06/19/2008 - Open Space Committee0
AGENDA
OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE MEETING
THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2008
4:00 P.M.
CONFERENCE ROOM 1A&B (LOWER LEVEL)
I. ROLL CALL AND AGENDA ADOPTION
II. REVIEW 6-12-08 COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES
III. SURVEY LOGISTICS, QUESTIONS, AND COSTS
IV. DISCUSS FORMAT AND PLANS FOR COMMUNITY MEETINGS
V. SCHEDULE STAKEHOLDER MEETING AND DISCUSS LIST OF
ATTENDEES
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. ADJOURNMENT
City of Evan In
TO: MAYOR MAGUIRE AND COUNCILMEMBER BAKKEN
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: JUNE 16, 2008
SUBJECT: OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE MTG / THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2008
An Open Space Committee meeting has been scheduled on Thursday, June 19 at 4 p.m. in
Conference Room 1 AB ( 1 st floor, next to Engineering)
Enclosed on page , are -the meeting notes from the June 12, 2008 Open Space Committee
meeting. Staff will be prepared on the 19th to bring forward responses to questions raised
regarding the survey, including draft questions, logistics, and cost information. At the time the
agenda was prepared and distributed, City staff was awaiting additional information from
Decision Resources. Additionally, staff will be prepared to discuss with the committee the
proposed community meetings and stakeholder meetings.
/s/Thomas L. Hedes
City Administrator
19
Open Space Committee
June 12, 2008, 4:30-5:15 p.m.
Meeting Notes/Recommended Timeline
Committee Members Present: Mayor Maguire and Councilmember Bakken
Staff Present: City Administrator Hedges, Assistant to the City Administrator Miller,
Director of Parks and Recreation Johnson, Director of Administrative Services
VanOverbeke, and City Attorney Dougherty.
I. Discuss Process/Timeline for Referendum
The committee requested that a matrix be prepared showing land use options for the
Carriage Hills Property, should the referendum pass. The matrix should include the cost
to establish and maintain the use. Examples should include: Passive open space (with
trails only). Active open space (trails ,shelter, etc.), "High Density" Open Space (fields,
trails, shelters, etc.), and Restored prairieland.
There was committee consensus not to ask the APrC for a formal recommendation as to
how the land should be used if the referendum passes.
The Committee asked staff to speak to Decision Resources to inquire whether a 3-4
question, scientific phone survey could be done of Eagan residents, with results coming
back to the City Council by August 1. The survey would ask residents how they should
like to see the property used if the referendum passes.
The Committee concurred with the following schedule/timeline:
Week of June 16-20 Schedule follow up Committee meeting (staff and
committee only)
June 12 -August 1 Decision Resources Survey
Late June Committee meetings with Stakeholders (e.g. Dorothy
Peterson and members of APrC, Carriage Hills Coalition
rep, Wetland Banking rep, etc.)
June 17 Community -wide "Listening Session" on ideas for property
if the referendum passes
Mid August 2„d Community -wide "Listening Session" on ideas for
property if the referendum passes
September 2 Adopt referendum question
Early October Mail fact sheet to residents
3
Open Space Stakeholder's Meeting
Date: TBD
Proposed Attendees
• Open Space Committee
• Dorothy Peterson, Chair of APrC
• Members of the APrC
• Carriage Hills Coalition
• Eagan Core Greenways members
• Wetland Banking Rep (Phil Belfiori, APrC member, does wetland banking as part
of his job for the City of St. Paul)
• Trust for Public Land
• EAA President, Dave Unmacht
• Group that the Mayor met with following the settlement agreement (Jack Conrad,
John Ward, etc.)
Community Listening Sessions
Dates: TBD
Public Policv Questions to Think About Before MeetinLs
1. What d o you hope to gain from the meetings?
a. Do you want residents sharing options for how the land could be used?
b. Are you looking for feedback on ideas already suggested at the APC and
CC meetings?
2. What do you plan to do with the feedback you receive?
a. Are you setting any expectations of residents?
3. What format do you want for the meetings?
a. Open Mic?
b. Focus groups?
c. Open house style (have tables displayed with settlement information,
maps, etc.)?
60- 19- D8
Council role and responsibility in this referendum
1 Determine the ballot question subject to attorney approval.
2 Provide information to the public so voters can make an informed decision.
3 Implement the referendum results.
Public Policy Conundrum
How is the Open Space Committee and City Council going to use the information
gleaned from either a community survey or focus groupstneighborhood meetings?
Should the City Council be concerned about getting requests for development/activities
that are inconsistent with the .approved Parks Master Plan?
Can the City Council write a question and provide public information without the
appearance of bias or is that not a concern?
i
TYPICAL REFERENDUM
CARRIAGE HILLS REFERENDUM
Need is defined
Settlement agreement is approved
Public process with City Council
Referendum date is set
leadership.
May include surveying/polling to
enhance timing and ballot question
to help ensure successful outcome.
Referendum date and ballot question
Referendum question is set
are set
May appear to be biased toward
This action probably implies to the
an unclear or undetermined
community that the°City Council is
City Council position.
in favor of the question.
Neutral information presentation period
Information period
Reflects City Council support and
May appear to be biased
only one position on the question.
depending on viewpoint and what
the question actually states.
Referendum
Referendum
Implementation of results
Implementation of results
N'r
SPECIFICITY OF BALLOT QUESTION
VERY SPECIFIC
Advantages:
1 Clear information as to potential uses.
2 Provides voters a clear choice
between known use and development.
3 Unless the City tries to change course
later, there should be no accusations of
a bait and'satch.
4 Somewhat easier to define future
improvmeent and/or operating costs.
wa tg-
VERY GENERAL
ages:
1 City maintains maximum flexibility
into the future for potential uses.
3
Disadvantages:
1 Limits future options.
2 May require very specific definition(s) of
term(s) e.g. 'open space".
Disadvantages:
1 Pressure will increase to determine or
define a use(s) as part of the information
campaign.
2 Voters will have difficulty choosing
between unknown City potential uses
and the proposed development.
3 Potential for accusations of bait and switch
is great.
4 Difficult to define future improvement
and/or operating costs.