South Whidbey Parks & Recreation District Aquatic Feasibility Study

SOUTH WHIDBEY PA R K S & REC REATION DISTRI CT
A QU ATI C FE A SIBI L ITY STUDY

2 0 0 8 A N A LY S I S
Prepared For:
South Whidbey Parks and Recreation
5495 Maxwelton Road
Langley, WA 98260
Prepared By:
ORB Architects, Inc.
607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210
Renton, Washington 98057
Community Inspired Architecture

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SECTION 2 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
SECTION 3 AREA OF MAGNITUDE OPERATING PRO-FORMA
SECTION 4 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
SECTION 5 CONCEPT PLAN

SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary
In May of 2008 the South Whidbey Parks and Recreation District (SWPRD) retained ORB Architects, Inc., an
architectural firm specializing in the design of recreation centers and aquatic facilities, to assist the district in
evaluating a recreational, community and aquatic facility, including plan concepts and a pro-forma analysis for the
site of such a facility as determined in the Community Park and Sport Complex Master Plan.
The purpose of our efforts is to pick up where the 2007 Master Plan left off with regard to the specific proposal for
a Community Recreation and Aquatic Facility. That prior report included a study and data from the 2005
recreation needs assessment survey that explored community interest in a facility to serve the residents of the
SWPRD District. This Report uses the previously gathered data and conclusions, along with additional regional
and national data for recreational and aquatic facilities to determine the best and most appropriate program for to
serve the community.
The goal of the project is create the best return on the communities’ investment by serving the largest
contingency of the population with the most diverse selection of programs possible. The resulting proposal
includes spaces that can support multiple uses for recreation and community events as well as a variety of active
spaces for exercise, recreation and even competition.
Background
The SWPRD was originally formed in 1983 with the goal of building a community center and swimming pool. In
1988, the district adopted a comprehensive plan that grew the parks system. The parks programmed recreational
opportunities are focused on the 87.5-acre Community Park on Maxwelton Road and the 29-acre Sports Complex
on Langley Road. The location for the proposed Recreation and Aquatic Center is at the Community Park
entrance on Maxwelton Road.
The citizens have been asked previously to vote on a ballot initiative for a similar type of community facility with an
indoor swimming pool, but it failed with the voters. However in subsequent surveys, a community and swimming
pool has remained a high priority for the citizens. While it is unclear why that initiative failed, t very likely could
have been due to the lack of information provided regarding the impact it would have on the voters.
The 2007 Master Plan and this Feasibility Study Report are intended to serve the community by providing the
proper due diligence on the costs, economic impacts and provide a concept design that demonstrates what
voters will receive for their investment should this initiative for the November 2008 elections pass.
SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study 9/12/2008
ORB Architects, Inc. Page 1-1
607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

From Concept to Consensus
Given the demographics of the district and the latest trends in aquatic facilities, the SWPRD has actively pursued
the effort to study the regional aquatic facility demand. This included analyzing the best and most appropriate
site, the program scope, and the costs to build and operate the facility.
ORB worked closely with a Work Team that was established for this project. The Work Team comprised of the
Parks Commissioners as well as representatives from Senior Services, local swim teams and other interested
community members. The work team’s goal has been to move from the 2007 general “concept” presented in the
Master Plan to an emerging “consensus” among the public in the SWPRD.
Proposed SWPRD Recreational and Aquatic Center
The 2007 SWPRD Master Plan concluded that residents considered a swimming pool/aquatic center as
“important” and that it received the highest number of first choice votes for a park facility that they consider
important to their household. The recommendation for a new building includes three (3) primary use areas;
Community & Senior Services, Active Recreation, and Aquatics. ORB evaluated the program further and for
reasons of optimizing the operating pro-forma, recommends the following program:
Community & Senior Services Aquatic Program Elements
o Lobby, Control Desk, Concessions o Family Leisure Pool
o Staff Offices Zero-Depth entry
o Multi-Purpose Rooms 2 Lap Lanes
Community Meetings Interactive Spray Features
Classroom / Arts & Crafts Lazy River floating channel
Party Room Water Slide
Dining o Competition Pool (outdoor–indoor if budget allows)
o Kitchen (catering use) American Short Course – 25 meter
o Spa / Swirlpool
Active Recreation
o Men’s, Women’s and Family Changing Rooms
o Fitness
o Outdoor Patio Area
o Dance / Aerobic / Yoga / Martial Arts
o Climbing Wall Additional Facility Features
o Court (outdoor) o Expansion Capability- enclose outdoor uses
o Surface Parking with a drop-off area

Scope of Work
The ORB Architects scope of work is as follows:
Collecting and Analyzing Existing Information
2007 SWPRD Community Park and Sport Complex Master Plan
Prepare a Preliminary Site Analysis
Host Community Meetings
ORB Architects hosted (2) community meetings and several Work Group Meetings that were used to
presenting the status of the project and latest facility trends. These were a valuable means of gathering
public input and gaining consensus on the proposed options identified in this report.
Develop Concept Design Drawings
Prepare a Market Assessment
Prepare a Financial Analysis and Area of Magnitude Operating Pro-Forma
Prepare Area of Magnitude Project Construction Cost Estimate

SECTION 2 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Community Participation
A project of this nature requires the community’s involvement in and commitment to the planning and
development. Sixty-three percent of the respondents to the Recreational Needs Assessment are in favor of a
community Recreation and Aquatic Facility. By continuing with the community outreach, the goal of this scope
has been to maintain that support and gain additional backing from the community. ORB Architects and the Parks
& Recreation Commissioners have welcomed being able to interact with all the stakeholders and listen to their
concerns and interests.
In order to assist the South Whidbey Parks & Recreation District in gaining public consensus for a bond measure,
ORB prepared materials such as presentation boards and posters to help the community understand the scope
and potential of the project, including presenting the latest recreation and aquatic trends. This material was used
in a series of public presentations, in order to convey the vision of the project, anticipated operating expense and
revenue data, and any other materials that would be beneficial in eliciting a constructive response from the
community.
Work Team
In order to meet the fast-track schedule and gather enough information from research and community input, ORB
recommended to the South Whidbey Parks and Recreation District that a Project Work Team be established early
on. This work team was charged with setting meeting dates, contacting community members, advertising public
meetings and most importantly making key decisions in a timely manner.
The work team comprised of the Parks Commissioners, the Parks Director, Representatives from Senior Services
and Masters Swim members. ORB met with this group on a regular basis before and after the public meetings.
These meetings help quickly establish the goals for the public meetings and were an opportunity for all the
representatives to share thoughts on the input that was received throughout the process. As is true with most
public facilities of this type, compromises have to be made in order reach the broad, overarching goals. The work
team for this project was able to keep the big picture in view, while considering the specific desires of some as
well as bearing in mind the costs for building and operating the facility.

Community Meeting #1 – Program Charrette
On June 12, 2008 the SWPRD and ORB Architect hosted a public meeting at the House of Prayer Community
Room, just off of Hwy 525. Over fifty (50) citizens attended the meeting, many of whom were standing against the
walls to hear about the progress of the planning and participate. The community room was filled with 5-6 round
tables and graphic material from the 2007 Master Plan and photos of Recreation and Aquatic activities were hung
on the walls all around the perimeter of the room.
The objective of this meeting was to gain further details on the types of programmatic elements people felt were
the most important to offer in the new Community Recreation and Aquatic Facility. Certainly everybody has a big
wish-list but the reality of the project budget as large as $10 million can be difficult for some to grasp. The
process by which we gathered this information was to form break-out groups of about five people (2 groups per
table) who were given a packet of Monopoly® style cards featuring different colors for the three different
programmatic elements of the facility and a wide variety of features and options for what they would “purchase”
within each of those programs. Each team was given a worksheet with the basic required elements of a Lobby,
Staff Area, Changing Rooms and Mechanical System already filled in. The groups were given roughly 30 minutes
to come to a decision regarding what they would “buy” to fit within the $10 million budget.
Immediately it is apparent that you could not afford everything one wants. Because of that, much discussion
about the pros and cons of items was had. Geoff Anderson of ORB Architects moved from group to group
answering questions and provided insight into the advantages and disadvantages of different options. For
example, if one were to compare the option given of a small leisure pool vs. a larger one, some of the
considerations that might be worth factoring in are what programming uses can fit within each, can multiple
programs run at the same time, what else can you afford, and which one will create the best revenue potential?
Some of these considerations were provided on the cards themselves as well.
In addition to the worksheet that each group filled out, there was also a series of questions that each group was
asked to respond to. The questions were intended to inspire further input and consideration regarding the long
term growth of the facility for their community. The questions asked were as follows:
• What are the top priorities that the “Community Recreation and Aquatics Center” must have?
• What are some of the considerations you made in determining your choices? Trade-off’s?
• What would be the priority for a Phase 2 of this project?
• What is the most compelling reason for you to support this facility?

Following the charrette work period, each group was asked to have a representative present their design options
and how they planned on achieving them within the budget. This process proved to be meaningful in gaining
knowledge about the communities’ preconceptions as well as their priorities. Of the ten (10) groups that worked
on the charrette analysis, only one or two stayed under the budget. Every other group presented trade-off ideas
that help them get down to the $10 million.
The number of groups and the diversity of the crowd resulted in an expression of several different solutions that
ranged from completely aquatic to primarily multi-purpose and activity spaces. Some of the key points that were
made by the community members during the discussion period are as follows:
• The School District is shrinking in attendance and therefore is considering consolidating some of its
spaces. This may provide the community with classrooms, arts & craft spaces and meeting spaces in the
area without the need to invest in new construction.
• There are several private and semi-private court spaces in the community that offer a space for basketball
and other related activities. While it seems that most people can gain access to one or more of these
places, they may not offer ideal usage times and can conflict with other programs
• There are several private pools in neighborhoods of the district that residents have access to. In addition
the Island Athletic Club offers a large fitness area and an indoor pool just 15 minutes by car from the site.
The following are a sample of the written responses:
• A top priority that the “Community Recreation and Aquatics Center” must have is a pool that will have
multiple purposes for generational use.
• A consideration for the choices made is cost – what can get funded?
• A consideration for the choices made is that other community facilities are available for other items, such
as senior center for crafts.
• The most compelling reason to support this facility is that we need a community pool that is available to all.
• Community (school) has quite a few gyms.
The following pages are the summary of results from the programming charrette.

Dining room
After school/games Day care
1%
3% 1%
Party room
4% Leisure pool
Arts & craft room 14%
1%
Concession
2%
Kitchen Lap pool

9% 12%
Multi purpose room Water slide

10% 5%
Senior services Swirl pool/hot tub

6% 8%
Aerobics Sauna/steam room

4% 3%
Warm water therapy
1%
Fitness center Climbing wall
3% Gymnasium
6%
6%
Leisure pool Lap pool Water slide Swirl pool/hot tub Sauna/steam room
Warm water therapy Climbing wall Gymnasium Fitness center Aerobics
Senior services Multi purpose room Kitchen Concession Arts & craft room
Party room After school/games Dining room Day care

ACTIVE RECREATION
Aerobics
23%
Climbing wall
29%
Fitness center
15%
Gymnasium
33%
Climbing wall Gymnasium Fitness center Aerobics

COMMUNITY/SENIOR SERVICES
Day care
Dining room 4% Senior services
4% 14%
After school/games
8%
Party room
12%
Multi purpose room

Arts & craft room 25%
4%
Concession
6%
Kitchen
23%
Senior services Multi purpose room Kitchen Concession Arts & craft room
Party room After school/games Dining room Day care

AQUATICS
Warm water therapy
2%
Sauna/steam room
8%
Leisure pool
32%
Swirl pool/hot tub
19%
Water slide
11%
Lap pool
28%
Leisure pool Lap pool Water slide Swirl pool/hot tub Sauna/steam room Warm water therapy

Project Work Team Follow-up
Following the community Program Charrette, ORB met with the Project Work Team to compare notes. It afforded
us the opportunity to download thoughts on what we all heard from those citizens that attended the charrette and
to begin making decisions regarding what should be included in the program.
At this meeting it was decided that the $10 million construction budget for the facility resulting in an approximately
$15 million total project cost was the target for which it is believed the citizens would be willing to support a voter
initiative. The rational behind this is roughly based on the concept that someone with a property value of $250,000
would pay about $5 per month. To propose a concept that would cost a homeowner more than that would likely
cross an expense threshold for many voters.
Based on the budget and the results of the charrette input, the work team conceived of the general program for
the proposed facility. Some of the primary concepts that evolved were to provide spaces that are as multi-
functional as possible, to outline the program elements for a future expansion and to maximize spaces that gave
the best income potential. See the Facility Project Description at the end of this report for examples of how this
concept was achieved.
In order to address the ideas for a second phase of the project, ORB suggested that a couple of the desired
functions be provided outdoors in this initial phase. This includes the court space and the lap pool. In this way,
the users are able to see the potential for a future phase while still being able to have the additional programmed
space to use now. The court outlines the area for a future gym expansion and the outdoor pool can be enclosed
with the Leisure Pool.
With regard to income potential, the aquatic features will have the biggest affect on the financial success of the
facility. A Leisure Pool has the best ability to recover costs do to the number of users and types of programs that
can use the pool throughout any given day. A Lap Pool is costly to operate and has proven through many
examples over the years to create the largest subsidy needs for a facility. When ORB asked a representative from
Master Swimming to comment on the minimum lap pool they could live with in the facility, the response was four
lanes. Through further discussion, it seemed that the best compromise which would give the facility it’s broadest
user potential within the budget was to build an adequate sized Leisure Pool indoors that would incorporate a
couple of lap lanes for exercise needs and other functions, while building a full size American Short-Course pool
outdoors that would not limit the usage for swim teams and even events, while providing the potential for it to be
closed at a later date. The Master Swimming representative even indicated that if it were heated, they would be
able to use it year round.

Community Meeting #2 – Concept Design Presentation
On July 17, 2008 the SWPRD and ORB Architect hosted a second public meeting at the Langley United Methodist
Church, near downtown Langley. Many of the same citizens that attended the first meeting were in attendance.
The large room had tables and chairs for people to sit and a presentation table with easels presenting the results
from the Program Charrette and the Initial Concept Design Proposal.
The objective of this meeting was to report back on the issues brought up at the first meeting and discuss how we
responded to them in a concept for the future Community Recreation and Aquatic Facility. Due to the
compromising nature of this process, it is expected that not everyone will be 100% satisfied with the solution
proposed, however everyone should feel as thought they have been appropriately listened to.
The meeting was heavily dominated by the swim clubs and advocates for the aquatic features, particularly the lap
pool. Virtually no comments were received on either the Community & Senior Services or the Active Recreation
spaces. The primary comment given for the proposed plan was regarding whether or not the Lap Pool could be
enclosed. Related to that comment was the desire to try and have the two pools adjacent to each other and to
assure that, if the pool were to remain outdoors, it would be in the sun.
Based on this additional feedback, ORB modified the plan layout slightly, but feels strongly that the programming
elements for the facility meet the overall goals for the project within the stipulated budget. Should budget allow, it
is clear that the first priority will be to enclose the Lap Pool by extending the roof of the Leisure Pool.

SECTION 3 AREA OF MAGNITUDE OPERATING PRO-FORMA
Presented herein are market assessment, financial analyses and tax implication components of the Design
Feasibility Study prepared by ORB Architects for the proposed Aquatic Center that the South Whidbey Parks and
Recreation District is considering for development in South Whidbey Community Park. Community preference for
the facility, and its components were determined by a Recreation Needs Assessment completed in 2005. The
purpose of the current study is to provide a concept plan, including a market and financial evaluation of the
project’s economic potential.
For purposes of the market and financial assessments, the assumed first phase of the project will consist of a
25,000 SF building, housing a leisure pool with approximately 4,800 sf of water surface area, fitness center,
climbing wall, and aerobics/multi-purpose area. The leisure pool will be the primary draw of the facility. These
pools have the potential to attract 2.0 to 3.0 times as many paying patrons as a conventional pool. This attraction
appeal will be considered in the subsequent market assessment.
Market Assessment
Before projecting use potential (expressed as swimmer-days, and including public admissions, lessons and
clubs/events), comparable facilities located throughout Washington, Oregon and British Columbia were identified.
Nineteen (19) of these facilities are identified in Table 1; also included is Pratt Aquatic Center in Toole, Utah. The
later facility is included because it has won several national awards for indoor aquatic center excellence. The
initial intent of this comparison was to obtain detailed swimmer-day statistics for each facility but that was not
possible. One (1) of the historic principal sources for these numbers was a report prepared annually by the British
Columbia Parks and Recreation Association. The report is no longer prepared, thus current (last stats are for the
late 1990’s) swimmer-day data for some of the British Columbia facilities is not available. They are still listed in
Table 1, however, because the population of the various City’s where these facilities are located provides an
interesting comparison for South Whidbey Island.
For those comparisons in Washington, Oregon and Utah, however, swimmer-day information has been obtained.
It was also obtained for two (2) pools in Nanaimo, British Columbia – Beban Park Pool and Nanaimo Aquatic
Centre. First determined was the population of each community. In most cases these people lived within a 20-
minute drive of the facility. Then, swimmer-days were obtained for the same year as the population numbers,
either 2006 or 2007. The collective swimmer-days number includes public admissions, lessons and
club/event/school use. Each facility is open year around.
Per capita swimmer-days are the key number shown in the table, with the numbers ranging from a low of 2.7 to a
high of 9.9. There are two (2) rates clustered above 7.0 – 7.3 and 9.9; two (2) numbers below 3.0 (2.7 and 2.8);

four (4) numbers between 3.5 and 5.0. To average these, or even determine a median would be meaningless, but
they do form a comparative base for the projections that will subsequently be presented for the South Whidbey
Island facility. Because of South Whidbey Islands’ small population, yet water dominant interest of the people
who live and visit there, and lack of competitive leisure pool facilities, it is believed that with the proposed leisure
pool and related physical attributes, the potential comparative number for the complex being studied would trend
toward the middle of the range; perhaps in the 5.0 to 6.0 swimmer-days per capita level.
In Table 2, population statistics are presented for Whidbey Island – South, Central and North; and Camano Island.
These are further divided into year around, and summer. It is anticipated that the summer population on Whidbey
Island increases from the static year around level by about 15% and Camano Island by 10%. Applied to the
population projections for 2011 (assumed first year of facility operation), 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017 and 2020
are anticipated per capita swimmer-day rates at the South Whidbey facility. While there will likely be users of the
facility who live in North Whidbey, and maybe even Camano Island, none are projected herein. A constant per
capita rate is used for both summer and non-summer months. The South Whidbey rate is 1.75 per capita, and
the Central Whidbey rate is 0.75 per capita. The resulting total swimmer-day projection for the proposed aquatic
center is 73,450 in 2011, increasing to 91,693 by 2020. The format used to prepare these projections, per capita
use, includes an allowance for tourist visitors to the Island.
The swimmer-day projections are then compared to population (year around number) for South Whidbey Island.
Generated is a swimmer-day per capita rate of 5.1 in 2011, increasing to 5.7 by 2020. These are area of
magnitude projections, trending toward the low end of the possibility range. Swimmer-days could be 10% lower;
however, they also could be 20% higher. The result of this fluctuation, plus the changes that could occur in
revenue and expenses, will ultimately impact the net operating income for the project. Thus, the cumulative result
of these areas of magnitude fluctuations will be discussed in the financial analysis section.
Financial Analysis
Table 3 presents a pro forma operating statement for the seven (7) projection years. Dollars are stated at a
constant 2008 rate; thus, no inflation is applied to either revenue or expenses. First shown in the table is a
distribution of swimmer-days between public admissions (70%), lessons (25%) and clubs/events/schools (5%).
These are similar to the experience of comparable attractions. To each, a weighted per capita expenditure rate is
applied. For example with public admissions, the $3.50 rate includes an allowance for day rates, season passes,
and free entries. The same concept applies to the other categories. Comparative numbers for other facilities are
provided in Table 4.

The projected total revenue is $323,309 in 2011, increasing by 2015 to $352,828, and further growing to
$397,649.
Cost of goods sold includes 50% of concession revenue, and an assumption that lessons will be offered by
contract instructors that will be paid 50% of the collected income. Combined they total 18.65% of total revenue.
The resulting gross profit shown in the table is $263,631 in 2011, $287,264 in 2015 and $323,148 in 2020.
Operating expenses (direct) are also shown in Table 3. They have been projected for six (6) categories: payroll
and benefits, maintenance and repairs, chemicals and supplies, utilities, other, and contingency. Because these
numbers are also stated in constant 2008 dollars, the only amounts that are increased are those that will likely be
impacted by the annual number of people visiting the aquatic center. Factors that could change this assumption
would be size of building, water area square footage, payroll rates, and number of employees/annual hours
worked.
The payroll estimates have been determined from a staffing schedule presented in Table 5. The total payroll and
benefit cost is projected at $266,442 in 2011 (2008 dollars). The cost has been increased somewhat
proportionate to revenue, accounting for additional help that may be needed as the number of users grows.
Maintenance and repairs have been projected at $2.00 per square foot of water surface area. They apply to costs
that would be incurred for the entire building, however. The same holistic approach applies to chemicals and
supplies (@ $3/sf of water surface area), and utilities (@ $15/sf of water surface area). The Other cost is an
allowance, at $18,000 annually. To the subtotal of these expenses has been applied a 10% contingency.
Total operating expenses are projected at $418,486 in 2011, $431,299 in 2015, and $437,800 in 2020.
The projected net operating loss is $154,856 in 2011, gradually decreasing to $143,936 in 2015 and $114,652 by
2020. These represent cost recovery rates of 63%, 67% and 74%, respectively. Comparative net operating
loss/income numbers for the low and high ends of the area of magnitude range are shown below:
2011 2015 2020
Low ($170,342) ($158,330) ($126,117)
High ($123,885) ($115,149) ($91,722)

Tax Implications
In 2007, the assessed value of those properties within the taxing boundaries of the South Whidbey Parks and
Recreation District was $3,815,543,741. The District’s regular levy tax rate was $0.11356982. The rate for voted
bonds was $0.0311566. The assessed value in 2008 increased by slightly under 11%, to $4,227,648,969. The
tax rates decreased to $0.10134944 (regular levy), and $0.02573490 (bond levy). According to the County
Assessor’s Office, the District has no banked capacity available. There is timber valuation of $6,697,166 in the
District. It is not known whether or not this has been used to offset any bonded indebtedness impact.
Table 6 presents annual debt service estimates, and property tax rates, assuming a $15 million general obligation
bond issue. The variables are 4% and 5% interest, and 20-year, 25-year, and 30-year repayment terms. The
impact of the resulting tax rate, using the 2008 assessed valuation for South Whidbey Parks and Recreation
District, on a $250,000 single family residence is shown.
The regular levy impact would depend on a number of factors. The current budget covered by the regular levy is
$452,836. This net operating income (loss) for the aquatic center could add $123,885 - $170,342 in 2011 (2008
dollars), and $91,722 - $126,117 in 2020 (2008 dollars).

TABLE 1
Selected Municipal Indoor Aquatic Centres(ers) With
Leisure Pool Elements Located In British Columbia,
Washington, Oregon and Utah 2006 Swimmer-Days, 2007 (rounded to 1,000)
City Public Per Capita
Facility Name/British Columbia City Population Admissions Lessons Clubs/Events Total Swimmer-Days
Beban Park Pool Nanaimo 79,000 122,000 43,000 24,000 189,000 2.4
Nanaimo Aquatic Centre Nanaimo 79,000 365,000 14,000 8,000 387,000 4.9
Combined - Nanaimo Pools Nanaimo 79,000 487,000 57,000 32,000 576,000 7.3
Ladner Leisure Centre Delta 97,000
City Centre Aquatic Centre Coquitlam 115,000
Crystal Pool and Fitness Center Victoria 78,000
Gordon Head Recreation Centre Victoria 78,000
Saanich Commonwealth Place Victoria 78,000
Combined - Victoria Pools Victoria 78,000
Eileen Dailly Leisure Pool/Fitness Center Burnaby 203,000
Greater Vernon Parks and Recreation District Vernon 36,000
Maple Ridge Leisure Centre Maple Ridge 69,000
North Peace Leisure Pool Fort St. John 17,000
Powell River Recreation Complex Powell River 13,000
Watermania Richmond 174,000
2007 Swimmer-Days, 2006 (rounded to 1,000)

City Public Per Capita
Facility Name/Washington, Oregon and Utah City Population Admissions Lessons Clubs/Events Total Swimmer-Days
McMinnville Aquatic Center McMinnville, OR 31,000 61,000 44,000 4,000 109,000 3.5
North Clackamas Aquatic Center Milwaukie, OR 21,000 130,000 51,000 27,000 208,000 9.9
Southwest Community Center Pool Portland, OR 50,000 [1] 104,000 31,000 2,000 137,000 2.7
Firstenburg Community Center Pool Vancouver, WA 50,000 [1] 120,000 20,000 0 140,000 2.8
Osborn Aquatic Center Corvalis, OR 51,000 90,000 91,000 12,000 193,000 3.8
Pratt Aquatic Center Tooele, UT [2] 30,000 73,000 19,000 22,000 114,000 3.8
_________________________________________________________
[1] Service area population only

[2] Swimmer-days are for 2007
Sources: City of Nanaimo, City of Tooele, British Columbia Parks and Recreation Association, 2007 Aquatic Survey,ORB Architects, and Warren Cooley/EDCON

TABLE 2
Projected Swimmer-Days at
Proposed SWPRD Aquatic Center
(2011-2020)
Population - Year Around [1] 2000 2008 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2017 2020
Whidbey Island
South Whidbey 12,662 13,790 14,291 14,465 14,639 14,879 15,098 15,537 16,103
Central Whidbey 10,812 11,500 12,205 12,802 13,590 14,600 14,815 16,450 19,290
Subtotal - South
and Central 23,474 25,290 26,496 27,267 28,229 29,479 29,913 31,987 35,393
North Whidbey 34,737 38,530 40,892 42,894 45,535 48,920 49,639 55,117 64,362
Total 58,211 63,820 67,388 70,161 73,764 78,399 79,552 87,104 99,755
Camano Island 13,347 14,735 15,638 16,403 17,413 18,707 18,982 21,077 24,612
Grand Total 71,558 78,555 83,026 86,564 91,177 97,106 98,534 108,181 124,367
Population - Summer
Whidbey Island
South Whidbey [2] 14,561 15,859 16,435 16,635 16,835 17,111 17,362 17,868 18,518
Central Whidbey [2] 12,434 13,225 14,036 14,722 15,629 16,790 17,037 18,918 22,184
Subtotal - South
and Central 26,995 29,084 30,470 31,357 32,463 33,901 34,399 36,785 40,702
North Whidbey [3] 38,211 42,383 44,981 47,183 50,089 53,812 54,603 60,629 70,798
Total 65,206 71,467 75,452 78,540 82,552 87,713 89,002 97,414 111,500
Camano Island [3] 14,682 16,209 17,202 18,043 19,154 20,578 20,880 23,185 27,073
Grand Total 79,888 87,675 92,653 96,584 101,706 108,291 109,882 120,598 138,573
____________________________________________
[1] Projections from 2008 through 2020 have been computed at average annual rate of 1.2%.
[2] Year around population plus 15%.
[4] Assumes that 50% of annual swimmer-days will be generated in the summer months.
Sources: www.citypopulation.de/USA, Island County Economic Development Council, Island County Community Web Warren Cooley/EDCON

TABLE 2 - Continued
Projected Swimmer-Days at
Proposed SWPRD Aquatic Center
(2011-2020)
Projected Swimmer-Days
at Proposed SWPRD
Aquatic Center []4]
Non-Summer Months
South Whidbey (1.75/capita) N/A N/A 25,009 25,314 25,618 26,038 26,422 27,190 28,180
Central Whidbey (0.75/capita) N/A N/A 9,154 9,602 10,193 10,950 11,111 12,338 14,468
North Whidbey and
Camano Island (no projection) N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 34,163 34,915 35,811 36,988 37,532 39,527 42,648
Summer Months
South Whidbey (1.75/capita) N/A N/A 28,761 29,111 29,461 29,944 30,384 31,268 32,407
Central Whidbey (0.75/capita) N/A N/A 10,527 11,042 11,721 12,593 12,778 14,188 16,638
North Whidbey and
Camano Island (no participation) N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 39,287 40,153 41,182 42,536 43,162 45,456 49,045
Annual Total
South Whidbey N/A N/A 53,770 54,425 55,079 55,982 56,806 58,458 60,588
Central Whidbey N/A N/A 19,681 20,643 21,914 23,543 23,889 26,526 31,105
North Whidbey and
Camano Island N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 73,450 75,068 76,993 79,525 80,694 84,984 91,693
Swimmer-Days:South Whidbey
Year Around Population Ratio N/A N/A 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.5 5.7
____________________________________________
[1] Projections from 2008 through 2020 have been computed at average annual rate of 1.2%.
[4] Assumes that 50% of annual swimmer-days will be generated in the summer months.
Sources: www.citypopulation.de/USA, Island County Economic Development Council, Island County Community Web Warren Cooley/EDCON

TABLE 3
Pro Forma Operating Statetment
for SWPRD Aquatic Center
(2011-2020)
Projected Swimmer-Days at Proposed SWPRD

Aquatic Center 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2017 2020
Total Swimmer-Days 73,450 75,068 76,993 79,525 80,694 84,984 91,693
Distribution of Total Swimmer-Days

Public Admissions (@ 70%) 51,415 52,548 53,895 55,668 56,486 59,489 64,185
Lessons (@ 25%) 18,363 18,767 19,248 19,881 20,174 21,246 22,923
Clubs/Events/Schools (@ 5%) 3,673 3,753 3,850 3,976 4,035 4,249 4,585
Total 73,450 75,068 76,993 79,525 80,694 84,984 91,693
Revenue
Admissions (@ $3.50/public admission) 179,953 183,917 188,633 194,836 197,700 208,211 224,648
Lessons (@ $3.50/participant) 64,269 65,685 67,369 69,584 70,607 74,361 80,231
Rental (allowance) 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000
Concessions (@ $0.75/total swimmer-day) 55,088 56,301 57,745 59,644 60,521 63,738 68,770
Total 323,309 329,902 337,746 348,064 352,828 370,310 397,649
Cost of Goods Sold

Concessions (@ 50% of related revenue) 27,544 28,151 28,872 29,822 30,260 31,869 34,385
Lessons (@ 50% of related revenue) 32,134 32,842 33,684 34,792 35,304 37,181 40,116
Total 59,678 60,993 62,557 64,614 65,564 69,050 74,501
Gross Profit 263,631 268,909 275,190 283,450 287,264 301,260 323,148
Expenses
Payroll and Benefits (allowance after 2011) 266,442 269,000 272,000 275,000 278,000 281,000 284,000
Maintenance and Repairs (4,800 sf @ $2/sf) 9,600 9,600 9,600 9,600 9,600 9,600 9,600
Chemicals and Supplies (4,800 sf @ $3/sf) 14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400
Utilities (4,800 sf @ $15/sf) 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000
Other (allowance) 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000
Subtotal 380,442 383,000 386,000 389,000 392,000 395,000 398,000
Contingency (10% of subtotal) 38,044 38,300 38,600 38,900 39,200 39,500 39,800
Total 418,486 421,300 424,600 427,900 431,200 434,500 437,800
Net Operating Income (154,856) (152,391) (149,410) (144,450) (143,936) (133,240) (114,652)
Cost Recovery Rate 63% 64% 65% 66% 67% 69% 74%
_________________________________________________
Note: 2008 dollars
Source: Warren Cooley/EDCON

TABLE 4
Operating Performance of Selected Municipal Indoor Aquatic Centres(ers) With Leisure Pool
Elements Located in British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and Utah
(2006 and 2007)
Southwest Firstenburg
Nanaimo McMinnville No.Clackamas Community Community Osborn Pratt
Aquatic Center Aquatic Center Aquatic Center Center Pool Center Pool Aquatic Center Aquatic Center
Fee Schedule (2007) (2006) (2006) (2006) (2006) (2006) (2007)
Daily Admissions (in City/District only)

Adults (over 18) 3.00 6.99 5.75 5.75 4.00 2.50
Youth (13-18) 2.00 4.99 4.25 3.50 3.50 2.00
Children (4-12) 2.00 3.99 3.00 3.50 2.50 1.50
Seniors (over 62) 2.50 4.99 4.25 4.50 2.50 1.50
Annual Pass (range)
Individual (in City/District only) 112-152 216-240 249-462 DNR 254-356 85-145
Family 228 490 672 DNR 713 230
Per Capita Admissions
(admissions revenue/public admissions) 3.05 4.22 2.91 0.89
Operating Performance (Overview)
Revenue
Admissions 1,111,795 DNR 548,122 DNR 262,240 65,196
Lessons/Program 167,374 DNR 153,367 DNR 189,442 22,138
Rental 78,589 DNR 29,901 DNR 28,015 5,560
Concessions 22,560 DNR 12,020 DNR 5,593 DNR
Other 140,616 DNR 307,456 DNR 144,937 19,872
Total 1,520,934 302,255 1,050,866 530,000 DNR 630,227 112,676
Expenses
Salaries and Benefits 1,536,176 364,051 693,734 527,912 336,675
Utilities 255,000 [1] 90,283 345,695 DNR 146,500
Maintenance and Operations 271,928 [1] 201,084 136,281 133,873 66,100
Supplies 99,955 0 16,867 2,450 Inc in M & O
Miscellaneous Other 316,805 0 121,100 DNR 101,765
Total 2,479,864 655,418 1,313,677 664,235 DNR DNR 651,040
Net Operating Income (958,930) (353,163) (262,811) (134,235) DNR DNR (538,364)
Cost Recovery Rate 61% 46% 80% 80% DNR DNR 17%
____________________________________________
Note: DNR means data not reported.
[1] Utilities and facility maintenance and operations are not separated for Nanaimo Aquatic Centre; the combined total for
Nanaimo and Beban Park Pool was $1,053,856. In the above analysis, 50% was allocated to Nanaimo Aquatic Centre.
Sources: City of Nanaimo, City of Tooele, 2007 Aquatic Facility Survey, ORB Architects, and Warren Cooley/EDCON

TABLE 5
Payroll and Benefits Estimate for
SWPRD Aquatic Center
(2011)
Full Time Hours Per Pay Scale Annual
Equivalents Year (hourly eqiv.) Payroll
Payroll
Administration
Manager (ft) 1.00 2,080 $24.00 49,920
Administrative Assistant (pt) 1.00 1,040 $12.00 12,480
P
Operations
Maintenance Supervisor (ft) 0.75 1,560 $15.00 17,550
Maintenance Staff (pt) 2.00 1,040 $10.00 20,800
Cashier and Locker Room Supervisor (ft) 0.75 1,560 $15.00 17,550
Cashier and Locker Room Staff (pt) 3.00 1,040 $10.00 31,200
Lifeguards and Instructors

Head Lifeguard (ft) 0.75 1,560 $15.00 17,550
Lifeguards (pt) 3.00 1,040 $15.00 46,800
Instructors (contract) NA NA NA
Subtotal 12.25 10,920 NA 213,850
Benefits [1]
Full Time (35% of payroll) 35,900
Part Time (15% of payroll) 16,692
Subtotal NA NA NA 52,592
Total 12.25 10,916 NA 266,442
____________________________________________
Notes:
1. ft means 2080 hours per year (40 hours/week x 52 weeks)
2. 3/4 time means 1560 hours per year (30 hours/week x 52 weeks); still receive full time benefits.
3. pt means 1040 hours per year (20 hours x 52 weeks).
4. NA means not applicable.
5. 2008 constant dollars.
Source: Warren Cooley/EDCON

TABLE 6
Debt Service and Tax Rate Analysis
for Proposed SWPRD Aquatic Center
(2011)
Estimated Amount of Bond Issue = $15.0 million
2008 Assessed Value of Property in SWPRD

(source: Island County Assessor's Office)
Annual Debt Service 4% Interest 5% Interest

20-year Term $1,090,800 $1,188,000
25-Year Term $950,400 $1,053,000
30-Year Term $858,600 $966,000
Tax Rate (based on 2008 assessed valuation)

20-Year Term $0.25802 $0.28101
25-Year Term $0.22481 $0.24907
30-Year Term $0.20309 $0.22864
Annual Taxes on $250,000 Residence

20-Year Term $64.51 $70.25
25-Year Term $56.20 $62.27
30-Year Term $50.77 $57.16
_______________________________________________________
Note: 2008 dollars.
Sources: Island County Assessor's Office and Warren Cooley/EDCON

SECTION 4 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Area of Magnitude Cost Estimate
The following pages contain a detailed Area of Magnitude Construction Cost Estimate based on the proposed
design by ORB Architects. The estimate has been escalated to 2011 dollars as the estimated construction period.

Page 2 of 10
South Whidbey Recreation Center A-E Firm Name:
Whidbey Island, Washington ORB Architects, Inc.
Estimated By: Checked By: Date:
Project Title RDC GEA 9/10/2008
S Whidbey Recreation Center Status Of Design: ORB Job No.
Concept Design Concept Design 2825
Description Footprint @ 25,046 sf Quantity Basic Construction Gross Site
39,546 Sq Ft Facility W/ Outdoor Features Number Unit Unit Cost Total Sq Ft Cost Const Cost
25,046
Square Foot Building
Summary
Basic Construction Work Items Building Summary Bldg Sq Ft Cost Sitework Summary
General Contractor Work Subtotals (Includes Outdoor Pool and Basketball Court)
Building Costs Subtotal $3,706,734 $148.00
Sitework Costs Subtotal (Includes Outdoor Pool and Basketball Court) $2,967,873
Subtotal $3,706,734 $2,967,873
GC Markup, Bonds, Insurance, Permits, Mobilization/Demob 20% $741,347 $593,575
Total General Contractor Work $4,448,081 $177.60 $3,561,447
Mechanical Contractor Work
Building Costs Subtotal $1,498,232 $59.82
Sitework Costs Subtotal (No Work) (No Work)
Subtotal $1,498,232
GC Markup, Bonds, Insurance, Permits, Mobilization/Demob 15% $224,735
Total Mechanical Contractor Work $1,722,966 $68.79
Electrical Contractor Work
Building Costs Subtotal $545,892 $21.80
Sitework Costs Subtotal $155,000
Subtotal $545,892 $155,000
GC Markup, Bonds, Insurance, Permits, Mobilization/Demob 15% $81,884 $23,250
Total Electrical Contractor Work $627,775 $25.06 $178,250
Construction Cost Subtotal $6,798,823 $271.45 $3,739,697
Sales Tax 8.3% $564,302 $310,395
FF&E Allowance 3.0% $203,965 $0
Concept Design Contingency 10% $756,709 $405,009
Escalate to 2011 Construction period 10% $811,983 $445,510
Building Sitework
$8,931,818 $356.62 $4,900,611
Per Square Foot,
Not Including Sitework
Total Estimated Construction Cost $13,832,429

Add 12% For Project Costs
$1,659,892 Including Design, Construction Admin
& Construction Testing Fees
Total Estimated Project Cost $15,492,321
SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study
ORB Architects, Inc 9/12/2008
607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057 Page 4-2

Page 3 of 10
Building Costs
1. General Contractor Work
Note: Unit Costs Include Subcontractor OH&P
A. Excavation & Foundation Prep
Pool Tanks, & Sump Pit Excavation & Backfill 1 ls $55,000.00 $55,000
Footing Excavation & Backfill 1,900 lf $12.00 $22,800
Subtotal "A" $77,800 $3.11
B. Concrete
Footings 1,900 lf $35.00 $66,500
Stem Walls 1,900 lf $36.00 $68,400
4" Slab on Grade 334 cy $320.00 $106,741
Dry Spaces Vapor Barrier Below Slab 11,600 sf $0.50 $5,800
Waterslide Foundations Complete 160 cy $220.00 $35,200
Leisure Pool (4250 sf total) 3,420 sf $65.00 $222,300
Add For Parent/Tot Pool 140 sf $90.00 $12,600
Add For River Channel 690 sf $180.00 $124,200
Hot Tub 80 sf $360.00 $28,800
Sump & Pump Pit Walls 300 lf $150.00 $45,000
Subtotal "B" $715,541 $28.57
C. Exterior Wall Systems

8" CMU, Reinforced, Solid Grouted 19,445 sf $11.62 $225,951
Brick or CMU Veneer 17,825 sf $12.38 $220,674
6" Metal Studs @ 16" OC 4,605 sf $6.44 $29,656
5/8" GWB or Sheathing 9,210 sf $1.76 $16,210
Weather Barrier 4,605 sf $0.25 $1,151
3" Rigid Polyiso Insulation 17,825 sf $2.18 $38,859
Unfaced Batt R-21 Insulation 4,605 sf $1.17 $5,388
4 Mil Poly Vapor Retarder 4,605 sf $0.20 $921
Bituthane Self Stick Vapor Retarder 17,825 sf $3.58 $63,814
2" R-10 Perimiter Insulation at Foundation 2,808 sf $2.06 $5,784
Sill Flashing 958 sf $5.82 $5,576
Masonry Seal Exterior Faces 17,825 sf $0.46 $8,200
Epoxy Paint Interior Cmu Faces 19,445 sf $1.63 $31,695
Paint GWB Where Exposed 4,605 sf $0.81 $3,730
Subtotal "C" $657,607 $26.26

Page 4 of 10
D. Interior Wall Systems

Masonry Walls, Epoxy Paint Both Sides 8,136 sf $14.50 $117,931
Gyp. Board Walls, Texture & Paint Both Sides 9,660 sf $8.68 $83,887
Subtotal "D" $201,819 $8.06
E. Structural Frame & Misc Metals

Structural Steel Framework 80 ton $3,000.00 $240,000
Open Web Joists 40 ton $2,500.00 $100,000
1.5" x 20 ga Metal Deck 25,046 sf $2.50 $62,615
3" x 20 ga Composite Floor Deck 2,520 sf $2.80 $7,056
Shear Studs 3/4" x 4.75" 360 ea $2.93 $1,053
Anchor Bolts 1" x 1.33' max 416 ea $5.85 $2,434
Waterslide & Climbing Tower Roofs 800 sf $9.43 $7,540
Waterslide / Mech Room Stairs 80 riser $185.00 $14,800
Other Misc Metal Fabrications 3 ton $5,000 $15,000
Subtotal "E" $450,498 $17.99
F. Roof Systems
Flat Roof System 15,946 sf $12.68 $202,116
Metal Roof System 9,100 sf $18.85 $171,535
Towers Metal Roof System 800 sf $18.85 $15,080
Roof Drain & Leader 20 ea $1,500.00 $30,000
Subtotal "F" $418,731 $16.72
G. Ceilings
Paint Exposed Deck & Structure 14,050 sf $3.25 $45,663
Suspended Acoustical 4,793 sf $3.90 $18,693
Suspended Specialty 4,793 sf $7.80 $37,385
Solid GWB & Metal Frame 3,930 sf $7.15 $28,100
Subtotal "G" $129,840 $5.18
H. Doors
Hollow Metal - Single 9 ea $1,016.00 $9,144
Hollow Metal - Double 4 ea $1,950.00 $7,800
Aluminum - Single 6 ea $1,975.00 $11,850
Aluminum - Double 4 ea $3,950.00 $15,800
Folding Walls 300 sf $45.00 $13,500
Subtotal "H" $58,094 $2.32
I. Windows
Exterior Alum Frame Insul Glazed 2,600 sf $52.00 $135,200
Interior Single Glazed 320 sf $38.00 $12,160
Towers Alum Framed Windows 1,600 sf $70.00 $112,000
Subtotal "I" $259,360 $10.36

Page 5 of 10
J. Finishes
Paint Misc. Interior Surfaces 25,046 sf $0.65 $16,280
Ceramic Tile Sanitary Floors 3,930 sf $9.10 $35,763
Ceramic Tile Sanitary Wall Base 1,224 lf $13.00 $15,912
Ceramic Tile Sanitary Walls & Wainscots 3,060 sf $7.80 $23,868
Concrete Sealer at Pool Deck 4,760 sf $0.50 $2,380
Epoxy Paint Pool Surfaces 5,530 sf $2.50 $13,825
Ceramic Tile Top of Pool Walls 1,560 sf $11.70 $18,252
Carpet 470 sy $31.20 $14,664
Hardwood or Specialty Flooring 3,800 sf $15.00 $57,000
Vinyl Composition or Sheet Vinyl 1,550 sf $3.90 $6,045
Subtotal "J" $203,989 $8.14
K. Specialties
Toilet Partitions 10 ea $1,040.00 $10,400
Urinal Partitions 3 ea $390.00 $1,170
Toilet Specialties 11 ea $650.00 $7,150
Benches 135 lf $40.00 $5,400
Lockers (In FF&E) 440 ea $160.00 $0
Privacy Dressing Room Equipment 4 ea $1,300.00 $5,200
Signage 1 ls $5,000.00 $5,000
Counters 120 lf $52.00 $6,240
Base Cabinets 120 lf $143.00 $17,160
Overhead Cabinets 34 lf $104.00 $3,536
Climbing Wall (10M x 10M w/ 6- auto carib) 1,500 sf $90.00 $135,000
Subtotal "K" $196,256 $7.84
L. Swimming Pool Specialties

Waterslide 1 ea $250,000.00 $250,000
Special Water Feature Effects 1 ls $50,000.00 $50,000
Lifeguard Chairs 1 ea $2,500.00 $2,500
Mobile Handicap Lift 1 ea $6,000.00 $6,000
Wall Steps & Grabrails 4 set $1,500.00 $6,000
Racing Lane Lines, Anchors & Reels 1 ls $5,800.00 $5,800
Accessory Inserts, Stanchions etc 1 ls $2,500.00 $2,500
Continuous Deck Drain 320 lf $45.00 $14,400
Subtotal "L" $337,200 $13.46
1. General Contractor Building Costs Subtotal $3,706,734 $148.00

Page 6 of 10
Building Costs
2. Mechanical Contractor Work

A. Plumbing Systems
Fixtures, Venting, Piping & Insulation 70 ea $3,120.00 $218,400
Subtotal "A" $218,400 $8.72
B. Fire Sprinklers
Wet Pipe System 25,046 sf $3.12 $78,144
Subtotal "B" $78,144 $3.12
C. Pool Hydraulics
Pumps, Filters, Valves, Chlorine Syst, 3,420 sf $54.60 $186,732
River Channel Pool Hydraulics Systems 690 sf $91.00 $62,790
Tots Pool Hydraulics Systems (Bubbles) 140 sf $91.00 $12,740
Hot Tub Hydraulics Systems 80 sf $221.00 $17,680
Chemical Controllers 2 ea $12,000.00 $24,000
Commissioning, O&M, As-Builts 1 ls $14,000.00 $14,000 4,330
Subtotal "C" $317,942 $90.84 ($/ sf of water)
D. Ventilation
Pool Areas Heat & Vent 9,010 sf $18.00 $162,180
Change Rooms Heat & Vent 3,930 sf $18.00 $70,740
Dry Areas Heat & Vent W/ AC 9,586 sf $9.00 $86,274
Ductwork / Diffusers & Installation 25,046 sf $12.00 $300,552
Commissioning, O&M, As-Builts 1 ls $14,000.00 $14,000
Subtotal "D" $633,746 $25.30
E. Heating Plant
Central Boiler for Pool & Domestic, Stacks 1 ls $150,000.00 $150,000
Heat Exch, Pumps, Piping, Valves & insul
Subtotal "E" $150,000 $5.99
F. Controls
Systems Control 1 ls $75,000.00 $75,000
Subtotal "F" $75,000 $2.99
G. Testing & Balancing

Piping & Ducted Systems 1 ls $25,000.00 $25,000
Subtotal "G" $25,000 $1.00
2. Mechanical Contractor Building Costs Subtotal $1,498,232 $59.82

Page 7 of 10
Building Costs
3. Electrical Contractor Work

A. Building Interior
Service and Distribution 25,046 sf $5.14 $128,611
Lighting 25,046 sf $7.98 $199,867
Devices 25,046 sf $0.65 $16,280
Equipment Connections 25,046 sf $0.83 $20,663
Basic Materials 25,046 sf $3.47 $86,935
Fire Alarm 25,046 sf $1.58 $39,447
Telephone/Data/Cable Conduit 25,046 sf $0.56 $14,088
Low Voltage Lighting Control 1 ls $12,000.00 $12,000
Underwater Lights at Leisure Pool 1 ls $10,000.00 $10,000
Security System 1 ls $12,000.00 $12,000
Pool & Slide Panic Alarm 2 ea $3,000.00 $6,000
Subtotal "A" $545,892
3. Electrical Contractor Building Costs Subtotal $545,892 $21.80

Page 8 of 10
Sitework (6 Acres Gross Area)
1. General Contractor Work

A. Site Prep, Paving And Surfacing
Demolish Structure & Paving 1 ls $25,000.00 $25,000
Remove Trees & Grub Stumps 5.0 ac $18,000.00 $90,000
Strip/Dispose Existing Topsoil 11,000 cy $30.00 $330,000
Grade & Compact Soil 20,000 sy $3.00 $60,000
Concrete Slabs / Walks & Base 14,250 sf $5.67 $80,798
Curb & Gutter 4,200 lf $12.00 $50,400
244 Car Parking Base & Permeable Asphalt 10,245 sy $40.00 $409,800
Subtotal "A" $1,045,998
B. Utilities
Sanitary Sewer Force Main 1,000 lf $30.00 $30,000
Septic Tank & Drainfield Construction 1 ea $193,000.00 $193,000
Manhole / Pump Chamber 1 ea $10,000.00 $10,000
6" Footing Drain or Rain Leader 1,900 lf $20.00 $38,000
Cleanout at Grade 18 ea $260.00 $4,680
12"-18" Storm Drain Pipe 2,000 lf $40.00 $80,000
Catchbasin 12 ea $1,700.00 $20,400
Yard Drains 7 ea $600.00 $4,200
Oil/Water Separator 1 ea $30,000.00 $30,000
Manhole 3 ea $3,500.00 $10,500
Storm Detention 1 ea $250,000.00 $250,000
Connect to Storm System 1 ea $2,000.00 $2,000
8" Water Piping 1,000 lf $40.00 $40,000
Water Pipe Tap, Fittings, Valves 12 ea $910.00 $10,920
Fire System Vault and assembly 1 ea $18,000.00 $18,000
Fire Hydrant 3 ea $3,900.00 $11,700
Subtotal "B" $753,400

Page 9 of 10
Sitework
C. Landscaping & Irrigation

Lawn Areas 90,730 sf $1.20 $108,876
Planting Beds Mulch & Groundcover 20,835 sf $2.70 $56,255
Shrubs 500 ea $30.00 $15,000
Trees 100 ea $250.00 $25,000
Irrigation System (plant beds & 50% / lawn) 66,200 sf $0.60 $39,720
Ground Preparation And Finish Grading 111,565 sf $1.30 $145,035
Subtotal "C" $389,885
D. Site Improvements
Fencing at Pool 240 lf $40.00 $9,600
Pool Tank Excavation & Backfill 1 ls $35,000.00 $35,000
Competitive Lap Pool Concrete (3.5 - 5' Deep) 3,450 sf $90.00 $310,500
Ceramic Tile Top of Pool Walls 726 sf $11.70 $8,494
Pumps, Filters, Valves, Chlorine Syst, 3,450 sf $54.60 $188,370
Chemical Controllers 1 ea $12,000.00 $12,000
Lifeguard Chairs 1 ea $2,500.00 $2,500
Wall Steps & Grabrails 4 set $1,500.00 $6,000
Racing Lane Lines, Anchors & Reels 1 ls $35,000.00 $35,000
Starting Platforms 1 ls $26,000.00 $26,000
Accessory Inserts, Stanchions etc 1 ls $10,000.00 $10,000
Epoxy Paint Pool Surfaces 4,590 sf $2.50 $11,475
Continuous Deck Drain 285 lf $45.00 $12,825
Drains, Fixtures, Venting, Piping 5 ea $3,120.00 $15,600
Underwater Lights at Lap Pool 1 ls $25,000.00 $25,000
Basketball Court Slab & Base 7,800 sf $5.67 $44,226
Basketball Goals & Court Marking 2 ea $3,000.00 $6,000
Facility Site Signage 1 ea $20,000 $20,000
Subtotal "D" $778,590
1. General Contractor Sitework Costs Subtotal $2,967,873 $118.50
Sitework
2. Electrical Contractor Work
A. Building Service And Site Lighting
Building Exterior Lighting 1 ls $20,000.00 $20,000
Site Lighting 17 ea $5,000.00 $85,000
Site Telephone, Power, Cable Distribution 1 ls $50,000.00 $50,000
Subtotal "A" $155,000
2. Electrical Contractor Sitework Costs Subtotal $155,000 $6.19

Page 10 of 10
Optional Scope Items
1. Skylights at Natatorium
Skylights 600 sf $58.50 $35,100
Structural Steel Framework 0.5 ton $3,000.00 $1,500
GC Markup, Taxes, Conting, Escal & Fees 58.3% $21,338
Subtotal "Option 1" $57,938 $2.31
2. "Green Roof" at Flat Roof Areas

Flat Roof System "Green Roof" 15,946 sf $12.00 $191,352
3. Enclose Outdoor Pool 6550 SF

Fencing Credit -240 lf $40.00 ($9,600)
Footing Excavation & Backfill 240 lf $12.00 $2,880
Footings 240 lf $35.00 $8,400
Stem Walls 240 lf $36.00 $8,640
8" CMU, Reinforced, Solid Grouted 7,200 sf $11.62 $83,664
Brick or CMU Veneer 6,624 sf $12.38 $82,005
3" Rigid Polyiso Insulation 6,624 sf $2.18 $14,440
Bituthane Self Stick Vapor Retarder 6,624 sf $3.58 $23,714
2" R-10 Perimiter Insulation at Foundation 960 sf $2.06 $1,978
Sill Flashing 326 sf $5.82 $1,900
Masonry Seal Exterior Faces 6,624 sf $0.46 $3,047
Epoxy Paint Interior Cmu Faces 6,624 sf $1.63 $10,797
Structural Steel Framework 20 ton $3,000.00 $60,000
Open Web Joists 10 ton $2,500.00 $25,000
1.5" x 20 ga Metal Deck 6,550 sf $2.50 $16,375
Anchor Bolts 1" x 1.33' max 50 ea $5.85 $293
Flat Roof System 6,550 sf $12.68 $83,021
Roof Drain & Leader 4 ea $1,500.00 $6,000
Paint Exposed Deck & Structure 6,550 sf $3.25 $21,288
Aluminum - Double 4 ea $3,950.00 $15,800
Exterior Alum Frame Insul Glazed 600 sf $52.00 $31,200
Wet Pipe Fire Sprinkler System 6,550 sf $3.12 $20,436
Pool Areas Heat & Vent 6,550 sf $18.00 $117,900
Ductwork / Diffusers & Installation 6,550 sf $12.00 $78,600
Lighting 6,550 sf $7.98 $52,269
Devices 6,550 sf $0.65 $4,258
Security System 1 ls $2,000.00 $2,000
Subtotal "Option 3" $1,213,058 $185.20
4. Ground Source Heat Pump System (Area of Magnitude Estimate - to be detailed further if accepted)
Upgrade Costs to Add Ground Source Syst 25,046 sf $25.00 $626,150

SECTION 5 CONCEPT LAYOUT PLAN
Concept Plan – Project Description
The proposed building plan allows for the most flexible programming space, within an approximately 25,000
square foot building, including multi-purpose rooms, fitness area, a leisure pool, changing rooms and a climbing
wall. Additional outdoor spaces include a lap pool and basketball court.
The building is located at the entrance to the Community Park directly on Maxwelton Road. This highly visible
location will be ideal for keeping residents interested in visiting and making it accessible to all. The proximity to
two schools is also beneficial to the facility usage potential. The visibility of the aquatic uses, in particular the
waterslide, act as an identifying billboard for what is offered inside.
Site work associated with this project includes parking for approximately 244 vehicles, landscaping, irrigation,
sidewalks and grading. Utilities include water and power service as well as drain lines and a septic system large
enough to handle the size of this facility. The main access drive is located on the east side of the building with all
the parking located to the north and east. A separate exit lane on to Maxwelton Road is also identified from the
parking area.
Visible upon approach to the entry, through a generously glazed front wall, is the lobby area. Most predominantly
however, will be the climbing wall, reflecting the popular activity on the community and informing the public of the
active and healthy life style that is being promoted by the South Whidbey Parks and Recreation District. Due to
the height required for such an activity, this climbing wall location will be placed in a corner tower, anchoring that
end of the building.
The facility is easily approached by any mode of transportation including vehicles, bicycles or by foot. The entry
faces the park with a drop off area and accessible parking conveniently located.
Upon entering a spacious, welcoming lobby area one is greeted with the reception desk with, staff area behind.
This location acts as a good contact point with visibility to several key areas and uses, as well as offering a place
for visitor to check in, inquire about programs or ask other questions.
Immediately off the lobby area are several key spaces, including, a fitness area that is left open to the main area,
allowing the space to be an activating element to the character of the space. Right at the entry, easily accessible
and secure is a Child Care area that allows parents to use the facility and know their child is safe.
Two Multi-Purpose Rooms are provided adjacent to each other with an operable wall to combine or separate the
rooms as necessary. One of the rooms would be finished with carpet and other amenities that would allow it to
function as a classroom, party room, dining room and other similar uses that want a comfortable space for users.

The other room would have a durable wood floor that could accommodate dance, yoga, martial arts as well as
larger community meetings. Adjacent to and accessible from both spaces is a catering style kitchen.
A significant portion of the building space and cost is associated with the aquatic features entered through a
Changing Room area that included Men’s, Women’s and Family Changing areas. This facility will have a large
Leisure Pool with a zero-depth entry, tots area, spray features & play equipment, a lazy river and two lap lanes. A
water slide, as mentioned, is accessed from inside but is an exterior feature for the building. Finally, within the
natatoriums enclosed space is also a hot tub. The Lap Pool is located adjacent to the Leisure Pool outside. This
area could be enclosed If budget allows, or as a future phase of the facility. The current outdoor arrangement
allows for the Leisure Pool to spill out to the outdoor deck area on warm sunny days.


South Whidbey Parks & Recreation District Aquatic Feasibility Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

South Whidbey Parks & Recreation District Aquatic Feasibility Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SOUTH WHIDBEY PA R K S & REC REATION DISTRI CT

A QU ATI C FE A SIBI L ITY STUDY

Community Inspired Architecture

SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SECTION 2 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

SECTION 3 AREA OF MAGNITUDE OPERATING PRO-FORMA

SECTION 4 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE

SECTION 5 CONCEPT PLAN

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study 9/12/2008

ORB Architects, Inc. Page 1-1

607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

ORB Architects, Inc. Page 1-2

607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study 9/12/2008

ORB Architects, Inc. Page 1-3

607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study 9/12/2008

ORB Architects, Inc. Page 2-1

607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

ORB Architects, Inc. Page 2-2

607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study 9/12/2008

ORB Architects, Inc. Page 2-3

607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

Kitchen Lap pool

Multi purpose room Water slide

Senior services Swirl pool/hot tub

Aerobics Sauna/steam room

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study 9/12/2008

ORB Architects, Inc. Page 2-4

607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

Climbing wall Gymnasium Fitness center Aerobics

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study 9/12/2008

ORB Architects, Inc. Page 2-5

607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

Multi purpose room

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study 9/12/2008

ORB Architects, Inc. Page 2-6

607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study 9/12/2008

ORB Architects, Inc. Page 2-7

607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

ORB Architects, Inc. Page 2-8

607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study 9/12/2008

ORB Architects, Inc. Page 2-9

607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

ORB Architects, Inc. Page 3-1

607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study 9/12/2008

ORB Architects, Inc. Page 3-2

607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

2011 2015 2020

Low ($170,342) ($158,330) ($126,117)

High ($123,885) ($115,149) ($91,722)

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study 9/12/2008

ORB Architects, Inc. Page 3-3

607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study 9/12/2008

ORB Architects, Inc. Page 3-4

607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

2007 Swimmer-Days, 2006 (rounded to 1,000)

[1] Service area population only