06/16/2008 - Open Space CommitteeCity of Ealan I I
TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
JON HOHENSTEIN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
FROM: DALE SCHOEPPNER, CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
DATE: JUNE 16, 2008
SUBJECT: CARRIAGE HILLS, 3535 WESTCOTT WOODLANDS
On June 5, 2008, 1 visited the Carriage Hills clubhouse with Ronny Rahn, Juli Johnson and
Dorothy Peterson. The building was originally constructed in 1967. In 1970, an addition was
built onto to the west side. Ronny stated that the clubhouse has not been occupied in at least
five years.
The clubhouse is one story structure with no basement, consisting of masonry exterior walls and
a combination of masonry units and wood framed studs inside. The building has a kitchen,
locker rooms, restrooms, offices, a pro -shop, numerous storage spaces, and two dining rooms
that occupy most of the south side of the building. After walking through the inside and outside
of the clubhouse, we made several observations:
• The exterior needs a lot of work including replacement of the siding and roof.
• The outside masonry walls appear stable.
• Ronny said that the clubhouse is very expensive to heat, which is not surprising due to
the vintage. They have to maintain some heat for the security system.
• It is unknown how much insulation is in the exterior walls or the attic.
• The clubhouse water heaters, AC units and furnaces would have to be replaced.
• The electrical components need to be investigated for adequacy depending on any
anticipated use.
• Accessibility features to the interior including walls, plumbing fixtures and doors would
need to be changed to comply with current standards.
• The structure is connected to City sewer and water; however the property does have
wells that were used for the golf course.
Juli Johnson from Parks & Recreation indicated that it would be very difficult and costly to make
the building suitable for a recreation use.
Please let me know if you have any questions
Thank you,
p�i A*,
Chief Building Offi I
Attachment: Carriage Hills Photos
JJww6e"Ii
A
R4 p.
boCity of Eagan
To: ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
From: COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR GARRISON
Date: June 16, 2008
Subject: QUICK SURVEY ON OPEN SPACE QUESTIONS
I have received information back from Decision Resources, regarding the cost of doing
an expedited survey with 3-4 topical questions on open space/uses of Carriage Hills.
The consultant recommends that basic demographic questions be included so you will
know where basis of support or opposition on various questions are coming from at a
macro level. This would bring your number of questions to no more than 10.
The cost for a 10 -question survey is as follows:
• $5,000 for 250 respondents
• $6,500 if 400 respondents (which would guarantee accuracy to within +/-
5%.)
The good news is such a survey can be executed very quickly at anytime this summer.
During vacation season they recommend a one week field time, but spread over two
weeks (Thursday — Wednesday) to capture those who might have been away. While a
survey could be completed earlier, if an August 1 date is desired for final results, they
recommend waiting until after the upcoming July 4th holiday (heavy vacation time), but
can have all pre -work done so they are immediately able to field the survey.
You also have the opportunity with the Community Survey to follow to ask a follow-up
question or two to validate earlier findings or see if opinions change.
As you know, Thursday's recently set Open Space Committee meeting is on top of a
previously schedule Eagan Tech Working Group meeting with our out-of-town
broadband consultant. I will attend the start of the Open Space meeting, and would
appreciate if this matter and the specific questions of interest could be discussed at the
beginning of the meeting.
Please let me know if you have additional questions or require additional follow-up with
Decision Resources.
DECISION RESO UR CES, LTD.
3128 Dean Court
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416
January 7, 2008
Ms. Julie Seydell Johnson
Park and Recreation Director
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, Minnesota 55122
Dear Julie:
Decision Resources, Ltd., is pleased to present this survey research proposal to you for the City of
Eagan. This prospectus is organized in four parts: a discussion of the goals of the research; a
potential design; project schedule; and, estimated project costs. As you will see, I am certain that
DRL can again provide the City of Eagan with the information it seeks in both a cost-effective and
timely manner.
GOALS OF THE RESEARCH.-
The
ESEARCH:
The survey would assess the attitudes and opinions of City of Eagan residents on four separate, but
interrelated issues:
Perceptions of Recreation and Open Space Needs
How do residents view the impact development in Eagan on open space?. Do residents see a need
for preservation of land at this time? Aside from their own area of the community, do residents see
any areas which should be preserved for the future? How do residents rate the uses of any acquired
land -- trail system expansion, sports fields, and/or mixed developments?
Property Tax Climate
How do residents view their property taxes in comparison with neighboring communities? What is
their tax increase tolerance for an open space fund? Are there positive arguments that neutralize
concerns about higher taxes?
Decision Resources, Ltd.
City of Eagan Proposal
January, 2008
Bond Referendum Atmospherics
Does the primary or the general election make more sense for the passage of this proposal? Are
there distracting issues which could impact votes on an open space referendum (e.g., the on-going
Charter Commission debate)? What is the best positioning of the ballot question (e.g., legacy for
Eagan children or protecting Eagan's natural beauty)?
Demographic Characteristics
What is the profile of a supporter, opponent, and undecided voter? What is the composition of
potential victory coalitions? What is the opinion of the swing group of "Conservative Greens?"
What is the best way to provide information to undecided voters, weak supporters, and weak
opponents?
DESIGN OF THE RESEARCH:
Decision Resources, Ltd., proposes to conduct a telephone survey of 400 randomly selected
households in the City of Eagan. A sample of 400 residents would provide results projectable to
the City's adult population within ± 5.0 percent in 95 out of 100 cases. The sample is also of
sufficient size to permit the community to be divided into a maximum of four categories for more
detailed analysis, such as age, mobility, home ownership, location of residence, presence of
children, and other, demographic characteristics.
To insure the integrity of the sample, DRL places the most exacting sampling standards in the
industry on our procedures. Before an alternate household is substituted for a designated target, at
least ten tries are made to contact the initial households during a five-day period. The telephone
calls take place during various times on weekday evenings and during the weekend. Our
interviewers are also instructed to seek convenient appointments with interviewees, cutting our
non -contact rate to less than five percent on average. An unbiased selection process is also used to
identify the adult member of the household to be interviewed. To validate the completed sample,
the latest United States Census updated population characteristics are utilized as a standard of
comparison.
The questionnaire would be administered by DRL trained and supervised personnel. The computer
analysis will be obtained from our in-house C -MENTOR and SPSS statistical analysis systems,
insuring both access to the most current analysis programs and confidentiality of the data set.
The City of Eagan will be presented with bound copies of the final report highlighting all the major
findings of the study. DRL will also speak to any major differences from and similarities with the
past studies of the city and, when applicable, referendum surveys in neighboring communities, such
as the 2007 survey of Apple Valley. A volume of all computer-generated cross tabulations and
other multivariate statistical techniques will also be included.
Page 2 of 4
Decision Resources, Ltd.
City of Eagan Proposal
January, 2008
PROJECT SCHEDULE:
1. Planning with City Council Members, City Administration and Staff, and/or relevant individuals
to establish the topics to be covered in the survey. Based on these topic concepts, DRL would
word specific, neutral questions. This activity can be completed by a meeting, telephone and/or
fax, depending on client wishes, within two weeks of the initiation of the contract.
2. Structuring of questions and final approval of the survey instrument. These activities are
usually completed within three weeks of the discussion of topics to be covered in the survey.
3. Final determination of the field dates for interviewing.
4. Pre -testing and, if needed, approval of resulting revisions. This activity is usually completed by
the second day of fieldwork.
5. Completion of all fieldwork within a two -to -three week period.
6. Computer analysis and preparation of written report. All analytical tests and commentary will
be available within four weeks after completion of the fieldwork.
7. Delivery of the final written report to the City of Eagan, including presentation graphics.
Afterwards, telephone consultation, as the need arises, will be provided about the study's findings
and implications.
PROJECT COSTS:
The cost of a survey is driven by two factors: sample size and questionnaire length. The cost to
conduct a 50-60 question units pre -referendum survey would be $11,500.00. Each additional
question unit beyond the initial allotment would be $150.00.
As company policy, DRL requires one-half of the cost prior to the commencement of fieldwork;
the remainder is due upon delivery of the final written report. Unless otherwise arranged, DRL
invoices clients for the initial payment at the time of the initiation of the contract; the remainder is
due at the time of the receipt of the final written report.
Page 3 of 4
Decision Resources, Ltd
City of Eagan Proposal
January, 2008
If you require any further information from us, feel free to contact Diane Traxler or me. We look
forward to the opportunity to work with the City of Eagan once again.
Sincerely,
William D. Morris, Ph.D.
President
Page 4 of 4
FA E G R E DRAFT: 6/2/08
BENSON
LLP
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Tom Hedges
FROM: Steve Rosholt
CC: Michael Dougherty
Gene Van Overbeke
DATE: June 2, 2008
SUBJECT: Carriage Hills Bond Issue
This memorandum is to suggest possible wordings of the ballot question for bonds to
finance the acquisition of the Carriage Hills property. Future discussions will likely lead to
additional variations. We understand that, while the specific purpose of the bonds is clear
(i.e., acquire Carriage Hills), the ultimate use of the property by the City has not yet' been
determined.
Whatever wording is selected, care should be taken to word the ballot question in
such a way as to avoid future controversy as to the use of the property. Minnesota Statutes,
Section 475.59 provides that notice of a bond election must state the "maximum amount and
the purpose of the proposed issue." The ballot question should match the notice. Minnesota
Statutes, Section 475.58, Subd. 4 provides that bond proceeds may only be spent "for the
purposes stated in the ballot language" and "may not be spent for a different purpose or for
an expansion of the original purpose." For this reason, we think acquisition of the property
should be the stated purpose, with any identification of ultimate uses being surplusage.
So long as there no public policy reason to include a statement of the ultimate use of
the property, the following question would seem to satisfy the statutory requirements:
SHALL THE CITY OF EAGAN ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10 MILLION FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING APPROXIMATELY 120 ACRES OF LAND
KNOWN AS CARRIAGE HILLS GOLF COURSE?
This formulation would leave to the supplemental explanatory materials any discussion as to
the possible ultimate uses of the property. We do not believe there is a legal requirement to
identify a particular ultimate use. The purpose is to acquire the property and thereby resolve
the public controversy giving rise to the litigation. Section 475.59 provides that a city
council "may ... submit ... the proposition ... for the acquisition ... of any facilities at one or
more locations." Accordingly, if the property to be acquired is identified, it is not necessary
to identify the ultimate use of the property.
Another possible formulation would be to identify the ultimate use, either as a single
use or combination of uses:
SHALL THE CITY OF EAGAN ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $10 MILLION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ACQUIRING APPROXIMATELY 120 ACRES OF LAND KNOWN AS
CARRIAGE HILLS GOLF COURSE FOR [PRIMARILY] RECREATION
[AND OPEN SPACE] USES?
Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.59 (as case law also does) permits the listing of
multiple purposes or uses linked by the word "and." In the case of the above example, I'm
not sure "recreation" and "open space" are different uses. See, e.g., Section 473.121, Subd.
14 which defines "recreation open space." In any event, I am suggesting the term
"recreation" because it includes "without limitation" things like "athletic fields, golf
courses ... and facilities for other kinds of athletic or cultural facilities." See Section
-2-
V
473.191, Subd. 1. Consideration might also be given to including the word "primarily" in
the ballot question. That would preserve the option of using a portion of the property for
other municipal purposes or selling it for private development.
I suppose another approach would be to more closely link the question with the
litigation settlement, such as:
SHALL THE CITY OF EAGAN ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10 MILLION FOR
THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING CARRIAGE HILLS GOLF COURSE FOR
USES [PRIMARILY] CONSISTENT WITH THE PARKS, OPEN SPACE,
AND RECREATION ZONING OF THE PROPERTY?
This would link the question more closely with the settlement and states a perhaps more
modest description of the goals of the acquisition. Resale to private recreational providers
would be permitted. However, this formulation could be more confining than the others by
arguably restricting future uses to present zoning.
SCR/melbj
fb.us.2943312.01
-3-
