Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Council Action Form dated March 28, 2006 4 ITEM: Date: March 28, 2006 COUNCIL ACTION FORM SUBJECT: FUTURE RECREATIONAL FACILITY NEEDS BACKGROUND: In the fall of 2005 the Parks and Recreation Commission hosted public workshop meetings related to recreation facility development. Citizens voiced a variety of ideas on how the City should proceed with enhancing facilities. Unfortunately, no consensus surfaced these meetings regarding which new building components (gyms/indoor pool/weight room/outdoor pool) to include in a new facility. Those participating in the process seemed to concur with the following points: • Recreation facility enhancement/development is needed within the community. • The capital budget should be limited to approximately $15 million in capital ($10 million in City bonds and $5 million in private/State grant). • The operational tax subsidy for enhanced existing facilities (Carr, Municipal, Community Center) and/or a new facilities should not exceed $400,000 to $500,000 annually. • Whatever plan is proposed, it is important to remember that 60% voter approval is required. • With a limited capital and operation subsidy budget, development may need to occur in phases over an extended period of time. Following this public input process, and with no clear direction on how best to proceed, in November 2005 the City retained architectural services to provide an analysis of indoor recreation and outdoor aquatic facilities. In response to the general consensus shared at public meetings RDG Planning and Design representatives were asked to address the following items: • An evaluation of existing facilities (Carr, Municipal, Community Center) to determine if enhancements can be made to better meet the recreational/competitive needs of the community. Cost estimates for any proposed renovation work should be included within this evaluation. • If deemed feasible, complete an analysis of the capital cost to enhance existing facilities and for each new building component that was included in the 2003 Rec Plex proposal. A forecast of the operational costs and a related market driven user fee schedule should also be included in this analysis. • Include a "Phase One Option" which limits the capital budget to approximately $15 million ($10 million in City bonds, $5 million in private/State grant). This option will also reflect an operational annual tax subsidy between $400,000 to $500,000. • Complete an analysis of two locations (Middle School site and the School District's property on 24th Street) that can accommodate: o All components phased-in over an extended period of time o Individual components (indoor and/or outdoor pool) at one site and the Recreation Center, without the indoor pool, at one site RDG has completed the Assessment Study and an Executive Summary is attached for your review. Page one of the Study includes a chart listing six options and related project costs, features, subsidy levels and the market driven fee schedule. An elevated walking/jogging track is not included in any of the options, however, cost estimates have been included should one be desired. Page two of the Study includes a chart entitled "Response to Issues Raised at Public Meetings". This section highlights the project cost and the annual subsidy increase for up to three items being incorporated into the project and one being removed as follows: • Increase the depth of Municipal Pool to five foot • Increase the new indoor recreation pool from 6 to 8 lanes to accommodate competitive swimming and add space for 300 spectators • Increase the new outdoor recreation pool from 6 — 25 meter to 8 — 50 meter lanes to accommodate competitive swimming • Eliminate the cardio / weight equipment from the new facility and utilize the room as a multi-use space Lastly, page three of the Study addresses several issues raised by residents at public meetings. They include; location, future additions, walking / jogging track, aquatics, impact on existing facilities, project costs, market rates, and economical construction. Highlights from this section: • Location: The Middle School site continues to be the most economical site if all of the components are constructed there due to the sharing of costs associated with the parking lot, utilities, gymnasiums, etc. • Future Additions: To meet the $15 million cap on capital spending it became apparent that all the features that the public desires couldn't be accomplished at one time. Therefore, the building will be designed so additional feature(s) can be added in the future. • Carr Pool: RDG investigated the feasibility of converting Carr Pool into a 21St Century outdoor aquatics facility. Upon review it was determined that the site has significant limitations because of the adjacent flood plain, the existing Meadowlane Avenue, and the pools location in a residential area. Due to these factors, RDG is not recommending that Carr Pool be renovated or replaced on the current site. SCHOOL DISTRICT'S "PROJECT 2016" On February 21 st the District provided the City with a copy of a planning document entitled "Project 2016 —A Blueprint for Success". This plan is a 10- year vision for the enhancement of facilities and programs within the District. This document had been presented to the Ames School Board on February 20tn The District began the work of developing this plan in the spring of 2005. The elementary schools, high school, the former middle school, other district buildings, and real estate were all assessed. Their two-phase plan calls for spending $50 million to remodel, as well as make improvements and additions to existing school buildings. City staff has attempted to summarize the 125-page document as follows: • Approximately $20 million of improvements to Meeker, Fellows, Mitchell, Sawyer and Willson-Beardshear. It should be noted that the plan calls for adding two regulation size gymnasiums to Meeker and Sawyer (phase 1) and to Mitchell and Edwards (phase II). • Ranging from $5 to $11 million, improvements would be made to the old Middle School. • Two other identified issues in the plan include consideration of moving district administrative offices from Crawford to Northwood School at an anticipated cost of$2 million and placing Crawford and Roosevelt Schools (along with several other school-owned land sites) on the list of "surplus property". • Phase II: Includes approximately $30 million of improvements to Ames High. It should be noted that the plan calls for transforming the existing gymnasiums into a music area and constructing a new gymnasium/event center and new competitive indoor swimming pool at the existing site. The plan specifically calls for the existing, City owned, Municipal Pool to be demolished. In light of the District's recently shared plan, City staff believes it would not be prudent at this time to establish a process to reduce six (6) City facility options to one (1). As noted above, the District's conceptual plan calls for several improvements that could reduce the need for some features contained in the Feasibility Study as provided by RDG. City staff believes it is critical that several issues be addressed between the District and City, on behalf of the citizens of our community. An initial list of issues includes, but may not be limited to: 1. The City needs a clearer understanding of what the District's plan specifically includes, their anticipated timeframe for moving forward, and how the phases will be funded (capital and operational). 2. Discussions on how the District's proposed enhancement of recreation facilities (additional gyms at elementary schools) would affect the City's programming and need for additional gymnasium space. 3. Research the legal ramifications of the District's plan calling for the demolition of a City owned facility located on their property. 4. If the District were allowed to demolish Municipal Pool and they constructed an 8 lane competitive pool with a diving well: • How would the recreational and instructional swimming needs of the community be met? As one example, would the facility include shallow lanes so public learn to swim lessons could be conducted? PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ACTION At their March 9, 2006 meeting Commissioners unanimously approved recommending to the City Council that Council take the following action: 1. Accept the Feasibility Study as submitted by RDG 2. Request staff to begin discussions with the School District to gain a clear understanding of the District's plan. 3. Determine if the City and District can work together in facility development. 4. Request staff to meet with private fundraisers to determine their interest, support and time frame for raising private funds for the construction of an outdoor family aquatic complex. IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY RECREATIONAL FACILITY ASSESSMENT Subsequent to the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, the staff has become aware that the University is serious about exploring their recreational facility needs as well. Apparently, they are in the process of retaining a firm to assist them with this assessment. This development offers the City a unique opportunity to explore the possibility of partnering to accomplish community recreational facility needs with two other governmental entities. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The City Council can delay any final decisions regarding a new recreational complex until the staff has an opportunity to meet jointly with representatives from the School District and University. Staff will then provide information to the City Council/Parks and Recreation Commission as to the feasibility of partnering with these other governmental entities to meet the recreational facility needs of the community. 2. Do not proceed with this project at this time. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: With the recent release of the School District's "Project 2016" plan and knowledge that the University is contemplating new recreational facilities in the future, it would be advisable for the City, the School District, and ISU officials to confer about long-range facility planning. Many of the supporters of a new Rec Plex will no doubt be frustrated with the continued delay. However, the residents of Ames must be assured that the three public entities have explored the possibility of working together to provide the most efficient and cost effective recreational facilities that meet the needs of our community. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council approves Alternative #1 and authorizes the City staff to meet with School District and University officials to determine the feasibility of partnering on future recreational facility projects. During these discussions City staff will verify if either ISU or the District are contemplating the construction of an outdoor recreational aquatic facility. In the event that neither of their plans includes an outdoor pool, while we might delay action of accomplishing the addition of an indoor swimming venue or gym space to allow for further joint planning, we could be in a position to pursue an independent outdoor recreation aquatic center as soon as possible. Staff believes that the Parks and Recreation Commission contemplated this concept when they advised in their recommendation to the Council that staff should meet with private fundraisers to determine their interest, support and time frame for raising private funds for the construction of an outdoor family aquatic complex.