Loading...
05/05/1998 - City Council SpecialM r4y AGENDA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday May 5, 1998 5:00 p.m. Municipal Center Community Room I. ROLL CALL & AGENDA APPROVAL II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD III. REVIEW. POLICY FOR RELEASE OF APPRAISALS PERFORMED FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IV. REVIENY DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR PROPOSED EAGAN FAMILY AQUATIC FACILITY/WATER TECHNOLOGIES V. OTHER BUSINESS VI. ADJOURNMENT P TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: l%IEI%IO city of eagan HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEAIBERS CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES APRIL 29, 1998 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL hIEETING/MAY 5, 1998 A Special City Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 5, 1998 to review the City's policy for releasing appraisals performed for public improvement projects and to review design and development plans prepared by Water Technology, Inc. for the proposed Eagan Family Aquatic Facility project. REVIEW POLICY/RELEASE OF APPRAISALS PERFORMED FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS The City received on Monday, April 20, 1998 an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration (Advisory Opinion 98-017) that addresses a question about the release of appraisals for the Oak Chase Addition Public Improvement Project 725 and all other appraisals performed for other public improvement projects. Enclosed on pages -V-- through -Zis a copy of the four (4) page Advisory Opinion signed off by Elaine S. Hansen, Commissioner in the Department of Administration, that includes facts and information and the following opinion: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.39, if the Eagan City Attorneys have determined that a civil legal action is pending, the appraisals prepared for the Oak Chase Addition relative to Public Improvement Project 724 are not public while investigation is active; the City did not violate the individual's right to gain access to the data. If, however, the City Attorneys have not made such a determination, the data are public and the individual's rights under Chapter 13 were violated. At the regular City Council meeting on April 21, City Councilmembers concurred with placing this item on the next workshop agenda to discuss the Advisory Opinion and provide a council/staff practice on how and when appraisals are released according to the opinion given by Commissioner Hansen. The City Attorney will be present at this portion of the work session. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Provide an understandinglinterpretation of the opinion as to when appraisals can be released to the public. REVIEW DESIGN AN'D DEVELOPMENT PLANS/EAGAN FAMILY AQUATIC FACILITY The next stage for review of the proposed Aquatic Pool Facility project is design and development. By way of summary, Water Technology, Inc. was hired in early January to perform a feasibility study which was completed February 24. The City Council held a work session in late February to review the feasibility study and scheduled two (2) public informational meetings in early March and put the item on an official agenda at the March 17th City Council meeting. At the March 17th City Council meeting, Water Technology, Inc. was given direction to prepare plans and specifications for the proposed Family Aquatic Facility project. At the April 21 City Council meeting, residents from both the Denmark and Windcrest neighborhoods appeared and raised concerns about the location and size of the proposed Family Aquatic Pool Facility. The next step in the process is design and development which is scheduled for the work session and as an action item on the regular City Council agenda. The design and development phase provides the City Council an opportunity to review and provide comments on the plans before the final plans and specifications are presented for consideration by the City Council at the May 19 meeting. Consultants from Water Technology, Inc. will be present to review the plans and receive any comment/modification by the City Council. Members of the Advisory Parks Commission were invited to attend the workshop to review and listen to the consultants report to the City Council. The APrC formally discussed the Family Aquatic Pool Facility project at their March 16 meeting. Mr. Larry Christensen and Molly Turner, resident of Denmark have also been notified of the workshop. The packet and minutes for that meeting were previously distributed to the City Council. For an additional copy of those minutes, refer to pages 5i' through . For background information on this item, a memo from the Director of Parks and Recreation is enclosed on pages 1�t#voagir The Director of Parks and Recreation is meeting with staff from the Dakota County Library facility to discussed the proposed project on Friday, May 1. The determination of need, environmental assessment worksheet for the proposed Eagan Family Aquatic Facility will be discussed at the regular City Council meeting. There is no information or discussion proposed at the workshop on this item. IN ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To providecomment and `direction to Water Technology, Inc. for the proposed Eagan Family Aquatic Facility for preparation -of final plans and specifications for the project. /S/ Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator Q4khSo Department of Administration Advisory Opinion 98-017 This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration, hereinafter "Commissioner," issued pursuant to authority vested in her by Minnesota Statutes 1996, Section 13.072. This opinion is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below. All correspondence and other information relied on by the Commissioner in issuing this opinion are on file in the office of the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) of the Department. Facts and Procedural History: For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any not public data, are available for public access. On February 20, 1998, PIPA received a letter dated February 17, 1998, from Bea Blomquist. In her letter, Ms. Blomquist requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding her access to certain data maintained by the City of Eagan. PIPA, for the Commissioner, wrote to Thomas Hedges, Eagan City Administrator, in response to Ms. Blomquist's request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 23, 1998, were to inform him of Ms. Blomquist's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City's position. On March 4, 1998, PIPA received a response, dated March 2, 1998, from Michael Dougherty, one of the City Attorneys. Mr. Dougherty and James Sheldon, also referred to in this opinion, are both City Attorneys for Eagan and are employed by the same law firm. A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated February 17, 1998, Ms. Blomquist requested access to "appraisals that were prepared for the Oak Chase Addition relative to Public Improvement Project 725." In a letter dated February 17, 1998, the City Administrator responded that according to the City Attorney, the requested data are "a work product of his office and are considered privileged and confidential." As part of his response, Mr. Hedges also gave Ms. Blomquist a copy of documents relating to a similar data request. These documents included a copy of the request, a response from Mr. Hedges, a memo (dated February 5, 1998), and letter (dated February 3, 1998) from Mr. Sheldon to Mr. Hedges, and a memo (dated January 22, 1998) entitled "Pre -Project Appraisal&/Requirement of Appraiser to Enter Property." Issue: In her request for an opinion, Ms. Blomquist asked the Commissioner to address the following issue: y' 98-017 Was an individual's right to gain access to public data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, violated because the City of Eagan denied her access to the following data: appraisals prepared for the Oak Chase Addition relative to Public Improvement Project 725? Discussion: In the comments Mr. Dougherty submitted to the Commissioner regarding Ms. Blomquist's opinion request, he argued that the appraisals are not accessible to her. His first argument was that the appraisals are not government data. He wrote, "The appraiser does not provide the City with any report or independent information." He then argued that even if a "determination could be made that the appraisals do fall within [Chapter 13]," they are not public for the following reasons: they are work product stemming from the attomey/client privilege; they are proprietary; and they are civil investigative data, pursuant to Section 13. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Mr. Dougherty's assertion that the appraisals are not government data. Chapter 13 defines government data as data "collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated" by a government entity. (See Section 13.02, subdivision 7.) In the present case, while it appears the appraisals were physically kept in the office of Mr. Dougherty and Mr. Sheldon, they collected and possessed the data acting as agents of the City. In his February 3, 1998, letter to Mr. Hedges, Mr. Sheldon wrote: [t]he City authorized our office to obtain pre -project appraisals in anticipation of litigation regarding assessment amounts. The appraiser prepares the appraisal for our office and we in tum share the results of the appraisal with the City. We advise the City of the amount that the City could sustain as a special assessment against the benefited property. The fact that Mr. Sheldon and Mr. Dougherty, as City Attorneys, are employed by a private law firm that has offices separate from city property does not mean the data they collect and maintain are not government data. Mr. Sheldon and Mr. Dougherty were acting as the City's agent in obtaining and rnaa ptaining the appraisals. Given the Commissioner's determination that the appraisals are government data, the remaining consideration is their classification. Mr. Dougherty presented three arguments for classifying the appraisals as not public. One argument is that they are work product stemming from the attorney/client privilege. While Chapter 13 does provide that certain data used, collected, stored, and/or disseminated by a government entity's attorney are protected (see Section 13.30), the Commissioner has previously opined that Section 13.30 applies only to very limited situations. (See Advisory Opinions 95-040, 95-045, 95-048, and 96-038.) Another of Mr. Dougherty's arguments is that the appraisals are not public because they are proprietary information of the company preparing the appraisals. He wrote: 2 98-017 Additionally, the appraisal is the work product of an individual or company that in and of itself has value. The assumptions and judgment of the appraiser are proprietary. The engagement of the appraiser is with the understanding that our firm would not -be copying and distributing the appraisal, unless or until it was used in connection with the appraiser's testimony. To do otherwise, would allow someone to obtain a work of value without directly paying the individual who produced it (e.g. court stenographer). If, as Mr. Dougherty suggests, the appraisals are proprietary, the Commissioner is not aware of any statutory provision that generally classifies proprietary data as not public, once those data become government data The third reason put forth by Mr. Dougherty is that the appraisals are not public because they are Section 13.39 data, civil investigative data. Subdivisions 1 and 2 of Section 13.39 provide that when the chief attorney acting for an entity determines a civil legal action is pending, the following data are classified as confidential and/or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active: data collected as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action; or data retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action. Once the investigation is inactive, most of those data become public. (See Section 13.39, subdivision 3.) In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Dougherty wrote: Our office retains the services of an appraiser in circumstances wherein we have determined that the levying of the assessments may result in judicial proceedings following Council action. To be clear, we do not obtain appraisals for all Cit- projects which may be assessed.... The appraisals that our office obtains are prepared for litigation purposes.... Upon receipt of the appraisal, we provide the City with limited information from the appraisal, that is solely what could be produced through litigation discovery. In his February 3, 1998, letter, Mr. Sheldon wrote: [t]he City authorized our office to obtain pre -project appraisals in anticipation of litigation regarding assessment amounts.... To release the appraisals would put the City at a tactical disadvantage in any court proceeding which challenges the City's special assessments. In addition, in his February 5, 1998, memo, Mr. Sheldon wrote: [i]t seems that some controversy has arisen in regard to obtaining the written appraisals. In an effort to quell concerns, we no longer will ask the appraisers to produce written appraisals for our office unless and until such time as the levied special assessments are legitimately challenged in court. [Emphasis added.] Pursuant to Section 13.39, subdivision 2, if the Eagan City Attorneys have determined that a civil legal action is actually pending, the appraisal data are classified as not public. The problem is /V 3 98-017 that it is not entirely clear whether Mr. Sheldon and/or Mr. Dougherty have made this determination. If they have, Ms. Blomquist's rights have not been violated because the appraisals are not public and not accessible to members of the public. If Mr. Sheldon and/or Mr. Dougherty have not determined that a civil legal action is pending, the data are public and Ms. Blomquist's rights have been violated. An additional point is important. In previous opinions, the Commissioner has discussed the relationship between Minnesota Statutes Section 15.17, the official records act, and Chapter 13. Subdivision 1 of Section 15.17 requires public officers of this state to "[m]ake and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities." When Section 15.17 is melded together with Section 13.03 (access to public data), they impose an obligation on government entities to preserve records used to conduct public business so that those records will be available for public inspection. In the present case, if the City were to proceed as if the appraisals are not government data or were to cease obtaining written appraisals, it is possible that the City will not have met its obligations pursuant to Section 15.17. (See Advisory Opinion 94-035.) It is also important to note that Section 13.30, attorney data, refers specifically to Section 15.17. In relevant part it provides, "[n]or shall this section be construed to relieve any responsible authority, other than the attorney, from duties and responsibilities pursuant to this chapter and section 15.17." Opinion: Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Blomquist is as follows: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.39, if the Eagan City Attorneys have determined that a civil legal action is pending, the appraisals prepared for the Oak- Chase akChase Addition relative to Public Improvement Project 725 are not public while the investigation is active; the City did not violate the individual's right to gain access to the data. If, however, the City Attorneys have not made such a determination, the data are public and the individual's rights under Chapter 13 were violated. Signed: Elaine S. Hansen Commissioner Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of March 16,1998 Meeting Page 6 Member Petersen asked if the developer is requesting that the parks and trails dedication fees be waived. Director Vraa stated that cash and land are only 2 ways of dealing with park dedication. The developer is looking for input on the concept plan from the Commission to see if they are amenable to discussing the waiver of parks/ trails dedication. Vraa noted that if it is the desire of the Commission to move ahead, staff will meet with the school to see what type of agreement could be drawn up. This would then come back to the Commission for approval and recommendation to the City Council. After further brief discussion, Michael Vincent moved, Jerry Farlee seconded with all members voting in favor to direct staff to treat this development the same as a public school using the same types of standards to draft an agreement for shared field use in lieu of dedication fees. Members Markell and Petersen identified themselves as members of one of the three parishes supporting this school. Director Vraa stated that staff would continue to meet with Mr. Hall to work out an agreement RECLAMATION OF WOOD BEAMS - FIRE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING Director Vraa introduced this item explaining that since the Fire Administration building is being demolished for the construction of a new building, staff looked at what could be salvaged from the existing building. It was determined that the 21 laminated arched beams could be used in the construction of a new park shelter. The cost to salvage the beams was set at 54,500 whereas the replacement cost for beams such as these would be a minimum of $34,650. Photos were shared with Commission Members not familiar with the building so they could see the beams. Vraa continued that in looking for a location to construct a park shelter it was thought that the area central to parking soccer fields and the ballfields at the Lexington-Diffley Athletic Complex would be an option. In looking at constructing a 70'x 40' open sheltered area it was estimated that the cost would be approximately $35,000 - 40,000. Funding for the beams would be from the Park Site Fund. Member Johnson asked if the purchase of the beams or construction of an additional shelter building was in the CIP or Master Park Plan. Director Vraa said no. Member Vincent asked how this shelter building would look compared to other park shelter buildings. Director Vraa explained it would be very different in that it would simply be an open covered space. Member Markel] asked if the beams could be stored for use at a later date. It was noted that an appropriate location would need to be identified for the storage of these beams. Following further discussion George Kubik moved and John Rudolph seconded a motion to take advantage of the opportunity to recycle building materials and recommend the expenditure of $4,500 from the Parks Site Acquisition and Development Fund to salvage the wooden arch beams from the existing Fire Administration Building; approve the expenditure of funds to secure the services of a consulting engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the construction of a shelter building; and approve the expenditure of funds (estimated at $35,00040,000) for construction of the shelter. Those voting Aye included Jerry Farlee, Barbara Johnson, Bonnie Karson, George Kubik, Lee Markell, Daryle Petersen and John Rudolph. Michael Vincent voted Nay. The motion passed. AQUATIC FACILITY UPDATE Director Vraa explained that two informational meetings had been held to provide information and answer questions from the public about the proposed aquatic facility. Commission Members were also provided with the second report from Water Technology along with a reduction of the plan presented to the public. This item will appear before the City Council on March 17 when all comments received will be provided for Council review. Vraa provided an overview of the meetings, adding that considerable feedback had been received from the community on the preliminary plan. r_, Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of March 16, 1998 Meeting Page 7 Member Markell asked if the hours of operation had been set yet. Director Vraa responded no. Member Markell asked if the concept plan was for two separate pools. Member Petersen asked if the flumes and/or slides would be part of the proposed first phase or second phase. Director Vraa clarified that in order to accommodate the needed 2,000 bather load for this community, the entire proposal, including both the zero depth entry pool and lazy river would need to be built. Should the Council decide to proceed with only the first phase, or zero depth pool only, that portion would include a waterslide(s) as part of it's construction. Member Petersen opined that the 16 foot berm on the east side of the site should mitigate some of the impact to the residents to the east. He suggested that residents provide their comments and support for the facility. Member Karson commented positively on the plan noting that it will be attractive to children, teens and adults. Member Kubik asked if there was an option for residents to get nearer to the pond on the southern portion of the site to use as a more passive area. Director Vraa opined that the steep slopes may preclude the ponding area from further use. Member Markell asked if there were plans to use solar energy. Director Vraa stated it was premature to address that issue specifically. Member Karson asked if there were areas to get away from the sun. Director Vraa responded that Water Technologies has incorporated both natural and artificial shading areas in the design. After further brief discussion Michael Vincent moved, Daryle Petersen seconded with all members voting in favor to suggest to the City Council that the entire pool facility be built at one time. PLpRIC§aD "EV�ELOPMENT�LTPyDA'tE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT SELECTION Parks Planner/ Landscape Architect Lilly reminded the Commission that playgrounds at Evergreen, Highview, River Hills and Woodhaven had been scheduled for replacement in 1998. Several issues were considered relative to meeting ADA and CPSC requirements during the planning and bidding of these replacement components. Each playground was not to exceed $25,000 and, given the parameters, 20 concept plans were received. Lilly then noted that the plans were reviewed and replacement structures selected for construction during 1998. PARK SHELTER BUILDING - LEXINGTON DIFFLEY Relative to the Lexington Diffley service buildings, it was noted that Jon Miller of Dimension Architecture is completing architectural plans and construction management will be handled through Greystone Construction. The original cost estimates exceeded the $350,000 allocated for the two buildings, therefore, changes needed to be made to reduce the cost. The 40' height of the building was brought down to 32', a "floating slab" foundation will be used in lieu of the traditional concrete footings and a spray glaze or epoxy paint will be used on the restroom walls rather than burnished block to help reduce' the costs. It is hoped that bids can be opened on April 1 so that construction can begin shortly thereafter. city of eagan TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION DATE: MAY 1, 1998 SUBJECT: FAMILY AQUATIC FACILITY MEMO City staff will be meeting in a work session with Water Technologies, Inc on Tuesday, May 5 to continue the refinement process for the Family Aquatic Facility. Results of the work to date will be provided at the Council workshop. There have been some minor changes in the site plan. As previously mentioned, the slide tower has been moved further away from the residential area to the east and the entire area for the pool lowered almost two feet. The parking lot entrance and the parking lot were moved slightly to the south as more refined drawings have been developed. This further lessens the impact on the library property. At the workshop session the consultant will be reviewing the proposed time line for completion of the design work and target dates for contract document preparation, bidding and contract award for the various bid packages. These dates follow closely the projected timeline that Council asked of staff some months ago. A review of the projected project budget will also be reviewed to reflect the work analysis at this point in time. The Director of Park and Recreation will also report on his meeting with County library staff on Friday, May 1. The agenda was to review what types of landscaping might be used to help screen the site from the library and any concerns they might have. /D MINUTES OF A SPECIALWEETING OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL Eagan, Minnesota May 5, 1998 A special meeting of the;E.aFi City;;Ggi?hCil>y ps held on Tuesday, May 5, 1998 at 5:00 p.m. in the lunchroom of the Municipal Centi3lfltiBiftig;::tl8sein attendance were Mayor Egan and City Councilmembers Awada, Blomquist, Masiq. and Wachter. Also in attendance were Director of Parks 8 Recreation Vraa, Director of Public Worf' olbert, Chief Building Official Reid, City Attorney Sheldon and City Administrator Hedges. VISITORS TO BE HEARD Mayor Egan acknowledged;.the audience and there were no visitors to be heard. POLICY/RELEASE OF APPRAISAf $:PERFOkMED FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS City Administrator Hedges stated:fifAt on Monday, April 20, 1998, the City received an opinion from the Commissioner of Adni tratlon;;(f drisvry:;¢�inion 98-017) that addresses a question about the release of appraisals for the Ckak:GeAddituit?utilic Improvement Project 725 and all other appraisals performed for other public improvement projects. He stated that at the regular City Council meeting on April 21, there was concurrence by the City Council that this item would be placed on an agenda for discussion at the next special work session and further, the City Attorney would be present to address the advisory opinion given by the Commissioner of Administration. City Attorney Sheldon was present and stated that the facts and information contained within the opinion state that if a civic legal action is pending, the appraisals are not public while inyestj ja'f£on is active. If, however, his office has not made such a determination, the data is public apd,the;�jspPaisals become available for public inspection. City Councilmember Blpjm'q f asked if;;#ppraisals for projects that are no longer subject to appeal had been released for public inspecfign.. City Administrator Hedges stated that he has received appraisals from the City Attorney's office anii'tliey 3? 4vgilable for review. City Councilmember Blomquist stated thal'tFie::City cannot arbitrarily hold appraisals from public review, which has been the practice in the past. She further stated that holding appraisals because there is a possibility of a lawsuit creates a mistrust with the public and the result will be more lawsuits. City Councilmember Blomquist stated that the City must deal with the Tennyson notice, if it is the continued methodology to use appraisals for street construction projects. She further commented that she was happy with the opinion from the Commissioner of Administration's office. City Attorney Sheldon stated that the question as to whether: thFJ 7ennysoo:a 'iv.: pplies in the case of performing property appraisals was addressed at an earlier•:H$t>?'"Witfi:#FiE::'Clf5i'Cbtincil and it was his recollection that the law applies if the issue is personal and is noi;{lated to'..' pe City Councilmember fEv pda staf$(f that the need to acquire appraisals for street reconstruction projects will be ending:iFl;hentg>Ct:yQar•or..:tvro since there are not many projects to do. Mayor Egan stated that the appraisal:prooes3=:?S:aj pi j-h`'9Q' and the ruling from the Commissioner of Administration's office supports the process the City has used since the street reconstruction program was implemented in the early 1990's. He further stated that the appraisals performed for Oak Chase should not be released, given the fact that the neighborhood is seekirtg:t004iSplg, and there is the likelihood of a formal appeal in the assessments in the Oak Chase netgliYjlirtiootl::::; '[ky, Councilmember Blomquist stated that the appraisals are requested for negotiations amvnot specjfta(! for court. City Councilmember Awada stated that the entire appraisal issue is abibUt the Oak Cha;:*, Project, further commenting that many neighborhoods have benefited by the gtF.eet reconstruction Rrogram since its implementation in the early 1990's with only a handful of appealg;,;; city Councilmember Blomquist stated that a clarification and opinion from the Commissioner of Admini ittbkr7f#$*ij3$ fditally requested to clarify when the appraisals are public information and further that this rmquesl:was ba ' -on:3 number of citizens who have asked for the information. Page 2/Eagan Special City Council Meeting Minutes May 5, 1998 Mayor Egan thanked the:Gity Attorney for his memo and stated that the appraisal process will continue according to past practice a&.:qoncluded by the Commissioner of Administration's opinion. CAPITAL AtfAi; QF"- D:QAKC:Rt1SINESS PARK City Administrator HedgeS:,stated that staff would like the opportunity to provide a brief update to the City Council on two iterni:fi tat are scheduled for the regular City Council agenda which includes under Public Hearings, Project-�38 - Grand Oak Business Park AUAR Environmental Study, and under New Business, the interim use permit request by Parking Associates. City Attorney Sheldon stated that the City Council should not consider issuance of the interim use permit application for Parking Associates until after the AUAR environmental review and internal study is completed and action taken by the City Council. He further commented.tbat it would be appropriate at the regular City Council meeting to act on the AUAR and ask the applicant j4.agree to A.1ime extension for the interim use permit application until after completion of the environrl46 ial study-':: City Administrator Hedges stated that if this is acceptable to the City Council, the City Ahomey wlll:*tify legal counsel for Parking Associates prior to the regular City Council meeting. .... City Councilmembers 04.1 . ....;EtiAf 2tsis::i5:t1?e proper procedure and directed the City Attorney to advise the applicant. EAGAN FAMILY AQUATIC POOL FACILITY PROJECT City Administrator Hedges stated that at the. March 17 regular City Council meeting, Water Technology Inc. was given direction to begin the desigK:development stage for the proposed family aquatic facility project. He stated that before 1he..;piWj6::tie:officially approved at a future City Council meeting, it is appropriate to review the ;cgns. j ant -s: -progress on design and development. Mr. Chuck Newman, representing Water Technolipgy:::lrb., provi ... an overview of the aquatic pool plans and commented on specific changes as requested:tiy the City Council and suggested by the neighborhood. He stated that the slide has been moved 130:f'.� ;9..est;of,the Windcrest neighborhood and, as a result, is more centralized in the aquatic pool layout: Mr. Ni:wpr1dA:flifther stated that the site elevation has been lowered by two feet and specifically complimented C ty:: ngineer Russ Matthys for the excellent cooperation his office has given Water Technology throughout the design and development phase. He further presented and discussed the entrance to the aquatic pool and, more specifically, the buildings including the design of the changing areas and how they relate to the aquatic pool facility. Mr. Newman stated that he has met with the Department of Health and there are no problems anticipated with that agency relative to the design. Mr. Newman also preseh'W*am-' atte:o»:it ;budget, stating that the estimate to date for excavation is slightly less than anticipafe9fl He af�p::ptesented a flow charUtime schedule for adoption of the plans and specifications and bidding based on a facility that opens June 1, 1999. City CouncilmemberV13ChSer.;eal$ed:.saY&rel;.questions regarding the buildings for the changing rooms and concessions. He M. S rallg;UrtfBtNei a full basement is proposed under either of the buildings for storage. City Councilmember Wachter further stated that during the construction manager interviews that were held on Monday, May 4, all the applicants were very pleased with the site for the proposed aquatic pool. City Councilmember Ai mitigate noise for the surrounding ne landscaping will include berms, the site tower has been moved inward by 130 fi a problem. Mayor Egan asked if therg the noise mitigation. Mr. Newman stili reduced, sharing further his experience la a51ceQ;iyle...Newman what had been done with their design to >iGFIGpQ:;iiQr:::Newman stated that the site excavation and $;Veen Ioweii d:.a41.additional two feet in elevation and the slide and further, IIiQ:gite is a natural bowl and noise should not be any quantifiable information on what these changes will do for that it is his prdf;9asional opinion that the noise level will be ith:ciyeaSAt):g3R1i1aGlities he has designed nationwide. City Councilmember Wachter asked what has been planned for the competitive swim area. Mr. Newman stated that there are six lap lanes at 25 meters each proposed for the aquatic pool Page 3/Eagan Special City Council Meeting Minutes May 5, 1998 project. Mayor Egan asked if there is any Change in the total bather load of 2,000, which includes the lazy river. Mr. Newman said there is no change in the bather load as a result of the modifications to the project. Members of the Advisory:>4et{cts'orY>it11s5kitY:were invited to attend and share in the discussion of the proposed aquatic pool :facility project. Commission member Peterson asked about the changing room and specifically if there i4iample shower facilities. Mr. Newman reviewed the plans for the changing rooms, stating that there are 'ample showers and locker facilities. Mayor Egan asked if there is any change in the proposed parking. Director of Parks & Recreation Vraa stated that there is a small realignment and shift of parking lot 2, south of the facility. Advisory Parks Com outside. Mr. Newman stated that the Mayor Egan stated thal:X0 n sand area proposed for the aquatic area#aci stating further that the area around the .water pool is the zero depth entry. Mr. NewmYh.n':l populated with adults and children of all ages, member Johnson asked if the concession area is indoors or isumptiian area is outside. 1 constituent call regarding the amount of beach or Newman stated that there is very little actual sand, d sur;facp and that the term "beach" for an aquatic at 2 at;lhis area of the aquatic pool is the most Advisory Parks Commission member Vincent stated that a lot of people in the City would like to see this project happen and expressed his excitement about the proposal. He further asked questions about the vehicle drop area which were given response by Mr. Newman. Advisory Parks Commission m that deserves additional shielding given.the pgc company has designed and observed cper2titsi and noise has not been an issue. City Cpunc1 for swim meets will cause a noise decibel p' t there is a more piercing sound than the ambient Fasked if there is an extreme point of noise neighborhood. Mr. Newman stated that his is aquatic pool facilities in residential areas i asked whether loudspeakers that are used nan stated that in the case of a loudspeaker, ;Mire pool. City Councilmember Wachter asked whether the slides are closed or open. Mr. Newman stated that the water slides could be designed either way, as open or closed, or the City could include both an open and closed slide, providing both opportunities for the user. City Councilmember Awada, asked if the $100,000 budget for water play elements is adequate. Mr. Newman explained what s; pfdp. sed apd Steti {o that certainly additional features could be added with the original project or at a IateF:ij�te: >:< After a discussion regarding the pro'p'osed aquatic pool facility budget, Mr. Newman stated that no less than a 5% contingency wQl g: ist at tM6:time bids are offered. He further spoke to the pool elevation, stating that the library facilityjf} Ionk4Y :the gife... Mayor Egan asked about the landscaping materials that are proposed for the agfljatiQ:{fDCl::CCEOF:Cf Parks & Recreation Vraa stated that the budget includes $120,000 of landscaping materials for the interior portion of the project and $30,000 of plantings outside the fenced area. Director of Parks & Recreation Vraa stated that he met with the library staff whose main concern was about a planting program for the library facility. He stated that the City will work with library staff on their planting program. City Councilmember Awadt 6 ::1 t e would like the City Council to review the architectural plans for each of the buijdii3gs jn advanC» cj;.any approval for plans and specifications. Director of Parks & Recreation Vraa stated that staff has bPRrj working on a footprint with the consultants and will bring the plans to the City Coungil..for their review. City Councilmember8tgtiigttist:as16�Q3f:bsere;.is a first aid station on site. Mr. Newman stated that there is a first aid station Gcil2E#.:RjaArper#ii11i9J::gjj location. City Councilmember Blomquist further asked what type of chemicals are proposed for the pool chlorination. Mr. Newman stated that a combination of myradic acid and liquid chlorine is proposed for the pool chlorination. Page 4/Eagan Special City Council Meeting Minutes May 5, 1998 City Councilmember AvYdtfa stated that she would prefer the project be bid as two phases, with phase 1 as the basic aquatic pool facility and phase 2 as the lazy river. Mr. Newman presented 6r-'4fbJt:Eliet1)tjs ie:aeliedula stating that the earth moving portion of the project will be bid in May/June, the avAgal pool facility in June/July and the buildings will be last to be bid. He further stated that the bidding doCtnjtents will separate the bids for the base pool and lazy river as requested. City Councilmember Wachtef`sfated that it is his opinion that the City would be better served to build the entire project at this time due to the additional cost incurred if phase 2 is delayed and built in the future. City Councilmember Blomquist stated that three out of four phone calls she is receiving prefer the basic pool and not the lazy river. Advisory Parks Commission member Markell stated that the recommendation of the Commission is to pfoceed with the total project. Mayor Egan thanked Mt � Newm4ji.'ior his presentation and stated that this item will appear on the regular City Council meetigg:agendaii further consideration. ::-:•:•:AP.,tCk1RN MEN_T,.::•::, There being no further business,•tm tieeeEing'was adjourned at 6:21 p.m. Date City Clerk TLH M r4y AGENDA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday May 5, 1998 5:00 p.m. Municipal Center Community Room I. ROLL CALL & AGENDA APPROVAL II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD III. REVIEW. POLICY FOR RELEASE OF APPRAISALS PERFORMED FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IV. REVIENY DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR PROPOSED EAGAN FAMILY AQUATIC FACILITY/WATER TECHNOLOGIES V. OTHER BUSINESS VI. ADJOURNMENT P TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: l%IEI%IO city of eagan HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEAIBERS CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES APRIL 29, 1998 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL hIEETING/MAY 5, 1998 A Special City Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 5, 1998 to review the City's policy for releasing appraisals performed for public improvement projects and to review design and development plans prepared by Water Technology, Inc. for the proposed Eagan Family Aquatic Facility project. REVIEW POLICY/RELEASE OF APPRAISALS PERFORMED FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS The City received on Monday, April 20, 1998 an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration (Advisory Opinion 98-017) that addresses a question about the release of appraisals for the Oak Chase Addition Public Improvement Project 725 and all other appraisals performed for other public improvement projects. Enclosed on pages -V-- through -Zis a copy of the four (4) page Advisory Opinion signed off by Elaine S. Hansen, Commissioner in the Department of Administration, that includes facts and information and the following opinion: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.39, if the Eagan City Attorneys have determined that a civil legal action is pending, the appraisals prepared for the Oak Chase Addition relative to Public Improvement Project 724 are not public while investigation is active; the City did not violate the individual's right to gain access to the data. If, however, the City Attorneys have not made such a determination, the data are public and the individual's rights under Chapter 13 were violated. At the regular City Council meeting on April 21, City Councilmembers concurred with placing this item on the next workshop agenda to discuss the Advisory Opinion and provide a council/staff practice on how and when appraisals are released according to the opinion given by Commissioner Hansen. The City Attorney will be present at this portion of the work session. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Provide an understandinglinterpretation of the opinion as to when appraisals can be released to the public. REVIEW DESIGN AN'D DEVELOPMENT PLANS/EAGAN FAMILY AQUATIC FACILITY The next stage for review of the proposed Aquatic Pool Facility project is design and development. By way of summary, Water Technology, Inc. was hired in early January to perform a feasibility study which was completed February 24. The City Council held a work session in late February to review the feasibility study and scheduled two (2) public informational meetings in early March and put the item on an official agenda at the March 17th City Council meeting. At the March 17th City Council meeting, Water Technology, Inc. was given direction to prepare plans and specifications for the proposed Family Aquatic Facility project. At the April 21 City Council meeting, residents from both the Denmark and Windcrest neighborhoods appeared and raised concerns about the location and size of the proposed Family Aquatic Pool Facility. The next step in the process is design and development which is scheduled for the work session and as an action item on the regular City Council agenda. The design and development phase provides the City Council an opportunity to review and provide comments on the plans before the final plans and specifications are presented for consideration by the City Council at the May 19 meeting. Consultants from Water Technology, Inc. will be present to review the plans and receive any comment/modification by the City Council. Members of the Advisory Parks Commission were invited to attend the workshop to review and listen to the consultants report to the City Council. The APrC formally discussed the Family Aquatic Pool Facility project at their March 16 meeting. Mr. Larry Christensen and Molly Turner, resident of Denmark have also been notified of the workshop. The packet and minutes for that meeting were previously distributed to the City Council. For an additional copy of those minutes, refer to pages 5i' through . For background information on this item, a memo from the Director of Parks and Recreation is enclosed on pages 1�t#voagir The Director of Parks and Recreation is meeting with staff from the Dakota County Library facility to discussed the proposed project on Friday, May 1. The determination of need, environmental assessment worksheet for the proposed Eagan Family Aquatic Facility will be discussed at the regular City Council meeting. There is no information or discussion proposed at the workshop on this item. IN ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To providecomment and `direction to Water Technology, Inc. for the proposed Eagan Family Aquatic Facility for preparation -of final plans and specifications for the project. /S/ Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator Q4khSo Department of Administration Advisory Opinion 98-017 This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration, hereinafter "Commissioner," issued pursuant to authority vested in her by Minnesota Statutes 1996, Section 13.072. This opinion is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below. All correspondence and other information relied on by the Commissioner in issuing this opinion are on file in the office of the Public Information Policy Analysis Division (PIPA) of the Department. Facts and Procedural History: For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, except for any not public data, are available for public access. On February 20, 1998, PIPA received a letter dated February 17, 1998, from Bea Blomquist. In her letter, Ms. Blomquist requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding her access to certain data maintained by the City of Eagan. PIPA, for the Commissioner, wrote to Thomas Hedges, Eagan City Administrator, in response to Ms. Blomquist's request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 23, 1998, were to inform him of Ms. Blomquist's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City's position. On March 4, 1998, PIPA received a response, dated March 2, 1998, from Michael Dougherty, one of the City Attorneys. Mr. Dougherty and James Sheldon, also referred to in this opinion, are both City Attorneys for Eagan and are employed by the same law firm. A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated February 17, 1998, Ms. Blomquist requested access to "appraisals that were prepared for the Oak Chase Addition relative to Public Improvement Project 725." In a letter dated February 17, 1998, the City Administrator responded that according to the City Attorney, the requested data are "a work product of his office and are considered privileged and confidential." As part of his response, Mr. Hedges also gave Ms. Blomquist a copy of documents relating to a similar data request. These documents included a copy of the request, a response from Mr. Hedges, a memo (dated February 5, 1998), and letter (dated February 3, 1998) from Mr. Sheldon to Mr. Hedges, and a memo (dated January 22, 1998) entitled "Pre -Project Appraisal&/Requirement of Appraiser to Enter Property." Issue: In her request for an opinion, Ms. Blomquist asked the Commissioner to address the following issue: y' 98-017 Was an individual's right to gain access to public data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, violated because the City of Eagan denied her access to the following data: appraisals prepared for the Oak Chase Addition relative to Public Improvement Project 725? Discussion: In the comments Mr. Dougherty submitted to the Commissioner regarding Ms. Blomquist's opinion request, he argued that the appraisals are not accessible to her. His first argument was that the appraisals are not government data. He wrote, "The appraiser does not provide the City with any report or independent information." He then argued that even if a "determination could be made that the appraisals do fall within [Chapter 13]," they are not public for the following reasons: they are work product stemming from the attomey/client privilege; they are proprietary; and they are civil investigative data, pursuant to Section 13. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Mr. Dougherty's assertion that the appraisals are not government data. Chapter 13 defines government data as data "collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated" by a government entity. (See Section 13.02, subdivision 7.) In the present case, while it appears the appraisals were physically kept in the office of Mr. Dougherty and Mr. Sheldon, they collected and possessed the data acting as agents of the City. In his February 3, 1998, letter to Mr. Hedges, Mr. Sheldon wrote: [t]he City authorized our office to obtain pre -project appraisals in anticipation of litigation regarding assessment amounts. The appraiser prepares the appraisal for our office and we in tum share the results of the appraisal with the City. We advise the City of the amount that the City could sustain as a special assessment against the benefited property. The fact that Mr. Sheldon and Mr. Dougherty, as City Attorneys, are employed by a private law firm that has offices separate from city property does not mean the data they collect and maintain are not government data. Mr. Sheldon and Mr. Dougherty were acting as the City's agent in obtaining and rnaa ptaining the appraisals. Given the Commissioner's determination that the appraisals are government data, the remaining consideration is their classification. Mr. Dougherty presented three arguments for classifying the appraisals as not public. One argument is that they are work product stemming from the attorney/client privilege. While Chapter 13 does provide that certain data used, collected, stored, and/or disseminated by a government entity's attorney are protected (see Section 13.30), the Commissioner has previously opined that Section 13.30 applies only to very limited situations. (See Advisory Opinions 95-040, 95-045, 95-048, and 96-038.) Another of Mr. Dougherty's arguments is that the appraisals are not public because they are proprietary information of the company preparing the appraisals. He wrote: 2 98-017 Additionally, the appraisal is the work product of an individual or company that in and of itself has value. The assumptions and judgment of the appraiser are proprietary. The engagement of the appraiser is with the understanding that our firm would not -be copying and distributing the appraisal, unless or until it was used in connection with the appraiser's testimony. To do otherwise, would allow someone to obtain a work of value without directly paying the individual who produced it (e.g. court stenographer). If, as Mr. Dougherty suggests, the appraisals are proprietary, the Commissioner is not aware of any statutory provision that generally classifies proprietary data as not public, once those data become government data The third reason put forth by Mr. Dougherty is that the appraisals are not public because they are Section 13.39 data, civil investigative data. Subdivisions 1 and 2 of Section 13.39 provide that when the chief attorney acting for an entity determines a civil legal action is pending, the following data are classified as confidential and/or protected nonpublic while the investigation is active: data collected as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or defense of a pending civil legal action; or data retained in anticipation of a pending civil legal action. Once the investigation is inactive, most of those data become public. (See Section 13.39, subdivision 3.) In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Dougherty wrote: Our office retains the services of an appraiser in circumstances wherein we have determined that the levying of the assessments may result in judicial proceedings following Council action. To be clear, we do not obtain appraisals for all Cit- projects which may be assessed.... The appraisals that our office obtains are prepared for litigation purposes.... Upon receipt of the appraisal, we provide the City with limited information from the appraisal, that is solely what could be produced through litigation discovery. In his February 3, 1998, letter, Mr. Sheldon wrote: [t]he City authorized our office to obtain pre -project appraisals in anticipation of litigation regarding assessment amounts.... To release the appraisals would put the City at a tactical disadvantage in any court proceeding which challenges the City's special assessments. In addition, in his February 5, 1998, memo, Mr. Sheldon wrote: [i]t seems that some controversy has arisen in regard to obtaining the written appraisals. In an effort to quell concerns, we no longer will ask the appraisers to produce written appraisals for our office unless and until such time as the levied special assessments are legitimately challenged in court. [Emphasis added.] Pursuant to Section 13.39, subdivision 2, if the Eagan City Attorneys have determined that a civil legal action is actually pending, the appraisal data are classified as not public. The problem is /V 3 98-017 that it is not entirely clear whether Mr. Sheldon and/or Mr. Dougherty have made this determination. If they have, Ms. Blomquist's rights have not been violated because the appraisals are not public and not accessible to members of the public. If Mr. Sheldon and/or Mr. Dougherty have not determined that a civil legal action is pending, the data are public and Ms. Blomquist's rights have been violated. An additional point is important. In previous opinions, the Commissioner has discussed the relationship between Minnesota Statutes Section 15.17, the official records act, and Chapter 13. Subdivision 1 of Section 15.17 requires public officers of this state to "[m]ake and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities." When Section 15.17 is melded together with Section 13.03 (access to public data), they impose an obligation on government entities to preserve records used to conduct public business so that those records will be available for public inspection. In the present case, if the City were to proceed as if the appraisals are not government data or were to cease obtaining written appraisals, it is possible that the City will not have met its obligations pursuant to Section 15.17. (See Advisory Opinion 94-035.) It is also important to note that Section 13.30, attorney data, refers specifically to Section 15.17. In relevant part it provides, "[n]or shall this section be construed to relieve any responsible authority, other than the attorney, from duties and responsibilities pursuant to this chapter and section 15.17." Opinion: Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Blomquist is as follows: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.39, if the Eagan City Attorneys have determined that a civil legal action is pending, the appraisals prepared for the Oak- Chase akChase Addition relative to Public Improvement Project 725 are not public while the investigation is active; the City did not violate the individual's right to gain access to the data. If, however, the City Attorneys have not made such a determination, the data are public and the individual's rights under Chapter 13 were violated. Signed: Elaine S. Hansen Commissioner Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of March 16,1998 Meeting Page 6 Member Petersen asked if the developer is requesting that the parks and trails dedication fees be waived. Director Vraa stated that cash and land are only 2 ways of dealing with park dedication. The developer is looking for input on the concept plan from the Commission to see if they are amenable to discussing the waiver of parks/ trails dedication. Vraa noted that if it is the desire of the Commission to move ahead, staff will meet with the school to see what type of agreement could be drawn up. This would then come back to the Commission for approval and recommendation to the City Council. After further brief discussion, Michael Vincent moved, Jerry Farlee seconded with all members voting in favor to direct staff to treat this development the same as a public school using the same types of standards to draft an agreement for shared field use in lieu of dedication fees. Members Markell and Petersen identified themselves as members of one of the three parishes supporting this school. Director Vraa stated that staff would continue to meet with Mr. Hall to work out an agreement RECLAMATION OF WOOD BEAMS - FIRE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING Director Vraa introduced this item explaining that since the Fire Administration building is being demolished for the construction of a new building, staff looked at what could be salvaged from the existing building. It was determined that the 21 laminated arched beams could be used in the construction of a new park shelter. The cost to salvage the beams was set at 54,500 whereas the replacement cost for beams such as these would be a minimum of $34,650. Photos were shared with Commission Members not familiar with the building so they could see the beams. Vraa continued that in looking for a location to construct a park shelter it was thought that the area central to parking soccer fields and the ballfields at the Lexington-Diffley Athletic Complex would be an option. In looking at constructing a 70'x 40' open sheltered area it was estimated that the cost would be approximately $35,000 - 40,000. Funding for the beams would be from the Park Site Fund. Member Johnson asked if the purchase of the beams or construction of an additional shelter building was in the CIP or Master Park Plan. Director Vraa said no. Member Vincent asked how this shelter building would look compared to other park shelter buildings. Director Vraa explained it would be very different in that it would simply be an open covered space. Member Markel] asked if the beams could be stored for use at a later date. It was noted that an appropriate location would need to be identified for the storage of these beams. Following further discussion George Kubik moved and John Rudolph seconded a motion to take advantage of the opportunity to recycle building materials and recommend the expenditure of $4,500 from the Parks Site Acquisition and Development Fund to salvage the wooden arch beams from the existing Fire Administration Building; approve the expenditure of funds to secure the services of a consulting engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the construction of a shelter building; and approve the expenditure of funds (estimated at $35,00040,000) for construction of the shelter. Those voting Aye included Jerry Farlee, Barbara Johnson, Bonnie Karson, George Kubik, Lee Markell, Daryle Petersen and John Rudolph. Michael Vincent voted Nay. The motion passed. AQUATIC FACILITY UPDATE Director Vraa explained that two informational meetings had been held to provide information and answer questions from the public about the proposed aquatic facility. Commission Members were also provided with the second report from Water Technology along with a reduction of the plan presented to the public. This item will appear before the City Council on March 17 when all comments received will be provided for Council review. Vraa provided an overview of the meetings, adding that considerable feedback had been received from the community on the preliminary plan. r_, Advisory Parks Commission Minutes of March 16, 1998 Meeting Page 7 Member Markell asked if the hours of operation had been set yet. Director Vraa responded no. Member Markell asked if the concept plan was for two separate pools. Member Petersen asked if the flumes and/or slides would be part of the proposed first phase or second phase. Director Vraa clarified that in order to accommodate the needed 2,000 bather load for this community, the entire proposal, including both the zero depth entry pool and lazy river would need to be built. Should the Council decide to proceed with only the first phase, or zero depth pool only, that portion would include a waterslide(s) as part of it's construction. Member Petersen opined that the 16 foot berm on the east side of the site should mitigate some of the impact to the residents to the east. He suggested that residents provide their comments and support for the facility. Member Karson commented positively on the plan noting that it will be attractive to children, teens and adults. Member Kubik asked if there was an option for residents to get nearer to the pond on the southern portion of the site to use as a more passive area. Director Vraa opined that the steep slopes may preclude the ponding area from further use. Member Markell asked if there were plans to use solar energy. Director Vraa stated it was premature to address that issue specifically. Member Karson asked if there were areas to get away from the sun. Director Vraa responded that Water Technologies has incorporated both natural and artificial shading areas in the design. After further brief discussion Michael Vincent moved, Daryle Petersen seconded with all members voting in favor to suggest to the City Council that the entire pool facility be built at one time. PLpRIC§aD "EV�ELOPMENT�LTPyDA'tE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT SELECTION Parks Planner/ Landscape Architect Lilly reminded the Commission that playgrounds at Evergreen, Highview, River Hills and Woodhaven had been scheduled for replacement in 1998. Several issues were considered relative to meeting ADA and CPSC requirements during the planning and bidding of these replacement components. Each playground was not to exceed $25,000 and, given the parameters, 20 concept plans were received. Lilly then noted that the plans were reviewed and replacement structures selected for construction during 1998. PARK SHELTER BUILDING - LEXINGTON DIFFLEY Relative to the Lexington Diffley service buildings, it was noted that Jon Miller of Dimension Architecture is completing architectural plans and construction management will be handled through Greystone Construction. The original cost estimates exceeded the $350,000 allocated for the two buildings, therefore, changes needed to be made to reduce the cost. The 40' height of the building was brought down to 32', a "floating slab" foundation will be used in lieu of the traditional concrete footings and a spray glaze or epoxy paint will be used on the restroom walls rather than burnished block to help reduce' the costs. It is hoped that bids can be opened on April 1 so that construction can begin shortly thereafter. city of eagan TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION DATE: MAY 1, 1998 SUBJECT: FAMILY AQUATIC FACILITY MEMO City staff will be meeting in a work session with Water Technologies, Inc on Tuesday, May 5 to continue the refinement process for the Family Aquatic Facility. Results of the work to date will be provided at the Council workshop. There have been some minor changes in the site plan. As previously mentioned, the slide tower has been moved further away from the residential area to the east and the entire area for the pool lowered almost two feet. The parking lot entrance and the parking lot were moved slightly to the south as more refined drawings have been developed. This further lessens the impact on the library property. At the workshop session the consultant will be reviewing the proposed time line for completion of the design work and target dates for contract document preparation, bidding and contract award for the various bid packages. These dates follow closely the projected timeline that Council asked of staff some months ago. A review of the projected project budget will also be reviewed to reflect the work analysis at this point in time. The Director of Park and Recreation will also report on his meeting with County library staff on Friday, May 1. The agenda was to review what types of landscaping might be used to help screen the site from the library and any concerns they might have. /D MINUTES OF A SPECIALWEETING OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL Eagan, Minnesota May 5, 1998 A special meeting of the;E.aFi City;;Ggi?hCil>y ps held on Tuesday, May 5, 1998 at 5:00 p.m. in the lunchroom of the Municipal Centi3lfltiBiftig;::tl8sein attendance were Mayor Egan and City Councilmembers Awada, Blomquist, Masiq. and Wachter. Also in attendance were Director of Parks 8 Recreation Vraa, Director of Public Worf' olbert, Chief Building Official Reid, City Attorney Sheldon and City Administrator Hedges. VISITORS TO BE HEARD Mayor Egan acknowledged;.the audience and there were no visitors to be heard. POLICY/RELEASE OF APPRAISAf $:PERFOkMED FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS City Administrator Hedges stated:fifAt on Monday, April 20, 1998, the City received an opinion from the Commissioner of Adni tratlon;;(f drisvry:;¢�inion 98-017) that addresses a question about the release of appraisals for the Ckak:GeAddituit?utilic Improvement Project 725 and all other appraisals performed for other public improvement projects. He stated that at the regular City Council meeting on April 21, there was concurrence by the City Council that this item would be placed on an agenda for discussion at the next special work session and further, the City Attorney would be present to address the advisory opinion given by the Commissioner of Administration. City Attorney Sheldon was present and stated that the facts and information contained within the opinion state that if a civic legal action is pending, the appraisals are not public while inyestj ja'f£on is active. If, however, his office has not made such a determination, the data is public apd,the;�jspPaisals become available for public inspection. City Councilmember Blpjm'q f asked if;;#ppraisals for projects that are no longer subject to appeal had been released for public inspecfign.. City Administrator Hedges stated that he has received appraisals from the City Attorney's office anii'tliey 3? 4vgilable for review. City Councilmember Blomquist stated thal'tFie::City cannot arbitrarily hold appraisals from public review, which has been the practice in the past. She further stated that holding appraisals because there is a possibility of a lawsuit creates a mistrust with the public and the result will be more lawsuits. City Councilmember Blomquist stated that the City must deal with the Tennyson notice, if it is the continued methodology to use appraisals for street construction projects. She further commented that she was happy with the opinion from the Commissioner of Administration's office. City Attorney Sheldon stated that the question as to whether: thFJ 7ennysoo:a 'iv.: pplies in the case of performing property appraisals was addressed at an earlier•:H$t>?'"Witfi:#FiE::'Clf5i'Cbtincil and it was his recollection that the law applies if the issue is personal and is noi;{lated to'..' pe City Councilmember fEv pda staf$(f that the need to acquire appraisals for street reconstruction projects will be ending:iFl;hentg>Ct:yQar•or..:tvro since there are not many projects to do. Mayor Egan stated that the appraisal:prooes3=:?S:aj pi j-h`'9Q' and the ruling from the Commissioner of Administration's office supports the process the City has used since the street reconstruction program was implemented in the early 1990's. He further stated that the appraisals performed for Oak Chase should not be released, given the fact that the neighborhood is seekirtg:t004iSplg, and there is the likelihood of a formal appeal in the assessments in the Oak Chase netgliYjlirtiootl::::; '[ky, Councilmember Blomquist stated that the appraisals are requested for negotiations amvnot specjfta(! for court. City Councilmember Awada stated that the entire appraisal issue is abibUt the Oak Cha;:*, Project, further commenting that many neighborhoods have benefited by the gtF.eet reconstruction Rrogram since its implementation in the early 1990's with only a handful of appealg;,;; city Councilmember Blomquist stated that a clarification and opinion from the Commissioner of Admini ittbkr7f#$*ij3$ fditally requested to clarify when the appraisals are public information and further that this rmquesl:was ba ' -on:3 number of citizens who have asked for the information. Page 2/Eagan Special City Council Meeting Minutes May 5, 1998 Mayor Egan thanked the:Gity Attorney for his memo and stated that the appraisal process will continue according to past practice a&.:qoncluded by the Commissioner of Administration's opinion. CAPITAL AtfAi; QF"- D:QAKC:Rt1SINESS PARK City Administrator HedgeS:,stated that staff would like the opportunity to provide a brief update to the City Council on two iterni:fi tat are scheduled for the regular City Council agenda which includes under Public Hearings, Project-�38 - Grand Oak Business Park AUAR Environmental Study, and under New Business, the interim use permit request by Parking Associates. City Attorney Sheldon stated that the City Council should not consider issuance of the interim use permit application for Parking Associates until after the AUAR environmental review and internal study is completed and action taken by the City Council. He further commented.tbat it would be appropriate at the regular City Council meeting to act on the AUAR and ask the applicant j4.agree to A.1ime extension for the interim use permit application until after completion of the environrl46 ial study-':: City Administrator Hedges stated that if this is acceptable to the City Council, the City Ahomey wlll:*tify legal counsel for Parking Associates prior to the regular City Council meeting. .... City Councilmembers 04.1 . ....;EtiAf 2tsis::i5:t1?e proper procedure and directed the City Attorney to advise the applicant. EAGAN FAMILY AQUATIC POOL FACILITY PROJECT City Administrator Hedges stated that at the. March 17 regular City Council meeting, Water Technology Inc. was given direction to begin the desigK:development stage for the proposed family aquatic facility project. He stated that before 1he..;piWj6::tie:officially approved at a future City Council meeting, it is appropriate to review the ;cgns. j ant -s: -progress on design and development. Mr. Chuck Newman, representing Water Technolipgy:::lrb., provi ... an overview of the aquatic pool plans and commented on specific changes as requested:tiy the City Council and suggested by the neighborhood. He stated that the slide has been moved 130:f'.� ;9..est;of,the Windcrest neighborhood and, as a result, is more centralized in the aquatic pool layout: Mr. Ni:wpr1dA:flifther stated that the site elevation has been lowered by two feet and specifically complimented C ty:: ngineer Russ Matthys for the excellent cooperation his office has given Water Technology throughout the design and development phase. He further presented and discussed the entrance to the aquatic pool and, more specifically, the buildings including the design of the changing areas and how they relate to the aquatic pool facility. Mr. Newman stated that he has met with the Department of Health and there are no problems anticipated with that agency relative to the design. Mr. Newman also preseh'W*am-' atte:o»:it ;budget, stating that the estimate to date for excavation is slightly less than anticipafe9fl He af�p::ptesented a flow charUtime schedule for adoption of the plans and specifications and bidding based on a facility that opens June 1, 1999. City CouncilmemberV13ChSer.;eal$ed:.saY&rel;.questions regarding the buildings for the changing rooms and concessions. He M. S rallg;UrtfBtNei a full basement is proposed under either of the buildings for storage. City Councilmember Wachter further stated that during the construction manager interviews that were held on Monday, May 4, all the applicants were very pleased with the site for the proposed aquatic pool. City Councilmember Ai mitigate noise for the surrounding ne landscaping will include berms, the site tower has been moved inward by 130 fi a problem. Mayor Egan asked if therg the noise mitigation. Mr. Newman stili reduced, sharing further his experience la a51ceQ;iyle...Newman what had been done with their design to >iGFIGpQ:;iiQr:::Newman stated that the site excavation and $;Veen Ioweii B:a41.additional two feet in elevation and the slide and further, IIiQ:gite is a natural bowl and noise should not be any quantifiable information on what these changes will do for that it is his prdf;9asional opinion that the noise level will be ith:ciyeaSAt):g3R1i1aGlities he has designed nationwide. City Councilmember Wachter asked what has been planned for the competitive swim area. Mr. Newman stated that there are six lap lanes at 25 meters each proposed for the aquatic pool Page 3/Eagan Special City Council Meeting Minutes May 5, 1998 project. Mayor Egan asked if there is any Change in the total bather load of 2,000, which includes the lazy river. Mr. Newman said there is no change in the bather load as a result of the modifications to the project. Members of the Advisory:>4et{cts'orY>it11s5kitY:were invited to attend and share in the discussion of the proposed aquatic pool :facility project. Commission member Peterson asked about the changing room and specifically if there i4iample shower facilities. Mr. Newman reviewed the plans for the changing rooms, stating that there are 'ample showers and locker facilities. Mayor Egan asked if there is any change in the proposed parking. Director of Parks & Recreation Vraa stated that there is a small realignment and shift of parking lot 2, south of the facility. Advisory Parks Com outside. Mr. Newman stated that the Mayor Egan stated thal:X0 n sand area proposed for the aquatic area#aci stating further that the area around the .water pool is the zero depth entry. Mr. NewmYh.n':l populated with adults and children of all ages, member Johnson asked if the concession area is indoors or isumptiian area is outside. 1 constituent call regarding the amount of beach or Newman stated that there is very little actual sand, d sur;facp and that the term "beach" for an aquatic at 2 at;lhis area of the aquatic pool is the most Advisory Parks Commission member Vincent stated that a lot of people in the City would like to see this project happen and expressed his excitement about the proposal. He further asked questions about the vehicle drop area which were given response by Mr. Newman. Advisory Parks Commission m that deserves additional shielding given.the pgc company has designed and observed cper2titsi and noise has not been an issue. City Cpunc1 for swim meets will cause a noise decibel p' t there is a more piercing sound than the ambient Fasked if there is an extreme point of noise neighborhood. Mr. Newman stated that his is aquatic pool facilities in residential areas i asked whether loudspeakers that are used nan stated that in the case of a loudspeaker, ;Mire pool. City Councilmember Wachter asked whether the slides are closed or open. Mr. Newman stated that the water slides could be designed either way, as open or closed, or the City could include both an open and closed slide, providing both opportunities for the user. City Councilmember Awada, asked if the $100,000 budget for water play elements is adequate. Mr. Newman explained what s; pfdp. sed apd Steti {o that certainly additional features could be added with the original project or at a IateF:ij�te: >:< After a discussion regarding the pro'p'osed aquatic pool facility budget, Mr. Newman stated that no less than a 5% contingency wQl g: ist at tM6:time bids are offered. He further spoke to the pool elevation, stating that the library facilityjf} Ionk4Y :the gife... Mayor Egan asked about the landscaping materials that are proposed for the agfljatiQ:{fDCl::CCEOF:Cf Parks & Recreation Vraa stated that the budget includes $120,000 of landscaping materials for the interior portion of the project and $30,000 of plantings outside the fenced area. Director of Parks & Recreation Vraa stated that he met with the library staff whose main concern was about a planting program for the library facility. He stated that the City will work with library staff on their planting program. City Councilmember Awadt 6 ::1 t e would like the City Council to review the architectural plans for each of the buijdii3gs jn advanC» cj;.any approval for plans and specifications. Director of Parks & Recreation Vraa stated that staff has bPRrj working on a footprint with the consultants and will bring the plans to the City Coungil..for their review. City Councilmember8tgtiigttist:as16�Q3f:bsere;.is a first aid station on site. Mr. Newman stated that there is a first aid station Gcil2E#.:RjaArper#ii11i9J::gjj location. City Councilmember Blomquist further asked what type of chemicals are proposed for the pool chlorination. Mr. Newman stated that a combination of myradic acid and liquid chlorine is proposed for the pool chlorination. Page 4/Eagan Special City Council Meeting Minutes May 5, 1998 City Councilmember AvYdtfa stated that she would prefer the project be bid as two phases, with phase 1 as the basic aquatic pool facility and phase 2 as the lazy river. Mr. Newman presented 6r-'4fbJt:Eliet1)tjs ie:aeliedula stating that the earth moving portion of the project will be bid in May/June, the avAgal pool facility in June/July and the buildings will be last to be bid. He further stated that the bidding doCtnjtents will separate the bids for the base pool and lazy river as requested. City Councilmember Wachtef`sfated that it is his opinion that the City would be better served to build the entire project at this time due to the additional cost incurred if phase 2 is delayed and built in the future. City Councilmember Blomquist stated that three out of four phone calls she is receiving prefer the basic pool and not the lazy river. Advisory Parks Commission member Markell stated that the recommendation of the Commission is to pfoceed with the total project. Mayor Egan thanked Mt � Newm4ji.'ior his presentation and stated that this item will appear on the regular City Council meetigg:agendaii further consideration. ::-:•:•:AP.,tCk1RN MEN_T,.::•::, There being no further business,•tm tieeeEing'was adjourned at 6:21 p.m. Date City Clerk TLH