Loading...
City Council - 06/14/2005 - Workshop APPROVED MINUTES JOINT EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AND PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION WORKSHOP TUESDAY,JUNE 14, 2005 5:00 P.M., OUTDOOR CENTER 13765 Staring Lake Parkway COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Councilmembers: Brad Aho, Sherry Butcher, Ron Case, Philip Young COMMISSION MEMBERS: Rob Barrett, Chair; Jeffrey Gerst, Vice Chair; Tom Bierman, John Brill, Tom Crain, Randy Jacobus, Ian Mackay, Michael Moriarity, Geri Napuck CITY STAFF: Scott Neal, City Manager Bob Lambert, Parks & Recreation Director Stu Fox, Parks and Natural Resources Manager Laurie Obiazor, Recreation Manager RECORDING SECRETARY: Lorene McWaters I. ROLL CALL Mayor Tyra-Lukens called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. Parks Commission Members Tom Bierman, Tom Crain, Randy Jacobus, Ian Mackay, and Michael Moriarity were not present II. DISCUSSION ITEMS Scott Neal said the purpose of this special joint meeting was to try to gain consensus on a tentative referendum package - what to include and how to break down the questions. A. Senior Survey Results Bob Lambert said when the City began to consider holding another referendum, it was clear we needed input from senior citizens. Dave Bender of MarketLine Research presented results of a survey of Eden Prairie senior citizens his firm conducted in May. The surveys were mailed to 1206 seniors who had had program contact with Parks and Recreation Department, and MarketLine received 338 completed surveys. City Council/Parks Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Meeting June 14,2005 Page 2 Forty-five percent of respondents said they didn't know if they supported holding another referendum, 14 percent said they did support a referendum, and 41 percent said they did not support another referendum. MarketLine's summary of the results included the following observations: Seniors who responded to the survey are active users of Parks and Recreation facilities Respondents are content with facilities and programming relating to seniors Most were undecided on the need for additional facilities and for another referendum Most respondents require additional information before making a decision on expansion of facilities and the need for a referendum Brill said he would like to see cross-tabulations of opinions of those who use the Senior Center and those who don't, and how they feel about expansion of the Senior Center. Napuck asked if there is any correlation of likelihood to vote. Bender said they did not look at likelihood to vote in this study. Butcher said it seems that senior citizens in Eden Prairie are active voters; however, Lambert pointed out that that only other item on the ballot in November is the School Board election, which could skew the turnout. Tyra-Lukens asked about how many people attended informational meeting staff held at the Senior Center. Lambert said turnout was low;however, several of those in attendance were very vocal about the desire for an indoor walking track and a warm water pool. Lambert also noted those who attended had not yet received much information about what might be included on a referendum. B. Proposed Referendum Projects and Operating Costs Community Center Improvements - $6,650,000 Lambert said this expansion plan is the same one recommended by the 2003 Citizen Study Committee and included on the May 2004 referendum. It features a walking track, gymnasium, enlarged fitness center(four times the current size), pool locker rooms and pool seating. Staff estimates additional revenue generated by the improvements would cover any added operation costs. Aho asked how any user fees would compare to those of private health clubs. Lambert said staff based cost projections on current membership fees, which are significantly lower than private clubs. Pool Question - Option B ($3,930,000) & Option C ($5,310,000) Option B includes deepening the existing pool, which would allow it to be used for competitive purposes. It also includes construction of a new warm-water pool to be used for swimming lessons for kids and water aerobics for seniors. This pool would greatly expand the City's capacity to provide swimming lessons and City Council/Parks Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Meeting June 14,2005 Page 3 public open swim time. Lambert said he feels the warm-water pool would be a great addition to the Community Center. Pool Option C was developed in response to requests from swim teams and school coaches for a 50-meter competitive pool. The plan includes the indoor warm-water pool,but adds 6 lanes of 25 yards with a bulkhead that would accommodate an additional 6 lanes of 25 yards during the fall, winter and spring, and would become a 6-lane, 50-meter pool during summer months. Lambert said this would address the needs of a relatively small number of competitive swimmers — about 200 families,but would be the best answer to resolve the swimming pool needs for Eden Prairie's competitive swim programs. The cost for Pool Option B is $3.9 million, and the cost for Option C jumps to $5.3 million. Lambert said it is optimistic to believe the City will completely rent out time on a competitive pool. Case said for years the City has written off the hockey association's requests for a third sheet of ice because of cost,but it is now considering spending an extra $1.3 million on a pool that would be used by far fewer families than the hockey rink. Lambert agreed with Case, and said the worst thing the City could do is put out something that can't pass. Lambert said any pool option is going to be tough to pass in light of the previous referendum. Butcher agreed, and suggested the more conservative proposal would be best. Tyra-Lukens pointed out that it would only cost pennies per month per taxpayer to build the larger pool. Lambert said the number voters will tend to remember is $1.3 million extra rather than the cost per month. Young acknowledged pool issues have a heightened level of complexity, but he said the quality of our competitive swimming facilities is not very good. On the other hand, the City has invested a lot in soccer,baseball, and other facilities. Lambert said he feels both hockey and swimming have been short-changed over the years compared to other sports. Case said hockey users have been paying their own way, by and large, for a long time, and he is arguing very strongly for a third sheet of ice in one form or another. He said fairness is the issue. He said it would be incredibly unfair to pay $1.3 million more for a competitive pool and not provide more ice. Barrett said he wondered if this whole referendum will be tainted if it includes any kind of pool option. He suggested removing the pool question altogether this year. Aho said he hopes people will be able to see the differences between this proposal and last year's. Case said some people may think the City is trying to sneak something by them,but he feels we can overcome this if we present the question in the appropriate manner. Case said he heard from many families who were disappointed that the aquatic center was defeated. Tyra-Lukens asked about the possibility of eliminating the water park portion of the question, and keeping the competitive swimming portion. Barrett said that you would lose swimming City Council/Parks Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Meeting June 14,2005 Page 4 lessons and open swim time. Tyra-Lukens then suggested keeping the warm- water pool proposal,but eliminating the water slides and other"water park" type features. She said providing swimming lessons is fairly important to our mission as a city, while providing a competitive swimming facility for about 200 families is not. Park Acquisitions and Improvements ($4,695,000) Forest Hills Park- The largest item under this proposal is $905,000 for Forest Hills Park. It includes replacing the park shelter that burned last winter and relocating the shelter and skating rink to the center of the park. Lambert said the School Board and the neighborhood are in favor of the proposed changes. Lambert said the Forest Hills PTO has asked the City to include improvements to the playground as part of this project, and he feels this makes sense. Most of the equipment on the playground is still considered safe,but does not have much "kid appeal." In addition, the playground poses supervision challenges because it is on two levels. Case asked how much the school and City paid for the existing equipment. Lambert said the City typically shares the cost for equipment at a park it shares with a school. Case said it seems that if the school has the majority of use of the equipment, they should pay a larger share. Lambert pointed out that Forest Hills also serves as a neighborhood park, and the City pays for equipment at neighborhood parks. Lambert said it makes sense for the City to pay for whatever equipment we normally provide at a neighborhood park, and the school district would be asked cover anything else. Flying Cloud Ball Field- Acquiring Flying Cloud Fields for $1.4 million would help accommodate the growth in baseball, lacrosse, and soccer programs. This is the same request that was included in last year's referendum. Case asked about the possible partnership with Grace Church that was discussed a year ago. Lambert said that was contingent on the construction of a school by Grace, and we have not heard anything from them for more than six months. Any proposal with Grace Church could work before or after the fact of constructing the ball fields. Prairie View Park- Replacement of the temporary park shelter, which also burned down several years ago, with a permanent building and replacement of some playground equipment is slated for$350,000 for Prairie View Park. Napuck asked about the recent discussion of acquiring adjacent property from a private landowner. Lambert said this land belongs to a man who was deeded used of the home until such time as he can no longer live independently. The City has first right of refusal on the property when it becomes available. The trustee of the property is not willing to sell any portion of the land at this time. Edenvale Park- Improvements to Edenvale Park would include a new park shelter and skating facilities, replacement of the baseball field with a soccer field, and the addition of a basketball court. The projected cost is $620,000. City Council/Parks Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Meeting June 14,2005 Page 5 Birch Island Woods - Lambert said there appears to be a great deal of community support for the acquisition of the final four acres of Birch Island Woods. Staff is recommending $860,000 for acquisition of the site. Case suggested including $900,000 for park acquisition with three priority sites listed. This would allow the City to leverage other funds for Birch Island Woods, if possible. Additional Park Improvements - An additional $560,000 is slated for replacement of equipment at other neighborhood parks. Lambert said some of these projects could be implemented over a number of years without a referendum,but they would have to suffer with poor equipment and courts in the meantime. Trail Improvements - $2,000,000 Lambert said the proposal does not specify which trails would be improved; however, the $2 million requested would allow the City to accelerate some of the big ticket, high priority trail projects, such as the trail along County Road 4 north of Purgatory Creek. C. Related Revenue Bond Projects Lambert noted that the indoor play space and outdoor kids play pool depicted on the schematics are proposed revenue bond projects. These are projects that could be undertaken if the Community Center Improvements are approved by referendum; however, they would not be paid for through referendum funds. The Third Rink would also be a revenue bond project, but is feasible only if the Hockey Association can pay for the difference in money generated through revenue bonds and the cost of constructing the facility. Lambert asked for input on whether or not these projects should be included on the referendum schematics. Tyra-Lukens suggested labeling them as "possible future improvements." It was also suggested that these projects be shown in a different color. Case suggested labeling them"revenue bond projects," so people will not think they are items they might be asked for vote for in a future referendum. He also suggested explaining, in small type, how revenue bonds work. Lambert said he has feedback that when people see these projects on plans, they become confused about what they are voting for. Neal advocated not showing the projects at all on the referendum schematics. Lambert noted that even though he feels strongly that we will do these projects, they must still be discussed by the Parks and Rec Commission, Council and staff. The disadvantage of showing them on the plans is that people then expect them. Neal also noted that the ability to use these kind of revenue bonds is based on state statute, which can change at any time. The group consensus was to remove the projects from the plans. D. Other Discussion Lambert said he envisions the referendum consisting of four questions: City Council/Parks Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Meeting June 14,2005 Page 6 ■ Community Center Improvements ■ Pool- Option B or C ■ Park Acquisitions and Improvements ■ Trail Improvements Aho asked how much is currently in the Park Fund. Lambert said the fund is at $5 million, with $4 million already committed to projects as part of the 5-year CIP. Tyra-Lukens requested additional discussion of the water park aspect of the proposed indoor pool. She said she would feel more comfortable proposing an indoor warm-water pool with the potential to add water slides later. Lambert said eliminating the water slides would reduce the cost by about$600,000. Butcher pointed out that even without the water slides, the pool cost would be in the $3 million range. Aho said he believes residents will view the pool differently without the water slides,because it will not appear extravagant and it will not look like a repeat of what was proposed last time. Neal noted that the City's post- referendum survey indicated no support for any kind of aquatic center. Case said he thinks there is a strong perceptual element. He is in favor of pulling the slides, but building the pool so they could be added later. Young agreed that the presence of slides has a water park connotation, and it makes sense to avoid that. Young asked if we can predict with any sense of certainty what voter turnout for off-year election will look like. Lambert said you will get whoever would normally vote for the School Board,plus a bit more,probably in the range of 5,000 to 6,000 voters. Neal said he will consult with City Clerk Kitty Porta and forward past turnout information via e-mail. Barrett said he thinks the warm-water pool is sellable as a lesson/senior pool. Butcher supports listing the pool as a separate question. Neal said it will be important to convey to voters that the City is being responsive to the feedback we received after the last referendum, such as holding the election at the regular time, breaking it down into separate questions, etc. Lambert said it is wise to build a pool to which you can add a new features. Case asked if there will be a private group that will campaign in favor of the referendum. Lambert said that while City employees can't advocate for the referendum, Councilmembers CAN actively campaign for it. Aho said he knows not everyone agrees,but he does not think it is his role as an elected official to sell the referendum. Lambert said that Aho, as a Councilmember, can support the referendum or not. Aho said he will support it and will talk about why he supports it. Barrett said he thinks what was missing last time was the advocacy piece, and a referendum will be even harder to sell this time if that is still missing. He said everyone will be looking to the Council for the leadership element. Gerst agreed that it will be important for the Councilmembers to talk about the benefits of the referendum. Napuck said she thinks it is assumed that the Council supports the referendum if they are willing to put it out for a vote. She said it will be City Council/Parks Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Meeting June 14,2005 Page 7 important for Council to talk publicly about why they think the referendum is a good idea, and how it is responsive to the information we received after the last referendum. Young said Council's role can be looked at in more than one way. He said Council can be considered "gatekeepers" in their role of deciding on whether or not to run a referendum. That is different than deciding to spend the $17 million themselves. Young said he feels that if the referendum is going to pass, it will require strong support from groups outside the Council. He said parents, sports groups, and concerned residents need to turn out to support it. Aho said he believes the school referendum passed because of the support of private citizens. Gerst noted that Superintendent Krull attended coffees with the School Board members to inform residents of why they were holding the referendum. Case said he agrees that non-City group needs to actively advocate for the referendum, but he also believes it is important for him to come out and say what he believes as well. Case also suggested using the newspapers to publicize what Council thinks about the referendum. Napuck said it will be important to get the athletic associations involved in promoting the referendum, but she is concerned about the short timeline. Aho said he does not think the time frame should be a problem. He believes people have a short attention span, so referendum publicity should be "hit quickly and hit hard." Case said running a successful referendum really does take some planning. He believes many people did not vote on the last referendum because they forgot the date. He thinks it will help that this referendum will be on the same day as the School Board election. Butcher said School Board Member Ann Haines has offered to pass on to Council what she learned during the school referendum. Butcher said Haines strongly believes the phone campaign was what made the difference in their referendum. Butcher said it will be like herding cats to get all of the associations to work together to press for the referendum. Lambert said one problem is the athletic associations are so busy running their programs, they do not have time to devote to the referendum. E. Process to Final Decision Lambert asked if Council wished to discuss the proposed revenue bond projects now or at some point in the future. Case suggested studying those proposals after the referendum. Lambert said the next step in the process is the Town Meeting, scheduled for June 22 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber. Parks and Recreation staff will present a PowerPoint, answer questions, and ask for feedback. Case suggested that the water slides, etc.,be removed from Pool Option B before that meeting. The group agreed that the water slides should be removed and Pool Option B should be renamed "Warm-Water Pool Option." City Council/Parks Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Meeting June 14,2005 Page 8 A special Parks and Recreation Commission meeting is scheduled for June 27, and Council will be asked to make a final decision on the referendum at their July 5 meeting. Brill asked about the possibility of bundling the park acquisitions and trails as one question. Aho suggested waiting until after the Town Meeting to make further changes to the proposal. III. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m.