Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-02-09 Park Board Minutes 1 EDINA PARK BOARD 7:30 P.M. EDINA ART CENTER FEBRUARY 9, 2000 _______________________________ MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom White, Dave Fredlund, Chuck Mooty, Floyd Grabiel, Karla Sitek, George Klus, Andy Finsness, Scot Housh, John Murrin, MEMBERS ABSENT: Andy Herring, Linda Presthus STAFF PRESENT: John Keprios, Ed MacHolda, Donna Tilsner, Janet Canton, Diana Hedges, Bradley Benn OTHERS PRESENT: Debra Lynner, Pete Anderson, Jim Simons, Neil Weikart, Jack Galvin, Mary Cederberg, Brad Hanson, John Witzel, Megan Grande, Jeff Bohlig, Pete Sieger, Jim Van Valkenburg _______________________________ I. APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 11, 2000 PARK BOARD MINUTES George Klus MOVED TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 11, 2000 PARK BOARD MINUTES. Floyd Grabiel SECONDED THE MOTION. MINUTES APPROVED. II. INTRODUCTION OF NEW PARK BOARD MEMBER SCOT HOUSH John Keprios introduced the new Park Board member, Scot Housh. Mr. Housh indicated that he grew up in Edina and has used a lot of the park and recreation facilities throughout his life and is glad to be a member of the Park Board. III. TOUR OF THE ART CENTER Mr. Keprios introduced Jim Van Valkenburg, Chairman of the Art Center Board; Diana Hedges, manager of the Edina Art Center; and Bradley Benn, assistant manager. The Park Board then went on a tour of the Art Center and was given a handout on the history of the Edina Art Center. IV. BILL JENKINS Mr. White explained that Bill Jenkins has been on the Park Board for the past 12 years and last month was his last Park Board meeting. Mr. White noted that while Mr. Jenkins was on the Park Board he had a great deal of knowledge about certain issues and a great deal of history which was very helpful to the newer members. He indicated he is very appreciative of his service. Mr. White informed the Park Board that Mr. Jenkins is going to receive a plaque and a gift from the Park Board at the Volunteer Awards Reception. Mr. White then asked everyone to chip in for the gift. Mr. White then passed around a 2 resolution for everyone to sign that will be given to Mr. Jenkins along with his plaque and gift. V. CITY/SCHOOL REFERENDUM Peter Sieger, architect with TSP One, Inc., gave a brief background on the firm and then gave a presentation on what the proposed plans are at this time. He indicated that they currently have a pool study underway and hope to have the results from that the end of the week so it will be done in time for the city council meeting on February 15th. Mr. Sieger explained that there has been a demand for recreational facilities of all varieties for quite some time. He indicated that in 1997 there was a citizen’s group who gave a proposal to the city. In response to that the Park and Recreation Department did a study in 1998 which brought recommendations that lead to TSP One’s involvement in the study. Mr. Sieger stated that at that time the conclusions from the Park and Recreation study indicated that to satisfy the need for gymnasium space in the community the best alternative would be to have some type of a joint city/school district partnership, involving the expansion of facilities at one of the school’s campuses. He noted it was determined that the community center would be the strongest candidate. Therefore, their charge was to look at the community center campus, along with the decision makers from the city and school district, to determine how the community center campus could be expanded to respond to the need for recreational facilities. Mr. Sieger explained all of the different items that were looked at and then showed the different plans they came up with. He noted that the group collectively came to the conclusion that it makes a good deal of sense to expand the new field house south and because it is a crowded site to only have three gymnasiums instead of four. In addition a new gymnasium would be added on to Concord Elementary. Mr. Sieger indicated that initially they looked at wood flooring for the center court and synthetic surfaces for the two side courts and running track. However, they are now looking at having all wood flooring with the exception of the track and the new gymnasium at Concord Elementary which would have synthetic flooring. The plan is also looking at putting in new flooring as well as reconfiguring the two courts at South View Middle School in order to have more sideline space. In addition to this they are looking at renovating the existing locker rooms, support facilities, and the lower concourse level concession area. Mr. Sieger also indicated that the plan is looking at renovating the existing community center theatre. Mr. Sieger stated that all of the Park Board members have received the report and the estimated cost of the project, using a traditional design bid construction delivery method, will be about 15.6 million dollars for the base improvements. He noted that they have also looked at what is called the “fast track” project delivery method which would overlap design and construction and would save time and money. Therefore, for the base facilities documented in the report using the fast track approach, it is estimated at approximately 14.8 million dollars. 3 Mr. Sieger explained that the base option includes three new gymnasiums at the community center with an elevated running track, entrance at the south end, an upper concourse level that leads into the existing Community Center as well as a new gymnasium at Concord Elementary. It also includes storage support spaces, concessions and those kinds of things which will be achieved by renovating the existing community center facility. It was asked how many parking spaces are currently at the community center to which Mr. Sieger replied he doesn’t have that number but his recollection is that there will be an additional 100 spaces. Mr. Keprios indicated that if he remembers correctly of the four options the one that the task force zeroed in on was the three gym field house without the upper walking track. It’s a relatively compact version of what was considered. He also commented that he doesn’t know if the issue of what type of flooring has been fully resolved yet. He noted that part of what drives the option of putting the track at an elevated level is because if we have a wood floor we cannot put a track at grade level. Therefore, if the track is at grade level than the two outside gyms would need to have a resilient surface with only the middle gym having a wood floor. If this happens then in a sense you’ve eliminated it as an ideal site for soccer and you don’t have the best facility for basketball. Mr. Keprios stated that in his view you either go with a complete resilient surface or else have a premier basketball facility with a wooden floor and an elevated track. Mr. Housh asked what is the demand for an inside walking track. Mr. Keprios replied that he doesn’t have those numbers but noted that it would be the largest indoor track in Edina and there would be opportunities for the general public to use it with access to the locker rooms. He noted that there would be an entry fee for open gym, which we currently do not have in Edina. Also, seniors would take advantage of an indoor walking track. He also commented that it would maximize the facility if the walking track is elevated because there would be maximum use of both the gym floors and track at the same time. Mr. Fredlund asked what would be the circumference of the track to which Mr. Keprios replied it would be approximately 8 laps to the mile. Mr. Keprios also indicated that Edinborough Park’s track is considerably smaller than what this one would be. Mr. Murrin asked Mr. Keprios if he thinks they really need to maximize the suitability of this gym, wouldn’t it still be a nice suitable facility if there wasn’t a running track. Mr. Keprios replied that you could, however, when it’s open gym to the general public and people want to run, they are going to be interfering with the people playing basketball. Mr. Mooty commented that he doesn’t know if an elevated track is suitable or not. However if there is an elevated track then possibly, if the school district agrees, seniors could walk during the day while classes are being held and the seniors would feel that they are not being a disruption to the activities below. Mr. Sieger added that the track would not be suitable for running competition but only for walking and jogging. Mr. Keprios commented that to maximize the facility, regardless of the type of flooring, he would like to see the elevated track. Mr. Murrin stated that it costs $900,000 to put in an elevated track. Mr. Mooty indicated that would be a good 4 question for the survey that’s being put together. See if there is a demand in the community for a track. Mr. Keprios explained that the professional firm Decision Resources has been hired to go out and survey the community by phone on a random basis to determine what the salability is of what’s currently on the table. It will show what the strengths and weaknesses are and what are the heavily supported elements and what elements may kill the project. They will be interviewing 400 people of all age groups in a 15 minute phone interview. This survey will give us a good look at where we are at. Mr. Housh asked what is McCarthy Field being used for today. Mr. MacHolda replied that it is used primarily as the training site for the high school football team. Baseball is almost exclusively played on city fields, Braemar and Garden Park. Football totally destroys the turf in the fall and come spring it’s basically all dirt. The area is also used for track and field for training for the shot and discus, therefore, there is very little baseball played there. Once in awhile in the summer Mickey Mantle, etc. may use it as a practice field. Mr. Mooty indicated that he thinks the concern is from the baseball community that they would like to retain a field on the main campus. He stated that it would be nice if McCarthy field could still be multi-purpose for soccer and football in the outfield and still be able to play baseball on the infield. Mr. MacHolda noted that he thinks Steve Dove would like to get his sports back on campus so they are not traveling to Braemar and Van Valkenburg. He noted that both the Valley View and South View baseball fields need total renovation as well as McCarthy. He also noted that the city’s fields are stressed. Mr. Klus asked what is happening with the fields at the high school. Mr. Mooty explained that those fields are not playable in any type of game setting. He noted that the question is if those fields are renovated what additional capacity is there. Do we have a shortage of baseball fields right now. Mr. MacHolda replied that there is a shortage of intermediate size fields. He pointed out that Braemar was never intended to be a practice facility, solely a game facility, and right now the baseball association and high school program do overlap. Mr. Mooty asked if during the summer when the school is obviously not utilizing the baseball fields are the baseball association’s programs going to be able to access those fields from the standpoint of having better fields and more fields than we currently have. Mr. MacHolda replied that it would be a huge improvement for baseball because first of all Braemar is solely a game field that is booked seven days a week. Therefore, there is no place to practice and there’s hardly a spot to find a field for a game. So yes, if Valley View and South View were renovated it would be a huge improvement to the baseball program. Mr. Murrin asked if there will be backboard facilities at the tennis courts that are mentioned. Mr. Sieger replied that he believes with the tennis courts at the community center they are looking at the consolidation of improvements including: lighting, seating and he believes they have considered backboards. Mr. Murrin noted that he feels backboards are very important and help people to learn to play tennis. Mr. Keprios commented that’s a great point, however it was one item that did get cut. However, if that is your recommendation to put it back in the mix he would suggest that it be a wall 5 made out of concrete to lesson the noise factor, it would not deteriorate as fast and it would not need a lot of maintenance. Mr. Keprios asked Mr. Sieger to explain where they are at with the charge they have been sent on to look at the pools. Mr. Sieger indicated that the pools at Valley View and South View have been looked at and that Valley View is in greater need of improvements. He pointed out that South View is in relatively good condition. He noted that the drawbacks for both pools are that there are only five lanes and for competition you need to have eight lanes. Also, there is inadequate depth for diving at South View and there is marginally adequate depth at Valley View. Therefore, he stated that they have been sent on a charge in addition to assessing the condition of the two facilities to recommend what kind of improvements are appropriate. Mr. Keprios asked the swimming world what are the ideal measurements for a competitive pool. Mary Cederberg, resident, indicated that ideally the pool should be 25 meters by 25 yards so that it’s almost a square pool. She noted that during the short season you swim yards and during the long season you swim meters. Ms. Cederberg commented that another concern from the Swim Club is for competition you need cold water pools and when their program overlaps with the park and recreation programs the water is warm and therefore they have swimmers with health issues the next day. For high school competition they need exclusive cold water pools that are not accessible to warm water sports. Ms. Cederberg noted that when she talked to the swim coach at the high school she found out that they have enough swimmers needed to maintain a new facility and renovate Valley View. The Edina Swim Club and others would use these too because there is a lack of swimming facilities. It was also noted that a separate diving well is needed because they cannot have practices at the same time. Mr. Housh asked if other communities have these kind of facilities to which Ms. Cederberg replied that Edina is one of the communities that is the furthest behind. Mr. White commented that he thinks you can have swimming practice and diving practice at the same time, it might not be the ideal situation but it can be done. Mr. Mooty asked if there were two pools couldn’t the divers be in the current pool and the swimmers use the new one. Mr. Sieger noted his concern is what is the long-term status of the outdoor pool. Mr. Keprios responded that a lot would depend on whether or not we have fulfilled the needs of the competitive swimmer. Ms. Cederberg commented that for the 50 meter competition the Swim Club would still need access to it because it’s the only 50 meter pool in the southwest metro area. She also noted that a lot of other communities rent Edina’s outdoor swimming facility. Mr. Sieger noted that eventually some updates are going to be needed at the outdoor facility. Mr. Witzel asked if anyone has done a study to see what the difference in cost would be between a 50 meter pool with a bulk head diving system on one end compared to a 25 by 25 pool with a separate diving well. He noted that the two structures aren’t nearly the same size but the cost and maintenance issues might not be all that different. He noted that with a bigger pool there is a tremendous advantage for use because you can practice with 16 to 18 lanes sideways. This way you can use it for competitive purposes as well as educational and recreational purposes. He pointed out that you double your use and the 6 price difference might be relatively marginal. Ms. Cederberg stated that from a swim perspective currently there is a lack of pool space in Edina that is for cold water swimming. Mr. White asked Ms. Cederberg if the request is for a new pool and a diving well. Ms. Cederberg replied there is a need for a diving well because currently at Valley View it’s 10 ft. and the regulation is going to 12 ft. She also explained that at the 50 meter outdoor pool at one end it’s actually too shallow for entry. Mr. Mooty asked if the deck could be lowered versus building a whole new diving area. Mr. Sieger replied that it’s very costly to add lanes and to add depth. It would probably be cheaper to build a new one. Mr. Keprios handed out a sheet that included everything that is currently being looked at to put into the referendum as well as the approximate cost which are fairly accurate. He explained that where the pool costs are listed he took a shot in the dark and is not sure where they are headed with the pool. It is just a starting point, they are not the architect’s numbers. Mr. Keprios indicated that since his staff report he has met with the city manager and the school representatives to resolve one of the stumbling blocks which is how to pay for the operational expenses to run the community center field house. He pointed out that the total figure in the report by the architect is about $138,000 to $140,000, which includes the operational expenses for Concord as well. Mr. Keprios stated that the current understanding with the school district is the city would come up with approximately $90,000 on an annual basis and the school would pay for whatever additional operating expenses there would be. Therefore, that is why the athletic associations were asked to meet prior to the Park Board meeting because this is on a fast track. They need to find some creative ways to come up with the money and to see if there is some support and commitment out there. Mr. Keprios noted that Mr. Mooty has stepped up to the plate and there is a plan in place that could cover the operational expenses. Mr. Mooty explained that he thinks the approach that would be pursued would be to receive partial funding from the various athletic associations that utilize the indoor facilities. That would probably create somewhere around a $20,000 to $25,000 commitment on an annual basis by those athletic associations. The remaining $70,000 would be derived from private donations and a foundation would be set up to provide the $70,000 annual commitment. Mr. Mooty indicated that raising a ½ million dollars would easily make a ten year commitment and raising one million dollars would create at least a 20 year commitment. Therefore, the charge would be that we go out and raise private dollars to support the ongoing costs or at least to subsidize a portion of the cost that relates to that amount. He indicated that he believes going out to the community for private dollars to help subsidize the project for operating costs is a doable mission. Mr. Murrin asked Mr. Mooty if he is able to help with that effort and is it something that he would be personally committed to which Mr. Mooty replied yes. Mr. Klus asked if the city is willing to put some dollars towards the operational costs. Mr. Keprios responded that the city’s commitment for the operational expenses would be whatever adult programs would use the facility. The city would be a player, but a very small player. 7 Mr. Keprios indicated that one of the questions that is still up for debate is what kind of flooring should be put into the gymnasiums. Mr. Housh asked which court would be the premier game court for the high school team. Mr. Mooty replied he thinks the approach would be that the girls high school games would still be at the high school facility and the boys high school games would still be at the community center. Potentially due to capacity needs maybe all games would be at the new field house, however, that wouldn’t be the plan right now. Mr. Keprios commented that whatever flooring is put in there should be an elevated track to get the maximum use out of it. He noted that he could make an argument for either type of flooring. Mr. Housh stated that if it’s going to be used primarily for basketball it should all have wooden floors. Ms. Sitek commented that she hasn’t heard anything good about the synthetic kind of flooring. Mr. Mooty noted that if we are going with a fundraising element to have a state of the art type of deal than a wooden floor is going to be more appealing to the group that he is going to go before. Mr. Klus stated that he agrees we should go with the best we can but he is not sold on a track because there is already a smaller track at Edinborough and he doesn’t see what another undersized indoor track is going to do for the community. There are already enough places for walkers to go whether it be the mall or Edinborough and therefore he is not sold on the indoor track. Mr. Klus commented that if the track was regulation size and could be used for multiple purposes for races than he would be more inclined to be for a track. Mr. White indicated he agrees, he doesn’t like the short tracks because it seems to take forever to run the same distance. Mr. Grabiel indicated he has two questions. First, what is the opposition to upgrading the auditorium. Secondly, how many families in Edina are going to benefit from these projects, the gymnasiums and swimming pool. Who is benefiting by all of this money we are asking for from the public. Mr. Weikart, Edina Basketball Association President, indicated that there are 1,100 boys who play basketball in grades 1-8. It was noted that there are 500 girls who play in grades 2-9. That’s about 1,600 kids who are playing basketball not counting the kids in grades 10 through 12 who are with the high school. Mr. Murrin asked Mr. Weikart if they favor the community paying for the need of this kind of expansion. Mr. Weikart replied that he thinks it’s good, however, we need to watch the costs and be careful. We definitely need more gyms and it would be a great investment. Mr. Murrin asked Mr. Weikart if he thinks the basketball community would be interested in private contributions for operating expenses that might be necessary. Mr. Weikart explained that the Basketball Association have made capital improvements to the existing school gyms and as an association through their normal youth fund would be able to help support some of the operating costs. He would guess the amount to be around $5,000 to $7,000. He noted that personally he absolutely would contribute as well as try to get other people to do so as well. Mr. Keprios asked Ms. Cederberg what the numbers are for swimming. She noted that living in Minnesota swimming is essential in her mind. Therefore, there are a couple of issues, you have the competitive swimmer and you have the school district. Mr. Keprios asked how many swimming participants would benefit by the pool. Ms. Cederberg 8 indicated that it would include all of the junior high students and whoever else is utilizing those pools. She stated that in her mind it’s non-negotiable because at this point these facilities are about to be shut down because of some of the issues. She noted that in terms of people it’s hard to say. There are over 150 families currently in the Edina Swim Club and they probably turn away that many because there are not adequate facilities. Ms. Cederberg also pointed out that there are developmental programs that have gone outside the community because there is inadequate space. She also noted that there are 77 girls on the high school swim team and is not sure how many boys. Mr. Keprios indicated that soccer has the largest amount of participants with 3,000, baseball is similar to basketball and there are approximately 600 in youth football. He noted that football and soccer share the same facilities. Mr. MacHolda indicated that there have been inquiries for rugby and lacrosse but there haven’t been any fields available for those sports to take place. He also noted that there are many adult participants who get turned away on a daily basis because there are not enough facilities available. Mr. Keprios commented that he feels it’s safe to say that the referendum is really there for 33% of the population. Approximately 33% to 35% of the homes in Edina have children. He stated that one of the arguments is that we need to be premiere to be competitive to draw young families into Edina. Therefore, to keep these people we need to upgrade our facilities and the majority of this current proposal is not to build new facilities. We need to upgrade what we currently have and restore the pride in Edina that’s always been here. Mr. Keprios noted that in response to the question about the auditorium that is just his opinion. He stated that as the Park and Recreation Director he doesn’t see a strong push and desire to upgrade the auditorium to make it a premier 974 seat theatre suitable for high profile performing arts. He indicated there is already a 250 seat theatre at Edinborough and an outdoor amphitheater at Centennial Lakes as well as other auditoriums in the schools. He noted that he agrees it does need renovation, however, he has not heard overwhelming requests from the community to have that type of facility. Mr. Keprios commented that it is still included as part of the Decision Resources Survey, they are going to ask people if they perceive it as a need for the community and will ask if they support it. He noted that he could be the lone soldier on this because he knows that the city council is very much in favor of it but the community has not been writing him letters and phoning him like they are for the other facilities. Mr. Murrin indicated that the school board is getting a lot of those letters because it is the largest auditorium facility in the city and does need to be renovated. He noted that there really isn’t any other theatre that can do major performances. Mr. Murrin noted that the current auditorium accommodates 300 while the new facility would accommodate 900. He also noted that he has heard this is important and the approach to some degree was to try to get a different group of people behind the project who have a different interest other than just sports. Mr. Keprios commented that if the survey shows the support is there than it should probably be included in the referendum. John Murrin MOVED THAT THE PARK BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO PURSUE A REFERENDUM TO MAKE RECREATIONAL FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS ON SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY THAT INCLUDES ALL OF THE STAFF’S PROPOSED PROJECTS PLUS THE AUDITORIUM IMPROVEMENTS AND TENNIS COURT CONCRETE BANG BOARD AT THE 9 COMMUNITY CENTER TENNIS COURT SITE CONTINGENT UPON SUCCESSFUL RESOLVE TO COVER ANTICIPATED OPERATING EXPENSES FOR THE FIELD HOUSE. THE PARK BOARD ALSO RECOMMENDS RENOVATION OF THE INDOOR POOLS AT THE MIDDLE SCHOOLS AND, IF FOUND TO BE FISCALLY PRUDENT BASED ON THE CONSULTANT’S FINDINGS, THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW INDOOR 25 YARD BY 25 METER COMPETITION POOL WITH SEPARATE DIVING WELL AT THE VALLEY VIEW MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE. THE PARK BOARD FURTHER RECOMMENDS THAT THE $4,500,000 WORTH OF RECREATIONAL FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS ON CITY PROPERTY AS PROPOSED BY STAFF BE INCLUDED IN THE REFERENDUM. Andy Finsness SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Keprios commented that with the theatre the cost would increase $972,000 bringing it to 27.3 million dollars. Mr. White asked the Park Board if there needs to be any more discussion on the 4.5 million dollars for park improvements. Mr. Keprios pointed out that the reason why it is now 4.5 million and not 4.1 million is because he wanted to make sure that his estimates are correct on the replacement of the Courtney ball field complex building. He wants to make sure he doesn’t underestimate the cost of the project. Ms. Sitek indicated that she is still worried about the operating costs and having that up in the air bothers her. Mr. Mooty replied that he feels the approach would be that it would have to be in place before a vote could be taken. Sometime between now and the referendum it would have to be solidified or else we wouldn’t have it. Mr. White asked if the city is looking at paying $90,000 for operating expenses and the school is picking up the rest, is that anywhere near realistic looking at the fact that we may be adding another pool. Mr. Keprios commented that the deal does not include the operational expenses for the pool. The deal was with the exception of the pool because we don’t know what those numbers are at this time. Ms. Sitek asked if an amendment could be made to the motion. John Murrin ADDED TO HIS MOTION SUBJECT TO COMING TO TERMS ON THE OPERATING EXPENSES. Mr. Klus indicated that he thinks there needs to be a cap on what is recommended because he feels we are starting to get a little high at 27.3 million. He noted that he would like to see all of the items done with the exception of the elevated track. However, he would like to see there be a dollar limit. He is concerned if the people will vote for a bond issue that is this big. Mr. Keprios stated that Decision Resources will help the city council find the comfort level that is out there. Mr. Klus asked if the city is depending on Decision Resources that much for that type of feedback. He asked how much weight do they really hold, isn’t it supposed to be a representative sample of the city. Mr. Murrin commented that when they did it for their bond for the school district their prediction was 99.9 accurate. They are very good at judging success and failure. 10 Mr. Mooty stated that the Park Board is only making a recommendation to the City Council they are going to put in or take out what they want. We are here to say we are conceptually in support or not in support of this. Mr. White clarified his understanding of Mr. Murrin’s motion to adopt the items listed on the project cost sheet, that was handed out by Mr. Keprios, in addition the remodeling of the theatre and the bang board for the tennis courts. Also add Ms. Sitek’s amendment which Mr. Murrin approved that the whole thing is subject to obtaining funding for the operating expenses. Mr. Grabiel commented that it’s good to have baseball, basketball, etc. for the kids but it’s also important to have community theatre and music. He stated that he was happy to see the letter from the 50 year old who played soccer because community recreation and parks is not all about kids, it’s for adults too and we need to also focus on that. Mr. Housh pointed out that there are adult men’s basketball leagues. Mr. Grabiel stated that life is not all about kids and people playing sports it’s about other things as well and as a Park Board we need to pay attention to some of these other things as well. He commented that he is not being critical but is just making a point. Mr. Sieger indicated that for the theatre the construction cost is $974,000 but the total project will be approximately $1,295,000. He explained that there are construction costs and there are soft costs which include architect/engineering fees, site designing, engineering testing fees, occupancy costs, furniture fixtures, equipment, and so on which are outside of building construction. Mr. Klus again indicated that he is not in favor of an elevated track. If there is going to be a basketball facility then don’t do a halfway job by having an undersized track. There are enough places where people can walk and run in Edina. He feels it’s a waste of money to put in an undersized track because he doesn’t feel it will get used. Mr. White agreed saying he doesn’t see a lot of people using the track either. Mr. Klus noted that he would like to see an amendment made to throw out the elevated track. Mr. Housh stated that he thinks everything should be put in and the let the city council decide if they want to take something out. Mr. Murrin noted that if there isn’t an elevated track there are going to be problems with people interfering with basketball. Basketball will have a lot more proper use if there is an elevated track. Mr. Mooty stated that he thinks what Mr. Klus and Mr. White are saying is are people going to use the track regardless of whether it’s on the floor or elevated. Mr. Keprios commented that he believes that there are many people who will use the indoor track and it will maximize the facility. Jeff Bohlig asked if anyone has considered as part of this facility a product that would generate a positive cash flow. He explained that there are 3,000 kids in Edina who play soccer. They rent a facility at Holy Angels for $30,000 a year, that’s cash that goes elsewhere because there are no facilities to use in Edina. He indicated that they have a three month winter time season where they run camps, clinics and training/skills sessions. He noted that the kids cannot use the gyms because the wood surface doesn’t work for soccer. He pointed out that Holy Angels is a private school in Richfield where they put an artificial surface down six months out of the year and put a bubble over it. He noted that it cost $1.1 million to build and in three years they had a positive cash flow and now 11 it’s making money for their school. He noted that it not only serves their physical education classes but is used for baseball, softball, track & field, football, soccer, and even senior citizens come in and use it during the day. He noted that the Edina Soccer Club’s single largest expense is renting that facility. Mr. Mooty indicated that a bubble makes sense if you put it over at Braemar. Mr. Bohlig stated that the soccer community would like to see it over by Kuhlman field. Mr. Mooty replied that he doesn’t think a dome could be put in that area, the neighborhood would never go for it. It would have to be at Braemar because it’s in an environment where nobody can see it and you’re already tied into the Braemar facilities. Mr. White stated that he thinks that’s a good point and he’s not against it. The more facilities we have for everyone the better. However, we need to make a vote on what is in front of us at this time. He commented that he is certainly open to talking about a bubble in the future, but not tonight. EVERYONE IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. VI. OTHER A. Election of Officers - Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that next month will be the election of officers for Chair and Vice-Chair. He indicated that Mr. Herring asked him to share with the Park Board that he has been asked to attend a management college on the east coast and will be gone for ten weeks. Therefore, he will miss the April and May meetings but still has a strong interest in serving on the Park Board. VII. ADJOURNMENT George Klus MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:00 P.M. Karla Sitek SECONDED THE MOTION. MEETING ADJOURNED.