alternate, which is the wading pool's new and expanded water playground equipment. The plan is to reinstall the existing equipment into the expanded wading pool. This still allows for replacing the existing equipment with the new expanded equipment in the future when additional funding is available. The bid results including the one add alternate and one deduct alternate were as follows: CONTRACTOR Messinger Construction Sheehy Construction Lund Martin Construction CM Construction (playground (ceramic equipment) tile) DEDUCT ADD BASE BID ALTERNATE ALTERNATE $1,635,000 ($140,000) $1,668,300 ($132,000) $1,697,000 $1,718,807 ($125,000) ($115,000) Mikkelson-Wulff Construction $2,259,732 ($106,000) BALANCE $16,700 $1,511,700 $10,000 $1,546,300 $18,500 $1,590,500 $10,000 $1,613,807 $10,000 $2,163,732 We were advised by our engineering consultant and contractors that due to the current and predicted construction industry, re -bidding this project at a later date would most likely not result in lower bids. Therefore, staff met with our engineering consulting firm, Woodward -Clyde Consultants and Thomas Meisinger from Meisinger Construction Company to reduce the cost of the project through value engineering. In other words, the low bid contractor, Meisinger Construction, agreed to reducing the cost of the project by agreeing to the following value engineering change orders: Reduce quantity of plastic lockers $12,078 Delete shower and dressing partitions 1,366 Change fiberglass doors to galvanized steel 12,140 Delete small wallet lockers 7,483 Delete upper wall cabinets in staff office 1,656 Substitute roof shingle for Class A - 25 year 3 tab shingle 1,925 Substitute stainless steel counters for plastic laminate 4,916 Reduce wire mesh reinforcing size in concrete base 1,483 Change automatic electronic plumbing fixtures to manual 4,451 Substitute automatic backwash filtration to manual 16,560 Delete new pool heater (use existing) 10,350 Delete one separation wall in each locker room 932 Replace exterior brick/block wall with decorative block 32,965 TOTAL VALUE ENGINEERING SAVINGS $108,305 Several of these changes can be added back to the facility when additional funding is available. All of the add alternates in the bid specifications that were rejected included: • Wading pool playground equipment, $140,000. • Air conditioning for concessions work area, $12,400. • Air conditioning for Pool Manager/Staff Office, $7,700 With the pre -approved value engineering savings change orders, the total bid package was follows: Meisinger Construction Balance Bid Deduct for Value Engineering TOTAL BID PACKAGE PROPOSAL $1,511,700 (108, 305) $1,403,395 On November 4, 1996, the City Council awarded the bid to Meisinger Construction Company for $1,511,700 with the understanding that the contractor would agree to the above mentioned $108,305 worth of change orders, which brings the construction costs down to $1,403,395. With the professional architect and engineering fees, the total cost of the project comes to: Construction costs $1,403,395 Architect/engineering fees 103,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $1,506,395 The original cost projections were $1,163,000, which is still $343,395 short of needed funds. In November of 1995, the Edina City Council approved a staff recommendation to spend $207,000 of the Developer's Fund to renovate the Edina Aquatic Center filtration system. Staff later followed a recommendation from our engineering consulting firm to hold off on the renovation until the entire system could be replaced, which would result in significant savings. Thankfully, that risk paid off and we did not have a major filtration system failure throughout the 1996 outdoor swimming season. On November 4, 1996, the City Council chose to use the pre - approved $207,000 from the Developer's Fund under the premise that the Edina Aquatic Center would replenish that amount through its future profits. The City Council approved the following sources to make up the shortfall in funding for this construction project: FUNDING SOURCES Park Bond Issue $1,299,395 Developer's Fund 207,000 TOTAL $1,506,395 Staff originally estimated total Park Bond Issue funds needed at $1,163,000, which is $136,395 short of needed funds. However, it is now anticipated that approximately 5250,0004300,000 will be realized through bond issue fund earnings. Therefore, the Edina City Council authorized expenditures of $1,299,395 for the Edina Aquatic Center renovation project out of the Park Bond Issue funds. After the first draft of the bath house facility was complete, it was determined that the project was significantly over budget and needed to be reduced in scope. Therefore, late in the design process the decision was made to reduce the size of the proposed new bath house by approximately 1,000 square feet in hopes to bring it within budget. In doing so, a number of showers, toilets, lockers and changing room square feet were reduced from the building, which resulted in reducing the bather load capacity from 1,500 down to 850 as defined by the State of Minnesota. We are currently trying to add 4 more showers and 2 toilets to the existing floor plan to bring the building's bather load capacity to 1,000. PARK REFERENDUM PROJECTS UPDATE Based on comments made at the December Park Board meeting, the "Parks Projects Priority List" has been revised and a copy is enclosed for your review. I ask that you please bring any further changes with you for discussion at the January Park Board meeting. Staff has been working on specifications for various projects. The City Council recently approved award of bid to replace all the ball field lights at Courtney Ball Field Complex in Braemar Park. Braemar South Arena bids will be opened the end of January and will go to the City Council for approval on Monday, February 3, 1997. EDINA PARK BOARD 7:30 p.m. December 10, 1996 MEMBERS PRESENT: John Dovolis, Beth Hall, Jim Fee, Dave Crowther, Andy Herring, Bill Jenkins, Jean Rydell, Becky Bennett, Andrew Montgomery MEMBERS ABSENT: Idith Almog, Nfike Burley STAFF PRESENT: John Keprios, Janet Canton OTHERS PRESENT: Ronald Rich, Shellie Specter, Marjorie Ruedy, Shirley Peterson, Lucille Carlson, Ruth Johnson L APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 12, 1996 PARK BOARD MINUTES Mr. Montgomery questioned if the November Park Board meeting was an official meeting because of the lack of a quorum. He indicated that he would like a motion to be made to re -approve the October minutes. John Dovolis MOVED TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 8, 1996 PARK BOARD NHNUTES. Jean Rydell SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Montgomery stated that he has one correction to add to the November 12'h Park Board Minutes. Under item V the amount should read 6 million dollars and not $6. The word million needs to be added. MINUTES APPROVED. John Dovolis MOVED TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 12, 1996 NHNUTES. Jean Rydell SECONDED THE MOTION. MINUTES APPROVED. Mr. Montgomery expressed his disappointment in the lack of attendance at last month's Park Board meeting especially since it was such an important meeting with the fees and charges. IL ARNESON ACRES PARK WATER GARDENS PLAN Mr. Keprios stated that the minutes from the Arneson Acres neighborhood input meeting reflect the results of the meeting. He noted that staff recommends at this time that nothing be done at Arneson Acres and that it be put on hold indefinitely, or until there is the desire and support from the residents and neighborhood to do something in terms of a water amenity. Mr. Keprios explained that he still feels Arneson Acres is a park that is designed to have an attractive water amenity. Mr. Keprios indicated that it was obvious that the immediate neighborhood does not approve of the project. He explained that if staff were to ever again recommend putting in a water amenity he would certainly would go about it differently. He explained he would scale it back to be much smaller and would reconsider it's location as well as canvas the entire neighborhood to see who would be interested in serving on an input committee. Mr. Keprios commented that right now there are plenty of items on our plate where people want improvements and amenities in their park. Therefore, in case we find ourselves short some dollars in the process, it seems to make sense to hold off on the Arneson Acres project. Mr. Fee asked how much money was going to be spent on the project and Mr. Keprios replied approximately $100,000. Mr. Fee asked where that money was going to come from and it was noted $80,000 was going to come from the Developer's Fund, which was appropriated three years ago for the project. The other $20,000 would have come from the Park Referendum. Mr. Montgomery indicated that he was at the Arneson Acres neighborhood meeting and felt that basically Mr. Rich and Ms. Specter dominated the meeting and were definitely opposed to having water in any way, shape or form. Mr. Montgomery stated that he felt the presentation was very biased and in his mind was not constructive. He pointed out there were some valid items brought up that we didn't necessarily have the answers to at the time. However, the delivery by the residents was one that he takes a lot of exception to in the way it was presented. Mr. Montgomery informed the Park Board that the Garden Council is definitely in favor of having some type of water amenity. Ms. Bennett asked if the Arneson Acres neighborhood was canvassed and Mr. Keprios replied that 150 notices were sent out to inform everyone of the meeting, however, it was not a survey. Mr. Dovolis noted that he would go with the staff's recommendation but he wouldn't put it on an indefinite hold but revisit the plan and work in conjunction with the neighborhood to see exactly what they would like. Mr. Dovolis commented that it has always been his impression that Mr. Arneson wanted some sort of water in the plans. Therefore, he would like to go with the staff's recommendation of putting the project on hold. However, he would not like it to read to be put on hold indefinitely but rather add an addendum that it should be and revisited again in working in conjunction with the neighborhood. Mr. Fee stated that he would agree there are enough things going right now that this does not need to be at the top of the list. He then asked what the time frame is on all of the other projects. Mr. Keprios replied that the money has to all be spent by August 1, 1998. Mr. Fee indicated that he does, however, want to make sure that this is the consensus of the neighborhood and not just the two people mentioned. Mr. Keprios explained that he tried to form a committee that he thought was a representative of the neighborhood. He noted that the committee was randomly picked. Mr. Keprios stated that he felt all of the issues were addressed and his only regret is that he didn't call the neighborhood back together again to show them the final plan. He noted that would have saved a lot of agony and he would have likely come up with a different plan. John Dovolis MOVED TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE ARNESON ACRES PROJECT BE PUT ON HOLD BUT ADD THE AMENDMENT THAT THE PROJECT BE REVISITED SOMETIME BEFORE 1998 IN CONJUNCTION WITH NEIGHBORHOOD. Bill Jenkins SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Keprios indicated that when it is time to revisit this issue, he will send out notices to approximately 200 or more people in a combination survey and ask people to serve on a new task force committee. Mr. Rich noted that when the time comes he would like to give some serious input because he could provide a lot of technical help. Ms. Specter indicated that she would appreciate being part of a committee that works on the plan. Mr. Rich asked Mr. Keprios if there are plans to replace the trees that were cut down for the project. Mr. Keprios replied that he will look into that and is confident that the trees could easily be replaced if necessary. in PARKS REFERENDUM PROJECTS PRIORITY LIST Mr. Keprios indicated that he has made two lists, one listing what projects need to be done at each park, the other listing projects according to priority. He stated that he felt this is the best way he could show what has been done so far and where we are headed. Mr. Keprios explained that the Arden Park residents do not want a parking lot, which he somewhat disagrees with, however he won't force the issue because there are plenty of other projects that need funding. Mr. Keprios also pointed out that in the letter that was sent by the Arden park neighborhood they indicated wanting some other amenities that were not originally recommended. Mr. Keprios explained that it would be nice to ultimately accomplish all of these additional amenities some day. However, when the bond issue was passed, it was not passed on the premise that each park would get a set dollar amount for a neighborhood committee to spend as they would like. He indicated that isn't to say we don't want input from neighborhood committees, but it's the Park Board who needs to prioritize what gets done first, second, third, fourth, etc. Mr. Keprios noted that this bond issue had specific projects that people voted on and were promised they would be done according to priority. He indicated that safety is the first priority with replacing what's broken then adding items such as the renovation of the pool and the new ice arena. He noted that the newer amenities, with the exception of the shelter buildings and comfort stations, would be last on the priority list. Mr. Keprios asked the Park Board if they had any comments or would like to see any of the items on the priority list moved up or down. Mr. Keprios pointed out that we hope to have enough money to do all of these things. Ms. Bennett asked when the Courtney baseball fields will be completed and Mr. Keprios replied that they hope to have the contractors start the day after the baseball season is over which will be near the end of July. Mr. Herring indicated that he wasn't at the last Park Board meeting but read in the minutes that the bids came in at 1.5 million for the aquatic center and staff was able to negotiate $108,000 out of the project. Therefore, we are still approximately $240,000 over budget on the project. Mr. Herring stated that what he is not clear about what items were cut from the project. Mr. Herring asked if we could still add the large play equipment. Mr. Keprios explained that the City Council did not approve that recommendation from Council Member Maetzold. Therefore, we are going to continue to use the old equipment until there is funding available to replace it with the new large play structure. Mr. Keprios pointed out that Mr. MacHolda has done a great job with that pooI's financial operations. The pool has recently been operating in the black. However, we will have to see what St. Louis Park's pool construction is going to do to our numbers as well as what next year's weather will be like. Mr. Crowther indicated that it looks like from the priority list that some of the hockey rinks have been asphalted and asked if maybe those should be done later when we know that will have the money to do them. Mr. Keprios responded that Lewis Park was already an asphalt surface that was so broken up there really was no other choice than to rip out and re -grade the whole thing. Also, Normandale Park was scheduled to be done all along and, in fact, should have been higher on the priority list. Mr. Crowther commented that if we are going to prioritize items, the items listed on page 7 should not be done before the items listed on page 1 and 2. He noted that buying benches and cooking grills may be small dollars, however, we still need to prioritize everything. Mr. Crowther asked about the $763,000 at Braemar Arena and Mr. Keprios replied that the $763,000 is to fund the renovation portion which is all lead under the same contract as the third rink. Therefore, whatever contractor is awarded the bid will get the renovation as well as the third rink. Mr. Dovolis asked about the Mighty Ducks money and Mr. Keprios indicated that is an additional $250,000. Mr. Keprios explained that the actual funding is $763,000 for the renovation, $2.5 million for a third rink and $250,000 for the Mighty Ducks, for a total of $3,513,000. Ms. Rydell indicated that she feels the fire protection system on page 8 should be moved up on the priority list, especially at Tupa Park because those items are irreplaceable. She noted that she also feels the signs should be last on the priority list. Mr. Crowther asked if there are any safety issues with the bleachers that should be moved up on the priority list and Mr. Keprios indicated that he will look at those in the spring to see what needs to be taken care of. Mr. Keprios pointed out that they are going to try to coordinate the development of the 66' Street area along with the pool, playground, comfort station, pathways, etc., so 4 everything can be torn up at once. Mr. Keprios explained that with this project they will be putting in new lights and NSP has requested that we come up with an idea to have standardized park lights. Mr. Keprios explained that if we buy into this, NSP would mass produce the lights that could become the standard for our parks. Therefore, when we start to replace lights, they would all be the same. Mr. Keprios noted there are different types of lights and colors to chose from and indicated that a good question is how much attention do you want to draw to your lights. The Park Board agreed that they liked the standard light in Forest Green. Mr. Keprios pointed out that if they purchase the poles from NSP and NSP installs them we will get a contract with NSP and they will maintain them for the next 25 years. We only need to come forward with the up front cost, which is similar to what we currently have at several park sites. Ms. Hall asked if the comfort stations are open all the time or does someone go around and lock them up. Mr. Keprios explained that the City has a plan to buy into an electronic keyless security system for all of the buildings and from a computer will be able to automatically lock and unlock all of the buildings. Therefore, keys will no longer have to be checked out. Mr. Montgomery asked Mr. Keprios if the basketball courts at Lewis Park are a separate issue from the Park Referendum. Mr. Keprios indicated that's correct and noted that the Basketball Association wants to donate money to do those courts as well as possibly the basketball courts at Weber Park. Mr. Keprios stated that the City Council was very receptive to their donation. Mr. Keprios indicated that he will keep the Park Board up-to-date each month on what is currently happening. Mr. Keprios pointed out that the Shelter Building Task Force Committee will be meeting tomorrow to go on a tour to see four different shelter buildings throughout the Twin Cities area. Mr. Keprios explained that that he put together a committee of residents from each of the neighborhoods that will have a new shelter building. He noted that the architects will also be going on the tour. Mr. Keprios stated that he hopes they can come up with a common design which will then save the city some money. Mr. Fee asked if the new shelter buildings will be able to be used in the summer and Mr. Keprios replied they are hoping they will be able to do that. Mr. Keprios indicated that the Park Board will see the design before they go forward with the plan to make sure everyone all agrees. Ms. Rydell asked what the status is with the Senior Center and the YMCA in which Mr. Keprios replied they are still in the discussion stage at this point. Mr. Keprios asked the Park Board to be sure to let him know if they have anything they would like to see changed on the priority list. IV. A. Attendance Mr. Jenkins indicated that the Park Board attendance has not been real good this year and noted that he would like to see everyone try to get to a lot more meetings. Mr. Fee stated that he was out of town last month but noted that if we see a situation where there may not be a quorum maybe the meeting should be postponed for a week. Mr. Keprios explained that he needed to go forward with the meeting because the fees and charges had to be resolved so the City Council could receive the advisory information in time. Mr. Fee suggested that if people know they will not be attending the Park Board meeting to call the Park and Recreation office ahead of time. B. Warming Houses - Ms. Bennett asked when will the warming houses be open and it was noted they are scheduled to open on Saturday, December 10. C. Lewis Park for Scheduled Hockey Practice - Mr. Crowther indicated that he sent a fax to Mr. Keprios on November I Vh regarding the Edina Hockey Association and the use of Lewis Park for scheduled practices prior to 6:00 p.m. He asked Mr. Keprios if that issue has been resolved and he replied that they will be using it, however, he is hoping that it will just be one year until the third rink is operational. Mr. Crowther indicated that he didn't have a position one way or another. Mr. Jenkins asked if the Edina Hockey Association wanted to do this on an ongoing basis would there be a problem. Mr. Keprios replied yes because traditionally the 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. time slot during school days is for open hockey for the general public. Mr. Keprios indicated that he contacted the person who schedules ice time for Bloomington and he assured him that they are not using Lewis Park for scheduled hockey practices. The Bloomington volunteer noted that he will send out a letter to all of his coaches that if they need additional ice time to not assume that Edina's ice is open. V. ADJOURNMENT Dave Crowther MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:30 P.M. John Dovolis SECONDED THE MOTION. MEETING ADJOURNED. EDINA PARKS REFERENDUM PROJECTS LISTED BY PROJECT IN PRIORITY *=project completed. 220,000 ENTERPRISE FACILITIES: 220,000 EDINA AQUATIC CENTER 1,164,000 EDINA ART CENTER 75,000 WIPPERMANN GUN RANGE 50,000 BRAEMAR ARENA 763,000 TOTAL 2,052,000 2,052,000 PARK SHELTER BUILDINGS Cornelia School Park 220,000 Todd Park 220,000 Walnut Ridge Park 220,000 Weber Park 220,000 TOTAL 880,000 880,000 COMFORT STATIONS: 13,000 Park 70,000 Warden Lake Cornelia Park 70,000 Lewis Park 70,000 Wooddale 70,000 TOTAL 280,000 280,000 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM: Tupa Park (Grange Hall and Cahill School) 16,000 TOTAL 16,000 16,000 BASKETBALL COURTS *Alden Park 12,000 *Chowen Park 17,320 Heights Park 13,000 *Normandale Park 14,000 *Strachauer Park 13,000 Weber Park 13,000 TOTAL 82,320 82,320 BALL FIELD LIGHTING: Courtney Ball Fields (Braemar Park) 75,000 TOTAL 75,000 75,000 Page 1 of 8 :OOF REPAIR: Creek Valley Park 17,000 TOTAL 17,000 17,000 PATHWAY REPAIR/ADDITIONS *Alden Park 10,638 Arneson Acres Park (asphalt pathway) 12,000 *Arneson Acres Park (concrete sidewalk & patio) 9,726 Birchcrest Park 1,000 Braemar Park 6,000 *Bredesen Park 50.650 *Chowen Park (around playground equipment) 3,000 Cornelia School Park 18,000 Creek Valley Park 3,000 Heights Park 6,000 Lake Cornelia Park 20,000 Lake Edina Park 15,000 McGuire Park (around playground equipment) 3,000 *Normandale Park (from parking lot to building) 1,000 *Strachauer Park 3,000 Jtley Park 1,000 Walnut Ridge Park 2,000 Weber Park 6,000 Yorktown Park 3,000 TOTAL 174,014 174,014 REPLACE WALKING BRIDGE: Heights Park 8,000 Walnut Ridge Park 8,000 TOTAL 16,000 16,000 TENNIS COURTS *Countryside Park 39,470 Creek Valley Park 4,000 Highlands Park 40;120 *Lake Cornelia Park 28,070 *Todd Park 20,420 TOTAL 132,080 132,080 Page 2 of 8 PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT Arden Park 40,000 Birchcrest Park 30,000 Braemar Park 40,000 Countryside Park 40,000 Garden Park 40,000 Highlands Park 40,000 Lake Cornelia Park 180,000 Lake Edina Park 35.000 Strachauer Park 40,000 Tingdale Park 40,000 Todd Park 40,000 Walnut Ridge Park 40,000 Weber Park 40,000 TOTAL 645,000 645,000 REPAIR/REPLACE FENCING Alden Park 1.500 Birchcrest Park 1,500 *Chowen Park 5,000 `Countryside Park 8,000 Garden Park 35,000 Courtney Ball Fields (Braemar Park) 40,000 Cornelia School Park 15,000 Heights Park 1,400 Highlands Park 1,500 St. John's Park 1,500 Tingdale Park 1,500 Todd Park 1,500 Walnut Ridge Park 1,500 Weber Park 15,000 Wooddale Park 1,500 York Park 1,500 TOTAL 132,900 132,900 PARKING LOT REPAIR/ADDITION Lake Cornelia Park 45,000 *Normandale Park 12,000 *Strachauer Park 24,820 Todd Park 20,000 Weber Park 50,000 TOTAL 151,820 151,820 Page 3 of 8 ;OOF FOR GREENHOUSE: 'Arneson Acres Park 7,500 TOTAL 7,500 7,500 SPIRAL STAIRCASE: Courtney Ball Fields Concessions Building 5,000 TOTAL 5,000 5,000 HOCKEY RINK BOARDS & FENCING Cornelia School Park 20,000 Creek Valley Park 20,000 *Lewis Park 23,000 *Normandale Park 20,000 Strachauer Park 20,000 Todd Park 20,000 Weber Park 20,000 TOTAL 143,000 143,000 ASPHALT HOCKEY RINK: *Lewis Park 18,000 *Normandale Park 18,000 FOTAL 36,000 36,000 OUTDOOR HOCKEY RINK LIGHTS: Cornelia School Park 18,000 TOTAL 18,000 18,000 CONCRETE APRON AROUND PARK SHELTER BUILDING: *Normandale Park 5,000 *Strachauer Park 5,000 TOTAL 10,000 10,000 PARK SHELTER BLDG. REPAIR Arden Park (brick wall; soffit & facia) 8,000 *Strachauer Park (furnace) 1,500 Weber Park (roof, soffits & facia) 30,000 TOTAL 39,500 39,500 Page 4 of 8 BALL FIELD & GROUNDS IRRIGATION Arneson Acres Park 40,000 *Braemar Park Soccer Field 10,620 Cornelia School Park (3 fields) 18,000 *Countryside Park 9,800 Courtney Ball Fields (Braemar Park) 25,000 *Garden Park (softball field) 6,111 Highlands Park 12,000 Lake Cornelia Park (softball field) 5,000 Pamela Park 20,000 Wooddale Park 2,500 TOTAL 149,031 149,031 REGRADE BASEBALL FIELD *Countryside Park 19,115 Courtney Ball Fields (Braemar Park) 150,000 Garden Park 20,000 TOTAL 189,115 189,115 REGRADE SOFTBALL FIELD: `Garden Park (remove asphalt & add culdesac) 15,000 Pamela Park (3 fields) 80,000 TOTAL 95,000 95,000 COOKING GRILLS: *Lake Cornelia Park 7,500 *Utley Park 1,000 TOTAL 8,500 8,500 PARK BENCHES *Birchcrest Park (2) 500 *Chowen Park (3) 750 *Sherwood Park (3) 750 TOTAL 2,000 2,000 REBUILD DUGOUTS: Countryside Park 8,000 Courtney Ball Fields (Braemar Park) 32,000 TOTAL 40,000 40,000 Page 5 of 8 'LAYER BENCHES: Garden Park softball and baseball fields 2,000 Highlands Park 1,500 TOTAL 3,500 3,500 WIDEN SOCCER FIELD: Braemar Park 20,000 Pamela Park 20,000 TOTAL 40,000 40,000 CONCRETE APRON AROUND PARK SHELTER BUILDING: Countryside Park 3,000 Creek Valley Park 4,000 TOTAL 77000 7,000 SANITARY SEWER HOOK-UP: Arneson Acres Park 6,000 TOTAL 6,000 6,000 ASPHALT HOCKEY RINK: ornelia School Park 18,000 Weber Park 18,000 TOTAL 36,000 36,000 STRIPE PARKING LOT *Chowen Park 600 Garden Park 1,500 Highlands Park 500 TOTAL 2,600 2,600 SAND VOLLEYBALL COURT: Lake Cornelia Park 3,000 TOTAL 3,000 3,000 REPLACE BLEACHERS Cornelia School Park 3,000 Todd Park 3,000 Wooddale Park 3,000 TOTAL 9,000 9,000 Page 6 of 8 BALL FIELD & GROUNDS IRRIGATION Arden Park 2,000 Strachauer Park (soccer field) 5,000 Todd Park 4,000 Tupa Park 1,500 Weber Park (3 softball fields) 16,000 TOTAL 28.500 28,500 PARK SHELTER BLDG. IMPROVEMENT: Creek Valley Park (exterior wall) 3,000 TOTAL 3,000 3,000 BATTING CAGES: Courtney Ball Fields (Braemar Park) 5,000 Van Valkenburg Park 10,000 TOTAL 15,000 15,000 REPLACE MAINTENANCE GARAGE: Courtney Ball Fields (Braemar Park) 18,000 TOTAL 18,000 18,000 IMPROVED ENTRANCE TO PARK: Arneson Acres Park (new island entrance) 8,000 TOTAL 8,000 8,000 PICNIC SHELTER/GAZEBO Arden Park 10,000 Braemar Park 20,000 Pamela Park 20,000 TOTAL 50,000 50,000 PERMANENT PICNIC TABLE: McGuire Park 800 Sherwood Park 800 TOTAL 1,600 1,600 GRADING & DRAIN TILE: Arden Park 3,500 TOTAL 3,500 3,500 Page 7 of 8 CONCRETE UNDER BLEACHERS, BENCHES, FENCING, ETC.: Cornelia School Park Garden Park Highlands Park Kojetin Park Lake Cornelia Park Pamela Park Sherwood Park Todd Park Wooddale Park TOTAL PARK I.D. SIGN: Arden Park Birchcrest Park Chowen Park Cornelia School Park Countryside Park Creek Valley Park heights Park McGuire Park Pamela Park (2 signs) Sherwood Park Tingdale Park Walnut Ridge Park Wooddale Park York Park Yorktown Park TOTAL GRAND TOTAL Page 8 of 8 3,000 3,000 4,500 500 5,000 15,000 1,200 5,000 6,000 43,200 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 3,000 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 24,000 43,200 24,000 City of Edina December 12, 1996 Jeff & Lori Anderson 5201 Minnehaha Blvd. Edina, MIN 55424 Dear Jeff & Lori: Thank you for the letter concerning the future improvements for Arden Park. I applaud the neighbors of Arden Park who take so much pride and sincere interest in their neighborhood park. Knowing exactly what the neighborhood wish list is for their particular park gives us valuable information in planning park improvements. MINNESOTA STATE PURCHASING LAWS Let me first address the issue regarding the purchase of playground equipment. Please know that I appreciate the neighborhood's willingness to offer additional funding 'to cover the difference if your preferred vendor, Landscape Structures, should not come in low bid. I really wish I could simply say thank you and accept your generous offer. If this were the private sector, we'd have "a deal!" Unfortunately in the public sector, all Cities serve at the pleasure of the State of Minnesota and thus under their laws. Cities can legally be more restrictive than State Lavvs, which is the case with the City of Edina's purchasing policies. However, Cities may not be less restrictive than State Laws. The purchasing laws and procedures state that we must accept the lowest responsible bidder unless we (the City of Edina) can prove that the low bidder either does not meet specifications or is not a responsible vendor. The State purchasing laws also state that specifications may not be written so tight that only one vendor can meet specifications when there are reasonable alternate sources or products that can serve as approved equals. Even if the City receives donations in kind, we must still abide by lowest responsible bidder requirements. It's the law. Please don't get the wrong impression about Minnesota State purchasing laws. Yes, these are restrictive laws, however, in the public purchasing arena these are good and necessary laws to protect your tax dollars from fraud, favoritism and waste. There are obviously some limitations but the purchasing laws have the public's best interest in mind, which focuses on fair and equitable purchasing practices. City Hall (612) 927-8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 927-7645 EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424-1394 TDD (612) 927-5461 2 There is no reason why we cannot specify and purchase all of the specific playground equipment components that the Arden Park Playground Committee is requesting. Please know that the Arden Park playground equipment budget is $40,000, which should be enough to meet the committee's expectations. Ed MacHolda is looking forward to working more with the Arden Park Playground Committee to ensure that the neighborhood gets what they want. Again, I applaud you folks for taking the time to research the issue and specify playground equipment amenities. Should be a great plan. PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT SAFETY AND ACCESSIBILITY Within our playground equipment specifications, we will demand that all vendor's playground equipment must meet ASTM and CPSC standards. We will also demand that all playground equipment plans meet current recommended ADA guidelines. I say "recommended" because currently there are no written laws that specifically detail what level of accessibility each and every new playground equipment plan must include. There is a committee at the Federal level trying to establish a written recommendation. Nonetheless, we should most definitely address accessibility in the Arden Park playground equipment plan. Regarding the 1 " perforated holes on the Iron Mountain Forge decking vs. Landscape Structure's 1/4", it is worthy mentioning that both meet ASTM and CPSC standards. In fact, there is a debate as to whether one is preferred or safer than the other. One inch perforated holes keep pea gravel and dirt from accumulating on deck surfaces, which has obvious advantages for safety and cleanliness. Landscape Structures argues that children cannot get their fingers in 1/4" perforated holes on their decks. Neither the 1/4" or 1 " deck holes are entrapment safety hazards. Both meet all safety standards. Naturally, every manufacturer claims that they have the superior and safer product. PARK BOND ISSUE FUNDS Not long ago, I was asked by the Arden Park Neighborhood Committee if funding for the proposed parking lot could instead be spent on alternate projects at Arden Park. As I recall, I asked that the Committee prioritize the neighborhood's park improvement list. Again, thank you for establishing a wish list. The Park Bond Referendum was presented to the voters of Edina suggesting that funding was needed to accomplish specific projects in a pre -determined priority. The approach was not to budget a set dollar amount for each park for the neighborhood to spend as they desire. However, this is not to say that the City of Edina should not work with the neighborhood to accomplish all of their wish list for Arden Park. If there is adequate funding available after all priority park projects are completed, then we, as staff, will do our best to address each and every item as proposed by each and every neighborhood group. 3 As we have begun to accomplish park bond issue projects throughout the city, there have been several new wish list items that have surfaced throughout each and every neighborhood. It ultimately becomes the Edina Park Board and City Council's decision to determine which park projects get funded first, second, third and so on. The Arden Park Neighborhood Committee's wish list has been copied to all of the Edina Park Board members and are being considered in the long list of priorities. If funding provides, we hope to accomplish everyone's wish list. Hind- sight is always perfect and I only wish we would have been authorized to spend an additional $2 million more because I believe the community would have been in full support. For what it's worth, I still believe that Arden Park would be well served to have a permanent parking lot, however, the majority of the residents clearly do not want a parking lot. Therefore, I intend to drop the issue and respectfully agree to disagree. Instead, we will make it our goal to eventually accomplish all the items on the wish list, even it will require future funding after Park Bond projects are completed. COST ESTIMATING As you can imagine, we have our hands full with accomplishing the numerous critical park bond issue projects that are currently on our plate. When time allows, I promise to get cost estimates on each and every project as proposed by the Arden Park neighborhood committee. I am unable to give you a more specific time frame at this point in time. I have already contacted and met with our Community Service Representative from NSP, Mr. Stu Fraser. When I hear from you regarding the street light and pole, I will then ask Mr. Fraser to provide us with accurate cost estimates. We will do our best getting prices on all the other mentioned park improvements as soon as time allows. I look forward to working closely with the Arden Park Neighborhood Committee in the near future. Many thanks. Si rely, i /�y/> I ' zL i� ohn Kep�rro�Director Edina Park and Recreation Department cc: Edina Park Board