Loading...
Adhoc Committee for Rec Facility Packet 2012 05-07-12 so C►r y z o United City of Yorkville J y y _1% 800 Game Farm Road EST , 1836 Yorkville, Illinois 60560 .4 Telephone: 630-553-4350 O� a 4 Fax: 630-553-7575 ALL E AGENDA AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR RECREATION FACILITY ALTERNATIVES Monday, May 7, 2012 7:00 p.m. City Hall Conference Room Citizen Comments: Minutes for Correction/Approval: February 13, 2012 New Business: 1. City-YMCA Partnership Options — Discussion Old Business: Additional Business: UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE Ad Hoc Committee for Recreation Facility Alternatives Committee Meeting City Hall Conference Room Monday,February 13, 2012 7:00 p.m. Call to Order: Chairman Chris Funkhouser called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Establish a Quorum: Present: Chris Funkhouser, Chairman, Alderman Ward 3 Jackie Milschewski, Alderman Ward 2 Ken Koch, Park Board Debbie Horaz, Park Board Quorum established City Officials Present: Bart Olson, City Administrator Tim Evans, Superintendent of Recreation Other Guests: Lynn Dubajic, YEDC Executive Director(arr7:o6pm) Tony Scott, Record Newspaper Citizen Comments: None. Previous Minutes Correction: No corrections. New Business: No new business. Old Business: Recreation Facility Alternatives: Chairman Funkhouser said that Ms. Schraw has provided the committee with a memo and some additional information about other facilities within the scope of city- or municipal-run Rec Center facilities. She also provided spatial requirements; what the minimums were to accommodate the needs we currently offer. The third piece is existing locations around the city for rent or lease. Chairman Funkhouser stated he would like to focus in on the options and narrow down the choices to bring to the City Council for discussion. City Administrator Olson commented he found it interesting that Woodstock is in direct competition with privately run facilities. The city actually advertises in the newspaper, and everyone is O.K. with it because they were there first. The advertisement actually illustrated in a matrix what each facility had in comparison—privately and publically. (05:06) Ms. Dubajic said regarding free-standing buildings, two that were brought up at the last meeting(in the Fox Industrial Park) have either been sold or under contract. There is a 5000 square foot building on Deer Street that used to be a bus barn, but that's not big enough for the needs of a Rec center. Another building that is available is the X-pac building on Route 47, but that was an industrial building that is 120,000 square feet. She did not think using retail space was a good alternative since that space should be generating sales tax; plus you would be leasing it. Rental for new commercial space in the city averages around $13.00 a square foot per year, plus between $1.50 and$2.00 a square foot for common area maintenance; and approximately$5.00 a square foot for taxes. Ms. Dubajic then had to leave the meeting. (approximately 7:30 p.m.) Chairman Funkhouser then went to the spatial information and figured the basic number they would use is about 15,000 square feet—not including the pool—which would translate to a pretty good chunk of change to rent In addition, there would be start-up costs including moving/getting/fitting equipment and setting up rooms for the pre-school. Also to keep in mind is the timing of everything—lease expiration; lease start-up; double rent payments. He suggested presenting the following options: REC Center Purchase; Lease New space; Build a New Facility; or Partner with the Schools. (A spreadsheet illustrating the pros and cons for each is attached) The Committee is ready to forward the minutes of this meeting- along with the Pro/Con spreadsheet—to the City Council for their consideration. Adiournment• Chairman Funkhouser is not scheduling another Ad Hoc Committee for Recreation Facility Alternatives and asked if anyone had any additional business. Since there wasn't, he adjourned the meeting at 7:57 p.m., Mr. Koch made a motion and Ms. Horaz seconded. Minutes respectfully submitted by: Bonnie Olsem Memorandum To: Adhoc Recreation Facility Alternatives Committee EST. -�` Yid W3s From: Bart Olson, City Administrator -- � � CC: Date: May 4, 2012 C<wrMY Sad �LE ��'` Subject: YMCA Partnership proposal Summary Discussion of a new facility alternative with the YMCA. Background After the last Adhoc Committee meeting, various YMCA representatives approached various City representatives inquiring about a potential YMCA-City partnership. Representatives from the YMCA will be present at the meeting to discuss different options. The two options that they have proposed are attached to this memo. The first is illustrated in a YMCA powerpoint and letter from Dave Mogle, both from 2007. At the time, and still an option now, is for the City to pay the YMCA to build a component of a new facility and for the City residents to receive permanent discounted memberships to the facility. For the reasons illustrated in Dave Mogle's memo, staff does not feel this is a viable option. As alluded to in the email exchange between Andrew Bobbitt and myself, any partnership which results in an outlay of money by the City is likely to be rejected by the City, unless there is a corresponding revenue to offset the expense. The second option referenced involves the City owning the facility and the YMCA operating it. This is essentially an "outsourced operations" scenario. Outsourcing the facility was something that was discussed at various times, very briefly by the Park Board prior to the budget turnaround of the facility. Outsourced operations could occur through a negotiated contract with one party, or through an RFP to various for-profit and non-profit vendors. The contract could take the form of a purchaser-vendor operation where the YMCA would be seen as a contractual employee-entity, or it could be more similar to a public-private partnership,where the City leases all operations and revenues to a private party. Discussion on either of the two options above, or any other potential options can occur at the meeting in the context of what the committee wishes to achieve for recreation programs in the future. Bart Olson From: Andrew Bobbitt [abobbitt @foxvalleyymca.org] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 9:35 AM To: Bart Olson Subject: RE: Are you available next Monday, May 7th for a public meeting? I've looked at a couple but they are specific to the Y and the city. I'll see if I can find one that at least sounds like what we would be suggesting and the City can take it from there. Give me a bit. From: Bart Olson [mailto:BOlson @yorkville.il.us] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 9:22 AM To: Andrew Bobbitt Subject: RE: Are you available next Monday, May 7th for a public meeting? If you have any copies of other management contracts, I think it would help everyone to understand the concept if it was included in the packet. Bart Olson City Administrator United City of Yorkville 630-553-8537 direct 630-553-4350 City Hall 630-308-0582 cell bolson @yorkville.il.us City of Yorkville 2.0: Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube From: Andrew Bobbitt [mailto:abobbitt@foxvalleyymca.org] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 9:18 AM To: Bart Olson Subject: RE: Are you available next Monday, May 7th for a public meeting? Since we have not had any formal discussions on a possible partnership it seems premature to throw a lot into the mix right now. As I said these are the top two national examples I have consistently seen being done. If the "management contract" has any traction I certainly would be able to get you a formal draft proposal, but would need to work in any specific City requests and look at your financials more closely before we could formally commit to it. We would also like to hear what partnership ideas the city has before time is spent again putting proposals together that no one wants to see. Andrew From: Bart Olson [mailto:BOlson @yorkville.il.us] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 9:06 AM To: Andrew Bobbitt Subject: RE: Are you available next Monday, May 7th for a public meeting? Are you going to forward any other materials, or is this it? i Bart Olson City Administrator United City of Yorkville 630-553-8537 direct 630-553-4350 City Hall 630-308-0582 cell bolson @yorkville.il.us City of Yorkville 2.0: Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube From: Andrew Bobbitt [mai Ito:abobbitt@foxvaIleyymca.oral Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 5:07 PM To: Bart Olson Subject: RE: Are you available next Monday, May 7th for a public meeting? Bart, Although open to discussing other possible partnership options the two options we initially would suggest, and what we have been able to see demonstrated through many national successful examples is the following: 1) Opportunity to co-develop a new facility as was presented in 2006/2007. 2) Contract to manage the REC Center. I realize financially you have indicated that item 1 is not feasible now,just as it was not feasible in 2007 for primarily financial reasons. As to the second item we feel through the economies of scale with our two existing and successful Y managed recreational facilities that our partnership to manage the REC Center could mitigate the cities risk for annual loses. If we come up with anything further by Monday we can discuss them at that time, or in a future meeting. Kind Regards, Andrew From: Bart Olson [mai Ito:BOlson @yorkville.il.us] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 12:35 PM To: Andrew Bobbitt Subject: Are you available next Monday, May 7th for a public meeting? Bart Olson City Administrator United City of Yorkville 630-553-8537 direct 630-553-4350 City Hall 630-308-0582 cell bolson @yorkville.il.us City of Yorkville 2.0: Facebook,Twitter, and YouTube 2 Q Fox Valley Family YMCA East Branch Partnership Proposal for the United City Of Yorkville o EST 1836 lei Fox Valley Family if 1 YMCA K — cam 4p AIL NML V Family YMCA-Fast Branch C13 ROG r�AH.CL ARK 4 ASSOC I A US 14r "We build strong kids, strong families, strong communities. " 2 YMCA Mission ` A R I N = "To put Christian principles into 0 practice through programs that � N build a healthy spirit, mind, and .. body for all. ff RESPONSIBILITY Park and Recreation Board Mission "To act in unison with the United City of ,roRK��E Yorkville goals and to enhance the 4 recreation opportunities for the residents " PARKS 6, RECRFrITToN 4 .4 acre donation of Land from MPI, LLC F I w MEM9,1101 074 J Y •y r ' Makc is U j,iml C 4m ,c y i(630J552-4100 FOX NALLEY FAWLY YMCA EAST BRANCH s i ��f I 0 40,000 square foot facility Phase 1 Will consist of a fitness center, aerobics room, kids zone, multi-purpose rooms, preschool room, and locker rooms f 1 I - 5 Phase 2 Will consist of a warm water, zero-depth family recreational / instructional pool rv- _ r ' 6 Phase 3 Will consist of a 1 . 5 full court indoor gymnasium ............ '00000" 1 1.5 Full Court Gymnasium Top three facilities and amenities d by Yorkville residents, according to the 2003 Park and Recreation Master Plan : 1 . ) Outdoor Aquatics Center 2 . ) Indoor Pool 3 . ) Multi-purpose rooms Indoor Basic Pool Gymnasium Multipurpose Rooms Outdoor Aquatics Center Outdoor Basic Pool Picnic Shelter 0 2.0 2. 1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 Mean Rating (4 is highest) Meetings,, committees past City of Yorkville ,k Jason Leslie 4 Debbie Horaz Dave Mogle 1 _ 37PAy', Wi. x S, YMCA Becky Morphey Stan Free 4 Andrew Bobbitt 9 . . . led to the following ideas • Outdoor Aquatics Center - Raging Waters " • Fitness Center & Multi-purpose rooms - Fox Valley Family YMCA • Indoor Pool - United City of Yorkville andthe Fox Valley Family YMCA Other coitmies that have partnered wmith YMCA UV p I _ The YMCA's Gig Harbor Aquatic Center just I ' , got bigger! Thanks to a collaboration iI with the PenMet Park District and the If_w ji If ,w l _ City of Gig Harbor, the YMCA of Tacoma- Pierce County expanded its construction plans IC lI II to include an aquatic complex. Ir I li II II ti�J�l` 4 _d The West Family YMCA and Boise City Aquatic Center was built in 1995. This facility is a - - unique partnership between the YMCA and the City of Boise. The Aquatic Center is owned $ - by the City and is operated by the YMCA. . Amenities Swimming: 50 meter swimming pool, training pool, 2 water slides, kiddie pool with slides and other water toys, hydrotherapy pool ' - �, Benefits to Yorkville Residents • Discounted aquatic center usage as was done with the outdoor pool • Residents pay same price as YMCA members for all aquatics programs t I M Primary Per Kelly Kost of Chapman & Cutler LLP Through an alternate bond with a re ment from City' erati n pY s operating g Y ears over budget 20 Would not count towards the cit Y's debt limit / EST. 7836 -0-0 o Neither the YMCA or the City can afford to both build and run a pool of this kind . . . "Teamwork divides the task and doubles the success. " ^/ Orrin Woodward "The whole is greater than thesum of its parts. " 1 Or. Russell L. Ackoff Let"s ive Yorkville residents the pool they want and deserve . J O k a ssr. 1 �_...__ 1836 LE 15 YDiiKVLLIE r� PaRKs&RE[REMCN Yorkville Parks & Recreation Dept. 201 West Hydraulic Street- Yorkville,IL 60560 630.553.4357 630.553.4360 fax e-mail:recreation @yorkville.11.us June 8, 2007 Mr. Andrew Bobbitt, Executive Director Fox Valley Family YMCA 3875 Eldamain Rd. Piano, IL 60545 Dear Andrew, am writing to inform you of the discussion among Park Board members at the May 10, 2007 Park Board meeting concerning the proposed YMCA/City partnership. In doing so, I will try to clarify the conclusion that we have made concerning a joint venture to construct an indoor recreational pool/water play area at the YMCA's East Branch, on Kennedy Road in Yorkville. That conclusion is to not recommend going forth with the partnership. First, the Park Board collectively, and I personally, appreciate the discussions we have held over the past several months concerning a possible YMCA/City partnership. When you visited a Park Board meeting late last fall,the Park Board encouraged us to"keep talking,"and at the same time began to consider both pros and cons of the partnership. Secondly, the Board and staff do recognize there are potential benefits in a partnership endeavor as described in the partnership proposal that you developed. However, present circumstances exist that we believe make the proposed YMCA/City partnership to construct the pool impractical. First is the cost. Research that you and I conducted generated preliminary cost projections from architectural firms ranging from 2.5 million dollars to eight million dollars. We are probably closer by suggesting a range in the middle,from four to six million dollars. While partnership discussions haven't specified on the split, it is fairly accurate to say the City would need to contribute two to three million dollars, or more. It is my understanding from the City's Finance Director and financial consulting firm that the ability of the City to issue bonds is very limited, if not impossible, at this time and in the near future. You have raised the question about a referendum. The Park Board's position on that direction is that there are multiple facility needs in the City and passing a referendum is a major undertaking, unlikely to be done on a frequent basis. It could be more strategic and desirable for the focus of a referendum to be directed toward several facility needs and not just a single one. The Paris Board has evaluated other projects that have been City priorities for a number of years that it believes are higher than an indoor pool at this time. Two that I have mentioned in earlier discussions with you are the City's commitment to 2 lease and develop an eighty acre portion of the Hoover property as a City park and the City's need for the construction of a Parks/Public Works facility. In addition, whereas the pool is a high priority for the YMCA because of the enhancements it brings to its membership,a gymnasium and meeting rooms rank higher in priority for the City. Presently there is limited indoor recreational programming space that the City owns. Another concern for the Park Board is whether the extent of benefits derived by the City is an adequate return for such a substantial investment. Should the pool be built in a later phase without City funds, the City may find it is more cost effective to simply rent time from the YMCA on a periodic basis to provide swimming to City residents who are non-YMCA members. Another main issue is that the YMCA timetable to move forward with its plan does not necessarily parallel the City's timetable. We have understood that the YMCA wanted to know of the City's commitment to the proposal by Spring/Summer of 2007. However, the Parks and Recreation Department has just begun the process to update its Master Plan which includes a new community survey,the last survey being completed in 2002. There is the desire on the part of the Park Board to complete these projects prior to committing to a partnership of this magnitude. The survey is scheduled to be completed by September and the Master Plan by early 2008. In conclusion, the main difficulties in the partnership proposal to construct an indoor pool center on financial issues, City priorities, and differing timetables. However, though the City was not to participate in an effort to construct the pool, there still remain potential cooperative projects between our organizations that can be a benefit to the community. Bridge Park and its open space and new lighted ball playing facilities are directly across Kennedy Ave. Also the new Y Branch is within a short walk from a nine acre Grande Reserve neighborhood park site that will include a disc golf facility. The recreational opportunities between our organizations are numerous. Finally, given the conclusion of the Park Board to not recommend a partnership to construct an indoor pool, and based on recent discussions with you, I understand it is your intent to take this issue directly to City Council. We understand your reasoning to do that and would ask that you let me know when you anticipate appearing before the Council, so that I may inform my board. To be as thorough in my explanation as possible concerning the discussion of the Park Board, I am attaching a list of concerns as they were discussed at the meeting. Please contact me if you have further questions or concerns. Thank you. Sincerely, rFr, Ae Mogle Director of Parks and Recreation CC: Park Board 3 YMCAICITY PARTNERSHIP PROPOSAL_FOR CONSTRUCTION OF INDOOR SWIMMINGIRECRBATIONAI_POOL Park Board's Concerns • PB has a larger vision to include more than just an indoor pool. Need for a full service recreation center that can be operated by the City. • PB has discussed possible availability of an existing structure in the City for a recreation facility with existing auditorium and program space when the building is vacated in 2 to 4 years. Concerned that City may need resources for that direction since the timing of their vacating could he close to the completion of YMCA. • City resources, available debt is very limited. A high priority is a parks maintenance/public works building ($5,000,000 plus). • Are nearing the time of a major park development project for that portion of the Hoover property that will be leased to the City.To include athletic and outdoor recreation facilities. • For the City's substantial financial involvement(potentially$2,500,000 or mare)the return would be allowing non-YMCA member City of Yorkville residents to swim and participate in pool programs at the member price vs. non member price. Is that the best use of such a sizable sum (question of cost/benefit ratio)in light of other priorities? • For the amount of use by City would it be more practical to buy time from the YMCA at regular rental rate. • Completing our new community survey by September 2007 may reveal levels of interest different than five years ago. • indoor Swimming Pool is a higher priority to the YMCA than it is to the City Parks and Recreation Department because of the enhancements to its membership. Gym/Indoor programming space operated by the City is a higher priority for City Parks and Recreation, because we are at the mercy of the owners of leased or loaned facilities that we now use. • YMCA is under some deadlines that may not parallel Parks and Recreation timing. Parks and Recreation is on course to complete a new Community Survey by September 2007 and Master Plan and by early 2008. • While we should seek ways to work together in cooperation for the community's benefit, it is a fact that we are competing agencies,with differing priorities and philosophies. 618/07 A B C D REC Center Purchase Lease New$12-$20 S.F. Build New$SM-$10M School Partnership PRO PRO PRO PRO Membership base Custom space(blank canvas) Have available City land Best use of tax dollars Almost budget neutral Flexibility-one or two yr lease Ultimate blank canvas Community partnership No initial outlay Timing Limited maintenance(new) budget More facility for less City$ Rental properties attached Excitement Increase the customer base Location Ownership Limited maintenance budget Room for expansion Excitement and community trust Taxes lost Own asset CON CON CON CON Location Limited uses Expensive (land, building, equipment) Timing(operations, City funding) Age Loss of services New customer base Lack of concrete details Maintenance Customer base Timeframe Involving another entity Deal to be negotiated Parking Paying for two spaces for awhile (scheduling, intergovernmental) Taxes lost Equipment outlay Bonding Unknown operational budget Locked in No ownership Referendum Referendum Size of available space Unknown operational budget Competing w/Club 47 Lack of local options Competing w/Club 47 Expensive Neighbors Unknown budget Competing w/Club 47