Swprd Report-draft 080912

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 ORB Architects, Inc. 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 1-1

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 o o o

o

Lobby, Control Desk, Concessions Staff Offices Multi-Purpose Rooms Community Meetings Classroom / Arts & Crafts Party Room Dining Kitchen (catering use)

Active Recreation o o o o

Fitness Dance / Aerobic / Yoga / Martial Arts Climbing Wall Court (outdoor)

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc. 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

Aquatic Program Elements o

o o o o

Family Leisure Pool Zero-Depth entry 2 Lap Lanes Interactive Spray Features Lazy River floating channel Water Slide Competition Pool (outdoor–indoor if budget allows) American Short Course – 25 meter Spa / Swirlpool Men’s, Women’s and Family Changing Rooms Outdoor Patio Area

Additional Facility Features o o

Expansion Capability- enclose outdoor uses Surface Parking with a drop-off area 9/12/2008 Page 1-2

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

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc. 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 1-3

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.

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc. 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 2-1

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?

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc. 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 2-2

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.

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc. 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 2-3

Dining room 1%

After school/games 3%

Day care 1%

Party room 4% Arts & craft room 1% Concession 2%

Leisure pool 14%

Lap pool 12%

Kitchen 9%

Multi purpose room 10%

Water slide 5%

Swirl pool/hot tub 8%

Senior services 6%

Sauna/steam room 3%

Aerobics 4%

Warm water therapy 1% Fitness center Gymnasium 3% 6%

Climbing wall 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

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc. 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 2-4

ACTIVE RECREATION

Aerobics 23%

Climbing wall 29%

Fitness center 15%

Gymnasium 33%

Climbing wall

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc. 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

Gymnasium

Fitness center

Aerobics

9/12/2008 Page 2-5

COMMUNITY/SENIOR SERVICES Dining room 4%

Day care 4%

Senior services 14%

After school/games 8%

Party room 12%

Multi purpose room 25%

Arts & craft room 4%

Concession 6%

Kitchen 23% Senior services

Multi purpose room

Kitchen

Concession

Party room

After school/games

Dining room

Day care

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc. 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

Arts & craft room

9/12/2008 Page 2-6

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

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc. 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

Water slide

Swirl pool/hot tub

Sauna/steam room

Warm water therapy

9/12/2008 Page 2-7

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 multifunctional 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. SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc. 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 2-8

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.

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc. 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 2-9

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 20minute 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); SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc. 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 3-1

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. SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc. 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 3-2

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

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

2020

Low

($170,342) ($158,330)

($126,117)

High

($123,885) ($115,149)

($91,722)

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc.

2015

9/12/2008 Page 3-3

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).

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc. 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 3-4

TABLE 1 Selected Municipal Indoor Aquatic Centres(ers) With Leisure Pool Elements Located In British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and Utah Facility Name/British Columbia Beban Park Pool Nanaimo Aquatic Centre Combined - Nanaimo Pools Ladner Leisure Centre City Centre Aquatic Centre Crystal Pool and Fitness Center Gordon Head Recreation Centre Saanich Commonwealth Place Combined - Victoria Pools Eileen Dailly Leisure Pool/Fitness Center Greater Vernon Parks and Recreation District Maple Ridge Leisure Centre North Peace Leisure Pool Powell River Recreation Complex Watermania

Facility Name/Washington, Oregon and Utah McMinnville Aquatic Center North Clackamas Aquatic Center Southwest Community Center Pool Firstenburg Community Center Pool Osborn Aquatic Center Pratt Aquatic Center

City Nanaimo Nanaimo Nanaimo Delta Coquitlam Victoria Victoria Victoria Victoria Burnaby Vernon Maple Ridge Fort St. John Powell River Richmond

City McMinnville, OR Milwaukie, OR Portland, OR Vancouver, WA Corvalis, OR Tooele, UT

2006 City Population 79,000 79,000 79,000 97,000 115,000 78,000 78,000 78,000 78,000 203,000 36,000 69,000 17,000 13,000 174,000

Swimmer-Days, 2007 (rounded to 1,000) Public Admissions Lessons Clubs/Events Total 122,000 43,000 24,000 189,000 365,000 14,000 8,000 387,000 487,000 57,000 32,000 576,000

Per Capita Swimmer-Days 2.4 4.9 7.3

2007 Swimmer-Days, 2006 (rounded to 1,000) City Public Population Admissions Lessons Clubs/Events Total 31,000 61,000 44,000 4,000 109,000 21,000 130,000 51,000 27,000 208,000 50,000 [1] 104,000 31,000 2,000 137,000 50,000 [1] 120,000 20,000 0 140,000 51,000 90,000 91,000 12,000 193,000 [2] 30,000 73,000 19,000 22,000 114,000

Per Capita Swimmer-Days 3.5 9.9 2.7 2.8 3.8 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

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc. 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 3-5

TABLE 2 Projected Swimmer-Days at Proposed SWPRD Aquatic Center (2011-2020) Population - Year Around [1] Whidbey Island South Whidbey Central Whidbey

2000

Subtotal - South and Central North Whidbey Total Camano Island Grand Total Population - Summer Whidbey Island South Whidbey [2] Central Whidbey [2] Subtotal - South and Central North Whidbey [3] Total Camano Island [3] Grand Total

2008

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2017

2020

12,662 10,812

13,790 11,500

14,291 12,205

14,465 12,802

14,639 13,590

14,879 14,600

15,098 14,815

15,537 16,450

16,103 19,290

23,474 34,737 58,211 13,347 71,558

25,290 38,530 63,820 14,735 78,555

26,496 40,892 67,388 15,638 83,026

27,267 42,894 70,161 16,403 86,564

28,229 45,535 73,764 17,413 91,177

29,479 48,920 78,399 18,707 97,106

29,913 49,639 79,552 18,982 98,534

31,987 55,117 87,104 21,077 108,181

35,393 64,362 99,755 24,612 124,367

14,561 12,434

15,859 13,225

16,435 14,036

16,635 14,722

16,835 15,629

17,111 16,790

17,362 17,037

17,868 18,918

18,518 22,184

26,995 38,211 65,206 14,682 79,888

29,084 42,383 71,467 16,209 87,675

30,470 44,981 75,452 17,202 92,653

31,357 47,183 78,540 18,043 96,584

32,463 50,089 82,552 19,154 101,706

33,901 53,812 87,713 20,578 108,291

34,399 54,603 89,002 20,880 109,882

36,785 60,629 97,414 23,185 120,598

40,702 70,798 111,500 27,073 138,573

____________________________________________ [1] Projections from 2008 through 2020 have been computed at average annual rate of 1.2%. [2] Year around population plus 15%. [3] Year around population plus 10%. [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

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc. 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 3-6

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) Central Whidbey (0.75/capita) North Whidbey and Camano Island (no projection)

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

25,009 9,154

25,314 9,602

25,618 10,193

26,038 10,950

26,422 11,111

27,190 12,338

28,180 14,468

N/A

N/A

0 34,163

0 34,915

0 35,811

0 36,988

0 37,532

0 39,527

0 42,648

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

28,761 10,527

29,111 11,042

29,461 11,721

29,944 12,593

30,384 12,778

31,268 14,188

32,407 16,638

N/A

N/A

0 39,287

0 40,153

0 41,182

0 42,536

0 43,162

0 45,456

0 49,045

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

53,770 19,681

54,425 20,643

55,079 21,914

55,982 23,543

56,806 23,889

58,458 26,526

60,588 31,105

N/A

N/A

0 73,450

0 75,068

0 76,993

0 79,525

0 80,694

0 84,984

0 91,693

N/A

N/A

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.3

5.3

5.5

5.7

Subtotal Summer Months South Whidbey (1.75/capita) Central Whidbey (0.75/capita) North Whidbey and Camano Island (no participation) Subtotal Annual Total South Whidbey Central Whidbey North Whidbey and Camano Island Total Swimmer-Days:South Whidbey Year Around Population Ratio

____________________________________________ [1] Projections from 2008 through 2020 have been computed at average annual rate of 1.2%. [2] Year around population plus 15%. [3] Year around population plus 10%. [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

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc. 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 3-7

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

73,450

75,068

76,993

79,525

80,694

84,984

91,693

Total

51,415 18,363 3,673 73,450

52,548 18,767 3,753 75,068

53,895 19,248 3,850 76,993

55,668 19,881 3,976 79,525

56,486 20,174 4,035 80,694

59,489 21,246 4,249 84,984

64,185 22,923 4,585 91,693

Total

179,953 64,269 24,000 55,088 323,309

183,917 65,685 24,000 56,301 329,902

188,633 67,369 24,000 57,745 337,746

194,836 69,584 24,000 59,644 348,064

197,700 70,607 24,000 60,521 352,828

208,211 74,361 24,000 63,738 370,310

224,648 80,231 24,000 68,770 397,649

Total

27,544 32,134 59,678

28,151 32,842 60,993

28,872 33,684 62,557

29,822 34,792 64,614

30,260 35,304 65,564

31,869 37,181 69,050

34,385 40,116 74,501

263,631

268,909

275,190

283,450

287,264

301,260

323,148

266,442 9,600 14,400 72,000 18,000 380,442 38,044 418,486

269,000 9,600 14,400 72,000 18,000 383,000 38,300 421,300

272,000 9,600 14,400 72,000 18,000 386,000 38,600 424,600

275,000 9,600 14,400 72,000 18,000 389,000 38,900 427,900

278,000 9,600 14,400 72,000 18,000 392,000 39,200 431,200

281,000 9,600 14,400 72,000 18,000 395,000 39,500 434,500

284,000 9,600 14,400 72,000 18,000 398,000 39,800 437,800

(154,856) (152,391) (149,410)

(144,450)

(143,936)

66%

67%

Total Swimmer-Days Distribution of Total Swimmer-Days Public Admissions (@ 70%) Lessons (@ 25%) Clubs/Events/Schools (@ 5%)

Revenue Admissions (@ $3.50/public admission) Lessons (@ $3.50/participant) Rental (allowance) Concessions (@ $0.75/total swimmer-day)

Cost of Goods Sold Concessions (@ 50% of related revenue) Lessons (@ 50% of related revenue)

Gross Profit Expenses Payroll and Benefits (allowance after 2011) Maintenance and Repairs (4,800 sf @ $2/sf) Chemicals and Supplies (4,800 sf @ $3/sf) Utilities (4,800 sf @ $15/sf) Other (allowance) Subtotal Contingency (10% of subtotal) Total Net Operating Income Cost Recovery Rate

63%

64%

65%

(133,240) (114,652) 69%

74%

_________________________________________________ Note: 2008 dollars Source: Warren Cooley/EDCON SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc. 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 3-8

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) Nanaimo Aquatic Center (2007)

Fee Schedule Daily Admissions (in City/District only) Adults (over 18) Youth (13-18) Children (4-12) Seniors (over 62) Annual Pass (range) Individual (in City/District only) Family Per Capita Admissions (admissions revenue/public admissions)

McMinnville Aquatic Center (2006)

No.Clackamas Aquatic Center (2006)

Southwest Community Center Pool (2006)

Firstenburg Community Center Pool (2006)

Osborn Aquatic Center (2006)

Pratt Aquatic Center (2007)

3.00 2.00 2.00 2.50

6.99 4.99 3.99 4.99

5.75 4.25 3.00 4.25

5.75 3.50 3.50 4.50

4.00 3.50 2.50 2.50

2.50 2.00 1.50 1.50

112-152 228

216-240 490

249-462 672

DNR DNR

254-356 713

85-145 230

2.91

0.89

262,240 189,442 28,015 5,593 144,937 630,227

65,196 22,138 5,560 DNR 19,872 112,676

3.05

4.22

Operating Performance (Overview) Revenue Admissions Lessons/Program Rental Concessions Other Total

1,111,795 167,374 78,589 22,560 140,616 1,520,934

DNR DNR DNR DNR DNR 302,255

548,122 153,367 29,901 12,020 307,456 1,050,866

DNR DNR DNR DNR DNR 530,000

Total

1,536,176 255,000 [1] 271,928 [1] 99,955 316,805 2,479,864

364,051 90,283 201,084 0 0 655,418

693,734 345,695 136,281 16,867 121,100 1,313,677

527,912 DNR 133,873 2,450 DNR 664,235

DNR

DNR

336,675 146,500 66,100 Inc in M & O 101,765 651,040

(958,930)

(353,163)

(262,811)

(134,235)

DNR

DNR

(538,364)

61%

46%

80%

80%

DNR

DNR

17%

Expenses Salaries and Benefits Utilities Maintenance and Operations Supplies Miscellaneous Other Net Operating Income Cost Recovery Rate ____________________________________________ Note: DNR means data not reported.

DNR

[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

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc. 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 3-9

TABLE 5 Payroll and Benefits Estimate for SWPRD Aquatic Center (2011) Full Time Equivalents

Hours Per Year

Pay Scale (hourly eqiv.)

Annual Payroll

Payroll Administration Manager (ft) Administrative Assistant (pt)

1.00 1.00

2,080 1,040

$24.00 $12.00

49,920 12,480 P

Operations Maintenance Supervisor (ft) Maintenance Staff (pt) Cashier and Locker Room Supervisor (ft) Cashier and Locker Room Staff (pt)

0.75 2.00 0.75 3.00

1,560 1,040 1,560 1,040

$15.00 $10.00 $15.00 $10.00

17,550 20,800 17,550 31,200

0.75 3.00

1,560 1,040 NA 10,920

$15.00 $15.00 NA NA

17,550 46,800 NA 213,850

Lifeguards and Instructors Head Lifeguard (ft) Lifeguards (pt) Instructors (contract)

12.25

Subtotal Benefits [1] Full Time (35% of payroll) Part Time (15% of payroll)

35,900 16,692 Subtotal Total

NA

NA 12.25

10,916

NA

52,592

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

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study

9/12/2008

ORB Architects, Inc.

Page 3-10

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

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 20-year Term 25-Year Term 30-Year Term Tax Rate (based on 2008 assessed valuation) 20-Year Term 25-Year Term 30-Year Term Annual Taxes on $250,000 Residence 20-Year Term 25-Year Term 30-Year Term

4% Interest $1,090,800 $950,400 $858,600

5% Interest $1,188,000 $1,053,000 $966,000

$0.25802 $0.22481 $0.20309

$0.28101 $0.24907 $0.22864

$64.51 $56.20 $50.77

$70.25 $62.27 $57.16

_______________________________________________________ Note: 2008 dollars. Sources: Island County Assessor's Office and Warren Cooley/EDCON

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study

9/12/2008

ORB Architects, Inc.

Page 3-11

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

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.

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc. 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 4-1

Page 2 of 10

South Whidbey Recreation Center Whidbey Island, Washington

A-E Firm Name: 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 Sitework Costs Subtotal (No Work) Subtotal GC Markup, Bonds, Insurance, Permits, Mobilization/Demob 15% Total Mechanical Contractor Work Electrical Contractor Work Building Costs Subtotal Sitework Costs Subtotal Subtotal GC Markup, Bonds, Insurance, Permits, Mobilization/Demob Total Electrical Contractor Work

15%

Construction Cost Subtotal Sales Tax FF&E Allowance Concept Design Contingency Escalate to 2011 Construction period

8.3% 3.0% 10% 10%

$1,498,232

$59.82 (No Work)

$1,498,232 $224,735 $1,722,966

$68.79

$545,892

$21.80

$545,892 $81,884 $627,775

$25.06

$155,000 $155,000 $23,250 $178,250

$6,798,823

$271.45

$3,739,697

$564,302 $203,965 $756,709 $811,983 Building $8,931,818

$310,395 $0 $405,009 $445,510

$356.62 Per Square Foot, Not Including Sitework

Total Estimated Construction Cost

$13,832,429 $1,659,892

Total Estimated Project Cost

Sitework $4,900,611

Add 12% For Project Costs Including Design, Construction Admin & Construction Testing Fees

$15,492,321

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 4-2

Page 3 of 10

South Whidbey Recreation Center Whidbey Island, Washington

A-E Firm Name: 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 39,546 Sq Ft Facility W/ Outdoor Features Number Unit Unit Cost Total Sq Ft Cost 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 Stem Walls 4" Slab on Grade Dry Spaces Vapor Barrier Below Slab Waterslide Foundations Complete Leisure Pool (4250 sf total) Add For Parent/Tot Pool Add For River Channel Hot Tub Sump & Pump Pit Walls Subtotal "B"

1,900 1,900 334 11,600 160 3,420 140 690 80 300

C. Exterior Wall Systems 8" CMU, Reinforced, Solid Grouted Brick or CMU Veneer 6" Metal Studs @ 16" OC 5/8" GWB or Sheathing Weather Barrier 3" Rigid Polyiso Insulation Unfaced Batt R-21 Insulation 4 Mil Poly Vapor Retarder Bituthane Self Stick Vapor Retarder 2" R-10 Perimiter Insulation at Foundation Sill Flashing Masonry Seal Exterior Faces Epoxy Paint Interior Cmu Faces Paint GWB Where Exposed Subtotal "C"

19,445 17,825 4,605 9,210 4,605 17,825 4,605 4,605 17,825 2,808 958 17,825 19,445 4,605

lf lf cy sf cy sf sf sf sf lf

sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf

$35.00 $36.00 $320.00 $0.50 $220.00 $65.00 $90.00 $180.00 $360.00 $150.00

$11.62 $12.38 $6.44 $1.76 $0.25 $2.18 $1.17 $0.20 $3.58 $2.06 $5.82 $0.46 $1.63 $0.81

$66,500 $68,400 $106,741 $5,800 $35,200 $222,300 $12,600 $124,200 $28,800 $45,000 $715,541

$28.57

$225,951 $220,674 $29,656 $16,210 $1,151 $38,859 $5,388 $921 $63,814 $5,784 $5,576 $8,200 $31,695 $3,730 $657,607

$26.26

Site Const Cost

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 4-3

Page 4 of 10

South Whidbey Recreation Center Whidbey Island, Washington

A-E Firm Name: 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 39,546 Sq Ft Facility W/ Outdoor Features Number Unit Unit Cost Total Sq Ft Cost D. Interior Wall Systems Masonry Walls, Epoxy Paint Both Sides Gyp. Board Walls, Texture & Paint Both Sides Subtotal "D"

8,136 9,660

E. Structural Frame & Misc Metals Structural Steel Framework Open Web Joists 1.5" x 20 ga Metal Deck 3" x 20 ga Composite Floor Deck Shear Studs 3/4" x 4.75" Anchor Bolts 1" x 1.33' max Waterslide & Climbing Tower Roofs Waterslide / Mech Room Stairs Other Misc Metal Fabrications Subtotal "E"

80 40 25,046 2,520 360 416 800 80 3

F. Roof Systems Flat Roof System Metal Roof System Towers Metal Roof System Roof Drain & Leader Subtotal "F"

15,946 9,100 800 20

G. Ceilings Paint Exposed Deck & Structure Suspended Acoustical Suspended Specialty Solid GWB & Metal Frame Subtotal "G"

14,050 4,793 4,793 3,930

H. Doors Hollow Metal - Single Hollow Metal - Double Aluminum - Single Aluminum - Double Folding Walls Subtotal "H" I.

Windows Exterior Alum Frame Insul Glazed Interior Single Glazed Towers Alum Framed Windows Subtotal "I"

9 4 6 4 300

2,600 320 1,600

sf sf

ton ton sf sf ea ea sf riser ton

sf sf sf ea

sf sf sf sf

ea ea ea ea sf

sf sf sf

$14.50 $8.68

$3,000.00 $2,500.00 $2.50 $2.80 $2.93 $5.85 $9.43 $185.00 $5,000

$12.68 $18.85 $18.85 $1,500.00

$3.25 $3.90 $7.80 $7.15

$1,016.00 $1,950.00 $1,975.00 $3,950.00 $45.00

$52.00 $38.00 $70.00

$117,931 $83,887 $201,819

$8.06

$240,000 $100,000 $62,615 $7,056 $1,053 $2,434 $7,540 $14,800 $15,000 $450,498

$17.99

$202,116 $171,535 $15,080 $30,000 $418,731

$16.72

$45,663 $18,693 $37,385 $28,100 $129,840

$5.18

$9,144 $7,800 $11,850 $15,800 $13,500 $58,094

$2.32

$135,200 $12,160 $112,000 $259,360

$10.36

Site Const Cost

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 4-4

Page 5 of 10

South Whidbey Recreation Center Whidbey Island, Washington

A-E Firm Name: 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 39,546 Sq Ft Facility W/ Outdoor Features Number Unit Unit Cost Total Sq Ft Cost J.

Finishes Paint Misc. Interior Surfaces Ceramic Tile Sanitary Floors Ceramic Tile Sanitary Wall Base Ceramic Tile Sanitary Walls & Wainscots Concrete Sealer at Pool Deck Epoxy Paint Pool Surfaces Ceramic Tile Top of Pool Walls Carpet Hardwood or Specialty Flooring Vinyl Composition or Sheet Vinyl Subtotal "J"

25,046 3,930 1,224 3,060 4,760 5,530 1,560 470 3,800 1,550

K. Specialties Toilet Partitions Urinal Partitions Toilet Specialties Benches Lockers (In FF&E) Privacy Dressing Room Equipment Signage Counters Base Cabinets Overhead Cabinets Climbing Wall (10M x 10M w/ 6- auto carib) Subtotal "K"

10 3 11 135 440 4 1 120 120 34 1,500

L. Swimming Pool Specialties Waterslide Special Water Feature Effects Lifeguard Chairs Mobile Handicap Lift Wall Steps & Grabrails Racing Lane Lines, Anchors & Reels Accessory Inserts, Stanchions etc Continuous Deck Drain Subtotal "L"

1. General Contractor Building Costs Subtotal

1 1 1 1 4 1 1 320

sf sf lf sf sf sf sf sy sf sf

ea ea ea lf ea ea ls lf lf lf sf

ea ls ea ea set ls ls lf

$0.65 $9.10 $13.00 $7.80 $0.50 $2.50 $11.70 $31.20 $15.00 $3.90

$1,040.00 $390.00 $650.00 $40.00 $160.00 $1,300.00 $5,000.00 $52.00 $143.00 $104.00 $90.00

$250,000.00 $50,000.00 $2,500.00 $6,000.00 $1,500.00 $5,800.00 $2,500.00 $45.00

$16,280 $35,763 $15,912 $23,868 $2,380 $13,825 $18,252 $14,664 $57,000 $6,045 $203,989

$8.14

$10,400 $1,170 $7,150 $5,400 $0 $5,200 $5,000 $6,240 $17,160 $3,536 $135,000 $196,256

$7.84

$250,000 $50,000 $2,500 $6,000 $6,000 $5,800 $2,500 $14,400 $337,200

$13.46

$3,706,734

$148.00

Site Const Cost

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 4-5

Page 6 of 10

South Whidbey Recreation Center Whidbey Island, Washington

A-E Firm Name: 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 39,546 Sq Ft Facility W/ Outdoor Features Number Unit Unit Cost Total Sq Ft Cost

Site Const Cost

Building Costs 2. Mechanical Contractor Work Note: Unit Costs Include Subcontractor OH&P A. Plumbing Systems Fixtures, Venting, Piping & Insulation Subtotal "A" B. Fire Sprinklers Wet Pipe System Subtotal "B" C. Pool Hydraulics Pumps, Filters, Valves, Chlorine Syst, River Channel Pool Hydraulics Systems Tots Pool Hydraulics Systems (Bubbles) Hot Tub Hydraulics Systems Chemical Controllers Commissioning, O&M, As-Builts Subtotal "C" D. Ventilation Pool Areas Heat & Vent Change Rooms Heat & Vent Dry Areas Heat & Vent W/ AC Ductwork / Diffusers & Installation Commissioning, O&M, As-Builts Subtotal "D" E. Heating Plant Central Boiler for Pool & Domestic, Stacks Heat Exch, Pumps, Piping, Valves & insul Subtotal "E"

70

25,046

3,420 690 140 80 2 1

9,010 3,930 9,586 25,046 1

1

F. Controls Systems Control Subtotal "F"

1

G. Testing & Balancing Piping & Ducted Systems Subtotal "G"

1

2. Mechanical Contractor Building Costs Subtotal

ea

sf

sf sf sf sf ea ls

sf sf sf sf ls

ls

ls

ls

$3,120.00

$3.12

$54.60 $91.00 $91.00 $221.00 $12,000.00 $14,000.00

$18.00 $18.00 $9.00 $12.00 $14,000.00

$150,000.00

$75,000.00

$25,000.00

$218,400 $218,400

$8.72

$78,144 $78,144

$3.12

$186,732 $62,790 $12,740 $17,680 $24,000 $14,000 $317,942

4,330 $90.84

$162,180 $70,740 $86,274 $300,552 $14,000 $633,746

$25.30

($/ sf of water)

$150,000 $150,000

$5.99

$75,000 $75,000

$2.99

$25,000 $25,000

$1.00

$1,498,232

$59.82

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 4-6

Page 7 of 10

South Whidbey Recreation Center Whidbey Island, Washington

A-E Firm Name: 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 39,546 Sq Ft Facility W/ Outdoor Features Number Unit Unit Cost Total Sq Ft Cost

Site Const Cost

Building Costs 3. Electrical Contractor Work Note: Unit Costs Include Subcontractor OH&P A. Building Interior Service and Distribution Lighting Devices Equipment Connections Basic Materials Fire Alarm Telephone/Data/Cable Conduit Low Voltage Lighting Control Underwater Lights at Leisure Pool Security System Pool & Slide Panic Alarm Subtotal "A"

3. Electrical Contractor Building Costs Subtotal

25,046 25,046 25,046 25,046 25,046 25,046 25,046 1 1 1 2

sf sf sf sf sf sf sf ls ls ls ea

$5.14 $7.98 $0.65 $0.83 $3.47 $1.58 $0.56 $12,000.00 $10,000.00 $12,000.00 $3,000.00

$128,611 $199,867 $16,280 $20,663 $86,935 $39,447 $14,088 $12,000 $10,000 $12,000 $6,000 $545,892

$545,892

$21.80

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 4-7

Page 8 of 10

South Whidbey Recreation Center Whidbey Island, Washington

A-E Firm Name: 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 39,546 Sq Ft Facility W/ Outdoor Features Number Unit Unit Cost Total Sq Ft Cost Sitework

Site Const Cost

(6 Acres Gross Area)

1. General Contractor Work Note: Unit Costs Include Subcontractor OH&P A. Site Prep, Paving And Surfacing Demolish Structure & Paving Remove Trees & Grub Stumps Strip/Dispose Existing Topsoil Grade & Compact Soil Concrete Slabs / Walks & Base Curb & Gutter 244 Car Parking Base & Permeable Asphalt Subtotal "A" B. Utilities Sanitary Sewer Force Main Septic Tank & Drainfield Construction Manhole / Pump Chamber 6" Footing Drain or Rain Leader Cleanout at Grade 12"-18" Storm Drain Pipe Catchbasin Yard Drains Oil/Water Separator Manhole Storm Detention Connect to Storm System 8" Water Piping Water Pipe Tap, Fittings, Valves Fire System Vault and assembly Fire Hydrant Subtotal "B"

1 5.0 11,000 20,000 14,250 4,200 10,245

ls ac cy sy sf lf sy

$25,000.00 $18,000.00 $30.00 $3.00 $5.67 $12.00 $40.00

$25,000 $90,000 $330,000 $60,000 $80,798 $50,400 $409,800 $1,045,998

1,000 1 1 1,900 18 2,000 12 7 1 3 1 1 1,000 12 1 3

lf ea ea lf ea lf ea ea ea ea ea ea lf ea ea ea

$30.00 $193,000.00 $10,000.00 $20.00 $260.00 $40.00 $1,700.00 $600.00 $30,000.00 $3,500.00 $250,000.00 $2,000.00 $40.00 $910.00 $18,000.00 $3,900.00

$30,000 $193,000 $10,000 $38,000 $4,680 $80,000 $20,400 $4,200 $30,000 $10,500 $250,000 $2,000 $40,000 $10,920 $18,000 $11,700 $753,400

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 4-8

Page 9 of 10

South Whidbey Recreation Center Whidbey Island, Washington

A-E Firm Name: 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 39,546 Sq Ft Facility W/ Outdoor Features Number Unit Unit Cost Total Sq Ft Cost

Site Const Cost

Sitework C. Landscaping & Irrigation Lawn Areas Planting Beds Mulch & Groundcover Shrubs Trees Irrigation System (plant beds & 50% / lawn) Ground Preparation And Finish Grading Subtotal "C" D. Site Improvements Fencing at Pool Pool Tank Excavation & Backfill Competitive Lap Pool Concrete (3.5 - 5' Deep) Ceramic Tile Top of Pool Walls Pumps, Filters, Valves, Chlorine Syst, Chemical Controllers Lifeguard Chairs Wall Steps & Grabrails Racing Lane Lines, Anchors & Reels Starting Platforms Accessory Inserts, Stanchions etc Epoxy Paint Pool Surfaces Continuous Deck Drain Drains, Fixtures, Venting, Piping Underwater Lights at Lap Pool Basketball Court Slab & Base Basketball Goals & Court Marking Facility Site Signage Subtotal "D"

90,730 20,835 500 100 66,200 111,565

sf sf ea ea sf sf

$1.20 $2.70 $30.00 $250.00 $0.60 $1.30

$108,876 $56,255 $15,000 $25,000 $39,720 $145,035 $389,885

240 1 3,450 726 3,450 1 1 4 1 1 1 4,590 285 5 1 7,800 2 1

lf ls sf sf sf ea ea set ls ls ls sf lf ea ls sf ea ea

$40.00 $35,000.00 $90.00 $11.70 $54.60 $12,000.00 $2,500.00 $1,500.00 $35,000.00 $26,000.00 $10,000.00 $2.50 $45.00 $3,120.00 $25,000.00 $5.67 $3,000.00 $20,000

$9,600 $35,000 $310,500 $8,494 $188,370 $12,000 $2,500 $6,000 $35,000 $26,000 $10,000 $11,475 $12,825 $15,600 $25,000 $44,226 $6,000 $20,000 $778,590 $2,967,873

1. General Contractor Sitework Costs Subtotal

Sitework 2. Electrical Contractor Work Note: Unit Costs Include Subcontractor OH&P A. Building Service And Site Lighting Building Exterior Lighting Site Lighting Site Telephone, Power, Cable Distribution Subtotal "A" 2. Electrical Contractor Sitework Costs Subtotal

1 17 1

ls ea ls

$20,000.00 $5,000.00 $50,000.00

$118.50

$20,000 $85,000 $50,000 $155,000 $155,000

$6.19

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 4-9

Page 10 of 10

South Whidbey Recreation Center Whidbey Island, Washington

A-E Firm Name: 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 39,546 Sq Ft Facility W/ Outdoor Features Number Unit Unit Cost Total Sq Ft Cost Optional Scope Items 1. Skylights at Natatorium Skylights Structural Steel Framework GC Markup, Taxes, Conting, Escal & Fees Subtotal "Option 1"

600 0.5 58.3%

2. "Green Roof" at Flat Roof Areas Flat Roof System "Green Roof" GC Markup, Taxes, Conting, Escal & Fees Subtotal "Option 2"

15,946 58.3%

3. Enclose Outdoor Pool 6550 SF Fencing Credit Footing Excavation & Backfill Footings Stem Walls 8" CMU, Reinforced, Solid Grouted Brick or CMU Veneer 3" Rigid Polyiso Insulation Bituthane Self Stick Vapor Retarder 2" R-10 Perimiter Insulation at Foundation Sill Flashing Masonry Seal Exterior Faces Epoxy Paint Interior Cmu Faces Structural Steel Framework Open Web Joists 1.5" x 20 ga Metal Deck Anchor Bolts 1" x 1.33' max Flat Roof System Roof Drain & Leader Paint Exposed Deck & Structure Aluminum - Double Exterior Alum Frame Insul Glazed Wet Pipe Fire Sprinkler System Pool Areas Heat & Vent Ductwork / Diffusers & Installation Lighting Devices Security System GC Markup, Taxes, Conting, Escal & Fees Subtotal "Option 3"

-240 240 240 240 7,200 6,624 6,624 6,624 960 326 6,624 6,624 20 10 6,550 50 6,550 4 6,550 4 600 6,550 6,550 6,550 6,550 6,550 1 58.3%

4. Ground Source Heat Pump System Upgrade Costs to Add Ground Source Syst GC Markup, Taxes, Conting, Escal & Fees Subtotal "Option 4"

sf ton

sf

lf lf lf lf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf sf ton ton sf ea sf ea sf ea sf sf sf sf sf sf ls

$58.50 $3,000.00

$12.00

$40.00 $12.00 $35.00 $36.00 $11.62 $12.38 $2.18 $3.58 $2.06 $5.82 $0.46 $1.63 $3,000.00 $2,500.00 $2.50 $5.85 $12.68 $1,500.00 $3.25 $3,950.00 $52.00 $3.12 $18.00 $12.00 $7.98 $0.65 $2,000.00

$35,100 $1,500 $21,338 $57,938

$2.31

$191,352 $111,558 $302,910

$12.09

($9,600) $2,880 $8,400 $8,640 $83,664 $82,005 $14,440 $23,714 $1,978 $1,900 $3,047 $10,797 $60,000 $25,000 $16,375 $293 $83,021 $6,000 $21,288 $15,800 $31,200 $20,436 $117,900 $78,600 $52,269 $4,258 $2,000 $446,755 $1,213,058

$185.20

Site Const Cost

(Area of Magnitude Estimate - to be detailed further if accepted) 25,046 sf $25.00 $626,150 53.3% $333,738 $959,888 $38.33

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc

9/12/2008

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

Page 4-10

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. SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc. 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 5-1

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.

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc. 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 5-2

SWPRD Recreation and Aquatic Center Feasibility Study ORB Architects, Inc. 607 SW Grady Way, Suite 210, Renton, WA 98057

9/12/2008 Page 5-3