05/26/1988 - Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission
MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL
AND ADVISORY PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
Thursday, May 26, 1988
The meeting was attended by members of the City Council and
Advisory Commission. Staff attending consisted of Tom Hedges, City
Administrator, Ken Vraa, Director of Parks and Recreation, Steve Sullivan,
Landscape Architect/Parks Planner, Mel Bailey, Parks Intern.
BLACKHAWK PARK
Mr. Vraa and Mr. Sullivan reviewed the south access issue to
Blackhawk Park, and presented three basic alternatives concerning the need and
timing of road construction. They pointed out that Mr. Leo Murphy had not
shown any interest in providing an early dedication necessary for the road
construction. The owner of Blackhawk Ponds wished to see the road constructed
as soon as possible into the park to avoid conflicts with future residents and
lot sales.
Staff responded to questions concerning roadway costs, size of
acquisition, topography, alternatives and other questions relating to the
project.
Members of the Commission and Council voiced continued support of
the Parks Plan and the importance of the south roadway access. It was stated
that the road should be built all at one time, rather than in two separate
parts as suggested as an alternative. Mayor Ellison suggested that Councilman
Wachter, who has known Mr. Murphy for some time, and he could meet with Mr.
Murphy to discuss with him the land acquisition. After further discussion, it
was agreed that Mayor Ellison, Councilman Wachter and City Administrator
Hedges, along with Staff would meet with Mr. Murphy to discuss the land
acquisition issue, and that the results of that meeting be brought back to the
attention of the Council and Commission.
COMMUNITY CENTER
Mr. Vraa then reviewed the organizational approach to the
Community Center project, introducing the focus group concept - it's roles,
responsibilities and communication channels.
Advisory Parks & Recreation Commission
Minutes of May 26, 1988 Special Meeting
Page 2
After some discussion, Councilwoman Pam McCrea asked that the
public be brought into the planning process early, rather than at the end.
Representatives should be sought from every precinct, however before being
chosen they should indicate why they would like to be on the Community Center
Citizens Committee. Mr. Vraa directed the group's attention to the packet
item concerning the formation of a Citizen's Committee/Reaction Committee. It
was agreed that the reaction committee would come from volunteers in the
community for the planning of the project. Further, after the Council had
agreed to the site and general perimeters of the building, the committee could
be formed. Mr. Gustafson questioned when and how the priorities would be
included into the building process, stating he felt the architects should not
begin the design process until this had been accomplished. Mr. Vraa stated
that he had thought the process would be more of a combination process of
costs, needs and benefits, and that the architects would assist in that
process. Mr. Kubic stated he wanted to know the cost before he would vote to
include an item in the building program. He went on to say that it was not
the first or second priority items that everyone was concerned with, but the
lower priority items. He wanted to know their cost from the architects, so
a decision could be made as for inclusion into the building program. Members
of the Commission and Council voiced their thoughts and were in general
agreement - that the architects review and input would be critical.
Councilman Wachter expressed concern regarding City Hall
expansion. He commented that one 'possible idea would be to have a connecting
link between the Community Center and City Hall. Tom Hedges expanded on the
space needs of the departments and he stated further that the City would need
to undertake a space analysis to determine what the future needs for expansion
of the City Hall building might be.
Administrator, Tom Hedges, stated he wished to supply some
information concerning the possible School Bond Referendum for District #196.
He stated that he had met with Superintendent Rehwaldt_and that the Board of
Education was looking at a possible referendum which might include two or
three elementary schools and three possible timeframes for such a vote. These
timeframes were:- October, January or March/April.
There was general :d`iscussi6h, by'~•the, group. concerning the
'possibility by'the School District for a referendum. Mr. Gustafson stated he
felt the City Council and Commission should provide full public disclosure of
the pending Bond Referendum. He also felt the City should continue with a
February or Winter Bond Referendum as scheduled. He prefaced his comments by
saying that the City should not. have the referendum, until we know it will
p'ass. . The Cou'nci T "expressed their desire for the best community center
possi b1e' ''and thatwe can 'not be ;,,i nfl uenced by uncontrol l abl es such as higher
taxation and future bond referendums of the School District. Mr. Kubik stated
that the bond referendum in one school district did not effect the entire
City, and that plans needed to be dictated on the needs of the community and
not dictated by actions of one of the three school districts. Mr. Wachter
Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission
Minutes of May 26, 1988 Special Meeting
Page 3
stated that he felt the pool and ice arena were of primary importance; the
City should build for today's needs, and plan for expansion. He felt a
February Bond Referendum was a reachable goal.
After additional comments, there was a consensus that the
architectural program should be continued and that a winter referendum would
be considered. Changes in the timing can be made dependent upon the
circumstances regarding the future.
Mr. Vraa then discussed the importance of providing staff with
some philosophical guidelines concerning operational costs, fees, and charges.
He stated that these were important considerations to be considered and
included in the architectural program. He then directed the Commission
committee's attention to the packet containing information on fees and
charges. Pam McCrea stated that she felt the Community Center should be self-
supporting by utilizing user fees and charges. Member Carroll felt that the
City should provide subsidized fees which would provide for usership for those
who could not afford membership or not afford specific user fees. Council
Member Egan stated he supported the idea that user fees should be utilized to
compensate for operational costs only, but not for bond cost. Member
Gustafson felt that the Community Center should attempt to be self-supporting
by its user fees. There was additional discussion on user fees and program
costs, noting that not all programs should be self-supporting. It was noted
that many community centers are not able to pay for all operational costs.
The general consensus is that the center should attempt to pay for all
operational costs, but that certain programs and operations will not be
totally self supporting.
During discussion concerning the community room use, Member
Swanson felt the community room could be appropriate for some use of alcoholic
beverages, but not necessarily hard liquor; Mr. Gustafson stated he could not
support spirits in the community room and felt the City needed to take a lead
role in this. Member McCrea suggested that when the user of the Community
Room wished to have alcoholic beverages (i.e., weddings, etc.) they would sign
a form of liability waiver placing the responsibility on the user group.
Other members of the Commission and Council supported the concept of allowing
wine for some functions that were appropriate. The use of the rooms would
provide a valuable source of income for paying operational expenses and. design
would be predicted on the number and types of use and user. Guidelines for
use of the room and alcoholic beverages are to be developed.
There was a brief discussion on advertising and donations; it was
generally agreed that some advertising, used as a way of recognition for
donations, would be permitted. It was suggested that a committee of staff
develop guidelines for an appropriate time to cover such items.
Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission
Minutes of May 26, 1988 Special Meeting
Page 3
UNISYS TRAIL
Mr. Jerry Tank, from Unisys Corporation, was present to represent
his firm regarding a trail connection from Pilot Knob Park to Quarry Park.
Steve Sullivan did reviewed the issues of the trail and noted that two
possible alignments were possible: one would follow the property lines on the
west and north and a second alignment would be closer to the existing roadway
alignment; now blocked off. Mr. Tank stated that Unisys was very much opposed
to the alignment adjacent to the roadway - stating his reasons for their
concerns. He further went on to state that it was never Sperry's intention to
provide for such a trailway, that in an earlier agreement with the City
provided for the trail alignment closer to the property boundaries. Mr. Kubik
stated that the neighborhood was very much concerned with trail alignment
adjacent to the property. He stated that he felt the topography and existing
vegetation was better along the roadway than adjacent to the neighbors.
Further, there was not a strong positive sentiment towards Sperry/Unisys at
this time. Members of the Commission and Council agreed that an attempt
should be made to place the trail along the property lines as depicted by Mr.
Sullivan's graphic, and that a meeting of the residents may be necessary for
this trail system to be implemented. Mr. Vraa stated it would be necessary
for the City's consulting firm to develop a site plan of existing conditions
before a plan could be prepared.
Noting that the meeting had extended beyond the timeframe, the
joint meeting of the Council and Commission was adjourned.
DATE SECRETARY