Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-04-09 Park Board Minutes1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PARK BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL April 9, 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, Almog, O’Leary III. APPROVAL OF THE REVISED MEETING AGENDA Chair Steel made a motion, seconded by Member Cella, to add the Mission Statement under Reports and Recommendations and approve the meeting agenda. Ayes: Members Deeds, Hulbert, Kathryn Peterson, Cella, Steel, Segreto, Gieseke, Jacobson, Jones Motion Carried IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA Member Hulbert made a motion, seconded by Member Cella, approving the consent agenda as follows: IV.A. Approval of Minutes – Regular Park Board Meeting of Tuesday, March 12, 2013 Ayes: Members Deeds, Hulbert, Kathryn Peterson, Cella, Steel, Segreto, Gieseke, Jacobson, Jones Motion Carried V. COMMUNITY COMMENT None VI. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS VI.A. Lake Edina Path Review and Comment Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board that do.town was instrumental in getting the Lake Edina Pathway on the work plan for this year and a primary main goal of the pathway is to provide a safe route for the kids who live in the Parklawn neighborhood to get to Cornelia School. Ms. Kattreh showed a map of where the proposed pathway would be located. She also showed a map of the configuration of the Nine Mile Creek Trail that will be going through that neighborhood within the next few years so the Park Board could also see how that could potentially impact or tie into that project. Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board the City Council is very interested in hearing their thoughts about the proposed path and added that the City Council will host a public hearing at their May 7 meeting and added that she will send out the public hearing notice for the City Council meeting. She indicated they had originally planned to have the public hearing at the Park Board meeting; however, Chair Steel had a great recommendation to hold the public hearing at the City Council meeting since it was the City Council’s decision to approve or disapprove of the project. Member Gieseke asked what is the land like that is listed as #24 and is that city land? Ms. Kattreh replied that it is part of Lake Edina Park and it is not great land. It is actually fairly low and during periods of a lot of rain it is a very peat type soil and it does get pretty spongy. 2 Member Gieseke commented that overall he likes the plan; however, it is a roundabout way to get there and asked if there has been any consideration to cut through to Oaklawn Avenue because the cul-de-sac that is there looks like it would be a straight shot and would be quite a bit closer. Ms. Kattreh replied that is an interesting option that they could consider; however, they would need to get an easement from a couple of property owners but it is certainly something they could consider. Member Jones noted that was exactly her thought when she looked at the map because kids are going to try to walk the shortest way possible. The path is much longer than this shortcut could be and asked if they could request that the city look into this first. Ms. Kattreh replied absolutely and indicated she would be more than happy to make that comment to the City Council. Member Deeds commented there may already be a path there knowing elementary students because they are probably already walking that way if it’s the shortest distance. Member Cella asked if there is any plan in the future to have any sort of playground equipment in Lake Edina Park. Ms. Kattreh replied they really wanted them to include that in this plan this year but she recommended against it because of the discussions with the use of the Fred Richards Golf Course right now and with the strategic plan they are going through and felt it was not a good time to put a playground in that area. Member Jones asked if the Transportation Advisory Board has reviewed this as a safe route to school to which Ms. Kattreh replied that they have not, but this plan was actually completed through the City’s Engineering Department. She added they did hire a consultant because it was given to them at such a late date last year that the Engineering Department did not have an opportunity to do the plan internally; however, they did supervise the project as far as the design so they are familiar with it. Member Jones asked if it has gone through the Bike Edina master plan and is curious if this has been integrated in the “Living Streets Master Plan” to which Ms. Kattreh replied she was unsure. Member Jones asked if this could be sent to those other committees to weigh in on because it looks like a path to kind of nowhere right now and if it is decided there is not going to be a playground after they are done with the strategic plan then it seems silly to build a path right there to which Ms. Kattreh replied that is good advice. Member Segreto indicated in looking at the different ways to get to the school she is not convinced this is really safer than what the children are doing right now and not being a route expert she questions that. She stated from a long-term planning perspective it remains to be seen what might be done with the Fred Richards Golf Course and in effect by putting this bike path in they are bisecting two contiguous parcels and so from a long-term real estate perspective it sort of is like you are breaking apart two parcels; it’s not a whole lot of money going into improvements but it is still separating the two parcels. She indicated she did not know this was a park until she received this and went to look at the route and was struck by the house at 7505 Kellogg Avenue because this would in effect go right by their side lot. If they were to do this she would like to at least give some consideration to shielding that house visually from the traffic going by. She indicated that she knows this came out of a do.town initiative but feels unless this is really solving a safety issue for the children she doesn’t understand why they should be considering it at this time. Member Jones commented in looking at the map of Nine Mile Creek they really should try to figure out how that is going to meander through this neighborhood and whether the best place might be inside the park property and if that is the case then Three Rivers might pay for a path inside this park. She asked Ms. Kattreh when they will find out more about Nine Mile Creek to which Ms. Kattreh replied she is planning to have a meeting with the Nine Mile Creek folks sometime within the next month or two where she will get the very latest in terms of updates from them and will then report back to the Park Board. 3 Member Segreto asked where to the children play, do they go up to Cornelia School to which Ms. Kattreh replied yes. Member Jones noted that she totally agrees there should be a playground in this area for these kids because Cornelia School is a long way to go and this is a dense population; however, she is not sure if this is the appropriate place especially if there is still a golf course where kids might get hit by golf balls. She thinks they need to figure that out before they put in a path. Ms. Kattreh pointed out that she did contact their insurance company because she was also concerned about that. There is one house that has been very vocal in the past about the concern of golf balls coming into their yard or other people’s yards and those types of things. She stated that most of those problems have been alleviated by reconfiguring the hole on the golf course that was causing so many of those problems. The insurance company did say they were fine with them adding a trail but did recommend that for precaution reasons they may want to put up a sign at the beginning so people are aware they are adjacent to a golf course and there could be golf balls. Member Jacobson noted in looking at Attachment E if you look to the right of the house at 7408 Oaklawn Avenue it almost looks like there is some sort of existing trail or easement there and asked if there are any existing city easements around there. Ms. Kattreh replied there is a utility easement that goes through that area. Member Jacobson commented that might be a good place for a path. Member Deeds commented he is trying to understand the role of do.town because this is the second or third kind of project that they’ve had suddenly kind of dropped in their lap and asked do they just pick a problem and do.town organizes the neighborhood to solve whatever they happen to think? Is there some kind of strategy or method behind whatever do.town is doing? Ms. Kattreh replied that do.town is now done and that their funding was officially finished the end of March. She noted they did a lot of listening to the neighbors and residents in a variety of different ways and then they picked projects to focus on based on the feedback they received. Member Segreto commented that they know the system of how to bring a project forward to the City. Chair Steel indicated she was a little put-off that they went to the property managers to acquire the signatures because coming from a grass roots background that is not the best way to get resident input. She stated the needs are kind of two different things and wishes this were a little more resident driven versus an outside organization of property managers. Member Jones indicated this is one of those issues where there is a park and it’s obvious there is room for improvement. It’s an underutilized park but what is the public process for making changes to it because it looks like only the neighbors on the east end have been petitioned and maybe the neighbors on the west side don’t even know this is happening. She stated she didn’t know it was happening and she is on the Park Board so it does bring up some questions on process. Chair Steel noted that in Katie Meyer’s letter to the City Council it says “As a part of the effort to gain momentum for the playground do.town met with three different property managers in the Parklawn neighborhood including Highland Properties, Premier Properties and the Goodman Group. In each instance we worked with the property managers to connect up with their residents from around 407 units to sign a petition and encourage interested parties to write a letter”. She stated that to her that is a little backwards as far as a grass roots process. Member Cella wondered if this is a solution in search of a problem because if the original idea was they wanted a playground putting in a path doesn’t provide a playground and if the path was a means to get to the playground and there is no playground then you don’t do it for that reason. She noted if the 4 other stated reason is that it needs to be a safe route to school have they talked to the principal of Cornelia School and the families that actually walk from Parklawn Avenue to the school and see how they are doing it now and what would be the best route. She indicated this may not be solving a safe route to school issue without further study and therefore questions why they would go ahead and build a path if they are not really sure why they are building it and who is going to use it. She stated that her feeling at this point would be to table it until they have a better understanding of whether this path is really needed as a safe path to school. Member Hulbert indicated it feels like at some point there would be a greater use for this whole area that would maybe benefit from the study of potential future plans if you want to create something great. It seems like they are kind of putting in a pathway and it doesn’t seem like a logical way for these kids to go to school. Member Deeds commented he thinks one of the things that the City Council needs to take into consideration is that this position is for a path and a playground in Lake Edina Park and whether these residents care whether there is a path or not is questionable or at least an open question. He indicated that both of the petitions that are signed say path and in the letter it specifically says that Lake Edina Park is a perfect place for amenities not a pathway to school. He stated without a little more looking into it, it does not make sense and he would not recommend that they spend $50,000 on it. VI.B. Off Leash Area Pilot Hockey Rink Recommendation Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board that after further research, specifically with their recreation team, Ms. Faus and she decided to recommend Strachauer Park. She explained the main reasons they took Highlands Park and Pamela Park out of their recommendation is because Highlands Park is very heavily scheduled for the summer playground program and they actually use the hockey rink to run a lot of their games and activities; therefore, staff felt that it would be very disruptive to use that park. She indicated that Pamela Park is also a heavily used programmed park and added that parking is a problem. It’s heavily used and a very busy area for athletic use; therefore, they felt it might not be an ideal location for a pilot program. Ms. Kattreh pointed out in looking a little further they discussed Strachauer Park and couldn’t find any reasons why Strachauer would not be a good location. There is some separation from homes, it does not have a playground program, it’s far away from the athletic fields, it sits a little bit lower away from the playground and it’s on the East side of the City. Chair Steel asked how much it would cost to put in a gate to which Ms. Kattreh replied they would do that internally with their parks maintenance staff so the cost would be minimal, maybe a few hundred dollars. Chair Steel asked Ms. Kattreh as far as rules do they foresee using the ones that already exist at the Van Valkenburg dog park or would there be additional ones. Ms. Kattreh replied they won’t recommend any additional rules because they feel as a pilot program they will run it just as they are running the current dog park. She stated it’s a large size hockey rink and they have talked with Tim Hunter, animal control officer, and he doesn’t feel either it would be essential to have a weight limit or restrictions as far as size. They are hoping to leave it up to the residents to decide whether their pets would be compatible with the pets that are in there at that time. Member Deeds asked are there going to be maintenance costs involved. Ms. Kattreh responded they have no concerns about any additional maintenance in the area; however, it will require a little more supervision but nothing that is going to add any additional staffing costs. They will incorporate it into their regular routine. Member Gieseke asked if there is a regular maintenance routine for the other dog park. Ms. Kattreh replied they are looking into that right now, they have not spent a lot of staff time on cleaning or maintaining the dog park. Ms. Faus explained they are going to be working both dog parks to put together a neighborhood committee of interested parties who would help oversee 5 and help maintain the dog parks. She indicated they feel they are such dedicated users of those facilities and it’s a very social experience for a lot of dog park users and therefore think they might be able to garner some interest and support of having a committee of users in each park. Member Jacobson asked how people will find out about this new dog park, how will it be advertised. Ms. Kattreh replied they are working on that and first they need to have it on their Parks and Recreation website because right now it is pretty hidden and thinks that will be a significant help. She noted they will also be working with their Communications Department to put together some press releases and maybe some other creative types of advertising. Member Jacobson asked if there will be signs in the area to communicate it to which Ms. Kattreh replied yes, there will be signage. Member Gieseke commented this might be a perfect volunteer opportunity for the Boy Scouts or Girls Scouts to which Ms. Kattreh replied yes and added they have also done different construction programs within the parks as Eagle Scout projects. Member Segreto asked if there is a revenue stream that they could use to funnel back into the dog parks and is what they are charging high enough to support the operations of the parks. Ms. Kattreh replied that is something that they hope to look into further because right now those fees are recommended and approved through the Police Department. She noted they will be addressing the budgets, revenue streams and how they can appropriate funds for improving the dog park(s). Member Hulbert stated that he has had people complain about Bredesen Park this spring about how much refuse there is around that path and maybe an animal control officer could check these people and see if they are picking up after their dogs. Member Hulbert indicated regarding Strachauer Park he does have a bit of a safety issue because there are pre-Kindergarteners and Kindergarteners who play soccer there as well as there are kids all over that jungle gym and running around the hockey rink. He stated he would also like to make sure there is proper notice around this park so that the residents are aware of this happening. Ms. Kattreh replied they will host a public hearing at their next Park Board meeting and they will send out notices to everyone who lives within 1,000 feet of the park so they can express their concerns and comments. Member Jones stated because they are calling this a pilot she thought it be good to clarify what it is they are piloting. She noted in this case she really appreciates the way they’ve looked at the different parks and have come up with a type of argument for why it’s not appropriate in certain parks. She indicated she thinks this is worth piloting in Strachauer Park and she would call it a pilot project; whether or not it remains at Strachauer, not whether or not it’s going to be available in other parks. She noted they can talk about that later but right now she would kind of like to set it up as we are piloting to see if this is something that should stay at Strachauer. Sometimes words are really “unclear” and she can just imagine being asked by other residents when they start it is “Are we going to consider another park”? Chair Steel noted from her experience she feels that the grass at Van Valkenburg isn’t maintained as much and that kind of adds to not keeping up with the cleanliness; therefore, she almost feels like this small space is going to succeed more because hopefully it will be maintained better. In addition, it’s also flat and there is not a bunch of trees and is hoping they can learn from this experience what works and use some of those things to help out the Van Valkenburg dog park. Member Segreto made a motion, seconded by member Gieseke, to approve hosting a public hearing for an off-leash dog park at Strachauer Park within the hockey rink. 6 Ayes: Members Deeds, Hulbert, Kathryn Peterson, Cella, Steel, Segreto, Gieseke, Jacobson, Jones Motion Carried VI.C. Strategic Planning Information and Discussion Chair Steel informed the Park Board she met with Members Cella, Segreto, Deeds and Ms. Kattreh to talk about their strategic planning process as well as their mission and to talk about where they should go next. She indicated they developed a mission statement but need to decide how they are going to utilize a consultant. She informed the Park Board that Ms. Kattreh and she compiled the possible components of their strategic planning process because the one question that they struggled with as a subcommittee was which components will the consultant work on and which ones will the Park Board be working on. She noted the subcommittee had two conflicting views and from her perspective she thought a consultant would come in and help them with the stakeholder analysis and the needs assessment. Chair Steel pointed out to the Park Board that Ms. Kattreh had informed them that the City is doing a citywide survey and they will have a chance to look at the questions that they are submitting for Parks and Recreation and have input. She added they are under a tight timeline so if anyone has any burning questions or feels it is missing something that would help them with their strategic planning process to please email it to Ms. Kattreh and the consultant for this survey. She pointed out the survey is just looking for what answer you are trying to understand and not actually framing the question. Member Jacobson noted as she read through the different questions in the existing survey, it’s asking a lot about what people think about the existing amenities but it doesn’t really ask what amenities are missing to which Chair Steel agreed that is something to look at. Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board this survey was done very successfully in 2011 and the data they received from the survey was really good; therefore, the City has decided to redo this survey every two years. She indicated that the questions are draft questions and that the survey is going to go out at the end of April or beginning of May and if the Park Board would like to add any more questions they could add up to five additional questions. She explained the company that is doing the survey, Decision Resources, doesn’t want them to spend time wording the questions themselves but give them what it is that we want to find out. Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board this is very confidential information and they do not want these questions to get out because it could possibly skew the results of this study. Member Deeds commented in terms of design, for example, #82 asks “How you rate park and recreation facilities in Edina - excellent, good, only fair, or poor” and explained you are always going to get a top end bias to a question like that. He indicated what they should ask is “How they rate our parks and recreation facilities relative to our neighbors such as Eden Prairie, Wayzata, etc.,” and put those in parentheses. He pointed out they will get a much more honest rating if you give them something of a comparison. Chair Steel commented that she would second that because it kind of goes against everything she has been taught this semester with “Survey Methodology”. She stated, for example, #81 in the 2011 survey asks “Are there any park and recreational facilities missing from the community that you would like to see in Edina” and noted people are going to say “no” because it’s the easiest path out. Member Deeds added they are all going to say “no” unless you give them a list of things or in some way prompt them, that is just human nature. Member Kathryn Peterson commented on the question about how the facilities align with the vision statement because in this kind of a survey are people going to be able to connect the dots on that one, it seems a little farfetched. Also where it says “the city has been considering several new or improved projects” do they want to have anything that is more open ended at the end where they could also 7 suggest something that is not on the list? Member Segreto commented not only open ended but add a question with senior programs and services because we have a big senior growing population. Member Segreto stated that she would like to piggyback on what Member Deeds was saying regarding #84, “What facilities you would rate as only fair or poor”, wouldn’t it be helpful to find out why they are rating them fair or poor. How useful would it be to find out that something is rated poor without understanding why? She noted that the “why” is missing on questions #85 through #95. Member Deeds explained that the reason why they don’t is because it substantially extends the length of the survey and this is a phone survey which means it substantially raises the cost and open ended questions are a real pain to actually deal with when you do a large scale survey because they don’t sort themselves nicely in the categories. He pointed out the proper technique would be once you know something is getting generally poor ratings is to have a focus group or a secondary survey and try and understand and dive in. Chair Steel informed the Park Board that in the 2006 Needs Assessment Survey having more walking and biking trails was one of the items and this survey allows for asking it again. She noted she would like to explore that issue because when they are talking about upgrading trails, etc., she wants more substance to understand that need. Member Deeds again stated that for #82 and #83 they are going to do better if they give a comparison versus an overall ranking. He noted #83 talks specifically about maintenance and upkeep and asked Ms. Kattreh if there is something she would like to have more specific information on besides maintenance and upkeep such as we are low on the maintenance side, that’s good information to know that’s actionable. He asked what else would be actionable that you would like to know when you ask those overall questions. Chair Steel commented she would like to know how Edina residents see the average parks and recreation user; is it them, a child, a senior, because you can see from their demographics who they are and then compare who they think the average user is. Member Jones noted one of the things they haven’t fully done in the parks is they haven’t implemented a planting plan and knows that has been on their wish list in the past. She commented that sometimes when you look at their parks the actual design doesn’t feel as nice as other cities because it’s not quite as green and/or as many trees and bushes. Something is not totally done and she doesn’t know if there is a way to get at the atmosphere, it’s the natural environment that’s in our parks. Member Jacobson stated the questions are very pointed towards certain facilities and asking about each type of facility and not so much pointed towards type of activities such as vegetable gardens, flower gardening, water fountains, entertainment, etc., what activities do you want in your parks and not so much what building it is. Member Deeds indicated he doesn’t know what they expect to get out of #96 through #102 and wouldn’t know how to interpret it if he had to. He suggested to replace a set of questions about do we have enough athletic fields, open space, too much or too little golf, he would ask specifically about not a facility but about the availability of these things rather than whether we have enough availability but what they think we need more of. Member Cella stated she agrees with Member Deeds on the vision question because she doesn’t know if that gives any useable information whether random people in the city think the golf course fits our vision. Member Segreto commented she also agrees a vision statement question is not good. 8 Chair Steel stated she would like a little more feedback on their strategic planning process because they had conflicting views. She foresaw that the consultant would help them get more information from residents through focus groups and a survey and work with the Park Board to come up with a strategy plan. She stated that being said they still have to decide on their strategic issues. They still need to pick their goals and they are just part of a gathering of information to help them make those decisions. She explained that Members Deeds and Cella thought it should be more of a marketing group would take the needs assessment and then a consultant will come in and tell them how to achieve those goals. She noted that Members Deeds and Cella have agreed to meet again to kind of flush this process out and anyone is welcome to join. Member Deeds indicated there are two pieces to this; there is the market research which is a series of focus groups with various cuts of the population and that’s going to be good input into needs assessment. He explained that is a different task and a different skill set from a strategic consultant. He indicated a strategic consultant is going to be somebody who is going to work with you once you have a vision and help figure out what you think you want to do. They are going to work with you and help you understand the environment and how you get to those goals and achieve the end that you are trying to. Member Deeds noted he thinks they are smarter to think about it as potentially two RFPs; he is less concerned about the time frame even if it’s not until the end of the year that they are really digging into it. He stressed that if it’s going to be good and it’s really going to guide decisions it’s less about the time frame and more about getting it done right and getting the right information pulled together and if they can make a few changes on the survey it will be helpful. He stated that he does think they are shooting in the dark a lot about what the residents want in their parks and what they think they are and are not short of. He added he thinks it’s hard to plan, we all have our wish list so we can just go through with that; however, he thinks it makes more sense for a pretty good marketing and focus group kind of work to be done. Member Cella stated she also thinks the survey will give them a good starting point for the community things and then given that information they may have to do additional focus groups or additional follow up to find that out. She added calling in a strategic consultant before you really know what your community wants and what you want your community to look like you are just asking people to come in and have their vision then imposed on you. She asked how will they be able to say well you need more of this if we haven’t done the ground work to say this is what our community wants because we run the risk of an outside consultant making a vision that reflects their best practices rather than what our community really needs. Chair Steel commented that she thinks it all comes down to what we ask for in the RFP and if someone can adequately address all of those. She stated ideally she would like to have one consultant handle the whole thing and if it can’t happen, it can’t happen. They need to flush it out and have more conversations and go from there. Member Segreto indicated she is going to play the devil’s advocate a little bit. There seems to be certain categories that need attention and strategic planning and she could probably rattle off six of them right now. She stated there comes a point when the city must show some leadership and so where does the leadership of the city lead the process rather than deferring constantly to consultants. She understands the needs assessment from the residents but she is really hard pressed to give a consultant broad breath about analyzing the needs of the City of Edina. She thinks they need to be reined in and they need to be focused on issues that they all have been wrestling with for years now. 9 Member Jones commented she hears both sides but she couldn’t agree more with Member Segreto. When she hears strategic plan, what are the real burning questions, she knows they need to identify tasks but she is trying to figure out what are the issues she wants them to solve. Where the redundancies are and what is our plan for replacing the structures that need to be replaced and how do we do this with financial feasibility. She noted that she has seen consultant reports come back with reports that don’t answer the questions and don’t give them some new ways of approaching these problems so they need to identify what they are looking for in the strategic plan. She stated that she can come up with the questions that she would like someone else to answer for them or to approach such as how can we better manage all of the enterprise facilities and is there a better cost cutting way that other people are doing that we are not. In addition, how do we handle our replacement and is there a systematic way we could use similar to what the Street Department does to their street reconstructions and maybe every 20 years a neighborhood gets to look at their playground equipment. She explained she is trying to figure this out in a way that makes sense to her instead of when she reads it and it says resource analysis because she doesn’t want anybody to spend her tax dollars on coming up with a waste of time. Member Segreto asked what if Park Board and staff got together and came up with six or seven categories, a list of areas where they know they need help and improvement and meanwhile the needs assessment will be done. She commented she doesn’t know the timing of the RFP in connection with the Needs Assessment and asked if the Needs Assessment is going to be done first. Ms. Kattreh replied that is something that would be determined upon how they decide to proceed with the project because the Needs Assessment could be done a variety of different ways and by different people. She stated that she certainly understands Member Segreto’s comments about the city doing something internally; however, she doesn’t know that they have staff in the City that really have the expertise to hold the appropriate focus groups. She indicated that she agrees with Member Segreto’s comment and that it would be really great to put that together along with what Member Jones said a list of priorities from the Park Board and thinks that needs to determine the way that the consultant runs the focus groups. Member Deeds pointed out that a lot of what they are talking about right now is tactical and operational and issues surrounding what is our replacement cycle and how do we do our capital improvement budget it is not a strategic planning issue but it’s an operational and tactical issue. He explained the point of doing a strategic plan is that it provides guidance to long term decision making so there is some coherence in what we do. He stated in his experience on the Park Board the last two years is they don’t have a reference point, they don’t have a strategy and he doesn’t mean a vision statement. He indicated they obviously don’t have a vision of what Edina’s Parks & Recreation should look like in 2030; should they have a large central city recreation facility because there are some big decisions about what this park should look like and that is what they should be dealing with in terms of the strategic plan. He stated that to be honest how they replace playground equipment he has no clue because that is what staff is for, that is not his job, staff is supposed to know and have the skill and capabilities to know when a teeter totter needs to be replaced because he doesn’t care. However, he does care that they remain the premier inner-ring suburb in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area and in order to do that they have to have a vision of what the amenities need to be. He pointed out that has to start with data and one of the things they don’t have is data. He added that focus groups are really hard to do well and it’s a real skill and it’s the marketing firms that know how to do focus groups and get good information. He noted that those that don’t know how to do focus groups get lousy information out of them because they lead people down the garden path and get them to tell them what they want to hear. Member Deeds stated that in terms of having a strategy consultant versus somebody to gather the data he is less interested in because they have bright people and they can figure it out if they have the data, they may need someone to help guide them along those lines but 10 the actual strategic planning process is not that complicated once you put data and information and then you put it in a framework and start thinking about it. He commented that it will take time but they have bright people around here. Member Gieseke indicated he sees it as two things they need: they need to know what they are missing and where they are moving to. They need a Needs Assessment done by qualified professionals to ask the right questions in the right way and give them the data. He stated they would probably then massage that and that’s where their leadership role comes into place with that data and that information to give them a guide for the next five to ten years. VI.D. Mission Statement Chair Steel informed the Park Board that the subcommittee looked at a variety of different mission statements from across the country and just kind of pulled the words they liked and went from there. Member Jones asked if it would be possible to table this and let the Park Board have time to look it over and think about it since they just received it tonight. Member Hulbert asked for a little background information on how they came up with it. Member Deeds explained they started with their own and then they appended part of Boulder, Colorado’s Mission Statement. They started with their short one “We create community through people, parks and programs”. They started with that one because they wanted to think through that but also felt they wanted to keep it tight and didn’t want their long one. He pointed out that essentially the first line was to communicate what it is they are trying to achieve and what they want. The second line is the methods by which they hope to achieve those and that one was essentially modified from Boulder’s. Member Deeds stated that this was one of the most productive meetings he has had and it was well done. Member Segreto noted that it also includes “a healthy community” which the city is striving to have all boards consider in their mission statement and programming. Member Deeds noted he would say the major changes are with the city they added “healthy and inclusive” in the first line and they shifted the line around a little bit but essentially they added “healthy and inclusive” as kind of modifiers to further express the goal of what we are trying to build in terms of community. He noted in the last line “through creative leadership, collaborations and environmentally sustainable practices and the responsible use of available resources” again is the means by which they would like to achieve. Member Kathryn Peterson noted that there are two things that sort of struck here: first is the “parks, programs and facilities”, logically in her mind she would put “parks, facilities and programs” because parks and facilities go together. Member Segreto stated that was her comment too. Member Kathryn Peterson noted the other one was “creative leadership” and asked do maybe we really mean “creative management”. Member Jones made a motion, seconded by Member Gieseke, to table the “Mission Statement” for the next Park Board meeting. Ayes: Members Deeds, Hulbert, Kathryn Peterson, Cella, Steel, Segreto, Gieseke, Jacobson, Jones Motion Carried VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS VII.A. Council Updates 11 Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board at the March 19 City Council meeting they accepted the insurance settlement for the golf dome and gave them the go ahead to rebid the final two contracts to rebuild the golf dome. Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board at the April 2 City Council meeting they approved to change the “Art Center Board” from just overseeing the Art Center operations to the “Arts and Culture Commission” that will oversee broader arts of all types in Edina. They put in front of the City Council the ordinance to which they made several revisions to which they are now putting together and will go before the City Council at their next meeting with those changes. Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board that the City Council rejected the bids for the Countryside shelter building, unfortunately those bids came in really high and they’ve had to slightly revise the scope of the building and will have to rebid the project. She commented that the in-floor heating system that was proposed ended up being a $100,000 add on. Member Hulbert stated it blows him away that a building of that size can cost $560,000 because there are people who put in radiant floor heating and they don’t spend that for a 1,200 square foot building. He asked who they put these bids out to in which Ms. Kattreh replied it goes out to everybody; it’s advertised in multiple locations. Member Kathryn Peterson asked if they could negotiate like you would with a contractor on your house. Ms. Kattreh explained they can negotiate with the low bidder if it doesn’t substantially change the scope of the project and in this case it’s more than a simple change order and would substantially change the scope. She indicated she did talk to the low bidder to find out some of the areas that were causing the bids to be so high and have made those revisions. Member Hulbert commented this is basically a small house they are building and asked if they could go to a residential builder to which Ms. Kattreh replied it goes out to everyone, it’s advertised in the local newspaper as well as to Questcdn.com for anyone who has access. It also goes out to a few websites that any builder gets access to. Member Hulbert suggested maybe putting it somewhere in the Building Department where a lot of residential builders come in for permits. He stated he doesn’t mean to beat a dead horse but that is a lot. Ms. Kattreh replied it is and that they advertised it just like they advertise every project in the city and she agrees it did come in very high and they were incredibly disappointed. Member Kathryn Peterson asked what does this do to the timeline for the work there to which Ms. Kattreh replied she knows it’s going to put them back a little bit but she doesn’t think it’s going to dramatically impact the process. Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board that she wants to make sure that she has the building bid in place before recommending the site work so she is hoping to have the site work and the building on the City Council’s May 7 meeting. She added that if everything comes in as they hope and plan and receive City Council approval they will probably be able to start construction within a few weeks. She pointed out on a positive note the Edina Baseball Association will get a few more weeks of play on the Countryside field because of the slight delay. Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board that on April 26 they are going to start planting some arborvitaes at Garden Park in recognition of Arbor Day. Ms. Kattreh noted the other big issue on the City Council April 2 agenda was the approval of the Community Garden at Yorktown Park; they approved the plan as proposed. VIII. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Chair Steel informed the Park Board 11 members responded to the survey and that she thinks it’s a good check of how they are doing and how they can improve and hopes to keep doing this on an annual basis. 12 Member Hulbert commented he doesn’t know if they are open for ideas but if they are trying to raise money for the Veteran’s Memorial maybe they could take a class or school kids and give them little cans to walk the parade route. He noted they won’t raise a ton a money but it’s better than what they are doing now. Member Gieseke commented that’s a good idea and they may be surprised how much they generate because he thinks a lot of people will be dropping $20 in there. Member Segreto asked where they are at with the Veteran’s Memorial and is the sculpture done. Ms. Kattreh replied the sculpture is not complete and they have only given money for the design so far. She explained they need to do the rest of the fundraising before they can commit to the purchase of the sculpture and so they are very much in the fundraising mode. She indicated the Ms. Aarsvold is now the staff liaison to the Veteran’s Committee and that she is also involved with the Fourth of July Parade and thinks that is a good idea that Member Hulbert came up with. She added they are actually trying to get the Mayor’s help and involvement in the fundraising effort as well. Member Segreto asked the Park Board members if they are interested in marching in the Fourth of July Parade again this year like they did last year. IX STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board that because of the weather they have pushed back the starting date for people to be able to be on the fields to April 22 and that is making a lot of people pretty anxious right now. Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board they are beginning their 2014-2015 budgeting process which Park Board will be seeing a little bit later this year. Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board that as of today they have already rented 35 plots for the Yorktown Community Garden project and that in the first day they had 17 plots rented. Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board that the Executive course opened on April 6 although she can’t imagine they are doing a lot of business but they made an attempt. Ms. Kattreh informed the Park Board that they just hired Patty McGrath as the new Manager of Edinborough Park and the Aquatic Center. She started on March 18. Member Kattreh informed the Park Board that in answer to Member Deeds question regarding the Sports Dome they will be hearing something in the not too distant future on the athletic field study that they completed and a sports dome recommendation. She noted her time frame is to report to the Park Board in June and then report to the City Council in July on their findings for the athletic field needs and the sports dome study on the Braemar athletic field site. Meeting adjourned at 8:39 p.m.