Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-12 Park Board Minutes 1 Minutes of the Edina Park Board October 12, 2010 Edina City Hall, Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Todd Fronek, Dan Peterson, Rob Presthus, Ellen Jones, Jennifer Kenney, Austin Dummer, Felix Pronove, Randy Meyer, Joseph Hulbert, Keeya Steel, Louise Segreto, Bill Lough STAFF PRESENT: John Keprios, Ed MacHolda, Janet Canton, Doug Bauman, Tom Shirley, Ann Kattreh, Todd Anderson I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Dan Peterson MOVED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 PARK BOARD MINUTES. Louise Segreto SECONDED THE MOTION. MINUTES APPROVED. II. NEW BUSINESS A. 2011-2015 Capital Improvement Plans for Enterprise Facilities - Mr. Keprios asked each enterprise facility manager to give an update on the new items that have been added to the Capital Improvement Plans. Mr. MacHolda informed the Park Board that the flow rider is not a new CIP project. He noted that it has actually been proposed and approved three times but has not been bid or advertised. He indicated that after it was passed in 2009 they made a giant poster board advertising the flow rider as a coming attraction. Mr. Peterson asked will they need extra liability insurance to which Mr. MacHolda replied no, it’s his understanding that it’s a very safe amenity. Doug Bauman, Braemar Arena Manager, informed the Park Board that recently one of the city engineers inspected the parking lot and the main road, Ikola Way, in front of the ice arena. He noted that it was the city engineer’s recommendation that the parking lot and Ikola Way do need some repairs. Mr. Bauman pointed out that he has broken this down into three separate years so that they don’t incur the entire cost in one season. Secondly, he has added a new floor scrubber to the 2015 CIP. Tom Shirley, Centennial Lakes Park Manager, informed the Park Board that in 2015 they will be replacing their 4 x 4 pick-up truck which at that time will be ten years old. He noted the second item is $20,000 for paver replacements in 2015. He commented that they have found they have to go through the park and do a lot of paver replacements. Ann Kattreh, Edinborough Park Manager, informed the Park Board that in 2011 she has the addition of an outdoor storage shed for maintenance equipment, lawnmowers, snow blowers, etc. Currently they have no outside storage for these items. She indicated that there is now the addition of the Great Hall wall matting, the current wall matting has jagged edge stone and is the original to the park from 1987 and needs to be replaced. Ms. 2 Kattreh pointed out that in 2015 she is adding the remodel of the upstairs restrooms. She stated her other change to the 2011 CIP is to convert their existing park office to a concession stand and then add a new guest services counter across the walkway to replace the current park office. Todd Anderson, Braemar Golf Course Manager, informed the Park Board that the only change they have on their CIP is the replacement of the golf dome building in 2012. He indicated that with their debt service and their cash position that they can’t replace it at that time but want to make sure everyone is aware that the building is in really tough shape. He explained that the dome was built in 1983 and that there’s a major design flaw where the dome is actually attached to the building so that all of the stress actually moves the building. Mr. Anderson stated that he thinks this should be their number one priority once they are in a position to start replacing things. Mr. Fronek asked if the dome itself would stay the same and that it would just be a new building. Mr. Anderson replied that basically they would put up a support over the building that would anchor the dome. The footprint of the dome and the lobby of the dome would stay the same. He stated that they need a solid building with concrete block versus wood. Mr. Lough commented just so he understands correctly the total expenditure would take place in 2012. Mr. Anderson replied it’s more symbolic because they won’t be able to afford to replace it until 2015 or later. He explained that their debt service goes away in 2013 but their cash position is still tough as far as the actual funding of something like this. Mr. Keprios added that they may end up in a position where structural engineers will tell them they can’t wait another year. He stated that is why it’s shown in 2012 in case they get into that scenario and then they are going to have to find some creative financing to do it because if they don’t have the structure they are out of business. Mr. Peterson asked Mr. Anderson what is the difference in revenue between the summer practice area and the dome in the winter. Mr. Anderson replied there is some vacillation but between the range and the dome it’s approximately $600,000 to $700,000. Dan Peterson MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED 2011-2015 CIP FOR THE ENTERPRISE FACILITIES. Louise Segreto SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. B. 2011 Fees and Charges – Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that in the economic times they are facing he thinks his staff has done an exceptional job keeping their expenses down. He noted that they try to keep their programs, facilities and services affordable and accessible to the public which is why the majority of the fees have not increased this year. Mr. Keprios pointed out there are a couple of circumstances at the golf course where in order to remain competitive in the market place they’ve actually decreased slightly. Mr. Dummer asked Mr. MacHolda with the addition of the flow rider in 2012 is the season pass or a daily admission going to go up. Mr. MacHolda replied that the flow rider amenity is actually going to be the first amenity that will not be included in the season ticket or the daily admission. He explained the way it is currently being proposed 3 is you would buy a wristband to use if for the day, or there would be an add-on charge to your season ticket to use it for the season. He noted that the season ticket prices have not gone up since 2005 and daily admission has not gone up since 2007. Mr. Keprios added that the reason the flow rider fee is not included in the fees and charges is because it will not be built in time for the 2011 season. Ms. Steel indicated that she is struggling processing this without seeing budgets and knowing how much revenue is coming in and being able to compare that. She noted that in the future she would hope that they would be able to see that information. Mr. Keprios responded that typically they have not gone down that road as far as the amount of revenues for each and every budget. He noted that it will become a bit cumbersome but they can certainly do that if you want to get into each and every program and what their revenues and expenses are. Mr. Keprios commented that he thinks they are heading closer toward that with their enterprise facilities because he thinks there’s a desire on the City Council’s part to do that. He added it is all public information and if this is something the Park Board would like him to do in the next budget cycle process he would be happy to do so. Mr. Fronek asked Mr. Anderson to explain why the non-resident patron card was reduced $20.00. Mr. Anderson explained that last year was the first year they offered a non- resident patron card and for the first year they sold 258. This year they only sold 209. He added that the overall high number of resident patron cards sold was 2,500 and this past year 1,271 resident patron cards were sold. He noted that in talking to the people and the reactions at the counter they could see a lot of people were calculating and deciding that it didn’t make sense for them to do it. He indicated that the biggest benefit of having a patron card was being able to get advanced reservations; however, with the golf market the way it is that’s no longer the case. He commented he felt he needed to reduce the fee in order to bump up the sales. Mr. Hulbert noted that he would entertain a motion to approve the fees and charges as outlined. Louise Segreto MADE THE MOTION. Dan Peterson SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. C. Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail – Kelly Grissman, Senior Manager of Planning from Three Rivers Park District, gave a power point presentation. She indicated that the Park District and city staff are requesting the Park Boards’ assistance in reviewing the three different options of the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail through the community of Edina. She pointed out that the three options include predominately a creek-based route, a road- based route as well as a no-build option. Jonathon Vlaming, Chief of Planning at Three Rivers Park District, talked about the regional trail system as well as their recently passed vision plan. Mr. Vlaming noted that there are over 100 miles of regional trails throughout Suburban Hennepin County and that they are looking at over two million visits annually on the hundreds of miles of trails that are currently open. He indicated that the trails serve both a recreational function as well as a transportation function but primarily the focus is on the recreation portion. Mr. Vlaming pointed out that their trails connect to neighborhoods, to schools, to parks, to 4 greenways or linear parks, and connect to grand rounds. He added that you can bike downtown from their trail network as well as past downtown and into St. Paul. Mr. Vlaming informed the Park Board that last summer Three Rivers passed a vision plan that had five actionable goals and three directly relate to why they have regional trails in the first place. Mr. Vlaming indicated that first they are in the business of inspiring people to recreate and they have found with regional trails that if you build it they will come. More specifically if you build a regional trail they will come in mass from the area within about a half mile of the trail. He noted it’s about convenience and proximity, as people will take advantage of amenities when they are near where they live. Mr. Vlaming pointed out that people go to these trails for health reasons, exercise, to talk to their friends, to develop community and simply to play and be outdoors. Mr. Vlaming stated that the second goal relating to trails is to connect people to nature because very few people will walk out into the woods unless there is a path to walk on and the regional trails serve that function. It’s an introduction into the woods for many people because it’s a safe, secure type of environment. Mr. Vlaming indicated that regional trails are also important for creating vibrant places. He pointed out that the “Star Tribune” recently ran a series of articles on the aging baby boomers. He noted that retiring baby boomers will create a new challenge; however, to meet that challenge they need to maintain a balanced economy which includes retaining and attracting entrepreneurs, retaining and attracting innovators and retaining and attracting young workers. Mr. Vlaming pointed out that one thing young workers are going to be looking for are alternative transportation networks in developed biking systems. Mr. Vlaming informed the Park Board that it was recently proclaimed that Minneapolis is the number one city for biking in America and that part of that success was the regional trail network. He stated that if you put together a network that crosses cities, crosses communities and ties communities together what it is doing is creating a critical mass for marketing to a much needed younger generation to come in and continue to stay. Mr. Vlaming noted that with that vision plan it recognizes the importance of regional trails throughout the plan. It recognizes the importance of providing regional recreational trail facilities within the developed cities, Edina and other first ring suburbs in Minneapolis, as it also recognizes the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail as one of the primary capital projects in the ten year capital forecast within the plan. He noted that the Park District has a very strong interest in this project and has been very supportive in moving it forward. Ms. Grissman informed the Park Board that the Community Assessment Team (CAT) was compiled about a year ago and it included representatives of every route/section that was under consideration at that time. She noted that it also included Edina City Staff, Park District Staff, Watershed District, a representative from the Edina School District, Joseph Hulbert from the Park Board as well as a representative from the Edina Task Force. She explained that the role of the CAT was three fold. First, identify the constraints and opportunities of each route under consideration. Second, provide design 5 suggestions and considerations for each route under consideration as well as the entire route through the city, and third to convey information back to respective neighbors. Ms. Grissman indicated that as of June their work was done and they concluded with a document. She noted that the document included social, technical and economic assessments for each route design suggestions and the entire route. She added that it also provided an opportunity for CAT members to include a narrative on their thoughts of their route as well as the process. Ms. Grissman commented that in respect to the social, technical and economic assessment what this included was for the social part how many people live adjacent to the this trail, how many backyards there are, how many front yards there are and how many destinations do the different routes serve. For the technical it was things like how many road crossings, how many driveway crossings, is road construction required and is design deviations required in order to accommodate the regional trail where a public right-of-way may not be as wide as anticipated or where there are other constraints that would limit typical regional trail design. She noted that the economic assessment is how much the different routes are going to cost. Ms. Grossman went through the feedback of the 30 day comment period and noted that they received over 200 correspondences from the community members sharing their preference. Ms. Segreto asked on the creek-based route there are roughly 243 residential homes that will be adjacent to the property and to the trail and asked Ms. Grissman to talk about buffers that Three Rivers has offered to home owners to help shield the trail. Ms. Grissman replied that they have worked with local communities and adjacent property owners and have done things with split rail fencing, vegetative screening and dirt berms that would be vegetative. She indicated that they will also look at how close the primary residence is to the trail and work with the city to determine what criteria should be considered in offering those amenities so that it’s consistent with the city and the type of regional trail that the city is hoping to obtain through their community. Ms. Segreto asked who would be responsible for that expense to which Ms. Grissman replied the Park District. Mr. Fronek asked why the CP rail line was not considered because it seems every other community where Three Rivers puts bike trails they are along rail lines. Ms. Grissman explained that the reason CP has not been implemented is because it is still an active rail line and Canadian Pacific at this time is not interested in entertaining any conversations regarding an active rail and trail corridor. She noted that in other locations where they have used rail corridors for regional trails it’s generally because the rail operating authority has abandoned the corridor, therefore making it available for regional trail construction and operation. Mr. Hulbert asked approximately how many acres of parkland is the trail going through if it’s going to be a creek-based route or a road-based route. Ms. Grissman replied that for the creek-based route it would be 685 acres of existing park land and for the road-based route it would be 530 acres. It’s approximately a 150 acres difference. 6 Mr. Lough asked Ms. Grissman if they have gotten any reaction from the School Board or the School administration. Ms. Grissman replied that they have worked with a School District representative throughout the project and they are very excited and supportive currently of the trail route. She pointed out that the creek-based route would utilize school district property and will provide access from the school district to Bredesen Park. She noted that the school district is looking at the opportunity of cross country skiing, high school running teams, expanding their environmental services program to do water sampling and vegetative analysis in Bredesen Park as well as the parkland and the school district property on the south side of Highway 62. Ms. Segreto asked what are the federal financing deadlines that they are being faced with in continuing on with the decision making process so that they can meet those deadlines. Ms. Grissman replied that June 2011 is the federal solicitation deadline for federal funds available in 2015 and 2016 and that is predominating what the Park District is looking at funding for this project. She noted that in order to meet that June deadline they need to have a route approved and established in very early March so that they can put the application together and submit it timely. Mr. Lough indicated that he would like to think that the working relationship between Three Rivers and the City of Edina and the residents of Edina would at all times be exemplary. However, if legitimate disagreements arise and they become nettlesome is there an established process for resolving the differences that might arise. Mr. Vlaming responded that it would go back to a standard trail way agreement which is whenever they develop a trail they sign an agreement with the city. The agreement lays out the agreed upon rules for moving forward in the project. It also describes how in the design phase if they are to do the design work how it essentially needs to go before the City Council for approval before they actually break dirt. He noted that in some cities the city itself does the design work and then that design work goes to their Park Board for approval before they break ground. Mr. Vlaming stated that in either case it continues to be a mutually agreed upon outcome that they are working towards. Mr. Peterson asked how other cities have handled boardwalks and if any other cities have creeks that overflow every spring. He also asked if there are boardwalks in place or are there boardwalks planned in Minnetonka and/or Hopkins. Ms. Grissman replied there are no boardwalks planned in Minnetonka and Hopkins and as far as their regional trail system they do not have an identical situation to what they have on routes 9 and 11. She noted that they do have very similar situations to route 2 and that is south of Medicine Lake along the Luce Line Regional Trail. Ms. Grissman stated that in working with other communities they have been very open to design solutions that maintain a useable trail yearly or just spring, summer and fall. They are interested in providing a safe means to their community members to use the trail. She added this is a unique situation and is something that their engineers as well as the environmental assessment work has indicated that a feasible solution is possible. Mr. Peterson asked Ms. Grissman if is it her professional opinion that if the trail was a hard surface at essentially creek level and was not useable for a couple three weeks each spring is that a big problem. Ms. Grissman replied that she thinks the big problem having 7 it at grade through a wetland is that you have to then mitigate for the wetland impacts. She noted that the wetlands along the creek corridor are generally considered high quality wetlands and for every one acre of wetland that is impacted they would need to mitigate or create nine additional wetland acres. She pointed out that there is not space available in the City of Edina, at least not that she is aware of, where they could construct a trail at grade through a wetland situation and then do the mitigations in close proximity to where the wetland was impacted. Mr. Hulbert asked; in the event of a flood, who would be responsible for cleaning up along and around the pilings? Ms. Grissman replied that she believes in that situation it would be the Park District’s responsibility to assist if not take complete ownership of the operation of maintenance and the cleanup associated with the flooding. Mr. Hulbert asked when a boardwalk is constructed is it not constructed in a fashion that it can be submerged for three weeks. Ms. Grissman replied that depending on the design it could be underwater but cannot speak to how long it could be underwater; however, they can continue to study and provide information back to the Park Board if it’s something they are interested in learning more about. Mr. Dummer asked if there is any overhead lighting on the Dakota Trail and Elm Creek Park Reserve Trail to which Ms. Grissman replied no. Mr. Dummer asked if there would be an exception for the Nine Mile Creek Trail in Edina. Ms. Grissman responded that at this point they are not proposing lighting but if it is something the City is interested in entertaining they could certainly work together on addressing it. Mr. Fronek indicated that he has participated in the bike race “Purple Ride” that is held at the Elm Creek Park Reserve trail which Three Rivers has been very gracious to offer that spot. He stated that doesn’t know if events like that, with thousands of bikers, are necessarily appropriate per se in a fully developed suburb. Mr. Fronek asked is there a Three Rivers policy in terms of races and events. Ms. Grissman replied that they do not have a policy in place currently that would restrict that kind of activity. She noted that if it is something that Edina is not interested in hosting within the community, then it’s something they could work into the agreement that would exclude those types of activities or activities that have a certain threshold of participation. She pointed out that in most cases activities are very short lived, it may be on a Saturday from 8:00 am to noon so that the impact on the community is very minor in that respect. Mr. Hulbert asked who pays for the cost to police the trails and in the winter when the trails are shut down are the residents responsible for snow removal such as a sidewalk. Ms. Grissman replied that the public safety costs are included in the $185,000 annual anticipated operation maintenance costs, it would be the park district’s burden to bear. She noted that in terms of snow removal they currently are not removing snow in the winter; however, she believes the city does have an ordinance about snow removal. Mr. Keprios pointed out that there is not an ordinance that applies to the trails within Edina’s park system, but there is an ordinance with regards to sidewalks. He noted that Three Rivers is offering the City the option to maintain it during the winter months and if they so choose to do that it would be at the city’s expense. Mr. Hulbert asked would the law enforcement be at the expense of Three Rivers on a yearly basis. Ms. Grissman replied 8 that their officers are available all of the time but that patrol might be less frequent during the winter because they are not operating and maintaining it, but if there were an emergency or complaint they would certainly respond. Mr. Lough asked Mr. Keprios would there be any difference in approach to snow removal between a creek-based trail and a road-based trail. Mr. Keprios replied that decision would be left up to City Council essentially on an annual basis whether they would want to continue to maintain it during the winter months. Mr. Dummer asked about the residential yards adjacent to the trail, if those residents would have a private access to the trail or would they still have to go through a public access point. Ms. Grissman replied she doesn’t know what type of ordinance the city currently has on whether residents have to stay on trails through a natural corridor or is the city amendable to people walking out their backyard and accessing the trail. She asked Mr. Keprios what type of access the city would prefer. Mr. Keprios replied if this gets built he thinks they would encourage that the access points be either easements of the city or publicly owned property. Mr. Keprios gave a presentation to the Park Board and indicated that on September 29th at the joint work session with the elected bodies of the City of Edina and the Board of Commissioners for Three Rivers it was suggested by staff to propose the three options that Ms. Grissman just went over. He stated that the City Council has asked that the Park Board deliberate on these three options and make a recommendation. Mr. Keprios stated that the City Council will be holding a public hearing on Tuesday, December 7, 2010, in the City Council Chambers. He noted that everyone who would like to speak to that issue that evening will be given an opportunity. He indicated that if the City Council makes the decision to move forward with one of the options it would then go to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and from there on to the Edina Public Schools, since it is partly on their property. Mr. Keprios went over the benefits of a walking/biking trail and noted that in this case it would add 7 ½ additional miles of new biking and walking trails, currently there are just over nine miles of trails within Edina’s park system. He noted that it equates to approximately an additional 14 acres of new park amenities if they were to add all the land it would take. Mr. Keprios commented that it would connect Edina to the greater regional trail system and will connect to the Minneapolis Grand Rounds. He added it would promote and offer get fit activities, it would promote a healthy lifestyle for people of all ages and it would give residents more access to enjoy nature and the outdoors. Mr. Keprios indicated that it would provide additional safe off-road biking opportunity versus more on-road bike lanes regardless of the route. Also, it would provide regional recreational facilities within the City of Edina which is something that has been asked of since 1998. Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that staff would recommend to the Park Board to consider a creek-based option. Mr. Keprios pointed out that the 2006 community attitude and interest survey was very clear in the result and that it validates the need and desire for walking and biking trails. 9 More walking and biking trails were the number one most requested amenity by residents. He noted that the survey also validates why residents of Edina want more trails; to exercise, get fit, enjoy the outdoors and enjoy nature. He indicated that a creek- based option is safer than a road-based option as well as the creek-based option is likely to be used more than a road-based option. He noted that the creek-based option is obviously more aesthetically pleasing for walkers and cyclists. Mr. Keprios commented in his view its excellent use of public land for a public good and the whole route is accomplished without having to use private land to either purchase or condemn. Mr. Keprios indicated that the engineering phase is a complex phase which they would be very engaged in should this go forward. He noted that Three Rivers would have to do a very complex balancing act with the homeowners, the environment, the wetlands, water quality, natural resources and construction costs. He stated that it all plays a role when you are trying to find exactly where the trail is to be placed which is done during the engineering phase and the City would be very much involved in that process. Mr. Keprios stated that he recommends the creek-based route but under several conditions. He noted that he would agree that it would be nice to minimize the amount of boardwalks, but again that would to be determined through the engineering phase. He pointed out that the nine to one mitigation pretty much dictates where they are going to have to build boardwalks. He added that he would also like to offer the condition that, if it is decided to build a creek-based route, homeowners should be provided some buffer options like they have done in similar situations in other regional trails either by landscaping or fencing options. Mr. Keprios commented that the easement deadline restriction idea was born out of the joint work session on the 29th and he suggested that we should work with the attorneys to establish the proper language. The easement deadlines are needed to protect the City of Edina’s interests in case unforeseen factors occur and the trail doesn’t get built in a reasonable time frame. Mr. Keprios pointed out that he would like to see Route 2 be a little more fine-tuned. He would like to see it go back to the original recommendation of going through the south side of Walnut Ridge Park as opposed to the north edge because it would still end up at the same starting point and ending point within the Park. He added that he knows there are some issues with possibly some wetlands and flood issues; however, Ms. Grissman has informed him that it is something they can work together on. To sum up his recommendation Mr. Keprios would like for the Park Board to recommend to the City Council to approve a creek-based option with the stated conditions and use that as a basis for the City Council to conduct a public hearing, which is scheduled for Tuesday, December 7th. Mr. Keprios informed the audience that they have received well over 300 letters, e-mails and various files from the public and as of tonight they are now available for viewing on- line in a PDF format through the Park and Recreation Department section of the City of Edina website. 10 Bob Schwartzbauer, 6107 Waterford Court, indicated that he is a member of the Community Assessment Team and represented Route 3. He showed the map of Route 3 and explained how he would like to shorten it and reinforce what Mr. Keprios and Three Rivers said about safety concerns caused by road crossing and driveway crossings. He highlighted the area where it starts and pointed out that it creates centrally a triangle and the interesting thing about the triangle is that there are no streets or automobile bridges anywhere along this section of the creek which means everyone who lives or works within that triangle in order to leave must use either Lincoln or Vernon. He explained that the proposal is that the trail would go along the north side of Vernon and on the east side of Londonderry which means that anyone who lives or works in that triangle in order to leave their homes or work are going to have to cross the trail every time they leave or go back. Mr. Schwartzbauer noted that inside that triangle is United Healthcare’s World Headquarters and he was told that they have 1,100 cars parked in their parking lot every week which means that on average they will have about 2,200 road crossings going across the trail in that section. He added that in addition there are approximately 800 residents that live in that area and assuming they leave their house on average once a day and are going to cross that trail. Therefore in effect there will be 1,800 – 1,900 trail crossings or automobile crossings the trail every day for a total of 3,000 to 4,000 trail crossings. He indicated that the Park District realize this is unsafe and are proposing to deal with it by putting up stop signs for the bicycles at various points so in effect bicyclist will have to stop 8 times through this entire section and noted that isn’t going to happen and the bicyclist will not want to do that. He commented that instead he thinks they ride right onto the street or not use the trail since a lot of time . . . he was cut off Bill Westerdahl, 5912 Walnut Drive, indicated that it has always been assumed that Three Rivers would pay the maintenance and security on the regional trail. He noted however, that information from Three Rivers indicates that they may not have the financial resources to pay for maintenance and security which are paid from their general/operating fund. He pointed out that Three Rivers currently has approximately 30 miles including the Edina section of the Nine Mile Creek Trail, a regional trail in the active planning stage and approximately ten miles of trail scheduled for construction in 2010 which is an addition of approximately 40% of the existing trail network. Mr. Westerdahl pointed out that Three Rivers 2010 Operations Budget indicate that Three Rivers is approaching its statutory limit of 300 of 1% of total market value of property to fund their operations. He noted that Three Rivers has frozen its employees’ wages in 2010 and 2011. Also, Three Rivers is dependent on the property value levy to provide 84% of its operating revenues. He indicated that in the last four years property values for which they depend on these revenues in their levy limit have declined over 10%. He added that their operational expenses have increased 25% or 7 million dollars in the last four years. Mr. Westerdahl pointed out that if the property tax levy as it exists now is barely sufficient to fund present Three Rivers Park District operations which include maintenance and security how will they be sufficient to cover a plan that is a 40% increase in the trail system as well as an additional Scott County Park. He asked if Three Rivers is not able to fund maintenance and security in the future then who is going to be responsible for maintenance and security on this trail. The City of Edina is being asked to cede control of 13 plus acres of prime parkland contained in 7 miles of trails of Three 11 Rivers. He noted his question is if Three Rivers is not able to raise the funds to maintain the maintenance is this going to fall back on the City of Edina over the long run. He stated that he would like to hear Three Rivers respond to that, what they are going to do about this difference between their levy limits and the amount of money it’s obviously going to cost to continue to maintain their system. Michael Lilja, 5809 McGuire Rd, informed the Park Board that his wife and he started biking a few years ago and they would put their bikes in the back of the car and go to Hopkins to get on the Three Rivers Trail, which is a tremendous trail system. He indicated that people in cars don’t pay very much attention to bikes so bikers need to pay a lot of attention to cars. He stated that right now they have the ability to build a premier trail because they have this public corridor along the creek that would be safe for kids and people walking, roller blading, etc.; it’s a multi-use trail, not just a bike trail. They have a chance to put in a high quality trail and it’s not just about the people here today but it’s about the long-term for their community because people come and go so what they are doing is creating an amenity that will last in time and will signify something about their community and he hopes something they can be proud of. Fritz Corrigan, 6509 Biscayne Blvd., indicated that his house immediately backs up to Walnut Ridge Park that they built over 26 years ago. He noted that as a family they run on the basis of what they need every day versus what they would like to have and they don’t do things they can’t afford to do. He noted that he thinks this approach to how they manage their family would be a good one for this case. He stated that this is not something that is required but it is something that would be wonderful to have someday, but it’s not required today. He pointed out that today this country is broke, the State of Minnesota has a 5 billion dollar deficit, the Three Rivers Park District has no money and is going to have to issue bond financing to put this in and now they are talking about spending 20 million dollars on a bike path. He commented it would be wonderful if they could afford it but they simply cannot so they should wait until they can afford to do it which is not next year. Andrew Heyer, 5717 Deville Dr., indicated that he is for the creek-based trail and also founded a Facebook group that supports the trail and currently there are 201 members in this group. He showed the Park Board some photos of different trails that might address some of the concerns that have been raised. He noted that in summary he urges the Park Board to support the regional trail. Dianne Plunkett Latham, 7013 Comanche Court, informed the Park Board that she is chair of the Edina Environmental Commission and that their recommendation to support the creek-based trail was approved at their August 12th meeting. She noted that the trail offers many benefits to the community for all ages and would make biking safer and more accessible to all. She commented that Edina currently is deficient in bike trails for its citizens in comparison to surrounding communities. In addition, it would allow access to public land that is currently inaccessible to the vast majority of residents. The trail will provide a crucial part of plans that have been developed as part of the city’s comprehensive plan and also part of the international council for local environmental initiatives of which Edina is a member. She noted that it also supports the green step 12 cities programs which Edina will hopefully soon be joining. Ms. Plunkett-Latham indicated that obviously there are some concerns about the impact of the trail along the creek; however, the trail will be routed through an area that has already been impacted by years of urbanization including chemical runoff from the lawns and road salt in adjacent streets. She commented that the project will open the possibility of reversing some of that damage as the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District will be improving the creek. She indicated that promoting and building bike and pedestrian trails, especially regional trails is a great action item in helping Edina go green and make the community less dependent on auto transportation. Richard Griffith, 7009 Comanche Court, informed the Park Board that he has been a member of the Edina Bike Task Force since its inception. He noted that he is here to explain why he believes the creek-based route is really essential for the growth and development of our community. He pointed out that it costs the school district a lot of money to bus kids to school and the new walkways that are going to be put in will allow kids who live less than a mile from major schools to walk. He added this will make everybody healthy and save money from bussing. Therefore, he would like the Park Board to consider not only the quality of life but the economic aspects of providing a transportation alternative to driving your kids to school when they can walk. He feels the creek-based route would be wonderful. Harvey Johnson, 5505 Valley Lane, indicated that he is a member of the CAT team and is also involved with the protecting Nine Mile Creek. He noted that there are approximately 500 members that are concerned about the environment of Nine Mile Creek. He stated that from his point of view he doesn’t feel that Three Rivers has done an adequate job of giving Edina the information it needs to make a decision about the trail. He commented that this is the largest project that Edina has had in a long time that will affect Edina residents. Mr. Johnson stated that there are many open issues that need to be discussed and there are many things that are clouded in the whole decision making process. He pointed out that one that was asked is if community members or other groups been involved in the process to which he will tell you no. He stated that he has a couple of documents and one is the resolution from the elected members of the CAT Team that states that they did not endorse the Community Assessment Report. He noted that the Community Assessment Report went to press without the support of the elected members. He explained that his group to protect Nine Mile Creek gave a very detailed response to the environmental assessment with information that they would like answered, but didn’t really get answers so they asked an environmental attorney what he thought about their response. He read one sentence from that attorney “The Park District largely ignored the comments in most cases, the Park District utterly failed to respond to the comments as it must under the Minnesota Environmental Protection Act.” Mr. Johnson stated that they don’t think the Park Board has enough facts to make a decision and would recommend that the Park Board get the facts before they decide where the trail should be. Ray O’Connell, 4612 Valley View Road, indicated that they all pay property taxes included in the provisions to allocate a number of dollars for the Nine Mile Creek District that has been in place for the last 20 years. He noted that during that time there have 13 been a significant number of dollars allocated to Hennepin County in budgeting for Nine Mile Creek District and it’s a big number. He stated that Three Rivers is also responsible for all of the planning and protection of the Nine Mile Creek corridor which includes not just water but the land that borders the creek. Mr. O’Connell pointed that the corridor belongs to all of the taxpayers and, even though there are some groups who are for this while others are against it, they have to look to natural law and the common good and consider where all of these other people that are not talking. He noted that he wants to make that point because there should be no covenant enacted that would be detrimental to benefit the few but would be detrimental to the whole. He stated that the proposed trail is not only needed but will be historic. Jed Hepworth, 5509 Valley Lane, indicated that about a year ago they (Save the Nine Mile Creek Task Force) sent a letter to the Park Board talking about some of the issues that they think need to be dealt with and are still on the table. He commented that he thinks one of the big ones for this group to think about is what a 16 foot wide trail down the Nine Mile Creek Watershed means to the parkland that this board is responsible for administering. He stated that essentially it means that not quite two acres of land per mile are going to be turned into pavement and rock siding. Therefore, he thinks it really is important they acknowledge what’s going to happen if they build a trail down the watershed. He noted that in building a trail down a narrow watershed doesn’t just change the area under pavement but what it does when you cut a narrow ribbon like Nine Mile Creek into two very much narrower pieces is you eliminate the ability of the wildlife to continue to sustain itself in those narrow corridors so it will have an impact and he would like for the Park Board to consider that. Amanda Simons, 5725 Olinger Drive, informed the Park Board that she and her husband are new residents of Edina. She noted that they are young professionals and are avid bike riders who use the greenways and grand rounds almost daily for exercise and often for transportation to work. She added that many of her peers and colleagues also use these trails. She pointed out that one of their sadness about living in Edina is that there is not a connection to the greenway through Edina which means they have to use the roads. She stated that although Edina may have a share the road program it does not always protect her from cars coming too close. She indicated they think that the creek-based route would be better for safety with all of the trail crossings. For example, trail crossings in Hopkins and St. Louis Park that go through stop signs that while bikers often stop the cars do not often see the bikers that may already be in the trail. Ms. Simons stated that she would like the Park Board to think about young professionals like herself who are interested in moving to Edina but are also interested in the transportation and exercise of the regional trails. Paul Ratelle, 5521 Valley Lane, stated that he is vehemently against the creek-based route. He noted that he lives in Section 9 which is going to be directly affected by the creek-based bike trail. He indicated that it has not been easy for residents to work with the Three Rivers, they have been uniformly dismissive of the concerns that they’ve tried to raise to them. He stated that it’s important to the residents to know what they intend to build through the creek and where they intend to build it. He indicated that when they talked to Bonestroo they were put off with the comment “we don’t really know where the 14 placement is going to be, we weren’t asked to consider that when we evaluated and prepared our environmental assessment worksheet.” He noted Ms. Grissman made a reference to a 2003 study on the negative impacts on property values where a bike trail occurs next to or adjacent to a particular property. Mr. Grissman pointed out that 2003 study has been in the Three Rivers files since it was prepared. He noted that the conclusion that was reached by Ms. Shilcox, who prepared the study, shows homes that are adjacent to these types of trails their values go down. She knows it and Three Rivers knows it, it isn’t a matter of debate and it isn’t a question of dollars and cents per foot from the trail. He stated that his concern is they need to work with the people about what’s going to be built and where it’s going to be built because the trail is going right across their backyards. He commented if they can’t work cooperatively with Thee Rivers, as has been evidenced so far with their contact with them, it’s going to be a big issue in the community and he urges the Park Board to take that into consideration. Diane Fansler, 5709 W. 66th Street, indicated that she is a 30 year resident of Edina and lives in the Route 7 area and feels like it is a route from nowhere to nowhere. She stated that it’s supposed to be starting at Tracy Avenue heading south along the east side of Valley View Road and Route 7 ends at Antrim Road. She noted the cost they were given for 5f, which is where it’s supposed to be connecting to the north side is $2,600,000, Route 7 is $600,000. She pointed out that she was very surprised tonight when she heard Ms. Grissman say they’ve added Antrim Road to Route 7. She noted there is no funding in that $600,000 for Antrim Road which is supposed to go along the east side of Antrim Road and connect with Route 8, which is 70th Street. She noted that Antrim Road has 7 houses on the east side; it has Calvary Lutheran Church with at least two commercial driveways and has at least two or three hydrants which would have to be changed and give driveways. She added that six houses would be within 25 feet of the route of the trail. She explained that if you go to the north end, 5f which was incidentally added after the CAT assessment, it ends where you cross the ramp on highway 62 and it’s just supposed to magically join up with Valley View there. She noted that in that section there is a .4 mile gap that has not been considered in anything. She commented that they are supposed to be building a ten foot wide trail with three feet of green space on each side by eliminating a six foot sidewalk at Valley View and eliminating the shoulder/park lane. She stated we have to do the winter plowing in there because that’s the main pedestrian route for the students to get to the High School and Valley View Middle School. She pointed out that all of the snow, construction and maintenance would be on private property because they are proposing to take it to the very end of the right-of-way. She stated that the section, the .4 mile that’s missing between the on ramp of Highway 62 up to Valley Lane or West 66th Street wherever you happen to take it, that’s missing there is no six foot sidewalk there, there is no parking/shoulder lane that is the, there are two lanes going north bound. She also has safety issues. TG Clifford, 6500 Creek Drive, showed the Park Board photos of the connection of Route 9 and Route 11 near Heights Park. He also showed photos of the creek level in March of 2010 and in August 2010. He pointed out that the water level in August was actually higher than in March. He commented that he wanted to show photos from March because without the vegetation you have a better view of the actual water level. Mr. Clifford pointed out that in this case you have a floodway where water rushes down 15 and needs to be drained from the area and is going to be a difficult place to put a trail. He stated that he assumes the Park Board members volunteered not to debate regional trails but to look at park programs, playground equipment, ball fields, etc., things for the community. However, what’s happened is you’ve ended up being involved in a discussion and decision about a regional trail. He indicated that he feels the primary duty of the Park Board members is to be stewards of our parks. He noted that he specifically wants the Park Board to consider what’s going to happen to Walnut Ridge Park and Heights Park if the trail goes through. He noted that Height’s Park serves two neighborhoods, both on each side of the creek and if the regional trail goes through one of those neighborhoods will be disconnected from the neighborhood playground with bicyclists. He stated that two million cyclists a year on 100 miles of trails translates to about 21,000 visits per mile per year for an additional seven miles of trails. He noted that he thinks we need to ask ourselves can kids safely visit their neighborhood park if that trail goes through sections 9 and 11. Laurie Chapman, 6420 Aspen Rd., stated that she lives about 25 feet from the creek and she will be sacrificing her privacy and her quality of life in the interest of the greater majority. She indicated that all of the residents that live on the creek side will be living with the pictures previously shown of the boardwalks. She knows others want this but she will have to live with it 24/7. She noted that this is about property values and showed photos of her current view and what it will look like. She stressed that she has a very hard time believing that her property values will not go down. Ms. Chapman explained that every time it rains she goes out to collect all of the junk that collects just trying to go through the creek. She noted her concern about all of the junk that will collect in all of the pilings that are going to support a 12 foot by 12 foot wide wooden bridge across the creek and questioned who will take care of that. She pointed out that it’s not even accessible so she wonders how they are going to get to the creek to clean it up. She noted that she also hopes that the Park Board would consider the idea of building a ten ton bridge through valuable wet lands for over 20 million dollars in these economic times that will steal the privacy and the quality of life of those people who live on the creek side in exchange for 8 months of recreational use. She commented that there are so many questions that are unanswered that this may not be a good idea to build this bridge at this time. Alice Hulbert, 7221 Tara Road, indicated that she has been a member of the Park Board; she is currently a member of the Bike Edina Task Force and has been participating with the CAT team as well. She noted she would like to thank the Three Rivers Park District; they have done a wonderful job, answered every question and have been extremely professional. She added that they have been one of the best organizations that she has worked with. She stated that now is the time to do this and that the trail system has expanded since she saw the first tier regional trail abstract in 2002. It will actually connect to something where before it couldn’t get across the rail road tracks. She noted the first regional trail system helped Edina connect to Hopkins but it really didn’t add too much. However, now with the explosion of the trail system we have now it’s going to add greatly. Ms. Hulbert commented that one thing that hasn’t been mentioned is that this is going to be a combined project to improve the environment of the creek as it currently exists. She noted that it’s her understanding that when the creek restoration is 16 done the flooding will improve and there won’t be the issue of water running all over and debris washing up and causing dams. She indicated that the trail is going to let the rest of the residents of Edina access to that area. She stated that the bridges they may be able to construct across Highway 62 and Highway 100 for pedestrians and bikes to be able to cross without traffic is going to be a tremendous addition to the community. She indicated that she believes Three Rivers put in a grant application last year for a bridge and it was denied because it didn’t hook to anything; however, with the trail approved and an alignment there is a much better chance of getting the money. She explained that the funding for this is going to come from grants and the potential for getting the grants approved have to do with the quality of the project. Dorothy Kerzner, 5828 Jeff Place, indicated that she is kind of neutral, she has two avid bikers in her family and she lives across Bredesen Park. She stated that she did attend a meeting at South View this summer and was at a planning Commission meeting. She noted that apparently she lives in section 5f and they seemed to not have had a representative to answer questions because she has a lot of questions about where the trail is going. She commented that she also thinks now is not the time, they can’t afford it and right now there are too many things going on in Edina that are still unresolved. She stated that they need to save and wait. There needs to be more community participation, send letters out to people within 1,000 feet. She added that she never heard anything about this bike trail until seven months ago so if that could be addressed they would appreciate it in their neighborhood. David Thompson, 5517 Valley Lane, asked the Park Board to recommend against using the Section 9 alignment which is the creek-based route. He noted that they believe the section 9 alignment will destroy their privacy, their quality of life and their property values. He indicated that he hopes the Park Board has taken the opportunity to walk this very small area so you know how incredibly destructive a boardwalk would be in this area. It is not an issue that fence or some vegetation can remedy. He commented that the residents are going to pay dearly and while Mr. Keprios alluded briefly to these facts in his recommendation letter he later mentioned that property owners have no right to expect that the city will not develop the land in a manner it sees fit. He noted that they strongly disagree and that neighborhoods are built on the premise that each of us will keep and use our properties in a manner that will not undermined our neighbor’s quiet enjoyment of their properties. He pointed out that even though they own their homes they are not free to convert them into retail stores, hotels or health clubs because to do that would be detrimental to their neighbor’s quiet enjoyment and their property values and therefore the city would not allow it. However, now the city is considering changing the use of a completely natural area within the neighborhood into a greater metropolitan thoroughfare that will funnel an estimated 500,000 users’ just feet from their decks, patios and swing sets. He commented that in effect the city is saying it has the right to be a bad neighbor, it’s saying that it has the right to harm our privacy our quality of life and our property values to which they disagree. Mr. Thompson stressed that they believe that the city should abide by the same land use conventions that protect the rights of the residents in the neighborhood. He noted his final point is they don’t have to argue about property values, the Park Board should ask Three Rivers Park District to commission an 17 appraisal, an independent appraisal of what will happen to property values along the creek. Gene Persha, 6917 Cornelia Drive, indicated that he would first like to give a vote of confidence to the Three Rivers Park Planning group. He indicated that he didn’t quite agree with the setup of the CAT team in how it was put together, but he has absolute confidence in the objectivity that Three Rivers has done to come up with the facts. He stated that it was their job to come up with interpretations that would be the most fitting for the terrain and the job of the city is to make decisions based on what they found. Therefore, he has no fault in the thoroughness which they have done and he has been watching this for a very long time. He informed the Park Board that he has biked most of the major bike trails in Minnesota and added that some of the trails come very, very close to people’s properties. He indicate that this past summer he biked the entire length of the Chicago Park Forest Preserve, which is one of the most densely populated areas in America and homes are very close to the creek. He noted that in all of the years and places he has biked he has never heard a negative comment about neighbors and homes being too close to a bike path. He pointed out that he has never seen, even in the Chicago area, graffiti, trash or anything else that would detract from the neighborhood. Mr. Persha stressed that he thinks this is the most opportune time to make a bike path because the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District is repairing the land with a restoration project. Therefore, it’s a chance to save hundreds of thousands of dollars if the two projects are done together. He commented that if it’s not done he doesn’t think this project will ever come again to Edina. He asked for the Park Board’s support for the project from a safety standpoint, a user standpoint and to treat the communities that are adjacent to us as a unit. Bob Lubar, 6619 Londonderry Dr., indicated that he thinks they need to take a serious look at the engineering aspects of building through the creek and what it could mean and have they done the due diligence necessary so that they can make a recommendation going forward. He noted that if the creek-based route is developed as proposed it would result in approximately 6600 linear feet of wood deck timber boardwalk, this is equivalent to a bridge that is 1 ¼ miles long. He added that much of the boardwalk will be constructed within the hundred year flood plain and/or the Nine Mile Creek flood plain. He stated that the boardwalk will be approximately 10 to 12 feet high and 12 feet wide with the enclosed railings and pilings every 12 to 20 feet and has a ten ton capacity bridge suitable for supporting vehicle traffic. He commented it will be built parallel to the stream which is very significant; the intended design is similar to building a bridge above a stream rather than across a stream. He explained that a structure of this nature with its entire length in the current of the water when it’s flooding can be expected to trap debris during periods of heavy water run off which will increase the level of flood water and increase maintenance costs. He pointed out that when the creek is running right next to it, when that water is flowing, it’s going to catch on one piling and if it misses that piling it’s going to catch on the other and the likelihood of creating a dam and creating collateral damage due to the flooding is huge. He stated as a homeowner whose property backs up to the wetlands he has a vested interest in assuring that the proposed bridge along the creek performs as intended. Mr. Lubar asked what experience Three Rivers have with building a wood deck bridge located in a stream floodway because it is critical that there is no incremental risk of flood damage resulting from the implementation of 18 this project. He asked how will Three Rivers protect the elevated trail and surrounding wetlands from accumulation of debris and how are they going to remove all of the debris. In addition, how will the bridge be maintained in the winter because he knows the traverse decking and rail system will prevent efficient plowing and given the railings on the side it will be virtually impossible to get a traditional plow system down the lumber as well as tearing up the lumber. Therefore, the next question becomes will it be incumbent upon the city to buy additional capital equipment so that they can maintain this bridge work. Mr. Lubar asked does Three Rivers Park have sufficient operating funds to support this high maintenance project well into the future and what actions will the city take to guarantee performance now and in the future. Dan Atkins, 6812 Chapel Lane, quoted Theodore Roosevelt “Unite People in connection with the heartbreakingly gorgeous land they share”. He noted that the last word he thinks is the key “share” this land we all “share” and we all want to be able to use it. He stated that he thinks everybody needs to consider being on the right side of history and not what’s the right decision for now or December or November elections but for next year or even 10, 50 or 100 years from now. George Rerat, 6620 Londonderry Dr., informed the Park Board that they are putting together a Parkwood Group to support Walnut Ridge, if you look at the neighborhood in Parkwood Knolls as it exists today it is a great community asset that is used by everybody who lives around that park. He stated that when you are talking about this trail you are talking about the users coming from a small distance to enjoy it for exercise, for nature and for community building. He indicated that Walnut Ridge already does this and if that trail is brought in you are going to get rid of that. He pointed out that the current trail is a nice circle and if you go there any night after work you are going to see kids riding their bikes, parents walking their dogs and stopping to talk to neighbors and it’s disheartening to think you want to disrupt Walnut Ridge Park the way it is. He noted that the kids play tennis, hockey, lacrosse and softball; these are all of the different things the park is currently used for by all of the neighbors and nobody wants to see that changed. Routing the path through that park just disrupts what’s already good and they don’t have to spend any money to change it and therefore doesn’t like the idea of it going through the park. He noted that the neighborhood is putting together a petition that they will bring to the City Council that will have a lot of signatures on it stating that they don’t want the trail to go through Walnut Ridge Park. Mr. Rerat stated that the other thing is he doesn’t know why they are in such a hurry, if they miss the deadline for 2015-2016 there will be funding available for 2017-2018; it’s not like funding is going to disappear. He commented why don’t they let Richfield and portions of Lake Minnetonka as well as portions of all of these other areas get built so we could learn from them what the best practices are for design, building, maintenance, etc. They could learn from their mistakes rather than us jumping in now when we don’t have all of the facts, we don’t know what we are doing. He indicated it might be prudent to wait and learn what works and what doesn’t and then have Edina step in knowing the best practices. He stated that he thinks they are rushing to a decision for Three Rivers Park, not for the benefit of Edina. Bruce Jackson, 5716 Continental Dr., stated that he has three general comments. First, he thinks the road versus creek-based option is sort of a false choice and that they should 19 have the ability to select the best route for any particular segment. He noted that while he may be opposed to Route 2 he may like the bridge over Highway 62 from Bredesen to the High School and thinks that might be a valuable addition to the community. Second, the community survey does not provide the data to justify this trail or the selection of the creek versus the road-based option or any particular section on this trail because the survey instrument is flawed; it is not designed to answer those questions. Finally, he would challenge the assertion that Edina not be connected to the Regional Trail system if we chose not to do this project. He noted that he thinks the community has made tremendous progress in building up its bike trails locally and he is sure that they can continue to do so even if they do not participate in this project. Joseph Hulbert MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT IF NECESSARY. Todd Fronek MOVED, Dan Peterson SECONDED. Ms. Steel asked Mr. Keprios to talk about why he would prefer the route of the trail to go along the south side of Walnut Ridge Park when the north side had been proposed to avoid flooding issues. Mr. Keprios explained that when he looks at the impact on the park both the entrance and the exit would remain the same. He noted that having it go along the south side it would keep it further away from the hockey rink yet close enough to the building so that people will still have access to the restroom facilities. He added that’s also a shorter route and it’s the shortest distance between two points so he suspects that a lot of people using the trail will take that route naturally so therefore in his view it makes more sense. Mr. Hulbert indicated that he thinks he is speaking for everyone when he says this has been a long and emotional process. He noted that all of the neighbors want what is best for the parks, but ultimately he thinks the number one issue in his mind is if we were to consider some sort of a trail, safety is a major issue for him so in his mind a creek-based alignment is the safest option. He stated that he realizes this is not going to be a popular opinion with a lot of people who feel like they are losing privacy. He commented that he also sees the formation of a trail through Edina as a way to encourage our neighbors to get outside, enjoy the parks and connect with the community. Mr. Hulbert pointed out that they have received hundreds of e-mails and letters and one that stood out and kind of separated the emotion from the decision was from former City Council member Scott Johnson. He wrote “the proposed creek-based route is a logical and wise use of public land for a healthy environmentally sound project which will be of enormous benefit to the community and all who use it. The project involves no taking of private land, and while understandably of concern to those joining the path, it is a predictable public use of public lands for the public good”. He stated that is where he stands and thinks it ultimately would be a good amenity for our community and, although not popular with everybody, any decision that is made is not going to be popular with everybody. Mr. Fronek stated that he thinks this presents our community with an amazing opportunity and they have heard a lot of the benefits of trails. However, he thinks they need to have some more careful thoughtful planning. He indicated that to him the rail line is the way to go and he understands the CP is not playing ball right now and it is certainly a frustration; however, if they are looking to connect to these regional trails 20 that’s where it’s got to go. He added that is where Three Rivers has the most experience in building these trails. Mr. Fronek explained that looking from the comprehensive Bike Plan and at the demographics; the Edina population is more densely concentrated in the northeast quadrant. Those people are going to be able to utilize a trail along the CP line a lot more. Also, to the extent that you want to encourage commuting he doesn’t think that the Nine Mile trail necessarily encourages that. He thinks the CP rail provides the best connection for Edina. He stressed if it’s not the time now, then we should get CP to the table and figure it out. Mr. Dummer stated that he thinks what’s important to note here is that no matter what decision it is whether its road or creek as Mr. Keprios stated that if we build it we will use it. He noted that we have to take into account that high school kids are going to be able to utilize this to get to school and to navigate through the City of Edina. He indicated that he thinks it’s important to see how it will be a positive effect on Edina. Mr. Pronove stated that in addition to what Mr. Dummer said is that he has actually joined several classes that go outside and use the fields and explained that it’s kind of tough to get out of the premises from down below. He noted that basically you have to go up either stairwells or back into the parking lot back outside or you have to go out bushwhacking. He noted that with this he thinks they could actually go out for other studies like science and such things. He stated that he also thinks it might help with some of the traffic congestion around release time because it would help more kids have the ability to walk to school. Ms. Steel pointed out that she had an eye opening experience at the last Park Board meeting when they were looking at the CIP. She noted that she didn’t realize how expensive it is to repair the asphalt paths. She indicated that looking at the Needs Assessment Survey and seeing how many residents want new bikes trails and walking opportunities that she doesn’t know if as a city they can really provide the amount that the community needs. Therefore, she sees this as an opportunity for the Park District to step in and address our needs. She added that the Edina taxpayers have been funneling money to the Park District and she thinks it’s time they benefit from what they have put in. Dan Peterson MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PARK BOARD PROPOSE TO THE CITY COUNCIL A CREEK-BASED REGIONAL TRAIL WITH THE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS AS PROPOSED BY STAFF REGARDING THE TRAIL ALIGNMENT THROUGH WALNUT RIDGE PARK, EASEMENT RIGHTS, BUFFERS AND THE ISSUES INVOLVING BOARDWALKS AND TO WORK IN A LEGAL TIME FRAME FOR A START AND FINISH OF THE PROJECT. Louise Segreto SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Peterson commented that what he found interesting at the joint meeting was when the chairman of Three Rivers stated that if Edina does nothing and passes on a trail there will be bike trails coming through Edina. They are just not going to be particularly safe because people who ride their bikes want to come from Minnetonka, Hopkins, Richfield, Bloomington, etc., and Edina happens to be right in the middle of it. Mr. Peterson stated 21 that they might as well do it and they might as well do it right for the future of the city and the future of our families and they might as well do it safely. IN FAVOR: Jennifer Kenney, Louise Segreto, Bill Lough, Joseph Hulbert, Keeya Steel, Ellen Jones, Dan Peterson, Rob Presthus OPPOSED: Todd Fronek ABSTAINED: Randy Meyer MOTION CARRIED. D. Community Advisory Team Report – Member Ellen Jones – Ms. Jones indicated that they are continuing to create their report and they will be submitting that to the City Council when it’s done. III. UPDATES FROM STAFF A. Off-leash Dog Park – Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that Ms. Segreto was able to attend the off-leash dog park meeting last night to listen to some of the issues and questions that users had. He asked Ms. Segreto to share with the Park Board what she witnessed. Ms. Segreto indicated that the group had a lot of issues ranging from inadequate signage to enforcement issues to requests for lighting to a request for maintaining the trail going around the perimeter of the park to licensing fees. She noted that she thinks the bottom line is that the signage is being evaluated and new signage will be put up to help with enforcement in the park. She commented that some of the other capital improvement issues staff will need to look at solutions if they’re possible. Mr. Keprios stated that he was very pleased at how it played out and he thought they had some really wonderful constructive comments and it didn’t turn into just a complaint session. He noted that they came forward with some excellent ideas, a very long list and all very positive. He stated that, if resources and money weren’t an issue, they would do more of them sooner, but at least they are able to get them on a list. Mr. Meyer pointed out that last year there were some severe issues with snow and ice accumulation. It was actually quite dangerous getting in and out of the space. Mr. Keprios responded that they did hear that last night and Vince Cockriel, Park Superintendent, was there and did make a note of that. IV. PARK BOARD COMMENTS Mr. Hulbert stated that he would like to commend Austin and Felix for doing an awesome job in their second Park Board meeting because it was a little bit of a pressure cooker tonight. MEETING ADJOURNED