The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013-01-26 PACKET 10.a� DC C6 � N � O O N Q � N 0 DC a�i c/1 a� DC C6 � .o V 4� 0 c/1 ry V to 0 a� DC C6 City of Cotta Grove J Minnesota To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Zac Dockter, Parks and Recreation Director CC: Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator Robin Roland, Finance Director Date: January 23, 2013 Subject: Park Referendum Project Alternative Analysis Introduction On November 6, 2012, Cottage Grove voters declined to support a referendum to expand the community's recreational services to include the following projects: 1. Expansion /renovation of Hamlet Park 2. Indoor /Outdoor Play Center 3. Outdoor Family Aquatic Facility Since that time, staff has researched alternative options to providing these additional services. Discussion After preliminary discussion, there appears to be consensus that the outdoor family aquatic center should be eliminated from the project scope without referendum supported funding. However, the Hamlet Park and Play Center concepts still merit further discussion given the following assumptions: 1. The outdoor municipal pool site is closed and vacant. Reuse of the facility is still a high priority considering the facilities historical significance and its potential for revenue generation. 2. The City owns and has rough - graded the land at Hamlet Park needed for the park/ballfield expansion. Further, the City still has in place a master plan for Hamlet Park improvements that should be considered regardless of the referendum process. Assuming the Play Center and Hamlet Park concepts are still desired for the community, there are two options the Council may wish to consider to move these projects forward. The options include: 1. Move both projects forth as proposed in referendum master plans 2. Move both projects forth with phasing and reduction in project scope Option 1: Move Both Projects Forth as Proposed in Master Plans The City does not have sufficient cash balance nor a revenue source in the existing Capital Improvements Plan to fulfill the estimated $7 Million in project related expenses. Should the council wish to pursue the projects as designed, an alternative financing option would be needed. Alternative financing sources would have to include raising the tax levy and /or increasing debt. Option 2: Move Both Projects Forth with Phasing and Reduction in Proiect Scope This option provides the City the ability to reprioritize and phase each project to fit into existing financial constraints. However, the City would need to analyze its entire financial system to plan for such a move. As such, the numbers reflected below do not necessarily guarantee a source of funds for the project without raising taxes or debt. It is simply proposed as an alternative financing mechanism to begin painting the picture of how a project reduced in scope can aid in achieving the end goal. The Play Center concept cannot truly change in scope without changing the service provided. If the Play Center is still the desired use for that facility, the $850,000 cost estimate must remain. However, if an alternative use is in mind, project costs may begin as low as $375,000 for the "vanilla shell' concept. Hamlet Park on the other hand has many options for reprioritizing or phasing. The table below depicts one example of how the original project could be reduced in scope. The table also prioritizes each improvement to create a starting point for project phasing. All costs include 30% indirect costs and 10% contingency To better understand the reduced project scope, below are the key differences between the reduced project and the original master plan (as presented in the Hamlet Park Feasibility Study): 1. Eliminate one of three parking lots. 2. Eliminate connecting road /parkway between the existing and new ballfields. 3. Eliminate baseball field lighting 4. Over 60% reduction in landscaping /beautification throughout site 5. Eliminate two of five newly proposed shade structures 6. Eliminate water /sewer to existing complex 7. Reduce pedestrian lighting 8. Eliminate splash pad 9. Reduce scope of playground expansion /renovation 10. Eliminate most north pond improvements with exception of trail rehabilitation and a downsized landscaping feature at 80 St/Hadley entrance point. Using this data as a starting point, an example of funding ability through utilization of park related funds might be planned as follows in the Capital Improvements Plan: Phase Scope Priority Expense Years I Play Center $850,000 1 -3 II Expansion High $2,543,000 4 -8 II Existing Improvements High $13,000 9 III North Pond Improvements High $90,000 10 IV Expansion Medium $115,000 11 V Existing Improvements Medium $395,000 12 -14 VI North Pond Improvements Medium $135,000 15 -16 VII Expansion Low $200,000 17 -18 VIII Existing Improvements Low $0 n/a IX North Pond Improvements Low $0 n/a Recommendation Provide staff direction on scheduling Hamlet Park and Thompson Grove Pool Building improvements into the Capital Improvements Plan.