ST. CLOUD AQUATIC COMMUNITY CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY CCH
HA
APPTTEERR 11 ‐‐ EEXXEECCU
UTTIIVVEE SSU
UM
MM
MA
ARRYY
The City of St. Cloud retained SJA Architects, Ankeny Kell Architects and Ballard King and Associates to study the feasibility of constructing and operating an Aquatic Community Center in the St. Cloud area. The following represents a summary of the key findings regarding the construction and operation of a regional indoor aquatic, recreation and social activities center in the St. Cloud area. PROJECT CONCEPT Although focused on aquatic recreation, the aquatic community center is intended to meet a wide range of community recreational and social needs. The facility has several components with the core being an expansive indoor aquatic center and a multi‐use gymnasium for a wide variety of uses including: basketball, volleyball, indoor soccer, individual and group fitness space, rooms for social gatherings and non athletic events. The building program will require a facility of 108,000 square feet and site demands of between 5 and 15 acres. Chapter 5 of the Feasibility Study further details the anticipated uses and layout of an aquatic community center. PROJECT LOCATION The Feasibility Study outlines a number of potential locations identified through input of public participants and the task force members. However, the study takes no position on the most suitable location for a facility at this time. Given the anticipated delay in construction, the availability of the previously identified sites will likely change and others will be presented. Thus, the Feasibility Study focuses greater attention on the criteria that should be considered at such time as the project is able to proceed. Chapter 3 of the Feasibility Study outlines the site considerations. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION Based upon the facility uses and building design identified through the study process, the anticipated construction costs of the facility will exceed $26,500,000 in current dollars. These costs do not include property acquisition costs, which will vary significantly by the ownership, location, and use of the parcels. In addition, the construction costs do not include site improvements such as parking, vehicle storage, trails, and other factors that will also vary due to the project partners, location, and scope of the project. Nonetheless, the projected capital costs emphasize the need for partnerships in construction of the facility, as no one entity will likely be able to incur that expense. Chapter 5 of the Feasibility Study details the project budget, while Chapter 4 offers a number of potential project partners and their facility and location needs. Page 1 ST. CLOUD AQUATIC COMMUNITY CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY PROJECT OPERATIONS Like the large majority of publicly funded and/or operated community and recreational facilities, it should be anticipated that operation costs will be subsidized by general tax dollars from the local jurisdictions. The concept developed through this study process will likely operate with an annual deficit of more than $500,000 given the range of user fees found to be acceptable through the public survey. As with construction capital costs, public and private partnerships will likely be required. There are many effective models for shared or full privatization of facility operations to assist in decreasing these costs on public entities. In fact, many of the organizations that have been part of these shared facilities in Minnesota and throughout the Country exist in the St. Cloud area, such as: higher education institutions, YMCA, and National Guard. Chapters 4 and 5 of this Feasibility Study define the anticipated operating costs and potential public/private partners. CONCLUSIONS Without question, a new aquatic community center will enhance the quality of life in the St. Cloud area while addressing the issue of a lack of ample leisure opportunities. The proposed center fills the service gaps for aquatic, leisure and recreation needs in the community for teenagers, families and seniors. A new center will become a source of tremendous community pride and will bring the community together. Having a sense of community is very important, especially when considering the growth the St. Cloud region is experiencing. The aquatic community center facility will contribute to the economic health of the community by providing jobs, through the purchase of local goods and services and by generating tourism trade from people visiting the community. The Feasibility Study does not make any recommendations for constructing a new facility at this time. Due to the economic conditions at the date of the study, it would be inappropriate to dedicate funding for the project. However, the Feasibility Study did find that there is significant demand for an aquatic community center and that the St. Cloud area is under served with indoor recreational activities, especially aquatic activities. Finally, the Feasibility Study should be considered a resource for facility planning once discussions regarding an aquatics community center are renewed. Page 2 ST. CLOUD AQUATIC COMMUNITY CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY CCH
HA
APPTTEERR 22 ‐‐ M
ASSIIBBIILLIITTYY MA
ARRKKEETT A
AN
NA
ALLYYSSIISS A
AN
ND
D FFEEA
A
ASSSSEESSSSM
MEEN
NTT PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS Public Open Houses At the beginning of the process a public open house was held at the St. Cloud Civic Center. Citizens were encouraged to express their opinion regarding the mission of the facility, what should be included in the facility, and where the facility should be located. These are displayed in Appendix A. Facilities Tour Following this meeting, the PAC spent a day touring other Minnesota communities with aquatic facilities to gain insight regarding their facilities’ form and function. In addition, facility managers were asked about lessons learned in the construction and operation of the facility, as well as the positive benefit each community received from their projects. The following communities were visited during the tour: Elk River, Chaska, Maplewood, Monticello, and Andover. Stakeholder Meetings A series of stakeholder meetings were conducted by the consulting team to assess the interest and needs for indoor recreation spaces and activities. There was significant support for the development of an aquatic community center from the various stakeholder groups. The following groups were part of the stakeholder meetings: • Central Minn. Community Foundation • City of Cold Spring • Sauk Rapids‐Rice ISD • St. Cloud Technical College • St. Cloud Traveling Baseball • St. Cloud YMCA • Boys and Girls Club • American Red Cross • SCSU Sports Facilities • St. Cloud Youth Basketball • Granite City Volleyball • City of Waite Park • Sartell‐St. Stephen ISD • City of Sartell • City of Foley In addition to the stakeholder meetings, the community survey respondents indicated that the most desirable components in a new aquatic community center are an indoor swimming pool, indoor walking/jogging track, weight and cardiovascular exercise area, indoor playground, aerobic/dance space and multipurpose gymnasium space. These spaces and activities have all been accommodated within the proposed building program outlined in Chapter 5. Page 3 ST. CLOUD AQUATIC COMMUNITY CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY A scientific public opinion survey was undertaken in January 2009. The results of the survey were optimistic and proved considerable interest from residents in multiple communities to support this amenity. However, the survey results were found to be jaded given the economic climate at the time. Although it showed a demand for an aquatic community center, the willingness to pay increased taxes or fees was low. The survey was a phone survey including residents of St. Cloud, Sartell, Sauk Rapids and Waite Park. The list of questions, the data received and the graphics of the results are attached in Appendix B. The following is a summary of the primary conclusions taken from the public opinion survey: 1. An aquatic community center is not viewed as a priority at this time. Only 16% would place the center as a "high priority." In addition, 52% would oppose any property tax increase for this purpose. 2. The center would face very stiff competition from other venues. Thirty‐
seven percent use other indoor facilities now and mostly feel that their current destination meets most of their household recreational needs. 3. Thirty‐eight percent of the respondents want the operations of an aquatic community center to be "self‐sufficient" and require no City subsidy. Even so, residents are unwilling to pay enough for monthly passes and daily tickets for revenue to reach that break‐even point. 4. When the recreational features of an aquatic community center are considered, only one of the six most preferred activities is actually aquatics. However, a swimming pool is the aquatic feature most wanted by residents. In addition, targeted activity spaces are also sought for specific age groups: teens, seniors, pre‐schoolers, and child care. 5. In looking only at aquatic activity features, three are viewed as critical needs for the community: an area for swim lessons, a warm water area for therapeutic purposes, and a water park for families with lazy rivers, slides, water sprays, and zero‐depth entry. 6. If a center offered those nine recreational and aquatic features, 24% of the households in the area would be regular ‐ at least weekly ‐ visitors. Another 24% would be occasional ‐ at least monthly ‐ visitors. 7. An attached outdoor aquatic park does not generate the enthusiasm of the indoor facilities. In fact, 45% of the respondents indicated that they would never visit an outdoor water park. This level of non‐participation is 37% higher than the level for an indoor facility. As a result, the outdoor facility is not a good replacement for the indoor recreation and aquatic community center. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE A market and demographic analysis was undertaken comparing the St. Cloud area to national and regional data on recreation usage and opportunities. The demographic profile suggests that there are very favorable market conditions to support an aquatic community center. The following is a Page 4 ST. CLOUD AQUATIC COMMUNITY CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY summary of the conclusions for several factors that are relevant to community and aquatic center operations. Appendix D further details the demographic analysis. Service Area This project recognizes the potential for a community center to serve not only the citizens of the City of St. Cloud, but also residents from a larger geographical area. A primary service area is usually defined by the distance people will travel on a regular basis (a minimum of once per week) to utilize a recreation facility. Use by people outside of the primary service area will be less frequent than the primary service area and will be driven by special facilities (ice rinks, indoor play structure, leisure pool), special events (tournaments, swim meets), special programs (skating lessons, fitness, etc), or visitors to the area. Certain facility components will expand the size of the service area. For example, a community center with a leisure pool or ice arena and other active play elements will generally have a larger primary service area than a more traditionally oriented facility. In the case of the City of St. Cloud, there was one service area chosen. This service area, which was created by picking a central point in St. Cloud and then determining a 15‐
minute drive time radius, includes all of St. Cloud and encompasses what the City of St. Cloud has determined to be a 20‐year growth ring. In most studies there is a distinction drawn between the primary and secondary service area. It was decided to not illustrate such a difference in this market analysis as the amenities contained in the City of St. Cloud provided a larger regional draw to the community. Population Growth Exhibit 2.1 Service Area Map
The St. Cloud service area has seen steady growth over the past few years. The 2000 census showed a population of 97,135. The projected population for the service area for 2013 is estimated at 119,526, which reflects an increase in population of just over 23% from the 2000 census. Most of the growth is occurring in the north western portion of the service area. Exhibit 2.2 Population Growth Table
Page 5 ST. CLOUD AQUATIC COMMUNITY CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY Age The age group distribution of the St. Cloud area indicates a strong concentration of families, and the overall median age is significantly lower than the national level. Although the City of St. Cloud can be classified as a young community, with the median age being almost 6 years lower than the national level, the age groups that will experience the most growth over the next five years are the 45‐54, 55‐
64 and 65‐74 age categories. Exhibit 2.3 Age Distribution Table
Median Household Income Median household income is $54,026 for the service area, about the same income as the national level of $54,749. Age and household income are two determining factors that drive participation in parks and recreation services. The service area indicates a lower percentage of households with income of over $50,000 than the national level. To illustrate, the percentage of households in the service area with household income over $50,000 per year is 44.5% compared to 53.0% on a national level. Furthermore, the percentage of the households in the service area with income less than $25,000 per year is 19.3% compared to a level of 22.0% nationally. Although the median household income level is very close to the national level, the percent of households above $50,000 and lower than $25,000 is lower than the national levels. This information suggests that there is a higher percent of households in that middle area with household income between $50,000 and $25,000 annually. Household income is one of the determining factors that drive participation in leisure recreation facilities and programs. Exhibit 2.4Median Household Income Table
Page 6 ST. CLOUD AQUATIC COMMUNITY CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY Recreation Participation Rates Each year the National Sporting Goods Association (NSGA) conducts an in depth study and survey of how Americans spend their leisure time. This research provides the data necessary to overlay rate of participation onto the City of St. Cloud service area to determine market potential. Comparing information from the National Sporting Goods Association with the demographics from the primary service area allows the following participation projections to be made based on age, household income, regional population and national population. Exhibit 2.5 Recreation Participation Rates Page 7 ST. CLOUD AQUATIC COMMUNITY CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY CCH
DEERRA
HA
APPTTEERR 33 ‐‐ SSIITTEE SSEELLEECCTTIIO
ATTIIO
ON
NSS ON
N CCO
ON
NSSIID
The PAC and study team had several discussions in relation to the site and the best plausible locations for the new aquatic community center. Though the report was intended to narrow the field and to select an ideal site for the new facility, each parameter twisted with opportunities and consequences based on three main decisions; who participates, who does it serve, and when it will be built. One significant factor in proceeding with site selection is the commitment of project partners, which will affect the site location, site size, recreational offerings, and design of the facility. The participation of the potential partners at the earliest point possible is essential for the committee to consider the differing vantage points of those organizations and its current/future members. Another of the philosophical questions that must be resolved before considering the design and location of the facility is its service area. A community based aquatics center “Community Aquatic Center” is intended to draw its primary users from the St. Cloud area’s cities. As such, it should concentrate on an affordable user fee and maintaining reasonable revenue sources. Conversely, the creation of a “Central Minnesota Center” will demand the largest and best amenities in the state for state wide events and regional tourism. The design and number of users in such a facility may be a deterrent to heavy local utilization. Location, accessibility, site size, staffing, fees and many other factors are affected by the outcome of this philosophical question. Finally, the timing for this study unfortunately occurred within a large nationwide economic downturn generating doubt of when this facility could be built and to what size. Existing sites may have better uses in the next few years, and new sites may become available. Selecting a site based on this 2009 study and purchasing or holding land for this undefined time period is not prudent. The combination of partners, vision and defined project date commitments are required to make a site selection. Exhibit 3.1 Potential Sites Map
SITE OPPORTUNITIES A list of twenty sites was generated based on a community meeting where the public had the opportunity to suggest aquatic center uses and amenities to serve this community and to note with dot stickers three sites each that they suggest be considered. The locations with multiple dots were added to sites owned by the City of St. Cloud, sites suggested by other cities, park areas noted in the comprehensive plan, and redevelopment areas for more serious consideration. Page 8 ST. CLOUD AQUATIC COMMUNITY CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY Several sites generated more discussion, while some were quickly deemed less viable. Five sites have been suggested for a more detailed review in the future, including: Heritage Park, Whitney Park, Veterans Drive west, Dehler Property (Sartell) and Neenah Creek Park. SITE SELECTION CONSIDERATIONS A new aquatics community facility could encompass several site selection criteria that vary based on facility uses, partners, public philosophy, location, amenities, etc. Each of these criteria’s advantages and challenges can be modified when the facility vision changes design criteria. The following criteria with general description of purpose can be construed as good or bad depending on the evaluator’s point of view. See Appendix F for the Site Matrix to be used with the following criteria. Size (Endurance Impact) A new Community Aquatic Center would require approximately 8 acres given the size of programmed spaces, parking demand, and exterior amenities. An urban setting could be less than five acres though a natural/scenic site with access to trails may be over ten acres. Regardless of setting, site selection must consider and provide for future facility expansion. Strong consideration should be given to acquisition of additional lands to accommodate the anticipated site improvements and building expansions. • Size of Land ‐ Requires between 5‐10+ acres • Orientation to Community ‐ Tourism versus community discussion • Expansion Possibility ‐ Master plan for phases and allow areas for growth • Time Table for Availability – Site prepared for project versus site remediation studies Ownership (Direct Cost Impact) Who owns the site and what is the probable cost to acquire site for this project? The potential site may be city owned keeping the land cost minimal to allow more money to be focused on the facility and the amenities the public requested. The site for the aquatics community center may be located in an area the city does not currently own land given its outstanding site characteristics. • Development Costs – Provide infrastructure to the site • Acquisition cost – Purchase and relocation costs • Value of Vacated Tax Base – Evaluate best long term value as public or private Page 9 ST. CLOUD AQUATIC COMMUNITY CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY Visibility (Aesthetic Impact) Does the site lend itself to create a landmark building or gateway building for the community visible by the public and creating awareness for best use by the public? These criteria do have a reverse focus of a facility integrated into nature. Evaluate using the zoning map and city comprehensive plan to recognize areas in the city that best fit this community use with neighborhoods that benefit by the location and actually endorse the new facility. • Identity to Community – Design to complement the site and adjacent environment • Visibility to Visitors – Design to excite and capture interest • Relationship to Comprehensive Plan – Design to integrate into a positive community • View in/out of Site – Design with advantages of vistas, amenities and nature Access (Location Impact) Committee should start with the broadest advantage of access from/to major highways and roads serving city public transportation leading to good arterial roads with public transportation and preferred distances to intersections. Finally, the site should provide multiple options for entry drives and visibility to the building entrance. Connections to adjoining trails, site amenities, and natural water in a park‐like setting may extend the site and possible activities along with community use. The opposing attitude may be more urban with access to services such as lodging, retail shopping, food and shared events. • Access for Vehicles – Public, private and service transportation • Access for Pedestrians – walking, biking, skate comfort and safety • Positive Adjacencies – Access to trails/nature versus highway/commercial Development Potential of Site (Development Impact) As a public facility, the aquatics community center will generate little, if any, taxes. Conversely, visible and accessible locations upon major transportation corridors are attractive for private development/redevelopment generating property and/or sales taxes. Thus, the highest and best use of potential sites must be compared to the necessity of that site for either local or tourist use of an aquatic community center: • Impact on Surrounding Business – Support local commercial versus direct competition • Impact on Neighborhood – Positive for community • Redevelopment Potential – New center spurs additional private development • Public Use Positive – Good use for public reuse versus tax revenue Site Location Partnerships (Partner Impact) One of the strongest factors in determining the project’s location is the ability to attract construction capital and operating partners. The potential partners cited by this Feasibility Study have varying degrees of flexibility in offering project assistance given the location of their existing facilities and proximity to clientele, which are summarized in Chapter 4. Partnership opportunities may also serve as a map to identifying other sites by reviewing the existing and proposed facilities of various agencies throughout the region including schools, parks, and other public or private facilities. The importance of these opportunities should not be minimized given the anticipated construction cost and operating shortfall of the project. Page 10 ST. CLOUD AQUATIC COMMUNITY CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY CCH
OPPPPO
HA
APPTTEERR 44 ‐‐ PPRRO
ORRTTU
UN
NIITTIIEESS OJJEECCTT PPA
ARRTTN
NEERRSSH
HIIPP O
From the outset of the Feasibility Study process, the potential for partnering of public and private entities was seen as an essential element of the project given the benefits outlined in the previous section. Thus, the planning process included representatives from the neighboring cities of Sauk Rapids, Sartell, and Waite Park. Representatives of the area schools and colleges, the hospital and the YMCA participated in addition to city representatives. The commitment of partners for use, fees and spaces is encouraged, and several partnering strategies are available. The location of the site may add or subtract those interested in a partner relationship. In final consideration, the stronger partner input will lead to discussion and flexible partners will be able to locate at the selected site. BENEFITS OF PARTNERING As the public’s demand for recreation opportunities rapidly increases, public organizations are increasingly considering new cost effective methods for financing capital and operating costs. Public and private partnerships and regionalization of services are common approaches to meeting this demand. However, there are several important conditions where partnering projects make sense, including: 1. Partners have shared/complimentary program needs. Partnering is sound public policy when two or more organizations have similar/complimentary programming needs. These needs are reflected both in facilities that are developed and also in activities that take place in the facilities. 2. Partners have resources that benefit each other. Partnering is sound public policy when two or more organizations have resources that can jointly be leveraged in the development and/or operations of the partnership. Resources, which can be beneficial for partnering, include land, existing staff expertise, financial capabilities, existing marketing tools, etc. 3. Partners serve complimentary customer bases. Partnering is sound public policy when two or more organizations have similar customer bases that can benefit from the partnership. 4. Partners want to accelerate the pace of facility development. Partnering is an extremely valuable mechanism to assist partners in accelerating the pace of facility development. The leverage of resources, particularly financial assets, provides an opportunity for funding facilities and/or the enlargement of facilities that may not have been otherwise possible. Page 11 ST. CLOUD AQUATIC COMMUNITY CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY 5. Partners have a common tax base. Partnering is viewed as particularly valuable to the citizens when the organizations have a common tax base. Partnering projects help reduce unnecessary duplication of facilities and programs, allowing tax dollars to be invested in a very cost effective manner. 6. Customers use facilities at largely complimentary times. Partnership projects are particularly beneficial in cases where similar customers’ uses are largely different times. For these reasons, partnerships between cities and school districts are widely used. While each partner has the need for many of the same facilities, their prime time usage needs are generally different. This enables such partnership projects to make maximum use of built projects for service delivery. It also enables the customer experience to be more enjoyable by spreading the user base over a longer time period. 7. Partners desire increased opportunities for earning non‐tax revenue. Partnerships present increased opportunities to leverage resources in building facilities that better address citizen and customer needs, and therefore, for the facility to serve larger customer markets. Such facilities afford opportunities to substantially increase revenues from fees and charges. PARTNERSHIP CHALLENGES AND PITFALLS Successful partnership requires commitment on behalf of all partner organizations. As with any funding program, there are potential dangers in partnering that need to be carefully avoided. Some of the major potential challenges and pitfalls to successful partnering projects are as follows: 1. Partnerships require a higher level of coordination – Partnerships require managers and management agreements and policies that can meet the needs of multiple organizations. Partnering means sharing, and this is accomplished through a high degree of carefully planned cooperation. The management of multiple program spaces is always a scheduling challenge. The need to serve two or more organizations that require on‐going service makes the task even more challenging. Partnership agreements need to adequately address coordination and management issues and methods for resolving potential conflicts. 2. Partners can reduce each partner’s ability to react to changing market conditions. Similarly to what occurs with other customer markets, the usage of program spaces being planned may substantially change over the useful life of these spaces. Partnerships that are rigid in their language can negatively impact the ability of each partner to react to these changing customer needs. Additionally and equally important, partnership agreements need to contain language that allows for accurate measurement of costs for providing partnership services. Costs will change, and methods of joint funding of these changing costs (based on benefits received) need to be built into the contract agreement. Even the best partnership agreements will not cover everything. Language needs to be built into the agreement that Page 12 ST. CLOUD AQUATIC COMMUNITY CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY provides on‐going evaluation of the partnership’s performance in addressing citizen needs and provides opportunities to adapt positively to change. 3. Partners cannot live up to their resource commitment. For a partnership to be successful, each party must deliver on their commitment. Both partners need to have the short term and long‐term ability to deliver what they have identified in the contract. There also needs to be a fall back provision should some costs occur (capital or operations) that prove to be larger than originally estimated. This can particularly occur in facility operations, with the demand for increasing levels of customer services. Last, fee policies and revenue should relate to actual program costs and be increased as costs increase. Should that not occur, the partners will have increased pressure on their limited resources. 4. Partner’s inability to deliver high quality services – Both partners will be measured by the degree of customer satisfaction enjoyed by visitors to the facility, regardless of who is providing the service. The contract agreement needs to contain language that adequately addresses service delivery and methods for the timely correction of service quality issues. 5. Partnerships negatively impact on developing other positive relationships – Partnerships should always be entered into with the most important partner first. At the same time, partnership agreements should not unfairly restrict either party’s ability to enter into an agreement that can save taxpayers money and provide increased levels of service delivery. Language needs to be contained in the contract document that allows for consideration of additional partners and the factors under which such potential partners will be evaluated. 6. Partnerships reduce revenue – While partnership projects effectively leverage resources, they do need resources. Therefore, the benefits of the partnership and the use of resources have to be weighted as they relates to other projects/initiatives that may not occur. Simply stated, the project still needs to be viewed by citizens as a wise use of those resources that are allocated. 7. Partnerships can result in lengthy and costly legal entanglement – The worst problem in partnerships is that they can land in court or be wrapped up in legal entanglements. To prevent legal entanglements, agreements need to contain clear language addressing disputes by which all parties agree to abide. Exit clauses should be contained in the agreement, in the extreme cases where a partner wants to get out of all parts of the partnership. This is particularly important as it relates to issues involving the useful life and costs of maintaining capital assets. Page 13 ST. CLOUD AQUATIC COMMUNITY CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES The Feasibility Study process has clearly identified a number of public and private parties as potential partners in the construction and operation of the facility. A number of those parties have expressed particular interest in these opportunities, including: • YMCA • St Cloud Technical College • Red Cross • CentraCare Health Systems • St. Cloud State University • National Guard • School District However, the current economic condition has made it extremely difficult for the potential partners to commit to the project in any definitive way. Upper management level discussions should continue to explore these potential partnerships in greater detail and determine a reasonable time frame for facility planning to be reinitiated. Attached to this section of the report is a series of letters from the participating entities on the committee indicating their preliminary intent to participate in the project and ongoing interest to continue the discussion when the aquatic center project is re‐energized. The following is a summary of those statements: City of St. Cloud With the recent approval of the extension of the local sales tax created for parks and recreation uses and specifically defined for an aquatic center, St. Cloud will continue to generate monies for this facility over the duration of the approved tax. The project will be considered by City Council and Administration each fiscal year as part of its capital improvement programming process. The focus on construction cost and the ongoing operation costs are the greatest concern for St. Cloud and will be repeatedly analyzed and confirmed prior to approval. The ideal facility will be a shared community center with neighboring cities and will have a series of regular partners who support and use the center. Finding an operating partner would be a strong objective. With the larger cost and initiative generated by St. Cloud, creating an aquatic center that serves the St. Cloud community is a priority. Site Consideration The city operates and maintains several athletic and community facilities and park sites within the city limits. This new aquatic center is a community center requested by the public as a replacement for the municipal pool and to provide a place for youth and family activity, athletics and learning. It is supported by the citizens of St. Cloud. The city can view the site selection from several vantage points. First, the site may be already city owned property or park land to limit the cost of acquisition and to spend more money of the facility construction and operation. Second, the site may be adjacent to an existing facility to share staff, utilities and to help support the Page 14 ST. CLOUD AQUATIC COMMUNITY CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY operations more efficiently. Third, the site may serve an underutilized area of the city that is a prime location for urban renewal given a significant community reinvestment. Fourth, the new center should be on a highly visual public way and act as a gateway onto the city and tourist destination. Fifth, the new center could be in a natural setting with access to trails and set in a site unique to the community and focused on use by the local area citizens. All these factors should be considered in site selection to determine the best use of St. Cloud’s available funding. Cities of Sartell, Sauk Rapids, and Waite Park Sartell, Sauk Rapids, and Waite Park will also generate future sales tax revenue for parks and recreation over the duration of the approved tax. While the City of St. Cloud’s sales tax funds were allocated specifically for community aquatics center purposes, the sales tax authorization actions of the other communities were less defined in their expenditures. Thus, the allocation of sales tax dollars is largely a matter of community prioritization. These cities operate and maintain several athletic and community facilities and park sites within their city limits that are potential recipients of sales tax revenues. This shared aquatic center is a community center requested by the public to provide a place for youth and family activity, athletics and learning. While the initial sales tax revenue from each of the communities was committed to the Great River Regional Library’s new facility, the creation of a shared community center has not yet been vetted by these communities and determined a high priority. The public survey conducted as part of this Feasibility Study indicates varying levels of commitment and utilization for a regional facility depending upon the services provided and cost of participation. Nonetheless, these neighboring cities acknowledge the importance of capital and operating partners to create the greatest facility possible for area residents. Site Consideration Given the scarcity of public dollars in the current economy, the creation of a community aquatic center that provides the greatest access for each community’s residents is a top priority. The proximity of the facility to any particular community can dramatically affect the contribution of the community to facility construction and operations. However, the cities can also view the site selection from several other vantage points. First, the cities have indicated a number of opportunities to contribute city owned property or park land to limit the cost of acquisition and to spend more money on the facility instead of land. The City of Sartell’s Dehler property has been specifically cited given the City’s anticipated acquisition and proximity to St. Cloud’s Whitney Park. Second, the site should be accessible to the regional roadway system so as not to become a deterrent to users from adjoining communities. Third, the new center should have access to regional trails extending from and through the adjoining communities. Page 15 ST. CLOUD AQUATIC COMMUNITY CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY YMCA St. Cloud YMCA has interest in partnering as the operating entity for this new aquatic center. YMCA’s across America have successfully partnered with municipalities and other organizations to operate community centers. The current YMCA has expanded and is landlocked with no room for additional growth. As membership increases, the need for a larger and more modern facility is considered. The sale of the existing YMCA may provide additional capital for the new aquatic center. Their current membership includes persons from all local cities and students from SCTC. Participating in a new facility should maintain current members and open the opportunity for new membership. Providing operation services focused on membership could limit ability to allow special events and general community use if membership has priority. Site Consideration Site location appears to be the main emphasis from this organization. YMCA is currently located at 1530 Northway Drive on the north side of St. Cloud. They have a major constituent with the students of SCTC and a large membership from the north side of St. Cloud. They allow access from CentraCare for therapy and have access by public transportation. Their programs and members could be located in other areas of the community though a shift in location may have positive/negative impact on current members’ continued use though new memberships could be gained. YMCA recommends maintaining a site on the north side of St. Cloud near SCTC. SCTC This Minnesota State College campus has a master plan to continue to expand and add facilities used for higher education and service to the students both recreationally, educationally, and for intercollegiate athletics. Accessibility to a state of the art community recreation center/activity facility would be a significant stride in meeting this mission. SCTC’s current student activity fee includes a membership to the adjacent YMCA, which might be a dedicated membership base for a new facility constructed in the immediate area. In addition, the hours of student utilization may be complimentary to other public peak use hours. Finally, SCTC’s student base may also serve as a source of qualified employees for the facility through work study programs. Site Consideration Site location is the greatest determining factor for SCTC given its current location at 1540 Northway Drive (the north side of St. Cloud). Significant investment continues to be made in the expansion and enhancement of the north side facility making relocation impossible. Consequently, SCTC recommends the aquatic center to be a site on the north side of St. Cloud near SCTC. Page 16 ST. CLOUD AQUATIC COMMUNITY CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY CentraCare Health Systems The health care initiative includes access by the public to physical activities that support good health and for use of therapeutic pools for rehabilitation. The access to pool and gymnasium for physical therapy and occupational therapy amenities is requested in the facility. CentraCare would like to be able to schedule special use of the facility and host/sponsor health education events. Site Considerations Like St. Cloud Technical College, site location and specific scheduled access appear to be the main objective of CentraCare Health Systems. CentraCare manages the St. Cloud Hospital and several area clinics and health care services, including clinics and offices adjacent to SCTC and YMCA. The access to pool and gymnasium spaces for physical therapy and occupational therapy amenities is of particular interest to CentraCare Health Systems. Consequently, CentraCare suggests the community aquatic center be located on a site on the north side of St. Cloud. SCSU SCSU’s student activity fee provides for operation of current and future state of the art recreation and activity spaces on campus. Thus, the consistent utilization of the space by SCSU students is not likely. However, SCSU has indicated some interest in scheduling special use of the facility and hosting/sponsoring recreation and education events depending upon the amenities ultimately constructed within the facility. The ability to schedule time within the center will be the main emphasis from this organization. Site Considerations SCSU is currently located at 720 4th Ave S on the south side of St. Cloud. They have pool and athletic facilities on SCSU campus. Given the limited utilization of the facility, SCSU suggests that the site be easily accessed from the regional roadway system. Minnesota National Guard The National Guard has teamed with numerous municipalities in Minnesota and other states in the construction of community activity centers serving both public and their own training needs. The Minnesota National Guard has indicated interest in partnering on a similar community center/activity facility in St. Cloud if the site location and design meets their operational needs. However, their request for funding and approval could take 6‐8 years or longer. Site Considerations Site size, facility design, and security appear to be the main criteria from Minnesota National Guard, which is currently located at 1710 8th St N (Veterans Drive) and the St. Cloud Airport. The National Guard requires access to a large activity room/gymnasium and to have a secure area on the site for motor pool and outdoor maneuvering. The motor pool and maneuvering area require significant dedicated site acreage ranging upwards of 5 to 10 acres, while also posing an Page 17 ST. CLOUD AQUATIC COMMUNITY CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY aesthetic concern for some potential locations. Minnesota National Guard recommends the aquatic center to be a site with good access to major highways (Hwy 10, Hwy 23, Hwy 94, and/or Hwy 15) and provide additional acreage for MNG uses. School Districts All the area school districts currently have pools and gymnasiums located in their high school facilities. However, those facilities are aging in some instances and the pools drained as a maintenance and cost saving strategy. The greatest use of a community aquatics facility for existing school district facilities would be the scheduling of special events and general community access. Site Considerations While little potential has been shown in the coordination of activities between a new community center and existing schools, there may be interest in the collocation and coordination of future facilities in community growth areas. ISD 742’s future facilities plans call for new public schools during the medium/long‐term time frames in locations such as the far south side of St. Cloud. If a public and/or private partnership is ultimately utilized for this development and operation of this project, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed in the contract document between the two parties, which are outlined in Appendix G. These issues can be generally categorized as follows: • Identification of mutual visionary goals • Public to be served • Role of each party • Financial commitment • Shared resources • Shared benefits • Pooled resources Page 18 ST. CLOUD AQUATIC COMMUNITY CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY CCH
DG
GEETT HA
APPTTEERR 55 ‐‐ CCO
ON
NCCEEPPTT PPLLA
AN
N A
AN
ND
D BBU
UD
The components to be included in the building were developed based on the input from the market and demographic study, the public open house, the recommendation of the PAC members and the public opinion survey. The program includes an aquatic center with two pools and amenities, a multi‐
purpose gymnasium, individual and group fitness space, meeting and multi‐purpose rooms for social and non athletic activities and support areas including locker rooms and offices. See Appendix I for Building Program. The City of St Cloud contracted with Ballard*King and Associates to conduct a needs assessment and market analysis for a proposed aquatic community center in St. Cloud. The study included a demographic profile analysis of the St. Cloud area, community survey, stakeholder meeting with special interest groups and organizations, public open house, inventory of alternative recreation service providers in the area, program space development, preliminary project cost estimates and an operations analysis. From this study, the City of St. Cloud has the necessary information to make a well‐informed decision regarding the feasibility of constructing a new community center in the future. See Appendix L for the full Operations Plan. The program statement was developed by consolidating data gathered from the market analysis, community survey, stakeholder meetings, analysis of existing recreation service providers and input from the citizen steering committee. The community survey indicated that the components respondents would most likely use if they were included in a new aquatic community center are an indoor swimming pool, indoor walking/jogging track, weight and cardiovascular exercise area, indoor playground, aerobic/dance space and multi‐purpose gymnasium space. These spaces and activities can all be accommodated with the proposed program listed below. Page 19 ST. CLOUD AQUATIC COMMUNITY CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY COMMUNITY CENTER CONCEPT PLAN Building Layout Based on the building program, concept plans were prepared to suggest the appropriate relationships between the various components. Once a site is selected, a more refined concept plan can be developed reflecting the site conditions. The facility concept calls for a 108,413 square foot building inclusive of the following elements: a multi‐purpose gymnasium, aquatic center with a 25‐
yard competitive pool, leisure pool with zero depth entry, water slide, interactive play structure and sprays, birthday party room, fitness area containing cardio and weight lifting equipment, group exercise class room, two multi‐purpose rooms with a catering kitchen, teen center, children's multi‐
purpose activity area, child watch area, concession area, administrative area, support spaces and lobby. Further detail is provided by Appendix I. Exhibits 5.1 and 5.2 Building Concept Images
Page 20 ST. CLOUD AQUATIC COMMUNITY CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY Lobby and Control Desk The lobby is the point of arrival creating the facility’s sense of place, which demands a welcoming and spacious area. The lobby functions as a community gathering space and lounge, which may have a fireplace, large screen TV, information kiosk or a coffee cart. Comfortable seating and ample area are necessary for the visitors in the building to meet and relax. The reception/control desk must be located near the primary entrance and be positioned in such a way that staff can welcome a visitor immediately and provide information and assistance to the user. In addition, the control desk provides critical supervision and management of the facility. As such, its location along the circulation axis is important to provide as much supervision of the facility as possible. It is common for the lobby to create two distinct spaces; those requiring a fee for admittance (daily, program or membership fee) and those open to the community. Areas that require a fee should located such that the patron has to pass by the control desk. Locker Rooms Locker rooms should be located in close proximity to the control desk. The locker rooms can be connected directly to the natatorium to minimize wet areas between the lockers and the pools. Access to the gymnasium is also important given the functional connection of these spaces. Modern facilities typically provide for three locker rooms on the main floor; men’s, women’s, and family. Within the fitness center, two additional locker rooms should be considered for adult users of the fitness center away from the natatorium lockers. Gymnasium The gymnasium should be designed to be a multipurpose space for a wide variety of activities including basketball, volleyball, badminton, tennis and other court sports. It can also be used for non sport activities such as community gathering, fairs and trade shows. The gymnasium can have one of two types of flooring: wood or synthetic; there are benefits and drawbacks to each type. Wood floor is the most attractive, provides the most cushioning, and is easily repaired if damaged. Wood floors are the preferred surface for basketball and usually volleyball. Wood floors need annual maintenance and can be damaged by water. Synthetic floors need little maintenance, provide reasonable cushioning, are the preferred surface for tennis, indoor soccer and a few other indoor court sports. Synthetic flooring can be difficult to repair. A running track should be suspended above the floor to maximize space utilization. The track creates a safe indoor surface for walking, jogging and running; the elevation of which separates the walkers/runners from errant balls and players on the courts below. Page 21 ST. CLOUD AQUATIC COMMUNITY CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY Natatorium The concept drawings include two pools, a competition pool and a leisure pool within the natatorium. The design suggests that the competition pool be regulation length and depth with timing equipment for swim meets. It is also intended to be used for open swimming, fitness lap swimming, swim lessons, water aerobics, and other activities. The leisure pool is an interactive aquatic play environment for all ages. One side has a zero depth entry (like a beach) and shallow water for young children. A water slide at the other side provides excitement for older children and adults. Although larger than most aquatic community centers, the design’s larger size is justified due to the large population in the St. Cloud area. No outdoor pool is included in the concept given their tendency to be a significantly different operation than the indoor pool. The outdoor pools draw large crowds during a limited summer season, rather than the daily year round use of an indoor center. Due to the large construction and annual operating cost, the design does not include a 50 meter pool. However, a 50 meter pool is depicted should the community determine the amenity is justified. Most aquatic uses can be accommodated in the 8 lane, 25 meter pool planned for the facility. A dedicated diving pool is not included in the concept at this time. The depth at the deep end of the competition pool will accommodate a 1 meter board and diving from the edge of the pool. Should the community decide that diving is an activity they wish to include in the facility accommodation for increasing the depth of the pool and installing a 3 meter board could be included. The natatorium could be divided into two spaces: one space for the leisure pool and one space for the competition pool. This is probably only justified if there is a perceived conflict during swim meets or other events with the leisure pool. The plan depicts sufficient space for 200 spectators along one side of the competition pool. Fitness Center Fitness centers offer a variety of individual exercise opportunities with an emphasis on cardio vascular health. Within typical fitness centers are three group spaces; one for spinning, and two rooms for a wide variety of movement exercise classes such as Pilates, yoga, various dance styles, martial arts, etc. The fitness studios should be equipped with resilient wood floors, adjustable lighting and high quality air supply. Individual cardio fitness area can focus on machine based exercise such as tread mills, elliptical trainers, stationary bikes, etc. There can also be strength and conditioning areas with both fixed strength training equipment and free weights. More and more adults are finding this activity critical to good physical health. A quality fitness center will develop a significant membership base and provide adult fitness activities in addition to activities in the community center focused on children. Page 22 ST. CLOUD AQUATIC COMMUNITY CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY Multi‐Purpose Rooms The concept places multi‐purpose rooms outside the exercise area for the community to use for an array of activities such as arts and crafts classes, community meetings, club gatherings, etc. A small catering kitchen is often provided for caterers to serve food. The depicted multi‐purpose rooms are approximately the size of a typical school classroom. This size provides for a range of meetings and activities to take place. By combining two or three of these rooms together via moveable partitions into one larger space, a variety of meeting sizes are possible. A single room should seat 75 in a lecture seating and 50 in a table seating. Combined they will seat 150 for a lecture and 100 for a banquet. Children’s Center A children’s center is essential in modern facilities; providing space for exercise activities for young children in a safe environment. A wide range of activities can be included: climbing and sliding structures, small court sports, and interactive media games – particularly those that include physical movement and organized programmed activities planned by children’s center staff. A child watch area is shown adjacent to the children’s center to provide a place for parents to leave their children while they are in the building. The child watch area should be adjacent to the entry to make drop off easy for parents. An interior drop off lobby is essential to ensure there is a controlled check in area and a second layer of security. Children and parents are typically given a matching wrist band to ensure security for the child. The child watch area is typically zoned into two age groups. Children within the child watch area are provided with a wide range of activities to enjoy, including: arts and crafts, reading, and story telling. Teen Center For older kids, the concept provides for a teen center with supervised activities directed at the 12 to 18 year old. This space should be designed with teenager participation, so it has an identity to which that age group can relate. Activities can include after school activities with computers, homework help, socializing and planned group activities. Although definitely not a game room, there may be game consoles, pool tables, ping pong included in the teen center. Adult supervision and staff participation is very important to the success of the teen center. This area is probably open to members and non‐members and should be outside the controlled activity zone. Page 23 ST. CLOUD AQUATIC COMMUNITY CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY Administrative and Support Services Finally, there are administrative offices and support space required to operate the programs within the building. The concept provides administrative area with 7 full time work stations, plus work stations in the aquatics area, fitness area and the maintenance area. Final staffing requirements will be determined with the entity operating the facility. In addition, there will be a large number of part time employees throughout the building. The building will have intensive electronic security systems including: CC cameras, motion sensors, etc. The front desk staff will monitor the system during all open hours. A concession stand adjacent to the control desk may be desired. It is most effective if control desk staff can also provide concession service during non peak hours. A concession stand is only warranted if there is confidence that sales will be sufficient to cover the cost of staffing the facility. Vending machines are a popular alternative to the dedication of space and staff resources for a concession facility. These vending areas can be a significant source of revenue. A number of facilities have initially incorporated video games/arcades beyond the teen center spaces, which have proven to be staff intensive to supervise and ultimately been removed in many cases. Parking Parking for the facility will be difficult to determine until a site has been selected. It is hoped that a site will be served by public transportation, as this is particularly helpful in getting children, teens and elderly to the facility. Planning and zoning code requirements will have an influence on the parking requirement also. Typically a facility of this size will require from 350 to 450 parking spaces. PROJECT BUDGET Based on a building of approximately 108,000 s.f., the project cost for the facility is estimated to be $26,585,900. This project cost estimate includes the construction of the building, architectural and engineering fees, special inspections and surveying cost, furnishings and equipment for the building and a 10% contingency as outlined in the graphic below. However, the cost of acquiring or preparing land for the construction of the building is not included in this total given the potential for use of public lands and significant variations in land value of particular sites. The project budget is based on current 2009 costs and should be adjusted for inflation. The additional cost for adding a 50 meter indoor pool is $3,916,500. See Appendix K for Project Budget. Exhibit 5.3 Project Construction Budget Table
Construction Cost Estimate $21,600,000 Architectural and Engineering Fees $1,944,000 Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment $625,000 Subtotal $24,169,000 Contingency (10%) $2,416,900 Project Total $26,585,900 Page 24 ST. CLOUD AQUATIC COMMUNITY CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY OPERATIONS ANALYSIS An operations analysis was conducted to examine community center costs and revenues. The operating pro‐forma developed represents a conservative approach to estimating expenses and revenues and was completed based on the best information available and a basic understanding of the project. Fees and charges utilized for this study were developed from survey results and market value and are subject to review, change, and approval by the City of St. Cloud. The results of the operations analysis clearly indicate that the proposed aquatic community center will not recover 100% of its operating costs through revenue and consequently will require tax support to operate on a break‐
even basis. It should be pointed out that a cost recovery rate of 72% is significant for a community the size of St. Cloud and this recovery rate falls within the range for community centers for an urban setting. Most community centers in urban areas recover 70% to 90% of their operating expenses through fees and charges. Expenditures Expenditures have been formulated on the costs that were designated by Ballard*King and Associates to be included in the operating budget for the facility. The pro‐forma below does not reflect a partnership agreement between any of the potential partners. The figures are based on the size of the center, the specific components of the facility, and the hours of operation. All expenses were calculated to the high side and the actual cost may be less based on the final design, operational philosophy, and programming considerations adopted by staff. Appendix L offers further detail regarding the annual expenditures summarized below: Exhibit 5.4 Operating Expense Table
Personnel $1,406,682 Facility Operations $548,350 Facility Supplies $171,000 Capital Replacement Fund $50,000 Total $2,176,032 Revenues The following revenue projections were formulated from information on the specifics of the project and the demographics of the service area as well as comparing them to national statistics, other similar facilities and the competition for recreation services in the area. Actual figures will vary based Page 25 ST. CLOUD AQUATIC COMMUNITY CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY on the size and makeup of the components selected during final design, market stratification, philosophy of operation, fees and charges policy, and priority of use. All revenues were calculated conservatively as a result. Exhibit 5.5 Revenue Projection Table
Fees Daily Admissions $ 255,010 Annual Passes $ 728,125 Multiple Punch Card $ 37,400 Rentals $ 31,130 Total $1,051,665 Programs Aquatics $ 65,520 General $139,760 Fitness $ 45,440 Sports $ 36,000 Total $286,720 Other Revenue Pro‐shop $ 11,250 Lock‐in $ 9,000 Special events $ 5,000 Concession $ 130,000 Vending $ 5,000 Baby sitting $ 21,750 Birthday Parties $ 45,000 Advertising $ 7,500 Total $ 234,500 Grand Total $1,572,885 Future Expenditures ‐ Revenue Comparison Operational expenditures are expected to increase by approximately 4% a year through the first 3 to 5 years of operation. Revenue growth is expected to increase by 5% to 10% a year through the first three years and then level off with only a slight growth (3% or less) the next two years. Expenses for the first year of operation should be slightly lower than projected with the facility being under warranty and new. Revenue growth in the first 3 years is attributed to increased market penetration and in the remaining years to continued population growth. In most recreation facilities the first 3 years show tremendous growth from increasing the market share of patrons who use such facilities; but at the end of this time period, Exhibit 5.6 5 Year Revenue Expense Comparison
revenue growth begins to flatten out. Additional revenue growth is then spurred through increases in the population within the market area, a specific marketing plan to develop alternative markets, the addition of new amenities or by increasing user fees. Page 26