Loading...
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