Loading...
02/13/1995 - City Council Special SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY FEBRUARY 13, 1995 EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER 7:00 P.M. (JOINT APRNRC MEETING) 7:00 P.M. — I. ROLL CALL & ADOPT AGENDA IL ZERO PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER Pg. 1 III. FISH LAKE GRANT Pg. 2 IV. WATER QUALITY PLAN (5 YEAR REVIEW) 7:30 P.M. ---- Pp. 3-6 V. I.S.T.E.A. TRAILS Pp. 7-13 VI. BORCHERT/INGERSOLL PROPERTY ACQUISITION Pp. 14-16 VII. HOLZ FARM: FUTURE USE/HOW BEST TO PROCEED 9:00 P.M. ---- VIII. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION Pp. 17-24 • Open Space Acquisition Trust for Public Land Bond Referendum • Parks System Plan • Mosquito Control Pp. 25-26 • Outdoor Recreation Grants • Youth Development Program - Grant • Tree Preservation • Civic Arena Project IX. OTHER ITEMS 10:00 P.M. ---- X. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 1995 SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING/MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13 Joint ARPNRC Meeting A special City Council meeting is scheduled for Monday, February 13, 1995 at 7:00 p.m., to meet jointly with the Advisory Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. This meeting was scheduled by action of the City Council at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, February 7. The attached agenda and support information provides a list of items that require discussion and direction by both the Commission and City Council. The purpose of this meeting is to allow some joint dialogue. It will be necessary to pace the discussion so that each issue is given adequate time for questions and direction. Other, There are no additional items scheduled for discussion at the work session. Informational Attached is a copy of the informational memo. The featured paragraph in this week's informative memo is the answer to "What is a New Pig Belly Patch?" City Administrator TLH/j eh AGENDA JOINT MEETING CITY COUNCIL ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1995 EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER CONFERENCE ROOMS 7:00 PM 1. Call to Order - Mayor Egan 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Zero Phosphate Fertilizer Verbal Presentation & Discussion 4. Fish Lake Grant Attachment - Page 1 5. Water Quality Plan (5 year plan review) Attachment - Page 2 6. I.S.T.E.A. Trails Attachment/Presentation and Discussion - Pages 3-6 7. Borchert/Ingersoll Property Attachments - Pages 7-13 8. Holz Farm: How Best to Proceed Attachment and Discussion - Pages 14-16 9. Open Space Acquisition Discussion and Direction - Pages 17-24 Trust for Public Land Bond Referendum 10. Parks System Plan Review and Status 11. Mosquito Control Discussion 12. Outdoor Recreation Grants Report - Pages 25-26 13. Youth Development Program-Grant Report and Discussion 14. Tree Preservation Discusssion 15. Civic Arena Project Update and Discussion 16. Other Items 17. Adjournment The City of Eagan is committed to the policy that all persons have equal access to its programs, services,activities, facilities and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status , sexual orientation,or status with regard to public assistance. Auxiliary aids for disabled persons wishing to participate are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance of the events. If a notice of less than 96 hours is received,the City will make every attempt to provide the aids TO: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION FROm; RICH BRASCH, WATER RESOURCES COORDINATOR DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION RE: CONVERSATION WITH FISH LAKE REPRESENTATIVES ON CWP FUNDING FOR FISH LAKE PROJECT. DATE: JANUARY 26, 1995 I just talked with Marge Velke of the MnPCA's Water Quality Division regarding the preliminary ranking of the Fish Lake project for financial assistance through the Clean Water Partnership Program. She indicated that our application had ranked high enough to be recommended for grant funding. However, the MnPCA and MnDNR have made a policy decision that chemical in-lake treatments and flow dosing such as that proposed in the Fish Lake application are considered experimental. As such, the MnPCA considers those aspects of the Fish Lake Project ineligible for CWP grant funding. Instead, MnPCA staff will recommend that the costs associated with those aspects of the Fish Lake project be recommended for funding through an interest-free 20-year loan from the state's revolving fund. In summary, 50% of the total project cost of $403,680 ($201,840) is eligible for funding through the CWP Program. MnPCA staff will recommend to the MnPCA Board that about $50,000 of the project be funded through a grant, with $152,000 associated with the chemical in-lake and dosing components funded with the 20-year, no interest loan. As per the program guidelines, the City as an applicant would be obligated to cover the other 50% of the project with a combination of in-kind services and cash outlays as outlined in the implementation plan. The MnPCA Board will making final decisions on these recommendations at their February 17 meeting, so it's not too soon to begin deciding whether this proposal is acceptable to the City. Please let me know when you have time to discuss this proposal in more detail and how and when we should present this information to the City Council and/or others. Thanks. Rich Brasch Water Resources Coordinator I: MEMO __ city of eagan DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 1995 TO: CITY COUNCIL ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION SUBJECT: WATER QUALITY PLAN ISSUE Should the City undertake a 5 year re-write of the Water Quality Management Plan? BACKGROUND The Water Quality Management Plan, adopted in 1990, contained a number of policy recommendations. One recommendation adopted in the plan was for a review of the plan every five years. For discussion by the Council and Commission is the need for this review and, if deemed necessary, to what extent. SOME QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER 1. What areas of the plan are of concern? Are there specific sections requiring re- writing, or is a general review all that is necessary? 2. Should the City use the services of a consultant to aid in the review? The same consultant used in the past or a different one? 3. Who should undertake the policy review? A task force? The Commission? The Council? 4. What is the level of public involvement? 5. If it is determined that there is a need for a review, what is the priority of this task? KV:cm c3kab o�- MEMO TO: ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION RICH PELLETIER, PARK OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR DATE: JANUARY 26, 1995 SUBJECT: MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY TRAIL ACCESS ISTEA GRANT As the Commission is aware, the City of Eagan has been awarded a grant under the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. The project consists of approximately 2.5 miles of trails and a shelter building,providing access to the Minnesota River Valley Trails and the Cedar Avenue river crossing. Since the original concept was presented to the Commission in April of 1993, the grant program has undergone some revisions that impact the project, and it was felt that an update would be appropriate. Background. The City first submitted a grant application in April of 1993, the first time funding under this program was possible. Unfortunately, the city's proposal did not receive an award; however, the project was deemed worthy for future funding cycles, and resubmittal was highly encouraged. The second funding cycle was for projects during the 1995-97 grant period, and the City once again presented the Minnesota River Valley Trail Access proposal for consideration. In July of 1994,preliminary notice of approval of funding at the regional level was received, contingent upon approval of the state and federal transportation authorities. Confirmation of the project's inclusion in the approved federal budget was received in January of 1995. With final funding approval, project preparation has begun in earnest. While the trail is a very worthy project, its location through the environmentally sensitive Minnesota River Valley requires multiple reviews by several different state and federal agencies prior to construction. Initial contacts had been made with all known concerned agencies even prior to the city submitting an application for the trailway, so final approval is proceeding fairly smoothly. There are, however, three issues that have been raised, and it was felt that the commission should be aware of them and their potential impacts. 3. Issues 1. Metropolitan Council Wastewater Commission (MCWC) Improvement Project The MCWC is currently constructing a major improvement project, part of which is two pipelines crossing the Minnesota River, and following the Nicols Road right-of- way south of the river to the railroad. This project entrails complete reconstruction of the roadbed, and provides an ideal opportunity to begin preparation for the trailway. There are numerous benefits to this approach, as we can not only accomplish some of the actual construction, but we can actually utilize some of the required environmental studies and archeological surveys. The limiting factor is that MCWC needs to keep their project on track, so we are working with them to maximize the trail construction efforts without hindering their progress. The drawback to this approach is any construction activities completed prior to final project approval are not grant eligible. With this in mind, we are exploring opportunities to proceed with as much of the trail as possible,without any additional costs to the MCWC or loss of grant funding to the city. 2. Trailhead/Depot Reconstruction As the commission will recall, one of the criteria for awarding of the grant was the enhancement of historical transportation buildings. Towards this end, re-creation of the Nicols train depot was advocated, to serve as a trailhead complete with interpretive graphics about the cultural, historical and natural history of the area. This concept has generated many positive comments from the grant reviewing agencies and is seen as a key component of the total project. However, it has also raised some concerns on the part of the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). SHPO has stated that "federal preservation standards do not usually encourage reconstructions of historic properties." (Letter from Mr. Dennis Grimmestad, Minnesota Historical Society, January 19, 1995; Eagan staff emphasis) We are currently working with the SHPO staff to determine under what circumstances a historic reconstruction can be built, and if this is not an acceptable alternative, what type of structure would be allowed. There is also some concern about historical artifacts in the area,and an archaeological investigation will probably be required prior to any construction. Recognizing the unique opportunity that the re-constructed depot offers in terms of meeting the need for an interpretive shelter to fully appreciate the history of the area, how much effort (expense) is appropriate to expend on ensuring the depot is historically accurate? Staff will continue working with SHPO to arrive at an acceptable and appropriate design, but felt that commission should be aware of the issue early in the process. 1. 3. funding The approved project application included a preliminary budget of $400,000.00. Under the funding schedule, 80% ($320,000.00) of this total would be grant eligible, with the city contributing the remaining $80,000.00 through a combination of force account labor (soft match) and cash (hard match) from the city's trails dedication fund. While the overall project budget has not changed, interpretation of the grant program rules has impacted the city's total dollar contribution to the project. Two areas in particular will have significant impact on the city: The first area is that design and engineering costs are no longer grant eligible. This had been a $35,000 line item in the budget. Staff is currently working with city engineering staff to complete as much design work as possible and to reduce this expense', but it is anticipated that some of this expense will be the city's responsibility. The second rule interpretation is that soft-matches are not allowed - all of the city's 20% contribution needs to be in hard dollars, based on the total actual project costs. The current practice is for the state to let the contract, and prior to bid award, the local sponsor needs to issue a check for the remaining 20% of the bid total. Obviously, these rule changes have a major impact on the overall trails funding. While an exact dollar amount will not be known until the bids are received, it is safe to say that the City's out of pocket expense will be a minimum of $80,000, and possibly more depending on engineering costs. Sammazt While funding of the Minnesota River Valley Trail Access has been approved under the federal ISTEA grant program, numerous obstacles still need to be overcome. The most notable are crossing the environmentally sensitive river valley area, and the possibility of completing some of this in conjunction with the MCWC project currently under construction. The second major issue is the trailhead depot re-construction and the numerous requirements to build this structure,including an archeological investigation. The final issue is the grant program rules changes/interpretations, and the impact this will have on the amount of funds the city will have to contribute towards the project. In evaluating this information, it is important to consider the regional significance of this trailway project, and the benefits it will offer to Eagan residents. Not only will it offer a safer bicycle crossing of the Minnesota River, it will also offer access to both state and regional trailways, along with connections to numerous neighboring municipalities' trail systems. While this is a complex project in terms of gaining project approval, all the agencies contacted have expressed support of it, which further substantiates its significance. It should also be noted that while the city may be required to expend more dollars than originally anticipated, 80% of the actual costs will be funded through the ISTEA program. Needless to say this is a significant cost savings to the community. For Commission Action No commission action is required, as this is informational only. Staff will be available to answer any questions raised. Ken Vraa Richard Pelletier Director of Parks & Recreation Park Operations Supervisor RP/nab Li&i ap,nrc.n3o b. _*II. city of eagan MEMO DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 1995 - TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION SUBJECT: JOINT COUNCIL/APRNRC MEETING BORCHERT/INGERSOLL PROPERTY The following information, and reading of the two attachments, should help you as staff presents the issues associated with the Borchert Ingersoll site. To recap some of the facts: • The Borchert Ingersoll property is apparently 71 acres in size. • The property went tax forfeit to the State of Minnesota but is managed by Dakota County. • The site has a D.N.R. waterbody/wetland. • The City has done environmental reviews of the site. • APRNRC and APC have approved acquisition. • The Dakota County Board of Commissioners has approved the acquisition(as part of the process for the City to acquire the property) • Legislation has been drafted for introduction in this Legislative Session to turn the property over to the City for parks purposes. • The DNR has already drafted a letter to the Legislature approving the City's acquisition. This property will be combined with other tax forfeit properties being presented to the Legislature for acquisition. • Gopher Smelting wants to acquire a portion(size not defined)for future expansion. They are willing to "trade" property to the south which has steep slopes and is immediately north of Yankee Doodle Road. 1. OTHER FACTS TO REMEMBER • The City has already begun some of the clean-up on site. (The site was used for unauthorized dumping of road construction materials) • The City will be responsible for removing inert material and re-establishing vegetation on disturbed areas. • The City may not re-sell property, or any portion thereof, after it has acquired it per State Statues. • The City has a need for additional athletic fields by the year 2000 (master plan priority). • Yankee Doodle Road construction provides an opportunity (?) to have excess material on site for use to cover inert debris. This assumes property acquisition by the City. (The County may allow disposal on site even if the City does not own it, but will hold the City responsible for completion) • John Tapper, CEO for Gopher Smelting contacted the City in mid-December regarding acquisition of a portion of the Borchert/Ingersoll property. cZ oiitb-i 1• BORCHERT INGERSOLL PROPERTY Meeting with City of Eagan, Gopher Smelting, DNR and Dakota County Friday, January 13, 1995 • A meeting was held on Friday, January 13, 1995, 9:00 a.m. at the DNR office. Those in attendance were Stephanie Warne, Supervisor, Sales/Licenses & Easements for the DNR; John Taper, CEO of Gopher Smelting; John Kuehn, Attorney representing Gopher Smelting; Mark Kutoff, principal of Gopher Smelting;Mike Ring,Dakota County Attorney's office;two representatives from the Auditor's Office; Ken Vraa, Director of Parks and Recreation,City of Eagan; and Cherryl Mesko, City of Eagan Parks and Recreation. Director Vraa provided some background by stating the City has been working with Mike Ring of Dakota County to acquire the tax forfeited Borchert Ingersoll property. Initially there were some concerns relative to environmental issues, however the City has spent a great deal of time and effort in testing and research to discover that the site was used primarily as an illegal dump site for construction material. Parks Superintendent VonDeLinde had been working with Stephanie Warne of the DNR prior to his leaving the City of Eagan. Vraa continued that the acquisition of this property had been approved by the Advisory Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources Commission,Eagan City Council, and the Dakota County Board of Commissioners. The property contains an area with 5-8%slopes which would be conducive to youth athletic fields; a use that is in great demand within the City, Vraa continued. A preliminary sketch showing potential use of the site for athletic facilities was shared with the group. Ken continued that John Tapper had approached him approximately 4 weeks ago to see if there was a way to acquire a portion of the Borchert Ingersoll property for future expansion of Gopher Smelting. Mr. Tapper had asked if the City would be interested in exchanging some land they owned south of the BI site for a portion of the BI land so that Gopher Smelting could expand to the west. Director Vraa noted that a large portion of the BI site is heavily wooded and has steep slopes which significantly reduces the development options of the site. It was also noted that the parcels of land owned by Gopher Smelting to the south were very heavily wooded, contained a portion of a pond and have very steep slopes. In conclusion, Director Vraa commented that the plans being reviewed do not represent the City's position, rather they show potential options for development of the site and/or options for a land exchange. It is believed that the issue of a land trade may create a problem because of the timing of this issue at the Legislature. Director Vraa commented that the City does not want to risk losing the property if a land swap would create delays or if the City were asked to withdraw their request for acquisition. John Tapper commented that Gopher Smelting is very interested in expanding onto the Borchert Ingersoll site however they are not excited about having ballfields so close to an industrial area, specifically a lead recovery operation, because of public perception. Mark Kutoff asked what the legal issues were relative to a land trade of tax forfeited property. Mike Ring responded that tax forfeited property reverts back to the County, however, because there are wetlands on this site the issue needs to be reviewed by the DNR for their recommendations. Once a public entity makes a declaration to acquire a tax forfeited property, it is pulled off the market for one year. If the City would want to change the acquisition of the Borchert Ingersoll property, i.e. include a land trade, etc., they would have to withdraw their current request before it goes to the Legislature, Mr. Ring continued. q. Stephanie Warne stated that tax forfeited land can be exchanged with other land, however, the Attorney General's office has stated that tax forfeited land is to be sold in the same way it was acquired; i.e., if the two parcels that make up the Borchert Ingersoll property are acquired together, they must be disposed of/sold the same way. It was noted that land swaps had occurred in the past. Mark Kutoff asked if a land swap could be done in this case. Stephanie stated she was not sure since this was a very complicated issue and the process could be very time consuming. John Kuehn stated that Gopher Smelting had looked at the statutes and talked about the possibility of the subdivision process to make a land exchange work. Mike Ring responded that even if the land could be subdivided, it would have been taken for public use and would have to remain as such. The City is acquiring the property from the State and County and it cannot be transferred without Legislative approval. In response to a question as to what the DNR's involvement is in this situation, Stephanie responded that although the DNR has no ownership interest in the land, because of the wetlands on site, the DNR makes recommendations to the House and Senate but the Legislature makes the final decision on land acquisition of tax forfeited property. John Tapper asked when the DNR would be making a recommendation relative to the BI property. Stephanie responded that a letter has been completed recommending that the City of Eagan acquire the property. John Kuehn stated they agreed with the proposal in general, however, they want to modify it slightly. Can a change be worked out? Mr. Kuehn also expressed his concern that this change will stop the process and understands that the City does not want to see that happen. Director Vraa agreed stating that there has already been a large commitment by the City to this site including environmental research and testing, pending payment of$30,000 in back taxes and the need to clean up the site. The clean-up process has started and it is hoped that with the Yankee Doodle Road project, there may be some excess fill which would be beneficial at the BI site. Although the City has plans in place to begin clean-up of the site, it would be risky to continue work without ownership. In an effort to attempt to see what options might be available for a land trade, John Tapper asked if the State could swap the land with Gopher Smelting. Mike Ring responded that when this request came through the County there were some questions as to why the County had not acquired this parcel of land. Apparently they had not identified a use for this particular property, Mike continued. Director Vraa stated that many people were concerned with what was buried on the site, but the City did extensive research and have had all the necessary inspections by county and state agencies and were comfortable enough with the results to proceed with acquisition of the land. Stephanie Warne asked Gopher Smelting why they had not attempted to buy the property before going into tax forfeiture if their intent was to expand their business to this site. Mark Kutoff responded that they had a purchase agreement with the previous owner but it was never signed. John Tapper added that they were aware the property was going tax forfeit but did not know the process or timing. Mike Miller, Land Exchange Expert for DNR, joined the meeting to see if he could clarify some of the questions still unanswered by the group. Stephanie explained that what Gopher Smelting was attempting to do was have the 81 parcel subdivided to allow the transfer of Gopher Smelting property with water on it for a piece of the subdivided BI property with no water on it. Mr. Miller reiterated that the parcel has to be disposed of in the same way it was acquired. As a point of clarification, Mr. Miller stated that Gopher Smelting would be receiving a non-riparian parcel for a riparian piece of property. Mike Ring added that the intent of a subdivision would be to preserve the water but to create a non-water parcel. Mr. Miller clarified that a criteria of importance is that the land being received would need to equal, for state benefit, the land that was being traded. 2 10' In response to a question regarding the timing to subdivide or provide for a land trade, Mr. Miller stated the process would be that an appraisal would need to be done on both properties in which they would need to be equal in value, a public hearing would need to occur relative to the land 6 swap, the County Attorney would need to do a title opinion which would then need to be reviewed by the Attorney General followed by a review by the Land Exchange Board which meets quarterly. The complete package would need to be received and reviewed six weeks prior to the quarterly hearing, Mr. Miller continued. Director Vraa asked if this could be done before April 1, 1995. Mr. Miller stated that March is the next Land Exchange Board meeting and felt it would be highly unlikely that the review required for a land swap or subdivision (if determined by the Attorney General that it could occur)could be completed prior to the March review. Mr. Miller also explained that after the appraisals were completed, if the public land was of greater value than the private land being traded,the acceptance of money for the difference would be prohibited. Director Vraa clarified what the appraisal would cover the highest and best use zoning. Mike Ring concurred stating it would be at fair market value. Mark Kutoff stated that a recent appraisal of the lots to the south of the BI property reflect they are worth more than the portion of the BI property being proposed for trade. John Kuehn again asked if tax forfeited l id can be subdivided. Stephanie responded that the State can legislate the sale of tax forfeited land, but the County would have to purchase it. John Tapper responded to a comment by Mr. Vraa that the City is interested in acquiring fill from the Yankee Doodle Road upgrade. He stated that he had asked the County for the excess dirt and they had responded that none was available. He also stated that Gopher Smelting had been promised excess fill when Yankee Doodle Road was expanded. Director Vraa commented that he had only recently heard that there may be fill available. After reviewing some of the land swap scenarios, Mike Ring asked if the City of Eagan would be willing to withdraw their proposal in order to work on further negotiations. However, Mr. Ring cautioned, if the City does withdraw their proposal and the land reverts back to Dakota County, it is very likely the County will keep it for it's own use/development. At this point, the County has already approved the acquisition of the Borchert Ingersoll property by the City of Eagan to the Legislature. Stephanie Warne added that everything is in place currently for this acquisition to move ahead and once the City has the property, a piece cannot be carved out of it. Mr. Ring stated that it appears the issue of subdivision is unclear. Stephanie responded that the Statute states the land cannot be sold. Director Vraa added that in order to subdivide it would require the approval of the Attorney General and then Legislative action. Mr.Tapper asked(assuming a subdivision can occur) if the City was interested in the land to the south of the Borchert Ingersoll property. Vraa responded that the question is being reviewed at this time. The Advisory Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission has asked that this issue be researched to see if the land to the south could benefit the existing site while determining what impact the loss of athletic facilities would have if the portion of land Gopher Smelting is interested in is exchanged. Ken continued that the City Council is not aware of the latest interest expressed by Gopher Smelting to exchange land but the Commission has asked that options be explored with this parcel of land. There appears to be no reason for the City to say no to a land trade at this point, however there is a need to review the potential loss of fields. After further discussion, it was concluded that nothing could proceed until an opinion from the Attorney General was obtained to determine the legality of subdividing or trading a portion of tax forfeited land in this particular situation. Stephanie agreed to work with Andy Tourville in the Attorney General's office to see if some conclusions could be obtained so that everyone could proceed how they deem best. 3 /1. John Tapper asked if the bill had been introduced. Mike Ring responded that Jack Ditmore, Legislative Liaison, is working to get support for the bill. Director Vraa added that the City is working with an existing neighboring property owner to work out some overland runoff issues. There is an attempt being made to provide for ponding to mitigate the runoff and the parties are anxious to move forward with the ponding near the Borchert Ingersoll site. JohnTapper asked if this issue was moving on to the Legislature. Stephanie responded that there still is some time before the final recommendation letter from the DNR would be sent. Mr. Tapper expressed his preference to making sure all the issues were completely understood before this is sent on to the Legislature. Mark Kutoff commented that they want to keep this away from the Legislature until a trade can occur, but if it goes to the Legislature, they will have to pursue other options for their best interest. The meeting was concluded with the understanding that the attorneys present would follow up with Stephanie and the Attorney General's office to determine the legality and possibility of a land exchange or subdivision of the tax forfeited Borchert Ingersoll property. After the meeting concluded, Mike Ring commented that if this issue does not get to the Legislature for any reason, there is no doubt in his mind that the County will retain this parcel for it's own use. If this occurs, it is highly unlikely that Gopher Smelting would be able to acquire any of the Borchert Ingersoll property for expansion. 4 /d . MEMO _. city of eagan DATE: JANUARY 18, 1995 TO: KEN VRAA FROM: CHERRYL MESKO SUBJECT: BORCHERT INGERSOLL PROPERTY Ken, Mike Ring called this morning at 10:20 am to give us an update on the Borchert Ingersoll property. He stated that the Attorney General has opined that the eastern portion of the property can be subdivided into two parcels. The City can then acquire the three parcels, convey one to Gopher Smelting or Gopher Smelting can acquire the subdivided portion of the easterly parcel. In order to accomplish the above, Mike indicated the Legislature would have to authorize the subdivision prior to the City acquiring the property. It is feasible (perhaps not realistic) for both issues to appear at the next Legislative session. The City would be required to make the request of the County to change the acquisition criteria and then follow through with the DNR, subdivision process, mylars, introduce a new bill, etc. prior to proceeding to the Legislature. If this can all be completed, then both the subdivision request and the acquisition can be facilitated during the next Legislative session. If the timing is such that all the work cannot be completed, the subdivision request would need to go to the Legislature this year and the acquisition in 1996. Mike commented that the City really needs to determine what their interest and investment will be in this property. If they determine that they can subdivide this parcel to accommodate an Eagan business, and still benefit from the property, they may want to proceed. The City needs to be aware of the requirements to proceed with the subdivision process in that they will be responsible for all costs and submissions required. Mike also commented that the City will need to find someone locally to introduce the bill to the Legislature. I asked Mike what the County's position was on this proposal; would they want to re- acquire the property If the City requests this type of change. He commented that the County would only express that interest if the City withdrew it's current request. They do not view the proposed change as a withdrawal. As Mike so politely concluded; the ball is in our park. e3hMI.*igBl 13 . _ city of eagan MEMO DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 1995 TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION SUBJECT: JOINT COUNCIL/APRNRC MEETING HOLZ FARM PROPERTY It would be appropriate for the Council/Commission to have a general discussion on Holz Farm and its future now that the City has acquired the property. While there has been a number of ideas advanced as to how the property might be used, it would be appropriate for the Council to determine who should advise them on a course of action ' in determining how it will be programmed. Some questions to help you: 1. Who should provide input/advice to the City Council on the farm? • Advisory Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission • A newly formed group of citizens • A foundation • Historical Committee 2. What is the involvement of volunteers/citizens in the farm? How is this channeled into a production effort? 3. What is the public process for program development? Timeline? 4. Are there any expectations of the Council for this property? 5. Is there a separate budget for the park or simply a program run within the existing Parks and Recreation budget? 6. Is there a need to bring in a consultant to advise on the preservation of the farm? o3�jok,th 41,1P111 MEMO city of eagan DATE: DECEMBER 7, 1994 TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION SUBJECT: HOLZ FARM PARK FORMATION OF FRIENDS OF HOLZ FARM PARK BACKGROUND, With the proposed acquisition of the Holz Farm property, there has been recent publicity both positive and encouraging. As a result of that publicity, the Department has received several calls and letters from residents expressing their willingness to participate in the restoration and operation of the property. In order to capitalize on this interest, it might be appropriate for the City Council to quickly structure an organization or committee to foster preservation and program development for this site. GENERAL IDEAS Following are some general ideas the City Council, and perhaps the community, could refine. Perhaps the City Council would wish to create the "Holz Farm Heritage and Preservation Center" with acommitee to assess the existing facility and analyze future preservation, restoration and program development. The organization of the committee might be done by appointment or by asking for volunteers from the community. Both have their advantages, both have their disadvantages. The Council may also wish to consider whether there should be a Council liaison person on this committeee along with member(s) of the Advisory Parks Commission. It would also be advisable to give the committee, a charge or purpose for the work they are to accomplish. Is it the Council's vision to have this committee ongoing? Is the scope of their work broad and longer enduring or is it the Council's expectation that their work be to make • recommendations on how to get started. Creation of a "Friends of the Farm Foundation" could also be considered by the City Council. The creation might come later In the life cycle of Holz Farm, as an option to help gifts, pledges for financial support for the operation of this farm property. Perhaps this is an issue for the above-mentioned Committee to consider. It might be advantageous for the City to consider registration of this site with the State Historical Society. The City may wish to proceed with this at this time, in hopes of making it eligible for future grants or maybe this is another charge for the "Citizen Committee" to investigate. /, • HOLZ FARM PARK . PAGE 2 SUMMATION The positive publicity from this community in regards to Holz Farm Park presents an opportune time for the City Council to involve citizens in preservation and promotion of the Farm. Staff has received numerous calls and letters already stating people's willingness to particiapte in some phase of a project. The Council may wish to consider the formation of a citizens committee, in some form, to foster the spirit of community involvement. The Council should consider various-alternatives providing staff with some direction as to how to proceed and when to proceea . I will be looking forward to Council discussion and brainstorming regarding to the Holz Farm property. Perhaps this is something the Council wishes to do with the Advisory Commission or independent of the Commission. dl:holzform /b. TRUST F 0 R PUBLIC LAND Conserving Land for People December 9, 1994 Ken Vraa Eagan Parks and Recreation 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Mr. Vraa, We understand that you are considering a bond referendum campaign to fund the purchase of land to be preserved as open space. The Trust for Public Land is interested in working with you on this effort. This letter is intended as a brief introduction to our services; more detailed information is attached. TPL is a national, nonprofit land conservation organization that works with public agencies to help communities achieve their park and open space acquisition goals. Over the last twenty-three years, TPL has facilitated the preservation of over 1,000 open space properties, worth just under $1 billion, ranging from urban parks to pristine wilderness. TPL serves as a third-party buyer in these transactions. For public agencies, TPL acquires and packages properties for public purchase. For landowners, TPL is often able to satisfy their timing, tax and cash needs faster, confidentially and with more flexibility than the public agency. Plus, TPL is not "the city", so we start without the burden of landowner experiences with assessments and the like. TPL can provide assistance to the agency in identifying and securing funding, and providing options for financing over time. TPL can coordinate multiple funding sources as well as bridge timing problems. TPL also handles details of the real estate transaction including appraisals, title review and environmental reviews. Working with cities who are using bond campaigns for funding, we like to option properties in advance of the campaign, so people know what they are voting to preserve. This also provides accurate information on property costs. We are also available to help on the campaign itself, by sharing our local and national knowledge and resources. The Trust for Public Land Midwest Region 420 North Fifth Street Suite 865 Minneapolis,MN 55401 (612)338-8494 Fax(612)338-8467 4. In 1992 TPL established the Green Cities Initiative, a commitment to increasing open space in twelve cities, including the Twin Cities. This work includes working with local governments and community groups to inventory remaining open space and select priorities for preservation; optioning properties in advance of local bond campaigns; and facilitating a major state/metro/local funding initiative of at least $150 million. TPL is currently doing the acquisitions funded by Maplewood's successful $5 million open space referendum. Perhaps the best reason to consider working with TPL is that we make projects happen. TPL has been a valued partner in land conservation projects with landowners and public agencies at all levels of government in nearly all the states across the country. Your Advisory Commission on Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources has done an impressive amount of work in inventorying and evaluating your remaining open space. TPL would be pleased to work with you on an acquisition program and bond campaign, which we believe is likely to be very successful. This is an excellent time of year to be talking with landowners because of the combination of tax time and the chance for families to be together over the holidays. I am looking forward to discussing this with you or others at your convenience. Sincerely, , ..7ii...54._it ja /ex_____ Lisa Kugler Project Manager ENC: /1 THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND Transaction Services Fact Sheet Working with TPL The Trust for Public Land (TPL) is a national nonprofit land conservation organization founded in 1972 to protect land for the public's use and enjoyment. TPL's goal is to conserve land for people, which it accomplishes through several programs. Its principal program is acquiring lands suitable for open space and parks and conveying them to public agencies for ownership and management. TPL also provides training and technical assistance to citizens, land trusts and government agencies to strengthen their land conservation activities. TPL helps public agencies accomplish their land acquisition priorities. We respond to the land conservation agenda of public agencies and the communities where people live, work and play. This fact sheet answers some of the common questions about how TPL works. Bow does TPL work with the government to protect land? TPL works with government agencies at their invitation or at the invitation of landowners to acquire land for conservation and public use. TPL provides valuable assistance in the following ways: . buying Time. Because of budgetary, staffing and legal constraints, public agencies are frequently not in a position to act when important parcels of land become available. In active real estate markets, timing is critical. As an independent private organization, TPL responds quickly to opportunities to secure land for conservation and "bridges" the gap between the time the land is available and the time public purchase is possible. TPL brings extra hands and minds to assist over-extended government staffs. Complex Acquisition Challenges. Public agencies often do not have the time or staffing capacity to work through complex acquisition issues. This is one of TPL's strengths. TPL's project staff is supported by financial and legal specialists with experience in sorting out the complexities of real estate transactions, such as those arising from title problems, disputed water rights, zoning uncertainties, hazardous waste contamination and litigation. 1 / q . Meeting Landowner Needs. TPL is experienced in structuring transactions to meet the special needs of landowners, such as life estates, annuities, and estate planning strategies. As an example, some landowners would rather be paid over time for their land than be paid in cash. TPL can structure a transaction to meet such a need while being able to convey the property to a public agency free of a mortgage or lien. TPL has the flexibility to work out arrangements that are beyond public agencies' legal authority, such as acquiring a corporation's stock in order to liquidate real estate holdings. Distressed Properties. Sales of distressed property sometimes present spectacular land conservation opportunities, but with special challenges: timing is critical, the sellers have little flexibility and the purchase process is sometimes beyond the legal authority of agencies. TPL is experienced in working with the owners of distressed property, such as trustees in bankruptcy, foreclosing lenders, and state and federal regulators. Making the Pieces Fit. A frequent problem in public land acquisition is that the desired parcel is part of a larger parcel or requires assembling a single parcel of land from individual owners of smaller properties. TPL can help make the pieces fit. TPL has demonstrated the experience and ability to acquire and subdivide land, allowing the sale to public agencies of the agencies' target lands. Similarly, TPL can act to meet agency acquisition programs by assembling independent parcels. TPL can make the pieces fit in other ways. One example of this is removing buildings and improvements prior to sale to a public agency to meet the agency's requirements. Mobilizing Support. One of TPL's greatest contributions to conservation transactions is mobilizing public support for land acquisition. Grass roots support has many benefits, from raising funds to defray the cost of the land and its management, to lobbying legislators for appropriation of funds to make an acquisition. TPL lobbies actively at the federal and state levels for land acquisition and for the interests of public land acquisition agencies. flow does TPL support itself? TPL is not a typical nonprofit organization in that it has no membership and thus no support from dues. About 60% of TPL's financial support comes from landowners who sell property to TPL. Willing sellers of land having scenic, recreation, historic or wilderness value often choose to sell their land to TPL at a price below market value, in order to allow TPL to use the proceeds for organizational support. In addition, instead 2 of making a donation of land value, some landowners provide support by making donations of cash or paying TPL for its services. The balance of TPL's support comes from contributions, grants, interest and other income. TPL's ability to secure much of its support through transactions allows TPL to keep its administrative overhead costs to a minimum and to devote maximum resources directly to land conservation efforts. Less than fifteen percent of TPL's income goes to fundraising and administration. flow much do agencies pay for land sold by TPL? It is TPL's policy to sell land to public agencies at fair market value, as established by an appraisal performed by an outside appraiser to the agency's standards and approval. Typically, TPL does not request reimbursement for any of its costs. TPL acquires land in its own name. It does not operate as a broker or as an agent of governmental agencies. TPL assumes all the risks and liabilities of land ownership, as well as the costs associated with buying, owning and selling land. This arrangement allows TPL to meet its financial needs while assuring public agencies that they are paying no more than a property is worth. flow does TPL work with landowners?, TPL presents itself to landowners as an independent conservation organization that seeks to acquire land for resale to public agencies. Where possible, TPL seeks a donation of land value or cash to fund TPL's activities. TPL acts as a principal, and not as anyone else's agent. Confidentiality is a hallmark of TPL's work with landowners. It places landowners at ease and assures an environment hospitable to a conservation land transaction. It is TPL's policy to preserve the confidentiality of its dealings with landowners. Why would a landowner sell to TPA. rather than to the government? In fact, the large majority of landowners do sell directly to government agencies and there is no need for assistance by groups like TPL. TPL focuses on those land opportunities that public agencies cannot promptly act upon. 3 •1( When priority lands come up for sale, public agencies often do not have the funding in place to purchase them. Landowners may be unwilling or unable to wait out the process, and the opportunity to protect public resources can be lost. As an independent public-interest organization, TPL can provide timely commitments to landowners in order to keep their lands off the private market until acquisition by a permanent steward, such as a county park district or a federal agency, is possible. Row does TPL use the revenues from its transactions? TPL uses the financial support from transactions and from general fundraising to acquire other properties throughout the country, to meet day-to-day operating expenses, to fund its education and outreach programs, and to provide a prudent reserve fund. In 1991, 85% of TPL's land-saving revenues went directly to its land saving work and educational programs. An example of TPL's outreach is its work in establishing and training land trusts, citizen based nonprofit organizations saving land on a local or regional basis. TPL has started 164 land trusts and worked with over 300 others in the past 20 years. Less than 15% of TPL's revenues have gone for administration and fundraising. The Chronicle of Philantrophy recently rated TPL among the leanest, most efficient fundraising organizations of 20 national conservation organizations studied. The October, 1991 issue of Forbes magazine rated TPL a 96% on its Fundraising Efficiency Index. Forbes also gave TPL a 84% on its Program Commitment Index. This statistic shows that TPL is committing 84% of its revenues to its land protection program. TPL has no shareholders. As a nonprofit organization, all of its earnings must be dedicated to its exempt functions. TPL's financial statements are publicly available. For more information, please contact: The Trust for Public Land Midwest Regional Office 420 North 5th Street, Suite 865 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 4 T H E TRUST F 0 R PUBLIC LAND The Trust for Public Land FACT SHEET Conserving Land for People Mission The Trust for Public Land (TPL) is a private, nonprofit land conservation organization that works nationwide to conserve land for people. Founded in 1972, the Trust for Public Land specializes in conservation real estate, applying its expertise in negotiation,public finance,and law to protect land for public use. Working with private landowners,communities,and government agencies, TPL has helped protect more than 1,000 special places nationwide for people to enjoy as parks, playgrounds,community gardens, recreation areas,historic landmarks, and wilderness lands. Green Cities Initiative TPL is working in cities and metropolitan communities around the country, supporting local efforts to create parks and protect endangered open spaces. Through the Green Cities Initiative, TPL has initially targeted 12 cities where opportunities, leadership, and community commitment coalesce to undertake a comprehensive land acquisition and park improvement program: Atlanta,Georgia Minneapolis/St.Paul,Minnesota Austin,Texas New York,New York Baltimore,Maryland Portland,Oregon Boston,Massachusetts Providence,Rhode Island Cleveland,Ohio San Francisco Bay Area,California Los Angeles,California Seattle,Washington TPL's Green Cities Initiative aims to increase public awareness of the vital role of parks and open space in the quality of urban life, generate funding to create, improve and maintain urban parks, and protect public open spaces that preserve and celebrate a city's unique heritage. TPL Services Working with federal,state,county and municipal governments, and business,civic,and neighborhood organizations,TPL provides: • Interim site protection • Assistance with real estate transactions and finance • Information and technical support on public finance campaigns for new public land • Independent negotiations with landowners • Bridge financing through revolving funds, loans,and lease-purchase agreements • Planning assistance and help identifying opportunities for parks and land protection • Effective public education campaigns to mobilize support for parks and open space The Trust for Public Land National Office 116 New Montgomery Fourth Floor (over) San Francisco,CA 94105 (415)495-4014 Fax(415)495-4103 ' . Land Conservation TPL has protected over 800,000 acres of land valued at more than$900 million in 43 states and Canada. TPL has also worked with over 300 of the nation's 1,100 land trusts. These local nonprofit organizations currently protect approximately 4.1 million acres nationwide. TPL's . National Land Counselor Program offers intensive training for land trusts in conservation real estate transactions. Project Highlights Monroe School (site of Brown v. Board of Ed.decision),Topeka,Kansas, 1993 Walden Woods,Concord, Massachusetts, 1991-93 Southside Community Farm,Providence,Rhode Island, 1991 Denali National Park and Preserve,Alaska, 1991 Mountains to Sound Greenway Program,Washington, 1991 Senka Park,Chicago, Illinois, 1991 San Bruno Mountain,San Mateo,California, 1989 Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge,Kauai, Hawaii, 1988 Martin Luther King Historical District,Atlanta,Georgia, 1982-present Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area,Oregon and Washington, 1979-90 Lower East Side Community Gardens,New York, 1979 TPL Regional Offices Atlanta,Georgia (404) 873-7306 Austin,Texas (512) 478-4644 Baltimore,Maryland - (410) 243-3698 Boston,Massachusetts (617) 737-0261 Costa Mesa,California (714) 557-2575 Los Angeles,California (310) 474-4466 Minneapolis, Minnesota (612) 338-8494 Morristown,New Jersey (201) 539-9191 New York,New York (212) 677-7171 Norwich,Vermont (802) 649-3611 Portland,Oregon (503) 228-6620 Sacramento,California (916) 557-1673 San Francisco,California (415)495-5660 Santa Fe,New Mexico (505)988-5922 Seattle,Washington (206) 587-2447 South Miami,Florida (305) 667-0409 Tallahassee,Florida (904) 422-1404 Washington,D.C. (202) 543-7552 National Office: (415) 495-4014 San Francisco,California 1-800-714-LAND President Martin J.Rosen *ill' MEMO _ city of eagan DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 1995 TO: CITY COUNCIL ADVISORY PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION DOROTHY PETERSON, SUPERINTENDENT OF RECREATION C.J. LILLY, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT/PARKS PLANNER SUBJECT: MN. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES; LOCAL GRANT PROGRAM OUTDOOR RECREATION GRANT APPLICATION/HOLZ FARM BACKGROUND The City has a history of success in the acquisition of Local Grants. Blackhawk Park, Northview athletic fields and Thomas Lake Park are examples. Preliminary inquiry with a grants manager at the DNR has created optimism that Holz Farm may qualify for consideration for funding in the Outdoor Recreation Grant category. Time frames for grant applications are: Application requests by March 1, 1995; applications by May 1, 1995. ISSUES The following issues are presented for Council and Commission discussion: 1. Acquisition of Holz Farm is very recent. Energies of staff, Commission and Council have been directed toward that acquisition. None of the following have been developed: a. Plans of action to secure, protect and preserve the farm buildings as is. b. Decision whether to pursue professional assistance with historic analysis for possibly registry with National or State historical societies. c. Decision whether to pursue professional assistance for structural analysis. This would determine not only the condition of the buildings but also identify a year to which restoration could be achieved. d. Program statements defining how the farm will be used. e. Capital Improvement Budget; Holz Farm is not currently on the City's five year CI P. 2. Pursuit of an Outdoor Recreation Grant would require identification of matching funding. ad's• 3. The Department of Natural Resources reports that the availability of funds for Local Grants will not be known until the end of the 1995 legislative session. In addition, the governor recommends zero dollars for the local grant program. DISCUSSION Staff met informally with F.J. Sabongi, Historic Preservation Specialist from Short Eliott Hendrickson Inc. Walk-through inspection was made of the Holz Farm house and several out buildings. Access to the barn was blocked due to snow and ice restricting the door. Staff utilized the walk through as a listening, questioning and learning expedition. Mr. Sabongi has provided the City with a written report which addresses the issues identified in this memorandum. In addition, estimates of professional fees for various phases of a potential restoration project are outlined. Mr. Sabongi's recommendation is that the site be cleaned up and secured. Tools, implements and other artifacts that are outdoors should be moved indoors. Windows should be covered to prevent moisture from invading. Security lighting should be planned. Finally, to secure the site, chain link fencing round the perimeter of the farm should be considered. Staff is of the opinion that this attracts people rather than keeps them away. The historical and structural analysis have one primary objective. If the farm is found to merit National or State Historical Society registry, restoration grant funding from historical societies and private foundations is more readily forthcoming. The program statements for the farm would guide its ultimate level of restoration and use by the community. This phase would incorporate work with a local steering committee. Placement of Holz Farm on the five year CIP would assist with the current consideration for application for an Outdoor Recreation Grant. In addition, a restoration completion date of the year 2000 or beyond could be identified. Estimated consultant costs that can be reviewed at this time are: • Preliminary research and registration evaluation $ 2,500.00 • Structural analysis and evaluation 4,850.00 • Re-use study 15.000.00 Subtotal $22,350.00 Estimates of other costs; incurred only if historic registry is possible. • Historic structures report $12,500.00 • Historic American building survey documentation 3.500.00 Subtotal $16,000.00 Total Consultant Fees $38.350.00 Estimates for actual site development have not been developed at this time. FOR COUNCIUCOMMISSION ACTION The CounciVCommission should approve or deny the submission of an application to the Department of Natural Resources for an Outdoor Recreation Grant in the amount of $ for the outlined preliminary phases for the development of Holz Farm. Further, adoption of the attached resolution is appropriate. KV:cm