HomeMy WebLinkAbout3. Discussion: Community Center Feasibility Study Task Force Recommendation
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Community Center Task Force
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
From: Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Director
Meeting Date: March 15,2005
Subject: Community Center Expansion Feasibility Study Report
INTRODUCTION
The attached Community Center expansion feasibility study will be presented at a
special meeting at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 15 in the City Council Chambers. The
Community Center Task Force and Parks and Recreation Advisory Board will be in
attendance. Steve Blackburn from Barker Rinker Seacat (BRS) will be leading the
presentation.
BACKGROUND
In 2003, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended to City Council that the
City undertake a Parks and Recreation needs assessment of residents to get their
opinion on Parks and Recreation services. In addition to their current satisfaction, the
Advisory Board wanted feedback on future needs, as well as priorities of service should
reductions become necessary.
The survey concluded that trails, park and open space, and the Community Center were
the three highest priorities for residents. The city's park and trail plan is being updated to
ensure we are planning appropriately for future trail, park, and open space needs, as
well as addressing any current deficiencies.
The survey found that 61% of respondents have used the existing Community Center,
and expansion of the Community Center ranks third in support for improvements to the
parks and recreation system. Indoor swimming, expanded cardio/strength training, and
indoor playground are the three most desired amenities.
In order to assemble a plan for the future of the Community Center, City Council created
the citizen task force in the spring of 2004 to evaluate options for the community center.
These options included closing the facility, privatizing, expanding through a partnership,
expanding through public financing, or doing nothing.
After considering the five options the task force came to consensus with the following
recommendation:
1. The City of Shakopee should pursue an expansion of the Community Center
with public financing (referendum), but continue to explore potential
partnerships or alliances for operating specific components of the facility
where another orgqnization might bring experience and expertise that would
benefit the city.
1
2. The expansion should consider those items identified by residents in the
2003 parks and recreation survey, as well as facilities that have been shown
to generate revenue in other cities:
. Indoor pool . Multi-Use/2nd Sheet Facility
. Enhanced Fitness . Recreational Field House
. Indoor Playground . Birthday Party Rooms
. Banquet Rooms . Senior Center
. Caters Kitchen . Concessions/Snack Bar
. Child Care . Police Substation
. Meeting Rooms . Office
3. The facility should be a quality facility that is designed to minimize staffing
and operating costs.
4. Needed repairs should be made to the existing building as part of the
expansion process.
5. Residents should decide whether or not they support expansion of the
Community Center by holding a special referendum election in winter or
spring 2005. The preliminary referendum amount would likely be $10 million -
$15 million.
6. The City should retain professional services to conduct further analysis of an
expansion. This analysis should include:
1. Additional market analysis and feasibility study.
2. Identification of costs for constructing specific desired amenities, as well
as income vs. expenses for each amenity.
3. Formation of a citizen group that would participate in this process,
specifically including individuals that were part of the recent school district
referendum.
City Council endorsed the task force's recommendation, and directed staff to proceed
with providing support for continued work by the task force. In the fall of 2004, City
Council authorized staff to issue an RFP for professional services to conduct program
identification, market analysis, cost estimates, and concept drawings for an expansion to
the Community Center. We received nine proposals from teams that typically consisted
of architect, engineer, and market study firms. A team lead by Barker Rinker Sea cat
from Denver, Colorado was selected to conduct the feasibility study.
Barker Rinker Seacat and their team members Ballard*King (financial analysis) and
Bonestroo Sports (local representation) began the feasibility study work with the citizen
task force in December of 2004. There was, by no doubt, an aggressive time schedule
set for this work in order to complete the feasibility study before spring. The Task Force
met on the following dates:
MeetinQ Date Topics
December 14 Introductory meeting, project mission, facility expansion wish list
January 10 Market study, concept plans, preliminary cost estimates
2
January 26 Prioritization of project components
February 28 Joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to
review updated concept plans, cost estimates, and preliminary
financial operating analysis, and to formulate a recommendation
to City Council
Members of the task force and contributors to the feasibility study included the following
individuals:
Deanna Benner Matt Lehman
Marty Berens Mark Luhmann
Phil Burke Dorj Maddox
Ron Carlson Bessie Marschall
John Clay Scott Mauer
Jamie Colby Jon McBroom
Steve Czech Diana McClay
Bernice Dellwo-Samstad Don McNeil
Jim Dorenkamp Steve Menden
Jane Dubois Jeff Meyer
Lois Duede Wahneta Meyeraan
Dan Gasow Eric Nutter
Dave Greening Steve O'Neill
Randy Gregor Melody Olson
Brad Gripentrog Kristin Pufahl
James Haeg Shirley Reinke
Kitty Hauer Jeff Sievek
Darren Iverson Arvid Sornberger
Joe Jasper Gretchen Theis
Cindy Justice lone Theis
Dan Kubitz Mike Thelen
Marie LaTour Mike Vogel
Jeff Lee Steve Zastrow
DISCUSSION
The following is a brief summary of the information contained in the complete feasibility
study report, as well as more detailed information regarding considerations for a
referendum and bond sales. The summary information below follows the format of the
full feasibility study report.
Market Study
Jeff King from Ballard*King completed the market study to determine whether the
primary and secondary market could support the components being proposed in the
expansion. The summary of the market study is as follows:
'Weekly participation in active recreation activities from full-time residents
within the primary service area can be expected to be somewhere in the
range of 12% to 18% of the population, which equals approximately 4,160
to 6,240 individuals (based on 2004 population estimates for the primary
service area). This is a significant population base to rely on for the
operation of a full-scale recreation facility.
3
The success of similar facilities in other areas of the Twin Cities indicates
that these types of recreation centers have been cost effective in meeting
local recreation needs. The key to the operational success of the center
will depend in part on its ability to draw from a significant percentage of
the outlying service area as the population of Shakopee continues to
grow. It also must be kept in mind, that due to the fact that there is some
competition for such facilities in the area and a substantial impact from
other forms of recreation and entertainment, the rate of participation at
the center may vary."
Program and Construction Cost Estimates
As part of the feasibility study, the task force identified the "program" - the amenities that
would be added - for the expansion. The initial program list totaled over $40 million in
new construction cost. Through a prioritization and cost goal exercise, the task force
reduced the renovation and new construction costs to $19,711,000. Factoring in site
development costs, professional design fees, and a 10% contingency, the project budget
as proposed is $25,939,750.
The cost estimates have factors that account for Minnesota's higher construction cost,
as well as increases in materials and labor over the next two years before the project
would actually be bid (summer of 2006).
There was considerable discussion regarding the contingency amount. The consultant
team highly recommends a 10% contingency factor at this point in the process because
only preliminary evaluation of the existing building has been completed. If the project
were to move into final design, there woul<;l be more detailed information on the existing
conditions that would help narrow the contingency amount to less than 5% of the project
budget.
Financial Operations Analysis
Jeff King of Ballard*King also completed an operational analysis for the proposed
expansion. This analysis includes anticipated costs, staffing levels, and revenue.
The analysis is fairly complicated because it needs to factor in the existing operation and
proposed expansion. In the analysis, you will see columns for the expansion, existing
operation, and total combined building. There are some efficiencies in combining the
new operation with the existing operation. For example, some existing staff will provide
the required personnel for the expanded building (maintenance worker, recreation
supervisor - arena), and some of our existing supply costs will cover supplies needed for
an expanded building.
However, the operations of an expanded building are significant. Using a conservative
model, Mr. King estimates that the proposed building would generate $2,529,650 in
revenue, and require $2,890,575 in expenditures to operate. This results in a projected
87% cost recovery, leaving $360,925 in subsidy. Mr. King's analysis shows a 49% cost
recovery for the existing operation.
One specific item that isn't included in these figures is building rental charges. We
currently pay approximately $150,000 per year on the existing building. If the expansion
were to occur, the total rental charge would be approximately $1,000,000 according to
Gregg Voxland, the city's finance director. If the expanded building were to be charged
4
this full rental fee, it would operate at 65% cost recovery, and require over $1.3 million in
subsidy.
Mr. King noted that he knows of no other facility that is accountable for this type of
expenditure. He has factored in a line-item for capital replacement costs. This is
proposed to be funded at $60,000 per year for the first year, and gradually increase to
$250,000 per year. City Council should discuss this with the Task Force and Advisory
Board.
Existing Community Center Condition Assessment
Jim Maland from Bonestroo Sports has provided a preliminary assessment of the
existing building, and specific recommendations and costs for resolving the water
infiltration problem. Other items identified in the preliminary assessment include lighting
levels, roof access, and additional insulation in the arena.
Conceptual Design
The conceptual design section includes floor plans, site plans, and exterior elevations.
There was considerable work involved in developing the each of these due to the
existing building and site conditions. Several key considerations were used the
conceptual planning process:
. This plan creates a large central corridor with the arena and multi-use space on one
side and the pool, fitness, gymnasium, senior spaces, meeting rooms, and indoor
playground on the other, and is the most effective way to add on to the existing
building.
. It provides a central corridor where the majority of people would enter and leave
rather than multiple entrances in other plans. This would help ensure more efficient
staffing and more effective supervision.
. Although it results in the loss of the area currently used for fitness, it reuses this
space for the indoor playground, eliminating a need to build new space for this
function. It also uses the space for a main entryway from the upper level to the lower
level amenities.
. It provides a new entry on the lower side of the building, highlighting the leisure pool
component.
. It facilitates the "community center all-in-one" concept where all users come
together in a shared space, instead of a separate arena and community center
areas.
There are several challenges with this plan that would need to be discussed further as
part of any final design work, should that occur:
. The side-by-side arena results in the loss of the lower-level parking lot, which would
need to be reconstructed.
. Traffic flow into and out of the arena and multi-use space through a shared lobby
may be a concern, especially with participants that have hockey equipment.
. The overall traffic flow within the.arena and multi-use space should be evaluated
further to ensure that the team rooms and mechanical areas function appropriately.
. The size of the senior activity space (and other areas) should be evaluated to ensure
it meets the needs.
5
.
Bond Sales
The city's financial advisor, Springsted, has provided the attached information related to
issuing bonds for the proposed $25,940,000 project cost. According to Bruce Kimmel
from Springsted, $26 million in project cost requires a $27 million referendum. I was not
made aware that there are significant additional costs until Friday, March 11.
As I understand, the additional costs identified on the preliminary analysis are for
capitalized interest, sales commission, and the costs to issue the bonds. The scenario
Mr. Kimmel prepared is the "most conservative", where the city would not actually levy
the bond amount until taxes payable in 2007. In this scenario, the city would need to levy
for the additional interest costs, approximately $674,000. If the city chose to begin the
levy in 2006, the interest cost would be reduced.
Gregg Voxland, the city's finance director, provided the following preliminary information
on annual costs for a $25 million, 20-year referendum.
Annual Tax Impact
Assessors Market Value Based on 2005 Valuation Monthly
$160,000... ............ ........................ ............... $11 0 .... ........ ....... ...... ....................... $ 9.17
$187,000................ ....... ...................... ......... $130 .............................. ..... ............. $10.83 .
$213,000 (Average Household Value).......... $150 ............................ ........... ......... $12.50
$277,000.... .................................................. $190 .... ................ .... ........................ $15.83
$513,000...................... .......................... ...... $355 ........................... ........ .., ...... .... $29.58
$590,000...... ....... ...... ........ ........ .......... ......... $420 ................... ............ ................. $35.00
Mr. Kimmel will be in attendance at the meeting on Tuesday to explain the sale of bonds
and have more detailed analysis regarding the impact of starting the levy in 2006 verses
2007. He will also have specific information regarding the impact that these bond
amounts would have for households in Shakopee.
Referendum
The task force has recommended a May 24 referendum. The Judy Cox, City Clerk,
noted that the following are the requirements the city would need to adhere to:
. A special election is called for by the City Council by resolution.
. A minimum of 6-8 weeks is really needed since the ballots have to be ordered and
printed and ready for absentee voters 30 days prior to the election.
. The city pays for the election.
. The election is held at the 12 precincts.
. The ballot question is developed by the City Attorney when he prepares the
resolution for city council calling the special election.
Ms. Cox has confirmed that the precinct polling locations are available, and the City
Attorney has prepared the appropriate resolution calling the special election for the
regular City Council meeting, should City Council decide to call the election. The election
would cost approximately $11,000, and Mr. Voxland has indicated that it could be funded
from the contingency account in the general fund.
Referendum Campaign
If City Council chooses to move ahead with a referendum, the city can only provide
information. The consultant team has expressed some concern with a May election date,
which would leave only 60 days for a citizen group to market the election. However, it
may be more difficult to hold an election in June due to the end of school-year activities
6
and the start of summer activities. As I understand, several of the current task force
members are willing to continue working on a campaign.
Additional Design Services
If City Council chooses to move ahead with a referendum, BRS can develop 3-D fly
through and fly around video of the concept plan. BRS will have an example of this
product at the March 15 meeting,
BRS can prepare interior and exterior fly-throughs for $8,000. There is an additional
$1,000 fee that would allow viewers to choose specific areas that they would like to see.
BRS will need to create CAD drawings of the existing building and the proposed
expansion, convert to 3-D, add fixtures, furniture, etc., and add people. Since all the
drawings up to this point have been hand drawings, there is considerable work involved.
Although Mr. Blackburn originally estimated four weeks for production, it may be
possible to receive the product in three.
\
Finally, BRS can host the video on their web site for a charge of $150/month. The city is
in the process of developing a new web site, and it potentially could be launched by the
end of March. If we are able to launch by the end of the month, our preference would be
to host it on the city's web site.
Funding could come from the Recreation Fund for this work, with the funds from the
vacant Natural Resource Specialist position.
REQUESTED ACTION
There is a significant amount of information to cover this evening. Specific action for City
Council includes, but is not limited to, the following:
. Determining whether or not to call for a special election. If so:
)- When to have the election?
)- What amount?
)- How does that impact the project and referendum costs?
)- Do you want to authorize the 3-D video work?
7
$27,030,000
City of Shakopee, Minnesota
General Obligation Bonds
Series 2006 Community Center Project
Sources & Uses
Dated 08/01/20061 Delivered 08/01/2006
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds........................................................................................................................................... ......... $27,030,000.00
Total Sources.... ............................................................................................................................... ....... .................... $27,030,000.00
Uses Of Funds
Deposit to Project Construction Fund....................................................................................... ....... .............. ................ 25,940,000.00
Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CI F) Fund.................................................................................................................... 674,378.75
Total Underwriter's Discount {1.200% )......................................................................................................................... 324,360.00
Costs of Issuance...................................................................................................................... ................................... 90,000.00
Rounding Amount................................. ........................ ................................................................................................ 1,261.25
Total Uses....... ................... .................................................................................................................... ...................... $27,030,000.00
Series 2006 Community Cen I SINGLE PURPOSE I 3/11/2005 I 10:43 AM
la Springsted I
c- Co
1..11. Partners in Building Community
City of Shakopee
Community Center Expansion
Program Identification, Feasibility, Market e
Analysis, Cost Estimates and Concept Drawings
Final Presentation to City Council
March 15, 2005
Shakopee Community Center Ex/JI/nsion . i~i 8one~
.Ill{ i ~._
Project Schedule Project Mission
"Good health, good friends, great community"
WEEK
i~~~~~ggg~ggggggg~g
~ i.i ~~ ~ s ~ i! t! ... :: - ...:: 5;; E The goal of the Shakopee Community Center
expansion is to enhance the quality of life and
sense of community of all Shako pee residents
by providing a welcoming, centralized, multi-
functional community gathering point that
offers something for everyone in the
community. The center should offer amenities
currently lacking within the City, providing new
spaces for all ages from children to seniors.
Shakopee Community Center Expansion Shakopee Community Center Expansion .it~i~
1
Project Mission Project Mission
The Center is envisioned to be the Community's The Center is envisioned to provide Shakopee
"family room," and help create cohesiveness residents with a sense of pride and ownership,
. within the community. The Center will become a place of their own to play, skate, swim, work
a source of pride, bringing the community out, meet and socialize. The identity and image
together at a year around focal destination of the Center must be enhanced. The
point adding to Shakopee's major regional expansion should be programmed to offer a
entertainment center, and will take advantage financial family value. The center should be
of the 4 million visitors that visit Shakopee financially feasible, sustainable, and aff9rdable,
each year. and to provide outstanding service to
Shakopee area families.
Shako/:lee Community Center Ex/:lansion .[$I_~ Shako/:lee Community Center Ex/:lansion ..lif: ~~
[15l<i ..-.... .
Market & Demographics Alternate Service Providers
Service Area 2000 Census 2004 Est. 2009 Est. Exoected Weekly Particioation 12% ofoooulation 18%
Primary Service Area 26,267 34,670 46,843 Primary Service Area 4,160 6,240
Secondary Service Area .1,028,692 1,095,876 1,194,606 Conclusion: There is room in Shakopee's market for proposed expansion
Shako/:lee Community Center Ex/:lansion . IbTj. B~~ Shako/:lee Community Center Ex/:lansion .:tfj~
2
c -.,
""
'.
Recreation Activities Participation Market Orientation
Due to the increasing recreational demands there has been a Specific market areas that need to be addressed with a new
shortage in most communities of the following spaces: aquatic facility. These include:
. Gymnasiums - Leisure! recreation aquatics activities
. Pools (especially leisure pools) - Instructional programming
. Ice arenas - Fitness Programming
- Therapy Programming
. Weight/cardiovascular equipment areas - Competitive Swimming
. Indoor runninglwalking tracks - Special Events! rentals
. Meeting/multipurpose (general program) area
. Senior's adult area
. Pre-school and youth area
. Teen use area
Shakopee Community Center Expansion .[if!~ Shakopee Community Center Expansion . r~:_~
,~I{: u._ ..
Market Orientation Partnerships
Specific market segments include:
- Families
- Pre-school children
- School-age children
- Teens
- Seniors
- Special needs population
- Special interest groups
Shakopee Community Center Expansion .!bTI~ Shakopee Community Center Expansion . ,~, -~
[fJ!{[ "'-'.: .'
3
Citizen Priorities Program: Lobby! Reception! Admin
Residents of Shakopee prefer the following major
components in an expanded community center:
. Leisure Pool (warm water) with aquatic support areas
. Multi-Use Facilityl Second Ice Sheet
. Fitness Area: cardio and strength training
. Aerobics Dancel Spinning Areas
. Dedicated Senior Center wI kitchen & meeting rooms
. Indoor Playground for children
. Cafe, snack area and birthday party rooms
. Short-term child care
Shakooee Community Center Expansion . '~i Bone~ Shakopee Community Center Expansion . f~f Bone~
Jll< f u,_ .13l<' ".- .
Aquatic: Leisure Pools Aquatics Comparable Plans
Chasb CommunIty Recrericn Cenfef'. Minnesota VandalilI Recreation Center, Ohio West Deptford, NJ Aqu;dlcs Plan: 5,300 SF of LeIsure Pod W8ter + Spa
Shakopee Community Center Expansion . i*i Bone~ Shakopee Community Center Expansion . 'ire: ~~
I3K1 U..,...
4
..
..
Aquatics Comparable Plans Aquatics Comparable Plans
Durango Recreation Center: 5,300 SF of Leisl.n Pool water Broomfield AqulIb Plan: 5.220 Sf of leisure Pool water of' 2
Spa
Shakopee Community Center Expansion . (~~( ~~ Shakopee Community Center Expansion .(~~!~
Aquatics Comparable Plans Aquatics Comparable Plans
Uvonla AqUltk:. Plan: 8,140 SF Leisure PoclI water Cuyah0g8 Falls Aquatics Plan: &,600 SF of LeIsure Pool water
Shakopee Community Center Expansion . (*! Ifone~ Shakopee Communitv Center Expansion .1!?fJ ~
l'l){., ~._
5
Aquatics Comparable Plans Fitnessl Aerobics
WestervlUe Aquatics Plan: 6,700 SF ofLeiaure P()OI
Shakopee Community Center Expansion e lifl 8!!~ Shakopee Community Center Ex{)ansion eiifl~
Indoor Playground Indoor Playground
Paul Defdll Recreation Center
Apex",,",", 9I'ocrnfieJd,CokJf"ado
Arvada. Coton.do
Shakopee Community Center Expansion e i$i Bone~ Shakopee Community Center Expansion eltfj' ~
.ll]t! ~.-
6
">
;0
Indoor Playground Lockersl Support Spaces
ShakoIJee Community Center ExIJansion . !~i Bone~
(ilK: .'-",
Jogl Walk Track Extension
ShakoIJee Community Center ExIJansion . !~! Bone~ ShakoIJee Community Center ExIJansion . Il?rfi ~~
ilK: .._.
7
Community Room! Catering Banquet Rooms! Kitchens
Shako/Jee Community Center Expansion . i~i Bone~ Shakopee Community Center ExPansion . r~i Bone~
llR i ".- iDK. ".- .
Babysitting! Tot Spaces Teens
Shako/Jee Community Center Expansion . ii,fi ~~ Shakopee Community Center Expansion . ii?C! ~
8
, "
.
Senior Adult Center Ice Arena Enhancements:
Multiuse Second Arena
Shakopee Community Center Expansion . r~' Bone~ Shakopee Community Center Expansion . ,i?fi ~~
r15j{! n._
Ice Arena Enhancements: Ice Arena Enhancements:
Energy Savings Revenue
Shakopee Community Center Expansion . lif! ~~ ShakoIJee Community Center Expansion . r~; Bone~
rfJj{' n._.
9
Conceptual Site Plan
Community Center Site
Shakopee Community Center Expansion . [~i Bone~
,1lJt! w._
10
. .
Final Concept Plan Final Concept Plan
...----~~
0
I FUtuN
\ ....
, ....
L.------ "'- lliI9
"! L.bby
, ,.... -
IG)'ftU_lcl
,-
I Add. Wta& WtI&FItI1e"
: Fnn.s.
t----- ..ow SoloW
I -
o .~
L____:=__
:-
,-~
:"'"
i Md.
'---~
Upper Leve' Plan
Shakopee Community Center Expansion .1~T! B~ Shakopee Community Center Expansion . [~i Bone~
J'iJ{' ~._ .
Concept Design Perspective Option Concept Design Perspective Option
~
A. Agrarian Character B. Conlemponuy Character
Shakopee Community Center Expansion . lirfl 8$. Shakopee Community Center Expansion .lr1if1 ~
11
Concept Design Perspective Option Select a Character
A B
C
Shakopee Community Center Expansion e l~i Bone~ Shakopee Community Center Expansion elbTl ~~
;}51{1 n._
Existing Condition Assessment Existing Condition Assessment
- .
~ - - -- t,g;
""~-"""'i~~- ~I f> <-.l l :Y I ~ ~
h * "
Shakopee Community Center Expansion eliff! ~~ Shakopee Community Center Expansion e[~!~
l'il{! ..-
12
c.
. .
Existing Condition Assessment Existing Condition Assessment
ShakoIJee Community Center ExIJansion .1~iB~ Shakopee Community Center Expansion . :~l Bone~
:oK' ~.- .IlK: ~.-
Existing Condition Assessment Program & Budget Summary s
,
-....
Total of New and Renovated Space (HO,076 SF) $19,711,000 i
Site Development Costs $1,014,000
Fixtures, Furnishings and Equipment (FF&E) $1,277,000
Desian and Construction Administration $1 ,865.250
Sub-total Project Costs $23,867,250
Add 10% Contingency $2.072.500
Total Project Cost $25,939,750
Shakopee Community Center Expansion . !ifJ B.9~ ShakoIJee Community Center Expansion .[If!~
13
Planning Facility Costs Planning Facility Costs
Engineering News Record Inflation Rates
2005 Means Cost Data Minneapolis! St. Paul
Material Installation Total Year Index %Chanae .
100.3 90.3 95.8 Denver 2003 4054 +5.0
100.7 126.8 112.6 Minneapolis
99.8 122.0 109.8 St. Paul 2004 4487 +10.7
96.3 102.1 99.0 Mankato 2005 ? + 6 % as an allowance
Average City Index Modifier from Denver = 112%
Shakopee Community Center Expansion . [~i 8~~ Shakopee Community Center Expansion .!~i~
Program & Budget Detail Program & Budget Detail (Cant.)
I'Ixtllns,Ftlm'-hl -;::",u _ ~
".-
-
.....
.>>-
,,-
'l75.lQ1
'"
.....
..
~
'"
....
.
,.
'00
............uo.oiiOxI.U,-::;- ..
. b.... ;'l~
J I!IIl R__Cont<lor
;;:U,~lIIlWIIild
TotaIor 1II'od~--.cI
Sb:::;;:~.. ...
,5::
OIaIS*..DIl .. ,...
Shakopee Community Center Expansion . !bfj ~~ Shakopee Community Center Expansion .i~!~
14
.. '.
Ao
Financial Operations Analysis Financial Operations Analysis
Expenditure - Revenue Comparison
Projection EXDansion Existing Ctr. Total Building Staffina Levels Expansion Existina Staff Total Blda.
Expenditures $2,099,152 $791,423 $2,890,575 FTE (full-time equivalent) 9.25 4.95 14.2
Revenue Projections $2,138,000 $391,650 $2,529,650 Part-time (FTE) 46.5
Difference $38,848 ($399,773) ($360,925)
Recovery Percentage 101% 49% 87% FTE $589.617 $306,073 $895,690
Part-time $863.787 $160.426 $1.024.213
Proiection Exoansion Existing Ctr. Total Building Total $1,453,404 $466,499 $1,919,903
Building Rental $850,000 $150,000 $1,000,000 "(~~..
Total Expenditures $2,949,152 $941,423 $3,890,575 -; ,.::@t:""(S4
Revenue Projections $2,138,000 $391,650 $2,529,650 '-" ,
. .
Difference ($811,152) ($549,773) ($1,360,925)
Recovery Percentage 72% 41% 65%
Shakopee Community Center Expansion . i~i Bone~ Shakopee Community Center Expansion . f'~, Bone~
:BJ<: u._ .~.J<.. u._
Financial Operations Analysis Financial Operations Analysis
5-Year Revenue-Expense Comparison (no building rental fee) for Total Building 5-Year Revenue-Expense Comparison (with building rental fee) for Total Building
Shakopee Community Center Expansion . :~i Bone~ Shakopee Community Center Expansion ..~i~.
.BJ<: u._
15
Financial Operations Analysis Financial Operations Analysis
Comparison with other Cities' Community Centers Revenues, Fees and Charges
Shakopee Community Center Expansion .~! Bone~
:~R: ..-
.
Referendum Impact Referendum Impact
Community Center Referendum Community Center Referendum
General Obligation Bonds: Begin Levy in 2007 General Obligation Bonds: Begin Levy in 2006
Use of Funds Use of Funds
Deposit to Project Construction Fund $25,940,000.00 Deposit to Project Construction Fund $25,940,000.00
Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fund 674,378.75 Total Underwriter's Discount (1.200%) 316,200.00
Total Underwriter's Discount (1.200%) 324,360.00 Costs of Issuance 90,000.00
Costs of Issuance 90,000.00 Rounding Amount 3.600.00
Roundina Amount 1.261.25 Total Uses and Par Amount of Bonds $26,350,000.00
Total Uses and Par Amount of Bonds $27,030,000.00
Courtesy Springsted
Courtesy Springsted
Shakopee Community Center Expansion . '~i Bone~ Shakopee Community Center Expansion . r$! Bone~
oJ{ i ..- f1J{. ..-
16
. .
~ '"'
Referendum Impact Referendum Impact
Comrnunity Center Referendum $27 million levy Shakopee Fire Station Referendum Comparison
Household Impact $3.4 million bond
Total EMV 2005 Rate Residence MV Tax/Yr. = Taxi Mo. Tax Year Rate EMV Tax
$2,654,170,900 0.000873 $160,000 $139.70 = $11.65 1996/97 0.04245 $141,800 $60
$187,000 $163.28 = $13.61 1997/98 0.03237 $146,800 $48
Average Value $213,000 $185.98 = $15.50 1998/99 0.02909 $156,600 $46
$277,000 $241.86 = $20.16 1999/00 0.02497 $166,000 $41
$513,000 $447,92 = $37.33 2000/01 0.01980 $211,100 $42
$590,000 $515.16 = $42.93 2001102 reduced 0.00764 $195,400 $15
2002/03 0.01189 $214,900 $30
2003/04 0.01189 $240,700 $29
2004/05 0.00969 $276,800 $27
Shakopee Community Center ExlJllnsion . [iff ~~ Shakopee Community Center Expansion .i~!~
[O){' .._
Referendum Considerations Referendum Considerations
. Task Force Recommendation 5/24/05 Special Election . If Council chooses to call the election, City can only provide
. Election held at all 12 precincts infonnation, not .Vote Yes'
. Cost of election of $11,000, funded from the Contingency Account . Several members of Community Center Task Force are willing to
of General Fund continue their work on a Public Infonnation Campaign
. Sample ballot question included as part of Council resolution in . Additional Professional Services available for consideration:
General Meeting packet . 3D Video animation
. Additional graphics
. Additional presentations
Shakopee Community Center Expansion . ~~[ Bone~ Shakopee Community Center Expansion .Itf!~
'~i ..-
17
3D Video Animation Q&A: Discussion Items
. Are there specific questions regarding the Feasibility
Study?
. Do you desire to call a special eJection?
. Date of election?
. What dollar amount for bond?
. $27 million?
. If less than $27 million, what impact does this have
on the project costs, referendum costs, and
household impact?
. Do you want to authorize 3D video animation work?
Example of Animation - Exterior $4,000; Interior $4.000; Vignettes $1.000; Hosting $150IMo.
Shakopee Community Center Expansion . f'~i Bone~ Shakopee Community Center ExPansion . '~i Bone~
J'K' ....... ]3K i.......
-
18
~ "
, I
I I
I
.9
V)
<l)
II u
o:l
c..
.
~ City of
I. e
~
u
.9
V)
<l)
u
c..
. Shakopee
I ;;.-,
o:l
c..
.9
'"
<l)
II u
c..
.
..:.:
....
0
I. :::
.9
'"
<:.l
U
o:l
c.. Community Center
I. .
t::
::
~
.9
:. V) Expansion
u
g
c..
.
;;.-,
o:l
\ c.. Feasibility Study
.9
I V)
u
u
~
c...
.
..:.:
II ....
0
:::
.9 "Good health, good friends, great community"
I V)
<l)
u
o:l
I Ci..
.
~ March, 2005
u
.9
I V)
u I
u
..:2
c...
:. . I
;;.-,
o:l
c... I
.9
V)
<l) I
:. u
..:2 BARKER RINKER SEACAT
c..
ARCHITECTURE I
I In association with Ballard*King Associates and I
Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates
II 2300 Fifteenth Street
Suite 100
I. Denver, Colorado 80202
303.455.1366
Fax 303.455.7457
i. e-mail brs@brsarch.com
www.brsarch.com
II
I
__.______ .__" ___ ..___.___'_' _~_._._~. .____..___~__ ___..~~_._,,____.._......-w-~., _~_.__.-.
I
I
I
I
I TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
I Section 1 Executive Summary/ Project Mission
Section 2 Market Analysis
I
Section 3 Program and Construction Cost Estimates
I Section 4 Financial Operations Analysis
Section 5 Existing Community Center Condition Assessment
I Section 6 Conceptual Design
I Section 7 Appendix
I
I
I
I
I
I
I BARKER RINKERSEACAT
."'ltq~ll'lf~TI.lItE
In association with Ballard*King Associates
I and Bonestroo Rosene Anderiik & Associates
I ~
~
~.~m
~ c x
I a3~
~3c
~.~ ~
~~<
_.~m
0
I r
I
I !
I
i
[
I I
I
I
I
I
I i
[
I i
I
i
I I
I
I
i .
I
I I
I i .
I I ..
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I I .
I
I I
I [
i
I I
I
I
~
I BARKER RINKER SEACAT
ARCHITECTURE
I
I March 11, 2005
Members of City Council
I City of Shako pee
129 Holmes Street
Shakopee, MN 55379
I Subject: Shakopee Community Center Expansion Feasibility Study
Dear Members of Council:
I On behalf of my partners at Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture, and our consultants Ballard*King
Associates and Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates, I am pleased to submit this Feasibility Study
report for the Shakopee Community Center Expansion. We want to thank all the participants from
I Shakopee that contributed to the interactive and intensive effort over the past three and one half
months. We particularly acknowledge the participation of the Community Center Feasibility Study Task
Force, who have worked diligently on this project for a number of years. This report concludes our
I services to the City of Shakopee for the portion of the work we have been commissioned to perform.
Executive Summary
Over the past three and one half months, our planning team has analyzed the market, analyzed the
I condition of the existing Shakopee Community Center, reviewed previous studies, interviewed key
stakeholders, created a recommended program of spaces, calculated an opinion of construction costs,
and planned. several design options to provide for the indoor community, recreation and sports needs
within the City of Shakopee.
,I Key findings of the needs assessment include:
I 1. Project Mission: The Community Center Feasibility Study Task Force created a mission
statement for the project that reads:
"Good health, good friends, great community"
I The goal of the Shakopee Community Center expansion is to enhance the quality of
life and sense of community of all Shako pee residents by providing a welcoming,
I centralized, multi-functional community gathering point that offers something for
everyone in the community. The center should offer amenities currently lacking within
the City, providing new spaces for all ages from children to seniors.
I The Center is envisioned to be the Community's "family room," and help create
cohesiveness within the community. The Center will become a source of pride,
bringing the community together at a year around focal destination point adding to
I Shakopee's major regional entertainment center, and will take advantage of the 4
million visitors that visit Shakopee each year.
I The Center is envisioned to provide Shakopee residents with a sense of pride and
ownership, a place of their own to play, skate, swim, work out, meet and socialize. The
identity and image of the Center must be enhanced. The expansion should be
programmed to offer a financial family value. The center should be financially feasible,
I sustainable, and affordable, and to provide outstanding service to Shakopee area
families.
I 2300 Fifteenth Street, Suite 100
Denver,. Colorado 80202
303-455-1366 Fax 303.455.7457
I www.brsarch.com
Shakopee City Council I
March 7, 2005
Page 2 I
I
2. Market and Demographic Analysis: The median age in Shakopee is 4 years younger than
the national average. Demographic statistics in the "under 5 year old" category is 2.5% higher I
than the national level. Growth in the 5-17 year old category is 0.3% higher than the national
average, and growth in the 25-44 year old category is 8.7% higher than the national average.
The conclusion of this analysis is the Community must be multi-generational and reach out to I
all demographics within the City of Shakopee. Income, specifically disposable income, drives
participation in community and recreation centers. Household median income in Shakopee is
significcilntly higher than the national average.
3. Market Share: We believe there is adequate room in the Shakopee area market for the I
proposed expansion. We expect 4,000 to 6,000 participants per week to utilize the expanded
Shakopee Community Center. I
4. Partnerships (Hospital): No specific dedicated space has been allocated to a "Hospital
Wellness" partner; however Tom O'Conner, the CEO of St. Francis Hospital has expressed an
interest in two ideas. One is a programmatic relationship for Cardiac Phase III care! referral I
fitness activities, and secondly, the hospital would like to discuss discounted corporate
wellness memberships for hospital employees.
5. Partnel'ships (School District): A small portion of the recommended expansion has been I
allocated to new high school team locker rooms for the Shakopee Sabres Hockey team. The
school is interested in having the City of Shakopee build the shell space, and the school district
would provide "tenant finish" of the locker rooms. A future 25-yard competition lap pool has I
been shown in the overall master plan, but is not a phase 1 expansion item. Given the School
District's current financial commitments, the lap pool is not likely to be funded in the short-term.
6. Alternalte Service Providers: Alternative service providers were analyzed within the region I
including private operators (Life Time, etc.) and other public providers such as Chaska, Eden
Prairie, Egan and Cascade Bay.
7. Citizen Priorities: Residents of Shakopee prefer the following major components in an I
expanded community center:
a. Leisure Pool (warm water) with aquatic support areas
b. Multi-Use Facility! Second Ice Sheet I
c. Fitness Area including equipment for cardio and strength training
d. Aerobics Dance! Spinning Areas (shared)
e. Dedicated Senior Center with connected shared use spaces of kitchen and meeting I
rooms
f. Indoor Playground for children
g. Cafe, snack area and birthday party rooms
h. Short-term child care (2 hour limit while parents are on-site) I
8. Program and Budget: The detail of program space allocation and construction costs is shown
under the Program and Budget tab. The recommended program includes 93,650 SF area of I
new space and limited renovated existing area of 76,426 SF. We have calculated the
construction budget of $18,160,000 for the new space and $1,408,000 for the renovation. Add
to this "bricks and mortar" construction estimate, the costs for site development of $1,014,000;
FF&E of $1,277,000; Design and Construction Administration fees of $1 ,761,120; and a 10% I
contingency of $2,362,012, and the grand total opinion of estimated costs is $25,982,132.00.
I
2300. Fifteenth Street. Suite 100 I
Denver. Colorado 80202
303-455-1366 Fax 303.455.7457
I Shakopee City Council
March 7, 2005
I Page 3
I
9. Operations Analysis: Regarding operational costs, revenue projections and fees/ charges,
I Ballard*King has included the estimate of new expenses and revenues, existing expenses and
revenues for the community center and lastly, a total building summary that combines the new
expenses and revenues with the existing community center budget. Operational cost
I projections include line items for staff (full-time and part-time), utilities, water/sewer, telephone,
contract services, rental equipment, advertising/marketing, bank charges, printing, postage,
transportation, dues and training, insurance, supplies and materials and capital replacement
fund for a total of $2,099,152 for the community center expansion.
I The fees and charges used to calculate the revenues represent an increase over the existing
rates. However, a comparison of other Twin Cities metro community centers suggests that the
I proposed fees are lower than most other community centers. The revenues for the community
center expansion component are estimated at $2,138,000, giving the community center
expansion a recovery rate of 101 %. These numbers do not include debt service or building
rental charges.
I The City of Shakopee has a building rental charge fee that is a significant accounting
requirement, intended for the replacement of public buildings in the future. When inserting the
building rental line item into the operating proforma, the cost recovery projection for the facility
I expansion plummets to 72%.
When combining the community center expansion operating costs and revenues with the
I existing community center budget, the total building expenses climb to $2,890,575 with
revenues of $2,529,650 and a recovery rate of 87%. When factoring in the combined building
rental fee of $1 ,000,000, the recover rate for the total building drops to 65%. City Councilor
Steve Menden explained the reasoning for this requirement to the task force, and said the
I Council would be opened to discussing the requirement for "building rental" in the budget
further.
I 10. Existing Community Center Condition Assessment:. The engineers at BonestrooRosene
Anderlik & Associates analyzed the condition of the Shakopee Community Center. The ice
floor ground water has high levels proximate to the refrigeration pipes. A drainage fix around
the perimeter of the building is in order. The water infiltration problem is mostly along the north
I side of the building. The sloping red roofs funnel the water to certain points such as along the
men's locker wall and stair which is migrating inside the building through the block walls. There
is mold and mildew in the area where water is present. The wood floor moisture issues
I continue to plague the gymnasium area of the building.. Lighting levels were taken throughout
the main spaces of the building and are much dimmer than recommended.
11. Conceptual Design: Site Plan, floor plans and perspective drawings can be found under the
I "Concept Design" tab. Following several design alternatives, the committee directed their
preference to the recommended plans found in this section.
a. The plan creates a large central atrium with the arena and multi-use space on the west
I side and the pool, fitness, gymnasium, senior spaces, meeting rooms, and indoor
playground on the east side. We believe this is the most effective manner in which to
add on to the existing building.
I
I
I 2300. Fifteenth Street, Sjlite 100
Denver, Colorado 80202
303-455-1366 Fax 303,455.7457
Shakopee City Council I
March 7, 2005
Page 4 I
I
b. The plan provides a central corridor where the majority of people would enter and
leave rather than multiple entrances in other plans. This would help ensure more I
efficient staffing and more effective supervision of activities.
c. A/though the plan would result in the loss of the area currently used for fitness, it
reuses this space for th~ indoor playground, eliminating a need to build new space for I
this function. It also uses the space for a main entryway from the upper level to the
lower level amenities.
d. The plan provides a new entry on the lower side of the building, showcasing the leisure I
pool component, the most desirable of all the amenities.
e. The plan facilitate~ the "community center all-in-one" concept where all users come I
together in a shared space, insteadof a separate arena and community center areas.
f. The plans allow for future expansion of phase 2 spaces such as competition lap pool, I
gymnastics, fitness and weights, and a banquet room.
12. Conclusion: From our analysis, and in our professional opinion, we believe that the I
recommended phased expansion of the Shakopee Community Center fulfills the mission
statememtabove, and will provide outstanding service to Shakopee area families with a
financially feasible, sustainable, and affordable community center. We recommend the City
Council pass a resolution calling for a special election on May 24th and place the issue before I
the residents of Shakopee in the form of a ballot question developed by the City Attorney. A
minimum of 6-8 weeks is needed beforehand since the ballots have to be ordered and printed
and ready for absentee voters 30 days prior to the election. The city pays for the election. The
election is held at the 12 precincts. All 12 sites are available at this time if needed for a special I
election for May 24th.
We have enjoYE~d the collaborative process over the past few months and look forward to continuing to I
serve the City of Shako pee in the years to come.
Respectfully Submitted,
I
Steve Blackburn, AlA I
Principal
Cc: Dave Hammel, BRS
Jeff King, Ballard*King & Associates I
Jim Maland, Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates
I
I
I
2300 Fifteenth StreE!t, Suite 100 I
Denver, Colorado 80202
303-455-1366 Fax 303.455.7457
-..
I
I
I I
-, I
i
I
I I
I
!
I
I ~
III !
.., I
;II'" I
CD !
I - I
)> !
:J i
III I
-< :
I r
I i
i
I
i
I
I I
I
i
I i
!
I
I
I !
,
! '
I I I
i
i
I'
I i
,
I
I
: '
I
I i
I · '.
I '
I I
i
I
I I
I I
I '
I I '
I
I
!
I I
I
I !
I
I --
I
I
Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion
I
I Section I - Market Analvsis
To, determine the feasibility and needs assessment ,9f ran indoor recreation. center
1
I expansion in Shakopee MN., a market analysis that looks at the demographic. realities of
the area, assesses the community needs, and reviews the, existing recreation facilities ,has
been undertaken. The following is a summary of the baSIC demographic characteristics of
I the area in and around Shakopee, a comparison with basic sports participation standards
produced by the National Sporting Goods Association and an analysis of the alternative
service providers in the service area.
I Service Area: The goal of this project is to serve, first and foremost, the citizens of the
Shakopee, but it is also recognized that most recreation facilities serve a larger
I geographicaL area. In an effort to define an accurate service area for the proposed facility,
the primary service area is defined by the City of Shakopee. A primary service area is
usually defined by the distance people will travel on a regular basis (a minimum of once
I per week) to utilize a recreation facility. Use by people outside of the primary service
area will be less frequent than the primary service area and will be driven by' special
facilities (indoor play structure, leisure pool), special events (tournaments, swim meets),
I special programs (swim lessons, fitness, etc), or visitors to the area. A service area can
vary in size with the type of components that are included in a facility. A center with a
leisure pool or ice arena and other active play elements will generally have a larger
I primary service area than a more traditionally oriented facility. The secondary service
area represents a geographical area that is generally south and east of Shakopee and
includes the cities of Prior lake, Jordan, Carver and Elko. This is a large secondary
I market and it will be challenging to draw users' from the full area and there are a number
of alternative service providers in the area.
A 15 to 20 minute service area is not uncommon for recreation facilities in a more urban
I environment and the basic configuration of the primary service area supports this driving
distance. !
i
I Service Area Population: The population ofthe service area is as follows:
2000 Census 2004 Estimate 2009 Proiect.
I Primary Service Area 26,267 34,670 46,843
I Secondary Service Area 1,028,692 1,095,876 1,194,606
I Source - U.S. Census Bureau and ESRI
I
I,," December 20.2004 1
-". Barkef,Rinker'Seacat'.Atchitecturll 'Bbnestro9;.Sp'orts! .( :J3;jl~l\rq~Kirrgan.d A-Ssoc~te,s),;, , ' )
"l,~."! <.:.', .' t ':' >,:. I ~ ,'. ._' -. ':, < ~ '- ... 'd.', " '" d"_'.' ',. ", "
I
I
f , 1 f f Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion
I
, ; "Population J1)istribution by age: Utilizing census infonriation'for thepiirridiyseHrice
area, the followit}g comparisons are possible, I
\. ~ .~j) ~;
j I
-5 2,478 9.4% 6.9% +2~5%
5-17 5,057 . 19.3% 19.0% +0.3% . I
18-24 2,182 8.3% 9.6% -1.3%
25-44 10,218 38.9% 30.2% +8.7% I
45-54 2,898 11.0% 13.4% -2.4%
55-64 1,695 6.5% 8.6% -2.1% I
65-74 971 3.7% 6.5% -2.8%
75+ 766 2.9% 5.9% -3.0% I
Population - 2000 census estimates in the different age groups in the service area. I
% of Total- Percentage of the service area population in the age group.
National Population - Percentage of the national population in the age group. I
Difference - Percentage difference between the service area population and the national
population. I
The demographic makeup of the service area when compared to the characteristics of the
national population indicates that there are more individuals in the under 5,5-17 and 25- I
44 age groups and less in the 18-24,45-54, 55-64, 65-74 and 75+ age categories. These
statistics indicate the presence of a considerable number of families in the service area.
Chart- A - Prim I
40.0o/c I
35.0~'
30.0~'
25.0~'
20.0o/c III Primary Service Area I
15.0o/c . National Population
10.0~'-
5.0~'- II
O.O~'-
-5 5yrs- 18-2425-4445-5455-6465-74 75+
17 I:
December 20.2004 2 I"t
} . lBatkerWnk~r Seacat Architecture Bonestroo8ports) l' :'\'Ballard*King and AskoCiates":C
I
I
Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion
I - -
Population Distribution by age: Utilizing census info~ation for the secondary service
I <', area, the followin~, comparisons are possible. ...,{.'
I,
I -5 71,797'
I 5-17 184,507 18.0% 19.0% -1.0%
18-24 90,739 8.8% 9.6% -8.8%
I 25-44 358,293 34.9% 30.2% +4.7%
45-54 143,693 14.0% 13.4% +0.6%
I 55-64 77,308 7.5% 8.6%' -1.1 %
65-74 50,205 4.9% 6.5% -1.6%
I 75+ 52,150 5.1% 5.9% -0.8%
Population - 2000 census estimates in the different age groups in the service area.
I % of Total- Percentage of the service area population in the age group.
I National Population - Percentage of the national population in the age group.
Difference - Percentage difference betweeJ;1th~~ervice area population and the national
I population. . "'1' i
The demographic makeup of the secondary service area is closer to the distribution
I pattern of the United States than the primary service area. The secondary service area,
when compared to the characteristics of the national population indicates that there are
more individuals; in the -5,25-44 and 45-~4 ag~groups and less in ~e_ 5d},' 18-24, 55-
I 64,65-74 and 75tage groups. - . .
Chart-Al- Prima Distribution
I 35.0%
30.0%
I 25.0% .
20.0011..
15.0% - 1'1 Primary Service Area
,I 10.0% . National Population
5.0%
0.0%
I -5: 5yi"s- 18,24 25-44 45-54 55-64 -65~74 75+ i
17 ' t> I
I,; (, December 20.2004 3 1
, r::!lh~,lp'~er~~~rfS~aca~:Nppiteptwe, . . Bone,str9::ffi[I!9it.~,i- ~ B~U~r1l~~\n~b~~,M~o,*~te~ - ,1
I
I
Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion I
I, (
Population J1)istribution Comparison by Age: Utilizing census information from the I,
service area, the following comparisons are possible.
Shakopee Primary Service Area - from U.S. Census information andESRI I
1
-5 2,4 78 3,326 4,525 +82.6%
5-17 5,057 6,809 9,574 +89.3% I
18-24 2,182 2,815 3,488 +59.8%
25-44 10,218 13,086 16,572 +38.3% I
45-54 2,898 4,039 6,239 +115.2%
55-64 1,695 2,410 3,453 +103.7% I
65-74 971 1,246 1,755 +80.7%
75+ 766 940 1,239 +61.7% 1
Table B looks at the growth or decline in age group numbers in the primary service area I
from the 2000 census until the year 2009. It is projected that the numbers of individuals
across all of the spectrum show tremendous increases that reflects the growth in
Shakopee. It must be remembered that the population of the United States as a whole is I
aging and it is not unusual to find negative growth numbers in the younger age groups
and net gains nearing 30% in the 45 plus age grouping.
Chart B - l'rima ulation Growth Estimate 1
18,000
16,000 I
14,000
12,000
10,000 1ii1i12000
8,000 .2004 I
6,000 02009
4,000
2,000 I
0
-5 5yrs-17 18-24 25-44 45.54 55-64 65-74 75+
I
I
. DecelDber 2?.2004 " 4 I,!
) 'Barker RitikerSeacat Architecture . Bon~'~tfM'Sp)8rts:\S. "'Batlard*king' and A'ssbcrateS (( · . F
I
I
Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion
I
"l~' 1
I "
Shakopee Secondary Service Area - from U.S. Census jnformation and ESRI
I
I -5 71~797 76,599 84~ 185 +17.2%
5..;17 184,507 194~181 206~394 +11.8%
I 18-24 90~ 739 104,390 118~202 +30.2%
25-44 358~293 353~031 352,229 -1.6%
I 45-54 143~693 161~061 186~04 7 +29.4%
55-64 77,308 97~357 124,859 +61.5% .
I 65-74 50~205 52~961 61,430 +22.3%
75+ 52,150 56~299 61,261 +17.4%
I Table B 1 looks at the growth or decline in age group numbers in the secondary service
area from the 2000 census until the year 2009. As with the primary service area~ it is
I projected that the numbers of individuals across most of the spectrum ii show significant
increases.
I Chart Bl - Prima
400,000
I 350,000
300,000
250,000 112000
200,000 ,
I 150,000 .2004
100,000 02009
I 50,000
0
-5 5yrs-17 18-24 25-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
I
I
I
li'l' December 20.2004 5
Barker Rinker Seaoat'Architecture, 'lJonesn:o.ofS~OnSiT',.' , Balla:rd*Kiri~ and~ss()ciAtlfs' ~ l
~, .'".; " , '.' I: ,) ,::. "'''';' , ~,' '< (
I
I,
T Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion
I
Next, the median age and household income levels are compared with the national I
number. Both of these factors are primary determiners of participation in recreation
activities (st:e Table E below). The lower the median age, the higher the participation I
rates are for most activities. The level of participation also increases as the income level
goes up. Shakopee is in a very favorable market based on income and age criteria.
I
Median Agc~:
2000 Census 2004 Estimate 2009 Proiect. I
Primary Service Area 31.6 32.2 33.2 I
Secondary Service Area 34.7 35.5 36.5
Nationally 35.3 36.0 37.0 I
I
Chart- C - Median A e I
37
36
35 I
34
33 II Primary
32 . Secondary
31 o Nationally I
30
29
28
2000 2004 2009 I
I
I
I
I
December 20,2004 6 I,
01._ f ; '}:aatker'Rfnk:er geacat Architecture' - [ BonlstrOolSports ' \ · h (, 0.- Ba11ard *kirtg' arid Associ~tes'" ~ - -
I
I
I ~- .." . Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion
Median Household Income:
I 2000 Census 2004 Estimate 2009 Proiect.
I Primary Service Area $56,094 $69,561 $91,984
Secondary Service Area $60,891 $72,857 $87,582
I Nationally $42,164 $48,124 $56,510
I Chart D - Household Median Income'
I 100,000 .
80,000
I 60,000 II Primary
40,000 . Secondary
I D Nationally
20,000
0
2000 I 2004 2009
I ,
(
,
( I ;
" \'
I Note: The Median Household Income is significantly higher than the national level.
However, the median household income level must be balanced against the cost of living
I for the area to determine discretionary income potential for recreation purposes. When
factoring the cost of living, which the Twin Cities is rated 278 in the United States
according to The Places Rated Almanac, 1 the median household income is still high and
I is s~ffi~ierit tosufPort recreational activiti~s. There are 354 cities rated in this
pubhcatlOn~ '. '
I Section II - Recreation Activities Participation
I Each year the National Sporting Goods Association (NSGA) conducts an in depth study
and survey of how Americans spend their leisure time. This information and data 1"';
provides the data necessary to overlay rate of participation onto the Shakopee service
area to determine market potential. In addition a study that was commissioned by the
I National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) in 2002 was also utilized to determine possible
participation levels' in a variety of cultural arts activities. l
I
1 "Places rate Almanac," David Savageau;IDGBooksWorldwide; Published 2000;
I December 20.2004 7 I
I ' . Blir~erRi~~t,($ea?,t;Architrcture ' -BonestJ;oo~P?tfi$i ' BallllJ'd;fKtI\gan~ ~ssociates.'
I
I
, 1 1 iT , , ,
, Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion
I
Comparison With National Statistics: Utilizing information from the National Sporting -:
Goods Association and comparing them with the demographics from the primary service I~
area, the following participation projections can be made (statistics were compared based !'.
on median age, median household income, regional population, and national population). "
)
Participation Estimates -'- Primary service area from the National Sporting Goods 11
t
Association.
I:
Aerobic 18.8% 14.6% 11.2% 10.9% 13.8% I
Basketball 11.5% 15.0% 9.7% 10.9% 11.7%
Billiards 21.3% 11.8% 12.4% 11.9% 14.3% I
Exercise Walking 37.8% 35.1 % 31.0% 31.0% 33.7%
I
Exercise w/Equip. 23.3% 27.3% 20.3% 19.0% 22.4%
Racquetball 1.6% 1.2% 1.2% 1.0% 1.2% I
Running/jogging 16.6% 12.5% 8.6% 9.0% 11.6%
Ice Hockey .7% 1.3% 0.3% .7% 0.7% 1\
Swimming 18.6% 25.8% 16.2% 18.4% 19.7%
,
,
Tennis 6.3% 6.4% 3.4% 3.7% 4.9% f
I'
Weight Lifting 17.8% 14.0% 9.1% 10.1% 12.7%
.
In-Line Skating 5.7% 7.0% 7.1% 6.2% 6.5%
Martial Arts 2.1% 2.3% 0.9% 1.9% 1.8%
Figure Skating 1.2% 2.4% 2.9% 2.0% 2.1% ,
I
In-Line Hockey 0.4% 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%
Volleyball 5.6% 5.6% 5.8% 4.1% 5.2% I
Workout at Clubs 19.1% 16.6% 10.7% 11.5% 14.4% I
Baseball 3.6% 7.9% 4.3% 5.7% 5.3% ,!
Soccer 2.7% 7.0% 4.0% 4.3% 4.5% I
Softball 6.3% 6.2% 5.0% 4.6% 5.5%
Fishing 14.1% 12.3% 16.8% 13.0% 14.1% II'
Income: Participation based on the 2004 estimated median household income in the i..
service area. I:
Age (median): Participation based on median age of the service area.
Region: Participation based on regional statistics (West, North Central, U.s.). 1
National: Participation based on national statistics. r
Average: Average of the other four columns. I'
December 20,2004 8 Ii
['tIT .r ;n BlirkerRldker S-eacat Architecture' ' Bonestfod Sports ' ,~,' I' -,'" "-",' - " I " . " ~ ',,<,
",l '" Ballaid*King and Associates' , ' ,
I
I
I Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion
I Anticipated Participation Numbers by Activity. Utilizing the average percentage from
Table E above plus the 2004 population estimates, the following mark~t potential
projections are possible.
I \
I Aerobics 13.8% 4,784 151,230 156,014
Basketball 11.7% 4,056 128,217 132,273
I Billiards 14.3% 4,957 156,710 161,667
Exer. Walk 33.7% 11,683 369,310 380,993
I Exer. w/Equip 22.4% 7,766 245,476 253,242
Racquetball 1.2% 417 13,150 13,567
I Running/jogging 11.6% 4,032 127,121 131,153
Hockey .7% 242 7,671 7,913
Swimming 19.7% 6,829 215,887 222,716
I Tennis 4.9% 1,703 53,697 55,400
l
, Weigh Lifting 12.7% 4,403 139,176 143,579
I In-Line Skate 6.5% 2,259 71,231 73,490
Martial Arts 1.8% 625 19,725 20,350
l
I Fig. Skating 2.1% 729 23,013 23,742
In-Line Hockey .4% 139 4,383 4,522
I Volleyball 5.2% 1,807 56,985 58,792
Workout Club 14.4% 5,005 157,806 162,811
I ~ ' Soccer 4.5% 1,560 49,314 50,874
I
Fishing 14.1% 154,518 !
4,888 159,406
I Note: The estimated participation numbers indicated above are for recreation activities
and do not translate into expected attendance figures for the proposed Shakopee
recreation center since many participants will utilize other facilities for recreation
I activities, including a persons home~
I
I ~,*,
.I,~ December 20.2004 9
-' (Barker Rirtl<:er Seacat'Architec~e Bo~estr()olSpq1:ts ;\. .IJ~llard *Kin~iu).dt\ssdcrat1f~.,J. I I
',,' d..', :;.,"!)~" r: ~'_.~ </: ,-t. ",',>:C. '( ; '_l ' , 'l ..
I
I
! ' ,
Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion I
Anticipated Swimming Participation by Age: A swimming component has been
identified as one of the desired components in a Shakopee community center through I'
public meetings. Using the census numbers by age group and 2003 NSGA participation
,~' I figures by age, the following participation 'figures are possible. f
,
TaBle G- Al~e Distribution for Swimming ,I
I
7-11 1,161 37,862 I
12-17 42.6% 15.7% 1,072 33,894 34,966
18-24 25.6% 12.6% 860 27,202 28,062 I
25-34 25.0% 15.4% 1,052 33,247 34,299
35-44 23.5% 16.9% 1,154 36,484 37,638 I
45-54 17.4% 11. 7% 799 25,258 26,057
55-64 13.7% 5.3% 362 11,442 11 ,804 I
65-74 11.6% 2.8% 191 6,045 6,236
+75 10.4% 2.6% 178 5,614 5,792 I
Total 6,829 215,887 222,716
% of Age - Percent of this age group that participates in swimming I
% of Total- Percent of the total population that participates in swimming I
Note: It is important to realize that the number of swimmers listed above includes all
forms of swimming at any location, including a lake, river, backyard pool or other similar I
facility .
IJ
I
I
I
'J~ ~, , ,1.1- I,~ ~. , ..:
I' , I 'II I
December 20.2004 ' ,10 ,I"
r.;; f f (' IB~k~t:iu-'\ll&rseacat Atchitdctu're ' .', ': ;" 'Bohestroo Sports';'; ,l\, :BafIa'td>i<'Kirig and Assbciafes:;gt~" I', , j, I
I
I
I Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion
.f ' , " I
I Participation Correlation: The primary orientation of most community recreation
cent~rs hswimming and other aquatjc activitie~.th,at ~il(~nh~nqe ustf ,of iheJ~~iFty: The
!follOvying table illustrat~s the participationc?rrela~o,p.:wh~~ m\lltipl~ pon;tpqq.~p.tsaQ,d
I activities are located in the same facility or . location. ,The synergy created by c0mbining
activities. or components together has. a tendency to i i,ncre~s~ attendance and traffic. flow
through a facility. With this in mind, and utilizing information provided by the National
I Sporting Goods Association's 2003 survey, the following .correlation between people
who participate in swimming and other recreation activities is possible.
I
Aerobics 18.9% 35.5%
I Exercise with Equipment 30.4% 33.1%
Bicycle Riding 34.5% 45.5%
I Basketball 26.3% 49.7%
Exercise Walking 45.2% 30.1%
I Hiking. 24.9% 45.1%
Running/Jogging 21.5% 47.4%
I Tennis 11.0% 54.9%
Volleyball 11.9% 57.0%
I Weight Lifting 19.8% 38.7%
I Percent of Swimmers - The percentage of swimmers who would participate in the given
activity .
I Percent of Activity Participants - The percentage of the listed activity participants
who would also participate in swimming.
I These correlation statistics indicate the strong relationship between those people who
participate in aquatics and other activities. These statistics also indicate the importance of
I having a recreation center located in a park to increase usage in other areas of the park.
I ~.- '"
i' I'
il ., ~~.~. '" .'.; ~
t'"
! : ~:'('~, l~. Y l " j ,"('1..1, i...,;
~ ."
lit'T:; ~' December 20.2004 11
-J: . ;B~k~ri~~T~~~a.~I.\~~rchit~cture ' ' ~~nestrA&~pOns,;r' S'.' i!~~Ij.~~~ISW~:~~A~so~i!l~~~ I
;r.,: . J. \,~
I
I
Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion I
Summary (]If Sports Participation: The following chart summarizes participation in
various sports and leisure activities utilizing information from the 2003 National Sporting I
Goods Assodation.
I
Exercise Walking 1 25-34 79.5 I
Exercise w/equip 3 22.4% 25-34 48.6
Swimming 4 19.7% 7-11 47.0 I
Fishing 6 14.1% 35-44 38.2
Billiards 8 14.3% 18-24 30.5 I
Aerobics 9 13.8% 25-34 28.0
Basketball 10 11. 7% 12-17 27.9 I
Weight Lifting 11 12.7% 18-24 25.9
Running/jogging 15 11.6% 18-24 22.9 I
.Inline Skating 18 6.5% 7-11 18.8 "
Baseball 19 5.3% 7-11 13.7 I
Softball 21 5.5% 12-17 11.8 ,
Soccer 23 4.5% 7-11 11.1 I
Volleyball 24 5.2% 12-17 10.4
Tennis 25 4.9% 12-17 9.6 I
~igure Skating 35 2.1% 7-11 5.1 i
I I'
Martial Arts 37 1.8% 12-17 4.8
Ice Hockey 44 .4% 7-11 1.8
Rank - Popularity of sport based on national survey. I
% Particip:ation - Percent of population that would participate in this sport based on the I
average percentage in Table C above.
Total Participation - The total participation for the activity based on a national survey. I
I
2 Participation percentage developed in Table D on page 9.
. December 20.2004 12 I"
;~ , !i.Bilrket- Rifiker Seacat Architecture Bci~estr()o sports . 1/\ Ba.llard*Kin'g and Assochitesfc'i
I
I
Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion
I Comparison of State Statistics with National Statistics: Utilizing information from the
I National Sporting Goods Association, the following charts illustrate the participation
numbers in selected sports in Minnesota.
I Minnesota participation numbers as reported by the National. Sporting Goods Association
,in 2003.
I
I 501 25-34 25-34 36/36
Basketball 439 12-17 12-17 23/20
I Baseball 306 7-11 7-11 22/23
Billiards 674 18-24 25-34 32/31
I Exer. w/Equip. 893 25-34 35-44 37/39
Exer. Walking 1,495 25-34 35-44 43/42
I Fishing 999 35-44 35-44 34/34
Running/Jog 371 25-34 25-34 30/27
Soccer 276 7-11 7-11 16/17
I Softball 277 12-17 12-17 28/21
t Swimming 712 7-11 12-17 33/31
I Tennis 253 12-17 25-34 28/30
Volleyball 264 12-17 12-17 26/23
I Weight Lifting 509 18-24 25-34 31/34
In-Line Skating 506 12-17 7-11 19/19
I ; Workout at Club, 462 25-34 25-34 37/38
Participation - The number of people (in thousands) in Minnesota who participated
I more than once in the activity in2003 and are at least seven years of age.
Age Group - The age in which the sport is most popular. The age groups with the
I highest percentage of the age span participants in the activity. Example: the highest
percent of an age group that participates in swimming is 7-11. This is a national
statistic.
I Largest Number - The age group with the highest number of participants. Example: The
greatest number of swimmers is in the 35-44 age group. Note: This statistic is driven
I more by the sheer number of people in the age group than by the popularity of the sport
in the age span. This is a national statistic.
I. December 20.2004 . j,:,;j 13 r
, Barker ~riker Sea<;:~l Archifecture I. . Bone*qp .~pqr,t~ : ;B,\llla,rd*Kin~ and Assqcia~~s- 1
- 1 " .1 ~ ,-' _' i ..C_ ': -.' . '.-..'. .."
I
I
1
Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion I
Minnesota sport percentage of participation compared with the population I
percentage of the United States - Minnesota's population represents 1.8% of the
population of the United States (based on 2003 statistics). I
In-Line Skating 3.2 I
Fishing 3.0 I
Tennis 2.6
Soccer 2.5 I
Volleyball 2.5
Softball 2.3 I
Billiards 2.2
Baseball 2.1 I
Weight Lifting 2.0
Exer. Walking 1.9 I
Basketball 1.6 I
Running/Jogging 1.6 I
Workout at Club 1.6
Swimming 1.5 ,
I
Note: Sports participation percentages refer to the total percent of the national population I
that participates in a sport that comes from the State of Minnesota. It is significant that
swimming participation exceeds the percentage of the national population.
I
I
I
. December 20.2004 14 If
I '1:.\ . 'Barker Rihker'seacatAtchitectufe . Boil&tMb :Sports <:' ,jI . BatIMa*Klng luioAssoc1ates ,- :1:-
I
I
, .'.-~ . Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion
I '.,h... ,-,-
Sports~an~LLeisure"Market Potenti~l: The. Sports and Leisure.Market Potential (MPI)
,. ,^~r '..,
,I '. measures .the. r~lative.likelihood of adults. in Shakopee to exhibit consumer behavior. or
'.,-.' ~ . "'OJ J'd'., ....' ',d. " ". , . '", ... .' . '
purch~~l\tJ?at,tef\ls~p~pared to the, V:S.av~rage: The table ,R~lq\V illustrates theMar~et
Pote?tiarnpexr(MPI) (or Shakopee. AJ,l.MPIoflOO representsthelJ.~. average. .
I i ,~. ' t ",H";'- t<.'"r~'l . "('- -:',y..
Table L .,...Market Potential Index
I t
130 I
Weight Lifting 122
I Aerobics 114
Exercise. w/equipment 113
I Exercise walking 110
Swimming 107
I Basketball 106
Tennis 103
I Ice Skating 96
Volleyball 95
I Source: ESRI
I In addition to the Market Potential Index, ESRI evaluates recreation expenditures in the
form of a Spending Potential Index (SPI). The SPI is household based and represents the
amount spent for a product or service relative to a national average of 100. The SPI for
I fees for recreational lessons in Shakopee is 143, or $172.49 per year. The SPI for
recreation lessons is significantly higher than the national average. The SPI for fees to
participate in sports is also higher than the national average scoring 140.
I
I
I
I
I
;,.I;n): December 20.2004 15 ,
i t, j ~'\3~1'e~!~e.r~~r'ae~flArchit~ctpre ; :~9P.es,t~1)6 ~po~s 'B~I~q~K~ll~and Associates, 1
I
I
, r. T f
Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion I
Aquatic Activity and Facility Trends: Without doubt, the hottest trend in aquatics is the
leisure pool concept. This idea of incorporating slides; current channels, fountains, zero I!
depth entry and other water features into a pool's design has proved to be extremely
popular for the recreational user. The age of the conventional pool in most recreational 1,
settings has been greatly diminished. Leisure pools appeal to the younger children (who I,
are the largest segment of the population that swim) and to families. These types of
facilities are: able to attract and draw larger crowds and people tend to come from a
further distance and stay longer to utilize such pools. This all translates into the potential I
to sell more admissions and increase revenues. It is estimated conservatively that a leisure
pool can generate up to 25% to 30% more revenue than a comparable conventional pool
and the cost of operation, while being higher, may be offset through increased revenues. I
Of note is the fact that patrons seem willing to pay a higher user fee for a leisure pool
than a conventional aquatic facility. Revenues for aquatic centers are also enhanced when
they are combined with other outdoor and indoor recreation amenities. I
Despite the recent emphasis on recreational swimming and therapy, the more traditional
aspects of aquatics (including swim teams, instruction and aqua fitness)' remain as the I
foundation for many aquatic centers. The life safety issues associated with teaching
children how to swim are critical concerns in most communities and competitive swim
team programs through United States Swimming, high schools, and other community 'I
based organizations continue to be important. Aqua fitness, from aqua exercise to lap
swimming, has enjoyed strong growth during the last ten years with the realization of the
benefits of water-based exercise. I
Another trend that is growing more popular in the aquatics field is the development of a
raised temperature therapy pool for rehabilitation programs. This has usually been done I
in association with local health care organizations or physical therapy clinics. The health
care organization either provides capital dollars for the construction of the pool or agrees
to purchase so many hours of pool time on an annual basis. This form of partnership has I
proven to be appealing to both the medical side and the organization that operates the
facility. The health care industry sector receives the benefit of a larger aquatic center plus
other amenities that are available for' their use without the capital cost of building the I
structure. In addition, they are able to develop a much stronger community presence
away from atraditional medical setting. The facility operators have a stronger marketing
position through an association with the health care industry and a user group that will I
provide a solid and consistent revenue stream for the center. This is enhanced by the fact
that most therapy uses occur during the slower mid-morning or afternoon use times in the
pool and th~~ center. Ii
The leisure pool concept of delivering aquatics services continues to grow in acceptance
with the idea of providing for a variety of aquatics activities and programs in an open
design setting. The' placing of traditional instructional/competitive pools with shallow 1\
depth/interactive leisure pools and warm water therapy pools in the same enclosure has
been well fl~ceived in many markets. This idea has proven to be financially successful by "
centralizing pool operations for recreation services providers and through increased I"
,.
generation of revenues from patrons willing to pay for an aquatic experience that is new
December 20.2004 16 I~
~. ~.. T 1 I 'Barker Rinker SbacatArchitecture ' Bonestfoo'Sports Ballimf*King . and Assbcfates
I
I
Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion
I
. and exciting. Outdoor aquatic centers have been instrumental in developing a true family
I. appeal for community-based facilities. The keys to success for this type of center revolve
. t around the concept of int~rgenerational use in a quaFty facility that has an exciting an~
vibrant feel in an outdoor atmosphere.
I ,Nationally, swimming is fourth meaning that there is a significant market for aquatic
activities. Almost 20% of the population in this region of the country participates in
I aquatic activities. The largest age. group for. participation. in aquatic activities is in. the
younger age groups, with nearly 51% of all kids 7-11 participating in swimming. More
than 33% of all swimmers are under the age of 18 years, and nearly half are under the age
I of 25. In addition, swimming interest in older adult categories is increasing as Baby
Boomers are moving through the demographic age distribution. Individuals that swim do
so on a regular basis with an average of 37 days per year. This indicates that there is not
I only a large segment of the population that participates in aquatic activities, but they
participate on a relatively consistent basis.
I Ice Activity and Facility Trends: The ice rink market nationally. enjoyed substantial
growth in the 1990's. In the early 1990's, USA Hockey experienced a 76% increase in
I registered teams and the United States Figure Skating Association (USFSA) reported a
49% increase in membership from 1990 to 1995. However, growth in hockey has leveled
off since 1997, only seeing a marginal increase and in 2000 actually saw a small decrease
I in USA Hockey membership. This slow down in the growth rate coincides with the
phenomenal growth of in line hockey. USA Hockey In-Line Executive Director estimates
that over 500,000 people participate in In-Line Hockey leagues. The Director sees In-
I Line Hockey becoming an Olympic sport in the near future. However, it must be kept in
mind. that despite this huge increase, in-line hockey still does not rank in the top 50
activities. By comparison, ice hockey ranks 44th in popularity of sports with 1.8 million
I participants nationwide, while figure skating ranks 35st with 5.1 million participants.
As a result of conversations with the locaL hockey association representatives there are
indications that the demand for ice time in Shakopee has remained strong and consistent
I over the past few years. :This seems to be consistent to what is occurring on a National
level with youth hockey. Youth hockey is the cornerstone of the Shakopee ice rink by
virtue of renting or leasing the largest block of ice time.
I To serve the. ice market, communities all around the country have been building ice rinks
in record numbers. Minnesota is no exception. Ice rinks are one of the few public
I recreation facilities that have the ability to cover operating expenses with revenue and the
majority of rinks are meeting this expectation or at least coming close. However, very
few public rinks are able to recover any capital cost through generated revenues.
I It must be recognized that despite the popularity of ice related activities, there is still a
finite market for ice and there is always a danger of over building and over saturation.
I This situation was witnessed during the 1970's in the Midwest, when a large number of
rinks (especially private) closed in metropolitan areas when supply out-weighted the
I December 20.2004 17 r
J JJi~arkerJ-~i~e(~~aca~ Archi~ectpre ::Elpnesttoo Sports Ballar4 *t<.ingand Associates 1
- h . . .. . (
I
I
T
Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion I
demand for ice time. The relatively high cost of programs and equipment as well as the
length of the season, time commitment, and travel requirements impact hockey I,
participation, . especially for youth. The unavailability of Ice. time on a year around basis
has advers'ely affected the figure skating numbers. \
i, i, '
As a point of reference, listed below are a number of registered youth hockey players in I
Minnesota through USA Hockey. It is clear that the emergence of females playing
hockey have resulted in the small growth in USA Hockey registration. I
USA Hockey Registration Trend in Minnesota
I
2002/2003 36,538 8,330 44,868 I
2001/2002 35,457 7,790 43,247
2000/2001 35,821 7,352 43,173
1999/2000 36,169 6,951 43,120 I
1998/1999 36,484 6,517 43,001
I
USA Hockey National Registration Trend
I
356,237 402,208 I
2001/2002 357,764 42,242 400,006
2000/2001 356,426 39,693 396,119
1999/2000 353,909 37,028 390,937 I
1998/1999 344,310 34,156 378,466
I
, Source: USA Hockey I
I
I
I
I 18
. ' " December 20.2004 . I-
I ] ;tll :,;L' Bark~r(Riftker S'eacat Arch.itedure BonestrooSports . ' /Ba1lard*King and Associ~tes:'; , ,
, I-
I
I
Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion
I
.,
I Recreation Activity and Facility Trends: Due. to. the increasing recreational d~mands
there has been a shortage in most communities of the following spaces.
I:' i GYmnasiums f r T
, Poqls (especially It?isurepools)
~' V'{.;
Ice arenas
i We~ght/cardiovascular equipment areas
Ii
Indoor running/walking tracks
., Me~ting/multipurpose (general program) area
I Senior's adult area
Pre-school and youth area
Teen use area
I As a result, many communities have attempted to include these amenities in public
community recreation centers. Weight/cardiovascular space is in high demand and
I provides a facility with the potential to generate significant revenues (along with the
leisure pool). Gyms, due to their flexibility and versatility are needed for both youth and
adult activities. Ice arenas, although expensive to build and operate, have the potential to
I generate positive cash flow.
The success of most public community recreation centers is dependent on meeting the
I recreational needs of a variety of individuals. The fastest growing segment of society is
the 'senior population and meeting the needs ofthis group is especially important now and
will only grow more so in the coming years. Indoor walking tracks, exercise areas, pools
I and classroom spaces are important to this age group. Marketing to the younger more
active senior is paramount, as this age group has the free time available to participate in
leisure activities, the desire to remain fit, and more importantly the disposable income to
I pay for such services.
Youth programming has always been a cornerstone for recreation services and will
"I donthlUeto be so with an increasedempha~is on teen needs a~d provlding a dete*ent;. to
jpvenile. crime. . With a continuing increase in single parent households and !\yo ;~orking
parent families, the needs of school age children for before and after school activities
continues to grow as does the need for preschool programming. Youth Fitness has
I emerged asa growing concern on a national level as the U.S. Surgeon's General singled
out child obesity as a near epidemic in the United States. The obesity rate in youth is
approaching 20%. Of this population, 70% will'carry-obesity into adulthood. Health care
I , 'cost for treating obesity related decease is approaching that of the tobacco ~industry. The
U.S. Surgeon's General lists the lack of physical activity and sedentary lifestyleastw? of
the contributing factors for the increasing obesity rate. To combat this trend, some
I communities are incorporating a youth fitness component within the recreation center
designed.
I
December 20.2004 19
,1,--..- . " :i:,~"i~~arle,~ ~~~r4Se'a9~t;8rchit~ctut'e, . Bpnestrb(),~P,9~~-,ii ;.; :'Balf d?i'K" '~'anaAss()Qi'lesY-
': I' ", . _ ~" i ' ; ~ : ..,.:... .J ,,',.':..,-'J.. .... '.u!:'. ,3.If ,... ill8:, :, 1.\' ~"\'-_:
I
(!
I
, T .' I
Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion I
The ever-inc:reasing demand for programming has put a real squeeze' on'the number of
indoor recreation facilities that are available. Recreation has historically utilized school I
facilities during non-school hours for its programs and services. Shakopee Parks and
Recreation has enjoyed a long history of sharing space with the Shakopee School District.
However, the limits of using school facilities (unable to have consistent use), the growth I'
in school sports, and the expansion of Community Education Evening School curriculum.
The lack of daytime program space and conflict with scheduling facilities in the evening I
has pushed communities to build separate recreation centers or partner with schools to
enlarge facilities. 'Even with these new centers, use of school buildings has continued to
be strong and has allowed for the growth in programs and services in an effort to keep I
pace with demand.
As more and more communities attempt to develop public community recreation centers I
the issues of competition with other providers in the market area have inevitably been
raised. The loudest objections have come from the private health club market and their
industry voice, The International Health, Racquet and Sports Club Association (IHRSA). I
The private sector has vigorously contended that public facilities unfairly compete with
them in the market and has spent considerable resources attempting to derail public
projects. However, the reality is that in most markets where public community centers I
have been built, the private sector has not been adversely affected. In fact, in many cases
the membership in private clubs has continued to grow. This is due in large part to the
fact that public and private providers serve markedly different markets. One of the other I
issues of competition comes from the non-profit sector (primarily YMCA's but also
JCC's, and others), where the market is much closer to that of the public providers.
While not as vociferous as the private providers, the non-profits often express concerns I
over public community centers. What has resulted from this is a strong growth in the
number of partnerships occurring between the public and non-profit sectors in an attempt
to bring the best recreation amenities to a community. I
With diminishing or capped tax revenues, recreation departments have become much
more r~venue driven during the last ten years. The need for programs and services to I
recover at least their direct cost of operation is now more critical than ever, especially
when tax proceeds are unable to keep pace with the basic operating cost increases
(utilities, etc.). As important as the programs and services are, the focus is now much I
more on how to market and promote activities and recreation amenities to ensure a
positive revenue stream. This has forced parks and recreation professionals to take a
more entrepreneurial attitude in their recreation and indoor facility planning and I
operations. There is a movement across the country that is embracing a user pay
philosophy for recreation programs and facilities. This movement clashes with the
foundation of public recreation and threatens the integrity .of providing recreation
'activities as a service provided by local government; regardless of a person's, ability to I
pay.
I I I' I :f I
December 20.2004 20 I,t
1 l(;'B~ke'r :RInker SeacatArchitecture Bonestroo'8ports I : Ballard*King and Assbcla:tes ,I '1
I
I
Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion
I
As. a comparison, below are listed. some of the most popular traditional sports and the
I percentage. of growth or decline that each has experienced nationally over the 'last. ten
years(1994-2003). . ' ""
'f "
I
29.0
I Exercise Walking 70.8 79.5 + 12.2%
Running/Jogging 20.6 22.9 +11.1%
I Exercise w/Equip. 43.8 48.6 +10.9%
Martial Arts 4.5 4.8 +6.6%
I Hockey 1.9 1.8 -5.2%
Billiards 34.0 30.5 -10.2%
I Basketball 28.2 27.9 -16.4%
Swimming 60.3 47.0 -22.0%
I Fishing 45.7 38.2 -26.6%
Figure Skating 7.8 5.1 -34.6%
I Volleyball 17.4 10.4 -40.2%
I 1994 Participation - The number of participants per year in the activity.(in millions) in
the U.S.
I 2003 Participation -:- The number of participants per year in the activity (in millions) in
the U.S.
I Percent Change - The percent change in the level of participation from 1994 to 2003.
I
I
I
I
"Ii. December 20.2004 ,-," , 21
j; , " . parker'IVnk,e!,~,e~9~tArchi~ecturt . IJoi1estrqq'.~trq~s;i.: S~,;:,>,;S'ano/p *Kin~an.4!\sS()Ftat~s '.~ 1
l '. . l ~ ,.- ,
I
I
Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion I
' ,
': Non':'Sport Participation Statistics: It is recogniz~dtfuit most commUnity recreation
centers are more, than just sports oriented facilities. Participation in a wide variety of I
passive activities and cultural pursuits is comnion and essential to a well-rounded center.
While there is not an abundance of information available for participation in these types I
of activities as compared to sport activities, there are statistics that can be utilized to help
determine the market for cultural arts activities and events. Beginning in 1992 and at
selected intervals thereafter, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has sponsored I
The Survey of Public Participation in the Arts to determine the extent to which
Americans participate in the arts. Information extracted from the 2002 survey, the most
recent survey available, indicates the following. I
Personal Participation in the Arts
Individuals who had personally performed or created works in cultural arts activities in I
2002 (at least once).
I
Jazz 1.3% 2.7
Classical Music 1.8% 3.7 I
Opera 0.7% 1.4
Musical Play 2.4% 4.9 I
Choir 4.8% 9.8
Play 1.4% 2.9 I
Ballet 0.3% 0.6
Other DanCI~ 4.2% 8.6 I
Drawing/Painting 8.6% 17.6
Writing 7.0% 14.4 I
Photography 11.5% 23.5
Pottery 6.9% 14.1 I
Weaving/sewing 16.0% 32.7
Percent of Adults - The percentage of adults (18 years and older) in the U.S. who I
participated in the activity at least once during 2002. I
Number of Adults - The number of adults (in millions) in the U.S. who participated in
the activity at.least once during 2002. I
, " I;
1 December 20.2004 I 22
. (, i' ) f BarkerRihk~t Seacat Architecture Bortesfroo ISports "" ';',)f,' Ballard*kirig arid Associates" ,
I
I
I Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion
<". These statistics indicate a strong number of individuals who participate in certain cultural
I, arts activities. The different activity classifications are very broad and include a variety of
specific events. . .,
I Participation in Art Classes or Lessons
Individuals who participated in art classes and lessons in 2002 (at least once).
I
I Music 1.4%
Art 1.7%
I Acting 0.5%
Ballet 0.1%
I Other Dance 0.7%
Creative Writing 1.0%
I Art Appreciation 1.0%
Music Appreciation 0.6%
I Percent oflndividuals - The percentage of individuals (of any age) in the U.S. who took
lessons in the activity at least once during 1997.
I This table. indicates the percentage of people who took lessons in a variety of activities
during 2002. While the statistics in both Table N and 0 indicate strong rates of
I participation in cultural arts activities, a direct comparison between these numbers and
the sports activities 'listed previously is difficult. The sports statistics are based on
individuals who participated more than once in the activity while the cultural figures
I include one time participation numbers.
I
I
I I
I
I~!;[., December 20.2004 23 I
~ar~er'Rip.K~l\~~a~~t({\rchit~ctpr~ . BortestrOo Spo~s'.. ( " '".I3El~lard *!Kmw and~~soci~t~~ - 1
. ". ," "'.' j,,'\ t
I
I
ShakopeeRecreation Center Expansion I
In an attempt to develop a more direct comparison between the rates of participation in
various leisure activities, the NEA survey ranked the following activities. I
I~'
,.
.
,,",
.
Went to Movies 60.0% I
Exercised 55.1%
Gardening 47.3% I
Arts Activity 39.0%
Home Improvements 42.4%
Theme Park 41. 7% I
Attended Sports Event 35.0%
Played Sports 30.3% I
CampedlHikedlCanoed 30.9%
I
In relationship to sports participation and other leisure activities, participation in cultural
arts is very high. One element not included in this table that does impact leisure activities I
is watching television. The Survey of Public Participation in the Arts conducted in 2002
reports that adults spend an average of 2.9 hours per day watching television.
Chart E I
60.00% I
50.00%
40.00% . I
30.00%
20.00% I. I_ Percentage I I
10.00%
0.00% CI) ~CI) II) C CI) 1:: "C "C
II) <( ~ E.~ Cl)E~o Cl)cQ. I
.~ ~ ! f1. ~ E~ en
CI) x-o
>< :e (!) t- ca <C
w 0
I
J I
T
December 20.2004 24 If
'<1"; 1 I .1 ; ( ~. i' BarI(er'Rhikt:r Sead\t Architecture ,. , Bonestrbo'Sports '. . ......BalIard*King and Associates
I
I
Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion
I
~., - Section 111- Alternative Service Providers ,
I -... . ,,~, Service Area Competition: There are actually a c~llsi4erable number. of indoor
recreation service providers in the Shakopee area. that are currently providing. indoor
I recreation and sports activities. It is likely that the existing private providers may have a
concern over the possibility that a expanded.Shakopee.recreation facility would adversely
impact their market and they may very well oppose the project as a result. However,
I private fitness and sports centers typically serve very different clientele and usually do ,
not compete head to head for the same users. It is conservatively estimated that well over
50% of the users ofa public facility will have never been to a private facility and would
I have no interest in joining such a center.
After analyzing the other indoor recreation providers, there is a significant market for a
I public, recreation facility in Shakopee, but the financial goals might require that it draw
well from the secondary service area. It will also need to have a focus and orientation
that is different than those providers currently found inthe marketplace.
I Alternative Recreation Service Providers: Below is a list of the alternate recreation
service providers (facilities) that are in the market in the Shakopee area.
I Lifetime Fitness
I Northwest Athletic Club
I Chaska Community Center
Eden Prairie Community Center
I Egan Community Center
Cascade Bay
I Valley Fair
I Dakotah Sports and Fitness
,1'( , Lady Fitness Express
Ripped, Gym
I: Curves for Women
Gold's Gym
'I' , ,
,I'
(:,1:;:[7 December 20.2004 25 1
I' ,. ' ;J3arl<~rg~,Wf~tl~e~?a~?\.rchi~ecttif;e,. ,.~.;-Bdi1estr6oi,SpOrtS, f;tl3~ltate*.Kt.n~ and Assocfat~~, .l
~ .... L " .,
I
I
Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion I
This is a representative listing of alternative recreation facilities in the area and is not
meant to be a total accounting of all service providers. There maybe other facilities I
located outside of the greater service area that have an impact on the Shakopee market as
well. ,
Conclusion: Weekly participation in active recreation activities from full-time residents I
within the primary service area can be expected to be somewhere in the range of 12% to
18% of the population which equals approximately 4,160 to 6,240 individuals, (based on I
2004 population estimates for the primary service area). This is a significant population
base to rely on for the operation of a full-scale recreation facility. The success of similar
facilities in other areas of the Twin Cities indicate that these types of recreation centers I
have been cost effective in meeting local recreation needs. The key to the operational
success of the center will depend in part on its ability to draw from a significant
percentage of the outlying service area as the population of Shakopee continues to grow. I
It also must be kept in mind, that due to the fact that there is some competition for such
facilities in the area and a substantial impact from other forms of recreation and
entertainment, the rate of participation at the center may vary I
Population growth in the service area is projected by ESRI and the U.S. Census Bureau to
increase by approximately 35% over the next five years, which will contribute additional I
participation numbers. Household income is one of the prime determiners in recreation
activity participation and the Shakopee primary service area has a higher median
household income level than the national population, which should enhance facility I
usage.
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
" ,',,' , . December 20.2004 26 ,I{
. Boiie'sttc:lo ~Sp()rts . ",n'- . ' , " " r ~, '.-., ',.T'r"'-'~\\_~~
F . i ,1., BarKer'lt'riker Seitcat Architecture ,.: ", . Ballard*King and Associates ',,-
I
I
Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion
I .~
Section IV -Market Orientation \
I Based on the market information and typical swimming needs within a community, there
are specific l11arket areas that need to be adclre,ssed with'~I1ew.~quaticJaci1ity:These
';1' 1 " include: "
Aquatics
I Leisure/recreation aquatic activities - This includes a variety of activities found at
leisure pools with zero depth entry, warm water, play apparatuses, slides, sun deck
I areas, spas and other similar amenities. These are often combined with other non-
aquatic areas such as concessions, lounge areas, and group activities (birthday party)
spaces. The emphasis is on drop-in activities and free play. This market needs to be a
primary area of emphasis as it provides the opportunity to generate significant
I revenues and uses for the center. A major portion of the pool area should be available
at most times for drop-in use.
I Instructional programming - The primary emphasis is on teaching swimming and life
saving skills to many different age groups. These activities have traditionally taken
I place in more conventional pool configurations but should not be. confined to' just
these spaces. Reasonably warm water, shallow depth (3 to 4 feet deep), and an open
expanse of water are necessary for instructional activities.. Easy pool access, a
viewing area for parents and deck space for instructors is also crucial.
I Fitness programming - These types of activities continue to grow in popularity among a
large segment of the population. From aqua exercise classes and water walking, to lap
I swimming times, these programs take place in more traditional settings that have lap
lanes and large open expanses of water available at a 3 ~ to 4-foot depth.
I Therapy programming - Therapeutic programming aimed at injury and medical
reconditioning has developed into a very strong market, especially among seniors.
True therapeutic programming requires a raised temperature pool (usually upper 80's
I to low 90's) to be effective. Partnering with a local hospital or health care
organization is essential for ensuring strong, medically based programs that will
generate a solid revenue stream for the center. The leisure pool area of the facility can
I often work for this function as well.
Competitive Swimming - Swim team competition and training for yo:u~h; adults and
I... seniors.re.. quiresatrad.itio. nal6 to 8 lane pool. (possiblywith a...1....:.,...meter d. iy....'......i.1.ng board) at
, a length of 25 yards. Ideally, the pool depth shquld be no less;than 4 foot qeep and a
cool water temperature in the high 70's to low 80's. Spectator seating ahddeckspace
I""''''; . Wrs~ginglll~e~s i~necessary. This. market" is usuallyr~lati~elys~all.i,n,:nllIl1J)er ,iJut. .
'r ,~,~'\)~;T:>;; . very,vocalonthe d~mands for competitive pool space ~d tiiiie.P~?llt~e'sh~uld.~e
. : . sbldto local teams and programs by the hour and lane. , .
I' 'I I
= IT:f~' ""'~ r-~~c;;~ej:;~~~~~~1tt Architecture"'Bpnestr: P ~pciits- i =~;- ...rBaltilttl*KihQ and A$SbciateS':;~ - ----~,,~- .' T
~ (_ . .;-.Ftl.l1(i, l,'tt( \ ;:,~_"L:; ~y" 1:."r;\..m:~.~"A q,;_,..,-, :f C,'_' ; - -,,) ^-. ;.-~J": ,_, '-'__P'-~'_-~" "I 1':,,;:J., -..5('>:.\..: t;I':iHl...n~~.:'-LlR:, '." ~ - ; - -1"_: 'L\,_(',(::-~.~I ':... . 1 '1..
I
I
'.
Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion I
Special events/rentals - There is a significant market for special events including kid's
birthday parties, corporate events, swim meets, community organization functions I
and general rentals to outside groups. The development of this market will aid
significantly in the generation of additional revenues and these events/rentals can
often be planned after or before regular hours or during slow use times. It is important I
that spedal' events or rentals not adversely' affect' daily' operations or overall center
use.
I
Specific market segments include:
1. Families - Within this market, an orientation towards family activities is I
essential. The ability to have family members of different ages participate in a
variety of activities together or individually is a challenge. Leisure pool I
components have been the most effective in accomplishing this objective and in
drawing families with small children to aquatic facilities.
2. Pre-:school children - The needs of pre-school age children need to be met with I
very shallow or zero depth water which is warm and have play apparatuses
designed for their use. Interactive programming involving parents and toddlers I
can also be conducted in more traditional aquatic areas. It is significant that this
market usually is active during the mid-morning time frame, providing an
important clientele to the pool during an otherwise slow period of the day. I
3. School age children - A major focus of this project should be to meet the needs
of this age group from recreational swimming to instructional and competitive I
aquatics. The leisure components such as slides, fountains, lazy rivers, vortex and
zero depth will help to bring these individuals to the pool on a regular basis for
drop-in recreation swimming. The conventional pool provides the opportunity and I
space necessary for instructional and competitive aquatics. The proximity of the
pool to a number of schools should help with meeting the needs of this age group.
4. Teens - Another aspect of this project should be meeting the needs of the teenage I
population. Serving the needs of this age group will require leisure amenities that
will keep their interest (slides and 1 meter diving board) as well as the designation I
of ct~rtain "teen" times of use.
5. Senilors - As the population of the United States continues to age, meeting the
needs of an older senior population will be essential. As has been noted, a more I
active and physically oriented senior is now demanding services to ensure their
continued health. Aqua exercise, lap swimming, therapeutic conditioning and
even learn to swim classes have proven to be popular with this age group. Again, I
the fact that this market segment will usually utilize the pool during the slower
use times of early morning also is appealing.
I
December 20.2004 28 I~
Barker RitiketSeacatArchitecture BoneStfoo sports ~ ", . 'Bal1afdliCKing and Associates · s ..' ~ " \
I
I
Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion
I'
I 6. Special needs population - This is a secondary market, but with the A.D.A.
requirements and probable existence of shallQw warm water and other
components, the amenities are present to develQp programs for this population
I segment. Association with hospitals and other therapeutic and social agencies will
be.necessary to reach.this market.
I 7. Special interest groups - This is a market that needs to be explored to determine
the use potential from a variety of groups. These could include school functions,
day care centers, social service organizations and swim teams. While the needs of
I these groups can be great, their demand on an aquatic center can often be
incompatible with the overall mission of the facility. Care must be taken to ensure
that special interest groups are not allowed to dictate use patterns for the center.
I With the proper utilization of the aquatic' area, it is possible to meet most. of the varied
market orientations as outlined above.' However, it is critical that a balance is struck
I between the different market segments and no one group or area should dominate the
facility.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,Ii""" December 20.2004 29
pat;~ffi" l~.i1fkr\'~~a:qat:A~cliilecturr B()i1estroq,S,i>olt~' 'i.~;::, ~~ga:rq~l(iil.g~dl\ssoc\at~~, . ' J
'. '-' t '~.' C~,
I
I
1 \ .1 Shakopee Recreation Center Expansion
I
Community Recreation Center Benchmarks: Based on market research conducted by
Ballard*King and Associates at community recreation centers across the United States, I'
the following represents the basic benchmarks.
. The majority of community recreation centers that are being. built today are I
between 65,000 and 75;000 square feet. Most centers include three primary
components A) A pool area usually with competitive and leisure amenities, B)
Multipurpose gymnasium space, and C) Weight/cardiovascular equipment area. I
In addition, most centers also have group exercise rooms, drop-in childcare, and
classroom and/or community spaces.
. For most centers to have an opportunity to cover operating expenses with I
revenues, they must have a service population of at least 50,000 and an aggressive
fee structure that reflect market driven conditions and fees. I
Most centers that are between 65,000 and 75,000 square feet have an annual
.
operating budget of between $1,750,000 and $2,500,000 annually. Nearly 65% of I
the operating costs are from personnel services, followed by approximately 20%
for contractual services, 13% for commodities, and 2% for capital replacement.
. For centers that serve a more urban population and have a market driven fee I
structure, they should be able to recover 70% to 100% of operating expenses. For
centl~rs in more rural areas the recovery rate is generally 50% to 75%. Facilities I
that can consistently cover all of their operating expenses with revenues are rare.
The first true benchmark year of operation does not occur until the third or forth
full year of operation. I
The majority of centers of the size noted above (and in an urban environment)
.
have an average daily paid attendance of 800 to as much as 1,000 per day. These I
centers will also typically sell between 800 and 1,500 annual passes (depending
on the fee structure and marketing program).
. It is common for most centers to have a three-tiered fee structure that offers daily, I
extended visit (usually punch cards) passes, and annual passes. In urban areas it
is common to have resident and non-resident fees. Non-resident rates can - run I
anywhere from 25% to 50% higher than the resident rate. Daily rates for
residents average between $3.00 and $6.00 for adults, $3.00 and $4.00 for youth
and the same for seniors. Annual rates for residents average between $200 and I
$300 for adults, and $100 and $200 for youth and seniors. Family annual passes
tend to be heavily discounted and run between $350 and $800.
. Most centers are open an average of 100 hours a week, with weekday hours being I
6:00am to 1 0:00pm, Saturdays 8:00am to 8:00pm and Sundays from noon to
8:00pm. Often hours are shorter during the summer months. I
Note: Thes~~ statistics vary by regions of the country.
December 20.2004 - - 30 ili
j \ 'Balker Rirtkei' S~acat Architecture Bonestroo sports --~ --" \' .!, Hallahl "'King and As~oCiates - > ,-, ~. '
I
I
I ...
I I
I
I
I , I
I
I
I I
i
i
I
I
I ~
0
I lJl
-
m
lJl
-
3'
III
I It
lJl
I
I
I
I
I
I "
I
I
I
I
" , - ~ .~-
' "
,
I
I ~~
Shako pee Community Center Expansion
Conceptual Cost Estimate Grossing Factor 1.15
I Prioritized Program Index Modifier 1.14
Date: 3/08/05 Inflation Modifier 1.06
Selected
I Program Gross Selected Program
x Program Space Net Area Area Cost Notes
I
New Spaces
x Facility Adm'" Spacesl Police Substation 0 0 $0 See Remodeled spaces below
x Required Building Suoport Spaces 8,430 9,695 $2.039.000
I Pre.Control Lobby 800 $177,000 Reduced area slightly
lounge 1,21!Q. --.- _.____. $266,00.0 Reduced area slightly
Control Desk 350 $78,000 Reduced area sli htf
Men's Locker 1,200 $344,000 Reduced area sliahtl
VJomen's Locker 1,200 $344,000 Reduced area slightly
I Family Lockers 600 $172,000 Reduced area sf~htl
First Aid 80 $13,000 Reduced area slightly
Men's Toilets 600 $163,000 Reduced area sli htl
WOmen's Toilets 600 $163,000 Reduced area sli htf
Cable Studio 800 $160,000 Reduced area slightlv
Custodial Closets 100 $16,000 Reduced area sli htly
I Medlanical Rooms 400 $63,000 Reduced area sli ht!
Electrical Rooms 200 $32,000 Reduced area slightl
Storace 300 $48,000 Reduced area sli htl
x Vending Niche 160 173 $34,000
x Cafe 800 890 $13~'1l!l0
x Senior Adult Lounge 1.620 1,863 $273,000 See Remodeled snaces below
I Lounge! MultI-use area 1,200 $216,000
Staff office 120 $21,000
Storage 300 $36,000
x Child Watchl Babysitting 1,000 1,150 $202.000 Tot toilet and Crib room
Babysitting 900 $186,000
Storaoe 100 $16,000
I x Children's Indoor Playground 0 0 $0 See Remodeled spaces below
Indoor Plavoround 0 $0 Allow about $175,000 for 8auioment
Storace 0 $0
x Medium Classroom 1.025 1.179 $206,000 Seats 45
Classroom 900 $166,000 Med. Banouet Room was eliminated
Storace 125 $20,000
I x Small Community Room I Events Hall 3,000 3,450 $601,000 Seats 160 for banq/conf, 220 for meeting
COrrmunly Room 2,600 $538,000
Storage 400 $63,000
x Catering Kitchen 600 690 $172,000 No equipment Is included, allow about $50,000.
x Short Elevated Walk! Jog Track 2,180 2,507 $328,000 10 laos per mile, 3 lanes
Walk/ Jog Track 1,980 $298,000 Track. extended over \/\As & Fitness
I Stretching Area 200 $30,000 I
x Large WeighU Fitness 11,200 12,880 $2.460,000
CardiovasOJlar Training Equipment 5,000 $1,109,000
Circuit Resistance Equioment 3,500 -- $77!",QIl_q ...........--...---....-.-.---..-.-.....
FreeWe",hts 1,600 $355,000
Fitness Supervisor Station 100 $22,000
I Stretching Area 600 $133,000
Storaae 400 $64,000
x Large Aerobics! Dance 2.300 2.645 $492,000 Accomodates 40-50peo Ie I
Aerobicsl Dance! Soin Studio 2,000 $444,000 Dedicated Soin Studio was eliminated
Storaoe 300 $46,000 i
I x Small Spinning Studio 1,660 1,898 $367.000 Accomodates 25 people
Spin nino Studio 1,500 $333,000
Storaoe 150 $34,000
x Aquatics Support 600 690 $120.000 Equipment room, guards, office
Guard room. Aouat Suoer office. First Aid
x Medium leisure Pool 12,300 14,145 $6.104,000 5,300 square foot 0001
I Pool 5,300 _. ____~l.,~Q!..,qqo ---...--..-.............---..-...--
Natatorium 11,000 $3,153,000
Slides, Spray Features, Spa $345,000 200 SF spa
Supplemental Sanitation 'Nater Treatment $93,000
Pool Eouloment Room 800 $127,000
Pool Storage 500 $79,000
I x Wet Classroom! Party Room(s) 800 920 $162,000 Can be divided into two 360 SF rooms
Classroom 720 $149,000
Party Room Storage 60 $13,000
x Multi-Use Turf Field 32,780 37.697 $6,609,000
Snedator Seating for 300 2,500 $396.000 Bleacher Seating for 300
Mutt"Use Turt flel~ \200' x 65? 22,680 "i ,~,594,OOO fiel~ plus minimum aplOn area for teams
II Lower Level LoDDv 500 ;' ,; ,. '$111,000 Re<lUClid to minimum
Sian Area 750 Wi'" ?,',; " '$119,000 Optional control and skate rental ope11ltion
.._}T&~~~~~;~~h~~~~~ower ~.12~~~.__ __ 2,400 ~...-...._._..__.-._...._....,.. ".-- _._._.__.__~El~_8,oog 4 - 600 sf team rooms
1,950 $383,000 Tenant Finish Cost bom bv SChool Distnct (aoorax. $2001<\
I Referee Chancing Room 125 $20,000 Small changing room
Storage Room 850 $135,000 Reduced size to minImum
I Eouioment Room 800 $127,000 Reduced size to minimum
Mechanical Room 150 $24,000 Reduced size to minimum
Electrical Room 75 $12,000 Reduced size to minimum
Subtotal of New Space. i i 93,650i S18,303,OOOi
i
I BARKER RINKER SEACAT I
ARCHITECTURE I
Cl2005 Barker Rinker Sea cat Architecture in association with Bonestroo Sports
I I
I
.-----_.-.._.-~- -,--- -_.~._~.. ~~-~ -"--'
I
~~ I
Selected
Program Gross Selected Program
x Program Space Net Area Area Cost Notes I
f I I I
Renovation of Existing Spaces I
x Existing Ice Arena , 33,814 $150,000
Ice sheet & Deck $62,000 Add Low.e Ceilil1(lFilm
Public Area. _ 1______--- _____!5,'O_O_~ Minor Painting I
____:;~::~~"*;~~~t~~o~-------- -----j------.-~.----'--,..-'---I.-----.-.H~~6~~ ~inor PaintinQ
----Co-nvert"resurtacerroom to'tea.m.roon:i.-....-.---.--
Minor cosmetics
Storage I ---- ----~.Q No work
UDoerLevel eire. , $0 Minor cosmetics
Repair Drainage Problem $40,000 I
x Existing Recreation Center 42,612 $1,268.000
Gymnasium $10,000 New Liahtina
GymnastlClExercise (Indoor Flax. Stair & EIeV.):=!= -- 5749.000 Convert to Indoor Play. Grand Stair, & 3 stop Elevator
Adult Locker Room~ No w9rk
Storace f .n No work
Circulation $0 No work I
Mechanical $100,000 Relocate AHU 'svstems to rcoftoa;- Relocate Boilers
Teen Center I ____$0 No work
Vestibule (New Entrv) $184,000 Comalete face lift for Main Entry
Arena Lobby $0 No work
Gym Lobby/Clrc $0 No work I
Office __~2,000 Renovate office space
Meetin~ Room (chanQe to Admin.) f-- $45,000 Renovate office s;;ace
Cable Studio $0 Leave as is
Running Track I $53,000 Re.surface existino track
Repair Drainage Problem and Wall Damage $25,000
Subtotal of Renovated Spaces I 76,426! $1,408,000 I
I I I I
Total of New and Renovated Spaces 170,076 $19.711,000
Site Development Costs
-----rto;d;;ay"'and Pa-rking LotE;cpansion-"- ....-........--'-""-........--'-"--""--..--. '-'$'830~o-"'- .--.---...-......--...--....-....----...----- I
460 add!. stalls with Pavement, Concrete
Curb & Gutter, Lighting and Storm Sewer
Reconstruct 8" and 12" watermain fire loop $44,000
Enlarge Storm Pond $40,000
Subgrade Drainage Improvements $100,000
Total Site Development Costs $1,014,000 I
Fixtures, Furnishings and Equipment (FFE)
Facility Admin Spaces! Police Substation $0 I
Lounge $20,000
Control Desk $5,000
First Aid $2,000
Caf6 $23,000
Senior Adult Lounge 520,000 I
Child Watch/Babysitting $15,000
Children's Indoor Playground $175,000
Medium Classroom $25,000
_..._._._Small Communitx Room / ~.!!~.~~...!!~_. .....___.._.____.._.___.__......._... $50,000 ....-..-..---...--- ..-.....-.-..--...---.---..-...
Catering Kitchen $50,000
Large Weight! Fitness $505,000 I
Fitness Supervisor Station $5,000
Spin Equipment $75,000
Aquatics Support $50,000
Aquatics Supervisor Office, First Aid $8,000
Wet Classroom/ Party Room(s) $9,000
Removable Multi-Use Turf Over Rink $100,000 I
I Movable Tip.up Spectator Seatinlil for 300 $10,000
Ice Arena Accessory Equipment $50,000
New Ice Resufater $80,000
Total Fixtures, Furnishings and Equipment (FFE) $1,277,000
I Total Design and Construction Administration , $1,865,250 I
I Sub-TOTAL PROJECT COST $23,867,250 ,I
10% Contingency $2,072,500
TOTAL PROJECT COST $25,939,750
I NOTE: The above costs are an average opinion of construction and projects costs based upon similar Recreation / Activity Centers built in the region and adjusted to the Shakapee area cost
data for a May of 2006 bid date. The actual costs may be higher or lower depending upon decisions not yet made by the Owner / Project Steering Committee. The cost of project financing, I
CMGC pre-construction service fees or an Ovmer Representative during construction are not included In the above figures.
I
I BARKER RINKER SEACAT I
I ARCHITECTURE I
02005 Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture in association with Bonestroo Sports
I I
I
I ,~ -
.~.------------..---_..._"-~._--.--.--- ,- ---... ~- .+------.-- ~-~- ..-- - ---' __ _m_ _,---__..._ __ ~- - --.--.
I r
I I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I )>0."
:3 "C -.
III III :3
_iillll
,<_:3
III -'0
_.0-.
I III :3 III
11I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.~~- .. -- . -~--
.-....................-.-...-...
I Shakopee Community Center Expansion
I Operations Analysis
I The operatjons analysis represents a conservative approach to estimating expenses and
revenues and was completed based on the best information available and a . basic
understanding of the project. Fees and charges utilized for this study represent a higher,
I more market driven rate than the current fee structure and are subject to review, change,
and approval by the City of Shakopee. There is no guarantee that the expense and
revenue projections outlined in the operations analysis will be met as there are many
I variables that affect such estimates that either can not be accurately measured or are
subject to change during the actual budgetary process.
I Expenditures
I Expenditures have been formulated on the costs that were designated by the consultant to
be included in the operating budget for the facility. The figures are based on the size of
the center, the specific components of the facility, and the hours of operation. Actual
I costs were utilized wherever possible and estimates for other expenses were based on
similar facilities in other areas of the country. All expenses were calculated to the high
side and the actual cost may be less based on the . final design, operational philosophy,
I and programming considerations adopted by staff.
Facility Expansion - A community recreation center expansion that includes a senior
I lounge, babysitting area, multipurpose room, classroom, medium sized leisure pool,
expanded track, expanded gymnasium, weightlcardio area, birthday party rooms, turf
field/ice rink surface, and support spaces required and administration. Approximately
I 93,650 square feet.
Operation Cost Model:
I CateflOry Expansion Existinfl Total BId
I Personnel
Full-time existing 589,617 306,073 895,690
I Part-time 863,787 160,426 1,024,213
Total $1,453,404 $466,499 $1,919,903
I
I
I
I 1
Barker, Rinker, Seacat Architecture Bonestroo Sports Ballard*King and Associates
I
Shakopee Community Center Expansion I
Operation Cost Model cont. I
Category Expansion Existing Total Bid
Contractual I
Utilities I 274,998 134,374 409,372
(gas & elect)
Water/sewer 24,500 8,250 32,750 I
Communications 2,500 3,990 6,490
Contract services2 15,000 0 15,000 I
Rental equipment 2,000 1,740 3,740 I
IS Rental 1,500 7,690 9,190 I
Logis 0 4,500 4,500
AdvertisinglMarketing 36,500 3,500 40,000 I
Bank charges 7,500 500 8,000 I
Printing 2,000 7,300 9,300
Trash 1,500 0 1,500 I
Postage 500 1,250 1,750 I
Transportation 5,000 0 5,000
Dues/Training and Travel I
Lifeguard Certification 4,500 0 4,500
Training and Conference 3,000 1,850 4,850 I
TraveJl 3,500 1,150 4,650
Dues 0 600 600
Subscriptions 0 930 930 I
Insurance3
31,000 10,670 41,670
Others 1,500 0 1,500 I
Total $416,998 $188,294 $605,292 I
1 Rate factored at $3.50 per square foot I
2 Contract services includes pool systems, HV AC, building maintenance, exercise equipment, elevator, fIre
alarm. system, computer services, office equipment and copy machine. I
3 Line item estimate is pending review and recommendation by the City's insurance carrier
2
Barker, Rinker, Seacat Architecture Bonestroo Sports Ballard*King and Associates
I
I Shakopee Community Center Expansion
I
I Operation Cost Model cont.
Category Expansion Existing Total Bid
I Supplies and Services
Office Supplies 3,000 6,750 9,750
I Merchandise/concessions 68,750 750 69,500
Sales Tax 2,000 8,300 10,300
I Building maintenance 15,000 51,150 66,150
I Motor fuel 1,500 3,250 4,750
Operating supplies 20,000 52,530 72,530
I Rec. program supplies 20,000 2,450 22,450
I Equipment maintenance 9,500 11,450 20,950
Maintenance/repair materials 27,500 0 27,500
I
Misc. 1,500 0 l,500
I Total $168,750 $136,630 $305,380
I Category Expansion Existing Total Bid
I Capital
Replacement fund4 60,000 0 60,000
I --
Total $ 60,000 $0 $ 610,000
I Grand Total $ 2,099,152 $791,423 $2,8190,575
I
I 4 Capital needs will be minimal during the first year of operation since most equipment and operating
systems will be under warranty. It is strongly recommended that a sinking fund be established with a goal
to build adequate reserves that meet future capital needs. American Public Works recommends planning for
2%-4% of construction cost for capital and maintenance needs. Since maintenance costs have been factored
I into this pro~fonna, a target for building the sinking fund to a level of $250,000 is desirable.
3
Barker, Rinker, Seacat Architecture Bonestroo Sports Ballard*King and Associates
I
Shakopee Community Center Expansion I
Staffing levels: I
Positions Expansion Existine: Total Bid I
Full-Time
Director of Parks and Recreation (0.2 FTE) 0 19,791 19,791
Superintendent (.75 FTE) 49,342 0 49,342 I
Recreation Supervisor- Building (1.0 FTE) 27,132 27,132 54,264 I
Recreation Supervisor - Aquatics (1.0 FTE) 27,132 27,132 54,264
I
Recreation Supervisor- Arena (1.0 FTE) 0 54,263 54,263
Aquatic Coordinator (1.0 FTE) 40,017 0 40,017 I
Recreation Supervisor - Fitness (1.0 FTE) 54,263 0 54,263
I
Marketing Supervisor (.50 FTE) 27,132 0 27,132
Secretary (0.35 FTE) 0 14,005 14,005 I
Office Service Worker (0.5 FTE) 1,816 16,342 18,158 I
Maintenance Supervisor (1.0 FTE) 54,263 0 54,263
Ice Arena Coordinator (1.0 FTE) 40,017 0 40,017 I
Maintenance Worker (1.0 FTE) 0 32,949 32,949 I
Custodians (2.9 FTE) 60,024 27,010 87,034
Building Coordinator (1.0 FTE) 40,017 0 40,017 I
Salaries $421,155 $218,624 $639,779 I
Benefits (40% of salaries) $168,462 $ 87,449 $255,911
Total Full. Time Personnel- Recreation $589,617 $306,073 $895,690
FTE (full-time equivalent) 9.25 4.95 14.2 I
Note: Pay rates were determined based on Shakopee's job classification and wage scale. I
The positions listed are necessary to ensure adequate staffing and provide for a full-time
staff member presence during all open hours of the facility. Maintenance and custodial
staffing numbers are for personnel associated with the upkeep and operation of the indoor I
center. The wage scales for both the full-time and part-time staff positions reflect
estimated wages for 2006.
4 I
Barker, Rinker, Seacat Architecture Bonestroo Sports Ballard*King and Associates
I
I Shakopee Community Center Expansion
I
Positions Expansion Existin2
I Part- Time
Front desk 287 hrs/wk 148,046 38,172
I ($ 9. 92/hr)
Lifeguard (40 weeks) 382 hrs/wk 159,981 0
($1O.47/hr)
I Lifeguard (12 weeks) 475 hrs/wk 59,679 16,333
($1O.47/hr)
Head guard (40 weeks) 39 hrs/wk 19,999 0
I ($ 12.82/hr)
Head guard (12 weeks) 59 hrs/wk 9,076 15,384
($ 12.82/hr)
I Fitness attendant 76 hrs/wk 33,592 0
($8. 5 O/hr)
Skate Guard (36 weeks) 24 hrs/wk 7,421 ?
I ($8.59/hr)
Rink Attendant 48 hrs/wk 14,843 0
I ($8. 59/hr)
Baby-sitter 100 hrs/wk 44,200 0
($8.50/hr)
Birthday Party Host 20 hrs/wk 8,320 832
I ($8.00/hr)
Concessions (40 weeks) 130 hrs/wk 45,630 0
I ($6.75/hr)
Concessions (12 weeks) 183 hrs/wk 14,823 0
($6.75/hr)
I Building attendant 38 hrs/wk 23,632 37,937
($11.96/hr)
Program Instructors5
I Aquatics 59,850 19,968
Fitness 44,160 20,400
General 38,592 0
I Sports 70,560 0
Salaries $802,404 $149,026
I Benefits (7.65% of part-time wages) $ 61,383 $ 11,400
I Total Part-Time Salaries $863,787 $160,426
I
5 Program instructors are paid at several different pay rates and some are also paid per class or in other
I ways. This makes an hourly breakdown difficult.
5
Barker, Rinker, Seacat Architecture Bonestroo Sports Ballard*King and Associates
I
Shakopee Community Center Expansion I
I
Revenues
The following'revenue projections were formulated from information on the specifics of I
the project and the demographics of the service area as well as comparing them to
national statistics, other similar facilities and the competition for recreation services in I
the area. Actual figures will vary based on the size and make up of the components
selected during final design, market stratification, philosophy of operation, fees and
charges policy, and priority of use. All revenues were calculated conservatively as a I
result.
Revenue Projection Model: I
Cates!Orv Expansion Existine: Total BId
I
Fees
Daily Admissions6 313,200 39,000 352,200 I
Annual Passes 7 767,150 88,400 855,550
Rentals 236,620 228,250 464,870 I
Publi(~ Skating 33,480 0 33,480 I
Total $1,350,450 $355,650 $1,706,100
Programs I
Fitness 105,840 6,000 111 ,840
Aquatics 193,000 0 193,000 I
General 105,464 0 105,464 I
Sports 90,696 0 90,696
Total $495,000 $ 6,000 $501,000 I
I
I
I
6 Proposed rates applied to existing daily drop in users to determine existing drop in revenue
7 Proposed rates applied to existing membership base to determine existing annual pass revenue I
6
Barker, Rinker, Seacat Architecture Bonestroo Sports Ballard*King and Associates
I
I Shakopee Community Center Expansion
I
Revenue Projection Model cont.
I Cate20ry Expansion Existin2 Total Bid
I Other
Pro-shop 6,000 1,500 7,500
I Skate rental 2,500 1,500 4,000
Vending 10,500 16,000 26,500
I Baby sitting 17,550 0 17,550
Concessions 170,000 l,500 171,500
I Advertising 10,000 5,000 15,000
Video games 4,500 0 4,500
I Skate Sharpening 1,000 2,000 3,000
Birthday Parties 52,500 0 52,500
I Friday Night Live 18,000 0 18,000
Other Fees 0 2,500 2,500
I Total $292,550 $30,000 $322,550
I
I Grand Total $2,138,000 $391,650 $2,529,650
I
I
I
I
I
I 7
Barker, Rinker, Seacat Architecture Bonestroo Sports Ballard*King and Associates
I
Shakopee Community Center Expansion I
I
Expenditure- Revenue Comparison I
I
Expenditures $2,099,152 $791,423 $2,890,575 I
Revenue $2,138,000 $391,650 $2,529,650
Difference ($38,848) ($399,773) ($360,925) I
Recovery Percentage 101% 49% 87%
Building Rental $850,000 $150,000 $1,000,000 I
Total Expenditures $2,949,152 $941,423 $3,890,575 I
Revenue $2,138,000 $391,650 $2,529,650
Difference ($811,152) ($549,773) ($1,360,925) I
Recovery Percentage 72% 41% 65%
I
I
I
Future years: Expenditures - Revenue Comparison: Operation expenditures are I
expected to inci'ease by approximately 3% a year through the first 3 to 5 years of I
operation. Revenue growth is expected to increase by 5% to 10% a year through the first
three years and then level off with only a slight growth (3% or less) the next two years.
Expenses for the first year of operation should be slightly lower than projected with the I
facility being under, warranty and new. Revenue growth in the first three years is
attributed to increased market penetration and in the remaining years to continued
population growth. In. most recreation facilities the first three years show tremendous I
growth from increasing the market share of patrons who use such facilities, but at the end
of this time period revenue growth begins to flatten out. Additional revenue growth is
then spurred through increases in the population within the market area, a specific I
marketing plan to develop alternative markets, the addition of new amenities or by
increasing user fees.
8 I
Barker, Rinker, Seacat Architecture , Bonestroo Sports Ballard*King and Associates
I
I Shakopee Community Center Expansion
I Five-Year Revenue-Expense Comparison (no building rental fee) - Total Buildin
I $2,529,650 ($360,925)
Year 2 $3,035,051 $2,656,132 ($378,919) 86%
I Year 3 $3,126,102 $2,775,658 ($350,444) 88%
Year 4 $3,219,885 $2,886,684 ($333,201) 89%
I Year 5 $3,286,379 $2,987,718 ($298,661) 90%
I Five-Year Revenue-Expense Comparison with Building Rental Fee - Total Building
I Base $3,890,525 $2,529,650 ($1,360,925) 65%
Year 2 $4,007,292 $2,656,132 ($1,351,160) 66%
I Year 3 $4,127,510 $2,775,658 ($1,351,852) 67%
Year 4 $4,251,336 $2,886,684 ($1,364,652) 68%
I Year 5 $4,378,876 $2,987,718 ($1,391,158) 68%
I Comparison with Other Facilities:
The following is a comparison of other community recreation centers in the Twin Cities
I metro area. It is important to realize that a direct comparison of operating expenses and
revenue is difficult, due in part to the different budgeting and accounting methods used
by each individual center. Some facilities are getting operating support from other City
I' Departments and/or revenue transfers while others are not. Care should be exercised not
to assume a community recreation center in other communities will have the same
recovery rates because the differences in accounting methods, level of support
I provided by other City Departments, facility components, market penetration,
service area size and fee structure. This comparison reflects operating expenses only
and do not include any debt retirement, except for Inver Grove Heights..
I
I Inver Groves Heights $3,591,500 $2,036,200 ($1,555,300) 57%
Maplewood $1,838,860 $1,774,800 ($64,060) 96%
I Shoreview $1,905,022 $1,758,500 ($146,522) 92%
Egan $1,146,100 $849,910 ($296,190) 74%
I
I 9
Barker, Rinker, Seacat Architecture Bonestroo Sports Ballard*King and Associates
I
Shakopee Community Center Expansion I
I
Hours of Operation: The projected hours of operation of the community center are as
follows: I
Monday - Friday 5:30am to 9:30pm.
Saturday 6:00am to 9:00pm. I
Sunday Noon to 8:00pm.
Hours per week: 103. Hours usually vary some with the season (longer hours in the I
winter, shorter during the summer), by programming needs, use patterns and special
events.
Fees and Attendance I
Projected Fee Schedule: The fee schedule has been formulated from information I
gathered during the telephone survey conducted during the feasibility phase of this
project. Revenue projections will be calculated from this fee model. The monthly rate I
listed is the cost of an annual pass broken down into twelve equal payments and does not
include any handling fees. It should be noted that monthly bank draft convenience for
customers would encourage more annual pass sales. However, there are bank fees and a I
substantial amount of staff time spent managing the bank draft membership base and
consideration should be given to pass on some form of a handling fee for bank draft
customers. I
Category Daily Annual Monthly
Adult $ 7.00 $ 500 $ 41.66 I
Adult Discount $ 5.00 $ 360 $30.00
Youth $ 5.00 $ 245 $ 20.41 I
Youth Discount $ 3.00 $ 175 $14.58
Senior $ 5.00 $ 385 $ 32.08 I
Senior Discount $ 4.00 $ 275 $ 22.91
Senior Plus NA $ 595 $ 49.58 I
Senior Plus Discount NA $ 425 $ 35.41
Family NA $ 750 $ 62.50 I
Family Discount NA $ 540 $ 45.00
Single Family NA $ 665 $ 55.41 I
Single Family Discount NA $ 475 $ 39.58 I
The fee schedule above was developed as the criteria for estimating revenues. Actual fees
are subject to review and approval by The City of Shakopee.
10 I
Barker, Rinker, Seacat Architecture Bonestroo Sports Ballard*King and Associates
I
I Shakopee Community Center Expansion
I
Admission Rate Comparison: The above rates were determined based on the
I competition in the area (public and private) and the rates .paid at similar facilities in the
Twin Cities area. The rates paid for other recreational activities in the area and the current
recreation fee schedule were also considered when establishing these rates. For
I comparison, the rates for some of the other service providers in the area are listed below.
Rate Comparison Table
I
275/340 $440/550 $5/6 $3/4
I Egan Comm. Center $305/480 $440/685 $4/6 $3/6
I Inver Grove Heights CC $296/445 $524/741 $6/9 $4/6
Eden Prairie Comm Center $225/305 $390/525 $4/6 $3/5
I Maple Grove Comm Center $200/330 $300/500 $4/7 $3/4
Maplewood Corom Center $350/450 $500/600 $7/9 $5/7
I Shoreview Comm. Center $290/385 $495/650 $6/7.50 $5/6.50
Dakota Sports & Fitness $515/516 $1,068/1,068 NA NA
I Ripped Gym $380/380 $620/620 $7/7 $4.50/4.50
Gold's Gym $527/527 NA NA NA
I Lifetime Fitness $575/575 NA NA NA
Northwest Athletic Club $948/948 $1,548/1548 NA NA
I Curves for Women $360/360 NA NA NA
I
I
I
I
I
I 11
Barker, Rinker, Seacat Architecture Bonestroo Sports Ballard*King and Associates
I
Shakopee Community Center Expansion I
Attendance projections: The following attendance projections are based on the revenue I
figures that were identified earlier in this report. The admission numbers are affected by
the rates being charged, the facilities available for use, and the competition within the I
service area. The figures are also based on the performance of other similar facilities in
other areas of the country. These are averages only and the yearly figures are based on
360 days of operation. I
Yearlv paid admissions Facility Bude:et
Daily 64,800 I
(180 daily admission) I
Annuals 124,800
(1,200 sold armually) I
Total Yearly 189,600
Total Daily 527 I
Admission for pass holders were figured based on 104 visits per year for the Recreation I
Center. Family admissions were counted as only one admission. Multiple admissions
represent twenty admissions per unit sold.
Note: Attendance for other events, programs, and spectator functions is difficult to I
predict but a best guess estimate is approximately 2.5 times the number of paid
admissions. Recreation centers are traditionally the busiest from November to March and I
Mid-June to Mid-August and are slow from April to early June and again from mid-
August to the end of October. Weekdays between the hours of 5pm and 8pm are the
busiest times of the week, and weekends are also very busy during the winter months. In I
contrast, mid-morning and early afternoons on weekdays are usually slow as well as
weekends during the summer months (especially Sundays).
I
I
I
I
I
12 I
Barker, Rinker, Seacat Architecture Bonestroo Sports Ballard*King and Associates
I
I Shakopee Community Center Expansion
I
Section VI - Part-Time Staff Hours
I Time Hours Staff Days Total Hours/Wk
Front Desk
I Mon-Fri
5:30am - 9:30pm 16 2 5 160
I 3pm-7pm 4 2 5 40
I Saturday
6am-10pm 16 2 1 28
I lOam- 8:00pm 10 2 1 20
Sunday
I 8am -' 9:30pm 13.5 2 1 27
Noon - 6pm 6 2 1 12
I
Total 287 hours
I Lifeguards (4Owks)
Mon - Fri
I 6am - 3pm 9 2 5 90
I 3pm - 7pm 4 7 5 140
7pm - 9pm 2 3 5 30
I Saturday
8am -Noon 4 2 1 6
I Noon- 7:00pm 7 7 1 49
I 7pm - 9:30pm 2.5 4 1 10
Sunday
I Noon - 7pm 7 7 1 49
7pm - 9:30pm 2.5 3 1 7.5
I Total 381.5 hours
I 13
Barker, Rinker, Seacat Architecture Bonestroo Sports Ballard*King and Associates
I
Shakopee Community Center Expansion I
I
Lifeguards (ll2wks) I
Mon - Fri
6am-Noon 6 2 5 60 I
Noon-6pm 6 7 5 210
6pm - 9:30pm 3.5 5 5 87.5 I
Saturday I
9am -Noon 3 2 1 6
Sat/Sun I
Noon-6pm 6 7 2 84
I
6pm-9:30pm 3.5 4 2 28
Total 475 hours I
Head Lifeguard (40 wks) I
Mon - Fri I
5pm -9pm 4 1 5 20
Saturday I
Noon -9:30pm 9.5 1 1 9.5
Sunday I
Noon - 9:30pm 9.5 1 1 9.5
Total 39 hours I
Head Lifeguard (12 wks) I
Mon - Fri
1 :30 -9:30pm 8 1 5 40
Sat/Sun I
Noon-9:30pm 9.5 1 2 19
Total 59 hours I
14 I
Barker, Rinker, Seacat Architecture Bonestroo Sports Ballard*King and Associates
I
I Shakopee Community Center Expansion
I
I Babysitter
Mon - Fri
8am-1pm 5 2 5 50
I 4pm - 8pm 4 2 5 40
I Saturday
8am-lpm 5 2 1 10
I Total 100 hours
I Fitness Attendant
Mon - Fri
8am-1pm 5 1 5 25
I 4pm - 8pm 4 1 5 20
I Saturday
8am - 9:30pm 13.5 1 1 13.5
I Sunday
Noon - 9:30pm 9.5 1 1 9.5
I Sat/Sun
Noon-4pm 4 1 2 8
I Total 76 hours
I Concession Workers (40 weeks)
I Mon - Fri
3pm -8pm 5 2 5 50
I 8pm-l0pm 2 1 5 10
Sat/Sun
I 8am-l0pm 14 2 2 56
7 1 2 14
Noon-7pm
I Total 130 hours
I 15
Barker, Rinker, Seacat Architecture Bonestroo Sports Ballard*King and Associates
I
Shakopee Community Center Expansion I
I
Concession \iVorkers (12 weeks) I
Mon - Fri
11am -4pm 5 3 5 75
4pm - lOpm 6 2 5 60 I
Sat/Sun I
Noon-4pm 4 3 2 24
4pm -lOpm 6 2 2 24 I
Total 183 hours
I
Birthday Party Host I
Sat - Sun
Noon-4pm 4 2 2 16
Friday I
6pm- lOpm 4 1 1 4
Total 20 hrs I
Building Attendant I
Mon-Fri
4pm-8pm 4 1 5 20 I
Sat/Sun
Noon-9pm 9 1 2 18 I
Total 38 hours
Arena Attendant (36 weeks) I
Mon-Fri
5pm-9pm 4 1 5 20 I
Sat/Sun
7am-9pm 14 1 2 28 I
Total 48 hrs
I
16 I
Barker, Rinker, Seacat Architecture Bonestroo Sports Ballard*King and Associates
I
I Shakopee Community Center Expansion
I Skate Guard (36 weeks)
Mon-Wed
I 3pm - 5pm 2 1 3 6
Friday
I 7pm - 9pm 2 3 1 6
Sat/Sun
I Noon - 2:00pm 2 3 2 12
Total 24 hrs
I
I Program Staff Cost
I Aquatic Instructors
Type Classes Sessions Rate Cost
Swim Instructors 600 6 $ 12.00/hr 43,200
I
Private Lessons 150 Annual $15.00/lesson 2,250
I Water Fitness 48 12 $25.00/hr 14,400
,
Total $59,850
I
I Fitness Instructors
Type Classes Sessions Rate Cost
Aerobics 8/wk 48 wks $25.00 9,600
I Weight Classes 4/wk 48 wks $25.00 4,800
I Pilates 4/wk 48 wks $30.00 5,760
Yoga 4/wk 48 wks $30.00 8,640
I Thi Chi 4/wk 48 wks $30.00 5,760
I Power Flex 4/wk 48 wks $25.00 4,800
Youth Fitness 4/wk 48 wks $25.00
4,800
I Total $44,160
I 17
Barker, Rinker, Seacat Architecture Bonestroo Sports Ballard*King and Associates
I
Shakopee Community Center Expansion I
Sports I
Type Games Weeks Rate Cost
Adult Basketball 12 36 wks $60.00 25,920 I
Youth Basketball 12 36 wks $50.00 2l,600
Adult Volleyball 8 36 wks $20.00 5,760 I
Youth Volleyball 8 36 wks $20.00 5,760 I
Youth Sports 4 48 wks $20.00 3,840
I
Adult Hockey 4 24 $80.00 7,680
Total $70,560 I
General I
Type Hrs/wk Weeks Rate. Cost I
Youth in Motion 4 48 $ 12.00/hr 2.304
Dance/Tumbling 4 48 $ 12.00/hr 2,304 I
Martial Arts 4 48 $ 12.00/hr 2,304 I
Tiny Tot Adventure 24 48 $ 12.00/hr 13,824
Arts/Crafts 6 48 $ 12.00/hr 3,456 I
Learn to skatl~ 15 32 $30.00/hr 14,400 I
Total 38,592
I
I
I
I
18 I
Barker, Rinker, Seacat Architecture Bonestroo Sports Ballard*King and Associates
I
I Shakopee Community. Center Expansion
I Section VII - Pro2ram Fees and Revenue Worksheet
I New Daily Admissions
Category Number Fee Daily Revenue
Adult 30 $ 7.00 $210.00
I Adult Discount 25 $ 5.00 $125.00
Youth 65 $ 5.00 $325.00
Youth Discount 40 $ 3.00 $120.00
I Senior 10 $ 5.00 $. 50.00
Senior Discount lO $ 4.00 $ 40.00
I Total Daily 180 $ 870 x 360 days = $313,200
(per day average)
I Additional Public Skating
Category Number Fee Daily Revenue
Adult 8 $7.00 $56.00
I Adult Discount 5 $5.00 $25.00
Youth 15 $5.00 $75.00
Youth Discount 10 $3.00 $30.00
I Total 38 $186.00 x 180 sessions = $33,480
I (per session average)
New Annual Community Center
I Category Number Fee Revenue
Adult 40 500.00 20,000
Adult Discount 250 360.00 90,000
I Youth 20 245.00 4,900
Youth Discount 90 175.00 15,750
Senior 15 385.00 5,775
I Senior Discount 75 275.00 20,625
Senior Plus 20 595.00 11 ,900
Senior Plus Discount S5 425.00 36,125
I Family 100 750.00 75,000
Family Discount 425 540.00 229,500
Single Family 25 665.00 16,625
I Single Family Discount 55 475.00 26,125
-
Sub-Total Annuals 1,200 $552,325
I Rate AdjustmentS 647 $214,825
I Total Annuals $767,150
8 Rate adjustment to account for new revenues derived from applying the proposed fee structure onto the
I existing membership base.
19
Barker, Rinker, Seacat Architecture Bonestroo Sports Ballard*King and Associates
I
Shakopee Community Center Expansion I
I
Rentals
Category Number Fee Session Revenue I
Leisure Pool 20 250 5,000
Meeting Room 104 30 3,120
Event Receptions 36 950 34,200 I
Graduation Parties 4 2,000 7,200
Gymnasium 52 50 2,600
Youth Hockey 300 150 60,000 I
Shakopee HS 75 150 11,250
Prior Lake Hockey 250 175 43,750
Bloomington Hockey 40 175 7,000 I
Eden Prairie Hockey 100 175 17,500
Turf Rental 600 75 45,000
I
Total $236,620
Fitness I
Category Number Fee Session Revenue I
Aerobics 48 45.00 12 25,920
Youth Fitness 20 45.00 12 10,800
Weight Lifting 20 45.00 12 10,800 I
Pilates 24 45.00 12 12,960
Yoga 36 45.00 12 19,440
Thi -Chi 24 45.00 12 12,960 I
Power Flex 24 45.00 12 12,960
Total $105,840 I
Aquatics I
Category Number Fee Sessions Revenue
Swim Lesson 450 56.00 6 151,200
Private Lessons 150 20.00 Annual 3,000 I
Water Fitness 72 45.00 12 38,880
Total $193,000 I
I
I
20 I
Barker, Rinker, Seacat Architecture Bonestroo Sports Ballard*King and Associates
I
I Shakopee Community Center Expansion
I General
Category Number Fee Session Revenue
I Dance/Tumbling 40 28.00 12 13,440
Arts/Crafts 40 28.00 12 13,440
Martial Arts 24 28.00 12 8,064
I Youth in Motion 30 32.00 12 11,520
Tiny Tot 30 75.00 12 27,000
Learn to skate 160 50.00 4 32,000
I Total $105,464
I Sports
Category Number Fee Session Revenue
I Adult BB 18 400.00 3 21,600
Youth BB 18 350.00 3 18,900
Adult VB 12 275.00 3 9,900
I Youth VB 18 250.00 2 9,000
Youth Sports 36 28.00 12 12,096
Adult Hockey 8 1,200.00 2 19,200
I
Total $90,696
I Birthday Parties
I Number Fee Revenue
420 $125.00 $52,500
I Babysitting
Category Number Fee Days Revenue
I Members 25 2.25 312 $17,550
Total $17,550
I
Friday Night Live
I Number Fee Days Revenue
150 $5.00 24 $18,000
I
I
I 21
Barker, Rinker, Seacat Architecture Bonestroo Sports Ballard*King and Associates
I
I ...
!
I I
!
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I )>
enOm
m 0 ><
en aCii.
en _.....
I 3 ....-.
-. ;:,
CIl0lQ
;:, ::J
....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I SHAKOPEE COMMUNITY CENTER
I CONDITION EVALUATION
I
I SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA
I
March 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
March 15,2005 I
Attn: Mark Themig
City of Shakopee Park and Recreation Director I
Re: Shakopee Community Center Condition Evaluation
I
Dear Mr. Themig: I
Transmitted herewith is the Shakopee Community Center Condition Evaluation. This I
work was done in conjunction with the Community Center Expansion project to establish
work and related costs for necessary repairs or replacements that should be included as
, part of any expansion project. It has been a pleasure working with you, your staff and
your task force on this project. I
Please call if you have any questions.
Respectfully submitted, I
BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. I
erR- ~
I
James R. Maland
JRM:cv I
I hereby certify that this report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and I
that I am a duly Licensed Engineer under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
erR- ~ I
I
James R. Maland
Date: March 15.2005 Reg. No. 16152 I
I
I
I
I
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Shakopee Community Center was inspected by a team of engineers and architects from
I Bonestroo Sports to review and evaluate known deficiencies in the. facility that warrant repair or
replacement as part of the proposed Community Center Expansion Project. The inspection
included Community Center staff that was familiar with the ongoing operational problems and
I maintenance/repair history of the facility. This staff involvement proved quite valuable and was
the basis for determining the deficiency list for the facility.
The deficiencies of the building can be categorized in the following general categories: 1)
I subsurface moisture; 2) lighting; and 3) operational efficiency. The most serious deficiency of
the facility relates to the subsurface moisture problems that occur during the spring runoff and
periods of heavy rain.
I The Shakopee Community Center has experienced a history of moisture related operational
issues due to the design and detailing of the northerly wall sections of the facility. Contributing
additionally is the lack of an established system to drain the subsoils under the lower level floors.
I The runoff from the roof and adjacent parking .lot areas during significant rainfall events created
conditions where moisture is leaking under the floors and through the walls of the community
center. Some damage has occurred to the masonry walls and the wood flooring in the
I gymnasium~ Also, a serious problem with freezing and heaving of the excess ground water in the
ice arena was. resolved a few years ago by rerouting the transmission mains above grade to avoid
the moisture. Damage from the excess moisture has been minimized to date due to quick
I response by staff to control the excess moisture and therefore minimize damage. Due to the
quickness that the water can infiltrate the facility after significant rains it should not be assumed
that staff will always be able to control damage, in fact, some hidden and potentially serious
I damage could already exist in the masonry walls in the lower level along the. north wall behind
the lockers.
I Lighting issues are primarily related to low lighting levels provided to some areas as part of the
original design. The metal halite lamps used in sports lighting in the facility have significant
reduction in their lighting intensities over time and therefore the . lighting deficiencies in some of
I the problem areas was probably not noticed at the time of project completion when the lamps
were new. Lighting level standards for all types of activities are published by the IES, the
accepted standard in the industry. and it is those standards that were used in establishing the
I adequacy of the lighting in all spaces.
The operational efficiencies of the facility were primarily. limited to energy consumption
concerns and access issues. The existing ice arena does not have a low-emissivity ceiling which
I if installed would dramatically reduce the radiant heat from the sun on the roof and both reduce
energy load on the ice system as well as keep a warmer dryer environment adjacent the steel roof
structure to minimize the potential for corrosion. Access to the roof currently consists of
I temporary interior and exterior ladders through a hatch, which makes this operation more
difficult and unsafe than commonly provided means. This issue can best be addressed in the
proposed expansion of new building spaces by installing permanent stair and ladder accesses.
I
I Shakopee Community Center ConqitionEvaluation
Page 1
I
I
I
We proposed the following recommendations that should be implemented with any expansion
project that will help improve the conditions in the facility: I
Description of Recommendation Cost of Implementation I
1 - Add drainage tile system along the The estimated cost of modification is
northerly side of the building to intercept the $55,000
groundwater moisture. This system would I
include repair of the northerly masonry walls,
new waterproofing and foundation insulation.
I
2 - Provide additional free draining subsoil The estimated cost of this recommendation
and drain tile \mder new expansion areas to is $100,000. I
enhance subsoil drainage under existing lower
level floor slabs.
3 - Provide new 50 footcandle lighting The estimated cost of this recommendation I
system in gymnasium and running track. is $10,000.
I
4 - Install a low emissivity ceiling in the The estimated cost of this recommendation
existing ice arena. This will reduce moisture is $60,000. I
condensation in the arena and reduce the
energy and maintenance costs of the facility.
I
5 - The substandard lighting in the existing Costs to address these issues are included
gymnastics and fitness gym will not require in new expansion areas proposed for I
upgrading for it is being relocated to a new project.
space in the proposed expansion plan.
Another recommended improvement that will I
be addressed in the new expansion plan will
be to improve access to the roofs.
I
Other recomm{mdations include: I
. Improve access to the roof to encourage safe maintenance inspections and repairs of the
rooftop systems. This can be accomplished most effectively in the proposed expansion I
project.
. If a second ice sheet is constructed as proposed in the conceptual plan for the facility I
expansion provisions should be made for creating a centralized refrigeration plant for
both ice sheets that will increase operational efficiency.
Shakopee Community Center Condition Evaluation I
Page 2
I
I
I
I . The relocation of the gymnastics and fitness areas as proposed in the expansion plan
would eliminate the need to upgrade the lighting systems in these areas as outlined in the
I condition report.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Shakopee.Community Center ConditionEvaluation
Page 3
I
I
I
BUILDING CONDITION INSPECTION
I
OBSERVATIONS I
1) Most ofthe North basement wall of the facility is vulnerable to moisture problems.
a. Worst areas are the Men's Locker Room, Easterly Stairwell, Center Stairwell, and I
the Mechanical Room.
b. Original design of the building was supposedly precast which City was told
wouldn't have had the susceptibility to moisture problems as the concrete block I
design actually installed. This may be somewhat true but without good drainage
and drainage system by this wall most wall construction types would suffer from
some problems. I
c. It appears very little drainage tile and waterproofing was installed on the north
wall and under the lower level floors.
d. Some testing of the possible sources of the water has been done. I
i. See reports by GME Consulting, Inc. (7/30/96) and Allied Drilling
Company (1123/03) previously executed for the City.
ii. Soil borings from the reports above indicate that native soils and site
backfill is generally not very pervious with the exception to the granular I
backfill used under the floor slabs and immediately adjacent the building.
iii. No water table conditions were found in the soils testing that could I
potentially explain the moisture problems that have been experienced..
e. Some of the concrete blocks are deteriorating behind the lockers in the Men's
. locker room. Of particular concern is the mortar joints and structural
reinforcement in the cores of the masonry block. Can have as much as I" of water I
standing on the floor after heavy rains or rapid spring thaws.
f. Water infiltration in the northeast comer has caused sheetrock damage, mold and
carpet damage. I
g. Water infiltration in the ice arena area has occurred at times and this usually
results in water collecting in the bleachers. We also think that possibly some
water is migrating under the ice sheet and could be causing some minor heaving I
of the ice floor which could be going undetected at this time. We feel that the ice
floor should be surveyed immediately after the ice has been removed for the year
to determine any irregularities in the floor elevation. I
h. Some work has been done in the planting beds to minimize water on the north
side by raising grade and adding plastic in the planting beds.
2) Water works its way under the gym floor and has caused some damage to the wood I
during times of heavy rain and spring melting
a. Some of the flooring has been slightly damaged from cupping and lose joints. I
b. Currently the City has equipment to dry out the wood floor if it gets wet
c. Basketball floor has gotten wet the past two years.
d. Some regrading and retaining wall construction was done on the east end of the I
building that has helped
Shako pee Community Center Condition Evaluation I
Page 4
I
I
I
3) Water has caused problems on the south side of the ice rink where a high water table was
I observed in the area of the refrigeration headers. Due to problems with freezing and the
resultant heaving the headers have been relocated to above grade from their previous
below grade location.
I 4) Lighting is poor in the basketball gyms and over the running track. Readings were taken
to documented the lighting levels.
I a. Gymnasium
i. Initial condition:
I 1. The total number of fixture in half the gymnasium is fifteen (15).
2. The curtain was closed.
3. No Hi/Low level switching.
I 4. Lamp life was estimated to be three years old.
5. 400W metal halide lamp with lens.
ii. Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA)
I recommendations:
Classes of Plav and Facilities
Facility Class
I I II III IV
International X
National X
I Professional X
Colleoe X X
Semi-orofessional X X
I Sports clubs X X X
Amateur leaoues X X X
Hioh schools X X X
I Trainina facilities X X
Elementary
schools X
I Recreational
events X
Social events X
I Soort-liohtino Illumination Recommendations
Class of Horizontal
Sport Plav FC Max:Min
I Basketball I 125 1.7:1
II 80 2.5:1
III 50 3:1
I IV 30 4:1
Volleyball II 70 2.5:1
III 50 3:1
I IV 30 4:1
I Shakopf!e Community Center Condition Evaluation
Page 5
I
I
I
Hi. Measured Values:
1. Middle of four fixtures: 16.4 FC I
2. Middle of two fixtures: 20.5 FC
3. Below one fixture: 22.5 FC
4. Estimated average: 20FC I
5. Estimated Max:Min 1.4:1
6. A problem area occurred with the addition of the running track.
The footcandle level under the track was measured at 2.7 FC, and I
makes the gymnasium look darker.
7. The running track did not have any lighting over the track. The
general lighting was located to far from the track to provide for any I
substantial lighting on the track.
5) Lighting in Fitness room is also poor with part of the problem being the black flooring I
and darker walls. Gymnastics area seems a lot brighter even though the only difference is
the lightc~r colored floor. Took light readings in these rooms.
a. Exercise room/Gymnastics room I
i. Initial condition:
1. The total number of fixture in half the Exercise/Gymnastics room I
is four (4).
2. The curtain was closed.
3. No Hi/Low level switching. I
4. Lamp life was estimated to be three years old.
5. 400W metal halide lamp with lens.
ii. IlluminatingEngineering Society of North America (IESNA) I
recommendations:
Sport-lightin Illumination Recommendations
Class of Horizontal I
Soort Plav Fe Max:Min
Gymnastics II 80 2.5:1
III 50 3:1 I
IV 30 4:1
Exercise
Room 30 I
iii. Measured Values:
1. Middle of four fixtures: 12FC I
2. Middle of two fixtures: 15 FC
3. Below one fixture: 22.5 FC
4. Estimated average: 16.5 FC I
5. Estimated Max:Min 1.9:1
6. The exercise room has a black pad over the wood floor to protect it
from the weights. This black flooring gives the appearance of a I
very dark exercise room.
Shakopee Community Center Condition Evaluation I
Page 6
I
I
I
6) Sometimes gets humid in the building in the summer months.
I 7) Large hot water boiler for domestic heat. . . .look at efficiency in. the summer months.
I 8) Water softeners were installed a few years ago to help with problems from the calcium
hardness.
I 9) Cooling towers for ice system were replaced when they were about 6 years old because
of calcium hardness damage.
I 10) All four compressors were replaced within the first 6 years of operation.
11) No easy roof access can be found in the building.
I 12) Snowmelt system now works after replacement of the de superheater.
I 13) The Olympia is 9 years old and operates on propane fuel.
14) There are water heaters dedicated just to the ice resurfacer hot water.
I 15) Typical brine return temperature for the ice is 17-18 deg. F. which seems to provide
consistent ice quality.
I 16) They have some leakage in the Ice Arena roof.
I 17) There is a leak from a pipe located over the scorer's arena on the south side of the rink.
18) They have a desiccant dehumidification system that broke down this past summer due to
I some mechanical problems.
19) Normally keep the ice rink air temperature at about 45 deg. F but try to get the arena air
I up to 60 deg. F for games but this takes a lot of time and energy to create.
20) Lighting system in the ice arena is not very good or efficient.
I a. Ice Arena
i. Initial condition:
1. The total number of fixture in the Ice Arena issixty (60).
I 2. There are additional fixtures over the stands and team benches.
3. No Hi/Low level switching.
4. Lamp life was estimated to be three years old.
I 5. 400W metal halide lamp with no lens.
I
I Shakopee Community Center Condition Evaluation
Page 7
I
I
I
ii. Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA)
recommendations: I
Sport-lightinQ Illumination Recommendations
Class of Horizontal I
Soort Plav FC Max:Min
Ice
Hockey I 200 1.7:1 I
and
Figure II 150 2.5:1
Skating III 100 3:1 I
IV 50 4:1
iii. Measured Values:
1. Middle of four fixtures: 52FC I
2. Middle of two fixtures: 66FC
3. Below one fixture: 63 FC
4. Estimated average: 57FC I
5. Estimated Max:Min 1.2:1
RECOMMEN[)ATIONS I
The following recommendations are presented based on the walk through inspection, discussion I
with staff and further analysis of technical information found in reports, plans, specifications and
appropriate standards in the industry. I
1) The moisture problems in the north wall and lower level floors should be repaired as part
of any proposed building expansion. If an expansion project is not initiated at this time, I
strong consideration to providing a more permanent repair of the moisture problem as
outlined in this report is recommended. While repairs to date have been attempted they
have all been low cost efforts to minimize the problem. Continued moisture and I
hydrostatic forces against the north basement wall will cause structural degradation of the
wall and over time a more serious exposure to significant damage. Recommended repair
of the north wall considers two different but related solutions as outlined on Details A
and B of this report. The details relate to the two fundamental conditions that exist on the I
north wall which include the slab on grade bleachers in the area of the ice arena and the
basement condition in the remaining areas of the wall. The repair includes significant
excavation along the wall to enable the installation of drain tile and layers of impervious I
(clay) soil to prevent surface and subsurface water from building up against the wall and
ultimately under the lower level floor slabs. The drain tile would carry all the subsurface
water by gravity to the storm water pond at the southwest comer of the site. The I
structural integrity of the wall would be established by core filling all empty cores of the
masonry wall with grout through holes created in the outside faces of the masonry below
the exterior ground grade. Any interior exposed mortar joints in the masonry would be I
tuck'::pointed and repainted as required. Any interior finishes with mold or mildew
damage would be replaced.
Shakopee Community Center Condition Evaluation I
Page 8
I
I
I
I 2) The moisture problems beneath the lower level floor are primarily related to large
quantities of water infiltrating into the soils along the north wall. Elimination of water
infiltration along the north wall through !he recommended repairs outlined above will
I eliminate most of the water issues below the lower floors but additional measures will be
implemented to further prevent potential problems from developing. As part of the
proposed conceptual expansion plan further subsurface drainage measures should be
I considered. We recommend that proposed lower level expansion areas adjacent the
existing lower level spaces be over excavated to provide for the installation of free
draining subsoils and subsoil drainage piping to assure that water cannot pond beneath
I the floor slabs. By over excavating to an elevation lower than the existing floor slab
granular subsoils a means of laterally evacuating any excess water in under the existing
floor slabs can be established as outlined in Detail C of this report. Drainage piping under
I the floor would be discharged by gravity to the storm water pond in the southwest corner
of the site.
I 3) If a second sheet of ice is constructed as proposed on the expansion plan we recommend
that the new refrigeration plant for this ice sheet be designed to ultimately provide
refrigeration to both the existing and new ice sheets. It would not be necessary to provide
I immediate capacity for both ice sheets rather size critical components to allow for future
economical expansion of the ice plant. Ultimately operating both ice sheets on one plant
will save approximately 15-20 percent of the energy costs over operating two separate
I systems. Repairs made on the existing ice plant currently have the system operating well
and it is recommended that it be kept in operation as long as it operates efficiently and
reasonably trouble free. Consideration should be given to potentially installing the
I transmission mains for the existing rink under the perimeter floor slab of the new rink to
allow for simple conversion to the new ice plant in the future.
I 4) Replace fixtures with new more efficient fixture, and provide a quantity of light as
recommended by the IE IES for a type III class of play at 50 FC.
5) Provide lighting on the underside of the running track, and above the running track.
I 6) Replace fixtures with new more efficient fixture, and provide a quantity of light as
recommended by the IES for a type III class of play at 50 FC for both the gymnastics and
I the Exercise Room.
7) Replace the rubber flooring in the Exercise room to improve the lighting.
I 8) Provide task lighting at treadmills for reading.
I 9) The ice arena is currently at the quantity of light as recommended by the IES for a type
IV class of play at 50 FC. BRA recommends not changing the existing ice arena lighting
as part of this project, but considering changing it in the future.
I 10) Provide lighting at the new Ice Arena as recommended by the IES for a type III class of
play at 100 FC.
I Shakopee Community Center Condition Evaluation
Page 9
I
I
I
11) Installing a stair and roofhatch in the appropriate areas of the proposed expansion should I
provide improved access to the roof. It may be also necessary to install some permanent
ladders or stair structures on the roof to achieve access to all the different roof levels
proposed for the new and existing structure. These improvements can best be determined I
during the final design of the proposed building expansion.
Any remodeling and/or expansion project provides many opportunities to enhance or repair I
existing op(:rational and functional problems in the building. Most often the level of
improvement is limited to the available budget and prioritized by the severity of the
deficiency. In this report, we have identified the most significant of the issues encountered I
and recommended improvements that we feel make sense to correct at this time. This is not
to say that as the expansion project is further developed and budgets evaluated that other
improvements should not be considered. If the City elects to move ahead with an expansion I
project then Community Center staff should continue to take the opportunity to present and
discuss all problem areas that they become aware of during the final design process so
improvement priorities can be evaluated to make the best facility the budget can afford. I
END
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. I
I
Shakopee Community Center Condition Evaluation I
Page 10
I
I
I
DETAIL DRAWINGS
I
I
I
I
I .~ ~11"''''''r~A(I.)V....t\&
'6~F\\..l-
I
I
I ~"<""f'Ntr ."",,,wtV\QUs. s..O\\..S
I :t:u:.. .hf?'6)JAt, t>~~'N~<JtGl ~e. fAl k:. S
I
I
I DETAIL A
I
I
I
I Shako pee Community Center ConditionEvaluation
Page 11
I
I
I
I
- I
I
I
~ ~~,,~~~) I
~"" 4o.~1) \
.
~. 1:to)~"",,'ttOll..J
I
NC'IJ ~'r c.~. 'f,u-
N~ rt.~ ," I
"_W ~tlA'~ T\L.f:.
) e.~"c..,- I
'1:>>s.,- \I'J ~r
r/ll\~,,~OlJ \. I
~Oll..~
....., c.t.....\4
"''''"'b'. '\.oU(. I
lito ~1'1 W l'l 6t<AN ""^
SI)(J.( Fa t..l...- . I
)
~~'etJ1"' ~"'\LL R6PI\'~ ~
. I
I
DETAIL B I
I
Shako pee Community Center Condition Evaluation I
Page 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I €'l(\..n'-l~ abl\,.t)\ N ~ N6.y.) G...cf1\NS,O,J
_ _ _ _ _ __ L _ _ . . _ _ _ __ _ _,
I I
,
I
.
.
.
I ___~~~FL~~._ I
108.0 .
.
L.OUER L.EVI51. FLOOR I51.EV. I
.'/'. "
I ~1"'T'I'I6r ~ST EL~VAT,I.N \...I\1'"~"'\.. "ltA\N~
~NU&;.~ F<<o",- 1t1t'~T. we.~.t.,\tl.E;
S'vl!.G('(I\O'li. ..
Gl.1if^'" ,SAlle ~1l.L.
IN O\l6ItSl((.AVA-T\o/IJ
I ~"'vJ ~"''''I\~ 1: vs,f'c!;N\
- b'f,~M"ft. "to S1'l>~~
\3\)\Lt::>\ N 6t ~Of>FLOOl<. poN~ (~ '1S'7.o)
I ~ (< M '" 1\ <.re. lM,p~ (;.. (Yo. ~ f\J T5
I
I DETAIL C
I
I
I
I
I Shakopee Community Center Condition Evaluation
Page 13
I
I
I
PHOTOS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Shako pee Community Center Condition Evaluation I
Page 14
I
I -.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I/~
I
I
I 0
CO
CD ~
I III n
_. CD
cc"C
, ~c
!!!.
I
I
I
I
I
"
r-------
I
I Future
I
J Lap
I Pool
I
1-1---'- --
I Lower
1
I Lobby
I Future Below
I Gymnasticl
I Weights Extende
I Add. Wts&
I Fitness Wts & Fitness
I
, Below Below
I
I
r --- --
1
I -..
I
J Future Existing
I Gym Gym
I
, Addition Below
I I
I
,
I
I
.....----------
I
J
I Future
J Banquet
: Rm. Existln a In
. Add.
I
I
, Kit.
I
,__ -- A-
Main
I Entry
I Upper Level Plan
I I
I
.
Pool
Equi
Future
Lap Pool Spectator Seating (300)
Spin Multi Use
Aerobics
Future Studio M F W
Gymnasticl
Wts.
Addition Turf ield
Weight & Fitness Equip.
~ Cafel
Lounge earn Rm . Ref. Refr. Resurf.
---, 5 6 7 8 sIAl Equip
Future ci. 8 8
Existing ':;
Gym C"
Gym w
Expansion >.
III
ii:
0) 0)
Mech. Exist. Seatin
'1
Lower Level Plan
I
,~
t:
'total Parking
f!l~
ro Spaces
:
II
t
i' "
I ....
....
~, j: ,
';W.
;~,
- .
I
I . Ball
I
I I Fields
.
__1__- \
I
. \
Future I \
, \
,
__.I ,
. ,
I
I ,
New .
, "
i'i ,
I$,. - - -'1
Future :
Detention --,
Pond
0 0
~ -.... ----...
Drainage Swale ---- '..
~-- '"
-
-- - ~
-
..
.
.,.
~
~
\
q ~... ~
~
'.
II'-~ ",.
f'
~
~
t"
'-' r "~\'...
.
"""\
I ""'--~~~~r---
.-----~. . '. =
-z ~ ",.r(II~
.r'
,
I
I
I ;
I
.
I ~
I .1
~
~t' 1"""" {
.. .
.~ li.i
.'JitI!I'! ".~. " . ~
----
i
rIII.-
'13 ~
~.
..,
-..... ~
--
~
-
I \'
,Iji.
I .. .......""1 .
"1/1; .
I r'< r ...
..
I . .
I
I . ~~
I r-'
::': ".-
fI"'''''' ~
.
I
I "'\ {'
~ -"'" "'" - ~.
I -----z ,"
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ -
I
\
I
I -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I I . .
i
I '
Q
I
I :to
"C
"C
(1)
::J
0-
I x'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I To: Community Center Task Force Members
I From: Mark Themig, Director
Date: November 27,2004
I Subject: Community Center Feasibility Study
I On Tuesday, November 23, City Council authorized an agreement with a consulting team to
conduct the Community Center feasibility study, The team is lead by Barker Rinker Seacat,
an architectural firm from Denver, CO, and is assisted by Ballard*King (Market Study firm,
I Pueblo West, CO), and Bonestroo Sports (Architects and Engineers, local representation,
Minneapolis).
I Kitty Hauer, Eric Nutter, and Mike Thelen from the task force assisted city staff in evaluating
the nine proposals and interviewing a short list of five firms. After the interviews, the panel
felt that the Barker Rinker Seacat team had the most relevant experience in feasibility
I studies, and the most creativity. Their fee is just under $47,000, which was similar to other
proposals that we received, I've attached a copy of their proposal for your review,
Steve Blackburn, a Principal with Barker Rinker Seacat, will be leading Shakopee's project.
I Their approach to the project is a little different than how we conducted this summer's task
force. In order to maximize efficiency, they have scheduled three workshops with the task
force that will occur about every four weeks:
I Date Location
Tuesday, December 14 (6:00 p,m.) Community Center Rotary Room
I Monday, January 10 (6:00 p.m.) Community Center Rotary Room
Monday, February 28 To Be Determined
The December 14 workshop will identify the design components, financial objectives, and
I othedeasibility study issues. After the workshop, the team will be doing much of the
research that is required for this project. They will return on January 10 to present their
findings up to that point, and will present the results of the feasibility study on February 28 at
I a joint Task Force/Parks and Recreation Advisory Board/City Council workshop.
We are still seeking additional participants for the task force, especially youth, senior, and
I minority representation. If you have anyone who might be interested, please let me know and
\.will get them information on the task force,
I hope that you will consider continuing on the task force and that you are able to make the
I December 14th workshop. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 952-233-
38370r 952-233-9514 beginning December 1 when ourphone numbers will change.
I
I
I
~ Community Center Expansion I
. . . . .... . .. . . Program Identification, Feasibility Study and Market
Analysis, Cost Estimates and Concept Drawings
i SHAKOPEE I
COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857
AGENDA. I
1. Planning Meeting 1 (Tuesday. December 14th: 1:30 to 5 p.m.) I
Project Staff Coordination Meeting
. Review the Work Plan and time frame for the study
. Review Study Goals and Objectives I
. Review roles and responsibilities of client (Shakopee) and consultant (BRS
Team)
. Tour Shakopee Community Center with staff, and discuss opportunities and I
challenges of expansion project
. Discuss funding options
. Jeff King to begin market analysis and tour other recreation providers in the area
I
2. Workshop 1 with Community Center Committee (6 - 9 p.m.)
Review Feasibility Study and Conceptual Plan.process I
. ProQram and DesiQn
0 Develop Project Mission Statement. Answer the question, "What is the
greatest value an expanded Community Center would offer the residents of I
Shakopee?"
0 Present National Slide Tour of similar community recreation centers to
provide a visual picture of potential program components I
0 Develop Community Center program wish list components and priorities
through a participatory "Program Card" game
. Site I
0 Present, review and discuss criteria to be used for evaluations
0 Identify, discuss and review potential for expansion
0 Heview existing surveys, topo map, plans and elevations I
. Proh3ct BudQet
0 Identify and discuss project bUdget parameters based on wish list game
results. I
0 Discuss program phasing options, if necessary
. Business Planl Proiect Partnerships (Ballard*KinQ) I
0 Discuss schedule, budget and cost recovery objectives including staffing, fee
schedules, operations and maintenance goals
0 Identify constraints and parameters in market, site, and mission ,I
0 Discuss potential project partnerships
I
BARKERRINKER SEACAT
A R C.HITE CTU RE I
in association with Bonestroo Sports/ Bal/ard*King Associates.
I
I
I BARKER RI N KER SEACAT MEETINGNOTES
A RO HIT EO T U R E
I
Project: Shakopee Community Center Expansion Project Number: 20441.01
I Meeting Subject: Kick-off Workshop #1 Issue Date: December 22, 2004
I Present: see attendees below Meeting Date: December 14, 2004
I Copy To: Mark Themig-Shakopee (for distribution),
Jeff King-B*K, Jim Maland-Bonestroo, Dave
Hammel-BRS, Susie Nelson-BRS, file
I Attendees included:
. Matt Lehman, mlehman@mn.rr.com
. Steve Menden, smenden@msn.com
I . Joe Jasper, liasoer@mn.rr.com
. Steve Czech, steve.czechtmfabcan-usa.con
. Jeff Meyer, cikltmhotmail.com
I . Mike Vogel, teamvogeI5@msn.com
. Dan Gascow, dkgasow@msn.com
. Phil Burke, pburke@mspmac.com
. James E. Haey, (952) 445-0484
I . Brad Gripentrag, borariotmearthlink.net
. Kitty Hauer, kshauer@aol.com
. Cindy Justice, tinatori95792003@vahoo.com
. Jamie Colby, idcolby@uwalumnLcom
I . Mark Themig, Director of Shakopee Parks, Recreation, Natural Resources and Facilities,
mthemiatmci.shakooee. mn. us
. Travis Karlen, Recreation Supervisor, tkarleniq)cLshakopee.mn.us
. Josh Barrick, Ice Arena Maintenance Operator, ibarrick@cLshakooee.mn.us
I . Mark Forbes, Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates, mforbes@bonestroo.com
. Jeff King, Ballard, King Associates, jeff@ballardkina.com
. Steve Blackburn, Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture, steveblackburniq)brsarch.com
I Discussions at the Community Center Committee Meetina led to the following items of note:
1. Mark Themig introduced the planning consultant team led by Barker Rinker Seacat (BRS).
I 2. This meeting is the first of three major workshop! presentations for this 90-day Program Identification, Feasibilifj'
Market Analysis, Cost Estimates and Concept Drawings Study. The next meetings are scheduled for January 10 , and a
final presentation to City Council on February 28th.
I 3. Tonight's workshop could be called the "dream workshop," because we are going to be dreaming about the future and
creating a "wish list" of facilities for the community center expansion.
I 4. Steve Blackburn of BRS asked each of the committee members and other residents to introduce themselves and
answer the question, "What is the greatest va lue an expanded community center would offer the residents of
Shakopee?" Their responses were as follows:
. A sense of community . A sense of community pride
I . Community come together . A sense of ownership
. Welcomes the community . Family use
2300 Fifteenth Street, .Suite.l00
I Denver, Colorado 80202
303455-1366. Fax. 303 .455.7457
www.brsarch.com W\20441.01\1.07 - Meetings & Notes\Workshop 1\MN-2004.12.14- workshop 1 notes.doc
I
1-
Meeting Notes
Page 2 1
. Offer more than we have currently for whole . Family value I
family . All ages from seniors to youth
. Pools, Fitness,. Ice . A financial value for Shakopee families
. Consolidate where my family uses ice and . Provide amenities currently lacking within City I
pools . New things for kids
. Ice . Establish or enhance an identity of the Center
. Other Community amenities . A place of our own
. A centralized location . More space for seniors and their storage I
. Somethin!~ for everyone in the community . A general meeting area for the community
. An identity - image . Multi-functional facility that the entire family
. Cost effective facility that can be used by all can utilize I
ages . Good health, good friends, great community
. A facility that can serve the entire community for Shako pee residents
from children to seniors at a financial benefit
5. Mark Themig briefly described this committee is in its third year of studying a community center expansion. Part of the I
study included a survey in 2003 that described the three top needs within the City include trails, open space and the
future of the community center. The City is making strides in the first two items, and we are here tonight to work on the
third item. I
6. Steve Blackburn thanked all the attendees for their great responses to the "value" question. These responses will be
the foundation for a project mission statement that will guide the process. I
7. Steve guided the audience through a PowerPoint presentation that introduced the consulting team and t~eir roles,
discussed Sh~lkopee's growth, discussed the condition of the near decade-old Community Center, the site and it's
ability to handle expansion, potential energy saving ideas, the committee's 2003 program recommendations, I
examples of other community centers' program components, and the probable costs of distinct elements of a n
expanded community center.
a. The site has good expansion capacity. The design team has already begun to strategize how the pool can face south, I
the second sheet of ice can be added and how the ice plant and pool filtration rooms can be located to take som e fo
the heat generated from the ice plant and use it to heat the water of the pool.
9. Historical costs: BRS has analyzed the actual construction cost of their most recent ten recreation centers built in the I
past two years across the country. The costs have been equalized to Denver area construction costs. The Denver area
costs were thElO translated into Minneapolis area costs to arrive at an opinion of average Shakopee probable cost.
According to 2005 Means Cost Data,the comparison is as follows: I
Reaion Material Installation Total
Denver 100.3 90.3 95.a
Minneapolis 100.7 126.a 112.6 I
10. Construction costs discussion: Steve presented an update on the subject of current construction costs within the
Minneapolis! 8t. Paul region. The news in not rosy, and may be hard to digest. According to Engineering News Record,
in the past two years, construction costs have risen 5% and 10.7% in 2003 and 2004 respectively. By year end, the I
construction costs in Minneapolis will likely have risen by 1 % every thirty days of this year. Wow. If you think that is bad,
consider costs in the Seattle area where we are experiencing cost escalations of close to 20% in 2004 alone. China is
the main culprit here, as their national expansion is gobbling up the world's steel capacity. Steel alone has nearly
doubled in price in 2004. I
I
2300 fifteenth Street, Suite 100 I
Denver. Colorado 80202
303455-1366 Fax 303.455.7457
www.btsarcb.com W\20441.01\1.07 - Meetings & Notes\Workshop 1\MN-2004.12.14- workshop 1 notes. doc
I
I
Meeting Notes
I Page 3
I 11. Steve went on to say that we do not have control over, nor do we know for certain what 2005 or 2006 will bring regarding
the construction market. We can, however, take an educated guess. For the purposes of the study, BRS estimates that
the cost of construction from 2004 to the potential bid date of April 2006 will rise by 19%, thus a conservative figure of a
I 19% inflation factor has been applied to the Shakopee Community Center construction cost estimate. The costs will
appear high to you, but remember we are attempting to forecast costs into 2006 for purposes of this analysis, Index
Modifier = 138% means that building in Minneapolis in 2006 is 38% more expensive than building in Denver in 2004.
Cost estimates have been adjusted accordingly for the Shakopee Community Center Expansion project.
I 12. Following a national tour slide show of facilities, the attendees broke into three smaller groups of six or seven to play
the "Program Card Game," an interactive, consensus-building activity to select potential rooms within the building. The
I teams selected spaces from a variety of categories and their "wish lists. were quite large (rangingfrom 125,000-
197,000 gross square feet) and with price tags for "bricks and mortar" construction costs between $30 and $45 million.
Please see the attached Team Program Wish List Facility Programs for the Team 1, 2 and 3 selections,
1. $28,127,000/128,431 GSF = $219/ SF
I 2. $28,963,000/125,825 GSF= $230/ SF
3. $42,128,000/197,151 GSF = $214/ SF
13. It was noted that the selected cards and their respective costs represented all "new construction," but some items
I might be re-purposed in the existing community center. For example a "Spinning Studio" could be built for $150/ SF
new, but might only cost $50/SF to renovate an existing space in the current Center. BRS will take these "wish lists,"
and begin to analyze how the rooms might be organized on the site, within the building, and how some areas of lesser
priority may be phased into construction at a later time (e.g. the community rooms/ banquet hall/ caterer's kitchen
I wing).
14, Jeff King presented an overview of the work Ballard*King will be performing regarding market analysis, operational cost
I estimating, potential revenue streams, and cost recovery,
15. Comment cards:
1, Outstanding presentation - you covered all the bases
I 2. Using the cards to "build" the new addition was a great visual
3. Great world
4. Partnerships with hotels/ motels
I 16. The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled for 6 p.m. on January 10th. It is an open public meeting and will likely
be held in the Rotary Club Room of the Community Center. Hallway space may be utilized to hang up artwork, drawings
or pictures for the public to view.
I Respectfully Submitted,
~~~.
I
Steve Blackburn AlA, Principal
I Attach: Attachments "Wish ListTeam 1, 2 and 3"
I Note: The above Is considered correct unless response to the contrary Is received within 7 days from the above date.
Please contact Barker Rinker Sea cat Architecture if you feel Items are In error.
I
2300 FifteenthStr~et, Suite 100
I Denver. COlorado 80202
303"455"1366'. Fax 303.455.7457
www.brsarch.com W\20441.01 \1.07 - Meetings & Notes\Workshop 1\MN-2004.12.14- workshOp 1 notes.doc
I
I
~ Community Center Expansion I
.. . . .'. Program Identification, Feasibility Study and Market
Analysis, Cost Estimates and Concept Drawings
SHAI(OPEE I
COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857
AGENDA I
1. Public Meetina 1 (Monday, January 10th: 6:00 to 8:30 p.m.) I
. Meet with Community Center Task Force and community members I
0 Introductions
0 Review Draft mission statement (BRS)
"Good health, good friends, great community" I
The goal of the Shakopee Community Center expansion is to enhance the quality
of life and sense of community of all Shakopee residents by providing a I
welcoming, centralized, multi-functional community gathering point that offers
something for everyone in the cOlTlmunity, The center should offer amenities
currently lacking within the City, providing new spaces for all ages from children
to seniors. I
The Center is envisioned to be the Community's "family room," and help create
cohesiveness within the community, The Center will become a source of pride, I
bringing the community together at a year around focal destination point adding
to Shakopee's major regional entertainment center, and will take advantage of
the 4 million visitors that visit Shakopee each year.
The Center is envisioned to provide Shakopee residents with a sense of pride I
and ownership, a place of their own to play, skate, swim, work out, meet and
socialize. The identity and image of the Center must be enhanced, The
expansion should be programmed to offer a financial family value, The center I
should be financially feasible, sustainable, and affordable, and to provide
outstanding service to Shako pee area families.
() Preliminary market study information (Ballard King) I
() Review renovation and repair report (Bonestroo)
() Program and Design (BRS)
. Review and discuss Draft Building Program I
. Present and discuss concept floor plan studies
0 Site (Bonestroo)
. Present, review and discuss site expansion criteria
. Review and discuss concept site plan I
0 Proiect Budget (BRSI Ballard King)
. Review and discuss project budget and construction costs
. Discuss schedule, budget and cost recovery objectives including staffing,
fee schedules, operations and maintenance goals I
0 Comment Cards
I
BARKERRINKER SEACAT
ARCHITE CTURE I
in association with Bonestroo Sports/ Ballard*King Associates,
I
I
I Community Center Expansion
Program Identification, Feasibility Study and Market
Analysis, Cost Estimates and Concept Drawings
I SHAKOPEE
COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857
I AGENDA
I 1. Plannina Meetina 2 (Mondav. January 10~: 11:00 to 4:30 p.m.)
. Proiect Staff Coordination Meetina: Market Analvsis (Ballard*Kina: 11. to 12:30 om)
I 0 Review and discuss preliminary findings including service area, demographics,
existing facilities! programs! services, national and regional benchmarks and
market segments.
I Break for lunch
Proiect Staff Coordination Meeting (BRS, Bonestroo. Ballard Kina: 1 :30 to 4:30 om)
.
0 Review renovation and repair report
I 0 Review program and design alternatives
0 Discuss phasing options
0 Review project budget and probable construction costs
I Break for dinner (or bring dinner in)
I Public Meetina 1 (Mondav. Januarv 10~: 6:00 to 8:30 p.m.)
2.
I . Meet with Communitv Center Task Force
0 Review Draft mission statement (BRS)
0 Preliminary market study information (Ballard King)
I 0 Review renovation and repair report (Bonestroo)
0 Proaram and Desian (BRS)
. Review and discuss Draft Building Program
I . Present and discuss concept floor plan studies
0 Site (Bonestroo)
. Present, review and discuss site expansion criteria
. Review and discuss concept site plan
I 0 Proiect Budget (BRS! Ballard King)
. Review and discuss project budget and construction costs
. Discuss schedule, budget and cost recovery objectives including staffing,
I fee schedules, operations and maintenance goals
I
I BARKER RINKER SEACAT
I AR C.H I T Eel URE
in association with Bonestroo Sports! Ballard* King Associates,
I
I
BARKER RINKER SEACAT j MEETINGNGfES I
I ARC HIT E CT U R E
I
Project: Shakopee Community Center Expansion Project Number: 20441.01
Meeting Subject: WClrkshop #2 Issue Date: January 11, 2005 I
Present: see attendees below Meeting Date: January 10, 2005 I
Copy To: MSlrk Themig-Shakopee (for distribution), I
Jeff King-B*K, Jim Maland-Bonestroo, Dave
Hammel-BRS, Susie Nelson-BRS, file
Attendees included: I
. Bernice Delluvo-Samstad, (952) 445-3814, Isamstad@poop.act
. lona Theis, (91)2) 445-1761 I
. Wahneta MeYElraan, (952) 445-0486
. Marie La Tour, (952) 445-2395
. Steve O'Neil, (952) 445-3379, steve.oneilltq)wayzata.kiz.mn.us
. Phil Burke, (9fi2) 233-1432, pburke@msomac.org I
. Dave Greenin!~, (952) 445-0339, dgreeninglIDmn.rr.com
. Shirley Reinke, (952) 445-4196
. John Clay, (612) 269-8873, iclav@riversidcomouters.com
. Kitty Hauer, (952) 445-7554, kshauer@aol.com I
. Mike Thelen, (952) 445-5034, mrthelen@landolakes.com
. Matt Lehman, mlehman@mn.rr.com
. Steve Menden, smendenlIDmsn.com
. Steve Zastrow, (952) 496-0144, zastrowzack@aol.com I
. Sandy Westlund, (952) 496-2256, westlunds6~aol.com
. Don McNeil, (E)12) 418-7954, dmshakopeelIDaol.com
. Mark Themig, Director of Shakopee Parks, Recreation, Natural Resources and Facilities, I
mthemig@ci.~~hakopee.mn. us
. Travis Karlen, Recreation Supervisor, tkarlenlIDcLshakooee.mn.us
. Josh Barrick, Ice Arena Maintenance Operator, jbarricklIDcLshakooee.mn.us
. Jim Maland, Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates, imalandlIDbonestroo.com I
. Jeff King, Ballard, King Associates, iefflIDballardkina.com
. Steve Blackburn, Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture, steveblackburn@brsarch.com
Discussions at the ~nmunitv Center Committee Meeting led to the following items of note: I
1. Mark Themig introduced the planning consultant team led by Barker Rinker Seacat (BRS).
2, This meeting is the second of three major workshopl presentations for this 90-day Program Identification, Feasibility,
Market Analysis, Cost Estimates and Concept Drawings Study, The final presentation to City Council is scheduled for I
February 28th.
3. Steve Blackburn of BRS reviewed the minutes of workshop 1. I
4. The draft project mission statement was reviewed, which reads:
"Good health, good friends, great community" I
2300 Fifteenth Street, Suite 100 I
Denver, Colorado 80202
303"455-1366 Fax 303.455.7457
www..btsarch.com W\20441.01\1.07 - Meetings & Notes\Workshop 2\MN-2005.01.10- workshop 2 notes revised.doc
I
I
Meeting Notes
I Page 2
I The goal of the Shako pee Community Center expansion is to enhance the quality of life and sense of
community of all Shakopee residents by providing a welcoming, centralized, multi-functional community
I gathering point that offers something for everyone in the community, The center should offer amenities
currently lacking within the City, providing new spaces for all ages from children to seniors,
I The Center is envisioned to be the Community's "family room," and help create cohesiveness within the
community, The Center will become a source of pride, bringing the community together at a year around
focal destination point adding to Shakopee's major regional entertainment center, and will take
advantage of the 4 million visitors that visit Shakopee each year,
I The Center is envisioned to provide Shakopee residents with a sense of pride and ownership, a place of
their own to play, skate, swim, work out, meet and socialize. The identity and image ofthe Center must
I be enhanced, The expansion should be programmed to offer a financial family value. The center should
be financially feasible, sustainable, and affordable, and to provide outstanding service to Shakopee area
families,
I 5. There was a discussion regarding the appropriateness of the "4 million visitors" portion of the statement. There was a
general consensus that the statement is fine, because it states that the project is being built for the residents of
I Shakopee, and there is a desire to take advantage of visitors from other communities outside Shakopee to enhance
revenue flow to offset operational expenses and keep the project affordable for Shakopee residents.
6. Jeff King guided the audience through a PowerPoint presenlation regarding his findings in the market analysis,
I 7. Jeff showed the primary Shakopee service area of 36,730 population with boundaries just outside the city limits.
8. The secondary service area boundaries go as far as Hwy 394 to the North, Hwy 19 to the South, Eagan to the East and
,I Carver to the West.
9. The median age in Shakopee is 4 years younger than the national average.
I 10. Demographic statistics in the "under 5 year old" category is 2.5% higher than the national level. Growth in the 5-17 year
old category is 0.3% higher than the national average, and growth in the 25-44 year old category is 8.7% higher than the
national average.
I 11. By 2009, significant increases in several age brackets will be evident in Shakopee:
. Under 5: +82.6%
. 5-17: +89.3%
I . 45-54: +115.2%
. 55-64:+103.7%
. 65-74: +80.7%
Conclusion: the center must be multi-generational.
I 12. Household median income is significantly higher than the national average. Income and disposable income drive
participation in.community and recreation centers.
I 13. Market Potential slide showed the activities by percentage of Shakopee population. Swimming is important. For
instance, 18.9% of swimmers would also participate in aerobics. Conversely, 35.5% of aerobics participants would
participate in swimming, Exercise walking is #1 activity. Exercising with equipment is #2 and swimming is #3.
I Conclusion: a synergy takes place when activities are combined under one roof.
2300 Fifteenth Street. Suite 100
I Denver. Colorado 80202
303455-1366 Fax 303,455.7457
w'Ww.brsarch;com VIf.\20441.01\1.07 - Meetings & Notes\Workshop 2\MN-2005.01.10- workshop 2 notes revised.doc
I
I
Meeting Notes
Page 3 I
14. The State of Minnesota has 1.8% of the US population. Activities in Minnesota that are stronger than the national I
average include in-line skating, tennis, soccer, volleyball, softball, billiards, baseball and weight training. In addition,
the following activities have strong market potential in Shakopee: running/ jogging, weight lifting, aerobics, exercise
with equipment, exercise walking, swimming, and basketball. I
15, Market Potential Trends: aerobics +16.4%, exercise walking +12.2%, running/ jogging + 11.1 %.
16. In Minnesota, !~rowth of female USA Hockey players helped the overall total of hockey players in the state grow from I
43,000 in 1998/99 to 44,868 in the 2002/03 season.
17. The market potential in Shakopee would allow adult hockey and public skate which is currently not served or is barely I
served.
18. Jeff also looked at passive and cultural art activities. The Shakopee High School is planning a performing arts center,
so we believe that some of the needs in the community will be met. Certainly galleries within the Community Center I
expansion could be designed to provide visual arts space. The multi-purpose rooms and classroom could provide
class space for music and art classes.
19, Alternative service providers were analyzed within the region including private operators (Life Time, etc.) and other I
public providers such as Chaska, Eden Prairie, Egan and Cascade Bay.
20. Market Analysis conclusion: Jeff believes there is room in the market for the proposed expansion. He expects 4,000 to I
6,000 particip~lnts per week to utilize the expanded Shakopee Community Center.
21. Jim Maland discussed the existing condition assessment. Bonestroo examined the Community Center with a team of
Engineers. Items of notes included the following, I
. Ice floor ground water is high levels proximate to the refrigeration pipes, A drainage fix around the perimeter of the
building is in order.
. The water infiltration problem is mostly along the north side of the building. The sloping red roofs funnel the water I
to certain points such as along the men's locker wall and stair which is migrating inside the building through the
block walls. There is mold and mildew in the area where water is present.
. The wood floor moisture issues continue to plague the gymnasium area of the building. I
. Lighting levels were taken throughout the main spaces of the building and are much dimmer than recommended.
It is hoped that the expansion project can fix these conditions. I
22. Steve Blackburn of BRS presented the two conceptual programs, budgets and plans for: I
. Option 1: Die Bahnhofshalle (translation: "Station Hall")
1. New construction: 140,084 s.f.; $31,822,000
2. genovation: 76.426 s.f.: $981.910
Total 216,510 s.f. "Bricks and Mortar" construction cost: $32,803,910 I
. Option 2: Das Zentrum (translation: "Central Hub")
1. New construction: 146,828 s.f.; $33,839,000
2. genovation: 76.426 s.f.: $2.449 221 I
Total 223,254 s.f. "Bricks and Mortar" construction cost: $35,488,221
23. Jim Maland presented the site plans for the two options showing the capacity of site to accommodate over 900 cars. I
BRS has estimated that 730 cars would need to be designed to service a 220,000 s.f. Center.
2300 Fifteenth Street, Suite 100 I
Denver, Colorado 80202
303455-1366 Fax 303;455.7457
www.brsarch;com W.\20441.01\1.07 - Meetings & Notes\Workshop 2\MN-2005.01.10-workshop 2 notes revised.doc
I
I
Meeting Notes
I Page 4
I 24. Comments on the site plan included:
. Do not remove the new skate park,
I . Stay off the ball fields
. May need a fire lane around the building, or at least access to fire hydrants at the corners of the building (pool and
kitchen).
. South entry is good idea (Option 2). May need additional parking in this area. Consider downsizing the.ice arena
I addition.
25. Several senior citizens attended the meeting. The senior group started in the late 1960's and grew to 160 members at
I its peak. They now have 44 members. They have never had a place of their own for meeting space, and because of this
they feel they can not grow, The seniors voiced their needs for a senior center including:
. Need to be close to restrooms.
. Locate senior center on exterior wall with natural light, not internal to the plan.
I . Need a workable kitchen with stoves, microwaves, etc.
. AN system
. Comfortable corner with seating and tables.
. Senior men need billiard areas
I 26. Funding: Currently a $15 million bond would cost $85!yr ($7!mo). $30 million bond would cost $170! year ($14! mo) for
an average $178,000 house. Many individuals on the committee thought a $15! mo property increase would not be too
taxing on most citizens. An exception to this sentiment may be the senior citizens that are on fixed incomes,
I 27. To discuss a possible phasing strategy, Steve Blackburn asked for straw polling on the question "Is this an absolute
must have space?:"
. Leisure Pool: yes
I . Lap pool: no
. Gym: yes
. Senior Center: yes
. Banquet Hall: yes
I . Ice: yes
. Indoor play: yes
. Weights! fitness! aerobics: yes
I . Child watchl babysitting: yes
. Gymnastics: no
. Walk! jog track expansion: yes
I 28. Mark Themig reminded the group that the public's first three priorities from the 2003 survey were:
1. Pool
2. Fitness
3, Indoor Play
I 29, Comment cards: Seventeen (17) comment cards were collected at the end of the meeting. Summary of comments
follow. Question 1: "What are the three highest priorities for spaces you and your family think should be included in an
I expanded community center?:"
1. LeisurePool: 15 votes (2 of these noted "lap and leisure pool", 1 of these indicated "tots pool and play area", 1
of these indicated "large leisure pool", 1 of these indicated "pool"; 1 indicated "attract membership! usage")
2. Fitness and weights: 1 0 votes (1 of these indicated "senior fitness programs")
I 3. Senior Adult Center: 9 votes (1 of these indicated "must do senior center"; 1 of these indicated close parking
for seniors with wheelchair availability)
4. Multi-Use 2 nd sheet: 7 votes (1 of these indicated thatthis space and banquet improve revenue; 1 of these
indicated to focus on multi-purpose sports options, not just hockey as many sports are in their infancy, Let's
I develop future athletes here)
2300 Fifteenth Street, Suite 100
I Penver, Colorado 80202
303455-1366. Fax 303.455.7457
www.brsarcb;com W\20441.01\1.07.- Meetings & Notes\Workshop 2\MN-2005.01.10- workshop2 notes revised.doc
I
I
Meeting Notes I
Page 5
5. ~3xDansion: 5 votes (1 of these indicated "fitness! gym" already counted above) I
6, Indoor Plavaround: 2 votes (1 of these indicated "play area and tot lot")
7. Banauet Rooms! Meeting Rooms: 3 votes
8. Arts and activity areas: 1 vote I
Question 2: "Do you prefer?:" I
. Option 1: Die Bahnhofshalle: 2 votes
. Option 2: Das Zentrum: 12 votes (2 of these indicated "move senior center to an outside wall with bathrooms
adjacent; 1 of these indicated, "Would like a main entrance in front and back, would need more staff with
multiple entrances; 1 of these indicated "Prefer Option 2, however I would like to look at the best options for I
facility efficiency and possible build out phasing; 1 of these indicated "multi-purpose")
. Option 3: combination of 1 and 2: 2 votes (1 of these indicated "lower cost and parking)
. Other comments: "Focus on the need to have, not the nice to have."
30. Given the complexity of funding discussion, Steve Blackburn distributed the two conceptual project budgets for: I
. Option 1: Die Bahnhofshalle (translation: "Station Hall")
1. New construction: 140,084 sJ.; $31,822,000 I
2. Benovation: 76.426 s.f: $981.910
Total 216,510 sJ. "Bricks and Mortar" construction cost: $32,803,910
3. Total Site Construction: $1,489,000
4. Other Project Development Costs: $5,426,983 I
5. jO% continaencv: $3.971.989
6. Total Project Cost: $43,691,882
. Option 2: Das Zentrum (translation: "Central Hub") I
1. New construction: 146,828 s.f.; $33,839,000
2. Benovation: 76.426 s.f.: $2.449.221
Total 223,254 sJ. "Bricks and Mortar" construction cost: $35,488,221 I
3. Total Site Construction: $1,585,000
4. Other Project Development Costs: $5,790,738
5, jO% continaencv: $4 286.396
6. Total Project Cost: $47,150,352 I
31. At one point in the meeting, the committee consensus was to recommend a full wish list facility analyzed for feasibility
and presented to City Council for placing on a ballot measure for bond funding. Given the total project budget I
information presented late in the meeting, more discussion will take place at another committee meeting on the week
of January 24ti1 to give the consultants direction. Mark Themig will schedule this meeting with the committee. No
consultants will attend.
32. The next presentation by the consultant will be on February 28th. It is an open public meeting. A venue will be I
announced by Mark's office at a later date. The feasibility report findings and recommendations will be shared at this
meeting to Shakopee City Council.
Respectfully Submitted, I
O~----, I
Steve Blackburn AlA, Principal I
2300 Fifteenth S~et,Suite 100 I
Denver, Colorado 80202
303-455-1366 Fax 303:455.7457
www.brsarch.com W\20441.01 \1.07 - Meetings & Notes\Workshop 2\M N-2005. 0 1.10- workshop 2 notes revised. doc
I
I
Meeting Notes
I Page 6
I Note: The above Is considered correct unless response to the contrary Is received within 7 days from the above date.
Please contact Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture if you feel Items are In error.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2300 Fifteenth Street, Suite 100
I Denver, Colorado 80202
303455-1366 Fax 303~4SS,7457
www.brsarch.com VIf.\20441. 0 1\ 1. 07 - Meetings & Notes\Workshop 2\M N-2005. 0 1.10- workshop 2 notes revised.doc
I
I
I
I
I
To: Community Center Task Force Members I
From: Mark Themig, Director
Date: February 2, 2005 I
Subject: January 26 Meeting Summary I
Community Center Task Force Meeting - February 28
Community Center Feasibility Study Presentation - March 15
Additional Updates
. Shakopee School District Discussion Regarding School Site I
. Estimated Tax Impact for Proposed Expansion Cost
. Informational Handout on the Feasibility Study
. 1994 Lifetime Fitness Study I
January 26 Meeting Summary I
At the January 26 meeting, the task force spent the evening discussing the proposed costs
and prioritizing different expansion components. We started the meeting with comments from
the task force members on their reaction from the initial cost estimates and design, and what
they hoped an expansion would provide: I
. Want to be greeted by activity when you enter the building
. Most bang for the buck
. Most for le~ast amount of money, but broaden out services. I
. The price tag was too high,
. Maximize as many people/activities as possible in the design - cardio, pool, "life fitness"
activities. I
. Price tag was too high - need to prioritize,
. We have a growing community and need to think about the future,
. Children's play area and community rooms are important.
. The concE~pt facility was too big, I
. Need to serve as many as possible with the design - less specialized.
. Could add additional water and fitness in the future.
. Ensure that we have a space for senior citizens. I
. $40 million was too much
. Need to ensure that the design creates the synergy under one roof, as noted in the
January 10 meeting notes, I
. Supply something for all ages.
. Seniors feel that their voices are being heard in the discussion.
Additional comments that were emailed were distributed and discussed (attached). I
I
I
I
-.,
I
I One of the discussion topics was whether a design like Option 1 or Option 2 would be better.
There was concern about the additional renovation costs for Option 2 and the desire to keep
these costs as low as possible. However, Mr, Blackburn has commented to me that this
I option provides the best opportunity for phasing expansions over time, does a better job at
creating the community gathering space that has been discussed in the past, and
accommodates non-ice use in the multi-use facility better.
/1 Also, there was discussion regarding the quality of the proposed expansion, As you know,
the cost estimates were based on a quality level "8" from 1-10, There seemed to be
consensus from the task force to look at a quality level "6" if our current building is a quality
I level "4".
There was consensus at the meeting to prepare a recommendation for the Parks and
I Recreation Advisory Board and City Council for a total oroiect cost nottoexceed $25 million.
I have attached a summary of the priority list from that meeting, I did modify a few of the
costs to reflect what the preliminary estimates were, For example, the leisure pool cost that
we discussed at the meeting did not reflect the lifeguard support space. There was
I considerable discussion regarding the priorities and costs, so please review this list to ensure
it accurately represent the discussion. If there are any changes that need to be made, let me
know by phone or email. I want to get those changes to the consultant team as soon as
I possible.
The consultant team will need to provide more advice on the design and costs for the
I proposed amenities given this input, with the total project cost not to exceed $25 million.
February 28 Community Center Task Force Meeting
As we discussed at the last meeting, the task force recommended delaying the presentation
I to City Council to give the task force and the consultant team additional time to finalize the
proposal. I think it would be beneficial to meet jointly as previously planned with the Parks
and Recreation Advisory Board so they are aware of the proposal and can offer their input
I before it is finalized. This meeting would be held as planned on:
Monday, February 28
6:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers
I City Hall, 129 South Holmes Street
The full consultant team would be in attendance at this meeting.
I March 15 Community Center Feasibility Study Presentation
The presentation on the task force's recommendation would be rescheduled to City Council's
I designated workshop time prior to their regularly scheduled meeting, The presentation has
tentatively been. rescheduled to:
Tuesday, March 15
I 5:00 p.m-6:45 p.m. in the City Council Chambers
City Hall, 129 South Holmes Street
I City Council will be asked to reschedule this workshop from February 28 to March 15 at their
upcoming meeting. Steve Blackburn, principal in charge of our project, would be at this
I
I
I
I
meeting to represent the consultant team as part of our current scope of services. It would be
helpful if we could identify a task force member to give this presentation to City Council, I
Additional Updates
. Shakopee School District Discussion Regarding School Site
The city had a meeting with representatives from the School District to discuss our joint I
powers agreement for shared facility use. As part of that discussion, Jon McBroom
discussed the concept of locating some facility in the vicinity of the High
School/Community Center. We also discussed in general terms what benefits there might ,I
be in looking again at a combined Community Center Expansion/School facility project.
The School Board is scheduled to discuss this idea in more detail at their February 14th I
meeting as part of their general discussion on their future building needs. I wanted you to
be aware Clf this in advance.
. Estimated Tax Impact for Proposed Expansion Cost I
Gregg Voxland, the city's finance director, has provided the following information on
annual costs for a $25 million, 20-yearreferendum.
Annual Tax Impact I
Assessors Market Value Based on 2005 Valuation Monthly
$160,000,.." ,."".."..,.".."., ...',.,.."..".."". $110 ,..." ....,.."...,.. ,... ,..,.."..".".." ....,. $ 9,17
$187,000.."...,...."..,....."..,.."...."..".." ...., $130 ,."..""."..".."....,...".."..,.."..,.. '" $1 0.83 I
$213,000 (Average Household Value).... $150 ..................................................$12.50
$277,000......,....".."...."..,..".. ,.".."..,'..... $190 ,."..'",."..,'..'"..."..".."..'.."..,..... $15.83
$513,000.....,..."..".."...,........."..".."..".., $355 .....,....,...,.............,..".."..... ........ $29.58 I
$590,000,.."......".."..""..,..", ,...,..',...,...,. $420 "....,."..,...,....,...,...".."..'.."..",'.. $35.00
As additional commercial and. residential development occurs in Shakopee, these
amounts would decrease over time due to the expanded tax base, We do not have this I
analysis available for this mailing, but I hope to have it for your January 28 meeting.
. Informational Handout on the Feasibility Study I
Information on the feasibility study is posted at the Community Center. We have been
receiving many questions about the feasibility study, so we developed the attached
handout tCl provide more information on the process, Also, a presentation on the I
feasibility study is scheduled to run on public access television over the next month. If
any of yoU! would be interested in adding audio to describe the process in more detail,
please let me know.
. 1994 Lifetime Fitness Study I
Finally, . Oem McNeil has mentioned several times that there was a study completed by
Lifetime Fitness in the 1990's to evaluate locating a health club in Shakopee, Our City I
Clerk's office was finally able to locate this study, Although it is somewhat dated and is
more geared toward the 2004 task force's work,. I think it is worthwhile to review how
these different evaluation criteria have changed since then, I
Thank you once again for your involvement in this project. If you have any questions, please
feel free to call me, Travis Karlen, or Josh Barrick, We can all be reached at 952-233-9500,
Cc: Mayor and City Council via Activity Packet I
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
I
I
I
I Josh Barrick, Recreation Supervisor
I Travis Karlen, Recreation Supervisor
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
Judy Cox, City Clerk
I Steve Blackburn, BSR Architects
Jeff King, Ballard*King
Jim Maland, Bonestroo, Rosene, & Anderlik
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Community Center Task Force
Community Center Expansion Priorities and Approximate Costs I
January 26,2005
Priorit Phase 1 Item Cost Goal* I
**Leisure Pool, includin a uatic su $6,200,000
Multi-Use Facili /Second Sheet 4,000,000
**Fitness Component including equipment 3,000,000 I
cardio and stren th trainin
Re uired Suildin Su ort Services 2,700,000
Shared Aerobics/S innin /Dance S ace 1,100,000 I
**Dedicated Senior Center with connected 1,400;000
Shared Use Space, Kitchen, Meeting Rooms,
close to restrooms I
Indoor Pia round, includin structure 750,000
Cafe/Snack Area/Sirthda Pa Rooms 600,000
Child Care 250,000 I
Subtotal 20,000,000
Renovation
FFE
Site 1m rovements I
Fees
Contin enc
Grand Total 25,000,000 I
*Cost Goals were based on the estimates provided previously, with some modifications that
represent goals for the task force. Cost goals need to be modified to reflect discussion on
quality level, should include equipment, and may require modifying the size of spaces to I
reflect the proposed cost goal.
**Represent the three highest priorities selected by the task force.
Future Expansion Components (Need to consider as part of the concept design, but I
constructed in future phases)
. Expanded gymnasium I
. Expanded walking track if not feasible in proposed expansion
. Lap pool
. Dedicated banquet room I
. Additional fitness space (such as dedicated spinning, dedicated pilates, etc.)
. Additional meeting rooms
Additional Comments I
. Previous cost estimates were based on a quality level of "8" from a sale of 1-10.
Reconsider cost estimates based on a quality level of "6",
. Need to confirm whether or not exterior elevation drawings are part of the current scope I
of services,
. Need additional direction from the consultant team on Option 1 vs. Option 2, and how we
can minimize renovation costs. I
. Need to show "second sheet" as multi-use facility
I
I
I
I CITY OF SHAKOPEE
I MEMORANDUM
To: Community Center Feasibility Study Task Force
I Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
From: Mark Themig
I Meeting Date: February 28, 2005
I Subject: Joint Work Session on Updated Concept Plans, Cost Estimates, and
Feasibility Study Information for the Community Center Expansion
I INTRODUCTION
The Community Center Feasibility Study Task Force and the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board will meet in a work session on February 28,6:00 p,m. at City Hall, 129
I South Holmes Street, to review the latest information from the feasibility study and
develop a final recommendation that will be presented to City Council on March 15,
I BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
The citizen task force is nearing a final recommendation on a proposed expansion to the
Community Center. I thought it would be beneficial to have the final meeting with the
consultant team be a joint work session with the Advisory Board to discuss any
I concerns. Those on the task force received the initial mailing for this meeting earlier in
February, and the same information is included in this packetfor those on the Advisory
Board.
I The focus of Monday's work session is to review the updated concept plans, cost
estimates, and financial operating information on a Community Center expansion, This
I memo includes an updated concept plan, which is discussed in more detail below,
Exterior drawings, cost estimates, and financial operating information are still being
finalized andwill be presented at the meeting.
I Concept Plan
The consultant team has spent a significant amount of time studying the most effective
way to expand the Community Center given the existing design and site considerations.
I They presented five different preliminary design options to staff, which were incorporated
into two concept plan options that the task force reviewed at previous meetings. Based
on discussion and direction from the task force at those meetings, the consultant team
I developed the final concept plan that is included with this memo,
The proposed final concept plan creates a focal gathering point for the community, limits
renovation costs, and stays within the "cost goal" of $25 million that the task force
I discussed previously:
. This plan creates a large central corridor with the arena and multi-use space on one
side and the pool, fitness, gymnasium, senior spaces, meeting rooms, and indoor
I playground on the other, and is the most effective way to add on to the existing
building.
I
I
I
I
. It provides a central corridor where the majority of people would enter and leave
rather than multiple entrances in other plans. This would help ensure more efficient I
staffing and more effective supervision,
. Although it results in the loss of the area currently used for fitness, it reuses this
space for the indoor playground, eliminating a need to build new space for this I
function, It also uses the space for a main entryway from the upper level to the lower
level amenities.
. It provides a new entry on the lower side of the building, highlighting the leisure pool
component. I
. It facilitates the "community center all-in-one" concept where all users come
together in a shared space, instead of a separate arena and community center
areas. I
There are sE~veral challenges with this plan that would need to be discussed further as
part of any final design work, should that occur: I
. The side-by-side arena results in the loss of the lower-level parking lot, which would
need to be reconstructed,
. Traffic flow into and out of the arena and multi-use space through a shared lobby
may be ,a concern, especially with participants that have hockey equipment. I
. The overall traffic flow within the arena and multi-use space should be evaluated
further to ensure that the team rooms and mechanical areas function appropriately.
. The size of the senior activity space (and other areas) should be evaluated to ensure I
it meets the needs.
The consultant team has said that expanding an existing building poses many more I
challenges than designing a new building. This certainly appears to be the case. It will
be important for the task force to have a concept plan that can be proposed, but it should
be understood that changes to the plan would occur as part of any final design process,
Special Election Information I
I have asked Judy Cox to provide the Task Force and Advisory Board with the
requirements for holding a special election. According to Ms, Cox, the following are the I
requirements the city would need to adhere to:
. A special election is called for by the City Council by resolution.
. A minimum of 6-8 weeks is really needed since the ballots have to be ordered and
printed ,and ready for absentee voters 30 days prior to the election. I
. The city pays for the election,
. The election is held at the 12 precincts, All 12 sites are available at this time if
needed for a special election for either May 17th or 24th, except that at one of the I
churches, this needs to be run by the Board for approval at their meeting on March
2nd, We need to give them all a call back on March 16th and confirm if and when we
need their facilities on the 17th or 24th or another date to be determined, I
. The ballot question is developed by the City Attorney when he prepares the
resolution for city council calling the special election.
If the Task Force and Advisory Board recommend moving ahead with a referendum, you I
should discuss timing of the election. The consultant team has expressed.some concern
with a May election date, which would leave only 60 days for a citizen group to market
the electiol1J. However, it may be more difficult to hold an election in June due to the end I
of school-Y1aar activities and the start of summer activities,
I
I
I
I Finally, if you recommend moving ahead with an election, there would need to be a
I citizen group that leads the campaign. The City can not promote an election, only
provide factual information about the election,
I If you decide to recommend a May 1 th or May 24th election, we can have the
appropriate resolutions prepared for City Council's regular meeting on March 15,
REQUESTED ACTION
I The Task Force and Advisory Board are asked to review the updated concept plan, cost
estimates, and financial operating information for a Community Center expansion.
I You are also asked to formulate a final recommendation that can be presented to City
Council at the upcoming joint work session, which is scheduled for 5:00 p,m.on
Tuesday, March 15. This recommendation should include the following:
I 1) Proposed concept plans for an expansion to the Community Center, both floor plan
and exterior elevations.
2) Proposed cost estimate for the expansion.
3) Financial operating information.
I 4) A recommendation on a special election:
a) Proposed timeline for a special election,
b) Formation of a citizen group,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BARKER RINKERSEACAT 1 MEETlN6NC1I'E:S I
[ARCIUTECTURE
I
Project: Shakopee Community Center Expansion Project Number. 20441.01
Meeting Subject: Workshop #3 Issue Date: March 1, 2005 I
Present: sel~ attendees below Meeting Date: February 28, 2005 I
Copy To: MSlrk Themig-Shakopee (for distribution), Jeff
King-B*K, Jim Maland-Bonestroo, Dave I
Hammel-BRS, Susie Nelson-BRS, file
Attendees included: I
. Steve Czech, (!~52) 445-3982, szek@mchsLcom
. Sonja Bereich, (952) 888-1854, sbercich@msn.com
. Jeff Lee, (952) 893-0720, mnfedcudas@aol.com I
. Diana McClay, (952) 496-3191, dmcclay@shakopeek12.mn.us
. Jamie Colby, (952) 380-7666, jdcolby@cuwalumnLcom
. Rob Root, (612) 991-1316, rroot@mn.rr.com
. Dave Pass, (952) 445-7987, pass2433@yahoo,com. I
. lona Theis, (952) 445- 1761, Senior Citizen's Club
. Wahneta Meyeraan, (952) 445-0486, Senior Club
. Steve O'Neil, (952) 445-3379, steve.oneill@wayzata.kiz.mn.us
. Phil Burke, (952) 233-1432, pburke@mspmac.org I
. Dave Greening, (952) 445-0339, dgreening@mn.rr.com
. Shirley Reinke, (952) 445-4196
. John Clay, (612) 269-8873, jclay@riversidcomputers.com
. Kitty Hauer, (952) 445-7554, kshauer@aol.com I
. Matt Lehman, mlehman@mn.rr.com
. Steve Menden, smenden@msn.com
. Steve Zastrow, (952) 496-0144, zastrowzack@aol.com
. Dori Maddox, (952) 403-6619, djmaddox@mn.rr.us I
. Brad Larson, (952) 496-0144, zastrowzack@aol.com
. Don McNeil, (612) 418-7954, dmshakopee@aol.com
. Mark Themig, Director of Shakopee Parks, Recreation, Natural Resources and Facilities, mthemig@cLshakopee.mn.us
. Travis Karlen, Recreation Supervisor, tkarlen@ci.shakopee.mn.us I
. Josh Barrick, Ice Arena Maintenance Operator, jbarrick@cLshakopee.mn.us
. Jim Maland, Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates, jmaland@bonestroo.com
. Jeff King, Ballmd, King Associates, jeff@ballardking.com
. Steve Blackburn, Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture, steveblackburn@brsarch.com I
Discussions at the Community Center Committee Meeting led to the following items of note:
1. Mark Themig introduced the planning consultant team led by Barker Rinker Seacat (BRS).
2. ( This meeting is the third of three major workshopl presentations for this 90-day Program Identification, Feasibility, Market I
Analysis, Cost Estimates and Concept Drawings Study. The final presentation to City Council is scheduled for March 15th.
3, Steve Blackburn of BRS reviewed the major milestones of workshop 1, workshop 2, and the task force meeting of January 26th. I
1. Workshop 1 (December 14, 2004), the "dream workshop" where we established the mission and vision for the project,
plaYI~d the program card game and defined a "wish list" building program of spaces. Big idea: Center should be I
gathering point for the community,
..~.a.~~;.FI~t~~t~'.~~;~~SUlt~..10~ I
pl?ll\ir,C(llor"9~~02OZ . .
~Ol....S$,.la66.Fait3()3'4S5.74s.7'
. '. .' -- .
w\YjoV.b.r;s~c;:n.C(lrn W:\20441.01\1.07 - Meetings & Notes\Workshop 3\MN-2005.02.28- workshop 3 notes.doc
I
I
Meeting Notes
I Page 2
I 2. Workshop 2 (January 10, 2005), where Jim Maland provided an overview of the condition assessment of the existing
building by the Bonestroo team of engineers, Jeff King reviewed the market analysis, and Steve Blackburn reviewed
the wish list programs and associated construction and project costs. Two concepts were unveiled in Workshop 2 and
I the direction was given to head toward option 2 with modifications. Big idea: the center must be multi-generational.
3. Task Force Meeting (January 26, 2005), represented the task force prioritization of the program elements with a cost
goal of $25 million. Future expansion was identified in this meeting. Big idea: "Most bang for the buck."
4. The project mission statement was reviewed, which reads:
I "Good health, good friends, great community"
I The goal of the Shakopee Community Center expansion is to enhance the quality of life and sense of
community of all Shakopee residents by providing a welcoming, centralized, multi-functional community
gathering point that offers something for everyone in the community, The center should offer amenities
currently lacking within the City, providing new spaces for all ages from children to seniors.
I The Center is envisioned to be the Community's "family room," and help create cohesiveness within the
community, The Center will become a source of pride, bringing the community together at a year around
I focal destination point adding to Shakopee's major regional entertainment center, and will take advantage
of the 4 million visitors that visit Shakopee each year,
The Center is envisioned to provide Shakopee residents with a sense of pride and ownership, a place of
I their own to play, skate, swim, work out, meet and socialize, The identity and image of the Center must be
enhanced, The expansion should be programmed to offer a financial family value, The center should be
financially feasible, sustainable, and affordable, and to provide outstanding service to Shakopee area
I families,
5. Steve described the agenda for tonight's Workshop #3 to include discussing the following five major topics:
. Program, currently at 93,650 SF new + renovation
I . Capital Costs, currently at $18.16M new construction + $1.4M renovation = $19.57M, and discussion of likely project costs
which are currently estimated to be $25.98M
. Design modifications including plans and perspective images
. Operational Cost Estimates and Revenue Projections, including fees and charges
I . Ballot information and date
6. Steve guided the task force through the design modifications using the January 26th task force meeting notes as a guide:
. "Want to be greeted by activity when entering the building:" Pool location will provide the "Wow! Factor" upon south entry;
I fitness center opens up to main atrium at check-in,
. "Most bang for buck! most for least amount of money:" Current estimate for the new + renovated areas is $115/ SF
. "Price tag was too high:" Project cost now $25.98M vs. Option 2 price tag of $47M
I . "Maximize as many people/ activities as possible in the design! Need to serve as many as possible with the design:" The
design has something for everybody, from tots to seniors.
. "We have a growing community and we need to think about the future! Could add water and fitness in the future:"
Expansion for future lap pool, gymnastics, weights, gym and banquet room shown on the master site plan.
I . "Children's play area and community rooms are important:" Children's areas for the indoor play, babysitting and of course
the children's areas of the pool are in phase 1. Community Rooms are also shown expanding to the north and east in
phase 1.
. "Concept Facility was too big:" 93,650 SF is more reasonable as a new addition, than the 146,830 SF of Option 2,
I . "Ensure we have space for senior citizens:" Modifications have been made suggested by the senior club, with a substantial
"Community Wing" to include areas in yellow of Senior Activity Center, Meeting Room, Kitchen, divisible Multi-Use Rooms
and outdoor patio.
I 7. There was a question regarding tennis surfaces. Jim Maland pointed out that the detail of surface specification has not been
investigated at this time for the Multi-Use Turf Field space. Jim has applied a $100,000 line item for a removable synthetic turf
I 2a90~ttl!~~i~~~~.SUlt~....1~q
p~li\"ei','Co!ol'aq~ .~0200
.. ., ,,' .
~Oi4S$-1~~~~~3t)i;~$!j;t4S7'
w~,br:sm::h;c:~ W:120441.0111.07 - Meetings & NoteslWorkshop 31MN-2005.02.28- workshop 3 notes.doc
I
I
Meeting Notes
Page 3 I
rolled good. Mark Themig suggested that the Lyndstrum, MN field house might be a project to look at in the future. I
8. There was a question regarding, "Does the swim team get anything out of this plan?" It ~as pointed out that while there is not a
lap pool in the. phase 1 plan, some. of the the recreation and instruction swimming will be moved to the Community Center, relieving the I
pressure on the existing 6-lane pool at the school.
9. Jeff King guided the audience through a text presentation regarding his findings in the operational costs, revenue projections
and feesl charges. Jeff noted that he split the cost modeling between the community center and the sports center (field housel I
icel Multi-Use Turf Field space).
10. The projections for additional staff have been allocated to be "real." Mark pointed out his experience at Shoreview when the
Community Center expansion opened; the City of Shoreview was overwhelmed with the crowds, and in hindsight, wished they I
had projected ~In accurate staff expansion.
11, Jeff reviewed the operational costs projections with the task force. The line items included staff (full-time and part-time), utilities,
waterlsewer, communications, contract services, rental equipment, advertising, marketing, bank charges, printing, trash, I
postage, transportation, dues, insurance, supplies and services and capital replacement fund for a total of $2,070,845 for the
community center and a total of $253,846 for the sports center.
12. Regarding fees and attendance, Jeff tried to strike a balance between affordability and sustain ability. I
13. Fees and use determinel generate the projected revenue. The term "discount" refers to the rate the Shakopee resident would
pay.
14. Cost Recovery Summary: 81% for the Community Center and 105% for the Sports Center. These numbers do not include debt I
service,
15, The City of Shakopee has a "building rental" fund that is a significant accounting requirement, intended for the replacement of I
public buildingl; in the future. When Jeff inserts the "building rental" line item, the cost recovery projection plummets to 62% for
the community center and 57% for the Sports Center. Steve Menden explained the reasoning for this requirement to the task
force, and thought Council would be open to discussing it further.
16. Jeff did explain that he has identified $65,000 line item for "capital replacement fund" in the operating cost estimates. He I
recommends that this be increased in future years to $250,0001 year later in the life of the building. This fund would be for
replacement of fitness equipment, HVAC equipment, roofing, etc.
17. Councilman Mati Lehman noted that bonding for the subsidy amount is not an option. I
18. Mark told the ~ludience that both dates of May 17111 and May 24111 all precincts were available for a ballot issue.
19. Mark suggested that the City cannot promote the "yes vote," and that the citizen driven committee would be responsible for the I
public information campaign. Mark and his staff can be available to share pertinent information with the community.
20. There was consensus, with Councilman Steve Menden abstaining, to take a recommendation to Council I
recommending the date of May 24111 for a special ballot issue. This will give a bit more time for "public information."
21. There was consensus, with one nay, to recommend to City Council a $26M bond issue. The nay suggested the
figure be $25M, I
22. Regarding the two distinct architectural images Steve Blackburn presented, eight recommended the Barn image and
four recommended the "modern" image.
23. There was a suggestion to re-Iabel the H.S, Team Rooms to "Locker Rooms." Mark will be meeting with the School District I
tomorrow to discuss the school district's desire to pay for the construction of the team rooms. Cost for these rooms is not part of the
$25.98M estimate,
24. The next presentation by the consultant will be on March 15th at 5 pm. The feasibility report findings and recommendations will I
~3(JP lfift~~t1l~~!?~~SU!tl! lOq I
Pl1'li~i'..991()ra~9: ..~~1)2
. " ,- - - . . .. - ... . . - - - . . , , .
~Oj~5$~1~66'..~.3!ij;~1j5~'451..
W\yw,b['$.m;b,~lI1 W:\20441.01\1.07 - Meetings & Notes\Workshop 3\MN-2005.02.28- workshop 3 notes.doc
I
I
Meeting Notes
I Page 4
I be shared at this meeting to Shakopee City Council.
Respectfully Submitted,
I zft.~--- .
I Steve Blackburn AlA, Principal
I Note: The above is considered correct unless response to the contrary Is received within 7 days from the above date. Please
contact Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture if you feel items are In error.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~~9o;Fifti!~nl~;~Jf~~~Sl1it~...Wq
I .~~~~r~dOfo~~4~..~~~.... .... .... "
'30,:J..:.s.Ss,::1~~6.Fax~.~SS;14S?
w~,brs.uCrM::<n;n : W:\20441.01\1.07 - Meetings & Notes\Workshop 3\MN-2005.02.28- workshop 3 notes.doc
I
I
I
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMORANDUM I
To: Community Center Feasibility Study Task Force
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board I
From: Mark Themig
Date: March 4, 2005 I
Subject: February 28 Meeting Follow-Up I
First, I want to thank everyone that was able to attend the February 28 work session with
the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, We covered a lot of information in a relatively I
short period of time. I've included a copy of the notes from that meeting,
As you know, the Task Force's recommendation will be presented to City Council at 5:00
p.m, on Tuesday, March 15 at City Hall. This will be a work session where the Task I
Force, Advil~ory Board, and City Council can have detailed discussion about the
proposal. We will be mailing meeting packets to you on Friday, March 11,
There were several follow-up items from the February 28 meeting that I wanted to review I
to ensure that we don't miss anything for the March 15 meeting.
. High School Team Rooms
We met with Jon McBroom, Superintendent of Schools, this week and discussed the I
proposed team rooms, He wasn't confident that the School Board would assume the
entire cost for the team rooms, since the district is paying rental to the city for the use
of the facility, However, if the project was to include the roughed-in space for the I
team rooms, there might be an opportunity to fund the finishes. Ultimately, any
decision would be up to the School Board.
. Cost Estimates I
Jim Maland will be reviewing the cost estimates to ensure we do not have duplicate
costs. I've also asked him to provide costs for the roughed-in team rooms discussed I
above.
. Operating Costs and Revenue
Jeff King and I are working on the more detailed budget information that the task I
force requested,
. Video Fly-Through and Fly-Around of the Concept Plan I
BRS hclS submitted the attached proposal for the three-dimensional video work that
was discussed at the meeting, The proposal is $8,000 for the exterior and interior f1y-
throughs. There is an additional $1,000 fee that would allow viewers to choose I
specific areas that they would like to see,
I spoke with Steve Blackburn today about the length of time required to produce the I
video, They will need to create CAD drawings of the existing building and the
proposed expansion, convert to 3-D, add fixtures, furniture, etc., and add people.
I
I
I
I
Since all the drawings up to this point have been hand drawings, there is
I considerable work involved, He is checking to see if the product can be delivered
faster than the four weeks we discussed at the meeting,
I Also, BRS can host the video on their web site for a charge of $150/month, The city
is in the process of developing a new web site, and it potentially could be launched
by the end of March, If we are able to launch by the end of the month, our preference
would be to host it on the city's web site, More information will be available at the
I March 15 meeting, as well as options for funding this work,
. Exterior Drawings
I The Task Force and Advisory Board had an opportunity to review the exterior design
concept drawings, Since the meeting, I've received several comments regarding
. making a recommendation on the exterior drawings with relatively little time to
I consider each one, Also, some expressed concern about the more traditional barn
design that was selected, and whether or not this concept would be well received, If
this project moves forward, finalizing a design for the exterior would be part of the
final design process.
I I asked BRS if they could remove the roof overhang on the barn drawing for the Task
Force and Advisory Board to review. Enclosed with this mailing are the two original
I exterior drawings and a revised drawing,
I would like you to have additional time to review the original concepts and the third
I concept and provide feedback on which one you prefer. Please contact Judy
Techam at 952-233-9506 (or emailjtechman@ci.shakopee.mn.us) to indicate
which drawing (A, S, or C) is your preferred concept no later than 4:30 p.m. on
Wednesday, March 9.
I . Referendum Campaign
Finally, there would need to be a citizen group that prepares and conducts a
I campaign for the referendum, (The city can only provide information,) Attached is an
article from the February Parks and Recreation Business magazine that may be of
interest.
I If I have missed any follow-up action from the meeting, please let me know as soon as
possible. I can be reached at 952-233-9514, or by emaH at
mthemig@ci,shakopee.mn.us,
I cc: Josh Barrick, Recreation Supevisor
Travis Karlen\ Recreation Supervisor
I MarkMcNeill, City Administrator
I
I
I
I