Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-08-12 Park Board PacketEDINA PARK BOARD Aug. 12, 1986 7:30 p.m. Edina City Council Chambers AGENDA I. Wrestling Association - Boyd Lester II. Goose Population III. Park Police Patrol IV. Budget a. Ice Arena - Fees and charges b. Golf Course - Fees and charges ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL: A MOTION RECOMMENDING TO THE COUNCIL THAT CITY OF EDINA ACCEPT THE EDINA WRESTLING CLUB AS AN ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE EDINA PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT AND ASSIST WITH INCORPORATION OF THE EDINA WRESTLING ASSOCIATION. MOTION THAT THE PARK BOARD RECOMMENDS GETTING INVOLVED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA PROGRAM OF RELOCATION OF GEESE AS OUTLINED IN THEIR PROPOSAL LETTER. THE PARK BOARD SUPPORTS THE IDEA OF PARK POLICE AND RECOMMENDS PROCEEDING WITH IT. MOTION RECOMMENDING TO THE COUNCIL TO ACCEPT THE FEES AS PROPOSED BY LARRY THAYER AS WELL AS THE RECOMMENDATION TO NOT REQUIRE EDINA HOCKEY ASSOCIATION PLAYERS TO PURCHASE AN ARENA TICKET. MOTION TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED FEES AS ADJUSTED (see attached schedule) Andy Montgomery SECONDED THE MOTION. THE PARK BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY INVESTIGATE ANNUAL LICENSE RENEWALS FOR DOG LICENSES TO BE SENT TO DOG OWNERS, AND INCLUDED WITH IT SHOULD BE A REMINDER OF THE DOG ORDINANCE. RECOMMENDED FEES FOR 1986-87 Braemar $75.00 (67.50) Augsburg $85.00 Bloomington $70.00 Burnsville $79.50 Eden Prairie $76.80 Richfield $79.50 Minnetonka $74.20 St. Louis Park $70.00 PUBLIC SKATING PER SESSION NON -PRIME $80.00 (70.00) $75.00 $75.00 $78.90 SEASON PASSES LATE NIGHT(llpm-6aR $60.00 (50.00) $42.40 EHA ICE CREDIT By mutual agreement between the EHA and Park Dept., we have decided to disolve the ice credit. Every person was required to purchase a season ticket for open skating. In return we credited the Edina Hockey Association 10 hours of ice for every 40 boys in the program. Example: 760 boys in the program f 4 = 190 hours 190 hours x $67.50/hr =$12,825.00 of credit 760 boys = approx. $24,320.00 of season tickets We give them - $12,825.00 back in credit leaving us with $11,495.00 net profit If we sell 200 individual tickets at $32.50 we will make $6400.00 and 100 family tickets at $52.00 will bring us $5200.00 or $11,600.00 on 300 out of 760 people. Adult Youth Family Ind. Braemar Braemar $2.25 Resident $52.00 $32.00 Augsberg $3.50 Non -Resident $62.00 $37.00 Bloomington $1.50 $1.25 Eden Prairie Burnsville $1.50 Resident $31.30 $18.80 Eden Prairie $2.00 $1.00 Non -Resident $46.25 $28.20 Richfield $1.50 $1.00 Minnetonka $1.25 St. Louis Park $1.50 $1.25 EHA ICE CREDIT By mutual agreement between the EHA and Park Dept., we have decided to disolve the ice credit. Every person was required to purchase a season ticket for open skating. In return we credited the Edina Hockey Association 10 hours of ice for every 40 boys in the program. Example: 760 boys in the program f 4 = 190 hours 190 hours x $67.50/hr =$12,825.00 of credit 760 boys = approx. $24,320.00 of season tickets We give them - $12,825.00 back in credit leaving us with $11,495.00 net profit If we sell 200 individual tickets at $32.50 we will make $6400.00 and 100 family tickets at $52.00 will bring us $5200.00 or $11,600.00 on 300 out of 760 people. BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE PROPOSED FEES BY PARK BOARD Proposed 1987 PATRON CARDS: Husband & Wife $75.00 Additional Family Member 1987 Individual 40.00 COMPUTERIZED HANDICAPS $75.00 LOCKERS 35.00 Men's 72" 35.00 Men's 42" 40.00 Ladies 72" 10.00 CLUB RENTAL 6.25 PULL CARTS 30.00 GOLF CARS 20.00 18 holes 18.00 9 holes 12.00 GOLF CARS SENIORS 4.50 18 holes 4.50 9 holes 1.50 GROUP GOLF LESSONS 17.00 Adult 16.00 Junior 8.50 GOLF RANGE 14.00 Large Bucket 12.00 Small Bucket 7.00 GREEN FEES 42.00 18 hole - non patron 38.00 18 hole - patron 20.00 9 hole - non patron 7.50 9 hole patron 3.00 Seniors 2.25 18 hole - non patron 12.00 18 hole patron 11.00 9 hole - non patron 8.50 9 hole patron 8.00 Additional Round - everyone 4.00 GROUP FEES 5.50 GROUP CAR FEES 11.00 EXECUTIVE COURSE 10.00 Adult - non patron 7.50 Adult - patron 7.00 Sr.& Jr. - non patron 6.00 Sr. & Jr. - patron 5.00 Re Round - everyone 3.50 Golf Car - everyone Pull Carts Fees for the Braemar Room will remain unchanged. o/i,1for, Adopted Actual Actual 1987 1986 1985 $85.00 $75.00 $75.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 45.00 40.00 1.50 10.00 8.00 6.25 30.00 30.00 30.00 20.00 18.00 18.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 4.50 4.50 4.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 17.00 16.00 16.00 9.00 8.50 8.50 14.00 13.00 12.00 7.50 7.00 6.00 42.00 40.00 38.00 22.00 20.00 20.00 3.25 3.25 3.00 2.25 2.25 2.00 12.00 11.50 11.00 9.00 8.50 8.00 8.00 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 11.00 10.50 10.00 8.00 7.50 7.00 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 15.00 14.00 13.00 19.00 18.00 18.00 6.00 3.75 5.00 2.75 5.00 2.50 4.00 1.75 6.00 1.50 *Park Board Approved 8/12/86 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA College of Forestry TWIN CITIES Department of Fisheries & Wildlife 200 Hodson Hall 1980 Folwell Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 15 July, 1986 Mr, Robert Kojetin Director of Park and Recreation City of Edina 4801 West 50th St, Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mr.'Kojetin: Per our conversation, I have prepared a proposal to implement a Canada goose control program in Edina. The steps needed to get a program underway are: 1. Determine proposed target goose population reduction levels via discussions with city residents, feedback from press coverage, etc. (City) 2. Ascertain goose population size and distribution (City and University) 3. Hold public hearing to explain program and obtain additional input on acceptable population objective (City, University, Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 4, Obtain state and federal permits (University) 5. Arrange for disease testing and shipping of geese (University) 6. Capture, disease test, and ship birds (University with cooperation of DNR and U. S. Department of Agriculture) 7. Measure fall and spring populations and model populations to determine additional removal level (University) 8. Conduct additional removal. The services provided by the University include design of the removal program, public hearing participation, answering technical questions on goose ecology and management, humane and professional removal of problem geese, coordination of permits and bird disposal via the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and evaluation of the effectiveness of the program. Mr. Robert Kojetin 15 July 1986 Page 2 The budget in the attached proposal is based on summer capture of flightless breeding geese and their young at three Edina sites. Additional sites would cost approximately $1000 per site. I will be happy to meet with you to provide further details. Sincerely yours, 1 James A. Cooper Associate Professor cc. Roger Johnson, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Jon Parker, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Richard Wetzel, U.S. Department of Agriculture PROPOSAL Ti tl e: Population management of Edina Canada Geese. Prepared by: Dr. James A. Cooper, Associate Professor, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. (612-373- 1722) Date: 7/15/86 Importance: Extirpated by market and subsistence hunting over much of its southern range during settlement, the Canada goose (Brants canadensis) has been reestablished in the midwest and elsewhere. This successful wildlife management program resulted from federal, state, and private efforts (Nelson 1963, Dill and Lee 1970, and Cooper 1978). Contemporary landscaping and farming practices have greatly enhanced Canada goose habitat. Lawns, soybeans, small grains, and pasture sown on lake and wetland shorelines provide a super -abundance of brood -rearing habitat in both rural and urban settings, while these sites and harvested agricultural crops, especially corn and small grains, are used at other times of the year. This, coupled with refuges created to protect the birds during establishment and the expansion of cities where hunting is not permitted, has lead to a phenomenal population growth in past 20 years. Because Canada geese are highly social and occur in flocks during all periods of the year except nesting (Zicus 1981, Schultz 1983) and graze extensively on grasses, forbs, and crops, goose flocks, particularly adults with flightless young, began to damage Minnesota crops in 1980 (Rose 1981). Concentrations of geese and their droppings in city parks, on golf courses, and goose flights near airports have lead to a growing number of complaints in urbanized areas, e. g., Denver, Minneapolis -St. Paul, Toronto, Boston, and Westchester County in New York (Laycock 1982, Oetting 1983). While population reductions methods, such as capture and removal and increased hunting kill, have been used, none have be adequately tested or documented in the literature. Objectives: 1. To assist with development of population objectives, i. e., the acceptable number of geese at specific sites in Edina. 2. To model populations and estimate removal levels needed to attain and maintain desired population levels. 3. Provide technical expertise and participate in public hearings and assist with public relations. 4. To coordinate and do goose removal in 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990 as population control procedures. 5. To monitor population levels from 1987 to 1990 to ascertain population reduction effectiveness. Methods: Model --Much of the data necessary to construct a model have been gathered from 1973 to 1983 for the Metropolitan Twin Cities Canada Goose populations (Salyer 1977, Cooper unpubl. data). Parameters that have been measured include participation in breeding by sex and age class, age related productivity, effect of re -pairing, emigration and immigration, gosling, subadult, and adult survival. Additional data are needed on the effect of density reduction on breeding participation, dispersal, and survival. These data will obtained by capturing and neckbanding (Sherwood 1966) flightless, immature geese, and subsequently capturing and removing the breeding segment of the population the next summer. Because Canada geese do not breed until 2 years of age, or older, by monitoring the breeding participation rate of the marked geese in the following 2 years and comparing the rate of participation with existing data (Cooper, unpubl.), the effect of the lowering the density can be determined. Survival and dispersal of will be ascertained from neckband reobservation (Cormack 1964; Cooper 1975). The model will be based on the Jolly method as modified Barry (1977) except that neckband observations will be employed instead of legband recaptures. Removal --The effectiveness of goose removal will be predicted using the model and evaluated by monitoring population growth. Population level objectives will be established in consultation with cooperating city and agency personnel. Selected target populations will be reduced by capturing and removing young and adults during the summer flightless period (Martz et al. 1982). Growth in these populations will be measured by 1) ascertaining nest densities using methods similar to that of Cooper (1978), 2) by conducting brood counts prior arrival of migrants in mid-September, and by doing population counts from August to December. Chronology of Research Activities: 1987 15 May -15 June --identify brood concentrations, model populations and estimate goose removal levels; participate in public hearing and attain permits. 15 June -7 July --coordinate and conduct goose removal. 1 August -31 December --conduct population counts and read markers at goose concentration sites. •ii •1 1 January -15 April --summarize data and prepare annual report. 15 April -15 June --conduct nest density surveys and brood counts; estimate goose removal using population model. 15 June -1 July --coordinate and conduct goose removal. 15 August -31 December-- conduct population counts and read markers at goose concentration sites. Literature Cited: Barry, C.T. 1977. The mortality of Yorkshire Canada geese. Wildfowl 28:35-47. Cooper, J.A. 1975. Estimating Canada goose survival in an urban environment from neckband observations. 37th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, Toronto, Ontario. Cooper, J.A. 1978. The history and breeding biology of the Canada geese of Marshy Point, Manitoba. Wildl. Monogr. 61. 87 pp. Cormack, R. M. 1964. Estimate of survival from sighting of marked animals. Biometrika 51:429-438. Dill , H.H. and F.B. Lee, eds. 1970. Home grown honkers. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Serv., Washington, D. C. 154 pp. Laycock, G. 1982. The urban goose. Audubon 84:44-47. Martz, J., L. Pospichal , and E. Tucker. 1982. Giant Canada geese in Michigan: experiences with translocations and nuisance management. In Johnson, M. A. (Ed.) Transactions of The Canada Goose Symposium, North Dakota TWS Chapter, 71 pp. Nelson, H.K. 1963. Restoration of breeding Canada goose flocks in the North Central States. Trans. N. A. Wildl. Conf. 28:133-150. Getting, R. 1983. Overview of management of Canada geese and their recent urbanization. In Johnson, M. A. (Ed.) Transactions of The Canada Goose Symposium, North Dakota TWS Chapter, 71 pp. Owen, M. 1975. An assessment of fecal analysis technique in waterfowl feeding studies. J. Wildl. Manage. 39:271-279. Rose, J. 1981. Fergus Fal 1 s goose shortage turns into goose abundance. Minnesota Out -Of -Doors 27(11):22. Sayler, R. D. 1977. Breeding ecology of the Twin Cities, Minnesota, Metropolitan Canada geese. M. S. Thesis, University of Minnesota, 61 pp. Schultz, D. F. 1983. Fall flock behavior and harvest of Canada geese in the vicinity of the Tal cot Lake Wildlife Mana gement Area in southwest Minnesota. M.S. Thesis, University of Minnesota, 72pp. Sherwood, G.A. 1966. Flexible plastic collars compared to nasal discs for marking geese. J. Wildl. Manage. 30:853-855. Zicus, M.C. 1975. Capturing nesting Canada geese with mist nets. Bird Banding 46:168-169. Zi cus, M.C. 1981. Flock behavior and vulnerability to hunting of Canada geese nesting at Crex Meadows, Wisconsin. J. Wildl. Manage. 45:830- 841.