Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-03-10 Park Board Minutes1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PARK BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL March 10, 2015 7 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gieseke called the meeting to order at 6:59 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were Members Cella, Good, Strother, Jones, Gieseke and Jacobson Member Segreto arrived at 7:26 p.m. Absent were Members Greene, McCormick and Steel. Absent were Student Members Chowdhury and Colwell III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Member Jones made a motion, seconded by Member Cella, approving the meeting agenda. Ayes: Members Cella, Gieseke, Good, Jacobson, Jones, Strother. Motion Carried. IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA Member Cella made a motion, seconded by Member Jones, approving the consent agenda as follows: IV.A. Approval of Minutes – Regular Park Board Meeting of Tuesday, February 10, 2015 Ayes: Members Cella, Gieseke, Good, Jacobson, Jones, Strother. Motion Carried. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT None VI. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS VI.A. Election of Officers Ms. Kattreh asked for nominations for chair and vice-chair. Chair Gieseke made a motion, seconded by Member Cella, to nominate himself as chair. Ayes: Members Cella, Gieseke, Good, Jacobson, Jones, Strother. Motion Carried. Chair Gieseke made a motion, seconded by Member Cella, to nominate Member McCormick as vice-chair. Ayes: Members Cella, Gieseke, Good, Jacobson, Jones, Strother. Motion carried. VI.B. Vision Edina Presentation Karen Kurt, Assistant City Manager, gave an update to the Park Board on the “Vision Edina Process”. Member Jones wondered why quality public amenities would be on one side and not the other. Ms. Kurt stated in terms of focus, it is attempting to draw out painting a picture of two different alternatives. Member Jones stated she was looking at the quality of the facilities as a Park Board member. 2 Ms. Kurt continued with her presentation. Chair Gieseke asked if they have any age data that reflect this to which Ms. Kurt replied they do. Ms. Kurt explained that on the city’s website you can actually go through each question and sort them by different categories such as age, gender, quadrant, etc. Member Jones asked when they became an urban community instead of a suburban community. Ms. Kurt replied that was a word they chose but it depends on how you define urban. She noted it is something they can certainly change. Ms. Kurt reviewed the vision statement with the Park Board. Member Good stated one point on the features that he found noteworthy is that only one of the 20 bullet points mentioned parks and wondered if that received any discussion. Ms. Kurt replied it has not yet but thought this was the Park Board’s opportunity to touch on that. She stated amenities and green spaces are not directly called out. She indicated a lot of the work that specific boards and commissions do, to some degree, is based on the key drivers that were identified and Parks & Recreation would not necessarily come up as a key driver. She stated that does not mean that it is not worthy of inclusion and does not warrant some additional bullet points. Chair Gieseke stated they might interpret this as the park system, which is not lacking and does not require as much attention as some other areas. Member Good commented it could be that and it could be excluded as a strategic priority if it is not already stated in the visionary plan. Member Cella stated if you just read the bullets under inclusive and connect it and talk about the mix of development and transportation and if there is not a statement about the parks system then she thought the document was lacking. Member Jones agreed and stated she was confused by the tense used in the vision statement. Ms. Kurt stated that would be something to be addressed. Chair Gieseke stated he agreed and stated the document and vision itself should look forward. Ms. Kurt stated she wanted to talk more about how to deliver feedback and one was to deliver group feedback as a Park Board and there was also the opportunity to deliver individual feedback at the open house that will be held on April 14. Member Cella stated from a school district perspective, if she wanted to make a comment at the district level without going to the open house how would she do that. Ms. Kurt informed Member Cella she could forward her comments on to her and she would be sure to get them to the City Council or they could be sent directly to the City Council. Member Cella commented that one of the strategic actions is actually telling the School District to do something which she doesn’t think is really appropriate. Ms. Kurt indicated that the City Council hasn’t really fully vetted this so don’t take whatever is in here as being something that they’ve combed through and wordsmithed yet because they haven’t; they are soliciting feedback first. At this point it is purely the consultant’s draft. Member Cella asked how much wordsmithing is the City Council going to do to which Ms. Kurt replied she thinks it will depend on the comments they receive. Member Jones indicated she attended those meetings and they were never that specific in regards to the strategic actions. Ms. Kurt stated for the consultants she thought it was coming out of the strategic think tank and also the community meeting comments that were received. 3 Member Good wondered if the City Council knew what communities Edina competes with. Ms. Kurt stated there were some communities that were called out in terms of benchmarking and those were nationally. She did not know if they had a discussion on what peer cities would be in the Metro. Member Jones stated she doesn’t see anything on water or environmental stewardship. She stated their lakes are rated a C which is not very good and her vision would be that they have one. She indicated she would like to see some mention on parks in the document. Chair Gieseke pointed out a major attribute that draws folks to the city is parks and amenities. He noted if it’s not measured and mentioned it won’t be followed up on. Member Cella asked if it was appropriate for them as a Park Board to adopt a position that they would like Ms. Kattreh or someone to formally present a vision statement from the Park Board. Chair Gieseke did not think it was inappropriate. Ms. Kurt stated she will summarize all of the notes and will make sure they are included as part of the materials that will go to the City Council. She stated if the Park Board wanted to do an advisory communication with more detail that could be achieved as well. Member Jacobson commented under the transportation options the last point talks about continuing to promote development of the sidewalks, trails and biking networks throughout the city to provide accessibility and also throughout the parks because that is where they are building a network of trails. Member Strother stated they are advocating that they add something to the vision statement in addition to flushing out some of the places in the additional action items or features. Did they want more of this in the vision statement or just in the features; because there are some places that the parks are mentioned. Member Jones indicated they did not say. Member Good indicated his personal opinion would be he is not as concerned about the vision statement as he is with the lack of the focus in the rest of the content. Member Jones stated if they could get some language in this document, it would be helpful. The Park Board reviewed the document to address where the Park Board should be included. Ms. Kurt indicated she needed to leave for another meeting but indicated the Park Board should send her additional communication of items that should be added or changed. Chair Gieseke thought the Park Board should take some time to look through the document and send feedback to staff to forward to Ms. Kurt. VI.C. Geographic Information System (GIS) Management and Analysis System David Holdstock, of Geographic Technologies Group, gave a presentation to the Park Board on the new Geographic Information System (GIS). Member Segreto stated the photographs are not real time, it is a point in time and that is what management has to deal with in regards to the flooding of a ball field or other issues. Mr. Holdstock indicated inspections would still need to be done, probably on an annual basis. What they have done is taken a snapshot in time and they know where all of the features are situated and what the condition was at a certain date. He stated the idea is to figure out what needs to be repaired and maintained based on the inspection they made. 4 Member Strother asked from this can a report be done on what parks need to be improved to which Mr. Holdstock replied that is correct. Member Segreto asked if there is other software out there like this and wondered what the relationship with the city was. Mr. Holdstock indicated there are other software programs out there but they do not all do as much as this program does. He stated the relationship was the fact that the Parks & Recreation Department paid them $39,000 to do this and because of the relationship they are looking at an on- going relationship to further look at all of the widgets they are developing. Member Segreto asked if there would be an ongoing management contract with this company to which Mr. Holdstock thought that would be appropriate. He stated he would like to establish a relationship with Edina and a retainer to keep things going and it would not need to be a lot of money. He stated this can be a huge success if staff is trained properly and staff utilizes it. Mr. Holdstock showed a walking tour map of Centennial Lakes Park and indicated the walking tour would be for public use. Chair Gieseke stated when he sees this he thought it looked fantastic but he wondered where they recoup the savings to break even and save from this. Mr. Holdstock stated the return on investment is the significant improved efficiency and productivity of staff. He stated that he did not think this would recover any tangible money. Member Jacobson indicated it seems like the perfect tool to use as an outcome from the strategic vision once they get this in place. Mr. Minarik indicated this could also be added. Chair Gieseke thought this is being implemented at the perfect time as they are implementing and devising a master strategic plan. He wondered where they could put this to use to really put together a plan. Member Good thought the further challenge is how they will engage the community. Member Jacobson asked if this would have any tie to the park reservation system. Ms. Kattreh did not think it would other than being able to get information. Member Jacobson stated it seems like they could use this for maintenance at a minimum. Mr. Holdstock stated his greatest concern is the possibility that they will not keep this data up-to-date because staff will need to continue to provide information to the program. He added they will need to educate and train staff until it is being used consistently. Ms. Kattreh stated the other thing to consider is what the cost savings would be by using the information entered. VI.D. Park System Strategic Planning Terry Minarik from Confluence and Jeff Bransford from Pros Consulting gave the Park Board a presentation on where they are at with the Strategic Plan. Member Jones and Member Cella asked about the comparison point index to which Ms. Kattreh talked about ESRE. Member Jones stated she was not really sure how useful the comparison point index would be to them. She was also confused by seeing the trend for snow sports because if it was looked at closely, cross- country skiing would not be shown. She thought this was misleading at best by comparing their community to the national trend. Mr. Minarik thought that was comparing in general the skiing trends nationally. Member Jones replied that trend is not happening here. It is stable so she thought they 5 need to use the data is available locally for Edina. Mr. Bransford agreed and stated that any local and available data they should try to include. He stated it is fairly standard in planning to take a look at what is going on nationally because players do come under criticism when they only take a look at what is happening within the city limits of a particular city and do not pay attention to what is going on regionally or nationally. He stated this is just one piece to show what is happening in Edina. Member Jones stated when projecting the demographics for the increase in population, is it possible to show where the forecast is located of the population increase. Mr. Minarik indicated they can show it by neighborhood in the community. Mr. Bransford continued with the presentation. Member Jones commented she is confused with the slide that said “Improve on existing system features versus building new.” She stated based on their survey information stating people want a community center and additional fitness facilities, the extent of that repeatedly on any survey and the meetings she has attended for strategic planning, they were all concerned about that so she was not sure that should be a bullet point. Mr. Minarik stated that is noted in the overall report summary of the focus groups and the workshop. It did not go to the top as one of the key items that was identified. Mr. Bransford continued with the presentation. Member Segreto stated with regards to the slide that refers to threats and the change in demographic characteristics they need to be careful about identifying changing demographics as being a threat to their system. She noted that could be very offensive. Mr. Bransford indicated this can be rephrased because it is a threat if they do not do anything to change the system to prepare for the changing demographics. Mr. Bransford went through facility assessments with the Park Board. Member Jones stated in the past one of the weaknesses of the Art Center was it was mainly used by non-residents and she wondered if that was still true. Ms. Faus stated she did not know if that was still accurate and thought there was a larger use by residents but is still used a lot by non-residents. Ms. Kattreh thought that by combining their brochure into the Activities Directory it has increased the resident usage. She informed the Park Board she could run a report for them regarding the Art Center. Mr. Bransford and Mr. Minarik continued on with the presentation. Member Jones wondered why, when looking at national trends, they looked at figure skating and ice skating as snow sports. Mr. Minarik stated locally there was representation of local participation in a lot of those items. He stated it is really hard to find statistical information on northern sports. Mr. Bransford indicated they are always open to getting local data. Member Jones suggested they contact Three Rivers Park District and get local data. Mr. Bransford replied they did interview Three Rivers Park District for this presentation; however, they did not give them a lot of information. He informed the Park Board that benchmarking will be in a future presentation. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS VII.A. Council Updates No discussion. 6 VII.B. Veteran’s Memorial Committee No discussion. VIII. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Chair Gieseke introduced the two new Park Board members: Julie Strother and Greg Good. IX. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Kattreh went through staff comments. X. ADJOURNMENT Chair Member Gieseke made a motion, seconded by Member Segreto, to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Ayes: Cella, Gieseke, Good, Jacobson, Jones, Strother and Segreto Motion Carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.