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