Edina, city officials outline Concord flood-risk project; board signals need for more detail on land use

Edina school board members and city engineers on Monday discussed a proposed Concord flood-risk reduction project that would expand stormwater infrastructure between the Concord playground and the Southview parking lot and could remove the district’s need to construct a smaller stormwater system tied to a planned tennis-court upgrade.

The discussion, led by Mert Woodard, the district’s director of finance and operations, and Ross Spittner, engineering services manager for the city of Edina, centered on trade-offs: the city says a larger, shared facility would reduce future stormwater costs and create regional flood-risk protections, while board members warned it could encumber limited district land and restrict future uses.

Woodard said the district had planned a stormwater treatment tied to the tennis-court rehabilitation but “we did not move forward with constructing our own” after learning of the city’s larger facility; that choice produced an immediate change order savings of about $256,000 to the tennis project. Ross Spittner told the board the city’s approach is to “spend the public dollar once and for the most good” and that a single larger facility could produce stormwater-management credits that might lower the cost of future projects in the same watershed.

Board members repeatedly pressed city staff and district administrators for specifics. Director Ellenburg asked how the agreement would affect future land uses and whether the district would be “giving up some control” of the site. Spittner responded that the facility would encumber the site and that converting the area later — for example, to a building — could be “technically infeasible or…really expensive.”

Woodard and several board members also noted the district’s limited land inventory and asked the city for scenario planning: what could the district do on the site if it instead installed the smaller, required stormwater mitigation for the tennis courts? How much future flexibility would the district retain? Spittner said the city would lead community engagement and return with additional detail.

The city presented permit and use data to help frame the trade-offs. Spittner reported that over the last five years the site generated about 207 permits and about 3,800 hours of organized field use; he said 26% of that use was by Edina High School track and field, another 26% by community education programming, and just under 10% by the Edina Baseball Association. The city warned construction could take three to eight months and that fields might be out of service for one or two seasons depending on the scope.

Board members asked the city to clarify maintenance expectations and the division of responsibilities if the district agrees to the shared facility. The finance and facilities committee previously raised similar concerns and recommended additional analysis. At the end of the discussion, Woodard and Spittner said they would return with answers and additional detail, and the board indicated it was open to continuing the conversation but not ready to approve an agreement.

The board will review the city’s follow-up materials and legal review when those materials are returned to the district; no formal action or contract was approved at Monday’s meeting.