The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015.01.20 City Council AgendaCity Council City of University Park Meeting Agenda City Hall 3800 University Blvd. University Park, TX 75205 Council Chamber5:00 PMTuesday, January 20, 2015 EXECUTIVE SESSION 3:00 - 4:00 P.M. Pursuant to TGC§551.071(2), the City Council will meet in closed session to receive confidential legal advice from the City Attorney with regard to park usage and to receive confidential legal advice from the City Attorney with regard to agreements between the City of University Park and the property owners of 3801 McFarlin. No action will be taken. Executive Conference Room, 1st Floor, City Hall. PRE-MEETING WORK SESSION(S) 4:00 - 4:15 P.M. The City Council will meet in open work session to receive a briefing from Public Works Director Bud Smallwood regarding the McFarlin Bridge project. No action will be taken. Council Conference Room, 2nd floor, City Hall. 4:15 - 5:00 P.M. The City Council will meet in open work session to receive agenda item briefings from staff. No action will be taken. Council Conference Room, 2nd floor, City Hall. TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM Anyone wishing to address the Council on any item must fill out a green “Request to Speak” form and return it to the City Secretary. When called forward by the Mayor, before beginning their remarks, speakers are asked to go to the podium and state their name and address for the record. I.CALL TO ORDER A.INVOCATION: Mayor Olin Lane, Jr. B.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Olin Lane, Jr. / Boy Scouts C.INTRODUCTION OF COUNCIL: Mayor Olin Lane, Jr. D.INTRODUCTION OF STAFF: City Manager Robbie Corder II.AWARDS AND RECOGNITION III.CONSENT AGENDA Page 1 City of University Park Printed on 1/16/2015 January 20, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda Consider a resolution appointing the Honorable Dan Branch to the Legislative Committee. 14-264 Staff report Resolution Attachments: Consider approval of the minutes from the January 6, 2015 City Council Meeting with or without corrections. 14-262 Staff report City Council Meeting Minutes - January 6, 2015 Attachments: IV.MAIN AGENDA Consider a request from the Park Cities Historic and Preservation Society to reserve Goar Park for a Classic and Antique Car Show 14-265 Staff report PCHPS Car Show Info Attachments: Consider and act on a Feasibility Study prepared by Ballard King and Associates, Ltd., to Assess the Viability of Developing Shared Indoor Pool/Aquatic Facility. 14-263 Staff report University Park Aquatic Center Final Report Attachments: V.PUBLIC COMMENTS Anyone wishing to address an item not on the Agenda should do so at this time. Please be advised that under the Texas Open Meetings Act, the Council cannot discuss or act at this meeting on a matter that is not listed on the Agenda. However, in response to an inquiry, a Council member may respond with a statement of specific factual information or a recitation of existing policy. Other questions or private comments for the City Council or Staff should be directed to that individual immediately following the meeting. VI.ADJOURNMENT Page 2 City of University Park Printed on 1/16/2015 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Users\GRANIC~1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 7\@BCL@B0056AB3\@BCL@B0056AB3.docx 11:08 AM 01/16/15 AGENDA MEMO 1/20/2015Agenda TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM:Christine Green, City Secretary SUBJECT:Resolution to appoint the Honorable Dan Branch to the Legislative Committee The attached resolution appoints the Honorable Dan Branch to the Legislative Committee for the balance of the current term ending August 2016. 69780 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK,TEXAS, APPOINTING MEMBER TO THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE CITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of University Park appoints numerous statutory and advisory boards and committee members; and, WHEREAS, these board and committee members are appointed for two-year terms, coinciding with City election years; and, WHEREAS, the City Council elected on May 10, 2014has appointedthose board and committee members for the period of August2014to August2016;and, WHEREAS, a vacancy exists on the Legislative Committee and a new appointment is required; NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS THAT: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of University Park hereby appoints the Honorable Dan Branch to be a member of the Legislative Committee of the City for the balance of the current term. SECTION 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its adoption and it is accordingly so resolved. DULY ADOPTED by the City Council of University Park this the 20thday of January,2015. APPROVED: ______________________________ OLIN B. LANE, MAYOR ATTEST: ___________________________ CHRISTINE GREEN, CITY SECRETARY 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 S:\EXECUTIVE\Christine\2015.01.20 Agenda Memo Minutes January 6 2015.docx 9:17 AM 01/16/15 AGENDA MEMO 1/20/2015 Agenda TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Christine Green, City Secretary SUBJECT: Minutes of the January 6 City Council Meeting Minutes of the January 6, 2015 meeting are included for the Council’s review. City Hall 3800 University Blvd. University Park, TX 75205 City of University Park Meeting Minutes City Council 5:00 PM Council ChamberTuesday, January 6, 2015 PRE-MEETING WORK SESSION(S) 4:30 - 5:00 P.M. The City Council met in open work session to receive agenda item briefings from staff. No action was taken. Council Conference Room, 2nd floor, City Hall. CALL TO ORDERI. Rollcall Councilmember Bob Begert, Councilmember Dawn Moore, Councilmember Tommy Stewart and Councilmember Taylor Armstrong Present:4 - Mayor Olin LaneExcused:1 - INVOCATION: Community Information Officer Steve MaceA. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Community Information Officer Steve Mace / Boy Scouts B. Boy Scout Quinn Snell, 4015 Stanford, of Troop 125 was present as part of earning his Citizenship in the Community merit badge. He assisted Community Information Officer Steve Mace and the City Council in leading the Pledge of Allegiance. INTRODUCTION OF COUNCIL: Mayor Pro Tem Bob BegertC. INTRODUCTION OF STAFF: City Manager Robbie CorderD. Staff in attendance included Community Information Officer Steve Mace, Director of Information Services Dale Harwell, Chief of Police Greg Spradlin, Director of Public Works Bud Smallwood, City Secretary Christine Green, Acting Community Development Director Jacob Speer, Fire Chief Randy Howell, Assistant to the City Manager George Ertle, Director of Finance Tom Tvardzik, Director of Parks Gerry Bradley, Director of Human Resources Luanne Hanford, and Library Director Sharon Martin. AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONII. None Page 1City of University Park January 6, 2015City Council Meeting Minutes CONSENT AGENDAIII. City Manager Robbie Corder said that the minutes from the December 16, 2014 City Council Meeting is the only item on today's Consent Agenda. Mayor Pro Tem Begert asked if there was a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Hearing none, he proceeded to the Main Agenda. MAIN AGENDAIV. 14-256 Consider an ordinance designating part of the 2900 block of Daniel in a Residential Parking District. Staff Report Ordinance Daniel Residential Parking Attachments: Director of Public Works Bud Smallwood gave a presentation. He said that at the request of a resident, staff surveyed the residents of the 2900 block of Daniel to determine their opinion regarding a residential parking district for the block. Almost unanimously, the property owners along the block requested that all but the five lots at the east end of the block (two along the north side of the street and three along the south side) be included in the residential parking district. This ordinance will amend the existing residential parking district to include the part of the 2900 block of Daniel referenced above. A motion was made by Councilmember Tommy Stewart, seconded by Councilmember Dawn Moore, to adopted this ordinance. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Councilmember Begert, Councilmember Moore, Councilmember Stewart, and Councilmember Armstrong 4 - Excused:Mayor Lane1 - 14-257 Consider award of a contract to Ark Contracting for construction of a water main along Hillcrest, south from Daniel to Potomac. Staff Report Bid Tabulation Attachments: Director of Public Works Bud Smallwood gave a presentation. He said that this water main project along Hillcrest, south from Daniel to Potomac, is part of the 2014 Capital Projects Fund. The project will improve pressure and flow characteristics to provide better fire protection along the west side of the SMU campus and adjacent commercial development. Five contractors responded with bids on December 22nd, with Ark Contracting submitting the low bid of $1,081,818. He said that the City Engineer reviewed the contractor’s bid documents for compliance with all specifications, and reviewed project references. A motion was made by Councilmember Taylor Armstrong, seconded by Page 2City of University Park January 6, 2015City Council Meeting Minutes Councilmember Tommy Stewart, to approve this contract. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Councilmember Begert, Councilmember Moore, Councilmember Stewart, and Councilmember Armstrong 4 - Excused:Mayor Lane1 - CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Bob Begert asked the Council if there was a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Approval of the Consent Agenda A motion was made by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Armstrong, to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Councilmember Begert, Councilmember Moore, and Councilmember Armstrong 3 - Nay:Councilmember Stewart1 - Excused:Mayor Lane1 - 14-258 Consider approval of the minutes from the December 16, 2014 City Council Meeting with or without corrections. Staff Report City Council Meeting Minutes - December 16, 2014.pdf Attachments: The minutes were approved. PUBLIC COMMENTSV. There were no speakers. ADJOURNMENTVI. Page 3City of University Park 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Users\GRANIC~1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 7\@BCL@A005FF3B\@BCL@A005FF3B.docx 9:57 AM 01/16/15 AGENDA MEMO 1/20/2015Agenda TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM:Robbie Corder, City Manager SUBJECT:Consider and Act on a request from the Park Cities Historicand Preservation Society to reserve Goar Park for a Classic and Antique Car Show BACKGROUND: The Park Cities Historic and Preservation Society (PCHPS) isrequesting to reserve Goar Park on Saturday, April 11, 2015 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. The PCHPS is proposing to utilize Goar Park for a classic and antique car show and would expect to showcase 50 to 80 cars. The event would be free to the public, and would offer an opportunity for Park Cities residents to showcase classic and antique cars. To assist with the event, PCHPS proposes to provide the following: -Trash receptacles and additional port-a-lets. -Arranging the assistance of a local landscape companyto provide assistance with access points and turf/tree protection, as well as post event turf aeration. -Enlisting the support of local Boy Scouts as volunteers for registration, marshalling the cars to the grounds, and clean-up. RECOMMENDATION: Staff will take direction from the City Council on how to proceed with this request. Park Cities Historic and Preservation Society 1st Annual Classic & Antique Car Show January 20, 2015 Contents  Car show brief  Sample car chow calendar – April 2014 – illustrating prevalence of car shows in the area  Article for PCHPS Magazine published for Home Tour and mailed to Park Cities households  List of car clubs already expressing interest in the show Park Cities Historic and Preservation Society Antique and Classic Car Show TheAstatedAmissionAofAtheAParkACitiesAHistoricAandAPreservationASocietyAisAtoA“PreserveAandApromoteAtheA history,Aarchitecture,AaestheticsAandAculturalAtraditionsAofAtheAParkACities.”AEachASpring for the last decade and a half, the PCHPS has hosted an annual home tour as its principal source of funding. Several years ago we initiated a luncheon series focused on important historical elements of the Park Cities that keyed on this mission and has become a very successful addition to the home tour week activities. This year the Board has approved the inclusion of an antique and classic car show to further our mission, to focus on other historical and cultural elements of our community, and to reach a broader audience. The automobile has long been and remains a key part of our cultural heritage, and quite a few garages and carports in the Park Cities house something special in this regard. Many in our community are involved in restoring, preserving, and showing classic automobiles, and initial interest in integrating this into our celebration of Park Cities history has been very high. Some brief notes regarding PCHPS, the Home Tour, and proposed Car Show:  Our Home Tour weekend theme is “ ACenturyAofAClassics”AandAtiesAinAwithAtheAcentennialA celebrations in HP, at SMU and also for the HPISD  SMU President Gerald Turner will be the keynote speaker at the Luncheon this year  Mike & Marla Boone will serve as the 2015 Honorary Chairs (Mike is currently SMU Board President and formerly HPISD Board President)  In the past year the PCHPS has donated $100,000 to the HPISD Scholarship Foundation and proceedsAfromAtheAweekend’sAeventsAwillAfurtherAfundAthisAeffort  The car show will take place the same Saturday as the Home Tour – April 11, 2015 from 10am to 4pm (Open to show vehicles at 8:30am)  The car show will be free to the public and funded through sponsorships and entry fees paid by those showing cars (this is the common structure for shows that occur throughout DFW during the spring and summer)  On any given weekend during the season there up to a half dozen shows round the Metroplex (see attached calendar for April 2014). Our show will be highlighted on this website.  We would like to host the car show in Goar Park and would expect somewhere between 50 and 80 cars (We have considered the space and feel we could accommodate up to 100).  Pre-registration of show cars will be available through a dedicated website.  We hope to appeal primarily to residents of the Park Cities who would like to showcase their vehicles, but we will also promote the show through various car clubs in the Metroplex such as the Dallas Model A Ford Club, Early Ford V-8 Club, Antique Automobile Club of America, Dallas Area Classic Chevys, etc. Many of these clubs include Park Cities residents amongst their membership.  The car show will include participant judging of cars by class (up to 16 classes of vehicles) as well asAPeople’sAChoiceA wardsAandAaAChairmen’sA wardAchosenAbyAtheABoones.  Each year the Cooper Center hosts Autos in the Park on their grounds, Sandy Lake hosts the All Ford Picnic on their grounds, and Farmers Branch Historical Park hosts the Car & Truck Shootout: “TheApark’sAgrassyAareaAandAbeautifulAtreesAprovideAtheAperfect venue for vehicle enthusiasts to relax and trade stories. The day will include great food and lots of fun for the entrants and spectators alike....” - From the website description of the Farmers Branch Historical Park event Park Cities Historic and Preservation Society Antique and Classic Car Show All Ford Picnic at Sandy Lake Cooper Center Autos in the Park  TheAPebbleABeachAConcoursAd’EleganceAandA meliaAIslandAConcoursAd’EleganceAbothAparkA automobiles on the golf course fairways so there is a successful precedent for showing cars on turf meliaAIslandAConcoursAd’Elegance  We have arranged with a local landscape company to provide assistance with access points and turf/tree protection. They will provide post event aeration of the grounds.  Cars will be marshalled into the park in the morning from two access points along Turtle Creek and one at University, and they would be marshalled out again following the show  We will enlist the support of local Boy Scouts as volunteers – this provides them a great community service opportunityAandAwe’veAhadAsuccessAwithAthisAinAtheApast.ATheyAwillAassistAwithA registration, marshalling at the beginning and end of the show, and also with clean-up.  We will provide trash receptacles during and collection after the show as well as port-a-lets  Spectator parking will be in the streets surrounding Goar Park and Williams Park, along Turtle Creek and Vassar, and along University (as for YMCA soccer games).  In the event of inclement weather and depending upon the situation, we would propose to host the show vehicles parked at curbside on the streets surrounding Goar Park. Many vehicle owners are reluctant to bring their show cars out in the rain so we would expect the number of vehicles to be lower. An alternative would be to have a rain date (perhaps the following weekend or on Sunday rather than Satuarday). This represents a terrific opportunity for us to showcase our community, engage a new group of constituents, and further our mission of promoting our heritage in the Park Cities. ! " ! # ! ! $ % & # $ '() * ! " + # , # # $ % " %! ! # - " # $ ! - " # , & ' ( ) " * " ' + , ) " + # % &# . & / ! & 0 ! & # *- # 1 , , , # ' & ! & # *- # 1 ! " #! $ " # & # - # %!& '% 0 & 0 , # , ( " 2 #% * " 1 , " , & " # # ! ) * % / !!3 0 & # , # + - #!, / & # 4 &% - "% ! & ! , , " # $ 5 + * + 2 - 6 # 0 6 6 , . ' 2 + " & # , # #/ ' / ! ! 0! 1 2 !) ! "'' " ' #" / 3 1 2 ) 3"' (( ! 0 7 / * 6 / # * " 0 $ # & 1 " & 0 ! & # *- # 1 6" / . $ " !!3 " # 5 8 9 : # $ !" !" # $ 8 , , " % (( & 0 ! # , & ' # , & ( $ # - ; ; ! ! ( ) ' # < # : 0 & # , . # " & , , * # % &% 0 , 4-- 4 * " # .. * 7 = # > * & / ! # % ? * )") +) , - ). ) / ! / '/ 0 1 , - . 0/ , # / # < . # & 0 ! & # *- # 1 6 / # 1 - *- # & , 8 , ! " #$ "#% #&# # # # # # '# # # #&#! " #$ "#&#% ' #()(# * # # # +# , - # # * * . / 01 2 3, - * 0 HIDDEN TREASURES American architecture, since the beginning of the twentieth century, has been ubiquitously, and often quite literally, connected to the automobile. Frank Lloyd Wright designed a 3 car garage into a Chicago area home in 1908 and laterAcoinedAtheAtermA“carport.”ASwiss-French architect Le Corbusier, a pioneerAofA“modern”Aarchitecture, embraced the automobile as a focal point for urban design. Very few technological developments have had as significant an impact on the lives of Americans as the automobile, particularly with respect to our physical environment. As Henry Ford revolutionized the industry, and the automobile became widely available to the average American, architects and builders had to consider access, storage, and even maintenance for automobiles in the design and construction of residential housing. New homes began to include paved driveways, porte cocheres, and garages - some even containing a service pit where residents could perform basic vehicle maintenance. Family life changed dramatically as travelling vacations, commuting and greater independence for women and youth became more prevalent. Yet, changes to the architectural and cultural landscape were not only domestic. Gas stations, motels, and shopping centers catering to this new mobility began to appear, and the decentralization of automobile production brought economic stimulus to American cities outside of Detroit. In our community, Highland Park Village, designed by well-known residential architects Marion Fooshee and James Cheek, became the first shopping center in the U.S. and the prototype for shopping centers across the country as the automobile ushered in a new age of suburban consumption. 1939 sawADallas’AfirstAdrive- in bank there, and 1953 brought underground parking – another first for Dallas. In 1914, the Ford Motor Company opened an assembly plant in Dallas. Relocated to East Grand Avenue in 1925, the plant produced over 3,000,000 cars and trucks before closing in 1970. These Fords boreAaAstickerAinAtheArearAwindowAreadingA“BuiltAinATexasAbyATexans.”AItAwas, for a time, the only automobile manufacturing plant in the state and was the only assembly plant in the nation with its own trademark. Today, the automotive heritage of our community lives on behind garage doors, in carports, and under canvass covers throughout the Park Cities. FromAearlyAModelA ’sA and pre-war flatheads (a reference to the engine block and cylinder configuration) to the streamlined V-8’sAofAthe post-war years and the tire-burning, gut-churning muscleAcarsAofAtheA60’sAandA70’s,AtheseAautomotiveA artifacts are prized, collected, driven, and shown by an increasing number of local residents. “It’s historyAonAwheels,”Asays Guy Weintraub, University Park resident and past Dallas Chapter President of the Early Ford V8 Club of America. He has been into cars since he was a boy, and Friday and Saturday nights during his years at Highland Park High School often found him cruising (or racing) on Forest Lane. Having bought and sold more than 116 cars over the years, Guy is uniquely qualified to speak to the special experience of sitting behind the wheel of aApieceAofAhistory.A“EveryAoldAcarAputsAyouAinA a different frame of mind asAyouAdriveAit.” SomeAsayAyouAcan’tAthrowAaArockAinAtheAParkACitiesAwithoutAhittingAaAgarageA occupied by an antique automobile. It is unknown exactly how many of these treasures are tucked away around here. Yet, whether the appreciation is for design, craftsmanship, performance, or nostalgia, the folks who own these cars share an abiding interest in their unique expression of our collective cultural legacy. The automobile is as integral to the fabric of the Park Cities as are the shared experiences of our past – riding with our grandparents, driving the first time, cruising with friends in high school and college – or the reflective beauty of our architecture. It is with this in mind, that the Park Cities Historic and Preservation Society will host a Classic and Antique Car Show this year in conjunction with its annual Historic Home Tour. Architects Wright and Le Corbusier understood the bond between automobiles and architecture, and embraced the historical significance of the technology. Now, as we celebrate our community centennials, these old cars tender a special perspective on our surroundings and provide a distinctive “rearAview”AglimpseAintoAourAown bygone days. Groups/clubs so far expressing support for the show and interest in participating: Early Ford V8 Club of America – Dallas Chapter Red River Triumph Club Rolls Royce Owners Club Lone Star Cougar Club Galaxie Club of America – Dallas members Classic Car Club of America The show has not been widely advertised to date pending finalization of venue, but additional clubs and individuals will be targeted with a special emphasis on networking within University Park and the Highland Park for residents with an interest in showing their vehicles. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Users\GRANIC~1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 7\@BCL@E4055D96\@BCL@E4055D96.docx 12:23 PM 01/16/15 AGENDA MEMO 1/20/2015Agenda TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM:Robbie Corder, City Manager SUBJECT:Consider and act on afeasibility study prepared by Ballard King and Associates, Ltd., to Assess the Viability of Developing a Shared Indoor Pool/Aquatic Facility At the December 16, 2014 City Council meeting, Ken Ballard of Ballard King and Associates, Ltd., presented afeasibility study to assess the viability of developing a shared indoor pool/aquatic facility. The Council mayconsider and act on the findings presented in the study. Feasibility Study to Assess the Viability of Developing Shared Indoor Pool/Aquatic Facility Final Report January 7, 2015 City of University Park, Texas 2743 Ravenhill Circle, Highlands Ranch, CO 80126 * 303.470.8661 * www.ballardking.com * bka@ballardking.com Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................. A Section I Market Analysis .................................................................1 Section II Community Input.............................................................47 Section III Building Program.............................................................52 Section IV Capital Cost Estimate ......................................................61 Section V Business Plan ....................................................................63 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page A Executive Summary The following is a brief executive summary of the “Feasibility Study to Assess the Viability of Developing Shared Indoor Pool/Aquatic facility”. Introduction The Ballard*King & Associates project team has been tasked by the City of University Park to complete a feasibility study for the possible development of a joint indoor aquatic center for the City and Highland Park Independent School District. University Park City Council requested a non-site specific study with the idea that an aquatic center could ultimately be placed in any of a number of locations in University Park. Section I – Market Analysis One of the first steps in the study is to complete a market analysis for the project that examines the demographic characteristics of the market, possible rates of participation in swimming, and the presence of other aquatic providers. Demographics: Two service areas have been identified, the City of University Park and the Highland Park Independent School District. The following summarizes the demographic characteristics of these service areas.  Both service areas are relatively small in terms of the total population. However, it would be possible for the community to support an indoor aquatic facility.  The median age in both service areas is lower, with the City of University Park being significantly lower than the State of Texas and the national number. A lower median age typically points to younger families with children that are primary users of recreation amenities. However, because swimming as an activity crosses all age groups it is important to acknowledge a significant older population that would use an indoor aquatic center.  The cost of living in both service areas is significantly higher than the State and national numbers. However, the median household income is such to support that cost of living.  The rate of spending for Entertainment & Recreation matches the median household income. The spending potential index for these services is double and in some cases triple the national level.  The Tapestry segments for both service areas point to affluent communities with a focus on health and wellness.  Both service areas are impacted by the presence of students at SMU. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page B Aquatics Participation Summary: The following is a brief summary of the possible aquatic participation rates for swimming.  Swimming is the number 3 most popular sport nationally as well as in the service areas.  The overall popularity of swimming has declined by approximately 14.8% in the last 10 years.  The age group with the highest rate of participation in swimming is 7-11.  The rate of participation in swimming is approximately 17.6% of the population over age 7 in the Primary Service Area.  There are estimated to be approximately 210,388 swimmer days available in the Primary Service Area (in 2013) and the rate is expected to grow at a steady rate in the coming years.  Slightly more than 50% of all swimmers swim more than 24 times a year but only 6.4% swim 110 times or more. This means that most swimmers are recreational swimmers rather than competitive. University Park Area Aquatic Facilities Summary: The following is a summary of the University Park area aquatic facilities market.  There are currently four public/non-profit swimming pools located in the University Park area, two of which are indoor pools. There are also two outdoor pools and one significant outdoor private pool in the community.  Two of the pools (Highland Park High School and SMU) need to be replaced as the property they are sited on is needed for other purposes. SMU hopes to have a significant indoor competitive aquatic center built in the next five years or so.  Of the two indoor pools currently in University Park, only the YMCA pool is open for general recreational use. Market Opportunities - Based on the other aquatic facilities located in the University Park area, the following are market opportunities for a new indoor aquatic center in the community.  There are only two indoor pools in the community and the Highland Park High School pool needs to be replaced to allow the high school to expand its classroom space. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page C  The existing Highland Park High School pool supports not only high school swimming and diving but other organized community based swim teams. A new pool can support a variety of needs beyond just School District uses.  A partnership with the City, School District and other potential partners will provide the opportunity for public use of an indoor pool for recreational and fitness swimming.  There are no indoor leisure oriented aquatic facilities in the service area leaving an outstanding market for this type of facility.  The demographic characteristics of the Highland Park Independent School District are very conducive to generating a significant number of swimmers. Market Constraints – In addition to the market opportunities, it is also important to analyze possible market constraints. These include.  The population base in the Highland Park Independent School District is approximately 34,500, which is adequate to support an indoor public pool but with only resident use there are limited opportunities to build a stronger market for a facility.  The YMCA will have a new center in the next couple of years that will feature an indoor lap/competitive pool.  It is anticipated that SMU will have a new indoor competitive pool in the next five years. However, the location, size and availability to outside users has not been determined. Despite the need for a new indoor aquatic center to replace the high school pool and a possible partnership with the City to manage the facility, the reality is that the pool, like most other indoor pools in the United States, will not be able to cover its total cost of operation by revenues generated from the facility. Section II - Community Input A key step in the feasibility process was gaining input from a number of sources. This included a series of stakeholder meetings and focus group sessions as well as a community meeting. The information in this section represents what was heard from these input sessions. Stakeholder Meetings: Stakeholder meetings included:  Dr. Orr, Highland Park School District Superintendent  Leslie Melton, Highland Park School District President-Board of Trustees  Jesse Cole, Highland Park High School Swim Coach EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page D  Bob Livingston, City of University Park - Former City Manager  Olin Lane, City of University Park, Mayor  Bill Pardoe, City of University Park, Park Board Chairman  Gerry Bradley, City of University Park, Parks Director Key findings:  The high school needs to add 20-25 classrooms and there is limited space on the campus for this addition. Moving the pool to another location off-site would help to solve the space issue.  The City and School District have had discussions about the possibility of partnering to develop a new indoor pool on a City site that would allow for not only School District use but also public access. The District would pay for the capital cost of the facility while the City would be responsible for operating the center.  An indoor pool that would be open to general community use would be a great asset for the City and School District.  There is a growing school age population in the District which puts a greater demand on classroom space but could also add to the number of high school swimmers.  The City would have an indoor pool available for the community and the indoor center could enhance the existing Holmes Aquatic Center. It sometimes reaches capacity during the season and additional space would be beneficial. However, the Curtis Park site has issues with parking, traffic and safety that will have to be solved.  With the opposition to the Curtis Park site for an indoor aquatic center, it may require that other site options be explored. However, there are no other obvious sites available at this time. Utilizing any City park for an aquatic center would result in the loss of green space.  The parking requirements for an indoor pool could mean that underground parking may need to be considered but this will add considerable cost to the project.  Conversations were held with SMU regarding their plans for a new indoor aquatic center and the possibility of partnering with the City and School District. However, the site for the SMU pool is out of the City’s and School District’s boundaries. SMU is looking for capital and operational dollars with any partnership. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page E  The new YMCA pool cannot serve the needs of the School District as it will be almost fully subscribed for Y programs.  The School District’s primary use would be for its swim team. Little to no use is expected for school curriculum.  The current high school pool is used by Dallas Masters, the Dallas Mustangs and Elite Swim Club for training and the facility is also used by Special Olympics and occasionally by the YMCA. o Dallas Masters – 60 kids - swim early morning during the school year and late afternoon to early evening in the summer. They also use a number of other pools in the area for their program. o Dallas Mustangs – 120 kids – swim late afternoon to early evening during the school year and the summer. They also use a number of other pools in the area for their program. o Elite Swim Club – 20 kids – swim late evening during the school year. o Special Olympics – utilize the pool in the early afternoon one day a week during the summer. o YMCA – use the pool for meets two weekends during the summer.  The new aquatic center would host local, high school dual/tri meets but not larger district or regional meets or events.  The high school swim team has between 50 and 60 members and they swim from August through February. They usually host 5 meets a season. Many of the swimmers would car pool to a new aquatic center.  High school water polo is a growing sport in Texas and will be a sanctioned sport in the near future.  The existing high school pool is 50 years old and is in need of significant improvements.  Key amenities that the School District would like to see in a new aquatic center include: o A minimum of an 8 lane, 25 yard competitive pool for swimming. Ideally the pool should be able to support water polo as well which would require a 25 yard by 25 meter pool. o Spectator seating on both sides of the pool with a maximum of 400 seats o Dedicated school locker rooms. o Adequate deck space for teams and coaches as well as meets. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page F o Separate diving well with 1 and 3 meter diving boards. o Coaches’ office. o Adequate storage. o A meet/timing room. Focus Groups: The following focus group sessions were held on September 23rd and 24th:  Competitive Swim Teams  Dallas Masters Swim Team  Seniors  Holmes Aquatic Center Users  Curtis Park Neighborhood Residents  Highland Park School District Facilities Committee Key findings:  The competitive swimming programs indicated that the facility should have two pools one of which is a 25 yard by 25 meter competitive pool and the other a warm water leisure pool. There is a strong demand for pool time for USA swim teams. Diving is a very small sport but there is strong growth in water polo. Some groups mentioned the desire for a 50 meter pool. There was also a desire for dry-land training space. The rates that are charged for pool use are an issue. They cannot be increased much beyond the current level. Most swim team kids are dropped off and picked up at the end of practice.  The School District may need to look at other sites besides Curtis Park. They should consider partnering with SMU on their new pool.  The Curtis Park neighborhood residents are not against the idea of an indoor pool in the community, they just do not want to see it built in Curtis Park. There will be a loss of green space, and they are concerned about traffic, safety and parking. The City and School District should look at other sites or the District should purchase additional land next to the high school.  There is concern that a pool that is shared by the School District and the City would be dominated by school uses.  The School District should consider renting pool time from the YMCA or SMU to meet their needs. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page G  The seniors would be excited about having an indoor pool available for year round swimming but they are not sure of the overall need in the community and there is concern with the cost to build and operate the facility.  There is recognition that the School District needs additional classroom space at the high school and this will likely require a new pool to be built elsewhere.  Any new indoor pool should only be open to City and School District residents.  There are traffic, safety and parking concerns with the Curtis Park site. Also the cost to build and operate a new indoor pool is a major issue.  Existing users of the Holmes Park Aquatic Center want to make sure that an indoor pool on the site would not have a negative impact on the existing outdoor pool.  An indoor pool that will serve community needs has to have another body of water besides just a competitive pool. This should be a warm water pool. Community Meeting: On the evening of September 24th, an open community meeting was held at City Hall. The meeting had over 150 people in attendance with overwhelming opposition to building a new indoor pool in Curtis Park. Key Comments Included:  There is a petition with 1,000 signatures opposing an indoor aquatic center in Curtis Park.  The School District needs to keep the pool on the high school campus.  Rather than build a new pool the School District should partner with the YMCA and/or SMU to utilize their facilities.  Other sites in the community need to be investigated.  The City should not have to bear the total cost for operating the center.  There are a number of major concerns with the idea of building an indoor aquatic center in Curtis Park. This includes: o Traffic congestion around the site o Loss of park green space and trees EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page H o Parking needs for the center o Safety of school children o Size and magnitude of the building o Capital and operational costs  The City needs to complete the following studies on the project: o Traffic study o Environmental impact study o Survey of City residents o Legal assessment of the project and the partnership between the City and School District. Section III – Building Program Based upon input from the stakeholder meetings, focus group sessions and community meeting, the existing Highland Park High School competition pool should be replaced by an indoor competition 25 yard x 25 meter pool (10 yard lanes/8 meter lanes) with a minimum depth of 6 feet at the shallow end and 12 feet at the deep end and two 1-meter dive boards. The pool depths allow for competitive swim starts from starting blocks at both ends of the 25 yard and 25 meter swim directions. In addition to supporting 25-yard and 25-meter competitive swim events, the pool dimensions would support water polo and dive & synchronized dive events. Deck area would be equal to or slightly larger than the deck at the existing pool. Seating for 300 on one side of the pool. Support areas for the pool would include community locker rooms, six family change rooms, two team rooms of 1,000 sq.ft. each, 600 sq.ft. meet room (divisible into two rooms that could be reservable party rooms), coaches office, 1,000 sq.ft. weight and cardio room to support competitive swimmers, and mechanical space to support pool equipment. A concessions or vending area could also be included. With a minimum water depth of 6 foot and a cool water temperature that is desired by competitive swimmers, the competition pool would not adequately support the general population in terms of indoor leisure and exercise. Therefore, the natatorium should also include a warmer water leisure pool which may include zero depth entry, water resistance exercise, water aerobics exercise, interactive water features, water slide, climbing wall, lap swim, water basketball and water volleyball. This pool should be approximately 3,500 square feet of water area. Based upon a 6,150 sq.ft. competition pool and 3,500 sq.ft. leisure pool, the recommended supporting pool deck area is between 10,000 and 14,500 sq.ft. and a code bather load of 480 users. A tabulation of building areas are as follows: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page I Component Square Footage Competition Pool (25 yard x 25 meter/Diving) 6,150 Leisure Pool 3,500 Deck Area 14,000 Seating (300) 2,400 Student/Swimmer Locker Rooms 2,000 Public Locker Rooms 2,000 Family Change Rooms (6) 500 Meet Room/Party Room (divisible) 600 Weight Room 1,000 Coaches Office 120 Aquatic Managers Office 120 Lifeguard/First Aid Room 200 Lobby 1,000 Control Desk 200 Concessions/Vending 400 Pool Storage 500 Pool Mechanical Room 1,000 Misc. Circulation & Building support (20%) 7,138 Total 42,828 It should be recognized that once a concept plan is developed for the aquatic center, the square footage noted above could vary. Parking: The parking requirements for the aquatic center are based on the bather load number of 480, staffing levels and spectator seating. Expected Peak Use – Swim team practices and leisure pool in use. Use Number of Users Number Per Vehicle Number of vehicles Parking Competitive Pool 60 3 20 Leisure Pool 300 3 100 Staff 8 1 8 Spectators 20 3 7 Total 388 135 Maximum use (when the center is being used for a swim meet and the leisure pool is in full use) would only likely occur 6-7 times a year. This could push the parking load to 270 spaces but this EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page J could be managed by off-site parking and/or reducing program use of the pool during these time periods. The expected peak use of the center would be late afternoon to early evening on weekdays and mid-day to late afternoon on weekends. Note: This assumes that all users would drive to the center and does not account for people walking or coming by bicycle. If as few as 20% of the pool users used these other forms of transportation, the parking requirements could drop by approximately 25. It should also be noted that for a number of the competitive swim groups, parents simply drop off their child and then return to pick them up. Having a drop-off/pick-up lane near the front entrance to the center will be essential. Location: If the new natatorium were to be located within Curtis Park and adjacent to the existing Holmes Aquatic Center, some amenities would be shared between the two facilities making the whole complex a more enjoyable experience for the users and economically more sustainable than the two facilities would standing on their own. For example, a new main entrance would replace the existing Holmes entrance that is structurally unsound. The new entrance would be centrally located to serve visitors to both the outdoor aquatic center and new indoor aquatic center. This reduces having control/ticket staff at two independent swim centers. The concessions would be shared between the outdoor and indoor aquatic centers. This would make the concessions more economically sustainable which could result in a greater number of menu options. The new toilets would be centrally located within the aquatic complex eliminating the need to take small children near the deep end of the pool to go to the toilet. The new natatorium could also be positioned such that large overhead doors could be opened and the deck area of the outdoor pool would extend into the natatorium. This would provide much needed shade for users at the east end of the 50-meter pool and make the complex a more enjoyable experience for the users. The new indoor leisure pool would add a missing component to the existing Holmes Aquatic Center turning it into a true Family Aquatic Center. Site Requirements: Since there is not a designated site for the proposed aquatic center, understanding the necessary land requirements for the building, parking and needed set-backs is important. Building – The structure is estimated to be approximately 43,000 SF and will have to be built on a single level due to the two pools and the required support amenities. This will require approximately 1 acre to accommodate. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page K Parking – Figuring that approximately 120 parking stalls will be necessary to support the center, but not knowing if there will be surface, structured or a combination of such parking, an area of ¾ to as much as 1 acre will be needed. Set-Backs – Realizing that the building will need to have some set-backs from any streets or other amenities, this could take up as much as ½ of an acre (depending on the site). As a result the aquatic center ideally needs a site of between 2.5 and 3 acres. This is the site size that is recommended, but due to the lack of available open land areas in the Primary Service Area, adapting the aquatic center to limited space will likely be required. Section IV – Capital Cost Estimate The following is a preliminary capital cost estimate for the aquatic center based on the building program that has been determined. This cost estimate was developed by Water Technology, Inc. in consultation with Stantec, the School District architect. It should be noted that this cost estimate represents 2014 pricing and will need to escalate to reflect the actual anticipated date of construction. Since there is not a designated site for the facility, site costs contain only a general estimate for utilities. Once a site had been determined, this aspect of the project cost estimate will need to be adjusted. The estimate also only has a cost provision for surface parking but based on the final location for the center, a parking structure (either above ground or below) may be necessary. This cost will then need to be added to the project estimate. It is also important to note that no cost has been shown for any possible site acquisition fees. At this point a 10% contingency has been shown to cover unforeseen costs. It must be recognized that a more definitive and exacting cost estimate will need to be completed once a site is determined for the center and a concept and site plan has been developed. This could impact the cost estimate noted on the next page. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page L ORDER OF MAGNITUDE PROJECT COSTS Aquatic Facility University Park Aquatics Center Water Technology Inc. Indoor Family Aquatic Center December 5, 2014 University Park, Texas Project Phase: Feasibility Study Div/Sec Description Units Quantity Unit Cost Cost Aquatics Indoor 25 yard Competition Pool Multipurpose Program Lap Pool (8 lane) SF 6150 250 $1,537,500.00 Competition Equipment LS 1 55000 $55,000.00 Moveable Bulkhead 5 feet EA 0 140000 $0.00 Diving 1 Meter EA 2 15000 $30,000.00 Timing and Scoreboard LS 1 55000 $55,000.00 Program equipment LS 1 18000 $18,000.00 Subtotal $1,695,500.00 Indoor Leisure Pool Multipurpose Program Leisure Pool SF 3500 300 $1,050,000.00 Spray Play Equipment LS 1 55000 $55,000.00 Interactive Play Structure LS 1 200000 $200,000.00 Water Slide LS 1 155000 $155,000.00 Subtotal $1,460,000.00 Aquatic Subtotal $3,155,500.00 Architectural SF 315 33178 $10,451,070.00 Theme Development LS 0 0 $0.00 Subtotal $10,451,070.00 Order of Magnitude Cost Summary Subtotal: Pool components and general costs $13,606,570.00 Site Utilities Allowance 1 $400,000 $400,000 Surface Parking Each 120 $2,500 $300,000 Owner Furnished Items (deck furniture, safety equipment, floatables, etc.)Allowance 0.3%$13,606,570 $34,016.43 Concessions Equipment (minimal heat & serve equip, NO grill or frying)Allowance 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 Project Fees & Permitting - (A&E, Permitting, Surveys, Geo-tech, Testing)Allowance 7.0%$13,606,570 $952,459.90 Contingency 10.0%$13,606,570 $1,360,657.00 Construction Escalation Factor (Not included for 2014)Allowance 0.0%$13,606,570 $0.00 Site Acquisition LS 100.0%$0 $0.00 Total Project Cost $16,728,703.33 Natatorium - Lobby, Deck, Change/Toilets, Offices, Concessions, Pool Mech., Storage, Utilities, N.I. Pools EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page M Section V – Business Plan A business plan has been developed for the proposed University Park Aquatic Center. Listed below are the basic parameters for the business plan.  2017 or later will be the first year of operation.  This pro-forma estimate is based on a preliminary program plan (list and size of components in the facility) but without the benefit of a design concept for the facility.  No designated site for the aquatic center has yet been identified.  The aquatic center will be operated by the City of University Park with use by the Highland Park School District for swim team and other programs at no cost.  The facility will only be open to all residents of the Highland Park Independent School District and their guests.  Revenue and use projections are predicated on the center accepting charge cards for all admissions and services as well as electronic funds transfer for annual passes.  The facility will have an active marketing plan to sell annual passes to the center.  The fees, use, and revenue estimates are reasonably aggressive.  Both pools will be guarded for any use including school use and rentals to swim teams etc.  The competitive pool will continue to be utilized by other community based swim teams and groups on a rental basis.  It is projected that the aquatic center could have varied hours of operation depending on the season of the year. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page N Expenditures: Expenditures have been formulated based on the costs that are typically included in the operating budget for this type of facility. The figures are based on the size of the center, the specific components of the facility and the projected hours of operation. Actual costs were utilized wherever possible and estimates for other expenses were based on similar facilities in Texas. All expenses were calculated as accurately as possible but the actual costs may vary based on the design, operational philosophy, and programming considerations adopted by staff. Aquatic Center Description – Competitive pool (25 yard x 25 meter) with seating for 300, leisure pool with slide and other elements, meet room/party room, weight room, student and public locker rooms and administration area – Approximately 42,828 sq.ft. All Categories Center Budget Personnel $597,105 Commodities $60,500 Contractual $267,812 Capital $15,000 TOTAL EXPENSE $940,417 Revenues: The following revenue projections were formulated from information on the specifics of the project and the demographics of the service area as well as comparing them to state and national statistics, other similar facilities and the competition for aquatic services in the area. Actual figures will vary based on the size and makeup of the components selected during final design, market stratification, philosophy of operation, fees and charges policy, and priorities of use. All Categories Center Budget Fees $451,226 Programs $246,205 Other $9,500 TOTAL REVENUE $706,931 Expenditure - Revenue Comparison: Category Center Budget Expenditures $940,417 Revenues $706,931 Difference -$233,486 Recovery Rate 75% EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page O Projected Fee Schedule: The fee schedule is based on only residents (and their guests) of the Highland Park Independent School District being able to use the center. Revenue projections and attendance numbers were calculated from this fee model. Category Daily Month to Month Annual (Prepaid) Res Guest Resident Only Resident Only Adults $8.00 $9.00 $20 $200 Youth (3-17 yrs) $6.00 $7.00 $15 $150 Seniors (60+) $6.00 $7.00 $15 $150 Family N/A N/A $45 $500 Attendance Projections: The following attendance projections are the basis for the revenue figures that were identified earlier in this report. These are averages only and the yearly figures are based on 360 days of operation. Yearly Paid Admissions Description Facility Daily 20 admissions/day 7,200 Month to Month 628/12 months sold annually 65,312 Annual 300 sold annually 31,200 Total Yearly 103,712 Total Daily 288 NOTE: The 928 month to and annual passes are based on selling passes to approximately 8% of the households (11,609 projected in 2014) in the Highland Park Independent School District. Hours of Operation: The projected hours of operation of the aquatic center are as follows: Hours usually vary some with the season (longer hours in the winter, shorter during the summer), by programming needs, use patterns and special event considerations. Days Hours Monday - Friday 5:00am – 9:00pm Saturday 7:00am – 8:00pm Sunday 10:00am – 6:00pm Total Hours Per Week 101 MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 1 Introduction The Ballard*King & Associates project team has been tasked by the City of University Park to complete a feasibility study for the possible development of a joint indoor aquatic center for the City and Highland Park Independent School District. University Park City Council requested a non-site specific study with the idea that an aquatic center could ultimately be placed in any of a number of locations in University Park. Section I – Market Analysis One of the first steps in the study is to complete a market analysis for the project that examines the demographic characteristics of the market, possible rates of participation in swimming, and the presence of other aquatic providers. Demographic Analysis The following is a summary of the basic demographic characteristics of the identified service areas, along with recreation and leisure participation standards as produced by the National Sporting Goods. Service Areas: The goal of a new joint indoor aquatic facility from the City’s perspective will be to serve the needs of its residents. However, it is recognized that with a partnership with the Highland Park Independent School District, the aquatic center will need to serve the School District boundaries as well. As a result two service areas have been identified, the City of University Park and the Highland Park Independent School District. MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 2 Service Area Comparison Chart: City of University Park Highland Park School District Population: 2010 Census 23,068 32,914 2014 Estimate 24,146 34,416 2019 Estimate 25,782 36,818 Households: 2010 Census 7,315 11,182 2014 Estimate 7,598 11,609 2019 Estimate 8,117 12,410 Families: 2010 Census 5,392 7,926 2014 Estimate 5,601 8,228 2019 Estimate 5,987 8,799 Average Household Size: 2010 Census 2.82 2.73 2014 Estimate 2.86 2.75 2019 Estimate 2.88 2.77 Ethnicity: Hispanic 4.8% 4.7% White 93.3% 93.4% Black 1.0% 0.9% American Indian 0.3% 0.3% Asian 3.1% 3.1% Pacific Islander 0.008% 0.008% Other 0.7% 0.8% Multiple 1.7% 1.6% Median Age: 2010 Census 29.7 36.9 2014 Estimate 30.5 37.6 2019 Estimate 32.7 38.6 Median Income: 2014 Estimate $148,031 $149,385 2019 Estimate $194,768 $200,000 Household Budget Expenditures1: Housing 252 255 Entertainment & Recreation 260 262 1 This information is placed on an index with a reference point being the national average of 100. MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 3 Age and Income: The median age and household income levels when compared with the national number are primary determiners of participation in aquatic and recreation activities. The lower the median age, the higher the participation rates are for most activities. The level of participation also increases as the median income level goes up. Table A – Median Age: 2010 Census 2014 Projection 2019 Projection City of University Park 29.7 30.5 32.7 Highland Park School District 36.9 37.6 38.6 State of Texas 33.6 34.2 34.8 Nationally 37.1 37.7 38.2 Chart A – Median Age: The median age of the City of University Park is significantly lower than the Highland Park School District and the State of Texas. The median age in the Highland Park School District is comparable to the national number while being higher than the State of Texas. The median age for the State of Texas is slightly less than the national number. The median age in both University Park and Highland Park School District points to younger families with children, along with the presence of older adults and retirees. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 2010 2014 2019 Ag e City of University Park Highland Park School District Texas National MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 4 Map A – Median Age by Census Block Group: MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 5 Table B – Median Household Income: 2014 Estimate 2019 Projection City of University Park $148,031 $194,768 Highland Park School District $149,385 $200,000 State of Texas $51,979 $61,454 Nationally $52,076 $59,599 Chart B – Median Household Income: $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 $180,000 $200,000 2014 2019 Me d i a n H H I n c o m e City of University Park Highland Park School District Texas National MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 6 Based upon 2014 median income projections the following comparison is possible: In the City of University Park, the percentage of households with a median income over $50,000 per year is 79.9% compared to 52.2% on a national level. Furthermore, the percentage of the households in the service area with a median income less than $25,000 per year is 10.3% compared to the level of 23.8% nationally. In the Highland Park School District, the percentage of households with a median income over $50,000 per year is 79.6% compared to 52.2% on a national level. Furthermore, the percentage of the households in the service area with a median income less than $25,000 per year is 9.9%% compared to the level of 23.8% nationally. While the median household income in the State of Texas is slightly lower than the national number, the median household income in both service areas is 2-3 times higher than those numbers. MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 7 Map B – Median Household Income by Census Block Group: MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 8 Household Budget Expenditures: In addition to taking a look at Median Age and Median Income, it is important to examine Household Budget Expenditures. In particular looking at housing information; shelter, utilities, fuel and public services along with entertainment & recreation can provide a snap shot into the cost of living and spending patterns in the service areas. The table below looks at that information and compares the service areas. Table C – Household Budget Expenditures2: City of University Park SPI Average Spent per Household Percent Housing 252 $52,812.78 30.4% Shelter 260 $41,631.79 24.0% Utilities, Fuel, Public Service 227 $11,180.99 6.4% Entertainment & Recreation 260 $8,380.98 4.8% Highland Park School District SPI Average Spent per Household Percent Housing 252 $53,365.61 30.4% Shelter 262 $42,023.43 23.9% Utilities, Fuel, Public Service 230 $11,342.19 6.5% Entertainment & Recreation 262 $8,453.38 4.8% State of Texas SPI Average Spent per Household Percent Housing 101 $21,217.53 30.3% Shelter 101 $16,162.99 23.1% Utilities, Fuel, Public Service 103 $5,054.54 7.2% Entertainment & Recreation 102 $3,299.69 4.7% SPI: Spending Potential Index as compared to the national number of 100. Average Amount Spent: The average amount spent per household. Percent: Percent of the total 100% of household expenditures. Note: Shelter along with Utilities, Fuel, Public Service are a portion of the Housing percentage. 2 Consumer Spending data are derived from the 2004 and 2005 Consumer Expenditure Surveys, Bureau of Labor Statistics. ESRI forecasts for 2014 and 2019. MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 9 Chart C – Household Budget Expenditures Spending Potential Index: Chart C illustrates the Household Budget Expenditures Spending Potential Index in the service areas. The SPI for Household Budget Expenditures is consistent with the median household income. The rate of spending in both service areas is more than double the state and national number. In terms of Entertainment and Recreation Spending, it represents approximately 5% of total spending. It will be important to keep this information in mind when developing a fee structure and looking at an appropriate cost recovery philosophy for the facility. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Housing Shelter Utilities, Fuel, Public Service Entertainment & Recreation SP I N u m b e r City of University Park Highland Park School District Texas National MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 10 Recreation Expenditures Spending Potential Index: Through the demographic provider that B*K utilizes for the market analysis portion of the report, we can examine the overall propensity for households to spend dollars on recreation activities. The following comparisons are possible. Table D – Recreation Expenditures Spending Potential Index3: City of University Park SPI Average Spent per Household Fees for Participant Sports 293 $343.92 Fees for Recreational Lessons 340 $407.04 Social, Recreation, Club Membership 325 $543.94 Exercise Equipment/Game Tables 236 $176.48 Other Sports Equipment 229 $17.85 Highland Park School District SPI Average Spent per Household Fees for Participant Sports 293 $344.35 Fees for Recreational Lessons 341 $408.47 Social, Recreation, Club Membership 328 $548.06 Exercise Equipment/Game Tables 237 $177.25 Other Sports Equipment 231 $17.97 State of Texas SPI Average Spent per Household Fees for Participant Sports 100 $117.96 Fees for Recreational Lessons 94 $112.76 Social, Recreation, Club Membership 98 $163.82 Exercise Equipment/Game Tables 84 $63.16 Other Sports Equipment 99 $7.70 Average Amount Spent: The average amount spent for the service or item in a year. SPI: Spending potential index as compared to the national number of 100. 3 Consumer Spending data are derived from the 2006 and 2007 Consumer Expenditure Surveys, Bureau of Labor Statistics. MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 11 Chart D – Recreation Spending Potential Index: The Spending Potential Index for Recreation is very comparable to the numbers in the Household Budget Index in that they follow the same pattern. The spending in all areas is double and in some cases triple the state and national number. It is also important to note that these dollars are currently being spent, so the identification of alternative service providers and the ability of another facility to capture a portion of these dollars will be essential information to use in the decision making process. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Fees for Participant Sports Fees for Recreational Lessons Social, Recreaiton, Club Membership Exercise Equipment/Game Tables Other Sports Equipment Re c r e a t i o n S P I N u m b e r City of University Park Highland Park School District Texas National MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 12 Map C – Entertainment & Recreation Spending Potential Index by Census Block Group: MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 13 Service Area Analysis Each of the identified service area’s demographic characteristics are now analyzed. Immediate Service Area – City of University Park. Primary Service Area – Highland Park Independent School District. MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 14 Map D – Immediate Service Area Map: MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 15 Population Distribution by Age: Utilizing census information for the Immediate Service Area, the following comparisons are possible. Table E – 2014 Immediate Service Area Age Distribution (ESRI estimates) Ages Population % of Total Nat. Population Difference -5 1,238 5.2% 6.5% -1.3% 5-17 5,503 22.7% 17.2% +5.0% 18-24 4,629 19.2% 9.8% +9.4% 25-44 4,023 16.6% 26.5% -10.1% 45-54 3,694 15.3% 14.1% +1.2% 55-64 2,862 11.8% 12.3% -0.5% 65-74 1,277 5.3% 7.5% -2.2% 75+ 907 3.8% 6.1% -2.3% Population: 2014 census estimates in the different age groups in the Immediate Service Area. % of Total: Percentage of the Immediate Service Area population in the age group. National Population: Percentage of the national population in the age group. Difference: Percentage difference between the Immediate Service Area population and the national population. Chart E – 2014 Immediate Service Area Age Group Distribution 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 -5 5-17 yrs 18-24 25-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ Pe r c e n t a g e o f P o p u l a t i o n Immediate Service Area National MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 16 The Immediate Service Area, when compared to the characteristics of the national population, indicates that there are some differences. The population is equal or larger in the 5-17, 18-24 and 45-54 age groups and a smaller population in the -5, 25-44, 55-64, 65-74 and 75+ age groups. The largest positive variance is in the 18-24 age group with +9.4% while the greatest negative variance is in the 25-44 age group with -10.1%. MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 17 Population Distribution Comparison by Age: Utilizing census information from the Immediate Service Area, the following comparisons are possible. Table F – 2014 Immediate Service Area Population Estimates (U.S. Census Information and ESRI) Ages 2010 Census 2014 Projection 2019 Projection Percent Change Percent Change Nat’l -5 1,259 1,238 1,343 +6.7% +4.7% 5-17 5,515 5,503 5,812 +5.4% +1.8% 18-24 4,223 4,629 4,578 +8.4% -2.4% 25-44 4,205 4,023 4,255 +0.5% +10.4% 45-54 3,755 3,694 3,707 -1.3% -6.2% 55-64 2,338 2,862 3,248 +38.9% +13.7% 65-74 985 1,277 1,726 +75.2% +32.9% 75+ 788 907 1,105 +40.2% +9.5% Chart F – Immediate Service Area Population Growth Table-F illustrates the growth or decline in age group numbers from the 2010 census until the year 2019. All of the age categories will see an increase or static growth in population, except in the 45-54 age category. It must be remembered that the population of the United States as a whole is aging. It is not unusual to find negative growth numbers in the younger age groups and significant net gains in the 45 plus age groupings in communities which are relatively stable in their population numbers. 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 -5 5-17 yr 18-24 25-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ Po p u l a t i o n 2010 2014 2019 MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 18 Ethnicity and Race: Below is listed the distribution of the population by ethnicity and race for the Immediate Service Area for 2014 population projections. Those numbers were developed from 2010 Census Data. Table G – Immediate Service Area Ethnic Population and Median Age (Source – U.S. Census Bureau and ESRI) Ethnicity Total Population Median Age % of Population % of TX Population Hispanic 1,154 21.0 4.8% 39.1% Table H – Immediate Service Area Population by Race and Median Age (Source – U.S. Census Bureau and ESRI) Race Total Population Median Age % of Population % of TX Population White 22,524 32.6 93.3% 69.1% Black 236 20.8 1.0% 12.0% American Indian 63 19.5 0.3% 0.7% Asian 747 25.4 3.1% 4.2% Pacific Islander 2 47.5 0.008% 0.1% Other 160 24.1 0.7% 11.0% Multiple 414 17.1 1.7% 2.9% 2014 Immediate Service Area Total Population: 24,146 Residents Chart G – Immediate Service Area Non-White Population by Race 1.0% 0.3% 3.1% 0.01% 0.7%1.7% Black American Indian Asian Pacific Islander Other Multiple MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 19 Map E – Primary Service Area Map: MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 20 Population Distribution by Age: Utilizing census information for the Primary Service Area, the following comparisons are possible. Table I – 2014 Primary Service Area Age Distribution (ESRI estimates) Ages Population % of Total Nat. Population Difference -5 1,747 5.0% 6.5% -1.5% 5-17 7,562 22.1% 17.2% +4.9% 18-24 5,242 15.2% 9.8% +5.4% 25-44 5,776 16.8% 26.5% -9.7% 45-54 5,318 15.5% 14.1% +1.4% 55-64 4,416 12.8% 12.3% +0.5% 65-74 2,403 7.0% 7.5% -0.5% 75+ 1,952 5.6% 6.1% -0.5% Population: 2014 census estimates in the different age groups in the Primary Service Area. % of Total: Percentage of the Primary Service Area population in the age group. National Population: Percentage of the national population in the age group. Difference: Percentage difference between the Primary Service Area population and the national population. Chart H – 2014 Primary Service Area Age Group Distribution 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 -5 5-17 yrs 18-24 25-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ Pe r c e n t a g e o f P o p u l a t i o n Primary Service Area National MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 21 The Primary Service Area, when compared to the characteristics of the national population, indicates that there are some differences. The population is equal or larger in the 5-17, 18-24, 45- 54 and 55-64 age groups and a smaller population in the -5, 25-44, 65-74 and 75+ age groups. The largest positive variance is in the 18-24 age group with +5.4% while the greatest negative variance is in the 25-44 age group with -9.7%. MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 22 Population Distribution Comparison by Age: Utilizing census information from the Primary Service Area, the following comparisons are possible. Table J – 2014 Primary Service Area Population Estimates (U.S. Census Information and ESRI) Ages 2010 Census 2014 Projection 2019 Projection Percent Change Percent Change Nat’l -5 1,796 1,747 1,890 +5.2% +4.7% 5-17 7,493 7,562 8,004 +6.8% +1.8% 18-24 4,621 5,242 5,251 +13.6% -2.4% 25-44 6,151 5,776 6,050 -1.8% +10.4% 45-54 5,407 5,318 5,330 -1.4% -6.2% 55-64 3,779 4,416 4,959 +31.2% +13.7% 65-74 1,938 2,403 3,064 +58.1% +32.9% 75+ 1,729 1,952 2,280 +31.9% +9.5% Chart I – Primary Service Area Population Growth Table-J illustrates the growth or decline in age group numbers from the 2010 census until the year 2019. All of the age categories will see an increase or static growth in population, except 25-44 and 45-54. It must be remembered that the population of the United States as a whole is aging. It is not unusual to find negative growth numbers in the younger age groups and significant net gains in the 45 plus age groupings in communities which are relatively stable in their population numbers. 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 -5 5-17 yr 18-24 25-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ Po p u l a t i o n 2010 2014 2019 MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 23 Ethnicity and Race: Below is listed the distribution of the population by ethnicity and race for the Primary Service Area for 2014 population projections. Those numbers were developed from 2010 Census Data. Table K – Primary Service Area Ethnic Population and Median Age (Source – U.S. Census Bureau and ESRI) Ethnicity Total Population Median Age % of Population % of TX Population Hispanic 1,633 22.4 4.7% 39.1% Table L – Primary Service Area Population by Race and Median Age (Source – U.S. Census Bureau and ESRI) Race Total Population Median Age % of Population % of TX Population White 32,145 38.9 93.4% 69.1% Black 307 21.8 0.9% 12.0% American Indian 88 20.8 0.3% 0.7% Asian 1,072 31.0 3.1% 4.2% Pacific Islander 2 47.5 0.008% 0.1% Other 268 26.3 0.8% 11.0% Multiple 534 17.6 1.6% 2.9% 2014 Primary Service Area Total Population: 34,416 Residents Chart J – Primary Service Area Non-White Population by Race 0.9% 0.3% 3.1% 0.01% 0.8%1.6% Black American Indian Asian Pacific Islander Other Multiple MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 24 Tapestry Segmentation: Tapestry segmentation represents the 4th generation of market segmentation systems that began 30 years ago. The Tapestry Segmentation system classifies U.S. neighborhoods based on their socioeconomic and demographic compositions. While the demographic landscape of the U.S. has changed significantly since the 2010 Census, the tapestry segmentation has remained stable as neighborhoods have evolved. The value of including this information for the City of University Park is that it allows the organization to better understand the consumers/constituents in their service areas and supply them with the right aquatic services. The tapestry segmentation system classifies U.S. neighborhoods into 65 distinctive market segments. Neighborhoods are sorted by more than 60 attributes including; income, employment, home value, housing types, education, household composition, age and other key determinates of consumer behavior. The following pages and tables outline the top 5 tapestry segments in each of the service areas and provides a brief description of each. This information, combined with the key indicators and demographic analysis of each service area, help further describe the markets that the City of University Park looks to serve with aquatic programs, services and special events. MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 25 Table M – Immediate Service Area Tapestry Segment Comparison (ESRI estimates) City of University Park U.S. Households Percent Cumulative Percent Percent Cumulative Percent Top Rung (01) 55.0% 55.0% 0.9% 0.9% Trendsetters (23) 20.5% 75.5% 1.2% 2.1% Urban Chic (09) 11.8% 87.3% 1.4% 3.5% Suburban Splendor (02) 4.0% 91.3% 1.7% 5.2% Connoisseurs (03) 3.9% 95.2% 1.3% 6.5% Top Rung (01) – Residents of these neighborhoods are mature, married, highly educated and wealthy. Of the residents, 1/3 are in their peak earning years of 45-64 and more than 77% of households are composed of married couples; ½ of them have children and ½ do not. Except for children, this is a low-diversity, monochromatic market. Health conscious residents in this market practice yoga do aerobics, play golf and tennis. Trendsetters (23) – On the cutting edge of urban style these residents are young, diverse and mobile. More than ½ of the households are singles who live alone or share the rent with a roommate, families comprise the remainder. Ethnically diverse, more than 10% of the residents are Asian, and 25% are Hispanic. These residents regularly exercise. Urban Chic (09) – These residents are professionals who live a sophisticated, exclusive lifestyle. More than ½ of these households are married-couple families, similar to the U.S., and less than ½ of them have children. There is a smaller proportion of single parents and a higher proportion of singles and shared households in comparison to the U.S. To stay fit these residents hike, go biking, practice yoga, do aerobics, play tennis and lift weights. Suburban Splendor (02) – These residents are families who live in growing suburban neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are comprised of married couple families with and without children. The median age is 41.4 years, and ½ of the population are age 35-64 years. This is a low-diversity, predominately white market. These residents keep fit by working out weekly at a club or exercising on a treadmill or stationary bike at home. Connoisseurs (03) – Residents of these neighborhoods are somewhat older with a median age of 46.8 years. Approximately 70% of the population is married, although residents appear closer to retirement than child-rearing age, 30% of the households are married couples with children living at home. Exercise is a priority; they workout weekly at a club or other facility, play golf and tennis, practice yoga and jog. MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 26 Table N – Primary Service Area Tapestry Segment Comparison (ESRI estimates) City of University Park U.S. Households Percent Cumulative Percent Percent Cumulative Percent Top Rung (01) 54.0% 54.0% 0.9% 0.9% Trendsetters (23) 15.2% 69.2% 1.2% 2.1% Urban Chic (09) 12.3% 81.5% 1.4% 3.5% Laptops & Lattes (08) 4.0% 85.5% 1.0% 4.5% Retirement Communities (30) 3.8% 89.3% 1.6% 6.1% Top Rung (01) – Residents of these neighborhoods are mature, married, highly educated and wealthy. Of the residents, 1/3 are in their peak earning years of 45-64 and more than 77% of households are composed of married couples; ½ of them have children and ½ do not. Except for children, this is a low-diversity, monochromatic market. Health conscious residents in this market practice yoga do aerobics, play golf and tennis. Trendsetters (23) – On the cutting edge of urban style these residents are young, diverse and mobile. More than ½ of the households are singles who live alone or share the rent with a roommate, families comprise the remainder. Ethnically diverse, more than 10% of the residents are Asian, and 25% are Hispanic. These residents regularly exercise. Urban Chic (09) – These residents are professionals who live a sophisticated, exclusive lifestyle. More than ½ of these households are married-couple families, similar to the U.S., and less than ½ of them have children. There is a smaller proportion of single parents and a higher proportion of singles and shared households in comparison to the U.S. To stay fit these residents hike, go biking, practice yoga, do aerobics, play tennis and lift weights. Laptops & Lattes (08) – With no homeownership or child-rearing responsibilities, residents of these neighborhoods enjoy a single life in the big city. Most households are singles who live alone or with a roommate. With a median age of 38.6 years, these residents are slightly older than the U.S. median of 36.9 years. Residents regularly exercise at a health club and practice yoga, play tennis, jog and bike. Retirement Communities (30) – Most of the households in these neighborhoods are single seniors who live alone; ¼ are married couples with no children living at home. This is an older market and 1/3 of the residents and 44% of householders are age 65 years or older. Most of these residents are white. These residents go dancing, practice yoga and play golf. MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 27 Demographic Summary The following summarizes the demographic characteristics of the service areas.  Both service areas are relatively small in terms of the total population. However, it would be possible for the community to support an indoor aquatic facility.  The median age in both service areas is lower, with the City of University Park being significantly lower than the State of Texas and the national number. A lower median age typically points to younger families with children that are primary users of recreation amenities. However, because swimming as an activity crosses all age groups it is important to acknowledge a significant older population that would use an indoor aquatic center.  The cost of living in both service areas is significantly higher than the state and national numbers. However, the median household income is such to support that cost of living.  The rate of spending for Entertainment & Recreation matches the median household income. The spending potential index for these services is double and in some cases triple the national level.  The tapestry segments for both service areas point to affluent communities with a focus on health and wellness.  Both service areas are impacted by the presence of students at SMU. MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 28 Sports Participation Numbers In addition to analyzing the demographic realities of the service areas, it is possible to project possible participation in recreation and sports activities. Participation Numbers: On an annual basis the National Sporting Goods Association (NSGA) conducts an in-depth study and survey of how Americans spend their leisure time. This information provides the data necessary to overlay rate of participation onto the Primary Service Area to determine market potential. B*K takes the national average and combines that with participation percentages of the Primary Service Area based upon the age distribution, median income and region. Those four percentages are then averaged together to create a unique participation percentage for the service area. This participation percentage when applied to the population of the Primary Service Area then provides an idea of the market potential for various activities. MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 29 Swimming Participation: The rate of swimming participation is shown below. Table O – Recreation Activity Participation Rates for the Primary Service Area Activity Age Income Region Nation Average Swimming 16.3% 23.3% 15.1% 15.8% 17.6% Age Income Region Nation Average Did Not Participate 21.8% 14.6% 22.7% 21.8% 20.2% Age: Participation based on individuals ages 7 & Up in the Primary Service Area. Income: Participation based on the 2014 estimated median household income in the Highland Park SD. Region: Participation based on regional statistics (West South Central). National: Participation based on national statistics. Average: Average of the four columns. MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 30 Anticipated Participation Numbers for Swimming: Utilizing the average percentage from Table-O above plus the 2010 census information and census estimates for 2014 and 2019 (over age 7) the following comparisons are possible. Table P – Participation Rates Primary Service Area Activity Average 2010 Part. 2014 Part. 2019 Part. Difference Swimming 17.6% 5,300 5,588 5,974 +674 Average 2010 Part. 2014 Part. 2019 Part. Difference Did Not Participate 20.2% 6,080 6,411 6,853 +773 Note: The estimated participation numbers for swimming could take place in an indoor aquatic facility in the Primary Service Area. However, these numbers do not translate into attendance figures for an indoor aquatic facility in the Primary Service Area as people already participate in many other locations. The “Did Not Participate” statistics refers to all 51 activities outlined in the NSGA 2013 Survey Instrument. MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 31 Anticipated Annual Swimmer Days: Utilizing NSGA’s 2013 survey information, B*K can determine the average number of times each of the groups listed below participated in swimming. Once that average is determined it can be applied to the participation numbers from Table-P to provide anticipated swimmer days within the service area. Anticipated swimmer days are defined as the number of times all of the individuals within the service area will swim during the year, regardless of duration or location. Table Q – Anticipated Annual Swimmer Days Primary Service Area National Male Female Region Income Average 38.17 37.00 39.01 37.22 36.83 37.65 Average 2010 Part. 2013 Part. 2018 Part. Difference 37.65 199,545 210,388 224,921 25,376 This is a significant number of swimmer days that are available in the Primary Service Area. MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 32 In addition to developing a unique participation percentage for the Primary Service Area and looking at the number of swimmer days, B*K also examines the frequency of participation in swimming according to the 2013 NSGA Survey. The chart below outlines that data. Table R – Participation Frequency Frequent Occasional Infrequent Swimming Frequency 110+ 25-109 6-24 Swimming Percentage of Population 5.9% 44.7% 49.4% In the chart above one can look at swimming and how it is defined with respect to visits being Frequent, Occasional or Infrequent and then the percentage of the population that participates. Table S – Participation Numbers in Primary Service Area Frequent Occasional Infrequent Total Swimming 115 67 15 Population 330 2,498 2,760 Visits 37,950 167,366 41,400 246,716 The table above takes the frequency information one step further and identifies the number of times an individual may participate in swimming. Once that is determined, the participation numbers are applied to percentage from Table-R to the population in Table-P and then gives a total number of aquatic facility visits. Those visits are not specific to one facility, but rather specific to the Primary Service Area population. In other words, those visits are already taking place at the facilities within the service area. Frequent Users: Competitive swimmers, multi-sport athletes and individuals that participate in lap swimming for exercise fall into this group. Their preference is 50M or 25Y lap lanes, and they have little concern for the social aspects of aquatics. Occasional Users: Some multi-sport athletes, some lap swimmers and individuals using the pool for other fitness purposes such as water walking or group exercise fall into this group. Also included in this group are some families. Their preference is the inclusion of lap lanes, but also shallow and deep water and varied water temperatures. Infrequent Users: Families and non-lap swimmers fall into this group. Their preference has little to do with exercise in the water. They are looking for shallow water, interactive play features and warm water. Being in the water is merely enough for this group, and the social aspect is significantly more important than exercise or competition. MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 33 Participation by Ethnicity and Race: Participation in sports activities is also tracked by ethnicity and race. The table below compares the overall rate of participation nationally with the rate for Hispanics and African Americans. Utilizing the information provided by the National Sporting Goods Association's 2013 survey, the following comparisons are possible. Table T – Comparison of National, African American and Hispanic Participation Rates Primary Service Area National Participation African American Participation Hispanic Participation Swimming 17.6% 17.0% 5.8% 10.9% Did Not Participate 20.2%% 21.9% 27.1% 25.6% Primary Service Part: The unique participation percentage developed for the Primary Service Area. National Rate: The national percentage of individuals who participate in a given activity. African American Rate: The percentage of African Americans who participate in a given activity. Hispanic Rate: The percentage of Hispanics who participate in a given activity. Based on the fact that there is not a significant African American or Hispanic population in the Primary Service Area, these participation rates become less relevant to the impact on overall participation percentages. MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 34 Summary of Sports Participation: The following chart summarizes participation in both indoor and outdoor activities utilizing information from the 2013 National Sporting Goods Association survey. Table U – Sports Participation Summary Sport Nat’l Rank4 Nat’l Participation (in millions) Primary Service Area Primary Service Area % Participation Exercise Walking 1 96.3 1 34.3% Exercising w/ Equipment 2 53.1 2 18.9% Swimming 3 45.5 3 17.6% Aerobic Exercising 4 44.1 5 16.3% Running/Jogging 5 42.0 4 16.5% Workout @ Club 10 34.1 6 12.7% Weightlifting 11 31.2 7 11.8% Yoga 13 25.9 9 8.9% Basketball 14 25.5 8 9.6% Soccer 20 12.9 10 5.0% Tennis 21 12.6 11 4.8% Baseball 23 11.7 12 4.4% Volleyball 24 10.1 14 3.4% Softball 25 10.0 13 3.6% Football (tackle) 32 7.5 15 2.7% Gymnastics 39 5.1 16 2.1% Cheerleading 45 3.5 17 1.3% Wrestling 48 3.1 17 1.3% Lacrosse 49 2.8 19 0.8% Nat’l Rank: Popularity of sport based on national survey. Nat’l Participation: Percent of population that participate in this sport on national survey. Primary Service %: Ranking of activities based upon average from Table-O and other calculations. Primary Service Rank: The rank of the activity within the Primary Service Area. This table indicates that swimming is the third most popular sport nationally and in the Primary Service Area. 4 This rank is based upon the 51 activities reported on by NSGA in their 2013 survey instrument. MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 35 In addition to examining the participation numbers for various indoor activities through the NSGA 2013 Survey and the Spending Potential Index for Entertainment & Recreation, B*K can access information about Sports & Leisure Market Potential. Table V – Market Potential Index5 for Adult Participation in the Primary Service Area Adults participated in: Expected Number of Adults Percent of Population MPI Swimming 5,718 22.8% 144 Expected # of Adults: Number of adults, 18 years of age and older, participating in the activity in the Primary Service Area. Percent of Population: Percent of the service area that participates in the activity. MPI: Market potential index as compared to the national number of 100. This table indicates that the overall propensity for adults to participate in swimming is almost 50% greater than the national number. This can be attributed to a number of factors; with access to facilities and ability to pay being two of the most common. 5 Data Note: An MPI (Market Potential Index) measures the relative likelihood of the adults or households in the specified trade area to exhibit certain consumer. Source: These data are based upon national propensities to use various products and services, applied to local demographic composition. MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 36 Map F – Swimming Participation: MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 37 Sports Activity Trends: Below are listed those sports activities and the percentage of growth or decline that each has experienced nationally over the last 10 years (2004-2013). Table W – National Activity Trend (in millions) Sport/Activity 2013 Participation 2004 Participation Percent Change Yoga 25.9 6.3 +311.1% Wrestling 3.1 1.3 +138.5% Lacrosse6 2.8 1.2 +133.3% Running/Jogging 42.0 24.7 +70.0% Aerobic Exercising 44.1 29.5 +49.5% Tennis 12.6 9.6 +31.3% Gymnastics7 5.1 3.9 +30.8% Weightlifting 31.3 26.2 +19.5% Exercise Walking 96.3 84.7 +13.7% Workout @ Club 34.1 31.8 +7.2% Exercising w/ Equipment 53.1 52.2 +1.7% Soccer 12.8 13.3 -3.8% Volleyball 10.1 10.8 -6.5% Basketball 25.5 27.8 -8.3% Football (tackle) 7.5 8.2 -8.5% Cheerleading 3.5 4.1 -14.6% Swimming 45.5 53.4 -14.8% Softball 10.0 12.5 -20.0% Baseball 11.7 15.9 -26.4% 2013 Participation: The number of participants per year in the activity (in millions) in the United States. 2004 Participation: The number of participants per year in the activity (in millions) in the United States. Percent Change: The percent change in the level of participation from 2004 to 2013. It is significant that swimming participation has declined by 14.8% nationally over the last ten years. 6 Participation trend since 2007. 7 Participation trend since 2009. MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 38 Table X – Swimming 15-Year History Year Participation in Millions 2013 45.5 2012 48.6 2011 46.0 2010 51.9 2009 50.2 2008 53.5 2007 52.3 2006 56.5 2005 48.0 2004 53.4 2003 52.3 2002 53.1 2001 54.8 2000 58.8 1999 57.9 Chart K – Swimming 15-Year History 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 Po p u l a t i o n Swimming MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 39 Aquatic Activity and Facility Trends: Without a doubt the hottest trend in aquatics is the leisure pool concept. This idea of incorporating slides, current channels, fountains, zero depth entry and other water features into a pool’s design has proved to be extremely popular for the recreational user. The age of the conventional pool in most recreational settings has been greatly diminished. Leisure pools appeal to the younger children (who are the largest segment of the population that swim) and to families. These types of facilities can attract and draw larger crowds, and people tend to come from a further distance and stay longer to utilize such pools. This all translates into the potential to sell more admissions and increase revenues. It is estimated conservatively that a leisure pool can generate up to 20% to 25% more revenue than a comparable conventional pool and the cost of operation, while being higher, has been offset through increased revenues. Patrons seem willing to pay a higher user fee at a leisure pool than a conventional aquatics facility. Another trend that is growing more popular in the aquatic’s field is the development of a raised temperature therapy pool for rehabilitation programs. A raised temperature therapy pool is typically developed in association with a local health care organization or a physical therapy clinic. The medical organization either provides capital dollars for the construction of the pool or agrees to purchase so many hours of pool time on an annual basis. This form of partnership has proven to be appealing to both the medical side and the organization that operates the facility. The medical sector receives the benefit of a larger aquatic center, plus other amenities that are available for their use, without the capital cost of building the structure. In addition, they can develop a much stronger community presence away from traditional medical settings. The facility operators have a stronger marketing position through an association with a medical organization and a user group that will provide a solid and consistent revenue stream for the center. This is enhanced by the fact that most therapy use times occur during the slower mid-morning or afternoon times in the pool and the center. Despite the recent emphasis on recreational swimming and therapy, the more traditional aspects of aquatics (including swim teams, instruction and aqua fitness) remain as the foundation for many aquatic centers. The life safety issues associated with teaching children how to swim is a critical concern in most communities and competitive swim team programs through USA Swimming, high schools, and other community based organizations continue to be important. Aqua fitness, from aqua exercise to lap swimming, has enjoyed strong growth during the last ten years with the realization of the benefits of water-based exercise. A new concept is the spray ground, where a number of water spray features are placed in a playground setting where there is no standing water but the water is treated and recirculated much like a pool. This provides a fun yet safe environment where drowning is not a concern and lifeguards are not necessary. While most spray grounds are outdoor amenities, they are now being integrated into indoor facilities as well. MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 40 The multi-function indoor aquatic center concept of delivering aquatics services continues to grow in acceptance with the idea of providing for a variety of aquatics activities and programs in an open design setting that features a lot of natural light, interactive play features and access to an outdoor sundeck. The placing of traditional instructional/competitive pools, with shallow depth/interactive leisure pools and therapy water, in the same facility has been well received in the market. This idea has proven to be financially successful by centralizing pool operations for recreation service providers and through increased generation of revenues from patrons willing to pay for an aquatics experience that is new and exciting. Indoor aquatic centers have been instrumental in developing a true family appeal for community-based facilities. The keys to success for this type of center revolve around the concept of intergenerational use in a quality facility that has an exciting and vibrant feel in an outdoor like atmosphere. Aquatic Facilities Market Orientation Based on the aquatic trends and typical aquatic needs within a community, there are specific market areas that need to be addressed with aquatic facilities. These include: 1. Leisure/recreation aquatic activities - This includes a variety of activities found at leisure pools with zero depth entry, warm water, play apparatus, slides, seating areas and deck space. These are often combined with other non-aquatic areas such as concessions and birthday party or other group event areas. 2. Instructional programming - The primary emphasis is on teaching swimming and lifesaving skills to many different age groups. These activities have traditionally taken place in more conventional pool configurations but should not be confined to just these spaces. Reasonably warm water, shallow depth with deeper water (4 ft. or more), and open expanses of water are necessary for instructional activities. Easy pool access, a viewing area for parents, and deck space for instructors is also crucial. 3. Fitness programming - These types of activities continue to grow in popularity among a large segment of the population. From aqua exercise classes, to lap swimming times, these programs take place in more traditional settings that have lap lanes and large open expanses of water available at a 3 1/2 to 5 ft. depth. 4. Therapy – A growing market segment for many aquatic centers is the use of warm, shallow water for therapy and rehabilitation purposes. Many of these services are offered by medically based organizations that partner with the center for this purpose. 5. Competitive swimming/diving - Swim team competition and training for youth, adults and seniors requires a traditional 6 to 10 lane pool with a 1 and/or 3 meter diving boards at a length of 25 yards or 50 meters. Ideally, the pool depth should be no less than 4 ft. deep (7 is preferred). MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 41 Spectator seating and deck space for staging meets is necessary. This market is usually relatively small in number but very vocal on the demands for competitive pool space and time. 6. Specialized uses – Activities such as water polo and synchronized swimming can also take place in competitive pool areas as long as the pool is deep enough (7 ft. minimum) and the pool area is large enough. However these are activities that have small participant numbers and require relatively large pool areas. As a result it may be difficult to meet the needs of all specialized uses on a regular basis. 7. Social/relaxation - The appeal of using an aquatics area for relaxation has become a primary focus of many aquatic facilities. This concept has been very effective in drawing non-swimmers to aquatic facilities and expanding the market beyond the traditional swimming boundaries. The use of natural landscapes and creative pool designs that integrate the social elements with swimming activities has been most effective in reaching this market segment. 8. Special events/rentals - There is a market for special events including kids birthday parties, corporate events, community organization functions, and general rentals to outside groups. The development of this market will aid in the generation of additional revenues and these events/rentals can often be planned for after or before regular hours or during slow use times. It is important that special events or rentals not adversely affect daily operations or overall center use. Specific market segments include: 1. Families - Within almost any market, an orientation towards family activities is essential. The ability to have family members of different ages participate in a fun and vibrant facility is essential. 2. Pre-school children - The needs of pre-school age children need to be met with very shallow or zero depth water which is warm and has play apparatus designed for their use. Interactive programming involving parents and toddlers can also be conducted in more traditional aquatic areas as well. 3. School age youth - A major focus should be to meet the needs of this age group from recreational swimming to competitive aquatics. The leisure components such as slides, fountains, lazy rivers and zero depth will help to bring these individuals to the pool on a regular basis for drop-in recreational swimming. The lap lanes provide the opportunity and space necessary for instructional programs and aquatic team use. 4. Teens - Another aspect should be meeting the needs of the teenage population. Serving the needs of this age group will require leisure pool amenities that will keep their interest (slides) as well as the designation of certain “teen” times of use. MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 42 5. Seniors - As the population of the United States and the University Park area continues to age, meeting the needs of an older senior population will be essential. A more active and physically oriented senior is now demanding services to ensure their continued health. Aqua exercise, lap swimming, therapeutic conditioning and even learn to swim classes have proven to be popular with this age group. 6. Special needs population - This is a secondary market, but with the A.D.A. requirements and the probable existence of shallow warm water and other components, the amenities are present to develop programs for this population segment. Association with a hospital and other therapeutic and social service agencies will be necessary to enhance this market. 7. Special interest groups - This is a market that needs to be explored to determine the use potential from a variety of groups. These could include swim teams (and other aquatic teams), School District teams, day care centers and social service organizations. Aquatics Participation Summary: The following is a brief summary of the possible aquatic participation rates for swimming.  Swimming is the number 3 most popular sport nationally as well as in the service areas.  The overall popularity of swimming has declined by approximately 14.8% in the last 10 years.  The age group with the highest rate of participation in swimming is 7-11.  The rate of participation in swimming is approximately 17.6% of the population over age 7 in the Primary Service Area.  There are estimated to be approximately 210,388 swimmer days available in the Primary Service Area (in 2013) and the rate is expected to grow at a steady rate in the coming years.  Slightly more than 50% of all swimmers swim more than 24 times a year but only 6.4% swim 110 times or more. This means that most swimmers are recreational swimmers rather than competitive. MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 43 University Park Area Aquatic Facilities Assessment: Within the University Park market there are a number of indoor and outdoor pools to serve the population base. Public and Non-Profit Providers The City, School District, and the YMCA all have pools in the market as does the Town of Highland Park. City of University Park – The City has an outdoor community pool, Holmes Aquatic Center, which is located in Curtis Park. The facility features a 50 meter and a wading pool, splash pad, and slide pool. Time is set aside for use by the Dolphin Swim Team in the morning, and there is also time allocated for senior swim and swim lessons. From 10:00am until 9:00pm the pool is open for recreational swimming (noon to 9:00pm on Sundays). Since this is an outdoor pool, it is a seasonal operation. The facility is only open to residents of University Park and their guests. Highland Park Independent School District – The School District has an indoor 6 lane x 25 yard pool on the campus of Highland Park High School. This pool is utilized by the high school’s swim team, Dallas Masters during the early morning hours, and the Dallas Mustangs Swim Team and the Elite Swim Club in the evenings. During the summer hours, there is also some use by the tennis team, Special Olympics and even the YMCA. There are no open hours for general public use. The location of the pool on the campus is where the district needs to expand and add a large number of classrooms to serve its academic needs. As a result the district is looking for a new location for the pool off-campus. Park Cities YMCA – The Y currently has an indoor 8 lane x 25 yard pool in its building and is planning to build a new facility that will also have a similar sized pool. The Y has its own programming including swim lessons, water exercise classes and a swim team. Highland Park H.S. Pool Holmes Aquatic Center MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 44 Town of Highland Park – The Town operates an outdoor community pool that features a 100 foot by 50 foot main pool as well as a separate wading pool. The facility is only open to residents of Highland Park and their guests. Private The other provider of aquatic facilities is the private sector. SMU – The university has an existing 50 meter outdoor pool with a dive tower that is utilized primarily by its swim and dive teams as well as some community based competitive swim teams. The University has long term plans to build a new indoor aquatic center but the size, configuration and location still has to be determined. Dallas Country Club – The club also has an outdoor pool that is available on a seasonal basis for its members and guests. SMU Pool It is recognized that there are a number of home pools in the community as well but these cannot serve the broader needs of the public. This is a representative listing of alternative aquatic facilities in the University Park area and is not meant to be a total accounting of all service providers. There may be other facilities located in the greater service area that have an impact on the market as well. University Park Area Aquatic Facilities Summary: The following is a summary of the University Park area aquatic facilities market. MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 45  There are currently four public/non-profit swimming pools located in the University Park area, two of which are indoor pools. There are also two outdoor pools and one significant outdoor private pool in the community.  Two of the pools (Highland Park High School and SMU) need to be replaced as the property they are sited on is needed for other purposes. SMU hopes to have a significant indoor competitive aquatic center built in the next five years or so.  Of the two indoor pools currently in University Park, only the YMCA pool is open for general recreational use. Market Opportunities - Based on the other aquatic facilities located in the University Park area, the following are market opportunities for a new indoor aquatic center in the community.  There are only two indoor pools in the community and the Highland Park High School pool needs to be replaced to allow the high school to expand its classroom space.  The existing Highland Park High School pool supports not only high school swimming and diving but other organized community based swim teams. A new pool can support a variety of needs beyond just School District uses.  A partnership with the City, School District and other potential partners will provide the opportunity for public use of an indoor pool for recreational and fitness swimming.  There are no indoor leisure oriented aquatic facilities in the service area, leaving an outstanding market for this type of facility.  The demographic characteristics of the Highland Park Independent School District are very conducive to generating a significant number of swimmers. Market Constraints – In addition to the market opportunities, it is also important to analyze possible market constraints. These include.  The population base in the Highland Park Independent School District is approximately 34,500, which is adequate to support an indoor public pool but with only resident use there are limited opportunities to build a stronger market for a facility.  The YMCA will have a new center in the next couple of years that will feature an indoor lap/competitive pool. MARKET ANALYSIS City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 46  It is anticipated that SMU will have a new indoor competitive pool in the next five years. However, the location, size and availability to outside users has not been determined.  Despite the need for a new indoor aquatic center to replace the high school pool and a possible partnership with the City to manage the facility, the reality is that the pool, like most other indoor pools in the United States, will not be able to cover its total cost of operation by revenues generated from the facility. COMMUNITY INPUT City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 47 Section II – Community Input A key step in the feasibility process was gaining input from a number of sources. This included a series of stakeholder meetings and focus group sessions as well as a community meeting. The information in this section represents what was heard from these input sessions. Stakeholder Meetings Stakeholder meetings included:  Dr. Orr, Highland Park School District Superintendent  Leslie Melton, Highland Park School District President-Board of Trustees  Jesse Cole, Highland Park High School Swim Coach  Bob Livingston, City of University Park - Former City Manager  Olin Lane, City of University Park, Mayor  Bill Pardoe, City of University Park, Park Board Chairman  Gerry Bradley, City of University Park, Parks Director Key findings:  The high school needs to add 20-25 classrooms and there is limited space on the campus for this addition. Moving the pool to another location off-site would help to solve the space issue.  The City and School District have had discussions about the possibility of partnering to develop a new indoor pool on a City site that would allow for not only School District use but also public access. The District would pay for the capital cost of the facility while the City would be responsible for operating the center.  An indoor pool that would be open to general community use would be a great asset for the City and School District.  There is a growing school age population in the District which puts a greater demand on classroom space but could also add to the number of high school swimmers.  The City would have an indoor pool available for the community and the indoor center could enhance the existing Holmes Aquatic Center. It sometimes reaches capacity during the season and additional space would be beneficial. However, the Curtis Park site has issues with parking, traffic and safety that will have to be solved. COMMUNITY INPUT City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 48  With the opposition to the Curtis Park site for an indoor aquatic center, it may require that other site options be explored. However, there are no other obvious sites available at this time. Utilizing any City park for an aquatic center would result in the loss of green space.  The parking requirements for an indoor pool could mean that underground parking may need to be considered but this will add considerable cost to the project.  Conversations were held with SMU regarding their plans for a new indoor aquatic center and the possibility of partnering with the City and School District. However, the site for the SMU pool is out of the City’s and School District’s boundaries. SMU is looking for capital and operational dollars with any partnership.  The new YMCA pool cannot serve the needs of the School District as it will be almost fully subscribed for Y programs.  The School District’s primary use would be for its swim team. Little to no use is expected for school curriculum.  The current high school pool is used by Dallas Masters, the Dallas Mustangs and Elite Swim Club for training and the facility is also used by Special Olympics and occasionally by the YMCA. o Dallas Masters – 60 kids - swim early morning during the school year and late afternoon to early evening in the summer. They also use a number of other pools in the area for their program. o Dallas Mustangs – 120 kids – swim late afternoon to early evening during the school year and the summer. They also use a number of other pools in the area for their program. o Elite Swim Club – 20 kids – swim late evening during the school year. o Special Olympics – utilize the pool in the early afternoon one day a week during the summer. o YMCA – use the pool for meets two weekends during the summer.  The new aquatic center would host local, high school dual/tri meets but not larger district or regional meets or events.  The high school swim team has between 50 and 60 members and they swim from August through February. They usually host 5 meets a season. Many of the swimmers would car pool to a new aquatic center. COMMUNITY INPUT City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 49  High school water polo is a growing sport in Texas and will be a sanctioned sport in the near future.  The existing high school pool is 50 years old and is in need of significant improvements.  Key amenities that the School District would like to see in a new aquatic center include: o A minimum of an 8 lane, 25 yard competitive pool for swimming. Ideally the pool should be able to support water polo as well which would require a 25 yard by 25 meter pool. o Spectator seating on both sides of the pool with a maximum of 400 seats o Dedicated school locker rooms. o Adequate deck space for teams and coaches as well as meets. o Separate diving well with 1 and 3 meter diving boards. o Coaches’ office. o Adequate storage. o A meet/timing room. Focus Groups The following focus group sessions were held on September 23rd and 24th:  Competitive Swim Teams  Dallas Masters Swim Team  Seniors  Holmes Aquatic Center Users  Curtis Park Neighborhood Residents  Highland Park School District Facilities Committee Key findings:  The competitive swimming programs indicated that the facility should have two pools one of which is a 25 yard by 25 meter competitive pool and the other a warm water leisure pool. There is a strong demand for pool time for USA swim teams. Diving is a very small sport but there is strong growth in water polo. Some groups mentioned the desire for a 50 meter pool. There was also a desire for dry-land training space. The rates that are charged for pool use are an issue. They cannot be increased much beyond the current level. Most swim team kids are dropped off and picked up at the end of practice.  The School District may need to look at other sites besides Curtis Park. They should consider partnering with SMU on their new pool. COMMUNITY INPUT City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 50  The Curtis Park neighborhood residents are not against the idea of an indoor pool in the community, they just do not want to see it built in Curtis Park. There will be a loss of green space, and they are concerned about traffic, safety and parking. The City and School District should look at other sites or the District should purchase additional land next to the high school.  There is concern that a pool that is shared by the School District and the City would be dominated by school uses.  The School District should consider renting pool time from the YMCA or SMU to meet their needs.  The seniors would be excited about having an indoor pool available for year round swimming but they are not sure of the overall need in the community and there is concern with the cost to build and operate the facility.  There is recognition that the School District needs additional classroom space at the high school and this will likely require a new pool to be built elsewhere.  Any new indoor pool should only be open to City and School District residents.  There are traffic, safety and parking concerns with the Curtis Park site. Also the cost to build and operate a new indoor pool is a major issue.  Existing users of the Holmes Park Aquatic Center want to make sure that an indoor pool on the site would not have a negative impact on the existing outdoor pool.  An indoor pool that will serve community needs has to have another body of water besides just a competitive pool. This should be a warm water pool. Community Meeting On the evening of September 24th, an open community meeting was held at City Hall. The meeting had over 150 people in attendance with overwhelming opposition to building a new indoor pool in Curtis Park. Key Comments Included:  There is a petition with 1,000 signatures opposing an indoor aquatic center in Curtis Park. COMMUNITY INPUT City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 51  The School District needs to keep the pool on the high school campus.  Rather than build a new pool the School District should partner with the YMCA and/or SMU to utilize their facilities.  Other sites in the community need to be investigated.  The City should not have to bear the total cost for operating the center.  There are a number of major concerns with the idea of building an indoor aquatic center in Curtis Park. This includes: o Traffic congestion around the site o Loss of park green space and trees o Parking needs for the center o Safety of school children o Size and magnitude of the building o Capital and operational costs  The City needs to complete the following studies on the project: o Traffic study o Environmental impact study o Survey of City residents o Legal assessment of the project and the partnership between the City and School District. BUILDING PROGRAM City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 52 Section III – Building Program The following is a brief assessment of the Highland Park High School pool as well as the Holmes Aquatic Center. In addition there is a recommended program for a new indoor aquatic center in University Park. Assessment of existing Highland Park HS Pool Located within the main building of Highland Park High School, the existing competition pool consists of a 6-lane, 25 yard tank which varies in depth from 3’-6” to 12’. The tile pool finish and tile deck finish represent the finest and longest lasting finishes available even by today’s standards. The structural condition of the pool’s shell appears to be in very good condition, no visible cracks were observed. There are four post starting blocks at the deep end of the pool. The water depth at the shallow end does not meet USA Swimming standards for racing starts from starting platforms so the existing deck inserts for the starting blocks should never be utilized. While there are two 1- meter dive stands, only one of the stands dive boards was positioned for use. The pool’s floor profile in regards to depth and length requirements for 1-meter dive boards appears to comply with Texas Department of Health Standards for Pools and Spas but was not physically confirmed. It was not part of this scope to verify if the main drains are VGB (Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act) compliant. Such compliance requires the pool to be equipped with anti- entrapment main drains which includes covers that meet ASME/ANSI A112.19.8 performance standard, the main drains to be interconnected and drain pipe connections to the main drains at a distance from top of pipe to bottom of main drain cover that meets at least 1.5 times the pipe diameter. The original design of pools of this age generally do not comply with this requirement and must have the main drain piping modified. There was not any evidence that the main drain piping had been modified. While the water depth at the shallow end of the pool would support water aerobics, the shallow depth prevents the pool from supporting water polo which requires a minimum 6 foot depth. The sport of water polo in high schools was moved from a fall event to a spring event so it would not conflict with competitive swimming. In the last 5 years water polo has seen a major growth spurt at the Texas high school level. Water polo is currently played at 100+ high schools in Texas and efforts are underway to make it a UIL sanctioned high school sport in Texas. The pool filtration system should be pulling water from both the surface rim flow gutter and the main drains. However, at the time of the visit for this report the pool water level was too low for surface rim flow into the gutter. The pool water clarity at the time of the visit for this report was somewhat cloudy but overall good. The filtration system consists of three Pentair Triton high rate sand filters connected in parallel. The pool mechanical room’s limited room height and overall size severely limits options for alternate and better filtration systems. The plastic or fiberglass surge tank container is undersized for a pool of this size. An overflow pipe connected near the top BUILDING PROGRAM City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 53 of the tank and drained to a building drain prevents the tank from overflowing into the room. Pool chlorine and acid chemicals are stored in the same room which is causing deterioration of all the metals in the room. It is highly recommended that such chemicals be stored in separate rooms that are mechanically vented to the building exterior. The natatorium seats an estimated 300 people and offers seating on both sides of the pool. However, the meet managers enclosed area located within the seating obstructs the vision of observers sitting on either side of it. The boys and girls locker rooms are located beneath the school’s main floor and are only accessible via stairs. The locker rooms and toilets do not meet ADA requirements as far as accessibility from the pool, dressing/locker, showers, etc. The locker rooms are shared between high school swimmers, other youth swim teams, and adult masters swim users. Located on the same floor is a small weight room to support the competitive swimmers. Assessment of Holmes Aquatic Center Located in University Park’s Curtis Park, the existing Holmes Aquatic Center consists of a 50- meter pool, open flume water slide with deck level run out, shallow water children’s pool, splash pad and various shade structures. The 50-meter pool has been modified for the addition of pool steps on the east end which impedes into two of the seven lanes. The pool is not used for competition swim purposes but the Dolphin Swim Team does practice at the facility. The ADA entrance is via a ramp on the south side of the pool. The deep end of the pool includes a 1-meter and 3-meter diving board. It is said that it is tradition for a UP’s child’s first jump off the 3-meter to be considered a rite of passage while growing up in UP. The entrance to the Holmes Aquatic Center includes a small ticket office, small single toilets, small concession, and pool mechanical room supporting the slide and splash pad. The building’s foundation has experienced settlement which is evident by wide cracks in the CMU walls, falling CMU and shift in the door frame of the door to the ticket office. Corrective measures need to be taken soon to ensure the structural integrity of the building and to avoid injury to staff and/or patrons. BUILDING PROGRAM City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 54 The main toilets and locker rooms are located at the west end of the complex, which is near the deep end of the 50-meter pool. This presents a safety hazard by having small children walk near deep water every time they need to access the toilet room. The facility does not offer a private first aid room which provides a space out of the heat for injured patrons to rest. BUILDING PROGRAM City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 55 New Indoor Aquatics Center Based upon input from the stakeholder meetings, focus group sessions and community meeting, the existing Highland Park High School competition pool should be replaced by an indoor competition 25 yard x 25 meter pool (10 yard lanes/8 meter lanes) with a minimum depth of 6 feet at the shallow end and 12 feet at the deep end and two 1-meter dive boards. The pool depths allow for competitive swim starts from starting blocks at both ends of the 25 yard and 25 meter swim directions. In addition to supporting 25-yard and 25-meter competitive swim events, the pool dimensions would support water polo, dive and synchronized dive events. Deck area would be equal to or slightly larger than the deck at the existing pool. Seating for 300 on one side of the pool. Support areas for the pool would include community locker rooms, six family change rooms, two team rooms of 1,000 sq.ft. each, 600 sq.ft. meet room (divisible into two rooms that could be reservable party rooms), coaches office, 1,000 sq.ft. weight and cardio room to support competitive swimmers, and mechanical space to support pool equipment. A concessions or vending area could also be included. With a minimum water depth of 6 foot and a cool water temperature that is desired by competitive swimmers, the competition pool would not adequately support the general population in terms of indoor leisure and exercise. Therefore, the natatorium should also include a warm water leisure pool which may include zero depth entry, water resistance exercise, water aerobics exercise, interactive water features, water slide, climbing wall, lap swim, water basketball and water volleyball. This pool should be approximately 3,500 square feet of water surface area. Based upon a 6,150 sq.ft. competition pool and 3,500 sq.ft. leisure pool, the recommended supporting pool deck area is between 10,000 and 14,500 sq.ft. and a code bather load of 480 users. The minimum toilet fixture count is as follows: Females Males Water Closets 5 3 Urinals 0 3 Lavs 3 3 Showers 3 3 The entire building as well as the pools themselves would meet all ADA requirements and the facility should be designed to meet at least a LEED Silver designation. BUILDING PROGRAM City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 56 A tabulation of building areas are as follows: Component Square Footage Competition Pool (25 yard x 25 meter/Diving) 6,150 Leisure Pool 3,500 Deck Area 14,000 Seating (300) 2,400 Student/Swimmer Locker Rooms 2,000 Public Locker Rooms 2,000 Family Change Rooms (6) 500 Meet Room/Party Room (divisible) 600 Weight Room 1,000 Coaches Office 120 Aquatic Managers Office 120 Lifeguard/First Aid Room 200 Lobby 1,000 Control Desk 200 Concessions/Vending 400 Pool Storage 500 Pool Mechanical Room 1,000 Misc. Circulation & Building support (20%) 7,138 Total 42,828 It should be recognized that once a concept plan is developed for the aquatic center, the square footage noted above could vary. Parking The parking requirements for the aquatic center are based on the bather load number of 480, staffing levels and spectator seating. BUILDING PROGRAM City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 57 Expected Peak Use – Swim team practices and leisure pool in use. Use Number of Users Number Per Vehicle Number of vehicles Parking Competitive Pool 60 3 20 Leisure Pool 300 3 100 Staff 8 1 8 Spectators 20 3 7 Total 388 135 Maximum use (when the center is being used for a swim meet and the leisure pool is in full use) would only likely occur 6-7 times a year. This could push the parking load to 270 spaces but this could be managed by off-site parking and/or reducing program use of the pool during these time periods. The expected peak use of the center would be late afternoon to early evening on weekdays and mid-day to late afternoon on weekends. Note: This assumes that all users would drive to the center and does not account for people walking or coming by bicycle. If as few as 20% of the pool users used these other forms of transportation, the parking requirements could drop by approximately 25. It should also be noted that for a number of the competitive swim groups, parents simply drop off their child and then return to pick them up. Having a drop-off/pick-up lane near the front entrance to the center will be essential. Programmatic Uses An aquatic center with the amenities noted above would be able to support a variety of aquatic activities and events including: Competition Pool The primary use of this pool would be to support a variety of competitive aquatic activities with a focus on high school use. However, this pool would also serve a wide range of public uses from programs to open swim. Competitive Uses:  High School Swim – Practice & Dual Meets  High School Dive – Practice & Dual Meets BUILDING PROGRAM City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 58  High School Water Polo – Practice & Informal Meet  USA Swimming – Practice (potentially a small meet)  USA Diving – Practice (potentially a small meet)  USA Water Polo – Practice (match)  USA Synchronized Swimming – Practice  Masters Swimming – Practice (potentially a small meet) Public Programs & Recreation:  Learn-to-Swim Program (youth & adult)  Aqua Aerobics (shallow water & deep water)  Diving Lessons  Lifeguard Training  Stroke Refinement (youth & adult)  Adult/Youth Multi-Sport (triathlon)  Open Swim (can be enhanced with inflatable play features)  SCUBA Instruction  Water sports – kayaking, etc. Leisure Pool Leisure pools are often considered as being just an amenity for open swim and relaxation when in fact this body of water functions as a program pool as well. Competitive Uses:  Warm-Up/Cool Down Lanes Public Programs & Recreation  Open Swim  Warm Water Lap/Warm-Up Swimming  Learn-to-Swim Program (youth & adult)  Aqua Aerobics  Water Walking  Therapy – non medical  Special Needs Program  Relaxation  Birthday Parties BUILDING PROGRAM City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 59 Why Two Pools? One of the questions that is frequently asked is why there is a need to have two separate bodies of water and won’t a single tank serve both the needs of competitive activities and recreational swimming? There are a number of reasons that two pools are being recommended and why they are different in their size and configuration. Time Demands – When an aquatic center is going to serve the needs of competitive activities for the high school as well as other community based groups, much of the prime time of the facility will be occupied by these groups, leaving little time for general public use. A second pool will provide time for a stronger focus on community programs and activities. Water Depth – With a minimum depth in the competition pool of 6 feet (which is required for competitive swimming), it is simply too deep for many programmatic uses. This includes lower level learn to swim classes, aqua exercise classes, water walking and many open swim opportunities. Water Temperature – Another primary issue is water temperature. For the competition pool the water temperature will be between 79 and 81 degrees. This is a great temperature for competition but way too cold for many programmatic uses where the water temperature needs to be 86 to 88 degrees. This is especially true for younger children, seniors and any special needs populations. Revenue – The reality is that generating sufficient revenue to offset most of the cost of operation of indoor aquatic facilities is always a challenge. Despite its strong use for competitive activities, the competitive pool does not traditionally generate a robust revenue stream, especially from use by the general public. On the other side, a leisure pool will draw from a much larger and more diverse market, commands a much higher fee value and increases not only open swim but also program use of the facility. The presence of the leisure pool will have a positive impact on overall revenues for the facility as a result. Location If the new natatorium were to be located within Curtis Park and adjacent to the existing Holmes Aquatic Center, some amenities would be shared between the two facilities making the whole complex a more enjoyable experience for the users and economically more sustainable than the two facilities would standing on their own. For example, a new main entrance would replace the existing Holmes entrance that is structurally unsound. The new entrance would be centrally located to serve visitors to both the outdoor aquatic center and new indoor aquatic center. This reduces having control/ticket staff at two independent swim centers. The concessions would be shared between the outdoor and indoor aquatic centers. This would make the concessions more economically sustainable which could result in a greater number of menu options. The new toilets BUILDING PROGRAM City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 60 would be centrally located within the aquatic complex eliminating the need to take small children near the deep end of the pool to go to the toilet. The new natatorium could also be positioned such that large overhead doors could be opened and the deck area of the outdoor pool would extend into the natatorium. This would provide much needed shade for users at the east end of the 50-meter pool and make the complex more enjoyable for the users. The new indoor leisure pool would add a missing component to the existing Holmes Aquatic Center turning it into a true Family Aquatic Center. Site Requirements Since there is not a designated site for the proposed aquatic center, understanding the necessary land requirements for the building, parking and needed set-backs is important. Building – The structure is estimated to be approximately 43,000 SF and will have to be built on a single level due to the two pools and the required support amenities. This will require approximately 1 acre to accommodate. Parking – Figuring that approximately 120 parking stalls will be necessary to support the center, but not knowing if there will be surface, structured, or a combination of such parking, an area of ¾ to as much as 1 acre will be needed. Set-Backs – Realizing that the building will need to have some set-backs from any streets or other amenities, this could take up as much as ½ of an acre (depending on the site). As a result the aquatic center ideally needs a site of between 2.5 and 3 acres. This is the site size that is recommended, but due to the lack of available open land areas in the Primary Service Area, adapting the aquatic center to limited space will likely be required. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 61 Section IV – Capital Cost Estimate The following is a preliminary capital cost estimate for the aquatic center based on the building program that has been determined. This cost estimate was developed by Water Technology, Inc. in consultation with Stantec, the School District architect. It should be noted that this cost estimate represents 2014 pricing and will need to escalate to reflect the actual anticipated date of construction. Since there is not a designated site for the facility, site costs contain only a general estimate for utilities. Once a site had been determined, this aspect of the project cost estimate will need to be adjusted. The estimate also only has a cost provision for surface parking but based on the final location for the center, a parking structure (either above ground or below) may be necessary. This cost will then need to be added to the project estimate. It is also important to note that no cost has been shown for any possible site acquisition fees. At this point a 10% contingency has been shown to cover unforeseen costs. It must be recognized that a more definitive and exacting cost estimate will need to be completed once a site is determined for the center and a concept and site plan has been developed. This could impact the cost estimate noted on the next page. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 62 ORDER OF MAGNITUDE PROJECT COSTS Aquatic Facility University Park Aquatics Center Water Technology Inc. Indoor Family Aquatic Center December 5, 2014 University Park, Texas Project Phase: Feasibility Study Div/Sec Description Units Quantity Unit Cost Cost Aquatics Indoor 25 yard Competition Pool Multipurpose Program Lap Pool (8 lane) SF 6150 250 $1,537,500.00 Competition Equipment LS 1 55000 $55,000.00 Moveable Bulkhead 5 feet EA 0 140000 $0.00 Diving 1 Meter EA 2 15000 $30,000.00 Timing and Scoreboard LS 1 55000 $55,000.00 Program equipment LS 1 18000 $18,000.00 Subtotal $1,695,500.00 Indoor Leisure Pool Multipurpose Program Leisure Pool SF 3500 300 $1,050,000.00 Spray Play Equipment LS 1 55000 $55,000.00 Interactive Play Structure LS 1 200000 $200,000.00 Water Slide LS 1 155000 $155,000.00 Subtotal $1,460,000.00 Aquatic Subtotal $3,155,500.00 Architectural SF 315 33178 $10,451,070.00 Theme Development LS 0 0 $0.00 Subtotal $10,451,070.00 Order of Magnitude Cost Summary Subtotal: Pool components and general costs $13,606,570.00 Site Utilities Allowance 1 $400,000 $400,000 Surface Parking Each 120 $2,500 $300,000 Owner Furnished Items (deck furniture, safety equipment, floatables, etc.)Allowance 0.3%$13,606,570 $34,016.43 Concessions Equipment (minimal heat & serve equip, NO grill or frying)Allowance 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 Project Fees & Permitting - (A&E, Permitting, Surveys, Geo-tech, Testing)Allowance 7.0%$13,606,570 $952,459.90 Contingency 10.0%$13,606,570 $1,360,657.00 Construction Escalation Factor (Not included for 2014)Allowance 0.0%$13,606,570 $0.00 Site Acquisition LS 100.0%$0 $0.00 Total Project Cost $16,728,703.33 Natatorium - Lobby, Deck, Change/Toilets, Offices, Concessions, Pool Mech., Storage, Utilities, N.I. Pools BUSINESS PLAN City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 63 Section V – Business Plan The following business plan has been developed for the proposed University Park Aquatic Center. Listed below are the basic parameters for the business plan.  2017 or later will be the first year of operation.  This pro-forma estimate is based on a preliminary program plan (list and size of components in the facility) but without the benefit of a design concept for the facility.  No designated site for the aquatic center has yet to be identified.  The aquatic center will be operated by the City of University Park with use by the Highland Park School District for swim team and other programs at no cost.  The facility will only be open to all residents of the Highland Park Independent School District and their guests.  Revenue and use projections are predicated on the center accepting charge cards for all admissions and services as well as electronic funds transfer for annual passes.  The facility will have an active marketing plan to sell annual passes to the center.  The fees, use and revenue estimates are reasonably aggressive.  Both pools will be guarded for any use including school use and rentals to swim teams etc.  The competitive pool will continue to be utilized by other community based swim teams and groups on a rental basis.  It is projected that the aquatic center could have varied hours of operation depending on the season of the year. BUSINESS PLAN City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 64 Division I - Expenditures Expenditures have been formulated based on the costs that are typically included in the operating budget for this type of facility. The figures are based on the size of the center, the specific components of the facility and the projected hours of operation. Actual costs were utilized wherever possible and estimates for other expenses were based on similar facilities in Texas. All expenses were calculated as accurately as possible but the actual costs may vary based on the design, operational philosophy, and programming considerations adopted by staff. Aquatic Center Description – Competitive pool (25 yard x 25 meter) with seating for 300, leisure pool with slide and other elements, meet room/party room, weight room, student and public locker rooms and administration area – Approximately 42,828 sq.ft. Operation Cost Model: Personnel Center Budget Full-Time $149,175 Part-Time $447,930 TOTAL $597,105 Commodities Center Budget Office Supplies (forms, paper, etc.) $4,000 Chemicals (pool/mechanical) $20,000 Maintenance/Repair/Materials $10,000 Janitor Supplies $10,000 Rec. Supplies $5,000 Uniforms $2,500 Printing/Postage $5,000 Pro Shop $2,000 Other $2,000 TOTAL $60,500 BUSINESS PLAN City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 65 Contractual Center Budget Utilities (elect.-gas)8 $171,312 Water/Sewer $15,000 Insurance (property & liability) $20,000 Communications (phone) $2,000 Contract Services9 $25,000 Rent Equipment $2,000 Advertising $3,000 Training (staff time) $3,000 Conference $500 Trash Pickup $3,000 Dues & Subscriptions $1,000 Bank Charges (charge cards, EFT) $20,000 Other $2,000 TOTAL $267,812 Capital Center Budget Replacement Fund $15,000 TOTAL $15,000 All Categories Center Budget Personnel $597,105 Commodities $60,500 Contractual $267,812 Capital $15,000 TOTAL EXPENSE $940,417 NOTE: Line items not included in this budget are exterior site maintenance and vehicle costs. 8 Rates include electric and natural gas and are based on $4.00 a square foot. It should be noted that rates for electric and gas has been very volatile and could result in a substantially higher cost for utilities over time. 9 Contract services cover maintenance contracts, control systems work, and contract labor. BUSINESS PLAN City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 66 Graphic Representation of Total Expenses: $597,105 $60,500 $267,812 $15,000 Total Expense -$940,417 Personnel Commodities Contractual Capital BUSINESS PLAN City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 67 Staffing Levels: Full-Time Positions Positions Total Aquatic Center Manager 1 $45,000 Aquatics Coordinator 1 $35,500 Maintenance Worker 1 $30,000 Salaries $110,500 Benefits (35%) $38,675 TOTAL 3 F.T.E. $149,175 Part-Time Positions Rate/Hour Hours/Week Front Desk Cashier $10.00 139 Head Lifeguard $14.00 48 Lifeguard $10.50 390 Custodian/Maintenance $10.00 42 Program Instructors10 Aquatics Variable $57,045 General Variable $8,160 Salaries $407,209 Benefits (10%) $40,721 TOTAL $447,930 Note: Pay rates were determined based on wage scales for the City of University Park and the Holmes Aquatic Center. The positions listed are necessary to ensure adequate staffing for the center’s operation. The wage scales for both the full-time and part-time staff positions reflect an anticipated wage for 2017. 10 Program instructors are paid at several different pay rates and some are also paid per class or in other ways. This makes an hourly breakdown difficult. General programs consist of birthday parties and first aid. Aquatics includes learn to swim, aqua fitness and special classes. BUSINESS PLAN City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 68 $60,500 $267,812 $15,000 $149,175 $447,930 $597,105 Personnel Break-Out Commodities Contractual Capital Full-Time Part-Time BUSINESS PLAN City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 69 Division II - Revenues The following revenue projections were formulated from information on the specifics of the project and the demographics of the service area as well as comparing them to state and national statistics, other similar facilities and the competition for aquatic services in the area. Actual figures will vary based on the size and makeup of the components selected during final design, market stratification, philosophy of operation, fees and charges policy, and priorities of use. Revenue Projection Model: Fees Center Budget Admissions $58,500 Month to Month $209,736 Annuals11 $100,250 Corporate/Group $10,000 Rentals12 $72,740 TOTAL $451,226 11 Figures are based on an active program to promote the sale of annual passes. 12 Rentals are based on the following: Classroom/Party $50x 2/wk x 50 wks = $5,000 Competitive Pool Dallas Masters $36 (6 lanes) x 1hr x 5 days x 48 wks = $8,640 Dallas Mustangs $48 (8 lanes) x 3.25 hrs x 5 days x 48 wks = $37,440 Elite Swim Team $36 (6 lanes) x 1.25 hrs x 5 days x 48 wks = $10,800 Meets $70 x 6hrs x 8 meets = $3,360 Leisure Pool $150/hr x 1 hr/wk x 50 wks = $7,500 BUSINESS PLAN City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 70 Programs13 Center Budget Aquatics $154,005 General $91,200 Contract Programs $1,000 TOTAL $246,205 Other Center Budget Pro-Shop $2,500 Special Events $2,000 Vending $5,000 TOTAL $9,500 All Categories Center Budget Fees $451,226 Programs $246,205 Other $9,500 TOTAL REVENUE $706,931 13 General programs consist of birthday parties and first aid. Aquatics includes learn to swim, aqua fitness and other programs. BUSINESS PLAN City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 71 Graphic Representation of Total Revenue $451,226 $246,205 $9,500 Total Revenue -$706,931 Fees Programs Other BUSINESS PLAN City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 72 Division III - Expenditure - Revenue Comparison Category Center Budget Expenditures $940,417 Revenues $706,931 Difference -$233,486 Recovery Rate 75% This operations pro-forma was completed based on the best information available and a basic understanding of the project. However, there is no guarantee that the expense and revenue projections outlined above will be met as there are many variables that affect such estimates that either cannot be accurately measured or are not consistent in their influence on the budgetary process. Future Years: Expenditure - Revenue Comparison: Expenses for the first year of operation of the center should be slightly lower than projected with the facility being under warranty and new. Revenue growth in the first three years is attributed to increased market penetration and in the remaining years to continued population growth. In most aquatic facilities the first three years show strong growth from increasing the market share of patrons who use such facilities, but at the end of this time period revenue growth begins to flatten out. Additional revenue growth is then spurred through increases in the population within the market area, a specific marketing plan to develop alternative markets, the addition of new amenities or by increasing user fees. BUSINESS PLAN City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 73 Division IV - Fees and Attendance Projected Fee Schedule: The fee schedule is based on only residents (and their guests) of the Highland Park Independent School District being able to use the center. Revenue projections and attendance numbers were calculated from this fee model. Category Daily Month to Month14 Annual (Prepaid) Res Guest Resident Only Resident Only Adults $8.00 $9.00 $20 $200 Youth (3-17 yrs) $6.00 $7.00 $15 $150 Seniors (60+) $6.00 $7.00 $15 $150 Family15 N/A N/A $45 $500 Rentals $50/hr Meet/Party room Competitive Pool $6.00/Lane/hr $70/hr Leisure Pool $150/hr pool (0-50 persons) $200/hr pool (51-100 persons) $250/hr pool (101-150 persons) Admission Rate Comparisons: The above rates were determined based on other public indoor aquatic facilities in the Dallas area. The proposed rates are generally higher than other rates for similar facilities but represent a fee for 2017 or later. 14 Month to Month requires an auto debit for a bank/charge account and a prepayment of 1 month. The monthly fee is automatically deducted on the 1st of each month for the following month. 15 Includes 2 adults and up to four youth, each additional adult would be 50% of the stated rate and each additional youth would be 50% of the stated rate. BUSINESS PLAN City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 74 Attendance Projections: The following attendance projections are the basis for the revenue figures that were identified earlier in this report. The admission numbers are affected by the rates being charged, the facilities available for use and the competition within the service area. The figures are also based on the performance of other similar facilities in other areas of the country. These are averages only and the yearly figures are based on 360 days of operation. Yearly Paid Admissions Description Facility Daily 20 admissions/day 7,200 Month to Month 628/12 months sold annually 65,312 Annual16 300 sold annually 31,200 Total Yearly 103,712 Total Daily 288 NOTE: The 928 month to and annual passes are based on selling passes to approximately 8% of the households (11,609 projected in 2014) in the Highland Park Independent School District. NOTE: Attendance for other events, programs, and spectator functions is more difficult to predict but a best guess estimate is approximately 2.5 times the number of paid admissions. Indoor aquatic centers are traditionally the busiest from November to March and mid-June to mid-August and are slow from April to early June and again from mid-August to the end of October. Weekdays between the hours of 3pm and 7pm are the busiest times of the week and weekends are also very busy during the winter months. In contrast mid-morning and early afternoon on weekdays are usually slow as well as weekends during the summer months (especially Sundays). 16 Admissions for pass holders were figured based on 104 visits for annual passes per year. Family admissions are counted as one admission. BUSINESS PLAN City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 75 Hours of Operation: The projected hours of operation of the aquatic center are as follows: Hours usually vary some with the season (longer hours in the winter, shorter during the summer), by programming needs, use patterns and special event considerations. Days Hours Monday - Friday 5:00am – 9:00pm Saturday 7:00am – 8:00pm Sunday 10:00am – 6:00pm Total Hours Per Week 101 BUSINESS PLAN City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 76 Division V - Project Recommendations The following section details specific recommendations for the University Park Aquatic Center project. Remarks are grouped by areas of interest. Programs and Facilities: The design, image and quality of an aquatic center has a direct impact on its ability to attract and keep customers. Thought should be given to the building layout as it pertains to crowd control and access, during the design phase of the project. A visible open design which highlights the different activity areas and encourages participation from the user as well as the non-user, is essential to generating community excitement and revenue. As much natural light as possible needs to be incorporated into the design while not compromising safety or the needs of competitive swimming, and promoting and maintaining energy efficiency in every way possible. The intent is to build a "smart building" that gives the City of University Park and the Highland Park Independent School District the most for their money and the user a sense of quality and value. Pool- The hottest trend in aquatics is the leisure pool concept. This idea of incorporating slides, current channels, fountains, zero depth entry and other water features into a pools design has proved to be extremely popular for the drop-in user. The age of the conventional pool in most recreational settings has greatly diminished. Leisure pools appeal to the younger kids (who are the largest segment of the population that swims) and to families. These types of facilities are able to attract and draw larger user numbers who stay longer to utilize such pools. This all translates into more use and revenue. Of note is the fact that patrons seem willing to pay a higher admission fee for the use of a leisure pool. The sale of annual passes and especially family annual passes is also tied to the appeal of the leisure pool. Programs- Special events and swim meets are an important aspect of any facility but they are difficult to base consistent revenue on. Beyond School District meets, they can be very disruptive to users and care must be taken to evaluate the benefits and problems caused by such activities. The revenues generated from these activities are not always worth the time and effort to put them together. The center should not be designed specifically to handle the once a year event or activity but should have the versatility to adapt to these needs within reason. Long term programming and facility needs of the community, businesses, and special interest groups should be identified and integrated into the operations plan for this facility. The success of indoor aquatic centers is dependent on developing a broad based appeal to the general public as well as servicing the needs of school swim teams and other organizations. The needs of youth, seniors, and families must be considered and their individual concerns and issues addressed. Programs that are intergenerational in nature and those that are specifically oriented towards certain population segments will both need to be developed. The needs of the business community must also be considered if this market is to be developed. BUSINESS PLAN City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 77 Consideration should be given to contracting for certain programs or services, especially those that are very specialized in nature. Any contracted programs or services should require a payment of a percentage of the fees collected (at least 30%) back to the center. Budget and Fees: The success of this project depends on a number of budget factors, which need special consideration. An operational philosophy must be developed and priorities for use must be clearly identified. The revenue figures contained in this document are based on the principal that the facility will have a balance between competitive swimming, drop in use and programmed activities. A goal of consistently covering 70%-75% of operational expenses with revenues should be attainable but there is virtually no possibility of recovering all operating expenses through facility revenues unless the Highland Park Independent School District is willing to share in some of the operational costs of the center. However, it must be realized that virtually all indoor aquatic centers that have been built in the last twenty years are not covering their operating expenses with revenues. Maximizing revenue production should be a primary goal. Care must be taken to make sure that a fees and charges policy is consistently followed. No form of revenue production should be given away. A policy should be developed that requires programs and activities which take place in the facility to cost back a percentage of their use in revenue to the building’s operation. Capital replacement fund- A plan for funding a capital replacement program should be developed before the center opens. The American Public Works Association recommends between 2% and 4% of replacement cost be budgeted annually for capital items. Costs for maintenance and contract services should be lower than the amount budgeted for the first year since most equipment will still be under warranty. The amount that is shown for capital replacement in the budget will not be enough over the long term to fund needed improvements and repairs after the first 3 years. Fees- The revenue projections were based on the concept of City of University Park and Highland Park Independent School District use only (other than for rentals to swim teams). The proposed fee structure is aggressive and definitely at the high end compared to other facilities in the Dallas area. A senior discount fee schedule was developed for the center, but it should be considered as a marketing tool rather than a discount based on need. Another option is to offer a limited morning or daytime discount rate that would be available to anyone using the center during this slower period of the day. This would work much like a senior discount without having to label it as one. To promote the sale of month to month passes it is absolutely essential that a system be set up that allows for the automatic withdrawal from the pass holder’s bank/credit card account the monthly rate. Without this option it will be very difficult to meet the projected sales of passes. In addition, charge cards need to be accepted for all programs and services offered by the center. A BUSINESS PLAN City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 78 computerized registration process must also be introduced to speed registration transactions and improve annual pass management. Pre-selling month to month/annual passes – Approximately 3 to 6 months before the center opens there must be a program in place to begin the pre-sale of “charter passes” with a savings incentive to promote sales. A goal should be to pre-sell between 25% and 50% of all budgeted passes prior to opening the center. Marketing plan- A marketing plan for the facility and its programs is essential. This document should target specific markets, programs, facilities and user groups. It needs to be an active document that is utilized by the facility manager to guide all marketing efforts. This plan should be updated yearly. Special emphasis must be placed on promoting the sale of annual passes to establish a strong revenue base. Staffing- Staffing costs are the biggest single operating expense and alternative options need to be investigated if costs are to be significantly reduced. The use of volunteers, trading facility use for labor and other similar ideas, deserve consideration as methods to reduce staffing budgets (except for lifeguarding). The pay rates for both part-time and full-time personnel were determined based on the need to attract well-qualified employees and minimize staff turnover rates. It is important to budget for an adequate level of staffing in all areas. One of the biggest mistakes in operations comes from understaffing a center and then having to come back and ask for more help later. Maintenance staffing is of particular concern and is most often where cuts are made. Detailed job descriptions should be written for all staff and areas of responsibility need to be clearly defined. An adequate training fund is essential to a well-run center. An emphasis needs to be placed on the importance of safety, image and customer service in all training programs. The key to opening an aquatic center and have it operate smoothly is hiring the necessary staff well in advance and having them well organized, properly trained and comfortable with the building’s features. They need to be ready to hit the ground running with policies and procedures in place, and a marketing and maintenance program under way. Partnership Agreement- If this project is to move forward there will need to be a formal IGA signed between the City of University Park and the Highland Park Independent School District regarding where the center will be built, capital cost responsibilities, long term capital improvements, ownership, and operational responsibilities, as well as specific priorities of use. BUSINESS PLAN City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 79 Division VI – Business Plan Appendix Part-Time Staff Hours Program Revenue Projections Fee Revenue Projections BUSINESS PLAN City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 80 Part-Time Staff Hours: Front Desk Cashier (Fall/Winter/Spring-37 wks) Days Time Hours Employees Days Total Hours/Week Mon-Fri 4:30A-1:00P 8.5 1 5 40 1:00P-3:00P 2 1 5 10 3:00P-8:00P 5 2 5 50 8:00P-9:00P 1 1 5 5 Saturday 7:00A-1:00P 6 1 1 6 1:00P-8:00P 7 2 1 14 Sunday 10:00A-1:00P 3 1 1 3 1:00P-6:00P 5 2 1 10 TOTAL 138 Front Desk Cashier (Summer/Holidays-15 weeks) Days Time Hours Employees Days Total Hours/Week Mon-Fri 5:00A-1:00P 8 1 5 40 1:00P-7:00P 6 2 5 60 7:00P-9:00P 2 1 5 10 Saturday 7:00A-1:00P 6 1 1 6 1:00P-8:00P 7 2 1 14 Sunday 10:00A-1:00P 3 1 1 3 1:00P-6:00P 5 2 1 10 TOTAL 143 Custodian/Maintenance Days Time Hours Employees Days Total Hours/Week Mon-Fri 4:00A-7:00A 3 1 5 15 8:00P-11:00P 3 1 5 15 Sat & Sun 6:00A-9:00A 3 1 2 6 6:00P-9:00P 3 1 2 6 TOTAL 42 BUSINESS PLAN City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 81 Lifeguard Staffing Fall/Winter/Spring Season (37 wks) Days Time Hours Employees Days Total Hours/Week Mon-Fri 4:30A-9:00A 4.5 2 5 45 9:00A-1:00P 4 3 5 60 1:00P-3:00P 2 2 5 20 3:00P-8:00P 5 6 5 150 8:00P-9:00P 1 2 5 10 Saturday 6:30A-9:00A 2.5 2 1 5 9:00A-1:00P 4 3 1 12 1:00P-8:00P 7 6 1 42 Sunday 9:30A-1:00P 3.5 3 1 10.5 1:00P-6:00P 5 6 1 30 TOTAL 384.5 Summer Season (June, July, August & Holidays, 15 wks) Days Time Hours Employees Days Total Hours/Week Mon-Fri 4:30A-9:00A 4.5 2 5 45 9:00A-1:00P 4 3 5 60 1:00P-7:00P 6 6 5 180 7:00P-9:00P 2 2 5 20 Saturday 6:30A-9:00A 2.5 2 1 5 9:00A-1:00P 4 3 1 12 1:00P-8:00P 7 6 1 42 Sunday 9:30A-1:00P 3.5 3 1 10.5 1:00P-6:00P 5 6 1 30 TOTAL 404.5 BUSINESS PLAN City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 82 Head Lifeguard Staffing Fall/Winter/Spring Season (37 wks) Days Time Hours Employees Days Total Hours/Week Mon-Fri 3:00P-9:30P 6.5 1 5 32.5 Saturday 1:00P-8:30P 7.5 1 1 7.5 Sunday 1:00P-6:30P 5.5 1 1 5.5 TOTAL 45.5 Summer Season (June, July, August & Holidays, 15 wks) Days Time Hours Employees Days Total Hours/Week Mon-Fri 1:00P-9:30P 8.5 1 5 42.5 Saturday 1:00P-8:30P 7.5 1 1 7.5 Sunday 1:00P-6:30P 5.5 1 1 5.5 TOTAL 55.5 NOTE: This schedule is based on a guard rotation concept and on utilizing the Head Lifeguard in the rotation schedule (approximately 48 hrs. a week additional). Based on the pool's basic program, schedule and estimated use patterns, this level of lifeguard staffing will be necessary to ensure adequate protection for swimmers. This is an estimate of anticipated guard hours only and actual needs could vary depending on the pool design, actual use patterns, and hours of operation. BUSINESS PLAN City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 83 Aquatics Program Staffing Swim Lessons Season Staff Rate/Class Classes/Day Days Weeks Total Summer $11.00 18 5 10 $9,900 Spring/Fall $11.00 12 2 15 $3,960 Winter $11.00 9 2 10 $1,980 TOTAL $15,840 Note: Classes are 45 minutes in length. Water Aerobics Season Staff Rate/Class Classes/Day Weeks Total Summer $25.00 15 14 $5,250 Spring/Fall $25.00 15 26 $9,750 Winter $25.00 12 12 $3,600 TOTAL $18,600 Private Swim Lessons Lessons/Week Staff Rate/Lesson Weeks Total 15 $11.00 45 $7,425 TOTAL $7,425 Lifeguard Training Staff Staff Rate/Class Hours/Class Sessions Total 1 $20.00 33 3 $1,980 TOTAL $1,980 BUSINESS PLAN City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 84 Therapy Classes Staff Staff Rate/Class Classes/Week Weeks Total 1 $30.00 6 40 $7,200 TOTAL $7,200 Miscellaneous Staff Staff Rate/Class Classes/Week Weeks Total 1 $20.00 6 50 $6,000 TOTAL $6,000 Aquatic Program Staffing Category Swim Lessons $15,840 Water Aerobics $18,600 Private Swim Lessons $7,425 Lifeguard Training $1,980 Therapy Classes $7,200 Miscellaneous $6,000 TOTAL $57,045 $15,840 $18,600 $7,425 $1,980 $7,200 $6,000 Aquatic Program Summary Swim Lessons Water Aerobics Private Swim Lessons Lifeguard Training Therapy Classes Misc. BUSINESS PLAN City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 85 General Programs Birthday Parties Staff Staff Rate/Party Parties/Week Weeks Total 1 $15.00 8 50 $6,000 TOTAL $6,000 Miscellaneous (CPR, First Aid, Clinics, etc.) Staff Staff Rate/Class Classes/Week Weeks Total 1 $15.00 4 36 $2,160 TOTAL $2,160 General Programs Category Birthday Parties $6,000 Miscellaneous $2,160 TOTAL $8,160 $6,000 $2,160 General Program Summary Birthday Parties Misc. BUSINESS PLAN City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 86 NOTE: Some programs and classes could be on a contractual basis with the center, where the facility will take a percentage of the revenues charged and collected. These programs have not been shown in this budget as a result. Program Revenue Estimates: Aquatics This is a representative sample of possible aquatic programming and revenue at the center. Swim Lessons Title Classes Fee Sessions/ Weeks Total Revenue Summer 18 classes/4 per class $100.00 5 sessions $36,000 Spring/Fall 12 classes/4 per class $100.00 3 sessions $14,400 Winter 9 classes/4 per class $100.00 2 sessions $7,200 Private Lessons 15 classes/wk $25.00/cl. 45 weeks $16,875 TOTAL $74,475 Water Aerobics Title Classes Fee Sessions/ Weeks Total Revenue Summer 15 classes/8 per class $10.00/cl. 14 weeks $16,800 Spring/Fall 12 classes/8 per class $10.00/cl. 26 weeks $24,960 Winter 12 classes/8 per class $10.00/cl. 12 weeks $11,520 TOTAL $53,280 BUSINESS PLAN City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 87 Other Title Classes Fee Sessions/ Weeks Total Revenue Lifeguard Training 1 class/10 per class $225.00 3 sessions $6,750 Therapy 6 classes/5 per class $10.00/cl. 40 weeks $12,000 Misc. 3 classes/5 per class $10.00/cl. 50 weeks $7,500 TOTAL $26,250 Aquatics Program Revenue $154,005 General This is a representative sample of possible general programming and revenue at the center. Title Classes Fee Sessions/ Weeks Total Revenue Birthday Parties 8 per week $200/pty. 52 weeks $83,200 Misc. 4 classes/5 per class $100.00/sess. 4 sessions $8,000 TOTAL $91,200 Total General Program Revenue $91,200 BUSINESS PLAN City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 88 Fee Revenue Projections Worksheet: Daily Category Fee # Per Day Revenue Days Total Adult $8.00 5 $40 Youth $6.00 10 $60 Senior $6.00 5 $30 TOTAL 20 $130 360 $46,800 Guests 25% of users x $1.00 fee increase $11,700 GRAND TOTAL $58,500 Month to Month Pass Category Fee # Sold Months Revenue Adult $20.00 200 12 $48,000 Youth $15.00 28 12 $5,040 Senior $15.00 100 12 $18,000 Family $45.00 300 12 $162,000 TOTAL 628 $233,040 Projected Loss 10% of fees $23,304 GRAND TOTAL $209,736 Annual Pass Category Fee # Sold Revenue Adult $200.00 90 $18,000 Youth $150.00 15 $2,250 Senior $150.00 50 $7,500 Family $500.00 145 $72,500 TOTAL 300 GRAND TOTAL $100,250 BUSINESS PLAN City of University Park, TX Aquatic Center Feasibility Study * Page 89 Revenue Summary NOTE: This work sheet was used to project possible revenue sources and amounts. These figures are estimates only, based on basic market information and should not be considered as guaranteed absolutes. This information should be utilized as a representative revenue scenario only and to provide possible revenue target ranges. $58,500 $209,736 $100,250 Pass & Daily Admission Revenue -$368,486 Daily Month to Month Annual Passes