Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSt. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Whole Child , Whole Family '•` Whole Community St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center t r LL S 1 J Key Informant Focus Groups Key Findings Report August 2006 Special Needs Key Informant Focus Groups Key Findings Report August 2006 Introduction This document discusses and analyzes the process and key findings of the Key Informant Focus Group sessions that were conducted with 58 participants in Stillwater Area Community Education's Early Childhood Family Education and Adult Basic Education, and Courage St. Croix programs. These individuals were recruited and self identified as interested from among current clients and their parents to participate in the group sessions. The process was planned, organized and conducted during the months of July and August 2006,by the St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center's Special Needs Survey Team and Wild City Resources. The team includes Directors and staff of Courage St. Croix as well as Stillwater Area Community Education, Early Childhood Family Education, and Adult Basic Education programs. The team is a subgroup of the Integrated Planning Team, which is the planning authority for the St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center. The appended data reports were compiled by Community Education, Early Childhood Family Education and analyzed by the Special Needs Team, Decision Resources, Ltd. Wild City Resources. Wild City Resources developed this report. Background The Key Informant Focus Group sessions were intended to provide a subjective user friendly, method of assessing responses to the same key questions that were addressed in the statistical study conducted in the School District by Decision Resources LTD. These included general knowledge, level of support and preferences for the concept of an Integrated Community Family Center, The process was developed to provide access to the perceptions of current key special needs clients who could not be effectively reached through a telephone survey. It was initiated in order to assure that the opinions of individuals and families who experience barriers to participation were considered during the planning and decision-making process for the new St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center. Questions and Goals • Inform participants about the Integrated Community Family Center concept • Inform participants about the comprehensive nature of existing programs, and the interrelated components that are in place at this time • Inform the team about participation and perception of programs in which clients and their families are currently participating, or have participated in • Inform the team about the barriers participants have to participation in programs • Inform the team about the programs that clients would like to see in a new center • Generate discussion and provide participants with an opportunity to brainstoiui and share their experiences Instrumentation and Methods Fifty-eight individuals participated. Forty-three clients enrolled in Community Education's Early Family Childhood Education, (EFCE) and English as a Second Language, (ESL), and English Language Learners (ELL) Adult Basic Education, (ABE) Programs, participated in three sessions. Fifteen parents of children, who are enrolled in both Courage Center programs for specially challenged children and Community Education Programs, participated in four sessions. Participants were recruited through phone calls placed by program staff members during early July, 2006. Two or three Team members attended each session. The sessions were opened, guided and concluded by a lead person who was pre-appointed. Generally, the second person observed, took notes and participated in discussion on a limited basis. These same people also participated in the analysis of the process. Each session lasted about an hour and a half. They followed a planned foiivat and included written, verbal and interactive elements. The sessions lasted about an hour and a half each. Copies of the tools used in administration of the sessions, as well as in compilation of data and analysis of the infoimation are attached in the Appendices. Study Limitations • Because of language and other barriers, the question and discussion components could not be administered equally or consistently from group to group. • The staff that works with the program participants on a daily basis massaged the presentations to elicit maximum responses and participation in the process. • While the Key Informant Focus Groups were not intended to produce scientific data, certain interesting parallels can be drawn between both the Decision Resources LTD statistical survey and the Special Needs Key Informant Focus Groups. Parallel Trends • Initial awareness of the program was low • Support for the program is strong and grows as more information becomes available • While the issue of a tax levy was not primary, affordability is a key matter • Recreation is of primary interest to families • Preference for casual indoor and outdoor swimming as well as a gym and weight room are very strong • Support for life long learning and whole family education is strong • Recreation as preference for indoor and outdoor swimming and casual recreation is very strong • Distance from the facility did not emerge as a strong concern already using the center • Whole family and parent education, programs and services are of great importance to families Summary of Key Findings • The participants are generally very happy with and appreciative of the current programs they are participating in. • They were generally unaware of the Community Family Center project. • They are supportive and welcomed the idea of a new integrated center, yet some were hesitant that such a facility would become "too big", or could lose itself in trying to be all things to all people. • Access emerged as a strong issue. This may take on various, complex meanings for families and caregivers with multiple needs. • Time emerged as a key obstacle to participation. Time as an over all issue and the ability to organize time, as well as the availability of programs that would support people in their ability to organize time would increase access for all groups. • Programs that do not a require long-teiul time commitment would be of great assistance. • Financial and emotional stress was presented as a major factor for families. Needs based scholarships and sliding fee scales should continue and be made easily available. Parents of children with special needs expressed a general lack of trust in program and services. • The availability of a community services coordinator and dependable respite will build trust with these parents and increase their program participation. • The need for support programs for siblings of children with special needs emerged as a strong theme when discussing future program participation. • There is a definite awareness among participants and parents of needs and services that could enhance available programming. Recommendations • Ease the key barrier of time • Centrally coordinate programs and sery ices • Employ an outreach and a family services coordinator • Serve the whole family, especially school age siblings of special needs children • Bring health, wellness and educational programs together • Offer options for respite and childcare • Maintain affordability of all programs • Assure continued safety for high risk, vulnerable children in the new multi- program center • Create an inviting, friendly, well organized space, located close to near-by parking, amenities and services • Support programs that offer parents the opportunity to network with each other and support and contribute to the Center Final Observations • The Integrated Community Family Center concept is very well received by current users • There is good indication that families would increase their participation in new program offerings at a new center. • Participants are eager to support the project, with both affordable financial contributions and through interactive,participatory outreach. • The results strongly indicate the time is right to actively promote the project widely with a marketing and community engagement strategy Appendix St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Key Informant Focus Group Key Findings Report August 2006 Appendix A PRESENTATION GUIDE St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center KEY INFORMANT FOCUS GROUPS July-August 2006 Appendix A COMMUNITY FAMILY CENTER KEY INFORMANT FOCUS GROUP PRESENTATION GUIDE Introduction Thank you for coming today. We have invited you here to talk about an exciting project we are working on. You may have heard about it. A large group of organizations and municipalities in the Stillwater Area has formed a partnership that includes Community Education, the Courage Center and the YMCA. Together, we are planning for the development of a wonderful new Community Family Center. The partnership directly links our programs. It will allow us to make many expanded, as-well-as new programs and services seamlessly available to you and your family. The Center will provide.a wide variety of experiences for families and individuals in the greater Stillwater Area. They will include: • Early childhood • Special needs • Adult education • Wellness and health • Recreational This is an innovative approach to programming, one that serves the needs of all families and individuals especially those with barriers to involvement. Staff from all the agencies are cooperatively planning the programs. Each of the partners has an area of specialty, which they bring to the partnership. We envision sharing classes, space and equipment and resources. This will allow us to offer opportunities, uniquely shaped to meet your individual and family needs. Today we will • Review our current programs • Find out which programs you participate in • Share with you some possibilities for new programs • Learn your thoughts and ideas on programs that would be important to you in a new center. It is very important to us that we plan programs that will meet your family's needs. We will use what we learn from you today, to guide us as we make important decisions for the new Center. There is no right, or wrong answers. We want your ideas. Current Programs 1. Here is a list of the programs we are currently providing. Can you please share which of these you or your family members are currently using, or have used in the past. Opportunities Community Education Offers to the Community Early Childhood Programs/Services • Parent Education to increase parent knowledge of child development and to develop realistic expectations for parents and young children. • Child/parent classes that include children and parents learning together with a parent education component. • Home Visits for families who cannot attend weekly classes. • Family events • Integrated Preschool for 3 and 4 year olds—Leaps `N Bounds, Cimarron, Sunny Hill, Head Start • Early Childhood Screening to identify any possible health or learning concerns prior to kindergarten • Home-based services for children birth to three years old who have an identified educational disability. • Early Childhood Special Education in-center classes for children ages 2-5 with Autism Spectrum Disorders • Early Childhood Special Education classes for children with moderate to severe disabilities • Speech and Language classes and individual speech therapy • Special support services such as Adaptive Physical Education,physical therapy, occupational therapy, school psychology and nursing. Adult Basic Education Program/Services • ESL Classes English as a Second Language • ABE Classes Assistance with enhancing reading, writing and math skills • GED Program Test preparation • Citizenship Test preparation • Adult Diploma Program • Preparation for employment testing • Preparation for college entrance exams • Basic computer skills Opportunities Courage St. Croix Center Offers to the Community Key Programs • Physical Therapy • Occupational Therapy • Speech Therapy Aquatics, Fitness and Recreation, (partial lists) • Aquatics group, individual and family programs • Fitness groups for youth • Weight Management for youth Enrichment (partial lists) • Handwriting classes, communication classes, etc. • Horseback Riding • Water Skiing • Snow Skiing • Day and Residential Camps 2. Please rank from 1-6 your reasons for not using programs you would like to use. • Time • Physical Access • Lack of Information • Transportation • Financial • Other For Discussion 3. Lets talk some more about what the new program will do. • This Community Family Center will provide children, families and individuals the skills, knowledge, and resources they need to grow, thrive and make successful life transitions. • The integrated program provides the support necessary for all children to enter kindergarten ready to learn. • Early childhood specialists advocate for"whole family - whole child" development and have a program plan that is reflective of that belief • Through Community Education, Adult Basic Education and Workforce Education, as well as Family Literacy programs, parents are supported in their efforts to improve their economic circumstances and to help their children achieve academic success. • Courage St. Croix and the school district's Special Education staff ensure that children of all abilities are served in an inclusive way and that parents are provided with the support they need. • The YMCA of Greater St. Paul will provide support for current gaps in programming, such as childcare, special events, recreation, and wellness activities. 4. Here are some of the programs could be available at the new center. Please rank the top five in order of importance to you and your family. (These could be divided into groups and each group ranked from 1-5). • An indoor competition or lap pool • An indoor leisure fun pool with water slide • An outdoor swimming pool with splash area and water slide • An indoor ice skating rink • Racquetball courts • An exercise, fitness, and weight room • An indoor running/walking track • Gymnasiums • A whirlpool bath, steam rooms, and hot-tub facility • An aerobics and dance room • Indoor and outdoor playgrounds for children • An arts center, including arts and crafts rooms for classes and instructional programs and a gallery for the exhibition of the works of local artists • A senior citizens drop-in center • A large community room, with attached kitchen, for banquets, parties, organizational meetings, and other rental purposes • A community theater for the performing arts • Picnic facility and trails adjoining the center • Snack bar, soda fountain, and coffee shop • A teen center • Multi-purpose classrooms • Are there any other recreational facilities you would like to see in a Community Family Center? (IF "YES," ASK:) What are they? Make a list? Closing Ask for questions, comments. That is all for today. Thank you for coming. We will keep you informed on the Center progress. Appendix B DATA REPORTS St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center KEY INFORMANT FOCUS GROUPS July 25-August 1, 3006 Focus Groups -Area Learning Center 43 Participants of Adult Basic Education July 18 & 19, 2006 Participation Survey: Focus#1 Focus#2 Focus#3 Early Childhood Programs/Services tilliall1111111111. • Child/Parent Classes 3 2 15 • Family Events 1 1 3 N• InntIfr ed Preschool „ i: l i S l si ' olitAiNNE • Early Childhood Screening 1 1 3 � • .��Ome Bc'lS�di'�f:rVJ�.�s �.. .,� � � � ����. ��. �, r�,��� '���'�0 „`��;_ • Early Childhood Special Ed classes 1 2 0 Autism+moderate—severe disabilities Speech a c anguage a es , :� .. � ' M.. ., Bum MEN 8 . • Special support services Physical therapy, school psychology, adaptive 3 1 0 physical therapy Language Adult Basic Education Programs/Services taiFSL lasses i s ve. ME...%, .., "1F1{ 13 ' i0_ ',`,;, .7,. . - • ABE Classes 1 1 0 titltMtlOaMtgntlfnitalntitaatllRiaai NMI, • Citizenship 4 2 0 AMittO coma , , � , f � � • Preparation for Employment Testing 4 0 0 ,'Preparation for College Entrance E' ms . . - 3'` :., .z v1 2 • Basic Computer Skills 13 10 7 Focus Meetings July 18 & 19, 2006 Not administered Participation Survey: Courage St. Cr01, Focus Focus Focus Key Programs #i #2 #3 • Occu•ational Thera•y --_ z � � Aquatics, Fitness e Recreation i • i1.• a uaties tOtl*indiV i dua1 fa .a%l • Fitness for Youth • e1sAt1Iana ernedit iCra t�Uth :" Enrichment • andWrztan�C aw s 5,. i • Snow Skiing _-- • .. 3 Y 1'. k .sam . ,:.u�1' 1 .S,.e,� '; ,a _ , ,�.,.,:, .,s ��' Day�ax��,�.es�d�?�tia ,�°aznps.��„�.. �.,. Focus Meetings - Courage St . Croix 15 Participants of Courage St. Croix & Early Childhood Special Education July 25, 27, 31, 2006 &August 1, 2006 Participation Survey: Early Focus#4 Focus#5 Focus#6 Focus#7 Childhood Programs/Services Pre. Past Pre. Past Pre. Past Pre. Past Parent duration ri 1�". .r'1 'L ��'s : Child/Parent Classes 2 3 0 2 1 2 1 4 Home Visits 1 , 0 2 0 l 3 0 E l,, Family Events 2 3 0 1 3 2 3 ,A- ,, Integrated Preschool ,;1 , ., _, ...1. �. , 2 . .2 0 1 2 1. 2 E-• Early Childhood Screening 2 3 0 1 0 3 2 4 Home-Based Services .....v..,11...,: ..4v�° ,,_ . .fiY,. 3 3 2 .0 3 1,.;, 2::;; Early Childhood Special Education/Autism 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 Spectrum Disorders Early Childhood Spe c."i.aV,Educes ion/moderat 2 0 - ta 2 t©severed a lities4w,:.- :. . Speech and Language classes 3 2 1 1 3 2 3 3 1 pedal Support Services f.:- 4,,„' i3,E % 1 3` 241,,-,„-: 2 Participation Survey Totals Pre. Past Parent;Education r` .. 3. _ �...; 2' -6 Child/Parent Classes 4 11 1ome.; isita ,< rvl.,,bx, ,,.� .5. 0tii3 .. t10 ...:, ,„., 3! • I.;..-;--!,1-,- j... . ?,-.,,-,,-i,,,„,'-,,,,,,,,,,--,,,,... ,',,1.,,.1,,,,,7,,,1,,,,,„.• Family Events 8 9 .Integrated Preschool .,. , .,, t, , , . y ., 7' 6 Early Childhood Screening 4 11 Home-Bas el Services , . - ,,.' q- 4 .. :.1(}'. Early Childhood Special Education/Autism Spectrum Disorders 0 4 'Early-Child#ood Special, ducat} r lmode,rate to severed abilities . 5,;,.. 7..5.. Speech and Language classes 10 8 '-, . , ap�cxa`l�uppb�•Serees }_. �,�....�, ,.,.... . , ... �., ,.., ... �.;: ���.:. Area Learning Center Focus Meetings July 25, 27, 31, 2006 & August 1, 2006 Participation Survey: Focus#4 Focus#5 Focus#6 Focus#7 Courage St. Crot Ke Pro•rams Pre. Past Pre. Past Pre. Past Pre. Past 11i• P1yysical Therapy 1 -0 , r 4045111110•21111111•11110111, • Occupational Therapy 1 0 1 1 1 1 3 2 • Speech Th rapt'. ,v n 3 1 wsgimisB 2 s i n 34f111 HOPP Aquatics,Fitness & Recreation t• Aquatics, 11,..E ., i_. ; . 1£. RtagE 212; t.,.2>3;.;X4NigiNialiPW 1 • Fitness 0 0 0 0 * 0 1 0 111:41111#641110:.:1111111111111111111111001 a -p 0" 0 0 0. 0 Enrichment lallitmiowitiiii•wito.444,011,10011111.MOMIOUISISIO • Horseback Riding 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 2 4001600 • ��ater�Skl7ng ,n.� � e,' .; 3 C • Snow Skiing 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 • Da &Residential"e�ai ps .�..... . tt. .. f ; 0 * = future use Participation Survey Totals Key Programs Pre. Past physical'espy . o °¢y t CA 5 • . • Occupational Therapy 6 4 • ,r Speech Tlea ` ,s igEholo400mmengokaussupialitsliki,....:::Nopo 2.wpii04101 Aquatics,Fitness &Recreation Aquatics ,..;: , ..'.. Y i p a ;: • Fitness *1 0 • Wei h y Enrichment • Handwritin g gasses,C..ommni , cation -, z g.., 'n „ " • Horseback Riding 5 4 a. Water Skiing 4 c '' 3., i r;f'ra 7P, J . ' k • Snow Skiing 2 2 • Day&Resident.al Camp - *, ,. • Golf * 0 Others: Social Groups w/kids w/cognitive delays-grade school age, parent support groups Area Learning Center Focus Meeting Barriers Focus 1 Focus 2 Focus 3 Comments (AM) (PM) (Eve) Barriers. • Time 4 4 7 • Physical Access 2 4 5 • Lack of Information 3 2 1 • Transportation 1 1 5 • Financial 2 11 Others: • Marketing 1 • Age of Activities 1 • Child Care 1 4 Courage Center Focus Meeting Barriers Focus 4 Focus 5 Focus 6 Comments 7-25-06 7-27-06 7-31-06 Barriers: Not Circulated • Time 4 2 1 • Physical Access 0 • Lack of Information 4 1 •. Transportation. 1 • Financial 4 2 1 Others: •" Marketing • Age of Activities • Child Care " 2 • Dependent on Adult Help 1 • Fear on Part.of 3 1 Others/Unknown • HIPPA Laws 2 1 • Area Learning Center Focus Groups July 18 & 19 , 2006 Most Popular New Programs Which 5 are most important to you and-your Focus 1 Focus 2 Focus 3 family? (AM) (PM) (Eve) • An indoor competition or lap pool 0 2 0 • An indoor leisure fun pool w/slide 5 3 11 • ! An outdoor swimming pool 1 1 • An indoor ice rink 1 2 3 • Racquet ball courts' 0 2 0 • An exercise/fitness/weight room 4 4 8 •. Indoor running/walking track 1 0 2 • Gymnasiums 4 5 2 • .' Whirlpool bath/steam room/hot tub 1 1 1 • Aerobics and dance room 4 1 9 • 'Indoor/outdoor playground for children 0 2 2 • Arts center—classrooms and gallery 3 1 3 • .Sen or;citizens-drop-ice.center 1 0 1 • Large community room—for parties/banquets/meetings _ 2 3 1 • Community theatre for performing arts 2 ; ; . 0 1 • Picnic facility and trails adjoining center 1 1 0 • Snack bar, coffee shop,soda fountain`: 4. 1 5 • Teen center 0 0 0 • Multipurpose classrooms 2 1 9 Others: • .'Library 3 2; 5 • Medical clinic/Nurse—emergency medicine 3 1 • Computer lab 0 • Community Spanish class 0 • Community service area/Information Center 3- 1 • Home work/tutor center 0 • Skill Center(job&life) 4 • Rollerblade track 1 • Tennis courts (lessons fun) 1 • Soccer fields 0 • Ecology/green house 1.. Courage St . Croix Focus Groups Most Popular New Programs Which 5 are most important to you and Focus 4 Focus 5 Focus 6 Focus 7 7-25-06 7-27-06 7-31-06 8-1-06 your family? . .• An i door:competition or • An indoor leisure fun pool w/slide 4 2 3 3 •. ' An iutdoor swimming,pool F. . '.x • An indoor ice rink 0 1 • "" Racquet bai1",courts; ,9 • An exercise/fitness/weight room 2 1 3 •, Indoor=runniuglalking track 2 3 • Gymnasiums 2 2 3 3 whirlponl"bath/steam room/hot-tub p " • Aerobics and dance room 2 2 2 3 •"h indo r/ou"tdoor playground"forch ldren • Arts center—classrooms and gallery 0 1 2 sE •sE$', Sentor'ctiens drop-in center r ... • Large community room—for 0 1 parties/banquets/meetings �t•; Com munity.theatre`for perfornii g arts..; . • Picnic facility and trails adjoining center 0 . . Snack bar",;.:coffee"shop, soda fou tain '; '0 . f • Teen center 0 •.._"Multipurpose classrooms s .;."1. 2 Others .E s,,.. Day Care 2 1 Adaptive.Sports Outdoor Pool w/water-park 2 1 " � Decision Resources, Ltd. SAINT CROIX VALLEY AREA 3128 Dean Court COMMUNITY FAMILY CENTER STUDY Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 FINAL Version OVERALL SAMPLE (N=250) Hello, I 'm of Decision Resources, Ltd. , a nationwide polling firm located in Minneapolis . We've been retained by the Saint Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Task Force to speak with a random sample of area residents about their views on the development of a center which would address educational, recreational, family advocacy, and wellness needs . The survey is being taken because the Task Force is interested in your opinions and suggestions . I want to assure you that all individual re- sponses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE) 1 . Approximately how many years have LESS THAN TWO YEARS . . . . 5% you lived at your present address? TWO TO FIVE YEARS 14% SIX TO TEN YEARS 22% 11 TO 20 YEARS 32% 21 TO 30 YEARS 18% OVER 30 YEARS 8% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 0% 2 . Prior to this survey, were you YES 9% aware of the planning process for NO 91 % a Saint Croix Valley Area Commun- DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 0% ity Family Center? IF "YES, " ASK: (N=23) 3 . Do you recall your source of information about the planning process? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What was it? LOCAL NEWSPAPER, 57%; WORD OF MOUTH, 35%; MEETINGS, 9% 0 4 . Do you recall what you heard or read? HIGH COST, 4%; PROGRAMS TO BE OFFERED, 9%; GENERAL PLANS, 61 %; MORE FOR CHILDREN, 13%; MULTI-PURPOSE FACILITY, 4%; PLANS FOR FUNDING, 9%. Let me provide you with some information. . _ . As you may know, the Saint Croix Valley Area Community Family Center has been discussed by various organizations for the past three years . Today, over one dozen partners including four cities, the public schools, social service organizations, both public and private, an area hospital, and local businesses are part of this effort . 1 MML SML NOD SLL MLL DKR 11 . The Center will offer early public pre-school and childhood programs, parent education programs, and adult education programs . 33% 27% 36% 0% 1 % 3% 12 . The Center will offer programs and services for medical rehabilitation, aquatic opportunities for all, wheelchair and adaptive sports, after-school programs for youth, as well as transportation to and from programs for disabled and senior service users . 37% 30% 30% 1 % 0% 2% 13 . The Center will offer a wide array of wellness classes, on topics such as nutrition, weight management, and exercise. 34% 35% 26% 1 % 0% 4% 14 . The Center will have a Family Ser- vices Coordinator whose job will be to effectively connect families in need with specific services in the community. 34% 32% 31 % 0% 0% 2% 15. The Center will offer supervised child care for individuals or fami- lies using any program or recrea- tional offering. 31 % 28% 37% 1 % 0% 3% 16. The Center will also offer licensed child care for children birth to five years old and children with special learning needs or disabilities . 29% 26% 40% 2% 0% 3% Many people change their mind after hearing more information about an issue. . . . 17 . On the basis of this information, STRONGLY SUPPORT 22% do you support or oppose the con- SUPPORT 54% struction and operation of a Com- OPPOSE 6% munity Family Center in this area? STRONGLY OPPOSE 6% (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 13% strongly that way? Moving on. . . . Although no final decisions have been made about programming and facilities, I would like your opinion about some of the potential offerings under discussion. 3 As we discussed earlier, the Community Family Center goal is to provide accessible, linked services in a shared space. First, let ' s discuss programs and services addressing education, health and wellness, and family resources . Charges for these services vary, from free to fees for service, and/or a sliding-scale fee based on household income. I would like to read you a list of services which could be of- fered at the Community Family Center. For each one, please tell me if you and/or household members would be very likely to use it in the next couple of years, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all likely to use that service in the next couple of years. VLK SLK NTL NAA DKR 18 . Education programs for children birth to five years old? 4% 9% 4% 83% 0% 19 . Parent education programs? 2% 9% 8% 82% 0% 20 . Adult Basic Education? 2% 9% 7% 82% 0% 21 . English as a Second Language programs? 0% 2% 3% 95% 0% 22 . G.E.D. programs for those not having graduated from high school? 0% 2% 3% 94% 0% 23 . Technology and computer classes? 5% 25% 4% 65% 0% 24 . Enrichment classes for adults? 5% 36% 3% 55% 1 % 25 . Wellness classes about topics such as nutrition, weight management, and exercise? 12% 35% 3% 50% 0% 26 . Counseling services on physical and mental health issues? 4% 17% 6% 72% 1 % 27 . A Family Service Coordinator, to connect families with needed services available in the community? 3% 20% 7% 69% 1 % 28 . Transportation to and from Center programs for the disabled and seniors? 4% 11 % 4% 80% 1 % 29 . Physical rehabilitation and management of chronic conditions? 2% 16% 5% 77% 0% 30 . Supervised child care? 3% 14% 5% 78% 0% 31 . Support groups for families and individuals facing challenges? 2% 10% 8% 79% 1 % Now, let ' s discuss the recreation programs and services planned for the Community Family Center. . . . 32 . Do you feel that the currently YES 65% available mix of recreational NO 30% facilities sufficiently meets the DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 5% needs of members of your house- hold? 4 33 . If a Community Family Center were to be built in this area, what types of recreational facilities do you think are most important to include? UNSURE, 28%; NONE, 8%; OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOL, 17%; GYM- NASIUM, 8%; FITNESS/WEIGHT ROOM, 9%; SENIOR CENTER, 2%; INDOOR YOUTH PLAYGROUND CENTER, 6%; INDOOR SWIMMING POOL, 5%; BALLFIELDS, 3%; WATER PARK, 2%; TENNIS COURTS, 2%; CLASSROOMS, 4%; SCATTERED, 5% . 34 . Are there any particular activities or programs and services the Center should offer to serve the needs of you and other members of your household? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What are they? UNSURE, 6%; NONE, 60%; SENIOR PROGRAMS, 5%; EARLY CHILD- HOOD PROGRAMS, 5%; TEEN PROGRAMS, 3%; SWIMMING LESSONS, 7%; OPEN GYM, 2%; FITNESS/EXERCISE PROGRAMS, 6%; ADULT EDUCATION, 2%; YOUTH SPORTS LEAGUES, 2%; SCATTERED, 3% . Again, keeping in mind that no final decisions have been made about recreational facilities and programs . . . . I would like to read you a list of offerings which could be included in a Community Family Center . For each one, please tell me if you and/or household members would be very likely to use it, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all likely to use that offering. (ROTATE) VLK SLK NTL NAA DKR 35 . An indoor ice skating rink? 10% 17% 7% 66% 0% 36 . An indoor competition or lap pool? 11 % 27% 5% 56% 0% 37 . An indoor leisure fun pool with water slide? 21 % 26% 4% 48% 1 % 38 . An outdoor swimming pool with splash area and water slide? 22% 24% 4% 49% 1 % 39 . Racquetball courts? 6% 17% 10% 67% 0% 40 . An exercise, fitness, and weight room? 22% 29% 6% 43% 1 % 41 . An indoor running/walking track? 24% 32% 2% 40% 2% 42 . An arts center, including arts and crafts rooms for classes and instruc- tional programs and a gallery for the exhibition of the works of local artists? 18% 32% 7% 42% 1 % 43 . Gymnasiums? 17% 26% 4% 52% 2% 44 . A senior citizens drop-in center? 9% 14% 4% 72% 0% 45 . A whirlpool bath, steam rooms, and hot-tub facility? 11 % 22% 6% 61 % 0% 46 . An aerobics and dance room? 10% 20% 6% 64% 0% 47 . A large community room, with attached kitchen, for banquets, parties, organ- izational meetings, and other rental purposes? 11 % 33% 6% 49% 1 % 48 . Picnic facility and trails adjoining the center? 20% 34% 5% 40% 1 % 5 VLK SLK NTL NAA DKR 49 . Snack bar, soda fountain, and coffee shop? 17% 35% 2% 45% 1 % 50 . A teen center? 10% 17% 4% 68% 1 % 51 . A community theater for the performing arts? 16% 34% 7% 42% 1 % 52 . Multi-purpose classrooms? 7% 30% 9% 52% 1 % 53 . Indoor and outdoor playgrounds for children? 11 % 20% 6% 62% 0% 54 . Is there one component you MOST strongly favor for inclu- sion? NO, 40%; OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOL, 16%; GYMNASIUM, 2%; FITNESS/WEIGHT ROOM, 2%; MEETING ROOMS, 3%; WALKING/RUN- NING TRACK, 8%; TEEN CENTER, 3%; SENIOR CENTER, 5%; INDOOR YOUTH PLAYGROUND CENTER, 6%; INDOOR SWIMMING POOL, 3%; TRAILS, 3%; THEATER, 5%; WATER PARK, 3%; SCATTERED, 2%. 55 . Are there any other recreational facilities you would like to see in a Community Family Center? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What are they? UNSURE, 5%; NO, 85%; FITNESS/WEIGHT ROOM, 2%; SCATTERED FACILITIES, 8%. 56 . How likely would your household be ALMOST CERTAIN 2% to use the supervised child care VERY LIKELY 4% service while at the Center -- al- SOMEWHAT LIKELY 9% most certain, very likely, some- NOT TOO LIKELY 6% what likely, not too likely, or NOT AT ALL LIKELY 78% not at all likely? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 0% 57 . And, how likely would your house- ALMOST CERTAIN 2% hold be to enroll in the licensed VERY LIKELY 2% child care for children birth to SOMEWHAT LIKELY 6% age five -- almost certain, very NOT TOO LIKELY 6% likely, somewhat likely, not too NOT AT ALL LIKELY 84% likely, or not at all likely? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 0% Based on our discussion of the programs and facilities that could be offered at the Community Family Center, please tell me how many members of this household would probably. . . . 58 . Visit the Community Family Center NONE 48% on a frequent, at least weekly 1 16% basis? 2 17% 3 6% 4 OR MORE 8% DON ' T KNOW/REFUSED 4% 6 59 . Visit the Center on an occasional, NONE 32% perhaps monthly, basis? 1 23% 2 23% 3 8% 4 OR MORE 12% DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 2% I would like to read you a short list of characteristics which may apply to the location of the Community Family Center. For each one, please tell me if it would make you and/or household members much more likely to visit the center, somewhat more likely to visit, somewhat less likely to visit, or much less likely to visit the center, or does it make no difference to your use of the center. MML SML SLL MLL NOD DKR 60 . First, the Center is located with- in your community? 38% 26% 0% 1 % 33% 2% 61 . Next, the Center is located five minutes away by car? 28% 32% 1 % 1 % 36% 2% 62 . Finally, the Center is located 15 minutes away by car? 19% 19% 11 % 6% 42% 2% Since the Community Family Center will not depend on an increase in property taxes to fund its construction, both corporate and private contributions will be needed to raise funds . If the Community Family Center were to ask for contributions, and also keeping in mind your current charitable giving and your household budget . . . . 63 . How likely would you be to fin- VERY LIKELY 6% ancially contribute to the build- SOMEWHAT LIKELY 29% ing of a Community Family Center NOT TOO LIKELY 17% -- very likely, somewhat likely, NOT AT ALL LIKELY 43% not too likely, or not at all DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 5% likely? To cover the operating costs of the Community Family Center, a moderate fee would be charged for the use of the recreational and wellness facilities . 64 . Would the charge of a moderate fee YES 24% for a daily pass to use the rec- NO 70% reational and wellness facilities, DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 6% such as the swimming pool and the exercise and aerobics rooms, sign- ificantly decrease your use of those facilities , or not? 7 65. How much would you be willing to NOTHING 23% pay per visit to use the recrea- $4 . 00 34% tional and wellness facilities? $6 . 00 19% Let ' s say, would you be willing to $8 . 00 5% pay $ per visit? (CHOOSE RANDOM $10 . 00 6% STARTING POINT; DEPENDING ON RE- $12 . 00 1 % SPONSE, CHOOSE THE NEXT HIGHER OR DON'T KNOW 11 % LOWER CATEGORY. ) How about $ REFUSED 1 % per visit? (REPEAT PROCESS) The Center would also offer both family memberships and individu- al memberships to recreation and wellness facility users . Mem- bers would have unlimited access to all facilities . 66 . Would you be more interested in a FAMILY MEMBERSHIP 34% family membership or an individual INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP. . 8% membership or neither, given your NOT INTERESTED (VOL. ) . 57% household needs? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 1 % IF "INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP, " ASK: (N=19) 67 . How much would you be willing NOTHING 0% to pay yearly for an indivi- $250 . 00 53% dual membership? Let ' s say, $300 . 00 0% would you be willing to pay $350 . 00 5% $ per year? (CHOOSE RAN- $400 . 00 0% DOM STARTING POINT; DEPENDING $450 . 00 0% ON RESPONSE, CHOOSE THE NEXT $500 . 00 0% HIGHER OR LOWER CATEGORY. ) DON' T KNOW 42% How about $ per year? REFUSED 0% (REPEAT PROCESS) IF "FAMILY MEMBERSHIP, " ASK: (N=86) 68 . How much would you be willing NOTHING 2% to pay yearly for a family $400 . 00 47% membership? Let ' s say, would $450 . 00 12% you be willing to pay $ $500 . 00 13% per visit? (CHOOSE RANDOM $550 . 00 2% STARTING POINT; DEPENDING ON $600 . 00 2% RESPONSE, CHOOSE THE NEXT $650 . 00 0% HIGHER OR LOWER CATEGORY. ) $700 . 00 1 % How about $ per visit? DON' T KNOW 21 % (REPEAT PROCESS) REFUSED 0% It might be helpful to discuss comparable fees . A typical pri- vate sports and health club charges about $1 , 600 yearly for a family membership. City-operated Community Centers tend to charge less . Shoreview charges its families $495 yearly, while Maplewood yearly family membership fees are $612 per year. 69 . Would you pay $500 for a one YES 23% year family membership to the NO 73% Community Family Center? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 5% 8 Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes . . . . Could you tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. Let ' s start oldest to youngest, and be sure to include yourself. . . . 70 . First, persons 65 years old and NONE 76% over? ONE 8% TWO OR MORE 16% 71 . Adults under 65 years old? NONE 20% ONE 8% TWO 67% THREE OR MORE 6% 72 . Children aged 5 to 18 years old? NONE 64% ONE 12% TWO 20% THREE OR MORE 4% 73 . Children under 5 years old? NONE 86% ONE 12% TWO OR MORE 3% 74 . What is your age, please? 18-24 2% 25-34 6% 35-44 32% 45-54 26% 55-64 14% 65 AND OVER 20% REFUSED 0% 75 . What is the highest level of for- LESS THAN HS GRAD 2% mal education you have completed? HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE. . 18% VO-TECH/TECH COLLEGE7% SOME COLLEGE 15% COLLEGE GRADUATE 48% POST-GRADUATE 10% REFUSED 1 % As you may know, Stillwater Area Public Schools provide a wide variety of Community Education services. These include: Early childhood education, parent education, enrichments programs for youth and adults, adult basic education, pre-school and school- age care programs. 76 . During the past year, have you or YES 22% any members of this household used NO 78% any Community Education programs DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 0% offered by the Stillwater Area Public Schools? 77 . Are you a member of a health club? YES 22% NO 78% DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 0% 9 One last question, and keeping in mind your responses are held strictly confidential. . . . 78 . Could you tell me your approximate LESS THAN $25, 000 1 % pre-tax yearly household income? $25, 001 TO $50, 000 . . . . 200 Does the income lie. . . (READ $50 , 001 TO $75, 000 . . . . 220 CATEGORIES) $75, 001 TO $100, 000 . . . 190 $100 , 001 TO $125, 000 . . 10% $125, 001 TO $150 , 0004% OVER $150 , 000 4% DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 19% 79 . Gender MALE 49% FEMALE 51 % 80 . Area of school district BAYPORT 6% LAKE ELMO 10% OAK PARK HEIGHTS 8% STILLWATER 30% REST OF DISTRICT 46% 10 Decision Resources, Ltd. SAINT CROIX VALLEY AREA 3128 Dean Court COMMUNITY FAMILY CENTER STUDY Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 FINAL Version LAKE ELMO SAMPLE (N=100) Hello, I 'm of Decision Resources, Ltd. , a nationwide polling firm located in Minneapolis . We 've been retained by the Saint Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Task Force to speak with a random sample of area residents about their views on the development of a center which would address educational, recreational, family advocacy, and wellness needs . The survey is being taken because the Task Force is interested in your opinions and suggestions . I want to assure you that all individual re- sponses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE) 1 . Approximately how many years have LESS THAN TWO YEARS . . . . 1 % you lived at your present address? TWO TO FIVE YEARS 9% SIX TO TEN YEARS 31 % 11 TO 20 YEARS 27% 21 TO 30 YEARS 21 % OVER 30 YEARS 11 % DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 0% 2 . Prior to this survey, were you YES 10% aware of the planning process for NO 90% a Saint Croix Valley Area Commun- DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 0% ity Family Center? IF "YES, " ASK: (N=10) 3 . Do you recall your source of information about the planning process? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What was it? NO, 10%; LOCAL NEWSPAPER, 90% . 4 . Do you recall what you heard or read? HIGH COST, 60%; GENERAL PLANS, 20%; MULTI-PURPOSE FACILITY, 20% . Let me provide you with some information. . . . As you may know, the Saint Croix Valley Area Community Family Center has been discussed by various organizations for the past three years . Today, over one dozen partners including four cities, the public schools, social service organizations, both public and private, an area hospital, and local businesses are part of this effort . Their goal is to provide area residents with a Community Family Center, to meet the educational, recreational and wellness needs of local children, families and individuals . The Community 1 Family Center facility would support the efforts of these organi- zations and provide services which are both integrated and acces- sible in ONE shared space. 5 . On the basis of this information, STRONGLY SUPPORT 9% do you support or oppose the con- SUPPORT 48% struction and operation of a Com- OPPOSE 4% munity Family Center in this area? STRONGLY OPPOSE 11 % (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel DON' T KNOW/REFUSED28% strongly that way? IF AN OPINION IS GIVEN, ASK: (N=72) 6 . Could you tell me one or two reasons why you feel that way? GOOD FOR COMMUNITY, 17%; NEEDED FOR CHILDREN, 24%; NEEDED, 6%; NOT NEEDED, 6%; WOULDN' T USE, 8%; WOULD USE, 6%; WASTE OF MONEY, 7%; WOULD BE CENTRALLY LOCATED, 7%; FAMILY-FRIENDLY ACTIVITIES, 11 %; NO/LOW COST, 3%; SCATTERED, 4% . Now, let me read you a list of statements made by others . For each one, please tell me if it makes you much more likely to support a Community Family Center, somewhat more likely, makes no difference, somewhat less likely, or much less likely to support a Community Family Center. (ROTATE) MML SML NOD SLL MLL DKR 7 . The Community Family Center will be unique in offering many programs, support, and opportunities in one location, allowing individuals and families to obtain needed services efficiently. 30% 37% 33% 0% 0% 0% 8 . The Center will be a secure loca- tion for recreation, youth activi- ties, educational opportunities and child care. 32% 36% 32% 0% 0% 0% 9 . The Center will contain an exten- sive recreation facility, for both group and individual activities, and programs for all age groups . 34% 38% 28% 0% 0% 0% 10 . The Community Family Center con- struction and operation will not require a property tax increase. 59% 18% 23% 0% 0% 0% 2 MML SML NOD SLL MLL DKR 11 . The Center will offer early public pre-school and childhood programs, parent education programs, and adult education programs . 24% 32% 43% 0% 1 % 0% 12 . The Center will offer programs and services for medical rehabilitation, aquatic opportunities for all, wheelchair and adaptive sports, after-school programs for youth, as well as transportation to and from programs for disabled and senior service users . 28% 34% 37% 1 % 0% 0% 13 . The Center will offer a wide array of wellness classes, on topics such as nutrition, weight management, and exercise. 29% 40% 31 % 0% 0% 0% 14 . The Center will have a Family Ser- vices Coordinator whose job will be to effectively connect families in need with specific services in the community. 22% 38% 40% 0% 0% 0% 15 . The Center will offer supervised child care for individuals or fami- lies using any program or recrea- tional offering. 19% 36% 44% 0% 1 % 0% 16 . The Center will also offer licensed child care for children birth to five years old and children with special learning needs or disabilities . 17% 30% 52% 0% 1 % 0% Many people change their mind after hearing more information about an issue. . . . 17 . On the basis of this information, STRONGLY SUPPORT 21 % do you support or oppose the con- SUPPORT 59% struction and operation of a Com- OPPOSE 11 % munity Family Center in this area? STRONGLY OPPOSE 4% (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel DON' TKNOW/REFUSED 5% strongly that way? Moving on. . . . Alth ough no final decisions have bee n made about programming and facilities, I would like your opinion about some of the potential offerings under discussion. 3 As we discussed earlier, the Community Family Center goal is to provide accessible, linked services in a shared space. First, let ' s discuss programs and services addressing education, health and wellness, and family resources . Charges for these services vary, from free to fees for service, and/or a sliding-scale fee based on household income . I would like to read you a list of services which could be of- fered at the Community Family Center. For each one, please tell me if you and/or household members would be very likely to use it in the next couple of years, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all likely to use that service in the next couple of years . VLK SLK NTL NAA DKR 18 . Education programs for children birth to five years old? 0% 9% 4% 87% 0% 19 . Parent education programs? 0% 8% 7% 85% 0% 20 . Adult Basic Education? 0% 9% 2% 89% 0% 21 . English as a Second Language programs? 0% 1 % 4% 95% 0% 22 . G.E.D. programs for those not having graduated from high school? 0% 4% 4% 92% 0% 23 . Technology and computer classes? 0% 22% 7% 71 % 0% 24 . Enrichment classes for adults? 5% 37% 4% 54% 0% 25 . Wellness classes about topics such as nutrition, weight management, and exercise? 10% 40% 8% 42% 0% 2E _ Counseling services on physical and mental health issues? 1 % 16% 6% 77% 0% 27 . A Family Service Coordinator, to connect families with needed services available in the community? 0% 15% 9% 76% 0% 28 . Transportation to and from Center programs for the disabled and seniors? 1 % 10% 8% 81 % 0% 29 . Physical rehabilitation and management of chronic conditions? 0% 8% 7% 85% 0% 30 . Supervised child care? 1 % 9% 8% 82% 0% 31 . Support groups for families and individuals facing challenges? 0% 6% 12% 82% 0% Now, let ' s discuss the recreation programs and services planned for the Community Family Center. . . . 32 . Do you feel that the currently YES 74% available mix of recreational NO 22% facilities sufficiently meets the DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 4% needs of members of your house- hold? 4 33 . If a Community Family Center were to be built in this area, what types of recreational facilities do you think are most important to include? UNSURE, 40%; NONE, 3%; OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOL, 21 %; GYM- NASIUM, 9%; FITNESS/WEIGHT ROOM, 7%; SENIOR CENTER, 6%; INDOOR YOUTH PLAYGROUND CENTER, 2%; INDOOR SWIMMING POOL, 3%; CLASSROOMS, 3%; SCATTERED, 6% . 34 . Are there any particular activities or programs and services the Center should offer to serve the needs of you and other members of your household? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What are they? UNSURE, 10%; NONE, 62%; SENIOR PROGRAMS, 3%; EARLY CHILD- HOOD PROGRAMS, 2%; TEEN PROGRAMS, 2%; SWIMMING LESSONS, 9%; OPEN GYM, 3%; ADULT EDUCATION, 2%; YOUTH SPORTS LEAGUES, 4%; SCATTERED, 3% . Again, keeping in mind that no final decisions have been made about recreational facilities and programs . . . . I would like to read you a list of offerings which could be included in a Community Family Center. For each one, please tell me if you and/or household members would be very likely to use it , somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all likely to use that offering. (ROTATE) VLK SLK NTL NAA DKR 35 . An indoor ice skating rink? 11 % 12% 7% 70% 0% 36 . An indoor competition or lap pool? 12% 14% 5% 68% 1 % 37 . An indoor leisure fun pool with water slide? 28% 16% 3% 53% 0% 38 . An outdoor swimming pool with splash area and water slide? 23% 18% 5% 54% 0% 39 . Racquetball courts? 7% 15% 1 1 % 67% 0% 40 . An exercise, fitness , and weight room? 19% 23% 7% 51 % 0% 41 . An indoor running/walking track? 22% 32% 0% 46% 0% 42 . An arts center, including arts and crafts rooms for classes and instruc- tional programs and a gallery for the exhibition of the works of local artists? 14% 35% 15% 36% 0% 43 . Gymnasiums? 15% 24% 5% 55% 1 % 44 . A senior citizens drop-in center? 7% 15% 3% 74% 1 % 45 . A whirlpool bath, steam rooms , and hot-tub facility? 9% 15% 5% 71 % 0% 46 . An aerobics and dance room? 7% 16% 4% 73% 0% 47 . A large community room, with attached kitchen, for banquets , parties , organ- izational meetings, and other rental purposes? 8% 19% 9% 64% 0% 5 VLK SLK NTL NAA DKR 48 . Picnic facility and trails adjoining the center? 16% 27% 6% 51 % 0% 49 . Snack bar, soda fountain, and coffee shop? 15% 35% 3% 47% 0% 50 . A teen center? 13% 10% 3% 74% 0% 51 . A community theater for the performing arts? 13% 22% 13% 52% 0% 52 . Multi-purpose classrooms? 5% 28% 10% 57% 0% 53 . Indoor and outdoor playgrounds for children? 13% 11 % 8% 67% 1 % 54 . Is there one component you MOST strongly favor for inclu- sion? UNSURE, 3%; NO, 34%; OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOL, 15%; GYMNASI- UM, 4%; FITNESS/WEIGHT ROOM, 2%; MEETING ROOMS, 1 %; WALKING/RUNNING TRACK, 5%; SENIOR CENTER, 16%; INDOOR YOUTH PLAYGROUND CENTER, 6%; INDOOR SWIMMING POOL, 2%; TRAILS, 2%; THEATER, 5%; WATER PARK, 5% . 55 . Are there any other recreational facilities you would like to see in a Community Family Center? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What are they? UNSURE, 6%; NO, 86%; OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOL, 2%; FITNESS/WEIGHT ROOM, 2%; SCATTERED, 4% . 56 . How likely would your household be ALMOST CERTAIN 1 % to use the supervised child care VERY LIKELY 1 % service while at the Center -- al- SOMEWHAT LIKELY 10% most certain, very likely, some- NOT TOO LIKELY 10% what likely, not too likely, or NOT AT ALL LIKELY 78% not at all likely? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 0% 57 . And, how likely would your house- ALMOST CERTAIN 0% hold be to enroll in the licensed VERY LIKELY 1 % child care for children birth to SOMEWHAT LIKELY 8% age five -- almost certain, very NOT TOO LIKELY 7% likely, somewhat likely, not too NOT AT ALL LIKELY 83% likely, or not at all likely? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 1 % Based on our discussion of the programs and facilities that could be offered at the Community Family Center, please tell me how many members of this household would probably. . . . 58 . Visit the Community Family Center NONE 47% on a frequent , at least weekly 1 16% basis? 2 17% 3 7% 4 OR MORE 8% DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 5% 6 59 . Visit the Center on an occasional, NONE 30% perhaps monthly, basis? 1 30% 2 20% 3 70 4 OR MORE 10% DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 3% I would like to read you a short list of characteristics which may apply to the location of the Community Family Center. For each one, please tell me if it would make you and/or household members much more likely to visit the center, somewhat more likely to visit, somewhat less likely to visit, or much less likely to visit the center, or does it make no difference to your use of the center. MML SML SLL MLL NOD DKR 60 . First, the Center is located with- in your community? 30% 31 % 0% 0% 39% 0% 61 . Next , the Center is located five minutes away by car? 23% 31 % 1 % 0% 45% 0% 62 . Finally, the Center is located 15 minutes away by car? 15% 12% 9% 8% 56% 0% Since the Community Family Center will not depend on an increase in property taxes to fund its construction, both corporate and private contributions will be needed to raise funds . If the Community Family Center were to ask for contributions, and also keeping in mind your current charitable giving and your household budget . . . . 63 . How likely would you be to fin- VERY LIKELY 5% ancially contribute to the build- SOMEWHAT LIKELY 28% ing of a Community Family Center NOT TOO LIKELY 19% -- very likely, somewhat likely, NOT AT ALL LIKELY 41 % not too likely, or not at all DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 7% likely? To cover the operating costs of the Community Family Center, a moderate fee would be charged for the use of the recreational and wellness facilities . 64 . Would the charge of a moderate fee YES 32% for a daily pass to use the rec- NO 61 % reational and wellness facilities, DON ' T KNOW/REFUSED 7% such as the swimming pool and the exercise and aerobics rooms, sign- ificantly decrease your use of those facilities, or not? 7 65 . How much would you be willing to NOTHING 29% pay per visit to use the recrea- $4 . 00 35% tional and wellness facilities? $6 . 00 21 % Let ' s say, would you be willing to $8 . 00 6% pay $ per visit? (CHOOSE RANDOM $10 . 00 0% STARTING POINT; DEPENDING ON RE- 512 . 00 0% SPONSE, CHOOSE THE NEXT HIGHER OR DON' T KNOW 8% LOWER CATEGORY. ) How about $ REFUSED 1 % per visit? (REPEAT PROCESS) The Center would also offer both family memberships and individu- al memberships to recreation and wellness facility users . Mem- bers would have unlimited access to all facilities . 66 . Would you be more interested in a FAMILY MEMBERSHIP 33% family membership or an individual INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP11 % membership or neither, given your NOT INTERESTED (VOL. ) 53% household needs? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 3% IF "INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP, " ASK: (N=11 ) 67 . How much would you be willing NOTHING 0% to pay yearly for an indivi- $250 . 00 27% dual membership? Let ' s say, $300 . 00 36% would you be willing to pay $350 . 00 9% S per year? (CHOOSE RAN- $400 . 00 0% DOM STARTING POINT; DEPENDING $450 . 00 0% ON RESPONSE, CHOOSE THE NEXT $500 . 00 0% HIGHER OR LOWER CATEGORY. ) DON ' T KNOW 27% How about $ per year? REFUSED 0% (REPEAT PROCESS) IF "FAMILY MEMBERSHIP, " ASK: (N=33) 68 . How much would you be willing NOTHING 0% to pay yearly for a family $400 . 00 39% membership? Let ' s say, would $450 . 00 12% you be willing to pay $ S500 . 00 15% per visit? (CHOOSE RANDOM $550 . 00 0% STARTING POINT; DEPENDING ON $600 . 00 12% RESPONSE, CHOOSE THE NEXT $650 . 00 0% HIGHER OR LOWER CATEGORY. ) $700 . 00 0% How about $ per visit? DON' T KNOW 21 % (REPEAT PROCESS) REFUSED 0% It might be helpful to discuss comparable fees . A typical pri- vate sports and health club charges about $1 , 600 yearly for a family membership. City-operated Community Centers tend to charge less . Shoreview charges its families $495 yearly, while Maplewood yearly family membership fees are S612 per year. 69 . Would you pay $500 for a one YES 25% year family membership to the NO 68% Community Family Center? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 7% 8 Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes . . . . Could you tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. Let ' s start oldest to youngest, and be sure to include yourself. . . . 70 . First, persons 65 years old and NONE 73% over? ONE 6% TWO OR MORE 21 % 71 . Adults under 65 years old? NONE 21 % ONE 10% TWO 64% THREE OR MORE 5% 72 . Children aged 5 to 18 years old? NONE 67% ONE 12% TWO 16% THREE OR MORE 5% 73 . Children under 5 years old? NONE 90% ONE 4% TWO OR MORE 6% 74 . What is your age, please? 18-24 9% 25-34 5% 35-44 32% 45-54 29% 55-64 3% 65 AND OVER 22% REFUSED 0% 75 . What is the highest level of for- LESS THAN HS GRAD 2% mal education you have completed? HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE. . 37% VO-TECH/TECH COLLEGE9% SOME COLLEGE 7% COLLEGE GRADUATE 40% POST-GRADUATE 5% As you may know, Stillwater Area Public Schools provide a wide variety of Community Education services . These include: Early childhood education, parent education, enrichments programs for youth and adults , adult basic education, pre-school and school- age care programs . 76 . During the past year, have you or YES 16% any members of this household used NO 83% any Community Education programs DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 1 % offered by the Stillwater Area Public Schools? 77 . Are you a member of a health club? YES 25% NO 75% DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 0% 9 One last question, and keeping in mind your responses are held strictly confidential . . . . 78 . Could you tell me your approximate LESS THAN $25, 000 1 % pre-tax yearly household income? $25, 001 TO $50 , 000 . . . . 230 Does the income lie. . . (READ $50 , 001 TO $75, 000 . . . . 260 CATEGORIES) $75, 001 TO $100, 000 . . . 150 $100 , 001 TO $125, 000 . . 12% $125, 001 TO $150 , 0003% OVER $150 , 000 3% DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 170 79 . Gender MALE 43% FEMALE 57% 80 . Area of school district BAYPORT 0% LAKE ELMO 100% OAK PARK HEIGHTS 0% STILLWATER O0 REST OF DISTRICT 0% 10 Decision Resources, Ltd. SAINT CROIX VALLEY AREA 3128 Dean Court COMMUNITY FAMILY CENTER STUDY Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 FINAL Version OAK PARK HEIGHTS SAMPLE (N=100) Hello, I 'm of Decision Resources, Ltd. , a nationwide polling firm located in Minneapolis . We 've been retained by the Saint Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Task Force to speak with a random sample of area residents about their views on the development of a center which would address educational, recreational, family advocacy, and wellness needs . The survey is being taken because the Task Force is interested in your opinions and suggestions . I want to assure you that all individual re- sponses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE) 1 . Approximately how many years have LESS THAN TWO YEARS . . . . 6% you lived at your present address? TWO TO FIVE YEARS 11 % SIX TO TEN YEARS 19% 11 TO 20 YEARS 32% 21 TO 30 YEARS 23% OVER 30 YEARS 9% DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 0% 2 . Prior to this survey, were you YES 9% aware of the planning process for NO 91 % a Saint Croix Valley Area Commun- DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 0% ity Family Center? IF "YES, " ASK: (N=9) 3 . Do you recall your source of information about the planning process? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What was it? NO, 11 %; LOCAL NEWSPAPER, 89% . 4 . Do you recall what you heard or read? NO, 22%; HIGH COST, 22%; PROGRAMS TO BE OFFERED, 11 %; GENERAL PLANS, 22%; MORE FOR CHILDREN, 22% . Let me provide you with some information. . . . As you may know, the Saint Croix Valley Area Community Family Center has been discussed by various organizations for the past three years . Today, over one dozen partners including four cities, the public schools , social service organizations , both public and private, an area hospital, and local businesses are part of this effort . Their goal is to provide area residents with a Community Family Center, to meet the educational, recreational and wellness needs of local children, families and individuals . The Community 1 Family Center facility would support the efforts of these organi- zations and provide services which are both integrated and acces- sible in ONE shared space. 5 . On the basis of this information, STRONGLY SUPPORT 14% do you support or oppose the con- SUPPORT 51 % struction and operation of a Com- OPPOSE 6% munity Family Center in this area? STRONGLY OPPOSE 4% (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 25% strongly that way? IF AN OPINION IS GIVEN, ASK: (N=75) 6 . Could you tell me one or two reasons why you feel that way? GOOD FOR COMMUNITY, 16%; NEEDED FOR CHILDREN, 40%; NEEDED, 11 %; NOT NEEDED, 7%; WOULDN' T USE, 4%; WOULD USE, 7%; WASTE OF MONEY, 3%; WOULD BE CENTRALLY LOCATED, 4%; SENIOR PROGRAMS, 3%; FAMILY-FRIENDLY ACTIVITIES, 3%; SCATTERED, 3% . Now, let me read you a list of statements made by others . For each one, please tell me if it makes you much more likely to support a Community Family Center, somewhat more likely, makes no difference, somewhat less likely, or much less likely to support a Community Family Center. (ROTATE) MML SML NOD SLL MLL DKR 7 . The Community Family Center will be unique in offering many programs, support, and opportunities in one location, allowing individuals and families to obtain needed services efficiently. 48% 25% 21 % 0% 0% 6% 8 . The Center will be a secure loca- tion for recreation, youth activi- ties, educational opportunities and child care. 41 % 32% 21 % 1 % 0% 5% 9 . The Center will contain an exten- sive recreation facility, for both group and individual activities, and programs for all age groups . 47% 29% 18% 1 % 0% 5% 10 . The Community Family Center con- struction and operation will not require a property tax increase . 55% 24% 13% 1 % 2% 5% 2 MML SML NOD SLL MLL DKR 11 . The Center will offer early public pre-school and childhood programs, parent education programs, and adult education programs . 36% 28% 30% 1 % 0% 5% 12 . The Center will offer programs and services for medical rehabilitation, aquatic opportunities for all, wheelchair and adaptive sports, after-school programs for youth, as well as transportation to and from programs for disabled and senior service users . 40% 31 % 23% 1 % 0% 5% 13 . The Center will offer a wide array of wellness classes, on topics such as nutrition, weight management , and exercise. 44% 28% 23% 0% 0% 5% 14 . The Center will have a Family Ser- vices Coordinator whose job will be to effectively connect families in need with specific services in the community. 38% 28% 29% 0% 0% 5% 15 . The Center will offer supervised child care for individuals or fami- lies using any program or recrea- tional offering. 36% 27% 30% 1 % 1 % 5% 16 . The Center will also offer licensed child care for children birth to five years old and children with special learning needs or disabilities . 35% 27% 31 % 1 % 1 % 5% Many people change their mind after hearing more information about an issue. . . . 17 . On the basis of this information, STRONGLY SUPPORT 17% do you support or oppose the con- SUPPORT 61 % struction and operation of a Com- OPPOSE 4% munity Family Center in this area? STRONGLY OPPOSE 5% (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel DON' TKNOW/REFUSED 13% strongly that way? Moving on. . . . Although no final decisions have been made about programming and facilities, I would like your opinion about some of the potential offerings under discussion. 3 As we discussed earlier, the Community Family Center goal is to provide accessible, linked services in a shared space. First, let ' s discuss programs and services addressing education, health and wellness, and family resources . Charges for these services vary, from free to fees for service, and/or a sliding-scale fee based on household income. I would like to read you a list of services which could be of- fered at the Community Family Center. For each one, please tell me if you and/or household members would be very likely to use it in the next couple of years, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all likely to use that service in the next couple of years . VLK SLK NTL NAA DKR 18 . Education programs for children birth to five years old? 5% 10% 3% 82% 0% 19 . Parent education programs? 5% 12% 3% 80% 0% 20 . Adult Basic Education? 1 % 10% 7% 82% 0% 21 . English as a Second Language programs? 1 % 3% 2% 93% 1 % 22 . G.E.D. programs for those not having graduated from high school? 3% 3% 4% 90% 0% 23 . Technology and computer classes? 7% 19% 4% 70% 0% 24 . Enrichment classes for adults? 10% 26% 1 % 62% 1 % 25 . Wellness classes about topics such as nutrition, weight management, and exercise? 12% 32% 3% 53% 0% 26 . Counseling services on physical and mental health issues? 5% 17% 4% 74% 0% 27 . A Family Service Coordinator, to connect families with needed services available in the community? 5% 18% 4% 73% 0% 28 . Transportation to and from Center programs for the disabled and seniors? 5% 11 % 5% 79% 0% 29 . Physical rehabilitation and management of chronic conditions? 4% 10% 5% 81 % 0% 30 . Supervised child care? 3% 17% 3% 77% 0% 31 . Support groups for families and individuals facing challenges? 5% 11 % 8% 76% 0% Now, let ' s discuss the recreation programs and services planned for the Community Family Center . . . . 32 . Do you feel that the currently YES 53% available mix of recreational NO 35% facilities sufficiently meets the DON ' T KNOW/REFUSED12% needs of members of your house- hold? 4 33 . If a Community Family Center were to be built in this area, what types of recreational facilities do you think are most important to include? UNSURE, 36% ; NONE, 3%; OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOL, 24%; GYM- NASIUM, 9%; FITNESS/WEIGHT ROOM, 3%; TEEN CENTER, 2%; SENIOR CENTER, 3%; INDOOR YOUTH PLAYGROUND CENTER, 4%; INDOOR SWIMMING POOL, 5%; BALLFIELDS, 2%; WATER PARK, 2%; CLASSROOMS, 2%; SCATTERED, 5% . 34 . Are there any particular activities or programs and services the Center should offer to serve the needs of you and other members of your household? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What are they? UNSURE, 4%; NONE, 65%; SENIOR PROGRAMS, 7%; TEEN PRO- GRAMS, 2%; SWIMMING LESSONS, 6%; OPEN GYM, 2%; ADULT EDUCATION, 2%; YOUTH SPORTS LEAGUES, 4%; SCATTERED, 8% . Again, keeping in mind that no final decisions have been made about recreational facilities and programs . . . . I would like to read you a list of offerings which could be included in a Community Family Center. For each one, please tell me if you and/or household members would be very likely to use it, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all likely to use that offering. (ROTATE) VLK SLK NTL NAA DKR 35. An indoor ice skating rink? 3% 14% 3% 80% 0% 36 . An indoor competition or lap pool? 10% 17% 1 % 72% 0% 37 . An indoor leisure fun pool with water slide? 24% 12% 0% 64% 0% 38 . An outdoor swimming pool with splash area and water slide? 23% 14% 1 % 62% 0% 39 . Racquetball courts? 7% 12% 3% 78% 0% 40 . An exercise, fitness, and weight room? 15% 26% 5% 54% 0% 41 . An indoor running/walking track? 19% 29% 1 % 51 % 0% 42 . An arts center, including arts and crafts rooms for classes and instruc- tional programs and a gallery for the exhibition of the works of local artists? 14% 24% 4% 58% 0% 43 . Gymnasiums? 11 % 1 9% 2% 67% 1 % 44 . A senior citizens drop-in center? 10% 15% 5% 70% 0% 45 . A whirlpool bath, steam rooms , and hot-tub facility? 13% 11 % 3% 73% 0% 46 . An aerobics and dance room? 7% 13% 5% 74% 1 % 47 . A large community room, with attached kitchen, for banquets, parties , organ- izational meetings, and other rental purposes? 11 % 25% 8% 56% 0% 5 VLK SLK NTL NAA DKR 48. Picnic facility and trails adjoining the center? 18% 26% 6% 50% 0% 49 . Snack bar, soda fountain, and coffee shop? 10% 35% 2% 53% 0% 50 . A teen center? 13% 1 5% 4% 67% 1 % 51 . A community theater for the performing arts? 15% 22% 7% 56% 0% 52 . Multi-purpose classrooms? 10% 29% 5% 55% 1 % 53 . Indoor and outdoor playgrounds for children? 12% 19% 4% 65% 0% 54 . Is there one component you MOST strongly favor for inclu- sion? UNSURE, 2%; NO, 46%; OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOL, 16%; GYMNASI- UM, 4%; FITNESS/WEIGHT ROOM, 4%; TEEN CENTER, 4%; SENIOR CENTER, 5%; INDOOR YOUTH PLAYGROUND CENTER, 4%; INDOOR SWIMMING POOL, 2%; TRAILS, 4%; THEATER, 2%; WATER PARK, 3%; CLASS ROOMS, 2%; SCATTERED, 2% . 55 . Are there any other recreational facilities you would like to see in a Community Family Center? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What are they? UNSURE, 3%; NO, 91 %; SENIOR CENTER 2%; SCATTERED, 4%. 56. How likely would your household be ALMOST CERTAIN 0% to use the supervised child care VERY LIKELY 5% service while at the Center -- al- SOMEWHAT LIKELY 12% most certain, very likely, some- NOT TOO LIKELY 5% what likely, not too likely, or NOT AT ALL LIKELY 78% not at all likely? DON 'T KNOW/REFUSED 0% 57 . And, how likely would your house- ALMOST CERTAIN 0% hold be to enroll in the licensed VERY LIKELY 3% child care for children birth to SOMEWHAT LIKELY 8% age five -- almost certain, very NOT TOO LIKELY 5% likely, somewhat likely, not too NOT AT ALL LIKELY 83% likely, or not at all likely? DON ' T KNOW/REFUSED 1 % Based on our discussion of the programs and facilities that could be offered at the Community Family Center, please tell me how many members of this household would probably. . . . 58 . Visit the Community Family Center NONE 57% on a frequent , at least weekly 1 18% basis? 2 15% 3 5% 4 OR MORE 4% DON ' T KNOW/REFUSED 1 % 6 59 . Visit the Center on an occasional, NONE 40% perhaps monthly, basis? 1 19% 2 27% 3 9% 4 OR MORE 4% DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 1 % I would like to read you a short list of characteristics which may apply to the location of the Community Family Center. For each one, please tell me if it would make you and/or household members much more likely to visit the center, somewhat more likely to visit, somewhat less likely to visit, or much less likely to visit the center, or does it make no difference to your use of the center. MML SML SLL MLL NOD DKR 60 . First, the Center is located with- in your community? 33% 35% 0% 0% 24% 8% 61 . Next, the Center is located five minutes away by car? 29% 36% 1 % 0% 26% 8% 62 . Finally, the Center is located 15 minutes away by car? 15% 20% 13% 14% 29% 9% Since the Community Family Center will not depend on an increase in property taxes to fund its construction, both corporate and private contributions will be needed to raise funds . If the Community Family Center were to ask for contributions, and also keeping in mind your current charitable giving and your household budget . . . . 63 . How likely would you be to fin- VERY LIKELY 2% ancially contribute to the build- SOMEWHAT LIKELY 26% ing of a Community Family Center NOT TOO LIKELY 16% -- very likely, somewhat likely, NOT AT ALL LIKELY 55% not too likely, or not at all DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 1 % likely? To cover the operating costs of the Community Family Center, a moderate fee would be charged for the use of the recreational and wellness facilities . 64 . Would the charge of a moderate fee YES 24% for a daily pass to use the rec- NO 72% reational and wellness facilities, DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 4% such as the swimming pool and the exercise and aerobics rooms, sign- ificantly decrease your use of those facilities, or not? 7 65. How much would you be willing to NOTHING 24% pay per visit to use the recrea- $4 . 00 46% tional and wellness facilities? $6 . 00 15% Let ' s say, would you be willing to $8 . 00 2% pay $ per visit? (CHOOSE RANDOM $10 . 00 4% STARTING POINT; DEPENDING ON RE- $12 . 00 0% SPONSE, CHOOSE THE NEXT HIGHER OR DON' T KNOW 9% LOWER CATEGORY. ) How about $ REFUSED 0% per visit? (REPEAT PROCESS) The Center would also offer both family memberships and individu- al memberships to recreation and wellness facility users . Mem- bers would have unlimited access to all facilities . 66 . Would you be more interested in a FAMILY MEMBERSHIP 26% family membership or an individual INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP. . 8% membership or neither, given your NOT INTERESTED (VOL. ) . 64% household needs? DON ' T KNOW/REFUSED 2% IF "INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP, " ASK: (N=8) 67 . How much would you be willing NOTHING 13% to pay yearly for an indivi- $250 . 00 63% dual membership? Let ' s say, $300 . 00 13% would you be willing to pay $350 . 00 0% $ per year? (CHOOSE RAN- $400 . 00 0% DOM STARTING POINT; DEPENDING $450 . 00 0% ON RESPONSE, CHOOSE THE NEXT $500 . 00 0% HIGHER OR LOWER CATEGORY. ) DON' T KNOW 13% How about $ per year? REFUSED 0% (REPEAT PROCESS) IF "FAMILY MEMBERSHIP, " ASKr: (N=26) 68 . How much would you be willing NOTHING 0% to pay yearly for a family $400 . 00 46% membership? Let ' s say, would $450 . 00 19% you be willing to pay $ $500 . 00 4% per visit? (CHOOSE RANDOM $550 . 00 0% STARTING POINT; DEPENDING ON $600 . 00 8% RESPONSE, CHOOSE THE NEXT $650 . 00 0% HIGHER OR LOWER CATEGORY. ) $700 . 00 0% How about $ per visit? DON' T KNOW 23% (REPEAT PROCESS) REFUSED 0% It might be helpful to discuss comparable fees . A typical pri- vate sports and health club charges about $1 , 600 yearly for a family membership. City-operated Community Centers tend to charge less . Shoreview charges its families $495 yearly, while Maplewood yearly family membership fees are $612 per year. 69 . Would you pay $500 for a one YES 11 % year family membership to the NO 80% Community Family Center? DON ' T KNOW/REFUSED 9% 8 Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes . . . . Could you tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. Let ' s start oldest to youngest, and be sure to include yourself. . . . 70 . First, persons 65 years old and NONE 77% over? ONE 9% TWO OR MORE 14% 71 . Adults under 65 years old? NONE 24% ONE 10% TWO 64% THREE OR MORE 2% 72 . Children aged 5 to 18 years old? NONE 720 ONE 6% TWO 17% THREE OR MORE 3% REFUSED 2% 73 . Children under 5 years old? NONE 84% ONE 10% TWO OR MORE 5% REFUSED 1 % 74 . What is your age, please? 18-24 4% 25-34 7% 35-44 29% 45-54 260 55-64 12% 65 AND OVER 22% REFUSED 0% 75 . What is the highest level of for- LESS THAN HS GRAD mal education you have completed? HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE. . 19% VO-TECH/TECH COLLEGE . . 13% SOME COLLEGE 18% COLLEGE GRADUATE 38% POST-GRADUATE 6% REFUSED 3% As you may know, Stillwater Area Public Schools provide a wide variety of Community Education services . These include: Early childhood education, parent education, enrichments programs for youth and adults, adult basic education, pre-school and school- age care programs . 76 . During the past year, have you or YES any members of this household used NO 19% 79% any Community Education programs DON ' T KNOW/REFUSED 2% offered by the Stillwater Area Public Schools? 9 77 . Are you a member of a health club? YES 23% NO 77% DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 0% One last question, and keeping in mind your responses are held strictly confidential . . . . 78 . Could you tell me your approximate LESS THAN $25, 000 2% pre-tax yearly household income? $25, 001 TO $50, 000 . . . . 14% Does the income lie. . . (READ $50 , 001 TO $75, 000 . . . . 26% CATEGORIES) $75, 001 TO $100 , 000 . . . 21 % $100 , 001 TO $125, 0007% 5125, 001 TO $150 , 0008% OVER $150 , 000 0% DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 22% 79 . Gender MALE 51 % FEMALE 49% 80 . Area of school district BAYPORT 0% LAKE ELMO 0% OAK PARK HEIGHTS 100% STILLWATER 0% REST OF DISTRICT 0% 10 Decision Resources, Ltd. SAINT CROIX VALLEY AREA 3128 Dean Court COMMUNITY FAMILY CENTER STUDY Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 FINAL Version STILLWATER SAMPLE (N=100) Hello, I 'm of Decision Resources, Ltd. , a nationwide polling firm located in Minneapolis. We've been retained by the Saint Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Task Force to speak with a random sample of area residents about their views on the development of a center which would address educational, recreational, family advocacy, and wellness needs . The survey is being taken because the Task Force is interested in your opinions and suggestions . I want to assure you that all individual re- sponses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE) 1 . Approximately how many years have LESS THAN TWO YEARS. . . .5% you lived at your present address? TWO TO FIVE YEARS 15% SIX TO TEN YEARS 24% 11 TO 20 YEARS 34% 21 TO 30 YEARS 16% OVER 30 YEARS 6% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 0% 2 . Prior to this survey, were you YES 11% aware of the planning process for NO 88% a Saint Croix Valley Area Commun- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 1% ity Family Center? IF "YES, " ASK: (N=11) 3 . Do you recall your source of information about the planning process? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What was it? LOCAL NEWSPAPER, 100% . 4 . Do you recall what you heard or read? HIGH COST, 9%; PROGRAMS TO BE OFFERED, 18%; GENERAL PLANS, 46%; MORE FOR CHILDREN, 9%; PLANS FOR FUNDING, 18% . Let me provide you with some information. . . . As you may know, the Saint Croix Valley Area Community Family Center has been discussed by various organizations for the past three years . Today, over one dozen partners including four cities, the public schools, social service organizations, both public and private, an area hospital, and local businesses are part of this effort . 1 Their goal is to provide area residents with a Community Family Center, to meet the educational, recreational and wellness needs of local children, families and individuals. The Community Family Center facility would support the efforts of these organi- zations and provide services which are both integrated and acces- sible in ONE shared space. 5 . On the basis of this information, STRONGLY SUPPORT 12% do you support or oppose the con- SUPPORT 60% struction and operation of a Com- OPPOSE 1% munity Family Center in this area? STRONGLY OPPOSE 5% (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . .22% strongly that way? IF AN OPINION IS GIVEN, ASK: (N=78) 6. Could you tell me one or two reasons why you feel that way? GOOD FOR COMMUNITY, 17%; NEEDED FOR CHILDREN, 33%; NEEDED, 18%; NOT NEEDED, 4%; WOULD USE, 3%; WASTE OF MONEY, 4%; WOULD BE CENTRALLY LOCATED, 6%; SENIOR PROGRAMS, 3%; FAMILY-FRIENDLY ACTIVITIES, 8%; NO OR LOW COST TO RESIDENTS, 4%; SCATTERED, 1% . Now, let «« read you a list of statements made by others . For each one, please tell me if it makes you much more likely to support a Community Family Center, somewhat more likely, makes no difference, somewhat less likely, or much less likely to support a Community Family Center. (ROTATE) MML SML NOD SLL MLL DKR 7 . The Community Family Center will be unique in offering many programs, support, and opportunities in one location, allowing individuals and families to obtain needed services efficiently. 38% 39% 17% 1% 1% 4% 8 . The Center will be a secure loca- tion for recreation, youth activi- ties, educational opportunities and child care. 45% 29% 19% 1% 1% 5% 9 . The Center will contain an exten- sive recreation facility, for both group and individual activities, and programs for all age groups . 51% 31% 11% 1% 1% 5% 10 . The Community Family Center con- struction and operation will not require a property tax increase. 66% 21% 7% 1% 1% 4% 2 MML SML NOD SLL MLL DKR 11. The Center will offer early public pre-school and childhood programs, parent education programs, and adult education programs. 40% 30% 22% 1% 2% 5% 12 . The Center will offer programs and services for medical rehabilitation, aquatic opportunities for all, wheelchair and adaptive sports, after-school programs for youth, as well as transportation to and from programs for disabled and senior service users. 42% 33% 19% 1% 1% 4% 13 . The Center will offer a wide array of wellness classes, on topics such as nutrition, weight management, and exercise. 36% 37% 20% 1% 1% 5% 14 . The Center will have a Family Ser- vices Coordinator whose job will be to effectively connect families in need with specific services in the community. 36% 37% 20% 1% 1% 5% 15 . The Center will offer supervised child care for individuals or fami- lies using any program or recrea- tional offering. 34% 30% 28% 2% 1% 5% 16 . The Center will also offer licensed child care for children birth to five years old and children with special learning needs or disabilities . 35% 24% 32% 2% 1% 6% Many people change their mind after hearing more information about an issue. . . . 17 . On the basis of this information, STRONGLY SUPPORT 30% do you support or oppose the con- SUPPORT 49% struction and operation of a Com- OPPOSE 4% munity Family Center in this area? STRONGLY OPPOSE 6% (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel DON'TKNOW/REFUSED 11% strongly that way? Moving on. . . . Although no final decisions have been made about programming and facilities, I would like your opinion about some of the potential offerings under discussion. 3 As we discussed earlier, the Community Family Center goal is to provide accessible, linked services in a shared space. First, let ' s discuss programs and services addressing education, health and wellness, and family resources . Charges for these services vary, from free to fees for service, and/or a sliding-scale fee based on household income. I would like to read you a list of services which could be of- fered at the Community Family Center. For each one, please tell me if you and/or household members would be very likely to use it in the next couple of years, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all likely to use that service in the next couple of years . VLK SLK NTL NAA DKR 18 . Education programs for children birth to five years old? 5% 16% 6% 72% 1% 19 . Parent education programs? 2% 12% 12% 73% 1% 20 . Adult Basic Education? 4% 10% 9% 76% 1% 21 . English as a Second Language programs? 1% 1% 2% 95% 1% 22 . G.E.D. programs for those not having graduated from high school? 0% 5% 2% 92% 1% 23 . Technology and computer classes? 6% 24% 8% 61% 1% 24 . Enrichment classes for adults? 5% 36% 6% 52% 1% 25 . Wellness classes about topics such as nutrition, weight management, and exercise? 8% 37% 6% 48% 1% 26 . Counseling services on physical and mental health issues? 3% 16% 6% 73% 2% 27 . A Family Service Coordinator, to connect families with needed services available in the community? 5% 22% 9% 62% 2% 28 . Transportation to and from Center programs for the disabled and seniors? 5% 16% 4% 73% 2% 29 . Physical rehabilitation and management of chronic conditions? 3% 15% 5% 76% 1% 30 . Supervised child care? 2% 21% 4% 72% 1% 31 . Support groups for families and individuals facing challenges? 3% 11% 6% 78% 2% Now, let' s discuss the recreation programs and services planned for the Community Family Center. . . . 32 . Do you feel that the currently YES 49% available mix of recreational NO 4596 facilities sufficiently meets the DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 6% needs of members of your house- hold? 4 33 . If a Community Family Center were to be built in this area, what types of recreational facilities do you think are most important to include? UNSURE, 26%; NONE, 6%; OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOL, 23%; GYM- NASIUM, 8%; FITNESS/WEIGHT ROOM, 6%; SENIOR CENTER, 3%; TEEN CENTER, 2%; INDOOR YOUTH PLAYGROUND CENTER, 7%; INDOOR SWIMMING POOL, 5%; WATER PARK, 2%; TENNIS COURTS, 5%; SCATTERED, 7%. 34 . Are there any particular activities or programs and services the Center should offer to serve the needs of you and other members of your household? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What are they? UNSURE, 7%; NONE, 50%; SENIOR PROGRAMS, 7%; TEEN PRO- GRAMS, 2%; EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS, 3%; SWIMMING LESSONS, 11%; OPEN GYM, 2%; FITNESS/EXERCISE PROGRAMS, 4%; ADULT EDUCATION, 5%; TENNIS LEAGUES, 3%; SCATTERED, 6%. Again, keeping in mind that no final decisions have been made about recreational facilities and programs . . . . I would like to read you a list of offerings which could be included in a Community Family Center. For each one, please tell me if you and/or household members would be very likely to use it, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all likely to use that offering. (ROTATE) VLK SLK NTL NAA DKR 35 . An indoor ice skating rink? 10% 19% 8% 62% 1% 36 . An indoor competition or lap pool? 12% 19% 7% 60% 2% 37 . An indoor leisure fun pool with water slide? 30% 26% 4% 39% 1% 38 . An outdoor swimming pool with splash area and water slide? 29% 26% 2% 42% 1% 39 . Racquetball courts? 5% 19% 8% 67% 1% 40 . An exercise, fitness, and weight room? 19% 29% 7% 44% 1% 41 . An indoor running/walking track? 23% 36% 3% 37% 1% 42 . An arts center, including arts and crafts rooms for classes and instruc- tional programs and a gallery for the exhibition of the works of local artists? 20% 35% 7% 37% 1% 43 . Gymnasiums? 18% 23% 8% 50% 1% 44 . A senior citizens drop-in center? 7% 18% 2% 72% 1% 45 . A whirlpool bath, steam rooms, and hot-tub facility? 6% 24% 9% 60% 1% 46 . An aerobics and dance room? 9% 23% 8% 59% 1% 47 . A large community room, with attached kitchen, for banquets, parties, organ- izational meetings, and other rental purposes? 12% 32% 8% 47% 1% 5 VLK SLK NTL NAA DKR 48 . Picnic facility and trails adjoining the center? 21% 28% 12% 38% 1% 49 . Snack bar, soda fountain, and coffee shop? 15% 41% 3% 39% 2% 50 . A teen center? 12% 21% 5% 61% 1% 51 . A community theater for the performing arts? 15% 36% 13% 35% 1% 52 . Multi-purpose classrooms? 10% 34% 11% 44% 1% 53 . Indoor and outdoor playgrounds for children? 19% 26% 4% 50% 1% 54 . Is there one component you MOST strongly favor for inclu- sion? NO, 45%; OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOL, 17%; FITNESS/WEIGHT ROOM, 3%; MEETING ROOMS, 5%; WALKING/RUNNING TRACK, 6%; TEEN CENTER, 5%; SENIOR CENTER, 5%; INDOOR YOUTH PLAYGROUND CENTER, 9%; INDOOR SWIMMING POOL, 2%; SCATTERED, 3%. 55 . Are there any other recreational facilities you would like to see in a Community Family Center? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What are they? UNSURE, 11%; NO, 76%; FITNESS/WEIGHT ROOM, 3%; TRAILS, 2%; TENNIS COURTS, 2%; SCATTERED, 6% . 56 . How likely would your household be ALMOST CERTAIN 2% to use the supervised child care VERY LIKELY 5% service while at the Center -- al- SOMEWHAT LIKELY 14% most certain, very likely, some- NOT TOO LIKELY 12% what likely, not too likely,' or NOT AT ALL LIKELY 65% not at all likely? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 2% 57 . And, how likely would your house- ALMOST CERTAIN 2% hold be to enroll in the licensed VERY LIKELY 3% child care for children birth to SOMEWHAT LIKELY 9% age five -- almost certain, very NOT TOO LIKELY 8% likely, somewhat likely, not too NOT AT ALL LIKELY 78% likely, or not at all likely? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 0% Based on our discussion of the programs and facilities that could be offered at the Community Family Center, please tell me how many members of this household would probably. . . . 58 . Visit the Community Family Center NONE 43% on a frequent, at least weekly 1 20% basis? 2 18% 3 10% 4 OR MORE 9% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 0% 6 59. Visit the Center on an occasional, NONE 33% perhaps monthly, basis? 1 25% 2 23% 3 10% 4 OR MORE 9% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 0% I would like to read you a short list of characteristics which may apply to the location of the Community Family Center. For each one, please tell me if it would make you and/or household members much more likely to visit the center, somewhat more likely to visit, somewhat less likely to visit, or much less likely to visit the center, or does it make no difference to your use of the center. MML SML SLL MLL NOD DKR 60 . First, the Center is located with- in your community? 37% 35% 1% 3% 23% 1% 61 . Next, the Center is located five minutes away by car? 25% 41% 3% 5% 25% 1% 62 . Finally, the Center is located 15 minutes away by car? 15% 18% 20% 11% 34% 2% Since the Community Family Center will not depend on an increase in property taxes to fund its construction, both corporate and private contributions will be needed to raise funds . If the Community Family Center were to ask for contributions, and also keeping in mind your current charitable giving and your household budget. . . . 63 . How likely would you be to fin- VERY LIKELY 2% ancially contribute to the build- SOMEWHAT LIKELY 33% ing of a Community Family Center NOT TOO LIKELY 23% -- very likely, somewhat likely, NOT AT ALL LIKELY 38% not too likely, or not at all DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 4% likely? To cover the operating costs of the Community Family Center, a moderate fee would be charged for the use of the recreational and wellness facilities. 64 . Would the charge of a moderate fee YES 26% for a daily pass to use the rec- NO 67% reational and wellness facilities, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 7% such as the swimming pool and the exercise and aerobics rooms, sign- ificantly decrease your use of those facilities, or not? 7 65 . How much would you be willing to NOTHING 17% pay per visit to use the recrea- $4 .00 38% tional and wellness facilities? $6 . 00 24% Let ' s say, would you be willing to $8 . 00 1% pay $ per visit? (CHOOSE RANDOM $10 .00 6% STARTING POINT; DEPENDING ON RE- $12 .00 1% SPONSE, CHOOSE THE NEXT HIGHER OR DON'T KNOW 13% LOWER CATEGORY. ) How about $ REFUSED 0% per visit? (REPEAT PROCESS) The Center would also offer both family memberships and individu- al memberships to recreation and wellness facility users. Mem- bers would have unlimited access to all facilities . 66 . Would you be more interested in a FAMILY MEMBERSHIP 37% family membership or an individual INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP. .6% membership or neither, given your NOT INTERESTED (VOL. ) .56% household needs? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 1% IF "INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP, " ASK: (N=6) 67 . How much would you be willing NOTHING 0% to p ay yearly for an indivi- $250 .00 50% dual membership? Let' s say, $300 .00 0% would you be willing to pay $350 . 00 0% $ per year? (CHOOSE RAN- $400 .00 0% DOM STARTING POINT; DEPENDING $450 .00 0% ON RESPONSE, CHOOSE THE NEXT $500 .00 0% HIGHER OR LOWER CATEGORY. ) DON'T KNOW 50 How about $ per year? REFUSED 0% (REPEAT PROCESS) IF "FAMILY MEMBERSHIP, " ASK (N=37) 68 . How much would you be willing NOTHING 0% to pay yearly for a family $400 .00 57% membership? Let ' s say, would $450 .00 3% you be willing to pay $ $500.00 11% per visit? (CHOOSE RANDOM $550 .00 3% STARTING POINT; DEPENDING ON $600 .00 3% RESPONSE, CHOOSE THE NEXT $650 . 00 0% HIGHER OR LOWER CATEGORY. ) $700 . 00 3% How about $ per visit? DON'T KNOW 22% (REPEAT PROCESS) REFUSED 0% It might be helpful to discuss comparable fees. A typical pri vate sports and health club charges about $1, 600 yearly for a family membership. City-operated Community Centers tend to charge less . Shoreview charges its families $495 yearly, while Maplewood yearly family membership fees are $612 per year. 69 . Would you pay $500 for a one YES 23% year family membership to the NO 75% Community Family Center? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 2% 8 Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes. . . . Could you tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. Let' s start oldest to youngest, and be sure to include yourself . . . . 70 . First, persons 65 years old and NONE 73% over? ONE 5% TWO OR MORE 21% REFUSED 1% 71. Adults under 65 years old? NONE 22% ONE 8% TWO 62% THREE OR MORE 6% REFUSED 2% 72 . Children aged 5 to 18 years old? NONE 55% ONE 15% TWO 27% THREE OR MORE 3% 73 . Children under 5 years old? NONE 78% ONE 19% TWO OR MORE 2% REFUSED 1% 74 . What is your age, please? 18-24 3% 25-34 5% 35-44 32% 45-54 27% 55-64 11% 65 AND OVER 22% REFUSED 0% 75 . What is the highest level of for- LESS THAN HS GRAD 3% mal education you have completed? HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE. .17% VO-TECH/TECH COLLEGE8% SOME COLLEGE 14% COLLEGE GRADUATE 46% POST-GRADUATE 11% REFUSED 1% As you may know, Stillwater Area Public Schools provide a wide variety of Community Education services. These include: Early childhood education, parent education, enrichments programs for youth and adults, adult basic education, pre-school and school- age care programs . 76 . During the past year, have you or YES 31% any members of this household used NO 69% any Community Education programs DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 0% offered by the Stillwater Area Public Schools? 9 77 . Are you a member of a health club? YES 24% NO 76% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 0% One last question, and keeping in mind your responses are held strictly confidential . . . . 78 . Could you tell me your approximate LESS THAN $25, 000 1% pre-tax yearly household income? $25, 001 TO $50, 000 . . . .21% Does the income lie. . . (READ $50, 001 TO $75, 000 . . . .28% CATEGORIES) $75, 001 TO $100, 000 . . .15% $100, 001 TO $125, 0009% $125, 001 TO $150, 0003% OVER $150, 000 7% DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . .16% 79. Gender MALE 45% FEMALE 55% 80. Area of school district BAYPORT 0% LAKE ELMO 0% OAK PARK HEIGHTS 0% STILLWATER 100% REST OF DISTRICT 0% 10 Decision Resources, Ltd. SAINT CROIX VALLEY AREA 3128 Dean Court COMMUNITY FAMILY CENTER STUDY Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 FINAL Version BAYPORT SAMPLE (N=100) Hello, I 'm of Decision Resources, Ltd. , a nationwide polling firm located in Minneapolis . We 've been retained by the Saint Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Task Force to speak with a random sample of area residents about their views on the development of a center which would address educational, recreational, family advocacy, and wellness needs . The survey is being taken because the Task Force is interested in your opinions and suggestions. I want to assure you that all individual re- sponses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE) 1 . Approximately how many years have LESS THAN TWO YEARS . . . . 2% you lived at your present address? TWO TO FIVE YEARS 14% SIX TO TEN YEARS 13% 11 TO 20 YEARS 36% 21 TO 30 YEARS 20% OVER 30 YEARS 15% DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 0% 2 . Prior to this survey, were you YES 7% aware of the planning process for NO 93% a Saint Croix Valley Area Commun- DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 0% ity Family Center? IF "YES, " ASK: (N=7) 3 . Do you recall your source of information about the planning process? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What was it? LOCAL NEWSPAPER, 43%; MAILINGS, 14%; MEETINGS, 43% . 4 . Do you recall what you heard or read? NO, 14%; MORE FOR CHILDREN, 71 %; MULTI-PURPOSE FACIL- ITY, 14% . Let me provide you with some information. . . . As you may know, the Saint Croix Valley Area Community Family Center has been discussed by various organizations for the past three years . Today, over one dozen partners including four cities, the public schools, social service organizations, both public and private, an area hospital, and local businesses are part of this effort . Their goal is to provide area residents with a Community Family Center, to meet the educational, recreational and wellness needs of local children, families and individuals . The Community 1 Family Center facility would support the efforts of these organi- zations and provide services which are both integrated and acces- sible in ONE shared space. SUPPORT 6% 5. On the basis of this information, STRONGLY SUP 49% do you support or oppose the con- SUPPORT 4% struction and operation of a Com- OPPOSE 1 94% munity Family Center in this area? STRONGLYOOPPOSESED. . . . 0% (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly that way? IF AN OPINION IS GIVEN, ASK: (N=69) 6 . Could you tell me one or two reasons why you feel that way? GOOD FOR COMMUNITY, 19%; NEEDED FOR CHILDREN, 28%; NEEDED, 10%; NOT NEEDED, 13%; WASTE OF MONEY, 8%; WOULD BE CENTRALLY LOCATED, 3%; FAMILY FRIENDLY ACTIVITIES, 19%; Now, let me read you a list of statements made by others . For each one, please tell me if it makes you much more likely to support a Community Family Center, somewhat more likely, makes no difference, somewhat less likely, or much less likely to support a Community Family Center. (ROTATE) MML SML NOD SLL MLL DKR 7 . The Community Family Center will be unique in offering many programs, support , and opportunities in one location, allowing individuals and families to obtain needed services 37% 28% 32% 2% 0% 1 % efficiently. 8 . The Center will be a secure loca- tion for recreation, youth activi- ties, educational opportunities and 34% 28% 35% 2% 0% 1 % child care. 9 . The Center will contain an exten- sive recreation facility, for both group and individual activities, 37% 29% 31 % 2% 0% 1 % and programs for all age groups . 10 . The Community Family Center con- struction and operation will not 45% 26% 26% 2% 0% 1 % require a property tax increase. 2 MML SML NOD SLL MLL DKR 11 . The Center will offer early public pre-school and childhood programs , parent education programs , and adult education programs. 34% 24% 39% 2% 0% 1 % 12 . The Center will offer programs and services for medical rehabilitation, aquatic opportunities for all, wheelchair and adaptive sports, after-school programs for youth, as well as transportation to and from programs for disabled and senior service users . 30% 30% 34% 2% 0% 4% 13 . The Center will offer a wide array of wellness classes, on topics such as nutrition, weight management, and exercise. 32% 29% 35% 2% 0% 2% 14 . The Center will have a Family Ser- vices Coordinator whose job will be to effectively connect families in need with specific services in the community. 34% 25% 38% 2% 0% 1 % 15. The Center will offer supervised child care for individuals or fami- lies using any program or recrea- tional offering. 31 % 24% 42% 2% 0% 1 % 16. The Center will also offer licensed child care for children birth to five years old and children with special learning needs or disabilities . 32% 21 % 43% 3% 0% 1 % Many people change their mind after hearing more information about an issue. . . . 17 . On the basis of this information, STRONGLY SUPPORT 17% do you support or oppose the con- SUPPORT 55% struction and operation of a Com- OPPOSE 11 % munity Family Center in this area? STRONGLY OPPOSE 8% (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel DON' TKNOW/REFUSED 9% strongly that way? Moving on. . . . Although no final decisions have been made about programming and facilities, I would like your opinion about some of the potential offerings under discussion. 3 As we discussed earlier, the Community Family Center goal is to provide accessible, linked services in a shared space. First , let ' s discuss programs and services addressing education, health and wellness, and family resources . Charges for these services vary, from free to fees for service, and/or a sliding-scale fee based on household income . I would like to read you a list of services which could be of- fered at the Community Family Center . For each one, please tell me if you and/or household members would be very likely to use it in the next couple of years, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all likely to use that service in the next couple of years . VLK SLK NTL NAA DKR 18 . Education programs for children birth 2% 7% 2% 89% 0% to five years old? 19 . Parent education programs? 3% 4% 9% 84% 0 20 . Adult Basic Education? 2% 4% 3% 91 % 0% 21 . English as a Second Language programs? 0% 0% 1 % 99% 0% 22 . C.E.D. programs for those not having 1 % 2% 1 % 96% 0% graduated from high school? 23 . Technology and computer classes? 10% 15% 5% 70% 0% 24 . Enrichment classes for adults? 10% 39% 3% 47% 1 % 25 . Wellness classes about topics such as nutrition, weight management , and 14% 37% 2% 47% 0% exercise? 26 . Counseling services on physical and mental health issues? 6% 17% 1 % 76% 0% 27 . A Family Service Coordinator, to connect families with needed services available 4% 13% 7% 76% 0% in the community? 28 . Transportation to and from Center programs for the disabled and seniors? 5% 13% 3% 79% 0% 29 . Physical rehabilitation and management of chronic conditions? 5% 16% 1 % 78% 0% 30 . Supervised child care? 4% 12% 3% 81 % 0% 31 . Support groups for families and individuals facing challenges? 6% 7% 4% 83% 0% Now, let ' s discuss the recreation programs and services planned for the Community Family Center . . . . 32 . Do you feel that the currently YES 65% available mix of recreational NO 30% facilities sufficiently meets the DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 5% needs of members of your house- hold? 4 33 . If a Community Family Center were to be built in this area, what types of recreational facilities do you think are most important to include? UNSURE, 41 %; NONE, 5%; OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOL, 21 %; GYM- NASIUM, 7%; FITNESS/WEIGHT ROOM, 5%; YOUTH RECREATION, 5%; BALLFIELDS, 4%; THEATER, 2%; SCATTERED, 11 % . 34 . Are there any particular activities or programs and services the Center should offer to serve the needs of you and other members of your household? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What are they? UNSURE, 5%; NONE, 71 %; SWIMMING POOL FOR LESSONS, 9%; FITNESS/EXERCISE PROGRAMS, 3%; SCATTERED, 12% . Again, keeping in mind that no final decisions have been made about recreational facilities and programs . . . . I would like to read you a list of offerings which could be included in a Community Family Center. For each one, please tell me if you and/or household members would be very likely to use it, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all likely to use that offering. (ROTATE) VLK SLK NTL NAA DKR 35 . An indoor ice skating rink? 8% 12% 2% 78% 0% 36 . An indoor competition or lap pool? 11 % 18% 7% 64% 0% 37 . An indoor leisure fun pool with water slide? 24% 18% 1 % 57% 0% 38 . An outdoor swimming pool with splash area and water slide? 22% 19% 1 % 58% 0% 39 . Racquetball courts? 4% 10% 13% 73% 0% 40 . An exercise, fitness , and weight room? 21 % 30% 4% 45% 0% 41 . An indoor running/walking track? 22% 36% 3% 38% 1 % 42 . An arts center, including arts and crafts rooms for classes and instruc- tional programs and a gallery for the exhibition of the works of local artists? 17% 33 0 6% 44% 0% 43 . Gymnasiums? 17% 24% 8% 51 % 0% 44 . A senior citizens drop-in center? 14% 13% 7% 65% 1 % 45 . A whirlpool bath, steam rooms, and hot-tub facility? 17% 12% 5% 66% 0% 46 . An aerobics and dance room? 8% 13% 9% 69% 1 % 47 . A large community room, with attached kitchen, for banquets, parties, organ- izational meetings , and other rental purposes? 12% 29% 5% 53% 1 % 48 . Picnic facility and trails adjoining the center? 19% 29% 9% 43% 0% 5 VLK SLK NTL NAA DKR 49 . Snack bar, soda fountain, and coffee shop? 18% 32% 4% 46% 0% 50 . A teen center? 7% 12% 5% 76% 0% 51 . A community theater for the performing arts? 13% 32% 13% 40% 2% 52 . Multi-purpose classrooms? 6% 30% 8% 54% 2% 53 . Indoor and outdoor playgrounds for children? 15% 17% 2% 66% 0% 54 . Is there one component you MOST strongly favor for inclu- sion? NO, 44%; OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOL, 18%; GYMNASIUM, 6%; FITNESS/WEIGHT ROOM, 2%; WALKING/RUNNING TRACK, 5%; SENIOR CENTER, 3%; INDOOR YOUTH PLAYGROUND CENTER, 7%; TRAILS, 5%; THEATER, 4%; CLASSROOMS, 5%; SCATTERED, 1 % . 55 . Are there any other recreational facilities you would like to see in a Community Family Center? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What are they? UNSURE, 2%; NO, 91 %; GYMNASIUM, 2%; SCATTERED, 5%. 56 . How likely would your household be ALMOST CERTAIN 0% to use the supervised child care VERY LIKELY 8% service while at the Center -- al- SOMEWHAT LIKELY 7% most certain, very likely, some- NOT TOO LIKELY 7% what likely, not too likely, or NOT AT ALL LIKELY 78% not at all likely? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 0% 57 . And, how likely would your house- ALMOST CERTAIN 0% hold be to enroll in the licensed VERY LIKELY 3% child care for children birth to SOMEWHAT LIKELY 3% -- almost certain, very NOT TOO LIKELY 10% age five y likely, somewhat likely, not too NOT AT ALL LIKELY 84% likely, or not at all likely? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 0% Based on our discussion of the ro rams and facilities that could P g be offered at the Community Family Center, please tell me how many members of this household would probably. . . . 58 . Visit the Community Family Center NONE 51 % on a frequent, at least weekly 1 12% basis? 2 24% 3 5% 4 OR MORE 7% DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 1 % 6 59 . Visit the Center on an occasional, NONE 29% perhaps monthly, basis? 1 22% 2 30% 3 6% 4 OR MORE 11 % DON ' T KNOW/REFUSED 2% I would like to read you a short list of characteristics which may apply to the location of the Community Family Center. For each one, please tell me if it would make you and/or household members much more likely to visit the center, somewhat more likely to visit , somewhat less likely to visit, or much less likely to visit the center, or does it make no difference to your use of the center. MML SML SLL MLL NOD DKR 60 . First, the Center is located with- in your community? 36% 21 % 0% 0% 41 % 2% 61 . Next , the Center is located five minutes away by car? 28% 24% 1 % 0% 43% 4% 62 . Finally, the Center is located 15 minutes away by car? 17% 10% 5% 8% 55% 5% Since the Community Family Center will not depend on an increase in property taxes to fund its construction, both corporate and piivato contributions will be needed to raise funds . If the Community Family Center were to ask for contributions, and also keeping in mind your current charitable giving and your household budget . . . . 63 . How likely would you be to fin- VERY LIKELY 6% ancially contribute to the build- SOMEWHAT LIKELY 34% ing of a Community Family Center NOT TOO LIKELY 10% -- very likely, somewhat likely, NOT AT ALL LIKELY 45% not too likely, or not at all DON ' T KNOW/REFUSED 5% likely? To cover the operating costs of the Community Family Center, a moderate fee would be charged for the use of the recreational and wellness facilities . 64 . Would the charge of a moderate fee YES 27% for a daily pass to use the rec- NO 67% reational and wellness facilities, DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 6% such as the swimming pool and the exercise and aerobics rooms , sign- ificantly decrease your use of those facilities , or not? 7 65 . How much would you be willing to NOTHING 28% pay per visit to use the recrea- $4 . 00 40% tional and wellness facilities? $6 . 00 15% Let ' s say, would you be willing to $8 . 00 4% pay $ per visit? (CHOOSE RANDOM S10 . 00 6% STARTING POINT; DEPENDING ON RE- $12 . 00 0% SPONSE, CHOOSE THE NEXT HIGHER OR DON' T KNOW 6% LOWER CATEGORY. ) How about $ REFUSED 1 % per visit? (REPEAT PROCESS) The Center would also offer both family memberships and individu- al memberships to recreation and wellness facility users . Mem- bers would have unlimited access to all facilities . 66 . Would you be more interested in a FAMILY MEMBERSHIP 28% family membership or an individual INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP . . 8% membership or neither, given your NOT INTERESTED (VOL. ) . 62% household needs? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 2% IF "INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP, " ASK: (N=8) 67 . How much would you be willing NOTHING 13% to pay yearly for an indivi- S250 . 00 13% dual membership? Let ' s say, $300 . 00 13% would you be willing to pay $350 . 00 0% $ per year? (CHOOSE RAN- $400 . 00 0% DOM STARTING POINT; DEPENDING $450 . 00 0% ON RESPONSE, CHOOSE THE NEXT $500 . 00 0% HIGHER OR LOWER CATEGORY. ) DON' T KNOW 63% How about $ per year? REFUSED 0% (REPEAT PROCESS) IF "FAMILY MEMBERSHIP, " ASK: (N=28) 68 . How much would you be willing NOTHING 0% to pay yearly for a family $400 . 00 43% membership? Let ' s say, would $450 . 00 14% you be willing to pay $ $500 . 00 11 % per visit? (CHOOSE RANDOM $550 . 00 4% STARTING POINT; DEPENDING ON $600 . 00 11 % RESPONSE, CHOOSE THE NEXT $650 . 00 0% HIGHER OR LOWER CATEGORY. ) $700 . 00 0% How about $ per visit? DON' T KNOW 18% (REPEAT PROCESS) REFUSED 0% It might be helpful to discuss comparable fees . A typical pri- vate sports and health club charges about $1 , 600 yearly for a family membership. City-operated Community Centers tend to charge less . Shoreview charges its families $495 yearly, while Maplewood yearly family membership fees are $612 per year. 69 . Would you pay $500 for a one YES 19% year family membership to the NO 71 % Community Family Center? DON ' T KNOW/REFUSED10% 8 Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes. . . . Could you tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. Let ' s start oldest to youngest , and be sure to include yourself. . . . 70 . First, persons 65 years old and NONE 79% over? ONE 6% TWO OR MORE 15% 71 . Adults under 65 years old? NONE 17% ONE 8% TWO 74% THREE OR MORE 1 % 72 . Children aged 5 to 18 years old? NONE 68% ONE 12% TWO 16% THREE OR MORE 4% 73 . Children under 5 years old? NONE 87% ONE 12% TWO OR MORE 1 % 74 . What is your age, please? 18-24 8% 25-34 5% 35-44 23% 45-54 27% 55-64 17% 65 AND OVER 18% REFUSED 2% 75. What is the highest level of for- LESS THAN HS GRAD 0% mal education you have completed? HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE . . 24% VO-TECH/TECH COLLEGE5% SOME COLLEGE 13% COLLEGE GRADUATE 40% POST-GRADUATE 12% REFUSED 6% As you may know, Stillwater Area Public Schools provide a wide variety of Community Education services . These include: Early childhood education, parent education, enrichments programs for youth and adults, adult basic education, pre-school and school- age care programs . 76 . During the past year, have you or YES 14% any members of this household used NO 86% any Community Education programs DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 0% offered by the Stillwater Area Public Schools? 77 . Are you a member of a health club? YES 17% NO 83% DON ' T KNOW/REFUSED 0% 9 One last question, and keeping in mind your responses are held strictly confidential . . . . 78 . Could you tell me your approximate LESS THAN $25, 000 6% pre-tax yearly household income? $25, 001 TO $50 , 000 . . . . 160 Does the income lie. . . (READ $50 , 001 TO $75, 000 . . . . 230 CATEGORIES) $75, 001 TO $100 , 000 . . . 16% $100 , 001 TO $125, 0008% $125, 001 TO $150 , 0005% OVER $150 , 000 1 % DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 25% 79 . Gender MALE 54% FEMALE 46% 80 . Area of school district BAYPORT 100% LAKE ELMO 0% OAK PARK HEIGHTS 0% STILLWATER 0% REST OF DISTRICT 0% , 0 10 Decision Resources, Ltd. TN TC VALLEY AREA N S 3128 Dean Court COMMUNITY FAMILY CENTER STUDY Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 FINAL Version LAKE ELMO SAMPLE (N=100) Hello, I 'm of Decision Resources, Ltd. , a nationwide polling firm located in Minneapolis . We 've been retained by the Saint Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Task Force to speak with a random sample of area residents about their views on the development of a center which would address educational, recreational, family advocacy, and wellness needs . The survey is being taken because the Task Force is interested in your opinions and suggestions. I want to assure you that all individual re sponses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE) 1 Approximately how many years have LESS THAN TWO YEARS . . . . 1 % you lived at your present address? TWO TO FIVEYYEARS 39% 11 TO 20 YEARS 270 21 TO 30 YEARS 21 % OVER 30 YEARS 11 % DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 0% 2 . Prior to this survey, were you YES 10% aware of the planning process for NO 90% a Saint Croix Valley Area Commun DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 0% ity Family Center? IF "YES, " ASK: (N=10) 3 . Do you recall your source of information about the planning process? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What was it? NO, 10%; LOCAL NEWSPAPER, 90% . 4 . Do you recall what you heard or read? HIGH COST, 60%; GENERAL PLANS, 20%; MULTI-PURPOSE FACILITY, 20% . Let me provide you with some information. . . . As you may know, the Saint Croix Valley Area Community Family Center has been discussed by various organizations for the past three years . Today, over one dozen partners including four cities, the public schools , social service organizations, both public and private, an area hospital , and local businesses are part of this effort . Their goal is to provide area residents with a Community Family Center, to meet the educational, recreational and wellness needs of local children, families and individuals . The Community 1 Family Center facility would support the efforts of these organi- zations and provide services which are both integrated and acces- sible in ONE shared space. 5 . On the basis of this information, STRONGLY SUPPORT 9% do you support or oppose the con- SUPPORT 48% struction and operation of a Com- OPPOSE 4% munity Family Center in this area? STRONGLY OPPOSE 11 % (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel DON' T KNOW/REFUSED28% strongly that way? IF AN OPINION IS GIVEN, ASK: (N=72) 6 . Could you tell me one or two reasons why you feel that way? GOOD FOR COMMUNITY, 17%; NEEDED FOR CHILDREN, 24%; NEEDED, 6%; NOT NEEDED, 6% ; WOULDN' T USE, 8%; WOULD USE, 6%; WASTE OF MONEY, 7%; WOULD BE CENTRALLY LOCATED, 7%; FAMILY-FRIENDLY ACTIVITIES, 11 %; NO/LOW COST, 3%; SCATTERED, 4% . Now, let me read you a list of statements made by others . For each one, please tell me if it makes you much more likely to support a Community Family Center, somewhat more likely, makes no difference, somewhat less likely, or much less likely to support a Community Family Center. (ROTATE) MML SML NOD SLL MLL DKR 7 . The Community Family Center will be unique in offering many programs, support , and opportunities in one location, allowing individuals and families to obtain needed services efficiently. 30% 37% 33% 0% 0% 0% 8 . The Center will be a secure loca- tion for recreation, youth activi- ties, educational opportunities and child care . 32% 36% 32% 0% 0% 0% 9 . The Center will contain an exten- sive recreation facility, for both group and individual activities , and programs for all age groups . 34% 38% 28% 0% 0% 0% 10 . The Community Family Center con- struction and operation will not require a property tax increase. 59% 18% 23% 0% 0% 0% 2 MML SML NOD SLL MLL DKR 11 . The Center will offer early public pre-school and childhood programs , parent education programs , and adult education programs . 24% 32% 43% 0% 1 % 0% 12 . The Center will offer programs and services for medical rehabilitation, aquatic opportunities for all, wheelchair and adaptive sports, after-school programs for youth, as well as transportation to and from programs for disabled and senior service users . 28% 34% 37% 1 % 0% 0% 13 . The Center will offer a wide array of wellness classes, on topics such as nutrition, weight management, and exercise. 29% 40% 31 % 0% 0% 0% 14 . The Center will have a Family Ser- vices Coordinator whose job will be to effectively connect families in need with specific services in the community. 22% 38% 40% 0% 0% 0% 15. The Center will offer supervised child care for individuals or fami- lies using any program or recrea- tional offering. 19% 36% 44% 0% 1 % 0% 16 . The Center will also offer licensed child care for children birth to five years old and children with special learning needs or disabilities . 17% 30% 52% 0% 1 % 0% Many people change their mind after hearing more information about an issue. . . . 17 . On the basis of this information, STRONGLY SUPPORT 21 % do you support or oppose the con- SUPPORT 59% struction and operation of a Com- OPPOSE 11 % munity Family Center in this area? STRONGLY OPPOSE 4% (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel DON' TKNOW/REFUSED 5% strongly that way? Moving on. . . . Although no final decisions have been made about programming and facilities, I would like your opinion about some of the potential offerings under discussion. 3 As we discussed earlier, the Community Family Center goal is to provide accessible, linked services in a shared space. First, let ' s discuss programs and services addressing education, health and wellness, and family resources . Charges for these services vary, from free to fees for service, and/or a sliding-scale fee based on household income . I would like to read you a list of services which could be of- fered at the Community Family Center. For each one, please tell me if you and/or household members would be very likely to use it in the next couple of years, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all likely to use that service in the next couple of years . VLK SLK NTL NAA DKR 18 . Education programs for children birth to five years old? 0% 9% 4% 87% 0% 19 . Parent education programs? 0% 8% 7% 85% 0% 20 . Adult Basic Education? 0% 9% 2% 89% 0% 21 . English as a Second Language programs? 0% 1 % 4% 95% 0% 22 . G.E.D. programs for those not having graduated from high school? 0% 4% 4% 92% 0% 23 . Technology and computer classes? 0% 22% 7% 71 % 0% 24 . Enrichment classes for adults? 5% 37% 4% 54% 0% 25 . Wellness classes about topics such as nutrition, weight management , and exercise? 10% 40% 8% 42% 0% 2E _ Counseling services on physical and mental health issues? 1 % 16% 6% 77% 0% 27 . A Family Service Coordinator, to connect families with needed services available in the community? 0% 15% 9% 76% 0% 28 . Transportation to and from Center programs for the disabled and seniors? 1 % 10% 8% 81 % 0% 29 . Physical rehabilitation and management of chronic conditions? 0% 8% 7% 85% 0% 30 . Supervised child care? 1 % 9% 8% 82% 0% 31 . Support groups for families and individuals facing challenges? 0% 6% 12% 82% 0% Now, let ' s discuss the recreation programs and services planned for the Community Family Center. . . . 32 . Do you feel that the currently YES 74% available mix of recreational NO 22% facilities sufficiently meets the DON ' T KNOW/REFUSED 4% needs of members of your house- hold? 4 33 . If a Community Family Center were to be built in this area, what types of recreational facilities do you think are most important to include? UNSURE, 40%; NONE, 3%; OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOL, 21 %; GYM- NASIUM, 9%; FITNESS/WEIGHT ROOM, 7%; SENIOR CENTER, 6%; INDOOR YOUTH PLAYGROUND CENTER, 2%; INDOOR SWIMMING POOL, 3%; CLASSROOMS, 3%; SCATTERED, 6% . 34 . Are there any particular activities or programs and services the Center should offer to serve the needs of you and other members of your household? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What are they? UNSURE, 10%; NONE, 62%; SENIOR PROGRAMS, 3%; EARLY CHILD- HOOD PROGRAMS, 2%; TEEN PROGRAMS, 2%; SWIMMING LESSONS, 9%; OPEN GYM, 3%; ADULT EDUCATION, 2%; YOUTH SPORTS LEAGUES, 4%; SCATTERED, 3% . Again, keeping in mind that no final decisions have been made about recreational facilities and programs . . . . I would like to read you a list of offerings which could be included in a Community Family Center. For each one, please tell me if you and/or household members would be very likely to use it , somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all likely to use that offering. (ROTATE) VLK SLK NTL NAA DKR 35 . An indoor ice skating rink? 11 % 12% 7% 70% 0% 36 . An indoor competition or lap pool? 12% 14% 5% 68% 1 % 37 . An indoor leisure fun pool with water slide? 28% 16% 3% 53% 0% 38 . An outdoor swimming pool with splash area and water slide? 23% 18% 5% 54% 0% 39 . Racquetball courts? 7% 15% 11 % 67% 0% 40 . An exercise, fitness , and weight room? 19% 23% 7% 51 % 0% 41 . An indoor running/walking track? 22% 32% 0% 46% 0% 42 . An arts center, including arts and crafts rooms for classes and instruc- tional programs and a gallery for the exhibition of the works of local artists? 14% 35% 15% 36% 0% 43 . Gymnasiums? 15% 24% 5% 55% 1 % 44 . A senior citizens drop-in center? 7% 15% 3% 74% 1 % 45 . A whirlpool bath, steam rooms, and hot-tub facility? 9% 15% 5% 71 % 0% 46 . An aerobics and dance room? 7% 16% 4% 73% 0% 47 . A large community room, with attached kitchen, for banquets , parties, organ- izational meetings, and other rental purposes? 8% 19% 9% 64% 0% 5 VLK SLK NTL NAA DKR 48 . Picnic facility and trails adjoining the center? 16% 27% 6% 51 % 0% 49 . Snack bar, soda fountain, and coffee shop? 15% 35% 3% 47% 0% 50 . A teen center? 51 . A community theater for the performing 13% 10% 3% 74% 0% arts? 13% 22% 13% 52% 0% 52 . Multi-purpose classrooms? la 5% 28% 10% 57% 0% 53 . Indoor and outdoor playgrounds for children? 13% 1 1 % 8% 67% 1 % 54 . Is there one component you MOST strongly favor for inclu- sion? UNSURE, 3%; NO, 34%; OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOL, 15%; GYMNASI- UM, 4%; FITNESS/WEIGHT ROOM, 2%; MEETING ROOMS, 1 %; WALKING/RUNNING TRACK, 5%; SENIOR CENTER, 16%; INDOOR YOUTH PLAYGROUND CENTER, 6%; INDOOR SWIMMING POOL, 2%; TRAILS, 2%; THEATER, 5%; WATER PARK, 5% . 55 . Are there any other recreational facilities you would like to see in a Community Family Center? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What are they? UNSURE, 6%; NO, 86%; OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOL, 2%; FITNESS/WEIGHT ROOM, 2% ; SCATTERED, 4% . 56 . How likely would your household be ALMOST CERTAIN to use the supervised child care VERY LIKELY 1 % 1 % service while at the Center -- al- SOMEWHAT LIKELY most certain, very likely, 10% what likely, Y, some- NOT TOO LIKELY 10% y, not too likely, or NOT AT ALL LIKELY 78% not at all likely? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 0% 57 . And, how likely would your house- ALMOST CERTAIN hold be to enroll in the licensed VERY LIKELY 0% 1 child care for children birth to SOMEWHAT LIKELY 1 % 8% age five -- almost certain, very NOT TOO LIKELY 3% likely, somewhat likely, not too NOT AT ALL LIKELY 83% likely, or not at all likely? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 1 % Based on our discussion of the programs and facilities that could be offered at the Community Family Center, please tell me how many members of this household would probably. . . . 58 . Visit the Community Family Center NONE on a frequent , at least weekly 1 47% basis? 16% 2 17% 3 7% 4 OR MORE 8% DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 5% 6 59 . Visit the Center on an occasional, N ONE perhaps monthly, basis? 1 30% 30% 2 20% 3 70 4 OR MORE 10% DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 3% I would like to read you a short list of characteristics which may apply to the location of the Community Family Center. For each one, please tell me if it would make you and/or household members much more likely to visit the center, somewhat more likely to visit, somewhat less likely to visit, or much less likely to visit the center, or does it make no difference to your use of the center. MML SML SLL MLL NOD DKR 60 . First , the Center is located with- in your community? 30% 31 % 0% 0% 39% 0% 61 . Next , the Center is located five minutes away by car? 23% 31 % 1 % 0% 45% 0% 62 . Finally, the Center is located 15 minutes away by car? 15% 12% 9% 8% 56% 0% Since the Community Family Center will not depend on an increase in property taxes to fund its construction, both corporate and private contributions will be needed to raise funds . If the Community Family Center were to ask for contributions, and also keeping in mind your current charitable giving and your household budget . . . . 63 . How likely would you be to fin- VERY LIKELY ancially contribute to the build- SOMEWHAT LIKELY 5% ing of a Community Family Center NOT TOO LIKELY 28% likely, likely, 11 % -- ver Y y, somewhat NOT AT ALL LIKELY 410 not too likely, or not at all DON'T KNOW/REFUSED 7% likely? To cover the operating costs of the Community Family Center, a moderate fee would be charged for the use of the recreational and wellness facilities . 64 . Would the charge of a moderate fee YES 32% for a daily pass to use the rec- NO 61 % reational and wellness facilities, DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 7% such as the swimming pool and the exercise and aerobics rooms, sign- ificantly decrease your use of those facilities, or not? 7 65 . How much would you be willing to NOTHING 29% pay per visit to use the recrea- $4 . 00 35% tional and wellness facilities? $6 . 00 21 % Let ' s say, would you be willing to $8 . 00 6% pay $ per visit? (CHOOSE RANDOM $10 . 00 0% STARTING POINT; DEPENDING ON RE- $12 . 00 0% SPONSE, CHOOSE THE NEXT HIGHER OR DON' T KNOW 80 LOWER CATEGORY. ) How about $ REFUSED 1 % per visit? (REPEAT PROCESS) The Center would also offer both family memberships and individu- al memberships to recreation and wellness facility users . Mem- bers would have unlimited access to all facilities . 66 . Would you be more interested in a FAMILY MEMBERSHIP 33% family membership or an individual INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP11 % membership or neither, given your NOT INTERESTED (VOL. ) 53% household needs? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 3% IF "INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP, " ASK: (N=11 ) 67 . How much would you be willing NOTHING 0% to p ay yearly for an indivi- $250 . 00 27% dual membership? Let ' s say, $300 . 00 36% would you be willing to pay $350 . 00 9% $ per year? (CHOOSE RAN- 5400 . 00 0% DOM STARTING POINT; DEPENDING $450 . 00 0% ON RESPONSE, CHOOSE THE NEXT S500 . 00 0% HIGHER OR LOWER CATEGORY. ) DON ' T KNOW 27% How about $ per year? REFUSED 0% (REPEAT PROCESS) IF "FAMILY MEMBERSHIP, " ASK: (N=33) 68 . How much would you be willing NOTHING 0% to pay yearly for a family $400 . 00 39% membership? Let ' s say, would $450 . 00 you be willing to pay 12% g pa $ $500 . 00 15% per visit? (CHOOSE RANDOM $550 . 00 0% STARTING POINT; DEPENDING ON $600 . 00 12% RESPONSE, CHOOSE THE NEXT $650 . 00 0% HIGHER OR LOWER CATEGORY. ) $700 . 00 0% How about $ per visit? DON' T KNOW 21 % (REPEAT PROCESS) REFUSED 0% It might be helpful to discuss comparable fees . A typical pri- vate sports and health club charges about $1 , 600 yearly for a family membership. City-operated Community Centers tend to charge less . Shoreview charges its families $495 yearly, while Maplewood yearly family membership fees are S612 per year. 69 . Would you pay $500 for a one YES year family membership to the NO 25% 68%Family Center? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 7% 8 Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes . . . . Could you tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. Let ' s start oldest to youngest, and be sure to include yourself. . . . 70 . First, persons 65 years old and NONE over? 73% ONE 6% TWO OR MORE 21 % 71 . Adults under 65 years old? NONE 21 % ONE 10% TWO 64% THREE OR MORE 5% 72 . Children aged 5 to 18 years old? NONE 67% ONE 12% TWO 16% THREE OR MORE 5% 73 . Children under 5 years old? NONE 90% ONE 4% TWO OR MORE 6% 74 . What is your age, please? 18-24 9% 25-34 5% 35-44 32% 45-54 29% 55-64 3% 65 AND OVER 22% REFUSED 0% 75 . What is the highest level of for- LESS THAN HS GRAD mal education you have completed? HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE. . 37% VO-TECH/TECH COLLEGE9% SOME COLLEGE 7% COLLEGE GRADUATE 40% POST-GRADUATE 5% As you may know, Stillwater Area Public Schools provide a wide variety of Community Education services . These include: Early childhood education, parent education, enrichments programs for youth and adults, adult basic education, pre-school and school- age care programs . 76 . During the past year, have you or YES any members of this household used NO 16% any Community Education programs DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 83% offered by the Stillwater Area 1 % Public Schools? 77 . Are you a member of a health club? YES 25% NO DON' T KNOW/REFUSED 75%0% 9 One last question, and keeping in mind your responses are held strictly confidential . _ . . 78 . Could you tell me your approximate LESS THAN $25, 000 1 % pre-tax yearly household income? $25, 001 TO $50 , 000 . . . . 23% Does the income lie. . . (READ $50 , 001 TO $75 , 000 . . . . 26% CATEGORIES) $75, 001 TO $100, 000 . . . 15% $100 , 001 TO $125, 000 . . 12% 0 $125 , 001 TO $150 , 00030 OVER $150 , 000 3% DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . 17% 79 . Gender MALE 43% FEMALE 57% 80 . Area of school district BAYPORT 0% LAKE ELMO 100% OAK PARK HEIGHTS 0% STILLWATER 0% REST OF DISTRICT 0% 10 • eld4_,a , ...Xilittesearch Inc. September 28, 2006 MEMORANDUM (Final) TO: St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Site Selection Task Force FROM: Mary C. Bujold Maxfield Research Inc. RE: Updated and Revised Assessment of Potential Sites for SCVA Community Family Center Introduction This memorandum discusses and analyzes our findings regarding identification of potential sites for the location of the proposed SCVA Community Family Center. This memorandum includes the following: ✓ Identification of sites and site characteristics currently sponsored by Cities participating in the SCVA Community Family Center process; V Identification of sites and site characteristics currently available and marketing in the Stillwater Area, but not sponsored by Cities. ✓ Identification of the strengths and weaknesses associated with each of the sites; ✓ An analysis and review of projected growth trends in communities in the Stillwater School District(mapping of growth trends); ✓ An assessment of the current and projected population and household base within one, three and five miles of each of the sites. Full radii and adjusted areas are shown. The adjusted areas exclude geographies that are outside of the communities located in the Stillwater School District. ✓ A summary assessment of the selection criteria of each site based on larger topical areas such as: • Access/Visibility • Proximity to Major Transportation Arteries • Proximity to Population Densities (Current and Future) 615 15t Avenue NE #400,Minneapolis,MN 55413 (612)338-0012 fax(612)904-7979 www.maxfiel dre se arch.corn 28, 2006 A tember SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force September Page 2 • Baseline Acquisition Costs • Additional Infrastructure Costs • Size of Site and Expansion Potential • Development Timing • Proximity to Bus Transit Routes and Walking/Biking Trails • Current Traffic Counts (Flows) and Projected Traffic Flows • Possible Environmental Issues • Political Climate Base Site Criteria-Group Meeting Although each major stakeholder group has a slightly different set of criteria associated with their selection of a site, the following criteria appear generally agreed on by the group and a shared acknowledgement of their importance. On May 12, 2006, Maxfield Research Inc. met with representatives of the participant communities along with representatives of the key user prospects of the facility. The intention was to frame the discussion relevant to the preferences of the key users and review previous discussions that had already occurred regarding stakeholder needs. • A location that will be somewhat central to current population and projected growth in the St. Croix Valley Area; • A location that is within the School District boundaries; • A location that is relatively convenient to access for potential users; • A location that would potentially meet the needs and criteria of most, if not all, of the stakeholders. Specific needs and criteria were mentioned by the YMCA and by the School District. The YMCA indicated a preference for a location that would have convenient access from major thoroughfares and a drive-time of no more than 10 minutes by car. In general, the concerns of the YMCA reflect the need to generate a sufficient number of dues paying members to justify operations costs and development costs of the facility. A concern was expressed by the group that employees of major employers in the area should be able to conveniently access the Site and that the facility may offer wellness programs. At subsequent discussions,this concern remained present,but has now been relegated to lower concern because many employees currently live in the area and would access the facility as a resident, not just an employee. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force September 28, 2006 Page 3 The largest employers in the area are: Andersen Corporation 4,500 employees Stillwater Public Schools 1,003 employees Lakeview/SMG 990 employees Washington County 970 employees UFE Mfg. 8 MN Correctional Facility 470 00 employees Some large employers in the area but outside of the School District Boundaries include: 3M 13,000 Imation 1,500 The Hartford 712 Most employees are generally within a reasonable distance of their place of employment, although the actual geographic dispersion of employees at these employers has not been identified in addition to those that reside within the School District versus those outside of the School District. The School District is concerned regarding the availability of a sufficient amount of land to accommodate children's safety and students' access and safety on the site. As such, a site that offers at minimum 13+acres or capacity to develop a building with approximately 90,000 to 100,000 square feet is projected to be needed. In addition to building capacity, bus and vehicle staging areas,pick-up and drop-off must also be considered in assessing the amount of land required for the facility. Population and Household Growth Trends The following maps outline the boundaries of the Stillwater School District and show the projected growth in population and households as of 2010 and 2030. Also shown are population and household density maps for 2010 and 2030, identifying resident concentrations. This information is used to assist in evaluating the location of sites relative to the projected growth in the Area. Information on growth trends was compiled by Metropolitan Council and cross- referenced to information compiled by the School District in their Enrollment Projections through 2010. In the past, the number of completed homes had fallen significantly below projections. This trend is likely to change moving forward because of a slowing in construction and the amount of"gap"will likely decline. During our discussions, task force members also requested additional information regarding total population and households within specific radii surrounding each of the sites. The information was compiled and is shown on Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 shows the estimated population and MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force September 28, 2006 Page 4 TABLE! POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CONCENTRATIONS FULL RADII 2006-2016 Population !Bergman Property I NasslBuberal I Neal Avenue I Oak Park Station!I Xcel-Fly Ash I I Bayport Sites I J Lake Elmo Village I Within One Mile 1,830 6,232 4,182 1,215 2006 1,080 1,080 10,225 2,322 2011 1,288 1,288 11,658 2,128 6,455 4,226 2016 1,418 1,418 13,290 2,468 6,648 4,648 3,650 Within Three Miles 25,463 27,019 23,237 8,522 2006 21,717 21,717 25,808 2011 23,931 23,931 28,049 27,801 29,149 24,641 9,304 2016 25,845 25,845 30,853 30,581 31,481 27,105 11,630 Within Five Miles 41,439 44,867 51,775 57,202 2006 46,541 46,541 36,208 2011 50,077 50,077 38,989 44,746 48,648 56,574 61,422 2016 55,000 55,000 42,887 47,431 53,513 62,231 73,707 Households Within One Mile 618 1,933 1,035 446 2006 380 380 3,902 930 2011 462 462 4,502 729 2,037 1,035 2016 545 545 5,402 816 2,098 1,633 1,460 Within Three Miles 9,461 10,003 8,648 2,875 2006 8,297 8,297 9,737 2011 9 285 9,285 10,773 10,508 10,979 9,320 3,139 2016 10,214 10,214 11,850 11,349 12,076 10,252 3,923 Within Five Miles 14,913 16,483 19,111 20,658 2006 16,788 16,788 13,210 22,441 2011 18,321 18,321 14,461 16,372 18,130 21,177 2016 21,069 21,069 16,630 18,010 19,762 24,354 26,929 Sources: Claritas,Inc.;Maxfield Research Inc.;Metropolitan Council household counts by potential site with projections for 2011 and 2016. This information was gathered from Claritas, Inc. and was reviewed in light of Metropolitan Council projections and information gathered from local sources to account for future development that may not have been captured by the Claritas' original projections. The table shows that within one mile of the site,the Neal Avenue property is in close proximity to an existing population concentration, followed by the Xcel Fly Ash site. Within three miles, the differences between the sites narrow considerably with all properties, except the Lake Elmo site, currently having higher concentrations of population and households. Within three miles, the highest ranking properties are: Neal Avenue Property Oak Park Station Xcel Fly Ash Site Bayport Sites MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force September 28, 2006 Page 5 TABLE 2 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CONCENTRATIONS POLYGON(excludes areas outside of Stillwater School District) 2006-2016 Po.ulation Berman I'ro erty lass/Buberal 1 Neal Avenue I Oak Park Station I Xcel-FlvAsh Ba'.ort Sites Lake Elmo-Village Within One Mile 2006 1,080 1,080 10,225 1,830 6,232 4,182 1,215 2011 1,288 1,288 11,658 2,128 6,455 4,184 4,115 2016 1,418 1,418 13,290 2,468 6,648 4,648 6,615 Within Three Miles 2006 21,717 21,717 25,808 24,780 16,389 23,237 8,522 2011 23,931 23,931 28,049 27,108 17,789 24,641 11,222 2016 25,845 25,845 30,853 30,581 31,481 27,105 13,722 Within Five Miles 2006 34,906 34,906 30,777 34,655 30,463 32,942 9,549 2011 37,698 37,698 33,141 37,592 32,935 35,596 12,349 2016 41,467 41,467 36,455 41,351 36,229 39,156 15,349 Households Within One Mile 2006 380 380 3,902 618 1,933 1,035 446 2011 462 462 4,502 729 2,037 1,035 1,646 2016 545 545 5,402 816 2,098 1,328 2,680 Within Three Miles 2006 8,297 8,297 9,737 9,547 6,282 8,648 2,875 2011 9,285 9,285 10,773 10,508 6,758 9,320 4,339 2016 10,214 10,214 11,850 11,349 7,265 10,252 5,540 Within Five Miles 2006 12,591 12,591 11,229 12,505 11,066 11,933 3,233 2011 13,598 13,598 12,015 13,766 12,156 13,093 4,400 2016 14,958 14,958 13,217 17,142 13,372 15,056 5,800 Sources: Claritas,Inc.;Maxfield Research Inc.;Metropolitan Council Table 2 shows similar information to Table 1,but Table 2's data excludes areas outside of the Stillwater School District in Grant, Oakdale,Woodbury and Wisconsin. The sites that rank the highest in population and household counts within five miles of the subject sites are: Oak Park Station Bayport Sites Xcel Fly Ash Site The maps on the following pages show that future growth will be concentrated in Lake Elmo because of its recent agreement with the Metropolitan Council regarding increased residential density levels within the community. While Lake Elmo is expected to grow significantly during the next four years and to 2030, growth levels are lower for Oak Park Heights and Stillwater, because of their current status-both are nearly fully-developed. Stillwater is adding new housing units through its orderly annexation agreement with the Township in addition to redevelopment of sites in the Downtown. Oak Park Heights is continuing to build out,but there is a limited amount of land remaining available for new residential development. Bayport is experiencing an increase in residential development due to the new Inspiration master-planned community. In addition, there are other properties adjacent to Bayport's city boundaries that are currently under consideration for annexation into the City. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force September 28, 2006 • Page 6 - Population - 2010 Lam . , ' I . : ' ---1 Lai. � �� ' ' I 1 I � r'1 • /- ( -- • -,Mar-in St?C r — A. _ on , , - --\_ ....„,. [. ,..__, _ t•.,.T., ri, f . •_. . i . % 1 !-- 1 i "'S - am.__ •r IT-7 •• •r 1 • `�' --...1- - 1 =3:;),`'- dh s -�E_� 1 Ma T • ►� ' — -' ..1,._ .F j ;.• ,, • ,•_, -},..._, .. ,.---..,• •-„, ,,, . ,',-.-1. � ii, •--1'‘,,41 ' i r Population-2010 r Y ", •-i; ' 1Grint t,•• 4 rsS ,) ,,' i %4 - .1 © 1 Dot=20 people 4 � , " „.. �• 7,-11 �'•j Stillwater School District f t. `• f C _ ._ ,' • • A., -.Stillwater .• , Mahtomedi, .. r lr° - — Y f • " "� a ak`'ark Heigh't(s --` 1 L.p, (+„r $r .I._1 .+i „ f•S -�yttZS1[,'� ){S • e"• -' -u3! f` ... 1 r nre7--- E, .�' .,'str -. ,. •-1-� � -•` i -4•c t..A.'-Ba\ po 3, �..J.-__r.. i . Lake ,,.r •i :. ••' - • A•�;t` Srg , ''' .0_ .� _••w?Tm F Elmo•, '�1 n .F .-,�. �: - - _ ..,• F 0- '-a • ., ;;:�e. t-.!!• .We▪st -. -�-- illudson ._ ,- , � f -- NE ---4 121 C -, : •� a eland S s --1C---: � ,. t F a ,:}~ .:~ c F•1,4} ake=St.Croix Beach �i , 1 r/ T • ;-- - Afton r t --:f" c °■�,r qqi s �odbury-- , - • .• '-" - t.'MarysPoint r"' '� 3 -:---4--:---Q--q„j .,L.„4:-.., .>:''' l'''<i-4 , • ,s l (--3 \ i_\:..,.- /3, 4'" f , _, • '� ,*(, ,,1 \-k,,, r.. ji- -•-.1'. 4__r 1 , . `. ;II ,t. 1— - -Jill . I — d —1.....,\. { _ U MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force September 28, 2006 Page 7 Population - 2030 1 L I I _ I I. . II'-I -- _ Marine on St.Croix-- - _' ; i ys^[�` •'t k J. . _ Imo /it IT- . ,- - ___ '"L L ,�. � .. �" 1VIayTwp ' � - 1-- �_y1 ;*ii, ' . Population - 2030 � 10,000+ + 5,000 to 10,000 1 3,000 to 5,000 1,000 to 3,000 i Grant -:1 I I 0 to 1,000 i-"-',7;,'-.. r, 4'- A: ® Stillwater School District x eta I M"a, i 1_ :i i t • PUwate� - .4Mahtomedi I ( ; , -- _ — :_, --J Oak Pa k 'eights-.I- T-' i 1 ,Ba, 8ortf#} �" y k 11 IG t i� -' I �-:: Oakdale : , West 'Hudson J _l_.,...,, 0 ;,. Lakeland '�-� <r - - ��. f-� Lakeland it_3 ,,.n La land Shores ^E, I , . t ,, , or, . ,-LI r ,"-^tc,.. Afton Lake St.Croiz Be h �I i 1 v ._ hoodbury`y St :Mar-ya-Point - -,-- �' �1-, -�__ _ _L� __L _ Ie ' L ' All tit,-._ fw; - 1 iTi�i MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force September 28, 2006 ' Page 8 Population - 2010 - "� AI NE 7 � . ■"iNIB f i _ n Marine on St:C Oi. --_.__ '�_.- ■ � ;) _� - — �, ' �` ._ i"t1 1 a ii ,� May'rwp ., Population-2010 NI _ i ;..` - 1 II 10,000+ - ;: ' I.., - 11 • 5,000 to 10,000 ® 3,000 to 5,000 ii, . ` F. 1,000 to 3,000 fft v. z ;; �� 0 to 1,000 ei ! ,,. t c J li _ ' Stillwater School District II Y. L to =eai Stillwater ) A �_ _-�---.1 . .._i .,-�t _IN -- P ''--', / It-2 , _ '� ro ak�t eights I �-�-f--��. � ± `� - :1 . Bavto�sn _ T? 17---'--- �t a 1 ,... le West „t Iu�on 7 : -:�,s f Lakelalnd IV 11, a -T�L'„- 11 c if . L< eland ` r La eland'Shores F�1 �ni�Fl 2- � � � � �_ ti ,i , 'ANN Y Afton Lake S ;Cr a Beac , ,-.•.1- r 1.: ,..1� ' t'-Woo l bu, • St.Marys Marys-Point t f ii fi 1r "a% y 1111111t►a MIIMMEINAPIffibellt14 MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force September 28, 2006 Page 9 Population Growth, 2010 to 2030 - ? /Marine on St Croix s �r '1 ‘)i i f,, ,.,, mu 1HugL ' j1 S , ' I 1 5 a .� v Population Growth :��� ,_ 2010 to 2030 1 T ;' r�{ ■ 10,000 + �T '. ,-� �_ ,�� °} ® 2,500 to 10,000 ��� > �>�, �,_ `� �: \ ;° 1,000 to 2,500 ■`� A !.{ � � 1•: 500 to 1 000 r Grant 0, , -500 to 500 - T . ' - --- r __ !` ;. .- �• Stillwater School District - I i II ,"..„f- . .8; 7i, F� � q�'Maht nedi 1 i� r { 4 _ 4, tr t ' I. -1 I+' , �_ ° o k 'rk Heights - �." .. — , Fr wilt-- iii -I, p.: .. Iullemit,f It, mi. -iI`i:-I:-- B'aytovvn ayport 4 L' -` _ Iii t�j e 1 1 I ! �.- s .,Oa ,ale t~� i f = �� P p F s. I ° West , -_ g-Hudson_ ) - --'- "r �- iI 'Al, j Lakeland 1-,_ i_'--,., "'L ' . 1 ti, _ � i 1« Lakeland 1, ,L { °- ■ .._ - _._. j T �; � .�, 4�,. Lakeland Shores ��-- �-; � 1 I-vs j * '-f r w Lake St. Croix Beach �r �i,� x i 7. �,_.• Anon` �, fi . Wood17 ry - S Marys-Point Dim, - i, L-—■ 1A f j 1 f ' � H rr' 1 ?- t r f— 1 9 ; — i 11111111M11111. 1111111.11t ■ _ wW�inn. �� MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force September 28, 2006 Page 10 Lake Elmo has been the only community thus far that is required to increase its densities. There are, however, several surrounding communities such as Grant and Afton which have municipality status and also have chosen to remain at very low densities. Should Grant or Afton reach a similar situation in the future with the Metropolitan Council, growth patterns could change dramatically in the St. Croix Valley Area and could shift current population concentrations more to the south or north. At this time, current estimates identify high concentrations of population and households in the following areas: Stillwater Oak Park Heights Lake Elmo Considering future growth to 2030, concentrations will increase substantially in Lake Elmo and will surpass Stillwater. The combined populations of Oak Park Heights, Stillwater and Bayport however,will remain greater than Lake Elmo (31,600 people versus 24,000 in Lake Elmo). The lower density communities surrounding the major cities are projected to remain as such, certainly through 2010,but also forecast through 2030. The site criteria analysis which follows utilizes the projected population and household figures as well as projected growth within five miles of each site in assessing the geographic proximity of the various proposed locations to future growth. As indicated in the enrollment projections report for the Stillwater School District, Lake Elmo is expected to begin its development of the Old Village area in shortly and is forecast to add upwards of 520 new housing units to the area within the next four to five years. From 2010 to 2030, Lake Elmo is projected to surpass Stillwater in population growth(24,000 versus 19,900). In reaching its required total of 24,000 people, Lake Elmo will surpass Stillwater's population base by 4,100 people by 2030. The combined 2030 populations of Stillwater, Oak Park Heights and Bayport are projected to equal 31,600 people. From the maps, it is clear that the locus of population density will balance out over the next 20 years, from its current concentration in Stillwater/Oak Park Heights/Bayport to a more balanced situation between Stillwater/Oak Park Heights/Bayport and Lake Elmo. Stillwater, Oak Park Heights and Bayport will continue to have the highest combined concentration of population and households and the commercial district along Trunk Highway 36 will remain one of the dominant commercial shopping concentrations for the region. Lake Elmo will develop a larger commercial base,but initially, it is intending to target smaller neighborhood-oriented goods and services. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force September 28, 2006 Page 11 Criteria Analysis for Each Site The tables presented in the Appendix present summary information separated by criteria for each Site. Criteria presented include: • Location of the Parcel • Approximate Parcel Size • Potential for Expansion • Recent Traffic Counts on Major Adjacent Thoroughfares • Access/Visibility from Adjacent Thoroughfares/Major Thoroughfares • Proximity to Center of Growth • Total Population and Household Counts within 5 miles of Site (full radii and adjusted) • Traffic Counts • Site Characteristics/Qualities • Site Availability • Base Cost of Site • Infrastructure/Utilities At or Near Site • Estimated Costs of Infrastructure/Utilities • Assembly of Multiple Parcels • Acquisition of Site (Own or Lease Site) • Current Zoning/Rezoning Required? Additional information has been gathered for each site and incorporated on these tables. It is our determination that each Site has some particular strengths,but no one Site overwhelmingly meets all of the criteria. Each Site's strengths and weaknesses address key criteria for locating the SCVACFC including: • its potential to accommodate the SCVA Community Family Center (physically) • its potential for the facility to operate at an optimum level in the future given projected population and household growth trends • consumer travel patterns • future transportation improvements including highway construction/reconfiguration • potential future competition for similar goods and services (primarily associated with the recreation component) Sites are not listed in order of preference and the site numbers do not represent the potential attractiveness of the Site. The Appendix following the Criteria Analysis shows table summaries for each site. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force September 28, 2006 Page 12 Site#1 —Oak Park Station (located immediately west of Stillwater Blvd. at 58th Street North) Strengths Close proximity to Highway 36 High Visibility from Stillwater Boulevard Convenient Access to the Site (signalized intersection at 58th Street N). In close proximity to current population/household concentrations, but located just a short distance from projected growth in Lake Elmo; Immediate availability Potential to own or lease Utilities available at the Site; connections to be paid by owner; interior road system to be constructed by owner. No environmental issues of which we are aware. Current zoning is B-3 Highway Business; allows institutional uses. Weaknesses Site may be too small— 13 acres maximum Parking area may be limited Base Cost of Site is expensive (minimum$10.00 per square foot) Site#2—Bergman Property (NE Corner of Highway 36 and Manning Avenue N) Strengths Adjacent to Highway 36 High Visibility from Highway 36 and from Manning Avenue Convenient Access to the Site (signalized intersection and frontage road) In close proximity to current population/household concentrations and projected concentrations; Near-term availability Own the Site Utilities and infrastructure available at the Site (assessments to be paid by owner). Site has ample room to accommodate facility(50 acres with potential for 80 acres total) Site may accommodate multiple users not solely the SCVA Community Center; costs may be shared among all site users; Currently guided for research and development/business park use by Stillwater's Comprehensive Plan. No environmental issues of which we are aware. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force September 28, 2006 Page 13 Weaknesses Moderately high cost of Site ($4.50 per square foot) and high cost of special assessments (some may be negotiable ($600,000 to $700,000 in special assessments) Peak traffic on Maiming and Highway 36 may create access difficulties during peak travel periods due to stacking of vehicles at signal. Future planned interchange at Manning Avenue and TH 36 may create future access difficulties and may significantly reduce convenient access to the Site. Topography is generally flat with some tree cover,but may be difficult due to some low lying areas. Site#3—Neal Property Strengths Located immediately north of County Road 12 (75th Street North) High visibility from County Road 12 Convenient Access to the Site off County Road 12 (future Neal Avenue extension) In close proximity to current population concentrations Own the Site Near-term availability Utility extensions to the Site are nearby Site has more than ample room to accommodate the facility (about 40 acres) Topography is gently rolling or flat, with minimal tree cover Currently no environmental issues of which we are aware Weaknesses Under pre-development agreement for rezoning to residential Adjacent to low-density single-family homes are likely to create difficulties with neighbors Potential high cost of property,but uncertain Potential high costs for additional infrastructure (special assessments for roads,utilities) Annexation required to City; this area is staged for 2015 annexation;petition to annex earlier. Site#4—Xcel Energy-Fly Ash Site Strengths Centrally located in the SW corner of Highway 36 and Beach Road N; Close proximity to several of the area's major employers including Washington County, Andersen Windows, Hospital Potential for improved access via future Stillwater Bridge (current timing estimated at between 2010 and 2015, but not guaranteed) MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force September 28, 2006 Page 14 Site size can more than accommodate facility(total size 45 acres) Site would be graded and planned by Xcel and could be according to Client's needs Lease from Xcel Base cost of site minimal or nothing Utilities are available at the Site; Hook-up costs should be moderate. Site is vacant and bare; no tree cover; Site can be built up to accommodate landscaping; must arrange and approve plan with Xcel and with MPCA. Currently, MPCA would not have difficulty with locating a community center on the Site. Weaknesses Site availability in 2010; possibility of some use prior to that time; 80% of site is currently covered. Must not compromise the integrity of the cover. Must carefully plan improvements to the Site, all cleared and handled through Xcel. Cost of utility hookups to be paid by client; may be negotiable with Xcel. Further distance from future high level population concentrations in Lake Elmo. Currently, zoned industrial; proposed community center may be permitted in industrial district; if not, must be rezoned. Site #5—Bayport Sites Strengths Close proximity to population concentrations Close proximity to major employers (Andersen Windows and Washington County) Availability may be arranged within a relatively short time-frame; Convenient Access from County Roads 21 and 14 Sites are heavily wooded; Most likely sufficient land area to accommodate facility. The 5-acre private property may be donated; Could likely negotiate with developer of the 23-acre private parcel to reduce land costs to nominal amounts; Large private parcel is currently in negotiations to be annexed to the City of Bayport; Utilities would be available at the Site and utility connection fees should be moderate; Own the Site. No significant environmental issues of which we are aware. Weaknesses Low visibility from major thoroughfares such as Highway 36 or Stillwater Boulevard; Lowest traffic counts; MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force September 28, 2006 Page 15 Assembly of parcels required(but may not be especially difficult); Less convenient access from major thoroughfares; Would require negotiation with several entities for site assembly. Site #6—Lake Elmo-Old Village Site (Downtown) Strengths Annual land lease of$1.00 as long as Community Center desires; Convenient access and visibility from Stillwater Boulevard Concentration of households in close proximity to facility (2030) Utilities available at site; Site is vacant and clear; generally flat with no tree cover. Immediate (near-term) availability; Site assembly has been completed by the City; No significant environmental issues of which we are aware. Population concentrations in 2030 most likely to be family dominated Potential to co-locate other facilities such as Washington County Library and regional arts center Weaknesses Not as centrally located to total 2030 population concentration(Bayport, Stillwater, Oak Park Heights) Potential traffic congestion on Stillwater Boulevard with increase of 520 households by 2010 (additional 5,200 trips per day); Site #7—Nass and Buberal Sites Strengths Adjacent to Highway 36 High Visibility from Highway 36 and from Manning Avenue Convenient Access to the Site(signalized intersection) In close proximity to current population/household concentrations and projected concentrations; Near-term availability Own the Site Utilities and infrastructure available adjacent to the Site (assessments for connections to be paid by owner). Site has ample room to accommodate facility (15 acres at the north end with potential for roughly 50 acres total) Site may accommodate multiple users not solely the SCVA Community Center; costs may be shared among all site users; Currently zoned agricultural use. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force September 28, 2006 Page 16 Weaknesses Moderately high cost of Site ($4.50 per square foot) May also be additional assessments for utilities and infrastructure; Future planned interchange at Manning Avenue and TH 36 may create future access difficulties and may significantly reduce convenient access to the Site. Portions of the sites may have some environmental issues because storage and dumping has occurred in the past; no EAW or EIS has been completed to date. Topography is generally flat with some tree cover. Rezoning would be required and according to City, would be rezoned for residential use. Other Sites Other sites in the area were explored,but are: 1) too small in size; 2) current zoning requirements severely constrain the ability to consider the proposed use 3)the site is too distant from the current and projected population centers The following section presents a weighting of criteria in order of importance and applies a rating scale to each criteria for each site. The analysis provides a quantitative assessment for each site. Additional qualitative criteria such as political climate is considered, but is not factored into the quantitative assessment. Maxfield Research Inc. also requested information regarding any potential environmental concerns that may be associated with each of the sites. This information is briefly summarized on the tables and in the strengths/weaknesses segment of the analysis. Weighting Criteria Table 3 shows a weighting assessment for each of the proposed sites. The weighting assessment assigns a weight value to each of several criteria. These criteria may be weighted differently based on the discussions of the site selection task force or additional criteria may be added to this analysis. Each of the site criteria is assigned a value rating from 1 through 5 with 1 being poor and 5 being excellent. These value ratings are shown on the table along with a total that is derived from the value rating alone. These value ratings are multiplied by the weighting factor to arrive at a weighted total for the criteria which is shown in the highlighted section immediately below the rating for the criteria. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force September 28, 2006 Page 17 As is shown, the weighting values shift the totals for the sites, sometimes substantially. In reviewing the weighting totals and the criteria, it is our opinion that the current value ranges and weighting criteria reflect the characteristics of the sites based on the perceived value of the criteria. Conclusions The revised weighting assessment ranks the individual sites from highest to lowest as follows: 1=Lake Elmo Site 2=Oak Park Station Site 3=Xcel Fly Ash Site (nearly tied with Oak Park Station) 4=Bergman Property 5=Bayport Sites 6=Nass Buberal Properties 7=Neal Avenue Property In addition to the numerical totals assigned to each of the sites, additional qualitative criteria were noted but not entered into the weighting. Questions were asked of owners/contacts for each of the sites identifying if any environmental issues were known and the extent of those issues/impacts. Other than the Xcel Fly Ash site, the Buberal portion of the Nass-Buberal properties is the only property that is known to potentially have environmental issues. In further considering the Xcel Fly Ash or Nass-Buberal sites, further detailed analysis and environmental assessments must be undertaken to identify the scope of potential clean-up actions on the Nass-Buberal sites or the potential future responsibilities for environmental issues that may remain with a tenant operating on the Xcel Fly Ash site. In fact, all sites are likely to require additional due diligence to ensure that all existing site conditions are fully understood and analyzed. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. a 0 C o 0 o w 'ti a to N .0 n v CA 0 0 y w . . amn S ° w B g y ° 3 Q n H ° g . C a m 0 tl'i x 6 o as H 6. g o o a: c 8 `� » c m m 7 xi m 7 w ov o. e g 4 a cn 2. 0 y n a.'6. o 3' a0 _ 7y a ° a n Er N 5 O 00 G E. N rf9 m tlC x w 'o m by ..+. ❑ w w .. OA CD n CD t-r z - o n _ H A 7Q p °P O O O O O O O O N N N IJ i..(0 U O N 00 O ry M F11 C r. 7wC p C CD Z' < N A m O A ,-A '' to Q w - to '�. to H to H w O A H to '... .J N A A U N to ^, 0 N O m O p Z y r f £ z . N A Z A co O , to N U �. N O w 4. w N N to A to A A �1 ea O g cft p5q O O 'c O fi 0 'n y a up r N d z r w r C n W ° f w A ■ o O O a . '. N t t A O A N W A t ON r1 W O X •� Ea :Y k tip A a w ■ to O O , to M, W O to N N to to 'N.. to N A N. to Cs7 w = S W S Z S O ap a O a, F N o s o o W o w c o c s rn w•p fN ,o o. A N A N O A N A w 0 to A A A A +. N Q N A A 9 N O z o y w t9 EI r z ^. £ N 1.". r °~L O UO — to , to Q w v to H to H w O w H to N to N A N A tw w ° z 3 r C :-.1 N N -- O A O o N .- w w O w W w N N w A to A A '0 w g" O A rn ' CD .-t- CD d CD NO N fl.) UQ N CD O 00 C1 SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force September 28, 2006 Page 19 Related Selection Issues While the site weighting and ranking offers a guide to the site selection team, the weighting and ranking is not intended to result in a definitive decision regarding the selection of a site. There are many other factors that can enter into the site selection as the team proceeds with site acquisition, purchase negotiations, among other factors. While access, base and infrastructure costs, and location in close proximity to population growth centers ranked high in the site selection criteria for the SCVACFC team, these factors are likely weighted much differently from the viewpoint of the potential users. For example, convenient access and limited travel times are likely to rank highest for potential users of the facility in considering a site. Cost of infrastructure and ease of government approvals are likely to rank the lowest. In addition,people will vote for the site of their choice based on their lifestyles, convenience and price sensitivity (entry fees, gas prices, travel time). While this facility is being considered as a long-term facility, future growth in the area, especially in Lake Elmo, may indicate that once population densities increase sufficiently, a separate facility may be needed to accommodate growth at both ends of the County. Users are likely to patronize the facility that is in closest proximity to their residence or place of employment. This may result in two separate facilities built over time, one toward the east end and one toward the west end. These facilities may be supported through other market niches including organized sports, and other non-profit ventures. In the interim, there have been concerns raised over the use of the facility by others if the location is too far east or too far west. The development of a new river crossing as early as 2012 may also significantly influence the number of people that would come across the River to use a facility conveniently located off TH 36, thereby adding to the market potential for a location along a major thoroughfare. The Lake Elmo site has the ability to attract users from Woodbury and Oakdale. Although attracting Woodbury and Oakdale residents to the proposed facility will add to projected operating revenues, the mission is to effectively serve community members and employees within the School District boundaries. In addition, sites that are privately held will be more expensive and will require greater price negotiations than sites that are publicly held or being negotiated on behalf of the SCVACFC team by public entities. Depending on the timing of making a decision regarding a site, the SCVACFC may be competing with other bidders for the property. The asking price or negotiated price may rise with the presence of competition. In addition, the site may become unavailable if a purchase agreement is signed with another buyer, prior to the SCVACFC committing in writing to a site. In essence, the selection of a site not only involves choosing a site based on the criteria, but also the successful purchase or lease negotiations for that site to begin the development process. Delays in making a site decision or information that may leak prematurely to others in the community may result in significant changes in the cost and/or availability of certain sites. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force September 28, 2006 Page 20 We recommend that the site selection team, after reviewing this memorandum and other pertinent data such as the results of the community surveys and focus group sessions make a recommendation to the entire SCVACFC Task Force with the assistance of its consultants. Recommendations We recommend that the SCVACFC Site Selection Team consider the following sites for further critical discussion and final recommendation: 1=Lake Elmo Old Village Site 2=Xcel Fly Ash Site 3=Bergman Property 4=Nass-Buberal Sites It is our professional opinion that these sites offer the greatest potential for successful development,have the highest level of flexibility in size and expansion, are all generally reasonable in costs and pricing (except perhaps for the Bergman Property), and would be considered convenient from a market perspective. The Old Village site in Lake Elmo is the site most likely to be considered the least convenient by a significant number of current community residents. This situation is likely to change in the future,but not for perhaps 15 to 20 years. The following are the essential key strengths and key weaknesses of each of the sites under further consideration: 1=Lake Elmo Old Village Site Key Strengths: Low Base Cost of Site Current zoning and east of site approvals Available immediately Key Weaknesses Distant from current population densities in the School District 2=Xcel Fly Ash Site Key Strengths Low Base Cost of Site Long-term lease and property always controlled by Xcel Energy Significant flexibility in negotiating costs for site improvements Close proximity to current population densities Key Weaknesses Availability may not be until 2010 Cannot penetrate the existing cover(lining) May be subject to access issues with the construction of the River Crossing MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force September 28, 2006 Page 21 3=Bergman Property Key Strengths Available now Convenient access from a major thoroughfare Visibility is high Close proximity to current population densities May be able to share the site with other users to defray costs Key Weaknesses Potential interchange on TH 36 could significantly affect this location Infrastructure assessments are high Price is moderately high 4=Nass-Buberal Site Key Strengths Available now Convenient access from a major thoroughfare Visibility is high Close proximity to current population densities Key Weaknesses Possibility of environmental issues on a portion of the site (Buberal portion) Possibility that price may increase with a non-profit purchase Potential interchange on TH 36 could significantly affect this location Current zoning is agricultural; rezoning of this property for the community center use is likely to be very difficult. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force September 28, 2006 Page 22 APPENDIX MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. l0 M — O N CO T CA b.() u y o y O ..-1 N a C O to p CC C O 0 pp CI > x O En ,D O ti d0 N C LL a, v 0c Z `a. 33 zo a cA .i to VaJ cn s O M w N d w O L a) d O 1. .. O U d d a' U U- 0 4. Cl, E o as se O a. N = 3 0 0 a O• u y ,.p L t) V , .fl M is as yi ai N WII cd .� cC A v u A > 3 > = a0i CL O dp co = O .n E -6 y y C., O O 1... O i Q > c W 00 o Z as CL rn II y LO" Um r, o G., ai a, L C L a) w O. ''-c .O O ? Z' CO O O G . O •L = , o it L O W L cC 0 N C7 a. •~ c -- ca w o U.o • :3 N a~ E in 2 °n .. H C ..y1 C O C 'b U 0 •l so. y o '0 as U O. N M } O 4 t].En c, v) p I-I U PW■ Q ° V x i 0 —� U o Wa C — — t et > z 'z •� I W r+i1 W R1 Z Ca CA U 0. 4 3 .0 E w o a, A Q Opij 0 '.., `,4`..,' as `OC CA Queen cn o a, U rn � v as°3 � w C O N r N --- y o cn " a -' C.) 11.) a O w i N O Cl.) C7 0 --__ C , E ' a co " O b Ch a, C o en c v) wwor4 a .4 a-0 1-. 3 VD - a) on d N Li C 6. 0 U U 3 0 " N d , i Cv N Q L C ea d ea O c v.° - R. d4 L.) U U O 7 p fl C C 72 d a C7 o o an Q. U — ° n, w Ea a) aai k c c Z L N C a 3 0 0 h .0 u -0 > o --a L) , a45" x ° � i a)u > t , .G a 0 d > w ?7 °Z ... h cd I.. u• U en b 1,7.0 o o � °?m o a 3• p c p U „�. ° 0 Q E.• • en u su bs 2 F, U e. w O r • ° h y aJ _ L = O a) CL O a' . a• E — tu y >, W• O ° w .2 .4 U .� ° Ein o o ro C E y4 w cd O C7 a' Cd OD © �'t*1 .O bA H L ° a .°3 Ui.41 a) 6 O. 'FA .a •0 H •o a d III _ ° A .= a U ell T. d v. O N O ccd C/] O o 6 0 ,� a W it ✓ 7"' M C . 0 -, I A U �W z • to a E . o'O .7 w a � w , R � ._ .� C ,.., > WW u a aA a F q u .b w } b •bH= C. cn - O N t O a W . tA oo py = X (-N1 CI a o 'o o Lo �I a 0 o ' E ,c,;on o U .E . E • k• W o o 3 c N r ;•-• o _O O ti CLI rn as � — (/) S ' o c a E N E E O 5 Q _ E N O S L a+ tY 4. 'L_ T C N cat ,.. - E• - `• a c N c a) w O U 0 ' o o ' to c30 w cu dU a ati U o — y N • d co ') y O O a `' :.c 3 O O O 0 N W 41 o a> '. 3 i UIIT CC y u CG VI 4.0 A E c Q � zM oz co, n II d 0 Cg 0 ++ 0 b E-. 'fl F �' O C L. 3 = U °°� o d uao' ao' � dA ys c I A 7 0 o °, S o Q ' Ut�U _ Q < Et P-'y E d co • C W L' N L eu F. L "- W 00 v.r • 0 V] N Co y 0 w L N ;.: cC EA a) od CL C .y :+ E ~ aoi a c aoi ox a w ciC E °: co ctt at H i o c U `= U PO d o •: co Z 0 co z U o� a.) — awo = 2 a W a) d 9 z o 0o i ci) a 0 c4 o y • V c o w ai r` °' U ' 0 v N „ b O N A U 0 N .= X W �+ a0. C U ° 0 L° •c O CI o • E W o d 0• o v •N a� y o o C U ��.y o b o r .E".� It O O b N u Cq 0 N °= = a .L,' N Q 00 v� v� U �1zdz i� Q a .E ° co> o -v 'cn VI g o c — N H — c cd w ' 7 b k CO a G • at a L. eq N U -4 c = - s O m . ^ 2 Z O O 1. u = •y V V �L ..a . i O 0 O . ..0 m a > c ca E C v ao V• . q am E v, y O W y C .-. y cy 0 a 0 4 6 ,.. 0 ,, c3 = O 70 r Di4.ZP4 a o a. a V _o U 3 •• ai. b0 MI cu C • C L V �"' V+ 6l •CQ •Q" Y w^' icy. A o N N d y ,C is a O C M O W y y C ' N Q ° N C c c o ' o 0. w a•S .C5 3 .. C u y 8 m G o y x 0 W y L. ai y U o S o h 0 °' v o u. a' o r0 � ea rii =0 .4 .°0 E u `u' £ 3 a .2 5 q L U Ez Q. U .b o U W o on- y es F, 11 ti a) 3 C p G V U u b C N y T O. D N o 6.a 30 0 = mow d = bO N O O 'b ' C A ti a E V y t x ° 0" N Ai . ..? a a 0 x a 1.. C L w p O i at Z u 3at .0 O V C as .. .� a' V Up ° W3 � cn P.1-4 — cn at U W Eve 6 `."c ," d Z .x U V o i V d y tl NO a y p., R _z o a) QOa _ — ,. o > .. Z co 03 CU 0 CA r=4 - W M w C o L > ab p c O= at w U a � � ALA �' o V iA U Wz p �� x a c° a- 0 W WO Ca i k 4"X O V O p T.: Q O O O V rQj� — O N y N Ik 0 • on bA y t) a.'7 czt 00 °o • ° ° 3 r a H 6 o i•w d�L G 0 L Q u i—L 0.o N L o Q N)d p ."�[w•,.O.3�«'3 N n O b+ d o O ^ O, 00 0 <o'> M x>p o ad a O' 3R0 E a y U° o to F ,C c w°o (1)0 y a a a°0.>O .0 a U Q W Cn • C.) o ° a; o m v o a) y U i o > p '7, .2 -0 -e A0enen j O o- alL V t•,e 7a H d y W G 1 aC p x 0 W 3 V W a) 4..) $ o = E a) 7-1) rn O V •y [1,, b a V 7 M o 11-1 U U o o 'ea gis ;;R © z w z°PApc/)nvU Z o U w o o u o a °v, wz o Q v)u C O U o a Z) Z) e- 1.) c• y fa .c 7 3 $ 0. L C W N ' O~.5 U q o b a i L . C y am ° rn U Q y o co ,,„y p Y ° O � P.O U L= Q ° �° va O bC p 0 W.V x 3 n o O a G o • o i w N 3 ?p "UO bD O vb 'p a 3 F • C P °� j 4 a s a° o m,ti E WM o a° o a v ? o�w on o o °cro v Li 0 03 a av co 0.m c.) a) V~ — cC 00 — q _ rl 21 /C 2 § = 7 = $ 2 1E 0 \ / 999 / ƒ % a \\/ 4 \ jj ) / j ) / - $ / } / / } / 2121 /} 2 \ = / / = \ a ) { © {\ {\ • ^ 6 a - 0 , ± © c, 0 • .e e » j - : § { ./ /j = ® 7 o 2,= o a = O j \ \ * 0 \\ ) /_ ) ( 0 , � %/ /\ \ § \ § } 2 \ _ l ja e\ \ E c 2.® \ ƒ } o / /_\IC. 0 > - O• 0 2 ~ ƒ\ { ) �} � 4 / > / ) t k / ■; :\ 4- • g / _ \ J ± % z - © \ cl 2 ! 3 \ % ® 2v ` \ w£ \ ) / j \ » 2 & L. / § / 7 = o2u E._ 7j / 2g - / - � // o } } ; I \ ) # [ s-1 o. a. .•L ,� / \ ƒ / ] H / ) ) ) w - � : } j \ } \ k § 22 \ � , � z 7y cu � \ � ' — — 2 / � d \ 5 —\ ) ¢It$ ' / ® W • 2121 \ / � \ U = § i 2121 & t\ ® U ® z � s = : § } A � � � ` � � = ® � / § \ \ / ƒ / / § w C/1 72Q j / / ) / } j k 7 ■p 01 — O N bN b.() u w 0 CU L 'ti ° 0, E y cif cue ° a�i .°o°w ° = o w x R T .O L", ° t w t ° O C ° C''' nt7ca � a � a L. La - L) ) cn •• a) cn l01)= N K d .0. _ a ES :t)) E NO 'O C o b E O N a' y L U e a) ' o .t N V ° y t 6) a � Q o ~oy w ' 2 0 A ° U V— o — -a L+ C) pp o CC 5 o O a N O y -to tt2 Ira C ° • y 74 i Q . a 2 ,.y x ; E .E p — E y N 1V 7, 4.1 q C7 a o d II .+.0. 0 � t b co H U .o y ° r y .1 d > Q o O c E ccd a. E" Q H 0 II F" N Q L y °) °) (� r do o � o o o0� rn te ' o a, 7 x i a 0 c o o G . U - � °A ^E •x I o = a� :; M z � xw � .ma. L O d L 6, Tel w o . y .a � L ^a: co O ` p q a, �. dq U ° • LV-i y Ow x w 0 — W 3 cn c4 d .1 z — y -aa y y c4 y 03 It y Cd y,. 1. • a) • © O A U P,"•a^ U O O O y Z a N a to O. v _ In, U i C x d O G N ° C O � w o V) c4 W — — al e a9Z v N a) W W V) w V .Z F.:3• 0 U MMzz y w — Q, A U � 0 a w o Z N a = �� Ot4 - 0 ❑ c d a, U F F F d cA 7vU ww x SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force September 28, 2006 Page 30 SCVA CFC Potential Sites Grant Stillwater Twp. INV � I --. — i' - Bergman Property 2 - Neal Ave. Site 1 3 - Nass/Buberal Site 4 - Oak Village Station 2 5 -Xcel Energy Site ! -- 6 - Bayport Sites 7 -Old Village Site • Stillwater II 3 f4 r 6 1. Oak Park Heights 1 { Bayport ake Elmo I - I_ 7 Baytown Twp. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force September 28, 2006 _ Page 31 One-, Three-, and Five-Mile Radius for Oak Park Station 1 1 1 I 1 l 1 \ Stillwater Twp. i { Grant 4"�._ rali A _ Stillwa er IIIII 0 C S ' ' I Ih1 Lake Elmo I lik I Oak Park,Heighte i 1 I f_ 1 ) r Bayport p V' - Baytown Twp. _,,, pli 1 _4_ 1 r ,___ ,, , ' o 1 —.1111111 ,..4,„ __ L - `/ _1�1 1 .1 � Source: Maxfield Research Inc. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force September 28, 2006 Page 32 One-, Three- and Five-Mile Radii for the Bergman Property Grant Stillwater Twp. __ter ...._ RIP( Grant Fl p--- __ __ �y � aill A Stillwater 91 I i ' Lake Elmo , ` r Oak Park Heights + ' '\ ._. —./ ' I ri / Bayport ke Elmo I! i Baytown Twp. t } Source: Maxfield Research Inc. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. . • SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force September 28, 2006 Page 33 One, Three and Five-Mile Radii from Neal Avenue Property it Stillwater Twp. Grant %16.. r Stillwater O"', Lake Elmo °! Oak Park Heights Bayport :Imo Baytown Twp. — Source: Maxfield Research Inc. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force September 28, 2006 Page 34 One-, Three- and Five-Mile Radius for Xcel Fly Ash Site .0 cli;i _ ...... , Stillwater Twp. k i Grant .16 . Stillwater �..I 1" Lake Elmo , i 1 Oak Park HeigFts i 1 \ Bayport \` ill Baytown Twp. •., ,' op. 111L---.1 , i „go. ...,. , . , , ‘ ,________J ) Source: Maxfield Research Inc. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force September 28, 2006 Page 35 One-, Three- and Five-Mile Radius for the Bayport Sites Stillwater Twp. Stillwater Twp. 1 s Stillwater rr6 illei EC \IL Lake Elmo r Oak Park Heights / Baytown Twp. i \ t North Hudson I 'j ' 0 9j.L — — I Source: Maxfield Research Inc. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force September 28, 2006 Page 36 One-, Three- and Five-Mile Radii for Old Village Site in Lake Elmo Stillwater Twp. j 1 Stillwater IV -0 -I Illk i ,. Lake Elmo Oak Park Heights I — i Bayport Baytown Twp. I 9 , all, i J II 1 I Pal I ,-- 4 Woodbury i I i i - i i Source: Maxfield Research Inc. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force September 28, 2006 Page 37 One-, Three- and Five-Mile Radii for the Nass-Buberal Property 4 0111 \6., 9 Stillwater Twp. i IT 4 Gr.nt J. i i ..„,,, _ _ I Stillwater %h.. _r_f\ pp.. , Lake Elmo Oak Park Heights 1 i, 4 / Bayport I Baytown f , y n Twp 1 1 _ I , I \N''.--4'''""'"--"j+,—+. r 1 its 1• I 1 , , ___i MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. r r All ,, xfleld IU. I September 5, 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: St. Croix Valley Community Family Center Site Selection Team FROM: Mary C. Bujold Maxfield Research Inc. RE: Drive Times to Sites Introduction As you requested, Maxfield Research Inc. has compiled a brief drive times analysis for the sites which show the estimated and projected number of people and households within 5-, 10- and 15- minute drive times of each of the sites under consideration. Please note that drive times reflect the use of local and major thoroughfares. In addition, the table does not exclude portions of the drive times that lie outside of the school district boundaries. We were unable to geographically exclude these areas for the drive time analysis. Drive Times Table 1 presents the drive time figures compiled for each of the sites. The table shows that within a drive time of 5 minutes, the Neal Avenue property, the Xcel Energy Fly Ash site and the Oak Park Station site have the highest population and household counts. Within a drive-time of 10 minutes, the Bergman and Nass/Buberal properties have the highest counts. Within a 15- minute drive-time, the Lake Elmo property has the highest projected counts, primarily because of the density of Oakdale and Woodbury included in this geographic area. A similar pattern exists for households. We note that the estimated number of family households for 2006 is highest at the Neal Avenue site followed by the Xcel Energy site and then the Oak Park Station site. 615 istAvenue NE #400,Minneapolis,MN 55413 (612)338-0012 fax(612)904-7979 www.maxfieldresearch.com N N e. ,r;a B p E n N O\ h (z p� M t1' of n e} M M 'O - O NNN N N — ', of M O b �O VM O� O� .�. "0 H1 N l�M N V] N N M .N. en .h. N e: O N �O O fn 7 v� v In M ,o 'O eT N pN a b M h.4 0 0 00 _.0 O �OM8 ��3 N O h g' 7, N M d' V N N N :::VZ, .. ..ti 00 00 00 . M N �O M N N N n - pp� p e� p oo h O� h O N try [� 00 N Ifl N OHO N N N"M-' ^ ^ N M M In V1 y O N .M., O In ^ M-00 Y1 V 1 �O 0 F g g �O O' 00 Vl V1 N �p pp Q� p 0p0�0 M Ono b O — N 00 e+�'1 ^ 8 O .N.� 4 ON p N *..4 ;;)7, W M M M ,..., o - .... -, -.N h M R n O� M.� G .r M M 0 SW 01 �p �p p E.y a W 9 M �p O^ V001^ �C3 O d o M y0j h v1 O® C O V'� ODD F 00 2O 00'' i",":',17.; F M M N C N N • ' O N �O N N .N. N N N .., a rte, O a � M � �° � Nh M � o2 oMOM r2s Boa 00 O O� M 4118"N -s. Z5 -f M n On 'O N h N 00 IM M .Mr .M. 7 - ,r - d' h h N U W •-6 N e p +kO,O 00 g O� LI g v1 O M n a OMO N _ n O p �O O,1� V' M t� ,O 0„."-; Q Tr M cIn N 1 y 0 r M �' MM •-■ •-■ vj U x 4 g 04 2 i., ., % g '''' .r a x I t a s x 9 m O h y a 8 .43 h h ~ h A+ 6 N N " k i N N S N N 6 0 006 O O N 6 ON N N r� 6 N N N N N xIieId --'--- ► Research Inc. September 5, 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: St. Croix Valley Community Family Center Site Selection Team FROM: Mary C. Bujold Maxfield Research Inc. RE: Drive Times to Sites Introduction As you requested,Maxfield Research Inc.has compiled a brief drive times analysis for the sites which show the estimated and projected number of people and households within 5-, 10- and 15- minute drive times of each of the sites under consideration. Please note that drive times reflect the use of local and major thoroughfares. In addition,the table does not exclude portions of the drive times that lie outside of the school district boundaries. We were unable to geographically exclude these areas for the drive time analysis. Drive Times Table 1 presents the drive time figures compiled for each of the sites. The table shows that within a drive time of 5 minutes,the Neal Avenue property,the Xcel Energy Fly Ash site and the Oak Park Station site have the highest population and household counts. Within a drive-time of 10 minutes,the Bergman and Nass/Buberal properties have the highest counts. Within a 15- minute drive-time,the Lake Elmo property has the highest projected counts,primarily because of the density of Oakdale and Woodbury included in this geographic area. A similar pattern exists for households. We note that the estimated number of family households for 2006 is highest at the Neal Avenue site followed by the Xcel Energy site and then the Oak Park Station site. 615 151 Avenue NE #400,Minneapolis,MN 55413 (612)338-0012 fax(612)904-7979 www.maxfieldresearch.com • 'C N C::, 0 N OD s. 0 Y -. p N M M \D 00 V'i el) ei r N. N OOi - aw eF M S N en a.41. N 0 - 'C Vl 0 �+ .. • .-. V1 N l- en N --� •-' N t- 0N-i eF V01 V�1 N N en NM-. .�. W 4 8 v1 en 10 10 Oh N N Cr, et �O 0 en N N 0 en en 0 vl ten en N 00 0 ten 1/40 00 so N- e V'1 --• eh 'O M 41 ON b mt., O 1 ONO O VI N 'C M M en et et ^ M sr VD N 00 .-. •- 00 00 00 N N N I N N N V1 VO VD 0 0 0 eF N rn 0 N t�en ON 10/1 �O et 000 Obi en � 0 N en 1 VD 00 N N 00 V1 0 r N V'1 en N N al O N 0 N N a �� en. - -... N M M - N N V7 N Vl O— N... .M. 0 h 'C en .-. z O k C 0 'O ON N 0 O' O N a' 00 en■tn 00 N O .N-. N 000 en a' — O - �7 O O .N- .. N V1 00 O 0N. eY eF V1 :: M.. �-. M M eF M .-. M M M O O U � ~ z w a .. 14 "0 ■- W O r. C O y1 00 N N T 1/40 0 en 00 V7 N CA O N v Vl a+ Pa W E. N m. 0 1 N 1 VD N 00 'O 0 eF I N en et -. V1 V1 O V1 00 M _ �O .. O, O, v1 O O, M ... 00 O -. N N eh ul n (-1 H 0 a ; -oo—ar; O en eenn M VD VD en r sr .—-. - - en N N d' -.: 0 O Q v z .0) 0 - CI) Z P: - o 0 00 0 00 rn 00 0 ten v1 0 o M M 0 o M c a r oo O Ch l- 10 V1 - 0 M O 00 00 N O n —f O lr) OO O V CO O\ N M 00 O� O O et O �' to h. O� VO v1 tel v1 00 U CU F i. 00 O �O 01 M •..In M d' d' e,-;-i -. .�. et VN1 i/1 N 0 /) V1 M M eY .M. M-. CU 0 U w z >n V1 0 0 M M v1 0 M 1 Ch U 0 N N oo 0 W N 'C C 0 en 0 00 00 N 0 N 0 N Vl �C ¢1 0 eh en N aw 'C V1 n n 00 - w a CO O VD Cr, M _. In_ M eT -- ti .... VN1 V�'1 N 0 Tr • L2 M M d' .M. en ., 0 a 13 U0 ca WWW h y F�µ}h.1�. co CU et ,Lv r a e nr I A '� = Te e . g E E c U W •., ° V1 0 CD 0 0 o 0 0 S o cp 0 0 0 0 Q Z iii ow Cl) g1r = N N N � N N N = N N N r�"i N N N N N N N Cl N Z .Z v, 2 • , iR, , meld h��. SEP 1 ?oo 1 / ► 6 August 18, 2006 MEMORANDUM(Revised) TO: St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Site Selection Task Force FROM: Mary C. Bujold Maxfield Research Inc. RE: Updated and Revised Assessment of Potential Sites for SCVA Community Family Center Introduction This memorandum discusses and analyzes our findings regarding identification of potential sites for the location of the proposed SCVA Community Family Center. This memorandum includes the following: ✓ Identification of sites and site characteristics currently sponsored by Cities participating in the SCVA Community Family Center process; ✓ Identification of sites and site characteristics currently available and marketing in the Stillwater Area,but not sponsored by Cities. ✓ Identification of the strengths and weaknesses associated with each of the sites; ✓ An analysis and review of projected growth trends in communities in the Stillwater School District(mapping of growth trends); ✓ An assessment of the current and projected population and household base within one,three and five miles of each of the sites. Full radii and adjusted areas are shown. The adjusted areas exclude geographies that are outside of the communities located in the Stillwater School District. ✓ A summary assessment of the selection criteria of each site based on larger topical areas such as: • Access/Visibility • Proximity to Major Transportation Arteries • Proximity to Population Densities (Current and Future) 615 1'`Avenue NE #400,Minneapolis,MN 55413 (612)338-0012 fax(612)904-7979 www.maxfieldresearch.com SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 2 • Baseline Acquisition Costs • Additional Infrastructure Costs • Size of Site and Expansion Potential • Development Timing • Proximity to Bus Transit Routes and Walking/Biking Trails • Current Traffic Counts (Flows) and Projected Traffic Flows • Possible Environmental Issues • Political Climate Base Site Criteria-Group Meeting Although each major stakeholder group has a slightly different set of criteria associated with their selection of a site,the following criteria appear generally agreed on by the group and a shared acknowledgement of their importance. On May 12, 2006, Maxfield Research Inc. met with representatives of the participant communities along with representatives of the key user prospects of the facility. The intention was to frame the discussion relevant to the preferences of the key users and review previous discussions that had already occurred regarding stakeholder needs. • A location that will be somewhat central to current population and projected growth in the St. Croix Valley Area; • A location that is within the School District boundaries; • A location that is relatively convenient to access for potential users; • A location that would potentially meet the needs and criteria of most, if not all, of the stakeholders. Specific needs and criteria were mentioned by the YMCA and by the School District. The YMCA indicated a preference for a location that would have convenient access from major thoroughfares and a drive-time of no more than 10 minutes by car. In general,the concerns of the YMCA reflect the need to generate a sufficient number of dues paying members to justify operations costs and development costs of the facility. A concern was expressed by the group that employees of major employers in the area should be able to conveniently access the Site and that the facility may offer wellness programs. At subsequent discussions,this concern remained present,but has now been relegated to lower concern because many employees currently live in the area and would access the facility as a resident,not just an employee. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 3 The largest employers in the area are: Andersen Corporation 4,500 employees Washington County 970 employees Stillwater Public Schools 920 employees UFE Mfg. 800 employees MN Correctional Facility 470 employees Some large employers in the area but outside of the School District Boundaries include: 3M 13,000 Imation 1,500 The Hartford 712 Most employees are generally within a reasonable distance of their place of employment, although the actual geographic dispersion of employees at these employers has not been identified in addition to those that reside within the School District versus those outside of the School District. The School District is concerned regarding the availability of a sufficient amount of land to accommodate children's safety and students' access and safety on the site. As such, a site that offers at minimum 13+acres or capacity to develop a building with approximately 90,000 to 100,000 square feet is projected to be needed. In addition to building capacity, bus and vehicle staging areas, pick-up and drop-off must also be considered in assessing the amount of land required for the facility. Population and Household Growth Trends The following maps outline the boundaries of the Stillwater School District and show the projected growth in population and households as of 2010 and 2030. Also shown are population and household density maps for 2010 and 2030, identifying resident concentrations. This information is used to assist in evaluating the location of sites relative to the projected growth in the Area. Information on growth trends was compiled by Metropolitan Council and cross- referenced to information compiled by the School District in their Enrollment Projections through 2010. In the past, the number of completed homes had fallen significantly below projections. This trend is likely to change moving forward because of a slowing in construction and the amount of"gap"will likely decline. During our discussions,task force members also requested additional information regarding total population and households within specific radii surrounding each of the sites. The information was compiled and is shown on Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 shows the estimated population and MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 'SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 4 TABLE 1 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CONCENTRATIONS FULL RADII 2006-2016 Po,ulation ;,. Fro,„„,:L. No tieral N";,1 Av-.u ' ,Oak fork Station Xcet- L Ash x _ . ._. ,.. Within One Mile 2006 1,080 1,080 10,225 1,830 6,232 4,182 1,215 2011 1,288 1,288 11,658 2,128 6,455 4,226 2,322 2016 1,418 1,418 13,290 2,468 6,648 4,648 3,650 Within Three Miles 2006 21,717 21,717 25,808 25,463 27,019 23,237 8,522 2011 23,931 23,931 28,049 27,801 29,149 24,641 9,304 2016 25,845 25,845 30,853 30,581 31,481 27,105 11,630 Within Five Mlles 2006 46,541 46,541 36,208 41,439 44,867 51,775 57,202 2011 50,077 50,077 38,989 44,746 48,648 56,574 61,422 2016 55,000 55,000 42,887 47,431 53,513 62,231 73,707 Households Within One Mile 2006 380 380 3,902 618 1,933 1,035 446 2011 462 462 4,502 729 2,037 1,035 930 2016 545 545 5,402 816 2,098 1,633 1,460 Within Three Miles 2006 8,297 8,297 9,737 9,461 10,003 8,648 2,875 2011 9,285 9,285 10,773 10,508 10,979 9,320 3,139 2016 10,214 10,214 11,850 11,349 12,076 10,252 3,923 Within Five Miles 2006 16,788 16,788 13,210 14,913 16,483 19,111 20,658 2011 18,321 18,321 14,461 16,372 18,130 21,177 22,441 2016 21,069 21,069 16,630 18,010 19,762 24,354 26,929 Sources: Claritas,Inc.;Maxfield Research Inc.;Metropolitan Council household counts by potential site with projections for 2011 and 2016. This information was gathered from Claritas, Inc. and was reviewed in light of Metropolitan Council projections and information gathered from local sources to account for future development that may not have been captured by the Claritas' original projections. The table shows that within one mile of the site,the Neal Avenue property is in close proximity to an existing population concentration, followed by the Xcel Fly Ash site. Within three miles, the differences between the sites narrow considerably with all properties, except the Lake Elmo site, currently having higher concentrations of population and households. Within three miles, the highest ranking properties are: Neal Avenue Property Oak Park Station Xcel Fly Ash Site Bayport Sites MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 5 TABLE 2 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CONCENTRATIONS POLYGON(excludes areas outside of Stillwater School District) 2006-2016 Po.ulation Pra>', a I i , ..'t` I NealAvenue I takParkStatio :I ...6 Ash,+I .„.; 1 . ,.� F Within One Mile 2006 1,080 1,080 10,225 1,830 6,232 4,182 1,215 2011 1,288 1,288 11,658 2,128 6,455 4,184 4,115 2016 1,418 1,418 13,290 2,468 6,648 4,648 6,615 Within Three Miles 2006 21,717 21,717 25,808 24,780 16,389 23,237 8,522 2011 23,931 23,931 28,049 27,108 17,789 24,641 11,222 2016 25,845 25,845 30,853 30,581 31,481 27,105 13,722 Within Five Miles 2006 34,906 34,906 30,777 34,655 30,463 32,942 9,549 2011 37,698 37,698 33,141 37,592 32,935 35,596 12,349 2016 41,467 41,467 36,455 41,351 36,229 39,156 15,349 Households Within One Mile 2006 380 380 3,902 618 1,933 1,035 446 2011 462 462 4,502 729 2,037 1,035 1,646 2016 545 545 5,402 816 2,098 1,328 2,680 Within Three Miles 2006 8,297 8,297 9,737 9,547 6,282 8,648 2,875 2011 9,285 9,285 10,773 10,508 6,758 9,320 4,339 2016 10,214 10,214 11,850 11,349 7,265 10,252 5,540 Within Five Miles 2006 12,591 12,591 11,229 12,505 11,066 11,933 3,233 2011 13,598 13,598 12,015 13,766 12,156 13,093 4,400 2016 14,958 14,958 13,217 17,142 13,372 15,056 5,800 Sources: Claritas,Inc.;Maxfield Research Inc.;Metropolitan Council Table 2 shows similar information to Table 1,but Table 2's data excludes areas outside of the Stillwater School District in Grant, Oakdale, Woodbury and Wisconsin. The sites that rank the highest in population and household counts within five miles of the subject sites are: Oak Park Station Bayport Sites Xcel Fly Ash Site The maps on the following pages show that future growth will be concentrated in Lake Elmo because of its recent agreement with the Metropolitan Council regarding increased residential density levels within the community. While Lake Elmo is expected to grow significantly during the next four years and to 2030, growth levels are lower for Oak Park Heights and Stillwater, because of their current status-both are nearly fully-developed. Stillwater is adding new housing units through its orderly annexation agreement with the Township in addition to redevelopment of sites in the Downtown. Oak Park Heights is continuing to build out,but there is a limited amount of land remaining available for new residential development. Bayport is experiencing an increase in residential development due to the new Inspiration master-planned community. In addition, there are other properties adjacent to Bayport's city boundaries that are currently under consideration for annexation into the City. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 6 Population - 2010 moor itar. ..0. :Iv iii�. 1 'ir 1lit • : A • i, - ii...-- a isri e:. �. t;:. ,• ay Twp `, \\,, . Ai "Hugo I 'I 1 I NE' •• •.17 • • ILIN:(/ 1111111 millinialli „ FE A ISomerset "''""aw—usti i 7 MI i.e., •• ',� . •Y r Population-2010 �r. ', Grant'° ® 1 Dot=20 people $ ,N 5 �;� r; '' Stillwater School District Ii rci , �I ■ 31. ' . , :Stillwater 1 �. e_..� u:,�_5.r a tomedi •• 4 � r + �> '%2411111 ■.' illt.. r rzS ��'.r5 � RsS� m+�k'4 �. 0 `..A.,47.--:,....,--''. OakiPark1l ighjts '' ! 111'4in WA: - aiii; .1-' yt v Baypo ., - _,,* OM 111 1_-- Ba own , 7. A,:l e •is •.1. ,�+ -skit i li _ Lake.1, 1' ir� Elriw •• >� ? ...3r -et---..k-.� �6 P ,= O� gale ,. . •'We'st ;is,H � ;iv vim of 1 ��, Net. •Lakeland;'r; 4" __1 t�5 2■' IN `` *0g.Oir0 -Nr ..A 'i Lakeland1 i �rignitt . r At, s mamma 5 e•�- 5� x Lakelan.�Sho 1 1 ,� bi' ` C� a :l Lake=St.C iaea h ' �.�,,, °� K �� ;Anton ��S •'Mary \' � t gag tiiiiIWa oodbur , s Point it* r Virit pr °"A htieffillit awnirlliiiillh.p ,-.2,15.011179rAINIIIMIMIMI _%!l111111111111 11111lJma 111111• ■ MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 1 ` ` SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 8 Population - 2010 Ow" . r 1111.111 ?4 arine-on-St.Croix ih#ii! ' l' , r', , :-- 'Hugo '' 'r, ,ti _ ____ I' * eta. Twh Population -2010 I'l ,/ II I ( 10,000+ 0 '��� i i - � �a������q� � I 5,000 to 10 000 ;' r. „ ,'ig, � �-- , ,Na'•, 3,000 to 5,000 �a two �a t ` ”■" ► .T-p I 1 1,000 to 3,000 Ili Li �,. ,.r I 0 to 1,000 `a - 'r - ,Grant , '`'��y ,� r -' \ - II Stillwater School District 3 1 10.- Si ' .ter r ,,, MAN.medi ei ,V a ``Oak'11 0,-e'i.g.,'ht i i .. - - ' mN-i W 411r a6 1 .. 111 �H�,, i Ba∎town 31/1,i 7: � 1 , ." i,n- It) •."-Th li -41/ 411 Elmo ' _ •r - ping ' a Cla ale'' �F est 'r„_ ud_ �� tiwilil` i Lakeland t 4z nil C _ /�iys k`6{sue J .)....u.-•MINok land Lila. tarrilir& I 141 1 ..at L: land'Shores II x k f Ise FEE d „��tli '^ .: a St.Croix Beach Fill i A„wooury r. ,. '-4St_Marys Point�' db. _" ���' led Oil/4 iii ' ";; j` l _ILir4j,. ti@ ilijoilEFIEM11111111111111111LNE =T. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 9 Population Growth, 2010 to 2030 III `;, '®11i 611 ..,,,,d. „,,,,,,t„,/,,,,, „,,..„,„,,, ,9 :Marine on St:Croix - , __IF ,_ , 2�;,, ' ' / �,'ti; Population Growth 111 1 .. May T�wp� ,�' � � , '���„ ��� A��, q�, a'� `,�' 2010 to 2030 t, _ �'l �niia z�/yea f 10,000 + _I „A � �� dim e r+ S li ,� 2,500 to 10,000 a J - 'LLB.--, '\ ',S. 1,c �.: P ( iii �' 7j "' "r� \ 1,000 to 2,500 ■ 1 a "` I �I gg : lo �m' �� soo 11 r Grant I `-, �° i ' ' i - 'DZ.' li ' / -1 Inta ", 'y Kam— Stillwater School District I! _11� f Stillwater. 1 ,�, . ahtomedi/= ,, — i ,I'Si L I , 1- ,ICS - r ®a eights -`',f —41 G1 n r' ^-� Ba, , y s' Mg , , , , 1.. .:41..�. III,; - Baytown .. am. lir,, a ___ • :--ate Rte, rill r Oakdale, k. �We`st�' ,': � r =vol'Fludson �� 3 .�\`Lakeland`-, -S } ' I Or'ffillq y; L 6'''I ' ' \ .� land! Nom�� 'E s c , , I -1 liuilIeachj IIIII kg, we r.t.4, Avioi'r/ Tr i j kW�OdB uty� ` six%� StMarys-poi'At Z — I !� srt ' `fit^ i%vH/yt//u/Giael 1p" it 4-''---',__' Ems y Fn'1//a i - ,o r ,, ipri gip 111111111111111 ' 9 Gwgraii9ir III ` �9mnng r____ 1 gi „.... ,' ,e ■ .e.jr, Aril iiirky- oli !I - e �i ' i: - MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 1 SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 10 Lake Elmo has been the only community thus far that is required to increase its densities. There are,however, several surrounding communities such as Grant and Afton which have municipality status and also have chosen to remain at very low densities. Should Grant or Afton reach a similar situation in the future with the Metropolitan Council, growth patterns could change dramatically in the St. Croix Valley Area and could shift current population concentrations more to the south or north. At this time, current estimates identify high concentrations of population and households in the following areas: Stillwater Oak Park Heights Lake Elmo Considering future growth to 2030, concentrations will increase substantially in Lake Elmo and will surpass Stillwater. The combined populations of Oak Park Heights, Stillwater and Bayport however, will remain greater than Lake Elmo (31,600 people versus 24,000 in Lake Elmo). The lower density communities surrounding the major cities are projected to remain as such, certainly through 2010, but also forecast through 2030. The site criteria analysis which follows utilizes the projected population and household figures as well as projected growth within five miles of each site in assessing the geographic proximity of the various proposed locations to future growth. As indicated in the enrollment projections report for the Stillwater School District, Lake Elmo is expected to begin its development of the Old Village area in shortly and is forecast to add upwards of 520 new housing units to the area within the next four to five years. From 2010 to 2030, Lake Elmo is projected to surpass Stillwater in population growth(24,000 versus 19,900). In reaching its required total of 24,000 people, Lake Elmo will surpass Stillwater's population base by 4,100 people by 2030. The combined 2030 populations of Stillwater, Oak Park Heights and Bayport are projected to equal 31,600 people. From the maps, it is clear that the locus of population density will balance out over the next 20 years, from its current concentration in Stillwater/Oak Park Heights/Bayport to a more balanced situation between Stillwater/Oak Park Heights/Bayport and Lake Elmo. Stillwater, Oak Park Heights and Bayport will continue to have the highest combined concentration of population and households and the commercial district along Trunk Highway 36 will remain one of the dominant commercial shopping concentrations for the region. Lake Elmo will develop a larger commercial base,but initially, it is intending to target smaller neighborhood-oriented goods and services. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 11 Criteria Analysis for Each Site The tables presented in the Appendix present summary information separated by criteria for each Site. Criteria presented include: • Location of the Parcel • Approximate Parcel Size • Potential for Expansion • Recent Traffic Counts on Major Adjacent Thoroughfares • Access/Visibility from Adjacent Thoroughfares/Major Thoroughfares • Proximity to Center of Growth • Total Population and Household Counts within 5 miles of Site (full radii and adjusted) • Traffic Counts • Site Characteristics/Qualities • Site Availability • Base Cost of Site • Infrastructure/Utilities At or Near Site • Estimated Costs of Infrastructure/Utilities • Assembly of Multiple Parcels • Acquisition of Site (Own or Lease Site) • Current Zoning/Rezoning Required? Additional information has been gathered for each site and incorporated on these tables. It is our determination that each Site has some particular strengths,but no one Site overwhelmingly meets all of the criteria. Each Site's strengths and weaknesses address key criteria for locating the SCVACFC including: • its potential to accommodate the SCVA Community Family Center(physically) • its potential for the facility to operate at an optimum level in the future given projected population and household growth trends • consumer travel patterns • future transportation improvements including highway construction/reconfiguration • potential future competition for similar goods and services (primarily associated with the recreation component) Sites are not listed in order of preference and the site numbers do not represent the potential attractiveness of the Site. The Appendix following the Criteria Analysis shows table summaries for each site. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 12 Site#1 —Oak Park Station (located immediately west of Stillwater Blvd. at 58th Street North) Strengths Close proximity to Highway 36 High Visibility from Stillwater Boulevard Convenient Access to the Site (signalized intersection at 58th Street N). In close proximity to current population/household concentrations, but located just a short distance from projected growth in Lake Elmo; Immediate availability Potential to own or lease Utilities available at the Site; connections to be paid by owner; interior road system to be constructed by owner. No environmental issues of which we are aware. Current zoning is B-3 Highway Business; allows institutional uses. Weaknesses Site may be too small— 13 acres maximum Parking area may be limited Base Cost of Site is expensive (minimum$10.00 per square foot) Site#2—Bergman Property (NE Corner of Highway 36 and Manning Avenue N) Strengths Adjacent to Highway 36 High Visibility from Highway 36 and from Manning Avenue Convenient Access to the Site (signalized intersection and frontage road) In close proximity to current population/household concentrations and projected concentrations; Near-term availability Own the Site Utilities and infrastructure available at the Site (assessments to be paid by owner). Site has ample room to accommodate facility(50 acres with potential for 80 acres total) Site may accommodate multiple users not solely the SCVA Community Center; costs may be shared among all site users; Currently guided for research and development/business park use by Stillwater's Comprehensive Plan. No environmental issues of which we are aware. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. . August 18, 2006 SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force g Page 13 Weaknesses Moderately high cost of Site ($4.50 per square foot) and high cost of special assessments (some may be negotiable ($600,000 to $700,000 in special assessments) Peak traffic on Manning and Highway 36 may create access difficulties during peak travel periods due to stacking of vehicles at signal. Future planned interchange at Manning Avenue and TH 36 may create future access difficulties and may significantly reduce convenient access to the Site. Topography is generally flat with some tree cover, but may be difficult due to some low lying areas. Site#3—Neal Property Strengths Located immediately north of County Road 12 (75th Street North) High visibility from County Road 12 Convenient Access to the Site off County Road 12 (future Neal Avenue extension) In close proximity to current population concentrations Own the Site Near-term availability Utility extensions to the Site are nearby Site has more than ample room to accommodate the facility (about 40 acres) Topography is gently rolling or flat, with minimal tree cover Currently no environmental issues of which we are aware Weaknesses Under pre-development agreement for rezoning to residential Adjacent to low-density single-family homes are likely to create difficulties with neighbors Potential high cost of property, but uncertain Potential high costs for additional infrastructure (special assessments for roads, utilities) Annexation required to City; this area is staged for 2015 annexation; petition to annex earlier. Site#4—Xcel Energy-Fly Ash Site Strengths Centrally located in the SW corner of Highway 36 and Beach Road N; Close proximity to several of the area's major employers including Washington County, Andersen Windows, Hospital Potential for improved access via future Stillwater Bridge (current timing estimated at between 2010 and 2015,but not guaranteed) MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 14 Site size can more than accommodate facility(total size 45 acres) Site would be graded and planned by Xcel and could be according to Client's needs Lease from Xcel Base cost of site minimal or nothing Utilities are available at the Site; Hook-up costs should be moderate. Site is vacant and bare; no tree cover; Site can be built up to accommodate landscaping; must arrange and approve plan with Xcel and with MPCA. Currently, MPCA would not have difficulty with locating a community center on the Site. Weaknesses Site availability in 2010; possibility of some use prior to that time; 80% of site is currently covered. Must not compromise the integrity of the cover. Must carefully plan improvements to the Site, all cleared and handled through Xcel. Cost of utility hookups to be paid by client; may be negotiable with Xcel. Further distance from future high level population concentrations in Lake Elmo. Currently, zoned industrial; proposed community center may be permitted in industrial district; if not,must be rezoned. Site#5—Bayport Sites Strengths Close proximity to population concentrations Close proximity to major employers (Andersen Windows and Washington County) Availability may be arranged within a relatively short time-frame; Convenient Access from County Roads 21 and 14 Sites are heavily wooded; Most likely sufficient land area to accommodate facility. The 5-acre private property would be donated; Could likely negotiate with developer of the 23-acre private parcel to reduce land costs to nominal amounts; Large private parcel is currently in negotiations to be annexed to the City of Bayport; Utilities would be available at the Site and utility connection fees should be moderate; Own the Site. No significant environmental issues of which we are aware. Weaknesses Low visibility from major thoroughfares such as Highway 36 or Stillwater Boulevard; Lowest traffic counts; MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. . August 18, 2006 • SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force g Page 15 Assembly of parcels required(but may not be especially difficult); Less convenient access from major thoroughfares; Would require negotiation with several entities for site assembly. Site#6—Lake Elmo-Old Village Site(Downtown) Strengths Annual land lease of$1.00 as long as Community Center desires; Convenient access and visibility from Stillwater Boulevard Concentration of households in close proximity to facility (2030) Utilities available at site; Site is vacant and clear; generally flat with no tree cover. Immediate (near-term) availability; Site assembly has been completed by the City; No significant environmental issues of which we are aware. Population concentrations in 2030 most likely to be family dominated Potential to co-locate other facilities such as Washington County Library and regional arts center Weaknesses Not as centrally located to total 2030 population concentration(Bayport, Stillwater, Oak Park Heights) Potential traffic congestion on Stillwater Boulevard with increase of 520 households by 2010 (additional 5,200 trips per day); Site#7—Nass and Buberal Sites Strengths Adjacent to Highway 36 High Visibility from Highway 36 and from Manning Avenue Convenient Access to the Site (signalized intersection) In close proximity to current population/household concentrations and projected concentrations; Near-term availability Own the Site Utilities and infrastructure available adjacent to the Site (assessments for connections to be paid by owner). Site has ample room to accommodate facility(15 acres at the north end with potential for roughly 50 acres total) Site may accommodate multiple users not solely the SCVA Community Center; costs may be shared among all site users; Currently zoned agricultural use. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. • SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 16 Weaknesses Moderately high cost of Site ($4.50 per square foot) May also be additional assessments for utilities and infrastructure; Future planned interchange at Manning Avenue and TH 36 may create future access difficulties and may significantly reduce convenient access to the Site. Portions of the sites may have some environmental issues because storage and dumping has occurred in the past; no EAW or EIS has been completed to date. Topography is generally flat with some tree cover. Rezoning would be required and according to City, would be rezoned for residential use. Other Sites Other sites in the area were explored, but are: 1)too small in size; 2) current zoning requirements severely constrain the ability to consider the proposed use 3)the site is too distant from the current and projected population centers The following section presents a weighting of criteria in order of importance and applies a rating scale to each criteria for each site. The analysis provides a quantitative assessment for each site. Additional qualitative criteria such as political climate is considered, but is not factored into the quantitative assessment. Maxfield Research Inc. also requested information regarding any potential environmental concerns that may be associated with each of the sites. This information is briefly summarized on the tables and in the strengths/weaknesses segment of the analysis. Weighting Criteria Table 3 shows a weighting assessment for each of the proposed sites. The weighting assessment assigns a weight value to each of several criteria. These criteria may be weighted differently based on the discussions of the site selection task force or additional criteria may be added to this analysis. Each of the site criteria is assigned a value rating from 1 through 5 with 1 being poor and 5 being excellent. These value ratings are shown on the table along with a total that is derived from the value rating alone. These value ratings are multiplied by the weighting factor to arrive at a weighted total for the criteria which is shown in the highlighted section immediately below the rating for the criteria. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. • ' SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 17 As is shown,the weighting values shift the totals for the sites, sometimes substantially. In reviewing the weighting totals and the criteria, it is our opinion that the current value ranges and weighting criteria reflect the characteristics of the sites based on the perceived value of the criteria. Conclusions The revised weighting assessment ranks the individual sites from highest to lowest as follows: 1=Lake Elmo Site 2=Oak Park Station Site 3=Xcel Fly Ash Site (nearly tied with Oak Park Station) 4=Bergman Property 5=Bayport Sites 6=Nass Buberal Properties 7=Neal Avenue Property In addition to the numerical totals assigned to each of the sites, additional qualitative criteria were noted but not entered into the weighting. Questions were asked of owners/contacts for each of the sites identifying if any environmental issues were known and the extent of those issues/impacts. Other than the Xcel Fly Ash site,the Buberal portion of the Nass-Buberal properties is the only property that is known to potentially have environmental issues. In further considering the Xcel Fly Ash or Nass-Buberal sites, further detailed analysis and environmental assessments must be undertaken to identify the scope of potential clean-up actions on the Nass-Buberal sites or the potential future responsibilities for environmental issues that may remain with a tenant operating on the Xcel Fly Ash site. In fact, all sites are likely to require additional due diligence to ensure that all existing site conditions are fully understood and analyzed. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. c0 o N � cn bA a> 2 y y NO CO N M g c m o '^ !r M N N M M M O M M ' O ^ N.� r ti O • • b• v z M _a > o o M u a `nM veVj vN '� h '^ N MO M +h'i v�N. .,, M0. .., vi ..o. o� v; ° o p W ro 3 Z .a c • E O c t • d i. 7 p N N •••r O. R 7 wi O M . V N 7.b N V N !s• M b. Q, '41 z U C U �! r 0 O • • M N C 6 g a ¢ 3 o v N y ey vi vi y N Cy ,en O M v-, . .4 O O n . M r ..o X U y .0 v . ^ � N S qc u 7 e .¢ ¢ 3M x a F z m > o x° V] V1 Q 6 V1 y) M C n1 N nl ti N O N ^:.<} ly M b 0 0 v1 N M o• z 3 C z W E N O ~ O: M 3 � z V Z a o w .Zr p N .: rl F [a ., m rA ° o x 3aQ' o v N v m o c' nNrV MM en N ".' •el ,e,� O ® vv •e , a Q � N >ma J F Ua U ° d II II e • 0 0 el a • U O as z M5 N ^ ~ N co M ^ ~ ~ M O ^ O N 3 ° > z U L. .°] A O a C O vt v1 N N N N O O O O O O O O ,p.�I 3 o - z _ U °' u a.) V a°+ �q >, C N t W CA en W U o ° `o o cC 04 E ° °- Ci Y O QL E a •v U a V F 2 > v `� °' s c c 0 4.. 1 ° 3 w p ca 3 o » w > .a ii, 64 L W u Lg n" E o " U ro o ¢ a C 5 Q U F U > x " b X .° 33 v° s V] 5 n ¢ > m ¢ a U a a o H 3 a■ SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 19 Related Selection Issues While the site weighting and ranking offers a guide to the site selection team,the weighting and ranking is not intended to result in a definitive decision regarding the selection of a site. There are many other factors that can enter into the site selection as the team proceeds with site acquisition, purchase negotiations, among other factors. While access,base and infrastructure costs, and location in close proximity to population growth centers ranked high in the site selection criteria for the SCVACFC team,these factors are likely weighted much differently from the viewpoint of the potential users. For example, convenient access and limited travel times are likely to rank highest for potential users of the facility in considering a site. Cost of infrastructure and ease of government approvals are likely to rank the lowest. In addition,people will vote for the site of their choice based on their lifestyles, convenience and price sensitivity(entry fees, gas prices,travel time). While this facility is being considered as a long-term facility, future growth in the area, especially in Lake Elmo,may indicate that once population densities increase sufficiently, a separate facility may be needed to accommodate growth at both ends of the County. Users are likely to patronize the facility that is in closest proximity to their residence or place of employment. This may result in two separate facilities built over time, one toward the east end and one toward the west end. These facilities may be supported through other market niches including organized sports, and other non-profit ventures. In the interim,there have been concerns raised over the use of the facility by others if the location is too far east or too far west. The development of a new river crossing as early as 2012 may also significantly influence the number of people that would come across the River to use a facility conveniently located off TH 36,thereby adding to the market potential for a location along a major thoroughfare. The Lake Elmo site has the ability to attract users from Woodbury and Oakdale. Although attracting Woodbury and Oakdale residents to the proposed facility will add to projected operating revenues,the mission is to effectively serve community members and employees within the School District boundaries. In addition, sites that are privately held will be more expensive and will require greater price negotiations than sites that are publicly held or being negotiated on behalf of the SCVACFC team by public entities. Depending on the timing of making a decision regarding a site,the SCVACFC may be competing with other bidders for the property. The asking price or negotiated price may rise with the presence of competition. In addition,the site may become unavailable if a purchase agreement is signed with another buyer, prior to the SCVACFC committing in writing to a site. In essence,the selection of a site not only involves choosing a site based on the criteria,but also the successful purchase or lease negotiations for that site to begin the development process. Delays in making a site decision or information that may leak prematurely to others in the community may result in significant changes in the cost and/or availability of certain sites. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. • SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 20 We recommend that the site selection team, after reviewing this memorandum and other pertinent data such as the results of the community surveys and focus group sessions make a recommendation to the entire SCVACFC Task Force with the assistance of its consultants. Recommendations We recommend that the SCVACFC Site Selection Team consider the following sites for further critical discussion and final recommendation: 1=Lake Elmo Old Village Site 2=Xcel Fly Ash Site 3=Bergman Property 4=Nass-Buberal Sites It is our professional opinion that these sites offer the greatest potential for successful development, have the highest level of flexibility in size and expansion, are all generally reasonable in costs and pricing (except perhaps for the Bergman Property), and would be considered convenient from a market perspective. The Old Village site in Lake Elmo is the site most likely to be considered the least convenient by a significant number of current community residents. This situation is likely to change in the future, but not for perhaps 15 to 20 years. The following are the essential key strengths and key weaknesses of each of the sites under further consideration: 1=Lake Elmo Old Village Site Key Strengths: Low Base Cost of Site Current zoning and east of site approvals Available immediately Key Weaknesses Distant from current population densities in the School District 2=Xcel Fly Ash Site Key Strengths Low Base Cost of Site Long-term lease and property always controlled by Xcel Energy Significant flexibility in negotiating costs for site improvements Close proximity to current population densities Key Weaknesses Availability may not be until 2010 Cannot penetrate the existing cover(lining) May be subject to access issues with the construction of the River Crossing MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. • SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 21 3=Nass-Buberal Site Key Strengths Available now Convenient access from a major thoroughfare Visibility is high Close proximity to current population densities Key Weaknesses Possibility of environmental issues on a portion of the site (Buberal portion) Possibility that price may increase with a non-profit purchase Potential interchange on TH 36 could significantly affect this location Current zoning is agricultural; rezoning of this property for the community center use is likely to be very difficult. 4=Bergman Property Key Strengths Available now Convenient access from a major thoroughfare Visibility is high Close proximity to current population densities May be able to share the site with other users to defray costs Key Weaknesses Potential interchange on TH 36 could significantly affect this location Infrastructure assessments are high Price is moderately high - MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 22 APPENDIX MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. VD M O N N w 4, cE d o t c = 00 a L g Oa dA a 0 , CL C O do o o .4- ,w cd O 4 ti = 0. 7 O al) = , O U 2 'Z1 V • Y. C - 7 )4 . C C w O 1; O U U C � p z a3c3 zs - TS. c• an ea C L Z -- C 7 G7• N C = dD•v W• Y L .C. C e 3 U N d o 0 .r N y E p ea ea M Po o N C C 3 3 0 y G ao O 4 y O L , -c., U F. A M " a u W 3 �N > o a Q '' II = c bn y > C4 a VD • Z C a g V 0 >. C W O•CA d > Fa ,,t. 0z a v) H ; w ,fl a o `oQCpQ W W d d M a �i d :3 0 7 CC " 00 30o C,..) '17-1 a F • M en x d i y 0 L N CC O L O w -Y.0 z ca a :. TI 2 y - t) awE _ v Fa U I. ^ "" d V] O x C ea CII = , ., cn E vi 2 o• c $ 03 [� o 'l o co 0 ° U • U o o °' ct Z o c N 0,- w CA 0) • o UO _o c) a - U a) U Cd o i = CA c Q � z o w = aG z• � z o� cc C▪A a U aw 3 y U : Z 0 '� 2 w w y O Q F Q CA nv) U a3 ) w g 7t — O N t O N u 0 lei - CO N 0 5 = O �N p .a v y V . O - I .0 O •, .: >,'P 2 0 .� U wow g i a3 a.0 S C C L y 3 0 0 0.S Nq t0 0 ^1p�� Q c4 t.. N L C a 5 2 ^'� O �''r r+ 0 Ci — y .5 C) i � c 0 L N G C 3 C 5 O .p CO L v kE c R c .2 4 , 3 a Q> £ > C. . . Q ii ao y> N 2 Z oo• Q o ti Q > 4 > z trl a 1 F" = Z F" L o 8,'' o = o g E y cC w 3 0 4' o w b o o o = 0 Cl) L no 0 0 m xo . ues0' In U ., ss v, S.) u O =0 C w C z .0 i °' .� G a p a av m - U y c., = ;: a) — w C. E = o ea . Li. w C c3 w W E7 O g o cA C E ti o 'o 0 L LO o ° rn c ou U teF y - 6z w Y r a.aAY ....02 o . •5 .0 7 z 1-1 o a ces*��' a W z 0 CC) ew . V)72,as g a a C0 to C 3 > - 2 ° . U E o¢ = 05 > g,, A GU d O .� m .5 a'0 ab G, c ' o Q © cA oo ° > "�"' aoi fi wo 1-1 CC U a r - U v U w . cc • •o 11) O N s LO r3 ek0 N cC •i ° c O—O a u m Y 'E y rn L. F" ° ° .�'.3 OA d 01) m L •S.Q O �' U O .r o .E X C C . L N .1 20 p cd C e td O O L U L '3 , o = x 2 .3 u t c. C.) U Z° ¢ U a�n .'� o - y w E u •; o a d CL. N i e O s 0 o ,y d O _N y > 1 E Y y Q E ' cn U ¢ o a > zM 0z Nu n • L C N �r R C p 'b F 'O F ii W '.L. 3 u U o ° i .8 O c c 8 uY (4 ¢ q 2; 4, t.8 3 L o ° F o n a U F J u E u w L 3 OA L U R O L .. ,«. O o u 4 y u • CA C R y z L 2 > y p C%w ,,-2. • ¢ • O d Y! 'O 'A i O . U R W G) E S. •E y b C V) 6y U O - O ai b U $.. x ' wc. 3gc 0 c = — ,x E 2 = � E o 75 I.OA L. � Ta z o a � � > ..r c aa z cu x o — a CA a W c — W`N 0 g Con e a F., U a w E c U — A w N � °¢ z y o ^ O c,) ° ¢ iFW W - t x o i b a) � ¢ b C m °0 : 8L u X U b^ d o o c_ ° a ° L i , , p ¢ V1 VJU — z < Z 'v3 ¢ 8..g w o o •o •ti c2 2 co 4' s °° CA c O y 0 sa p. al • 00 p C cd kel o G ae L . O N O O a. 3 0. 0 J7 .o U 3 ii w 'zr� a � o a 'aa o w 5 4 w 0 .5 ai a rx -c I O O ay G cd 7 o ' 0 N y '` .a R >- ON U ,, - - 5 N c eu 3 x b . b 0 E. w a.5 o _ ai C. c d U va+ $ 5 w �., a A C O —a' T beD C 6. E N .0 = C 0 •a •,E O O ° W 5 4 °" 3 . x 75 g E 0 " max � 5t 8 ai W y N O C� 6 C7 6 3 a d a Q • E d W y y y 0 II F W .. , C y y X40 co).M �¢¢ Q¢¢ % N U p - o O V O . O i ti F,,,_ con F.x C1 ( .= a�: ..a LL U C O I.) y m E C O.b a U � y y U g = N 0 a> a, W 5 ra w3 0 U d so cl es loo U W y EC 0 U o z 7- ax CLV� o Now. `� O z y � Oa, _ 0 Q w , O N v) ..1- ct 0 i b W L) d O O O Ce L) T O 0 O X W aO L a d 0 rW . . ', rJ] G.T4 Y ea O U � E. y 0 a y <- 3 '- t C aci, N 00 CID 77U . cn c; � O N ° N b d o ° on a s 00 CI o ° av o . ° p.., - o 2 L N s 3 . .3, a 5 • 1 —1 o y y o ° U'••C - _E 5 a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 E ;c O N ° y M ° �' O t ' .'.' 0 y0 O O UO •y, ac se se to. O L' v' 2 > � •h .5 -o 0 7 aw ¢ •oU a3zw z p. m dD w a C L :' d i$' y 0 - 'T O 0 c o °' 3 O 0M zc O N « aI 2 .rn' b I a 3 L d N .0 N t 0 = O A 0 0 p .. a V N oA Q > N VA -, C....4.'i cr) 0.. .o C C_ L 6i go to N Y y C M 0 3 0 0 E. ° L a h u es to 8 45 L 4 ..�-r'b C ••• .0 d 4 EE o 0.0 0 .^ O O O W w O O ... a > LaC.-) zx ° 2 0p ag Y > � d d O i° C � Oo co) N F, FN 'b c p 0 6) "a c4 Q cG 4 p c4 y>, U d C.) v 10 -oi O O O � O Q � `^ y ; am. a, O c o b .0 c cU c CU i O 0. W ° C W UN - o ° 3 o .E E n a ' s L Y O N p„ _ Q i0. cO .O se c In ea ra L .0 b 0 v U L a w O nr N ° Q o d O O. Z w 3 3 cd U w 8 — b X y d o o p o oqo CO as °'� M o 0 b w° y 3 ti " .°� C 8 E MI-, a C h ' ° ° o c r'4. E c. .� == ai ti o '?U w 0 = > 7 . t > U a U P L oO X 7 v c i 0 _ Q F 4- 4, C..) L > N N o O O a ` O e. i., U r..: U 40 0 O w Z Q = A �' ° O O ' N O Q O ''3 a°. 0 cn a U = c°a . C 0 o A 'd 3 •., W :15 V. 3 y a 0 W W ›'1 °i7 17 t d s 2 ° a ` Q V v d > 'Fri <,i' ,02, O O E i U U C a co V V U _ ] c z oo — O N r c O y N to = ea 0 o 00 0. � � ,_ . b m c o U y rn �s � • .N o T U •ij .9d c* O ` ∎▪ on � .a � wZ M.. wx 3 0 c. ' 0 c c c ° a o y' G c N N Cr Z ° cl o • M � N U C 4" O N E L .0 ~ E N •b O C c «'7 L o „ U O c .E P. E o. x ¢ � ij, ob3 E -°o L V ✓ Q) o E %40 CZ' w Q) • aJ 4 N = a j U c• :a og � 3 o a El. c a Q U oq L i > I 3 40 .9. s d < >Le o 0 0 u• V Q o ° o .n °' L _ % r f `Y' � j 8 2 U L aJ • C .b L F. w=. s. c v L CID C• C b 2 =r % C1) o o U E Q" - 0 w U 0 °' E o O m 2 ¢' w3v) vA G• i 4 o E o H o V Gwo Z E 7 c� o Mt tz. U 0 .a 0 ■ — — Q�.i o� L W b ° d W C..) w 3 3 _ Y w G Gt764 Y 74 -0 ° 3 — U FF " o °' ro d CIO v n U p ° . d C — r o 0 _ � � w a N pp =. 3 0 � � .g s I 0o p d 4: 0 mt o a) o w = ••_. a .=d 'd X ci c 2 w L -� a °� a0i p ed R° ' R.. c) v a) 0 7/ J :E0, ac a c. c= -0 CC •a L .tp C d o G N A a 4 . ¢ CG 2 o0W 0 a) U= 0 a) a) >' .4: vn .1 R E O C )S '�I M C 0 3 LN Oo. 3 Tv C 0 4, > T� C �-°= MQ .7:2- o. a c a. d - 8 . H .S d a � e � d > �N Q o vi 0 y F C II II , 4•- 4`. v a .�� L.� w O,. > C - OU ^ O ate+ O bA a? UM Qo h h a. y .0 5x u' br c:t v = � 5 .4 x .; rte, Z xw° a 'a, a, i F- L L• 7 z L 3 N Y 0 .0 h C 0 L ,=■ 0.) N d L L Q C y 0 «+ no. w tA y., a = w3CACn ¢ C.) RI ww a, — o z o ea til 6 44 eu ci ON o a O.W d n - 2 p chi ai d0 _� w0 Q a. W • o w A 0 y > w U z z U p > > C k O � c bn ° 303 > E d co a� v) v 7x C2 X cA SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 30 SCVA CFC Potential Sites Grant Stillwater Twp. 41 Al III ti-ry 1 -Bergman Property 2 -Neal Ave. Site 3 -NassfBuberal Site �(\ 2 _ 4 -Oak Village Station --- _ 5 -Xcel Energy Site 6 -Bayport Sites 7 -Old Village Site eV IF Stillwater � - 4 7 -T • 4 sl grOak Park Heights Ba ort Illi!! YP ake Elmo Baytown Twp. i As f III INI MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 31 One-, Three- and Five-Mile Radius for Oak Park Station 1 Aii 1 / Stillwater Twp. I*A 1/ lar AMR ,air A O INEMM g11.011111111 MIMI War 411MA Stillwater inti Wt.. Lake Elmo ' IRets �,.L, Bayport iii la& , Baytown Twp/IIpii & o mui i,.../iik-im. 1 7/ - -.••I. Source: Maxfield Research Inc. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 32 One-A Three- and Five-Mile Radii for the Bergman Property Grant Stillwater Twp. Grant ti, t it Stillwater - 4 Lake Elmo Oak Park Heights/ Bayport ke Elmo • Baytown Twp. Source: Maxfield Research Inc. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 33 One, Three and Five-Mile Radii from Neal Avenue Property tf__ Stsllwater Twp. Grant / StiUwater r�, Irmo:,,rrrAmprPr„- Lake Elmo Oak Park Heights. Bayport :Imo 1 Baytown Twp. A Source: Maxfield Research Inc. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 34 One-, Three- and Five-Mile Radius for Xcel Fly Ash Site 07::j Stillwater Twp IA I Alli ( air � Stillwater 'k tIIII�,{ Lake Elmo :ak i1 Aa:{� O_ak Park Heigfrt� 'k \ /_____7"---Bayport pr, Fil / Bayto rn Twp. ti { OPP 1110V hisori rem, . ------,. Source: Maxfield Research Inc. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 35 One-, Three- and Five-Mile Radius for the Bayport Sites Stillwater Twp. 1 . { Stillwater Twp. 1 • / SO Stillwater J fir,„-- Lake Elmo Oak Park Heights Ificax i 11 Bayport Aix Baytown Twp. ANorth Hudson a 9__11-- Source: Maxfield Research Inc. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 36 One-7 Three- and Five-Mile Radii for Old Village Site in Lake Elmo r1 —Stillwater Tvup; o larwill"" '- viosi IN StEllwate�,r --,,, , r40 ,,,,,,. i, ' Lake Elmo , ),iii. IL 1 r Oak Park Heights . ■ of i Bayport ; Baytown Twp. 0/°-.." ri I„' i II. i wil r1 .. ____ , - 1111! Ima......., II b _ 2: Woodbury II1, , --____, , ....„ , Source: Maxfield Research Inc. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 37 One-, Three- and Five-Mile Radii for the Nass-Buberal Property Nit A Stillwater Twp. a r iik■. iik -j ' Grant „. imill. -liiii''''''7 min.matiiiir Stillwater ® Lake Elmo Oak Park.Heights 1121011 1 , o,g,1 n P.. Bayport i IVAN Egg �� !PiIU1 al Baytown Twp. I IM EIM1111111111111 la r1 Ik --E ■_ MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. ■ Mk Inc Ma XII June 21, 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: St. Croix Valley Area Family Community Center Task Force FROM: Mary C. Bujold Maxfield Research Inc. RE: Preliminary Assessment of Potential Sites for SCVA Family Community Center Introduction This memorandum outlines our preliminary findings to date regarding identification of potential sites for the location of the proposed SCVA Family Community Center. This memorandum includes the following: ✓ Identification of sites and site characteristics currently sponsored by Cities participating in the SCVA process; ✓ Identification of sites and site characteristics currently available and marketing in the Stillwater Area,but not sponsored by Cities. ✓ An outline of the strengths and weaknesses associated with each of the sites; ✓ An analysis and review of projected growth trends in communities within the Stillwater School District(mapping of growth trends); ✓ A summary assessment of criteria of each site based on larger topical areas such as: • Access/Visibility • Transportation Arteries • Proximity to Population Densities (Current and Future) • Potential Development Costs • Environmental or other Considerations • Proximity to Major Employers • Size of Site and Expansion Potential • Development Timing 615 1'`Avenue NE #400,Minneapolis,MN 55413 (612)338-0012 fax(612)904-7979 www.maxfieldresearch.com St. Croix Valley Area Family Community Center Task Force June 21, 2006 Page 2 Base Site Criteria-Group Meeting Although each stakeholder group has a slightly different set of criteria associated with their selection of a site,the following criteria appear generally agreed on by the group and a shared acknowledgement of their importance. On May 12, 2006, Maxfield Research Inc. met with representatives of the participant communities along with representatives of the key user prospects of the facility. The intention was to again, frame the discussion relevant to the preferences of the key users A location that will be somewhat central to current population and projected growth in the area; A location that is within the School District boundaries; A location that is relatively convenient to access for potential users; A location that would potentially meet the needs and criteria of most, if not all, of the stakeholders. Specific needs and criteria were mentioned by the YMCA and by the School District. The YMCA indicated a preference for a location that would have convenient access from major thoroughfares and a drive-time of no more than 10 minutes by car. In general, the concerns of the YMCA reflect the need to generate a sufficient number of dues paying members to justify operations costs and development costs of the facility. A concern was expressed by the group that employees of major employers in the area should be able to conveniently access the Site and that the facility may offer wellness programs. The largest employers in the area are: Andersen Corporation 4,500 employees Washington County 970 employees Stillwater Public Schools 920 employees UFE Mfg. 800 employees MN Correctional Facility 470 employees Most employees are generally within a reasonable distance of their place of employment, although the actual geographic dispersion of employees at these employers has not been identified in addition to those that reside within the School District versus those outside of the School District. The School District is concerned regarding the availability of a sufficient amount of land to accommodate children's safety and student access and safety on the site; MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. St. Croix Valley Area Family Community Center Task Force June 21, 2006 Page 3 Population and Household Growth Trends The following maps outline the boundaries of the Stillwater School District and show the projected growth in population and households as of 2010 and 2030. Also shown are population and household density maps for 2010 and 2030, identifying resident concentrations. This information is used to evaluate the location of sites relative to the projected growth in the Area. Information on growth trends was compiled by Metropolitan Council and cross-referenced to information compiled by the School District in their Enrollment Projections through 2010. We agree and acknowledge that while the number of completed homes in the past had fallen significantly below projections, that this trend is likely to change moving forward and that the amount of"gap" likely to decline. The maps show that projected growth will be focused in Lake Elmo due to its agreement with the Metropolitan Council regarding density development levels within the community. While Lake Elmo is expected to grow significantly during the next four years and to 2030, growth levels are lower for Oak Park Heights and Stillwater, because of their current status—both are nearly fully- developed. Stillwater is adding new housing units through its orderly annexation agreement with the Township in addition to redevelopment of sites in the Downtown. Oak Park Heights is continuing to build out, but there is a limited amount of land remaining available for new residential development. Lake Elmo has been the only community thus far to have been required to increase its densities. There are, however, several surrounding communities such as Grant, Afton which have municipality status and also have chosen to remain at very low densities. Should Grant or Afton reach a similar situation in the future with the Metropolitan Council, growth patterns could change dramatically in the St. Croix Valley Area and could shift the current population concentrations more to the south or north. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. St. Croix Valley Area Family Community Center Task Force June 21, 2006 Page 4 Population - 2010 : . . urine on St Cro 1 y .« 1 iii• �7 �L , ' r� ME g.. L ar- • ..t Nla'y.T\-Iwp, ,,. ., -v4,., \-1''t.o. ill „,,,, ..,,,,1 ,.. ..,,,t.,T) ,... . ....,_ , -4, % , 4,,,,.4. . . , ,<..4. ,.. :-4 ii 46111ii ' . • • • • •", Some;e, pi v �a 1 '; :`` Populatlo -aoio , !. 4 ® 1 Dot=20 people i t9 i‘:114 �'� n. Stillwater School District I• H g ■aats. a tomedi 4 ni ' ��11 ,� SI TMI i 1! •:- ,eights mAr �lino • a El p lilli Imo ., .RC :v WNW i t ° West rt 2� '_' i.i! _�i1 ': f��a -- VIII, gitl, , •' N e%1. ftikelAiii'7`'' : tai L !n'• flamm„ jitittnalea,,y-*- ' Retiltitt irtmaisp- IN lip E 1 ` i -1 • ;ARon ii 8e h 'A i.'mow. sn' ird.-"I'' .• ,3{ � ,Ma4y'E-)�.Oi C-� ; �i'I�. t. �r I ■ ii. 7i1111M1111111116111 • "/ • . will philL1110 Et Irk ,,4 ILIAT EA monsitemil MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. St. Croix Valley Area Family Comm, unity Center Task Force June 21, 2006 Page 5 Population - 2030 '%S�►`•■■_i■ iiii Marino-on Si_?Cro v ■ ■ 1 .,„ ,i i x. ILA �g. t t.: my - � � � i ■ 4. ��'P -t,� May Twp` ,,��. ilimull"IMW '6 6 Population-2030 �� '7:7 4 ) • 10,000+ ' — , , ■ 5,000 to 10,000 ' '., 3,000 to 5,000 • , ❑ 1,000 to 3,000 will " ,r ¢ Grant ( .,. ,,, ��, Ii ❑ 0 to 1,000 ' /111111111P' •! LI Stillwater School District I 414 i C wa er' � ` C '3� ' eahtomd: 4♦ `C10.11.0. ll ei hts , jiii, ■I' 11111 ' 011i 3r111. II $ a f o Ir`'.! atotvi y a S ! , • MINER a C' 'Hudon 7 s eat s 3 r , ,si' P 17 :trill'Ikl.:a 1-- - ,__,.7102M1.4'1%**vio..kii rsi-,(5,_-,-;* Avesrmumillab"mil, ,z n th r k c A _§.t Croix- • r; ��1►Sq�cya�,ofitl - t -'‘L om.y ,.I/ I i- . '� r �,+ I, ____ Ai 1.1. II i„,,„.„....., ,,„..,,,.., , .. , ........,„__, ,‘,..„,...„ ii.,.:,, 'bs ff. 11111111111, ---1-4,1,1* M.11.11.1,..:714e'-'45.,ANNINIum i MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. St. Croix Valley Area Family Community Center Task Force June 21Page, 2006 6 Population - 2010 II Rommi }i, 'arine on St C t i itlp,,,,, 14 I i — 7.` �I�;= �u' Population-2010 I 1pf li — . ' ''fir • 10,50,00lis 00+0 to 10,000 � 3,000 to 5,000 1 ;Cr t—re , © 1,000 to 3,000 o to 1,000 ii Grant Al - +'r ,- --- IA..... � • I1 Stillwater School District III Arignillaiiill irt —MI �. ;• a, 0. , omedi 1 e. 1111111 sC3 igh�ts ►r. �' rrE17.40. ;..;;AIIII--", illii. -1.*) gic „1-- 64,4 . - ".. '711 4#,,,,:„.„P , ' - .' ltd gabfimage 4 � Imo4a ",` w or � ,,.„,1,1,41_,, � -..�» West + 1'^''. a �� 3d �� t IIk La6eland ` _�4� S ? a iieh,. nd'mil t �t�6 ice.; : �_irwill r.K.,s X,,�,� "�, r of tb i 1 ! UII� II iipkArlio-- I ,, .s I _ Croix E Afton. ��,_II 0.4 burs,i E. e't..'�`,je. E-... -'$ 'MapOhlt-� .. 1iIP ■_I rc Iry 011 a i limis ma stris 4-14 IIIIPAIN111117#!... All MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. St. Croix Valley Area Family Community Center Task Force June 21, 2006 Page 7 Population Growth, 2010 to 2030 Emig 1 Marine on St:Croi !!,iI1L!- May z Population Growth . ia, y "'M1 sop �� } O to 2030 ` 1 1_ .., • 10,000+ III tr,f, .. • 2,500 to 10,000 �' ; ^ +1 1 . 1,000 to 2,500 ' _ ❑ 500 to 1,000 la/ ri .- 'Ginn i / ❑ -500 to 500 e sir-11 * - ' I1 Stillwater School District II larerw-7.,:r1;3.th- I_ , ,i, _ , c‘slitki r ) 1 ..4 _ .11 F1 � �� A n ti` ," "s 6,- E � I st ,-*,-.;." ,,.,--,,_„., ' !Vl est i mat r 3I 0 ` I tx a Lakeland. t Get i Y Al ��, . I x- , � y i , atir tv,:.i11101.111 ,- F E ` l sti' t+�TLi r /,���i ell l�4 . �, .),__1 . , liv., _, - A 1::19"1 Vstialrill , III 2- irail MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. St. Croix Valley Area Family Community Center Task Force June 21, 2006 Page 8 At this time, current estimates identify high concentrations of population and households in the following areas: Stillwater Oak Park Heights Lake Elmo Considering future growth to 2030, concentrations will shift toward Lake Elmo and away from Stillwater and Oak Park Heights. The lower density communities are projected to remain as such, certainly through 2010, but also forecast through 2030. The following analysis of site criteria utilizes this information in assessing the geographic proximity of the various proposed locations to future growth. As indicated in the enrollment projections report for the Stillwater School District, Lake Elmo is expected to begin its development of the Old Village shortly and is forecast to add upwards of 520 new housing units to the area within the next four to five years. From 2010 to 2030, Lake Elmo is projected to surpass Stillwater in population growth. In reaching its required total of 24,000 people, Lake Elmo will surpass Stillwater's population base by 4,100 people by 2030. However,the combined 2030 populations of Stillwater, Oak Park Heights and Bayport are projected to equal 31,600 people. From the maps, it is clear that the locus of population density will balance out over the next 20 years, from its current concentration in Stillwater and Oak Park Heights to a more balanced situation between Stillwater/Oak Park Heights and Lake Elmo. Stillwater, Oak Park Heights and Bayport will continue to have the highest combined concentration of population and households and will be one of the commercial shopping concentrations for the region. Lake Elmo will develop a larger commercial base, but initially, it is intended to target smaller neighborhood- oriented goods and services. Criteria Analysis for Each Site The following tables present summary information on criteria for each Site. Criteria presented include: • Location of the Parcel • Approximate Parcel Size • Potential for Expansion • Recent Traffic Counts on Major Adjacent Thoroughfares • Access/Visibility from Adjacent Thoroughfares/Major Thoroughfares • Proximity to Center of Growth MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. St. Croix Valley Area Family Community Center Task Force June 21, 2006 Page 9 • Site Characteristics/Qualities • Site Availability • Site Cost • Infrastructure/Utilities • Cost of Infrastructure/Utilities • Assembly of Multiple Parcels • Ability to Own or Lease Site • Current Zoning/Rezoning Required? All information is not yet available for each site. Additional information is forthcoming on sites that are not currently sponsored by the participating cities. At this time,no Site overwhelmingly meets all of the criteria. Each Site has strengths and weaknesses associated with it including its potential to accommodate the SCVA Community Center(physically) and its potential for the facility to operate at an optimum level in the future given growth trends, consumer travel patterns and potential future competition for similar goods and services (primarily associated with the recreation component). Sites are not listed in order of preference and the site numbers do not represent the potential attractiveness of the Site. The Appendix following the Criteria Analysis show table summaries for each site and photographs for each site. Site#1 —Commercial Site (located west of Stillwater Blvd., south of Highway 36). Strengths Close proximity to Highway 36 High Visibility from Stillwater Boulevard Convenient Access to the Site (signalized intersection at 58th Street N). In close proximity to current population/household concentrations, but located just a short distance from projected growth in Lake Elmo; Immediate availability Potential to own or lease Utilities and infrastructure available at the Site Weaknesses Site may be too small— 11 acres maximum Parking area may be limited Cost of Site may be expensive MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. St. Croix Valley Area Family Community Center Task Force June 21, 2006 Page 10 Site#2—Bergman Property (NE Corner of Highway 36 and Manning Avenue N) Strengths Close proximity to Highway 36 High Visibility from Highway 36 and from Manning Avenue Convenient Access to the Site (signalized intersection) In close proximity to current population/household concentrations and projected concentrations; Near-term availability Own the Site Utilities and infrastructure available at the Site (assessments to be paid by owner). Site has ample room to accommodate facility(50 acres with potential for 80 acres total) Currently guided for commercial use by Stillwater's Comprehensive Plan. Weaknesses High cost of Site and high cost of special assessments (some may be negotiable) Peak traffic on Manning and Highway 36 may create access difficulties during peak travel periods due to stacking of vehicles at signal. Topography is generally flat with some tree cover, but could be difficult due to some low lying areas. Site#3—Neal Property Strengths Located immediately north of County Road 12 High visibility from County Road 12 Convenient Access to the Site off County Road 12 (future Neal Avenue extension) In close proximity to current population concentrations Own the Site Near-term availability Utility extensions to the Site are nearby Site has ample room to accommodate the facility (about 40 acres) Topography is gently rolling or flat, with minimal tree cover Weaknesses Under pre-development agreement for rezoning to residential Adjacent to low-density single-family homes could create difficulties with neighbors Potential high cost of property,but uncertain Potential high costs for additional infrastructure (special assessments for roads, utilities) MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. St. Croix Valley Area Family Community Center Task Force June 21, 2006 Page 11 Site#4—Xcel Energy-Fly Ash Site Strengths Centrally located in the SW corner of Highway 36 and Beach Road N; Close proximity to major employers; Potential improved access via future Stillwater Bridge (development timing uncertain) Site size can accommodate facility (total size 45 acres) Site would be graded and planned by Xcel and could be according to Client's needs Lease from Xcel Base cost of site minimal or nothing Utilities are available at the Site. Hook-up costs should be moderate. Site is vacant and bare; no tree cover; Site can be built up to accommodate landscaping. Weaknesses Site availability in 2010; possibility of some use prior to that time. Must not compromise the integrity of the cover Must carefully plan improvements to the Site, all cleared and handled through Xcel. Cost of utility hookups to be paid by client. Further distance from future high level population concentrations in Lake Elmo. Currently, zoned industrial; proposed community center may be permitted in industrial district; if not,will need to be rezoned. Site#5—Bayport Sites Strengths Close proximity to population concentrations Close proximity to major employers Timing is short-term; Convenient Access from County Roads 21 and 14 Sites are heavily wooded; Most likely sufficient land area to accommodate facility. Mayor would donate his property; Could likely negotiate with developer of private parcel to reduce land costs to nominal amounts; Utilities would be available at the Site and utility connection fees should be moderate; Own the Site. Weaknesses MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. St. Croix Valley Area Family Community Center Task Force June 21, 2006 Page 12 Low visibility from major thoroughfares such as Highway 36 or Stillwater Boulevard; Lowest traffic counts; Assembly of parcels required(but may not be especially difficult); Less convenient access from major thoroughfares; Would require negotiation with several entities for site assembly. Site#6—Lake Elmo-Downtown Village Site Strengths Annual land lease of$1.00 as long as Community Center desires; Convenient access and visibility from Stillwater Boulevard Concentration of households in close proximity to facility (2010) Utilities available at site; Site is vacant and clear; generally flat with no tree cover. Immediate (near-term) availability; Site assembly has been completed by the City; Population concentrations in 2030 most likely to be family dominated Weaknesses Not as centrally located to total 2030 population concentration(Bayport, Stillwater, Oak Park Heights) Potential traffic congestion on Stillwater Boulevard with increase of 520 households by 2010 (additional 5,200 trips per day); Other Sites Other sites in the area were explored,but are either too small or are being guided for another use. We are in the process of considering two other possible sites that may hold potential, one in Oak Park Heights and another in Afton. We will add analysis of these sites to the mix if they prove to have sufficient potential to consider them with the others. The next step in the process is to weight the criteria in order of importance and then to apply the weightings to each site to provide both a quantitative assessment as well as qualitative. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. St. Croix Valley Area Family Community Center Task Force June 21, 2006 Page 13 Weighting Criteria Table 1 shows a preliminary weighting assessment for each of the proposed sites. The weighting assessment assigns a weight value to each of nine criteria. These criteria may be weighted differently based on the discussions of the site selection task force or additional criteria may be added to the analysis. Each of the Site's is assigned a value rating from 1 through 5 with 1 being poor and 5 being excellent. These value ratings are shown on the table along with a total that is derived from the value rating alone. These value ratings are multiplied by the weighting factor to arrive at a weighted total for the criteria. As is shown,the weighting values shift the totals for the sites, sometimes substantially. In reviewing the weighting totals and the criteria, I believe that the current value ranges and weighting criteria reflect the characteristics of the sites based on the perceived value of the criteria. However, these criteria should be discussed by the task force and weightings may change based on a consensus of the group. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. St. Croix Valley Area Family Community Center Task Force June 21, 2006 Page 14 TABLE 1 CRITERIA WEIGHTING ASSESSMENT PROPOSED SITES June 2006 Commercial Bergman Neal Ave. Xcel Energy Bayport Lake Elmo- I ISites I Weighting Site-U Properties Property Property Fly-Ash Sites wntown Village Scale 1-5(1=Poor,5=Excellent) Proximity to Growth Centers 1 3 3 2 5 5 2 3 3 2 5 5 2 Access 0.8 5 5 3 4 2 4 4 4 2.4 3.2 1.6 3.2 Visibility 0.5 4 5 4 5 2 4 2 2.5 2 2.5 1 2 Base Cost of Site 1 2 2 2 5 4 5 2 2 2 5 4 5 Availability 1 5 3 1 2 4 5 5 3 1 2 4 5 Proximity to Major Employers 0.5 4 3 2 5 5 3 2 1.5 1 2.5 2.5 1.5 Cost of Infrastructure 0.5 3 2 2 3 3 3 1.5 1 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 Land Assembly 0.5 5 5 4 5 4 5 2.5 2.5 2 2.5 2 2.5 Zoning 0.2 5 5 3 5 4 5 1 1 0.6 1 0.8 1 Totals 6 36 33 23 39 33 36 Weighted Totals 23 20.5 14 25.2 22.4 23.7 Source: Maxfield Research Inc. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. c — 0 : N to ` «, N a 0 S aka b � ti e w z V M O i! o a c" © N 5 L -to O2 C7 y t. M .1 33' :i ...t. 1, .1‘..7.:..: :5 . .... ,,, •. Z • y U .� p ,_>:, p yO O. L II Ci c!„Ivo q'-' =I ..." ti >, $ b °3 0 m' Z M ci N 0 C) C +4 L Q v z 4. ° 0 ci, cl E' . o ". .. rte+ y d v� Uy >, E ' 2 S •el a o ''t [ U O O a� w C = ed w z Q ai c � � 0 � z x ° � z b w z ! 3 O e 0 a � g 5 U0v� o ow v) .) ,, v , 3 w ', 0 . Ni 0 al o b C S flflfl ,o -a I : J 0 ' y U 108 i 5 o O. 8 N as w y O N4 .Y... 0 o8 • y M .44''4i''''. >86' .-°•'':•-''',-,1 .:'Q t‘w)8 16 4 z a C.) O ,,, �" to o w a, xc ooa xMU • ' � H n 'II c a; O = : U 1 ' ° a.0 ... . . .. . 0 ai „io. ,$). . . ' I ' T . a W U� * � w � w1 • 4.,o c a cd Hi ❑0 M 0 a cu fi � .. o0 ae co o z ._ A a O cq 3 rs. w s a'° o ._. g 14 • VD o ,--4 o cu N pp co N A., 6 G) 0. 5 o .s o toiI .� 4.) .--1 4N [ Ti a 0 c3 ,00 t i"° � U a.c4 a,•y IS a) E 0 c NI N G — c: 11m /4: E o Q .- 0 az u u N U I 41 i i IH g ,3 � c � Q Q t,o O a U r 0 44 0 a.) I 4) p c2 w U ° h Ito !pp' J 0 ti x wU322 o o 2 ., � • a Gi, a Q U aW, o c aO 0 ;z a z 0 rW/]� cd • E 5 � o o 8 a 'o> •C 3 a 6 0 - c a•a 2 R a, g a ;_. z O V� C y b O C -�i la' oz V] t Vs V 1 "o s - C [ N P G G N 0 00 a o0 o° � 4N N 0 b a) tts b . C) a cp m O N o 'S -wzwa o a� c w eN cdw o 2 .E ;; c [ 4.) 08 .5 c 7 N b Q �^ by a "5 o 3 F 1`F ,G O d 3 ., w a.E U 3 ` :1 e N «+ ° w 4 2 1 a k E o y A >. IUV W y y .O•7 tea+ d > Ada, 8 0 V a) 1 0 4.0 1 H Z 4� M 0 o V w O � aal tu � y b O a) a) U © i - � c w 3 U w i ° U o w � a x ti cd Mt'� w z ¢ o‹ a a cu w 0 w z� � a) C� M 3 a o N 'C C O O 1 W ° h Q%] vvU v) 3 'y 5 '6 va o CZ, eD N OA) '-' a N 0 • 2 'g ° 3 0 O N 3 >'C. O , O A , O C . > O O O g > O O O O 8 > U n -8 O N C 'C -N .8 VI < - 8. 0`' I 2 itl _ 3 6 o 3 O 3°i '7, x 01 17, C Qa. ac4 a U 3 Iii, .....,m p o a o a co U " > � � w w 2 N — 0/ ' C N r q m N. 0 04 O m."b 2 N p p p N p U v+L.1 O pQ ce V N 0 on" '. . $ a i., g N 1., U s U 3 o z y y 1 a w3 3 13 � I co 6 cts 1 'fl O t0 ,4,. 1. 'O A G yy or) , a C a O d• Q. >�4V v G i . T '*• a . y N� ' v O •C d t y > > 00 a c o C $ s °� a s a 1n w w pI1 _ z o�Q • o � o x 9 ce rU W W o oc ° o ° 3>LI: z 0 cep o° O N at N p" 4) b ix: Z t - 0 F o a; ° Q E ' > T lt d U °: o b g 4 [;i © 0 va 1 o t1 b ° v J :LZJ „i CJ y o F o ... i. ia20 -11.,2 .15 o .0 a! ; en- ye e a et g IV w e Q h 17 C 0 w a ¢" S U -3 w3w, c,, o cl al ii cu 4a e S x �.7 y > o - �] Z z 65 3 ° 0 0 ,30 Z.'SS F = A U w v' 0 w a t j V? 55U o 1 i vn w v o 0 cn cA rs- n " 0 1.. v - T.:17.•••' /-y 4;. • - s.i:`,. r<. • .1'' 1 ''14'7,;:,;,"'7. :;.°'",117 .;.),'* 4')\:..,.,', .„, . \ '•' :-..)17 ,_. ty .....'‘ , ' I '..; . ,•, ' .,.:4. N N 1 CD P Nit PO t21 . .•e$,L,,,„,,,,. ' ..., ,..... , . i \ 4 c:P4• .„• , , \ ib. 'i• ...,4 i . cA - .0 •, . -•• i. A ..,- ,' -- . . I i m • '- * •.,.. , _IL ,.,. .--,. . ' ...% "' '`• • ' --A* "it : :: '-•C - , „ , n cp,.. ri) A ot. .- ,„. ,..,-;:,.. ••••'. ,,,,,.•4 '",:1-:: • cn 27' ,07 ,—t .,.. 0 0 \ '`' '',.. :\ , .";,- 44.. -:,„,-",,,,,•„,i,.1.-.,„,,,,- '* 4, ! ,,.k • ,,,o, -c, 4...„, , :-!: 4,•.i , •,:f.A:,, , 1 , •'".., •Ar. ::•: •''', i V 4.!4,-,0• ,' ''',"' :,', I ii 1 ta , -':,„•„,:). .:--,. ••••,•••,,,:•"'",,-;,:,,A,4:'A'',-.1'-i:,;'• " • i: :':- C,D, 1., .,:• ::.'-'',' ',.-,• ,i - i ..„'":'''f- „i : ...••': :'::,'.:: '7 --': k ' 0 t' ' A ,' , ,,' •, ' .., •■, :- , . , .gs 'it -.;i: ' ':'''•:",-; . ', ''' .? , ,, fl 4 ',,,,,. ' ',. , i' ",,,A. . "A ' 1 4. - * /''''i'-:;,-' '-: .'''''''''. -C. i.H,., ' P. it i'l . ' ,,',.', I , , , 4, (P.,,;r:.' Y N • ,,.' SP' .” . , 0 :• . , , 4 r• ,•;,.., '''''' • $ - 44 ,,,, •*; ..' 14„. ";,..„,,,,...,,, . ,, .„ , ,..,..„ cf•f" # ,-' -- * *11" •-;:,:• d6- . 4101' : ' 4 0: '''''''' : I ' 0-- * , ' ' , „0 4 . 0 . •..0...-.-.... ,,* 44, •4 .. • ' .■ o, ) . -,,•-•,„ '■,' • 4:* ...t. ^'4 i• 4 #174,11417 e 1 ' , ar ' (..) P ' 04. .- '4. ,,,.,' , ,..,,•Iv it il r ut:r IV (•) c) IV C=> x i�'. CA: 0°,:;:: 10,:f.A n may ` d 1 ,'',f y Q s Imo. , (F ii is o }r 4 AN fl4 \ ' ;71 ' t ik 1 ' , J g < 1 ,j} 3 l J 4 � f tf i lli lta}}y, ' p' ■i\ - 1 ' § I- ,. Ig,,,4,,,',', \s..\\ i ao, .1 $ e ., .. . ,/,,,, ,I, . .. .... ,. . „. , T , ' i *' °i. ,r 4' " � 3 i ,i is Ma \‘, i ? . �� , kl ° ,. • CD T N 0 v �. crc,p N O N O O, N c4 .,- . - ./Pv I ''':-..., 1.'4 '1. c.:,'..,,' . '''-'.,,, , 17.,..‘l -: o i:,,,,' ,., --IP . - ,••'''',"-•„i'''',',,)•' A , It . , .7‘, . , ...,t,,,, k't.:„..„,,. _„. .. , , . - ° - 0 ,041- 4., '''-'-V , -'-', ,'," . , >'-'. < tr, tmi ('' .C4:1'4:\' '''‘'' '' 'I.' Nit''411,. •- i '''' ,,, -' i ' *. '."1" ' ' - P > CT . . . 4..:. V't!'''' V.:, '''%..''''''. ' -41 ,14. ,'' ' 4A 11,/-11 A * ''',,---••Pz-4,••,-",„,- , -..' -A.";. '-C '4";`,,,\:..,t,'-% ' •. '''''"'4, ' '' ' - ti•*04;t4'• i.-°•."-..'!;•) ‘' **.•.' , '1., '''' ' '''''''''''''''''P4 ,"'.' '-k; - , =• • -,,,, ,,-, v.. • co cl) . .,,N ' ' i . . . ;,..4 .• *01i , * i ,. - 0. i SI) tmi .\ t 0-.,..4 '. ,t "11 ..•,-.,: ••-„,.'"il,'„'"-' . ' ' ' -40.- ..,... N;., . -14.- ' , 14 •o? . -'' -..' -.•.'A I. 't- '' ''' •'' -' - '" ....,• . I .p n , p ,..,, :,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,..._.:,,,.,:::,.,,.,,, .• ,,.. , Al.', 4' 1 -.' '•7,.,, tiL , .„,,,..;, ,. ,\, „ ....,A 1 ..., •, k1/4 * "* ,...'' .1 ' '..!, ‘-'.-' .,..-- , ... . .,,o, i • 44.' ' i • .4. 4,;„.,, •4,• . --.'-.'.' „."--k•••-1.-'-".„ •*.- ... ' ' .,.0 ' ''•, , ,' i ' pt . ' i n o .7-... ,1/4 'v. ', 4/00,..1.:■4,0%,,tir'74S11.,.:',.,4i1;1: 1 . 4 = , - - . ,., ',!,-:...,.4"'1',of'op',I' ..,..4 „,.,., , . . „ . v , - ' I. . ..„ . . , ..„ --. ., .-4 I 1,1,4'41 -- o,' (—) 0:3 4 CD . ,,,,,,,,,,, , - _,. „r.,k,--•:' ”; .... ' I * -d. ... . . „,,...ta CD'*' . . . . „... ,, ..., -.,.„... Nt'4,. .41t4'i i ' cn - . . . . , •-. • ,,- , ,. ‘ , k , ,..• , . ''7' l S'4)• ,.. '., - CD'-ri (-7'1 CD ...., ' I I I e,.f, i ',A ,',;: .. , 14..'._.• — i''''4/4/44* .' ,,..' •:*;', 4 I., liq • ' •,,,T. 7' "r''' '*,- ," t° ‘ I/ • 1 '1.4,, •* • - 4 -."-.41t \ f• Y ' ''''' \ it .., 4 ..)., . .„ . . ,,... . / • -...040. ... „,,,,:01:,•,:,k4::' , 7; , .., * 4 r „.. . .„ .. . . . . . , ,... ..ta -:,I, 4 - :"'a. ' 11$'''VVV $4 .. „ , . ,,,,,....„.„ , ' ” 4. 40. , # 1.:- :' ''''''' ':.0''' i ' , . „ . . . , , ,„ .., * . ,. . ..„ ) .. , ., .0' • , . . ..', 4. , . , .... „ „ . .., , . ' ';. . ,.. „ . .. ...., . , ,. . ...... 'f '''''',-- -„,••,`•• ., ' ,..,..,'. ,, ,, • r , . . p , . . . ..., ' „.. ,„, mr*.• "p„,„ - - •le,• ,, . , 4 , ,, , , J'..:*41.' - ' . .4,4: • . . • , Atit ,,,,,,,.....,,. ., / 'Tv, , , -,....., .. ....A.. . • ' '''' '. 1 , ... iila ,, ..( 114 - r r1401/A,,,, ..'r.:,, ,,....1,..1.77$ ,:aik.: . .#..ith ,..,,bar.,, ,, r . ,, , ekt go ji *. , 0, , . . e /41 1,-, ., .... . . . .. ,„ .i; , , :, .., 10 , . , . , , . 0 t.L;.'4.- ' ,,,:.s- ,, e: ' 'i,, . , .. „ ''' A '' f '''$•$'";7*-* '',' ' ,..,'''' I l',=f ' r ' -40 - it- it' - Vitr-i 4 4i,4 , i .,,,„ it , i„, • ' .i ..,, ..,„.../ • „ ..., ''' '''''' , •:'' ''' ' '"-. ' '•‘t;:',.;-.140. .0..• f# , - . e-= 41'.' ”, .,, ' f,.' . *. ',„ ..• ,, * 4 , , 4,4 / ,.',,, ....,4,,i,,i,, t - ' - , st i v ; •, 4, ..,,, 4,,,,.. v .1. , .!.' . , .,. , io ,., ,••. •. . It . , ... P . CD c, ,,-,, ...1,4;_,'<ii d C a ' a n / , n rn ' ` o }�y1� f> _m cID v r , C� 2 ro ii ilf:.t:.,:ii_ I I 0 f 4{ i , ,/II i {{ 1 1 . , f.... ii. .0 k.....„ ......... . ,, - r , , 1 / 9 1 ,. fl .`)4� \ ' ro co „d N Cr'. N a O N O c4 yC / \ ;_, "' n d C 4 Ci7 `< Z co n P x AD n �. . n 0 on- ° n 0 CD 0 0 H P s v n o 0 o v ° 0 .t o a Ts i r 8' t f O Uille CD cm• N n O N O CA C o . , ktOls..4\ E( ..,,,,,,„,:11, ,:‘,,,i.:, ,.,, y a CD AD 2 R. o� r, * co:F-1.''''.11 ' AD o ' .1 �t°` $ m �, Q cD a0 < ' .i *,4.4.../.,,,,'::..?4 1`1,.'':,\cf\t .. l 5o I v. ■K t 1 R, Y .P R �'p ; Cl.. �Y,k 4 t '.1.\ :I, M at i 1 tF• 4. jj , r i 11/1 '' ',Ft ,' .,•4 .0-' b p UD N CD O N O C'' NEfgril CI c • AGREEMENT AND RELEASE Ms.Heather Baum,Contractor,has entered into an agreement with the St.Croix Valley Area Community Family Center to facilitate the development of a community/family center pursuant to the terms of the attached agreement—see Exhibit A. The City of Oak Park Heights has agreed to allow the Contractor to temporarily utilize office space in the Oak Park Heights City Hall to assist in that effort.The City shall not charge a fee for such office space nor be reimbursed for reasonable use of office supplies.The City shall not provide any support staff.The City will to the best of its ability provide local phone service,internet access and minor office supplies.The City will provide access to a copy machine but shall be reimbursed by the Contractor for any copier use at a rate similar to what the City is charged. The Contractor may be in the City Hall on normal business days commencing at 8:00 am,and must leave the premises by 4:00 pm.The Contractor will not be provided a key. The Contractor shall not be and is not considered an agent or employee for the City and is not covered under any City benefit program,insurance policies or labor agreement.Any and all claims that arise,or may arise against the Contractor,its contractors,servants or employees as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of the Contractor or its contractors,servants or employees shall in no way be the obligation or the responsibility of the City. The Contractor shall indemnify,hold harmless and defend the City,its officers and employees against all liability,loss,costs,damages,expenses,claims or actions,including attorney's fees,which the City,its officers or employees may hereafter sustain,incur or be inquired to pay,arising out of or by reason of any negligence or willful act of the Contractor,its contractors,servants or employees. M,11 i oM d•ItWLS The Contractor shall maintain in a general liability policy for not less than$ such policies shall remain in effect at all times,shall include the City as additionally insured and copies of such policy shall be provided to the City. The City provides no warranty or assurances to the Contractor as to the condition of the facilities being provided.The Contractor provides all such services and shall utilize all City facilities at their"own risk". For reasons other than willful negligence by the City,the Contractor acknowledges and agrees that the City is not responsible for loss,injury or other damages sustained by the Contractor while on City property. The Contractor shall submit to a criminal background check as to be performed by the City Police Department.Contractor shall provide a copy of their valid Minnesota Driver's License. The City may terminate the use of City facilities at anytime and for any reason. -.Air.Apo date t . 3 l• CJ He. - t a ontractor date /'3/'06 /-ric Jo'i 4n,City Administrator ti JULIE R.JOHNSON ,. for both Si pa es: NOTARY PUBLIC MINNESOTA t):,,k 1111/ %�,r („ � �,ty Commission Exp res Jan.31,X010 date �_ 1-�w ` ✓!l�1lllll!!!'l!!!l-r�!!I!!1 Exhibit "A" II F'eb . 1 . 2006 8 :48AM No. 0886 P . 1 Whd%Chid Aor` PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT • Between Heather Baum and St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Organization This Professional Services Agreement is between the parties of Ms. Heather Baum, hereafter referred to as the"Contractor",and the St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Organization and sets forth the terms and conditions in which Ms.Baum, the"Contractor",will provide professional services relating to the St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Project Coordinator, or other services that may be mutually agreed upon. Term The term of this agreement shall commence on January 2, 2006, and terminates on or before December 31,2006. Cancellation Either party may cancel this agreement at any time giving thirty (30) calendar days written notice to the other by certified or registered mail, UPS or hand carried with proof of receipt. Insurance The Contractor shall maintain all necessary coverage in accordance to Minnesota law. Hold Harmless The Contractor agrees to hold.the St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Organization and/or its members harmless for any actions that may arise due to inappropriate or wrongful actions on her part. Employment The Contractor shall not be and is not considered an employee of the St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Organization and is not eligible for any benefit programs. Feb . 1 . 2006 8: 48AM No . 0886 P . 2 Professional Services Agreement The Contractor and the St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Organization Page 2 Billings The Contractor shall submit itemized statements to the IPT Chairperson on or before the fifth(5th) day of the month for payment during that month. Statements submitted after the 5th day shall not be paid until the following month,. Scope of Services The Contractor shall provide professional services as assigned by the IPT, and as outlined in the position description(affixed here in Exhibit A). The Contractor shall provide regular status reports to the IPT and shall coordinate activities through the IPT Chairperson. No services shall be provided outside the scope of services defined in this agreement unless authorized by the IPT„ Fees The Contractor shall be paid at the rate of$3,000 per month for services rendered in accordance with this Agreement. The Contractor will additionally be awarded a"Start-up Fee"to cover initial expenses and shall total $2,400.00. The Start-up Fee shall be paid to the Contractor in two equal installments, at the commencement of the Agreement and at the start of the second half of the term, $1,200 each. Should the Agreement be terminated by either party, any funds paid to the Contractor shall be prorated to the nearest day and the balance returned to the St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Organization. Reimbursables Unless otherwise agreed to,the Contractor shall provide all materials related to the completion and fulfillment of the terms of this Agreement. The St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Organization will provide at no additional cost to the Contractor an office space in the Stillwater area with telephone services and access to a copier and interne services to fulfill the terms of this Agreement. With prior approval, the Contractor shall be reimbursed for"out-of-pocket expenses"related to travel outside of the Twin Cities Metro Area defined as the Metropolitan Council District Feb . 1 . 2006 8 : 48AM No . 0886 P . 3 Professional Services Agreement The Contractor and the St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Organization Page 3 ACCEPTED: Contractor St.Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Organization eat Date yrw.� L✓ Date 2 Ole Heather Baum IPT Chairperson A, LEST: D-^I/► Date IP Vice hairperson Whole Child Whole Family A'I PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Whole Community Between Heather Baum and St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Organization This Professional Services Agreement is between the parties of Ms. Heather Baum, hereafter referred to as the "Contractor", and the St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Organization and sets forth the terms and conditions in which Ms. Baum, the "Contractor", will provide professional services relating to the St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Project Coordinator, or other services that may be mutually agreed upon. Term The term of this agreement shall commence on January 2, 2006, and terminates on or before December 31, 2006. Cancellation Either party may cancel this agreement at any time giving thirty(30) calendar days written notice to the other by certified or registered mail, UPS or hand carried with proof of receipt. Insurance The Contractor shall maintain all necessary coverage in accordance to Minnesota law. Hold Harmless The Contractor agrees to hold the St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Organization and/or its members harmless for any actions that may arise due to inappropriate or wrongful actions on her part. Employment The Contractor shall not be and is not considered an employee of the St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Organization and is not eligible for any benefit programs. Professional Services Agreement Family Center Organization The Contractor and the St. Croix Valley Area Community Y g Page 2 Billings The Contractor shall submit itemized statements to the IPT Chairperson on or submitted after the fifth 5`") day of the month for payment during that month. Statements the 5 day shall not be paid until the following month. Scope of Services The Contractor shall provide professional services as assigned by the IPT, and as outlined in the position description(affixed here in Exhibit A). The Contractor shall provide regular status reports to the IPT and shall coordinate activities through the IPT Chairperson. No services shall be provided outside the scope of services defined in this agreement unless authorized by the IPT. Fees The Contractor shall be paid at the rate of$3,000 per month for services rendered in accordance with this Agreement. The Contractor will additionally be awarded a"Start-up Fee"to cover initial expenses and shall total $2,400.00. The Start-up Fee shall be paid to the Contractor in two equal installments, at the commencement of the Agreement and at the start of the second half of the le Contrac Otor shall be prorated go the nearest day and terminated by either party, any funds paid to the the balance returned to the St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Organization. Reimbursables Unless otherwise agreed to,the Contractor shall provide all materials related to the completion and fulfillment of the terms of this Agreement. The St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Organization will provide at no additional cost to the Contractor an office space in the Stillwater area with telephone services and access to a copier and internet services to fulfill the terms of this Agreement. With prior approval, the Contractor shall be reimbursed for"out-of-pocket expenses"related to travel outside of the Twin Cities Metro Area defined as the Metropolitan Council District. Professional Services Agreement The Contractor and the St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Organization Page 3 ACCEPTED: Contractor St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Organization Gol C;axv Datev��'o Date Heather Baum IPT Chairperson ATTEST: Date IPT Vice Chairperson A Ai • City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 April 26`h,2006 Ms.Doris Karts Stillwater Area Schools Director of Community Education and Community Relations VIA EMAIL ONLY-Doris Karts Ikarlsd @,stillwater.k12.mn.usl RE: Site Selection Committee--Community Center Dear Committee Members. As you are aware,the City of Oak Park Heights remains committed to the overall scope of the project.Accordingly. the City has provided not only a financial contribution of$2.000.but also considerable staff time to continually develop this project.The issue we are now examining are possible locations for such facility.Understandably,a facility of this magnitude will require significant acreage which will likely be expensive in this community.Current commercial property with adequate highway frontage and utilities runs on average$7.00 per square foot.This value then places a 10 acre site at a cost of approximately$3,000.000. The City of Oak Park Heights does not readily contain a site of this size nor does the City have the capacity to annex • such property without significant effort and investment.The sole alternative i could suggest at this time would he the possibility of locating the facility at the Xcel Energy Fly-ash Landfill Site(Moelter).It has significant acreage for construction,abuts a major highway(STH 36)and would tie in with the City's park and trail systems. There are however issues with the site that detract from its value.As Mr.Darrell Knutson,Project Manager for the site had mentioned at one of our meetings,there would be challenging engineering and environmental aspects to utilizing such property.Namely,the property is essentially a landfill that must maintain a non-permeable cap lying below grade and could not be negatively impacted.Any alterations would also require MPCA approval.While the land costs could prove cheaper,further engineering and site development criteria may exceed these values. Moreover. Xcel Energy does not for-see making this site available for other use until such time after their final fly—ash deposit scheduled sometime in 2010. in addition to these issues,even if Xcel was amenable(Xcel has not made any commitments to this project)to the pursuing this concept,the entire STH 36/St.Croix River Crossing Project would pose another challenge to the use of this site.Significant grade changes and road alterations are possibly targeted to occur in this area.Unfortunately,the timetable for these changes is unknown as the entire bridge project did not receive federal finding in the 2005 Federal Transportation Bill.As of this date,the project now lies in an unknown timetable nor has the City provided its municipal consent.Please lastly and importantly note that the City would need to approve a rezoning of the property' from its current industrial use to essentially a commercial use. Perhaps there are alternative sites we have not yet considered or that lie outside Oak Parklleifhts.In either regard.the City remains committed to the project and looks forward to further discussion. I have enclosed a map depicting the Xcel Property as discussed above. Please let me know if you hay .stions. Sincerely. a Eric Johnson City Administrator Cc: Dan-ell Knutson,Xcel Energy Heather Baum City Council Members 8 'Y'fl n H `3 4� ; �- err k --`4-7,-.- £, .1 *a Xia-d z' *- c», L• !•-..,-,- .1 - :.a`.'„r.+, */- •- ,» -'4.1,-,,...?" X `'� 7 s ,q'-3 v mri F� t.'.'-- , . : • A,--x' �i3 s s"a tio, , tbob } L •3'v. a F:A-4i°�-s ,_r� 1c4 Svc , P esue � m ,, sa's '�i ..s ,,,,, _, , , 'f'iG i r r st` 4-c.,---I4'. T7,--411-:wk't hK� "*e, '7` 1�' r °r * 2 � C a'3 'F� is ..', '4 4 a ,y.,- .�iP 7G.i '�G r h'�y 3,--4.7,417�.'�'� '��t` '7,-,eN`r '<' :-7' ''''.11-4,T,W.r., . N.V.,i;:::,,,,,,,,a2,14., ... -3.4,44-°,....i- t,.--,x.r.--v" -, -,,.. , ,of -.1, ,..fL 'w,..-.„.-4,,f-:%Itt,,,...m w."1 I,t,,,. ._,.,-,-4,.,,,,.,,...„2.10, Vu 's F. is„,, T" } ,-,A ., ., ,,,,. ... .,,,,, , ,..101„,,,,,,,,, _, .._,,,..:,,A,4„,„„.„,,,,,I .,„.-..„, ,__�. �a... v` E.�a _a's #� . ^ - �' x xx $�fi ,r i .fir.s. «y�.ti tt r*it:,:„ :TIE F. ;,. ,..:4,4,,.:. .......ci ,,,,.,_?..,,„, [..,_.,. ..,_ ..._:,,,_._,„:„.„._ ,..,,,,,,,,,,i ,._,,,,,,I. ..,„,..,..... . _,.. ,,,, ,,\;,,.,,N „g„, ,-. „,„1„,-,2:,i,, ,„.„,,,,,,„4. „A,,,,,,_ ,„....1-., ,t.,...:,.t.,!°:.,,,:,.".;,,,,,,,.i.--.. ..,..,-,, i.)i.IPIt-'0f*-,a.-.0.6.4t,V5-,''''.t.-:,.;',,,..4,:.-1.*:44.fAri--,..,-Afar-4,44,_44, 44, 6%"<:'..11,,,-,7-:,;:._..M'l',7-7?':',L'' -,7., ...„iii-w,:—+-'-'',1,.4\-:,..r k S �-»- e c"E11Te °-a u ei¢ ': Kam' e f 'r ¢ 'i.,-F L `x' � �"���.�k... ar :r su t sa'�� i„• eta um sk 2'- ate. `i ma- ,,�a A Z ' �4,'--- S q:- k 7.?At^ ci� er fi :7, k� "; y ?�, '�� �; '`^ [�� � i� � ,� 3 q 4';:,'..-- �" h ,,,,,,,-1,,,,,,,,-, ": oAit v}a � pAi � ,I y.s _4-7,,,,,A;6, 6 1,-",r l.T-:;;I r�.- : 4`f l $mac-2F t`k ,:,.:14.N7- IF' Pt i ,..H.,-.,- „,- x-, C:104.t .a�. f,1-; t o �. w3 L ` . : yP + Y � G �� Y L'''-7.. s� ' F i ` ]F --"' F Sc ` S cc P t , t.. _r < a L t - ; 4:,-. __,,,,,,-- 3. "c.` -- dder :' f ^.; v� s i r-h:- k y ' a g,...,--,... r. Y E+ "s _�„ . . "� r$ -."-;--..-_- � fi - �` ' i I x * y. d" & s ; 1 ° ' '_. ,;. . t � � � � 3 ;';',,,.. 4:•::,,,,:� 2 ' ':.s-pp [g� 1 '` o-` '" ' f a r g; ` -., „ w .` ue€f. 6. , i� , tr 5r�� f " ,3 T ---ii,,,-. ssmay; t , •: ' E x g "`- S � v' I Fr =sm G , C''+-''. e s da' -70 ` " !.-te 3t, . .