Loading...
8.0. SR 02-14-20007ity of River MEMOIL&NDUM Item # TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor & City Council Pat Klaers, City Admi ~n~?'a/t~ February 14, 2000 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) At the January 24, 2000, joint meeting of the School District Board and the City Council, discussion took place regarding a possible joint facility. A shared facility may mean different things to different people, but the goals of the School Board seemed clear in that the facility had to address their Community Education, Early Childhood, and Special Education needs. The term "family center" was used during the discussion and Administrator of Community Education Charlie Blesener indicated that, on a preliminary basis, their needs involved somewhere between 30-40,000 square feet. By way of comparison the City Council should note that the City Hall complex (including the police station, garage, and open/group space) is a total of approximately 28,000 square feet. In 1992-93, the facility, including capitalized interest expenses, approached $2.9 million and the FF&E was almost $400,000. One fact needs to be clearly stated before discussion on a joint facility begins. This fact is that if both the city and the school want a joint facility to become reality, then it can happen. However, it should also be made very clear that completing any type of shared facility is a very long, and quite possibly very difficult, process planning and funding. It seems that the first order of business for the City Council in discussing this issue is to make a decision regarding the city goals for a facility. By this I mean the city should decide what is truly needed to be constructed in the near future versus identifying what type of facilities would be "nice to have," but are not on the immediate horizon because of funding. By way of background, attached is some material from about ten years ago when the first Community Center Task Force worked on a proposal. From my point of view, the number one issue that the city needs to address is space for large and small meetings. An auditorium sized facility that would 13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425 Capital Improvement Program Memo Page 2 include a kitchen facility for catering meals in order to accommodate banquets or small conventions has been discussed. Large and small multi-purpose meeting room space has been repeatedly noted as an unmet basic need in the community. This need is highlighted when groups such as the Chamber of Commerce have to go out of town for their annual meeting because no facility in the community is large enough to accommodate them. Other space needs seem to be either addressed in the short term or to be too expensive to be dealt with at this time. For example, in the long term a city senior center facility is definitely something to consider, but in the short term, continuing to work with Guardian Angels to have the public city senior center in their private facility is working to the satisfaction of most everyone. However, as the city grows it is unrealistic to expect that this relationship would continue forever... Also, discussion has taken place regarding a health]fitness center type of facility being included in a community center. Some people however believe that this need is most appropriately addressed by private industry. There is also the possibility that the city could invest in this type of operation and then have a facility that is unused due to private competition...A third space need deals with the youth, but a youth center seems to have been addressed for the time being by the establishment of the Boys and Girls Club and the city-run Emporium facility. Again, like the senior center, in the long run I believe that the city will need a youth center, but this is not on the immediate horizon...Regarding an indoor pool, this topic has yet to be seriously discussed, but it is very expensive for both the construction and operation and, as we all know, the outdoor pool was not well received by the public based on the failed bond referendum. Nonetheless, an indoor pool like we see in other community centers is certainly worth exploring, but this may be a long term desire versus a short term type of need...Finally, the arts center and theatre complex has had extensive publicity in the local paper and has generated a great deal of discussion from a very active, although small, community group. This type of facility is very expensive and, while it is important for the overall cultural well being of the community, it also may not be on the immediate horizon due to funding concerns. If meeting room space is the number one concern and the only immediate goal of the City Council, then I think it is safe to say that this space need can be addressed in the not too distant future. This type of space can be developed along with a 2002-03 City Hall expansion or can be done in combination with the school facilities that were discussed on 1/24/00. Adding meeting room/auditorium space to the Community Education, Early Childhood, Special Education (and Community Recreation?) facility is probably the easiest "joint" facility to undertake by both the city and the school district. This type of joint facility may even be able to be accomplished without a public bond referendum if the total city cost is kept low. However, I don't want to mislead anyone and I Capital Improvement Program Memo Page 3 need to say that I do not have any realistic idea about the cost of this type of space or if the cost can be kept "low" give the kitchen component of the facility. Funding...On the other hand, if the project gets larger or more substantial and gets more expensive, then funding becomes a major consideration. When considering funding for a more substantial facility, you are virtually assuring yourself of a public referendum and the earliest this would happen is the November 2002 election. If the council is going to consider a request for a 1/~ cent sales tax to pay for this facility, then approval of the proposal is needed by the state legislature and then the request has to go before the voters for approval. Accordingly, regardless if it is a sales tax proposal or a property tax proposal, a public referendum would be needed. For a sales tax proposal it would be best to get legislative approval in 2001 so that fifteen months or so could be spent in promoting the issue and preparing the public for the vote. If approval was given by the legislature in the 2002 session, then there would be only a few months to work on the project before the November election. Finally, in order to get a proposal passed by the legislature in 2001, work would need to be done immediately as any proposal would take at least twelve months or so to prepare. The above sequence of activities outlines the timing problem for a sales tax proposal. A straight property tax bond referendum proposal is better from a timing point of view, but may not have as good of a chance of being successful. If the city is going to pursue a shared facility, then a great deal of work needs to be done by both the city and school district. One of the issues is the design of this large facility. Following agreement on the design and components of the facility, management would have to be discussed in terms of who is going to own the facility, be the fiscal agent for the operating expenses, establish the hours of operation, and things of this nature. Accurately dividing up the capital expenses for a shared facility and the operating expenses for a shared facility will be another challenging task. The location of a joint facility is one more concern that has to be addressed. Additionally, discussion should take place as to whether or not there are any real savings to either the city or the school in either capital or operating expenses by doing a shared facility and whether or not having all of these facilities at one location under one roof with one parking lot is appropriate or if it may ultimately be more appropriate to have the facilities at different locations and dispersed throughout the community. As you can tell, from my point of view a "substantial" community center done jointly with the school will be a big challenge, but as previously noted, it Capital Improvement Program Memo Page 4 certainly could be done given adequate time, outside expertise, and, ultimately, money to accomplish the task. On the other hand, i_f meeting room space is the number one priority and the only issue that needs to be immediately addressed, then this type of proposal may be able to be accomplished in the not too distant future, either individually by the city or jointly with the school district. This last comment assumes no public bond referendum being required. At the 1/24/00 joint meeting with the School Board, the council indicated its desire to talk about community facilities and to get back to the School Board in March or April regarding the city's position and goals...let the discussion begin! Decision Resources Ltd,. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 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 interview of city residents took twenty-seve'-~inutes.. 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 other 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. 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 Communit~ Center: eighteen percent 7 opposed %t. As long as the cost stayed arOU~yearly increase in Property taxes, majority support c But, even that figure, there Ks a core of twenty-three percent ained.at of the residents who would not cote 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 fa¢illties with meeting room= and other facilltie~ for the public. Fourteen different facilities for posslble 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 citizens center, and group meeting rooms. Over sixty percent were supportive of an exercise and fitness room, an indoor running/walking fac~llty, a gymnasium, and an arts and crafts room. An indoor ace skating rink, an indoor swimming 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 $100 yearly for a family membership. But, when informed about comparable costs in the area, forty-four percent of the respondents indicated a 8 wi11ingness to. pay $150.00 per year for a family membership. Any marketing effort for memberships must stress comparable fees. If built, the Community Center 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 serve~ its residents well 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 ta~e? increase. During this period of time, then, it will be critical to establish co~rses of actions and priorities that not only ~atisfy current needs but anticipate future wants. While this may be challenging, it also provides an opportunity for innovatiqn and creativi~y. Based upon the past, the citizenry clearly feels that the City is well-equlpped to meet the future. 9 DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. 3128 Dean Court Minneapolis, Minnesota $$414 ELK RIVER CITY SURVE% Parks and Recreation/. City Issues Study Hello, I'm o ..... - ' - ~ ueo~slon Resources, Ltd., a ~ati~nwtde p?lling fir~ %ocated-in Minneapolis. We ye been ret 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) 1. Approximately how many years have you lived in Elk Riv,r? As thing~ now the future do in Elk River? ~tand, how long expect to ] How-would you life in Elk River good, only fair, ,ocr? lent, of 4. What do you lii most LESSITHAN TWO YEARS.....8% TWO FIVE YEARS .... .26% SI TEN YEARS......16%. 1] 20 YEARS .... .....27% 30 YEARS...· ..... 11% THIRTY YEARS ..... 12% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% LESS THAN TWO YEARS....3% 2 - S YEARS.... .... ....6% 6 - 10 YEARS·.·. .......9% OVER TEN YEARS........i$% REST OF LIFE (VOL.)...58% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....10% EXCELLENT .......... ...37% GOOD ............. .....57% ONLY FAIR.... .......... 4% POOR......; ............ 1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0% .out living in Elk River? DON'T KNOW, ; SMALL PEOPLE, 14% , ~0OD, 3%; {ING, 4%. What do DON'T LOCAT 5%; CITY 26%; LOCATION, 24%; SCHOOLS, '3%; %; QUIET/PEACEFUL, 6%; NEIGHBOR- U like least about t? 11%; NOTHING, 18%; 6%; POOR SHOPPING, GOVERNMENT, 3%; POOR ~ES, 4%; POLLUTION, 5%; GROWTH, 18%; SCHOOLS, 2%; TOO SMALL, 4%; HIGHWAY 101, 3%; SCATTERED, 4%. I would to read to you a list of creational activities. For ea~ one, tell me how often you eng~ in that activity·. Do. you or ~y 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 1 109. How serious ro 0US..........14% 1em of geese in LionT~~~ SOMEWHAT SERIOUS ...... 17% -- very ~erious{ scm_ INOR PROBLEM ......... 21% ous, a mlno , or not a BLEM ......... 34%  ce ~'~ ~ %-~ problem at . DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 14% also been some discussion about a new Community'Center There has 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, 9%; ICE RINK, 1%; COM~qlNITY ROOM, 7%; THEATRE, Z%; 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 ~trongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or s%.rongly 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% 97% 90% ~0% 112. An indoor swimming pool? 16% 96% 29% 53% 3% 113. An exercise and f~tness room? 23% 43% 14% 14% 114. A gymnasium? 21% 99% 20% 17% 3% 115. Racquetball courts? 14% 39% 21% 18% 8% 116 Large community room for banquets, parties, meetings, and other rental purposes? 90% 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? 99% 38% 11% 9% 4% 120. An indoor running/walking facility? 24% 41% 19% 14% 121. A community theatre 15% 40% 24% 17% 4% 12~. A nursery school/day care facility? 17% 95% 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 llke Go 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 £ncluding £n & center? · An indoor ice skating rink? . ;tn indoor swimming pool? A~ exercise and fitness room? ...~:_.Racquetball courts? Group meeting rooms? ......~ An arts and crafts room? '".~~A gymnasium? A senior citiz&nz drop-in center? An aerobics and dance room? ..~n indoor rupning/walking facility? Large community room? A community theatre? A teen center? A Day care/nursery school facility? .....All equally ~ ~ ,]None .~.Don't Know/Refused ' "i~8. Would-you favor or oppose the construction of a Community center in Elk River? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel strongly'that way? MOST SEC OPP · ' ~;% 6% " 6% 4% 4% 3% 6% 6% 2% 7% 3% 5% 5% 3% 11% 12% 1% 2% 6% 6% ' 4% 7% 7% 3% 3% 4% 21% 13% 2% 4% 5% 7% 9% 23% 5% 6% , 14% STRONGLY FAVOR ........ 23% FAVOR ....... ; ...... ...51% OPPOSE...',,...........12% STRONGLY OPPOSE ........ 6% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....8% A bond referendum would be required to pay for its construction and partial operating costs, User fees wou14 also underwrite the operation of the community center to some extent. 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 CH~iCE UP OR DOWN DEPENDING ON ANSWER.) NOTHING ........... ....23% $25...................26% $50 ................... 19% $75....................7% $~00 ......... ~ .........~% $125.- .................. 2% $150............ ....... $i75 ................... 1% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... 17% The City currently has saved funds for the construction of a new City Hall. If a community center were built.... 130. Would you favor or oppose attach- · !ng the new city ~all to the Community Center and combining the construction of both facil- it£es? FAVOR................. 58% OPPOSE ................ 22 % DON'T CARE (VOL) ..... .12% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED..... 8% ~ased on our previous d~scussion of the facilities*which could be offered ~n the center, please tell me how many members of thi; household would probably.... .) .) 131. Visit the Community Center on a frequent, at least weekly, basis? 132. Visit the Community Center on a occasional, perhaps monthly, basis? 0,41%; 1,16%; 2,23%; 3,10%; 4, 7%; 5, 3%. 0,45%; &,26%; 2,21%; 3,'5%; 4, 3%; 5, 1%. If a community center were built, the City would have two'.ch~ces 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 SUBSIDIZE... ....... ...44% favor -- should the City subsi- DON'T SUSSIDIZE.......49% dize operating costs through gen- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED .... .8% eral tax revenues or not? 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, ~ignificantly de- crease your use of those facil- '' ities, or not? 'YES ...... ..~. ...... .'..14% NO..... ........ ....'..'.5S% DEPENDS ON FEE....~...2$% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED ..... 3% The City might also offer household memberships to recreati0nal facility users. Members would have unlimited access to all facilities. 135. How much would you be willlng 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 .......... ........11% $200 .............. .....4% $2S0.......... ......... 1% $300 ......... ; .... .....2% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....16% 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 year household membership to the · Elk River Community Center? YES ................... 44% NO .................... 42% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.... 14% 137. Do you currently s - ' YES. ........ .......... clable materials fro~re;~~........... ...... .. 45% of your garbagy DO__REFUSED.....2% PROJECT BUDGET & SCHEDULE COMMUNITY CENTER City of Elk River, Minnesota December, 1990 Eos ARCHITECTURE 470 WATER STREET EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 (612) 474-3291 ELK RIVER COHHUNITY C~NTER File: ERCCCE PROGRAH CONSTRUCTION BUDGET Activity Area Name ~ctlon Cos~ 1. Meetings & Large Group Room $600,000 Banquets Board Room · $96,000 Prefunct ion $195,000 Stor&ge $12,500 2o Active Recreation Multi-Purpose Area $895,455 Basketball ( Included ) $0 Volleyball ( Included ) Track ( Included ) $0 Tennls ( Indoor ) Tennls Courts $182,000 Aerobics Aerobics Studio $87,500 Exercise Equipment Exercise Room $30,000 Lockers Locker Rooms w/ Showers $500,000 3. Games Game Room $97,500 Ping Pong $0 Pool Tables Foosball $0 4. Administrat~on Recreation Director's O~flces $27,200 Senior Center Director O£flce $17,600 5. Rental Space Rental Office $17,600 6. Chlldcare Chlldc&re $40,625 ~estrooms $10,000 7. Seniors Crafts $160,000 T&bla Games $97,500 Pool Table $38,220 8. Swimming Pool General & Lap $390,000 Wading $55,250 Locker Rooms w/o Showers $425,000 Whirlpool $18,000 Food Services · FuLl Service Kitchen $88,000 Short Order Kitchen $8,000 Seating $18,000 Vending $4,000 Storage & Recieving $5,000 Food Preparation Area $9,600 Banquet Service Corridor $52,500 10. Co~ons Lobby & Seating $100,000 Display $15,000 Receptionist $10,000 Gener&l Storage $50,000 Circulation $811,525 Mechanical $208,000 Custodial & Office . $13,200 Restrooms $40,000 11. Presentations Front-of-House $191,250 Backstage Functions $239,250 Auditorium $770,000 Stage $693,000 BUILDING SUBTOT~tLS $7,319,275 12. Outdoor Parking & Service $186,600 Picnic $12,500 Basketball $10,000 Volleyball $1,000 Shuffleboard $1,600 Horseshoe Pits $600 P~my~round $30,000 G&rdeninq $$00 Tennis Courts $26,000 F~uipment Storage $4,500 SITE SUBTOTALS . $273,300 TOTALS $7,592,575 Community Center .,Sk Force Attendance 1115190 2/12/90 3/1/90 4~5~90 513190 5121190 6/7190 6/18/90 7~5~90 7/23/90 812/90 8115190 9~6~90 9~20~90 1014190 10/15190 D. Bosshardt D. Bosshardt (Ministerial) x x x x x x x x x x x (Ministerial) Dr. Flannery Dr. Flannery (District 728) x x (District 728) V. Granros V. Gmnms (Arts Council) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x (Arts Council) B. Huntley B. Huntley (Sr. Citizens) x x x x x x x (Sr. Citizens) D. Johnson D. Johnson '(Chamber) x x x x x x x x x x x x (Chamber) N. Blomquist N. Blomquist (Youth) x x x x (Youth) P. Rassmussen P. Rassmussen (Citizen) x x x x x x x x x x x x x (Citizen) A. Kremer A. Kremer (Citizen) x x x x x x x x x x (Citizen) K. Heaney K. Heaney (Citizen) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x (Citizen) R. Holmgren R. Holmgmn (City Council) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x (City Council) L. Johnson L. Johnson (City Staff) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x (City Staff) JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL/COMMUNITY CENTER TASK FORCE HELD AT THE ELK RIVER CITY HALL THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1990 Members Present: Mayor Tralle, Councilmembers, Holmgren, Dobel, Schuldt, and K.o~u~,~e; ~ao~ Force members, Vi~k'i Granros, Doug Johnson, Kathy HeaLey, Pat Rasmusson, Bill Huntley, Allan Kremer, Dave Bosshardt Members Absent: Task Force Members, Nikki Blomquist, David Flannery Also Present: Pat Klaers, City Administrator; Lori Johnson, Finance Director; Zack Johnson, EOS Architecture Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River City Council and Community Center Task Force was called to order at 6:45 p.m. Pat Rasmusson opened the meeting by thanking the Council for attending this worksession. She then stated that the Task Force was formed as a result of requests from the 2001 group and that the Task Force had been working for 10 months to prepare a proposal for a community center for Elk River. Pat Rasmusson mentioned that the Task Force had visited 10 other community centers and had spoken with various groups including the Elk River Community Theater, the Elk River Area Arts Council, Guardian Angels and the Greater Elk River Area Foundation. She then read the Mission Statement prepared by the Task Force. Zack Johnson distributed the draft project proposals to the Task Force and went through the proposal with the City Council. Zack stated that a major portion of the proposal is the space allocation program which describes which activities will be included in the community center, the square footage of each activity and the cost associated with the .activity. He further stated that the community survey was used as a basis of discussions and a means of prioritizing components of the community center. He stated that a concern of the Task Force was accessibility of the users of the community center. This was both physical access and financial access. Zack reviewed the program summary with the Council. He indicated that the total square footage for all of the activities listed was greater than 100,000 square feet. He also stated that outdoor activities are included as a component of the community center. He indicated to the Council that this is the ultimate facility which plans for future growth. The program design criteria was discussed including the benefits of the community center being located in a municipal complex or campus setting. Zack indicated that the Task Force did not program or address either a police station or City Hall in' the proposal. The detailed design criteria diagrams show the types of activities and how each activity would be equipped. The site selection and analysis portion of the proposal was reviewed. Zack indicated that the Task Force originally identified sixteen possible sites and then narrowed those sites down to five sites and further narrowed that to two sites. The Task Force was aware that it had no authority to make a decision on site selection; however, the Task Force felt that any research Joint City Council/Task Force Minutes November 8, 1990 Page 2 on site selection would be valuable to the City Council. The two sites under consideration are the Nord site and the Houlton/Morrell site. Additional analysis of each of the sites is included in the draft project proposal. Zack further indicated that the Task Force is in no way making an offer for either of these'properties, but feels these sites are possible locations for the community center. The project budget and schedule was reviewed showing the ultimate facility costing $7.59 million for a middle of the road building. Zack stated that in the phasing plan, three year increments were estimated with 4% inflation included. Zack emphasized that these are building costs only (no soft costs are included), and stated that the soft costs could be substantial. Operating costs were briefly reviewed stating that at this time no estimates for operating costs have been made; however, the Task Force is aware that those can be substantial. The referendum issue was discussed including the size and debt limit allowing the City to issue a maximum of $4.5 million. Timing of the facility was discussed. Zack indicated that it would be at least 2-1/2 years before construction would be complete if the project were to start now. Mayor Tralle indicated that because of law changes in the election procedures, the earliest a bond referendum could be held would be in 1992. Zack stated that after Council input the Task Force would like to refine the proposal and present a final proposal to the Council after the first of the year. This final proposal will include an action plan. Kathy Heaney concluded by stating that the Task Force is presenting ideas and goals for a master plan which will meet the future growth of the community. She indicated that the Task Force needs input from the Council and further stated that the community center is an integral part of meeting the community's needs and is something that would be a source of pride for the community. She stated that the Task Force tried to meet the needs of as many people as possible. The Task Force realizes that a commitment from the community is necessary in order for this project to succeed. Mayor Tralle thanked the Task Force for providing an excellent long range goal for the City. Further discussion took place on the recreation components of the community center. There was also discussion on the tax impact the community center would have. Members of the Task Force emphasized that the presentation area could be used by many aspects of the community and that it should not be thought of as a theater but that the community should be educated to the many uses Of the auditorium area. Additional discussion took place on financing the construction of the community center including soliciting donations from private parties and local bu. inesses. Pat Rasmusson indicated that the Greater Elk River Foundation is interested in this project. There was discussion on whether or not the facility would be open to nonresidents. The Task Force indicated that most likely it would be; however, there would be much higher nonmembership fees. Joint City Council/Task Force Minutes November 8, 1990 Page 3 Further discussion on sites and the campus setting took place. In addition, the City Hall/Police Station, as they relate to the community center, were addressed. The Task Force and City Council discussed the actions needed to continue with the community center proposal. The Council will meet and get input L,~c~ to the Task Force so that a final presentation can be made ~n January. At that time additional comments will be made regarding the future of the Task Force and the appropriate action necessary to continue with the Community Center proposal. The joint meeting of the Elk River City Council and the Community Center Task Force adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lori Johnson Finance Director DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY Long range concept plan to be reviewed by City Park and Recreation Commission. O O O F'~E O O O ~ 0 0 SC~'TBN..L ~ FIELD ! FIE~D 4 FIELD 3 0 000 PAF~ O 0 FIELD 2 O O O E lkt~'R ~ vet LAKE ORONO ARFA NAP LAKE ORONO F^ I RBRI~t,O PARIC I I~1~ ( ,) l Opifljons cente.r;On?agenda center, for Elk Rzver~ .... - .... ..,. ?, .. ,~;~;~..'~,-:,..:..:..~, ,.,'~;~;~?~:~: ~'?:~,,; ] c ,% SPace.ror. ba~.::.~o~ncfl~B~ D~.~;~bmps0q intends::. t~ ~[.~.~e'~ting;bf ~re~t~d. ~6ple';' as he s~d ' 'Wo~d~.', He :~?h?'"~ug~es~d'~g, ~ h~f;cent, , ~.,~,'"' .,',' '" .'~'.:, ,~ ~. ~"~, -, "'"~i-,~.~ ..~;;;~.., .... ".[.-.~it,{,;~:;~:'. ;.'. s~es[~ to.~ce, the center,..: ~,.:~.~., ::::'::~;,-'t...t:.;~ ~:~'?~,:", ', ;: TE6? ~lk .RiV~'~ea';;Ch~be~ .bi CommerCe ".also. is~ ' ~"-, ,.[~' .. "~' -~ , ':.. "'t ' ' · ' ' st~E;;the,.~ssu~and may, dec~8e ?,backl z~.'. In que~tipn~'of ha~g a comm~ty cen~er.. ;:e~:'~'~:~8~ needed'more, ~o~ation; 'A ~o~ ~e~ffL~,'~0~'~f~. ~enter~ ~'.~he ~a[~'a~'.~e PuL t~g~[~t~e' ~:~s~ess affa'ci~c' leadef~P:,.;':;~:;.';'.:;'-;.,'. '.. 9~f~e~ front,[ the ~s ~liance is busy ~Si~g ' c6~i~ti~' ~:~ente~s..The aUiance wants.t0, dOC- u~h~W;,:b~e~[;~o~ties a~e;p~0~d~.~nterS;~. M~W~,' :0'th6r ~'~pace' ~or' ce~-~0up~, i~'b~ing p~o~aea~" Gharai~ ~gels is '"ab0~ 't0 e~'~na'its se~or center,, s~a~ing ~th t~e'e~gea. ~t~he~.:.. '.. ~e Mi~e'~Ot~" SPOts ~ede~tion.is c°n~~"-its fund drive to b~ld'a spots center near city hall'.". '-: AtBoys and Girls'Club buffing has .been bufl~ for yo,mg people. . -. :v . :" · '...::' ;~;. ' '~.~-..... .. , -" :,, ~lk ~iver City S~.are.'t~l~ng about the/need ~o' ex,and .gity h~l;. ~ expansion, that-~ght, inclUde. community.meeting space with a'.~tchen. Th~ hUge` need is. for the a~s ~d .jus~ space ~or large'meeting and big events, .w~ch 'co~a attract more people t% 't0~.' and".ben~fit businesses; community theater'~i9 about to reorga~ze an~ need'a place to stage its'Productions. ~lk ~iver Mayor Stephanie ~inzing'believes the only Way it can be done is by cooperating ~th the ~lk ~iver ~ea School District in its building of new fac~ties. She says perhaps ~he city can join forces 'with.,the school district's community education depa~men~ in ha~ng hn addition ~o a new building or a-stana-~one building. Comm~ity Education sts~ repo~ ~hey ~re open' to all options. With ~1 0f this. buzz going on, doesn't it make ,~ense to b~ng ~1 pa~ies to the table and. get.. the 'job done?--Don Heinzman- ' ' .',- .... "'. .~: ~ ... .'"~..,,,. " . ~ ~ ...,, . · ~ ...., . '~ ~..r', ~ ..