Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
[07] Water Amenity Committee Report
USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 Executive Summary 3³ ³¤¬¤³ ®¥ Understanding The City of St. Joseph has funds available for recreational projects from the sales tax extension that was approved in November of 2014. Currently there are no aquatic amenities (pools/splash pads) within the City of St. Joseph and a number of residents have expressed interest in a project that includes either a pool or splash pad a water amenity of some variety. An aquatic feasibility study is clearly warranted to determine what would best meet the needs of the aquatic community. The goal of this study is to aid the City Council in the making of important decisions regarding a potential aquatic facility/venue in St. Joseph. 3¢®¯¤ ®¥ 3³´£¸ The scope of this study covers the following areas of the facility: Community Survey Site Identification Site Selection Provide Options for Potential Facility Revenue/Expense Projections Staffing Projections Compliance with new Federal and State Main Drain Laws Compliance with new Americans with Disabilities Act Laws 3³´£¸ Criteria The criteria used in our assessment include: Community Survey results Input from Water Amenity Committee 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 to help determine community aquatic needs )³¤³ ®¥ Report The intent is to present a summary of aquatic wants and needs for the City of St. Joseph including factors affecting patron usage, revenue potentials, and expenses associated with the operation and management of the aquatic facility. Summary USAquatics has met with the Water Amenity Committee on seven different occasions to discuss the feasibility of an outdoor aquatic amenity in St. Joseph. St. Joseph has the exciting opportunity to bring an aquatic facility to the City, which can be largely funded with the recent sales tax extension that ear-marks funds for recreational projects, parks, trails, etc. The Water Amenity Committee and USAquatics agreed on the importance of the Community Survey to assist with the process of developing a plan that best suits the City and those who call St. Joseph home. The survey was provided on-line, as well as, in paper copy for those who may not have had access to a computer. All results from the survey timeframe were included in the results. Surveys were also distributed to students at the College of St. Benedict. Page 2 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 823 surveys were completed, which accounts for 7.9% of the population based on 2010 census estimates. In all, the surveys completed reflected a rather accurate cross-section of the age demographic when compared with census demographics. This was important in order to insure results were not skewed with certain age groups not being properly represented. As part of this feasibility study, USAquatics personnel led a presentation and subsequent discussion on aquatic needs vs. wants. When determining needs vs. wants the Water Amenity Committee took into account survey results as well as their thoughts on what most reflected the needs and wants of the Community as a whole. As a group, a decision was made that having an outdoor Family Aquatic Center that drew in outside visitors from the region would be more beneficial to the City than a smaller City pool, smaller in size with fewer amenities. Based on the information gathered from the Community Survey, meetings with the Water Amenity Committee and working as a group thru the needs vs. wants analysis USAquatics developed three concepts that included design options and amenities as identified through the previous processes. Likes and dislikes th were discussed for each concept and a 4 Hybrid design option was created based on the feedback from the Committee. In addition to design meetings, the Committee and USAquatics took several potential sites into consideration. Each potential site was discussed in detail, then scored by each member of the Committee and USAquatics personnel. The Hybrid design option was created and revised based on feedback to create the Final Proposed Design Concept. This final concept was overlaid onto an aerial image of each potential site to better allow Committee members to visualize site layout work well on each potential site. At the request of the committee an additional vacant site was added to the facility. The proposed outdoor Family Aquatic Center has 3 separate bodies of water. The Committee chose to keep these bodies of water separate to eliminate a total pool closure in the event of an accident. A large zero-depth entry Splash Pool for younger patrons and includes: in-ground spray features, a family slide, multiple above ground play features, interactive play features, in-pool areas of shade and bench seating. The Lap Pool consists of 4-lanes of 25 yard swimming along with 1M & 3M diving, an alcove for an aquatic climbing wall, 2-lanes of 25 meter swimming with a zip-line feature above. The Lazy River extends around the perimeter of the Plunge or waterslide landing area that supports three waterslides (inner tube slide, enclosed body slide and open flume slide). The facility also includes a bathhouse sized to accommodate the bather load of 600 persons. In addition to a Mens and Womens change room, there are two dedicated family change rooms all of which are ADA accessible. The bathhouse building also has a mechanical room for pool equipment and at the opposite end concessions and covered seating areas. Base Project: Includes site work necessary for construction, Lap Pool, Splash Pool, Lazy River with Plunge Area and all embedded features. Recirculation & Operating systems for all pools. Complete Bathhouse, associated flat work, fencing, sod, shade structure anchors, in-ground feature piping, general conditions, site survey, soils testing, State health review, contingency, Professional fees & Construction Management. See page 30 for additional breakdown of preliminary probable cost estimate. Estimated Base Project Cost: $4,006,123 Estimated Base Project Cost + Alternates: $4,190,630 Estimated Base Project Cost + Alternates + Fundraising: $5,423,007 Estimated Base Project Cost + Alternates + Fundraising + City Expense: $6,144,507 Page 3 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 4 ¡«¤ ®¥ #®³¤³² 3%#4)/. /.%Ȁ #/--5.)49 3526%9 ..................................................................................................... 6 Survey Process ................................................................................................................................................ 6 3%#4)/. 47/Ȁ #/--5.)49 3526%9 2%35,43 ................................................................................ 6 Summary of Results ........................................................................................................................................ 6 3%#4)/. 4(2%%Ȁ 3)4% SELECTION....................................................................................................... 14 Site #1 ........................................................................................................................................................... 15 Site #2 ........................................................................................................................................................... 15 Site #3 ........................................................................................................................................................... 16 Site #4 ........................................................................................................................................................... 16 Site #5 ........................................................................................................................................................... 17 Site #6 ........................................................................................................................................................... 17 Site #7 ........................................................................................................................................................... 18 Site #8 ........................................................................................................................................................... 18 Site #9 ........................................................................................................................................................... 19 Site #10 ......................................................................................................................................................... 19 Site Scoring Matrix ........................................................................................................................................ 20 Site Selection Summary................................................................................................................................. 21 Site #8R ......................................................................................................................................................... 21 3%#4)/. &/52Ȁ $%-/'2APHICS ......................................................................................................... 22 Census Information ....................................................................................................................................... 22 3%#4)/. &)6%Ȁ .%7 !15!4)# &!#),)49 !.!,YSIS...................................................................... 23 Primary Service Area ..................................................................................................................................... 23 Secondary Service Area (20-30 miles) ............................................................................................................ 24 3%#4)/. 3)8Ȁ 02%,)-).!29 $%3)'. #/.#%04S ........................................................................... 25 Concept - 1 .................................................................................................................................................... 25 Concept - 2 .................................................................................................................................................... 26 Concept - 3 .................................................................................................................................................... 27 Hybrid Concept ............................................................................................................................................. 28 3%#4)/. 3%6%.Ȁ &).!, DESIGN ............................................................................................................ 29 Proposed Concept ......................................................................................................................................... 29 Proposed Concept on Selected Site ............................................................................................................... 30 Proposed Staffing Plan .................................................................................................................................. 30 Proposed Concept Estimate .......................................................................................................................... 31 Preliminary Project Timeline ......................................................................................................................... 32 Proposed Facility Projections ........................................................................................................................ 33 Projected Attendance Revenue (by average of results) ................................................................................. 34 Estimated Budget Expenditures .................................................................................................................... 35 Estimated Revenue vs. Expense .................................................................................................................... 35 !00%.$)8 !Ȁ .%!2"9 !15!4)# &!#),)49 ).&/ ............................................................................ 36 Foley Municipal Pool Foley, MN ................................................................................................................. 36 APP%.$)8 "Ȁ !15!4)# !-%.)49 #/--)44%% -%%4).' -).54%3 ....................................... 37 Page 4 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 Meeting #1: ................................................................................................................................................... 37 Meeting #2: ................................................................................................................................................... 37 Meeting #3: ................................................................................................................................................... 38 Meeting #4: ................................................................................................................................................... 38 Meeting #5: ................................................................................................................................................... 39 Meeting #6: ................................................................................................................................................... 39 Meeting #7: ................................................................................................................................................... 40 !00%.$)8 #Ȁ 3!-0,% #/--5.)49 3526%9 lj 2%35,43 ............................................................ 41 Page 5 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 SEC4)/. ONE: #/--5.)49 3526%9 3´±µ¤¸ 0±®¢¤²² USAquatics worked directly with members of the Water Amenity Committee to create a Community Survey to gauge Community interest and support for Water Amenity in St. Joseph. The following is a list of survey details/goals the Committee decided on: Survey available on-line for ease of tallying responses Survey available in paper format for those without access to computers/internet 16 key questions on a maximum of 2 pages A two week survey period to be extended pending number of responses Goal of responses accurately reflecting Community demographics Questions regarding importance and priority that should be placed on a Water Amenity Frequency of patron use Desired amenities/features Based on the population (2010) of 6,234 a total of 363 survey responses were required to be able say data received was statistically valid with a 95% confidence level and a degree of accuracy of +/- 5%. *A sample copy of the Community Survey and Results can be found in Appendix C. SEC4)/. 47/Ȁ #/--5.)49 3526%9 2%35,43 3´¬¬ ±¸ ®¥ 2¤²´«³² A total of 823 surveys were completed within the timeframe provided 70% said the Priority should be Very High (16%), High (25%) or Medium (29%) 76% felt Aquatic Recreation was Very Important (37%) or Somewhat Important (39%) Over half (55%) reported utilizing facilities in other communities Recreational swimming was the #1 response for utilizing other facilities (79%) Over 56 unique facilities were listed as venues visited 52% said they would visit their desired facility Daily (3%), Once per week (15%) or Several times per week (32%) Main benefits provided: Recreation/Play Areas (75%), Teach people to swim (51%) Features utilized if provided: Waterslides (72%), Lazy River (65%), Shaded Seating (63%), Lap Swim area/Zero-Depth area (47%), Tot slide/Spray Features (43%) 78% felt a facility should be geared toward Families Over half (52%) were in favor of utilizing the sales tax extension, Bonding (28%), None (20%) Page 6 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 Household location: 439 214 170 In City LimitsOutside City LimitsPT Resident (College) Household Demographics: 25% 24% 23% 22% 20% 15% 13% 12% 11%11% Under 55-910-1415-1920-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465+ Page 7 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 Household Size: 35% 29% 30% 26% 25% 20% 16% 15% 12% 12% 10% 6% 5% 0% 123455+ City Priority: Don't Know 6% None 9% Low 14% Medium 29% High 25% Very High 16% 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35% Page 8 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 Importance of Aquatic Recreation: 3% 21% 37% 39% Very ImportantSomewhat ImportantVery UnimportantNo Answer Use of Facilities Outside of St. Joseph: 45% 55% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% NoYes Page 9 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 Reasons for Going Elsewhere: Other 14% Training 11% Exercise 48% Sun Bathing 21% Therapy Use 4% Location 22% Recreational Swimming 79% Swim Lessons 42% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90% Primary Use: 60% 56% 47% 50% 45%45%45% 42% 37% 40% 34% 28% 30% 22% 20% 16% 11% 10% 0% Page 10 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 Frequency of Use at Other Facilities: 25% 23% 22% 19% 20% 18% 15% 15% 10% 5% 3% 0% DailyOnce perSeveral x per1-2 x perSeveral x perNever WeekWeekMonthMonth Frequency of Use at Desired Facility: 35% 32% 30% 25% 20% 17% 16% 15%15% 15% 10% 5% 5% 0% DailyOnce perSeveral x per1-2 x perSeveral x perNever WeekWeekMonthMonth Page 11 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 Main Benefits to be Provided: 80% 75% 70% 60% 51% 50% 45%45% 42% 40% 30% 20% 7% 10% 0% Recreation/PlayTeach People toPlace to SocializeAquatic ExerciseBring CityDon't Know AreasSwimRevenue Features Utilized if Provided: Shaded Seating 63% Concessions 40% Lap Swim Area 47% Drop Slides 32% Lazy River 65% Waterslides 72% Diving Boards 41% Climb Wall 37% Tot Slide/Spray Features 43% Zero-Depth Area 47% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80% Page 12 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 Facility Geared Toward: 16% 37% 20% 56% 78% 33% 23% Pre-School AgeGrade School AgeTeenagersCollege Students FamiliesAdultsSenior Adults Funding: 20% 52% 28% Sales Tax ExtensionReferendum -BondingNone *A complete list of Community Survey results can be found in Appendix C. Page 13 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 3%#4)/. 4HREE: 3)4% 3%,%#4)/. Ten sites were identified as potential locations for an Aquatic Venue. The sites were visited by members of City Staff, as well as USAquatics Personnel and members of the Water Amenity Committee. Essential utilities, zoning/restrictions, non-toxic, and whether the site was within a wetland or not. Sites were also assigned a Non-Essential Bonus the following areas: geology, topography, vegetation and orientation. Sites were graded on a scale of 0-5 with a score of 5 being optimal and zero being not possible. Page 14 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 3¨³¤ Ͱΐ 3¨³¤ ͰΑ Page 15 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 3¨³¤ ͰΒ 3¨³¤ ͰΓ Page 16 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 3¨³¤ ͰΔ 3¨³¤ ͰΕ Page 17 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 3¨³¤ ͰΖ 3¨³¤ #8 Page 18 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 3¨³¤ ͰΘ 3¨³¤ ͰΐΏ Page 19 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 3¨³¤ 3¢®±¨¦ - ³±¨· Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Essential: *Size 5 5 5 5 1 *Cost 1 3 3 3 3 *Location 5 3 3 3 4 Utilities 1 5 5 5 5 Zoning/restrictions 5 5 5 5 5 Non-Toxic 3 5 5 5 5 Not a wetland 5 5 5 5 5 Near Essential *Access 2 0 4 4 5 *Visibility 5 2 2 4 5 Bonus Geology 5 5 5 5 5 Topography 5 5 5 5 5 Vegetation 3 4 3 3 3 *Orientation 5 3 2 3 3 Total 50 50 52 55 54 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10 Essential: - - *Size 4 5 - 2 - *Cost 2 4 - 4 - *Location 5 3 - 5 - Utilities 2 5 - 5 - Zoning/restrictions 5 5 - 5 - Non-Toxic 5 5 - 3 - Not a wetland 5 5 - 5 - Near Essential - - *Access 5 3 - 5 - *Visibility 5 3 - 4 - Bonus - - Geology 5 5 - 3 - Topography 5 5 - 5 - Vegetation 4 3 - 3 - *Orientation 5 4 - 3 - Total 57 55 N/A 52 N/A *Site #8 and Site #10 were removed from the site selection processed as possible facility sites due to the low lying swampy areas and estimated cost associated with soils corrections and related work. Site #8 was also removed as Elm Ct. may be extended thru that site at some point in the future. No scores were assigned for any categories for either site. Page 20 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 3¨³¤ 3election Summary Based on the above Site Scoring Matrix, Site #6 ranked as the most desired site with 57 points. Site #4 and Site #7 tied as the second most desired location with 55 points each. The proposed aquatic facility as created by the Water Amenity Committee was then shown overlaid on each of the top three sites to show pool, bathhouse and parking orientation on the selected sites. After much deliberation Site #6 was removed from the list. Despite the optimal location of Site #6 with close proximity to CR75 it was decided that the proposed aquatic facility would not be feasible at that location due to associated land purchase costs. Site #7 was also removed from further consideration at a potential site for the proposed aquatic facility. Factors cited were: location and likelihood main access roads would not be extended resulting in traffic issues. At the request of the Water Amenity Committee a new site located near Site #8 was considered as a potential site. The new site, #8R, is located directly north from Site #8 and is 31.55 acres in size. The land is currently available and the Committee felt Site #8R provided a number of advantages including: Lower purchase cost Ample room for future expansion/other use (i.e. community center, park areas, trails, etc.) Close proximity to controlled intersection at CR75/Elm Street High visibility on Highway 133 It was for these reasons that Site #8R moved to the top of the list of potentials sites, followed by Site #4. 3¨³¤ ͰΗ2 Page 21 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 3%#4)/. &/52Ȁ $%-/'2!0()#3 #¤²´² )¥®±¬ ³¨® Total Population: 6,534 (2010) Households: 1,845 Families residing within the city: 1,184 Families with children under 18 = 33.3% Population distribution by age: 17 & under 17.1% o 18-24 37.7% o 25-44 22.3% o 45-64 15.1% o 65+ 7.9% o 2010 Census Demographics 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0-1718-2425-4445-6465+ When analyzing the estimated 2010 St. Joseph Census information the following information was determined: The highest percentage of the population is those between the ages of 18-24 at 37.7%. The o second highest age range is 25-44 which accounted for 22.3% 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 2242 Page of USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 3%#4)/. FIVE: .%7 !15!4)# &!#),)49 ANALYSIS The following are approximate construction costs for outdoor facilities constructed or designed within the past several years that have populations similar or smaller than that of St. Joseph. These numbers should be used for planning purposes only as a guide in determining the relative cost of a new facility. City: Population: Approx. Budget: Year Built: Stewartville 5,916 $2,800,000 2006 Redwood falls 5,253 $3,600,000 2008 Sleepy Eye 3,524 $2,200,000 2009 Gaylord 2,307 $3,400,000 2009 La Crescent 4,860 $2,400,000 2010 Kasson 6,006 $3,200,000 2012 Madison 1,551 $2,700,000 2014 Chamberlain, SD 2,387 $3,200,000 2014 Caledonia 2,868 $2,500,000 2015 Byron 4,965 $5,300,000 2016? 0±¨¬ ±¸ 3¤±µ¨¢¤ !±¤ Page 23 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 3¤¢®£ ±¸ 3¤±µ¨¢¤ !±¤ (20-3Ώ ¬¨«¤²ȩ Page 24 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 3%#4)/. SIXȀ 02%,)-).!29 $%3)'. #/.#%043 #®¢¤¯³ - 1 Three bodies of water Zero depth entry Splash Area 6 lane Lap Pool Family slide/play features 1M & 3M diving Shade structures & Rental tents Climbing wall In-pool bench seating Lazy River Dry play area Inner tube water slide Lawn areas Enclosed body slide Bathhouse Open flume slide Page 25 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 #®¢¤¯³ - 2 Two bodies of water Zero depth entry Splash Area 4 lane Lap Pool Tot slide Climbing wall Water walk/Floatables Activity area within Lazy River Shade structures & Rental tents Inner tube water slide Sun deck/In-pool shade Enclosed body slide Lawn areas/Sand volleyball Open flume slide Bathhouse Page 26 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 #®¢¤¯³ - 3 Two bodies of water Open flume slide 4 lane Lap Pool Zero depth entry Splash Area 1M & 3M diving Tot slide Climbing wall Shade structures & Rental tents Activity area within Lazy River Sun deck Inner tube water slide Lawn areas Enclosed body slide Bathhouse Page 27 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 (¸¡±¨£ #®¢¤¯³ Three bodies of water Zero depth entry Splash Area 6 lane Lap Pool (25yd & 25M) Tot slide/Family slide 1M, 3M diving & Zip line Shade structures & Rental tents Climbing wall Sun deck Activity area within Lazy River Lawn areas Inner tube water slide Bathhouse Enclosed body slide Open flume slide Water Walk Page 28 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 S%#4)/. SEVENȀ FINAL DESIGN 0±®¯®²¤£ Concept Three bodies of water Zero depth entry Splash Area 6 lane Lap Pool (25yd & 25M) Tot slide/Family slide 1M & 3M diving Shade structures & Rental tents Climbing wall Sun deck Activity area within Lazy River Lawn areas Inner tube water slide Bathhouse Enclosed body slide Tube storage Open flume slide Zip line Page 29 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 0±®¯®²¤£ #®¢¤¯³ ® Selected Site 0±®¯®²¤£ Staffing Plan Hours worked Season by %¬¯«®¸¤¤ .´¬¡¤± ®¥ Employee Type Hourly Rate per week Gross Pay Pay Total Weeks Season Total )$ 3³ ¥¥ Aquatics Manger $ 16.25 40.00 1.00 $ 658 $ 658 16.00 $ 10,528 2Assistant Manager $ 14.50 32.00 1.00 $ 464 $ 464 15.00 $ 6,960 3Shift Leads $ 11.50 28.00 4.00 $ 322 $ 1,288 14.00 $ 18,032 Certified Lifeguard 4 $ 10.00 24.00 20.00 $ 240 $ 4,800 13.50 $ 64,800 (WSA) 5Lifeguard $ 9.25 24.00 12.00 $ 222 $ 2,664 13.50 $ 35,964 6Concessions/Admissions $ 8.00 20.00 8.00 $ 160 $ 1,280 13.50 $ 17,280 Labor $ 153,564 Total *Staffing projections are based on an operating swim season of 13 weeks. Open swim hours were estimated at 11am-8pm for 11 weeks, and 11am 5pm for two weeks. Swim lessons and lap swim times were estimated at 9am-11am. The above chart takes into consideration staff training time, swim lessons and open swim. Projections are based on 15 Lifeguards required for coverage, with 2 additional assigned to provide breaks. Special care should be taken to avoid over-staffing, which quickly adds to operational expenses. Page 30 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 0±®¯®²¤£ #®¢¤¯³ Estimate Page 31 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 0±¤«¨¬¨ ±¸ 0±®©¤¢³ 4¨¬¤«¨ne 5897 - 2 7 9 ) 3 6 7 Date 3/19/2015 ( Project St. Joseph Family Aquatic Center 8 2 Last updated 3/19/2015 3 5 5 Preliminary Date scheduled N M Approval of final design concept and preliminary budget by Pool Committee March 12, 2015 , o n Presentation of Study & Recommendation to City Council April 6, 2015 a l e Referendum Campaign April 7 - June 1 D Council Approval of Contracts to prepare DD Documents April 7, 2015 6 8 Construction Documentation/Bid Preparation Date scheduled x o Begin preparation of DD documents April 8, 2015 B . O DD set to Pool Committee April 27, 2015 . P Approval to prepare Construction Documents May 5, 2015 E Complete testing/verification of existing conditions on chosen site May 12, 2015 e v 50% CD progress A May 26, 2015 e set g d i Present 90% Construction documents for review June 23, 2015 r B Present 100% Construction documents for approval and call for bids July 7, 2015 4 2 1 State Health Submittal July 8, 2015 Bidding Main Construction Date scheduled Advertisement for Bids July 8, 2015 Construction Pre-bid meeting July 23, 2015 Release of final addendum July 24, 2015 Bid Date July 30, 2015 Construction Date scheduled Approval of bids and awards of August 4, 2015 contracts Execution of contracts and bonds August 10, 2015 Pre-construction meeting August 11, 2015 Construction Start August 12, 2015 Substantial Completion May 6, 2016 State Inspection May 11, 2016 Final Completion May 20, 2016 Soft Opening May 27, 2016 Grand Opening June 11, 2016 Page 32 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 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 625 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. Admission fees of similar sized facilities: Facility Rates Hours Dates Open River Springs Water Park (Owatonna) $4.50/6.50 Noon 8pm 6/4 9/7 Redwood Falls Aquatic Center $5.00 1:30 8pm 5/22 9/7 Apple Valley Family Aquatic Center $9.00 11:00 8pm 6/7 8/24 Kasson Aquatic Center $5.00 Noon 9pm 5/23 8/28 Gaylord Aquatic Center $5.00 11:30 8pm 6/4 8/28 Edina Aquatic Center $10.00 11:30 8pm 6/6 8/23 After analyzing these similar facilities, we have chosen to remain conservative by basing projections on a 78 day season out of the possible 105 days between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Admission rates are also based on a fee of $6.00 per person. This fee is conservative when compared with other facilities noted above and more importantly the fewer amenities offered at those facilities. " ²¤£ ® " ³§¤± ,® £Ȁ % of Avg. Avg. Number Bather load Daily Users of Daily Users Lap Area 90 60% 54 Multi-Use Area 98 35% 34 Plunge Area 46 25% 12 Splash Area 208 125% 260 Lazy River 158 110% 173 Total 600 533 Projected revenue based on Bather Load: $311,805 $6.00 per day Note: Revenue totals are based on a 78 day season (13 weeks) a rate of in admissions $1.50 per day and an average of in concessions. Page 33 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 " ²¤£ ® #¤²´² Demographic )¥®±¬ ³¨®Ȁ Percent Avg. weekly Revenue City Population participation attendance (weekly) St. Joseph 17 & under 1,117 30% 335 18-24 2,463 20% 493 25-44 1,452 25% 363 45-64 986 2% 20 65+ 516 3% 15 6,534 1,226 $9,195 Stearns County 150,642 .75% 1,129 $8,467 Total 2,355 $17,662 Projected revenue based on Census Demographic Information: $229,606 $6.00 per day Revenue totals are based on a 13 week season and current admission rate of in $1.50 admissions and an average of per day in concessions. 0±®©¤¢³¤£ !³³¤£ ¢¤ 2¤µ¤´¤ Ȩ¡¸ µ¤± ¦¤ ®¥ ±¤²´«³²ȩ Method Result Bather Load $311,805 Census $229,606 Average $270,705 Othe± ±¤µ¤´¤ sources Category Result Party Rentals $4,000 Swim Lessons $10,000 Exercise Class $1,000 Total $15,000 4®³ « ±¤µ¤´¤² «« ²®´±¢¤² Method Result Attendance $270,705 Other $15,000 Total $285,705 Page 34 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 %²³¨¬ ³¤£ "´£¦¤³ %·¯¤£¨³ures Category Budget Salaries $153,564 Supplies $8,500 Concessions purchases $28,500 Pool chemicals $13,000 Uniforms $1,000 Travel, training, meetings $1,250 Telephone/data $500 Utilities $33,000 Building & equipment repairs $2,000 Insurance $5,500 Dues/subscriptions $1,200 Professional services $2,000 Improvements $1,000 Program expense $750 Miscellaneous $2,000 Total $253,764 %²³¨¬ ³¤£ 2¤µ¤´¤ µ²ȁ %·¯¤²¤ Category Result Average Projected Revenue: $285,705 Estimated Operating Expenses: $253,764 Operating Revenue (Subsidy): $31,941 *Estimated Revenue and Expense projections are based on the entire project which includes Base items, all Alternates & Fundraising items. There are several features that are integral to a facilities ability to break even (or make a few thousand dollars) so that an operational subsidy is not required. Patrons at family aquatic centers often stay longer than at the traditional city pool. This extended stay requires ample shade, concessions, and entertainment. The entertainment is reached by placing the right aquatic play features in and around the pools. Shade can be A full concession stand is very important. Keeping the patrons hydrated and fed is not only important for them, but a great money maker for the owner. It is also possible to get sponsorships for concession equipment, shade structures and play features. This is a great way to reduce the initial capital expenditure and add play features through fundraising. Some things to consider for a concession area: Possible menu/food options Icee machine Popcorn Nachos with cheese Hot pretzels Hot dogs Assorted candy bars Pizza by the slice Bagged chips Bottled beverages Assorted ice cream products Page 35 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 !00%.$)8 AȀ .%!2"9 !15!4)# &!#),)49 ).&/ &®«¤¸ -´¨¢¨¯ « 0®®« FoleyǾ -. Page 36 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 !00%.$)8 BȀ !15!4)# !-%.)49 #/--ITTEE -%%4).' -).54%3 -¤¤³¨¦ ͰΐȀ St. Joseph Aquatic Amenity Committee Minutes November 5, 2014 - 6 p.m. Attendees: Tom Schaffer, Ryan Johnson, Judy Weyrens, Travis Moore, Amanda Young, Geri Bechtold, Jen Warnert, Matt Killam, Dale Wick, Terry Thene Absent: Jody Terhaar - Reviewed USAquatics project process - Discussion on Community Survey - Revised survey to be sent to Judy for inclusion in Newsletter, on-line, and available in paper format - Reviewed types of facilities & amenities Next Meeting: Review of Survey Results -¤¤³¨¦ ͰΑȀ St. Joseph Aquatic Amenity Committee Minutes December 3, 2014 - 6 p.m. Attendees: Tom Schaffer, Ryan Johnson, Judy Weyrens, Amanda Young, Geri Bechtold, Jen Warnert, Matt Killam, Terry Thene, Jody Terhaar Absent: Dale Wick, Travis Moore - 259 Surveys completed - Need a minimum of 362 to ensure accuracy - Missing College & young family demographic - Committee Members to send survey to e-mail address book - Addition to City Facebook account - E-mail to be sent to College students - Extending survey deadline by one week Next Meeting: Review Survey Results Identify Potential Sites Page 37 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 -¤¤³¨¦ ͰΒȀ St. Joseph Aquatic Amenity Committee Meeting Minutes December 15, 2014 - 6 p.m. Attendees: Tom Schaffer, Ryan Johnson, Judy Weyrens, Travis Moore, Amanda Young, Geri Bechtold, Matt Killam, Terry Thene Absent: Jen Warnert, Dale Wick, Jody Terhaar - Review of final Survey Results (823 received) - Identified several potential sites - Discussion on site scoring matrix - Discussion on Needs vs. Wants checklist Next Meeting: Site Selection Needs vs. Wants checklist -¤¤³¨¦ ͰΓȀ St. Joseph Aquatic Amenity Committee Meeting Minutes January 13, 2015 - 6 p.m. Attendees: Tom Schaffer, Ryan Johnson, Judy Weyrens, Travis Moore, Geri Bechtold, Jen Warnert, Matt Killam, Dale Wick, Terry Thene, Jody Terhaar Absent: Amanda Young -Discussion and images from identified sites -Site Scoring (#6 57, #4 and #7 55, #5 54, #3 and #9 52, #1 50, #2 45, #8 and #10 were determined to be not feasible to build on). -Aquatic Needs/Wants: Needs: outdoor facility, area for swimming lessons, aqua aerobics, therapy uses, shade islands, splash deck area, wading area, shallow and deep water, lazy river/crazy river, ladders and stairs for access, zero depth entry, flume water slide, inner tube water slide, kiddie slides, water spray features, fountain features, floor bubblers, interactive features, grassy areas, concessions with seating area, rental space, family locker rooms, first aid office, lifeguard station, director office, fencing, and night lighting. Wants: indoor/outdoor facility, lap swimming area, diving well, water basketball/volleyball, aquatic climbing wall and camera system. Page 38 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 -¤¤³¨¦ ͰΔȀ St. Joseph Aquatic Amenity Committee Meeting Minutes February 19, 2015 - 6 p.m. Attendees: Tom Schaffer, Ryan Johnson, Judy Weyrens, Travis Moore, Geri Bechtold, Jen Warnert, Matt Killam, Dale Wick, Terry Thene, Jody Terhaar, Amanda Young Absent: None -Presentation of Concept 1, Concept 2 and Concept 3 -Concept Feedback: Concept 2 identified as desired concept Detach splash area to create separate body of water Flip slide structure and plunge area to inside of lazy river island Show 6-lane lap pool located adjacent to splash pool and lazy river Rental tents, reduce concrete areas, add family & tot slide, add sitting bench to splash pool Next Meeting: March 5 th covering hybrid design concept, preliminary budget and timeline Tom Schaffer to attend City Council meeting on February 23, 2015 -¤¤³¨¦ ͰΕȀ St. Joseph Aquatic Amenity Committee Meeting Minutes March 5, 2015 - 6 p.m. Attendees: Tom Schaffer, Ryan Johnson, Judy Weyrens, Travis Moore, Jen Warnert, Matt Killam, Amanda Young Absent: Geri Bechtold, Dale Wick, Terry Thene, Jody Tehaar -Presentation of Hybrid Design Concept, preliminary budget estimate -Concept Feedback: Add zip-line to lap area, shift 2 lanes to allow for zip-line Scale back lazy river size -Committee to review preliminary budget more prior to next meeting -New Site #8R identified just north of current Site #8 show facility on new site -Judy will look into land costs for the top few sites as identified by committee Next Meeting: March 12 covering hybrid design revisions & budget concerns Page 39 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 -¤¤³¨¦ Ͱ7Ȁ St. Joseph Aquatic Amenity Committee Meeting Minutes March 12, 2015 - 6 p.m. Attendees: Tom Schaffer, Ryan Johnson, Judy Weyrens, Jen Warnert, Matt Killam, Dale Wick, Terry Thene, Amanda Young Absent: Travis Moore, Geri Bechtold, Jody Terhaar -Presentation of Revised Hybrid Design Concept and preliminary budget estimate - -Discussion regarding fundraising -Preliminary Budget to be broken down to base and fundraising categories -New Site 8 and Site 4 identified as sites to pursue for facility -Fundraising starts now Next Meeting: April 6 - Presentation to City Council Page 40 of 42 USA QUATICS INC. AQUATIC CONSULTING & DESIGN St. Joseph Project Study April 6, 2015 !00%.$)8 #Ȁ 3!-0,% #/--5.)49 3526%9 lj 2%35,43 Aquatic Survey Your opinions are very important to the City and responses to this survey are anonymous. Information gathered during this survey process will assist the City in making informed decisions regarding the future of aquatics in St. Joseph. Thank you for taking the time to participate. Please fill out only one survey per format and returned to City Hall. 1.) Household Location: ( ) Reside within St. Joseph City Limits ( ) Reside outside of St. Joseph City Limits ( ) Part-time Resident (College Student) 2.) Age range(s) of those living in your household: ( ) Under age 5 ( ) 25-34 ( ) 5-9 ( ) 35-44 ( ) 10-14 ( ) 45-54 ( ) 15-19 ( ) 55-64 ( ) 20-24 ( ) 65+ 3.) Number of people in your household: ( ) 1 ( ) 4 ( ) 2 ( ) 5 ( ) 3 ( ) 5+ 4.) What priority should the City of St. Joseph place on an Aquatic Facility? ( ) Very high priority ( ) Low priority ( ) High priority ( ) Medium priority ( ) None 5.) How important do you feel it is for St. Joseph to provide aquatic/recreation opportunities for its citizens or visitors? ( ) Very important ( ) Very unimportant ( ) Somewhat important ( ) No answer 6.) outside Do you or any members of your household currently utilize Aquatic Facilities of St. Joseph? ( ) Yes ( ) No 7.) If you answered yes to #6, what nearby Aquatic Facilities have you or members of your household utilized? _________________________________ ________________________________ _________________________________ ________________________________ 8.) For what reason have you most commonly utilize Aquatic Facilities near St. Joseph? Check all that apply: ( ) Swim lessons ( ) Therapy use ( ) Recreational swimming ( ) Sunbathing ( ) Location ( ) Exercise Page 41 of 42 ( ) Training ( ) Other 9.) How often during the swimming season would you say you or members of your household visited these Aquatic Facilities? ( ) Daily ( ) 1-2 times per month ( ) Once per week ( ) Several times a season ( ) Several times per week ( ) Never 10.) What would you say are the primary ways you or members of your household utilize swimming facilities? (select all that apply) ( ) Recreation or play areas for children ( ) Concessions ( ) Swim lessons ( ) Waterslides ( ) Zero depth entry ( ) Lap swim ( ) Aqua climbing wall ( ) Wave pool ( ) A place to socialize with others ( ) Lazy River ( ) Aquatic exercise ( ) A place to cool off 11.) What do you feel is the main benefit public pools and aquatic facilities should provide to citizens and visitors? ( ) Recreation/play areas for children ( ) Aquatic exercise ( ) Teaching people to swim ( ) Bring revenue to St. Joseph ( ) A place to socialize 12.) Of the following features, what would you or members in your household utilize if they were incorporated into a new Aquatic Facility in St. Joseph? (select all that apply) ( ) Zero-depth entry pool w/ shallow area ( ) Lazy River ( ) Tot slide / Spray Features ( ) Drop Slide ( ) Aquatic Climbing wall ( ) Lap swim area/competitive swimming ( ) Diving boards ( ) Concession area ( ) Waterslides ( ) Shaded seating area 13.) How often would you or members of your household utilize a new Aquatic Facility in St. Joseph if the facility offered features you most preferred? ( ) Daily ( ) 1-2 times per month ( ) Once per week ( ) Several times a season ( ) Several times per week ( ) Never 14.) To whom should a new Aquatic Facility and programming be most geared toward? ( ) Pre-school age children ( ) Families ( ) Grade school age children ( ) Adults ( ) Teenagers ( ) Senior adults ( ) College students 15.) If St. Joseph were to build a new Aquatic Facility, which funding method would you be most in favor of to pay for the facility? ( ) Funds from sales tax extension of the project ( ) Referendum - Bonding 16.) Any other comments or suggestions you would like to provide to assist the City Council as they investigate the options regarding the future of aquatics in St. Joseph? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Page 42 of 42 LAZY RIVER $791,750 - 3,750 square foot circular waterway providing the ultimate floating experience using an inner tube. Round and round and round you go. Climbing Wall - $ 40,000 Practice your wall climbing skills and don’t worry, if you fall you plunge into the water. Diving Platforms $ 48,000 - Try your diving skills by jumping off a 1 meter or 3 meter diving board. Arch Jets – Looking to cool off, stroll under the water jets and pretend you are on the beach. Water Activities Shade Island - $ 71,250 Need a break? Not a problem, enjoy sitting and watching the activity under one of many shade areas complete with umbrellas. Zip Line - $ 25,000 Try your flying skills as you swing through the air and drop in the pool. Zero Depth Entry Six Lane Pool & Various Slides