Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-06-14 PACKET 05N • On April 20, 2011 the City Council provided direction to proceed toward development of a Community Center /YMCA. The packet material from that meeting is enclosed as an exhibit to this agenda item and contains the Task Force Report and the Market Study for the project. Also enclosed is a Preliminary Development Agreement (Letter of Intent/LOI) along with two exhibits depicting the proposed site if the project proceeds as part of the Ravine Parkway government campus. The Task Force evaluated three sites for this project. These were: Norris Marketplace at 80 Street and Hadley Avenue, the current City Hall site at 80 Street and Hemingway Avenue, and the Campus site at 85 Street and Ravine Parkway. The Task Force recommended the latter of the three, the Campus site, as preferred. The City Council has not taken a formal position on the site. The YMCA as our development partner would pursue any of the three sites with the contingency being that whichever of these sites are chosen it is deeded to the YMCA without cost. It is believed that the Campus site would be the lowest cost site option for the City. Through the market study conducted on behalf of the YMCA and the City it was determined that 85% of the survey respondents are in favor of a joint City /YMCA community center. Further, that 19% of respondents are willing to encumber a property tax increase of $40 or more to support the new "community center ". Another 24% (43% total) would support a $30 to $39 tax increase. Another 32% (75% total) would support a $20 to $29% per year tax increase with 23% of respondents unwilling to experience a tax increase. The survey research supports that the EDA and/ or City Council could anticipate support of an investment into this project. Upon the above the City Council directed that staff negotiate a LOI with the YMCA. A draft LOI is enclosed for your consideration. At this point it is uncertain as to the project approach (ownership entity and relationship between the parties as partners or simple investment) and the LOI is intended to enable any of the potential models. Further, the LOI has action steps within that require completion as part of a future development agreement. Adoption of this LOI would signal the first step of a partnership between the parties. Council has discussed that this project should proceed to a fall (e.g. November 8, 2011) referendum that addresses any City investment in the project. It is intended that Council schedule a referendum question at their meeting of July 20, 2011. Further, that a committee be reformed with responsibilities for community education regarding this project. The first meeting of that committee is to be held on June 9, 2011. It is requested of the EDA that the Board review the draft LOL Upon review we would ask for amendment or adoption thereof. Adoption would require Council ratification. EDA Board Action: By motion authorize adoption of the proposed LOI between the City and the YMCA. COTTAGE GROVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, dated this Cottage Grove Economic Development laws of Minnesota ( "EDA ") and WITNESSETH: _ day of 200 by and between the Authority, a public body corporate and politic under the ( "Developer "): WHEREAS, EDA desires to promote development of certain property within Cottage Grove, which property is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto ( "Property "); and WHEREAS, Developer has submitted a preliminary market study for development of the Property (the "Development "), supporting economic viability of a Community Center/YMCA development; and WHEREAS, Developer has requested EDA to explore the use of public financing or other public assistance on behalf of the City to offset a portion of the costs of the Development; and WHEREAS, EDA has determined that it is in EDA's best interest that Developer be designated sole developer of the Property during the term of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, EDA and Developer are willing and desirous to undertake the Development if (i) a satisfactory agreement can be reached regarding EDA's commitment for public costs necessary for the Development; (ii) satisfactory mortgage and equity financing, or adequate cash resources for the Development can be secured by Developer; and (iii) the economic feasibility and soundness of the Development and other necessary preconditions have been determined to the satisfaction of the parties; and WHEREAS, EDA is willing to evaluate the Development and work toward all necessary agreements with Developer. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and obligations set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: Negotiations between the parties shall proceed in an attempt to formulate a definitive development contract ( "Contract ") based on the following: (a) Developer submits a definitive proposal, which shows the scope of the proposed Development including a budgeted sworn construction statement and projected operating statement; (b) a mutually satisfactory Contract to be negotiated and agreed upon in accordance with negotiations contemplated by this Agreement; RHB- 220293vt CT165 -1 (c) such documentation regarding economic feasibility of the Project as EDA may wish to undertake during the term of this Agreement; and (d) other terms and conditions of this Agreement. 2. It is the intention of the parties that this Agreement: (a) documents the present understanding and commitments of the parties; and (b) will lead to negotiation and execution of a mutually satisfactory Contract for the Development prior to the termination date of this Agreement. The Contract (together with any other agreements entered into between the parties hereto contemporaneously therewith) when executed, will supersede all obligations of the parties hereunder. 3. During the term of this Agreement, Developer shall: (a) Submit to EDA a design proposal to be approved by EDA showing the location, size, and nature of the proposed Development, including floor layouts, renderings, elevations, and other graphic or written explanations of the Development. The design proposal shall be accompanied by a proposed schedule for the starting and completion of all phases of the Development. (b) Submit an over -all cost estimate for the design and construction of the Development. (c) Submit a time schedule for all phases of the Development. (d) Undertake and obtain such other preliminary economic feasibility studies, income and expense projections, and other economic information as Developer may desire to further confirm the economic feasibility and soundness of the Development. (e) Submit to EDA a financing plan showing that the proposed Development is financially feasible. (f) Furnish satisfactory, financial data to EDA evidencing Developer's ability to undertake the Development. 4. During the term of this Agreement, EDA agrees to: (a) Commence the process necessary to create a public project financing, to the extent such process is necessary pursuant to the terms of the Proposal. (b) Proceed to seek all necessary information with regard to the anticipated public costs associated with the Development. (e) Estimate EDA's level and method of financial participation in the Development and develop a financial plan for EDA's participation. RRB- 220293vl 2 M65 -1 5. It is expressly understood that execution and implementation of the Contract shall be subject to: (a) A determination by EDA in its sole discretion that its undertakings are feasible based on (i) the projected revenues designated by EDA; (ii) the purposes and objectives of any development plan created or proposed for the purpose of providing financial assistance for the Development; and (iii) the best interests of EDA. (b) A determination by Developer that the Development is feasible and in the best interests of Developer. 6. This Agreement is effective from the date hereof through , 200 . After such date, neither party shall have any obligation hereunder except as expressly set forth to the contrary herein. 7. Developer shall be solely responsible for all costs incurred by Developer. S. This Agreement may be terminated upon five days written notice by EDA to Developer if: (a) an essential precondition to the execution of a Contract cannot be met; or (b) if, in the respective sole discretion of EDA or Developer, an impasse has been reached in the negotiation or implementation of any material term or condition of this Agreement or the Contract; or (c) EDA determines that its costs in performing under this Agreement will exceed financial feasibility or its ability to service any projected debt obligations; 9. Developer is designated as sole developer of the Property during the term of this Agreement. EDA agrees not to negotiate with or entertain development proposals from other patties regarding the Property during the term of this Agreement. 10. In the event that Developer, its heirs, successors or assigns, fail to comply with any of the provisions of this Agreement, EDA may proceed to enforce this Agreement by appropriate legal or equitable proceedings, or other similar proceedings, and Developer, its heirs, successors or assigns, agree to pay all costs of such enforcement, including reasonable attorneys` fees. 11. If any portion of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of any remaining portion of the Agreement. 12. In the event any covenant contained in this Agreement should be breached by one party and subsequently waived by another party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular RHB- 220293vr 3 CT165 -1 breach so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach. 13. Notice or demand or other communication between or among the parties shall be sufficiently given if sent by mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested or delivered personally: (a) As to EDA: Cottage Grove Economic Development Authority Attention: Executive Director 7516 80th Street South Cottage Grove MN 55016 -3161 RHB- 220293v1 4 Cr165 -1 (b) As to Developer: 14. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in any number of counterparts, all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. 15. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Minnesota. Any disputes, controversies, or claims arising out of this Agreement shall be heard in the state or federal courts of Minnesota, and all parties to this Agreement waive any objection to the jurisdiction of these courts, whether based on convenience or otherwise. 16. The Developer hereby agrees to protect, defend and hold the EDA and its officers, elected and appointed officials, employees, administrators, commissioners, agents, and representatives harmless from and indemnified against any and all loss, cost, fines, charges, damage and expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees, consultants' and expert witness fees, and travel associated therewith, due to claims or demands of any kind whatsoever (including those based on strict liability) arising out of (i) the development, marketing, sale or leasing of all or any part of the Property, including, without limitation, any claims for any lien imposed by law for services, labor or materials furnished to or for the benefit of the Property, or (ii) any claim by the state of Minnesota or the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency or any other person pertaining to the violation of any permits, orders, decrees or demands made by said persons or with regard to the presence of any pollutant, contaminant or hazardous waste on the Property; and (iii) or by reason of the execution of this Agreement or the performance of this Agreement. The Developer, and the Developer's successors or assigns, agree to protect, defend and save the EDA, and its officers, agents, and employees, harmless from all such claims, demands, damages, and causes of action and the costs, disbursements, and expenses of defending the same, including but not limited to, attorneys fees, consulting engineering services, and other technical, administrative or professional assistance. This indemnity shall be continuing and shall survive the performance, termination or cancellation of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as a limitation of or waiver by EDA of any immunities, defenses, or other limitations on liability to which EDA is entitled by law, including but not limited to the maximum monetary limits on liability established by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. 17. The Developer, for itself, its attorneys, agents, employees, former employees, insurers, heirs, administrators, representatives, successors, and assigns, hereby releases and forever discharges the EDA, and its attorneys, agents, representatives, employees, former employees, insurers, heirs, executors and assigns of and from any and all past, present or future claims, demands, obligations, actions or causes of action, at law or in equity, whether arising by statute, common law or otherwise, and for all claims for damages, of whatever kind or nature, and for all claims for attorneys' fees, and costs and expenses, including but not limited to all claims of any kind arising out of the negotiation, EDA consideration, execution and performance of this Agreement between the parties. RHB- 220293v1 5 CT165 -1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, EDA has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its name and behalf and its seal to be duly affixed hereto and Developer has caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year fast above written. DEVELOPER By Its: By Its: COTTAGE GROVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By Its Chair By Its Executive Director RHB- 220293v1 Cr165 -1 Description of Property RHB- 220293vl A -1 CT165 -1 EXHIBIT B Project Proposal RHB- 220293v1 B -I CT165 -1 City of Cottage Grove Wold Architects and Engineers NEW PUBLIC SAFETY/ CITY HALL April 6, 201 W..A A, 10- Phase I �A Pu Page 4 Commission No. 102189 6ti e � ct ct J i E I i E t k F } j t� k e T } v fff { p A i F 2 t I 1 w E Y f FF E Vi y Df F ! f } p � t ! t r F E f ' R n FS Y Y. i ` • 1 •�# 3 '� f Z E. #. Sly z} cE R 0 Y� RG Y / a I Y t�' 1 w E Y f E Vi r l } p � t ! t r F E ' R n FS Y Y. i ` • 1 T Sly z} cE R Y� RG Y / Y t�' 1 w E Vi • REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 4/20!11 PREPARED BY Community Development Jennifer Levitt ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Consider placing on file the Community Center Task Force Final Report. Consider authorizing staff to commence negotiations with the YMCA in preparing a Letter of Intent. Consider establishing a committee to make a recommendation on a referendum. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive and place on file the Community Center Task Force Final Report, 2. Authorize staff to commence negotiations with the YMCA in preparing a Letter of Intent. 3. Establish a committee to make a recommendation on a referendum. ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE REVIEWED ❑ PLANNING ❑ ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ ❑ COMM CENTER TASK FORC 311/11 ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ❑ MEMO /LETTER: Memo from John McCool dated 4/13/11 ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ❑ OTHER: Community Center Task Force Final Report ADMIN COMMENTS APPROVED DENIED ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ /City Administrator � ate COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER (M CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE MINNESOTA TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator FROM: John McCool, Senior Planner DATE: April 13, 2011 RE: Community Center Task Force — Final Report Proposal The Community Center Task Force has completed their final report. The City Council is requested to: 1) Receive and place on file the Community Center Task Force's Final Report. 2) Authorize city staff to commence negotiations with the YMCA of Greater St. Paul /Metropolitan Minneapolis officials in preparing a Letter of Intent. 3) Establish a committee of Task Force members and others to come back with a recommendation on a referendum. Since it is presumed that a referendum would include money for parks improvements, members of the Parks Commission could also be included. A copy of the Final Report, Ballard -King Market Study, 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study prepared for the YMCA of Greater St. Paul and the City of Cottage Grove, and the Task Force meeting minutes are enclosed. Background In early 2009, the City Council established the Community Center Task Force to study the feasibility of a community center in Cottage Grove. The Task Force was charged with studying the following: • The need for a community center. • The appropriate elements or programs of a community center. • Possible sites. • Operating models for a community center. The Task Force looked at recreational facility needs in Cottage Grove, toured existing com- munity centers in the area, heard from consultants who have developed centers, investigated possible sites for a center, studied the potential capital and operating costs of a center, and participated with the YMCA in conducting a market study of developing a YMCA in the community. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Ryan Schroeder Community Center Task Force — Final Report April 13, 2011 Page 2 of 3 A summary of the topics discussed at the 15 meetings held by the Task Force is attached as Appendix A. Discussion Two different market studies were prepared in the process of evaluating the potential market area for a community center facility in Cottage Grove. The Market Study prepared by Ballard - King & Associates in February 2010 was based on 2000 census data and 2014 population projections. The basic demographic characteristics within the primary and secondary market areas were compared with basic sports participation standards produced by the National Sporting Goods Association. The YMCA telephone survey was jointly funded by the City and YMCA and conducted by the market research firm Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc, in late 2010. The purpose of this research was to assess whether Cottage Grove residents support the development of a new city community center that would be operated by the YMCA. Three hundred fifty residents living within a five -mile radius of three proposed sites were randomly drawn by age, proportionate to the ages of the 15,734 households in the sample area. The response rate was 83 percent. Both studies reasonably indicated that Cottage Grove would continue to grow in population with continued large household sizes and a relatively young population. The analysis also showed median household incomes within the primary and secondary market areas are higher than regional and national levels, which suggest that discretionary income is available for recreational opportunities. The YMCA market study indicated there was sufficient numbers of potential member for a YMCA and a majority of the respondents favored a partnership between the City and YMCA. Input from the Council is needed with regard to the YMCA proposal. With that input, further negotiations can take place and formal agreements for Council consideration at a future City Council meeting. Some preliminary issues that Council could provide direction on are: - Cost allocation and primary responsibility for preliminary design. - Process to determine site location. - Authority to determine final program for facility. - City funding contribution. - City's long -term interest in the facility. - Maintenance standards. - Program and facility expectations. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Ryan Schroeder Community Center Task Force — Final Report April 13, 2011 Page 3 of 3 WETCOMINOTMOTIfft 1) Receive and place on file the Community Center Task Force's Final Report. 2) Authorize city staff to commence negotiations with the YMCA of Greater St. Paul /Metropolitan Minneapolis officials in preparing a Letter of Intent. 3) Establish a committee of Community Center Task Force members and others to come back with a recommendation on a referendum. Since it is presumed that a referendum would include money for parks improvements, members of the Parks Commission could also be included. IN 2: w z z aa,2 Ma �� Draft— 3124111 Community Center T ask Force The Task Force was comprised of 23 members appointed by the City Council and solicited input from many resource persons. Task Force Wlembem Scott Briggs Keith Kleinsasser Jim Pyle Ken Brittain Jon Larsen Jim Rostad Virgil Flack Donald Long William Royce Tom Hren James McCalvy Erik Ohrt Tanweer Janjua Craig Patterson Dave Thiede Herb Japs Joseph Pavel Diane Thielen Ron Kath Ernie Pines Sherry Wiiwert Gary Kjellberg Paul Poncin Resource Persons: Howard Blin, Community Development Director Zac Dockter, Ice Arena, Park and Recreation Manager John Burbank, Senior Planner John McCool, Senior Planner Kathy Dennis, Planning Secretary Robin Roland, Finance Director Molly Pietruszewski, Program Coordinator Greg Weibel, YMCA Erik Carlson, Parks and Recreation Director, City of Inver Grove Heights Dan Haas, City o` Shoreview Community Center Task Force peas 2 of 13 Final Report —April 2011 Draft — 3124111 In early 2009 the City Council established the Community Center Task Force to study the fea- sibility of a community center in Cottage Grove. The Task Force was charged with studying the following: The need for a community center ® The appropriate elements or program of a center Possible sites Operating models for a center The Task Force looked at recreational facility needs in Cottage Grove, toured existing Com- munity centers in the area, heard from consultants who have developed centers, investigated possible sites for a center, studied the potential capital and operating costs of a center, and participated with the YMCA in conducting a market study of developing a YMCA in the community. At the conclusion of the process, the Task Force made the following recommendations: 1) A community center should be developed. 2) Cottage Grove should partner with the YMCA to construct the center vVith the YMCA responsible for operating the facility. 3) The community center should include the following elements: aquatics facility, teen and senior center, fitness center, indoor playground, gymnasium, multi- function space, and outdoor splash pad. 4) The community center should be built at the site of the new Public Safety /City Hall building on Keats Avenue and 85th Street. Duroose of a Community Center — The Task Force determined that a center should include a variety of facilities to meet the recreational and social needs of the community. A community center was determined to be an amenity feature in the community, a facility which would help attract residential and commercial/development in the city In addition to being a place for people to exercise, it should also be a community gathering place. As such, it should be designed to provide informal meeting areas for community members. Recreation Facility Feeds Study — The Task Force reviewed the 2005 Cottage Grove Recreation Facility needs Study and found that the overall park system in Cottage Grove is excellent, well designed and maintained, and meets most needs. Based on national averages and trends, the Task Force noted that the study suggested the following short -term and long- term recommendations: Community Center Task Force Page 3 of 13 Final Report — April 2oh 1 Draft — 312411': Shos 4 -Ter€n Recort mendat €ores " song -Tarim Rscor€ mandations: 12 Build 2 to 3 soccer fields m Acquire additional 300 to 350 acres al parkland Add second ice sheet M Add softball and baseball,fields to Hamlet Park a Prepare Mississippi River park plan a Build sports park * Improve accessibility * Renovate /replace park shelters * Prepare acquisition strategy for sports park * Acquire off -lease dog area * Improve arts opportunities * Continue to add trails The program for a facility (e.g., arts, indoor pool, meeting rooms, recreation facilities, etc.) should be determined early in the process. Concern was expressed for potential impacts a community facility might have with local businesses that provide similar services, such as banquet facilities, reception halls, or exercise facilities. An excerpt from the Recreation Facility Needs Study pertinent to Community Center Recreation options can be viewed in Appendix B. Public and Private Faoiliities Inventory — An inventory of various public and private facilities in Cottage Grove was presented to the Community Center Task Force to provide a better under- standing of what meeting rooms, athletic facilities, reception/banquet facilities, and auditoriums are available in the community for public use. The Public and Private Facilities Inventory is shown in Appendix C. This research identified that most City and Washington County meeting rooms are generally booked during the day time and not available for the public's use after hours. The School District osiers a variety of meeting rooms, gymnasiums, and cafeterias at selected school buildings for a fee. The School Board meeting room is only available for the District's use. None of the facilities are available during holiday breaks, The meeting room at the Park Grove Library is used often and there is no charge. The Cottage Grove Armory is available for public use, but the National Guard does not make an effort to market the availability for their meeting rooms, gymnasium, or cafeteria. The American Victor Sports Bar has a meeting room that is often used. The room is relatively small for receptions or banquets, The VF\N Nail is a large facility that has tables and chairs for approximately 300 people. The Cedarhurst Mansion is also available for receptions and meetings. Many churches In the community allow other organizations or residents to use a meeting room in their building. The River Oaks Municipal Golf Course and Mississippi Dunes Link Golf Course also have recep- tion, banquet, and meeting roorns available. During the prime season (April through October), both facilities are busy on the weekends with special events, tournaments, and receptions, with occasional events during the weekdays. During the winter months, the number of events drops significantly. There are 26 public parks in Cottage Grove. The park type and recreation facilities at each park vary. Four of the six community parks have buildings where meetings could be held inside, but i Community Center Task Force Page 4 of 13 Final Report — Apel 2011 Draft — 3124111 those four buildings only have a few tables and chairs. Indoor and outdoor recreational facilities are available at eight school properties and 29 public parks and facilities. Two different market studies were prepared in the process of evaluating the potential market area for a community center facility in Cottage Grove. The Market Study prepared by Ballard - King & Associates in February 2010 was based on 2000 census data and 2014 population projections. The basic demographic characteristics within the primary and secondary market areas were compared with basic sports participation standards produced by the National Sporting Goods Association. The YMCA telephone survey was jointly funded by the City and YMCA and conducted by the market research firm Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. in late 2010. The purpose of this research was to assess whether Cottage Grove residents support the development of a new city community center that would be operated by the YMCA. Three hundred fifty residents living within a five -mile radius of three proposed sites were randomly drawn by age, propor- tionate to the ages of the 15,734 households in the sample area. The response rate was 83 percent. The study focused on the respondent's familiarity with; ® YMCA programs ® Their desired programming and facilities of a community center Membership interests at each of three proposed locations Their acceptance of a partnership between the City and YMCA c Their willingness to support the use of city funds and increased property taxes to fund the project Market projections for a community center in Cottage Grove operated by the YMCA. The two studies are summarized below Community Canter Market Analysis — Ballard -King & Associates was hired to provide pre- liminary market analysis and demographic characteristics of the market. The consultant identi- fied primary and secondary service areas that would potentially support a community center. The primary service area is generally defined by the distance people will travel on a regular basis to utilize a facility or its programs. Secondary service areas were defined by the distance people will travel on a less consistent basis to utilize a facility or its programs. The first part of the market study indicated that Cottage Grove would continue to grow in population with continued large household sizes and a relatively young population, The analysis also showed median household incomes within the primary and secondary market areas are higher than regional and national levels, which suggests that discretionary Income is available for recreational opportities. The market analysis also projected the potential participation. 'in various recreation activities. The results generally supported fitness activities that were not necessarily "team" oriented pro- grams. This characterization generally favors fitness centers. The area of greatest participant growth is in fitness-related activities such as exercise with equipment, aerobic exercise, and group cycling. Community Center Task Force ?age 5 of 13 Final Report — April 2011 Draft - 3!24/11 Providing for a variety of activities and programs in a single location continues to grow in acceptance. These facilities have become identifiable centers for communities and have pro- moted family recreation values. The analysis indicated that `the key to success revolves around the concept of intergenerational use in a quality facility that has multi -use capabilities and the versatility and flexibility to meet ever changing leisure needs." Ballard-King's report also highlighted the leisure pool concept as the hottest trend in aquatics. The idea of incorporating slides, water current channels, fountains, zero depth entry, and other water features into a pool's design has proven to be extremely popular for recreation users. T hese types of facilities are able to attract and draw larger crowds, and people tend to come from a further distance and stay longer to utilize such pools. For many centers, the indoor aquatic complex has become the focal point for the facility and has expanded the market area. The second part of the market study prepared by Ballard -King identified alternative service providers within the market areas and provided some general program trends. Based on the preliminary analysis of a community center, market study analysis, Recreation Facility bleeds Study conducted in 2005, and assessment of the alternative service providers in the area, a community center comprising of approximately 59,236 to 71,154 gross square feet was sug- gested. The preliminary market study results suggested the following program facilities and their respective space allocations: Component Base Facility maximum s . ft.)1 Aquatic Area 14,000 Gymnasium 12,000 - 12,500 T rack l 0 - 6.000 1 Weigh` /Cardio 6,500 - 7,000 A erobic /Dance Rlulti- purpose Room 1 1,200 -1,500 3,500 - 5,00 Teen & Senior Area 2,000 - 2540 Indoor Pia r Structure 1.200 - 1.500 Birthday Pa. Rooms 500 i Support Spaces 9.000 9,500 Net Building Circulation i8 %j Tntal R iilnina 50.200 - 60,300 9,026 - 10,85 59.236 - 71,154 Comments made concerning the preliminary facility space are highlighted below: Weight and cardio area needs to be larger based on comments by staff at other com- munity centers that fitness is a popular program and tends to be the most used. While total youth pa ticipation in team sports has remained constant, there are more small teams that demand more practice times. Renting gymnasium space does not create much revenue, but merely covers some of school district's operating expenses. ® Gym space can draw other family members to use other facilities in a community center. Community Center Task Force Page 8 of 13 Final Report -April 2011 Draft— 3/24(41 ® Operating and maintenance expenses to maintain a larger building should be evaluated. ® School district gymnasiums are not always available for public use on weekends or holi- days. School activities and programs are scheduled before they are available for the public's general use. Gymnasium space is needed for fundraising opportunities by various athletic associa- tions. It was suggested that the proposed gymnasium space is not needed. Alterna- tively, a smaller gym space at the time of initial construction with the ability to expand the gymnasium in the future is an alternative. Community center and program facilities should be community based, not only to be used by organized sports. ® There are existing pools at Cottage Grove Middle School, Oltman Biddle School, and Norris Square, in addition to the City's outdoor pool. ® An aquatic park tends to be the amenity that draws people to a community center, but is the most expensive to construct and operate. The Task Force was presented with information from a market study perfonned by Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. for the YMCA to assess whether Cottage Grove residents support the development of a new city community center that would be operated by the YMCA. A copy of the Community Center Market Analysis prepared by Ballard -King & Associates is attached as Appendix D. Based on the preliminary program facilities and their respective space allocations, Appendix E compares this information with community centers located in Inver Grove Heights, Shoreview, Maple Grove, Maplewood, and Chaska, and the Lifetime f=itness, Southeast YMCA, and Golds Gym facilities in the City of Woodbury. YMCA Study — The market study found that there was sufficient numbers of potential members for a YMCA. It also found that a majority of the respondents favored a partnership between the City and YMCA to develop a facility. This included support for City financing of a YMCA. Given the results of the study, the YMCA is willing to continue discussions with the City on developing a facility, YMCA Survey Eii hEi hts a Market study conducted between November 19, 2010 and December 18, 2010, 8 Telephone survey of 350 residents. Response rate was 83 percent. ® 75 percent of the respondents have lived in Cottage Grove for 10 or more years. G 53 percent of the respondents do not have children under the age of 11 a 89 percent of the respondents are familiar with the YMCA. Community CenterTask Force Page 7 of ".3 Final P,epert— April 2011 Draft— 3/2411 %� 53 percent of the respondents are interested in programs for people 65 or older at the new community center facility. 54 percent of the respondents are interested in youth and teen programming at the new community center facility. 85 percent of residents surveyed would like to see a community center, operated by the YMCA, located in Cottage Grove. ® 74 percent of residents surveyed supported a partnership between the YMCA and City to develop a community center. 70 percent of the residents surveyed supported the use of City funds to construct a new community center. Amount of property tax increase respondents that pay property taxes are willing to pay LO support a new community center $40 or more per year —19% $30 to $39 per year — 24% $20 to $29 per year — 32% Unwilling to pay any increase — 23% ® 60 percent or more of the respondents were interested in the following water facilities or activities that a new community center could offer: o An indoor aquatic center with a water slide, a play area for children and a zero -entry pool c An indoor pool for lap swimming o A whirlpool o Water aerobics and other water exercise programs. ® 60 percent or more of the respondents were interested in the following fitness programs and services that a new community center could offer: c An indoor track for walking or running e Cardiovascular fitness machines — c Strength conditioning machines and free weights • A multi- purpose gymnasium for activities such as basketball and volleyball • Health � and wellness programs. ® 50 percent or more of the respondents were interested in the following fitness programs and services that a new community center could offer: o Group fitness classes C) Yoga and Piiates classes o Personal trainers and fitness assessments. A copy of the 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study prepared by Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates is attached as Appendix F. Community Center Task Fome Faae 8 of 13 Final Report —April 2011 R, Draft— 3124111 in determining the appropriate elements for the community center, the Task Force relied on information from several sources: ® A needs identification exercise that the Task Force conducted. This included examining existing recreational facilities in the area. Tours of existing community centers in the area and conversations with staff of those centers. 0 The market study prepared by Ballard -King & Associates. ® The YMCA market study. Through this process the Task Force identified the following key components of a building program: Aquatic Center. A principal need in the communty is for a indoor aquatics facility that would include a water slide, play area for children, zero -entry pool, and a lap pool. As described in the Ballard -King study aquatics facilities are important attractions for community centers and are critical to attracting members. Fatness Center. Respondents to the YMCA survey rated a fitness center very highly in level of interest. Such a facility would include cardiovascular fitness machines, strength conditioning machines and free weights, and exercise studios. During the course of the study, the Task Force learned that fitness centers tend to receive the most use In a facility and are the largest revenue generators. TeenlSenio' Center. The need for a teen center in the community was identified early in the process. This would be an area for teens to congregate and participate in activities. The need to enhance the existing senior center operated by ISD 833 was also discussed. Future facility planning should include options for separate spaces for teens and seniors or explore possiblities for combining these uses into a single space as has been acomp €fished at the White Bear Lake YMCA, Gymnasium viitih Walking Track, The Task Force determined that additional gym space was needed in the community. It was also learned that gyms are important components of community centers for informal games and for use as exercise space. The YMCA study also showed high interest in an indoor track for walking and running. Such a track should be Incorporated into the gym space. indoor Playground. Several of the community centers visited included indoor playgrounds fo use by younger children. The Task Force concluded that including a playground should be explored in facility planning. Multi- Funcat €on Space. Flexible space that could be used for meeting rooms or group exercise space should be included. Community Cema. Task Force Page 9 of 13 Final Report— April 2011 D raft — 3124)11 Outdoor Splash Pad, Operating outdoor swimming pools can be cost prohibitive. The newest trend in outdoor water facilities is splash pads, which require less staffing and maintenace than a pool. The City is in the process of finalizing a study of the potential demand for splash pads in Cottage Grove. The results of this study should be used in planning the community center. Facility components that were considered but ultimately not recommended include: Theater. The Task Force concluded that the need for performing arts space is being met by area schools, particulary with the Center for the Arts additon to East Ridge High School to be operated by Arts Connection. Banquet Facility. It was determined that any banquet facility may not be compatible with a YMCA operated facility and would compete with the existing City -owned banquet facility at the River Oaks Golf Course. The study investigated possible sites for a community center. This included analysis of various sites by the Task Force, including three sites to be tested for support in the YMCA Market Study. Potential sites studied by the Task Force included: - Hamlet Park Home Depot Property - Current City Hall/ County Library Site - Oakwood Park - Park High School,'Ice Arena Site- - Highland Park - Fire Station 2 - Kingston Park/Cottage Grove Biddle School Site - County Service Center/ Ravine Parkway Site - Cottage View Theater Property - Langdon Village Area These sites were evaluated on the basis of the following Criteria: ® Ten -acre minimum parcel size • Proximity to population densities • Proximity to future population center • Outdoor recreation • Site preparation costs • Site and building expandability potential m Access (street, pedestrian, bike, transit, etc.) * Proximity to other facilities ® Acquisition costs ® Availability of utilities Access to local transit ® Parking and aesthetic values Location was one of the most important issues investigated by the Task Force. The idea of creating a public gathering place or civic campus center where public facilities could share open spaces, parking, building uses, and trails was of particular interest by the Task Force. Community Center Task Force page 10 of 13 Final Report —April 2011 Draft — 3/24 After completing the analysis, the Task Force gave the highest ranking to the County Service Center /Ravine Parkway and Fire Station 2 sites. YMCA's Locations In the YMCA surrey, respondents were told that three different pro- posed locations were under consideration for a new community center. These sites were the Norris Square, existing City Hall /Library and the County Service Center sites. The Task Force had eliminated the Norris Square and existing City Hall sites early in the process because the acreage was less than ten acres, not in proximity of the city's future population center, and site preparation costs were anticipated to be too much. The YMCA chose these sites because they used different criteria and believed a YMCA facility could work at any of these locations. The YMCA's results showed that all three sites would be acceptable to the survey respondents. At the March V2001 Task Force meeting, the group passed a motion that the new Public Safety /City Hall site along the Ravine Parkway is their preferred site for a community center. The Task Force expressed some concerns for the existing City Hall or Norris Square locations identified in the YMCA's survey because of limited land area, land acquisition costs, and the loss of commercial tax revenue at the Norris Square site. Construction Costs — Based on current construction prices, a community center would cost approximately $200 per square foot. With the projected size of the facility ranging from 50,000 to 75,000 square feet, constructing a center would cost between $10 million and $15 million. Tf 1 is range includes only the cost of building construction and does not include potential costs for land acquisition and street and utility improvements. Community Center Task Force Page 11 of 13 Final Report — April 2G11 Maintenance and Operation Costs — To determine potential operating costs for a community center, the Task Force looked at operating costs for existing community centers in the area: Chaska, Maple Grove, Maplewood, and Shoreview. The following shows operating revenues and expenses for these centers in 2008: Draft - 3124it Chaska, Maple Grove, and Maplewood ail operate their community centers as enterprise funds where depreciation expense is included in the operating expenses of the facility. Shoreview does not include depreciation. As shown above, the facilities all operate at an operating foss, requiring tax support from the general fund. in Cottage Grove, it is also assumed that operations of a City -owned community center would require a subsidy. Given the experience in other cities, city subsidies for operat- ing costs of a city -owned community center would cost the owner of a $200,000 house an estimated $40 to $60 per year in additional property taxes. DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS The Task Force examined various options for building and operating a center. These included a city built and operated center and a partnership with a private operator. The advantages and disadvantages of each are summarized below: City -Owned Advantacaes: Community Center: ® Control of facility design • Control of activities and programs offered • Community pride in ownership • Typically lower rates for users • Typically offer day use opportunities Disadvantages: ® Hiaher capital cost to community ® Ongoing operating subsidy Private Non-Profit Advantagi Center (a ,g ; YGVICA): 8 Provide community- centered activities and programs • Lower capital cost for community • No ongoing operating cost Disadvanta,2es: ® No community control over activities and programs Higher fees from typical community center Day use not encouraged and more expensive than city - owned facilities Private For-Profit Adyantaaes: Center (e.g.; Lifetirne & Generally perceived to be higher quality fitness facilities Fitness, L.A. Fitness): e Lowest capital cost for community a No ongoing operating cost Disadvantages: e No community control over activities and programs Highest cost Day use not allowed community center Task Force Pape 12 of 13 Final Report —AprP 2011 Draft — 3124/11 The membership fees charged for use of the various centers were investigated and the com- parison chart is attached as Appendix G: After reviewing the available information, the Community Center Task Force makes the fol- lowing recommendations. 1) A Community Center Should Be Developed. A center would meet a need in Cottage Grove for recreational facilities such as a swimming pool and fitness center. In addrion, a center would add an amenity to the community which would help attract residential and commercial /industrial development. 2) Partner with the YMCA. Working with the YMCA to build and operate a facility in Cottage Grove would provide the necessary recreational elements while avoiding the need for the City to operate a center. 3) Facility Elements. At a minimum and not ranked in any particular order, the YMCA should include: • Aquatics —A multi - aquatic facility that incorporates slides, fountains, zero depth entry, lap pools, and instructional(aqua fitness pools. • Teen /Senior Center— Shared space. • Fitness Center — Cardio fitness and weights. o Indoor Playground. o Multi- function Space — Smaller rooms that could be combined to create one larger room. o Gymnasium with walking track. c Splash pads outside. 4) The Community Center should be built at the site of the new Public Safefy/City Hall building along Ravine Parkway at Keats Avenue and 85th Street This site, while cur- rently located on the edge of the developed area of Cottage Grove, will over time be close to the center of development in the community. This site allows space for a new Washington County Library and will create, with the City Hall and Washington County South Service Center, a campus of civic uses. A PPENDIXES Appendix A: Process Summary Appendix B: Excerpt from the Recreation Facility needs Study (2005) Appendix C: Public and Private Facilities Inventory Appendix D: Ballard -King & Associates Market Study Appendix E: Preliminary Facility Space Comparison 2010 Appendix F: Cottage Grove Market Potential Study (YMCA Survey Results) Appendix G: Membership Fee Comparison Community Center Task Rona Page 13 of 13 Final Report — April 2011 APPENDIX A Efate I - Discussion Topics April 28, 2009 Community Center Task Force "Kick-oft" meeting. Procedural process generally discussed. Discussed critical milestones assessing the findings and direction for determining what type of community center might be needed. Preferred sites, conceptual site, facility designs, and options for financing to be evaluated. 2005 Recreational Facility Needs Study distri- i buted to all members. June 2, 2009 Community center amenities in Chaska, Inver Grove Heights, Maple Grove, Shoreview, and Eagan were presented. An overview of public and I private facilities currently available In Cottage Grove was presented. A I Public and Private Facilities Inventory. Public Park Facilities Inventory, and i, Cottage Grove Athletic Facilities Inventory were distributed to the Task Force members, Task Force members identified potential facilities and ranked the facilities. August 18, 2009 Toured veterans Memorial Community Center in Inver Grove Heights and the Shoreview Community Center. i October 6, 2009 Reviewed community center amenities in Inver Grove Heights, Shorevie nr, Minnetonka, Chaska, h4aple Grove, and Eagan. The Task Force supported 1 the preparation afi a market analysis to better understand the market area and determine the types of facilities the market area could support. Re- viewed the results of the facility priorities ranked at the June 2 meeting. II Discussed the pros and cons of a private or non- profit organization to owning and /or operating a community center. The idea of a civic campus i center concept was discussed. i January 5, 2010 An overview of the Cottage Grove 2030 Comprehensive Plan was pre - sented. Staging Plan, Future Parks and Open Space map, Future Trailway Plan, and Proposed Roadway Functional Classification map displayed. I Eleven potential sites were identified and discussed. An aerial photo and site characteristics of each site were presented. General consensus sup- ported the idea of including a public library with a community center or as part of a civic campus concept. The top five amenities ranked by the Task. Force were 1) indoor pool and water park; 2) theater; 3) teen center; 4) fit - ness center; and 5) senior center. The Task Force ranked the preliminary sites. March 2, 2010 The group again discussed the pros and cons of the preliminary sites identified in January 2010. Market Analysis prepared by Ballard -King & Associates was presented. Primary and secondary market areas identified, j i 2000 census and 2014 population projections were used in preparing the market analysis. Program facilities were discussed. f I Community Center Task Force Page S of 3 Append 19 A April 6, 2010 ' Conceptual drawing of a civic campus site north of the South Washington County Service Center and east of Keats Avenue was presented. A conceptual plan fitting a public safety /city hall, community center, county library, and parking ramp on the Norris Square site was discussed. The second part of the market study prepared by Ballard - King & Associates was discussed. Preliminary analysis suggested community support for a community center and recommended pro- f gram facilities were identified. Task Force members discussed the prefiminaryr facility space allocation in the report, Partnership models with private for profit (i.e,; Lifetime Fitness), non - profit (i.e.; YMCA), and a city owned and operated facility was discussed. Advantages and disadvantages for each partnership model were discussed. Member- ship fees for Lifetime Fitness, YMCA, and community centers in Inver Grove Heights, Shoreview, Maple Grove and Chaska were presented, j I Task Force members decided to proceed with the community center i i process, May 4, 2010 Ballard- King's preliminary market analysis and facility space allocation were discussed. YMCA projects in White Bear Lake, Andover, Elk River, and Lino Lakes were presented to the Task Force. Facility characteristics were compared for the community centers in Inver Grove Heights, Shoreview, Maple Grove, Maplewood, and Chaska; the Lifetime Fitness and Gold's Gym in Woodbury; and the Southeast in Woodbury. Financing alternatives and options were i YMCA discussed. June 1, 2010 Revised program recommendations from Ballard- King's preliminary market analysis were presented. Banquet facilities at River Oaks Golf Course and Mississippi Dunes Golf Links were described. Task Force members discussed the possibility that a community center with a i higher quality design and larger occupant capacity might be a niche in the community. Discussion topics included exceptional design, o,uality [ craftsmanship, event size flexibility was discussed; financing options, the costs to build and operate the facility, and how it will impact tax- payers; voter referendum to authorize issuance of general obligation bonds to finance construction; YMCA or Lifetime Fitness partnering models used in other communities; concept plans for a public safety/ city hall, YMCA, community center, library, and senior care Facility on the vacant parcel north of Norris Square; and the timing of a commu- nity survey. Additional tax levy based on three debt service scenarios were described to the Task Force. i August 16, 7010 Public SafetylCity Hall projec# and pre!imina y site renderings at the Ravine Parkway site were presented. The Task Force was informed of preliminary discussions with the St. Paul Area YMCA about facility partnership. The Task Force supported the idea of partnering with YMCA on a use preference phone survey. Task Force members dis- cussed the construction cost scenarios if the City did or did not partner I with the YMCA. Community Center Task Force Pzpe 2 o - 1 3 Appendix A Sept. 7 2010 Greg Weibel from the YMCA of Greater St. Paul described the YMCA facilities and partnerships at the Northeast YMCA (White Bear Lake), j Andover YMCA/Community Center, and the Elk River YMCA. Facility programs, a breakdown of the floor area for various program facilities, and project costs were presented. Model design, financial considera- tions, up -front costs, operation costs, and ownership responsibilities if partnering with another agency or business were identified as impor- tant issues that clearly needed to be understood by the community. Task Force members were updated on the design work for the Public Safety /City Hall project. Nov, 15, 2010 i The Task For was updated on the Public Safety /City Hall project. The Ravine Parkway bridge design and preliminary construction so dule were presented. Six site development concepts were described to � G the Task Force. The Task Force was updated on the YMCA's phone i I survey scheduled for early December 2010. ' January 25, 2011 i YMCA market study and the results from the phone survey were pre- sented to the Task Force. Survey results showed a high support for a community center and partnering with the YMCA. February 8, 2611 A copy of the YMCA Market Study survey summary was distributed to I Task Force members. Task Force members believed there is a strong j I correlation between their list of preferred facilities and the uses sup- ported by the respondents in the survey. Members discussed the advantages and disadvantages between a city -owned and operated facility versus partnering with a for- profit or non - profit organization, Future bond referendums by the School District were discussed. The Task Force unanimously approved a motion for the City to partner with the YMCA. The Task Force also summarized their facility preferences and supported the idea of a county library connecting with a commu- nity center. March 1, 2011 The draft Community Center Task Force Report was presented to the Task Force. They reiterated their support that the City continues dis- cussions with the YIV?CA. The Task Force suggested that the. report include an explanation on why the YMCA Market Study references the Norris Square and current City Hall sites and why the Task Force's preferred sites did not rank these sites as high. The criteria used in i I ranking the preferred sites were discussed. The Task Force unanim- ously approved a motion that the new Public Safety /City Hall site along Ravine Parkway be the preferred site for a community center. A, range for building size and construction costs to identify the scope of the project was also suggested to be included in the report community Censer Task Force Page 3 of 3 Appendix A APPENDIX 3, Communfty Center Recreation Options Deeds and Goals As envisioned a potential Community Center would be located in the East Ravine area in conjunction with a Washington County Service Center, a new Cottage Grove civic complex and recreation facilities. Community centers include a wide variety of facilities, See Appendix E for a summary of community centers in the metropolitan region. Successful community centers meet community and market needs and provide opportunities that are not present in the area. This translates into facilities and services tailored to meet the unique needs of the community. Partnerships for construction and operation are an important element of successful community centers. Further definition of City goals for a community center is needed to help define needs and potential recreation X acility recommendations. Answering the following questions will help guide evaluation of the need for a community center. A.) What are the community needs for a community center and what roles would it serve? Government center, recreation, sense of community, social services or other? B.) What is the target market for a Community Center in Cottage C -rove? Cottage Grove, the sub - region, Cottage Grove for most facilities with some sub - regional facilities? Coenir >unity Center Recreation Facility Options The City wanted information about the types of recreation facilities that could be part of a community center. T he following is a summary of the recreation facilities that are typically associated with community centers and some comments about potential benefits or issues involved with each facility. The purpose of this information is to assist the city as it continues evaluation of a potential community center and recreation facility options. Gymmissiums offer space for active recreation (basketball, volleyball, etc.) and exercise classes. They can be designed to be divisible into smaller spaces and can also be used for community events, meetings etc. Gym use typically appeals to youth and young adults, but all ages use gyms. Recreation PacRy Needs study Page 23 Cadage Grove, MN July 27, 2005 Gyms are desirable elements when teamed with a teen /youth center. Gyms are typically well used after school, on weekends and during the winter. Gyms, are typically a public facility. Evaluate the public access to and use of school gyms when considering new gym construction. Walking tracks and exercise rooms are used primarily by adults, seniors and older youth. Exercise classes, exercise equipment and indoor walking /running are popular and growing markets. Exercise rooms and walking tracks are found in public and private facilities. Walking tracks are popular with seniors and are well used during winter months. Multi - purpose field house. This is a large flexible indoor space that can be used for active recreation and community events. The choice of floor space is an Important consideration. Hard surfaces work well for court sports (basketball, volleyball and tennis), turf surface work well for field sport= (soccer, softball, baseball, etc.) Community ty meeting rooms, There is usually a demand for use of meeting rooms for civic and nonprofit groups, it is appropriate to evaluate the current market conditions, demand and cost - benefit of providing banquet rooms for rent for wedding receptions, family re- unions and company events. Farforming arts theater. Interest in the arts is increasing. A theater is a specialized space that is best suited when teamed with and active and established community or regional theater group. Aquatics (swimming, diving & water play). Can be indoor or outdoor pools or both. Outdoor water play is popular during warm weather. Indoor water play Is popular the rest of the year. There are at least three market segments - competitive and let) swimming, water pfayiaquatic play for children, and diving. It is difficult and expensive to meet all market segments. Pools, while very popular, are expensive to build and maintain. It is appropriate to conduct a market and cost - benefit evaluation of aquatic facilkles. Indoor ice skating rinks. Indoor Ice rinks for hockey and free staking are popular in Minnesota. Recreailon Fool' 'ity Needs Study Page 24 CoIlace Grove, MN July 27, 2005 indoor ice offers comfortable conditions and dependable high quality ice not found consistently in natural outdoor rinks. Indoor refrigerated rinks are expensive to build and maintain, but have potential for recover operating costs through rental of ice time. Ice rinks are more efficient in groups of two or more rinks. Groups of rinks allowed more efficient use of equipment and maintenance staff and allow tournament use. C.hildren's play equipment (indoor). Indoor play grounds use creative climbing and play equipment in a safe controlled setting. They are very popular with young children (ages 2 -8). The can be space efficient if built vertically. They offer the opportunity for revenue generation through admission and rental fees. Typically, they are teamed with meeting and event rooms for chiidren's and family parties, Senior and teen centers. Senior centers are wall - used facilities and have a strong market segment for the foreseeable future. Teen centers can be popular and well used, but the teen market is difficult to consistently reach. Teen centers should be teamed with a gymnasium and senior centers can benefit from access to a walking track and fitness equipment. Appendix E is a summary of community centers in the Twin Cities metropolitan region. it provides a baseline of information for the continued evaluation of the Community Center site in Cottage Grove. RecreaBon Padlity Needs Stidy Page 25 Collage Grove, MN July 27, 2006 FubH6 and Private FacHfflee lrnfentcr r Cottage Grove, E'EN May 2009 1 Pubifo& Pri vet¢ Facili:ias Address Occupancy Capacity Roos Sa e Public Avait blliy PsciBty Rental leatee vH Lovna'. GSanBZrs 7 68Chstmei { 4chn s;.h wit PAeb"Ceiy us'. 7�� 37Es ft. I ILMeiirw Looay iO ad '3 168 eo ft YY Mee'm Oniy t.A. Jtk _� ICs HIACnlcslrmr rfesence ROom fioOn Snavely yon He ormNp �z ,far er�cu wm lanais. ---- trz n 7s,. 8, .,ny Narstr Gat' IV(A r S (fort ,t Dols err_ROO..� 'oCaoE Aael;a 3 iG,nairf Ono' ft '4 C ty'AZeW s Col} Ni - N nn rtl.,. Lrn Training Room K 18a ,Shm K41 co p1.hy1,nO .ae, cutncuc�A _I Crn 10e Ccumh �oi,i5l NIF Selbn tQC 9�p onr. rerz PwT 1 1 `0th StY B ^I'- 216 s9{ G,q L4e m�s6 - a +ion yo 3 Conemos R OotR I7 oa ,I o0 Ls L nve ".G Chzirs 37E aq . c t/ M eratls Onry — M - 1 is1A �F le Si4ar. 1 a Confam" R Oem Edo05mp`Umel 10 m ain 36B e;. it. city unp NA lc Free '.mferenom prom &72EBY Sbe Bs 'Y G'tyM E Cty NI} petit VeelaCon re epoe" M35 1N Pold, uaalaa Rd. 7 h 5 " ' 2 it �"A Yo=Cn' lid` R�e!C.om lit"a colf^,mae- Clobhm9e I11O99 fh HIh .Y61 I 1 Sea pa rlf0.'Td,OII Saae`, y, Fm t._ „ovnV a - PaOi aram.h 0 em vzvAvenve. - WC' 1ctC 1 cae vnlle Cl -orch CO era namov P8 6' 1 .o o emd r c c:ea see Pe^.+6aw IVs (5 Pssma P skray E rnee( "m9 roan& County Proq:enso Chy A,efeys rarely Co Monti for ots aNe_PF a11 h"m d ty5 C /S000 N,F �--� -- SD E'+3 A t 17K2 E, Patn! Dovolas Rd, doh: the vle Chem 0C.= Isn E33 Boc Muni . nal Meethtc5 Canter ISD E33 E ., FrOSra:n Doter r 8AO0 E o'rc Dowias Rd _ i6vltlhn.seEaolSChuroA See Remml Rate Fyu tdtA IS- S3 GcabrCw'ns' Pert H# awl Bb.^ &. s e f G ?tnrasl.trrs i'moestors Stands 1 Antmly Center Conimmam Halo mys itodrias vary M. Hemet a&.[ I kings' Galenaes Caiewivma Dhbssmws Aebviom Cornm.w Areas Rocoa 'Fgeci.ce" 2er.:1Cw(r Poarrs Ploy Tennis Coves Welds Loden Roomy K1.he s IA011l ('See Rental Fetes fdye" 1 t, PYA A im,hoonht F Shod E 51m oa A aemua (Gres Dar School 19 - a -tn r —� t N i to Elamama s ',',c hoot v. TrT o6 Eamehm Scholl 7B308011 Sle Coto , ue EI :parr Sch 7A4 6 51 z "W �neN [e:nenlE 5TOd I' S a"I'm LEM i na e Pel hv e a am !he bw-'m re D e odame Evaymin }al' �enla LuthzraF ChutoS ' 8100 Seidel Hva. NIA fioOn Snavely Sahatl lc drat l'eh een ntr l .. omi nardba, lanais. ---- -,em ray mhe G sis ' hve no, hac harly � the Lord Jnueh e9s8'X'h Sdee NIA f ROO nZea vary �r co p1.hy1,nO .ae, cutncuc�A _I Crn 10e Ccumh �oi,i5l a s al' h0 i+eom Coe a<I tiC`ur v. ,.. r.:a Jdlcd dh[r�Jro phi st B v ,Jr 4s.. OL !vlA s.es vey I ; eve do =L,. l n l'_u `uPh2T @1 d/n by C�ae, noaJ omme ivcgroias ners COn.acttha Ghm? �H Mr ° IVlatt;tl ClNfGi �ttt2 BEra K -:. N]P, motces .a/ IrJtE J.' ."Jkf ey d :.iirA.'0.n15. Naw ®rye. 1 cae vnlle Cl -orch Ino .o o emd r c c:ea �I (e Day hn N,F �--� -- doh: the vle Chem 0C.= ae — _ i6vltlhn.seEaolSChuroA iRfr79 EOmt;lrzl tdtA I --� INm PYA haamd - ee"aGY_ ath 2"'ohJV+I' th,vvVOwd landbe tile L EvenO n -,,tv !11246 i b'.61 IVIA m ore Reaceeir CraaO do a s'CtuN' B0009r t iV'I Oahe. O'o ih,.^BoES Fee used meedog ' 3, Imeol bin elan Lill , e o 16&7 jariaAM HIP, Ra.msees rry' moms Contact the Gncseh � I i � I �e.-s de entlan. on image, Chic O; zOans Lyp Iry rnt SI. Luke Lu�aran C6urel 17000 tiinton 4ve, NIA Roarslzes °ry Venom lee tog'onns ate aaeNhle unarmed unless autll kond eVemcvs need.. „^O not o+Jmv bi aganlza!tons inmazL SDace NfA Mas cell" Gmmil B69s O-r Sleet WA NU, andmaahma."l olphem t.c I S Irn AP V - -` rcdt 7955 tlone ILon LuEerao Card) 3iCE lls lee kva, iJ(A R Omt sses v��_ WaPOw ero va'zal'. re. Cana^. the Chin (CONTINUED) pub is Park FacciE €tiES €nvenloarY aiaY 2009 Cctupzncy Room Slza C Public Avaliability Facility Rental Rates 1 Public Park Fscll fes Address Gapaclty Aubo. fA dos P 850 Johan A IVIA I PllA IV1F n A 'JA NIA Ealden Park ! 5200 Enclose Blvd. NIA + A 571ik CG Resi2aN OrSlGlni �Codra Grove fi6aNdpal Pod Gutdoorsheher 654185th Street NVk 5n3 $Pft O w'th lour picnic fables rn-uG Rasdart BO RaYdng =w, suss, Rustic P,estmoma, { One 36" X 36 Cheresal Gri140ne Elntric` $%= WealtdaY �Corage Grove Ravine Parr 9940 E. Pohl OouMes Rd NIA 1940 sq.4. Outlet, Cars s! -foot Be lo Counter, Wa ioadl Plent T amn, lM1+ater ^^..pigor tfootru'II Park 8400 FouUrN Road { NIA NIA IM NIA NIA. NI A Grenada Fzr'a 8377Granada Avenue NIA NIA Buiding = $9OInrCG Resident Bulidbi 6G0 sq.ft or$t71hrnon CG Resident Building with aYadled acheE oot shelter 450 A" W-is IOunteln, modern portable Outdoor shells[ _ $7fnrCG Ramat Perk 88fl'a HemletAverue rcaishca rand en aq ft CasdoorI restrooma and eirrshan I Residentor8lofnrnon CG outdoor s0alizr shelter 520 lad. It. resident P,ardwood Park i 6K9 HaNwood Ave. '11, 1 N/A ILIA �cuJdrn9-$i0 NIA sldenll Resident Bul!dirg -E52 Jda`e inuarein, modern G portable $ on non ^-. Pesldent eundog vvkhatta.,ned gross sgft , restrooms, zrdsix benches in,lin, Gefdoor draffe $71TV CG Nsard Pal, 8245 Hearusbe ree EBB f shelter BB natsa. fi budging ResleIart or $'Olhr non CO � j Sheller 336 4, t4 I I resident H.m.rm =Y Pmt 82,.9 Nemnov a Ave W F M4 N A 1 Iv,A 1 IVIA .vA Hlddan VahEy Fark 7220NIdden Valley Trail l IJ/A. NIA { Building = s %`r CG Residentj 5diding = 952 or $i7Mr rcn CG Rasfdent Building wiU1 attached grnas sq.fl. Four!zln modem & Portable restrooms, Oukoorshelter =17 /hrCG mrsPark 5975 Wean Avenue roof Shake Blotting =658 nee a; t, and ax benches inside belltlfap Res [den t or St0lhr non CG �Hlgh!l Shelter 335 sq f: resident IdEal Pat, V227 ideal AVenua NI' j NA NA w< -- -1 i 51de -705 anF -qft Pavilion, a✓adc fourfmr. two y7htr, srden o = €101nr Cu @e 919575th Sleet Pavilion S-nelta -1 S C anss sq.l oom to gull modern 8 Pod =! =mrooms, and en—C R sderit �Xingsion Pet I tenplotsI ire of g. =B bas sc ft �Bulkfio g'701h Ot nslaent� 84c = 260 net G . o VAfm nor CC Reeidert Bildirs mltt an i A- sh a. F-ounaln and modern & ponzble S,, door sk,o to °71rr CG Lamer Fields 7025 Lamar Ave. I sk h omf$letter' 264 s., mtkinorru asue to 4 '10Ih mn ^.G am c outdoor sheter: ( Two Ce hc"ou�or rosr en� �&haltere 60 (` =eptl k4 p. Jn2' o earl �G6ge +de Gn,u Gres Ar IJ;A v n ' T Ore -mle h e +fnrCBx anw xi0,nr I Ivir 'am { 77 8Ie v e D doo shelter 3- sc fi eIcdc I . Jo I P 80 e k u 4 N1 Its roarP ,,o s u a a OaY .cod fzrn i Y95 Psise .venu. I Pavirion Paeii on 74, sa, `_ ideri arils one purab ..W, vrrC Ra =u6^t OIc CCHZ^e G JomnunHl I 750Ji A j N/F 'OA N7A RA _ 1 4 h, � Building with n � B" $' � wo piuH?; ndles, rate dun` m Tracer $+ Inn CS nas cent or S17/h 1 P- r ompson Flandly Pak 6327 High nand k5s BL 1 - .Of sn Ih P; h d Roof E pogo msrnc: brit arbPGUe cols C ^? =ids attached Sheller - 6 r6 sq, it i Pre nuLa Pad; 11841 L- "an' -"e N7A IJlA NIA l h/A h`JA Hire c o -g 970+>femletnvsue e HILA Nr9, a +H NIK r Pond Part: 830r Eret n Cowl N NA t I Galan =$-0/h C ro,ldarn� Biding =1,256 a; gr'th•nonC Roolo.ni I rciih Buildrg tt'cned { Modem and portable metronome Dose ad, it Dunks, shrar $71nr CG en {Pre Ime Vedey Park 8431 Indtzn Blvd. ! sr Building - 600 net so it Fcedenta 510mr non CG resident 'VJ 1060 Msadawi G AvE, r how Icnlc tables Gutel Shelter 400 w, il. P r $7 /hr C6 Rssibemi or a7Glnr l esi DravrPak r_ G Bo-ri!tling = $101hr CG Resident j Bldg.= 1,44 pros sq, fl.j Eight picnic Takes, two bar6e rSgrnle, � nr$171hr Pon CGFcesident ( Surding and outdoor Bldg.= 630 net sq,ft. mofism& portale restrooms, and i Narrow Shel ter =$7Ps CG V7oodr'nhgs Park 50GL 90th S42et shelter Outdoor shelter eq. tountaln � Resident or$106 - For CG I � ` rL 1 I rasldanl (Continued) Links at Mississippi Dunes The banquet facility at Mississippi Dunes can accommodate up to 300 people. Their prime season for banquets, receptions, and meetings runs from the first Saturday after Easter to the end `of October. During this prime season, special events are generally scheduled for r= riday, Saturday, and Sunday with an occasional event or two during the week. During the winter months, they host six to eight events per month. The table below is the number of events for the last two years at Mississippi Dunes. This information includes golf tournaments during the golf season when a banquet was held after the tournament. River Oaks Munici€saG Golf Course The River Oaks clubhouse features a 7,000 square foot facility that specializes in corporate events, wedding receptions, dances, luncheon seminars, banquets, reunions, anniversary parties, holiday parties, and more. The clubhouse can be divided into three rooms. The River Room and Oak Room have a maximum capacity of 125 guests per room. The porch area is open year round and can accommodate 30 guests. The Lounge is a popular room that has a fireplace and opens up to a patio overlooking the golf course. The maximum capacity for this room is 60 guests. The table below shoves the number of banquets, wedding receptions, and meetings at River Oaks for the last ten years. In 2008, the average attendance at wedding receptions was 175, 89 for banquets, 20 for meetings, and 72 for banquets after golf tournaments. - Jas . I Feb, j Mar. ? r. I lay Jun. j ta July ug, Sept. 0--t. i Nov. Dec. Total 20€s 5 E g 6 7 22 20 9 11 i 9 1 3 439 2010 ° 3 1 7 17 2 i 20 j 19 17 45 j 10 5 1 123 River Oaks Munici€saG Golf Course The River Oaks clubhouse features a 7,000 square foot facility that specializes in corporate events, wedding receptions, dances, luncheon seminars, banquets, reunions, anniversary parties, holiday parties, and more. The clubhouse can be divided into three rooms. The River Room and Oak Room have a maximum capacity of 125 guests per room. The porch area is open year round and can accommodate 30 guests. The Lounge is a popular room that has a fireplace and opens up to a patio overlooking the golf course. The maximum capacity for this room is 60 guests. The table below shoves the number of banquets, wedding receptions, and meetings at River Oaks for the last ten years. In 2008, the average attendance at wedding receptions was 175, 89 for banquets, 20 for meetings, and 72 for banquets after golf tournaments. - At the annual Cottage Grove Volunteers' Banquet, an average of 170 guests attends this event each year at the River Oaks Golf Course clubhouse. 2000 1 2001 2002 1 2003 2004T 2006 200E 7 2007 1 2008 2009 Bar, nets 21 40 51 1 41 5E 6° - 1 n2 ( 87 83 weddings 17 2 9 28 , 29 2g 34 26 Ig 1 34 1 3', Meetings ` i 2 33 23 45 i 2' i 18 i 16 Golf vaifood F�SE j 34 j 38 29 29 I 32 f 35 3E 1 27 27 Totals 69 123 146 111 49 158 1A7 165 1 168 157 At the annual Cottage Grove Volunteers' Banquet, an average of 170 guests attends this event each year at the River Oaks Golf Course clubhouse. MARKET ANALYSIS Clt, of Coaage Grove, AIN Section L- DP- moot °a ae arrrizttar d I �a° Ut des i� The City of Cottage Grove is exploring the idea of a community recreation center. ile following market analysis looks at the demographic realities within the City of Cottage Grove and the surrounding areas and compares them to state and national numbers. 'The folloving is a surnmary of the basic demographic characteristics of the primary and secondary service areas and a comparison wth basic sports participation standards as produced by the National Sporting Goods Association. Sen7jee Areas: The focus of this market analysis is the City of Cottage Grove proper. It is recognized that there may be participants from outside the city lirnRs and because o£ that a larger secondary service area has been identified. Primary service areas are usually defined by the distance people 4vill travel on a regular basis (a minimum of once a week) to utilize a facility or its programs. Secondary service areas are usually defined by the distance people -�vdll travel on a less consistent basis (a minimum of once a month) to utilize a facility or its programs. Use by individuals outside of the secondary area \vill be liraited to special events (tournaments, swim meets, etc.) or visitors to the area Service areas can also vary in size with the types of components that are included in a facility. A center vrth an indoor pool and other active elements (weight cardiovascular equipment area, gym, track, etc.) will generally have a larger prnia.y service area than a more passively oriented facility. Specialized facilities such as an indoor ice rink or sports field mouse will have even larger service areas that make them more of a regional destination. Service areas can also be based upon a faci ty's proximity to major thoroughfares. Other factors impacting the use as it relates to driving distance are the presence of alternative service providers in the primary service area. Alternative service providers can have an impact upon membership, daily admissions and the associated penetration rates for programs. A�� *I TG Page I of 43 l �l� S A S S G C L.4 T E 3 LT D City of Cottage Gx€'ove, I II Service Area Statistics & C©mpacisou ~ V — i° 20410 Census 2109 Estimate 2014 Projection Primary Service Area 30,382 j 34,486 35,621 S econdary S °rvice Area 74,893 87.358 94,1 'IT F s.- 7r.xxcohnEr4e f"sian�tto ro6enn• j 2€ 00 Census ' 2009 Estimate 2014 Proi ection . Primary Ser ice Area 9,932 I1,613 12, Secondary Servisc Area 25.931 ( 31,134 33,826 j 2000 Census 2009 Estimate 1. 2014 Projecfl si Primary Service A Secondary Service Area 8,464 20,350 9.614 10190 23,877 23,637 j _ 2000 Ccus +zs 2109 Estiniate _ 2014 projection Prmazyy Service Area 3.07 2.96 2.93 Secondary Se ice Area 2.86 2.78 2.76 LTnsted States 2.39 159 1 2.59 Source — U.S. Census Bureau and ESPI 1 A- LARD Page 2of43 M �& AS30CIATE3 LTD A � LV I � L ,I�� B.-A-1-L k1kMENG Page s of 43 �+ & A SS J C I A T L S LT'S Primary Se wiee h,rea Nfap T�A4 -R A N <I LYSIS Population Dist La�t €ca h- Abe: Ltii z n� censw information for f le nrir:ary service area, the following comparisons are possible. Table A — 2009 Primary Service Area Aye Distributiog (ESRI estimates) Aties Po- ukatioii % of Pota1, Nat. Po "'uhatia i)i£iereface 5 2 1 8.5% 7.0% 1 1.5% 5 -17 7,409 1 21.5 OX, ( 17.4% 4.1% 18 -24 ( 2,611 7.6% 9.9% -13% 25 -44 j 10353 29.9% 26.9 ° ,0 3.0% 45 -54 ( 5,340 15.5% 14.6% 0.9% 55 -64 3.439 ( 10.0 11.4 ° /a 65 -74 1.b03 4.7% i 6.6% -1.9% 75L K0 1 2.4% 62% 3.8% Po rwlation: 2009 census estimates in the different age groups in the service area. of `f'otaI: Pe- centage of the service area popu.latioa in the age group. Nationa "s PoguIation: Percen e oftl:enationa! oopuiaron in the ze gouo. Difference: Percenta =e difference between the area oopulation anti the national population. No 1 B l SJ �f € &D �" L 4 o 43 ! � &, A sS oc ZATU s LTD Chart A. — " 009 Primary Service Area Ate Group Distribution MARKET ANALYSIS dv C�Zt'j7 CI,P h., c'�,P`:bgG' Grove The demographic makeup of the primary service area when compared to the characteristics of ti,e national population, indicates that there are some slight differences - Mth a larger population in the -5, 5 -17, 25 -44 and 45 -54 age groups and a smaller population in the H -24, 55 -64, 65 -74 and 75+ age groups. The laraest positive variance is in the 5 -17 age group with +4.1 %, while the greatest negative variance is m the 7 /5+ age group with -3.8 %. These demographic Characteristics would point to an older population, which is consistent vNdth what is being experienced on a hlational level. F AJ 6 * K[N Page 5 of 43 0 S 9 S S O C SATES LTD 0EC') of Cole y Ca €� de< A r population Distribution Comparison be Age: Utilizing census information noire the primary service area, the followira comparisons are possible. Table B — 2009 Frimaare7 Service Area Population Estimates (U.S. Census Information and ESRi) Ages 2000 Population ' 1 population 2014 Population percent Change Percent Change hat`'6 _5 1 2,588 2,899 3,015 16.5% f 14.4 5 -11 7,399 1,409 7,722 4.4% 7% 18 -24 X57 2.611 2,703 19.8% 16 .2% 25 -44 1 10.516 10,353 10,552 0.3% 0.6 %0 45 -54 4,144 5,340 5.544 33.8% 16.2% 55 - 64 2.188 1 3.439 3 18.0 /o 64.3% 65 -74 1.092 1,603 2,179 99.5% 4I.39/o 75-'- 398 820 1, 006 152.8% 1 Table -F, looks at the cnowt:h or decline in age group numbers Boni the 2000 ce_Lsus until the year 2613. It is projected that all age categories will see an increase in population. It must be remembered that the population of 'the United States as a whole is aging and it is not unusual to fn I negative growth numbers in the yol -nlger age groups and net gains nearing 45 in the 45 plus acre groupings us conu which are relatively stable in their population numbers. AIJ�A -0%kMNG Pap 6 of 43 I K 35£0 C A T F, S LTD C hart B — P'HMAT t Service Area'Ponulation Growth l-A .L LI A J r Y S S cify> €a cafra -e Grove HAT Below is listed the distribution of the population by race and etl,riicity for the primary service area based on 2009 population estimates, £ aui1 o —1 i text at Y ti- {Source — U.S. Census Bureau and ESRI) Eth ttsei y Total 3 io elation i °J° 6f Population Median Age Hispanic I 1,288 3.7% 22,1 Fable D — Primary Sen ice Area Ethnic Population and 1 A¢e (Source — U.S. Census Bureau and ESRI) Ekl nicity, I otal Population I % of Po ulation Median A!,-, White 31,504 91.4% 35.5 Black. i 1,118 ( 3.2% i 23.4 Aniericaa Indian 149 0.4% 29.1 Asian 658 1.9% 29.3 28 0.08% 25.0 E!w 450 1.3% 2.3 575 1.7% 12.5 2009 Primary Serece Area Total Popula:iorl: Chart C — Pr mare Senjce Area Ethnic Po *.sslalion 34', 190 Residents ° AJ -LkRD IQ 1_\aTG Page `T of 43 J &j& ASS 0 C SATES LT`D MAR KET ANALYSILS %U Cii�, of Cotta Grove, MEN C P BAU.,ARD*KLNG P ag-- 'a GA' 4 3 L A S S 0 CIAT 2,5 LTD So 0 ------ G' 575 600 - ----- – ------ -- ------ 4 400 it 149 200 Black Amei icmi Indian Arias? Pnific Iskalder Other hltdtifflie Fe Tot alPopi Lt—lcln� BAU.,ARD*KLNG P ag-- 'a GA' 4 3 L A S S 0 CIAT 2,5 LTD 2NIA-RICETA-NALYSIS Ciry of Coliage Grove, MN Secondary Senice Area Mau- st, Cr cou.11, LL R D I � N G Pau-- 9 of 43 A-SSOCTA.TES LTD w A KBE T ANALYS Cit.) r "CcF.taae Gro , e, YIN � Population. DistribnVan by A;e.: Utilizing census information for the secondary service area, the folimAing coinparisons are possible. Table E — 20104 Secondaro Sers Area Age Distribution (ESRI estimates) Ages Po `ulation I % of T©tal Nat. Po uba6on Difference -5 7:209 8.4% 7.0 1 /0 1 1.4 °i9 5 -17 17.460 199% 17.4% 2.5% 18 -24 6,704 7.7% 9.9% -2.2% 25.4 26,019 29.8% 2b Q /a ! 2.9% 45 -54 13,693 15.6% 14.6% 1.0% 55 -64 j 8,960 ( 10.3% 11.4% -I,1% 65 -74 4,298 �y 4.9% 6.6% L 7% 75-'- 3 Ol7 3 5% Population: 2009 census estimates in the different age groups in the service area. "/o o € Tote ;: PercantaL�e of the service area population in the age group. National Population: Percentage of the national population in the age group. Difference: Percentage difference behueen the service z=ea population and 'the national population. BALLA page 10 of 43 S h S SO ci. nTL3 LTD Chart D — 2 004 Seconds F Service Area Age Group Distribution The demographic makeup of the secondary- service area, when compared to the characteristics of the national population, indicates that there are some slight Jiff rences wit, a larger population in +1,e -5, 5 -17, 25 -44 and 45 -54 a.ge groups and a smaller population in the 15 -24, 55 -64, 65 -74 and 75+ age groups. The largest positive variance is in the 25-44 age group vath +2.9 %, while the greatest negative variance is in the 75+ age group with -2.7 %. These demographic Characteristics would point to in older population, wlvch is consistent with what is being experienced on aNaticnal level. 1.2 * KING Page 11 of 43 & ,4 S 50 C7 E9 LTD " Crib; o Coti'age G, oe7e, 1l,flV w Population Distaibution Comparison by Age: Utlizing census infomxation from the secondary service area, the following compar sons are possible. Table P' — 2009 Seco-ndary Service rhea POnulation Estimates (U.S. Census Information. and ESRt) .kges 21000 Pop ulation 2009 1 Po ation ul 2014 Population I Percent ) Change Percent Change Nat'l -5 j 6,045 7.209 7,726 27.9% 5 -17 16.720 17.460 18,538 10.9% 4.7% 18 -24 j 5.658 6,704 1 6.911 j 22.1 ° /a 16.2% 25 - 4a 25 26.019 27707 10.6% j 0. 6% 45 -54 10,358 13,693 13,780 3 3.0% 1 16.2% 53 -64 5,624 8 460 1Q387 84.7% I 64.3% 65 -74 3,321 4.298 5,783 74.1% j 41,3 75= 2J21 3.017 3.337 57.3% 19.1% Table -E, looks at se gro`3,th or decline in age group numbers from the 2000 census uuiil the year 2013. . It is projected that all age categories wll see an rcrease in population. It must be ren embered that the population of the United States as a whole is aging and it is not unusual to find negatii growth nu nbers in the yo age =roups and net gains nearing 45 in the 45 plus age groupings in colmnunsities which are relatively stable in their population numbers. BALL 5 , UR—Ds �1"IQINIS Page 12 of 43 L _ Z _J C A S S O O S .A T E S LTD Chart E — Secondary Service 4rea Pon =.Nation. Growth i� A � � EET ANALYSIS Qv of Cottage Grave, Aff Below is listed the distribution of the population by race and ethnicity for the secondary service area based on 2009 population estimates. — JGE:[StEU AEY .5cx re�e e-ni .,a xr.o U.S. Census Bureau and BS:) Eth ici 'Total Po` ulation °.era of Peptnliffcu I Median A Hispani^ i 2 785 3.2% 21.4 (Source —U.S. Census Bureau and ESPJ) Ethnicity j Total Populadon , %'6T Poiaulatio t Median Abe WEI j 80,167 1 91.8% .36.0 Black 131 2.4% 26.2 American Indian .A ( 345 0 4% f 30.1 Asian 2,252 2.6% 29.1 Pacific Tslan&er `� 0 06°'o 30.5 —� Qtlrer j 999 Ei / 21.8 Multiple 1,408 1.6% 13.9 2009 Secondary Service Area Total Population: Chaft F — See ndar� Service Area Ethnic PoPulsntion 87358 Residents . A11 D �1 NTv Pane 13 a ff ^3 ' i& AS5CC1.tT E5 L+L 7 7 N'ARKERT Al %lp City of Cottage Grove, Ad"N P A Qt-A BlUARD*KENG Page 14 of 43 E& ASSOCIATES WTD 2000 ------- ------ 999 IND Black AiIeiic-an hidimi Asian Paciffic Nznd er Other Muldple A Qt-A BlUARD*KENG Page 14 of 43 E& ASSOCIATES WTD Chv of CoaaTye Grove, Irji� Neat, the median age and household income levels are compared with the national number. Both of *dese factors are primary determiners of pa:�ticipadon in recreation activities. The lower the median age, the tngher the participation rates are for most activities. The level of participation also increases as the income Ievel goes up. Aledian Aue: With the nnediar, age in the primary and secondary service area be below the National number it would indicata that theree would be reasonable participation in a City of Cottane Grove Conmmn?ty Center. (, G Pa-e 15 of 43 &R -J & A SSOCIATES LTD Chart G- Median Aue 2€ 00 Census 2409 Estimate 2014 Proiect Primary Service Area 31.9 34.5 34.g Se.eondary Sengce Area ; 33.4 35.1 35.1 Nationally 35.3 36.9 37? With the nnediar, age in the primary and secondary service area be below the National number it would indicata that theree would be reasonable participation in a City of Cottane Grove Conmmn?ty Center. (, G Pa-e 15 of 43 &R -J & A SSOCIATES LTD Chart G- Median Aue l l�'A MARKET ANALYSIS 0 of Com-yu Grim �e Grove, MIA 2009 Median Age !;y Ccnuus Tracts j. 35,3 J RU I A r- UD * KT NNG Wage 16 of 4 b l�'& , A S SO GATES LTD Mai) of Median ALle by Census Tract: r Cjt�J Cry CoitCBgn fiF; "rive, l °r Median Househoid Lncow -e: In the primary service area the percentage of households with median income over $50,000 per year is 82.9% compared to 54.6% on a national level. Furthermore, the percentage of the households in & a pmnarh service area with nlediatn income less than $25,000 per year is 4.4% compared to a love! c)^21.0 nationally. In the secondary sen7ice rea the percentage of households with median income over $50,000 per y ear is 77.6% compared to 54.6% on a national lever_. Furtl:armore, the percentage of the households in the orimatiy service area with median income Less than $25,000 per year is 6.5 conpared to a level of 21.0% nationally. These statistics indicate that ttre? e may be a higher level of discretienazy income for recreational p but must be tempered with T-he cost of living. BSA %-'Aloi %F Page 17 of 43 .c. A 9 8oCLhTF8 LTD Chart H - Median Household Income 20€ 0 Census 2009 Estivate 2014 Projection Primary Service Area $65,577 $90,534 $95,597 Secondary Service Area $62,269 $84,441 $89,571 I Nationally $42,164 $54,719 $56,938 In the primary service area the percentage of households with median income over $50,000 per year is 82.9% compared to 54.6% on a national level. Furthermore, the percentage of the households in & a pmnarh service area with nlediatn income less than $25,000 per year is 4.4% compared to a love! c)^21.0 nationally. In the secondary sen7ice rea the percentage of households with median income over $50,000 per y ear is 77.6% compared to 54.6% on a national lever_. Furtl:armore, the percentage of the households in the orimatiy service area with median income Less than $25,000 per year is 6.5 conpared to a level of 21.0% nationally. These statistics indicate that ttre? e may be a higher level of discretienazy income for recreational p but must be tempered with T-he cost of living. BSA %-'Aloi %F Page 17 of 43 .c. A 9 8oCLhTF8 LTD Chart H - Median Household Income MARKET ANALYSIS City o'Cp, y fiage Gi�oiv, MJIV 2009 Median HH Income by Census Tracts L 12 �4 Si'l [ j 9 1 RU LA R D * KI N G W & ASSOCIATES LTD Page 18 of 43 T ,�faT,) ofMedipu Household Incame by Cen, Tract! RJARKET ANALYSIS Cit'iv o Conterge Grove, MN In addition to ta- a look at Median Age and Median Income, we are able to exama.e Household Budget Expenditures. In particular, looking at Dousing infonnation; shelter, utilities, fuel and public services along with entertainment & recreation we can provide a snap shot into the cost of living and spending patterns in the senrices areas. The table below looks at that infoation and compares the primary service area to the State of Minnesota. nn Household ;and *et Eanenditures Primary' Service Area SPf 1 Average kffi unt Spent Average ziihoimt S eni Percent Housing 134 $27.990.13 30,2% Shelter 141 $22,104.19 23.8% Utilities, Fuel, Public Service 130 $5,885,95 6.3% Entertaifn & heareation 190 $4,5;1.54 4.9% State of Minnesota SPf 1 Average kffi unt Spent percent Housing 11 1 522.329.23 2 9 . 7a/o Shelter 111 31 7 ,271.93 23.0% Utilities. Fuel, Public ServiceC i12 05 30 6.7% Entertainment & Recreation 114 53,68 .49 4.91/0 _ SPI: Average A-mou at Spent: Percent: Spending Potential Index as compared to the Natioaal number of 100. The avarage amount spent per household. percent of the total 100% of household expenditures. Note: Shelter along with Utilities, PueI, Public Service are a porton of the Housing percentage. Consuzaer Spending data are derived Somthe 2004 and 2005 Consumer Expenditure Surveys, Bureau of Labor Statistics, ESRS forecasts for 2008 and 2013. ALLUD Ervge 19 0 43 ��.S A, SS 0 C 1 A LTD Qv of Cottage Grove, When you look at the Median Household Tncotme it is well above the National level, and when you examine the Household Budget Expendit xea it would. indicate that the cost of living in the primary sen7ice area is greater than the State of Minnesota and the National Snendina Potential Index (5Pi} Nun ber of 100, Additionally, it would appear that the Spend ng Potential Index (SPI) for Entertainment & Recreation in the primary service area is significantly greater than the State of Minnesota and ne National Spending Potential Index of 100. Tluis infonnation would indicate that the cost of living in the primary service area is greater than what is seen on a national Level, but that the prinna ?y service area has unoome levels to be able to sustain that rate of spending and still participate in entertahoanent and recreation activities. It will be iinporta t to keep fms infonnation in .hind. - when developing fee stn ctu re and loolang at appropriate cost recovery philosophy. A P. a -D*K TG Page 20 of �s � S p, s s 0 C S A T E S L T D Chart I — Household Budget Expenditures Spending Potential Index CiiY of C0fi'gge G-I`0Ve, T r �A Recreation ketivities iaarticiznation On an annual basis the National Sporting Goods Association (NSGA) conducts an in- depth study and s of how A.nnericans spend their leisure time. This informadon provides the data necessary to overlay rate of participation onto the primary service area to determine market potential. Comparison With National Statistics: Utilizing information from the National Spouting Goods Association and comparing them with the demographics from the primary seenice area, the following participation projections can be made (statistics were compared based on age, household income, regional population and national population). Table i - Participation hates - Activity Age Income ' I Rouion Nation =e=a9e Aerobic 13.9'/0 14.9% 12.5% 1 13.7% Baseball 6.3% 62% 6.3% 5.7% 6,1% Baske +- -_ball j 12.3 °rQ iL5 % 12.4% 11.1% 11.8% exercise w/ Eouipment j 25.4% 26, 0% 26? %0 235 Exercise Walking 36.0% 36.3 ° io 39.0% 36.1% 36.9% Running /jogging 14.4 15.7 ° .0 13.1% 13.4% 14.V /c Skate Skateboarding 43% v,2u /o 3.7% 3.7% .�0 j = .7 ° soccer 6.7 ° jo 6.3% j 4.4% 5.8% - .7% 5.8% Softball 5 1% 6.6 ° lo 4.8% Swir"ruina 25 "% j 26.2% j 22.0% j 23.7 j 24.4 Tennis 5.0% 6.3 °/a 3.0% 4.7% 4,8% i Volleyball 5.0% 6.1 ° ,i° 5.2% 4. 5% 5 % Wei ghtLifring 14.6% 1 16.7% 16.5% 14.0% WorYOUt (� ^lo s L 7 ° /a 17.7% 3.G% 14.7% 15.0% Age (median): ParLHpation based on individuals ages ? & Up of he priman? service area. lacone: Panicipafion based on the 2009 estvnated median household income in fire primary' service area, Region: Par.icipation based on regional stapseics (West North Central). National: ta* ticipation based onua &nalstatistics. Average: Average of the four columns. AJ J.- � * P age 21 of 42 i lj� ?& AS S p G TAT ES LT D 4 ANALYSIS Z, Anticipated Participation Numbers by Activity: Utilizing the average percentage f orn Table - E above plus the 2000 census information and census estimates for 2009 and 2014 (over age 7) the following compmsons cal he made, Table J - Participation Pates ctivzty ! average Primary See rice Participation Secondary Service Participation A -rob' c 13.7% 4,726 11,975 Baseball 6 1% 2_l 10 6. 347 Basketball 11.8% 4.0 10,327 Exercise w/ Bq 'pr ent j 25.3�io 0712 22.076 i Exercise Walking 36.9% 12,708 32,202 Running /Jogging 0 4.874 12,36! Skateboazdng j 3.7% j 1.281 3,247 Soccer E 5.8`/o 1.997 6,062 j Softball j >.4 ° '0 M73 4 Swrnvnn as 2- 4° -0 8.408 1 21,105 Ttnnis 4.8% 1.639 4.163 Volleyball 5.2 1,792 4,541 Weight Lif'Line 16.4 °iq 5.322 13,488 Workout (a, Clubs 15.0% 5, 178 13,122 Note: The estimated participation mmnbers indicated above are for each of the sports listed and do not necessarily translate into expected attendance figures at a Cottage Grove Connnusity Center since nzany participants utilize other facilitics for these activhies and may pLrdcipaie in more than one activity at a tine. However, these figures do indicate the total number of people participating in various rious activities within the primary service area_ r— j !. 0 € , � � kK[ Pcac 22 of 43 x� - i_ =�—i& .assocz.aTLS :.mr MAPUCET ANALYSIS City dif GgMq,e Grave, fii$IT Participation by Rthaicity and Race: Participation in sports activities is also tracked by ethnicity and race. The table below cannpares the overall rate of participation nationally with the rate for Hispanics and African Americans. Utilizing information provided by the National Sporting Goods Association's 2008 survey, the following comparisons are possible. `i'alrte ii Co TrHRatisQn of a`iarEaL Airiean Anzeri °an and Hispanic Part9canation Rates rrimary ,Serviee Part: The unique participation percentage developed for the pri.nary service area. National Rate: The national percentage of individuals who per:icipate in the given activity. I lrican A€neriean Rate: The percentage of African americans who participate ir, the given activity. zospank plate: The percentage of ELispanics who participate in the given act:viv. Based on the fact that There i m a significant Hispanic and Black population in e pr teary service area the overall rate of participation vdll probably not be affected. * B ALLLRD ° *KPiG Page 1 -3 of 43 'a � P A S S O C IAT ES LTD friary Service ` Partici anon IVaticrouat participation Af Americana Particnpati an Hispanic Partisspation Aerobic 13.7% 1 13.5% 14.4% i 11.4% Baseball 6,1% 5.7 7.7% 6.3% Basketball 22.4 13.3 °�0 B�areisew /Equi meat 25,3% 23.5% 19.9% 18. Lxercis- Walking � 36 9% I 36.1% 36.0% 29.5% C Run/ ng//.iogginm 14.1 ° io 13.4% 19.8% i 12.7% Skateboarding 3.70 2.9% ; 4.6% � Soccer 5.8% 5.8% 3.8% ( 6,7 Softball j 5.4% 4.8% 4.8% 33% g m g j 24.4% 23.7% 12.9% 212% 1 Tennis 4.8% 4.7% 4.1 3.3% Volleyball I Weight Lifting 4.5% 14.0% 5.7 13.7 3.7% 11.6% Workout rl Clubs i5.0% 14.7 13.0% j 9.8% rrimary ,Serviee Part: The unique participation percentage developed for the pri.nary service area. National Rate: The national percentage of individuals who per:icipate in the given activity. I lrican A€neriean Rate: The percentage of African americans who participate ir, the given activity. zospank plate: The percentage of ELispanics who participate in the given act:viv. Based on the fact that There i m a significant Hispanic and Black population in e pr teary service area the overall rate of participation vdll probably not be affected. * B ALLLRD ° *KPiG Page 1 -3 of 43 'a � P A S S O C IAT ES LTD City a- 3`Covage Grove, MA' � Summary of Sports Participation: The following chart summarizes participation in various sports and leisure activities utilizing information from t'ne 2008 National Sporting Goods Association survey. Table 3 — Snorts Participation Su- mmar�- Sport Tat'I. Rank tiaNi Participation (in minions) Primary Service Rank Primary Service area % Partiei anon Exercise �Jalk ng 1 96.6 36.9% 1 SWlnll11711g 2 63.5 24A°', 3 Exercising w/ Equipiuent I 3 63.0 25.3% 2 'Work -Out at Club 8 34.3 15.0% 5 V/eioht Lifting 10 37.5 25.4 ° io 4 Aerobic Exercising 11 36.2 13.7% 7 Rmu nglJogg na 12 359 14.1% 6 ;3asketball 14 24.7 ( 11 8 Soccer 20 15,5 5.8 10 Baseball 21 15.2 6.1 ° io 9 Softball 23 115 5,4% 11 Tennis 24 12.6 4.8 °, /c l2 � Vollevba]1 � 25 12? ! 5.2 � 12 Skateboardins 30 9.8 3.7 %, 14 Nat'l Rank: Popularity o sport based on national sun�ey. Nat'l Participation: Percent of popmation that panici, in this sport on national survey. Primary Service 0 i6: Ran-king of activities based upon avera.g 5= Table -=. Primary Ser, RaMk: The rand, of tine activity tmichin the primary service area. ' This rank is based upon the 41 activities reported cn by NSGA in their 2608 survey instnsnent I . �k� I *ICNG Pa 24 of 43 , t1. & r S SO C I ATES LTD HAPI ET ANALYSIS Comparison of .state statisties '�Vithh rational Statistics: LTil Z1Rg information. from the Natiional Sporting Goods Association, the following chants illustrate fne participation numbers in selected snorts in the State of Minnesota. 4Einnesota participation numbers in selected indoor and outdoor sports - As reported by the National Sporting Goods Association in 2008- Table M — linnesota Particimation Fates Sp Poinnesota Participation i (in thousands Abe Group 1 �Largest dumber Exercise Walkhi Stivim ninQ 1,095 % -11 12-17 Exercis+ng -NI Equi relent 1,112 25 -34 25 -34 GVork- QetatClub 631 25 -34 25 -34 WeiahtLifting 506 j 25-34 Z -34 Aerobic Exercising Euin aojog�ina 791 610 25 -34 2 5 - 25 -34 25 -34 j Basketball 649 12 -17 L -17 Soccer { 309 7 -11 7 -11 Baseball 349 7 -11 7 -11 Softball 4'5° 7 -11 12 -17 ` Tennis ^ 24 � c � � 25 -3 4 ^ -34 i Vollevbali i Si;ateboardui, j 407 170 12 -17 �. 7 li 17 MIN rarttcipafion. The number of people (in tnoasands) in Mimiesota who pa 6-ipated more &,en once in the activity in 2008 and are ar least 7 years of age. .age Group: Tile age group mn which di snort is most poputar or in ether words, where the hi percentage of the age gi'oep participats in the activity. (Example: The highestpercent. of or. age group thatparncipaxes in exercise wall<Lng is 55.64.) This is a national statistic. Largest Iv'umben The age group with the hi2Lost =ber of participants. Example: The greatst number of exercise wall rs is in the 45 -54 a_e group. This statistic is driven more by the sheer number of people is the age group fnan by the popularity of the sport in the ace span.) This is a naUonsd stst €stir. 1 <171 Pa--e 25 of 43 P Ezic assocrarES LTD M ARKET 1 Chy of cottage Grove AL Minnesota sport percentage of participation compared with the population percentage of the United States: Minnesota's population represents 1.7% of the population of the United States (based on 2009 estimates from ESRI and the Census Bureau). 'fable N — Minnesota Participation Correlation Sport Participatian Percentages Softball_ 3.6 _ � ohceyb al l 3. 3 Tennzs f 2.6 ~Baseball 2.3% Aerobic Exercisin 2.2% Basketball MG Exercise Walking — 2.2 2.1% WeiQl2t Liftii7e ^.;% Soccer 2.0 %�� Exercisingw /Equipment svara 1.7 °/a —� Running /Jogg SlcateboardmL Work -Out at Club 1. 6% Note: Sports participation percentages refer to the total percent of the national population that pesticipates in a sport that comes from tha State of Minnesota. It is sign ficant that in 13 activities the percentage of paiticipation equals m exeee.ds the percentage of the. national population. This indicates a relatively high rate of participation in the selected activities. — T G I�age 26 of 43 — - i & A SSc CIAT ES LTD O acre- Gr ove, N �"�4�'° g�� b�'�`o�t°r M EN Recreations Expenditures Spending Potential Index: In addition to participation in recreation activities ESRI also measures recreation expend tires in a number of different areas and then indexes this against national aumbera. The follovaing comparisons are possible. Table 0 — Recreation Exz�endatesres S€ en Iirn� Potential Index Average ?,.mount Spent The average atnennt span` for the service or item in a year. SPI: Spending potential index as compared to the national number of 100, (— 1 L� ; aivaG pa 27 of 43 1 2 1 1 L & A s s o c IAT L's LTD Primary Secwice ka ea State of l4bininesota his =erag° S enf SPI, Average S exit SPI Fees for Participant Sports $170.57 i54 k $125.08 113 Fees for Recreational Lessons $215.36 167 $146.17 112 Social, Recreation. Club Mennbenship $256.77 150 $190:55 I 112 Exercise Equipment/Game Tables $110.22 110 $84.15 84 Other Sports Equipment $15.40 141 $12.68 116 Average ?,.mount Spent The average atnennt span` for the service or item in a year. SPI: Spending potential index as compared to the national number of 100, (— 1 L� ; aivaG pa 27 of 43 1 2 1 1 L & A s s o c IAT L's LTD MARKET ATN'ALYSIS 4,4 Chart d — Honsehold Sudaet Exnenditures Srsending Potential Index The SPI index indicates that in all areas the rate of spending is significantly greater than the state average m the National Spending Potential Index (SPI) of 100. This is ormation is very important when determining trice poina for activities and cost recoven' phvlosophy. It is also imporaal to note that these dollars are aurrently being spent, so the ldenttiflcatim of alternative service providers and the ability of a Cottage Grove Corrmunity Center to capture a portion of these dollars ,v be important. F r � I B ALLARD KEN Page 28 on 43 � &- ASS 0 CIATF,9 LTD 1APUKEET ANALYSIS e& Ch� offotec�ge Grove, MA 416% EntrrfaiR nt/RecreationiTot by Census T, acts - 0,605,415 S5 FW 1 11 t � I RAUARD Xi-KLNG Page 29 of -13 jjj� 1 -___j & A 5 S 0 C I A T E S 1, T D All.ap of Fntertainment/Recreation Total Dollars Spent by Census Tract: Ofy of Corte -e Gi le, lfI'l Non -Sport Participation Statsstics: It is recogt ized that most community recreation centers are more than just sports oriented facilities. Participation in a a=ide variety of passive activities and cultural pursuits is common and essential to a well - rounded center. This information is useful in determining some of the program participation and revenue in the operations section of the report. wile there is not an abundance of information available for participation in these types of activities as compared to sport activities, here are statistics that can be utilized to help determine the market for cultural arts activities and events. There are many ways to measure a nation's cultural vitality, One way is to chazIU the public's involvement with arts events and other activities over time. Tie NEA's Survey of Public Participation in the Arts remains the largest periodic study of arts participation in the United States, and it is conducted in partnership with the U.S. Census Bureau. Tile large number of survey respondents — similar in make -up to the total U.S. adult population — permits a statistical snapshot of American's engagerent with the arts by I and activity type. The survey has tzken place five times since 1982, allowing researchers to compare the trends not only for the total adult population, but also for demographic subgroups.' a Nadoi &1 Endowment for tr e Arts, Arts Pm'siciDadon 2008 from a National Survey. �r�— Syr ,�^� tt55 CC A�4 j I j`03i uiAPD KIi�V.9' Pa e �tY OAF. "4'J .AS s0 C,I ATES LTD MARKET ANALYSIS %Io City Q f Cottage Grave, AI Table P - Percentage of U.S. Adult Ponrelation Attending Arts Performances. 1982-2008 i Rate of Change 1982 .I 1982 1992 1 2002 2008 ' 2602 -2008 1982 -2608 � Jazz 9.6% 10.6°/% 1 10.8% 7.8% 28 %0 - 19 % Classical Music 13.0% 12.5% 11.6% 93% -20% -29% opera 3.0 %0 3.3% 3.2 ° /o 2.1% - 34 % Musical Plays j 18.6% 17 4% 17.1% 16.7 0 /o -2% -10 Nom - Musical Plays 11.9% 13.5% 12.3% 9.4 % j - 24 - 21% Ballet 4.2% 4.7% 3.9% ! 2.9% -26% -31% Smaller percentages of adults attended performing arts events than ni previous years. • Opera and jazz participation significantly decreased for the first time, with attendance rates falling below what they were in 1982. • Classical music attendance continued to decline - at a 29% rate since 1982 - with the steepest drop occurring from 2002 to 2008 • Only musical play saw no statistically significant change in attendance since 200. `fable 0 - Percentage of U Adult Poerulation Attending Art Museums, Parris and Festivals: 1982 -2008 Attendance for the most popular types of arts events - such as museums and craft fairs -- also declined. e Aiftes topping 26% in 1992 and 2002, the art museum attendance rate slipped to 23 percent in 2008 - comparable to the 1982 level. ® The proportion of the U.S. adults touring parts or historical building's has diminished by one -third since 1982. � 1 IALL RD Pa ge 3; of 43 ��� R A S S 0 C I h T B S L T D Rate of C hanii6 1982 .I 1992 1 2002 2008 2002 -20 €8 1982 -ZOOS I Art 22.1% 26.7% 26.5% 217% -14% +3% Museun� 6rGallet;es � i � Parks/Hi 37.0% 34.5% 31.6% 24.9% -21 % -33% Buildings I. i CrafL Tisual Arts 1 39.0 I 40.7% 33.4% 2 4 5 27 ° l0 -37 ° ro � Festivals I Attendance for the most popular types of arts events - such as museums and craft fairs -- also declined. e Aiftes topping 26% in 1992 and 2002, the art museum attendance rate slipped to 23 percent in 2008 - comparable to the 1982 level. ® The proportion of the U.S. adults touring parts or historical building's has diminished by one -third since 1982. � 1 IALL RD Pa ge 3; of 43 ��� R A S S 0 C I h T B S L T D Table R— Median age of Arts Attendees: 1982 -2008 Of Long - terra trends sugaest fundamental shifts in the relationship between age and arts attendance. * Performing arts attendees are increasingly older than the average U.S. adult. ® Jazz concert -goers are no lonaer the youngest group of az-ts participants. Since 1982, young adult (18 -24 year old) attendance rates have deofined significantly for jazz, classical music, ballet, and non - musical plays. ® From 2002 to 2008, uoweve,, 45 -54 year olds — historically a large component of arts audier,ces — showed the steepest decHncs in attendance for most arts events. L LARD* �a Page 32 of 43 -��& A SS0 CI AT E LTD 1982 1 1992 I 2002 I 2.008. 1 2002 -2008 19 -2008 1 U.& Adults, Average 39 41 1 43 1 45 1 =2 =6 1 Jazz 29 37 i 43 1 46 1 +4 +17 Classical Music 40 1 44 47 49 1 2 =9 Opera 43 44 1 47 48 +1 +5 Musicals 39 42 44 45 -t =6 Non - Musical Plays 39 42 i 44 47 Ballet 37 40 1 44 1 46 a-2 9 All Museu 1 36 39 44 43 1 7 Long - terra trends sugaest fundamental shifts in the relationship between age and arts attendance. * Performing arts attendees are increasingly older than the average U.S. adult. ® Jazz concert -goers are no lonaer the youngest group of az-ts participants. Since 1982, young adult (18 -24 year old) attendance rates have deofined significantly for jazz, classical music, ballet, and non - musical plays. ® From 2002 to 2008, uoweve,, 45 -54 year olds — historically a large component of arts audier,ces — showed the steepest decHncs in attendance for most arts events. L LARD* �a Page 32 of 43 -��& A SS0 CI AT E LTD Chy of Cottage Grove, 16IN Table S Percentsee of U.S. Adult PoEulation Performing or Creating tar 2992 -2008 Ad::lts zenerally are creating or performing at lower rates - despite opportrssities for displaying their work lii ^e. m Cniy photography increased from 1992 to 2009 - reflecting, perhaps, greater access t rough digital media ® The proportion of U.S, adults doing creative writing ryas hovered arcurd 7.0 percent. ® The ratee of classical music performance slipped fi:om 1992 to 2002 then grew over the next six nears. The adult participation rate for weaving or sewing was almost twice as Z:ezt in 1992 as in 2008. Yet this activity remains one of flee most popular forms of art creation. _ ; T�T�v J A- c`„'��..Il�G Page 33 of 41 b 'S A 5 S oC IAT E S LTli Rate of C hange (- 199 7,002 j 2008 1 2002 -200 2982 -2 _- _._ -_. Perfor;llina: Jazz 1.7 D ( . 0 ° 0.4% 4% Classical Music Classical 4.2 °;0 1.8% 3.0% +1.2% Opera 1.1% 0.7% 0,4% I - U3% -0.9 Choir /Chorus 63% 4, 8% 5 2% +0.4% I4 /a Musical Plays 3.9% I 2.4% 1 0.9% 1.S °10 � 2 % 0 % lion- M>>siealPlays 1.6% 1. ?% 1 0.8% I Rance 8 i% 4.3% 2 1 -2.2% - 6.0% 1 Pailrt nE Draw ng 9.6 8.6% 1 9.09% - 0.4% -0.6% 1 Pottery /Ceramics 8.4% 1 6.9% - !1 - 6-0% 6.0% 1 - 0.9% - 14% i Weaving /Sewxing 24T/ 13.1% j - 191/ o - 11.7% Photography 11.5% 115 L 14.7% +3?% Creative'Uriting Ad::lts zenerally are creating or performing at lower rates - despite opportrssities for displaying their work lii ^e. m Cniy photography increased from 1992 to 2009 - reflecting, perhaps, greater access t rough digital media ® The proportion of U.S, adults doing creative writing ryas hovered arcurd 7.0 percent. ® The ratee of classical music performance slipped fi:om 1992 to 2002 then grew over the next six nears. The adult participation rate for weaving or sewing was almost twice as Z:ezt in 1992 as in 2008. Yet this activity remains one of flee most popular forms of art creation. _ ; T�T�v J A- c`„'��..Il�G Page 33 of 41 b 'S A 5 S oC IAT E S LTli 7 �f�t������ � � NATA j�� Table T — Pereentage of U.S. Adult Pe, ulation Viecvin or Ustenins to art x r oadeasts or Recordings. 2€ 08 (online media. ineiudedl Percenfaac 4filions of Adults Ja= 14.2% 31.9 Classical Music j 17.8% 40.0 Later or Salsa Music 14.9% 1 33.5 Opera 4.9% 11.0 Musical PIays 7.9% IN Plays 6.8% i53 Dance 8 C °% 18.0 Prosrams abo�zt tha vis,ial arcs � 15.0 ° ro � 33. i aDQUL VV VY�.11 N11L91J - 1 As in previous years, more Americans view or listen to broadcasts and recordings of arts events Tian attend them live. The sole arception is live theater which still attracts more adults than broadcasts or recordings of plays or, musicals (on ne media included). ® Classical music broadcasts or recordings attract the greatest number of adult listeners, followed by Latin or salsa music. ® 3 3.7 roil on Americans listened to or watched programs or recordings about books. l -X' 3D*MING Wage 34 of 43 �I�S ?, S SO C1,kTE5 S. T. D i AR K. E T Ik-FAL C €lit) of Cottage Grove, ?IN .! in an attempt to develop a more direct comparison between the rates of participation in various leisure activities, the NEA survey ranked the following activities Table U — bate of Participation in Leisure Activities in 2002: Chart I Correlation ( Activity Percentage A Went to Movies 60.0% $ Eaereised { 00.1% C j Gardening 47.3 ° .o D Arts Activity E Home Im rovemems 42.4% r Theme Pak 41.7% G Attended Sports Events 35.0% H Played Sports I Camped /HikedlCanoed 30.9% percentage: The rate of participation in the acrvity (at least once) nationally in 2002. Chart K — Graphic Illustration of Aefd�A ies in Table U. In relationship to sports participat and other Leisure activities, participation in cultural arts is very high. On-, Element not included ni this table that does impact leisure activities is watching television. the Survey of Public Participation in the Arts conducted in 2002 reports that adults spend an average of 2.9 hours per day watchins television. BALLAM) II G Pgge 35 of 42 T A 89 0 GIFT B8 LTD -p ([ CO 60 i nom" 1 ([ - A B ( D E F In relationship to sports participat and other Leisure activities, participation in cultural arts is very high. On-, Element not included ni this table that does impact leisure activities is watching television. the Survey of Public Participation in the Arts conducted in 2002 reports that adults spend an average of 2.9 hours per day watchins television. BALLAM) II G Pgge 35 of 42 T A 89 0 GIFT B8 LTD Recreation Activity and Facility 'Trends: There continues to be very strong growth in the number of people participating in recreation and leisure activities. It is estimated that one in five Americans oven the age of six participates in some form of fitness related activity at least once a week. American Sports Data, Inc. reported that membership in U.S. health clubs has increased by 76.1% between 1957 and 1999, and memberships in health clubs reached an all time high of 32.8 million in 2000. The greatest: increase in membership has occurred in the over 55 age group, followed by the under 18 and 35 -54 age categories. Overaii membership in the 35 -54 age group increased white it actually decreased in the 18 -34 age group. Statistics also indicate that approximately 12 out of every 100 people of the U.S. population: (or 12 %) belong to a health club. On the otter side most public recreation centers attract between 20°io and 30% of a market area (more than once) during the course of a year. All of this indicates the relative strength of a market for a community recreation facility. However despite these increases the American population as a whole continues to lead a rather sedentary life with an average of 25% of people across the country reporting that they engage in no physical activity (according to The Center for Disease Control). One of the areas of greatest participant growth over the last 10 years is in fitness related activities such as exercise with equipment, aerobic exercise and group cycling. This is also the most volatile area of growth with specific interest areas soaring in popularity for a couple of years only to be replaced by a new activity for the coming years. Also showing particularly strong growth numbers are ice hockey and running /jogging - while swimming participation remains consistently high despite recent drops in overall numbers. It is significant that many of the activities float can take place in an indoor recreation setting are ranked in the top fifteen in overall participation by thcNational Snorting Goods Association. The multi- comtnonernt concept of delivering recreation services continues to grow in acceptance with the idea of providing for a variety of activities an d progranns n a single location. Th s idea Las proven to be financially successful by centralizing operations for operators and through increased generation of revenues from patrons able to participate in multiple and varied leisure needs under the same roof. These facilities have become identifiable centers for communities, and have promoted "far. ly" recreation values, The keys to success revolve around the concept of intergenerational use in a quality facility that has multi -use capabilidses and the versatility and - flei bility to meet ever- changhng leisure needs. L. D� NG Page 36 of 43 A350 C IkT ES LTll quo,tic Act€srity and Facility Trends: Without a doubt the hottest trend in aquatics is the leisure pool concept. This idea of incorporating slides, current channels, fountains, zero depth entry and other water features into a pool's design has proved to be extremely popular for the recreational user, The age of the conventional pool in nnost recreational settings has been greatly diminished. Leisure pools appeal to the younger children (who are the largest segment of tLe population that swim) and to families. These types of facilities are able to attract and draw larger cro ids and people tend to come from a further distance and stay longer to utilize such pools. This all translates into the potential to sell more admissions and increase revenues. It is estimated conservatively that a leisure pool can generate up to 20% to 25% more revenue than a comparable conventional pool and the cost of operation, while being higher, has been offset through increased revenues. Of note is the fact that patrons seem -, villing to pay a higher user fee at a leisure pool than a conventional aquatics facility. Another trend that is growing more popular in the aquatic's field is the development of a raised temperature therapy pool for rehabilitation programs. This has usually been done in association v�rith a local health care organization or a physical therapy clinic. The medical organization either provides capital dollars for the construction of the pool or agrees to purchase so rnany hours of pool time on an annual basis. Thus form of partnership has proven to be appealing to both the medical side and the organization that operates the facility. The medical sector receives the benefit of a larger aquatic center, plus other amenities that are available for their use, without the capital cost of building the structure, in addition, they are able to develop a much stronger conumunity presence away from traditional medical settings. The facility operators have a stronger marketing positi on through an association with a medical organization and a user group that will provide a solid and consistentt revenue streatn for the center. This is enhanced by the fact that most therapy use times occur during the slower mid - morning, or afternoon times in the pool and the center. Despite the recent emphasis on recreational swimming and therapy, the more traditional aspects of aquatics (including, swim teatns, instruction and aqua fitness) remain as the foundation for many aquatic centers. The life safety issues associated wi'w�n teaching children Low to swim is a critical concern in moist communities and conij)ctitive swim team programs through united States Sv - ng, high schools, and other community based organizations continue to be important. Aqua fitness, from aqua exercise to lap swirru ing, has enjoyed strong growth during the last ten vears wi h the rea`ization of the benefits of water-based exercise. �� a t JL_, _D*1Q_TNG Page 3'l of 4' �� & 0 SS 0 CITES l,TD MMIAIUCET ANALYSIS The placement of traditional instructional /competitive pools, with shallow depth/interactive leisure pools and warm water therapy pools in the same enclosure has been well received in the market. This idea has proven to be financially successful by centralizing pool operations for recreation services providers and through increased generation of revenues from patrons willing to pay for an aquatic experience that is new and exeinng. For many centers, the indoor aquatic complex :ass become the focal point for the facility and has expanded markets and ultimately revenues. 1 1:41 Q1 BALLS *� ��s Rage 38 of 43 & ASSOCIATES LTD MARK F T � ALYSIS C ) cif Ceva� _ c Grove, IN Below are listed those sports activities that would often take place either in a co=unity recreation cente-, or in close proximity to, ar d the percentage of growth or decline that each has experienced nationally over the 'last 10 years (1998 - 2098). 'Fable V - National Activity Trend (in millions) port/Activity 1998 Partic (_2008 Participation' , Pereant Chan I Skateboarding 5.8 9.8 69.0% 'Weight Lifting 22.8 37.5 ( 64.5 ° ic Runnhig/JogQina 22.5 35.9 59,6% "Work-Out at Club 26.5 39.3 Aerobic irxeTC1Sing i 2 e• 8 36. ; 40.3% Exercising w/ Equipment 46.1 63.0 36.7% Exercise �Ua11 ng 77.6 96.6 24.5% Soccer 13.2 15.5 17,4 i erIllis 112 12,6 12.5% Swinsning 58.2 633 8.8% Basketball 29.4 ( 29.7 1.0% Mliards/Pool 1 323 i 31.7 1.9% Baseball 15.9 j 15.2 -4.4% Hockey (ice) Volleyball 14.8 f 12.2 - 17.6% Softball 15.6 12.8 -17.9% 1998 Participation: 2008 Participation: Percent Chans: 7ha n em ber of participants per year in the activity (in millions) in the United States. The number of participants per year in the act (in millions) in the Urdted States. The percent charge in the level of participation from 1998 to 2008. 6 e *KL \IG P£eme 39 of 43 jJ £� A S 5 0 C:3T Z 5 LTD Ch a °C tcr;e rove, 111T1 In addition to sports participation trands the following chart shows how cnitural arts participation has changed from 1992 to 2002. 'Fable W - Personal Particinaticna in the Arts 8992 -2002 1992 Participation: The number o pa ticipants pet' year in `he au;vity (ir. millions)'c the united States. 2002 Participation.: Tine number of panic: -pants per year in flte aclM -'y (in millions) in the united Slates. Percent Change: The percent chance in the level cf p&- cipation izmn 1992 to 2002. Pa 40 of 43 L�� A 5 SOC SATES LTD Activity 1992 ParticF atzon 2002 lnarttc4 atfoa 1 Percent Change Music i J azz 3.2% 2.7 ° /p r Classical M usic 7.8 3.7% 53.0% Opera 1 G°io i 1.4% - 30.03/0 CholrlChoral ( 11.7% 1 9.$% -16.00 Composing Music 3.9% 4.7% +21.0% Plays Musical Plays 7.1% 4.9 ° io 31.0 ° l0 Nor-Mfusical Plays 3.0% f 2.9% -3.0% Lance Ballet 0.4% 0.6% i +50.0 +50.0% Other Dance 15 0% 8.6% - 43.0 Visual Acts Drav Lin /Paintine i 17.8% j 17.6% 1 i.0% photo aph <,r 21.6% 23.5'�o + 9.0% _ Potters /Jewelry 15.6% 14.1% j -10.0% Weaving/S whi g 46.i% 32.i °�a 29.0 ° 10 Lit >ra +ure Writing 13.7 14.4% 1992 Participation: The number o pa ticipants pet' year in `he au;vity (ir. millions)'c the united States. 2002 Participation.: Tine number of panic: -pants per year in flte aclM -'y (in millions) in the united Slates. Percent Change: The percent chance in the level cf p&- cipation izmn 1992 to 2002. Pa 40 of 43 L�� A 5 SOC SATES LTD Cirp of Cottage Grove, "VIN Due to the increasing recreational demands there has been a shortage in most communities of the following spaces. Gy:rnasiruns Pools (especially leisure pools) Ice arenas Weigh /cardiovascular egmpment areas hadoor ramiingAvalking tracks njeeting/multipurpose (general program) space Senior's program space Pre - school and youfn space Teen use areas As a result, many conununities have attempted to include these amenities in public community recreation centers. Leisure pools (with slides and interactive water features) that appeal to younger swimmers and non - swimmers as well as families and seniors have become extremely popular and are being built in conjunction with or instead of conventional pools. Weight/cardiovascular space is also in high demand and provides a facility with the potential to generate significant revenues (along with the leisure pool). Gyms, due to their flexibility and versatility are needed for both youth and adu ?t activities. Ice arenas, although expensive to build and operate, have the potential to have a very positive cash flow and ;rowth in hockey has been signincant in the last 10 years, but is currently showings sibs of a plateau. The success of most community recreation centers is dependent on meeting the recreational needs of a variety of ind vidual� s. The fastest ��owing segment of society is the senior population and meeting the needs of this group is especially important now and -,ill only grow more so in the coming years. Indoor walking tracks, exercise areas, Pools and classroom spaces are vrznonant to tnis age group. Ma_rkcting to the younger more active senior is paramount, as this age group has the free time available to participate in leisure activities, the desire to remain zt, and more importantly the disposable income to pay for such services. Yciftlin programming has always been a cornerstone for recreation services and will continue to be so with an increased emphasis on teen needs and providing a deterrent to juvenile crime. With a continuing increase in single parent households and two working parent families, the needs of school age children for before and after school child care continues to grow as does the need for preschool programming. The ever increasing demand for programming has put a real squeeze an the number of indoor recreation facilities that are available. Recreation has historically utilized school facilities during non - school hours for its programs and services. However, the units of using school facilities, the growth in school sports, and the lack of daytintie program space has pushed corn nuniues to �b d�E' -'1QUNT� Pane l of k3 � 4 ,, � S S O C I ATES LTD M.-URKTET ANALYSIS City of Cottage Grove, Mj build separate recreation centers or partner with schools to enlarge facilities. Even with these new centers, use of school buildings has continued to be strom and has allowed for the growth in programs and services. As more and more Communities attempt to develop community recreation centers the issues of competition with other providers in the market area have inevitably been raised. The loudest objections have come from the private health club market and their industry voice H SA. The private sector has vigorously contended that public facilities unfairly compete with them is the market and have spent considerable resources attempting to derail public projects. However, the reality is that in most markets where public community recreation centers have been built, the private sector has not been adversely affected and in fact in many cases has continued to grow. This is due in large, part to the fact that public and private providers serve markedly different markets. One of the other issues of competition comes from the non- profit sector (prir:arly YMCA's but also JCL's, and others), where the market is much closer to that of the public providers. Vine not as vociferous as the private providers, the non - profits have also often expressed concern over public commum Ly recreation centers. ghat has resulted from this is a strong a ow+.n in the nurnber of partnerships that have occurred between the public and non- profit sector in an attempt to bring the best recreation amenities to a community. Community Recreation Center Benchmarks: Based on market research conducted by Ballard*King and Associates at Colrunulaity recreation centers across the United States, the following represents the basic benchmarks. The majority of commmuty recreation centers that are being built today are between 65,000 and 75,000 square feet. Most centers include three primary components A) A pool area usualiy with competitive and leisure anie•: hies, B) Multipurpose el- mr.asium space and Q Weio-ht /cardiovascular equipment area. In addition, most centers also have group exercise rooms, drop -in childcare, and classroom and /or community spaces, For most centers to have an opportunity to cover operating expenses with revenues, they must have a service population of at least 50,000 and an aggressive fees uct re. Most centers that are between 65,000 and 75 square feet have an operating budget of between 51,500,000 and $1,800,000 annually. Nearly 65% of tine operating costs are from personnel services, followed by approxi-mately 250/0 for contractual services, 9% for commodities, and 2% for capital replacement. For centers that serve a more urban pop ula and have a market driven fee s L - uctute, they should be, able to recover 70% to 100% of operating expenses. For centers in more Waal areas the recovery rate is generally 50% to 75 %. Facilities that can consistently cover all of 9kAJ1, 01D >1 4 KIN P age 42 or 40' Lam& AS 50 G 1 A'T ES LTD Uty o oetage Grove, M1V � their operating expenses with revenues are rare. The first true benchmark year of operation does not occur until the third full year of operation. The majority of centers of the size noted (and in an urban environment) above average daily vaid attendance of 800 to as much as 1,000 per day. These centers mill also typically sell between 800 and 1,500 annual passes (depending on the fee structure and marketing program). It is common for most centers to have a three - tiered fee structure that offers daily, extended visit (usually punch cards} passes, and annual passes. In urban areas it is common to have resident and non - resident fees. Non-resident rates can cost 25% to 50% higher than flae resident rate and are usually a topic of discussion amongst elected officials. Daily rates for residents average between $3.00 and $6.00 for adults, $3.00 and $4.00 for youth and the same for seniors. Annual rates for residents average between $200 and $300 for adults, and $100 and $200 for youth and seniors. Family annual passes tend to be heavily diseaunted and run between $350 and $800. h2ost centers are open an average of 100 hours a week, with weekday hours being 6:00anr to 10:00pm Saturdays 8:00am to 8:00pm and Sundays from noon to 8:00pm. Often hours are shorter during the summer months. Note: These statistics vary by regions of the country. BAL &U.@D Page 43 of 43 I � 4 SSSOCSATES LTD MARKET ANALYSIS Section 11- Aiternati -ve Service Providers Alternaflve Service Providers: There are a number of service providers in the immediate area that are currently providing indoor recreation activities. A mannber of these alternative service providers offer a full- service program that is driven by a market rate structure. Below is a list of the alternative service providers that were identified as part of the Cottage Grove market area. The following is a brief overview of the various categories of alternative service providers in Cottage Grove. Public— For a city the size and population of the Cottage Grove there are limited public facilities available for indoor recreation throug]° the Park and Recreation Department. However, many of the community recreation needs are being served through the Community Education branch of the Washington County School District. School facilities (primarily gymnasiums) are used for public recreation but on a liruited basis after the needs of the School District have been met. Private — There are a few private health and fitness clubs in the immediate service area. HolvCver none of these clubs axe considered full- service clubs. T he presence of private clubs in the Cottage Grove service area is being driven by the demographics of the area particularly the household median age and income. Most of the existing clubs have a strong orientation towards adult fitness activities and services. The private health clubs located in the area should not be considered as realistic competition for the multipurpose community recreation center as public, community based recreation facilities and private clubs traditionally appeal to di Brent market se�:ments and have a different operating philosophy =. The private clubs cater to a different market segment than apublic community center. Son- Profit — The YMCA has multiple centers hz the greater Tnvn Cities area including a full service YMCA in Woodbury. Generally the YMCA rates are comparable with private health club zroviders and the YMCA has traditionally played a significant role in providing indoor recreation services to the general public. Mternative Service 1?r s A mmnber of the alternative service providers were visited in an attempt to determine their market share, facility amenities, admission rate structure and facility use patterns. This information is important in estimating admission and participation frequency for the operations section of the report. Below it a surnnary of the alternative service providers visited by the consultant. BALLU 4 ;� L TG Pace 1 of 9 MARKE ANALYSI Cigy of Catwgc Gp AIN Anytime Fitness Curves for Woven Gold's Gym Life Time Fitness Snap Fitness YMCA LA Fitness High Sehool Field House Bielenberg Center Senior Center Look Out Ridge �i M i' , MI G Paget of ` MARKET ANALYSIS %U 00 offodage Grove, HN Section III - Prograa Recommendations The following section details some general program trends blended with, Cottage Grove observation and comments. The comments and recommendations are based on the market analysis, Recreation Facility Needs Study conducted in 2005, minutes from the CornmunLty Center Task Force meetings and assessment of the alternative service providers in the area. Remarks are grouped by area of interest and components. Community Center A quaties: As previously mentioned, the hottest trend in aquatics is the leisure pool concept. The impact a leisure pool has on increasing participation and brin ing families together cannot be overstated. These types of facilities are abe to attract and draw larger crowds and people tend to come from a further distance and stay longer to utilize such pools. A leisure pool is one of the program elements that will expand the secondary market for Cottage Grove. This all translates into the potential to sell more admissions and increase revcnues. It is estimated conservatively that a leisure pool can generate up to 25% to 30% more revenue. Patrons seem wtlliug to pay a higher user fee for a leisure pool than a conventional aquatic facility. However, an indoor leisure pool also is an expensive component to operate as utility and staff cost generally run higher than a traditional competitive swimming pool. Tie existing pools in the service area, in Particular the school district pool, offer limited access to the ntiblic. School curriculum, swv„ tear is and Community Education lesson programs consume a major portion of pool time. However the existingindoor pools meet the basis competitive swimming needs of the commmirmw at this time, The competitive aquatic needs in the commuuty, while being relatively small, do not merit another 25 -yard indoor pool. Most competitive swuing pools require a significant subsidy to offset operating cost. The limited use and fee elasticity competitive swimmers are willing to pay are obstacles in recovering a greater percentage of operating cost through revenue. Gymnasium: The Com nunity Center task force reported that the demand and request for gym space by local sport associations and recreation programs exceeds the inventory available in the community during the peak season. The field house at the high school primarily serves the school curriculum needs, sport tcarns and Community Education. However, like the swimrnirig pool, free access to the field house is limited. Area residents do not have access to the gym space during the school year /day and access to the public on a drop -in basis is limited at best. ?.long with a swimming pool and fitness area, the gymn asium component is one of the main components typically found in community centers today. As a result, double sized gynmasiwr. space that can be used for a multitude of activities is recommended. The gym space should be a �, -'I L � X, Page 3 of Q `- i a .assocr A rr.s L T MARKET ANALYS 0tv of Cottage Grove, AIN k separate enclosed space with a playing surface to accommodate a variety of programs including indoor soccer, in -line hockey, baseball batting cages, basketball and volleyball, Fitness: Indoor fitness typically ranks as one of the top activities people are most likely to participate in at a community center. The fitness needs of the cormnunity are underserved by the existing service providers in Cottage Grove, especially for families and youth. Statistically, exercise walking, exercise with equipment and aerobic exercise all rani- in the top eleven activities /sports most popular in the U.S, according to the National Sporting Goods Association statistics. Exercise and fitness is one of the cornponents that will drive membership, daily admission and participation. As a result, the fitness component has become the cornerstone for many community centers by virtue of generating revenue and participation. In addition, fitness activities appeal to a wide range of ages to help combat obesity along with improving the quality of one's life. Obesity is becoming an epidemic in the United States, especially for youth. Youth fitness is one component that can help address this issue locally and will differentiate Ridgeland Common from other facilities. However, fitness also is the one component that will create the greatest opposition from the private sector and YMCA. The private sector will claim unfair competition but the reality is that the private sector caters to a different market niche than a public community center and the private sector wants to eliminate competition. The private sector realizes the importance of the fitness market and tries to promote themselves as public service providers. The fee structure progra=- ing and operating practices employed by the private sector is significantly different than at a community center. There is enough market size and difference in the operating philosophy and practices for the private sector fitness providers and public facilities to operate in the same service area. An area within the f itness component that can accommodate health screenings and testing along with massage therapy and treatment area will supplement the fitness programs and their use. The fitness component of the proposed connrnuaity' center will generate the most revenue per square foot within the facility and consequently should not be undersized or underemphasized. ice Skating/Hockey: The ice skating and hockey need of the community are being met adequately w -n the 2.5 sheets of ice at the existing arena. Teen Area: In tiring to reach the teen age population many in the Parks and Recreation industry have differing opinion on how to best meet the needs. Some comn2anities have tried stand -alone teen centers while other look towards the conumirilty center to serve as the teen center during certain hours or have a portion of the conunity center dedicated to SanTing the teens. It seems the economizing of having the community center or a space within the cosmnunity center serve as the dedicated teen area makes the most sense from a supervision, control and cost perspective. al ALLARD� 7 �a Page 4o €9 ��z ;s nssoera2rs z,Tn MARKET ANALYSIS v 00 of Cottage Grove, MIN' indoor Walking /Jogging Track: Walking is rated as the top activi ies according to the NSGA and represents an estimated 12,700 people iii the Cottage Grove, The track at the high school field house helps meet the need for indoor walking/jogging but this space is not available during fie school day. Consequently, a track around the perimeter of the gymnasium and through other progratri spaces in the facility will meet the needs of several diverse groups of users. The multi- lane track allows runners, j oggers and walkers to all use the track simultaneously. Multi-Purpose I2oorrn /Classroonr area: A sufficient amount of square footage is needed for meetings and n2ulti- purpose space. Historically, meeting room space does not generate enough revenue to be a self - supporting component. However, these spaces are valuable a.s support spaces and the miulti -use and flexibility enables the facility to meet a wide variety of program reeds. The classrooms are needed to meet a wide rang-, of programs that have a multi- generational appeal and help meet the non -sport needs of the convsmnity. A community center in Cottage Grove should retain a "family" orientation to meet the broad based leisure and health needs of the community. Multi -use, flexibility of space and versatility of operation are important. The facility should not be seen as just a sports center. The focus of the center's diverse market segments and activities should be a function of time rather than space. Intergenerational use must be emphasized and the center needs to truly have something for everyone. The ability to deal with the delicate balance between progranuning and drop -in needs will determine how accessible the facility will be perceived. Programs (leagues and classes) clash with drop -in users and can become very disruptive to drop -in users. Care must be given to manage the balance between drop-in activities and pro gramnung needs. BAUAr'D*ICING Page 5 of 9 T �r V A SS 0 GIATES LTD City of Cottage Grove, MAI Cottage Grove Cornnsranitw Center Bro6rnm Recommendations Based on the comments and recommendations in the previous section, and the goat of nnaking the facility as self-sustaining as possible, the following is the proposed program and justification for Cottage Grove. The focus of the project is on meeting the recreational and sport needs of Cottage Grove. Aquatic Area Justification: • The City does not have an indoor recreation pool. • An indoor pool expands the programming opportunities for the City. • Svairnming was the top recommendation by the Community Center Task Force. • Swimming is the number two rated activity in terms of participations in the U.S. as reported by the '.National Sporting Goods Association. • `raving an indoor pool vAll build more use and reve for community center from the synergistic effect a swimming pool has on participation. Program Recommendation: A space that is approximately 14,000 so ft. The Ieisure pool includes a zero depth entry, current channel, vortex. pool, SCS interactive play structure, water slide, bubble bench and assorted sprays and fountains. The aquatic area is supported by a hot tub and separate teacningitherapy pool that can accommodate lap swimmers and swim lessons. The aquatic area should also include some tap lanes to meet the fitness swim and exercise needs of the commum.y. Some communities operate outdoor Ieisure pools to reduce the cost of oneraa`ing an indoor aquatic center. Without maestiot '., operating an outdoor pool is the most economically feasible method of delivering aquatic services to a community. It should be noted that an outdoor swimming pool in Minnesota typically only has an 85 -90 day operating season when factoring in closures for cold or rainy weather. A legitimate argument can be made for spending the extra capital necessary to e- nciose the pool and taking on additional operating cost so the pool becomes available on a year around basis. Gymnasium Justincation: * The existing held house has limited access during the school day. a The Cit. does not have a full sized gymnasium inns; system. e A gymnasium exparids the programmning opporuwruties for the City and improves public access. s Az space will help accom odate he excess demand for the end house space during the peak season, especially for practice space. r50 B ,A� D ASSOCIAT MIN Vane 6 of 9 ATIARKET ANALYSIS Cary Qf Cottage Grove, MY � ® A gymnasium meets .many different program needs including the estimated 4,075 basketball, 2,394 volleyball, 1,997 Soccer, 2,110 Baseball, 1,673 softball and 1,639 tennis players in Cottage Grove. m Operating costs for a gymnasium are relatively low and does not require a great deal of staff support. Program Recommendation.: A space that is approximately 12,500 sq. ft. and divisible into two gym areas (each with a 50' by 64" basketball court) by a drop curtain. The main gyr masiurn space should be set up for a variety of activities including youta and adult basketball and youth /adult volleyball along with non- traditional gyun sports including baseball, softball, soccer, tennis and convention/trade show space. Portable seating should be included (tip and roll type bleachers), The Citv should consider a TtiAC (Multiple Activity Court) design for the gynmasium to expand the flexibility and use of this space. Running/jogging Track Justification: • Limited public access to the existing field house track. The tract: is not available during the school day, • An indoor track can be easily hung from the ceiling. of a gyni asium and makes efficient use of the large volume of space in a KI M nasniin. • Exercise walking is the n *amber one rated activity in the U.S. with over an estimated 12,700 walkers in Cottage Grove based on NSGA participation standards. In addition, there are an estimated 4,874 runners /joggers in Cottage Grove according to NSGA Standards. • A track provides a safe, environmentally controlled space for the seniors in Cottage Grove. Program Recor nxaendation: A ten -foot vide track that surrounds the perimeter of the g}lm area that can be used for walking Or jog�mg. The track is approximately 6,000 sq. ft. _ Weight /Cardiovascular and F'it5ess Area Justification: m The Citv does not have a fitness and exercise facility in the City system. * A fitness and exercise components expands the programming opportunities for the City s Exercise with equipment is rated number three in popularity in the U.S. according to NSGA. m Fitness will drive membership interest and revenue * Youth fitness is underserved in the market area r -- B1M'e ITG Page 7 of 9 � A9 SOGAT &5 L D MARKET ANALYSIS ado 00i of Cottage Grove, A17V OP Obesity and health associated issues related to obesity are becoming an epidemic in our country Program Recommendation An area of at ?east 7,000 sq, ft. that includes free weights, selectorizcd machines and cardiovascular equipment for youth fitness, sport specific training and rehab /exercise. An area approximately 1,500 sq. ft. for fitness classes that features a mirrored wall, dance bars mounted on the wall, free - floating impact floor, sound system, storage area and storage cubbies. This space would be used for aerobics, dance, Pilates, and martial arts programs. This room should also have a free-floating wood floor and adjustable lighting to adjust/modify the environment for yoga and relaxation classes Multi - Purpose Room — A space of abrnat 5,000 sq. ft. with a stage that can be divided i-rto smaller rooms for multiple program functions. T1us space would be used for community rentals and lower level performing arts as well. A catering kitchen for food service with direct access to the meeting room is desirable. Also a small sunk for cleanup and storage cabinet for prob ain supplies is required. �fndoor May Area — A space of about 1,500 sq. ft. for a themed, indoor play structure. Teen Area — A space of about 2,500 sq ft that includes a lounga /social networking area., computer access and games (table type and computer type — Wii) and large screen monitor M player for movies. In addition, include a small soundlreeording studio within the teen area for in=,- and creatng music along with I:araoke equipment. This space was rated as a high need by the Community Center Task Force. Birthday Party Rooms Two rooms of approximately 400 sq. ft. each that are immediately adjacent to the lesure summing pool and indoor play area. These rooms will be used to host I irthday parties and serve as a messy arts class room. Support Spaces — There must be sufficient space and resources allocated for the following Lobby /lounge space Front desk area Resource center Child watch area Resirooins /Locher Rooms Concession and vending Office space Storage Mechanical systems 7 BAJL� *ItG Page g of 4 �� l A 5 sa cI 7 &9 L'r v MARKET ANALYSIS City of Co fage Crowe, AIN Prelfrnin.ary a rograran Summary. Based or, the program assessment the folloving prograrn sw mary is possible for Cottage Grove, Component Base Facility 6d. Ft. Aquatic Area 14,000 Gynu:asium 12,500 Track 6,000 WeiahJCardio 2000 Aerobic /Dance 1.500 Multipurpose Room 5,000 can Area 2,500 Indoor Plays Structure 1,500 Birthday Party Roo.ns 800 Support Spaces 9,500 Net Buiiding 60,300 Circulation (18 %) 10,354 Total Buildini- 71,154 Note: This is a preflin nara facif ty progr2m only and is pending approval of the Community Center Task Force committee and C - k* , of Cottage Grove. Validation of the square foota;e, and dreulation percentage needs to be verified by architect. j B hARD*_I is Page 9 of 9 APPENDIX J#1 LU Lj z uj U LL C) zo Cf, < E U) 0 CD C) Z Lu < LU to L!j LL, LLJ (3 2 E 1 c � n c . o o N Q C o � r.i g Q' w 6 (i ��I A �. �. �, � � o U�P� � �' I � ��� � . I t 2 E 1 � n c . cn c: �n o Q C r.i g Q' w 6 (i � A �. �, � � � . E 8 9 16 o fl iE tz i i < I I Jill I I I I 2 E a �9' y' r £ x S sfr � , � Fy L. 2010 Cottage Grove. Market Potential Study Prepared for: The YMCA of Greater St. Paul and the City of Cottage Grove,, Mihinssota Prepared by: Anderson, Msbuhr & lkssociates, inc. Northpark Corporate Center P e n a T rne a- D r i v 3 s u e Arden HIDES, IMN 5 Z5� 11 Z2 L (651) 4a6-UM 2 January 2011 2 Cottage m rove Market P ' ntWS0udy T ABLE 0PCONTENTS Conclusions and Recommendations .... ...... ....... ....^...... ...... Background and Purpose ....... ............... .,............. ....., RwaaarchFVAsthnd. ..... .. .......... ................. .... —. ..... .... .... 111.,.....1 .—..—.�� S � , ununmaryaf Findings ..... ........ ........ ... .. .................... ............ ............. . ..... 7 [ Awareness ofthe --.....—.---- -----,7 U. Desired Characteristics of, the Commun Center .................... ................ ....... 10 ||[ |ntare$tin[)idar/\dU8/\:tiviban---....—..............,.—..----22 lv� Interest in Youth and Teen Activities. ... ,,............ ...—......... ........ ....... 28 V. |ntereut 'In Dedicated Shared Space for Older Adults and Teens ....................... 31 V[ Interest in a Community Cantar Membership, ..... .. ....... .......................... —'33 W. Assessment of YMCA and Cottage Grove Partnership ..... ............. .............. 5D \q/[ Current Membership i:s Health, Fitness, ur Recreational Facility ............ --'5S (>L Demographic Characterstts...~........ ...... ................ ........... ... ....... @4 FR�IarketP jectimoa—.,..— .... ....... 6B Appendix A�l[adbottmConnnssnta Appendix B: QuoaQnamalrn C onclusions and Recommendations This section of the report provides conclusions and recommendations based on the results of the study. Conclusions from the data are presented first, followed by recommendations (�) pertaining to the conclusions. ,Awareness of the YMCA The majority of residents are familiar with and have a favorable perception of the YMCA organization. =:f The City of Cottage Grove and the YMCA should recognize the YMCA is well regarded within the Cottage Grove community, This strength should be leveraged when promoting the new community center to residents. Desired Characteristics of the Commun Center m Residents desire traditional fitness equipment and programs; most popular amenities include an indoor track for walking or running, cardiovascular equipment, strength conditioning machines and free weights, and a multi - purpose gymnasium. Health and wellness programs, group fitness classes, and Yoga and Pirates classes also interest residents. Likely joiners, younger residents, and those who have children under 18 expressed more interest in most fitness amenities, 6 Water facilities and aquatic programs are very popular among likely joiners. These residents most desire an indoor aquatic center with water slide, a play area for children, and a zero -entry pool as well as an indoor pool for lap swimming. Residents who are younger, as well as those who have children living in their households, are more likely to indicate a great deal of 'interest in nearly all the water facilities and amenities. Those in the 45 -54 age group are more likely to express interest in water aerobics and other water exercise programs. Likely joiners expressed less interest in additional community services. However, a moderate amount of interest was expressed for arts classes, a banquet facility wirh a kitchen, and availability of meeting rooms for local groups and events. — The new community center should offer those programs and activities that are of most interest to likely joiners, namely traditional Illness amenities and water facilities and aquatic programs. Consider the feasibility of offering additional services dike arts classes, a banquet facility and meeting rooms. Interest in Older Adult and Youth Activities a More than half of residents are interested in older adult programming for people 55 or older. Ritness activities, such as an indoor walking program, rehabilitation programs, water 20 1 10 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study aerobics exercise and strength training classes are most desired. Thee is limited Interest in organized card- playing leagues and chair exercise classes, The community center should recognize that there is slzab €e interest in active older adult programming for those 55 or older. We encourage the YMCA to offer fitness programming geared towards older adults, including those activities of greatest interest to residents. More than half of residents are interested in youth and teen programming at the new community center, Residents who are likely to join the new community ^,enter are more likely to express a great deal of interest in almost all the youth and teen activities mentioned in the survey. open pool time for swimming and water fun is the program of most interest to those interested in youth and teen programming. A teen center to provide a gathering spot for teens to go after school, with a computer lab and homework help, and family nights with open gym time are also greatly appealing to those interested in youth and teen programming. Likely joiners who want youth and teen programming expressed more interest in nearly all of the youth and teen activities than did non - joiners. The community center should provide youth and teen programming. In particular, open pool time, a teen center, and family nights with open gyre time should be offered, since these are of most interest to residents and likely joiners who desire youth and teen programming. The mayority of residents and likely joiners who expressed an interest in programming for older adults or youth and teens said they or someone in their household would be interested in using a dedicated shared space for seniors to use in the daytime and teens to use in the evening. The c ommunity center should consider offering a dedicated shared space for sensors to use in the daytime and teens to occupy in the evening, which would conserve the space needed to address the needs of the two membership croups, older adults and youth. Interest in a Corn nunity Center Membership All three proposed locations for the new community center are appealing to residents. Approximately six in ten residents said `hey would consider Joining. a ne4ry community center operated by the `:`MCA at any of the proposed locations. Among those residents who are likely to join, about eight in ten would want a family membership. When residents were asked their preference of the three sites, about 32 percent each mentioned the locations near Presbyterian Homes and the County Services Center; 20 percent chose the site by the current City Nail and another 22 percent had no preference. Similar results were found among the subgroup of likely joiners. Of the three potential sites, the location near Presbyterian Homes Norris Square senior housing will produce the greatest number of memberships and the largest arinual revenue. .�"�sayhTmn' ,hrd:NSr�date�,ii�c 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study Younger residents and those who have children 18 and under living in their households are more likely to join the community center than older residents and childless households. Res €dents who are unlikely to join indicated coast, location, and lack of time or interest as their primary reasons for not joining. About four in ten residents are willing to drive five miles or more to a new community center. =5 Based on the results of this feasibility study, it appears that a now community center will produce a solid membership base and revenue stream from the primary market area. The majority of residents do not currently belong to a public or private health, fitness, or recreational facility. over half of those who do belong to one said they would dofinflefy or probably switch their membership to the new community center if It is built. The YMCA should recognize the potential for the Woodbury YAr1CA to lose ,- members to the proposed Cottage Grove site. Assessment of YMCA and Cottage Grove Partnership a An ovenvhelma ng majority (86 percent) of residents would like to see a new community center become part of Cottage Grove and nearly these- quarters have a favorable view of the partnership between the City and the YTACA. Most residents who pay property taxes are, for the most part, wiliina to pay increased property tares to support a new cornrnunity center. However, less than one-quarter of residents, primarily the unlikely joiners, are unwilling to pay an increase. a Seven in ten residents support the use of Cottage Grove city funds to construct a new community center. Community center planners and the YMCA can proceed knowing that most Cottage Grove residents approve of this initiative. Demc=Ehie Char^eterlsbcs o Less than half of the survey respondents have children under the age of 18 living in their households; more than half of the likely joiners have children under 18. About three - quarters of survey respondents have lived in Cottage Grove for 10 years or more. der,, e a`raA o a tec. 3 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study Overall Conclusions a There is support from residents to construct a new community center in Cottage Grave. The facility should have traditional fitness amenities and water facilities like the ones tested in the survey. 4 A sizeable percentage of residents indicated an interest in older adult programming; in particular, fitness activities such as an indoor walkers program, rehabilitation programs, water aerobics and strength training. e Also, a sizeable percentage of residents want the new community center to offer programming for youth and teens, Likely joiners would especially value open pool time for swimming and water fun, family nights with open gym time and a teen center. Of the 'three sites considered, the location near Presbyterian Homes Norris Square senior housing will produce the greatest number of memberships and the largest annual revenue. 4 The potential new community center member is between the ages of 35 and 54 yea, s old, has an annual household income of $ 60,000 or more, has children under 18 flying in the household, and does not currently belong to a fitness facility. Potential members are most likely to purchase a family membership. ,��era,,Pu �u r' &�ssociate 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study B ackground a n d Purpose The purpose of this research was to assess whether Cottage Grove residents support the development of a new city community center that would be operated by the YMCA. Specifically, the study sought to learn the following: Image and awareness of the YMCA Desired programming and facilities of a community center, including older adult and youth programming Interest in a community center membership at each of three proposed locations, and identification of factors influencing likelihood to purchase a membership Community acceptance of a partnership between the City of Cottage Grove and the YMCA, and willingness to support the use of city funds and increased property taxes to fund the project (in addition to membership fees paid by participating members) y Market projections for a community center in Cottage Grove operated by the YMCA The City of Cottage Grove and the YMCA of Greater St. Paul co- sponsored this research and retained the independent market research firm of Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc. to conduct the study. 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study 5 F`CSP"' .A.` ION l4UMF 3E17 0 COPAPLETED SURVEYS `, EapoC ,fSE Pu- ES mos.P.GIN CF "EPNR0P. DATA COLLECTION DATES M 7-7 d-IODOLCGY G u_sTIONH4,1 DATA �^ I > Residents living in a five -mile radius of the middle location of the three proposed sites. A random sample was drawn by age, proportionate to the ages of the population of the 15,734 households in the sample area. An age- quota was followed during the data collection phase. 350 Total I Response ; ate , _� Data is accurate within +1- 5% at a 95% confidence level November 19 — December 18, 2010 i Telephone methodology; interviews were conducted using Computer Aided Telephone interviewing (CATI) software. s r Up to five calls made to respondents at varying times of the day. r Anderson- Niebuhr met with Cottage Grove and YMCA representatives to discuss the issues and topics to be C f addressed and prepared draft surveys for review. w The surveys were pretested with ten residents and revised i accordingly. (See APPENDIX B for a copy of the anal survey.) I a Descriptive statistics for overall data and coding of open- end questions. (See APPENDIX A for verbatim responses.) F Crosstabulations comparing: Likely joiners and unlikely joiners (Likely joiners are defined as residents who would definitely, probably, or maybe join a community center in at least two of the three s proposed loca ions. Unlikely oiners are those who would orobably not or definitely not purchase a membership in at least two of the three locations.) t Age Those who have children under 18 in their households vs. those who do not (Don't know responses were excluded from crosstabulations.) r Market Projections _ r � ,Jesx,iwebuhr5 ?u���, ire 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study Summ ary # =° This section of the report presents ^ findings based on the responses of 350 randomly selected Cottage Grove residents. Results are displayed in figures, followed by bulleted points describing the main findings. Statistically significant differences are reported in this section under the heading "Other Findings." Only significant differences are shown. FIGURE 1 Q2. How familiar are you with the yFV CA? (td =350} a About nine in ten residents said they are eery or sorriewhat familiar with the YMCA {Figure n,Ni fir &u oc e,3 7 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study Dither In this report, the term "likely joiners" is defined as those residents who said they would definitely, probably, or maybe join the new community center in at least two of the proposed location. € ikel nity, Center °lo Very famil Familiarity with the 3o�a 22% YMCA _- Aoc % Very familiar Familiarity with the 27% 37% 36% i 21% YMCA H ouseholds with Children vs. Households without Chi€dren %'dery familiar Familiarity with the 39% i 21% I YMCA i 0 Residents who aremore likely to join the community center are between the ages 01 35 and 54, have children under 18 in their households, and are more likely than others to be very famiiiarwith the YMICP.. d . r, r, ;xuhrOzv. ,Inc S 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study FRGURE 2 Veitherfavorable nor unfavorable 9% _Don'- know 10% + Nine in ten residents have a vary or somewhat favorable perception of the YMCA (f=igure 2) Other Findings Likely vs. unlikely Joiners of the Community Center Perception of the YIVIC.A % Very favorable 60% 31% 0 Residents who are likely to join the community center are more likely than others to have a very favorable perception of the YMCA. �At�„YS(1ilIV72bLhp b:h�0.m�S Inc, 9 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study Q1 What is your perception of the YMCA.? (n =312) FIGURE S Q4. low interested would you or someone in your household be in each of the following Fitness programs and services the new community center could offer? (N =3501 An Indoor track for walking or running cardlovascular fitness mBChines Strength conditioning machines and free walrhts A multi- purpose gyrrr asium for aC4 ✓Ries such as r,asketball and volleyball health and wellness 2 Mora ms Gmua fttness cias__s Yoga and ?hates classes Pars^,nel Maine« and Hines=. assessmen Sport eagues i'or adult i 1 n Great deal of Intern- a Soma interest rz Little intea_5t ta Nc interest at all Cony knaw� 1 x r l ? aduson „�ri��;�'^.z'A�ocaies,Inc. 10 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study 0% 20% 40% 60% an 160% Nearly four in ten or more Cottage Grove residents have a great deal o; interest in the following fitness Programs and services (Figure 3): � An indoor :rack for walking or running � Cardiovascular fitness machines � Strength conditioning machines and free weights Additionally, about three in ten residents have a great deal of interest in these fitness amenities A multi - Purpose gymnasium for activities such as basketball and volleyball Health and wellness programs Group fitness classes 4 6_11son,3die6unr�A 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study Other Like vs Unlikely Joiners of the Gornniunity Center sue; 15111CIIIii d OA GrE-at deal o f li terest An indoor track for walking nd g 65% 23% i running _ Cardiovascular fitness machines j 60% 17% I —J Streng conditionina ° machines JQ% 17% I and free weights A multi- purpose gymnasium for I pvvlties such as basketball: and _ 1 — 46% 9% volleyball Health and wellness programs j 47% 11% I � � I I Group fitness classes 40% 8% I Toga and P1lates classes 36% 10% j Sports is lea?ues for adults j 26% 3% I Personal trainer and fitness 24 % I, 7% as sessments 0 Not surprisingly, more likely joiners than unlikely ioiners said they have a great deal Of interest in all Fitness areas surveyed. 12 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study Other Findings (Conf'd) _ °% Great deal of interest �Cardiovascularr'itness ( 55 °% 22 67% 55°% machines Strength conditioning I machines and free 66% 50% 40% 19 °!° weights An indoor track for 60% 48% 52% 48% walking and running A multi- purpose 1 I gymnasium for activities 47% 48% 40% 12% such as-b asketball and volleyball i j Group fitness classes 44% 37°x6 29% 18 1 Yoga and Pilates classes 36% 34% 28% 17% Health and wellness 33°% 33% 35% 26 ° % 1 prog Sports leagues for adults 31% i 265b 24% i 3% Personas trainers and l 20% 21% 25% 11% fitness as 0 Younger residents tend to shove the greatest level of 'interest in nearly aH the fitness amenities surveyed. 0 Conversely, those 55 and older are the feast likely to have a great deal of interest (n aHr,ost all of the fitness anrenities listed. 41 .nd.,,en,?\iebu ` rd: dssocwtes, Irr 13 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study Other Findings (Cont'd) Househe Ed= 0th Children vs. F6ouseholde ithout Children 0 Househoids with children are more likely to show a great deal of interest in all fitness amenities surveyed. cl�I'JA I ; Nikuh , &.A- md ih. 14 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study d 1 % Gr eat deal of interest Cardiovascularfitness machines i I 59 % 33% :An track for v alking and 53 °l'o Gg°� ning conditioning machines 51% 29% l Strength and free weights A multi- purpose gymnasium for activities such as basketball and i 49% 19% volleyball —J i f Group fitness c lasses i 39% 21% Yoga and Pilates classes 37% i Health and wellness programs 35% 27% Sports leagues for adults i 27% 10% L Personat trainers and fitness 22% 15% assessments __ 0 Househoids with children are more likely to show a great deal of interest in all fitness amenities surveyed. cl�I'JA I ; Nikuh , &.A- md ih. 14 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study FIGURE 4 nr5, How interested would you or someone in your household be in each of the following water facilities or activities the new community center could offer? fN =s5o1 An indoor aquatic center with a water slide, a play area for childre n, and a zero -entry pool An Indoor pool for lap swimming A whirl^ool Indoor vrater side Swimming lessons Water aerobics and other water exercise programs Outdoor solash deck Asauna 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% iPJ% P Great deal o`- interest 0� Some interest Litde Interest r No interest at all Don't knows E- More than lour in ten survey reap have a great deal of irlierestt in these two water facilities (Figure 4): = An indoor aquatic center with a water slide, a play area for children, and a zero -entry pool = An indoor pool for lap swimming + More than three in ten also said they have a great deal of interest in the following water ;ad!ides and activities: A whirlpool Indoor water slide Swimming lessons Water aerodics and other water exercise programs k. a`sdervo1,?.edjh dds,Inc. 15 2010 Gouge Grove Market Potential Study Other L @fie €w vs U€ €dke €v Ja4ners cf tEle Gsrmursity Center More residents who are likely to join the new eornmunity center than those who are unlikely to do so have a great deal cl imerest in all water facilities and activities surveyed, 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study % Great deal of interest An indoor aquatic center 1 equipped with a vdater slide, a s7oo I 1�% play area for children, and a zero -entry 0001 I An Indoor pool for lap 53% swimming Awhirlp ool 47/0 ° 13 /e Indoor water slide 46% 13% I SWinlrning IE550Yi5 44 % i I 15 - I Water aerobics and other water -� 43% 9% 1 exercise programs Outdoor splash deck 36% 10% A sauna 33% 10% More residents who are likely to join the new eornmunity center than those who are unlikely to do so have a great deal cl imerest in all water facilities and activities surveyed, 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study Other Findings (Coat d) Aqe 0 Younger residents are more likely to have a great deaf of interest in nearly all water facilities and activities. Those in the 45 -54 year -old age group are more likely to express a great deal of interest in water aerobics and other water exercise programs. ?{7 ^uSM'y IV12UU B'SG- 0C3f:S 17 20"O Cottage Grove Market Pctentia[ Study % Great deal of interest An indoor aquatic center equipped with a ! , eater slide, a play area 82% 65% ( 36% 17% for children, and a zero- entry pool Swimming lessons � 71% ! I 48b ( 31% 11% f An indoor pool for lap 66% 50% I 48% 18% swirnming Indoor water slide � 60% 59% � 32% � 8% I A whirlpool 53% 37% i I 41% 23% Outdoor splash deck I ( SO% 40% 27% —� 7% i A sauna 38% 26% 31% 15% Water aerobics and � other water exercise 35% 28°% , 41% 25% program 0 Younger residents are more likely to have a great deaf of interest in nearly all water facilities and activities. Those in the 45 -54 year -old age group are more likely to express a great deal of interest in water aerobics and other water exercise programs. ?{7 ^uSM'y IV12UU B'SG- 0C3f:S 17 20"O Cottage Grove Market Pctentia[ Study Other Findings (Cont'd) H ouseholds with Children vs. Households without Children o Househoids with children are more likely than households without children to have a great deal of interest in all water facilities and activities surveyed. of. adersan,hiebuh , Inc. 18 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study % Great deal of interest An indoor aquatic center equipped with a water slide, a 67 23% play area for children, and a i zero -entry pool I 1 indoor water slide 54% 14% An indoor pool for lap 56 °Ja 28% swimming Swimming lessons 51% 20% Outdoor splash deck 43% i, 13 - A whirlpool 41 % I 300 1 Water aerobics and other water % 33% ° 30% exercise programs Asauna I ° 31% � c 20% o Househoids with children are more likely than households without children to have a great deal of interest in all water facilities and activities surveyed. of. adersan,hiebuh , Inc. 18 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study FIGURE 5 coo, Flow interested would you or someone in your household be in each of the following services a community center could offer? (N =350) Arts classes, such as dance, music or wafts Ba nquet fa cillty for up to 300 people with a kitchen for catered events Meeting space or conference rooms ' or lecal groups and events R Great deal of Interest 0 Sorn i 1� Ltttl interest 'a No intere at all Don't know 7 1 - + Half or more of residents indicated a great deal or some interest in the following community services that could be offered in a community center (Figure 5): = Arts cusses, such as dance, music or c; alts = Banquet facility for up to 300 people with a kitchen for catered events Meeting space or conference roolnns for local groups and events czran,R:icrjhr LS'dte,Lo. 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study 0J 2 90 40% 50% 80% 1001/ Other Likely vs Unlikely Joiners of the Community Center % Great deal of interest Arts classes, such as dance, j 24°' 5% music or cra'b's A banquetfacifity for up to 300 j people, with a kitchen for I 22° %0 10°I catered events Meeting space or conference ; rooms available for local 19% A% community Groups and events 0 Likely joiners are more likely than unlikely joiners to show a great deal of interest In having arts classes, a banquet facility, and meeting space at a new commun Ity center. w Great deal of interest v� I Arts classes, such as 31° 26% d ance, music or crafts 15% $% A banquet facility for up to 300 eo i = with a kitchen for catered I events Meeting space or conference rooms ! available for local i 18% 17% 16% 8% community groups and events 0 Younger residents are more likely to express a great deal of irrierest in arts lasses; those in the 45 -54 year -old age group are more likely to show a great deal of interest in a 'banquet facility. 0 Those 55 and older are the least likely to have a great deal of imerest in ail o` the amanities. ads;an,P�i2bua� &iiss°ci�tes,lw_ 20 2010 Cottage Grave Market Potential Study Other Findings (Contd) Households with Chitdrers vs. Households without Children Great deal of interest Arts classes, such as dance ?7% 10% music or crafts A banquet facility for up to 300 people, with a kitchen for f 21% 15° catered events Meeting space or conference rooms available for local 18% 11 ° % community groups and events 0 Households with children are more likely than households without children to have a great deal of interest in having arts classes, a banquet facliity, and meeting space. a,Nebuhr &Aocaea,Fnc 21 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study FIGURE E Q7, would you or a family rnember be interested in programs for people 55 or older at the new community center facility? (N = ?50) a dust over half of the Cottage Grove residents surveyed said they or a family member would be interested in programs for people 55 and older at the new community center (Figure 0 ) . 4 1 . ' €a denon,Nlebuh &Asrz3s, Inc, 22 20 10 Cottage Grove K/larket Potential Study Other Findings Likely vs. UrtillkelSF J oiners of the Community Center Households with Children _vs. _H ouseholds without Children IMP % Yes I Interested in programs I for adults age 55 or 33% 71% older i. 0 Residents wind are likely to join the community center, those 55 or older, and those VII do not have children under 18 living in their households are more likely than others to be - interested in programs for people 55 and older at the new community center, i i c A dersn,05 uu &hsosa [a. 23 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study W LS yyliY _ Yes nterested in programs for adults age 55 or 57% 46% older i Aqe O F �= ° io Great deal of interest F�nter�ested in programs j for adults age 55 or 35% 30% 50% I 80% older I Households with Children _vs. _H ouseholds without Children IMP % Yes I Interested in programs I for adults age 55 or 33% 71% older i. 0 Residents wind are likely to join the community center, those 55 or older, and those VII do not have children under 18 living in their households are more likely than others to be - interested in programs for people 55 and older at the new community center, i i c A dersn,05 uu &hsosa [a. 23 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study FIGURE 7 Q8. How interested would you or a family member over age 58 be in each of the following activities ?* 1lydDor wa lire rs program Rehabilltation programs, such as programs for arthritis or joint replacement Water aerobics exercise Strength training classes Day trips to places of Interest Organized card- playing leagues, such as bridge or poker Chair exercise programs 0% 20% 40% 50% 80% 100% R Gre at deal of interes 9 Some interest Z Lit-le interest Ea No interest at all Don't know , "Asked only cf those who enswered'Yes" to Q7: 'Nov id you or a family member be interested in programs for people 55 and o{der at tine new mmmunoD center lasrty7 a More than three in ten residents who are interested in older adult programming find these activities most appealing (Figure 7): =t. Indoor walkers program =t Rehabiiitation prograirrs, such as programs for arthritis orjoint replacement ::=d Water aerobics exercise =* Strength training classes + In contrast, roughly four in ten residents had no interest at all in organized card - playing leagues, such as bridge or poker, or in chair exercise Programs. �edusan,lv�elufi �tvmciates,ine. 24 201 0 Gottaee Grove Market Potential Study Other Likely vs. CPnReIV Jointers of the Community Center ` yl.. �. III deal of ICI i An indoor walkers program I 47% 17% Water aerobics exercise ( 42 °% 7% Rehabilitation programs, such as programs for arthritis or joint 42% ( 17% replacement Strength training classes 38% t 15% Gay trips to places of interest i 28% 13% Organized card - playing leagues, such as bridge or 22% 4% I poke_ { Chair exercise classes 19 4% 0 More residents who are likely to join the new community center - than those who are unlikely to do so said they or a family member over age 55 would have a great deal of interest in all the activities suggested in the older adult programming section of the survey. L �dsrson ; Nrie hr &ASxfatss 25 2010 Ccttage Grove Market Potential Study FIGURE 8 € 9. Would you or a family member be interested in youth and 'teen programming at the new community cent facility? (N =350) tAore than half of Cottage Grove residents said the' they or a family member would be interested in youth and teen programming at the new community center (Figure S). :r..o;=,iviw`r�hr &Fsso ^'als, he 26 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study Other Findings Likely vs Unlikely Joiners of the Community Center wki— @ 5d a9� % Yes -- 1 Interested in programming for youth 66% i 31% and teens A r- r :i `ex:�'�;� "a"f`.t' LP %'4- �'..mti. ',:N t_r,,: '. ^�-°..sm� I %Yes Interested in programming for youth 76% 86% 51% i 24% j and teens — Households with Children vs. Households without Children i % Yes Interested in f I programmingforyouth 84% 1 28% and teens C Residents who are likely to join the community center, those 35 to 44 years old, and those who have children under 18 living in -heir households are more likely than others to be - interested in programs for youth and teens at the new commun ty center. I 27 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study FIGURE s Q10, How interested would you or someone in your household be in each of the following youth and teen programs the new community center could offer ?* (N =140) Open pool time forswimming and water fun A teen center to provide a gathering sportier teens to go after school, With a computer I26 no homework help Family nights with ePen gym ttme swimming lessons sports leagues for youth and teens Outdoor sports holes for youth: Youth leadership and character deval ?oment programs Drop off child care that allows parents to work out for up to 2 hours Youth and teen sports conditioning arc toairrmg program: C:zsses to teach specific sports basics tc young childrer A full-time Monday - Pr'day summa care program for kids ages 4 to 1 A supervised outdoor skateboard par Af, school child care and program is Great deal of in t e rest E some Interest ,a Ultle Interest V No interest at all Don't know *Asked only of those efio answered "Yar' to Ce'. Would you or a 2m11, men For be inteie5tad In govth and te=-n pro greo reing at the new smmvnnr` centertecllk,? &Mn,Ntetutn' cbli�s,h!a 2 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study Among those interested in youth and teen programming, six in ten or more residents have a great deaf of interest in the following youth and teen programming (Figure 9 Open pool time for swimming and water fun A teen center to provide a gathering spot for teens to go after school, with a computer lab and homework help Family nights with open gym time Additionally, more than half of residents interested in youth and teen programming expressed a great deal of interest in these activities for youth and teens: Swimming lessons Sports leagues for youth and teens Outdoor sports fields for youth Youth leadership and character development programs Drop off child care that allows parents to work out for up to two hours while their children are cared for in a fun environment Other Liketv vs Unlikely Joiners of the Community Center 0 Among those who expressed an interest in youth and teen programming, more likely joiners than those who are unlikely to join said they have a great deal of interest in many of the activities Irendoned in this section of the survey. 6r & 29 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study w t r °% Great deal o` interest Open pool time for swimming i 77% 36% 1 and water fun Family nights with open gym 67% 33% ''. time ! I i A teen center to provide a ; gathering spot for teens to go 66% 47% after school, with a compute' � t .ab and homework help Outdoor sports fields for youth 60% 25% Sports leagues for youth and 36 te ens 4— i Youth and teen sports conditioning and training 56% ?9% prog _ Classes to teach specific sports 5310 22°% basics to young children 0 Among those who expressed an interest in youth and teen programming, more likely joiners than those who are unlikely to join said they have a great deal of interest in many of the activities Irendoned in this section of the survey. 6r & 29 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study 0 / r rPat deaf of interest Swimming lessons 8i% i 45% 47% G2% Drop off child care that ail allows parents to worm j ?10/, 45% 44% 55% out for up to two h ours A full -time, Monday - Friday summer care 52% ! 23% 49% 45% program for kids ages 4 to 14 j After- school child care o 45 /o 18/a o 36/c o 45/0 andproar afrs 0 Younger residents are more likely to have a great deal of interest in having the mllowing youth and teen programs at a new community center: Swimming lessons Drop -off child care that allows parents to work out for up to two hours A, full -time, Monday - Friday summer care program for kids ages 4 to 14 0 Both the 34 and younger age group and the 55 and older age group show a great deal of interest in after - school child care programs. 34 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study FIGURE 10 Qn. How interested would you or someone in your household be in using a dedicated shared space for seniors to use in the daytime and teens to use in the evening ?* (N =2ss) -Asked only of those ho expressed interest in youth and teens programs, and/or programs for older adults, i Those residents who are interested in having programming for adults 55 or older and those who expressed interest in youth and teen programming at the netnr community center were asked if they or someone in their household would be interested in using a dedicated shared - space for seniors. About seven in ten of these residents have a great deal or some interest In using a dedicated shared space like this (Figure 10). 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Stud} 3i Other LikelLvs un6iweltr Joiners of the Commun',I Cen#er % Great deal of interest Interested in dedicated shared space for older 35% 15% adults and teens j i Residents who are likely to join the community center are more likely than unlikely joiners to have a great deal of interest in using a dedicated shared space for older adults and Peens at the new community center. A j q�_',2WnJ, 1 ie hs inc. 32 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study In the survey, residents were told that three different proposed locations were under consideration for the new community center and that they would be asked about each one. The order in which the three locations were revealed to residents was rotated to eliminate bias. The proposed Community Center was described as `having an indoor aquatic center, including a family fun pool, an outdoor splash deck, a gym, exercise and weight training equipment, a running track, youth programming, a dedicated space for seniors and teens, and active family and older adult programming.' The same monthly individual and family membership costs were stated for each alternative location, All three locations were met with enthusiasm, with more than six in ten Cottage Grove residents saying they would defini ely, probably, or maybe join at each location. Roughly three in ten said they would definitely or probably loin at each location. FIGURE 11 Map of Sample Area m — ! Rfloa — u5 '� !Hewpnh T_ NfA S H 1 N G i 0 N - j' u` M t t7 M E scte I BBB P ni P" it I eci nvewe ... Fresb�tctian i S ,J County 7 Nomes' �.Scnlce .. / �� i Center C tape I Groue 3i .. _ , Sf r!ztlrc� e� - mrmeaer, � i Strocz Sa. � Figure "',1 Is a map showing where the surveyed households are located, Yeilow flags mail, the locations of the three proposed sites. „gcder,,nn,N� :i *,r�sscratesi*r, 33 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study s FIGURE 12 Cti2, How interested would you be in purchasing membership to a new community center located at the current City Hall location.? (ry =354) [if definitely, probably or maybe joinj Would you want an individual or a family membership? (14 =214) Individual Family Don't snow Cottage Grove residents were asked how interested they would be in purchasing a membership to a community center operated by the YMCA if if were located at the current City Hall site at 7516 80 Street South in Cottage Grove. The question specified that this location is near the intersection of 80 Street South and Hemingway Avenue and is by the Washington County public library. Furthermore, it rives exnlahred that the cost for membership would be S62 per month for an Individual membership end $112 per month for a family membership. As Figure 12 shows, just over six in ten residents responded positively, indicating that they would defi'niiely join, probabfvjoin, or maybe join if the new corrmunity center was located at the current City Nall site. 4 , Those wha answered they would definitely, probably, or maybe join were then asked if they would want an individual or a family membership: about eight in ten said they would opt for a family membership. a d on, Kuhr A act 34 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study o% 40% 80% R'2. how }nrererted would you be In purchxsing a membealhlpto a community center operated by the YMCA If h wera bated et t e currtnt City Hall site at M6 80° Street South in Cotta €e Grove? This lo.ahvc Is near the intersection of SC° Street South and Hemingway avenue and s by the W eehingtbn County public It'orzry. The wet for membeship wouf9 be 962 per month loran lndWidual membership and 5I z per month for a Hmfy membership. Other L , CLa— Definitely, Probably, or Maybe Join Likelihood of joining at current City Hall 67% 1 74% 67% 46% location Households with Children vs. Households vwlthout Children % Definitely, Probably, or Ma Joi I Likelihood of joining at current City Hall I. location f Those residents who said they would definitely, probably, or ;maybe join a new community center all the current City Hall location are more likely to be 54 and younger, and have children under the age of 13 living in their homes. kl l 6sa NleSabik Ass odates, 36 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study FWRE 13 Q12d -e. Why would you probably not or definitely not join the new community center if it was located at the current City Hall Site Further away than other locations /Not as convenient /Too far -13% away /Nat a good location Already a member somewhere else 10Y. Don't like that area /Troubled or bad area /tin supervised kids /More 7% crime in that area /Don't feel sate there There are many other fitness centers, YMCAs, or activity centers in 6% our area Too old to use the facility /Not physically able /Not active enough s% °Asked only of respondents who said they tymk probably not or definitely notioin the new community center at the current City Hall site. Respondents could offer more than one response, only responses mentioned by at least 5% of respondents are shown. Figure 13 summarizes the reasons wiry ceriain residents said they ,probably not or denhifery will not join the new community center if it is Located at the current City Hall site. The most common reason, cited by more than half of those who are unlikely to join, is the cost of mernbership. Note: the three locations were revealed to the 350 survey respondents in random order, io avoid biasing responses. That is why the reasons given by residents `or not wanting to loin at each particular location include oomrransons of that location to one or more of the others. en;, iauhrat eca c,inc. 36 . 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study would not use the facility /wouldn't use membership enough /Not 16% enough time /No interest There is no parld.rIgirl that location /Location is not big enough /Nat 14% enough space there FIGURE 14 0 Definitely Join 0 Probably Join Maybe Join Figure 14 displays the locations or survey respondents who said they will definitely, probably, or maybe join the new oommunity center if it is located near the current City Hall site (shown as a red triangle). 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study Mays of Likely Joiners Current City Hall Site i s 3 w. Mays of Likely Joiners Current City Hall Site FIGURE 15 Q13. How Interested would you be fn purchasing a membership to a new community center located near Presbyterian Homes - Norris Square (N =350} V:r _mil - �' ''� [if definitely, probably or maybe join] Would you want an individual or a family membership? (N =217) Individual Family a Don't know A second ootentiai Vocation for a new cotmmunity center was described as "located near Presbyterian Homes Noris Square senior housing which is located south of Highway 31 on 80 Street South, near Hadley Avenue." The cost was explained the same way as the first location: "$62 per month for an individual membership and $112 per month for a family membership.' As shown in Figure 15, more than six in ten residents responded positively to this location as well, indicating that they would definitely join, probably join, or maybe join if the new care unity center was located near Presbyterian Homes Norris Square senior housing. 4 Most of those who Indicated they would de,Wteiy, probably or maybe join at this location said they would choose a family membership. da^,Aiebunr &Psr.'bLs,In:. 38 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study 0% 40% SM. on. Howinterested would You be M purchzsinp a membership to a commurlty center operated bythe YMCA if k were located nea Presbymdan Haines Norris Sgaz: e5enla* hoosingwhlch elocetsd s",a of :iwaohway al on 60'^ Street Somh,near Hadley Avenue? Tha mst for membershiuwould oa$62 per .nth for an f dMdeat membership and $112 per month for a femlly membership? Other Findings 4ga % definitely, Probably, or Maybe Join Likelihood of Joining at site near Presbyterian 75% 71% i 64% 49% Homes Norris Square sen)o housing j Households with Children vs. Hoasehoids without Children % definitely, Probably, o Maybe Join Likelihood ofjoin'sng at site near Presbyterian 1% 54% Homes Norris Square i senior housing —L 0 Those residents who said they would de,5nitely, probably, or maybe join a new community center at the site near Presbyterian Homes Norris Square senior housing are more likely to be in the 54 and under age croups and have children under 18 living with 'them. d?rcgtdi6buhr6ksainkzs,irN 33 2010 Cottage Grove Miarket Potential Study FIGURE 16 Q13d-e. Why would you probably not or definitely not join the new community center if it was located near Presbyterian Homes Norris Souare senior housing away /Not a good location Would not use the fatility /wouldn't use membership enough /Not tyaa enough ttme /No interest Already a member somewhere else 14% There are many other fitness centers, YMCAs, or activity centers in ?% our area Too old to use the facility /Not physically able /Not active enough 6% ° sked only of respondents w1410 said they woi d probably not or definitely not join the new community center at the location near Presbyterian Homes. Respondents could offer more than one response. only responses mentioned by at least 5% of respondents are shown. Those who stated they would probably not or definitely not join a new community center located near the Presbyterian Homes Location were asked why not As Figure 16 shows, cost is the main objection, followed by concerns that the location is inconvenient. ''raw;tizduhra,4.�dtt,tna 40 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study Further away than other locations /Not as convenient /Too far 32% Definitely join 0 Probably Join 0 Maybe Join Figure 17 displays the locations of the survey respondents who said they will definitely, probably, or maybe join the new community center if it is located near the Presbyterian Homes Norris Square location (shown as a red triangle). .`,,ae:.wn,;\ ";uhr &Avates 41 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study FIGURE 17 Map of Likely Joiners Presbyterian Homes Norris Square Site FIGURE 18 Q14. How interested would you be in purchasing a membership to a new community center located near the County Service Center? (N =350) [if definitely, probably or maybe jo €n] Would you want an individual or a fancily membership? (N =215) Individual Family Don't know The third potential location for a new community center was described as "located near the County Service Center by 85` Street South and Keats Avenue South (Keats is the same road as County Road 10)." The cost was explained the sanne way as the other locations; "$62 per month for an individual membership and $112 per month for a family membership." As shown in Figure 18, more than six inn ten residents responded positively to this location as well, indicating that they would definitely join probably join, or maybe join it the new community center was located near the County Set Center. 4 , As with the other tvvo locations, most of those who indicated they would definitely, probably or maybe join at this location said they would choose a family membership. 41h imon ; NebuM6As oc32a, in 42 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study 0% 40% 80% qI<. How to tereredwould you be In ire chasmga membershipto t communttycenter openedby the ymrC If R Were boated near the Cow my Servke Center by BE" Street South and Kest, Avenge South? r U location 0 nearthe sate where the new, City Hall I'll; at bulc, Tha., fp: a membereoiowotlld be $52 per month for an indMdual membership an6$1 per monthiar e iarnliy membership, Other .tae Likelihood of joining at site near the County Service Center %Def€ nitely, Pr obably, or 6S% 73% Join 68% 1 45 Vo House €tolc! with Children vs. House €olds critfnout Children % Definitely, Probably or Maybe Join Likelihood of joining at site near the County 74% I 50% service Center G i hose residents who said they would definitely probably, or maybe join a new community center at the site near the County Service Center are more likely to be 54 years old and younger, and those households with children under 18. wd2 n,niw'a? 43 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study FIGURE 19 Q14d -e. Why would you probably not or definitely not join the new community center if it was located near the County Service Center site ?* Woutd not use the facility /wouldn't use membership enough /Not 16% enough time /no interest There are many other fitness centers, YMCAs, or activity centers in 2o�io our area Already a member somewhere else 9% -Asked on!y of respondents who said they would probabiv not or defini.ely not join the new community center at the County Service Center site. Respondents could offer more than one response. only responses mentioned by at least 5% of respondents are shown. Again, as with the other ,wc proposed sites, Figure 19 given by residents who said they would probably community center at the location near the County commonly expressed reason for not joining had to convenient. ��i adosr,tireoun , AeD Tales b c 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study shows that cost is the ma in reason not or deiinifeiy not join the new Service Center. The second most do with the location itself not being 44 Further away than other locations /Not as convenient /Too far 7 %r, 5._� away /Not a good location FIGURE 20 ® Definitely Join Q Probably Join Maybe Join Figure 20 displays the locations of survey respondents who said they will definitely, probahiy, or maybe join the new community center If it is located near the County Set-vice Center site (shown as a red triangle). 'aen,Ns riahr& Cora ea,L 45 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study Map o, Likely Joiners County Service Center Site FIGURE 21 QISS Which of the three proposed locations do you like the best? 100% 80% 60% 4O% 20% 0% Figure 21 shoves which of the three proposed locations residents and likely joiners liked the best. The first column in blue shows the percentage o; all surveyed residents who chose that location as their favorite; next to it in red is the percentage of likely joiners who selected a site as their favorite one. F The two sites preferred by both groups., all residents and likely joiners, are the sites by Presbyterian Homes Norris Square senior housing and the County Service Center. It is innportant to note that 22 percent of residents and 16 percent of likely joiners said 'they had no preference among the three proposed sites. o The current City Hall site is the least popular arnong both groups (all residents and likely joiners). ��.'das�n,h7;��nr 6.Asia�s, lr ¢6 20 10 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study By Presbyterian Homes By County Services By Current City Hall No preference Center MAl Residents (N =350) $9 Likely Joiners (N =232) Othe1 " Finds gs [ Households with Children vs. Households without Children No preference 18% 25 °i° 0 More residents from households with children under 98 are likely to prefer the proposed site near the County Service Center. 0 More residents from childless households are likely to prefer the Presbyterian Homes Norris Square site, or to have no preference among the three sites. �a0.11i hr &.G rLy 47 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study % Liking this 4oc2tion t best � County Service Center 36% 22% Presbyterian Homes Y Norris Square 26% 34% P Current City Hall 20% 1 19% No preference 18% 25 °i° 0 More residents from households with children under 98 are likely to prefer the proposed site near the County Service Center. 0 More residents from childless households are likely to prefer the Presbyterian Homes Norris Square site, or to have no preference among the three sites. �a0.11i hr &.G rLy 47 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study FIGURE 22 QIG. How many miles would you be willing to spend driving to a community center? (N =350) 0 to 2 miles 3 to 4 miles 5 to 1 miles 8 miles or more Don'+ know Nearly six in ten residents said they would be willing to drive three to seven miles to a community center (Figure 221. + About one - quarter would like to keep the trip to two miles or less. Other Fin ikef flty Center 48 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 000% I .dm,,ISibAi Amcia}es,fnc Other Findings (Cont'dj' Aqc- F % Y 0 to 2 miles i 1 °% 12% i 33% 40% 0 Residents 55 and older are more likely than younger groups to prefer a short drive to anew community center. Households with Children vs. l-touseholds without Children Yes � 16% 38% 0 to 2 miles T �` 5 to 7 miles 37% 19% i I ii 0 More residents from households with children are willing to drive a longer distance to a new community center than residents in childless households. i. �r mn &Aso as �c 49 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study j This section of the report summarizes Cottage Grove residents' views about the proposed new community center, including: > if they would like to see it become part of the community, > how they view the partnership between the YMCA and the City of Cottage Grove, > whether they suppon a tax increase to help pay for the facility, and > whether they approve the use of city funds for the project. FIGURE 23 Q 7. Would you like to see the proposed community center, operated by the YMCA and the City of Cottage drove, become part of the community? (N =350) Don't know/ Don't care 5% Eighty -five percent of the surveyed residents said they would [ike to see the proposed community center become part of their communty (Figure 23). �desogNi�nnr &As da Inc. 50 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study Other Prndings Likely vs Unlikely Joiners of the C6MMunitV C2nte'r % Yes Would like to see the community center 1 37% 64% become part of the camrnuntty _ �= % Yes Would i� to see the community ce nter 95% 91 °.1% 74% become part of the � community ! � ' Households with Children vs. Households without Children % Yes —r l Would like to seethe l community center ao 9 10 7. /o become part of the � i community 0 Residents who are most likely to say that they would like to see the proposed community center become part cf, the community include likely j oiners, those 54 years o` age or younger, and residents living in households With children under the age of 18. 2010 Cottage Grove Niar'ret Potential Study FIGURE 24 O,S&. How favorably or unfavorably do you vlew the partnership between the YMCA and the City of Cottage Grove to develop a community center? (N =350) Don't know 4% Nearly three - quarters of Cottage Grove residents are in favor of the partnership between the YMCA and the City of Cottage Grove to develop a community center (Figure 24). Other Likety vs Unlikely Joiners of the Communitv Center % Very favorable Now partnership I between the YMCA and I 20% 57% City of Cottage Grove 1s viewed a I& B-, 1. 52 2010 Cottage Grove 08arket Potential Study Other Findings (Cont'd) A.ue 0 Residents who are likely to join the community center and younger residents are more likely to take a very favorable view of the Partnership between the YMCA and the City of Cottage Grove. ,d^ron,Niebh�h 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study % Very favorable How partnership between the YI 1CA and 51% 4 43% I 39% City of Cottage Grove is j viewed 0 Residents who are likely to join the community center and younger residents are more likely to take a very favorable view of the Partnership between the YMCA and the City of Cottage Grove. ,d^ron,Niebh�h 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study FIGURE 25 Q29. Do you pay property taxes to Washington County? (N =350) Don't. know O'c20. Amount of Property Tax increase Residents Are Willing to Pay to Support a New Community Center* (r.1 =3as) -40 or more per year � lr ��' $30 to $24 per year $20 to $29 per year unwilling to pay any increase =Asked only of respondents who pay property t-Xes I Washington County. a Nearly all the residents surveyed said they pay property taxes to Washington County (Figure 25). Of these, three - quarters are willing to pay increased property taxes to support a new community canter. Twenty -three percent are unwilling to pay any increase. Note that this question was worded as folews: 'if the Colrmun ty Center were to be built, you could exaeot your propelt axes to increase by $25 to $40 per year. As we discussed previously, mernbers who join fhe new community center will also pay ri dues. The partnership with the YMCA would guarantee that no additional city funds would be needed to support ongoing operations beyond the monthly membership dues and a property tax increase. Knowing this, what sort of tax increase would you be wining to accept in order to support the new community center? Wouid you be willing to pay an increase of $40 or more per year, $30 to $39 per year, $20 to $29 per year, or are you unwilling to pay any increase?" About one in ive residents said they would be willing to pay an increase of $40 or more per year to support the new community center. m Over hall' indicated they are willing to pay between $20 and $39 per year more. i `,°.deon,Nruhs &.4rsx's,?n:. 54 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study 0% 51 100 °h Other Likely vs... enter � $0 - Unwillin g tc a y � p FOR anv increase in 9% 53% property taxes $20-S29 par year I 34 27% $30 39 per year i 31% $40 or more per year 26% i 7% Ave :�dercrNizmshrSAM;ceztes,G�: 55 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study FOR Amount of property taxes v fling to pay — 1 $0 - Unwliling to pay any increase in 20% 16% 21% 33% property taxes i � I i $20 -$29 per year 1 28% I 1 30% 41% i 29% $30 -$39 peryear 28 °% 28% 20% 25% 840 or more per year y . 26% 27% :8% 13/a :�dercrNizmshrSAM;ceztes,G�: 55 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study Other Findings (C Househoids with Children vs. Households without Children Amount of property taxes willing to pay $0 - Unwilling to pay a increase in i 15% 3� 30% ny prop erty taxes $20 -$29 per year 23% 36% $30 -$39 per year 31% 19% $40 or more per year ( 25% 1 15% 0 Residents vvho are likely to join the community center, residents 54 and under, and those v ✓)o have children under 18 living in their households are more likely to agree to a property tax increase to support a new community center. 0 Residents wno are unwilling to support any property tax increase to help pay for a new community center were more likely to be in the following groups: unlikely joiners, ages 55 cr older, and households without children. asonNi hr &AMOc YiLS, rM 56 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study FIGURE 26 azi. Do you support the use of Cottage Grove city funds to construct a new community center? (N =3so) Maybe 5% i. Don't know/ don't care 3% 8 Seven in fen residents support the use of ct y funds to oonstruct a new community center (Figure 26). d a�ALb ihrA w' 57 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study Other Likaly vs Unlikely Joiners of the Ceeresrnrznity Center % Yes Support the use of Cottage Grove city I 84% 43% funds to construct a I new community center E _ W % Yes Support the use cf !i Cottage Grove city 80% J 77% 71% 61% funds to construct a i new community center !dousehold> with Children vs. households w €thou CChildren Y es rSupport the use of 1 Cottage Grove city j 7 a00 63% funds to construct a ? new community center 4 _ 0 P.esidents who support the use of Cottage Grove city funds to construct a new community center are more likely to be likely joiners, younger, and in households with children. s ` a�sdera,,Rvrbuhr &Pssrci�es,?nc, 58 2010 Cottage Grove Mlarket Potential Study FIGURE 27 Q22. loo you currently belong to a public or private health, fiitness, or recreational facility? (N =sso) Q23. How likely are you to renew your, membership the next time it is due ?* (N =96) Definitely renew Probably renew Probably not renew Definitely not renew Don't know Not a membersnip organlzation 0% 59% 100° "Asked only of respondents who are members of a public or private wealth, fftns , or rnraaBznsl facility. a More than one - quarter cl residents currently belong to a public or private health fitness, or recrestiona! facility (Figure 27). Of these, over half will definitely renew their membership., and over one- o,uarter will probably renew. �� ° � - ;dztsoo.,l`ieSuh&P:sccats, �'r. 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study 59 Other Aae % Yes 1 Currently belong to a public or private health, 44% 33% 25 % 18% fitness, or recreational I facility Ho useholds with Children= vs. Households without Children % Yes Currently belong to a public or private health, 35% 21% fitness, or recreational 0 Residents 34 or younger and those with children under 18 living in the household are more likely to belong 'to a public or private health, fitness, or recreational facility. Pa d� «S29�XaY'.; NTLii;lilPa (+�J'i?SES I?'f 5 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study FIGURE 2& Q22a, is this a YMCA facility?* (N =sE) w Of the 96 residents surveyed who belong to a fitness facility, three in ten belong to a YMCA (Figure 26). er n f scbuhrE Aso ates,Inc. 61 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study `Iskeb only of respondents who are members of a public or private health, fitness, or recreational facility. FIGURE 29 Q22a. Names of public or private heafth, fitness, or recreational facilities survey respondents currently laeiong to:* Southeast Area YNICA/Woodbury YMCA 16 °% Anytime Fitness 15% l.6fetime Fitness 14% Gold's Gym 9% Curves 6% *Asked only of those echo currently belong to a public or private health, fitness, or recreational fact €ity. Only responses mentioned by at least 5% of respondents are shown. Respondents weld offer more than one resporse. 4� The residents who belong to a fitness facility are pretty evenly split along a variety of places, as Figure 29 summarizes. do n ?vih &± a u,inc. 62 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potentlal Study Snap Fitness 29% F(GURE 30 Q24, How,likely would you be to switch from your current membership to the new community center if it is built ?* (N =g / Don'tknow 10% *ASk=d only or those who currently belong to a public or private health, fitness, or recreational fadllty. + over half of those who currently beiong to a fitness facility said they would definitely or probably switch to the new community center if It Is built (7igure 30). Other Findings Likely vs. Unlikeiy Joiners of the Cornn itrr Center Definitely or probably switch Likelihood of switching i, to the new community 81% 9% center 0 About eight in ten likely Joiners who currently belong to fitness facilities said they would defmitefy or probably switch to the new community center if it is built. A j , t&r n.., ?i`0„ruhrUmdates,irv_ 63 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study FIGURE 31 ben ogr2phic Characteristics Figure 31 summarizes the demographic characteristics of the residents who participated in the survey, 4 Thl - SS-- quarters of the survey participants have lived in Cottage Grove for 10 years or more. More than four in ten have lived there 20 years or more. Nearly one - quarter of the survey participants have an annual household income of $100,000 or more; two to ten earn under $50,000. A d >oa, \rebuli &kmcla 7nr- 64 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study Percentage of Respondents (NR -350; 19 to 2 o 1% 2 t� o - 3 4 Igo/ 1 35 to 44 24% 45 to 54 55 to 64 25 19 65 to 74 10% 75 or older Less than 1 year 6% 1% 1 year, but less th 5 years 9% 5 veal ut less than 10 years 13% 10 years, but less th 20 years 31% 20 years or mor 45 ° % C Don't five in Cottage Grove 1°/0 Less than .$30 � 7 % $30,000- $40,000 -- - 5% $40,000- $49,999 '- $74;9; $50,0[70 9 575,000 -$10 ,000 F 100 000 -$150 000 13 5150,000 or more F - efu>ed Figure 31 summarizes the demographic characteristics of the residents who participated in the survey, 4 Thl - SS-- quarters of the survey participants have lived in Cottage Grove for 10 years or more. More than four in ten have lived there 20 years or more. Nearly one - quarter of the survey participants have an annual household income of $100,000 or more; two to ten earn under $50,000. A d >oa, \rebuli &kmcla 7nr- 64 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study FIGURE 32 Profile of Likely Joiners Percentage of Likely Joiners (N =232) Figure 32 summarizes the demographic data of likely joiners. They tend to be between 35 and 54, have lived in the area for at least ten years, earn $50,000 or more have children under 18 living in their households, and do not currently belong to a health cr fitness facility. A ;aw Ni25a:2&Asmcistssim 65 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study 18 to 34 19% 35 to 44 28% 45 to 54 � 27% 55 to 64 I(% _ E5 or older 10% 7 Vea 5 y b ut less than IO years 13 ° � 16 vears, but less than 20 years 34% 20'yearsoi more 43% - Less than $30,000 5 ° � $30,0°0 ?50,000 13% $50,000 - $75, 23% $75,000- $100,OD0 2Q °� j $100,000 or m ore 27% Refute sed — ! 12% ! I y 5E% y � ",z4 ! ygc 30% No 70% Figure 32 summarizes the demographic data of likely joiners. They tend to be between 35 and 54, have lived in the area for at least ten years, earn $50,000 or more have children under 18 living in their households, and do not currently belong to a health cr fitness facility. A ;aw Ni25a:2&Asmcistssim 65 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study FIGURE 33 Q25. Co you have any children in your household under the age of 18? (N =35o} A little under half of the households surveyed have children under the age of 18 living in their household (Figure 33), Other Likely vs. Unlikely JD§BRC - -rs of the Contnruirlty -eater Yes nave children under 18 SEr6 3C% 0 Likely joiners are more likely to have children in the househoid, >i :�n,tvi�' uhr &.Asso.�atu,Lrte, 65 2010 Cottage Grove market Potential Study O'her Findings (Cont'd) 0 Respondents between 36 and 44 are the most likely to have children under 18 living In their households. rr�son,, \ie�uhrS�o 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study r j Have children under is 24% 48% 1 24% i 4% Don't have chiidren 8 /o a/ 2n% 62% i u nder i8 0 Respondents between 36 and 44 are the most likely to have children under 18 living In their households. rr�son,, \ie�uhrS�o 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study FIGURE a4 Q25. Do you have children in the following age groups? (N =550) 0 to 5 years b to 10 years 11 to 13 years 14 to i8 years e Figure 34 shows how children are distributed by age groups among households with children. About two in ten residents have children ages 0 to 5, & to 10, or 14 to 18 residing in their households. rmn, i6iihrLPsscriats,L;, 08 2010 Cottage Grose Market Potential Study C% 10% 40% 60% 50% 1001% % Yes 4 FIGURE 3B Potential Cottage Grove YMICA Community Center Memberships Based on Responden& Likelihood of Joining - Likely Istners ue defined as those respendent; who would oersnteiy, probably, or maybe join a new Commum`ty center in at least two of the three proposed bcations. Ficure 36 illustrates hovel the maximum potential memberhip and the obtainable potential membership were calculated iw the market projectio, ^.s. The actual projecfsorls appear on the next page. Obtainable memberships are computed by discounting the maximum memberships by factors intended to result in more realistic projections, Over years of conducting YMCA and community center site surveys, Anderson;, Niebuhr and Associates has developed a model that estimates how iikeiy it is chat people who say they will join a new facility actually do join. t�-�gtSiehu'or�Aracia�t,Lv:. 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study The total number of households used as the base in Figure 37 is calculated by taking the total number of households in the sample area (15,734) and lowering it by 15 percent to reflect the elderly plus those who refused to participate in the survey. The revised household base is 13,374. FIGURE 37 SUMMARY OF PROJECTED MEMBERSHIPS Location Total Maximum Memberships Current City Hall (F'r ure18_) Total Obtainable Membershi s* Presbyterian Homes Norris Square 8,292 2,193 County Service Center 8,292 1,979 i Current City Ha 8,168 ( I 1,932 Maximum Memberships 1 Presbyterian Homes Norris Square (Fiqure 12 County Service Center (Figure! 5 Current City Hall (F'r ure18_) 1 D efinitely join I 1,605 1,471 1,33 FF — P — P bly join 3,210 2,274 2,641 Maybe join ; i 31477 1 4 4,280 Total Maximum rw errlberships 8,292 8, 292 1 8.158 Obtainable Memberships Presbyterian Homes Norris Square County Service 1 Center I Current City Hall Definitely join' 1,043 I 956 869 Probably join" 802 568 635 1 Maybe join` I 348 i 455 428 Total ersh ty[entbersh r � 2,183 4 1,932 For this study, the applicable factors used to discount the Maximum Memberships in order to arrive at Obtainable Memberships are as follows: =�> Definitely join =65 %" =z> Probably join= 25%* = � Pliaybe join = 10%' �dercn Negihr &Aso d m 70 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study Even though Presbyterian Homes Norris Square and the County Service Center locations garnered the same number of t, aximum Memberships, the percentages of residents who said they would definitely, probably, or maybe join are different for each one (Figure 37). When the survey frequencies are adjusted to determine the Obtainable memberships, Presbyterian Homes Norris Square produces the highest number, since more residents said they would definitely or probably ioih at that site versus only maybe join. FiGURE 38 Projected Revenue: Total Annual Membership Units' Presbyterian homes Norris Square County Service Center Current City Halt 2,193 Memberships $2,723,592 (3731ndividuais, 1$20 Families} 1,979 Memberships $2,434,176 {375 individuals, 1,603 Families} 1,932 Memberships (367 individuals, 1,565 Famiiiesl $2,376,409 "based on obtainable membership counts assumino fees of $62 /month for an indIvIdual membe ;hip {$744 annually) and $112 /month fora ;9mliy mernbership ($1,344 annually). ' -Based on % indiv.duat me,mbershlps and % family memberships as shown in Figures 12, 13 and 18 of this report. 00r,'t know responses were computed at the individual membership rate. Figure 38 illustrates the potential obtainable membership and revenue for a new community center in Cottage Grove at each of the three potential sites. As the footnote explains, in projecting revenue, if the survey participant said they would definitely, probably or maybe join at a location, but said they don't know what type of membership they would purchase-, they vvere ceunied as an individual membership. O, the three potential sites, the location near Presbyterian Homes Norris Square senior housing will produce the greatest number of memberships and the largest annual revenue, based on survey findings, However, all three locations result ill relatively similar projected memberships and revenues. A "�nd2rsar ; iS ;eb_ +h &Ps:,otiates ih;. 71 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study i .. E.. Verbatim Comments 19 „ Verson, Ni,6ihr&A— soc 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study YMG 'tage Grove ��l ar kit Potential &.udy Verbatim Corrnents Q112. Why not (join the ` VACA at the Current City Ha0 locatiooa)? Again, I have a health club membership that is much cheaper. As 1 stated before we pay less for a family membership than for what an Individual YMCA membership would be, It's hard to believe that in these tough economic times, the City of Cottage Grove is actually thinking about such a project. We need tong -term jobs and a better economy. I already have a membership to lifetime. Because we're already happy members of another club, and it this one costs too much. Health care provider covers YMCA membership in Hastings. I get to use the activity center at the school for free and it provides what 1 need. With our health insurance, we have a lot of the things that you're offering. It's with Medica. Current gym is half the price and bad locator,; it would be hard to gat a lot of people in and out Of there. Because I have a health club that I go to now. Why would i join a YMCA if I'm happy at my health club? I have a membership at Lifetime Fitness. i only pay $35, but i do like the idea of being closer because that is in Woodbury. I'm already in a marnbership In one by my wor'ti Its a different fitness center down by Northfield. My answer would be the same, I wouldn't. Weil we have our own facility down here. We have had it for years with the swimming pool, my family use to register for baseball at the country club and the kids still go down there and they will mss that when It's not evallable anymore. I'm more of a pay as you go person. The commitment factor on my part. Cost there talking about maybe cutting social security where are we suppose to get 11-2$ from. I won't join a YMCA if there's memberships if it's taxed by the community I am paying already. The price. I believe the price is too much. Also, the nelghborhood is a little dicey. i just couldn't afford it, 1 just couldn't afford it Too expensive. It's too much for a family. That's too damn much. It's just too much, especially when I can go to Anytime Fitness and get a membership much cheaper. Again, cost is the issue, not location. Because It's just too expensive. $ i 12 a month, that's what I mean by $192 a month, that's over $2000 a year. Cost loo hig" Too expensive, both are too costly. Because it is too expensive. Because I can't afford It. k Too much money. You go for a law times and :hen you don't do it anymore. At $112 a month not sure I'd get a good value. Cost Its too high. The cost. Just loo high Yp4C,q cottage Grave Market Potential Sf jdy Verbaiim Comments Page 9 o'20 L. Qt2. Why not Uoln theYMCA at the Current City ity Hatt tocatfonoj? I guess it just doesn't have anything that would justify me wanting to spend that much. I just don't have any interest in it. Cost too much. It's too high. Cost is too high. The same as before. Just money Is tight and with work and just not worth it. Excellent location, It is close to us. I don't have any money to contribute to anything right now. I'm trying to decide if I have to go Into Assisting Living, No, I think it is a wonderfui idea for young families corning up but it doesn't apply to me. I'm unemployed right now, I'm not sure if we are going to being staying in Cottage Grove we have our last child finishing high school and he will be going to college, we are evaluating if we are going to move, I personally never belonged to a fitness center my wife was and it would be a cost for the whole family, just adding another monthly bill 1 don't think I would get any value out of it, I wouldn't benefit from it. Because of the price. Not being affordable. Cost and location. Far from where I live. I have to se}( because of the price. I'm on a fixed income and my wife belongs to Lifetime Fitness at $28 a month. it depends on whether Medicare would cover all or part of tine cost. It'd be hard to convince her to pay so much more just because it's closer to home. I'm out of work and on a fixed income. 1 just don't have nothing going on. Cost and location. That's a high -end price for a membership. $45 -$50 is a more ideal price. They should keep it below the halfway mark.. When you start going over $50, It's not as appealing to the consumer, something like $48 a month sounds much better. I paid for other memberships that offared just as much at lower prices. I was part of Lifetime for six years. I would like to see a new Commun;ty Center here though. Too expensive, for both. Based on price. It's too expensive. My family membership at Gold's is $62 month. Because that is way too expensive. Price is a factor regardless of location. That's quite a bit of money_ I'm on a fixed Income and thats pretty steep. The price is a bit steep for me at this time. Too much money. I have a good job and everything, but to me that is not something I would want tD pay $62 per month for have to pay for my medical coverage and stuff I don't have that kind of money to waste. i can get my exercise at home. Well am retired and I have one income and that is that and you have to make it reach. Price. I'm unemployed so sixty two dollars a month is not going to happen, I would love to because that's a perfect location for me 1 live right by there, if I have had the money I would definhely join. Because I couldn't afford It I have a very small fixed income. I could afford it. Price range, still to high for my fixed income. It is high. The cost for my budget. Its good location but It's still too spendy. it's loo expensive for us for a family membership. YMCA Cottage Grove Market Potenb'af StudvVerbatim Comments Page 2 of 20 Q12. Why not acrin the YPACA at Una Current location)'? It's expensive. Its hard to fathom that amount going out each month when you have just one working. The price for family membership is too high.. Maybe if It was $60 dollars for the entire family, anything over $60 per month Is too high, I'm sure they are using my tax dollar to help pay for this and for that price its too high. The cost. I don't have the funds for that to join. 1 don't see that there is enough space to build one there, The price is too high. Compared to other YPACA's the price is ridiculously more. Because I don't think for the money we would pay that, we would go as much as we should. 1 think it would be too expensive, as I would not use the facility enough. The same as I said before. It is too expensive. It would not fit in our budget. We don't have the need for it I have a pool, treadmill and 1 walk around for exercise. Because of the cost, $912 will not work for our budget The Costs. The $62 a month and the competiveness of already having Snap and Anytime here it's not worth it. If they lower the price to make it comparable than maybe. The cost is too high. The price. That's more than 1 could afford, The cost. It's just too high for a family membership. It would be more reasonable for a family membership to be in the fifty to sixty dollar range. Also, the location Is bad. The cost, its too expensive for us to spend on a family membership someplace. The cost Ids too hard for me to budget for that kind of expense nowadays. Cost. It is an expense I wouldn't want to put into my budget. I don't want to pay that much money out. Well the price that you quoted is too much money for me to spend, It's not -lose enough for us. The location would have to be closer to our home. Location, proximity to my home. For ne itmrould be really convenient to have it at Keats and 85th. I think the 'and s there, and ids just a nicer spot. ft's far away from my house. Driving distance too long. Location and cos for a family membership. We were talking ebout this the other night. We would prefer if would be just a Cottage Grove community center, not run by YMCA. Much cheaper — memberships. Same as Y but chewer. We need something over here to make the area look better by Presbyterian Homes. The location is not convenient I like Morris Square, Again not as convenient for me, new city hall location is within bike riding range forme, Because cf iocation and cost. I would rather have it closer to my area and $112 is too much to join. The location and costs, I'm unemployed and it's about another four miles away. - Location. it needs to be out further, it is too congested to get in that area. They would have to rebuild a whole new building. I don't see how 'they would be able to build it theca with a whole new center. The first location is only two blocks from my house my kds can walk and the money, like 1 said. Just location, it not as close. its much more space by Keats and less traffic. YMCA Cottage Grove Market Pofenflaf Study VerbaPim Comments Page 3 of 20 Q12. Whey not (foie the YMCA at the c€ "ore It City Ralf Ooeatfonj? 1 don't think would use enough of tie facilities. Not enough bang for my buck. Cost. Social security doesn't leave me with a lot a lot of spare cash. No interest. I don't know if Cottage Grove would be interested. A lot of cost. They want to spend a lot of money that people don't have. Because I wasn't interested in anything that they will offer. Like i just told you, I am not going to go down water slides, I haven't swam in a million years and I don't think I am going to start Why would I join if there nothing I want to do there? I don't do swimming, I don't do exercise. 1 don't do Pilates, so there's nothing there for me. Same reason it's just me and Wife. For the activities that are there, we wouldn't take part in them. We would not get enough use out of it No interest in YMCA or other facility available. We go to the senior center in the area to exercise. It doesn't make any difference where they put it. They could put it next door to me and I wouldn't wan the traffic there and hanging out. A Community Center could be a place for dropping 'heir kids off all he time. It would be Ike a babysi Ing center and I just don't see where people in Cottage Grove can afford it. I don't see where a Community Center would do any good for Cottage Grove. It is not going to bring high paying jobs In town for people. There is on ninth and Woodbury, Well because I am just not interested in doing that kind of stuff. No just that I am not a joiner I guess. Again, I don't plan to use it I hope to be in Phoenix, Arizona in the winter and in the summer, I have a of to dc. just dent see what they plan to do with the old building. Are they gonna tear it down the other building, that would be a shame and a waste of taxpayer dollars. would not join at any location. I'm not interested. I guess I'm really not into that, on 1 don't know we have enough things we do ourselves; we never got into that at sixty -twg dollars a month. I never joined health clubs down here it's really not my bag; I really don't care to do that. just don't have any interest in it right now, thank you. I have no interest in having a membership to the Y. I don't have a need for it. Because my life is busy right now and I don't have time for the things I want to get done. Not interested. 1 don't join any of them there a waste and I cont use them. Because they don't have the things that I am interested In, Wei! I don't swim so I wouldn't be interested in water activities. `n; going to, give you information you may or may not want to hear, 1 was a mayor `or cottage grove fos sixteen years &longest serving mayor, I believe at this point cottage grove could really use a good community center. One offering all those good things you were talking about., my age /condition i wouldn`t be active, forty year_- ago it would have been nice for my kids, probably wouldn't use it, I'm M favor of It, location should be over Keats county nineteen is good location. Me and wife our fairly old, retired, limited income & both have joint pain, we can walk around here, only thing we would be Interested in is if Are have a party or something like mat, In favor good idea, good for younger people, card school has an area where they play cards Monday through Friday and provide free lunch. Because we are up in our eighties. We can't get around that good to do all that stuff they ask. When you are eighty years old, you are not going to do ail that exercise stuff and meetings. We barely can get to church anymore. Again, my age, I am too old to take an active part in it. YMCA Cottage Grave rularketPotanBa! StudyVarbatirn Comments Page 4 of 20 Q12. Why 7ct (join tine YMICA at the Correct Uty Hatt tacattont ? Because of my age for one thing, I'm 78, what am I going to do, 1 walk and that's the only activity that I'm really interested In. I work for the Washington County Schools and t can go up there and walk for nothing. All i need is my badge. Because of my health and my age. Well I have not been feeling good and am not in the best of health 1 just wouldn't. I don't think 1 need that kind of stuff, at my age. I get enough exercise. Well like the swimming and the gym stuff, I have a bike here and I mow my own lawn, its not a croup exercise but 1 have a lotto do, I have a house. Because we're old. We're just not interested, iNe have other things to do. Because of the traffiic, 80th Street is so busy. p.. Because that means they are going to take down the city hall where it is I think that's a terrible idea and its political pandering thats pretty much h. 1 think we should get serious about the future of Cottage Grove on a realistic basis. I think we already have a functional youth league In place In Cottage Grove and I think it's ridiculous. 1 think the city should concentrate on lights, streets, water and sewer and lets parents be responsible for their kids. Where i "s located, it would be hard for me to get to s? I don't drive very much and my friends probably wouldn't be interested. Could be the cost It's just me and the price is 'too much forJust me. The space is not big enough I. Weil its such congested area already and it mould be a hassle to get in and out of. Not enough space with what is already there I don't think that's a good place for it. I don't think It would be a good space. There's not room. The other two spaces have room. Because there is no narking there. There is limited parking space . its right by the cop shop, so much stoplights, and so much congestion, an many school buses going from Crestvievv, Park High. More congestion, Because o; the space. 1 understand they would be tearing 'he police department down and have parking there. The location doesn't make sense to me. r iorrible location. I don't see room for there to be a project on a site that small Because I think the location is not good, t don't think there Is enough room. hinP, itis too crowded over t iere. There Is no parking. You cot the school right there, townhomes and the library and my son lives behind there and 1 don't like the area, l don't fee: safa over ihere. Not anough space in there. I would say parking space, just getting In and out of that area. What are they going to tear down Buildings? Because the library is right there and the police station is there and across the street is another building. I don't know where they will put it. _ I think that space right there, 1 don't know where they would put it. 1 am trying to think in my head here what buildings they would take down. to put this in and if they did put it In that area, we will have t afTiic con geston in that area You know where they could put it is in the Nome Depot spot Use the space we have. I guess I'm;ust against the whole thing because it wiii hurt small businesses. 1) There's many more slmilar centers in the area. 2) 1 can get a better rate thlrough work. 3) l don't think location is big enough. Because I don't think Cottage Grove needs a new fadihy. Because I think all of those services are already provided in the city. Because it wouldn't meet any of our farnllies needs. YMCA Cottage Grove ivrarket Potential Study Verbatim Comments Page 5 of 20 012. Ashy not (Brain tha YMCA at the Current C €ty htaH location)? Location is no' the issue. With today's modern conveniences, that Is vehicles, something fifty miles from me is convenient. If you can't dedicate some time to what you like, then you should find something else to do. There is a YMCA over by Oakdale, by Radio Drive, that Is super close. So my opinion about whether it is Hadley or the City Hall, it doesn't matter. Both are close. Because there's a YMCA within about 1 0 miles of here. And it's too expensive. The whole thing is I don't want to build a new pool and have my taxes go up. We have a high school; let's use the existing facilities we have rather than building a YMCA community center that would potentially raise taxes. Let's use the High School facilities, it doesn't make sense to build anew facility and pay more taxes. We already have all the things It would offer elsewhere. And it's too expensive. I don't like that area, I don't like the cilentele over in that area, it seems like it's a lot of kids that don't have supervision. Just because I know the location and it's by a poor part of Cottage Grove where the riff rah is. I wouldn't want to have to sit there and fight with troublemakers to get on to a basketball court. No, I Just don't like that location. I don't like that area There's a lot of troubled kids In that area and there's no telling who would come, The neighborhood isn't good for it Probably not due to the location. That is right next door to a bad neighborhood, which is ironic because it is next to the police station. If it is that location that would be the or,iy reason I would not join, if it were in a different location I would probably renew membership. Not there, someplace with more space. They would probably have to take down some buildings, don't know what they are planning. The low- income housing near by over runs the area. 1 don't really like the area up there. It seems like with the rental units behind there we have a lot of problems there, People call it little Chlcage because there is more crime in that area. l try not to to in that area. Well I exercise a lot on my own', I have my own stuff in my house, my own ma--nines. If i need to have a banquet room and things like that, I can find t-,ose through my church for free. For that price i can build my own pool at my house and advertise it and it would pay for itself in two years_ I cannot justify the cost for a community center and having my taxes raised. I don't need other people to encourage me to exercise. I do It on my own, as everyone should. Everyone should want to stay healthy. VVell because 1 have my own hot tub and do my own exercise equipment and l questor, the use of public funds to build a community center when you already have a YMCA. Well that to me v✓ould be my only reason that 1 would use a facility like that, everything else you mentioned does not apply to M, There Is going to be duplication between the YMCA and the community center and if the Y nCA will remain open and I arm sure you're wondering is you will have a positive tax flow or negative tax flow and if ii s negative I am sine that the taxes of people will be used to keep it operational. Because I teach there and am already a rnember. I have a free membership. YMCA. Cottage Grove Market Potential Study Verbatim COMinentS Page 6 or 20 Q13. Wiry asst (psin the YMCA attire Presbyterian Homes No-ris quare serilot hcu €s ;'MT io•cat on a)? Because we're already happy members of another club, and it this one costs too much. I'm already in another health club. The cost for my family membership is the cost of an individual membership at the YMCA. No pool but we use it a lot and its a closer location than the proposed sates, i'm already a member of Lifetime, My membership at my current gym is half of that. Well there is just me and i can't see it. We have a senlor place to go and for that amount of money, that is a lot. The community by A.nplebee's they have stuff for seniors there they serve meals and have crafts and you don't have to pay anything. Well I think it's a lot of money for a month. I can't see with the economy the way it Is that it would go over real big. Because I belong to a gym In Woodbury. i 'wouldn't wart to go "that way because it's out c, my way. I get to use the activity center at the school for free and it provides what I need. I have a membership at Lifetime Fitness. I only pay $35, but I do like the idea of being close''oecause that is in Woodbury. With our health insurance, we have a lot of the things that you're offering. It's with Medica. I do think That vtouid be a nice location. Because I have a health club that I go to now, tttr'hy would 1 join a YMCA !f I'm happy at my health c =u b? I'm already in a membership in one by my work. It's a dlfferent fitness center down by Northfield. I get membership cheaper at Anytime fitness or Gold's Gym. I don't need all these fancy bells and whistles in a place all I need is a place to work out. Now is a poor time to going into this because of the mess we're in eccncn icaliy. I don't have any money to contribute to anything right now. I'm trying fo decide if 1 have to go into Assisting Living. 1 think it is a wonderful Idea for young families coming up but it doesn't apply to me. Cost, Too much money for the cost and how much I would use it. Due to money and work. Just money is tight right now. Work is just iffy right now. Cost. It's too high. Again, for the same reasons as the first location_ I guess it just doesn't have anything t4.at would justify me wanting to spend that much. I lust don't have any interest in it. The price per month. Could not handle that. Like I said, I can't justify the costs for it Its not worth having my taxes raised. That's it. I am a pay as you go person Tike I said. Tire lack of commitment on my part. Its 'coo high. Cost is toe high, kids shouldn't have to pay to get into a community center it should be no cost for kSds. Cost and location. I'm unemployed and it's farther north than 1 live by 4 miles. Too much money. You go for a few times and then you don't do It anymore. Because it is too expensive. Because I can't afford it. Too expensive. Both are too costly. The cost. Just too i igh. YMCA Cottage Grove Market Potential Study Verbatim Comments Pane 7 of 20 Q13. Why not (join the YMCA at the Presbytartan Hoh M =Hs Square Senior housing locatioen�? Too expensive. It's too much fora family. That's too damn much. It's Just too much, especially when I can go to Anytime Fitness and get a membership much cheaper. This one is because of location also. it not a good area of town on that side. Expense again, The price. I believe the price is too much. For the same reason but it would be the perfect location,. I live on Hadley, and I'm about a block from Presbyterian Homes, Because I couldn't afford it. I have a very small fixed income. Because it to expensive. I belong to a club now €'m not paying that much. I'm out of work and on a fixed income. I just don't have nothing going on. Cost too high. Too expensive. Again, the answer Is price. Lifetime Fitness offers all that she's Interested in at a m +tch louver price than the YMCA could. When my wife turns 64, her membership drops from $28 a month to just $8 a month. I don't think it natters to her that she drives a lot further to Woodbury because the membership is so affordable. That's quite a bit of money. I'm on a fixed 'income and that's pretty steep. Too much money. I have a good job and everything, but to me that is not something i would want to pay $62 per month for Because I can't afford it. That Is pretty simple. Because I am not ajoiner for anything. I get enough exercise in my own yard in my own home. Too high a price for us. it wouldn't work vvlth our budget. Location doesn't matter, it's the price. The same thing I meant ea meaning I can't afford $100 a month. Price. I'm unemployed so sixty two dollars a month is not going to happen, I would love to because that's a perfect location for me I live right by tiere, ff 1 have had the money I would definitely join. No Just price. Because it sounds a bit expensive right now. You'd have to really use it a lot to make it worthwhile and I don't know if I would and we have one in Woodbury. Too expennsve. At $1 a month not sure I'd get a good value. I'm unemployed right now, I'm not sure if we are going to being staying in Cottage Grove we have our last child finishing high school and he will be going to college, we are evaluating ff we are going to move, I personally never belonged tc a fitness center my wife was and it would be a cost for the whole family. just adding another monthly bill I don't think 1 would get any value out of it, 1 wouldn't benefit from it. For the same reason. The fee seems rather high to me and we are not swimmers. Cost is ridiculous who's going to pay this the tax payers are going to get nailed for it r cauVdn't afford it. i just couldn't afford it. Cost. Too expensive. Location Is great. Thats just too spendy. I don't think the average person can afford that with our economy the way it is The price. its too expensive for a family membership for parent and child two- person family. It's way too much for that No just can't afford it YMCA Cod+aoe Grove Plarke" Potential Study VerbaBm Comments Page 3 of 20 Q13. ` not (jiotn the YMCA at the Presbyterian Homes Norris Square senior housing 8acakacsevy? The cost Its too expensive for us to spend on a family membership someplace. The cost. It's just too high for a family membership. It would be more reasonable for a family membership to be in the fifty to sixty dollar range. Also location. The price. Thais more than 1 could afford. It is just too much. It is too much money. I don't know, it is too much. A family is not going to afford 5120. You can go month to month, but there are a lot of Cottage Grove people who will not do it. Some will, but many won't. It is too much. I wouldn't do it; it is too expensive for us. The costs for an individual is too much. Over here, we have Snap Fitness it's only $35 dollars a month and my insurance pays 520 a month towards the fee as well as .There is also an Anytime Fitness here that is probably comparable in price to Snap. The cost is too high. Cost is still high but the iocatlon is better. Closer to my home. Because of the cost, $112 will not work for our budge.. The cost. It's what I just said previously. it's too hard for me to come up with that kind of money. Same answer as before, financial. Because of my budget. The same reasons that I said before. It is too expensive. It would not ft in our budget. We don" have the need for it. I have a pool, treadmill and l walk wound for exercise. Finances right nova. 112 dollars per month is not in the budget. Just the money. The price and where it is located. The price is too high, The location is to far from where I live. The cost Thais why I don't have one with a pool because of the cost of operating a pool. It makes it much more expensive to have a membership. Because too much money. Well I couldn't afford 62 dollars a month. I don't think the seniors would like to have that close to where they live. That is going to bring in a lot of traffic. People will be coming in and out and seniors don't like a lot of traffic. They like things more calm and that is probably why they bought there. When that area first came up it was supposed to be a shopping center. Vfnat happened to that? They were going to put in smaller shops so people could shop, walk around, have nice trees and beautiful, not a big building blocking their view and I don't think that is right Ifs too far from my home. Lecacon is not as convenient to my home. The location of Keats Avenue Is closer to my house Location. Too far I like it closer to home I live off of county 1B so that would be the perfect location, for us. I only pay 540.00 per month for a founders membership with Lifetime, but this sounds good if they would be able to offer this to new members to switch over. Cause of location. Further away from were I live I Tike the other location better. Location is a bit far and out of the way. Because this one is further and the first one is just down L' e street from us. Because of the price again. I like the location of the other one better. Its up by the ponce station and library and you don't have to worry about things going on. Location, too far from my house. YMCA Coh'age Grove MaMKet PoienUal Study Verbatim Comments Page 9 of 20 Q13. Why not (join the YMCA at the PresbytaHa,n Homes Norris Square senior houosung iodation)? Location and cost. Too far from house and too expensive. Too far away from my home, looking at something where my kids could either walk or bike to the location. it's far away from my house. Driving distance too long. Because we live off Keats and 85th and that would be very convenient or close. No right now we belong to Life Time and would find it inconvenient to change at that location. Because we never go down 80th and are never on that side of town. It is farther from house then the other two. If I were to drive there, it would just be farther. Just because its too far a distance from my home. It is further away then I want to gavel. The other locations are closer to where I live, it's just farther away, less convenient Where its at, the distance for me. I don't like that location. i like the other one. I like the one up by 19th. It would be a better location for us and it is a nicer area Distance. 'h'rong side of the highway. The highway splits the community. It should be on the same side of the highway as the high school. The location and the cost it will be too far for me to drive and $112 a month is too much for me to pay. I think it's farther away than the first iooaticn you described, Again € live on the border of Woodbury and Cottage Grove and that location is farther away. Distance. The distance from where I live. I't's further than the other ones. The club in Woodbury would be closer than that one. just location. It's not as close. It's much more space by Keats and less traffic, Location and cost for a family membership. We were talking about this the other night. We would prefer it would be just a Cottage Grove community center, not run by YMCA. Much cheaper memberships. Same as Y but cheaper. Because it's too far from my home. Distance is a little far from where we live. Location, far from where I live. Price too expensive. The same thine as before. Itwould require me to drive them there because my kids are not old enough to cross the bridge on 80th Street tike let's say on their bikes it 'too far away from us. Its a little further than what I want to go. I'd like to be able to walk to it. i just think its funny that going across the highway is just vary unappealing. For us it would it would be more convenient on Keats, it's farthest away from my house. I very rarely go over on that side of the highway. Udell that area there, I think they should do it in a more span environment I don't know what size this building is going to be. I don't know what this will do. I have an idea that they will get a super break on taxes. Open would be like Instead of putting it in a crowded place already it would make more since to put It in an open area, I guess I'm really not into that, on i don't know we have enough things we do ourselves, we never got I- that a` sixty -two dollars a month. I never joined health clubs down hem it's really not my bag; i really don't care to do that. 1?VlCA Cotfags Grove MarketPoten7 al Study Verbatim Comments Page 10 of 20 Qi3. Why not Uoln the YjYj at the Presbyterian Bongoes i Square senior hoessinq location)? Walking distance, I wouldn't be interested, Its five blocks from me but I probably wouldn't be interested. Its just me and wife. For the activities that are there, we wouldn't take part in them. I don't think would use enough of the facilities. Not enough bang for my buck. Cost. Social security doesn't leave me with a jot a lot of spare cash. I don't join any of them there a waste and 1 don't use there. No interest in YMCA or other facility available, We go to the senior center In the area to exercise. I wouldn't get enough use of it 1 don't think we would use it enough to pay for a membership we are both in our 70's. Because I wasn't interested in anything that they will offer. Like I just told you, t am not going to go down water slides. 1 haven't swam in a million years and 1 don't think I am going to start Why would I join if there nothing 1 want to do there? Because I am so active with what l do, I really don't feel I need anything right now. t shop and t go cut with my family, they take me a lot of places and I travel a lot with my brother, I go to Hawaii every year. 1 have no Interest in having a membership to the Y. I don't have a need for it I seek out what the YMCA would provide elsewhere. I don't do it out of spite; I am not a gym guy. I would explain it with this analogy. Running is boring. Could you make it boring? Yes, do it in a gym, and stand in place. What I will do is go and do it somewhere else, The gym, the water park are fun. But I w #II go in a lake. Because I just don't think 1 would be interested, l just wouldn't be. My wife and I will probably not be using the new YMCA, We think its a good idea for younger families but I don't like to workout. I sure hope they put the property taxes to good use and not waste the money, that's why it's Important they get the most done with the least amount of funds. I hope the majority rules on this Idea because there are many poor families in Cottage Grove. I'm not Interested in joining, I'm just not interested. I don't do swimming, I don't do exercise. I don't do Pllates, so there's nothing there for me. I don't like crowds and 1 am disabled. No interest. I don't know if Cottage Grove would be interested. A lot o` cost. They want to spend a lot of money that people don't have. Because of my health and my age. VIVO 1 have net been feeling good and am not in the best of health I just wouldn't Under the conditons I just mentioned before. Because we are up in our eighties. VVe can't get around that good io do alt that sluff they ask. When you are eighty years old, you are not going to do all that exercise sfuf;` and meetings. We barely can get to church anymore. Because we're cid, We're just not interested. We have other things to do. Pm going to give you information you may or may not want to hear, I was a mayor for cottage grove for sxteen years & longest serving mayor, I believe at this point cottage grove could really use a good community center. One offering all base good things you were talking about, my age /condition I wouldn't be active, forty years ago it would have been nice for my kids, probably wouldn't use it I'm in favor of it, location should be over Keats county nineteen Is good location. Me and wife our falhy old, retired. limited income & both have joint pain, we can wa4k around here, only Thing we would be interested in is if we have a party or something like that: in favor good idea, good for younger people, card school has an area where they play cads Monday through Friday and provide free lunch. YMCA Cottage Grove Market POI211fl Study Verbatim Comments Page 11 of 20 Because of my age. If I want to walk, l can just walk. Q13. Why not (join the YMCA at the Presbyaedain Homes Ncahnus square senior housing location)? Because we are a little too old. We can't keep going and stuff like that there. We would have to walk slow. When you are eighty years old, you aren't that young any more. Because that is way too expensive. Price is a factor regardless of location. Same reason as the First one, just out and paste. It's right by the cop shop, so much stop lights, and so much congestion so many school buses going from Crestview, Park High. More congestion. Because there's a YMCA within about 40 miles of here. And it's too expensive. I guess I'm just against the whole thing because It will hurt small businesses, Just put the same thing I said before. The whole thing is I don't want to build a new pool and have my taxes go up. We have a high school; let's use the existing facilities we have rather than building a YMCA community center that would potentially raise taxes. Lets use the High School facilities, it doesn't make sense to build a new facility and pay more taxes. Because I don't think Cottage Grove needs a new facility. Because I think all of those services are already provided in the city. Because it wouldn't meet any of our families needs. We already have all the thin it would offer elsewhere. And it's too expensive. Well because I am just thinking of Joining the YMCA in Woodbury and 1 am not exactly in favor of the City of Cottage Grove building a community center at this time given the state of the economy. I't's because I wouldn't go ovar there. Probably because of the distance. 1} There's many more similar center in the area. 2; 1 can get a better rate through work. Well because I have my own hot tub and do my own exercise equipment and I question the use of public funds to build a community center when you already have a YMCA. Well that to me would be my only reason that I would use a facility like that, everything else you mentioned does not apply to me. There is acing to be duplication between the YMCA and the community center and if the YMCA will remain open and I am sure you're wondering if you will have a positive tax flow or negative tax flow and if it's negative I am sure that the taxes of people will be used to keep It operational. Because 1 have a lot of equipment at home. After work, 1 come home and work out. Because I teach there and am already a member. 1 have a free membership. YMCA Co± ago Grove 'Varket PofenUa[ Study Verba6'm Comments Page 12 of 20 Q114. "Why not uio the YMCA at the County Genftia Center locaUon nearby the nevi City HaN site)? Because I already get the freedom program through my health care for nothing unless my health care provider provides it. I'm already in a membership in one by my work. It's a different fitness center down by North>leld. Because I have a health club that I go to now. Why would 1 join a YMCA if I'm happy at my health club? Because I am so busy myself I have a job at the church in Newport and facilities I can use them anytime I want at church. I can't afford it. I am living in my house, my husband died and I have enough to do, yard work. Because we're already happy members of another club, and it this one casts too much, With our health insurance, we have a lot of the things that you're offering. It's with Medica. I get to use the activity center at the school for free and it provides what 1 need. I have a membership at Lifetime Fitness. I only pay $35, but I do like the idea of being closer because that Is in Woodbury. We already have all the things it would offer elsewhere. And it's too expensive. That's quite a bit of money. I'm on a fixed income and that's pretty steep. The price. I believe the price is too much. That's Just too spendy. i don't think the average person can afford that with our economy the way it is. Because I couldn't afford to. I'm on a fixed income. I would but there is no way I could afford that. Because it is kind of expensive and t am on a fixed income. Social Security disability. Too expensive. It's too much for a family. That's too damn much. It's just too much, especially when I can go to Anytime Fitness and get a membership much cheaper. People in Cottage — rove can't afford that. They all work or leave town. Shoving that City Nall down our throw , it is the taxpayer's money they are going to be using, A lot of people lost their jobs and their homes. People can't afford it. It is a wrong time. it is bad. People can't afford that. You said sixty -two dollars a person, people can't afford it Cottage Grove can't even keep a pool going, how can they afford that? Because It is too much money, I would not spend that much money. It's just too much money for me to span. Because that is way too expensive. Price is a factor regardless of location. Too much money. I have a good io'o and everything, but to me that is riot something I would want to pay $62 per month for. Too = xpcns'rve. Because- It's just too expensive. $ 112 a month, thats what I rnean by $112 a month, that's over $2000 a year. I just couldn't afford it. I just can't afford Because it's going to cost and i think the whole point of the community center wcuid be to not make _ people pay for memberships. Cost too hlgh. its cot the location it's the cost, can't afford it on my fixed income. Too expensive. yMCfi Cottage Grove r4arket Potential Study Veroafim Comments Page 13 of 20 Q14, Why not Uoin t€ne ` MCA at the county Se? irrice Center location nearby the new Gltyr Fall slte�? The cost Just too high. Just because a membership somewhere is not appealing to me. I'm more of a pay per use person because of the commitment it takes to be a member somewhere. It would be a waste of time for me for lack of that commitment. Cost. It's too high. For the same reasons as the first location. I guess it just doesn't have anything that would justify me wanting to spend that much. I just don't have any interest In it. At $112 a month not sure I'd get a good value. I'm out of work and on a fixed income. I just don't have nothing going on Too much money. You go for a few times and 'then you don't do it anymore. Too expensive. Both individual and family are too costly. Too expensive. Price. I'm unemployed so sixty two dollars a month is not going to happen, I would love to because that's a perfect location for me I live right by there, 'r,` I have had the money I would defin!tiy jeln. And that's a little farther away. From my home, the other two locations would be more convenient. Cause when you read the prices again that's way too much for a family. That price Is higher than what I pay now, if they deal with medical plans that would reimburse you twenty dollars an adult then I would join. I'm unemployed right now, I'm not sure if we are going to being staying in Cottage Grove we have our ast child finishing high school and he will be going to college, we are evaluating if we are going to move, I personally never belonged to a fitness center my wife was and it would be a cost for the whole family. Just adding another monthly bill 1 don't think [ would get any value out of it, I wouldn't benefit from it. Cost. Well, I have a membership that doesn't have a pool and is like $2D0 a year. I was a Y member until Gold's Gym offered membership for $24.95 a month and for the economic standpoint, Gold's Gym is economically a better choice. Just because of the money. The cost. 3t's just hard coming up with that extra month each month. Because of the cost, $112 will not work for our budget. Not as convenient a location. The costs. The same thing it costs too much, maybe if they made it $45 a month for an individual it might be affordable but not for $62. It's too high. Cost is 'too high. The cost it's just too high for a family m:embersh:p. it would be more reasonable for a family membership to be In t`re fifty to sixty dollar range. The price. That's more than I could auDrd. A hundred dollars for a family ;s a lot for us right now. We have a ;ot of bills and our priority is taking care of that and work is Idgnt and'frf_ No mat's about It. I2y answer is the same. its cost, icy family can workout at a closer location and at a better price. Of course, there's no pool but for the price, it's worth it, The people of Cottage Grove need more help with employment and finding work, Over this weekend, and i am a pastor of a church, we had eighty families standing in fine in a blizzard and bitter cold waiting to receive groceries. They're hungry and I don't think putting the City of Cottage Grove's funds into this project is the right thing to do. YldCA Cottage Greve [Varket Potential Study Verbatim Comments Page 14 of 20 Qt4, Why not (join tine YMCA at t€we County Service Center location nearby the new City Hatt site)? The same as the last one. The location doesn't affect our decision as long as it is in Cottage Grove it is more the price. It wouldn't fit within our budget, i't's too high, wouldn't be affordable. The cost is too high. The price range and location. Too far from my home. I like that location it's the closest to where 1 live but still too expensive. if they had other structure to their membership. Something like for using it only twice a month or different rates for a lower use. Instead of charging you for a daily monthly use why rot charge for once a week or couple times a month to make memberships more affordable. it is too expensive. It would not fit in our budget. We don't have the need for it. I have a pool, treadmill and I walk around for exercise. It Is high. The cost for my budget. Too expensive. $62 is too much to pay for one person. I don't drive and It would be too much to get someone to drive me there. Because I don't think for the money we would pay that, we would go as much as we should. I think it would be too expensive, as I would not use the facillty enough. Cost. Too expensive. Cost too high. The price per month is a little high. If if were about ha;f the cost, around $30, I would probably consider It. I'm not crazy about the location either. It's not convenient to me. Well, I've already answered this several times, it's cost My wife's membership to Lifetime Fitness is much cheaper then what she could get at the YMCA unless, of Course, Medicare can snatch what she pays. I do believe Cottage Grove needs a great community center so I don't mind supporting that with my property taxes. The cost is a little high and the location is inconvenient. Not near where I five. The monthly fee I pay is a little less then what the membership would be. The price for membership and location. That's out there anyways and the price is still too high. The Woodbury YfyCA is closer than that is. The ­ice Is so much more then the other YMCA's. I understand it is a new building, but that doc - -sn't warrant an Increase. It's a little farther, From where I live and price wise, it is kind of steep for me. The monthly amount is kind of (high for me. - Because the one that 1s close to ,me is Norris Square. LOCAT10N. I don`t 'like were the location is. It's a stupid location there building it on the outskirts of the population. We don't have no money its ridiculous. Too far away. Location. I live on the side where the second option is located se that would be closer. i, s to far from our house and my kids would have to walk there and that's too far to dde a bike. If too far for them to go alone, No that's probably the biggest one. it not close to our home its not close enough for us. Location. YMCA Cottage Grove Markef Potential Sfudv Verbatim Comments Page 15 of 20 Q14, Why not (join the YMCA at the County Service Center iocateoan nearby the new City Hat? site)? Everything seems to go over that way, in terms of the demographics, nothing new ever goes on the old side of the highway where we live. We always have to travel over there and I get tired of it. I wouldn't join then ff it were at that location. Because there's a YMCA within about 10 miles of here. And it's too expensive, dust further away from our house. It would definitely be a driving distance where the first location could be walking and biking. Location and cost. From home and to expensive. Its way on the outskirts of town, it would be inconvenient if would be closer to drive to the'A Dodbury location than this location. Its not by anything else, the location Is ridiculous its on the way to other towns, if it was built there it would be catered to new development that has not been built yet, it would be built for people that are new to Cottage Grove and that would be closer to them it wouldn't be built for the people that have been living in Cottage Grove for years. Where it's located, it would be hard for me to get to It. I don't drive very much and my friends probably wouldn't be interested. Could be the cost. It's just me and the price is too much for just me. Because the one on Hadley would be a mile from where I live. This one is farther from me. Well if I could and was abia to, the location is not good for me. The other two are much better so that would be one of the reasons besides the other reasons. Well he the distance, like I said; the other ones would be close. If I had a choice, 1 would choose the Presbyterian Homes location. It would be out of my way. I don't, travel up by Keats much at all Im not at that area !m closer to Highway 61 and Woodbury. I don't like the iocatlon for one. I think the location needs to be In the heart of where people are. I think they would bike or walk to the location if it was closer. 1 'think they should have a couple membership fee. It doesn't make sense that you have to pay a family membership for two people. Because I don't approve of where they are putting the City He if After looking at the floor plans they had in the paper, I don't see where the money is going to be spent. Seventeen million is what they had fn the paper and I don't, see where the money is going to be spent. it must have gold inlaid floors and faucets is what I can see. If it is going to be used by the kcal people, I think it should be centered more where it is accessible to more people. if they put it up on Highway 19, they will have more space. I don't think the one by the Presbyterian Home is big enough. There is no parking and you would have to park ;n the street and that would be a mess. They would have to put in undarground parking and I don't think they would do that They should take the old dance- hall. There Is quite a bit of room there. Further. Location is the least convenient of the three. Location. Its way out there, its a distance from ehy house, 6 or 7 miles and again the money. t is far away frorn my home. It would take about vveniy minutes, it's isolated. It's all by itself, just don't like the location. It's too far away for me I would go to Lifetime or the Woodbury YMCA because I think its out the way from where 1 am. I don't know it's a little bit farther away than where I am opposed to the other one. The other site you described is near the school and close to us so this one wouldn't be as convenient as the other site and that's why I probably wouldn't join. III just further to go it's not as convenient It's not close enough where the kids could lust go there on their own, it would make me have to d. ive because the kids couldn't travel that far. Too far. Too far from home and from where everybody lives in cottage grove. YMCA Cottage Grove Market Potential Study Verbafim Comments Page 16 of 20 Q14. Why not (jo[n the u `CA at the County Santee Center locaftn nearby the new City HaH site " Location is not convenient. We are closer to the 80th street to where we live it would not be convenient for our daughter to use. It's to far from where we live. Just because I'm a walker and where I live, I couldn't do that. I object to facilitles being put out on the edge of town.. Too far out. Location is a bit too far and price is high. Because its farther awey. It's farther away and harder to get to, not as convenient, Too far away from our house. Out there, it 4s too inconvenient a location. I mean for my part its inconvenient, too far to drive, it's farther than the other place €ts farther from me. Not interested. I'm not sure how much 1 would use it since l'm retired, 1 think the idea is directed towards younger I than us. They can use it more. In the summer we're too busy, in the winter will be in a warmer climate. 1 think it is a good idea for the younger families. I don't join any of them there a waste and I don't use them. We would not get enough use out of it. V for the same reason I told you before. We aren't swimmers. I guess I'm really not into that, on I dcn't know we have enough things we do curselves; we never cot info that at sixty -two dollars a month. I never joined health clubs down here it's really not my bag; I really don't care =o do that. No interest in YMCA or other facility available. We go to the senicr center in the area to exercise, No interest. 1 don't know if Cottage Grove would be interested. A idt of cost. They want to spend a lot of money that people don't have. Same reason I gave before. There is nothing that 1 would be interested in. 1 have no interest In having a membership to the Y. 1 don't have a need for it, m not interested In joining. I'm not Interested. I don't think would use enough & the facilities. Not enough bang for my buck. Cost. Social security doesn't leave me with a lot a lot of spare cash. Its for the same reason for the above location, really for any locaton. I am not really Interested. When I go to physical therapy, there is a gal that goes to Anytime fitness and her price Is a lot less and there is one in Woodbury too. I don't know I wasn't paying much attention. I don't do swimming, I don't do exercise. I don't do Pirates, so there's nothing there for me. It would be the same as before 1 am rust not interested. Same reason it's just me and wife. For the activities that ara there, we wouidn't take part in them. My lifers just too busy. Because of nny age. If I want to walk, 1 can just walk.. It is the same answer as before. Under the conditions 1 just mentioned before. Because we are up in our eighties. We can't get around that good to do all that stun they ask, When you are eighty years old, you are not going to do all that exercise stuff and meet}ngs. We barely can get to ch =urch anymore. YMCA Cottage Grove Market PotenYa( Study Verbatim Comments Page 17 of 20 Q14, Why not (join the YMCA at the County Bernice Center location nearby 'he suety City HaN cite)? Because we're old. We're! List not interested: We have other things to do. I'm going to give you Information you may or may not want to hear, I was a mayor for cottage grove for sixteen years & longest serving mayor, I believe at this point cottage grove could really use a good community center. One offering all those good things you were talking about, my age/condition I wouldn't be active, forty years ago it would have been nice for my kids, probably wouldn't use it, I'm in favor of it, location should be over Keats county nineteen is good location. Me and wife cur fairly old, retired, limited income & both have joint pain, wa can walk around here, only thing we would be interested in is if we have a party or something like that, in favor good idea, good for younger people, card school has an area where they play cards Monday through Friday and provide free lunch. I don't believe the city should be involved in this. It's not the responsibility of the city. Streets, sewers and water are the city's responsibility. The responsibility of raising kids Is on the parents not the city. I think building he new city half is a farce. The costs to build it is S23 million debars and we are in a depression we don't need one and it s a waste of money. We don't need it. Because I'm closer to the Woodbury YMCA. I live on the border of Woodbury and Cottage Grove and I'm closer to Woodbury. Again, its not Important about location. All of these locations are super close. I would not think of driving "twenty -five miles, I would just go, and drive. I guess I'm Just against the whole thing because it will hurt small businesses. That's just as close as the Woodbury one and the other two are closer to my house. The same as I said before. The whole t'ninc is 1 don't want to build a new pool and have my taxes go up. We have a high school, let's use the existing facilities we have rather than building a YMCA Community center that would potentially raise taxes. Let's use the High School facilities, it doesn't make sense to build a new facility and pay more taxes. That's just hovel f feel. At that location, Woodbury is just as close, I'd rather go there. Because they can utilize the buildings thatwe have now. Your schools for one thing and we have our parks. I don't think we need anymore cost to the taxpayer. if I want to go out and exercise we have trails and biking paths and 1 personally believe the fannies have to take responsibility i; t'ney want to go out and swim and hike they have to take responsib[lity What is this come to cost the taxpayers? Because 1 don't think Cottage Grove needs a new facility, Because I think ail of those services are already provided in the city. Because it wouidr, i meet any of our families needs. 1) There's many more similar centers in the area 2) E can get a beuer rate through work. Well I exercise a lot on my own, 1 have my own stun in my house, my own machines. if 1 need to have a banquet room and things like that, 1 can fin=d those through my church for free. For that price, I can build my own, pool at my house and advertise it and it would pay for itself in two years. I cannot justify the cost for a community center and having my taxes raised. I don't need other people to encourage me to exercise. 1 do it on my own, as everyone should. Everyone should want to stay healthy. We!I because I have my own hot tub and do my own exercise equipment and I question the use of public funds to build a community center when you already have a YMCA. Well that to me would be my only reason that I would use a facility like that everything else you mentioned does riot apply to me. There is going to be duplication between the YMCA and file community center and if the YMCA will remain open and I am sure your wondering if you will have a positive tax flow or negative tax flow and if its negative I am sure that the taxes of people will be used to keep it operational. Because 1 teach there and am already amember. 1 have a free membership, YMCA Cottage Grove Markel Poientiel StudyVerbadm Comments Page Is of20 Q22a, What is the name of the faubRc ov iarivate haa0th, fitness, or recreationa9 faclhty you belong to? Hastings Anytime Fitness in Cottage Grove YWCA Woodbury Curves Woodbury Curves Woodbury Curves and Anytime Fitness Woodbury YMCA Curves Woodbury YMCA Gold's Gym I belong to the Woodbury location I have the Gold's Gym in Woodbury metro membership. Gold's Gvm YMCA in Woodbury Gold's Gym Woodbury Gold's Gym YMCA in Woodbury Gold's Gym Southeast area YMCA in Woodbury Gold's Gym Woodbury YMCA Gold's Gym YMCA Woodbury location Lifetime Fitness Woodbury YMCA and Hastings YMCA Lifetime YMCA of Woodbury Lifetime It Figures in West St Pa�Ul Lifetime Fitress South Family in West St Paul Lifetime Fitness YIJICA - Eagan Lifetime Fitness YMCA Woodbury and Minneapolis Lifetime Fitness YMCA Inver Grove Lifetime Fitness Woodbury YMCA, In Eagan and Woodbury Lifetime Fitness Yoga Studio Life?ime Fitness in Woodbury Anytime Fitness Lifetime Fitness Anytime Fit ess Lifetime A Fitness. Anytime Fitness Lifetime fitness Anytime Fitness. (Maplewood Community Center Pny ime Fitness Snap Fitness Anytime Fitness. Snap & Gold's Gym Anytime Fitness in Cottage Grove S Fitness Anytime In Cottage Grove Snap Fitness Anytime Fitness Snap Fitness Anytime fitness in Cottage Grove Snap Fitness Anytime Fitness and Curves in Cottage Grove Snap Fitness. Anytime Fitness Snap Fitness in Cottage Grove o-� YMCA Goftage Grove Market Pofenfial Study Verbefim Comments Page 99 of 20 Q22a. What is the name of the public or private health, fitness, or recreational facillity you bcMong to? Snap and the kids use the activity center at high school. Snap Fitness Snap Fitness Snap Fitness in Cottage Grove Snap Fitness Snap Fitness Snap Fitness Snap Cardiolinks Senior Center District 633 activity centers South \Nashington County Community Education Senior Center Air base gym Armed Forces Reserve Center Fitness Center on the Air Force Reserve Base in Minneapolis The 934th Fitness Center (Air force reserve center at the airport). East Ridge High School Gym The activity center at Park High School. With Health East, I am using their facility at St. .foe's Wooddale Recreation in Woodbury 24 -;your fitness Bafiy's YPACA Skyway in Down"Own St, Paul 3M's gym North St. Paul Community Center Greater St Paul Metro Wide Membership YMCA Cattage Grove Market Potential StudyVerbaffm Comments Page 20 of 20 Appendix B Questionnaire 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study Cottage Grove YMCA Market Potential Study 7, ejep one Survey of Cottage Grove Residents Hello, my name is and 1'rn calling on behalf of the City of,Cottage Grove and the YMCA of greater St. Paul. We are interested in your opinions about a potential new city community center for your area. This survey will only take a few minutes and can help design how your community center is developed. Are you at least 18 years ofd? Yes [CONTINUE] No -� May 9 please streak with someone ieu your household who is at least 18 years old? In what age group do you belong? Are you between the ages of: (READ a. - g. OR UNTiN A RESPONSE IS OFFEEFED. MARK ONE RESPONSE) AGE QUOTAS a. 18 and 24 3 b. 25 and 34 52 C. 35 and A4 66 d. 45 and 54 68 e. 55 and 64 55 f. 65 and 74, or 35 g. 75 and older? 21 h. Refused TERMINA"6E 350 TOTAL YMCA I A'Gm & AWARENESS Q UES7 7 1ONS 2. First, I would like to ask you some questions about the YMCA organization. How familiar are you with the YMCA? Would you say you are: (R a. - c.; 11AARK ONE RESPONSE! a. Very familiar b. Somewhat familiar or a Not at all familiar? -) (SNIP TO 4) Cottage Grove and YMCA Market Potential Project RESI DENT SuvevFINAL P1503 1 3, [ASK ONLY IF VERyfSO;', _i_ HA7 FAMILIAR FOB: O2] What !s your perception of the YMCA? Would you say your perception of the YMCA is: (READ a. - e.; MARK ONE RESPONSE) a. Very favorable b, Somewhat favorable C. Neither favorable nor unfavorable d, Somewhat unfavorable, o, e. very unfavorable? f. Don't knew DESIRED CHAR dCTERISTICS 017— SHE COMMUNI CENTER [REr'`uLDI The YMCA and the City of Cottage Grove are considering partnering to build a new Community Center in your area and are interested in your opinion, of this potential initiative. 4. First, 1 am going to fist some fitness programs and services the new Community Center might offer you or your family. For each please tell me if you or someone in your household would have a great deal of interest, some interest, a little interest, or no interest at all. The first is: [READ a. -1.; ROTATE UST] Great Deal Some Little No Interest Don't of Interest Interest interest At Al! no- a. Health and wellness programs? GD Sl Ll NO DK b. Cardiovascular fitness machines? GD SI Ll NO DK c. Strength conditioning machines and free weights? GD Sl Ll ( \1 O DK d. Group fitness classes? GD Si Ll NO DK e. Yoga classes and Pilates classes? GD Sl LI NO DK f. Sports leagues for adults? GD Sl L1 NO DK. g. Personal trainers and fitness assessments? GD Sl Ll NO DK . A multi- purpose gymnasium for activities such as basketball and volleyball? GD Sl LI NO DK i, An indoor track for walking or running? GD S; Ll NO DK S. [RE-AAI, This new Community Center could offer a variety of different wafer facilities and activities. For each of the following, please tell me if you or someone In your household would have a great deal of interest, some interest, a little interest, or no interest at all. How about: 1READ a.-h.; ROTA E E LISTI Great Deal Some Little € e Interest Don't of interest Interest Interest A' All Know i a. An indoor pool for lap swimming? GD Sl Li NO DK b. A sauna? GD S1 Ll NO DK c. A whiripool? GD Si Ll NO DK Cottage Grove and YMCA Market Potential Prefect i RESiDENTSurvevFINAL P1503 2 d. Swimming lessons? e. Water aerobics and other water exercise programs? f. Indoor waterslide? g. Outdoor splash desk? h. An indoor aquatic center equipped with water slide, a play area for chiidren, and a zero -entry pool? GD S! Ll NO DK GD SI U NO DK GD Si Ll NO DK GD St Li NO DK GD Sl L! NO DK 6. flREAD) This new Community Center facility could also offer a variety of community services. For each of the following, please tell me if you or someone in your household would have a great deal of interest, some interest, a little interest, or no interest at all. Now about; FRIEAD a.- c.; ROTATE USTI a. Arts classes, such as dance, music or crafts? b. Meeting space or conference rooms available for local community groups and events? c. A banquet facility for up to 300 people., with a kitchen I catered events? Great Deat Some Ut€ia No Interest Don't Of riteresf In €eras€ interes ALAL Know GD SI Ll NO GD Si Ll NO DK GD St Ll NO DK GD Si Ll NO DK ACTIVFTIES FOR OLD ADULT'S 1 , Would you or a family member be interested in programs for people 55 or older at the new Community Center facility? )DO NOT RFAD LEST) a. Yes b. No 4 (SKiP TO 9) 8. For each of the following activities, please tell me if, you or a farnily member over age 55 have a great deal of interest, somme interest, a little interest, or no interest at all. The first is: �FEAD a. - g; ROTAT= LOST) Great Deat Some Lido No trtterest Don't Of interest tnd rest (sterest kt All Know a. Strenothtraining classes? GD SI U NO DK b, Rehabilitation programs, such as programs for arthritis or joint replacement? c. An indoor walkers program? d. Day trips to places of interest? e, Water aerobics exercise? f. Organized card- p[ayring leagues, such as bridge or poker? g. Chair exercise classes? Cottage Grove and YMCA Market Poten al Project RFCmPKIT CIYRIPV FIN .AI GD St Ll NO DK GD „, Ll NO DK GD SI Ll NO DK GD SI Ll NO DK GD Sl Ll NO DK GD SI J NO DK 3 1 s. [ASK ONLY OF RESPONDENTS WHO ENDiCA.TDD "YE-S" ON Q7 Or 09.1 If the new Community Center vvere to have a dedicated shared space for seniors to use during the day time and teens to use during the evening for socialization, would you or anyone in your household have a: (READ a. - d.; IVIARK ONE tFGut= ONSr =$ �. a. Great deal of interest b. Some interest C. Little interest, or d. No interest In using this shared space for teens and seniors? e. Don't know Cottage Grove and YMCA Market Potential Project RESIDENT Survev FINAL P1503 4 ACT 9MMES FOR YOUTH AND TEENS 9. Would you or anyone in your household be interested in youth and teens programming at the new Community Center facility? (DO NOT EGAD U_ a. Yes b. No —> (SKP TO 012) ` 10. For each of the following youth and teen activities, please tell me if you have a great deal of interest, some interest. a little interest, or no interest at all. The first is: (READ a. THROUGH m.; R07ATE LEST) Great Deal Some Little No Interest Don't Of Interest Interest interest At All Know v a. Youth leadership and character development programs? GD Sl LI No DK b. Swimming lessons? GD S( LI NO DK c. Classes to teach specific sports basics to young children? GD Si LI NO DK d. Sports leagues for youth and teens? GD Sl LI NO DK e. A teen center to provide a gathering spot for teens to go after school, with a computer tab and homework help? GO SI LI NO DK f. Youth and teen sports conditioning and `.raining programs? GD Sl LI NO DK g. A full -time, Monday — Friday summer care program for kids ages 4 to 14? GD SI LI NO DK h. A supervised outdoor skateboard park? GD SI LI NO DK I. Family nights with open gym tine? GD Sl LI NO DK 1. Outdoor sports fields for youth? GD Sl LI NO DK k. open pool time for swimming and water fun? GD SI LI NO DK 1. Drop off child care that allows parents to work out for up to two hours while their children are cared for in a fun environment? GD SI LI NO DK m. After - school child care and programs? GD SI 1 _I NO DK 1 s. [ASK ONLY OF RESPONDENTS WHO ENDiCA.TDD "YE-S" ON Q7 Or 09.1 If the new Community Center vvere to have a dedicated shared space for seniors to use during the day time and teens to use during the evening for socialization, would you or anyone in your household have a: (READ a. - d.; IVIARK ONE tFGut= ONSr =$ �. a. Great deal of interest b. Some interest C. Little interest, or d. No interest In using this shared space for teens and seniors? e. Don't know Cottage Grove and YMCA Market Potential Project RESIDENT Survev FINAL P1503 4 INTEREST IN A COMMUNITY CENTER MEMBERSHIP :READ) The next few questions relate to location, cost, and your interest in a membership to a new Community Center in Cottage Grove that would be operated by the YMCA. This nevv Community Center would have an indoor aquatic center, including a family fun pool an outdoor splash deck, a gym, exercise and weight training equipment, a running track, youth programming, a dedicated space for seniors and teens, and active family and older adult programming. Three possible locations are being considered and i Aq1 I ask you about your interest in each one. [ROTATE 12, 93 and 141 12. How interested would you be in purchasing a membership to a Community Center operated by the YPACA if R were located at the current City Hall site at 7516 80` Street South in Cottage Grove? This location is near the intersection of 80` Street South and Hemingway Avenue and is by the Washington County public library. The cost for membership would be $62 per month for an individual membership and $192 per month for a family membership. Would you; (READ a. - e., FfkARK ONE RESPONSE) a. Definitely join --� b. Probably join —3 c. Maybe join 4 E Wouid want an Indivridual membership or a family membership? ndividual b. Family c. Don't know d. Probably not join, or i Vtetly riot? e. Definitely not join? Why no? f. Don't know g. Depends 11 How interested would you be in purchasing a membership to a Community Center operated by the YMCA if it were located near Presbyterian biomes Norris Square senior housing which is located south of Highway 61 on 80' Street South, near Hadley Avenue? The cost for membership would be $62 per month for an individual membership and $112 per month: for a family membership. Would you: (READ a. - e., MARK OP�t'E RESPONSE) a. Definitely join 4 1 Would you want arr, Individual membership or a family membership? Probably join -1 a. Individuat b. Family C. ______ Don't know c. Maybe join � I h. Probably not join, or —3 'APhy not? L Definitely not join? °> Why not? _ d. Don't know e. Depends Cottage Grove and YMCA Market Potentfai Project RcSiDENIT Survey FiNAI_ P1603 14. How interested would you be in purchasing a membership to a Community Center operated by the YMCA if it were located near the County Service Center by 85 Street South and Keats Avenue South (Keats is the same road as County Road 19.) This location is near the site where the new City Hall will be built. The cost for membership would be 562 per month for an individual membership and 5112 per month for a family membership? Would you; (READ a. - e.; V%&ARK ONE RESPONSE) a. Definitely join Would you want an individual membership or a family membership? b. Probably join I a. Individual b. Family c Don't know c. Maybe join j. Probably not join, or 4 'Why not? k. Definitely not join? -a Why root? d. Don't know e. Depends 15. Now, thinking of all three proposed sites for the community center facility, which of the three proposed locations do you like the best? Wouid you prefer the new Community Center be built at the current City Hall !ovation on 80`" St. and Hemingway Ave., or the site near Presbyterian Homes Norris Square senior housing, or the site near the County Service Center where the new City Hali will be built, or do you have no preference? (DO NOT READ LIST; MARK ONE RESPONSE) a. Current City Hall location (7516 80 "' Street South in Cottage Grove - by the Washington County Public Library b. Presbyterian Homes Dorris Square senior housing location (South of 61 on 8o`" St. S.} County Service Center location nearby new City Hall site 185"' and Keats Ave, S.1 County Road 19.) d. No preference 16. How many miles would you be willing to drive to a Community Center? Would you say: (READS a. — d.; MARK ONE RESPONSE) a, 0 — 2 miles b. 3 —4 miles C. 5 — 7 miles, or ( d. 8 miles or more? e. I don't drive I . Don't know Cottage Grove and YMCA. Market Potential Project RESIDENT Survev FINIAL P1503 6 17. Would you like to see the proposed City Community Center, which would be operated by the YMCA and the City of Cottage Grove, become a part of the community? (DD NOT READ LIST; HARK ONE RESPONSE) a. Yes . b. no c. Don't know/Don't care 18, flow favorably or unfavorably do you view the partnership between the YMCA and the City of Cottage Grove to develop a Community Center to maximize community resources? Do you look on the partnership as: (READ a. - s.; MARK ONE RESPONSE) a, Very favorable b. Somewhat favorable C. neither favorable nor unfavorable d. Somewhat unfavorable, or e. Very unfavorable? Don't Know 19. Do you pay property taxes to Washington County? (DD NOT READ LIST; MARK ONE- REPONSE) a. Yes -'r (SKIP TC 29) b. no -i (Si"<iP TO 21) c. Don't Know 20, h the Community Center Were to be built, you could expect your property taxes to Increase by $25 to $40 per year. As we discussed previously, members who join the new community center will also pay monthly dues. The partnership with the YMCA would guarantee that no additional city funds would be needed to support ongoing operations 'beyond the monthly membership dues and a property tax increase. KnoMng this, what sort of tax increase would you be willing to accept in order to support the new community center? Would you be willing to pay an increase of ... ( READ LOST; VAA 1 F, 1 K ONE REt ONSE) a. $40 or more in property taxes per year b. $30 to $39 per year, c. $20 to $29 per year, or d, are you unwilling to pay any increase in property taxes to support a new community center? e. Don't know/ Don't care 21. Do you support the use of Cottage Grove city funds to construct a new community center like the one vde've been discussing? (DO NOT FZEA.D LIST; MARK CIE REPONSE) f. Yes g. no In, Maybe i. Don't know( Don't care Cottage Grote and YMCA Market Poten5a€ Project RESIDENT Suvev FINAL P1503 7 22. Do you currently belong to a public or private health, fitness, or recreational facility? a. Yeses - 4 22a. Is this a YMCA faciiity? a. ^ Yes®? CAPTURE NAME b. No -�, (SKIP TO 25) b. _ No --:� CAPTURE MANE c. Not sure --� (SKIP TO 28) 23. Hovel likely are you to renew your membership a' this facility the next time it is due? Will you: (READ - d.; MARK ®ME RESPONSE) a. Definitely renew b. Probably renew Probably not renew, or d, Definitely not renew? e. Don't know f. Not a membership organization 24. Now that you've heard about this proposed new Community Center in Cottage Grove, how likely would you be to switch from your current membership to the new facility if it is built? Would you: (READ a -d; MiARK 0NE RESPONSE) a. Definitely switch b. Probably switch Probably not switch, or d. Definitely not switch? e. Don't know DEMOGRAPMCS 25.1 just have a few demographic questions lest. Do you have any children in the following age groups? [READ a.- d.; CHECK EG,CH YES] a. 0 to 5 years old b. 6 to 10 years C, 11 to 13 years d. 14 to 18 years e. No children Cottage Grove and YMCA PJarket Potential Project P.ESIDENT Survey FINAL P1503 26. How long have you lived in Cottage Grove? (READ a.- a.; MARK ONE RESF'Gi�3E) a. _ Less than I year b. , At least i year: but less than 5 years c. At least 5 years, but less than 10 years d. At least 10 years, but less than 20 years e. 20 years or more f, Don't live in Cottage Grove g. Don't know h. Refused 27. What is your annual household income, before taxes? is it: (READ a. - h. OR UNTIL A RESPONSE IS OFFERED. MARK ONE RESPONSE) a. Less than $20,000 b. $20 but less than $30,000 c. $30,000 but less than $40,000 d. $40,000 but less than $50,000 e. $50 but less than $75,000 f. $75,000 but less than $100,000 g, $100,000 but less than $150,000, or h, $150,000 or more? t. Refused t H NK YOU FOR YOUR PAR T ICEPAA T MNH G EI DE R: Male _ Female N a ERFfIEVVER i,D# Coinage Grove and YMCA Market Patential Protect RESID_NT Survev FINAL P1503 g F o ~I q 4 Q G! Q 2 Z z C Q Z c p lIj p. cv 1 Z I z g q I < 1 q ¢ q 4 Z Z Z Z I Z m rn r°i m ' fy K K W � � m E3 l z N c- 0 a =p s-r E3 v`s ss C C V p O rJy O O O'G OIO N 0 0 C g G O 4 _ �? M W G CC G C> G> JO Gl N tL 6? 63 ffi 69 E4 EA '. Q Q Q Q Q `z 'z p L ty sa K K K z r � m ° n =' c m `o K c4 e.? yr m o N O M O ¢] G1G fR EY 4i3 � Vi' m O O z z O pj pj Qj u I i L G tC: Imo- :V m J O vy �y E'3 E3 W _ 1 G u N E m C c J 6 4 ZE CD zz � CL EF3 E9 Eri j m O LL v 1 ( (^J SJ�/�V�A SS3NlE� 3USIL3�I1 sn — � U Sd3.LNS� uiv�nva�o� q 4 Q G! Q 2 Z z C Q Z c p lIj p. cv 1 Z I z g q I < 1 q ¢ q 4 Z Z Z Z I Z Z z z Z cd { m E3 p O O O O O'G OIO 0 0 0 C g G O O O �? M O E 7 G C> G> JO Gl N 6? 63 ffi 69 E4 EA '. Q Q Q Q Q `z 'z L z z _ n =' c G1G O(° a� 3 O O O O pj pj Qj ' I q 4 Q G! Q 2 Z z C Q Z c p lIj p. cv 1 Z I z g q I < 1 q ¢ q 4 cd E3 p O O O O O'G OIO 0 0 0 C g G O O O O O E 7 G C> G> JO Gl N L _ G1G O(° ' I i L J CD zz O LL 0 SJ�/�V�A SS3NlE� 3USIL3�I1 .. Community Center Task Force Tuesday, April 28, 2009 7:00 PM Minutes The first meeting of the Community Center Task Farce was held on Tuesday, April 28, 2009, in the Community Room at the Cottage Grove ice Arena. Attendees Task Force Members Brad Bacon, Scott Briggs, Ken Brittain, Virgil Flack, Tom Hren, T anweer Janjua, Ron Kath, Gary Kjellberg, Keith Kleinsasser, Jon Larsen, Doug Long, James McCalvy, Jim Meyer, Teresa Okeson- Prater, Craig Patterson, Joseph Pavel, Jim Pyle, Jim Rostad, William Royce, Natalie Seim, Jason Swetland, David Thiede, Diane Thielen, Sherry Wilwert, and Cristeen Lamberty City Council Mayor Myron Bailey, Councilperson Jen Peterson, and Councilperson Justin Olsen City Staff Ryan Schroeder - City Administrator, Howard Blin - Community Development Director, Zac Dockter —ice Arena Manager, John Burbank- Senior Planner, and John McCool - Senior Planner Welcomelintroductions Mayor Bailey welcomed everyone. Mayor Bailey explained that the Task Force objectives are to evaluate the idea whether or not a community center is needed in the city. tlayor Bailey encour- aged members to discuss this issue with other residents for feedback and that the process should be open to new ideas. Mayor Bailey said City Council members will probably not attend Task Force meetings, but wanted Task Force members to understand that they appreciate everyone's interest to serve on the Task Force and look forward to the Task Force's interim reports and final recommendations. For organization and point of centact, it was suggested that there be a chairperson and two vice- chairs serving as the leadership team. These members and any other Task Force member would be expected to provide updates of their work periodically to the City Council, Individual members indicated they would be willing =.o serve in these positions. A request was made to have the meeting minutes sent to all Task Force members. Members wanting the minutes via email were asked to provide their email address. Btin stated that this process would take about two years. Bi- monthly meetings on the first Tues- day were suggested. There were no objections. Blin suggested that two to three Task Force members should be present at City Council meetings to present interim reports, including recommendations. Critical milestones assessing the Task Force's findings and direction should be established throughout the process. He also identified that at any time during the process, the Task Force would have the opportunity to recommend that the process be discontinued based on their findings. Community Carter Task Force Minutes April 28, 2009 Page 2 of 3 Determining the program for a facility (e.g. theater, arts, indoor pool, meeting rooms, recreation facilities, etc.) should be determined early in the process. Concern was expressed for potential impacts a community facility might have with local businesses that provide similar services (e.g, banquet facilities, reception halls, or exercise facilities). It was pointed out that estimating the costs of a facility should include operating and maintenance costs. Most members said they have been at other community centers in the metropolitan area. The group discussed the logistics in visiting other community centers. Most members wanted to par- ticipate on the tour. Pros and cons were discussed about the number of people on the tour. It was suggested that tour attendees could be divided into sub- groups whereby a particular group would focus on building design, another group on financing and operating costs, and another on facility programming. it was suggested that managers of existing community centers be invited to speak to the Task Force. If the Task Force recommends a community center; preferred sites should be included in the final report. Cursory review of conceptual site and facility designs should be evaluated. Comments concerning site location are summarized below: • Property large enough to accommodate possible expansion. • Future middle school student capacity might warrant the need of a new middle school. • Assess the possibility of joint facility use. • Use by all ages and accessible by everyone. • The "vvalkability° to the facility is considered. Options for financing a community center include private - public financing, ioint partnerships with neighboring townships and cities, or, private development scenarios. In the final report, the Task Force's recommendation should include an explanation of the facility programs, preferred site(s), operating model, cost estimates, and a funding plan. It was asked if teenagers were polled about their interests and opinions. Blin responded by saying that no poll was targeted for teenagers, although a random sample of residents were surveyed in 2008 about issues facing the community. A focus group with kids, a short survey form in the _ Cottage Grove Report, posting a survey on the City's web page, or working with the Park High School principal were suggested to better understand teenager's interests in community facilities. It was also suggested that senior citizens should be invited to participate it a focus group session. A copy of the 2005 Recreational Facility Needs Study and Task Force Membership roster was dis- tributed to all members. This study provided background information on existing facilities in Cottage Grove. In respect to Appendix E of the Recreation Facility Needs Study, it was requested that each facility fisted include infonmation showing if it is entirely owned and operated publicly or privately or some type of public - private partnership. Highlighted in the Recreation Facility Needs Study were the findings that the overall park system is excellent, well designed and maintained, and meets most needs, The Report suggested the following sho t -term and long -term recommendations: Community Center Task Force K€ utes April 28, 2009 Page 3 013 Short -Term Park Improvements: • Add a second ice sheet. Completed in 2008. • Add 2 to 3 soccer fields. • Add additional baseball and softball fields. Four additional baseball fields are planned at Hamlet Park. • Improve accessibility. • Renovate or replace park shelters. • Add trails. Trail improvements and construction of new trails have been completed in the last three years. The more recent projects is the trail system at Highlands Park and Pinetree Valley Park. • Prepare an acquisition strategy for community sports complex. Long -Term Park Improvements: • Acquire 300 to 350 acres of land for public park development. Staff explained that addi- tional land for park and open space use is generally acquired with new development. • Prepare a Mississippi River Park Plan. • Build a sports park. • Acquire off -leash dog park. • improve art opportunities. • Further define community center. There was a consensus that residents should be updated on the Task Force's progress. A comment was made that a community center should benefit all ages, not just for recreation enthusiasts. Task Force members were reminded that the next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 2, 2009, at 7:00 pm. Meeting location, agenda and minutes will be mailed in advance of this meeting. Pondering questions What are the community needs for a center? What roles would it serve? What is the target market for a community center? Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.rn. Community Center Task Force Tuesday, June 2, 2009 7:00 PM Minutes The Community Center Task Force met on Tuesday, June 2, 2009, in Room 158 at the South Washington County Service Center, 13000 Ravine Parkway. Attendees Task Force Members Tom Hren, Herb Japs, Ron Kath, Gary Kjeilberg, Keith Kleinsasser, Don Long, James McCalvy, Jim Meyer, Erik Ohrt, Teresa Okeson- Prater, Craig Patterson, Joe Pavel, Ernie Pines, Jim Pyle, Bill Royce, David Thlede, and Diane Thielen City Staff Howard Blin, Community Development Director; Zac Dockter, Ice Arena, Park and Recreation Manager:. Molly Pietruszewski, Recreation Coordinator; John Burbank, Senior Planner; and John McCool, Senior Planner Welcomelintroductions Biin welcomed everyone and attendees introduced themselves. Biin explained that Molly Pietruszewski will present a brief overview of six existing community centers in the metropolitan area and John McCool will present a summary of existing facilities in Cottage Grove. Blin then suggested that after the presentations, the Task Force break into two or three smaller groups to brainstorm facility needs in the community. After the small group discussion, members will priod- tine facilities. Paper copies of the April 28, 2009 minutes were distributed to Task Force members that did not previously receive them via e -maii. Communitv Center Presentation PietruszewsKr presented a PowerPoint slide show that highlighted community center amenities in Chaska, Inver Grove Heights, Maple Grove, Shoreview, and Eagan. Photographs of each com- munity center were shown and various facts were described for each facility. In addition to the _ community centers presented in the slide show, Task Force members also described amenities they have observed In other communities. A paper copy of the slide show material was distributed to members. Existing Facilities Presentation McCool presented a PowerPoint slide show that provided an overview of public and private facili- ties currently available in Cottage Grove. The information did not include District 833 building and outdoor field facilities located in Saint Paul Park, Newport or Woodbury. Pines reported that ail the school facilities in the other District 833 communities are available to Cottage Grove resi- dents. A copy of the Public and Private Facilities Inventory, Public Park Facilities Inventory, and Cottage Grove Athletic Facilities Inventory was included in the Task Force packet. Pines explained that their Community Education programs draw participants outside Cottage Grove. He stated that school facilities in other neighboring District 833 communities are used to meet today's programs, but as population grows and more programs are added to fill in program Community Center Task Face Minutes June 2. 2009 Page 2 of 3 deficiencies, then more facilities are needed to meet the community's needs. The number of par- ticipants for popular programs is limited because space is limited. He identified that there is an opportunity for even more cooperation by all parties. Kath stated that the School District is a pro- ponent in working with other entities to better serve the community and maximize the wise ex- penditure of public funds. The ice arena expansion project is an example of the city and school district working together. He also pointed out that the new addition at Park includes a community meeting room for 125 people. Japs stated that he wants to ensure that a new facility would not negatively impact the school district by creating competition for facilities and programs. Kjefiberg stated that public facilities should be available to all residents, not just to special groups. Example: Swimming pool use dominated by high school swim team; residents' access to pool is limited to late night hours. Kleinsasser asked about the condition of the existing outdoor commu- nity pool and hour long before significant improvements are necessary. Dockter explained that routine maintenance improvements are made ever year and the overall condition of the facility is relatively good for a couple more years. Kjellberg asked if a new community center would create too much competition for businesses like VFW Hall, River Oaks Clubhouse, private exercise clubs, and Mississippi Dunes Golf Links. Okeson- Prater suggested that a community center should also provide activities for teenagers and adults that generally do not participate in athletic activities. Surveying teenagers about their interests was suggested. "The Garage" in Burnsville was suggested as a place to visit. McCool reported that the Athletic Facilities Inventory was updated, but only for facilities located in Cottage Grove. Several members commented that this inventory does not accurately reflect all the recreational facilities that are available to Cottage Grove residents. One example of this is Oltman Junior High School. Facility Needs Task Force members divided into three groups to brainstorm on the type cf facilities they would most desire if a community center was constructed in Cottage Grove. Each group summarized I heir ideas to the entire group and common ideas were combined. Each individual ranked their top three facility choices. The rankings were tallied and the results are as follows: Amenity Rank 1 1 . 1 Rank #2 I R Rank #3 f ftankTotzl Pool & Water park ( indoor ) 1 1 2 4 1 10 j 1 1 ! 3 35 j Theatre C C 1 10 ; 1 15 2 25 Teen Center 1 13 4 4 l O O IN Fitness Center (full service with child care) 1 1 e 8 8 1 1 18 1 SemorCenter 0 0 1 12 5 5 1 17 I Indoor Playground 0 0 8 8 2 2 1 10 I Banquet (Large ocr_upancy> 300) _ 3 3 _ _ C C ; l l 4� Meeting Rooms � � 0 2 2 3 3 1 1 D—) Multi- F unctio nal Uses 0 0 0 0 � �1�44 Cci niy Center Task Force Minutes June 2, 2009 Page 3 of 3 I Concession /Cafe 0 0 3 j 3 PublicAccess - AudioVisual 0( 2 J 1( 3 T Amenities around It 0 0 1 1 G Central Location 0 City Hall j 0! 0 1 .1 1 Light Rail Connection O j 0 Community garden 0 0! 0 0 j Dog Park 0 0 0 I 0 Eco- friendly /green /LEER O j 0 0 G t Flexibility for new trends 0 0 0 0 Lacrosse Fields 0 1 0 j 0 0 j j Local Transit Circulator 0. O j 0 0 j I Open Gym 0 0 �. O j 0 j Outdoor Arts O 0 Partners (City, Public, Private, school District 0 O U 1 0 Public Services [ 0 0 ; 01 Walking Tra (indoor) 01 0 0 j 0 I Walking Trails (outdoor) J J 0 0 0! 0 Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Community Center Task Force Minutes of Inver Grove Heights and Shoreview Community Centers Tour Tuesday, August 10, 2009 — 5:00 PM The Community Center Task Force toured the Veterans Memorial Community Center in Inver Grove Heights and the Shoreview Community Center in Shoreview on Tuesday, August 18, 2009. The bus left Cottage Grove City Hall at 5:00 p.m. and returned at 8:30 p.m. Attendees Task Force Members Scott Briggs, Virgil Flack Herb Japs, Gary Kjellberg, Keith Kleinsasser, Erik Ohrt, Jim Pyle, David Thiede, Diane Thielen, Sherry Wilwert. City Staff Howard Blin, Community Development Director, John Burbank, Senior Planner; John McCool, Senior Planner Veterans Memorial Community Center — Inver Grove Heights Eric Carlson, Park and Recreation Director for Inver Grove Heights, welcomed everyone. A tour of the Community Center was lead by Carlson. He described the partnerships the City of Inver Grove Heights has with the school district and National Guard. The ice arena was constructed in 1995, the Armory in 1996, and the aquatic and fitness center in 2001. Carlson highlighted the following: • Entire facility is approximately 144,000 square feet. • Their fitness center is not large enough. • Gymnasium is too far from the fitness center. • Banquet facility is limited. • Aquatic features are expensive to operate and maintain. • Operating expenses are approximately 80 to 85 percent of operating revenue. Goal is to be at 90 percent. Funding for furniture, fixtures, and equipment replacement was suggested to be established right away. Building design and operation efficiencies are critical elements. Shoreview Community Center — Shoreview Dan Haas, Community Center Manager, lead the group on a tour of Shoreview's Community Center. Public meeting rooms, banquet facilities, and the water splash park are popular ameni- ties. The outdoor shelter is used during the summer months for a music festival one night a week. The large farmer's market is also popular. Proximity of the library, skateboard park, ice arena, city hall, and a few outdoor athletic fields provide a nice civic campus setting. Task Force Comments On the bus ride back to Cottage Grove, the tour group discussed what they had viewed, including the positives and negatives of both facilities. Burbank asked the group to forward any specific comments or questions they had to city staff to be compiled and researched prior to the next task force meeting. Acr Lo urnme zt The tour ended at 8:30 p,m. Community Center Task Force Tuesday, October 6, 2009 7:00 ECM Minutes The Community Center Task Force met on Tuesday, October 6, 2009, in the Community Room at the Cottage Grove Ice Arena. Attendees Task Force Members Tom Hren, Herb Japs, Ron Kath, Keith Kieinsasser, James McCalvy, Erik Ohrt, Joe Pavel, Ernie Pines, Scott Briggs, Virgil Flack, Tanwee, Janjua, Donald Long, and Jim Rostad. City Staff Howard Blin, Community Development Director; Zac Dockter, Ice Arena, Park and Recreation Manager; John Burbank, Senior Planner; and John McCool, Senior Planner Review of Community Center Tour McCool highlighted community center amenities located in Inver Grove Heights, Shoreview, Minnetonka, Chaska, Maple Grove, and Eagan. Photographs of each community center were displayed in a slide show. Task Force members that attended the August 18, 2009 tour of the Veterans Memorial Community Center in Inver Grove Heights and the Shoreview Community Center also commented on the pros and cons of each facility. Task Force members discussed the popularity of indoor aquatic facilities, recognizing that con- struction, operation, maintenance, and staffing is expensive. The "lazy river' concept is popular for most people, but also requires many employees for safety reasons. Splash pad designs with a variety of water jets, bubblers, and fountains varying in height and alternating water flows was another aquatic feature that was recognized as a popular water feature. Splash pads generally have shallow water depths and do not require lifeguards. Members discussed the need to develop a consensus in determining the types of facilities the community can support and preparing a market study to help define the market area. Some members believed that if an aquatic facility Is attractive with varying water features that people of all ages from Hastings, Woodbury, St. Paul Park, Newport, and Prescott would come. A sugges- tion was made that a survey or market analysis should be done to better understand the market area and level of community support. The idea of public and private business partnerships was also suggested. The general consensus supported the preparation of a market analysis. It was asked if a public safety /city hail facility is a higher priority than a community center. Staff stated that the City Council has discussed public safety needs and facilities, but a decision or timeline has not been made. A comment was made that the community might not be able to af- ford a community center and a public safety/city hall facility, but a joint facility sharing parking, common grounds, meeting rooms, etc, might be an option. The group recognized that there are a lot of recreation facilities, some banquet facilities, and meeting room opportunities in the community. The problem is that many of these facilities are scattered throughout the community and probably need to be renovated. Concern was expressed Community Center Task Force NlinuQes October 6, 2009 Page 2 of 3 that more banquet facilities will compete with existing banquet halls and adding a civic building will add more city debt. City staff explained that the 2008 community survey included a question if the responder would support or oppose the construction of a community center and how much additional property tax would they be willing to pay for its construction. Staff will report the responses to these questions at the next meeting. A point was also made that School District 833 will probably have another bond referendum in a couple years and taxpayers can only afford a certain amount of additional debt. Review of Facility Priorities Burbank summarized the Task Force's June 2, 2009 results in identifying the desired facilities if a community center was constructed in Cottage Grove. Indoor and outdoor aquatics and fitness centers were the most observed amenities at the other community centers. The Task Force's results in identifying preferred amenities are summarized below: Amenity Rank #1 Rank #2 1 Rank #3 I Rank Total Pool & Waterpark (indoor) 24 10 i 1 35 Theatre (rnovie /perfonn ng wts/ outdoor] 0 10 15 25 I Teen C enter -- Fatness enter ("U11 ser w /child care) 18 6 4 6( O 6 18 i I Senior Cente j C 12 'I 5! 17 i indoor playaround 0 8 Banc Uet 6 -rge occupancy= 300; 3 i 0 + 2 5j mcet.ng R ooms j IViuultfiZsncti Us j 0 r I 2 3 pansion R oom 1 Ex Ccncession /Cafe _ 0 0 4 1 0 >I 3 0 I l 4 3 3 public Access -Au Visual 0 1 2 1 j 3 1 Amenities It 0 0 i Central Loca City Hall 00 0 C j 1 1J Light Rail Connection y C j 0 1 Blin reported that the City of Coon Rapids is in the process of developing a new community cen- ter at an estimated cost of $35 million in phase one and approximately $56 million for the ultimate phase. The proposed facility includes an indoor hockey rink, multipurpose indoor recreation courts, banquet, senior center, and indoor aquatics. It was noted that the Washington County Park Branch Library is next in line for replacement. It was asked what other cities do to develop a market study. Staff said they were primarily pre- pared by consultants. The group discussed if there are any advantages to the City constructing a facility but allowing a private or non - profit organization to operate it. Concern was expressed if a private or non -pro fit Comm unit} Center Task Force Knutes October 6, 2009 page 3 of 3 group could not operate the facility with a positive cash flow; the City would have to make -up the difference. The group also discussed the idea of a civic campus center concept whereby the costs for utilities, parking, and landscapingtopen space features could be shared by multi -facility uses and governmental agencies. Example: county library and community center. Discussion of Next Steps Suggested materials for next meeting: • Cottage Grove's and neighboring community's demographics. • Cottage Grove's 2030 Comprehensive Plan. • Market analysis and study preparation cost estimate. • Community survey response relative to community center support. • Estimated costs for various community center facilities. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m. Community Center Task Force Tuesday, January 5, 2010 7.00 PM Minutes The Community Center Task Force met on Tuesday, January 5, 2010 at 7:00 p. m. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall. Attendees Task Force Members: Tom Hren, Herb Japs, Keith Kleinsasser, Erik Ohrt, Ernie Pines, Tanweer Janjua, Donald Long, Ken Brittain, Gary Kjeliberg, Craig Patterson, Paul Poncin, Jim Pyle, William Royce, Natalie Seim, Dave Thiede, Diane Thielen, and Sherry Wllwert Others Present: Mayor Myron Bailey, Councilperson Justin Olsen, Howard Blin, Community Development Director; John Burbank, Senior Planner; and John McCool, Senior Planner Proiect Status Blin reported that the Task Force will meet more frequently in 2010 so that a report to the City Council could be finalized in the spring of 2011. Blin also explained that a consultant was hired to prepare a market study to determine if various elements of a community center would be sup- ported in the market area. The study will include some demographic information, summarize ex- isting facilities, and identify potential community facilities that could be supported in the market area. No telephone survey would be conducted at this time. Comprehensive P €an Blin presented an Overview of the Cottage Grove 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Future Land Use map, Staging Plan, Future Parks & Open Space map, Future Trailway Plan, and Proposed Roadway Functional Classification map were displayed on the white - board. A copy o each plan was given to Task Force members. The following highlights from the Comprehensive Plan were presented: • Predominate land -use designation throughout the community is low density residential. • Current population is approximately 34,000 and is projected to be 52,000 by 2030. • Commercial development is proposed along the north side of U.S. Highway 61. • Neighborhood commercial is planned for the area east of the 70th Street and Keats Avenue intersection. • Continued growth in the business park between U.S. Highway 61 and 100thStreet. • A business park is designated east of Kimbro Avenue and north of U.S. Highway n1. Utili- ties must be extended in the future to serve this area. • Park and open space will continue to balance the community's needs. • East Ravine is slow to develop because of the bad economy. • All of Cottage Grove would eventually develop. • Metropolitan Council plans show Lower Grey Cloud Island as a state or regional park. City agrees to some open space, but believes there are other development opportunities. Community Center Task Force Minutes January 5, 20 Page 2 of 6 • Metropolitan Council is requiring that the land use designation for properties at the north- east corner of Keats Avenue and East Point Douglas Road be park and open space. Washington County is not yet prepared to purchase the property. • Future Trailway Plan shows extensive trail extensions. • Roadway functional classifications were described for existing and future roadway align- ments. • Military Road will convert to p trail corridor in the future. Ravine Parkway will be constructed as a collector roadway at parkway standards. • Roadway jurisdiction changes for 65th Street, Jamaica, West Point Douglas Road improve- ment east of Jamaica Avenue, pedestrian overpass across U.S. Highway 61, and the Southwest transportation system were described. There was discussion improving access to West Point Douglas Road from U.S. Highway 61 by means of constructing an exit lane for southbound U.S. Highway 61 traffic that connects directly to West Point Douglas Road. This concept would not require motorists to make four right -hand turns to reach West Point Douglas Road or cross any railroad tracks. Travel time and mileage would re- duce. Biin said the City wi l continue their discussions with MnDOT. A map depicting the center of the City's current population, projected 2030 population, and the ul- timate build -out scenario was displayed. This map was simply a graphic illustration that could be used in identifying preliminary sites for a community center. Mayor Bailey thanked Task Force members for volunteering to serve on the Task Force. Preliminary Site Review The Task Force reviewed and discussed the pros and cons of 11 possible sites. An aerial photo of each site was distributed to the Task Force in advance of the meeting. Blin asked if other sites should be evaluated. No suggestions were made. Task Force members generatfy supported the idea that the property needed to be adequately sized for possible future expansion, phased development, and open space. Additional analysis is needed to determine the appropriate acreage if a City Hall, Public Safety, Community Center, and/or public library were located on the sam=e site, Task Force members discussed the advantages and disadvantages of a multi functional center versus satellite sites. It was reported that Washington County has plans to replace the Paris Grove Library. Task Force members suggested that additional information be obtained from the County. The general consensus supported the idea of including a public library with a community center or as part of a civic campus concept. The group discussed the results of the Task Force's ranking of desired facilities, noting that the top five amenities were indoor pool and water park, theater, teen center, fitness center, and senior center. Some members stated that a community center should be a program facility that generally does not duplicate existing facilities within the community. Preference was given to locating a community center on existing public property so land is not removed from the property tax roil, Members understood that most existing public properties have development constraints, undesir- able access, or poor locations relative to the future growth in the city and accessibility within the market area. Community Center Task Force Minutes January 5, 2010 Page 3 of 8 Bin briefly described the draft criteria for reviewing each of the 11 sites and explained that the criteria can be modified to help score each site. The preliminary criteria used to identify preferred sites are as follows: • Parcel Size • Access (street, pedestrian, bike, transit, etc.) • Proximity to Center of Population • Proximity to Other Facilities • Outdoor Recreation • Acquisition Costs • Site Preparation Costs • Availability of Utilities An aerial photo of the 11 possible sites was used, Comments and recommendations for each site are summarized below: Site 1 — Hamlet Park Hamlet Park is a community park that consists of approximately 158 acres. There are a series of stormwater holding basins throughout the park and the southern area of the park was intentionally graded to provide additional stormwater storage during heavy rain events or early spring thaw pe- riods. Outdoor recreation and open space exists through the Park. Future park improvements in- clude the construction of four additional baseball fields and parking lot in the southeast corner of the Park. Additional land could be acquired east of the Park, but roadway access would not sub- stantially improve and the site is somewhat isolated from public view. The concept of constructing a pedestrian walkway over U.S. Highway 61 so residents on the northeast side of the highway could walk or ride bikes to Hamlet Park was discussed. Task Force members agreed to keep the site on the preliminary site list, but not considered a prime location. Site 2 — Home Depot Some Task Force members liked the Home Depot location because it is easily accessible, good location and visibility, and would be good for existing businesses. Others opposed the ste be- cause commercial tax base would be lost and expansion opportunities are limited. By general consensus, Task Force members derided to keep Site 2 at the bottom of the preink nary site list Site 3 — City Hall /Park Grove Library r+iembers agreed that the five -acre site is too small and eliminated the site from the preliminary site list. Nobody knew the County's schedule for replacing the existing library, but was interested In partnering with Washington County to see if a new library and community center could be planned together. It was mentioned that if a new library was built elsewhere, then maybe the five - acre site might be large enough for a new city hall /public safety building. Site 4 — Oakwood Park Some Task Force members discussed the idea that Oakwood Park might be a good location because of the property's size and proximity to the commercial area and 80th Street. Additional acreage could be acquired along Harkness Avenue if more land was needed. Other members ex- pressed concerns for removing more mature trees within this area, the cost of excavating the site for development, removing a popular disk -golf course, and the proximity of neighboring residential neighborhoods. It was also mentioned that a concept plan for Oakwood Park had proposed an outdoor amphitheater, stormwater basins, and other water features. Community Center Task Force Minutes January 5, 20 1 10 Page 4 of o The group discussed the pros and cons of building a community center that includes multiple uses versus different types of facilities located at satellite locations. Combining public amenities into one structure or campus setting will allow shared parking, multi -use meeting rooms, and less staffing. A comment was made that multiple private fitness centers are located throughout the city and operate with an adequate number of members. Not all Task Force members were convinced that all amenities in a community center needed to be under one roof. The group was hopeful that the market study would describe the best alternative and that the consultant would address this issue of combining public facilities at one location or at various locations in the City. As a general consensus, Oakwood Park was removed frorn the preliminary site list because of its wooded acreage, open space, limited street access, proximity of residential homes, and some- what remote location. JILL J liiGJtVIGYY tGl ltGUOa, i+c _. 'u u v.... •............ ... .-_. .. Task Force members agreed that this area offered the best location for a community center, but removed it from the preliminary site list because the site is fully developed. No adjoining land is available without acquiring residential properties and the existing recreation fields are necessary for the high school and elementary school programs. Site 6 — Hiahlands Park The Task Force thought Highlands Park has good access along 7Dth Street (CSAH 22), plenty of open space, somewhat close to the center of the community, recreation trails, and public view X, om existing roadways. Members did acknowledge that some recreation fields would have to be eliminated and the site abuts existing residential neighborhoods. The Task Force suggested keeping the site in the middle of the preliminary site list. Site 7 — Fire Station No. 2 1Pinetree Pond Park Many Task Force members like the Fire Station No. 2 site because of the property's size, even though topographically the site could not entirely be developed. The property is along 80th Street, close to the center of the developed area of the community, provides public open space with an existing trail system in the vicinity, and utilities are available. It was mentioned that the City's Water Utility Plan proposes a water treatment plant at this location if constructed in the future. The costs to grade the site and construct turn -lanes on 80th Street would add additional expense to the project. Residential neighborhoods surround this site. It was noted that additional research _ should be done to determine where a former dump was located on the site. The Task Force suggested that this site be placed toward the top of the preliminary site list. Site 8 — Kingston Park/Grey Cloud Elementaryy /Cottage Grove Middle School The Task Force liked the site's central proximity vtithin the City and visibility from Keats Avenue (CSAH 19). {t was noted that a five -acre vacant parcel is located in the southeast corner of the Middle School parcel Recreation fields (football field, soccer fields, and softball and baseball fields) exist throughout the school and Kingston Park properties. By general consensus, the Task Force recommended that the site be placed at the lower end of the preliminary site list. Community Center Task Force Minutes January 5, 2010 Page 5 of 6 Site 9 South Washington County Service Center /Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park Blin explained that a governmental campus concept plan was prepared for this 34 -acre site at the time the South Washington County Service Center plan was developed. The concept plan in- cluded a public safety -city hall building and community center. The Task Force described this site as an ideal site because of its public frontage along Keats Avenue, easy access from U.S. High- way 61, partnership with Washington County, proximity with the Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park, current public land ownership, and possibilities to include a library and other public facilities. There was some concern that the site is too far for residents to ride a bike or walk from residential neighborhoods located in the northwest or westerly parts of the city. It was also said that no matter where a community center is located, not all residents will find the community center to be a con- venient location. The Task Force suggested that the site be placed toward the top of the preliminary site list. A question was asked about the possibility of keeping the outdoor pool at its current location and adding a teen center to continue to serve residents on the west side of U.S. Highway 61. The group had concerns for the outdoor pool's age and costs to rehabilitate the pool and structure. It was noted that two indoor pools already exist in the community and other water park amenities should be considered. Site 16 — Cottage View Biin described the commercial shopping center concept plan for the Cottage View site. Task Force members agreed that access will improve with future roadway improvements proposed at the Keats Avenue and U.S. Highway 61 intersection. The site offers good visibility from public road- ways, is relatively close to the center of the community, and would work well near a major com- mercial area. Some members said the property will be too expensive and is more valuable for commercial uses than property tax - exempt uses. A community center site north ct the proposed commercial center was suggested. The Task Force suggested keeping this site on the preliminary site list. Site 11 — Langdon In the presentation, it was mentioned that Washington County is preparing a master plan for this site because of its location to the Red Rock corridor. The neighboring Cottage Grove Public Works facility could be included in this site evaluation. Some Task Force members had concerns for the limited access to this area and thought the site is better suited for commercial uses since no future residential uses are proposed in this vicinity. Others stated that the City Economic De- velopment Authority already owns land in this area and West Point Douglas Road would need to be extended to the future Southwest Transportation Corridor project. Because of the multi - jurisdictional opportunities that could partner with funding site improvements and the master planning process for this area, the Task Force suggested keeping this site on the preliminary site list. Other Site Suggestions Slin asked if there were other sites to be considered. The Park and Ride site along West Point Douglas Road was mentioned, but was decided that the site was not large enough. No other sites were suggested. Community Center Task Force Minutes January 5, 2010 Page 6 of 6 The results of the Task Force's preliminary site discussion are listed below: Highest Preferred Sites' Site No. 7 — Fire Station No. 2 Site No. 9 — South Washington County Service CenterlCottage Grove Ravine Regional Park. Preferred Sites Site No. 6 — Highland Park Site No. 10 —Cottage View Continue Consideration Sites: Site No. 1 — Hamlet Site No. 2 — Home Depot Site N. 8 — Kingston Park/Grey Cloud Elem. /Cottage Grove Middle Schools Site No. 11 — Langdon Eliminated from Consideration: Site No. 3 — City HalilLibrary Site No. 4 - Oakwood Park Site No. 5 — ice Arena /Park High School. Discussion of Next Steps Suggested materials for next meeting, • Market study. • Demographic proiections. • Analysis of how much land may be needed for a City Hall, Public Safety, Library, and Community Center complex. • Meeting schedule. • Washington County's plans for Park Grove Library. • Hamlet Park Expansion Plan. • Oakwood Park concept plan. • Concept Plan nearby Service Center. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Community Center Task Force Tuesday, March 2, 2010 7:Da PM Minutes The Community Center Task Force met on Tuesday, March 2, 2010, at 7:00 p, m. in the Council Chambers at Cottage Grove City Hall. Attendees Task Force Members: Tom Hren, Keith Kleinsasser, Erik Ohrt, Ernie Pines, Tanweer Janjua, Donald Long, Ken Brittain, Gary Kjeilberg, Craig Patterson, Paul Poncin, Jim Pyle, William Royce, Dave Thiede, Diane Thielen, Ron Kath, James McCalvy, Joseph Pavel Others Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director; Jeff King with Ballard- King & Associates, John Burbank, Senior Planner; John McCool, Senior Planner Review of Previous Meeting Blin highlighted the Task Force's discussion on the 11 possible community center sites and re- minded members that the CityHali /Library, Oakwood Park and Ice Arena /Park High School sites were eliminated from consideration primarily because of parcel size limitations. The Cottage View site could be incorporated with the commercial area or along the fringe of the residential area north of the commercial area. More work is needed to evaluate the Highlands and Cottage View sites. The Fire Station No. 2 site has good access, visibility, and is located on city -owned land, but site grading and potential for poor soils might add additional costs. The South Washington County Ser- vice Center site is of particular interest because of its potential in creating a civic campus that could include a library, public safety building, and /or city hall. Concern was expressed if a city referendum included a public safety /city hall facility and a commu- nity center on the same election ballot or within a taw years of each other. Blin explained that the referendum issue will be re- visited later in the process once more information about the community center, design, and capital costs are available. Siin asked if there were any additional comments or corrections to the Task Force's preferred site list that was determined in January 2010. No changes were made. Review Market Analvsis Jeff Ding explained that his company has completed 500 needs assessment studies for communi- ties all over the United States. Of the 500 studies, 100 of the communities proceeded to construct some type of community facility, information in their studies is based on conservative and practical approaches in evaluating the market area for a community, objective evaluation and assessment of present and future program needs in the community, and analysis of potential participation r'or major program activities. King explained that the market study describes the primary service area as being within the Cot- tage Grove community and the secondary service area outside the city limits. A graphic illustration of the secondary service area showed it to be the area between the Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers, extending about one mile south of Hastings and extending to Lake Road in Woodbury. King pointed out that the demographic information used in the study was based on the 2000 Community Center Task Force Minutes March 2, 2010 Page 2 of 2 census data: 2009 estimates and 2014 projections were based on growth trends of other comrnun- ities similar to Cottage Grove. King's slideshow displayed various tables and graphs from the mar- ket study. He explained the primary and secondary market area demographic characteristics, the strengths and challenges a community center creates in a community, and some understanding of financial implications. King pointed out that the 2009 primary service area population estimate shows growth in all age groups, especially in the 45 to 54, 55 to 64, 65 to 74, and 75= age groups. He also reported that median household incomes within the primary and secondary market areas are statistically higher than the national levels, which suggests that discretionary income for recreational purposes is possible, but the cost of living needs to be factored in. Pines asked how many people in both market service areas are going to other fitness centers. King explained that a foilow -up survey would be necessary to find out where they go. A full service n was fitness censer does not exist in Cottage Grove, but ,here are several in Woodbury. Concern expressed that a full service fitness center will adversely impact small fitness centers or that too many smaller fitness centers will adversely impact full service centers. King stated that the two generally co -exist because each provides different programs and varying membership fee amounts. King showed photographs of existing fitness facilities in Cottage Grove. Public accessibility at the three activity centers was discussed. Pines reported that School District 833 has 49 gymnasiums that are seasonally in high demand. King explained that indoor aquatic facilities are the most expensive to construct, operate, and maintain. Interactive features (spray guns, water slide, lazy river, splash pads, etc.} for aquatic fa- cilities generally retain participants interests and return visits. Family changing rooms, birthday party rooms, well - lighted fitness centers with up -to -date equipment, child day care, and N monk tors are popular considerations for family memberships. Interactive applications like stationary bike competition, dance revolution, or skateboarding simulators are also becoming more popular. Building design that incorporates flexibility in facility usage and programming be ter meets longer term needs. Lobby space and multi- purposes rooms for banquets, receptions, community events, and meeting rooms with audio and visual components all provide community "living- room " cppor- tun ties. Music recording studios are becoming popular facilities for teenagers. Kjellberg asked haw much land area is generally needed for a moderately sized facility. King suggested six acres as a minimum, but the site should easily permit expansion. King stated that these types of facilities rarely make money and generally are subsidized by the community. Operation, maintenance, and equipment replacement can be expensive and should be included in the discussion process. Fitness centers will drive revenue and membership interests. Blin suggested that facility programs and related costs to operate programs be discussed at the next meeting. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m. Community Center Task Force Tuesday, April 6, 2010 7:00 PM Minutes The Community Center Task Force met on Tuesday, April 6, 2010, at 7:00 p. m. in the Council Chambers at Cottage Grove City Hail. Attendees Task Force [Members: Scott Briggs, Ken Brittain, Virgil Flack, Tan Hren, Tanweer Janjua, Ron Kath, Gary Kjellberg, Keith Kleinsasser, Jon Larsen, James McCalvy, Erik Chit, Joseph Pavel, Ernie Pines, Paul Poncin, Jim Pyle, Natalie Seim, Dave Thiede, Diane Thielen, and Sherry Wilwert Others Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director; John Burbank, Senior Planner; Zac Dockter, Ice Arena, Parr, and Recreation (Manager; and John McCool, Senior Planner Review of Cit 1County Campus Plan Conceptual drawings laying out a civic campus site, located between the South Washington County Service Center and the easterly extension of 85`" Street and west of Keats Avenue (CSAH 19) were described. Blin explained that when the East Ravine master Plan was prepared in 2005; the City, County and (Metropolitan Council agreed that an equivalent amount of land will be replaced in the future as developer occurs in this vicinity and if some aspect of the civic campus concept was implemented. The area northeast of the Cottage Grove Regional Ravine Park to 80 Street is an area planned for the northerly extension of the Ravine Park. B[in reposed that the 2005 Space Facility Study for a city hall serving the community's future needs was suggested to approximately 50,000 square feet. The community center depicted the conceptual drawings is 80,000 — 90,000 square feet. Blin explained that city water is already available to the site but other public improvements must be extended to the site. The cost to construct Ravine Parkway is expensive in this area because of the ravine and steep slopes. Blin stated that another potential civic center site is the vacant parcel at the southwest corner of Hadley Avenue and 80 Street. Fitting a city hall, community center, county library on this site would recuire the construction of a parking ramp. Constructing a parking ramp and the long term maintenance and operation is expensive. Concern was expressed for the amount of commercial property tax lost if the site was tax - exempt. A question was asked if the City Hall functions moved out of the existing City Hail, could Public Safety's operations occupy the building. Blin stated that the building design and property layout does not provide much flexibility to improve the Department's operational efficiencies and the costs LO revamp the existing building or redevelop the site may not be cost effective. If a new facility was constructed, it was asked if its design and construction would meet the energy and environmental design criteria so that it could be certified as a green building. Blin responded that would be a City Council policy decision. Flack stated that money might be available from the Statewide Health improvement Program (SH[P) to help fund a community center. Community Center Task Force Minutes April 6, 20'O Page 2 of G Blin reported that the Washington County Park Grove Library is scheduled to be replaced in the future. The current library is slightly undersized and does not have the best public visibility. The County has expressed interest in partnering with the City, particularly with the community center process. Review of Market Analysis The second part of the market study prepared by Ballard and King was discussed. Based on the preliminary analysis of a community center and the preliminary market study, a community center comprising of 71,154 gross square feet was suggested. Recommended program, facilities and their respective space allocation are summarized below. Component � it i 8ase l aciiy sa• Ft' �i Aquatic Area ! — 14,000 i j Gymnasium -- - 12,500 I 1 7 , ack �-000 , 1 Vv'eight/Cardio 7,000 1 Aerobic 500 1 Mint, purpose Room j T een Area ! 5j"10 C 2.00 1 Indoor Play Structure 1.500 1 Birthday Party Rooms 800 Bayport S paces 0 9,50 I 1 Net Building 60,300 1 i Circulation ;18 °�) X3,854 1 Total Buildinq 71,154 Based on a conservative estimate of $200 construction cost per square foot, a 71,154 square foot building would cost of approximately $18.5 million. Comments made concerning the preliminary facility space are highlighted below: Weight and cardio area needs to be larger based on comments by staff at other community centers that the fitness is popular program and tends to be the most used. With East Ridge Nigh School there is more demand for gym space in all of 833 District. Tile preliminary size of the gym space might be sufficient because the demand still exists, There is not necessarily more youth in the School District that participates in organized team programs, but there are smal':er teams that demand more practice times. Renting gymnasium space does not create much revenue, but merely covers some of District's operating expenses. Gym space can draw other family members to use other facilities in a community center, a Operating and maintenance expenses to maintain a larger building should be evaluated. Community Center Task Force Minutes April 5, 2010 Page 3 of 4 • School District gymnasiums are not always available for public use on weekends or holidays. School activities and programs are scheduled before they are available for the public's general use. • Gymnasium space is needed for fundraising opportunities by various athletic associations. It was suggested that the proposed gymnasium space is not needed. Altemativeiy, a smaller gym space at the time of initial construction with the ability to expand the gymnasium in the future is an alternative. • Community center and program facilities should be community based, not only to be used by organized sports. • For comparison purpose, information on the building size of other community centers and for - profit fitness centers in Woodbury was requested. • A pool already exists at Cottage Grove Middle School, Oltman Middle School, Norris Square, and the City's outdoor pool. An aquatic park tends to be the amenity that draws people to a community center, but is the most expensive to construct and operate. Staff was asked to provide a summary of the building size and a breakdown of the various facilities that other community centers provide. Building information for the YMCA and Li etime Fitness facilities in Woodbury was also suggested. The Task Force discussed the idea of partnering with the Minnesota National Guard. Blin stated that the city has discussed this with the National Guard. The State Legislature must appropriate money for armory projects. Homeland security issues and outdoor storage of military equipment and vehicles might have some compatibility and building design challenges. If a community center is constructed In phases, the Task Force was asked if it would be better to ask the community's support for the entire project or as other phases are needed In the future. The Task Force felt that if the community is repetitively asked to approve referendums, citizens might not support future improvements to the community center. Discussion of Partnersh €n Models Partnership models to consider are private for profit (e.g. Lifetime Fitness), non- profit (e.g. YMCA), or city own and operated facility. In the YMCA example, cities have owned the building and lease to YMCA or YMCA owns the building and the city gives money and/or land. The advantages and disadvantages for each partnership model were discussed. Blin explained that Lifetime Fitness has partnered with other cities. Cities generally contribute construction funding or provide land. Lifetime Fitness has said their desired market area needs to be at least a 50,000 population. McCool presented information on membership fees charged at Lifetime Fitness, YMCA, and community centers in Inver Grove Heights, Shoreview, Maple Grove, and Chaska. Membership Community Center Task Force Minutes April 6, 2010 Face 4 of fees at city owned facilities were found to be less than Lifetime Fitness and YMCA's. Lifetime Fitness fees were the highest. A Task Force member stated that even though membership fees are generally lower at city owned facilities, property tax revenue from property owners within that community probably subsidize the operation and maintenance of that facility. Task Force members noted that the Ballard and King's second part of the market study did not include a senior center component in the list of preliminary facility programs. The Task Force generally supported the idea that a senior center should be part of a community center if such a facility was constructed. The Task Force discussed membership fees and understood that there are many membership options that could create a complex fee schedule. The idea of a lower membership fee might inspire more people to join. Now much citizens are willing to pay for membership fees was discussed, Blin explained that a community survey will be prepared later and reported that the YMCA has conducted telephone surveys in other communities. it was suggested that something could be done in the City's water bill or web site. Concern was expressed that self- reporting surveys may not be a good cross - secion of the population, Blin stated that the City Council will be updated with the Task Force's progress. Task Force members were asked if they wanted to abandon or continue the study of a community center in Cottage Grove. Some members were interested in collecting more information that would provide an idea how much it would cost and if the City could partner with another entity. Others stated it would be easier to determine the types of program facilities once the total project, maintenance, and operation costs are available. By a show of hands all of the Task Force members supported the idea to proceed at this point. While the idea of partnering with another entity was generally favored, it was said that there are many other options that should be evaluated comprehensively. Approval of Minutes The Community Center Task Force minutes for the March 2, 2010 meeting were previously distributed to Task Force members. No changes were made. A copy of the slide presentation at the meeting is attached. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Community Center Task Force Minutes Tuesday, May 4, 2010 7:00 PM The Community Center Task Force met on Tuesday, May 4, 2010, at 7:00 p, m, in the Council Chambers at Cottage Grove City Hall. Atte ndees Task Force Members: Ken Brittain, Tom Hren, Tanweer Janjua, Herb Japs, Ron Kath, Gary Kjellberg, Keith Kleinsasser, Jon Larsen, Donald Long, James McCaivy, Craig Patterson, Ernie Pines, Dave Thiede, and Diane Thieien Others Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director Zac Dockfer, Ice Arena, Park and Recreation Manager; and John McCool, Senior Planner Recap from April 6 meeting Ballard & King's preliminary market analysis presented to the Task Force was summar?ed. Blin reported that the consultant revised their program recommendations, which resulted in reducing the community center size from 71,154 square feet to 59,236 square feet. As a result, the range for facility components is as follows: COMPONENT FACILITY SIZE RANGE (SQ. FT.) -r— Aquatic Area I 14,300 Gymnasium j_ 2.463 _ Track 0 6. 00 0 000 _ WeightfCard'o 6.560 -7.044 AerobiclDance 1.206 -1,5 , 00 Multi- purpose Room 3.500 - 5,000 TeenlSenlor Area 2,504 - 2,5DD Indoo Play S tructur e ___7 �,2D0 -1,500 Bi[4hda Part,/ Poans _ 505 support Spaces 9.606 - 9.500 Net Buildina 50,200 - 60,300 Circulat (1 8%) 9.026 Total BuIding 5 9.236 - 71,154 Comments made concerning the revised preliminary facility space are highlighted below: Task Force members agreed that aquatic facilities are the show -piece of most community, centers. Track facility could be located on an upper mezzanine of the gymnasium versus around the gymnasium floor. Having the track on an upper level would require an elevator. Weight and cardio area maybe should not be reduced too much because staff from other community centers needed more space as membership increased. Community Center ask. Force Minutes May 4, 2010 Page 2 of 4 + Consider combining space for teens and seniors. It was asked if the aquatics, weight, and cardio areas included locker room space. Staff will check with the consultant and report back. Task Force members noted that their program facility ranking exercise ranked theater as the second highest desired use, but theater was not included in the consultant s recommended pro - gram facility. The group discussed the idea of ranking desired facilities again since more infor- mation about community centers has been provided and opinions might have changed. Task Force members were reminded that the older population is growing because people are living longer and the baby boomer generation is beginning to retire. For this reason, a senior center facility integrated with a community center should be considered for the community's future senior population, It was also said that Woodbury and Cottage Grove are both growing communities and if a senior center in Cottage Grove is built, senior residents from Woodbury might join. Task Force members discussed the idea that a community center should be de- signed to accommodate future additions. YMCA Projects in Other Cities Blin described the partnering models used for YMCAs in White Bear Lake, Andover, Elk River, and Lino Lakes. The Task Force understood that there are many ways the city could partner with the YMCA and possibly with other business partners. It was suggested that a plan be de- veloped to see who is interested in partnering with the city and 'now ownership and control of the community center would work best, A brief description and photos of the YMCAs in White Bear Lake, Andover, Elk River, and Lino Lakes were presented. A copy of the slides used in the powerpoint presentation is attached. Blin reported that the YMCA — St. Paul has expressed interest in locating in Cottage Grove, even though there are facilities in Woodbury and I-iastines. It was noted that cities with a YMCA generally identify the YMCA as an amenity for the community and market it as a way to attract new residents and businesses into their community. The Task Force discussed the scenario that if the city built a community center adjoining a for- profit fitness facility residents have a choice if they want to be members at either facility. If a property owner chose not to belong at either facility, a portion of their property taxes would still subsidize the cost to build and the on -going maintenance and operation of a community center. The T ask Force asked for a demographic profile for memberships at YMCAs and for - profit fit- ness facilities. The group discussed the idea of combining some public space with parts of a YMCA facility to help market the facility as a gathering place for community events and private functions. The group acknowledged the importance of a successful partnership begins with long term commu- nication and strong relationships. Community Center Task Force Minutes May 4, 2010 Page 3 of 4 Community Center and Fitness Facility Comparison McCool highlighted the results of comparing community centers in Inver Grove Heights, Shore- view, Maple Grove, Maplewood, and Chaska. lifetime Fitness and Gold's Gym in Woodbury and the Southeast YMCA in Woodbury were also included in the presentation. Attached is a copy of the facility comparison results. McCoo€ pointed out that Cottage Grove's population is approximately 34,017 people. This pop- ulation is in the middle range of the other five communities surveyed. The three largest commu- nity centers surveyed 'ranged from 140,000 to 164,493 gross square foot, which also included two sheets of ice. The land area that the community centers occupied ranged from 12 to 20 acres. Other characteristics and comparisons of the five community centers, two for - profit, and one non - profit facility are highlighted below: • Community center aquatic features are larger than similar features in the for- profit and YMCA facilities. • Four of the five community centers include walking /jogging track. • A gymnasium exists in all the surveyed facilities. All five community centers provide an oversized gymnasium or two gymnasiums. • Except for Maple Grove's aquatics, gymnasium, and ice arena, their community center was the only community center that does not have fitness exercise facilities. This is be- cause their community center is connected to a Lifetime Fitness. • All five community centers provided a banquet facility public meeting rooms, pre - school or child day care facilities, and youth parry rooms. • Three of the five community centers provide senior center facilities. • Aquatic features at the for -profit facilities are substantially smaller than the communiy center aquatics. Task Force member were interested in knowing the banquet size and seating capacity at River Oaks Golf Course and Links at Mississippi Dunes. General Discussion Task Force members had the following comments: a Banquet facility should be designed and furnished with quality materials and fixtures. • Financing should also include the possibility of other partnerships, hybrid options that might include multiple partnerships, and /or contributions from community businesses. a Survey the public's opinion to understand the communities' support. Not only ask what they look for, but how much they are willing to pay. Community CenterTask Force Minutes May 4, 2010 Page 4 of 4 ® The group has not yet developed a consensus. When more information Is obtained and the Task Force has a better idea about building size, program facilities, costs, etc; then an information meeting for citizen interaction could be held ear y in 2011. • A joint meeting with the City Council should be scheduled to discuss the Task Force's progress. • Future meeting dates and topics: • June 1, 2010 Meeting — Further partnership discussion refine dost estimates, and funding options. • August 3, 2010 Meeting — Refine site options and more discussion on funding options. Approval of Minutes The Community Center Task Force minutes for the April 6, 2010 meeting were previously distri- buted to Task Force members. No changes were made. A copy of the slide presentation at the meeting is attached Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m. Community Center `Cask Force Minutes Tuesday, June 1 2010 7:00 PM The Community Center Task Force met on Tuesday, June 1, 2010, at 7 :00 p, m. in the Council Chambers at Cottage Grove City Hall. Attendees Task Force Members: Ken Brittain, Tom Hren, Tanweer Janjua, Herb Japs, Ron Kath, Gary Kjellberg, Keith Kle €nsasser, Paul Poncin, Jim Pyle, William Royce, Dave Thiede, and Diane Thielen Others Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director; Zac Dockter, Ice Arena, Park and Recreation Manager; John Burbank, Senior Planner; Robin Roland, Finance Director; and John McCool, Senior Planner Recap from May 4 Meeting Blin highlighted the results of Ballard & King's preliminary market analysis. Blin reported that the consultant revised their program recommendations, which resulted in reducing 'he community center size from 71,154 square feet to 59,236 square feet. The range for facility components is as follows: COMPONENT 1 FACILE TY SEE RANGE (SQ. FT.) Aquati Area �_ 14,K00 _ Gymnasium 12,000 - 12.500 Track 6,000 WeiahtlCardio ( 0 -7,000 Aerobic/Dance 1,200 — 1.500 Muitl- purpose Raom 3,000 - 5,000 Teen /Senior Area 2,00Q — 2,500 Indoor Play Structure `,200 — 5,500 Birthday Party Fooms SOG Support Spaces °,0100 - 9,500 Net Building 54260 - 60,300 C1rcu1at1on (18 %) 9,026 - 16,854 Total Building 59,236- 71,154 Blin also reported that the locker room space is part of the 9,000 to 9,500 square feet of support space. McCcal described the banquet facilities at River Oaks Goff Course and Mississippi Dunes Golf Links. The prime season for both banquet facilities is generally between April and October. Fri- days and Saturdays are the most popular days for banquets and receptions. Events during the winter season and weekdays are occasional. Overall, it was clearly understood that neither fa- cility is used to their capacity. Community Cenler Task Force €Vdnutes June 1.2010 Page 2 of 4 The Task Force discussed the possibility that a community center with a higher quality design and larger occupant capacity may be a niche that could be supported. Members discussed the importance of exceptional design that provides flexibility to event size. The group also acknowl- edged that quality materials and kitchen /catering facilities can be very expensive. Task Force members asked if staff at River Oaks could manage two banquet facilities at two different locations and if any ISD 833 facilities could be used for banquets or receptions. The group concurred that wedding receptions are unlikely to occur on school property and alcoholic beverages are prohibited on school property, Members were interested in polling residents' opinions about various programs and facilities a community center should provide with their support. Understanding that quality materials add more cost to a project, the group was interested in knowing how much more money is needed to cover the costs of a large and upgraded facility. Members discussed the need of a cost- benefit analysis for a banquet facility and creative ways to program activities in a banquet hall during weekdays. Financing Options Blin introduced Robin Roland, the City's Finance Director. Roland explained that the cost to build and operate the facility will impact taxpayers for about a 20 -year timeframe. The City's cur- rent tax capacity includes residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural properties. Most of the tax burden is borne by residential properties. The City's current cash reserves cannot cover the entire cost of a community center, so the City would hold a voter referendum to authorize issuance of general obligation bonds to finance construction. Roland explained how additional tax levy would increase the city's portion of a $200,000 resi- dential property value assuming a 20 -year repayment period at an Interest rate of 4.3 percent. Listed below are three debt service scenarios based on the assumptions described above: ® S12 million bond issue increases city property tax by $77 per year ® $14 million bond issue increases city property tax, by S 92 per year 6 $16 million bond issue increases city property tax by $104 per year Roland stated that operation costs must not be forgoi,en. Community center financial state- ments for Chaska, Maple Grove, Maplewood, and Shoreview were reviewed. She pointed out that all four community centers had operating losses that were offset by degrees of fund trans- fers from their general fund. Assuming a 20 to 30 percent operation from the general fund, this would cost the taxpayer an additional S50 to $60 per year. As an alternative example, Roland explained that if $8 million was contributed towards a YMCA, the City's annual debt service would be about 5650,000. This would increase a property owner's property tax on a $200,000 property value about $40 per year, not including any operation costs. The Task Force discussed the idea of building a community center in phases and financing each phase. Some members were concerned that future phases might not pass bond referen- dums for a variety of reasons and that expanding a building and changing site improvements is Community CenterTasl<Force Minutes . ine 1, 2010 rage 3 of 4 an inefficient process that exponentially adds more costs to the total project. It was also noted that the initial phase must include a majority of the proposed facility amenities to entice resi- dents to join and maintain their membership. One Task Force member did not believe it would be a good idea to build a Public Safety /City Hall and not build a community center. Members discussed the problem of reduced or eliminated funding resources from the State to cities, counties, and schools. Capital projects by other governmental units collectively increase property taxes. The Task Force understood that a bond referendum to construct a community center must be supported by the voters and informational meetings must be held. Partnershig Discussion Blin summarized the YMCA and Lifetime Fitness partnering models used in other communities. It was reported that YMCA is interested in locating in Cottage Grove, but Lifetime Fitness was not as interested because Cottage Grove's population is not yet large enough. One of Lifetime's site selection criteria is that 'the population within a five -mile radius be about "20,000 people. Blin reported that a charrette exercise with county and city officials /staff was held to discuss site design alternatives for a Public Safety /City Hall, YMCA, community center, library, and senior care facility on the vacant parcel north of Norris Square. Blin described various concept plans presented at the charrette and that many questions have not yet been answered. Loss of com- mercial property taxes, non - centralized location to current and future population, and site design challenges were concerns expressed at that meeting. Blin explained that the County likes the existing Park Grove Library site, but wants better visibil- ity from 30th Street. He also reported that Washington County has programmed the replace- ment of the Library in their five -year Capital improvement Plan. YMCA likes to be next to parks and is particularly interested in the Ravine Park area. The Task Force recognized that there are timing issues if the County constructs a new library, the YMCA's interest in the community, the potential Public Safety /City Hall project, and community center interests; but believe it is an op- portunity to considerjoint facilities. The size estimates for the buildings are a 50,000 square foot community center, a 40,000 square foot public safety /city hall, and a 25,000 to 30,000 square foot library. O ther Business Task Force members discussed the timing to survey resider:- about a community center. Manr- bers understood more work must be completed in order to better inform residents about the project's size, costs, site location, and amenities. Members were anxious to receive feedback from residents to ensure their concerns and desires are addressed. It was suggested that part- nership alternatives, site preferences, facility amenities, and cost effective design still need to be discussed. Task Force members were reminded that the next scheduled meeting is August 3, 2010. Priori- tization of facility ar—nenities and revisiting site issues were suggested agenda items. There will not be a meeting in July 2010. Community Center Task Force Minutes June 1, 2C10 Page 4 of 4 Approval of Minutes The Community Center Task Force minutes for the May 4, 2010 meeting were previously distri- buted to Task Force members. No changes were made. Adiournment The meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m. Community Center Task Farce Minutes Tuesday, August 16, 2010 7:00 PM The Community Center Task Force met on Tuesday, August 16, 2010, at 7:00 p. m. in the Council Chambers at Cottage Grove City Hall, Attendees Task Force Members: Eric Chit, Jim Pyle, Ernie Pines, Tom Hren, Virgil Flack, William Royce, Gary Kjeliberg, Dave Thiede, Ken Brittain, Keith Kleinsasser, Ron Kath, Tanweer Janjua, Herb Japs Others Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director; John Burbank, Senior Planner; Myron Bailey, Mayor Aaenda Approval The agenda was approved as mailed, with the addition of a discussion of potential Community Center partners as suggested by Blin. Recap from .June 1 Meeting Biin highlighted the information that was shared and discussed at the June 1, 2010, meeting. Public SafetV /City Hall Project Bfin reported that the City Council had chosen Wold Architects and Engineers as the architects for the Public Safety/City Hall Project. He showed the task force several early site renderings that the firm had completed as a part of the RFP response. He gave a brief summary on the joint use concept of a Public SafetylCity Hall, Library, and Community Center civic campus. Kjellberg asked what the timing was for the new County Library. Blin explained that the county is planning a new library, but it is currently programmed several years out. Japs who sits on the County Library board concurred. Mayor Bailey asked for research on the ownership of the land the library sits on. Biin responded that staff would look into that. Pines questioned how the parking would be handled. Slin responded that the parking for the police would be underground, and the rest would be surface parking that would most likely be shared parking between uses. Janjua stated that it is a good direction to not preclude future uses cn the site. Blin identified different site design issues that that have been discussed to date, including site lines, the Ravine Parkway bridge, trail connections, trailheads, traffic light locations, and ease - ments. Thiede stated that the 85th Street signal option seemed to be the most cost effective for Phase 1. Royce asked if a roundabout was an option. Japs asked If there would be conflicts in the traffic control design with all the easements present. Blin responded that temporary signals would be utilized and that the final design by the County would explore all options. Janjua stated that there is definite cost savings in clustering the buildings and uses. He asked it the Police and Fire Departments could re- utilize the current City Hall building or location. Blin Community Center Task F=orce Minutes August 16, 2010 Page 2 of 3 responded that the Council had made the decision to have a joint Public Safety /City Hall build- ing at the Ravine Parkway location. Discussion of Community Center Site Options Blin reviewed the site options that had been discussed for the community center. Royce stated that if the City is going to build a community center, it needs to be completed with the Public Safety /City Hall building. Japs commented that coordinating all the different financing packages could be difficult. Kjellberg stated that a community center decision needs to be done by refe- rendum. Pyle noted that the current public ownership of the Ravine site is attractive, ready to go, and already tax exempt. Thiede stated that the top four site locations should still be kept on the table. Kjellberg suggested a survey on the location preference and asked if it was possible. Blin responded that it could be arranged. Pyle stated that based on past Task Force discussions, it needs to be a community focal point that is practical and not too costly. Hren commented that an investment in a community center is an investment in the growth of the community and that the Task Force should solicit input and make a recommendation. Blin concurred that community centers have been reported to be selling points in real - estate, Japs suggested laying the groundwork for a phased development option that would allow for involved entities to progress at their own schedules. Kath agreed that a survey should be com- pleted on the top four site locations and review the dialogue created by the survey. Janjua stated that the facility ownership question could be included in the survey. Kath asked what the timing on a bond referendum would be. Blin replied that lie believes November 2011. Discussion of Center Proaramming /Partners Blin identified that the City has been having continuing discussions with the St. Paul Area YMCA about some sort of facility partnership, and that they would look at all of their options close €y. He stated that the Ravine Park adiacent to the site is an attractive feature to the Y. Kath asked what options the Y would be exploring as a partner in Cottage Grove. Blin responded traffic, demo- graphic, and other site analysis, and that a market study is the next step. He identified further that the market study would cost of around 510,000 to $15,000. He asked the Task Force if they think tine City should participate in the market study. Thiede made a motion to recommend that the City Council partner with the YMCA on a use preference phone survey that would cost $10,000 to $15,000. Pyle seconded the motion. Pines asked if cell phones are included in the survey phone list. Blin responded that all listed numbers in City would be included. Thlede suggested that the identification and number of the survey company be published so those with caller ID would know who is calling beforehand and have the opportunity to participate. Thiede noted that the Library has a shirting dynamic as an institution and suggested including the library location question on the survey. Britain concurred in that the library location question is important to the process and needs to be asked. Blin identified that there would be some facility use questions included in the survey. Community Center Task Force Minutes August 16, 2010 Page 3 of 3 Being no further discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved by the Task Force. Pyle asked what the construction cost share would be for the City if the Y participated. Biin re- sponded $3 million to $5 million. Pyle asked if this was an annual cost. Blin responded no. Japs asked what the City's costs would be without the Y or other partner, and Blin responded $10 million to $15 million. Pyle commented that the decision needs to be made eventually on if the City is going to utilize a partner and if it is to be the Y. Blin commented that a partner may ne- gate the need to bond for construction. Kjellberg reiterated that a community center decision needs to be done by referendum. Blin stated that at the and of the planning process, the Task Force will be recommending the financing options as a pact of the final report. Other Business Task Force members were reminded that the next scheduled meeting is September 7, 2010. The July 2010 meeting was canceled. Approval of Minutes The Community Center T ask Force minutes for the June 1, 2010 meeting were previously distri- buted to Task Force members. No changes were made. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Community Center Task Force Minutes Tuesday, September 7, 2010 7:00 PM The Community Center Task Force met on Tuesday, September 7, 2010, at 7:00 p. m. in the Council Chambers at Cottage Grove City Hail. Attendees Task Force Members: Ken Brittain, Virgil Flack, Tom Hren, Tanweer Janjua, Herb Japs, Ron Kath, Gary Kjeilberg, Keith Kleinsasser, Erik Ohrt, Ernie Pines, William Royce, Dave Thiede, and Diane Thielen Others Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director; John Burbank, Senior Planner; John McCool, Senior Planner Discussion of YMCA Options Blin introduced Greg Waibel the CFONice President of Operations for the YMCA of Greater St. Paul. Waibel reported that there are 22 YMCA locations within the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The YMCA provides scholarships for individuals or families that can't afford memberships. Each project has unique arrangements with the host communities. Some of their partnerships have been with hospitals, cities, and school districts. Each site has its owl; Board members. Waibel described the YMCA facilities and partnerships at the Northeast YMCA (White Bear Lake), Andover YMCA/Community Center, and the Elk River YMCA. A summary of Waibel `s description of each project is as follows: Northeast (White Bear Lake l YMCA • Original facility was constructed in the late 1960's • White Bear Lake, Mahtomedi, White Bear Township, Birchwood, Hugo, and Vadnais Heights began working with the YMCA in 2007 to discuss funding a new facility, but only Write Bear Lake and White Bear Township made monetary contributions. • White Bear Lake contributed $$2.75 minion and White Bear Township $200,000. • City of White Bear Lake and White Bear Township received a waiver on initiation fees and community use of the facility for three nights per yea; . • YMCA rejected the proposal that resident membership fees be reduced. • Project upgraded and enlarged the aquatics facilities at the original site. • Current program facilities include: o 6,000 sauare foot fitness center with 13 eiiipticals, 10 treadmills, 1 stair stepper, 2 re- cumbent bikes, 4 upright fitness bikes, 1 ergometer, 2 rowers, weight equipment, indi- vidual cable televisions on cardio equipment, and a 2,400 square foot group exercise studio o Two racquetball /handball courts. c hen's, women's, and family locker rooms. o Sauna. o Community Room. o Full -sized gymnasium. o Drop-off child care while you work out. Communi`.y Center Task Force Minutes September 7, 2010 Page 2 of 4 o Indoor and outside playgrounds o Family and kids activities area for crafts, games, dress -up, free play, hikes, and crea- tive play. o New lobby, elevator, and public gathering spaceslmeeting rooms, 0 1,800 square foot multi- purpose community room. o Twelve 25 -yard lap lanes. 0 1,800 square foot shallow recreation pool. o Aquatic seating area for approximately 200 spectators. o Outdoor zero -depth entry splash pool and 160 -foot waterslide. Andover YMCA/Community Ce nter Waibel explained that this entire facility is owned by the City of Andover with the YMCA portion of the building leased back to the YMCA for $635,000 annually. The YMCA facility is attached to a hockey arena and indoor fieldhouse, The entire facility opened in 2005. The YMCA facility cost $9.7 million. The City is responsible for all structural and exterior maintenance. The YMCA maintains its own improvements such as pools and fitness facilities. The community center fa- cility features: • Indoor pool with a lap lane, leisure pool, zero -depth two 2 -story waterslides and 'water features. • Sauna and whirlpool. Gymnasium. • Running /Walking track. • Group exercising studio. • Fitness Center with cardio equipment, free weight and power lifting equipment. • Drop-off child care center. • Party rooms. Elk River YMCA Waibel reported that the City of Elk River did not consider a city -owned community center and targeted the YMCA from the start of their planning process. The City built and owns the facility and leases the 56,000 square foot facility to the YlACA under a 30 -year agreement. The City paid S8 million and the YN /ICA paid $5 million. The YMCA is responsible for all operating and maintenance costs. The City programs 22 hours per week and all Elk River residents receive four daily passes annually. Most of the daily passes are used at the outdoor splash pad area in the summer months. The facility provides the following amenities; • T vro indoor pools with family fun water features and two small water slides. • Whirlpool and sauna. • Outdoor splash deck. • 8,700 square foot fitness center, cardio and circuit training machines, elliptical equipment, rowers, 'treadmills, bikes, and free weights. • Exercise studio. • Two group exercise studios Community' Center Task Force Minutes September 7, 2010 Page 3 of 4 • One large gymnasium. • Running/walking track. • Drop-off child care, computer lab, kid's gym and play apparatus. • Two outdoor playgrounds. • Teen Center Weibel explained tl 'at each YMCA site in the St. Paul service area has an on -site local manager that works with a community board and helps with fundraising efforts. The community board has 15 to 25 members. The cost of initiating the market survey is shared with partnering communi- ties. The initial survey has specific questions to determine how much short -term and long -term support there is in the community. Community population should be 15,000 to 20,000 people, concentrated population centers that provide 10 to 15 minute driving times to YMCA facilities. Concern was expressed for locating a YMCA between existing YMCA facilities located in Woodbury and Hastings. Weibel stated that the Hastings YMCA's 2007 numbers are favorable and the City of Hastings would like to increase its footprint. it was noted that memberships from St. Paul Park, Newport, and neighboring townships will likely be part of a YMCA market area it such a facility located in Cottage Grove. It was suggested that the market survey should ask the survey responder if they are currently a member at a YMCA or other exercise facility in Wood- bury or Hastings. Task Force members reiterated the importance of understanding the model design, financial considerations, up front costs, operation costs, and ownership responsibilities if partnering with another agency or business. Weibel stated that YMCA membership rates are generally lower because they are able to spread their overhead over 22 sites in the metropolitan area. Commu- ni y support generally does not cover all the operating expenses. Waibel explained that there a many factors they consider before locating a YMCA in a commu- nity. Some of these factors are: parcel size, proximity to the renter of the population, relatively short drive time for members, outdoor recreation opportunities, proximity to other facilities, utili- ties, access to green and open space for outdoor activities, proximity to schools for youth devel- opment, and facili €ty visibility from high volume roadways. Membership should be approximately 3,000 units, each unit averaging 3.5 persons. Waibel explained - gnat the YMCA provides programs and social components Tor active seniors and citizens that may not be as mobile. Biro reported that the City has had similar partnering discussions with Lifetime Fitness. Lifetime believes Cottage Grove's market area is less than their 50,000 population criteria. Blin said for - profit exercise clubs migl it require the city to provide larger capital funding amounts. Task Force members generally liked the idea of partnering with the YMCA because they have been in business for a long time, provide community development programs and scholarships, provide special programs as needed in the community, and are more than just an exercise facility. Community Center Task Force Minutes September 7, 2010 Page 4 of 4 Blin stated that the City will proceed with the market survey and the results of the survey will be shared with the Task Force. The market survey will survey households in the Cottage Grove area to determine the level of support for a YMCA in the community. Public 3afetylCity Haft Proiect Btin reported that the design work for the proposed Public Safety /City Hall project is moving for- ward, Wold Architects and sub - consultants are meeting with six City sub - committee groups. The architects and a group of City representatives will tour other public facilities. Blin stated that the City Council had authorized to sell bonds to fund this project, but a group of citizens spoke against the project at the September 1, 2010 Council meeting and suggested that only the public safety portion of the project be built. Blin explained that if enough citizens sign a petition, a referendum might be required. Other Business Task Force members were reminded that the next scheduled meeting is October 5, 2010. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Community Center Task Force Minutes Monday, November 15, 2010 7:00 PM The Community Center Task Force met on Monday, November 15, 2010, at 7:00 p. M. in the Council Chambers at Cottage Grove City Hall. Attendses Task Force Members: Ken Brittain, Virgil Flack, Tom Hren, Tanweer Janjua, Herb Japs, Ron Kath, Gary Kjellberg, Keith Kieinsasser, Jon Larsen, Ernie Pines, Paul Poncin, Jim Pyle, William Royce, Dave Thiede, Diane Thielen Others Present: Greg Waibel, YMCA of Greater St. Paul; Councilmember Justin Olson; Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator; Howard Blin, Community Devel- opment Director; John McCool, Senior P{anner Public Safety /City Hall Protect Blin informed Task Force members that the Public Safety and Planning Commissions will have a joint meeting on November 22 to give comments on the proposed Public SafetyfCity Hall project. An open house is scheduled in early December and the City Council will review the preliminary site plan and building floor plan layouts on December 15. A concept drawing of the Ravine Parkway bridge located north of the Washington County's Service Center was shown to the Task Force. The consultant continues to work on the final bridge design. Stamped concrete or concrete form -line application will be applied to the bridge side barriers to create a stone wall appearance and texture. Bids to construct this bridge will be accepted in January or February 2011 with construction to begin in late spring 2011. Blin explained that the proposed building site and the remaining vacant area to the future 85th Street extension east of Keats Avenue was once farmland. Since the County's termination of the farm lease, they seeded the area with a mix of prairie grasses. Ravine Parkway will be a collector street functional classification. Unlike the landscaped center medians in front of the Washington County Service Center, center medians were not considered for the portion of roadway abutting the proposed civic site to improve the ability of emergency vehicles to pass motorists. Six site plan layout concepts were described to the Task Force members. Site development alternatives generally included a potential future phasing plan for a possible fire station addi- tion, public library, and/or community center. Structure placement offered potential opportuni- ties for shared parking, interconnectivity of buildings, building orientations to maximize public views of the ravine, and green space. The preferred concept was a common access connec- tion to Ravine Parkway with public parking closest to the Parkway. Parking for city vehicles and some employee parking is proposed on the south side of the Public Safety /City Hall facility. A question was asked why the proposed building location is in the southeast corner of the site where the grade elevation is lower than the grades closer to Keats Avenue. Blin explained that if a public library, community center, or fitness center is constructed on the site, visibility and Community Center Task Force Minutes Navembe-15, 2010 Pane 2 of 3 easy accessibility to these public facilities from Keats Avenue will be important, The ground elevation in the southeast corner of the site provides an opportunity to design a tuck -under garage for city vehicles and the building's profile can be lower. The proposed facility will also be closer to the South Washington County Service Center. The travel time for public safety vehicles to access Keats Avenue was discussed. It was gen- erally agreed that the time difference driving a vehicle from the southeast corner of the site to Keats Avenue is relatively insignificant. Blin reported that the County is looking at installing a traffic signal at the Ravine Parkway and 90th Street intersection in the future. It was noted that trail connections will be made to all facilities. Off- street parking for the Public Safety /City Hall building will be available for citizens who want to walk the trail system and access the park. Some Task Force members believe the City's proposed project is an oppor- tunity to provide additional pedestrian access to Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park. Task Force members agreed that the number of street intersections along Ravine Parkway should be minimal. Blin explained that the building layout and design elements for the proposed Public Safety /City Hall facility continue to be evaluated and modified. The Task Force will be updated as plans progress. Community Center[YMCA Market Study Blin, reported that the market research firm of Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates is conducting the market study for locating a YMCA in Cottage Grove. The draft questionnaire includes standard questions regarding the YMCA and the programs they offer. The questionnaire was tested with 20 to 30 households the first week in November to make sure people understood the questions. It was asked if the questionnaire will help respondents understand that the membership fee might not be all the money they pay to support a community center and/or YMCA. Greg Waibel said they will make sure the respondents understand it is a membership fee in the question- naire and not about property tax payments. The Task Force was interested in knowing where +In respondents live in the community. It Was commented that some citizens might not want to spend a lot of time driving to and from the YMCA. Task Force members were interested in knowing how far residents will travel to the East Ravine site. Min explained that polling data is used to ensure survey respondents represent a broad area in the community. The Task Force suggested that information about the upcoming survey be posted on the City's web page, Facebook, utility bills and the South Washington County Bulletin, A question was asked about the land use east of Ravine Parkway that abuts the proposed civic site. Blin reported that it is all part of the Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park. The Task Force agreed that the park area is unique because of its natural amenities and supported the concept of inter-connec ,jvity of public facilities and services. Community Center Task Force Minutes November 15, 2010 Page 3 of 3 Other Business Task Force members were reminded that the next scheduled meeting will be scheduled once the results of the survey are available. A joint meeting with the City Council was suggested. Adiournmenf The meeting adjourned at 8:22 p.m. Community Center Task Force Minutes Tuesday, January 25, 2011 7:00 PM The Community Center Task Force met on Tuesday, January 25, 2011, at 7:00 p.m, in the Council Chambers at Cottage Grove City Half. Attendees Task Force Members: Ken Brittain, Tom Hren, Herb Japs, Ron Kath, Keith Kleinsasser, Jon Larsen, Donald Long, Erik Ohrt, Craig Patterson, Jim Pyle, William Royce, Dave Thiede, Diane Thielen Others Present Greg VVaibel, YMCA of Greater St. Paul; Councilmember Justin Olson; Councilmember Jan Pete, Councilmember Derrick Lehrke; Jon Avise, South Washington County Bulletin; Leon Peterson, Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator; Howard Biin., Community Development Director; Zac Dookter, ice Arena, Park and Recreation Manager; John Burbank, Senior Planner; John MoCool, Senior Planner; other citizens Presentation of YMCA Market Stud Blin informed Task Force members that Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc, completed the YMCA market study a couples weeks ago. Representatives from Anderson, Niebuhr & Asso- ciates presented a slide show highlighting the survey results. It was reported that the geographic boundary of the study area was generally Dale Road in the City of Woodbury, the Mississippi River, and about one mile east of Manning Avenue. The survey area encompassed approx- imately 15,735 households. The response rate was 83 percent and is deemed to be a high response rate. The consultant explained that the YMCA, and City of Cottage Grove representa- tives were consulted in deveicping the questionnaire design. The data collection process in- volved a telephone survey of 350 residents from November 19 through December 18. 2010. Other highlights presented by the consultant are summarized below: 75 percent of the respondents have lived in Cottage Grove for 10 or more years. ® 53 percent of the respondents do not have children under the age or 18. 89 percent of the respondents are familiar with the YMCA. ® 53 percent of the respondents are interested in prograrns for people 55 or older at the new community center faculty. 6 54 percent of the respondents are interested in youth and teen programming at the new community center facility. 0 85 percent of residents surveyed would like to see a community center, operated by the YMCA, located in Cottage Grove. Community Center T ask Force Minu January 25, 2011 Page 2 cf 3 • 74 percent of residents surveyed supported a partnership between the Y€ ICA and City to develop a community center. • 70 percent of the residents surveyed supported the use of City funds to construct a new community center. Amount of property tax increase respondents who pay property taxes are willing to pay to support a new community center: � $40 or more per year 19% � S30 to $39 per year 24% j 5 2 ear 32% �Unwillingto pay any increase 23% 60 percent or more of the respondents were interested in the following water facilities or activities that a new community center could offer: o An indoor aquatic center with a water slide, a play area for children, and a zero- entry pool; o An indoor pool for lap swimming; o Awhirlpool; o Water aerobics and other water exercise programs. • 60 percent or more of the respondents were interested in the following fitness programs and services that a new community center could offer: o An indoor track for walking or running; o Cardiovascular fitness machines; • Strength conditioning machines and free weights; • A multi- purpose gymnasium for activities such as basketball and volleyball; • Health and vdeilness programs. • 50 percent or more of the respondents were interested in the following fitness programs and services ti tat a new community center could offer: o Group fitness classes; o Yoga and Pilates classes; c Personal trainers and fitness assessments. The survey identified Norris Square/Presbyterian Homes; City Hail (current Iocatlon), and County Service Center sites as potential locations for a community center. Fire Station No. 2 was not considered because of potential costly subgrade correction issues on the property. In regards to the amount of property tax increase residents are willing to pay to support a new community center, 32 percent of the respondents were willing to pay $20 to $29 per year. The amount of property tax increase was based on a $250,000 property value, Community Cen ter Task Force Minutes January 25, 2011 Page 3 of 3 Waibel reported that the market survey showed very favorable support of a YMCA facility in the community, and they are interested in continuing their discussions with the City. Waibel said he was surprised that the Norris Square site was slightly higher than the County Service Center site and did not expect the County Service Center site to be higher than the current City Hall loca- tion. Waibel did favor a location that could provide more green space opportunities for outdoor activities. Task Force members discussed an idea that market survey results showing a high support for a community center might have been influenced by referencing the YMCA in the survey. It was questioned if the 85 percent support would have been lower if the YMCA was not referenced. Councilmember Olsen thanked Task Force members for their work and time commitment. Other Business Task Force members were reminded that the next meeting will be February 8, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall. Adlournment The meeting adjourned at 7,53 p.m. Community Center Task Force Minutes Tuesday, February 8, 2011 7.00 PM The Community Center Task Force met on Tuesday, February 8, 2011, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Cottage Grove City Haft. Attendees Task Force Members: Ken Brittain, Virgil Flack, Tom Hren, Herb Japs, Ron Kath, Keith Kleinsasser, Jon Larsen, Erik Ohrt, Ernie Pines, and Paul Poncin Others Present: Counciimember Derrick Lehrke; Howard Blin, Community Development Director; Zac Dockter, Ice Arena, Park and Recreation Manager; John Burbank, Senior Planner; and John McCool, Senior Planner Presentation of YMCA Market Study Highlights from Anderson, Niebuhr & Associates, Inc,'s survey results were presented by Blin. A copy of the survey summary was distributed to Task Force members. Dockter reported that an aquatic needs study is being prepared and will compare existing €acil- hies in the community with general national standards. One component for the study is to determine if a splash pad type of aquatics is a viable alternative in the community. The study is tentatively scheduled for completion in March 2011. The group noted that the cardio weight/fitness, indoor track, and aquatics uses were strongly supported by respondents in the survey. The group believed there is a strong correlation be- tween their list of preferred facilities and the uses supported by the respondents in the survey. Meeting rooms and banquet facilities were the exceptions. The group noted that an indoor track was the most popular fitness use in the survey. The group acknowledged that the indoor track at Park High School is used much of the time. Walkers can watch activities on the courts. The drawback back for the indoor track in a public school facility is that the hours are limited for the general public during the school year and closed to the public when it is used for school functions or during the summer moirtns. Task Force members discussed the advantages and disadvantages between a city - owned and operated facility versus partnering with a for - profit or non- profit organization. The group gener- ally thought a partnership with the YMCA has advantages because of their proven successes, reputable reputation, offers a wide range of programs for all ages, the tax burden for Cottage Grove residents would probably be less, and the YMCA would be responsible for ongoing op- eration and maintenance costs. Alternatively, if owned and operated by the City, membership rates might be a little lower and the city would control the programs, but the capital costs to construct and operate the facility would be entirely the City's responsibility. The group dis- cussed the idea of publishing a request for proposal (RFP) in order to see if other organiza- tions are interested in partnering with the City. The RFP could include information about the partnering concept with cost sharing, general operating details, and programming expectations (i.e.; teens, seniors, day care, etc.). Community Center Task Force Minutes February 8, 2011 Page 2 of 3 The Task Force wondered if the YMCA offered seniors a discounted membership if they did not want to use aquatics or fitness programs. The group discussed the possibility of shared space for teens and seniors. Seniors would generally use the center during daytime hours and teens during late aftemoon and evening hours. The relationship between Anderson, Nieber, and Associates and the YMCA was discussed. Concern was expressed that their relationship is too close and would the survey results have been different if another consultant performed the survey. The group concluded that the YMCA needs creditable information in order to make good decisions. The group also believed that the survey results prove a strong market for a YMCA in the Cottage Grove area and may be to the City's advantage when negotiating with the YMCA. It was asked if the Citys cash contribution for a community center facility included land costs. Staff explained that the YMCA assumes that the City will provide the land. if the site was lo- cated on that portion of public land near the South Washington County Service Center, public park land will be replaced with future development. If the site is at the existing City Hall site, there are demolition costs. Land at the Norris Square site would have to be purchased and commercial property tax revenues would be less. The group discussed the timing of future bond referendums. Kath reported that the School District will have a couple bond renewals on the general election in the next couple years. One bond referendum relates to a revenue source amounting to $10 /student, which is not new to property owners in School District 833, but a renewal. A comment was made that a community center helps improve the quality of life in the Clty and helps market the City in attracting new development, which would increase the property tax base. Task Force members discussed the City -owned versus partnership with the YMCA scenarios. Flack made a motion for the City to partner with the YMCA. Hren seconded the motion. 'The topic of a YMCA benefiting the community in terms of economic prosperity was discussed. It was noted that new residents, developers, and commercial businesses look at community amenities before deciding to locate in a community. A community center can draw people to the community, thus enhancing shopping opportunities, growth, and general support to existing businesses. The motion passed unanimousf }, Task Force members reviewed the !ists of amenities they supported in the past, the amenities supported by respondents in the survey, and recommendations made by Ballard -King in 2010. A summary of their facility recommendations is listed below: ® Treater.. School buildings already provide common assembly halls. A theater was not supported by Task Force members. Community Center Task Force Minutes February 8, 2011 Page 3 of 3 o i eenlSenior Center. Task Force members liked the idea that teens and seniors could snare space in a community center. Fitness Center: A fitness center consisting of cardio fitness, weights, multi- function studios, and gymnasium with an indoor walking/running track were supported. 6 Gymnasium: Members supported a gymnasium. • Aquatics: Indoor aquatics comprising of a lap -pool, indoor and outdoor splash -pads, and various water park amenities were supported. • Indoor playground: An indoor playground and birthday /craft rooms were supported. Banquet Facility: The group believed a banquet facility would be nice with a community center but thought maybe multi- function spaces or !meeting rooms grouped together could create space for larger events. The concern for a designated banquet and/or large meeting hall is the possibility that it would not be used as much during the winter sea- son and adversely impact existing banquet facilities in the community, It was suggested that a banquet facility could be a future expansion phase. Task Force members discussed the idea of connecting the library with a community center. The general consensus was that the two uses could share meeting rooms. It was reported that the Washington County Library would like to be with a YMCA, but both potential protects might be on different schedules. Task Force members decided to discuss sites at a future meeting, They did suggest that City staff contact other cities that have partnered with the YMCA to obtain partnership agreement information. City staff reported that contacts have been made with other cities, and a lot of information had already been obtained. Other Business Task Force members were reminded that the next meeting will be March 1, 201 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, - Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Community Center Task Ford Minutes Tuesday, March 1, 2011 7:00 PM The Community Center Task Force met on T uesday, March 1, 2011, at 7:04 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Cottage Grove City Hall, Attendees Task Force Members: Ken Brittain, Tom Hren, Tanweer Janjua, Herb Japs, Ron Kath, Keith Kleinsasser, Jon Larsen, Donald Long, Erik Ohrt, Craig Patterson, Ernie Pines, Jim Pyle and William Royce. Others Present: Howard Blin, Community Development Director; Zac Dockter, Ice Arena, Park and Recreation Manager, and John McCooi, Senior Planner Draft Report Task Force members reviewed the draft Community Center Task Force report. Format and content was generally accepted. Recommendations on page 12 were discussed. The group discussed whether or not to rank the facility elements listed in Recommendation No. 3 on page 12. The Task Force had concerns if certain facility elements of a "community center'' were not supported by the YMCA. The Task Force reiterated their support that the City proceed with negotiating with the YMCA and acknowledged that the YMCA Market Study results supported many of the Task Force's interests. As a general consensus, the Task Force decided that Recommendation No. 3 include a note that the facilities are not in any particular order of priority, It was suggested that the report include an explanation why the YMCA, Market Study references the Norris Square and current City Hall sites when the Task Force eliminated the City Nall site from consideration and the Norris Square site was not recommended. Staff explained that a couple criteria used in evaluating potential sites were a ten acre minimum parcel size, proximity to the city's future population center, and site preparation costs. A concept drawing was presented to the Task Force early in the process showing a city hall, YMCA, library, and parking ramp complex on the Norris Square site. That site was not considered because its location was not central to the city's future population center, loss of commercial property and commercial tax revenues and high construction costs because a parking ramp is likely needed. Star explained that the YMCA, believed the five acre City Hall - Library site can work and liked the 80` Street visibility and proximity to nearby school property. The group discussed the Fire Station No. 2 site and acknowledged there could potentially be soil contamination Issues that could be costly to cleanup. Based on the Task Force's site location discussion, it was noted that Task Force's sire rankings in the report are in numerical order for each of the site ranking categories. It was suggested that the report include an explanation why the Task Force's site ranking is different than the results cited in the YMCA's market study. Task Force members discussed the County's timing to replace the existing library. Staff reported that the YMCA is interested in cc- locating with a library. The group discussed Community Center Task Force Minutes March 1, 2011 Page 2 of 2 whether or not the existing five acre City Hall/Library site would be big enough. The idea of vacating a portion of Hemingway Avenue for purposes of increasing the land area was briefly discussed. It was acknowledged that Hemingway Avenue north of 80 Street is a well traveled route by residents in the neighboring townhouse and apartment complexes. The Task Force discussed the opportunities that the new Public Safety /City Hall site offers as a civic campus site and encouraged YMCA and County to consider the Ravine Parkway site for their projects. Royce made the motion that the new Public Safety /City hall site along the Ravine Parkway be the preferred site for a community center and other sites that might be considered is the existing City Hall or Norris Square locations, Kath seconded the motion. Some Task Force members did not think the existing City Hall site was large enough and the Norris Square site would be too costly and loss of commercial tax revenue. They also suggested that any site that is chosen should be large enough to permit future expansions to the building, especially if the facility is only 50,000 square feet in size. The motion passed unanimously. The Task Force suggested that the report refer to the building size and construction cost as a range for purposes of identifying the scope of such a project. Task Force members noted that the market study provided by Ballard -King suggested a 71,000 square foot facility, but 50,000 square fee: has been mentioned for the YMCA. A $200 per square foot construction cost was used as an example to show a construction cost range of $10,000,000 - $14,200,000. The Task Force reiterated the importance that the process includes a design phase and construction estimates for purposes of educating the public in advance of a bond referendum. It was suggested that this year's election might be a good time for Cottage Grove residents to vote on this matter because the School District will only have a school board election on the ballot. Staff stated that the repot will be modified to include the following: Information on the next steps to be taken in respect to partnering with the YMCA, facility amenities, building design, construction costs and public referendum. ® Explain why the YMCA's Market Study referenced three sites and how that differs with the Task Force's site evaluation process. ® Recap the advantages and disadvantages of each potential site. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.