Loading...
03/17/1998 - City Council Special 00084 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL EAGAN, MINNESOTA MARCH 17, 1998 A special meeting of the Eagan City Council was held on Tuesday, March 17, 1998 at 5:00 p.m. in the Eagan Municipal Center Community Room. Present were Mayor Egan and City Councilmembers Awada, Blomquist, Masin and Wachter. Also present were Director of Parks and Recreation Vraa, Director of Finance VanOverbeke and City Administrator Hedges. VISITORS TO BE HEARD Mayor Egan invited any visitors to be heard to comment, and acknowledged there were no visitors to be heard. FEASffiILITY REPORT/AQUATIC POOL FACILITY PROJECT City Administrator Hedges stated that City staff and representatives of Water Technology, Inc. hosted community informational meetings on March 4 and March 10 to review concept plans for the proposed family aquatic pool facility with interested members of the public. He further stated that the City has received community feedback through e-mail messages, telephone calls, correspondence and comments at the informational meetings. Director of Parks and Recreation Vraa stated that the comments appear to be approximately 85 percent in support of building an aquatic pool facility, while 15 percent were an objection to proceeding ahead with a portion or all of the project. Mr. Vraa introduced Chuck Newman, Carl Fuerst and Claude Rogers, all representatives of Water Technology, Inc., who were present to present the final feasibility plan for consideration by the City Council. Mr. Rogers, representing Water Technology, Inc., presented the overall plan reviewing the various elements of the aquatic pool. He specifically spoke of concerns the Windcrest neighborhood raised about noise and the site visibility given their close location to the proposed aquatic pool facility. Mr. Rogers reviewed the site elevations, the berm, fencing and landscaping, all of which provide a favorable buffering for the adjacent neighborhood. City Councilmember Awada referred to the written correspondence from the community and asked if the aquatic pool should be redesigned to accommodate a 50 meter design element. Mr. Newman, representing Water Technology, Inc., stated that most outdoor pool facilities contain a 25 yard feature which is adequate for swim meets and tournaments. Mayor Egan also spoke to the special interests that were referenced in the various correspondence received by the City and stated that he has to rely on the experience of the consultants for what are the best choices and design features for the proposed aquatic pool facility. City Councilmember Wachter stated that it appears, from the correspondence, the public would prefer more than three (3) lanes for the 25 meter competitive swim area. He also raised questions about the drainage, asking if the storm water holding pond will be adequate to handle the impervious surface runoff. Mr. Rogers stated that the aquatic pool facility design could accommodate up to six (6) lanes if desired and, further, that the storm water is handled up stream and will not impact the storm water holding pond. City Councilmember Wachter further asked if the City could add any additional features to the aquatic pool facility south of the Lazy River in 00085 the future. Mr. Rogers stated the land area is a 3 to I slope and would be too steep for any additional aquatic pool features. Mr. Newman stated that the facility has an excellent mix of features for all ages and the location with the embankment protecting the northern elements and maximizing the southern sun exposure provides for an ideal location. Mr. Fuerst, representing Water Technology, Inc., stated that it has only been in recent years that the concept of public pools has changed. He stated that 54 percent of the community will swim, however, only one percent of the population will swim competitively. He stated that the traditional rectangular lap pools were designed for the competitive swimmer and are heavily subsidized by municipalities. Mr. Fuerst stated that recent studies will show the high use factors are the zero depth recreational/non-competitive swim features and the deep area that provides for the competitive swimming lanes has the least amount of use by those using the aquatic pool facilities. Mr. Fuerst stated the aquatic pool facility should be designed for a bather capacity of 2000, given the population and demographics of the community. Mayor Egan stated that every question is valid and is considered a good comment and will be taken seriously as the City Council reviews the final design features for the aquatic pool project. City Councilmember Masin asked the consultants, if more consideration were given to competitive swimming, what design changes would be required. Mr. Newman, representing Water Technology, Inc., stated that the design, as presented, could expand from three (3) lanes to approximately six (6) lanes and accommodate the competitive swim feature. City Councilmember Awada stated she would like staff to ask the swim club if they would prefer a 25 meter or 50 meter design feature. City Councilmember Masin asked if the municipal center campus is the best site for the aquatic pool facility or whether the City has reviewed other sites for the proposed project. Director of Parks and Recreation Vraa responded stating that according to the consultants and staff, the municipal center campus is the best site for the aquatic pool facility. He stated the location is in the center of the community, provides opportunities for foot and bicycle traffic, has security in its relationship to the police department and is the best site to market in the community. He further stated that the municipal center campus has been designated for a community center, swimming pool and ice facility since it was acquired in the late 1970's. Mr. Vraa further stated the water treatment center site at Pilot Knob Road and Cliff Road, and sites originally considered for the amphitheater, are either too small or lack many ofthe elements that make the municipal center site favorable for a pool. City Councilmember Blomquist agreed, stating that a swimming pool facility for the municipal center site has been a vision since she was on the City Council in 1980. She further discussed the total project stating that it appears the Lazy River feature may cause the project to contain too many features at this site, and further expressed concern about the cost for the Lazy River and the project. She further stated that originally the cost of the project was estimated at approximately $4.5 million and now it has increased to over $7 million. City Administrator Hedges stated the municipal center campus provides a natural security with its relationship to the police department and, further, the amount of parking necessary for the two civic arenas and the aquatic pool facility will be nicely shared at this location. City Councilmember Wachter stated that the slopes and grassy sunning area are excellent for watching small children which is a design feature natural to this site due to the favorable elevations. Mr. Fuerst, representing Water Technology, Inc., presented the economic projections foroperation ofthe aquatic pool facility stating the facility should net an average of $153, 180 of 00086 revenue after expenses, and given the history of four (4) similar facilities including St. Louis Park, could reach as high as $262,500. City Councilmember Blomquist asked if the comparative cities in the study are operating on a longer season than anticipated for our facility. Mr. Newman stated that all the outdoor aquatic pool facilities used in the comparative study are seasonal from Memorial Day to Labor Day. After a brief review of the rates and fees to be charged by the consultants, City Councilmember Wachter stated he would prefer the user fee for Eagan lower than the non- resident rate. City Councilmember Awada stated that the proforma should include both operating revenue projections for a bather load capacity of 1200 and 2000. She specifically asked how the revenue projections change in adding the additional 800 bather load, or in other words, what are the net revenues after expenses for both the 1200 and 2000 bather load projections. Mr. Newman stated that the projections are based on a 2000 bather load, but stated that there would be a significant difference if the facility was built for a 1200 bather load. And, further, ifthe facility is too small there will be some fall off experience from anticipated repeat business. City Councilmember Masin stated there are no similar aquatic pool facilities within the general area and asked how this would impact the facility. Carl Fuerst, representing Water Technology, Inc., stated the interest by non-residents will be very high due to the fact that there are no similar facilities in the adjacent area, and as a result, the City could establish the user fees for non-residents at a rate 50 to 100 percent higher than resident fees. City Councilmember Awada stated it is important that the consultants and City staff project the cost based on both a 1200 and 2000 bather load capacity. She stated her rough calculations indicate the real cost differential to the City, for adding the Lazy River and increasing the total capital cost from $4.5 million to the estimated $7.I million, will be offset by income that is projected if Phase II is built at this time. She further stated that the actual capital cost is approximately $1 million more after revenue projections. Or in other words, by constructing Phase II and adding the additional revenue to the already established operational base, the City would build the second phase for approximately $2.6 million. The actual out of pocket cost to the City would be approximately $1 million due to the amount of additional revenues projected in the project proforma. Director of Finance VanOverbeke reviewed the status of the Community Investment Fund stating that the available balance as of December 31, 1997 is $7,127,590. He further reviewed the status of the Street Construction Fund stating that if all the projects are constructed as proposed in the five (5) year CIP (1998 through 2002), the total pending cash balance based on a conservative projection of municipal state aids and other revenues is $5,296,472. City Councilmembers asked if this ending cash balance assumes any escrow for the Country Joe lawsuit. Director of Finance VanOverbeke stated the amount projected in the ending cash balance as stated should cover both principal and interest for the Country Joe litigation, if District Court requires the City to repay the road unit fees that were collected over a period of seven to eight years. City Administrator Hedges stated that questions have been raised by the Windcrest neighborhood as to whether an EIS will be necessary before the proposed aquatic pool facility is constructed. City Attorney Jim Sheldon appeared and stated that environmental quality board regulations for an environmental impact statement is a project that will generate a peak capacity of 30,000 people per day. He further stated that the regulations for an environmental assessment worksheet is for a daily capacity that would reach of a peak of 5000. He stated the aquatic pool facility capacity is either 1200 or 2000, depending on whether the City constructs one or both 00087 phases and, in either case, an EA W or EIS is not required. City Councilmembers questioned whether certain environmental reviews could be made regardless of the requirements for an EA W. The City Attorney stated that the City can do a discretionary environmental review, however, there is no mandatory requirement for either an EA W or EIS on this project. Mayor Egan thanked the consultant staff and City Council for the dialogue regarding the proposed aquatic pool facility, and stated that the item would be addressed at the regular City Council meeting on March 17 as an item of old business. OTHER BUSINESS There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. March 17, 1998 Date ~~ TLH City Clerk