Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
[05] Aquatic Feasiblity
Pool Assessment & Feasibility Study Proposed Farmington Aquatic Center USAquatics, Inc. 124 Bridge Avenue East P.O. Box 86 Delano, MN 55328 (763)972-5897 www.usaquaticsinc.com June 13, 2014 0®®« !²²¤²²¬¤³ £ Feasibility Study - For - Farmington -´¨¢¨¯ « 0®®« Farmingtonþ -. *´¤ 13þ 4 - By - AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 Executive Summary 3³ ³¤¬¤³ ®¥ Understanding The City of Farmington owns and operates an existing municipal outdoor pool facility that is aging, has a number of operational concerns as well as a larger concern for offering its pool users more facility amenities. The pools also have code and ADA compliance issues. The current facility does not generate enough revenue to cover all expenses, meaning the facility is heavily subsidized by the City to remain operational. Over the past three years the revenue has decreased while expenses continue to rise. A study of this existing facility is clearly warranted to determine its condition and provide some expansion to serve the changing aquatic needs of the community. The goal of this study is to aid in the making of important decisions concerning the facility and its future, including options for expansion and adding amenities. !²²¤²²¬¤³ Process USAquatics has completed an onsite evaluation of the existing aquatic facility to determine its condition and usability to include record data from past seasons. 3¢®¯¤ ®¥ 3³´£¸ The scope of this study covers the following areas of the facility: Swimming pool structure, recirculation, filtration, and sanitation equipment Pool deck area, diving boards, features, etc. Compliance with new Federal and State Main Drain Laws Compliance with new Americans with Disabilities Act Laws Attendance, revenues and expenses Provide options for repair and/or renovation/new facility Provide possible location sites for a new facility 3³´£¸ Criteria The criteria used in our assessment include: Facility condition and other observable conditions Facility code requirements and compliance An understanding of cause and effect associated with various aquatic designs and operating procedures as presented to us through the assessment, review, and design of several thousand aquatic facilities Study area demographics used in determining community aquatic needs Review Farmington 2030 Comprehensive Plan Review of 2010 Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment )³¤³ ®¥ Report The intent is to present a summary of needed improvements and added amenities including factors affecting patron usage, revenue potentials, and expenses associated with the operation and management of the aquatic facility. Page 2 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 Summary Based on discussions with staff, a physical assessment of the existing facility, analysis of the existing condition at the Farmington Municipal Pool Facility, USAquatics has determined that the facility warrants a large number of improvements and expansion to better serve the needs of the community. Several amenity options for the expansion of the pool facility have been provided for consideration. These amenity options provide a range of facility renovation improvements and enhancements to an entirely new facility. The main pool offers a small variety of aquatic amenities including 1-meter and 3-meter diving, lap lanes, a single drop slide, walk out stairs and varying water depths to service some This pool would be costly to expand as any expansion to the pool would require larger filtration, recirculation and water treatment systems. The wading pool is undersized to adequately serve the younger patrons of Farmington, as well as the growing demand for an accessible zero depth beach type entry body of water. This pool would also be costly to expand due to filtration and recirculation requirements. It would be far more cost effective to demolish the existing wading pool and construct a new zero depth entry pool complete with a wide variety of amenities geared toward younger children. The facility does not provide an appropriate aquatic venue for a community the size of Farmington. The facility is too small in relation to the Farmington area demographics. We recommend the expansion of program elements to serve the Farmington aquatic community. The aquatic expansion should also provide a secondary service area of approximately a 15-20 mile radius. Given the growth and size of Farmington, the current pool site is not the best location to service the community as a whole and alternative locations should be considered. The Pool Committee and USAquatics have had six meetings to date to discuss the future of the existing facility. Additionally, USAquatics has had two staff level meetings with City staff. USAquatics provided information on the following five potential options for the future of aquatics in Farmington. Option 1: Do Nothing. This Option would leave the existing facility exactly as it is and would o not address any of the concerns noted in the assessment portion of the study. There would be no added amenities or features. The facility would remain non-compliant with Federal requirements for ADA accessibility and the operational subsidy the City pays to keep the facility open would continue to grow. Attendance levels would continue a slow decrease. Addressing none of the concerns listed could possibly leave the City open to potential litigation regarding accessibility. Estimated cost range: N/A Projected operating subsidy required: ($75,000) Estimated remaining life expectancy: 1 3 years Option 2: Repair Existing. Make only the recommended repairs to the existing pools and o facility to address operational issues, concerns and code issues including accessibility. This Option would not expand the facility or add any aquatic play elements. The wading pool would be demolished and a small 400 s.f. zero-depth entry splash pool installed. This Option would create little if any increase of operational costs and revenues. The sizeable City subsidy would still be required to assist with operational expenses. Attendance would continue remain at a low level while decreasing slowly. Estimated cost range: $566,400 - $644,400 Projected operating subsidy required: ($69,500) Estimated remaining life expectancy: 3 5 years (splash pool 18 20 years) Page 3 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 Option 3: Renovate and Expand Existing. Make necessary repairs to the existing main pool o and renovate the existing wading pool to create a larger 1,200 s.f. zero-depth entry splash pool more appropriate sized to meet the needs of the community. This Option would include the addition of a climbing wall to the main pool and adjusting the 3M diving board ladder to a tower. This Option would make for increased operational costs due to the renovation of the wading pool with a larger splash pool. Adding aquatic features and amenities may increase attendance and revenue; however, a large City subsidy would continue to be needed to continue operating. Attendance would increase with this Option; however, numbers would drop off after the first few years. Estimated cost range: $1,108,800 - $1,230,600 Projected operating subsidy required: ($64,000) Estimated remaining life expectancy: 3 5 years (splash pool 18 20 years) Option 4: Spray Pad/Wet Deck. The existing pools would be demolished and back-filled in. A o new Spray Pad/Wet Deck would be constructed on the current site. The Spray Pad/Wet Deck would include several spray features and interactive play features. With this option, overall attendance would decrease as this Option only targets the younger age groups. Operational expenses would decrease due to less staffing being required, less water to treat with chemicals, etc. With this option there would be little to no revenue generated as typically facilities of this type charge no admission. The operational subsidy required would remain close to current levels. Estimated cost range: $586,800 - $670,800 Projected operating subsidy required: ($60,000) Estimated life expectancy: 18 20 years Option 5: New Aquatic Facility. This Option would allow for the existing facility to remain o open for use during construction of a new facility. The new facility would be appropriately sized to meet the needs of the community while also accommodating for future growth. Some features such as shade umbrellas, diving boards and chemical controllers have been identified as items that could potentially be re-purposed on a new facility. The proposed design includes a Signature Feature that would attract visitors and increase attendance and revenue. Additionally, the new facility provides a wide range of aquatic amenities that better reflects the demographics of the community. The existing pool could be repurposed as a Spray Pad/Wet Deck after the new facility is open. Estimated cost range: Base Project - $7,249,688 Base Project plus Alts. $9,416,466 Projected operating profit for Base Project: $22,537 Projected operating profit for Base Project + Alternates: $54,901 Estimated life expectancy: 30 35 years Page 4 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 Option -5 Based on conversations at those meetings, the Pool Committee and USAquatics are recommending from above. The Pool Committee felt and USAquatics agreed that a new aquatic facility would draw visitors from other nearby cities and have a positive econom and the community as a whole. In addition, the city of Farmington will have 3,255 residential acres by 2030 to meet the n. Facilities of this type typically have a positive impact on home values and population increases. The aquatic The proposed design is a new outdoor Family Aquatic Center that includes a lap area, lazy river, river rapids, large zero depth entry splash area, waterslides and bathhouse. The existing site and other park locations were discussed in consideration for the location of this facility. The proposed site for the aquatic center is also the in the Jim Bell Park Preserve on Northeast th corner of 195 Street at the intersection with Diamond Path Road. The Jim Bell Park Preserve was also identified as an optimal location for a new aquatic center due to its proximity to the Dakota County North Creek Regional Greenway. In addition, the Pool Committee and USAquatics are recommending demolishing the existing pool after construction of the new facility is complete and re-purposing the facility with a 1,200 square foot spray pad/wet deck. The following is a list of factors cited in the decision to construct a new facility rather than renovate and repair the existing facility: Age of the existing pool and the short remaining life expectancy o Expense required to repair and bring the facility up to code and operational standards o Age of mechanical equipment and remaining life expectancy o Increasing maintenance costs o Making only repairs would still require a significant annual subsidy from the City to remain o operational Any expansion to the pool would make existing equipment undersized to meet code and o operational standards Respectfully submitted, Thomas R. Schaffer President Page 5 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 4 ¡«¤ ®¥ #®³¤³² 3%#4)/. /.%ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................. 8 Main Pool ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 Recirculation System ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Pool Equipment - General ............................................................................................................................... 8 Pump .............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Heater ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 Pool Filter ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 Chemical Control ............................................................................................................................................. 9 Wading Pool .................................................................................................................................................... 9 Wading Pool Recirculation System .................................................................................................................. 9 Wading Pool Pump ........................................................................................................................................ 10 Wading Pool Heater ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Wading Pool Filter ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Wading Pool Chemical Control ...................................................................................................................... 10 Bathhouse ..................................................................................................................................................... 10 Concessions................................................................................................................................................... 10 Deck Area ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 3%#4)/. 47/ ......................................................................................................................... 11 Option 1 (Do Nothing) ................................................................................................................................ 11 Option 2 (Repair Existing) ........................................................................................................................... 11 Option 3 (Renovate and Expand) ................................................................................................................ 13 Option 4 (Spray Pad/Wet Deck).................................................................................................................. 15 Option - 5 (New Aquatic Facility) ................................................................................................................... 16 3%#4)/. 47/.' &!#),)49 ................................................................................................... 17 Facility Layout ............................................................................................................................................... 17 Actual 2013 Budget Expenditures ................................................................................................................. 18 Revenue vs. Expense (2011-2013) ................................................................................................................. 18 Pool Attendance ........................................................................................................................................... 19 Census Information ....................................................................................................................................... 20 2010 Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment .............................................................................................. 21 Existing Facility Photographs ......................................................................................................................... 22 3%#4)/. 4(2%%!15!4)# &!#),)49 !.!LYSIS ................................................................. 28 Pool Committee and Park & Recreation Commission Recommended Site ..................................................... 29 Existing Pool vs. Proposed Site Location ........................................................................................................ 30 Proposed Site Location vs. Dakota County North Creek Regional Greenway ................................................. 31 3%#4)/. &/52452% &%!452%3 ........................................................................................... 32 Mat Racer (with and without slide start) ....................................................................................................... 32 Lazy River ...................................................................................................................................................... 32 Rapid River .................................................................................................................................................... 33 Wave Pool ..................................................................................................................................................... 33 Aqua Loop ..................................................................................................................................................... 34 Aqua Sport Climbing Wall ............................................................................................................................. 34 3%#4)/. &)6%%3)'. #/.#%043 ........................................................................ 35 Concept - 1 .................................................................................................................................................... 35 Page 6 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 Concept 2 ................................................................................................................................................... 36 Concept 3 ................................................................................................................................................... 37 Concept - 4 .................................................................................................................................................... 38 Concept 4R ................................................................................................................................................. 39 Concept 5A ................................................................................................................................................. 40 Concept 5B ................................................................................................................................................. 41 3%#4)/. 3)8DESIGN ................................................................................................................. 42 Proposed Concept ......................................................................................................................................... 42 Proposed Concept on Jim Bell Site ................................................................................................................ 43 Proposed Concept on Existing Site ................................................................................................................ 43 Proposed Staffing Plan .................................................................................................................................. 44 Proposed Concept Estimate .......................................................................................................................... 44 Proposed Concept Estimate continued.......................................................................................................... 45 Estimated Tax Implication ............................................................................................................................. 46 (based on $10M project does not include park site development) ............................................................. 46 Estimated Tax Implication ............................................................................................................................. 47 (based on $7M project does not include park site development) ............................................................... 47 Project Timeline ............................................................................................................................................ 48 Proposed Facility Projections ........................................................................................................................ 49 Projected Attendance Revenue (by average of results) ................................................................................. 50 Estimated Budget Expenditures .................................................................................................................... 51 Estimated Revenue vs. Expense .................................................................................................................... 51 Estimated Annual Increase Projections for Mat Racer ................................................................................... 51 !00%.$)8 !$ 7%4 $%#+ ................................................................................................ 52 Examples ....................................................................................................................................................... 52 Spray Pad/Wet Deck (on Existing Site) .......................................................................................................... 53 Details ........................................................................................................................................................... 53 !00%.$)8 "15!4)# &!#),)49 ).&/ ............................................................................ 54 Cascade Bay Eagan, MN.............................................................................................................................. 54 Old Memorial Pool Northfield, MN ............................................................................................................ 55 Hastings Family Aquatic Center Hastings, MN ............................................................................................ 56 Apple Valley Family Aquatic Center Apple Valley, MN ............................................................................... 57 !00%.$)8 #-)44%% -%%4).' -).54ES................................................................... 58 Meeting #1: ................................................................................................................................................... 58 Meeting #2: ................................................................................................................................................... 59 Meeting #3: ................................................................................................................................................... 60 Meeting #4: ................................................................................................................................................... 61 Meeting #5: ................................................................................................................................................... 62 Meeting #6: ................................................................................................................................................... 63 !00%.$)8 $ 0!2+ !.$ 02%3%26% #/34 %34)-!4% ............................................... 63 2014 Park Cost Estimate ................................................................................................................................ 63 Page 7 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 3%#4)/. ONE: ASSESSMENT - ¨ Pool The main pool was built in 1970 and opened the following summer in 1971. The main pool consists of a lap pool with attached diving well in an - -The diving well has two diving boards (one 1-meter and one 3-meter). The 3-meter nds show more facilities going away from the standard 3-meter diving board entirely. We recommend removal of the existing 3-meter diving board ladder and installation of a new platform and stair tower. The 1-meter diving board The current clear walk is only 3ft. Since the pool perimeter is in excess of 300 feet, two means of ADA compliant access are required. The facility has a functional ADA lift to account for one means of access; however, the primary means of access into the pool must be a ramp or beach type zero depth entry. The main pool also offers a single drop slide at the shallow end. The pool has very limited amenities for recreational aquatic activity, educational aquatic needs and aquatic fitness. At the time of the on-site assessment, the main pool had water in the shell for winterization which also made it impossible to inspect the main drains or the pool floor. There are no visible signs of failure in the pool shell; however, the pool vessel is in fair to poor shape. The main pool has been patched numerous times over the years and continues to require additional work. There are several cracks and areas of spalling where the finish is flaking off. eventually become problematic in terms of structural integrity and its ability to remain water tight. Due to the existing conditions of the main pool epoxy paint finish, we recommend sand blasting the shell to sound concrete, and the troweling of quartz aggregate plaster with ceramic tile accents. This would also be a longer lasting pool finish. Overall, the main pool lacks the aquatic needs of the Farmington aquatic community. Both diving boards were identified as features that could be salvaged and re-installed at a new aquatic facility; however, as noted above we recommend a new stair platform for the 3-meter board. Reci±¢´« ³¨® 3¸²³¤¬ The main pool has a semi-recessed stainless steel gutter with fiberglass grating and in gutter surge weirs. The non-slip finish on the gutter grating has deteriorated and is coming off in several areas and should be replaced to prevent patron injury. In pool surge is not ideal for any facility. We recommend the installation of an external surge tank. *While in a meeting with City staff on 5/29/2014, Jeremy Pire received a phone call advising that during pool operation a weld in the stainless steel gutter broke and the gutter was leaking and required repair. 0®®« %°´¨¯¬¤³ - General The pool equipment is largely original to the facility with a few exceptions. The equipment met the needs of the community; however, for the most part it is outdated and inefficient in terms of operation. Pump The main pool pump is a horizontal pump located above water level which can make priming and servicing difficult. The existing pump is in poor condition and is very inefficient. A vertically mounted high efficiency pump with a premium motor installed below water level would solve priming difficulties and provide higher Page 8 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 efficiency during operation. The current size and layout of the mechanical room does not allow for a recessed pump pit. In addition to a new pump located in a pump pit, we recommend adding a variable frequency drive to the motor. This provides significant energy cost savings and efficiency while extending the life of the pump and reducing maintenance. Heater The main pool has is serviced by a large Raypak gas fired heater. Due to its age, condition, and remaining life expectancy - the main pool heater should be replaced with a new more efficient model. 0®®« &¨«³¤± The existing sand filter is a vertical Natare Corporation multi-cell filter that is outdated in terms of technology and efficiency as is nearing the end of its useful life cycle. Staff on site reported the sand media was changed within the past 5 years; however, the configuration and style of the filter does not provide enough depth of media to be effective consistently. *While in the same meeting with City staff on 5/29/2014 we were also advised that when performing a routine inspection of the Main Pool sand filter, the bottom laterals were broken and sticking out of the sand. As a result, the sand was removed, new laterals installed and the sand media was replaced. We recommend the installation of new regenerative media filters that are more efficient, take up a fraction of th the current footprint, and are green friendly using 1/50 of the water used by traditional sand filters. In addition, replacing the existing sand filters with regenerative media filters would allow for in the mechanical building to service other equipment. Although we recommend regenerative media filters, we will provide filter replacement options for both regenerative media filters and traditional sand filters. #§¤¬¨¢ « #®³±®« The chemical control system is relatively new to the facility. The ProMinent DCM200 controller is user friendly up to date technology that adequately serves the needs of the facility. The controller requires minimal attention and adjustments and was identified as a piece of equipment that could potentially be utilized at the new facility or spray deck. 7 £¨¦ 0®®« The Wading Pool is rectangular in shape and located adjacent to the main pool. The wading pool depth varies --There is a 3ft. chain link fence as a barrier separating the wading pool from the rest of the facility. As with the main pool, the wading pool was winterized and had standing water at the time of the on-site visit so the pool floor and main drains were unable to be inspected. The concrete coping is in poor condition, with several large cracks, sizeable gaps, and pieces broken off completely. The Wading Pool lacks any interactive features or play elements and is not sized appropriately to service the younger demographics of the Farmington community. The wading pool also lacks any form of ADA access. Due to the size, condition and large amount of work required to repair the wading pool, we feel it is not feasible to simply repair this pool and feel complete replacement is necessary. 7 £¨¦ 0®®« 2¤¢¨±¢´« ³¨® 3¸²³¤¬ The wading pool has two surface skimmers located on either side wall. The decking around the skimmers is in very poor condition. Drainage issues have resulted in shifted or sinking deck slabs around the wading pool dous to patrons. Page 9 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 7 £¨¦ 0®®« Pump The Wading Pool is serviced by one pump, a Pentair WFE-3 that is located above water level. This pump is aging and very inefficient and handles recirculation with suction from the main drain and skimmers. As with the main pool pump, a vertically mounted high efficiency pump with a premium motor installed below water level would solve priming difficulties and provide higher efficiency during operation. Based on our recommendation to completely replace the existing wading pool, a new zero depth splash pool would require a new pump to handle the increased volume. At that time we recommend installation of vertical mount high efficiency pump in a recessed pump pit below water level, with a premium motor and variable frequency drive. 7 £¨¦ 0®®« Heater The wading pool heater is a smaller, Raypak gas fired heater. The heater is newer to the facility and was reported to be in proper working order. We recommend utilizing the existing wading pool heater on the new spray deck. Depending on the size increase of the splash pool, we recommend the addition of a second heater stacked above the existing heater if necessary. 7 £¨¦ 0®®« Filter The sand filter dedicated to the Wading Pool is a TR-140, which is a smaller residential style filter that has likely exceeded its life expectancy. It was unknown when the sand was last replaced. 7 £¨¦ 0®®« #§¤¬¨¢ « #®³±®« The chemical control system is relatively new to the facility and identical to the main pool chemical controller. The ProMinent DCM200 controller is user friendly up to date technology that adequately serves the needs of the facility. The controller requires minimal attention and adjustments and should adequately handle the needs of a new splash pool. The wading pool chemical controller could potentially be re-utilized at a new facility in the same way the lap pool chemical controller would be. Bathhouse The bathhouse is in fair condition for its age. Staff reported the roof had been replaced within the past couple years. The bathhouse had been modified from its original construction to meet requirements for ADA access. The change rooms and shower facilities are in good condition. The current layout has two urinals, two toilets change room has one private change booth that has a curtain divider. Current trends show a need for family change rooms that allows for a parent or guardian to keep young children of either sex with them, rather than sending them into a locker room alone or bringing them into a locker room of the opposite sex. We recommend the addition of two family style change rooms. Concessions The current bathhouse configuration does not allow for a concessions area to be very effective and lack of space is an issue. The current layout and amenities allows for a very limited number of products to be sold. A permanent dedicated concession area complete with a three compartment sink would be more efficient and allow for increased serving options such as pre-packaged food, etc. This is also an option that would allow for the facility to increase its revenue. Page 10 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 $¤¢ª !±¤ The deck area surrounding the Main Pool and Wading Pool is in poor condition. Shifting and settling has created a number of raised areas or Some expansion joints have spread apart creating gaps between concrete slabs which allows water to enter causing further damage. Some slabs slope toward joints rather than deck drains creating areas of potential water ponding. The surrounding fence has a few spaces where gaps between posts and mesh exceeds the maximum allowed. Vinyl coated fence is preferred for aquatic facilities as it is more aesthetically pleasing and has a longer life expectancy. According to staff on site, the deck drains, despite being undersized, appear to function properly. The facility lacks a minimal table seating that allows patrons to stay longer which would result in additional revenue. We recommend the addition of shade structures along the east side of the main pool. The facility has on deck drinking fountains as well as a small number of on deck lockers for storage. Several of the locker doors are missing. We recommend replacing lockers as needed. Staff reported the shade umbrellas were relatively new to the facility and in good condition. The shade umbrella structures could be re-utilized at a new spray deck or possibly the new facility with new deck anchors. 3%#4)/. 47/ OPTIONS /¯³¨® ($® .®³§¨¦) /¯³¨® (2¤¯ ¨± %·¨²³¨¦) - ¨ 0®®« Based on our review and analysis, we recommend the following work for repair of the main pool area: Demolition of decks and installation of ADA access ramp along east side of pool Probable cost estimate: $35,000 - $40,000 Replace existing gutter grating. Probable cost estimate: $18,000 - $20,000 Sandblast pool shell to sound concrete and install new Diamond Brite finish with ceramic tile accents. Probable cost estimate: $65,000 - $75,000 Cold joint repair around entire pool perimeter. Probable cost estimate: $36,000 - $42,000 Installation of an external surge tank and associated piping. Probable cost estimate: $33,000 - $37,000 Subtotal: $187,000 - $214,000 Soft Costs (20%) $ 37,400 - $ 42,800 Estimated Main Pool Repair Cost Range: $224,400 - $256,800 7 £¨¦ 0®®« Based on our review and analysis, we have determined that it is not feasible or cost effective to attempt to repair the existing wading pool. For this option we recommend the demolition of the existing wading pool and installation of a new zero-depth entry splash pool with no additional above ground features: Demo and remove existing wading pool. Probable cost estimate: $4,500 - $5,500 Page 11 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 Construct new 400 s.f. zero-depth entry splash pool with imbedded ground sprays. Probable cost estimate: $75,000 - $80,000 Subtotal: $ 79,500 - $85,500 Soft Costs (20%) $ 15,900 - $17,100 Estimated Wading Pool Repair Cost Range: $95,400 $102,600 Mechanical/Equipment Based on our review and analysis, we recommend the following work for repair of the pool equipment: Add addition on to existing mechanical building to allow room for a recessed pump pit. Probable cost estimate: $70,000 - $80,000 Replace pool pump with vertical mount high efficiency pump and premium motors and vfd. Probable cost estimate: $12,000 - $14,000 Replace existing sand filters with regenerative media filters. Probable cost estimate: $88,000 - $94,000 Replace existing main pool heater with new more efficient model. Probable cost estimate: $15,000 - $18,000 Replace exterior doors to mechanical building. Probable cost estimate: $2,000 - $3,000 Replace electrical service/fuse box and wiring as necessary. Probable cost estimate: $13,000 - $15,000 Subtotal: $200,000 - $224,000 Soft Costs (20%) $ 40,000 - $ 44,800 Estimated Mech. Repair Cost Range: $233,400 - $268,800 Bathhouse Based on our review and analysis, we Do Not recommend any work for repair of the Bathhouse. Site Based on our review and analysis, we recommend the following work for repair of the site area: Demo and remove select decking (approx. 1,000 s.f.), install new decking properly sloped to new deck drains. Probable cost estimate: $9,000 - $11,000 Repair fence as needed. Probable cost estimate: $2,000 - $2,500 Subtotal: $ 11,000 - $13,500 Soft Costs (20%) $ 2,200 - $ 2,700 Estimated Site Repair Cost Range: $13,200 - $16,200 Option 2 Total Estimated Cost Range: $566,400 - $644,400 Page 12 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 /¯³¨® (2¤®µ ³¤ £ %·¯ £) - ¨ 0®®« Based on our review and analysis, we recommend the following work for renovation and expansion of the main pool area: Install an aquatic climbing wall on the north side of the diving well. Installation of gutter cup anchors and rope & float to be included. Probable cost estimate: $34,000 - $36,000 Select demolition to include removal of existing 3m diving board ladder and installation of new platform with stairs and expanded deck. Probable cost estimate: $28,000 - $31,000 Demolition of decks and installation of ADA access ramp along east side of pool Probable cost estimate: $35,000 - $40,000 Replace existing gutter grating. Probable cost estimate: $18,000 - $20,000 Sandblast pool shell to sound concrete and install new Diamond Brite finish with ceramic tile accents. Probable cost estimate: $65,000 - $75,000 Cold joint repair around entire pool perimeter. Probable cost estimate: $36,000 - $42,000 Installation of an external surge tank and associated piping. Probable cost estimate: $33,000 - $37,000 Subtotal: $249,000 - $281,000 Soft Costs (20%) $ 49,800 - $ 56,200 Estimated Main Pool Renovation Cost Range: $298,800 - $337,200 7 £¨¦ 0®®« Based on our review and analysis, we have determined it is not feasible or cost effective to attempt to repair or renovate the existing wading pool. For this option we recommend the demolition of the existing wading pool, and installation of a new larger splash pool with embedded sprays and several additional above ground features: Demo and remove existing wading pool. Probable cost estimate: $4,500 - $5,500 Construct new 1,200 s.f. zero-depth entry splash pool complete with interactive play features. Probable cost estimate: $265,000 - $290,000 Installation of new fencing to replace existing. Probable cost estimate: $1,500 - $2,000 Subtotal: $271,000 - $297,500 Soft Costs (20%) $ 54,200 - $ 59,500 Estimated Wading Pool Renovation Cost Range: $325,200 - $357,000 Mechanical/Equipment Based on our review and analysis, we recommend the following work for the pool equipment: Add addition on to existing mechanical building to allow room for a recessed pump pit. Probable cost estimate: $70,000 - $80,000 Replace pool pump with vertical mount high efficiency pump and premium motors and vfd. Page 13 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 Probable cost estimate: $12,000 - $14,000 Replace existing sand filters with regenerative media filters. Probable cost estimate: $88,000 - $94,000 Replace existing main pool heater with new more efficient model. Probable cost estimate: $13,500 - $15,000 Replace exterior doors to mechanical building. Probable cost estimate: $2,000 - $3,000 Replace electrical service/fuse box and wiring as necessary. Probable cost estimate: $13,000 - $15,000 Subtotal: $198,500 - $221,000 Soft Costs (20%) $ 39,700 - $ 44,200 Estimated Mech. Renovation Cost Range: $238,200 - $265,200 Bathhouse Based on our review and analysis, we recommend the following work for renovation and expansion of the bathhouse area: Relocate concessions to west end of bathhouse. Create full concession area with required amenities needed for pre-packaged food service/sales. Probable cost estimate: $95,000 - $105,000 Add two family change rooms complete with bathroom/showers on to existing bathhouse. Probable cost estimate: $76,000 - $82,000 Subtotal: $171,000 - $187,000 Soft Costs (20%) $ 34,200 - $ 37,400 Estimated Bathhouse Renovation Cost Range: $205,200 - $224,400 Site Based on our review and analysis, we recommend the following work for the renovation and expansion of the site area: Demo and remove all decking, install new decking properly sloped to new deck drains. Probable cost estimate: $10,000 - $12,000 Expand concrete decking on west side of bathhouse to create a dedicated eating area with tables. Probable cost estimate: $6,500 - $7,500 Addition of two shade umbrellas to eating area and along east side of main pool. Probable cost estimate: $7,000 - $7,500 Repair fences as needed. Probable cost estimate: $11,000 - $12,000 Subtotal: $ 34,500 - $39,000 Soft Costs (20%) $ 6,900 - $ 7,800 Estimated Site Renovation Cost Range: $41,400 - $46,800 Option 3 Total Estimated Cost Range: $1,108,800 - $1,230,600 Page 14 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 /¯³¨® (3¯± ¸ 0 £ 7¤³ $¤¢ª) Demolition Based on our review and analysis, we recommend the following demolition work to allow for the site to be prepared for a new Spray Pad/Wet Deck: Demo and remove Main Pool, Wading Pool and surrounding decks/fence Probable cost estimate: $24,000 - $26,000 Demolition of non-reusable Mechanical/Equipment Probable cost estimate: $4,000 - $5,000 In-fill existing pools Probable cost estimate: $4,000 - $5,000 Subtotal: $32,000 - $36,000 Soft Costs (20%) $ 6,400 - $ 7,200 Estimated Demolition Cost Range: $38,400 - $43,200 3¯± ¸ 0 £ 7¤³ Deck Based on our review and analysis, we recommend the following work for installation of a new Spray Pad/Wet Deck: New 1,200 s.f. Spray Pad/Wet Deck with recirculation system. Probable cost estimate: $220,000 - $240,000 Imbedded and above ground Play Features Probable cost estimate: $125,000 - $150,000 Subtotal: $345,000 - $390,000 Soft Costs (20%) $ 69,000 - $ 78,000 Estimated Spray Pad/Wet Deck Cost Range: $414,000 - $468,000 Mechanical/Equipment Based on our review and analysis, we recommend the following work to Mechanical/Equipment for installation of a new Spray Pad/Wet Deck: Alterations to existing mechanical building to allow room for a recessed pump pit. Probable cost estimate: $30,000 - $35,000 New vertical mount high efficiency recirculation and feature pump and premium motors. Probable cost estimate: $12,000 - $15,000 Install new regenerative media filter. Probable cost estimate: $15,000 - $20,000 Replace exterior doors to mechanical building. Probable cost estimate: $2,000 - $3,000 Replace electrical service/fuse box and wiring as necessary. Probable cost estimate: $13,000 - $15,000 Subtotal: $72,000 - $88,000 Soft Costs (20%) $14,400 - $17,600 Estimated Mech. Cost Range: $86,400 - $105,600 Page 15 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 Bathhouse Based on our review and analysis, for this option we Do Not recommend any work on the Bathhouse. Site Based on our review and analysis, we recommend the following work for repair/ renovation of the site area: Install new decking around Spray Pad/Wet Deck properly sloped to new deck drains. Probable cost estimate: $18,000 - $20,000 Expand concrete decking on west side of bathhouse to create a dedicated eating area with tables. Probable cost estimate: $5,500 - $6,000 Addition of two shade umbrellas around Spray Pad/Wet Deck Probable cost estimate: $7,000 - $7,500 Install new fence surrounding Spray Pad/Wet Deck. Probable cost estimate: $5,000 - $6,000 New sod around Spray Pad/Wet Deck. Probable cost estimate: $4,500 - $5,500 Subtotal: $ 40,000 - $45,000 Soft Costs (20%) $ 8,000 - $ 9,000 Estimated Site Renovation Cost Range: $48,000 - $54,000 Option 4 Total Estimated Cost Range: $586,800 - $670,800 /¯³¨® - (.¤¶ !°´ ³¨¢ & ¢¨«¨³¸) Based on several meetings to discuss options, Option 5 is the selection made by the Pool Committee to pursue moving forward with as the recommended option. The full preliminary cost estimate can be found in detail in Section Six: Final Design. The total estimated cost range shows the estimated cost for what the Pool Committee identified as a BASE project, with the higher number being the BASE project with ALL alternates included. Option 5 Total Estimated Cost Range: $7,284,507 - $9,448,912 Page 16 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 3%#4)/. 47/: %8)34).' FACILITY & ¢¨«¨³¸ , ¸®´³ Page 17 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 !¢³´ « 2013 "´£¦¤³ Expenditures Category *Budget Salaries $71,700 Equipment supplies $13,300 Building supplies $3,900 Concession purchase $5,200 Pool chemicals $5,500 Uniforms $700 Travel, training, meetings $700 Telephone/data $1,600 Utilities $10,300 Building & equipment repairs $3,800 Insurance - Dues/subscriptions $1,000 Professional service $14,400 Program expense $400 Total $132,500 *Numbers rounded to nearest hundred 2¤µ¤´¤ µ² %·¯¤²¤ (2011-2013) 2011 Category Budget Revenue $66,400 Expense $103,000 Profit (Subsidy) ($36,600) Category Budget Revenue $71,400 Expense $121,600 Profit (Subsidy) ($50,200) 2013 Category Budget Revenue $68,030 Expense $132,500 Profit (Subsidy) ($64,470) Page 18 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 Farmington Municipal Pool Å Å Å Å r w;Ý;Ò; Å r 9ã¦;; Å r Å r Å 0®®« !³³¤£ ¢¤ Farmington Municipal Pool 2011-2013 t ·© When analyzing the Outdoor Pool Attendance from 2011-2013 the following can be cited for the low overall numbers and the slow decline in annual attendance: Communities around the Farmington area have built new facilities offering enhanced o amenities for the participants with upgraded park features and aquatic programming options. The Farmington aquatic facility has grown stale to the local participants. It has become o routine serving a very small segment of the local population and not reaching the broader aquatic community and aquatic needs. It should be noted that 2013 had the lowest attendance numbers despite being open a total of o 66 days compared with 63.5 in 2012, and 61 in 2011. Page 19 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 #¤²´² )¥®±¬ ³¨® Total Population: 21,086 (2010) Households: 7,066 Families residing within the city: 5,426 Families with children under 18 = 51.4% Population distribution by age: 17 & under 33% o 18-24 6.3% o 25-44 35.7% o 45-64 19% o 65+ 5.6% o 2010 Census Demographics u V u V u V u V u V u V u V Z When analyzing the estimated 2010 Farmington Census information the following information was determined: The highest percentage of the population is those between the ages of 25-44 at 35.7%. The o second highest age range is 17 and under that accounted for 33% of the population. This suggests an aquatic facility and added amenities that focuses on young families. o The aquatic need is for a facility that offers a wider range of aquatic activities and amenities. o 2063 Page of USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 0 ±ª² £ 2¤¢±¤ ³¨® .¤¤£² !²²¤²²¬¤³ The following is a list of questions and results from the needs assessment that took place in 2010. The questions below list either the existing swimming pool or a new aquatic facility. Actions Most Willing to Fund to Improve the Existing Parks and Recreation System. Based on the sum of their top four choices, the actions that are most willing to fund with tax dollars to improve the existing parks and recreation system are: maintain and improve existing paved trails (56%), fix- up/repair older neighborhood and community parks (45%), maintain and improve existing playground equipment (35%), and maintain and improve the existing outdoor pool (28%). Most Important Parks and Recreation Facilities. Based on the sum of their top four choices, the parks and recreation facilities that households rated as the most important are: paved walking and biking trails (65%), small neighborhood parks (49%), playground equipment (28%), natural areas/wildlife habitat (24%), large community parks (20%) and swimming pool (16%). Actions Most Willing to Fund to Develop New Parks and Recreation Facilities. Based on the sum of their top four choices, the actions that households are most willing to fund through a bond levy to develop new parks and recreation facilities are: complete missing walking/biking trail connections (42%), new paved walking and biking trails (36%), neighborhood parks (18%), pedestrian bridges/underpasses for trail crossing (17%) and new swimming pool (16%). Page 21 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 %·¨²³¨¦ & ¢¨«¨³¸ 0§®³®¦± ¯§² Existing Bathhouse Page 22 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 Existing concessions area Deck conditions at Wading Pool View of bathhouse from inside facility Coping/deck joint conditions Wading Pool Cracked/broken coping Page 23 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 Coping/depth marking conditions Gutter grating conditions Facility conditions Pool finish spalling Deck/deck drain conditions Construction cold joint Page 24 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 Gaps at fencing Sunken areas of concrete Deck conditions around Main Pool 3M Diving Tower ladder Existing drop-slide Page 25 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 Existing eating/lounge area Main Pool recirculation pump Existing Mechanical building Main Pool sand filter Main Pool recirculation pump and strainer Wading Pool recirculation pump Page 26 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 Wading Pool sand filter Wading Pool heater Existing electrical service Chemical controllers Page 27 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 3%#4)/. THREE: .%7 !15!4)# &!#),)49 ANALYSIS The following are approximate construction costs for similar facilities. These numbers should be used for planning purposes only as a guide in determining the relative cost of a new facility versus renovation of an existing facility. City: Population: Approx. Budget: Year Built: Glencoe 5,628 $2,500,000 2000 Stewartville 5,926 $2,800,000 2006 Redwood falls 5,253 $3,600,000 2008 Sleepy eye 3,598 $3,000,000 2009 Gaylord 2,307 $3,400,000 2009 La Crescent 4,860 $3,200,000 2010 Kasson 5,978 $3,200,000 2012 Cannon Falls 4,083 $3,990,000 - Byron 4,965 $5,100,000 - Pine Island 3,272 $2,600,000 - Hutchinson 14,178 $5,500,000 - Farmington 21,086 $7,077,000 - Secondary Service Area (15-20 miles) Page 28 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 0®®« #®¬¬¨³³¤¤ £ 0 ±ª & 2¤¢±¤ ³¨® #ommission 2¤¢®¬¬¤£¤£ 3¨³¤ Page 29 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 %·¨²³¨¦ 0®®« µ² 0±®¯®²¤£ 3¨³¤ ,®¢ ³¨® Page 30 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 0±®¯®²¤£ 3¨³¤ ,®¢ ³¨® µ² $ ª®³ #®´³¸ .®±³§ #±¤¤ª 2¤¦¨® « '± Page 31 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 3%#4)/. FOUR3)'.!452% &%!452%3 As noted in the Executive Summary, the proposed design includes a Signature Feature that would attract visitors and increase attendance and revenue. The Pool Committee expressed a desire for a facility with amenities and features that were unique and not found at nearby facilities. The Pool Committee and USAquatics looked into several different types of Signatures Features, weighing the cost and benefit of each. The following are features that were considered: - ³ 2 ¢¤± (¶¨³§ £ ¶¨³§®´³ ²«¨£¤ ²³ ±³) Allows for multiple riders each race Spectator sport 100-150 riders per hour Encompasses most age groups , ¹¸ 2¨µ¤± Multiple riders Can be a stand-alone feature Allows for a wide age-range Can be incorporated with water slides Page 32 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 2 ¯¨£ 2¨µ¤± Few facilities offer Rapid Rivers Rapids could be alternate route Limited number of riders at a time 7 µ¤ 0®®« Very few in MN Waves can be intermittent Allows for a large number of patrons Lap Pool could fit within Wave Pool Wide range of user age-range Requires more lifeguards Can be connected to Lazy River Page 33 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 !°´ ,®®¯ Would be the first in Minnesota Near vertical loop Limited number of riders per hour !°´ 3¯®±³ #«¨¬¡¨¦ 7 «« Only 10 in North America Small footprint required Currently none installed in Minnesota Visual appeal Spectator sport Limited user age-range Page 34 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 After reviewing all of the above Signature Features, the Pool Committee decided to include the Rapid River in the Proposed Base Project, and to have the Mat Racer with Slide Start included as a future addition. The Proposed Final Design was master planned to allow room for the future Mat Racer, as well as to cover the increased fixture count in the bathhouse as a result of the increase to bather load. 3%#4)/. FIVE. #/.#%043 #®¢¤¯³ - 1 Page 35 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 #®¢¤¯³ 2 Page 36 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 #®¢¤¯³ 3 Page 37 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 #®¢¤¯³ - 4 Page 38 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 #®¢¤¯³ 4R Page 39 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 #®¢¤¯³ 5A Page 40 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 #®¢¤¯³ 5B Page 41 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 3%#4)/. SIX 0±®¯®²¤£ Concept Page 42 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 0±®¯®²¤£ #®¢¤¯³ ® *¨¬ "¤«« 3¨³¤ 0±®¯®²¤£ #®¢¤¯³ ® %·¨²³¨¦ 3¨³¤ Page 43 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 0±®¯®²¤£ Staffing Plan 0±®¯®²¤£ #®¢¤¯³ Estimate Page 44 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 Pr®¯®²¤£ #®¢¤¯³ %²³¨¬ ³¤ ¢®³¨´¤£ Page 45 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 E²³¨¬ ³¤£ 4 · )¬¯«¨¢ ³¨® (¡ ²¤£ ® a- ¯±®©¤¢³ £®¤² ®³ ¨¢«´£¤ ¯ ±ª ²¨³¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³) Page 46 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 %²³¨¬ ³¤£ 4 · )¬¯«¨¢ ³¨® (¡ ²¤£ ® a- ¯±®©¤¢³ £®¤² ®³ ¨¢«´£¤ ¯ ±ª ²¨³¤ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³) Page 47 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 0±®©¤¢³ 4¨¬¤«¨¤ Page 48 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 0±®¯®²¤£ & ¢¨«¨³¸ 0±®©¤¢³¨®² Bather load projections were determined using historical information regarding average daily attendance usage by percentage. This number factors in aquatic amenities that drive attendance. The average daily bather load is 726 patrons. The daily percentage of those bather loads are as follows: Sunday 1.5x, Monday - Wednesday .4 each, Thursday x .5, Friday x .8, Saturday x 2. " ²¤£ ® " ³§¤± ,® £ % of Avg. Avg. Number Bather load Daily Users of Users Lap Area 140 60% 72 Multi-Use Area 53 35% 42 Plunge Area 57 25% 30 Splash Area 343 150% 181 Rapid River 10 145% 175 Lazy River 220 135% 163 Lilly Pad Walk 20 50% 60 Total 847 726 Projected revenue based on Bather Load: $392,040 Note: Revenue totals are based on a 90 day season (out of 101 possible days) and current admission $5.00 per day $1.00 per day rate of in admissions and an average of in concessions. Page 49 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 " ²¤£ ® #¤²´² Demographic )¥®±¬ ³¨® Percent Avg. weekly Revenue City Population participation attendance (weekly) Farmington 17 & under 6,958 30% 2,087 18-24 1,328 20% 265 25-44 7,527 25% 1,881 45-64 4,006 2% 80 65+ 1,180 3% 35 21,086 21% 4,348 $26,088 Dakota County 405,088 .2% 810 $4,860 Total 5,158 $30,948 Projected revenue based on Census Demographic Information: $402,324 $5.00 per day Revenue totals are based on a 13 week season and current admission rate of in $1.00 admissions and an average of per day in concessions. 0±®©¤¢³¤£ !³³¤£ ¢¤ 2¤µ¤´¤ (¡¸ µ¤± ¦¤ ®¥ ±¤²´«³²) Method Result Bather Load $392,040 Census $402,324 Average $397,182 /³§¤± ±¤µ¤´¤ sources Category Result Party Rentals $5,500 Swim Lessons $18,500 Exercise Class $4,000 Total $29,000 4®³ « ±¤µ¤´¤² «« ²®´±¢¤² Method Result Attendance $397,182 Other $29,000 Total $426,182 Page 50 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 %²³¨¬ ³¤£ "´£¦¤³ Expenditures Category Budget Salaries $267,390 Supplies $24,200 Concessions purchases $30,600 Pool chemicals $14,200 Uniforms $1,560 Travel, training, meetings $1,800 Telephone/data $720 Utilities $38,200 Building & equipment repairs $1,200 Insurance $6,600 Dues/subscriptions $1,200 Professional services $11,400 Improvements $1,800 Program expense $975 Miscellaneous $1,800 Total $403,645 %²³¨¬ ³¤£ 2¤µ¤´¤ µ² %·¯¤²¤ Category Result Average Projected Revenue: $426,182 Estimated Operating Expenses: $403,645 Operating Revenue (Subsidy): $22,537 %²³¨¬ ³¤£ !´ « )¢±¤ ²¤ 0±®©¤¢³¨®² ¥®± - ³ 2 ¢¤± Category Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Attendance: 3,420 3,591 3,484 3,377 3,270 Expenses: $22,964 $22,964 $23,442 $23,935 $24,443 *Revenue: $55,328 $56,439 $55,744 $55,048 $54,353 (w/ .50 daily cost increase) Profit (Subsidy): $32,364 $33,475 $32,302 $31,113 $29,910 *Mat Racer is not currently included in the Base project and is listed as an Alternate. There are several features that are integral to a facilities ability to break even (or make a few thousand dollars) so that an operational subsidy is not required. Patrons at family aquatic centers often stay longer than at the traditional city pool. This extended stay requires ample shade, concessions, and entertainment. The entertainment is reached by placing the right aquatic play features in and around the pools. Shade can be cases, trees. Page 51 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 A full concession stand is very important. Keeping the patrons hydrated and fed is not only important for them, but a great money maker for the owner. It is also possible to get sponsorships for concession equipment, shade structures and play features. This is a great way to reduce the initial capital expenditure and add play features through fundraising. Some things to consider for a concession area: Possible menu/food options Icee machine Popcorn Nachos with cheese Hot pretzels Hot dogs Assorted candy bars Pizza by the slice Bagged chips Bottled beverages Assorted ice cream products !00%.$)8 !$ 7%4 $%#+ Examples Page 52 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 3¯± ¸ 0 £ 7¤³ $¤¢ª (® %·¨²³¨¦ 3¨³¤) Details Demolition of Existing Pools Select demo in bathhouse Deck demolition New 1,200 s.f. Spray Pad/Wet Deck Removal of fencing Recirculation system In-fill Existing Pool Embedded spray features Seed/Sod Interactive above ground features Clean-out Mechanical building Fencing around Spray Pad/Wet Deck Page 53 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 !00%.$)8 B.%!2"9 !15!4)# &!#),)49 ).&/ # ²¢ £¤ " ¸ % ¦ þ -. Page 54 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 /«£ -¤¬®±¨ « 0®®« .®±³§¥¨¤«£þ -. Page 55 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 ( ²³¨¦² & ¬¨«¸ !°´ ³¨¢ #¤³¤± ( ²³¨¦²þ -. Page 56 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 !¯¯«¤ 6 ««¤¸ & ¬¨«¸ !°´ ³¨¢ #¤³¤± !¯¯«¤ 6 ««¤¸þ -. Page 57 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 !00%.$)8 C0//, #/--)44%% -%%4).' -).54%3 -¤¤³¨¦ p Farmington, MN Minutes December 10, 2013, 7 p.m. Attendees: Tom Schaffer, Ryan Johnson, Randy Distad, Lois Lotze, Todd Larson, Missie Kohlbeck, Gene Spars, Colm Griffin, Amy Pellicci, Jeremy Pire Goals/Expectations : Open format, no right or wrong Current pool has issues find a solution City subsidy to be same or less than current level Accessible/functional for all ages groups Proper size to accommodate future needs Affordable rates Existing Facility : Discussed existing conditions Presented areas of concern Probable cost estimates for necessary repair work Consensus was to pursue a new facility rather than major repairs to existing Aquatic Needs/Wants: Discussion of design features/elements Possibility of hosting swim meets Desire for a Signature Attraction and a facility that draws patrons in Amenities for all ages Next Meeting: Cost of demolition Possibility of re-use/re-purposing existing equipment/features, etc. Refining needs vs. wants for the new facility Discussion of Signature Features/Attractions Funding options Page 58 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 -¤¤³¨¦ p Farmington, MN Minutes January 15, 2014, 7 p.m. Attendees: Tom Schaffer, Ryan Johnson, Randy Distad, Lois Lotze, Missie Kohlbeck, Gene Spars, Colm Griffin, Amy Pellicci, Jeremy Pire Absent: Todd Larson Re-cap of Minutes from Meeting #1 Discussion on Existing Facility: Cost of demolition Possible re-useable equipment identified (1M & 3M boards, chemical controllers, wading pool heater, shade umbrellas, mechanical building, re-purpose bathhouse, redwood from bathhouse, *drop-slide removed from list and ADA lift added) Discussion of re-purposing existing site as a spray park/wet deck utilizing existing mechanical building for equipment. Fence around area. Images to be included at next meeting. Covered Features/Signature Features Continuation of Aquatic Needs/Wants: Needs: outdoor facility, lap swimming, 6-lane x 25yd, area for swimming lessons, diving, aqua aerobics, wading area, shallow and deep water, stairs, recessed steps with handrails, zero depth entry, grassy area, concession area with seating. Wants: aquatic climbing wall (to remain fixed), shade islands, floating feature, shade structures, at least one signature feature, lazy river, waterslides 1 open and 1 closed and 1 kiddie, interactive water spray features, floor bubblers geysers, party area rentals, lockers on deck, community space rental area-warming house in winter, heated restrooms, separate staff lockers and shower area, external restrooms, family change room, 8 foot fence, security cameras and lighting, Signature Features to pursue: mat racer w/ slide start & lazy river with rapids option, inner tube slide into lazy river, rough-in for waterslide lighting, floor picnic area nearby, deck side showers and external concession window. Discussion on Funding: Will likely be done thru referendum City Finance person may attend next meeting Next Meeting: Preliminary concept pieces Preliminary timelines Preliminary budgets Page 59 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 -¤¤³¨¦ p Farmington, MN Minutes February 11, 2014, 7 p.m. Attendees: Tom Schaffer, Ryan Johnson, Russ Lane, Randy Distad, Lois Lotze, Missie Kohlbeck, Gene Spars, Colm Griffin, Amy Pellicci, Jeremy Pire, Todd Larson -Re-cap of Minutes from Meeting #2 -Additional Discussion of Needs and Wants -Presentation of Preliminary Design Concepts: Bathhouse Concept Design Concept 1 Design Concept 2 Design Concept 3 - Feedback on Design Concepts: Want lap pool closer to bathhouse Move rapids from Concept-1 to SE corner, remove second shallow water connection to lazy river Show tube/mat storage areas Keep lap pool separate from other pool(s) th Mat Racer along 195 Show remaining parking lot layout 2 Bodies of water in case of shut down Show shade island in shallow water Move climb wall to south to avoid visual obstruction Concession access from outside of facility Show community/party room Estimates for staffing on revised concept -Next Meeting: th March 19 Page 60 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 -¤¤³¨¦ p Farmington, MN Minutes Meeting #4 March 19, 2014, 7 p.m. Attendees: Tom Schaffer, Ryan Johnson, Russ Lane, Randy Distad, Lois Lotze, Missie Kohlbeck, Gene Spars, Amy Pellicci, Jeremy Pire, Todd Larson Absent: Colm Griffin -Re-cap of Minutes from Meeting #3 -Review of Design Concepts 1-3 -Presentation of Design Concept 4 and 4R -Feedback on most recent Design Concepts Concept 4 voted on to move forward with Liked Mat Racer separated from rapids & Additional slides Discussion regarding Tiger Sharks request for a 50M pool additional cost to modify lap pool to 50M would be approx. $1M. Decision was made to show 50M pool as future addition No Vortex Pool as shown in Lazy River on 4R Further reduce concrete areas Decision to keep water walk area Liked cul-de-sac style picnic/rental area shown on Concept 4 -Preliminary Cost Estimate Request to further define areas Goal of committee to be under $10M 3 existing shade structures from existing facility can be re-used Shade trellis structures moved to alternate column -Construction Timeline Discussion Discussion to present to Council and Park & Rec. Commission next, prior to any public forum/presentation to confirm necessary support is there Possible referendum on November ballot -Additional Discussion Consideration of project including ball fields Decision made to pursue renovation of existing pool to include spray park at a later date and not as part of this project -Next Meeting: th April 16 Draft version of report will be present to committee for approval Page 61 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 -¤¤³¨¦ p Farmington, MN Minutes Meeting #5 April 16, 2014, 7 p.m. Attendees: Tom Schaffer, Ryan Johnson, Randy Distad, Lois Lotze, Gene Spars, Jeremy Pire, Todd Larson Absent: Colm Griffin, Missie Kohlbeck, Amy Pellicci -Re-cap of Minutes from Meeting #4 and Staff Level meeting -Review of Design Concepts 5A and 5B -Feedback on most recent Design Concepts Consensus to make final revisions to Concept 5B Body slides in place of inner tube slide Further reduce concrete areas Water walk structure cost should be in base bid, feature/floatables in alternate Less shade structures in grass areas, more on deck Add curves to Lazy River design Add secondary doors to public access restrooms/center on wall -Preliminary Cost Estimate 3 existing shade structures from existing facility can be re-used Diving boards re-used Move inner-tube slide to alternate Add open flume slide to base, check on possibility of moving enclosed slide also - Spray Park Concept Plan and Cost Estimate Concept plan showing orientation and play features for a $370,000 spray park at the existing pool site - Timeline Discussion Discussion on timeline of design thru construction completion and pool opening in June 2016 if a referendum was held in November 2014 - Additional Discussion Randy working on obtaining updated cost numbers on the larger sports field project -Next Meeting: Next meeting May 20th Revised Final Concept to be sent for approval/review Draft version of report will be sent and covered at May meeting th June 11 present to Council and Park & Rec. Commission at workshop Page 62 of 63 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN Farmington Municipal Swimming Pool Assessment and Project Study June 13, 2014 -¤¤³¨¦ p Farmington, MN Minutes Meeting #6 th May 20, 2014, 7 p.m. Attendees: Tom Schaffer, Russ Lane, Randy Distad, Gene Spars, Amy Pellicci, Colm Griffin, and Council Member Doug Bonar (in absence of Mayor Todd Larson) Absent: Missie Kohlbeck, Jeremy Pire, Lois Lotze and Ryan Johnson - Re-cap of Minutes from Meeting #5 - Review of Updated Design Concept - Review of Updated Budget Estimate - Slide Layout 1 & 2 Slide Layout 2 selected Want wider stairs to accommodate 2 lines - Summary of the 5 Options Do Nothing Repairs Renovate & Expand Spray Park New Facility -Additional Discussion In report show admission at $5 Include Park & Rec. survey info from 2010 Show attendance/revenue from Mat Racer if added Update 2013 expenses th June 11 Council meeting !00%.$)8 D02%3%26% #/34 %34)-!TE 2014 0 ±ª #®²³ %²³¨¬ ³¤ Page 63 of 63 Jim Bell Park Farmington, Minnesota Preliminary Cost Estimate: based on August 17, 2007 draft master plan Prepared by Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. updated June 2, 2014 DescriptionQty.UnitUnit priceTotals CORE PARK LAND - 32 Acres General Site Improvements 1 LS$ 310,000 site preparation and rough grading$310,000 1 LS$ 52,000 finish grading$52,000 primary park sign and associated landscaping 2 Each$ 3,500 $7,000 general park lighting 1LS$ 25,800 $25,800 subtotal$394,800 Landscaping Landscaping (trees, shrubs) 1 LS$ 105,000 $105,000 turf seeding allowance for park area (excluding play field areas) 18 AC$ 3,600 $64,800 irrigation (non-field related) 1 LS$ 42,000 $42,000 subtotal$211,800 Vehicular Circulation & Parking park access road to parking lots 700 LF$ 110 $77,000 park access road to Aquatic facility parking lots 300 LF$ 110 $33,000 parking lot at Aquatic Facility- over flow 120 perstall$ 1,300 $156,000 parking lot at Aquatic Facility (bituminous with concrete curbing) 60 perstall$ 1,300 $78,000 parking lot (bituminous with concrete curbing) 330 perstall$ 1,300 $429,000 parking lot lighting (assume 9 poles) 1 LS$ 45,000 $45,000 parking lot lighting (assume 2 poles) - Aquatic additional parking 1 LS$ 10,000 $10,000 parking lot storm sewer allowance 1 LS$ 100,000 $100,000 subtotal$928,000 Pedestrian Circulation 8' bituminous trails inside park 3,800 LF$ 28 $106,400 8' bituminous trails along Deerbrooke Path Rd 1,250 LF$ 28 $35,000 subtotal$141,400 Site structures concession and restroom building with paver walk 1LS$ 225,000 $225,000 equipment storage shed (1,200 SF) 1 LS$ 80,000 $80,000 subtotal$305,000 Picnic Areas/site furnishings large shelter 1 LS$ 55,000 $55,000 small picnic pavilion 1 LS$ 35,000 $35,000 park benches 6Each$ 1,000 $6,000 waste receptacles 8Each$ 700 $5,600 bike racks 1Each$ 600 $600 picnic tables 20 EA$ 1,000 $20,000 grills 12 EA$ 700 $8,400 water source/drinking fountain/spigot 2 EA$ 12,000 $24,000 subtotal$154,600 Ball fields youth ballfield 200'-240'' foul line including: outfield and foul line fencing, dugouts, skinned infield, pitch elect. 5 EA$215,000$1,075,000 turf care, irrigation, bleachers, batting cage 2 EA$6,200$12,400 subtotal$1,087,400 Soccer/Lacrosse fields Approx 225x360 turf area, striped for game, irrigation, turf prep 2 EA$155,000$310,000 subtotal$310,000 Basketball Court full court basketball including 2 hoops and player's benches 1 LS$ 17,500 $17,500 subtotal$17,500 Playground 1 LS$ 25,000 small 2-5 yr Play area at ballfields, safety mulch, installation$25,000 2-5 yr Play equipment, safety mulch, installation 1 LS$ 45,000 $45,000 5-12 yr Play equipment, safety mulch, installation 1 LS$ 75,000 $75,000 conc. play container edger 800 LF$ 20 $16,000 subtotal$161,000 Lighting 1 LS$ 25,000 general park lighting (playgound, picnic, path) assume 5 lights$25,000 parking lot lighting (assume 15 poles) 1 LS$ 55,000 $55,000 youth baseball lighting (5 fields) 5 EA FLD$ 70,000 $350,000 soccer/La crosse lighting (1 fields) 1 EA FLD$ 90,000 $90,000 subtotal$520,000 HOCKEY PARK - 4 acres 1 LS$ 38,000 site preparation and rough grading$38,000 1 LS$ 7,000 finish grading$7,000 hockey rink/ boards 1 LS$ 25,000 $25,000 hockey rink / boards / inline floor 1 LS$ 75,000 $75,000 warming house / shelter 1 LS$ 90,000 $90,000 picnic tables 2 EA$ 1,000 $2,000 grills 1 EA$ 530 $530 park benches 2Each$ 930 $1,860 waste receptacles 1Each$ 500 $500 bike racks 1Each$ 530 $530 primary park sign and associated landscaping 1 Each$ 3,400 $3,400 secondary park sign 1 Each$ 900 $900 general park lighting (playgound, picnic, path) assume 4 lights 1 LS$ 20,000 $20,000 Hockey lighting (2 rinks) 2 EA RINK$ 30,000 $60,000 bituminous trails 1,050 LF$ 24 $25,200 20 stall parking lot 20 perstall$ 1,150 $23,000 parking lot storm sewer allowance 1 LS$ 10,000 $10,000 1 LS$ 30,000 2-5 yr Play area , safety mulch, installation$30,000 conc. play container edger 100 LF$ 18 $1,800 turf seeding allowance for park area (excluding play field areas) 4 AC$ 3,500 $12,250 landscaping (trees) 1 LS$ 16,000 $16,000 subtotal$442,970 1 LS$ 500,000 Safe crossing of Future Diamond Path Road (underpass)$500,000 Construction subtotal$5,174,470 15% construction contingency$776,171 Construction total$5,950,641 Design and Engineering Soft Costs (12% of construction)$714,077 Phase 1 Total$6,664,717 POTENTIAL PARK LAND (NE of Deerbrooke Path) - 12 acres General Improvements 1 LS$ 114,000 site preparation and rough grading$114,000 1 LS$ 20,000 finish grading$20,000 primary park sign and associated landscaping 1 Each$ 3,400 $3,400 secondary park sign 1 Each$ 900 $900 6 AC$ 3,500 turf seeding allowance for park area (excluding play field areas)$21,000 landscaping (trees) 1 LS$ 38,000 $38,000 subtotal$197,300 Pedestrian Circulation 8' bituminous trails inside park 1,400 LF$ 28 $39,200 8' bituminous trails along Deerbrooke Path Rd 1,150 LF$ 28 $32,200 subtotal$71,400 Vehicular Circulation & Parking 220 stall parking lot 200 perstall$ 1,150 $230,000 parking lot storm sewer allowance 1 LS$ 60,000 $60,000 subtotal$290,000 Picnic Areas shelter 1 LS$ 50,600 $50,600 picnic tables 4 EA$ 1,000 $4,000 grills 2 EA$ 530 $1,060 waste receptacles 2Each$ 500 $1,000 water source/drinking fountain/spigot 1 EA$ 10,000 $10,000 subtotal$66,660 Soccer/Lacrosse fields approx 225x360 turf area, striped for game, irrigation, turf prep. 3 EA$150,000$450,000 subtotal$450,000 Lighting general park lighting ( trail, picnic, play ground - assume 2 poles) 1 LS$ 10,000 $10,000 parking lot lighting (assume 10 poles) 1LS$ 30,000 $30,000 soccer/ la crosse lighting (3 fields) 3 EA FLD$ 90,000 $270,000 subtotal$310,000 Construction subtotal (does not include land acquisition cost)$1,385,360 15% construction contingency$207,804 Construction total$1,593,164 Design and Engineering Soft Costs (12% of construction)$191,180 Potential Park Expansion Total$1,784,344