Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
8.2 Bldg Plan-Emerald Glen Park
S ~~ OF Dpi i9~ ~~ adz AGENDA STATEMENT `~~~~~ PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION ~'~~ ~ MEETING DATE: March 12 2012 SUBJECT: Building Plan for Emerald Glen Park Report by Paul McCreary, Parks and Community Services Director ATTACHMENTS: 1. Emerald Glen Park Master Plan Map and Phasing Plan as of September 2005. 2. Recreation and Aquatic Complex Feasibility Study and Related Staff Report from October 18, 2005. 3. Memorandum regarding funding alternatives from the June 28, 2007 Budget Hearing. 4. Staff Report on feasibility Competitive Pool at Dublin Swim Center from March 4, 2008 City Council Meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report and recommend to the City Council to prepare an update to the building program for Emerald Glen Park and phasing alternatives. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The adopted budget in the 2010-2015 Capital Improvement Program for Phase I of the Recreation and Aquatic Complex project is $22.0 million, which does not include funding for the Natatorium to enclose the leisure/instructional pool for year-round use. Although only a portion of the $22.0 million of Public Facility Impact Fees have been collected for the project, based on current development projections sufficient Public Facility Impact Fees will be collected over the next four years to continue funding the design and construction of the Phase I improvements. However, for the Phase II improvements the City only has a committed fund balance of $1.5 million of the $7.2 million needed to construct the Natatorium. The annual net operating cost for Phase I is estimated at $600,000 annually. DESCRIPTION: Emerald Glen Park Master Plan On June 16, 1998, the City Council adopted the Emerald Glen Park Master Plan that included four public facilities including a Recreation Center, Aquatic Center, Community Center and Senior Center. Over time modifications have been made to the Emerald Glen Park Master Plan. For example when there was the opportunity to construct a new Senior Center at the former site of the Dublin Library, the Senior Center was removed from the Emerald Glen Park Master Plan. COPIES TO: ITEM NO.: 8.2 G:~PARKS COMMISSION~,AGNDSTMT12012~3-12 Item 8.2 Building Plan for Emerald Glen Park.doc Attachment 1 is a map of the most recent update to the Emerald Glen Park Master Plan. Recreation and Aquatic Complex Proiect History In 2005 the City contracted with The Sports Management Group to conduct a Facilities Feasibility Study exploring additional amenities that would make it a dynamic and unique facility in the region. On October 18, 2005 the City Council received a presentation on options for a facility as envisioned in the Park and Recreation Master Plan, as well as enhanced versions of the Master Plan facility (Attachment 2). The City Council accepted the Study; however, delayed a decision on whether to build the facility as envisioned in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, or to enhance it with more unique amenities and features. The City Council directed Staff to explore funding alternatives to enhance the facility. At the June 28, 2007, Budget Hearing, the City Council considered a memorandum from the City Manager outlining funding alternatives for the Complex (Attachment 3). At the Budget Hearing, the City Council directed Staff to move forward with design of the facility as envisioned in the Master Plan, with the addition of a teen room /game room in the first phase, and construction of a natatorium over the leisure/instructional pool in a future phase to allow for year-round use. In Fiscal Year 2007-2008 the City Council adopted an objective to assess the potential for joint project/facility improvements at Dublin High School. The design of the Emerald Glen Complex was delayed so that Staff could conduct a feasibility study regarding relocation of the deep-water competitive pool planned for Emerald Glen to the existing Swim Center adjacent to Dublin High School. On March 4, 2008, Staff presented the feasibility analysis to the City Council (Attachment 4). The City Council directed Staff to keep the competitive pool as planned at Emerald Glen Park due to a lack of funding for the project by both the City and School District. On October 7, 2008 the City Council awarded a contract to Dahlin Group Architecture Planning to prepare design and construction documents for the facility as envisioned in the Master Plan. In 2009, work on the design was suspended due to the downturn in the economy. Amenities Planned for Phase I of the Recreation and Aquatic Complex Based on the direction provided by City Council on June 28, 2007, currently the first phase of the Recreation and Aquatic Complex is a 35,895 square foot building that includes the following amenities: • Lobby and Reception Area • Leisure and Instructional Pool for swim lessons and warm-water exercise classes with a separate waterslide and spray-ground area. • Competitive Pool, 25-meter by 25-yards in size, to accommodate competitive swimming, water polo, diving and synchronized swimming. • Gymnasium with two basketball courts and bleacher seating • Fitness Center with a small number of cardiovascular exercise machines such as treadmills, stair climbers, rowing machines, bicycles, etc. • Group Exercise Room for aerobic classes, spin classes, dance classes, yoga and Pilates. • Game Room /Teen Center with amenities such as games, multi-media studio and lounge space. • Special Events Room for birthday parties, classes and day camps. • Juice Bar with self-serve options and limited onsite food preparation. • Locker Rooms • Administrative Offices 2 of 3 Future Public Facilities Planned for Emerald Glen Park In addition to the first phase of the Recreation and Aquatic Complex there are two more buildings planned for the park. One facility is a 12,140 square foot Natatorium to enclose the leisure and instructional pool. The other facility is a 14,700 square foot Community Center that would include the following amenities: • Lobby and Reception Area • Community Hall to seat 150 for dining with Catering Kitchen • Multipurpose Room/Classroom • Preschool Classrooms to replace the temporary modular buildings • Administrative Offices Staff Recommendation to Update the Building Program and Phasing Plan When the Master Plans were developed for the buildings at Emerald Glen Park, the City was smaller in size and the economic outlook was favorable. At the time, it was estimated that the City would need to subsidize the operation of the first phase of the Recreation and Aquatic Complex by over $600,000 annually. Based on the current economic and budget forecasts for the next five years, adding this much additional operational cost at one time would not be fiscally prudent. Therefore, Staff recommends having Dahlin Group prepare an update to the building program for Emerald Glen Park and the phasing plan, combining all of the remaining facilities planned for the park into one building encompassing the spaces from the: • Recreation and Aquatic Complex • Natatorium • Community Center The combined building would be constructed in three, more balanced phases. Combining the buildings into one would reduce the number of public counters and staffing needed to operate separate facilities, thus minimizing the ongoing staffing and operational costs in the future. This would also be a more efficient and effective use of the Public Facility Impact Fees, by reducing the need to construct duplicate spaces such as the lobbies, reception and administrative spaces, thus allowing Staff to focus the project budget more on enhancing the other state-of--the-art features desired by the community. Additionally, constructing less building space in the first phase and including the amenities with the most potential to generate revenue would help to meaningfully reduce the initial annual operating subsidy, estimated at $600,000 for the first phase as planned. If the City Council concurs with the Parks and Community Services Commission's and Staff's recommendation, then Staff would work with Dahlin Group to prepare a concept for a new building program at Emerald Glen Park that combines all the buildings into one facility. Dahlin Group would also provide alternatives for a more balanced approach to phasing the improvements. The updated building program and phasing alternatives would be presented to the Parks and Community Services Commission in May for input, and then to the City Council for final consideration in June prior to moving forward with design of phase one. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Parks and Community Services Commission Receive the report and recommend to the City Council to prepare an update to the building program for Emerald Glen Park and phasing alternatives. 3 of 3 PHASE I~I corarl[rro aoa v ~ ~ 1 I~ I.+~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ .. ~~ q L ~ . /\ ~~ lEfrR00 ~~ \_ aROUf ~[hCNIC ~' 1 _ ,"i J SOCC [,000RTS~~j\ ~~. ~ `..~` ~+ ,~1 ~ SOCCER a ~,' ~~ ~ -PHASE III Q ,r ~ `' ~ ~. LAIR KIN i S , SOCCER ~ r ( ~ . ', •; r ~,~ <; ,\` ~ SfREEf ~ c N `~ / _ G 1. EMt~l~l.ia ~.~LEN ~L4RIC ~t°I~SF3 l' I T V n o n I I P I I N :=0~ 0 w 0 Q OL Q a Q r MASTER PLAhI oa~0 )ol SUllutl~ U E<Y, ~.,,. ATTACHMENT 1 GLEASON DRIVE ~~oFD~~ CITY CLERK ~~ Flle # ~I©©©-~ ~!I'-~~ sZ ~f ~ 15-3~ ti~if r w_ _. AGENDA STATEMENT' CITY CGUNCIL MEETING DATE: Glctaber 18, ZQ05 SUBJECT: Emerald Glen Recreation and Aquatic; Center Facility Study Report by Paul McCreary, Parks and Cvmmunity Services Manager ATTACIIMP.NTS: 1. Emerald Glen Recreation & Aquatic Center Facility Study 2. Qvervicw of Space Components in the Preferred Option 3. Summary ofBuilding Alternatives RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive report. 2. Provide comments regarding various alternatives. 3. Schedule a City Council workshop for the purpose of discussing and evaluating funding options. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The cost of the Recreation & Aquatics Complex ranges Crom the Master Plan cost of $16.4 million to $39.1 million for the Preferred Option. There is sufficient funding in the Public Facility Impact Fee program for the Master Plan facility. Additional Funding (~7.8 million to $22.0 million) would need to be scoured for any of the other alternatives. DESCRIPTION: The 2004-2009 Capital lmprovemcnt Program includes funding for the design and construction of a Recreation and Aquatic Complex in Emerald Glen Park. The Gity retained the services of The Sports Management Group to conduct a feasibility study, financial analysis and conceptual space plan for the new Recreation and Aquatic Complex. The analysis of the construction costs and probable operational expenditures and revenues has been completed, and is included in the Emerald Glen Recreation and Aquatic Center racility Study (See Attachment I). BACKGROUND: The City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, which was updated in 2004, envisions the Recreation and Aquatic Complex as a multi-use facility that will provide structured programs and drop-in recreation opportunities for the community. in the Master Plan, the Recreation Center includes an COPY TO: Parks su,d Community Services Commission and The Sports Management Group Page 1 of 8 Attachment 2 To view the attachments to this c:~c:o+.~xc~~~ wb~da s~t~n~e-~~s~oos~~o-~ s ra~~i~~y sway z~~a cx~tt.av<; attachment, please view the 3-12- 2012 Agenda Packet posted on our website at: www.dublin.ca.gov/index.aspx?nid=84 Aerobics/Dance Room, Cardiovascular/Fitness Center, Gymnasium, Teen Center, Tot Activity Room, Locker Roams, Office Area, and Activity Lobby. The Master Plan envisions the pool as serving the needs of youth and adults who participate in age group swimming, synchronised swimming, water aerobics, other fitness programs, and a full range of instructional classes. According to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the Aquatic Center could include a 25-meter by 25-yard pool, and a tot wading pool- 1n the Spring of 2004, the Council adapted a new Strategic Plan that highlighted the need to develop dynamic community facilities that will provide unique recreational and cultural experiences in the region. One of the potential community facilities the Strategic Plan identifies is a state-af-the-art recreationlaquatic complex. in order to develop a vision of what a state-of-the-art complex in Dublin should include, funding was approved to explore trends, local market opportunities and determine the community's preferred components for a new recreationlaquatic complex. Funding was also included to conduct a financial analysis to determine the estimated construction and operational casts of a state-of- the-art recreationlaquatic complex. As mentioned, the City retained The Sports Management Group to conduct the study. On April 12, 2005 the City Council held a joint study session with the Parks and Community Services Commission to review options for future community recreation facilities. The Council and Commission reviewed the preferred space components for the future Community Censers at Shannon and Emerald Glen Parks. The Council and Commission also reviewed components for the Emerald Glen Recreation and Aquatic Gamplex. At the meeting the Council directed Staff to begin designing a new 19,7G0 square-foot Community Center at Shannon Park. They also selected a preferred option over the Master Plan for the Recreation and Aquatic Complex and directed Staff to report back on the estimated construction and operational costs of the preferred option for the Recreation and Aquatic Complex. Uverview of Preferred Option The preferred Recreation and Aquatic Complex includes 62,815 square feet of building space and four pools totaling 25,800 in water surface arcs. One of the pools is planned in an indoor natatorium included in the above building square footage. Following arc the activity spaces included in the preferred option: • Gyn,nasiurn with one full-length court and two shorter courts. • fitness Center with cardiovascular and weight training machines. Babysitting and Tat Activity Roorn for pare~~ts to drop off their children wlule utilizing the facility. Designed especially for toddler classes and birthday parties. • Group Exercise Room with wood Ioors, mirrors, and sound system for aerobics, spituung, yoga, tai chi, martial arts, etc. • Dance Studio with wood floors, ballet bars, mirrors and sound system • Game Room for atl ages with three to four attractions for use on a drop-in basis • lndoor tS-lane pool far year round lessons, aerobics, warm water therapy & arthritis classes, events and rentals. • Outdoor Leisure Pool with large play structures and slide mountain. Has "zero-depth" beach entry, and a small lap swimming and lesson area. • Outdoor Lazy River, 1/8-mile long, 12- fcct wide. Can be used for water walking and resistance training. • Outdoor Competitive Pool, 25-yardsx25- meters. Deep enough for swimming, diving, polo & synchroni-r..ed swimming. • Casual Activities Lounge off of the lobby. 7"his area provides seating for the deli/juice bar and those- waiting for someone participating in a class. • Special Events Rvom for birthday parry program and private rentals. Page 2 of 8 Jn addition to the spaces outlined on the prior page, there are several other building support spaces that are essential such as locker rooms, restrooms, storage, administrative offices, reception area, etc. The estimate of the total project cost to design and construct the facility {including all costs and contingencies) exceeds $39,000,000. The annual operating subsidy from the City's General Fund (all expenses including full-time personnel costs less revenues),.is estimated at over $600,000. Anal sis o(Probable Q erational Costs As directed the Consultant prepared a thorough analysis of the probable operating casts, revenues and annual operating subsidy for the preferred option. In addition the Consultant was asked to analyse the probable costs of the facility as it is planned in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The operational costs were based on assumptions about the facility's hours pf operation, staff scheduling and mix of programs and activities. These assumptions were developed with input from Staff, as well as local and regional rates for utilities, services and other expenses. The Consultant estimates the total probable operating costs to range from $2.8 to $3.2 million per year in 2005 dollars. Typically the casts incurred in the first few years are at the low end of the range because the new facilities have yet to reach capacity and are less expensive to maintain. The must significant expenses are outlined below. Personnel As with all facilities of this type, personnel costs are the largest expense item. However appropriate staffing levels arc critical to providing safe, high-quality facilities that increase user satisfaction and retention. The center would be open l00 to 124 hours per week. Program planning and supervision, as well as repairs and maintenance would require eight full-time recreation staff, two full-time clerical staff, two contract maintenance workers and over 15(1 part-time employees. The Sports Management Crroup estimates the total cost far staff, including benefits, training, travel and uniforms will range between $l .67 million to $1.95 million annually. Facility Muintenar~ce To attract and sustain participation by all user groups it is essential ihat the facility is maintained at a high level. Recreation and Aquatic facilities, because of their extended hours of operation and the corrosive enrrirorunent of the pools, are high maintenance buildings. An aggressive maintenance program would be required to keep the facility in goad, safe, working order. It is estimated that such a program and related contract staff would cost over ~30U,000 per year. !n addition to funding of annual maintenance, it is recommended the budget include an annual set-aside for a Building Reserve Fund. This fund would pay for major facility repairs and replacement of the building and equipment as it depreciates. It is estimated chat the annual set aside would be 1°fo of the construction cost of the building each year. A $220,000 annual allocation has been included in the probable operating costs. 1~farketing The probable operating costs include an allowance of $45,000 for facility marketing in addition to a full- time marketing coordinator. This type of facility requires a commitment to creating, funding and executing an ongoing marketing program. While marketing would increase the operating costs, it is necessary to maximize revenue potential. Pafie 3 of 8 Analysis of Probable Operational Revenues F3ased on the demographics of the service area, die probable market penetration Ior pass sales, the expected volume of daily admissions, and the analysis of other revenue sources, the Consultant estimates the annual 'revenue potential for the facility could be from $2.b to $2.9 million. The average of the range is helievcd to be achievable after two to three years of operation and aggressive marketing. A large portion of the revenues would carne from daily admissions and pass sales. A customer paying a daily admission or purchasing a pass .would have full-use of the facility including the fitness center, gymnasium, game room, swimming pools and locker rooms. The Consultant worked with Staff` to develop a set of fee assumptions that consider the income of the population and a comparative analysis of od~er facilities in the local market. Whi1c there arc no. local municipal facilities as full-featured as those of the proposed Dublin center, the fees of these other facilities still provide an indication of the market for recreation and aquatic. facilities, as do the fees of larger commercial facilities. The probable revenues are based an the fallowing admission fees: Cost of Annual Res/dents Daily Cost Annual Cost Pass per Month Child (0-2) Free n/a n!a Child (3-4) $3.00 $100.00 $8.33 Youth (5-17) $4.00 $240.00 $20.Op Adult (18-54) $6.00 $450.00 $37.50 Senior (55+) $4.00 $290A0 $24.17 Family n/a $750.00 $62.50 Cost of Annual Non-1;;'esidents Daily Cost Annual Cost Pass uer Month Child {0-2) Free n/a n/a Child (3-4) $4A0 $125.00 $10.42 Youth (5-17) $5.00 $300.00 $25.00 Adult {18-54)' $7.00 $565.00 $47.08 Senior (55+) $5.00 $365.00 $30.42 Family n!a $940.00 $78.33 Li order to determine the probable revenue from daily admissions and pass sales The Sports Management Group conducted a market and demographic study. From this they developed market penetration rates based an the age and distance of potential customers from the site. Depending on a potential customer's age and distance from the facility, market penetration is estimated between .5% and l 3%_ In addition to daily admissions and pass sales the Consultant identified a mix of programs, classes, drop-in activities, special events and rentals in the probable revenues. In order to project potential revenues generated by these activities, the Consultant created possible activity schedules for each program space to identify a feasible number of classes and activities, as well as an es#imated number of participants. The Sports Management Group estimates these activities will generate about 25-percent of the probable revenues. Cost Recovery Potential Based on the preceding expense and revenue analysis the Consultant believes that achieving a 70% cast recovery during the first two years of operation is an achievable objective. It is estimated that eventually the facility could recover approximately SO% of the annual operating costs. This would result in an a~mual subsidy from the City's General Fund of $609,000 (in 2005 dollars). As a comparison the annual Page 4 of 8 operating subsidy for the existing Swim Center for Fiscal Ycar 2flU5-2UUG is $21 p,371. The subsidy for entire Parks and Community Services budget is $1.9 million. Construction Funding Shortfall The City's Public Facilities Fee Program was established to construct the municipal facilities necessary to serve new development. The Fec Program's Community/Recreation Facilities component was established to provide a means to construct a new Recreation Center, Aquatic Center, Community Center, and a portion of the new Senior Center. These funds are raised by charging fees to developers of new residential and non-residential development in the City. The fees are adjusted on an annual basis depending on a cost index provided by the Engineering News Record. Based on the current fees, it is estimated that once the City reaches a bttild-out population of 54,900 the program will have generated the i"ollowing revenue for the remaining community/recreation facility projects: Recreation Center (24,OOOsfl $12.024,000 Community Center (24,OOOsf) $12,024;000 A vatic Center 414 670 Total Estimated Funding (gin 2005 dollars} $28,462,670 The estimated costs to construct the remaining facilities, including the Preferred Option for the Recreation and Aquatic Complex are as follvws_ Shannon Community Center (7,5605f expansion) $3,306,720 Recreation & Aquatic Complex (62,815sfl $39,072,400 Emerald Glen Community Canter {16,440sfl $8,048,305 Total Estimated Construction Costs {in 2005 dollars) 550,427,425 Estimated Shortfall {Fundirsg less Construction Costs} -SZ1,964,755 As shown, a portion of the Community Center funds will be used to expand the Shannon L'ommunity Center from the original 12,200 square feet to 19,760 square feet, a 7,56U square foot increase. The increase would be paid for from the Public Facility Fec Program. The balance of the Community Center space needed at build-out will be constructed at Emerald Glen Park as a 1G,440 square foot community facility. !t is anticipated ample funds will be available from the Public Facility Fee Program to build the Community Center spaces as identified in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. it is estirnatcd it will cost $39.07 million to construct the preferred option for the Recreation and Aquatic Complex. Based on the available impact fees, Staff estimates there is a shortfall of $21.95 million to construct the preferred option. Alternatives to Reduce Construction Fundin Shortfall There are several strategies that the Council could implement to reduce the funding shortfall to construct a state-of--the-art Recreation and Aquatic C'amplex. This could be a combination of reducing expenditures (i.c. the size of the preferred option) and raising additional revenues. Staff has prepared three alternative builduig programs in addition to the Master Plan facility for the Council's consideration to reduce the cost of construction. The alternatives were prepared using the data collected during the needs a,SSessment portion of the study and input from the Parks and Community Services Commission. Staff asked the Page 5 of 8 Commission to rank the facility components in the order of the perceived imporlanee and benefit to the community. The following table summarizes the results of the Camrnission's rankings. Parks and Community Services Commission' s Ranking of ImportancelBenefit (#1 being most important) t. Gymnasium 7. Leisure Pool 2. Natatorium/Indoor Pool 8. Group Exercise Room 3. Furless Center 9. Game Room 4. Outdoor Competitive Pool 10. Casual Activities Lounge (tie) 5_ Babysitting/Tot Activity Room 10. Special Events Room (tie) 6_ Juice Bar and Deli 12. Lary River 13. Dance Studio In order to assist the Council wilh reviewing the alternatives, Staff has prepared Attachment 2, which includes a description of each facility component in the preferred building program. The descriptions include Staff's estimates for the construction cost, annual direct operating revenue and expenditures, and the pros and cons of each space component. The annual operational revenues and expenditures are direct casts that can be attributed to that space and do not include permanent full-time salaries and benefits. Attachment 3 provides a summary of the alternatives. Alternative I ^ Reduces building size from 62,815sfto 54,82Usf ^ Rcduccs the water surface area from 25,$OOsf to 18,SOOsf _ ^ Reduces total project cost from $39,072.400 to $33,491,450 ^ Reduces estimated funding shortfall from $21,964,755 to $1G,383,805 Far this alternative Staff took the approach of dawnsi~ing the facility components rather than deleting components. The Casual Activities L,aungc is reduced from 1,400sf to $OOsf. The Locker Rooms were reduced from 1,500sf to 1,250sf each. The number of Farnily Changing Rooms was reduced fron, four to three. Although the gyrruiasium was the top priority of the Conunission, Staff slightly reduced the size of the gym from I2,0(?Osf to 11,240sf This dots not reduce the size or number of courts, but instead reduces the amount of circulation space in the gym. This still leaves enough space for bleachers and at least six feet around the courts, and 12' between the two short courts. The one facility that was deleted from the building program is the Dance Studio. This facility component is very similar to the Group Exercise Room since both would have woad floors, mirrors and sound systems. 1'he programs that would have been scheduled in the Donee Studio could be held in the Group Exercise Room or in other community facilities. Reductions to the aquatic components were made to the Leisure Pool and Lary River. The Leisure Pool, which features water play structures and slides, would be reduced from S,OOOsf to 6,OQOsf. This would still be the largest Leisure Fool in the Tri-Valley (San Kaman's is 3,70Usf and Livennore's is S,OOOsI). The Lazy River would be reduced from ll8-mile to 1/16-mile in length. Additionally the width of the river would be reduced from 12-feet to 8-feet, which would fit two inner-tubes across instead of three. The last reduction was made to the number of concession stands serving the outdoor pool area from two to Page G of 8 one. With the reduced amount of pool space there would be less of a need for two concession stands because there would be less pool capacity. Alterr:alive Z ^ Reduces building size from G2,815sf to 49,530sf ^ Rcduees the water surface area from 25,$OOsf to 14,925sf ^ Reduces total project cost Crom $39,072.400 to $29,680,350 ^ Reduces estimated funding shortfall from $21,964,755 to $12,572,705 For this alternative Staff used a combination of downsizing and deletuig facility components. The Casual Activities Lounge is deleted. However the size of the Lobby is increased by 300sf to provide enough entry and waiting area space. The size of the Juice Bar/Deli is reduced from 600sf to 400sf. This would reduce the number and types of food and bevt~rage that could be sold in the concession to primarily pre- packaged items. The Locker Rooms are reduced from 1,SOOsf to 1,250sf each, as was done in Alternative 1. The number of Family Changing Rooms was reduced from four to three, as in Altemative 1. However in this alternative the area for a locker vestibule dedicated to just the Family Changing Rooms was deleted. Other lockers would be made available in other areas of the facility. 'fhe Gymnasium is reduced from 12,000 l0 11,240 and the dance studio is deleted as in Altemative 1. The Fitness Center is reduced from 3,SOOsf to 3,OOOsf. This would reduce the amount of equipment that could be placed in the Fifiess Center, which could lead to lines and waiting time during peak hours of use. The Game Room is deleted in this option as well as the Special Events Room. The size of the Leisure Pool is reduced from 8,000sf to 5,000sf and the Lazy River is deleted. The poolside Concession Stand is deleted, which leaves one concession space for the entire facility. Having the ability for the remaining concession to serve the lobby of the Recreation Center and the aquatic areas may constrain the design and layout of the facility. There is also a reduction in the number of staff offices because this option would require less permanent staff. Alternative 3 ^ Reduces building size from G2,81 Ssfto 39,450sf ^ Reduces the water surface area from 25,800sf to 14,250sf ^ Reduces total project cost from $39,072.400 to $24,859,550 • Reduces estimated fundinl; shortfall from $21,9G4,755 to $7,751,905 ' For this alternative Staff took the changes made in Alternative 2 and deleted mare components from Alternative 2. 'the mast significaut cut is the Natatorium building and the indoor Fitness Pool. However Staff increased the size of the Leisure Pool from S,UOOsf to the original 8,OOOsf. This would provide for enough shallow-water space for exercise and fitness classes, while still providing a Leisure Pool that would have enough entertainment value to attract families and children to the pool. Alternative 4 - Master Platt ^ Reduces building size from b2,815sf to 33,S15sf ^ Rcduccs the water surface area from 25,$OOsf to 12,92Ssf • Rcduees total project cost from $39,072.400 to X16,437,355 ^ Eliminates the estimated funding shortfall Page 7 of $ The final alternative is to proceed with. building the Recreation and Aquatic Complex as it is envisioned in the Parks and Recreative Master Plan, and as it has been planned in the 2[)t)4-2pU9 Capital Improvement Program. As indicated in Attachment 3, with the exception of the Master Plan option, the City would need to secure additional Funds Cor construction ranging from $7.8 million to approximatciy $22.U million. $L1MIVIARY: The City's Strategic Plan includes a strategy to develop dynamic community facilities that provide unique recreational and cultural experiences in the region. The preferred option for the Recreation and Aquatic Complex would be a truly unique municipal Facility in the East Bay. The attributes that make the preferred option estate-of--the-art facility include: ^ The Indoor Pool for ycaz-round aquatic activities and warm-water therapy and exercise prograsns. ^ The large f.eisure Pool and Lazy River that could be developed with a theme tv add entertainment value and maximise revenue potential. ^ A Fitness Center that is large enough to feature a variety of fitness equipment and accommodate customer demand during peak hours. This would serve the fitness needs of residents that are not apt to join a private health club. ^ Qnsite babysitting facilities and dedicated tot-activity space. This will enable those in their fatnily- forming years to utilize the Facility. The demographic data indicates that a majority of those living within 3-miles ofthe Facility are ui their family-forming years. ~ Amenities to attract users from nearby offee complexes and Hacienda Business Park such as appropriate locker room facilities and a full-service Juice Bar and Deli. ^ A sizable Casual Activities Lounge that would serve as social hub for the Community. A comfortable place for residents to meet for activities ar a walk in the park, enjoy a cup of coffee or wait for family members participating in activities. ^ A variety of opportunities for drop-in activities such as the Game Room and Gymnasium as well as unique community events. The Preferred Option would be an outstanding community asset; however with the vast increases in construction costs that have been realized in the Bay Area, building such a facility may be beyond the City's means. RECOMMENDATION: It is Stal'l's recommendation that the City Council receive the report, provide Staff with comments regarding the various alternatives, and schedule a City Council workshop for the purpose of discussing and evaluating funding options. Pabc 8 of 8 City Manager's Office MEMORANDUM DATE: June 15, 2007 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: /'F' ' Richazd C. Ambrose, City Manager Paul McCreary, Pazks and Community Services Manager SUBJECT: Emerald Glen Recreation and Aquatic Complex The 2006-2011 Capital Improvement Program includes funding for the design and construction of a 33,975 square foot (s.f.) Recreation and Aquatic Complex in Emerald Glen Pazk, as envisioned in the Pazks and Recreation Master Plan. In 2005 the Council identified a preferred facility development plan that expanded and added amenities to the facility outlined in the Master Plan. The construction costs for this state-of--the-art complex currently exceeds the project budget by $24.7 million. 'This report recaps the project history and the results of attempts by Staff to form apublic/private partnership for development and operations of the Complex. The second half of the report provides the Council with alternative building programs and phasing options for consideration. BACKGROUND In 1994 the City adopted the Pazks and Recreation Master Plan, which identified the need for a Recreation and Aquatic Center in Emerald Glen Park to accommodate future development planned for the community. The City has been collecting Public Facility Impact Fees to pay for the construction of the Recreation and Aquatic Complex as well as other community facilities. Based on the Impact Fee Program, $17.9 million will be available to construct the facility envisioned in the Master Plan with the following components. ^ Gymnasium Outdoor Leisure-Instructional Pool (6,600 s.f.) ^ Small Fitness Center (1,580 s.f.) Outdoor Deep-Water Competition Pool (6,160 • Group Exercise /Multi-Purpose Room s.f.) ^ Special Events /Birthday Party Room Juice Baz ^ Locker Rooms/Restrooms ^ Administrative Offices In 2004 the Council adopted a new ten-yeaz Strategic Plan that identified the need. to develop dynamic community facilities that provide unique recreational and cultural experiences in the region. One of the specific strategic goals identified by the Council is to develop astate-of--the-art recreation/aquatic complex. The City retained the services of The Sports Management Group to conduct a Facilities Feasibility Study to determine what astate-of--the-art complex should contain, and the estimated construction and operational costs. Co-~.~ 07 ATTACFIMENT 1 ~ , I ATTACHMENT 3 On April 12, 2005, the Council participated in a joint meeting with the Pazks and Community Services Commission to review the results of the Facilities Feasibility Study and determine the preferred development plan for the Recreation and Aquatic Complex. The Council selected an alternative that adds several new amenities to the Master Plan including: Recreation Amenities ^ Larger State-of--the-Art Fitness Center (3,650 s.f.) ^ Game Room ^ Babysitting/Tot Activity Room ^ Casual Activities Lounge ^ Larger Locker Rooms ^ Additional Office Space Aquatic Amenities ^ Indoor Fitness/'I'herapyPnol (3,675 s.f.) ^ Lazger Outdoor State-of-the-Art Leisure- Instructional Pool (8,000 s.f.) ^ Lazy River 1/8 of mile in length ^ Additional Concession Space The preferred alternative expands the facility from 33;975 s.f. to 62,815 s.f. and increases the number of pools from two to four. It also increases the project cost from $17.9 million to $42.6 million, resulting in a shortfall of $24.7 million. In November 2005, the Council participated in a Facility Financing Workshop to identify methods for funding the shortfall to build the preferred alternative, as well as the proposed Historic Pazk. The Council directed staff to develop a Request for Proposals to retain a consultant to conduct a voter opinion survey. The survey would determine the level of community support for either an increase in the ad valorem property tax or the establishment of a parcel tax to fund these facilities. The revenues would be used to fund either a General Obligation Bond or Certificates of Participation. On February 7, 2006, the Council received a report on the need to retain a Financial Advisor and Public Opinion Research Firm. In addition Staff reported that subsequent to the November 2005 workshop, the City was approached by several fitness companies that were interested in entering the mazket in the Dublin azea, and potentially partnering with the City on the development of a Recreation and Aquatic Complex. The Council directed Staff to not release the RFP, and instead develop a more detailed report outlining the City's options for entering into apublic/private partnership to develop the Recreation and Aquatic Complex. RESULTS OF PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSffiP DISCUSSIONS Staff met with two privately-owned fitness companies to determine the interest and feasibility of a partnership. The first firm indicated an initial interest in a partnership. Staff worked with the City Attorney's office to determine any legal requirements the City would need to include in an agreement. In the meantime the firm determined that they would not enter into the East Bay market. Staff met with a second national fitness firm; however they determined that the location of the facility on Central Pazkway did not meet the company's business model of only locating franchises on major arterials such as Tassajaza Road or Dublin Boulevard. Staff is not awaze of any other fitness companies that are currently exploring development in Dublin. Therefore, Staff concludes that apublic-private partnership is not feasible at this time. INCREASED COMPETITION Since the completion of the Facilities Feasibility Study there has been an increase in the number of private-sector recreation providers such as the American Swim Academy, Home Court Indoor Tennis Academy, Picture Perfect Birthday Parties and Super Franks Indoor Recreation Center. These businesses were not considered in the original study conducted in 2005 and could have an impact on the mazket share and revenues identified for the Council's preferred option. It is possible that the City's General Fund subsidy would exceed the $600,000 subsidy projected in the November 2005 Consultant's report. Staff would recommend that consultant services be secured to re-evaluate the City subsidy issue, if the Council wishes to pursue the preferred alternative. Page 2 This new competition has also increased the need to provide a more modern aquatic facility with some indoor water space for swimming lessons. Following the opening of the American Swim Academy, which is an indoor swim lesson program, registration for lessons at the Dublin Swim Center decreased, most particulazly for the preschool level lessons. Historically this has been a growing age category for lessons and the City receives outstanding customer satisfaction surveys for the classes. Therefore Staff believes that the warmer indoor environment provided at the academy is preferred by parents of young swimmers who get cold quickly in the water, and is the primary reason for the decline. FACILITY DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES Since apublic-private partnership is not feasible at this time, Staff has prepared some alternatives for the Council's consideration. Attachment 1 is a table outlining the components of each alternative, as well as the estimated project costs and funding shortfall. Following is a summary of the alternatives. Alternative 1 Construct the Master Plan (33, 975 sf building; 12, 750 sf of water space in two pools; $0 shortfall) Based on the pace of development, the City has collected enough fees to move forwazd with the design and construction of the Recreation and Aquatic Complex as envisioned in the Master Plan. As noted earlier in the report, this alternative includes all of the facility amenities envisioned in the Master Plan including: ^ Gymnasium ^ Small Fitness Center (1,580 sf) ^ Group Exercise /Multi-Purpose Room ^ Special Events /Birthday Party Room ^ Outdoor Leisure-Instructional Pool (6,600 sf) ^ Outdoor Deep-Water Competition Pool (6,160 sf) ^ Juice Bar ^ Locker Rooms/Restrooms ^ Administrative Offices Alternative 2 Master Plan (Phase I) with Natatorium Enclosure for Leisure Instruction Pool (Phase In (46,11 S sf building; 12, 7S0 sf in two pools; $6.3 million shortfall) Phase I: $0 shortfall Phase II: $6.3 million shortfall This alternative augments the Master Plan by enclosing the Leisure-Instructional pool in a second phase making it available for use yeaz-round. Phase I Phase II Master Plan Facility Build Natatorium to enclose Leisure-Instructional Pool Construction of the second phase would commence once additional funds were identified for the project. The Leisure-Instructional pool would be closed during construction; however, the deep-water Competitive Pool could remain in use. The Council could develop this Alternative in one phase by designating $6.3 million for this project from the Fiscal Yeaz 2006-2007 surplus estimated in the budget document. Page 3 Alternative 3 Enhanced Master Plan with Natatorium (Phase I) and Gymnasium and Competitive Pool (Phase II) (53, 735 sf building; 14,1 SO sf in two pools; $l4. S million shortfall) Phase I: $4.0 million shortfall Phase II: $10.5 million shortfall This alternative provides a facility that is more "state-of-the-art" than the Master Plan, but with less of a funding shortfall than the Preferred Option. This alternative increases the size of the Leisure-Instructional pool from 6,600 to 8,000 square-feet, which is the size of the Leisure Pool in the Preferred Option and encloses it in a natatorium. It doubles the size of the Fitness Center from 1,580 to 3,160 square-feet and slightly increases the size of the locker rooms and juice baz. The second phase includes a Gymnasium and outdoor Competitive Pool. One of the benefits of this phasing plan is that there is more demand currently for swim lesson and leisure space than competitive swimming. It also provides for yeaz-round aquatic activities sooner, rather than later. Following is a summary of the phasing plan. Phase I ^ Larger Fitness Center (+1,580 s.f.) ^ Group Exercise /Multi-Purpose Room ^ Special Events /Birthday Party Room ^ Indoor Larger Leisure/Instructional Pool (+1,400 s.f.) ^ Larger Juice Bar (+100 s.f.) ^ Lazger Locker Rooms (+200 s.f.) ^ Administrative Office Phase R ^ Gymnasium ^ Outdoor Deep-Water Competitive Pool Design and construction of Phase I of this alternative could move forwazd by designating $3.9 million for this project from the surplus identified in the budget. An additional $10.6 million would be needed to construct the Gym and Competitive Pool in Phase II in the future. Alternative 4 Construct Preferred Option in Three Phases (62, 81 S sf building; 25,800 sf in four pools; $24.7 million shortfall) Phase I: $3.3 million shortfall Phase II: $12. D million shortfall Phase III: $9.4 million shortfall This is the same phasing plan for the Preferred Option that was presented to the Council in November 2005. Following is a summary of the phasing plan and differences from Alternative 3. Phase I ^ Outdoor Leisure/Instructional Pool ^ Outdoor Lazy River ^ Lazger Fitness Center (+500 s.f.) ^ Babysitting Room ^ Group Exercise Studio / Multi Purpose Room ^ Pool Concession Stands ^ Casual Activities Lounge ^ Larger Locker Rooms and additional Restrooms (+2,170 s.f.) ^ Additional Administrative offices (+610 s.f.) Phase II ^ Gymnasium with locker alcove (+100 s.f.} ^ Dance Studio ^ Larger Juice Bar (+100) ^ Game Room ^ Special Events Room Phase III ^ Natatorium with a small indoor six-lane fitness pool (3,675 s.f.). ^ Deep-Water Competition Pool Page 4 It is estimated that an additional $3.3 million is needed to begin design and construction of Phase I. This first phase could also be funded by projected year end surpluses identified in the 2007-2008 Preliminary Budget. Additional funding would need to be secured to begin construction of Phases II and III. FUNDING SOURCES A summary of the costs associated with each alternative is shown below: Total Impact Fees Total Construction Costs Total Funding Shortfall ALT. l ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4 Master Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Plan I 2 Total I 2 Total I 2 3 Total $17.9 $17.9 $0.0 $17.9 $17.9 $0.0 $17.9 $17.9 $0.0 $0.0 $17.9 $17.9 $17.9 $6.3 $24.2 $21.9 $10.5 $32.4 $21.2 $12.0 $9.4 $42.6 $0.0 $0.0 ($63) ($63) ($4.0) ($lOS) ($14S) ($3.3) ($12.0) ($9.4} ($24.7) As indicated earlier in this report, the City will have adequate Public Facility Fees to build Alternative 1. The additional funding sources required to build any other Alternatives varies depending on the Alternative selected. Based upon the information available at this time, Staff projects that the additional $24.7 million of funding needed to complete the preferred Recreation/Aquatic Complex is over-and-above what is recommended for funding in the proposed Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Update to the Five Year CIP. Shown below are other revenue sources Staff has identified that could be used to help offset the shortfall. Community Benefit Payments from Fallon Village ................................................ $3.0 million (These payments would be available gradually over an estimated 5-10 year build-out) Projected Public Facility In-fill Fees (2007-2011) .................................................. $8.8 million 2006-2007 & 2007-2008 Projected Surpluses Amount available as recommended by City Manager ................................. $6.5 million (Total amount of surplus projected to be $11, 085, 6I2) General Fund Affordable Housing Reserves ........................................................... $1.0 million TOTAL ADDITIONAL FUNDS AVAILABLE ...................................................$19.3 million If all the funding sources available above were utilized for development of the Preferred Alternative, the funding shortfall would be as follows: Funding Shortfall for Preferred Alternative $24.7 million Additional Available Funding, $19.3 million REMAINING SHORTFALL $6.4 million Page 5 -' It is important to note that not all of the additional sources of revenue would be available by 2011. Therefore if the Council wanted to move forward with building the Preferred Option (Alternative 4) in the next four years, the City would need to evaluate the use of long term financing (i.e. bonds or certificates of participation) and possibly a parcel tax (2/3 vote required) to pay the annual debt service. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO E5TIMATED OPERATING SUBSIDY Beyond the cost of construction, it is important to consider the estimated annual operating costs and potential revenue that could be generated by the facility. According to the Facilities Feasibility Study, the probable annual operating costs for the preferred development alternative could be as high as $3.2 million, with a revenue potential of $2.6 million, resulting in an annual General Fund subsidy of over $600,000. The consultant estimated that the City's Master Plan facility would cost as high as $2.6 million, with a revenue potential of $2.1 million, resulting in an annual subsidy of $500,000. As a point of reference the annual operating subsidy for the Dublin Senior Center is $357,000 and the subsidy for the Dublin Swim Center is $236,000. If the Council chooses either Alternative 3 or Alternative 4, Staff anticipates there would be a change in the estimated annual net operating cost, either due to changes in revenue potential and market share or changes in expenditures. If the Council wishes to determine the estimated change in the annual operating subsidy for either of these options, Staff would recommend retaining The Sports Management Group to conduct the analysis, since the firm already has a familiarity with the project from completing the Facilities Feasibility Study for the City in 2005. SUMMARY The cost of the Recreation & Aquatics Complex ranges from $17.9 million for the Master Plan Facility to $42.6 million for the Council's Preferred Option. There is sufficient funding in the Public Facility Impact Fee program for the Master Plan facility. Additional funding ranging from $6.3 million to $24.7 million would need to be identified for any of the other alternatives, which could be developed in phases. Based on the current number of park and facility development projects underway, if the Council selects Alternative 1 or 2, or Phase I of Alternative 3 or 4, design of the Recreation and Aquatic Complex could proceed in October 2008, with construction concluding in fal12012. With respect to the additional $19.3 million identified above, the Council may choose to use some or all of the funds on other projects/needs identified by the City Manager in the FY 2007-2008 Budget Message. Depending upon the City Council's priorities for other projects, Staff believes that design and construction of Alternative 2 could begin within the 2006-2011 CIP timeframe, and be constructed in one phase. Also, Staff believes that Alternative 3 could possibly be built without additional taxes if it is phased so that work on Phase II begins after 2011. If the Council wants to explore bond options to fund the Preferred Alternative, Staff recommends retaining the services of a Financial Advisory and Public Opinion Research Firm as soon as possible. In order to place an item on the February 2008 Presidential Primary ballot the item must be submitted to the County by November 9, 2007. For the June 2008 Primary Election, items aze due March 7, 2008. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Council identify the level of funding to provide for the Complex and select a preferred facility development plan, or provide Staff with alternate direction. If the Council favors Alternative 3, which is a departure from the options discussed at the Apri12005 facility workshop, Staff recomr~hends sending the alternative to the Parks and Community Services Commission for input. Page 6 If the Council favors building Alternative 4, it is recommended that Council explore voter opinions on facility funding, and direct Staff to distribute Requests for Proposals to obtain the services of a Financial Advisory and Public Opinion Research Firm. For Alternative 4, Staff would also recommend the Council retain the services of The Sports Management Group to update the operational expenditure and revenue analysis. . Page 7 J~~ ~~\~/lam CITY CLERK File # ^0®®-~0 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 4, 2008 SUB3ECT: Feasibility of Relocating Future Competitive Pool from Emerald Glen Park to the Dublin Swim Center Report by Paul McCreary, Parks and Community Services Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Conceptual Site Plan 2. Letter from School District Superintendent 3. Budget Change RECOMMENDATION: 1. Select the preferred location for the competitive pool; 2. If the Swim Center is the preferred location; a. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement, ~ not to exceed $38,500, with an architect and soils engineer to prepare a comprehensive analysis and cost estimate for consideration as part of the Fiscal Year ((~~,,,, 08-09 budget. ~(j • b. Approve Budget Change c. Direct Staff to schedule a meeting of the City of Dublin/Dublin Unified School District Liaison Committee to discuss a potential partnership for the project. d. Provide direction to Staff on financing options. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Staff estimates the cost to build a competitive pool and the related improvements at the Dublin Swim Center is $3.8 million. The incremental cost of building the competitive pool at the Dublin Swim Center is $1.4 million more that building the pool at Emerald Glen Park. In addition, the Aquatic Center component of the Public Facility Fee collected to date from Eastern Dublin cannot be used towards the expansion of the Dublin Swim Center under the current Public Facility Fee program requirements. COPY TO: Dublin Unified School District Superintendent Page 1 of 7 G:~COLJNCILWgenda Statements4?008~3-4 Competitive Pool (2).doc ITEM NO. ATTACHMENT 4 DESCRIPTION: The City Council established a medium priority objective to assess the potential for joint project/facility improvements at Dublin High School. At the direction of the City Council, Staff has conducted a preliminary feasibility study regazding relocation of the deep-water competitive pool planned for Emerald Glen Park to the existing Dublin Swim Center site. Following is a summary of the findings of the study. BACKGROUND In 1994, the City adopted the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, which identified the need for a Recreation Center and an Aquatic Center in Emerald Glen Pazk to accommodate future development planned for the community. In 2005, the City conducted a Facilities Feasibility Study to better define the facilities envisioned for Emerald Cilen Park to ensure they were reflective of current community needs. A variety of public input was solicited during the study through survey, focus groups and community meetings. As a result of that study., the Recreation Center and the Aquatic Center were combined into one complex, creating a unique recreational facility in the region. In June 2007, the Council made a final determination of the preferred amenities for the Emerald Glen Recreation and Aquatic Complex Pvlaster Plan, which are as follows: ^ Gymnasium (full size court; similar in size to Stager Community Gymnasium) ^ Fitness Center with Cardio and Weight Machines ^ Group Exercise /Dance: Studio ^ Multi-Purpose /Birthday Party Room ^ Game Lounge ^ Outdoor Leisure-Instructional Pool (6,675 s.f.) ^ Outdoor Deep-Water Competition Pool (6,150 s.f.) ^ Juice Bar ^ Locker Rooms/Restroo~ms ^ Administrative Offices The City has been collecting Public Facility Fees to pay for the construction of the Recreation and Aquatic Complex as well as other community facilities. Based on the Impact Fee Program, the following funds will eventually be available to con:;truct the Recreation and Aquatic Complex: Community Building Impact Fees $13.1 million Aquatic Center Impact Fee:> $4.8 million Total Estimated Public Facility Fees $17.9 million Description of Pools Planned for emerald Glen The plan for Emerald Glen includes two swimming pools, totaling 12,825 square-feet of water surface area By comparison, the existing Swim Center has just over 9,800 square-feet of water surface area. One of the two pools planned for Emerald Glen is a 6,675 squaze-foot outdoor leisure pool, which will have shallow-water space fora "zero-depth beach entry" and in-pool playground, as well as some lane space for swim lessons, aerobics and recreatiional swimming. The other pool planned for Emerald Glen is a 25-yazd by 25-meter outdoor deep-water competition pool. This pool will accommodate lap ;swimming, deep water aerobics, intermediate/advanced swim lessons, competitive swim teams, diving, vrater polo, and synchronized swimming. It is envisioned that this pool would be utilized by a variety of swim teams including a youth recreational team, youth competitive team, adult "masters" team, and the high school swim team. 2~~ FEASIBILITY OF RELOCATING COMPETITIVE POOL TO DUBLIN SWIM CENTER In order to evaluate the feasibility and estimated costs of relocating the competitive pool, Staff based the analysis on constructing the same size pool as envisioned for Emerald Glen, which is a 6,150 square-foot deep-water pool. A pool of this size would require the construction of a new 3,940 square-foot building at the Swim Center to accommodate the restrooms, showers, storage, administrative and mechanical spaces needed to support the additional pool. The study also estimated the- costs for all of the necessary decking, turf and irrigation improvements. Other amenities that were considered included water polo goals, an electronic timing system with touch pads and scoreboard, diving boards and an underwater speaker system for synchronized swimming. Based on that scope, following is a summary of the findings. Site Analysis Attachment 1 is a conceptual site plan for the Dublin Swim Center site. It appears there is ample space onsite to accommodate the new pool and related amenities within the existing fence line. The proposed location on the site was selected for the pool because it requires the least amount of disruption to existing facilities and provides the best access. The pool is situated with the lanes going from east to west, which is the preferred layout for competitive swimming. The pool location takes advantage of the existing turf hill, which could be terraced to allow for stadium-style seating for viewing swim meets. The pool would be bordered by 20 feet of deck on the ends of the lanes and 10 feet along the sides, which would accommodate swim meet operations and pedestrian traffic during a meet. An electronic scoreboazd would be located on the east end of the pool so that swimmers could see their place and finish time. Staff envisions that the competitive pool could be operated on a year-round basis based on demand. The conceptual layout would allow the competitive pool to be open when the existing recreation pool is closed to the public. As a risk management measure, a fence would be needed between the two pools to ensure that patrons would not wander into an unattended pool area. Otherwise, the pool covers would have to be removed from both pools every time the facility was open and lifeguards would need to be assigned to both pools, even if one of the pools was not being used for programs. The competitive pool would increase the capacity of the Dublin Swim Center by 308 swimmers. Per the Health and Safety Code, that would require adding six showers, five toilets, four lavatories, and a first aid room. Anew 3,940 square-foot building would be necessary for the new restrooms, mechanical, administrative and storage needs as follows: ^ Locker Rooms/Family Changing Room 860 sf ^ First Aid Room 80 sf ^ Lifeguard Locker Room 360 sf ^ Administrative Spaces 300 sf ^ Pool MechanicaUChemical Rooms 1,360 sf ^ Storage 250 sf ^ Circulation Space 730 sf The building would be located to the east of the existing mechanical building, creating a new breezeway entrance between the buildings. A small office with an admission booth would be located .on the southwest breezeway side of the building to allow pool fees to be collected when the main facility is closed. Space would be included for a new lifeguard room, which would be necessary to accommodate the lazger rotation of lifeguards needed for the additional pool space. Storage space would also be needed 3~ 1 for lane lines, lifeguard stands, pool covers, starting blocks, water polo goals, swim meet equipment and the timing system touch pads. Sails Analysis In general the area has highly expansive soils. The groundwater is at or near 13 feet below the surface, while the pool would need to be: 16 feet deep in ,order to accommodate the three-meter diving boazd. Based on initial discussions with the School District's soils engineer, the groundwater would impact the structural design of the pool and building. The soils conditions could further require specific construction sequencing which may impact the timing and cost of the project. Based on comments from the soils engineer, the impacts could be mitigated as part of the construction requirements. It is unknown to what extent or cost until further site-specific evaluation is completed. Utilities Analysis Current utilities appeaz adequate with the exception of the sewer system. Most likely some upgrade work would need to occur and additional sewer permits would most likely be required. Some underground utilities, such as drainage, may bye affected and would need to be relocated at the time of construction. This should be a minor impact. There is ample electrical service for the project. When the Swim Center mechanical building was renovated in 2000, a new larger electrical service panel was installed to provide for future expansion at the facility if necessary. In a recent discussion with the Architect from that project, he confirmed that there is enough electrical service for the new competitive pool and related building. Parking Analysis Currently, the pool capacity at the Dublin Swim Center is 480. Adding the competitive pool would increase capacity to 788. The City has shared use of the parking lot adjacent to the Swim Center, which currently has 103 spaces. However during school hours, the City only has use of the 14 parking spaces directly adjacent to the Swim Cernter. The current parking arrangements meet peak demand during evening programs, but limit the City's ability to expand weekday ,programs. With the existing pazking arrangements, extra coordination has also been necessary to accommodate parking during larger events such as swim team dual meets (tvvo teams). During dual meets, use of the overflow parking at the other side of the school has been sul~cient for the parking demand. However, it would be difficult to accommodate parking for larger regional meets at the Swim Center site than it would be at Emerald Glen. When construction of the High School is complete, the parking area adjacent to the Swim Center will increase in size from approximately 103 to 280 spaces. Total parking on the school site will increase by 380 spaces, from approximately 321 to 701 spaces. If the competitive pool were relocated to the Swim Center, limited parking during school hours would become a more significant problem. This could be mitigated if the District was able: to provide 50 dedicated parking spaces for pool users during school hours, as has been done with joint use projects in San Ramon at California High School and the new Dougherty Valley High School. The addition of the future Performing Arts Center at the High School may also make pazking problematiic during evening performances, similar to what is experienced currently during graduation ceremonies. Table 1 on the following page summarizes the current and proposed capacity for the Swim Center, compazed with the availability of parking at the High School. `~1 TART F 1 -SUMMARY (lF P~ClL CAPACITY VERSUS PARKING AVAILABILITY Parking Parking Spaces parkin g Total Parkin g Pool Capacity Spaces Adjacent to Adjacent to Swim Center Spaces Adjacent to Spaces Available at Swim Center During School Swim Center High School During School Needed After School Existing Conditions 480 14 14 103 321 With New Competition 788 14 5U 280* 788* Pool *Parking estimated at build-out of the High School CONSTRUCTION COST IMPLICATIONS Staff estimates the total project cost for design and construction of the competitive pool and new building at the Swim Center is $3.8 million. This includes a typical 10% contingency, plus 15% for additional mobilization and unknowns that may arise due to the preliminary nature of this report. The estimated cost to build the competitive pool and related improvements at Emerald Glen is $2.4 million. The primary reason for the additional $1.4 million at the Swim Center is the loss of economies of scale and the need for duplicated spaces at both facilities. This results in the need to construct more square footage of building space. It should be noted that the Aquatic Center component of the Public Facility Fee is assessed only to Eastern Dublin development. The City Attorney has reviewed the various documents related to establishment of the Public Facility Fee as well as the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Emerald Glen Park Master Plan. Based on this review, it is clear that the need for the Aquatic Center was determined to be Eastern Dublin development only. It is also clear that the Aquatic Center was to be located in Eastern Dublin. Consequently, the fees collected to date can not be used to fund the competitive pool at the Dublin Swim Center. OPERATIONAL COST IMPLICATIONS There are several other factors which may affect the revenue potential for competitive swimming and fitness programs for the City since the synergy of having the pool at the Emerald Glen Complex would be lost. This synergy includes the cross training opportunities that would be available at the Recreation Center and its close proximity to the Emerald Point Office Buildings and, Hacienda Business Park. Additionally the Dublin Swim Center site would limit the City's ability to expand daytime competitive swimming and fitness programs, as well as the ability to hold larger regional swim meets, due to parking constraints. Using the assumptions made in the 2005 Facilities Feasibility Study, Staff estimates the decrease in revenue would result in a net increase of $45,000 in annual operational costs. PROJECT TIMING AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS If the Council decided to move forward with relocating the competitive pool to the Swim Center, Staff would recommend that the competitive pool project be designed and constructed as separate improvement project than the Emerald Glen Recreation and Aquatic Complex. This is primarily due to the uncertainty of the funding for the proposed Swim Center competitive pool project if moved to the Swim Center. Additionally, the timing of Swim Center project would have to be closely coordinated with the construction phasing plan for the High School. Currently full funding is available to begin design of the Emerald Glen Project this October. If the two projects were undertaken at the same time, the uncertain nature of the funding and timing of the Swim Center competitive pool could potentially delay the opening of the Emerald Glen facility. 5 ~ '~ Managing an additional capital improvement project will also place additional demands on staff time. In the next few years it is anticipated the two employees of the Pazks and Facilities Development Division will already be managing several large projects including the Fallon Sports Park, Dublin Historic Pazk, Civic Center Remodel and Expansion, the Emerald Glen Recreation and Aquatic Complex, and several i neighborhood pazk projects. The:>e competing priorities could also have an impact on the timing of an additional Swim Center project. POTENTIAL PARTNERSHIP WITH DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Attachment 2 is a letter from the Dublin Unified School District Superintendent, indicating the District's interest in pursuing a joint use competition pool at the Dublin Swim Center, adjacent to Dublin High School. In January, Staff met width the School District Superintendent to outline the proposed project scope and discuss the potential for• a joint use project. Staff explained the potential cost implications and parking constraints with the proposed project, and asked the District to determine how it might help mitigate these issues. The School District Superintendent has requested that the item be placed on the agenda for the next School Board /City Council liaison meeting. FINANCING OPTIONS In order to construct the competitive pool at the Dublin Swim Center, a source of funding would need to be secured. The City Council could consider use of the Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Year End Surplus (See Fiscal Year 2006/2007 Audit Report Agenda Item). At the June 28, 2007 Budget Hearing, the City Council tentatively set aside $2.5 million of the projected surpluses for Fiscal Yeaz 2006-2007 and 2007- 2008 for the Emerald Glen Park Recreation and Aquatic Complex (to enclose the leisure pool). The City Council could appropriate these funds for the Dublin Swim Center competitive pool project. That would leave a shortfall of $1.3 million. Another alternative would be to initiate a new fee justification study to amend the Aquatic Component of the Public Facility Fee. At this time, Staff is uncertain how much money could be raised in fees under this altemative as the City can only change the fee prospectively so that future fee revenues can be used for a competitive pool located anywhere within the City. To do so would require amending various City planning documents such the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the Emerald Glen Park Master Plan and fee resolution. The original fee resolution for the impact fee program contemplated that the Council may revise the fee to incorporate findings of future studies and standards. Lastly the City could partner with the School District though Staff is uncertain how much funding the District could contribute to a partnership. RECOMMENDATION OF PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION On January 22, 2008, the Commi;;sion considered this item and unanimously recommended keeping the future competitive pool at Emerald Glen. The Commissioners had concerns about parking and logistical issues which would prevent the City from maximizing use of the facility if it were moved to the Dublin Swim Center. There were also cc~ncerns with the increased capital and operational costs the City would incur. The Commissioners expressed interest in providing joint use of the competitive pool at Emerald Glen when it is completed. Finally, several Commissioners expressed concern that the Emerald Glen facility has already been through several public planning processes with the community, Commission and Council,- and that many residents iri the east aze expecting a competitive pool at Emerald Glen Park. 6 ~~ StifMMARY Based on this initial .study conducted by Staff, it appears it would be feasible to physically construct a deep-water competitive pool at the Dublin Swim Center site. There appears to be ample space and access. available. However as noted above, there currently is no funding available for the project since the Aquatic Center Impact Fees currently can only be used in Eastern Dublin. If the Council supports the concept of potentially moving the competitive pool, Staff recommends that a pool architect and a soils engineer be retained as consultants to reconfirm Staff's findings that it is feasible to move the competitive pool and to provide a more thorough technical analysis of the proposed project and updated cost estimate for consideration at the budget hearing in June. It is estimated that these services would cost at least $35,000. In order to have the information in time for the budget hearing, Staff would need to retain the consultants as soon as possible. Therefore, the Council would need to authorize the City Manager to execute agreements for these consulting services for an amount not to exceed $38,500 (includes a 10% contingency). Additionally a budget change is needed (Attachment 3}. Currently design of the Emerald Glen Recreation and. Aquatic Complex is scheduled to begin in October 2008, with an estimated opening date of summer 2012. This means that Staff would need direction from the Council on the scope of the Emerald Glen project by July 2008 in order to distribute a Request for Proposals from interested architectural firms, and have an agreement in place by October. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council take the following action: 1. Select the preferred location for the competitive pool; 2. If the Swim Center is the preferred location; a. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement, not to exceed $38,500, with an architect and soils engineer to prepare a comprehensive analysis and cost estimate for consideration as part of the Fiscal Yeaz 08-09 budget. b. Approve Budget Change c. Direct Staff to schedule a meeting of the City of Dublin/Dublin Unified School District Liaison Committee to discuss a potential partnership for the project d. Provide direction to Staff on financing options. ~~~ _ ,~ it . DUBLIN SCHOOLS All Dublin Students Will Become Lifelong Learners SUPERINTENDENT Stephen Hanke, Ed.D. (925) 828-2551 BOARD OF TRUSTEES Denis King President (925) 829-9144 John Ledahl Vice President (925) 551-5965 David Haubert (925) 829-7786 Jennifer Henry (925) 351-9139 Patricia Kohnen (925) 828-3823 DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 1471 Larkdale Avenue, Dublin, CA 94568-1599 • 92528-2551 • FAX 925-829-6532 • www.dublin.k12.ca.us February 12, 2008 Mr. Paul McCreary Parks and Community Services Manager City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Mr. McCreary: Thank you for your letter in which you requested a district response regarding the issue of a joint use competition pool at Dublin High School. Per our conversations over the last several weeks, the district is interested in pursuing a joint use project and is in the process of determining the potential funding sources that could be used for the district's portion of this project. !n your letter you indicated that design of the facility would begin in October, 2008 and that you would be bringing the issue to the council far discussion this coming month, more than likely on February the 19tH Please take this letter as indication that the district is interested in pursuing this joint use facility and will continue to work with the city as the potential of this project moves forward. 1 will be contacting you and city manager Richard Ambrose regarding the issue, as well as placing it on the next district/city liaison committee meeting agenda, which will hopefully be scheduled for later this month. If you have any questions about this letter or the district's interest in this project please do not hesitate to contact me at 828-2551 ext. 8001. Sincerely, 1 f~ ~ i ~..". t~ . ! ~~ ~~ tip. ~.. ~. Stephen Hanke, Ed.D. Superintendent cc: DUSD Board of Trustees Richard Ambrose, Dublin City Manager ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF DUBLIN BUDGET CHANGE FORM New Appropriations (City Council Approval Required): Budget Transfers: CI3ANGE FORM # 3~3 X From Unappropriated Reserves From Budgeted Contingent Reserve (10800-799.000) (If Other than General Fund, Fnnd No - Within Same Department Activity From New Revenues Between Departments (City Council Approval Required) Other Pl~'C32F;dCF Rf3n(:FT-.tfTf'y'iTTiVT '". AMfli1N`I' il~ff'RIa'ASF RTT~C;F.T Af'C'niTNT '` AlYil'~'CJNT Name: Name: Account #: Account #: Name: Name: General Fund - Rec & Aquatic Center CIP Project -Contract Services $38 500.00 Account #: Account#:001-95602-740-000 Name: Name: Account #: Account #: Name: Name: Account #: Account #: Name: Name: Account #: Account #: ASD~in Mgr t' ~ ,,;>- Signature ~. ,., ~' rn -~ Date: ~; ~~. ,{ G'` f REASON FOR BUDGET CHANGE ENTRY: At the City Council Meeting on March 4, 2008, a report was presented regarding options for ~khe Recreation and Aquatics Center. One option would require the City to immediately secure contract consultant services to address elements that would be funded by the General Fund. I City Manager: Date: ~ C`~ As approved at the City Council Meeting on: Date: 3/4/2008 Mayor: Date: Signature Posted By: Signature H.~ ICC-FOR.4fSiFORb:-badger d~nnge.doc Date: ATTACHMEf~T 3