HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.a. Recreation Facilities Discussion �' ROS�MO�� �! 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Parks and Recreation Commission Regular Meeting: October 26, 2015
AGENDA ITEM: Recreation Facilities Discussion AGENDA SECTtON:
Old Business
PREPARED BY: Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation AGENDA NO.
Director 6 a.
ATTACHMENTS: Project Summary Sheets, Site
Assessment, Cost Estimates from Big D
Construction and Dakota Rev Field Use APPROVED BY: �'�
Matrix, Corley project drawing, concept
a reement with Corle .
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None, discussion only
ISSUE
For the past couple of months staff has continued to work on xefining the information that was included
in the project summaries for the facilities that wexe requested as part of the Recrearion Facilities Suinmit.
The project summaries were created to idenrify information relating to the potential size of the facilities,
estimated cost to construct, estimates for operating costs, xevenues and debt service. The pYoject
summaYies wexe developed to be used as a starting point to assist with fuYther dtscussions on each of the
facilities being requested. Listed below are updates on the Yecent work that has been done regaYding each
of the Yequested facilities.
Second Sheet of Indoox Ice -With xegards to the xequest fox an additional sheet of ice, staff has met with
the contractor (Big D Construction) that supplied RAHA with the original pricing that RAHA had used in
their economic model. Big D Construcrion recently pYovided City staff with pricing information that was
similar to the pricing that staff had included in the original project summary sheet presented to the City
Council. The pricing information provided to the City by Big D Construction is attached to the executive
summary. Staff also met with a repxesentarive from the Sprung Company to discuss their building
pYoducts.
The assessment to review the Rosemount Community Center site as a possible location for a second sheet
of ice is complete. The fmdings of the assessment are attached to the executive summary for review. Based
on the infoYmation provided in the assessment, staff is recommending that the Rosemount Comrnunity
Center (RCC) site not be used as a location for a second sheet of ice. Staff feels that thexe are several issues
identified in the assessment that make the RCC site very challenging, most importantly the parking issues
that adding a second sheet would cYeate.
Based on previous discussions regarding the second sheet of ice, staff expects the cost fox a second sheet
ice still to be in the neighborhood of between five and seven million dollaxs. Because we do not have even
an uutial design, the estimated cost still needs furthex refuung.
The City Council recently directed staff to move on to a next step for this project. They have asked staff to
hold a couple of stakeholder meetings to discuss what soYt of amenities usexs would like to see included in
the design of the building. This infoYmation would then be used should we decide to staYt work on
designing a new facility.
Artificial Turf Field/Future Dome - Staff Yecently met with xepresentatives from Dakota Rev to further
discuss installing arrificial turf at the Flint Hills Athletic Complex. One of the main topics of discussion
was the amount of use Dakota Rev expected to have at the pYoposed facility. The attached facility use
matrix was cxeated by Dakota Rev and identifies the user groups that might potentially use a lighted turf
field. As expected, due to the potential investment that Dakota Rev might make to this project, they axe
requesting a majoYity of the prune time houxs foY their use. Staff feels that the final decision on time
allotment for use of the new field cannot be determined until we have an estimated final cost for the
pYoject and we know how much Dakota Rev will be investing.
There are several artificial sports turf companies that serve the upper mid-west. Staff xecently met with a
representative of Shaw Sports TuY£ Shaw has completed several pYojects in Minnesota and provided staff
with some valuable information about artificial spoYts tuxf. One piece of information that Shaw sports turf
relayed to staff was that there are lease purchase options that can be used to acquire artificial tuxf. This
type of financing would allow the City to purchase the sports turf with a ininimum initial investment.
Staff is still deteYininuig what the operating cost would be fox a standalone aYtificial turf field. Staff does
not expect this to be a laYge cost but an artificial turf field is not maintenance free. Staff expects to have a
cost estimate in the next couple of weeks.
The City Council has diYected staff to hite a consultant to conduct a feasibility study to better understand
the necessary site unprovements and associated costs of the overall pxoject.
Indoor CouYt S�ace - Dan Coxley has continued to develop his plan for a 60,000 square foot field house
that would include court space as well as a pool. He has been focusing on the noxtheast corner of County
Road 42 and Akron Avenue, but has not been able to secuxe the sight yet. InfoYmat�on on the proposed
facility is available at http://dakotafieldhouse.com/. One of the drawings is attached.
Based on pxevious council discussion,we have researched whether or not any standard economic
development tools could apply to assist with the development of this pYoperry. In return for Ciry
assistance howevex,we would xequest an agreement that would make the project significantly available for
all Rosemount residents, not just those with memberships. A brief concept outline of what an agreement
would include has been discussed and is attached to this xeport.
Tax Increment Financing is not available as a tool in this case since it cannot be used foY commexcial
pxojects. However, a tax abatement plan is potentially available which would capture the City's shaxe of
taxes from the development and allow them to be used for site acquisition and site prepararion.
Conceptually, we have discussed with Mr. Corley a total amount of City assistance of up to $1 million,
assuming a use agxeement as noted above can be made. About$800,000 of this could come fxom a 15
year tax abatement agxeement which is paid by new taxes coming from the project, not e�sting taxpayex
dollaYs. This is based on the taxes paid by othex similax developments in the area. Possibiliries foY
additional assistance include the Building CIP fund oY an agreement to waive some paxk dedication
requirements (since it's a recreational facility benefitting the public in this scenario).
Residents would gain access (to be negotiated) to a pool complex and significant court space would be
made available to RAAA with the gYeat majority of the financing coming from the private sector. The
complex would iinmediately pay taxes to the schools and the County and to the City in the future.
The City Council suppoxted staff continuing to woYk with Mr. Corley on Yefining and getting a letter of
understanding appxoved.
BACKGROUND
On February 20, 2015, the City of Rosemount hosted a Recxeation Facilities Summit meeting to discuss
the community's curYent and future recreational facility needs. Both indoox and outdoor facilities were
discussed at the Summit meeting. Representatives from local athleric associations were on hand to provide
updates on their organizarions and a status report on their facility needs. A sutnmary of the pxesentations
axe below:
• The Rosemount Axea Athleric Association (RAAA) provided information regarding their
association. RAAA is seeing growth in many of the programs and is seeing challenges with meeting
their facility needs. Paul Essler, RA111�President,indicated that their top priority for facility needs
was indoor couYt space for use by their basketball and volleyball programs. Curxently, sports that
use indoor court space are not having their needs met.
• The Rosemount r�rea Hockey Association (RAHA) pYovided an overview of their oxganization
and the growth that they are seeing. RAHA President Craig Nelson provided an overview of their
gxowth and noted that they are seeing significant growth with RAHA programs for younger
children (mites,inini-mites, and U8 and U6 gixls). These programs grew 12% from last year and
over 40% the last two seasons. RAHA leadexship has requested the City to consider building a
second full-size sheet of indoor ice.
• Dakota REV gave an update on their organizarion and explained that they aYe also seeing the
popularity of their progYams growing. Brian Steele fYom Dakota REV stated that Dakota REV is
spending consideYable funds on xenting indoor artificial turf facilities and feels this money could be
kept in Rosemount and would benefit the community. Dakota REV has idenrified theis top
priority as�vanting an artificial tusf field that would be capable of housing a seasonal dome.
SUMMARY
This is an update item only and no action is xequiYed.
RAAA Indoor Court Space Request
Organization Reqvesting Facilities: Rosemount Area Athletic Association
Facility Request: Indoor Gymnasiums/Court Space
Facility Description: RAAA is requesting the City to consider ways of assisting
with the issue of not having enough indoor court space in
Rosemount for their basketball and volleyball programs.
RAAA has indicated that their current needs are
equivalent to having 5 new courts.The facility would be
used for practices and tournaments that woutd attract
various sized crowds.The facilities main focus would be
on basketball and volleybali programs but could be used
for other indoor nctivities.
Approximate size: 50,000 sq.feet
Estimated Construction Costs: $8,250,000 building cost($165 per sq.foot)
$1,117,305 parking lot and site improvements
$400.000 land cost Laperoximately 4 acres�
$9,767,305 total cost
Estimated construction pricing was provided by CNH
Architeds
Anticipated Budget: Expenditures $350,000 (includes Capital Imp. Budget)
Debt Service $708,921 annually (20 year G.O.debt)
Revenues $120,000
Operating budget estimates were based on budget
information provided by 8loomington Public Schools for
their Activity Center operations.
Proposed Facility Location; Unknown at this time.
Notes: AttocF�ed is the presentation information that RAAA
presented at the 2015 Recreation Facilities Summit.
RAHA Indoor Ice Arena Request
Organization Requesting Facifities: Rosemount Area Hockey Association
Facility Request: Indoor Ice Arena
Facility Description: RAHA is requesting the City to consider building a second
City owned regulation indoor ice sheet.The facility would
include four lockers rooms and seating for 300.The
facility would be used for practices and games that
would attract small crowds.The facilities main focus of
the facility would be on hockey activities.
Approximate size: 30,000 sq.feet
Estimated Construction Costs: $4,650,000 (for building and equipment only, �155 per
sq.foot)
$490,000 for parking lot and site improvements
$350.000 land costs (approximately 3.5 acresj
$5,490,000 total cost
Building and equipment pricing was provided by Stevens
Engineering and the 292 Design Group
Parking (ot and site improvement pricing was provided
by CNH Architects
Anticipated Budget: Expenditures: $296,195 (includes Capital Imp. Budget)
Debt service: $398,632 annually (20 year GO bond)*
Revenues: $311,416
Anticipated budget numbers for operating expenses and
revenues are based off of the current RCC rink
operations and other local rinks.
*RAHA has indicated that they are willing to assist funding a portion of the project.
Proposed Facility Location: RCG or a location to be determined
Notes: Attached is the presentation information that RAHA
p�esented at the 2015 Recreation Fpcilities Summit.
Dakota REV Artificial Turf and
Seasonal Dome Faciiity Request
Organization Requesting Fpcilities: Dakota REV
Facility Request: Artificial Turf Field with Lights and Future Seasonal Dome
Facility Description: Dakota REV is requesting the City to consider building a�
artificial turf field with lighting that will be capable of housing a
seasonal dome.The artificial turf field would extend the practice
and game seasons and a domed facility would allow for year
round use.The facilities main focus would be on outdoor and
indoor soccer and other turf sports.
�Approximate size: 126,000 sq.feet
Estimated Construction Costs: PHASE 1 —Turf Field *
$900,000 field turf and prep
$302,000 grading,beam footings for dome
$140,000 field lighting
$228,690 parking lot
$1,570,690 sub-total
*Dakota REV,via financing arranged by the City of Rosemount,would be responsible for $1,000,000 of the
above total with payments spread over 15 years. The City of Rosemount would then provide Dakota REV first
scheduling priority of the turfed field and RAAA second scheduling priority of the field during the financing period.
PHASE 2—Dome Facilitv**
$1,828,500 Dome,maintenance building,mech/elec.
$457,380 Additional Parking
$3,856,570 Grand Total
Construction cost esfimptes were based on information provided
by the CNH Architects, Dakota REV and Yeardon Domes
Anticipated Budget: Expenditure: $310,690 (includes Capital Imp. Budget)
Debt Service $280,027 annually (20 year- G.O. bond)
Revenue: $474,409 (from a seasonal dome)
Anticipated budget estimates were based on information
provided by the City of Snvage and their dome operations.
**Dakota Rev wili work with the City of Rosemount to structure Phase 2 of the project in a similar manner to phase
1.Timing of Phase 2 to be mutually agreed by Dakota REV and the City of Rosemount.
Proposed Facility Location: Flint Hills Athletic Complex or possibly Ames Soccer Complex at
DCTC
Notes: Attached is the presentation information that Dakota REV
presented at the 2015 Recreation Facilities Summit.
�- �
i
�}:;
`Site'�AGorlc°. ';:<i' - _ Pr`ecast3fr`uc�'rue��"'?;,;•'' =,'FO;
_ - -_ _ _ .�s:t:..,';.- ��;•_ '-:;��
- �,i'� _ :-t s;r
`�
- ��`c`
, , :,�:,°
-- ' -�-
Rose t Ice Sheet
��� -
�;:
mon --
�
System System System System
Quantity Cost/SF Subtotal Quantity Cost/SF Subtotal Subtotal
1�0,000 sF 30,000 sf
1 Demol'ttion 100,0�sf $ - $ - $ - $ -
2 Site Work 100,000 sf $ 4.50 $ 450,000 30,000 sf $ 3.00 $ 90,000 $ 540,000
3 Foundations $ - 30,000 sf $ 6.00 $ 180,000 $ 180,000
4 Substrudure $ - 30,000 sf $ 18.0� $ 540,000 $ 540,000 Includes 350K for Rink Slab
5 Superstrudure $ - 30,000 sF $ 27.05 $ 811,500 $ 811,500
6 Exterior Closure $ - 16,620 sf $ 26.00 $ 432,120 $ 432,120
7 Roofing $ - 30,000 sf $ 7.50 $ 225,000 $ 225,000
8 Interior Construction $ - 30,000 sf $ 8.00 $ 240,000 $ 240,000
9 Conveying $ - 30,000 sf $ - $ - $ -
1Q Equipment(Rirtk) $ - 17,0�sf $ 14.71 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Dasher Boards,Rubber Fiooring,Netting,Bleachers,etc.
11 FireProtedion $ - 30,OOOsf $ 2.00 $ 60,000 $ 60,000
12 Plumbing $ - 30,000 sf $ 5.00 $ 150,000 $ 150,000
12 Refrigeration $ - 30,�0 sf $ 11.25 $ 337,SOD $ 337,500 'r cooled chiller system
13 Mechanical&Dehumidification $ - 30,000 sf $ 13.00 $ 390,000 $ 390,000 Includes 200k for Dehumidification
sa Electripl ioo,000 s� $ o.ao 5 ao,000 so,000� $ s.00 $ z4o,000 S zso,000
Subtotal Construction 1D0,000 sf $ 4.90 $ 49D,000 30,000 sf $ 131.54 $ 3,946,120 $ 4,436,120
15 Staffing 100,000 sf $ 14,700 30,0�0 sf $ 130,222 $ 144,922
16 Site Requirementr 500,0�sf $ 9,800 30,000 sf $ 78,922 $ 88,722
Staffing&SRe Requirements $ 24,500 $ 209,144 $ 233,644
0.77%Generel Liabil'ity Insurance $ 3,773 $ 30,385 $ 34,158
0.20%Builders Risk Insurance $ 980 $ 7,892 $ 8,872
0.65%Performance&Payment Bond $ 3,185 $ 25,650 $ -
0.60%Buildin Permit&Plan Check $ 2.940 $ 23,677 $ 26,617
Subtotal Conmuction&Indirect $ 10,578 $ 87,604 $ 69,647
3.00%Conceptual Contingency $ 15,761 $ 127,256 $ 143,047
0.00%Cort Esplation $ - $ - $ -
0.15%Testing&Inspection 100,000 sf $ 812 30,000 sf $ 6,555 $ 7,367
0.10Y Warrenty Reserve $ 542 $ 4,377 $ 4,919
3.00%Design Fees $ 16,275 $ 231,433 $ 147,707
4.Op%Cont2ctor's Fee $ 22,351 $ 180,501 $ 202,851
Project Fees $ 55,741 $ 450,151 $ 505,892
Construction Estimate Totals 100,000 sf $ 5.81 $ 581,119 30,000 sf $ 156.43 $ 4,693,020 $ 5,245,303
�
- :-S�'e'V�1oa�`:"„ - _ -r:� :'P,ie:Eng�qeete,d';'ivletial�6'uil�i'ri' - ,:7'i�TlFF�;;�� -
`t_ s'-c,yi� - " 's.r' ' ,:a - :'[';;'z�":•s.>.:,n.�.� :`; '
--' _ _�r.'_ - - - - `•`r.,
l` -- - � - ,�1;' - ';,i - '�i."<J VY�_
-- - - ' _ " '11:�`�''}-"�� = -�^'tf..��:r".;:
Ro em - - � �
s ont Ice he t
S e
System System System
QuanYdy Cost/SF Subtotal QuanYrty System tost/SF Subtotal Subtotal
10�,000 sf 30,000 sf
1 Demolition 300,000 sf $ - $ - S _ $ _
2 Sfte Work 100,000 sf $ 4.50 $ 450,000 30,000 sf $ 3.00 $ 90,000 $ 540,000
3 Foundations $ - 30,OOOsf $ 6.00 $ 180,000
$ 180,000
4 Substructure $ - 30,000 sf $ 18_00 $ 540,000 $ 540,000 Includes 350K for Rink Slab
5 Superstrudure $ - 30,000 sF $ 24.00 $ 720,000 $ 720,000
6 Exterior Closure $ - 6,000 sf $ 18.00 $ 108,000 $ 108,000 8'masonry wainscot
7 Roofing $ - 30,OOOsf $ - $ - $ _
8 Interior Construction $ - 30,000 sf $ 10.00 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Masonry walls,Lockers,etc.
9 Conveying $ - 30,OOOsf $ - $ - S _
10 Equipment(Rink) $ - 17,000 sf $ 14.71 $ 250,000 $ 25Q,00p Dasher 8oards,Rubber Flooring,Nettirtg,Bleachers,etc.
11 Fire Pratedion $ - 30,000 sF $ 2.00 $ 60,000 $ 60,000
12 Plumbing $ - 30,OOOsF $ 5_00 $ 150,000 $ 150,000
12 Refrigeration $ - 30,000 sF $ 1125 $ 337,500 $ 337,500 ir cooled chiller system
13 Mechanical&Dehumidification $ - 30,000 sf $ 13.00 $ 390,000 $ 390,000 Includes 200k for DehumidificaUon
14 Eledripl 100,000 sf $ 0.40 5 40,000 30,000 sf $ 8.00 $ 240,000 $ 280,000
Subtotal Conrtruction lOQ,000 sf $ 4.90 $ 490,000 30,000 sf $ 112.18 $ 3,365,500 $ 3,555,500
15 Staffing 300,OOOsf $ 14,700 30,OOOsf $ 100,965 $ 115,665
16 Site Requirements 100,000 sf $ 9,800 30,000 sf $ 60,579 $ 70,379
Sta�ng&Site Requirements $ 24,500 $ 161,544 $ 186,044
0.77%General liability insurance $ 3,773 $ 25,914 $ 29,687
0_20%Builders Risk Insurance $ 980 $ 6,731 $ 7,711
0.65%Performance&Payment Bond $ 3,185 $ 21,876 $ -
0.60%Buildin Permit&Plan Check $ 2,940 $ 20,193 $ 23,133
Subtotal Construction&Indirect $ 10,878 $ 74,714 $ 60,531
4.00%Conceptual Contingency
$ 21,015 $ 144,070 $ 165,085
0.00%Cost Escalatton $ - $ - $ _
0.15%Testing&Inspedion 100,000 sF $ 820 30,000 sf $ 5,619 $ 6,438
0.30�Warrenty Reserve $ 547 $ 3,751 $ 4,299
3.00%Design Fees $ 16,433 $ 112,656 $ 129,089
4.00%Contractors Fee $ 22,568 $ 154,714 $ 177,282
Projett Fees $ 61,352 $ 420,811 $ 482,193
Construction Estimate Totals 100,000 sf $ 5.87 $ 586,760 30,000 sf $ 134.09 $ 4,022,569 $ 4,5$4,268
,�o-,g� � --� ;
�
� � � ¢ � � �
� �
ro
� � 3 � � �
� ¢
^yF,,, . .. � , y.
#.1
.� �,,,.�
-; ,�� ,,�
,�1„� �: ��� `'��
_� ��" �1���
.� .
. �_o„
. �.
�� ' �
,
� ; �,
�. � ��� ��..�.���
`� � � � �
N � �� �`g� a �
� �eS
� �� �
�
� �w�• �+�wr
7 N
�� �
�
��
Y
�9�,� L
� � 11 {4�
� JL.� � .1L
'' � �5 '
�
�
�
� _ "'`���'
.� :�-;�
;,ii..-, �.�.� ';t.:'_':
•f�' '�.��t'+�
1
LE3JA DALY
1C�
PiANNiN� October 6, 2015
ARCHITECTURE
Jon Balvance
E�v c i N E E R i N� Operations Coordinator— Rosemount Community Center
Crty of Rosemount
iNrER���Rs 13885 S. Robert Trail
Rosemount, MN 55068
Dear)on:
EST 14t 4
ABU DHABI LEO A DALY is pleased to present our findings for the Site Assessment at the Rosemount
ATLANTA Community Center/Armory site. Our task was to investigate and answer the following
AUSTIN questions:
BEIIING
CHICAG() . Is the site able to accommodate a second sheet of ice that is 30,000 to 32,000 gsf.
COLLEGE STATION • Can the Ciry stil( meet the storm water requirements if the second sheet is built?
CORPUS CHRI5T1
nn�ins • Are the existing utilities large enough to accommodate a second sheet of ice?
I�AMMAM . What are the impacts to the existing parking spaces?
DENVER . Can the existing chiller be relocated to a rooftop or other location?
DOHA
FLINT
FORT WORTH LEO A DALY's findings are based upon:
HONGKONG
HC)NOLULU . A tour of the facilit with ourself and a meetin with Dan Schultz on 9/4/15.
HOUSTON Y Y P �
�nNs�r,c • A meeting with yourself, Dan Schuitz; Parks and Recreation Director and Jason Lindahl;
LA$VEGA$ Planner with the City of Rosemount on 9l16/15.
�os nr,cE�Fs • Telephone conversation with Phil Olson, City af Rosemount Engineering.
MIAMI . Tele hone conversation with Kevin Benshoof CitV of Rosemount Fire Marshall.
M11 PITAS p � T
MINNFAPOLIS • Review of City's storm water management policies.
OMAHA . Review of City's parking ordinances.
°R''"cE . Photographic review of existing electrical serv+ces.
RIYADH
SACR�IMENTp
snN nNTON�o Based upon the research and development of a cancept plan our findings for each of the
snN MnRcos questions listed above are:
TAMPA
`vAc° Is the site able to accommodate a second sheet of ice that is 30,000 to 32,000 gsf?
WASHINGTC)N, DC
4VEST PALM BEACH
The preliminary concept developed for the second sheet of ice is approximately 30,200
gsf. (See attached "Second Ice Sheet Test FiY'). While the concept technically fits on the
site, for the plan to function properly with the existing building and with the site as a
whole, the building's plan becomes irregular in shape. The primary constraints driving
this are:
• The inability to move the western service drive further west due to the property
line setback requfrements.
• The desire to keep the ice plant and ice re-surface room in the general location
that they currently reside. This will allow the ice re-surface room to serve both
ice sheets. The new ice plant (acated in the same lacation or nearly the same
�30 SecoNo nveNUF so�rH location will (essen the extent of reworking the refrigeration headers in the
su�TF ,�«o existing arena as well.
MINNFAPOl15.MN Si401-1J55
Te��,z ss�a3�, . The need to maintain site accessibility to the Armory loading areas (Armory
FAX bt� 33�..�s4o Work Bay and Gymnasium}.
www leoadaly.com
LEO A DAlY
October 4, 2015
lon Balvance
Page 4
• The need to maintain internal access to and from the existing arena.
• The desire to limit public and ice re-surface equipment cross traffic.
Given these constraints, the entrance to the addition is in the back of the site which
may lead to confusion by the users of the facility. It is assumed, however that the large
majority of users of this sheet of ice will enter the complex at the existing entrance
adjacent to the upper south parking lot. This witl require remodeling the lower level of
the existing facility to allow a proper internal connection to the new addition as wel) as
reconfiguring the existing ice plant room and ice re-surface room. Lastly, there is
concern about the limited "visibility"to the lower parking lot which may negatively
impact security.
Can the City still meet the storm water requirement if the second sheet is built?
The site will gain approximately 20,000 square feet of impervious surface with the
addition of the second sheet of ice. According to City Engineering and Planning there
are no existing storm water credits. The western service road connecting the south
upper lot and the north lower lot will need to be revised to accommodate the new
building. This, along with the loss of pervious surfaces north of the original ice sheet as
well as pervious surfaces south of the armory are the main reasons for this loss.
According to City Engineering and the building's construction documents, most of site
drains to the NIIRP pond located at the southeast corner of the site. From there the
pond is piped southeast to Erickson Park where the water is allowed to filtrate. There is
a small area of land directly west of the Armory's loading area where a detention basin
can be constructed to reduce the flow rate below that of the existing condition such that
downstream storm water systems wil( not be impacted. Storm water treatment will
occur in the existing NURP pond and regionally in Erickson Park.
Are the existing utilities large enough to accommodate a second sheet of ice?
Storm water: See above for storm water utility accommodations.
Water Service: Per the City of Rosemount's Fire Marshall, the existing water service is
adequate to accommodate the building addition, specificalty, the building's fire
suppression system.
Life SafetK Systems: The F�re Marshal! was concerned with the building's overall life
safety systems. The new addition, should it be built, would meet current life safety
system codes and standards. However, further investigations would need to be
conducted during the design phase of the project to determine the exact shortcomings
of the existing building's life safety systems. Thai investigation would outline the extent
of any work required beyond the building addition itself.
Electrical: There are three main switch boards as follows:
• Community 1600 Amp, 480/277 volt
• Armory 1200 Amp, 480/277 volt
• Ice Arena 1600 Amp, 480/277
It is somewhat likely the Ice Arena electrical service will need to be replaced with a
larger switchboard. However, LE�A DALY would recommend verifying the peak
demand over the last 12 months. This investigation may indicate adequate capacity for
a larger ice plant accommodating two ice sheets.
LEO A DALY
October 4, 2015
lon Balvance
Page 4
What are the impacts to the existing parking spaces?
A variance application was submitted during the design of the existing building in 1992.
The application sought to allow 200 parking stalls less than the City's parking and
zoning ordinances required. The planning commission approved the variance because
it met the conditions of Section 15.2 of the zoning ordinance. In making the case for
the variance request it was noted that the frequency of maximum capaciry "would only
occur several times annually and typically on weekends". Furthermore, it was argued
that parking demand for each event would typically occur at different times so the
concept of shared parking supported the requested variance to ordinance standards.
The addition would require approximately 105 additional parking stalls (assuming 300
spectators requiring 100 parking stalls per City ordinances plus one stall per facility
employee).
The concept plan shows a net loss of 90 existing parking stalls due to the building
addition foot print.
The net parking implications are as follows:
Current parking stall current deficiency 200
Net loss of parking stalls due to building addition footprint 90
Additional �arking stall requirements 105
Parking stal) deficiency 395
If limited by current site boundaries, the City could consider investigating additional
opportunities for shared offsite parking (and potentially transportation between), and/or
constructing structured parking at the parking lot adjacent to South Robert Trail.
Can the existing chiller be relocated to a rooftop or other location?
The current ice plant and chiller is approximately 23 years old which is nearing the end
of its useful life. Furthermore, the system utilizes R-22 refrigerant which will be phased
out of production in 2020. If a second sheet of ice is built LEO A DALY would
recommend replacing the current ice plant and chiller witM a system that
accommodates both sheets of ice and meets current refrigeration methods. Lastly, the
concept plan requires the reconfiguration of the ice plant room as well as the ice re-
surface room, consequently requiring a new chiller to be located on the roof of the new
addition.
Please feel free to discuss any of LEO A DALY's findings, recommendations, or assumptions.
Sincerely,
lE0 A DALY
Todd LaVold, AIA
Sr. Architect
tblavoldQleoadaly.com
LQ�ADALV �ROSEMOUNT
MINNESOT•
SRF CH.11lf NGlS
� �t�»i�li AIi'H(it41A(Fl1 i v.;ry,'�ti C��'hNN��N.�S�UN(N.1�
NFI Lthi�If v��i V+AKIh(;�i.LLl+.�YI111E IMkktii��(;llif�'ANKIh(��i1kM,>rvll l{V IU;SI'rtF).
THEF%IVi1�fC�IM1'tFCNF(FMI).1V'iNljhCFIVHW(IRIGh 9LL\QiM1STNLCTFfi.�l'i'Rf)VINC,:(NiYN2Kl�(;l'?flSlf<�
il�AN U IV��U=V+1.'(:E�R[t/I,IMFI)
i�lE iNNN;L'�Lak ItI:kUPr[;('�1NFIG�'v�IIIM'�L>V L[�lU i<)Yt 1�F��I lnL I�t I:f a+f�ft)Il�t((ni t�i((�N�Ir.I-tiiqN.
1l�tliEl)'�1tilRltlil"T<l l�)�tTN i'-�N�Ihf�L�T
L Y K(�F iNUi�(C(�Np4C1'FMNAN[F i(1 iIN)RY)NLL CF W FfT
'OSIIIYF Ol;if(}NES OF ADp(fNNAI K[SNE[t AI IMIS SIIE
HrpLMTMCNi(iF ES15LIM1G ICL I'L{�T�M1'iiH�+�)A'f CFci�k�i��IJ)rFCN)V�ti m�i��IN(;il�)1�i f xl il\L�V[I�EW K'f"#fT>
, 1NI1111 if)I1(kll i��k'�AMFnIti I'Oi$�lF f)UE T��FClaull:l lf(i OF Kf Al i1115 GAULRY.
MAINiAIN EAISTING
EXi7S
AtAINiAIN ACCE5510
E%ISTINGGYM\ /�p{ryNp�py�UNITVCENiER RENOVATEE%ISTING
/LOWER LEVEL LOBBY
NEW ICE PLFNT FOR NEW
' �AND EXISTING ICE SNEETS
1d NEW PARKING S1ALl5'-� .. _ . �
�_ �
� '.. ; l_..... . � i.
y 7- �� � `
, / .. K-.r �y- EYJS
� _.�ti,� ICEAPEW' .
1:F
a-�=��. ��- �-"� � NEWRESURF4CERROOM ,
- , - . , =� �� . -�-' FORBOTHSNEETSOFICE
� --' t
FOUR TEAAI ROOMS 1356 SF EAi 8 � � N��� �'� ��� -�.1��
COACH'S ROOMS UNDEft NEW � � �� , f - \ 1 � �
SEATING FOR 70G ..., '� � �; � �,
SPECTAiORS � ' . '�,,, � '�'-'�.Ld-""� ..
�
, Y ,. .` . .:.
..... •... � �_....__-'..
DASHEO REDLINE IN��LATES i��� � � _� �
IOCATION OF E%ISTING LURB LINES�
CROSS HAICHINDiCATESIOSS OF
PERVi0U55URFRCES �`�\ _ . - -- � -�� --�� - ��
�GREEN F�LL INDICATES EXTENT OF
PROPOSE�PERVi0U5 SURFACES
COMMUNITY CENTER SITE ASSESSMENT
SECOND ICE SHEET TEST FIT
OQOflERh:UIS
REV: Flint Hills Turf - Proposed usage schedule
SPRING - April - June 15
Sunday Monday- Friday Saturday
8:OOam - 1:OOpm RAAA Open RAAA
1:OOpm -3:OOpm RAAA DCTC Practice REV
3:OOpm -S:OOpm REV After School Programs REV
500pm - 7:OOpm REV RAAA/ REV REV
7:OOpm - 10:OOpm REV REV Open
Summer -June 16 - August 15
Sunday Monday- Friday Saturday
8:OOam - 1:OOpm RAAA Summer Programs RAAA
1:OOpm -3:OOpm RAAA Summer Programs REV
3:OOpm -S:OOpm REV Open REV
500pm - 7:OOpm REV RAAA/REV REV
7:OOpm - 10:OOpm REV REV Open
FALL - August 16 - October 31
Sunday Monday-Friday Saturday
8:OOam - 1:OOpm RAAA Open RAAA
1:OOpm -3:OOpm RAAA DCTC Practice REV
3:OOpm - 5:OOpm REV After School Programs REV
500pm -7:OOpm REV REV REV
7:OOpm - 10:OOpm REV REV Open
* During REV Tournament weeekend and Summer soccer camps REV would want to pre-book the
fields for tiime outside those noted above.
C
I
I
I �
i
�
\ �
� '�,.y,� . . , E
-- 1
�
�
---- --- �
� �
��: .
� - � ' - -'��`� - �- _�I , I
, ,
4 -• _
� . _ .._ . � ..:. .
+
, _ �.' r—__--- —� 1 —_ i
�„ {wm � � � i
��J` � � aoR ai<. `rw'� � � � �
�, g� '> ,
„ ,
a � I ,
��� �� , � �
� �
� ' « � k r , .._______.. � d .
�- f � f i
�` �� � �I�
` �' �� 3(I P�KIXG Atl.a ��� ��
q � �' fl�R�+9 _ _'_ � � �p
�� '3 ` �,* 'Afi19NG �I � ., I .
� . ; � � � �- ���� ,�
` � �
�.� � � ���� , .,
�
��
. � _ � � ;
.
`� � � � � -�-� �� � � � � ��
_ � �} � ,�, i:� \ ,
<
$ I i-L_..� a;u_Aus r; 1�� � �: ,(;`�
. '
� �,��t F
� � �� _- - .� f�� � �
i � , ;� ,
, � �i�����.� � A /
� ��,� = �
�
i j^ �
�� : '�,i `=��v�� s,� - � < ..
. � � �� � �
: i�, ,
Z � � - '"a . � .._� : R �! /
f([+ � ������ ���((��,,���/f�y �' V�
, �� � �,.
;
� I vA � �� 1— '
i^ ��� � �.„ .
_ ' i - '�, l���f,
� � �� � � � �,
�� ,� F+
._. ., . - '��.
� '.
�� _ � r ` � � � � �7'�` �
� , �c-��r '�� , . , ;I' 4y, .�
v�° I� I "' -.r, ( . ``� :""*/
� � �� � � - —���;,�1� �� 1 c�
�
� i -fi �t' � '� �.
_ e � � �
�� � � ��
;
� . _
. �
_ } ,e � ,�� �'�-�--- `� �. , ,. ,
� �' ' � .�
� <� �,�� � --
� U., ` ,� I
i
. +
- `� �; jlt�� 0 1,
��..- . ---_ g o . ,, i �� ,����
. �
,y � n ti
._ ..___ _. , . , �
� � __ _ �� ����` � I
,,\ �
\� �.:- � - -- - i
� F�._ �
.'-,--,,,,�.._�.,,..:-��� I
f
� �
f f
f /
f �/
i
I
--- _ -- _..._ _- - --.....
OUTLINE OF DRAFT LETTER OF AGREEMENT
The purpose of this letter is to outline a potential Letter of Agreement between the City of
Rosemount,MN and the Dakota Fieldhouse project represented by Daniel Corley of
16963 Evening Terrace, Lakeville, MN 55044. The Letter of Agreement wiil define the
outline of a proposed Public Private Partnership.
Citv of Rosemount will:
• Provide up to $1 million for site acquisition and/or site development costs through
a combination of a tax abatement, park dedication credit, or Capital Improvement
Funds. Assistance is conditioned on Dakota Fieldhouse obligations shown below
and land use approvals being granted by the City.
Dakota Fieldhouse will:
• Construct approximately a 60,000 square foot field house facility that inc(udes
swimming facilities, court spaces and a walking track generaliy as shown on the
attached drawings. Construction is to be complete on or before December 3 i,
20I8.
• Offer daily usage to the facility for a fee to Rosemount community members at
rates to be agreed upon. Community members will be defined as residents of
Rosemount and people who work in the community.
• Offer RAAA the first 5,000 court hours for rental at a market rate to be
determined prior to final agreement.
Both uarties wilt cooperate and make their best efforts to reach agreement on technical,
legal and financial considerations that may include,but not be limited to:
• Term of the agreement
• Exact amount of City contribution
• Establishment of escrow account for city contributions
• Liabiiity/indemnification/insurance tanguage
• Potentia(bankruptcy
• Potential sale of the property
• Standards for repair,maintenance and operation.
• Discharge of liens
• Payrnent of taxes/potential foreclosure
• Arbitratian
• Joint special events with the City
• Minimum hours of operation
• General operational standards, but also clarifying that the City will not be
involved in operations in any way.
• Maximum mortgage on property
• City review of Dakota Fieldhouse pro forma before final agreement.