The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About15.B.4. Community Center Discussion CITY OF SHAKO PEE IS: 8.r, MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation and Facilities Director Meeting Date: June 7,2005 Subject: Community Center Discussion INTRODUCTION With the defeat of the Community Center expansion referendum, City Council is asked to provide direction on how or if you would like to proceed with additional work on the future of the Community Center. BACKGROUND The future of the Community Center has been an ongoing discussion for many years. In order to bring some direction to the discussion, City Council authorized a resident survey on Parks and Recreation services in 2003, That survey indicated that trails, passive park and open space, and the Community Center were the three highest priorities for residents (Attachment A). With ongoing discussion about the amount of subsidy that the Community Center requires to operate, City Council asked a citizen task force in 2004 to study options for the future of the building, These options included closing, privatizing, expanding through partnership, expanding through public financing, and doing nothing. After six months of work, the task force recommended that the city conduct a feasibility study to determine the feasibility of a publicly financed expansion (Attachment B). Most, but not all of the 2004 task force, continued their work on the feasibility study, With the assistance of a consultant team that analyzed market demographics, expansion design options, and construction and operating costs, the task force ultimately recommended a $26,35 million referendum for an expansion, The referendum failed 2,471 to 1,006, with approximately 24% of eligible voters voting. DISCUSSION City Council is asked to provide direction on whether or not it wants to continue additional work studying the future of the Community Center, If you desire to continue work, there are several (if not more) options for you to consider. 1, Do you want analysis on why the referendum failed? City Council may want to try to determine why the referendum failed. Councilors have commented that the price was too high and there are other needs (schools) are more important. Other theories I've heard is that a Community Center is not important and that we shouldn't be competing with the private sector (fitness), Unfortunately, we seem to have contradictory information in that the survey ranked the Community Center as an important service, Also, we have 76% of registered voters that didn't vote. I do not know if you can draw a clear conclusion given the number of factors that may have impacted the referendum. If you desire to have more definitive answers, City Council could consider a post- election polling of registered voters, According to Ms, Cox, the eligible voter list is available for purchase from Scott County, and we could approach the County about the possibility of conducting a follow-up formal (statistically significant) or informal survey. (The 2003 survey cost approximately $10,000,) 2. What do you want to study? . Closing the Community Center . Privatizing the operation or conveying ownership of the Community Center to another organization or the private sector . Expanding through a partnership . Expanding through public financing of a different amount . Doing nothing . Other Comments: The 2004 task force conducted a significant amount of work studying each of these options. This information is available to assist with additional study. However, the scope of more detailed analysis for most of these options could be similar to the amount of work that went into the expansion feasibility study in order to fully understand the impact to existing programs and services (continue or eliminate?), facilities (offices, public access studio, teen center, skate park, activity areas), staffing, and budgets. Given existing workloads, professional assistance might be needed for this work if time is of the essence. 3, If additional study is desirable, how do you want to conduct additional study? . City Council lead the study . Direct the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to lead the study . Seek another citizen group to lead the study . Other Comments: Citizens have committed significant time into the process already, While some have told me that they would not participate in additional work, there may be other residents that would volunteer their time if they had clear direction from City Council on what option(s) was to be explored, Those that were opposed to the referendum could also be asked to participate, I would be concerned about assigning this significant task to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board as their workload is fairly significant already. However, we could get their thoughts. 4, How do you want to handle maintenance and improvement items that were deferred during the expansion study,- as well as new initiatives? . Water infiltration . Exterior landscaping (primarily tree replacement) . Exterior painting of entry steel work planned for this year . Request for radiant heating in arena . Continued work on additional operational enhancements, such as health care reimbursement programs, Comments: Do you want staff to continue work on these items, or would you prefer that they be delayed until additional study is completed? Finally, Attachment C is a study that the city of Eagan recently conducted on Community Center subsidies, As I understand, this study was requested by their City Council so they had a better understanding of the amount of subsidy that most Community Centers require, It is interesting to note that the average subsidy for operating costs for the 12 centers surveyed was $267,064. However, none of the otherfacilities incorporate a rental charge or depreciation as part of their operating budget. For comparison, our building requires a subsidy of approximately $375,000 if you deduct $150,000 in building rental that the city assesses. REQUESTED ACTION City Council is asked to provide direction on how or if you would like to proceed with additional work on the future of the Community Center. P, CITY OF SHAKO PEE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director Meeting Date: February 23, 2004 Subject: Parks and Recreation Survey Results Recommended Future Action INTRODUCTION The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has requested a joint work session with City council to discuss the survey results, and present recommendations for future action. BACKGROUND In 2003, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended to City Council that the City undertake a Parks and Recreation needs assessment of residents to get their opinion on Parks and Recreation services. In addition to their current satisfaction, the Advisory Board wanted feedback on future needs, as well as priorities of service should reductions become necessary. City Council appointed the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and a Citizen Task Force to develop the survey. City staff was responsible for working with the Task Force and Advisory Board to develop, refine, and finalize the survey questions, Council authorized an agreement with Scott County to develop and administer an internet based survey, which was conducted during October and November of 2003. Scott County staff developed the online survey using their survey software, compiled the results, and submitted a report to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board at their December 22, 2003 meeting. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS Number of Respondents 628 households, or approximately 5% of the survey sample, responded to the survey. Although this is a low percentage of respondents, if this were a random sample survey, 372 responses would have been necessary to have a 95% confidence level that the population as a whole is within +/-5% of the responses, Furthermore, 629 responses would have been necessary to have a 99% conference level that the population as a whole is within +/-5% of the responses, (As some of you may recall, the random sample telephone survey methodology considered last year would have involved 400 households.) Another way to look at the results is to consider the quantity of information received. For example, if the City were to try to get feedback through a community forum or neighborhood meeting process, it would likely require significant efforts to get participation from 628 households, Findings of Respondents Shakopee Park and Recreation Facilitv Use Within the Past Year 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% .~<:> if? 'IS'\ ?!c<:> ~'+- '1><:> 0<:> ~'I> ~'+- il>O~ ,\\'Ii ~'Ii 0~ ~'Ii ~ t!>0 '>.0"" t!>0 0~ o{fi ~ ~ Q b ~" ~ ~Q. ,,,0 'if # ~ ~ & ~ ~ cP ":J'*' ~v ~~ ~'5 ~~ ;:::' '?' &'Ii i:-<:> 0'$'0 ~ ~ ~O ~o cP o<$' . ~ ,,0 QO ~'Ii Q ~0~ ":JQ.'Ii g .~ 0~ <b*' oQ. Participation in Recreation Activities Within the Past Year 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% #,;~~~~,~~,,~#,~~~~~#~~/ , ~ ~ # .~ # if ~ , ~ if # ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , 'IS' ~ ~ 6 <0 <<.''1>'" ":J~ <<.,0 .~~ ,,,0 <Q'I> ~<<.~ ~~0 <Q ,,,0 ~O <<~~ ~":J,+-'Ii li' ",'Ii ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ <<:-'5 \0'1i ~?Y r<><:> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ":J'*' Adaotive or Inclusive Recreation Needs for Individuals with Disabilities . 24 households (3.8%) responded that they have needs for adaptive or inclusive recreation, The majority of these individuals . 14 are over 18 years old Recreation Proarams . Swimming Lessons, Open Ice Skating, Music in the Parks, Micro Soccer, T- Ball/Nearball, Gymnastics have highest participation . 270 respondents (43%) have not participated in any recreation programs during the past year, . 221 respondents (35%) participated in a sports association program Types of Facilities Lacking Outdoor Item Number of % of Tota/ ResfJondent~ ResfJondents Bicycle/walkina trails 213 34% Natural areas 189 30% Outdoor performance area 163 26% River boat dock 134 21% Children's playa rounds/play equipment 122 19% Picnic shelters 102 16% Golf course 102 16% Soccer fields 65 10% Baseball/softball fields 64 10% Interpretive/historic areas 60 10% Sand volleyball court 57 9% Other 81 13% None 111 18% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ & & ~ ~ ~ ~0 ~ ~ ~ & # ~ ~ # # ~ & o'S' ~o .~o., w'li ,,0 oW ~~ <;-0 ",,& -p ~ ",,'Ii ~ iff ~ ~'I>~ ~'Q 0<$; ~" 02} oCJ ~ ,,-o~ 0:1? ",f;.~ ~'Ii /::.o~ ~0 ~~ <l' g ~c,o ,f;.~c, -"~ 'i\CJ 0 /:,~ :o'li is" /:, <i/' &<1 >:' r::,0 &0 c:?~ # # ~ ~ & ~ ~ ~ ~c, &0 ~ C! Indoor tem Number of % of Total Res ondent Res ondents 333 53% 228 36% 185 29% 168 27% orts 154 25% 110 18% 99 16% 97 15% 95 15% 89 14% 71 11% 60 10% 54 9% 54 9% 32 5% 111 18% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% " 10% 0% 0CJ. .~~ ~"'o ~0<" .~~ ~ 0'1> ISO t? ....r/;- . 0" ~.. r/;- 0 "'o} ,'1>0 r!$0 ,,0 ,'1>0 .... o ~~ W ""V &v 0'" ,~ 00 o'S' ~O<::' # .~ ,,0 (p':i & ~o ,'1>0 ~ i:'- 0.... ~#> 00'" 0& ~ 'I> ,~ '1><::' i>" ~'I> ~O W ~"'~ $<$' <(~<::' & ~ '" .~IS w':i <(" (J ~<$' ~o ,*-0 00 ~ ~00 g 00 ..0 '0<::' ~O ,?-0 rg':i rg<::' ,<::, ~.:s ~ ~0 ~ <Q ~~ ,?-IS Importance of Services Not Imoortant Verv Imoortant Service 1 2 3 4 5 Mean Trails 1% 3% 9% 27% 60% 4.41 Open Space/Natural Areas 4 6 22 29 40 3.95 Community Parks 3 7 22 33 35 3.89 Community Center 7 9 23 29 32 3.700 NeiQhborhood Parks 8 10 22 27 34 3.699 Recreation Programs 10 8 25 30 28 3,59 Sports Associations 16 9 21 27 28 3.42 Aquatic Park 12 13 23 26 25 3.41 Sports Complexes 12 12 26 26 24 3.37 Senior Activities 32 12 22 18 17 2.76 Skate Park 35 18 27 11 10 2.41 5 4,5 4 3,5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0,5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ # ~ i:!<' '" . '" <l~~ ",<.'If ~0 <('I> cl' <(~ ~'I> .,jl <('I> ;t-0 'r:>>'li ~0 .~ ill .~ ,!:;\ 00 <(<,0 00' ~c, ~<:/ (:} -,8' ,?-&'I> cP ,~o<' '?' 'j,-'I> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Cj i:''I> ~<$' ~-s "l ~o '" '?' r:-'" 0'" c,0 cP o<$' . ~ <,0'1> ol::!' q,<f Cj 4 G # ~ ~ ~ ~ 0<:/0 Other Recreational Facilities Used Facility Number of % of Total Res ondents Res ondents 275 44% 190 30% 167 27% 81 13% 35 6% 17 3% 12 2% 65 10% 010% 013% 10Nonel I_ Dakotah! Sport and Fitness (Prior Lake) , o Chaska Community Center (Chaska) o Lifetime Fitness Center (Savage) _ Northwest Athletic Club (Burnsville) o Flagship Athletic Club (Eden Prairie) _Ripped Gym (Shakopee) o Other If a similar facility to those listed above were available in Shakopee and the cost to use it were about the same, would you use it instead? Number of % of Total ReslJondent~ ReslJondents Yes 355 57% Unsure 171 27% No 84 13% Interest in Facilities Made Available in the Citv Not Interested Verv Interested Facilitv 1 2 3 4 5 Mean Indoor Water Park 18% 10% 17% 17% 38% 3.47 Expanded Cardio/Strength 15 11 27 22 26 3,31 Area Indoor Lap Swimmina 18 15 20 19 27 3.21 Indoor Plavaround 23 14 21 17 25 3.05 Coffee/Snack Bar 20 21 25 17 17 2.91 Multi-Use Indoor Facilitv 22 20 22 18 18 2,89 Teen Center 24 16 26 19 15 2,84 Aerobics Studio 24 18 29 15 15 2.78 Expanded Gymnasium 22 20 29 17 11 2.77 Performance Area 24 22 29 16 9 2,63 Senior Center 30 17 28 16 9 2.58 On-Site Child Care 37 16 19 14 14 2.52 Racauetball/Handball Courts 31 21 24 13 10 2.51 Additional Sheet of Ice 41 19 19 9 13 2.34 Climbina Wall 37 20 23 12 8 2.31 Meetina Rooms 33 25 27 10 4 2.27 Banauet Facilities 36 24 26 9 4 2.21 4 3.5 3 2.5 1,5 1 0,5 0 ~~#/~~#'f~#~'~#'~ 0' ~ .~ ~ (J:- <<.'1> v0 c.,'I: ~'I>"" 0 v0 .~o vO ~ 0 ~ <<.9 '1>0' ~~~~~#~~#/~~~~/~~ 00 ~Cj -y'1> 00 ~0'~ ,?-0" 00 ;::'0" Cj cblliJ 0'1>~ it (j ~0 ~cs; ,~~ i~ 000' ,~~ vO .~",,0 ri~ ~0 o<f #- i:f:>o <Q'1> 00 ,~ ~~ <v+~ ~ '?-~ ~ ~ ~ # <v+~ Support for Improvements to Park and Recreation Services Not Important Verv Important Tvpe of Improvement 1 2 3 4 5 Mean Additional Trails 3% 6% 17% 26% 48% 4,1 Land Acquisition for Preserving 7 11 22 27 32 3.67 Open Space, Natural Areas, or Passive Park Use Community Center Expansion 11 11 18 21 39 3,64 Land Acquisition for Future 8 11 27 29 24 3,50 Active Park Needs Developing Undeveloped Land 9 10 27 31 23 3.49 for Parks Community Park Improvements 7 10 31 31 21 3.48 Neighborhood Park 10 14 32 27 17 3.27 Improvements 4.5 4 3.5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0.5 0 Additional Trails land Acquisition for Community Center land Acquisition for Developing Community Park Neighborhood Park Preserving Open Expansion Future Active Park Undeveloped land Improvements Improvements Space, Natural Needs for Parks Areas, or Passive Park Use Open-Ended Responses Respondents provided 62 pages of open-ended responses. In order to help sort through this data, we have consolidated the responses from the 62 pages down to 34 (Attachment A), trying to capture common themes in the responses, PRIMARY CONCLUSIONS The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board reviewed the results at their December and January meetings, There is an extraordinary amount of data that was collected, especially from the open-ended responses, In order to provide focus for the discussion, staff and the Advisory Board developed the following primary conclusions: . Trails: The use of trails for biking and walking is the most common recreational facility use, Trails are also rated highest in terms if importance, and have the most support for future improvements, . Natural Areas and Open Space: Acquisition of land for natural areas and open space is also a high priority, and deemed an important service. . Parks: Community Parks have the second highest park and recreation facility use, and are deemed to be more important than neighborhood parks. Respondents frequently cited the need for more parks as the City develops, . Community Center: 61 % of respondents have used the Community Center, and expansion of the Community Center ranks third in support for improvements to the parks and recreation system. Indoor swimming, expanded cardio/strength training, and indoor playground are the three most desired amenities, Other Conclusions: . Condition of Parks: Comments on the condition and quality of maintenance for parks and other recreation facilities varied considerably. However, in summarizing the open-ended responses, there appears to be a need for more maintenance in both larger community parks and sports complexes, . Aquatic Park: Respondents commented that the Aquatic Park building needs to be replaced. . Ice Arena: Second sheet and better heating were the most frequent requests. . Recreation Programs: Overall, respondents were mostly satisfied with the quality of Recreation Programs (with 1 being not satisfied and 5 being very satisfied, the mean score was 3.52). . Sports Association Programs: Respondents were also mostly satisfied with the quality of sports association programs (with 1 being not satisfied and 5 being very satisfied, the mean score was 3,57). . Promotion of Services: Most respondents would prefer to get information on our programs and services in a quarterly brochure, However, there were a significant number of responses in various categories that indicate residents don't know about all of our services. . Online Registration: 66% of respondents indicated that they would register for programs online if we would provide this service, RECOMMENDED FUTURE ACTION The Advisory Board is recommending the following steps be taken to respond to the primary conclusions form the survey: Trails . Update the City's trail plan to reflect the growth that has occurred since 1998 (the last update), and to provide vision for the future, . Continue to require trails and trail connections as development occurs. . Identify breaks in existing trails and plan for those connections. Acquisition of Land for Open Space, Natural Areas, and Active Park Areas . Update the City's Park Master Plan to reflect the growth and parkland acquisition that has occurred since 1998 (the last update). . Identify search areas or specific parcels of land for potential acquisition either through purchase or through the development process. Community Center . Review the plans that were developed as part of the 1999 referendums. . Analyze the options for providing enhanced services. . Bring forward an updated plan and recommendation for City Council consideration, Community and Neighborhood Parks . Continue to plan for development and redevelopment of community and neighborhood parks as part of the annual Capital Improvement Program. Staff will continue to analyze the remaining data and develop plans for addressing concerns and suggestions, Finally, the Advisory Board discussed undertaking a visioning process for Parks and Recreation, I would anticipate more discussion on this at an upcoming meeting. g CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark Themig, on behalf of the Community Center Citizen Task Force Meeting Date: September 27, 2004 Subject: Citizen Task Force Recommendation for Community Center Future INTRODUCTION The Community Center Citizen Task Force will be presenting their recommendation on the future of the Community Center at a special joint workshop with City Council and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. BACKGROUND In 2003, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended to City Council that the City undertake a Parks and Recreation needs assessment of residents to get their opinion on Parks and Recreation services, In addition to their current satisfaction, the Advisory Board wanted feedback on future needs, as well as priorities of service should reductions become necessary. One of the outcomes of the survey was that 61 % of respondents have used the Community Center, and expansion of the Community Center ranks third in support for improvements to the parks and recreation system. Indoor swimming, expanded cardio/strength training, and indoor playground are the three most desired amenities, In order to assemble a plan for the future of the Community Center, City Council created the citizen task force this spring to evaluate options for the community center, These options included closing the facility, privatizing, expanding through a partnership, expanding through public financing, or doing nothing. Task force participants included: Deanna Benner Dan Kubitz Ron Carlson Matt Lehman John Clay Brian Madden Jamie Colby Don McNeil Steve Czech Eric Nutter Jim Dorenkamp Steve O'Neill Dan Gasow Shirley Reinke Dave Greening Arvid Sornberger Randy Gregor Mike Thelen Kitty Hauer Jon McBroom The task force met on the following schedule: Date Discussion April 26 Kick Off Meeting with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board . Discussed background information and role of the task force . Set meeting schedule and topics . Selected co-chairs: Dave Greening and Randy Gregor May 1 0 Closing the Community Center . Reviewed Community Center/Ice Arena operating budget. . Reviewed literature on similar actions in other cities throughout the United States, although we could not identify facilities with the types of services as ours that have closed, . Discussed potential positive and negative impacts of closing the facility, May 25 Privatization . Reviewed 2002 budget comparisons for park and recreation agencies in other cities, . Reviewed 2004 budget comparison for parks and recreation services within the city, and how much general tax dollars are spent on the Community Center operation through subsidy. . Reviewed examples of public services that have been privatized. The most common recreational type facility to be privatized is golf courses. . Discussed potential positive and negative impacts of privatization. June 21 Partnerships (Part 1) . Reviewed state auditor's study on enterprise fund operations, . Reviewed budget and use information for other community centers in the metropolitan area, . Reviewed general terms of agreements for cities that had facility partnerships: Champlin (Lifetime Fitness), Maple Grove (Northwest Athletic Clubs), Plymouth (Lifetime Fitness), and Savage (Lifetime Fitness), . Reviewed detailed agreement information for the cities of Maple Grove and Plymouth, . Reviewed analysis of what services are currently provided at/from the Community Center, and what impact privatization might have on those services. . Reviewed literature on privatizing. July 19 Partnerships (Part 2) . Heard presentations from Terry Just, Director of Parks and Recreation for the city of Maple Grove, and Eric Blank, Director of Parks and Recreation for the city of Plymouth on their partnerships. Discussion included how their partnerships were formed, detailed agreement terms, and satisfaction with the partnership. . Reviewed terms of agreements for partnerships in Savage (Lifetime Fitness) and Andover (YMCA). Learned that Lifetime Fitness would not likely consider a partnership, nor a facility in Shakopee due to their existing facility in Savage and proposed facility in Chanhassen, August 2 Partnerships (Part 3) and Public Financing Options . Heard a presentation from Jim Dickinson, Finance Director/Acting City Administrator for the city of Andover, on their partnership with the YMCA. . Heard information from Yvonne Anderson, YMCA of Greater Minneapolis, on the YMCA's efforts to evaluate locating a facility in the southwest metropolitan area, . Heard information from Welcome Neighbor on what type of residents are moving to Shakopee, and what their recreational needs might be, . Heard information from Don McGillvert, Springsted Financial, of ways to publicly finance expansions. August 16 Do Nothing Option and Formulate a Recommendation (Part 1) . Watched video and virtual tour of several full-service community centers throughout the metropolitan area, as well as public/private facilities. . Discussed impact of doing nothing. . In order to begin the process of formulating a recommendation, the task force developed a matrix of positives and negatives for each Community Center option that was considered (Attachment A), . Set an open house for August 30th to invite the public to come and share their opinions on the future of the Community Center, August 30 Public Open House and Formulate a Recommendation (Part 2) . Held an open house to invite the public to share their opinions. No public attended, . Watched a video tour of the Minnesota Valley YMCA. . Continued discussion on formulating a recommendation, Narrowed the options to either expansion through a partnership or publicly- financed expansion. . Requested that the city set up a meeting with the YMCA to discuss partnership opportunities in more detail. Sept 13 Formulate a Recommendation (Part 2) . Heard information on the meeting with the YMCA regarding partnerships. Learned that the YMCA would either need to conduct a long-term capital campaign or utilize the city's financing tools to participate in an expansion, The YMCA has no immediate funding available, and wouldn't assume debt. . Finalized recommendation, RECOMMENDATION After considering the five options of closing the facility, privatizing, expansion through partnership, expansion through public financing, and doing nothing, the task force came to consensus with the following recommendation: 1, The City of Shakopee should pursue an expansion of the Community Center with public financing (referendum), but continue to explore potential partnerships or alliances for operating specific components of the facility where another organization might bring experience and expertise that would benefit the city. 2, The expansion should consider those items identified by residents in the 2003 parks and recreation sUNey, as well as facilities that have been shown to generate revenue in other cities: . Indoor pool . Multi-Use/2nd Sheet Facility . Enhanced Fitness . Recreational Field House . Indoor Playground . Birthday Party Rooms . Banquet Rooms . Senior Center . Caters Kitchen . Concessions/Snack Bar . Child Care . Police Substation . Meeting Rooms . Offices 3, The facility should be a quality facility that is designed to minimize staffing and operating costs. 4. Needed repairs should be made to the existing building as part of the expansion process, 5, Residents should decide whether or not they support expansion of the Community Center by holding a special referendum election in winter or spring 2005, The preliminary referendum amount would likely be $10 million - $15 million. 6. The City should retain professional seNices to conduct further analysis of an expansion. This analysis should include: 1, Additional market analysis and feasibility study. 2, Identification of costs for constructing specific desired amenities, as well as income vs, expenses for each amenity. 3, Formation of a citizen group that would participate in this process, speCifically including individuals that were part of the recent school district referendum, NOTE: I made inquiry into the approximate costs for these professional services. There appear to be two options: 1. Develop the program (amenities) for the building based on analysis of existing and future market, income/expenses for each program area, and per square foot cost estimates, but do not do building concept design. (This is the approach that was used in the School District's recent referendum.) Estimated cost: $15,000-$30,000 2, Develop Develop the program (amenities) for the building based on analysis of existing and future market and income/expenses for each program area, as well as schematic concept design for the building, This would provide the city with a site plan and preliminary concept plan for the facility, Estimated cost: $75,000-$150,000 REQUESTED ACTION The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and City Council is asked to review and discuss the proposed recommendation with the citizen task force. There will be a short presentation on the recommendation. + Shakopee Community Center Task Force Analyzing Options for the Future September 27, 2004 Community Center Task Force -Background +~ City conducted resident survey in 2003 on parks and recreation services . Trails, parks, and community center enhancements ranked high in the survey . Trails and parks are being addressed through comprehensive plan update . City Council created the Community Center task force to analyze options for the future Community Center Task Force + -Options Summary Closing the Facility 1. 2. Privatizing the Facility 3. Expansion through Public/Private Partnership 4. Expansion through Public Financing 5. No Changes Community Center Task Force . -Closing the Facility reductions - Does not serve future growth - Waste of an investment - No central location for city's recreation and other services . In summary, this option was rejected Community Center Task Force - Privatizi ng + .. + Transfer problems to someone else + Financial savings possible through cost reductions - Does not serve future growth - Fee increases - Loss of program control - Loss of equity on building - May lose partnerships (e.g. School District) . In summary, this option was rejected Community Center Task Force -Public/Private Partnership + + Prior precedence in metro a rea + City can focus on certain goals, private sector on others + Would bring expertise + Serves future growth with enhanced community resources Community Center Task Force + -Public/Private Partnership - Limited partnership options - Some no longer partnering - Questions on what partner can provide; city may need to make financial or property commitment - Does partner fit with city's mission (e.g. for profit)? - Extended timeline to seek partner and negotiate agreement - Possible loss of city identity - Fees would significantly increase - Legal costs to develop agreement - Potential loss of current and future equity (land and building) . In summary, this option was rejected Community Center Task Force -No Changes + , + No additional work needed + Short-term controversy avoided - Subsidy will continue to grow - Difficult to attract new members - Higher operating costs over time without additional revenue - Expansion at a later date would be more costly . In summary, this option was rejected Community Center Task Force -Public Financed Expansion + ! + Total control of facility + Fees lower + Revenue subsidy to the city instead of private sector + Partnership for operation could be explored + Equity growth + Meets larger diversity of growing needs + Own land needed for expansion + Flexibility of facility usage - Selling concept to the public - Current economic climate - City fi na nci ng options Ii m ited . In summary, this option was accepted Community Center Task Force - Recom mendation + , . Expa nsion based on su rvey . Bond referendum on a special election . Design features should consider staffing needs . Design should consider amenities with reven ue generati ng potentia I . Design should focus on a quality facility . Continue to explore partnerships or alliances for operating certain components Community Center Task Force -Financial Benefits +. Preliminary information indicates that community centers with more amenities generate more revenue and require less subsidy: - Maplewood II Income: 1,774,800 II Expenses: 1,838,860 - Shoreview II Income: 1,758,500 II Expenses: 1,905,022 - Shakopee II Income: 368,100 II Expenses: 822,460 Community Center Task Force -Possible Expansion Components + . Indoor pool . Banquet facilities . Indoor playground with kitchen . Multi-Use/2nd sheet . Police substation . Expanded fitness . Concessions . Childcare . Offices . Senior center . Repairs to current . Field house facility . Meeting rooms Community Center Task Force + -Next Step , . The task force would propose: - Form a citizen group to finalize a specific recommendation for expansion - Retain professional services to provide feasibility study, market analysis, and cost estimates for proposed expansion components - Prepare information for the voters c , .. City of Ean.aB MEMO To: Operations Committee FROM: Beth Wielde, Part Time Research and Special Projects Sandy Breuer, Community Center Manager DATE: April 8, 2005 RE: Community Center Financial Comparison On April 8, 2005, you requested I conduct an analysis of data you collected regarding Community Center finances for other communities, Data has been collected for twelve communities that have facilities that are reasonably comparable with Eagan's Community Center, and reveals trends in how Community Centers in the Metro area are funded. Question 1 asked communities about how their Other 8% Community Centers are financially classified, Enterprise whether they are part of the Enterprise Fund, Special Fund General Fund, or another category. Most (61 % Revenue 31% of sample) Community Centers were not Fund operated specifically as Enterprise Funds. 23% Three are being operated as Special Revenue Funds, and five responded that they are not Enterprise Funds, Note the shading in the Special Revenue Fund, it is more closely related Non- to the Non-Enterprise Funds than to the Enterprise Enterprise Fund category, Other refers to Fund Plymouth, who operates the athletic component 38% as an Enterprise Fund, but not the non-athletic component. Maple Grove, Maplewood, and Minnetonka's Willston Center are operating as Enterprise Funds. Cities such as Brooklyn Park, Rosemount, and Shakopee once operated their Community Centers as Enterprise Funds, but changed the status, Case notes: Brooklyn Park Eden Prairie Inver Grove Hei hts Rosemount Shako ee . Question 2 inquired about the most recent revenue figures. The average revenue for the sample was $969,730, Variation of size and service levels, should be accounted for when examining the range of responses, which range from $61,000 to $2,187,653, and when examining the comparative chart. Specifically, the facilities in Rosemount and Brooklyn Park share space with National Guard units. Minnetonka has both a Community Center (meeting, banquet, and other non-athletic spaces) and the Willston Center (Fitness component). 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 ..I<: e: Q) Vl Q) "0 ..... ..... e: ..c: - Q) ~ ..... ro 'C - > 0 2 '2 0 - e: Q) ro :r: :J :J Q) Cl .~ e ~ I e: ro e: - a. 'S: a. ro Q) ro Q) ..I<: Q) ..c: 0 0 0 e: W a. > <9 -EU 5U Cl E E ..I<: ~ Q) 'C >- e: e Q) a. - e: 1Il >- Q) ro 0 ~ .9~ a:: Vl ..c: ..c: Q) <9 a. ro Q) 0 0 en 0 "0 ro :2 Q) e: e:_ ~ a:::: en e w ..... :2 e: :J ,f: .!!l Q) Q) 1Il > .f: E :2~ z ..!: :2 E 0 U Case Notes: Brooklyn Park Room rentals: 53,150; Custodial reimbursement: 10,000; Racquetball court fees: $18,000; Catering percentage: $13,000; Misc revenue: $1,900 2003 Fi ures $300,000 for the fieldhouse, $150,000 for the activit center National Guard owns part of the building, and Community Center makes a $16,800 a ment for "shared s ace," . Question 3 asked the sample Community Centers to provide their expenses, without debts service included. The average expenses reported by the sample communities was $1,161,995, or an average deficit of ($192,265). 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 ..I<: c:: Q) l/l Q) "0 .... .... c:: .s:::. ..... Q) 3= .... IV 'C ..... > a Q) I Q) a 'S c:: Q) Q) IV I ..... IV..... :J Cl 'iii e a I c:: ..... a. 'S; ll.. IV Q) 3= IV Q) ..I<: c:: .s:::. a a a .... (!) c:: Q) Cl E E ~ c:: W ll.. > Q) ~O aO 'C ..I<: >- e Q) c.. ..... c:: en >- Q) IV a 32 c:: az- a:: l/l .s:::. .s:::. a Q) (!) c.. IV Q) '2 Q) a 3= a en en "0 IV 2 c::..... 0::: a W .... 2 c:: :J ,5 l/l Q) .... Q) .5 E 2~ z en > ..5 2 E a 0 Case Notes: Brookl n Park Does not include debts services for second rink or HVAC for 001 facili PI mouth $180,000 for the fieldhouse, $450 000 for the activit center. Rosemount Operations costs are part of the general P&R budget. National Guard owns part of the building, and Community Center makes a $16,800 payment for "shared s ace." Shakopee Includes operational costs, pro-rated share of department administration, carpet re lacement $65,000 , and $146 000 rental fee aid to ci 's buildin fund. Maple Grove Additional revenue: $102,492 in Capital Outlay ($26,992); Equipment replacement ($10,500); Computer Equipment Transfer ($8,000); Operating Transfer $12,000 ; and Buildin E ui ment Reserve $45,000 , Shoreview Additional Revenue: $314,000 re lacement; $207,000 im rovements, . Question 4 asked respondents where other sources of funding came from, and approximately how much these sources Other provided. The average subsidy provided to sample cities is $267,064. 54% of sample 31% cities report getting supplemental funds from the General Fund, Inver Grove Heights reported their funding General comes from the "Host Community Fund." Fund Minnetonka's Willston Center (the fitness 54% club) has funds escrowed into an account, even thought their Community Center receives funds from the General Fund, Not New Brighton reports that all its funds are Specified derived from user fees, although this has 15% only been the case since 2002, and budget sheets show that from 1995 - 2001, the facility operated at a deficit. Eagan receives funds from antennae fee to cover the difference between revenue and expenses. It is important to note in 2004, after approximately 10 years of operation, Maplewood Community Center met the goals of an enterprise fund (i.e. self-sufficiency) much like New Brighton, however $75,000 was allocated from the General Fund to supplement its finances. Over the past 9 years Maple Grove has been operating at an 80% recovery rate. ,,. / Community Center Future Discussion Where do we go from here? June 7, 2005 Background . City conducted resident survey in 2003 on parks and recreation services . Trails, parks, and community center enhancements ranked high in the survey . City Council created the Community Center task force to analyze options for the future ~ Community Center Future Discussion ~1?~~ June 7, 2005 1 t, \ t Background . Task Force studied several options: 1. Closing the Facility 2. Privatizing the Facility 3. Expansion through Public/Private Partnership 4. No Changes 5. Expansion through Public Financing conducted resident survey in 2003 on parks and recreation services . Task Force recommended publicly financed expansion Community Center Future Discussion HAKOPEE June 7, 2005 Background . 2004/2005 Expansion Feasibility Study . Market Demographics . Concept Plans and Cost Estimates . Operating Costs . 2005 Special Election . $26,35 million . Failed 2,417 to 1,006 . 24% of registered voters voted Community Center Future Discussion HAKOPEE June 7, 2005 2 ,.. Background . 2004/2005 Expansion Feasibility Study . Market Demographics . Concept Plans and Cost Estimates . Operating Costs . 2005 Special Election . $26.35 million . Failed 2,417 to 1,006 . 24% of registered voters voted Community Center Future Discussion HAKOPEE June 7, 2005 Considerations -Referendum Analysis 1. Do you want analysis on why the referendum failed? . Price too high? . Other needs? . Shouldn't compete with private sector? . Not important to Shakopee? . Why such low voter turnout? . Post-election polling . Eligible voter list available . Work with Scott County for informal or formal follow-up polling? Community Center Future Discussion HAKOPEE June 7, 2005 3 t, ~ Considerations -Other Options . Prior Year Options 1. Close the building 2. Privatize operation or convey ownership 3. Expand through partnership 4. Expand through public financing in a different amount 5. Do nothing 6. Other? . Additional analysis could be considered for any of these options (e.g. Feasibility Study) . Professional assistance may be needed for additional study (e.g. legal, financial analysis) Community Center Future Discussion HAKOPEE June 7, 2005 Considerations -Study Options . City Council lead study . Full Workload? . Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Lead Study . Full Workload? . Citizen Group Lead Study . Previous task force involvement unknown . Residents opposed to expansion could be asked to participate Community Center Future Discussion SHAKOPEE June 7, 2005 4 , Considerations -Existing Operation . Deferred Maintenance 1. Water infiltration 2. Exterior landscaping (trees) 3. Exterior painting of entryway 4. Radiant heat request for arena 5. Video surveillance system . Continued Operation 1. Enhancements (programs, incentives) 2. 2006 Budget request ~ Community Center Future Discussion ~2~~ June 7, 2005 Considerations -Subsidy Comparison . Eagan Study . 12 Center's Surveyed . $267,064 average subsidy (excluding debt service, depreciation/building rent) . Shakopee Comparison (excluding building rent) 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 Budget Actual Actual Actual Actual 344,060 378,092 290,957 290,055 273,050 . 2004: Includes -$75,000 for carpet replacement ~ Community Center Future Discussion ~2~~ June 7, 2005 5 I' Requested Action . Do you want analysis on the referendum? . What options, if any, do you want to study? . How do you want to conduct additional study? . What about existing operational items? ~- Community Center Future Discussion ~2~ June 7, 2005 6