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