3.0. SR 01-21-1997ITEM 3.
~;ty of
iver
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Park and Recreation Commission
Pat Klaers, City Admini. stratov
January 22, 1997
Referendum
The city has long had a position that it would not go to the public with a
special bond referendum to publicly finance a park and recreation issue or a
community center issue until after the school was successful with its school
facility issue. As we all know, the school was successful this past fall and
now the Park and Recreation Commission is beginning to seriously discuss
the need for a public vote on financing some park and recreation projects.
The Commission has discussed the need for a successful bond referendum for
a number of years. It is the belief of the Commission that the only way to
provide sufficient and adequate park and recreation services which our
citizens expect is through a major influx of funding and an aggressive land
acquisition and development program. Experience tells us that this is how
most communities have proceeded in order to have comprehensive park and
recreation opportunities available to its citizens. Without a successful public
referendum for park and recreation programs and projects, the city will be
left to proceed as it has in the past which is to "piecemeal" the development of
the park and recreation system as funding becomes available.
The Commission has lots of desires and wishes that it feels the citizens are
asking for in terms of a complete park and recreation system. These wishes
and desires include park land development, athletic field development, park
land acquisition, trail land acquisition, and trail development. The location
of all of the trails and parks, the cost of land and the parcels to purchase,
along with the cost to develop parks are unknown at this time. If a
referendum question is put to the public, the level of financial commitment
from them through a bond issue will dictate how much can be done within a
certain time frame.
With this discussion it is certain that the issue of a community center and
community space will be raised. There has been lots of discussion about the
youth in the community needing a place to go, along with public meeting
space needs, community theater needs, Arts Council needs, senior citizen
center needs, etc. The Park and Recreation Commission would like to
proceed without dealing with the community center issue at this time, and
having this issue cloud the question that they want to put before the public.
13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425
The Commission believes that the community center issue cannot be
adequately addressed until it is determined if the Minnesota Sports
Federation (MSF) proposal is going to move forward. This leads us to one of
the basic questions of"what is a community center?"... Is a community center
a meeting space area or is it a health club facility.
The city attempted to define the community center issue a number of years
ago. In late 1989, a community survey was conducted by Decision Resources.
This survey concentrated on park and recreation activities as the city was
putting together the Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan, but also
asked questions regarding a community center. Following this survey a
Community Center Task Force was established with an open agenda. The
Council wanted the Task Force to "think big", and then the City Council
would scale back the proposal as finances and reality dictated. One of the
issues that has never been addressed is how to scale back the community
center proposal to correspond to the needs identified in the community
survey.
Attached for your review is the community survey from 1989, the Executive
Summary of this survey from 1989, and selected pages from the late 1990
community center report. Questions #106-136 of the survey relate to park
and recreation and community center issues. Pages 2-5 and beginning at the
end of Page 7 to the top of Page 9 of the Executive Summary relate to park
and recreation and community center issues. One of the key components of
the community center attachment is the phasing in concepts at the end of the
report.
It seems that a number of issues are on the agenda to be discussed at this
meeting. One issue is whether or not the city should allow the park and
recreation bond issue to move forward. Another issue relates to if the City
Council should require a community center to be part of any public bond
referendum and/or whether or not this will cloud the issue so that neither
question gets a fair opportunity before the public. Additionally, if a
community center issue is to move forward now, the next question is whether
a Task Force should be established before or after a community survey is
completed.
It is the Park and Recreation Commission's desire to move forward with a
community survey now, to only deal with outdoor park and recreation issues
as a public referendum question, and to have a community center issue wait
until it is determined whether or not the MSF proposal is moving forward.
Attached are the 1/2/97 Special Park and Recreation Commission meeting
minutes when a possible bond issue was discussed.
kXelkriverX, syskshrdocXcouncilkpark&recXbndrefdm.doc
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
HELD AT THE ELK RIVER CITY HALL
January 2, 1997
Members Present:
Members Absent:
StaffPresent:
Others Present:
Chair Dana Anderson(arrived at 7:20), Commissioners Dave Anderson,,
Huberty, Kuester, Madsen(left the meeting at 7:10), and Olson.
Rohlf Anderson and Westrum.
Phil Hals, Street/Park Department.
Jeff Asfahl, Community Recreation Director.
Pursuant to a due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Park and Recreation
Commission was called to order at 7:05 pm by Commissioner Kuester, who explained that he had
worked with Chair Anderson to plan the format and agenda for the meeting. The agenda was
designed to accomplish the following:(1)to assist Commissioners to better understand the bonding
process, (2) to reach general agreement about the time line and action steps required to hold a
bond referendum in 1997, and (3)to brainstorm possible cost items which the Commission might
recommend to be included in the referendum.
Phil Hals relayed some general information about bond issues which he had received from City
Administrator Pat Klaers. According to Hals, Klaers suggested that the role of the Commission
was to make recommendations about what should be included in the bond issue, make a
recommendation concerning the date of the referendum, and solicit public support for the passage
of the referendum. Commissioners discussed the following points:
(1) Will there be a school related election in 97, and if so, when will it be? The Commission
was in general agreement that it will be best to keep the issues separate.
(2) Does the Commission work from what is needed, or from a set dollar amount in
determining what should be included in bond issue? The Commission was in general
agreement that it will start with need as defined and supported by the public.
(3)Should the commission a survey of the views of Elk River residents about
park and recreational priorities? The Commission was in agreement that a survey should be
conducted, and furthermore, that its focus should be on park and recreation issues only.
Chair Dana Anderson passed out a handout on Park Bond information prepared by Lori Johnson,
City Financial Officer. Ms. Johnson is available to meet with the Commission at a later date.
Commissioners Dana Anderson and Kuester presented a drai5 outline(attachment 1) of proposed
action steps and time line for promotion of a bond issues. Commissioners were in general
agreement with the time line with the understanding that the Commission would make a "go" or
"no go" recommendation by no later than its June Meeting.
The group then brain stormed its wish list for items to be included in the survey. They are not
ranked.
Skate board park
Outdoor swimming pool complete with gradual depth, wave pool, slides,
diving boards.
General skating/hockey rinks at East and West outdoor locations.
Interpretative center, warming house, picnic shelters, lighted bike/ski trails for
Woodland Trails Park.
Swing sets/playground equipment/tennis courts for x neighborhood parks.
Paving for x miles of trail
Lighting, dug outs, concession stand, parking lot for Cass Ball Field
Shelter with bathrooms and roughed in concession area for Oak Knoll Park
Indoor pool
Mountain bike trail system for Hillside Park
Feedback from skaters about temporary Handke Stadium warming house.
Bathrooms/changing rooms for Orono Park
Additional tennis courts as needed
In addition, Commissioners wanted questions pertaining to the following included in the survey:
Proposed Community Center
Proposed Riverwaik
Public input concerning long-term uses of Handke Stadium
Following the brainstorming session, the Commission took the following actions:
Motion to establish a sub-committee with responsibility for tracking bond issue.
(Dave Anderson/Olson). Passed 5/0 with understanding that all Commissioners can
attend sub-committee meetings. First meeting set for January 23. Purpose of
meeting is discuss proposed survey with Decisions Resources Ldt.
Motion to approach City Council with request to finance community parks and
recreation survey(Dave Anderson/ltuberty) Passed 5/0
Motion to approve survey "wish list" for discussion with Decision Resources LDT
(Olson/ltuberty) Passed 5/0.
Chair Dana Anderson adjourned the meeting at 8:50 pm.
1. Minutes taken by Commissioner Kuester
ELK RIVER PARKS AND RECREATION BOND ISSUE TIME LINE(DRAFT)
Jan 2: Special meeting of Parks Commission. Brainstorm "wish list" Select
areas to be covered in community survey. Commissioners review bonding
process. Sub-Committee formed to work on bond issue.
Jan/March: Meeting of Elk River Commission with Parks Commission in community
which was successful in passing Parks/Recreation Bond Issue. Purpose of meeting
is to learn what role was played by the Parks Commission in passing the bond issue.
Also, what works to build public support for a parks referendum.
Jan/March: Sub-Committee does additional homework on bonding referendum to learn
how they work.
Jan/April: Commission and staff work with Decision Resources LDT to design
and carry out a survey of the views of residents about park and recreational
priorities.
April 9: Commission and staff review final results of survey. At this meeting or
another special meeting, Commission design strategy for referendum
April: Sub-Committee works with staffto cost out priorities as identified in survey
May 7: Sub Committee reports proposed bond package to Commission for action.
May: Commission meets with City Council to discuss proposed bond package and
election process. Commission receives red/yellow/green light from Council. Commission
moves ahead/revises package as necessary.
SUMMER/FALL: support strategy in place.
November: VOTE ON REFERENDUM(?)
DECISION RESOURCES, LTD.
3128 Dean Court
Minneapolis, Minnesota
55414
ELK RIVER CITY SURVEY
Parks and Recreation/.
City Issues Study
Hello, I'm of Decision Resources, Ltd., a nationwide
polling firm located in Minneapolis. We've been retained by the
City of Elk River to speak with a random sample of residents
about issues facing the city. The survey is being taken because
the City is interested in your opinions and suggestions. I want
to assure you that all individual responses will be held strictly
confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be
reported. (DO NOT PAUSE)
Approximately how many years have
you lived in Elk River?
As things now stand, how long in
the future do you expect to live
in Elk River?
How-would you rate the quality of
life in Elk River -- excellent,
good, only fair, or poor?
LESS THAN TWO YEARS .... .8%
TWO TO FIVE YEARS ..... 26%
SIX TO TEN YEARS ...... 16%.
11 - 20 YEARS ......... 27%
21 - 30 YEARS ......... 11%
OVER THIRTY YEARS ..... 12%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 0%
LESS THAN TWO YEARS .... 3%
2 - 5 YEARS ............
6 - 10 YEARS.. ......... 9%
OVER TEN YEARS ........ 15%
REST OF LIFE (VOL.)...58%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....10%
EXCELLENT ............. 37%
GOOD .................. 57%
ONLY FAIR .............. 4%
POOR ................... 1%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. .... 0%
4. What do you like most about living in Elk River?
DON'T KNOW, 5%; SMALL TOWN, 26%; LOCATION, 24%; SCHOOLS, 3%;
PEOPLE, 14%; RURAL/OPEN, 16%; QUIET/PEACEFUL, 6%; NEIGHBOR-
HOOD, 3%; EVERYTHING, 4%.
5. What do you like least about it?
DON'T KNOW, 11%; NOTHING, 18%; TAXES, $%; GROWTH, 18%;
LOCATION, 6%; POOR SHOPPING, 15%; SCHOOLS, 2%; TOO SMALL,
5%; CITY GOVERNMENT, 3%; POOR ROADS, 4%; HIGHWAY 10!, 3%;
CITY SERVICES, 4%; POLLUTION, 2%; SCATTERED, 4%.
I would like to read to you a list of recreational activities.
For each one, tell me how often you engage in that activity.. Do.
you or any members of this household engage in the activity four
times a week or more often, once a week, once or twice a month,
several times each year or not at all. For seasonal activities,
please tell me how often you or household members participate
148
during the season. Remember, we are interested in the number of
times you or other household members participate, not attend as
an observer.
4+ TIMES ONCE 1-2 SEVERAL NOT
WEEKLY WEEK MONTH YEAR AT ALL
6. Softball games? 5% 10% 3% 10%
7. Basketball? 6% 6% '6% 9%
8. Bicycling? 23% 18% 12% 9%
9. Racquetball? 1% 3% 2% 5%
10. Hockey? 3% 7% 3% 7%
11. Golfing? 7% 14% 9% 14%
12. Hunting? 4% 7% 10% 24%
13. Volleyball? 2% 6% 5% 10%
14. Jogging? 7% 9% 5% 5%
15. T-Ball games? 1% 4% 1% 2%
16. Baseball games? 6% 5% 5% 5%
17. Cross-Country
Skiing? 2% 6% 6% 12%
18. Snowmobiling? 2% 9% 8% -12%
19. Swimming? 10% 19% 15% 15%
20. Nature Walks? 11% 16% 19% 13%
21. Tennis? 4% 8% 9% 10%
22. Hiking or walking? 25% 20% 16% 10%
23. Soccer? 5% 8% 2% 8%
24. Fishing? 10% 18% 15% 18%
25. Exercising in a
gym or health spa? 3% 8% 9%
26. Canoeing? 1% 2% 8% 15%
27. Waterskiing? 2% 5% 8% 15%
28. Indoor ice
skating? 1% ' 3% 6% 10%
29. Outdoor ice
skating? 3% 9% 11% 16%
72%
74%
37%
80%
56%
.78%
75%
92%
80%
75%
69%
40%
41%
70%
29%
77%
39%
75%
74%
70%
80%
30.
Overall, would you rate the park
and recreational facilities in
Elk River. as excellent, good,
fair, or poor?.
EXCELLENT .............. 9%
GOOD .................. 61%
ONLY FAIR ............. 19%
POOR ................... 5%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 7%
I would like to read to you a short list of the parks located in
Elk river. For each one, please tell me if you or members of
this household have visited that park during the past year.
YES NO D.K.
31. Orono Park 86% 12%
32. Lions Park ~ 66% 32% 2%
33. Woodland Trails Park 10% 82% 8%
34. Handke Outdoor Ice Arena 41% 56% 4%
35. Outdoor facilities located at
the schools, such as football,
baseball, and soccer fields, an~ '
149
36.
tennis courts
Softball complex
YES NO D.K.
51% 45% 0%
34% 61% 5%
IF THE RESPONDENT REPORTS VISITING AT LEAST ONE PARK, ASK:
As you know, there are several types of recreational facilities
in the city's parks. I would like to read to you a brief list of
those facilities. For each one, please tell me if you or members
of your household have used that facility during the past few
months. For those you have used, could you tell me whether the
use was frequent or only occasional. For seasonal activities,
just consider usage during the appropriate time of the year.
NOT FREQ OCCN D.K.
37. Picnic Pavilions 27% 13% 48% 2%
38. Soccer Fields 67% 11% 10% 1%
39. Baseball Fields 60% 10% 19% 1%
40. Tennis Courts 64% 7% _18% 1%
41. Swimming. Beach 29% 25% 35% 1%
42. Softball Fields 54% 16% 19% 1%
43. Play equipment 46% 18% 24% 2%
44. Horseshoe pits 74% 4% 11% 1%
45. Fishing pier 64% 8% 17% 1%
46. Sliding hills 58% 11% 19% 2%
47. Just walking around 16% 42% 31% 1%
48. Outdoor skating
rinks 53%
10%
49.
50.
How would you rate the upkeep and EXCELLENT ............. 26%
maintenance of the'park facilities GOOD ................. .62%
in Elk River -- excellent, good, ONLY FAIR .............. 7%
only fair, or poor? POOR .............. .....1%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 4%
Are there any facilities not currently in Elk River parks
that you or members of your family would use, if they were
there? What are they?
DON'T KNOW, 21%; NONE, 50%; TRAILS, 7%; BALLFIELDS, 2%; OUT-
DOOR POOL, 3%; ICE ARENA, 1%; ROLLERSKATING RINK, 2%;
TOILETS, 2%; PLAY EQUIPMENT, 3%; SPA/HEALTH CLUB, 3%; TENNIS
COURTS, 1%; SCATTERED, 6%.
Would you favor or oppose a trail
system linking the neighborhoods
throughout the city? (IF
"FAVOR" ASK:) Would you still
favor it if it ~equired a tax
increase to develop the system?
FAVOR/STILL FAVOR ..... 38%
FAVOR/OPPOSE .......... 22%
FAVOR/DON'T KNOW......16%
OPPOSE ................ 18%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....~%
150
52.
53.
If a trail system were built,
should it primarily serve pedes-
trians, primarily serve bicy-
clists, or serve both?
Would you favor or oppose the
conversion of the abandoned
railroad corridor, recently
purchased by the city, into a
component of a trail system?
If the trail were to run by
your property, would you be
willing to grant the city of
Elk river an easement to that
part of your land?
PEDESTRIANS ........... 12%
BICYCLISTS .............
BOTH .................. 76%
DON'T FAVOR ............ 8%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....2%
FAVOR ................. 70%
OPPOSE ................ 15%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 15%
YES ................... 50%
NO ........ . ........... 29%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... '21%.
Park systems usually contain three major components:
neighborhood parks, larger community playfields, and
56.
smaller
trails.
Which of these three components
do you feel should be the top
priority for development in Elk
River during the next few years?
SMALLER NEIGH PARK .... 28%
LARGER COMM PLAYFIELD.20%
TRAILS .......... . ·.... 32%
OTHER (VOL) ............ 1%
ALL EQUALLY (VOL) ..... 12%
NONE OF THE ABOVE .... . .1%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .....
Have any members of this house-
hold participated in any youth
recreational programs during the
past year?
YES ................... 32%
NO .................... 66%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 2%
IF "YES" IN QUESTION #56, ASK:
57. Which ones?
SOFTBALL, 3%; PRE-SCHOOL, 1%; SOCCER, 6%; THREE OR
MORE, 7%; BASEBALL, 2%; HOCKEY, 2%; SWIMMING, 2%;
BASKETBALL, 3%; T-BALL, 2%; GYMNASTICS, 2%; SCATTERED,
4%.
58.
Were you satisfied or dis-
satisfied with the pro-
gram(s)?
SATISFIED ............. 29%
DISSATISFIED ........... 2%
BOTH (VOL) ............. 2%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 0%
59.
In general, do you feel that the
youth recreational programs of-
feted meet the needs of your
household?
YES ................... 61%
NO .............. .. .... .7%
NO CHILDREN ............ 21%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 10%
IF "NO" IN QUESTION #59, ASK:
151 , :
64.
66.
60.
What additional youth recreation opportunities would
you like to see offered?
~-~=~/u~ SPORTS, 1%; SCATTERED, 2%; DON'T KNOW, 4%.
Have any members of this house-
hold participated in any adult
recreational programs during the
past year?
YES ................... 20%
NO .................... 78%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 2%
IF "YES" IN QUESTION #61, ASK:
62. Which ones?
SOFTBALL, 5%; VOLLEYBALL, 2%; COMMUNITY EDUCATION, 1%;
SOCCER, 1%; THREE OR MORE, 1%; SWIMMING, 1%; TENNIS,'
1%; EXERCISE, 2%; BOWLING, 1%; SCATTERED, 4%.
63.
Were you satisfied or dis-
satisfied with the pro-
gram(s)?
SATISFIED ...... . ...... 18%
DISSATISFIED ........... 1%
BOTH (VOL).~ ........... 1%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 0%
In general, do you feel that the
adult recreational programs of-
fered meet the needs of your
household?
YES ................... 76%
NO.... ...... .... ....... 6%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 19%
IF "NO" IN QUESTION #64, ASK:
65.
What additional adult recreation opportunities would
you like to see offered?
TENNIS, 1%; VA~R~TTY SPORTS, 2%; SCATTERED, 2%; DON'T
KNOW, 2%. V~3
During the past year, have you or
any members of this household
participated in any recreational
programs offered by counties or
other cities outside of Elk River?
YES ................... 11%
NO .................... 87%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... .2%
IF "YES", ASK:
67. Which ones and offered by whom?
ANOKA COUNTY SPORTS, 2%; BLAINE SOCCER, 1%; NEW HOPE
YMCA EXERCISE CLASSES, 1%; VOLLEYBALL, 1%; SOFTBALL,
1%; MAPLE GROVE NATURE WALKS, 1%; HOCKEY, 1%;
SCATTERED, 3%.
68.
If it/they were offered in YES ................ ....8%
Elk River, would you be like- NO .....................
ly to undertake it here? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 1%
152
69.
Have you or any members of this
household visited Hennepin
County, Wright County, .or Anoka
County regional parks during
the past year?
YES ...................
NO..... ............... 38%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....
70.
Do you feel that Sherburne County
should develop a county regional
park system, or do neighboring
counties provide adequate
facilities for county residents?
YES ................ ...51%
NO ' 32%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 17%
71.
Would you favor or oppose the
development of a downtown
river walk for recreational
use? (IF "FAVOR", ASK:) Would
~ou still favor it if a tax
~ncrease were required to fund
construction?
FAVOR/STILL FAVOR ..... 44%
FAVOR/OPPOSE .......... 16%
FAVOR/DON'T KNOW ...... 13%
OPPOSE ................ 21%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 5%
I would like to read you a list of facilities which could be
added to the park system. For each one, please tell me how
likely it would be that you. or members of your household would
use it -- very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at
all likely. If you don't know, just say so.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
VERY SMWT NOT TOO NOT D.K.
Sand volleyball courts? 10% 26% 22% 40%
Play equipment? 19% 25% 15% 39%
Horseshoe pits? 5% 21% 23% 51%
Basketball courts? 10% 22% 19% 48% 1%
Archery ranges? 8% ~5% ~0% 55% 2%
Cross country ski course? 17% 27% ~4% 40%
Outdoor swimming pool?' 31% 34% 8% 26%
Nature area with an ed-
ucational interpretive
center? 29% 37% 15% 18% 1%
Nature trail with explana-
tory sign posts? 33% 41% 11% 14% 1%
Are there any other recreational facilitie~ you feel should
be a high priority for development? (IF "YES", ASK: ) What
are they?
DON'T KNOW, 14%; NONE, 63%; TEEN CENTER, 2%; BIKE TRAILS,
.4%; CHILDREN, 2%; NATURE TRAILS, 2%; EXERCISE/HEALTH CLUB,
2%; SWIMMING POOL, 2%; TENNIS COURTS, 1%; CLEAN UP ORONO
BEACH, 1%; NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, 1%; ICE RINK, 1%; SCATTERED,
4%.
As you may know, the city and School District cooperate to
provide several recreational programs. In the future, as the
city grows, two options are available: the City could enter into
a joint agreement with the School District or could offer
153 ~
programs on its own.
82.
Which option would you most pre-
fer: a joint agreement with the
School District OR offering pro-
grams on its own?
83.
Do you agree or disagree with the
following statement: "A good
Elk River park and recreation
system will increase the value of
my property." (WAIT FOR RESPONSE)
and do you feel strongly that way?
Changing topics ....
JOINT AGREEMENT ....... 61%
ON ITS OWN ............ 30%
NEITHER (VOL) ..........
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....6%
STRONGLY AGREE ........ 29%
AGREE ................. 45%
DISAGREE .............. 12%
STRONGLY DISAGREE ...... 3%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 11%
84.
Would you favor or oppose an in-
crease in city property taxes if
it were needed to maintain city
services at their current levels?
FAVOR .................
OPPOSE ................ 36%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.]..10%
85.
How would you rate property taxes
in Elk River in comparison with
those of other communities:
excessively high, comparatively
high, about average, or compara-
tively low?
EXCESSIVELY YIGH. ...... 9%
COMPARATIVELY HIGH .... 23%
ABOUT AVERAGE.... .... .48%
COMPARATIVELY LOW ..... 10%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 11%
As you may know, property taxes are divided between the city of
Elk River, Sherburne County, and the local school district.
86.
87.
88.
For each dollar of property taxes
you pay, about what percentage do
you think goes to city govern-
ment? (READ CATEGORIES, IF
NEEDED)
During the past few years, has
the CITY'S tax rate increased,
decreased, or remained about the
same?
What is your principal source of
government and its activities?
UNDER TEN PERCENT ..... 15%
10% TO 20% ............ 31%
21% TO 30% ............ 11%
31% TO 40% ............ .5%
41% TO 50% ............. 4%
51% TO 60% ............. 0%
OVER SIXTY PERCENT ..... 1%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....34%
INCREASED ............. 58%
DECREASED ............. .2%
REMAINED ABOUT SAME...24%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 16%
information about City
NONE, 1%; LOCAL NEWSPAPER, 59%; "ELK RIVER STAR," 27%; OTHER
PEOPLE, 10%; TELEVISION, 2%.
89.
Does.your household currently
receive cable television?
¥ES...................24%
NO .................... 76%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 0%
154
IF "YES" IN QUESTION #89, ASK:
90. If City Council Meetings were VERY FREQUENTLY ...... ..5%
televised on cable television, how OCCASIONALLY .......... 15%
frequently would you watch these NEVER .................. 4%
broadcasts -- very frequently, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 1%
occasionally, or never? ......
91.
Do you feel that the city is too
tough, about right, or not tough
enough in enforcing the City Code
on such nuisances as animal con-
trol, unsightly yards, junk cars,
and noise?
TOO TOUGH .............. 3%
ABOUT RIGHT ........... 59%
NOT TOUGH ENOUGH ...... 30%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 9%
IF "TO0 TOUGH" OR "NOT TOUGH ENOUGH" IN QUESTION #91, ASK':
92. Why do you feel that way?
LOOSE ANIMALS, 15%; THREE OR MORE PROBLEMS, 4%; JUNK
CARS, 3%; MESSY YARDS, 6%; EXCESSIVE NOISE, 1%;
SCATTERED, 3%. -
93.
Other than voting, do you feel
that if you wanted to, you could
have a say about the way the City
of Elk River runs things?
YES ....... . ........... 61%
NO .................. ..32%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 7%
I would like to read you a list of a few city services. For each
one, Please tell me whether you would rate the quality of the
service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor?
EXC GOOD FAIR POOR D.K.
94. Street maintenance?
8% 59% 25% 9% 0%
95. Snow plowing?
10% 59% 23% 7% 1%
96. Street lighting?
7% 50% 27% 12% 4%
97. Police Protection? 19% 63% 10% 2% 5%
98. Fire Protection? 19% 62%' 8% 0% 11%
99. Sewers and water? 8% 46% 13% 3% 31%
100. City library?
20% 54% 13% 2% 11%
101. Do you fee! that the current five
member City Council satisfac-
torily represents you, or would
a seven member Council better
serve you?
FIVE MEMBER ........... 42%
SEVEN MEMBER .......... 38%
INDIFFERENT (VOL).....12%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 8%
155
102. How much first hand contact have
you had with the Elk River City
staff -- quite a lot, some, or
very little?
103. From what you have seen or heard,
how would you rate the job per-
formance of the City Staff --
excellent, good, only fair, or
poor?
104. How much do you feel you know
about the work of the mayor and
city Council -- a great deal, a
fair amount, or very little?
105. From what you know, do you ap-
prove or disapprove of the job
the mayor and city Council are
doing? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE)
And do you feel strongly that
way?
QUITE A LOT ........... il%
SOME .................. 35%
VERY LITTLE ........... 54%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 0%
EXCELLENT .............. 8%
GOOD ................... 51%
ONLY FAIR .... . ........ 27%
POOR ................... 5%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 9%
GREAT DEAL ............. 6%
FAIR A/~OUNT ........... 47%
VERY LITTLE ........... 46%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .....
STRONGLY APPROVE ...... 10%
SOMEWHAT APPROVE ...... 66%
SOMEWHAT DISAPPROVE...10%
STRONGLY DISAPPROVE .... 5%
DON~T KNOW/REFUSED .... 10%
The city could undertake an expansion and development of its park
system. Land would be acquired and park facilities would be
constructed across the community. It is estimated that about two
million dollars would be required to complete this first phase of
parks development. A bond referendum would be required to fund
this project. To cover these co~t~, the average $80,000 home in
Elk River would have a property tax increase of about $40.00 per
year for fifteen years.
106. Would you support or oppose this STRONGLY SUPPORT ..... .14%
bond referendum for parks expan- SUPPORT ............... 35%
sion and development? (WAIT FOR OPPOSE ................ 15%
RESPONSE) And do you feel strong- STRONGLY OPPOSE ........ 14%
ly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 22%
IF POSITION IS GIVEN IN QUESTION ~106, ASK:
107. Why do you feel that way?
DON'T KNOW, 9%; GOOD FOR CITY, 15%; COST/TAXES, 14%;
LOW PRIORITY, 2%; DEPENDS ON SPECIFIC PROPOSAL, 3%; NOT
NEEDED, 11%; GOOD FOR CHILDREN, 5%; NEEDED, 17%;
SCATTERED, 2%.
108. Would you favor or oppose a city FAVOR/YES ............. 36%
program to acquire land along the FAVOR/NO ...... ... ..... 11%
Mississippi River for development FAVOR/UNSURE .......... 18%
a~ parks? (IF "YES", ASK:) Would OPPOSE ................ 27%
you still favor it if a property DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 9%
tax increase were required to fund
the program?
156
109. How serious do you feel the prob-
lem of geese in Lion's Park is
-- very serious, somewhat seri-
ous, a minor nuissnce, or not a
problem at all?
VERY SERIOUS .......... 14%
SOMEWHAT SERIOUS ...... 17%
MINOR PROBLEM ......... 21%
NOT A PROBLEM ......... 34%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 14%
There has also been some discussion about a new Community'Center
complex.
110. If a Community Center were constructed, what facilities do
you feel is important to include?
DON'T KNOW, 38%; NONE, 14%; TEEN CENTER, 11%; SENIOR CENTER,
7%; GYM/SPORTS, 7%; RACQUETBALL COURTS, 3%; ICE RINK, 1%;
COPLMUNITY ROOM, 7%; THEATRE, 2%; CLASSROOMS, 2%; CITY
OFFICES, .2%; SWIMMING POOL, 4%; TENNIS COURTS, 1%;
SCATTERED, 4%.
I would like to read you a list of facilities that could be'
included in a community center. For each one, please tell me if
you would strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or
strongly oppose its inclusion in a community center.
STR SMW SMW STR D.K.
FAV FAV OPP OPP REF.
111. An indoor ice skating rink? 10% 37% 30% 20% 3%'
112. An indoor swimming pool? 16% 36% 23% 23% 3%
113. An exercise and fitness room? 23% 43% 14% 14% 5%
114. A gymnasium? 21% 39% 20% 17% 3%
115. Racquetball courts? 14% 39% 21% 18% 8%
116. Large community room for
banquets, parties, meetings,
and other rental purposes? 30% 46% 9% 12% 4%
117. Group meeting rooms? 26% 48% 12% 11% 3%
118. A teen center? 44% 37% 7% 9% 4%
119. A senior citizens center? 39% 38% 11% 9% 4%
120. An indoor running/walking
facility? 24% 41% 19% 14% 3%
121. A community theatre 15% 40% 24% 17% 4%
122. A nursery school/day care
facility? 17% 35% 23% 21% 5%
123. An arts and crafts room for
instructional programs and
classes? 19% 41% 21% 16% 4%
124. An aerobics and dance room? 14% 38% 27% 17% 4%
I would like to briefly re-read that list of potential facilities
for a community center. (READ LIST BELOW)
125. Please tell me which ONE you most strongly favor for
inclusion?
126. Which facility do you consider second in importance?
127. Is there a facility that you would PARTICULARLY oppose
including in a center?
157
MOST SEC OPP
An indoor ice skating rink? 5% 5% 8%
An indoor swimming pool? 5% 6% 6%
An exercise and fitness room? 6% 4% 2%
Racquetball courts? 4% 3%
Group meeting rooms? 6% 6% 2%
An arts and crafts room? 2% 7% 3%
A gymnasium? 5% 5% 3%
A senior citizens drop-in center? 11% 12% 3%
An aerobics and dance room? 1% 2% 6%
An indoor running/walking facility? 6% 4%
Large community room? 7% 7% 3%
A community theatre? 3% 4% 4%
A teen center? 21% 13% 2%
A Day care/nursery school facility? 4% 4%
All equally 4% 5% 9%
None 7% 9% 23%
Don't Know/Refused 5% 6% 14%
Would you favor or oppose the
construction of a Community
Center in Elk River? (WAIT
FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel
strongly that way?
128.
STRONGLY FAVOR ........ 23%
FAVOR ....... j ......... 51%
OPPOSE ................ 12%
STRONGLY OPPOSE ........ 6%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... .8%
A bond referendum would be required to pay for its
and partial operating costs, User fees would also
operation of the community center to some extent.
construction
underwrite the
129.
How muCh would you be willing to
pay in additional property taxes
to support the construction and
partial operation of an Elk River
Community Center? (START WITH A
RANDOMLY SELECTED CHOICE FROM $1
TO ~8) Let's say, would you be
willing to pay $_____ per year?
(MOVE TO NEXT CHOICE UP OR DOWN
DEPENDING ON ANSWER.)
NOTHING ............... 23%
$25 ................... 26%
$50 ................... 19%
$75 .......... . ......... 7%
$100 ................... 5%
$125 ...................
$150 ...... , ............ 1%
$175 ................... 1%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 17%
The City currently has saved funds for the construction of a new
City Mall. If a community center were built ....
130.
Would you favor or oppose attach-
-lng the new City Hall to the
Community Center and combining
the construction of both facil-
ities?
FAVOR ..... ~ ........... 58%
OPPOSE ................ 22%
DON'T CARE (VOL) ...... 12%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 8%
Eased on our previous discussion of the facilities.which could be
offered in the center, please tell me how many members of this
household would probably ....
158
131. Visit the Community Center on a 0,41%; 1,16%; 2,23%;
frequent, at least weekly, basis? 3,10%; 4, 7%; 5, 3%.
[32. Visit the Community Center on a 0,45%; &,26%; 2,21%;
occasional, perhaps monthly, basis? 3, 5%; 4, 3%; 5, 1%.
If a community center were built, the city would have two'choices
on charging user fees. First, the City could subsidize the
operation of the center through general tax revenue and keep user
fees low. Or, second, the City could require the facility to be
self-sufficient, requiring much higher user fees.
133.
Which course of action would you
favor -- should the City subsi-
dize operating costs through gen-
eral tax revenues or not?
SUBSIDIZE ............. 44%
DON'T SUBSIDIZE ....... 49%
DON'T KNOW/REFUFED ..... 8%
134.
Would the charge of a moderate
fee for a daily pass to use
facilities, such as an ice arena,
swimming pool, and arts and
crafts rooms, significantly de-
crease your use of those f=cil-
ities, or not?
YES ........ . ........ ..14%
NO ................. '...5S%
DEPENDS ON FEE ........ 25%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 3%
The City might also offer household memberships to recreational
facility users. Members would have unlimited access to all
facilities.
135.
How much would you be willing to
pay yearly for a family member-
ship? Let's say, would you be
willing to pay $.__? (DEPEND-
ING ON RESPONSE~ CHOOSE THE NEXT
HIGHER OR LOWER CATEGORY.) How
about $ ?
NOTHING ............... 22%
$50 ...................
$100 .................. 23%
$150 ..................
$20O ...................
$250 .... . ..............
$300 ................... 2%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ....
It might be helpful to discuss comparable fees. The family
membership at the YMCA costs $620 yearly, while U.S. Swim and
Fitness membership costs $328. Cities tend to charge less. Eden
Prairie charges its families $150 yearly while Brooklyn Center
yearly family membership fees are $228.
136. Would you pay $150.00 for a one YES ................... 44%
year household membership to the NO .................... 42%
· Elk River Community Center? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 14%.
Let's talk about recycling for a moment .... ~
[37.
Do you currently separate recy-
clable materials fro=~ the rest
of your garbage?
YES ................... 53%
NO.... ................ 45%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .....
159
138. If drop-off points ware estab-
lished instead, how likely would
you be to take your recyclables
to these sites -- very likely,
somewhat likely, or not at all
likely?
VERY LIKELY ........... 52%
SOMEWHAT LIKELY ....... 34%
NOT AT ALL LIKELY ..... 12%
DON'T IfNOW/REFUSED ..... 2%
!39. If the City were to pick-up separ- VERY LIKELY ........... 69%
ated recyclables, how likely would SOMEWHAT LIKELY ....... 24%
you be to participate in that pro- NOT AT ALL LIKELY ..... .5%
gram ~- very likely, somewhat DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 3%
likely, or not at all likely? .....
To encourage recycling, a proposal has been made to base garbage
hauling charges on the volume of trash a household generates.
Households which recycled would pay less than similar households
which do not.'
140. Would you favor or oppose this FAVOR ...... .
........... 86%
approach? OPPOSE ................ 8%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 6%
Another proposal would be the passage of a mandator~ recycling
ordinance. Residents who did not separate recyclables from their
trash would be liable for fines.
141. Would you favor or oppose this FAVOR ................. 52%
approach? OPPOSE ................ 39%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 9%
As you may know, many refuse haulers serve Elk River. This
arrangement has permitted citizens to choose their own haulers
and contract directly with them. But it has also created
significant overlap between the haulers and increased noise and
congestion on city streets. If the city were to designate
haulers, it is estimated that hauling charges would decline ten
to fifteen percent on the average.
142. of the following three proposals, PROPOSAL A ............ 15%
which do you most favor: PROPOSAL B ............ 52%
A. The City designates one hauler PROPOSAL C ............ 26%
to serve the entire city; DON'T CARE (VOL) ....... 5%
B. The City designates a group of DON'T K/~OW/REFUSED ..... 2%
haulers, each serving one area
of Elk River exclusively;
C. The present system.
Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes ....
Could you tell me how many people in each of the following age
groups live in your household. Let's start oldest to
· youngest ....
143. Persons over 65?
0,86%; 1, 9%; 2, 5%
160
144. Adults over 18, including
yourself?
145. High school aged?
146. Junior high aged children?
147. Elementary school childran?
148. Pre-schoolers?
149. Which of the following best des-
cribes your current residence?
(READ OPTIONS #1 - 47)
OTHER:
150. Do you own or rent your present
residence?
0,10%; 1,10%; 2,67%;
0,87%; 1,1!%; 2,
0,89%; 1, 9%; 2, 2%
0,68%; 1,17%; 2,14%; 3, 1%
0,77%; 1,17%; 2, 4%; 3, 2%
SINGLE FAMILY DWELL...82%
DUPLEX ................. 2%
APARTMENT ............. 13%
CONDOMINIUM IN
MULTIPLE HOUSEHOLD
BUILDING .......... 1%
TOWNHOUSE ......... .....2%
MOBILE HOME ...... . ..... 2%
OTHER .................. 0%
REFUSED ................ 0%
OWN ................... 82%
RENT .................. 18%
REFUSED ................ 0%
151. What is your occupation, please?
PROFESSIONAL-TECHNICAL, 17%; OWNER-MANAGER, 16%; CLERICAL-
SALES, 13%; BLUE COLLAR, 24%; RETIRED, 14%; SCATTERED, 14%;
REFUSED, 1%.
152. What is the occupation of your spouse, if applicable?
PROFESSIONAL-TECHNICAL, 13%; OWNER-MANAGER, 15%; CLERICAL-
SALES, 11%; BLUE COLLAR, 23%; RETIRED, 8%; SCATTERED, 10%;
NOT APPLICABLE, 21%.
153. In what city do you work?
ELK RIVER, 33%; MINNEAPOLIS, 6%; BP-BC-MG, 5%; P-C-NH, 5%;
ANOKA COUNTY, 9%; WRIGHT COUNTY, 2%; SHERBURNE COUNTY, 2%;
RAMSEY COUNTY, 2%; SOUTH HENNEPIN, 4%; NOT APPLICABLE, 24%;
SAINT PAUL, 2%; SCATTERED, 9%.
154. How about your spouse?
ELK RIVER, 22%; MINNEAPOLIS, 6%; BP-BC-MG, 5%; P-C-NH, 8%;
ANOKA COUNTY, 7%; WRIGHT COUNTY, 2%; SHERBURNE COUNTY, 1%;
RAMSEY COUNTY, 2%; SOUTH HENNEPIN, 4%; NOT APPLICABLE, 37%;
SAINT PAUL, 1%; SCATTERED, 7%.
161
156,
157.
158.
159.
About how long does it usually
take you to commute to work --
less than five minutes, five to
fifteen minutes, fifteen to
thirty minutes, thirty minutes
to one hour, over one hour?
If it is applicable to you, would
you be willing to work at a simi-
lar job in Elk River for ten per-
cent less salary to avoid your
commute to work?
What is your age, please?
What is the last grade of
education you completed?
Which of th~ following categories
includes your 1989 total pre-tax
household income. Please stop me
when I read the right one.
160. Gender of respondent.
(DO NOT ASK.)
LESS THAN FIVE ........ 15%
5 - !5 MINUTES ........ 14%
15 - 30 MINUTES ....... 22%
30 - 60 MINUTES ....... 21%
OVER 60 MINUTES ........ 3%
NOT APPLICABLE .... ....25%
YES ................... 24%
NO .................... 26%
DEPENDS ................ 6%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 19%
NOT APPLICABLE ........ 25%
18 - 24 .... . ........... 6%
25 - 34 ........... ~...29%
35 - 44 ............... 29%
45 - 54 ............... 15%
55 - 64 ................ 8%
65 AND OVER ........... 12%
LESS THAN HIGH SCHOOL..8%
HIGH SCHOOL ~RADUATE..35%
VO-TECH SCHOOL ..... '...10%
SOME COLLEGE .......... 21%
COLLEGE GRADUATE ...... 21%
POST-GRADUATE .......... 6%
BELOW $12,500 ..........
$12,501-$25,000 ....... 15%
$25,001-$37,500 ....... 27%
$37,501-$50,000 ..... ..18%
OVER $50,000 .......... 16%
REFUSED ........... ....21%
MALE .................. 48 %
FEMALE ................ 52 %
Thanks very much for your time. Good-bye.
161. Zone.
ONE ................... 26%
TWO ................... 31%
THREE ................. 24%
FOUR .................. 19%
162
D cision
Resources L d.
EXECUTIVE BUrgLARY
This study contains the results of a survey of 402 randomly
selected residents of the city of Elk River. Survey responses
were gathered by professional interviewers between December
14 and December 27, 1989. The average inter~iew of city
residents took twenty-seven minutes. Random samples such as this
one yield results projectable to the entire universe of Elk
River residents within ! 5.0 percent in 95 out of 100 cases.
Elk River can best be described as a growing exurban area
undergoing substantial transition. While many of. the results
found in this study conform to the patterns of o%her cities in
the "high growth corridors," there are also some characteristics
which ~suggest a changing community. The complexion of the
community varies, from a blue collar small town to a more white
collar enclave. In many ways, the newcomers are impacting median
education levels, average household income levels, as well as
altering expectations about city services.
The average family has lived in Elk River for 10.5 yearsr
eight percent of the sample reported moving to Elk River during
the past two years, while twenty-two percent had resided there
for over twenty years. Eighty-three percent of the respondents
also reported they had no plans for the next decade to move from
the community. Nine percent did, however, mention an intention
to move on during the next five years, reflective of the rate of
arrivals during a much shorter two year period. If these numbers
remain unchanged, in-migration will exceed out-migration by
almost four-to-one.
Household composition varied across the city. Fourteen
percent of the sample reported seniors in residence, while fifty-
three percent had school-aged children or pre-schoo!ers. Eighteen
percent rented their current households. The average age of
residents was 39.8 years old: about one-third of the city was
under the age of 35; thirty percent, 35-44 years old; and one-
third was over 45. Over one-half of the residents are in the 25-
44 year age group.
The workforce in Elk River was remarkably homogeneous. Blue
Collar households compose the largest segment, at thirty-five
percent. Professional-Technical and Owner-Manager households
together contribute another thirty-three percent. Retirees were
fifteen percent. Clerical-Sales and scattered occupations
account for the remainder. Fifty-th~ee percent of the residents
reported no college experience, with twenty-seven percent were
college graduates. Fifty-eight percent of the married households
reported both spouses working outside of the home. The average
yearly household income in Elk River was projected to be
$35,200.00, about $4,300.00 less than the Metropolitan Area
suburban median.
Elk River residents reported working across the Metropolitan
Area and the central portion of the state. About forty percent
of the sample reported either they or their spouse worked in the
city. The western Hennepin County suburbs were a destination of
seventeen percent of the households. Anoka County drew another
twelve percent. Southern Hennepin County suburbs were the job
sites of seven percent of the households. Minneapolis, Saint
Paul, Dakota County, Sherburne County, and Wright County also
drew smaller numbers. On average, the Elk River commuter takes
twenty minutes to get to work; but, even so, almost one-third
report drive times of over thirty minutes. Indicative of the
distances, another one-third of the commuters would tak~ a ten
percent pay cut to work at a similar job in Elk River.
The city residents are clearly outdoors minded in their
recreational pursuits. The most popular endeavor was hiking or
walking, undertaken by forty-five percent of the households on at
least a weekly basis. In fact, one-quarter of the households
reported walking or hiking on an almost daily schedule.
Bicycling was the second highest ranked leisure time pursuit.
Forty-one percent of the households bike at least weekly, weather
perTnitting. Nature walks scored third at twenty-seven percent.
All three of these activities suggest a strong demand for trails
as a key component of any park and recreation plan. ~'
The next set of most popular recreational activities suggest
other aspects of a comprehensive park system. Swimming was
enjoyed at least weekly by twenty-nine percent of the city's
households. Fishing attracted, during the appropriate season,
twenty-eight percent of the households at least weekly. And,
avid golfers -- at least weekly, weather permitting -- could be
found in twenty-one percent of the households. Area pools,
docks, and golf courses need to be reviewed for their adequacy.in
meeting the needs of the citizenry both currently and in the
future.
The Park and Recreation system was examined in some detail.
Overall, residents are much less satisfied than their peers in
other communities. Only seventy percent of the sample rated the
park and recreational facilities as "excellent" or "good."
Twenty-four percent rated them as "only fair" or "poor." This
approval rating is almost twenty percent less than the
Metropolitan Area suburban norm. Certainly, current residents do
not feel the park system is adequately meeting their needs.
Even so, usage of the park and recreational facilities was
extremely high, at ninety percent of the city's households.
Orono Park attracted the largest number of residents last year:
eighty-six percent of the households contain at least one member
who visited that park during the past twelve months. Lions Park
ranked second at a usage rate of sixty-six percent. Facilities
located at the schools drew visitors from fifty-one percent of
the households in Elk River. Handke Outdoor Ice Arsna and the
softball complex attracted members of about forty percent of the
households in the city during the past ysar. Woodland. Trails
Park, virtually undeveloped, was visited by only ten percent of
the sample's households. While Orono Park is the pre-eminent
facility in the park system, Lions Park and school-based
offerings also serve large segments of the community.
Park visitors were queried about the types of recreational
facilities they used most frequently. Most respondents reported
passively walking around the park they visited. But, the
swimming beach was used on at least an occasional basis by sixty
percent of the households in the city. Softball fields and play
equipment served about forty percent of the households.. The
picnic peri!lions, sliding hills, and soccer fields possessed a
smaller, but significant audience within Elk River. In
comparison with other communities, Elk River residents use the
park and recreational facilities in atypically high numbers.
The City received kudos for its maintenance and upkeep of ~
the park facilities. Eighty-eight percent approved of the c~ty's '"
efforts, while only eight percent expressed ~isamproval. As for ~
unmet needs, only trails were mentioned frequently enough, at
seven percent, to warrant further study.
The residents were asked their opinion of a more extensive----'
trail system to link the city's neighborhoods. The concept was
favored by a large seventy-six percent majority. However, when
the subject of property tax increases to pay for its development
was raised, half of the support changed opinions: a forty
percent to thirty-eight percent negative verdict occurred. There
would be substantial difficulty, consecuentlv, in passing a
referendum at this time. ° '
A nearly similar pattern emerged on the question of a
downtown river walk. Seventy-three percent favored the concept.
But, if property tax increases would be required to fund the
construction, then a forty-four percent to thirty-seven percent
plurality emerged in favor of the project. This project would be
viable at the polls, but a highly effective and aggressive
campaign would be needed to carry the day.
Residents felt strongly, however, about the characteristics
of any trail system in Elk River. Seventy-six percent felt it
should serve both pedestrians and bicyclists. Seventy percent
wanted to see the recently p~r~hased abandoned railroad corridor
developed into a component of the system. And, surprisingly,
one-half of the residents would grant the City an easement if the
trail system ran by their property. Reinforcing these results,
trails were also narrowly designated the priority for
development, edging smaller neighborhood parks and outdistancing
larger community playfields. The ~oncept, then, is highly
popular; financing is the major sticking point.
Participation in recreation programs was also at a
relatively high level. Thirty-two percent of the households
reported children participating in a youth program during the
past year. The most popular program was soccer, a result unique
to this community. Satisfaction with youth programs was
virtually unanimous. By ten-to-one, residents also felt that
current offerings met the needs of their households. Youth
programs, then, are both well utilized and well regarded.
A similar pattern emerged in the evaluation of adult
recreational programs. Twenty percent of the sample reported
participation during the past twelve months. Softball was the
most popular program. Dissatisfaction with any offering was
almost non-existent. And, seventy-six percent of the residents
felt that the programs met their needs. This is one .of the
strongest evaluations the researchers have found to date. It
should be no surprise that a two-to-one majority, sixty-one
percent to thirty percent, favor a joint agreement with the
School District for providing, programs rather th%n the City
offering programs on its own.
Consistent with the high regard of local recreational
programs, only eleven percent of the sample reported household
members travelled elsewhere to recreate' This "leakage,, is
between one-half and one-third the norm. Anoka County sports
programs seemed to be the out-of-town draw. But, even so, almost
eighty percent of the users of out-of-Elk River programs would
transfer to city-sponsored offerings if they were comparable.
These results, however, should not be construed as indicating
that residents used Elk River facilities exclusively: sixty-one
percent of the sample reported visiting other county parks during
the past year. And, a fifty-one percent to thirty-two percent
majority feel that Sherburne County should develop a regional
park system to augment other nearby facilities. While venturing
to facilities at other locations, then, residents clearly prefer
their local facilities to other offerings.
A series of facilities which could be added to the park
system was listed to gauge residential interest. A nature trial
with explanatory sign posts engendered the most interest, with
seventy-four percent indicating members of their households would
be "very likely" or "somewhat likely" to use it. An outdoor
swimming pool drew an interested level of sixty-five percent. A
nature area with an educational interpretive center ranked next
with sixty-six percent of the households expressing interest.
And, play equipment was the fourth most popular facility at
forty-four percent likelihood to be used. These preferences are
clearly consistent with the household recreational patterns
discussed earlier.
Attitudes toward the value of a.park and recreational system
are very strongly held. Seventy-four percent of the citizenry
felt that a good city park and recreational system would increase
the value of their property; only fifteen percent saw no
relationship. An important component in any future park bond
referendum elections will be the explicit linkage of this
economic se!f-interest with the parameters of the proposal.
Residents were asked their views of a park development
package to acquire land and develop park facilities across the
community. They were told that the average $80.000 home in Elk
River would see a property tax increase of about $40.00 for
fifteen years to cover the costs of construction. By a forty-
nine percent to twenty-nine percent margin, residents supported
the proposal; but, the support score is still short of a
conclusive majority. Even more worrisome, strong support and
strong opposition, the most likely referendum voters, were evenly
matched at fourteen percent. The benefits to the community as a
whole was cited as the major reason for support; opponents
fixated on the property tax costs. While the referendum ~ght be
passed in an election with a sufficiently high turnout, a very
aggressive campaign would be mandatory.
Residents were also asked their opinions of a proposal to
acquire land along the Mississippi River for park development.
Sixty-five percent supported the concept. But, repeating the
earlier pattern, when property tax increases were mentioned, a
thirty-eight percent to thirty-six percent plurality developed
against the project. A referendum to fund this land acquisition
project would be very difficult to win at the polls.
The problem of geese in Lions Park, a well-publicized issue,
was assessed. A fifty-five percent majority of residents rated
the issue as either "a minor problem,, or "not a problem.', 'Only
fourteen percent of the sample saw it as "very serious.,, While
the geese may be a nuisance, they are not viewed as a burning
problem requiring immediate attention.
Residents were very pleased with the quality of life in
Elk River. Ninety-four percent rated it as either "excellent', or
"good," with thirty-seven percent rating it as the former. The
most popular aspects of the community were its small town
ambience, convenient location in' the Metropolitan Area, the rural
and open locale, and its quiet and peaceful atmosphere. Two
major concerns were mentioned with some frequency: growth-
related issues, such as traffic and the pace of development, and
poor shopping. A significant eighteen percent of the sample
reported that there was "nothing" they disliked about the
community. Elk River ranks in the top quarter among communities
in the Metropolitan Area on its residential satisfaction.
Elk River citizens proved to be fiscally conservative on tax
matters, but not dogmatically anti-tax. Fi~ ~
~=y-fou~ percent of
the sample would favor an increase in city property taxes to
maintain services at their current levels. Forty-eight percent
saw Elk River property taxes as "about average" in comparison
with other communities; only nine percent felt they were
"excessively high." When asked what Rercentage of their property
5
taxes go to city government, the median response among those who
offered an answer was fifteen percent. But, thirty-four percent
of the sample, a little higher than the norm, were unable to even
venture a guess. Fifty-eight percent of the sample correctly
said that the city's tax rate had increased during the past few
years. While more information about the cost-efficiency of city
services should be provided to residents, citizens seem to have a
fairly accurate view of the tax climate in Elk River.
Communications patterns revealed that most residents,
eighty-six percent, rely upon the "Elk River Star" for
information about City government and its activities. The
"grapevine" was relied upon by ten percent, at the norm for most
communities. Only twenty-four percent of the residents reported
their households currently received cable television; hence, the
telecasting of city council meetings could potentially reach only
one-quarter of the city. But, the projected audience for
occasional viewership would be about one-third of those
households, or eight percent citywide. The City may wish to
consider the publication of a newsletter on a regular basis to
augment the local newspaper. While communication channels are
very strong, this vehicle would provide an excellent means to
inform the citizenry about on-going activities and programs. In
addition, insertion of the newsletter into the "Elk River Star"
would effectively reach almost ninety percent of the residents.
The City was felt to be "about right" in its enforcement of
city codes. Fifty-nine percent awarded that rating, but thirty
percent indicated that the enforcement was "not tough enough."
Particularly troublesome to these residents was the code
enforcement on, first, loose animals, and second, messy yards.
The City may wish to re-e×amine its enforcement procedures,
particularly as they apply to dogs running loose.
City services were rated unevenly by the residents of Elk
River. Police protection, fire protection, and the City Library
were awarded strong approval scores of approximately eighty
percent. Sewers and water was viewed favorably by fifty-four
percent of the residents; sixteen percent disapproved. All of
these evaluations are consistent with norms established in
previous studies. Three services, however, were given much lower
positive evaluations and much lower negative scores than usual:
snow plowing was approved of by sixty-nine percent and
disapproved of by thirty percent; street maintenance was viewed
favorably by sixty-seven percent and unfavorably by thirty-four
percent; and, street lighting was rated as "excellent" or "good"
by fifty seven percent, and rated "only fair" or "poor" by a high
thirty-nine percent. The City was wish to review these three
services for problems and potential improvements.
City staff served an unusually large number of residents
directly. Forty-six percent, about twenty percent higher than
the norm, had "quite a lot" or "some" first hand contact with the
city staff. Evaluations, however, were weaker than usual.
Fifty-nine percent rated the City st~ff as either "excellent" or
"good," while thirty-two percent said they were "only fair" or
"poor." The source of many of the lower ratings was the feeling
that staff was stretched too thinly: that the city required more
staff to deal effectively and efficiently with the growing
population. In view of the large number of staff interactions
with residents, the City may wish to examine the judicious
addition of additional personnel .........
While City government posted strong ratings from the
citizens, there was a diffused feeling of alienation from
government decision-making. Fifty-three percent of the residents
thought they knew "a great deal" or "a fair amount', about the
work of the Mayor and City Council. Evaluations of their jobs
were remarkably strong: seventy-six percent approved of their
work, while fifteen percent disapproved. The five-to-one
approval-to-disapproval rating is particularly impressive.. But,
when-qu'e~r~e~a~t~the~r-abiPlity-to-impact the way things .are run
in the c?mmunity, thirty-two percent felt they could not.
Numbers in the high twenty percent range are considered
troublesome; above thirty indicates a serious problem. But, this
feeling is certainly not directed against the current office
holders and specific actions; it is more generalized in nature.
Other studies have indicated that the publication of a regular
ne.~_wsletter could alleviate much of these tensions.
Waste management is a major issue facing many communities.
Fifty-three percent of the residents of Elk River were currently
separating recyc!ab!e materials from the rest of their garbage.
If the City were to establish a drop-off point collection system,
forty-six percent of the households would take their recyclables
to those sites. A pick-up system for already separated
recyclables would attract participation from a projected fifty-
four percent of the households. Basing garbage hauling fees on
the volume of trash generated by a household was viewed as a very
effective means of encouraging recycling; eighty-six percent of
the sample favored that proposal. But, if it becomes necessary,
a fifty-two percent majority would support a mandatory recycling
ordinance with fines for non-compliance. And, to encourage more
efficiency in refuse hauling, a fifty-two percent majority would
favor the designation of a group of haulers, each serving one
area exclusively. The latter finding is unique among all of the
studies completed to date. Residents of Elk River are clearly
concerned about solid waste management and are supportive of
efforts to foster more recycling activities in the community.
Residents were asked about a Community Center for Elk River.
When queried about facilities in a center, respondents cited, in
rank order, a teen center, a senior citizens center, a community
room, and a gymnasium; however, over fifty percent of the sample
could not answer the question. Taken as a group, three of the
facilities cited point to a need for meeting spaces within Elk
River.
Seventy-four percent of the residents support the
construction of a Elk River Community Center; eighteen percent
7
opposed it. As long as the cost stayed arouqd D~year!y
increase in property taxes, majority support cou--1-~-]5'e~maintained.
But, even at that figure, there is a core of twenty-three percent
of the residents who would not vote for any tax increase for the
construction of a center. Fifty-eight percent of the sample also
thought it was a good idea to attach a new City Hall to the
Community Center, combining the construction of both facilities.
City residents seem, then, to endorse the idea of a City Center
complex, combining administrative facilities with meeting rooms
and other facilities for the public.
Fourteen different facilities for possible inclusion in a
community center were read to each interviewee. Over eighty
percent supported the inclusion of a teen center.
Over seventy percent favored a large community room, a senior
citi-zens center, and group meeting rooms. Over sixty percent
were supportive of an exercise and fitness room, an. indoor
running/walking facility, a gymnasium, and an arts and crafts
room. An indoor ice skating rink, an indoor swimming pool,
racquetball courts, a community theatre, a nursery school/day
care facility, and an aerobics and dance room split the citizenry
and provoked high levels of opposition. Support, then, tended to
build around indoor meeting facilities, and to a lesser extent,
passive "dry" individual recreational and wellness facilities.
Residents were also asked to choose their top two priorities
from the list. Four facilities were chosen by at least ten
percent of the sample: in rank order, a teen center, a senior
drop-in center, a large community room, and group meeting rooms.
The teen and senior centers were chosen by over one-quarter of
the sample as their top'priorities. Opposition to any of the
facilities was also measured. Four facilities were opposed by
more than five percent of the residents: an indoor ice skating
rink, an indoor swimming pool, an aerobics and dance room, and
racquetball courts. Only the first facility, however, reach an
opposition level which is worrisome. Overall, then, Elk River
citizens have a clear hierarchy of facilities in mind for their
community center.
A community center would draw users from sixty-six percent
of the city's households. Fifty-nine percent of the households
reported at least one member who would visit on a weekly basis or
more. There is a clear demand in the community for the
facilities and services that a community center could supply.
On the subject of operating costs, residents split on a pay-
as-you go system. Forty-nine percent oppose the city
subsidization of operating costs, even if user fees increase;
forty-four percent favor a city subsidy. Fifty-eight percent of
the sample would not be impacted by a moderate daily fee; twenty-
five percent felt it depended on the size of the fee; only
fourteen percent felt their usage would significantly decline.
Forty-one percent of the sample would pay $!00 yearly for a
family membership. But, when informed about comparable costs in
the area, forty-four percent of the respondents indicated a
willingness to pay $150.00 per year for a family membership. Any
marketing effort for memberships must stress comparable fees. If
built, the Community Canter will be assured of a very high user
rate.
Amid the demographic changes Elk River is undergoing, there
is a high degree of citizen contentment. But, needs are also
changing; already a consensus exists for a change in direction on
parks and recreational offerings. And, a City which has served
its residents wall in the past may find itself hard pressed to
meet future needs. There is a clear need for more meeting spaces
in Elk River. Expanded parks and recreational opportunities will
also gain more support: it is only a question of time until a
majority coalition exists for further action, even if property
taxes increass. During this period of time, then, it will be
critical to establish co~rses of actions and priorities that not
only satisfy current needs but anticipate future wants. While
this may be challenging, it also provides an opportun£ty for
innovation and creativity. Based upon the past, the citizenry
clearly feels that the ~
C,~y is well-equipped to meet the future.
9
MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER CITY COUNCIL
HELD AT PARKER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MUSIC ROOM
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1990
Members Present:
Mayor Tralle, Councilmembers Schuldt, Kropuenske
Holmgren and Dobel '
Members Absent: None
Staff Present:
Lori Johnson, Finance Director; Dick Fursman, Economic
Development Coordinator; Phil Hals, Street/Park
Superintendent; Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning
Administrator; Russ Anderson, Fire Chief; Sandy
Thackeray, City Clerk; Tim Keane, City Attorney
Call Meeting to Order
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River
City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Tralle.
Consider 2/5/90 City Counci.1 Agend_a_
Item 4.1, Consideration of Amendment to Developers Agreement for
Deerfield III, Outlot A, was added to the agenda.
It was the consensus of the City Council to approve the agenda as
amended.
Presentati__oD. oD Comm_unitv Survey by Decision Resp~rces
Mayor Tra!le introduced William Morris and Diane Traxler from Decision
Resources. Mr. Morris indicated that he would be presenting the
summary of the survey taken in Elk River by highlighting some of the
major findings.
Mr. Morris indicated that people emphasized that they liked the
ex-urban nature of Elk River, or the fact that Elk River was not
actually part of the metropolitan area and, in fact, carried a more
small time atmosphere. Mr. Morris indicated that when people were
asked what they liked least about the City the two major answers were
the growth of Elk River and the poor shopping facilities in Elk River.
Mr. Morris indicated that one area that was looked at in detail by the
survey was park and recreational facilities. He indicated that
citizen's satisfaction with the existing facilities was somewhat lower
than that of other areas. Mr. Morris indicated that 24% of the
residents are not satisfied with the park and recreational facilities
in Elk River and that this indicates that park and recreational
facilities will be a critical issue for the community over the next few
years. He indicated that as a result of this, it may be necessary to
take a look into the fu5ure and plan what types of facilities the City
may want or need in the next decade.
City Council Minutes
February §, 1990
Page 2
Mr. Morris indicated that the most popular recreational activities that
the people are doing in Elk River are hiking and walking, and that the
second highest rating was bicycling. Mr. Morris stated that these
types of activities are definitely pointing toward trail type of
facilities.
Mr. Morris reviewed the City Services portion of the Survey. He
indicated that some of the issues which were of concern to citizens
were street lights and loose dogs. He further indicated that lack of
communication between the City and the residents was also an issue. He
suggested that a newsletter is an excellent way to communicate with the
residents. Mayor Tralle questioned whether the newsletter could be
sent in conjunction with the Elk River Star News. He stated that the
Elk River Star News reaches residents other than just Elk River
residents and felt that it may be beneficial for the City newsletter to
also reach other residents surrounding the City of Elk River.
Mr. Morris indicated that a portion of the Survey was in regard to a
Community Center being built in Elk River. He indicated that the
residents were asked what type of activities they would like to see in
a Community Center. He stated that the four major answers revolved
around a community room, group room, teen center, and senior center.
The City Council discussed uses for the Community Center.
Councilmember Holmgren questioned whether a teen center and a senior
center located in the same building would be compatible. Mr. Morris
indicated that if this were the case, the design of the building would
be centered around this aspect in order to accommodate both the teens
and the seniors. The Council discussed the need for a teen center.
The type of teen center was discussed by the Council. Ms. Traxler
indicated that if the City should decide on using the Community Center
as an area for teens, serious consideration should be given to allowing
the teens to decide what type of activities could take place in the
teen center. She indicated it would be necessary to get the teens
involved in the planning stage of the teen center. Mr. Morris
indicated that the majority of the residents favored the idea of
attaching the Community Center to the City Hall.
The last portion of the Survey that Mr. Morris discussed was in
relation to garbage and recycling. He indicated that according to the
survey, many of the. Elk ~iver residents were already recycling and
further that if the City initiated recycling, 93% of the residents
indicated that they would become involved and participate in the
recycling.
in summary, Mr. Morris indicated that people within Elk River are
fairly confident and happy with the community. He indicated that there
is a major need for more meeting space within the community and also a
major need for more communications between the residents and the City
of Elk River. The Council thanked Ms. Traxler and Mr. Morris for this
summary.
4.1 Deerfield III Agreemen!
PROJECT PROPOSAL
fora
COMMUNITY CENTER
City of Elk River, Minnesota
COMMUNITX CENTER TASK FORCE
December, 1990
E0s ARCHITECTURE
470 WATER STREET EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 (612) 474-3291
CO~UNITY CENTER TASK FORCE
Ministerial Representative:
Dave Bosshardt
20436 Quincy Circle NW
Elk River, MN 55330
School District #728 Representative: Dr. David F!annery
400 School Street
Elk River, MN 55330
Arts Council Representative:
Vicki Granros
1706 Main Street
Elk River, MN 55330
Senior Representative:
Bill Huntley
Elk River, MN 55330
Chamber of Commerce Representative:
Doug Johnson
307 Jackson Avenue NW
Elk River, MN 55330
Youth/Teens Representative:
Nikki B!omquist
1522 5th Street
Elk River, MN 55330
Citizens At Large: Pat Rasmusson
327 King Avenue
EiK River, MN 55330
~'i~l P o~.~rd
162~j~in Street
55330
Allan Kremer
12268 Ridgewood Drive
Elk River, MN 55330
Kath!een Heaney
548D Auburne Place
Elk River, MN
City Representatives:
Roger Holmgren
720 Dodge Avenue NW
Elk River, MN 55330
Lori Johnson
720 Dodge Avenue NW
Elk River, MN 55330
441-3135
441-1003
441-1259
441-1152
441-2482 W
441-5695
441-1441 W
441-6696
441-3053 H
441-6192 H
441-5728 W
441-1441 W
441-7828 H
441-7420 W
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and Mission Statement
Preliminary Statement
Space Allocation Program
Site Selection and Analysis
Project Budget and Schedule
Action Plan
Acknowledgements
INTRODUCTION
For the past year, this Task Force has met to discuss the
need for and scope of a multi-purpose community center in
the City of Elk River. This Task Force was appointed by the
City Council, has adopted the following Mission to guide its
efforts, and presents this proposal to the Council for its
consideration.
MISSION STATEMENT
The Mission of the ELK RIVER COMMUNITY CENTER TASK FORCE is
to develop and plan a gathering spot for community members
of all ages, by;
- determining what a community center for Elk River
should contain
exploring the possibilities of a campus setting to
include City offices
searching out an appropriate location for the proposed
and future development
_ investigating all avenues of financing said
development
- assisting in the passage of a successful referenda
- bringing to completion the initial steps to ground-
breaking
Always remembering the people we wish to have this final
product serve, the Greater Elk River Community
SPACE ALLOCATION PROGRAM
This Space Allocation Program is a narrative of the
activities, room types, capacities and sizes of the
facility. The major activities were identified through the
community survey and refined by the Task Force. These were
then broken down into specific use areas and occupancy
capacities were established. Square footages were assigned
to each area based on the minimum requirements established
by the building codes.
This information is presented here as the first step in
defining the size and scope of the community center and a
basis for beginning the actual design of the building.
This program and the related charts and drawings are not
intended to represent a design for the facility and should
not be used to visualize how the building will look. Once
the program is adopted and a final site is selected, the
architectural and engineering research, code analysis,
calculations and.design can begin.
COMI4UNITY SURVEY
The City commissioned a community opinion survey in
December, 1989. That survey substantiated the support for a
community center. The chart on the following page
illustrates the preferences of activity spaces to be
provided as reported in that study.
This Task Force reviewed those results, conducted some
follow-up research and rated their results. Those priority
ratings are illustrated on the next following page. The
indoor ice rink and the racquetball courts included in the
fourteen activity spaces in the initial survey were
considered inappropriate for this facility and eliminated
from further consideration.
USER ACCESS
For a facility of this nature to be successful, it must be
readily accessible to its intended users. Youth, families,
seniors, and the disabled should have equal, convenient
access and use of the Dro.qram~ and bu~ldi.n~?
Access can mean many things from the cost or user fees,
available transportation and walkways, to convenient times
hours and being physically accessible.
-COMMUNITY CENTER
FACILITY PREFERENCES
Indoor Ice
Indoor Pool
Exer/Fit Room
Gymnasium
Racquetball
Community Room
Group Rooms
Teen Center
Senior Center
Indoor Track
Theatre
Nursery/Daycare
Arts & Crafts
Aerobics/Dance
Decision Resources, Ltd.
Favor
Oppose
100
PROJECT BUDGET & SCHEDULE
COMMUNITY CENTER
City of Elk River, Minnesota
December, 1990
Eos ARCHITECTURE
470 WATER STREET EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 (612) 474-3291
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
The following estimates of probable construction costs were
developed for the building outlined in the space allocation
program. These costs were assembled through a comparative
analysis of a dozen other community centers, the Architects,
Contractors & Engineers Guide to Construction Costs, and the
Means Building Construction Cost Data 1990.
Since the base estimates were developed using 1990 figures,
a 4% annual inflation rate was added to project the expected
costs of construction in future years. Recent discussions
with the local Federal Reserve Bank office, have set their
estimated inflation projections at 4-5% for the ne~:t few
years.
ELK RIVER CO~NITY C~.NTER File: £RCCCE
PROG~ CONSTRUCTION BUDGET
1 NOV 1990
1990
Activity Area Name Construction Costs
1. Meetings & Large Group Room
Banquets Board Room
Prefunction
S~orage
.....................................................
Active Recreation Multi-Purpose Area
Basketball ( Included )
Volleyball ( Included )
Track ( Included )
Tennis ( Indoor ) Tennis Courts
Aerobics Aerobics Studio
$600,000
· $96,000
$195,000
$12,500
$895,455
$0
$0
$182,000
$87,500
$30,000
$500,000
$97,500
$0
$0
Hxercise F. qulpment Bxarclae Room
Lockers Looker Rooms w/ Showers
3. Games Game Room
Ping Pong
Pool Tables
Foosball
4. Administrat~on Recr~ation Director's Offices $27,200
Sen~or Center Director Off,ce $17,600
5. Rental Space Rental Office $17,600
6. Chlldcsre Chlldcare $40,625
Restrooms $10,000
7. Seniors Crafts $160,000
Table Games $97,500
Pool Table $38,220
9. Swl~vning Pool General & Lap $390,000
Wading $55,250
Locker Rooms w/o Showers $425,000
Whirlpool $18,000
9. Food Services ' Full Service Kitchen $88,000
Short Order "itchen $8,000
Seating $18,000
Vending $4,000
Storage & Reciev~ng $5,000
Food Preparation Area $9,600
Banquet Service Corridor $52,500
10. Comons
$100,000
$15 000
$10.000
$50.000
$811.525
$208.000
$13.200
$40.000
S191, 250
$239,250
$770,000
$693,000
$7,319,275
$166,600
$12,500
$10,000
$1,000
$1,600
$600
$30,000
$500
$26,000
$4,500
$273,300
Lobby & Seating
Display
Receptionist
General Storage
Circulation
Mechanical
Custodial & Office
11. Presentations Front-of-House
Backstage Functions
Auditorium
Stage
12. Outdoor Parking & Service
Picnic
Basketball
Volleyball
Shuffleboard
Horseshoe Pits
Gardening
Tennis Courts
F. quipment Storage
SITZ SUBTOTALS
TOTALS
$7,592,57'5
CO:~;IRUCHC~I L4U~ET & PHRSING
Rctivity Area Name
~eetin~s { Large Grouo Roo~
Bar~uets Board Roc..m
~refur~tion
Active Recreation Aulti-Puroose Area
Basketball ( Ir~luded )
Volleyball ( Included )
Track ( Ir~luded )
Terr, is I Indoor ) Tennis Courts
Rerobics Aerobics Studio
Exercise Equipmmnt Exercise Rote
Lockers Locker Rooms w/ Sho,ers
Ping Pong
pool Tables
Foosball
4. Rdministration
Number
Game Room
Ulti~te
Capacity
Recreation Director's Offices
Senior Center Director Office
5. Rental Space Rental Office
6. Chi ldcare
~,0
2 30
I Varies
7. Seniors
Varies
--
8
25
3O
Childcare
Restrooms
Crafts
Table Ga.es
1~1 Table
Size
Nih. S.F./Area Total S.F.
75~) 7500
600 1200
3000
25O 3~0
Ig~O
Constr,;ct ion Costs
13365
6OO0
5~
15oO
60C0~)0
96000
195000
12500
13365
12000
50,))
1500
835455
0
0
0
182000
87.500
2 3 120+220 340
I 2 ~0 220
97500
0
0
o
27200
17600
17600
40635
1O00O
1
220 2~0
6~ 625
50 100
1ooo ~00o
~94 588
Phase Or:e / 1391
8. S~iuing Pool
9. Foo~ Services
10. Cocoons
General & Lap
gadi ng
Locker Rocks w/o Sho~ers
I,hirlpool
Full Service Kitten
~ort Order Kitchen
Seating
Verdir, g
Strafe t Recievin~
F~ ~epirat ion ~ea
~rquet Service Corridor
Lobby & Seating
Display
~ept i~ist
~ra] Silage
Ci~uhtton
~anicil
Cust~ial I Offi~
Rest~s
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1'
1
1
1
1
1
1
5O 3300 3900
10 650 650
5O L~O0 5O03
6 lBO 180
% of Total S.F. Cost
65 4875 405600
50 600 49320
75 2250 1521 O0
100 250 13000
......................
100 13365 931273
0 0 0
100 1250 31O00
100 500 31200
100 5000
0 0 0
100 340 28288
0 0 0
100 ~ 18304
100 625 42250
100 100 10400
16O0OO 0 0 0
9~.~0 0 0. 0
38220 0 o 0
39O00O o 0 0
55250 0 0 0.
4L~5000 0 0 0
18000 0 0 0
!1. Preser, t at iort{
Front-of-House
Backstage Fur~tions
Auditorium
Stage
Parking { Service
Picnic
Basketball
Volleyball
Shuffleboard
Horseshce Pits
Playgr~Jnd
Gardening
Term, is Courts
Equii~ent Storage
BLIILOI ~ 5UBTOTI~.S
12. Outdoor
Sl1~ SUgTOT~S
-- 88O 880 86OO0
~ 80 80 8000
1§ 2L~ ~L~ 18000
-- 50 50 4000
-- 100 100 5OOO
~ IL~0 1~ 9600
~ 750 750 52500
1000
150
100
1000
12485
3~00
200
1000 1O3OOO
150 15000
100 10000
lO<X) 50OOO
1248:~ 8115~
~00 208000
~0 132OO
4O0 4OOOO
2L~o 191~0
3190 239~50
7OO0 77OOO0
63OO 693OO0
3190
700O
63O0
100388 7319375
L:~X) e 400 86600 186600
6000 6000 12500
5400 5400 10000
3375 675O 1000
600 ILEX) 1600
6O0O 12OOO 26OOO
!.50 150 4503
I 1000
I ~
I 11500 SF
I 25 Tables
I ~
I 25
I 25 Plots
2 8
0 0 0
100 80 83~0
100 225 18720
100 50 4160
50 50 2600
100 120 9984
75 563 40950
100 1000 104000
lO0 150 156O0
100 100 10~00
75 750 39000
50 6~03 419L~J4
48 1537 103934
75 IL5 10LXJ6
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
o o 0
40768 31~2193
~ 82 31646
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 .0 -0
0 0 0
0 0 0
100 120o0 27040
100 150 4680
Phase T~o / ' 199~
% of Total S.F. Cost
35 2625 2~Z49O
50 600 56113
25 7:0 26383
0 0 0
.........................
0 o 0
1o0 12C~ 2127Z8
0 0 ,)
0 0 0
0 0 0
100 1560 113378
0 0 0
100 ~0 20574
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
100 2000 187040
10~ 1500 113978
100 588 44679
100 3900 455910
100 ~ 64567
100 5OOO 436825
100 180 21042
160 880 102872
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
50 50 2923
0 0 0
~ 188 15343
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
L:'5 ~/.,0 14613
50 6282 477371
5~ 1663 1263L)6
~ 55 3858
0 0 0
1oo ~5O ~,71
lO0 319O 273683
I00 7000 900130
100 6300 810117
5046768
-- 418 182361
100 60O0 14613
100 5400 1169O
100 6750 1169
100 IL~)O 1870
100 1000 701
10~ 5oOO 35070
0 0 0
0 0 0
129100 273300 44764 633~ 197550 248053
Ultisate 1930
~:tivity Rrea Na~e ~usber Capacity Size Construction Costs ' ~flase One / 199l
~eetm~s ~ ~r~e Grouo ~c~
Gar~ets
Prefur~t~on
Storage
~tlve Recreation ~ulti-Puruose
Bas~et~al| ( Ir~ludc-d
Volley~ali ( Ir~lu~ )
Tr~ck
Ter(,!s ( lr~oor ) Tennis Courts
~robics ~erobics S~,~io
3xe~cise £quip~ent Exercise
Locker Ropes w/ Sho~ers
G~e Roo~
Pool Tables
Foos~ll
5,3)
30
Varies
Varies
--
8
35
5O
~ase T.o / 1994
~in. S.F./~rea Total S.F, ~ of Total S.F. Cost ~ oF Total S.F. ~ost
75~ 7~00 £0~>)~ ~5 ~875 ~05~¢0 35 3625 2~5~90
600 1200 96.~ :0 600 49930 · 50 600 56112
3000 3,.'.3.0 195,X~) 75 2350 15~100 ~5 75') 56983
350 35,) 13500 100 250 13000 0 0 0
-~ ...........................................................
13365 13365 8~455 100 13365 931273 0 0 0
6003 !3000 I~2000 0 0 0 0 o 0
1~0 1250 87500 100 1~5,) 9i000 0 0 0
5C~ ZOO 30000 10o 500 3120o 0 0 0
2~0 5000 500000 100 5000 5~0000 0 0 0
......................................
1500 !500 97500 0 0 0 100 1500 i13378
4. Rdalnistration Recreation Director's Offices Z 3 120+230 340
Senior Center Director Off/ce I 2 330 220
5. Renta! Space Rental Office
I 8 L~O 320
-~ .....................................................................................
6. ~,ildcarm Chi Idcarm I 15 6~5 6~5
Restr¢~s 2 -- 50 100
7. Sen{ors Crafts 2 20 1000 2000
Table Gazes
~1 Table 2 8 ~ 588
27200 I00 340 28388
176~) 0 0 0
17600 0 o 0
40635 0 0 0
10000 0 0 0
160000 0 0 0
97500 0 0 0
38230 0 0 0
9. Fo~ Services
10.
Ger~ral I Lea I ZO 3300
Uading I 10 650
Locker R.×~s ~/o 5~o.ers 2 50 ~500
~hirlpool I 6 180
15
F,HI Service Ritchen
S.ort O~dee Kitchen
Seating
Vending
Storage I Recieving
Focd Preuaration flrea
Bar~uet Service Corridor
Lobby & Seating
Display
Receptionist
6ereral Storage
Circulation
Wechanical
Custodial { Office
Restro<x~s
o o 0
100 220 2057~
0 0 0
lO0 6~ 47491
1oo 100 11690
lO0 2000 187040
100 150,) 113376
100 Z,98 ~4679
~00 3~0000 0 0 0 0 0 0
6~) '55350 O. 0 0 0 0 0
500O 4~5000 0 0 0 0 0 0
180 18000 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
100 8O 8320
0 0 0
0 0 0
50 50 2600
100 I~0 9984
75 563 4O950
100 1000 104000
0 0 0
100 100 10~00
50 500 26000
5) 6243 4~I~3
~ 1600 108160
75 165 1O296
100 400 41600
Presentations
880' 880 88,)00
80 ' 80 8000
~5 ~35 18000
50 50 4000
100 100 5ooo
12o I~ 9~
750 750 5~500
~JILDI I~ Sb~TOTI~LS
12, Out do~r
1000 1000 1000Oo
150 150 15000
100 100
1000 1000
12~85 12485 811535
3200 3.~o0 ~08000
~0 220 13~00
2O0 400 4OO00
SIIE SU~TOT~..S .
~350 19l~0
3150 2393~
7000 770000
6300 693000
100388 7319~75
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
39350 3006664
8~600 186~00 _ 79 30468
6000 1~500 0 0 0
5400 1OOO0 0 0 0
6750 1000 0 0 0
1200 1600 0 0 0
1000 600 0 0 0
5O00 3O000 0 0 0
50OO 50O 0 0 0
12000 26000 0 0 0
150 4500 0 0 0
Front-of-House I · -- ~50
Backstage Furctior~ ! -- 3190
I~uditoriu,e ! IO00 7000
Stage I -- 6300
Parking i Service I · I/5~) Si: 200 @ 400
Picnic " I 25 Tables 6000
Basketball I ~ 5400
Volleyball 2 ~ 3375
Shuffleboard 2 -- 600
Horseshoe Pits 2 -- 500
Playsr°urd I 25
6ardenlr, g I L~5 Plots 5000
Ter~is Courts ~ 8 6000
[quipeent Storage I -- 150
IOO 680 102672
0 0 0
100 5O 4676
50 50 L~23
0 0 0
~ 188 15343
0 0 0
100 150 17535
0 0 0
25 ~50 14613
20 2497 '189735
~0 640 48630
~5 55 3858
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
o 0 0
0 0 0
15V'J3 1319~46
-- 31 13518
I00 6000 · 14613
100 5400 11690 .
100 6750 1169
100 1~00 1870
· 100 1000 701
I00 5O,,3<) 3507O
100 5000 ~5
0 0 0
100 15o 5,361 .
~ase Three / I~7
:i of Total S.F. Cost
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
I O0 12000 233330
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
100 ~0 23144
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
100 3900 5!3850
100 650 73654
IO0 5o0o 558~75
100 160 23670
0 0 - 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
25 250 16438
30 3746 3~147
30 360 83056
0 0 0
0 0 0
I00 E~50 ~1494
IO0 3190 314614
100 7000 101~550
IO0 6300 911~$
45646 43.]9115
-- 91 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
o 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
o 0
100 12000 3~:-
0 o
1~100 . ~73300 31400 30468 42894 8~476
"1
! I~;'~ 1990
Ulti.ate
Rct ivit¥ Rrea .~aae Hcmber Capacity Size
Nih. S.F./Rrea
8eetings I Large 5rou3
Bar~cets [~oard
Prefur~tion
Stora~e
Rctive ~ecreation gu|ti-Purpose Area
Basketball ( Ir~luCed )
Volleytal| { [rcluded 1
Track t Ir~l~ded )
.Tetris [ Ir~ooc I Tennis ~Ourts
~obics ~erobics S~udio
Exercise Eeuii~,sent Exercise R~,
Lr.,c~e~s
3O
Varies
Varies
--
10
Total S.F.
7500 7500
600 1200
3000 3000
25O .~5O
139O
Construction Costs Phase O~e / 1331 Phase T~o / 1394
X of Total S.F. Cost ~ of Total S.F. Cost
60~.1~3 65 4875 40~.)0 35 ~625
%000 50 6C0 ~93~0 50 600
195000 ~ 2~50 I~!~) ~5 7~)
I~ ~00 E~O ~3000 O* 0 0
G&les
Ping Por. g
Poal Tab,es ·
Fo~s~a I I
Locker Rc,~as ~/ Showers 2 50 ~,500 ~ .~3OOQ 0 0 0
Gaee Rc,':u ..........................................
I 30 1500 I,~) 97500 0 0 0
~. Rdainistration Recreation Director*s Offices
Senior Cen:er Director Office
§. I~ntal Space Rental Office
6. ~ildcare Ch/ldc~re
Restr'oc~s
7. Seniors Crafts
Table 6aaes
Pc~l Table
& Swiaing Pool 8er, eral t Lap
Wading
Locker P,o~s ./o S~o.ers
2 3
I 2
13~5 13.165 895455 0 0 0 0 0 0
6000 13000 18~000 0 0 0 0 0 0
1~0 I~0 87500 0 0 0 0 0 0
500 500 30000 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
1 ~0 + ~0 340 27200 0 0 0
220 ~ 17~00 0 0 0
'2 L~O ~0 17600 0 0 0
IS ~5 5c~5 40~25 0 0 0
-- 5O 100 100o0 o 0 0
1000 L~90 160~00 0 0 0
3O0 1500 9750O 0 0 0
~4 583 3&~'O , 0 0 0
50 39O0 3900 3%~00 0 0 0
10 650 6~ .~57-50 0 0 0
5O L~JO0 5O00 4~000 0 0 0
6 180 180 18000 0 0 0
1~) 1500 113378
lO0 340 3;737
100 ~20 80574
0 0 0
0 0 0
100 ~0~ 1870~0
100 ISOO 113978
100 588 44673
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
g. Food Services Full Service Kitchen
Short Order Kitchen
Seating
Verding
Storage I Recievin9
~ F~xl Prebaration Rrea
Banquet Service Corridor
I0. Commons
Lobby & Seating
Disolay
Receptionist
6ereral Stera~e
Circulation
8echanical
Custodial I Office
Restrooas
11. Presentatiors Front--of-~use
Backstage Furctions
~ditoritm
Sta~e
BUILOI~ S~TOT~LS
I -- 880
I -- 80
I 15
1, -- 50
--
--
-- lOOO
-- 10O0
~ 1~4~
Phase three I 1937
~ of Total S.F. Cost
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
100 133f~5 1177~33
0 0 0
100 125O 11~3
IO0 500 39~5O
100 5000 657500
~"..,0
31~0
7O0O
L~O0
0 o 0
o o o
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 o
0 0 0
0 o 0
0 0 o
0 0
0 0 0
12. Outdoor Parking I Service
Picnic
Basketball
Volleyball
Shuffleboard
Horseshce Pits
Playgrourd
Gardening
Tennis Courts
Equipment Storage
SIT~ SUBTOTALS
1/~30
Pha~e Four /
% of Total S.F. Cost
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
25 Tables
25 Plots
8
0 0 0
100 12000 ~6317a
0 0 0
0 o o
0 · 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
100 2~ 26O30
100 6~ 60O84
100 100 14730
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
100 3~0 575810
100 65O 8171§
100 5000 ~8575
680 8~300 0 0 0 0 0 0 ; 100 880 115720 0 0 0
80 8000 100 80 8330 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ 18000 0 0 0 ~ 100 225 210~ 0 0 0 0 0 0
50 4000 0 0 0 100 50 4676 0 0 0 0 0 0
100 5000 50 50 8600 '50 50 - ~33 0 0 0 0 0 0
120 9600 lO0 1~ 9384 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
750 5~500 75 5~3 40950 0 0 0 ~ 188 17253 0 0 0
0 0 0
100 150 17535
0 0 0
25 85o 14613
25 3121 237166
25 800 60788
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
14763 1223380
1000 100000 50 ,~JO 5~X)O
15O 150(0 0 0 0
100 10000 100 100 10400
1000 50000 25 ~0 13000
12485 811Z25 ~S 3121 210997
3200 208000 25 800 ~080
~20 131~00 75 165 10~%
400 40000 50 200 ~
~35O 191~0 0 0 0
3190 239~0 0 0 0
70,3O 77OOOO 0 0 0
6300 693000 0 0 0
100388 7319~7§ 13924 1054047
50 500 65750
0 0 0
0 0 0
~ 850 16438
~ 31~1 266783
25 800 68380
~ 55 4340
50 800
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
2570511
-- ~ 0
100 6000 16438
100 5400 13150
100 6750 1315
100 1200 2104
lO0 1000 789
100 50O0 3945O
I00 ~o00 658
10o 1200O 3419O
100 150 5918
633a7 114011
e 400 86600 186600 -- 28 10808 ~' 30 12887
6000 6000 12500 0 0 0 0 0 0
~00 5400 10000 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.175 6750 1000 0 0 0 0 : 0 0
t~00 1200 I ~) 0 0 0 0 0 0
5O0 lOt'X) 6O0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5000 5OO0 3OO0O 0 0 0 0 0 0
5000 .5O0O 5OO 0 0 0 0 0 0
~xXX) li~O00 26000 0 0 0 0 0 0
150 ..~ ' 150 4500 0 . 0 0 0 0 0
1~100 273300 11139 10808
11815 12887
0 0
0 O.
0 0
250 18488
3121 3o0061
800 76~8
0 o
0 0
I O0 2~0 283859
I00 319,) 353851
100 7OO0 113,~3o
lO0 6300 ~. 10.~4%7
45586 487~7~8
'- gl 0
0 0 0
0 0 .0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 '0
0 0 0
0 0 0
36469 0
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
The cost of developing any facility involves the need for
more funds than just those required for the actual bricks
and mortar. The Task Force has identified the following
preliminary list of issues related to the costs of the
project:
Site Acquisition.
Real estate agent fees.
Surveys.
Soil testing.
Site Preparation.
Predesign and programming fees.
Architectural fees.
Basic services.
Additional services.
Engineering fees.
Electrical.
Structural
Civil
HVAC
Other
Interior design fees.
Landscape Architect's fees.
City's in-house staff costs.
Other consultants' fees.
Demolition.
On-site construction.
Tenant improvement allowance.
Off-site construction.
Permits, testing and inspection fees.
Construction contingency ( %).
Furniture, fixtures & equipment.
Landscaping.
Legal Fees.
Bond counsel.
Underwriter's counsel.
Cost of issuance.
Insurance during construction.
Owner's
Builders' risk.
Recording fee.
Title search.
Name & assessment search.
Title insurance.
Title policy endorsement.
State deed tax.
Disbursing service fee.
Relocation & moving.
Accounting.
Traffic studies.
Appraisals.
Utility access fees.
Bonds.
Pre-opening expenses.
Advertising.
Staff expenses.
Marketing.
Replacement reserve fund.
Initial operating deficits.
Interest.
Title and closing costs.
Project contingency allowance.
Miscellaneous.
OPERATING COSTS
The Task Force has recognized on-going operating costs as a
significant issue in the economics of such a project.
Additional research into and discussion on the programs to
be offered and required staffing must take place in order to
refine many of the budget items.
To date, we have reviewed several other community centers'
data and projected some costs. For example, swimming pools
in other centers are running from $115,000-145,000 annually
to operate. The one consistent comment found was that all
operating budgets had been underestimated by the communities
at the early stages.
Staffing requirements could cost from $275,000-350,000 a
year. A repair and replacement fund should be set aside to
pay for items such as a new roof or furnace in ten to twenty
years. Utilities, maintenance and insurance can not be
estimated until a final scope for the building is
determined. Debt Service will be a function of the amount
of any borrowing or bond issues and the interests rates.
We would like to offer the following checklist as a starting
point for a thorough analysis of the operating costs:
Debt service.
Depreciation.
Supplies.
Marketing and promotion.
Utilities.
Lighting and power.
Gas and/or fuel.
Tenant communications services.
Facilities management.
Cleaning.
Maintenance and repairs.
Painting and redecorating.
Landscape and exterior maintenance.
Property or other taxes.
Insurance.
Accounting and legal fees.
Security.
Inflation index.
Contingency allowance.
CONSTRUCTION FINANCING
Some preliminary research on various bonding options indicates that
forming a nonprofit corporation to issue a bond backed by pledges
would most likely be cost prohibitive. In addition, the bonds
would be taxable making the interest rate 2% to 3% higher than a
nontaxable issue. Further, 150% of the annual debt service would
need to be pledged, and there would need to be reasonable assurance
that the pledges would be paid. There must also be at least one
year's debt service in reserve at all times. Even if these
conditions were met, it may be difficult to sell the bond because
the nonprofit corporation wculd have no assets and no credit
worthiness.
The other'options available to the City are a bond referendum and
the possibility of an installment contract purchase through the
Economic Development Authority. This option would need to be
cleared through the Commissioner of Revenue prior to issuing any
debt through this statute as there'have been recent changes in this
law. To our knowlege, no transactions have taken place since the
law change so there is uncertainty as to whether this type of
project would be feasible under current regulations.
The main financing source for the construction of a community
center will come through the issuance of general obligation bonds
which the voters must approve. Private and corporate donations can
be accepted to help offset some of the cost, but this is not
expected to be a major funding source. Any donations received for
the Community Center would likely be used to either reduce the bond
issue size or to expand the construction scope. There also may be
other financing sources identified in the future. However, at this
point the City is not aware of any future sources which could
provide major funding to this project.
There are several factors that need to be addressed when
considering issuing general obligation bonds.
1. What is the City's available debt limit?
o
What other bonding needs will there be competing with
this issue? (City and Other)
3. How much will this issue increase taxes?
4. What level of tax increase will the taxpayers support?
tOO
LEGAL DEBT LIMIT
State statute limits the City's general obligation debt, debt
repaid entirely by general property taxes, to two percent of the
City's estimated market value (309,273,623) less current
outstanding debt not covered by sinking fund reserves. As of
January 1, 1990, the City's legal Debt Margin was $5,255,692. This
means that the City could issue $5,255,692 of Tax Increment Bonds,
Equipment Certificates or other General Obligation Bonds. It is
important for the City to retain a minimum reserve of $500,000 in
bonding authority at all times. This means that at this time, the
largest bond issue possible for the Community Center would be
$4,500,000.
OTHER BONDING NEEDS
The School District recently recieved voter support for a
$19,400,000 bonding package for buildings and improvements. Also,
the City currently completed a Parks Master Plan whiCh will require
substantial funding if the proposed improvements are to be
undertaken. Because both the Community Center and park
improvements bonding fall under the debt limit, the projects will
complete for the same pool of funds. The City also issues
Equipment Certificates annually and issues tax increment bonds as
the need arises. Although the voters do no need to approve these,
there must be bonding authority available which is why a minimum
reserve of $500,000 must be maintained.~
The authorization to issue a General Obligation Bond will require
voter approval through a referendum. Even with voter approval,
Minnesota Statutes limit the amount of debt that a City may issue
to two percent of market value less debt specifically excluded from
the debt limit. The debt available to the City as of January 1,
1990, was $5,255,000. Additional debt has been issued since that
time reducing the amount available. The City must also keep a
minimum amount of bonding authority available for other projects
and capital equipment needs. At this time, approximately $4.5
million of debt could be issued for the Community Center.
Issuance of General Obligation debt will cause an increase in City
real estate taxes. In making estimates on the local tax impact
several conditions were assumed: ,
The issue would have a twenty year term.
The bond would have a tax exempt interest rate of 7.3 percent.
The actual interest rate will change when the bonds are issued.
Tax Impact
The following chart shows the tax impact for various bond issues
with a 20 year term and a 7.30 percent interest rate.
Bond Issue Size
Tax Rate
$ 1,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 3,500,000
2.474% 4.124% 5.757%
$ 4,500,000
7.423%
Estimated Market
Value
Resulting Tax Increase
60,000 R $ 15 $ 25 $ 35 $ 45
80, 000 R 23 38 53 68
120,000 R 33 54 76 98
144 240 336 433
150,000 C/I
R = Residential - homestead
C/I = Commercial or Industrial
Tax Rate = Debt Service X 105% divided by Total City Tax Capacity
($6,331,671)
Ail tax calculations are made using payable 1990 tax numbers and
laws.
A $4.5 million Bond issue will generate approximately $4,360,000 in
proceeds available for construction. The remaining $140,000 would
be used for financing costs associated with the issue. The annual
debt service for this issue is estimated to be approximately
$450,000.
Supplemental Information
1989 Estimated Market Value of Taxable Property $309,273,623.
1989 Gross Tax Capacity $6,331,671
Legal Debt Limit
(2% of Estimated Market Value)
Less Outstanding Debt Subject to Limit
Debt Margin as of December 31, 1989
Payable 1990 City Tax Rate
Urban Rate 22.620%
Rural Rate 19.389%
$ 6, 185,472
(929, 780)
$ 5, 255, 692
TAXPAYER SUPPORT
The Community Survey indicated that the taxpayer would
support a $40 per year Community Center tax increase. By
stretching the bond term from 15 to 20 years, the tax
increase can be decreased allowing for more funding.
In addition to reviewing the bond referendum issues, the
operating costs of the Community Center must be carefully
and thoroughly reviewed. Questions such as what user fees
will be charged, whether non-residents will be able to use
the facility and at what rate, staffing needs required to
operate the facility and other questions need to be
answered. Most community centers are not self supporting.
For that reason it is important that funding sources for
operating costs be identified and earmarked for that
purpose.
PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE
The following schedule outlines the major tasks which are
required to accomplish the completion of the first phase of
this project. It does not take into account the year of
planning and programming already undertaken by the Task
Force and it assumes the remaining tasks can be completed in
a timely fashion.
PHASING
For the purpose of this preliminary report, we have assumed
the facility will be constructed in three phases.
The first phase includes most of the meeting space but only
facilities for the catering of major meals. Also included
would be the indoor recreational areas, a director's office,
and the related common areas.
The next phase wOUld add the remaining meeting rooms and
full service kitchen, the senior and teen centers, the
outdoor recreational activities, and the related common
spaces.
The third phase will complete the facility with indoor
tennis courts, a swimming pool, and a major presentation
center.
For comparative purposes, we have also included two and four
phase scenario.
?RELIM/NARY PRO.IECT~CIIED[ILE
ELK RIVER COMMUNITY CENTER
TASK MONTHS
1. PROPOSAL PRESENTATION
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
2. AND APPROVAL
3. FINANCING/REFERENDUM
4. LAND ACQUISITION
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
6. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMJ
8. CODE REVIEWS
g. BIDDING & NEGOTIATIONS
10. BID AWARD
11. CONSTRUCTION
12. OCCUPANCY
M:\90127~DocXPPJSCH. Pm3
1 November 19g0
Eos Architecture
ACTION PLAN
1. Task Force to present proposal report to City Council.
2. City Council review and adoption of proposal.
3. City staff to formulate financing plan.
4. City Council to appoint Referendum Committee.
5. Referendum Committee to formulate support plan.
6. City Council to select site and initiate land acquisition.
7. City Council to appoint Architect Selection Committee.
8. Initiate schematic design phase.
9. Develop referendum support materials.
10. Promote referendum passage and other financing support.
11.
12.