Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-03-12 Park Board Minutes1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PARK BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL March 12, 2013 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Steel called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm. II. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were Members Deeds, Hulbert, Kathryn Peterson, Cella, Steel, Segreto, Gieseke, Jacobson, Jones, Dan Peterson III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Member Dan Peterson made a motion, seconded by Member Deeds, approving the meeting agenda. Ayes: Members Deeds, Hulbert, Kathryn Peterson, Cella, Steel, Segreto, Gieseke, Jacobson, Jones, Dan Peterson Motion Carried IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA Member Dan Peterson made a motion, seconded by Member Deeds, approving the consent agenda as follows: IV.A. Approval of Minutes – Regular Park Board Meeting of Tuesday, February 12, 2013 Ayes: Members Deeds, Hulbert, Kathryn Peterson, Cella, Steel, Segreto, Gieseke, Jacobson, Jones, Dan Peterson Motion Carried V. COMMUNITY COMMENT None VI. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS VI.A. Yorktown Park Pilot Community Garden Public Hearing Ms. Faus gave a power point presentation on the Yorktown Park Pilot Community Garden and gave the history of how they got to where they are today. Member Gieseke asked if they are going to be able to pick a first, second and third choice for a particular spot to which Ms. Faus replied yes, she believes on the application is asks for a first, second and third choice. Member Hulbert asked when the Farmer’s Market begins at Centennial Lakes because he thinks they could probably market it there as well. Ms. Faus replied they will be getting the word out at all of their enterprise facilities and anywhere else they are able to get the word out. Member Segreto commented at the last meeting they talked about a number of parking spaces that would be reserved for the gardeners and asked how many spaces have been allocated for it. Ms. Faus replied that hasn’t been determined yet if they are moving ahead with the parking lot and is something they will need to work out with the YMCA. 2 Member Segreto indicated when she read the rules and regulations she noticed there is no enforcement provision saying something such as if you don’t abide by these rules and regulations you will lose your rights. She stated that it alludes to it but doesn’t come out and say it. Ms. Faus replied it does allude to it; however, they will also be going through all of the rules and policies and make sure people understand what the expectations are for them when they are using the garden. Ms. Faus asked Member Segreto if she would like to see stronger, more specific language to which Member Segreto replied yes. Member Hulbert commented that on points four, six and seven regarding parcel priority they could strike the first sentence in number four and say returning Edina residents are given first priority. Number six could list the different priorities and number seven could be taken out. Ms. Faus replied they can certainly make those changes. Member Kathryn Peterson asked regarding costs have they broken down what is considered a one- time implementation such as the fence versus costs that will be recurring on an annual yearly basis. Ms. Faus replied they did a little research on other cities and it was hard to find what the actual costs were because once the garden is built the only real costs will be water and labor for tilling the different plots which will be done through Edina City staff. She added they have some information from Bloomington and Plymouth that it will be approximately $2,000 to $2,300 at the most. Member Jones asked regarding the maintenance operating costs the time that it takes for the water truck to come and the time it’s going to take to mow the paths is going to be additional time to just mowing the park and asked if the costs have been figure out for staff’s time to administer all of this. Ms. Kattreh replied she doesn’t know if it will happen in the first year or not, it depends on how the budget plays out, but they hope to have the inside walkways mulched so it won’t be a mowing issue long-term. She stated as far as the time to fill the water container they honestly have no idea what those costs are going to be because they don’t know how quickly they are going to go through it and therefore it’s going to be very difficult for them to plan the first year. She explained in conversations with the Public Works Director the way that they view those costs are an internal transfer so they will not be charged directly for those costs either from a staffing perspective or for the water itself. However, that is not to say that a staff person isn’t going to be taken off another job so there are certainly going to be some indirect costs to the city but it won’t be a line item budget transfer. Member Dan Peterson commented he understands there will be no raised beds at this time. Ms. Faus replied because it is a pilot project and this is their first year they decided to wait and see what the demand is and if there are a lot of requests that may be something they could add next year. Member Dan Peterson asked with that in mind do the other cities you’ve looked at generally have three foot separations for walking to which Ms. Faus replied yes, they do that to make sure if anyone is using a wheelbarrow there is enough space in between to walk through. Ms. Kattreh added they would really like to have those raised beds be an Eagle Scout project and they hope to be able to do that next year. Member Jones asked how successful have other communities been with the chain link fence for keeping bunnies out. Ms. Faus replied she doesn’t know how successful the fences are at keeping all animals out but she does know that other community gardens do have some type of fencing and assumes it helps to keep them out. Member Jones asked Ms. Faus to ask the master gardener if this is a plan that would keep out the most common problem, which she assumes would be bunnies. Ms. Faus replied a small animal will probably be able to get in; however, another reason for the fence is to make sure the gardens are looking nice because if they don’t gardeners will be putting up their own type of fencing and they want to avoid that. 3 Chair Steel had each Park Board member share their comments. Member Jones indicated she is a little frustrated because she supports getting a community garden in Edina but she will not support the proposal as it’s presented to them. She stated the proposal to pave over parkland and allow parking for an adjacent property owner goes against the goals and policies of the Edina Parks & Recreation Department as stated in the Comprehensive Plan to retain, maintain and protect and preserve all park and open space property currently owned by the City of Edina. She stated the City has no compelling reason to pave over this parkland and has no compelling reason to act so quickly right now. She noted there are many unanswered questions that should be thoroughly vetted before taking an action of this kind. She added this department is about to embark on a strategic plan that could easily give guidance on many of these questions if this project were included in the scope of the strategic plan. She pointed out when the Community Garden was originally brought to her attention at a meeting held by the Do.Town staff at the YMCA in December she was told that the YMCA would provide parking at the lower back for this project. The statement was again stated at the January Park Board meeting. She indicated she became part of the community garden work group and supported the project with the understanding that parking would be provided at the YMCA lot. She stressed that the work group did not select the site of Yorktown Park and asked is this the best site for a pilot community garden because a pilot project should not require the sacrifice of a large part of a park to create a parking lot for a private entity next door. She indicated at the last community garden work group meeting they voted unanimously not to support the paving of the park for the parking lot. She pointed out there are other parks that could support a community garden and perhaps Lake Edina Park would be a better site as it has parking, sun, irrigation could be pulled from Fred Richards Golf Course and a potential new path is already being planned running next to it. She knows that this park is going to be part of the strategic planning process. Member Jones added there are other questions such as where is this money going to be coming from in order to support and maintain this park, what programs will we forego in order to build and maintain a community garden or what other park maintenance projects will be delayed. She stated they are minimizing the cost of this because they don’t know and she actually is kind of glad that they are trying to get a community garden in at any cost; however, they should know a little bit more before they start putting capital into this and they should really study the site and make sure that this is the best site. She commented that other uses for this park have been suggested but not studied; therefore, they don’t know how much parking is required for some of these other items that have been mentioned as potential uses for that park. She added that traffic in that area is high right now and bringing in other purposes in that area right there right now seems as if it might be misguided. Member Jones pointed out her other concern is where is the base of supporters, she knows that in all of the reading that she has done on community gardens that successful community gardens have a base of supporters that will be there and she is reluctant to say they have an overwhelming urge by this community to put in a community garden at this time. She would love to see a community garden in Edina but she doesn’t like paving over that park and she doesn’t think that they need to be doing that right now particularly when they are having a strategic plan. Member Segreto indicated that she is always sensitive to losing open space; however, she has gotten more comfortable with some of the discussion they had at their last meeting regarding how the park is really very underutilized. She commented from the standpoint of making this park become useable, whether it is the garden or athletic fields, without parking no one is using the park except for people who are arriving to the park by foot or by bike. She stated she will vote in favor of the community garden because she has gotten more comfortable about paving some of it to make the park more accessible primarily because it’s really just a flat piece of land and she doesn’t think traffic will be impacted by this significantly. She will vote in favor of the proposal. 4 Member Cella noted that her comments echo the comments just made that given that this park doesn’t have a parking lot and there is no way for people to utilize it unless they arrive by bike or foot. She stated to even be able to have a strategic plan for the park they need to provide parking. She indicated she doesn’t like to pave over parkland but when you have a park with no parking sometimes that is what they have to do. Member Kathryn Peterson asked if there might be some middle ground where they could have a reduced version of the parking lot which would allow the garden area to be moved over and the field could be used for other activities like soccer. She noted that it’s hard to tell because they are not looking at the entire map but maybe that is something that should at least be explored and see if there might be a way to have a small parking area, garden and field to use if they determine that is appropriate for the park. Member Hulbert indicated he doesn’t think anyone wants to pave over parkland but he cannot think of any real park amenities that don’t require parking. He noted he has been to that park many times and he wouldn’t classify that park as the most attractive parkland we have; it’s in a really high traffic area and it’s not anywhere you would go to have a picnic. He stated that he views it as a great opportunity, the YMCA wants to step up and pay for the parking and we are putting in an amenity that lot of residents have been wanting for a number of years. He is in favor of the project. Member Deeds noted that he supports the project, it’s a win/win with the YMCA providing them a little more parking and at the same time the City gets additional parking that is needed for the park. To him it makes too much sense so he supports the plan. In addition, he trusts the negotiations that have gone on and the YMCA has said these are the number of spaces they need to make this happen. He commented that he thinks overall they are not encroaching badly into the park and they are hoping to provide more opportunities and Edina gets a community garden in. This has his support. Member Dan Peterson indicated this has his support. Member Segreto asked Ms. Kattreh if they do not go forward with the parking proposal would it still be possible to go forward with the garden. Ms. Kattreh replied she thinks they would go forward with the garden but it would be her recommendation that they leave space where they could add a parking lot at a future date. She stated they would need the YMCA to allow use of their parking lot to our users and added it wouldn’t be convenient for them because there is a little bit of a slope up from the YMCA parking lot up to the grassy area but it might be feasible. Chair Steel noted that she supports this proposal and commends staff for working on a tight deadline and really thoroughly thinking this through and giving a great presentation. She stated it is a pilot project and they will learn from it but she thinks they have done everything they can to adequately prepare and look at other cities experiences. She indicated regarding the parking lot she also supports that because she thinks whether or not the community garden is successful it provides opportunities in the future and this funding opportunity will not be present in the future. Member Kathryn Peterson commented by quick count it appears there are approximately 40 some spots in the parking lot. Ms. Kattreh replied there are approximately 40 spots; however, the YMCA is also losing 13 to 14 spots because of the lot line so it’s a net gain of about 29 spots. Member Gieseke asked when the busiest time is for the YMCA when those parking spaces might be fully utilized and not really available for the city use. Member Kattreh replied the busiest time for the 5 YMCA is during the winter months and that during the summer months the back lot of the YMCA is utilized for buses for their camps and programs. Member Jacobson commented she agrees with having a pilot community garden and maybe not putting in the parking lot the first year because they may learn vital things about where you really need a parking lot after you’ve done it for a year. She noted maybe you need your gardens to be twice the size that they are and the parking lot you put down the first year might not fit it the way you need it the next year. She asked is there any potential for waiting for the parking lot for the second year when they know better what the gardens are going to be like and how they are going to be used. Ms. Kattreh replied it’s certainly a possibility. Member Jones stated the work group also felt this is a pilot project and we don’t know how many people are going to want garden plots; we don’t know how it’s going to work and therefore felt for a pilot program they should not move ahead with any long-term parking lot. She noted she thinks they were willing to say if the YMCA would allow them access to the park they could drive and park on the field close to the park. That was the plan that the work group felt comfortable with to just park on the grounds while they are reviewing this and trying to figure out if they want garden plots or not. She indicated that would be the first solution, how much space we need and if it is really popular we may need more than ten spots. She added the rule of thumb she has been hearing is it’s somewhere between 6 and 10 spots, it’s certainly not 29 spots and is certainly not saying they need them this year, they just need access to it. Member Jones pointed out that she also thinks this is setting a precedent that she is concerned about. She commented that she knows people are saying this is not a very attractive park but, honestly, this area is getting more concentrated with people and that’s a good thing they have a park there. She added she received an email today from someone asking if they could look at putting in a basketball court at that park and/or a badminton court and horseshoes. She commented this is from a man on the work group who is trying to look at other uses for the park. She stated that she realizes the park is not landscaped and it’s not very attractive but there are many uses for parks that you can walk to. She stated again that she is concerned about the precedent and is also concerned that if they move ahead with a parking lot they may realize they don’t need a parking lot for this park. Member Deeds indicated he has two concerns with not putting a parking lot in and a community garden. First, if they put the community garden in, even on a pilot project, without any parking they are not exactly being good neighbors with the YMCA because people will park at the YMCA. Second, if you open up the area where the parking lot was going to be put beginning in April it will turn into a mud pit and the YMCA users and others will use it. It will turn into a mud pit very rapidly with the kind of soil and terrain that is there and with the amount of water they are likely to get he doesn’t think it makes sense. He stated they need to commit to doing both. He commented it’s not an experiment with community gardens because community gardens are everywhere and they succeed and people use them. There will be demand if there are parking spaces and if they have a marketing problem the first year it will be solved the second. He stated approve it as a package or vote it down as a package because it doesn’t make sense to go to the hassle and headache of putting up a community garden spot without any way to really utilize it. Member Segreto, Chair Steel and Member Jacobson all agreed. Chair Steel added that if the parking is being underutilized that is a challenge for them that can be solved because there are other programming alternatives and there is grassy space. VI.B. Strategic Planning Information and Discussion Ms. Kattreh gave a power point presentation on the Strategic Planning process. She explained there are a variety of topics that Chair Steel had expressed an interest in as well as other topics she thought 6 the Park Board might be interested in. Ms. Kattreh went through the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges. Member Deeds asked if one of their weaknesses is that they don’t really have a large central community center because when you look at surrounding communities, especially the ones that are a generation after us, they usually have a central community center that include a lot of concentrated facilities. Ms. Kattreh responded that may be a weakness and explained the concept that Edina has had is instead of having one main community center their amenities are at facilities which are spread out over Edina for better or worse. She noted it may not be the most feasible to accommodate a community center; however, that is definitely an amenity that they are missing in Edina that a lot of comparable cities have. Member Deeds asked Ms. Kattreh how Edina stacks up against other communities such as Wayzata, Minnetonka, Maple Grove, etc., in terms of our parks and recreation amenities. Ms. Kattreh replied those are some of their biggest competitors in the area and she thinks Edina has a really great park system and is very excited about the opportunity to work on the strategic plan this year. She indicated that she feels they’ve done a good job working on the individual parks; however, she doesn’t think they ever looked at their parks as a system and how they work together. She stated she is excited to really leverage the amenities and talk about how they are able to travel between the different parks; their commuter patterns, walking trails and bike trails. She commented that has never been considered before and those are some of the things that she would consider the more “premier” park systems have done. She added another thing the strategic plan will do is give them the ability to prioritize. She noted they have talked about in the past how they are constantly putting out fires and feel they are more reactive than proactive and this will give them the ability to be a little bit proactive in planning strategically. Chair Steel commented it’s interesting to read the vision and the mission statement and reflect on the challenges and opportunities and how they align with these different areas. She commented that they don’t talk about these things very often in Park Board meetings; therefore, as part of the strategic planning process they need to look at their vision and mission and everything needs to focus towards those points. Member Segreto asked how dated is the mission and vision statement to which Ms. Kattreh replied she is not sure but when going through the materials she did see that it was updated in 2008. Member Segreto indicated that it seems a little dated to her; for example, regarding the mission, it’s clear that they have a big task in front of them in terms of maintaining, repairing and replacing a lot of the infrastructure and that really should be their mission. She commented although it’s sort of gritty and not as high-minded as fostering new development and promoting health and wellness they do need to maintain, repair and replace what they have; otherwise they will not have much to offer. Member Segreto indicated the other thing that struck here in the vision statement is how they refer to people who use the parks as “customers”. She noted that it seems like out in the market place they’ve gone from customers to clients but nowhere in this vision statement do we talk about the residents of the City of Edina and she feels one of their highest goals should be to serve their community and residents, not necessarily their customers. Member Jacobson noted that she had the same thought and if they need to try that hard to try to appeal to customers then maybe they are doing something wrong. Because we have such amenities that they just want to enjoy the parks and the facilities so they’ve got her thinking about those enterprise facilities and is that really a park or not and she still doesn’t know the answer. 7 Member Dan Peterson asked Ms. Kattreh, with respect to the presentation, to explain “nature based play”. Secondly, he had the impression that the Art Center had their board and the Parks Department had nothing to do with them, is that correct. Ms. Kattreh replied that is correct; however, the Art Center Board is currently in the process of making a change. The Art Center Board is going to be changing to the “Arts and Culture Commission” and they are looking at really broadening the scope to include public art and all different types of art in Edina. She responded in regards to the “nature based play” question there are some really cool new types of play equipment and play amenities that are much more nature based and she feels they would be really interesting components to include in some of their parks. She added they are more educational, more real life and are being done by all of the main playground manufacturers; it’s more of a realistic and educational nature experience but it does incorporate physical activity as well. Member Segreto asked regarding nature programming would the Parks Department team up with Community Education to offer more nature programming. She explained she has already begun some preliminary discussions with Community Education because she feels so strongly about it and would like to be a part of it and help. Ms. Kattreh replied they definitely want to work on their partnership with Community Education in that way and would also like to forge a relationship with the Three Rivers Park District and see if they can get them into their parks to offer some programming as well. Member Cella noted that she too was struck when reading the mission statement; the one sentence seems to capture what she would think as their mission statement but then it goes on to say the primary mission is followed by nine different things. She stated they are lovely but they are sort of broad philosophical feel good kind of things that any entity could say they were responsible for. She commented that it doesn’t really seem tailored except for a couple of them; producing natural resources and providing opportunities for recreational experiences. She indicated she feels a lot of them are really good things; however, she thinks some of them are primarily the job of other entities. The Parks & Recreation Department needs to focus on what it is that is their primary and most central goal; therefore, as part of the strategic planning she would like to be able to take the opportunity to rethink how they list those. Member Deeds informed the Park Board that the goal of a good mission or vision is to guide decision making during uncertainty, it’s to guide people to refer to, what is it we are trying to achieve. In this situation it’s what we do and where we spend the resources, etc., it’s worthless if it doesn’t guide decision making. He indicated where it states “We create community through people, parks and programs” maybe; however, the second one is all over the place. It’s vague and it’s a grab bag of everything and to be honest they are better off eliminating that one and keeping the paragraph above. Member Deeds indicated that he thinks the place to start is to really think through what it is that this department, this set of operations is trying to achieve for the city and for its citizens. He indicated that to be honest he is not sure that is something that a consulting firm can particularly tell them. Chair Steel stated they have to come up with at least their mission statement, the department itself. She noted that all of the points are more of the strategic issues and thinks they first have to agree on one sentence stating what they are about. She indicated that she thinks it’s the strategic issues where the consultant comes in and you start to dig into the details and in the meantime they need to come up with a statement about what their mission is. Member Segreto asked how they get this done. Chair Steel replied right now this is a discussion item and she has been talking with Ms. Kattreh about how to go about this and she would definitely like Park Board’s feedback. She indicated that she would like to work with Ms. Kattreh and come up with a list of user groups, stakeholders, partnerships and the people we serve because we need to keep that 8 in mind when we are going forward with our mission statement and have that ready for their next meeting. She explained their next step, if they are going to have a consultant, they need to start working on the RFP and they can talk about that at their next meeting; her thought is a consultant would be very valuable for a needs assessment. Chair Steel asked Ms. Kattreh if she had thoughts about how members could help with RFP. Ms. Kattreh replied it would be especially helpful if everyone looked through the three RFP examples and email her any comments, specific parts you like or don’t like or if you would like to add something or expound on anything and she will put a draft together for Park Board’s review at the next meeting. Member Deeds indicated his concern is are they doing something about the mission and vision or not because it’s a little bit like painting before they get the whole thing scraped down if they go out for an RFP. He stated the problem is they don’t know what they are asking for until they know what it is they are trying to achieve to some degree. Member Deeds informed the Park Board that through his experience if you are trying to craft a mission and a vision statement with more than three or four people in the room is a nightmare, small groups do a better job and then receive feedback from the larger group for this kind of thing. He noted the question in reviewing the mission and vision is are we just accepting the vision and mission as it stands and moving on from there. Chair Steel replied she thinks they need to take a look at that and suggested they focus their work next time on reviewing the mission and vision and that she will talk with Ms. Kattreh and look for updated terminology, etc. She noted in the meantime she would like for Park Board to submit their comments about the RFP, mission statement, vision statement and needs assessment. She stated they can start a discussion about the RFP next time about the components they like and don’t like. Member Jones asked what they feel the biggest needs would be in terms of benefits to a strategic plan because they have all spoken about their cautiousness from sending anything out to a consultant if we don’t have a really clear idea of what the questions are we want to ask. She indicated she would also like to hear staff’s recommendation for what they would really like and how they would like this money spent because it isn’t just Park Board’s ideas of what we think the Parks Department needs. She indicated staff has been dealing with the numbers and know what’s been going on and may have some other concept of what the needs are. Ms. Kattreh replied she thinks there are a lot of components that would be very helpful to them in a strategic plan but again she would probably reiterate what she stated a few minutes ago about looking at the entire park system as one kind of living and breathing entity instead of looking at each individual park and try to figure out what we are doing well at individual parks, what we are not doing well at individual parks, what we may be duplicating in services in areas really close to another facility or park, current trends, we really haven’t done a lot of updates in our parks and she thinks it is really important that we look at everything from how we travel between parks and neighborhoods and schools to way finding. She commented that they don’t do a lot of signage and feels all of their parks signage needs to be updated. She stated in really looking at the whole system and how it operates, where we are best utilizing our resources and part of this plan could also be a consultant putting dollar amounts to these potential improvements. Member Cella indicated that she thinks Member Deeds had a good point if they are really thinking they want to look at the mission statement and revise it if they all just send in suggestions by email that isn’t going to get the job done. That is really the work of a smaller group that sits down for a concentrated amount of time and really plays with the language and the ideas and figures out how to say it in the fewest possible words with the most possible meaning. Member Segreto noted that sounds like a work group to which Chair Steel then asked if any members who would be willing to work on this before the next meeting. Members Segreto, Cella, Deeds and Steel all agreed they would do it. In 9 addition, Ms. Kattreh will also help. Member Deeds asked Ms. Kattreh is she could pull together mission statements from some of the exemplars of parks departments around the country. VI.C. Election of New Officers Member Hulbert made a motion, seconded by Member Segreto, to nominate Keeya Steel as Chair of the Park Board. Ayes: Members Deeds, Hulbert, Kathryn Peterson, Cella, Steel, Segreto, Gieseke, Jacobson, Jones, Dan Peterson Motion Carried Member Kathryn Peterson made a motion, seconded by Member Steel, to nominate Ellen Jones as Vice Chair of the Park Board. Ayes: Members Deeds, Hulbert, Kathryn Peterson, Cella, Steel, Segreto, Gieseke, Jacobson, Jones, Dan Peterson Motion Carried VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS VII.A. Council Updates Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board at the February 19 work session the City Council and Art Center Board decided to change to the “Arts and Culture Commission”. She noted they are currently drafting the language for the City Code and she expects that change to be taking place sometime within the next couple of months. Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board at the February 19 City Council meeting John Gunyeau, Chair of the Three Rivers Park District, gave a brief presentation and talked about the Nine Mile Regional Trail and noted he has an interest in working with the City Council on trying to get that project moved along as quickly as possible. Member Deeds asked Ms. Kattreh if she could put on a future agenda a review of the Nine Mile trail and where it is going to run through Edina and which parks it’s going to tie up, etc., because it would be a good thing to know as they are trying to tie the whole system together. This could be the backbone of putting it together. Ms. Kattreh replied she will do that. Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board at the March 5 City Council meeting the Parks & Recreation Department’s Turf Management Plan was approved. This was something that was actually done last year but because of staffing changes it never received City Council approval. Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board that the City Council waived the building permit fees for Countryside Park which is a savings of almost $10,000. VIII. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Chair Steel informed the Park Board there are still a few members who have not filled out the survey and asked for those who have not already done so to please do it soon. She indicated she values everyone’s input and will put the information together and will share the information at their next meeting. Member Segreto commented she thinks they should do this every year. Member Dan Peterson asked if any park system has a naturalist on staff, someone tying in environmental affairs. Ms. Kattreh replied she doesn’t know of any local park departments that have a full-time person that specializes in that but could look into it. She stated Three Rivers Park District does and some of the larger metro parks but she does not know of any city park systems. Member Dan Peterson indicated that it seems a park naturalist would have a great deal to do with the school system in Edina with all of the senior living facilities and he could see lectures being held at Arneson Acres that 10 a lot of people would like to attend and learn how the natural world works. He noted this is something they may want to think about and it may be in conjunction with Three Rivers Park District or maybe they could hook up with Bloomington, St. Louis Park or Hopkins and have each one pay a portion for it. Member Dan Peterson informed the Park Board there was a wonderful background story in the local paper on water and water uses and asked if the City is thinking about water usage or intelligent ways to use it so the aquifers aren’t drained as quickly. Ms. Kattreh replied they are having that conversation as a City right now and are talking about a lot of environmental issues from water to the salt on the roadways during the winter months. It’s definitely a very hot button topic right now that they are taking very seriously and discussing internally. Member Hulbert passed along a “thanks” for keeping the skating rinks open for another couple of weeks; it lengthened a very short season. IX. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board she recently had a meeting with Lisa Nelson and Karen Platt, co- chairs of the Edina Garden Council Planning Committee, to discuss the potential to do a master plan and vision statement for Arneson Acres. She noted they are interested in donating $30,000 towards a consultant to develop a master plan for Arneson Acres Park. She explained the Garden Council is concerned that there are so many different clubs within the Garden Council and they all have really great ideas, plans and agendas but are concerned there isn’t an overall vision for the park. She indicated they’ve been discussing this for many years and have now potentially volunteered to donate $30,000 toward the project. Ms. Kattreh commented that she thought this was a very interesting time considering the strategic plan they are discussing. She pointed out to the Park Board that this is not on their current work plan but maybe is something they could consider for their work plan for next year if the Park Board is interested. Member Deeds indicated they should tell them yes but see if they can stall them for a year because it doesn’t make sense to do a strategic plan for one park before they can get an overall plan in place. He noted it is a very generous offer and they don’t want it to go away so can they give them a yes, but . . .? Ms. Kattreh replied she will and added she already alluded to them it could possibly be added to their work plan for 2014. Member Hulbert commented it’s such a unique park and asked how many other communities have a little arboretum like Arneson Acres to which Ms. Kattreh replied not a lot. Ms. Kattreh noted that she thinks this is really a great idea and is thrilled that the Garden Council is interested in taking this on and willing to support it because it’s going to help to protect a very unique and valuable asset. Member Gieseke asked Ms. Kattreh if she is aware of any parameters that were put in place or agreed to by the City when Mr. Arneson gifted that area to the City. Ms. Kattreh replied she thinks the City did and it is certainly something she will need to look into a little bit further. Ms. Kattreh reminded the Park Board at their last meeting they asked staff to come up with a recommendation to consider taking one or two hockey rinks and during the off season to use them as dog parks. She noted that based on discussions with staff and observations based on programming and proximity to homes the two rinks they felt worth considering are Pamela and Highlands. She asked if this is something Park Board would like to put on a future agenda. Member Segreto replied that is what they asked for and thinks they should follow through. Chair Steel agreed. Member Gieseke indicated that he would like Lewis Park added to that as well, it seems to make sense since it is not in close proximity to any homes. Member Dan Peterson asked if anyone has come with a better way to get rid of the dog refuse, he understands it is still a problem at Van Valkenburg. Ms. Kattreh replied that Ms. Faus has just become 11 in charge of the dog park. She stated from a Parks & Recreation standpoint they have been overseeing it to the level that they can; however, they are going to be working with Tim Hunter and hopefully will do a better job from both a police standpoint in monitoring the dog park and from a staff standpoint making sure they are consistent in their policies and follow through a little bit more. She pointed out she needs a little bit more history and do some research to see what they’ve tried as far as pick-up bags. She knows they used to offer dog trash bags in the park system but had a hard time keeping them because people were stealing them and that sort of thing. Member Segreto stated she thinks dog parks create a sense of community among the people who use them and noted that Tim Hunter can’t be at several dog parks patrolling, it’s well beyond the ability of the City to enforce. She indicated it needs to be enforced by the people who use the parks. Member Deeds commented they need to recruit a committee made up of users and noted he has been to dog parks that are self-enforced and if you didn’t pick up after your dog someone was going to say something to you. The question is how do you put a committee together and empower them. Member Segreto suggested if you post it at the dog park people will show up because the users of the dog park want it clean. She indicated at other dog parks she has been to they have provided utensils/shovels so that whoever is there can use it and not be searching around. Member Hulbert commented he thinks they quit putting bags out a few years ago and were spending like $15,000 a year on bags. He commented last time he checked when you go to a jungle gym they don’t provide diapers for the people who are bringing their children. Ms. Kattreh noted Member Segreto had a great idea of maybe providing some tools and more convenient trash pick-ups. Chair Steel commented she knows there are a few individuals who really do have a sense of community and are there three times a day, knows everyone’s first name and their dogs name(s) and what they have told her is there are repeat offenders and they are coming again and again. They are typically people without the license, which is a whole different issue and safety issue, but with technology maybe they can take a picture of their car license plates. Ms. Kattreh replied they could look at that. Ms. Kattreh asked the Park Board if this is something they would like to do soon or put on a work plan going forward. Member Segreto replied she doesn’t think it will take that much to launch and would like to see it done sooner rather than later. Chair Steel stated that she thinks until they run into an issue she doesn’t feel like it’s going to take a ton of time. Ms. Kattreh replied she would agree and thinks it would involve a little bit of an expense in terms of adding gates to the entrances to the hockey rinks but nothing that would be cost prohibitive for them to be able to assume in their budget this year if they were to do it at one or two parks. Member Deeds suggested take one and do a pilot to which Ms. Kattreh replied they could do that. Ms. Kattreh asked Park Board if they would like to add it to the April agenda to explore for implementation this summer to which it was noted yes. Member Hulbert asked they will need to send a public notice, correct? Ms. Kattreh replied that is correct. She pointed out they could discuss it at the next meeting and narrow it down to maybe one or two rinks and then do a public notification for the May meeting to which the Park Board agreed. Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board that next Tuesday, March 19, they will be taking the golf dome insurance proposal and construction proposal to the City Council. She indicated they received everything that they asked for from the insurance company for reimbursement so they are very happy with the way that it has worked out with Travelers Insurance. She stated having said that they are still short, they have made a couple of what they feel are critical decisions, one is to separate the dome accessory building from the dome. The other recommendation they are making is that they replace the wooden two-level driving deck with a steel/concrete driving deck so it will be secured and added she thinks it will increase revenues at the dome because people are going to feel more comfortable going up on that second level. She indicated to add those two items will cost approximately $700,000 12 which is not covered by insurance. They are going to ask City Council to support it and they have a couple of other options they are going to ask for support from the City Council. One is to provide a Teflon surface to the dome that will help snow and ice fall off the surface easier as well as last longer and will keep the whole dome looking whiter and newer longer. The other is additional insulation which will make the whole dome more energy efficient; these two additional add-ons will cost approximately $220,000. Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board she has finally struck a deal for the Aquatic Center rental. The Aqua Jets will be using the pool from 6 until 8:00 a.m. and the Edina Swim Club, with their priority, will be using the pool from 8 to 11:30 a.m. A Park Board member asked about the sports dome to which Ms. Kattreh replied that is the one project that unfortunately, with everything else they have going on, has taken a little bit of a backseat. She is hoping to have a report for the Park Board at the April meeting, May at the very latest, as to the recommendation for field use and improvements. Member Dan Peterson asked if any more money has been raised for the Veteran’s Memorial to which Ms. Kattreh replied unfortunately no; however, they are working with the committee to try to determine possibly how they can be more effective as a committee. Meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m.