|
Overall, staff thinks the basic deal points on this project are reasonable/ realistic: City contribution request
<br />seems realistic ($3M or 15%), the City will not need to own/ operate, the project will pay property taxes
<br />(about $250K per year total), the project will be high -quality, project will provide several high -amenity
<br />health & wellness services, the project meets the City's vision for a destination user in The COR, the project
<br />budget seems reasonable (about $20M), the project will create jobs (about 90), the project will get Ramsey an
<br />indoor aquatic center (anecdotally appears to be highly desired by residents), and the developer appears to be
<br />experienced. Staff does not anticipate the City will be able to obtain a drastically different basic deal
<br />structure with other developers/ providers (for a privately owned and operated project).
<br />Lastly, staff would like to note, Flagship Fitness has indicated a willingness to work with the City on using
<br />this project to spur the construction of a parking ramp. For example, rather than the City contribute free land
<br />and TIF (as depicted in this proposal), the City could construct a parking ramp and provide Flagship with
<br />parking ramp stalls as the City contribution to the project. For Flagship Fitness, this option would drastically
<br />reduce the amount of land they would need for their project (i.e. remove surface parking). Additionally, this
<br />would eliminate construction costs, for Flagship, to construct a surface parking lot. For the City, this could
<br />help us justify/ spur the construction of our next parking ramp (which would benefit other projects, help push
<br />the vision for our urban downtown, and maximize the development potential of The COR). Lastly, staff
<br />would note --having a project "in -hand" would help staff apply for grants to help fund the construction of a
<br />parking ramp (typically, grant sources don't like funding parking ramps on speculation of development).
<br />Alternative 2: Take step back, discuss policy, investigate other cities, other opportunities, and RFP
<br />At this point, it appears Ramsey is interested in a privately owned and operated community center. The City
<br />appears to be generally comfortable to making an upfront 1-time contribution to a community center project
<br />(i.e. the CIP shows $4M). The City does not have a scope/ policy defined for desired/ required services a
<br />Ramsey community center would provide.
<br />There are many alternatives/ approaches available to the City when considering a community center
<br />(regarding the partnership structure, ownership, operations, service offerings, etc.). There are many examples
<br />across the Twin Cities. This specific Flagship Fitness proposal appears to be similar to the Champlin Park/
<br />Lifetime Fitness model (it's staffs understanding Champlin provided free land and parking).
<br />If the Council wanted to consider this alternative, staff would suggest the following process.
<br />(A) tell Flagship Fitness we are interested in working with them, and we are interested in their project;
<br />however, we need time to discuss the "big -picture" before we are willing to consider this specific Flagship
<br />Fitness proposal.
<br />(B) staff investigate what other cities have done, create a report/ MEMO/ comparison chart.
<br />(C) staff develop a list of potential service providers/ models--i.e. Flagship Fitness, YMCA, Lifetime Fitness,
<br />City -owned, etc.
<br />(D) staff complete a community engagement exercise: survey, open house, etc. to better understand
<br />community expectations. (E) staff work with Council to develop a RFP to send to all potential providers/
<br />developers (including Flagship Fitness). The RFP could outline the City's preferred site locations in The
<br />COR, preferred site design aspects, required minimum services, city's willingness to participate, etc.
<br />The benefit of this approach is better understanding what other cities have done, and what options exist. Also,
<br />the City would provide other Community Center providers an opportunity to respond to a City RFP. The
<br />drawback to this process is it will take time (highly variable depending on scope of investigation, 3-18
<br />months), and will require use of city resources (again, highly variable depending on scope of investigation,
<br />$5,000-$25,000). Additionally, Flagship is here today, they appear to be real prospect, and this project
<br />appears to be reasonable/attractive on the surface.
<br />Alternative 3: Hybrid alternative/something in the middle
<br />Staff is open to combining these to alternatives as the Council sees fit.
<br />
|