The Frequently Asked Questions document related to Merriam’s Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan has been revised with updated information and can be found HERE>
On Tues., Dec. 13, more than 75 people attended the Facilities Master Plan Public Meeting at the Irene B. French Community Center. The meeting was intended to provide information about the plan, and receive input from the public about how to proceed if the city decides to build a new facility.
The presentation included details about the planning process, how concepts were developed, key findings from multiples studies, and public input received throughout the process.
The consulting team of PROS, Confluence and SFS began in May 2016 by working with focus groups and facilitating public meetings to better understand the community’s expectations and how services are currently delivered. In addition, consultants spent time reviewing facility assessments to understand the current sites and deficiencies at facilities. This information was key to identify suitable city-owned land that could support the many activities the community desires for such a facility. Once various options were assessed, Vavra Park seemed to be the best fit due to its acreage, its proximity to a nearby residential complex with ties to the municipal plaza, and a federal land requirement in place related to recreation.
If the city ends up building a new facility, it will include many of the amenities residents identified in a statistically valid survey as items they most desire. The survey indicated that a community center should include an indoor walking / jogging track; indoor swimming pool and cardiovascular fitness.
Findings indicated that an aquatic center should include a zero depth entry pool and water slides.
Results of a public meeting in August produced similar results.
Once these top features were identified, the steering committee and consulting team went on to determine that a space of 65,000 square feet would be required to house those amenities.
The space would also include community meeting areas, administration / operations, and indoor aquatics. The massing diagrams helped transition to the early conceptual design phase to determine how the facility would fit in Vavra Park.
Since indoor aquatics are a top priority, three design options were developed and presented for input, illustrating different strategies for incorporating aquatic features. The first option — referred to as the “Full Meal Deal” — includes both indoor and outdoor aquatics; Option 2 only includes indoor aquatics; and Option 3 is just outdoor aquatics. The other community center features remain constant in all versions, with costs ranging from to $24.3 million to $29.9 million.
Staff recommends financing construction, by issuing a bond paid for through sales tax. The city can also provide approximately $5 million in reserves to fund the project. The “Full Meal Deal” would require a bond of approximately $25 million with an annual payment of approximately $2 million for 20 years. The city’s current ¼-cent sales tax generates $2 million. Due to Merriam’s pull factor (4.67 – the highest in the state of Kansas), residents would most-likely only pay $360,000 of the $2 million (less than 20 cents for every dollar of sales tax). Another way of looking at it is that each resident would contribute $32 annually, or the equivalent of one Happy Meal per month. It’s also worth noting that an increase or extension of the current ¼-cent sales tax would require a public vote.
When considering the total costs for a project of this scale understanding construction costs is equally as important as understanding the operational costs — these expenses are typically more than constructions costs over the life of the building. Consultants provided pro forma information not only for year one, but for the first six years of operation for each concept. When comparing new concepts to the existing facilities, they found that is now annually subsidizing $475,265, with a cost recovery of approximately 37 percent. Pro formas developed for all three options presented showed a cost reduction due to efficiency and more use. They would require less subsidy, with a cost recovery of 75 – 80 percent.
If the city built a new facility in Vavra Park, the consultants also came up with a proposal for what to do with the existing IBFCC site. Based on comments received from multiple public engagement activities, a concept was created showing how the space, in conjunction with the Marketplace, might be used. With a realignment of the existing Marketplace entry drive, the city could create a venue for large festivals and events. Merriam Drive traffic could be easily diverted, providing an accommodating flow between the Marketplace and an outdoor venue.
After Wednesday night’s presentation, attendees were given an opportunity to rate the three concepts and comment on the information provided. This feedback will be used to formulate recommendations and comments in the final report.
The steering committee will meet on Jan. 5 to review the final recommendation that will be presented to city council on Jan. 9 at 7 p.m., when council will acknowledge the final plan and recommendations. The visual and financial information provided on Jan. 9 is expected to spur a conversation about which option to pursue. These discussions will be part of the 2018 budget process scheduled to begin in March 2017.
Merriam residents are invited to weigh in on progress that has been made on the Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan. The open house will feature a summary of recommendations based on previous public input (meetings, surveys and studies) and information gathered throughout the process. Master plan recommendations address facility locations, amenities, funding, and performance expectations for potential future community center and aquatics facilities.
After the open house, a final Facilities Master Plan will be presented to city council for review on Jan. 9, 2017, setting the course for future discussions about how to proceed with one of the recommendations. Hope to see you there!
Funding, and choosing the appropriate financing mechanism, should be a major consideration when planning for any project. When the potential project is a municipal facility, it’s especially crucial to explore funding scenarios and do as much detailed legwork as possible in the early planning stages, as we’ve done throughout the Merriam Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan process.
Upon completion of the Facilities Master Plan, city council will have information related to three options:
- “Band-Aid” the current facility;
- Demolish a part of it and rebuild; or
- Build a new facility.
Question 14 of the statistically-valid survey asked: “It is likely Municipal Bonds would be required to finance development of a new or renovated community recreation center. Please indicate which option you would most likely support the city taking.” In response, six percent said they would support a property tax increase; 25 percent supported a local sales tax increase; 24 percent supported a combination of an increase in local property and sales tax; 21 percent did not support a tax increase; and 24 percent said they didn’t know.
As the master planning process comes to a close, we’re especially focused on understanding the potential funding strategies before us. While not experts in this area, our job as city staff is to clearly explain the funding strategies available for two of the three options (partial demolition with rebuild, or building new).
Potential funding strategies
Based on staff’s experience with these types of projects, issuing municipal bonds is the favorable option. There are two types of bonds – revenue bonds and general obligation bonds. Revenue bonds use the revenue and interest generated from a facility to repay the debt. This is not a preferred option as it carries a higher interest rate and could negatively impact the city’s bond rating (currently Aa2).
The preferred and more acceptable bonding option is the general obligation bond, which uses the full faith and credit of the city’s taxing power and requires a vote of the public. There are two taxes that can fund a general obligation bond – property and sales tax. Based on survey findings, 24 percent indicated a combination of increases, so staff sought a better understanding of the city’s capacity for raising property tax. Currently, Merriam residents pay 14 cents of every dollar of revenue generated in personal property tax. This is the lowest tax rate when compared to nearby cities Roeland Park (25 cents), Mission (27 cents), Prairie Village (34 cents), and Shawnee (36 cents). Although this comparison shows capacity to raise personal property tax, it is not the recommendation of Merriam staff.
Sales tax considerations
Instead, staff determined that a sales tax increase would be the best option. The unique quality of sales tax is that anyone spending money in Merriam contributes to this revenue source. Therefore, the city would greatly benefit from its strong “pull factor” — a term that refers to the number non-residents a community “pulls” in for shopping purposes. This value is one way to assess the relative strength of a local retail economy.
A community’s pull factor also determines how well it holds onto existing business and attracts new business, as opposed to losing businesses to other places. A pull factor above 1.00 indicates that a community attracts more business than it loses. Currently, Merriam’s pull factor is 4.67, the highest in the state of Kansas. How this relates to Merriam residents is that for every $1 of sales tax generated, a Merriam resident has contributed approximately 18 cents.
Potential impact on residents
A partial demolition or building a new community center is going to be expensive. While an estimated cost is unknown, preliminary numbers indicate the “build new” option to be approximately $25 million. How would this amount impact Merriam residents? First, staff estimates the bond payment on $25 million to equal a debt service payment of $2 million annually for 20 years. Currently, a ¼ cent sales tax would generate $2 million, of which staff estimates (after calculating the pull factor) only $360,000 would be paid by Merriam residents. Since Merriam’s population is approximately 11,300 residents, this option is estimated to cost residents $32 per year — or one McDonald’s Happy Meal per month.
One option to explore for sales tax would be to renew the ¼-cent sales tax when it’s scheduled to expire. The renewed tax could include recreation improvements. According to state statute, staff believes that two votes would be required if the “build new” option is pursued. There would need to be a vote regarding financing through sales tax, as well as a vote to support building new recreational facilities.
As decisions are made about which option is most suitable, bond council will help clearly define the process and ballot language, as well as more accurately provide financing details.
More detailed costs and information about the third option (to build new), will be presented at a public meeting on December 13, at 7 p.m. at the Irene B. French Community Center. The final Facility Master Plan will be presented to city Council on January 9, 2017 at 7 pm. Council’s acknowledgement of the completed plan will lead to a discussion regarding which of the three options the city should pursue.
On the sales tax I would take out the word Merriam and just say one option to explore is… Then the transition to voting on the new building seems odd. Maybe something like.. According to state statute staff believes two votes are going to be required if the build new option is pursued. There would need to be a vote regarding financing through sales tax as well as a vote to support building new recreational facilities.
The City of Merriam is developing a Parks & Rec Facilities Master Plan and residents are invited to provide input and comments on a draft of the plan at the Irene B. French Community Center on Dec. 13 at 7 p.m. The presentation will feature a summary of recommendations based on previous public input (meetings, surveys and studies) and information gathered throughout the process by consultants.
Master plan recommendations will address facility locations, amenities, funding and performance expectations for potential future community center and aquatics facilities. Final recommendations presented to city council for review will include public input and serve as a guide for the future of Merriam’s recreation facilities.
WHAT: A public meeting about Merriam’s Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan
WHEN: Dec. 13, 2016 at 7 p.m.
WHERE: Irene B. French Community Center, 5701 Merriam Dr.
An integral component of any facility is the cost to operate. The current facilities have a known cost since operation of these facilities have significant history. The annual operating budget for current facilities is $913,290. This budget does not include capital improvements or emergency fund repairs. Budgeted revenues for 2016 are $192,440. This represents a cost recovery of approximately 21 percent. Another way to look at these figures is that in order to operate these facilities, $720,850 of general fund support of public funds is necessary.
Preliminary high level accounting has been provided for the proposed new facility concept. The initial revenue is anticipated to reach $1,167,570 with expenses estimated at $1,532,460. As with the current facility comparison, these figures do not include capital improvement or emergency fund repairs. The dramatic difference between old and new stems from purposeful design. Creating spaces with amenities City of Merriam residents have identified as needs / wants will drive demand. Based on this model, cost recovery is estimated at 76 percent. The general support of the facility would be reduced to $364,890 which is almost half the cost required to operate the current facilities.
Even though these are preliminary figures that do not include the capital investment necessary to build, these budgetary figures will be key components in future discussions. Operational costs are always greater than the initial capital investment. No matter which of the three options are chosen to meet the current and future needs of the residents of Merriam, understanding the impact the decision will have over the course of time will be a critical topic of discussion.