city report on new downtown aquatic centre and library

8/6/2019 City Report on New Downtown Aquatic Centre and Library

1/35


2/35

2 of 136

7. THAT Administration BE DIRECTED to bring to Council a report recommending thechosen proposal, along with final and complete capital and operating budgets once thesuccessful design build proponent has been selected and the cost proposals have beenanalyzed; AND

8. THAT City Council APPROVE the preliminary proposed Downtown Aquatic & FamilyCentre & Library Complex project governance structure and timeline and that CityCouncil APPROVE the member structure of the Steering Committee Composition based

on five City Councillors plus Mayor as ex-officio (as per current practice for standingcommittees); AND

9. THAT City Council DIRECT Administration to report back to Council with a detailedrecommended Project Charter (similar in structure to the WFCU Centre Project Charter)for the Aquatic Centre construction; AND

10.THAT the citys traffic department BE DIRECTED to identify alternative parkingoptions for existing users of city parking on the Western Super Anchor site including,Windsor Police; AND

11.THAT City Council DIRECT Administration to provide recommendations regardinguser fees proposed for the new facility for new users, understanding that the Mayor andmembers of City Council are desirous of ensuring the same user fees as are currently inplace for the members of the community; AND

12.THAT City Council DIRECT and AUTHORIZE Administration to explore anypotential partnerships related to the operations of the facility that have the potential toimprove services or decrease the operating costs; AND

13.THAT City Council PROVIDE DIRECTION on the closure/repurposing of thefacilities identified herein; AND

14.THAT City Council RECOMMEND to the Windsor Public Library Board the relocationof the Central Library branch to the new proposed facility with the closure of the existingCentral Library branch.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Council at the start of the current term developed six key strategic priorities for this term ofCouncil. The proposed facility is consistent with all the strategies:

Jobs and Economic Diversification Significant employment will be created from theconstruction of the facility as well as the ongoing operation. It will provide economicdiversification by giving the City a state of the art facility which can give the City acompetitive advantage in the growing sector of sports tourism.

Regional Cooperation The facility will open up partnership possibilities with localinstitutions and organizations.

Cultural Capital The proposed state of the art library facility will add to the Cityscultural amenities which are a key part of a liveable community and also help attract andretain businesses.


3/35

3 of 136

Corporate Opportunities Integration of facilities, including Library Administration,will provide opportunities for synergies.

Downtown Revitalization The facility would complement the growing list of measuresundertaken by Council to bring people to the downtown which will positively impact theareas business establishments.

Affordable/Attractive City The proposed facility will help complete the downtownarea and, depending on the options chosen by Council, may maintain or reduce the annualoperating levy requirements.

The preparation of complete and reliable capital and operating budgets for the proposed facilityrequire Councils direction on a number of decision points including:

The size of the facility, especially as it relates to the family recreation and Librarycomponents.

The type of amenities within the new complex which will, in part, be influenced byCouncils decision on the consolidation/repurposing of existing facilities.

The operating model (City run vs. Partnership vs. Fee for Service) The fee structure and level of subsidization

Preliminary estimates, pending the noted Council decisions, indicate the following potentialCapital costs:

Competition Pool Component Preliminary estimates of $28 - $32 million Family Aquatics Recreation Preliminary per square foot cost in the range of $350 -

$450 per square foot

Library Component Preliminary per square foot cost in the range of $230 - $280 persquare foot

Related General Costs (Short Term Financing, Technical Support, Contingency, etc) Preliminary estimates of $9 - $16 million

Preliminary estimates, pending the noted Council decisions, indicate the following potential

Operating costs: Gross Expenditures of $2.8 million and net operating costs in the range of $900,000 to

$1,800,000.The noted operating costs could be partially or totally offset by savings from a number of optionsprovided to Council relating to the potential closure/repurposing of existing related facilities.Capital costs related to impacted facilities vary depending upon options chosen.

A governance hierarchy similar to the successful WFCU Centre project which was completed ontime and below budget is recommended. A modified design build process is recommended inorder to meet the very tight timelines that are required (as well as to reduce the Citys risk) inorder to have the facility available for the 2013 International Childrens Games. The traditional

design build process would be modified through the issuance of an RFP that provides specificallowable parameters for key design specifications (as developed by a recommended TechnicalSupport & Design Consultant). Additionally, the RFP will be structured as to provide the abilityto directly tender certain specific components by the City of Windsor in order to avoid mark-upsand reduce overall project costs.

It is understood that City Council, in keeping with its stated goal of downtown revitalization, hastargeted various renewal initiatives within the downtown area. As a result, in order to achievethis goal, the recommended location for the facility is on City owned land behind the art gallery,commonly referred to as the Western Super Anchor lands. This site has the available space


4/35

4 of 136

required to accommodate the proposed facility and there is significant nearby parking availableto service the facility.

As with any project of this magnitude, there are a number of risks that need to be considered.These risks, along with mitigating measures, have been identified in Appendix I. This reportfocuses largely on the financial aspects of this initiative. A memo (Attached as Appendix B)prepared by the Community Development & Health Services Commissioner and ExecutiveDirector, Recreation & Culture as well a memo from the CEO of Windsor Public Library

(Appendix C) provides their input on the repurposing options.

2. BACKGROUND:

Community NeedsIn order to achieve the objectives of the community in terms of providing recreation facilities andopportunities to be active, it is important that an inventory of facilities that caters to all agegroups and skill levels be available. Windsor citizens and visitors have the opportunity toparticipate or compete in high quality facilities for baseball, soccer, track and field, hockey andother ice sports, basketball and other court sports, trails, and a variety of field sports.Comparatively, a significant gap in quality aquatic facilities has been documented over several

years. In particular this gap was noted in the Citys 1989 Recreation and Culture Master Planthat noted:

Swimming was cited as the number one summer time leisure activity by 37% of thoseresponding to the household survey. Interest in and demand for water-based activities isexpected to remain high or increase as the aging population seeks fitness and leisureopportunities which are less stressful than activities such as jogging or aerobics.

The study further states:

Major aquatic groups noted that the lack of a 50 metre indoor facility, with adequate spectator

seating and appropriate support equipment for competitive needs, severely limits trainingopportunities. In addition, present facilities do not meet competitive standards for four majoraquatic sports water polo, diving, synchronized swimming and speed swimming.

The 1989 Recreation and Culture Master Plan identifies ... the major shortfall in aquaticfacilities is a city-wide/regional scale aquatic centre that would serve the needs of competitiveswim groups as well as the general community for family and leisure swimming.

These statements and recommendations were reinforced in the Windsor Aquatic CentreFeasibility Study prepared for the City in 1996:

In summary, the Department cannot provide aquatic services for provincial or regional levelsdue to lack of facilities and the design of existing pools. To accommodate competitive interestsand host national events, a 50 metre pool is required. This would be a significant undertaking forthe municipality, but would enhance their ability to meet competitive needs and generally betterserve the communitys aquatic interests.

The aquatic community has advocated for a 50 metre pool for decades and these documentshighlight the recognition and desire for additional facilities. Currently, the closest 50 metre poolin Ontario is in London with the closest in physical proximity located across the border inMichigan. Local athletes in swimming and diving are at a competitive disadvantage due to the


5/35

5 of 136

lack of proper training facilities and the community in general is deprived of improved access toa popular and healthy year-round activity.

As noted, the City of Windsor commissioned the Windsor Aquatic Centre Feasibility Study in1996. While the study is dated, most of the findings are still applicable. The report identified themain users of the aquatic facilities to be Parks & Recreation Program users and OrganizedAquatic Club users. This study found that the aquatic facilities in the City did not providesufficient capacity for either of these user groups. It was noted that the Parks and Recreation

users were required to rent space from other facilities in order to match the demand for theirprograms. It was also noted in the study that the organized club users could use an additional 23hours per week for their existing programs and 32 hours per week on new weekly programs.

The construction of a new facility will allow for the organized aquatic club programs to operatefrom the 50 metre pool facility, thereby creating the necessary space for the Parks and RecreationProgram users.

Furthermore, there are several groups that could also benefit from the facility. The YMCA hasexpressed some interest in partnering as well as both the University and College, neither ofwhich currently has a competitive swimming program. The Greater Essex County District

School Board has closed several of its pools and has indicated a strong interest in the use of thisfacility. The Windsor Essex Catholic District School Board has expressed interest as well anddoes not currently operate any pools within its schools.

Perhaps the most urgent need for the Centre is for the 2013 International Childrens Games.These games have been awarded to the City of Windsor and will take place in the summer of2013. The goal is to have the Centre constructed by this time. However, should the facility not bebuilt, the swimming portion of the games will have to take place outside of the region,potentially in Michigan. This will mean a loss of revenue from local spectators and moreimportantly, visitors to the region.

The need for improved library resources is also great. Life-long learning, for self-improvementand employability, is the cornerstone of a knowledge-based society and economy. Windsorsgovernment, human service organizations and citizens are working together to reduce the citysunemployment level. The community must work at improving literacy levels to reduce povertyand unemployment and improve the labour market outcomes for new graduates and secondcareer candidates. Some of these tools to succeed will be in the new library.

The library will provide innovative tools and resources that arent currently available and arenecessary in the 21

stcentury. Traditional services, combined with social media and new

technologies, will provide both a global perspective and local conversations to accelerate theCitys economic rebirth.

Community BenefitsThe addition of the Centre to the City offers significant benefits, both to the community ingeneral as well as economically.From a community perspective, the Centre would:

Promote and enable active healthy living for all ages

Provide a focal point for community activity

Support community based aquatics clubs and groups

Build civic pride and community through sport and celebration


6/35

6 of 136

Celebrate and showcase local athletes and clubs in competition

Foster the development of elite athletes who then go on to represent the City and region

Foster opportunities for families to enjoy recreation together

These community benefits address many aspects of the purpose of the Project and will be a realasset to the City. For example, the development of high performance athletes has a trickle-downeffect on grass roots participation and development. Just as success at the national andinternational levels by local hockey players leads to an influx in registrations at the recreationaland minor league levels, success by young athletes in aquatics on the national and internationalstage leads to an increase in interest in participation in swimming lessons and skill development.This has a positive impact in the health and well being of children while learning healthy, activeand safe lifestyle behaviours that will serve them their entire lives.

Trends in aquatic programs have changed over the years as user demographics and demandshave changed. Water safety awareness has increased. In an education effort similar to seat beltsand bike helmets, learning to swim is a safety issue, especially in an area like Windsor withabundant access to natural water sources. There continues to be an expanding demand to becomewater safe at a much younger age. A recreational pool goes beyond the idea of fitness andinstruction. It creates an entire recreation environment that provides children with an

opportunity for an unstructured, open-ended play experience as well as socialization with peers.Swimming is a life skill activity offering recreation opportunities for all ages. The combinationof an aging population, longer life expectancy, earlier retirement, and increased interest in fitnessis expected to result in steady growth of swimming activity by those over the age of 50. Witholder participants, the need for more fitness and therapy classes has become a high priority.Without the upgrading of facilities, the City will not be able to meet the needs of its populace.

Similarly, a library in the City Centre presents an opportunity to provide Windsor with aninnovative and responsive public library which can play a pivotal role in promoting communitypride, generating a local identity and demonstrating that Windsor is truly an IntelligentCommunity. Together with the aquatic centre, the mind and the body of the community will be

nourished and energized.

The Project also offers many benefits economically. A 50 metre pool facility capable of hostingcompetitive events enhances sport tourism opportunities and allows for bidding on regional,provincial, national and international events. The International Childrens Games is a primeexample. These events have far reaching benefits for the community including:

Economic spin offs for the hospitality and retail sectors

Volunteer and leadership development

Sense of pride in place and community

Positive image and introduction to visitors reaching far beyond the community borders

Strategic Priorities of City CouncilCity Council at its Strategic sessions at the start of the current term, developed the following keystrategic priorities:

1. Jobs and Economic Diversification2. Regional Cooperation3. Cultural Capital4. Corporate Opportunities


7/35

7 of 136

5. Downtown Revitalization6. Affordable/Attractive City

The proposed initiative is consistent with all of these priorities:

Jobs and Economic Diversification Significant employment will be created from theconstruction of the facility as well as the ongoing operation. It will provide economicdiversification by giving the City a state of the art facility which can give the City acompetitive advantage in the growing sector of sports tourism.

Regional Cooperation The facility will open up partnership possibilities with localinstitutions and organizations.

Cultural Capital The proposed state of the art library facility will add to the Cityscultural amenities which are a key part of liveable community and also help attract andretain businesses.

Corporate Opportunities Integration of facilities including Library Administrationwill provide opportunities for synergies.

Downtown Revitalization The facility would complement the growing list of measuresundertaken by Council to bring people to the downtown which will positively impact theareas business establishments.

Affordable/Attractive City The proposed facility will help complete the downtownarea and depending on the options chosen by Council, may maintain or reduce the annualoperating levy requirements.

Based on these strategic priorities and community goals, a report on an aquatics and libraryfacility (LiveLink #15173 See Appendix D) was presented to City Council on April 6, 2011during the 2011 Capital Budget deliberations.

Through the noted report, Administration sought further direction from Council on this matter.

As a result of that meeting, City Council provided guidance by unanimously passing thefollowing resolutions:

B20/2011:That the report of the Community Development and Health Commissioner dated March28, 2011 entitled 50 Metre Pool/ Family Aquatic Facility BE RECEIVED; andfurther,

That a 50 metre pool/family aquatic facility and possible related facilities consolidationBE AGREED TO IN PRINCIPLE and to be funded from the unallocated debt reductionlevy funds; and further,

That the 2009 placeholder regarding the Budimir Library renovations in the amount of

$1,381,395-million and the Optimist Community Centre Library expansion in the amountof $745,000 BE REDIRECTED towards this proposed initiative; and

That up to $150,000 BE APPROVED for consultations regarding this proposedinitiative; and

That a Working Group, similar in structure to that formed for the development andconstruction of the WFCU Centre, BE STRUCK, and that this group develop a business


8/35

8 of 136

case for the proposed Aquatic Centre, taking into consideration the present and futureuses of existing city facilities; and

That the Working Group/Task Force BE DIRECTED to chart out a critical pathregarding the various steps required for the proposed initiative, as soon as possible inorder to meet the July 2013 deadline for the Summer Games of the InternationalChildrens Games (ICG).

B21/2011:

That Administration BE DIRECTED to look at repurposing existing related facilitiesthat would be affected by a 50 metre pool/family aquatic facility, and that a reportBEPREPARED with options for Councils consideration.

Further to that date, on the May 3rd

, 2011 Council meeting, the following Council Questionwas asked:

CQ 37-2011 A report from Parks & Facilities on the feasibility of including a 400 metre indoor

walking track to the proposed aquatics complex, as suggested by constituent Anneke Smitbased on her experience at an aquatic complex in Sherwood Park, Alberta, a suburb ofEdmonton. Anneke reports that seniors in particular are attracted to the walking track,especially colder weather, and the place is always crawling with people.

It should be noted that in order to respond to B21/2011, memos from the CommunityDevelopment & Health Commissioner and the Executive Director Recreation & Culture(Appendix B) and the CEO of the Windsor Public Library (Appendix C) will focus on theoptions for consolidation/repurposing of existing related facilities and the results of theconsultation process.

3. DISCUSSION:

WORKING GROUP ESTABLISHED

Since the April 6th Capital Budget meeting, an interim Administrative Working Group/TaskForce has been established Chaired by the CFO and City Treasurer and including the CommunityDevelopment & Health Commissioner, Executive Director of Parks & Facilities, ExecutiveDirector of Recreation & Culture, Manager, Operating Budget Control & FinancialAdministration, Deputy Treasurer, and CEO Windsor Public Library. Other internal and externalresources have been consulted as needed.

Outlined in the following sections are key components that have been explored by the WorkingGroup to date along with the related recommendations.

A. PUBLIC CONSULTATION

A number of public consultation meetings have taken place since the April 6th

Council meetingwhich approved the project in principle. These meetings focussed on the current and potentialfuture uses of existing related recreation and library facilities (i.e. Windsor Water World, CollegeAvenue Community Centre, Adie Knox Herman Complex, Windsor Arena, and the Library


9/35

9 of 136

Central Branch). The results and details of these meetings are being presented in memos by theCommunity Development & Health Commissioner and the Executive Director Recreation &Culture (Appendix B) and the CEO of the Windsor Public Library (Appendix C).

B. CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS

The working group has been researching existing facilities with the view to determine the bestsolution to meet Councils vision as expressed in B20/2011. While it is difficult to find an exact

match in terms of size and amenities (50 metre pool, 25 metre pool, dive well, family aquaticrecreation centre, and a Library), various interesting conceptual drawings have been obtained andone example is attached as APPENDIX E. It should be highly stressed that these renderings arestrictly conceptual in order to see what would fit on the site.

As noted in the background section, CQ37-2011 asks about the feasibility of including a 400metre indoor walking track for the proposed indoor aquatic complex. The inclusion of thisfeature will be explored in consultation with the Technical Support & Design Consultant(s) andwill be reported to Council in due course.

C. LAND REQUIREMENTS

The resolutions arising from the April 6th report did not specify a proposed location for thefacility. Previous studies have indicated the need for an aquatics facility on the east end of theCity. However, given Councils strategic objective of downtown revitalization, the concentrationof the Citys aquatics facilities in the area that could be repurposed, and that the informal CityCouncil, media and public discussion and consultation has focused on the downtown and nearbyareas, this report is recommending a downtown location. A usage study has not been repeatedsince the previous study was completed.

The following outlines the City-owned lands available for the downtown location. The City ofWindsor owns a number of parcels of land on the western edge of downtown. Most of these

lands have generally been referred to as the Western Super Anchor lands. The details of theapproximate square footage of this site are as follows:

LocationApproximate

Square Footage

Parking Lot south of Pitt Street between Bruce/Church (zoned CD3.7) 93,100

Closure of Chatham Street between Bruce/Church (1) 29,000

Parking Lot South of Chatham between Bruce/Church (2) 43,900

Total Potential Contiguous Lands Available 166,000

(1) Currently there is a combined sewer under most of this section of Chatham Street, which is presumed to have

water and gas as well. Some utilities may need to be relocated however it is expected that these costs, if any, willnot be significant.

(2) Currently District Energy has a temporary chiller on the east end of this site. It is under land lease until 2012.

The City does have a 90 day termination clause. Preliminary indications are that sufficient space is available to

retain the facility at its current site.

In summary, the combined site above would be approximately 166,000 square feet (3.81 acres).The site would have frontage on Pitt Street, Bruce Avenue and Church Street. The site would nothave frontage on University Avenue West as there are privately owned properties along thisfrontage. Additional square footage could be available by a closure of Pitt Street, between Bruce


10/35

10 of 136

and Church, however this is not being contemplated at this time as it is believed that the noted166,000 square feet is projected to be sufficient for the type of facility currently being explored(subject to Councils final determination on the size of the facility).

A map of the proposed site and surrounding area has been attached as APPENDIX F.

D. PARKING, SITE SERVICING REQUIREMENTS, & PUBLIC ART

Parking

The Transportation Planning Division has prepared the attached Aquatic Centre Parking Analysis(APPENDIX G) that details the estimated parking demand and supply of the proposed AquaticCentre.

The following are the conclusions of this parking analysis:

The parking demand model developed for the Aquatic Centre indicates that 680 parkingstalls will be needed to adequately cover a situation where there is an event taking place,without hindering the function of the facility or surrounding neighbouring uses. This is

expected to occur on a Friday afternoon. The total combined municipal and private gross supply of parking stalls within the study

area is approximately 2,000.

On a Friday afternoon, the net available parking supply of 1,100 exceeds the parkingdemand projection for the peak time period.

The proposed Aquatic Centre site is currently being used by approximately 250 existingparkers (primarily Windsor Police Services staff), which will need to be accommodatedelsewhere.

It is recommended that Lot 22 containing 124 parking stalls (located at the corner ofBruce Ave. and Chatham St. W.) be dedicated primarily for hourly parkers to meet theparking supply for daily facility functions. It is further recommended that the accessible

parking stalls, to meet the needs of this facility, be located within this lot due to itsproximity.

Traffic

Traffic flow and capacity have been reviewed a number of times in the past since 1989 fordevelopments on these lands and in this area. The closure of Chatham Street West betweenBruce Ave. and Church Street has been consistently recommended.

Based on adequate parking and the previous traffic operations studies, the existing road networkis anticipated to function at a good level of service without any anticipated major transportation

related road works.

The opportunity to close and/or deemphasize Pitt Street West from Bruce Ave. to Church St. tocomplement the Vista to Riverside Drive and the waterfront is recommended for furtherinvestigation.


11/35

11 of 136

Site Servicing

As for site servicing, the area is serviced for sewers and utilities however there is a requirementfor updating/replacing area infrastructure.

The following components are directly related to the facility and should be included in thisproject budget, pending the final capital project budget approval:

Installation of a sanitary sewer on Bruce Avenue from Riverside to Chatham in order to

accommodate this facility (currently the area is served only by a combined sewer). As with any facility of this type, Streetscaping immediately around the complex (from the

curb to the building) will be required. This could include light fixtures, sidewalks,furniture, etc. consistent with other recent downtown Streetscaping. However, given thepossible significant dollars involved, Council will need to weigh the cost against thebenefits of having these additional aesthetic features. At this time, the estimated budgetfor all site servicing costs for the entire project is in the range of $2 million to $3 million.This includes items such as sewer work, sidewalks, lights, and other basic infrastructurerequired for a project of this nature.

Other infrastructure considerations include the following components:

Need for upgraded watermains on Bruce Avenue, Park and Church around the site. Reconstruction of Church & Bruce, from Riverside to University, in addition to Pitt

Street.

These other infrastructure items may not be completely attributable to the proposed facility asthey may have been required now or in the near future, even without the proposed facility.Further due diligence will be completed to determine what amount, if any, of these other costsshould be included in the final project budget for this project.

Public Art

Consistent with the Citys Public Art Policy, consideration could be given to include a public artcomponent. The Public Art policy was approved by Council and states as follows:

The City of Windsor will examine the feasibility of implementing a percentage forPublic Art strategy. Percentage for Public Art is a flat rate of 1% of the total constructioncost of selected capital projects, funded in full or in part by the City...The municipal cultural Master Plan reaffirmed Councils Public Art Policy however didnot identify a specific dollar amount. Based on this information, a decision will have tobe made to decide whether or not any funds for public art would be allocated to thisproject as part of the final capital budget. Therefore, should Council decide to include anamount for Public Art, the budget would be developed consistent with that decision.

E. PROPOSED PROCESS & TIMELINES

ProcessThree broad tendering and construction processes were considered for this project. These aresummarized as follows:1. Stipulated Price Tender This involves completing the entire detailed design, using the

services of an architectural and engineering firm (hired by the City through an RFP process)


12/35

12 of 136

to administer and inspect the contract throughout the entire project. Following completion ofthe design, the city would then issue a tender for stipulated price bids for construction.The advantages of this method are as follows:

The exact design and amenities can be customized based on the citys objectives so thatthe final end product is known in advance.

The final price is essentially known provided that there are no additions or designchanges above the contingency amounts set aside.

The disadvantages with this approach are as follows: The process requires a longer time frame to select an architect and then to prepare a final

detailed design prior to undertaking a tender and commencing construction. This optionwould push the completion date past the start of the 2013 International Childrens Games.

The City needs to know exactly what it wants (as any changes to the design or additionsto the project will result in additional costs)

It also limits the creativity of the proponents and therefore can limit cost saving ideas

In 2002, this method was used in the Western Super Anchor lands where the final tenderedprice was higher than anticipated or previously forecasted by the citys consultants.

2. Construction Project Management (With or without a Guaranteed Maximum Price) Beyondhiring a design architect, this involves hiring a construction project manager (usually aconstruction company) through RFP. In addition, a dedicated city project manager would bedesignated who would still be needed for internal purposes (on all methods). Thismanagement team would coordinate and send out requests for tenders for the project asrequired. The City would approve and award each tender. The project manager would thenhave to schedule the contractors.The advantages of this method are as follows:

This method of construction may speed up the process (the concern with option #1). Used in larger scale projects where the owner does not have in house staff to manage it

The disadvantages of this method are as follows:

Due to limited site boundaries, the difficulties and risks for this option are escalated. The full cost will not be known up front in this method. Additionally, costs over-runs are more likely given that a fixed price contract at the start

of the process is not an option.

Requires a separate performance consultant/architect to be engaged to advise the city andto approve progress draws and clear issues on behalf of the city.

3. Design Build Contractor This method relies on designing and building during constructionas this process moves forward towards the final promised product. Under this process, theCity would issue a request for proposals to proponents for the design and build of the project.The RFP would also include an assessment of the proponents qualifications prior to allowingthem to advance to the selection process.The advantages of this method are as follows:

Usually results in a fixed price contract Builder takes on all financial risks of the project Allows creativity and flexibility for the proponents of the design to find cost savings. A shovel can be put in the ground much quicker than in option #1 above


13/35

13 of 136

The disadvantages of this method are as follows:

Generally a larger contingency is added to this type of construction bid, as the proponentassumes all the risk. However the total cost is known up front. Additionally, in order tomitigate the potentially higher costs, the RFP would be structured in a manner that allowsthe City the ability to undertake the direct tendering of certain specific projectcomponents in order to avoid mark-ups and reduce overall project costs.

The design build submissions can be based on a wide range of specific amenities,equipment, and quality of finishes. However, in order to mitigate this concern of the

unknown, administration is proposing to retain a Technical Support & Design Consultantto work with City Administration to include specific recommendations in the RFP aimedat narrowing and standardizing many of the components of the facility as well as toapprove progress draws of the design build contactor and generally verify work done onan independent basis.

Requires a separate performance consultant/architect to be engaged to advise the city andto approved progress draws and clear issues on behalf of the city.

This is a similar methodology to that used in the recent WFCU center construction project withthe only difference being that a significant portion of the facility layout had already beendetermined up front.

Although each of the three methods identified are viable, timing is of the essence for this projectand significant consideration should be given to this fact. Administration's recommendedalternative is the design build method given all the identified factors and taking intoconsideration the recent success of the WFCU Centre project using this method. Thisrecommendation is made based on input from the Heavy Construction Association and variousarchitects consulted with respect to timelines.

TimelinesGiven the need to open the 50 metre pool complex in time for the 2013 International ChildrensSummer Games, the timelines are extremely tight. Therefore, the proposed process has been

chosen in order to expedite the design and construction of the facility.

Factoring in the approximate time it will take to build the pool (approximately 18 20 months),that leaves a balance of approximately 4- 6 months to conduct an RFP process, to select aTechnical Support and Design Consultant, prepare a design-build RFP with the aid of theTechnical Support and Design Consultant, select the successful proponent and award thecontract. Administration, therefore recommends that this work begins immediately after Councilapproval of the process. If at any time Council should decide not to proceed with the project forany reason, work would be stopped immediately, however, it must be noted that, depending uponthe stage this decision is made, a financial expenditure will already have been incurred.

As a key component to this process, Administration recommends that a Technical Support &Design Team be selected to assist with preparation of the specifications required for a structureddesign/build RFP. Some of the assistance would include:

a) Working with City staff, stakeholders, and Council to establish programs and amenitiesfor the facility aimed at minimizing costs, maximizing revenues and optimizing service tothe public.

b) Assisting Administration in developing specifications for a fixed price design/build RFPthat includes, but is not limited to, developing bridging documents complete with


14/35

14 of 136

schematic drawings and specifications for minimum standards that are to be delivered bythe design/build proponents (to ensure that the submissions are consistent with the Citysexpectations)

c) Assisting Administration with the evaluation of the responses to the design build RFPd) Supporting Administration by acting as the Citys conformance architects and reviewing

shop drawings, final design and product performance presented by the design/buildproponents and professional certification of the progress draws

e) Overseeing the commissioning of the complex

f) Overseeing the provision of all operating and warranty documents.

Another component of the approved Council Resolution (B20/2011), called for the workinggroup to chart out a critical path regarding the various steps required for the proposed initiativein order to meet the Summer 2013 deadline for the International Childrens Summer Games(ICG). The following preliminary timelines have been included as a high level summary and canbe used for reference purposes for the recommended design build process:

June 13, 2011 Council deliberates recommendations within this report June 14, 2011 to September 15, 2011 If current recommendations are approved, retain

Technical Support & Design Team and work to develop building parameters to use in an

RFP for fixed cost design build proposals and issuance of RFP for fixed costs designbuild

September 16, 2011 to October 31, 2011 RFP proponents develop and submit proposals November 1, 2011 November 25, 2011 Review proposals and prepare report back to

Council with a recommended proponent and detailed project budget

November 28, 2011 Council meeting to approve the award of contract and final projectbudget

December 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011 Break ground, relocate services, hoarding,site services, coordination meetings, footing design and installation

January 1, 2012 to March 31, 2012 Exterior walls, pool basin excavation, sub surfaceplumbing, complete final design

April 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012 Construction of facilities to 80% completion January 1, 2013 to June 15, 2013 Completion of interior fit ups, commissioning and

soft opening

Refer to APPENDIX H for the Preliminary Projected Timelines in a chart format.

Use of the Construction Project Management process would result in timelines which arerelatively similar to those of the proposed design build process. However, for the reasons notedin the disadvantages section above, this methodology is not recommended.

Should Council decide to use a Stipulated Price Tender process, which would be the preferredprocess without the time constraints, the following preliminary timelines have been estimated forreference purposes:

June 13, 2011 Council deliberates recommendations within this report June 14, 2011 to August 15, 2011 RFP process to engage the Citys architect August 15, 2011 to April 15, 2012 Architect develops drawings and finalizes the bid/

tender documents (6 to 8 month time frame/ 8 months is used)

April 15, 2012 to June 15, 2012 conduct and analyze the bid/tender June 15, 2012 to July 15, 2012 Award the tender / finalize contract / Initially Letter of

Intent


15/35

15 of 136

July 16, 2012 to August 31, 2012 Break ground, relocate services, hoarding, siteservices, coordination meetings, footing design and installation

September 1, 2012 to November 30, 2012 Exterior walls, pool basin excavation, subsurface plumbing, complete final design

December 1, 2012 to August 31, 2013 Construction of facilities to 80% completion September 1, 2013 to February 15, 2014 Completion of interior fit ups, commissioning

and soft opening

Based on these timelines, the facility would not be available for the Childrens Games in thesummer of 2013.

F. PROPOSED WORKING TEAM STRUCTURE & PROJECT CHARTER

A component of the approved Council Resolution (B20/2011), calls for the establishment of aWorking Group, similar in structure to that formed for the development and construction of theWFCU Centre. This structure was recommended by the Brodel Management report, which wasconducted for the 400 City Hall Square building project. The review evaluated the planning andimplementation of the project in efforts to determining lessons learned and improvements for

future initiatives. The identified structure below ties to one of the recommendations in thatreport. Therefore, it is being recommended that there should be two committees (SteeringCommittee & Executive Committee), an Arbitrator, as well as a Working Team dedicated to thisproject as outlined below:

1. Steering CommitteeComposition (Options for Council Consideration)

Five City Councillors plus Mayor as ex-officio (as per current practice for standingcommittees) OR

Use one of the existing standing committees of five Councillors OR Use Executive Committee

Reporting Relationship of Steering Committee

Reports directly to City Council

As noted above, there are three options for Councils consideration as to the composition of theSteering Committee. However, Administration is recommending the Five City Council Membersplus Mayor as ex-officio structure. The recent success of the governance structure for the WFCUCentre project is one of the reasons why this is being recommended. This type of dedicatedgovernance structure also provides enhanced flexibility in scheduling meetings and allows forimmediate feedback to staff as they work on the project. For all these reasons, Administration isin support of this composition and recommends a dedicated Steering Committee where no other

agenda items will concurrently appear before the members.

2. ArbitratorComposition

Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)

3. Executive CommitteeComposition

Project Sponsor/Chair CFO/City Treasurer


16/35

16 of 136

Co-Sponsor/Deputy Chair City Engineer City Clerk CEO, Windsor Public Library Executive Director of Recreation & Culture Executive Director of Operations Executive Director of Information Technology Manager of Facility Operations

Manager of Purchasing & Risk Management

Non-Voting Resources to the Committee (May also be part of the Working Group)

Project Manager Project Coordinator Project Accountant Executive Initiatives Coordinator Public Works Marketing & Communications Officer

Reporting Relationship of Executive Committee

Reports directly to Steering Committee

4. Working GroupComposition*

Project Manager (Leads the Working Team)** Project Coordinator Project Accountant*** Project Legal Resources Marketing & Communications Officer Project Purchasing/Risk Management Resource Information Technology Resource Tenant Liaison Recreation & Library Other resources as required

* Names & exact roles to be reported to Council** This position will be seconded and backfilled from a current City position or an externalindividual will be hired on contract. The Project Manager will be responsible for organizing theproject into one or more sub-projects, managing the day-to-day aspects of the project, developingthe detailed work plan, responding to media requests for information, resolving planning andimplementation issues, and monitoring progress and budget. Various functional controls need tobe reviewed and monitored on a regular basis. This includes cost, time, conflict and qualitycontrols. Specific responsibilities include:

Call and chair working team meetings Present detailed work plan/ timeline for all elements of the project to the Executive

Committee for approval

Responsibility for the overall execution of the project and co-ordination of allactivities

Ensure all project components are in compliance with the City of WindsorsPurchasing By-law

Coordinate work on legal agreements Plan each phase to ensure project team members work effectively Monitor progress to ensure successful completion of each phase and milestone Identify and manage project risks and scope and escalate to the Executive Committee


17/35

17 of 136

Ensure proper communication with project team and external communications Establish relationship with vendors and co-ordinate Responsible for day to day activities Co-approval of change orders or instructions to contractors (with Project Sponsor) Co- approval of progress draws for payment release (with project coordinator) Co-approval of all project invoices (with project coordinator) Liaise with the Technical Support & Design Consultant

*** At least Partial Secondment

Reporting Relationship of the Working Group

Reports directly to the Executive Committee through the project manager All members of working committee will work corporately as a team, providing advice

within their area of expertise to the Project Manager with continued guidance provided bytheir regular manager/director and/or appropriate members of the executive committee.

As was done with the WFCU project, the Executive Committee will bring forward to Council(based on direction of the Steering Committee) a comprehensive detailed Project Charter which,among other things, would include the finalized governance structure described above, overviewof the projects goals, objectives, authorized spending limits, use of contingency funds,anticipated projected project risks, etc.

G. OPERATING COSTSTwo main factors will impact on the ongoing costs and affordability (effectively the businesscase) of this project:

1. The net operating cost of the new facility2. The potential savings arising from consolidation/repurposing of other facilities

The operating cost of the facility will in large part be dependent on the size, amenities and designof the facility as well as the operating model chosen. The size, amenities and design will be dealtwith during the design phase of the project, always keeping in mind ways of minimizing ongoingoperating costs. The operating model (see next section) will be recommended in a future Councilreport.

A critical factor impacting the ongoing affordability of the proposed facility is the ongoingoperational savings that can be generated through the judicious closure/consolidation of olderand less efficient facilities. The additional concurrent goal of City Council to contain propertytax levy increases drives the mandate given to administration to examine the closure/repurposingother existing facilities. Given Councils stated goal of holding the line on taxes, simply addingthe operating cost of the new facility on top of the existing facility(s) operating costs, is not aviable option.

H. OPERATING MODELS TO BE CONSIDERED

For purposes of the financial analysis within this report, it has been assumed that the operationswould be managed and staffed by the Recreation & Culture Department of the City of Windsor.However many operational models are possible, some of which may be less costly, and can bepursued once the exact nature of the facility and the amenities within it have been finalized.Partnerships with non-profit or for profit entities can be considered. Additionally, fee for servicemanagement of the facility can also be considered. If Council wishes to choose a servicemanagement model, an RFP process would have to be carried out. Examples (for reference


18/35

18 of 136

purposes only) of some of the possibilities that have been implemented in other jurisdictionsinclude the following:

There is a joint venture agreement between the City of London and the YMCA to operate a 25metre pool, gymnasium, meeting rooms and a large workout facility (they sub-lease the space tothe Library, which is part of the facility) on the North side of London. The cost of this facility tobuild was approximately $27 million, of which the City paid approximately $20 million and theremaining $7 million the YMCA was able to fund raise. The City currently owns both the land

and building. The agreement is for 40 years (with some early termination clauses included), thatcalls for the tenant (YMCA) to assume full ownership at that time the agreement expires. TheYMCA is responsible for all operating costs and the City of London does not subsidize anyamount for the net operating costs. YMCA also puts money aside annually to fund future capitalexpenditures.

The YMCA in Goderich runs a multi-use facility on behalf of the Town which includes a 25-metre pool, an NHL size ice rink and the regular YMCA programs. The five year operatingagreement calls for the YMCA to run the entire facility (an annual administrative fee is paid tothe YMCA for this service as part of the budget) and all net annual operating surpluses/(deficits)are returned to/(paid by) the municipality. This facility was built in 2002 for approximately $19

million and was financed by the municipality, with some fundraising money raised through thecommunity to help offset the capital costs. All capital maintenance and repair costs are theresponsibility of the municipality as well.

There is a similar agreement at the H2O Aquatic & Fitness Centre in Kelowna, BC between theCity and the YMCA. The YMCA is responsible for the operations of the entire facility, with anysurplus or deficit being the responsibility of the City. Not included in the facilitys directoperating budget, are annual operating costs for utilities, chemicals, and building maintenancecosts that are paid directly by the municipality. The capital construction costs were paid by theCity of Kelowna and therefore the facility is owned by the City.

The WFCU Centre utilizes another type of operating model that could be looked at. It involves ahybrid model, whereby all programs and recreational activities are run by the City of Windsorand portions of the facility are contracted out to external entities. An annual management fee ispaid to one of these companies for their services, other companies either pay a percentage ofrevenue or they lease space. This type of model could be used to capitalize on the strengths andexpertise of these companies in their respective industries, with the goal of potentially reducingoperating costs while increasing operating efficiencies.

Based on limited research, it appears that the majority of the cities throughout Ontario usemunicipal staff to operate aquatic facilities. This is also consistent in Windsor, where allmunicipally owned aquatic facilities currently use this type of operating model.

In summary, there are different and unique operating models in many Cities. The method ofoperations and recommended options will be the subject of a future Council report. It should benoted that, similar to the WFCU construction project, it is not intended that the report on theoperation of the new facility be within the scope of the construction project governance teamoutlined in this report. Rather, it would be separately reported to city council by the operatingdepartment and city financial management.

The local YMCA has expressed an interest in being a partner (to be defined) in the facility. Theyhave contacted the CAO and requested that in order for them to consider being a partner, their


19/35

19 of 136

preference is to have input upfront on the design, amenities, etc. They also indicated a generalpreference for a facility outside the downtown core as is their current operating mandate;however, they would consider partnership within the downtown area.

In addition, the Mayor has spoken to the Art Gallery and has had preliminary discussionsregarding opportunities for synergies. It is assumed that City Council endorses the continuationof these discussions with further reporting to Council to follow.

I. OPTIONS FOR CONSOLIDATION/REPURPOSING OF EXISTING RELATEDFACILITIES

Five facilities have been identified as potential opportunities for consolidation/repurposing. Theywere chosen based on a combination of proximity to the new location, similarity of programsoffered, cost benefits based on usage, and potential for cost savings. For each of these fivefacilities identified, potential options for consideration have been identified. The table belowprovides the options. The financial matters section provides budget estimates for the variousoptions:

(The rest of this page has been intentionally left blank)


20/35

20 of 136

EXISTING FACILITIES OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

Current

Operating

Costs

Status Quo

Option

(No Capital

Costs, No

Operating

Savin s

Option Option

1 Windsor WaterWorld

$ 750,250 A. Status Quo B. Close Pool Only &

Repurpose

C. Close Facility

2 Windsor Arena $ 238,022 A. Status Quo B. Close Facility &

Replace at Adie Knox

C. Close Facility (Not

Replace Ice Pad)

3 CollegeAvenueCommunityCentre

$ 342,560 A. Status Quo B. Close Facility &

Replace at Adie Knox (ByReplacing Pool Area) &

Lease Vacant Space/SellFacility

D. Close Facility & Lease

Vacant Space/Sell Facility

C. Close Facility &

Replace at Adie Knox (ByConstructing an Addition)

& Lease VacantSpace/Sell Facility

4 $ 636,000 A. Status Quo B. Build Twin Pad Only;

Rest of AKH Status Quo

E. No Twinning;Close

Pool Area; Replace Poolwith RecreationProgramming

C. Build Twin Pad; Keep

Pool Area Open;

Construct Addition forRecreation Programming

F. No Twinning; Keep

Pool Area; Construct

Addition for RecreationProgramming

D. Build Twin Pad; Close

Pool Area; Replace Poolwith RecreationProgramming

G. No Twinning; Close

Pool Area; Keep ExistingProgramming at Adie

Knox Complex

5 $ 3,577,245 B. Maintain & Open for a

Transitional Period

C. Relocate & Lease

Admin Space (8,000 sq.ft.) & Sell/Lease 850

Ouellette tocommerical/MUSH**

sector

Facility

Adie KnoxHerman Rec.Complex (AKH)(Pool, Arena, &CommunityCentre)

* Current operating costs of WPL - Central Branch is based on the current identifiable Central Branch costs plus a 71%

overhead allocation (using building square footage as the cost driver)

Windsor PublicLibrary -Central Branch*

A. Status Quo

(AssumesNew Library

not built)

D. Relocate Library & Use

Existing City Space forAdmin & Sell 850

Ouellette

** MUSH- Municipalities, Universities, Schools and Hospitals


21/35

21 of 136

Detailed commentary about the usage, impacts on the user community, etc. have been includedas separate memos by the Community Development & Health Commissioner and the ExecutiveDirector Recreation & Culture (Appendix B) as well as the CEO of the Windsor Public Library(Appendix C).

J. HUMAN RESOURCES (POTENTIAL STAFFING IMPLICATIONS)

The potential staffing implications attached to this initiative are largely dependent on threefactors:

The closure/repurposing of existing City-owned facilities The size and amenities of the new facility The operating model of the new facility

Of greatest impact on the Citys human capital will be the operating model chosen for the newfacility. If a City run model is chosen, the staff impacts will be relatively minor under mostforeseeable scenarios. This is so because the displaced employees from the existing facilitieswould largely be accommodated within the staffing requirements of the new facility. Should theWindsor Arena be slated for closure, the loss of up to four Local 82 positions will impact the

attrition goals within the solid waste garbage outsourcing model adapted in 2010, to a minordegree.

Should Council choose to operate the new facility through external staffing, significant staffingimpacts would materialize. A full report on these matters and their cost impacts on the Cityadministration will be presented to Council once decisions are made on the first two parameterslisted above.

K. POTENTIAL PROJECT RISKS & AND MITIGATING MEASURES

As with any project of this magnitude, there will always be a variety of potential risks. It is

critical to strategize at the approval stage as to what the major risks may be and to identifyappropriate mitigating strategies aimed at reducing the noted risks. This was one of the keyfindings of the 400 City Hall Square audit report and is part of an effective project managementprocess. Therefore, Appendix I includes a preliminary review of project risks and mitigatingmeasures and should be viewed in the positive proactive context noted above rather than anegative context.

4. FINANCIAL MATTERS:

In order to complete a final & complete capital and operating budget a number of decisions still

need to be made by Council. These include: The size of the facility, especially as it relates to the family recreation and Library

components.

The type of amenities within the new complex which will, in part, be influenced byCouncils decision on the consolidation/repurposing of existing facilities.

The operating model (City run vs. Partnership vs. Fee for Service) Fee structure and level of municipal subsidy for programming


22/35

22 of 136

Additionally, the potential attraction of key users (i.e. School Boards, University, etc) wouldimpact revenues and hence the operating budget. Although some interest has been expressed bythese organizations, there is a need to finalize the design of the facility prior to being able toenter into meaningful discussions.

Finally, the proposed facility (50 metre pool complex, family recreation centre and a library) isinnovative and therefore there arent many similar developments that can be used forcomparative purposes. It is expected that both operating and capital synergies can be achieved by

a proper design. Therefore, preparation of conceptual designs by an architectural firm working asa consultant for the City will allow for much better estimate of final capital costs.

It is therefore proposed that a detailed project capital budget (and final operating budget) besubmitted for Council approval concurrent with the deliberations on the recommendeddesign/build proponent.

In the interim, the following preliminary comments are offered relating to the potential capitaland operating budgets.

A. PRELIMINARY CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES (NEW FACILITY ONLY)

(i) Competition Pool FacilitiesNormally, these facilities include a 50 metre pool, a 25 metre warm up pool and a diving well.

Consideration should be given during the design phase to include 10 lanes into the 50 metre pool.This would provide the capability to use the 50 metre pool as two 25 metre pools, thus providingadditional community use opportunities. By using this approach, the new facility could beconfigured to provide three 25 metre pools when the 50 metre pool is not being used forcompetitions. Therefore, even with the potential closure of the Adie Knox Pool and WindsorWater World pool (one of the many options available to Council), 25 metre pool aquaticfacilities in the City would actually increase.

It is also possible to combine the 25 metre pool with the diving well into one water tank in orderto reduce both capital and operating costs as is done in other facilities. Based on preliminaryresearch, administration is also recommending this model.

It is expected that the facility would be designed to accommodate approximately 1200 spectators,with additional retractable seating for athletes. When not required, the athletes seating could beretracted to allow dry land training and other activities on the pool deck. This ultimatelymaximizes utility and space within the facility.

The amenities as identified above are consistent with a number of other North American

facilities and therefore the cost estimates are somewhat easier to project than the FamilyAquatics Recreation component. Clearly, the exact design will be based on Council direction andtechnical recommendations by the Technical Support & Design Consultant(s).

However, based on the noted general design parameters, preliminary cost estimates for thiscomponent are expected to be in the range of $28,000,000 to $32,000,000. This is the estimatefor a base competition pool facility. Additional costs may be incurred for amenities such asexercise facilities, lounge area, common rooms, etc.


23/35

23 of 136

(ii) Family Aquatics Recreation FacilityThis component of the facility could include slides, wave pool, lazy river, surf simulator, bucketdumps, etc.

Decisions need to be made as to the size and layout of the facility as well as the types ofamenities that would be included. Generally, a larger facility with more amenities will attractmore users. Tourists in particular, will generally seek out larger facilities. Two facilities in thegeneral vicinity include Zehnder's Water Park in Frankenmuth, Michigan (Water Park

approximately 34,000 square feet) and Kalahari Indoor Water Park & Resort in Sandusky, Ohio(a regional level facility with a water park of approximately 173,000 square feet). For referencepurposes, the current Windsor Water World facility is approximately 18,000 square feet(including all aquatic and non-aquatic components).

As indicated above, costs for this component of the complex carries significant variabilitydepending on the size and type of amenities. However, based on preliminary research it isexpected that capital costs will be in the range of $350 to $450 per square foot.

(iii) LibraryThe current Central Library Branch has approximately 100,000 square feet of space on three

floors (including the basement). The Central Branch serves as both the main City Library branchas well as the administrative office for the total Library system. Additionally, the Citys archivesare housed in the basement.

The building is 40 years old and its design and layout is not conducive to the realities ofLibraries of the 21

stCentury. The requirement is for a smaller, modern building configured to

efficiently disseminate information in todays digital environment. See comments by the CEO ofthe Windsor Public Library (Appendix C) for further details regarding the new proposed site aswell as the findings from their public consultation.

It is envisioned that a Central Library Branch of 30,000 to 50,000 square feet would meet the

requirements for a new user friendly facility (next largest Library facility in Windsor is theRiverside branch at 14,160 square feet). The administrative space requirements (approximately8,000 square feet) could be accommodated in other City facilities (depending on decisions madeon overall City space needs requirements).

Additional costs would likely be incurred as the corporation does not currently have 8,000 squarefeet of unoccupied office space. This space would therefore have to be leased or be part of otherlong term solutions for overall space needs. However, there may be synergies in administrativecosts if the Librarys Administration is housed alongside other City Administrators.

Additionally, the archives (2,156 square feet) located in the basement may be best

accommodated within a new Museum. It should be noted that space synergies should alsomaterialize given that the new library branch would be part of a larger recreation complex.Additionally, some synergies may also be possible given the proximity of Art Gallery building(based on final design choices and further discussions with the Art Gallery).

Current projected costs based on other Library facilities recently built are in the range of $230 -$280 per square foot. Costs above and beyond that range could be required depending on finaldesign choices.

(iv) Other Capital Costs (Preliminary Estimates Subject to Additional Due Diligence)


24/35

24 of 136

Other capital costs related to the entire complex include

Short Term Bridge Financing Costs (Range from $2,500,000 - $5,000,000). This isrequired due to the fact that the bulk of the permanent funding is not available until2014/2015

Site Servicing (Range from $2,000,000 - $3,000,000) Technical Support & Design Consultant & Dedicated Administration (preliminary Range

from $1,500,000 - $3,000,000)

Overall project contingency (Range from $3,000,000 - $5,000,000)

It should be noted that, consistent with the approach taken for the WFCU project, the short termbridge financing will be from internal sources to the extent allowed by the Citys overall cashflows over the period to final permanent funding in 2014/2015. However, given the significantprojects that are ongoing, it is possible that external bridge financing may be required. If externalborrowing is required and the term of the borrowing exceeds one year (which may be beneficialdepending on future rate expectations), the interim borrowing may be required to be shown astemporary long-term debt on the Citys financial statements.

B. OPERATING COST ESTIMATES (NEW FACILITY ONLY)

The Library operating models are fairly standard are not based on significant revenue sources.Therefore, for this component of the proposed facility, a reasonable operating budget projectioncan be made. Based on a 40,000 square foot Library facility, the Executive Director of theWindsor Public Library has estimated that approximately $400,000 may be saved from theexisting Central Library Branch operating cost. These savings, expected to be achieved throughattrition and efficiencies, are reflected in the Appendix A chart. Although not costed out at thistime nor specifically identified, there are further efficiencies that may result from the City ofWindsors corporate shared service review.

However, the preparation of a realistic operating budget for the aquatics component of theproposed facility requires additional clarity on a number of factors. These include:

The size of the complex The type of amenities (impacted by choices made on consolidation/repurposing of related

facilities)

The potential attraction of key anchor tenants (School Boards, University, etc) The operating model (City run vs. Partnership vs. Fee for Service) The decisions on the fee levels (i.e. amount of subsidization) Attendance levels (would require a formal market study and is also dependent on

economic and other factors such as potential creative stay and play partnerships withnearby hotels)

Potential competition

Energy efficiencies (LEED Certification, etc) Naming Rights revenues

Some of the above noted factors are within the control of Council. However, other componentsare dependent on factors outside of its direct control. Therefore, estimating the likely operatingcosts of the new facility at this point is extremely difficult and can only be done in general rangesbased on other facilities. Some of the more relevant examples researched by administration arenoted below:


25/35

25 of 136

Kelowna H20 Centre (Kelowna, BC)o 50 metre pool, family aquatic recreation amenities, no 25 metre pool or formal

dive tank.o 2010 net operating costs budgeted at $1,100,000; actual net costs approximately

$750,000.

Town of Milton 2009 Pan-Am Games Study (Milton, ON)o 50 metre pool, 25 metre pool with dive tank and some limited aquatic/recreation

facilitieso Projected annual net operating costs of approximately $1,000,000 (Note: Pool

was never built, these numbers provided are study estimates only).

Malcolm-Knox Aquatic Centre (Pointe Claire, Quebec)o 50 metre pool, 25 metre pool with dive tank and no aquatic/recreation facilitieso Annual net operating costs of approximately $800,000.

Etobicoke Olympium (Etobicoke, ON)o 50 metre pool, dive tower, no 25 metre pool, no aquatic/recreation facilitieso Annual net operating costs of approximately $1,300,000

2009 Kingston Aquatic Study (Kingston, ON)o 50 metre pool, and minor diving and aquatic/recreation facilitieso Projected annual net operating costs of approximately $760,000 (Note: Pool was

never built, these numbers provided are study estimates only).

National Aquatic Centre (Dublin, Ireland)o 50 metre, 25 metre pool, and diving tower, with 2500 spectator seating. Also

includes an Aquazone entertainment area for kids (i.e. Flow Rider, Master Blaster,Wave Pool, etc), a gym/health & fitness club and parking for 375 cars.

o 2010 annual revenues of $6.3 million, annual expenditures of $7.4 million,resulting in a net operating budget (i.e. state subsidy) of $1,100,000

Water World (Windsor, ON)o 25 metre pool, therapy pool, and minor aquatic facilities and recreation facilitieso 2011 annual net operating budget of approximately $750,000 for the entire

facility.

Based on research of other facilities as well as internal analysis by the Citys Recreation &Culture and Finance Departments, a preliminary zero based expenditure budget has beenprepared in order to estimate the potential expenditure side of the net operating costs of thefacility. As noted, this budget has to be considered preliminary as the actual size, operatingmodel, fee structure, and amenities of the facilities have not yet been approved by Council.

The estimated gross operating expenditures required to run the proposed facility are currentlyestimated at approximately $2,800,000 based on a City run facility. The estimated grossoperating expenditure breakdown is as follows:

Salary & Wages = $1,500,000Materials, Repairs & Maintenance = $250,000Utilities & Communication = $900,000Other Operating Expenses = $150,000

These projections will be refined once the final facility design is approved and an operatingmodel is approved.


26/35

26 of 136

User Fee Policy for New Facility

As indicated elsewhere in this report, one of the critical decisions for this facility is the approachto be taken to the setting of user fees. There is an existing user fee policy for recreation facilities(see APPENDIX J). Generally, the policy calls for different level of subsidization for programsbased on type of recreation activity and its perceived positive impacts on the community.

The aquatics programs are considered to be of significant benefit to the community at large andtherefore fall in the highest subsidization category. Following the noted guidelines would allowthe greatest number of people to partake in the activities at the new aquatic complex. However, itwould also result in the higher net operating costs.

Consideration can be given to differentiated levels of fees based on residents versus non-residents. Consideration could also be given to higher levels of subsidy for people whose incomefalls below the low income cut off. Additional considerations could be considered for seniors andyouth.

The foregoing highlights the many decisions that will be required to be made on the new

facilitys fee structure in order to be able to reasonably estimate the projected revenues, whichwill be a key determinant of the net operating costs. Obviously, the lower the fees, the higher theparticipation rates are likely to be. However, given Councils stated goal of holding the line ontaxes, consideration may be given to a fee structure which is consistent with that goal.Administration will provide Council with a future report with options and impact analysis ofvarious fee structures, acknowledging that no direction to amend the current fees has beenrecommended or provided to date. It is administrations understanding that the Mayor andmembers of City Council are desirous of maintaining the same user fees as are currently in placefor the members of the community.

Taking into account potential revenues to offset the noted expenditures, and subject to all the

decisions that will need to be made relative to the facility, a very preliminary broad range for theannual net operating costs of the aquatics component of the facility may be $900,000 to$1,800,000 (using existing subsidization fee structures among other estimates). It should bestressed that significant fluctuation may occur depending on the decision made by Council aswell as other factors such as economic conditions, potential regional competition, competitionfrom existing City facilities, usage levels, and the eventual operating model chosen (City run vs.other alternatives).

C. OPERATING & CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES(RE: CONSOLIDATION/REPURPOSING OF EXISTING RELATED FACILITIES)

Council resolution B21/2011, which was unanimously approved, directed Administration to lookat repurposing existing related facilities that would be affected by a nearby 50 metre pool/familyaquatic facility and further directed that options be prepared for Councils consideration.

Appendix A identifies those options provided for consideration regarding theconsolidation/repurposing of existing related facilities. The chart has a variety of choices thatCouncil can consider for each facility. These choices range from the status quo to completeclosure, with middle of the road options for complete or partial repurposing.


27/35

27 of 136

On the operating side, the annual savings range from $0 for the status quo option toapproximately $2,200,000 (inclusive of the projected Library savings) for closure and/orrepurposing of all the noted facilities. The specific projected savings for each option at eachfacility are detailed in the chart in Appendix A. These savings could be used to offset theprojected annual operating costs of the new facility. Depending on the consolidation/repurposingoptions chosen, any savings above the projected annual net operating costs to run the newfacility, could be used to reduce property tax levy requirements.

The Windsor Public Library Central Branch has a net operating budget directly attributed tothat branch of $1,800,000, which includes staff and utility costs. Once system wide costs areallocated (based on square footage), the Central Branchs share of this cost is an additional$1,800,000, bring the total current budget attributable to this branch to $3,600,000. It should benoted that while the allocation of system wide costs was completed on a square footage basis (i.e.71% of the total), this may not truly represent actual expenditures and is used for illustrativepurposes.

The WPLs projected savings of $400,000, by relocating to the new aquatic facility, are largelythe result of savings related to utility costs (assumed to be more energy efficient as well assmaller space), attrition/redeployment of staff services.

It is noted that the current net operating costs, for all of the facilities being studied forrationalization/closure is approximately $5.5 million (largely comprised of the Windsor PublicLibrary). The net operating cost of the new contemplated facility is estimated to be in the rangeof $900,000 to $1,800,000.

Depending on the option chosen for each facility, there may also be varying range of capitalcosts that will have to be funded in addition to the capital cost noted above for the new facility toallow the closure and repurposing to occur. The preliminary estimates of the capital costs relatedto each option are noted in the chart in Appendix A. Potential revenues may also becomeavailable from the sale/lease of any of these facilities that may become redundant. These

revenues may be used to offset the noted capital or operating costs. Only one of the potentiallease revenues of these facilities (College Avenue Community Centre) has been included in thechart as there is a bona fide Letter of Intent to Lease related to the facility.

It should be noted that this report is focused on the financial and process aspects of the newaquatics/library facility as well as the financial aspects of the consolidation/repurposing options.As previously indicated, Council should also refer to the memo from the CommunityDevelopment & Health Services Recreation & Culture, which takes into considerationstatistical analysis, community consultations, financial implications and community and industrytrends.

Based on these reports, choices will be required to be made with regards to the new facility aswell as the existing facilities. These choices should be made by taking into account financialconstraints (those of Windsor property tax payers, as well those of the Corporation of the City ofWindsor, given Councils stated goal of holding the line on taxes) and the service benefits thatthe existing and proposed facilities provide to the community. The direction and the informationcontained herein understandably will present very difficult decisions for City Council in regardto the rationalization and consolidation of existing facilities.


28/35

28 of 136

Analysis of Consolidation Options for Consideration

One of the major reasons for closing/repurposing any of these existing facilities is to helpoffset costs of the new facility and to avoid competition from surrounding facilities.Additionally, considerations include the current and anticipated future and continued use ofeach of the facilities, especially in light of a new downtown Aquatic and Family center.Administration has provided information in this regard. Considerations include communityaccess and desirability of smaller facilities over the larger newly designed facility

contemplated and the emphasis Council may place on serving targeted communities versusthe broader community of the entire city. Facility rationalization decisions have impactupon both employees and the communities served.

However, in response to the direction provided and in anticipation that council may wish to makedecisions in this regard, or prepare themselves to make such decisions, administration hasassembled a number of options and provided information to allow council to move forward withdebate in this regard.

It is recognized that from a viewpoint of maximizing service delivery to the customer, aperspective that no closures should occur may be taken (i.e. Status quo). The cost of this option

reflects an increase in the Citys net operating budget equal to the cost of operating the facility,(i.e. a range of $900,000 to $1,800,000). Administration is not recommending this.

The management team within Community Development and Health Services have consultedwith the community and provided recommendations contained in Appendix B. Theserecommendations have been modeled as option one. Notwithstanding contrary communityinput, in consideration of the new facilitys proposed location and existing operating costs andsimilarity in features, the recommendations contain cost savings through some facilityrationalization and part or full facility closure, with alternative uses provided to generaterevenue.

Option two is presented to allow a mid range of facility rationalization.

In anticipation that City Council remains committed to a zero tax levy increase, as stated in itsstrategic objective of an affordable (and attractive) city, at least one option that allows citycouncil to maintain a status quo operating budget, has been provided as option three. Thismodel contains significant change in service delivery and is but one model that will achieve thisobjective. This model is presented to demonstrate to members of City Council that, in thehighest net cost scenario, operating the new facility is possible without impacting the tax levy.The decision to do so in this manner is a difficult one.

There are a number of decisions that have to be made, as identified throughout the report, before

a definitive operating budget for the new facility can be presented. Given that construction willbe undertaken over an approximate 2 year timeframe, and depending upon its goals inconsolidating and rationalizing facilities, if the decisions on closure are solely dependant upontax levy considerations and there is a wish to retain some of the facilities indicated for closure inoption three, City Council may wish to defer the decision on closure until such time as they havemore definitive operating cost estimates.

Alternatively, City Council may wish to provide direction on facility rationalization andrepurposing by choosing one of the three models presented or by providing alternative direction.


29/35

29 of 136

Administration is generally in agreement that the College Avenue Community Centre, theWindsor Public Library and the pool at Windsor Water World are facilities recommended forclosure due to age, efficiency, volume of use and proximity considerations outlined in theappendices to this report. The decision to close Adie Knox pool is more difficult based upon theadjacent user community (particularly seniors).

As well, closure of Windsor Arena involves a reduced amount of prime ice time as outlined inAppendix B. Offsetting this, is the knowledge that the closure will still mean that the City will

still have more ice time than it did in 2005, prior to the WFCU Centre construction.

The facilities are important to residents. The level of tax burden that Council may wish to imposeon residents is important as well. City Council faces the challenge and has the opportunity toupgrade to a new facility, reduce operating costs and continue to provide a high level of serviceto the residents of the City.

Option #2 (and Option #3), provides Council with an opportunity to maintain a status quooperating budget as the City moves forward with this project.

Option #1 Generally Optimizes Service Levels, while Considering Financial Savings

(Consistent with the memo from Community Development & Health Recreation & CultureDepartment - Appendix B)

This option, as developed by the Community Development & Health Recreation & CultureDepartment, is generally focussed on the provision of key service level priorities. At the high endof the estimated net operating cost range, these proposed recommendations would result inadditional net operating costs. The following chart summarizes the financial and service impacts:

(Rest of this page below has been intentionally left blank)


30/35

30 of 136

1. Close the Aquatics portion of

Windsor Water World and repurpose

for Enhanced Community Centre use*

750,250 $ 333,250 $ (417,000) $ (417,000) $ 1,100,000

2. Maintain Status Quo at Windsor

Arena (Subject to review within 5

years, including closure and potential

twinning of Adie Knox, based on

projected usage levels and annual

budgets considerations) (2)

238,022 $ 238,022 $ - $ - $ -

3. Close the College Avenue

Community Centre*

342,560 $ 12,560 $ (330,000) $ (330,000) $ -

Note: Potential Lease Revenue from

College Ave. Community Centre

- $ (88,000) $ (88,000) $ (88,000)

4. Maintain Status Quo at Adie Knox

Herman Recreation Complex (Subject

to review within 5 years for potential

twinning of Adie Knox Arena, based

on status of Windsor Arena projected

usage levels and annual budgets

considerations) (2)

636,000 $ 636,000 $ - $ - $ -

5. Close the Windsor Public Library

Central Branch **

(Subject to Library Board approval)

3,577,245 $ 3,177,245 $ (400,000) $ (400,000) $ -

New Aquatics Facility - $ 1,800,000 $ 900,000 $ 1,800,000Net Total Costs/(Savings) (1) $ 5,544,077 $ 6,109,077 $ (335,000) $ 565,000 $ 1,100,000

** Current operating costs of WPL - Central Branch is based on the current identifiable Central Branch costs plus a 71% overhead

allocation (using building square footage as the cost driver)

Recommended Option

Current

Operating

Costs

High End

Potential Net

Operating

Budget

Est. Annual

Costs/

(Savings) -

Low End

Additional

Capital

Costs

* The operating savings identified are based on 2011 budgets, actual savings may vary.

(1) As noted in the chart above, net cost of $1.8 million (the high end of the estimated range of $900,000 to

$1,800,000) have been assumed. Based on this assumption, the net operating costs of the combined

facilities inclusive of the new aquatics centre would be $565,000 higher. Conversely, if the low end of the

range of $900,000 net operating cost were achieved, building the proposed aquatic facility would actually

result in savings of approximately $335,000, based on similar repurposing decisions.

Est. Annual

Costs/

(Savings) -

High End

(2) Potential Operating Savings ($195,000) and Additional Capital Costs ($7,000,000) could be achieved/incurred in future. Numbers

are subject to inflationary increases.

Although difficult to quantify at this time, it is expected that if the Adie Knox Pool is kept open,its net operating cost will increase and the proposed new facilities net operating costs will behigher than options which include the closure

city report on new downtown aquatic centre and library

Documents