HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-01-03 WORK SESSIONAGENDA
EDINA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
JANUARY 3, 2012
5:00 P.M.
I. Call To Order
II. Edinborough Study Presentation
III. Adjournment
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need
assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something
else, please call 952- 927 -8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
11. SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS /DATES /EVENTS 3
Mon
Jan 2
NEW YEAR'S HOLIDAY OBSERVED — City Hall Closed
Tues
Jan 3
Work Session — Edinborough Study Presentation
5:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY ROOM
Tues
Jan 3
Regular Meeting
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Wed
Jan 4
Board & Commission Interviews
5:30 -7:30 P.M.
MAYORS CONFERENCE ROOM
Mon
Jan 9
Board & Commission Interviews
5:30 -7:30 P.M.
MAYORS CONFERENCE ROOM
Mon
Jan 16
REV. DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. HOLIDAY OBSERVED — City
Hall Closed
Tues
Jan 17
Regular Meeting
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Mon
Jan 23
Board & Commission Interviews
5:30 -7:30 P.M.
MAYORS CONFERENCE ROOM
Mon
Feb 6
Regular Meeting
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
_'Ies
Feb 7
PRECINCT CAUCUSES
)n
Feb 20
PRESIDENTS DAY HOLIDAY OBSERVED —City Hall Closed
ues
Feb 20
Regular Meeting
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Tues
Feb 28
Joint Work Session With Pln Comm & Grandview Str Com.
5:30 P.M.
COMMUNITY ROOM
Tues
Mar 6
Regular Meeting
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Mon
Mar 19
Annual Dinner Meeting with Boards & Commissions
5:00. P.M. CENTENNIAL LAKES HUGHES PAVILION
Tues
Mar 20
Regular Meeting
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Prepared for
The City of Edina
December 24, 2011
Prepared by
ATS &R, Planners, Architects and Engineers
Ballard * King & Associates
�boro
U Parl�
C I T Y 0 F E D I N A
Prepared by:
Ars N4
ATS &R Planners Architects and Engineers
8501 Golden Valley Road, Minneapolis, MN 55427
Telephone 763 545 3731 Fax 763 525 3289
Web site www.atsr.com
Contact: Tammy Magney AIA
*--BMM*RNG
�
Ballard * King and Associates Ltd.
2743 E. Ravenhill Circle Highlands Ranch, CO 80126
Telephone (303) 470 -8661 Fax (303) 470 -8642
Email: www. Ballardking.com
Contact: Jeff King
Contents
Summary
Goals
Recommendation
Statement of probable Costs
Financial Impact Spreadsheet
Concept Plans and Images
Energy Efficiency Improvements
Plant Reduction Concept
A. Infill Pool —Soft Play
B. Lower Level Locker Room
C. Upper Level Restrooms
D. Track Modifications for offices,
meeting room and picnic deck
E. Challenge Course
F. Grotto - Interactive Tech Zone
1 -3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 -11
12
13
14 -15
16 -17
18 -19
Market Analysis
Demographic summary and Market Review 21 -46
Facility Assessment
Program Recommendation
Appendix
Facility Improvements Cost Estimates
47 -52
54 -55
56 -61
ATS &R Planners, Architects and Engineers in collaboration with Ballard "King Recreational Facilities Consultants
SUMMARY
3 S
Summary
Study:
The City of Edina hired ATS &R, Planners, Architects and Engineers, with
consultant Ballard *King, a recreation consulting firm specializing in recreation &
wellness center feasibility studies, to study creative opportunities to increase
revenues to meet operational expenses at Edinborough Park. The team including
Edinborough Park administrative staff studied the market opportunities within the
demographic service areas of Edinborough Park and looked at existing operational
costs and opportunities to reduce them.
Market Analysis:
The size and magnitude of Edinborough Park along with researching customer data of
the distance people travel to access Edinborough Park helps define the market draw
for services that encompasses a 20 -mile radius from Edina. Edinborough has clearly
established itself as one of the top attractions and activities for the 3 -12 year old age
group in the Twin Cities. The fact the Park hosts over 1,200 birthday parties annual
(1,300 in 2011) is a testimony to the market appeal and draw the Park has, especially
Adventure Peak. The primary service area population is increasing steadly with the
population projected to grow about 2.5% over the next five years to reach a population
of 2,370,703 people by the year 2015. Analysis of the primary age group demographic
attracted to Edinborough Park (under 12) indicates a growth rate of about 5.4% by the
year 2015 to a population of 423,263. The median age of Edinborough primary service
area is younger than the national level while the median household income is
significantly higher. Median household income'of the primary service area is $70,454
compared to the national level of $54,442. Closer examination of the household
income statistics show that over 73% of the households in the primary service area
have income higher than $50,000 per year which is significantly higher than the
national level of 54.5 %. Age and household income are two determining factors that
drive participation in Parks and Recreation services. The demographic profile suggests
that there will be continued support and demand for recreation activities and programs
Edinborough Park provides in the future.
There are other recreation providers in the primary service area that offer indoor
playgrounds and structures similar to Adventure Peak. However, the City of Edina
distinguishes itself with the height, size and diversity of the Park. Without question the
City of Edina has sets the top benchmark and establishes a high standard for service
that is unparalleled in the Twin Cities. While the City of Edina has enjoyed this lofty
market positions, other municipal recreation centers and private businesses have
worked to close the gap on Edinborough Park. The City of Edina can choose to
continue their past practice of modest upgrade and capital improvements to retain their
present market position and status in the Twin Cities or make a bold, entrepreneurial
step in expanding the Park by diversify the market attraction and further secure the
Edinborough Park facility as the top area attraction. This can be accomplished by
building on the foundation of Adventure Peak attraction by expanding the attractions
for the 2 -6 age group with a soft play area. This is the age group that tends to get a bit
lost and overshadowed by the size of Adventure Peak and. represents over 423,000
people in the service area. One of the options the consulting team developed includes
expansion into the interactive computerized games designed to attract the "tween"
population. This option will further diversify
ATS &R Planners, Architects and Engineers in collaboration with Ballard *King Recreational Facilities Consultants '
the draw and increase market potential and revenue opportunities for Edinborough
Park.
It should be noted that one area facility (Shoreview) is planning a significant expansion
of their playground facilities and Southdale Mall is planning a soft play structure as part
of the Mall renovation. The other area service providers in the area will start eroding
Edinborough Park's penetration rate if the City of Edina continues to operate the Park
on a status -quo basis.
The analysis concluded that the overall market conditions are favorable to support the
expansion of the core program elements at Edinborough Park including a soft play and
interactive media center. These program elements will expand usage of Edinborough
Park, especially for pre - school aged children and family fitness activities. Renovating
the fitness component and swimming pool does not have market support to make this
practical, cost effective or most importantly, the ability to generate increase usage and
revenue will not be sufficient to support the operation in a positive manner.
Program:
The program recommendations for Edinborough Park were driven by the information
gathered during the market analysis, including the demographic profile of the
community, statistical research of data, competitive analysis of other recreation and
indoor play structures in the Twin Cities and repurposing of under - utilized or under-
performing spaces within the Park to maximize attendance and revenue generating
potential. During the program phase of the study, three different options were
developed to accommodate different levels of attractions, diversification and capital
costs to develop. The Edinborough Park facility was built almost 20 years ago and
needs a major renovation to assure Edina retains its dominate position in the Twin
Cities for the delivery of unique, affordable and cost efficient facilities to promote family
activities. Based on the market analysis, program assessment and budgetary
considerations the following program summary was developed.
,Component
Base Facility
Option 1
` Option 2
: Option 3
Soft Play
Grotto Tech Zone
Challenge Course
Support Spaces
Total Building
69,366
62,046
46,838
55,000
Operations:
An operation analysis was conducted to examine facility costs and revenues for the
three different options developed during the programming phase of the study. The
operating pro -forma developed represents a conservative approach to estimating
expenses and revenues and was completed based on the best information available
and a basic understanding of the project. Fees and charges utilized for this study were
generated from information gathered during the assessment of market value in the
Twin Cities area. The fees and charges are subject to review, change, and approval by
the City of Edina. The results of the operations analysis clearly indicate that the
proposed renovations to Edinborough Park will recover over 100% of its operating
costs through revenue and consequently the operating surplus can be used for debt
2 ATS &R Planners, Architects and Engineers in collaboration with Ballard "King Recreational Facilities Consultants
retirement should the City determine to add debt service to the Edinborough Park
operating budget.
The operation pro -forma for all three options includes a plan to replenish and build
new capital reserves for equipment replacement.
Most community centers in urban areas around the Twin Cities recover 75% to
95% of their operating expenses through fees and charges. Option one and two
have the highest recovery rate.
Category
4_ u
Option 1,
_Soft�play
Option 2
Grotto Tech Zone
Optiori,3
Challenge Course
Expenditures
$115,499
$161,002
$212,817
Revenue
$259,475
$308,245
$328,755
Difference
$143,976
$147,243
$115,938
Recovery %
224%
191%
154%
Conclusion:
The market conditions are favorable for supporting a program options developed
by the consulting team. The proposed facility, by virtue of the soft play area,
interactive computer and tech exercise area will differentiate this facility from the
any other recreation facility in the Twin Cities area. The City of Edina is ideally
positioned to not only
Adding the Soft Play element to Edinborough Park will conservatively increase the
penetration rate for birthday parties by .1% resulting in an additional 410 parties
annually. Daily admissions are expected to increase by 22,500 annually. This is a
sufficient increase in revenue that will create a sizable operating surplus.
Without question, expansion of Edinborough Park will enhance the quality of
experience for area youth and families while improving youth fitness exercise and
fitness opportunities. The proposed improvements to Edinborough Park fill the
service gaps for leisure and recreation needs in the community for teenagers,
families and seniors. The proposed options will become further entrench
Edinborough Park as the premier destination for youth, and birthday parties in the
Twin Cities and a source of tremendous community pride. The renovation options
will also help strengthen and recognize the City of Edina Parks and Recreation
Department as a contributor to the economic health for Edina by generating
business trade for the City of Edina.
ATS &R Planners, Architects and Engineers in collaboration with Ballard *King Recreational Facilities Consultants
Goals for Edinborough Park
1. Self generating revenues will meet 90% to 100% of Expenses
2. A venue for intergenerational families that promotes physical
activities that include parents and or grandparents in play with their
children.
3. A venue that provides physical activity areas in an indoor park like
setting for children to combat childhood obesity.
4. A place in the city to host a variety of meetings and classroom
settings.
5. Indoor option for adverse weather where families can participate in
active lifestyles.
6. Add value to the hotel, senior living, and office partners
7. Expand on and create a brand for Edinborough Park .
8. Premier birthday party venue.
9. A place that creates song in your heart!
4 ATS &R Planners, Architects and Engineers in collaboration with Ballard'King Recreational Facilities Consultants
Recommendation
Refer to cost estimate spread sheet and drawings on following pages for additional information.
1. Complete projects identified in the CIP
2. Complete energy efficiency improvement projects.
3. Provide program improvement opportunities in a phased plan as outlined:
The following is a prioritized list
Phase 1
Infill pool
• Provide large interactive soft play area separate from adventure peak to
provide safer, larger and more exciting environment or toddler play.
• Provide private birthday party areas allowing for choice areas with
varied price points and opportunities for larger families to gather.
• Provide office space and storage for birthday party staff to better serve
clientele.
• Provide a reception area to greet birthday parties, enhancing
Edinborough Brand.
Modify Restrooms and Locker Rooms
• Provide unisex family restrooms to meet the needs of families.
• Provide concession storage to better support high volume, high revenue
area and meet health code requirements.
• Provide much needed coat and locker areas.
Phase 2 (concurrent with phase 1 or following phase 1)
Modify Track for new occupancy
• Provide 2 office spaces to allow areas in lower level to be used for
storage as originally designed to provide daylight to staff work areas
and increase staff productivity.
• Provide meeting room(s) for community and staff use.
• Provide a picnic deck on the existing track area for those families not
participating in Birthday parties to have a place to eat, rest and regroup.
Phase 3
Provide a challenge course areas to increase options for older kids,
another area of engagement and fun. This could also expand into a
team building program area.
Phase 4
Infill Grotto
Provide interactive technology play areas
Provide an technology interactive playground using the floor as the
screen on the amphitheater stage floor.
5
ATSBR Planners, Architects and Engineers in collaboration with Ballard'King Recreational Facilities Consultants
Statement of Probable Costs
The following cost estimates and concept plans have been provided to give the planning commission
and city council a framework to evaluate these proposed changes within.
The construction cost estimates are based on cost per square foot for similar projects and based on
March 2012 construction costs. Theses are not bid numbers or final cost estimates but planning
numbers. When the year for construction is determined in the phasing plan, inflation should be
added to the September 2011 estimates.
Furniture and equipment estimates are based on standard furnishing for the areas and equipment
estimates are based on estimates provided by IPC, International Play Company, the provider of the
Adventure Peak equipment. Theses are not bid numbers or final cost estimates but planning
numbers.
The Yearly Operating Expenses are based upon adding staff members to supervise, operate and
maintain the new program components' as well as estimates for commodity supplies and materials
for replacements and upkeep. These numbers were generated by Ballard *King from similar type
projects and best practice recommendations.
The utility rebates, energy savings, and paybacks and were provided by ATS &R based on
information from local utilities, Edinborough Park utility bills, and similar projects.
6 ATS &R Planners, Architects and Engineers in collaboration with Ballard *King Recreational Facilities Consultants
a o 0 o e IYCIJW 'o �e� ram 11919
Improvements
strmate Construction Costs New Programs, CIP an
Improvements
soma ea y trect pensea New programs
Improvements
enue per
Net Income
Existing use Recommended use
Park CIP
Improvement
Recommendatio
ns
Pay
back In
years
Maintenance
Improvement
Building Program
Improvement
Furniture
and
Equipment
One Time
Utility Rebate
Total Project
Cost
+ /- Staffing
Expenses
Contract -
Services
Utilities
Insurance
Commodity
Supplies
Materials
Capital
Replace.
ment
Yearly
Energy
Savings
Estimated
Programs 0 &M
Expense /Yr
mated New
rams
enue
T
Total Yearly
Revenue minus
Yearly Expense
Currently Proposed CIP & improvements
not impacted by Program Enhancements below
Replace walk at parking ramp entry
Replace deteriorating sidewalks
Replace 4 entrance doors/ frames
Replace interior doors
Replace Great Hall riser carpet
Replace wom events structure
Lift for party plateau
Replace HVAC boiler
Add air conditioning track area
Replace metal halide lighting
Occupancy Sensors, lighting
Revise Great Hall Lights
Reduce Plants / Infill / revised lighting pg.
Replace security camera system
$ 125,000
yes
$ 125,000
$ 30,000
yes
$ 30,000
$ 80,000
yes
yes
$ 80,000
$ 60,000
yes
$ 60,000
$ 12,000
yes
$ 12,000
$ 55,000
es
$ 55,000
$ 40,000
ADA
$ 40,000
$ 12,000
yes
yes
$ 12,000
$ 65,000
$ 65,000
$ 35,000
yes
$ 35,000
$ 16,600
7
$ 150
$ 16,450
$ 180
$ 180
$ 6,820
10
$ (2,200)
$ 4,620
$ (323)
$ (323)
$ 20,000
7
$176,900
option
$ 400
$ 196,500
$ 20,000
$ 2,900
$ 22,900
$ 12,000
-
yes
$ 12,000
Total CIP Improvements
$ 743,570
$ (23,403)
$ (23,403)
Recommended Improvements if
Program Enhancements below are not made
Pool Energy Improvements
Recommision HVAC
Pool Pumps VFD
Replace pool boiler
Upgrade Pool Tank / Tile
$ 26,600
1.6
$ 13,800
$ 12,800
$ 8,700
$ 8,700
$ 6,300
4.4
$ 750
$ 5,550
$ 12,000
-
$ 12,000
$ 150,000
yes
$ 150,000
Park
Rest room update
Update Grotto pond/Waterfall
$ 30,0001
$ 30,000
$ 20,000
es
$ 20,000
Track Energy Improvements
Energy Recovery Unit at Rooftop
Resurface track
Replace work out equip
-
$ 142,300
$ 142,300
$ 60,000
yes
$ 60,000
-
$ 72,5001
$ 72,500
Total "As is "Recommended Improvements Costs
$ 505,150
1
1
1
1
1$
(8,700)
0
$ (8,700)
Program Enhancements
A. Pool Area Infill Pool with floor for Soft Play pg.
Party Rooms / Office / Reception
Total Costs
$1,342,000
$ 208,000
-
$ 24,400
-
$1,342,000
$ 232,400
$ 1,574,400
$76,999
($29,500)
$56,750
$11,250
$115,499
$259,425
$143,926
B. Lower Level Locker Modify or Men, Women, and Family Hestrooms
Rooms and Coats pg.
$277,000
-
$ 277,000
-
C. Upper Level Rest Modify for Unisex Family rooms and Concession
Rooms Storage
$255,000
$255,000
D. Track Modify area to accommodate: pg.
Offices, meeting rooms, picnic deck
$ 666,000
$ 15,400
$681,400
-
E. Challenge course, over soft play pg.
Structure, misc modifications
(option) Challenge course over Main Hall
(option) Challenge course over Grotto
-
-
$ 90,000
$ 200,000
$ 290,000
$40,465
$15,900
$56,365
$61,060
$4,695
1
$100,0001$
200,000 1
I(option
$100,0001$
200,000
option
F. Grotto Area Infill Grotto w/ interactive Tech Zone 1pg. I I $ 200,0001 1$
Phased - Program Enhancement Recommendaf ions
Phase 1 - A + B + C - Soft Play, Party rooms, office /reception, rest rooms coats and storage
622,000
Cumulative Totals
$ 2,106,4001
$29,603
$76,999 I--(V9-,500)1
$56,750 1
$11,350
$11,250 1
1--Tl
$40,953
15,499
1 $27,520
$259,425
($13,433)
$143,926
ase 2 - ice, meeting rooms, picnic deck
$ 2,787,800
Phase 3 - E - Challenge Course over soft pay (future expansion over main hall and grotto $ 3,077,800
$117,464 1
($29,500)1
$56,750 1
$27,150 1
$171,864
$320,485
$148,621
Phase 4 - nteractive Tecfi one $ 3,699,800
$147,067 1
($29,500)1
$56,750 1
$38,500 1
$212,817
$348,005
$135,188
Payback is the difference in cost between energy etticient equipment and standard non - efficient equipment
PA10060Wmh\Estimates\Dec. 23 Edinborough EstimateAs
PAGE
CONCEPTS
N
U
a1
.O
L
Energy Improvement Projects
Remove some plant areas, reduce grow light and maintenance needs
C
v
E
ai
> New
O
L Door
E
L,o
v
c
w
8 ATS &R Planners, Architects and Engineers in collaboration with Ballard "King Recreational Facilities Consultants
n
Optional reduction of plantings
Remove some plant areas, reduce grow light and maintenance needs
T
Keep Grow level lighting in mid section only
i
r-
p
ATS &R Planners, Architects and Engineers in collaboration with Ballard`King Recreational Facilities Consultants 9
C
O
I
v
co
c�
V)
0
M
Q)
L
Q
0
r
\O
A. Pool Area Concept Images
Infill Pool, Soft play, Party rooms, Office and Reception
Example: Private Party Rooms
Example: Large Soft Play areas
IPC1307
Themed Tree
tram -
SV*Ska
Nfeemmd YI V*-SWM
Example: Fun themed Area in
soft play
10 ATS &R Planners, Architects and Engineers in collaboration with Ballard *King Recreational Facilities Consultants
A. Pool Area Concept Plan
Infill Pool, Soft play, Party rooms, Office and Reception
i
2 sizes of party rooms
32 x 20 would fit 32 people (4 tables)
24 x 20 would fit 24 people (3 tables)
T-L-- -
ca
4—
O
V)
O
cB
v
Q
O
O
.N
Adventure Peak -
44'x44'
11
ATSBR Planners, Architects and Engineers in collaboration with Ballard'King Recreational Facilities Consultants 11
Ln
E
O
O
v
U
O
J
N
Q)
J
L
v
O
J
WW
B. Lower Level Locker Rooms
Modify locker rooms to men's, women's, family restrooms and coats
Lower Level
12 ATS &R Planners, Architects and Engineers in collaboration with Ballard *King Recreational Facilities Consultants
C. Upper Level Restroom
Modify for unisex restrooms and concession storage
Upper Level
i
'I
Adventure Peak
ATS &R Planners, Architects and Engineers in collaboration with Ballard *King Recreational Facilities Consultants 13
N
E
O
v
NO
v
v
v
CL
0-
D
W
ca
v
Q
U
fII
L
i�1
Example: Private Office with Windows
Example: Meetina Room
Example: Work Area
14 ATS &R Planners, Architects and Engineers in collaboration with Ballard'King Recreational Facilities Consultants
D. Track Modifications
(2) Offices,(3) Meeting Rooms, Picnic Deck, Storage, Ramp
Upper Level
Meeting Meeting
i — - -� or `I Storage I �jyo _
Are
Soft
Part
Class Room Party Riay Rooms (2) Offices
Rooms ._Below -,
j Below Below
00
I& AN Ii A AN Y.
_4 i
CL
'® E.-
��
*
L f
ATS &R Planners, Architects and Engineers in collaboration with Ballard *King Recreational Facilities Consultants 15
c6
v
L
a'
i
U
fB
W
V)
w
U
z
0
U
I �� , �, �• � wi4Nl��i iii�1 i�Old i
r s�;,��ti11g1 i IK'i� Silllil����.1i1ap
Zw
. I= ,�.�:;,nulp 1 1111 Irnniilill�i r__ !
A ' � � IR gpinii!I u111 I III � !Ii11�1t1����1)1� � I�
- -�-
.- �r
f s fay.; r Illlitu ■•� —� _...
�" 111111�111� II�!:iiile 1.1■ t; alga
S? R
g�'i, 11111111111 Il��li fling iii iiiiiii i�lii��%
' _ 1' 11111111111 Ian u!isin
�. - 11111111111I�1! ,na�i �11111111 L. ■ ■��lr>
!11111 UInsSalem
V :»
E. Challenge Course over Soft Play
Future Options: over Great Hall and over Grotto
i
Phase 3
�xc.n
.r -I-
t+.
Q)
V)
L
U
4iD
v
cv
s
U
w
ATS&R Planners, Architects and Engineers in collaboration with Ballard *King Recreational Facilities Consultants 17
F. Grotto Area Concept
Infill Grotto Floor — Interactive Tech Zone, I click in amphitheater
N
L
Q
O
O
L
r�
Large Screen Wii
Light Floor
it,
Dance Revolution
Eye Click,
Interactive
Playground
18 ATS &R Planners, Architects and Engineers in collaboration with Ballard "King Recreational Facilities Consultants
F. Grotto Area Concept
Infill Grotto Floor — Interactive Tech Zone, I click in amphitheater
q.
ATS &R Planners, Architects and Engineers in collaboration with Ballard'King Recreational Facilities Consultants 19
ca
v
L
Q
0
a--►
i-a
O
L
V
Market Analysis
Section I — Demographic Summary & Market Review
The City of Edina is examining their current operation of Edinborough Park and
determining what amenities could be changed and /or added to increase revenue
production. As such, the following, market analysis looks at the demographic realities
within the Immediate and Primary Service Areas and compares that information to
both state and national numbers.
The following is a summary of the basic demographic characteristics of the service
areas and a comparison with basic sports participation standards as produced by the -
National Sporting Goods Association 2010 Survey.
Service Areas: The focus of the facility would be to serve the needs of the residents
of Edina and as such the Immediate Service Area is Edina proper. A Primary Service
Area of a 20 -mile radius has been identified from the current facility. This service
area was identified based upon use from patrons and input from staff.
Primary service areas are .usually defined by the distance people will travel on a
regular basis (a minimum of once a week) to utilize a facility or its programs.
Secondary service areas are usually defined by the distance people will travel on a
less consistent basis (a minimum of once a month) to utilize a facility or its programs.
Use by individuals in a secondary area will primarily be limited to special events
(tournaments, etc.).
Service areas can also vary in size with the types of components that are included in
a facility. A center with active elements (weight cardiovascular equipment area, gym,
track, etc.) will generally have a larger service area than a more passively oriented
facility. Specialized facilities such as a the Edinborough Park will have larger service
areas that make it more of a regional destination.
Service areas can also be based upon a facility's proximity to major thoroughfares.
Other factors impacting the use as it relates to driving distance are the presence of
alternative service providers in the primary service area. Alternative service
providers can have an impact upon membership, daily admissions and the
associated penetration rates for programs and services.
20 Ballard *King Recreational Facilities Consultants
Table A — Service Area Comparison Chart:
M
Immediate Service Area `
P" mar.y.Servk Area
Population:
2000
47,425
2,151,964
2010
47,446
2,312,639
2015
47,857
2,370,703
Households:
2000
20,996
852,213
2010
2 1,407
926,076
2015
21,671
951,630
Families:
2000
12,878
526,113
2010
12,546
552,584
2015
12,519
561,869
Average Household Size:
2000
2.91
3.12
2010
2.90
3.11
2015
2.90
3.11
Ethnicity:
Hispanic
2.3%
6.5%
White
92.2%
77.6%
Black
1.7%
8.9%
American Indian
0.2%
1.0%
Asian
3.8%
6.4%
Pacific Islander
0.1%
0.1%
Other
0.6%
3.0%
Multiple
1.5%
3.1%
Median Age:
2000
44.5
34.3
2010
48.1
35.9
2015
49.4
35.9
Median Income:
2000
$66,368
$52,512
2010
$815322
$705454
2015
$103,896
$83,126
Household Budget Expenditures:
Housing
173
130
Entertainment & Recreation
173
129
Ballard*King Recreational Facilities Consultants
21
�r
N
DC
N
L
C
c�
L
cv
Ln
U
Q
cB
L
t1A
O
E
O
O
N
N
W
N
N
Q
�T
N
CD
q
CD
a
O
W
n
CD
0
C)
O
7
N
C
m
Demographic Summary and Market Review
�I
CD
0.
W•
V/
CD
n
CD
D
CD
rM,
f
7-71
-
w
V
x w
e
3
n
tl
C
r
0.* 4f
�I
CD
0.
W•
V/
CD
n
CD
D
CD
Population Distribution by Age: Utilizing census information for the Immediate
Service Area, the following comparisons are possible.
Table B — 2010 Immediate Service Area Aqe Distribution
(ESRI estimates)
Ages
Population
% of Total
Nat. Population
Difference
-5
2,349
5.0%
7.0%
-2.0%
5 -12
4,355
9.1%
10.5%
-1.4%
13 -17
3,075
6.3%
6.8%
-0.5%
18-24
3,030
6.4%
9.8%
-3.4%
25 -44
8,665
18.3%
26.7%
-8.4%
45 -54
7,530
15.8%
14.6%
12%
55 -64
7,198
15.2%
11.6%
3.6%
65 -74
1 4,619
9.7%
1 6.8%
1 2.9%
75-
1 6.620
13.9%
1 6.3%
1 7.6%
Population: 2010 census estimates in the different age groups in the Immediate
Service Area.
% of Total: Percentage of the Immediate Service Area population in the age group
National Population: Percentage of the national population in the age group.
Difference: Percentage difference between the Immediate Service Area population
and the national population.
i O
15
10
5
0
-5
.ii
I h L
5 -12 yrs 13 -17 18 -24 25-44 45 -54 55-64 65 -74 75-
■ Immediate Service Area ■ National
Chart A — 2010 Immediate Service Area Age Group Distribution
The demographic makeup of the Immediate Service Area, when compared to the
characteristics of the national population, indicates that there are some differences
with a larger population in the 45 -54, 55 -64, 65 -74 and 75+ age groups and a smaller
population in the -5, 5 -12, 13 -17, 18 -24 and 25 -44 age groups. The largest positive
variance is in the 75+ age group with +7.6 %, while the greatest negative variance is in
the 25 -44 age group with -8.4 %.
Ballard "King Recreational Facilities Consultants 23
N
v
L
s`
L
E
E
Z3
Ul
U
LE
Q
Ca
L
kv0
O
E
v
0
a--+
N
L
fC>3
G
C
f0
L
ru
E
E
V)
U_
Q
fu
L
to
0
Population Distribution Comparison by Age: Utilizing census information from
the Immediate Service Area, the following comparisons are possible.
Table C - 2010 Immediate Service Area Population Estimates
(U.S. Census Information and ESRI)
Ages
2000 Popula-
2010 Popula-
2015 Popula-
Percent
Percent
tion
tion
tion
Change
Change Nat'l
-5
2,546
2,349
2,334
-8.3%
14.0%
5 -12
5,103
4,355
4,264
-16.4%
5.2%
13 -17
3,189
3,075
2,852
-10.6%
2.9%
18-24
2,073
3,030
3,026
46.0%
14.2%
2544
11,187
8,665
8,794
-21.4%
0.0%
45 -54
7,552
7,530
6,771
-10.3%
14.2%
55 -64
5,010
7,198
7,552
50.7%
65.7%
65 -74
4,776
4,619
5,896
23.5%
45.9%
75+
1 5,989 1
6,620
1 6,363
1 6.2%
1 19.5%
Chart B - Immediate Service Area Population Growth
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000 Whadk1fdI
0
-5 5 -12 yrs 13 -17 18 -24 25 -44 45 -54 55 -64 65 -74 75+
■ 2000 ■ 2010 ■ 2015
Table -C, illustrates the growth or decline in age group numbers from the 2000
census until the year 2015. It is projected that only the age categories of 18 -24, 55-
64, 65 -74 and 75+ will see an increase in population. It must be remembered that
the population of the United States as a whole is aging and it is not unusual to find
negative growth numbers in the younger age groups and net gains nearing 45% in
the 45 plus age groupings in communities which are relatively stable in their
population numbers.
24 Ballard *King Recreational Facilities Consultants
Below is listed the distribution of the population by race and ethnicity for the
Immediate Service Area based on 2010 population estimates.
Table D — Immediate Service Area Ethnic Population and Median Age
(Source — U.S. Census Bureau and ESRI)
Ethnicity
Total Population
Median Age
% of Population
% of Minnesota
Population
Hispanic
1,073
26.7
2.3%
4.5 °o
Table E — Immediate Service Area Population by Race and Median Age
(Source — U.S. Census Bureau and ESRI)
Race
Total Population
Median Age
% of Population
% of Minnesota
Population
White
43,744
49.6
92.2%
86.5%
Black
804
32.4
1.7%
4.5%
American Indian
75
34.6
0.2%
1.2%
Asian
1,802
31.3
3.8%
3.6%
Pacific Islander
26
31.7
0.1%
0.1%
Other
292
25.0
0.6%
2.0%
Multiple
698
17.8
1.5%
2.1%
2010 Immediate Service Area Total Population: 47,446 Residents
Chart C — Immediate Service Area Non -White Population by Race
1.5% 1.7%
0.6% 0.2%
0.10% iiii
3.8%
■ Black ■ American Indian ■ Asian Pacific Islander ■ Other Multiple
O
�C
v
L
CD
2
C
f73
L
f0
E
E
Ln
U
t
I?
c>3
L
ta,o
O
E
v
Ballard *King Recreational Facilities Consultants 25
rJ
Q)
L
Ca
C6
1�
Map B — Primary Service Area
rand n d
Cou
- ple
G a rooklyn
Park i
we ssy
Co
1
ilis
w..s"
Cou
U0 Population Distribution by Age: Utilizing census information for the Primary Service
U Area, the following comparisons are possible.
U
CL Table F — 2010 Primary Service Area Age Distribution
CID (ESRI estimates)
t-W
O
E
Q)
0
Ages
Population
% of Total
Nat. Population
Difference
-5
Hennepi
7.0 0,'0
7.0 °, o
0,000
Count
247,969
10.8%
Ply outh
0.3%
,W �
150,451
St.
6.8%
-0.3%
18 -24
Louis
9.9%
Minn onka
Park
25 -44
675,418
29.2%
26.7%
2.5%
45 -54
Edina
14.9%
14.6%
0.3%
Q
y• ♦i
rT
11.6%
-0.9%
65 -74
1 28,538
➢ Eden
6.8%
1 -1.30
75,
Prairl
5.4%
6.3%
1 -0.9%
81001
arver
y
unty
+
+
1
IOU
if
j
aeorr
Copnry
� y.r
s 8
1 1
t2
I Mdwa
we ssy
Co
1
ilis
w..s"
Cou
U0 Population Distribution by Age: Utilizing census information for the Primary Service
U Area, the following comparisons are possible.
U
CL Table F — 2010 Primary Service Area Age Distribution
CID (ESRI estimates)
t-W
O
E
Q)
0
Ages
Population
% of Total
Nat. Population
Difference
-5
163277
7.0 0,'0
7.0 °, o
0,000
5 -12
247,969
10.8%
10.5%
0.3%
13-17
150,451
6.5%
6.8%
-0.3%
18 -24
229,831
9.9%
9.8%
0.1%
25 -44
675,418
29.2%
26.7%
2.5%
45 -54
343,956
14.9%
14.6%
0.3%
55 -64
248,120
10.7%
11.6%
-0.9%
65 -74
1 28,538
5.5%
6.8%
1 -1.30
75,
125,079
5.4%
6.3%
1 -0.9%
Population: 2010 census estimates in the different age groups in the Primary
Service Area.
% of Total: Percentage of the Primary Service Area population in the age group.
National Population: Percentage of the national population in the age group.
Difference: Percentage difference between the Primary Service Area population and
the national population.
26 Ballard"King Recreational Facilities Consultants
Chart D — 2010 Primary Service Area Age Group Distribution
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5 5 -12 yrs 13 -17 18 -24 25-44 45 -54 55 -64 65 -74 75+
■ Primary Service Area ■ National
The demographic makeup of the Primary Service Area, when compared to the
characteristics of the national population, indicates that there are some differences
with an equal or larger population in the -5, 5 -12, 18 -24, 25 -44 and 45 -54 age
groups and a smaller population in the 13 -17, 55 -64, 65 -74 and 75+ age groups.
The largest positive variance is in the 25-44 age group with +2.5 %, while the
greatest negative variance is in the 65 -74 age group with -1.3 %.
Ballard'King Recreational Facilities Consultants 27
�4,
N
4--+
N
L
S�
G
L
ca
E
E
cn
U
Q
f>3
L
0
E
Q�
v
a--+
N
L
(CB
G
C
ro
a
L
fu
E
E
V)
U
CU
L
0
E
N
t�
Population Distribution Comparison by Age: Utilizing census information from the
Primary Service Area, the following comparisons are possible.
Table G — 2010 Primary Service Area Population Estimates
(U.S. Census Information and ESRI)
Ages
2000 Popula-
2010 Popula-
2015 Popula-
Percent
Percent
tion
tion
tion
Change
Change Nat'l
-5
151,149
163,277
166,223
10.0%
14.0%
5-12
250,327
247,969
257,040
2.7%
5.2%
13 -17
148,592
150,451
149,126
0.4%
2.9%
18 -24
207,730
229,831
227,008
9.3%
14.2%
25 -44
716,407
675,418
685,191
-4.4%
0.0%
45 -54
293,727
343,956
327,132
11.4%
14.2%
55 -64
163,355
248,120
268,524
64.4%
65.7%
65 -74
110,673
1 128,538
1 164,789
1 48.9%
1 45.9%
75+
110,004
1 125,079
1 125,670
1 14.2%
1 19.5%
Chart E — Primary Service Area Population Growth
800,000
600,000
400,000
200.000 11dida
0
-5 5 -17 N 18 -24 25 -44 45 -54 55 -64 65 -74 75+
■ 2000 ■ 2010 ■ 2015
Table -G, illustrates the growth or decline in age group numbers from the 2000 census
until the year 2015. It is projected that all of the age categories, except the 25 -44 age
category will see an increase in population. It must be remembered that the population
of the United States as a whole is aging and it is not unusual to find negative growth
numbers in the younger age groups and net gains nearing 45% in the 45 plus age
groupings in communities which are relatively stable in their population numbers.
28 Ballard" King Recreational Facilities Consultants
Below is listed the distribution of the population by race and ethnicity for the Primary
Service Area based on 2010 population estimates.
Table H — Primary Service Area Ethnic Population and Median A-ge
(Source — U.S. Census Bureau and ESRI)
Ethnicity
Total Population
Median Age
% of Population
% of Minnesota
Population
Hispanic
150,883
24.3
6.5%
4.5 0 o
Table I — Primary Service Area Population by Race and Median Age
(Source — U.S. Census Bureau and ESRI)
Ethnicity
Total Population
Median Age
% of Population
% of Minnesota
Population
White
1,794,461
39.6
77.6%
86.5%
Black
205,374
27.1
8.9%
4.5%
American Indian
22,101
29.1
1.0%
1.2%
Asian
147,677
26.5
6.4%
3.6%
Pacific Islander
1,712
28.0
0.1%
0.1%
Other
69,209
24.8
3.0%
2.0%
Multiple
72,102
18.0
3.1%
2.1%
2010 Primary Service Area Total Population: 84,943 Residents
Chart F — Primary Service Area Non -White Population by Race
3.1%
3.0% 8.9%
0.10% Iii
6.4% I.0%
■ Black ■ American Indian ■ Asian Pacific Islander ■ Other Multiple
Ballard'King Recreational Facilities Consultants 29
�N
LY
L
f6
G
C
CU
L
f0
E
E
cn
U
IZ
f13
L
O
E
N
4J
DC
v
L
C
fQ
L
E
E
Ln
V
Q.
Ca
L
M
O
E
N
in
Next, the median age and household income levels are compared with the national
number. Both of these factors are primary determiners of participation in recreation
activities. The lower the median age, the higher the participation rates are for most
activities. The level of participation also increases as the income level goes up.
Table J — Median Age:
Chart G — Median Age
50
40
30
20
10
0 .
2000 2010 2015
■ Immediate Service Area ■ Primary Service Area ■ National
With the median age in the Immediate Service Area being well above the National
number it would indicate an older population. In contrast the median age in the
Primary Service Area being at or below the National number it would indicate a
slightly younger population. It will be important to focus on facility components that
will address the needs of all age groups and equally important will be the
programming of the facility.
30 Ballard'King Recreational Facilities Consultants
2000 Census
2010 Estimate
2015 Projection
Immediate Service Area
44.5
48.1
49.4
Primary Service Area
34.3
35.9
35.9
Nationally
35.3
37.0
37.3
Chart G — Median Age
50
40
30
20
10
0 .
2000 2010 2015
■ Immediate Service Area ■ Primary Service Area ■ National
With the median age in the Immediate Service Area being well above the National
number it would indicate an older population. In contrast the median age in the
Primary Service Area being at or below the National number it would indicate a
slightly younger population. It will be important to focus on facility components that
will address the needs of all age groups and equally important will be the
programming of the facility.
30 Ballard'King Recreational Facilities Consultants
Map C — Primary Service Area, 2010 Median Age bV Zip Code
{
t
1w I
1 ^�, n w
di
y
0 T
s
i
i
. I
2010 Hedian Age by ZIP
Codes
p 42.4-55.4
❑ 39.5-42.3
❑ 36.4-39.4
❑ 33.2-36.3
❑ 0.0-33.1
Ballard'King Recreational Facilities Consultants 31
N
Q)
N
C
(B
E
E
D
Ln
U
LE
Q
L
to
E
4J
0
,41k
N
a-J
a)
L
L
C6
E
E
_U
(>3
L
O
E
v
0
32
Table K — Median Household Income:
Chart H — Median Household Income
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$o
2000 2010 2015
■ Immediate Service Area ■ Primary Service Area ■National
In the Immediate Service Area the percentage of households with median income over
$50,000 per year is 73.2% compared to 54.5% on a national level. Furthermore, the
percentage of the households in the immediate service area with median income less
than $25,000 per year is 11.1 % compared to a level of 20.7% nationally.
In the Primary Service Area the percentage of households with median income over
$50,000 per year is 67.4% compared to 54.5% on a national level. Furthermore, the
percentage of the households in the primary service area with median income less
than $25,000 per year is 12.9% compared to a level of 20.7% nationally.
These statistics indicate there may be a higher level of discretionary income within the
Immediate and Primary Service Area.
Ballard'King Recreational Facilities Consultants
2000 Census
2010 Estimate
2015 Projection
Immediate Service Area
$66,368
581,322
$103,896
Primary Service Area
552,512
$70,454
$83,126
Nationally
542,164
$54,442
561,189
Chart H — Median Household Income
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$o
2000 2010 2015
■ Immediate Service Area ■ Primary Service Area ■National
In the Immediate Service Area the percentage of households with median income over
$50,000 per year is 73.2% compared to 54.5% on a national level. Furthermore, the
percentage of the households in the immediate service area with median income less
than $25,000 per year is 11.1 % compared to a level of 20.7% nationally.
In the Primary Service Area the percentage of households with median income over
$50,000 per year is 67.4% compared to 54.5% on a national level. Furthermore, the
percentage of the households in the primary service area with median income less
than $25,000 per year is 12.9% compared to a level of 20.7% nationally.
These statistics indicate there may be a higher level of discretionary income within the
Immediate and Primary Service Area.
Ballard'King Recreational Facilities Consultants
Map D — Primary Service Area, 2010 Median Income by Zip Code
10 in*wIc e
IP Co es
1 2 - $120, 67
❑ $65. 7 - 3, 1
❑ $ 57.499 $65.
❑ $48,734 - ,
D $0 - 548.733 i
Ballard`King Recreational Facilities Consultants 33
r4 k
r�
a--+
a)
L
L
E
E
D
Un
V
Q
C�
L
C1A
O
E
N
0
t
r
10 in*wIc e
IP Co es
1 2 - $120, 67
❑ $65. 7 - 3, 1
❑ $ 57.499 $65.
❑ $48,734 - ,
D $0 - 548.733 i
Ballard`King Recreational Facilities Consultants 33
r4 k
r�
a--+
a)
L
L
E
E
D
Un
V
Q
C�
L
C1A
O
E
N
0
.5,
Q)
v
L
C13
G
f0
L
(/)
U_
Q
fu
MO
O
E
v
0
34
In addition to taking a look at Median Age and Median Income, it is important to
examine Household Budget Expenditures. In particular looking at housing information;
shelter, utilities, fuel and public services along with entertainment & recreation can
provide a snap shot into the cost of living and spending patterns in the services areas.
The table below looks at that information and compares the Immediate and Primary
Service Areas to the State of Minnesota.
Table L - Household Budget Expenditures
Immediate Service Area
SPI
Average Amount Spent
Percent
Housing
173
$35,222.40
31.5%
Shelter
1
$27,968.52
25.0%
Utilities, Fuel, Public Service
160
$7,253.89
6.5%
Entertainment & Recreation
173
$5,572.00
5.0%
Primary Service Area
SPI
Average Amount Spent
Percent
Housing
130
$26,380.70
31.2%
Shelter
132
520.793.26
24.6%
Utilities, Fuel, Public Service
123
$5,587.4.1
6.6%
Entertainment & Recreation
129
$4,148.13
4.9%
State of Minnesota
SPI
Average Amount Spent
Percent
Housing-
109
$22,087.78
30.4%
Shelter
108
$17,117.87
23.5%
Utilities, Fuel, Public Service
110
$4,969.91
6.8%
Entertainment & Recreation
113
$3,627.69
5.0%
SPI: Spending Potential Index as compared to the National
number of 100.
Average Amount Spent: The average amount spent per household.
Percent: Percent of the total 100% of household expenditures.
Note: Shelter along with Utilities, Fuel, Public Service are a
portion of the Housing percentage.
1 Consumer Spending data are derived from the 2004 and 2005 Consumer
Expenditure Surveys, Bureau of Labor Statistics. ESRI forecasts for 2010 and 2015.
Ballard *King Recreational Facilities Consultants
Chart I — Household Budget Expenditures Spending Potential Index
200
150
100
50
0
Housing Shelter
Utilities, Fuel,
Public Service
Entertainment &
Recreation
■ Immediate Service Area ■ Primary Service Area ■ Minnesota National
Looking at the Median Household Income in both service areas it is above the National
level, and when examining the Household Budget Expenditures it would indicate that
the cost of living in the Immediate and Primary Service Area is higher than the State of
Minnesota and the National Spending Potential Index (SPI) Number of 100.
Additionally, it would appear that the Spending Potential Index (SPI) for Entertainment
& Recreation in the Immediate and Primary Service Area is higher than the State of
Minnesota and the National Spending Potential Index of 100.
It will be important to keep this information in mind when developing fee structure and
looking at an appropriate cost recovery philosophy.
24r,
v
DC
rt3
C
cv
L
E
E
cn
U
Q
tuo
E
v
0
Ballard *King Recreational Facilities Consultants 35
fir,
v
DC
i
ca
G
f6
L
Gn
U
co
L
O
E
v
0
Recreation Activities Participation
On an annual basis the National Sporting Goods Association (NSGA) conducts an in-
depth study and survey .of how Americans spend their leisure time. This information
provides the data necessary to overlay rate of participation onto the primary service
area to determine market potential.
Comparison With National Statistics: Utilizing information from the National Sporting
Goods Association 2010 Survey and comparing them with the demographics from the
Primary Service Area, the following participation projections can be made (statistics
were compared based on age, household income, regional population and national
population).
Table M - Participation Rates for Various Indoor Recreation Activities
Activity
Age --
Income
Region,
Nation
Average
Aerobic
14.0%
14.4%
13.6%
13.8%
13.9%
Exercise w/ Equipment
19.9%
20.9%
19.0%
19.7%
19.9%
Exercise Walking
34.0%
35.9%
33.2%
34.2%
34.3%
Running/Jogging
13.1%
12.7%
15.1%
12.7%
13.4%
Swimming
18.8%
18.5%
19.3%
18.5%
18.8%
Weight Lifting
11.5%
11.8%
12.4%
11.2%
11.7%
Workout Clubs
13.1%
12.8%
11.7%
14.2%
13.0%
7.2%
6.4%
Yoga
7.5%
7.2%
7.1%
Age (median): Participation based on individuals ages 7 & Up of the primary
service area.
Income: Participation based on the 2010 estimated median household
income in the primary service area.
Region: Participation based on regional statistics (West North Central).
National: Participation based on national statistics.
Average: Average of the four columns.
36 Ballard'King Recreational Facilities Consultants
N
N
L
c�
G
C
fQ
i
f13
E
E
Ln
U
Q
f6
L
O
E
N
0
Recreation Expenditures
recreation activities ESRI
different areas and then
comparisons are possible.
Spending Potential Index: In addition to participation in
also measures recreation expenditures in a number of
indexes this against national numbers. The following
Table S — Recreation Expenditures Spending Potential Index
Immediate Service Area
SPI
Average Spent .
Fees for Participant Sports
189
$201.97
Fees for Recreational Lessons
195
$266.80
Social, Recreation, Club Membership
202
$330.52
Exercise Equipment/Game Tables
136
$111.68
Other Sports Equipment
158
$14.99
Primary Service Area
SPI
Average Spent
Fees for Participant Sports
131
$140.23
Fees for Recreational Lessons
137
$186.93
Social, Recreation, Club Membership
134
$219.54
Exercise Equipment /Game Tables
107
$87.47
Other Sports Equipment
127
$12.01
State of Minnesota
SPI
Average Spent
Fees for Participant Sports
110
$117.72
Fees for Recreational Lessons
110
$149.98
Social, Recreation, Club Membership
109
$179.41
Exercise Equipment/Game Tables
93
$76.50
Other Sports Equipment
115
$10.85
Average Amount Spent: The average amount spent for the service or item in a
year.
SPI: Spending potential index as compared to the national number of 100.
42 Ballard "King Recreational Facilities Consultants
Minnesota sport percentage of participation compared with the population
percentage of the United States:
Minnesota's population represents 1.7% of the population of the United States (based
on 2010 estimates from ESRI).
Table R — Minnesota Participation Correlation
Sport
Participation Percentages
Running/Jogging
3.1%
Weightlifting
2.8%
Swimming
2.5%
Exercising w/ Equipment
2.4%
Aerobic Exercising
2.4%
Workout Club
2.3%
Yoga
2.3%
Exercise Walking
2.0%
Note: Sports participation percentages refer to the total percent of the national
population that participates in a sport that comes from the State of Minnesota's
population. The fact that the rate of participation is greater in all 8 activities indicates a
relatively high rate of participation.
Ballard *King Recreational Facilities Consultants 41
N
a--+
a)
L
c�
G
C
CO
L
CO
E
E
cn
U
t
Q
ro
L
hA
O
E
N
D
cu
Or
N
L
fcB
G
C
f>3
L
E
E
cn
U
c>3
L
W
O
E
aJ
40
Comparison of State Statistics with National Statistics: Utilizing information from
the National Sporting Goods Association, the following charts illustrate the participation
numbers in selected sports in the State of Minnesota.
State of Minnesota participation numbers in selected indoor and outdoor sports
- As reported by the National Sporting Goods Association in 2009.
Table Q — Minnesota Participation Rates
Sport
Minnesota Participation
in thousands
Age Group
Largest Number
Exercise Walking
1,875
55 -64
45 -54
Exercising w/ Equipment
1,363
25 -34
25 -34
Swimming
1,258
7 -11
7 -11
Aerobic Exercising
921
25 -34
25 -34
Workout @ Club
831
25 -34
25 -34
Running/Jogging
1,092
12 -17
25 -34
Wei tliftin
868
18 -24
25 -34
Yoga
473
25 -34
25 -34
MN Participation: The number of people (in thousands) in Minnesota who
participated more than once in the activity in 2009 and are at least
7 years of age.
Age Group: The age group in which the sport is most popular or in other words,
where the highest percentage of the age group participates in the
activity. (Example: The highest percent of an age group that
participates in exercise walking is 55 -64.) This is a national
statistic.
Largest Number: The age group with the highest number of participants. Example:
The greatest number of exercise walkers is in the 45 -54 age
group. (Note: This statistic is driven more by the sheer number of
people in the age group than by the popularity of the sport in the
age span.) This is a national statistic.
Ballard "King Recreational Facilities Consultants
Summary of Sports Participation: The following chart summarizes participation in
various sports and leisure activities utilizing information from the 2010 National
Sporting Goods Association survey.
Table P — Sports Participation Summary
Sport
Nat'l
Nat'l Participation
Primary
Primary Service %
Rank
(in millions)
Service
Participation
Rank
Exercise Walking
1
95.8
1
34.3%
2
Exercising w/ Equipment
2
55.3
19.9%
3
Swimming
3
51.9
18.8%
4
Aerobic Exercising
7
38.5
13.9%
6
Workout Club
9
36.3
13.0%
5
Running/Jogging
10
35.5
13.4%
7
Weightlifting
12
31.5
11.7%
9
Yoga
16
20.2
7.1%
Nat'l Rank: Popularity of sport based on national survey
Nat'l Participation: Percent of population that participate in this sport on national
survey.
Primary Service %: Ranking of activities based upon average from Table -M.
Primary Service Rank:The rank of the activity within the primary service area.
2 This rank is based upon the 51 activities reported on by NSGA in their 2010 survey
instrument
Ballard *King Recreational Facilities Consultants 39
C�
N
N
L
f13
G
.a
C
L
co
V)
U
t
1L
L
tv
0
E
Q�
0
rE
N
N
DC
4J
i
(CO
G
1`
t'13
L
fa
E
E
cn
U
sz
co
L
O
E
0
Participation by Ethnicity and Race: Participation in sports activities is also tracked
by ethnicity and race. The table below compares the overall rate of participation
nationally with the rate for Hispanics and African Americans. Utilizing information
provided by the National Sporting Goods Association's 2010 survey, the following
comparisons are possible.
Table O - Comparison of National. African American and Hispanic Participation Rates
Primary Service Part: The unique participation percentage developed for the
primary service area.
National Rate: The national percentage of individuals who participate
in the given activity.
African American Rate: The percentage of African Americans who participate in
the given activity.
Hispanic Rate: The percentage of Hispanics who participate in the
given activity.
Based on the fact that there is not a significant Hispanic or Black population in either
service area those participation rates become less relevant to the impact on overall
participation percentages.
38 Ballard *King Recreational Facilities Consultants
Primary
Service Area
National
Participation
African
American
Participation
Hispanic
Participation
Aerobic
13.9%
12.3%
12.2%
10.0%
Exercise w/ Equipment
19.9%
21.2%
19.7%
20.0%
Exercise Walking
34.3%
34.6%
30.1%
33.8%
Running/Jogging
13.4%
11.9%
10.7%
13.5%
Swimminp,
18.8%
18.6%
9.8%
18.1%
Wei 2t Lifting
11.7%
12.8%
10.9%
15.6%
Workout @ Clubs
13.0%
14.2%
1.0%
3.1%
Yoga
7.1%
7.2%
5.6%
8.3%
Primary Service Part: The unique participation percentage developed for the
primary service area.
National Rate: The national percentage of individuals who participate
in the given activity.
African American Rate: The percentage of African Americans who participate in
the given activity.
Hispanic Rate: The percentage of Hispanics who participate in the
given activity.
Based on the fact that there is not a significant Hispanic or Black population in either
service area those participation rates become less relevant to the impact on overall
participation percentages.
38 Ballard *King Recreational Facilities Consultants
Anticipated Participation Numbers by Activity: Utilizing the average percentage
from Table -M above plus the 2000 census information and census estimates for 2010
and 2015 (over age 7) the following comparisons can be made.
Table N - Participation Rates
Activity
Average .
2000 Part.
2010 Part.
2015 Part.
Difference
Aerobic
13.9%
270,424
291,062
298,459
28,035
Exercise w/ Equipment
19.9%
385,557
414,980
425,528
39,971
Exercise Walking
34.3%
665,553
716,344
734,551
68,998
Running/Jogging
13.4%
260,002
279,843
286,956
26,954
Swimming
18.8%
363,929
391,702
401,658
37,728
Weight Lifting
11.7%
227,407
244,761
250,982
23,575
Workout @ Clubs
13.0%
251,285
270,461
277,335
26,051
Yoga
7.1%
136,955
147,407
151,153
14,198
Note: The estimated participation numbers indicated above are for each of the sports
listed and do not necessarily translate into expected attendance figures at a City of
Edina multiuse facility since many participants utilize other facilities for these activities
and may participate in more than one activity at a time. However, these figures do
indicate the total number of people participating in various activities within the Primary
Service Area.
Ballard'King Recreational Facilities Consultants 37
.r
N
cc
N
Y
L
fC>3
G
c
c>3
L
CO
E
E
V)
U
Q
CU
L
4A
O
E
Chart J — Recreation Spending Potential Index
300
100 bri bri bri h I Bri
0
CP
1 ■ Immediate Service Area ■ Primary Service Area ■ Minnesota National
The SPI index indicates that in the Immediate and Primary Service Area the rate of
spending is higher than the state average and the National Spending Potential Index
(SPI) of 100. This information is very important when determining a price point for
activities and cost recovery philosophy.
It is also important to note that these dollars are currently being spent, so the
identification of alternative service providers and the ability of another facility to capture
a portion of these dollars will be important.
Ballard "King Recreational Facilities Consultants 43
i,
�r
Q1
N
L
C�
G
C
L
E
E
D
to
U_
O_
c>3
L
tw
O
E
v
in
Map E — Primary Service Area, 2010 Entertainment & Recreation
Spending by Zip Code
0.
Q)
rz
Q)
ra
c�
L
E
E
Ln
U
Q
ro
L
t]A
0
E
v
0
Entertainment /Recreation
(Index) by ZIP Codes
❑ 165
-243 1
❑ 137-164
01-1.36
11
■ �f - 88
44 Ballard'King Recreational Facilities Consultants
Below are listed those sports activities that would often take place either in a
community recreation facility, or in close proximity to, and the percentage of growth or
decline that each has experienced nationally over the last 10 years (2001- 2010).
Table T - National Activity Trend (in millions)
Sport /Activity .' <<
2010 Participation
200E Participation °
Percent Change
Hockey (ice)
3.3
2.2
50.0%
Aerobic Exercising
38.5
26.3
46.4%
Running/Jogging
35.5
24.5
44.9%
Workout @ Club
36.3
26.5
37.0%
Weight Lifting
31.5
23.9
31.8%
Exercise w/ Equipment
55.3
43.9
26.0%
Exercise Walking
95.8
78.3
22.3%
Tennis
12.3
10.9
12.8%
Soccer
13.5
13.9
-2.9%
Basketball
26.9
28.1
-4.3%
Swimming
51.9
54.8
-5.3%
Volleyball
10.6
12.0
-11.7%
Baseball
12.5
14.9
-16.1%
Softball
10.8
13.2
-18.2%
Skateboarding
7.7
1 9.6
-19.8%
2010 Participation: The number of participants per year in the activity (in
millions) in the United States.
2001 Participation: The number of participants per year in the activity (in
millions) in the United States.
Percent Change: The percent change in the level of participation from 2001
to 2010.
Ballard *King Recreational Facilities Consultants 45
N
4--+
v
i
f6
G
C
(ts
L
E
E
U
Q
f6
E
Oj
0
0
4WE
Q)
N
L
(c�
G
I✓
r�
L
E
E
Ln
Q.
r6
i
C,lA
O
E
Q)
0
In addition to examining the demographics of the Immediate and Primary Service
Areas and applying participation rates from the 2010 NSGA Survey it is important to
look at the alternative service providers in the area.
Map F — Alternative Service Providers
.Fly- r
Ras.
s Blaine
ps .r r
r
61
r�
Y
rooklyn
1 92
rk
13
i
12
i
Ram ey
Ply outt
Cou t
Hen epin
bl is
�tY
t. Louis
Minn onk
Park
a
dina
i W4
Ede
ire
' Prair a
Bloo
ington �Ea an
iunt
r_ ,
J y
-�ur
�.
16
.
avil
Apple
Valley
akeville Dakotj
�
Scott
count
/-
County
1. Edina Community Center
2. Shoreview Community Center
3. New Brighton Community Center
4. Woodbury Community Center
5. Maple Grove Community Center
6. Southdale Shopping Mall
46 Ballard'King Recreational Facilities Consultants
Wa shin
Cou
urYJ
SECTION II - FACILITY ASSESSMENT
One of the functions included in the Ballard *King scope of services is an assessment of the
existing facility from a programming, operations and market perspective. It should be noted
that the term programming has two different meanings in the context of this section of the
report. Programming in this section refers to not only a programmed activity but also a program
space.
Fitness:
The existing fitness component is somewhat an abyss in that it lacks a definition and direction
of what the fitness component should be. As a result this program function and space is largely
under - utilized. The fact that daily admission and membership sales represent less than 4% of
total participation at Edinborough supports this point. The age of the equipment, limited volume
of equipment, lack of adequate locker room space, access and lack of support spaces for
personal training, aerobic space, group classes and child watch services clearly sends a
message that the City of Edina is not committed to make the fitness component at
Edinborough Park competitive in the adult fitness market. Currently the fitness component
requires minimal staffing and budgetary resources.
In most recreation centers the fitness component drive membership and revenue by virtue of
the popularity of personal fitness. As Table M points out above, there is a significant
percentage of the Edina population that participates in personal fitness activities. Aerobic
exercise /classes, exercise with equipment, exercise walking, running /jogging and weightlifting
are all in the top 12 activities in the U.S. according to statistics from the National Sporting
Goods Association (NSGA). Furthermore, these activities have continued to grow in population
over the past 10 years which suggests that the interest in personal fitness is not a passing fad
but has become a lifestyle choice for many Americans. This is why the fitness component
drives membership and revenue in most recreation centers and also explains why the private
fitness industry continues to grow and expand. However, Edinborough faces some unique
challenges if the City should decide to venture into the adult fitness market.
Venturing into the fitness market will require at least 3,500 SF of space for cardio and weight
machines. In addition another 1,500 SF of space is required for group exercise at a minimum.
A separate area for personal training and staff support along with more spacious locker room
facilities will also be required. Exercise equipment alone can cost well over $250,000 and the
cardio equipment must be upgraded or replaced every 2 -3 years which will require a significant
capital outlay in the future. Even if the City renovated the space and committed resources to
provide equipment there is a conflict mixing an adult component with a "kid factory" as these
activities may very well be non - compatible in the existing location. There are legitimate
questions if the adult fitness component would ever be successful at the present location
because the deep branding of the Adventure Peak and indoor play center which will be difficult
to overcome from a marketing perspective.
There are a number of private fitness operators in the immediate vicinity of Edinborough Park
that appear to be meeting most of the fitness needs in the community. In fact there is a YMCA
within a short distance to Edinborough that is currently going through an expansion and
renovation to better meet the demands of the fitness market. The City of Edina cannot
compete with the private sector fitness opportunities given the space limitations at the current
location and constraints of support spaces required to support the adult fitness market.
One aspect that must be considered as part of the decision making model is what impact and
obligation does the City of Edina have in providing adult fitness spaces for the senior housing
and condominium units that are part of the Edinborough Development. Contractual obligation
might require the City to maintain some present of adult fitness. If that is the case then
minimally maintaining the existing equipment is space is all that is recommended. The reality is
that the existing space as it exists today will always be under - utilized and under - performing
from a cost versus revenue perspective.
Ballard "King Recreational Facilities Consultants 47
C
N
E
N
N
(L
tA
Ln
Q
�U
co
c
CU
E
N
N
N
N
Q
�U
co
U_
Pool:
The swimming pool has some shortcomings that impact usage and participation. The
pool has six -lane, 25 —yard pool but lacks the water depth to support competitive
swimming or the deck space for hosting a competitive swimming event. The pool is
adequate for exercise swimming however the small size of the locker rooms limits the
participation in swimming activities. The pool is also adequate for a swim lesson
program but the limited deck space and locker rooms are inadequate to support this
program. In addition a learn -to -swim program at Edinborough Park would compete with
other City of Edina learn to swim programs.
It should be noted that most indoor aquatic centers do not make money or cash flow.
An indoor swimming element typically is subsidized significantly. The Edinborough
Park pool does not generate enough participation and revenue to come close to
offsetting the operating costs for the swimming pool. However, outdoor pools generally
recover a higher percentage of its operating cost and occasionally outdoor pools make
money. The Edina Aquatic Center is a good example as it has made money in the
past.
Statistically speaking, about 18.8% of the Edina population participates in swimming
according to the National Sporting Goods Association (Table M above). It should be
noted that NSGA does not break down the type of swimming activity within the
swimming estimates. For example, the number of lap swimmers is not identified
specifically with the NSGA projections. Ballard" King and Associates has been involved
with a number of planning processes for community centers across the country that
include statistically valid surveys. It has been our experience, based on the survey
results in other communities, that about 4% of the swimming interest actually swims for
exercise or competitive swimming. Applying this information to the Edina adult
population suggests that there are about 262 people interested in lap swimming. This
is a relatively small market size to support the pool operation at Edinborough.
One aspect of an aquatic component that has merit is converting the existing pool into
a leisure pool concept designed to enhance /expand the core business of Edinborough.
The leisure component would include zero depth entry, water spray features,
interactive play feature and small water slide. The City of Shoreview Community
Center reports that the leisure pool generates about 60% of the birthday party
business in Shoreview. A leisure pool at Edinborough Park would help generate more
birthday parties but there is a legitimate question if the leisure pool component would
generate enough revenue to offset the operating costs.
48 Ballard *King Recreational Facilities Consultants
Theatre:
The theatre in the park concept is a unique feature that distinguishes Edinborough
Park while providing a community gathering place for smaller performances and
events. However, as the Park has evolved with the development and expansion of
Adventure Peak there appears to be a correlation between the decreasing use and
interest in the theatre and the increasing conflict between user groups. The primary
issue is the inherent conflict between users, in particular the noise level. Activity and
noise generated from the play area often conflicts with theater and distracts from the
quality of performances creating an undesirable situation for both performers and
audience. The high volume of use in the play structure area during weekends and after
school has created an environment that makes the theatre only usable Mon - Friday
from 9am -3pm when school is in session. These are times mostly undesirables and
unusable for theater activities. Another issue is the limitation on seating and support
elements that consequently limits the type that the theatre can accommodate.
Historically Edinborough Park has been the cultural mecca and home for the Edina
Community Band. However, the demand for the theater space, particularly revenue
generating events, is decreasing. Usage has dropped to a point the theatre is only
used during prime times on Wednesday and Friday evenings along with non -prime use
on Mondays over the noon hour. Clearly the theatre area is under - utilized and the
current model is not working. Consequently, consideration should be given to re-
purpose this space for an activity area that better supports the core activities at the
Edinborough Park and creates revenue generating space.
v
E
N
N
N
N
Q
�U
co
U_
Ballard "King Recreational Facilities Consultants 49
C
N
E
N
N
v
N
N
Q
�U
cv
U_
50
Market:
From a market share perspective the City of Edina has enjoyed and continues to benefit from a
strong market presence. Edinborough Park is considered one of the top party attractions in
the Twin Cities. However, the landscape of competing facilities is changing. Although
Edinborough Park still has the largest play structure and facility there are other community
centers in the area that are trying to pursue the same market segment being served by
Edinborough Park. Woodbury, Maple Grove, Shoreview, New Brighton and Plymouth all have
similar facilities. The City of Shoreview is planning on expanding the indoor play structure to
double the size built around a theme /brand. The City of Edina has two possible directions. The
City can do nothing and hope to maintain its current position in the market place knowing that
other facilities are looking to expand and capture some of the market served by Edinborough.
Edinborough will continue to be financially successful in the short term. The other option is to
re- invest and expand the core element that generates revenue for Edinborough Park.
Expanding the play features and creating new attractions at Edinborough Park will not only
secure their existing market position but it will also expand the use and revenues to a higher
level.
About 55% of the total number of season Playpark passes are purchased by Edina residents.
In addition, a review of birthday reservations over a three -month period in 2011 indicates that
only 6.5% of the birthday parties scheduled over that three -month period was from Edina
residents. This information clearly validates that non - resident use accounts for a substantial
portion of Edinborough Park users. This information also suggests that the primary service
area for birthday parties represents about a 20 -mile radius based on where people live who
have booked birthday reservations. Table F (above) indicates that there are over 252,776
children between the ages of 5 and 12 within a 20 -mile radius of Edinborough Park. Knowing
that a very high percentage of the birthday party business (93 %) comes from people outside
the City of Edina it is possible to calculate a penetration rate of about .45% of the secondary
service.
Increasing the penetration rate for birthday parties is possible but it will require both an
expansion of facility components, including a dedicated soft play area and interactive family
exercise component, along with increasing the number of birthday party rooms to expand the
capacity for parties during peak periods. New attractions and expanded birthday party capacity
could net an increase of .25% or more in the secondary service area (20 -mile) that will
generate about 650 additional birthday parties above the 1,256 parties recorded in 2010.
The demographic make -up of both the primary and secondary service areas is very favorable
in relationship to having disposable income to participate in leisure activities. ESRI reports the
median household income in the primary service area (20 -mile radius) is $70,454 compared to
a national level of $54,442. Closer analysis reveals that over 67% of households in the primary
service area have household income over $50,000 compared to a national level of 54 %.
Conversely, less than 13% of household have income of less than $25,000 compared to a
national level of less than 21 %. In addition to the comparison of household income, the
spending potential index for social, recreation and club membership in the primary service area
is over 35% higher than the national average and about 20% higher than the state of
Minnesota.
Lastly, the age group distribution (Table F above) indicates that the 25-44 age category in the
primary service area is slightly higher than the national level. This is significant because this is
the age group usually associated with child rearing and families. Age and household income
are two determining factors that drive participation in facilities like Edinborough Park. The age
group distribution, size of the primary service area and household income combine to create a
favorable market condition for Edinborough Park, specifically Adventure Peak and any
expansion of attractions for the 5 -12 year old age group.
Ballard *King Recreational Facilities Consultants
0 00 0 0 101]
Improvements
stimate Construction Costs New Programs, CIP an
Improvements
Estimated Yearly irect xpenses Now programs &
Improvements
Revenue per
Year
Net Income
Existing use Recommended use
Park CIP
Energy
Improvement
Recommendations
Pay
back In
years
Maintenance
Improvement
Building Program
Improvement
Furniture
and
Equipment
One Time
Utility Rebate
Total Project
Cost
+ /- Staffing
Expenses
WIlUdIA
Services
Utilities
Insurance
Commodity
Supplies
Materials
Capital
Replace-
ment
Yearly
Energy
Savings
Estimated
Programs 0 &M
Expense /Yr
Estimated New
Programs
Revenue
Total Yearly
Revenue minus
Yearly Expense
Currently Proposed CIP & improvements
not impacted by Program Enhancements below
Replace walk at parking ramp entry
Replace deteriorating sidewalks
Replace 4 entrance doors/ frames
Replace interior doors
Replace Great Hall riser carpet
Replace wom events structure
Lift for party plateau
Replace HVAC boiler
Add air conditioning track area
Replace metal halide lighting
Occupancy Sensors, lighting
Revise Great Hall Lights
Reduce Plants / Infill / revised lighting pg. 9
Replace security camera system
$ 125,000
yes
$ 125,000
$ 30,000
yes
$ 30,000
$ 80,000
yes
yes
$ 80,000
$ 60,000
yes
$ 60,000
$ 12,000
yes
$ 12,000
$ 55,000
yes
$ 55,000
$ 40,000
ADA
$ 40,000
$ 12,000
yes
yes
$ 12,000
$ 65,000
$ 65,000
$ 35,000
yes
$ 35,000
-
$ 16,600
7
$ 150
$ 16,450
$ 180
$ 180
-
$ 6,820
10
-
$ (2,200)
$ 4,620
$ (323)
$ (323)
$ 20,000
7
$176,900
option
$ 400
$ 196,500
$ 20,000
$ 2,900
$ 22,900
$ 12,000
-
yes
$ 12,000
Total CIP Improvements
$ 743,570
$ (23,403)
$ (23,403)
Recommended Improvements
if Program Enhancements below are not made
Pool Energy Improvements
Recommision HVAC
Pool Pumps VFD
Replace pool boiler
Upgrade Pool Tank / Tile
$ 26,600
1.6
$ 13,800
$ 12,800
$ 8,700
$ 8,700
$ 6,300
4.4
$ 750
$ 5,550
$ 12,000
-
$ 12,000
$ 150,000
yes
$ 150,000
Park
Rest room update
Update Grotto pond/waterfall
$ 30,000
$ 30,000
$ 20,000
es
$ 20,000
Track Energy Improvements
Energy Recovery Unit at Rooftop
Resurface track
Replace work out equip
$ 142,300
$ 142,300
$ 60,000
yes
$ 60,000
-
$ 72,500
$ 72,500
Total "As is "Recommended Improvements Costs
1
$ 505,150
$ (8,700)
0
$ (8,700)
Program Enhancements
A. Pool Area Infill Pool with floor for Soft Play pg. 11
Party Rooms / Office / Reception
Total Costs
$1,342,000
$ 208,000
-
$ 24,400
$1,342,000
$ 232,400
$ 1,574,400
$76,999
($29,500)
$56,750
$11,250
$115,499
$259,425
$143,926
B. Lower Level Locker Modify or Men, Women, and Family Restrooms
Rooms and Coats pg.12
$277,000
-
$ 277,000
-
-
-
C. Upper Level Rest Modify for Unisex Family rooms and Concession
Rooms Storage pg.13
$255,000
$255,000
D. Track Modify area to accommodate: pg.15
Offices, meeting rooms, picnic deck
-
$ 666,000
$ 15,400
$681,400
E. Challenge course, over soft play pg. 17
Structure, misc modifications
(option) Challenge course over Main Hall
(option) Challenge course over Grotto
-
-
$ 90,000
$ 200,000
$ 290,000
$40,465
$15,900
$56,365
$61,060
$4,695
$100,000
$ 200,000
(option)
$100,000
$ 200,000
option
Grotto Area Infill Grotto w/ interactive Tech Zone In 19 1 $422,000 $ 200,0001
Program Phased - . .. . ns
Phase 1 - A + B + C - Soft Play, Party rooms; office/reception; rest rooins,- coats and storage -
$ 622,0001
Cumulative Tota
$ 2,106,400
$29,603
$76,999
1
($29,500)1
$56,7561
$11,350
$11,2501
=0,95
1 $115,499
$27,520
$259,425
($13,433)
$143,926
ase - ice, meeting rooms, picnic ec
$ 2,787,800
Phase - - Challenge Course over so pay (future expansion over main hall-and grotto $ 3,077,800
$117,464
($29,500)
$56,750
$27,150
$171,86
$320,485
$148,621
Phase - Interactive Tech one $ 3,699,800
$147,067
($29,500)
$56,750
$38,500
-
$212,81
$348,005
$135,18
" Payback is the difference in cost between energy efficient equipment and standard non - efficient equipment
P:\10060U1rch \Estimates \Options 111311.)ds
PAGE
Operations:
Conducting a cursory review of the facility and operations of Edinborough Park clearly
illustrates the pride and dedication to excellence. The main element of the facility, even though
it is approaching 20 years old, is well maintained and does not look or feel like a building that is
close to 20 years old. There have been numerous enhancements over the years that have
kept the main element of the park attractive. However, there are other aspects of the facility
that do not meet the same standards. In particular, the track and fitness area are showing their
age and are in need of refurbishing.
The pool operating systems have been upgraded over the past few years and appear to be in
good working order. Clearly the revenue generated by pool users does not come close to
covering the operating costs of the pool. The utility cost, sewer /water and chemical line items
are all impacted by the swimming pool.
The City does not provide lifeguarding services at Edinborough. Although this policy keeps
operating costs at a minimum, the ability to respond immediately to an emergency situation in
the pool is drastically impacted by not having lifeguards. Given that a very high percentage of
municipal operated pools across the Twin Cities and beyond have some level of certified
lifeguards, an industry standard for lifeguarding has been established. This could potential put
the City of Edina at a higher risk for liability if an emergency situation arose, especially a
drowning in the pool.
The volume of fitness equipment is minimal at best and the weight equipment is outdated. The
track has banked corners and the track surface is in need of replacement. Given the lack of
equipment, age and condition of the track, and lack of adequately sized support spaces for
locker rooms the fitness area has lost its appeal to the general population.
A review of the operating budget indicates that the 46% of the operations budget is allocated
for personnel, contractual services accounts for 37% and commodities represents 16% of the
operating budget. The percent of budget allocated for personnel is typically over 50% and in
some facilities it is approaching 60 %. While the percent of the Edinborough operating budget
for personnel is lower than the industry standard the contractual service is a bit higher.
However, when considering the unique environment of maintaining and indoor park along with
a swimming pool the 37% of operating costs for contractual services does not appear to be
out of line. The budget expenses have been relatively stable over the past several years.
One of the line items that merit further analysis is the concession operation. Based on the
2010 budget the concession operation lost $10,669. The concession operation should be a
profit center within the Park and requires strict inventory control, pricing strategies, and
controlling staff costs. The renovation of the front desk and concession area should help
increase concession sales. Generally speaking, the concession operation should strive to keep
food costs at or below 30 %, staff costs at or below 30% and overhead costs at 10 %. Following
this formula will generate a 30% return on the concession operation. Any deviation from the
components of the formula will impact the rate of return. It will be important for staff to monitor
the concession operation closely. Food packages should be developed for birthday parties to
capitalize on convenience.
A distinguishing characteristic of the operation that should not be overlooked is the fact the
Edinborough Park increased its revenue during the recession.
Ballard'King Recreational Facilities Consultants 51
C
N
E
N
N
N
N
N
Q
�U
M
U-
C
v
E
Ln
0
Q
�U
M
U_
Staffing:
Review of the staffing levels indicates that there are 8 full -time employees assigned to
Edinborough Park. It is difficult to make an assessment on the overall staffing level
because Edinborough Park is so unique and consequently finding a comparable
benchmark is virtually impossible. Currently staffing costs account for about 46% of the
total Edinborough Park operating budget. To put this percentage in perspective, the
consulting team researched the operating costs for other Twin Cities recreation
facilities with some of the same components as Edinborough, including Maplewood,
Shoreview, New Brighton, Egan, Plymouth and Chaska. The consultant team could not
find a similar facility in the Twin Cities or upper Mid -West. The percent of staff costs
within the operating budgets in these facilities range from a low of 45% up to 61 %. This
suggests that the 46% level of staff costs in the Edinborough operating budget is well
within, and lower than most, other comparison facilities in the Twin Cities. Staffing
costs consume 46% of the operating budget at Edinborough that suggests that the
center is well within and lower than similar facilities in the area. Further analysis
indicates that 63% of the Edinborough staff cost can be attributed to the maintenance
of the facility that is driven by the high volume of use and maintaining the natural areas
within the park. It should be noted that the high maintenance cost are driven in part by
the fact the play structure is cleaned and disinfected on a daily basis. This cleaning
procedure typical consumes 4 to 6 hours of staff resources daily.
One other aspect of staffing that d
scheduled at Edinborough Park.
scheduled in 2010 and they are of
noted there is one part-time staff
coordinates all the birthday parties.
also has one person coordinating
position is a full -time position and
Park.
52 Ballard *King Recreational Facilities Consultants
Dserves mention is the volume of Birthday Parties
Staff reports that 1,256 birthday parties were
i pace to surpass that total in 2011. It should be
person (30 -35 hours /week) that schedules and
To put this into perspective, The City of Shoreview
and scheduling all the birthday parties but this
they are booking fewer parties than Edinborough
Ballard'King Recreational Facilities Consultants 53
N
Q
v
U
C
O
U
E
c>3
tw
O
Z
V)
a)
Oro
ru
E
Interactive Technology, Intergenerational Active Play, Tween Draw
rlo'l
0
C�-
54 Ballard *King Recreational Facilities Consultants
SECTION III – PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION
1. Expand attraction for the 2 -6 age group— Recommend converting the pool to
create a separate toddler area (pre - school age) and expansion of birthday party
rooms.
A. Separating the toddler area from Adventure Peak will eliminate the I
nherent conflict of use between soft play users and Adventure Peak and
provide a safer environment for toddler play.
B. Expansion of Edinborough Park to create a dedicated toddler area with
soft play equipment will allow the facility to expand its program to the core
user group of the Park.
C. Potential to increase market penetration for the 252,776 children 5 -12
years old in the primary service area.
D. Increase potential for birthday party sales. The additional birthday party
rooms will allow the space for increasing birthday parties during peak
operating times.
F. Eliminating the pool will reduce electric consumption, sewer /water and
chemical costs.
2. Expand attraction for the Tweens age group
A. Provide interactive, physically active computer generated games
B. Provide a challenge course activity
C. Provide party locations for tweens
These program components will help Edinborough retain and expand its brand.
Large Soft Play Area Concepts
Birthday Party Rooms adding
options for Users
Ballard'King Recreational Facilities Consultants 55
O
v
E
E
O
U
v
E
CID
L
wo
O
APPENDIX
Statement of Probable Costs
The construction cost estimates are based on cost per square foot for similar projects and based on
March 2012 construction costs. Theses are not bid numbers or final cost estimates but planning
numbers. When the year for construction is determined in the phasing plan, inflation should be
added to the September 2011 estimates.
56 ATS &R Planners, Architects and Engineers
/
ARMSTRONG TORSEfH SKOLD & RYDEEN, INC.
PLANNERS / ARCHITECTS / ENGINEERS ATS &R Project No. 11060
23- Dec -11
City of Edina Edinborough Park Study
A. Pool Area - Inflll Pool / Soft Play and Party Rooms
5216.39
Statement of Probable Project Costs
ENR index benchmark: 5216.39 *ap:,201VIMPLSI%Gi4-,
construction contract date (BID DATE): Mar, 2012
Contract Type: Single Prime Contractor
Developed Site Acreage: 0.000 ACRES
ATSBR Planners, Architects and Engineers 57
oc3
0 1
Q
Q
W
E
+J
LA
LU
O
Ln
I
Q�
t`
Q
O
O
CL
2-I
Remodeling - GSF:
9,870
SF
New Construction - GSF:
08/09
0
SF
Total Project Cost (rounded)
(S1,342,000)
19SMAE61918KIIIIIII
15- Dec -10
Cost Basis
Updated
)ROJECT BUDGET
Bond Ref
1.00
Estimate
New Construction
Building Cost - Addition
206.78
$0
0
Building Cost - Addition - (Secure / Controlled Entry)
206.78
$0
Alterations
970 sf
Remodeling - Major w/ plumbing - Services to Party Rooms
212.52
$206,149
953,662
3640 sf
Remodeling - Major - Partial Pool Area (Party Rooms)
109.13
$397,249
2860 sf
Remodeling - Moderate - Partial Pool Area (Soft Play)
I
74.67
$213,559
900 sf
Remodeling - Minor - Revise Opening to Multi- Purpose
Room
40.21
$36,187
0 as
Elevator
0
$0
0 ea
Wheel Chair Lift
85,000
$0
0 sf
Ramp down to new lower floor
109.13
$0
0
Remodeling - Major (Secure / Controlled entry)
109.13
$0 '
0
Remodeling - Moderate (Secure / Controlled entry)
74.67
$0
0
Remodeling - Minor (Secure / Controlled entry)
40.21
$0
500 at
Remodeling - Party Areas Open to Soft Play
51.70
$25,848
500 at
Remodeling - Major - Storage to Office
109.13
$54,567
500 sf
Remodeling - Moderate - Storage Parry Storage
4021
$20,104
704 sf
Remodeling - Moderate - Pod Eguipmerd to Storage
20.10
$14,153
633 cy
Inill pool tank
50
$31,667
0
Casework
244
$0
0
Mine. Costs
Bid conditions
0.0%
$0
0.0%
$0
1.04
Inflation to Bid Date
0.0%
$0
4.0%
$39,979
SUB TOTAL - CONSTRUCTION COST
0.00
$0
105.32
$1,039,460
Architect / Engineering Services
$0
10.00%
$103,946
127,839
Verification of Existing Conditions
$0
$1,000
0.0%
$0
0
A(E reimbursables
$0
$12,395
Furniture / Fbfures / Equipment (FIFE)
Not included
$0
0
Technology Equipment (W
Not included
$0
0
Computers / Equipment
Not included
$0
Special Consultant Services
Environmental
Not Included
$0
Technology
Not included
$0
Independent Testing
$4,678
4,678
Miscellaneous Costs
Survey
Not irhcluded
$0
0
Sal Borings
Not included
$0
Building Perils / City Plan review fees
$5,821
0
Water Cormaction
Not Included
$0
0
Misc costs - salaries, etc
Not included
$0
0
Owner furnished Builders Risk Insurance
Not included
$0
0
Off Site Development (Sewer / Water / Roads)
Not Included
not Ind.
TOTAL
$0
$1,167,300
PROJECT CONTINGENCY
10.0%
$0
15.01/6
$175,095
175,095
Site Purchase
$0
$0
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$0
$1.342.395
1.29
ATSBR Planners, Architects and Engineers 57
oc3
0 1
Q
Q
W
E
+J
LA
LU
O
Ln
I
Q�
t`
Q
O
O
CL
2-I
In
O
O
L
CU
U
O
J
CV
J
L
3
J
aw
ARMSTRONG TORSETH SKOLD & RYDEEN, INC.
PLANNERS / ARCHITECTS / ENGINEERS ATS &R Project No. 11060
23- Dec -11
City of Edina Edinborough Park Study
B. Lower Level Locker Rooms M, W, Family Restrooms, Coats
5216.39
Statement of Probable Project Costs
ENR index benchmark: 5216.39 'Sep 2011 (MPLS)
construction contract date (BID DATE): Mar, 2012
Contract Type: Single Prime Contractor
- GSF:
New Construction - GSF:
Total Project Cost (Rounded)
PROJECT BUDGET
New Construction
Building Cost - Addition
Building Cost - Addition - (Secure / Controlled Entry)
Alterations
360 sf Remodeling - Major w/ plumbing - Family Toilet
800 sf Remodeling - Major
215 sf Remodeling - Moderate - Coats by Grotto
0 sf Remodeling - Minor -
0 ea Elevator
0 ea Wheel Chair Litt
0 sf Ramp down to new lower floor
0 Remodeling - Major (Secure / Controlled entry)
0 Remodeling - Moderate (Secure / Controlled entry)
0 Remodeling - Minor (Secure / Controlled entry)
0 Remodeling - Major (ADA Accessibility)
0 Remodeling - Major (Educational Adequacy)
0 Remodeling - Moderate (Educational Adequacy)
25 If Storage cubbies
90 ea Lockers
Misc. coats
Bid conditions
1.04 Inflation to Bid Date
SUB TOTAL - CONSTRUCTION COST
Architect / Engineering Services
Verification of Existing Conditions
A/E reimbursabtes
Furniture / Fixtures / Equipment (FFE)
Technology Equipment (AN)
Computers / Equipment
Special Consultant Services
Environmental
Technology
Independent Testing
Miscellaneous Costs
Survey
Soil Borings
Building Permits / City Plan review fees
Water Connection
Mlsc costs - salaries, etc
Owner furnished Builders Risk Insurance
Olt Site Development (Sewer / Water / Roads)
TOTAL
PROJECT CONTINGENCY
Site Purchase
58 ATS &R Planners, Architects and Engineers
1,375
0
ls2r/.000!
15- Dec -10
Cost Basis I Updated
Bond Ref 1.00 Estimate
206.78
$0
0
206.78
$0
0.0%
212.52
$76,509
179,871
109.13
$87,307
$0
74.67
$16,054
40.21
$0
10.00%
0
$0
85,000
$0
$1,000
109.13
$0
109.13
$0
0
74.67
$0
40.21
$0
Not included
109.13
$0
$0
109.13
$0
74.67
$0
0
185
$4,625
0.00%
215
$19,350
19,350
0.0%
$0
0.0%
$0
0.0%
$0
4.0%
$8,154
0.00
$0
154.18
$211,999
$0
10.00%
$21,200
28,461
$0
$1,000
0.0%
$0
0
$0
$4,120
Not included
0.00°/6
$0
0
Not included
0.00%
$0
0
Not included
0.00%
$0
Not included
$0
Not included
$0
$954
954
Not included
$0
Not included
$0
$1,187
Not included
$0
Not included
0.5%
$0
0
Not included
1.00%
$0
0
Not included
not incl.
$0
$240,461
$0
15.0°/6
$36,069
36,069
$0
$0
#DIV /01
$0
#DIV /01
$276.530
1.30
I
ARMSTRONG TORSETH SKOLD 8, RYDEEN, INC.
PLANNERS / ARCHITECTS / ENGINEERS ATS &R Project No. 11060
23- Dec -11
City of Edina Edinboro Park Study
C. Upper Level Restrooms
5216.39
Statement of Probable Project Costs
Total Project Cost tRoanded) #DIV/0! $194,000 ($254.000)
15- Dec -10
ATS &R Planners, Architects and Engineers 59
-r
o�
' o I
a „I
f
O
0
a
v - 1
cN
C
O
O
L
lJ7
Q�
._I
Q
Q
Cost Basis
Updated
PROJECT BUDGET
Bond Ref
1.00
Estimate
New Conatruetlon
Building Cost - Addition
206.78
$0
0
Building Cost - Addition - (Secure / Controlled Entry)
206.78
$0
290 sf
Atterations
Remodeling - Major w/ plumbing
212.52
$61,632
186,775
220 at
Remodeling - Major
109.13
$24,010
75 sf
Remodeling - Moderate -
74.67
$5,600
480 sf
Remodeling - Add Acoess Width Floor Each End
120.59
$57,882
0 ea
Elevator
0
$0
0 ea
Wheel Chair Lift
85,000
$0
345 at
Ramp / access to track level
109.13
$37,651
0
Remodeling - Major (Secure / Controlled entry)
109.13
$0
0
Remodeling - Moderate (Secure / Controlled entry)
74.67
$0
0
Remodeling - Minor (Secure / Controlled entry)
40.21
$0
0
Remodeling - Major (ADA ActBty)
109.13
$0
0
Remodeling - Major (Educational Adequacy)
109.13
$0
0
Remo ling - Moderate (Educational Adequacy)
74.67
$0
0 cy
Infill grotto lower level
35
$0
Misc. coats
Bid kwnd tlots
0.0%
$0
0.0%
$0
1.04
Inflation to Bid Date
0.0%
$0
4.0%
$7,471
SUB TOTAL - CONSTRUCTION COST
0.00
$0
182.39
$194,246
Architect / Engineering Services
$0
10.00%
$19,425
26,329
Verification of Existing Conditions
$0
$1,000
0.0%
$0
0
A/E raimbursables
$0
$3.942
Fun t n / Fixtures / Equipment (FFE)
Not Included
0.00%
$0
0
Technology Equipment (A/1/)
Not Included
0.00%
$0
0
Computers / Equipment
Not Included
0.00%
$0
Spatial Ccceultant Services
Environmental
Not tndkeded
$0
Technology
Not Included
$0
Independent Testing
Miscellaneous Costs
$874
874
Survey
Not Included
$0
Soft Borings
Not included
$0
Building Permits / City Plan review fees
$1,088
-
Water Connection
Not Included
$0
District mist costs - eateries, etc
Not included
0.5%
$0
0
Owner furnished Builder's Risk Insurance
Not Included
1.00%
$0
0
Off Site Development (Sewer / Water / Roads)
Not Included
riot Ind.
TOTAL
$220,575
PROJECT CONTINGENCY
15.0%
$33,086
33,086
Site Purchase
$0
ATS &R Planners, Architects and Engineers 59
-r
o�
' o I
a „I
f
O
0
a
v - 1
cN
C
O
O
L
lJ7
Q�
._I
Q
Q
U
U
.E
U
E
O
O
L
tw
Qi
S�
G
N
Q�
U
ti
U
L
W
ARMSTRONG TORSETH SKOLD & RYDEEN, INC.
PLANNERS / ARCHITECTS / ENGINEERS ATS &R Project No. 11060
23- Dec -11
City of Edina Edinborough Park Study
D. Track - Modify area to accommodate offices, mtg rms, picnic deck
5216.39
Statement of Probable Project Casts
ENR index benchmark: 5216.39 'Sep 2011 (MPLS)
construction contract date (BID DATE): Mar, 2012
Existing Building - GSF:
u ar
Remodeling - GSF:
4,008 SF
New Construction - GSF:
08/09 0 SF
Total Project Cost Mounded)
#DIV /0! $515,000 (S6W.O 0) r r r
Building Cost - Addition
15- Dec -10
Cost Basis I
Updated
0
rFr
I Bond Ref
1.00 Estimate
60 ATS &R Planners, Architects and Engineers
New Construction
Building Cost - Addition
206.78
$0
0
Building Cost - Addition - (Secure / Controlled Entry)
206.78
$0
Alterations
0
Remodeling - Major w/ plumbing
212.52
$0
494,896
2904 sf
Remodeling - Major - Meeting / Office / Classroom
109.13
$316,926
1104 sf
Remodeling - Moderate - Picnic
74.67
$82,437
0 sf
Remodeling - Minor -
40.21
$0
0 as
Elevator
0
$0
480 of
Remodeling - Add Access Width Floor Each End
120.59
$57,882
345 sf
Ramp/ access to track level
109.13
$37,651
0
Remodeling - Major (Secure / Controlled entry)
109.13
$0
0
Remodeling - Moderate (Secure / Controlled entry)
74.67
$0
0
Remodeling - Minor (Secure / Controlled entry)
40.21
$0
0
Remodeling - Major (ADA Accessibility)
109.13
$0
0
Remodeling - Major (Educationa) Adequacy)
109.13
$0
0
Remodeling - Moderate (Educational Adequacy)
74.67
$0
0 cy
Infiil grotto lower level
35
$0
Misc. costs
Bid conditions
0.0%
$0
0.0%
$0
1.04
Inflation to Bid Date
0.0%
$0
4.0%
$19,796
SUB TOTAL - CONSTRUCTION COST
0.00
$0
128.42
$514,692
$0
10.00%
$51,469
64,814
Archtec / Engineering Services
Verification of Existing Conditions
$0
$1,000
0.0%
$0
0
A/E reimbursables
$0
$7,147
Furniture / Fixtures / EclOpment (FFE)
Not included
0.00%
$0
0
Technology Equipment (A/V)
Not included
0.00%
$0
0
Computers / Equipment
Not included
0.00%
$0
Special Consultant Services
Environmental
Not included
$0
Technology
Not included
$0
Independent Testing
$2,316
2,316
Miscellanea Casts
Survey
Not Included
$0
Sal Borings
Not included
$0
Building Permits / City Plan review fees
$2,882
^
Water Connection
District misc costs - salaries, etc
Not included
Not inducted
0.5%
$0
$0
0
Owner furnished Builder's Risk Insurance
Not included
1.00%
$0
0
ON Site Development (Sewer / Water / Roads)
not incl.
TOTAL
$0
$579,506
PROJECT CONTINGENCY
$0
15.0%
$86,926
86,926
Site Purchase
$0
$0
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$0
$666,432
1.29
60 ATS &R Planners, Architects and Engineers
ARMSTRONG TORSETH SKOLD & RYDEEN, INC.
PLANNERS / ARCHITECTS / ENGINEERS ATS &R Project No. 11060
23- Dec -11
City of Edina Edbdwrough Park Study
E. Challenge Course - Over Soft Play Area
5216.39
Statement of Probable Project Costs
$87.000 /se0.0001
15- Dec -10
Cost Basis I Updated
New Construction
Building Cost - Addition
Building Cost - Addition - (Secure / Controlled Entry)
Alterations
0 Remodeling - Major w/ plumbing- See Repurpose Track
0 Remodeling - Major - Party / Classroom / Offices - See Repurpose Track
0 Remodeling - Moderate - Access to Challenge Course - - See Repurpose Track
0 st Remodeling - Minor - Remove South Track / Repair - See Repurpose Track
0 as Elevator
0 st Remodeling - Add Access Width Floor Each End - See Repurpose Track
0 sf Ramp down to new lower floor - See Repurpose Track
0 Remodeling - Major (Secure / Controlled entry)
0 Remodeling - Moderate (Secure / Controlled entry)
0 Remodeling - Mirror (Secure / Controlled entry)
0 Remodeling - Major (ADA Accessibility)
0 Remodeling - Major (Educational Adequacy)
0 Remodeling - Moderate (Educational Adequacy)
14350 Challenge Course Platforms / Structure
MJ caste
Bid conditions 0.0% $0
1.04 Inflation to Bid Date 0.0% $0
Architect / Engineering Services
$0
Verification of Existing Conditions
$0
A/E reimbursabtes
$0
Furniture / Fbrtures / Equipment (FFE)
Not Included
Technology Equipment (A/V)
Not Included
Computers / Equipment
Not Included
Special Consultant Services
Environmental
Not Included
Technology
Not Included
Independent Testing
Miscellaneous Costs
Survey
Not Included
Soil Borings
Not Included
Building Permits / City Plan review fees
Water Connection
Not Included
District mist costs - salaries, etc
Not Included
Owner furnished Builder's Risk Insurance
Not Included
Off Site Development (Sewer / Water / Roads)
Not Included
TOTAL
PROJECT CONTINGENCY
Site Purchase
1.00
206.76
206.78
212.52
109.13
74.67
40.21
0
120.59
109.13
109.13
74.67
4021
109.13
109.13
74.67
45
0.0%
4.0%
4DIV /0!
10.00%
0.0%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$64,575
0.5%
1.00%
not incl.
$0
$2,583
$6,716
$1,000
$0
$2,672
$0
$0
$A
$0
$0
$302
$0
$0
$376
$0
$0
$A
$78,224
15.0% $11,734
$0
0
0
11,066
0
0
0
302
0
0
11,734
TOTAL PROJECT COST I I ses5,ae1 1 I.J4
Available Fundin g $0
Additional Funding $0
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 1 I ($89.957) I
ATUR Planners, Architects and Engineers 61
e
Q.
Gn
L
O
U
a)
Q�
M
U
M
Q
0
r,
O
rL^
V
LL
FA
ARMSTRONG TORSETH SKOLD & RYDEEN, INC.
PLANNERS / ARCHITECTS / ENGINEERS ATS &R Project No. 11060
23- Dec -11
City of Edina Edinbourough Park Study
F. Grotto Area to Interactive Technology Zone
5216.39
Statement of Probable Project Costs
ENR index benchmark: 5216.39 'Sep 2011 (MPLS)
construction contract date (BID DATE): Mar, 2012
Prime Contractor
Developed She Acreage: 0.000 ACRES
Existing Building - GSF: 0 SF
Remodeling - GSF: 3,280 SF
New Construction - GSF: 08/09 0 SF
Total Project Cost [Rounded) $325,000 ($472.oao) r r r t r
15- Dec -10
Cost Basis I Updated
PROJECT BUDGET j Bond Ref 1.00 Estimate
New Construction
Building Cost - Addition
Building Cost - Addition - (Secure / Controlled Entry)
Alterations
0 Remodeling - Major w/ plumbing
2400 sf Remodeling - Major - Finishes / Lighting / Enclosures
0 Remodeling - Moderate -
880 sf Remodeling - Minor - Removable Mat on Theater Flo
0 sa Elevator
0 as Wheel Chair Lift
0 sf Ramp down to new lower floor
0 Remodeling - Major (Secure / Controlled entry)
0 Remodeling - Moderate (Secure / Controlled entry)
0 Remodeling - Minor (Secure / Controlled entry)
0 Remodeling - Major (ADA Accessibility)
0 Remodeling - Major (Educational Adequacy)
0 Remodeling - Moderate (Educational Adequacy)
400 cy Infill grotto
105 If Access Gates / Railings at Tech Zone
3 Fly Dividers & I - Click Projection Equipment
0
Miss. wets
Bid conditions
1.04 Inflation to Bid Date
Architect / Engineering Services
Verification of Existing Conditions
A(E reimbursables
Furniture / Fixtures / Equipment (FFE)
Technology Equipment (NV)
Computers / Equipment
Special Consultant Services
Environmental
Technology
Independent Testing
Miscellaneous Costs
Survey
Soil Borings
Building Permits / City Plan review fees
Water Connection
District misc costs - salaries, etc
Owner furnished Builder's Risk Insurance
Off Site Development (Sewer / Water / Roads)
TOTAL
PROJECT CONTINGENCY
Site Purchase
TOTAL PROJECT COST
62 ATS&R Planners, Architects and Engineers
206.78
206.78
212.52
109.13
74.67
20.10
0
85,000
109.13
109.13
74.67
40.21
109.13
109.13
74.67
35
65
4,000
1,462
0.0% $0
0.0%
0.0% $0
4.0%
0.00 $0
99.07
$0
10.00%
0.0%
$0
included
Included
included
included
included
included
Included
included
Included
included
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
$261,922
$0
$17,691
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
so
$14,000
$6,825
$12,000
$D
$0
$12,498
$32,494
$1,000
$0
$5,249
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,462
$0
$D
$1,820
$0
0.5% $0
1.00% $0
not incl.
0
279,614
18,825
42,025
0
0
0
1,462
0
0
$366,961
15.0% $55,044 55,044
$0
1