Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item 7.2 Emerald Glen Park
~~~~ Off' nU~~~ /ii ~ 111 L~~ - ~ ~~~ DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK File #215-30 March 6, 2012 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers ~~ Joni Pattillo, City Manager ° ~' Building Plan for Emerald Glen Park Prepared by Paul McCreary, Parks and Community Services Director EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Emerald Glen Park Master Plan envisions two public buildings: a Recreation and Aquatic Complex as well as a Community Center. The 2010-2015 Capital Improvement Program includes funding to restart the design process for the Recreation and Aquatic Complex, which was suspended in 2009 due to the downturn in the economy. Staff will provide an overview of the current building plan for Emerald Glen Park to determine if the City Council wishes to retook at the building and phasing plan prior to starting design on the Recreation and Aquatic Complex. FINANCIAL IMPACT: 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. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council receive the report and direct Staff to prepare an update to the building program for Emerald Glen Park and phasing alternatives for consideration by the Parks and Community Services Commission and City Council. ;~ Submitted B Reviewed By Director of Park~and Assistant City Manager Community Services Page 1 of 4 ITEM NO. 7.2 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. Attachment 1 is a map of the most recent update to the Emerald Glen Park Master Plan. Recreation and Aquatic Complex Project 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. Page 2 of 4 • 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 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. Page 3 of 4 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 Staff's recommendation, then Staff will work with Dahlin Group to prepare a concept for a new building program at Emerald Glen 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 Park and Community Services Commission in April for input, and then to the City Council for final consideration in May prior to moving forward with design of phase one. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: A copy of this Staff Report was sent to the Parks and Community Services Commission. 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. Page 4 of 4 -- ~- ~d14~a did-~bS~dl _. -~. - - -- ... _ ~ - ., ,. r . ~ \~- -~, Q r+.-,. ,.~ ~~ ~ .. L ~ m_ a Q ~ w e~ v '~ I ' .~ < '° L1 0 _ fly ~ a ~ ~ i~ ~ _ _ b _ gy ~ .~ ~~ i- V i`S yq - L ~ N j*`~ 44 ~ y $, .. ~ ._ __ ,< -`QUO .. _ "i "r'~.r.~. J - _TT i~ ~'~v .. .'R ...~ij,:_~.r'ierrw,s.:,;. _ - ~O \C ~1'+y~ v ~ _ ~`I, i ~ R $ ~ ~ ~ R S _ V ~ V J t ..z V ` ~y " _ ~s ~ z~__..~," ~ J "~ °° ~: r'te`" 1- ~. ~ ,~ ~_` ~ V `o~~~r CITY CLERK ~~ File # ~©0®'I~ 11~-_J $~ ~ -D ~ ~ ~~ cif r t~ _.~35~ - AGENDA TATEMEIVT CITY C~UIVC[~ METING DATE: October 18, 2005 S~~,IEC'I'; Emeral(i Glen Recreation and Aquatic Center Facility Stlydy Report by Paul McC'reczry., PaYks and C'n»sntunity Services manager ATTACITMFNTS: 1. Emerald Glen Recreation & Aquatic Center Facility Study 2. Qvervicw of Space Components in the Preferred Option 3. Summary of Building Alternatives RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive report. 2. Provide comments regarding various alternativfs. ~} ~ 3. ,Schedule a City Courrcil workshop far the purpose of ~L1" discussing and evaluating funding options. FINANCIAL STA`T'EMENT: The cost of the Recreation &. Aquatics Complex ranges Cram the Master Plarr cost of $16.4 million to $39.1 million far the Preferred Option. There is sufficient funding in the Public Facility Impact Fee program far the Master Plan facility. Additional Funding ($7.8 million to $22.0 million) would need io he secured far any of the other alternatives. I)ECRiPTION: The 2004-2009 Capital Improvement Program includes funding far the design and construction of a Recrcatian and Aquatic Complex in Emerald Glcn Park. The City retained the services of The Sports Management Croup to conduct a feasibility study, financial analysis and conceptual space plan far the new Recrcatian 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 Ccntcr facility Study (See Attachment 1}. BACKGROUND: The City's PaxlC~s 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 an(i (trop-in recreation apporhrnities for the community. In the Master Plan, the Recreation Center includes an CQPY TO: Parks pnd (;onununity Services C,amtnissian and The Sports Management Group Pale 1 of ~ STEM Nom. ~' t7:1('()1,1N(']i..lAgenda 9tute~ileu1s1204511f1-]K F~uciliiy Sitldy Znd []raft.du~: if Aerobics/Dance Roam, Cardiovascular/Fitness Center, Gymnasium, Teen Center, Tat Activity Raam, Lackey }tcyums, Office Area, and Activity Lc>hby. The Master flan envisions the pool as serving the needs of youth aa~d adults who participate in age group swimming, synchrani~ed swimming, water aerobics, other fitness programs, and a. full range of instructional classes. According to the Parks and Rccreatian Master Plan, the Aquatic Center could include a 25-meter by 2S-yard pool, and a tat wading paal_ in the Spring of 2004, the Council adapted a new Strategic Plata that highlighted the need to develop dynamic camanunity facilities that will provide unique rccrcatianal and cultural experiences in the region. One of the potential community facilities the Strategic Plan identifies is a state-af--the-art recreation/aquatic complex. in order to develop a vision of what a state-af-the-art complex in Dublin should include, funding was approved to explore trends, 1oc:al market ^pportunities and detcrtninc the community's preferred components far a new recreation/aquatic complex. Funding was also included to conduct a financial analysis to determine the estimated construction and ^perational casts of a state-af= the-art recreatianlaquatic complex. Els 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 campanents for the future Community Centers at Shatu~on and Emerald Crlen Parks. The C"auncil and Commission also reviewed campanents f`or the Emerald Glen Recreation and Aquatic Complex. At the meeting the Council directed Staff to begin designing a new 19,760 square-foot Community Center at Shannon Park. They also selected a preferred option aver the Master Plan far the Recreation and Aquatic C.amplex and directed Staff to report back an the estimated canstructian and operational costs ofthe preferred option for the Recrcatian and Aquatic: Complex. Overview of Preferred Ot~tian The preferred Recrcatian and Aquatic Complex includes 62,815 square Feet of building space and four pools totaling 25,80[1 in water surface area. One of the pools is planned in an indoor natatorium included in the above building square footage. Fallowing arc the activity spaces included in the preferred option: • Crymnasiurn with one full-length court and two charter courts. • Fitness Center with cardiovascular and weight training machines. + Sabysitting anti Tot Activity Room Far parents to drop off their children while utilizing the facility. Designed especially far toddler classes and birthday parties. Group Cxercise Room with wand Iloors, mirrors, and sound system far aerobics, spinning, yoga, tai chi, martial arts, etc. • Dance Studio with woad floors, ballet bars, rA~irrars and sound system • Game Roam for al] agcy with three to four attractia~ns for use an a drop-in basis • Indoor 6-lane pool for year round lessons, aerobics, warm water therapy & arthritis classes, events and rentals. • Outdaar Leisure Paal with large play structures and slide tmauntain. Has "zero-depth" beach entry, and a small lap swimming and lesson area. • Outdc7or Lazy River, 118-mile long, 12- fcct wide. Can be used far water walking and resistance training. • Outdaar Competitive Pool, 25-yardsx25- meters. Deep enough for swimming, diving, polo & synchranired swimming. • Casual Activities Lounge off of the lobby. "):'his area provides seating far the deli/juice bar and those waiting far someone participating in a class. • Special Events Roam far birthday party program and private rentals. Page 2 of $ Jn addition to the spaces ottlined on the prior page, there are several other building support spaces that are essential such as locker roams, restrooms, storage, administrative offices, reception area, etc. The estimate of the fatal project cast to design and construct the facility (including all casts and contingencies) exceeds $39,OQU,000_ The annual operating subsidy from the City's General Fund (all expenses including full-time personnel casts less revenues), is estimated at aver $60U,U00. Anal sis of Probable U erational Casts As directed the Consultant prepared a thorough analysis of the probable operating costs, revenues and annual operating subsidy far the preferred option- In addition the Consultant was asked to analyse the probable costs of the facility as it is planrtecl in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The operational casts were based an assurnptians about the facility's hours of operation, staff scheduling and mix of programs and activities. These assumptions were <ievelaped with input from staff, as well as local and regional rates Far utilities, services and other expenses. The Consultant estimates the total probable operating casts to range from $2.8 to $3.2 million per year in 2U05 dollars. Typically the casts incrtrred 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 mast significant expenses are outlined helaw. Personnel As with all facilities of this type, personnel casts are the largest expense item. Idowever appropriate staffing levels are critical to providing safe, high-quality facilities that increase user satisfaction and retention. The cenker would be open 100 to 120 hours per week. Program planning and supervision, as well as repairs and maintenartee would require eight full time recreation staff, two full-time clerical staff, two contract maintenance workers and over 15D part-time employees. The sports Management Crraup estimates the total cost far staff, including benefits, training, travel and uniforms will range between $l .fy7 million to $1.95 million annually. Facility 1Ylair~te~rar~ce Ta attract and sustain participation by all user groups it is essential that the facility is maintained at a high level- Recreation and Aquatic facilities, because of kheir extended hours of operation and the corrosive environment of the pools, are high maintenance buildings. Art 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,U00 per year. lfl addition to funding of annual ixtaintenance, it is recommended the budget include an annual set-aside far a Building Reserve Fund. This fund would pay far major facility repairs and replacement of the building and equipment as it depreciates. It is estimatedi that the annual set aside would be 1% of the eonstructian cask of the building each year. A $220,ODU annual allocation has been included in the prababla operating costs. Marketing The prabal~le ^peratirrg costs include an allowance ^f ~45,UU0 far facility marketing in addition t^ a full- tirne marketing coordinator. This type of facility requires a commitment to creating, funding and executing an ongoing marketing program. While marketing would increase the operating casts, ik is necessary to maximize revenue potential. Page 3 of 8 Analysis of Probable Oneratianal Revenues Based on the dcmograpliics of the service area, the probable market penetration for pass sales, the expected valutne of daily admissions, and the analysis of othc~- revenue sources, the Consultant estimates the annual revenue potential far the facility could be from S2.b to $2.9 million. The average of the range is believed to be achievable after two to tl~ree years of operation and aggressive marketing. A large portion of the revenues would come From daily admissions and pass sales. A customer paying a daily admission car purchasing a pass would have full-use of the facility including khe .fitness center, gymnasium, game room, swimming pools and Tacker rooms. Tl--e Consultant worked with Staff to de:vclop a set of fee assumptions that consider the income oi'the population and a comparative analysis of other facilities in the local market. Whi1c there arc no local mz~nicipal facilities as full-feakured as those of the proposed Dublin center, the fees of these other facilities sill] 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: Cast of Annual Residents Daily Gast Annual Cost ..Pass per Month Child (a-2) Free n/a n!a Criiid (3-4) $3_aa ~1ao.aa $8.33 Youth (5-17) $4.Oa $24a.aa $20.00 Adult (18-54} $6.Oa $45a.aa $37.50 Senior (55+) $4.Oa $29x.00 $24.17 Family n~a ~75a.ao $62.5a Cost pf Annual ]Yon-residents daily Cnst_.__ Annual Cast Pass per Month Child (0-2) Free n/a nla Child (3-4) $4.aa $'125.aa $1x_42 Youth (~-~~) $5.00 ~aao.ao $25.aa adult (18-~a) $7.aa X565,00 $47.as Senior (55+) $5.aa $365.aa $3x.42 Family n/a $94x.00 $78.33 hi order to determine the probable revenue from daily admissions and pass sales The Sports Management Group canclucted a market and demographic study. From this they developed market penetration rates haled on the age artd distance of potential customers from the site. Depending on a potential customer's age and distance from the facility, market penetration is estimated between .S% and 13%_ Ln 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. 1n order to project potential revenues generated by these activities, the Consultant created possible activity schedules for each pragratn space to identify a feasible number of classes and activities, as we11 as an estimated number of participants. The Spans Management Group estimates these activities wi11 generate about 25-percent of the probable revenues. Cost Recovery Potential Based ^n 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 80% ^f the annual operating casts. This would result in an annual subsidy from the City's General Fuaid of $609,000 (in 2005 dollars). As a comparison the annual Page 4 of 8 operating subsidy far the existing Swim Center for Fiscal Ycar 2005-200G is 10,;371. The subsidy for entire Parks and Community Services budget is $1.q zrtillic~n. Constructiion Funding ShortTall The City's Public Facilities Fee Program was established to construct the muuzici.pal facilities necessary to serve new develapment_ The Fee Program's Cammunity/Recreation Facilities component was established to provide ~- means to constnrct 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. Tl~e fees are adjusted on an annual basis depending an a cost index provided by the Engineering News Record. Based on the current fees, it is estimated that once the City reaches a build-out population of 59,900 the program will have generated the fallowing revenue far the remaining cammunitylrccrcation facility projects: Recreation Center (24,OOOsf) $12,024,OOQ Community Center (24,OOOsf) $12,024;Q00 A uakic Center 414 B70 Total Estimated Funding (in 2005 dollars) $28,462,670 The estimated costs to construct the remaining facilities, including the Preferred Option far the Recreation and Aquatic Complex are as follows: Shannon Cammunity Center (7,560sf expansion) $3,30fi,720 Recreation & Aquatic Complex (62,815sf) $39,072,400 Emerald Glen Cammunity Center (16,440sf) $8,048,305 Ta#al Estimated Construction Costs (in 2005 dollars) $50,427,425 Estimated Shortfall (Funding less Construction Costs) -$2'1,961,755 As Shawn, a portion of the Community Ccntcr funds will be used to expaz;d the Shannon Cammunity Center from the original 12,200 square feet to 19,760 square t`cct, a 7,56U square foot increase. The increase would be paid far from the Public Facility Fcc Program. The balance of the Community C'entcr space needed at build-out will be constructed at Emerald C1en Park as a 16,440 square foot community facility. It is anticipated ample funds wi11 be available from the Public Facility Fee Program to build the Cammunity Center spaces as identified i.n tlZe Parks and Recreation Master Plan. it is estimated it wi11 cast $39.07 million io construct the preferred aptian far the Recreation and Aquatic Complex. Based an the available impact fees, Staff estimates there is a shortt'all of $21.)6 million to construct the preferred option. Alternatives to Reduce Construction Fundin Shortfall There are several strategics that the Council could implement to reduce the funding shortfall to construct a state-of--the-art Recreation and Aquatic Complex. This could be a combination of reducing expenditures (i.e. the size of the preferred aptian) and raising additional revenues. Staff has prepared three alternative building pragraans in addition to the Master Plan facility for the Council's consideration to recluce the cast of construction. The alternatives were prepared using the data collected during the needs assessment 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 ardor of the perceived importance and bcne[it t0 the community. The fallowing table summarizes the results of the Commission's rankings. Parks and Community Services Cammissiors's Rankin® of Importancel8enaflt (#7 belrrg mast importar~tJ 1. Gymnasium 7. Leisure Paal 2. Natatorium/Indoor Pool $. Group Erxercise Room ~. Fitness Center t3. Game Raom 4. Outdoor Competitive Poal 10, Casual Activities Lounge (tie) 5. BebysittinglTot Activity Raam 10. Special Events Room (tie) 6. ,luice Bar and Deli 12. Lazy River 13. ^ance Studio 1`n order t0 assist the Council with reviewing the alternatives, Staff has prepared Attachment 2, which includes a description of each facility component in the preferred building program. 'T'he descriptions include Staffs estimates far the construction cost, annual direct operating revenue and expenditures, and tlae pros and cons 0f each space component. The annual operational revenues and expenditures are direct costs that can be attributed to that space and do not include permanent full-time salaries and benefits. Attaclunent 3 provides a summary of the alternatives. Alternative I ^ Reduces building size frarn 62,815sft0 54,82(lsf Reduces the water surface area from 25,8UOsf to 18,SO~sf ^ Reduces total project cost from $39,072.4gQ to $~3,491,45[l ^ Reduces estimated funding shortfall From $21,964,755 to $16,383,85 For this alteniative StaFF took the approach of dawnsiring the facility components rather than deleting components. The Casual Activities Lounge is reduced from 1,40Dsf to $D~sf. The Locker Rooms were reduced from 1,SOOsf to 1,250sf each. The number of )~amily Changing Rooms was reduced from four to three. Although the gynuiasium was the top priority 0f the Com~nissian, Staff slightly reduced the size of the gym from 12,UOUsf to 11,240sf. This does not reduce the sire or number 0fc0urts, but instead reduces the amount of circulation space in the gym. This soil 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 progt`am is the Dance Studio. This facility component is very similar to the Group Exercise Room since bath would have wood floors, mirrors and sound systems. `1'he programs that would have been scheduled in the Dance Studio could be held in the Group Exercise Room or in other community facilities. Reductions to the aquatic components wore made to the Leisure Pool and Lazy River. The Leisure Paol, which features water play structures and slides, would be reduced tram S,OUasf to 6,OOOsf. This would still be the largest Leisure }'001 in the 'rri-Valley (San Ramon's is 3,70Usf and Livennore's is 5,Qf7Qst). The Lazy River would be reduced from 118-mile to 1116-mile in length. Additionally the width of the river would be reduced from 12-feet to 8-feet, which would tit two inner-tubes across instead o[` three. The last reduction was made to the number of concession stands serving the outdoor p001 area from two to Page 6 of 8 one. With the reduced amount of pawl space there would be less of a need for two cQncessicyn stands because there would he less pool capacity. Alterrtatfve l ^ Reduces building size from G2,815sf to 49,530sf ^ Rcduces the water surface area from 25,800sf to 14,925sf ^ Reduces total project cost from $39,072.400 to $29,680,354 ^ Rcduces estimated funding shortfall from $21,964,755 to $12,572,705 Far this alternative Staff used a combination ai'dawnsizitig and deleting facility campaner~ts, The Casual Activities Lounge is deleted. However the size of the Lobby is increased by 30Dsf to provide enough entry and waiting area space. The size of the Juice F3ar/lleli is reduced from b00sf to 400sf. This would reduce the number and types of food and beverage that could be sold in the cancessia~~ to primarily pre- packaged items. The Locker Roams arc reduced from 1,500sf to 1,25Qsf each, as was done in Alternative 1. The number of Family Changing Roams was reduced from four to three, as in Altemative 1. 1lawever in this alternative the area for a locker vestibule dedicated to just the Family Changing Roams was deleted. ether lockers would be made available in other areas of the facility. 'fhe Gymnasiuaxa is reduced from 12,00(? to 11,240 and the dance stadia is deleted as in Alternative 1. The Fitness Center is reduced from 3,SOQsf'ta 3,OOOsf. This would reduce the arnaunt of equipment that could be placed in the Fitness Center, which could lead to lines and waiting time during peak hours of use. The Ctame Roam is deleted in this option as wc11 as the Special l;vents Raam. The size of the Leisure Pool is reduced from B,OQOsf to S,OpOsf and the Lazy River is deleted. .t"he paalside Concession Stand is deleted, which leaves one canccssian space far the entire facility. Having the ability for the remaining canccssian to serve the lobby of the Recreakivn Center and the aquatic ar~:as 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 pcrmatient staff. Alternutlve 3 ^ Reduces building size from 62,815sfto 39,450sf ^ Reduces the water surface area from 25,SOOsfta 14,250sf ^ Reduces total project cast from $39,072.400 to $24,$59,550 • Reduces estimated funding shartf'a11 from $21,9Ci4,7'S5 to $7,751,905 )Far khis alternative Staff took the changes made in Alternative 2 and deleted more components from Alternative 2. The mast significant cut is the Natatorium building and the indoor Fitness Pool. hlowever Staff increased the size of the Leisure Paal from S,OOOsf to the original S,O40sf_ This would provide far enough shallow-water space for exercise and fitness classes, while still providing a Leisure Paal that would have enough entertainment value to attract families anal children to the pool. Alternative 4 -llfuster Plan ^ Rcduces building site from 62,515sf to 33,51 Ssf ^ Rcduces the water surface area from 25,SOOsf to 12,925sf * Rcduces total project cast from $39,072.400 to X16,437,355 ^ Eliminates the estimated funding shortfall Pale 7 of ~ The final alternative is to proceed with, building the Recreation and Aquatic Complex as it is envisioned in the 1}arks anti Recreation Master Plan, and as it has been planned in the 2(?(14-2(1D9 Capital Improvement Program. As indicated in Attachment 3, with the exception of the Master Plan option, the City wQUld need to secure additional Funds for constriction ranging from $7_S million to approximately X22.0 million. SLFMMARY: The City's Strategic Plan includes a strategy to develop dynamic cornmuz~ity 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 Say. The attributes that make the preferred aptian estate-af--the-art facility include: ^ The Indoor Paal for year-round aquatic activities and warm-water therapy and exercise prograans. ^ The large f,eisure Paal and Lazy River that could be developed with a theme to add entertainment value anti maximise revenue potential. ^ A Fitness Center that is large enough to feature a variety of fitness equipment and accomrnodatc customer demand during peak hours. This would serve the fitness needs of residents that are not apt to join a private health club. ^ Onsitc 1~abysitting facilities and dedicated tot-activity space. This wi11 enable Chase in their family- forming years to utilize the facility. The demographic data indicates that a rnajonty of thane living within 3-miles ofthc facility are in their. family-forming years. ^ Amenities to attract users from nearby office complexes and Hacienda Business Park such as appropriate locker room facilities and a full-service juice Bar az~d Deti. ^ A sizable Casual Activities Lounge that would serve as racial hub for the Community. A comfartablc place i`ar residents to meet for activities or a walk in the park, enjoy a cup of coffee or wait far family members participating i~~ activities. ^ A variety of opportunities far drop-in activities such as the dame Raom and Gymnasium as we11 as unique cotnmunity events. The Preferred Option would he an outstanding community asset; however with the vast increases in constnGCiion casts that have been realized an the Bay Area, building such a facility may be beyond the City's means. RECOMMEIVDATIUl'V: it is Stal'f''s rccommcndation 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. ]?a~;c S of S l~ Emerald Glen Recreation FACILITY STUD Y Prepared for Tree C~t~y of Dublin. ~~ The ~port,~ Management [~mu~ 913 f'ark~r 5tre~t, SuiteAl3 L3erkeley, CA 94710 www.~port~ni~m6.c;om (510) 849-3090 Octaher 10, 2005 T H E ~~ ~G1;U~V~I~~~ G R ~ ~ P E~hERALO GLEN RECREATION ANQ AQUATIC CENTER ~ '1 of ;art INTROpUCTION ...,, Methodolfv NEFpS ASSESSMENT,...,.,... Uverview Master flan Fnrus Grnups Facility NQQds ICcy Objectives Cilicc~i Web Survey Conclusions ...................................................................~---~- .l ...................................... . ..................................3 NV A R N ET A N A tY S I S ........................................................................................~ C]vPrviPw The Service Area L]em+~raphics E{'aci]iGy caamparison SPACE COMPONENTS .................................................................................. t 5 f)VeI'VIeW Preferred Space Program Master Plan Revisions f)plnlon Ol' f'r4~eCG CgStS f I N A N C I A t ANALYSIS ................................................................................~] Financial Analysis SITE C O N C E P T .................................. fits f;nnCepi, Nlan ................... ......21~ A P P E N d l X ......................................................~-----.....-......,......,.,.,.,.,.,,,....,...A.1 Market Analysis: Private Health Clubs Market Analysis: Community Aquatic Centrs [Financial Analysis Assumptions FinanGi~l Analysis -Detail EMERALD GLEN RECREATION ANN AQUATIC CENTER J ~~ ~?~ ~-~Ii~g~~ Lid ~.b~ Nr ,~jj i-t ~i~, ~~w ~ i~~ ~~~~?' ~A9lE~ 1, Resident ar~d Non-Resident P{]I~ulation Near Emerald Glen ------------------------------1(] I1,1'refcrrcd Sparc Fra~ram witlZ Estimated Prp~t'ess Costs ................................~S Ill, Clperatinb Fixpenses .................. .....................................................................~3 fV. Fee Assumptions--- - - - - ---- - ..................................................................14 V. Market Pcnctration RaLLS ......................~--~-~....,......,,,,..,,,,.,.,.,.............................25 V[. Revenue Potential ' .............................................................................................~7 VI1.(;ost F~ecnvery ......................................................................................................28 Introduction EMERALd GLEN RECREATION ANIa AgllAT1C CENTER ..+i•ia~i~~~~~~ii~r•~a~~~~~7~~~~r~1~~~r•~T R~h•i~T h~4~iai a••~~aiaaaaia •aa •t••~a ~~~~• Introduction The City of Dublin is experiencing Ll~;mcndUUS gI'owth ir[ brltt[ I'tlsidenGlal and business deveiopment. Uue to thoughtful plannirrg and rnar[agod devclaptnent, the City of Dublin is viewed as a prclnicr community in the valley, New residents are attracted by the "quality of life" the City has ~ affcr. Througl[ LIIC development of outsGauding parks and public, facilities, the quality and character of t][c community continues to be shaped. As the population grows and rhangcs, the City continues to develop new public facllities that respond to the needs of its residents. The Parks and Recreation Master flan calks fnr the development of a new community center, recreation center, and aquatics center, all ~ be located in the recently developed (;rnet'ald Glen Park. In Septelr-bcr of 2049, the City of Iluhlin a}mmissiolied The Spnrts Managenlcnt Group, t~, cnnduct a study to refine and update the City's master plan far ttrese new facilities. During the study, the rammuniry center located in Shannon 'ark was permanently closed and srhed311ed for demulitian and reCOU9tructian. This created an appartunity for the City and the consultant team to also develop a fdci]iGy space plan fnr the "net' Shannon Camrnunity CcnLLr in Glle Cnntext nt' a citywide master plan. This report focuses on the proposed facilities for 6he recreation and ayuaGics center in H;merald Glen Park. The work of The Sports Management Group included developing alternative space programs for "break-auk" community, recreation, and aquatic centers, and providing City officials the necessary lnPorruatian Go determine a "prafcrl'ed.~ spar.,e pragram_ Alsn, The Sports Management Group worked with Ciry staff Ga develop an order aP magnitude Uf construction and to Cal project casCS, and to ide[IGiI'y probable operating expenses and revenue potential for the preferred space program. Tb Camplet~ the I~gaired tasks, a needs assessment and market analysis of the center's service area were conducted. 'Phe needs assessment consisted of a review of City docurncnts, as well as focus group and Citizen survey research. '1'he findings of this researolr, presented In Che "Needs Assessment" section of Chis report, guided the development of the preferred space program and otllcr altcrnatlves, T N E p01~ M~i1~~1~.~ G R 4 II P f 1 1 The market analysis included a review of the dcnlagraphics of the Service at'ea population and an invent~,ry of recreation and aquatic facilities in Ghe region. This information is presented in the "r~lat'keC Analysis" section of this report. Conelusians drawn Crgrn Ghe "Market Analysis,,' as well as Ghe preferred space program presented in Ghe "Space Camponcnts" section, were used to CsLirnaGe the potential revenues at~d probable operating expenses of Ghe ecrttc;r. Tirese estimates, includlrrg an estimate of the center's potential cast rr;cavery, are detailed In the "Financial Analysis" section of this repot't. METH~DOi.OGY 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 [~ t EMERALD GLEN RECREATION AND AQUATIC CENTER introduction r ri E G R D ll P The SporGS Management Group eornrnencerf its work ly analyaing documents Arid materials provided by the City of Dublin, including Ghe "Parks and Recreation Master [ ]an -- February 2009 Update" that detailed Ghe Cittiy's park and recm:aGian ggals, deeds, and standar~l5. The plan also presented preliminary rceornruer~datiens i'or ar7 Errrcrald Glen recreation facility. The "Needs Assessment" and "Market Analysis" tasks included; analysis of previqus studies, rnasltir plea documents and drawings; interviews with Gity [;quucil members; focus group research and wnrkshgps; meetings ~iGn City recreation staff; demographic analysis of residents of Che City of Dublin aryl the population residing within five miles of Emerald Glen f'arl<; the dcsigri, distribution, Ind analysis of a citiac;n survey; and an irtvenGgry of Che pr'ogrants, amenities, and fees of area providers of rerreaGlgn, tltnass, and aquatics activities. Working with staff, The SpgrGS Management Croup then developed operating assumptions for the center, including hours of operation, and the programs, classes, Arid activities that are likely to be affPred haled qn populationr characteristics,area trends, earl expressed int~eresGS. These facility and activity schedules scr'vcd as the 1•_iasis for developing full-time and part-time stafflrig requirernertts, operating expenses, revenue potential, and an estimate aC rye percentage of cast recovery for the operation of W7e proposed facility, Ta determine Ghe revenue potential far the pr'opased facilities, The Sports Management Group develgped pgGenGial fees for various types of uses of the facilities. These fee assumptions are det~niled In the "Financial Analysis" secGign of the; report. Market analysis data was Cheri used to develop estimates oc market penetration far the sale of annual and daily passes. Tlie revenue potential of classes, activities, special P,venGS, and rentals was alien estimated w determine the tgtal revenue pnt~entiat. The resutGS of GhJs study, and accompanying rccammendatians, are summari~eil in Ghe following reprart. ~77 Needs assessment i~ 1 i~ ii i~ 1 1 i~ 1 1 T H E ~~~ ~~ ~~~~V~U G R H U P EMERALD GLEN RECREaTII)N laNf7 Al)l1~TfC CENTER i,+ .............+..+.................,..i..r.....................+~.........,... Needs Assessment OVERVIEW 't'his assessment describes the recreational and aquatic needs and interests of the Dublin camrnu~iity, as expressed by Gi4y resldents and community leaders. It soI'vcs to augment the Cfity's "Parks and Recreation Master Plan," last eevisecl in February 2609, by identifying 6ic more specific demand of residents and nthPr a8er gI'oups, 'l`he assessment drew un the "Mastr Plan,,, particularly its standards Por f•~merald Glen Park, considered bout the l'ocu5 grnup research and a ritizan web SurvC,y conducted by'1'he Sports Managemcut Group, examined current p[~ogram demand far activities and classes, applied planning standards basal on simil~[r commtmities with similar dc[ilographlcS, and considered likely future trends in rccreatlon and partiCipatinn. 'EhesP sources provided the information upon which the space program rccommendatinns were based, and they will cutttittuc to guide the planning process Ltu'oli~h design and construction. MASTER ALAN Dublin's "Parks and Recreation ;ulaster Plan," developed by !]avid Gates ~ [lssociatcs and revised in 2609 by S~'E Landscape 11t'cl[itects, "PStablisl-ics the number and type UC faelhtiP,S wllletl will be required if file Glty OC t]ublln 15 t(] [ItCCt the rP,CI'L'at10n needs of future residents." IL provides a plan for Emerald Glen Park that includes an "it~dnnr racre~ation CC1l6eC' and "aquatics facility." 'I'he goal of the park as a whole is to serve as a "`social hub and landmark public destination," and to provide "facililacs that maximize the recreational dud leisure experience of all citl2~ens." The: preferred space program and activities presented in later sccctions of this report are rQSprrnsive ~ both objectives. .3 1 1 1 1 N 1 r 1 i~ 1 i~ 1 T H E EN~ERALN GlEN RECREdTIUN ANp AOiIATIC CENTER Neetls Assessment ~ Sports Management 6 R 0 U P FOCUS GRpUPS r1s ~ means of expanding the vision o€ the recreation and atauatic center identified in the "Master Flan," The SpnrtS Management Group cnndurted f()Cl1S group research clesigncd >,u gatltcr information €ram re5idenCS and staf€ regarding their vision fur the proposed center. During the [rionGh of Octolaer 2D04, 'I'Ite Sports Management Group led three focus groups through avision-setting praccss. The groups were ('1) parents with young children, (l) reprr;sentatives of aquatic interests and (3) residenus living close GO Crncrald Glen and Shaitnort parks. Additionally, five City Council mcrnbers were individually interviewed t{7 gather inforrnatic7n regarding their goals for the new facilities and their vision of how those facilities should contribute to t11C community. 'I'r[is ]nput led LU a much clearer understanding o€ the sparas, prggrams, and site that would bP required for the new center. As part of Ghc focus group research, each participant was asked tit designate those spaces they felt tivere lacking or inadequate in the community. Participants repgrt~e<I difficulty in ]irttiting their choices given the large nurubcr of spaces tl[cy believed should be included in the new facilities, The fallowing iGCnts surnmarici; tl[e themes common Go all focus groups: ~ Dublin is a wonder€ul place to live but not cvoryone has access to the recreational amenities Ghcy desire. Mast new residential dcvclopa[cnt dues not provide usable yards, i'ubllc recrcatio[[ brings Gkle residents together and contributes to a sense of community, ~ Dublin needs facilities that can serve the entire community. The residents an the east side oY l]uEalin at~c currently undeserved l]y public facilities, Thcrc is a need to bridge, the two communities, East and West. * 'l'he carnmuuity 15 changing, The new population in the east is [rlorc ethnically and culturally diverse and is made up of [Wore famines with young c>~iidren. I [owever, the west is also changing, with more young families moving in_ Over time there will be fewer di€ferenres in the population. EN4ERALa GLEN RELREAiION AND ApLIAiI[ CENTER l Needs Assessment Focus GsROUPS CONTlNUEo T H F Sports ~~n.~nnt G R 0 #! P ~ With many new residents tti the community, it is lLnpartant to crear~e facilities that contribute Go the sociali~~atiou and integration of new L'cridantr and long-time residents, • New facilities should be of ~'~ high quality, available fnr year-round use, and appropriately sized to serve the current demand and grciwing population. * [)verwhelming),y, participants expressed the opinion Chat there is a community need far InoL'c racial, recreational, and aquatic space and, if that space ware provided, t~iere would be a high d(;LIId[1d foC use. FACILITY NrE~a~ Based on the meetings, there was consensus among the Focus groups, staff and City Council members regarding severa4 recreation and aquatic space components. There was consensus regarding the need fc~r a lap pool and a warm water recreation pool. The lap pool was desired for lap and fitucrs swi-nming, water exercise, team practice, and swim lessons. The warm-water Family recreation pool with water play fcaturas and watersiides would he used fnr water play, in addition to waLLr adaptation and learn-to-swim classes. 'I'ftis pool would also be used for warm water exercise and therapy fur senior adults, pcrroLir with disabilities, and L1LOrc iii inEUry prevention nr rehabilitation programs. [n general, there was support for at ]east anc poa! Co be enclosed and, ideally, designed with operable walls and/or a mof to create aLi indoor/ iiutiloor experience. A gymnasium and snack bar were also unanimous cholce5 of each group, 5 EMERALD GLEN RECREATION AND AQl1ATlC CENTER l~ Needs Assessment FACILITY NEEpS CONTINUED Additional rocreation splice components Ghat Were selecte{i as top prtori[iPs by each grnup included: [lame I~UUIn Meetitt~ Rnnm/Classroom Babysitting/'1bGAetivity Roo{^ Fitness Raom with Machines Croup lixercise Room All of these spares are included in the preferred space program of the proposed center. KEY OBJECTIVES The final Step of the fOCUS group res?arrh was to generate a list of key ohjectivcS to be met by the proposed center. These objectives will SCrve as a guide for the entire planning and design process. The key objectives that emerged from the focus groups atw summarized below. + CoutribuGe Go community pride and fostRr a sense of cottt{nurti6y- "a place for neighbors, family and friends to meet" • C)ffer a broad range of activities promoting fitness and healthy Lifestyles, rccr{;atlon and social interaction Cproll--offer "somettsing Ccr everyone" • i'ravide a safe, secure, warm, and inviting atmosphere for all patrons * Provide accessibility, flexibility, and multiple ttses through design and programming, anii be adaptable ui changing interests • ['rovide a facility Ghat is financially feasible, a[fordable, and can generate revenue GO partially offset operating costs • Create a Structure that is tinieiess and will be a source of community pride T }i ~ G R 0 G P e EMERALd GLEN RECREATi()N AND A~l1ATIC CENTER ................................................t«........,.,.................... ~~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T N E Sports Management c a o u r rte` Needs Assessment (ITI~EN WEB SURVEY '1'he City of Dublin ppsteci a citizen survey rogarding the need for and interest in potential r.,pmmunity, recreation, and aquatic spaces un its wehsite from mid-Dece[[tbct' '1U04 through late ~ianua[y ZUUS. A tptai of 2~9 respondents co[7tpler,Pd the survey, 'l'he web survey was creal~d to pt'ovide residcuts a cunvcnient moans ~ Vpire their upiniotl abput the need for additinnal re~:reatio[t and aquatic facilities. ~`he survey respondents were self-selected instead pf randomly selected, thus GhP., results arc nut statistically prujectahle, The resulGS pl' the survey support and add to the findings of the Pppus gaups. As with the faces g['cups, survey respondents perceived community aced across a wide varic:ly oC areas. When given a list of potential spaces and asked tc indir;at~e whether they were "e;xtt'emely needed." "vet'y needed," "so[itewhat needed," or "'ant needed at all," over half pf the respondents Indir.,ated tl[aG all pf the spaces un[1 activit~cs listed ware "cxt['emely," "vsiy," or "somewhat nePrlntl_" Survey respandc[tla, like the focus groups participants, dcsignatad an i[tduar pool and a gymnasium as the most nePdtsxi spaces, Respondents alsp indicar~d a Hued Ppr an outdpDr ppnl, multi-purppse rppms, l}abysitting, and a fitrtcss center. There was widesprca[l suppprt for a[t agr[atic facility, with a majprity of respondents indicating they would use all of the features listed fur the aquatic center, The surv[:y also indicated Chat Dublin t'esidents are very likely t~, use a center pf the rtiype prc~pused: almost half of the respunrlenrs indicated that they would use the recreation center several times per week, and a majority of respondents (Fi5~/o) indicated that they would pureCtase a family pass Go use the rccreatictn center. The preferred space pro~t'am contains the most desir~;d spaces t}aced pn 6he web survey, which su~~est a likely high use by thE, public. ~QNCLUSIONIS The research conducted fpr this Needs J~ssessment provides a strung Indication of the ru:rcatipn and aquatic demand of the C)ublin cuntmnnlty, and it allows Cot' the refinement ol'the Dublin Magrxr Flan's recreation center and aquatics center rccpmmendations.'1'1[e resulting program is presented in the "space, Components" section. ~dditiona] market infurmatipn necessary LO estimate individual program enrollment and market penetration, and tp determine appropriate fees, will he presented in the following "Market Analysis." 1 r a i ~ SpoitsManagement 1 ~~i Market Malysis 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EMERALp Gtt;N RECREAPIQN ANp AQUATIC CENTER I~ Market Analysis OVERVIEW 'Phis analysis identifies market forces drat urili affect drop-in attd pragrarn participation at Glte proposed Emerald Glen Recreation and Ar~uatic Center. lG includes a demngrapktic analysis of the center's service area art[I a review of ottrer rect'cation and aquatic €ariliGies in tlrc area. [;onclusiuns drawn farm Gkt1s analysis were used to deGerm[no hypothetical program and admission fees, market penetration rates, and the projected operating cost's and r'evenucs of the praprr5ed center, THE SERVICE AREA Far the purposes of this analysis, the prlrtrary service area of the Emerald (oleo Recreation and Aquatic Cenl~r is identified as residents of Gtte City of Dublin and non-residents within a 5-mile radius from the pt'apascd site of the renter at Crncrald Glen. The proposed family aquatics ccrrtcr will iae a desbinatiun ca Jrabla of drawing those; nearby famllics La the center, sn uun-residents withln a 90 mile radius were considered for rarop-in use of the outdoor family aquatics r..enter. Tltis group is not Included in the market penetration for annual pass sales far the Recreation Center. ~'he map of the primary service area follows on the next page. DEMOGRAPHICS An examination of the demographics of Dublin helps to measure its rJemancl for a varleG,y of recreational activities and programs. '1'he popularity of roost activities varies greatly across different segments of ttre population, sn demographics are an effective instrument for making conclusions about potential center users and appropriaEe programs. The following analysis uses populatitru size and number of family hauseholda m make conc;iusionS abottG the number of pntertGla] recreation and aquatics participations in Ghc service area, then exami[tes the edur;aGiortal attainment and Jncorne within the service area In order to make more general conclusions pn the ability and likelihood of center users to buy passes an(I daily admJssions. T H E ~~~ ~~~ G R D U P T H [: -~ dart N~~.r~~eent G R 0 tl P r- EMERALD GLEN RECREATfON & AQUATIC [ENTER 4? X004 Estimated Papulatian by ka[lius Pram Emerald Glen Park () - ,i miles - 55,754 0 - 5 ntlles - ] 26,035 1 `fanr,r G Popul~rl.~un ~r~rl Family Hr~useholdtR According to the C]S Census, there were 29,973 t~;sidents of f]uhlin in the year 2000*. Including I]ublin residents, Ghcrc were 49,419 people living within 3 miles of Emerald (,len Parfc. I]emggl'aphie projections Par 20079 estimate Dublin's pgpulaGlgn Gq be 41,U4U, wlth 6U,2491iving within 3 miles of Ghe siC~e. This estimate represents a population growth in Dublin of 3C~.9 percent between 'lQUU and ~U09, a cunbinuatiun aP the 28.7 pProenG growth between 1990 and 2.U00. Much of blti5 new growth will occur In Ghe area immediately surroulldlltg Ghe proposed Cast Dublin site;: the Uuhlin master plan esGilrtaCes that ,i4,U0U qC Dublin's 59,900 resiclcnls at buildout will reside iu Crib Dublin, 'l'he size, grgwGll talc, and Igcabion relative to the prgpgsed siCe of Dublili's pgpulabign indicalc a snbslanlial rnarkct Pot the renter, Of the 21,750 households projected for 2[)0',7 in the 3-mile radius surrounding CmPrald Glen, over Gwo-thirds are Family hquschalds, and almgst 4() percent are househglds with children. 'I'bis large population aP families t?nd children suggests that there will l)e particular 1nC~eresG in youth- and family-oriented recreatign of Ghe Gype offered by Glle prgposcd center. l]uhlin's 20()4 NfasGer Plan alsrt pl'edir.,C,s a rgntinued increase lu Ghe nutrltaer caf dual-inc;oma Families wha will require day care, anti after'-schggl programs. A chart of the estimated 20)[]4 populations Of residents and non-residcrtls within five miles nP h~merald Glen Park Pnllnws: EMERALD GLEN RECREATION ANa ApuAYIC CENTER ~~ Market Analysis RCSId(:llt~ kcwl~IcnGS Rctiidc~nl~ ll-.3 illilc~ti of ;i-n 1IIIc~;~ c1G L~tu'r'~ifd (;lcui 4itr+ 3~;m~'rsrlcl Glr'n wIIR' Total 1'opulatlan 19,2fiA 12,087 Farnilier~ wlCh C1lildr•er3 9,9'11 1.$~1~ NOR-~P$1'OfPiaGB 'iota! Fapulatian Families with Children ~Iqn°Iii:siclcnCrt Nar1•R<txiclc~nl,~; ()-;~ ~rlii~w i)r~ :i-Cr 1~lilc'..s al' E'.inc'rald (;Ic`n 4il,r~ l;rnc~ral[I l,lcn ~iGc~ 3[i,~8~ 5.$fl3 5f3,ZUU ~J,U59 ~ H ~ Sports Mana.e~ne~.t L~~ G R 0 U p The size and amenities of the proposed center will alsq ellggrlrage users Gq brave] farther than they would for a smaller facility; the partieipaGigi7s of these users will adci tc~ the participation toC~als. Populatign plnjectlons estimate that by 2[109, there will be ever 315,000 people living within 7 U miles oC Ghe proposed site, and gvcr 940,U00 living within 15 miles qP Ghe proposed site. 10 miles within the site inclutics San Ramon, Danville, PleasanGgn and Livermore and 15 rriiles includes pgrtions of Fremont, Hayward, (;antra Valley, Claytgn, E3rcntwgod, and Alarnu. pn ~J i~ EMERAL(1 G1Eff RECREATION ~NR AQdATiC CENTER ~7 Market. Analysis ~n~,~m~ r 1 1 1 1 * Amerfcan Sports Data, fnc. antf the It-ternational i~lealth, Racguer, etltl 5portscl.ub Associat,ian~. "fHRS,N~ISD Heal~~ Club T-'end l~aport." . HartSCiale, idY: Arrierlcan Sports [)ala,lnc, 20QQ. ** tUnBCiC~n ~poCt91)ate,;lnc. "'T~~ ~1~pr3~tudy Hof 5pt~rts . , ~.~;';PaCGi~tif$Eian:Volume !:. , :'[`ltrless 4dtivities."~ ' H~i:~tstlale; iV~f: A~~erlcaii '$porz~~ patQ;'.Iinc;S2~R3, ~ . __ T H E ~o ~.na~~~.er~t ~, R 4 U P While population data Serves as ~ goad indicator of potential center use, fndlvidual and household incc[mc5 demanstraLC the ability of ~ given market to purchase annual passes and daily admissions. According; to ~ trend report co-published by American Spurts Da[~, Inc, (ASL)) and tl[e lnter[iational Health, ~acguct, ~ Sportscluh ASSOCiatiun (IHE~SA)*, there is an increase in r~;creatinn participation fur communities with a per capita inr.,ome above ~25,OU0 per year and Por households with an Inrome above ;E75,Q00 per year, The per capita income crf Dublin is cstfmat~ed at $;35,652, and its median household income is estimated at $d9,Q00. Even with an adjustment for tihe higher cost of living in the Iiay Brea, this level cf income surpasses the study's thresholds and indicates the ability nF the market to pay daily Pecs or purchase an annual pass. Another ASD study indicates that households earning more than $75,OU0 per year are 86 percent [Wore likely tc7 swim for fitness t17an atlrcr households, aver 2U percent more likely to use Free weights and strength equipment, ar[d 4'l percent more likely to use cardiovascular cqu[pment**. Again, this suggests a strong potential demand within Dul]lin Por aquatic and Fitness facilities, Educatir~r;!~1 Att~iinmc.Dt )Jducational background is also highly related LU the level oP recreational activity. The flSD/IHR511 Trend Study reports: "whereas only l2 percent of people with a high srhaol edt[ration oi.' less arc frequent [recreation} participants, the percentage among those with some college rase to 18 percent, and then jumped to 23 percent Por collc;ge graduates." C)ver 40 percent of i)uhlin's population aged 25 or older has a college degree. As with income, the particularly high level of educational attainment in publin correlates spcclfically to a high interest in Fitness activities: college graduates ai'e 31 percent mote likely to use free weights than other people, 3[i percent rnc~rc likely ~] use strength er~uipment, 45 percent mare likely ra use carclinvascular equipment, arrd 48 percent mare likely to participate in aerobics lasses**. 1 EMERALII GLEN RECREATION ANd Ad~ATIC (ENTER Market Analysis FACi11TY ~~MPARISON 1 r~ ~J 1 1 t T H E ~~~ ~UllC~V1F.lAV~~ G R ~ U P There are several indoor recreation and aquatics providers iri the Dublin Recr~:atinn and Aquatic, C;enGer service area, and others will have opened by the time cancer cOnstructinn has been completed. The Cnllnwing inventory reviews 4lic amenities and programs of caeh facility Co examine how adequately they serve tCieir respcetive target rrtarkcts. Data from this assessment was used to develop recommcndatinnsTor positioning the Emerald (iIP,t1 center' in tlic Dublin markeC. G'omrllun~tyAgtlafir,~ Far.ilitie~ A number of municipalities in Ghe Northern (;alifnrnla have devr;loped public, aquatic facilities, and those Caci[iti~;s I~rnvide insGrucCive examples for the planning of the Emerald Glen cantor. These facilities should not be considet'ed co[tlpctitnrs of the Dublin cancer, Each facility will draw participation primarily Crum iGS uwu city, and none of Ghe nearby centers are IaCge enough to sc~:rve as a "dPStinaCion" Ghat would lure publln residcuGs away from the proposed Emerald Glen RecrQaCion atld Aquatic Center. Bay Area agsiatic cantors include nntdoor pools in l,ivermnrc, San R,amnn, I'leasanGuu, Concord, walnut Crcnk, Morgan HIl1, and an indoor swim center in Newark. All of those fanilities offer 7 lap pool, white Gltasc in Livermore, San Ramon, NleasanCOn, Morgan Hill, and Newark offer recrcaGinn pools as well, Newark also offers a continuous river, The largest recreation pool nffereci is Niargan liil]'s S,OOOsf recreation pool, compared to the B,OOf}sf pool proposed for the Dublin certCer. The Newark facility's continuous river is `245 linear feet, compared to the 680 linear feet planned Eor Che Dublin center. l; Pas for Che municipal facilities range beCwecn $2.00 and $Ei.{)~} for drop-ln use;, with many of Glte facilities offering discounted passes Cor multiple uses. A matrix summarizing I,hesP fP,P,S and facility anicnities can he found in Che appendix. Fees charged at airier municipal aquatic ccn~;rs warp used Cu develop rite hypnGheGical fees for the Emerald Glen IiecreaGlon and AyuaGic t',enGer, !? J t J t (.'~rlifnrrria ~Sp1t~r~~th ~ private develgpar has secured approval to cnnstruct a suhstantial additinn to tl[c small private water park loraGed aG Shadgw (;tiffs 1'arlc Jn ['leasanton, less than fnur miles [ream the proposed site. The proposed additinn to the water park will have a 12,7Z5sF rnntinunus river, a 24,097sf wave pnnl, a ] 4,0{lOsf activif{y prxil, a 6,575sf wt pool, a 19,OU(JsF ggrporate pool available for rental, and eight waterslidPS_ The water park will be operated scascnally durir[g tl[c su[niner months, Although Fees have not been esGablislled, California Splash will likely maintain a mt(ch highQr price pnint than the prnpnsed IJuhlin center. Daily Lccs at si[t[ilar water parks such Raging Waters in San ~qse and Slx Flag Water Paris in (~nncnrd are $25.99 far adults and $] 9.99 for ]rids, Cnmmercial water parks provide a high enGert~ainment value and a unique experienge, Hpwever, hecausc of the high cost for admission, they do not gPnarate Ghe hig17 numbers of repetitive use that a[~:lypical Car cammunJty aquatic facilities that provide slides and interacGJve play features. ]t is not expertPd that the npcning of California Splash will reduce the participation ai Dublin residents at the Flmerald Glen I~ecreatign and Aquatic Center. [t matiy, however, have a minor impact on Glie init~;qucnG use ley residents of Pleasanton and San Rarnnn who arc sceluug a destination for family antert~~inment. '['he l{imerald Glen Recreation and Aquatic CiQnter will offer a ltigl[ cntcrtainrnc[iGvalue at cgst much Igwer than a cou7merrial water park, (;brtlmunlty kec>~:~Li{art Facilities t 1 EMERALp LIEN RECREATION ANp AQIIAiIC CENTER ~~ Market Analysis T ft E rr~~ ~~ rr~~ pp--~~yy~~ pp tt ~~~ ~C1~.1LI.V111V~1r G R 0 U P The Sports l~lanagcmer[t (group has alsq studied recreaGign and aquatic fanilities thrnughqut (~alifnrnia and the United ShaLLS. California has lagged 1lehind much of Ghe country in the develgpmPnt of state-nf-the-art municipal indanr recreation centers, For this tv;ason, Ghe analysis Focused on Faglllties In CalJrgrnia and recreation nenters in the Denver area of Colorado where many oL these centr3rs have peen gonstrugted. Attendance figures from these facilities provide an indication of tt[c raslgo qL pgssibilitles Pqr GhP l~,merald Glen center. ()P the fifteen facilities studied, all nLwhich were smaller tlian tlic center proposed In the preferred space program, and many of which were located in communities smaller than Lublin, all [naintained an annual attendance of between ZU3,UdD and ~75,f1Q0. Monterey, a faliPgrnia rgmmuniiy oP 31,Uf)(? residents operates the recreation center that generated the highest attendance of those studied: its amrua[ attendance aF 1,U80,(l00 averages to 3,000 per day. The facili(Sy directrr reports less than 95 uses by GqurlsGS per day_'l~e average attendance among all Facilities studied was 326,[100 per year, or 930 per day. These figures were used in the development of market penetration rates in Ghe I~`inaneial llnaly5is_ [a EMERALD GLEN RECREATIOPI AND A~LIATIL ~~~~ 4" Market Analysis 1 private l-ieal~h G'lubs Them. are several cornmer.cia] lleaitt} aluhs i f ~ hl'Ir+~'fhe e includep24~Hour fitness facilities and programs to residents o Fitness, 5chnot~r's Athletic [club, b~xPO in f)uhlin~an ci aCLI~S~ letlf~x iaCatetl all located in Pleasaslton; Fitatess Z00 ro osed in Llverrnore. All of these facilit~ies~Gr1e ~ H wCV ~, the dcvf: raper of a noark~y sib, with the exception of the Llfc~ yrrledi(~al complox is seoittn~ a partnership With a comtnert;lal health club Gn duvclap and Operau: a ~ltt7ggg faCSlity at the,il` medical building tltat w[Il be iacaGed a half mile Pram p~merald [;Ictl Park, Each facility offers weigtlt and adrdiavasruiar training equipment, locker roams, an[l aerobic studios. Schacber's, ClubSport, anal l ~ifeStyle Rx provide iap pools, ant} [;}uhsport and Lifestyle Rx pruvidt~ a email leisure pool as well. ~ S orts Management G A O u P ~` Private facilities typically seI`ve a market distincilt Iadrnission~ all usQ s alrepal Cacilities. none of ~Ie above facilities offer drop reunited to be members or, in tYle rase of l,ito u~sle y yt~tt ~ Nfembu ~~ p dlic~s a rrye[nber, an(1 Ghcy apply many 1lItlltcltlDnb are much hlgiler than the tees set cl ~bar'spandaFitness 2[]00 to ~~Olmunth $3Ll/mon4h for 241 lour ~ [traces, S for Lifestyle Rx arid $102/month for Cluj C ub~•alspr~ lgetalso an ilp ~iatian exception with a $1~~ per month fee, rh fee; a matrix summari~~ing these fees an(! farivfaLP~facltiit es tend to beladult tTte appendix. 'PIIe t~~II'gat market fnr tYlese p h level of personal individual users in~resl~ed in regular fitness use with a big style Rx trainil~ assistance. 'She rncdicai services as and adultslr~>7 P,rnecl about their are particulariy appealing to empty-neste health. Family and xecreatianai user~nded reQ eatic]nal aquat~ef~ 1 ties, attracted to the daily alimission, t,xp and family programming of the Emerald C,len Rerreatiott and Aquatic Center. Space Components i~ i~ i~ 1 EMERAiD GLEN RECREATION ANiI AQUATIC CENTER Space ~or~ponent~ ~ N E G R p ll P OVERVIEW 'fhr;Dublin Narks and kerreatinn Mauer Play" pruvidcd planning guidelines far the spares to he constructed as parC of a recCCatian ~[[l[l aquatic Center at h~merald (glen Park. As the Nccds Assessment and Market Analysis phases pmgressed, recommended spaces and siiuarc footage Cram the Master Yl~~n were modified to realx7n[l t<r current needs of the Dublin Community, current and future trends, and the projected needs of the growit7g papulatiat[, The initial listing of , desired space co[npuucr[ts aitd square footage exree~ied what was believed to be affordable and the spare program was refined. Criteria used r~r prioritize and create the preferred tarility spaces included: (1) potential l'ar act[vities and programs which arc under-served in the cammu[tity, (2) ahilit~y to serve the needs of the greatest number of potential facility users and, (~? abil[ty tp achieve the defined cost recpvery objectives. ()n April 12, 2[105, the consultant team[ met with the Dublin City Council and pre+sented three alternative building programs based pn the modified Master Plan. After some discussion, tllc City Council developed a Ppurth sult~ern7tive that was viewed by the Council as the most responsive to present demand and future growth a1' the Comrrtunlty. PREFERREQ SPACE PROGRAM Activity Spaces '1'be l~nal preferred Space program far the recreation and aquatic center i[[clude5 the following cornponcnts: • G,yrnnasium • Dd[tCe Studip • Fitness Ce[stcr • Croup ia'xercise Room Cornrrrunity Spaces • Special Evc[its Roam * Babysittin~/Tkit Activity Poani ~ Special H;Vent$ Rpom r~ EMERALD GLEN RECREATION AND AQUATIC [ENTER Space Components PREFERRED SPACE PROGRAM CONTINUED Aquatic Spaces • Natatarlutti with ~-Lane Fltttess Pool • B,UUUsf Recreation Pool * 9/fl-rnilc Corttiltuous River + ~5-victor [)cop Pool Building Support Spare • IJntry IIaIULat7by • Casual Activities Lounge • Locker Roams • Family Changing Rooms • Administration C}ffices • ~Iuice 13ar /Snack liar A complete listing of sPar.,es and associated square footage is included at the end of this section. MASTER PLAN REVISIONS Those additions respond to sPPC;ifia needs discovered during NeQds Assessment and Market Analysis research. I3ahysittiug room and youth game room are proposed in order tc} provide more activities far Dublin's ,youth and Lv encourage use by adults who need child care while they use the facilir~r. several spares culttuined within the modified master Plan program were also made larger for the preferred program. The gymnasium and fitness roam were also enlarged 1ta order to scrvico rnarC pCOple a[td prr~rams, 'T'he most significant differQnces hPtween the preferred prr~grarn and the modified roaster plan pt'agrann are additions to lTx; prapc7sPd aquatics facilities, 'The atttdaar fi-lard pool pl~apascd itt tllc master plan was mave[1 indoors in the preferred program ~ hettPr serve the yeattt'aund need for ]earn to swim and aquatic fitness Programs. Art indoor pool would also provide [)ublin with a unique amenity in the region and respond to widespread demand expressed 1 T H E Ort Man.~n~nt G R Q IT t' !tt EMERALD GLEN RECREATION AND AQUATIC CENTER ........................................ f,.,..............,..,.,....,.,.,........ 2`-~ Space Components MASTER PLAN REVISIONS CONTINlIEd in focus groups and the online citizen survey. A continuous river and rP,Creati017 p001 area Wert? added to tltc prr~rarn in respansc to the public's expressed interest fnr mere recreaGlanal water, 7'hls rrtlrrors national trends wherein recreational pno15 are the mast popular aquatics feature. The amount of ~vatcr area proposed irz Ghe program brings the City of Dublin in line with the National RP,GI'Ps'3610p attd l'clrl{l1850CiaGiOiX standards for recornnlcndcd water surface area. All of the above changes and addltlcns rtisulted in a need Lor more support space within the Parility. Spaces such as the locker and pool mechanical rooms are therefore lamer in tlrc preferred space program. OPINION OF PROJECT COST The opinion of cost fnr rnnstruction of the center is $24,804,000_ The total ErrojecG cost, whlch includes "soft costs" Such as prnfes5ional Lees, permits and testiri~, design and construction contingencies, and equipment and furnishir~~s, is esrimated to be $33,97O,D4U. Tltc opinion of the 7bta] Project Cost is haled an the square fcot cost for construction of similar facilities in the region. f~'inal costs pray he irrrpacted by unknown Site cotldiGlons, material cost escalation, and the construction bid c:lirnate, An additional 959'o contingency has been added to the project cost that increases the total project rust to $,3ti,072,000, T I1 E rr~~~~ rr~~ pp pp tt p0~'t ~G111C~VV~l1 G R 0 II P rT 1 1 EMERALp LIEN RECREATION AND AQUATIC CENTER ..................................... . Tna[,;; ~ Qpinion of Project Costs 3q. F't, A_ Building Support Space I~ASi' Gast Tol,al Cast A,U1 Vcstil~ulc / Fntry /Lobby 400 A,U'L Casual Activities Lounge 1,400 A.03 Rac:epl,iart 1 Acness Central / fegiatration 3UU A.U4 ,luice Bar / 8naclc Derr / Storn~r; Cif]il A,U5 E'irst Aid C:aom 8U A,06 Gr;rlrral Building 5tr~ra~c~ 4UU A,07 f,ackt;r Rnorns - Mr;n's 1,50U A.08 Locker Roams - Woa7en'S 1,500 A.U9 Special Needs Cltan~in~ Ranm 110 A.1U E`amily Changing Raam (4 ~~ 9U sP) 3Fi0 A.11 Famlly Changing Locker Vestibule 200 A,i2 Public hcstroams 120 A,i3 ('ark Arr,CSS Public KastCaoms- (2 [.lnisPx) 12U A.14 Maintenance I Cteceiving l Stiu'a~e }Workroom ~1(f0 Subtata Funding Support 'paces 7.490 305 . 2,' $~I,4 ~0 fi. f;r.nl,er ~Iclministt'atlve Offii;es 8.01 ReC Supr;rviw{7r Offic[,s (2 C~ 120) 240 B.p2 Ri;c Cnardina[or C]ffic,{'S (3 @ 1UU) 300 ii.03 Rr;c. Tech Cubicle Rrr;~i (2 C~ 1001 200 8.04 Facility Manager 1517 ' B.05 !'rograrn S[,3ff workstations (2-Person Office) 320 f3.OFi Conference Raarrr } Traiiring Rfl0[7l 300 R.07 Wirrkr{yam } Brealcror~rn 290 Subtotal Administrative ()1°fices Spaces _ 1.750 $305 ~533,75U 1 1 C. Activity Spaces C.O~I Gymnasium} (2 - 50' x 74' courts) 12,UUU G.(72 Gyrnnasiurn Stut'agt; 3Ci0 C.U3 Dance Studio 1,500 C.(74 Uan{,e Studio Storage 300 C.05 )Fitness Arca 3,5UU C.O6 Fitness Area Stur[3~c;/Warkrar~m ]5C} C.U7 Group Exercise I Dance Studio Roam 1,80U C.0$ Grou );xorcise Stora e 300 S{ihtOLal ACl~ivity Slimces 19,$50 ~b3D5 $6.054,250 T H E~~ JJ~~ rr~~ pp ppyy~~ ~~~ .LV1~C~,VVlJI.~ ii ~ 1< a ~ p ,~ 1 1 i~ EMERALD GEEN RECREATION ANa AQIiATIC CENTER '1'~1SLE II Opinion of Project Costs . Sri Ft 1). Carnm urrity Spaces NASM' Cast Total Ccsst D.09 Carne Raom 901 D.O2 Sabysittin~ /Tat Activity Raarn SOU Z),03 13ahysitting - Resl~r•r)oms I Lav ] OU D.04 Tiahysitting!'1'at Activity Ream Stara~c 100 L7,05 Special Everlt5 Raom (Divisible) G75 Sahtatal Community Slrares 2,575 305 755.375 Subtotal Nei, Rr;crefrtion Assignable Area (i;. Natatorium ~ Indoor Pocrl 31.6Fi5 ~O,E~57,1325 1;.01 Natatorium S,U00 6305 ~h2,440,00U GL'.02 }+'itness Pool. 6 Larccs (3,675 sf surface area) 3,75 $920 ,$79,000 1;,03 Storage 3UU $305 $91,5(.30 F,.04 foal Mechanical Raorres 74U $305 X225.700 x.05 Pool Clrrrnis,a] boom (2 ~ 65s1'rar;h) 93O 3305 $30,650 Subtotal Natr3tnrium Bttlldittp Space 13.970 :b305 t6'2,7A6,850 Subtotal Natatorium Water Surl'ar.t; Aria 3.675 ~T21) ~b44~1,Q0O Total Natatorium Cast ;63,237,1350 f. Outdoor Cornpetitivc Yoal r',Ui 25 Meter x 2 ,Yard Deep Pool (75' x 32') 6,50 $920 ,750,000 r',0'~ Pool Nlechaniaal Raam Space 9,25U $3O5 $359,250 r.03 F'aal Chcmical Roam includcd in Leisure Paol 0 $3U5 $O Subtotal Orrtaicrar Competitive Pool Qld~ Space 9,250 $305 $3139.250 Sul)tatal C)utdaor CnrnTaetitivc 1'aol Surface Area fi,25C} ~12U $750,UU0 Total Coinlretitivc Yool Cast :1,131,250 ;. Clutdoar Leisure Poo] 07.09 Rr;crcatlnn Taal 8,OD0 $!25 $9,0UO,UOO U.O2 P{7nl Mechanical 12aam Space; 7,600 $305 $~1SS,OQO G.03 Paol Cltemic',al Room 2 Cn3 fiSsP each 9 30 $305 $3;3.650 6uhtat<sl Outdoor Leisurc Paal Building Space 9.730 $3O5 $527,[35U Subtui,al Outdoor Leisure Pacrl Surface Arco 5,000 X12 a $9,OOO.OO0 `Fatal Outdaar Leisura F'aol Cost $1,527,650 H. Outdoor Laay River [1.01 i,frzy Rivcr (1/8 mile) 7.875 ,$720 ,r59~5,OOO H.U2 Pool Mectranir,ai Room Space 1,570 $305 $47S,85O H.03 Taal Chemical Rc~rrrn included in leisure cal U $305 $0 5acbtatal Outdoor Lazy Rivcr Building Space 1,57p X305 $478.850 Subtotal Outdoor Laz River Surface Arr.,a 7,875 $120 $945,UC1O Total Outdoor f,azy River Cost $1,923,35D S ~rts `~~ E ~~~~mnt G R 0 E« P ~~ i EMERAIb GLEN RECREATION AND AQUATIC CENTER +•...,.•r,..f .......................~+.,,..,.,.,.,,..... t++++•.i+r++++.+++.++.... ~~ Opinion of Project Costs TABLE II 1. Other Aquatics Supparl, Spac:rs 1.07 Lifeguard Breakroatn I Taller /Shaver /Lockers 1.(72 Ar.{uatiC: Staff 1.03 Small Sales Iioilth 1,04 Changing Rooms IToilets / Shawr;rs 1.05 i'rrol Furniture Storage ].UF3 Conaessian Stands (2 C~ 20(1) l.07 Cnncession Storage l.UB Pool Teoltniaian"s Office [,UU Pool Staragel Lost & Frrurici 5uhtotal Other Aquatic support Spaces 1vASF' Sq. rt. Cost Total Cast 360 $305 ~1[)d,E}00 32U $305 $97.Ca00 2U() $3U5 ~fT1,U0U 1,flno X305 ;saa~,noo 5UU $3U5 $152,5UU 40U $3t:15 X122,000 4U0 $3U5 $122,UUU 1[10 $3U5 ~b30,50fJ 50(7 $305 $1 ~i2,500 3.780 $1.152.8UU Subtrrtal N~~t Ac{uatics Assignable Building Area 17,500 Building Grossing 1''actar (75c3k, effiuirnr'.y) 10,5fi0 ~3(lri ~3,22U.B00 Aquatics Arr.,a Grossing l~'actor {85~ effiaieney) 3,000 $305 $U42,45U Tirtal G~rosr~ Quilling Area (l~aur[dcd) fi~,815 ffi19,15~J,[i00 Total Gros;; Water Surface Area {kaundcd) 25,SU0 $3,136,UOU Total Building ancf Pucfl I;T)$t8 $22,295,000 SitC AfTI(,Tlltlr)$ Cf)~t Fstirnate Auto Parking (36~I) - 5.$ spaces per 1UQ0 sf 7L7,50U $5 $E13i3,0Uf1 Oul,door Sunning Det;k, Patios, '1'ot Lot, 1Jtc. 7,5UU $4U :6300,00(? Pr~ol Fl{[rd i)ccic Z4,UUU $15 $3(iU,(J0f.1 Turf ~ Irrigation 2U,0UU $7.5U ~150,17CI17 Allovanae for Play Featurr~ ~ ~ti00,000 Site and infrastructure Allovanae (2.5~EI rlf Crass T3uilcling Cost) $557,UUU Subtotal Site Amr;rtil,ir;~ Coat ~2.5f15.000 F'reliminhry (:cTn~;tr[u;tion Cast (1&ullding and ~itc) ~24,80U.0(lp Soft Casts A/C. Acoustic:. Aquatioa, Rr,crcation, AV Consultant Fccs {1196) $2,72F1,OUfl Printing, Tesl,i[lg, Survey, Permits l;xpenses (3,5u1o) ~36f3,0U0 T![[ri[iture, Fixtures aril F:quipmentAllawance (~,5~fia) $1,612,000 YrojcctAdministratian (1°~f,) $248,UUU Construction and []csign Gontingenay (15'3k~) $3,7LU,OOi7 Subtotal Soft Casts $9,7 7(i,ODU EstirnaCar{ Mra~nitud+;; of Costs far l~ecreatlan Cani;cr )Project $33,976,000 Total Caet including 15Wo Consultant Margin of Error ~ Market 14'luctuation :39,072.000 A!! costs shown !n 2(1(16 d0118r'S. Escaladiorl cards r]vb included. i H #` poi ~na~n~t c R o u ~ ~~ Financial Analysis _ _ Financial Analysis ~~ 'I'bis analysis presents develnpment of Ghe probable annt[al costs ~ operate and mainrKsin the recreation and aquatic center and Ghe potential revenues that cats be gcrrcratcd from the programs and activities, All costs and ruvcrtuc estimates are based on the preferrod space prngrarn described in the previous section. '[b prepare these estimates, The SporGS Management Group developed assumptions about the Parility's hours of operation, st~aPf Scheduling, and mix of programs and activities, that are explained in Ghe following subsertinns. All figures at'e presented irr X005 dollars. PRQBABLE OPERATING ~OS'~S EMERALa GLEN RECREATION ANO AQlIAiIC [ENTER The ,5pnrts iVlanagemerrt Group developed probable costs for the nperation of Ghe limcrald Glen Recreation and Aquatic Ger7tcr, OperaGirtg assumptions used to dat~ermine those costs rvc;rc developed with Ghe input of pity staff, as Weil a5 local dad regional rates far utilities, Set'viccs, and other expenses. The most significant expenses are outlined below, Ff'C~40l117f'J< As with all PaclliGies cf Ghls type, persanucl costs represent the largest expense item. High personnel costs at'e duo primarily to the center's extended hours at operation, The center will be open 100 Go 120 hours per weep, during which it will require staff to supervise users participating in activities and ptrograrnS, and to perform necessary maintenance functions, ThESe tasks will require a minimum of 10 foil-time City crrtplctyees, 2 Pull-Clore contract employees, and over 150 part,time emplnyees_ This professional staff will provide Ghe foundation for recreation center Success, and appropriate Staffing levels are rritira] Go providing safe, high~qua[ity PaciliGles Gktat reduce legal liability and increase user Satisfactinn and retention. 'I`lte Sports Management Group estimates that Gk~e canters total cost for staff, including benefits, t['ainirtg, Gravel, and uniforms, will range between $1,707,000 and ~2,QO~I,U00 annually. T ((~~ H f; rr~~~~ rr~~ ppppryrypppp Vi LAS MCU.JE.GIV~.l~,V~l~ G R 0 U P ~~ EMERALD GLEN RECREATION ANO AQUATIC CENTER Financial Analysis i H E fort ~.,e.~r~t G R 4 U P FarilitY N[air~~e~ancc 7Y7 attract and sustain pat'Giclpation by all user gaups, it is essential Ghat Ghe t`ccreation and aquatic center be mainGalned aG a high level. Studies conducted by the inGurnatignal Health, Racquet and 5pgt'GS (club Association (1HRSA) indicate Ghat Ghe leading cause of membership attrition in both p[al~lic and privafr, facilities "F - is the lack oC cleanliness and dctLrioration - of physical condiGiort itt bgGlt facilities and equipment, Recreation and aquatic facilities, herause oC Ghcir extended hours of operation and Ghe eort'osive cnvirgn[ne:nt of the poets, are high ntaintcnancc buildings. An aggressive maintenance program is reqult'ed to keep Ghe facility in good, safe, working gt'der. Wt~ile maintenance is gosGly, Duet` Ghe life of the building a good maintQnangc program will provide subsGanttal savings, improve customer satisfaction acrd sustain revenues. It. is estimated tltaG such a mairttunance program will requite up w $978,01]() annually, pltts an additional $100,000 fur full-tirnc r~ntract mainGetlancc employees, X35,00[) for peal chemicals, anr~ $18,000 for pool mainGenancc, In addition to the Pending of annual mai[ttenance, it is recontntcnded that the facili4v include a set-aside Por ~ F.3tlilding Reserve Fund as a line il~m in rite operating budget. 'I'bis fund pays for motor facility repairs and rcltlaccment of the building as iG depteciaGes.1' acilities can hPCpme "tun-down" if adequate funding has not been allocated far major repairs and malnrtinance, [f this fund is not incl[~ded, a plan should be ilcveloped for funding major [pairs and replacements, CgnsideraGign shoul[f b[: given to seGGiltg aside 1°Io of the c;onstructinn oP cost qP Ghe building each year. Over time this allocation st[oufd be adjusted for Inflation. A $2fi0,000 annual allocation Lo a Euilding and Maintenance Reserve Cued has been included in the probable operating costs, N1~trketing The proposed operating expenses cnnG3in art allgwancc for facility marketing, in addition tv a full-time marketing rggrdinatqr, The financial success of the center depends on a commitrnenG Go cr~:ating, funding, and executing an ongoing tt~at'keGing program. The proposed renter wIl] offer wonderful opportunities to area residents and visiGOrs; bgweVCr, marketing ePCgrGS must alert and educate poGet7tial users about those opportunities. Marketing efforts should target speriPio pgpulaGigns In a Cq[tsisl~nt and proPesslgnal manner. While marketing will increase the operating casts of the center, iG is necessary ~~ maximize revenue potential, The rer~,mmendPd marketing budget is $40,000 Go $45.()00 in addition to the wages and benefil~ far atoll-time stat'r position. ll i~ i~ i~ i~ i~ i~ i~ t EMERALD GLEN RE{REA110N AND AdUATIC CENTER Financial Analysis Probable Annrlal OpP,r~tfng G'osts The table fallpwing summarizes the pr~rbable operating costs of the proposed center.'I'hese costs are pt'esentLd in a range from "low" to "high."'I~picaliy, casts incurred In the first [ew ,years of nperation are at ttrc "low" end of the range because the new Cacllltics haul; yet to rearh capacity and are less expensive to maintain, Tflc total probable nperating and maintenance costs, inrlpding the rescL~vc fund for ttie center, arP esGimatcd Lv range between $2,77f~,U()0 and $3,~03A00 annually in 2005 doliars. operating Expenses ,r'7s9~c4r'~P.S c3C1Cj ~Y,r1f'~1(,,S Law Fli~h Fuli-Tirnr F,mployee Salaries sand Benefits ~822,UUa ~~! ,a3a,aaa Pert-Tirn~; l+;mAloycc Salaries and Benefits $570,UUa ~59fl,aaU Training: All Employees $9G,UUU ~29,aaU Full-Tune Cantract5tafl' $90,UaU $i0a.aUU Cdnt!'~kCL Personn[;I Services _ $179,UU0 $219,UUU Suhtr~tal Salaries and Benet'ir,s ~ $1.677,a00 ~1,~F>t},OOc? (ipcratln~ Expen,s~;s Travel and Stt'[ff fJniforrns $30,aaa $33,0a0 Comunication Services $9,aD0 $19,OOa Supplies ~ Materials $1 aa.aaa ~i2 .aoa Repair and Maintenance $1 G1,0a0 $178.aaa Marketing and Promotions $9U,OaU $45,aUU Service Agrecments/Contractservices $18,a00 $36,OOU Computer 6ervirfs $1 t,UaU $14,OOU Fool Exper7ses $14,U(la $1t3,0(f0 Utilities $332,000 $376,(]00 Other Expenses X91,000 `bU9,000 Outlay Costs $3U,UaU $49,a0a Total r-'robable Operating; Expenses $852,00U $975,UUU fatal Probable Operating Costs $2,520,000 $2,943,aaa metal Probable Oper~6ing Costs w/hescrvc5 $2,7T9,000 $,i,2a3,aa0 r fi E ~o~ Mange.~~~ ~ R 4 u P ~,r EMERAIb GLEN RECREATIaN bNO A4llATIC CENTER DAILY ADMISSION AND AfENUAL PASS REVENUE 1 Fcc Assump~fotls Proper pricing is essential to building a satisfied customer hasp while gEncrating sufficient revenue to partially offset opa'aGin~ casts. Facility fees must reflect the amenities offered and prirvidc acceptable rates to the intended market. The fees should be set sa that tlra facility iroG only attracts adults, but aiscr appeals w the family, Youth acrd senior markets. l!~sGabllshin~ drop-iu fees and pass fees drat encaura~c sales to the broadest passible market will result in batlr tlrc greatest benefit to the citizenry alyd the hlghesG revenue, The fee structure must cunsidcr the economically disadvanr<~gad rPSiclents who may be unable tv pay ttrc full daily admission ur annual pass price. Sliding scaly fees and scholarship or airs programs eau be established to allow then users to make full and regular use of the facility, 'I'Ar3z,a; Iv Fee Assumptions t{'esrdcnts Child (0-2) Child (3-4) Youth 15-17) Adult (9Fi-5'I) Senior (55+) r'amily Financial Analysis Cost of Annual Daily CosC Annual !'ass Pass per MgnGh k'`ree NIA NIA $3.00 ~90D $8.33 $4.Q0 $Z40 X20.{]0 i~1i.00 ~4b0 X37.50 X4.00 $290 $?4,17 N/A $750 $62,50 t7aily Cast Nnn-ReSiderlr,S Child (0-2) Child LS-4) Youth (~~-t 7) Adult (i8-54) Fa[nily To dcLLrmine the annual rcvcrtue potential far the Emerald Glen Rec[°iatian and Aquatic Carter, hypothetical Pees for daily and annual pass rats were develap[:d. An assumption was made that drop-in users will be charged a fee far the use of the facility and that annual passes can be marketed successfully to frequent facility users. The hypothetical fees were developed with cansidcration of the income of the population, and a comparative analysis of other facilities in the local market_ While there arc no mrtnicipai facilities with aquatic facillties as full-featured as those of the proposed Dublin center, the fens of Llrese other faclllGies still provide an indication ol` the market Per recreati{rn and aquatic facilities, as da the fees of larger commercial water parks. The proposed hypothetical Pees for daily admission and annual passes are summarizetl in the Fee Assumption t<~hle. ()Cher types aP fees and passes, Including punch passes, seasonal passes, couple pass rate, etc. are typically offered in the final stri]cGlrring oP Pees. T it E~~//~~rr~~~~ rr~~ pp pp }} ~~~ 1,Y1CAI.LC~.I.rV~l~ G R 0 U P 2a EMERALD GLEN RECREATION dNp AQUATI[ [ENTER Financial Analysis M~rrket Penetration t TAnL~: V These rigus'~s do~rrat ~ . conafii~r:pgten~3al reduction, tf.~ny; Sri ~. . use a~:the exlattii~; 'p~hq~r'S~vlm~~en~er.': ~' orb a~a. event 6 It 0 ~ P Market penetration rates demonstrate till; estimated percentage of the pupulatilan that will purchase a daily admission and pass. These rates were de~rclopcd with llac consi4icratien of the age and geographic lnc;atiotl of poCCntia] users, their recreation needs and prel'erenres as expressed in the Needs Assessment and 1~larket Analysis, tale irttot'matioal regarding local and comparable facilities cotltained in tYle Market Analysis, anti the space components of thl? preferred pl'ograrn. These market penetration rates, summarized in ttie table below, were used to estimate the number of dally admissions and passes likely tU be sold and tl3e revenue generated from those sales. Market Penetration RCSldP,17t,4' C1ser Uraups Rc;~idl:nl~5 0-3 Mild aP Emerald Men ;Site Residents 3-5 Miles of Etnrrald ~Ic}n Sitr, l;hildr•c;n 4 and Uulll,r C).U~r, €}.ra~?k, Yoltth 5 to 13 13.094} 12.`~~/, 14 to 17 12.4'3~n I2.()~~ Aliultw 113 Co :3.3 li.()~} fa,4]U/u ticynlnr~ ~~J 1,17 u~t j.Jt~ l}.l)'~7 I~arnille* with ~atildretl I i~,l~ 7V S 4J.1]t~ NUn-RF.5ldellt5 Non-ltesldents Non-Residents 0-3 Miles of 3-5 Miles oY User Groups Lmerald Glen Sltr, Ernr:ralcl Glaa Sltc (.'hlldrrrf 4 end llnclr'r U.U'36 (1.04f} Y'crul,h 1 d to 17 5.09k~ 2,!)~4~ rldultx ;i ~ lal 5~ `3.5nfri '?.0'rEa ~c~niuc:~ 55 Lu (irk ~.U~lo l.l)~/a h x+ Z.p~b 0.59h l~amlllc~:~ tiv€Llr ('.hildre,n 5.0'~ 2,U'~, z~ EMERALf} GLEN RECREATION AND AQf1AT1C CENTER Financial Analysis OTHER REVENUE SQURtfS Mix of 1+'ecr~acrr~n~r! Oppnriun~tlcs 'Phe 1denGlf~ed potential revenues are ttased an offering a mix of prograrn5, classos, drop-in acGlv€ties, special events, and rentals. h'pr the center u] generate significant revenuc and rricet Gkre needs p[ Ghe cnmmunir4y, the program mix trust bo adaptable acrd resppnsive to riser interest and demand. Them must be a variety of offerings G1taG target each segment uP Ghe market: adults, families, senior adults, children, t~purists, and local businesses. '[b prpjecG ppGentiai revenues generated by these programs, The Spprts1+tanagement Group created passible activlGy schedules for eactt recreaGlpn program space u~ identify a feasible number of classes and activities, and Go delermirre an estimated number pP participants. Rental opportunities and special uvcrtGs wer[: also studied as potential spumes pP revenue. The SporGS Management Group prpjec:ts that classes, prugratns, and specie] events tvlll generate about 25 percent rat the centers revenues. Tlrc faclklGles will also be available for rental by lpcal teams and ether prgani~atipns, and the renter will be available for birthday and other parties. 'There exists the potential far additional revenuc ttrrougb special programs and activities. 1+'pr example, afterirtg suttuncr ur witrtcr camp programs, hpliday activities, or family nrgttts could bring in addiGlona] revenues. (~prporate programs that target the daytitric pupulat€un working in Dublin is anpther source of potent€a[ revenue ttpG rurrenGly included in Ghe revenue potential. 'fttese programs would require mare staff hours ar[d maybe have associated costs far program supplies, 1 T H ~ pry Mang~~.ent c a o u p lFa EMERAIQ GLEN RECREATION AND AQUATIC CENTER Financial Analysis Pr:oaABL1E REVENUE PoTENTlAf. Based qn the de[~ographics of tiYC service area, the prgbghlc market penetration rate for pass safes, the expected volume of dally admissigfts, and the at~a[ysis of ether reve~~uc sources, the revenue pnr~ntlal for tfic facility is estimated tq range from $2,594,(10() ur $2,;~{l2,UUU annually. Actua[ revent[e earned will dcpond neon the level of pragramming, a successful mar[eting program, and the resultln~ participation by the communit~r_ 'l'he "average" of the range is hPlieved tq be achievahle after twq tq three years of operation, 'Ib achieve higher revenue there mint he cgntinued aressivo marketing oP the Facility and the devcfopmc[rt ql' addltlgna[ prggrarns. A summary of the estimated revenue pgtential Pgllgws: 1 i~ i~ i~ ii i~ i~ `F'ABLE Vi Revenue Potential Low Hl~lt l7aily Pass Sales ~Sa7,0{)0 -- - ~aaa,af)f] Alrnual t'HSS Sales $1,439,[)x0 $9.542.000 F'rn~ralns/Rer~tals acrd Classes Childwatch Activity Roi}rn $69,OOQ [6FS2,Of)0 Pir,ncss I~aam ~s.aoo ~22.aao Gtuup >;xerr,ise Studio ~f39,(l00 ~l{)$,f)00 CyrnneSium $99,OOa $92S,aaa Daure Studio $58,000 $74,aa0 Special Events Rc}ern $23,00{) X50,000 rvatatarium ~ fi-Lane Pool $9F~3,aa0 ~9;3T,f100 25-M~ter x 26-Yard {)utdoor Pool $45,aaa $64.000 Reareat,ion 1'oa] and Continuous River $28,aaa $3r),OOa VendinglCrrnr:r;ssuanslMerchandise (Net) $63,0[)0 $70,000 Total hr:;vcnne Potential $2.594,[)[10 X2,902,000 ~ N f! por Ma~a~e~t G R 8 l>a ? a~ EMERALD GEEN RECREATION AND AQUATIC [ENTER Rf/ Financial Analysis COST RECOYEIIY POTENTIAL The table below details three scenarios of cnst recovery potential. "High" rnsG rPCgvery is determined by dividing the highest potential revenue by the lowest pr(Jbabie expenses. "Low° is determined by dividing the lowest potential l'evenue by the highest probable expenses, "Average" Bost recovery is determined by dividing the average potential revenue by average probable expe[15eS. In Ghe opinign pf the CgnSUltanG C~eatn, the "average" cuss recovery could be achieved after two to three years o(gpcration.'Ib achieve this level of cost recovery will require aggressive prDgramniing and marlultiug of the center. Leased upon the preceding expense aad revenue analysis, thq average Cgst 2'eCgVet'y Cqr the center wiGhqut Ghe regommendcd iauilding resCrvq fund is 90U,9'~a. Achieving a ?U'~G cgst recovery in the first two years of gpurattgn is art achievable gb~ectlve. The addlJ;ign of the building reserve fund will iiiitially dccrcasu ggst rccgvet'y, but It will cr[surc that the faciliq~ is mai[itaiJicd in good cgnditlon, ellectively irtereasiJ~g lung-term cost recuva',y, The average cost recovery l°qr the center with the building reserve is 99.9°/a, with an exp~scLLd operating Subsidy of $243,QQ0 annually. 'I'A13LE VII Cost Recovery Potential w/ae~erve fund Low Avera~o High Coat RPS;[7very Piltentl~kJ 81.010 91.446 I Q~.~t% Annual SuhslcJy r,r Prn[It ($609,OOU) ($293,000) $1?3,000 1'rabable Upcratin8 Coats $2,7743,UUU ~Z.~J9I,UUU $3,ZU3,Ui)C} Potential Revenue $2,599,000 $2,748,000 $2,902.oUU Cost Recovery Potential w/a Reserve Fund [,ow Average High Cast Recovery Pote~rl,i~l 88_ t4~ 100.~4°kr 119.79'5 Annual Subsidy or PrnFit ($349,UUU) $iZ,00U $373,0(]0 Pro4ral)lr, upet•ating Casts ;1r2,529,[}Ol7 ;ia2,736,000 ;)x2,993,000 Potential Revenue $2,594,000 $2,78,000 $2,9U2,UUU li N I: ~~I 1, ~1`,~G~l1Cll~~V1~.L 6 R Q li p 2~ acs Site Concept ....... _.. _ .................................................................. EMERALD GLEN RECREATIDN AND ApUAiIC CENTER frf ~j t-1 1 ~~ ~~- ~~ ~~~~~- T'hc Emerald Glen Park Mastee Plan ppdaGe, prepared by Carlucci & Assoc€ates, ]nc. in 2002, Sited ~ 24,i)p0 sq. Ct. regt'eatien center, 24,ODU sq. ft. ccmrnunity center, an aquatics center, and 549 parking spaces iu the Park. SubsequenGiy, the plan was updated through the 200~f Community Center' and Recreatinn & Aquat€q CenGCC Parking Study, which recommended a total of 650 parkin spaces and 278 of those needed Go support t][e proposed recreation center, community center and aquatics center. Sinn that study, the prnposed spaces and total square footage Pqr the prgpgsed buildings has ghanged. When a Cana] dPterminatiott 1s made regarding the compananGS and siic of t][e new facilities, the actual number of required parking spaces will be determinerl by the City's Planning Department. For purposes qC Gh€s study, the r.,ongeptual budget for G]]P recreation and aquatic center includes the reggmmendcd b.8 spaces per 9,000 sq, ft, for a total of 384 parking siraces, LlpaaTEp MASTEk FLAN CONCEPT DRAWING The 2002 Master Plan drawing has been updated to reflect the impact G17e proposed facilities and parking w€li have on the sire. "fhe updated mast[3r plan drawing is not ]mended to depict the architer.,ture or the actual locations nr layout of the prnpnsPri Parilities. The updated drawing Pgilgws: t T aim ~~na. m ~ ~ t G R 4 U P 2;~ m -..--.. i _, __. - . ,, .. i ~,.r ~ ~ , aM '"~R, ,;- , ,~ I, N :': , , { ' ~ ~ ~ '.` ~ i ~: ; ~ r"•~~, ~m i i r ~ _ d ~`T tititi rS r. ~~,,.. 'ti / i ~ ~ '.',~' ? y I i} ~: V.~ Y v y~riy ~ ~ ,~.. 1r i i ti$ ~~ZC S ~~~~ ~ ~ ~. ~ . ~ , ., ~~ ~ r N i ~ n"h~7ti t (}~' ', `-r, '~~~ 1 ('~ I ~~~~"'"~ I '1 6 wig'} S r~rrr• ~ w o / _. ...- , ~ - .. s ~ t _ ^ ., Y - ~_ ~ ,, °, a ~~ :. f ~-:. W ~ M e ~ f s 1 , ~ f ;. ... ~ df@ (( `~'~ Append _ ._. _ i~ ,, L y U i ~ ~ ~~ ~j O mil; ~•" m . ~"' G ~i LJ [] ~ rry a ~~ m c O Q ~ U E" R v' v a .~ ~:~ - _- ~~ 3 m w C v ~ f c ~ - N v~ U ~ ~ C v ' ~ " ~ G ~' p{ ~ p{ a ~ ei ~ ~ G y i C ~ c E v~ a :: ~ ~n 7 u~ % .3 Q' (Y. v ~Y ~5 ~Tw O 5g ~ n o % ~ ~ ~ ~ Z / 5 c. V c " j _ n ~c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 PI yl ~ ~ C ~ ~ rl V ~ 3 i vi U J ` ' ~ - o p ~ ~, G O - ~' G ~ m M M %~ N ~ ] ~ c~ ^- V] M J f9 h9 ys ~ C% ... a. - ~ a E O ~ _ x ~ p ~ rn FJ a ~ '~' ~ J F o~ E 'd ~ 'J 3 ' ~' z: ° ~ ~ E s o . ~ S3 ~' ~ x U p a "~ ~ ~~ E . 2 ' 0 ¢+ ~ ~ o 0 0 ti [ a; ~ ` :'n ~~ ~,~ - ^~ ~ U % ~ ~ ro r°~'G v aG E ~~ n ~ "- ~~ ~ - w ~ C~ V.. 6 - rn O ~ y ^" ~ G O v G G ~ / ~ ~ h t` o ~ ~ C °[ y c ~ ~n ~ cNS ~ ~ ~ c~ vi ~ "' ~ C, n K a m ~.i r.% .n ~~ o ry = $ v~ vi ~ 0. - o r~ ~ ~ - n 7 _ a . ~ c ci fn ca 4 h , c v3 ~ _ .~ ' 43 ~ ` y V ~ ~ ~ o U ~, G v - ~ 3 ~ 4 Ui o ~ c5n a ~ ~.j e;y G G O V sh ~ G N ~ _ V u ~~- .5 ~ ~ s 9 v3 `~ ~ vN3 nj v~~N aa~q ~ ~, E E 6 i +~ Q C. ~ 5 ~. M o I V Vi 'c M ~ o 9 r ~ .~ i. j r~ ~ ti9 V A ,N b ; 2 .1 m a> c .y 0 ." o-,. .G J, '~ ~ Q 'F' ~ _ d J- ~ cn G. ~ ~ ~ p a ~, ~~ v ~~ ti °,~ 3 a J- , ~ .- P . rj N '~? ai n ~ ~ Lr] r'~ N ~ - m ~ T = `- ~ 3 ~ v a. W ~- ~ 5 n 0~ '~ y ~ ' ° u C~ U Q N o ¢ ~ G ~ ~ ~ b ' i ] ~ o. 3 z " - ~¢~; z ~ z ~ b F~ ''~] ~ a] ~ G G ry G a ~~ J O T ry m a5 ti D ~ G _ e] ~ y L ^d 3 ~y ~~ o [ ~ J ¢ ~ o ~ ~~ G ~x ~~, k' [ L, a P x ~ 2 2 /~ o a ~~ ~~ ? Q c R a> ~ v R .[ 2 Z ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ G 3 ~ _V ° a - ~ b ~ a° ~ ~ `A' cN~ t' ~ ~ o ~~ b ~ ~' ~ ti C] a' ~ ~ N c ro o ' te K .,, ~ a t"' ~ 5 c am` G `~' m ~ ~ o ~ ~ r . N m . 7 c~ u .5 c'oi _ '~ . ~ ~ + ~? d `n' n ti M ~ e+) ~ - ~ G `r Nj .n ~ q ~ U rl [ o a ~ u_ ~ 2 Z :i ~ °A " iu v ~ -' • K . 4- 1. C N r1 j p ~ o a3 U a° ai `U° o °a° ~ ~ 0 ~. ~ r~ °. ° °a' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'o ~ s ~ m u ~C E .] .] 0. . U .° ` d rl Gi ' d ,~~....y~ry a iq~w,l `.V ~~ ,~ w ~~~ 4JJ CJ L` Z ~: ~ JI '~° ~b tt1 G1 vi k. of ~ 4 y. l 4i q ~I ~ U U ~' ~ r I II II - - _ ~~ _ ,m ~ I r - j II ]~ ~ - it vi NY I •` 1, - _ I I r'r I _ ~ y _ _ - ~ _ E E E _ _ _ _ `u° ~ F _ t v' __ ~ v p P = - = _ °~] - c E 'S Y ~- c }:3 C ~ A,~A, ~ nWnn "[.1.~ ~ m w ~ .a '~ ~~~ EMERALD GLEN RECREATION APID AgUATIC CENTER Flours aP f)peratiau (RP.r;r'eatlorr G'e-rterJ (f~utdour T,rllr T'nrr!) Assumptions The following ~rssumptions wcrc, a,sed tr) develop probable operating costs for fire 1Jmerald Glen Rccreul,ion and Aquatic Ccnter. The f;ity i~f Dublin staff reviewed and approved these assunnptions_ 'E'he hours li5tnrl below rcpresenl, when the facilities are open to the public, The facility may be sr.,i,rduleri during non-operation~~l hours for special events, rentals, ctc, ') , Year-l~,nund Monday-f ridgy ~i~0~ am 1t):f]() }7rn Saturday 5:00 am - 5:()fl prn Sunday 9:flf) stn - 6:00 pm 2. Monday-l,riciay Saturday Sunday lone _. n~i.~us~,..,.,, 8:U0 am - S:Ot] pm t3~flU am 6:00 pm (ltldoor InstrucTiorr{~1 Pcrril) ,i. Ninnday-H'riday Saturday S,rnday Ycar-Round 6:00 am - 0:00 pm S:Of) am - 5:00 pm f3:f)fl am ~ 6:f)0 pm .,...~~1?tembcr_ _Mt,Y,..,..,,,. ti:f7f) stn - ;l:()f] t,rn 7 i:f)0 am - 1:00 lrm 5:[)f) pm - 7:f)D pro ~i:f)f) am ~ ~ G:Of) pro 9:010 artr - 5:00 pro (Outrloar Recreation Poal ~• ...... ~}un~..-, August ..............April,..lVfay„i~., 5eptembc:r* . & !/€f 1l~ile [fontlrluotrs Rivcr) Monday-Friday 92~f)f) ptu - 'I:CiO prn c,lirsed Saturday 11:Qf} arrr - 7:UU p[n 1;Of) pm - 5:00 pm Sunday 1:00 pm - Fi:OQ pro 1:00 pm - 5:f)fl }xn (f,!-1!d Watctl) *LasG twa uvccks of April, aa!! of May and first two weeks aF SeptrmhCr (Weekerxds ax~ly~ T kE E post ~Iar~en~e~~~ G a o u ~ 5. Ye~~r-Rirund Monday-C'riday 9:00 am - 12.{)0 pm ~1:p0 pro - B:Uf? pro Saturday 9:00 am - 1 ~:OfJ pm Sunday not available A nan-licr;nser! drop-in chiicl watch servh,•P rS ot~ered tc gaests udiUzutg the Facility, 7'hc fee r8 ,$3. (~fJ per hour with a rrrax+rrrrrrn st~~y of twa haur5. 6. Recreation and pool r,sr%rs will pay a daily admission fre rir purchase an annual },ass to fain admittanne to the facility, For bud~ctin~ purposes, the ecar,tomic analysis assumes cxtcnded use passes are ^ffered on an annual basis curly. A.3 ~T EMERALD GLEN RE[REATION AND ApUATIC CENTER Asaumptians Class Rc~istration 7. Class kcgistration fur programs and {~c6ivibies tube held within the facility will be offered at the Rcacptian Counter and processed lay facility Service Cr'nl,cr S~iIT. fart, Tirrrr~ Al,t~nd~ints ~. F'art-time tlttendant5 arw scheriuled to assist Maintenance staff in daily apeninglclosing of paalanti prrrviding additional maintenance support during weekday peak times and an wrrkend. l~mployee Salaries y_ Salaries arc based upon current local salary ranges and have been supplied by the City of Dublin an a worksheet prnviderl by The Sports fvlanagement Group. fndircct Casts & Uvcrhead ~(~, Wages and benefits casts have been projected for a]] full-time and park Charges time staff. 'l'hc city htTS staled tht,re will krc no overhead charges or indirrr.l~ salary costs to the facility, Employee Beltei'il~ 7 !_ Employee f',erteFits are calculated as 6U_U~n of gross annual salaries far full-tune err[rrl[ayees and 6.95~i4r Far part-time eml~InyePS_ N,rt7ployee (]vertirt7e lZ. Frnplnyee overtime is calculated at l~O of all annual full~~time salaries, i~.xi~;tin~ Prraitions 13. It iw tr5~?nrnerl that uo existing positions will rrinve tir the Emerald Glcn Rec~rf;ation and Aquatic Center when it npnns_ ]nstructors ]q. The budgr,t assumes that t17e classes and lessons r~fferecl at tl~e Facility will be taught by canlracted inwtru(,tors. An allacalian of 609i' share of the grass revenues of the Mass taught by the instructor will be paid to the instructor and the Ccntcr will receive 4[}°rb. Aquatic Fitness ]nstructars r.ec~r'ive $Z5 per hour. UniFormw 15_ Center employees will be rcquircd to wear a uniform (i,c, a staff whirl with Facility identification). An allocation of two uniforms per employee at $;35 per Full-time employee, $35 per part-time empioycc, and $;70 f}er lifeguard has been made. Travei ~ ~. Tr~rvel inr.lutles lhe, casts associated with Ci7e attendance of Conf4,renc',es. seminars, trait-ing pr~igrarrrs, etr,. and an allnral~iru7 of $9.UUU has heen made far seven to nine employees, 1 T H E post ~ana~~.n~ c R a u p A.4 i 1 [l 0 r EMERALp GIEN RECREATIQN AND AQUATIC CENTER Assumptions wining 17, gaining includes the costs associated with trai~iing and develaptnent (,f ernlilnyPes. '1]aining may includc general orientation, classes leading to CCCGlfiafttlan r}r rnaintaining certification, i.e. (;ertified Pnal (]l]eratar, CPR, C'irst Aid, and aernirtars and workshops desigited to enhance skills and performance. ~ per ertiplayee allowance has been cal(;ulatecl at an aver~~ige of $9 ~ per hour far 20 hours for each ricw employee per year, 7`raining costs associated with ccrti.fication ar maintaining certification far existing errtplnyees has been estimated at a total of X2,000 annually. 'pelccomrnunications 98. The actual cost of Lelernirnmuniratians will 1)r; charged to the Cc;rrter'a operational budget. Pull-time employcca will be provided with cci] phnnc.a r'lflfl/f;r pagP,C~,. 'i'he monthly cost of telccommunicatians is calculated at $90 per datalvoiae line a~td $35 per cell phone. 19arkel,ing an[i Prurnotians t0. Marketing arrd f'rirrnotions costs represent an abgressivc; approach to promote overall facilil,y use, prngrarn attr;riiianr'.e, arm gr,neral utformatian. 't'his will includc printing and mailing coats rc,lated to r,laaa prr,granl flyers. faciiity brochures, comments cards, fee rate cards, and apecial promotional advertising media. The cost for marketing is allocated to a range between X40,000 and $15,000 per yP,ar- Yro~ram Supplies Z(l. frosts are based on supplies purchased for classes, merchandise, larograms ai,d activities, equipment for check-out, and special events, t,crata rive calculateri for each space at 596 to 129!a of associated gross revenue. Foal Chemicals 21. Ptre] chernir`,al oasts are estimated to range between $3.50 and $1,50 per aquare foot of water sur[ace Par outdoor pools and a range between $2,10 and $2,40 per square foot for indoor por,ls_ [)ffice ~~3upplies 22, Expenses will include general office supplies for copiers. paper for flyr'rs, cornputcr supplies, etr,_ t~nri are estiuiaLed la a range, between X400 to $500 per month. Wastage 23. (~P,tera] postage casts far administrative purpasca are r,5tiriiated to range between ~~1,000 to X2,000 annually- H`acllity ]Maintenance 24. All facility maintenance during the hours of operation will be performed by full and pare-tune staff listed within the expense budget. C'ur rnajar custodial work that must be performed overnight, the burlget assumes the CP,nter will utilize a contractual cleaning sarvicc. The contractual clcani,ig services are calculated at a rate of ~9.Ei7 to $1.80 based on figures Pram the ~~ity oS Dublin. r ~ Hl i,~ ~rU V~V~U ~ ~ o u P A,5 ~~ EMERAla GLEN RECREATION AND AaUATIC CENTER Assurnlitir~rrs Bu[lditrg and Repair 2`i. Cash are hasetl on annual repair~5 to the building such as broken windows, Maintcnanae danragetl walls irr lf>cikrrs, r,~rrpct and window cleaning, and graffiti removal, in addition to, annual repairs to tYirt natatorium such as tiie arrfl tight replacement, slide maintenance, rier;k repair, and the HUAt; SySt~;m. Casts are estimated to range ht;twr~en $2,600 to ~2,8()[117er month, Majr)r f;rfuipmcnt Repair and ~Fi. Costs arc based on annual repairs to major equipment suclr as watr;rsli(lr,, Malntenarrr;r., gymnasium floors, etc. and are estim~rtrd to range between $1,OQ(7 I~(r $1.25U per month. ,farrilnirial Supplies 27. CcrstB are basr.,(i c>n consumable supplies including Ir}ckcr roam soap, body sharnp(ra5 (showers), cleaning supplies, acrd janitorial equipment used for t;ustod(al purposes, Casts arc estimated tfr rang(; between $1,]U() and $9,3UC per montlr_ ['ar~~ and Mi~;c, Supplies ~8_ (lusts are based on replacement parts and sinail I,curls used fnr equipment and building repair and maintenance. An allcu;atian of X5,000 per year has been made. Contractual Srrviccs 2;3. (lost are based rrn service agreements for aapy machines, mechanical ~;y;~l,rrn~ (1fVAC, tips b{rilt;r, at.Juatics pool pai<, elrvalau~), yec;uric,y sy51,em5, fire extinguishers, pay phones, etc. 'l'he bufJgel, will incltrd{; ~rliocationa far the following contractual services and (rr lf;ascs. [lapy Ntachines: I fh900 to $15f1 per month fay Phones; 2 $5f] to $77 per rnorrtlr f1VRC Syt;tr.'ms: $]U,fl[?0 lei $92,OOfl ~7nrnrally 5afcty );cluipmant; $7,U{lf? annually Computer Maintenaucn & 30. Costs are based an annual maintenance agreements and supplies for Supplies cirrnpul,r,rS aril are 0wtirrsated at $200 per calnputer par year. Currrputer Rcncwal & 39. An annual set-aside fund far the replarernent and renewal a€ Ccntcr's Kepiaaernerrt computer equipment. An allacatiuu cif $2.000 to $3,000 annually is Inaiufle(1 78 a r'P,S~I`VP, fulyd. Software Servlra Agrr~emcnt ~32. (;fats are based on thr; Servic;{; agrcarncnt far reaeptian counter soYtware program, including but net limited ta, rental schefuling, rnr;rribersirip tracking, class scheduling, accounting. Frri,irnatcd at $7,500 to $10,00(1 annually. 'F Fi E pert Mr~a~ent ~ rt o u P n,s EMERALD G1EN RECREATION AND AQUATIC CENTER Revenue Potential All flgul'e5 ire rnunded Gu Llle nrarr,5t thousand. ~anca Studio .. Low ... [;cneral DurJCe C:lassr,s $;ii.U[}4 X45,044 Tai c,nl Classes ~2,3.o44 ~z~,40D Suhtotal FiaN~ce Studfo $5+:l,Of](] $74,f}[]fl Sperla] Eveuta Roam 5pr.,r..ia1 Eveli[s ~l,(](1(} $1,040 E3irthda Parties ~22.f7(l(l $zt3,44O Subtotal Spcclal Events Room X23,000 $3O,f)(1[l IVs , - tato~'iurrr - fi Lanr. Pnol Summer kevenisa H'a111WInGeC/Spriu~ hevntlue x'17,404 ~11(i,(}()() ~56,0DD $] ~I 1,044 Subtotal NaCFILOrlllm $163,OflI) ~] 97,(lf)f) ~6-Mrter x 25-Yard ()utdour fool Team ReaLais ~~i,0O0 ~30,QD0 iviaster Swim ~~.{l[>D ~;i.00O Clasnr,5 / Cilnics $12,U[}[) $16,{lU(} keutals/(.ampG $tO,04D ~15,40D Subtotal N{rtstarium ~45,Uf1O $fi4,OOO Recr'e~rtiun Fool and Continuous River` I~'iLness ;~rrd Water Walking Cla3ses $Q,4D0 ~S,D[7D SwiJJlJnin~ Le,SSnns $8,440 $9,404 Special Events S~~,ODO $3,DDD Rentals and['.am s ~1,iAOO $19,O0D Subtotal Rec F'onl/f;nr~tirluoua Rivrr ~29,flfli] ~i,3tl,Ilf)[l 1 i r. J Miacrllaneous Vendin C.;o>racessionslMrrcliandise (net) $63,DOD $7O,O0D Subtotal Misoellaueoua $G3,OOO $70,000 'I'ota] Revenue Fotenrlal $2. {l4,OUf) ~2,~1f12,f)flf) C~24Ob Tlie Sports Management Groulr A.q "f~t EMERAlD GLEN RECREATION AND AQUATIC CENTER Annual basses and Daly picket Sale R siileuts (a-3 [Hiles} Number gold Subtotal Revenue I?tlii TlckelS~Jles Da11 Fee Low fli~;h e f,ow High tJtYUp "f;~i,UU 850 9,250 $x,550 $3,750 Yc~uthl'1'rcn ~4.0(J 3,300 3.7f)f} $93,20U $14,$00 Adult ~s.fJO 20,800 29.2L1(} $129,8(1() $127,200 Senior' $'(.[}(] ,if}f1 '(U() ~9,~(1[J $1.fi0() StIbLULaI '?5,z5() 26,550 $]!11,750 $197,35(1 f1l7RU~I PS93SG'S nnntit~! Fee Youth~l'rcn ~29U 33 4;3 X7,132{j $10,820 Adu1C ~~I5U X122 94~ $18;3,9(1{} '1;198,900 Seuiur ~29a 71 81 ~~(J.69a $23,490 l~'amily $750 310 330 $28z,50a ~297.`i(1(} SubLOtt7l 836 89f, $450,910 ~4fi(),29(1 Rc;91dr,~~t~s (3-5 rM~ileS) LJaiJ 7'irkct ~5',~le;S Dail F'CC. (',hi1d X3.00 5oa Sao X1,500 ~l,7(J(J Youth~l'nr,n ~4.{1(1 1,550 9.',35fJ $6,200 $7,Fi(}() Adult $fi.(1{) 9L1,3f]Ll 1U,7(1(} ~61,SfJf} $fi4.2(}() sensor ~~.aa ~~ (1{} 115 ~~oa ~46a SubLaLul 12,450 98,G65 $(34J,y00 X75,960 Arrnt11~1 Passes Annus~l Fee Youth~l'nr.,n $2C}b 9 99 $1,800 ~3.tifJfl Adu1L $120 116 13,5 ~4~i,,i(}(} ~56,7a(a Senior ~2®0 73 83 ~11,17a $24,070 l~'amily $G50 180 990 $117,000 ~923,5aa Sub LoLul 377 427 $188,270 $208,070 Tot~~L A~nlr~ta[ Pins Sales t~ llally Pass Sales KliS1D~1N'I'S $850,t33f1 $;J1(l,7!1U C~?aa5 T11e Sports 141anager~ent Grnup A,1p .-~ l EMERALD GLEN RECREATIQN AND AQUATIC CENTER Annual Passes and Daily Ticket dales iVOn.-Rcsidcnt~ ([]-;i miles) Number Suld Subtotal H~venrrr Dail 'i'irket ~'Hles Doi! Fee Low High Low Eligh Child $~.[](] 300 h[1 (.] X1,200 ~1.fi(3[] Ynurhll'rrn $5.00 2,600 3,000 $73,00(] X15.0[][] Rdu1G $7.00 fi.fi(]() 7.200 ~47,fi[1[} $50,400 Senior 35.f](} 050 7b(] X3,250 X3,750 SubLUL~] 10,35[) 11,;35(] X05,050 $70.750 Annr~el!-'a,s.s~s Ann[~s~IFee YouLltf'I'eeu ~2>(] 35 15 $8,750 X17,250 n[fult X5'25 307 327 $768,025 $768,525 SCnIOr ~3f73 123 133 X44,649 ~~IEi,27;? Fuiriily $87,1 ~~[] 2~u} ~227,[;QO $235.77(} Subtotal 738 784} X438,064 $4F~3,824 Nun-heaidenLs (3-; mile~J J3~111 Ticket Sores flail l~~ee [:hill ~~.oa 500 900 ~2,aao X3,[700 Ynuth~l'c:f;n X5,00 1.500 1,900 X7.500 wi~7.500 AduEL ~7_(}(} 3.30{] ,1,70{] $23,1[][] ~'l5,`~(}[] Senior X5.00 350 350 X1,760 X7,750 SubLaGal 5,050 x],85(} X34,360 $40,750 Annual P<~sses ~oUG17ITe?n $?~0 ~I[] 50 $1f1,(]{]U $12,5(1(7 Aiiult $52ri 347 357 $1H2,175 $1$7,~1'3~i Srninr $363 84 94 X30,492 $34,722 Family $8713 770 190 X738,270 X154,470 Subtotal 641 6(37 $,'36U,t377 $,188,577 Total Annu;~l Piss Sales & Deily Pass Sal es N[]N-rtLSLUENTS $89rJ,34] ~~63,847 6utitrrrer only Daily Passes Avg RC81dCn[~ and Nari-Residents Child $,3.00 4,500 5,000 ~73,6D0 $15,0(}(} YoUGhlTBen $4.50 25.00(} 28,000 X112,500 ~12f3,000 Adu1L X6.5(] 10,0()0 12,(}{7C} $(15,0[}0 $7li,000 8rnion ~4.5a 7,OD[) 1,2a(} $4.50() X6,400 SubGaGal 4fl,b(7(] 46,200 $1fl5,5(}f} $'?24,400 [92f705 Tfre Sports Manage;mr,nt Croup A.1 ] EMERALD GLEN RECREATIpN ANp AQUATIC CENTER Fee Assumptions c;cw~r ur;liu7t~;t~ !,'c~irfrrrl~ I):iil~~ (;cw5t ~lirnu.~l I'~~5ti I'~iw~ I~f~r llur-th Chill (0-2) E''rre Child (si to ~I) x,9.00 x]00 $$.88 'Yuutl~ (5-17) $4.00 $240 $~U.O(] Adul6 (1$-54) $6.00 $460 $37.5(1 Senipr (65+) $!i_(](} $zH0 X24.17 1~'amily $75[) X62,50 Nnrr-l2PSfdrllLs Child (0-2) Free [,hill (;i t,n ~l) $h.(][1 $12Fi $10,42 Y[rurh (v-97} $5,00 X4300 $25,(}0 1ldult (18-59) X7,00 ~5fi6 $~17.[}$ Sei7iDC (55+) X5,00 ~8fi6 ffi30.42 N'flmily X94() $7$,438 c~2005 The 8porL5 Management Group A,1~ EMERA~p GLEN RECREATION ANII AQUATIC CENTER Chilli Watch/Activity Room B ~bylsltEing Na. of Lays pear Wnrk Avg. No. of Par6icipan~s per llay Avg, No. of Weeks per Year FeE Per HgllC AVf:P3gP, (St,r7~l i~idIJPR~ Sut~to#al kevenue I,nw x~~rl FS Fr 40 ~ ~i 50 r7{~ ~3.0f] w3.00 1.5 1,5 Tul tlCtiviLy Classes Av{;, Nu. of Classes per Session 6 6 Avg. Nn. aP Sesslnns per Year P 6 Avg. Nn. of Yr~rtir,ipant,s pr.,r 5esslnn fi 8 Avg. i~'ee per l'art,ir.ipant ~~1(] X40 SubLuLalReveJ[ue ;fi8,~,40 ~3],52U 7nt L3irthday f'Hrtir;s Avg. No. of F'artins pc;r Wnr..k '? .3 Avg. No. of Weeks pc~,r Yrar ~il3 ~ifi l1V~;. L't'it'i i7el' Pa['Ly (Up L4 ~() KI[ts) `~~1~ ~(](} SutJtuL;il [2ewe[7ue $5,7f0 ~l3.640 'fti[~11 P~J1,JtItIJNI Rc~wt~nue ,"~r(i#3,~~(?(1 ,y`,!3(1.~110 C~20~5 T17e Spurts Maua~e[neJlt firoup A.]3 EMERALD GLEN RECREATIQN AND AQUATIC CEiVTER ~itne~~ Roam r,ow -' H1gh ~'~~-rv8t;~,r Filne~rs classes Avg. Np. pP C',lassrs pr,r Srssipn 7 I: Avg;. Np, pf Sesslpns per Year ~ ~ Av~_ iVo_ of 1-'srtic~ipants per Session ~ 10 Avg. Fee pCr P~rtir..ipant $5~ $56 ,4ubtotai Revenue $2,~k{l{7 ~.~.()[}(] 4rrer~lJt Ti'afnifr~/Fitness Classes: Ar1u11,s Avg, Np_ p1' Glassrs Prr,r Sr.,SSipn ? 2 Avg. Nu, of Sessions per Year Ei 8 Av~_ iUn_ [}f 1-'articipant,s pel' ~essi[7n S 1U Avg. Fee per Partlclpant $50 $50 Subtutt[l Revenue ~~1,F3{]f5 - _ -.-~f3,0(~(1 Welght Tr~Ining/ Hr'tnrr~s l,las,SCS- Youth Av~_ iVn_ of Classes per Session ] l Avg, Np. pf Sr.,ssipn5 ppr Year ~ C Av~_ Nn. [}i' F'arGicipan6s per Session ki f3 Av , Fec pr ParGir.,i anr, $35 $35 5uhtntal l:[;venu[; ~1,26p $l,Hf3{] 'l'oLal I'[~lenliiil Rc+vc~ttua ;b}i.=rscr ;611],fi~il) C92UU5 The 5purta Man~r~emerlL Grpitp A.94 EMERALD GLEN RECREATION AND AQUATIC CENTER ~raup Exercise Roam Luw H~1 DIY Adult Aeroblcs [;IassCS 3-)lays pcr Week Avg, No. oP f;lassc;s artr,rrd per Session 4 4 Avg. No. of Sessions per Year C (i Avg. No. of Participants per Session ]z ]4 Av . ree er Pacticl ant ~~(> X80 Bubtutal k~evenur--, $17.28{) X24,160 Adult Aeroblcs Classes 2-[lays pr..r Wcrk Avg. Nn. of CfasSes offered i~er 5essian 5 `> Avg;. Nn. of Sessions per Year ~ ~ Avg. No. of f'articipanLs per Sessio[I ] ? ] 7 Av . FCr., rr Partici ant X50 X64 SukatoLt[1 Revenue X22,5(!(! $25.500 Sr..nirr Aerobics Classes 2 C)E1yS per Week Avg. No. of Classes oGtr.,rr..d per ~c;s5inn 2 2 Avg. Nc. of Sessions per Ye[[r 6 Ei Avg. No. of Participants per Session ],3 15 Av . Fcr., r,r Yartir,i >ant $35 $,3b Subtotal Rrvr,nur. X5,460 $6,340 i~ is i~ 1 i~ 1'lci~ll s~[ XO~L1 Avg;, No. of Classes offered per Session 2 ~ Avg. Nn. ^f sessions per Year ~ Avg. No. of Participants per Session fi 10 Av . FcC rr t'artir.i pant, $104 $1U[} Subtotal Rrven a $9,604 $12,{)[!{) 14]IBe,. Yoga Avg, iVO, nP C;lasans oi'Prrrri prr ;session 3 3 Avi;. vo. of Sessions per Year 6 6 Avg. Nn. of 1-'arLic;ipa[[LS pet' ~eSSIUn 8 '10 Av ~, Fee ~er Partici pant X80 $84 SulJt[ik[1 Revenue ~~ ] ,520 $14,400 c~2405 The Sports Managr.,ment Group A.15 1 EMERALD GLEN RECREATIQN ANQ AQUATIC CENTER Group ~atercise Roam MaCtial Art815r.1Y-Dcten~r, Classes Guw Hi h Avg, No. of Classes off[;rCd pnr ;~rssion 2 2 Avg. fVa. of Sessions per Year f3 G Avf;. Nq, of Partir..ip~~nts pr,r Session 8 1U Avg. l~'ee per ['arLiCip{iiiL X55 $55 SuktLOtal kievrnur., $5,280 $fi,fifll) Pllates Avg. Nn. of [;lasses offered per sessign Avg. No. of Sessions per Year `i ~ 4 ~ Avg. No. of ParLlclpants per 5r,~sinn $ ](? Av ,Fee cr Partin ant $60 ~f>() SUbtntal Revenue $11 ,520 $14.400 YrouLt[ Aerobics Avg. No. of Classes offered per Sr,ssion ~i 1 Avg. Na, of ,sessions per Year ~ E Avg. Nq. of Partir.,ipantg prr i5essiou F~ i3 Avg. E''eo per f'~.[rLiCipa[iL $40 _ $40 Subtotal F2rvenue $1,!i4f1 $1,920 Mo[iimy and MC' Ar.,tivity f,lasa Avg. No. oP [;IASSrs offered per Session 1 ~ Avg. No. of Sessions per Year ~ ~ Avg. No. of Pa['tigipsnts per Scssinn E H Av ,Fee cr Partir,i ant $35 $;i5 Subtotal Rr..vr..nue $1,260 $1,BF30 1 i~ 1 Private Re[iLals Avg. f+Iq. nP t-lourly Rentals per Year 6 9 Av . Fea er H4Url hrnt3t $200 $200 Subtntal hevenue $1,200 $1,800 S~rrial events Avg. Nu. ActiviLles per Month 1 1 Avg. No. of Months per Year` 7l 12 Avg. No. of Famllles/Groups pnr Ar,tivity 20 25 Avg, Fee per Fnmity/f;mop $10 $90 Sukrtutal Reve>txuc X2,400 $4i,Ill)0 'i'ut,tl Potential R[?vc}nuo ;I;fi~l,=ltil) $1(}7,71>f? c~2005 The SparLS Managrme[rt Group A.1 ki ~~ EMERALD GLEN RECREATION AND ARUATIC CENTER Gymnasium 'Youth lndnpr Soccer Lrague Avg. No. of'1'eams No. c}f ~r;asons per Year Avg. No. Players per Tr.,am Fee per E'laycr per Season Subtot~~1 ReVer[ue YDUth 8asketk~all T,ragUe Average Na, of Leagues Avg. Nn, p[ Tea[ns No, of Seasons per Year Avg. No. Players per Team Fcc per Player per Season BuuLoLal ItrvCttue Adult FvenLl~ Leagurs Averagr, Nn. of Leagues Avg, No. of Teams per Session fro. of Sessions pr.,r near Av,;_ 1~'r;c; per Tea[tt Session Subtotal Revenue I,atC NIgI1L Baakrt},a11 ~63£y,440 Avg. No. 1-'artiripri~]G per Wer,k 20 ~~ Avg. (~10, of Weeks 40 90 Avg, Fee per YarGiCipanL $3.(][1 $;3.{JO Sut,cnrai Revenue X2,400 $3,004 Youth SporGS Camps Avg, Na, of (,amps per Year fi g Avg No, Par6icipants pr.,r Camp 15 2p Avg. Pee per Pa['tlclpaus $125 $125 Subtotal Revenue $11,250 $1~i.U[)(1 i,ow }ii~h K 90 10 1(J $50 _ -- $50 $8,400 $10,1)0[1 2 2 8 1(l '? 2 ~D ~{) $100 $1U1J X32,1104 $44,000 3 3 6 f1 4 4 $50Q X500 02005 The SpgrGS Managnmr,nt Croup A.9 7 EMERALD GLEN RECREATIQN ANp AQUATIC CENTER Gymnasium Low __ High Youth Nipht Avg_ Nn. Art,ivitie8 per MonLli 1 ] Avg. No. oP MouLlis per Year Avg. No. of E'artinipants pcr Activity G ~[} F~ 25 Avg. Eee per Participant $3.00 X3.00 SUbtUtal RCVenue $360 $45f] Sports Por Preschoolers Avg, No, of Spoi't Prugrarns per passion 1 1 Avg. No. of Sessions 6 G Avg IVO. Pflrt,ir,ipstits ]]eC SeSSion 12 15 Av{;, Fee per f'arLicipaut $35 X35 Subtotal Revenue $2,520 $3.150 Special Ewer]ts/Farnily (Group) Ni~hcs Avg,. Na. Ar.tivitirs pcr Month 1 1 Avg, No, of iVlonLlrs per Year F, kl !iv{;. No. of 1~'amiliesf(;roup5 per ACLiviLy 2(1 25 Av . Fr.,r, pr,r Family/Gr'otfp $i(1 X10 Subt[~talltevenur, ~1,211I) $1,500 r 1 1 Lunch Hour 1ldult Sports i,eaguea Avg. Na. of Uays per Yr,ar 2(1[7 200 Avg. Nq, o[ Participairts per ^ay 10 15 Avg. Fee per t='art,ir.ipunt, ~2 $? SulJtcrtal Revenue $4,000 ~Ei,000 Lusk-]ns (Overnight) Aviv. Nu. of Activities per Year 2 Avg. Na. of ~'artiripants pr.,r Activity 50 75 Avg, Fee per Participant $10 $10 Subtotal Reveiiue $f,000 $1,500 TaLal f uLr~nLiul hc~vf~nur~ ~9f3.73f? ;irl2ti.fiflU c~2t1()6'Phe Sports Management [;roue A.tB EMERALD GLEN RECREATION ANa ApUATIC CENTER Dance Studio Low }Ii h Adult Dance Clara Avg, No. of Classes nrrnrn(I per Session 7 7 Avg. Nn. o[ Sessio[is per Year Q g Avg. No. nr PartiClpants per Session f3 ~ 0 Av ~. Fee er Yartiri ant $55 $55 SubtorK~l Revenue ;x'18,484 X23,'1 f]0 ` 1.~~~Il Da ~ri+;e L~Ii~su`6 Avg. Nn. nr Gasses offered prr 5essiun ~ ~ Avg. No. of Sessions pnr Year 6 6 Avg_ Na_ nP PartlcipanLS per ;~ns5i0i1 $ $ Av .Fee er Partiai ant _. $40 $4f? SukiLutal ktevennr. $#},fi4f1 ~~l ],52(1 7'nt Elanr,r.. CIaBB Avl;. Nc. or f,lassns nf[ered per Session ~ ~ Avg. iVa. nr $rssigns per Year fi {~ Avg. Ntr_ or Participants per Session fi t1 Av ~_ Fee er Yartir.,i ant ~r3~i X35 SuUt~lal Revenue $5,044 Sfi,724 ~;r.,nior Daiace Cl~isa Avg. tvn. n[ Classes ofrerr,d per Session 2 Avg. No. of Sessiana pr.,r Yeai` fi ~, Avg_ Nn. nP PartiClpaiiLs per ~r.,s5ion 5 f! Av .Fee er f'artioi ant $35 X30 Subtotal revenue $2,52U ~.i,,36f) 1 1 Trii-Chi rind Yol;a Classes Avg. Nn. o[ Classes offered prr Session $ f3 Avg_ fVn_ nP S%35io119 per Year ~ ~, Avg. Nu. of Yartir,ipants per Session 8 10 Av .Fee er F'artiri alit $Ef) $f70 S!lbCatal Revenue $23,044 $28,844 'i'+[tal f'u!~°ulial ~'[`,V(',nn+` ~57,7'2U ~F73,5f]() ~20f]5 Tlie Sparr,s Management Group q_ 1y EMERALQ GLEN RECREATION AND AQUATIC CENTER Special Event Roam r.,uw I ligh special EvenLa Avg, too, Activities per Month Avg. No. aP Mprrths per Year Avg. No_ of 1-'artil:ipants per Activity Avg. Fee per Participant StEbrntal Revenne Rlrthd;3y Partfes r ]'l 92 ~(1 30 ~4.aQ ~~_DO $9fiO ~~1,440 Avg. No. of Parties per Wcrk 6 S iVn. nr Wcr,ks per Yeat' 4F3 4$ A_vg, Fee per Party ~~~ X75 6ubtirtal Revenue ~'~T X21,600 ~~8,8~0 'I'lal,til I'(IT,!`rlC,i:.ll R~',V(`ilUl.' ,~i~~,~i(i(I ;l;;~f1,24(1 072005 ThC Spgrts Ma[sa{~e[llent GCUap A,20 ~r EMERALQ LIEN RECRfATI~N ANU AQUATIC CENTER b-L~I~e ~11i~00f POD Natatorium - (Summer) Water Aerobics / Fitness (;IaBSCS _ _ Low_ I~[i~h Avg. No of Clssses per Se;SSion 4 4 N0. oP Sesslon5 1 1 Avg. Nn. nP Partlripetlts per Class 10 12 11V . [''E,'P P.r I'Art.lf,i 8nt ${j5 ~~ari 6uhPetul Revenue $2.600 X3,'120 Water Artt[riti8 classes Avg. No of (;Ia53n5 prr Session .5 5 Na. aP Srssinns 1 'l Avg. No. of k'Articipents pe[' Class 1U 92 Av ~. P'ee er ~'artiri ant X50 $5p Subtotal Revenue :62,500 $3,(1(lIf Swirrrrrriug Lessons No. oP ~ar6icipanGs per Lr,sann 5 R Nn_ oP l,rssons per Su[luner 140 14(} Nn. nP 5C3810T1S peC Yea[' ~ 1 Avg. k'r,C per Partic~ai>L ~4b $45 Subtotal Rrvr..nup $.i1,~00 ...- - X37,800 ~rlvate Lessons Nn. oP i,esspns pet' Sun[[ner 12p 720 Avg. k'r•c pcr Partlclpa~ti, X90 $700 SubGoEal hevrnur X10.8(1() ~~ ,672,000 'I'ot.3i Pnt~~ntitll Rc~vrruur~ ;~~.17.=1•(1U ;6:55,4)21) ~20Q5 The Sports Managrment Grnup A.21 EMERALD GLEN RECREATION ANQ bgf~ATIC CENTER 6-Lane Indoor Pool Natatoriurn - (rail. Wintrr, Spring) Wa~trr Arrohirs /Fitness Clirsaea Low HEgh Avg. Nu of (;lasses prr Session iQ 10 Nu, of Sessiurt 4 4 Avg. Nu, of Participants per (;lags tq 12 Av~_Fee er' E'arti~i~ant $65 $G5 Subtotal Revenue ~26,UOU .a31,~00 Watcr Arthritis Classes Avg. Nn oP Glasses pe(' Session fr (i Nrr. of Seasions 4 ~ ~lvg. Nu. aC i'artir,ipants per Glass 10 72 Rv~, Fee per I'articii>ant $50 $50 Subtotal Revenue $12,()(1f) $14,4p0 'Paddler 'l'ime Avg, No cif Classes per Werk ;i 3 No, of Weeks per Year' 4[) 4() Avg. Nn. of Participants per Class 5 is Av . A'r,C Cr ParGiCi ant ~6 $8 Subtotal t~c:vrnrrr. ~8.Ci4D X5,760 Swinlmini; Lessons No, of Participants per Lessnn 5 d Nn. of 1~essons per Session fi() 60 No_ oP Sessions pr,r YCaC 3 ~i ~._F`ee per k'artiripant $45 $45 Subtotal Revenue $40,51)U ~ . __ ~48,6D0 c?~2(l06'1'be Sports evlanagetnent Group A,22 EMERALD LIEN RECREATION ANp AQUATIC CENTER 6-lane indoor Pool fYaLa~ciriu[u - (1~'all, WIt1Ge1', Springy) ~'re-St;huoVHome, Srhr~ol Les~on~ Low High No. of Participants prr Class 5 t; No. oP Classes per Session 9 2 12 Nn. nP ~esslons pee Year 3 3 Avg. b'er pcr Partirlpa~it _ $4Q ~ _ $90 Subtotal ltavenuC ~7,2pp ~~i,H4{1 Privatr, f"cssons Nn. nF i,cssans per Season 75 75 Nn. of Seasons 3 3 Av . 1~'et~ cr PaCL1cl ant $Qp $]{}{} Subtatai ktevenur, $2(1,25(1 ~22,5D0 Pool 12entals Rrnt815 per Mq[7tli 2 3 MuuLl[s per Year k; g Av . 1~'ee rr Ronta] (2 fl [`s C~ ~2UU1hr $40p ~4(}0 Subtotal Revenue Fi,400 ~fl,6ilU 'I'uitill'otcnl,inll:[~v[~nur ;lil l3,{1 r(1 ;~1~i1.7i111 (~2i70ri "i'he Sports Management Group A.23 i~ EMERALD GLEN RECREATfQN ANU AQUATIC CENTER ~5-Meter x ~~-Yard Outdoor Pool Gc~w HF h Swi[n Te~im fiental~ Avg. No ot"Prams 2 ;3 Avcra e Cost er Team X6.000 ~~A00 Suk~tata] I~r.,venue $92,000 $i~.o{>'n ~rastr.,rs Swfm Av?;. No_ cif E'artiripar[ts per Month 50 Fi5 No. of Months per YeaC 7{1 i[} A'u .Fee er F'artir.i ont X40 $40 5ubtatral Rrvr,nue $2,000 ~2,G00 Dlvr,, Watrr Pplq, Sy[[ahro (;lobs / Organiz~[tiuns !Teams Avg. No cal`'1'r;;~ms ~ Q Aver[[ e Cast 7er'I'C~rrl $3,000 $3,000 Subtotal Revenue $fl,Q00 $12,U(lf} Tor[rnamentb I Cc~mlrerirlar[ Re[[tals Avg. Nq qi' Re[ital3 4 fi Avers e }+'er, nr Rental $5ra0 $500 Subtotal Revenue $~,UUO $,i,(?00 Heep ~ilter Rxerai~r. Avg, Nq, of Classes oPCrrr..r] per Session 4 ~! No. nP sr.,ssigns per Year l 2 Avg. Nn. oP PartlCipants per GIASS 9U 92 Avg. Fee per Participant X45 $45 Subtotal Revenue $3,500 $4.3(1 X2005 The Sports Management Group A_24 ~~ f~~ EN4ERAlp GEEN RECREATION AND AQUATIC CENYER ~~-Meter x ~S,Yard 4utdaar Paol LOW ,,, --- High Lifegu{lyd '1.'raining Avg. iVu, of P[[rLicipants prr Session 15 L(] Nu. of Sessions per Year 4 4 Avg. F'rr, pCr P~rtiClp~i7L ~ $i[}U _ $900 Sulrtatal revenue ~~ ~F],ODD $$,()DD ,junior Lleeguard Training Avg, No, u1' PartlcipauLS p~;r 5eaginn 15 as Nn. or SrsRlons per Year ~ 2 Avg. H'rr, pcr P~rtlcipa[tL $5{] __ $50 Subtc~tai l:evrnur, X1,5[10 $2,DDD Boating Safety Class Avg. No. or [,laSgr.S orrereil per 8essian I 1 Nu. of Sessions per Year 3 3 Avg. No. of Partiaipsnts per Giass 9a 12 Avg, ree per Parti[,ipant ~9a $~ia SubtoLt`il Revenue $9,2DD X1,44(} Private Re[rtsls Avg. Nu. of l lourCy Rentals per Year 4 fl Av . F'or, er Huuri Rental 4 hrs ~ $2(}(l/hr $i~{}(} ~soa Subtotal Revenue $3,2D0 ~4,t1D0 Youth Camps Avg. IVo. Camps per Month 2 2 Avg, Nn, oP Moaths per Year t~ 3 Avg. fVo. nP Partiripa>ats per Camp 1(1 15 Aviv. I'ee per L'smp $75 $76 ~ubtot~il revenue $4,500 ~fi,7~r(} 'L'ots[ l't~L~~ntisl ltcvcnu~~ ;h~i:,,ilUl} ;6ri2.;}!i} 02005 The Spurts Mauagc;ment Group A.2 EMERALD GLEN RECREATIQN ANR AQUATIC [ENTER Recreation Pawl and Continuous River ~,0'1y , ,.. _ High Watr;r Fitness Glosses (2 days pr.,r week) Average No. of [;lassrs per Session 5 5 Averaga Nn. nP Sessloirs per Summer 2 2 Average No. Uf Participants per Class 6 E3 Aveca e C'ee er k'artici Gilt X66 $(~5 ;~uhroral Revenue X3,900 $5,200 ' ' Senior Water i~ itnr.BB (classes (2 dliy~ ~rrr wCr..k) Average Nn. nP Classes per Session 2 ~ Average Nu. of Sessions per Suotrt7er ~ 2 Average Na. nP NarLIClpartLS per Class 4 [} Avery e Fee er Partial ant ~,{) ~,5p SubLuLallLevenue $800 X1.2110 GVatrr Walking Class Avg. Nn, of Classes Offered per Summer 4 4 Avg. No. of Participants per LeSSUU $ 1(} Avg. P'rc pcr 5essio~er YarLiripanL ,,,., ,, ,,,_ X40 $40 SubtaLal Revenue ~7 .~RQ ~1,fi00 Summer Swimmlrtg Lessuns~ Parr..nt.~fTpLB Avg, Nu. isf Classes [)iir;red per' Year ~6 35 Avg. No, of Sessions pcr Year t 1 Avg. No. nF PartieipaCtts per Lesson 4 ~I Av .Fee er Sessiutt Pr Partfcl ant ~,3(i $30 6ubtuLal Revenue $3,000 $4,200 PCivuLe Swimming Lr.BSpi]S J1vg_ No. 01' l.cssons per Summer 60 5[} Avers e ii'ee er Lesson ~4~0 $~p0 Subtotal Revenue $4.5(}(} $6,000 02005 Tire Spans Management Group A.~[i ~~ ~~ EMERALD GLEN R~CREA~ION ANU AgUATfC CENTER Recreation Pool and Continuous diver Lo~v Hi h Private ~enbals _ I.,gw _ ___ High Avg. No. of Hourly R0[~tal5 per Year 1a 15 Avg. Fr,r., pcr Haurl~y Rental {~ hr5 (~ $2ao11[r') ., $800 $800 BuiaLu6a] Revenue; $8,Oa0 $12Aaa ~outf~ Cartlps Avg. No. Camps per Month 2 2 Avg. Nn. aP Months per Year 3 3 Avg_ Nn. ni' P(~t'GlrlptiR6s per tramp is 15 Avg. 1'"ee per Camp $75 $75 8uiatutal hevenur, ~4,G00 ~H,754 4prrla1 Events Avg. No. Ar.tivitir,S peC Muntli 2 2 Avg. iva, aP Months per Year ~~ 3 Avg. Nu. of l~'~tmiiioslC;raups per A[.tivit,,y 2a 25 Av{;. Fee per l'"amity/C~raup $2a $2Q 4uhtntal RBVenlle $2,400 ~s,0aa 'I'oial I'ol,[~ni,lal hr~v~~[1uc~ $213,380 ~.iti,tl zfl 02()(15 Thr, Spprts Mana~erneut Group A.27 EMERALa GLEN RECREATION ANp AQUATIC Cf:NTER T'he er,~onnmic analysts is develrrpr:d in a "dpw" to "trf~Pt" r~rr„e of proLerbfe npr.rstirlg C05bS and revenue putentisl. Tfre "ttf~f} " cast rerovr.ry is dei;ermfnea' by dtvfd111~ Llle lttghe,st pntcntfal t'ever)ue by ttte lowesd prubsble cxper}ses, "Gow" is determined by dividing the. 1pweSG poGer)tirat reven(re by nc~ highrsr, probable experrscs- "Average"cost recovery is determined ny dividing the ttversge pvCerr~tvl revemrr, hyaver'~[g~e prabsblr. rxpcr[ses. [~~>st Recovery I'o6c~i~~ial w/n Reserve l~ u~~[i .......Tow Av~~:a~;e,......,. cost RCCOVeCy Potential $$.9'3~ t0[).~I~fir Annual Si.ibslrly uC P[~aFit ($349,000) X12.0(}(7 Yrohahle; {}pr,ratirig Coals X2,529,000 Ynr,r.nC,ial Revenue $2,594,000 GirsL l~c~acyvc~ry PotcnClal w/ Rc?~orvc f un~ Low Coal Recovery Potential l~1.{)~5 Annul Subsidy or C'rofit 0609,000) PtobaUle Operating C;crSts $2,77},(}(]{] Potential l;rvcnuc ~2.584,Q00 X2,736,000 $2,74E3,[70[) -...-. High ................. 114-7~n ~3~3,oao ~2,9~3,aoa $2,902,000 rl~+r, ra ~e ................................~ ~~i~h -------------~-~- 91.94 'l{}1.4~r 024;3.{){}0~ $123.000 X2,961,000 X3,2{)3,()0() $2,748,000 ~z,~}o2,aoo ~~ C~20O5 The Sports Management Group A.2g W~ EMERALD GLEN RECREATION AND AQUATIC CENTER Probable Operpting Costs All fi8ures are raunderl La L][e nearest thausand SALARiFS A1V17 IiF'.NF:N ITS f,pw High FUII 'I'1me, Salaries 1~'acility lvla[ia~e[' (S['. Rec Supervisor) ~fi4,OQ0 ~8Q,000 Assistant Facility Manager (Rea CoardinaLae) $54,000 $Ci8,000 Aquatic pirector (Rr.,r., 5upervlsor) $64,040 X84,404 Aquatics l'ro~ram Coordinator (l~ea'l'eot[) $~i3,()OU $Fi4,0()() 12ecreaLio[1 l'[roi;['am Caartl. (tea Supervisor) 1~54,OQ0 ~ti8.000 Marketing Caardlnatar (Rec Caarcllnatar) $54,400 $G8,000 Fitness /wellness Pragram Caard. (Rec c,aord.) $54,040 $08,004 Program Assistant (Rec TFChnialan) $43,440 X54.00(} Administrative Assistant (Senior Ol'liae Assisr,ant) $42,040 X52,004 $[:rUIC{; C;r,ntr.r Clc;rk flPflr..n Assistant 11) $38,400 $17,U[}l} Subtotai C~ull'1'in[e Salaries $~rl(7,i)UO ~63~,OOQ Full-T1mr, Rmplnyrr, Benrflte and flv[;rtim~; Hull-'l'ime StaFl lienefit5 (F(}ak,) x;3()6,()(}0 ~.it33,OD0 l~'ull-Time OverLi[rte and Overti[ne [ienefiLS $F.Q00 X8.000 Subtotal [3enefiLS X312,000 $391,00 5[Ibtoi~af Full-Timfi salaries and Brnrllts X822,000 Vii,{):i(l,l}[}0 X2005 T17B SparLS Ma[[a~eme[tt Gronp A_20 J EMERALQ GLEN RECREATION ANQ AQUATIC CENTER Probable ~peratin~ Casts All tkgures are rounded La Lhe nearest rhqusand. fart-'I'imC Etirrployee Salaries Gow k11 h G,ymAttr,ndants $0,00Q X11,000 foul ]3uilciing (,punter CashiPr9 $7,(](}0 $4,000 ReCe~Lion Counter Cashiers fig(},{){){} ~13~,{]{)() Building ALLendanta $17,QQ() ~gc~,{){jl) Building Sppervisurs $38,QQ0 $35,QQQ Ckiild ~atc,h Staff ~3i,[}00 $,1,3,000 Fitness Ruum nttc;ndants $55,1]0{) $57,()00 Marketing (Party) AsskstanLS $4,D{)() x$,00(} WaLar Safety [ustrurtnrs $35,D0{} $37.01](} InStrllCtiUnal !'onJ I.,ifrglla['i15 ~9Q,QQ1) ~~~.{){)() I:rr.rratipn Puo] LiFeguards $78,OOQ $8Q,Q00 1/13 Milr 1',nntinuous River I,ifrgual'ds X40,000 $42,000 25 Meter x 25 Yard Poal Lifr. cards $513,0[]0 ~Fi{J,000 SuUtoLal F'arir'1'imr. Salaries ~537,UU{} ~563,OI}1} fieneFits: Hourly E[nployees I[aurlY Staff >3eneflts 6.1 Fi~i`o `6~i3,000 $.35,000 9ubtotai 13rnr.,flts x,33.{1110 $,35,f}[]f} Suritgt~l Pi~tr'L-TiIne ~alarles a[[ii CieneFite ~570,OpU X598,000 Training: 1111 Employees Training $94.QC}1} $18,OUQ Trainin Certification $2,pUD $3,OQ0 ;~utrtrrtal ~e-lefiLS $ ] 6,000 x,21,000 1~'ull `I'imr; ContraaL Stall' F'caal "1'eChnlcian $46,000 X60,000 Buillliu MaintpnpgCe Tet;hnician ~45,Q{]{} $5U,[)UQ Subtotal Cantrar.,t Staff ;$90,U{)l) $1UU,001) Cil711tr~[ct YersonnCl Services Genera] Instructnrs $99,U00 ~g2$,000 Fit[tessfExercise [nstrttCtOrs $55,0Q0 $65,000 A uatic Fitness instructors $25,Q00 $26,000 Subtatai Contract 1'crsonnel Services $179.000 X219,000 Subtotal Salarlre and 6eneFit~ X1,677,(}00 $1.9f,8,0U{? ~2p05 The Sports Manage[nenC Group A, 30 ~~ EN~ERALp GLEN RECREATION ANa AQUATIC CENTER i ~-~-~ ..-- ....................................... Proha~le Operating Costs All Pigures are rounded to thr. nea['eyt thousand, ' f)PERATIN(y 1;~(PFNSES Trove! artd Staff Unifurms Low Hi h Travel $T,004 ~~,{j{}(} 1~'ull-Tirrie Staff LiniPprms X1,[}00 ~1,OQ0 Part-'1'imc SGaff U[[ifnrms $22,0[}0 X28,000 Subtota! 'travel, Training and Unit'orms $30,04(? ~;i3,ppp Cornmunicatian Servir..rs TelernmmunicaLi[rng ~~i,(]00 $5,00f} City Nr,twork Line ~2.(}[}p $2.00f} Cell f'hnnes, Pa ~erslhedlos $3,0(]f} $4,000 Subtotal (:ammunication Ser'wiaes ~B,Q00 ~i l,[}pp Supplies ~ Materials Offlce Suiaplins $5,000 $(1,000 Postage $1,00(7 ~2,p{}{} Program and kecrr.,atlunal Supplies ~(i1,000 $77 0(]() Fool Che[iiiaa[g $2$,000 , $35,{j0(} 1J' ui menL u[[der $2,50D $5.000 $5,000 Subtotal Supplies ~ Materials ~100,(li}{) $i25,pp0 kepair and Maintenance Paaility Repair a[[d MainLeniinr,r, ~3i,()(}0 $34,000 M~ijnr L[7uiprrlenL Repair antl Maintr,narice JaniGOrial and Paper Supplies $12,00{} X18,004 $15,000 $9 fi.(}(}fl [;oriGracL Custodial $106,000 $913,0(}U Subtotal Relratr said Maintc><iatice $1F}9,000 $178 00() , Marketing and Promotion8 Marketin artd Pr'u[nntions $40,000 ~i45,(}UO Subtotal Markrtlug and Promotions $~ip,OpO $45,000 {2005 The Sports Management Group A.31 ~~ ~MERALU GLEN RECREATION ANQ AQUATIC CENTER I~r~ba~le ~perpting Cost All Figures are rounded Lo the nearest thousand. OP~RATIiVG I:IXPCIVSJJS Service Agr'eemenLS / CunLraat Servic,en HVAC Safety Equipment (:opy Machinr. Alar[n Maintenance rest control Wlndpw Washing! Carpel Cleaniu~; Pay Phonr.,s Subtotal l7ervira Agrrcmc~ntoR,r.,~sr.,(5) f:omputer Serviaea Low Hi ,~ i a,oaa ~~ a,aao 1,ppp $2,00a ~1,(io(1 ~~.pac} $i,a0a $7,Ilil(} ~l,oaa ~z.ooa 1 a,paa ~~ ~,oaa ~2#3,a00 $31i,()()(1 SorLwa[~e Service A;sreer[[ents ~s,aaa ~ l a,aoa Nlaintrnancc and Supplies $3,pp(} ~4,a(}p subtotal SPrvire ~~rr,Cmr..nts/f.Ca~e(t~) ~~11,000 ~i14,0(10 PoalExpenses Nlaintenancr..! f]tlllt4es!Repair $11,ppp ~1o,oap $uhtota] Pnnl F}xpr.,n~c8 $]4,00[1 ~i1'8,(10f1 Utgttie8 Natatorium and lndonr Pnnl UtilltiCS $2q,UUU ~31,UQ0 OuLduorl'oolllLilities $]os,aaa $943,0aa Building Lltillties $137,(](1(1 $151,Q(}U Suhtntal [,riliria~ ~ 1~:~.32,000 ~37,,OOa 62aa5 The SporLS Mana~ernent Group A.32 EMERALD GLEN RECREATION AND AQUATIC CENTER ~ Probable Operating Cots Ali Pigurr,S $re raundad to thr, near.~;st thousand. OPEIZATtNG EXPFIV~R~ Other Expenses Low ICi~h Ducs t~ St[bsr..riptions $1,000 ~2,Q()0 Bank Charges $zz,000 ~25.OU0 Refunds and Rei[riburse[neuts X28,000 ~29,OOQ Insurance $17.0()(1 $18.000 Cgntingency X25.000 $z5,(}(I(} ~uhtotal [)they $91,OOQ ~99,OOU Outlay Co~st~ (,apical (h~tlay X24,000 X26,()[1(1 ('.nmputer Renewal a[~d IwepJarrment $2,000 $3,000 Pnnl F:quipmr.nt (1ut.lay _ ~~O,OOD ~]2.ODU SubCruta! Outlay Cults X36,000 ~41,OQ0 Subtot~~l OperatCng E>~penses (rouncRed) ~fi52.0[)0 X975,0(1(1 Total Prrrhablr, [1prrating [;oats ~2,52~,000 X2,943,000 R[`.servc F~md Bu_ildin~ ReseCVes $25p,(}U() $2Fi0,00[] Subtntal ReBervC Fngd ~250,00U $260,000 'Cato) Probable Operating L[~sts with tteserveS $2,779,D00 ~+3,~08,000 C~~(1(15'l'he sports Managemrnt Croup A.33 EMERALD GLEN RECREATIQN AND AQUATIC CENTER dart-Time Staff Back-Up 4ummcr k'fWIS Total Wages i;ym Attend~t12lS Nn. of hours per week 20 ZO No. nF wr..r.,ks per year 15 35 CCouri hatr, $9.50 ~~d_50 Cxpensr, $x,850 ~6,H50 $9.500 Poai Rulldi~[~ Counter [;aslliers Nn. of hours per week 4$ 9 No. of wr,rks per year 15 11 Huu[~] hate $x,50 ~~J_5ll Expense $H,$40 $941 $7,781 Rrr.rption Counl.er Cashirrs No. of hours per week 171.5 179.5 No, uC' weeks per yrar 9 5 ;ib Hourl Gate $9. a() $9.50 Expense X24,439 557,024 ~81,~iFi;i Buildi[Yg Supervisors No, oP hours per week 5h 50 IVD. of weeks per ,year 1 b 35 H(riirl Rate ~12.Qi) X12,00 lixpensr, $10,080 $~;i 52Q $33 600 , , }5uilding Attendants Nn. of hnurs per week 37 37 No. of wnaks per year 15 35 Hourl [fate $9.50 ~9.~f() Expense :5,278 ~12,3i13 x+17,575 {:hlld Watckt StK`tff (Vu, of hours prr week 7S 7ii No, of weeks per year i 5 35 Noun Rate $8.6() $8,50 E~cprnsc X19,690 $22,610 ~32.30I1 X2005 TCte Sports Mauagetnent Group ~~ A.34 EMERAf.p GLEN RECREATION AND AQUATIC CENTER dart-Time Staff Back-Up Summer F/VU/S Tot&1 W~~es la'itnC88 RUUm 11tLCnCl~nts No. a[ haurs pr.,r week 1 p l 101 No, of weeks pcr year 15 35 HoiErl Rate $]7.00 a11.p0 Expensr., X16.685 ~;i8,885 X65,550 Marketing (Party) Asalstante 1Vo. of hours per wrek 10 10 IVo. aP weeks per ,year ] 5 35 Huurl Rate $1D.t)U $70.00 Expens[; ~l,5pi~ S4i,5Qp $6,pQ0 Water Safrty ~psL['uctor8 No_ o[ hours par year 1,F30 1,82$ Ilourl Rate $11.00 X11.00 Expense X17 ~l,'ifi ~i~ Qnsx ~~~ u2sx In~tri~cLlonal Yaol f,IPeguardr3 No. a[ Ilaurs per week 192 ! X32 Nn. nP weeks per yrar 15 35 l~ni~rl Rate $9,50 $9,50 Lxpen~e $17,380 X63,840 ~9~,200 R(:CI'eaLiun Yonl I,11'e~uarda Na. oP laours per work 494 $4 No. aP weeks per year 7 5 11 Rxpense $70,39 x#3,77$ $79.173 1IF3 Cotltinuous River Lifeguards Nn. o[ hours per week 254 4 r f4o. a[ weeks per yrar 15 11 Hourl Rate $y_5{} $11.50 Expense $36,]9 $4,7U3 X40,#398 25 Mr.,ter x 25 Yard Pp01 GiPegual'[ES No. aP how's per week 19~ 88 Iva, of weeks per year i a .35 Haui'1 Rate $0.50 $~3.6(} Expense $27.360 $31,f128 $59,2130 '!~ ~2005'Phc Sparls Nlaria~emenL Group A,35 EMERAIp GLEN RECREATION ANp AQUATIC CENTER Contract Staff Back-U~ Lora ...~.- I~li~h ,~ [,cnaral Instructors (,rnss AflraUal ReVel7ue $165,450 $214.900 Pr~rcent to Instructcr -- 6094, - fi(1~'n ----- Fx~rcnBC $99,U41U $12$,ODU Flttless /Aerobics irrstructora crrosa Annual RCVenue $00,020 $90$,440 E'ercent to ]nstrur.tnr F~096 6094, Pacpense ~ yS,DIlI1 $65,UUU Ayu~ttlc: Fitness Instructors Avg. ~Vq, qI Classes per Year 1,010 1.Ori(} Instrur.tnr Gast pr.,r Class ~ $25 _ $25 C;xpense $~5,f)0U $26,UU0 ~~ 02005 Tlae 5pgrts M~tna~ement Group A.,i6 EA4ERALD GLEN RECREATION AND AQUATIC CENTER ~~ Prpb~7ble Uperatrrlg C;O~ts Uet,91! Brick-L1p Full-!'ir[[e L[rlirlclyrfl 13enrfits OV~RTIMI~ AL'~p ~1~'N~IaIITS ... 1-[curly H1mpl~xyCe Be[lelit3 Full-Tl[ne Salaries $5]U.Uf)fl $639,000 fart-Time Salaries $537,000 $56;3,000 Annual BanafiLS Parcelita~e fi(}~ 6U~#, Annual Benefits Percent 6.1591a H.15'~6 Total Ex ease E'ull-Tune p Pull-'1'imr, F;mployee Over'tima $30fi,U(}0 $383,400 Expense ~.~.. - $33,026 _~ Full-Time Erilpluyee f]vertime Be[iafits ~~ $;i4,{i~6 Eul[-Time Salaries Annual Benefits r`er[.entage $~itf),g00 1'~i $6,i9,[)()f} 9~(1 Full-Time OVerLilne Salaries LienefiGS PrrcenLa~a `~'J,1()() 26~,n ~G,390 2S°/u Tote] Expense l~'ulJ-'l'ima X5.100 ~fi.39U _ E~xpc.nsr, $1,326 $1,6Ci1 `CItA.'V~~ Af~~ ,TRA[1VIlVG ' '1'raiui[[~ Pull f'ltrle Stak'f Travel ~ (;unl~(Fre[![,as ........................ Av{;, Nu. [lo[[rs per F;mpioyee 20 2{) Aonua] Full-Ti[tie 1;m11- 7 B Avg. Na, New Lmp. per veai' Avg, C4SL per'1'rainin Maur 60 X12.{7q 7Fi ~12.D0 Avg. Allocation per l;'mp. Exprnsc $1,OOU X7,000 $1.{)(}() ~9,UUU Expr.nse ~14,4U(J X1$,000 PLUS - Annufll f',rrtiPiratlgrl C6St5 ~2,U(}{} $3,000 1'~[rt-'I'ilnfs 3t~lk'f F'ul]-'l'ime Staff ...... ........Y ... r .... ... .................. ........ Avg. No, of Employees 105 109 Av{l. No. of Lmployoes 10 15 No. of ilnil'nrm3 per Empl, 2 ? 1Jnifot[iLS per L;mplnycc 2 2 Attrition 1.5 1.5 Avg- Cost per Uniform $35 $35 Avg, Cost par Uniforrrr _ $;i a $35 Lxpense $7qq ~1,g5q Lxpensr, $91,U25 $11,446 Liff;guards Avg. No, oP Eriiployaas 76 79 Na. of 1Jni[or[r[s par Emp[- 2 2 Attrition '1.5 9.5 ~. f;OBt peC UliifU['Irr _ ~() $50 Expensr, $91,25U $11,850 'I'E it; C O MI M IJNI GATI O N S 'L'elc;cn[lirnUnll;aLlU[LS (.ell j'IlUl1GS Number of Uplce / I>ata Lines 8 10 Number of Cell 1'hanrg 7 ~ Avg Cost per Line per Montli $4q $40 Avg Gnat per Pager per Month $35 $35 Number ol° Mouths par Year 1 ~. 32 Number of Months par Year 12 12 Expense $3,840 $4.80{) Lxpense $2,940 $3,7$0 [;ity Network Corrimunicatinn line No. of Months peC Year 12 12 Avg Cost per MrJnth ~ $!ga ~tg{~ Expanse ~2.16q ~~ $2,160 CC~2005 The Sports Management Group A,37 EMERALD GLEN RECREATION AND AQUATIC CENTER ~ f'rnh561e Uperatirrg Cods Uetai! Beck-Up ...-. ....:: ....:................:..:...,,,.,..:,...............,.,.,,,.,..:,.,.....,.....:.~f?.!',!€'c;~F~ ~rzac~M, ~~~~.~a~ivc ~~v ~»>~ic>l~ ...,:.:r:, ~~~~ ~~ ....................:...... ............::.:...~ (Jea,;['~[I Ult[ae 4t[ppl:es Postage No_ Months per Year 12 12 Avg. Cost per Year $1,[1(Jt7 $2,(}pa Avg. (:~~t per Montlr $40a $500 E~xpeltse $].I7U() $2.(1(Ja Expense $4,800 $6,D00 -,...,~LIPPLLE$; ph'OGRAM.t~N1~,~O01:,GHEM[~,LS. (~eueral Liuilcling ~uppiies 1'ro~ram [3uplilies: Aquali~; Nra~ra[ns Annual Allotment __-- $3,0(J{J $4.00{1 G['oss Ar[nual Revenues $] 8~i,130 $227.130 M'.xpense ~ $3.0[)0 $4.(7(J0 Percent 1 a.a9fa i a,a94, Child Watr.h Room Annual Allarar,ipn $g,p[~a $8.000 Expense ~s,fJaa $~1.(}aa 1'rngram Supplies: Uanen Sttidiu Grass Annual Revenues $b7,720 $73,500 H'xpense $4,61!3 $5,E313(J Paal Chemicals ]ndaar Peal Water Surt'aCr, 5q, Foottige 4,200 4,200 Average [;net per Squa[,e 1~'nnt ~1.a0 $1.10 Expense $1,200 $4,620 Expense $1f3,Fi13 $2'2.713 Pro~;rarr[ Supplies: Fitness Area/Grnup Exercise boom Gross Annual Revenues $~d7,920 $118,440 Percent 12.a9b 12.()95 Expense $11,760 $]4,213 YraBram Supplies, G,ymnasluir[ Grass Annual Revenues $1}8,730 X128.6(}f) Percent 8.(}4~O B.O~a Fxl7ertse $7.t34}fl $10,288 E-'ru~ram Supplies: l•3irthday Pc'1['tIP,R No. nC Parties per Yrar 288 ,3134 (;nnr, per Party $30 $.3p Cxpensc $8,640 $11..`i20 Pocl Chemicals OuLtluor 2`i x 25 Foul Water SurFacr., Sq, Footage (3,2,50 g,2,5a Average Costper Square Foot,,. _ $]_2a $2.a(J EJxprrase $7,5U(} $12,5(}0 Puul Lhemir..als Outdoor Rrc antl Cuntin~l[s River Water 3utace Sy. l+'nntage 15,$75 15.87.1 Average Cnst per Square Fpgt $1.{J(} $1,10 Expense $15.$75 $17,463 ....... ......::..:...................:........... ..,.._,...,.,_:,.:,.,:,,:..,.:$u~~1~fNG REPA~~'~11'li~~h1`l<'I~NA~!~'~~ y H'acillty [~epairw ~nli Ma[nLeuauc,c, Janiwria] an Paper Suiplies Avg. Cost per Mnnth $2,{1(70 $2.t3aa Av1;. Cost prr Mor[Lt[ $1.100 $1,300 Numhr.,r Months per Year 12 _ 12 Number Months cr Ye~[r 12 12 Expense $31,200 $33,600 Lxpensc $13,200 $1 r,(i[]a L'ontract CusLadial 5r,rvlce Center Square Footage P~2,875 G2,875 _Cas~L er Square Foot _ __ $1,67 $1 as Expense $1[}5,001 $1!3,175 MaJar Equipment, Rept'[ir and Malr[tenance Avg. Cast per Manth $1,000 $1,2b[} Number Montlls er Ye~~r 12 12 ExpenSO ~la,aaa $1~,aoa X2005 The Spurts Maua~emCnt Group A, 38 EMERALD LIEN RECREATIQN AND aaUar~c CENTER Probable C1pcrS3tln~ Costs Detail Liaak-Up . ~ ,•,,,I~IARYCC'PIN[; ANI~ 0~?E~IT!(a~i$ ,~ '~ . k'('~utittg t~. k'alrlicaticrn ~ldvartising Faculty Brochures F~adia Newsletters Newspaper C+'lyers Trade Publication Special ['rotilUtinns Marketing'Pntal $40,00(] $46.(}00 :.......:..:......:..::...:.:..:..:.........::................:.......... fi,C+:RVICC AriRLLM~NT l CCflv`1RAC'C SE[2~C~S ''~~ Copy ~blachiue '['elephonu -Pay Pttuue ~~.,..~.~~~~.~~~~.~~..~.~..".~.~...~.,.,... Np, pf Copy Machines 1 9 Nu. of l-'ay i'hnnrs 2 l Na_ of Months per Year t 2 9 2 No. of Months per Year 12 9 2 (:nst, per Month $9[]D ,, $~ 50 Cost pee Month $50 $75 Expense $1,2()0 $9,$Of) Expense $1,200 $1,fif1{l 5a[ety Equip[ireut Altowanrr, Security System M~rint. (Alarms, Cameras) 1~ ire SnrinklCr Malntenanae Expense ~1.f){lf} X2,000 Alarm Maintenance Nn. n[ Months per Year Cast prr Month Expense 92 12 $~50 $ a(} $600 ~fiOD Windpw Washlllg Nq_ nP ~vas>ies per Year 4 4 Cost prr Wash __ -- $2.000 X2.{}00 Expense $$,()[)f) .,~~~. $SA00 l IVA(; EtVA4', Maint,nn3rtC0 Expe[lse $90.00() $12,(l()(? Carpet Cleaning Na. of Months per Year Ei 1 l Cast p[;r Mnnth $600 $60U Expense $4,$UC1 $7,2{)(l Pest, {':nntrnl [;nst e;rYear $1.20{l X1,000 H)xpensc $l.2(10 $1,fif)f) ' ~ ~ C~M~'C)'~'';ER Mc'UNTEIVA~1~~,'1~1D>R~~GAC1~M~11~' 4 .,.,.;.~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Software ~f,rV]Gt. Agt'rnttlellts c.,nm liter Nlaittlenauce and $u Ales Anmta[ Allotment ... _ $7,50() _ $10,000 Total No, of Cgmputers 97 20 Expense $7,600 $90.Db0 fast cr Gnm liter $200 E;xpensc $3,40(] $200 $4,000 C~2flf)6 The Sports Managemrnt Croup R.3~ EMERALD GLEN RECREATION ANU AQiIATIC CEN TER ' Prnbahle ppel'at}ng Costs IJetail Back-Up I'l'~~5 ~ ` ~+''~ n 14 5 : 1 l : h h 1 ' ' ' Buildl[ig Utilities Building [1rp88 Square Feel ~4,Fi75 .. .................... 54,875 . .. .. ... ...... .. .. ... .... ......:.. ..v. ..... Paul Utilities: L5 ~1~eter an[1 25 Yat'd Water Sur[ace 8,250 . ....._.. .........,•. 8,250 Avg. (;aster, ,rr 5quarc Foot $2.5(}__ $2.75 Avg, Cost per Square Faat $'7,5a ~a.aa ' Cxpense NatatpClum and [ndooC F'ouI [Jtilities X137,388 $35a•9(7ti Expense $46.875 $5a.a00 Paol Utilities: Recreatic3n and 3B Mlle Cp[7Clf7lloU6 River Natatorlum Square Feet 8,o00 8,aa0 Water Surface 15,875 17,875 qvg• Cost per Square Faat _ $3.60 $3.85 Av • Cost er S uare Faot $7.5a $8.aa Expense $2H,$aa $30.$a0 F'xpcnsp $311,[16,3 $3~1f3,(1(Jfl (lutdopr 1'uul Equip[iienGMaiuteuance . . Stand-rlluue Foci Building Mainteutince/IJtilities~Repair Sllripg. Ftr..• $E3,[}pa $10,0aa Allocation $8,Oa0 $8,Oa0 l;'xpense ~a.(7n(1 $1a,aaa Expense ~s,aaa $~.c?(}a Coatin~ency 12etunds ~ heirnkiursables Annual Allawa[ice $'?S,DOa $25.Qaa Grass Annual l:rvrn[[ps $2,504,Oa(1 $2.9a2,a0a Expense $25,OQa $25,OQa C'eraeut 3.a096 3.a0~i6 Dues anti Subsr.riptinns Expense FSank Charges ~25,94a $29,a2a Annual Allowt[nc;e $1,OOa ~2,a(7a 75~tr nt' Mass + (;lass Sales ~#,3134.500 $1,53~.aaa Expense $t,aaa ~2,oaa Bunk C'ee F'ercenta r, 1.C~a~, 1.8aS~ Expense $22,152 $24,fi2~1 Insurance Cost o[ ]iuilding $24 ,500,00() $25,~i{1(1.(1(1(] ]nsurance ($a.70 per $100(7) $a•70 $a.70 Expense $t7,15a $17.$50 ' ~~l3uildiu~ Reserves ToLa] ConsLructio[i Cost $21,Aaa,aOa (;apita(Uutipy $24.1JUU•0U(1 l~'itness L[]uipment Tptal .,,.:.~ $120,OOa $130,000 Percentage 3_x0% 1•x096 Percentage p~r.Year __ 2a~ 2(74~n N;xpcnsc $248,000 $248,aaa Expe,ise $2~1,{7D0 $2ti.06a Cnmputer Renewal and Replacement f'nal Outlay Annual Allotment _ $2.000 $3.OOa Pool Equipment $50,000 $80,000 Expense $2.a0a $3,aaa Perccnt~ e er Year 2(1'~ii zap ' Expense $i(7.(laa ~~la,aoa p2(1(15 Thr, 5pprts Management Group A_9a i STAFF PREPARED OVERVIEW OF SPACE COMPONENTS IN THE PREFERRED OPTION FOR THE RECREATION & AQUATIC COM:PEE~ Casual Activlt~es Loutt~e Facility Size: 1,400sf F..stimuterl C.'~rastructi~n C'osf: ,$943,000 Estimated Annual Direct Revenue: $U Estimated A.nnua~ Direct Expenditures: $3,850 )~stiinated Direct Net Operating Gain (bass) ($3,850} The Casual Activities Lounge would not ise used far any programmed activities ar classes. It is meank ka serve as a waiting area and meeting location which enhances the experience of using the facility. Pros of Casual Activities ~.,oun~e Cons of Casual Activities Lauu~e • Provides a welcoming atmosphere with a iifamily roam feel"_ • Expands the size of the reception and lobby areas which is useful during high volume hours. • Provides a place Cor customers to wait far family members participating in activities, meet others far activities ar drop-in and use the facility at na charge. An extension ofthc deli/juice bar and ~, meeting spat for Friends and neighbors. • C".ould be enhanced with ariyl"i Internet cannectians so that parents waiting far children in classes could keep connected. The Casual Activities Lounge does not generate any direct operational revenue. Ja~ire Bar ar~d Deli Frac'ility Size: 600 sf Fsti~xlutecl ~.'onstrucfron Cosf: $403, 650 Estimated Annual Direct Revenue: $G3,OOC1 Estimated Annual Direct Expenditures: $1,G50 Estimated Direct Net Operating Gain (Loss) $61,350 The Juice Bar and Dcli would be located adjacent to the Lobby and Casual Activities Lounge. The space would be leased to a private vendor to provide healthy food and beverages for facility and park users. This would rnaxiinize 'the direct net operating gain with little risk to the City. Pros of Juice Bar and Deli • Provides mare space than a traditional canccssion which allows for a higher duality of food and beverage and mare seleckions. • For thane earning before work or during lunch it provides a convcnicnt way to purchase food and beverages before going to work. + Frovides Food and beverages far customers waikin~ in the Casual Activities Laun.~e. lions of Juice Bar and Deli • .~It is a dedicated space 'with only one use. Depending an the demand the space may only be used for a portion of the day. The level of demand for these services is unknow~i at this time. • The financial performance of these faciNties can vary depending on the quality of the vendor. Page 1 of 6 ATTACHMENT ~ ~~ Gynnusiurn Facility S72e: 12, ~UU sf F..stirnater{ ('nrrstructinr~ Cnst.• $8,275,4~U Estimated Annual Direct Revenue: $176,84Q Estimated Annual Direct Expenditures: $53,6] 3 Estimated i~irect Net Operating Gain (Lass) $I.23,~27 The Gymnasium includes one 1'u1l~length court (SQ' x 92') and two shorter cross courts. In addition it includes bleachers and dedicated storage space. The Gymnasium would be used for sports leagues such as basketball, volleyball, and badminton. It would also he used for classes such as aerobics and gymnastics. In addition there would be hours for drap-in use by adults, teens and youth. Pros of Gymnasium ~ ,.~ -__, .~V • There is high demand far youth spans pragrasns and the Stager Gymnasium is almost to the paint where the City can not expand certain programs such as youth basketball, Due tv limited access to Schaal District gymnasiums, this spacc would help the City to provide more gym pragranis. • l,t is a flexible space that can be used far a variety of classes and programs. ~ [t provides another spacc for drap-in, casual use, which would serve the needs of mare UuStOmerS. • 1Vith it's relation iv the amenities and services of the Recreation Center and Emerald ~71en Park, it may be a ~aad tournament venue. Cans of G mnasium __ _ • Significant cast far construction with a relatively small annual operating gain. Floor and equipment maintenance casts are higher than some other spaces- • The size and height of the building for the gym is significant and will be a prominent feature in the park. Dance Studin Facility Size: 1,8Q0 sf Fstirnutecl ~:onstructian C'iasf: $1,212,1 UU Estimated Annual Direct Revenue: $58,000 Estimated Annual Direct Expenditures: $45,630 Estimated Direct Net Operating Cain (Lass) $12,37Q The Dance Stadia has a wooden Haar, mirrors, ballet bars and a sound system. It would be used far dance classes far all ages and other classes suitable for the space such as Tai-Chi and Yaga. Pros of Ilauce Studio Cons of Dance Studio _ • Dance classes are popular with all ages. • Significant cost far construction with a • Space would be a state-of-the-art dance relatively small annual operating gain. instniction stadia with woad floors, ballet bars, • The Dance Studio has the same amenities as the mirrors and a built in sound system. Croup l xercise Raam. Instead of offering dance classes in the Dance Studio they could be held in the Group Exercise Room. This could limit the amount of dance classes that could be held. However, for the recreational-level of instruction the City provides the classes could also be held in multi-use spaces in the Community Ccntcrs. Page 2 of 6 Group Exercise Rvu~ Facility Sipe,' 2,100 sf Estirrxat~~c~l G"op~strur~tinrt C~.st.• $1,413,35(1 Estimated Aiu~ual Direct Revenue: $91,UU0 Estimated Aru~ual Direct Expenditures: X74,898 Estimated Direct Net Qperating Oain (Lass} $16,1U2 The Group Exercise Roam has a wooden boor, mirrors, and a s^unci systenY. It would be used far classes such as aerobics, yoga, martial arts, self-defense, private rentals and special events. .Pros of Group Exercise ~oort~ Cons of group Exercise Room * It is a flexible space that could be used far a variety of classes and activities. + This space would free-up the large Main Ha11s for other rentals where Jazzercise is currently held. • Would expand the variety of aerobics classes that could be offered (i.e. high & law impact, seniors, adults, teens, parent & child, etc.} * Acoustical engineering would minimize the disturlaance to others from the noise created by the volume afthe aerobics music. + if dance classes were held here it would maximize use of the room and therefore the net atn in revenue. • significant cost far construction wilh a relatively small annual operating gain. + Woad flooring requires additional maintenance and care. ,i~itnesr• Ger~ter Facility Size: 3, r55D sf Esfiinated Cnr:structiv~z C'vst: $2,456, 400 Estimated Annual Direct Revenue: $591,$00 Estimated Annual Direct Expenditures: $91,5$8 Estimated Direct Net Operating (Gain (Lass) $SUU,213 The Fikr~ess Center wot~ld feature cardiovascular equipment and weight machines similar to those at a health club. Drop-in use would make up a majority of the use ^f the Fitness Center. In addition classes could be offered such as wcigltt training, pre-natal fitness classes, and developing individualized fitness programs. Pros of Fitness Center • Provides enough space to offer a variety oC machines to meet the needs of a larger customer hose. • Would increase pass sales far swimmers since it provides a goad way to augment swim training programs. • Allows parents to conveniently exercise while their children are taking classes at the Recreation Center. + Although it is a significant cost for construction, it provides a considerable annual direct net operating fain. Cons of Fitness (;enter + Equipment is expensive to maintain. • Equipment has to be replaced regularly to ensure participant safety and to respond to changes in fitness trends. • The cost for staffing is higher than same of the other spaces due to the need far experienced and certified training instructors and staff. • Without proper staffing there is a risk of improper use ofthe equipment and potential risk far the City, This could be minimized through the use of waivers attd mandatory orientation sessions. Page 3 of 6 b~ Gu-ne Rnnm tyizcr.'Ir.'ty Sipe: 900 sf Fstirnated Cnrtstruction Cost: ,~~04,900 Estimated Annual Direct Revenue= $t 9,460 Estimated Annual 17ireot Expenditures: $2,475 Estimated Direct Net Operating Gain (Loss) $16,985 Traditional garnc roams feature pool tables, table teiu~is, air hockey and arcade machines. As an alternative, unique attractions could be installed such as virtual sports machines for golf ar sorting. This roam would be available (or drop-in use. I]uring the weekdays it could be geared towards adults and seniors. Pros of Game Room _ Cons of Carne Roam • Provides an indoor "drop-in" activity besides Nlay require additional monitoring and the gymnasium and natatorium. supervision by staff if it becomes a popular provides activities far youth in middle school, hang-out. which the City curre~~tly has no facility options to offer. Attractions could be leased and rotated to keep up interest in the Game Room. Ba6ysitting / Tnt A ctivity Rn[~rrr Fnrility Size: 1,OOO~f` Esdimu~eil L'vrtstrirclivn C.'vsl.- $671,600 Estimated Annual Direct Revenue: f9,CIQ0 Estimated Annual Direct Expenditures'. $43,[15(7 Estimated Direct Net Operating Gain (Loss) $25,95(1 Provides a space far babysitting for parents taking classes or exercising. When it is not being used for babysitting programs it could be used for tat activity classes and tot birthday parties. 'These rooms are usually developed around a theme, are bright and colorful, and have outdoor activity space attached. Pros of Babysitting/Tot Activity Room _ ~ Cans of Sabysitting/Tot Activit~.Roorn • Enables adults with children to participate in • None activities. • Provides space with E'urniturc and fixtures designed specifically t'or tots. The C~ity currently does not have a space ]ike this. ~ The babysitting room can be operated with an a contract thus minimizing staffing cysts. Special Euer~ts Room Facility Size; fi75 sf Esdinrutecl Cunstri~t~liUn ~:vst= $457,700 Estimated Atuiual Direct Revenue: $23,0(1(1 Estimated Annual Direct Expenditures: $18,376 >~stirnated Direct Net Operating Gain (Loss) $4,624 Provides a space for special events and birthday parties at the facility. The space could be reserved far private parties. In addition party services and themed packages could be offered to au~nent the rental of the space. Page 4 of Cs Fras of Speci~31 Events Roam . • There is a demand far birthday party space. 1*aretlts are looking for new places to have parties outside of their homes at a reasonable price. If it is aggressively advertised anal marketed with unique attractions it could exceed the net operating gain estimated in the report. + If birthday parties were not popular, the space is flexible, enough to serve many other purposes. Cans of Special Events Room The direct net operating gain is relatively minimal in relation to the cost of constructing the lacility. Natatorium wi#h Indoor Fitness Pool Facility ~S"ize: ~,f1~0 sf (3.675 sf pnr~! surfcrre area) G"ost: $x,155, 950 Estimated Annual Direct Revenue= $552,200 Estimated Annual Direct Expenditures: $211,171 Estimated Direct Net Operating Gain (Lass) $3~41,Q2~ The Natatorium features a 6-lane, 25-yard long, fitness pool. Since the pool is indoors, the water is kept wanner than the outdoor pools. it would be used far water aerobics, arthritis therapy classes, swimming lessons, Name-school P.F,,. classes, lap swimming and private rentals. Fras of Natatorium and Fitness Foal fans of l~iatatorium and Fitness Faal_~ + This would make the facility state-of-the-art + 'The pool requires a relatively large building and unique in the Tri-Va11ey. which signif cantly increases the canstructian + This would a11ow the City to offer year-round cost. swimming lessons. liven during the summer The building requires larger H'VAC and air months, it gets coal and windy in Dublin in the exchange systems which increases electrical late afternoon. utility costs. - 1+lrould provide wane-water far arthritis therapy ~ Natatariums can feel humid and stuffy and classes which are in high demand and wi11 sr~,ell of chemicals if they are oat properly continue to grow with the aging of the baby- vented. boomers. • Due to the specific depth requirements for + Having the poo! indoors reduces chemical and water aera>~ics and swim lessons, this pool pool heating costs. would not be suitable for competitive swimmin a~ r meets• ,~ pa~tdoor Competitive Switn~nin~ Pool .Surfrxce Area: 6,250 sf Estimated C'n~astruciinn G"ost_ $1,90.750 Estimated Annual Direct Revenue: $142,00 Estimated ,Annual Direct Expenditures' $121,780 Estimated Direct Net (?pcrating Gain (Loss) $20,52 This provides a space for competitive swimming programs such as swim team, water polo, diving and synchronized swimming. It would also be used far lap swimming and recreational swimming. Page S of G Pros of Cam Pool 'T'he City currently does not have a pool that meeks the current standards or is deep enough far competitive swimming programs and meets Would allow the City to expand competitive programs to tncct a variety oftraining needs. Water Poio is continuing to gain papulanity a~1d could be conducted in this pool. Cons of etitive pool The direct net operating gain is significantly law in relation to the large cast of constructing the facility. • If the competitive pool is lacaked at l~meralci Olen Park it would not canvenier~tly serve the needs of the high school swimming programs. Qutdrrr~r Leisure Pnnf ar~d Lazy River I.eisr{re Pool Arica: 8, 000 sf Estimated Construction Cost: ~$3, 440, X00 Iacrzy River Area: 7,fi75 .~f L'stimated C.'onstruction Cost: $2,457',900 Estimated Annnual Direct Revenue: $807,4U0 Estimated Annual Direct Expenditures: ~3Q2,534 Estimated Direct Nct Operating Gain (Lass} $504,806 The Leisure Pool and Lazy River would be two different pools. The leisure pool would feature water play structures, splash down areas far water slides, a zero-depth beach entry and a lap area far lessons, lap swimming a~~d water aerobics programs. The Lazy River would be 1/S-mile long and 12-feet wide. !n addition to #laating in tubes, it could be used 1'or water walking exercise programs. These pools would operate seasonally during the spring and summer. pros of IJeisure Pool and Lazy River • This would be the largest leisure pool in the Bay Arca (excluding the Water World and Raging Waters amusement pans). It is anticipated that it would have a regional draw in the summer. • The Lazy River is a unique feature that would further enhance the regional draw to the facility. • It would be large enough to not feel tai crowded for patrons. • ,A theme ec~uld he developed for the pool and wafer play equipment to enhance the entertainment value. + The zero-depth entry provides water play space for tats who are unable tv wade into deeper water. It improves accessibility far thane with disabilities. It also gives adults a place to sit in the coal water and watch their children. Provides a relatively large net operating gain in relation to the amount afthe construction cast. Cons of Leisure Pool and Lazy River 'T'hese types of pools require rKaore lifeguards due to the amount blind spats created by the water play equipmenl_ The water play equipment requires significant maintenance to remove hard water deposits az~d maintain the finish. Same equiprrtent will have to be replaced after time. • Additional pumps are required to operate the various water play and spray features, thus increasing utility casts. Page 6 of 6 BUILDING ALTERNATIVES PREPARED BY STAFF ~'] ~'~ Preterred Master Plan Building Support Spaces Optlon Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative Vestibule 1 Entry 1 Lobby !Access Control 740 640 900 900 644 Casual Activities Lounge 1,400 800 0 D 0 Juice Bar l Snack Bar (Storage 640 600 400 400 4D0 Locker Rooms 3,000 2,500 2,500 2,5D0 2,pDQ Special Needs Changing Room 110 110 110 110 110 Family Changing Rgpm (90 sf each) 360 270 270 270 180 Family Changing Locker Vestibule 200 180 0 0 0 Restrooms 244 240 240 240 100 Administrative Offices 1 Workroom 18reak Room 1,830 1,830 1,fi60 1,680 1,220 Maintenance 1 Receiving !Storage !Workroom 8170 800 $DQ $DO $OD Subtotal Bullding Support Spaces 9,240 7,910 B,9D0 8,90D 5,410 Activity Spaces Gymnasium & Storage {2 - 50' x 74' courts) 12,300 11,540 11,540 11,54p 11,54p Dance Studio & Storage 1,804 0 0 0 0 Fitness Center & Storage 3,654 3,65D 3,150 3,150 1,580 Group Exercise Room & Storage 2,100 2,100 2,10D 2,16D 2,140 Subtotal Activity Spaces 19,850 17,290 18,79D ~ _ . _ 18,790 15,220 Community spaces Game Room 9D0 700 D 0 0 Babysitting & Tat Activity Room 1 Lav 1 Storage 1,D00 90p 904 900 0 Special Events Room _ 675 600 0 0 675 Subtotal Community Spaces 2,575 2,240 900 900 675 Total Recreation Center Building Space 31,665 27,4D0 24,59D 24,590 21,3D5 Natatorium Natatorium l Storage 1 Mechanical 1 Chemical 9,11D 9,170 9,170 D D Fitness Pgol, 6 Lanes {3,675 sf surface area) 3,875 3,675 3,676 0 3,675 Outdoor Competltlva Pool 25 Meter x 25 Yard Deep Pcol (75' x 82') 6,250 6,250 6,250 6,250 6,254 Pool MechanicallChemical Room Space 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,25D 1,250 Outdoor Leisure Paol Recreation Pool 8,D00 6,000 5,000 8,004 3,000 Budget for Waler Play Features $5DO,pOQ $500,400 $30D,000 $5op,p40 $207,540 Pool Mechanical 1 Chemiaal Room Space 1,73D 1,330 1,130 1,730 730 Ou#door Lazy Rlver Lazy River 7,875 2,625 0 4 0 Pool MechanicallChemical Room Space 1,570 524 0 0 0 Qther Aquatics Support 5pacas Lifeguard StafFSpace 68D 680 680 680 660 Small Sales Booth 240 200 200 200 20D ChangingRoom5lToilet5lShowers 1,000 1,400 8D0 800 154 Concession Stand & Storage 800 400 0 0 0 Pool Technician's Office 100 0 0 0 0 oo tarage Lgst & Found __ 1,000 _, _ 1,000 1i0DD. _ _ 1,000 450 Subtotal pthar Aquatle Support Spaces 3,780 3,260 2,880 2,680 1,460 Total Aquatic Building Space 17,5D0 15,550 14,230 5,680 3,440 Rec Center Grossing Factor for Circulation, etc. 10,564 9,13D 8,200 8,200 7,320 Aquatics Building Gro551ng Factor for Circulation 3,090 2,74D 2,510 1,ODD 610 Total Grass Bullding Area 62,815 54,820 49,53D 39,450 32,875 Total Gross Water SurFace Area 25,800 16,550 14,925 14,254 12,925 TOTAL PRDJECT COST $39,072,4D0 $33,491,45D $29,68D,35D $24,859,550 $16,437,355 ESTIMATED FUNDING SHORTFALL ($21,964,755) ($16,383,805) ($12,572,705) ($7,751,945) $D A7TACWMENT 3 City Manager's Office DATE: June 15, 2007 TO: Mayor and City Council MEMORANDUM FROM: ;~~Richard C. Ambrose, City Manager Paul McCreary, Parks 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 Park, as envisioned in the Parks 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 Parks 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 ^ Small Fitness Center (1,580 s.f.) ^ Group Exercise /Multi-Purpose Room ^ Special Events /Birthday Party Room ^ Outdoor Leisure-Instructional Pool (6,600 s.f.) ^ Outdoor Deep-Water Competition Pool (6,160 s.f.) ^ Juice Bar ^ Locker Rooms/Restrooms ^ Administrative Offices In 2004 the Council adopted a new ten-year 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 ATTACHMENT 1 ~,~ On April 12, 2005, the Council participated in a joint meeting with the Parks 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 Aquatic Amenities ^ Larger State-of--the-Art Fitness Center (3,650 Indoor Fitness/Therapy Pool (3,675 s.f.) s.f.) Larger Outdoor State-of--the-Art Leisure- ^ Game Room Instructional Pool (8,000 s.f.) ^ Babysitting/Tot Activity Room Lazy River 1/8 of mile in length ^ Casual Activities Lounge Additional Concession Space ^ Larger Locker Rooms ^ Additional Office 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 Park. 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 market in the Dublin area, 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 PARTNERSHIP 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 Parkway did not meet the company's business model of only locating franchises on major arterials such as Tassajara Road or Dublin Boulevard. Staff is not aware 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 market 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 particularly 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 forward 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 II) (46,11 S sf building; 12, 750 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 year-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 Year 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; 14,150 sf in two pools; $14.5 million shortfall) Phase I: $4.0 million shortfall Phase IL• $IO.S 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 bar. 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 year-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.) ^ Larger Locker Rooms (+200 s.f.) ^ Administrative Office Phase II ^ Gymnasium ^ Outdoor Deep-Water Competitive Pool Design and construction of Phase I of this alternative could move forward 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: $12.0 million shortfall Phase IIl: $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 ^ Larger 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. 1 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 ($6.3) ($6.3) ($4.0} ($10.5) ($14.5) ($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 CII'. 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 ofsurplus projected to be $11,085,612) 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 ESTIMATED 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. CT TMM A RY 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 fa112012. 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 CIl' 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 are 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 recommends 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 ~~~ ~- 1 \~~/,:' CITY CLERK File # ^~®^-^,3 0 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 4, 2008 SUBJECT: 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. ~/ ' 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 ITEM NO. G:\COLJNCIL\Agenda Statements\2008\3-4 Competitive Pool (2).doc C 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 regarding 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 Park 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 Glen 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 Master 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/Restrooms ^ 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 construct the Recreation and Aquatic Complex: Community Building Impact Fees $13.1 million Aquatic Center Impact Fees $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 square-foot outdoor leisure pool, which will have shallow-water space fora "zero-depth beach entr}~' and in-pool playground, as well as some lane space for swim lessons, aerobics and recreational swimming. The other pool planned for Emerald Glen is a 25-yard 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, water 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. z~1 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 scoreboard 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 larger rotation of lifeguards needed for the additional pool space. Storage space would also be needed 'Yl for lane lines, lifeguard stands, pool covers, starting blocks, water polo goals, swim meet equipment and the timing system touch pads. Soils 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 board. 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 appear 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 be 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 Center. The current parking arrangements meet peak demand during evening programs, but limit the City's ability to expand weekday ,programs. With the existing parking arrangements, extra coordination has also been necessary to accommodate parking during larger events such as swim team dual meets (two teams). During dual meets, use of the overflow parking at the other side of the school has been sufficient 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 parking problematic 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, compared with the availability of parking at the High School.. °`~1 TABLE 1 -SUMMARY OF POOL CAPACITY VERSUS PARKING AVAILABILITY Parking Parking Spaces Parking Total Parking Spaces Adjacent to Spaces Spaces Pool Capacity Adjacent to Swim Center Adjacent to 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 14 280* 788" Pool 50 "Narking 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 0(~ 1 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 Parks and Facilities Development Division will already be managing several large projects including the Fallon Sports Park, Dublin Historic Park, Civic Center Remodel and Expansion, the Emerald Glen Recreation and Aquatic Complex, and several neighborhood park projects. These 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 with 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 Year 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 alternative 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 Commission 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 concerns 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 in the east are expecting a competitive pool at Emerald Glen Park. 6 p/'~ CTTMMARV 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 Year 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. ~~~ r}fi 4~~ q"' R Y } fia s;.fs_ . J a[3 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) 829-7766 Jennifer Henry (925) 351-9139 Patricia Kohnen (925) 828-3623 DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT T471 Larkdale Avenue, Dublin, CA 94568-1599 • 925-828-2551 • 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. In 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 for 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. I 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, i f` Stephen Hanke, Superintendent ~_ ~.. Ed.D. cc: DUSD Board of Trustees Richard Ambrose, Dublin City Manager ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF DUBLIN BUDGET CHANGE FORM New Appropriations (City Council Approval Required): X From Unappropriated Reserves (If Other than General Fund, Fund No - From New Revenues DF.,CREASF. RIJnC;F,T AC'C'QTINT AM(~iTNT CHANGE FORM # 3~3 From Budgeted Contingent Reserve (10800-799.000) Within Same Department Activity _ Between Departments (City Council Approval Required) Other TNCR~ASF BUnGET ACCOUNT AMOUNT 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 #: " .-~-° f° ~ ~ fay. ASD/Fin Mgr ~-~ ¢ ~; . ~, k ~-:;~. ,.~.,~ ~r ~ ___ _ Budget Transfers: signature „~, ' ~ . Date: b,. ~. :~` REASON FOR BUDGET CHANGE ENTRY: At the City Council Meeting on March 4, 2008, a report was presented regarding options for the 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: Date: Signature H:1CC :^ORlfStFORh:-5udget c{rnnge.rloe ATTACHMENT 3