The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.a. Facilities Task Force ReportCITY OF ROSEMOUN I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION City Council Work Session Date: July 14, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Facilities Task Force Report AGENDA SECTION: Discussion PREPARED BY: Dan Schultz, Director of Parks and AGENDA NO. Recreation ATTACHMENTS: Draft Report APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: None ACTION: SUMMARY The Facilities Task Force recently held their final meeting to review the report being prepared for the City Council. The report includes information regarding facility definitions, service levels, future planning and recommendations to the City Council. The Task Force based their final recommendations on numerous group discussions, community experiences, personal opinions and information provided by staff. S IRp�4 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMMUNITY FACILITIES TASK FORCE REPORT FACILITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT 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 Eliason P&R Commission Dana Brodt - Member at Large Phil Sterner — P&R Commission Tim Wynne - Member at Large 1 w 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 out 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 defining 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 s wimmin g 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 city. 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 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 asenior 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 social 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 Northern 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 TBD NA Number of years in service? 0 NA 1 0 0 1 0 5 AQUATIC SERVICE LEVELS Question /City Rosemount Future Eagan IGH Farmington Shakopee Prior Lake Rsmt Have an aquatic No* Yes Yes* Yes* Yes* Yes* Yes* facility? 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 Art Society Arts and Association 2004 *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 comma 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 501c3 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). Thus increasing 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 senior's 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 also then possibly be available during the year for birthday parties, special events and competitive swimming. 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 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. It was also an idea to focus more on middle school age youth rather than actual teens. r, XMH -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 8. 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 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 ram 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 Kearney, 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 of Rosemount'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 a part of this discussion. P.O. BOX 225 • ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA 55068 (D aw 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 me at 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) 5/19/2004 Actual Actual Projected Line# 1 02/03 03104 Teams Hours Teams Bantam A Hours 04/05 Team s Hours 06/06 Teams Hours 06/07 Teams 0 1 56 1 56 1 Hour -- _ T ms ours a C 1 56 1 56 1 56 1 56 1 1 56 4 56 1 PW's A 1 56 56 2 112 2 56 112 1 2 g6 112 1 2 56 112 s B 1 50 1 50 1 50 1 50 1 50 1 50' 7 C 2 100 Squirts A 1 2 35 100 1 50 1 2 50 100 1 2 50 100 1 2 50 s 1 B 1 35 1 35 35 1 1 35 1 35 1 35 1 100 35 10 C 1 35 1 Jr. Golds/U16 � nla - 3 2 71 2 35 71 1 3 35 106 1 3 35 11 n/a Girls 2 75 3 113 1 4 56 150 1 56 1 56 1 106 56 12 Mites/AIM's 4 89 7 175 7 4 150 4 150 5 188 13 175 _ ___ 8 200 9 225 9 225 14 TOTALS 16 637 _20 760 _ 23 = 95 _26 970 27 15 %increase over the prior year 19% o 1 030 28 1,068 18 18 /0 8% 6% 4 %, 17 Traveling Teams 12 13 1e 16 17 18 19 1s 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 68/0 23 125 200 250 300 350 24 Cost if ice time acquired outside of RAHA 26 (average cost is $150 per hour) 28 $ 19,000 $ 30,000 $ 38,000 $ 45,000 $ 53,000 27 NOTE 1: 28 29 Maximum RAHA Ice Hours @ Rosemount Arena is estimated to be 637 hours (2002 -03 season). 30 NOTE 2: 31 Projected totals does not assume any additional ice time for additional tournaments that RAHA may be able to host with a 2nd sheet of ice. .row6ly lunowarod - aisroa 11t9 :oa (S`�1 ruafrrsa�adr� q o.4 Aa ,4_ "fllnfioadsad r 111 nmroa agl Of algntlrinn st mgst pun stomas .tojalp atninjagl ssnastp of dddnq uugl aloru aq pinaK'l :fJrrr raoa rows jamouavoy .rod Aar luj ps ;q a, ut st wanbarstrGL taluao .roruas umo .nagl aarrq salrunun raa ffuipuno dm dq avau liv sv anp .ratio $uol st awq laajl uralgo rd,'iq lua uno b sr srgL •uorssas gooa fo pua ayl in k)mv lnd o1 xoq purr do pvd of ,gu tnq invglpsK pagslri #"lrun undo uwwai pinoo uo 8ugjo tlivacrno ax storuas sioa&ud sruoor isad y sariljpuf uagalr,y •£ algrssaaatl dnalljunly Z ljS'1 SL ait?pouroaan of DV pun 8urtnaq gjAK aovds •l aq israuluauulnbai d;!Illwg BSI sl dnlsraquraur )ua"'r'D •saulunirvddo pun sautlran{aim&aprxrr of anp airnlroptvd of aI ouraq lou a- voluag xurr,VV •s rotas am uopv ndod iartzourasog aql fo ��DI •sairuni roddo .iagio fuvw puv asraraxa WInag '94AI PAW `uotr,O: '''ultulvd viwulln5 `sl bdo : satdru sasvq Xllvp n uu Iuarutlauua a�rl purr souluni roddo priza of ,Iqn aq swq; pun.rviva,� .roluas;unmasoll t� C i#ua r u a itaili ill satjtltan�' utrsanbar Sr M spaau.tr was Ilyinflou saop °inq s�!nord JJ?1 sarillr��li jo antlnraarddn sr S'� •airs .raluaa .roluas a�raads n .ro1'paau lua$rn un st a rarer W jo xraquraur aq) sn Ila,•x sx' MD.[$ of sanutiuoa lunrnuasodfo WA"xdod 'uotlnznm2.ro hold =uou n sl SV?1 7rZU uago& S - yy8rl id paid `(ad?o ralua� j �O!unuiuioa lunoraasoyaglst `(sue srtiitra uaty lutrour so .r0f uvrlvaul >S N1 A?UaU.Mj .rbaQ ails Jaluaj .roruas lunourasod : aw $9oSS um `lunowasod uotlna road pun X•rod. o .roloa rta zting-ls Uva :r�r £oo2`Tf .iaqugdag 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 dete 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 for a 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 met. 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 cz 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 like 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 is 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 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 /cultu.tal 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 included questions about and arts center and that the results were mixed. People supported the idea of the am/cultural items m community but also felt that we had enough facilities. Combining efforts to build a facility with a non -profit arts group was discussed. Phil mention the Ring around the Arts event in Apple Valley is popular. Schultz turned the discussion to service levels in Rosemount and other surrounding communities. Parks and Recreation Department staff had been collecting information from other communities. Schultz thought this would be a good way for us to compare our opportunities to what other communities have. Schultz said he would share more information with the group at the next meeting. The meeting ended at 9:06 pm 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 set back 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 _ G 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 tem 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 seniors 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 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 Inclu sive_ 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 Number of es ondent % of Tofal Respondents Bicycle/walking trails 213 34% Natural areas 189 30% Outdoor performance area 163 26% River boat dock 134 21% Children's playgrounds/play equipment 122 19% Picnic shelters 102 16% Golf course 102 16% Soccer fields 6 10% Baseball/softball fields 64 10 % Interpretive/historic areas 60 10% Sand volleyball court 57 9% Other 81 13% None 11 1 18% Indoor Item Number of Res ondenf % of Total Res ondents Swimmin ; ool 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 154 25% Additional sheet of ice 110 18% Racquetball 99 16% Climbing wall 97 15% Performance area, e.g., auditorium 95 15% Aerobics studio 89 14% Basketball courts 71 11% Senior center 60 10% Banquet 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 Complexes 12 12 26 26 24 3.37 Senior Activities 32 12 22 18 17 2.76 Skate Park 35 18 27 11 10 2.41 Other Recreational Facilities Used Facility Number of Res ondents % of Total Res ondents None 275 44% Dakotah! Sport and Fitness Prior Lake 190 30% Chaska Community Center Chaska 167 27% Lifetime Fitness Center (Savage) 81 13% Northwest Athletic Club Burnsville 35 6% Flagship Athletic Club Eden Prairie 17 3% Ripped Gym (Shakopee) 121 2% Other 651 10% 1310% Number of es ondenf % of Total Res ondents Yes Number of es ondenf % of Total Res ondents Yes 355 57% Unsure 171 27% No 1 841 13% Interest in Facilities Made Available in the City Not Interested 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 Rac uetball/Handball Courts 31 21 24 13 10 2.51 Additional Sheet of Ice 41 19 19 9 13 2.34 Climbing Wall 37 20 23 12 8 2.31 Meeting Rooms 33 25 27 10 4 2.27 Banquet Facilities 36 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 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 Improvements 7 10 31 31 21 3.48 Neighborhood Park Improvements 10 14 32 27 17 3.27 Open -Ended Responses Respondents provided 62 pages of open -ended responses. In order to help sort through this data, we have consolidated the responses from the 62 pages down to 34 (Attachment A), trying to capture common themes in the responses. PRIMARY CONCLUSIONS The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board reviewed the results at their December and January meetings. There is an extraordinary amount of data that was collected, especially from the open -ended responses. In order to provide focus for the discussion, staff and the Advisory Board developed the following primary conclusions: • Trails: The use of trails for biking and walking is the most common recreational facility use. Trails are also rated highest in terms if importance, and have the most support for future improvements. • Natural Areas and Open Space: Acquisition of land for natural areas and open space is also a high priority, and deemed an important service. • Parks: Community Parks have the second highest park and recreation facility use, and are deemed to be more important than neighborhood parks. Respondents frequently cited the need for more parks as the City develops. • Community Center: 61 % of respondents have used the Community Center, and expansion of the Community Center ranks third in support for improvements to the parks and recreation system. Indoor swimming, expanded cardio /strength training, and indoor playground are the three most desired amenities. Other Conclusions: • Condition of Parks: Comments on the condition and quality of maintenance for parks and other recreation facilities varied considerably. However, in summarizing the open -ended responses, there appears to be a need for more maintenance in both larger community parks and sports complexes. • Aquatic Park: Respondents commented that the Aquatic Park building needs to be replaced. • lee Arena: Second sheet and better heating were the most frequent requests. • Recreation Programs: Overall, respondents were mostly satisfied with the quality of Recreation Programs (with 1 being not satisfied and 5 being very satisfied, the mean score was 3.52). • Sports Association Programs: Respondents were also mostly satisfied with the quality of sports association programs (with 1 being not satisfied and 5 being very satisfied, the mean score was 3.57). • Promotion of Services: Most respondents would prefer to get information on our programs and services in a quarterly brochure. However, there were a significant number of responses in various categories that indicate residents don't know about all of our services. • Online Registration: 66% of respondents indicated that they would register for programs online if we would provide this service. RECOMMENDED FUTURE ACTION The Advisory Board is recommending the following steps be taken to respond to the primary conclusions form the survey: Trails • Update the City's trail plan to reflect the growth that has occurred since 1998 (the last update), and to provide vision for the future. • Continue to require trails and trail connections as development occurs. • Identify breaks in existing trails and plan for those connections. Acquisition of Land for Open Space, Natural Areas, and Active Park Areas • Update the City's Park Master Plan to reflect the growth and parkland acquisition that has occurred since 1998 (the last update). • Identify search areas or specific parcels of land for potential acquisition either through purchase or through the development process. Community Center • Review the plans that were developed as part of the 1999 referendums. • Analyze the options for providing enhanced services. • Bring forward an updated plan and recommendation for City Council consideration. Community and Neighborhood Parks ■ Continue to plan for development and redevelopment of community and neighborhood parks as part of the annual Capital Improvement Program. Staff will continue to analyze the remaining data and develop plans for addressing concerns and suggestions. Finally, the Advisory Board discussed undertaking a visioning process for Parks and Recreation. I would anticipate more discussion on this at an upcoming meeting. I Qj The Study • City recognized importance *Task Force prepared: facility of recreation facilities. inventory (facility tour), needs Initiated this study. analysis (national and local Stud guided b a • Y g Y advisory service standards) and task force representing 10 preliminary recommendations. different community groups. *Refined recommendations . an d 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 inhigh quality recreation facilities. Over Reliance on School Facilities Recreation Standards City Facility Gaps • Red circles indicates areas served by recreation facilities. • Yellow indicates gaps where recreation supply is inadequate. L ack of City Recreation Facilities Fewer facilities than minimum standards. Less facilities than metro communities. Existing and future shortages. .... 12-Nov-03 �Citv Recreation Facility Inventory and dMMinimum Service Standards - Farmin ton MN t , ,_ _w Baseball _& Slow Pitc Softball Soccer Fields _. Medium 1 Small iFast Small "' � i Outdoor Large j (200'- ; (under Pitch ` Large (under Football' Tennis Outdoor Basketball Outdoor Indoor Gym 290+ 285 200 Softball 300'+ 300 Fields Courts Volie all hoo s Tracks Hockey Hockey ' Courts ....City Facthty Total! .. 2 .. i......... 5 . 1 ........ .. ................ 0 .. 2003 est population 18,000 ... . ....... ...... _ .... . .:... ..�.... NRPA minimum re c. 0 3.6 3 6 7 1.80 3 6 1 9 3.6 13 1 _ .__ �p P _ _ _ _ _T _._. _ _. _ 6 1 l .. 2 NRPA Service Area min rec. 1 2 6 14 2 2 1 14 14 14 1 2 _.M S. Metro average (pop.) i 4.1- 5.4 9 { 2.40 4.5 2 11 2 ExfsdngShortages 2 5 g 2 3 2 10 7 7 1 4 1 2` I r , 202 est pop ulatio n 30,000 NRPA minimum rec. o 3.00 ._ �P 6.0 6 0 .. 2 l 6 0 2 s 15 6 0 21 _.. _� . NR PA .. ... . PA Service Area min rec. ' 3 ' 9 21 ; 3 3 m 2 21 21 21 4 ' 2 v 3 3 °LL 2 . . ...................... . . . . .............. ....... .... ... . i .. , .. S. Metr o avera e o . 6.8 9.0 ........, 15 4.00 7 5 1 3 19 3 Facilt►ty Standards � � ......H � �. ,_._ ... .� __ _._ � _ r._ , N�tPA minimum rec pop 1/5,000 7!5,,000 ... 1�2 500 X1%10,000 1/5 000 1/20 000 "412 000 1/5,000 V2 000 -5 000 1120 000 1/3 000 1/20 000 1 /t0 00.. NRPA min rec area (sg_mlle) 1 2 . 5 1 25 10 - 15 min.:10 -15 min.'15 -20 min S Mello average (pop) 1/4,400, 1!3 350 1!2 050 , 1/7,500: 1/4,000 .1/10,00011/1,600 rr 25w5 �1 I ..... § Facility standards represent the minimum recommended number of recreation faciities based on ... ... . .. ...... popualtion or geographic serHCe area Sources National Recreation and Parks Association, Ingraham & Associates Inc City of Farmington and School Districf 192. ..... .... ..... .,, Professional Advice • Opportunity of a lifetime. • "Pay me now or pay me later." Needs will increase. Land cost never be cheaper. • Focus on land acquisition now. • Recreation facilities: One of the top three reasons for choosing a community to live. Priority Facilities I. Community Center 2. Sports Complexes 3. Land Acquisition 4. Gymnasiums 5. Trails The most important short-teen action is Land Acquisition. Key Recommended Actions 1. Land Acquisition - Prepare a Farmington . Park and Recreation System Plan. 2. Community Center — Prepare a feasibility study of a Farmington Community Center. 3. Funding - Prepare a comprehensive funding and partnership strategy. City Council Action