HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-13 Park Board Minutes1
MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PARK BOARD
HELD AT CITY HALL
SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
7:00 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Hulbert called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm
II. ROLLCALL
Answering rollcall were Members Fronek, Jacobson, Peterson, Hulbert, Segreto, Lough, Jones, Deeds
III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Chair Hulbert made a motion, seconded by Member Deeds to move Items VI.B., VI.C, and VI.D. to a
special Park Board meeting to be held on Tuesday, September 27th at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers.
Ayes: Fronek, Jacobson, Peterson, Hulbert, Segreto, Lough, Jones, Deeds
Motion carried
IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA
Motion made by Member Peterson and seconded by Member Deeds approving the consent agenda
as follows:
IV.A. Approval of Minutes – Regular meeting of August 9, 2011
Ayes: Fronek, Jacobson, Peterson, Hulbert, Segreto, Lough, Jones, Deeds
Motion carried
V. COMMUNITY COMMENT
Dianne Plunkett Latham, 7013 Comanche Court, informed the Park Board she is Chair of the Energy
and Environment Commission and Chair of the Recycling and Solid Waste working group. She gave the
Park Board a presentation on the recommendations EEC has regarding recycling bins in the city parks.
VI. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
VI.A. Revised Turf Management Plan – Energy & Environment Commission
Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that what he thinks the Energy and Environment Commission is
looking for from the Park Board are comments and recommendations on the revised Turf Management
Plan before the EEC forwards their recommendations on to the City Council. He stated there are still
some differences of opinion on some of the details that are clearly shown in the attached e-mails. He
indicated that Vince Cockriel, Park Superintendent, and his staff are going to continue to use organics
where they feel it’s necessary. He pointed out that what is being proposed is a lot more formal in that it
states they will use organics on certain scheduled athletic fields and if it doesn’t work they will have to
accept 100% weed tolerance for the scheduled athletic fields. He stated that from staff’s perspective
they have a different view on that. He indicated that another thing staff takes issue with is the signage
they are proposing that be placed in the parks that furthers their mission of what they are trying to
accomplish. He commented that other than that he thinks they did a nice job and he appreciates the time
and input they took in gathering all of the information.
Ms. Latham presented the EEC changes to the Park Board and explained that basically what they are
trying to accomplish is to use more organic means of control. She indicated that when they ceased
spraying ten years ago the dandelion population multiplied tremendously and because the Park and
Recreation Department was getting so much criticism for not maintaining to the standard that residents
2
were used to seeing they basically broke down and started spraying again. She noted then the
environmentalists became aware of this because the dandelions disappeared; therefore, the EEC wanted
to work with Park and Recreation and try to find a happy medium where some of the new organic
techniques could be tried out and used. She stressed they especially want this done in areas where the
children play. She explained they tried to work out something through the Turf Management Task Force
which consisted of Park Board Member Jones, EEC Member Germana Paterlini, Community Health
Committee Member Mary Jo Kingston and Vince Cockriel as well as she was an ex-officio member.
Ms. Latham noted that she met with Member Jones prior to this meeting to which Members Jones has
several things that they feel are worthy of discussing. Member Jones felt there were some parks not
listed under “multiple-use non-scheduled athletic fields” which included: Edina Art Center, Browndale,
McGuire and the Promenade and feel that probably the answers to those would be category “C”. She
indicated it is her understanding Normandale Park, Strachauer Park and Walnut Ridge Park now are
scheduled fields and therefore Member Jones is recommending they move up to Section Four which
would make them a category “B”. Ms. Latham stated there are other multiple-use non-scheduled parks;
Kojetin, Sherwood, St. Johns, Tingdale and York that they would like to see as a category “O/C” since
those parks do not have scheduled fields. She pointed out there is one that was not included in the
attachment under “non-maintained open space/wooded areas and other miscellaneous parkland” and that
is Bredesen Boulevard which should be a category “C”. The EEC’s thinking is in some cases the
walking and biking paths are near the boulevards and therefore these people would be impacted by the
spraying.
Ms. Latham pointed out that she is on the Edina Garden Council and they work very hard to be sure the
parks are attractive with respect to the signs. She explained that the Park and Recreation Department
was so heavily leaned upon by residents the last time they stopped spraying that it caused them to cave.
Therefore, the thought is if there are signs residents can see that they are intentionally leaving these areas
unsprayed and hopefully they won’t bother Park and Recreation to the extent they did before. She noted
their thought was to put the sign about no spraying right beneath the “This is a Smoke Free Park” sign.
Member Segreto thanked Ms. Latham and Member Jones for their work on this but feels that public
education is the key component to the Turf Management Plan. She added that she does support the
organics approach they are taking. Member Segreto suggested they consider what they preach and
perhaps City Hall should go from a category “A” to a more tolerant weed philosophy with even a sign
because signage is a part of public education.
Ms. Latham commented that once a lawn is up to spec it’s not very hard to keep it up to spec
organically. She noted if something is far below spec and you are trying to get it up to spec organically
is hard; however, she believes most city areas are up to spec so to maintain them organically would not
be that hard and that would include City Hall as well.
Member Deeds asked Mr. Keprios how intensely are the non-scheduled athletic fields used and what
would they look like in four or five year of organics in terms of would they end up with essentially dirt
and weeds. Mr. Keprios replied that the EEC is recommending the use of organic pesticides only on the
non-scheduled fields or no pesticides at all. Mr. Keprios noted that the original Turf Management Plan
is admittedly out of date with regard to fields that used to be labeled as non-scheduled fields but are now
in fact heavily used scheduled fields.
Mr. Cockriel informed the Park Board he has been using organics for approximately 25 years so it is not
a new idea to him and as they’ve come on the market he’s tried them. Although they haven’t had the
best of luck, it is one of the tools they keep in their tool box. He informed the Park Board that the weed
population in the ball fields moves in immediately at two different times of the year, early summer and
later in the fall. He explained if they don’t do something to knock it down hard and tough the beginning
3
of next year they will have weeds out of control. Secondly, he noted they have never sprayed near play
structures in his tenure in Edina even before there was a Turf Management Plan. Mr. Cockriel stated as
far as complaints are concerned he seldom received complaints on the non-scheduled parks. He noted
where he does receive complaints is the boulevards and those complaints come from citizens and past
City Council members and that is where they would be getting into hot water if they were to go all
organic right off the bat on something like that. He indicated they are always happy to try organics and
he believes there are 17 properties under the organics right now. He stated that the organics do not work
on quack grass, crab grass, vervain and any of the drought condition type grasses. He indicated that if
you have turf like Ms. Latham alluded to, you can use organics and for a while it does help with
dandelions but it doesn’t hold them back and it certainly doesn’t on the high use athletic fields.
Member Lough asked are dandelions major issues with regards to aesthetics and Edina citizens as well
as there was mention of safety and injures. Mr. Cockriel explained that when dandelions are killed off
it’s an annual weed so it’s going to die anyway and when it grows to its full potential it takes up about an
8” patch and when that dies off you have an 8” patch and what grows in there is crab grass, vervain, etc.,
which then leaves you with uneven turf which in turn can cause potential injuries. He noted there are a
lot of people who have a concern with dandelions because they feel if the parks, etc., have dandelions
then their green yard will become inundated with dandelions. He stressed that staff is more concerned
about the safety of the users than the aesthetics.
Member Peterson asked since fall is upon us it doesn’t sound like this needs to be done tonight, correct?
Ms. Latham replied they would like to have these issues settled in time so that Mr. Cockriel will have
direction for next season. She indicated that EEC will be having a work session with the City Council
on September 20th and this is on the agenda and therefore any input from the Park Board would be
important.
Member Jones asked Mr. MacHolda to comment on the multiple-use non-scheduled athletic fields and if
you take out the ones that are now being scheduled how often does someone ask to rent the non-
scheduled fields. Mr. MacHolda replied that just today he exchanged a number of e-mails with the
Edina Soccer Club and they are going to be painting a U9 and U10 soccer field at Alden Park. He
indicated typically Alden Park is one of the parks that when the scheduled fields are all reserved he will
tell a team manager or coach to find an open green space and he will suggest one depending where they
live. He stated that Normandale, Strachauer and Walnut Ridge are all scheduled fields. He pointed out
that he would not call York Park a scheduled area; however, it is heavily played on especially now that
it’s been renovated and has a small baseball field. He stated that he thinks the parks he mentioned
should probably be moved to Section Four. Mr. MacHolda added that like Alden Park he also thinks
Chowen Park is also one that will be used when the parks under Section Four are booked.
Mr. MacHolda pointed out in regards to safety a few years back he was playing soccer at Highlands Park
and felt it was very dangerous because the surface was very greasy due to the dandelions. Member
Jones asked if Highlands has been a category “B” to which Mr. Cockriel replied yes, it has. Member
Jones stated that in 2001 all fields under Section 5 were a category “C” and stated that she would hope in
the years since then that they would have been able to progress to less chemical use in the community.
She noted that she is afraid if they take the recommendation of staff that they will be going in the
opposite direction of what she thinks members of the community are concerned about. She stated that
there are two safety issues; first there is twisting of the ankle while playing an organized sport and
second there is a safety issue of having chemicals sprayed in the community. Members Jones indicated
that she feels as a Park Board they need to figure out what are they more concerned about and where do
they see more risk. She explained that the task force went through and identified the fields that were
used and then went through and put the fields that were by elementary schools to category “O/C” in
section four because those are the places where parents are very concerned about spraying. She
informed the Park Board that is the rationale for where they are coming from. She added that they are
4
trying to take a middle course but she doesn’t want to just water down the 2001 Turf Management Plan
and pull it back to all category “B” in areas that actually where category “C” in 2001. Mr. Cockriel
replied the way he looked at it is if we have any faith in the organics that all of the category “C” that
were 100% tolerant of weeds if we are spraying them with organics and if they are working at all in his
mind they’ve taken a lot more of the weeds out and they’ve actually lessened the spraying. He noted
they are currently accepting 100% dandelions, 100% ragweed, 100% everything. He noted they are
bringing in new organics and they are spraying all of these weeds that they typically didn’t with an
organic non-pesticide type of substance and they are killing more weeds. He explained that he thinks the
committee is concerned they are moving a couple out of category “C” into category “B” therefore
upping their use of pesticides and he is not looking at it that way. He is thinking they are controlling a
lot more weeds in the city so therefore they will be able to spray a lot less commercial pesticides if these
organics do what they are supposed to be doing. Ms. Latham asked Mr. Cockriel if he is in agreement
then with leaving section four and the five they have changed to category “O/C”. Mr. Cockriel replied
he is not saying to leave them a category “C” but rather category “O” is the preferred choice if category
“O” works. However if category “O” doesn’t work then they need to move it because it’s a scheduled
field. He commented that he is all for using a lot more organics; however, if they don’t work they need
to have a tool to move them to the category they need to be moved into. Ms. Latham stated they had a
problem with that in the past because even though the plan said they weren’t supposed to be spraying
they were sprayed and they have no way of monitoring it. It has to be category “O/C” or category “B”;
it’s one or the other. Mr. Cockriel replied he is happy with it being “O/B” but if they only think you can
have are category “O/C” then it needs to move out of that category. Mr. Cockriel asked Ms. Latham if
she is saying they should be using organics on the category “B” fields. Ms. Latham replied category
“O/B” is an oxymoron, it’s either category “O/C” or category “B’ to which Mr. Cockriel replied that is
not his opinion.
Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that in response to Member Jones comment what has happened is
they have tried to address the increased need for the green space but, unfortunately, they’ve had to
convert them into more athletic space and that is why they have gone from what used to be category five
to category four. He asked Member Jones if her point is that as a result of that if we move them from a
non-scheduled field to a section four multi-use scheduled field that they should stay the same in the plan
and not apply any pesticides but we should take the lead and let it go to weeds. Member Jones
responded yes, most of them are neighborhood parks, and the space around them is small and they are
not heavily used.
Member Deeds indicated that it seems they are working from an outdated list of what is now scheduled
and not scheduled and where the usage is intensive. He asked Mr. MacHolda if he could work through
this list and make recommendations based on what is heavily used in terms of scheduled athletics so that
they are current and can begin to see where they are at because there seems to be some disagreement on
the fundamental facts. Therefore, the question is what is being scheduled and what will be needed over
the next five years in terms of intense used scheduled athletic fields. He stated he thinks they need that
as a base to make any rational decision and added that he agrees they need to use less chemicals but they
also need fields where young people can run around. Member Jones commented that she agrees and
would like that to be their next step but would also like to include the parks that have fields as well as a
lot of open space where they could not spray in the non-athletic areas of those parks. Member Lough
indicated that he agrees but would also like to return to the point of the task force seeking middle ground
which he thinks is apparent in the documentation. He pointed out that he listed about eight issues on a
field by field basis that he thinks they are going to end up being healthy or toxic. He commented that
they don’t seem to have much information within the document about the toxicity of so called chemicals
or organics, what are we going to be using on these fields. Ms. Latham suggested to Member Lough to
Google 2-4-D where there is a lot of information pertaining to this.
5
Member Lough stated that he also thinks they are wrestling with aesthetics for the community and it’s
really a point of view or belief system about what we as a community should be doing. Once they come
to some conclusion then one way or the other they need an education program which he doesn’t think
comes down to a little bit of signage. Ms. Latham responded that the EEC does have an education and
outreach group that are fully prepared to undertake an education, that would certainly be a part of it.
Ms. Latham suggested they give Mr. MacHolda an opportunity to update the list. Mr. MacHolda replied
that section four with the addition of the parks mentioned Normandale, Strachauer and Walnut Ridge is
complete. He stated what is incomplete is the number of baseball fields versus soccer fields which he is
currently working on for a facility inventory and will pass that information on to the EEC.
Member Deeds asked Mr. Cockriel if it would be possible to separate out between organic use and
where control is needed. For example, if there is a large park with a baseball field in one corner you
could go organic on two-thirds or three-fourths and treat the dandelions in the field. He asked if that
could be done in a number of the parks which in some ways solves the issue of lessening the use of
chemicals while still maintaining playability where it is needed. Mr. Cockriel replied he thinks it is. He
noted that he doesn’t see any reason why they couldn’t take Rosland Park and spray it all with organics,
being that it’s under control right now, and if it reaches to that 25% switch to category “B” and start
using inorganic again. Member Deeds asked if they could draw a boundary at Rosland Park and split it
on areas where they are playing and where they are not. He commented that they would be getting a
little finer grain in detail about where they need it. Ms. Latham stated that she thinks that is a great idea,
you want the public to know where you are spraying; however, if he feels they are heavily used and need
to be sprayed then be needs to be honest and put down a category “B” because that is what it’s going to
wind up with. She indicated use the organic on the less heavily used areas and the plan would clearly
state categories “A” and “B” designations apply just to the heavily used scheduled playing area. Mr.
Cockriel added that every time they spray they do post it so the public is aware.
Member Jones asked if they could possibly use the GIS mapping for the plan because it would be nice to
know what is being sprayed and what is not. She noted they could have a color coded map that they
could post once it’s decided to which Ms. Latham responded that she thinks that would be a question of
allocating the staff time to do it. Mr. Keprios indicated that he believes they can do a better job of
updating the plan on where the sites are that are sprayed and sites that are not without having to go the
fine laborious expensive detail of a GIS map. He stated that he doesn’t think you need that level of
detail to get to the philosophical question that you are going to wrestle with do you want weeds or do
you not want weeds. He commented that they have been here before and it’s been their experience that
at the end of the day when they got into it they found that the City Council and a lot of residents didn’t
like what the parks started to look like. Mr. Keprios stated that staff is very open and will do whatever it
is you want. He indicated it is a very difficult issue but you need to know there is an overwhelming
majority that does not like weeds. Ms. Latham replied that she thinks there is a lot more emphasis on the
environment these days and the attitudes you were faced with ten years ago have changed and there is
greater awareness of the dangers of chemicals; therefore she doesn’t think there would be as much
difficulty as before when following such a plan.
Member Fronek stated to Mr. Cockriel’s point if they can identify some of the categories “A” and “B”
maybe spraying organics around those might help so that those category “B” areas can be maintained
category “B” areas but yet you are getting a greater area of weed control. He noted he thinks that is
something to consider.
Chair Hulbert indicated that he thinks the Park Board will wait for an updated list on the parks and what
they want to designate as categories “A” and “B” and try to come up with a middle ground. Ms.
Latham replied that she will work with staff to update the field categories, bring the changes back to the
6
EEC for further review and also plans to discuss the current plan at the upcoming City Council/EEC
Work Session.
VI.B. Donations Policy and Naming of Parks and Facilities Policy Working Group and User Fees
Workings Group
Member Jones made a motion, seconded by Member Segreto to approve that the following people
be on the “Donations Policy and Naming of Parks and Facilities Policy Working Group”: David
Mesenbourg, Bob Kojetin, Tom Gump, Andy Otness, Rick Ites, Ray Gieske.
Ayes: Fronek, Jacobson, Peterson, Hulbert, Segreto, Lough, Jones, Deeds, Meyer
Motion Carried.
Member Jones made a motion, seconded by Member Segreto to approve that the following people
be on the “User Fees Working Group”: Susan Lee, John Connelly, Bob Kojetin, Tom Gump,
Suzanne Kerwin, Rick Ites, Bob McGarry, Jr.
Ayes: Fronek, Jacobson, Peterson, Hulbert, Segreto, Lough, Jones, Deeds, Meyer
Motion Carried.
Member Jones made a motion, seconded by Member Peterson to approve the following mission
statement for the “Donations Policy and Naming of Parks and Facilities Working Group”: “to
recommend to the Park Board to then advise City Council on naming and renaming policy for the
City of Edina parks and facilities and to recommend to the Park Board to send to the City Council
to revise the donations policy for gifts to the city”.
Member Fronek noted that he would recommend that the group adopt its own mission statement to
which Ms. Jones explained that she thinks it’s much easier to start a working group when you have a
mission statement and you don’t need to talk about it.
Ayes: Fronek, Jacobson, Peterson, Hulbert, Segreto, Lough, Jones, Deeds, Meyer
Motion Carried.
Member Lough made a motion, seconded by Member Peterson to approve the following mission
statement for the “User Fees Working Group”, “To review the relationship of the City with
residents, athletic associations and other user groups in terms of facility usage and provide a
recommendation to the Park Board based on a cost analysis”.
Ayes: Fronek, Jacobson, Peterson, Hulbert, Segreto, Lough, Jones, Deeds, Meyer
Motion Carried.
VI.C. Artist Finalist for Veterans Memorial Sculpture
Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that with the help of the Edina Art Center and the Edina Public Art
Committee the Veteran’s Memorial Committee has narrowed down a field of artists who submitted
proposals in response to the request for proposal. He noted that after interviewing the finalists it was
decided to hire Robert Eccleston from Lake Placid, New York. He indicated that included in the packet
are some of the concepts and ideas and added that at their last meeting the Veterans Committee voted to
go with an “eagle” as the focal point. He stated that he thinks at this point in the process they would like
the Park Board to approve their choice and if you do they would enter into a contract. He explained that
it would be a two phase contract. Phase one would be to approve a $3,800 contract they would have him
design a maquette, which will help in the fundraising effort. The second phase would be to enter into a
contract and what they would charge to do the larger scale model. Mr. Keprios noted that the entire
$3,800 would be funded through donations raised by the Veterans Memorial Committee.
Member Peterson moved, seconded by Member Deeds to approve the recommendation to hire
Robert Eccleston as the artist of choice for the Edina Veterans Memorial.
Ayes: Fronek, Jacobson, Peterson, Hulbert, Segreto, Lough, Jones, Deeds, Meyer
7
Motion Carried.
Member Jones asked Mr. Keprios to explain what the public process will be before the plan is finalized.
Mr. Keprios explained that they first need to have a design and an actual specific location to show the
neighborhood before they can enter into a public process. Once a design is proposed by the committee it
will come to the Park Board for your acceptance and once that is accepted they will hold an open house.
The neighborhood will be invited to an open house to ask questions as well as meet the committee and
architect and then there will be a public hearing at the City Council meeting. Member Jones asked if she
is hearing correctly that the Park Board will not be involved in creating the design that will be shown to
the public. Mr. Keprios replied the Park Board will be very much involved because the Park Board will
have to vote to accept or not accept the design that the committee is going to propose to you. Member
Jones stated that she thinks the committee has done a fine job so far but she is concerned about the
ability for other people to state their opinions on what is going on. Mr. Keprios replied that the
Veteran’s Committee meetings have always been posted and are open to the public. He also added that
on more than one occasion he has asked the Park Board if any members were interested in serving as a
liaison on the committee. He commented that the Park Board as well as the public is still welcome to
attend any Veterans committee meetings. Member Jones stated she knows that and that is not her point,
she just wants to know if the public will get a chance to weigh in on some alternatives instead of just
saying here is the plan, you are either going to like it or not. Mr. Keprios pointed out that he thinks the
approach the committee would like to take is to leave it a little open and say how you like the plan, is
there anything different you would like to see and if so they will go back and come up with something
different. He commented that he thinks if you show it to the greater community and ask them to design
it is just isn’t feasible if that is what is being suggested. Member Jones replied that in the one meeting
she attended there were three alternative sites and she thinks the people in the neighborhood might feel
as if they would prefer to say okay this feels right to me and thinks they would appreciate that type of
involvement.
Member Jones pointed out she just wants to reiterate that whatever they design to be sure the Veterans
Memorial have either low or no maintenance to which Mr. Keprios replied that has been discussed
frequently at their meetings. He noted that one of the architects duties is to come up with a maintenance
plan and show what it will cost to maintain it on both a short and long term as well as what kind of
longevity it will have.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
Chair Hulbert indicated that they have received 11 letters from residents around Countryside Park that
are lamenting their loss of their ice rink the last couple of winters. He noted that it’s his understanding
there are 12 parks with rinks and if they were to add another one they would need to add another staff
person to maintain it. He suggested that since the rink is so close to the Fire Station they could use a fire
hose and hire a part-time person and add that to their budget discussion for the upcoming year. Mr.
Keprios explained it isn’t just a matter of flooding the rink; they need to have a warming house
attendant, heat the building and maintain safe conditions. It’s something where they need to have
professional maintenance staff that are trained and know what they are doing. Mr. Keprios indicated
that earlier when they went through the Capital Improvement Plan he mentioned they need a master plan
at Countryside Park and if they were to open up a hockey rink and general skating area they would need
to add another staff person. He noted they have been short a person since 2002. Mr. Cockriel pointed
out what is involved and went through everything that needs to be taken into account in maintaining a
hockey rink.
Mr. Keprios asked Mr. Cockriel if the lights are functional at Countryside Park and if so would he be
open to just having a general rink scenario there. Mr. Cockriel replied maybe, they have not done
anything to maintain those rinks in the last six to eight years. He noted there may be a little cost savings
but nothing significant by just having a pleasure rink.
8
Mr. Keprios stated that the Park Board could make a recommendation to the City Council that you
would like them to consider that as part of their budget process. Member Deeds indicated that he thinks
the situation is there are limited resources available and you have to extend them where you get the most
for your money and therefore would suggest they don’t make any changes. Mr. Cockriel pointed out
that to put the boards back in at Countryside Park it would cost approximately $24,000 as well as
approximately $40,000 for the lighting package.
Member Fronek stated that if they end up using money from the Waters Project then he thinks it is
worthwhile looking into it now because it may be coming down the road. Chair Hulbert asked how the
process is coming along with the Waters Project to which Mr. Keprios responded that right now they are
waiting for the developer to come in, get the permit and pay the fee.
Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that at the last budget work session with the City Council and staff
it was his recommendation for 2013 to reinstate the vacant Park Maintenance position, assuming the
Waters Development is going through and assuming they are going to complete the master plan. He
stated due to the fact there are no dollars available at this point in time it was taken off the list and that
right now they are not in support of an additional staff person. He commented that maybe the Park
Board and City Council will need to have a dialog about it. He pointed out they are another year out
from the City Council making that decision; however, it is something they need to be thinking about.
VIII. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Member Lough informed the Park Board that last week at the “Community Education Services
Committee” meeting Ric Dressen, Edina School Superintendent, attended their meeting to talk about the
school referendum that is coming up. He noted that Mr. Dressen is offering to personally meet with
small groups within the community to explain in detail why they are asking for the money and what it
will be used for. Therefore, if you have a neighborhood group or know of people who are concerned
about the school referendum you should contact Mr. Dressen.
Member Lough informed the Park Board that the position of Manager at the Edina Resource Center has
been filled. He pointed out that the Edina Resource Center is funded 1/3 by the City of Edina and 2/3 by
the Edina School District. He indicated that they have a great website and is very helpful to everyone
whether you are new to the community or have lived in Edina for a long time.
Member Jones informed the Park Board that the new Assistant City Manager is creating a template for
all of the boards and commissions regarding the by-laws and they should be getting that at some point.
IX. STAFF COMMENTS
IX.A. Sports Dome Study Working Group Update
Ann Kattreh, Edinborough Park Manager, informed the Park Board that they will be having their third
meeting this Thursday and that they are still in the process of trying to wrap their arms around the task
that the group has been given. She noted that they are really close to pinning down a mission statement
in terms of not only what are they going to achieve but how are they going to be able to achieve that
goal. She explained that essentially in a nutshell they are breaking down the task into different phases or
segments. She indicated that the first is a facility inventory which will include inventory of recreational
and athletic facilities that are owned by the City of Edina and the Edina Public Schools. She indicated
they are also going to inventory private facilities within the City of Edina and the real surrounding areas
as well as an inventory of domes and other facilities that the associations are currently using. She
commented at that point they are also going to be working on a needs and desires study which will
include a survey of associations and anybody that might be interested in utilizing an indoor athletic
facility. She noted that they are going to be doing a feasibility study which likely will involve hiring a
consultant to which they’ve already begun work on a request for proposal. She stated at that point they
9
will be taking that information to the City Council and gauging their interest in possibly looking at a
location for an indoor facility.
IX.B. Edinborough Park Study
Susie Miller, Assistant Manager of Edinborough Park, informed the Park Board she met with Jeff King,
the expert in the area of looking at community centers, where they went and toured a couple of different
facilities. She indicated that she also met with the architects and at that time gave them the history of
Edinborough, its construction, the purpose behind it, financial reports, copies of the survey they did,
their business plan as well as a lot of other statistical information. She stated that they took that
information and requested a few other things. She noted that last week they met with Richards Johns,
Edinborough’s Building Operations Supervisor, where she went through and looked at all of their
equipment and what they’ve recently replaced. Ms. Miller added that luckily they have replaced most of
their major pieces in the past few years so hopefully there will be a good report on that. She indicated
that now they are looking at all of the data and are compiling information and they will be meeting again
the week of October 3rd.
Mr. Keprios thanked the Park Board members who attended the presentation that Richard Singer from
National Golf Foundation gave at the joint work session with the City Council.
There being no further business on the Park Board Agenda, Chair Hulbert declared the meeting
adjourned at 9:07 pm.