Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06-17-06 Special MeetingAPPROVED Members Present: Mark Jacobs, Eric Johnson, Kelly Sampo Members Absent: Mike Eliason, Jason Eisold Staff Present: Dan Schultz, Director of Parks and Recreation Student Volunteer: none Others Present: none 1. CALL TO ORDER: Johnson called the meeting to order at 12:04 p.m. 2. ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA: None. 3. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Outdoor Recreation Complex – The Commission discussed what they wanted to get of the joint meeting with the City Council planned for June 26, 2006. The Commission felt it was best to come to the Council with options and work together with the City Council to create a common vision and common message to share with the community. The Commission and staff created a number of options including the following items: THE VISION First-class recreational facilities that enhance youth development at all abilities, support recreational needs for citizens of all ages. Contribute to the amenity, balanced growth and economic expansion goals of the City Council and our community. BY 2010 Completion of: 80 to 120 Acres of Outdoor Athletic Fields Includes Passive Recreation/Walking Trails Completion and/or Progress made on: Aquatic Center Basketball/Volleyball Field house Tennis Facility Analysis/Feasibility of Future Opportunities Additional Ice Arena CASES FOR ACTION Community Growth Ahead of Projections 2002 Master Plan - Growth Forecasted to 29,245 in Year 2020 High Increase in Athletic Participation 62% increase in RAAA participation 2000-2005 Facility Growth Behind 2002 Master Plan 50 Acre Complex needed in 2002 (Page 34; 40) 80 Acre Acquisition Identified for 2003 (Page 46) BENEFITS Community Pride and Recognition Tournament Facilities Bring Enhanced Visibility Throughout Community Active / Passive Recreations for all Ages Increase Business Revenue/Tax Receipts Tournament Facilities Bring Captive Dollars to Spend at Existing Rosemount Businesses Expedite Commercial Development Tournament Facilities Bring Commercial Development to Outlying Areas 6/26 MEETING Shared Vision Between City Council, City Staff and Park/Recreation Commission Site Selection(s) Direction to Pursue Acquisition of Land Work plan and Timeline Cost Estimation/Validation Strategy for Successful Implementation Funding Approaches and Timing Communications Consistent message throughout community OPTION A DUAL COMPLEX – PHASED Phase 1 Spring 2007 = ~$10MM Acquire 20 Acre Parcel and Potential 35 Acre Parcel on East side of Akron Avenue. $5MM for Land Acquisition $5MM for Outdoor Field Development on 35 acre parcel 20 acre parcel for future Aquatic Center / Tennis Center OPTION A DUAL COMPLEX – PHASED Phase 2a Spring 2010 = ~$20MM Acquire up to 50 Acres East of Hwy 52 and South of County Road 42. $5MM to $7MM for Land Acquisition $7MM for Outdoor Field Development $7MM for Aquatic Center / Tennis Center and Field house Development Room for Future Expansion Opportunities OPTION A DUAL COMPLEX – PHASED Phase 2b Spring 2010 = ~$14MM Up to 50 Acre Partnerships with D.C.T.C. and/or Flint Hills Refinery. $7MM for Outdoor Field Development Assume 50/50 partnership of total costs with no land acquisition costs to city $7MM for Aquatic Center / Tennis Center and Field house Development OPTION A - PROS & CONS Pros Costs Spread Out Over Time Lower Initial Investment Potential Partnerships to Reduce Land Cost Joint Land-Use Agreement Land In-Lieu of Park Dedication Flexible Approach/Multiple Locations Initial Fields /Aquatics closer to existing residents Future facilities align with future community growth Cons Fragmented Approach Reduce initial tournament / local business revenue opportunities Highest Anticipated Costs Over Time Lack of Efficiency / Lose Economies of Scale Multiple Infrastructure Costs (Parking Lots, etc.) Highest Degree of Uncertainty/Risk of Incompletion Future costs increase higher that anticipated today Future city budget dependencies and/or challenges Future property/tax/school levies Potential Partnerships Challenges Previous partnership discussions have been unsuccessful On-going maintenance Priority of facility use between partners OPTION B – SINGLE COMPLEX PHASED Phase 1 Spring 2007 = ~$13MM Acquire 80-120 Acres East of Hwy 52 and South of County Road 42. $8MM for Land Acquisition $5MM for Outdoor Field Development on 40-60 acres of parcel OPTION B – SINGLE COMPLEX PHASED Phase 2 Spring 2010 = ~$12 MM No Additional Land Acquisition Required $5MM for Outdoor Field Development on 30-40 acres of parcel $7MM for Aquatic Center / Tennis Center and Field house Development Room for Future Expansion Opportunities OPTION B – PROS & CONS Pros Most Affordable Land Acquisition Option Land costs expected to be at least 25% lower East of Highway 52 at this time Annualized land costs per acre expected to increase between 2007 and 2010 Site becomes a “Destination Complex” Additional Metro and Regional Youth Tournaments Captive dollars for existing Rosemount Businesses Expedite Residential/Commercial Development Earlier revenues to non-residential tax base Cons Distance from Existing Population Most notable if future Aquatic Center is recreational in nature (i.e. Water park) Existing Infrastructure East of Hwy 52 Availability of Sewer, Electricity, Water or Roads Potential for incremental cost increases in Phase 1 Moderate Risk of Incompletion Future budget dependencies and/or challenges Future property/tax/school levies OPTION C SINGLE COMPLEX – SINGLE APPROACH Phase 1 Spring 2007 = ~$23MM Acquire 80-120 Acres East of Hwy 52 and South of County Road 42 $8MM for Land Acquisition $8MM for Outdoor Field Development on 70-100 acres of parcel $7MM for Aquatic Center / Tennis Center and Field house Development Room for Future Expansion Opportunities OPTION C – PROS & CONS Cons Highest Up-Front Costs Distance from Existing Population Most notable if Aquatic Center is recreational in nature (i.e. Water park) Existing Infrastructure East of Hwy 52 Availability of Sewer, Electricity, Water or Roads Potential for incremental cost increases PPOTENTIAL UNDEFINED OPTIONS Dakota County Tech College Partnership 10 Acre Soccer Complex (3 Fields) 100 Acre Joint-Use Outdoor Fields Potential Future Shared Indoor Field house ISD 917 Potential Future Shared Indoor Field house Current Park for Aquatic Center Build Aquatic Center at Existing Park (i.e. Central or Jaycee) Joint Community Partnerships for a “Regional Destination Facility” Empire; Farmington and Rosemount Dakota County OPEN QUESTIONS/CONSTRAINTS Aquatic Center Approach Indoor vs. Outdoor Recreational vs. Competitive St. Josephs Church / School Future Vision for Community Use Senior Center / Art Center Air Cargo Facility ISD 196 Future Levies Planned Commission Chair Johnson stated he would copy down the information on the board and forward it to Schultz. The Commission briefly talked about looking forward to the meeting and getting on the same page as the Council regarding how the City will move forward in the future with this topic. 4. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Jacobs to adjourn the meeting. SECOND by Sampo. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Motion passed. The meeting was adjourned at 2:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation Director