Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2011-05-04 PACKET 00 (6:00 WORKSHOP A)
REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM DATE 5/4/2011 Ak a A4 . PREPARED BY Public Works Les Burshten ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT HEAD COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Workshop: Splashpad Project. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ❑ MEMO /LETTER: Memo from Zac Dockter ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Attachments. ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS 1 L 0 a ra Administrator Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER DocumenQ City of Cotta Grove Minnesota To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Zac Dockter, Parks and Recreation Manager Date: 4/28/11 Subject: Splashpad Project Workshop Introduction At the April 20, 2011 city council meeting, staff presented information on the Cottage Grove Splashpad Study and potential Highlands Park Splashpad Project. Council voted to table the matter to a workshop at the May 5, 2011 council meeting to be able to make a more informed decision. Staff was given direction to provide additional research and supporting data on the subject. Background The council voiced several concerns regarding the splashpad project. Those concerns and requests as understood by staff are as follows: 1. Better understanding of validity of Splashpad Study's bather load data. 2. More thorough explanation of community demographics and how that supports or does not support the defined market areas and user "draw areas" of the splashpad facility. 3. Further information and data to understand current and long -term usage projections of a splashpad in Cottage Grove. 4. More thorough explanation of the impact this project might have on a splashpad located at a future community center. 5. More thorough understanding of how splashpad usage would compare to pool usage. 6. More thorough explanation of the negative impacts this large project expense may have on future park and facility projects. Staff has spent the last week compiling information in an effort to address many of these concerns. Where applicable, hard data was sought and reported but in many cases where data is not available more intangible evidence will be presented to further understand impacts of the project. Below are the findings of the additional research. Splashpad Study's Bather Load Data The Splashpad Study's author Jim Maland was asked to explain in more detail the validity and meaning of the bather load data described in the study. Jim has provided the written report included in Appendix A and will also be available at the workshop to further explain his reasoning and answer questions the council may have. Market Area and Community Demographics The study clearly identifies a primary and secondary service area. Service areas were determined by understanding current aquatic facility opportunities in each of the service areas. The primary service area is identified as the Cottage Grove city boundaries. The secondary service area extends into St. Paul Park, Newport, southern Woodbury, Denmark Township and northern Hastings. Within both service areas, there are several public and private indoor pools. One outdoor pool exists in the city of Hastings. Hence, the report suggests that a splashpad sized large enough to accommodate a large volume of users will likely draw non- residents into the community for this unique outdoor aquatic experience. Service area identification was also supported with nearly identical boundaries in the studies presented by Ballard & King and the YMCA in the Community Center Task Force Report. It is also worth noting that this particular facility would be the only water recreational facility that is free to the public which would only further support the idea that drawing users from the secondary service areas is quite likely. Neighborhood sized splash pads are smaller in size and are considered to be most utilized by residents within a 1 mile radius of the facility and at a maximum encompasses the primary service area. Community sized splash pads such as the Highlands Park proposal are significantly larger resulting in an expansion of the utilization area to the entire primary service area as well as an unidentified percentage of the populations in the secondary service area. Beyond simply identifying market areas, understanding the market demographics of the splashpad study areas are important to be able to project usage. Staff requested the school district to provide Highlands Park neighborhood demographics for children in the splashpad target age range of 1 -12 years. The results only include publicly schooled children. Age 1 Mile Radius — 1 to 2 Mile Radius 'Total 0 -5 23 144 67 6 -8 11 31 42 8 -12 8 40 48 TOTALS 42 115 157 Given the community sized design of the splash pad, a more regional focus on demographics appears to be needed. From discussion with owners, vendors, consultants and residents, a community sized splashpad is almost certain to be a draw for recreational activity and focusing the market solely on the neighborhood surrounding the facility location would not be an accurate assessment of potential usage. To identify a broader market area, staff reviewed 2009 Decennial Census data depicting Cottage Grove's population by age for the entire community (primary market area). The table below shows that approximately 21.5% of the population in Cottage Grove is aged 0 -14 years. This represents a figure of over 7,700 residents. Using estimators to back out 0 -1 and 13 -14 year olds leaves approximately 16.1 % or nearly 5,800 targeted residents in the primary market area aged 2 -12 years old. It would also seem appropriate to add back in 1.2 parents per child resulting in a total of 12,760 potential serviceable residents. This seems to be an accurate depiction of the total primary target potential users of a community sized splashpad. Once again, given the size of the splashpad is of community proportion, it would be anticipated that a significantly large portion of this primary area population would utilize the facility to some degree. There will also be an unknown percentage of other primary market area users such as extended family members (grandparents, uncles, aunts, siblings), childcare operations (daycares, babysitters, youth programs) as well as the addition of benefiters residing in the secondary service area as would be expected from a free community sized splashpad. Population by Ago and Gender in Cottage Grove It's also important to understand that the Cottage Grove parks and recreation system focuses a large percentage of its resources to this particular demographic of the community. This is very similar to other communities within the industry in that it's believed families of children aged 0 -12 years old will likely be the largest benefactors and users of park and recreational facility investments. Cottage Grove follows in that belief by taking great pride in being a family friendly community with many wonderful recreational opportunities. The table below depicts the city's investment (does not include private or school facilities) into current recreational facilities with a similar target market (families with children ages 1 -12) of a splash pad. Asset Average Cost per Unit Net City Investment Playgrounds $50,000 $1,150,000 Tennis /Basketball Courts $120,000 $840,000 Ice Skating Rinks $30,000 $240,000 Baseball Fields $75,000 $1,875,000 Worth noting as well would be other park related asset values to better understand where the splashpad project cost would compare. Although these assets serve a broader spectrum of users than that of a splash pad, the information seems to provide value. Park Buildings Shelters Benches Trail Field Lights Parking Lot $375,000 per unit $35,000 per unit $1,200 per unit $35,000 per mile $40,000 per field $120,000 per 100 stalls Usage Projections Splashpads are still relatively new to the aquatic recreational facility industry. Most splashpads in Minnesota have been built within the last 5 years. The majority of those splashpads have also been built as free unsupervised park amenities. As such, statistical data is not readily accessible. However, a request for commentary was sent out to current splashpad owners to gauge their experiences in regards to usage of splashpads. Although not statistical data, the feedback is valuable and may provide some insight into the experiences of other such owners. Those results are noted below as direct excerpts from the owners /operators. City of Apple Valley: "Thanks for your interest in the Apple Valley splash pad located in Kelley Park. We installed the splash pad in 2007 and have found to it to be one of the most popular park and recreation activities in our city. We expected that on a pleasantly warm summer day we would get a few hundred users. We have found that on most nice days we will have 1000 or more users over the course of the day. Because we do not staff the splash pad we do not have a report of exact user occasions. The staff has watched Kelley Park quite closely and we estimate our attendance figures based on observation , phone calls from the public and input from talking with users on site." "We are drawing people from a ten to fifteen mile radius with many coming from outside of the Apple Valley city limits. The primary age of the children using the splash pad is from 2 to 10 years. We hear many positive comments from parents about the flexibility of the hours, 9am to 9pm and especially the fact that the splash pad is free. Many parents love to socialize while the children are playing on the pad." "We are also operating the Apple Valley Family Aquatic Center which drew over 65,000 users last year and the Redwood pool which is an "old fashion pool" but still draws several thousand users each summer. I would predict that your residents will be very pleased and happy with a new splash pad in Cottage Grove." Randy Johnson Apple Valley Parks and Recreation Director City of Robbinsdale: 1. "The actual usage is about three times of what we expected about thirty people an hour." 2. "We are receiving groups from all over the metro area schools, churches." 3. "Robbinsdale is considering closing of wading pools because the use of the splash pads is at least 5 to 1 in favor of the splash pad. Also maintenance of the splash pad is almost nothing in comparison to the pool. Attached are pictures of the pool and the splash pad on the same day where you'll see how much more the splash pad is used. Notice that it was a fairly cloudy day or numbers would have been higher." Jim Rak, Parks Superintendent City of St. Cloud: "Splash pads are very popular and provide positive healthy family activity. On hot days you can expect usage to be very high; you will see hundreds of visitors. Please remember our applications are all free to the public. There has been no decline in use. With additional park improvements annually use has increased. Two of the three splash pads we have are in regional parks so yes we do draw from outside our corporate city limits. Splash pads are a positive addition to any and all communities in Minnesota. They provide an aquatic experience for users with minimal to no operation costs for the system to function. They also provide ease of supervision from parents (no deep water to fear - drowning). Splash pads also provide imaginative play for children. Scott Zlotnik, St. Cloud Parks and Recreation Director City of Princeton 1. Park is attended. Charge is $4 per day with a $10 per family max. Season passes can be purchased for $65. 2. Operate 11am -6pm. Private rentals sold between 8-11 am and 6 -8pm ranging in price from $60 -$140 (dependent on size of event). Almost every day in the summer has one or both of the sessions booked. 3. Expenses of about $4,000 per year in services such as advertising, phone, utilities, chemicals, etc. 4. Usage is terrific. Draws people from Milaca, Zimmerman, Cambridge, Andover, Elk River and beyond. 5. Due to continued popularity of park, city is considering for expansion by putting in a water slide with small landing pool. Bob Gerald, Public Works Superintendent YMCA: Experience is with only YMCA splashpads so he cannot comment on community splashpads that are not built in conjunction with a YMCA. Comments on splashpads are that they are a very nice amenity, lots of family demand, usage is very good. They like the concept of outdoor activities without a life guard demand, and operationally are very nice. Designed for younger youth as 11 and 12 year olds and up don't find the entertainment value of younger youth. With a YMCA their reaction to splashpads is generally favorable but not a requirement. But certainly nice to have. Greg Waibel, YMCA "`Staff note — YMCA splashpads are typically incorporated with larger indoor pools and aquatic facilities. As such, they are typically smaller neighborhood sized facilities which may impact the age demographic expressed. Community Splashpad Impacts on Future Community Center The Community Center Task Force has worked diligently on developing conceptual understandings of what could and /or should be included in a future community center. One of those key components has been an indoor aquatic facility as well as an outdoor splashpad area. Any aquatic facility project being considered by the city should certainly be done without negatively impacting the opportunities for successful operations of the community center. Assuming splashpads existed at both Highlands Park and a community center, the Splashpad Study suggests any negative impact to the community center is considered minimal. The type of usage being targeted appears to be quite different amongst the two facilities. A community splashpad will have a very broad target market in the sense that the usage is free of charge and regularly open to the general public. The community center will most likely be used by paid members of the facility with a significantly smaller percentage of "drop -in" customers. Utilizing data derived from the YMCA's community center survey, the YMCA estimated a membership rate of 2,000 total residents. Of the 2,000 total memberships, 1,600 were believed to be part of a family membership. Using this data, one can conservatively estimate that a YMCA splashpad will reach less than 15% of the total family population identified in the primary service area of Cottage Grove. The bather load data appears to further support the notion that a public splashpad would not negatively impact a future community center. It's important to understand the bather load data is certainly not an exact science and one will never truly know how or why persons will make decisions between similar recreational facilities /activities. However, the bather load data does give a conservative reference point of the potential support of suggested aquatic facilities amongst the community. By utilizing area demographics and correlating between national and regional usage trends, a bather load of over 900 primary market users and nearly 350 secondary market users was identified. The total bather load of both a YMCA indoor pool with outdoor splashpad (540 bather load) along with a Highlands Park community sized splash pad (250 bather load) would equal a total bather load of 790 or 88% of the 2010 primary market bather load and 56% of the 2030 estimated primary market bather load. This data presumes the YMCA builds and maximizes usage of an aquatic facility large enough to fulfill the projected bather load of 540. This would be a facility equivalent of the Grove Community Center in Inver Grove Heights. Although the city of Cottage Grove certainly cannot guarantee equal opportunity for access of all recreational facilities to the general public, this case of a free public facility versus a membership based community center certainly presents disparaging opportunities for use. Having both facilities available to the community would provide a more equitable opportunity to access aquatic recreational facilities regardless of social status. Splashpad versus Municipal Pool Usage The city council directed the pool to be closed following the 2012 season due to a concerning indirect correlation between costs associated with pool operations and pool usage. Appendix B is the staff memo to council revealing much of the reasoning behind the decision to close the pool. The most staggering number of which is the city's subsidizing of over $11 per admission to offer the pool as a community aquatic facility in 2010. Meaning that for each user walking through the pool admission doors, the city contributed $11 and the user contributed approximately $4 for a total of $15 per use. Using a $500,000 splashpad project budget, if one assumes the splashpad triples the usage numbers per season of the municipal pool (staff believes this is a conservative estimate based on extended season, extended hours, free admission and popularity of splash pad features), it would take less than 5 seasons for the cost per user to be negated. With a life expectancy of the splashpad beyond 20 years, one can see the investment per use of a splashpad is minimal as compared to the pool. It's also worth noting that based on declining usage of the pool coupled with additional expenses needed to operate the aging pool, it's believed this is a fairly conservative forecast. As an example, 2010 data realized increased usage of nearly 33% over the five year average which had a significant reducing affect on the city's subsidy per user this past season. The increased usage of the pool resulted from a terrific atypical season of weather in 2010. Type Total Number Visits 2010 City Subsidy Per Type Resident 4,570 $50,270 Non - Resident 2,410 $26,510 TOTAL 6,980 $78,000 Financial Impacts of Splashpad Project As stated in the previous report submitted as Appendix C, the splashpad project and building remodel would use dollars from the Park Trust Fund and the Park Building and Equipment Replacement Fund. Robin Roland, City Finance Director reviewed the impacts these expenditures would have on current and future municipal projects. Robin's report is as follows: The current five year CIP identifies the expenditure of $300,000 in 2012 for the construction of a Splashpad. At the City Council workshop on October 6, 2010 the Council directed staff to explore splashpad options and to expect to close the swimming pool after the 2011 season. As staff did not have a detailed estimate of splash pad costs, the "middle of the road" estimate of $300,000 was used to secure a spot in the CIP for a 2012 construction of this amenity, with the assumption that it was subject to change. Now, more detailed cost estimates indicate a $500,000 cost. This additional $200,000 cost above the CIP document could be offset by a $66,000 levy to the Park Trust fund in 2012, 2013 and 2014. This $65,000 is roughly equivalent to the annual subsidy of the swimming pool (in the General Fund). This would not be an increased levy; it would be a re- direction of those General Fund dollars previously spent on the pool. The following analysis reflects how this would work. PARK TRUST FUND CIP (revised) Year Description I Revenues I expenses Balance December 31, 2010! 749,828 2011 Community park masterplanning (15 00o) '.Park Dedication fees 100,000 December 31, 2011! 834,828 2012 Community park masterplanning (15,000) Splashpad (500,000) Park Dedication fees 100,000 Oakwood lot sales 725,000 ..__ Pool subsidy from General Fund - ...__.._ 65,000 . 1,209,828 December 31,20121 2013 Pine glen park trails (50,000) Hamlet park expansion (1,300,000) Cottage Grove Trail corridor (20,000) ;Park Dedication fees 250,000 Pool sub_sidyfrom General Fund 65,000 December 31, 2013'. ! 154,828 2014 Camels Hump park (225,000) ,Camels Hump trail (91,500)'. Park Dedication fees 250,000 'Pool subsidy from General Fund '.. 65,000: December 31,2014 -.. 153,328 2015 .'Hamlet park North improvement... (550,000)!. -Park Dedication fees 250,000 December31,20151. (146,672, Please note that the Park Trust CIP has always assumed that the sale of the Oakwood lots would need to precede the development /expansion of Hamlet Park. Furthermore, since park dedication fees are dependent on new residential development within the City, the future receipt of those revenues is the driver of whether (or when) these park improvements ultimately occur. Barring a parks referendum or remedial action in the form of dedicated tax levy dollars, the fund would only support improvements to the extent of the revenues: it would not be allowed to go to a deficit balance. Whether we call it a "levy" or a "pool subsidy from General Fund ", the replenishment of funds would come from the same place. We currently levy taxes to the General fund which make up the subsidy (excess of expenses over related revenues) which pays for pool operations. As the pool would be closed after 2011, this subsidy would be redirected to the Park Trust Fund. The Highland Park building upgrades are budgeted in the 2012 Capital Improvement Fund for an amount of $250,000. The actual cost of the building is estimated at $150,000 meaning that the project could move forward without negatively impacting that budget. However, it needs noting that the Capital Improvements Plan projects a negative balance in years 2012 and beyond. Without additional revenue sources, projects such as landcape initiatives or replacement of the Woodridge Park building would likely need to be delayed until funds become available. Playground/ Park Shelter Replacement / Public Landscape Initiative Cost Location Revenues Expenses Balance 503,809 2010 Hamlet Park Building Remodel 17,000 Pinetree Valley Park Building Remodel 45,000 Total 2010 0 62,000 441,809 2011 Hemmingway Park Play Equipment Pine Coulee Moving of Play Equipment North Ideal Park Play Equipment Investment Earnings Total 2011 35,000 35,000 35,000 4,400 4,400 105,000 341,209 2012 Hinton 65th to Woodbury Landscaping Splash Pad. Building Remodel.. Investment Earnings Tax Levy Total 2012 2013 95th Street Jamaica to Hadley Landsc. Investment Earnings Tax Levy Total 2013 2014 Hardwood -80th to 70th Landscaping Investment Earnings Tax Levy Total 2014 2015 Woodridge park building W Point Douglas from Jamaica to 80th Tax Levy Total 2015 Total 2011 to 2015 130,000 < 250,000 3,400 20,000 23,400 380,000 - 15,391 55,000 -200 40,000 39,800 55,000 - 30,591 55000 -300 40,000 39,700 55,000 - 45,891 375,000 55000 40,000 40,000 430,000 - 435,891 147,300 1,025,000 - 186,555 "Note that Highlands Park Building is shown as a $250,000 expenditure whereas current cost estimates are actually at $150,000. Conclusion Although it is impossible to predict results of this costly investment into a community splashpad, it is desired that the research provided in this report better equips the council to make an informed decision on the project. As presented at the April 20, 2011 council meeting, staff predicts the following positive impacts of a community splashpad: 1. Improved access to aquatic recreational facilities /activities in Cottage Grove. 2. Improved marketability of East Ravine Development areas. 3. Improved total usage of splashpad compared to current municipal pool. 4. Significantly decreased long -term operational expenditures in providing of an aquatic facility. 5. Decreased "cost per user" of splashpad versus municipal pool. 6. Improved building at Highlands Park to be made available for public use. 7. Supporting of Cottage Grove's Park and Recreation mission to provide facilities and places that enable citizens to lead more active, healthy and social lifestyles. Recommendation Provide staff direction on Highlands Park Splashpad and Building Remodel projects. APpendixT Memorandum, 2335 Highway 36 W St. Paul, MN 55113 To: Zac Dockter and Project: Cottage Grove Tel 651 -636 -4600 Jennifer Levitt Splash Pad Planning Study Date: April 28, 2011 Faxed- 636 -1311 From: Jim Maland I Client: City of Cottage Grove File No.: 48- 11291 -0 www.bonestroo.com Bonestroo has been asked to explain the results of the bather load demand calculation from the Splash Pad Planning Study to help the City understand the validity of the numbers. This memo includes the scope of the bather load calculation, the methodology of the calculation, a comparison to an industry standard calculation, and past experience. Scope Evaluate local demographics and market forces to establish the bather load capacity the City of Cottage Grove can successfully support. The purpose of determining the bather load is to provide a basis for which all aquatics planning should address as a maximum aggregate capacity to prevent overbuilding and dilution of the potential success of an aquatics program. The bather load capacity calculation was used to compare the splash pads against the proposed community center so that the city does not overbuild aquatic facilities. Bather load calculations were formally developed for swimming pools so specific applications for splash pads are still informal and require some experience to apply a good association. Based on our experience of SO plus years with aquatics and over 100 aquatic projects including planning studies, we feel our application for this study was sound and based on conservative assumptions and provides the needed guidelines for Cottage Groves splash pad planning. One goal of the splash pad planning was to have a flexible and phased implementation plan that could be adjusted as the City sees fit. One primary purpose for calculating the bather load was to provide a good check on the sustainable bather load capacity for the City so that the new pool currently planned for the YMCA facility was not compromised with the construction of the community splash pads. We have used the bather load analysis methods for this study in a number of comprehensive aquatic planning studies that included indoor /outdoor pools along with splash pads. Methodology Estimating bather load demand is far from an exact science. There are in reality a wide variety of influences that affect a person's decision to attend pools, many of which are very subjective and impossible to quantify. With that said there is information out there that along with experience can provide a relatively accurate expectation using a logical approach. Bather Load Demand To establish a sustainable size of facilities for future planning, bather load demand was calculated for the primary and secondary service areas of the City for the year 2010 and 2030. Bather load demand was determined as follows: 1. Identifying the primary and secondary service areas a. Primary — defined as the City limits boundary b. Secondary — defined as the area immediately surrounding the City boundary to the north and east 2. Review present and future demographic characteristics (populations) of Primary and Secondary Markets Areas. Please note that proximately based neighborhood demographics were not taken into account for each of the proposed sites rather neighborhood specifics were incorporated into the site evaluation matrix. 3. Correlate National Sport Group Association survey swimming participation statistics and demographic data to develop total swimming participation numbers for Primary and Secondary C:\ Users\ 0262 \AppData \Local\ Microsoft \Windows \Temporary Internet Flies\ ContenCDUtlook \NS5UI394 \Levtt_)RM ^MEM ^Bather Lead Demand 2011042S.docx [INS 06 -20101 Page I ch4 Market Areas for years 2010 and 2030. 4. Calculate bather load demand based on data outlined above. The calculated bather load demand for the primary and secondary service areas in years 2010 and 2030 are shown in Table 1 below. Year 2030 is considered a reasonable target year for establishing future aquatic needs based on future growth forecast. Table No. 1 Summary of Bather Load Calculations Item Bather Load Demand Primary I Secondary Primary +: Seconda 2010 National Statistics 984 371 1 355 2010 Regional Statistics 914 344 1 258 2030 National Statistics 1,512 556 2068 2030 Regional Statistics 1,404 516 1920 The bather load demand for City was calculated two different ways based on national and regional data. The national and regional calculations assumed the City bather load demand follows trends for participation using the statistics provided by the National Sporting Good Association (NSGA) "Sports Participation in 2008, Series I" statistical study. The study provides statistics for 23 sports activities and breaks down participation for each sport by national average, age, gender, education, income, market size, region, and ethnicity /race. The national calculation assumed the City participates similar to the national average for swimming participation. Assuming no local knowledge, this calculation is a good point to start from. The national calculation yields a total bather load demand for the City from the primary and secondary service area of 1,355 (year 2010) and 2,068 (year 2030). This calculation is based on a 90 day swim season with 10 rain days. It also assumes that 90 percent of the swimmers in the primary service area and 20 percent of the swimmers in the secondary service area will participate in swimming using City facilities. The 90 percent value is based on a cursory review of backyard pools in the City that determined about 10 percent to the population has regular access to backyard pools which leaves 90 percent of the swimming population available for participation at public swimming facilities. The 20 percent value took into consideration the extensive alternative service providers to the west, north and south. The regional calculation assumed the City participates similar to the west north central region (as identified in the NSGA study). Since the calculation follows the trends of the region, this calculation logically appears to be a number closer to that of the City of Cottage Grove. The regional calculation yields a total bather load demand for the primary and secondary area of 1,258 (year 2010) and 1,920 (year 2030). This calculation is based on a 90 day swim season with 10 rain days. It also assumes that 90 percent of the swimmers in the primary service area and 20 percent of the swimmers in the secondary service area will participate in swimming using City facilities. For purposes of future aquatics planning and design, the regional statistics (year 2030) total bather load demand for primary and secondary service area should be used. The year 2030 allows the City to plan for future growth and will take into account the needs of the future. A bather load demand of 1,920 indicates that the City could build swimming facilities up to that bather load total with splash pads, aquatic centers, or other swimming pools. The bather load demand calculation is based on outdoor bather load. Indoor facilities are heavily used all winter and spring but not in the summer months. To evaluate the bather load in the summer months, 100 percent of the outdoor facilities will count towards the bather load while only 50 percent of the bather load for indoor facilities will count. In the winter months the bather load will use 100 percent of the indoor facilities and zero percent of the outdoor facilities. C:\ Users \0262 \AppData \Local \Microsoft \Windows \Temporary Internet Files \Content.0utlook \N55Ui394 \Levitt ]RM ^MEN ^Bather Load Demand 20110428.6oa [TN506 -2010] Page 2of4 Comparison The following is a comparison of the more detailed bather load calculation that was performed for the Cottage Grove study to a simpler evaluation using a chart prepared by the National Recreation and Park Association (NPRA) to evaluate bather load demand. The NRPA method is based solely on the service area (catchment) population and recommends a bather load between three and eight percent of the service area population. See Figure 1 below for details. Report Calculations for 2030 Primary + Secondary Service Area Bather Load Report Calculations for 2010 Primary + Secondary Service Area Bather Load 5,000 4.500 4,000 3,500 m 3,000 Q . U 2,500 0 O J r 20 . .c w ca M 1,500 1,000 500 High End 2030 Bather Load J High End 2010 Bather Load i i Low End 2030 Bather Load Low End 2010 Bather Load I I i I i 2010 Primary 2030 Primary Service Area Service Area Population Population 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hI O� Population in Catchment Area �.s The above NRPA figure shows that the recommended bather load capacity for the just the Primary Service Area in Cottage Grove would be between a low end range of 1,000 to high end range of 2,700 for 2010 population and between a low of 1,600 and a high of 4,200 for 2030 population. In comparison to bather load calculated and recommended in the study using the Primary and Secondary Service Area Population, the study recommended results are on the low end range of the bather load evaluation using the NRPA method as can be seen in Figure 1 above. This is C: \Users\ 0262 \AppDaW \Local \Microsoft \Windows\ Temporary Internet Files \Content.0utlook \NS5UI394\ Levitt IRM^MEM A Bather Load Demand 20110428.doa [TNS 06-20101 Page 3 of 4 certainly is a conservative result when considering the NRPA evaluation above only considers the Primary Service Area population. We have in some communities based the bather load on the mid- range on the NRPA chart above and they have had good success with their aquatic operations. We feel the method used for bather load evaluation in the Cottage Grove Splash Pad Planning Study is a conservative approach. Past Experience Bonestroo has designed numerous splash pads in Minnesota and Wisconsin that have been highly successful and resulted in additional splash pads built in the Cities in which they were constructed. Splash pads are a relatively new concept in the aquatics industry having only been around for the last 10 - 15 years with popularity booming over the past 5 years. However, like any facility the "newness" will eventually ware off and the attendance will drop off some. To help minimize the drop in attendance we recommend that the features incorporated at the splash pad have the ability to be interchangeable. This allows the City to rotate features at the splash pad so that something new can be incorporated periodically to keep the facility up to date. All in all the splash pad provides a very cost effective option to swimming pools due to the reduced operation and maintenance costs, no requirement for lifeguards and reduced liability due to no standing water. 140 C:\ Users\ 0262 \AppDaPe Local \Microsoft\ Windows \Temporary Internet Files \Content0utbk \N55U! 394 \Levitt_JRM I H EM ^Bather Lead Demand 201 IN 28.doa [TN506 -2010] Page 4 of To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Zac Dockter, Parks and Recreation Manager Date: September 22, 2010 Subject: Cottage Grove Municipal Pool The Cottage Grove Municipal Pool has been a staple of the community since 1960. It was originally built as the Thompson Grove Community Center and operated by the homeowners association. A program of the grand opening event is included with this memo for your reading pleasure. In the early 1970's, the association could no longer afford to maintain the pool and the city assumed responsibility for the site, building and operations. The Parks and Recreation Department operated the pool until 2003 when a service agreement was signed with the YMCA to provide these services to the community. The Public Works Utility Department has continued to provide all mechanical and maintenance service to the pool operations while the YMCA solely provides the programming and services operations. This relationship with the YMCA has dutifully served its purpose to both the YMCA and the city in that we have been able to provide outdoor pool services to the community at less of a financial burden to the residents of Cottage Grove. However, upkeep and marketing of the facility continue to be a struggle due to the pool's age. Recent trends show rising maintenance /operational expenses coupled with declining usage and program participation. Due to these trends, there has been an expressed interest by the YMCA to remove itself from the operation of the pool in the near future. In 2003 the city contracted out the programming services to the YMCA in an effort to reduce budget expenditures. The initial agreement saved the city general fund expenditures of approximately $68,000 in 2003. However, that savings has decreased to less than $20,000 in 2010 due the YMCA's request to increasingly subsidize operational expenses. During this time maintenance costs of the pool continued to be absorbed by the city and have doubled since 2007. In February of 2010, the YMCA informed the city that they would no longer be running the outdoor municipal pool due to their own financial constraints. Considering the city was not prepared to assume operations management at that time, staff negotiated with the YMCA to operate the pool for one more season with the ability to reevaluate at seasons completion. Based on increased participation in 2010 (as compared to 2009) it appears the YMCA is interested in signing a new operations agreement for 2011. However, the YMCA is requesting a 2.5% increase in contribution from the city for those services. This equates to an additional $1,060 expense in 2011. Other than anomalies such as 2010, the pool has realized a steady decline in usage for the past twenty or more years. As an example, in 1996 the pool realized total usage near 19,000 admissions per year. From 2007 to 2009 average admissions were 4,000 per year. In 2010, a rebound to near 7,000 was experienced due in large part to optimal weather. Non - Cottage Grove resident usage ranged from 35 to 50% in each of the past 5 years of data. The vast majority of those non - residents report St. Paul Park addresses. As a result of this data, staff had approached the cities of St. Paul Park and Newport in 2009 to gauge their interest in helping to subsidize pool operations. No interest in doing so was expressed by either city. There appears to be two key elements to explain the usage decline. The first element is simply location of the facility. The facility is currently located on the southern and western most edges of residential areas in Cottage Grove. It is not visible by any major roads and only a small percentage of the community can access the pool by non - motorized transportation (walking, bicycling, etc.). In general conversations with the public, it appears many residents are not even aware of the existence of the pool much less its location. For those residents living east of highway 61, the drive to the Hastings water park is only a few extra minutes as compared to traveling to the municipal pool. The second element contributing to pool usage decline is based on consumer value. Today's consumers have vastly different expectations from outdoor water features than in 1960. When the pool was built, very few homes had private pools so a community pool was considered a desirable amenity for the residents. The pool was also accompanied by a community hall which enhanced the customer experience beyond the swimming component. The pool also had diving boards and a water slide at different times throughout its existence. Today, the pool has no diving boards, no slides, minimal deck chairs and no balls /toys are allowed in the pool (for safety reasons). This makes the municipal pool a very "stale" environment and does not attract customers as it may have in the past. Today's customers expect slides, diving boards and more recently splash pads. For Council consideration: proposal to develop a splash pad as a recreational amenity. Although splash pads have been in existence for decades they have become the most popular water recreation trend over the past 10 years. Although these amenities do not provide swimming opportunities, they do provide alternative and exciting play features for the community's youth and families. Considering there are five indoor public swimming facilities operated by the school district in the South Washington County area and potentially six with a community center in Cottage Grove, it seems valid for the city to review the level of service it is providing in regards to water related recreation. A splash pad should be considered an alternative form of water recreation that may serve different demographics and draw users from throughout the community. Splash pads are extremely popular with families and kids aged 12 and under yet are very low cost to build, operate and maintain as compared to a pool. A splash pad is an area for water play that has little to no standing water. This is said to eliminate the need for lifeguards or other supervision, as there is practically no risk of drowning. Typically there are ground nozzles that spray water upwards out of the splash pad's raindeck. There may also be other water features such as a rainbow (semicircular pipe shower), a mushroom shower, or a tree shower. As well, some splash pads feature movable nozzles similar to those found on fire trucks to allow users to spray others. Splash pads are very relatable to playground equipment in that it is an interactive play system. Misters have also been used in parks to appeal to runners or sports activists looking to cool off after an event. The showers and ground nozzles are often controlled by a hand activated - motion sensor, to run for limited time. Typically the water is either freshwater, or recycled and treated water. Recycled water is treated to at least the same level of quality as swimming pool water standards yet at a much smaller volume. If the splash pad uses just freshwater, it is not considered a pool and public health and safety codes pertaining to pools do not apply. This also reduces risk management considerations in that the risk of drowning and water borne illnesses are greatly reduced. Because of that, it would be expected that splash pads carry a lesser rate of insurance than a pool. The cost to maintain a splash pad is fairly minimal. After interviewing several cities in Minnesota who offer splash pads, a conservative estimate appears to be an average of 40 hours to start and shut down the system with approximately 2 hour per weekday (no weekends) maintaining the splash pad throughout the summer. This equates to 290 regular hours per year of labor needed to operate the facility. All cities interviewed stressed that maintenance on the splash pad and equipment itself is very minimal. Most of the 290 hour estimate will be in maintaining the surrounding areas including cleaning of shelters, resting areas, trash and building. Typical maintenance on splash pad components is simply cleaning out nozzles, cleaning push buttons as they plug and a simple check of water flow. This compares to the over 575 regular and overtime hours public works staff invests into the municipal pool each year. Service operations are typically of no expense. Lifeguards and gate keepers are not mandatory for splash pads. Most pads are free with the exception of being able to rent the facility out for special events similar to that of a park shelter rental. The only city interviewed with a gated splash pad and fee structure was the city of Princeton. The fees they collect essentially cover the costs of the gate workers, as well as a small percentage of maintenance and capital expense related to the equipment. Aside from budget savings, splash pads offer longer seasons and operational hours than a standard pool. Currently, the Cottage Grove Municipal Pool is available to the public for 560 hours each summer whereas a typical splash pad is available for 1,470 hours per season. The table below depicts typical seasons of each type of aquatic facility. Although predicting usage is a nearly impossible task, all splash pad managers and maintenance staff who were interviewed during this process were very vocal in acclaiming much greater usage of splash pads as compared to pools. Every single interviewee also stated usage numbers far exceeded preliminary estimates. The cities of Ramsey and Apple Valley were the only two cities having a municipal pool with which to compare use but both stated usage was 5 to 10 times greater at the splash pad than at the pools. Staff from both those cities have also recently recommended closing their pool and /or wading pool in consideration of upgrading or adding splash pads to their park system. It should also be noted that all of the interviewees were in agreement that a splash pad built right not only supports the outdoor water recreational needs of its community but also draws patrons from surrounding communities. A top priority for our parks and recreation department is to identify and meet the recreational needs of the community, particularly those needs not offered through other private or public Typical Season Typical Hours Municipal Pool June 15 — August 25 Noon — 8pm Splash Pad May 15 — September 15 gam — 9pm Although predicting usage is a nearly impossible task, all splash pad managers and maintenance staff who were interviewed during this process were very vocal in acclaiming much greater usage of splash pads as compared to pools. Every single interviewee also stated usage numbers far exceeded preliminary estimates. The cities of Ramsey and Apple Valley were the only two cities having a municipal pool with which to compare use but both stated usage was 5 to 10 times greater at the splash pad than at the pools. Staff from both those cities have also recently recommended closing their pool and /or wading pool in consideration of upgrading or adding splash pads to their park system. It should also be noted that all of the interviewees were in agreement that a splash pad built right not only supports the outdoor water recreational needs of its community but also draws patrons from surrounding communities. A top priority for our parks and recreation department is to identify and meet the recreational needs of the community, particularly those needs not offered through other private or public organizations, while being financially responsible. Installing a splash pad within Cottage Grove's park system appears to meet a need of the community, outdoor water recreation, and has a financial payback worthy of the investment. As stated earlier, Cottage Grove is fortunate to have five indoor pools in the south Washington county area as well as the Cottage Grove Municipal outdoor pool. However, the need for outdoor water recreation is not being met in Cottage Grove for most of its residents. As the usage statistics show, most residents are not using the outdoor pool and are meeting their needs by traveling to other community water parks. Although a splash pad certainly does not satisfy all the needs of the community, research seems to show a much greater percentage of the population will be positively impacted than with the municipal pool. Should the municipal pool close, swimming is still an available option to the community through community education programming and perhaps a future YMCA or community center. The costs for a moderate splash pad in Cottage Grove could be estimated at about $200,000. However, upgrading /building of supporting facilities such as patio, shelter, restrooms and other site modifications may total $200,000 or more. This is purely an estimate as the choice in site would ultimately determine final costs. Assuming a conservative contingency of $80,000, a final project cost is estimated at $480,000. Based on current pool expenses of $81,000, a return on investment for the splash pad is anticipated to be 8 years if a splash pad is constructed in exchange for closure of the pool. Should the city desire the installation of a splash pad, the decision regarding location may be the most important element in generating usage. The following is a list of location criteria that should be considered before building a splash pad: 1. Community Park 2. Centrally located 3. Ample space for supporting activities such as picnic areas, shade, benches 4. Ample parking 5. Indoor restrooms 6. Easy access via trail system for youth /families 7. Location near commercial district to enhance customer experience Although no park meets all these criteria, the following parks rank highest on the list as it pertains to meeting the aforementioned criteria: Highlands Park 2. Hamlet Park 3. Kingston Park 4. Woodridge Park 5. City Hall /Community Center Highlands appears to offer the most visibility, best access to the community and plenty of space for supporting activities. However, Hamlet Park should also be considered due to the fact that it currently is a very heavily trafficked park, has ample space /parking as well as the potential to utilize the existing building (although some remodeling costs may be necessary). The choice of Hamlet Park may also negate the loss of recreational activities to that district of the city should the pool be closed. However, current vandalism levels should also be considered at Hamlet Park and the investment into a monitoring system may be necessary. Should either Hamlet Park or Highlands Park be identified as a preferred site for a splash pad, the provisions of restrooms need to be considered. Highlands Park would likely require a new building with restrooms and potentially a shelter. Hamlet Park currently has a shelter and a building that with some level of remodeling would meet the needs of the park. Below are cost estimates of those options: Highlands Park Restroom facility $55,000 Picnic shelter $35,000 Hamlet Park Restroom facility $55,000 (stand alone facility) Remodeled building $150,000 (constructed instead of a stand alone restroom facility) Consideration must also be given to the future of the existing pool site and facilities should it be taken out of operation. Currently the Cottage Grove Athletic Association uses the majority of the building for equipment storage. One option for the city would be to leave the building as is and leasing it to CGAA. A second option would be for the city to demolish the pool and building to market the site for sale. This option would require CGAA to relocate. Demolition of the pool is estimated at $24,000. Demolition of the building is not known at this time due to concerns of potentially hazardous material removal because of the facilities age that may have a large impact on the final cost. Resale value of the site is estimated at $100,000 at this time. No other significant use is apparent for the site considering its size and location in the community. Ultimately, staff is looking for general direction on the level and type of water recreation services desired in Cottage Grove. Some of the options include but are not necessarily limited to: Extending the agreement with the YMCA for service operations of the municipal pool in 2011 and /or 2012. Close the pool with the following considerations: a. Recommendation to build or not build a splash pad b. Recommendation for land and facility use of current pool site Should council direct staff to further review the splash pad idea, the topic would be brought to the Parks Commission for a more complete analysis of how and where a splash pad facility might best serve the community. To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Zac Dockter, Parks and Recreation Manager Date: 4/13/11 Subject: Splash Pad Study Introduction In August of 2010 city council directed staff to pursue closure of the outdoor municipal pool in consideration of building a splash pad in a community park. The council further directed staff to commission a Splash Pad Planning Study to fully understand the aquatic recreational needs of the community as well as to master plan for splash pad amenities as recommended in such a report. Background Staff hired Bonestroo to study the aquatic facility needs of Cottage Grove. The deliverable of that project is the Splash Pad Planning Study previously presented to you. The study took into account the following data to create a recommendation to the council: 1. National and regional recreational trends 2. Primary and secondary service area identification 3. Demographic characteristics of the community 4. Alternative aquatic service providers in the community 5. Bather load demand 6. Detailed site analysis 7. Splash pad development plan 8. Capital and operational financial impacts After determining market areas and bather load figures for the city of Cottage Grove, the study delves deeply into site analysis. Initially, the six site options considered were Hamlet Park, Oakwood Park, Highlands Park, Kingston Park, Woodridge Park and the Municipal Pool. A thorough matrix report was completed to analyze opportunities and deficiencies of each site. The matrix took into consideration subject categories of size, location, land use, topography, natural features, utilities, security, recreation programming and market benefits. The matrix report is included as Appendix A to this memorandum. This matrix report yielded four preferred community park site locations which are Highlands Park, Woodridge Park, Kingston Park and Hamlet Park. Cost estimates were devised for each of the preferred sites based on the construction of a community sized splash pad. Council suggested at the August workshop that a community sized splash pad be planned for in consideration of closing the community's only outdoor aquatic recreational facility; the Municipal Pool. As such, the study deemed it desirable for the first splash pad constructed to be designed large enough to fill the void in aquatic recreational opportunities for the residents resulting from the closure of the pool. A community sized splash pad is typically 1,500 to 4,000 square feet in size and is intended to facilitate a bather load of 100 to 266 patrons. This compares to an approximate bather load of 325 at the Municipal Pool. A community sized splash pad design intends to entirely serve the primary service market area as well as portions of the secondary service market area. Appendix B of this document is a conceptual design of a community sized splash pad at Highlands Park. Whereas the municipal pool typically reaches a broad range of demographics with its intended usage, a splash pad is depicted as a more youth oriented amenity. However, building a community sized splash pad broadens that target market by offering multiple zoned activity areas such as family (all ages), toddler (1 -5 year olds), and active (5 -12 year olds) zones. Active zones differ from family and toddler zones in that they offer an interactive experience for the users through such equipment as water guns, water cannons, and spray noodles. This community sized splash pad is proposed to be built as a family amenity with the intent to maximize resident usage regardless of demographics. It is expected that a far superior Cottage Grove residential usage rate will be experienced through the community sized splash pad as compared to the Municipal Pool. This is believed to be true based on location of the proposed splash pad as well as the improved aquatic features being offered as an attractant. As directed by both the City Council and the Parks Commission, staff also requested that this study take into account the effect this project may have on a future community center aquatic facility in Cottage Grove. The study did so by incorporating the expectation of a splash pad located at the community center in determining its final recommendation in the report. The study suggests there is no concern of competition between a community park splash pad and the community center aquatic facility. Using the aforementioned data, the studies final recommendation is as follows: Bonestroo recommends the city plan for a no -fee flow -thru splash pad at Highlands Park in phase one and a second, third and fourth at Woodridge, Kingston, and Hamlet Parks in future phases. Although circulation systems provide a more sustainable solution because it requires lower water usage, the operating and maintenance budget for the city does not currently allow for such a system. The flow -thru systems can be designed such that a future desire to provide a recirculation system to a splash pad can be accommodated with minimal impacts. Cost estimates in this report are general in nature and further refinements of design will result in estimates to achieve the city's fiscal and operational requirements. Based on the recommendation of the study, the next phase of this project would be to authorize staff to begin preparing plans and specifications. Prior to doing so, there are several directives the council must provide to staff. 1. Approval of the study and its recommendation of: a. Site: Highlands Park b. Size: Community c. System: Flow -thru 2. Approval of a project budget. 3. Authorize staff to hire consultant services for preparing plans and specifications. 4. Authorize staff to hire architectural services for remodeling Highlands Park recreational building. A proposed splash pad project budget is submitted for your review in Appendix C. As noted, costs include site demolition, site preparation, site improvements, utilities and splash pad construction. The budget also offers a return on investment figure which is results from the general fund savings realized by closing the outdoor Municipal Pool. Project funds will be derived from the Park Trust Fund which holds a current balance of $750,000. As the report suggests, it is vitally important that the entire park facility and design works complimentary to a splash pad to maximize usage and recreational experiences of the project. A splash pad alone will not be nearly as successful as a splash pad with positive supporting elements. The investment into improving the surrounding areas for such things as benches, shade, trash, landscaping and accessible restrooms are seen is integral in providing a positive experience to all users of the splash pad. Intended users should also include the parents or adults who may not be actively using the water features themselves but monitoring or enjoying other park activities while their children are playing in the splash pad. One such item that needs thoughtful consideration at Highlands Park is the review of restroom options. One option would be to drop in a new, modular and handicap accessible restroom on the site. However, this cost would be estimated at nearly $50,000. Staff is suggesting that a more desirable option would be to invest up to $150,000 (total project budget) in remodeling the current park facility. Approximately $10,000 would be used to hire architectural services to remodel the building to include the following: 1. Enlarged, handicap accessible restrooms with access doors from the outside. 2. Enlarged mechanical room to house splash pad mechanical and control systems a. Alternative option to this is to construct a below ground vault which is an additional expense and not as desirable of a working environment. 3. Altering of awning to improve shade opportunities 4. Exterior improvements such as siding, window, painting and door replacement to improve aesthetic appearance of the facility. Funds for this building improvement would be taken from the Parks Building and Equipment Replacement Fund which holds an estimated balance of $391,000. Staff Recommendation 1. Accept Splash Pad Planning Study report 2. Authorize staff to prepare plans and specifications for a splash pad to be located at Highlands Park with a total project expense estimated at $500,000. 3. Authorize staff to hire architectural services and prepare plans and specification for remodeling the existing Highlands Park building with a total project expense estimated at $150,000. r�- J W � N z a t9 218 r V Q J W W N d � m ac 5 _ ;8QE -eE :x _Em8m uYINSS a N M La °oo °BEEEE 0101, I s IM MI AM 311 5IM535 RI EEEE ` =8 o ��r ^i if - S - -- _ v i 11111 M ` 3 is y o %r . of o ill 4 is 'Pa m Jn m E4 a c S i! O N ' s P �I a i6 _ c 7. n r' I En °sa EE` ti WON; v ' °!= MEM DeM MAIM fj5ps j im. - �3 r a x E S P!8 E wlr °°.E 3 E &i EIE o so Swill 1105 as Sa _1 $ -. -a E e3 i # m M cut C`z q M - S fill still 1 ! QVT s a.l 3 - 1 , .� --- d ---- r 11 ! ?' 3 m � p S _ 8. q8 n I f Now - Jnemr p k F l_ an 1 a n SM 9 8 '9N�51 A IM F R � 3 T a P 3� ! j arm! 3 mx i$EE3E Egp emus a - a s - r3 E aEE 1 ( -. 8 P .�.�� �. nl� � ! A _ ra l a f i 6 '.E _ i 3 s e o� E R �Fb 9 p i E I L A Onto Q C gA ` ]ii L OUR i DQ ? J y R yr cs vI o` 1 m N c N ; � J T � b+v � Highlands Park Splash Pad Concept Plan Cost Estimate 4-Bonlestroo Cottage Grove, MN Community Sized Flow-Thru April 2011 File No, 444048 -1' 1241 -4 Item Units Quantity un't Price cost Topers A. Site Demolition lump Spin 1 $117,000 $117,000 I Selective Dedroillion lump sum 1 S5,0017 S5 QuO S. Site Preparation [in. m- 20D SIM 5 1,1 1 01 r Sift FenoVliroslon ConVol Ric ft. 1,000 sa S3,0W 2 Expavaron SmOill) lump sum 1 S7,MG STOW 3 Sand Fill cm yd. 440 865 $29.600 C, Site improvements 1 Ccurprele, WbkWay Vi? C! 5 Base sq. ft. 5.6at) SS MAO 2 Sod Sm yd. 200 $4 58,000 3 Benched each 4 31,W0 KOW 4 fortnic Tables each 3 S1 000 $3SM 5 Trash Receplades each 3 SoM S2-1so 6 Shade Structures. inem 2 WWII $20rul4 7 Security Lighting each I s5pye S5,00D 8 Efirkmi Fountain lump sum 1 S4,M e4 AM Elffa . ° s 1 Splash Pad Play Ffnpuret;, Manifold, and Contain lump Spin 1 $117,000 $117,000 2 SpInsti. Pad Supply Piping lin. ft 1.700 $12 $20,400 3 ShaMT Pad Dan pipir, [in. m- 20D SIM 5 1,1 1 01 4 Carteret Spindi Pad wi Integral --opr sq, ft. 4.000 514 $56,001a 5 Necessary BmIchng Access for SpLeur Pad Ecipment, lump sum 1 S5,3W Rfi,Wl 6 Splach Pad Signacte rump sUrz I S;;3:}{... 51,00 E- Utilities 1 Wafer Soft'ica In' ft- 140 Say RAW 2 Water Service Cludireshmi each I el'Oot) S1.0tu:i 3 VIaw aderei and Bacirflove Preventer lump surn 1 S2 52,50:$ 4 Water blere; and 5FP Ecuipawnt Enclosure lump SLIM 1 $2,500 92.51M) 5 Sairm Sever piting l ifts. R. 160 w 98,1• 6 Stan S&vie? carimlpsh's each 1 $2.01001 52.000 7 corm Seourf plartholes each I S5,000 s5kno 8 Storm wace Detection lump sum 1 a3 KISCO 9 Edchapn Service lump suarr 1 $15,000 35.000 MM PERM $203,400 Subtotal $381,000 io% comilngency $39,000 Estimated Construction Cost $420,000 ff:al Estimated Project Cost $500,000 Notes: Amur be use of par, oui ding to heruse top" pad supply dempepon mariffmit, valves and conlroL Assumes imistrip park,rg lot r. ardequaIe. Sim only sod imbn trees, shums and plant-, being irrilpyl by City in a future protect. Eke mcrs are net included in condiLcIvirland will be sambed by City on afurure pruterc. Cost Comparison of Splash Pad to Municipal Pool Budget Expense Splash Pad Pool Personnel $3,000 $18,700 Commodities $10,000 $9,200 Services $13,500 $15,900 YMCA Subsidy $0 $42,500 TOTAL $26,500 $86,300 * *Municipal pool budget uses actual 2009 numbers but does not include increased wages for routine overtime pay that is incurred for such items as weekend start-ups, testing and after -hours call -ins. Pool budget also does not include emergency or large scale repairs considered an "anomaly" such as pumps, filters, leaking pipes, boiler, and more. Annual savings of splash pad vs pool operational expenses = $59,800 Return on $500,000 investment into splash pad project = 8.5 years r cry 0 4-J O } `- Q Q Q� Q) 7 0 Q 4— d c O 0- u2� u YN m M 0 °� a L. @� q QV `y •W u Ska Q � <F- n U CL 0 Q� to C Q Q3 > O CL w L b O E O N ftF E O W C) b } N O ul 'O Y O N U N U) N o t6 O C O O G O � N U 4 • U > � n O O N L E L 0) � N Po d L v L > O O a� O U O N a E O J-� x CL L � L O O U u O f j N L N b O 0 N i G O O N L N E N O > U 0 C a G O ��E N cum s 'v CL O 0 0.0 O C ' r ;In LU N L N > yO0 U } L N }J ) GI9 U ' O U O O N L L b O L N Q 0 O � o m v v � N � � L N � � O C u N CfE = a) U � W � s u C) O . C O b V E L .v c O RS � � C � O N LL O w C LIU z uj � O ƒ � / A a g � e 4 � � a . e > m _ 0 � � � /./ c o ,@ / \ x � g � ' L 0 E X / c e . Q E 2 .� m g O e / 0 0 \ at E »� / y W A t dr L- sue. 0 0 A v � y w 2 e m � 4 / f / ■ s ■ k 4 * Y £ c 0 _ / Q � m @ � » 0 c @ A" .y LL m 7 % > � k * m \ \�� d 7 � � � \��. CL CL VI 1. 1 1 iA ra F a CL CL z z 0. U ell Q z z z 8 WA S &mce' �w CL z z z 0. 4 \ u Cu 0 � \ ) \ - 0 b - \/ 2 -0 0 I c . .2 0 Ln Q , OL C 0 (1) t6 a Up 0 (2) 01 CL 0 CL < mca { ' cu R / V) 0 CD 0 CL 0 >, 0 0 o Q) > Q) @ Q) E Q) C: aw > /e2 -C &#t 0 0 o E 0 /SG[ C CL C U G) 10 0) g: /© /R 3 Q5 V) 0 CD 0 CL 0 >, 0 0 o Q) > Q) @ Q) E Q) C: aw > /e2 m 0) : < � d 0 \ � y / \ � o g de ; % e - � @ f uj $ n / Z = 7 4 o ± 9 ƒ� ® _e z » & «< I Q) cu blo 0 7a o M Ln Q) E va E E 0 C O cu CL CL 0 9 0p z z z 191 4- 0 V) UO 75 cu cu • ti • CL CL tA z z V) Q) Q) > - a b.0 " 0 Q) 0 a u CO > Qj > z 0 0 uj uj 0- u g - 0 0 N m § \ _ cr 4 » 9 / 2 2\ / \ � u Z w / % m ® % q Ca 2 . \\ Lij \ \ o 2 ± m § \ _ cr 4 » 9