09/30/1986 - Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ADVISORY PARS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 30, 1986
The Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission convened it's Special Meeting at
6:40 P.M. Roger Martin, who indicated he would not be available to attend
the meeting, arrived at 7:00 P.M. Members who were present included: Caponi,
Alt, Bertz, Martin, Ketcham, and Carroll.
Director of Parks and Recreation explained that the purpose of the meeting was
to continue the discussion from September 4th, when the Advisory Commission
was discussing the need for a study of a Community Center. After additional
introductory remarks, the Director suggested that the Commission continue with
the brainstorming session, guided by the following questions: Why a Community
Center Study?, Why is it important? What questions do we have that we would
care to have answered during the course of the study? How do we answer our
current questions?
In response to "Why a Community Center Study?", the Advisory Commission
volunteered the following reasons with explanations:
1. The existing population of Eagan'warrants such a study.
2. To determine if there is sufficient interest in the community for such a
facility.
3. A Community Center to provide. opportunities, which the City can not now
provide.
4. Community Center Study has been placed within the Capital Improvements
Plan.
5. A study would provide a definition of what a "Community Center" is.
6. A study would provide a definition of what a Community Center is, as
defined by the people of Eagan.
7. A study would help define the importance of a Community Center in
relationship to other City needs.
8. A study would be a logical component within the planning process for any
unanswered questions. The study would educate the Commission, Staff, and
officials on various issues regarding Community Centers.
After a thorough discussion of why the need for a study and the rationale,
the Commission proceeded to question #2, which related to questions people
would have concerning a Community Center. The Commission listed the
following: (1) What do the citizens of Eagan want? (2) Where is it going to
be built? (3) When will it be built? (4) How does a Community Center
relate to a Senior High School? (5) What is the cost and economics for
building and maintaining a Community Center? (6) A further definition of
what a Community Center is (7) What determines why some Community Centers
are successful, while others do not succeed. (8) What are the political
considerations for the developing of a Community Center (9) What would be the
appropriate timing for a Bond Issue, and should there be a Bond Issue? (10)
Can Community Centers be flexible enough to allow alternative use? (11) What
are the results from existing Community Centers projected versus actual usage?
Special Meeting- Adv.Parks
and Recreation Com. 9/30/86
(12) Are there other analysis resources available? (13) What facilities are
missing and not provided in most Community Centers? (14) What are the risks
associated with the Community Centers, including insurance liability? (15)
Sampling methods used by other Communities in satisfying actual community
needs (16) Who are the actual expert consultants in the field and how
effective are these people? (17) Is a Community Center a popular idea
currently? (18) How many Community Centers are available to visit within the
area? (19) What is the time frame for a study, and construction? (20)
What are the relationships of the facilities within each structure?
Commission then dealt with Question #3, "How do we answer our current
questions?". Commission determined that: (1) The Commission can visit
existing Community Center Sites. (2) That the. study group can utilize
professional experts. (3) That the study group can observe and survey
existing community users. (4) A survey can be distributed to Eagan
population (5) A study group can review yearly financial reports of several
community centers. (6) The study group can utilize citizen group advisors.
(7) Hire_ consultants if necessary.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
The Commission then reviewed 'the sequencing of the planning process. The
general consensus was for the Staff to provide a list for Commission members
of existing Community Centers facilities, defined to a point, in which they
can concur or list additional facilities. Staff would do a preliminary
research regarding the type of facilities available, and determine an
appropriate time for visiting them. Commission would begin visiting these
facilities and end some time in the Spring. This visiting would be only one
component of the data collection process. Commission also agreed that it
would be necessary to bring in other experts, and citizens groups to further
define the needs and objectives. This would be done farther along in the
process. Once the analysis stage of the planning process was complete, the
Commission felt that a concept and design program could be developed. At this
point within the process, the design consultants, such as an architect, would
not be necessary.
Director of Parks and Recreation indicated that Staff had developed a proposed
study process along the same line as the master Parks Plan. He explained that
this included data' collection, summary report,. etc. This would then be
followed by determination of local needs, which could be done by a sampling
survey, along with an analysis of other public and private facilities.. The
end product of this process would be a summation of public interest of unmet
needs. 'Director of Parks and Recreation continued to explain the four step
process, indicating that at the end of the study committee work there would be
a recommendation to: (1) place the project on hold or (2) proceed with a
space analysis study based on the preliminary architectural program included
by the study committee.
2
Special Meeting - Adv.Parks
and Recreation Com. 9/30/80
After further discussion concerning the process; Staff and Commission role,
the Director of Parks and Recreation was directed to compile a list of
facilities to visit, along with a proposed questionnaire for the November
Commission meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M.
Date visory Parks Recreation Secre ary
3