Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.11.14 Council, Parks and Rec Commission Workshop City Council/Parks and Recreation Commission Work Session Minutes June 11, 2014 Mayor Larson called the work session to order at 6:30 p.m. Present: Council—Larson, Bartholomay, Bonar Parks and Recreation Commission—Haley, McMillen, Spars Aquatic Facility Committee—Lois Lotze, Amy Pellicci, Cohn Griffin, Tom Schaffer,Ryan Johnson Staff—David McKnight, Robin Hanson,Randy Distad, Missie Kohlbeck, Cynthia Muller Absent: Council—Donnelly, Fogarty Parks and Recreation Commission—Elliott, Lares Audience: Garrett Beck,John Denary MOTION by Bartholomay, second by Bonar to approve the agenda. APIF,MOTION CARRIED. In 2012 the age of the pool was discussed and the fact that something will need to be done. On August 12, 2013, the City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission held a work session to discuss the current condition of the city's existing outdoor pool. It was decided to do an Aquatic Feasibility Study. A pool committee was also formed. The city hired USAquatics to complete the study. Members of the committee include Amy Pellicci, Colm Griffin, Lois Lotze, Gene Sparks, Mayor Larson,Jeremy Pire, Missie Kohlbeck, Randy Distad,Tom Schaffer, Ryan Johnson and Russ Lane. The committee held six meetings to develop options for aquatic facilities. Mr. Tom Schaffer,USAquatics,presented a summary of the study and options. The existing pool and wading pool for the size of Farmington is too small, It will not work to renovate what we currently have. Option 1 is to do nothing. The facility would remain non-compliant with Federal requirements for ADA accessibility and the operational subsidy the city pays to keep the facility open would continue to grow. Attendance will continue to decrease. Option 2 is to repair what we have and bring the facility up to good operational condition and address code issues. All wading pools have to have a zero depth entry. This option would cost $566,000 to $644,400. This will not affect the operating subsidy and it would still be approximately-$69,500 per year. Option 3 is to renovate and expand the existing facility. Necessary repairs would be made to the pool and demolish the wading pool and replace it with a zero depth entry which would be more of a splash pool. Because the existing lap pool is more than 300 feet we do need two means of ingress and egress for ADA and renovations would be necessary for this. Also new filtration, circulation and disinfection equipment is needed. The cost is $1,108,800 to $1,230,600. The operating expenses will increase slightly with the addition of the splash pool, but revenues also may go up. The operating subsidy would be approximately-$64,000. 16 Council/Parks and Rec Commission Work Session June 11,2014 Page 2 Option 4 the existing pool would be demolished and filled in and a new spray pad/wet deck would be constructed. This would include several play features and interactive play elements. This will draw a younger group of users. Operating expenses would decrease because of less staff needs and utilities. There would be no entrance or user fee. The operating subsidy would still cost-$60,000 and would leave the community with no swimming pool. Option 5 is to build a new aquatic facility and is the committee's recommendation. The existing site is not large enough and is not the best location for growth of the city. The committee recommended Jim Bell Park as the location. An 18-mile radius around Farmington was used to determine demographics to properly size the facility. The committee discussed the facility being sustainable operationally for users and for equipment. This facility would have several bodies of water. The projected cost would be $7,249,688 to $9,416,466 depending on options or alternates. The base project would show an operating profit of$22,537. The base project plus alternates would have a projected operating profit of$54,901. This does not take into account retirement of capital debt. The committee also looked at the 2030 comprehensive plan and the 3,255 residential acres proposed by 2030. The factors in deciding to construct a new facility include: -Age of existing pool and the short remaining life expectancy. -Expense required to repair and bringing the facility up to code and operational standards. -Age of mechanical equipment and remaining life expectancy. -Increasing maintenance costs. -Making only repairs would still require a significant annual subsidy from the city to remain operational. - -Any expansion to the pool would make existing equipment undersized to meet code and operational standards. The current pool was built in 1970 and opened in 1971. A stainless steel gutter system is failing. The filter system also needs repair. The equipment is in very poor condition. The wading pool equipment is also in poor condition. The bathhouse has aged and does not have any family changing rooms. The deck area has a number of toe stubbers. Revenues are falling while expenses are increasing. There was very low attendance in 2013. People are going to newer facilities in other communities. Farmington has grown stale. The city needs a variety of amenities for young demographics. The highest percent of demographics is between the ages of 25—44,with the second highest being 17 and under. Based on the 2010 parks and recreation needs assessment,28% of respondents were willing to use tax dollars to maintain and improve the existing outdoor pool. Mr. Schaffer presented pictures of the areas that are deteriorating at the pool. The committee had extensive discussions that if Farmington is going to draw from an 18-mile radius,we need a signature facility that will draw people. One of the top features is a mat racer. The committee also looked at the lazy river with a rapid river entry. There are only two wave pools in Minnesota. Another amenity is the aqua loop which would be the first in Minnesota. 17 Council/Parks and Rec Commission Work Session June 11,2014 Page 3 They also looked at an aqua sport climbing wall which is 30 feet high. There are only ten in North America. The need for a six-lane lap area,the climbing wall, one and three meter diving boards, two body ride slides, an inner tube ride slide, a large zero depth entry area, splash area, activity area, lazy river, crazy river,rapids were all reviewed. Areas could also be separated into separate bodies of water. The committee looked at adding the mat racer and trying to combine more theming and landscaping to create more interest in the facility. The committee's final decision has a mat racer, 50 meter pool with additional fixtures and mechanical room as alternates. The base area would include a four-lane lap pool,river rapids, lazy river,zero depth entry splash area, water slides, shade structures, covered seating, community room/warming house, rental area, bathhouse,mechanical room. The facility would be very visible from 195th Street. Parking would be available for the aquatic facility and ball fields. If an ice arena is constructed,the community room could also serve as a warming house. The labor cost would be $267,390 in terms of staffing. The base project cost would be $7,284,507. Alternates would cost$2,164,405. Total cost would be $9,448,912. This is without the future 50 meter pool. With the 50 meter pool the cost would be approximately$11,600,000. The tax implication with a$10,000,000 bond with a 20 year issue, a residential home valued at $200,000 would have a tax increase of$100 per year. This is for a$10 million project. For a $7 million project,the tax increase would be $70 per year. The projected timeline is based on a referendum at the November 4,2014, election. Construction would start in April 2015, with completion in June 2016. Revenue for the facility is based on two methods, bather load which uses historical information regarding average daily attendance usage by percentage and demographics. The bather load shows projected revenue of$392,040. This is based on a 90-day season and admission rate of $5.00 per day and an average of$1.00 per day in concessions. Based on demographics,the projected revenue is $402,324. This includes an admission rate of$5.00 per day and an average of$1.00 per day in concessions. The projected total revenue for aquatic usage,party rental, swim lessons, exercise classes is $426,182. The estimated budget to run the facility is $403,645. This comes to an operating profit of$22,537. If the mat racer were added, it would take an additional$23,000 to run it and for staffing. The additional revenue would be $55,328 in year one. The admission price would go up$.50. This would amount to an additional profit of $32,364 for a total of$55,000 in profit. There would also be more capital debt to retire. As a comparison, Cascade Bay in Eagan charges $10 for admission. Their facility was financed through a revenue bond. So they had to make enough money each year to pay off the bond. They have done that and are now thinking about expanding. The pool at Northfield has an admission of$4.50, but they do not offer many amenities. The admission in Apple Valley is $9.00. In 2007,the master plan for Jim Bell Park was developed. The plan has been updated to reflect the cost of the parking lot as those costs are not factored into the aquatic facility costs. The 18 Council/Parks and Rec Commission Work Session June 11,2014 Page 4 parking lot and lights would cost$165,000. A community center was originally included in the master plan that included an indoor pool, but not an outdoor pool. The life expectancy for option 1 is one to three years, option 2 is two to three years,option 3 is three to five years for the main pool. Option 4 with a zero depth pool would be 20 years, a spray deck would be 20 to 25 years. A new facility would last 35 to 40 years. Pools will fail programmably before they fail operationally. If you have the insight to master plan a 50 meter pool, add on amenities and you keep it fresh,it will last 40 years. In options 2 and 3 filters and pumps are replaced,but it does not include replacing the circulation system. It is a lesser life expectancy because that is starting to fail. Mr. Garrett Beck, a representative of various athletic associations stated they are very excited about amenities going into Jim Bell Park. Athletic associations represent 2,000 families. Their shortage and reliance on school district fields and lack of opportunity to participate is a huge factor for them. They will be watching as the project moves forward as there are a lot of shortfalls in our community. His intention was not to put one sport against another,rather that the athletic associations want to be at the table to see how we can bring opportunities to Farmington overall. There were 26 ball teams brought in last weekend for a tournament. These people were here for the entire weekend. The opportunity exists to draw people to Farmington and this is a great opportunity to partner. Parks and Recreation Commission members felt this is a good opportunity and the location to the greenway is ideal. To try to salvage the old pool is not the way to go. The new location will draw people in. Mayor Larson asked to discuss the bonding cost and tax implications. Ms. Amy Pellicci stated as a homeowner and business owner she was all for it. It is a good asset to the community, it is an amenity to draw people in. We do not have much here now, so it will be fabulous for the community. Other committee members stated looking at the population breakdown,that tells us what the goal should be. For the growth of the community by 2030,we are looking to bring residents to our community. This will help drive the community and draw them to us. We are mostly residential and need to strive for something people want. Mayor Larson asked about the Seed property which is to the east of the pool and how did we acquire this land, also how much park dedication money will we receive. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated we will not receive park dedication money, because we took all the land for the park. The 16 acres to the east of Jim Bell Park was offered for a year, but we did not have the funding to purchase it. Right now it is platted as a high residential area and single family to the north. Finance Director Hanson asked what is not included in the $7 million option. It does not include the mat racer,multi-play structure, family slide, monster tipping bucket wave, one and three meter diving boards,new three meter tower/stair and footing, climbing wall, 3rd inner tube water slide and the water walk. Two thirds of the slide area is included. Councilmember Bonar asked about the tax impacts for the other options. The tax impact for options two and three, it would be a one or two year levy to come up with$866,000 or$1.2 million. Each of those with a one year levy, on a$200,000 home would have a tax increase of $88.66 to $77. The $1.2 million option is $142 to $163 tax increase for one year. Option 4 has a 19 CounciUParks and Rec Commission Work Session June 11,2014 Page 5 15-year life so it would be financed internally and the cost would be $6.50 to $7.50. The $7 million option is$60 to$70 per year for 20 years and the$10 million option is $86 to $100 for 20 years. Councilmember Bonar stated for the larger options,our return on the investment when you capitalize the debt and look at expenses and revenues,we would spend how many dollars per year and receive how much revenue in return. Finance Director Hanson will need to determine that. According to Ehlers if we did 20-year financing we would have to factor in some escrow for systems upkeep and replacement. Councilmember Bonar stated if he pays $188,000 in taxes and if he were in Apple Valley, Lakeville or Rosemount he would spend$500 per year less in taxes than in Farmington. If he were in Hastings he would spend$200 less. That is not adding in any increases for this item or other items Council has before them. We lack a large commercial industrial base, so we ask a lot of our residents. Mr.Beck stated it is the chicken or the egg. How do we draw people to Farmington if we don't have anything here to draw them? If you keep attracting homes they will bear the burden over and over again. If Farmington is to continue to grow and develop,the pendulum will have to slide the other way. Councilmember Bonar noted we are looking for businesses to come in to help the tax base. Councilmember Bonar asked about the construction schedules for options 1 through 4. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated demolition would occur after the pool closes and work would be done before it opens so we would not lose a swim season. Councilmember Bonar asked about the demographics of the swim bus. Riders are eight to 15 years old. Councilmember Bonar stated the expenditures list for 2013 shows $5,200 in concessions purposes. He asked what revenues we have to match that. There was $11,000 to $12,000 in revenue. A Parks and Recreation commission member noted to help balance the bond expenditure,the city would not have the$60,000 subsidy every year to pay out. Councilmember Bonar asked how many millions of dollars we spend each year just to retire debt. Finance Director Hanson stated the proposed levy for next year is $3.1 million. That is just the tax levy portion. Councilmember Bartholomay asked for option 4, what is the breakdown of the $60,000 subsidy? Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated even the improvements will not change the revenue and we will still have the same expenses. Expenses would be utilities, chemicals and staff costs. There would not be an admission fee. Staff costs would be for maintenance. It is possible to fence it in and charge admission,but then we have to staff it. Parks and Recreation Commission Chair McMillen stated option 4 would only serve younger kids. You would be doing a disservice to many others. Finance Director Hanson asked if there is any open space for lacrosse, soccer, or where winter ice could be. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated there are community amenities planned such as tennis courts,hockey rink,pleasure rink, soccer and lacrosse fields and five ball fields. We have 43 acres on the site. The aquatic center is approximately seven acres without the parking lot. The parking will be built in the middle of the area so it can serve the entire park. 20 Council/Parks and Rec Commission Work Session June 11,2014 Page 6 Councilmember Bonar asked about the annual cost for surface water management fees for the parking lot. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated the water is planned to go into the storm pond in Mystic Meadows. Councilmember Bonar stated he has seen tens of thousands of dollars spent each year on surface water management fees for school parking lots. Staff will check on the cost. Councilmember Bonar asked as far as the proposed bond question, who are the parties that would spearhead the campaign effort. Parks and Recreation Director Distad stated city staff can provide information and facts, but we cannot advocate for or against it. Councilmember Bonar asked about the cost to the taxpayers to place this question on the ballot. The cost would be minimal as it is part of the general election. The due date to notify the county of a ballot question is August 20, 2014. It would not make a difference in cost if it was in 2016. As far as next steps, it was decided to discuss this further at another workshop and how it will fit into the financial plan. The workshop date will be coordinated by the city administrator with the City Council. This has to be compared with other requests such as a ladder truck, Ice for Tigers arena request,the rest of the community center in Jim Bell Park and the CIP. Then the report will be brought to a July Council meeting to accept it. MOTION by Bartholomay, second by Bonar to adjourn at 8:00 p.m. APIF,MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant 21