HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-08-09 Park Board Minutes1
MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PARK BOARD
HELD AT CITY HALL
AUGUST 9, 2011
7:00 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Hulbert called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm
II. ROLLCALL
Answering rollcall were Members Deeds, Fronek, Jacobson, Jones, Lough, Meyer, Peterson, Segreto,
Steel and Chair Hulbert
III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Motion made by Member Fronek and seconded by Member Deeds approving the meeting agenda.
Ayes: Deeds, Fronek, Jacobson, Jones, Lough, Meyer, Peterson, Segreto, Steel, Hulbert
Motion carried.
IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA
Motion made by Fronek and seconded by Member Deeds approving the consent agenda as
follows:
IV.A. Approval of Minutes – Regular meeting of July 12, 2011
Ayes: Deeds, Fronek, Jacobson, Jones, Lough, Meyer, Peterson, Segreto, Steel, Hulbert
Motion carried.
V. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
V.A. DONATIONS POLICY AND NAMING OF PARKS AND FACILITIES POLICY WORKING
GROUP
Member Jones informed the Park Board that she continues to publicize the fact that there is a group that
will be working on policy development on naming and donations. She noted that their first meeting will
be on September 12th from 12:30 to 1:30 pm and that they plan on meeting the second and fourth
Mondays September and October. She added that she encourages people to bring their lunch and make
it a real work session over lunch. Member Jones pointed out that if anyone in the community or on the
Park Board is interested in being a part of this working group to contact Janet Canton at City Hall. Chair
Hulbert asked if this will be publicized in the Sun Current to which Member Jones replied yes they have
sent a press release to the Sun Current.
V.B. USER FEES WORKING GROUP
Member Steel informed the Park Board that it’s pretty much the same as Member Jones stated about the
donations and naming work group. She explained that the user fee working group will focus on the fee
scales and costs associated with the facilities. She added that these meetings will also be held over the
lunch hour on the first and third Wednesdays of the month in September and October. Member Steel
indicated that they are also looking for members of the public as well as they are looking for user groups
to provide input as well.
Member Jones indicated that she has been going over the youth athletic association’s relationship with
the Park Board. She asked Mr. Keprios if it would be possible to get the athletic association’s financial
statements before their first meeting. Mr. Keprios replied to just let him know what it is exactly they
would like and he would be happy to provide them with either an electronic and/or hard copy.
2
V.C. SPORTS DOME STUDY COMMITTEE
Chair Hulbert informed the Park Board that there have been a couple of public meetings in regards to the
Sports Dome proposal. He indicated that the City Council has requested that the Park Board put
together a work group to study the need for such an athletic facility. He commented that he thinks they
have learned recently that there is a need for these types of facilities. Members Fronek, Deeds,
Jacobson, Hulbert and Jones stated they would like to participate in the work group.
Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that he sees this as a two-part process. He noted that Ann Kattreh
has been assigned the duty to be the lead staff person to put the study together and she is going to see
this through from start to finish. Mr. Keprios explained that the first thing the City Council would like to
see done is have a public facility inventory of all of the City of Edina’s publicly owned recreational
facilities. He stated that secondly they would like the work group to determine the feasibility of putting
a sports dome or bubble in the City of Edina on one of their publicly owned properties. Mr. Keprios
indicated that the City Council has allocated up to $20,000 to help them with the study and as he sees it
that money would go into the feasibility part; what it is going to cost to prepare the site, to build the
facility, how would it be financed and what would it cost to operate. He stated that these are the kinds of
details that these consultants are experts at and is where he thinks these dollars should be spent. Mr.
Keprios indicated the rest of it with the committee’s input and direction Ms. Kattreh and staff will
collect the information the group would like to have because there are a variety of directions this may
play out.
Member Meyer stated that he thinks they were very specific about mentioning city owned or managed
facilities and asked if they will take into account school district facilities. He added that it may factor
into this because some of the associations use the school district facilities as well. Mr. Keprios replied
that Ms. Kattreh and he asked the City Manager that question to which Mr. Neal agrees it is an important
part of the study. Therefore, although the City Council did not direct us to inventory School District
facilities, he agrees with Mr. Meyer that School District facilities should be part of the study.
Member Deeds made a motion, seconded by Chair Hulbert approving the working group for the
Sports Dome Study Committee.
Ayes: Deeds, Fronek, Jacobson, Jones, Lough, Meyer, Peterson, Segreto, Steel, Hulbert
Motion carried.
V.D. 2012-2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
Mr. Keprios gave a power point presentation on the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the Park and
Recreation Department. He noted that the Park Board will be receiving CIP’s for the enterprise facilities
for the September Park Board meeting. He indicated that the CIP is a five year plan but a one year
budget and although they try to anticipate how they are going to spend their money five years from now
the City Council only approves budget dollars for one year in advance. He added that although he won’t
be asking the Park Board to vote on this until next month’s meeting he wants to go over some
information for the Park Board to think about and/or ask questions before the September meeting.
Mr. Keprios informed the park Board that a survey was done in 2006 that had a 95% level of confidence
with a plus or minor error of 3.4 which is phenomenal for a community survey. He stated that the
number one thing on the list was the maintenance of parks so before they build anything new they need
to be sure they have money in the budget to cover the maintenance and upkeep of the parks. He noted
that recently a Quality of Life survey was completed about how the residents feel about their services
and facilities in Edina and the results show that residents feel very good about their parks and programs.
Mr. Keprios indicated that one thing on the schedule for 2012 is the “Natural Resources Inventory
Assessment” and noted this was something that didn’t come from staff but was Park Board driven from
several years back. He stated that as staff he would recommend that the Park Board hold off on this
3
because it would cost approximately $100,000 to do a study like this similar to what was done in the
City of Northfield and in fact that is where the idea came from. He indicated that a former Park Board
member was the Director of Resource and Park Planning for the City of Northfield. He commented that
it seemed like a great idea at that time; however, the reason their study was done in the first place was
because Northfield was going through a very strong growth period and they were very sensitive about
the types of lands they were going to convert to development. He pointed out that is not the case or
scenario for Edina. Therefore he is recommending that Park Board delay or completely pull this off the
map for now, largely because of their economic times as well as it’s not something he feels is high on
the priority list.
Mr. Keprios went through the master plan at Countryside Park and explained that to complete the master
plan they would need to replace the shelter building with a new one as well as put a hockey rink back in
but, this time, in the correct north/south orientation. He pointed out there are no dollars in the CIP to do
this; however, he recently learned that it sounds like the “Waters Development” at Colonial Church is
going to happen and with that there will be just under $700,000 going into the Developers Fund.
Therefore there will probably have enough money to do almost the entire master plan. He commented
that his question to the Park Board to think about is should we use that money to complete the
Countryside mater plan in the next year or two.
Member Meyer asked if the 2012 projects are the same ones that Park Board approved last year without
changes to which Mr. Keprios replied that is correct.
Chair Hulbert noted that it states parking lot expansions at Pamela Park in the 2013 CIP and asked if the
west parking lot was going to be made wider because it’s really tight. Mr. Keprios responded that the
Pamela Park master plan shows 37 additional spaces on the west parking lot, 23 additional spaces on the
south parking lot and 15 additional spaces on the north parking lot. Chair Hulbert commented that his
daughter plays soccer there and parking is really crazy and people ask if they can park on the grass area
where the open skating rink is. He asked if perhaps they could put some Class 5 gravel in that area so
there could be more parking now. Mr. Keprios replied that is something they can look at if it’s really
bad but that they will be expanding those parking lots in 2013. However, if it is really that bad they
could maybe look at doing something on a temporary basis. He added he will consult with the City
Engineer and traffic safety folks to make sure they would not be creating an unsafe condition.
Member Deeds asked if they have considered a turf field where the proposed field is located given
drainage issues and wear and tear. Mr. Keprios replied they did consider that but after a lengthy public
process with the neighborhood it was decided it would not be a very good fit for that neighborhood to
have artificial turf. He noted that what they wanted was to have a field like those at Braemar and Lewis
Park which are exceptional fields and wonderfully drained but they are on sand peat. He commented
that Pamela Park does not have that surface but it could possibly be converted to a sand/peat athletic
field.
Member Jones asked if in the plan they are adding any fields they don’t currently have. Mr. Keprios
replied in the master plan for Pamela Park they are adding a more defined field because the current field
is not a very safe field. Member Jones asked is this being proposed for 2014 to which Mr. Keprios
replied yes, the new athletic field for Pamela is not any different from what they approved last year. Mr.
Keprios added that isn’t to say it still can’t be changed because priorities can change; however, they feel
2014 is a good time to have it done.
Mr. Keprios explained that there are still a lot of things that are needed or desired in addition to the 5
year CIP. He noted that the Edina Baseball Association has a wonderful wish list of some improvements
they would like to make at the Courtney Ball fields and if you total it up it comes to approximately 1.5
million dollars. He informed the Park Board this is something they will be hearing a lot more about
4
because they anticipate it to be done through some fundraising efforts and could be added to the list of
unfunded projects.
Mr. Keprios went through the unfunded CIP park project for the Park Board to think about before their
next meeting.
Member Deeds stated that before they get serious about this next month could the Park Board get some
usage data and demand data regarding hockey versus the rectangular fields. He noted he thinks they
may have to make some potential trade-offs because which one are we shorter of. Mr. Keprios replied
that he would be happy to get that data but doesn’t know that it necessarily becomes either one or the
other. He noted that he thinks that will come out as part of the facilities inventory that Ms. Kattreh is
heading up. He commented that with some direction he thinks that would be a good question to ask
them to do but that he would happy to get that for them.
Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that they will be hearing more from all of their enterprise facilities
managers at the September meeting. He noted that in addition to the enterprise facilities' CIPs they will
also be acting on their proposed fees and charges and requesting review and comment on their proposed
budgets.
Member Lough asked Mr. Keprios how unfunded projects become funded; are they added into the fifth
year of a five year plan and they slowly progress their way forward. Mr. Keprios responded that is
exactly how it happens and that the City Council relies very much on the Park Board’s input to make
that happen. Member Lough asked what puts the dollar limitation on what they might choose to do. For
example why wouldn’t they just roll all of it forward to this year, what is the process by which the
funding actually takes place? Mr. Keprios replied he doesn’t have a very good answer to that other than
he hears when the request for funding is too high and needs to be lowered. He stated there is no policy
in place that shows how much money they get. Member Lough asked if typically that money comes
from the general fund or donations. Mr. Keprios explained that is a great question for the Finance
Director, its tax money bottom line but the funds it draws from the Finance Director would need to
explain and he would be happy to invite him to a Park Board meeting to explain it. Member Lough
indicated that maybe this would be something for a subcommittee because he would be interested in the
process. Member Deeds replied he would also be interested as well as he is a little curious about how
the endowment for Edinborough Park is being managed and the return on it. Mr. Keprios stated he
would encourage Mr. Deeds to meet one on one with the Finance Director on how that is managed
because there is a portfolio with many pages that shows a variety of funds.
Member Steel indicated regarding the “Natural Resources Inventory Assessment” she is trying to think
of it in terms of capital improvement and asked if an assessment would generally be included in the CIP.
Mr. Keprios explained the reason it’s there is because it’s too big of an item to fall into the operational
budget that’s approved by the City Council and that’s the only other source of funding that they could
really draw from. Member Steel asked so capital improvements are just limited to maintenance and
infrastructure type of things and if they were to have another type of assessment they would include it in
the CIP if it was a large sum. Member Steel explained that what she is trying to understand is how an
inventory assessment contributes to improving capital versus another inventory assessment and where do
they draw the line as to what should be considered a capital improvement. Mr. Keprios replied that he
thinks in this case because it was Park Board driven from the start there was really no other fund to take
care of that project because it seemed to be a high priority at that time. Other than their capital
improvement plan there is no other budget to draw from. He noted that arguably it may or may not be a
capital improvement but it is more or less that that is where the money is available. Member Steel
commented so if they were to choose to not include this in the CIP there would not be a funding source
for this particular project in the next couple years or could they request funding in a couple of years. Mr.
Keprios replied that they certainly could request that it come back and be funded at a future date that
5
would be a very appropriate recommendation. Chair Hulbert asked could they remove it and use those
funds for some unfunded capital improvements that may potentially be a greater benefit to the
community. Mr. Keprios replied that is going to become your decision as a Park Board at the
September meeting. He added that he would encourage the Park Board members to talk to their
neighbors, friends, etc., and find out what they may feel is important in the list of priorities.
Member Segreto asked Mr. Keprios if she could receive a copy of the Park Board minutes so she can see
how this came about and what the concerns were at that time. Mr. Keprios replied he will do that as well
as give her the survey booklet that was conducted for the City of Northfield. Member Segreto stated that
she can understand the reluctance to do a 100% coverage inventory of Edina but she also wants to be
sensitive that there are some environmental areas especially in wetlands or perhaps around Nine Mile
Creek. She noted that there is a bike trail that is being constructed and perhaps if they could get a square
footage of what it is they want inventoried that the price may go down and there would be more room
for it in the budget. Mr. Keprios replied that Three Rivers Park District has spent over $50,000 to study
the environmental effects of putting the trail where it is currently proposed. The Three Rivers Park
District learned from that they do not need to take the next step which would be to conduct an
Environmental Impact Study. He pointed out that it is the Watershed District’s duty to determine what
the impact on wetlands will be, so this really wouldn’t cover that anyway. He indicated this is really
more of the natural woodlands which are mostly at Braemar and many other parks with wooded areas.
Member Segreto stated that she will read the study and be prepared to perhaps discuss it at the
September meeting.
Member Jones stated that in looking at the CIP she would like to try to make sure that they stick with
their priority criteria and for the next meeting she would like to see the schedule for replacement of all of
the playground equipment, as well as the warming houses. Mr. Keprios replied that Mr. MacHolda has
done a great job in keeping an intelligent, well thought out schedule of playground equipment
replacement. He stated that the replacement plan itself doesn’t go beyond 10 or 15 years but explained
that one of the problems is some of the equipment will last 20 to 30 years or more so it’s not that it
absolutely has to be replaced but it gets to an age where the neighborhoods say they would like the
newer and better equipment that they saw in another park. He pointed out there is a schedule they have
been following and they are almost caught up and he will be sure the Park Board gets a copy of that
schedule. Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board in terms of the older shelter buildings it really becomes
a judgment call. He explained the reason he throws that out there is because he is proposing only one
gets replaced in the next five years. He stated that if the Park Board would like to change that it’s an old
battle of priority of which is more important because they were all built the same year. He noted that it’s
going to become the Park Board's recommendation when you think they should be replaced or is there
something more important that should happen before that and so there is no schedule on the shelter
buildings. Member Jones asked Mr. Keprios if he could give her the dates they were built to which he
replied yes.
Member Jones asked if the monies from the “The Waters” need to be used at Countryside Park to which
Mr. Keprios replied no, it could be used for something else if the Park Board and City Council choose to
do so.
Member Deeds asked Mr. Keprios if they are at the end of the useful life for the golf dome. He
explained the reason he asks is because if there is currently a consultant studying Braemar Golf Course
and there is the possibility of a sports dome would it be possible to extend its life another year or two
before spending that $460,000 since there is a potential for changes. Mr. Keprios replied that he just had
a conversation with Todd Anderson, Manager of Braemar Golf Course, who informed him he would like
to adjust his proposed CIP to not replace the building. He noted that Manager Anderson would like to
purchase and install only the structural steel needed to support the dome and yet maintain the structural
integrity of the building. This would give the dome something to hang onto rather than the wood
6
structure. He added that Mr. Anderson feels he can get several more years out of that building by
making that investment to which it will cost significantly less.
Member Meyer commented that in looking at the unfunded CIP projects it shows $400,000 for
additional landscaping and asked how many projects does that include? In addition, are those things
they should be chipping away at on some sort of ongoing basis. Mr. Keprios replied there isn’t a
specific plan as far as landscaping that he can show the Park Board. He explained that former Park and
Recreation Director, Bob Kojetin, always told him they never got to the final plan of the Park
Development because they never had the funding to finish what he sees as the landscaping. He noted
that $400,000 could be spent literally on landscaping to plant trees, shrubs and flowers although he
thinks that would be a lot. He commented that this project is completely staff driven from notes and
history. Member Meyer stated that he thinks because it is such a large amount it never gets done. He
suggested spending $50,000 or $25,000 a year on landscaping and it would start to make some of that
happen. Mr. Keprios commented that he should probably adjust that number and that his staff actually
does a great job of chipping away at it by planting trees, shrubs, etc. so they do slowly pick away at it
but there are still a lot of projects that he sees out there that can still get done.
Member Meyer commented that he sees lighting listed and asked if any of the items are safety issues
because if there are they may want to consider making those a higher priority. Mr. Keprios explained
that the one they are still addressing is the question of proper lighting for the Courtney ball fields. He
noted that lighting the fields was done five or six years ago. He indicated that it has been brought to
their attention, even though they had the Edina Baseball Association (EBA) involved in the design, that
the EBA feels that the upper level lighting is a little dangerous and that they lose sight of the baseball
during night games on really high fly balls. He commented that in his 34 years he has never heard of a
player getting injured from not seeing a ball coming out of the dark sky. Mr. Keprios stated that they do
prioritize the safety items which he thinks they have done and are listed on the schedule.
Member Deeds asked staff whether lighting would be a fairly inexpensive way of extending their ability
to use some of the fields given where they are running into a lot of congestion. Mr. Keprios responded
that it’s clearly a lesser expensive method than trying to create new green space somewhere. He
explained that the problem they run into with lighting is which field do you light and is it politically
palatable. He added that when the parks were initially built they were located in neighborhoods where
kids could walk to the park. Edina did not build large athletic field complexes in non-residential areas
similar to other newer communities. When you start putting up lights in these parks it can be difficult.
Member Meyer stated on the various projects on the CIP he is noticing different funds where the funding
is coming out of. He noted that four of them list the construction fund as the source and asked where do
those dollars come from? Mr. Keprios replied that those again are great questions for their Finance
Director to explain how does the construction fund get funded and why it is called that?
Member Steel indicated she would like to hear from the Finance Director on how their budget falls
within the City of Edina. What is the percentage that their CIP constitutes? Year to year are the City
priorities reflected in their year to year CIP? She noted she understands they come from a need basis but
is there a bigger overall city plan. Mr. Keprios replied that is a complex question to answer because
funding comes from so many sources, there is state aid for roads, special assessments, etc., where they
do and don't compete for dollars. He pointed out that for many years they used to get $150,000 a year
and that was their CIP they had to live with for the year. He noted that all of the large maintenance
items had to wait and he credits Gordon Hughes, former City Manager, for turning that around. It
wasn’t until his era that they started to get some significant dollars. He indicated that when he first
became Park Director he recognized that they first needed to keep up with what they have in place
before they build anything new and so Mr. MacHolda and he work hard to get a referendum which they
did and it passed for 5.5 million and it ended up being mostly maintenance. Mr. Keprios stated that
7
since then they’ve heard from their voters we should not go to a referendum for maintenance but find
ways to maintain existing infrastructure without having to borrow money. He commented that he thinks
they’ve done a good job of trying to continually improve that fund to where they can afford to do more
things.
Members Deeds asked if there is a source that is generating donations to help support Edina Parks and
Recreation. Is there a place where a citizen can contribute and donate to a tax deductible 501 (C) 3
organization that could potentially help with some of this? Mr. Keprios explained there are two: the City
of Edina itself and the Edina Community Foundation.
Member Meyer asked if the $300,000 that is listed in 2016 at the Aquatic Center a major update or just a
plan modification. Mr. MacHolda replied it’s actually a replacement of the play structure in the zero
depth pool.
Member Meyer asked staff if they could get some guidance in the unfunded CIP projects. He asked if
they could pick out the top 20% or top third because maybe they could start plugging in some of those
items and help to start build up some priority. He commented if there are any other smaller projects that
are not on the list to please add them.
Member Peterson asked how much a used Zamboni would be worth. He also asked why it can’t be
rehabbed or maybe the company could take theirs and fix it, clean it up and replace the parts and give it
back to them. Mr. Keprios replied that would be a great question for the arena manager at next month’s
meeting.
Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that they will be called upon at their next meeting to make some
tough decisions. He noted it’s an important part of what the Park Board does in prioritizing for the
community where the dollars ought to be spent next year with the capital dollars they have at hand.
VI. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Member Lough indicated that their student member, Felix Pronove, sent the Park Board a very good
email and would like to have it included with the minutes.
Member Lough made a motion, seconded by Member Steel to have Felix Pronove’s e-mail
included in the August Park Board minutes.
Ayes: Deeds, Fronek, Jacobson, Jones, Lough, Meyer, Peterson, Segreto, Steel, Hulbert
Motion carried.
Member Peterson stated that it seems like they spend an enormous amount of money on parking lots. He
suggested maybe they look at the possibility of having a joint committee between the Park Board and
Transportation Commission. He noted maybe they could buy 10 good buses, bus the teams and families
to the various parks. He commented that it seems to him they would save an awful lot of money.
VII. STAFF COMMENTS
VIIA. Golf Course Study Presentation – August 30, 2011
Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that the golf course study will be presented on Tuesday, August
30th at 5:30 pm in the Council Chambers. He asked that the Park Board members please attend. He
noted that Richard Singer will be presenting his findings and his recommendations. He indicated that
once he receives the written report he will forward it on to the Park Board members.
VIIB. Edinborough Park Study
Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board they have hired ATS&R to conduct the study. He noted that Susie
Miller will be the lead staff person working very closely with it and that it should be completed in
8
December at the latest. Mr. Keprios added that ATS&R did a great job in the interview and that he
thinks they will do an excellent job.
VII.C. Veteran’s Memorial Update
Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that the Veterans Memorial Committee received 13 submittals for
the artist/sculptor for the eagle focal point of the memorial. He indicated that the committee, with the
help of the Edina Public Art Committee, was able to narrow it down to four for interviews. After the
interviews it was unanimous to enter into a contractual agreement with Robert Eccleston from Lake
Placid, New York as their artist/sculptor, to which he was very pleased with the outcome.
Member Meyer asked what is the fundraising status with the Veterans Memorial Committee. Mr.
Keprios replied that the fundraising has not kicked off yet, it’s kind of the cart before the horse thing.
The committee is waiting until they have a plan to show prospective donors before they kick off their
fundraiser. He indicated that there is a committee that is working towards a plan on what type of process
they are going to follow. He added that a lot of it is coming up with names and getting people involved.
Mr. Keprios stated that they are not going to be able to spend a dime until they have money in the bank
and that the Edina Community Foundation is the keeper of the bank.
Member Jones asked what is the process and timeline for the committee to show the Park Board the
plan. Mr. Keprios replied as soon as they have decided on the final plan they will make a formal
presentation and recommendation to the Park Board. He stated that at that point they will have a
recommendation for the public process to then take place. He indicated that the Public Hearing will
definitely take place at the City Council meeting; however, they would like to have an Open House
similar to the Nine Mile Trail Open House and so that process will be brought to you for approval.
There being no further business on the Park Board Agenda, Chair Hulbert declared the meeting
adjourned at 8:13 pm.