Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPARKS AND RECREATION REFERENDUM WORKSHOPCity of Cotta Grove IS 4J Minnesota 7516 801h Street South / Cottage Grove, Mlnrwsoia 55016 -3195 651 -498 -2800 Fax 6511158 -2887 vrorw.cottage- grove.org TDD 651- 458 -2880 March 1, 2012 RE: March 12, 2012 6PM Workshop Invitation On February 11, 2012 the Cottage Grove City Council held a workshop to provide for strategic and fiscal planning for the next few years. An outcome was a stated desire to circle back with the Community Center Task Force and Thompson Grove Pool Building Design Team Members to determine a potential referendum question for the 2012 general election. Given the above I am requesting your attendance at an important workshop with the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resource Commission on March 12, 2012 at 6:OOpm in the City Council Chambers. The workshop will review a list of parks and recreational improvements that have been identified for a referendum in November of 2012. Your City Council has great appreciation for all the time and investment that has been donated to date in planning for community amenities which would further our mutual goals of Cottage Grove as a great place to live, work and play. As you have been an integral part of developing all or some portion of these plans I am asking for an additional donation of your time to help us determine direction on these important projects. I would anticipate the outcome of the workshop to be a recommendation to the City Council to either pursue or not pursue all or a portion of the listed projects. A thorough staff report on the research, studies and project components is enclosed for your review and use. Please RSVP by Friday, March 9 to Zac Rockter, Parks and Recreation Director, at 651- 458 -2847 or zdockter(@cotta,ge=grove.org as - soon as you are able so that staff can prepare the meeting space appropriately. Once again, I thank you for your past efforts. participation in building our great community. City of Cotta Grove Minnesota To: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Community Center Task Force Thompson Grove Community Hall Design Team From: Zac Dockter, Parks and Recreation Director John McCool, Senior Planner John Burbank, Senior Planner CC: Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator Robin Roland, Finance /Community Development Director Date: February 21, 2012 Subject: Community Referendum on Park and Recreational Improvements Introduction The City of Cottage Grove recognizes the community's desire to complete several large -scale improvement projects to meet current and future recreational needs. The City Council has shown support of this desire by suggesting the city offer a referendum on the proposed improvements during the November 2012 regular election. Prior to proceeding with a referendum, City Council is requesting feedback from community groups who have diligently worked on these projects over the past several years. Background Information The city has used multiple resources to gauge and prioritize the community's desires for improved recreational opportunities. Some of the resources include: 1. Future Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan (adopted March, 2011) 2. 2001 Community Center Survey 3. 2005 Recreational Facility Needs Study 4. 2007 Community Survey 5. 2011 Community Center Report 6. 2011 Splash Pad Study 7. 2011 Thompson Grove Community Hall Workshop. This report gives a summary of those findings as it relates to discussion of the community's recreational needs and desires. Future Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan sets the course for future growth in Cottage Grove. Included in the plan are goals and policies intended to guide decisions on development and redevelopment in the city. In relation to Parks and Recreation, the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies maintaining its small town character as a guiding principle for the community's vision. It further suggests that this can be accomplished in part through the preservation of history, enhancing park and open spaces, creating a walkable community and providing community gathering places. The report states that plans for future park acquisitions and development are based on two basic assumptions. First, there will be an increased demand for parks and recreation services and facilities for our youth population and a dramatic increase in recreational demands from the adult segment of the population. Second, as the city continues to grow, park lands and open space areas will become more important for their growing recreational, aesthetic, and conservation values. Demographic data suggests that well into the next century, Cottage Grove will continue to be a community dominated by two - parent families with children. Future parks, trails, and open space acquisition and development plans are predicated on the vision of a city where both population and the average age of citizens will continue to increase. Lastly, the plan states that Cottage Grove cannot afford to stop investing in parks, trails and open space. Public opinion surveys indicate a very high level of citizen approval for acquiring, developing and maintaining a quality park and recreation system in Cottage Grove. The general public consensus appears to be that parks are a critical factor in assessing the "quality of life" in the community. 2001 Community Center Survey In 2001 the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission performed an informal survey of community interest in a Community Center of which there were 126 respondents. The survey requested specific detail on what the respondent believed a community center in Cottage Grove should contain to meet the needs of the residents. The survey found the following 11 items to be at the top of the list (in no particular order) Aquatic Facility Basketball Courts /Gym Meeting Rooms Indoor Playground Senior Center Banquet Rooms Fitness Room Teen Center Ballfields Outdoor Playground Walking Tracks Staff and the Parks Commission reviewed the data and established a list of goals to move forward the process of studying the community center concept. Those goals were: 1. To create a safe, economical, and aesthetically pleasing community center that provides a sound balance of opportunities for all facets of the community to gather together in order to bond, learn, exercise, relax, recuperate, share, plan, celebrate and participate in all aspects of a healthy growing community. 2. To stage the development of a community center into phases that meet the current fiscal plans, administrative strategies, council policies and demographic trends of the city of Cottage Grove, and to establish a solid foundation in which to rely on for future recreational and developmental needs of the city. 3. To have a strong public input process in all facets of the community center planning process. 4. To avoid the creation of redundant facilities and services that are currently available from public or private sectors of the community. 5. To ensure that the final recommended facility site is strategically located considering residential development, future transportation patterns, natural and built features and future land use plans of the community. 2005 Recreational Facility Needs Study In 2005, the City recognized the need to perform a complete evaluation of its parks and recreation system. The City hired Ingraham & Associates Inc, a planning and design firm to review current facilities, gather city, stakeholder and public input and to make recommendations regarding current and future recreation facility needs as well as potential community center recreation options. You'll notice in the findings and recommendations below that the city has successfully achieved several of the goals set forth in the report yet still have others left unaddressed. Findings of the report were as follows: 1. The City has a good supply and variety of parks and recreation facilities. 2. Additional facilities are needed to meet current demand. a. Soccer fields (temporarily satisfied by development of West Draw Park in 2006) b. Additional indoor sheet of ice (satisfied by expansion of Ice Arena in 2008) c. Large softball fields d. Large baseball fields 3. Population growth will require additional park and recreation facilities. 4. Access to passive recreation, open space and natural areas can be improved. 5. Recreational access to the Mississippi River is needed. 6. Additional trails are needed. (Have added several miles of trails since 2005) 7. The need for a Community Center should be further defined. 8. Existing parks and open space are well maintained, but improvements still needed. 9. Partnerships for youth athletics work well. Adult facility access could be improved. 10. Flexibility is needed to respond to recreational trends. Short -Term Recommendations: 1. Add planned baseball /softball fields at Hamlet Park. 2. Implement East Ravine Park and Open Space development plans. 3. Make handicapped access improvements to park facilities. 4. Improve access to the Mississippi River. 5. Renovate key park shelter buildings (have since renovated Pine Tree Valley and Highlands). 6. Improve vegetative management and invasive species control. 7. Continue to add trails as land dedication and funds allow. 8. Prepare a land acquisition strategy for Sport Complex land. On -Going and Long -Term Recommendations through 2020: 1. Continue to acquire land for parks, trails and open space. 2. Prepare a Mississippi River area park and open space plan. 3. Build an outdoor sports complex. 4. Preserve open space and natural areas as parkland in rural areas. 5. Enhance the partnership with the school district to increase community use of gymnasiums. 6. Consider acquiring a site for an off -leash dog park (completed in 2011). 7. Improve cultural arts, performing arts and public art opportunities. 2007 Community Survey A community wide professional survey was performed in 2007 by Decision Resources, Inc. It was a comprehensive survey of the entire community to gauge residents thoughts, visions, needs and concerns for the community. As reflected in the city's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, residents expressed an appreciation for the quality of life in Cottage Grove and particularly enjoyed the quiet neighborhoods and small town feel. As it pertains to recreation, the survey found very positive results in the area of citizen viewpoints towards the parks and recreation system of Cottage Grove. In general, user experiences were rated positively, residents felt their recreational needs were being met and there was strong support for funding of park systems and a community center. It should be noted that details on funding sources or whether it would affect residential tax rates were not a part of the questionnaire. Some of those results are below: Use and Rating of Park System 2007 City of Cottage Grove Larger Community Parks Smaller Neighborhood Parks Trails Community Ballfields /Fields Ice Arena River Oaks Golf Course 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Decision Resources, Ltd. MPositive WNegative Ell-Insure Recreation Facilities & Programs 2007 City of Cottage Grove Yes 90% Yes 98% No No 2% 10% - -_ Facilities Meet Needs Programs Meet Needs Decision Resources, Ltd. Funds for Park Improvements 2007 City of Cottage Grove Strongly Support 22% Support 58% Unsure 6% Strongly Oppose 6% Oppose 8% Decision Resources, Ltd. Community Center Concept 2007 City of Cottage Grove Strongly Support 28% Support 44% Unsure 6% Strongly Oppose 11% Oppose 11% Decision Resources, Ltd. 2011 Community Center Task Force Report The Community Center Task Force initially convened in the spring of 2009 and was made up of over 25 residents in the community. The group was charged with studying the following: 1. Determination of needs 2. Determination of elements or programs in a Community Center 3. Examine possible sites 4. Operating models and financing options The Task Force worked extensively over two years in an effort to give the city council direction on a community center. Over 16 meetings were held, tours of metro community centers were taken, an independent contractor (Ballard & King) was hired for market analysis and a community survey was completed by the YMCA over the course of the study. Appendix A is a historic summary of the final report that was received and placed on file by the City Council. The final recommendations of the Task Force were as follows: 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 addition, 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 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. • Indoor Playground. • Multi- function Space — Smaller rooms that could be combined to create one larger room. • Gymnasium with walking track. • Splash pad outside. 4. The Community Center should be built at the site of the new Public Safety /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. Prior to completing the report, the city collaborated with the YMCA to perform a community survey which brought forth valuable information in regards to want /need for a community center, building features and costs. In general terms, the survey seemed to validate the Task Force's recommendations by positively supporting those ideas and components of the proposed facility. Additionally, there were specific questions in the survey related to the amount of property tax increase respondents were willing to pay to support a new community center. The results of those cost - related questions are listed in Appendix B. Of all current property tax payers surveyed (338 total), below is the level of tax increase individuals were willing accept: $40 or more per year — 19% $30 to $39 per year — 24% $20 to $29 per year — 32% Unwilling to pay any increase — 23% Upon receipt of the Task Force recommendation and YMCA survey, the City Council directed the Task Force and staff to coordinate moving forward on the development of the YMCA concept. A goal of putting the concept to a vote by the general public via a referendum was in progress as of the summer of 2011. However, shortly thereafter the city became aware of the potential development of a competing private fitness club in the community. Considering the fitness feature was a key component in the YMCA concept, council suggested that the process be delayed so that the city could reanalyze if the needs of a community center remain intact or have changed with the addition of this private fitness club. No community center related action by the City Council or Task Force has taken place since. 2011 Splash Pad Study The City contracted the professional services of Bonestroo and Associates to analyze the community's aquatic recreational needs, provide recommendation on splash pad features, provide site plan analysis' for splash pads, develop conceptual designs for preferred sites and present findings /recommendations to the Parks Commission. The study took a deep look into the aquatic recreational opportunities located on a local and regional level for Cottage Grove residents. The study used `bather load' data as a basis for providing a recommendation to the City. Bather load calculation is certainly not an exact science, but uses national and regional activity trends based on population demographics to determine aquatic needs of a community and viability of the multitude of aquatic facility options as they exist today. Although the bather load calculations were valuable to aquatic recreational needs in general, the study was tasked to specifically analyze splash pads and not pools. As such, the recommendation of the Splash Pad Study was to install a splash pad at Highlands Park considering site qualities and cost analysis. Further, it was also recommended that future splash pad project phases should be considered for Woodridge, Kingston and Hamlet Parks. Lastly, the study explains that a community center or aquatic facility the size of Inver Grove Heights (540 bather load) or Hastings (800) could be constructed along with the recommended splash pads while not exceeding the bather load limits for Cottage Grove. 2011 Thompson Grove Community Hall Workshop Report As the Cottage Grove Municipal Pool closed following the 2011 swimming season, the City Council recommended the formation of a resident task force to study the potential reuse of the site which includes 1.5 acres of property and a 5,500 square foot building formerly known as the Thompson Grove Country Club. The Task Force was comprised of over 20 persons. Representatives attended from the Parks, Planning and Historic City Commissions, Community Center Task Force, City Council and staff. The group worked with architect Dick Krumm to brainstorm creative reuses for the site and building. A list of over 20 concepts was initially developed. The list was further refined to three concepts based primarily on the groups perception of community need. Those three concepts were: Indoor playground /youth party center — Facility would focus on youth /family orientated indoor and outdoor recreational activities that would produce high volumes of rentals. Potential amenities would include indoor playground, party rooms, serving kitchen, outdoor playground, climbing wall, outdoor turf area /landscaping, gaming room, wi -fi, and an area for outdoor activities /parties /small shows. It was determined this concept would have to be unique in design to become a draw across the city. It's believed this reuse would serve a need for the community to improve year -round options for this type of rental or use that most residents currently must leave Cottage Grove for. 2. Banquet/Meeting Facility — Facility would be restored to a more professional setting that would encourage residents, local organizations and business community members to rent the facility for parties, training, banquets, fundraising events, meetings, presentations and more. Potential amenities include kitchen, large open space for 50 -100 with option to split into multiple rooms as needed, outdoor components such as lawn and landscaping with recreational opportunities (such as lawn bowling or garden) as a unique feature of this particular rental option. This concept would need to have good curb appeal as renters would be looking to rent this facility for its appearance and uniqueness compared to other options. The facility may also have the flexibility to serve as a senior center during non - rented times. It's believed this level of facility would fill a need of the community for smaller gatherings of 50 -100 that is currently limited in terms of quantity and quality. 3. Teen Center— Facility would be renovated to target use for 12 -15 year olds. It would be designed for such activities as dancing, parties, gaming, lounging, music areas (karaoke, instrument practice, etc.) and events. Supervision of the facility would have to address curfews, noise, identification and loitering in the neighborhood. Programming for teens continues to be a perceived need of the community and this type of reuse would attempt to fill that void. Conceptual designs were then created by the architect to present at the City's All Commission meeting in January of 2012. The commissioners in attendance broke into small groups to discuss each of the options and provide feedback. Feedback suggested that creative reuse of the site was something the city should strongly consider. However, a well- designed facility and a complete business plan should be developed to assure success of the operation particularly considering the site location in the community. At the end of the meeting an informal vote was taken to see if any of the concepts were favored. Of 36 people in attendance, the vote totals were as follows: 1. Indoor Play Center 22 2. Teen Center 4 3. Banquet/Meeting Facility 3 No further action has taken place on the topic at this time. Conceptual Designs of the indoor play center concept are included as Appendix C. Potential Referendum Project Information Taking the series of work and study's performed by the city over the past decade, the City Council desires to prioritize the list of projects and bring those to the voters in the way of a community referendum. Thus, the Council is asking the Parks Commission, Community Center Task Force and Thompson Grove Community Hall Design Team for input. The City Council believes the priorities of the recreational needs of the community are as follows (in no particular order): 1. Outdoor Aquatic Facility 2. Indoor Playground /Play Center 3. Hamlet Park Project Completion 4. Land Acquisition for Future Athletic Complex This report will attempt to give a description of the capital costs as well as the operational costs to the city for each of the projects to further understand the implications of each project. It should be noted that capital costs will have a direct correlation with increased property taxes. The details of that level of increase will be explained later in this report. The operational costs will result in an increase to the general fund expenditures but may or may not result in an increased tax levy based on the discretion of the city council. Outdoor Aquatic Facility The City Council, Parks Commission and Community Center Task Force have continually identified the development of aquatic recreational opportunities a top priority. Although both indoor and outdoor options have been thoroughly discussed, an outdoor aquatic center is being suggested by the City Council for consideration at this time considering the significantly reduced capital and operation expenditures required. Appendix D of this report details capital and operating expenditures of various sized aquatic facility options. For the purposes of this report, an outdoor medium sized aquatic facility is suggested to be placed in an area where land and utilities are already accessible such as the East Ravine Civic Campus. This would compare in size and scope to the Hastings Family Aquatic Center (photos as Appendix E). The facility would include: 1. Zero entry pool access. 2. Shallow zone with interactive spray features and slides for tots and young children. 3. Deep zone with swim lanes and interactive features such as rope climbers, multiple slides and balancing pods for older children and teens. 4. Large deck area with shade structures and seating. 5. Supporting site features such as lawn, picnicking areas and playground. 6. Operations building with front desk, locker rooms, concession stand, lifeguard rooms, storage, mechanical rooms and rentable room. 7. Parking lot and site improvements. The capital costs of this size project would be approximately $6M. With an attendance projection of 50,000, operating losses incurred by the city on an annual basis would be approximately $75,000. Operating losses cost would be absorbed by the general fund via increased taxpayer levy. CAPITAL COST TO REFERENDUM = $6.5M IMPACT ON ANNUAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES = $75,000 Hamlet Park Proiect Completion The city owns an additional 35 acres of property to the south of the existing baseball complex. The intent of the property is for expansion of Hamlet Park as depicted in the master plans (2006) attached as Appendix F and G with the detailed cost estimate as Appendix H. Improvements would include expansion of ballfield complex, trails, playground(s), splash pad, multiple parking lots, parkway access between lots, utilitiy improvements and upgrading of existing open space areas along the north pond and 80 Street entrance point. Additional operating costs would include items such as additional equipment, field maintenance material (fertilizer, seed, dirt, etc.), equipment replacement costs and additional staffing. CAPITAL COST TO REFERENDUM = $5M IMPACT ON ANNUAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES = $100K Indoor PlaWParty Center As discussed in the Thompson Grove Community Hall Workshop Report, the city has been considering the idea of reusing the existing pool site and building as a youth play center. City Council believes a market opportunity exists to provide a clean, safe and well designed indoor play center for children and families to congregate, play and exercise. It is also recommended that the existing pool area on the site be redesigned to provide outdoor play opportunities to capture the interest of older children as well as capitalization of a usable facility for 365 days a year. The proposed facility would include: 1. Indoor play equipment area 2. Outdoor gated play area with artificial turf, play equipment, shelter and landscaping. 3. Lobby with snack bar and casual seating area 4. Three rentable rooms for birthday parties or other such activities 5. ADA accessible restroom facilities as well as a family restroom 6. Office 7. Maintenance rooms 8. Redesigned parking lot and site landscaping Appendix I of this report is a proposed business plan for such a facility. The report is thorough and provides an in -depth analysis of facility and program operations to better understand the financial impacts of such a facility. Attendance and income statement projections are based on actual results from comparable twin cities facilities such as Lookout Ridge (Woodbury), The Blast (Eagan) and Eagles Nest (New Brighton). CAPITAL COST TO REFERENDUM = $800K IMPACT ON ANNUAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES = ? ? ? ? ?? Land Acquisition for Future Athletic Complex, River Access and Trail Improvements To meet future athletic needs for the community of Cottage Grove, the city has expressed a desire to purchase agricultural land east of Lamar Park for future park expansion. The land purchased would not be developed in the near future but would be purchased at today's agricultural value dollars to hold for future expansion. Dependent on the negotiated purchase price, any remaining funds would be dedicated to the park trust fund where they could be used for other trail and or as seed money towards future park acquisition and development. An aerial photo is included as Appendix J to give reference to the parcel ideal for Lamar Park expansion. CAPITAL COST TO REFERENDUM = $700,000 IMPACT ON ANNUAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES = $0 Impact on Taxpayer Should a referendum pass, it is important to understand the true financial impacts of such an action on the average taxpayer. There will be an impact from both the capital costs from the passage of the referendum as well as additional operational costs which will be included in the city's general fund tax levy. Based on a median value of $205,000, the tax increase on that property would be as follows for each individual project (all scenarios are based on 2012 tax capacities /values /rates): Project Referendum Tax Levy (general fund increase) 1) Outdoor Aquatic Facility $36 /year $4 /year 2) Hamlet Park Expansion $25 /year $5 /year Indoor Play Center $4 /year $0 /year Land Acquisition, River and Trails $4 /year $0 /year Recommendation Recommend to council 1. To support or not support a Parks and Recreational Improvement referendum in 2012. 2. If the referendum is supported, recommend the following projects to City Council for placement on the November ballot: Option 1: Outdoor Aquatic Facility $6.5 Million Option 2: Parks and Recreational Improvements $6.5 Million �� N COMMUNITY CENTER TASK FORCE CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE FINAL REPORT April 2011 - - The Task Force was comprised of 23 members appointed by the City Council and solicited input from many resource persons. Task Force Members: 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 Wilwert 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 Waibel, YMCA Erik Carlson, Parks and Recreation Director, City of Inver Grove Heights Dan Haas, City of Shoreview Community Center Task Force Page 2 of 13 Final Report —April 2011 SUMMARY 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, with 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. . Purpose 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 Needs 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 2011 Short -Term Recommendations ■ Build 2 to 3 soccer fields ■ Add second ice sheet • Add softball and baseball fields to Hamlet Park • Improve accessibility • Renovate /replace park shelters • Prepare acquisition strategy for sports park Long -Term Recommendations: ■ Acquire additional 300 to 350 acres of parkland ■ Prepare Mississippi River park plan ■ Build 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 Facilities 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 offers 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 Motor Sports Bar has a meeting room that is often used. The room is relatively small for receptions or banquets. The VFW Hall 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 rooms 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 Community Center Task Force Page 4 of 13 Final Report —April 2011 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 • 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 Center 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 Page 5 of 13 Final Report —April 2011 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. These 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 Needs 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 maximums . ft. Aquatic Area 14,000 Gymnasium 12,000 - 12,500 Track 0-6,000 Weight/Cardio 6,500 - 7,000 Aerobic /Dance 1,200 - 1,500 Multi- purpose Room 3,500 - 5,000 Teen & Senior Area 2,000 - 2,500 Indoor Play Structure 1,200 - 1,500 Birthday Party Rooms 800 Support Spaces 9,000 - 9,500 Net Building 50,200 - 60,300 Circulation (18 %) 9,026 - 10,854 Total Building 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 participation 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 6 of 13 Final Report —April 2011 • 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 Middle 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 performed 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 Fitness, 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 Highlights • Market study conducted between November 19, 2010 and December 18, 2010. • Telephone survey of 350 residents. Response rate was 83 percent. • 76 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 of 18. • 89 percent of the respondents are familiar with the YMCA. Community Center Task Force Page 7 of 13 Final Report —April 2011 • 53 percent of the respondents are interested in programs for people 55 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 to 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: • An indoor aquatic center with a water slide, a play area for children, and a zero -entry pool • An indoor pool for lap swimming • A whirlpool • 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: • An indoor track for walking or running • Cardiovascular fitness machines • 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: • Group fitness classes • Yoga and Pilates classes • 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 Force Page 8 of 13 Final Report —April 2011 L01 61 • 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. • 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. Fitness Center. Respondants 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. Teen /Senior 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 acomplished at the White Bear Lake YMCA. Gymnasium with Walking Track. The Task Force determined that additional gym space was needed in the community. It was also learned that gyms are important conponents 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 - Funcition Space. Flexible space that could be used for meeting rooms or group exercise space should be included. Community Center Task Force Page 9 of 13 Final Report —April 2011 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. LOCATION The study investigated possible sites for a community center. sites by the Task Force, including three sites to be tested 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 Middle School Site - County Service Center/ Ravine Parkway Site - Cottage View Theater Property - Langdon Village Area This included analysis of various for support in the YMCA Market These sites were evaluated on the basis of the following criteria: • Ten -acre minimum parcel size • Access (street, pedestrian, bike, transit, etc.) • Proximity to population densities • Proximity to other facilities • Proximity to future population center • Acquisition costs • Outdoor recreation • Availability of utilities • Site preparation costs • Site and building expandability potential • 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 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 survey, 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 1, 2001 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. lefel-I &I 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. This range includes only the cost of building construction and does not include potential costs for land acquisition and street and utility improvements. 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: Chaska ; Maple Grove Maplewood Shoreview Y Operating Revenues 2,855,603 1,833,970 2,0 1,818,413 -- - -- p t - Op Ex Exp - - -- 3,721,112 ( ) - - - - - -- - 3,099,746 ( ) -- — - � (2,459, 366) -- - -- (2,176,287) _ _ Net operating Income (loss) - (8 (1,265,776) (421,756) (357,874 Taxes - - 274,561 _ ^Oth rev enues 125,591 - 14,990 - O ther e (178,256) - ( (21,156) - Income loss before tra 918, 174 1,265,776 153,361 ! 357,874 i from General Fund 168 ,000 1 7 88,000 ___J Transfer s ( 77,776 250,00 Ot her tran –n et - - – -- -- - - - -- - (126,568) 63,000 Total Income (loss) (876,742) (414,776) (75,585) (107,874) Depreciation 52 261,046 Community Center Task Force Page 11 of 13 Final Report —April 2011 Chaska, Maple Grove, and Maplewood all 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 loss, 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. 1 1 ATJ 4 Kel • • 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 Advantages: 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: • Higher capital cost to community • Ongoing operating subsidy Private Non - Profit Advantages: Center (e.g.; YMCA): . Provide community- centered activities and programs • Lower capital cost for community • No ongoing operating cost Disadvantages: • 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 Advantages: Center (e.g.; Lifetime . Generally perceived to be higher quality fitness facilities Fitness, L.A. Fitness): • Lowest capital cost for community • No ongoing operating cost Disadvantages: • No community control over activities and programs Highest cost Day use not allowed Community Center Task Force Page 12 of 13 Final Report —April 2011 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 addition, 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. • Indoor Playground. • Multi- function Space — Smaller rooms that could be combined to create one larger room. • Gymnasium with walking track. • Splash pads outside. 4) The Community Center should be built at the site of the new Public Safety /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. APPENDIXES 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 Force Page 13 of 13 Final Report —April 2011 N pp e,-\ j i y F� FIGURE 24 Q18. How favorably or unfavorably do you view the partnership between the YMCA and the City of Cottage Grove to develop a community center? (N =350) somewhat nfavorable 6% Don't know 4% avorable '/o ♦ 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 Findings Likely vs. Unlikely Joiners of the Community Center Very favorable How partnership between the YMCA and 57% 20% City of Cottage Grove is viewed 4&det ,Nielwhr &As&ciates,Irk. 52 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study Other Findings (Cont'd) Age 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. A om . m, Nichuhr&A.%xiates. Ine. 53 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study . 35-44 old 55 or older % Very favorable How partnership between the YMCA and 51% 49% 43% 39% City of Cottage Grove is 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. A om . m, Nichuhr&A.%xiates. Ine. 53 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study FIGURE 25 Q19. Do you pay property taxes to Washington County? (N =350) Q20. Amount of Property Tax Increase Residents Are Willing to Pay to Support a New Community Center* (N =338) $40 or more per year f t $30 to $39 per year : $20 to $29 per year '. 1 Unwilling to pay any increase Don't know 2% 19% 124% i 32% i 23 0% 50% 100% *Asked only of respondents who pay property taxes to Washington County. ♦ 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 center. Twenty -three percent are unwilling to pay any increase. Note that this question was worded as follows: "If 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. Knowing 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 $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 five residents said they would be willing to pay an increase of $40 or more per year to support the new community center. ♦ Over half indicated they are willing to pay between $20 and $39 per year more. k 1rm,Niebuhr& , A.wxiates,1rK:. 54 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study Other Findings Likely vs. Unlikely Joiners of the Community Center Age Amount of nronerty taxes willing to pay $0 - Unwilling to pay any increase in property taxes Likely Joiners of the Unlikely Joiners of the 16% C ommunity • p 33% Amount of property taxes willing to pay $0 - Unwilling to pay 30% 41% any increase in 9% 53% property taxes 20% 25% $40 or more per year 26% 27% $20 -$29 per year 34% 27% $30 -$39 per year 31% 13% $40 or more per year 26% 7% Age Amount of nronerty taxes willing to pay $0 - Unwilling to pay any increase in property taxes 20% 16% 21% 33% $20 -$29 per year 28% 30% 41% 29% $30 -$39 per year 28% 28% 20% 25% $40 or more per year 26% 27% 18% 13% A deimi, Nielvhr &Aswiates, Inc. 55 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study Other Findings Households with Children vs. Households without Children Residents who are likely to join the community center, residents 54 and under, and those who have children under 18 living in their households are more likely to agree to a property tax increase to support a new community center. Residents who 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 or older, and households without children. . d,Nn,\iehuhrV-cso Wes, Irv. 56 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study f - • • D • child under Amount of property taxes willing to pay $0 - Unwilling to pay any increase in 16% 30% property taxes $20 -$29 per year 28% 36% $30 -$39 per year 31% 19% $40 or more per year 25% 15% Residents who are likely to join the community center, residents 54 and under, and those who have children under 18 living in their households are more likely to agree to a property tax increase to support a new community center. Residents who 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 or older, and households without children. . d,Nn,\iehuhrV-cso Wes, Irv. 56 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study FIGURE 26 Q21. Do you support the use of Cottage Grove city funds to construct a new community center? (N =350) _Maybe 5% Don't know/ don't care 3% ♦ Seven in ten residents support the use of city funds to construct a new community center (Figure 26). A deism, In . 57 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study Other Findings Likely vs. Unlikely Joiners of the Community Center % Yes Support the use of Cottage Grove city 84% 43% funds to construct a new community center Age Households with Children vs. Households without Children % Yes Support the use of Cottage Grove city 78% 63% funds to construct a new community center 0 Residents 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. . iiermi,Nieb -Ar &: mAxiates,Irk. 58 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study 34 or younger 44 years .. .. 55 or old % Yes Support the use of Cottage Grove city 80% 77% 71% 61% funds to construct a new community center Households with Children vs. Households without Children % Yes Support the use of Cottage Grove city 78% 63% funds to construct a new community center 0 Residents 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. . iiermi,Nieb -Ar &: mAxiates,Irk. 58 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study FIGURE 27 Q22. Do you currently belong to a public or private health, fitness, or recreational facility? (N =350) Q23. How likely are you to renew your membership the next time it is due ?* (N =96) Definitely renew Probably renew 28% Probably not renew 1 4% Definitely not renew 11% Don't know 8% Not a membership 40 organization 0% 55% 50% 100% *Asked only of respondents who are members of a public or private health, fitness, or recreational facility. o More than one - quarter of residents currently belong to a public or private health, fitness, or recreational facility (Figure 27). Of these, over half will definitely renew their membership, and over one - quarter will probably renew. l kwi,iNielxihr&A.w) iates,Irk. 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study 59 Other Findings Age % Yes Currently belong to a public or private health, 44% 33% 25% 18% fitness, or recreational facility Households with Children vs. Households without Children % Yes Currently belong to a public or private health, 35% 21% fitness, or recreational facility 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. A nai, Nielxthr &Awiates. Inc, 60 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study FIGURE 28 Q22a. Is this a YMCA facility ?* (N =96) *Asked only of respondents who are members of a public or private health, fitness, or recreational facility. ® Of the 96 residents surveyed who belong to a fitness facility, three in ten belong to a YMCA (Figure 28). ;deiso+i, P�ielxihi fiAssociates lnc 61 2010 Cottage Grove Market Potential Study 3.1 • I� F. X 11 - 0 'r ' Z {£ y A, r N1 3 R t , la W? I I i ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING (NORTH ELEVATION) M A I 1f2 E4SIDN DATE COTTAGE GROVE POOL BUILDING ° A -5 AaRCHMecrs 1849 LAMPLIGHT DRW RANK BY MAT MCOONaID D 6541 85THSTREETSOUTH WOODBURY, MINNESOTA55125 551 i3soolt- _ 2-0 0 a_o �wws�on avEnve sa,4TU I A m � L b Ziu - -O f - - - - --- TMLA n a �.� , A� __ °° °__- -_ °=—j -- � Y I N _ B z N I c� ca - - - - -, - - - -- ,• •; 1 I�. ; i `mm � I v I � I I I I I j I m I V I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 / 1 I 1 4 t ,'I I I � 1 D D I I �r- N D A I I I �I I I I I I 1 I I I u N 20009 r � G 9 a• a 9 r a ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN MT SM °A COTTAGE GROVE POOL BUILDING 01-1 A-7 BY ARCHITECTS 1849 W.'HIGHT GM/E 6501 85TH E GR STREET SOUTH 4'f00GBl1RY, MIIIllE50TA 551]5 COTTAGOVE MN - D ---------------------------------- ---- M1 i egg -------------------------------- FLOOR PLAN - RECREATIONALIBIRTHDAY PARTY FACILITY SHEET )ATE IREMSION DATE 1 COTTAGE GROVE POOL BUILDING A-3 01-13-12 �6541 ARCHITECTS )RAM BY IM — PLIGHT DRIVE MAT NCOONAID COTTAGE GROVE, MN STREET SSMM M IITDBURY, "11111 app dik a1 C -1 N O N -1 � O O - LL O b O O O N C CD O N C Q � o 0 Y 0° 0 0 c O Y c Y C X W Y O Q O 0 p O E O O Z � - O C O O O Z v O m 2° G 0 0 T c L!1 -1 v> in N U CD ry l0 O l0 r- T N ci LL 1 V). LT V1 111 V} a aJ o ~ C 3 C c O C O 0 O O O^ __ O Y U — Y Y E — o O 6 z 111 n Ln p ry c-I t/} aa) m V} c � c tr} O E W O OU O O O L1l C Y ° 00 M O u'1 O {/} v c c C c Cl OH C O •- - O _ O _ O - tq v u E.E v>• E Ems: v, N CD L Ln ci lD I� Ln t/T u Q. m O m a1 0 p p L11 O 0 O 00 O N m Ln N U C a, E O p N 0 O 0 O 0 C- T CD O O a1 O 7 6 m O I l0 V Ol CD a v i O O m O o a ° o 0 a Y co ° ° Lb ci N o Ol N \ N \ LT -.0 -1 0 m W V Ol Ol O u a w Y Cll u c rj LL = m m v L° O 0 O O O O O Cl C 0 O - O _ r O - o - : Q 00 o 0 . 0 . L! Y z u c Y c�-I a) cN-I � Lf) O O c M O - O ID (j O 0 o - m C -1 '4 C W (UO Y Q L J = J a W U U U u U m C m O d o a N O m - 0 a m =$ 6 E 15 Q a1 CL m Q O w U E ;u c U LL Q w 2 Y W Q U U O V) a1 -1 N O N -1 O O O - LL O b O O O a J O N Ln E OU N < �t c N N c Y C X W O Y C O G p O E O O 0 � - O C O O O T D O m 2° G 0 0 c L!1 -1 v> in 0 U CD ry l0 O l0 r- O N ci LL 1 V). LT V1 111 V} m aJ 7 0 3 O° zi C O O Y 16 O ° O O^ O O O 1 C a) •0 Y Y M O w 00 l0 N w tr) z Y n v a O c O O 00 O O O O OU O O C N L1l C Y ° 00 M O u'1 O {/} 0 Lr m 0 L.f) 0 N pp Cl OH w cc v 0 00 cl tq V} v>• v? v>• V? v>• v, N m Q1 T u Q. m O m a1 0 p p L11 O V O 00 O N m Ln N O C a, E O p N 0 O 0 O 0 C- T CD O O a O 7 6 m O O l0 V CD CD a v a1 m m O o a ° o 0 a O m O o E a) 7 Q a T, m w V m :u s u a w Y LL u c LL = `6 ¢ v L° a1 -1 N O N -1 00 C t/) Y C X W O O O G p 0 0 0 0 O O p G G G G 9 0 o L!1 -1 00 O O U CD ry l0 O l0 r- 00 W N ci LL 1 V). LT V1 111 V} V' L} aJ zi C O a O C a •0 0 Y T > 0 E O O O O O O O OU O O c ° ° 0 Ll1 0 Lr 0 L.(1 0 L.f) 0 N pp Cl OH N n n 00 cl . V} v>• v? v>• V? v>• v, N m Q1 Q +_ m a1 F a) O u Q O E C a, E O p 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O C- T CD O O O O 7 6 m O O l0 CD CD 00 O o O m m O 0 Q O 0 O O O O O Cl C 0 O - O _ .� _ O - o - : Q 00 o 0 . 0 . L! Y z u c Y c�-I a) cN-I l.o Lf) 1 1\ 0 L11 c M N LO O M 1 0 o - m C -1 -1 V L L Y (� O C U C m c O a Y a N @ Q a m =$ 6 a1 15 Q O a E u o m a Y O m O C- m - O U C - O LL 07 c v a c Q N > _ LO m G 'C �n m m E c m a C7 m E J Ln m Y N J N O O 2 w e m w m O O O ' O - 0 u E _m a-+ 0 O a o a m - Y 'X L OA U c c 0 0 a w= t/). -1 N O N -1 00 c-1 t/) Y C a O m L O a O •0 Y T > 0 .N 3 Ln o m a) c-1 (.0 00 v > c rl t/? V} v>• v? v>• V? v>• v, N o Y +_ m a1 F a) u Q O E ' u Y C- 7 6 O O m O O 0 O O O O O Cl G O O O O o a) Y O 0 0 0 0 0 lD L! Y u c 111 O O O 111 T 1 1\ - a1 U L1 M N LO O M 1 c-1 o - m C -1 -1 O C C m a Y a ° u O L Q- N U w U C - O �p U 7 0 Q Y m Y O m O " lD lT (T N u ? (1) m - 1 u t/). LT LT v? Y 0 u 'a � N N O Y Q1 � Y � Cu u u O O Q Y Y O _0 m E a c a a, Q O E U a) U u Y 7 Q L Q m O O IV m m m cy Q1 v L1 tOi1 LL 6 a.., > a1 - c m ' • C L C an O a) _ iD m G m in O O 2 un c O u m O O O O u c m L O = Y Y YO O 'O O - O O O '3 •X v= 0 0 a w 2 Z ) K pp, A e Hastings Family Aquatic Center V IT7 so I -4 6 Ara f DZN \� F WAS y 96 N, x v- 'c zu €. o / J L� 0 ° ro O N IJ W W K Q ao 0 I t ME G q o Es - E Ee�o E.� - o 0 4 a •S `N' e a °ao� b0 a .2 c °— Gw � v c ev d PL' m °v5�°' .'f '+ -e •o w 14 - E -5 ° e 'e °o R F '� �. M °. a y� a ° s 6 s_ w � K e > �+` v o L F •o o G F «° y Q F � a w Q fY � p�PAd ;X 0 HAMLET PARK EXPANSION 6/17/2011 A) PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS Item Unit Qty Cost/Unit Total ACCESS ROAD r12 x15507 Existing to Future Ballfields B618 Conc. Curb /Gutter LF 3100 $ 10.00 $ 31,000.00 1 1/2" Bit. Wear Course Ton 188 $ 60.00 $ 11,280.00 2" Bit. Base Course Ton 250 $ 60.00 $ 15,000.00 2" CL -5 Gravel - Add Rock Ton 250 $ 12.00 $ 3,000.00 Restoration with Seed Ac 0.75 $ 2,000.00 $ 1,500.00 Storm Sewer LS 1 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 Landscaping LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Irrigation LS 1 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 Luminaire & Pole Type -A Ea 12 $ 2,500.00 $ Total $ 98,780.00 91st STREET EXTENSION [405r150 8618 Conc. Curb /Gutter LF 300 $ 10.00 $ 3,000.00 1 1/2" Bit. Wear Course Ton 62 $ 60.00 $ 3,720.00 1 1/2" Bit. Binder Course Ton 62 $ 60.00 $ 3,720.00 2" Bit. Base Course Ton 85 $ 60.00 $ 5,100.00 8" CL -5 Gravel Base Ton 330 $ 12.00 $ 3,960.00 Restoration with Seed Ac 0.08 $ 2,000.00 $ 160.00 Storm Sewer LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Irrigation LS 1 $ 7,000.00 $ Total $ 24,660.00 ACCESS ROAD AROUND FUTURE BALLF/ELDS r12x17507 B618 Conc. Curb /Gutter LF 3500 $ 10.00 $ 35,000.00 1 1/2" Bit. Wear Course Ton 220 $ 60.00 $ 13,200.00 2" Bit. Base Course Ton 295 $ 60.00 $ 17,700.00 2" CL -5 Gravel - Add Rock Ton 295 $ 12.00 $ 3,540.00 Restoration with Seed Ac 0.8 $ 2,000.00 $ 1,600.00 Storm Sewer LS 1 $ 28,500.00 $ 28,500.00 Landscaping LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Irrigation LS 1 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 Luminaire & Pole Type -A Ea 12 $ 2,500.00 $ 30,000.00 Luminaire & Pole Type -A Ea 2 $ 2,500.00 $ Total $ 141,540.00 NORTH PARKING LOT 166 x2607 Future 8618 Conc. Curb /Gutter LF 718 $ 10.00 $ 7,180.00 1 1/2" Bit. Wear Course Ton 175 $ 60.00 $ 10,500.00 2" Bit. Base Course Ton 235 $ 60.00 $ 14,100.00 2" CL -5 Gravel -Add Rock Ton 235 $ 12.00 $ 2,820.00 Restoration with Seed Ac 0.12 $ 2,000.00 $ 240.00 Signage & Striping LS 1 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 Storm Sewer LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Landscaping LS 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 Irrigation LS 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 Luminaire & Pole Type -A Ea 2 $ 2,500.00 $ 5,000.00 Total $ EAST PARKING LOT r66 x2607 Future B618 Conc. Curb /Gutter LF 1 1/2" Bit. Wear Course Ton 2" Bit. Base Course Ton 2" CL -5 Gravel - Add Rock Ton Fine Grading /topsoil LS Restoration with Seed Ac Signage & Striping LS Storm Sewer LS Landscaping LS Irrigation LS Luminaire & Pole Type -A Ea SOUTH PARKING LOT r203 5(5107 Future B618 Conc. Curb /Gutter LF 1 1/2" Bit. Wear Course Ton 2" Bit. Base Course Ton 2" CL -5 Gravel - Add Rock Ton Fine Grading/Topsoil LS Restoration with Seed Ac Signage & Striping LS Landscaping LS Irrigation LS Luminaire & Pole Type -A Ea B) PARK UTILITIES IMPROVEMENTS SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION Connect to existing stub 8" PVC, SDR 35, 10' -15' 4' Dia. Manhole Rock Excavation Pipe Bedding WATERMA/N EXTENSION Connect to Existing Watermain 6" DIP Watermain, 6" Gate Valve Hydrant 718 $ 10.00 $ 7,180.00 175 $ 60.00 $ 10,500.00 235 $ 60.00 $ 14,100.00 235 $ 12.00 $ 2,820.00 1 50.00 $20,000 $ 20,000.00 0.12 $ 2,000.00 $ 240.00 1 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 2 $ 2,500.00 $ 5,000.00 Section -A Subtotal $ Total $ 3540 $ 10.00 $ 35,400.00 1050 $ 60.00 $ 63,000.00 1400 $ 60.00 $ 84,000.00 1400 $ 12.00 $ 16,800.00 1 50.00 $20,000 $ 20,000.00 0.25 $ 2,000.00 $ 500.00 1 $ 800.00 $ 800.00 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 4 $ 2,500.00 $ 10,000.00 Total $ Section -A Subtotal $ Ea 1 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 LF 1040 $ 20.00 $ 20,800.00 Ea 3 $ 2,500.00 $ 7,500.00 CY 100 $ 50.00 $ 5,000.00 LF 1040 $ 1.00 $ 1,040.00 Total $ Ea 1 $ 850.00 $ 850.00 LF 700 $ 30.00 $ 21,000.00 Ea 2 $ 800.00 $ 1,600.00 Ea 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 47,340.00 67,340.00 232,500.00 612,160.00 34,840.00 Rock Excavation CY 100 $ 50.00 $ 5,000.00 Irrigation Pipe Bedding LF 700 $ 1.00 $ 700.00 LS 1 $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00 Outfield & Sideline Fencing Total $ 31,150.00 PARK/BALLFIELD LIGHTING 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 Player Benches w /cement slab LS 1 $ Luminaire & Pole Type - Ballfield Ea 4 $ 6,000.00 $ 24,000.00 32,000.00 #6 &10 Wire in Conduit LF 10500 $ 5.00 $ 52,500.00 $ Install Feed Point Ea 2 $ 5,500.00 $ 11,000.00 70,000.00 Playground Equipment LS 1 $ 50,000.00 $ Total $ 87,500.00 LS 1 $ Section -B Subtotal 5,000.00 $ 118,650.00 C) EXISTING BALLFIELD COMPLEX IMPROVEMENTS 1 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 NEWACCESS ROAD !12x15507 Existing Ballfield Complex $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 B618 Conc. Curb /Gutter LF 3100 $ 10.00 $ 31,000.00 Surface Excavations LS 1 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 1 1/2" Bit. Wear Course Ton 188 $ 60.00 $ 11,280.00 2" Bit. Base Course Ton 250 $ 60.00 $ 15,000.00 8" CL -5 Gravel Base Ton 1000 $ 12.00 $ 12,000.00 Restoration with Seed Ac 0.75 $ 2,000.00 $ 1,500.00 Building Demolitions LS 2 $ 15,000.00 $ 30,000.00 Landscaping LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Storm Sewer LS 1 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 Irrigation LS 1 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 Entrance Monument (91 st Street) LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 New Building Storage /Shelter LS 1 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 Renovation existing park struct. LS 1 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 Existing Trail Repair (Around Pond) LS 1 $175,000 $ 175,000.00 Interpretive Signs LS 1 $5,000 $ 5,000.00 Total $ 979,780.00 Section -C Subtotal $ 979,780.00 D) FUTUREBALLFIELD COMPLEX IMPROVEMENTS Field Material: ag lime,top soil LS 1 $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00 Irrigation LS 1 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 Backstop Fencing LS 1 $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00 Outfield & Sideline Fencing LS 1 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 Player Benches w /cement slab LS 1 $ 28,000.00 $ 28,000.00 Spectator Benches LS 1 $ 32,000.00 $ 32,000.00 Concession Building LS 1 $ 550,000.00 $ 550,000.00 Picnic Shelters LS 2 $ 35,000.00 $ 70,000.00 Playground Equipment LS 1 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 Ball Equipment: bases, posts LS 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Flags /Poles LS 1 $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 Signage /Scoreboards LS 1 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 Total $ 1,072,000.00 Section -D Subtotal Splash Pad LS 1 $368,000 $368,000 North Hamlet Park Improvements LS 1 $550,000 $550,000 (Drawings completed) Section - E Subtotal A) PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS B) PARK UTILITIES IMPROVEMENTS C) EXISTING BALLFIELD COMPLEX IMPROVEMENTS D) FUTUREBALLFIELD COMPLEX IMPROVEMENTS E) ADDITIONAL AMMENITIES Construction Total 30% Engineering, Legal, Testing, Survey 10% Contigency $ 1,072,000.00 $918,000 $ 612,160.00 $ 118,650.00 $ 979,780.00 $ 1,072,000.00 $ 918,000.00 $ 3,700,590.00 $ 4,810,767.00 $ 5,291,843.70 COTTAGE GROVE PLAY CENTER BUSINESS PLAN 6541 85th St. Cottage Grove, MN55o16 This business plan is for an indoor /outdoor children's playground facility to be housed at the current municipal pool building. The plan provides a good description of market analysis, operational projections and the methods that will be used to appeal to the community's family recreational needs and desires while achieving a competitive advantage in this industry. Tables of Contents Summary Page 2 Mission and Strategy Page 3 Market Analysis Page 4 Competitive Analysis Page 8 Financial Analysis Page 10 1 Proposed Business The Cottage Grove Play Center will provide a safe, clean, and stimulating environment for physically active children aged 12 and under to play in and explore. The facility will be supervised to ensure children's safety, while challenging them to reach, think, interact, explore, and have fun. The indoor portion of the facility will be approximately 5,500 square feet with 1,500 of that being dedicated solely to the indoor playground area. The remainder is used for common areas, restrooms, offices and mechanical rooms. Another 13,500 square feet of outdoor back yard space can be further utilized as play or gathering areas. Indoor play areas will have soft indoor play equipment and flooring with extensive padding and no sharp edges while the outdoor play area will closely resemble standard park play equipment and be designed to interest older children as well. For family celebrations, such as birthdays and special occasions, the facility will offer private party rooms. A desire of the business model would be to assure the facility is as rewarding for the parents as it is for the children as they spend time together. Location The Cottage Grove Indoor Playground facility will be located at the current municipal pool site within the Thompson Grove neighborhood. Within a ten -mile drive from this location, there are at least 1o,000 children at or under the age of 12, living in a household with median annual income exceeding $70,000. Furthermore, we continue to believe Cottage Grove will be a fast - growing community consisting of a majority of families with children as it states in the city's 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Management Business operations will rely mostly on part- time /seasonal staff. It would be anticipated that a half to three - quarters managerial position would oversee facility operations while receiving support from current Parks and Recreation staff for management, marketing, maintenance and administrative functions. MISSION AND STRATEGY The Cottage Grove Play Center will be a destination family entertainment center with a basic focus on children's play and fitness for ages birth to 12 years. These activities will be packaged into a safe, clean, climate - controlled, supervised environment for children aged 12 and under to exercise and have fun while stimulating their imagination and challenging them physically. The indoor play center is based on the premise that if you set a large number of children inside a safe, yet challenging, imaginative soft playground area, they are going to have fun. They are also going to develop basic motor skills, social skills, muscle tone, and self - confidence. Furthermore, the parents can enjoy hours of close interaction with their children in a safe, secure, and stimulating environment. Currently, McDonald's is the only indoor children's playground in Cottage Grove. In addition, there are relatively few alternatives for children's birthday parties. The Cottage Grove Play Center will be able to immediately fill this void in the market by providing extensive recreational and entertainment facilities for children to play in and explore. Within 1 year, we'd expect the Cottage Grove Play Center will be known as the primary recreation facility for children aged 1 to 12 and the destination of choice for children to enjoy birthday parties with friends. The Cottage Grove Play Center will base its appeal on providing a stimulating indoor and outdoor environment for children to play in, while adhering to the strictest quality control standards emphasizing excellence in service, safety, security, sanitation, cleanliness, and creativity. It would be suggested that a unique outdoor play area also be included in the site design to assure that the facility is fully functional and marketable 365 days a year. It is vital that the outdoor component is unique and well kept to the point of making it a draw beyond standard play components located at parks and schools throughout the community. 7ffWA Al Background A market opportunity exists in the Cottage Grove area to service children aged 12 and under with a supervised indoor play and exercise facility. Market research shows that children often do not get the required amount of exercise to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Indoor playgrounds provide an outlet for active children during inclement weather or when the temperature is too hot or cold for outdoor play. Furthermore, parents often desire an environment for their children to play for a short period of time while the parent can read, work, use a computer or socialize with other parents in this controlled setting. Indoor playgrounds serve an increasing need in our society. Studies show that American children are less active and less fit than they were even ten years ago, probably due to increasing time in front of television sets and high calorie -high fat diets. Studies have also shown that less active children are more likely to be overweight, and overweight children have a greater propensity to become overweight adults. As people have become more aware of the healthy aspects of their lifestyles, enrollment in adult health clubs, aerobic exercise, recreational activities, and attention to nutrition has increased dramatically. This trend will continue as parents attempt to provide a healthier lifestyle for their children. Another area of parental concern is their children's safety. Nationally, as well as locally, concern for the physical well -being of children has created a further need for a safe play environment. This concern shows no sign of diminishing. Product Description The Cottage Grove Play Center will strive to appeal to value - oriented customers who desire hours of entertainment for their children at reasonable prices. The play center will be competitively priced at $5.00 for unlimited play which is comparable to other like facilities and forms of entertainment. However, the distinguishing feature of the Cottage Grove Play Center will be its clean, safe, secure environment for children to play in, both inside and outside play areas, private rentable party rooms and hours of child entertainment while parents can either relax or participate in their child's activities. 4 There will also be a snack bar that will serve food and beverages that appeal to children and parents such as pizza, popcorn, pop, fruit juice, coffee /cappuccino and candy. The play center would have four private party rooms and will offer packages for birthdays and other special occasions hosted by staff members, significantly reducing the hassle and mess for parents. The design of the rooms will allow for groups as large as 25 children at a time. Food and cake for the parties may be provided by the party organizer at their own discretion. An option for a River Oaks catered box lunch and /or cake from Cub Foods or Dairy Queen will also be provided. Advertising The Cottage Grove Play Center will reach its target customers through such advertising media as direct mailings, internet, social media, family magazines, and direct marketing to family -based facilities in Cottage Grove such as the ice arena and schools. Advertising and promotion campaigns will be funded through operating cash flows. The play center will initially promote its concept through a Grand Opening advertisement campaign employing an invitation -only free evening for local mom's club, daycares and community leaders and their children. Location Characteristics The Cottage Grove Play Center will support both destination users as well walk -in users from the neighborhood /community. Since the majority of indoor playground use and birthday parties are pre - planned events, the exact location of the play center with respect to other major shopping centers does not appear as critical as it is in other retail business. Once customers are aware of the Cottage Grove Play Center, they will likely return multiple times. We believe our initial forecast of a 33% return rate of customers to be conservative in nature. The awareness of our location will develop over several months due to advertising and word of mouth. Hours of Operation Initially, the play center operating hours will be from 10 AM to 8 PM Monday through Saturday and Noon to 6 PM on Sunday. Hours will adapt as needed to maximize usage and profitability of the facility. Unique Market Characteristics Weekly Usage Patterns With 6o to 65% of the costs fixed and only 35 to 40% variable, even small increases in capacity utilization can have a major impact on profitability. With a projected 6o% of revenue coming on weekends, it will be important to effectively utilize capacity on weekdays. It is suggested the play center provide the following services to increase customer usage during this period: group discounts to mom's clubs, day care centers, churches, community groups, schools (preschool, private schools, home - schooled), etc., a frequent user card to encourage repeat customer visits, nutritious food to attract health- conscious families, and promoting birthday parties during the week. It will be important for staff to provide additional focus for marketing during no- school weekdays as these should be large revenue - generating days. Seasonality The winter months are anticipated to be the strongest, whereas the beginning of spring and school year will likely be the weakest periods. On a quarterly basis, the Cottage Grove Play Center's best quarter should be the first, followed by the third, second, and fourth quarters. To manage this seasonal variation in customer demand, management will actively monitor weekly sales volume and maintain a flexible staffing arrangement. Threat of a Fad Product There is a risk that children may tire of the concept of indoor padded playgrounds. To keep the concept fresh, staff will strive to incorporate moveable play equipment, skill games, and /or new marketing concepts annually. Safety /Liability Concerns To reduce the potential for injuries and lawsuits, the play center will employ every means possible to protect children from hurting themselves on the play equipment. Furthermore, the play center will employ trained staff to continuously monitor each play area and enforce the rules of the Play Center. The Play Center will be designed to provide parental viewing on all sides and at all times. Parents will also be encouraged to play in the equipment with their children (knee pads will be available for free). In addition, security wristbands will be issued to each person upon entering to ensure the child's safety and prohibit stranger abduction of children. Strict security measures will be observed at all times. Prior to opening the facility, a standardized list of cleaning and maintenance procedures will be developed to assure the facility is always sanitary and safe for play. The team of staff will be expected to work towards a germ -free environment by providing adequate washing and sanitization stations, informational signage and proper sanitization training for all employees. The city will work with its loss control provider to analyze and provide appropriate liability coverages for this facility. 19 COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS Nature of Competition Competition in the children's recreation and entertainment industry consists of a highly diverse group of children's activities, including television, libraries, YMCA's, health clubs, parks and other recreation centers, movies, the zoo, and related activities. All of these activities provide for enjoyment by both the parents and the children. However, an indoor playground offers a safe, clean indoor environment for physical activity that is specifically designed for children. It provides children with the security and the skill development opportunities that parents desire. The indoor playground industry is relatively new. Among the existing players in the indoor playground industry, competition is fragmented. Presently, McDonald's Playland is the only indoor children's playground operating in Cottage Grove. Within a 20 minute drive from Cottage Grove primary competitors may be Lookout Ridge (Woodbury), Wooddale Fun Zone (Woodbury), The Blast (Eagan) and The Giggle Factory (Hudson). According to the owners /operators of those facilities, they all consider their indoor play areas to be highly successful and well- received by the public. Competitive Advantage After reviewing the characteristics and environment of each of the above competitors, we believe that the Cottage Grove Play Center offers several advantages over the existing competitors. First, the play center offers parents the ability to bring in their own food and snacks to keep the cost of entertainment nominal. Most comparative facilities do not allow customers to bring in their own food leaving the customer having to spend more money on products that they may not desire for their children to consume. Second, the Cottage Grove Play Center will encourage parents to participate in their children's recreational activities through a careful layout of the playpark which ensures high visibility of the play areas and close proximity for the parents. Third, the Cottage Grove Play Center will be the only indoor play center that also incorporates an outdoor /backyard play area. This well designed and manicured component of the facility should make its use a focal point of the community for 365 days a year. Contingency Planning In the event the Play Center acceptance is slower than anticipated, expenses can be reduced as follows: Since the majority of the Play Center employees are part -time and only scheduled to work up to two weeks in advance, the employment level can quickly and easily be adjusted to operating conditions. These savings can significantly reduce operating expenses in the event of unforseen circumstances, lowering the break -even volume of the operation. w e The Cottage Grove Play Center will derive its sales revenues from admissions, party room rentals, snack bar operations, birthday party packages, and souvenir sales. A detailed description of each component of revenue is provided below. It should be noted that in all cases the forecasted revenues are meant to be conservative in nature. As you'll see comparisons to other facilities the projections will appear low but that is done with intent to forecast worst -case scenarios. Admissions /Games Admission fees will be $5.00 per child (ages 1 -15) which includes unlimited play in all of the play areas. Adults will be admitted free of charge and encouraged to play in the play areas with their children. This price compares favorably to other forms of family entertainment such as movies where both adults and children must pay admission. It is also comparable to other indoor playground facilities in the metro. The goal of the Cottage Grove Play Center is for a visit to the facility to become a regular family event. Reflecting this goal, a frequent user card will enable a customer to receive discounts off future admissions. In addition, the play center will offer group discounts for groups of 12 or more at $4.00 per person to encourage day care centers, youth group activities, and clubs to visit the playpark. Usage is projected in this report based on both actual usage data from Lookout Ridge (Woodbury) and Eagles Nest (New Brighton) as well as analysis of census data from Cottage Grove. Census data suggests there are approximately 7,500 children under the age of 12 in Cottage Grove. We believe that at least 65% of children in this age category will visit at least one time per year. This appears to be a conservative estimate in that it does not account for St. Paul Park, Newport or any other visitors from outside Cottage Grove. Further, we believe that of those initial visitors, approximately 33% will return for multiple visits five times or more. In total this results in 12,goo admissions per year. Annual admission projections as compared to other like facilities: Cottage Grove Play Center 12,900 Lookout Ridge (Woodbury) 31,600 Eagles Nest (New Brighton) 45,000 Snack Bar The snack bar will offer food products that appeal to both children and parents alike. It will offer traditional children's favorites such as pizza and popcorn as shown below on a sample menu with all products priced at a gross profit margin of no less than 50%: 10" Small Pizza with 1 Item $8 12" Large Pizza with 1 Item $10 Hot Dogs $2 Popcorn $2 Chips, crackers, granola bars $1 Fruit Ice Cream Bars $2 Beverages Soda, Juice, Milk, Juice, Coffee, Cappuccino, water $2 Birthday Party Packages For family celebrations the center will offer packages for parties of 8 of more, consisting of a two hour limited time of play, private party room rental and optional boxed lunches, pizza, birthday cake and ice cream, and decorations. We believe the facility will average at least 7 birthday parties per week (mostly on weekends) equating to approximately $15,000 in revenue. Once again, this appears to be conservative when comparing to the Eagle's Nest where birthday party rentals generate approximately $120,000 in annual 11 revenue (no data available for this category from Lookout Ridge). The birthday package pricing will be as follows: Standard Admission -$4 per child Party Room Rental -$4o /two hours Boxed lunch -$4 per lunch Cake /ice cream -$2 per serving Decorations - $ 20 per room (balloons, streamers, etc.) Gift Shop /Souvenirs The gift shop will contain various souvenir merchandise available for sale such as t- shirts, wristbands and socks with the play center logo. Pricing of these items would be based on a 25% gross profit margin. 12 Performance Projections Projected Revenue Source Admissions Snack Bar Parties /Rentals Gifts /Souvenirs Total Revenue Projected Expense Source Personnel Maintenance Utilities Advertising Resale Items Insurance Taxes Capital Outlay Total Expense Revenue % of Total $64,000 70% $10,000 11% $15,000 16% $2,000 2% $91,000 Expense % of Total $40,000 48% $5,000 6% $6,000 7% $5,000 6% $6,000 7% $6,000 7% $6,000 7% $10,000 12% $84,000 NET INCOME = $ 7,000 Comparable Facilities: Revenue Expense Net Income Lookout Ridge $173,000 $73,000 $100,000 Eagle's Nest $334000 $111,000 $223,000 ** *Expenses include capital investment into replacing equipment every io yrs at Eagle's Nest. Both sites did not include general building maintenance, expense or utilities as they are housed within community centers so an estimate of 35% of total expenditures has been added to account for these expenses. 13 6 - � - A Oki . ° A� - - - } �• -t;� •, �► ♦�•��r ♦.. ► �_ ♦•-� is Lg Lamar Fi4ilds If IN low F OR M 4 I RS 71r