Loading...
4.10. SR 06-29-1998 rC I ----\) ( )j Ell< Item #4.10. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Pat Klaers, City Admin~ June 29, 1998 ~' DATE: SUBJECT: Bond Referendum Update A bond referendum committee from the Park and Recreation Commission met with two consultants that specialize in outdoor pools and family aquatic centers. A third consultant is scheduled to be interviewed next week. If a bond proposal moves forward and includes an outdoor pool of some type, then a consultant will need to be hired, in a limited capacity, to help in compiling pool information and sketches for the bond referendum. Three members of the City Council were present at the June 3 special Park and Recreation Commission meeting where the community survey results were discussed with Decision Resources (see attached draft minutes). The news from Decision Resources was not as positive as everyone had hoped for, but did provide some positive information for a possible successful bond referendum. It was a clear conclusion that if a proposal moves forward it must include a pool, but concerns were expressed over the total cost of a project that is submitted to the voters. Last year a proposal for about $2.2 million for outdoor recreation facilities was presented to the public and was defeated. At the June 10, 1998, Park and Recreation Commission meeting this $2.2 million proposal was generally reduced by $1 million. The Commission felt that it would be difficult to reduce the outdoor recreation components of the proposal to less than $1.2 million and really receive anything of substance for either the trail system or the neighborhood park system and for all of the work involved in a referendum. In looking at the Decision Resources comments on the public "feeling" for a bond proposal, it was thought that we should keep the total amount in the $2.25 million range. Additionally it was generally thought that about half this amount would go toward outdoor recreation and the other half would go toward an outdoor pool. The big concern with this approach was whether or not we could produce the outdoor pool people envisioned for $1.1 million. 13065 Orono Parkway. P.O. Box 490. Elk River, MN 55330. TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420. Fax: (612) 441-7425 After visiting the city of Anoka pool and meeting with the two consultants on 6/24/98, it is clear in my mind that we cannot possibly give the people what they envision as a pool/family aquatic center for anything less than $1.5-$1.6 million and that ideally we would have between $1.8 and $2 million for this facility (The lower amount of $1.5-$1.6 million would require some city manpower/equipment/funds for such things as the parking lot). If you see the Anoka pool and the brochures on other outdoor aquatic family centers, you can quickly tell that any proposal needs nearly a full package of amenities. Granted we can phase in some amenities such as the sand play area and additional FF&E (lounge chairs, umbrella tables, etc.), but most of the package needs to be done all at once. The package may/should include a large zero depth pool, a slide or two of some type, play apparatus for children, a swimming area (lap pool?), possibly a diving area, the parking lot, landscaped area, a mechanical building for the pool, and the locker room/ concession area. The Anoka facility which was constructed at the site of its old pool was in the $1.9 million range and I am not sure if this included the parking lot or if there were any savings based on the site using the former pool location. I think that if we promote a pool/family aquatic center to the public, what they envision will not be in the $1.1 million range, but will be more in the $1.8 million range. In July, the City Council will need to make a decision on how large the bond referendum should be and/or if it should proceed. If the goal is to keep the total at a lower amount and yet provide the pool/family aquatic center that most everyone envisions, then the city, as difficult as this may be, would have to come up with some discretionary funds to add to the pool project. It may be best to simply present information on a larger project ($2.8-$2.9 million) to the public for a vote and if they want it, then we build it. The preferred site for the pool/family aquatic center continues to be in Orono Park, but no recommendation for an exact location has been discussed. No decision is being requested by the City Council at this meeting, but Park and Recreation Commission Chair Dana Anderson and Street/Park Superintendent Phil Hals will be in attendance to discuss some of the new information available and some of the feelings of the Commission. OJlN:r SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL HELD AT THE ELK RIVER CITY HALL WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 1998 Park/Rec Members Present: Chair Dana Anderson; Commissioners Dave Anderson; Huberty, Kuester. and Peterson Park/Rec Members Absent: Commissioners Westrum and Olson City Council Members Present: Mayor Duitsman; Councilmembers Thompson and Holmgren staff Present: Street/Park Superintendent Phil Hals; City Administrator Pat Klaers 1. Call Meetina To Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the special meeting of the Elk River Park and Recreation Commission and City Council was called to order at 6 p.m. by Park and Recreation Commission Chair Dana Anderson. 2. Consider Aaenda By consensus the agenda was accepted as presented. 3. Discussion on Community Survey and Public Referendum Options Bill Morris of Decision Resources. Inc. was present to discuss the results of the recent Community Survey which his firm completed on behalf of the city of Elk River. The main purpose of the survey was to determine why the 1997 park and recreation bond referendum was not successful and to determine whether or not a 1998 proposal should include or exclude an outdoor pool facility. Bill indicated that the survey was broken into two parts whereby 100 voters of the last referendum were randomly selected for the survey as well as 250 citizens throughout the community. The results of the survey are summarized in the Executive Summary of Findings which are attached to these minutes. In general. the response of the citizens indicated that the referendum failed last year due to a perceived lack of need and a general feeling of opposition to additional taxes. Furthermore, it is indicated that passage of a referendum in 1998 will be more difficult since the passage of the school district referendum last year, however. it was also noted that the referendum. if it should proceed for outdoor recreation items, should include a pool. Additionally. the lower the total price tag for the referendum, the better the chances of success, and therefore Bill indicated that if the proposal moves forward it should include an outdoor pool. but the total package should be no more than $2.25 million. Park and Recreation Commission Minutes June 3, 1998 Page 2 The Commission and Council discussed the pros and cons of proceeding in 1998 versus waiting till the year 2000; the option of putting forth two different questions to the voters; the possible need for a community center issue to move forward in the near future; and the concern about failing in a second referendum and this impact on an attempted third referendum in the year 2000. It was noted that the city would have a greater chance of success with a larger voter turnout and this larger turnout always happens during the presidential elections. Discussion took place regarding what could be eliminated from the 1997 proposal which would allow the inclusion of a pool in the 1998 proposal. It was noted that a lot of ball field related items were included in the 1997 proposal and that this did not get the supporters (the families of ballplayers) to the polls to vote, but did get the negative votes to turn out. The Commission agreed to discuss this issue in more detail at its next meeting on June 10, 1998. A decision to move forward with a 1998 proposal should be made before the end of the month. 4. Other Business No other business was presented. 5. Adiournment There being no further business, Chair Dana Anderson adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, iJ2L1- ~tZ-V-S/a1c-"- lPatrick Klaers City Administrator 6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES 967 P02 JUN 01 '98 15:47 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1998 City of Elk Rivo Methodology: . Survey of251 randomly selected residents of the City of Elk River and survey of 100 voters in the September, 1997, City bond referendum election. . Average interview time often minutes. . Telephone interviews completed between April 16 and 21. 1998. . Results projectable to the entire adult population of the City within:!: 6.3 percent in 95 out of 100 cases. Key Findings: 1. Since the failure of the first City referendum and the passage of the School District referendum. the populace is more hostile to a City park bond referendum. 2. The probability of successfully passing either the two million dollar bond referendum or the three million dollar bond referendum is highly doubtful: the fonner is jeopardized by residents who will not support a bond referendum proposal without an outdoor swimming complex; the latter. by residents concerned with higher tax levels. 3. The first referendum was defeated due to two reasons: (1) the rationale for the proposal was not established sufficiently in the minds of voters; and, (2) the size ofthe tax increase was unacceptable. Past City Referendllm: Twenty-three percent of the sample reported voting in the September. 1997 City park bond referendum. Fourteen percent of the opponents voted "against" of the measure. . One-half of the opponents cited "lack of need." . Just over one-quarter of the opponents posted "high taxes." . Smaller numbers of opponents "disagreed with the placement of facilities." Eight percent voted ('in favor" of the proposal. . About forty percent of the supporters cited "need." . About one-third of the supporters mentioned "children's need for place to play,>> . About one-fourth of the supporters cited "importance for community." 6129296166 DECISION RESOURSES 967 P03 JUN 01 '98 15:48 1998 City of Elk River Pre-Referendum Planning Study June. 1998 Three Million DoliIII' RefereJUlll.m Package: By a forty-nine percent to forty-two percent judgment, residents supported a three million dollar bond referendum for park and recreational facilities and an outdoor swimming complex. . "Need" was key to over one-half of the supporters. . "Swimming complex" was mentioned by just under one-half of the supporters. . "Cost/Taxes" was cited by one-half of the opponents. . "Lack of need," particularly with respect to the outdoor swimming complex, was posted by one-third of the opponents. The "quick ratio" (the difference between "strong support" and total opposition) was calculated as -23%. indicative of a very low probability of passage. Two Million Dolbu Bond Referendum Package: By a forty-six percent to forty-three percent verdict, residents opposed a two million dollar bond referendum for park and recreational facilities only. . . "Need" was cited by almost ninety percent of the supporters. . "CostITaxes" was cited by just under forty percent of the opponents. . "Need swimming complex" was mentioned by just under forty percent of the opponents. . ((Lack of need" was posted by over twenty percent of the opponents. The "quick ratio" (the difference between ((strong support" and total opposition) was calculated as -30%. indicative of virtual impossibility of passage. Recommendation: In view of the almost equal trade-off between the inclusion of an outdoor swimming complex and increased property taxes. neither the two million dollar package nor the three million dollar package should be placed before the public in November) 1998. 1997 PROPOSAL PARK PROJECT QUOTE 1 QUOTE 2 Woodland Trail Park Warming House 100,000 2-0pen Shelters 50,000 1- Rest Room 50,000 Orono Park 1- Rest Room 5D )CJi)2. Add Playground Equip. 50,000 50,000 Country Crossing 3rd Playground Equip. 30,000 30,000 Y2 Court Basketball 5,000 10,000 Mississippi Oaks Playground Equip. 30,000 30,000 12 Court 5,000 Lafayette Woods Playground Equip. 35,000 35,000 ? 2 12 Courts 10,000 10,000 v . Ridgewood East Add Playground Equip. 20,000 20,000 Lights-Full Court 2,000 2,000 Deerfield IV Add Playground Equip. 20,000 20,000 Hillside 5th Playground Equip. 30,000 30,000 12 Court 5,000 5,000 Meadowvale Heights Playground Equip. 30,000 30,000 12 Court 5,000 5,000 East of 169 Park Playground Equip. 30,000 30,000 12 Court 5,000 5,000 Open Shelter 25,000 25,000 Total This Section $537,000 $387,000 Orono Softball Complex 1- Rest Room 50,000 Oak Knoll Combination Shelter/ 50,000 Concession/Restroom Ctr 100,000 50,000 Cass Fields 4-Lighted Fields 180,000 I-Combination Shelter/ Concession/Restroom 125,000 100,000 I-Open Shelter 25,000 Total This Section $480,000 $150,000 PROJECT Funds to Purchase Park Land Riverwalk Phase II for YAC Fields Lion's Teen Center Highland Total This Section Trail Babcock Park to Downtown Rail Road Trail 4.5 miles 169 to Proctor Link 1.0 miles Country Crossing I ~ miles Oak Knoll % miles Woodland Trails 2.0 miles Highway 10 1.5 miles Highland Total This Section Engineer & Design GRAND TOTAL QUOTE 1 QOUTE 2 100,000 1DD,C'0') 50 ecl: - I 100,000 ~OO,OOO 150.000 $400,000 $200,000 50,000 50,000 200,000 200,000 70,000 70,000 15,000 15,000 25,000 25,000 125,000 125,000 75,000 75,000 $560,000 $560,000 $73,000 ~., ;-7 1 ~ c-v~' . $2,000,000 $1,370,000 ( ) 2.9:,7) 000