11/21/2006 - City Council SpecialAGENDA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY
NOVEMBER 21, 2006
4:00 P.M.
EAGAN ROOM -CITY HALL
I. ROLL CALL AND AGENDA ADOPTION
II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD
~, ~ III. YANKEE DOODLE ROAD ACCESS MANAGEMENT
STUDY -OPTIONS AND PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
PRESENTATION
3 IV. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
ALLOCATION FOR 2007
-~ ~ V. DIFFLEY PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Special Council Workshop
Agenda Memo
November 21, 2006
III.YANKEE DOODLE ROAD ACCESS MANAGEMENT STUDY
- OPTIONS AND PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
DIRECTION FOR CONSIDERATION: REVIEW AND COMMENT ON
PROPOSED ACCESS MANAGEMENT OPTIONS.
FACTS:
• As traffic and development continue to grow along the Yankee Doodle Rd
(County Road 28) corridor between I-35E and TH 149, various segments and
intersections are approaching their minimum Level of Service (LOS) capacities.
Several existing intersections do not meet the County's Transportation Plan
spacing guidelines. Also, as additional development occurs along this corridor,
requested new access locations either conflict with the current guidelines or
would compromise the long-term mobility and/or safety of this heavily traveled
corridor. An access management plan would be helpful in identifying where
future accesses could be accommodated and what infrastructure improvements are
the most cost effective.
• One of the higher priority improvements identified in both the City's and
County's CIP involves addressing the vehicle crash rate at the Promenade
intersection, and the easterly extension of the current 6-lane divided roadway
from Promenade Ave. through Lexington Ave. for added capacity. Before these
or other significant investments are initiated, both agencies agreed to perform a
Corridor/Access Management Study of this 2-mile segment. SRF Consulting
Group, Inc., was retained to perform this study which began in June with a
completion date set for year's end.
• This 2-mile corridor was divided into 3 segments; the West (Denmark Ave. to
Lexington Ave.), the Middle (Lexington Ave. to Elrene Rd.) and the East (Elrene
to TH 149). An Open House was held on August 2 to introduce the study and
solicit public input and discussion of issues and concerns along this corridor. Of
the 900+ notices mailed out to all property owners within 1 mile of this corridor,
31 attended the open house. With this additional information, various alternatives
were developed for each segment including advantages and disadvantages of
each. This refined information was then presented to the public at a 2°a Open
House on October 12 attended by 29 people. In addition, there have been
individual follow-up meetings with several Property/Business owners where
significant right-of--way would have to be acquired for some of the proposed
alternatives to be implemented.
Special Council Workshop
Agenda Memo
November 21, 2006
YANKEE DOODLE RD CORRIDOR STUDY (cont.)
• The study's approval process incorporates 2 presentations/discussions with the
City Council (Nov. 21 Workshop and Dec. 19 Regular meeting) and 2 with the
County Board (Dec. 12 Physical Development Committee and January Board
meeting). The Nov. 21 Workshop is an opportunity for the City and County
staff/consultant to update the Council on the study's progress and current status. If
possible, it would be helpful to forward specific comments to the County's
Physical Development Committee (Committee of the Whole) for their
consideration on Dec. 12. The County PDC's follow up comments can then be
brought back to the City Council for their consideration at the Dec. 19 Council
meeting, with final comments going to the County Board in January for hopeful
adoption of the Study and phased implementation of agreed upon preferred
alternatives as the need or opportunity presents itself. The approved study will
then be the guiding document to implement future transportation improvements
and development approvals along this comdor.
• SRF will present the various alternatives being considered for each of the 3
segments and the preferred alternatives during the workshop.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Corridor Study and alternatives summary, enclosed without page number.
a
Agenda Information Memo
Eagan City Council Workshop
November 21, 2006
IV. PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF 2007 CDBG APPLICATION
DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To discuss the program and improvement alternatives for inclusion in the City's FY 2007
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application and provide staff direction
regarding the specific items to be included in the application when presented to the
Council at its next regular meeting.
FACTS:
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides block grant
funding for programs that conform to national objectives and eligible activities that
meet Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program regulations.
The City of Eagan's CDBG allocation is administered through a subrecipient
agreement with the Dakota County CDA. The coordination of the program by the
CDA permits various cities within the County to focus on a range of specific eligible
activities unique to their situations and the CDA is able to balance the activities
countywide to ensure that the overall County allocation meets all HUD eligibility
requirements.
The CDBG fiscal year begins July 1. The application deadline for local governments
has been set at December 15, 2006. Preliminary budget information is being
provided at this time to permit staff to prepare background for the formal Council
action at a later date.
For application purposes, the CDA indicates that the City should use the 2006
allocation amount for Eagan's FY 2007 application. That amount is $214,500.
Staff is presenting a proposed funding budget for Council consideration including
senior services and acquisition, demolition and relocation activities associated with
the Cedar Grove Redevelopment Area. Eligible activities under the HUD rules must
either remove slums and blight or provide benefits to low and moderate income
(LMI) persons and families. The CDBG program requires that at least 70% of all
funds to be used for LMI benefits. For HUD purposes, this means that 51 % of the
benefiting families be at or below 80% of the median income for the region. In 2006,
a family of four making $59,600 met this criteria.
The CDA requires that at least 50% of each City's application be designated for LMI
uses, which can be either programs or acquisitions. In addition, when CDBG funds
are used for slum and blight removal, a portion will be repaid to the City's CDBG
account at the time the property is resold for development. Ultimately, the account
will need to be used to provide for LMI benefit.
3
Agenda Information Memo
November 21, 2006 Eagan City Council Workshop
Page 2 of 2
• In addition, as staff has discussed the program with CDA staff, it was noted that,
while CDBG applications may be amended, the process to reallocate dollar amounts
among previously approved line items is a minor amendment, but it is a major
amendment requiring higher levels of review if dollars are to be shifted to new
activities.
• Activities supporting the LMI standard have always required documentation of the
LMI status of beneficiaries of a program or improvement. In the last two years, the
documentation requirements have been revised to require information of greater
scope and detail. For public service programming, the level of detail is such that the
CDA is recommending and City staff concurs that it is not cost effective to allocate
funds for LMI programming, unless it is for a population that is assumed to be
eligible, such as seniors.
• As in recent years, staff is proposing that a portion of the CDBG funds be allocated to
the Cedar Grove Redevelopment. Allocations are noted in this category for
acquisition, relocation and demolition of properties both for general removal of
substandard buildings and for acquisitions that would eventually provide for LMI
housing. Since low and moderate income housing development is required as a part
of the Cedar Grove Redevelopment, it is hoped that the LMI property development
partially funded by CDBG funds will occur within the near term. As such, funds used
in the short term for blight removal and repaid by the developer can be used for an
LMI purpose at that time.
• The proposed senior service activities are discussed in the attachment.
• The budget alternative spreadsheet shows requested allocations in the referenced
categories above. Staff will request direction at the workshop to compile remaining
items for the formal application to be considered at the Council meeting on December
4, 2006.
ATTACHMENTS:
Draft Budget alternatives on page ~J
Parks narrative on pages
4
c
c ~
~N _m
'G ~ - -
_3
O (n ~ ~
~ O O O
~ O O ~ O
O
N ~ O N ~
C ~ ~ ~ ~
am
0 0
0 0
R c o ~
_ ., ~ ti
.~~ ~~
O ~ ~
7
m
O O
~ C O O
C y ~ ~
'~~ ~~
O .a ER
= O
d
°' a
~ ~
m
~ O
~ r
d
•°' a.
~ ~
O
O
O
Cfl
v
N
O
M
N
J
O
O
O
0 0
°o°o
~ N
EA EA
O O
O ~
O O
O r
69
O
O
O
r
O
O
O
J
C
rn
ea
W
O
U
c
0
_ :v,
m ~
Q. Q
O
a>i a
~ o
~a
d O
> o c c
o ~ 0 0
C9~ m~=
~ ~ U O
!0 -p O
~ N N N
VU~~
~
U N
a~ m
~
~
a~ ~
y
~ aci
y
Q c
~ . i
a
o ~
V1 d Ql
3 p •~~
Q
w ~ ~ ~
~ E ~ ~ a
~ t0
~ O ~ U
°az
_ c a ccuin
3 L
0 ~ o
Q r C i '~
o
n } (7 U c
n
c
0
O O
~ ~ ~
~t N
~~
0
0
N
O
O
O
M
N
69
O
O
O
N
69
N
N
M
N
v
N
J
r p
~F-o
O
O
l!7
N
~3
m
co
E
X
O
Q
Q
Q
rn
c
a
c
co
:~
Q
City of Eagan ~ Parks and Recreation
2007-2008 Community Development Block Grant Request
The purpose for CDBG funds is to provide a flexible source of annual grant funds for local governments
that can be devoted to the activities that best serve their own particular development priorities provided
that I) the benefit low and moderate income persons as outlined by federal standards; 2) prevent or
eliminate slums or blight and meet community development needs.
With this in mind, Parks and Recreation is proposing the following public services for seniors. The senior
population is a presumed benefited population approved by the HCTD guidelines for CDBG funds. In
addition, the 20/20 plan has identified the older adults as an increasing underserved population. These
two factors coupled with national research 1) identifying an alarming increase in overweight and obese
individuals, and 2) support for fitness, recreation and leisure activities to enhance and improve our quality
of life support the investments outlined below. The additional services would provide opportunities to
meet the needs of our working seniors and provide opportunities for new programs within the Lone Oak
Room. These inay include nutrition, fitness, and personal training, dance and art classes.
1. Providing public service:
$35,000
a. $ 7,000 staff wages/mtrls (outreach & classes at senior living complexes
b. $13,800 facility cost: extended senior center hours two evenings a week for 3 hrs.
c. $ 3,200 staff extended hours of the senior center (as outlined in item b.)
d. $ 9,000 staff wages for new senior classes (fitness, dance, art, walking etc)
e. $ 3,000 materials and supplies for new classes
Justification:
1. Seniors are a limited clientele presumed benefited population. CDA defines guidelines for
minimum age for senior housing projects as 55. These programs will target adults /seniors
55 and older.
2. All requests meet the guidelines outlined by CDGB.
3. Responding to changing community needs, aging population.
4. Programmatically in line with 20/20 vision for recreation; young seniors, arts, health and
wellness.
5. Research shows that individuals live longer, healthier and happier when engaged in healthy
life style choices, including proper nutrition, physical activity, and social interaction.
6. Funding request blends outreach, facility fees, staff wages and equipment costs for a holistic
approach to expanding services for the senior population.
Tracking mechanisms for public service activities:
1. Reports via finance for wages.
2. Facility fee invoices
3. Check in system for senior center visitors and program participants to capture demographic
data (ethnicity, head of household ...).
Agenda Information Memo
November 21, 2006 Special City Council Meeting
V. DIFFLEY PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To consider 1.) Direction to provide any additional research for the City Council relative
to removal of a fence in the Diffley pedestrian tunnel; or 2.) Approve or deny a request
by the Caponi Art Park Learning Center to remove the Diffley Road pedestrian tunnel
and, if approved, direct preparation of a resolution that a public purpose exists that would
be served through the control of the tunnel by the Art Park and for preparation of a
license agreement which will retain ultimate ownership of the tunnel by the City, but
would give possession and management of the tunnel to the Caponi Art Park under terms
acceptable to the City. The resolution and license agreement would be brought back at a
future meeting.
FACTS:
Mayor Geagan had a meeting with Mr. and Mrs. Anthony Caponi on Wednesday,
November 15, 2006 and the result of that meeting asked that consideration be
given to their request to remove the fence that divides the tunnel into two narrow
passageways and allow the Caponi Art Park to have full use of the tunnel for
maintenance equipment, park vehicles for tours and various Art Park Learning
Center events as well as pedestrian movement including the ability to better assist
elderly and handicapped.
A request to remove the fence has been under consideration for a period of time;
however, there has been no presentation made to the City Council for formal
consideration by the City Council. The question was again raised in late summer
and the City Administrator asked for input by the City Attorney who prepared a
memorandum addressing the Diffley tunnel in September 2006; a copy of the City
Attorney's memo is referenced in the attachments.
The City Administrator spoke with Cary Felbab, Chair of the Caponi Art Park
Learning Center Board of Directors, and he is forwarding an email this weekend
which will be provided to the City Council on Monday. He will be present at the
meeting on Tuesday.
If the City Council addresses the Comprehensive Guide Plan issues identified in
the attached memorandum by the City Attorney, it would be necessary to find by
resolution that a public purpose exists that would be served through the control of
the tunnel by the Art Park.
If the City Council is inclined to have the Art Park control the tunnel, the Council
should use a license agreement which would retain ultimate ownership of the
tunnel by the City, but would give possession and management of the tunnel to
7
the Caponi Art Park under terms acceptable to the City; again, as outlined by the
City Attorney in his memo (see attachment).
ATTACHMENTS:
Enclosed on pages ~ through ~ is a copy of correspondence from
Anthony Caponi, Caponi Art Park Learning Center, to the City Administrator
September 2005 with a copy of the underpass diagram and a timeline that was
provided to Mayor Geagan at his meeting on November 15, 2006.
Also enclosed is a copy of a legal memorandum from the City Attorney Michael
Dou herty entitled "Diffley Tunnel" and referenced as pages ~ through
~•
CAPONI
LEARNING CENTER
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
CARY FELBAB
President
CHIP LINDEKE
&eoretary!
ROBERT GAVIN, JR
Treasurer
ANTHONY CAPQNI
CHERYL CAPONI
MICHAEL MAGUIRE
PAULVERRET
1205 DIFFLEY
R O A D
E A G A N M N
5 5 1 2 3
8 5 1- 4 5 4- 8 4 1 2
info~caponiartpark.org
www.caponiarlpark.org
September 26, 2005
Tom Hedges
City Administrator
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
Dear Tom,
As a follow-up to our August 10, 2005 meeting also attended by City
Council Member Mike Maguire, Dakota County Commissioner Tom Egan
and City Engineer Tom Colbert, and after discussing the matter with
members of the Art Park Board of Directors, I petition the City of Eagan
on behalf of the Caponi Art Park and Learning Center to restore the full
use of the Diffley Road underpass to the Art Park as originally intended.
In 1992 when Diffley Road was being widened, I requested an underpass
to connect the two sections of the Art Park. The City agreed to put in a
smaller tunnel than I had specified. I then paid the difference to have the
present underpass installed, including lights, to meet the needs of the Art
Park.
The fence that divides the underpass into two narrow passageways may
have been a necessary compromise, at a time when the City doubted my
ability to see the Art Park project to completion. Now that the Art Park is a
reality and the partnership with the City reaffirms the Art Park's
dedication to serving the community I'rn sure you'll agree that the fence is
a detriment to our shared goal.
There are numerous problems with the Art Park's restricted use of the
underpass. The most important relate to safety and utility.
The 8ft-wide passageway, created by dividing the underpass in two is a
bottleneck for movement within the Art Park. It is too narrow to accommodate
park vehicles and pedestrians. The Art Park makes ample use of golf carts for
tours and to assist elderly and handicap park visitors. The carts crowd
pedestrians and they cannot pass one another in the tunnel, and even though
passengers are instructed to keep their hands within the cart the narrowness of
the passageway is a known risk to children that we cannot ignore.
It is difficult to get maintenance equipment from one side of the park to
the other. The concrete wall of the underpass shows tire marks from trying
to avoid hitting the fence with the bobcat and it is almost impossible to
carry any tool that sticks out beyond the width of our equipment.
The public half of the underpass has become a gathering place for people
involved in questionable activities. It is usually littered with broken bottles
and other trash that Art Park staff has had to clean because it is too narrow
for City maintenance equipment to access. Art Park staff has also had to
consistently police the underpass to discourage vandalism and graffiti.
As to its intended value to the public, the underpass is seldom used and it
is the only place in the city that has an underpass to get from one side of
the street to the other, There are no homes on the south side of Diffley
9
between Lexington Way and Malmo Lane to create the need for people to
cross the road. There also is no need for the underpass as an access to
Patrick Eagan Park because there already is a direct link from the bike
path on the north side of Diffley to the City park. (See the attached
diagram. )
Dear Tom,
I write this letter as the Art Park administrator and as the person who has
kept complete records on the Art Park's history. I address myself to you
not only as the City Administrator but as the person at the City who is
most familiar with the history of the park. I am ready to answer any
questions that you and the City Council may have. You can expect active
cooperation from the Art Fark Board and staff to facilitate this necessary
correction.
Sincerely,
Anthony Caponi
Artistic and Administrative Director
Caponi Art Park and Learning Center
Encl: Underpass Diagram
F~
Relationship of Bike Path along Diffley Road to
Caponi Art Park Underpass
Patrick Egan Park
~u..~
_. _ _
;' , ;~~ r.
~,
Road Directly ,!" .
Connecting - l . ~ .
Bike Path to .~ ~~-.---
I Patrick Egan Park ~~~'~~ '~ "-~
~ " ~,y
s -r
`i `'
I t-
1 ~- 'Y" ~
~I 1 ~
,. ,..
_r ._ .__.~_._____~._ _ __~___._,
---~_ .___ ~---- _. ~ Path
~_ s
Diffley Road ~
- r - - - -~ - - - - ~-- ~ - __.... ~ -------- -
Caponi Art Park
And Learning Center
N
Timeline
1990 Apri126 Breakfast meeting on-site with City Council.
All agreed to work together as partners in creation of Art Park.
May 15 City landscape architect makes 3-d model of park
Aug. 24 Meeting with Ken Vraa and Betty Ivey, Macalester Provost to
discuss the school's participation in project.
Nov. 8 City Council passes resolution establishing partnership and
committing to "taking leadership role."
Dec. 11 City surveys 60-acre park.
1991 Sept. 27 Opening of Tony's retirement exhibition
Sept. 28 First public open house for Art Park
1992 Jan. 14 Meeting with Tom Hedges and Ken Vraa -working on a common
project.
Feb. 4 Meeting with Ken Vraa, Tom Colbert, Dave Zeck -laid out
specifications for underpass.
April 14 Ken Vraa offered $100,000 from park funds for underpass.
April 23 Challenging City Council meeting
Apri124 Meeting with Tom Hedges and Jim Sheldon in studio -made offer
Apri125 City Council accepts
May 22 Insisted on original design of underpass
May 27 Meeting with Ken Vraa and Dave Zeck -told of security need for
total control of underpass, separate from park trail to Patrick Eagan
Park.
May 31 Meeting with Pam McCrea and Pat Awada -insisted not share
underpass.
June 22 General meeting to resolve issues
Dec. 15 Compromise Tunnel agreement adopted by City Council
1993 March 18 Road construction bids accepted.
Disqualified bid would have been $80,000.
$38,950 balance due.
March 19 Paid $29,650 of Tunnel costs. Remainder Assessed
2005 March 15 Paid approx. $30,000 remaining balance
~~
r
Cost Per Contract for Accepted Bid $ 38,950
Lights/Other Costs + 9,150
Total Tunnel Cost $ 48,100
Amount Paid w/ Contract - 29,650
Amount Assessed $ 18,450
+ interest
Approximate Amount Paid $ 30,000
Total Paid for Tunnel ~ 59,650
3/ 19/ 1993
3/15/2005 Part of $82,200 assessments paid
t~3
SEVERSON, SHELDON, DOUGHERTY
& MOLENDA, P.A.
TO: Tom Hedges, City Administrator
FROM: Michael G. Dougherty, City Attorney
DATE: September 7, 2006'
RE: Diffley Tunnel
This memo is in response to your request of whether the City can close the tunnel under Diffley
Road to public use and allow the Caponi Art Board full control of the tunnel. The answer is yes,
subject to policy decisions by the Council.
Leaving aside the issue of the cost of a tunnel and whether the City would look to be reimbursed
for its cost, the review of whether the City can transfer the tunnel begins with its Comprehensive
Guide Plan. Within the Park and Recreation System Plan of the Guide Plan is the identification
of a full trail on the north side of Diffley Road between Pilot Knob and Lexington and a trail
traversing easterly from Pilot Knob to the point of the tunnel entrance along the south side of
Diffley Road. The tunnel acts as a pivotal portion of the trail system connecting the south to the
north side. Also, the Transportation Plan of the Guide Plan identifies the existing trails along
Diffley Road in similar fashion to the Park and Recreation System Plan. However, the
Transportation Trail System also identifies a proposed trail along the south side of Diffley Road
from the tunnel connection to Lexington. The Council should address the Guide Plan to
determine what, if any, modifications would need to be made to the Park and Transportation
Plans if the tunnel were placed under the control of the Caponi Art Park.
In the early 1990's, the City entered into a joint power agreement with Dakota County for the
upgrade of Diffley Road from Pilot Knob Road to Lexington Avenue. As part of the upgrade,
the City intended to provide trail segments along the north and south side of Diffley Road.
The installation of a trail along the south side of Diffley Road would have had a significant
impact on the property owned by Tony Caponi. Discussions ensued with Tony and the County
about alternatives that would have less impact on the Caponi property. In furtherance of these
discussions, the City worked with Dakota County to include the design of a tunnel under Diffley
Road that would provide the public with a walking, hiking and biking trail connecting the south
with the north trail along Diffley Road.
i~-
In March of 1993, the City entered into an agreement with Tony Caponi which related to the
design, construction and control of the tunnel. The agreement provided for the design and
construction of an alternate pedestrian access (the "tunnel") that included a fence. to segregate the
traffic flow within the tunnel so as to allow its use by patrons of the Art Park. This is the tunnel
which got built. The agreement provided that the Caponis would be assessed for the increased
cost for the alternate designed tunnel and that the City would pay 45% of the base design and
Dakota County was to pay for the remaining 55% of the base design. The City's portion of the
cost was made from its major street fund. Furthermore, the agreement provided that the tunnel
shall be under the control and ownership of the City and the City agrees to maintain it in a
physical condition which will accommodate the intended use of both parties. Finally, the
agreement notes that it may be amended only upon written agreement signed by both parties.
Assuming the Council addresses the Guide Plan issues, the Council would then need to find by
resolution that a public purpose exists that would be served through the control of the tunnel by
the Art Park (e.g. continuity of use by patrons of the Art Park, maintenance of the Art Park, etc.)
Finally, if the Council is inclined to have the Art Park control the tunnel, the Council should use
a license agreement which would retain ultimate ownership of the tunnel by the City, but would
give possession and management of the tunnel to the Caponi Art Park under terms acceptable to
the City.
I hope this addresses your concerns. If you have any questions, please give me a call.
MGD/j It
is