HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 02/25/1986EDEN PRAIRIE
SPECIAL r11 57 COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1986 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION
BOARDROOM
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson,
George Bentley, Patricia Pidcock and
Paul Redpath
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie; Assistant
to the City Manager Craig Dawson;
Planning Director Chris Enger; Director
of Community Services Robert Lambert,
and Recording Secretary Karen Michael
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
DISCUSSION ON CITY HALL SITE SELECTION
NEW BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council
Carl Jullie, City Manager
Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services
February 21, 1986
City Hall Site Selection
The City Council has been provided with extensive information regarding
several potential City Hall sites. In January the Site Selection Committee
recommended the City continue to consider three sites. The first two sites,
the MTS site and the Naegele site, were unanimously selected by the committee.
The third site was adjacent to the Library.
At the January 29th Council meeting, staff was directed to provide additional
information on the City owned property south of the Public Safety building,
and additional information on the MTS site in order to allow the Council to
compare acquistion and developmemt costs of that site with the Naegele site.
The Council also requested staff to provide a memorandum stating the impact
moving the major access from the east to the north would have on the Purgatory
Creek Recreation Area. In a February 11th memorandum, Craig Dawson provided
the Council with a summary of the information requested on the City owned
property south of the Public Safety building. The Director of Community
Services provided a February 11th memorandum to the Mayor and Council
regarding a staff opinion on the location of the Purgatory Creek Recreation
Area major entry. The Council also received a soil boring report, dated
February 7th, on the MTS site.
This memorandum attempts to summarize information regarding the MTS site and
the Naegele site, which were the two preferred sites by the City Hall Site
Selection Committee.
MTS SITE
S oi ls
The soil boring report did not provide any surprising information. As
expected, the soils adjacent to the floodplain are marginal; whereas, the
further away from the floodplain the borings are taken the better the soil
conditions were. If the City were to acquire 10 acres south of Technology
Drive and west of Purgatory Creek floodplain, it is extremeley likely the City
Hall building could be placed on the site with little or no soil correction
required for the building. This site could be developed with relatively
little grading and there would be no off site fill required.
Price
The MTS officials have had only a few hours to discuss a report they received
regarding the value of their property. They indicated to City staff that MTS
would consider selling developable property outside of the floodplain to the
City for approximately $4/sq. ft. Their asking price is 1.7 million-dollars
for 10 acres.
Location
The MTS site is located on the north end of the Purgatory Creek Recreation
Area. The Guide Plan depicts land to the north and west as industrial, land
to the northeast as commercial, land to the east as park. Staff would
recommend acquiring sufficient property to provide a major access to the
Purgatory Creek Recreation Area, as well as providing a site for future
government buildings. The original site reviewed by the City Hall Site
Selection Committee was a 28 acre site, of which approximately 12 acres was in
the floodplain and 16 acres lying west of the floodplain. If the City wished
to acquire 16 acres at this site, and if the final price was $4/sq. ft., the
cost would be $2,787,840.
NAEGELE SITE
Soils
The entire Naegele site consists of poor soils ranging in depth from 4' to
over 20'. The entire site consists of 11.54 acres, of which .645 acres is west
of the 660' setback from Prairie Center Drive, the buildable line established
by the Watershed District. Approximately 4.2 acres is presently above the 826
contour, which is the minimum floor elevation for any structure on the site.
As the Febraury 18th memorandum regarding Naegele property soil corrections
indicates, this site will require between 110,000 and 150,000 yards of fill to
develop this site at a cost that could range between $110,000 and $520,000
depending on where the fill is acquired and how it is moved to the site.
Price
The owner of this site has quoted the City a cost of $3.70/sq. ft., plus
$10,000 for planning costs he has invested in the site. If the City purchased
10 acres of this site at $3.70/sq. ft., the cost would be $1,611,720, plus
$10,000 for the planning costs, plus $100,000 to $500,000 for fill. The range
for the acquisition and development costs of this site is $1,721,720 to
$2,121,720. Staff would recommend budgeting 1.9 million, if this is the
preferred site.
Location
This site best location for a City Hall of the sites considered if the
Council chooses to acquire sufficient property to ultimately develop a
government center complex within the downtown area, and adjacent to a major
entry to the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area. The Site Selection Committee
recommended the MTS site and the Naegele site because both sites fit that
description. The committee recognized that the MTS site is on the extreme
fringe of Eden Prairie's future downtown; however, they were assuming the City
would be able to acquire more land for less money on the MIS site, and that
the soil conditions would be much better than the Naegele property. The soil
conditions are better on the MTS site, however, the acquisition and
development costs are relatively equal.
The major decision between these two sites is whether or not the location on
Prairie Center Drive is worth the problems the City will face developing on
unstable soils. Unstable soils do cause some extra construction costs to the
building. (Mr. Brauer estimates 5% of the building cost.) The hard edge
plaza, fountain and amphitheatre concept would have to change or would have to
be constructed on pilings. All of these problems can be solved through common'
engineering and architectual procedures.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
THRU:
Carl Jullie, City Manager
FROM:
Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services 1 14/
DATE: February 18, 1986
SUBJECT: Naegele Property Soil Corrections
The Naegele property consists of approximately 10.6 acres located north of the
Flagship Athletic Club, west of Prairie Center Drive. Approximately half of this
property has been filled to some extent with soils from the Flagship site and
granular fill from the Teman property on the east side of Prairie Center Drive.
It has been stated in previous reports that any buildings located on this
property would have to be constructed on pilings. It should also be noted that
in order to develop this site, additional fill will be required to raise the
western portion of the site above the flood elevation and to provide some
surcharge on the portion of the site that will be developed.
Approximately 4.2 acres of the 10.6 acre site is presently above the 826 contour
(the 824 contour is the hundred year flood elevation). In order to make the
existing 4.2 acres buildable for parking lots, etc., City staff estimate that
approximately 4 of surcharge will be required to be placed on the 4.2 acres.
Staff would estimate approximately a 1' settlement in this area during surcharge
and that approximately 3' of the surcharge would be removed and placed on the
western portion of the site below the 826 contour. In order to make the
remaining portion of the site (within 660' of Prairie Center Drive) usable for
park purposes, staff estimates that portion of the site should be filled to the
828 contour, which would eventually settle to approximately the 826 contour.
In order to accomplish the filling described above, the City would have to place
approximately 110,000 cubic yards of fill on the site. The estimated cost for
placing that amount of fill could range from $110,000 to approximately $380,000
depending on whether or not fill was available free and could be moved by scraper
($1.00 per yard), or whether fill would have to be purchased and trucked to the
site (estimate $3.50 per square yard if purchased within three mile radius).
If the City wished to correct the entire site (660' from Prairie Center Drive)
for parking lots, etc., staff estimates that approximately 150,000 cubic yards of
fill would be required on this site. The estimated cost for this improvement
would range from $150,000 to $520,000 depending on the $1.00 per square yard for
moving free fill by scraper or $3.50 per yard for purchasing fill within a three
mile radius.
If the Council decides to purchase the Naegele site, staff would recommend
budgeting approximately $300,000 for fill, as it is likely there is some free
fill available on the west side of Prairie Center Drive; however, the City has no
written commitments from any property owner to that fact.
The proposed fill will not negate the need for piling for construction of any
structure.
This memo is filled with the two words "staff estimates". The only way to
accurately provide a figure is to have a site plan prepared by an architect and
reviewed by a soils engineer. The soils engineer would tell exactly how much
fill is required and then the City would have to negotiate acquisition costs for
the fill and costs for placing the fill on the site.
At this time, staff only wants to point out that there will be some additional
costs, other than land costs, for developing this site.
BL:md
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Mayor and City Council
City Manager Carl J. Jullie
Assistant to the City Manager Craig W. Dawson 0,15
Land Price and Taxes at 8000 Mitchell Road
February 11, 1986
At its February 4, 1986 meeting the City Council requested information
about the price paid by the City for property at 8000 Mitchell Road and the
amount of property taxes which would have been paid had it not become tax
exempt.
The City executed a purchase agreement with a warranty deed with the former
owner of the property, Mrs. Madeline Schultz, for $230,000 on September 23,
1982.
The taxes payable in the following years would have been levied had the
assessed value of the homesteaded property remained the same:
Year Amount
1983 $2,320
1984 2,380
1985 2,300*
1986 2,400* *approximate
$9,400
The City portion of these taxes, roughly 20 percent, would have been
$1,880.
CWO:jdp -
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBECT:
Mayor and City Council
Carl Jullie, City Manager
Bob Lambert, Director of Community services
February 11, 1986
Location of Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Major
E
n
t
r
y
In late 1985, the City Council appointed a City
H
a
l
l
S
i
t
e
S
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
t
o
review six potential City Hall sites, and to m
a
k
e
a
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
Council prior to their January 29th meeting.
D
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
,
s
t
a
f
f
developed a list of pros and cons for each of t
h
e
s
i
x
s
i
t
e
s
,
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
regarding the asking price for the property, an
d
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
o
n
s
o
i
l
conditions, special assessments, etc. While revie
w
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
r
o
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
o
n
s
i
t
e
#
2
,
located on the west side of the Purgatory Creek
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
A
r
e
a
,
s
t
a
f
f
b
e
g
a
n
t
o
notice the impact of the property west and no
r
t
h
o
f
t
h
e
M
i
l
l
e
r
H
o
m
e
s
s
i
t
e
.
S
t
a
f
f
decided to provide information on a 28 acre si
t
e
o
w
n
e
d
b
y
M
I
S
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
,
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
o
n
the north side of Purgatory Creek Recreation A
r
e
a
.
T
h
e
e
a
s
t
e
r
n
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
o
f
s
i
t
e
7
is located approximately 1300 feet west of the w
e
s
t
e
r
n
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
o
f
s
i
t
e
3
.
The initial review of this site indicated that t
h
e
s
o
i
l
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
b
e
t
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
e
i
t
h
e
r
of the other two sites (site #3 and site #2) pro
v
i
d
i
n
g
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
t
h
e
P
u
r
g
a
t
o
r
y
C
r
e
e
k
Recreation Area, and the site would be less tha
n
h
a
l
f
a
m
i
l
e
w
e
s
t
o
f
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
Drive on Technology Drive.
After visiting the site and discussing pros and
c
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
s
i
t
e
s
,
t
h
e
S
i
t
e
Selection Committee recommended three sites
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
f
o
r
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
consideration. The first priority site was the
M
I
S
s
i
t
e
.
T
h
e
s
e
c
o
n
d
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
s
i
t
e
was the site north of the Flagship. The third p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
s
i
t
e
w
a
s
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
to the library. The site adjacent to the librar
y
w
a
s
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
o
n
a
s
p
l
i
t
v
o
t
e
.
The first two sites were a unanimous decision
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
.
T
h
e
c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
recommended that prior to making a decision on e
i
t
h
e
r
s
i
t
e
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
o
b
t
a
i
n
soil boring information on the MIS site and obta
i
n
a
f
i
r
m
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
o
n
p
r
i
c
e
f
r
o
m
both property owners. TTe committee felt that by
p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
t
w
o
h
i
g
h
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
s
i
t
e
s
,
the City Council would be able to negotiate a fai
r
p
r
i
c
e
f
r
o
m
e
i
t
h
e
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
.
The City Council's major concern regarding the M
T
S
s
i
t
e
w
a
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
m
a
i
n
e
n
t
r
a
n
c
e
to the park would now be from the north, rathe
r
t
h
a
n
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
.
T
h
e
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
requested staff to provide a memo outlining the i
m
p
a
c
t
t
h
i
s
c
h
a
n
g
e
w
o
u
l
d
h
a
v
e
o
n
t
h
e
character of the park, the park design, etc.
It should be understood that although a master p
l
a
n
w
a
s
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
u
r
g
a
t
o
r
y
Creek Recreation Area depicting four entry po
i
n
t
s
,
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
a
n
amphitheater, plaza, golf course, trails and specific locations for open
w
a
t
e
r
a
r
e
a
s
,
t
h
e
P
a
r
k
Planner developed the initial concept for the dev
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
a
r
e
a
b
a
s
e
d
on several assumptions regarding soils and w
a
t
e
r
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
conditions. The planner indicated the park pl
a
n
w
o
u
l
d
u
n
d
o
u
b
t
a
b
l
y
c
h
a
n
g
e
w
h
e
n
detailed information was made available regarding
f
l
o
o
d
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
s
o
i
l
s
a
n
d
g
r
o
u
n
d
water conditions.
There is no doubt both sites have potential for developing different types of
entryways due to their location, and to the soils on or adjacent to each site. The
major question regarding the two different locations is: "Will moving the location
of the entryway from the east to the north change the character of this park from a
regionally used, urban community park to just another city community park?
It has been stated that if the park entrance is not located on the east side, the
park merely becomes another community park, rather than a regionally used urban
park; however, the 200 acres of parkland will not be moved to the country somewhere,
it still will remain directly adjacent to our urban center. The use of the plaza and
entryway may change by moving it from the east to the north, but the major impact on
how the entry plaza will be used will depend directly on how the adjacent land is
developed. The use of the remaining portion of the park, the trails, the open space
areas, the ponds, and the golf course, if it is developed, will not be greatly
affected if the major entry is moved from the east to the north.
The original concept was that small retail shops would be located in this area and
hundreds of people would be constantly shopping around the entry plaza area. If the
City believes the Feeders property and the Teman property, east of Prairie Center
Drive, will be developed as commercial with retail shops, staff would agree that a
high percentage of the people that use this park would be people shopping in the
area; however, if those sites are developed as office sites, the major pedestrian
use would be office workers during noon hours, whereas, the evening or weekend users
would come to the park via automobile.
On page 6 of the approved plan, under the title Main Entrance, the plan states the
following: "development adjacent to the entrance plaza should be designed to "tie
into" the plaza area using similar surface paving and design motifs. Continuity of
materials and design will unify the entire area and create a pleasing space for
human activity. Adjacent developers should be encouraged to incorporate small,
intimate shops into developments that will face the plaza area and create a main
street, mall effect."
On page 14 of the design analysis for the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area under
Park Access, the planner states the following:
PARK PLAZA - This is a major entrance and a focal point of public facility
development. As a major activity center for public enjoyment, it is complimented by
adjacent retail/commercial facilities. Nearby high capacity parking facilities
serve the area for special event occasions.
If the park is located on the north side of the park and the land to the west is
developed as either office or "high tech industrial" the majority of the pedestrian
traffic would come from people working in the area that would visit the park during
the noon hour, but again the majority of the people using the park in the evenings
or weekends would be people arriving via automobile. In any case, this park should
have access from the north, east, west and south for both pedestrian and people
arriving by car.
The major land use change affecting this plan occurred in the development of the
Flagship to the south and the consideration to develop a government center to the
north, both uses contain large scale buildings that will abut the entry plaza. This
is a major change from the concept of the master plan which states "Adjacent
developers should be encouraged to incorporate small, intimate shops into
development, that will face the plaza area and create a main street, mall effect."
The location of small shops around the entry plaza would ensure people constantly
using the plaza throughout the day. If the plaza is surrounded by large scale
office buildings and an athletic club, the major users would be people working
nearby at noon hour, and residents arriving at the site by car in the evenings and
on weekends.
Unless the Council wants to consider purchasing additional property and developing
the site as originally planned, the entry plaza use will be similar whether it is
located on the north or on the east because the vast majority of the people using
the plaza will arrive by automobile, at least for the first 15-20 years. As the
City matures and our "downtown" becomes more urban than suburban, the benefit of
having the park located on the east side of the park will increase.
Considering location alone, site #3 is the best site if the City is able to acquire
the entire site; however, site #7 is in very close proximity to site #3 and does
have better soil conditions. The Council will have to determine if the soil
conditions and the cost differences are worth locating the major entry and the
Government Center on the north side, adjacent to proposed industrial uses, or on the
east adjacent to proposed office and commercial uses.
BL:md
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
TRHU: Carl Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community ServicesU...
DATE: February 18, 1986
SUBJECT: City Needs Study Committee Recommendation
Attached are minutes of the February 6, 1986 meeting of the Subcommittee on
Recreation Facilities and the Febraury 13, 1986 meeting of the City Needs Study
Committee regarding a review of the 1985 report and recommendation to the City
Council.
Council members will note that the subcommittee and the main committee were
consistent with their recommendation of 1985. The subcommittee believed that the
recreation facilities were just as important as the City Hall and the Fire Hall
and should be presented in a referendum either with the City Hall and Fire
Hall or prior to the City Hall and Fire Hall. The subcommittee recommended a
single question referendum in the spring of 1986 that would include all four
issues, the Fire Hall, the City Hall, the Community Center addition, and the park
improvements.
The City Needs Study Committee unanimoulsy agreed that all four issues are needed
by the community at this time; however, the City Hall and the Fire Hall were a
higher priority if the City could not afford all four issues at this time.
The committee unanimously voted to recommend the City Council include all four
issues in a single question referendum in the spring of 1986. The committee also
unanimoulsy recommended that if all four issues could not be included in a single
question, then the City Hall and Fire Hall be included in a referendum in 1986
and the park and recreation improvements be included in a referendum in 1987.
The committee felt both the referendum in 1986 and if one is required in 1987
should be single question issues if at all possible.
BL:md-
MINUTES
CITY NEEDS STUDY COMMITTEE
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1986
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE WERE:
7 P.M. EDEN PRAIRIE CITY HALL
LUNCHROOM
Carolyn Lyngdal, Moe Cook,
Bob Hallett, Merle Gamm, Fred
Hoisington, Skip Lane, John
Parrington, Gary Soderbern, Bob
Lambert
Rich Anderson, Swede Rasmussen,
Sue Osberg, Gene Haberman
Jerry Wigen, Mark Weber
Lambert reviewed the City Needs Study Committee final report and the Recommendation
from the City Needs Subcommittee on recreation facilities that was presented to the
City Council in 1985. The report recommended the City consider a referendum in the
Spring of 1986 for a City Hall and Fire Hall and a referendum in the spring of 1987
for a Community Center addition and park improvements.
Lambert also explained a group of citizens approached the City Manager in late 1985
and requested City staff to ask the City Council to consider presentinn the Community
Center addition and park improvement questions on the same referendum with the City
Hall and the Fire Hall in the spring of 1986. On January 29, 1986, the City Council
reviewed that request and directed staff to meet again with the City Needs Study
Committee and the subcommittee on recreation facilities to determine their opinion
regarding the referendum and what should be included in the spring of 1986.
Lambert then reviewed the action of the City Needs Subcommittee on Recreation Facil-
ities from the meeting of February 6, 1986. The Subcommittee confirmed their pre-
vious recommendation that the recreation facilities were needed as badly as the
City Hall and the Fire Hall, and recommended that the City consider all four issues
in a single question in the spring of 1986.
Lambert reviewed the status of the City Hall, the Fire Hall, Miller Park acquisition
and developement, softball field acquistion and developement and the Community Center
addition. The approved concept plan for Miller Park was reviewed, a concept plan for
softball fields, and a concept plan for a Community Center addition were also re-
viewed.
Jerry Wigen, Co-Chair for the 1979 Park Bond Referendum Committee spoke to the com-
mittee regarding the pros and cons of a single question versus multiple question
referendum. Mr. Wigen handed out a list of reasons why the city should consider in-
cluding all four issues on a single question. This committee discussed at lenoth the
pros and cons of a single question versus multiple question referendum. The com-
mittee unaimously agreed a single question issue was preferable, however, Lambert
indicated that according to our City Attorney the four issues are not related and
therefore should be separate questions.
Skip Lane indicated that he felt many people in the community would be negative to-
ward a City Hall and urged the City to find a way to include all four issues on a
single question.
-2-
John Parrington felt there were perhaps two issues rather than four issues. He
believes the Park improvements and the Community Center addition are leisure ser-
vice improvements, while the City Hall and Fire Hall are social service issues. He
suggested the issues could be reduced to these two questions, but did not believe
the park and recreation issues could be very directly associated with the public
service issues.
Fred Hoisington requested the committee get back to the three questions the Council
has asked the committee to consider: 1. Has anything changed since the committee
made the recommendation in 1985? 2. Are the priorities of the committee the same as
they were in 1985? 3. Does the committee support bringing all four issues to the
voters in 19867
Merle Gamin questioned how the committee can make a recommendation or have an opinion
when the committee does not know the final costs at this time. He was concerned
that the magnitude of the projects had increased greatly. John Parrington reminded
the committee that the total of the original recommendation was $11.6 million di-
vided into two referendums. Lambert indicated that if all four questions were ad-
dressed in 1986, he believed the total would be in the neighborhood of $13 million.
John Parrington asked the question "If the City Hall referendum fails will it come
up again before the recreation facilites question?" Most committee members believed
that it would.
Fred Hoisington again asked the committee the following questions: 1. Has any real
change occurred with the school needs since 1985? The answer is no. 2. Has the
need for the City Hall lessened since 1985? The answer is no. 3. Has the fire response
time in Southeast Eden Prairie lessened since 1985? The answer is no. 4. Has the
projection for athletic needs increased since 1985? The answer is no.
Wigen asked the committee if the committee felt the city could actually put together
a referendum on a City Hall and Fire Hall that could pass. Parrington replied that
the athletic folks are concerned that if a City Hall and Fire Hall fail the recrea-
tion need will be put off after 1987, and that would be going head-to-head with the
school bond referendums. Hoisington indicated that the city should make a committ-
ment that wether or not the City Hall fails, athletic facility needs should be in-
cluded in a referendum in the spring of 1987.
Soderberg agreed with the comment of George Bently in a newspaper that perhaps a
$15 million referendum would be difficult to pass, however he believes a $13 million
referendum could probably pass. Skip Lane, a fireman, believes that the Fire Depart-
ment could go a long way toward meeting all of their immediate needs with a $1.5 mill-
ion referendum. Again the committee agreed if the referendum were a single question
if could probably pass.
Lyngdal reminded the committee that in 1985 committee members generally agreed
that it would be ideal if the city could have all of the four issues on one refer-
endum. Gam responded that the committee made the assumption last year that we
could control the amount and that there would not be a shopping list included in
the referendum.
Parrington pointed out that municipal bonds are probably going to be less attractive
in the future and therefore more difficult to sell. So perhaps it would make sense
to pass the entire referendum in 1986.
-3-
Moe Cook indicated that the City Council will make that decision on the amount
and whether or not the referendum can be a single question issue or not. He also
questioned wether we are being fair to the residents of Eden Prairie by not allowing
them to choose on a City Hall or Recreation Facilities. Lambert pointed out that
the Council appointed this cross-section of people to serve on City Needs Study
Committee so that the committe could be better educated than the general populace
on cityneeds. This committee represents the general population of Eden Prairie
and has 'a good concept of the needs of the city and therefore the Council will take
the recommendation of the committee very seriously.
The committee then voted unanimously to indicate to the City Council that the City
Needs'Study Committee still considers City Hall and Fire Hall the first priority
and the Community Center Addition and the Park improvements as a second priority.
The committee then voted unanimously to recommend the City consider a single quest-
ion fssue if at all possible for an amount for an amount not to exceed S13 million
for a referendum in 1986. The committee further stated that if the City Council
calloot include all four items on a single question issue then the City should attempt
to have a single question issue on a Fire Hall and a City Hall in 1986 and a
single question issue on a Community Center and Park improvement in 1987.
The committee also believes very strongly that with the rieht emphasis, and getting
the right people involved, this City could pass a single question referendum for
all the issues in 1986.
Lambert then thanked all the committee members for taking time out of their busy
schedules to attend this meeting and provide the input requested by the Council on
this very important question.
Meeting adjourned. 9:00 P.M.