HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-04-12 Park Board Minutes 1
Minutes of the
Edina Park Board
April 12, 2011
Edina City Hall, Council Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Lough, Todd Fronek, Joseph Hulbert, Dan Peterson, Randy Meyer,
Felix Pronove, Austin Dummer
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ellen Jones, Louise Segreto, Keeya Steel, David Deeds
STAFF PRESENT: John Keprios, Ed MacHolda, Janet Canton, Scott Neal, Ann Kattreh, Susie
Miller
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Dan Peterson MOVED TO APPROVE THE MARCH 8, 2011 PARK BOARD MINUTES.
Randy Meyer SECONDED THE MOTION. MINUTES APPROVED.
II. NEW BUSINESS
A. Park Board Bylaws - Mr. Hulbert stated that in the packet Mr. Keprios provided them
some sample bylaws from other commissions. He noted that he has also been in touch
with the chair of the Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) and as he understands it
other commissions are working on their bylaws as well. Mr. Hulbert indicated that one
consideration he thought merited some discussion was he thinks there needs to be some
consistency in the bylaws for the sake of current and future staff. Mr. Hulbert made
copies of the ETC’s bylaws and handed it out to the Park Board members. He stated
that perhaps over the course of the next month they could highlight some of the things
they liked from the samples and they could discuss it at their next meeting.
Mr. Meyer stated that obviously he knows what bylaws are for but asked for a little
more background of what the goal is, what’s the dynamic they are to trying to
accomplish? Mr. Keprios replied that as you look at the sample bylaws from other
commissions you will notice that there really are no two the same. He indicated that the
draft he put together is a starting point for the Park Board to review and that he tried to
keep it simple and to the point without getting into a lot of details like the Planning
Commission has done. He explained that it’s really the order of business that defines
what the roles are of the Chair, Vice-Chair and officers as well as it references a little bit
about the City Code and how that applies to the Park Board. He noted that he tried to
capture some of the mission duties and function of the Park Board in its most basic
form. Mr. Keprios pointed out that the other thing he tried to incorporate is addressing
what constitutes a quorum; the Park Board has twelve members of which two of those
are non-voting members and asked does that mean if only five voting members are
present should that really be considered a quorum. He stated that he noticed with some
of the other commissions, just to be consistent, he thought it would make some sense for
the Park Board to consider having six voting members required to constitute a quorum
and so that is something for the Park Board to consider. He added that it also spells out
2
the duties that it will be staff’s job to work with the chair to come up with agendas as
well as it makes reference to the ability to form sub-committees and work groups so they
don’t have to go back to the City Council each time, it gives the chair the authority to
appoint people to those committees. He noted that it also references Roberts Rules of
Order for parliamentary procedure. Mr. Keprios indicated that he tried to capture all of
it in a simplistic form and not to get too lengthy because in his view it’s better to keep it
short and sweet but he is certainly open to any and all ideas. He noted that he likes the
idea of consistency but that clearly there are no two commissions that are the same. He
commented that the City Council may end up directing all of the commissions to go
back and try to fit them into more of a boiler plate type.
Mr. Fronek indicated that one thing he would recommend including is what constitutes a
formal recommendation from the Park Board. He noted being there are ten voting
members would they need six votes to pass something or simple majority. He stated that
he thinks there needs to be some sort of bylaw in there that says this will constitute a
formal recommendation from the Park Board. Mr. Keprios replied he will include that
language in there but would assume it would be a simple majority.
Mr. Meyer indicated one thought he had, which he thinks may be especially helpful for
outsiders, is for there to be some sort of understanding of the reporting sequence and
how that process works. He noted this way if there is someone on an athletic association
who wants to know who they need to talk to about something they will know what the
organizational structure is because sometime he thinks it’s not perfectly clear. He also
asked about the Art Center that they are separate from the Park Board or still sort of part
of them. Mr. Keprios replied that for clarification the Art Center Board, which hasn’t
always been separate of the Park Board, are on their own and do report directly to the
City Council, they are not subordinate to the Park Board; they make recommendations
directly to the City Council. He noted that all 14 athletic associations are independently
incorporated under the Secretary of State of Minnesota. He noted that they have a
defined relationship and expectations of the athletic associations which some are
mandatory and some are on the recommendation side but those policies have been in
place and were created by the Youth Sports Task Force which was approved by the Park
Board and accepted by the City Council. Mr. Meyer asked where is that documentation
because as an outsider does he have access to go and find that because he thinks it’s an
important issue and people should be able to have that transparency to know where to
look and how to understand it. Mr. Keprios replied that he would happy to put that
information online.
Mr. Peterson asked if the Senior Center is part of the Park Board to which Mr. Keprios
replied absolutely. Mr. Peterson stated in his four years as a Park Board member the
Senior Center has never been an agenda item and asked if they should be or is there
something they need to know about. Mr. Keprios replied that when the time is
appropriate the Senior Center will be an agenda item. He noted that there is advisory
group for Susan Weigle, Director of the Senior Center, to give her some guidance on
programming. He indicated that the Senior Center is much like their enterprise
facilities, although it’s not specifically an enterprise facility but there are fees and
charges issues that come up and if there were to be programming issues or other
3
questions that come up it would be of the Park Board nature and would belong at a Park
Board meeting.
Mr. Peterson suggested that the Park Board take a look at the draft Mr. Keprios put
together and e-mail him any recommended changes and at the next meeting they can
approve it with all of the changes. Mr. Hulbert replied he thinks that is a good idea and
asked if that’s a motion.
Mr. Lough stated before they get to a motion he has a question, wasn’t the precipitating
event to produce these bylaws due to the fact that we want to be able to establish
committees and currently we have no authority to do that? Mr. Keprios replied that is
correct; however, that has changed because in February of this year the City Council
passed a new ordinance to their city code that demands that all of advisory boards and
commissions come up with bylaws. Mr. Keprios indicated that he wrongfully assumed
since the Park Board was formed back in the 1950s that they had bylaws somewhere but
he was mistaken. He noted there is a document named Articles of Function created by
the Park Board years ago but the Park Board apparently never created bylaws.
Therefore, until the Park Board creates bylaws that are approved by the City Council,
the Park Board will need to go back to the City Council and ask for their permission to
form additional committees.
Mr. Hulbert stated so Dan if that was a motion I would second that motion. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
B. Establish Committees – Mr. Hulbert stated that he thought there were three committees
approved: facility users fee committee; donations policy and naming park facilities
committee; and a subcommittee to review the responses to the Braemar Golf Course
RFP. He noted that he believes Mr. Fronek, Ms. Segreto, as well as himself volunteered
to be a part of the Braemar committee. He indicated that if anyone would like to be a
part of the other two subcommittees to let Mr. Keprios or him know. He added that Ms.
Jones has expressed an interest in being part of the donations and naming committee.
Mr. Peterson asked if the City Council has a naming policy that the Park Board should
know about to which Mr. Keprios replied they do not have a policy in place. Mr.
Peterson asked Mr. Keprios if in all of the years he has worked for the city has the Park
Board been asked for advice. Mr. Keprios replied that he has seen a couple of times
where the Park Board has recommended to the City Council to consider a naming policy
before naming anything further. He noted that in all cases the City Council has sent
back the message that at this time they are not interested in a naming policy, that it is
their decision, and that it will be done on a case by case basis. Mr. Keprios pointed out
that does not mean the Park Board can’t recommend one and see what happens.
Mr. Peterson explained the reason he asks is because he sent an e-mail to one or two
council members when Mr. Valliere retired with a suggestion but they chose to take a
different avenue. He noted that he thinks for them to spend a lot of time trying to adopt
a policy that may or may not be used, probably is not a good use of staff time and
member time.
4
Mr. Meyer indicated that he thinks the emphasis from their workshop last year regarding
donations and how they accept them was the major part of it and feels naming of
facilities was a minor part of it. He noted that it’s his understanding that when they
accept a gift what are the terms they are accepting them under and what is the obligation
of the City once they accept those gifts? He stated that he thinks the framing of that is
really the critical component. Mr. Fronek commented that he echoes that sentiment and
thinks that at their workshop with the City Council it was Council Member Swenson
who said she would be interested in some sort of donation policy or some sort of list like
they talked about at their meeting. For example, if you donate $500.00 you will get this,
etc., etc.
Mr. Fronek stated that he thinks it would be helpful to have a little bit clearer definition
for what each of the subcommittees would be doing, what the goals would be. Mr.
Meyer indicated that these committees are not necessarily ongoing committees.
Therefore he thinks it’s important that everyone understands there is an objective with
these committees and once that objective is accomplished these committees are
disbanded effectively until something else may come up in the future.
Mr. Hulbert stated regarding the fee related committee he thinks they may want to try to
define it a little bit more. Mr. Fronek commented that it’s his understanding that the
subcommittee has already been approved by the City Council. He noted that he really
thinks it would help the members if first they know what level of commitment and
second what duties and scope are they looking at in working on these committees. He
asked for the fees if they are looking at the number that’s being used and then figure out
what the total expenses are for taking care of the fields and then here is the user fee that
goes towards those fields and then try to figure out the correct number. Mr. Hulbert
replied when they were in the work session he thought they were being clearly asked to
review the athletic association fees in relation to each association to the facilities so that
they are getting the appropriate amount. He noted should they be getting the flat fee of
$9.00 from all of the associations or should they be looking at the associations
separately. He stated that he thought there was some discussion in regards to soccer vs.
baseball vs. softball and what it is costing the city to maintain those fields. He indicated
he thinks that was the task they were asked to get into. Mr. Hulbert commented that
regarding the donations and naming policies he thinks the City Council directed the Park
Board to discuss naming policies and noted that last month they received an e-mail from
Gene Persha, which was in the packet, regarding a naming policy so perhaps Mr. Persha
could attend one of those meetings when that topic is being discussed.
Mr. Hulbert indicated that he didn’t think they needed to establish goals necessarily right
here tonight for what they are trying to accomplish with the committees. He noted that
he thinks right now they just need to know if there are people who want to donate their
time and be on a subgroup with three or four members and staff. He stated that these
meetings would not be on camera; however, he thinks it would be a good idea to keep
minutes of the meetings.
5
Mr. Lough stated as he recalls the donations policy and naming committee came out of
the fact that we have a donations policy but there was a degree of discomfort with what
exactly happens when someone makes a contribution to a park. He indicated that he
thinks the initial focus was specifically on parks and that when someone makes a
donation how is it acknowledged. He noted that if that acknowledgment includes the
possibility of naming some part of a park, a piece of equipment, a tree or whatever it
might be that we would be better served to have a specific power to consider a specific
policy that would cover all of these areas. Mr. Lough pointed out as a separate issue he
thinks naming something in the park would be absent the donation component because
they really had not discussed that as a second issue but he thinks it was acknowledged as
being a second issue. He commented that he thinks when most of them went into the
work session they felt they did need to consider some sort of a better developed policy
around donations and naming something in a park or a park around that donation.
Mr. Lough indicated that when asked to approve fees each year for the upcoming year
he was working in somewhat of a vacuum in that he did not understand nor was he in
possession of the history of how the fees had originally been set up. He noted that it
seemed as though they were being asked to approve them on an incremental or
exceptional basis and therefore at this point feels the need to have an overall review of
facility user fees, how they establish them and why they are what they are as well as
whether or not they need to make some basic or just a simple change to the way in
which those fees are established. He pointed out that at the very least it would serve as
an educational basis for the members of the board who serve on that committee so that
they will then be in a better position to better share that information with other members
of the Park Board. He commented that he’s not even sure a facility user fee is the best
way to put it but rather revenues overall because there is more that goes into revenues
than just fees.
Mr. Peterson replied that he would like to push for an understanding of revenues and
agrees with Mr. Lough that it is more than just fees. He pointed out that he thinks there
should be an incubator of new ventures and noted that one of the things that has been
happening around the country is they make golf balls that have lights and people are
playing night golf. He commented they have two nine-hole golf courses where it might
be a good place to try it.
Mr. Meyer stated that he thinks by their next meeting they should know what board
members are on what subcommittees. He noted that by the following month they could
schedule a committee meeting where they come back and report some initial findings or
at least gauge the board with the scope of what the individual committees are targeting.
He indicated that he would like some feedback from Mr. Keprios whether or not that
what they are pushing for as far as information and work load is reasonable for staff to
accomplish within the time frame they are looking at.
C. Veterans Memorial Committee – Mr. Hulbert informed the Park Board that if anyone is
interested in serving on the Veterans Memorial Committee to let Mr. Keprios know. He
noted that he did have a discussion with Mr. Keprios as to whether or not the Park Board
6
member would be a voting member or non-voting member and asked if anyone had a
feeling on that, one way or the other.
D. Edinborough Park Consultant – Mr. Hulbert indicated that hiring a consultant for
Edinborough Park is something that came up in the work session they had with the City
Council and asked if anyone had thoughts and/or recollects that discussion. Mr. Lough
responded that it seemed at that time there was a strong feeling from a number of the
members of the City Council who think that the situation is complex enough and
impactful size wise, revenues and costs that a consultant would be warranted, that is his
recollection of what happened. Mr. Keprios commented that the City Council, although
they haven’t given them the directive to do this, seems to have a strong interest and he
thinks it would be appropriate for the Park Board to make a formal recommendation. He
pointed out that staff will work on an RFP and bring that back to the May Park Board
meeting to look over and make any changes. He noted that to expedite the process they
could even do it via e-mail so that hopefully there will be a final draft by the May
meeting and then vote for a recommendation on to the City Council for them to approve
and move the project forward. Mr. Keprios stated it’s a complex issue but that
Edinborough has a marvelous staff team and that he will need to rely heavily on Ms.
Kattreh and Ms. Miller for recommendations and help write the RFP.
Mr. Meyer noted that what he struggles with, and obviously the RFP is going to cover
this scope, is somehow they need to figure out how they are going to turn that space into
effective use for the citizens of Edina. He noted that he also thinks they need to make
sure there is some path to break even somewhere in the future and if not what are the
alternatives for that space.
Mr. Lough indicated that he has specifically reviewed the business plan for Edinborough
Park. He asked Mr. Keprios if staff takes a crack at this RFP along the lines that the
City Council and Park Board members are talking about; is there any other
documentation you could share with the Park Board by e-mail along with the RFP that
would help them sort of understand why you are doing it or is the business plan enough.
Mr. Keprios replied that he will be happy to share any other information that the Park
Board is going to need to develop an intelligent RFP. He noted that Mr. Meyer is right;
it becomes also a philosophical decision. He noted that most community centers
throughout Minnesota and the United States typically don’t make money and it is very
difficult to break even unless you have something unique and different. He commented
that it might be optimistic to think they are going to make it 100% but staff will come
forward with an RFP that will spell out at least from a staff standpoint and what they are
hearing from the City Council on the business plan option of what that philosophy
should be and what the goal should be and how to get there. He pointed out it just can’t
be an adjustment to the play equipment; they need to think of a bigger picture, maybe
items they haven’t even thought of and that is what he is hoping to capture from a
study.
E. Community Advisory Team Representative – Mr. Hulbert informed the Park Board that
Ms. Jones had been serving as Park Board’s representative to the CAT group for the
Grandview redevelopment area and noted that her one year term is up, so if anybody
7
would like to volunteer to serve on that group to let Mr. Keprios know. Mr. Keprios
noted that Ms. Jones did tell him that she was 50/50 on being willing to continue to
serve in that capacity if there is no interest from another member to take on phase two.
Mr. Peterson replied that they should thank Ms. Jones and since she did such a good job
MOVED THAT SHE DO A SECOND TERM. Joseph Hulbert SECONDED THE
MOTION. Mr. Hulbert asked Mr. Keprios to send Ms. Jones an e-mail to inform her of
the decision.
F. Move June Park Board Meeting to Monday, June 13, 2011 – Mr. Hulbert noted that their
June meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 14th which is actually the same evening as
Edina’s commencement and asked the Park Board if they would be okay with moving
the meeting to Monday, June 13th. Todd Fronek MOVED TO CHANGE THE PARK
BOARD MEETING TO JUNE 13th. Joseph Hulbert SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
III. OLD BUSINESS
A. Braemar Golf Course Clubhouse Consultant RFP – Mr. Keprios informed the Park
Board that he did incorporate Ms. Jones suggestions into the RFP draft that was in the
packet. He noted that he is not suggesting that they all should be added or should not be
added but that Ms. Jones suggestions are marked in red.
Mr. Peterson stated that maybe they could add two open ended questions to the
consultant. He noted that the first question would be “What is going on in the world of
golf, is it a temporary thing that’s related to the economy or is there more to it that they
need to know?” Secondly, he would like to know what creative programming have
other municipality or publicly owned golf courses done to increase users. Mr. Hulbert
replied that he likes those questions as well as Ms. Jones suggestions.
Mr. Fronek indicated that he likes Ms. Jones additions and thinks Mr. Keprios did a
great job coming forth with the RFP in the first place. He noted that he thinks Mr.
Peterson’s number two amendment will be found in the market analysis compared to
other courses within the Twin Cities. However, he definitely thinks they should get their
take on what is going to happen to golf in the future.
Mr. Lough stated that he agrees with the additions Ms. Jones has made that are marked
in red; however, he might work on the wording a little bit. He noted that he also agrees
with what Mr. Peterson is talking about in terms of asking the global questions of golf as
a sport, public golf courses and where that is going in the future. Mr. Lough indicated
that he would like to add two very specific additions to the scope of the study. He
commented they have the number of full and part-time management staff positions but
would also ask them to identify the core competencies for each of those positions and
the performance measures for those positions. Mr. Hulbert asked Mr. Lough to explain
a little bit more what it is he is looking for. Mr. Lough responded the consultants must
know something about position specifications in terms of the competencies of the
incumbents, what you would like them to be in terms of performance measures and how
you know whether or not the jobs are being performed. He noted that then it is up to
8
city management to determine how to implement those specific position requirements
when it comes to individuals. Mr. Hulbert stated that he thinks that may be getting into
the area of personnel management and asked Scott Neal, City Manager, how he feels
about that. Mr. Neal replied that he understands the desire to see that kind of
information and from a management standpoint they would be interested in obtaining
that information. However, he noted, that to include that so specifically into the RFP
may not be the direction you want to go. He explained that he thinks it presumes a
direction that they’ve not made a decision about and that is the future mode of
operations which may or may not be employees, it may be a combination of vendors and
employees and technology. He stated that they haven’t looked at what the best mode of
operations is going to be for whatever the proposal is going to be in the future. Mr. Neal
noted that he thinks if the Park Board and City Council make a decision about what kind
of RFP and what kind of consultant to hire that at the end of the process when they get
the proposal back to them that requires capital improvements or a change in the way that
the golf course operates he thinks that at that point it would be best to look at how are
we going to implement the recommended changes that we see. He commented that at
this point that information may not be as relevant as it would down the line. Mr. Hulbert
asked looking at it a different way what if Mr. Lough is looking for a golf course like
Braemar would it require these types of positions with employees with these specific
skill sets but not make comments about any of the employees that are there. Mr. Neal
replied you may be able to get some other ideas from some other comparable public
courses on staffing levels and how they perform in terms of how we perform and there
may be some metrics in terms of staff per 100,000 rounds, are there some staffing ratios
like that that we see in other parts of city government; police staffing, fire staffing
planning staffing, etc., so staffing ratios would be something that they would be
interested in. He commented that to presume an operating model at this stage of what
could be a really transformative change in the golf course now may not be the right time
to do that.
Mr. Neal pointed out that he thinks with what you’ve discussed and with what Ms. Jones
has suggested he thinks they can work within. He commented that they need to
remember that all they are doing with this is trying to attract a certain kind of consultant
and he thinks this will do it.
Mr. Peterson asked do you want a motion to go ahead then as it’s written and amended.
Mr. Hulbert replied he wants to make sure that we get something in there that Mr. Lough
likes to address what you were concerned with are you okay if we just go with Ellen’s
additions, Dan’s additions. Mr. Lough replied yes, he is okay if they go ahead with it as
it’s written.
Mr. Peterson stated MOVED TO ADOPT AGAIN. Randy Meyer SECONDED THE
MOTION. Mr. Keprios asked your motion included the two you wanted to add to which
Mr. Peterson replied yes. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH THE TWO
ADDITIONS.
9
IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Braemar Men’s Club - Rick Windham, 6233 Belmore Lane, informed the Park Board
that he is president of the Braemar Men’s Club and that he would like to invite the Park
Board to attend their Spring Scramble on May 19th. He noted that it’s a great way to see
how the members of Braemar use the golf course. He commented that the Men’s Club
will be picking up the expense of the day. He added that even if you don’t play golf you
are still invited to attend the evening dinner. He noted that Mr. Keprios is also invited.
Mr. Meyer asked who is Ed White, it’s the called the “Ed White Shootout”. Mr.
Windham replied that Ed White was a member of the Braemar Men’s Club who has
been remembered upon his death as a superb member who did a lot for them over the
years. He noted that every year there is a participation award given in honor of Ed
White.
V. UPDATES FROM STAFF
A. Braemar Golf Course – Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that all 45 holes of golf
are open for business and the driving range is stacked about four or five deep so they are
in full swing.
B. Veteran’s Memorial Committee – Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that the
Veteran’s Memorial Committee is very excited to see the first drafts of concepts that the
architect is coming forward with at their April meeting.
VI. PARK BOARD COMMENTS
A. Rosland Park – Mr. Hulbert stated that he knows they once talked about the sidewalk
that runs along 66th Street at Cornelia Park. He asked Mr. Keprios is that parkland
where the sidewalk is or is that road right-of-way. Mr. Keprios replied he considers it
both because it is part of the path that circles Rosland Park and is the only part of that
pathway that goes around the north basin where they allow bicycles because it is wide
enough and there are no clear view issues. He pointed out that several years ago they
eliminated bicycle use around the lake portion because it isn’t safe and they don’t have
the real estate to widen it to make it safer for a second path. He stated again that it’s
really both because he considers it part of the park because they have it listed as one of
their designated pathways. Mr. Hulbert explained that the reason he asks is because a
lot of kids ride their bikes to get to the pool and when they are going eastbound on 66th
on the sidewalk there are cars coming in the opposite direction on 66th at approximately
45 mph and he is concerned that a kid may fall off their bike and he thought it might
help if there could be some type of barrier. He noted there is a barrier to keep people
from falling into the lake but if a child were to fall off their bike they are going to fall
right into oncoming traffic on 66th Street. He stated there are a lot of people that do use
that sidewalk so he was wondering if they might ever talk about redoing the paths
around 66th Street. He commented that maybe they could construct some sort of barrier
to protect children from vehicles. Mr. Keprios replied that he thinks that would be an
10
area to discuss with the City Engineer, Wayne Houle. Mr. Keprios commented that he
still thinks they are safer than on a bike lane which is right on the street. He added that
they also need to see whether there is room or if it’s appropriate to put up a barrier
because depending on how close you want it to the curb it may interfere with
snowplowing so there are other issues to consider. Mr. Keprios stated that he will pass
that suggestion along to Mr. Houle and have him take a look at it.
Meeting Adjourned at 8:05 pm