Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-11-10 Park Board MinutesEDINA PARK BOARD 7:30 p.m. November 10, 1992 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Christianson, Andrew Montgomery, Bill Jenkins, Beth Hall, Jean Rydell, Paul O'Connor, Andrew Herring, Pat Vagnoni MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Lord, Jim Fee, Mac Thayer STAFF PRESENT: Bob Kojetin, John Keprios, Ed MacHolda, Janet Canton, Laura Lancrete OTHERS PRESENT: Roxy Molzahn, Mike Bolen, Ed Hetland, Bette Hetland, Joy Persons, Pat Salmi, John Gould, D. VanLiere, Carol Flint-Kaliebe, Pamela Starkey, Cathy Mitchell, Jim Mitchell, Rita Towey, Mary Rider, Kevin McTigue, Nancy Garnaas I. APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 13. 1992 MINUTES Jean Rydell MOVED TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 13, 1992 MINUTES. Paul O'Connor SECONDED THE MOTION. MINUTES APPROVED. Mr. Kojetin indicated to the Park Board that the City Council asked that in the future if there is split vote to indicate how each Park Board member voted. It was noted the October Minutes should reflect that Bob Christianson, Paul O'Connor, Pat Vagnoni and Jean Rydell were opposed to the fundraising motion. II. PARENT PRESENTATION FOR THE "INNOVATIVE CITY AWARD" FOR THE ADAPTIVE RECREATIONZLEARNING EXCHANGE (ABLE) COOPERATIVE. Laura Lancrete introduced Pat Salmi who presented the "Innovative City Award" to the Park Board. Ms. Lancrete indicated that Ms. Salmi has been a part of the Edina Adaptive Recreation Development since its beginning in 1988 and she is currently serving on the Advisory Board for the ARLE Committee. Ms. Salmi indicated that the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities has awarded the City of Richfield and the Adaptive Recreation Learning Exchange (ABLE) the "Innovative City Award". She explained that Edina is part of the four city cooperative in the ARLE group that has received this award. Ms. Salmi indicated that this award recognizes that ARLE offers a continuum of services in recreation and community learning experiences to people of all ages and abilities. It was noted that the award will be placed in the Edina Senior Center at the Community Center. Mr. Christianson thanked Ms. Salmi and indicated that hopefully the City will continue to be involved in progressive programs like this. III. ARDEN PARK PLAYGROUND PROGRAM Mary Rider expressed to the Park Board that she and several neighbors are in complete support of having a playground program at Arden Park and that they have a petition of 20 people who are in favor of this. Last year the kids went to Pamela Park and Ms. Rider indicated she was concerned about how far the kids had to go. Ms. Rider went on to say that she was impressed by the leaders and quality of the program and that the kids loved it. Ms. Rider also stated that she could get more signatures on the petition if needed. Mr. Kojetin noted that the playground program does start and stop at different parks depending on what the population growth is in certain neighborhoods. Mr. Kojetin indicated that this year Walnut Ridge Park and Creek Valley Park will discontinue their program since there were approximately 4 to 5 youngsters participating on a steady basis. Mr. Kojetin stated that some of the people in the neighborhood have been contributing neighborhood funding. In the past, this group has donated a drinking fountain, picnic table and playground equipment. Next year they are going to donate money for street lighting. Mr. Kojetin indicated that there were a couple of people who called in opposition to having a playground program at Arden Park. Recently, however, the people that opposed the issue now have indicated that it would be okay to have the program on an experimental basis for one year. This is something that will need to be monitored depending on the amount of kids that use the program. Pam Starkey brought up a couple of points. First, she suggested opening the program up to the five year olds because there are a lot of them who will be starting kindergarten next fall. She felt the five year olds would really enjoy the program and she does not feel they are too young, especially in a supervised activity and area. Mr. Kojetin replied that this is a difficult call because everyone has an outstanding four year old that will be five and a five year old that will be six. All of sudden you then end up with kids that are not capable and the leaders spend all of their time with these children. Another issue Mr. Kojetin brought up was that the children are free to leave whenever they want. The leaders are not responsible to keep the children at the park and not all parents are willing to stay at the park. Ms. Starkey stated that she knows there are a lot of 2, 3, 4 and 5 year olds and if the program will only run one year there is a whole bunch of kids that will be old enough to participant in the near future. Mr. Keprios explained that since there was some strong opposition in the beginning it was felt the issue should go before the Park Board. However, this opposition seems to have calmed down. NOTE: There was no opposition at the Park Board meeting. It was noted that this is a tax supported activity, in that, the registration fees do not cover the entire cost of the program. Pat Vagnoni MOVED THAT THERE BE A PLAYGROUND PROGRAM THIS SUMMER AT ARDEN PARK. Paul O'Connor SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. 2 IV. EDINA AQUATIC CENTER A. Financial Report Mr. Kojetin expressed to the Park Board that he felt it was a successful year considering it was the third coldest summer on record in Minnesota. Mr. Kojetin pointed out that the total revenue was $167,000 and it was predicted to be $185,000. Expenses were $127,000 and it was predicted they would be $126,000. The bottom line was before depreciation and interest we came out with $39,000 plus the bonds which were $39,000 that had to be paid this year. Originally the bonds were over 20 years so we took an average of what the bonds would be although since this was the first year we only had to pay $39,000 in interest we didn't pay principle. Mr. Jenkins asked that if in 20 years it will $59,000. It was noted that yes it will go up. Next year it will be $40,000, and then it goes up to $50,000 and then $70,000. At the same time, however, the fees and charges will also be going up. B. Pool Closing Mr. Kojetin noted that he has received some letters and phone calls from people asking about the pool closing two weeks before Labor Day. Mr. Kojetin indicated that Mr. MacHolda and himself have been talking with people from other communities on their pool closings. Mr. Kojetin pointed out that Richfield stayed open until Labor Day and they had a bad year when you look at their total revenue and their operating expenses. They were in debt $73,000. This, however, was their second year having a double water slide. In conversations that Mr. MacHolda had with the different communities that stayed open until Labor Day some of them are considering closing earlier next year. The reason for this is the last two weeks are very expensive, the numbers are low and you have to keep a full staff on. Mr. Kojetin did express that the staff feels the Edina pool was closed at the right time. Mr. MacHolda stated that for three years now he has opened the pool on the second Saturday of June and closed on the Fourth Sunday in August. This is his recommendation again for 1993. Mr. MacHolda thinks he did not receive as many phone calls in 1991 about the pool closing because people were anxious for the pool to start its renovation. Mr. MacHolda noted that the numbers start to drop off after the Fourth of July. When you get into August the numbers are real bleak and later August you are competing with such things as the State Fair, Renaissance Festival and back to school shopping. Ms,. Vagnoni felt that if the City spent $200,000 or $500,000 on the Aquatic Center it's a shame that there is not more publicity to bring more people in to use it. Mr. Jenkins asked Mr. MacHolda if he could adjust his staffing requirements during the last two weeks of August? Mr. MacHolda explained that during the latter portion of the season there are a couple of problems. College students go back to school so the staff that is available is thin and eight people are needed to run the pool when it is open. Mr. MacHolda indicated that when he talked with Richfield there was only one day in the last two weeks where they had a partial crowd. Their total revenue for those two weeks was $1,200. This is what Edina takes in on a good day at the concession stand alone. 3 Mr. MacHolda suggested that if the pool season needs to be extended he recommends extending it in the beginning of the season. People are really anxious to get out and use the pool in the beginning of the summer. Ms. Rydell pointed out that the Fourth Sunday in August for 1993 will be August 22nd and Labor Day is September 6th. Mr. MacHolda stated that if the City is here to provide a service, the traditional summer is from Memorial Day to Labor Day and that's what he would recommend. However, he pointed out that he is here to provide a service as well as balance a budget. The revenue facilities need to be self -supportive. Mr. Christianson asked if opening on Memorial Day weekend is a viable alternative? Mr. MacHolda thinks that it is and he noted that more staff would be available then because of colleges getting out early. He also commented that the pool could be open during the regular hours on the weekend and Memorial Day, but during the week days prior to the summer break have the main pool open in the afternoon when school lets out and have the wading pool open all day. This would help to minimize expenses. Mr. Herring asked Mr. MacHolda if he would be able to cover the cost on the front end by having the pool open two extra weeks or would it not break even. Mr. MacHolda definitely felt it would not break even. The biggest expense is the staff and then there is heat and chemicals. During the last part of the summer the heat is more expensive because of the cold nights. Mr. O'Connor noted from the financial report that two out of every three dollars comes from the season ticket and if the season is extended and the season ticket price is increased you will have 2/3 of the costs covered. Mr. MacHolda explained that last year the season ticket was $65.00 for a resident family and this year he is proposing $45.00 for the first two people and then $10.00 for each additional member added with a maximum of 7 people on a ticket. A family of four would cost the same in 1993 as it cost in 1992. The reason for this is the family is changing there are grandparents, nannies, foreign exchange students, etc. An individual pass will be slightly less at $40.00. New for 1993 there will be a twilight daily admission, so that after 6:00 p.m. the cost will be $3.00. Mr. Kojetin noted that he has some reservations about the $3.00 cost for guests of season ticket holders. This is a way that everyone can beat the system. Mr. Kojetin indicated that he understands the concept of it, that if someone had a person visiting from Missouri for three days the person could pay the guest fee of $3.00. But what will happen is someone might keep bringing their neighbor or friend, etc. Mr. Kojetin is suggesting not having the guest ticket. He feels it will cut into the revenue. Mr. Christianson asked Mr. Kojetin what his recommendation is in closing the pool. Mr. MacHolda indicated his recommendation is to open the pool on the second Saturday in June and close on the fourth Sunday in August. But, if you would like to extend the season he thinks it should be done at the beginning of the season. Open Memorial weekend with full days for Saturday, Sunday and Monday and in the afternoons during the week until school is done and the regular pool season begins. Ms. Rydell asked why the pool could not be opened on the last weekend of August which would be the 29th. Mr. MacHolda stated that there are no numbers to support it and staffing would be a problem. Mr. MacHolda felt 0 W that opening on Memorial Weekend and then part time during the week until school opens would be a wash. Whereas, if you keep the pool open through Labor day weekend it would be a matter of how much money is lost. Mr. Montgomery added that typically the fourth Sunday in August is the weekend before Labor Day weekend. It just happens that these three years are unique. Mr. Christianson indicated that Mr. MacHolda's recommendation is to close the pool on the fourth weekend in August since there is insufficient support that the pool will break even if the pool season is extended past this date. Extending the season in the beginning however, the pool can break even given the parameters previously mentioned. Mr. Herring asked what the cost would be to keep the pool open one more week. How much would the pool lose. Mr. Kojetin explained that a few years ago a study was done and the figure was approximately $5,000 to keep the pool open an additional two weeks. Mr. Herring stated that his recommendation is that for $3,000 he would be inclined to keep it open for that extra week given that this year the fourth Sunday is so early in the season. Mr. Herring MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE POOL OPEN ON MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND GIVEN THE STRUCTURE THAT ED MACHOLDA SUGGESTED, OPEN ON THE WEEKEND AND THEN PART-TIME DURING THE WEEK UNTIL SCHOOL WAS OVER AND THEN EXTEND THE POOL SEASON ONE MORE WEEK AT THE END OF THE SUMMER. Pat Vagnoni SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Montgomery noted that he would like to add an amendment to the motion and that is to close the weekend prior to Labor Day so that we are locked into that day for the future. Mr. Herring stated that he would modify his motion to add this amendment as well as monitor the situation and reconsider this next year. The motion is THE POOL OPEN ON MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND AND HAVE IT OPEN PART-TIME DURING THE WEEK UNTIL THE REGULAR SEASON STARTS AND THAT THE POOL REMAIN OPEN UNTIL THE SUNDAY BEFORE X9k6R*iVL DAY WEEKEND IN 1993 WITH RECONSIDERATION OF THIS FOR NEXT YEAR. L,cx`oo'T Mary Stanton, a woman in the audience, indicated that she understands that a lot of the revenue is generated from the season ticket and she understands that the pool is for the residents of the community. However, she also thinks if there are financial concerns, maybe the City should advertise the pool to people outside of the community. Such as people who are visiting the Mall of America. Ms. Stanton also indicated that she is concerned about what is done for the youth of this community. She indicated she understands the financial concerns, however, she is concerned that children need activities to keep them busy. Most of the park activities are done in the middle of July and the pool closes the middle of August. The kids are ready to go back to school but what do they do for three weeks. Ms. Stanton's last point was that if it's a warm August, people want to use the pool. If it's a cold summer like it was its just an unusual type of thing. Ms. Stanton stated that she liked the recommendation the Park Board made and she is glad that they are willing to experiment with something different. The MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5 C. Fees and Charges Mr. Kojetin informed the Park Board that the staff is getting ready to present the fees and charges to the City Council. The staff recommends that the Park Board drop the guest fee of $3.00 but keep the Twilight fee of $3.00 for people who enter the pool after 6:00 p.m.. Mr. Herring asked if a person can be added to the season ticket during the season. Mr. Kojetin stated that yes you can add a person during the season but it will cost $10.00 and there is a maximum of seven people on a season ticket. Mr. Jenkins MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE FEES AND CHARGES. Beth Hall SECONDED THE MOTION. Ms. Rydell asked if the price of the non-resident family season ticket could be raised and asked how many non-resident season tickets are sold. Mr. MacHolda stated that he does not have the numbers with him, but that these people thought they got a steal and he received more compliments from non-residents than residents this year. Ms. Rydell felt that this is an Edina pool and if the revenue needs to be raised it should be done through non-residents. Mr. MacHolda noted that you don't want to shoot yourself in the foot either. If there is a big difference in the cost people from Richfield might go back to their own pool. Mr. MacHolda indicated that Bloomington has one set fee for everyone. Mr. O'Connor pointed out that if we are trying to balance the books we could do it by raising the season ticket by 10%. The season is being extended more than 10% and two-thirds of the revenue comes from the season ticket. Mr. Kojetin noted that he could see raising the non-resident ticket up to $65.00 and $60.00. However, he doesn't think it should be raised $20.00. Mr. Christianson stated that it would be nice to know how many non-resident family season tickets were sold. Mr. MacHolda indicated that he sold 1400 season tickets and he believes of this amount approximately 150 were non-resident season tickets. However, part of that amount is from the Edina Swim Club which accepts non-residents. Mr. Christianson indicated that there is a motion on the table and would someone want to amend the motion by raising the non-resident family season ticket price to $65.00. Jean Rydell MOVED TO ADD THIS AMENDMENT. Mr. Christianson noted that the motion is that we adopt the fee schedule as proposed with the amendment of raising the non-resident family season ticket to $65.00 and the non-resident individual to $60.00. MOTION CARRIED. D. Bus Service Mr. Kojetin explained to the Park Board that another economical move the staff would like to see done is cut the bus service for the swim instruction. Last year the average number of youngsters using the bus the first session in the Wooddale area was 7 kids on the 10:45 bus and 8 kids on the 11:45 bus. The cost of having a bus service is approximately $10,000 for three buses for the season. Mr. Kojetin stated that he has heard from a few parents who do rely on the bus and it's the only R transportation they have to get their kids to the swimming lessons. Mr. Kojetin indicated that a few of these parents will be writing letters to the City Council hoping that we do not cut this service. Mr. Kojetin informed the Park Board that right now $9,000 is in the budget to have bus transportation next year. Mr. Kojetin wanted the Park Board to be aware of this because it is something that they will be hearing from the residents on whether there is or is not a bus next year. Ms. Vagnoni asked if there is a charge to ride the bus. It was noted that there is no charge. The money for the bus comes out of the swim instruction fee or general tax dollars. Mr. Christianson asked Mr. Kojetin what his recommendation is and he replied that the City should discontinue the bus service but he does not want a motion on the issue at this point. Mr. Herring indicated that perhaps there are some suggestions that would limit the amount of the expense without terminating the service. It would be helpful if there are alternatives. V. HIGHLAND PARK PROJECT Mr. Christianson noted that everyone has been provided with a copy of the City Attorney's letter to Mr. Rosland discussing the issue of whether the City can legally engage in this transaction. Mr. Christianson also stated that another issue raised at last months meeting was, from a historical standpoint, have there ever been exchanges of a similar nature. Mr. Christianson indicated that these were the primary questions that were unanswered last month. Mr. Kojetin indicated that the only exchange of that land that he is familiar with, that really is not similar, is that exchange of the 44th Street Property and the old library site by the bank building. An exchange was made because the bank held the mortgage on the 44th Street property and they wanted to buy the library property for a parking lot, so an exchange was made and we assumed the property at 44th Street. Mr. Christianson noted that as he read Mr. Gilligan's opinion it appeared to him that it is legal for the City to proceed with such a transaction provided it follows certain procedures that are set forth in the Minnesota Statutes. He also indicated that he sees it from a precedential standpoint that a similar proposal has been engaged in by the City. The City Attorney says that under certain circumstances the City can proceed with this proposal legally. Mr. Christianson said that the question then becomes is it desirable from the standpoint of the Park Board and park system to engage in this transaction. He also indicated that the ultimate decider will be the City Council but that they would appreciate the Park Board's input on that question. Ms. Hall asked Mr. Christianson to explain the transfer of park property that is on page three of the City Attorney's letter. Mr. Christianson explained that it can be done if the city applies to the court for approval. The City would have to apply but it is Mr. Christianson's understanding that if the City were to engage in this that one of the conditions would be that the proponents of the transaction would undertake the expense. 7 Ms. Vagnoni asked if the exchange is done, will there be any strings attached such as it must always remain a park. Mr. Christianson indicated he thinks Mr. Gilligan's opinion addresses the issue in that it's a deed which does not contain any conditions and does not have a right of reversion. It says that the convenience is made for the use and purpose that the premises herein conveyed shall be used for park purposes but there is no right of reversion and that's why he thinks Mr. Gilligan says that it's held in public trust by the City of Edina and that's the reason that the petition has to be made under Section 501.B of the Minnesota Statutes for court approval. So in essence the city is acting as trustee on behalf of its citizens owning this property. Mr. Montgomery stated that it seems the path is critical to the situation, he just does not want to be involved in litigation to secure the path. Mr. Montgomery is not 100% convinced that the path can be rerouted and still be as attractive as it presently is. Mr. O'Connor noted that from a policy perspective, irrespective of this issue, whenever it's in the best interest of the City and in the judgment of the City Council it's a good public policy. His opinion is that in this particular incident it's in the better interest of the City to have that pathway and to exchange the property as requested. Mr. Christianson pointed out that the Park Board has to remember their place and not if there is going to be a building there. That is up to the Planning Commission and City Council. The Park Board's charge is to protect and preserve or enhance the park system. Mr. Montgomery asked if there could be covenants on the one stripe that goes down the staircase that it cannot be built upon. Mr. Christianson noted that he has given that some thought and it seems to him that there are ways of doing this so that in essence it would preserve the character of the property as it is now. John Gould, a member of the audience, indicated that he was not at the last Park Board meeting. He then asked the Park Board if they received a legal opinion as to whether or not there is an actual easement now to use the path in its present condition. Mr. Gould's then indicated to the Park Board that they should consider the building site that could possibly be put on the property because that would have an affect on the park property and he felt that should be a factor to consider. Mr. Christianson in addressing the first question stated he didn't know whether the City had obtained such an opinion, but presumably and ultimately that may be required. However, he indicated that his own reaction is, in his limited research, that the City does not have any right to that parcel at this time. It is private property and to enforce the City's rights would be an expensive proposition without any guarantee of success. Mr. Gould indicated that he doesn't know how long it takes to get an easement but he has been walking that path since 1965. Ms. Garnaas responded to the easement question in saying there was an easement that did expire in December of 1991 and she does have the legal documents. Mr. Christianson noted that the Park Board is not going to do anything adverse to the park property because nothing is going to happen to the park property. Under the proposal as he understands it is that the park property that is presently park property will remain park property. There ALV will be no encroachment, there will be no trees cut down, there will be nothing done with the stairway and there will be nothing done with that property. Mike Bolen, 5207 Doncaster Way, indicated that an issue that has not been addressed is how is the snow plow going to service this area. It's on a downgrade and the actual paved portion of that is extremely narrow. Roxy Molzahn, the original owner of property, indicated that she used to go out early in the morning when the plows came through to try and have the village leave the stairway open for the kids to go down. The normal thing they did was to push the snow and since they could not block the fire hydrant or the drainage area, the only other place they put it was in front where the children would go down the ramp. Jim Mitchell, who grew up on Skyline Drive, stated that he used the park extensively as he grew up. He is currently an Edina resident and he and his wife have recently drawn up architectural plans to renovate his mother house which is next door to the proposed subdivision. He addressed the affect that the subdivision would have on the park. He stated that he has been hearing conflicting things. The Park Board has indicated that they are not concerned about what goes on the property itself, but they are concerned about the park and maintaining its character and integrity. Mr. Mitchell indicated that he feels those two issues cannot be separated. The terrain of the property is such that there is about a 30 ft. rise up out of the park where all of the houses are. Thus, when you are down in the park you are in a very unusual urban wilderness, you don't see any houses there. You can be down there in the summer and you don't see anything. Therefore to build on the second lot, that would be created out of the subdivision, would be to build down that 30 ft. slope into the park. You would be taking what is now wilderness and converting it into a residential backyard type park. It would be a very different feel and very different character of the park. He thinks that is relevant even though it would technically be on private property it would drastically change the character of the park. Mr. Christianson asked Mr. Mitchell what is to prevent the present owners from doing exactly what he has just suggested would happen. Mr. Mitchell replied that there is nothing that guarantees that the present owners wouldn't do what he just suggested. All he can say is that if you allow for this subdivision you are taking a hypothetical question and guaranteeing that it's going to take place. Mr. Christianson noted that the Park Board is not allowing the subdivision that's up to the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Christianson noted that he is trying to focus on whether or not this is a good deal for the citizens of Edina in terms of acquisition of additional park property without any detriment. Mr. Bolen noted that he talked to a hydrologist from the DNR and she sent him a copy of the regulations which indicate it would not be difficult to get a permit to build a path in that area. The hydrologist stated that they have not established where the ordinary high water mark is for the Highland Park area. Mr. Bolen then indicated that after talking to Bob Obermeyer, Design Supervisor, about the ordinary high water mark for the area it would appear that over the major portions of the path is a sufficient area in which to fill a foot or two would solve the path problem. Mr. Bolen then stated that if the Park Board does not feel they can actively oppose this they should at least follow the City Attorney's advice where he says that without a court order one has to wonder why the City has E engaged in this transaction when the same result could be achieved by granting the request or variance with the conditions of the property on which the trail is located is transferred to the City. Mr. Bolen asked why not put it back to the Planning Commission. He feels this is not land which they can build on, this is an attempt to get land so they can claim they have a sufficient lot width to be within striking distance of a variance. Why should the Park Board get into the position with very little gain. Mr. Christianson indicated to Mr. Bolen that it's his experience that the City Council usually does what it wants to do irrespective of the Park Board's advice. Mr. Herring indicated that the minutes from last month reflected that the path can be moved and it would not be a major undertaking. Mr. Herring then asked Mr. Kojetin if it is still his analysis that by moving the path it would be under water part of the year. Mr. Kojetin indicated that is correct but it is hard to say how long or how much it would be under water. It depends on how much rain fall there is each year. It is a water collecting area. Ms. Garnaas then noted that she talked with the DNR and they indicated to her that if the water comes up to the path and the path has to be moved, the City will have to go to the state and federal government to ask if they can do that. She indicated that the DNR told her any change in the course, current or cross-section of the wetland is subject to DNR regulation. Filling below the OHW (i.e., within the wetland) is generally prohibited, however, the rules do provide an exemption for federal, state and local units of government to fill for roadways when the following criteria are met: 1) the public need rules out the no -build alternative, and 2) there is no other feasible and practical alternative to the project that would have less environmental impact. Mr. Bolen stated that he has consulted with Ceil Strauss, who is the area hydrologist, and after he explained the situation to her, she indicated that she did not think getting a permit would constitute a problem. Mr. Christianson stated that from his experience there are significant problems. Mr. O'Connor MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT THE SAID PROPERTY BE EXCHANGED UNDER THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED, NAMELY THAT THE REQUESTOR PAY ANY OF THE COSTS IN SO DOING IT AND SECONDLY THAT THE PROPERTY ALWAYS BE AVAILABLE FOR USE AS PART OF THE PARK. There was no second. Mr. Christianson noted that the motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. Montgomery then SECONDED THE MOTION. Six in favor and two opposed. Bob Christianson Bill Jenkins Beth Hall Jean Rydell Paul O'Connor Andrew Montgomery - In Favor - In Favor - In Favor - In Favor - In Favor - In Favor 10 Andrew Herring - Opposed Pat Vagnoni - Opposed Mr. Gould stated to Mr. Christianson that he is curious as to how this motion could initially fail for a lack of a second and then pass 6 to 2. Mr. Christianson indicated it was renewed and seconded. Mr. Gould wanted this to be reflected in the minutes. Mr. McTigue thanked the Park Board for their time, understanding and consideration. He knows it has been difficult. VI. ATHLETIC ASSOCIATIONS Mr. Kojetin brought the Park Board up to date on what the City Council's decision was in regards to the charitable gambling fundraising issue. He noted that after quite a lengthy discussion, a recommendation was made that an athletic association can take money any way they feel that they would like to accept it as long as it was a legal type of money. The motion was seconded and voted on. It was turned down 3 to 2. That's the way it was left. Mr. Kojetin stated that he would interpret that to mean it goes back to the original motion that was made year ago. VII. RESIDENTMON-RESIDENT Mr. Kojetin stated that at the last Soccer Association meeting they voted on whether or not they would accept non-residents into their club system, which would end up being approximately half. They have requested to come to the December Park Board meeting to discuss the resident/non-resident issue. Mr. Kojetin indicated that he wanted to be sure the Park Board was aware of the issue. VIII.OTHER A. Olympic Jr. Volleyball - Mr. Montgomery indicated that he is the treasurer of the Edina Olympic Jr. Volleyball team. He wants to know if he is the treasurer of an,,illegal"organization who want to utilize school property for volleyball practices/games. He noted that one of the problems that the organization is having is getting gym space. Mr. Montgomery stated that he doesn't know if they should be recognized as an association. Mr. Kojetin indicated that the Park and Recreation Department has had an agreement with the School District for a number of years. The school facilities are first available for school activities, second they are available for the PTA, third they are used for the City's activities, and fourth they are used for the YMCA, Churches, and so on. Mr. Montgomery noted that this is a program that is expanding and is a feeder system for Girls Volleyball. There are three teams: Under 14, Under 16 and Under 18, with 12 girls on each team. Mr. Keprios explained that this is basically a girls traveling volleyball team. It was Mr. Keprios' recommendation at the time it surfaced to bring it before the EGAA since they govern the girls house league volleyball. He thought it would be appropriate for the EGAA to decide if this is an organization that they should sponsor and make a decision as to how much gym time they are going to want to free up to make this program successful in Edina. EGAA declined this offer. Mr. Montgomery indicated that it is like the Girls Traveling Basketball. Mr. Keprios corrected Mr. Montgomery in saying that both Edina Girls Traveling Basketball and Edina Girls Fastpitch broke off because it was too much for one association to handle. Both sports are recognized by the EGAA 11 and EYSA and they come to agreements on how much gym space and how much field space will be divided. Mr. Keprios stated that the City is caught in the middle, who is the deciding factor on who gets how much gym space. Mr. Christianson asked why should EGAA have the authority to say we don't want to be involved with these people. If they run a legitimate program and they are residents of Edina why should they be precluded from participating as an association. If the EGAA doesn't want them why don't they come to the Park Board directly as the Edina Model Yacht Club did. Mr. Keprios noted that if we recognize every sport group that comes across the table, there needs to be a policy and process as to how gym time can be disseminated. Mr. Keprios noted that he would prefer that they be under EGAA and let them decide how much gym time to give in order to make the program successful. It was noted that last year the Edina Jr. Olympic Volleyball team did have gym space because there was some available. This year, however, there are more traveling teams and thus more pressure on the gyms. In addition, because of construction, there is less gym space available. Mr. Keprios noted that he has been working with the group and has secured gym space at both Southview and the High School for Saturdays throughout their season. Mr. MacHolda indicated that it is tough to get gym space and in order for volleyball to get space maybe we will lose the adult basketball time. Mr. MacHolda asked does adult athletics go? Mr. Jenkins felt that the adult programs should go before the kids are cut. Mr. Montgomery asked what steps should he be taking? Mr. Christianson indicated that he should apply to become an association, just like the Edina Model Yacht Club. Mr. Montgomery asked what is that going to get them. It was noted that it will get them status so they can rank the same priority as other associations in accessing the school gyms. Mr. Christianson suggested that they go before EGAA again and they should rethink their decision and then they should come before the Park Board. Mr. Christianson does not think that a group like the EGAA should be able to be exclusionary of someone else who meets all of the requirements. He does not think that is proper or right. B. Braemar Golf Course Ms. Vagnoni asked how much more of Suicide Hill is going to be torn down. Mr. Kojetin indicated that only what is cleared now. Fill will be added halfway up the hill for the new fairway. C. Cleaning Pathways Ms. Vagnoni wanted to compliment the people that clean the pathways. They did an excellent job on cleaning Lewis, Bredesen, and Cornelia. It was nice to be able to see the walk. Thank you. IX. ADJOURNMENT Andy Herring MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:00 P.M. Andy Montgomery SECONDED THE MOTION. MEETING ADJOURNED. 12