Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/29/2013 - SOUTHEAST COMMUNITY RECREATION AND ART CENTER FEAS
DATE: October 29, 2013 STAFF: Bob Adams Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Southeast Community Recreation and Art Center Feasibility Study. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to review the Southeast Community Recreation and Art Center Feasibility Study. This Feasibility Study includes a needs assessment, programming and conceptual design, financial pro forma, and site location review. Staff will present the results of this study to City Council. The report summarizes the process and illustrates how the Southeast Community Recreation and Arts Center aims to provide the greatest value while exceeding the expectations of the community. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does Council have questions or concerns with the Study? 2. Does Council have a preference for one of the facility program options shared today? 3. Does Council have a preference on a location for this new facility? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION When Fossil Creek Park was built in southeast Fort Collins, land was designated for a future Community Center. In the City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan, as well as the Cultural Facilities Plan, adopted in 2008, it was recommended that the City increase the number of recreation and cultural facilities to meet the needs of the community. The Parks and Recreation Policy Plan specifically provide direction to plan for future recreation centers at Fossil Creek, Spring Canyon and the future Northeast Community Park. The Cultural Facilities Plan calls for a partnership between culture and recreation to provide for increased participatory and educational arts programming. The strategies identified are for collaboration between cultural and recreational programs to maximize the usefulness of the facility and serve a growing and dense population center of the city. During the 2013/14 Budgeting for Outcomes process, the Recreation Department submitted an offer to fund a Comprehensive Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design for a future municipally-operated cultural/arts/recreation/fitness/athletic/aquatic center. This offer was supported and funded. In early 2013, staff did a national search for a firm that had the qualifications to conduct such a study and had experience with both recreation and cultural arts facilities, including aquatics and theaters. Staff entered into an agreement with a nationally-recognized firm, Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture. The firm has experience with numerous similar projects in Colorado and nationally and teamed up with City staff to complete the Study. The proposed facility study needed to meet the needs of the growing southeast population of Fort Collins, as well as fill gaps not currently covered by existing recreation and cultural facilities. In addition, the City required to project projections take into account the City’s minimum LEED Gold certification requirement in estimating the cost of construction. October 29, 2013 Page 2 The following components are covered in the Study: Demographic analysis Market assessment Community input Program and budget development Operations analysis Concept design Alternate site evaluations. ATTACHMENTS 1. Southeast Community Center Feasibility Study Report 2. TBL Analysis map 3. Powerpoint presentation Fort Collins Southeast Community Recreation & Arts Center Summary of Needs and Development Plan October 29, 2013 ATTACHMENT 1 October 29, 2013 Mr. Bob Adams City of Fort Collins Recreation Director 112 E. Willow Street Fort Collins, CO 80522 Subject: Southeast Community Recreation & Arts Center Feasibility Study Mr. Adams: The project team of BRS Architecture, Ballard*King and Logan Simpson Design Inc. would like to take this opportunity to convey to the City what a pleasure it has been working with the them and the City Staff over the past few months. Since our team was engaged to work with you we have learned much about the City – from our workshops with the staff Committee, our visits with the public, and listening to the needs of the stakeholders. The needs assessment, programming and conceptual design process we have undertaken has been enjoyable, thorough, and necessary to arrive at the conclusion of the feasibility study we are presenting to you and the City today. This report summarizes the process and illustrates how the new Southeast Community Recreation and Arts Center strives to exceed the needs and expectations of your constituents, while providing the greatest value for the future. Respectfully submitted, The Project Team Steve Blackburn, AIA LEED AP Principal-in-Charge BRS Architecture Dave Hammel, AIA LEED AP Design Principal BRS Architecture Jeff King, CPRP President Ballard*King & Associates Jana McKenzie, FASLA LEED AP Principal Logan Simpson Design Inc. 2 SE Community Recreation & Arts Center FEASIBILITY STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 | E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y M a r k e t A n a l y s i s N e e d s A s s e s s m e n t C o m m u n i t y I n p u t P r o c e s s 2 | P R O J E C T T E A M & P R O C E S S P r o j e c t T e a m F e a s i b i l i t y S t u d y P r o c e s s 3 | S I T E E V A L U ATION & R E C O M M E N D ATION E v a l u a t i o n & R e c o m m e n d a t i o n 4 | P R O G R A M , B U D G E T, & O P E R ATIONS P r e f e r r e d B u i l d i n g P r o g r a m P r e f e r r e d P r o g r a m & P r o j e c t B u d g e t A l t e r n a t i v e P r o g r a m s & P r o j e c t B u d g e t s B u s i n e s s P l a n & P r o F o r m a S u m m a r y 5 | C O N C E P T U A L D E S I G N & K E Y F E ATURES C o n c e p t u a l S i t e P l a n B u i l d i n g L a y o u t B u i l d i n g D e s i g n & C h a r a c t e r A l t e r n a t i v e P l a n L a y o u t s A P P E N D I X A l t e r n a t i v e S i t e S t u d i e s M e e t i n g M i n u t e s M a r k e t A n a l y s i s N e e d s A s s e s s m e n t B u s i n e s s P l a n a n d P r o F o r m a 3 1 | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 “This report summarizes the process and illustrates how the new Southeast Community Recreation and Arts Center strives to exceed the needs and expectations of your constituents, while providing the greatest value for the future.” EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The first step in the feasibility study process began by working with the City staff to develop and refine a work plan to determine the schedule and a defined list of tasks that would ultimately result in a facility program, site selection, and budget. This was achieved through a comprehensive process which included workshops, community input meetings, focus group discussions, analysis of survey data, and a market analysis. Workshop attendees included the Staff Building Committee and the design team. • Marty Heffernan – Director of Community Services • Bob Adams – Recreation Director • Jill Stilwell – Cultural Services & Facility Director • Steve Budner – Recreation Manager • Mike McDonnell – Recreation Manager • John Litel – Community Relations Each workshop focused on specific decisions or approvals and solicited input from the Building Committee for further direction. Overall, the focus of workshops included Market/ Needs Assessment, Space Programming, Building and Project Budgeting, Site Evaluation and Planning, Facility Layout and Massing, and finally Architectural Character Preferences. In April of 2013, the team led by Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture (BRS) was commissioned by the City of Fort Collins to perform a feasibility study for a new Southeast Community Recreation & Arts Center and to report a summary of needs and development plan. This process culminated in a program to meet the needs within the community consisting of a 78,900 gross sq. ft. facility in Fossil Creek Park at an estimated total project cost of approximately $35 million. The scope of the project was expanded to explore alternative locations for the Center in south Fort Collins. The project team included the following consultants: Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture Architect & Team Leader Ballard*King & Associates Operations and Business Planning Logan Simpson Design Inc. Site and Landscape Design The City of fort Collins is interested in creating a state of the art facility which: “This Community Center will enhance the entire community by providing a unique venue for citizens to gather, create, and recreate in a positive, safe and healthy environment.” 5 The input gathered during these meetings allowed the team to better address community needs as well as any concerns with the potential design of the new Community Recreation & Arts Center. See Appendix for meeting notes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Workshop presentations occurred on the following dates: April 22, 2013 Workshop #1 Process Site evaluation Market analysis May 22 &30, 2013 Stakeholder Mtg w/ combined Youth & P&R Advisory Bd. Stakeholder Mtg. w/ Combined Senior & Cultural Resource Advisory Bd. June 5, 2013 Workshop #2 Survey results Stakeholder report Site options Public Open House June 25, 2013 Program and Budget discussion via GTM July 11, 2013 Workshop #3 Plan options Character preferences September 20, 2013 Alternative Site discussion 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY primary service area is significantly lower than the national level of 37.3 years while the median household income is higher. Consulting team member Ballard*King & Associates were contracted by the City of Fort Collins to conduct a needs assessment and feasibility study for a new Southeast Community Recreation & Arts Center in Fort Collins. The primary goal of this part of the study was to determine the community need and feasibility of a Community Recreation & Arts Center in Fort Collins that serves the Southeast portion of the community through market analysis, stakeholder meetings, community meetings, community survey and operations analysis. Market Analysis: The Southeast Community Recreation & Arts Center primary service area population is growing at a strong rate with the population projected to grow about 6.9% over the next five years to reach a population of 168,404 people by the year 2017. Growth in the 20-minute drive time area is estimated to increase more rapidly than the primary service area with a projected 7.7% increase in population over the next five years to 287,976 people. The demographic profile of the community indicates that the age group distribution is somewhat mixed. There is a higher concentration of 18-24 and 24-44 age groups and less in the age groups of 1-5, 5-17, and over 45 age groups than the national levels. The median age of the 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Age and household income are two determining factors that drive participation in sports wellness, & arts activities. The demographic profile suggests that there will be continued support and demand for recreation activities and programs in the southeast portion of Fort Collins. Competing Facilities There are other recreation and fitness providers in the primary service area. However, the other service providers have a narrow business focus on the adult fitness market while the wellness and sport opportunity for young people, seniors and athletic teams are underserved in the community. Although the School District has been generous with their support of youth sport activities in Fort Collins it is clear that the existing inventory of space within the School District is no longer sufficient to meet the growing needs of the youth sports programs and expanding school activities. The need for more gymnasium space, swimming pool and fitness component was validated through the public input process used during the market analysis process and community survey results. National Statistics Comparison Statistics from the National Sporting Goods Association (NSGA) were overlaid on to the demographic profile of the service areas to determine the market potential for various activities that can take place within a sports and wellness center. The market analysis concluded that the southeast 8 Colorado Sports Participation Rates Sport Colorado Participation (in thousands) Age Group Largest Number Exercise Walking 1,873 65-74 45-54 Exercising w/ Equipment 969 25-34 25-34 Swimming 749 7-11 7-11 Aerobic Exercising 973 35-44 25-34 Running/Jogging 803 12-17 25-34 Workout @ Club 720 25-34 25-34 Weightlifting 591 25-34 25-34 Basketball 266 7-11 12-17 Yoga 495 25-34 25-34 Soccer 61 7-11 7-11 Tennis 150 12-17 25-34 Baseball 79 7-11 7-11 Softball 151 7-11 25-34 Volleyball 140 12-17 12-17 Football 314 12-17 12-17 Lacrosse 0 12-17 12-17 Household Income 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY portion of Fort Collins is underserved for indoor sports training and fitness opportunities, especially for family activities, youth fitness and gymnasium space. Community Survey The City of Fort Collins conducted an on-line survey as part of the public engagement process. The purpose of the survey was to help determine the interest and feasibility of constructing a new southeast recreation center to serve citizen recreation, leisure and cultural needs. The survey was designed to obtain results from households throughout the City of Fort Collins. The survey was administered via the City’s web page and 935 households responded. Features That Would Be Most Likely to Use if Included in a New Recreation Center. Based on the sum of their top 7 choices, the features that residents would be most likely to use if included in a new community recreation & arts center are: indoor leisure pool, indoor running/walking track, cardio fitness, gymnasium, performing arts/theatre space, weight room and aerobic/dance room. 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY How Often Households Would Visit a New Recreation Center if it Had the Recreation, Fitness, and Aquatic Features They Most Prefer. Fifty percent (50%) of households indicated they would visit a new community center several times per week if it had the features they most prefer. Nineteen percent (19%) of households would visit a new community center once per week; 13% would visit a few times a month, while 5% would visit monthly. Of the remaining households, 6% would visit a new community center less than once a month, and 6% indicated they would never visit. These results are generally what we have typically seen in other communities. How Respondents Feel the Costs for Operating a New Recreation Center Should be Paid. Over one- third (39%) of households indicated that taxes should pay the majority of costs for operating a new community center, while 51% believe user fees should pay the majority. Eight percent (8%) indicated that operating costs should be paid 100% through user fees, while 2% believe they should be paid 100% through taxes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Needs Assessment In addition to examining the demographic characteristics and market in Fort Collins a series of needs assessment tasks were completed. Stakeholder Meetings As part of the feasibility process for a new Southeast Community Recreation & Arts Center, Barker Rinker Seacat and Ballard*King & Associates conducted a series of stakeholder meetings on May 22nd and 30th 2013 to gain insight into cultural needs and the needs of youth, seniors, and adults in the southern Fort Collins area. Stakeholder meetings were held with the following individuals and organizations: • Youth Advisory Board • Parks & Recreation Advisory Board • Senior Advisory Board. • Cultural Resources Board. For a full report of the stakeholder meetings see the meeting notes in the Appendix section. 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Public Open House A Public Open House was held on June 5, 2013 at Preston Middle School, to elicit community preferences regarding possible program uses in the proposed community center. Over 120 residents came to the meeting. Bob Adams introduced the project and Dave Hammel presented a community recreation center slide tour of facilities from across the nation. The residents were asked to participate in an exercise called Dot-ocracy. Posters showing possible program uses were mounted to the walls. Residents were given 6 sticky dots and were asked to chose the 6 most important uses that might be provided if a new center were built. At the conclusion, the top 10 uses were announced. This activity was followed by a discussion of the Market Analysis and the results of the On-Line Survey. Dave Hammel and Jeff King then took questions from the audience. Here are the Top 10 program preferences from the public meeting: Leisure Pool, Weight /Fitness Equip., MAC Gym, Fitness Lap Swimming, Jog/Walk Track, Party/ Classrooms, 140 Seat Studio Theater, Comp. Lap Pool, Climbing Wall, & Indoor Playground. 12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Needs Assessment Conclusion The program recommendations for the Southeast Community Recreation and Arts Center were driven by the information gathered during the market analysis, including the demographic profile of the community, statistical data from the NSGA, stakeholder input, public meeting input, and community survey findings. The project recommendations reflect the most pressing needs in the community. Although there is a declining trend in participation in the arts nationally, this can be attributed, in part, to the reduction in arts education in school. This helps to explains the inclusion of an arts component to the community center. Based on the market analysis, program assessment and budgetary considerations the following program summary was developed. Optional Programs Considered Three Options were studied; a preferred option; a smaller option that does not include a pool; and an intermediate option that has no theater. The following charts shows the recommended programs and cost implications for each option. Not all of the top ten preferences have been included due to the need to keep the cost within reason. However, space can be provided for future expansion. 13 Option 1 (Pool & Theater) Project Space Program Gross SF = 78,907 The preferred building program to meet the needs of the City include spaces for: • Sports, Fitness and Recreation • Arts and Culture • Health, Wellness and Life Skills • Community Gathering and Socializing 14 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Program Space Net Area Ext Selected Program Gross Area Facility Administration Spaces 1,908 2,328 SF Facility Supervisor's office 150 Assistant Facility Supervisor 120 Programmer's Workstations 240 Administrative Assistant 100 Count Room 80 Work Room 250 Break Room 200 Conference Room 200 Computer Server Room 150 Storage 100 Circulation 318 Required Building Support Spaces 11,820 14,420 SF Pre-Control Lobby 1,500 Lounge 900 Control Desk 300 Men's Locker 1,200 Women's Locker 1,200 Family Lockers (8) 2,000 Vending Machines 150 First Aid 80 Men's Toilets 300 Women's Toilets 300 Custodial Closets 150 Building Mechanical Room 400 Sprinkler Valve Room 90 Main Electrical Distribution Room 250 Maintenance/ Receiving/ Loading 900 Custodial Workroom/ Supply 300 Maintenance Office 100 General Building Storage 1,700 Child Watch / Babysitting 940 1,147 SF Babysitting 800 Tot toilet 40 Storage 100 240 Person Community Room / Events Hall 4,100 5,002 SF Community Room 3,600 Storage 500 Option 1 (Pool & Theater) Project Space Program 15 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Program Space Net Area Ext Selected Program Gross Area 7,000 Leisure Pool 17,300 21,106 SF Pool 7,000 Natatorium 15,400 Slides, Spray Features, Spa Lazy River, Body Slide, Tube Slide & Tod Slide Sprays and Jets (most) 3 Lane x 60 ft. Yard Lap Swim 20-person Spa Therapy Area for Aqua Aerobics Supplemental Sanitation Water Treatment Pool Equipment Room 1,200 Pool Storage 700 Wet Classroom / Party Room(s) 800 976 SF Classroom 720 Party Room Storage 80 150-Seat Flexible Studio Theater 5,580 6,808 SF Theater Lobby Lounge 1,500 Audience Seating for 150 1,500 Box Office and Administration 200 Performance Area (stage) 900 Technical Acting Balcony 300 Lighting and Sound Control Booth 120 Stage Lighting Dimmer Room 80 Sound Systems Rack Room 80 Follow Spot Booth 80 Dressing Room A 160 Dressing Room B 160 Concessions & Stor 100 Front of House Stor 80 Backstage Stor. 200 Piano Storage 120 Sustainable Options/LEED Gold Green Building Design Solar Hot Water Heating Pool and domestic water heating system 78,907 SF Single HS / Double Elem. School Courts Gymnasium 8,540 10,419 SF Gymnasium 8,140 Storage 400 Long Elevated Walk / Jog Track 6,500 7,930 SF Walk/Jog Track 5,900 Stretching Area 600 Weight / Fitness 4,500 5,490 SF Cardiovascular Training 2,000 Circuit Resistance Training 1,250 Free Weight Training 800 Fitness Supervisor Station 50 Stretching Area 300 Equipment Storage 100 30-36 Person Aerobics/Dance Studio 1,950 2,379 SF Aerobics/Dance Studio 1,800 Option 1 (Pool & Theater) Project Budget The Total Project Cost of the preferred option, includes: • Construction of the building and interior spaces. • Off-site improvements to public property. • On-site construction for parking, sidewalks, signage, etc. • Soft costs which may include land acquisition, allocations for art, professional fees, FFE (Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment), testing, surveys, and other related project costs. In addition to estimating these costs, a 10% Owner contingency and a 5% Design contingency were applied to the subtotal to arrive at a total project cost. Building Construction $21,975,000 Off-Site Construction 0 Site Construction $2,417,250 Soft Costs $6,171,814 Subtotal $30,564,064 Contingency (15%) $4,425,140 Total Project Cost $34,989,204 16 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Option 2 (No Pool) Project Space Program Gross SF = 54,336 This option deletes the Leisure Pool from the program and allows for it’s addition in the future. 17 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Option 2 (No Pool) Project Budget The Total Project Cost of this downsized option includes: • Construction of the building and interior spaces. • Off-site improvements to public property. • On-site construction for parking, sidewalks, signage, etc. • Soft costs which includes allocations for art, professional fees, FFE (Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment), testing, surveys, and other related project costs. In addition to estimating these costs, a 10% Owner contingency and a 5% Design contingency were applied to the subtotal to arrive at a total project cost. Building Construction $12,211,000 Off-Site Construction 0 Site Construction $1,343,210 Soft Costs $4,191,190 Subtotal $17,745,400 Contingency (15%) $2,659,543 Total Project Cost $20,404,943 18 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Option 3 (No Theater) Project Space Program Gross SF = 48,242 This option deletes the theater, adds back the leisure pool, downsizes the weights and fitness, group fitness, but adds a classroom and dedicated arts room to the program and allows for a theater addition in the future. 19 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Program Space Net Area Ext Selected Program Gross Area Facility Administration Spaces 1,908 2,328 SF Facility Supervisor's office 150 Assistant Facility Supervisor 120 Programmer's Workstations 240 Administrative Assistant 100 Count Room 80 Work Room 250 Break Room 200 Conference Room 200 Computer Server Room 150 Storage 100 Circulation 318 Required Building Support Spaces 11,120 13,566 SF Pre-Control Lobby 1,500 Lounge 900 Control Desk 300 Men's Locker 1,200 Women's Locker 1,200 Family Lockers (8) 2,000 Vending Machines 150 First Aid 80 Men's Toilets 300 Women's Toilets 300 Custodial Closets 150 Building Mechanical Room 400 Sprinkler Valve Room 90 Main Electrical Distribution Room 250 Maintenance/ Receiving/ Loading 900 Custodial Workroom/ Supply 300 Maintenance Office 100 General Building Storage 1,000 50 Person Classroom 1,025 1,251 SF Classroom 900 Storage 125 Wet Arts & Crafts Room 1,800 2,196 SF Classroom 1,200 Equipment Storage 200 Wet pottery storage 200 Kiln 200 Weight / Fitness 3,650 4,453 SF Option 3 (No Theater) Project Budget The Total Project Cost of the intermediate downsized option includes: • Construction of the building and interior spaces. • Off-site improvements to public property. • On-site construction for parking, sidewalks, signage, etc. • Soft costs which may include land acquisition, allocations for art, professional fees, FFE (Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment), testing, surveys, and other related project costs. In addition to estimating these costs, a 10% Owner contingency and a 5% Design contingency were applied to the subtotal to arrive at a total project cost. Building Construction $15,500,000 Off-Site Construction 0 Site Construction $1,705,000 Soft Costs $4,385,867 Subtotal $21,590,867 Contingency (15%) $3,165,775 Total Project Cost $24,756,641 20 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 21 Operations: An operation analysis was conducted to examine facility costs and revenues for the facilities developed during the programming phase of the study. The operating pro-forma developed represents a conservative approach to estimating expenses and revenues and was completed based on the best information available. A detailed line item budget was developed that outlines all personnel, contractual and commodities expenditures along with an estimate of revenue from admissions, programs and other revenue sources and the budget projections reviewed by City Parks and Recreation staff. Fees and charges utilized for this study were based on existing City of Fort Collins fee structure, community survey and assessment of market value in Fort Collins. The results of the operations analysis indicate that the proposed Southeast Community Recreation & Arts Center will not recover 100% of its operating costs through revenue. The operating pro-forma did not include debt service since the funding for this project is yet to be determined. It should be noted that the cost recovery rate estimated for the proposed Southeast Community Recreation & Arts Center falls within the range of other recreation/leisure facilities in Fort Collins and across the country. To illustrate, the cost recovery rate for EPIC is 93%, while the Senior Center is 52%. Most community centers in urban areas around the country recover 75% to 90% of their operating expenses through fees and charges. Conclusion: The market conditions are favorable for supporting a new Community Recreation & Arts Center in Southeast Fort Collins. The proposed facility, by virtue of the cultural arts space, leisure pool, multiple gymnasium space, fitness, indoor walking/jogging track, indoor play structure and birthday party rooms differentiate this facility from the other facilities in the Fort Collins area. Category Facility Budget Expenditures $1,319,891 Revenue $1,105,026 Difference ($214,865) Recovery percentage 84% EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 22 The City of Fort Collins is ideally positioned to not only improve the quality of the facilities in Fort Collins, but also to enhance the quality of life for residents and address the need to provide programs, services and facilities in the Southeast portion of Fort Collins. Without question, a new community center will enhance the quality of life in Fort Collins while improving recreation and wellness opportunities for residents in the southeastern portion of the City. The proposed center fills the service gaps for a variety of recreation, and cultural opportunities and expands the wellness access in the community for children, teenagers, families and seniors. A new center will become a source of tremendous community pride and will bring the community together. The center will also help establish and recognize the facility as a contributor to the economic health and growth in the southeast portion of the community by providing jobs, through the purchase of local goods and services and by generating business trade for the City of Fort Collins. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 22 Fossil Creek Park - Site Analysis Potential Site Central Lawn Collector Road Through Neighbor- hoods Sledding / Observation Hill Arterial Road Main Park Entry EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 23 Fossil Creek Park - Site Analysis View toward Basketball Courts View toward the Southwest View of Picnic Shelter View from Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 24 Fossil Creek Park - Site Analysis Potential Community Center New Entry? Maintenance Building 134 New Spaces EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 25 Fossil Creek Park – Preliminary Site Sketch EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 26 Alternative Site Analysis An analysis of alternative sites was also provided to see if other available sites in the southern end of Fort Collins might show more promise and less impact than the Fossil Creek Park site. Logan Simpson was tasked with assessing each of 4 alternate sites and give their professional opinion about each one. See the full report in the Appendix. The four sites plus Fossil Creek Park are noted on the next page showing an aerial photo of the south end of Fort Collins. Each site was objectively scored against Social Factors, Economic Factors and Environmental Factors. A summary of the rating Matrix is shown below. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 27 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Architectural Character and Aesthetics Through the process of needs assessment, gathering input, working through the specific programs and features as they address the priorities and needs of the Community Recreation & Arts Center, the BRS team conceptually designed three alternative layouts of the facility with potential 3 dimensional massing. An architectural preference exercise was conducted with the Staff Building Committee at Workshop #3. From this exercise, the design team gathered preferences information on what the building exterior image and identity could begin to exhibit. The committee provided direction on the architectural preferences by placing green dots on preferred types and red dots on types to avoid in the design. In essence, the committee determined that a new Community Recreation and Arts Center should be an iconic piece of architecture that represents stability and permanence through contemporary design, lots of glass, views and warm, natural materials. The potential layout of a facility was then considered based on the site at Fossil Creek Park. An entry facing northeast with a vehicular drop-off, brings patrons to the main entry. 28 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 29 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 30 Option 1 - Preferred Program EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 31 Option 2 - Preferred Program without Pool Future Pool Addition EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 32 Future Theater Classroom Craftroom Option 3 - Preferred Program without Theater Spin Studio EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 33 Ground Level View of Entrance EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 34 Lakeside View of Rear 2 | PROJECT TEAM & PROCESS 35 “The BRS team was engaged to perform a feasibility study for a new Southeast Community Recreation & Arts Center for the City of Fort Collins.” PROJECT TEAM FORT COLLINS TEAM Marty Heffernan – Director of Comm. Services Bob Adams – Recreation Director Jill Stilwell – Cultural Services Director Steve Budner – Recreation Manager Mike McDonnell – Recreation Manager John Litel – Community Relations CONSULTANTS BRS Architecture Team Leader Steve Blackburn, Principal-in-charge Dave Hammel, Design Principal Ballard*King & Associates Operations and Business Plan Jeff King, President Logan Simpson Design Landscape Architecture Jana McKenzie, FASLA LEED AP Principal In April of 2013, the team led by Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture (BRS) was commissioned by the City of Fort Collins to perform a feasibility study for a new Southeast Community Recreation & Arts Center and to report a summary of needs and development plan. This process culminated in a program to meet the needs within the community consisting of a 78,900 gross sq. ft. facility in the Fossil Creek Park at an estimated total project cost of approximately $35 million. Workshop attendees included the Staff Building Committee and the design team. Each workshop focused on specific decisions or approvals and solicited input from the Building Committee for further direction. Overall, the focus of Workshops included Market/ Needs Assessment, Space Programming, Building and Project Budgeting, Site Evaluation and Planning, Facility Layout and Massing, and finally Architectural Character Preferences. 36 Workshops were conducted with the Staff Building Committee and included the following topics for discussion: • Develop a mission statement for the facility • Review trends and other similar Community Center facilities nationally and locally • Review market analysis and needs assessment data • Determine the appropriate facility programming and project budget through prioritization exercises • Discuss potential partnerships and synergies • Site evaluation and site layout • Conceptual floor plan layout and design • Inform and develop the outward architectural character of the facility Meeting minutes from the workshops are included in the appendix. Over the course of the study, the Project Team met with a variety of stakeholder groups gathering input and providing an opportunity for dialogue. Some of specific focus group meetings included: • Youth Advisory Board • Parks & Recreation Advisory Board • Senior Advisory Board. • Cultural Resources Board. Workshops FEASIBILITY STUDY PROCESS 37 T h e t e a m d e v e l o p e d t h e m i s s i o n s t a t e m e n t t h r o u g h a c o l l a b o r a t i v e e x e r c i s e d i s c u s s i n g t h e g o a l s a n d v i s i o n f o r t h e S o u t h e a s t C o m m u n i t y R e c r e a t i o n & A r t s C e n t e r . “This Recreation and Arts Center will enhance the entire community by providing a unique venue for citizens to gather, create, recreate in a positive, safe and healthy environment.” “Having something in their part of the community. Creating a space for them.” “SE side pay taxes but go to other facilities. Providing rec./ cultural services to them is important.” “Needs a central convergence park / rec / pool convergence. Value is in the location.” “Enhance their quality of life. It’s easier to go south then go downtown.” “Point of pride. Should be an amenity for Ft. Collins. Theater and cultural opportunities. Convenient” “Not just what it provides. It will bring the community in South Ft. Collins together. Be together as a community through wellness in body, mind and spirit. Unity creates community. Become more well. Be with each other. Anchor the South part of town and connect to mid-town and then downtown. (We have a great downtown core). Bring them into being from Ft. Collins, not Windsor or Loveland.” B u i l d i n g C o m m i t t e e m e m b e r s w e r e a s k e d : “ W h a t i s t h e g r e a t e s t v a l u e o f c o n s t r u c t i n g a n e w C o m m u n i t y C e n t e r f o r t h e S o u t h e a s t F o r t C o l l i n s c o m m u n i t y ? ” FEASIBILITY STUDY PROCESS 38 Architectural Preferences Participants in the dot polling exercise at Workshop #3included the Staff, Building Committee. FEASIBILITY STUDY PROCESS An architectural preferences exercise was conducted during Workshop #3 with the Staff Building Committee. During this exercise, participants were given a number of dots, green and red, and asked to place green dots on the images they preferred and the red dots on images they did not feel represented the image of the new Community Center. There were four boards with images of various types of Architectural Forms, Building Entry Types, Other Exteriors and Exterior Materials. The results of this exercise are found on the following pages. The character the participants would like to see expressed in the architecture are. 39 FEASIBILITY STUDY PROCESS 40 FEASIBILITY STUDY PROCESS 41 FEASIBILITY STUDY PROCESS 42 FEASIBILITY STUDY PROCESS 43 3 | SITE EVALUATION & RECOMMENDATION 44 3 | SITE EVALUATION & RECOMMENDATION 45 Fossil Creek Park - Site Analysis Potential Site Central Lawn Collector Road Through Neighbor- hoods Sledding / Observation Hill Arterial Road Main Park Entry 46 Fossil Creek Park - Site Analysis View toward Basketball Courts View toward the Southwest View of Picnic Shelter View from Street 3 | SITE EVALUATION & RECOMMENDATION 47 Fossil Creek Park - Site Analysis Potential Community Center New Entry? Maintenance Building 134 New Spaces 3 | SITE EVALUATION & RECOMMENDATION 48 Fossil Creek Park – Preliminary Site Sketch 3 | SITE EVALUATION & RECOMMENDATION 4 | PROGRAM, BUDGET & OPERATIONS 49 “The program include spaces for Sports, Fitness and Recreation, Arts and Culture, Health, Wellness and Life Skills, Community Gathering and Socializing.” BUILDING PROGRAM Accurately defining the building program that will meet the needs of the community. In order to be confident in the building program, the team used several tools to confirm the correct features, spaces, and components were included. From the needs assessment, the City and consulting team determined a ‘Wish List’ and then through prioritization and elimination arrived at a program of spaces and a budget that represents what it would take to realize the preferred program. The program included spaces for spaces for Sports, Fitness and Recreation, Arts and Culture, Health, Wellness and Life Skills, Community Gathering and Socializing. Additionally two other alternative programs were developed to represent less expensive options that would allow future additions to be made over time to complete the vision. During Workshop #2 in June 2013, the building committee synthesized and reconciled the program through a programming session. The committee participated in a Program Prioritization Card Game. With stakeholder input and the on-line survey data in hand, the committee wrestled with creating reasonable budgets and setting priorities that matched up with the community input. 50 Additional refinement occurred throughout the process as the public open house was held. Through this process of refinement and confirmation, the following 78,907 GSF program and $34,989,204 budget are recommended. 51 Option 1 Project Space Program Gross SF = 78,907 Accurately defining the preferred building program to meet the needs of the City include spaces for: • Sports, Fitness and Recreation • Arts and Culture • Health, Wellness and Life Skills • Community Gathering and Socializing PROGRAM & PROJECT BUDGET 52 Option 1 Project Space Program (cont.) Gross SF = 78,907 PROGRAM & PROJECT BUDGET PROGRAM & PROJECT BUDGET 53 Option 1 Project Budget The Total Project Cost of the preferred option, or the total capital funding required to complete the project, includes: • Construction of the building and interior spaces. • Off-site improvements to public property. • On-site construction for parking, sidewalks, signage, etc. • Soft costs which may include land acquisition, allocations for art, professional fees, FFE (Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment), testing, surveys, and other related project costs. In addition to estimating these costs, a 10% Owner contingency and a 5% Design contingency were applied to the subtotal to arrive at a total project cost. Building Construction $21,975,000 Off-Site Construction 0 Site Construction $2,417,250 Soft Costs $6,171,814 Subtotal $30,564,064 Contingency (15%) $4,425,140 Total Project Cost $34,989,204 Option 2 Project Space Program Gross SF = 54,336 This option deletes the Leisure Pool from the program and allows for it’s addition in the future. 54 PROGRAM & PROJECT BUDGET Option 2 Project Space Program (Cont.) Gross SF = 54,336 This option deletes the Leisure Pool from the program and allows for it’s addition in the future. 55 PROGRAM & PROJECT BUDGET Option 2 Project Budget The Total Project Cost of the extreme Downsized option, or the total capital funding required to complete the project, includes: • Construction of the building and interior spaces. • Off-site improvements to public property. • On-site construction for parking, sidewalks, signage, etc. • Soft costs which includes allocations for art, professional fees, FFE (Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment), testing, surveys, and other related project costs. In addition to estimating these costs, a 10% Owner contingency and a 5% Design contingency were applied to the subtotal to arrive at a total project cost. Building Construction $12,211,000 Off-Site Construction 0 Site Construction $1,343,210 Soft Costs $4,191,190 Subtotal $17,745,400 Contingency (15%) $2,659,543 Total Project Cost $20,404,943 56 PROGRAM & PROJECT BUDGET Option 3 Project Space Program Gross SF = 48,242 This option deletes the Theater, adds back the Leisure Pool, downsizes the Weights and Fitness, Group Fitness, but adds a Classroom and dedicated Arts room to the program and allows for a Theater addition in the future. 57 PROGRAM & PROJECT BUDGET Option 3 Project Space Program (Cont.) Gross SF = 48,242 58 PROGRAM & PROJECT BUDGET Option 3 Project Budget The Total Project Cost of the intermediate downsized option, or the total capital funding required to complete the project, includes: • Construction of the building and interior spaces. • Off-site improvements to public property. • On-site construction for parking, sidewalks, signage, etc. • Soft costs which may include land acquisition, allocations for art, professional fees, FFE (Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment), testing, surveys, and other related project costs. In addition to estimating these costs, a 10% Owner contingency and a 5% Design contingency were applied to the subtotal to arrive at a total project cost. Building Construction $15,500,000 Off-Site Construction 0 Site Construction $1,705,000 Soft Costs $4,385,867 Subtotal $21,590,867 Contingency (15%) $3,165,775 Total Project Cost $24,756,641 59 PROGRAM & PROJECT BUDGET 60 Operations: An operation analysis was conducted to examine facility costs and revenues for the preferred base facility developed during the programming phase of the study. The operating pro-forma developed represents a conservative approach to estimating expenses and revenues and was completed based on the best information available and a basic understanding of the project. A detailed line item budget was developed that outlines all personnel, contractual, commodities expenditures along with an estimate of revenue from admissions, programs and other revenue sources and the budget projections reviewed by City Parks and Recreation staff. Fees and charges utilized for this study were based on existing City of Fort Collins fee structure, community survey and assessment of market value in Fort Collins. The results of the operations analysis indicate that the proposed Southeast Recreation Center will not recover 100% of its operating costs through revenue and consequently the first year of operation. The operating pro-forma did not include debt service since the funding for this project is yet to be determined. It should be noted that the cost recovery rate estimated for the proposed Southeast Recreation Center falls BUSINESS PLAN & OPERATIONS within the range of other recreation/leisure facilities in Fort Collins. To illustrate the cost recovery rate for EPIC is 93%, Senior Center is 52% and the Northside Center is 36%. Most community centers in urban areas around the country recover 75% to 90% of their operating expenses through fees and charges. Conclusion: The market conditions are favorable for supporting a new recreation center in Southeast Fort Collins. The proposed facility, by virtue of the cultural arts space, leisure pool, multiple gymnasium space, fitness, indoor walking/jogging track, indoor play structure and birthday party rooms differentiate this facility from the other facilities in the Fort Collins area. The City of Fort Collins is ideally positioned to not only improve the quality of the facilities in Fort Collins, but also to enhance the quality of life for residents and address the need to provide programs, services and facilities in the Southeast portion of Fort Collins. Category Facility Budget Expenditures $1,319,891 Revenue $1,105,026 Difference ($214,865) Recovery percentage 84% 61 BUSINESS PLAN & OPERATIONS quality of the facilities in Fort Collins, but also to enhance the quality of life for residents and address the need to provide programs, services and facilities in the Southeast portion of Fort Collins. Without question, a new community center will enhance the quality of life in Fort Collins while improving recreation and wellness opportunities for residents in the southeastern portion of the City. The proposed center fills the service gaps for a variety of recreation, and cultural opportunities and expands the wellness access in the community for children, teenagers, families and seniors. A new center will become a source of tremendous community pride and will bring the community together. The center will also help establish and recognize the facility as a contributor to the economic health and growth in the southeast portion of the community by providing jobs, through the purchase of local goods and services and by generating business trade for the City of Fort Collins. 62 5 | CONCEPTUAL DESIGN & KEY FEATURES CONCEPT DESIGN 63 Fossil Creek Park Site Plan – Due to the large footprint of the preferred facility, required parking, and hearing from citizens at the Public meeting voicing concern, the team also looked at four other potential sites in the Southern part of the City. See Appendix for alternative sites analysis and investigation. CONCEPT DESIGN 64 Option 1 - Preferred Program 65 Option 2 - Preferred Program without Pool Future Pool Addition CONCEPT DESIGN 66 Future Theater Classroom Craftroom Option 3 - Preferred Program without Theater CONCEPT DESIGN 67 Birdseye View of Entrance CONCEPT DESIGN 68 Birdseye View of Rear CONCEPT DESIGN 69 Ground Level View of Entrance CONCEPT DESIGN 70 Lakeside View of Rear CONCEPT DESIGN APPENDIX – ALTERNATIVE SITE STUDY 71 ALTERNATIVE SITE STUDY October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 1 Potential Sites for Fort Collins Southeast Community Center (DRAFT) Logan Simpson Design / BRS Architects October 8, 2013 1. Introduction A total of five sites are currently being evaluated for the future Southeast Community Center in Fort Collins. The original site was planned to be Fossil Creek Community Park, and space for a recreation center was included in park's master plan. The size of the facility that is currently planned is larger than the footprint on the park's master plan. Combined with the parking requirements (300 spaces), the building would need to be located further to the southwest. This is quite workable but it does impact the existing pond, basketball courts and field areas. The city worked with the BRS/Logan Simpson Design team to evaluate five sites in south Fort Collins that are currently for sale. As demonstrated in the map below, five recreational or cultural community centers currently exist north of Horsetooth Road (blue stars: Museum of Discovery, Northside Aztlan Center, Lincoln Center/Mulberry Pool, Senior Center, Edora Pool and Ice Rink (EPIC), and Foothills Activity Center. No community centers currently exist in the southern portion of the city. The potential sites that were researched are indicated with red stars. October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 2 Existing and potential community center sites are shown on top of the city's Structure Plan. Yellow and orange areas indicate existing and future residential areas, and red and purple areas are commercial and employment areas, respectively. The sites that were selected for further investigation were determined based on: • Currently available for purchase, or city-owned land, • Southern area of the city, • Proximity to the Mason Corridor and College Avenue, and • Ability to accommodate a facility of this size (11 to 13 acres). In addition, City staff looked at approximately seven other sites on the Mason Corridor that are vacant, but they did not meet the size requirements. The map below shows a more detailed view of the five potential sites on an aerial photograph. October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 3 Site C indicates the originally planned location according to the Fossil Creek Park Master Plan. The four other alternative sites indicated on the map are: • 13 acres on South College Avenue (Site A), • 26 acres east of South College Avenue on Smokey Street (Site B), • The undeveloped Southeast Community Park Site (Site D), and • A vacant portion of Poudre School District's property on Ziegler Road, adjacent to Fossil Ridge High School (Site E). Location of the five alternative sites October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 4 2. Assumptions The building footprint for the community center is based on the recommended program that has been developed by the staff advisory committee, and refined based on community input. The 79,000 square foot structure is assumed to be a high-performance building, with LEED gold or better certification. It will be placed on the site so that the outdoor use areas associated with the community rooms and the sun deck for the natatorium will have southern, or southwestern exposure. All site development will incorporate best practices for stormwater quality, energy-efficient lighting, landscaping and other environmental responsible site strategies. The conceptual floor plan for the community center is shown below. Conceptual first floor plan for the future community center. 3. Evaluation Criteria Factors that vary based on the site location, configuration and attributes have been included in the analysis. Triple bottom line sustainability performance goals guided the development of the evaluation criteria. These goals include: October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 5 Social: • Encourage healthy lifestyle behaviors through walking and bicycling to the facility • Provide densely populated and growing areas convenient access to cultural and recreational opportunities • Consider compatibility with adjacent land uses, especially impacts to nearby residential properties • Develop partnerships with adjacent schools or medical facilities to increase the numbers of people who are involved with physical activity • Provide a positive user experience, including comfort, safety, beauty, and appearance of the facility as viewed from adjacent properties or roads Economic: • Lower cost of land acquisition • Lower cost of site development • Lower cost of water for irrigation by using raw water if possible • Create partnerships with other entities to offset costs (e.g. school district, health care providers) Environmental: • Reduce carbon emissions and paved area by locating where patrons can use transit, walking and bicycling versus single-occupancy vehicles to get to the center • Limit "cross town" travel and reduce city traffic congestion by providing access to recreational and cultural opportunities for residents in southern Fort Collins • Use raw water for irrigation, reducing energy and chemicals associated with treated water • Reduce impervious area and pavement materials through agreements to share existing parking lots • Avoid impacts to sensitive natural areas and waterways Thirteen criteria have been identified that contribute to achieving one or more of these triple bottom line goals. 1. Development program fits with no impacts to existing or planned uses on the site (e.g. expectations are that SE Community Park will have ample space for sports fields, and existing sports fields and ponds at Fossil Creek Park would be somewhat impacted.) 2. No significant site constraints (e.g. natural areas, slopes.) 3. Conveniently accessed by bicycle or walking (e.g. trails and/or sidewalk network.) 4. Transit service to the site. 5. Compatibility with surrounding land uses (e.g. >250 feet away from residential; within attractive, safe neighborhood.) 6. Potential partnerships with adjacent land uses (e.g. school, medical facility.) 7. Residential areas within 2 mile radius per the city's Structure Plan. 8. Raw water available for irrigation. 9. Improved roads (e.g. access road and/or roads adjacent to the site do not need significant upgrades.) 10. Site complements building entry and outdoor use area goals. (e.g. clearly visible entrance, and screened patios for community rooms and pool deck.) 11. Opportunities for expanded outdoor programs (e.g. planned or existing fields, and park areas.) October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 6 12. Potential for shared parking with adjacent land use (e.g. public parking with peak use times that do not overlap, or possibility of strategic scheduling of recreational activities in parks to reduce total parking requirement.) 13. Cost of the land. 4. Land Use and Connectivity Having the community center be accessible by residents by using transit, bicycles or walking is a high priority. This section includes research into the city's plans for residential areas, transit corridors and bus routes, trail connections, and bike lanes and walks on adjacent streets. The map below shows the location of each of the sites in relationship to residential areas on the city's Structure Plan map. The circles represent a two mile radius around each site, and are color-coded to match the site with which they are associated. Residential areas within two miles of each potential site (City of Fort Collins' Structure Plan map). October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 7 The map below show the location of each of the sites relative to existing and future major trails, Transfort bus routes, and the MAX route and south transit center. Trail connections and transit service near potential sites. The following five maps shows the surrounding land uses and transit and bike/pedestrian connectivity for each of the sites in more detail. October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 8 Residential areas, transit and bike/pedestrian connectivity around Site A. Site A is on a bus route, but has poor bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to neighborhoods because of the lack of walks and bike lanes on the substandard surrounding streets. It also does not have connectivity to the trail system because of the lack of walks and bicycle facilities on College Avenue. The S. Mason transit center is approximately one and one-half miles to the north of the site, but cannot be accessed by bicyclists or pedestrians. October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 9 Residential areas, transit and bike/pedestrian connectivity around Site B. Site B has a bus route 1/4 mile to the west on College, but no connecting walks. Fossil Creek Trail is to the northwest, but would require a major investment to construct a bridge and trail across the meandering Fossil Creek floodplain. The S. Mason transit center is approximately one mile to the north of the site, but cannot be accessed by bicyclists or pedestrians. October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 10 Residential areas, transit and bike/pedestrian connectivity around Site C. Site C has a major trail through it that connects with neighborhoods to the east and west. The trail also connects to the MAX transit center, which is approximately one and one-half miles to the northwest. Site C does not have a Transfort bus route; however, a routes could be added after the center is constructed to provide service. There are bike lanes and wide sidewalks on Lemay Avenue, and all surrounding streets have sidewalks. October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 11 Residential areas, transit and bike/pedestrian connectivity around Site D. Site D is connected to neighborhoods via the trail system that will be constructed through Southeast Community Park, bike lanes and broad sidewalks on Ziegler Avenue, and sidewalks in all of the surrounding neighborhoods. There is one discrepancy that is worth mentioning between the Structure Plan map and what has occurred in recent years; there have been some large, medium density residential projects constructed south of Harmony Road and east of Ziegler Road in the area shown on the Structure Plan as purple, which indicates employment. Two bus routes serve this location and the S. Mason transit center, is approximately five miles away via the Fossil Creek Trail. October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 12 Residential areas, transit and bike/pedestrian connectivity around Site E. Site E is connected to neighborhoods via the trail system that will be constructed through Southeast Community Park, bike lanes and broad sidewalks on Ziegler Avenue, and sidewalks in all of the surrounding neighborhoods. There is one discrepancy that is worth mentioning between the Structure Plan map and what has occurred in recent years; there have been some large, medium density residential projects constructed south of Harmony Road and east of Ziegler Road in the area shown on the Structure Plan as purple, which indicates employment. Two bus routes serve this location and the S. Mason transit center, is approximately five miles away via the Fossil Creek Trail, or four miles away via Harmony Road. October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 13 5. Site Evaluations This section describes the sites in more detail, and contains conceptual plans to show how a community center may fit on each of the sites. A. 6020 South College Avenue This 13 acre site is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of College Avenue and Skyway Drive, and has a fairly significant slope from the west to the east - approximately 5 to 6%. A signalized intersection exists at Skyway Drive, which provides safe access by vehicles to what would likely be the main entry drive off of Skyway. View of College Avenue and Skyway Drive intersection. College Avenue and Skyway Drive would need significant improvements along the entire property edge, which would be very expensive. The character of the area is strip commercial and light industrial, and is not visually attractive. Transit service is available all days until 6 p.m., except Sunday. Some low density residential areas exist immediate north and west of the site, but this property is mostly surrounded by commercial development. Several houses face Skyway Drive, across from what may be a main entrance to the community center. October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 14 View east on Skyway Drive, near the entry road to the community center. No curb and gutter exists and residences face the street. Site development is constrained by a wetlands in the northeast corner, an irrigation ditch through the western portion of the site, and moderate slopes. View of wetlands in the northeast corner of the site. To meet wetlands buffer distance requirements the irrigation ditch would need to be reconstructed to the west, and the site development moved approximately 50 feet towards the west, provided that this October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 15 wetlands is not classified as a critical wetlands, which would increase the buffer distance to 100 feet or more depending on the findings of a required environmental study. A conceptual layout plan for this site illustrates how the community center may fit on the parcel. 6020 South College Avenue Site Study In summary, the greatest benefit of this site is its high visibility on College Avenue and access to transit (hourly service except evenings and Sunday). Its limitations include potential conflicts with residential uses; a lower resident population within close proximity; no bicycle access and limited pedestrian access; substantial costs for adjacent road improvements; development costs to avoid wetlands, and realign a ditch; and a reduced area available for site development and outdoor uses because of these constraints. October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 16 B. Smokey Street This approximately 26 acre site is located 1/4 mile east of College Avenue at the end of substandard roads through a light industrial area. The pavement is deteriorated and there are no sidewalks, trail connections or bike lanes. View of Smokey Street near College Avenue. The site is at the end of the road in the distance. Access to the site could be from Smokey Street, Bueno Drive on the northwest corner of the site, which is currently used by a trash removal company to store trash receptacles, or a local residential road, Tennyson Street, near the southeast corner of the site. The residential street is not considered a viable primary access because of traffic impacts to the neighborhood. October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 17 View from the west end of Tennyson Street, which currently is a short dead end road between two houses. Vehicular access from the Bueno Drive is feasible, but the sight distances along College Avenue are not as favorable as the intersection of College Avenue and Smokey Street, and the entrance to the site and structure would be behind a trash collection business. Neither Smokey Street nor Bueno Drive intersections are signalized. The site slopes from the west toward the northeast, which would require moderate to extensive grading to create gently sloping parking areas and to accommodate a large building footprints. The portion of the site that is not occupied by the community center could be developed as parkland, other community uses, or sold for private development. October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 18 View northeast from the southern end of the Smokey Street site. Houses border the southern and eastern property boundaries, and the site configuration requires that the building and parking be placed relatively close to their back property lines, if the primary access is from Smokey Street. If the access were from Bueno Drive, there would be less impacts to the residential areas, but as mentioned previously, the desirability and safety of Bueno Drive access is questionable. October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 19 A conceptual layout plan for this site illustrates how the community center may fit on the parcel. Smokey Street Site Study The greatest limitations to this site are: its entry experience through low quality, light industrial development; off site road improvements that would be required to provide adequate access to the site; lack of pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities; little possibility for synergies with adjacent land uses; and potential incompatibility with adjacent residential areas. October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 20 C. Fossil Creek Community Park A community center is part of the approved master plan for the existing community park, and the park is the most centrally located site of the five properties being evaluated. Locating a community center in this park has the advantage of easy access to outdoor recreational programs and some existing parking that can be used to reduce the amount of additional parking that needs to be constructed. However, the desired program for the community center is larger than was originally planned. The building and site development will impact the existing pond on the southeast corner of the site, the two existing basketball courts, and the size of the central multi-purpose green that accommodates various field configurations. The multi-purpose field area would be reduced by approximately 20 to 25%, the pond would need to be re-graded and edges restored, and one basketball court could fit in the area currently occupied by the in-line hockey rink, which is seldom used. Parking areas will need to be expanded to accommodate 210 additional spaces, assuming that 90 of the existing spaces can be used for the community center. Residential properties are more than 250' from the structure, but this is closer than the current approved master plan indicates, and the neighbors may express concerns over the proximity and increased size of the center. A new primary access road would need to be constructed from Lemay Avenue, just north of the maintenance facility. It is not known if a traffic signal would be required at this location. The building entrance would be fairly visible from Lemay Avenue, however the entry experience would be influenced by the presence of the maintenance complex along Lemay Avenue, adjacent to the center. View west of existing maintenance facility and location of new entry road on Lemay Avenue. The site is not currently on a Transfort bus route, but it does have excellent bicycle and pedestrian access through on-street sidewalks, bike lanes and the Fossil Creek Trail. October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 21 A conceptual layout plan for this site illustrates how the community center may fit on the parcel. This plan has more detail because it is the site that was originally proposed with the park master plan Fossil Creek Park Site Study October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 22 D. Southeast Community Park This undeveloped site is owned by the city, is currently being designed as a community park, and is approximately 52 acres in size. Transit service is available all days until 6 p.m., except Sunday. View of McClelland Creek from Saber Cat Drive. Because the site has McClelland Creek running through the middle of it there are few options on where to place a large structure and parking lots for 300 cars. McClelland Creek has a required 100 feet buffer distance, which somewhat restricts the available development area. For the purposes of this analysis, the building and parking are shown on the southwest corner of the site, where the land is relatively level and there is adequate room to accommodate the entire development program. Access roads to the center could align with intersections of Sage Creek Road and Evening Primrose Lane, both of which are residential streets. These access points may create challenges for full-movement intersections because of they are approximately 450 feet away from the intersection of Kechter and Ziegler Roads, both of which are arterial roads. October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 23 A conceptual layout plan for this site illustrates how the community center may fit on the parcel. Southeast Community Park Site Study View northwest to site from intersection of Evening Primrose Lane and Kechter Road. October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 24 The access road and parking areas are outside of the 100 feet buffer associated with McClelland Creek, which results in a parking lot configuration that wraps around the north and east side of the center. There is some potential for shared parking with the park, but the park and community center programs would need to coordinate so that potentially peak use times on weekday evenings and weekends do not cause parking to overflow into residential neighborhoods across the street. The outdoor decks for the pool and community rooms would be facing this intersection, which would require screening from both roads. The community center could possibly be placed south of Saber Cat Drive, where a recently constructed BMX track and softball/baseball field are located, but the development area is narrow because of McClelland Creek, and all of the parking could not be accommodated there without either constructing a parking garage, or reconfiguring Fossil Creek High School parking lots to be closer to the center. View from Saber Cat Drive to the existing BMX track. Shared parking is a possibility because peak use times (afternoons, evenings and weekends) do not frequently overlap between a high school and community center. Crosswalks across Saber Cat Drive and clear pedestrian connections between the school parking lot and the center would need to be constructed so that the parking areas feel connected to the community center. This location would be served by existing signalized intersections on Zeigler Road and Saber Cat Drive, and Kechter Road and Lady Moon Drive. However, the existing recreational facilities would be displaced, and would require reconstruction elsewhere on the site, or in another location. Because of the challenges and potential associated costs associated with reconfiguring the school parking areas and displacement of existing facilities, this areas was not considered further. Regardless of its placement on the site, a community center would significantly reduce the available land in the park site for other park uses. October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 25 E. Fossil Ridge High School This 10 to 11 acre site is located between Fossil Ridge High School and Ziegler Road, south of Rock Creek Drive, on Poudre School District property. View southeast from corner of Rock Creek Drive and Ziegler Road. The entry road to the community center could coincide with the two-lane access road south of Rock Creek Drive to Fossil Ridge High School's staff parking, special needs drop off area and marching band practice area. Rock Creek Drive has a signalized intersection at Ziegler Road, and also extends to the east to Lady Moon Drive, providing multiple ways to access the site. October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 26 View south from Rock Creek Drive to the existing road to Fossil Ridge High School staff parking lot. View of site looking southeast from Ziegler Road and Rock Creek Drive. October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 27 A conceptual layout plan for this site illustrates how the community center may fit on the parcel. Fossil Ridge High School Site Study The building has been oriented at a slight angle to preserve as much of the existing turf areas as possible to the east. If this area can be impacted, the building should be oriented north-south to create a better relationship with the high school. Walk connections between the school and the community center could be installed, and because the buildings are relatively close to one another, there are possibilities that the school could utilize the center during the school day for classes. The possibility of partnering with the school district on the aquatics component, or other components of the community center, could be explored. Increasing the size of the program to accommodate school district needs would increase the building footprint and parking demands, which has not been analyzed in this report. The site is less centrally located in the southern portion of the city than the site at Fossil Creek Park, and may have fewer people living within 2 miles based on the area of residential land use illustrated on the Structure Plan map. The actual population projections for the areas within 2 miles have not been calculated, so this is not a definitive conclusion since there are several higher density residential projects in the vicinity and more under construction. This site has great attributes for a community center because of its existing road infrastructure, gentle topography, lack of obstacles to development, access to transit, bike and pedestrian connections, potential shared parking with staff parking for the high school, and potential synergies with Fossil Creek High School programs and a planned medical campus to the north. It is also within 600 feet of the October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 28 future Southeast Community Park, which may have some synergies in terms of recreational programs that are staffed from this community center. 6. Summary Each of the sites received a rating ( -, O, or +) based on their relative performance associated with each of the evaluation criteria. This evaluation does not assign importance to the criteria, so the best site cannot be determined by simply tallying the number of pluses or minuses. Development costs associated with each of the sites has not been studied, however relative construction and utility costs are part of the considerations of the ratings associated with site constraints, raw water availability, road improvements and impacts to existing uses on the properties, and are based on professional opinion. The detailed cost of land acquisition was also not part of this analysis, but sites that are owned by the city, or have the potential for a partnership agreement with Poudre School District are considered. Staff Recommendations: A. Fossil Creek Community Park – Park setting, this is the original site, is city owned, and works really well for this facility. This is a very nice, appealing and inviting site with good visibility to Lemay Avenue. Can utilize some of the existing parking spaces. Curb and gutter is already there and we currently own the site which means more dollars can be spent on the facility rather than the purchase of land. No access to transit but one might think that with a new multi-million dollar facility transit routes might change. Does have excellent bike and walkability options to get to transit centers. The MAX will be one and one-half miles away and connected via bike path. The encroachment onto the pond and fields is not seen as insurmountable. B. Fossil Ridge High School – The site is large enough to handle a facility this size. City does not currently own this land. It would be along the transit line and bike and walk friendly. This site provides an even greater opportunity to collaborate with the school district and the medical October 8, 2013 (Draft) - 29 community. Best opportunity for shared parking. Would be an attractive site that has a large portion of the community to draw from. C. Southeast Community Park – Park setting, City owned. The park is currently under design and this facility is not part of that design. A facility this size will take away significant park land planned for other recreational uses. McClelland Creek has to be dealt with but this is not insurmountable. Outside areas associated with the pool and the community rooms back up to the Ziegler/Kechter Road intersection wouldn’t be ideal for associated outside activities. Park is in design stage so road improvements, etc. can all be included. The City currently owns the land. More dollars for the facility. This site gives us opportunities to develop partnerships with the school district and the medical community. It’s situated along the transit line and is bike and walk friendly. D. 6020 South College Avenue – the site is not very attractive and it is not City owned. It is very industrial, and contains the lowest number of people living within a 2 mile radius. Not bike and walk friendly. Does have transit but may only be the Fox Trot(?) that runs between FC and Loveland. Site has a slope and wetlands to deal with. Need to purchase and install curb and gutter, all which adds to the cost. E. Smokey Street – Not a very attractive site and not City owned. Not that visible from College because you travel in a ways before getting to the actual site. Very industrial, not inviting. Major improvements to access roads needed. Not bike and walk friendly. Need to purchase the property. APPENDIX - MEETING MINUTES 73 74 MEETING NOTES 3457 Ringsby Court, Unit 200 Denver, Colorado 80216 303-455-1366 Fax 303-455-7457 Toll Free 866-646-1980 www.brsarch.com Project: Ft. Collins SECC Project Number: 2013.014.01 Meeting Subject: Kick off Meeitng Issue Date: May 2, 2013 Rev. 05-13-13 Present: Dave Hammel - BRS Steve Blackburn - BRS Jeff King - B*K Associates Steve Budner - CoFC - Rec. Manager Marty Heffernan - CoFC - Exec. Director Mike McDonnell - CoFC - Rec. Manager John Litel - CoFC - Community Relations Jill Stilwell - CoFC - Cultural Services Bob Adams - CoFC - Recreation Director Ty Sutton - CoFC - Lincoln Center Manager Meeting Date: April 22, 2013 Copy To: Bob Adams, Jeff King, file Marty: One Councilmember is concerned about the Fossil Creek site. She would prefer the project be built closer to Mason Corridor. Darin indicated this is the only Councilmember expressing this concern. It is possible we may need to study another site. Steve: Need to know as soon as possible! Bob: Two boards need to be included: Youth Advisory Board & Sr. Advisory Board Jeff: Focus Group with each board would be good. Marty: Do public meeting first, then meet with boards as separate focus groups. John: Could you take one board member to represent their board? Jill: It’s challenging to have one board member represent the whole board. Jeff: Do board representatives represent their constituents? Marty: Our board reps do represent their constituents. Jill: In our Cultural plan we meet with producers. We need to engage the business leaders like Otter Box. Jeff: Are special interests groups, such as swimmers, an issue? Marty: Hopefully with the online survey, special interest groups will not dominate the outreach process. What is our schedule goal for the City? Overall on schedule, City Manager has not given a hard and fast schedule. We would like to finish in late summer. Our current ¼ cent sales tax will expire in 2015. To go to the voters in Nov. of 2014 we need the ballot language by Aug 2014 Council will want to know what outreach did we do, how much will it cost to build and operate? Bob: Study completion may be late August as a more likely target. Meeting Notes Page 2 3457 Ringsby Court, Unit 200 Denver, Colorado 80216 303-455-1366 Fax 303-455-7457 Toll Free 866-646-1980 www.brsarch.com Marty: We will complete the study when we have heard the community well. Steve B: What about the School District? Marty: CSU Swim coach has contacted the City Manager. CSU or school district would need to bring dollars (100% of it) to the table before they would be considered. Marty: What about private fitness health clubs? Jeff: We need to ID the all of the competing service providers. Bob: Miramont, Raintree, and 24 Hour Fitness, are some of the larger providers. Jeff: Private fitness providers here have not been negatively impacted when EPIC, Sr. Center and the Northside Center opened. IHRSA may organize against the project. Marty: Let’s give them an invite to our public meeting. We don’t yet know what’s going into the center. Steve Blackburn: What do we say to Miramont if they stand up in the meeting and say “you are going to put us out of business?” Jeff: Prove to us that the market is saturated. Role of the City is to provide equal access to residents. There is a certain percent of residents that don’t feel comfortable in a private fitness center. The private sector primarily focuses on adults and not so much on families. Marty: We need a community center in the SE part of the city. A fitness center in our facility is an essential element. Marty: Public presentation of study should be a work session. I’ll check if this is possible. A ¼ cent sales tax would support a $60-65 Million bond program. Council should be interested in a study session as we are the gorilla in the room at $25 Million or more. Bob: We should plan for the end of August as target. Jeff: What are the operational cost recovery goals? Marty: We’ve gone through some tough times. Recover as much as you can. We had $1Million in cuts in those years. We are back since the tax passed. Typically, a certain # of years (say 7years) can be built into the bond program. I anticipate a similar package on this project. A $200K gap should be covered by the ¼ cent tax. We’ll need to engage operational services. They have a formula for maintenance they will give us. Value Questions Jill: Having something in their part of the community. Creating a space for them. Bob: SE side pay taxes but go to other facilities. Providing rec./ cultural services to them is important. John: Needs a central convergence park / rec / pool convergence. Value is in the location. Mike: Enhance their quality of life. It’s easier to go south then go downtown. Ty: Point of pride. Should be an amenity for Ft. Collins. Theater and cultural opportunities. Convenient Marty: Not just what it provides. It will bring the community in South Ft. Collins together. Be together as a community through wellness in body, mind and spirit. Unity creates community. Become more well. Be with each other. Anchor the South part of town and connect to mid-town and then downtown. (We have a great downtown core). Bring them into being from Ft. Collins, not Windsor or Loveland. Meeting Notes Page 3 3457 Ringsby Court, Unit 200 Denver, Colorado 80216 303-455-1366 Fax 303-455-7457 Toll Free 866-646-1980 www.brsarch.com Bob: A family oriented place. Steve: Safe, wholesome place for kids to go after school. Ty: The challenge right now is that Windsor & Loveland is easier to get to than downtown Ft. Collins John: A special trip to downtown Ft. Collins is not as easy as we thought. Constraints Marty: The expense of project. Council wants something which creates something in the South. Parking will be a physical constraint. The existing roller hockey rink is under-utilized. Sport field has grass growth issues due to low lying and salt. Swimmers could create conflict and remove fun from the process. Blending community and cultural elements might be a challenge. Steve B: Pool (competitors vs. leisure) will be huge. Neighborhood may complain about increase in traffic. Mike: I don’t think traffic will be an issue like at EPIC. Marty: If we move the site to the South end, traffic might be more of an issue. Jill: Giving up green space to make room for a building may create conflicts Marty: A recreation center has already been built into Master Plan, so building it is consistent with plan. Clay soils, a lot of silt may impact the foundation costs. Hard to grow grass Mike: No deep water for competitive swimming is needed Steve Blackburn: Not so fast. A youth oriented pool may require deep water for rope swing, dive perch, zipline etc. Marty: The Fossil Creek Park is a hub for trails. Ty: Integrating recreation and cultural programs. Figuring out a way to run cultural programs and not put a drain on the rec. center. Making sure it produces revenue. Jeff: Kroc Centers Benefit is a long history of operating cultural center / theaters. Ty: Staffing is in plan. Lincoln center operates at 75% net revenue Jill: Benefit of cultural facilities master plan. 500 seat is appropriate. Marty: Combo of two is better than stand alone. Ty: In Canadian facilities, most theaters are busy at night, when rec. ctrs.are less used. Marty: Duncan Webb, consultant says kids and adults want to participate in the arts (performing and visualizing). Going beyond arts and crafts programs Jill: Cultural plan is online Steve Blackburn: Noise between spaces can be a problem. Basketball versus performing arts. Meeting Notes Page 4 3457 Ringsby Court, Unit 200 Denver, Colorado 80216 303-455-1366 Fax 303-455-7457 Toll Free 866-646-1980 www.brsarch.com Jill: Acoustical capability of gym needs to be considered. It is a great gathering space, but typically they have terrible acoustics, like at N. Rec. Center Ty: Locations: people ask us where can we go on the Southside of town? They are looking for space for Boy Scout, parent meetings, rec. dance etc. Mike: Parking for a 500 seat theater is a lot. If performance is at the same time as a softball tournament, dog park special event, parking will be a problem. Marty: Maybe put the CC on the great lawn and rebuild fields toward the street where the soils are better. Slideshow Dave: Potential program elements Marty: Like to build a campaign over “getting people to walk more.” Ty: For ballet, a capacity 50 – 60 sf. At 1500 SF 20 – 25 capacity. Jeff: In the theater, could it have retractable seats to make it more flexible? Ty: In Midland TX, their theater has retractable seats and used it only 5 times last year. In Ft. Collins we don’t produce any shows, we book them. Jeff: For climbing walls to do well, it takes an enthusiastic “champion” to build a program. John: We have a lot of climbing walls in Ft. Collins Jill: An interesting component for youth Marty: Do you know of any good examples of Hospital and Senior Center partnering? Jeff: City of Grand Forks North Dakota Steve Blackburn: Cuyahoga Falls, OH 5,000 sf of 116,000. The Hospital was at table from beginning. They amortized the capital cost in a 20 yr. lease. Also Lawrence Memorial Hospital 7,000 sf of 181,000 sf City Rec. Center Bob: Is an outdoor pool in addition to indoor possible? Steve Blackburn: Competing dollars. Would you choose giving up a $4 million theater to build a $4 million outdoor pool in a $25 million building? Marty: $25 Million not a cap. May have to go up to $30 Million Marty: Library district could be a stakeholder Steve Blackburn: Bentonville CC is an example of a hybrid branch library. Ty: Catering kitchen all the way. No cooking facilities. Jill: Want option to serve alcohol in the building Bob: Let’s do tours Meeting Notes Page 5 3457 Ringsby Court, Unit 200 Denver, Colorado 80216 303-455-1366 Fax 303-455-7457 Toll Free 866-646-1980 www.brsarch.com Ty: Performing Arts. Trend is toward Kroc Center with slope vs. Lakewood tiered seating. High expense / medium revenue could be more revenue/expense neutral. Program Card Game • Group A vs. B 112,000 sf $49 Million • Revised program 102,000 sf $43 Million See combined program sheet sent out for reference. Survey Discussion Jeff King • Online survey; Survey Monkey or Survey Gizmo • Statistically valid survey $4-5K more o Mail and back it up with phone o 5-6 weeks additional time • Market Analysis 3 Pillars o Statistically valid survey o Who else is providing services o What does the public want – most important pillar • Age group Distribution o 18 – 24 is high o 25 – 44 is high • Median Age o 31.2 years vs. 37.3 years Nationally o Ft. Collins is younger than national average • Median Household Income o Higher in Ft. Collins than average for US and Colorado o More discretionary income in Ft. Collins than national average • Cost of Living o 13% above US average • Spending Potential Index o Favorable market conditions • Race and Ethnicity o 80.9% White o 4.1 % Black o 9.8% Hispanic • Tapestry o 14.5% College students • Service Area is defined in the map • Participation Rates o Tells us what market potential might be • Advisory Ranking (popularity) 1. Exercise walking 2. Exercise with equipment 3. Swimming • Colorado Participation tends to be high • Activity Trends 1. Lacrosse 2. Yoga 3. Run/Jog • Performing Arts - National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) Participant Rates o 2008 is the most current numbers o Performing (Jazz, choir, plays) and creating (paint / photo, etc.) Meeting Notes Page 6 3457 Ringsby Court, Unit 200 Denver, Colorado 80216 303-455-1366 Fax 303-455-7457 Toll Free 866-646-1980 www.brsarch.com o Online viewing / listening Schedule Marty: Move ahead with online survey I’ll talk to Darin tomorrow Bob: Stakeholder sessions: • P&R and Youth combined 5/22 • Cultural Resources + Senior Board 5/30 at noon • Open House options: 5/29 1 ½ hours w/ Steve /Jeff or 6/5 w/ Dave/Jeff • Open house location options: Columbine Room in Lincoln Center or Fossil Ridge H.S. or Church at Lamay and Trilby. Attach: Note: The above is considered correct unless response to the contrary is received within 7 days from the above date. Please contact Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture if you feel items are in error. 3457 Ringsby Court, Unit 200 Denver, Colorado 80216 303-455-1366 Fax 303-455-7457 Toll Free 866-646-1980 www.brsarch.com Project: Ft. Collins SECC Project Number: 2013.014.01 Meeting Subject: Stakeholder Mtg Youth and Parks & Recreation Boards Issue Date: June 22, 2013 Present: Steve Blackburn - BRS Jeff King - B*K Associates Steve Budner - CoFC - Rec. Manager Bob Adams - CoFC - Recreation Director Meeting Date: May 22, 2013 Copy To: file 1. Vision What is your Vision? • Bring cultural to Southeast Ft Collins • Appealing to young people • A single theme, not everything for everyone • Flexibility / Multiuse • Family oriented • Social events 2. Gaps What are the gaps in the community? • Void of access (facility desert) • No space • Free Community room@ H.S. • No access to racquet sports 3. Amenities / Components / Rooms Desired? • Space for classes 4 dots • Pool for lap swim w/ seating separate from rec pool 8 dots • Gym space 8 dots • Cultural Center 1 dot • Amphitheater 1 dot • Multipurpose rooms 6 dots • Café 6 dots • Roller rink 2 dots • Spray ground outdoors no dots • Redbox Library 1 dot 3457 Ringsby Court, Unit 200 Denver, Colorado 80216 303-455-1366 Fax 303-455-7457 Toll Free 866-646-1980 www.brsarch.com Project: Ft. Collins SECC Project Number: 2013.014.01 Meeting Subject: Stakeholder Mtg Seniors & Cultural Resources Board Issue Date: June 22, 2013 Present: Steve Blackburn - BRS Jeff King - B*K Associates Steve Budner - CoFC - Rec. Manager Bob Adams - CoFC - Recreation Director Meeting Date: May 30, 2013 Copy To: file 1. Value Questions What is the greatest value to the residents of Fort Collins to build a Recreation / Cultural Center? • Serve residents w amenities • Interpersonal Interaction • Get people together in real tme • Pools at capacity already • There is a need • Keep it local and quite going to Loveland, Windsor, Longmont or Arvada • Meld or Blend Recreation and Cultural and Aquatics • Easy access to arts 2. Vision What is your Vision? • Recommendation of cultural plan • Viewing and doing & showing cultural arts • Add a gathering place • A destination • Engagement & involvement • Recreation and Arts under one roof • Synergy of people of different interests interacting • Sharing of Recreation activity spaces for cultural purposes • Residents value both recreation and arts • Unique opportunity in SE part of town • Children of different focus (athletes / artists) 3. Gaps What are the gaps in the community? • Performance spaces o 500-800 seat raked theater o Studio theater – Black Box w/ grid o Upgraded retractable theater seats for 150 • Rehearsal space o Theater Meeting Notes Page 2 3457 Ringsby Court, Unit 200 Denver, Colorado 80216 303-455-1366 Fax 303-455-7457 Toll Free 866-646-1980 www.brsarch.com o Dance • Recreational sport facilities o Like basketball & ballfields • Studio / Gallery space to show art • Wet Arts / crafts for pottery and painting • Dry classrooms 4. Amenities / Components / Rooms Desired? • Studio / Gallery (visual arts) 4 dots • Wet Arts Crafts 1.5 dots • Dry Arts Crafts 1.5 dots • 500 seat Theater 2 dots • 150 seat Studio theater 3 dots • Indoor recreational leisure pool 5 dots • Indoor competition pool no dots • Therapy pool no dots • Outdoor sprayground 2 dots • Outdoor leisure pool no dots • Outdoor amphitheater no dots • Gymnasium 1 dot • Elevated track no dots • Childrens indoor playground 2 dots • Child watch /Babysit 1 dot • Elder Watch no dots • Community room w/ Catering Kitchen 4 dots • Party Room no dots • Fitness Center 3 dots • Fitness Studio no dots • Dance Studio 2 dots Attach: Note: The above is considered correct unless response to the contrary is received within 7 days from the above date. Please contact Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture if you feel items are in error. 3457 Ringsby Court, Unit 200 Denver, Colorado 80216 303-455-1366 Fax 303-455-7457 Toll Free 866-646-1980 www.brsarch.com Project: Ft. Collins SECC Project Number: 2013.014.01 Meeting Subject: Stakeholder Mtg Seniors & Cultural Resources Board Issue Date: June 22, 2013 Present: Steve Blackburn - BRS Jeff King - B*K Associates Steve Budner - CoFC - Rec. Manager Bob Adams - CoFC - Recreation Director Meeting Date: May 30, 2013 Copy To: file Cultural Resources Board 1. Value Questions What is the greatest value to the residents of Fort Collins to build a Recreation / Cultural Center? • Serve residents w amenities • Interpersonal Interaction • Get people together in real time • Pools at capacity already • There is a need • Keep it local and quite going to Loveland, Windsor, Longmont or Arvada • Meld or Blend Recreation and Cultural and Aquatics • Easy access to arts 2. Vision What is your Vision? • Recommendation of cultural plan • Viewing and doing & showing cultural arts • Add a gathering place • A destination • Engagement & involvement • Recreation and Arts under one roof • Synergy of people of different interests interacting • Sharing of Recreation activity spaces for cultural purposes • Residents value both recreation and arts • Unique opportunity in SE part of town • Children of different focus (athletes / artists) 3. Gaps What are the gaps in the community? • Performance spaces o 500-800 seat raked theater o Studio theater – Black Box w/ grid o Upgraded retractable theater seats for 150 • Rehearsal space Meeting Notes Page 2 3457 Ringsby Court, Unit 200 Denver, Colorado 80216 303-455-1366 Fax 303-455-7457 Toll Free 866-646-1980 www.brsarch.com o Theater o Dance • Recreational sport facilities o Like basketball & ballfields • Studio / Gallery space to show art • Wet Arts / crafts for pottery and painting • Dry classrooms 4. Amenities / Components / Rooms Desired? • Studio / Gallery (visual arts) 4 dots • Wet Arts Crafts 1.5 dots • Dry Arts Crafts 1.5 dots • 500 seat Theater 2 dots • 150 seat Studio theater 3 dots • Indoor recreational leisure pool 5 dots • Indoor competition pool no dots • Therapy pool no dots • Outdoor sprayground 2 dots • Outdoor leisure pool no dots • Outdoor amphitheater no dots • Gymnasium 1 dot • Elevated track no dots • Childrens indoor playground 2 dots • Child watch /Babysit 1 dot • Elder Watch no dots • Community room w/ Catering Kitchen 4 dots • Party Room no dots • Fitness Center 3 dots • Fitness Studio no dots • Dance Studio 2 dots Senior Advisory Board 5. Value Questions What is the greatest value to the residents of Fort Collins to build a Recreation / Cultural Center? • Attract residents • Young Families served • Travel distance shortened • Keep cars off of College Avenue • Retirement Centers served – Need Transportation • Accessible to the Abled and Disabled alike • Where the growth is – underserved area of the City 6. Vision What is your Vision? • A community of neighborhoods • Each with it’s own personality • Bringing together the generations, not just the younger people • Bring programs of value to the people • It will take pressure off the other Ft. Collins facilities 7. Gaps What are the gaps in the community? • Precreation opportunities Meeting Notes Page 3 3457 Ringsby Court, Unit 200 Denver, Colorado 80216 303-455-1366 Fax 303-455-7457 Toll Free 866-646-1980 www.brsarch.com • Transportation – Only flex up and down College • Cultural arts theater - movies • Churches • Opportunity for learning • Parking • Activities for the elderly 8. Amenities / Components / Rooms Desired? • Dry Arts Crafts 2 dots • Wet Crafts - 2 Dots • Theater 2 dots • Indoor Leisure Pool - 2 dots • Indoor competition pool no dots • Therapy pool no dots • Children’s program space - no dots • Disc Golf • Baseball Field - no dots • Trail connectivity - no dots • Multipurpose Meeting Rooms - 4 Dots • Child Watch - 1 Dot • Café - No Dots • Teen Center - No Dots • Fitness Studio 2 dots • Yoga Studio No dots • Lounge – socializing - 4 Dots • Sparyground - No Dots • Outdoor Patio - No Dots • Jog / Walk Track - No Dots • Gymnasium – No dots Attach: Note: The above is considered correct unless response to the contrary is received within 7 days from the above date. Please contact Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture if you feel items are in error. Southeast Recreation/ Cultural Center Welcome June 5, 2013 A P r o v e n P r o c e s s Today’s Agenda • Welcome and Introductions • Feasibility Study Process Overview • Project Mission • Project Possibilities • Dot-ocracy • Survey results • Next Steps I n t r o d u c t i o n s Barker Rinker Seacat Steve Blackburn, AIA, LEED AP Principal-in-Charge Dave Hammel, AIA, LEED AP Design Principal MARKET ANALYSIS & OPERATION Ballard * King & Associates Jeff King, CPRP, President Project Steering Committee Parks & Recreation and Cultural Resources Boards City Staff (P&R, Planning, Eng, etc.) Residents, Stakeholders & Users AQUATICS DESIGN Water Technology Inc. Doug Whiteaker, Principal LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Logan Simpson Design Jana McKenzie, FASLA, LEED-AP Balance of Needs + Resources Goal Achievement The Planning Process Staff & Agency Needs Stakeholder Needs & Wants Public Process Site Resources Local History & Knowledge National & Regional Trends Project Budgets & Costs T h e P l a n n i n g P r o c e s s A P r o v e n P r o c e s s Milestone Schedule • 4/22 – 6/5: On-line Survey • 4/22 – 6/15: Site/ Program/ Budget • 6/5: Community Open House • June: Prepare Plans/ Elevations • July: Plan and Operations Alts. • Early Aug: Public Presentation #2 • Sept: Prepare Feasibility Report A P r o v e n P r o c e s s Delivery Objectives • Citizen Survey (complete) • Stakeholder Meetings (Complete) • Market Analysis (complete) • Program of Space Requirements • Construction Budget/ Project Budget • Operational Cost Proforma • Conceptual Design (Plans and Elev.) Mission Statement “This Recreation and Arts Center will enhance the entire community by providing a unique venue for citizens to gather, create, recreate in a positive, safe and healthy environment.” Fossil Creek Park Site Potential Site + Potential Site Central Lawn Collector Road Through Neighbor- hoods Sledding / Observation Hill Arterial Road Main Park Entry T h e P l a n n i n g P r o c e s s S. Lemay Ave Fossil Creek Park Site Site Photos T h e P l a n n i n g P r o c e s s + What are the components of a Community Center? Sprayground Dot-ocracy When Your Table is called – • Come vote with your Dots for the top 6 Activities you’d like to see in a New Recreation/Cultural Center for S & SE Fort Collins! • Only 1 Dot per Activity – You can’t place all Dots on one Activity On-Line Survey Results Would you use a SE Recreation/Cultural Center? No - 13.4% Yes – 86.6% On-Line Survey Results Top 10 Activity Spaces Desired 1. Leisure Pool 2. Indoor Run/Walk Track 3. Cardiovascular Equipment 4. Gymnasium 5. Performing Art/Theater Space 6. Weight Room 7. Group Fitness Room 8. Multi Activity Court (soccer, lacrosse, basketball) 9. Rock climbing Wall 10. Interactive Playground On-Line Survey Results Top 10 Aquatic Components 1. Water Slide 2. Lazy River/current Channel 3. Lap Lanes 4. Swim Lesson Area 5. Zero Depth/Beach Entry 6. Interactive Water Features for Children 7. Water Exercise Area 8. Hot Tub / Spa 9. Warm Water Therapy Pool 10. Steam room On Line Survey Frequency of Use - 67% would use at least once per week Stakeholder Meetings 1. What is the greatest value of building a Southeast Recreation/ Cultural Center? 2. What is your vision? 3. What are the gaps? 4. What are the components your desire? Stakeholder Questions Stakeholder Groups • Cultural Resources Board • Senior Advisory Board • Parks & Recreation Board • Youth Advisory Board Next Steps Next Steps • Confirm Program and Budget • June: Prepare Plans/ Elevations • July: Plan and Operations • Early Aug: Public Presentation #2 • Sept: Prepare Feasibility Report Southeast Recreation/ Cultural Center Thank You! Dot-ocracy Talley Results from Public Mtg. 06-05-13 (top 10 highlighted) Description Votes Ranking 1. Gymnasium 22 13 2. MAC Gym 47 3 3. Indoor Running/Walking Track 41 5 4. Weights/Cardio Equipment area 56 2 5. Group Fitness/Dance Studio 30 10 6. Climbing Wall 31 9T 7. Health & Wellness Center 7 21 8. Indoor Leisure Aquatics 62 1 9. Indoor Competition Lap Swimming 34 8 10. Fitness Lap Swimming 47 4 11. Warm Water Therapy Pool 14 18 12. Arts & Crafts Classroom 28 11 13. Food Service/Concessions area 4 22T 14. Computer Lab 10 20 15. Multipurpose Classroom 13 19T 16. Community Multipurpose Rms w/ Kit. 17 15 17. Children’s Indoor Playground 31 9T 18. Performing Arts Theater 18 14T 19. Childwatch / Babysitting Room 18 14T 20. Teen Games / Activity Room 13 19T 21. Party Rooms / Classroom 38 6 22. Active Adult (Senior) Lounge 15 17 23. Library /Reading area 4 22T 24. Outdoor Sprayground 16 16 25. Outdoor Leisure Pool 26 12 26. 140 Seat Studio Theater 35 7 27. Outdoor Lap Swimming w/ Diving 13 19 28. Community Gardens 3 23 3457 Ringsby Court, Unit 200 Denver, Colorado 80216 303-455-1366 Fax 303-455-7457 Toll Free 866-646-1980 www.brsarch.com Project: Ft. Collins SECC Project Number: 2013.014.01 Meeting Subject: Program/ Budget Refinement Meeting Issue Date: June 26, 2013 Present: Dave Hammel - BRS Steve Blackburn - BRS Steve Budner - CoFC - Rec. Manager Marty Heffernan - CoFC - Exec. Director Mike McDonnell - CoFC - Rec. Manager John Litel - CoFC - Community Relations Jill Stilwell - CoFC - Cultural Services Bob Adams - CoFC - Recreation Director Meeting Date: June 25, 2013 Copy To: file Discussions at the meeting led to the following items of note: 1. Steve Blackburn stated the purpose of the meeting is to focus on the program/ budget and the City of Fort Collins to give BRS direction for the conceptual design effort. 2. Dave Hammel presented “Bob’s Picks” program of 75,308 Sf; $21.6M construction and $33M total project (see attached). 3. Marty believes City Council would entertain three options in increments of $5M. He suggested: a. $35M “Bob’s Picks” program plus some b. $25M Pool/ Fitness with no gym and no cultural arts c. $20M Recreation and Arts only with no pool 4. Council should know the wish list created based on the survey results was approximately $50M and deemed too much, so a $35M option was created. 5. City Council presentation of the feasibility study is scheduled for the evening of August 27th. BRS needs to have materials submitted August 13th. 6. The City of Fort Collins would like the BRS team to explore other locations using the 78,000 SF footprint at: a. SE Community Park site (Bob Adams to get info from Kathleen at Park Planning) b. SW corner of High School site, north of Sabercat (possibly, City will check with School District) c. Parcel south of Bradley Barr Dealership, north of Fairway Lane d. NW corner of Harmony and College (old lumber yard site) 7. BRS will issue an ASP for this work and send to Bob Adams. 8. Meeting was adjourned. Attach: $35M Program, $25M Program, and $20M Program Note: The above is considered correct unless response to the contrary is received within 7 days from the above date. Please contact Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture if you feel items are in error. Southeast Recreation/Cultural Community Center (DRAFT) FACILITY PROGRAM - Preferred Programs $35M Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture Average Cost/ SF $278 /SF Date: June 25, 2013 Total Program Area 78,907 SF Revised: Total Program Cost $21,975,000 Program Space Net Area Ext Selected Program Gross Area Selected Program Cost Notes x Facility Administration Spaces 1,908 2,328 SF $396,000 Facility Supervisor's office 150 private office Assistant Facility Supervisor 120 private office Programmer's Workstations 240 (3) workstations at 80 s.f. each Administrative Assistant 100 workstation Count Room 80 Work Room 250 Break Room 200 Conference Room 200 Can double as small rental space Computer Server Room 150 Storage 100 Circulation 318 x Required Building Support Spaces 11,820 14,420 SF $3,231,000 Pre-Control Lobby 1,500 Lounge 900 Control Desk 300 Men's Locker 1,200 Women's Locker 1,200 Family Lockers (8) 2,000 8 Cabannas Vending Machines 150 First Aid 80 Men's Toilets 300 Women's Toilets 300 Custodial Closets 150 Building Mechanical Room 400 Sprinkler Valve Room 90 Main Electrical Distribution Room 250 Maintenance/ Receiving/ Loading 900 Custodial Workroom/ Supply 300 Maintenance Office 100 General Building Storage 1,700 x Child Watch / Babysitting 940 1,147 SF $258,000 Babysitting 800 Tot toilet 40 Storage 100 x 240 Person Community Room / Events Hall 4,100 5,002 SF $1,110,000 Seats 240 for banq/conf/meeting Community Room 3,600 Dividable into three 1,200 SF rooms Storage 500 x Single HS / Double Elem. School Courts Gymnasium 8,540 10,419 SF $2,329,000 (1) 50 x 84 or (2) 38 x 68 courts with overhead volleyball nets Gymnasium 8,140 Seating for 120 Storage 400 x Long Elevated Walk / Jog Track 6,500 7,930 SF $981,000 9 laps per mile, 3 lanes Walk/Jog Track 5,900 Stretching Area 600 x Weight / Fitness 4,500 5,490 SF $1,445,000 Cardiovascular Training 2,000 Circuit Resistance Training 1,250 Free Weight Training 800 Fitness Supervisor Station 50 Stretching Area 300 Southeast Recreation/Cultural Community Center (DRAFT) FACILITY PROGRAM - Preferred Programs $35M Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture Average Cost/ SF $278 /SF Date: June 25, 2013 Total Program Area 78,907 SF Revised: Total Program Cost $21,975,000 Program Space Net Area Ext Selected Program Gross Area Selected Program Cost Notes Storage 100 x 30-36 Person Aerobics/Dance Studio 1,950 2,379 SF $508,000 Accomodates 30-36 people Aerobics/Dance Studio 1,800 Storage 150 x Aquatics Support 740 903 SF $159,000 Equipment room, guards, office Guard Room 300 Aquatics Supervisors Office 120 Head Lifeguard Office 120 First Aid 100 Vending at Pool Deck 100 x 7,000 Leisure Pool 17,300 21,106 SF $8,695,000 7,000 square foot pool (Sim. To Livonia) Pool 7,000 Natatorium 15,400 Slides, Spray Features, Spa Lazy River, Body Slide, Tube Slide & Tod Slide Sprays and Jets (most) 3 Lane x 60 ft. Yard Lap Swim 20-person Spa 300 SF spa Therapy Area for Aqua Aerobics Supplemental Sanitation Water Treatment Pool Equipment Room 1,200 Pool Storage 700 x Wet Classroom / Party Room(s) 800 976 SF $219,000 Can be divided into two 360 SF rooms Classroom 720 Party Room Storage 80 x 150-Seat Flexible Studio Theater 5,580 6,808 SF $1,944,000 Theater Lobby Lounge 1,500 Audience Seating for 150 1,500 Box Office and Administration 200 Performance Area (stage) 900 Technical Acting Balcony 300 Lighting and Sound Control Booth 120 Stage Lighting Dimmer Room 80 Sound Systems Rack Room 80 Follow Spot Booth 80 Dressing Room A 160 Dressing Room B 160 Concessions & Stor 100 Front of House Stor 80 Backstage Stor. 200 Piano Storage 120 x Sustainable Options/LEED Gold $400,000 Green Building Design x Solar Hot Water Heating $300,000 Pool and domestic water heating system 78,907 $21,975,000 Building Construction $2,417,250 Site Construction $6,171,814 Development Costs (Green Building, Fees, FFE, Testing, etc) $4,425,140 Owner's Plus Design Contingency $34,989,204 Total Project Cost Southeast Recreation/Cultural Community Center (DRAFT) FACILITY PROGRAM - $25M - POOL + FITNESS Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture Average Cost/ SF $321 /SF Date: June 5, 2013 Total Program Area 48,242 SF Revised: June 25, 2013 Total Program Cost $15,500,000 Program Space Net Area Ext Selected Program Gross Area Selected Program Cost Notes x Facility Administration Spaces 1,908 2,328 SF $396,000 Facility Supervisor's office 150 private office Assistant Facility Supervisor 120 private office Programmer's Workstations 240 (3) workstations at 80 s.f. each Administrative Assistant 100 workstation Count Room 80 Work Room 250 Break Room 200 Conference Room 200 Can double as small rental space Computer Server Room 150 Storage 100 Circulation 318 x Required Building Support Spaces 11,120 13,566 SF $3,121,000 Pre-Control Lobby 1,500 Lounge 900 Control Desk 300 Men's Locker 1,200 Women's Locker 1,200 Family Lockers (8) 2,000 8 Cabannas Vending Machines 150 First Aid 80 Men's Toilets 300 Women's Toilets 300 Custodial Closets 150 Building Mechanical Room 400 Sprinkler Valve Room 90 Main Electrical Distribution Room 250 Maintenance/ Receiving/ Loading 900 Custodial Workroom/ Supply 300 Maintenance Office 100 General Building Storage 1,000 X 50 Person Classroom 1,025 1,251 SF $248,000 Seats 50 Classroom 900 Storage 125 X Wet Arts & Crafts Room 1,800 2,196 SF $467,000 Seats 45 Classroom 1,200 Equipment Equipment allowance of $50,000 Storage 200 Wet pottery storage 200 Kiln 200 X Weight / Fitness 3,650 4,453 SF $1,216,000 Cardiovascular Training 1,600 Circuit Resistance Training 960 Free Weight Training 640 Fitness Supervisor Station 50 Stretching Area 300 Equipment Allow $200,000 for equipment Storage 100 x 16-20 Person Spinning Studio 1,200 1,464 SF $279,000 Accomodates 16-20 people Spinning Studio 800 Southeast Recreation/Cultural Community Center (DRAFT) FACILITY PROGRAM - $25M - POOL + FITNESS Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture Average Cost/ SF $321 /SF Date: June 5, 2013 Total Program Area 48,242 SF Revised: June 25, 2013 Total Program Cost $15,500,000 Program Space Net Area Ext Selected Program Gross Area Selected Program Cost Notes x Aquatics Support 740 903 SF $159,000 Equipment room, guards, office Guard Room 300 Aquatics Supervisors Office 120 Head Lifeguard Office 120 First Aid 100 Vending at Pool Deck 100 x 7,000 Leisure Pool 17,300 21,106 SF $8,695,000 7,000 square foot pool (Sim. To Livonia) Pool 7,000 Natatorium 15,400 Slides, Spray Features, Spa Lazy River, Body Slide, Tube Slide & Tod Slide Sprays and Jets (most) 3 Lane x 60 ft. Yard Lap Swim 20-person Spa 300 SF spa Therapy Area for Aqua Aerobics Supplemental Sanitation Water Treatment Pool Equipment Room 1,200 Pool Storage 700 x Wet Classroom / Party Room(s) 800 976 SF $219,000 Can be divided into two 360 SF rooms Classroom 720 Party Room Storage 80 x Sustainable Options/LEED Gold $400,000 Green Building Design x Solar Hot Water Heating $300,000 Pool and domestic water heating system 48,242 $15,500,000 Building Construction $1,705,000 Site Construction $4,385,867 Development Costs (Green Building, Fees, FFE, Testing, etc) $3,165,775 Owner's Plus Design Contingency $24,756,641 Total Project Cost © 2013 Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture. Cost estimated based on similar recently constructed community centers around the US and indexed to the Fort Collins region based on mid-point of construction of Nov. 2016. 2 of 2 Southeast Recreation/Cultural Community Center (DRAFT) FACILITY PROGRAM - $20M Rec and Arts (Future Pool) Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture Average Cost/ SF $225 /SF Date: June 25, 2013 Total Program Area 54,336 SF Revised: Total Program Cost $12,211,000 Program Space Net Area Ext Selected Program Gross Area Selected Program Cost Notes x Facility Administration Spaces 1,908 2,328 SF $396,000 Facility Supervisor's office 150 private office Assistant Facility Supervisor 120 private office Programmer's Workstations 240 (3) workstations at 80 s.f. each Administrative Assistant 100 workstation Count Room 80 Work Room 250 Break Room 200 Conference Room 200 Can double as small rental space Computer Server Room 150 Storage 100 Circulation 318 x Required Building Support Spaces 9,720 11,858 SF $2,621,000 Pre-Control Lobby 1,500 Lounge 900 Control Desk 300 Men's Locker 1,000 Women's Locker 1,000 Family Lockers (4) 1,000 4 Cabanas Vending Machines 150 First Aid 80 Men's Toilets 300 Women's Toilets 300 Custodial Closets 150 Building Mechanical Room 400 Sprinkler Valve Room 90 Main Electrical Distribution Room 250 Maintenance/ Receiving/ Loading 900 Custodial Workroom/ Supply 300 Maintenance Office 100 General Building Storage 1,000 x Child Watch / Babysitting 940 1,147 SF $258,000 Babysitting 800 Tot toilet 40 Storage 100 x 240 Person Community Room / Events Hall 4,100 5,002 SF $1,110,000 Seats 240 for banq/conf/meeting Community Room 3,600 Dividable into three 1,200 SF rooms Storage 500 x Single HS / Double Elem. School Courts Gymnasium 8,540 10,419 SF $2,329,000 (1) 50 x 84 or (2) 38 x 68 courts with overhead volleyball nets Gymnasium 8,140 Seating for 120 Storage 400 x Long Elevated Walk / Jog Track 6,500 7,930 SF $981,000 9 laps per mile, 3 lanes Walk/Jog Track 5,900 Stretching Area 600 x Weight / Fitness 4,500 5,490 SF $1,445,000 Cardiovascular Training 2,000 Circuit Resistance Training 1,250 Free Weight Training 800 Fitness Supervisor Station 50 Stretching Area 300 Southeast Recreation/Cultural Community Center (DRAFT) FACILITY PROGRAM - $20M Rec and Arts (Future Pool) Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture Average Cost/ SF $225 /SF Date: June 25, 2013 Total Program Area 54,336 SF Revised: Total Program Cost $12,211,000 Program Space Net Area Ext Selected Program Gross Area Selected Program Cost Notes Storage 100 x 30-36 Person Aerobics/Dance Studio 1,950 2,379 SF $508,000 Accomodates 30-36 people Aerobics/Dance Studio 1,800 Storage 150 x Wet Classroom / Party Room(s) 800 976 SF $219,000 Can be divided into two 360 SF rooms Classroom 720 Party Room Storage 80 x 150-Seat Flexible Studio Theater 5,580 6,808 SF $1,944,000 Theater Lobby Lounge 1,500 Audience Seating for 150 1,500 Box Office and Administration 200 Performance Area (stage) 900 Technical Acting Balcony 300 Lighting and Sound Control Booth 120 Stage Lighting Dimmer Room 80 Sound Systems Rack Room 80 Follow Spot Booth 80 Dressing Room A 160 Dressing Room B 160 Concessions & Stor 100 Front of House Stor 80 Backstage Stor. 200 Piano Storage 120 x Sustainable Options/LEED Gold $400,000 Green Building Design 54,336 $12,211,000 Building Construction $1,343,210 Site Construction $4,191,190 Development Costs (Green Building, Fees, FFE, Testing, etc) $2,659,543 Owner's Plus Design Contingency $20,404,944 Total Project Cost © 2013 Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture. Cost estimated based on similar recently constructed community centers around the US and indexed to the Fort Collins region based on mid-point of construction of Nov. 2016. 2 of 2 APPENDIX - REPORTS 75 MARKET & OPERATIONS ANALYSIS MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 1 of 45 Section I – Demographic Summary & Market Review Ballard*King & Associates as part of a larger project team is working with the City of Ft. Collins to determine the market and overall demand for a community recreation center. The following is a summary of the basic demographic characteristics of the indentified service areas along with indoor recreation and leisure participation standards as produced by the National Sporting Goods Association 2011 Survey along with participation statistics provided by the National Endowment of the Arts. Service Areas: As there is already a community center within Ft. Collins the primary service area that has been identified focuses on the southern half of the City and spills over to adjacent communities to the East and South. Additionally, for comparative purposes information on the City proper and a 20-minute drive time from a southwest point in the community has also been identified. Primary Service Areas are usually defined by the distance people will travel on a regular basis (a minimum of once a week) to utilize a facility or its programs. Secondary Service Areas are usually defined by the distance people will travel on a less consistent basis (a minimum of once a month) to utilize a facility or its programs. Use by individuals in a secondary area will primarily be limited to special events (tournaments, etc.). Service areas can also vary in size with the types of components that are included in a facility. A center with active elements (weight cardiovascular equipment area, gym, track, etc.) will generally have a larger service area than a more passively oriented facility. Specialized facilities such as a sports field house, ice arena or large competitive aquatic venue will have even larger service areas that make them more of a regional destination. Service areas can also be based upon a facility’s proximity to major thoroughfares. Other factors impacting the use as it relates to driving distance are the presence of alternative service providers in the service area(s). Alternative service providers can have an impact upon membership, daily admissions and the associated penetration rates for programs and services. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 2 of 45 Table A – Service Area Comparison Chart: Primary Service Area City of Ft. Collins Drive-Time Population: 2010 Census 152,979 143,986 258,800 2012 Estimate 157,469 147,398 267,251 2017 Estimate 168,404 156,648 287,976 Households 2010 Census 60,242 57,829 102,679 2012 Estimate 61,616 58,854 105,439 2017 Estimate 67,093 63,728 115,514 Families: 2010 Census 34,818 31,148 62,789 2012 Estimate 35,183 31,154 63,750 2017 Estimate 38,559 33,890 70,274 Average Household Size: 2010 Census 2.43 2.37 2.44 2012 Estimate 2.44 2.38 2.46 2017 Estimate 2.41 2.35 2.43 Ethnicity: Hispanic 9.5% 10.3% 11.5% White 89.2% 88.5% 89.4% Black 1.4% 1.6% 1.2% American Indian 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% Asian 2.9% 2.9% 2.1% Pacific Islander 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Other 2.7% 3.1% 3.5% Multiple 3.0% 3.2% 2.9% Median Age: 2010 Census 30.9 29.6 33.3 2012 Estimate 31.2 30.0 33.4 2017 Estimate 31.9 30.7 34.1 Median Income: 2012 Estimate $61,177 $55,932 $57,815 2017 Estimate $75,305 $67,517 $70,045 Household Budget Expenditures1: Housing 113 105 108 Entertainment & Recreation 113 104 108 1 This information is placed on an index with a reference point being the National average of 100. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 3 of 45 The median age and household income levels are compared with the national number as both of these factors are primary determiners of participation in recreation activities. The lower the median age, the higher the participation rates are for most activities. The level of participation also increases as the median income level goes up. Table B – Median Age: 2010 Census 2012 Projection 2017 Projection Primary Service Area 30.9 31.2 31.9 City of Ft. Collins Area 29.6 30.0 30.7 Drive-Time 33.3 33.4 34.1 State of Colorado 36.1 36.2 36.6 Nationally 37.1 37.3 37.8 Chart A – Median Age In addition to the median age of the State of Colorado being below the National number the median age in all three service areas is significantly below the National number as well. As is the case with Ft. Collins and the associated service areas this lower median age would point to the presence of a significant college/university within the service area. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 4 of 45 Map B – Median Age by Block Group MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 5 of 45 Table C – Median Household Income: 2012 Estimate 2017 Projection Primary Service Area $61,177 $75,305 City of Ft. Collins Area $55,932 $67,517 Drive-Time $57,815 $70,045 State of Colorado $54,424 $63,663 Nationally $50,157 $56,895 Chart B – Median Household Income MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 6 of 45 Based upon 2012 projections the following narrative can be provided the service areas: In the Primary Service Area the percentage of households with median income over $50,000 per year is 60.7% compared to 50.1% on a national level. Furthermore, the percentage of the households in the service area with median income less than $25,000 per year is 17.1% compared to a level of 24.7% nationally. In the City of Ft. Collins Area the percentage of households with median income over $50,000 per year is 56.2% compared to 50.1% on a national level. Furthermore, the percentage of the households in the service area with median income less than $25,000 per year is 20.0% compared to a level of 24.7% nationally. In the Drive-Time Area the percentage of households with median income over $50,000 per year is 58.3% compared to 50.1% on a national level. Furthermore, the percentage of the households in the service area with median income less than $25,000 per year is 18.6% compared to a level of 24.7% nationally. The median household income for the State of Colorado is slightly higher than the National number. In addition the median household income for all three service areas is higher than the National number as well. While all three service areas have a significant portion of the population that receives less than $25,000 in income that is consistent with the presence of college students. In contrast to that there is a significant portion of the population in all three service areas, greater than 55%, that make more than $50,000 per year. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 7 of 45 Map A – Median Household Income by Block Group MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 8 of 45 In addition to taking a look at Median Age and Median Income, it is important to examine Household Budget Expenditures. In particular looking at housing information; shelter, utilities, fuel and public services along with entertainment & recreation can provide a snap shot into the cost of living and spending patterns in the services areas. The table below looks at that information and compares the service areas. Table D – Household Budget Expenditures 2 Primary Service Area SPI Average Amount Spent Percent Housing 113 $22,283.80 31.0% Shelter 115 $17,547.64 24.4% Utilities, Fuel, Public Service 108 $4,736.15 6.6% Entertainment & Recreation 113 $3,526.92 4.9% City of Ft. Collins Area SPI Average Amount Spent Percent Housing 105 $20,665.19 31.0% Shelter 106 $16,252.16 24.4% Utilities, Fuel, Public Service 101 $4,413.04 6.6% Entertainment & Recreation 104 $3,260.64 4.9% Drive-Time Area SPI Average Amount Spent Percent Housing 108 $21,222.27 30.9% Shelter 109 $16,675.82 24.3% Utilities, Fuel, Public Service 104 $4,546.44 6.6% Entertainment & Recreation 108 $3,373.13 4.9% State of Colorado SPI Average Amount Spent Percent Housing 109 $21,382.23 30.9% Shelter 110 $16,778.40 24.2% Utilities, Fuel, Public Service 105 $4,603.83 6.6% Entertainment & Recreation 110 $3,427.21 4.9% SPI: Spending Potential Index as compared to the National number of 100. Average Amount Spent: The average amount spent per household. Percent: Percent of the total 100% of household expenditures. Note: Shelter along with Utilities, Fuel, Public Service are a portion of the Housing percentage. 2 Consumer Spending data are derived from the 2004 and 2005 Consumer Expenditure Surveys, Bureau of Labor Statistics. ESRI forecasts for 2012 and 2017. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 9 of 45 Chart C – Household Budget Expenditures Spending Potential Index Chart C, illustrates that the Household Budget Expenditures Spending Potential Index in all three service areas and the State of Colorado is higher than what is being spent in comparison to the National number. This would point to the fact that the total cost of living in all three service areas and the State of Colorado is higher than the National average. It should also be noted that the median household income will support this higher cost of living. It will be important to keep this information in mind when developing fee structure and looking at an appropriate cost recovery philosophy. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 10 of 45 Recreation Expenditures Spending Potential Index: Finally through the demographic provider that B*K utilizes for the market analysis portion of the report we are able to examine the overall propensity for households to spend dollars on recreation activities. The following comparisons are possible. Table E – Recreation Expenditures Spending Potential Index 3 Primary Service Area SPI Average Spent Fees for Participant Sports 113 $116.85 Fees for Recreational Lessons 111 $146.54 Social, Recreation, Club Membership 112 $177.40 Exercise Equipment/Game Tables 96 $76.12 Other Sports Equipment 112 $10.26 City of Ft. Collins Area SPI Average Spent Fees for Participant Sports 103 $106.89 Fees for Recreational Lessons 99 $131.36 Social, Recreation, Club Membership 102 $162.14 Exercise Equipment/Game Tables 88 $70.14 Other Sports Equipment 104 $9.50 Drive-Time Area SPI Average Spent Fees for Participant Sports 109 $112.92 Fees for Recreational Lessons 108 $143.03 Social, Recreation, Club Membership 108 $171.31 Exercise Equipment/Game Tables 91 $72.28 Other Sports Equipment 107 $9.83 State of Colorado SPI Average Spent Fees for Participant Sports 110 $114.02 Fees for Recreational Lessons 110 $145.98 Social, Recreation, Club Membership 109 $172.72 Exercise Equipment/Game Tables 91 $72.58 Other Sports Equipment 109 $9.96 Average Amount Spent: The average amount spent for the service or item in a year. 3 Consumer Spending data are derived from the 2006 and 2007 Consumer Expenditure Surveys, Bureau of Labor Statistics. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 11 of 45 SPI: Spending potential index as compared to the national number of 100. Chart D – Recreation Spending Potential Index The SPI index indicates that all three services areas rate of spending is greater than the National number. This information is very important when determining a price point for activities and cost recovery philosophy. It is also important to note that these dollars are currently being spent, so the identification of alternative service providers and the ability of another facility to capture a portion of these dollars will be important. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 12 of 45 Map C – Entertainment & Recreation Spending Potential Index MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 13 of 45 Map D – Primary Service Area Map MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 14 of 45 Population Distribution by Age: Utilizing census information for the Primary Service Area, the following comparisons are possible. Table F – 2012 Primary Service Area Age Distribution (ESRI estimates) Ages Population % of Total Nat. Population Difference -5 8,939 5.6% 6.5% -0.9% 5-17 23,199 14.6% 17.2% -2.6% 18-24 30,877 19.7% 9.8% +9.9% 25-44 42,758 27.2% 26.5% +0.7% 45-54 19,325 12.2% 14.1% -1.9% 55-64 16,626 10.6% 12.3% -1.7% 65-74 8,661 5.5% 7.5% -2.0% 75+ 7,084 4.4% 6.1% -1.7% Population: 2012 census estimates in the different age groups in the Primary Service Area. % of Total: Percentage of the Primary Service Area \population in the age group. National Population: Percentage of the national population in the age group. Difference: Percentage difference between the Primary Service Area population and the national population. Chart E – 2012 Primary Service Area Age Group Distribution MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 15 of 45 The demographic makeup of the Primary Service Area, when compared to the characteristics of the national population, indicates that there are some differences with an equal or larger population in the 18-24 and 25-44 age groups and a smaller population in the -5, 5-17, 45-54, 55- 64, 65-74 and 75+ age groups. The largest positive variance is in the 18-24 age group with +9.9%, while the greatest negative variance is in the 5-17 age group with -2.6%. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 16 of 45 Population Distribution Comparison by Age: Utilizing census information from the Primary Service Area, the following comparisons are possible. Table G – 2012 Primary Service Area Population Estimates (U.S. Census Information and ESRI) Ages 2010 Census 2012 Projection 2017 Projection Percent Change Percent Change Nat’l -5 8,719 8,939 9,639 +10.6% +4.7% 5-17 22,882 23,199 24,823 +8.5% +1.8% 18-24 30,144 30,877 30,877 +2.4% -2.4% 25-44 41,774 42,758 45,841 +9.7% +10.4% 45-54 19,316 19,325 19,306 -0.05% -6.2% 55-64 15,444 16,626 18,778 +21.6% +13.7% 65-74 7,868 8,661 11,217 +42.6% +32.9% 75+ 6,830 7,084 7,924 +16.0% +9.5% Chart F – Primary Service Area Population Growth Table-G, illustrates the growth or decline in age group numbers from the 2010 census until the year 2017. It is projected that all of the age categories except 45-54 will see an increase in population or static growth. It must be remembered that the population of the United States as a whole is aging and it is not unusual to find negative growth numbers in the younger age groups and significant net gains in the 45 plus age groupings in communities which are relatively stable in their population numbers. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 17 of 45 Below is listed the distribution of the population by race and ethnicity for the Primary Service Area for 2012 population projections. Those numbers were developed from 2010 Census Data. Table H – Primary Service Area Ethnic Population and Median Age (Source – U.S. Census Bureau and ESRI) Ethnicity Total Population Median Age % of Population % of Colorado Population Hispanic 14,957 24.1 9.5% 21.0% Table I – Primary Service Area Population by Race and Median Age (Source – U.S. Census Bureau and ESRI) Race Total Population Median Age % of Population % of Colorado Population White 140,499 32.2 89.2% 80.9% Black 2,265 24.3 1.4% 4.1% American Indian 982 26.9 0.6% 1.1% Asian 4,533 31.1 2.9% 2.8% Pacific Islander 149 24.1 0.1% 0.1% Other 4,322 25.4 2.7% 7.3% Multiple 4,719 19.8 3.0% 3.6% 2012 Primary Service Area Total Population: 157,469 Residents Chart G – Primary Service Area Non-White Population by Race MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 18 of 45 Tapestry Segments: In addition to look at the age group distribution, population growth along with ethnicity and race of the service area B*K can further examine the service area by examining the various tapestry segments. The following table outlines the top 5 tapestry segments within the Primary Service Area and provides definitions for each of the tapestries. Table J – Primary Service Area Tapestry Segment Comparison (ESRI estimates) Primary Service Area U.S. Households Percent Cumulative Percent Percent Cumulative Percent College Towns (55) 14.5% 14.5% 0.9% 0.9% Enterprising Professionals (16) 11.6% 26.1% 1.9% 2.8% Up & Coming Families (12) 11.5% 37.6% 4.1% 6.9% Metropolitans (22) 9.4% 47.0% 1.4% 8.3% In Style (13) 9.3% 56.3% 2.3% 10.6% College Towns (55) – With a median age of 24.4 years this is the third youngest segment of all tapestries. Most residents are aged between 18-34 years and life in single-person or shared households. The race profile of this market is somewhat similar to the U.S. profile. Enterprising Professionals (16) – Residents of this segment are young, educated, single, married, working professionals and neighborhoods have a median age of 32.4. One of the fastest-growing markets, with an annual household growth of 2.2% per year since 2000, the households in this segment comprise approximately 2% of the total U.S. households. Up & Coming Families (12) – With an annual household growth rate of 5.2% the segment represents Tapestry’s second highest household growth market. A mix of Generation Xers and Baby Boomers with a median age of 31.9 years, this segment is the youngest of Tapestry’s affluent family markets. Metropolitans (22) – Residents of these communities prefer to live in older city neighborhoods. Approximately ½ of these households are singles who live alone or with others; 40% are married-couple families and one in four of the residents is aged 20-34 years. These residents pursue an active, urbane lifestyle. In Style (13) – These residents live in the suburbs but prefer the city lifestyle. Professional couples predominate and household distributions by type are similar to those of the United States. Married-couple families represent 54% of the households and households without children comprise more than 2/3 of all households. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 19 of 45 Map D – City of Ft. Collins Area Map MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 20 of 45 Population Distribution by Age: Utilizing census information for the City of Ft. Collins, the following comparisons are possible. Table K – 2012 City of Ft. Collins Age Distribution (ESRI estimates) Ages Population % of Total Nat. Population Difference -5 8,216 5.5% 6.5% -1.0% 5-17 20,246 13.6% 17.2% -3.6% 18-24 31,357 21.3% 9.8% +11.5% 25-44 41,864 28.3% 26.5% +1.8% 45-54 16,971 11.5% 14.1% -2.6% 55-64 14,721 10.0% 12.3% -2.3% 65-74 7,395 5.0% 7.5% -2.5% 75+ 6,625 4.5% 6.1% -1.6% Population: 2012 census estimates in the different age groups in the City of Ft. Collins Area. % of Total: Percentage of the City of Ft. Collins Area \population in the age group. National Population: Percentage of the national population in the age group. Difference: Percentage difference between the City of Ft. Collins Area population and the national population. Chart H – 2012 City of Ft. Collins Age Group Distribution MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 21 of 45 The demographic makeup of the City of Ft. Collins, when compared to the characteristics of the national population, indicates that there are some differences with an equal or larger population in the 18-24 and 25-44 age groups and a smaller population in the -5, 5-17, 44-54, 55-64, 65-74 and 75+ age groups. The largest positive variance is in the 18-24 age group with +11.5%, while the greatest negative variance is in the 5-17 age group with -3.6%. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 22 of 45 Population Distribution Comparison by Age: Utilizing census information from the City of Ft. Collins, the following comparisons are possible. Table L – 2012 City of Ft. Collins Population Estimates (U.S. Census Information and ESRI) Ages 2010 Census 2012 Projection 2017 Projection Percent Change Percent Change Nat’l -5 8,251 8,216 8,796 +6.6% +4.7% 5-17 20,379 20,246 21,532 +5.7% +1.8% 18-24 30,865 31,357 31,300 +1.4% -2.4% 25-44 41,685 41,864 44,781 +7.4% +10.4% 45-54 16,842 16,971 16,867 +0.1% -6.2% 55-64 13,324 14,721 16,518 +24.0% +13.7% 65-74 6,444 7,395 9,488 +47.2% +32.9% 75+ 6,196 6,625 7,367 +18.9% +9.5% Chart I – City of Ft. Collins Population Growth Table-L, illustrates the growth or decline in age group numbers from the 2010 census until the year 2017. It is projected that all of the age categories will see an increase in population or static growth. It must be remembered that the population of the United States as a whole is aging and it is not unusual to find negative growth numbers in the younger age groups and significant net gains in the 45 plus age groupings in communities which are relatively stable in their population numbers. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 23 of 45 Below is listed the distribution of the population by race and ethnicity for the City of Ft. Collins Area for 2012 population projections. Those numbers were developed from 2010 Census Data. Table M – City of Ft. Collins Ethnic Population and Median Age (Source – U.S. Census Bureau and ESRI) Ethnicity Total Population Median Age % of Population % of Colorado Population Hispanic 15,235 24.3 10.3% 21.0% Table N – City of Ft. Collins Population by Race and Median Age (Source – U.S. Census Bureau and ESRI) Ethnicity Total Population Median Age % of Population % of Colorado Population White 130,446 31.0 88.5% 80.9% Black 2,297 24.2 1.6% 4.1% American Indian 961 27.1 0.7% 1.1% Asian 4,299 30.7 2.9% 2.8% Pacific Islander 143 24.5 0.1% 0.1% Other 4,568 25.9 3.1% 7.3% Multiple 4,685 20.3 3.2% 3.6% 2012 City of Ft. Collins Area Total Population: 147,398 Residents Chart J – City of Ft. Collins Area Non-White Population by Race MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 24 of 45 Tapestry Segments: In addition to look at the age group distribution, population growth along with ethnicity and race of the service area B*K can further examine the service area by examining the various tapestry segments. The following table outlines the top 5 tapestry segments within the City of Ft. Collins Service Area and provides definitions for each of the tapestries. Table O – City of Ft. Collins Area Tapestry Segment Comparison (ESRI estimates) City of Ft. Collins U.S. Households Percent Cumulative Percent Percent Cumulative Percent College Towns (55) 18.2% 18.2% 0.9% 0.9% Metropolitans (22) 14.6% 32.8% 1.4% 2.3% Enterprising Professionals (16) 11.9% 44.7% 1.9% 4.2% Up & Coming Families (12) 10.7% 55.4% 4.1% 8.3% Dorms to Diplomas (63) 7.7% 63.1% 0.5% 8.8% College Towns (55) – With a median age of 24.4 years this is the third youngest segment of all tapestries. Most residents are aged between 18-34 years and life in single-person or shared households. The race profile of this market is somewhat similar to the U.S. profile. Metropolitans (22) – Residents of these communities prefer to live in older city neighborhoods. Approximately ½ of these households are singles who live alone or with others; 40% are married-couple families and one in four of the residents is aged 20-34 years. These residents pursue an active, urbane lifestyle. Enterprising Professionals (16) – Residents of this segment are young, educated, single, married, working professionals and neighborhoods have a median age of 32.4. One of the fastest-growing markets, with an annual household growth of 2.2% per year since 2000, the households in this segment comprise approximately 2% of the total U.S. households. Up & Coming Families (12) – With an annual household growth rate of 5.2% the segment represents Tapestry’s second highest household growth market. A mix of Generation Xers and Baby Boomers with a median age of 31.9 years, this segment is the youngest of Tapestry’s affluent family markets. Dorms to Diplomas (63) – With a median age of 21.7 years these residents are college students who are the youngest of the tapestry segments; 79% of the residents are enrolled in a college or MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 25 of 45 university, 42% share housing with one or more roommates and 38% live in single-person dwellings. Ethnic diversity is slightly lower in this segment than in the U.S. Map E – Drive-Time Area Map MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 26 of 45 Population Distribution by Age: Utilizing census information for the Drive-Time Area, the following comparisons are possible. Table P – 2012 Drive-Time Area Age Distribution (ESRI estimates) Ages Population % of Total Nat. Population Difference -5 16,710 6.2% 6.5% -0.3% 5-17 41,683 15.7% 17.2% -1.5% 18-24 40,200 15.0% 9.8% +5.2% 25-44 73,935 27.6% 26.5% +1.1% 45-54 34,334 12.8% 14.1% -1.3% 55-64 30,419 11.4% 12.3% -0.9% 65-74 16,579 6.2% 7.5% -1.3% 75+ 13,391 5.1% 6.1% -1.0% Population: 2012 census estimates in the different age groups in the Drive-Time Area. % of Total: Percentage of the Drive-Time Area population in the age group. National Population: Percentage of the national population in the age group. Difference: Percentage difference between the Drive-Time Area population and the national population. Chart K – 2012 Drive-Time Area Age Group Distribution MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 27 of 45 The demographic makeup of the Drive-Time Area, when compared to the characteristics of the national population, indicates that there are some differences with an equal or larger population in the 18-24 and 25-44 age groups and a smaller population in the -5, 5-17, 45-54, 55-64, 65-74 and 75+ age groups. The largest positive variance is in the 18-24 age groups with +5.2%, while the greatest negative variance is in the 5-17 age groups with -1.5%. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 28 of 45 Population Distribution Comparison by Age: Utilizing census information from the Drive- Time Area, the following comparisons are possible. Table Q – 2012 Drive-Time Area Population Estimates (U.S. Census Information and ESRI) Ages 2010 Census 2012 Projection 2017 Projection Percent Change Percent Change Nat’l -5 16,262 16,710 18,062 +11.1% +4.7% 5-17 41,116 41,683 44,718 +8.8% +1.8% 18-24 39,127 40,200 40,172 +2.7% -2.4% 25-44 72,014 73,935 79,493 +10.4% +10.4% 45-54 34,237 34,334 34,411 +0.5% -6.2% 55-64 28,188 30,419 34,467 +22.3% +13.7% 65-74 15,014 16,579 21,555 +43.6% +32.9% 75+ 12,842 13,391 15,098 +17.6% +9.5% Chart L – Drive-Time Area Population Growth Table-Q, illustrates the growth or decline in age group numbers from the 2010 census until the year 2017. It is projected that all of the age categories will see an increase in population or static growth. It must be remembered that the population of the United States as a whole is aging and it is not unusual to find negative growth numbers in the younger age groups and significant net gains in the 45 plus age groupings in communities which are relatively stable in their population numbers. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 29 of 45 Below is listed the distribution of the population by race and ethnicity for the Drive-Time Area for 2012 population projections. Those numbers were developed from 2010 Census Data. Table R – Drive-Time Area Ethnic Population and Median Age (Source – U.S. Census Bureau and ESRI) Ethnicity Total Population Median Age % of Population % of Colorado Population Hispanic 30,754 24.6 11.5% 21.0% Table S – Drive-Time Area Population by Race and Median Age (Source – U.S. Census Bureau and ESRI) Ethnicity Total Population Median Age % of Population % of Colorado Population White 238,835 34.7 89.4% 80.9% Black 3,244 24.7 1.2% 4.1% American Indian 1,963 29.1 0.7% 1.1% Asian 5,711 31.8 2.1% 2.8% Pacific Islander 209 25.0 0.1% 0.1% Other 9,474 26.4 3.5% 7.3% Multiple 7,815 19.0 2.9% 3.6% 2012 Drive-Time Area Total Population: 267,251 Residents Chart M – Drive-Time Area Non-White Population by Race MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 30 of 45 Tapestry Segments: In addition to look at the age group distribution, population growth along with ethnicity and race of the service area B*K can further examine the service area by examining the various tapestry segments. The following table outlines the top 5 tapestry segments within the Drive-Time Area and provides definitions for each of the tapestries. Table T – Drive-Time Area Tapestry Segment Comparison (ESRI estimates) Drive-Time Area U.S. Households Percent Cumulative Percent Percent Cumulative Percent Up & Coming Families (12) 14.6% 14.6% 4.1% 4.1% In Style (13) 10.5% 25.1% 2.3% 6.4% College Towns (55) 10.2% 35.3% 0.9% 7.3% Metropolitans (22) 8.1% 43.4% 1.4% 8.7% Enterprising Professionals (16) 6.6% 50.0% 1.9% 10.6% Up & Coming Families (12) – With an annual household growth rate of 5.2% the segment represents Tapestry’s second highest household growth market. A mix of Generation Xers and Baby Boomers with a median age of 31.9 years, this segment is the youngest of Tapestry’s affluent family markets. In Style (13) – These residents live in the suburbs but prefer the city lifestyle. Professional couples predominate and household distributions by type are similar to those of the United States. Married-couple families represent 54% of the households and households without children comprise more than 2/3 of all households. College Towns (55) – With a median age of 24.4 years this is the third youngest segment of all tapestries. Most residents are aged between 18-34 years and life in single-person or shared households. The race profile of this market is somewhat similar to the U.S. profile. Metropolitans (22) – Residents of these communities prefer to live in older city neighborhoods. Approximately ½ of these households are singles who live alone or with others; 40% are married-couple families and one in four of the residents is aged 20-34 years. These residents pursue an active, urbane lifestyle. Enterprising Professionals (16) – Residents of this segment are young, educated, single, married, working professionals and neighborhoods have a median age of 32.4. One of the fastest-growing markets, with an annual household growth of 2.2% per year since 2000, the households in this segment comprise approximately 2% of the total U.S. households. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 31 of 45 Participation Numbers: Given the demographic realities of the Primary Service Area we can now move on to participation in recreation and sport activities. The National Sporting Goods Association completes an annual survey where they measure how individuals spend their leisure time. B*K takes the national average and combines that with participation percentages of the Primary Service Area based upon age distribution, median income and region. Those four percentage are then averaged together to create a unique participation percentage for the service area. This participation percentage when applied to the population of the Primary Service Area then provides an idea of the market potential for various activities. Indoor Community Center Related Activities Participation: These activities are typical components of an active community recreation center. Table U – Recreation Activity Participation Rates for the Primary Service Area Activity Age Income Region Nation Average Aerobics 15.6% 15.0% 18.9% 14.9% 16.1% Baseball 4.5% 4.2% 4.5% 4.4% 4.4% Basketball 9.8% 9.8% 8.7% 9.3% 9.4% Exercise w/ Equipment 20.4% 19.9% 21.2% 19.7% 20.3% Exercise Walking 33.2% 34.2% 36.3% 34.6% 34.6% Football 3.4% 3.9% 5.0% 3.2% 3.9% Lacrosse 0.2% 0.9% 1.8% 1.0% 1.0% Running/Jogging 15.4% 13.8% 15.4% 13.8% 14.6% Soccer 5.1% 4.6% 3.9% 5.0% 4.7% Softball 3.9% 4.0% 3.1% 3.7% 3.7% Swimming 16.3% 15.3% 17.4% 16.4% 16.4% Tennis 4.9% 4.4% 4.5% 4.7% 4.6% Volleyball 4.0% 3.3% 3.5% 3.6% 3.6% Weight Lifting 11.4% 9.3% 11.6% 10.4% 10.7% Workout @ Clubs 13.0% 11.3% 12.8% 12.3% 12.4% Yoga 8.3% 7.7% 9.2% 7.7% 8.2% Age: Participation based on individuals ages 7 & Up of the Primary Service Area. Income: Participation based on the 2012 estimated median household income in the Primary Service Area. Region: Participation based on regional statistics (Mountain). National: Participation based on national statistics. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 32 of 45 Average: Average of the four columns. Anticipated Participation Numbers by Activity: Utilizing the average percentage from Table- U above plus the 2010 census information and census estimates for 2012 and 2017 (over age 7) the following comparisons can be made. Table V – Participation Rates Primary Service Area Activity Average 2010 Part. 2012 Part. 2017 Part. Difference Aerobics 16.1% 22,664 23,340 24,946 +2,283 Baseball 4.4% 6,202 6,387 6,827 +625 Basketball 9.4% 13,222 13,616 14,553 +1,332 Exercise w/ Equipment 20.3% 28,559 29,410 31,435 +2,876 Exercise Walking 34.6% 48,653 50,104 53,553 +4,900 Football 3.9% 5,462 5,624 6,012 +550 Lacrosse 1.0% 1,355 1,395 1,491 +136 Running/Jogging 14.6% 20,555 21,168 22,625 +2,070 Soccer 4.7% 6,550 6,745 7,210 +660 Softball 3.7% 5,160 5,314 5,680 +520 Swimming 16.4% 23,004 23,690 25,320 +2,317 Tennis 4.6% 6,511 6,705 7,167 +656 Volleyball 3.6% 5,058 5,208 5,567 +509 Weight Lifting 10.7% 15,040 15,489 16,555 +1,515 Workout @ Clubs 12.4% 17,376 17,894 19,126 +1,750 Yoga 8.2% 11,579 11,924 12,745 +1,166 Note: The estimated participation numbers indicated above are for indoor activities and do not translate into attendance figures for the community facility that is being proposed by the Primary Service Area. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 33 of 45 Participation by Ethnicity and Race: Participation in sports activities is also tracked by ethnicity and race. The table below compares the overall rate of participation nationally with the rate for Hispanics and African Americans. Utilizing information provided by the National Sporting Goods Association's 2011 survey, the following comparisons are possible. Table W – Comparison of National, African American and Hispanic Participation Rates Primary Service Area National Participation African American Participation Hispanic Participation Aerobics 16.1% 14.9% 14.0% 13.9% Baseball 4.4% 4.4% 2.2% 7.8% Basketball 9.4% 9.3% 14.5% 12.2% Exercise w/ Equipment 20.3% 19.7% 15.9% 18.5% Exercise Walking 34.6% 34.6% 28.2% 31.0% Football 3.9% 3.2% 5.5% 6.3% Lacrosse 1.0% 1.0% 0.4% 4.1% Running/Jogging 14.6% 13.8% 11.0% 15.9% Soccer 4.7% 5.0% 2.4% 9.9% Softball 3.7% 3.7% 2.7% 5.5% Swimming 16.4% 16.4% 6.8% 12.9% Tennis 4.6% 4.7% 2.9% 7.3% Volleyball 3.6% 3.6% 2.1% 5.7% Weight Lifting 10.7% 10.4% 9.2% 10.0% Workout @ Clubs 12.4% 12.3% 9.5% 12.3% Yoga 8.2% 7.7% 4.6% 8.2% Primary Service Part: The unique participation percentage developed for the Primary Service Area. National Rate: The national percentage of individuals who participate in the given activity. African American Rate: The percentage of African Americans who participate in the given activity. Hispanic Rate: The percentage of Hispanics who participate in the given activity. Based on the fact that there is not a significant Hispanic and Black population in the Primary Service Area those participation rates become less relevant to the impact on overall participation percentages. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 34 of 45 Summary of Sports Participation: The following chart summarizes participation in both indoor and outdoor activities utilizing information from the 2011 National Sporting Goods Association survey. Table X – Sports Participation Summary Sport Nat’l Rank 4 Nat’l Participation (in millions) Primary Service Area Primary Service Area Exercise Walking 1 95.8 1 34.6% Exercising w/ Equipment 2 55.3 2 20.3% Swimming 3 51.9 3 16.4% Aerobic Exercising 5 38.5 4 16.1% Running/Jogging 8 36.3 5 14.6% Workout @ Club 10 35.5 6 12.4% Weightlifting 12 31.5 7 10.7% Basketball 14 26.9 8 9.4% Yoga 15 20.2 9 8.2% Soccer 21 13.9 10 4.7% Tennis 22 13.1 11 4.6% Baseball 23 12.3 12 4.4% Softball 28 10.4 14 3.7% Volleyball 29 10.1 15 3.6% Football 33 9.0 13 3.9% Lacrosse 51 2.7 16 1.0% Nat’l Rank: Popularity of sport based on national survey. Nat’l Participation: Percent of population that participate in this sport on national survey. Primary Service %: Ranking of activities based upon average from Table-U. Primary Service Rank: The rank of the activity within the Primary Service Area. As you can see by Table-X the participation percentages for the nation and the Primary Service Area are consistent with one another. As B*K does work across the country this consistency is not uncommon. It should also be said that as activities exercise walking, exercising w/ equipment and swimming are those that cut across the entire age spectrum. 4 This rank is based upon the 51 activities reported on by NSGA in their 2010 survey instrument. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 35 of 45 Comparison of State Statistics with National Statistics: Utilizing information from the National Sporting Goods Association, the following charts illustrate the participation numbers in selected sports in the State of Colorado. State of Colorado participation numbers in selected indoor and outdoor sports - As reported by the National Sporting Goods Association in 2011. Table Y – Colorado Participation Rates Sport Colorado Participation (in thousands) Age Group Largest Number Exercise Walking 1,873 65-74 45-54 Exercising w/ Equipment 969 25-34 25-34 Swimming 749 7-11 7-11 Aerobic Exercising 973 35-44 25-34 Running/Jogging 803 12-17 25-34 Workout @ Club 720 25-34 25-34 Weightlifting 591 25-34 25-34 Basketball 266 7-11 12-17 Yoga 495 25-34 25-34 Soccer 61 7-11 7-11 Tennis 150 12-17 25-34 Baseball 79 7-11 7-11 Softball 151 7-11 25-34 Volleyball 140 12-17 12-17 Football 314 12-17 12-17 Lacrosse 0 12-17 12-17 CO Participation: The number of people (in thousands) in Colorado who participated more than once in the activity in 2012 and are at least 7 years of age. Age Group: The age group in which the sport is most popular or in other words, where the highest percentage of the age group participates in the activity. (Example: The highest percent of an age group that participates in exercise walking is 55-64.) This is a national statistic. Largest Number: The age group with the highest number of participants. Example: The greatest number of exercise walkers is in the 45-54 age group. (Note: This statistic is driven more by the sheer number of people in the age group than by the popularity of the sport in the age span.) This is a national statistic. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 36 of 45 Colorado sport percentage of participation compared with the population percentage of the United States: Colorado’s population represents 1.6% of the population of the United States (based on 2012 Estimates). Table Z – Colorado Participation Correlation Sport Participation Percentages Football 3.5% Aerobic Exercising 2.3% Yoga 2.3% Running/Jogging 2.1% Workout @ Club 2.1% Weightlifting 2.0% Exercise Walking 1.9% Exercising w/ Equipment 1.7% Swimming 1.6% Softball 1.5% Volleyball 1.4% Tennis 1.1% Basketball 1.0% Baseball 0.6% Soccer 0.4% Lacrosse 0.0% Note: Sports participation percentages refer to the total percent of the national population that participates in a sport that comes from the State of Colorado’s population. . MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 37 of 45 In addition to examining the participation numbers for various indoor activities through the NSGA 2011 Survey and the Spending Potential Index for Entertainment & Recreation, B*K can access information about Sports & Leisure Market Potential. The following information illustrates participation rates for adults in various activities in the Primary Service Area. Table AA – Market Potential Index for Adult Participation in Activities- Primary Service Area Adults participated in: Expected Number of Adults Percent of Population MPI Aerobics 16,174 13.2% 133 Baseball 8,974 7.3% 141 Basketball 16,782 13.7% 146 Football 11,772 9.6% 154 Jogging/Running 18,530 15.1% 142 Pilates 5,385 4.4% 132 Soccer 8,110 6.6% 153 Softball 6,338 5.2% 132 Swimming 28,070 22.9% 118 Tennis 7,415 6.0% 141 Volleyball 5,512 4.5% 128 Walking for Exercise 38,588 31.5% 106 Weight Lifting 19,959 16.3% 137 Yoga 8,769 7.2% 122 Expected # of Adults: Number of adults, 18 years of age and older, participating in the activity. Percent of Population: Percent of the service area that participates in the activity. MPI: Market potential index as compared to the national number of 100. This table indicates that the overall propensity for adults to participate in the various activities listed is lower than the national number of 100 in many instances. This can be attributed to a number of factors; access to facilities and propensity to pay being two of the most common. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 38 of 45 Non-Sport Participation Statistics: Participation in a wide variety of passive activities and cultural pursuits is common and essential to a well-rounded center. This information is useful in determining some of the program participation and revenue in the operations section of the report. While there is not an abundance of information available for participation in these types of activities as compared to sport activities, there are statistics that can be utilized to help determine the market for cultural arts activities and events. There are many ways to measure a nation’s cultural vitality. One way is to chart the public’s involvement with arts events and other activities over time. The NEA’s Survey of Public Participation in the Arts remains the largest periodic study of arts participation in the United States, and it is conducted in partnership with the U.S. Census Bureau. The large number of survey respondents – similar in make-up to the total U.S. adult population – permits a statistical snapshot of American’s engagement with the arts by frequency and activity type. The survey has taken place five times since 1982, allowing researchers to compare the trends not only for the total adult population, but also for demographic subgroups. 5 5 National Endowment for the Arts, Arts Participation 2008 Highlights from a National Survey. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 39 of 45 Table AB – Percentage of U.S. Adult Population Attending Arts Performances: 1982-2008 Rate of Change 1982 1992 2002 2008 2002-2008 1982-2008 Jazz 9.6% 10.6% 10.8% 7.8% -28% -19% Classical Music 13.0% 12.5% 11.6% 9.3% -20% -29% Opera 3.0% 3.3% 3.2% 2.1% -34% -30% Musical Plays 18.6% 17.4% 17.1% 16.7% -2% -10% Non-Musical Plays 11.9% 13.5% 12.3% 9.4% -24% -21% Ballet 4.2% 4.7% 3.9% 2.9% -26% -31% Smaller percentages of adults attended performing arts events than in previous years. • Opera and jazz participation significantly decreased for the first time, with attendance rates falling below what they were in 1982. • Classical music attendance continued to decline – at a 29% rate since 1982 – with the steepest drop occurring from 2002 to 2008 • Only musical play saw no statistically significant change in attendance since 200. Table AC – Percentage of U.S. Adult Population Attending Art Museums, Parks and Festivals: 1982-2008 Rate of Change 1982 1992 2002 2008 2002-2008 1982-2008 Art Museums/Galleries 22.1% 26.7% 26.5% 22.7% -14% +3% Parks/Historical Buildings 37.0% 34.5% 31.6% 24.9% -21% -33% Craft/Visual Arts Festivals 39.0% 40.7% 33.4% 24.5% -27% -37% Attendance for the most popular types of arts events – such as museums and craft fairs – also declined. • After topping 26% in 1992 and 2002, the art museum attendance rate slipped to 23 percent in 2008 – comparable to the 1982 level. • The proportion of the U.S. adults touring parks or historical buildings has diminished by one-third since 1982. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 40 of 45 Table AD – Median Age of Arts Attendees: 1982-2008 Rate of Change 1982 1992 2002 2008 2002-2008 1982-2008 U.S. Adults, Average 39 41 43 45 +2 +6 Jazz 29 37 43 46 +4 +17 Classical Music 40 44 47 49 +2 +9 Opera 43 44 47 48 +1 +5 Musicals 39 42 44 45 +1 +6 Non-Musical Plays 39 42 44 47 +3 +8 Ballet 37 40 44 46 +2 +9 Art Museums 36 39 44 43 -1 +7 Long-term trends suggest fundamental shifts in the relationship between age and arts attendance. • Performing arts attendees are increasingly older than the average U.S. adult. • Jazz concert-goers are no longer the youngest group of arts participants. • Since 1982, young adult (18-24 year old) attendance rates have declined significantly for jazz, classical music, ballet, and non-musical plays. • From 2002 to 2008, however, 45-54 year olds – historically a large component of arts audiences – showed the steepest declines in attendance for most arts events. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 41 of 45 Table AE – Percentage of U.S. Adult Population Performing or Creating Art: 1992-2008 Rate of Change 1992 2002 2008 2002-2008 1982-2008 Performing: Jazz 1.7% 1.3% 1.3% +0.0% -0.4% Classical Music 4.2% 1.8% 3.0% +1.2% -1.2% Opera 1.1% 0.7% 0.4% -0.3% -0.7% Choir/Chorus 6.3% 4.8% 5.2% +0.4% -1.1% Musical Plays 3.8% 2.4% 0.9% -1.5% -2.9% Non-Musical Plays 1.6% 1.4% 0.8% -0.6% -0.8% Dance 8.1% 4.3% 2.1% -2.2% -6.0% Making: Painting/Drawing 9.6% 8.6% 9.0% +0.4% -0.6% Pottery/Ceramics 8.4% 6.9% 6.0% -0.9% -2.4% Weaving/Sewing 24.8% 16.0% 13.1% -2.9% -11.7% Photography 11.6% 11.5% 14.7% +3.2% +3.1% Creative Writing 7.4% 7.0% 6.9% -0.1% -0.5% Adults generally are creating or performing at lower rates – despite opportunities for displaying their work line. • Only photography increased from 1992 to 2008 – reflecting, perhaps, greater access through digital media. • The proportion of U.S. adults doing creative writing has hovered around 7.0 percent. • The rate of classical music performance slipped from 1992 to 2002 then grew over the next six years. • The adult participation rate for weaving or sewing was almost twice as great in 1992 as in 2008. Yet this activity remains one of the most popular forms of art creation. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 42 of 45 Table AF – Percentage of U.S. Adult Population Viewing or Listening to Art Broadcasts or Recordings, 2008 (online media included) Percentage Millions of Adults Jazz 14.2% 31.9 Classical Music 17.8% 40.0 Latin or Salsa Music 14.9% 33.5 Opera 4.9% 11.0 Musical Plays 7.9% 17.8 Non-Musical Plays 6.8% 15.3 Dance 8.0% 18.0 Programs about the visual arts 15.0% 33.7 Programs about books/writers 15.0% 33.7 As in previous years, more Americans view or listen to broadcasts and recordings of arts events than attend them live. • The sole exception is live theater, which still attracts more adults than broadcasts or recordings of plays or musicals (online media included). • Classical music broadcasts or recordings attract the greatest number of adult listeners, followed by Latin or salsa music. • 33.7 million Americans listened to or watched programs or recordings about books. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 43 of 45 Below are listed those sports activities that would often take place either in an indoor community recreation facility, or in close proximity to, and the percentage of growth or decline that each has experienced nationally over the last 10 years (2002-2011). Table AG – National Activity Trend (in millions) Sport/Activity 2011 Participation 2002 Participation Percent Change Lacrosse 6 2.7 1.2 125.0% Yoga 7 21.6 10.7 101.9% Running/Jogging 38.7 24.7 56.7% Aerobic Exercising 42.0 29.0 44.8% Workout @ Club 34.5 28.9 19.4% Tennis 13.1 11.0 19.1% Exercising w/ Equipment 55.5 46.8 18.6% Exercise Walking 97.1 82.2 18.1% Weightlifting 29.1 25.1 15.9% Football (tackle) 9.0 7.8 15.4% Soccer 13.9 13.7 1.5% Basketball 26.1 28.9 -9.7% Volleyball 10.1 11.5 -12.2% Swimming 46.0 53.1 -13.4% Baseball 12.3 15.6 -21.2% Softball 10.4 13.6 -23.5% Skateboarding 6.6 9.7 -32.0% 2011 Participation: The number of participants per year in the activity (in millions) in the United States. 2002 Participation: The number of participants per year in the activity (in millions) in the United States. Percent Change: The percent change in the level of participation from 2002 to 2011. 6 For Lacrosse the NSGA only has statistical data dating back to 2007, so the increase of 125% is from 2007-2011. 7 For Yoga the NSGA only has statistical data dating back to 2007, so the increase of 101.9% is from 2007-2011. MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 44 of 45 Due to the increasing recreational demands there has been a shortage in most communities of the following spaces and it can be noted that the Primary Service Area is in a similar situation. • Gymnasiums • Pools (especially leisure pools) • Weight/cardiovascular equipment areas • Indoor running/walking tracks • Meeting/multipurpose (general program) space • Senior’s program space • Pre-school and youth space • Teen use areas As a result, many communities have attempted to include these amenities in public community recreation centers. With the growth in youth sports and the high demand for school gyms, most communities are experiencing an acute lack of gymnasium space. Weight/cardiovascular space is also in high demand and provides a facility with the potential to generate significant revenues. The success of most indoor community recreation facilities is dependent on meeting the recreational needs of a variety of individuals. The fastest growing segment of society is the senior population and meeting the needs of this group is especially important now and will only grow more so in the coming years. Indoor walking tracks, exercise areas, pools and classroom spaces are important to this age group. Marketing to the younger more active senior is paramount, as this age group has the free time available to participate in leisure activities, the desire to remain fit, and more importantly the disposable income to pay for such services. Youth programming has always been a cornerstone for recreation services and will continue to be so with an increased emphasis on teen needs and providing a deterrent to juvenile crime. As more and more communities attempt to develop community recreation facilities the issues of competition with other providers in the market area have inevitably been raised. The loudest objections have come from the private health club market and their industry voice IHRSA. The private sector has vigorously contended that public facilities unfairly compete with them in the market and have spent considerable resources attempting to derail public projects. However, the reality is that in most markets where public community recreation centers have been built, the private sector has not been adversely affected and in fact in many cases has continued to grow. This is due in large part to the fact that public and private providers serve markedly different markets. One of the other issues of competition comes from the non-profit sector (primarily YMCA's but also JCC’s, and others), where the market is much closer to that of the public providers. While not as vociferous as the private providers, the non-profits have also often expressed concern over public community recreation centers. What has resulted from this is a MARKET ANALYSIS City of Fort Collins, CO Recreation Center Feasibility Study * Page 45 of 45 strong growth in the number of partnerships that have occurred between the public and non- profit sector in an attempt to bring the best recreation amenities to a community. Aquatic Activity and Facility Trends: Without a doubt the hottest trend in aquatics is the leisure pool concept. This idea of incorporating slides, current channels, fountains, zero depth entry, other water features and theme into a pool’s design has proved to be extremely popular for the recreational user. The age of the conventional pool in most recreational settings has been greatly diminished. Leisure pools appeal to the younger children (who are the largest segment of the population that swim) and to families. These types of facilities are able to attract and draw larger crowds and people tend to come from a further distance and stay longer to utilize such pools. This all translates into the potential to sell more admissions and increase revenues. It is estimated conservatively that a leisure pool can generate up to 20% to 25% more revenue than a comparable conventional pool and the cost of operation, while being higher, has been offset through increased revenues. Of note is the fact that patrons seem willing to pay a higher user fee at a leisure pool than a conventional aquatics facility. Another trend that is growing more popular in the aquatic’s field is the development of a raised temperature therapy pool for rehabilitation programs. This has usually been done in association with a local health care organization or a physical therapy clinic. The medical organization either provides capital dollars for the construction of the pool or agrees to purchase so many hours of pool time on an annual basis. This form of partnership has proven to be appealing to both the medical side and the organization that operates the facility. The medical sector receives the benefit of a larger aquatic center, plus other amenities that are available for their use, without the capital cost of building the structure. In addition, they are able to develop a much stronger community presence away from traditional medical settings. The facility operators have a stronger marketing position through an association with a medical organization and a user group that will provide a solid and consistent revenue stream for the center. This is enhanced by the fact that most therapy use times occur during the slower mid-morning or afternoon times in the pool and the center. Despite the recent emphasis on recreational swimming and therapy, the more traditional aspects of aquatics (including swim teams, instruction and aqua fitness) remain as the foundation for many aquatic centers. The life safety issues associated with teaching children how to swim is a critical concern in most communities and competitive swim team programs through USA Swimming, high schools, and other community based organizations continue to be important. Aqua fitness, from aqua exercise to lap swimming, has enjoyed strong growth during the last ten years with the realization of the benefits of water-based exercise. Section XX- Operations The operations analysis represents a conservative approach to estimating expenses and revenues and was completed based on the best information available and a basic understanding of the project. Fees and charges utilized for this study reflect a philosophy designed to meet a reasonable cost recovery rate and future operations cost and are subject to review, change, and approval by the project committee. There is no guarantee that the expense and revenue projections outlined in the operations analysis will be met as there are many variables that affect such estimates that either cannot be accurately measured or are subject to change during the actual budgetary process. Expenditures Expenditures have been formulated on the costs that were designated by Ballard*King and Associates to be included in the operating budget for the facility. The figures are based on the size of the center, the specific components of the facility, and the hours of operation. All expenses were calculated to the high side and the actual cost may be less based on the final design, operational philosophy, and programming considerations adopted by the City. Fort Collins Southeast Community Center – A community center with a single gymnasium, leisure pool, birthday party rooms, multipurpose community room, walking/jogging track, fitness center with cardiovascular and weight lifting area, aerobic room, child watch area, flexible studio theatre, support offices, administration area and lobby. Approximately 78,900 square feet. Category Facility Budget Personnel Full-time 1 $ 611,000 Part-time 2 $ 504,641 Total $1,125,641 1 Line item detail and listing of full-time positions can be found on page 4. 2 Line item detail and listing of part-time positions can be found on page 5. Operation Cost Model cont. Category Facility Budget Utilities 3 $ 0 (gas & elect) Water/sewer $ 18,500 Employee Services $ 3,250 Communications $ 2,400 Contract services 4 $ 25,000 Training/Conference $ 7,500 Rental equipment $ 5,000 Advertising/promotions $ 25,000 Bank charges 5 $ 6,000 Trash $ 2,600 Insurance $ 0 Others $ 2,500 _________ Total $ 97,750 3 Rate factored at $3.50/SF for balance of the building. Although the utilities are funded through the City Utility Department it is estimated that utility costs will be about $231,000 annually. 4 Contract services includes HVAC, IT services, elevator, fire alarm system, music, office equipment, custodial services and copy machine services. 5 Includes bank fees for processing credit card and electronic fund transfers (FTE) Operation Cost Model cont. Category Facility Budget Office Supplies $ 17,500 Pro-Shop $ 3,000 Janitorial Supplies $ 15,000 Rec. Program Supplies $ 32,500 Chemicals $ 17,500 Uniforms $ 4,000 Printing $ 3,000 Maint/Repair Materials 6 $ 0 Dues/Licenses/Subscriptions $ 2,500 Misc. $ 1,500 Total $ 96,500 Capital Replacement Reserve 7 $ 0 Grand Total $ 1,319,891 6 Facilities Department will be responsible for covering maintenance costs 7 Capital needs will be minimal during the first year of operation since most equipment and operating systems will be under warranty. It is strongly recommended that a sinking fund be established with a goal to build adequate reserves that meet future capital needs. American Public Works recommends planning for 2%-4% of construction cost for capital and maintenance needs. Since maintenance costs have been factored into this pro-forma, a target for building the sinking fund to a level of $250,000 is desirable. Staffing levels: Positions Facility Budget Full-Time Facility Director $ 65,000 Aquatic Supervisor $ 50,000 Recreation Supervisor $ 50,000 Arts Supervisor $ 50,000 Administrative Services $ 45,000 Building Coordinators $ 90,000 Building Attendant (3) $120,000 Salaries $470,000 Benefits (30% of salaries) $141,000 Total Full-Time Personnel $611,000 Note: Pay rates were determined based on the market conditions in Fort Collins. The positions listed are necessary to ensure adequate staffing and provide for a full-time staff member presence during all open hours of the facility. The wage scales for both the full-time and part-time staff positions reflect estimated wages for 2014. Positions Hours/Wk Facility Budget Part-Time8 Front Desk 184 hrs/wk $ 84,456 ($9.00/hr) Gym Attendant (15 wks) 52 hrs/wk $ 6,630 ($8.50/hr) Baby-sitter 100 hrs/wk $ 43,350 ($8.50/hr) Birthday Party Host 16 hrs/wk $ 6,936 ($8.50/hr) Fitness Attendant 58 hrs/wk $ 25,636 ($8.50/hr) Lifeguards (36 wks) 394/hrs/wk $ 134,748 ($9.50/hr) Lifeguards (15 wks) 437/hrs/wk $ 62,273 ($9.50/hr) Head Lifeguard 53 hrs/wk $ 29,733 ($11.00/hr) Program Instructors 9 Fitness $ 36,000 General $ 17,280 Aquatics $ 21,738 Salaries $ 468,780 Benefits (15.4% of part-time wages PERS) $ 35,861 Total Part-Time Salaries $ 504,641 8 A detailed schedule by position begins on page 12. 9 Some programs and classes will be on a contractual basis with the center, where the facility will take a percentage of the revenue collected for the program. These programs have not been calculated in this budget at this time. Revenues The following revenue projections were formulated from information on the specifics of the project and the demographics of the service area as well as comparing them to national statistics, other similar facilities and the competition for recreation services in the area. Actual figures will vary based on the size and make-up of the components selected during final design, market stratification, philosophy of operation, fees and charges policy, and priority of use. All revenues were calculated conservatively as a result. Revenue Projection Model: Category Facility Budget Fees10 Daily Admissions $ 113,750 Annual Passes $ 307,800 Six-Month Passes $ 159,750 Monthly Passes $ 118,050 Rentals $ 76,780 __________ Total $ 776,130 10 Detailed breakdown on fees can be found on page 17. Revenue Projection Model cont. Category Facility Budget Programs11 General $ 75,136 Fitness $ 71,376 Sports $ 18,400 Aquatics $ 72,234 ________ Total $237,146 Other Pro-shop $ 4,500 Special events $ 7,500 Vending $ 6,500 Baby sitting $ 21,750 Birthday Parties $ 52,500 _________ Total Grand Total $1,$ 105,91,750 026 11 Detailed breakdown on program fees can be found beginning on page 18. Expenditure – Revenue Comparison Category Facility Budget Expenditures $1,319,891 Revenue $1,105,026 Difference ($214,865) Recovery percentage 84% This operational pro-forma was completed based on the best information available and a basic understanding of the project. However, there is no guarantee that the expense and revenue projections outlined above will be met as there are many variables that affect such estimates that either cannot be accurately measured or are not consistent in their influence on the budgetary process. The cost recovery rate projected for the Southeast Community Center compares favorable to EPIC (93%), Senior Center (52%) and Northside (36%). Future years: Expenditures – Revenue Comparison: Operation expenditures are expected to increase by approximately 3% a year through the first 3 to 5 years of operation. Revenue growth is expected to increase by 4% to 8% a year through the first three years and then level off with only a slight growth (3% or less) the next two years. Expenses for the first year of operation should be slightly lower than projected with the facility being under warranty and new. Revenue growth in the first three years is attributed to increased market penetration and in the remaining years to continued population growth. In most recreation facilities the first three years show tremendous growth from increasing the market share of patrons who use such facilities, but at the end of this time period revenue growth begins to flatten out. It is not uncommon to see the amount of tax support to balance the community center budget increase as the facility ages. Five-Year Revenue-Expense Comparison Years Expense Revenue Difference Recovery % Base $1,319,891 $1,105,026 ($214,865) 84% Year 2 $1,359,487 $1,154,752 ($204,735) 85% Year 3 $1,400,272 $1,200,942 ($199,330) 86% Year 4 $1,442,280 $1,242,975 ($199,305) 86% Year 5 $1,485,548 $1,280,264 ($205,284) 86% Hours of Operation: The projected hours of operation of the community center are as follows: Monday – Friday 5:30am to 9:30pm. Saturday 6:00am to 9:00pm. Sunday Noon-8:00pm Hours per week: 103. Hours usually vary some with the season (longer hours in the winter, shorter during the summer), by programming needs, use patterns and special events. Fees and Attendance Projected Fee Schedule: Revenue projections will be calculated from this fee model. The monthly rate listed is the cost of an annual pass broken down into twelve equal payments and does not include any handling fees. It should be noted that monthly bank draft convenience for customers would encourage more annual pass sales. However, there are bank fees and a substantial amount of staff time spent managing the bank draft membership base and consideration should be given to pass on some form of a handling fee for bank draft customers. Category Daily Annual Six-Month Monthly Adult $ 5.00 $270 $150 $30 Youth $ 3.50 $180 $100 $20 Senior $ 3.50 $180 $100 $20 Family NA $450 $250 $50 The fee schedule above was developed as the criteria for estimating revenues. Actual fees are subject to review and approval by the City of Fort Collins. Attendance projections: The following attendance projections are based on the revenue figures that were identified earlier in this report. The admission numbers are affected by the rates being charged, the facilities available for use, and the competition within the service area. The figures are also based on the performance of other similar facilities in other areas of the country. These are averages only and the yearly figures are based on 360 days of operation. Yearly paid admissions Facility Budget Daily 28,800 (80 daily admission) Annuals 119,600 (1,150 sold annually) Monthly 38,340 (4,260 sold annually) Total Yearly 186,740 Total Daily 518 Admission for pass holders were figured based on 104 visits per year for the Community Center. Family admissions were counted as only one admission. Multiple admissions represent twenty admissions per unit sold. Note: Attendance for other events, programs, and spectator functions is difficult to predict but a best guess estimate is approximately 2.5 times the number of paid admissions. Community centers are traditionally the busiest from November to March and Mid-June to Mid-August and are slow from April to early June and again from mid-August to the end of October. Weekdays between the hours of 4pm and 8pm are the busiest times of the week, and weekends are also very busy during the winter months. In contrast, mid-morning and early afternoons on weekdays are usually slow as well as weekends during the summer months (especially Sundays). Section VI – Part-Time Worksheets Part-Time Staff Hours Time Hours Staff Days Total Hours/Wk Front Desk Attendant Mon-Fri 5:30am – 9:30pm 16 1 5 80 3pm – 8pm 6 2 5 50 Saturday 6am – 9pm 15 2 1 30 Noon-4pm 4 1 1 4 Sunday Noon – 8pm 8 2 1 16 Noon-4pm 4 1 1 4 Total 184 hours Gym Attendant (12 wks) Mon-Fri 1pm-9pm 8 1 5 40 Sat/Sun. Noon-6pm 6 1 2 12 Total 52 hours Babysitter Mon – Fri 8am –1pm 5 2 5 50 4pm – 8pm 4 2 5 40 Saturday 9am – 2pm 5 2 1 10 Total 100 hours Time Hours Staff Days Total Hours/Wk Fitness Attendant Mon-Fri. 8am-Noon 4 1 5 20 4pm-8pm 4 1 5 20 Saturday 9am-9pm 12 1 1 12 Sunday Noon-6:00pm 6 1 1 6 Total 58 hours Birthday Party Host Sat – Sun Noon – 4pm 4 2 2 16 Total 16 hours Head Lifeguard Mon-Fri 3pm-9pm 6 1 5 30 Saturday 6am-9pm 15 1 1 15 Sunday Noon-8pm 8 1 1 8 Total 53 hours Time Hours Staff Days Total Hours/Wk Lifeguards (36 wks) Mon-Fri 5:30am-9:00pm 15.5 2 5 155 3:30pm-9:00pm 5.5 3 5 82 4:00pm-8pm 4 2 5 40 Saturday 6am-9pm 15 2 1 30 Noon-9pm 9 5 1 45 Sunday Noon-6pm 6 7 1 42 Total 394 hours Lifeguards (15 wks) Mon-Fri 5:30am-9:00pm 15.5 2 5 155 1:00pm-4:00pm 3 5 5 75 4:00pm- 9:00pm 5 4 5 100 Saturday 6am-9pm 15 2 1 30 Noon-5pm 5 5 1 25 5:00pm-9:00pm 4 4 1 16 Sunday Noon-6pm 6 6 1 36 Total 437 hours Program Staff Cost Fitness Type Games/hrs Weeks Rate Cost Aerobics 10 48 $30.00/hr $ 14,400 Weight Training 2 48 $30.00/hr $ 2,880 Pilates/Yoga 4 48 $35.00/hr $ 6,720 Youth Fitness 4 48 $30.00/hr $ 5,760 Kick Boxing 2 48 $30.00/hr $ 2,880 Spinning 2 48 $35.00/hr $ 3,360 Total $36,000 General Type Hrs/wk Weeks Rate Cost Youth in Motion 4 48 $15.00/hr $ 2,880 Dance/Tumbling 4 48 $15.00/hr $ 2,880 Martial Arts 4 48 $15.00/hr $ 2,880 Arts/Crafts 8 48 $15.00/hr $ 5,760 Performing Arts 4 48 $15.00/hr $ 2880 Total $17,280 Aquatics Type Classes Sessions Rate Cost Swim Instructors (37 wks) 96 4 $12.00/hr $ 4,608 Swim Instructors (15 wks) 120 5 $12.00/hr $ 7,200 Private Lessons 150 Annual $15.00/lesson $ 2,250 Water Fitness 32 12 $20.00/hr $ 7,680 ______ Total $21,738 Section III – Program Fees and Revenue Worksheet Daily Admissions Category Number Fee Daily Revenue Adult 30 $ 5.00 $150.00 Youth 40 $ 3.50 $140.00 Senior 10 $ 3.50 $ 35.00 _______ Total Daily 80 $325.00 x 350 days = $113,750 (per day average) Annual Passes Category Number Fee Daily Revenue Adult 235 $270.00 $ 63,450 Youth 35 $180.00 $ 6,300 Senior 85 $180.00 $ 15,300 Family 495 $450.00 $222,750 ___ ________ Total Annuals 850 $307,800 Six Month Passes Category Number Fee Daily Revenue Adult 235 $150.00 $ 35,250 Youth 35 $100.00 $ 3,500 Senior 85 $100.00 $ 8,500 Family 450 $250.00 $112,500 _____ ________ Total Annuals 3,250 $159,750 Monthly Passes Category Number Fee Daily Revenue Adult 1,850 $30.00 $ 55,500 Youth 340 $20.00 $ 6,800 Senior 600 $20.00 $ 12,000 Family 875 $50.00 $ 43,750 _____ ________ Total Annuals 3,250 $118,050 Rentals Category Number Fee Session Revenue Meeting Room 4 $ 30/mtg. 50 wks $ 6,000 Gymnasium 4 $ 50/hr 28 wks $ 5,600 Social Receptions 3 $ 500/event monthly $ 18,000 Summer BB Camp 30 $ 50/hr 2 wks $ 3,000 Gym Tournaments 6 $ 750/day annual $ 4,500 Pre-School Groups 4 $ 40/visit 48 wks $ 7,680 Misc. Rentals 2 $ 250/hr 28 wks $ 14,000 Theatre 24 $ 750/day annual $ 18,000 _______ Total $ 75,136 General/Arts Category Number Fee Session Revenue Dance/Tumbling 30 $ 50.00 8 $12,000 Arts/Crafts 40 $ 50.00 8 $16,000 Martial Arts 24 $ 48.00 8 $ 9,216 Youth General 30 $ 48.00 8 $11,520 Education 30 $ 35.00 8 $ 8,400 Performing Arts 45 $ 50.00 8 $18,000 _______ Total $75,136 Fitness Type Numbers Fees Session Revenue Aerobics Drop-in 12 $ 6.00 8 $ 576 Aerobics – Sign up 75 $ 48.00 8 $28,800 Pilates/Yoga 30 $ 48.00 8 $11,520 Spinning Drop-in 30 $ 48.00 8 $11,520 Youth Fitness 20 $ 48.00 8 $ 7,680 Weight Training 10 $ 48.00 8 $ 3,840 Kick Boxing 15 $ 48.00 8 $ 5,760 Other Drop-in 35 $ 6.00 8 $ 1,680 _______ Total $71,376 Sports Category Number Fee Session Revenue Adult Basketball 8 $700 2 $11,200 Adult Volleyball 12 $300 2 $ 7,200 _______ Total $18,400 Aquatics Category Number Fee Sessions Revenue Swim Lessons (37 wks) 72 $48.00 4 $13,824 Swim Lessons (15 wks) 90 $48.00 5 $21,600 Private Lessons 150 $15.00 Annual $ 2,250 Water Fitness 60 $48.00 12 $34,560 _______ Total $72,234 Babysitting Category Number Fee Session Revenue Members 30 2.00 300 $ 18,000 Non-Members 5 2.50 300 $ 3,750 _______ Total $21,750 Birthday Parties Number Fee Revenue 300 $175.00 $52,500 MARKET & OPERATIONS OANALYSIS N - L I N E S U R V E Y Survey: Southeast Recreation and Cultural Arts Center Study Value Count Percent % Yes 989 87.7% No 139 12.3% Statistics Total Responses 1,128 Value Count Percent % More than 3 times per week 169 15.2% 2-3 times per week 218 19.6% At least 1 time a week 260 23.4% At least once a month 332 29.9% Never 131 11.8% Statistics Total Responses 1,110 Sum 436.0 Avg. 2.0 Max 2.0 Summary Report - June 17, 2013 Would you use the Southeast Recreation and Cultural Arts Center? How often would you visit the Southeast Recreation and Cultural Community Center? Would you use the Southeast Recreation and Cultural Arts Center? Yes 87.7% No 12.3% How often would you visit the Southeast Recreation and Cultural Community Center? More than 3 times per week 15.2% 2-3 times per week 19.6% At least 1 time a week 23.4% At least once a month 29.9% Never 11.8% Value Count Percent % Lincoln Center 792 69.1% EPIC 703 61.3% Northside Aztlan Community Center 348 30.4% Mulberry Pool 421 36.7% Senior Center 305 26.6% Private fitness gym or health club 638 55.7% Private dance studio 157 13.7% Professional theater 321 28.0% Private performing or visual arts lessons 199 17.4% Churches with recreational or cultural facilities 320 27.9% Public School District Facilities with recreational or cultural facilities 407 35.5% Charter school facilities 56 4.9% Boys and Girls Club 16 1.4% Facilities provided at work site 143 12.5% None, we do not use any indoor recreation or aquatic facility 21 1.8% Other 123 10.7% Statistics Total Responses 1,146 From the following list, please check all of the facilities you and/or members of your household currently use. Open-Text Response Breakdown for "Other" Count Left Blank 1029 Aspen club fitness classes, bas bleu 1 CSU 1 CSU Arts Center 1 CSU Griffin Center 1 CSU Univer. Center Arts 1 CSU adult fitness 1 CSU and coffee shops 1 Center for Fine Art Photography 1 Chilson Center 1 Chilson Center in Loveland 1 Chilson Center, Loveland 1 From the following list, please check all of the facilities you and/or members of your household currently use. 69.1% 61.3% 30.4% 36.7% 26.6% 55.7% 13.7% Lincoln Center EPIC Northside Aztlan Community Center Mulberry Pool Senior Center Private fitness gym or health club Private dance studio All Others 0 50 100 Chilson Rec Center in Loveland 1 Chilson Rec Center- Since nothing on south side! 1 Chilson center 1 Chilson in lovelands it has more to offer than EPIC 1 Chimney park pool and any indoor track we can find 1 City Park Pool 3 City Park Pool, neighborhood pool 1 City of Loveland facilities 1 Civic center in Loveland 1 Club Tico 3 Colorado State University Recreation Center 1 Council Tree Library programs 1 Denver 1 Denver area art facilities 1 Do stuff at home because no rec facility is near us 1 Empire Grange 1 FCC 1 Farm at Lee Martinez, neighborhood fields 1 Fort Collins Country Club 1 Fort Collins REC pottery studio 1 Fort Collins Trail System 1 Greeley fun plex and Windsor rec center 1 I live in Greeley, Teach at FRCC 1 I use the trails & would like more! 1 Library Programs (a lot) 1 Loveland Recreation facilities 1 Loveland chilson center 1 Loveland facilities. 1 Loveland rec center pool 1 Loveland's Chilsom Center 1 Miramont 1 Mountain View Aquatic Center 1 Museum of Discovery 1 NOCO Ice Center 1 Natural Areas 1 Neighborhood 1 Neighborhood Pool, Loveland Rec. Center 1 NoCo Ice Center 1 NoCo ice center 1 PFA training rooms, hotel training rooms 1 Parks 1 Pottery Studio 1 Pottery studio, yoga 1 Poudre Libraries & Aspen Club 1 Private Pilates Studio, Chilson 1 Private martial arts studio 1 Private pool 1 Private yoga studio, Private climbing gym 1 RAC 1 Soccer Complex 1 Sounts 1 The Edge Sports Center 2 Uca 1 We avoid the Aztlan Center 1 Windsor pool/rec cent 1 Windsor rec center 1 YAC 2 YMCA 1 Youth Activity Center 1 bike trails and city parks 1 chilson 1 chilson center-loveland 1 chilson rec center 1 city facilities in other towns 1 city park pool 1 cityparks and playgrounds 1 clubhouse 1 community ppol 1 farm 1 free sand volleyball courts 1 golf courses, trails 1 home gym equipment 1 lee martinez farm 1 library programs 1 mountain view aquatic center 1 museums 1 neighborhood 1 neighborhood pool 6 neighborhood pool, tennis courts 1 not your concern 1 out of doors 1 outdoors 1 parks 1 parks and bike trails 1 piano lessons 1 pool @ Sr. Center 1 pottery studio 2 private cultural venues 1 private gymnastics 1 private karate school 1 private pool 1 private school 1 Value Count Percent % Meets all of our needs 220 19.4% Meets some of our needs 867 76.4% Does not meet any of our needs 48 4.2% Statistics Total Responses 1,135 Value Count Percent % Weekly 457 40.1% Statistics Total Responses 1,140 the Great Outdoors 1 the great outdoors! 1 therapy pool 1 trails 2 youth activity center 1 These are such great ideas. If you want to build a sense of community, include a great coffee shop with lots of places to visit with your neighbors. 1 Which one of the following statements best represents how the indoor recreation, cultural center, or health and wellness facilities that you and your household currently use meet your needs? How often do the members of your household participate in art, theater, dance or music lessons or classes? Which one of the following statements best represents how the indoor recreation, cultural center, or health and wellness facilities that you and your household currently use meet your needs? Meets all of our needs 19.4% Meets some of our needs 76.4% Does not meet any of our needs 4.2% How often do the members of your household participate in art, theater, dance or music lessons or classes? Weekly 40.1% Monthly 12.9% A few times a year 28.6% Never 18.4% Monthly 147 12.9% A few times a year 326 28.6% Never 210 18.4% Listed below are potential features that could be incorporated into the design of a new Southeast Recreation and Cultural Arts Center. For each one, please indicate approximately how often you and members of your household would use each of these features. Never Rarely Very often Total Gymnasium 17.6% 182 36.9% 382 45.5% 471 100% 1035 Leisure pool 12.0% 129 22.8% 245 65.2% 700 100% 1074 Multipurpose space 22.2% 213 53.7% 514 24.1% 231 100% 958 Banquet facilities (w/catering kitchen) 42.8% 406 50.9% 483 6.2% 59 100% 948 Arts & crafts room 28.1% 279 41.2% 409 30.6% 304 100% 992 Weight room 22.5% 231 29.7% 305 47.8% 490 100% 1026 Cardiovascular equipment area 17.2% 178 8 Lane Competition Pool w/ 1 meter diving board 0 0 1 1 Adult only hot tub 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 BODY FLOW/ TRACK 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 COMPETITIVE POOL 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Children's Classes 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Classrooms for education programs 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Community Room with a piano for reciatals 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 0.0% 0 100% 1 Community gardens? 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Competition 8 lane pool 0.0% 0 I do not think we need a SE center 100.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 1 INDOOR playground (summer is too hot, winter is too cold). I don't know if that is the "interactive playground" already 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 Ice Rink 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 100% 2 Ice Rink for Hockey 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 Indoor kids' water park (zero depth entry) 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Indoor tennis court 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Indoor tennis courts 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Indoor water slide and play 0.0% 0 Pickle Ball 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Pilates/Reformer/Yoga space 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 Pool Lap/swim team 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Pool lap swimming maybe... dont know enough about the proposedmcenter or programs to be able to comment in an informed manner ART EXHIBITION SPACE?? YES 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Pool with slides etc 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Pottery 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Pottery Studio 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Racketball courts 0.0% 0 bocce & pickleball 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 card/game room 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 club/group meeting - coffee space 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 community Garden 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 competition lap pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 competition pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 5 100% 5 competition practice & meet pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 competitive dive,polo,swim pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 lap pool, competitive swimming pool (50 meter) 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 lap pool/baseball/softball 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 lap pool; fencing room (that's the right size!) 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 lap swim pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 lap swimming 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 lap swimming pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 meeting room for35 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 0.0% 0 100% 1 outdoor bocce courts 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 therapy pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 visual art gallery 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 walking trails 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 wifi conference room for meetings andf gatherings 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 year round pool with slides(ex. APEX center in Arvada) 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 From the previous features that could be included in the an indoor community center please indicate your first, second and third choice. Item Total Score1 Overall Rank Leisure pool 13104 1 Indoor running/walking track 6649 2 Cardiovascular equipment area 6612 3 Weight room 4846 4 Gymnasium 4496 5 Multiple activity court (soccer, lacrosse, basketball, etc.) 4331 6 Aerobic/dance/group fitness room 4264 7 Performing art/theater space 3925 8 Rock climbing wall 3882 9 Interactive playground for young children 3140 10 Youth fitness area & equipment 2845 11 Arts & crafts room 2806 12 Multipurpose space 2233 13 Space for seniors 2027 14 Space for teens 1844 15 Childcare area for facility patrons 1844 16 A current channel that allows you to float through or walk against slowly moving water for exercise 17.6% 184 29.8% 311 52.6% 549 100% 1044 Water sprays with interactive spray features for young children 35.9% 371 23.4% 242 40.7% 421 100% 1034 Warm water area for therapeutic purposes 24.4% 253 34.8% 360 40.8% 422 100% 1035 Hot tub area 22.8% 238 30.6% 320 46.6% 487 100% 1045 Lap lanes 18.1% 192 27.7% 294 54.3% 577 100% 1063 Dry sauna 45.1% 456 33.3% 336 21.6% 218 100% 1010 Steam room 41.2% 417 32.5% 329 26.2% 265 100% 1011 Area for water exercise 20.6% 214 Diving Boards 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Diving Boards/Lap Lanes 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 Diving Pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Diving Well 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Diving board 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 3 100% 3 Diving well 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Family change room 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Handicap accessible 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 competative swim team lanes 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 competition pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 100% 2 competitive dive,polo,swim pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 competitive pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 competitive swim teams 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 competitive swimming oriented aquatic facility 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 deep water for diving 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 diving 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Value Count Percent % Several times per week 575 50.3% Once per week 219 19.1% A few times a month 149 13.0% Monthly 62 5.4% Less than once a month 72 6.3% Never 67 5.9% Statistics Total Responses 1,144 Item Total Score1 Overall Rank Water slides 4700 1 Lap lanes 4653 2 A current channel that allows you to float through or walk against slowly moving water for exercise 4165 3 Area for swim lessons 3454 4 A leisure pool with gentle slope entry so you can walk into the pool 3165 5 Water sprays with interactive spray features for young children 2971 6 Hot tub area 2783 7 Area for water exercise 2764 8 Warm water area for therapeutic purposes 2175 9 Steam room 1391 10 Dry sauna 1014 11 Total Respondents: 1025 1 Score is a weighted calculation. Items ranked first are valued higher than the following ranks, the score is the sum of all weighted rank counts. Which one of the following statements best represents how often you think that you or members of your household would visit a new Southeast Recreation and Cultural Arts Center if it had the features most important to you and members of your household? Which one of the following statements best represents how often you think that you or members of your household would visit a new Southeast Recreation and Cultural Arts Center if it had the features most important to you and members of your household? Several times per week 50.3% Once per week 19.1% A few times a month 13% Monthly 5.4% Less than once a month 6.3% Never 5.9% Value Count Percent % Annual family pass 473 41.9% Annual adult, youth or senior pass 239 21.2% Pay per visit 271 24.0% Don’t know 95 8.4% I’m not willing to pay to use the center. 52 4.6% Statistics Total Responses 1,130 Value Count Percent % $600 or more per year ($50.00/month) 94 8.9% $540 - $600 per year ($45-$50/month) 117 11.0% $480-$540 per year ($40-$45/month) 149 14.0% $420-$480 per year ($35-$40/month) 207 19.5% Less than $420 per year (less than $35/month) 495 46.6% Statistics Total Responses 1,062 A portion of the cost of operating a new indoor Southeast Recreation and Cultural Arts Center is typically covered by some combination of user fees. Knowing this, which one of the following would be your preferred way of paying to use the facility? What is the maximum amount you would be willing to pay for an Annual Family pass to the Southeast Recreation and Cultural Arts Center? A portion of the cost of operating a new indoor Southeast Recreation and Cultural Arts Center is typically covered by some combination of user fees. Knowing this, which one of the following would be your preferred way of paying to use the facility? Annual family pass 41.9% Annual adult, youth or senior pass 21.2% Pay per visit 24% Don’t know 8.4% I’m not willing to pay to use the center. 4.6% What is the maximum amount you would be willing to pay for an Annual Family pass to the Southeast Recreation and Cultural Arts Center? $600 or more per year ($50.00/month) 8.9% $540 - $600 per year ($45-$50/month) 11% $480-$540 per year ($40-$45/month) 14% $420-$480 per year ($35-$40/month) 19.5% Less than $420 per year (less than $35/month) 46.6% Value Count Percent % $420 or more per year ($35.00/month) 104 9.7% $360-$420 per year ($30-$35/month) 108 10.1% $300-$360 per year ($25-$30/month) 285 26.7% Less than $300 per year (less than $25/month) 571 53.5% Statistics Total Responses 1,068 Value Count Percent % More than $8.00 per day 28 2.6% $7-8 per day 111 10.2% $6-7 per day 165 15.2% $5-6 per day 403 37.1% Less than $5 per day 379 34.9% Statistics Total Responses 1,086 What is the maximum amount you would be willing to pay for an Annual Adult pass to the Southeast Recreation and Cultural Arts Center? What is the maximum amount you would be willing to pay for a Daily Adult Fee to use the Southeast Recreation and Cultural Arts Center? What is the maximum amount you would be willing to pay for an Annual Adult pass to the Southeast Recreation and Cultural Arts Center? $420 or more per year ($35.00/month) 9.7% $360-$420 per year ($30-$35/month) 10.1% $300-$360 per year ($25-$30/month) 26.7% Less than $300 per year (less than $25/month) 53.5% What is the maximum amount you would be willing to pay for a Daily Adult Fee to use the Southeast Recreation and Cultural Arts Center? More than $8.00 per day 2.6% $7-8 per day 10.2% $6-7 per day 15.2% $5-6 per day 37.1% Less than $5 per day 34.9% Value Count Percent % More than $7.00 per day 26 2.6% $6 per day 79 7.8% $5 per day 242 23.9% $4 per day 267 26.4% Less than $4 per day 398 39.3% Statistics Total Responses 1,012 Value Count Percent % 100% from taxes. No fees should be charged to use the community center 22 2.0% Mostly from tax dollars and some user fees 574 51.0% Mostly user fees and some tax dollars 435 38.7% 100% user fees 94 8.4% Statistics Total Responses 1,125 Sum 11,600.0 Avg. 100.0 Max 100.0 What is the maximum amount you would be willing to pay for a Daily Youth Fee to use the Southeast Recreation and Cultural Arts Center? From the list you are about to read, please indicate the one statement that best describes how you feel the operation costs for the new Southeast Recreation and Cultural Arts Center should be funded. What is the maximum amount you would be willing to pay for a Daily Youth Fee to use the Southeast Recreation and Cultural Arts Center? More than $7.00 per day 2.6% $6 per day 7.8% $5 per day 23.9% $4 per day 26.4% Less than $4 per day 39.3% From the list you are about to read, please indicate the one statement that best describes how you feel the operation costs for the new Southeast Recreation and Cultural Arts Center should be funded. 100% from taxes. No fees should be charged to use the community center 2% Mostly user fees and some tax dollars 38.7% Mostly from tax dollars and some user fees 51% 100% user fees 8.4% Value Count Percent % Yes 1,060 93.5% No 74 6.5% Statistics Total Responses 1,134 Value Count Percent % 80521 36 3.2% 80522 0 0.0% 80523 1 0.1% 80524 72 6.3% 80525 506 44.4% 80526 149 13.1% 80527 0 0.0% 80528 318 27.9% 80553 0 0.0% Other 59 5.2% Statistics Total Responses 1,141 Sum 87,128,935.0 Avg. 80,525.8 StdDev 1.6 Max 80,528.0 Do you live in Fort Collins? Please identify the zip code where you currently reside? Open-Text Response Breakdown for "Other" Count 55120 1 Do you live in Fort Collins? Yes 93.5% No 6.5% Please identify the zip code where you currently reside? 80521 3.2% 80523 0.1% 80524 6.3% 80525 44.4% 80526 13.1% 80528 27.9% Other 5.2% Value Count Percent % under 18 13 1.1% 18-24 8 0.7% 25-34 145 12.7% 35-54 680 59.7% 55+ 293 25.7% Statistics Total Responses 1,139 Sum 43,684.0 Avg. 38.8 StdDev 10.2 Max 55.0 80503 1 80512 5 80513 1 80527 1 80535 2 80536 1 80537 9 80538 4 80541 1 80547 8 80549 7 80550 14 80610 1 80631 1 80634 1 82001 1 What is your age? What is your age? under 18 1.1% 18-24 0.7% 25-34 12.7% 35-54 59.7% 55+ 25.7% Value Count Percent % Male 296 26.2% Female 835 73.8% Statistics Total Responses 1,131 Value Count Percent % Less than $25,000 40 3.8% $25,000 to $34,999 38 3.6% $35,000 to $49,999 73 7.0% $50,000 to $74,999 187 17.9% $75,000 to $99,999 207 19.8% $100,000 to $124,999 206 19.7% $125,000 to $149,999 102 9.8% $150,000 or more 193 18.5% Statistics Total Responses 1,046 What is your gender? What is your total annual household income? What is your gender? Male 26.2% Female 73.8% What is your total annual household income? Less than $25,000 3.8% $25,000 to $34,999 3.6% $35,000 to $49,999 7% $50,000 to $74,999 17.9% $75,000 to $99,999 19.8% $100,000 to $124,999 19.7% $125,000 to $149,999 9.8% $150,000 or more 18.5% Value Count Percent % Household with children under the age of 10. 432 38.2% Household with children age 10 – 19. (none under 10) 312 27.6% Household under age 55 with no children under age 19 116 10.3% Household with individuals age 55+ with no children under age 19 270 23.9% Statistics Total Responses 1,130 Which category best describes your household? Which category best describes your household? Household with children under the age of 10. 38.2% Household with children age 10 – 19. (none under 10) 27.6% Household under age 55 with no children under age 19 10.3% Household with individuals age 55+ with no children under age 19 23.9% Project/Decision: South East Recreation and Art Center Evaluated by: SOCIAL ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL Workforce Community Strengths Job creation This facility will create entry level and manager level jobs This facility could also provide opportunities for current staff to receive promotions, cross-train or gain additional experience Strengths Encourage healthy lifestyle through fitness activities, recreational programming and through walking and bicycling to the facility. Provide densely populated and growing area convenient access to cultural and recreational opportunities. Provide a beautiful, attractive facility that enhances south Fort Collins. Create a sense of community for southern Fort Collins residents by providing a safe, attractive and welcoming facility that draws the community together. Strengths Lower cost of land acquisitions Lower cost of site development Lower cost of water for irrigation by using raw water if possible. Location of Center may help grow opportunities for revenue for businesses in the immediate area Home values near the Center would likely see an increase Strengths Reduce carbon emissions and paved area by locating where patrons can use transit, walking and bicycling versus single occupancy vehicles to get to the center. Limit “cross town” or travel to different cities and reduce city traffic congestion by providing access to recreational and cultural opportunities for residents in southern Fort Collins. Avoid impacts to sensitive natural areas and waterways. Use raw water for irrigation, reducing energy and chemicals associated with treated water. Facility is planned for LEED Gold designation Limitations The facility will be subsidized as indicated in the pro forma Limitations The facility may not meet the expectations of every special interest group. Standard admission fees may be cost prohibitive to some citizens Private businesses may perceive the center as a threat to revenue. Limitations Private businesses that offer similar services may Other Recreation facilities may experience a reduction in visits/revenue. Possibility of no net increase in overall Recreation revenues. May be perceived as competition to local health clubs Location options may not be satisfactory to all citizens Special interest groups may not support the project if their expectations are not met due to budget constraints Local businesses which offer similar services may perceive the center as competition. Energy and resource consumption Increase of carbon footprint Notes: Adapted from the City of Olympia and Evergreen State College Sustainable Action Map (SAM) 1 Fort Collins Southeast Community Recreation & Arts Center Summary of Needs and Development Plan October 29, 2013 ATTACHMENT 3 2 Introduction In April of 2013, the team led by Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture was commissioned by the City of Fort Collins to perform a feasibility study for a new Southeast Community Recreation & Arts Center and to report on a summary of needs and development plan. This process culminated in a program to meet the needs within the community consisting of a 78,900 gross sq. ft. facility in Fossil Creek Park at an estimated total project cost of approximately $35 million. 3 Team Design Team • Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture • Steve Blackburn • Dave Hammel • Logan Simpson Design • Jana McKenzie • Ballard King & Associates • Jeff King Staff Building Committee • Marty Heffernan – Director of Community Services • Bob Adams – Recreation Director • Jill Stilwell – Cultural Services & Facility Director • Steve Budner – Recreation Manager • Mike McDonnell – Recreation Manager • John Litel – Community Relations 4 Market Analysis “The Southeast Recreation Center primary service area population is growing at a strong rate with the population projected to grow about 6.9% in 5 years” 5 Market Analysis “Growth in the 20-minute drive time area is estimated to increase more rapidly than the primary service area with a projected rate of 7.7%” 6 Market Analysis “The median age of the primary service area is significantly lower than the national level of 37.3 years while the median household income is higher.” 7 Market Analysis Age and household income are two determining factors that drive participation in sports, wellness & arts activities. The demographic profile suggests that there will be continued support and demand for recreation activities and programs in the southeast portion of Fort Collins. 8 Community Input Community Survey “The City of Fort Collins conducted an on-line survey as part of the public engagement process. The purpose of the survey was to help determine the interest and feasibility of constructing a new southeast recreation center to serve citizen recreation, leisure and cultural needs.” 9 Community Input Features That Would Be Most Likely to Use if Included in a New Recreation Center. • Their Top 7 Choices are: • Indoor leisure pool • Indoor running/walking track • Cardio fitness • Gymnasium • Performing arts/theatre space • Weight room • Aerobic/dance room. Community Survey 10 Community Input Community Survey “How Often Households Would Visit a New Community Center if it Had the Cultural, Recreation, Fitness, and Aquatic Features They Most Prefer. “ • 50% would visit several times per week • 19% would visit once per week • 13% would visit a few times a month • 5% would visit monthly. • 6% would visit less than once a month • 6% indicated they would never visit. “This level of interest is similar to other communities surveyed!” 11 Community Input Stakeholder Meetings • Youth Advisory Board • Parks & Recreation Advisory Board • Senior Advisory Board • Cultural Resources Board 12 Community Input Public Open House A Public Open House was held on June 5, 2013 at Preston Middle School to elicit community preferences regarding possible program uses in the proposed community center planned for the southern end of Fort Collins. Top 10 program preferences from the public meeting: • Leisure Pool, • Weight /Fitness Equip., • Multi Activity Court (MAC) Gym, • Fitness Lap Swimming, • Jog/Walk Track, • Party/ Classrooms, • 140 Seat Studio Theater • Comp. Lap Pool, • Climbing Wall, • Indoor Playground, 13 Needs Assessment Recommendations The program recommendations were driven by the information gathered during the market analysis, including the demographic profile of the community, statistical data from the National Sporting Goods Association, stakeholder input, public meeting input, and community survey findings. The project recommendations reflect the most pressing needs in the community. Based on the market analysis, program assessment and budgetary considerations the following program summary was developed. 14 Needs Assessment Recommendations From the needs assessment, the City and consulting team determined a ‘Wish List’ and then through prioritization and elimination arrived at a program of spaces and a budget that represents what it would take to realize the preferred program. The committee participated in a Program Prioritization Card Game. With stakeholder input and the on-line survey data in hand, the committee wrestled with creating reasonable budgets and setting priorities that matched up with the community input. 15 Needs Assessment Recommendations Program Space Net Area Selected Program Gross Area Selected Program Cost Notes Facility Administration Spaces 1,908 2,328 SF $396,000 Required Building Support Spaces 11,820 14,420 SF $3,231,000 Child Watch / Babysitting 940 1,147 SF $258,000 240 Person Community Room / Events Hall 4,100 5,002 SF $1,110,000 Seats 240 for banq/conf/meeting Single HS / Double Elem. School Courts Gymnasium 8,540 10,419 SF $2,329,000 (1) 50 x 84 or (2) 38 x 68 courts with overhead volleyball nets Long Elevated Walk / Jog Track 6,500 7,930 SF $981,000 9 laps per mile, 3 lanes Weight / Fitness 4,500 5,490 SF $1,445,000 30-36 Person Aerobics/Dance Studio 1,950 2,379 SF $508,000 Accomodates 30-36 people Aquatics Support 740 903 SF $159,000 Equipment room, guards, office 7,000 Leisure Pool 17,300 21,106 SF $8,695,000 7,000 square foot pool (Sim. To Livonia) Wet Classroom / Party Room(s) 800 976 SF $219,000 Can be divided into two 360 SF rooms 150-Seat Flexible Studio Theater 5,580 6,808 SF $1,944,000 Sustainable Options/LEED Gold $400,000 Solar Hot Water Heating $300,000 78,907 $21,975,000 Building Construction $2,417,250 Site Construction $6,171,814 Development Costs (Green Building, Fees, FFE, Testing, etc) $4,425,140 Owner's Plus Design Contingency $34,989,204 Total Project Cost © 2013 Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture. Cost estimated based on similar recently constructed community centers around the US and indexed to the Fort Collins region based on mid-point of construction of Nov. 2016. 4,500 Note: check Construction Date Option 1: Full Service Center 16 Needs Assessment Recommendations Option 2: ( No Pool) Program Space Net Area Selected Program Gross Area Selected Program Cost Notes Facility Administration Spaces 1,908 2,328 SF $396,000 Required Building Support Spaces 9,720 11,858 SF $2,621,000 Child Watch / Babysitting 940 1,147 SF $258,000 240 Person Community Room / Events Hall 4,100 5,002 SF $1,110,000 Seats 240 for banq/conf/meeting Single HS / Double Elem. School Courts Gymnasium 8,540 10,419 SF $2,329,000 (1) 50 x 84 or (2) 38 x 68 courts with overhead volleyball nets Long Elevated Walk / Jog Track 6,500 7,930 SF $981,000 9 laps per mile, 3 lanes Weight / Fitness 4,500 5,490 SF $1,445,000 30-36 Person Aerobics/Dance Studio 1,950 2,379 SF $508,000 Accomodates 30-36 people Wet Classroom / Party Room(s) 800 976 SF $219,000 Can be divided into two 360 SF rooms 150-Seat Flexible Studio Theater 5,580 6,808 SF $1,944,000 Sustainable Options/LEED Gold $400,000 54,336 $12,211,000 Building Construction $1,343,210 Site Construction $4,191,190 Development Costs (Green Building, Fees, FFE, Testing, etc) $2,659,543 Owner's Plus Design Contingency $20,404,944 Total Project Cost © 2013 Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture. Cost estimated based on similar recently constructed community centers around the US and indexed to the Fort Collins region based on mid-point of construction of Nov. 2016. 4,500 Note: check Construction Date 17 Needs Assessment Recommendations Option 3: ( No Theater ) Program Space Net Area Selected Program Gross Area Selected Program Cost Notes Facility Administration Spaces 1,908 2,328 SF $396,000 Required Building Support Spaces 11,120 13,566 SF $3,121,000 50 Person Classroom 1,025 1,251 SF $248,000 Seats 50 Wet Arts & Crafts Room 1,800 2,196 SF $467,000 Seats 45 Weight / Fitness 3,650 4,453 SF $1,216,000 16-20 Person Spinning Studio 1,200 1,464 SF $279,000 Accomodates 16-20 people Aquatics Support 740 903 SF $159,000 Equipment room, guards, office 7,000 Leisure Pool 17,300 21,106 SF $8,695,000 7,000 square foot pool (Sim. To Livonia) Wet Classroom / Party Room(s) 800 976 SF $219,000 Can be divided into two 360 SF rooms Sustainable Options/LEED Gold $400,000 Solar Hot Water Heating $300,000 48,242 $15,500,000 Building Construction $1,705,000 Site Construction $4,385,867 Development Costs (Green Building, Fees, FFE, Testing, etc) $3,165,775 Owner's Plus Design Contingency $24,756,641 Total Project Cost © 2013 Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture. Cost estimated based on similar recently constructed community centers around the US and indexed to the Fort Collins region based on mid-point of construction of Nov. 2016 3,650 Note: check Construction Date 18 Operations Analysis Category Facility Budget Expenditures $1,319,891 Revenue $1,105,026 Difference ($214,865) Recovery percentage 84% An operation analysis was conducted to examine facility costs and revenues for the facilities developed during the programming phase of the study. The analysis used the Option 1 Program to develop the business plan. Expenses A detailed line item budget included: • personnel • contractual • commodities expenditures Revenue A line item estimate included: • admissions • programs • other revenue sources Example Cost Recovery Rates • EPIC is 93% • Senior Center is 52% • Most community centers in urban areas around the country recover 75% to 90% of their operating expenses through fees and charges. 19 Concept Design Architectural Character and Aesthetics An architectural preference exercise was conducted with the Staff Building Committee at Workshop #3. From this exercise, the design team gathered preferences information on what the building exterior image and identity could begin to exhibit. The committee provided direction on the architectural preferences by placing green dots on preferred types and red dots on types to avoid in the design. 20 Concept Design Refined Floor Plans 21 Concept Design Refined Floor Plans 22 Concept Design Perspective views of Concept Design Birdseye View of Entrance 23 Concept Design Perspective views of Concept Design Birdseye View of Rear 24 Concept Design Perspective views of Concept Design Ground Level View of Entrance 25 Concept Design Perspective views of Concept Design Lakeside View of Rear 26 Concept Design Future Pool Addition Option 2: Reduced program of spaces ( No Pool) 27 Concept Design Option 3: Reduced program of spaces ( No Theater ) Future Theater Classroom Craftroom Spin Studio 28 Fossil Creek Site 29 Fossil Creek Site Fossil Creek Park - Site Analysis View toward Basketball Courts View toward the Southwest View of Picnic Shelter View from Street 30 Fossil Creek Site Fossil Creek Park - Site Analysis Potential Site Central Lawn Collector Road Through Neighbor- hoods Sledding / Observation Hill Arterial Road Main Park Entry 31 Final Site Plan Fossil Creek Site 32 Alternate Site Evaluations 33 Alternate Site Evaluations 34 Alternate Site Evaluations Site A – 6020 S. College Ave. 35 Alternate Site Evaluations Site B – Smokey Street 36 Alternate Site Evaluations Site D – Southeast Community Park 37 Alternate Site Evaluations Site E – West of Fossil Ridge High School 38 Alternate Site Evaluations Four sites plus Fossil Creek Park are noted on the next slide showing an aerial photo of the south end of Fort Collins. Each site was objectively scored against • Social Factors, • Economical Factors • Environmental Factors 39 Thank You ! Questions? 40 Fossil Creek Site 41 Concept Design Alternative Sketch Plans perceive the center as a threat to revenue opportunities Construction costs may escalate significantly if the project is delayed. Limitations Traffic in the immediate area will increase 2050 energy goals may increase the project’s budget Opportunities Staff levels will be increased The workforce will require a diverse team that includes a variety of expertise, skills and staffing levels Opportunities Develop partnerships with adjacent schools and/or medical facilities to increase the number of citizens who are involved in physical activity. Increase reduced fee program for low income residents. Provide south Fort Collins convenient access to quality recreation. Opportunities Develop partnerships with adjacent schools and/or medical facilities to offset costs. Job creation in a variety of areas/levels The Center may attract other businesses to develop in the area The Center will encourage engagement and activity in the area Opportunities Reduce impervious area and pavement materials through agreements to share existing parking lots. Traffic and congestion in other areas may be reduced Develop transportation programs for low income or cross-town residents Encourage transportation via Transfort, trails and biking Threats Threats Threats Threats Triple Bottom Line Analysis Map ATTACHMENT 2 100.0% 1 100% 1 diving board 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 3 100% 3 diving board and swim team 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 diving board pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 diving boards 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 diving well 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 farm 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 indoor outdoor 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 lazy river 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 100% 2 long course pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 lots of seating on the deck area 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 none of this is needed in SE Ft Collins 100.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 1 outdoor pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 pool toys 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 senior water aerobics 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 swim team 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 100% 2 use of pool depends on what is used in water. Allergic to chorine 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 warm children's pool or family hot tub 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 water climbing wall, diving well 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 water polo 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 From the previous aquatic components that could be included in an aquatic facility please indicate your first, second and third choice. 100.0% 1 100% 1 I would love to see another pool in Fort Collins that included an area for lap swimming/training 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Lap Lanes NOT for private clubs 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 Long course competition pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Lots of family dressing rooms 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 Masters swimming 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 Multiple separate lap lanes 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 My kids are older, but would have loved all of the above years ago! 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 NEED ADULT OUTDOOR POOL 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Outdoor Hottub for Winter and Pool for summer is a need in Fort Collins 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Outdoor pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 100% 2 Rope Swing 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 SALINE WATER 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Sitable for competitive events 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Swim team practice 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Syncronized swimming or water polo 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 0.0% 0 100% 1 This town needs another pool for competitive swimming 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 WATER AEROBICS 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Water Polo 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Water polo 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Waterfall/rock climbing wall(like at CSU) 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 adult floaties for sunning in water 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 competative pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 40.4% 419 39.0% 405 100% 1038 "Court" for Water ball-games (volleyball, bball), Indoor + outdoor pool or at least pool access to outdoor picnic area 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 "lazy river" 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 50 meter competitive 8 to 10 lane pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 50 meter lap lanes 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 8 25 yard Competition Lanes w/ 1 meter diving board 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 8 lane competitive swimming pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Adult only hot tub 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Area for DEEP water exercise (waterrunning) 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Area for swim team to practice 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 Benches, counters in locker room 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Competition Lanes 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Competition Pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 100% 2 Competition lanes for swim team 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Competition pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Competitive Swim Lanes! 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Competitive pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 Competitive swim facility 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Competitive swimming pool (50 meter) 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Deep area (water polo, dive from edge, syncro) 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Diving 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 3 100% 3 Diving Board 0.0% 0 50.0% 1 50.0% 1 100% 2 Diving Boards 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 Interactive "high-tech" gaming area 1267 17 Massage therapy 1263 18 Preschool program space 1202 19 Banquet facilities (w/catering kitchen) 1174 20 Total Respondents: 1039 1 Score is a weighted calculation. Items ranked first are valued higher than the following ranks, the score is the sum of all weighted rank counts. Because of the varied components that could be included in an aquatic center a list of potential features that could be incorporated into the design of an indoor aquatic facility are listed below. For each one, please indicate approximately how often you and members of your household would use each of these features. Never Rarely Very often Total Area for swim lessons 34.5% 361 24.5% 257 41.0% 429 100% 1047 Water slides 23.8% 250 21.2% 223 55.0% 578 100% 1051 A leisure pool with gentle slope entry so you can walk into the pool 22.1% 230 27.5% 286 50.4% 524 100% 1040 0.0% 0 100% 0 outdoor pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 100% 2 outdoor pool!!! 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 outdoor pool/ no slides or splashes 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 pickle ball 100.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 1 pickle ball courts 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 place for meeting friends to play Scrabble or other games 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 please offer swim lessons! 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 racquetball 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 racquetball court 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 100% 2 science classes 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 senior volleyball year round 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 shooting facility 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 small card rooms 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 spin room 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 square dancing 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 steam room 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 swim lap lanes 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 swimming lanes 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 table tennis 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 tennis 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 therapeutic pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 100% 0.0% 0 100% 0 competitive pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 100% 2 competitive pool like epic 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 competitive pool with lanes 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 competitive swim lap lanes 100.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 1 competitive swimming 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 competitive swimming oriented aquatic facility 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 competitive swimming pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 cycling 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 family fitness space 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 fencing 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 fitness swimming 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 hot tub 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 ice rink 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 100% 2 ice rink 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 indoor pitching lane 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 indoor water park(greeley) 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 indoor water slide 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 l 100.0% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 1 lap lanes 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 lap lanes for (preferably 8 or more) 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 lap lines like EPIC has 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 lap pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 4 100% 4 100% 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Racquetball 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Raquet Ball 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 Raquetball Court 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Really need a POOL 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Rehearsal space, set construction space 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Sauna 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 0.0% 0 100% 1 Skate/Bike Park 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Splash or zero depth kid pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Steam Room 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Swimming 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 TABLE TENNIS 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Tennis 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Tennis - indoor 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Tennis court 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Therapeutic warm pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Therapy Pool!!! 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Velodrome! 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Very large indoor pool area with slides, lazy river, etc... 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Water Park 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Water Slides / Water Features 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 astronomical observatory 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 basketball teen time 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 LAP POOL 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Lap / competition pool (25 yrds or longer with lane lines) 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Lap Pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 5 100% 5 Lap Pool w/ deep end slide 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Lap Swimming 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Lap lanes 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 2 100% 2 Lap lanes in pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Lap pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 4 100% 4 Lap pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Lap pool for south side swimmers 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Lap pool/aqua aerobics 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 Lap swim 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Lap swimming 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Lap swimming I think 6 lanes 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Lap swimming/Masters swimming 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 Later hours exercise room/track open until 9:30 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Long course pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Meetings 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 Music practice space 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 OUTDOOR LAP POOL 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Outdoor pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Outdoor pool-all summer 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 100% 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Competition Pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 4 100% 4 Competition Pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Competition Pool, Outdoor Pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Competition pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 3 100% 3 Competition pool (50 meters) 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 Competitive Swim Lanes! 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Competitive Swiming Diving 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Competitive pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Competitive pool/diving well 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Competitive swimming pool 0.0% 0 33.3% 1 66.7% 2 100% 3 Competitive swimming pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Competitve pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 Depends on offerings! 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Diving Boards/lap lanes 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 Diving Pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Diving board/facility or pool lanes 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Diving well 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Enclosed dog park/pet area for winter 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 Fitness Lap Swim 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 Gymnastics 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 Hot tubs/steam room 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 100.0%0.0% 0.0% 100% 25.6% 264 57.2% 590 100% 1032 Aerobic/dance/group fitness room 20.9% 211 28.6% 289 50.5% 510 100% 1010 Indoor running/walking track 16.5% 171 28.1% 292 55.4% 575 100% 1038 Youth fitness area & equipment 35.4% 348 20.2% 199 44.4% 437 100% 984 Massage therapy 36.8% 357 42.8% 415 20.3% 197 100% 969 Preschool program space 72.9% 685 13.0% 122 14.1% 133 100% 940 Childcare area for facility patrons 63.2% 602 14.2% 135 22.7% 216 100% 953 Space for seniors 63.9% 618 18.9% 183 17.2% 166 100% 967 Space for teens 50.6% 492 22.5% 219 26.9% 261 100% 972 Rock climbing wall 29.2% 292 32.7% 327 38.1% 381 100% 1000 Interactive playground for young children 50.6% 489 16.1% 156 33.3% 322 100% 967 Interactive "high-tech" gaming area 54.2% 513 25.9% 245 20.0% 189 100% 947 Performing art/theater space 27.7% 273 39.9% 393 32.5% 320 100% 986 Multiple activity court (soccer, lacrosse, basketball, etc.) 24.2% 241 33.6% 334 42.2% 420 100% 995 25 yard lap pool for club and high school teams and exercise 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 50 meter pool 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100.0% 1 100% 1 50m competition pool, lap pooll 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 100% 0 8 Lane Competition Pool w/ 1 meter diving board 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%100% Equipment Allow $200,000 for equipment 4,500 1 of 2 Storage 400 3,650 1 of 2 © 2013 Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture. Cost estimated based on similar recently constructed community centers around the US and indexed to the Fort Collins region based on mid-point of construction of Nov. 2016. 2 of 2 Equipment Allow $200,000 for equipment 4,500 1 of 2 Cardiovascular Training 1,600 Circuit Resistance Training 960 Free Weight Training 640 Fitness Supervisor Station 50 Stretching Area 300 Equipment Storage 100 16-20 Person Spinning Studio 1,200 1,464 SF Spinning Studio 800 Storage 400 3,650 Program Space Net Area Ext Selected Program Gross Area Aquatics Support 740 903 SF Guard Room 300 Aquatics Supervisors Office 120 Head Lifeguard Office 120 First Aid 100 Vending at Pool Deck 100 7,000 Leisure Pool 17,300 21,106 SF Pool 7,000 Natatorium 15,400 Slides, Spray Features, Spa Lazy River, Body Slide, Tube Slide & Tod Slide Sprays and Jets (most) 3 Lane x 60 ft. Yard Lap Swim 20-person Spa Therapy Area for Aqua Aerobics Supplemental Sanitation Water Treatment Pool Equipment Room 1,200 Pool Storage 700 Wet Classroom / Party Room(s) 800 976 SF Classroom 720 Party Room Storage 80 Sustainable Options/LEED Gold Green Building Design Solar Hot Water Heating Pool and domestic water heating system 48,242 Storage 150 Aquatics Support 740 903 SF Guard Room 300 Aquatics Supervisors Office 120 Head Lifeguard Office 120 First Aid 100 Vending at Pool Deck 100 17,300 21,106 SF 4,500