Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 14, 2006 CCPi . L.L.\�\l_�t�ll_•``'�`.- _,.,' September 14, 2006 TO: City Council Members FROM: Sharon Lumby SUBJECT: St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Please find attached consultant reports on the St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center for your review. This item is scheduled to be on the October 3, 2006 City Council Agenda. Saint Croix Valley Area COmmunity Family Center Study Decision Resourees, Ltd. Awareness at Planing Process 200E Saint. Croix, Valley Area Nc Curcision Resources, Ltd. Initial Position 2006 Saud C[obc Valley Area so 50 40 30 20 10 ®15han9 SUPPOH ®Su off ®.-_..� �. ron`n.gih swmniar Dnbrrn Resoorcex. LtdPp Oppose ®Strong Oppose Wunsvre] Center Programming 2006 Saint. Croix Valley Area Orre Locetbn/Services Secure Location Extensive RBeaanen Facility No Propatly Tom Inamase All -Age Programs RehabllHallun/Acquabas Wellness Classes Family Services Coordinator Supervised Child Co. Lkensed Child one u 20 40 60 80 100 [MMuch More Likely ®Somewhat Moro Likely flonieled Rssotxces. Lid Switch in 'Support 2006 Saint Croix Valley Area 00 ---------.._..------------ fi3 62 60 _.___.... _.._.. 40 . _.. _...__._._ ..._ ._.___...__.. _..... 30 -. _-- ...... 22 20 ... _._ 12 3 0 Stang Support Support Oppose Strong Oppose Unsure ®Pre -Discussion ®Post -Discussion ❑ecs;ian Ressurcaa, m, 2000 Saint Croix Malley Area 0-5 Education Programs - 2 — ParentEducationPagrems is ,so Adult Bask Education ESL s I GED g l'echnologylComputer Classes e Adult Enrichment Classes Me Wellness Classes 15 Counseling Services s I Family SBrvkes Coordinator e j Tmnsponatlon - zo Rehabllllagon/Chronic e j SupeMsed Child Care 16; Support Groups s_ 0 10 _ 20 30 40 60 -:Pl—.nt of Base Detislnn Resnurcra. LM. Recreational Facilities Meet Deeds 2000 Saint Croix Val eyArea 30% Uecicion fte80UZeY, Lid. Recreational Facilities Potential Use 2006 Saint Croix Valley Area Ind.r 0 6 10 15 20 25 ®Likely Usage oeclaibn Rnsosn:es, LW Use of Community Family Center, 2006 Saint Croix Valley Area 40 J32 _--..... _.._-... - 23 23 12 ID D 0 1 2 3 4+ ®Regy. tUsars ®O xsslonal Usars pec@ron Rasovrms, LW Center Use by City 2006 Saint Cro(Y Valley Area 80 70 ------ - 6& ............-------- --07— --------------- --- 5o -,47-- 42 40 30 20 10 0 TOM requ int Users . �-m o ... �j._IU... LW Impact of Distance (15 Minutes by Car) 2006 Saint Croix Valley Area 25 -- 20 ---- -- -- — ----- ....... I ------ ---- 16 - ---- -- - -- ----- ---- --- ---- —44 ---- 10 -------- I ...... 8, fi IiWS- �tta L----L I L— L I W� ]eCm. Raaw., Lw $500 Annual Family Membership 2008 Saint Croix Valley Area 30 25 --23--- - ----------------- -- --------- 23 -------- 20 ------ 12 ------ LL 10 L6L Total Bayport Lake Elmo Oak Park Heights Sflllwatr Kw—w—dP y �Rgu—r. 0.�Ision Resourc... Lki 2006 Saint Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Preliminary Survey Findings MethodoloQy: The study contains the results of a survey administered to 515 randomly selected adults residing in the Stillwater Area Public School District. This sample contains a base subsample of 250 randomly selected adults in the School District drawn proportionately to the population of each city or township.. An additional 265 residents supplement this base to provide 100 household subsamples in Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Bayport, and Lake Elmo. Professional interviewers conducted the survey by telephone between July 13a' and August 12, 2006. The typical respondent took 25 minutes to complete the questionnaire. This report focuses on the base subsample of 250 households, in which the results of the study are projectable to all adult Stillwater Area Public School District residents within f 6.3 % in 95 out of 100 cases. Key Findings: 1. Awareness of the planning process for a Saint Croix Valley Area Community Family Center is minimal. Only 9% report any familiarity. Among those reporting some level of awareness, knowledge is very noli-specific. Sources of information split between "local newspapers" and "word-of-mouth." 2. Support levels for the Family Community Center are high; as more information is provided, support levels increase further. Before Discussion After Discussion Strongly Support 12% 22% Support 53% 54% Oppose 4% 6% Strongly Oppose 5% 6% Unsure 27% . 13% Almost two-thirds of the sampleinitially support the construction and operation of the Center. After hearing more about the facility, support increases to over three-quarters of the respondents. One statement is particularly compelling, with 62% saying they are "much more likely to support a Community Family Center after hearing it: "The Community Family Center construction and operation will not require a property tax increase." Next, in order of impact, with 41% indicating they are much more likely to support the facility: "The Saint Croix Valley Area Community Family Center 2006Preliminary Survey Findings Center will contain an extensive recreation facility, for both group and individual activities and programs for all age groups." 3. Potential usage levels of services offered at a Community Family Center vary. The table below indicates the percentage of respondents who will most probably use a service in the next couple of years. Where applicable, the potential use rate is calculated based on the specific audience (e.g., the usage rate of education programs for children birth to five years old is a percentage of households containing children in that age range). Community. Family Center Services Potential Use Education programs for children birth to five years old 27% Parent education programs 13% Adult Basic Education 50% .English as a Second Language programs 6% GEA programs for those not having graduated from high school 8% Technology and computer classes 9% Enrichment classes for adults 19% Wellness classes 15% Counseling services on physical and mental health issues 5%* Family Services Coordinator 6%* Transportation for the disabled and seniors 20% Physical rehabilitation and management of chronic conditions 5%* Supervised child care 16% Support groups for families and individuals 3%* * indicates otemial use based uponfullpopuladon in the absence of s eci a data 4. The recreation portion of the facility is the principal component of interest among residents. Thirty percent report the current mix of recreational facilities available does not sufficiently meet the needs of their households; the suburban norm is 8%, about one - quarter of this level of dissatisfaction. 5. In thinking conceptually about the Center, the recreational facilities most preferred ,for inclusion are an outdoor swimming pool, at 17%, fatnesslweight room, at 9%, and a gymnasium, at 8% More modest numbers also want to see an indoor youth playground center, indoor swimming pool, and classrooms. Activities requests focus on swimming lessons, fitness/exercise programs, senior programs and early childhood programs. 6. Potential usage levels of recreational faci&ties also vary. The table below indicates the percentage of respondents who will most likely use an offering during the next few years. Community Family Center Recreation Facilities Potential Use Indoor ice skating rink 9% Indoor competition or lap pool 12% Indoor leisure fun pool with water slide 170/, Page 2 of 4 Saint Croix Talley Area Community Family Center 2006 Preliminary Survey Windings Community Family Center Recreation Facilities Potential Use Outdoor swimming pool with splash area and water slide 17% Racquetball courts 7% Exercise, fitness, and weight room 18% Indoor running/walkin track 20% Arts center 17% Gymnasiums 15% Senior citizens drop -in center 8% Whirlpool bath, steam rooms, and hot -tub facility 11% Aerobics and dance room 10% Large community room with attached kitchen 14% Picnic facility and trails adjoining the Center 19% Snack bar, soda fountain, and coffee shop 17% Teen center 9% Community theater for the performing arts 17% Multi -purpose classrooms 11% Indoor and outdoor playgrounds for children 10% Potential usage levels compare favorably with similar results which were found during the planning phases of the Shoreview, Chaska, and Maplewood Community Centers. When asked what facilities are most important to them, residents offer the following three: an outdoor swimming pool, an indoor walking -running track, and an indoor playground for children. e 7. There is some confusion among residents —particularly young parents —about the difference between supervised child care and licensed child care. Even so, 34% of the parents of young children would be apt to use a supervised child care service while at the Center. Twenty-seven percent of the parents of children less than six years old would be apt to enroll in licensed child care offered at the Center. 8. Seventy percent of the households think members will visit the Community Family Center either occasionally or frequently. In fact, 47% of the households think at least one member will visit the Center at least weekly. Similarly, 65% think household members will visit occasionally, perhaps monthly. 9. Distance from the Center is a minor issue for respondents from households with at least one member potentially visiting the facility either frequently or occasionally. The table below shows the percentage of potential user households who are "much less likely" to do so as their distance from the Center increases. . Lower Likelihood among Occasional Users Fre went Users Located within community Z% 2% Located five minutes away by car 1% 2% Page 3 of 4 Saint CroLv VaUey Area Community Family Center 2006 Preliminary Survey Findings Located 15 minutes away by car 8% 8% Slippage among potential users is not significant but a 15-minute distance appears to be the threshold before major declines occur. 10. The charge of a moderate fee for a daily pass to use the recreational and wellness facilities causes a decline among potential Community Family Center visitors. Eighteen percent of occasional users and 19% of frequent users report the fee would significantly decrease their visits to the recreational and wellness facilities. The typical member of both of these groups, though, would pay $5.00-$6.00 for a daily pass. 11. Family and individual memberships for the use of recreational and wellness facilities drew different levels of interest Only 8% of the sample expresses interest in a yearly individual membership. A majority of this group would pay $250.00 per year for the membership. In contrast, when informed about cost comparisons, a very solid 23% are willing to pay $500.00 per year for a family membership to the Community Family Center. Implications: A. The Committee needs to be much more aggressive in communicating with the public. With less than ten percent reporting awareness of the planning process, familiarity with the Community Family Center has not spread beyond the "community activist core." B. Potential use levels and willingness to pay for passes and/or memberships are higher than the initial norms for this type of facility. At the outset, these results strongly support taking the planning process to the next level — explicit determination of both facilities and services to be included and the designation of a site. Strong and unified direction will be needed on both of these issues to maintain current levels of support for the project. Page 4of4 Inc. August 18, 2006 MEMORANDUM (Revised) TO: St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Site Selection Task Force FROM: Mary C. Bujold Maxfield Research Inc. RE: Updated and Revised Assessment of Potential Sites for SCVA Community Family Center Introduction This memorandum discusses and analyzes our findings regarding identification of potential sites for the location of the proposed SCVA Community Family Center. This memorandum includes the following: ✓ Identification of sites and site characteristics currently sponsored by Cities participating in the SCVA Community Family Center process; ✓ Identification of sites and site characteristics currently available and marketing in the Stillwater Area, but not sponsored by Cities. ✓ Identification of the strengths and weaknesses associated with each of the sites; ✓ An analysis and review of projected growth trends in communities in the Stillwater School District (mapping of growth trends); ✓ An assessment of the current and projected population and household base within one, three and five miles of each of the sites. Full radii and adjusted areas are shown. The adjusted areas exclude geographies that are outside of the communities located in the Stillwater School District. ✓ A summary assessment of the selection criteria of each site based on larger topical areas such as: • Access/Visibility • Proximity to Major Transportation Arteries • Proximity to Population Densities (Current and Future) 615 1' Avenue NE #400, Minneapolis, MN 55413 (612) 338-0012 fax (612) 904-7979 www.maxfieldresearch.com 4 SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 2 • Baseline Acquisition Costs • Additional Infrastructure Costs • Size of Site and Expansion Potential • Development Timing • Proximity to Bus Transit Routes and Walking/Biking Trails • Current Traffic Counts (Flows) and Projected Traffic Flows • Possible Environmental Issues • Political Climate Base Site Criteria -Group Meeting Although each major stakeholder group has a slightly different set of criteria associated with their selection of a site, the following criteria appear generally agreed on by the group and a shared acknowledgement of their importance. On May 12, 2006, Maxfield Research Inc. met with representatives of the participant communities along with representatives of the key user prospects of the facility. The intention was to frame the discussion relevant to the preferences of the key users and review previous discussions that had already occurred regarding stakeholder needs. • A location that will be somewhat central to current population and projected growth in the St Croix Valley Area; • A location that is within the School District boundaries; • A location that is relatively convenient to access for potential users; • A location that would potentially meet the needs and criteria of most, if not all, of the stakeholders. Specific needs and criteria were mentioned by the YMCA and by the School District. The YMCA indicated a preference for a location that would have convenient access from major thoroughfares and a drive -time of no more than 10 minutes by car. In general, the concerns of the YMCA reflect the need to generate a sufficient number of dues paying members to justify operations costs and development costs of the facility. A concern was expressed by the group that employees of major employers in the area should be able to conveniently access the Site and that the facility may offer wellness programs. At subsequent discussions, this concern remained present, but has now been relegated to lower concern because many employees currently live in the area and would access the facility as a resident, not just an employee. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. M _� SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 3 The largest employers in the area are: Andersen Corporation Washington County Stillwater Public Schools 4,500 employees 970 employees ,.^10473 920 employees /' UFE Mfg. 800 employees MN Correctional acil'ty 470 employee 1. �n, V�� 446w/ I On Some large employers in the area but outside of the School District Boundaries include: 3M 13,000 ✓ 3 Poo' Imation 1,500 The Hartford 712 Most employees are generally within a reasonable distance of their place of employment, although the actual geographic dispersion of employees at these employers has not been identified in addition to those that reside within the School District versus those outside of the School District. The School District is concerned regarding the availability of a sufficient amount of land to accommodate children's safety and students' access and safety on the site. As such, a site that offers at minimum 13+ acres or capacity to develop a building with approximately 90,000 to 100,000 square feet is projected to be needed. In addition to building capacity, bus and vehicle staging areas, pick-up and drop-off must also be considered in assessing the amount of land required for the facility. Population and 17ousehold Growth Trends The following maps outline the boundaries of the Stillwater School District and show the projected growth in population and households as of 2010 and 2030. Also shown are population and household density maps for 2010 and 2030, identifying resident concentrations. This information is used to assist in evaluating the location of sites relative to the projected growth in the Area. Information on growth trends was compiled by Metropolitan Council and cross- referenced to information compiled by the School District in their Enrollment Projections through 2010. In the past, the number of completed homes had fallen significantly below projections. This trend is likely to change moving forward because of a slowing in construction and the amount of "gap" will likely decline. During our discussions, task force members also requested additional information regarding total population and households within specific radii surrounding each of the sites. The information was compiled and is shown on Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 shows the estimated population and MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 4 TABLE POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CONCENTRATIONS FULL RADII 2006.2016 Po Wation B7thh, One Mile 2006 2011 1,080 1,288 1,080 1,288 10,225 11,658 1,830 6,232 4,182 1,215 2016 1,418 1,418 13,290 2,128 2,468 6,455 6,648 4,226 2,322 Within Three Mhes 4,648 3,650 2006 2011 21,717 23,931 21,717 25,908 25,463 27,019 23,237 522 2016 25,845 23,931 25,845 28,049 30,853 27,105 9,304 9,304 Within FPoe Miler 30,581 30,581 31,481 31,48] 27,105 11,630 2006 2011 46,541 50,077 46,541 50,077 36,20A 41,439 44,867 51,775 2016 55,000 55,000 38,989 42,887 47,431 4$431 61,422 fi1,707 53,513 53,513 62,231 62,231 73,707 Households Within One Mile 2006 2011 380 462 380 3,902 618 1,933 1,035 446 2016 545 462 545 4,502 5,402 2,098 1,633 930 930 WIlhln Three Miles 816 816 2,098 1,633 1,460 2006 2011 8,297 9,285 8,297 9,285 9,737 9,461 10,003 8,648 875 2016 10,214 10,214 11,850 11,850 11,349 t1,349 12,079 12,076 3,139 3,139 Wtthin FNeMilef 0,252 10,252 3,923 2006 2011 16,788 18,321 16,788 18,321 13,210 14,913 16,483 19,111 658 22,441 2016 21,069 21,069 14,461 ]fi,G30 18,010 ]8,010 19,762 19,762 24,354 22,929 24,354 26,929 Sowces: Claritas, Inc.; Maxfield Research bee.; Motropolitan Council - household counts by potential site with projections for 2011 and 2016. This information was gathered from Claritas, Inc. and was reviewed in light of Metropolitan Council projections and information gathered from local sources to account for future development that may not have been captured by the Claritas' original projections. The table shows that within one mile of the site, the Neal Avenue property is in close proximity to an existing population concentration, followed by the Xcel Fly Ash site. Within three miles, the differences between the sites narrow considerably with all properties, except the Lake Elmo site, currently having higher concentrations of population and households. Within three miles, the highest ranking properties are: Neal Avenue Property Oak Park Station Xcel Fly Ash Site Bayport Sites MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. j SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force August.18, 2006 Page 5 TABLE 2 POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CONCENTRATIONS POLYGON (excludes areas outside of Stillwater School District) 2006-2016 population Within One Mile 2006 2011 1,080 1,080 10,225 1.830 6,232 4,182 1,215 2016 1,288 1.288 11,658 2,128 6,455 4,184 4,115 Within 77res MRas 1,418 1,418 13,290 2,468 6,648 4,648 6,615 2006 2011 21,717 21,717 25,808 24,780 16,389 23,237 8,522 2016 23,931 23,931 28,049 27,108 17,789 24,641 11,222 Within F7veMilas 25,845 25,845 30,853 30,581 31,481 27,105 13,722 2006 2011 34,906 34,906 30,777 34,655 30,463 32,942 9,549 2016 37,698 37,698 33,141 37,592 32,935 35,596 12,349 41,467 41,467 36,455 41,351 36,229 39,156 15,349 Households R9thh, One Mile 2006 2011 380 380 3,902 618 1,933 1,035 446 2016 462 545 462 4,502 729 2,037 1,035 1,646 Wiihhr 77sree Mlles 545 5,402 816 2,098 1,328 2,680 2006 2011 8,297 8,297 9,737 9,547 6,282 8,648 2,875 2016 9,285 9,285 10,773 10,508 6,758 9,320 4,339 Within Five Miles 10,214 10,214 11,850 11,349 7,265 10,252 5,540 2006 2011 12,591 12,591 11,229 12,505 11,066 11,933 3,233 2016 13,598 13,598 12,015 13,766 12,156 13,093 4,400 14,958 14,958 13,217 17,142 13,372 15,056 5,800 80urco9: Claritas, Inc.; Maxfield Research Inc.; Metropolitan Ceuocil Table 2 shows similar information to Table 1, but Table 2's data excludes areas outside of the Stillwater School District in Grant, Oakdale, Woodbury and Wisconsin. The sites that rank the highest in population and household counts within five miles of the subject sites are: Oak Park Station Bayport Sites XGel Fly Ash Site The maps on the following pages show that future growth will be concentrated in Lake Elmo because of its recent agreement with the Metropolitan Council regarding increased residential density levels within the community. While Lake Elmo is expected to grow significantly during the next four years and to 2030, growth levels are lower for Oak Park Heights and Stillwater, because of their current status -both are, nearly fully -developed. Stillwater is adding new housing units through its orderly annexation agreement with the Township in addition to redevelopment of sites in the Downtown. Oak Park Heights is continuing to build out, but there is a limited amount of land remaining available for new residential development. Bayport is experiencing an increase in residential development due to the new Inspiration master -planned community. In addition, there are other properties adjacent to Bayport's city boundaries that are currently under consideration for annexation into the City. . MAMELIa RESEARCH INC. Cl SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force Population - 2010 ®_ NEM, II August 18, 2006 Page 6 N B ® uu�ll MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 2? »� . � � \�/�}� ���� � � � \ � \ � � w:� ~ � y� � � \< � ;»��� a� m . y.: y/��� / . �} � � � «� y��� � { .�..� : ��� � «R �v I��4.e SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 9 Population 1 1. 2010 to 2031f, fnct ®►i® • • 1 i � p � °+ - h( + x � �� 7 �+ t �q Population Growth60 l Fi v 10,000 -®s�:�J2,500 to 10,000 1 ! 111 to 2,500 ej 11 to 500 Stillwater School District + s, ���� r» � 1 MERU] %t 610� g i_ia�✓.s SRI mi` !piT6}tluY�oli,� j MAXI' IELD RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 10 Lake Elmo has been the only community thus far that is required to increase its densities. There are, however, several surrounding communities such as Grant and Afton which have municipality status and also have chosen to remain at very low densities. Should Grant or Afton reach a similar situation in the future with the Metropolitan Council, growth patterns could change dramatically in the St. Croix Valley Area and could shift current population concentrations more to the south or north. At this time, current estimates identify high concentrations of population and households in the following areas: Stillwater Oak Park Heights Lake Elmo Considering future growth to 2030, concentrations will increase substantially in Lake Elmo and will surpass Stillwater. The combined populations of Oak Park Heights, Stillwater and Bayport however, will remain greater than Lake Elmo (31,600 people versus 24,000 in Lake Elmo). The lower density communities surrounding the major cities are projected to remain as such, certainly through 2010, but also forecast through 2030. The site criteria analysis which follows utilizes the projected population and household figures as well as projected growth within five miles of each site in assessing the geographic proximity of the various proposed locations to future growth. As indicated in the enrollment projections report for the Stillwater School District, Lake Elmo is expected to begin its development of the Old Village area in shortly and is forecast to add upwards of 520 new housing units to the area within the next four to five years. From 2010 to 2030, Lake Elmo is projected to surpass Stillwater in population growth (24,000 versus 19,900). In reaching its required total of 24,000 people, Lake Elmo will surpass Stillwater's population base by 4,100 people by 2030. The combined 2030 populations of Stillwater, Oak Park Heights and Bayport are projected to equal 31,600 people. From the maps, it is clear that the locus of population density will balance out over the next 20 years, from its current concentration in Stillwater/Oak Park Heights/Bayport to a more balanced situation between Stillwater/Oak Park Heights/Bayport and Lake Elmo. Stillwater, Oak Park Heights and Bayport will continue to have the highest combined concentration of population and households and the commercial district along Trunk Highway 36 will remain one of the dominant commercial shopping concentrations for the region. Lake Elmo will develop a larger commercial base, but initially, it is intending to target smaller neighborhood -oriented goods and services. MAMELD RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force Criteria Analysis for Each Site August 18, 2006 Page 11 The tables presented in the Appendix present summary information separated by criteria for each Site. Criteria presented include: • Location of the Parcel • Approximate Parcel Size • Potential for Expansion • Recent Traffic Counts on Major Adjacent Thoroughfares • Access/Visibility from Adjacent Thoroughfares/Major Thoroughfares + Proximity to Center of Growth • Total Population and Household Counts within 5 miles of Site (full radii and adjusted) • Traffic Counts • Site Characteristics/Qualities • Site Availability • Base Cost of Site • Infrastructure/Utilities At or Near Site • Estimated Costs of Infrastructure/Utilities • Assembly of Multiple Parcels • Acquisition of Site (Own or Lease Site) • Current Zoning/Rezoning Required? Additional information has been gathered for each site and incorporated on these tables. It is our determination that each Site has some particular strengths, but no one Site overwhelmingly meets all of the criteria. Each Site's strengths and weaknesses address key criteria for locating the SCVACFC including: • its potential to accommodate the SCVA Community Family Center (physically) • its potential for the facility to operate at an optimum level in the future given projected population and household growth trends • consumer travel patterns • future transportation improvements including highway construction/reconfiguration • potential future competition for similar goods and services (primarily associated with the recreation component) Sites are not listed in order of preference and the site numbers do not represent the potential attractiveness of the Site. The Appendix following the Criteria Analysis shows table summaries for each site. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 12 Site #1— Oak Park Station (located immediately west of Stillwater Blvd. at 581h Street North) Strengths Close proximity to Highway 36 High Visibility from Stillwater Boulevard Convenient Access to the Site (signalized intersection at 58a' Street N). In close proximity to current population/household concentrations, but located just a short distance from projected growth in Lake Elmo; Immediate availability Potential to own or lease Utilities available at the Site; connections to be paid by owner; interior road system to be constructed by owner. No environmental issues of which we are aware. Current zoning is B-3 Highway Business; allows institutional uses. Weaknesses Site may be too small — 13 acres maximum Parking area may be limited Base Cost of Site is expensive (minimum $10.00 per square foot) Site #2 — Bergman Property (NE Corner of Highway 36 and Manning Avenue N) Strengths Adjacent to Highway 36 High Visibility from Highway 36 and from Manning Avenue Convenient Access to the Site (signalized 'intersection and frontage road) In close proximity to current population/household concentrations and projected concentrations; Near -term availability Own the Site Utilities and infrastructure available at the Site (assessments to be paid by owner). Site has ample room to accommodate facility (50 acres with potential for 80 acres total) Site may accommodate multiple users not solely the SCVA Community Center; costs may be shared among all site users; Currently guided for research and development/business park use by Stillwater's Comprehensive Plan. No environmental issues of which we are aware. MAXFHL,D RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 13 Weaknesses Moderately high cost of Site ($4.50 per square foot) and high cost of special assessments (some may be negotiable ($600,000 to $700,000 in special assessments) Peak traffic on Manning and Highway 36 may create access difficulties during peak travel periods due to stacking of vehicles at signal. Future planned interchange at Manning Avenue and TH 36 may create future access difficulties and may significantly reduce convenient access to the Site. Topography is generally flat with some tree cover, but may be difficult due to some low lying areas. Site 03 — Neal Property Strengths Located immediately north of County Road 12 (75a` Street North) High visibility from County Road 12 Convenient Access to the Site off County Road 12 (future Neal Avenue extension) In close proximity to current population concentrations Own the Site Near -term availability Utility extensions to the Site are nearby Site has more than ample room to accommodate the facility (about 40 acres) Topography is gently rolling or flat, with minimal tree cover Currently no environmental issues of which we are aware Weaknesses Under pre -development agreement for rezoning to residential Adjacent to low -density single-family homes are likely to create difficulties with neighbors Potential high cost of property, but uncertain Potential high costs for additional infrastructure (special assessments for roads, utilities) Annexation required to City; this area is staged for 2015 annexation; petition to annex earlier. Site #4 — Xcel Energy -Fly Ash Site Strengths Centrally located in the SW corner of Highway 36 and Beach Road N; Close proximity to several of the area's major employers including Washington County, Andersen Windows, Hospital Potential for improved access via future Stillwater Bridge (current timing estimated at between 2010 and 2015, but not guaranteed) MAMEED RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 14 Site size can more than accommodate facility (total size 45 acres) Site would be graded and planned by Xcel and could be according to Client's needs Lease from Xcel Base cost of site minimal or nothing Utilities are available at the Site; Hook-up costs should be moderate. Site is vacant and bare; no tree cover; Site can be built up to accommodate landscaping; must arrange and approve plan with Xcel and with MPCA. Currently, MPCA would not have difficulty with locating a community center on the Site. Weaknesses Site availability in 2010; possibility of some use prior to that time; 80% of site is currently covered. Must not compromise the integrity of the cover. Must carefully plan improvements to the Site, all cleared and handled through Xcel. Cost of utility hookups to be paid by client; may be negotiable with Xcel. Further distance from future high level population concentrations in Lake Elmo. Currently, zoned industrial; proposed community center may be permitted in industrial district; if not, must be rezoned. Site #5 — Bayport Sites Strengths Close proximity to population concentrations Close proximity to major employers (Andersen Windows and Washington County) Availability may be arranged within a relatively short time -frame; Convenient Access from County Roads 21 and 14 Sites are heavily wooded; U�'� Most likely sufficient land area amcconAmodate facility. The 5-acre private property d be donated; Could likely negotiate with developer of the 23-acre private parcel to reduce land costs to nominal amounts; Large private parcel is currently in negotiations to be annexed to the City of Bayport; Utilities would be available at the Site and utility connection fees should be moderate; Own the Site. No significant environmental issues of which we are aware. Weaknesses Low visibility from major thoroughfares such as Highway 36 or Stillwater Boulevard; Lowest traffic counts; MAMELD RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 15 Assembly of parcels required (but may not be especially difficult); Less convenient access from major thoroughfares; Would require negotiation with several entities for site assembly. Site 46 — Lake Elmo -Old Village Site (Downtown) Strengths Annual land lease of $1.00 as long as Community Center desires; Convenient access and visibility from Stillwater Boulevard Concentration of households in close proximity to facility (2030) Utilities available at site; Site is vacant and clear; generally flat with no tree cover. Immediate (near -term) availability; Site assembly has been completed by the City; No significant environmental issues of which we are aware. Population concentrations in 2030 most likely to be family dominated Potential to co -locate other facilities such as Washington County Library and regional arts center Weaknesses Not as centrally located to total 2030 population concentration (Bayport, Stillwater, Oak Park Heights) Potential traffic congestion on Stillwater Boulevard with increase of 520 households by 2010 (additional 5,200 trips per day); Site 07 — Nass and Buberal Sites Strengths Adjacent to Highway 36 High Visibility from Highway 36 and from Manning Avenue Convenient Access to the Site (signalized intersection) In close proximity to current population/household concentrations and projected concentrations; Near -term availability Own the Site Utilities and infrastructure available adjacent to the Site (assessments for connections to be paid by owner). Site has ample room to accommodate facility (15 acres at the north end with potential for roughly 50 acres total) Site may accommodate multiple users not solely the SCVA Community Center; costs may be shared among all site users; Currently zoned agricultural use. MAMEED RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 16 Weaknesses Moderately high cost of Site ($4.50 per square foot) May also be additional assessments for utilities and infrastructure; Future planned interchange at Manning Avenue and TH 36 may create future access difficulties and may significantly reduce convenient access to the Site. Portions of the sites may have some environmental issues because storage and dumping has occurred in the past; no EAW or EIS has been completed to date. Topography is generally flat with some tree cover. Rezoning would be required and according to City, would be rezoned for residential use. Other Sites Other sites in the area were explored, but are: 1) too small in size; 2) current zoning requirements severely constrain the ability to consider the proposed use 3) the site is too distant from the current and projected population centers The following section presents a weighting of criteria in order of importance and applies a rating scale to each criteria for each site. The analysis provides a quantitative assessment for each site. Additional qualitative criteria such as political climate is considered, but is not factored into the quantitative assessment. Maxfield Research Inc. also requested information regarding any potential environmental concerns that may be associated with each of the sites. This information is briefly summarized on the tables and in the strengths/weaknesses segment of the analysis. Weighting Criteria Table 3 shows a weighting assessment for each of the proposed sites. The weighting assessment assigns a weight value to each of several criteria. These criteria may be weighted differently based on the discussions of the site selection task force or additional criteria may be added to this analysis. Each of the site criteria is assigned a value rating from 1 through 5 with 1 being nooT and 5 beine excellent. These value ratings are shown on the table along with a total that is derived from the value rating alone. These value ratings are multiplied by the weighting factor to arrive at a weighted total for the criteria which is shown in the highlighted section immediately below the rating for the criteria. MAxFIEY-D RESEARCH INC. SCVACFC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 17 As is shown, the weighting values shift the totals for the sites, sometimes substantially. In reviewing the weighting totals and the criteria, it is our opinion that the current value ranges and weighting criteria reflect the characteristics of the sites based on the perceived value of the criteria. Conciusimn The revised weighting assessment ranks the individual sites from highest to lowest as follows: 1=Lake Elmo Site 2=Oak Park Station Site 3=Xcel Fly Ash Site (nearly tied with Oak Park Station) 4=Bergman Property S=Bayport Sites 6=Nass Buberal Properties 7=Neal Avenue Property In addition to the numerical totals assigned to each of the sites, additional qualitative criteria were noted but not entered into the weighting. Questions were asked of owners/contacts for each of the sites identifying if any environmental issues were known and the extent of those issues/impacts. Other than the Xcel Fly Ash site, the Buberal portion of the Nass-Buberal properties is the only property that is known to potentially have environmental issues. In further considering the Xcel Fly Ash or Nass-Buberal sites, further detailed analysis and environmental assessments must be undertaken to identify the scope of potential clean-up actions on the Nass-Buberal sites or the potential future responsibilities for environmental issues that may remain with a tenant operating on the Xcel Fly Ash site. In fact, all sites are likely to require additional due diligence to ensure that all existing site conditions are fully understood and analyzed. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. yb, fin,ga i tl e��d y r ➢�' 81 P a t`r�ah, P yIN M CmS< a vi 'n �[�✓VJ�M � � Ana � {� vi vir� Msb �d � �n � h�f� 110 rN�Vi rr.1 V NF S iY. V�FIiN v1 4 Q LM� SV Vfi�`N{��p,Nd ui V,Q., `� I.�t C N yY rY 4"�t S�ry4 Vl' ]CM1 VI�hiVl YIAN M((i��V1Y�C M�ITi yf�yi 1y�j'.�O`OANt�rryy M�b� � �}I P j✓i r� n ! { w E) g '�`1N � of [' Mf a'"I§RN S1� ��NfMh Vim M¢+090�'yl iN M r V 1i1"�('v hINFFYIM MYON x Vt�'iNtl�f§O V Vim Q toll, I�y� ( •me ti m+ r , n�� emu- �. n air x-. s. , =wn ��Nlh�b'3i0 ♦y9 �F hf :d'Rd'Mr�tv11F'�rH fkfdd'r�j N��VI�Sry,M4o 'n P{"J�. vMi N J tEy i'a'# 1 �� kJ 4`: a. Nil ^j�W�VIjj�� O O!(I,yy 21 �R �YO1 00✓�y0 { OO (M�YO� i, �G ns4 YF9 j"rs rr PP`'� t� Y,y+t F rG' fn O tl 0pry0 bf +a$ so 41 J ti SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 19 Related Selection Issues While the site weighting and ranking offers a guide to the site selection team, the weighting and ranking is not intended to result in a definitive decision regarding the selection of a site. There are many other factors that can enter into the site selection as the team proceeds with site acquisition, purchase negotiations, among other factors. While access, base and infrastructure costs, and location in close proximity to population growth centers ranked high in the site selection criteria for the SCVACFC team, these factors are likely weighted much differently from the viewpoint of the potential users. For example, convenient access and limited travel times are likely to rank highest for potential users of the facility in considering a site. Cost of infrastructure and ease of government approvals are likely to rank the lowest. In addition, people will vote for the site of their choice based on their lifestyles, convenience and price sensitivity (entry fees, gas prices, travel time). While this facility is being considered as a long-term facility, future growth in the area, especially in Lake Elmo, may indicate that once population densities increase sufficiently, a separate facility may be needed to accommodate growth at both ends of the County. Users are likely to patronize the facility that is in closest proximity to their residence or place of employment. This may result in two separate facilities built over time, one toward the east end and one toward the west end. These facilities may be supported through other market niches including organized sports, and other non-profit ventures. In the interim, there have been concerns raised over the use of the facility by others if the location is too far east or too far west. The development of a new river crossing as early as 2012 may also significantly influence the number of people that would come across the River to use a facility conveniently located off TH 36, thereby adding to the market potential for a location along a major thoroughfare. The Lake Elmo site has the ability to attract users from Woodbury and Oakdale. Although attracting Woodbury and Oakdale residents to the proposed facility will add to projected operating revenues, the mission is to effectively serve community members and employees within the School District boundaries. In addition, sites that are privately held will be more expensive and will require greater price negotiations than sites that are publicly held or being negotiated on behalf of the SCVACFC team by public entities. Depending on the timing of making a decision regarding a site, the SCVACFC may be competing with other bidders for the property. The asking price or negotiated price may rise with the presence of competition. In addition, the site may become unavailable if a purchase agreement is signed with another buyer, prior to the SCVACFC committing in writing to a site. In essence, the selection of a site not only involves choosing a site based on the criteria, but also the successful purchase or lease negotiations for that site to begin the development process. Delays in malting a site decision or information that may lealc prematurely to others in the community may result in significant changes in thecost and/or availability of certain sites. MAXF3ELD RESEARCH INC. SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 20 We recommend that the site selection team, after reviewing this memorandum and other pertinent data such as the results of the community surveys and focus group sessions make a recommendation to the entire SCVACFC Task Force with the assistance of its consultants. Recommendations We recommend that the SCVACFC Site Selection Team consider the following sites for further critical discussion and final recommendation: I=Lake Elmo Old Village Site 2=Xcel Fly Ash Site 3=Bergman Property 4=Nass-Buberal Sites It is our professional opinion that these sites offer the greatest potential for successful development, have the highest level of flexibility in size and expansion, are all generally reasonable in costs and pricing (except perhaps for the Bergman Property), and would be considered convenient from a market perspective. The Old Village site in Lake Elmo is the site most likely to be considered the least convenient by a significant number of current community residents. This situation is likely to change in the future, but not for perhaps 15 to 20 years. The following are the essential key strengths and key weaknesses of each of the sites under further consideration: 1=Lake Elmo Old Village Site Key Strengths: Low Base Cost of Site Current zoning and east of site approvals Available immediately Key Weaknesses Distant from current population densities in the School District 2=Xcel Fly Ash Site Key Strengths Low Base Cost of Site Long-term lease and property always controlled by Xcel Energy Significant flexibility in negotiating costs for site improvements Close proximity to current population densities Key Weaknesses Availability may not be until 2010 Cannot penetrate the existing cover (lining) May be subject to access issues with the construction of the River Crossing MAXFiEILD RESEARCH INC. SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 21 3=Nass-Buberal Site Key Strengths Available now Convenient access from a major thoroughfare Visibility is high Close proximity to current popuation densities Key Weaknesses Possibility of environmental issues on a portion of the site (Buberal portion) Possibility that price may increase with a non-profit purchase Potential interchange on TH 36 could significantly affect this location Current zoning is agricultural; rezoning of this property for the community center use is likely to be very difficult. 4=Bergman Property Key Strengths Available now Convenient access from a major thoroughfare Visibility is high Close proximity to current population densities May be able to share the site with other users to defray costs Key Weaknesses Potential interchange on TH 36 could significantly affect this location Infrastructure assessments are high Price is moderately high MAXFIEI,D RESEARCH INC. SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force APPENDIX August 18, 2006 Page 22 MAXFWED RESEARCH INC. 78 ti iz �o C) I P-6 q'cu0a t4 I 1 'M Jl 4 9 1 u 0 O ti �4 5'S 0 m s6 R. Q � q W� y Olt nA � v q N f r n � •Y. fN V CWF '. O x C •p � •: Y: Y _4 a G1 U WO ^ M a4Fa`� t�Yy m rg u� p� •ppq O ,q � T S$o II z � E(•��'y� � N e."��r. v A �y o J`�p' I^ V o E'Fi o ��•�O[ a`�i o � v IF wliw A O O c w o bi-� ' i 'v $ a o •� a m m to SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 30 MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. I � SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force • andRadius for Oak Park Station Source: Maxfleld Research Inc. August 18, 2006 Page 31 MAXFIFILD RESEARCH INC. SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force One-, Three- and Five -Mile RadU for the Bergman Property Source: Maxfield Research Inc. August 18, 2006 Page 32 MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 33 Source: Maxfield Research Inc. MAXNEED RESEARCH INC. SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force One-, Three- and Five -Mile Radius for Xcel Fly Ash Site Source: Maxfield Research Inc. August 18, 2006 Page 34 MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 35 • •Radius •, the Bayport Source: Maxfield Research Inc. MAXFIEI,D RESEARCH INC. SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 36 One-, Three- and Five -Mlle Radii for Old Village Site in Lake Elmo Source: Maxfield Research Inc. MAXFEI ID RESEARCH INC. SCVAFCC Site Selection Task Force August 18, 2006 Page 37 for the Nass-Buberal Property -W, , e�", .77 91V7 '- kf a Its. am �j T MAMBILD RESEARCH INC. ol �I �.T.JtiF�.X.h_�. \lY•�1..� t �r� St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center Key Informant Focus Groups Key Findings Report August 2006 Special Needs Key Informant Focus Groups Key Findings Report August 2006 Introduction This document discusses and analyzes the process and key findings of the Key Informant Focus Group sessions that were conducted with 58 participants in Stillwater Area Community Education's Early Childhood Family Education and Adult Basic Education, and Courage St. Croix programs. These individuals were recruited and self identified as interested fiom among current clients and their parents to participate in the group sessions. The process was planned, organized and conducted during the months of July and August 2006, by the St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center's Special Needs Suivey Team and Wild City Resources. The team includes Directors and staff of Courage St. Croix as well as Stillwater Area Community Education, Early Childhood Family Education, and Adult Basic Education programs. The team is a subgroup of the Integrated Planning Team, which is the planning authority for the St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center. The appended data reports were compiled by Community Education, Early Childhood Family Education and analyzed by the Special Needs Team, Decision Resources, Ltd. Wild City Resources. Wild City Resources developed this report. Background The Key Informant Focus Group sessions were intended to provide a subjective user friendly, method of assessing responses to the same key questions that were addressed in the statistical study conducted in the School District by Decision Resources LTD. These included general knowledge, level of support and preferences for the concept of an Integrated Community Family Center, The process was developed to provide access to the perceptions of current key special needs clients who could not be effectively reached through a telephone survey. It was initiated in order to assure that the opinions of individuals and families who experience barriers to participation were considered during the planning and decision -making process for the new St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center. Questions and Goals ■ Inform participants about the Integrated Community Family Center concept • Inform participants about the comprehensive nature of existing programs, and the interrelated components that are in place at this time • Inform the team about participation and perception of programs in which clients and their families are currently participating, or have participated in ■ Infonn the team about the barriers participants have to participation in programs • Inform the team about the programs that clients would like to see in a new center • Generate discussion and provide participants with an opportunity to brainstorm and share their experiences Instrumentation and Methods Fifty-eight individuals participated. Forty-three clients enrolled in Community Education's Early Family Childhood Education, (EFCE) and English as a Second Language, (ESL), and English Language Learners (ELL) Adult Basic Education, (ABE) Programs, participated in three sessions. Fifteen parents of children; who are enrolled in both Courage Center programs for specially challenged children and Corninunity Education Programs, participated in four sessions. Participants were recruited through phone calls placed by program staff members during early July, 2006. Two or three Team members attended each session. The sessions were opened, guided and concluded by a lead person who was pre -appointed. Generally, the second person observed, tools notes and participated in discussion on a limited basis. These same people also participated in the analysis of the process. Each session lasted about an hour and a half. They followed a planned format and included written, verbal and interactive elements. The sessions lasted about an hour and a half each. Copies of the tools used in administration of the sessions, as well as in compilation of data and analysis of the information are attached in the Appendices. Study Limitations Because of language and other barriers, the question and discussion components could not be administered equally or consistently from group to group. The staff that works with the program participants on a daily basis massaged the presentations to elicit maximum responses and participation in the process. While the Key Informant Focus Groups were not intended to produce scientific data, certain interesting parallels can be drawn between both the Decision Resources LTD statistical survey and the Special Needs Key Informant Focus Groups. Parallel Trends • Initial awareness of the program was low • Support for the program is strong and grows as more information becomes available • While the issue of a tax levy was not primary, affordability is a key matter • Recreation is of primary interest to families • Preference for casual indoor and outdoor swimming as well as a gym and weight room are very strong • Support for life long ]earning and whole family education is strong • Recreation as preference for indoor and outdoor swimming and casual recreation is very strong • Distance from the facility did not emerge as a strong concern already using the center Whole family and parent education, programs and services are of great importance to families Summary of Key Findings • The participants are generally very happy with and appreciative of the current programs they are participating in. • They were generally unaware of the Community Family Center project. • They are supportive and welcomed the idea of a new integrated center, yet some were hesitant that such a facility would become "too big", or could lose itself in trying to be all things to all people. • Access emerged as a strong issue. This may take on various, complex meanings for families and caregivers with multiple needs. • Time emerged as a key obstacle to participation. Time as an over all issue and the ability to organize time, as well as the availability of programs that would support people in their ability to organize time would increase access for all groups. • Programs that do not a require long -tern time commitment would be of great assistance. • Financial and emotional stress was presented as a major factor for families. Needs based scholarships and sliding fee scales should continue and be made easily available. Parents of children with special needs expressed a general lack of trust in program and services. • The availability of a community services coordinator and dependable respite will build trust with these parents and increase their program participation. • The need for support programs for siblings of children with special needs emerged as a strong theme when discussing future program participation. ■ There is a definite awareness among participants and parents of needs and services that could enhance available programming. Recommendations • Ease the • uentraiiy coornma e rograms a servrces • Employ utrea d a f ly services coordinator ■ Serve the whole fan 'ly, esp. ially school age siblings of special needs children • Bring health, wellnes educational programs together • Offer options for respite and childcare • Maintain affordability of all programs • Assure continued safety for high risk, vulnerable children in the new multi- program center • Create an inviting, friendly, well organized space, located close to near -by parking, amenities and services • Support programs that offer parents the opportunity to network with each other and support and contribute to the Center Final Observations • The Integrated Community Family Center concept is very well received by current users • There is good indication that families would increase their participation in new program offerings at a new center. • Participants are eager to support the project, with both affordable fmancial contributions and through interactive, participatory outreach. • The results strongly indicate the time is right to actively promote the project widely with a marketing and community engagement strategy Appendix St. Croix; Valley Area Community Family Center Key Informant Focus Group Key Findings Report August 2006 .., St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center July -August 2006 Appendix A COMMUNITY FAMILY CENTER KEY INFORMANT FOCUS GROUP PRESENTATION GUIDE Introduction Thank you for coming today. We have invited you here to talk about an exciting project we are working on. You may have heard about it. A large group of organizations and municipalities in the Stillwater Area has formed a partnership that includes Community Education, the Courage Center and the YMCA. Together, we are planning for the development of a wonderful new Community Family Center. The partnership directly links our programs. It will allow us to make many expanded, as -well -as new programs and services seamlessly available to you and your family. The Center will provide a wide variety of experiences for families and individuals in the greater Stillwater Area. They will include: • Early childhood • Special needs • Adult education • Wellness and health • Recreational This is an innovative approach to programming, one that serves the needs of all families and individuals especially those with barriers to involvement. Staff from all the agencies are cooperatively planning the programs. Each of the partners has an area of specialty, which they bring to the partnership. We envision sharing classes, space and equipment and resources. This will allow us to offer opportunities, uniquely shaped to meet your individual and family needs. Today we will • Review our current programs • Find out which programs you participate in • Share with you some possibilities for new programs • Learn your thoughts and ideas on programs that would be important to you in a new center. It is very important to us that we plan programs that will meet your family's needs. We will use what we learn from you today, to guide us as we make important decisions for the new Center. There is no right, or wrong answers. We want your ideas. Current Programs 1. Here is a list of the programs we are currently providing. Can you please share which of these you or your family members are currently using, or have used in the past. Opportunities Community Education Offers to the Community Early Childhood Programs/Services • Parent Education to increase parent knowledge of child development and to develop realistic expectations for parents and young children. • Child/parent classes that include children and parents learning together with a parent education component. • Dome Visits for families who cannot attend weekly classes. • Family events • Integrated Preschool for 3 and 4 year olds — Leaps `N Bounds, Cimarron, Sunny Hill, Head Start • Early Childhood Screening to identify any possible health or learning concerns prior to kindergarten • home -based services for children birth to three years old who have an identified educational disability. • Early Childhood Special Education in -center classes for children ages 2-5 with Autism Spectrum Disorders • Early Childhood Special Education classes for children with moderate to severe disabilities • Speech and Language classes and individual speech therapy • Special support services such as Adaptive Physical Education, physical therapy, occupational therapy, school psychology and nursing. Adult Basic Education Program/Services • ESL Classes English as a Second Language • ABE Classes Assistance with enhancing reading, writing and math skills • GED Program Test preparation • Citizenship Test preparation • Adult Diploma Program • Preparation for employment testing • Preparation for college entrance exams • Basic computer skills Opportunities Courage St. Croix Center Offers to the Community Key Programs • Physical Therapy • Occupational Therapy • Speech Therapy Aquatics, Fitness and Recreation, (partial lists) • Aquatics group, individual and family programs • Fitness groups for youth • Weight Management for youth Enrichment (partial lists) • Handwriting classes, communication classes, etc. • Horseback Riding • Water Skiing • Snow Skiing • Day and Residential Camps 2. PIease rank from 1-6 your reasons for not using programs you would like to use. f Time • Physical Access • Lack of Information • Transportation • Financial • Other For Discussion 3. Lets talk some more about what the new program will do. • This Community Family Center will provide children, families and individuals the skills, knowledge, and resources they need to grow, thrive and make successful life transitions. • The integrated program provides the support necessary for all children to enter kindergarten ready to 1 earn. • Early childhood specialists advocate for "whole family - whole child" development and have a program plan that is reflective of that belief. • Through Community Education, Adult Basic Education and Workforce Education, as well as Family Literacy programs, parents are supported in their efforts to improve their economic circumstances and to help their children achieve academic success. • Courage St. Croix and the school district's Special Education staff ensure that children of all abilities are served in an. inclusive way and that parents are provided with the support they need. The YMCA of Greater St. Paul will provide support for current gaps in programming, such as childcare, special events, recreation, and wellness activities. 4. .Here are some of the programs could be available at the new center. Please rank the top five in order of importance to you and your family. (These could be divided into groups and each group ranked from 1-5). • An indoor competition or lap pool • An indoor leisure fun pool with water slide • An outdoor swimming pool with splash area and water slide An indoor ice skating rink • Racquetball courts • An exercise, fitness, and weight room • An indoor running/walking track • Gymnasiums • A whirlpool bath, stearn rooms, and hot -tub facility • An aerobics and dance room Indoor and outdoor playgrounds for children • An arts center, including arts and crafts rooms for classes and instructional programs and a gallery for the exhibition of the works of local artists • A senior citizens drop -in center • A large cormnuruty room, with attached kitchen, for banquets, parties, organizational meetings, and other rental purposes • A communitytheater for the performing arts • Picnic facility and trails adjoining the center • Snack bar, soda fountain, and coffee shop • A teen center • Multi -purpose classrooms • Are there any other recreational facilities you would like to see in a Community Family Center? (IF "YES," ASK:) What are they? Make a list? Closing Ask for questions, comments. That is all for today. Thank you for coming. We will keep you informed on the. Center progress. = St. Croix Valley Area Community Family Center KEY INFORMANT FOCUS GROUPS July 25-August 1, 3006 Focus Groups -Area Learning Center 43 Participants of Adult Basic Education July 18 & 19, 2006 Participation Survey: ' " r `r�'y,��rk��< n��,r �"u°, �EarCy C(iCcC(aooclprograms/Services Education, , � :_ r"�.• „ IPareriY ,.r> r r.,,'� .� _>~ t, x • Child Parent Classes 3 1 2 15 „' t i t ' ; r �.1 t,`• tQZ[lerv75lt5r h.i,I,.` - a�,WR I • Famil Events 1 1 3 xTIM t, R. , t Iute raedrPres`thooi a s:tr3 i. �,. , Sd , ,3, ?4 Earl Childhood Screening 1 1 3 • ' BnseP Ex• .$4me W-V • Early Childhood Special Ed classed 1 2 0 Autism + moderate — severe disabilities , • Special support services Physical therapy, school psychology, adapt ve 3 0 hysical thera Language AduEt Basic (Education �i'rograms/Services • ABE Classes 1 1 0 1- �1•F 1 GJEb � Z � `� iA � - I �f, � t �� S � ��,4 �i `Y-it F ?£ 4 ,3- i. ,� ys �yn� rv'a. • Citizenshi 4 2 0 • Preparation for Em loyment Testin 4 0 0 P, e GAlie ei i�'ance x se $:, : i u k, €: aaatrn%r sw • Basic Computer Skills 13 10 7 Focus Meetings July 18 & 19, 2006 Not administered Participation Survey: Courage St. Cron , Key Trograw. ��...'a..�• i_��'�YOa�h"'_ _ Cx3 ;. e-su��'��f„*'�i ws�s`sf'hE','r�.s �*; r uN'"f, �r. r`s,r,�'��#'�' I ���i.' r ._.K�,,, �4"q-.. • Occu ational Thera y "s.,; u t tkn^ �Crn 1 4 ,S eeoJx,'x'�rara«.",��"��-,�v3.�f" Aquatics, Fitness eZ recreation • Fitness for Youth .� i£ y f r wk [� +..x,,,,, .e r 3 rEnrichm. ent 'iv.t{• • Horseback Riding �t.in•,.,isz .,a�...-.B.:c • Snow Skiing n `5`x` •, 1 f T ram, '4. �. t`,• f,a3 and l2esiepiaru Focus Meetings -Courage St. Croix 15 Participants of Courage St. Croix & Early Childhood Special Education July 25, 27, 31, 2006 &August 1, 2006 Pa < tic%pLt�on Sir vcy: <EarCy Ch�doramsls ces Focus �4 Focus #5 Focus 46 Focus ,Pre. Past Pre. t 47 Child/Parent Classes 2 3 0 2 1 2 '' 1 "4 WJ� =.s�N�kts. Family Events 2 3 0 1 3 2"3 "3. 11ie "t�dP eschn, ; ;R 1 A a k Early Childhood Screening 2 3 0 1 D 3 2 4 - �6N [�FLk � SS dL-3S`xy;� 4�F » l�yf'� ed �d,&• :L "gj y p - x Early Childhood. Special Education/Autism 0 2 Spectrum Disorders 0 1 0 1 0 0 z_ S eech and Lan age classes 3 2 1 1 2 T3 3 -. g }3 �y .py Participation Survey �� tGtr s ,eaa��*�' 'h.4a e,? r-tlm�'r F+�P-�i1 j�4u i�r� 44S � a5t x • f' k S! za � 7 ��a?-'@n�... �Ra ,'0�'St�s?�.�E"_`�,< .:n�a�-�,7'��--s'?E,.rt aA�.•5.;'��ai>�.",3„a..n.:rr��i�^�'�f f+.�..r S'�.rxe,k..� -va -f. �. Child/Parent Classes 4 11 vr'S5L.IYRR. �f5� h yy__l4 -yy 3 1` YL Y ' `� �{' 'FT ji3,P LY ! �+k Lk' �[ �' 1 4 b S' M J ip �•i q �I x {#N P.$- 1'}, _ ..�t � �!" ��"2'[SYIkP.h.. p�ef� $r�1 n�Lrltiin�lL�tlJ LSFr>d,�i+�r9r JJ .�L�ITLo'�'C1 s si'm.}Y.l9a'4 .''M`�,.'Ti�'s 3i •y y �ary�R ,.i ���`e tF Famfl,x Events 8 9 Earl Childhood Sereenin 4 11 NO . Earlx Childhood S ecial Education/Autism Spectrum Disorders 0 4 -]- '6 ,,�,� . 3O [rr���'P@"dls r l s;., h +..�i��.. ."t`'z KNOWN ays'ra�� M Speech and Lan a e classes 10 8 Area Learning Center Focus Meetings July 25, 27, 31, 2006 & August 1, 2006 Participation Survey: Courage St. Crmx, Key Programs rya �,LL�51Cia,LWeira Imo:: 3 ! 47 um. i �d���' a' -S W�4�' �q-- 1rr �[ d 1 �4 yJlat .[ Y $ fi"",f1` • Occupational Therapy 1 0 1 1 1 1 3 2 SeclraThera i f ': D ! "+1 . • r, s ; s 11 a 1 2 Aquatics, Fitness & Recreation F �'._ �,• 4 sj a s �. r2,� s e .,' 1 rx� 1 £ a'- s - 't1 s-� ,3` X'-k': • Fitness 0 0 0 0 * 0 1 0 � • � ,eP il� s � !w s d . r a r (16 ,[}t i . � �'� . 1� £f (] t e (� u Enrichment • Horseback Riding - 0 0 1 1 1 - 1 3- 2 �u �i }'�• ! r�� Eh Y� � k��y �� �� I f�{ ;i e �iG� Alt.O.S:dk. T! L�F al�'i4 Y9�un. � Y _ Y``.'i. �`$ �13:�$-i T 9 � k� � ifl • Snow Skiing 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 .d ��#A• �a�y,�R.,'Resr ir'n L1fl. d 171inY_'S`G"1 A %1d., � L '�l O � r!'Y�, ii ��O ,� $_� V � �£ * = future use Participation Survey Key Programs ley •> v !.y �.pl Y'j4-��y it � y T i'� ` Y i b 1 � Y ",, _� ? EN�T.S,S�4_ • Oceu ational Therapy 6 4 "9 Aquatics, Fitness & Recreation • FitnessL * 1 00 .urtteYgLLt,ey Enrichment I�anclw,s�fnig'`olasses • Horseback Riding 5 4 Jyf';L•� • Snow Skiing 2 2 IDS, y&' e�i$en#331� s� ' � raF , � }�> r�.-" • � �m" a �9 ..� .�� ^`� .a� >�w ♦ 1 le�.r .. �fi. -('4=g .R. �.. SY �, 1 � t.� M2.d {'-[F* .T a 0` • Golf * 0 Others: Social Groups w/kids w/cognitive delays -grade school age, parent support groups Area Learning Center Focus Meeting Courage Center Focus Meeting Area Learning Center Focus Groups July 18 & 19, 2006 Most Popular New Programs Which S are most important to you and -your Focu& I FoCUS2 F OCUST family? • An indoor leisure fun pool w/slide 5 3 l l ?• Ail o11t�QOr �ODl� � { � � � �. r 7 .z�... , SV3immm ;-. s .: � • An indoor ice rink 1 2 3 T ,;.• �f2ao tuet3bailycourfs i�t'+,!�iSYi� ., r � ,:. =ip Y " h7 i�t� '�" efi & • An exercise/fitness/weight room 4 4 8 ri . Tndoorm�iL'uau` ��vJa'l�m" sUvad.. � F rµ.,. • Gymnasiums 4 5 2 :�u•, K.4 ., Q _ L, s4 .. i_✓f +. ,.{.� 1a'�"u �i,� �.h-:. �( .31..��. i �..•v �.A • Aerobics and dauee room 4 ,''x• �L1'C�`D�iV�61�`Qbr'�]la�v,©ultra-�'�Di ��111�.�TP.II -_ .�3 u¢;:,r �.x9.�s.:'�w...y"' .;2. ,>._� �`,.. :r • Arts center— classrooms and gallery 3 1 3 • Large community room — for arties/ban u:ets/meetin s 2 3 1 '• e Gommau�t erformark ., ,�lieatrefoz.' znrts.,...t . • Picnic facility and trails adjoinin center 1 1W 0 . Snack�¢a�.;>co�ffee $1rM f �soda'ifpnn'tasn d�i'x:si ( � � L2Nir 1� � iI�AS���F.:AMr�{ . �A�te!'+" �k'A� • Teen center 0 0 0 S n.�f Otber9' 15• le ( �ry f y �.f{'],H' i�.M.i }YVn �. �jytt '7 >w".: �ar.�2tA��9�ta,',�1; • Medicalclinic/Nurse — ewer enc medicine 3 1 cV sYav,W • Community Spanish class 0 1 1 �r-�'�"x' j ='. c"tl',ea�ln+fQS7Tlfl'�St1nttU�D.t�{�.i�,'Yx .. 'p • Home work/tutor center 0 S�Ci, lafe..,,. `i, ', ' r ,,,� „,,•�,,,� �, e , er pfia�, _ .. i , «4 h • Rollerblade track 1 k lC"AG ' ;,>e��&"��nl>3rs�© �esAsQns •i[ -_ t fun.: � • ,tri�� y„a' - � �, . law: A`�,� . � � y � ��'�(�:;,�i • Soccer fields 0 Courage St. Croix Focus Groups Most Popular New Programs Which 5 are most important to you and ��,Focus* FocusS rWus6 Focus 7 Yourfamii5? 7-25-06 7-27-06 7-31-06 8-1-06 • An indoor leisure fun pool w/slide, 4 2 3 3 T4ffil," I An indoor ice rink 0 1 • An exercise/fitness/weight room 2 1 - 0�c �,;, , • Gymnasiums 2 2 1 3 3 • Aerobics and dance room 2 2 2 3 • Arts center - classrooms and gallery 0 1 2 ;2 • Large community room - for 0 1 parties/banquets/meetings W 0;, �i -SO • Picnic facility and trails adoining center 0 • Teen center 0 Se. SSFOOME R. Day Care 2 Outdoor Pool w/water-park 2 1