HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.j. Receive Facilities Task Force ReportO C C O 00 C CD �' W C F
CD n iZ 0 0 CD 0
m om E <- v .m0 00- =0 T i m
0 0 C) -, CD
CD CD C 3
� CD 3 . p -1 of M '"• o p= p CD CD
Q ,.,ro CD o -• * 3Qo n
0 T CD -+. o ,_, 0 CD C :3 -n W
C 0 0 CD o 0 Q (D 0
cn cn
o �0 O c O ncO 0 Cv an n CD
00 coi0 0 oo sv�v� o
-v
30 � �= °° — FD 00 0- 0 �
3 0- CD c0 � � 2 0 CL 0
r� 0. ; - c a n 3 3 o C 0 O
: n � 0 CD
CD W rr
o CD CD < CD = fl? Fn-'
-I CD
". CD CL COD 00 0 3 2 0 0 cn ? CD
CD
0 , - * sv 3 CD :3 o 0 CD Q.. w
"� CD (n (n c CD C) N CQ CD CD ( _0 C7
CD -- .O CD Q. r ej
O T.
p CD 3 CD O CD 0 C cn < iv
CO CD '"" C2 3 .�� :3 ? CD CD O c
0 CD Cy �cn fn
-0 .3 r-,- Q N C CD M co n
O CD O O CD ' !!� ^` CD v CD
c Q.. CD -�, tD � CD v 0 � cn
cn 0 0- 0 -�, CD cn -O cn
Q - -�, p 0 r, CL n
cn
cn cn n cn 0 CD CA CD
- ov CD z`<m �
m m
a CD
0 CD
cn Q
n
,
O C C O 00 C CD �' W C F
CD n iZ 0 0 CD 0
m om E <- v .m0 00- =0 T i m
0 0 C) -, CD
CD CD C 3
� CD 3 . p -1 of M '"• o p= p CD CD
Q ,.,ro CD o -• * 3Qo n
0 T CD -+. o ,_, 0 CD C :3 -n W
C 0 0 CD o 0 Q (D 0
cn cn
o �0 O c O ncO 0 Cv an n CD
00 coi0 0 oo sv�v� o
-v
30 � �= °° — FD 00 0- 0 �
3 0- CD c0 � � 2 0 CL 0
r� 0. ; - c a n 3 3 o C 0 O
: n � 0 CD
CD W rr
o CD CD < CD = fl? Fn-'
-I CD
". CD CL COD 00 0 3 2 0 0 cn ? CD
CD
0 , - * sv 3 CD :3 o 0 CD Q.. w
"� CD (n (n c CD C) N CQ CD CD ( _0 C7
CD -- .O CD Q. r ej
O T.
p CD 3 CD O CD 0 C cn < iv
CO CD '"" C2 3 .�� :3 ? CD CD O c
0 CD Cy �cn fn
-0 .3 r-,- Q N C CD M co n
O CD O O CD ' !!� ^` CD v CD
c Q.. CD -�, tD � CD v 0 � cn
cn 0 0- 0 -�, CD cn -O cn
Q - -�, p 0 r, CL n
cn
cn cn n cn 0 CD CA CD
- ov CD z`<m �
m m
a CD
0 CD
cn Q
n
m
m
z
O
D
_
'o
X
Z
n
m
m
m
1
my
rn
m
cn
..
9
0
0
0
CD
O
Z
..
cn
cn
0-
c
m
CD
-n
c
0
cn
m
v
—
N
o
T
w
7C
cn
X
CD
CD
CD
(XD
Qo
X
CD
cn
7
TI
m
Z
CD
0
(D
O
n
CD
CD
v
0
0
X
CD
0
CD
n
CD
—I
cn
Z
CO
CO cn
;
>
M
>
G)
nD
0 G
=1
O awmz
CD v
CD
CD
m
m
o
P
,-
-_
O
Z
C. e
0
c
CD
CD
c�
0
CD
c
m
c0
n
c
o
m
"y
N
(n O
�
O
m
O c
X z
n
—I
Z
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
TASK FORCE REPORT
A NEEDS ASSESSMENT
BACKGROUND
The recent growth in Rosemount's residential population has produced a number of inquiries
regarding recreational facilities. Because of discussions at the staff level, Parks Commission and the
City Council, staff recommended that the Council consider forming a task force to assess the
recreational facilities that are being requested by residents. Requests have been received for a senior
center, second sheet of ice, arts /cultural center, teen center and an aquatic center. The local hockey
association and the senior citizen organization have submitted formal requests for additional
facilities (attachments A and B).
WHY A TASK FORCE?
The City Council and Staff agreed that it would be best to include a variety of people to assist with
the needs assessment process. The goal was to get people involved from the stakeholder groups who
have requested additional facilities as well as residents at large.
Staff contacted the community organizations, local high school, published press releases, and sent
information to those people who have shown an interest in serving on a city commission. Staff took
the names of the interested applicants to the City Council to be considered for appointment to the
task force that would assist with a needs assessment
APPOINTED MEMBERS
On February 17, 2004, the City Council appointed 13 people to the Community Facilities Task
Force. The appointees included:
Forrest Krogh Rsmt. Area Senior Heidi Grange - Member at Large
Philip Harris — Student Mindy Andreason - Member at Large
Meghan Cockerill - Student Tom Caravello — Member at Large
Matt Kearney - RAHA Member Smokey Vitek — Member at Large
Mike Winter - RAHA Member Mike Ehason — P &R Commission
Dana Brodt - Member at Large Phil Sterner — P&R Commission
Tim Wynne - Member at Large
DEFINING A NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The Task Force started their work by holding discussions regarding the needs assessment process.
and what they could expect to discuss. Listed below are the steps that the Task. Force felt would be
necessary to include in the needs assessment process.
What is a Needs Assessment?
A needs assessment identifies and prioritizes gaps ( What is versus what should be or what people
want .
The Needs Assessment Plan —
1. Determine and define the objectives of the assessment. (What do we want to know ?)
Identify the target audience. (From whom are we going to collect information and data ?)
• Get stakeholders involved in describing the issues and interpreting the results.
• Establish the areas or items that need to be studied.
2. Establish a sampling procedure. (How are we going to select a group of individuals that will
represent our target population ?) Establish Data Collection Methods. (How will we collect our
data ?) Instruments and techniques..(What instruments and techniques will we use to collect
data ?)
• Key informants, surveys, interviews, community forums, open houses, identifying standards,
analysis of statistics and others.
3. Data analysis and interpretation. (How will we analyze the data ?)
• . What level of service is needed?
• What level of service is being offered?
4. What will we do with our data? Make decisions. (What and how will decisions be made ?)
• Prioritize the results of the assessment.
• Share the information with the community.
2
a
DEFINING FACILITIES
Once the Task Force reviewed the steps to the needs assessment, they spent much of their first few
meetings discussing facilities and defusing what ` members thought should be reviewed (see
attachment C1 — C6 meeting notes). Staff felt that it was important to define "senior center",
"second sheet of ice," etc. Listed below are the Tasks Forces' facility descriptions.
Senior Center — A dedicated space available for drop -in and preplanned programs. Space needed
would be a large gathering room and three smaller rooms for special interest activities. They also
would need a small kitchen facility, storage and restrooms.
Indoor Ice /Multi - Purpose Arena The facility that houses a second sheet of indoor ice would be
a multi- purpose facility that would house ice only in the months of October through March. The
remainder of the year, the facility could be used for soccer, tennis, inline skating or other events.
Cultural /Arts Center — This facility would be a location for people to learn, view and participate in
the arts. The facility would house art shows, theater productions, poetry readings, concerts,
educational classes and more. Also, a small coffee shop might be considered a possible amenity in
the facility.
Aquatic Center - This facility was defined as being an indoor water park that would include
recreational amenities such as slides, mushrooms, possibly an area for competitive swimming or
diving and an outdoor splash pad.
Teen Center - The Teen Center would be a place that was inviting to teens and designed to meet
their needs. The facility needs to offer a mix of amenities and opportunities. The facility should not
resemble an institutional setting.
3
SERVICE LEVEL RESEARCH
The Task Force and staff felt it would be helpful to look at service levels in other communities and
compare those to what is being offered by the City of Rosemount. Parks and Recreation
Department staff contacted five other local communities to find out what types of facilities were
being offered to their residents. The information provided in the charts below provides a general
sense of what is available to the community via each cit
The chart also includes a column for that is identified as "Future Rosemount ". This information is
providing a look at what the Facilities Task Force would expect an updated chart to look like in the
future:
Please note: Not all communities have the same organization offering the same service. An example
would be aquatic facilities. In Eagan the City offers a pool, as does the YMCA, ISD 196 and a
private club. The information we received for the service level reviews came from the parks and
recreation department for the respective city listed in each chart
INDOOR ICE SERVICE LEVELS
4
Question /City
Rosemount
Future
Eagan
IGH
Farmington
Shakopee
Prior Lake
Rosemount
Sheets of ice
1
2
2
2
1
1
0 (private rink)
Expected growth
19% in 05
4% in 08
Remain
5%
10 to 12
40 per year
35 — 40 skaters
in # of skaters
about the
skaters per
for next few
4% in 08
same
year
years
Plans for future
Conducting
No
Possible
NA
Discussion
Have had
Assoc. would like one
sheets
assessment
covered
about second
serious
outdoor rink
sheet has
discussion
started
need to
raise $
Youth
16 teams
28
Eagan 500
Approx.
Approx. 250
Approx. 230
Approx. 350
participation
Eastview 350
400
levels
Approx
350
Hours of ice
637+
1,068
Eagan 1275
Approx.
Approx. 700
Approx. 800
Approx. 900,
purchased on a
1075
regular basis
Eastview 200
SENIOR CENTER SERVICE LEVELS
Question /City
Rosemount
Future
Eagan
IGH
Farmington
Shakopee
Prior Lake
Does City have a teen
center?
No
Rsmt
Teen room
in CC
No
No
Yes, teen
room in CC
No
Does community
No /yes
Yes
No /yes
Yes - Comm.
Yes
No dedicated
No
have a senior
0
NA
1
leases space
0
space
0
center?
How big?
Multiple
4000
2000 sq
Large classroom
6000 sq. ft
They share
NA
rooms are
sq.
ft. in CC
2,000 sq. ft with
used
youth facility
Is there a
Yes
Yes
No
$6.00
Yes, $10.00
Yes, 54
NA
membership?
members
250
300 members
Any senior
Yes, four
Yes,
Yes
No
DNA
Yes, two
Yes, two
housing with
four
amenities?
Does the City
No, the
Yes
Yes
No, Comm. Ed
Yes
Yes
Yes, trips and a
coordinate the
Senior club
provides program
sodal
activities?
organizes
coordination
them, city
provides
support.
Participation
Numbers
TBD
15 per
Most programs
Vary by
They vary the
15 -30 for trips
numbers?
vary, use
day and
are well attended
program
members have
and 15 -25 for the
1221 hours
20 on
and seem
successful
gone from 32 to
social
RCC per year
trips
successful
54
Access and
TBD
Norther
Located in the
Downtown
Share space in
Hard access by
location of center
portion
community center
area
community
foot
of city
center
TEEN CENTER SERVICE LEVELS
Question /City
Rosemount
Future
Rosemount
Eagan
IGH
Farmington
Shakopee
Prior Lake
Does City have a teen
center?
No
No
Teen room
in CC
No
No
Yes, teen
room in CC
No
Is the facility successful?
NA
NA
TBD
NA
NA
NA
Number of years in service?
0
NA
1
0
0
7TBD
0
AQUATIC SERVICE LEVELS
Question /City
Rosemount
- Future
Eagan
IGH
Farmington
Shakopee
Prior Lake
Rsmt
Have an aquatic
No*
Yes
Yes*
Yes*
Yes*
Yes*
Yes*
facilit
Indoor or
NA
Indoor
Outdoor
Indoor
Outdoor
Outdoor
Outdoor
outdoor
NA
P/I facility
Single family
NA
NA
NA
NA
Owner/operator
NA
City
city
city
City
City
Ci
On -site
NA
Slides,
Multiple
Fun Pool -
Water drops,
300' water
Two
amenities
water
slides, lazy
slides,
umbrellas
slide, 3 drop
beaches
drops,
river and
mushrooms.
slides sand
umbrellas.
other
Lap pool
bottom.
Lap pool
attractions.
with diving
visitors
well.
Recent updates
NA
NA
NA
NA
Yes — face lift to
NA
New bath
council?
Rosemount
Center for
add color.
Valley Arts
in fall of
200 4
*Only City owned facilities were reviewed for the aquatic facility
ARTS AND CULTURAL CENTER
Question /City
Rosemount
Future
Eagan
IGH
Farmington
Shakopee
Prior Lake
Rosemount
Does comm. have
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
arts /cultural
center?
Size of building
NA
P/I facility
Single family
NA
NA
NA
NA
and former use
home
Current interest in
Yes
Yes, busy
Yes, the Art
Some
No
Not much
No
type of facility
with many
House
programs,
events and
. Also Caponi
drop in
Art Park
visitors
Is there a local arts
No
Yes,
Dakota
Arts Alive
No
MN River
Started in 2000
council?
Rosemount
Center for
Valley Arts
disbanded in
Art Society
Arts and
Association
2003
Humanities
is a 501 c3
Art /cultural
Offered
Offered by
The Art
Arts Alive
Some with
No
Offered through
programs available
though
Comm Ed,
House and
and P&R
P&R and
Community Ed
Community
City and
Comm Ed
offer
Community
Ed and P&R
RAS
limited
Ed
programs
6
PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE
During discussions held by the Facilities Task Force, they often mentioned the community being
ready for opportunities that come along and also aggressively planning for the future. An example
would be the opportunity that exists with the site that currently houses the St. Joseph's School and
historic . church. The Task Force identified that site as possibly being a location for some of the
facilities we have reviewed in this report.-
They have also discussed the topic of purchasing land for future facilities. With the projected growth
of community being forecast to possibly reach 35,000 residents, the Task Force agreed that our
community will need to add recreational facilities in the future. Because of the rapidly increasing
land prices and the decreasing availability of land, the Task Force felt the City needs. to act now to
plan for our future needs and not wait until the need is here. The Task Force also looked
optimistically at the opportunity to be involved in the facility needs assessment process and hoped
the City would continue to respond to resident input received from city surveys and open forums.
SERVICE LEVEL REVIEW
The Task Force and staff reviewed the service level information collected and discussed each of the
facility areas in great detail. Because each community has a variety of service providers, the
information was looked at as baseline information to help with getting a general understanding of
what level of service is typical.
The Task Force based their final recommendations on numerous group ' discussions, community
experiences, personal opinions and information provided by staff. Staff also provided the Task
Force with copies of a recent facility survey conducted by the City of Shakopee (attachment D) and
a facility needs assessment done by the City of Farmington (attachment E). The recommendations
are to be looked at by the Council as how they can take .a proactive approach to increase the City's
recreation facility service levels.
7
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Facilities Task Force needs assessment of recreational facilities focused on the City's current
level of service for recreational facilities. To have a level of service that the Task Force feels would
best satisfy our community needs, the Task Force is submitting the following recommendations:
Senior Center— In 2005, provide a part -time coordinator to organize the programs and activities
offered to the seniors. (The increase in organized programming should result in an increase in the
participation in an already active group). This would increase the immediate need for a senior center.
The City should secure a space that can be used on a permanent basis and will meet the needs of the
seniors. The seniors would like a place to call home and to create an identity that can help them
recruit,others to participate in the opportunities provided.
Aquatic Facility In 2005, conduct a feasibility study to determine the financial impact of indoor
and outdoor pools. The reason for an indoor versus outdoor facility was to try meeting a different
market than the other local outdoor aquatic facilities. It would possibly be available during the year
for birthday parties, special events and competitive swimmin
Second Sheet of Ice /Multi Purpose Arena — The hockey association feels that a second sheet of
ice would need to be a multi- purpose facility. They feel that with our community's projected growth
they will be able to purchase a majority of the available ice. There is an immediate need for the City
to start reviewing financial plans and possible locations for a second sheet of ice /multi- purpose
arena. " In the near future the local youth hockey organization will have limited ice available to rent
from other local rinks which will not be able to provide space for all of those wanting to play.
Arts and Cultural Center The Task Force felt this resource was valuable to have in our
community. In the last City survey, having a strong arts and cultural presence was viewed by 78% of
residents as being somewhat or very important. The Task Force felt it was also important but also
noted that 75% of people surveyed felt there were enough facilities and programs to meet household
needs. The thought was that if we built an arts and cultural center, we would need to create or
search for a user. This is why an arts /cultural center could be more of a gathering place to help with
building community. A coffee shop was also mentioned as a possible on -site amenity.
The members did feel the community should be supportive of a grassroots movement to provide
access to cultural and art opportunities.
Teen Center — The Task Force recommended that the City approach Project 540 and ask if they
would consider taking on a project or further discussing the idea of a Teen /Youth Center. The
members of the Task Force felt that other local communities did not have long standing and
successful teen centers for a numbers of reasons. Competition with school and church activities,
teens having their own transportation and a feeling of not wanting adults or city government
providing activities and then watching over them, were a few of the reasons why teen centers might
tend to be less successful than other facilities. There was also an idea. to focus more on middle
school age youth rather than actual teens.
F,
September 11, 00
Mayor William H. Droste
City of Rosemount
Rosemount City Hall
2875 - 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Re: Rosemount Youth Hockey
Dear Mayor Droste:
On behalf of the Rosemount Area Hockey Association (RAHA), I want to share some
very exciting news with you.
We recently completed our registration for the upcoming youth hockey season and our
enrollment has increased 20 % from last year! We have 335 boys and girls in the program
ranging in ages from 4 through 13, up from 279 in the 2002 -03 season. Based on
historical experience our internal projection was 5 -8% growth, but as you can see we blew
through this forecast handily.
Obviously, we are thrilled to see so many kids in our program and what it means for the
future of Rosemount hockey, however, it does highlight again the problem we shared with
you and Mr. Dan Schultz last February -- limited ice time. Very simply put, our existing
ice arena cannot fully meet the needs of the community. Not only is this a problem now,
but if you look at our numbers, a significant portion of our growth is at the initiation levels
ages 4 through S. This is the future of Rosemount hockey and this age group will
demand an increasing amount of ice time as they move through our traveling programs:
For this year alone we have purchased over 1,10 hours of ice time at arenas ranging from
Inver Grove Heights to Wakotah (South St. Paul) to St. Thomas's new arena in St. Paul.
Our parents and kids will be required to travel to these arenas for rap ctices and RAHA
will spend over $15,000 supporting someone else's arena versus ours. ' We would prefer to
keep these dollars in the community, but we have no choice. As you can imagine, this
problem only grows in future years without a 2 nd sheet of ice in Rosemount.
Mr. Schultz has invited Matt Keamey, who as you know sits on our board, to attend a
meeting next Monday at the Rosemount Community Center to meet with various
community representatives to discuss the current and future needs ofRosemount's athletic
facilities. We view this meeting as an opportune time to share our concerns and to support
the planning and development of all athletic programs within the community. We
appreciate the opportunity to be apart of this discussion.
P.O. BOX 225 • ROSEMOUN'I', MINNESOTA 55068
Mayor William Droste
September 11, 2003
Page 2 of 2
My main purpose for writing was to share with you our exciting news.. It should be
another fun and exciting year for Rosemount hockey. We have always appreciated the
assistance and commitment to our program from the. community leaders. We strongly
believe that working together that we will meet the needs of our association and the needs
of all other sports where facilities are a growing concern.
Thanks,for your time and please feel free to contact meat 651- 452- 9398(Home) or 651 -
683- 6097(Work) if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Winter
President
cc: Rosemount City Council Members
Mr. Dan Schultz, Rosemount Parks and Recreation Director
Mr. Mike Manning, Rosemount High School Athletic Director
Mr. Don Micheletti, Rosemount High School Varsity Hockey Coach
RAHA Board Members
P.O. BOX 225 ROSEMOUNT , MINNESOTA 55068 _
ROSEMOUNT AREA HOCKEY ASSOCIATION
Actual and Projected Teams (2002 -2008)
5/18!2004
Actual Actual
Projected
----------------------------
02/03
'"
03/04
Teams Hours Teams
Bantam A
Hours
04/05
learns
Hours
Tams
Hours
06 /07
07/08
z
1 56 1
56
1
56
ours
arri
Hours
Teams
Hou
3
B 1 56 1
56
1
56
1
1
56
56
1
1
56
1
56
4
PW's A 1 56 1
1
56
2
112
2
112
2
56
112
1
56
s
e
1 50 1
50
50
1
1
50
50
1
1
50
2
1
112
50
7
C 2 100
Squirts A 2
1
100
1
50
50
1
2
100
50
1
50
s
35 1
35
2
100
2
_ 100
s
C 1 35 1
1
35.
35
1
35
1
35.
1
35
35
1
1
35
10
Jr. Golds/U16 n/a - n/a
-
2
71
2
71
3
106
3
35
11
12
Girls 2 75 3
Mites /MM's
113
1
4
56
150
1
4
56
1
56
1
106
56
13
4 89 7
175
_ 7
175
8
150
200
4
150
� 5
188
14
TOTALS 16 637
9
225
9
225
15
_ 20
% Increase over the prior year
760
23
895
25
970
27
1,030
28
1,068
18
°
19 /0
18 °k
0
8 /o
s%
17
Traveling Teams 12
4%.
18
13
16
17
18
19
1e
INCREASE IN HOURS OVER BASE YEAR (02/03)
20
% of ice time over base year
123
258
333
394
431
21
22
ADDITIONAL ICE TIME PURCHASED (HOURS)
52%
62%
o
6s/°
23
125
200
250
300
24
Cost if ice time acquired outside of RAHA
350
2 5
(average cost is $150 per hour)
$ 19,000
26
27
NOTE 1:
$
30,000
$
38,000
$
45,000
$
53,000
28
29
Maximum RAHA Ice Hours @Rosemount Arena is estimated
to be 637 hours (2002 -03
30
NOTE 2:
season).
31
Projected totals does �qj assume any additional Ice time for
additional tournaments that
RAHA may be able to
host
with a
2nd sheet of
Ice.
p
.IodvN ;Unozuagoy
aIS!foa 11!9 .as
�llnf;�adsad
tunrrtuoa ay; ut alq»tla.w s; PIPIA stotuas .toja ;rs 7,Mlnf ayj ssnosrp o ;,(ddvy unyj aiotu aq pinasa 1
*!UI747470a -IOIW9 junoa asod .rof;sata ;url aq art, at sr,sanbaj slgL
4a,uao .roruas ~stay; aavy sa,runw=a 3lurpunaLm dq .rvau T1v sa anp gAjo Suvl st aucr, laaf f
•tuualgo rd grq MW n sr sut,L •uotssas yona jo pua ark „n lodw ,nd o, xoq
puv d,K �rl o; �urnnrl,noy ;�x�ayslril�lpun uado umtttat pinoa uo b'ugrc�s.:Cl,uauna arc srvtuas s33afi�.rd
suuooa jsay y
sar;ilron� uarto,c�y -�
- dno PUvH Z
OSI SL alupo rvoor, at JvPw 2 uLI-N rl ;rasa aovds
'£SI sr rlrctsraqutatrc ;ua.�un° •sat;turtjuvYTdu " aq,srttu juauuutrrTiat cCjrl ;rang
saulltonf a ;rtap 1 of anp a ;vtlror,.rnd
�, algn otiiaq irsu arti sioluaS xut °suor ar a ry uopnlndori nruuarod aulj �a 1.0T aAo
•sa ;tuns cvddo �atl ;v �furttu
pun as,ataxa WIVOg gurzllOWNS `uo lLv!rpd auuuuDd '2ttulur5 `sj�nro :nldwvxg sasnq " rnp
u uv ;uauuyouua a pure sautuntioddo ptwdxa o; Nqu aq spy; puu la ;ua,) tutuaS•,ut:vurasvd
o sb �rjrraPl dagl •spaau .tbruas llyl nf jou saop `Tnq
sapt�w.td JJ?7 saurlton,� oq ;fo &wawa tddv st S VU aAr if ;uao tOtuas ot#'.roads n .uvjpaau ;ua rn
uv st ararer S'Y'X o sxaguuaw 0q; sv 11ax sa ;xO.1S o, Sanut,uoa;unourasod o uounrndOd
'u�rinztun�.uv j�otcT -uvu n sr S'6?I jtnt,� jragud S' SFI£1£1 ;n pa ;navl `�jJb(1 .ralua,� �rtunuiuivJ
xunouuasoy aqj st '(Syo s j�uuss train lttrrouuaso�j to uorjva�l Attuatl ;rj8 ai j� �i�ua itnTJ
Y.+�Q abate
MIS JaivaJ rotuas junouuasoy :ay
090SS UN `jurtouuasad
uorjbaroad pun X -Inifo .uojoa.ur(y
741ngn uv(T :rry
rooe`TT .raquu,das
Facilities Task Force meeting notes \minutes: March 18, 2004.
Meeting start time 7:05 pm
Schultz started the meeting with the introductions and asked everyone to update the Task Force
roster with information they are comfortable providing.
Schultz discussed the city survey that was recently completed. Based on the survey and both written
and verbal requests, the Council felt that is was necessary to review the possible needs for
community recreation facilities. They decided it would be best to ask the community for their input
by forming a task force of stakeholders and residents at large to work with staff to conduct a needs
assessment.
Schultz provided a handout that detailed a needs assessment process that staff would recommend be
followed. The Needs Assessment Plan included det erminin g and defining what we e the objectives
of the assessment by getting stakeholders involved in describing the issues and interpreting the
results. Establish a sampling procedure would be the next in line to be reviewed. This would include
deciding on what instruments and techniques will we use to collect data. Items to be used might
include surveys, interviews, community forums, open houses, identifying standards, analysis of
statistics and others. Next the process would be reviewing the data. We would review what level of
service is needed, what level of service is being offered and what the impacts of new services or
facilities. Finally we would share the information with the community and prioritize the result of the
assessments. Then decisions can be based on our assessment.
Mike E. asked to talk about amenities and mentioned building for the future and considering those
needs.
Mike W. spoke about a second sheet of ice. He thought the facility should be a multi - purpose
structure with locker rooms. RAHA has seen 22% growth in RAHA and have bought 140 hours of
ice outside of Rosemount.
It was discussed if a possibility of creating an art hub could include things like a coffee shop or cafe.
It was discussed that this is an open dialogue and that the task force will set the ideas that the public
will review.
It was asked if the seniors know what type of space they needed. Schultz informed that group that
he has met with representatives from the seniors and they have shared some of their ideas fora
senior center. Schultz felt it would be best to have Mr. Krogh provide that information to the group
at the next meeting.
For a short time the discussion focused on a teen center and peoples past experiences with them
from being unused to being used by an "alternative group of youth ".
The discussion moved on to focus on the idea of an aquatic facility. The group felt an indoor park
could fill a niche that is not currently being meta They felt that the outdoor pool park is very
competitive and that our neighboring communities have nice outdoor pools. It was mention that the
facility out need to have natural light, area for water sports, hot tub, lap pool, slides, rings and have
water depths for all ages. It was also mention that areas for diving, walking and exercising would be
nice.
Dana felt that the location would be crucial in trying to attract people from other communities.
Mike W. felt we needed to make sure we have a facility that attract s families and offers a variety of
water activities.
Phillip felt a lazy river would be a nice amenity.
Tying everything together would be a must.
Offering space to rent to coffee shop might help offset the cost of the facility.
Schultz will contact everyone about the next meeting.
The meeting ended at 9:00 pm
Facilities Task Force meeting notes \minutes: April 7, 2004.
Meeting start time 7:00 pm
Schultz started the meeting by discussing the topic of a senior center. Forrest Krogh gave an update
on what many of the Rosemount Seniors have discussed as their needs for facility space.
Space for quilting, crafting, support group and exercise are not currently available on a regular basis.
They feel that by having a place of their own, people would better connect to the opportunities
offered. This would then increase the need for a new center.
Smokey asked what other communities have. Schultz stated that later in the process of reviewing
facilities we will be reviewing service levels in Rosemount and in other communities. Forrest stated
that the seniors do have some opportunities at Community Ed., but they are costly and seniors don't
Eke to pay for services.
Tom asked if we provide senior daycare. No was the answer. Tom asked about looking into getting
funding for a program that might also provide service to seniors with disabilities. Tom stated that
many of the activities being mentioned can be very therapeutic and could be shared with other users.
Three classrooms, one large gathering room, kitchen, storage and restrooms are what Forrest felt
would meet the needs of the seniors.
Smokey asked about private - facilities in senior housing units. Schultz said it is becoming more
popular with recent development. Smokey asked if developers would provide funding for
community facilities. Schultz thought it was a possibility but that the developers might see a better
return on their investment if they build it themselves. Tom asked about the percentage of people
over 60 that are active. Forrest stated that the Rosemount Seniors currently have 160 members.
Forrest thought that number would double if they have their own center. Tom agreed that if they
had a center and a coordinator that the participation would grow. Mike E. thought we might be
underestimating the need for space. Mike thought we can't just plan on our need for today, but that
we should consider future needs:
The location discussed was near downtown. It will be within walking distance to other services and
many seniors could walk there. The group felt the downtown could benefit is there are places that
attract people to the area.
The discussion turned to indoor ice. Matt K. mentioned what RAHA needed was more of a practice
facility. Smokey stated she did not feel Rosemount had enough ice to keep our teams competitive.
Mike E. asked about the thought of building an Olympic size ice sheet. Matt K. felt a regular size
sheet might be more suited for our area. Space in a new rink should be multiuse and be flexible
during times of ice out. Tennis, sports played on turf, or special events could be alternative uses.
The meeting ended at 9 :00 pm
Facilities Task Force meeting notes \minutes: April 29, 2004.
Meeting start time 7:00 pm
Schultz started the meeting by handing out meeting notes from previous meetings.
The first topic of discussion was Teen Centers. Megan mentioned that a center should
include a unique cultural flavor, art that can be viewed and poetry reading.
Dana felt a small coffee shop with a stage might be used.
Advertising would be a key for any teen facility or programs. Word of mouth seems o be the
most successful way to market If teens know others will attend something they are more
likely to go themselves.
It was mentioned that getting youth to participate in the event planning' also a way to help
sell what might be going on.
Smokey asked about teen programming and Schultz stated that the City has done some teen
progr but that it has not been overly successful. Schultz mentioned that his collogues
see teens being able to make some of their own decisions and having accees to vehicles, thus
they plan out their own free time.
Schultz asked, if teens feel a coffee shop would be a good place for them to go then why do
they not go to Morning Glory's? Megan and Phillip were not sure where it was. Smokey
mentioned that she was in Utah and that she went to a popular cyber cafe. Tom mentioned a
place such as Vertigo in Apple Valley had a strong following. It was mentioned to get the
Student Council and National Honor Society involved in the planning as long as the students .
have a wide variety of backgrounds and interests. Smokey also noted that some youth also
enjoy a smaller group setting and would not use a center. It was brought up that Wyman - s
was in the Rosemount Mall and that is did not stay in business long.
A Teen Center would be need special attention when planning and it would not easily fit into
a traditional institutional setting.
The discussion turned to an Arts and Cultural Center. The group discussed what is or what
should be included in an arts /cultural facility. It was also discussed about what we would
want the center to do. It discussed that it could be used a place to build a sense of
community. Schultz mentioned that he would see the center to be much like a ball field
complex or ice rink that is used by people who enjoy that activity. He stated those places are
considered to be community gathering places much like an art center might be.
The group focused the discussion on an arts /cultural center being a place for people to
perform, view and learn about art and cultural items.
It was asked, how much of a demand is their for an arts center. Schultz felt that there is an
interest but he has not been contacted by a local group to pursue a facility, much like the
hockey, seniors and other groups have done. Schultz mentioned the last City survey
urd 96:6 3u Papua $umaaur agy
•2umaaur ixau agp ;u dnoz2 atp tpun uomuuuojut
azour axugs ptnom ag plus ziingaS •aaurq saurununuoa zaq}o zugm of saururuxoddo
zno axuduroa of sn xoj km pooh z aq pjnom srgp ;g2nogp z3IngaS •saunmurtuoz xarpo
u10:9 uouuuuojut 2uuaaffoa uaaq prg jjms juauraxsdaa uonuaxaa -j puu s5pd -sari nurmoo
2uipuno3xns xagPo pur; lunourasog rxr sjaaaj aauUas 04 uorssnasip alp pauxru ztingas
•xujndod si LaffvA ajddV ur ;mu ;) s4xV acp punoxu guts aq} uouuaux
IT 'passnasrp sum dnoxS sire 4goxd -uou le rpu& laTpEj >; ppnq of slzoj }a 2ururquxoD
•saurmu} g .2noua puq am irup ipj oqu inq Ilrrmururoa ur suxalr Icim1na /s4zr; age }o saps acp
Paixoddns aidoad •p;)= azam s}Insax age }utp puu n4tm s= pus lnoqu suousanb papnlour
Facilities Task Force meeting notes \minutes: May 19, 2004.
Meeting start time 7:00 pm
Schultz started the meeting with introductions. He also reviewed the proposed timeline of taking a
recommendation to the City Council in July.
The group then discussed the facilities report from the City of Farmington. The group discussed the
Farmington's review process and felt the information helpful. Schultz stated again that the outdoor
park facilities have standards that are recognized nationally and that some of the facilities being
currently looked at do not
Matt K. provided an ice usage report for RAHA. The chart showed that RAHA is currently buying
ice outside of Rosemount and will need to buy additional hours in future years.
The group then talked about priorities the following is a summary of the topics listed as priorities:
Phillip Indoor pool for better year round use. sea
Forrest — Senior /Teen Center and outdoor pool topped his list. He also thought Community Ed
and the City might partner on a facility.
Matt K. Felt the second sheet of ice was a top priority and that the association would use band aids
for the next few years. He felt the community will have the numbers to support a second that sheet
that also offers alternative uses. The poll topic should be looked at further as far as indoor vs.'
outdoor. Matt though that the seniors much like RAHA are doing the right thing for planning for
the future and looking at future space needs. He felt they might really benefit from having a city staff
person coordinating events. As far as the arts and cultural center he thought it was a chicken and egg
dilemma. What you we need first the facility or the need for one.
Phil thought the teen center was the lowest and the highest would be the senior center, arts and
cultural center followed by the pool and a second sheet of ice.
Megan priorities lied with arts /cultural center, a second sheet of ice or a community center. She felt
the pool would be lower because there are other pools in the area.
Tim thought a pool would be a useful facility followed by a second sheet of ice in a year or two. He
also felt the arts /cultural center was a good idea and should be looked once we look at other options
for this type of facility.
The group talked about having a public meeting to review the task force's future recommendations.
They felt at this point it might setback the process and wanted to include the public in the process
possibly after the City Council receives the final report from the Task Force.
The meeting ended at 9:02 pm
Facilities Task Force meeting notes \minutes: June 8, 2004.
Meeting start time 7:00 pm
Schultz started the meeting with introductions. He then gave an update on the recent survey that
was conducted in Shakopee. ,
The topic of a second sheet of ice was discussed and the possibility of placing next to the current
rink. Schultz stated that it would be the best for staffing and operations. He also stated that there are
limitations with the site of the current Community Center /Armory.
Next discussed was the arts and cultural center. Tom spoke about the how an arts center could help
with providing places got artists to live and work. He did feel it would be difficult to just start up a
center without a large supportive group in the community. Tome felt it was might like the senior
center as far as growing programs to create the demand for the senior center.
Matt K. asked about a local organization that could to help guide a possible facility.
Next the teen center was discussed and it was still unclear exactly what a teen center would be. It
was suggested that RHS project 540 uses this topic to facilitate the needed input from the teens who
might use it
Phillip thought that this could be a focus project for the program.
The discussion then turned to focusing more on the actual formal recommendation to the city
council
The recommendations were as follows;
1. Teen Center — Long term project Approach Project 540 to' see if they will take on the task
of helping define what a successful teen center might look like.
2. Aquatic Park - Short tern needs - Conduct a detailed feasibility study to determine the
impacts of an outdoor vs. an indoor pool on the city budget
3. Second sheet of ice - The time is a medium range plan looking to start something in two
three years. Look at keeping a second sheet in close proximity to the current sheet
4. Senior Center — The need is today to meet the needs of current senior's and also long tem to
meet the demand of fut8re seniors.
5. Arts and Cultural Center - Long term project. Take advantage of the opportunities as they
arise and use as a community gathering place.. Look to other communities to see how they
have succeeded.
Schultz then stated that he felt the group should meet one more time to review and comment on the
final draft of the report prior to talking about it at the July 14 Council work session...
The meeting ended at 9:10 pm
i
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
From: Mark Themig, Facilities and Recreation Director
Meeting Date: February 23, 2004
Subject: Parks and Recreation Survey Results
Recommended Future Action
INTRODUCTION
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has requested a joint work session with City
council to discuss the survey results, and present recommendations for future action.
BACKGROUND
In 2003, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended to City Council that the
City undertake a Parks and Recreation needs assessment of residents to get their
opinion on Parks and Recreation services. In addition to their current satisfaction, the
Advisory Board wanted feedback on future needs, as well as priorities of service should
reductions become necessary.
City Council appointed the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and a Citizen Task
Force to develop the survey. City staff was responsible for working with the Task Force
and Advisory Board to develop, refine, and finalize the survey questions. Council
authorized an agreement with Scott County to develop and administer an internet based
survey, which was conducted during October and November of 2003.
Scott County staff developed the online survey using their survey software, compiled the
results, and submitted a report to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board at their
December 22, 2003 meeting.
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
Number of Respondents
- 628 households, or approximately 5% of the survey sample, responded to the survey.
Although this is a low percentage of respondents, if this were a random sample survey,
372 responses would have been necessary to have a 95% confidence level that the
population as a whole is within +/ -5 % of the responses. Furthermore, 629 responses
would have been necessary to have a 99% conference level that the population as a
whole is within +/ -5% of the responses. (As some of you may recall, the random sample
telephone survey methodology considered last year would have involved 400
households.)
Another way to look at the results is to consider the quantity of information received. For
example, if the City were to try to get feedback through a community forum or
neighborhood meeting process, it would likely require significant efforts to get
participation from 628 households.
Adaptive or Inclusive Recreation Needs for Individuals with Disabilities
24 households (3.8 %) responded that they have needs for adaptive or inclusive
recreation. The majority of these individuals
■ 14 are over 18 years old
Recreation Programs
■ Swimming Lessons, Open Ice Skating, Music in the Parks, Micro Soccer, T-
Ball/Nearball, Gymnastics have highest participation
• 270 respondents (43 %) have not participated in any recreation programs during the
past year.
■ 221 respondents (35 %) participated in a sports association program
Types of Facilities Lacking
Outdoor
Item
I Number of
Res ondent
I % of Total
Res ondenfs
:Bicycle/walking trails
213
34%
Natural areas
18
30%
Outdoor performance area
164
26%
River boat dock
134
21%
Children's playgrounds/play equipment
122
19%
Picnic shelters
102
16%
Golf course
102
16%
Soccer fields
61
10%
Baseball /softball fields
641
10%
Inter retive /historic areas
6C
10%
Sand volleyball court
57
9%
Other
81
13%
None
111
18%
Item
Number of
es ondent
I % of Total
Respondents
Swimming pool
333
53%
Fitness facility, e.g., cardio/strength training
228
36 %
Indoor playground/play equipment
185
29%
Teen center
168
27%
Multi -use indoor facility for soccer, tennis, and othersports
1 154
25%
Additional sheet of ice
110
18%
Rac uetball
991
16%
Climbing wall
971
15%
Performance area, e.g., auditorium
- 95
15%
Aerobics studio
891
14 %
Basketball courts
711
11%j
Senior center
601
10%
Ban uet facilities
54
9%
Meeting rooms
54
9%
Other
32
5%
None
111
18%
Importance of Services
Not Important Very Important
Service
1
2
3
4
5
Mean
Trails
1%
3%
9%
27%
60%
4.41
Open Space /Natural Areas
4
6
22
29
40
3.95
Community Parks
3
7
22
33
35
3.89
Community Center
7
9
23
29
32
3.700
Neighborhood Parks
8
10
22
27
34
3.699
Recreation Programs
10
8
25
30
28
3.59
Sports Associations
16
9
21
27
28
3.42
Aquatic Park
12
13
23
26
25
3.41
Sports Com lexes
12
12
26
26
24
3.37
Senior Activities
32
12
22
18
17
2.76
Skate Park
35
18
27
11 1
10
2.41
Other Recreational Facilities Used
Facility
Number of
i RespondentsF Resp ondents
% of Total
None
275
44%
Dakotah! Sport and Fitness Prior Lake
190
30%
Chaska Community Center Chaska
167
27%
Lifetime Fitness Center (Savage)
811
13%
Northwest Athletic Club Burnsville
35
6%
Flagship Athletic Club Eden Prairie
17
3%
Ripped Gym (Shakopee)
12
2%0
Other
651
10%
[Yes
� Number of
esp ondentsj Resp ondents
I % of Total
355
57%
Unsure
171
27%
No
84
13%
Interest in Facilities Made Available in the City
Notanterested Very Interested
Facility
1
2
3
4 5 Mean
Indoor Water Park
18%
10%
17%
17% 38% 3.47
Expanded Cardio /Strength
Area
15
11
27
22 26 3.31
Indoor Lap Swimming
18
15
20
19 27 3.21
Indoor Playground
23
14
21
17 25 3.05
Coffee /Snack Bar
20
21
25
17 17 2.91
Multi -Use Indoor Facility
22
20
22
18 18 2.89
Teen Center
24
16
26
19 15 2.84
Aerobics Studio
24
18
29
15 15 2.78
Expanded Gymnasium
22
20
29
17 11 2.77
Performance Area
24
22
29
16 9 2:63
Senior Center
30
17
28
16 9 2.58
On -Site Child Care
37
16
19
14 14 2.52
Racquetball/Handball Courts
31
21
24
13 10 2.51
Additional Sheet of Ice
41
19
19
9 13 2.34
Climbing Wall
37 1
20 1
23F
12 8 2.31
Meeting Rooms
3=
25
27
10 4 2.27
Banquet Facilities
36 1
24
26
9 4 2.21
Support for Improvements to Park and Recreation Services
Not Important Very
Important
Type of Improvement
1
2
3
4
1 5 Mean
Additional Trails
3%
6%
17%
26%
48% 4.1
Land Acquisition for Preserving
Open Space, Natural Areas, or
Passive Park Use
7
11
22
27
32 3.67
Community Center Expansion
11
11
18
21
39 3.64
Land Acquisition for Future
Active Park Needs
8
11
27
29
24 3.50
Developing Undeveloped Land
for Parks
9
10
27
31
23 3.49
Community Park Im rovements
7
10
31
31
21 3.48
Neighborhood Park
Improvements
10
14
32
27
17 3.27
'suoi;oauuoo esoy;joj ueld pue s1!ei; 6u!;slxe u! s�eajq )}! ;uepl
•sin000;uawdolanap se suo!;oauuoo I!eJ; pue sl!ej; aj!nba.r o; enuguoO .
•ain;nj ay; COI uolsln ap!noid o; pue '(a;epdn;sel
a43) 8666 eou!s paian000 seq;ey; glmoj6 a43;oegaa o; ueld l!ej; s,Al!O eql a ;epdn
s�re�l
:Ao /uns_ay; iwo; suolsnlouoo tiewud
ay; o; puodsai of ueNe; aq sda ;s 6uimollol ay; 6u!puawwooai si pie08 tios!npy ayl
NOLLOV Mini :J a3aN3WW0O32i
'aaln.ias s!yJ ap!noid pinom am j! auiluo swei6oid
jo} ja;sl6ai pinom Aay;;ey; pa;eolpui s;uopuodsaa jo %99 :uo!;ej;s169�1 au!lu0
`saowas ino ;o Ile
;noge mouN pop s;uap!sai a;eoipu!;eq; saljoba;eo sno!jen ui sasuodsai ;o jagwnu
1ue39!u61s a Gunn aJay; `aanannoH •ajnyoaq Ape:penb a ui saowas pue sweiboid
mo uo uo!;ewjo ;u! ;a6 o;ja;aid Plnom s;uepuodsai;sold :sao!AJeS10 uo!;owad
(15'£ seen aJoos ueow ay; `pogsl ;es
tian 6u!aq g pue pagsl ;es;ou 6u!aq 6 u ;!m) swei6o.rd uo!;e!oosse spods jo Al!lenb
ay; y ;!nn pagsl ;es AI ;sow osle alarm s;uapuodsaa :sweJ6ad uo!;e!oossy sliods
'(Zg seen a.ioos
ueaw aq; `pa!}s► ;es tian 6u!aq g pue pals! ;es;ou 6u!aq 1„41!nn) sweJ6ad uo!;Moa�j
}o f}!lenb ay; qj!m pagsl ;es AI ;sow ajam s;uepuods9J '11eJano :sweJ6ad uo!;eajoa�j
•s;sanbar;uanbail ;sow eqj alarm 6ui;eaq ja:49q pue;aays puooeS :eua.ry aol
pooeldaj
eq o; speau 6u!P11nq Ved oljenby ay;;eyj pa;uawwoo s;uapuodsa�j _:Ted o! ;enby
•saxeldwoo spods pue seed fq!unwwoo ja6jei
y;oq u, eoueua;ulew ajow jo; paau a aq o; sieedde aiay; `sasuodsai papua -uado
ay; 6u!z!.rewwns u! `JananhoH 'AIgejap!suoo pauen sa!;!!!oej uolleajoai Jay ;o pue
shied jo; aoueua;u!ew jo A}!lenb pue uop ipuoo aq; uo s;uawwoO :sNJed ;o uo! ;!puoO
:suoisnlouoo J
•sa!;!uowe pansop ;sow aajy; ay; aie punoiBAeld joopu! pue
`6u!u!eJ; y;6uai;s/o!paeo popuedxa 1 6ulwwlms ioopul •wa;s�(s uol;eaioa.i pue s'Nied
ay; o; s;uawanadwi ao} lioddns w pa!y; sNuej ja;uao Apunwwoo ay; ;o uolsuedxa
pue `ja;ueo Apnwwoo ay; pasn aney s;uapuodsai }o %[9 :ia;ueo Apnwwoo
'sdolanap Aj!O. ay; se seed. ajow jo; paeu ay; pa ;!o Al;uenbaal
s;uepuodsaa •sNaed pooyjogy6!au uey;;ue:podw! ajow aq o; pawaap a.re pue
`asn Al!I!oe; uo!;eajoai pue Ted;say6ly puooas ay; aney sNJed Apnwwoo :sNied
•aowas;uepodw! ue pawaap pue `fq!ao!jd y6!y a osle si
coeds uado pue see ie lein;eu io; puel 10 uol;!s!nboy :aoedg uado pue seaiy lein;eN
•s;uawanoldwi ajnlnj jo; lioddns
;sow ay; aney pue `eoueliodwi j! sw.ra} u!;say6ly pa;ej osle aie sl!eal •asn �(;!lpej
leuol;ealow uowwoo ;sow ay; s! 6u!�lem pue 6uiN!q jol sl!ej; jo asn ayl :sl!ejl
:suolsnlouoo tiewud buimopo; ay; padolanap pJeo8 tioslnpy ay; pue Joe ;s
`uo!ssnos!p ay; ao; snool ap!noid o; iapio ul - sesuodsai papua - uado ay; wojj Alle!oadsa
'pa;oalloo senn;ey; e;ep jo;unowe tieupowIxe ue s! aaayl •s6ul;aaw tienuep
pue jagweoad j!ay; ;e s;lnsai ay; panna!naJ pJeo8 rGos!np uo!;eaioeH .pue sNjed ayl
SNOisniONOO kNVWINd
•sesuodsai'ay; ui saway; uowwoo ain;deo o; 6ulti; `(y;uawyoe; ;y)
{,g o; umop sa6ed Zg ay; woj} sesuodsai ay; pa;epposuoo aney 9M 'e;ep s!y;
y6nojy; dos dlay o; japio ul •sesuodsai papua - uado ;o sa Zq pepino.rd sluepuodsa�j
sesuodsoN papua -uado
•6ulleaw ftwoodn ue
le slyl uo uolssnoslp ejow eledlollue pinom I •uolleajoa�1 pue s�aed COI ssaoad 6uluoisln
e 6ulNe:papun passnoslp pJeo8 tioslnpy aql `AlleUld •suollseMns pue sujeouoo
6ulssaippe jol sueld dolanap pue elep 6ululewei eql azAleue of anulluoo lip gelS
•weJ6oJd luawanoidwl lelldeo lenuue ayl toped se gjed poogjogqbieu
pue �}lunwwoo jo luawdolanapeJ pue;uawdolanap COI ueld of anulluoo
seed pooyjoggBIaN pue Allunwwoo
•uollejaplsuoo Ilounoo fllo jol uoilepuawwooai pue ueld palepdn ue piemlol 6uug
saoln�as paoueyua 6ulpinoid jol suolldo ay} azAleuy
•swnpua�a�a� 666 L ayl �o fed se padolanap a�ann leyl sueld ayl nnalna�l
ialueo Xl!unwcuoo
•ssaooid luawdolanap ayl g6noiyl jo asegolnd g6nayl
jeglla uolllslnboe legualod jol puel jo slaoied oUpeds jo seeie goaeas A4lluepl
(a epdn lsel aul) 866 � aouls paiin000 sey
leul uo!llslnboe puej�jed pue glmOJ6 9 4l 1 of veld J Wd s,�l!o aUl alepdn
seeiV>ped eAlloy pue `sea VleinjeN `aoedS uado JOJ pue7Jo ugys� tnboy
The Study
• City recognized importance *Task Force prepared: facility
of recreation facilities. inventory (facility - tour), needs
Initiated this study. analysis (national and local
Study uided b advisor service standards) and
g Y y preliminary recommendations.
task force representing 10
different community groups. •Refined recommendations
and prioritization (based on
Ingraham & Associates public input).
provided professional and
*Park Commission review and
technical advice. input.
Significant public input. *Final report. Three key
Community meetings, web recommended actions.
and public opinion survey. *CC adoption.
Task Force Findings:
1. Recreation facilities are key elements in
community quality of life.
2. The number and quality of existing City
recreation facilities are inadequate and
below the level of similar surrounding
communities.
3. The public is, very interested in high
quality recreation facilities.
Over Reliance on School Facilities
Recreation Standards
-k xx t.0 - IV%,,aL1VIt V1 30,000
facilities within the 25,000
20,000
community. 15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Po ulation
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
•
Lack of City Recreate o n Facilities
Fewer facilities than minimum standards.
Less facilities than metro communities.
Existing and future shortages,
I _. .... ..... . .... .. _
i 12- Nov- 03i
City Recreation Facilit Invent and Minimum Service Standards - Farmin ton MN !
1
Basebal & Slow Pitch Softball Soccer Fields
Medium; Small Fast Small I Outdoor
Large (200' - (tinder Pitch Large ! (tinder ! Football Tennis ' Outdoor Basketball f
_._.. ! 200 Softball 300+ ! i , Outdoor Indoor i Gym
t( ) ) ) 300' Fields Courts'Vone all; fwo s . Hocke 'Courts
_.i._ ............. _ 1
! _..._tY tiY... . _.__. t. ..._.__..__.i._._._._ (._..: 1 0 1 0 2 t S i Y...........__... .......Y._.__._...........__...
2003
L o Matt , _....._... f _ ! + g _ f
P P.°n_.._...._ 18,000 t ,
_.. , 1 L.. i I _..... _.__._ l
i NRPA mnimum rec. 3 6 3 6 7 ._ ...._. _:..__�. _ + , i ...._._ - - --
�-- 1.80 3 6 1 93.6 _13 I 1 I 6 1 _.. 2
I N RPA Service Area min rec 2 g r__ 1_ ` ~" " "'t' " "�. ° M
. _ _.� 14 2 1 2 r 1 14 ' 14 ' t ` q ` .M
_ _
2
___ .._... r__...._...�_._. i 2
S. Metro average (pop.) 4.1- ; 5.4 2.40 4.5 _d.11_ t , -- _ _ .! 2 1
Eztsgng Shortages 2 3 y 10
p 1 4 1 2
1 ,
i 2020est o ulaGon _ __ ...
t _.._. PPP ' 30,000
NRPA
—.-- minimu re
m c. (pop) : ti 0 6 0 12 `
_._� _ _ I - r _ _- j__._. 2 I 15 6.0 j 21 2
i NRPA Service Area min rec. 3 9 21 ° -- - - �- - - -- — i., 10 __2 3
t..__.... _.:_3..._....... 3 ..:. _- 2 .._..._.__._2t_..:...[ ... ... 21 t 21 d -2' _ . 3 3 2
t
i S. Metro avera a op. 6.8 9.0 1 15 f.... 4.00 - 7.5 , 3 19 i
t
tie a -5fi'
I s 3 ;
Faciltity Standards �- ` _� _ .� '
NRPA minimum rec. o _ I I _.. I ._
t ........._....._
1/5,000 F 115 000 1/2,500 - 1110 000 1/5 000 1120 000
`NRPA min 1,000 115,000 1I2 000 - 5,000; 1120 000 ' 1!3 000 ' 1l20 000 1/10
n. rec. areas mile 1 -2 _ " '�' "�
,___,_._. .._._,_. _ .._.._..__a_ 0
-_ , 25 5 1 2 ,_ 1 2 15 -20 min .2 5 25 5 ! 25 -.5 1
5 -30 min,10 15 min 10 15 min.1_5 20 m
S Metroaverage( pop.) r1/4,400� 1/3,3501%2,050 i - 1f750 114,000 !1/10,000 1/1,600; �_'-
t - _
1 _ ...... . ...
.... .._.r........... .. ..........._ ._
r (.. __....t ............... _ _ 1/10,000 i
y
{Facliliy standards represent the minimum recommended number of recreation Willies based on popuaition or geographic service area.
Sources: NationalRecreation and Pants . . .............. -_... . _.. .. i
d .
_ . .. ........... - i _
Professional. Advice
• Opportunity. of a lifetime.
• "Pay me now or pay me later. Needs will.
increase. Land cost never be cheaper.
•
Focus land acquisition now.
• Recreation facilities: One of the top three
reasons for choosing a community to live.
Priority'Facilides
1.
CommunityC enter
2. Sports Complexes
3. Land Acquisition
40 Gymnasiums
5. Trails
The most important short -term action is Land
Acquisition..
Key Recommended Actions
I. Land Acquisition - Prepare area Farmington
. Park and Recreation SystemPlan,
2. Community Center — Prepare a feasibility
study of a Farmington Community Center.
3. Funding - Prepare a comprehensive
funding and partnership strategy.
City Council Action