Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.E.1. Consultant Recommendations for Athlectic Facilities and Improvements to the Community Center General Business 10. E. 1. SHAKOPEE TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: Jamie Polley, Parks, Recreation&Natural Resources Director DATE: 12/02/2014 SUBJECT: Consultant Recommendations for Athletic Facilities and Improvements to the Community Center(A) Action Sought The City Council is asked to approve the hiring of consultants to perform feasibility, financial and architectural studies for proposed athletic facilities and improvements to the Community Center, and direct the appropriate staff to enter into a contract with each consultant. Background On November 18, 2014 the City Council directed staff to hire consultants to perform financial, feasibility and architectural studies for athletic facilities and improvements to the Community Center with a budget up to $75,000. It also directed that options for up to $25 million in City-provided funding be presented. The components to be included in the scope of the feasibility study for the Community Center are: 1. 2nd Sheet of Ice 2. Turf Sports Dome or Field House 3. Enhanced Fitness Center 4. Indoor/Outdoor Aquatic Center 5. Indoor Playground 6. Flow of the building with additions The City Council also directed staff to complete the feasibility studies as soon as possible, but to take the time to do it correctly. A firm date was not set; however, it was the desire of a majority of the Council to have the results presented to them in March or April of 2015. Discussion To complete the study of the proposed improvements thoroughly, staff feels that a consultant specializing in recreational amenities and planning, and an architectural consultant should be retained as was done in 2010. The recreational planning consultant would determine the need for each component, as well as the projected operational costs and potential revenues. The architectural consultant would provide a conceptual design of the facilities based on the needs determined by the recreational planning consultant, estimate the capital cost of each component, and assist the operational planning consultant with operating costs specific to the mechanical systems of each component. Staff did three telephone interviews of consultants specializing in recreation planning and feasibilities studies. The three firms provided the City with proposals; based on the proposal, experience specific to the amenities sought, experience in Minnesota, and the proposed fee, staff is recommending Ballard*King and Associates, of Highlands Ranch, Colorado. It should be noted that Ballard*King also completed a feasibility study for the City in 2004, as part of the 2005 Community Center Improvements referendum. The architectural firm selection was challenging due to having both an ice and aquatics components. Staff sought an architectural firm with extensive experience in both components. The City received two proposals. Both firms have the experience with ice and aquatics, both are reputable firms based in the Twin Cities area and both firms have worked very closely with the recommended recreational planning consultant, Ballard*King. Staff is recommending the architectural firm of 292 Design Group, of Minneapolis, Minnesota. As part of the architectural study the firm will be asked to also look at the condition of the current Ice Arena, determine if more than two sheets could be constructed on the Community Center campus, and what the cost of two new sheets in a different location would be with the ability to expand that facility in the future. Staff is recommending the City's regular financial consultant, Springsted, Inc., be used to provide funding options. Social/Cultural Staff recommends directing that a Request for Proposals be drafted to solicit proposals for a consultant who would do a programming analysis of needs for the various social and cultural users. These programming needs would be part of a Phase 1. Potentially, a later study could examine possibilities for housing these tenants. Budget Impact The amount allocated to hire consultants to perform financial, feasibility and architectural studies for athletic facilities and improvements to the Community Center was $75,000. The total cost to retain Ballard*King ($18,500) and 292 Group ($22,500) totals $41,000 with an additional cost of $8,500 if the City desires color renderings and building image designs. Work related to Springsted, Inc will be related to debt issuance or the need for an expanded fee study. These costs will be reflected in the future if these projects are undertaken. In addition, the total cost to conduct the programming analysis of needs for the social/cultural portion of the project will be determined with the solicitation of Request for Proposals. Relationship to Vision A. Keep Shakopee a safe and healthy community where residents can pursue active and quality lifestyles. Requested Action The City Council, if concur, move to approve the following recommendations: 1. Hire Ballard*King and Associates to perform a feasibility, planning, and operations study of the athletics facilities and improvements to the Community Center; 2. Hire the Architectural Consultant of 292 Design Group to complete the feasibility and architectural studies for said improvements; 3. Hire Springsted, Inc. to determine funding options for the City portion of the projects' financing; 4. Direct staff to enter into contracts for the above; and 5. Direct staff to issue RFP's for programming analysis of cultural and social facility needs. Attachments: Ballard King Proposal 292 Cover Letter 292 Proposal Next Steps for Community Piece Memo from Springsted ..____. b�^^ BALLARIJ*KENG 1J 1 & ASSOCIATES LTD Recreation Facility Planning and Operation Consultants CA City of Shakopee W Athletic Center cd Preliminary Feasibility Study Scope by ,,,,t- '. gg Phase 1 -Market Analysis: _ * Project review and update __ W * Service area identification Cip * Review of demographic characteristics/community profile -Population/age range/income C -Businesses/schools = -Trends w * Review and analyze existing programs/services -Existing program statistics C -Demand for programs/services Cm) * Review competitive -Market analysis Identify similar facility type in the general area -Inventory program and services es offered - Operational structure -Admission rates/attendance numbers * Comparison with national,region al and local participation statistics -NSGA standards; Potential participation levels - * Coriduct/panc�>_pate community stakeholder meetings (11) -Identify key community leaders, staff and project influence individuals w - Conductinterviews to gain responses from these individuals/groups * Compile, evaluate and interpret all information received Ballartl*King and Associates is committed to comprehensive planning and operations consulting services,providing far the effective and efficient use of available resources to develop and operate sports,recreation and wellness facilities. 2743 E.Ravenhill Circle*Highlands Ranch,CO 80 126*(303)470-8661 *www.ballardkina.com*BKA @ballardking.com bk BAL ART)*K NG & ASSOCIATES LTD Recreation Facility Planning and Operation Consultants Phase 2-Programming Assistance: *Review project component recommendation/prioritization -Validate the facility program W * Operating structure and parameters -Philosophy of operation M -Priority of use _ - gPhase 3 - Feasibility Analysis: Develop an_o rations pro-forma for each of W the five components being considered as pa-__ of th- thletic Center including Z additional sheet of ice, field house, aquatic center, inlet_ play structure and fitness center expansion. ----47- C * Develop fee structure -Drop-in = w -Multiple adaaiissions/annual passes= - AN( -Rentals ® * Sources of income Cs) Identification a> d verification of rev sue sources CP * Operating=cost projectiarrs ever _.a line iter audgif' - -Personn Lby positiar- - ontractual services w-...;- � 7nmoties : Capi re 1acel =_ *Re e- r ue gene>ation prolentf Ti - =- evelope item accounting =_= -A %nissions-=- __ -ProgVams andices -Rentat - -Otherrevenuesources * Rev me/ex�-._�onditure comparisons Goe co very level * Project recommendations/profitability of options -Marketing strategy -Program/service considerations Phase 4-Final Report: Ballard*King and Associates is committed to comprehensive planning and operations consulting services,providing for the effective and efficient use of available resources to develop and operate sports,recreation and wellness facilities. 2743 E.Ravenhill Circle*Highlands Ranch,CO 80126*(303)470-8661 *www.ballardking.com*BKA @ballardking.com b B LLA1_D*IKTi G K. & ASSOCIATES LTD Recreation Facility Planning and Operation Consultants * Written final report and recommendation * Presentation of report W W - 411 -_ Ba/lard*King and Associates is committed to comprehensive planning and operations consulting services,providing for the effective and efficient use of available resources to develop and operate sports,recreation and wellness facilities. 2743 E.Ravenhill Circle*Highlands Ranch,CO 80126*(303)470-8661 *www.ballardking.com* BKA @ballardking.com BALLAR.D*K 1,.. < ING k & ASSOCIATES LTD Recreation Facility Planning and Operation Consultants City of Shakopee CA Athletic Center Feasibility Study W Summary of Fees Study Elements BK Fees P�// Phase 1. Market Analysis $ 6,100 W Phase 2. Programming Assistance = $ 750 Phase 3. Feasibility Analysis _--_-- $ 8,5001 4E1 Phase 4. Final Report $ 750 __ C Sub-Total _ = _ ,:.$16,100 P.I Reimbursable Expenses: Ballard*King estimates that to complete the scope of Cservices it would require approximately 2 visits to hakopee at an average of Cas) $1,200 per trip. Reimbursable expenses Will be billed-at_cost plus an additional 10%. Total Project not to exceeds X18,500 Ba ing welcomesei----he opportunity to. sit down and customize, prioritize, _and/or phase a=scope of professions services that will meet the goals and _expectations necessary for this project Ballard*King and Associates is committed to comprehensive planning and operations consulting services,providing for the effective and efficient use of available resources to develop and operate sports,recreation and wellness facilities. 2743 E.Ravenhill Circle*Highlands Ranch,CO 80126*(303)470-8661 *www.ballardking.com*BKA@ballardking.com -1_1* B LLA u *KING 1� & ASSOCIATES LTD Recreation Facility Planning and Operation Consultants Project Approach and Methodology Cin Based upon B*K's understanding of the project and the information gathered we would recommend the following approach to the market study and Hfeasibility analysis. Phase 1: The initial step of this project will be to exarnin an revious information that W the City of Shakopee has gathered concerning the development of a community center and assist with the development t teering comffiffee for the project. O Having reviewed the information B K 11 begin to conduct it e=-demographic analysis of the study. In this phase B* fil be tasked with developing service W areas for the facility, analyzing demogra is 3 cteristics of said service a areas, overlaying particrpatiVn=rates frome National Sporting Goods O Association (NSGA) and the-Naanal Endowment_of the Arts (NEA). It is important to note that one, the idenf>fieation of serr&areas will be completed working in conjunction with City-_of Shak-clpee Parks-and..Recreation staff and two,B*K will use the most current=; .ccessii nigrap1ii information. One focus of this phase is.the compn of the competitive market analysis where a representative on-3-14.LK.will be--- site to identify, review and visit each thealtemative servile-povtderwthat exf ztn the identified service areas. This =step of id fy ng p Stential comp titors in e service areas is an important step when providing_,recommendation bout facility components and the ixbsequent size df saiMomponents. Meetings will also be help with repeentatives froinhe City oShakopee Parks and Recreation Department. The stWeltolder meeting,of the market analysis phase will be one of the most important‘rement of Me project as it is where the user groups are engaged about the AfhltLc its Center expansion. The project manager from B*K will be on-site-for===Q-3 day period of time to conduct stakeholder meetings. B*K will require—assistance from the City of Shakopee in identifying whom these groups and individuals are and in establishing meeting times over the 2-3 day period. Through the course of these stakeholder meetings B*K will want to gain a general reaction about the concept of a Athletic Sports Center expansion, Ballard*King and Associates is committed to comprehensive planning and operations consulting services,providing for the effective and efficient use of available resources to develop and operate sports,recreation and wellness facilities. 2743 E.Ravenhill Circle*Highlands Ranch,CO 80126*(303)470-8661 * www.ballardking.com*BKA @ballardking.com -h>l< BA LLA D*IQNG & A S S O C I A T E S -LTD Recreation Facility Planning and Operation Consultants the components that groups demonstrate need and would like to see included along with their propensity and willingness to pay for services. W Phase 2: With the demographic information, competitiveAndiket analysis, stakeholder meeting results and staff input complete, B*K carte#l7en review and develop the l�+�I program statement that outlines basic facilcoments and potential uses. W The program statement deliverable will be=in spreadsheet format listing the components and program related details thin each component and estimate of 411 size. This program statement can th rr=Te provided to th = chitect who can then provide facility cost estimates eluding land, architedtiuiallengineering, building and other. With the program statement complete and th iponent sizes estim led B*K will then apply their OperatiQli li- r_formance Indicator Analysis (OPIA)to the proposed community wellnesa center The OPl process is a time-tested process that B*K_-has used to develop reiiatre_operatmg_budgets for community wellness faciliec e end resultdeliverabl 5f l is process will be a line item budget ace Ling will incorporate =a de ailed listing of all staffing, contractual=services, cornmoditres o$ts along with capital improvement reserve. BK vc ii y to match the same'---budget format and terminology utilized with the City of Shoe .lzudtetvprocess--Additionally the budget will address cvenue projections acrd=provide wear operation projection for the facility. lie revenue`pr ectioni v ll be based upon memberships, daily admissions and =aprogram revenue.-- The last-TA-We of the process will be to develop a final report that encapsulates the entire process a easy to read, easy to follow format that the City of Shakopee can a decision making tool in moving the project forward. II Project Timeline: Ballard*King and Associates is committed to comprehensive planning and operations consulting services,providing for the effective and efficient use of available resources to develop and operate sports,recreation and wellness facilities. 2743 E.Ravenhill Circle*Highlands Ranch,CO 80126*(303)470-8661 *www.ballardking.com *BKA@ ballardking.com B T�LMW*KNNG 1i & ASSOCIATES LTD Recreation Facility Planning and Operation Consultants : -, Phase 1 —Market Analysis, approximately 30 days Cr Phase 2 -Program recommendations and feasibility, approximately 30 days W Phase 3 -Final Report, approximately 14 days g Total Time approximately 74 days W W — - o T__ T_ a Ballard*King and Associates is committed to comprehensive planning and operations consulting services,providing for the effective and efficient use of available resources to develop and operate sports,recreation and wellness facilities. 2743 E.Ravenhill Circle*Highlands Ranch,CO 80126*(303)470-8661 * www.ballardking.com* BKA @ballardking.com 1,-* BALLARD*KING & ASSOCIATES LTD Recreation Facility Planning and Operation Consultants FIRM PROFILE Ballard*King & Associates, Ltd (B*K) was established in 1992 by Ken Ballard and Jeff King in response to the need for market-driven and reality-based recreation planning. B*K has achieved over 20 years of success by realizing that each client's needs are specific and unique.With over 75 combined years of facility management and planning experience in the collegiate,public,non-profit and private sector, our consulting firm has completed over 600 projects in 48 states and has working relationships with more than 100 architects coast-to-coast. B*K is also honored to be the recipient of five Athletic Business Facilities of Merit Awards. B*K forms a consulting team that provides a variety of pre-and post-design services for clients who are considering the development of a sports,recreation, aquatic,park, or wellness facility. Our vast practical experience enables us to guide clients through the challenges of planning, constructing, opening and operating a park or recreation facility. From pinpointing specifics to broad visions, B*K provides services to ensure the long-term success of your project. B*K offers a broad range of services that can be integrated into a design team or contracted independently. Some of our services include: feasibility studies, operations analysis, maintenance cost estimates, revenue projections, staffing levels, budgeting, marketing plans and third party design review. Additionally, we perform assessments for existing facilities as well as recreation master plans. By bringing practical, proven experience to a project we can accurately represent the client's best interests. B*K has a keen awareness of the impact a park, sports, or recreational facility has on a community and subsequently the entity that operates it. Thanks to our extensive field experience we are able to provide assistance with practical tools, an uncommon ability to see the overlooked and view your project from a wealth of expertise and knowledge. Teamwork is a core aspect of our firm. We work together ensuring all clients are receiving the wealth of knowledge our B*K team brings. The success of any project begins with an integrated, mutually valued approach to the individual needs and goals of each client. Thus, we team with you and for you. First and foremost to B*K is our reputation of being a company of strong ethical character. Our top concern is our client's best interests and our approach is always honest and down-to-earth. We aim to help each client see the full potential of their project by providing trustworthy services to achieve their goal. Let us help you,move forward! Ballardl;King and Associates is committed to comprehensive planning and operations consulting services,providing for the effective and efficient use of available resources to develop and operate sports,recreation and wellness facilities. 2743 E.Ravenhill Circle*Highlands Ranch,CO 80126*(303)470-8661 *www.ballardking.com=k BKA@ballardking.com -* BA I L ARD*KING 1 & ASSOCIATES LTD Recreation Facility Planning and Operation Consultants JEFF KING 1 President *Professional Experience As a founding partner of Ballard*King &Associates, Jeff has C over 30 years experience in recreation facility operation and planning. Ballard*King & Associates was established in 1992 by Ken Ballard and Jeff King in response to the need for market driven and reality based planning for recreation facilities. Jeff has provided consulting services to more than 200 communities who have benefited from his extensive T ('i background in recreation center planning and management. Jeff's expertise comes from a vast array of experience and j ►-- projects. * Education Jeff was one of the founders of the "Gateway to Success" recreation facility planning conference in St. Louis and served Lindenwood University as the chairman in its first year. His previous experience in BA Business Administration Colorado has led to an active involvement with the Colorado Parks and Recreation Association's Recreation Facility Design Certified Pool Operator and Management School. Jeff has been a regular speaker at the Athletic Business Conference as well as numerous state * conferences and ice arena management-related seminars, Professional Affiliations NRPA Aquatic School and various workshops. Jeff has also served as a team leader and facilitator for the City of Fort Ice Skating Institute of Collins Quality Improvement Program and has been certified in America Systematic Development of Informed Consent(SDIC). National Recreation and Park As the former Recreation Director for the City of St. Peters, Association-Aquatic Section MO, he was responsible for start-up and operations of Rec- Plex, a 140,000 square foot recreation center. Rec-Plex was the Missouri Park and Recreation host site for all aquatic events for the 1994 Olympic Sports Association Festival. Prior to this, he was the Facility Manager for the award winning Edora Pool Ice Center (EPIC) in Fort Collins, CO, where he was responsible for its start-up, operations and administration for 7 years. Ballard*King and Associates is committed to comprehensive planning and operations consulting services,providing for the effective and efficient use of available resources to develop and operate sports,recreation and wellness facilities. 2743 E.Ravenhill Circle*Highlands Ranch,CO 80126*(303)470-8661 *www.ballardking.com*BKA @ballardking.com h>< BALL RD*KING 1� & ASSOCIATES LTD Recreation Facility Planning and Operation Consultants Minnesota Experience Ballard*King & Associates has completed over 600 feasibility studies across the United States for a variety of recreation facilities. Of these over 100 recreation facilities are up and operating around the country. In addition, B*K has completed studies for over 30 different projects in Minnesota with 8 recreation facilities opened. Below are a select number of projects that B*K has been involved with in Minnesota Projects - Open or Under Construction • Coon Rapids Community Center Study,Coon Rapids,MN • Rochester Community College Sports Complex,Rochester,MN • Rogers Activity Center,Rogers,MN • Shakopee Recreation Center Study,Shakopee,MN • Shoreview Recreation Center,Shoreview,MN • St.Paul Aquatic Facilities Study,St.Paul,MN • Stewartville Aquatic Center,Stewartville,MN • Vadnais Heights Sports Complex,Vadnais Heights,MN Project Studies • Austin Community Center,Austin,MN • Avon Community Center,Avon,MN • Cottage Grove Community Center Study,Cottage Grove • Duluth Kroc Center Feasibility Study,Duluth,MN • East Grand Forts Aquatic Center,East Grand Forks,MN • Edinborough Park Operations Assessment,Edina,MN • Ely Recreation Community Center,Ely,MN • Farmington Community Center Study,Farmington,MN • Fergus Falls Ice Arena Study,Fergus Falls,MN • Forest Lake Ice Rink Study,Forest Lake,MN • Grand Marais Community Center,Grand Marais,MN • Jordan Aquatic Center,Jordan,MN • Mankato YMCA Study,Mankato,MN • Park Rapids Community Center,Park Rapids,MN • Rochester Aquatic Center Study,Rochester,MN • Saint Louis Park Community Center Study,Saint Louis Park,MN • Salvation Army Ray&Joan Kroc Corps Community Center Feasibility Study,St.Paul,MN • Salvation Army Ray&Joan Kroc Corps Community Center Feasibility Study,Duluth,MM Ballard*King and Associates is coniniitted to comprehensive planning and operations consulting services.providing for the effective and efficient use of available resources to develop and operate sports,recreation and wellness facilities. 2743 E.Ravenhill Circle*Highlands Ranch,CO 80126*(303)470-8661 *www.ballardking.com*BKA@ballardking.com BAT tT,ART)*KING & ASSOCIATES LTD Recreation Facility Planning and Operation Consultants Minnesota Project Studies Continued • St. Cloud Aquatic/Community Center Study,St.Cloud,MN • St.Michael Ice Arena Study,Albertville,MN • Steele County Sport&Wellness,Owatonna,MN • Thief River Falls Community Wellness Center,Thief River Falls,MN • Tri-Cities Recreation Center Study,Ramsey,Anoka,Andover,MN • Victoria Ice Rink Operations Study,Victoria,MN • Wadena Community Center,Wadena,MN • Warroad Community Center Study,Warroad,MN • Waseca Community Center Study,Waseca,MN 4, "` ems« w. „tart?( Rogers Activity Center Ballard*King and Associates is committed to comprehensive planning and operations consulting services,providing for the effective and efficient use of available resources to develop and operate sports,recreation and wellness facilities. 2743 E.Ravenhill Circle*Highlands Ranch,CO 80126*(303)470-8661 * www.ballardking.com* BKA @ballardking.com 292DesignGroup minneapolis November 24,2014 Ms.Jamie Polley,CPRP Director Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Department 1255 Fuller Street Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 RE: Qualifications for Shakopee Community Recreation Facilities Study Dear Jamie and Selection Committee: 292 Design Group is pleased to submit our proposal for assisting the City of Shakopee with the development of a community recreation facilities study including a potential ice arena addition, indoor and outdoor aquatics and indoor turf dome. The partners and staff of 292 Design Group have assisted numerous communities in creating new and exciting recreational opportunities.Our projects, many and diverse,include facilities for aquatics, ice,skateboard,golf,tennis,field and court sports,climbing and many others activities. Through these projects,we have learned the importance of working closely with city staff and stakeholders in the development of community facilities,and the need for these facilities to operate at the highest level to provide the best service to the residents they serve. We have assembled an exceptionally strong team of experts to assist you. I've had the fortune to lead many communities through their recreation planning process,with the assistance of Stevens Engineers, Nelson Rudie and Associates,Anderson-Johnson Associates,and RJM Construction. We have been frequent collaborators throughout the years and I value their expertise and experience. Our team is ready to start on this important study,and each team member is committed to providing Shakopee with the personal dedication it deserves. We will work collaboratively with city staff and stakeholders,leading you through a rigorous,thoughtful and thorough study process. We appreciate the opportunity to submit our qaulifications and look forward to discussing how we can assist you in this significant effort. Sincerely, 292Design E� up Tom Betti,AIA, NCARB Partner 763333.3813 9100 49TH AVE N. MPLS, MN 55428 104 1:4*4 i ZN!!`"7'--- Awry !` Community Recreation • Facilities Study Shakopee,Minnesota Response to Request for Proposals November 24,2014 292DesignGnup Project Understanding &WorkpEan 2 Project Team 3 Project Experience 8 Cost Estimate 18 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING & WORKPLAN Project Understanding and Scope of Work Input Meetings 292 Design Group understands that the City of Shakopee I Week 2-3 is requesting professional design services to study the Meet with significant stakeholders as determined by the existing Shakopee Community Center,and to specifically City of Shakopee. address the following items: Facility Program Development/Budget Review • An ice arena addition I Weeks 4-6 • Potential of building a new,2-sheet ice arena on public Prepare written facility program outlining proposed property and re-purposing of existing arena into a field building components and floor area of each component house or other indoor recreation space and related budget projections. The program will be • Indoor and outdoor aquatics facilities developed based on the results and input of the City's • Indoor turf dome or fieldhouse recreation planning and operations consultant. With • Update of the existing community center fitness area staff input, a longterm visioning program will also be •Addition of an indoor playground within the existing developed for an overall community center campus plan. community center Campus Concept Planning 292 also understands that the City intends to contract I Week 6-9 directly with a recreation planning and operations Develop multiple campus planning options that develop consultant.292 will work with the selected consultant to an overall longterm campus vision for the community coordinate study tasks,timelines and shared resources. center property.Review with staff. The 292 design team, in conjunction with the selected Concept Plans recreation planning and operations consultant, will I Week 6-10 facilitate a comprehensive study for the City's recreation Develop multiple planning options for each component facilities and provide the City of Shakopee with clear of the project with budget cost for each option.Review direction for the future of the Community Center. Each with staff and stakeholders. of the proposed improvements will be studied to ensure Refinement of Selected Concept Plan that the following are addressed: I Week 10-11 Refine final concept plan for each component and overall •The facility will operate efficiently for the staff and users community center after review by staff and stakeholders. • Each component can be constructed at a reasonable cost •The additions will enhance the character of the existing Building Image Study(OPTIONAL SERVICE) building I Week 8-11 •The community center improvements will maximize Prepare concept sketches and renderings of potential recreation opportunities for the residents of Shakopee building exterior image. Conceptual Project Budget and Construction Schedule Workplan I Week 10-11 A well-defined workplan is the basis for a thoughtful Prepare probable cost of construction estimate and and rigorous planning process.The 292 team proposes overall project budget. Prepare implementation and the following workplan and schedule.The specific tasks project construction schedule. addressed below were developed from our experience working with a wide range of communities.We will be Draft Review with City Staff pleased to modify the plan, with your input and upon I Week 11 selection of a recreation planning and operations Conduct review of draft study document with city staff consultant,to more specifically fit the needs of the City and stakeholders. of Shakopee. Please note that some of these workplan tasks will be completed simultaneously.Based on similar Final Report&Presentation to City Council studies, the 292 team believes a 12 week schedule is I Week 12 appropriate for a study of this type. Prepare final report and present findings to Shakopee City Council. Project Kick-off I Week 1 Meet with city staff to develop workplan, milestone dates and communications. I Shakopee Community Recreation Facilities Study 1 292 1 2 PROJ ECT TEAM 292 Design Group The 292 team for the Shakopee Community Recreation Pam Anderson,Tom Betti and Mark Wentzell established Facilities Study includes the following consultants: 292 Design Group in 2009 after many years together as partners in a previous firm.292's long list of community- ARCHITECTURE focused projects is a testament to their commitment 292 Design Group\Tom Betti&Mark Wentzell and the firm's responsive and respectful character.With 3533 E Lake St,Minneapolis,MN 55406 a full-service architecture, planning and interior design 612.767.3773 www.292designgroup.com staff,292 has expanded its client base from Minnesota to Connecticut to Arizona.Projects and services range from REFRIGERATION ENGINEERING feasibility studies to the design of complex community- Stevens Engineering\Scott Ward focused buildings—diverse community facilities such as 2211 O'Neil Road,Hudson, WI 54016 the Burnsville Performing Arts Center,the Bloomington 715.386.5819 www.stevensengineers.com Civic Plaza,Normandale Community College renovations and additions, the Como Park Pool or the Chaska MECHANICAL&ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING Community Center. Nelson Rudie&Associates(NRA)\Mike Woehrle 9100 49th Avenue North,New Hope,MN 55428 Community involvement and collaboration, from 763.367.7600 www.nelsonrudie.com visioning through occupancy, is central to 292's design philosophy. Each project truly becomes a "community CIVIL&LANDSCAPE ENGINEERING center"where citizen interests and ideas are heard and Anderson-Johnson Associates,Inc.\Jay Pomeroy incorporated. The facilities reflect their surrounding Valley Square Office Center Suite 200,7575 Golden communities, meet critical operational requirements, Valley Road,Minneapolis,Minnesota 55427 promote a welcoming environment, and accommodate 763.544.7129 www.ajainc.net growth and change. COST ESTIMATING Community recreation projects are a primary focus RIM Construction\Brian Recker&Ted Beckman of 292's work. 292 appreciates the issues particular to 701 Washington Ave N#600,Minneapolis,MN 55401 these facilities and understands that these projects 952.837.8600 www.rjmconstruction.com are most often born of partnerships between different I entities such as city governments and private,nonprofit organizations. 292 understands that the long-term success of these projects relies on the ability to pool the collective strengths of these entities and on a thorough planning and study effort done early in the design ' process—even before drawing a single line. ' , 1 Feasibility studies are core to the planning and design process. Below is a list of some of our recent clients with whom 292 and its partners have worked to prepare : community facility feasibility studies. e as r _ • Chaska,MN:Community Center and Curling Rink 44 7 ' '' • Hill-Murray School,Maplewood,MN:Track and Field Study t. . .„ate` x ,,: • Irvine,CA:Anaheim Ducks Practice Facility "" " • Minot,ND:MAYSA Ice Arena Study Ty ` ti • New Hope,MN:New Hope Ice Arena Renovation _ • St.Paul,MN:Citywide Aquatics Study . • St.Paul Academy,St.Paul,MN:Ice Arena Study • University of Michigan,Ann Arbor:Yost Ice Arena „- , ' * • Watertown,SD:Multi-use Recreation Center _ .ti' • YWCA,Minneapolis,MN:Facilities Masterplan Shakopee Community Recreation Facilities Study 1 292 13 i 1 PROJECT TEAM Tom Beth,AIA ) Project Manager Mark Wentzell,MA I Project Designer Tom will be the primary contact and lead for the Mark is a leading designer of community recreational Shakopee Community Recreation Facilities Study. facilities and has guided numerous organizations through the planning and design of these important In addition to being a partner in292,Tomisanexperienced community assets. A skilled public facilitator and project manager and architect who has led many speaker on community recreational issues, Mark communities through the study and planning process. He has extensive experience with a variety of citizen has a keen understanding of the issues that communities involvement processes. He's facilitated public meetings face when pursuing expanded or new recreation and and workshops, and worked with boards, councils, social gathering opportunities. Tom has and steering committees throughout facilitated community input processes, the design and construction process. _ , coordinated consultant services for Mark has earned numerous awards for studies and subsequent building his work including the Richard W. Riley .. projects, and planned and designed Award for Excellence for Schools as k st complex community recreation facilities. Centers of Community for his design of He has lent his expertise as a participant the John A. Johnson Elementary School `''`' in sustainable design forums at the University of and East YMCA in St. Paul. He also received design Minnesota, presented at the Athletic Business National awards for Gladstone and Grandview community Convention,and co-authored an article about recreation centers. His work has been published in Progressive project budgets for Athletic Business magazine. Architecture, Architecture Minnesota, Architectural Record,Recreation Management and Athletic Business. Experience:Community Recreation Studies • St.Paul Citywide Aquatic Facilities Study,St.Paul,MN Experience:Community Recreation Studies • Hill-Murray Turf and Track Study,Maplewood,MN • Stamford Community Recreation Center Study, • Como Regional Park Aquatics Study,St.Paul,MN Stamford,CT • New Hope Ice Arena and Community Space Study,New • Watertown Multi-Use Recreation Center Study, Hope,MN Watertown,SD • Burnsville Ice Center Facility Study,Burnsville,MN • Roswell Community Recreation Center Study,Roswell, • Lemay Community Facilities Planning and Design Study, NM Lemay,MO • Urbandale Community Recreation Center Study, • Salvation Army Kroc Center—Conceptual Design and Urbandale,IA Master Plan Study,Duluth,MN • Leawood Community Center Study(phase one), • Sportstown USA,Blaine,MN Leawood,Kansas • Anaheim Ducks New Training Center,Irvine,CA Experience:Completed Projects Experience:Completed Projects • Delaware Community and Training Center,Delaware,OH • Grandview Community Center,Grandview,MO • Gladstone Community Center and North Kansas City • St.Louis Mills/St.Louis Blues Arena,St.Louis,MO Schools Natatorium,Gladstone,MO • Rogers Activity Center,Rogers,MN • The Matt Ross Community Center,Overland Park,KS • Hobbs Ice Arena,Eau Claire,WI • Legacy Park Community Center,Lee's Summit,MO • Maple Grove Ice Arena Addition,Maple Grove,MN • Grandview Community Center,Grandview,MO • Hasse Ice Arena,Lakeville,MN • Monticello Community Center,Monticello,MN • Plymouth Ice Arena Addition,Plymouth,MN • Chain of Lakes YMCA,Lino Lakes,MN • Gladstone Community Center and Natatorium, • Hastings YMCA,Hastings,MN Gladstone,MO • Chaska Community Center,Chaska,MN • Ice Den Phoenix Coyotes Ice Arena and Training Facility, • Bowling Green Training and Community Center,Bowling Scottsdale,AZ Green,OH • St.Croix Valley Sports Complex,Stillwater,MN • Sabes Jewish Community Center,St.Louis Park,MN •Jordan Valley Ice Park,Springfield,MN Education Education • Master of Architecture,Syracuse University Florence • Bachelor of Architecture,University of Minnesota Center,1987 •Associate of Arts,Ferris State University • Bachelor of Architecture,University of MN,1977 Registrations Registrations • Minnesota • Minnesota • Arizona Shakopee Community Recreation Facilities Study 1 292 14 PROJECT TEAM Stevens Engineers,Inc.(SEI) Professional Affiliations&Registrations SEI specializes in the planning,consultation,design,and • Registered Professional Engineer construction observation of new ice rink facilities and the • American Society of Heating,Refrigerating,and Air evaluation and renovation of existing ice rink facilities. Conditioning Engineers For over 33 years,SEI has been providing personalized, • Minnesota Ice Arena Managers Association consulting engineering services to both municipal and private clients, developing a solid reputation as design Nelson-Rudie&Associates,Inc.(NRA) professionals. 292 enjoys a long-standing professional relationship with Nelson-Rudie & Associates, a neighboring consulting In just the past three years alone,SEI has been involved engineering firm established in 1976. They provide in over 20 ice rink related projects. SEI is one of the mechanical, electrical, and structural engineering few engineering firms in the nation that can provide services on a wide range of project types and have experienced, ice rink consultation and design services extensive experience with public recreational facilities I under the direction of registered professional engineers. and ice arenas. Services include feasibility studies, I They are the only firm with a project manager who holds construction documents, construction administration, a Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering tailored for energy studies and analysis,and system commissioning. ice rink applications and designs. The stability of staff and personal involvement by senior staff members provides high-quality work for clients, SEI is a participating member in the Minnesota Ice assuring on-time and on-budget responses during all Arena Managers Association, the Wisconsin Ice Arena phases of a project. 292 has worked with Nelson-Rudie Managers Association, and the American Society of on several recent projects including the Plymouth Ice Heating Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers Arena addition, Saint Louis Blues/Mills Arena, and organization. Their continuous involvement in the Chaska Community Center,among others. industry at all levels gives them an overall competitive edge;providing clients with first hand experience on the Mike Woehrle,P.E. 1 Project Mechanical Engineer operation of ice rink facilities. Mike, one of four principals at Nelson Rudie, has more than 20 years mechanical engineering experience Scott Ward,P.E.1 Ice Arena Consultant/Project Engineer involving design, coordination, meetings, shop drawing Scott has over 10 years experience in civil and mechanical review and field inspections. He has engineering fields. He is experienced in a broad range designed numerous ice facilities and of engineering activities including: he is highly regarded for his expertise sat project management, and design and in the design of dehumidification and itconstruction for municipal projects.With air distribution systems as they relate his experience in hydraulics, pumping specificallyto ice arenas.He has extensive and piping systems, heat transfer, experience in ice facility mechanical refrigeration, structures, and materials systems and he will be a great asset for the project. a such as concrete, Scott has developed a specialty in designing ice systems. He has been involved Experience: with over 35 ice arena projects,focusing on the design of • New Hope Ice Arena Renovation,New Hope,MN ice rink floors and refrigeration systems. • Parade Ice Gardens Upgrades,Minneapolis,MN • Phoenix Coyotes Training Facility Scottsdale,Arizona Experience: • Yost Ice Arena,University of Michigan,Ann Arbor, • Phoenix Coyotes Training Facility Scottsdale,Arizona Michigan • Chaska Community Center,Evaluation Study/Ice System • Pasadena Ice Skating Center,Pasadena,CA Design,Chaska,Minnesota • St.Paul Academy Ice Arena,St.Paul,MN • Yost Ice Arena,Study and Ice Renovation,University of Michigan,Ann Arbor,Michigan Education • Pasadena Ice Skating Center,Ice Evaluation&Design, • Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering,University of Pasadena,California Minnesota • St.Paul Academy,Ice Evaluation&Locker Room Concept,St.Paul,Min Professional Affiliations&Registrations • Registered Professional Engineer Education • American Society of Heating,Refrigerating,and Air • Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering,University Conditioning Engineers of Minnesota • Bachelor of Civil Engineering,University of Minnesota Shakopee Community Recreation Facilities Study 1 292 15 PROJECT TEAM Anderson-Johnson Associates,Inc. Experience:Recreation Anderson-Johnson Associates,Inc.was formed in 1992 as • Edina New Sports Dome,Outdoor Ice Rink and a Minnesota Corporation.AJA is a multidisciplinary firm Modifications to Existing Arena/Buildings(under providing professional services in the fields of landscape construction) architecture,site planning,and civil engineering. • Maple Grove High School Dome/Sports Facility • Bemidji State University Chet Anderson Stadium At AJA, our specialty is the development of athletic • Alexandria High School Campus facilities,multi-use recreational facilities,parks,schools, • Chisago Lakes High School Campus collegiate campuses and high performance ball fields. • Edina High School/Community Center Campus We strive for a high level of design and environmental Renovations stewardship to achieve a balance between people and • Minnetonka High School Veteran's Field the environment while providing uncompromising • University of Minnesota Morris Big Cat Stadium solutions to our clients' needs. AJA utilizes a new site- • Southwest Minnesota State University Regional Event modeling program with access to real-time artificial Center intelligence that expedites optimal site designs and • St.John's University Clemens Stadium cost efficiencies. Furthermore, our best management • St.John's University New Baseball Field practices are proven through a long list of projects that • University of St.Thomas Soccer/Softball Facility have appointed AJA as a highly reputable design firm. • Saint Mary's University Ochrymowycz Athletic Facility Jay R. Pomeroy, ILA ( Landscape Architect / Senior Education Project Manager/Partner • Bachelor of Science-Environmental Design Jay Pomeroy has been practicing landscape architecture • University of Massachusetts,1988 in Minnesota since 1991. Mr. Pomeroy has extensive knowledge of complex site design with specific emphasis Professional Credentials on high-performance ball fields. Typically, Mr.Pomeroy • Licensed Landscape Architect in Minnesota,North acts as Project Manager for a wide variety of projects Dakota,and Wisconsin including sports facility construction, school campus • Certified Irrigation Specialist renovation and construction,new and existing municipal • Certified Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan park improvements and state,city and county site work. Designer Jay has designed and overseen the • Accredited Mn/DOT Construction Technician construction of over 30 synthetic turf fields and countless sand-based fields. Mr. Pomeroy is responsible for the ° . development of site master plans, construction documents, technical specifications, construction administration, contract coordination and client billing. Jay has a proven ability of working with steering committees and advisory groups to identify and prioritize short-term and long- range goals and collaborates regularly with architects and civil, mechanical, environmental, electrical, and environmental engineers. Jay is an active member of the Minnesota Educational Facilities Management Professionals (aka MASMS), American Sports Builders Association(ASBA),Sports Turf Manager's Association(STMA)and recently retired from over 10 years of service on the Board of Directors for the MN Turf and Grounds Foundation(MTGF). Shakopee Community Recreation Facilities Study I 292 16 PROJECT TEAM RJM Construction Brian Recker 1 Construction Analyst RJM Construction,established in 1981,was founded on Brian leads RJM's community market specializing in a simple principle:to serve the client. Led by a team of serving municipalities throughout Minnesota. He has construction professionals,their project delivery process managed a variety of projects with is designed to ensure that their clients have a productive, similar aspects to the proposed project, rewarding experience. RJM also knows that collaboration including ice sheets,park and landscaping is key in successful projects. They are committed to improvements, aquatic components providing clear communication and building long-term and more Brian is also RJM's expert in t, partnerships with owners and project team professionals, delivering CM at Risk contracts. i., RJM is headquartered in Minneapolis and has offices In his role,Brian will work alongside the chief estimator, in Denver and Phoenix.Their experience encompasses to provide constructibility expertise during the study general contracting, construction management, process. design/build and pre-construction. RJM has more than 150 specialized staff members and an average annual Experience construction volume of approximately$200 million. • City of Andover Community Center and YMCA,Andover, MN RJM Construction has worked with 292 Design Group as • City of Elk River Community Center and YMCA,Elk River, a cost consultant for a variety of community/recreation MN projects and studies. They bring extensive public • City of Eden Prairie Community Center and Ice Arena, recreation experience to the project team and have a Eden Prairie,MN wealth of cost history. Their expertise will be paramount • City of Worthington Community Center and YMCA, in establishing accurate construction budget estimates for Worthington,MN the project. • River Valley YMCA,Prior Lake,MN • MN Valley YMCA,Burnsville,MN Ted Beckman,LEED AP BD+C ( Chief Estimator • City of Eden Prairie Aquatic Center,Eden Prairie,MN As the chief estimator, Ted works closely with design teams to provide accurate budgets from conceptual Education and schematic plan phases through establishing a • Bachelor of Science Degree Civil Engineering University guaranteed maximum price.Ted has worked with a variety of Minnesota of clients and architects on both new construction and • Masters in Business Administration U of M,Carlson remodels related to retail, office, housing, community School of Management centers, health care and education. Ted's exceptional communication and organizational skills, along with his conceptual estimating ability,compliment his role as Chief Estimator. Ted can provide schematic cost details in relation to a building's certification. His familiarity with the evaluation of LEED design and decisions on numerous projects, particularly the recent registrations of the Crosstown Medical Building, is an asset to the design team. As a LEED Accredited Professional,Ted can provide valuable insight on green building concepts. Relevant Project Experience: • River Valley YMCA,Prior lake,MN • Elk River Community YMCA,Elk River,MN • Eden Prairie Community Center&Ice Arena,Eden Prairie,MN • Maple Grove Ice Arena,Maple Grove,MN Education: • Bachelor of Science,construction management emphasis,University of Wisconsin Stout,Menomonie I Shakopee Community Recreation Facilities Study 1 292 17 1 PROJECT EXPERIENCE 292 Recreation Facilities 292 Recreation Facilities Studies • All Seasons Center,Sioux Center,IA* • Billings Aquatics and Recreational Facilities,Billings,MT* • Augsburg College,Athletic Addition,Minneapolis,MN* • Burnsville Performing Arts Center Feasibility Study, •The Blake School Natatorium Remodel,Hopkins,MN* Burnsville,MN* • Bowling Green National Guard Training and Community • Champlin Community Center,Champlin,MN* Center,Bowling Green,Ohio* • Chaska Community Center,Chaska,MN* • Chain of Lakes YMCA,Lino Lakes,MN* • Chaska Theater/Auditorium,Addition/Renovation to • Chaska Community Center,Chaska,MN Existing Community Center,Chaska,MN* • The Chaska Par 30 Golf Clubhouse,Chaska,MN* • Duluth Salvation Army Kroc Center Master Plan Study, • Chaska Town Course,Chaska,MN* Duluth,MN* • Delaware Training and Community Center,Delaware,011* • Fairmont Community Center,Fairmont,MN* • East YMCA,St.Paul,MN* • Lemay Community Center Study,Lemay,MO* • Gladstone Community Center&Natatorium,Gladstone,MO* • Maplewood Community Center Conceptual Design, • Gordy Aamoth,Jr.Memorial Stadium,The Blake School, Maplewood,MN* Hopkins,MN* • Missoula Aquatic Facilities,Missoula,Montana* • Grandview Community Center,Grandview,MO* • Monticello Training and Community Center,Monticello,MN* • Hastings YMCA,Hastings,MN* • Roswell,New Mexico:Community Center Study(2009) • Legacy Park Community Center,Lee's Summit,MO* • Sioux Center Community and Recreation Center,Sioux • Malosky Stadium Renovation,University of Minnesota-Duluth Center,IA* • Maplewood Community Center,Maplewood,MN* • Stamford Community Center Feasibility Study,Stamford,CT • MN State University,Student Athletic Facilities • St.Cloud,Minnesota:Community Center Mankato,MN* • St.Paul,Minnesota:Citywide Aquatic Facilities • Missoula Aquatic Facilities,Missoula,Montana* • Urbandale Elementary School/Community Center, • Monticello Community Center,National Guard Training Urbandale,IA* Facility,Monticello,MN* • Warrenton Community Center Feasibility Study, • Normandale Community College,Arts and Recreational Warrenton,MO* Facilities Bloomington,MN • Watertown Multi-use Recreation Center,Watertown,SD • Oak Ridge County Club,Hopkins,MN* • Overland Park Community Center,Overland Park,KS* • Rec-Plex Community Center Renovation and Athletic Training Center,St.Peters,MO* • Sabes Jewish Community Center,St.Louis Park,MN* • St.Croix Valley Sports Complex,Stillwater,MN* • University Center Rochester,Regional Recreation& 4 Sports Center,Rochester,MN* • University of MN Women's Ice Hockey Arena(Ridder Arena)and Varsity Tennis Facility,Minneapolis,MN* fir • University of St.Thomas Dugout,St.Paul,MN I • Veterans Memorial Community Center,Inver Grove :: Heights,MN* j l • YMCA Camp Widjiwagan,Ely MN* it ti • YWCA Facilities Masterplan,Minneapolis,MN t;. I �.. , J E ir *project completed by 292 Design Group Partners and I ,, t staff while at a previous firm ( • i ! Shakopee Community Recreation Facilities Study 1 292 ( 8 PROJECT EXPERIENCE 292 Ice Facility Planning&Feasibility Studies • Anaheim Ducks Practice Facility,Irvine,CA •The Blake School Ice Arena,Hopkins,MN* • Bloomington Ice Garden,Bloomington,MN* • Burich Ice Area,Hutchinson,MN • Campbell County Ice Arena,Gillette,WY* I I :i lJ 1 a f • Champlin Youth Hockey Association/Champlin Ice Forum �P< � Addition,Champlin,MN* • Crested Butte Ice Facility,Crested Butte,CO* • Community and Recreation Center,Sioux Center,IA* • Collingwood Multiple-Use Recreation Facility, Collingwood,Ontario* • Champlin Community Center,Champlin,MN* 292 Ice Facilities • Chaska Community Center,Chaska,MN • All Seasons Center,Sioux Center,IA* •Chaska Curling Rink,Chaska,MN • Braemar Ice Arena Renovation,Edina,MN • Drake Arena,St.Paul Academy,St.Paul,MN • Brett Ice Arena,Wasilla,AK • Elk River Ice Arena Study,Elk,River,MN • Buffalo Civic Center Ice Arena,Buffalo,MN* • East Peoria Ice Arena,East Peoria,IL* • Burnsville Ice Center Renovation,Burnsville,MN • Farmington Ice Arena,Farmington,MN • Champlin Ice Forum,Champlin,MN* • Fergus Falls Ice Arena,Fergus Falls,MN* • Chaska Community Center Ice Arena,Chaska,MN* • Florida Panthers/Incredible Ice Peer Review,Coral • Chaska Ice Arena Renovation,Chaska,MN* Springs,FL • Cook Memorial Arena,Coon Rapids,MN* • Green Island Ice Arena and La Crosse Center,Lacrosse,WI • Dielmann Ice Complex,Creve Coeur,MO* • Hamline University,St.Paul,MN • Doris Billow Ice Arena,Waynesboro,PA* • Hopkins Pavilion Ice Arena,Hopkins,MN • Green Island Ice Arena Renovation,La Crosse,WI • Marquette Ice Facility Assessment,Marquette,MI • Hobbs Municipal Ice Center,Eau Claire,WI • Northfield Civic Center,Northfield,MN* • Ice Den-Phoenix Coyotes Training Facility,Scottsdale,AZ • Recreational Facilities,Creve Coeur,MO* • Ice Den-Third Sheet Addition,Scottsdale,AZ • Red Wing Community Arena,Red Wing,MN* • Ice Den-Mountainside Fitness,Scottsdale,AZ • Rogers Ice Facility,Rogers,MN* • Ice Midwest,Overland Park,MO* • Shakopee Ice Arena,Shakopee,MN* • Lakeville Ice Arena,Lakeville,MN* • St.Olaf College,Northfield,MN* • Jordan Valley Recreational Ice,Springfield,MO* • St.Paul Academy Ice Arena,St.Paul,N • Maple Grove Ice Arena,Maple Grove,MN* • Sister Bay Wisconsin Outdoor Ice Arena,Sister Bay,WI* • MAYSA Ice Arena Expansion,Minot,ND • Wausau Event Center&Ice Facility,Wausau,WI* • New Hope Ice Arena Renovation,New Hope,MN • Red Wing Ice Arena,Red Wing,MN* • Rogers Activity Center,Rogers,MN* *project completed by 292 Design Group partners and • Roosevelt Park Ice Arena,Rapid City,SD* staff while at a previous firm • Parade Ice Gardens Upgrades,Minneapolis,MN • Pasadena Ice Arena,Pasadena,CA • Plymouth Ice Arena Addition,Plymouth,MN* • Plymouth Ice Arena Training Facility,Plymouth,MN • St.Croix Valley Sports Complex,Stillwater,MN* • St.Louis Blues Training Facility,St,Louis,MO* I • St.Michael-Albertville Arena Renovation,St.Michael,MN rr { ` tie • St.Peters'Rec-Plex Training Center,St.Peters,MO* • Veterans Memorial Community Center Ice Arena,Inver x Grove Heights,MN* ' • Yost Ice Arena,University of Michigan,Ann Arbor • University of Minnesota Ridder Arena,Minneapolis,MN* . - SP Shakopee Community Recreation Facilities Study 1 292 I 9 PROJECT EXPERIENCE Legacy Park Community Center ," Lee's Summit,MO The Legacy Park Community Center was the product "-- of a multi year development program for a new 800 acre park and community recreation facility in lee's T."' I Summit, MO. The center's development began with a R e '••" 111:1 Yom• thorough planning and operations feasibility study to `° ensure efficient operations and a positive experience • ; ' ` for diverse groups of patrons. The planning and design '' _" team investigated •the staffing requirements inherent to '' design decisions in order to minimize operational costs in the future.They also focused on the patron experience gill "`y to create a clear understanding of the building and a welcoming atmosphere. J The 57,000 square foot community center contains spaces for a variety of recreational and social programs. The recreation area includes a gymnasium,fitness area, '' ' ;' , multi-purpose fitness activity room, aquatics center f � with leisure pool and lap pool, racquetball courts and a ' •� . ' running track. The social area includes a birthday party . n room, multi purpose community room seating up to _ n 350,and child-care room. As a cornerstone of the park,the building is sited within rolling hills on the edge of a large pond. The aquatics center has views to the pond with a sun deck connecting the indoor water play with the outdoor water activities. The design complements the craftsman style of other existing park structures. The rustic stone, natural • Completion:November 2003 copper and concrete materials were carefully selected • Gross Area:57,OOOs.f. to maintain the natural character of the site and to • Construction Cost:$8,400,000 reinforce the architectural design. *The project was completed by 292 Design Group partners while leading prior firm, and in association with the Hollis& Miller Group of Lee's Summit,MO. I :` / y 1 i. -'''- A hit `l x� C .--I ' ° 1 ' i t x - Shakopee Community Recreation Facilities Study I 292 110 PROJECT EXPERIENCE '` Y Plymouth Ice Center Plymouth,MN w i Completed in the fall of 2004,the Plymouth Ice Center project added a third NHL size ice sheetto the existing ice v. , arena.The addition includes seating for 492 spectators, I team rooms, support spaces, and a cafe/lounge. The project also included a complete re-design of the main entry and concessions area. The design incorporated "green building materials"for increased energy efficiency and applied a variety of methods to reduce energy , ,, : , ' - k - fit. 4- -- } _, ;,,i� + ,t E ( s. usage. Those methods included a thermally efficient = � roof system,green tinted exterior glass to capitalize on " solar gain in the winter,and recycled building materials. Design staff worked with the City of Plymouth to create a new identity for the facility that serves 40 youth hockey teams, adult hockey and figure skating clubs, and area schools.Accomplishing the goal as the area's finest ice facility, the arena's community appeal was enhanced — with the addition of an internet cafe and lounge with wireless access points. • The existing building remained open for use during the 11 J OFIVIV I` entire design and construction process. z • Gross Area:41,000 s.f. • Construction Cost:$4,200,000 • Completion:November 2004 *The project was completed by 292 Design Group partners while leading prior firm '' 4 1 -----_ l a _ ! I I i r '.sue"*,. _ ,,`` 17,4%.',,,,,::.' , s 1 ' >r Shakopee Community Recreation Facilities Study 1 292 111 PROJECT EXPERIENCE Gladstone Community Center and Natatorium Gladstone,MO The City of Gladstone, Missouri, partnered with the North Kansas City School District to envision a new 4 community focal point for their citizens. The resulting facility — which includes an aquatic center, fitness ® r - spaces, community rooms and banquet facilities — is �� �, �' t. :; •located in Gladstone's historic Central Park,adjacent to ;the existing outdoor pool and city hall.Sited on a rolling r. � " IN- hill,the building is recessed into the ground on two sides to minimize its scale. Precast wall panels were chosen as the primary material for the exterior skin. The precast design, developed 9 through a series of computer models, is a heavily i J, textured concrete face that animates the building I =Y_ facades as shadows, created by the moving sun' shift I i j.i.t_ ,.... J,, is _— '- throughout the day. The textured precast skin is broken I __ at intervals with sections of brick and metal panel 14' v► The City of Gladstone has a longstanding swimming l �- tradition.The aquatic centercontains a large competition z iy I ■j i. venue that seats 1,500 spectators and includes a state r1 of-the-art 25 yard competition pool, diving well and _ „..„ warm up pool,and an interactive leisure pool. Windows and daylight are critical design elements that enhance a sense of connection between the interior and • Construction Cost:$16,000,000 exterior. The windows also help decrease the scale of • Construction Completion:February 2008 the large volume spaces. *The project was completed by 292 Design Group partners while leading prior firm ,;,, . .* _ : .. ..„: z;'.1.4. 7711 % 7—..-i., ,:.,, ,„.„,,,,.,,,,5 n ,!..! x r s — - .: rte ' , -�°° Shakopee Community Recreation Facilities Study 1 292 1 12 PROJECT EXPERIENCE Rogers Activity Center 0 Rogers,MN — • 1 After completing a study in 2006, the City decided to 0 —4 1 I move forward on the design and construction of a new ' (1 11 ®;,� ice arena — the Rogers Activity Center. The Center __ opened in January 2007 and features an NHL-sized ice sheet(85' x 200')with seating for 552 spectators,four — youth hockey team rooms,two varsity level team rooms — _ with direct access from the shared high school parking - _ -._ lot, 61 new parking stalls, concessions area, café style r—+ seating,and a stylish 3,000 square foot community room ,'.E°. _, � with views of ice activities and wetlands adjacent to the facility. A popular community room houses a variety .� , I of activities, from club meetings to seniors' socials to children's birthday parties. - A highlight of the project is the main entry/lobby area, which boasts a 22'high ceiling,a balcony with views of i, tt ice sheet activities and the lobby below,natural lighting to provide a welcoming atmosphere, and substantial gathering space for patrons.The overall design enables Rogers to easily expand the facility over the coming o- �_ n years,while keeping a strong central facility. _ . C` • Gross Area:48,250 s.f.(38130 sf main level; s.f. ° .= balcony level) • Construction Cost:$5,000,000 I'!f!- ;,'�°`° • Completion:January 2007 oo The project was completed by 292 Design Group partners while leading prior firm I ICE • • t 6: fl ... k__ — I fiii l r. 1 li itii14 € f i 2. Shakopee Community Recreation Facilities Study 1 292 113 PROJECT EXPERIENCE Hasse Arena Lakeville,MN The Lakeville Arena project represents a joint venture between the City of Lakeville and Independent School tririiim District 194.The arena features an NHL-sized ice sheet I / ��.: ' (85' x 200') with seating for 864 spectators. Other '{ r` * building amenities include four youth hockey team - ` / rooms, two varsity level team rooms, referee locker `-+• a'. room, a concessions area with cafe-style seating,and a large lobby offering a view into the arena. The site accommodates five new soccer fields and a 344 vehicle parking lot. The facility design allows for addition of a future ice sheet to the north of the main arena. �. . Ik;- - • Gross Area:47,655 . II , • Construction Cost:$6,652,000 `m` • Completion:September 2007 - ) ^"• •The project was completed by 292 Design Group partners while leading prior firm 1 Ex t _ ;; Shakopee Community Recreation Facilities Study I 292 I 14 t PROJECT EXPERIENCE Grandview Community Center Grandview,MO +� The City of Grandview voters approved a 1/2 cent sales I' tax fora new community center.The resulting facility isl : located adjacent to a city park and outdoor swimming 1�} pool. An existing grove of trees enhancing the selected � !�f site became a metaphor for the project, influencing design decisions such as the building location and xd skylight placement. Special leaf detailing on skylight i I '; glass casts interior shadows creating the effect of walking in the grove as visitors pass through the main elevated corridor. €. The building's facilities are or anized alon this central � I g g g ! corridor. An upper level entry provides an overlook with ;, lid A tl ll views to the aquatics center and gymnasium. Other r� , ,� ,' c 1 omponents within the facility include new office space 1,,-t: ii i � t for the park and recreation department, childcare, ;% fitness areas, a running track, a senior center, al craft room,and a banquet/multipurpose room for up to 250 ": " '� people. .7..;11:. ,,1 :,. 1 , 1 . • Construction t: , , ! - �' • Construction Completion:Cos $9250 February 000 2004 ` project : while The leading prior was firm by 292 Design Group partners -It.-'jt': .,--lit--'+„ .:.1,...' ?-- ' . ,SPY I1r ., ---r, -, , i el, , , Shakopee Community Recreation Facilities Study 1 292 I 15 PROJECT EXPERIENCE Hill-Murray Track&Field Maplewood,MN The masterplan study at Hill-Murray explored the replacement of the existing, natural grass field taut 4-lane cinder track with a new state-of-the-art turf, multipurpose field and 8-lane urethane track. The new ° J _ field will accommodate football, soccer and lacrosse i sports, I ,+"r' 1, Fri 1 t The masterplan study also explored the addition of a °i ,� new entry laza concessions stand,toilet,a dome over the field,and storage facilities. • Study Completion:2014 3 r • i -. : 3` -'41 ,',.,. IFIll 610(--* -1 .t .. .„ e/t. ,! I " r'p erg mow, 5 3 ( : „ ,w OVERALL AERIAL "292Lesic ri •�, Shakopee Community Recreation Facilities Study l 292 I 16 i PROJECT EXPERIENCE Saint Croix Valley Sports Complex .. .. Stillwater,MN _ _ Serving the City of Stillwater and surrounding communities, the Saint Croix Valley Sports Complex - _- _ - features an 1,200-seat ice arena with an NHL-size ice - sheet,locker rooms for the high school hockey teams,a 01�i....i,;,,.; figure skating room and six team rooms for tournament ,.,,�..� �ii�iii lii:�iRine Fi Vii: I play. The field house is an air-supported dome structure 1111 with a full-size soccer field that can be divided into ' . : It multiple playing fields. Nylon artificial turf over one inch '' rubber elastic padding provides a great playing surface for soccer and other turf sports. r To reflect the Saint Croix Valley riverfront logging "` heritage, heavy timbers were used to frame the entry window system and brick was used on the exterior. The lobby space,flanked by windows on both exterior and interior walls, allows views to both the street and ice arena.The space is also large enough to accommodate ,t-4-:51"., crowds between hockey periods and provides a warm space for parents to watch their children skate. 1.‘" ' '# "° • Owner:City of Stillwater r------„N_ • Gross Area:132,000 s.f. y ( \ • Construction Cost:$12,000,000 f ,, • Completion:2000 " —�' *The project was completed by 292 Design Group partners while leading prior firm at it ,j 'I I t.... 't rtJ� x �. '' ,'1 :1`417,-,--,j,t hi.,., ,,,,,t..'; 1 , , :' .i.„_j i j I : 11 ' 1 I 1 ' I 1 , i Shakopee Community Recreation Facilities Study 1 292 117 i PROJECT FEE 292 proposes a fee schedule based off each phase or • Expenses of over-time work requiring higher than task in the workplan. This approach allows the client the regular rates if authorized in advance by the owner. flexibility on selecting the services desired. • Renderings,models and mock-ups requested by the owner. The fee and workplan was established without direct • Expenses of professional liability insurance dedicated input from the City of Shakopee and can be modified,as exclusively to the project or the expense of additional required,to meet any change in scope or fee to meet the insurance coverage or limits requested by the owner in City's requirements. excess of that normally carried by the architect and the architect's consultants. The fees do not include reimbursable expenses. Other similar direct project-related expenditures. Workplan Task Fee Reimbursable expenses are billable at 10%over cost. Project Kick-off $1,000 Input Meetings $1,500 Facility Program Development/ $2,000 Budget Review Campus Concept Planning $4,500 Concept Plans $7,500 Refinement of Selected $2,500 Concept Plan Conceptual Project Budget $2,500 and Construction Schedule Draft Review with City Staff $500 Final Report&Presentation to City Council $500 TOTAL $22,500 OPTIONAL Building Image Study $8,500 Reimbursable expenses Reimbursable expenses include but are not limited to the following: • Cost of out-of-town travel,lodging and electronic communications in connection with the project. • Transportation cost at 55 cents per mile,including parking fees. • Fees paid for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the project. • Reproductions,plots,standard form documents, photocopies,project photography,postage,long- distance telephone calls,facsimiles,handling and delivery of Instruments of Service, • Materials required to assemble reports. • Printing of construction bid sets. Shakopee Community Recreation Facilities Study 1 292 1 18 Feasibility Study for Proposed Shakopee Arts, Culture and Social Service Center PHASE 1 A consultant (with or without architectural expertise)would be hired to meet directly with a wide variety of potential stakeholders and partners and present back to the City, in an organized and easy-to- understand report: 1. A comprehensive list of groups and organizations in the community that are in need of physical space and interested in potentially partnering with the City on this project. 2. An analysis of the space needs and wants of each of those groups or organizations;to include the amount of space,type of space, access and security needs, etc. 3. An analysis of the financial resources or potential resources that the identified partners could likely bring to the project. The consultant would also be tasked with researching other arts, culture and social service centers in Minnesota that are municipally owned or operated, in whole or part. Are there models out there that we can borrow from? Lessons to be learned from those that have gone before us? PHASE 2 What portion of the identified needs can be accommodated within the Central Family building? What remodeling would be needed up front? In the future?At what cost? Are there other existing buildings in town that could be repurposed for this use that would better match the identified needs or do so at a lower cost? This phase will require the contracting of an architect, if not already done in phase 1. Springsted Incorporated 380 Jackson Street, Suite 300 Saint Paul,MN 55101-2887 Springsted Tel: 651-223-3000 Fax: 651-223-3002 www.springsted.com MEMORANDUM TO: Julie Linnihan, Finance Director City of Shakopee, Minnesota FROM: Paul Steinman, Vice President DATE: November 26, 2014 SUBJECT: Role of Municipal Advisor in Analyzing Community Facility Needs At your request this memo will help to address Springsted's role as Municipal Advisor as Shakopee processes its community facility needs. In most cases the role of the Municipal Advisor early on is to interface with other consultants, i.e. architects,engineers, etc.as they take the initial steps to assess your facility needs,help discuss site selection for various different uses, and produce conceptual plans and preliminary costing. Springsted would be providing information as requested to assist the other consultants during the initial phases of this process. As long as the fundamental (statutory) questions about financing have been addressed, it isn't until much later in a public process such as this that your Municipal Advisor will typically be taking an active role. The fundamental questions facing communities as they consider the overall facility and community investment project include: • How do we pay for the facilities we are considering building? o Capital o Operational • Does the City use existing funds or debt? • Can the City develop new fees or charges to offset the capital and operational costs of the facilities? • What is the impact of these different approaches on the taxpayers? o Using existing funds for facilities may impact what was originally intended for the use of such funds. o New debt will likely have a levy impact. • What is an acceptable impact and how might the impact be minimized? • Can future growth and increased market value be expected to minimize taxpayer impact, and to what degree? • How do other stakeholders buy in to the projects, and to what realistic degree can they participate? o School o County o Hockey Association o Other organizations Public Sector Advisors City of Shakopee, Minnesota November 25, 2014 Page 2 The following options have been used in similar facility financing in Minnesota in a number of different communities: • Cash from existing City funds • Referendum bonds(vote required) • EDA Lease revenue bonds(does EDA structure allow this option?) o General Obligation—least cost financing o Without General Obligation—higher cost(interest rate)financing • Tax abatement bonds—can be issued without a referendum o Impact to taxpayer is identical to referendum bonds o Tax levy is the only source of repayment • New revenues? o Cost Recovery Fee study • Utilities are charged a fee based upon the City's cost of allowing the utilities to operate within the public right of way. What is being proposed does not at this stage appear to be outside the use of any, or a combination, of the financing options above. As we move forward in this process,we can provide additional information with regard to any of these options. Other than the Cost Recovery Fee study,Springsted's fee for services related to a potential financing would be included in the issuance cost of bonds. There may be a fee associated with work to the extent that it does not result in the issuance of bonds but an estimate is not possible to define at this point in the process. 1111111111 A. SHAKOPEE TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator DATE: 12/02/2014 SUBJECT: City-wide Telephone Survey Introduction At it's meeting on December 2nd, the City Council should discuss the questions for a City-wide telephone survey to gauge attitude and opinions about City services. This will be done in a workshop setting. Background On September 2nd, the City Council approved the hiring of the Morris Leatherman Company to perform a City-wide telephone survey of residents. The intent is to gauge overall perceptions about a variety of topics. Background information is contained, as well as a draft of questions that relate to Shakopee. Peter Leatherman of the company will be in attendance, and will lead the discussion of which the questions, and which to add and which to omit. He will also talk about the timing of when the actual survey will be performed, and when results will be ready for the City. Attachments: City-wide Survey Discussion Memo Draft Shakopee Survey General Business 7. B. si tAK0l'EF TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill,City Administrator DATE: 09/02/2014 SUBJECT: City-wide Survey Discussion Action Sought For the Council to give direction to staff to hire the Morris Leatherman Company to perform a City-wide telephone residential survey regarding municipal services. Background One of the directives that was given to the City Administrator for 2014 was to"establish and monitor measurable goals for each City department." While components of that can be done for individual departments,to establish an overall residents' perception of municipal service levels, it is recommended that a City-wide survey be undertaken. From a performance measurement standpoint,it would establish a"baseline"from which to work to improve the view of the levels of service from the City. The Morris Leatherman Company(M-L)is well-known in the Twin Cities area for performing statistically-valid telephone surveys on behalf of city governments and school districts. Area entities that have used M-L include the Cities of Prior Lake, Savage,Minnetonka,Burnsville,Eden Prairie,Eagan,Lakeville,and Chaska. The company has also done surveys for the Farmington and Shakopee School Districts. It performed a survey for Shakopee regarding the Community Center in the late-1990's. The representative from M-L stated that regularly-scheduled surveys are important for policy makers to accurately gauge the tenor of the community. He noted that elected officials typically hear from strong supporters of a specific project, and also from people who are particularly adverse to tax increases. However,he said that 50-60%of the people are somewhere in the middle. He felt that it was important for policy makers to have accurate information from which to determine where to place their resources,both in terms of efforts,and funding. Attached is a sample of some of the questions which are typically asked of a city's residents. He said that the survey instrument would be tailored for our particular situation. M-L would meet first with stakeholders, including elected officials, staff,and other community representatives,to establish the topics for which inquiries would be made. Because this is the first general survey for Shakopee, it's probable that a larger than typical number of questions would need to be asked. For Shakopee right now,it might be particularly timely to inquire about opinions for recreation--a second sheet of ice, indoor swimming pool,artificial turf fields, and the like. Questions could be structured so that the support for various types of funding could be weighed. Most alternatives to one-on-one interviews, such as on-line opinion polling,are typically not as accurate. Beginning to end, it is estimated that 90 days'time would be needed. Therefore,the base results could be received before the end of the year. Recommendation I recommend that the City hire Morris Leatherman to conduct a survey of Shakopee residents to gauge community perception and support for municipal projects and services. Until the full scope is determined,I further recommend authorizing the maximum estimated expenditure of $22,000;if the questions can be pared down,the cost would be reduced accordingly. Budget Impact As shown in the attached proposal,the cost of the project varies by the number of questions asked,and by the degree of accuracy desired. Four-hundred telephone interviews for a city of our size will yield an accuracy rate of +1-5%. Increasing the sample to 600 calls increases the accuracy rate to+1-4%. It should be noted that 35-45%of the calls are made to cell phones,and so people without land-lines are accurately represented as well. Overall,the cost would range from a low of$13,000(basic survey)to$22,000. Again,as this would be the initial survey,I recommend budgeting at the high end of that range. The costs of this survey would be charged to the City Council budget. If the Council chooses to go ahead,a follow-up survey would not necessarily need to be done annually,although some cities do that. M-L stated that more typical cycle is every two to four years,with cities of faster rates of growth often opting for the every other year alternative. Relationship To Visioning This supports Goal B, "Positively manage the challenges and opportunities presented by growth, development and change. Requested Action If the Council concurs, it should,by motion,direct Staff to hire the Morris Leatherman Company to perform a telephone survey regarding municipal services and projects,at a cost not to exceed$22,000. Attachments: Proposal Sample Survey THE MORRIS LEATHERMAN COMPANY City of Shakopee 3128 Dean Court Residential Survey Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 REVISED OCTOBER 2014 Hello, I 'm of the Morris Leatherman Company, a polling firm located in Minneapolis. We have been retained by the City of Shakopee to speak with a random sample of residents about issues facing the community. This survey is being conducted because the City Council and City Staff are interested in your opinions and suggestions about current and future city needs. I want to assure you that all individual responses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. 1 . Approximately how many years have LESS THAN TWO YEARS 1 you lived in Shakopee? TWO TO FIVE YEARS 2 FIVE TO TEN YEARS 3 TEN TO TWENTY YEARS 4 20 TO 30 YEARS 5 OVER THIRTY YEARS 6 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 7 2 . What do you like most, if anything, about living in Shakopee? 3. What do you think is the most serious issue facing Shakopee today? 4 . How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT 1 life in Shakopee - excellent, GOOD 2 good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR 3 POOR 4 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5 5. How would you rate the strength of EXCELLENT 1 community identity and the sense GOOD 2 of neighborliness in Shakopee -- ONLY FAIR 3 excellent, good, only fair or POOR 4 or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5 6. All in all, do you think things in RIGHT DIRECTION 1 Shakopee are generally headed in WRONG TRACK 2 the right direction, or do you DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3 feel things are off on the wrong track? Moving on. . . . 7 . Do you consider the city portion VERY HIGH 1 of your property taxes to be SOMEWHAT HIGH 2 very high, somewhat high, about ABOUT AVERAGE 3 average, somewhat low, or very low SOMEWHAT LOW 4 in comparison with neighboring VERY LOW 5 cities? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 6 In 2013, the actual percentage of your property taxes going to the City of Shakopee was percent. 8 . Would you favor or oppose an in- FAVOR 1 crease in YOUR city property tax OPPOSE 2 if it were needed to maintain city DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3 services at their current level? 9. And, would you favor or oppose an FAVOR 1 increase in YOUR city property tax OPPOSE 2 if it were used to improve and en- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3 hance current city services? 10. When you consider the property EXCELLENT 1 taxes you pay and the quality of GOOD 2 city services you receive, would ONLY FAIR 3 you rate the general value of city POOR 4 services as excellent, good, only DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5 fair, or poor? I would like to read you a list of a few city services . For each one, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of the service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor? (ROTATE) EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R 11 . Police protection? 1 2 3 4 5 12. Fire protection? 1 2 3 4 5 13. Storm drainage and flood control? 1 2 3 4 5 14 . Park maintenance? 1 2 3 4 5 EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R 15. City-sponsored recreation programs? 1 2 3 4 5 Now, for the next four city services, please consider only their job on city-maintained street and roads . That means excluding interstate highways, state and county roads that are taken care of by other levels of government. Hence, Highway 169, and County Roads 16, 17, 83, and 101 should not be considered. How would you rate . . . . EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R 16. City street repair and maintenance? 1 2 3 4 5 17 . Snow plowing? 1 2 3 4 5 18 . Street lighting? 1 2 3 4 5 19. Maintenance of sidewalks and trails? 1 2 3 4 5 Recently, the City changed its garbage and recycling pickup hauler. . . . 20. How would you rate the garbage and EXCELLENT 1 recycling pickup -- excellent, GOOD 2 good, only fair or poor? ONLY FAIR 3 POOR 4 DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 5 Moving on. . . . For each of the following, please tell me whether the City is too tough, about right, or not tough enough in enforcing city codes on the nuisances. TOO NOT ABO DK/ TOU TOU RIG REF 21 . Weeds and tall grass on residential properties? 1 2 3 4 22 . Animal control? 1 2 3 4 23. Junk cars? 1 2 3 4 24 . Messy yards? 1 2 3 4 25 . Noise? 1 2 3 4 26. Improper storage of garbage and recycling bins that are visible from the street? 1 2 3 4 Currently, the City of Shakopee generally enforces codes con- cerning residential property when a complaint is made. Some cities take a more active approach and inspect residential neigh- borhoods for code violations every couple of years. 27 . Would you favor or oppose a more STRONGLY FAVOR 1 active approach by the City in the FAVOR 2 enforcement of residential pro- OPPOSE 3 perty codes? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) STRONGLY OPPOSE 4 Do you feel strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5 Thinking about another topic. . . . 28 . Do you feel safe in the City of YES 1 Shakopee? NO 2 DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 3 29. Do you feel safe in your immediate YES 1 neighborhood walking alone at NO 2 night? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3 30. How would you rate the amount of TOO MUCH 1 police patrolling in your neigh- ABOUT RIGHT AMOUNT 2 borhood -- too much, about the NOT ENOUGH 3 right amount or not enough? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 4 31 . How would you rate the amount of TOO MUCH 1 traffic enforcement by the police ABOUT RIGHT AMOUNT 2 in your neighborhood -- too much, NOT ENOUGH 3 about right amount or not enough? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 4 32 . How serious of a problem is traf- VERY SERIOUS 1 fic speeding in your neighborhood SOMEWHAT SERIOUS 2 -- very serious, somewhat serious, NOT TOO SERIOUS 3 not too serious, or not at all NOT AT ALL SERIOUS 4 serious? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5 33. And, how serious of a problem are VERY SERIOUS 1 stop sign violations in your nei- SOMEWHAT SERIOUS 2 ghborhood -- very serious, some- NOT TOO SERIOUS 3 what serious, not too serious, or NOT AT ALL SERIOUS 4 not at all serious? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5 34 . Please tell me which one you consider to be the greatest concern in Shakopee? If you feel that none of these problems are serious in Shakopee, just say so. Violent crime 00 Traffic speeding 01 Drugs 02 Youth crimes and vandalism 03 Identity theft 04 Business crimes, such as shoplifting and check fraud 05 Residential crimes, such as burglary, and theft 06 SOMETHING ELSE ( ) 07 ALL EQUALLY 08 NONE OF THE ABOVE 09 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 10 Continuing. . . . The Shakopee Park and Recreation system is composed of the Community Center, Ice Arena, Sand Venture Aquatic Park, larger community parks, smaller neighborhood parks, trails, and community athletic fields . For each of the following facilities, first, tell me if you or members of your household have used it during the past year. Then, for those you have used, please rate them as excellent, good, only fair or poor. If you have no opinion, just say so. . . . NOT EXC GOO FAI PO0 DKR 35. The Community Center? 1 2 3 4 5 6 36. The Ice Arena? 1 2 3 4 5 6 37 . Sand Venture Aquatic Park? 1 2 3 4 5 6 38 . Larger community parks? 1 2 3 4 5 6 39. Smaller neighborhood parks? 1 2 3 4 5 6 40. Trails? 1 2 3 4 5 6 41 . Community athletic fields? 1 2 3 4 5 6 IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR" FOR ANY COMPONENT, ASK: 42 . Why did you rate as (only fair/poor) ? 43. In general, do you feel that YES 1 existing recreational facilities NO 2 offered by the City meet the DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3 needs of you and members of your household? IF "NO, " ASK: 44 . What additional recreational facilities would you like to see the City offer its residents? 45. Have you or members of your house- YES 1 hold participated in any City NO 2 park and recreation programs? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3 IF "YES, " ASK: 46. Which ones? 47 . Were you very satisfied, VERY SATISFIED 1 somewhat satisfied, somewhat SOMEWHAT SATISFIED 2 dissatisfied or very dissat- SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED3 isfied with your experience? VERY DISSATISFIED 4 DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 5 48. Does the current mix of City park YES 1 and recreation programming meet NO 2 the needs of your household? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3 IF "NO, " ASK: 49. What program(s) do you feel are lacking? 50. Do you or members of your household currently leave the city for park and recreation facilities or activities? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What would that be? I would like to read you a list of park and recreation offerings which could be offered in Shakopee. For each one, please tell me if you would strongly support the use of city funding for that offering, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the use of city funding for that offering. (ROTATE) STS SMS SMO STO DKR 51 . An indoor pool and aquatic center? 1 2 3 4 5 52 . An indoor playground? 1 2 3 4 5 53 . Expansion of the Fitness Center? 1 2 3 4 5 54 . A second sheet of ice? 1 2 3 4 5 55 . A multi-purpose artificial turf fieldhouse? 1 2 3 4 5 56. Senior Center? 1 2 3 4 5 57. Visual Arts Gallery? 1 2 3 4 5 58 . Community theater space? 1 2 3 4 5 59. Community meeting space? 1 2 3 4 5 The City has had discussion with the School District about the Central Family Center. The City could repurpose the building for community gathering space for recreation, programs and meetings . 60. Do you support or oppose the City STRONGLY SUPPORT 1 repurposing the Central Family SUPPORT 2 Center? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do OPPOSE 3 you feel strongly that way? STRONGLY OPPOSE 4 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5 Repurposing the Central Family Center and constructing some of the other proposed amenities could be funded in part by city property taxes. Suppose the City of Shakopee proposed a development which you considered to be a reasonable approach. 61 . How much would you be willing to NOTHING 1 see your property taxes increase $_. 00 2 to fund this construction? Let' s $_. 00 3 say, would you be willing to see $_. 00 4 your monthly property taxes in- $ . 00 5 crease by $ ? (CHOOSE RANDOM $_. 00 6 STARTING POINT; MOVE UP OR DOWN $ . 00 7 DEPENDING ON RESPONSE) How about DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 8 $ per month? Continuing. . . . The City is currently studying moving the City Hall out of downtown to a location adjacent to the current police station. 62 . Would you support or oppose the STRONGLY SUPPORT 1 use of city funding to relocate SUPPORT 2 City Hall? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) OPPOSE 3 Do you feel strongly that way? STRONGLY OPPOSE 4 DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 5 The city is exploring options to reduce the noise from the railroad by creating quiet zones in the community. For each of the following, please tell me if you would strongly support, support, oppose or strongly oppose the use of city funding for that purpose if it lead to reduced noise from trains . (ROTATE) STS SUP OPP STO DKR 63 . Vehicle turning restrictions on Second Avenue near the railroad tracks . 1 2 3 4 5 64 . Street closures of up to three crossings over the railroad tracks between Marschall Road and Rahr Malting. 1 2 3 4 5 Moving on. . . . 65 . Do you leave the City of Shakopee YES 1 on a regular or daily basis to go NO 2 to work? NOT EMPLOYED/RETIRED3 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 4 IF "YES, " ASK: 66. In what city is your job located? 67 . How many minutes does it take FIVE MINUTES OR LESS1 you to get to work? SIX TO TEN MINUTES 2 11 TO 15 MINUTES 3 16 TO 20 MINUTES 4 21 TO 25 MINUTES 5 26 TO 30 MINUTES 6 OVER 30 MINUTES 7 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 8 68 . How would you rate the ease EXCELLENT 1 of getting to and from work GOOD 2 -- excellent, good, only fair ONLY FAIR 3 or poor? POOR 4 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5 69. Do you or anyone in your household YES 1 ride public transit on a regular NO 2 basis? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 3 70. Are there any changes you would make to public transit so it is more convenient for you? 71 . Are you familiar with the Blue YES 1 Express of Minnesota Valley NO 2 Transit Authority? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 3 Apart from major construction projects in the city. . . . 72 . How would you rate the ease of EXCELLENT 1 getting from place to place within GOOD 2 the City of Shakopee - excellent, ONLY FAIR 3 good, only fair or poor? POOR 4 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5 Moving on. . . . I would like to read you a list of characteristics of a community. For each one, please tell me if you think Shakopee currently has too many or too much, too few or too little, or about the right amount. MANY FEW/ ABOUT D.K. / MUCH LITT RIGHT REF. 73. service establishments, such as dry cleaners and auto repair shops? 1 2 3 4 74 . retail shopping opportunities? 1 2 3 4 75. entertainment establishments? 1 2 3 4 76. dining establishments? 1 2 3 4 Now, I 'd like to ask you some questions about your shopping habits. . . . 77 . Excluding gasoline, what do you consider to be your princi- pal retail shopping area? 78 . Again, excluding gasoline, about NOTHING 1 what percentage of your retail 1% TO 25% 2 shopping dollar is spent in Shako- 26% TO 50% 3 pee business establishments? 51% TO 75% 4 OVER 75% . % 5 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 6 79. Excluding gasoline, on average, DAILY 1 how often do you make any pur- WEEKLY 2 chases of goods or services for TWO/THREE MONTHLY 3 yourself or your household from MONTHLY 4 business establishments in Shako- RARELY 5 pee -- daily, weekly, two or three NEVER 6 times per month, monthly, rarely, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 7 or never? As the City of Shakopee plans for development in the future. . . . 80. Not including restaurants, what type of retail stores would you like to see attracted to the City of Shakopee? IF TYPE OF STORE IS MENTIONED, ASK: 81 . Is there any specific store you would like to see in the City of Shakopee? Turning to restaurants . . . . 82 . In an average week, what percent NOTHING 1 of your meals do you eat out at a 1% TO 25% 2 restaurant? 26% TO 50% 3 51% TO 75% 4 OVER 75% 5 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 6 83 . And, about what percentage of your NOTHING 1 spending on restaurants is spent 1% TO 25% 2 in Shakopee restaurant establish- 26% TO 50% 3 ments? 51% TO 75% 4 OVER 75% 5 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 6 84 . What type of restaurants would you like to see attracted to the City of Shakopee? (PROBE FOR SPECIFICS) IF A TYPE OF RESTAURANT IS MENTIONED, ASK: 85. Is there any specific restaurant you would like to see in the City of Shakopee? Changing topics . . . . 86. Other than voting, do you feel YES 1 that if you wanted to, you could NO 2 have a say about the way the City DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3 of Shakopee runs things? During the past few years. . . . 87 . How much do you feel you know A GREAT DEAL 1 about the work of the Mayor and A FAIR AMOUNT 2 City Council -- a great deal, a VERY LITTLE 3 fair amount, very little, or none NONE AT ALL 4 at all? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5 88 . From what you know, do you approve STRONGLY APPROVE 1 or disapprove of the job the Mayor APPROVE 2 and City Council are doing? (WAIT DISAPPROVE 3 FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel STRONGLY DISAPPROVE 4 strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5 IF A RATING IS GIVEN, ASK: 89. Why did you rate them as ? During the past few years. . . . 90. How much first hand contact have QUITE A LOT 1 you had with the Shakopee City SOME 2 staff -- quite a lot, some, very VERY LITTLE 3 little, or none? NONE 4 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5 91 . From what you have heard or seen, EXCELLENT 1 how would you rate the job per- GOOD 2 formance of the Shakopee city ONLY FAIR 3 staff -- excellent, good, only POOR 4 fair, or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5 92 . During the past year, have you YES 1 contacted the City of Shakopee? NO 2 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3 IF "YES, " ASK: 93 . On your last contact with POLICE DEPARTMENT 01 City Hall, which Department FIRE DEPARTMENT 02 did you contact -- the Police PUBLIC WORKS 03 Department, Fire Department, ICE CENTER 04 Public Works, Ice Center, NATURAL RESOURCES 05 Natural Resources, Park and PARKS AND REC 06 Recreation, Building Inspec- BUILDING INSPECT 07 tions, Engineering, Planning, ENGINEERING 08 Administration, the Finance PLANNING 09 Department, or the General ADMINISTRATION 10 Information Desk reception- FINANCE DEPT 11 ist? GENERAL INFORMATION12 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 13 Thinking about your last contact with the City, for each of the following characteristics, please rate the service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor. . . . EXC GOO FAI PO0 DKR 94 . Courtesy of city staff? 1 2 3 4 5 95 . Ease of obtaining the service you needed? 1 2 3 4 5 96. Helpfulness of city staff? 1 2 3 4 5 Moving on 97 . How would you rate the City' s EXCELLENT 1 efforts in keeping you informed in GOOD 2 a timely manner -- excellent, ONLY FAIR 3 good, only fair, or poor? POOR 4 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5 98 . What is your principal source of information about Shakopee City Government and its activities? 99. How would you prefer to receive information about Shakopee City Government and its activities? 100. During the past year, did you YES 1 receive the "Hometown Messenger, " NO 2 the City' s newsletter mailed to DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3 residents three times a year? IF "YES, " ASK: 101 . Do you or any members of your YES 1 household regularly read it? NO 2 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3 102 . How would you evaluate its EXCELLENT 1 content and format -- excel- GOOD 2 lent, good, only fair, or ONLY FAIR 3 poor? POOR 4 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5 103 . How would you evaluate its EXCELLENT 1 usefulness -- excellent, GOOD 2 good, only fair or poor? ONLY FAIR 3 POOR 4 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5 City Council meetings are available for viewing on the local cable channel 16 and the city' s website. 104 . How often during the past year FREQUENTLY 1 have you watched City Council OCCASIONALLY 2 meetings - frequently, occasion- RARELY 3 ally, rarely or never? NEVER 4 DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 5 105 . Do you have access to the Internet HOME ONLY 1 at home? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do WORK ONLY 2 you have access to the Internet BOTH 3 at work? NEITHER 4 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5 IF "YES, " ASK: 106. Have you accessed the City' s YES 1 website? NO 2 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3 IF "YES, " ASK: 107 . How would you evaluate EXCELLENT 1 the content of the GOOD 2 City' s website -- ex- ONLY FAIR 3 cellent, good, only POOR 4 fair, or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5 108 . How would you rate the EXCELLENT 1 ease of navigating the GOOD 2 site and finding the in- ONLY FAIR 3 formation you sought -- POOR 4 excellent, good, only DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5 fair, or poor? 109. What information would you like to see on the City of Shakopee' s web site? 110. How would you rate the City' s EXCELLENT 1 overall performance in communicat- GOOD 2 ing key local issues to residents ONLY FAIR 3 in its publications, website, POOR 4 mailings, and on cable television DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 5 -- excellent, good, only fair, or poor? Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes . . . . Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. 111 . Persons 65 or over? NONE 1 ONE 2 TWO OR MORE 3 112 . Adults under 65? NONE 1 ONE 2 TWO 3 THREE OR MORE 4 113 . School-aged children and pre- NONE 1 schoolers? ONE 2 TWO 3 THREE OR MORE 4 114 . Do you own or rent your present OWN 1 residence? RENT 2 REFUSED 3 115 . What is your age, please? 18-24 1 (READ CATEGORIES, IF NEEDED) 25-34 2 35-44 3 45-54 4 55-64 5 65 AND OVER 6 116. What is the highest level of LESS THAN HS GRADUATE1 formal education you completed? HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE2 VO-TECH/TECH COLLEGE3 SOME COLLEGE 4 COLLEGE GRADUATE 5 POST-GRADUATE 6 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 7 117 . Which of the following categories WHITE 1 represents your ethnicity -- AFRICAN-AMERICAN 2 White, African-American, Hispanic- HISPANIC-LATINO 3 Latino, Asian-Pacific Islander, ASIAN-PACIFIC ISLANDER4 Native American, or something NATIVE AMERICAN 5 else? (IF "SOMETHING ELSE, " ASK: ) SOMETHING ELSE 6 What would that be? MIXED/BI-RACIAL 7 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED 9 And now, for one final question, keeping in mind that your answers are held strictly confidential. . . . 118 . Is your pre-tax yearly household UNDER $50, 000 1 income over or under $75, 000? $50, 001-$75, 000 2 IF "OVER, " ASK: $75, 001-$100, 000 3 Is it over $100, 000? (IF "YES, " $100, 000-$125, 000 4 ASK: ) Is it over $125, 000? OVER $125, 000 5 IF "UNDER, " ASK: DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 6 Is it under $50, 000? Thank you for your time. Good-bye. 119. Gender (DO NOT ASK) MALE 1 FEMALE 2 120 . REGION OF CITY (FROM LIST)