Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2012-12-11 SPECIAL MEETING
AGENDA SPEICIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS DECEMBER 11, 2012 6:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS During "Public Hearings," the Mayor will ask for public testimony after City staff members make their presentations. If you.wish to testify on the topic, you are welcome to do so as long as your testimony is relevant to the discussion. To ensure fairness to all speakers and to allow the efficient conduct of a public hearing, speakers must observe the following guidelines: • Individuals must limit their testimony to three minutes. The Mayor may modify times, as deemed necessary. • Try not to repeat remarks or points of view made by prior speakers and limit testimony to the matter under consideration. • In order to. maintain a respectful environment for all those in attendance, the use of signs, clapping, cheering, or booing or any other form of verbal or nonverbal communication is not allowed. A. PUBLIC 'HEARING — Gleason Circle Reconstruction, Improvement No. BA -397, Resolution No. 2012 -167 (Favorable rollcall vote of four Council Members present to approve) B. PUBLIC HEARING — St. Patrick's Lane Reconstruction, Improvement No. BA -396, Resolution No. 2012 -168 (Favorable rollcall vote of four Council Members present to approve) C. PUBLIC HEARING — Braemar Hills B Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction, Improvement No. BA -395, Resolution No. 2012 -169 (Favorable rollcall vote of four Council Members present to approve) Agenda /Edina City Council December 11, 2012 Page 2 D. PUBLIC HEARING — Lake Edina Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction, Improvement No. BA -398, Resolution No. 2012 -170 (Favorable rollcall vote of four Council Members present to approve) E. PUBLIC HEARING — Normandale Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction, Improvement No. BA -394, Resolution No. 2012 -171 (Favorable rollcall vote of four Council Members present to approve) F. PUBLIC HEARING — Mendelssohn A Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction, Improvement No. BA -393, Resolution No. 2012 -172 V. ADJOURNMENT The City of Edina wants all residents to be, comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952 - 927 - 886172 hours in advance of the meeting. SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS /DATES /EVENTS Tues Dec 11 Special Meeting — Public Improvement Hearings 6:00 P.M. Tues Dec 18 Work Session — Finalize 2013 Work Plans 5:30 P.M. Tues Dec 18 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Mon Dec 24 CHRISTMAS EVE HOLIDAY — City Hall Closed Tues Dec 25 CHRISTMAS DAY HOLIDAY — City Hall Closed Tues Jan 1 NEW YEAR'S DAY HOLIDAY OBSERVED — City Hall Closed Tues Jan 8 Work Session - HRA Planning 5:30 P.M. Tues Jan 8 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Tues Jan 15 Work Session - Naming & Donation Policy Review 5:30 P.M. Tues Jan 15 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Ion Jan 21 DOCTOR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. HOLIDAY OBSERVED — City Hall Closed ,'ues Feb 5 Work Session - Legislative Update 5:30 P.M. Tues Feb 5 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Mon Feb 18 PRESIDENTS DAY HOLIDAY OBSERVED —City Hall Closed Tues Feb19 Work Session —Jnt Meeting Art Center Board & Wk Groups 5:30 P.M. Tues Feb 19 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMUNITY R00t, COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL /k O Agenda Item #: IV.A., B., & C. From: Wayne D. Houle, PE, Director of Engineering Action Discussion ❑ Date: December 11, 2012 Information ❑ Subject: Public Hearing — Braemar Hills B, St. Patricks Lane, and Gleason Circle Neighborhood Roadway Improvements No. BA -395, BA -396, and BA -397, Resolution No. 2012 -152 Action Requested: If the Council determines the project to be necessary, cost - effective, and feasible, Council shall adopt Resolution No. 2012 -152 accepting the feasibility study and approving Braemar Hills B, St. Patricks Lane, and Gleason Circle Neighborhood Roadway Improvements No. BA -395, BA -396, and BA -397, authorize plans and specifications to be completed and bids taken. The Council should consider each improvement project number separately. Information / Background: The Braemar Hills B, St Patricks Lane and Gleason Circle Neighborhood Roadway Improvement Projects were combined into one feasibility study to create economies of scale for the bidding process due to their small individual size and geographical proximity to one another. Each improvement number will have an estimated assessment associated with it. City staff initiated this project. The project involves localized rehabilitation of the sanitary sewer, upgrades to the storm sewer system, upgrades to the water system such as replacement of gate valves and fire hydrants, street lighting in the Braemar Hills B neighborhood, curb and gutter spot repair, and reconstruction of bituminous pavement. The overall project cost is estimated at $1,220,580, which includes City owned utility repairs and replacement. Funding for the roadway cost will be from a special assessment of 100% of the roadway cost. All City owned utility repairs will be from the respective utility funds. Street lighting will be funded by the Active Living Infrastructure Fund (ALIF). No additional correspondence was received since the feasibility study was submitted to the Council. Staff has analyzed the project and feels that the project is necessary, cost - effective, and feasible from an engineering standpoint. G: \PW \CENTRAL SVCS \ENG DIV\PROJECTS \IMPR NOS \BA395 Braemar Hills B 2013 \PRELIM DESIGN \FEASIBILITY \PUBLIC HEARINGS \Item Nos. IV.A_B_C PH Braemar B City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 11� v MroRPORp`T °_� IBBe To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item #: .IV.D. From: Wayne D. Houle, PE, Director of Engineering Action Discussion ❑ Datev December 11, 2012 information p Subject:. Public Hearing —Lake Edina Neighborhood Roadway Improvements No.,BA -398, Resolution No. 2012 -152 Action Requested: If the Council. determines the project to be necessary, cost - effective, and feasible, Council shall adopt Resolution No. 2012 -152 accepting the feasibility study and approving Lake Edina Neighborhood Roadway Improvements No. BA -398, authorize plans and specifications to be completed and bids taken. Information /:Background: City staff initiated this project. The project involves localized rehabilitation of the sanitary sewer, upgrades to the: storm sewer - system, upgrades to the water system such as replacement of gate valves and fire hydrants, curb and gutter spot repair, reconstruction of bituminous pavement, and .potential sidewalks & sound wall beautification. The overall project cost is estimated at $5,587,500, which includes City owned utility repairs and replacement: Funding for the roadway and sound wall beautification will be from a special assessment of 100% of,the roadway and sound wall beautification costs. AIL City owned utility repairs will be from the respective utility funds. Sidewalks would be funded by the Active Living Infrastructure Fund (ALIF). Attached is resident correspondence since the submittal of the feasibility study to the Council. Staff has analyzed the project and feels that the project is necessary, cost - effective, and feasible from an engineering standpoint. Attachments: Resident Correspondence i G:\PW\CENTRALSVCS\ENG DIV \PROJECTS \IMPR NOS \BA398 Lake Edina 2013 \PRELIM DESIGNIVEASIBILITY \PUBLIC HEARINGS \Item No._ PH Lake Edina BA398.docx City of Edina • 4801 W. 501h St. • Edina, MN 55424 Chad Millner From: Wayne Houle Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 1:57 PM To: Chad Millner, Sharon Allison Subject: FW: Attn: City Council and Engineering Please include with the report that will go to the City Council on December 5th Wayne Houle, Director of Engineering 952- 826 -0443 1 Fax 952- 826 =0392 WHoule @EdinaMN.eov I www.EdinaMN.eov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Lynette Biunno On Behalf Of Edina Mail Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 1:47 PM To: Wayne Houle Cc: Susan Howl Subject: FW: Attn: City Council and Engineering Good afternoon, This message.has been forwarded to the Mayor and Council members and Wayne Houle. Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 952- 927 -8861 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 Ibiunno @ Edina MN.eov - www:EdinaMN.gov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families &Doing Business - - - -- Original Message--- - From: Rick Hammond [mailto:hammond @mac.coml Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 2:36 PM To: Edina Mail -- Subject. -Attn: City- Co unciI-and- Engineering I am writing about the roadway improvements for Lake Edina Neighborhood that seems like a breach of fiduciary trust. My concern is the initial estimates were half of the new $12,500 assessment estimates, which does little for my trust in the City of Edina. The new dollar amount is truly unacceptable. Like many families over the past few years we have had both job and financial struggles, but we kept our family together and have been able to keep our home. You are assigning us a huge financial obligation for new curbs and asphalt on our street, which seems incredibly bloated. What else must my family give up? Please reconsider your choices. We are prepared to tighten our belts for the $6,000+ our friends in other parts of Edina did to have their streets re -done. Otherwise honestly let the road. continue to deteriorate, because a roof over our ad is where I would rather put our money. Sincerely, 1 Rick Rick L. Hammond Mobile: 612 - 804 -5931 Email: hammond@mac.com shad Millner From: Chuck Wojack <cwc jack @Sebesta.com> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 7:15 PM To: Wayne Houle Cc: Kelley Wojack; lyonthomash @MSN.com; Sharon Allison; Chad Millner; Jamie Cynor Subject: FW: Lake Edina Roadway Reconstruction - objection to sidewalk Attachments: Photos Trillium and Hibiscus.pdf Wayne: I sent this to Jamie and hopefully he passed in on, but I wanted to make sure it is noted that there is strong opposition to the sidewalk in the Feasibility Report to be submitted to the City Council on November 20, 2012. The more I look into this sidewalk, the more I am convinced it is the wrong thing to do. Also based on the timing of events, I am concerned there is not enough time for the due diligence required to determine if and where sidewalks would best benefit the neighborhood, and how to incorporate the sidewalks into a neighborhood that was not designed for them and has evolved without them. What was noted as a recommendation in the ETC meeting on 10/25 as a suggestion, now appears to be in the project. Based on the typical sections and the plans presented at the November 7 meeting, I believe there are issues with our property (7212 Trillium) and the property at 4754 Hibiscus that are not addressed. As noted below, there is a significant slope to the curb which will need to be addressed. appreciate you looking into this and would like the opportunity to discuss this with you if you are available.. You can reach me on my cell phone at 952 - 239 -3816. Please confirm receipt of this e-mail. Sincerely, Chuck Wojack Project Manager Sebesta Blomberg sebesta.com I P 651.634.7275 1 M 952.239.3816 1 F 651.634.7400 This message has been sent via the Internet. Internet communications are not secure against interception or modification. Sebesta Blomberg therefore cannot guarantee that this message has not been modified in transit. This message and any tiles transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender and destroy your copies of the message and any attached files. From: Chuck Wojack Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 6:01 AM To: 'jcynor @EdinaMN.gov' Cc: 'Kelley Wojack' Subject: RE: Lake Edina Roadway Reconstruction - objection to sidewalk Chad: I am unavailable to attend the informational meeting on Nov. 7, 2012 and wanted to make my objection noted regarding the ETC recommendation to install a sidewalk along the east side of Normandale Road from West 701h Street to Hibisicus I /enue and along the north side Hibiscus Ave from Normandale Road to West Shore Drive. We oppose the sidewalk on multiple levels, as a home owner, as a resident of the neighborhood and tax payer. 1. We have been residents of Edina living at 7212 Trillium Lane for over 15 years. The proposed sidewalk will run along the south edge of our property and we feel would cause undue hardship to us a residents and reduce our property value. The proposed sidewalk wo U Id re'q�u_i re significant modifications to our property including loss of mature trees, modification of the existing grade and relocation of a stucco fence at a minimum. The grade slopes considerably from our fence to the top of the existing curb (over 2 ft drop in 9 ft). Without seeing a design, there appears to be considerable technical challenges due to the grade in our yard and adjacent lots. See attached photos. 2. As a resident of the neighborhood, we use the streets regularly for walking our dogs and jogging. I am also a regular bike commuter.(2 -3 times per week weather permitting to work). We use the streets extensively in our neighborhood and we do not think a sidewalk would be a benefit to our neighborhood. The streets-are wide enough for us to safely walk our dogs on Normandale Road and Hibiscus Ave. Our view appears to be consistent with our neighbors as only 8.5% of the residents surveyed indicated that they see a need to add sidewalk in our neighborhood. 3. Asa taxpayer, we do not think it is prudent to spend money on a sidewalk the residents do not have a need for and or want. There are surely more pressing concerns we can spend our money on,. In summary, we think the sidewalk.would cause us undue harm, is not needed or wanted by the residents and is a waste of tax payers funds. I appreciate the city looking at options, but we do not think this option is worthy of future consideration.. As stated above, I am unavailable tc attend:due to travels for, business, but I am . extremely interested'im finding out why this is being_considered.and what the process is oppose this: Please feel free to.forward this to the ETC and others as you feel appropriate. Any questions, please contact us atyour convenience. Sincerely, Chuck and Kelley Wojack 7212 Trillium'Lane Home Phone — 952 - 927 -7919 Chuck's mobile - 952 - 239 -3816 rJ �4 !44 FJ� Corner of Trillium Lane and Hibiscus AW 0 South edge of 7212 Trillium Lane A y Chad Millner From: Gary Freie <gary.freie @vomela.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 9:07 AM To: Chad Millner Subject: Lake Edina Sidewalk, Please forward this on to the Council Chad /Council members, After attending the information meeting about the sidewalk proposal, I'm at a loss as to why this is even being discussed. After two surveys with and without assentments it is very clear that 82% of our neighborhood does not want any sidewalks built or the Normandale Road narrowed. Many of us were shocked to find out that the plan was to build it on the eastside of Normandale Rd. and the north side of Hibiscus, there are 9 streets to cross from the golf course to 701h street. It would make the most sense to build it on other side of the street where it has far less impact and there is only one street to cross. The curved part of the road coming into the neighborhood would have to be rebuilt away from the wall to make room for the sidewalk away from the wall, Instead of reworking and narrowing the whole length of Normandale Rd. Also comes the question of maintenance and who's reasonable? We already have to take care of the city trees on Normandale Rd. like trimming them and disposing of the limbs at our expense. I don't feel that the transportation team thought this sidewalk project out very well and how it impacts the residents. Many are hoping that something gets done with the highway 100 wall and landscaping instead, like beautifying it and adding height to it. The some 70 houses that are close have to suffer year round though the consistent highway roar that never stops 24/7. It really is more of a concrete fence than a sound wall. It would also be nice to have some city services done that other cities provide like cleaning and opening storm drains, opening the compose site a couple times a year to residents, having a once a year junk and hazardous cleanup drop off day. Having the police focus on ways of making intersections, roadway and road approaches safe and improving traffic flow and matching stop and go light times with traffic flow. Focusing on real crime and problem areas instead of parking on the highways getting an award for how many tickets they write in a year. Every officer should be challenged with that thought of how and where do I make the best use of my time to make the city and residents safe and how to improve traffic flow. Gary & Julie Freie 4921 Trillium Lane Edina, MN 55435 Chad Millner From: Liz Horstman <lizhorstman @comcast.net> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 9:42 AM To: Edina Mail Cc; Chad Millner, Robb Horstman Subject:.: RE: Lake Edina Sidewalk Proposal. Please forward. to Mayor Hovland and the Edina City Council. Attachments: doc20121115101429.pdf (City of Edina; please forward this message on to Mayor Hovland and the Edina City Council members. Thank you.) Mayor Hovland, Edina City Council members, My husband and I attended an Edina Engineering Department sponsored, Lake Edina neighborhood meeting on Wednesday November 7, 2012. One of the main topics of this meeting was the proposal by the Edina Transportation Commission to. install a sidewalk on Normandale Road to Hibiscus Avenue to Kellogg Avenue. The Engineering Department did a thorough job drawing up plans to show neighborhood residents the proposed route of the sidewalk. This proposed route is down the east side of Normandale Avenue, continuing along the north side of Hibiscus Avenue and either ending where Hibiscus Avenue dead ends into Kellogg Avenue or continuing south on the east side of Kellogg Avenue to the dead end adjacent to Fred Richards Golf Course and Lake Edina Park. Living at 4708 Hibiscus Ave. on the north side of the road where the sidewalk is planned, my husband and I have a number of concerns regarding the proposed sidewalk and the process leading up to its recommendation. I am asking that you take the time to read the memo attached below outlining our concerns, this memo is 2 pages long followed by 5 pages of documentation/maps. I met ith Chad Millner, Edina Engineering Department, and have done my best to research the entire process and situation in an attempt to :-ovide accurate information. I appreciate the time and effort the Edina Engineering Department has given to speak to me individually, as well as to prepare and present the sidewalk proposal to the neighborhood. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter, I would be happy to discuss this proposal or my memo with anyone interested. My contact information is below. Liz Horstman 4708 Hibiscus Ave. (mobile) 612 - 207=4477 (home) 952- 920 -3460 - generally used for messages only Begin forwarded message: 1 11/15/2012 Liz Horshnan, 4708 Hibiscus Ave., 612 - 207 -4477 Normandale /Hibiscus Sidewalk Recommended by the Edina Transportation Committee, Oct 25 2012 Meeting NOTE: Survey of residents ( -50 responders): Initial response 9% would like sidewalks; after change to no assessment for sidewalks 18% would like sidewalks. Concerns: This does not appear to be part of a well thought out, long range comprehensive plan that considers multi - disciplinary issues (i.e. walking, biking, driving, trail connections, desires of and impact on homeowners). 1. Planning and decision - making regarding the Normandale /Hibiscus sidewalk. a. How was this decision made? The only obvious reference is Page 4 of 10/25/12 Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) Meeting Minutes, "Member Janovy recommended a sidewalk on Normandale Road to Hibiscus Avenue to Kellogg Avenue because of speed and volume and to connect with the Nine Mile Trail that is coming soon." See pg 1 attached. There is no information given regarding the reason for this recommendation or any explanation of how this sidewalk would connect to the Nine Mile Trail. b. Why is a sidewalk being recommended that does not reflect the City of Edina's overall, comprehensive plan? The City of Edina's 2008 Comprehensive Plan, Sidewalk Facilities, figure 7.10 shows the only proposed sidewalks in the Lake Edina area form a square from West Shore Drive to Gleason Avenue to Oaklawn Ave. and around the west side of Cornelia Park to 70th Street. (Although these sidewalks were not put in when the streets on the northern quadrant of this square were rebuilt about 3 years ago.) See pg 2 attached. 2. Where will the Normandale /Hibiscus sidewalk go? What is the purpose? Proposed for the east side of frontage road south of 70th street, Normandale Rd, to continue on the north side of Hibiscus Ave., one side of the street only. Two different end points have been discussed. a. End where Hibiscus Ave. dead ends into Kellogg Ave. ( "....Normandale Road to Hibiscus Avenue to Kellogg Avenue... ") as proposed by ETC. b. Continue the sidewalk along the southern portion of Kellogg Ave to the dead end adjacent to Lake Edina Park as suggested by the City of Edina Engineering Department (See picture, map of this area on pgs 4, 5 attached.) Option 2a. would result in a sidewalk that does not lead anywhere, and may not be supported based on the number of cars traveling on Normandale Road, Hibiscus Ave. and Kellogg Ave. Memo, pg I of 2 11/15/2012 Liz Horstman, 4708 Hibiscus Ave., 612- 207 -4477 According to the City of Edina Engineering Department, about 1000 cars /day travel on the very north section of Normandale Ave. just south of 70th Street. Proceeding south on Normandale Ave. this number drops off quickly as cars turn into the adjacent streets. At the south end Normandale Ave. curves and becomes Hibiscus Ave.; there are only 200 cars /day traveling on Hibiscus Ave. well below the 500 car /day threshold used by the city to determine sidewalk necessity. Option 2b. could potentially provide access to Parklawn Ave., and from there to Centennial Lakes Park and The Edina Blvd., and also to Gallagher Drive, which has been narrowed and constructed for Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail inclusion. However, construction of a pathway would be needed across the south end of Lake Edina Park to provide this access, (pgs 4, 5). Although on the City of Edina's 2008 Comprehensive Plan, Bicycle Facilities, Figure 7.11, (see pg 3) would construction of this pathway be problematic as has been the Sidewalks portion of the Plan (pg 2). ? Additionally about 15 years ago after a neighborhood meeting, John Kaprios decided against recommending the construction of a Lake Edina planned play area for which the footprint had been established (see picture attached). His explanation was safety concerns due to golf balls coming over the fence from Fred Richards's golf course. Would this concern also impact construction of a pathway? 3. Is the impact to homeowners bordering the sidewalk onerous? a. Cost of snow removal. This would be a neighborhood sidewalk meaning the homeowners on the side of the street with the sidewalk are responsible for snow removal and related costs. (Unlike a School, State -Aid or Business sidewalk which the City of Edina generally plows.). b. Home values. With this being the only neighborhood sidewalk in the Lake Edina area, would the value of homes on the sidewalk be less relative to the value of the homes not on the sidewalk due to maintenance costs and concerns? This is unlike an area such as Country Club where there is parity because there are sidewalks on both sides of all streets in the neighborhood. 4. Footprint of Normandale Rd., Hibiscus Ave., and Kellogg Ave with sidewalk in place. a. The width of these streets with a sidewalk in place would decease to -27 feet while the width of all other streets in the neighborhood remain at 31'- 32'. Is this inconsistency within one neighborhood a concern? b. The City of Edina 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update, Bicycle Facilities, Figure 7.11 (attached) shows a Primary Route on Hibiscus Ave east from West Shore Drive south on Kellogg Ave. through Lake Edina Park to Parklawn Ave. Has this been considered? How does it match up with the proposed sidewalk? Memo, pg,2 of 2 Member Janovy said the BETF said West Shore Drive is a primary bike route and recommended separated bike lanes or road markings and signage. Member lyer concurred and recommended dedicated bike lanes. He said parking should not be an issue because there is a parking lot nearby. Member Janovy suggested an off -road trail for consideration. Director Houle said he will schedule an informational meeting with residents to share.the suggestions and gather feedback. Braemar Hills B, St. Patrick's Lane, Gleason Circle These three neighborhoods will be presented in one feasibility study but they will be approved separately by City Council. Proposed improvements are spot repair to curb and gutter and new pavement. Proposed assessments are: Braemar Hills B: $9,325, St. Patrick's Lane: $11,300, and Gleason Circle: $11,600. Lake Edina Proposed improvements are spot repair to curb and gutter and new pavement, plus narrowing the curb line at Hibiscus Avenue & West Shore Drive to reduce storm water run -off. Proposed assessment is $11,900. Member Janovy recommended a sidewalk on Normandale Road to Hibiscus Avenue to Kellogg Avenue because of speed and volume and to connect with the Nine Mile trail that is coming soon. Director Houle said he will schedule an informational meeting with residents to share the suggestion and gather feedback. Traffic Safety Committee Report of Oct. 3, 2012 There were no action items in this report. Director Houle will follow up on the counts that were done in member Whited's neighborhood and on W. 44th Street. Updates. Student Members Member Schwieger noted that 'fascism' was still painted on the stop sign. Director Houle will follow up on this. Bike Edina Task Force —Sept. 13, 2012 Minutes A new member was added to the BEFT. Living Streets Working Group No update. Transportation Options Working Group Received minutes of Sept. 18, 2012. Member Whited reported that John Dillery and Jill Hentges from Metro Transit attended the Sept. 18 meeting and talked about Metro Transit's transportation options in Edina. Member Janovy said the time limit is up for this working group and asked if the ETC would it to continue for another year. Motion was made by member Franzen and seconded by member LaForce for the working group to continue for another year. Member Whited said they need new members. Director Houle will work with V 14' -- \� :- �� - -` -- �� ©- �_ \2 \� -� v »ate � =,eee,w Y 5 3«® \S� � � \ ke edina park - Goo-le Maps Gd"h lake edina park of I A. Lake Edina Park. Edina, Minnesota https://maps.google.com/ maps ?f =q &source= s_q &hl= en &geocode... - Get Google Maps on you 49 Text the wont "GMAPS" to• 169� 1.1/15/12 12:01 AM �� E �� Southdale 16 a b A fit; 3 v,r 69th a5� �._ 7;'ipi is p 6� bl.dy b y L 0 0 0 5 0 71 0 'Z { ° ril ,� m• � r' n L�r o9rh SE I cl 3 U s�f '' {:�tt q uRkAfry Ln Dtinbrl;y L" rn Galles cn 6 1GG1 t o m W 701h $I W 701h St P. wRd Andover Rd �LL- uave6c rasi!,I fs 4 echridare Ln Cameiia S r School Park Nazelton Rd �+ A5p35ia Cif vlp� & i Lantana Lt' Initi4� ��hryz V172ndSt ' za G v flf5,6nn5 Or d . .., „ ;•E ;:f 7" _ a ndell, Or Cj Edina Giltord Or Y l r-+ Lay °:a ??!•, ^.t9 i�:; .';i_;• Hibiscus Ave Lm LeY.e ^`s Edina PaTk Ptaz3 GI 71012 Goa Ir Y''; •.. g.:.`. >I,. eC ;'; -. c .`_..... '`Fred.Bic cts ..� ............................ .... ....... ...........................n3P. h 3 ©2012 Google] ..........._........... . 169� 1.1/15/12 12:01 AM ':had Millner From: Liza Etienne Koenig <liza.etienne @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 7:28 PM To: Chad Millner Subject: sound barrier and sidewalk project in Lake: Edina Neighborhood Chad -- we met at the.hearing you hosted about the sound barrier wall and sidewalks in the Lake Edina neighborhood. Thanks again for setting it up. Two. items 1. Some of the neighbors on other blocks (non Larkspur Lane blocks) had asked about help with getting their blocks involved and active: l set up a private group on, Nextdoor site for our neighborhood (bused the same boundaries that the city does) to join and share events, activities, vendors, resources, updates such as your meetings and city council meetings, sell /buy /trade stuff and form groups.from gardening groups to walking groups and organize activities to work on the sound barrier garden or neighborhood night out. Would you mind helping us? If anyone in the Lake Edina Neighborhood reaches out to you, would you mind sending them a link to our neighborhood group? https:Hnextdobr.com /invite /Ofib3eghc2wi9pi7g4nz 2. You'd also suggested that we send you an email with our thoughts which you'd share with the city council before the meeting. I think you heard what the neighbors on Larkspur Lane think of the sound barrier wall. While we're not big fans I the graffiti either, we want.to make sure that the community garden that we've nurtured for the last 5 years isn't imaged or harmed and therefore recommend that the city invest in additional plants for other blocks to organize around and plant along the retaining wall vs painting over the wall, possibly damaging our plantings and creating a , beautiful new canvas,for graffiti artists to come in and paint on once again and for MNDOT to paint over with a color that does not match. We believe that plants are a less expensive and greener alternative and maintaining each block's respective gardens has the potential to bring other neighbors together like it's brought our block together. Our planting 5 years ago cost the,city about $1000 and that included a truck to water it once a week for the first year. Our block supplied all of the labor, fertilizer and for year 1 and 2 extra water. Let me know if you have any questions or if I can do anything else to help. Liza Etienne Koenig 4905 Larkspur Lane 612- 867 - 1413 liza.etienne @email.com Sent from my iPad 1 JOHN C. DEMOSS 4716 Hibiscus Avenue Edina, Minnesota 55435 -2024 tpUBLIC Phone 952- 920 -0300 November 26, 2012 City of Edina Attention: Engineering 7450 Metro Blvd. Edina, MN 55435 RE: Notice of Public Hearing, Proposed Improvement No. BA -398 To Whom It May Concern: My wife and I are owners of 4716 Hibiscus Ave, Edina, MN 55435, which is one of the properties to be considered for the above proposed improvement. We have lived in this property since 1965 and have watched the taxes increase each year. I have attended each owner meeting regarding this matter and I am not convinced that this is the best way to handle the matter. While the cost of the sidewalk is apparently paid for by the city the cost of maintaining the sidewalk far outweighs the benefit to the owner of the property. If you have any questions about this please feel free to call. Very truly ours, JOHN C. PEMOSS By f L _. `John C. DeMoss t JCDeM:cmv Chan nllullner From: Chad Millner Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 20121:09 PM To: 'donald_anderson @juno.com' Subject: RE: Sidewalks for the Lake Edina Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Project Don, Thanks for the comments. We would like for you to share your opinion at the Dec. 11 council meeting. Please _remember each person gets 3 minutes for comment so plan out what you intend to say. I'II answer your questionsin the order you asked them: 1. As we discussed at the Nov. 7 Meeting, Chapter 12 ofthe City Coded states: 1200.03 Sidewalks. Subd. 1 Snow and Ice Removal. All snow and ice shall be removed from a sidewalk by the owner of the property adjoining the sidewalk within 48 hours of the cessation of the precipitation. 2. The City would not plow this sidewalk if it were installed. 3. The following section answers your question if snow is not removed. The cost of removal is charged only to that property owner responsible for the nuisance (snow): 1200.05 Abatement of Nuisance. Any obstruction or encumbrance as described in Subd. 1 of Subsection 1200.02 or any snow or ice not removed from a sidewalk as provided in Subd. 1 of Subsection 1200.03 or any defect in a sidewalk''as described in Subd. 2 of Subsection 1200.03 or grass or weeds not cut as provided in.Subd. 3 of Subsection 1200.03 is hereby declared a nuisance. After at least seven days written notice to the person responsible for the nuisance, the City may cause said nuisance to be removed or abated and the cost of removal or abatement may be chareed.and assessed against the Property owned by the person responsible for the nuisance. Such charge and assessment shall be done pursuant to Subd. 4 of Subsection 1200.06 When so assessed, the cost shall be certified to the County Auditor for collection as other taxes are collected. The name and address of the person responsible for such nuisance shall be obtained from records maintained by the Assessor. 4. As stated above, even when the property owner is away, they are still responsible for snow removal. I can't give you an exact cost if snow removal is done by City forces. It depends on the specific staff person and equipment used to remove the snow. I also do -not know how property values would be affected by adding a sidewalk in this neighborhood. In my experience, I have not seen a significant change in` property values up or down by the installation of a sidewalk. Thanks, Chad ; Chad Milliner, Assistant City Engineer '3T1 ?. 2 + 952- 826- 0318IFax 952 - 826 -0392 Vcmillner @EdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business 1 From: donald_anderson @juno.com [ mailto :donaid_anderson @juno.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 11:54 AM To: Chad Millner Subject: Sidewalks for the Lake Edina Neighborhood Roadway Reconsturction Proje ct Dear Mr. Millner, My name is Don Anderson and I live at 4908 Larkspur Lane which is a corner lot along the frontage road south of 70th St. I attended the informational meeting on Nov 7, 2012 at which time you discussed the proposed sidewalk construction and I have concerns about the winter maintenance of these sidewalks. I would like to get information before the upcoming December 11th City Council meeting so I can present my views about the proposed sidewalk construction. You mentioned that you would be the person to contact about this information. First, would there be a requirement for the sidewalks to be cleared of snow in the winter. If so, who would be responsible for this requirement. The sidewalk would be to the West and North of my property and it would amount to 275 feet along the frontage road curb line. I doubt I could physically shovel or snow blow such a lengthy span of sidewalk. Second, if the sidewalks need to be cleared of snow, would the city do that as the city does for the sidewalks along 70th Street? Would the maintenance be at no charge to the residents, or would they be charged? Third, if the city does the snow removal on the sidewalks, and charges the residents, how is the charge made? Is cost divided up among all properties along the sidewalk which stretches southward down the frontage road and then eastward along the front of peoples' properties along Hibiscus Ave. and beyond? Or is it calculated on a per frontage foot basis charged to the individual property owners? I would think spreading the cost out to all property owners would be difficult since some would want to do it themselves. As you can imagine, my concern is I have such a large amount of frontage (actually sideage and backage) that the charge on a per -foot basis would be quite burdensome for me. Fourth, even if a property owner wanted to clear the sidewalk of snow, there would be times that he /she couldn't, such as during illness or out -of -town travel. Many leave for a month or more in the winter for a break from the winter weather. I feel that snow removal charges would not only be a financial burden on me throughout the winter, but it would negatively impact the value and saleability of my house. There are 547 feet of curb line from the corner of Larkspur Lane to the sidewalk at 70th Street. My property abuts 275 feet and I'm not sure if the other property owners who would be affected at the sides and rears of their properties are aware of this possible expense. As you can see, I am very concerned about the financial impact this sidewalk project would have on my property. I would like to get information for the Council meeting so I and the other affected property owners can get a full picture of the on -going costs and how our property values would be effected. I would like to get information on if charges would be made for the maintenance of these sidewalks, how the charges would be computed, and how much the charges would be. Sincerely yours, Don Anderson .Chad Millner from: Lynette,Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 3:29 PM To: Chad Millner Cc: Susan Howl Subject: FW: Lake Edina Roadway Reconstruction Good afternoon, This message has been forwarded to the Mayor and Council members and Chad Millner. »� Lynette Biunno, Receptionist . 952 - 927.8861 I Fax 952-826-'0389 l,\ IbiunnoOEdinaMN.gov I www.Ed6aMN.gov i % - <✓` .`..For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business From: Vicoula4 @a6l.com fmailto:Vicoula4@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 3:20 PM To: Edina Mail Subject:. Lake Edina Roadway Reconstruction 'tn: City council and Engineering: lam extremely concerned about the continuing discussion of adding sidewalks to the Edina street project, basically adding expense to an already expensive street proposition. I fail to understand why the discussion is continuing on adding sidewalks when a mailed -in questionnaire indicated that 70% of respondents. were opposed. We have lived in Edina for more than 30 years and raised 4 children without the sidewalks. Understand from the mailed in questionnaires - -70% of the respondents indicated ... we don't want sidewalks! It seems as if you think overtime on how to spend our money on useless projects - -like the "ice house" at Cornelia that is used maybe 4- 6 weeks of the year - -and the bike lanes on Wooddale Avenue. Where does budgeting and eliminating wasteful spending come into play ?. Edina used to have a favorable tax base. Not any more. Enough already! Vicki Withers 1 Chad Millner From: Brian Hedberg < bhedberg @readycreditcorp.com> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 11:15 AM To: jhovland @krausehovland.com; 'joshsprague @edinarealty.com'; joni ben nettl2 @ comcast.net, Mary Brindle (Comcast); Edina Mail; swensonannl @gmail.com; Scott Neal; Edina Mail Cc: Wayne Houle; Chad Millner, Brian Hedberg Subject: Lake Edina Neighborhood Sidewalk & Sound Wall Beautification - Proposed Improvement BA -398 Dear Edina City Council, Administration, and Transportation Committee Members, We are writing today to express our concerns regarding the proposed sidewalk and sound barrier improvements in the Lake Edina Neighborhood. The proposed additions are being considered within the Lake Edina Neighborhood Roadway reconstruction improvement no. BA -398. SIDEWALK PROPOSAL OBJECTION We respectfully request that the Council reject the Transportation Committees recommendation to create a new sidewalk within the Lake Edina neighborhood. Alternatively, we do support a short (protected) pathway from Kellogg Ave to Parklawn Ave (that traverses East -West across the north end of Fred Richards golf course aka Lake Edina Park). SOUND BARRIER BEAUTIFICATION SUPPORT We respectfully request that the City Council approve a neighborhood SUPPORTED plan to enhance /beautify the Hwy 100 sound barrier wall that runs South of 70th street along Normandale Boulevard. Unfortunately, we are not able to attend the public hearing on Dec 11th due to a scheduling conflict. As such, we are providing below a number of comments that substantiate our request /recommendation (as well as those of our neighbors). We trust that you will take some time to thoughtfully consider our requests /recommendations and act on the input and desires of our many neighbors. If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please contact us. Sincerely, Brian and Lori Hedberg 4913 Trillium Lane Edina, MN 952.929.2647 bhedberg @comcast.net SIDEWALK PROPOSAL OBJECTIONS At the informational meeting held on Nov 71h , Wayne Houle and Chad Millner presented the following overview of the sidewalk and sound barrier wall proposals: http: / /edinamn.gov /edinafiles /files /City Offices /Engineering /Construction Proiects /Lake Edina /Lake Edina SidewalkP P 110712.pdf Neighborhood comments include the following: o The Lake Edina Neighborhood voted'twice (overwhelmingly) against any sidewalk plans. In two separate polls — 1) in which Lake Edina Neighbors would be assessed directly.for the sidewalk, and 2) under a scenario where the City funds the improvements through utility franchise fees (which the neighbors are still funding). It was noted that the response rate to both polls was very high (over 50% of the resident homes). This level of response indicates that the home owners are engaged and.want to be a part of the decision process. 0 Questionnaire Results .110-307_ Edina_Background jpg Qiuesiionnalre #1 _____ . -- Questionnaire #2 56% (139 / 247) 51% (127 % 247) Sidewalk Questiol Yes 9%(12) 18%(23) Notes: 1. Questionnaire # 1 prior to change in assessment policy for side, 2. Sidewalks are not included in special assessments. • The participants at the meeting asked the appropriate KEYquestion after seeing the results of both polls: "Why are we even having this discussion and why did you.spend taxpayer dollars to generate a plan assessment ?" Mr. Houle. responded that the Transportation Committee made the recommendation and Engineering was following through. The engineering department did not have a position or recommendation on this matter. Mr. Houle stated that the proposed plan was an improvement on the Transportation Committee's recommendation which he referred to as "the sidewalk to nowhere ". The "sidewalk to nowhere". essentially ran south from 70h street along Normandale Boulevard and then east on Hibiscus terminating at West Shore Drive. It did not connect to any park system, connect the neighborhood to any other neighborhood, and clearly did not take into account what the families living in the neighborhood communicated — that they did not see a need for sidewalks. • The participants at the meeting were very upset about the sidewalk and asked Mr. Houle to recommend termination of the same. He asked them all to send letters and attend the Dec 11th meeting. _. • Neighborhood sentiment is that the Transportation Committee, without any merit, cause, justification, or representation from the Lake Edina neighborhood commissioned the City Engineering Department to expend resources and dollars to prepare a cost and feasibility study. • Moreover, the Lake Edina neighbors feel that the meeting was held merely to demonstrate that process had been duly followed while fully expecting the City Council to blindly accept the recommendation. Again, against the will of the neighborhood. 2 Other key points were made at the meeting on Nov 7th (short list below). In addition, we submit other key concerns as it relates to the physical placement of the sidewalk in terms of cost to the project. We believe that the placement proposal (east side of Normandale and north side of Hibiscus) creates a much higher cost to the city and tax payers: • The neighborhood roadway is safe and supports future growth in pedestrian traffic. • Placement of the sidewalk on the East side of the proposed roadbed is the most costly option: • Requires transitions across eight feeder streets (more expensive cement transition work, additional signage, road marking and the movement of utilities) • As presented, the City would reduce the total roadbed width by three feet — driving up the cost of the project — which is not addressed in the road bed only plan. ■ Gutters and sewers are almost entirely on the East side of the road. All would need to be moved at great cost to align with the new curb system. ■ Concerns that a narrower roadbed would not support a future bike path without car traffic conflict. • Will negatively impact the mature trees that line the boulevard (proposal requires up to 10' of boulevard (7' of current grass and tree lined area). Roots of mature trees will be impacted and may lead to death of trees. • Homeowner watering lines, fire hydrants, fencing and pet containment systems will need to be relocated at additional cost. Homeowners directly impacted by a sidewalk on their property are be required to clean and maintain the same (to the advantage of the other neighbors). Many of these homeowners are already cutting and maintaining the trees on the boulevard as the City began to assess fees for trimming the same. They feel that a burden is unfairly being imposed on them when they and their neighbors have repeatedly communicated they do not want sidewalks. We DO NOT support the proposed sidewalk plan and recommend that the City Council reject the same. Alternatively, we do support a short (protected) pathway from Kellogg Ave to Parklawn Ave (that traverses East -West across the north end of Fred Richards golf course aka Lake Edina Park). We believe that this would provide a thoughtful way to build better access and connections across the city. SOUNDBARRIER PROPOSAL SUPPORT Wayne Houle and Chad Millner and the City have been very supportive of the neighborhoods desire to beautify its entrance and prevent /deter future graffiti on an aging 1970 vintage sound barrier wall. There is probably no uglier entrance to an Edina neighborhood than the Normandale entrance south of 70th street. This is perpetuated by the DOT's indifference to the wall; using whatever paint they have on hand to cover over the graffiti (see representative picture below). Sound Wall - Normandale Rd f rom 70t" Street to Hibiscus Ave Families on Larkspur Cane and Aspasia Lane (that feed onto Normandale Boulevard) initiated their own beautification program a few short years ago. They worked with the City to incorporate green, renewable plantings and maintain the ime. The plantings have effectively deterred the graffiti although its evidence is still apparent in many places because it was not effectively removed before hand. The neighborhood is requesting that the City approve a plan that supports beautification along the entire wall with a watering system to ensure growth. In the past the:City provided watering trucks and neighbors have used their water and hoses stretched across the road to ensure that the planting took root and have been able to survive the. uncharacteristically dry and hot environment. At the Nov 7 meeting two options were presented resulting in a third alternative that had broad neighborhood support. Specifically, power washing the wall to remove graffiti, permanent plantings and a watering system. The neighborhood has already demonstrated its desire and ability to beautify, the sound barrier and stands prepared to maintain further renewable plantings in order to prevent /deter future graffiti. We DO support this low cost option and recommend that the City Council approve the same. 4 Chad Millner From: Gary Freie <gary.freie @vomela.com> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 20121:11 PM To: jhovland @krausehovland.com; 'joshsprague @edinarealty.com'; jonibennett12 @comcast.net'; 'mbrindle @comcast.net'; 'mail @EdinaMN.gov'; 'swensonannl @gmail.com'; 'sneal @EdinaMN.gov'; 'edinamail @ci.edina.mn.us' Cc: Iwhoule @EdinaMN.gov'; 'cmillner @EdinaMN.gov' Subject: Lake Edina Neighborhood sidewalk, sound wall and other city services to add to a future agenta. Dear Edina City Council, Administration, and Transportation Committee Members, After attending the information meeting about the sidewalk proposal, I'm at a loss as to why this is even being discussed. After two surveys with and without assentments it is very clear that 82% of our neighborhood does not want any sidewalks built or the Normandale Road narrowed. Many of us were shocked to find out that the plan was to build it on the eastside of Normandale Rd. and the north side of Hibiscus, there are 9 streets to cross from the golf course to 70th street. It would make the most sense to build it on other side of the street where it has far less impact and there is only one street to cross. The curved part of the road coming into the neighborhood would have to be rebuilt away from the wall to make room for the sidewalk away from the wall, Instead of reworking and narrowing the whole length of Normandale Rd. Also comes the question of maintenance and who's reasonable? We already have to take care of the city trees on Normandale Rd. like trimming them and disposing of the limbs at our expense. I don't feel that the transportation team thought this sidewalk project out very well and how it impacts the residents. Many are hoping that something gets done with the highway 100 wall and landscaping instead, like beautifying it and adding height to it. The some 70 houses that are close have to suffer year round though the consistent highway roar that never stops 24/7. It really is more of a concrete fence than a sound wall. It would also be nice to have some city services done that other cities provide like cleaning and opening storm drains, opening the compose site a couple times a year to residents, having a once a year junk and hazardous cleanup drop off day. Having the police focus on ways of making intersections, roadway and road approaches safe and improving traffic flow and matching stop and go light times with traffic flow. Focusing on real crime and problem areas instead of parking on the highways getting an award for how many tickets they write in a year. Every officer should be challenged with that thought of how and where do I make the best use of my time to make the city and residents safe and how to improve traffic flow. Gary & Julie Freie 4921 Trillium Lane Edina, MN 55435 To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL ow J o ,� CoRPORp Jose Agenda Item #: I.Y.E. From: Wayne D. Houle, PE, Director of Engineering Action Discussion ❑ Date: December 11, 2012 Information ❑ Subject: Public Hearing — Normandale Neighborhood Roadway Improvements No. BA -394, Resolution No. 2012 -152 0 1 0 Action: Requested: If the Council determines the project to be necessary, cost- effective,.and feasible, Council shall adopt Resolution No. 2012 -152 accepting the feasibility study and approving Normandale Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction, No. BA -394, authorize plans and specifications to be completed and bids taken. Information / Background: City staff initiated this project. The project :involves water and sewer service pipe reconstruction, rehabilitation of the trunk sanitary sewer, upgrades to the storm sewer system, upgrades to water system such as :replacement. of gate valves and fire hydrants, curb. and gutter spot repair, reconstruction of bituminous pavement and a potential multi -use path. The overall project cost is estimated at $3,553,000, which includes City owned utility repairs and replacement. Funding for the roadway cost will be from a special assessment of 100% of the roadway cost. All City owned :utility repairs will be from the respective utility funds. The multi -use path would be funded by the Active Living.lnfrastructure Fund (ALIF). The Park Board commented on the alignment of the multi -use path at the November 19, 2012 Park Board meeting. The draft meeting minutes are attached. No additional correspondence was received since the feasibility study was submitted to the Council. Staff has analyzed the project and feels that the project is necessary, cost - effective, and feasible from an engineering standpoint. Attachments: November 19, 2012 Park Board Meeting Minutes G: \PW \CENTRAL SVCS \ENG DIV \PROJECTS \IMPR NOS \BA394 Normandale 2013 \PRELIM DESIGN \FEASIBILITY \PUBLIC HEARINGS \Item No. W.E. PH Normandale City of Edina • 4801 W. 5 0Th St. Edina, MN 55424 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PARK BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL November 19, 2012 7:00 PM L CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Jones called the meeting to order at 7:06 pm and welcomed Mr. Keprios back. II. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were Members Dan Peterson, Hulbert, Cella, Deeds, Jones, Gieseke, Kathryn Peterson, Jacobson, Segreto III. APPROVAL OFMEETINGAGENDA Member Dan Peterson made a motion, seconded by Member Deeds, approving the meeting agenda. Ayes: Members Dan Peterson, Hulbert, Cella, Deeds, Jones, Gieseke, Kathryn Peterson, Jacobson, Segreto Motion Carried IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA Member Dan Peterson made a motion, seconded by Member Segreto approving the consent agenda as follows: W.A. Approval of Minutes —Regular Park Board Meeting of Tuesday, October 9, 2012 Ayes: Members Dan Peterson, Hulbert, Cella, Deeds, Jones, Gieseke, Kathryn Peterson, Jacobson, Segreto Motion Carried V COMMUNITY COMMENT None VI. REPORTSIRECOMMENDATIONS VI.A. Edina Nordic Ski Snowmaking Proposal Andy Turnbull, 5437 Halifax Lane, informed the Park Board he is the head coach of the Edina Nordic Cross Country Ski Team. Paul Gage, 5813 Amy Drive, informed the Park Board he is the assistant coach of the Edina Nordic Ski Team. The two coaches gave a power point presentation regarding their snowmaking proposal and indicated what they are asking for from the City is the use of water and a compressor. Member Dan Peterson asked if the request up to a million gallons of water is per snowmaking session or for the whole season to which Mr. Turnbull replied hopefully for the whole season. Member Hulbert stated that he really likes the idea and asked if they are successful this winter would they try to raise money to purchase a compressor for use in the following years to which Mr. Gage replied that their next most likely option would be to look into leasing. He explained that these compressors are used to blow out people's sprinkling systems and then they collect dust until the next year. Member Cella asked her understanding from the presentation that the loop that is being proposed to be made this year is entirely on park land rather than school land. Mr. Turnbull replied there might be one small edge that drops onto school land but probably 90% of it is on park land. She noted in the written proposals it states you have a tentative agreement from the Creek Valley administration and asked if they are any further with that. Mr. Turnbull replied to the best of his knowledge they have been given tentative approval and he has not heard anything to the contrary. Mr. Keprios commented that he thinks the Park Board should view this as a partnership rather than just a request from the Nordic Ski Team. He noted from a staff standpoint they find it very beneficial to the general public and it would be wonderful to have a cross country groomed trail we can count on through the winter. However, they do have questions about using water to make snow for a sledding hill primarily for liability purposes and would like to just do the trail for the pilot project and not a sledding hill. Mr. Turnbull replied they would be happy to not take on the extra work. Member Gieseke stated he likes the idea and it's beneficial to the community as well as the school so he is behind it. He noted it is a pilot project and maybe a year from now they can take a look at how successful it was. He commented that he knows there is a storehouse of used equipment and it may help the community be able to participate more if they could offer some kind of rental or something and get some of the younger kids started because that may help the team later on. Mr. Turnbull also suggested there are certainly some community education options for giving lessons if they have snow. Member Kathryn Peterson asked if they looked at putting the trail at the high school because it would be a more convenient and easier location especially for the younger students. Mr. Turnbull replied they have but because it's within walking distance and it's a sport they felt a little extra activity is not going to hurt them. He explained the primary reason they looked at the Creek Valley venue was because the hills at the high school are too steep to be skiable and they didn't want to put that kind of liability on anybody. In addition, Creek Valley has a little greater hydrant access. Member Kathryn Peterson commented that it looks like the extended loop actually infringes somewhat on the soccer fields and is concerned that having the track go through there might damage the field and therefore they will want to make sure that the corner is off of the field and there isn't a loop that goes over the field. Mr. Turnbull replied they are certainly cognizant of keeping the fields in good shape and in the past when they have had to snow groom those fields they have had pretty good success and in the spring there is no visible sign they were ever there but that is a point well taken. Member Jacobson stated it sounds like a good idea and asked how long they anticipate it will take to make that much snow and what time of day would it be made. Mr. Turnbull replied they are hoping it can be done in a week but it is weather dependent and obviously it gets colder at night. He pointed out that if they blow from the area between Creek Valley and the Crosstown, where they are pretty isolated from any residential interference, they may try to do that during evening hours to the extent that they comply with the noise ordinance and they are aware they can't keep anyone up at night. Member Segreto stated she likes the proposal and is familiar with the trail as it goes from 9 Mile Creek up towards the water tower and although it's not a steep incline it is an incline and during the non -snow season she is wondering about the stability of the trail so that they don't get a lot of erosion on that incline. Mr. Turnbull replied the trail that they have been using is in place and this is the third year for most of it and so far it has been very stable and added that they have tried to grade it so that the run off is controlled. He noted that this spring they may try to get something onto parts of those trails whether it's grass seed or some sort of wood chips but at least to this point it has been a pretty stable trail. Member Segreto wondered because there will be more use there will there be less underbrush there because she is starting to see a little wear because she does use that trail quite a bit and doesn't know whose expense trail stabilization would be. Mr. Turnbull responded they have done all of the work on it to this point and again when they cut that trail they tried to grade it so that erosion would not be a concern; however, there is not much they can do to keep people off it but it is their intent to come back and do some 2 seeding and/or put down woodchips. Member Segreto asked if they are tracking for classic skiing and ski skating to which Mr. Turnbull replied yes. Member Segreto asked during drought years what is their water policy issue for non - essential watering? Mr. Keprios replied they did ask the City Engineer that and were told the demand for water is significantly lower in the winter so it's not an issue. Member Segreto noted that she recalls at a prior meeting they passed a resolution allowing a snowmobile to track on parkland and asked if approval will be needed to use the snowmobile on the Creek Valley property. Mr. Turnbull replied they have the blessing of the school administration to use that as well as the school administration is very much behind them on this pilot project. Member Deeds made a motion, seconded by Member Dan Peterson, to accept the proposal as written with the exception of the sledding hill. Mr. Keprios pointed out the request for a permit for the noise ordinance is not something the Parks and Recreation Department grants and wants to clarify that is not part of the motion but is something the Health Department would be responsible for because they will have to keep the decibel levels within acceptable levels which do vary from day to night. Member Segreto asked if they need to be concerned about any insurance issues to which Mr. Keprios replied whatever insurance issues there are they are well covered through their general liability. Ayes: Members Dan Peterson, Hulbert, Cella, Deeds, Jones, Gieseke, Kathryn Peterson, Jacobson, Segreto Motion carried. B. 2013 -2017 Parks and Recreation Department Capital Improvement Plan Mr. Keprios commented that unfortunately he thinks Parks and Recreation general parks ended up on the short end of the stick; however, the good news is they are getting the lion's share of the Construction Fund money available for the parks in that more of it has been funneled to the enterprise facilities. He noted that he thinks it will self - correct in time but that for the short-term they are going to be hurting a little in the general parks but once they are able to find adequate funding they will be able to play the catch -up game. Member Deeds stated they know they are short on playing fields and lack the space for their demand and younger kids trying to play all of the growing sports and asked why all of the athletic fields were listed at a 5 or below. He asked what the feedback in terms of the high ratings was and what was getting funded in contrast with the 1, 2 and 3 priorities. Mr. Keprios replied that being absent for the last two months this was a shock to him and he is not prepared to answer what exactly happened. He noted that he agrees he was more than disappointed to see what he thinks are some of the higher priorities. He stated he thinks it's really a culmination of some of the point values that were given and being that they are now competing with all of the departments within the City. Member Deeds asked if there is any appeal process or is this written in stone for a two -year cycle because he would love to find out what the priorities are and asked if it would be possible to bring the City Manager in to discuss it. Mr. Keprios replied he does not know whether or not there is an appeal process but believes the City Council will be paying close attention to the Park Board's review and comments. He indicated that he thinks it is their intention to act on this CEP but if there are really strong feelings from the Park Board that this is not acceptable they may decide to delay the process and maybe have a joint meeting but that is for the City Council to decide. 3 Member Hulbert stated clearly there are some needs in the park system that maybe cannot simply be addressed in a CIP and after having gone through the sports dome process there are some short-term, intermediate term and long -term issues that need to be addressed. He suggested maybe there might be an opportunity in the upcoming year to have a work session with the City Council to discuss some goals and address some of the needs in the park system. Ms. Kattreh pointed out that the items ranked with priorities 1 thru 5 are likely to be funded in the first two years and items that are ranked a 6 or 7 are not likely to be funded in the first two years. She informed the Park Board that she did have an opportunity to make an appeal to the City Manager and was told if, for example, there were a project for $250,000 that we would like to put back into the process then we would need to come up where we would cut $250,000 because we only have a limited amount of resources available. She noted that she did make an effort to specifically get the Pamela fields back in the process and did come up with some fairly significant cuts primarily from the enterprise operations; however, it was decided to keep the proposal as is for the time being. Member Kathryn Peterson asked for clarification that those given a priority 5 were likely to be funded but commentary from staff indicates that the only thing that actually was funded for 2013 is the Wooddale Park Playground equipment. She stated that, for example, the Garden Park baseball field, which was another partnership project, appears to have fallen by the wayside and that questions were raised at the last meeting regarding the priority of the equipment at Wooddale Park. She pointed out that Wooddale Park does not need replacing at this time and there are probably greater needs both in terms of playground equipment and possibly using those funds for another project. Mr. Keprios replied that the Garden Park baseball field is in fact scheduled and budgeted to be done in the year 2013 for $300,000 but that is relying on a minimum of $200,000 from grants and donations. He stated that the bad news is they have been informed that they did not receive the grant; however, the EBA has come forward and asked if they continue to use the City's $100,000 and they will donate $100,000 and see how much they can get done in 2013 for $200,000. He noted that is something that will be on the table but it is budgeted for 2013. Also, the playground equipment replacement at Wooddale Park is the only thing other than the equipment and replacement for the Parks Department currently on the 2014 plan and that's relying on a $100,000 donation from the neighborhood. Member Jones indicated there are currently 23 playgrounds in Edina and most playground manufacturers say they have a life span between 15 and 20 years. She noted the oldest playground in Edina is Lewis Park and it was installed in 1995 and that the playground equipment at Wooddale Park was installed five years later. In addition, there are 12 playgrounds that are at least five years older than the equipment at Wooddale Park. She pointed out she is having a hard time with the tight budget rationalizing $100,000 to have one park skip over all of these other neighborhood parks and if someone were to ask them why they are doing that she would have a hard time rationalizing it. She noted she thinks in their capital improvement budget they need to be replacing at least one playground every year to maximize both staff and the planning process as well as the actual installation process. She asked what the plan will be because even in the five -year plan they don't have that. Mr. Keprios replied yes, the reason it is on the 2014 budget is because a resident has come forward and offered to raise $100,000. He stated that he agrees they need to put play equipment in once a year to be sure they catch up. He noted that in 1996 they had a successful referendum and replaced a lot of them at one time and it's going to be difficult to do that all in one year and so it should be put on a schedule and get to them one at a time. Member Hulbert asked at what level does a bonding issue need to go to a referendum to which Mr. Keprios replied that is up to the City Council, there is no magic number. He noted he thinks when the City Council gets to a point where the needs are so great and the funding is not available and they don't think they can raise a levy politically that they will go to the voters. He commented that as he stated in his staff report he thinks it would be wise of the City Council to find a more sustainable fund to catch up on the needs that the Park Board has astutely brought forward, the playground equipment, all of the field issues and find a sustainable source of funding so you don't have to go to the voters to do maintenance. 4 Member Hulbert indicated that a few years ago they talked about putting in turf at Pamela Park and that the life expectancy of this field is 12 years and when they compare the costs of a grass field versus a turf field you compare the. annual maintenance expenses of the grass fields to the upfront costs of the turf field it's not like they are adding something to the system that is going to require ongoing maintenance. He noted that is why he is wondering on a bonding issue if they clearly have a need for more multi -use athletic fields what would the appetite be with City Council to, do: something like that. Also, if the debt at Fred Richards is retiring this upcoming year it maybe worthwhile to have a work session or a. discussion with the City Council to see what their appetite is for doing something like that for the upcoming year. Mr. Keprios responded that he was told that the City Council has already brought up some discussion about a bond issue and are thinking in that direction and it would be a great discussion for a work session:with the Park Board and City Council. He stated that is correct the golf course,bond indebtedness goes off the books in January; however, they, still have about one million in cash deficit that the City would like to have paid back. That is going to take time; however, they are still willing to make some investments back in the golf.course but maybe a referendum is the direction to go because he doesn't know how else they are going to catch up: Member Cella asked within the projects that are listed did parks staff have the ability to move.some items to, a priority 5 and others to a priority 7 for items we are not going to fund immediately, could staff reorder the priorities within the rankings of 5,. 6 and 7 or was that also out of your hands. Mi. Keprios replied once it had gone through the new process parks staff had no say as to the point value. Ms. Kattreh commented they were able to rank their projects for the Parks Department which there were approximately 80. Member Deeds asked do these correlate with that ranking.or are they not terribly correlated. Ms. Kattreh replied that's a difficult question to answer because the capital improvement funding for the enterprises is very:generous and so in terms of the enterprise facilities they did very well; however, their general parks projects did not do quite as well. Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that what staff recommended to administration at the start of this process, Attachment B, is just slightly different from what the Park Board supported a year ago, Attachment C. He noted the major difference is they decided it made more sense to build anew field before they renovate the senior fields and that way they won't have a loss of a field for a season. Member Jones asked where the '' /2 size basketball court for Highlands Park came from to which Mr. Keprios replied that is not a new one; he has had that request from residents in the neighborhood for several years but never in a formal petition manner. He noted that another resident came forward saying they will get a petition together if that's what it takes and although it was a little late for that he did put it on the CIP just to see where it goes. He added it's not a lot of money and even so it didn't make the list. Member Jones commented her vision for neighborhood. parks is to create community so maybe this neighborhood wants a basketball court and maybe they don't, but there are processes the Park Board has done such as with Chowen Parkthey invited the neighborhood to get together and ask them what playground equipment they wanted.and what they wanted their park to look like. She stated that she would be more comfortable approving this after that process than before that process by having one person come forward saying they want this. She added at their neighborhood meeting they did not even mention this so the neighborhood doesn't even know about it and therefore feels before they move ahead with something they should vent that. Mr. Keprios indicated that he thinks that falls within the same category as the Lake Edina Pathway where all of a sudden it's on their agenda and there has not been a public process for that and if they survive the funding process his intention was to do a public process. He noted maybe there is some argument to be made that we spend the money and time and does the neighborhood really want this and should they have put this in the proposed CIP. He pointed out that Lake Edina will not necessarily , happen even if the funding gets approved if it doesn't survive the public process. They've already spent some money on an engineer to go out and map out where the path is going to be and how much it's going to cost and after that they are going to have a public process if it survives funding. He would think the basketball court would be much the same if the neighbors really end up not wanting it they won't go forward. Member Jones stated she thinks every neighborhood should have the ability to look at their park comprehensively and not just say do you want a trail but what do you want it to look like. She indicated she is uncomfortable leaving that on there just as she is uncomfortable leaving on the equipment for Wooddale Park although she does want to encourage neighborhoods to say they will do fundraising and that type of cooperation with the Park Board in order to make their parks as beautiful as possible. Member Deeds commented he understands the idea of getting neighborhoods to raise money and have fundraisers; however, he is slowly concerned with the priorities they are setting because it is biased towards upper socioeconomic neighborhoods versus lower socioeconomic neighborhoods. Some neighborhoods can tap on a neighbor's door and find $100 per neighbor very quickly while others cannot. He stated it's not just that they are fundraising to their park but they are providing City matching dollars based on essentially a neighborhood ability to raise funds which is biased towards higher socioeconomic neighborhoods. He commented it's one thing if the neighborhood is raising all of it but if you start matching you are siphoning money to the upper income levels which he is very concerned about in the long run in setting that kind of precedence. Mr. Deeds stated he agrees, he finds that Wooddale Park is the only approved piece essentially troubling and he understands the pragmatism of it but the community should be taking care of all of its parks and the priorities should not be based upon the income level of the people surrounding those parks and the priority they are setting is factoring that income level. He indicated this a priority they need to think about because they do have economic disparity and they have a fairly decent and potentially an increasing distribution within this community and they need to begin thinking through that and the City Council had better start thinking through that. Member Jones stated she couldn't agree more. Member Jones stated she would like to draw attention to the age of the other shelter buildings that are not mentioned in the CIP. Normandale and Arden Park are mentioned in the CIP and were built in 1974; however, the Creek Valley building was built in 1968 and Pamela Park was built in 1970. She commented it seems as if they are jumping over some parks for shelter buildings and that may be okay because maybe some of those communities don't want a shelter building and maybe they would rather have a gazebo but she would like to bring that discussion into it. Mr. Keprios replied that is an excellent point and those are things that need to be looked at as they begin to prioritize the replacement of the older infrastructure. Member Cella asked if there is a master list showing all of the warming houses and other buildings that details which are in the worst shape, which need the most maintenance so that they can be prioritized because an older building could be in much better shape and need much less renovation in which case you wouldn't be replacing that before the younger building. Mr. Keprios replied unfortunately there is a very healthy and long list of future capital improvement plan projects and replacement of shelter buildings is one of them. He noted that he did put this list in front of the Park Board last year and yes they have given it a lot of thought and have put it on a five -year plan for the money they thought would be available but the funding just isn't there. He added there is a whole list of future capital things that maybe could be considered for a referendum. Member Jones asked about the Utley Park bathroom renovation and commented she didn't even know there were bathrooms at Utley Park. Mr. Keprios replied it is one of the oldest buildings in the system and is not handicapped accessible. He commented that hopefully they will raise enough money to build the Veteran's Memorial because then there will be an even greater need for handicapped accessible restrooms at Utley Park. Mr. Keprios explained back when the building was built it was used strictly for the well and pumps that are inside the building and mainly used by the Utility Department and so they 6 V needed to build restrooms for staff because there were offices in there and just decided to make them accessible from the outside so the public can use them too. He added it was never a park building but was really more the Utility Department that built it. Member Jones asked is it a park building now to which Mr. Keprios replied no, they never built it, designed it and really had nothing to do with it. The Utility Department came and just put it in there and now it needs to be upgraded and Utilities is willing to help to try to fund some of that. Member Jones commented that maybe they wait until the memorial is funded and then renovate it. Member Deeds indicated in his estimation having spent the last year looking at their athletic field needs this is a very disappointing outcome and a very short sighted outcome. He noted the fact of the matter is where the athletic fields are placed when they build them will be used by kids citywide; they are not just for the neighborhood. He added when Edina is compared to other suburbs to which they compete for families moving in and out and deciding where to live such as Minnetonka, Wayzata, Eden Prairie, etc., they aren't even in the ballgame relative to the facilities their neighboring competing communities have. He stated in the long run it is an extremely short sighted decision in terms of not funding any new fields whatsoever and he honestly believes the City Council should reconsider what is going on. Member Segreto noted that she shares in the frustration with this plan as it has come to them today and thinks it's a blueprint to see our parks deteriorate. She stated they do not have the money they need to take care of the parks; therefore, just absent a bond referendum she doesn't know where the money is going to come from to do what they need to do. Member Kathryn Peterson commented that she would like to express again that going through this process has been very frustrating for all of them to come in at the very tail end of it when things appear to largely be decided. She stated she thinks that is something that needs to be looked at for next year in terms of the sequence of the steps because she is not sure they have very much input at this point. Member Cella commented when it is presented to the Park Board for review and comment the process has already been done and there is no room for appeal. She stated if they are saying this is what it is then what review and comment does the Park Board make other than we don't like it and we don't agree. Member Jones reiterated her frustration with not only the sports fields but she would ask that the City Council get a copy of the "Proragis Report" from the National Parks because it shows where Edina ranks as benchmarked against other communities across the country. It shows they are short on fields and thinks they should really pay attention to that. She also stated if they aren't going to go to a referendum for additional money for the parks then they can't waste time, they need to come up with a plan for revitalizing the neighborhood parks and that should be part of this five -year plan. Member Gieseke stated as he listens to everyone here he is not sure if there is a person here that doesn't think it's probably high time that we take a serious look along with the City Council. We are an advisory board and he thinks they can advise City Council that it's high time in looking at their CIP and their needs that they do not match today and they do not match in five years. He stated it's high time they take a serious look at a bonding referendum situation and maybe have a joint meeting and move from there. He noted this is a prescription to move backwards and not even to maintain and it's highly unacceptable. C. West Shore Drive Pathway Expansion Proposal Mr. Keprios showed the Park Board two options regarding the West Shore Drive Pathway Expansion proposal. He noted Wayne Houle, City Engineer, has asked for the Park Board's review and comment on the proposed plan of bringing a bicycle trail through the neighborhood between 66`h Street and 64th Street on the west end of Rosland Park. 7 I Mr. Keprios pointed out the thing that struck him was do they really need 18 feet of asphalt for the amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic they get, especially when you consider the entire length of the approved Nine Mile Creek Trail is only 10 feet wide and that is to accommodate both. He stated in his view this is too wide and too great an impact on nature on the path. He noted he thinks it's a wonderful idea to bring it in and make it more bicycle friendly, he just doesn't think they need to have 18 feet of asphalt on that small section. Member Dan Peterson stated that he supports what Mr. Keprios said. Member Hulbert stated he also supports what Mr. Keprios said and was curious if the Transportation Commission has weighed in on this yet. Mr. Keprios responded he doesn't know that it has been brought to them yet. Member Hulbert noted that he leans more towards the first option and thinks whenever you bring pedestrians and bicycles together on the same path you could have some safety concerns and also agrees with that being really wide for a pathway through the woods. . Member Cella asked what the current width of the pathway is through the woods to which it was noted 8 feet. Member Deeds indicated the issues regarding run -off and everything else when you put in a width of 18 feet of asphalt in the middle and the impact on wetlands and streams and everything else it does not seem to be appropriate. To him option A as originally proposed seems to make the most sense. Member Jones first thanked the City Council and Transportation Commission for including bike paths which was one of things that came out of the "Attitude and Interest Survey ". The residents were really in favor to improve our bike paths and trails and getting people from this neighborhood to the north as well as she thinks this would tie into the pedestrian bridge. In addition, this would be a path that could continue on and tie into the Nine Mile Creek trail so it would be a way to get north -south traffic. She commented if she were to design it she would put a path next to the walking path and around the lake where it would get a whole lot of use because where it is currently located it hits 601 Street and it seems as if it's going out of the way. Therefore, she would put it next to the walking path and curve it around and tie it into the pedestrian bridge and would really love to be able to have a bike path around the lake separated from the walking path. She stated between the two options she would go with Option A. Member Gieseke commented he lives in this neighborhood and often runs along that path and it's a no outlet type of situation so he is perplexed as to why they need this whatsoever. He is all in favor of the bike path but the traffic along West Shore Drive moving that direction towards Crosstown is almost non- existent and the road is narrow so somehow he would prefer the bikes to move along that roadway as opposed to spending the additional dollars. He stated it's a beautiful area right through there and to him it might detract from the appearance of what they have going on right now. If you do have bikes moving through a separate path it would probably make some sense because if you look around the Minneapolis Lakes it's hard to mix people walking their dogs on leashes and bikes and at different speeds that adds some element of danger there and so he doesn't see a whole lot that he likes with either option. Member Kathryn Peterson stated she is curious as to how this budget is being funded; everything from the engineering drawings to the actual path clearing the brush all of that stuff to which Mr. Keprios replied he does not have that answer. Member Kathryn Peterson noted that she thinks there might be things on their list that they could put ahead of the path. Member Jacobson noted that she agrees about the width; her only comment is she likes Option A because she prefers separation between bikes and people like Lake Harriet or Lake Calhoun keeping them separate is important. 8 _1 Member Segreto commented that the environmental impact. of Option B is just too severe so if she had to support one of the plans it would be Option A but she sort of agrees she does not understand how this fits in with the whole bike system, she would need further study but that is not what she is being asked. Mr. Keprios stated one thing he forgot to mention is he thinks Option A is probably considered a sidewalk and according to current ordinance bicycles are not allowed on sidewalks so maybe they have already got that part ironed out or are assuming they will change the ordinance to permit that. Mr. Keprios suggested maybe they consider an Option Gwhich is to not have a sidewalk per se but just make a 10 ft. wide path stretch from 64`b.to 66`' Street and make it just one path similar to what-the Nine Mile Regional Trail is goingao be. Member Cella asked if the two block stretch ties into the greater Edina bike. path in someway to get from certainvints in Edina because.it dead ends'up against_Crosstown and doesn't see.how it can really be any part of a masterplan of biking around the City.: She stated that it seems to be a lot of expense and work for atwo block stretch of bike trail. Mr. Keprios replied he doesn't know if it's for them to debate the wisdom of the transportation plan, -but yes, that is correct. D. 2013 Parks and Recreation Department Fees and Charges Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board there are not a whole lot of changes on their general parks and recreation fees. He explained as staff they try to keep it at a break even basis and if they don't get enough registrants.at those dollar amounts knowing their expenses then they will drop the class. He commented that he thinks the fees are set fairly affordable and reasonable and cover the expenses. He pointed out they did have as increase in Men's Basketball and the only real significant change is the increase at Arneson Acres to basically recover some of their expenses: He added that it is a pretty high demand park and also gives preference to residents as the non - resident fee is a little more than the resident. Member Gieseke asked generally speaking how they differentiate the fees between residents and non- residents and is there a strategy behind it. Mr. Keprios replied when they feel that the demand for the residents is so great that residents are otherwise going to be denied access to the better times they will limit or completely eliminate access for non - residents. When that's not the case they open the door to non - residents like they do at the pool and golf course. He added with the general parks they don't allow any non - residents to reserve any of their athletic fields because it's difficult just to keep them in a pristine condition that they need to be for Edina teams. Member Hulbert asked if Rosland Park see more requests for rentals than any of the other parks for large charity events and walks. Mr. Keprios replied the one they get the most requests for.,is Rosland Park Pathway and to run fundraisers and again they only rent those out to residents. Member Hulbert commented that he is not trying to, find ways to gouge charities but the one thing that it does do is when you have events like that it takes_ the whole park almost offline for the neighborhood. He asked is $225 a day and $75 an hour kind of the going rate and what does the City of Minneapolis charge when they do something around Lake Calhoun. Mr. Keprios replied again, that would only be for residents and the fee does cover the maintenance expenses. Member Jacobson indicated in looking at the picnic shelter rental cost for a half day or full day they seem pretty low and fairly cheap compared to the City of Minneapolis. For example, looking at Sherwood Park for a half day is $28 which thinks is really, really cheap. Mr. Keprios replied that Sherwood Park is just a little picnic shelter to which Member Jacobson responded it's in her backyard and that it is still a picnic shelter and can host an event for anyone. She stated if you are looking at the City of Minneapolis for a small picnic shelter the rate per hour is much higher. Mr. Keprios asked how many people the shelters would accommodate to which she replied she is thinking of a variety of different parks. Mr. Keprios stated Sherwood accommodates 8 to 10 at the most comfortably. Member Jones indicated that she went on -line and looked at the General Fund for the City of Edina because they are only seeing this one piece which is revenues they never really see the whole pie and so it's hard for her to say these are fine. She stated that it looks to her as if the most recent budget listed is from 2011 and 2010 and it looks as though they have a variance of under budget of approximately $300,000 for both 2011 and 2010. She noted she is trying to figure out if the City Council has budgeted them 3.8 million but they only use 3.5 million with all of the needs to keep the parks well maintained are we charging enough. She commented that according to this maybe they are overcharging or maybe they are not using the money that has been allocated to them. Mr. Keprios explained they spent $333,000 less than what they actually had budgeted; however, that amount has nothing to do with revenues. He noted that he thinks the bigger question is why we didn't spend all of the money we were budgeted for and for that they need to dig a little deeper into where are the areas that we are actually very frugal and didn't spend those monies because those are not capital dollars but are operating dollars. Member Jones asked what happens to that money to which Mr. Keprios explained with any overages the City Council decides at the end of each year, it was over one million dollars last year, and they decided to put a big part of it into funding capital improvements. Mr. Keprios pointed out they should not be budgeting in a way that you are going to rely on this because that is not what you call a sustainable source of income. He noted it doesn't matter what you charge in fees that number all has to do with what expenses we are expecting as well as what kind of a year we had as far as a drought, heavy rains, maintenance, vandalism, etc. There are many factors that can affect that and a lot of it is we were just down right frugal and so it really has nothing to do with where the fees are set. Member Kathryn Peterson stated it's not really clear to her how much some of this stuff costs so some things seem very reasonably priced and some of the playground activities and Senior Center items seem very cheap. She noted she is not sure how much is being subsidized by the City so that would be a piece of information that would be really helpful. Mr. Keprios replied if he recalls correctly the Park Board is going to have a working group study with the Senior Center which he believes former Park Board member Bill Lough had asked to be a part of. He noted the Park Board should put that on their work plan and if you would like more information next year for the fees and charges on the expense side staff can prepare that. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS None VIII. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None IX STAFF COMMENTS Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that as he stated earlier they did not get the Hennepin Youth Sports Grant to renovate the Garden Park baseball field; however, with the Council's approval they would like to go forward and use the $100,000 that is budgeted for that project. It could be matched with EBA's $100,000 donation in 2013 to significantly renovate the baseball field. Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that the decorative lights at Walnut Ridge Park are up because the neighborhood was able to raise the money. Ms. Kattreh gave the Park Board an update on the sports dome. She informed them she will be taking Park Board's recommendation to the City Council tomorrow night which states "The continued study of Braemar and the forward motion of the dome should not occur until the issue of expanded playing fields is addressed, solved and budgeted for ". She noted that along those lines she has been working with the EFA, ELA and ESC on trying to figure out a way they can reallocate field space to try to the make Braemar field an option for the dome. She indicated they may have come up with a good temporary field solution and that is moving football in the fall to the new artificial turf at Braemar, if they were to build a dome, and then moving fall soccer to the Lewis Park fields where football currently is. She 10 1 explained this would give soccer extra field space and football would get the turf they are looking for. She noted it would give soccer the ability to possibly run two fields width wise on the very westerly Lewis Field and it appears to be a win/win for all of the associations involved. She commented that the ESC is very interested and excited about this proposal and football and lacrosse are very interested as well. In addition,: this would also give them possibly the ability to take the rested field and put it back into play at Lewis because_ the primary reason for resting a field at Lewis right now is because the football use on that field really tears it up; therefore, if football is off of those fields and onto an artificial turf field they would be able to put that field back in play for soccer. She commented right now all of the associations involved are very interested and excited about this proposal so it at least gives them a temporary solution to the loss of field space if they turf the Braemar Athletic field. Member Deeds asked if they: are signing off on this to which Ms. Kattreh replied they have not had an opportunity to meet with their boards to give them an official letter so isn't a firm written deal. However, she has received verbal assurance from the associations, especially soccer. Member Cella thanked Ms. Kattreh for all of the hard work and negotiating to salvage something and make it work for everyone, she appreciates that. Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board they have hired Brian Recker from RJM to be the construction manager for the Golf Dome and Brian is putting together what it is going to cost the City to replace the Golf Dome in. its preferred design. He noted that the administrative building will be separated from the dome and not directly attached to it so that the dome itself is not pulling on the roof. They are getting close to a settlement but he thinks it's pretty clear they are not going to get as much money as they need to replace it with the desired design. There are a lot of new and costly building code requirements; however, the insurance company will pay for that up to a limit. Member Jones asked to be filled in on the Arena. Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board they did have a major mechanical failure in the West Arena and they are still trying to determine the exact cause of that failure. She noted they did have a corrosive environment in one of their chillers that caused the solution to actually rust through some of their tubes in the chiller; however, they were able to isolate and repair those tubes on the. chiller and they did get the ice backup and operational in time to get the hockey season off to a good start. She indicated they are still trying to get to the bottom of the cause of the chemical. imbalance but they are back up and running; unfortunately, it took over a week to make the repair and then another week to put the ice back in. Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board the Hornet's Nest is two weeks past the day they were hoping to open so now they are shooting for December 1561 . Member Dan Peterson asked for an update. on the Veteran's Memorial. Mr. Keprios replied unfortunately in his absence recovering from surgery not much happened but since he has been back they now have someone who will be taking over the fundraising effort. He noted they are back on track and if you look at their website there is now a thermometer that shows how much money they've raised and they are currently at approximately $130,000 out of the $450,000 that needs to be raised and he thinks they are going to get there. Member Deeds stated that he thinks they ought to recognize that Coach Bowman and EHS had a heck of a football season; EFA built some pretty good players through the program using City fields and commented that they also beat Eden Prairie on Homecoming. Member Cella pointed out that they also beat Hopkins and Wayzata on their homecomings. Member Gieseke stated the Edina Girls Tennis Team set a national record of 16 State Championships in a row. Meeting adjourned at 8:48 pm 11 �9 Ve � Cv� \roRePBUe To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item #: IV.F. From: Wayne D. Houle, PE, Director of Engineering Action Discussion ❑ Date:. December 11, 2012 Information ❑ Subject: Public Hearing Mendelssohn A Neighborhood Roadway Improvements No. BA- 393, Resolution N6.2012-152 Action Requested: If the Council determines the project to be necessary, cost - effective, and feasible, Council shall adopt Resolution No. 2012 -152 accepting the feasibility study and approving Mendelssohn A Neighborhood Roadway Improvements, No. BA -393, authorize plans and specifications to be completed and bids taken. Information / Background: City staff initiated this project. The project involves localized rehabilitation of the sanitary sewer, upgrades to, the storm sewer system, upgrades to the water system such as replacement of gate valves and fire hydrants, curb and gutter spot repair, and reconstruction of bituminous pavement. The overall project cost is estimated at $1,824,259, which includes City owned utility repairs and replacement. Funding for the roadway cost will be from a special assessment of 100% of the roadway cost. All City owned utility repairs will be from the respective utility funds. Attached is resident correspondence since the submittal of the feasibility study to the Council. Staff has analyzed the project and feels that the project is necessary, cost - effective, and feasible from an engineering standpoint. Attachments: Resident Correspondence G: \PW \CENTRAL SVCS \ENG DIV \PROJECTS \IMPR NOS \BA393 Mendelssohn A 2013 \PRELIM DESIGN \FEASIBILITY\PUBLIC HEARINGS \Item No. IV.F. PH Mendelssohn A BA393.docx City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 11 ' i Chad Millner . rom: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Good morning, Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Thursday, November 29, 2012 11:15 AM Wayne Houle Susan Howl; Chad Millner FW: Attn City Council and Engineering - Road improvement NO BA -392 This_ message.has been forwarded :to the Mayor and Council members, Wayne Houle and Chad Millner. f 4tll..i: s" Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 952-927-88611 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 ` Ibiunno a0EdinaMN.gov I www.EdinaMN.gov. '...For Living, Learning, Raising Families 6:_ Doing Business From: rickwindham@q.com fmailto:rickwindham @g.com] Sent: Thursdayi November 29, 2012'11:09 AM To: Edina Mail Subject: Attn City Council and Engineering - Road improvement NO BA -392 was just reviewing the improvement proposed. for my neighborhood and see that the part of Mendelsson ast of Blake road- is�not included. Since all roads between Blake and Interlachen CC, except Mendelsson, are included why would the one street be left out? It would seem to have that improvement done as a small project would be very expensive and if the planned project had more houses included the cost of our project might be less per household. Can you please share the rational for this design. Rick Windham 952- 938 -8591 1 To: City Engineers, Edina City Councilmembers From: Mary McDonald, 6216 Belmore Lane, 952 - 938 -2215 SHOULD INTERLACHEN PAY PART OF THE ASSESSMENT? (The following is not necessarily the opinion of any other resident of Mendelssohn A. The following also does not address the Maloney neighborhood's situation in relation to Interlachen, because I don't know the particulars of that.) Interlachen Country Club previously used its access to Belmore Lane for these and other activities: • valet parking • using the 6200 Belmore house as its caddy shack. • using the 6200 Belmore property for the US Open • access to maintenance of its property that abuts Belmore Now Interlachen no longer has a curb cut on Belmore. Interlachen says thus it has closed off its access to Belmore and thus it should not have to pay a share of the Belmore road reconstruction. Public Works concurs, saying Interlachen does not have a driveway for vehicles to enter its property from Belmore - and thus, Interlachen is exempt from the assessment. I don't understand why this lack of one type of access is sufficient for exemption. Instead I see reasons why Interlachen should help pay for the road. For example, Interlachen has a gate in the fence between its practice area and Belmore; will this never be used for maintenance or emergencies or deliveries? Also, it seems the most reasonable access to Interlachen's acreage on Belmore is via Belmore; will they never maintain the adjacent landscaping or their pond from Belmore? Is Interlachen comfortable guaranteeing that it will never access its property from Belmore (or Maloney)? Also, there are residential properties at Blake and Belmore and at Blake and Maloney that also have no curb cuts on Belmore or Maloney, and thus, by the above definition, have no access to Belmore or Maloney. The justification for Interlachen's exemption should mean those properties are excluded from the assessment, too. But they aren't. However, Interlachen is not a residential property. The rule for including a residential property in the assessment is not whether the property has a curb cut onto the road in question. It also is not whether the property uses the road: the "no- access" argument implies "no road usage ". Instead the rule is whether a residential property abuts the road to be reconstructed. Is this rule not applied to non - residential property? In addition, if a non - residential property (e.g., a warehouse) occupies an entire block, does the City assess it only for the roads on which it has curb cuts? What if, in an industrial park, none of the properties abutting a road has curb cuts on that road? The answers to these may suggest that curb cuts are irrelevant in the allocation of assessments. I would certainly welcome and appreciate further clarification from the City to eliminate the concerns above. Susan Howl From: Lynette Biunno on behalf of Edina Mail Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 2:32 PM To: Wayne Houle Cc: Susan Howl Subjeiit: FW: Attn: City Council & Engineering - RE: Braemer Hills B Roadway - Lynette Biunno, Receptionist 952- 927 -8861 1 Fax 952 - 826 -0389 IbiunnoaEdinaMN.-gov I www.EdinaMN.gov .; ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing }business From: Cindy Pascale rmailto:cindy pascale@hotmail.com1 Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 1:54 PM To: Edina Mail Subject: Attn: City Council & Engineering - RE: Braemer Hills B Roadway Hello There is a public hearing tonight regarding the proposed roadway construction that I am not able to attend. I read the feasibility study and found (for my neighborhood): Three projects were combined in order to save money. Sidewalks are not part of this project. New street lights are included. ,.The first letter we received regarding the proposed construction indicated an estimated $6 - $7,000 assessment per household. The estimated assessment is now $9,310. Why is the price tag about 50% more per house? Are the lights that much more? If so, the survey should have mentioned that we the lights would cost an additional $3000 /house - maybe the survey results would have been different. Are there other aspects to this project /costs that will be included that will affect the assessment to the homeowners? We have heard from multiple other Edina citizens that the estimated costs always start at $6 - $7K and after other things are included in the project, the final bill is close to double the first estimated price tag. Will this happen in our neighborhood too? We are already half of the way there now.... And if we disagree with how the city is spending our money, what recourse do we have? Thank you Cindy Pascale 7015 Tupa Drive