Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-12 Park Board Minutes 1 EDINA PARK BOARD 7:00 P.M. EDINA COMMUNITY ROOM EDINA CITY HALL APRIL 12, 2005 _____________________________ MEMBERS PRESENT: George Klus, Jeff Johnson, Mike Weiss, Mike Damman, Linda Presthus, Jessica Selleck, Todd Fronek, Jeff Sorem, Karla Sitek MEMBERS ABSENT: Andy Finsness STAFF PRESENT: John Keprios, Ed MacHolda, Janet Canton , Vince Cockriel, Larry Thayer, Tim Hunter OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Wagner, Steve Helgren ____________________________ I. APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 8, 2005 PARK BOARD MINUTES Linda Presthus MOVED TO APPROVE THE MARCH 8, 2005 PARK BOARD MINUTES. Jeff Johnson SECONDED THE MOTION. MINUTES APPROVED II. OFF-LEASH DOG PARK PROPOSAL Mr. Keprios introduced Tim Hunter, the Edina Animal Control officer who has worked for the city for 18 months. Mr. Keprios explained to the Park Board that Mr. Hunter informed him that not too long ago a dog owner mentioned to him that he had a strong interest in an off-leash dog park and would be willing to contribute some dollars. Mr. Keprios commented that there are approximately 1,570 households with approximately 1,765 registered dogs. Mr. Keprios noted that there is a history with the Park Board and off-leash dog park proposals to which a feasibility study was done in 2001 and has been included in the Park Board’s packet. He commented that at that time they decided it would be in the Park Board’s best interest to wait and see what happens. He pointed out that the property they were previously interested in is actually owned by the Minneapolis Water Works Department. He noted that at one point the City of Minneapolis was trying to lease the property to Edina and found out that Minneapolis Water Works wasn’t quite ready to make that commitment yet. Mr. Keprios explained that he has now been told that they are going to make a decision this summer on the site as the result of a study they’ve done. They are either going to hang on to it for several decades or they are going to sell it. Mr. Keprios pointed out that the property is right next to Weber Park and showed the Park Board on a map where it is located. He stated that this is still a viable option if things fall into place. Mr. Keprios indicated that he thinks they are now done waiting and with the 2 great opportunity that is facing them they should take advantage of it and not wait for Minneapolis to make their decision. Mr. Keprios explained that the feasibility study that was done in 2001 identified some areas where they could possibly put a dog park. However, none of them were ideal but at least they are every bit as good if not better than what St. Louis Park is doing to which they’ve had phenomenal success. He noted that in their first year they had 130 plus people buy $25.00 passes and have had no complaints, it’s been very positive. Mr. Hunter pointed out that in all of the research he has done everyone has had similar descriptions in terms of initial fears having a dog park but when it has become a reality there really have been very few issues. Mr. Hunter pointed out that there was a dog park in California that was concerned about liability and over the course of the past seven years it has averaged almost ¾ of a million dogs to which they have not received one complaint in those entire seven years. He noted that information came directly from their City Attorney’s office. Mr. Klus indicated that in the past they talked about having volunteers help man the parks and asked if that would still be part of the proposal. Mr. Keprios responded that the way it works in other communities is they are self-policing and have found that it actually does work. He noted that maintenance staff will maintain the grass and be sure that the garbage is disposed of frequently as well as make sure the fence is in good working order. Mr. Keprios noted that one site they looked at in the 2001 study was Van Valkenburg Park because it’s a non-residential area so noise shouldn’t be an issue. He indicated that it’s not centrally located; however, it does have just over two acres of property at that location. He also commented that it does have a pond in the center of it to which they may or may not want to have it encircled by a fence. Mr. Keprios pointed out that he asked Mr. Cockriel to find out what the linear footage is and what it would cost to put up a fence. He noted that to add to what is already there it would cost approximately $10,000. He stated that if they have a donor who’s willing to come up with $5,000 they could provide matching funds within their operating budget. Mr. Keprios commented that he thinks they could make this happen right away with the Park Board and City Council’s blessing. Ms. Presthus stated that she remembers, since the last time they talked about this, that Chief Siitari was pretty much against it and was concerned about who would respond to emergency calls particularly because we were working with Minneapolis and St. Louis Park. She asked if Chief Siitari has any concerns about this new site. Mr. Hunter replied that Chief Siitari has pretty much left this in his lap and hasn’t expressed anything specifically. However, he hasn’t shown him a plan pending what kind of an agreement they come to. Mr. Hunter explained that the way it typically works in other municipalities is it still falls under the jurisdiction of animal control. He noted that as an example Bloomington and Eden Prairie have both year round sites and seasonal sites and 3 historically calls for service at those locations are negligible compared to other calls they receive for service. Ms. Presthus commented that in the past they talked about having some type of alarm device placed at the dog park. Mr. Hunter responded that he personally wouldn’t have a concern with that for the simple fact that they already have multiple individuals using the parks at various times and if incidents were to happen there are no current points of communication. For example, if they were to have three individuals running their dog at Pamela Park without his knowledge he’s not able to address or respond to that because they currently don’t have any additional points of communication. He noted that by having a dog park it won’t change the status quo they would still have the same options of using a cell phone and/or driving to the location for service. Ms. Presthus pointed out that her only concern is it’s illegal to run your dog in all of the other parks. Therefore, is this something we are sanctioning where we could have a potential liability if something were to happen. Mr. Hunter commented that looking at historical data from other sites this wouldn’t be a concern. Mr. Damman stated that he brought that question up in 2001 to which he believes the answer the city attorney gave was it’s no more of a concern than someone falling down at a park. Mr. Gilligan made it quite clear that it’s covered and not an issue. Mr. Damman asked Mr. Cockriel whether or not he’s concerned with the pond and asked whether or not it should be fenced in and, if not, would dogs be allowed to go into the water. He also asked if the water is good for something or is it just run-off. Mr. Cockriel replied that it’s a water retention pond and the depth varies over different times of the year. He noted that he and Mr. Keprios did discuss this and it would be his guess that probably at some point they would fence it in with an entrance gate. He noted that personally if he was running his dogs he would want access to it; however, there are people who prefer that their dogs didn’t go in the water. He stated that it would be easy to have the area gated off. Mr. Fronek asked how does the Van Valkenburg Park site compare to other parks within Edina. Mr. Hunter replied that, if they were to average all of the sites, Van Valkenburg Park would be one of an average size. He noted that all of the parks have different qualities and aspects to them. Mr. Hunter explained that he thinks Van Valkenburg Park shares a lot of the qualities that he would want in a dog park if he were able to landscape it from scratch. However, to compare Van Valkenburg Park to a lot of the other parks is really difficult because many of the parks carry different qualities and added that cities need to work with the land they have. Mr. Sorem asked if they know how much money this person is willing to donate. Mr. Hunter responded that his thought is rather than contacting this individual he would like to send out a mailing to the entire list of registered dog owners being that so many of them have been asking for a dog park. He stated that he thinks to go to just one person would limit their opportunities and by putting it out there and asking people if they are willing to donate it might just give them enough to look at a second site if the first one works out to be a success. 4 Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Hunter how he would keep track of who has a permit, would he use an orange tag or something like that. Mr. Hunter replied that he would do a separate tag and make it distinct as well as mark non-resident tags. He noted that a lot of other cities do this as well as they charge a higher rate for non-residents to access the park. Mr. Klus asked Mr. Hunter how often he thinks he’s going to have to actually monitor the park to be sure that people really are paying to use it. Mr. Hunter responded that he would do it just as he does now by going on regular patrols which gives him an opportunity to talk to the dog owners. He noted that in talking with the animal control officers in Bloomington and Minneapolis by and large they do their regular patrols through the areas just to make sure everything is okay. In addition if they see any dogs that are not permitted a citation is issued. Mr. Klus asked that in order to get a permit do the dogs need to be licensed in the City of Edina to which Mr. Hunter replied that all dogs are currently required to be licensed by city ordinance. He noted that with non- residents he would strongly recommend that they take care of that within their own city. Mr. Hunter commented that some rule of thumb common sense things are no dogs will be allowed in the park if they are registered as dangerous or potentially dangerous, all shots must be up-to-date and all owners/handlers must at least have verbal control over their animals as well as be able to intervene should any of the dogs not get along. Mr. Klus asked what percentage of dogs in this city are actually licensed to which Mr. Hunter replied it’s approximately 40%. Ms. Presthus clarified that it was stated that rather than using an individual donor Mr. Hunter would prefer to send out a notice and ask for contributions if people are willing to donate. Mr. Hunter replied that is correct. Ms. Presthus stated that she has a concern with that because in order to put in $10,000 worth of fencing with matching funds how will we know what amount of funds will be coming in. Mr. Hunter stated that they can certainly modify the terms and how do word notification because there are a lot of different ways they can handle it. Mr. Keprios pointed out that he would like to take the approach of getting the Edina Community Foundation involved. He noted that it’s not good practice for the city to get involved in soliciting funds from its residents. Mr. Keprios asked Mr. Hunter if he had one donor in particular that would be willing to donate to get the dog park up and running on a matching basis. Mr. Hunter replied that he would have to get in touch with the individual he spoke with to see where that person now stands. He stated that he wanted to put this on the table as an option so that they are not relying on any one source because in previous situations he has found that relying on one source is tenuous at best. Mr. Keprios asked Mr. Hunter to talk a little bit about the hockey rink concept and how that works to which Mr. Hunter replied he hasn’t had a chance to look at them yet. Mr. Keprios noted that might be an easy one after he does some research and the Van Valkenburg Park site gets up and running. He added that with the hockey rinks they could probably implement it right away and it could be at more than just one site. 5 Mr. Keprios indicated that it’s staff recommendation to limit at least the first year to residents only because he doesn’t know what kind of take they are going to get. Mr. Klus commented that he doesn’t know how they would be able to do that to which Mr. Keprios replied it’s just his recommendation because not knowing what kind of numbers there will be is the only thing that scares him. Mr. Hunter noted that he thinks at any one time they could accommodate a large number of users in the park. Mr. Keprios indicated that if the Park Board wants to include non-residents he would recommend that they go with the same pricing that St. Louis Park does which is double the price of a resident. Mr. Klus noted that Mr. Keprios’ memo states “It is staff’s recommendation to approve Van Valkenburg Park as an interim off-leash dog park site on the condition that half of the dollars for the fencing are donated. In addition, staff recommends a resident only trial fee of $25.00 per year”. Mr. Klus commented that the only other thing they might want to add to it is to offer it to non-residents for $50.00 per year. Mr. Keprios added that he would like to expand on one point where he uses the term intentionally because if they are going to get a donor of $5,000 or more and it fits within the donations policy they can give permanent recognition. Mr. Keprios stated that if they find out three years down the road that it doesn’t work for whatever reason the city reserves the right to eliminate that as a dog park and whatever the donor gave for fencing remains as city property and could be placed at a different park. Mr. Klus asked Mr. Keprios if he is asking the term interim mean a period of three years. Ms. Presthus asked is this something where they will build and hope donations come in or do they get money from the Edina Foundation hoping that it will be covered by future donations. She stated that it is staff’s recommendation that the fencing be donated so what comes first fencing or donations. Mr. Keprios stated there are two different things going on not to be confused. First, Mr. Hunter has a single donor to which he doesn’t want to rely on that one person. Mr. Hunter stated that he can contact that person to see where they still stand on it. He noted that historically he likes relying on multiple sources but he’s open to recommendations in terms of what will work to get the dog park up and running. Mr. Keprios indicated that he would recommend that Mr. Hunter first go to the single source and if the funds are still there then make the request and offer to do matching funds. He noted that it would still be run through the Edina Foundation in order to get a tax deduction and the proper recognition on the plaque at the site. Mr. Keprios stated that secondly if they find the park to be successful then they need to start another dialog about adding another off-leash dog park in the city. Mr. Keprios stated that they are not going to break ground until all of the money is in the bank to which Ms. Presthus replied that was not in the motion but that’s her question. Todd Fronek MOVED TO APPROACH THE EDINA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ON GIVEN THAT WE CAN GET FUNDING WE WILL AGREE THAT WE WILL BUILD THE INTERIM DOG OFF-LEASH PARK AT VAN VALKENBURG PARK ON THE CONDITION THAT WE WILL MATCH IT. IF THEY CAN COME UP WITH $5,000 OR WHATEVER HALF IS THAT WE WOULD AGREE TO BUILD THE OFF-LEASH DOG PARK. 6 Karla Sitek SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Keprios asked the Park Board if they want to address the non-resident issue now or is that a separate issue. Todd Fronek AMENDED HIS MOTION TO INCLUDE BOTH RESIDENTS AND NON-RESIDENTS, RESIDENTS PAYING AT A $25.00 FEE AND NON-RESIDENTS A $50.00 FEE. Karla Sitek SECONDED THE AMENDMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Mr. Keprios thanked Mr. Hunter for all of his work on this project and noted that it is very much appreciated. III. LEWIS PARK HOCKEY RINK PROPOSAL Mr. Keprios introduced Mike Wagner, current President of the Edina Hockey Association (EHA) and Steve Helgren, Ice Coordinator for EHA as well as Larry Thayer, Manager of Braemar Ice Arena. Mr. Keprios recapped that at the last Park Board meeting the recommendation made was to put in a hockey rink at Todd Park and to not put $40,000 into the hockey rink at Countryside Park. It was decided to put the hockey rink back at Countryside Park once they have the dollars to redo a master plan and replace the hockey rink in the proper north/south orientation. Mr. Keprios indicated that per the Park Board’s request he has sent out a memo to the residents of Todd Park informing them that the Park Board is going to put their final stamp of approval on this and are requesting the residents input on this concept. He added that he has already received three responses which were all positive. Mr. Keprios stated that also discussed at last month’s Park Board meeting was the possibility of adding a second rink at Lewis Park. He noted that they also talked about the idea of putting a cover over one of them and perhaps have it double as a picnic shelter during the summer months. Mr. Keprios indicated that he met with Mr. Thayer, Mr. Wagner and Mr. Helgren and discussed how the city could better serve EHA’s program needs. It was noted that if EHA’s projections are correct they should have approximately 1,225 skaters. Mr. Keprios indicated that they discussed what EHA’s true program needs are and it was decided that what they really need is a great practice venue that they can count on during the hockey season. He pointed out that they talked about putting something at Braemar but decided that it would be too expensive because they would have to put in retaining walls etc., and it didn’t seem to make sense financially. Mr. Keprios explained that they then came up with the idea of putting something at Lewis Park that could double as a picnic shelter with portable hockey boards. He noted that they could also put down a concrete slab which would continue to leave the door open for artificial refrigeration and felt this is an idea they should explore. 7 Mr. Keprios indicated that he is asking for the Park Board’s support of the concept to explore a permanent structure with open ends. In addition, look at the feasibility of putting one of Braemar’s propane ice re-surfacer machines at Lewis Park which would guarantee good ice a little longer in the season, however, not a tremendous additional amount unless they were to put in artificial refrigeration. Mr. Keprios stated that what he is recommending is that they do a feasibility study and hire a professional to see what different options they could do as well as what each scenario would cost. Mr. Keprios pointed out that it’s going to cost money to get answers to a lot of their questions and that is why he has asked EHA if they would be willing to fund the consultants study to get them off of square one. Mr. Johnson commented that Lewis Park is heavily used by non-residents and therefore he would like to see the EHA mite program fill up the ice time as much as they can. In addition, that rink will be a little more regulated because it will have a Zamboni driver. Mr. Klus asked if they would potentially be adding staff to Lewis Park to which Mr. Johnson replied possibly. Mr. Johnson noted that in the long run it’s going to be much better than trying to put in a fourth sheet of ice at Braemar. Mr. Keprios stated that he really applauds Mr. Thayer’s recommendations on this topic in that we should take baby steps and not necessarily jump in with a refrigeration system. Wait and see what they get out of a roof and an ice re-surfacer machine first because they can always add a portable system in the future. Mr. Wagner pointed out that it would be very helpful to EHA if they could migrate some of their mite program to an outdoor sheet of ice that they can depend on. He noted that ultimately they would love to have refrigeration, however, if the budget is not there just having a cover over the ice and an ice re-surfacer would certainly be a great help. Mr. Klus asked Mr. Helgren and Mr. Wagner how much EHA would be willing to contribute towards this. Mr. Wagner replied that he has no idea what it would cost to do a feasibility study like this. He indicated that he knows where their budget is and what they have available and that they certainly would be willing to help with the process. Mr. Keprios commented that he also doesn’t know how much the feasibility study would cost but would like to get a request for proposal and submit it to a couple of different firms and see who comes in the most competitive. Ms. Sitek commented that EHA definitely needs another sheet of ice soon because with the addition of the girls program everything has doubled and it’s only going to get worse. She noted that obviously the perfect thing would be to add a fourth sheet of ice at Braemar but given that isn’t going to happen right now this would be a very good alternative as long as the ice is good. Mr. Fronek indicated that he thinks it’s great to add ice anywhere they can and noted that they may want to even look at other parks. He commented that Pamela Park has some places where they could add a bigger skating area. He noted that he doesn’t see a problem with Lewis Park but maybe they should pursue other options. 8 Mr. Sorem asked what type of hourly rental fees would they be looking at because people would definitely pay to use that ice. Mr. Keprios replied that there would definitely be a rental charge. Mr. Wagner stated that EHA would absolutely pay an hourly rental fee. Mr. Keprios commented that he thinks if they charge a rental fee as well as program the rink properly the non-resident issue at Lewis Park should go away. Mr. Klus asked Mr. Thayer what he thinks about this concept to which Mr. Thayer replied that there is no question that there is a need by the EHA. Mr. Thayer noted that with an ice re-surfacer and protection from the sun is a very good first step. Having anything on a more permanent basis is going to cost a lot more money. Mr. Klus asked Mr. Thayer about the ice re-surfacer to which he replied their fourth re-surfacer is rarely used and therefore it could be incorporated right now. Mr. Klus asked Mr. Cockriel how he feels about this concept and staff wise would he be able to support what needs to be done for those few months. Mr. Cockriel replied if they are looking at his staff to run an ice re-surfacer 12 hours a day for 7 days a week then yes he does have issues. Mr. Cockriel stated that as far as workload there are no issues, they can handle it whether it’s one sheet of ice or two. Mr. Keprios commented that he thinks it’s fair to assume that Mr. Cockriel’s staff would build the ice and get a base and that they would hire a warming house attendant and train that person to drive the ice re- surfacer. He noted that they will not have a full-time staff person sit at the park all day the drive the ice re-surfacer. Ms. Presthus indicated that she would really like to see someone seriously research the refrigeration systems that are out because in St. Paul she has seen it work and it works well. Therefore, if they are going to do a feasibility study they really should add that piece into it. Mr. Keprios replied that he thinks that will be part of the feasibility study to which they could maybe give us some ballpark numbers. Mr. Klus indicated that he thinks Mr. Keprios is looking for a motion tonight to proceed with this concept so that he can move ahead and work on getting a feasibility study. He noted that once they receive the data they can then take the next step. Mr. Wagner asked if it would help the Park Board if EHA would commit to a certain amount of funds to which Mr. Klus replied he doesn’t know at this time what that dollar amount will be. Mr. Klus commented that it’s hard to ask for money when they don’t know how much they need to ask for. Mr. Keprios commented that he thinks it would cost approximately $5,000 to $7,000 to get the job done. Mr. Klus stated that he doesn’t think they need to put a dollar amount on it and noted that at this time the Park Board can support it in concept. Mr. Fronek asked if they need to authorize staff to put out a request for purchase. Linda Presthus MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO GO AHEAD WITH A FEASIBILITY STUDY AND THE CONCEPT OF LOOKING AT LEWIS PARK FOR AN ICE RINK, SHELTER 9 FEASIBILITY PROGRAM. AND REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND WORK WITH THE HOCKEY ASSOCIATION TO HELP FUND IT. Karla Sitek SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. IV. PARK BOARD COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PROJECTS Mr. Klus informed the Park Board that the results from the survey that Mr. Keprios sent out indicate that the Park Board community involvement project will be planting trees on Arbor Day at Cornelia School Park. He noted that Arbor Day is Friday, April 29th and the tree planting will take place at 10:00 am. Mr. Klus asked the Park Board members to try to attend this event if their work schedules permit. Mr. Keprios commented that if any of the Park Board members do not want to do any physical labor that’s okay but would still like for them to attend so that the community can meet their Park Board members. Mr. Klus thanked everyone for their input on the survey and noted that he would like to see these suggestions on future agendas. He noted that maybe later in the year they can move ahead with another project. Therefore, they will put this back on next month’s agenda. V. UPDATES A. Kojetin Park – Mr. MacHolda informed the Park Board that the bid opening on the Kojetin Park playground was held on March 22nd and the low bid came in just under $108,000. He noted that Koolmo Construction will be doing the project and will start on it in mid-June. B. Gymnasium Proposal – Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that the Planning Commission has recommended unanimously to approve the conditional use permit to which that recommendation will go before the City Council on April 19th. Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that the Edina Community Center neighborhood committee will be showing up at the meeting because they are going to try to do everything they can to kill it. He stated that he has sent an e-mail to the users groups to show up in numbers at the City Council meeting if they want to see this pass. Ms. Presthus asked what is the issue with the neighborhood committee to which Mr. Keprios replied it’s traffic and safety. He explained that the traffic study that was done shows that there is going to be an increase in traffic; however, the traffic engineer study doesn’t suggest any major changes to roads or signs needed as a result of the increase in traffic. Mr. Klus asked Mr. Keprios how he feels about this to which he replied he is under the impression that the City Council is very supportive of the project. Mr. Klus asked about the cost to which Mr. Keprios replied that it has gone from 5.3 million to 4.7 million thanks to Mr. Johnson and his fellow JPOC members for making 10 some tough value engineering decisions. However, it might go as high as 4.9 million if the add alternate is accepted which would be to put the concession stand back in at the school district’s expense. Mr. Keprios added that he thinks this is very functional and is going to fit the program to which they can be very proud of their elected officials for this. Ms. Presthus indicated that she has been getting hit left and right with a block of negatives that has really irritated her. She noted that somewhere the community doesn’t know that they have looked at every site and piece of property in the city for years about how this could be done. She stated that people think the city just jumped on this because the school sold us a bill of goods, however, that’s not the case and that’s not how it came about. Ms. Presthus commented that maybe they need to put something in the Sun Newspaper. Mr. Johnson stated that maybe they should send a letter to the editor saying they have been working on this for years and it was done right, we need to state the facts. Mr. Klus stated he would be willing to sign his name on a letter to the editor if staff could help him with all of the facts on everything that has been done. Mr. Keprios pointed out that for what it’s worth the most important thing to do at this point is for the proponents to show up at the City Council meeting on April 19. It’s important to have support in the audience because that’s going to mean a lot more than a letter to the editor. C. Grandview Square – Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that they are $10,000 short on donations. He noted that the proposal Mr. Crockett made a couple of days ago was if Ron Clark Construction and Opus put their committed dollars into the Edina Community Foundation bank account, then the Edina Community Foundation will commit to raising the remaining $10,000 that they are short by approaching business and residents of the Grandview Square development. Mr. Keprios noted that they will break ground as soon as the dollars are in the bank and they’ve got a signed contract. D. Term Limits – Mr. Klus informed the Park Board that the City Council has passed term limits. Mr. Keprios explained that they passed a nine year maximum that anyone can serve on a board or commission consecutively. However, there is a stipulation that if someone has ended their ninth year and there are no qualified candidates that person can continue to serve. Mr. Keprios commented that there was also a recommendation to limit the length of the chairmanship to three years. The suggested term of the chair was not adopted as policy, just a recommendation. VI. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS MASTER PLAN A. Bredesen Park Needs - Mr. Klus noted that at Bredesen Park the water quality people have done a great job in getting rid of the duckweed. He stated that there are a lot of people who live around Bredesen Park who care a lot about it. Mr. Klus added that Mr. Cockriel’s staff has done some resurfacing in the last couple of years that is now a really nice path. He pointed out that Dr. Hulbert was the person who brought this forward and wanted it to be looked at. Mr. Klus asked Mr. Cockriel if he has some insight on where he sees the vision of Bredesen Park going and what we are doing there. Mr. Cockriel replied that they have replaced another 1,000 feet of fencing within the last month as it relates to the interior nature part of it. He explained that their plans this year are to 11 resurface some of the bad areas around the walking and biking trails. He noted that because of the soil that is there all of the black top has floated on fabric so there is no certain way to ever resurface it and have it last 20 years. Therefore, it will always be an ongoing maintenance issue as far as keeping the path free of cracks. Mr. Cockriel stated that they have also replaced the restroom stalls within the building. Mr. Klus asked if those restrooms are on a timer to which Mr. Keprios replied not but that they will be soon. Mr. Keprios noted that he has proposed that Bredesen Park be put on the August Park Board agenda. Mr. Klus asked Mr. Keprios what agenda will the walking paths and sidewalks be put on to which Mr. Keprios replied that will be a September agenda item. Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that Janice Carter, a member of the Edina Conservation League, gave Mr. Cockriel, Mr. Houle and himself a rather lengthy power point presentation. The presentation showed all of the testing results and all of the graphs that they’ve been doing to which they had several recommendations for the city. He noted that they wanted the Park Board tonight to take action on one of their recommendations which is to put signage around Lake Cornelia in both English and Russian stating “Don’t Eat the Fish”. Mr. Keprios explained that a few of the other recommendations included having the city take over all of the testing of the lakes and hiring an engineer to study the water run-off from the streets. He stated that Mr. Houle explained to her what the jurisdictions are as well as who is in charge of what. Mr. Keprios explained that at the end of the presentation they agreed that they had some great ideas but they should serve more as a community advocacy group to educate the people who live around these bodies and teach them about the importance of creating and maintaining buffers. He pointed out that the Edina Conservation League should be a community advocacy group with their main purpose being to educate homeowners about the benefits of clean water. The Edina Conservation League should educate homeowners on how to create better buffers and do better lawn management that is more environmentally friendly. Mr. Keprios noted that he thinks that is the agreement that they came to. He indicated that Ms. Carter was going to bring this back to her activist group to see if they support those ideas. Mr. Klus commented that he discussed this with Mr. Keprios and felt that they really didn’t need to take an hour of the Park Board’s time. He noted that he thinks the Park Board should gather the report and review it as a board and then make a consensus on what the Park Board feels is important for them to hear from the Edina Conservation League. Mr. Keprios pointed out that the actions they were asking of the Park Board are out of the Park Board’s jurisdiction; however, he does think it would be good public relations to listen and let them educate us. He indicated that maybe the Park Board can make some suggestions on how their efforts could be well spent and make it a positive because they are well intentioned. Mr. Keprios asked the Park Board if they would allow him to tell the Edina Conservation League that they have their support and would invite them to attend the June Park Board meeting. Mr. Klus noted that he would be fine with that as long as they stay within the parameter that is set for them. 12 B. Athletic Association President’s Meeting - Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that tomorrow night at 6:00 pm in the Mayor’s Conference Room there will be a meeting with all of the athletic association presidents. He noted that they have a pretty refined agenda which consists of talking about facilities and overlapping seasons. Ms. Presthus suggested to Mr. Keprios that he mention that they may want to attend the City Council meeting. Mr. Keprios replied that he will mention that. He also invited any Park Board members who are interested to attend tomorrow night’s meeting. C. Vince Cockriel’s Staff - Mr. Keprios noted that he would really like to compliment Mr. Cockriel’s staff and the job they did this past winter. He indicated that Edina had their outdoor ice rinks open longer than anyone else in the Twin Cities area. He stated that they did an incredible job and he received many compliments this year on the great ice that they had and wanted the record to reflect this. D. Edina Police Department/Walnut Ridge Park - Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that they have had someone continually breaking into Walnut Ridge Park and leaving beer cans, pot pipes, etc. He noted they were unable to figure out how they were able to get into the building without breaking anything. He stated that the Police Department used a portable alarm system and were able to catch these kids right away so hats off to the Police Department who did a stellar job. Two Edina resident juveniles were arrested that evening and brought to the Police Station with charges pending. VII. ADJOURNMENT Jeff Sorem MOVED TO AJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:45 P.M. Karla Sitek SECONDED. MEETING ADJOURNED.