The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council Meeting - Council Workshop - Agenda - 11/29/2005 • ., OIL 3 S KENT W A 5 H I N G T O N NOTICE OF SPECIAL WORKSHOP Kent City Council NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Kent City Council will hold a special workshop at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 29, 2005, to discuss the Aquatic/Recreation Facility Feasibility Study. The workshop will be held in the Council Chambers at Kent City Hall, 220 4th Avenue South, Kent. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office in advance at 253-856- 5725. For TDD relay service call Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388. Brenda Jacober, CMC City Clerk Draft Executive Summary November 29, 2005 K NT W A S H I N G T 0 N KENT, WASHINGTON Community Aquatics/Recreation Center Feasibility Study NOVEMBER 2005 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CITY OF KENT LEADERSHIP: CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: The Honorable Mayor Jim White Tim Clark Ron Harmon Julie Peterson Deborah Ranniger Council President Debbie Raplee Les Thomas Bruce White CITY OF KENT ADMINISTRATION: Nathan Torgelson,Economic Development Manager Fred Satterstrom,Community Development Director Robert Nachlinger, Finance Director Jim Schneider, Fire Chief Ed Crawford,Police Chief PARKS,RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT: John M. Hodgson,Director Lori Hogan, Recreation and Cultural Services Superintendent Lori Flemm,Park Planning and Development Superintendent MEMBERS OF THE AQUATIC/RECREATION CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY STEERING/ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Lea Bishop Dave Lutes Debbie Ranniger Jon Botten Christine Meyers Debbie Raplee Brian Breshears Ash Milad Doug Siegert Perry Brooks Rocky Perko Julie Stangle Sean Hutchison Mark Prothero Greg Worthing CONSULTANTS:GreenPlay, LLC Barker, Rinker,Seacat Architecture Ambia Architecture ETC Institute Leisure Vision For more information about this document,contact Karon Badalamenti,CPRP,Principal at: GREENPLAYLC The Leading Edge In Parks,Recreation And Open Space Consulting 3050 Industrial Lane,Suite 200,Broomfield,CO 80020 Telephone: 303-439-8369 Fax: 303-439-0628 E-mail: Info@GreenPlayLLC.com Web: www.GreenPlayLLC.com Kent,WA Community Aquatics/Recreation Center Feasibility Study Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview In conjunction with Barker, Rinker,Seacat Architecture and Ambia Architecture, GreenPlay, LLC,has researched the feasibility of building and operating a community aquatics/recreation center in Kent,Washington. Critical steps in this process included: an extensive public involvement process; a statistically valid random community interest and opinion survey;compiling a comprehensive condition inventory;gathering staff's input about their programming needs and interests in constructing and operating a facility;analyzing existing related planning efforts;conducting a market analysis;identifying the facility components and estimated construction costs;and developing an operational budget and staffing plan. References to all previous studies and existing reports are contained in this document. Mission Statement The Cit of Kent has developed the following mission statement for the Community Aquatic/Recreation Center: The goal of the Kent Aqua tic/Recreation Center is to enhance the quality of life and sense of community of all Kent residents. This will provide a centrally located, inclusive, year round gathering point that offers a multi-functional aqua ticl recreational acility. The center will offer diverse activities, including swimming, exercise, recreation and community spaces for individuals of all ages. The Center is envisioned to be the Community's "family activity room,"and enhance wellness and promote better health within the community. The center should be financially feasible, sustainable, and affordable, and provide outstanding service to Kent area families. Market Analysis Based on the market analysis, there is a need for an indoor aquatic/recreation facility that serves a broad population and offers a wide variety of activities. The primary service area for the facility consists of the City of Kent,and a secondary market of surrounding communities including desired future annexations like the Panther Lake area. Currently,indoor recreational programming in the general vicinity of the proposed facility through public,non-profit,or private entities is limited. The closest indoor aquatic-type facility will be the new Federal Way aquatics/recreation center. The demand for year round aquatics and general Kent,WA Community Aquatics/Recreation Center Feasibility Study page 3 recreation activities that could be made available at a facility of this type is growing not only locally,but regionally and nationally as well. Community Profile/Demographic Conclusion The potential children through young adult user groups,ages 5 to 24 years comprise over 29% of the city's population; the active adult user group,ages 25- 54 years comprise over 46% of the city's population. The demographic make-up of the community and the continuing growth in and around the City of Kent will support a facility of this type. Facility Components and Estimated Cost This suggested aquatics/fitness program is a compromise between replacing the Kent Meridian Pool and the Steering Committee's wish list of program spaces based on the survey results. It recognizes the need to re-purpose Kent Commons' programming spaces and integrate high revenue space in the aquatics facility like fitness and aerobics,using areas that are consistent with best facility practices. A facility consisting of program components that match functional desires,while also balancing revenue-producing components,is essential to the success of this effort. The preliminary model developed includes the following program components: ■ 6/8-Lane Lap Pool ■ Leisure Pool ■ Party/Activity Room(2) ■ Cardio/Weight Room/Stretching ■ Fitness/Aerobics Room ■ Child Care ■ Therapy Pool* ■ Vending and Concessions ■ Entry/Reception Area/Pro-shop ■ Locker Rooms ■ Support Areas and Staff Offices *Built through a partnership The facility totals approximately 55,000 square feet. The estimated total building construction cost as determined by Barker, Rinker Secat Architecture,without Washington State Sales Tax (WSST),contingencies and soft costs like design and Furniture,Fixtures &Equipment(FF&E),would be approximately$16.8 million excluding land acquisition(2008 dollars). The construction cost would be approximately$304 per square foot. The total project costs including WSST, contingencies, off and on-site costs, and soft costs would be approximately$28.8 million or$522 per square foot. These costs are subject to change. Kent,WA Community Aquatics/Recreation Center Feasibility Study page 4 Operational Budget Planning Building and operating an aquatics/recreation center will dramatically change the nature of the City of Kent Parks,Recreation and Community Services Department through a higher level of public interaction and exposure. It may also significantly affect the budget for the existing City facilities. These changes in revenues and expenses will add new rewards as well as new challenges for the recreation staff. The level of marketing and registration services specified for the operation of the aquatics/recreation are detailed in the three budget scenarios depicted in Table 1. The low budget estimate is without full time marketing position;the high budget estimate is with a full time marketing position budgeted at 100%;and the medium budget estimate is an average of the two,allowing flexibility for some part time hours devoted to the marketing position. Due to a major portion of the revenue necessary to sustain this building being derived from pass sales,rental fees,and advertisement and sponsorship opportunities,we advocate for the full time marketing position devoted to this effort. The budget includes well considered expenditures for staff,supplies,services, and capital replacement. This level of service will help ensure efficient operations;however,customer service practices will need to be closely monitored in order to facilitate citizen enthusiasm toward repeat usage of the facility. Program components coupled with staff that creates a user friendly atmosphere will help ensure the success of the facility through quality guest experiences. A Subsidy/Cost Recovery Philosophy along with a Pricing Policy and Strategies will be used to help guide the financing of the operations of the Community Aquatics/Recreation Center. For this project, a cost recovery level of 67% to 69% is assumed which translates to a 31% to 33% subsidy from the park and recreation fund. Revenues are derived from the following categories: program revenue includes aquatics lessons,water exercise,lap swimming,fitness programs,child care, general recreation activities;rental income includes pool,lap-lane,party room, therapy pool and facility fees; admission includes daily, punch card and pass revenue. Other revenue is presented as low,medium and high forecasts and includes gradation of sponsorship revenues,and static ID card sales,pro-shop sales,concession and vending projections. Kent,WA Community Aquatics/Recreation Center Feasibility Study page 5 Table 1: Operational Bud et and Cost Rec ery Summary Level of Low Medium High Expenditures and Other Revenues Program Revenue $305,572 $306,672 $307,772 Rental Revenue $99,375 $119,113 $138,850 Admission Revenue $649,648 $720,027 $794,015 Other Revenue $26,125 $37,312 $48,500 Total Revenue $1,080,720 $1,183,124 $1,239,137 Expenditures $1,612,262 $1,737,354 $1,862,445 Net <$531,542> <$554,230> <$573,308> Cost Recovery 67% 68% 69% The goal for this facility is to create a sustainable plan with corresponding budgets for programs, operations,maintenance,and capital replacement. If the total facility budget is subsidized 31% to 33%,it is imperative to understand that, while this percentage may stay the same over time, the actual costs making up the subsidy will continue to rise with increases in operational and maintenance expenses. The operational budget planning for this facility uses a moderate approach to estimating reasonable expenses and a moderately aggressive approach to projecting revenues,and is based on an understanding of the conceptual project, the best available market area information,and the current practices of the City. The estimates are made in(2005) dollars. There is no guarantee that the estimates and projections will be met,and there are many variables that cannot be accurately determined during this conceptual planning stage or are subject to change during the actual design and implementation process. Revenue forecasts are based on the space components included in the facility, the demographics of the local service area, the current status of alternative providers in the service area, and a comparison to other facilities with similar components in Washington and around the country. Actual figures will vary based on the final design of the facility and the activity spaces included,the market at the time of opening, the designated facility operating philosophy, the aggressiveness of fees and use policies adopted, and the type of marketing effort undertaken to attract potential users to the facility. The revenue forecast will require an aggressive marketing approach by staff. Additionally the number of participants is based on similar facilities in the Seattle/Tacoma Metropolitan Areas and does not guarantee the availability of participants to meet projected revenues. Expenditure estimates are based on the type and size of the activity and support spaces in the facility and the anticipated hours of operation. Where possible and with the information available, calculations are based on actual best practice or methodology. All other expenses are estimated based on our research and reported experience at similar facilities. Kent,WA Community Aquatics/Recreation Center Feasibility Study page 6 GreenPlay,LLC 11/28/2005 Kent, WA-Operational Pro-forma Estimated expenses and projected revenues are based on a basic understanding of the conceptual project and the best information available regarding the market area and current practices of the Township.There is no guarantee that the estimates and projections will be met as there are many variables that cannot be accurately determined during this conceptual planning stage,and/or are subject to change during the actual de ign and implementation process.The estimated number of participants is based on current program offerings or similar venues and does not guarantee the availability of participants to meet projected revenues. I asumptiona:7 Day/Wk OpNe_time$eheduki� _ The program revenue estimates are based on how Kent Parka and Recreation Department and the Kent Meridian Pool Opening date:12007-200_8 currently budgets and their actual but averaged experience. The admission revenue is primarily reliant on the leisure pool, Recreation Adult Dallif Resided Fee:$8.00 _ __lap pool and fitness components. Recreation Adult Rsalded Annual PauPau'$450 - Cod recovery cal:80.80•h � - _. _ ' Hours Low Estimate Medium Estimate H tcstirrrats Recreation Facility Hours of Operations-M-F 5:30am 16.5 hrs/day x 82.5 Personnel: 73% 74% 75% w/o capital Weekda a:tolOpm 15 days expenditures Recreation Facility Hours of Operations Sat 8am-9pm; 13 Sat.9 Sun 22 Supplies: 5% 5% - 59i w/o capital Weekends:Sun Bame5pm __. _ expenditure _ Child Care Hours of Operation peak hours only Services: 22% 21% 20% w/o capital _...._ expenditure Recreation Weekly hours of operati 104.5---- w/o capital 1 1 10D%expenditures _ Plus Total Capita: 3% 3% 3% %of total expenditure i EX IHiIfU/es: Existin Other Formul Low Estimat Medium Estima jJj9h Esamnate Notes or Questions to be answered Facility Simi 55,200 'estimated gross square foot u a9 (rgghty 3800 sq.ft.is for therapy Dsscdptiat 6-4ane lap pool(bather bad 225),medium 4500 sq.ft.leisure pool(bather bad 300),weights&fitness,child care room,dry classroom,2 party moms,therapy pool 3600 sq.ft.(bather load 67) i Personnel Servdceg 1 - - Full-time Rec salaries $568,744 $624,234 $6799 Part4ime salaries $206,488 $225,370 $244, Benefits $370,511 $400,138 $429,7 Subtotal Personnel Services $1,145,743 $1,249,742 $1,353,741 Existin Other Formul Low Estmoa Medium Estimat Hiato rstima Notes or Questions to be answered Materials and Supplies Rec Center Operations Supplies(postage,office, computer,photo for IDs,tools,chemicals,pro- shop,uniforms,parks matedais/supplies) i Aquatics Program Supplies $25,864' $�6,t347 01� Subtotal Operational Materials and Supplies $79,294 $87,067 $94,840 �i.. Services _ - Fintess(Contracted Classees $32,655 $32,655 $32,25 See Fitness Ceder Budget prepared by Kent staff $32,655 $32,665 '$32 Rec Contracted Service bank card, din contracted services) Rec General Expenses(advertising,dues, $21,160 $24,160 $27,160 telephone,equipment rental) Rec Facility Maintenance(trash,custodial $22,200 $25,150 $28,100 supplies,building and ground maintenance) Rec Equipment Maintenance(computerop& - $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 maid.,parks,equipment,capital replacement) Utilities-gas&electric ----- - $193,200 $193,200 $J$13, Fed"Way wee budgeted at$3.60/sq.ft.per year water&sewer Building security $11,300 $13,150 --Insurances=Property($?) $0.23- WI 2,69 $12,972 General Liability($?) $0.24/sq.R. (based on actual cost/yr.of Recreation Center /sq.ft.=$.12/sq.ft.or$?) Subtotal Services - $340,266 $349,942 $359,616 Proforma GreenPlay,LLC 11/28=5 r.i.tin Other F.Mul Low Eatimat Medium Estimat Hiah Estimat Notes wGuestions,to beans red Capita _ total %of operating budget total Buildings&Improvements $31.306 $33,735 $38,1' 2%Infrastructure Machinery&Equipment $15.653 $16.868 $18.08 7%equipment replacement Subtotal Capital $46,959 $50,603 $54,246 GRAND TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,612,262 $1,737,354 $1,862,445 Operating cost per square foot $29 $31 $34 Revenues: -4 Notes or Questions be an-d ild Drop-In Admission _ _. refer to tab Admission • #Daily x fee #punch cards passes ?a conservative but relistic admission estimate;the marketing x fee posftion assists in generating the full revenue forecast Adult RBsldeot/NR $30,000 $76,740 $229,860 $302,940. $319,770 1 $336,600 Child ResidenUNR $4,875 $0 so $4,388 $4,631 $4,875 Youth ResidentNR $1 L250 $3,848 514.120 $26,296 $27.757 $29,218 Senior ResidenUNR S2,438 $20,781 $44,208 $60,684 $64,055 $67 427 Disabled ResidenUNR S1,750 S2.075 314,592 $16,575 $17,496 $18,417 Family Resident/NR S4,140 - S261,156 $238,766 $252,031 $265,296 Sub Total Revenue by type $54,453 $103,443 $563,936 $649,648 $685 740 $721,832 total from admission page Sub Total All Admission Revenue $721,832 Admissions $649,648 $685 740 'j .1,832 from previous section Addigonal admission revenue forecasted for PR $0 $34,287 $72,183 additional 10%minimum; medium estimate included part time position ".marketing position Concessions/Vending $3,000. $4,000 $5,000 budgeted as contract with%of net profit only(if in house forecast to make 10%over$96,000 etp.=$3e,000 wages,+10%benefits, •*$50,000 supplies) Commissions(lockers-Na) $1,500 $1500 $1,500 game commission equipment rental,video and other games) ---__ ___ Aquatics Rentals $37,425 $43,663 $49,907 conservative planning Aquatics Parties - _- - - $21,450 $21,450 $21145if Child Car $21chld 15-20 $600-$800/mo $6,600 $7,700 $8 8, loses money -lost leader chillreNday x'x 11 months / /(^' °" 5 dayslwk x 4 wka/mo x 11 coo ID Sales $20,125 $20,125 $20,1� refer to tab ID Pro-ahop Sales $1,500 $1,688 $1,87425%mafk up of projected exp. Advertising(Sponsorship $0 $10,000 $20,006,Reel function of the marketing position Therapy Pool $40,500 $54,000 $67,506$15-25Isq.ft.tyear x 3600 sq.ft.@75%of the time so Kent can j program too(25%).Additional lifeguards for rentals provided by ,.-,, ,,,• =a'" •*.. !rental agency lifeguards for Kent 25%usage rotated with existing staff or covered with additional revenues AVERAGED POTENTIAL REVENUE Programs Averaged potential program revenue Aquatics Lessons(most lessons in lap pool) $156,470 $156,470 $156,470 Aquatics Water ExerdI $25,080 $25,080 $25,080 Fitness total$ $117,422 $117,422 $117,422,See Fdnees Center Budget prepared by Kent staff General Recreation $0 $0 $6 Budgeted to break even or do better Program revenue sub-total S298,972 $298,972 $298.972 sub total of averaged program revenue GRAND TOTAL REVENUE $1,080,720 $1,183,124 $1,289,137 Surplus/ Revenue generated/square foot $20 $21 $23 GRAND ITIRTAL SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (5531;542) jS55d,13U) r ,wit)A conservative scenario facility tax subsidy amount PROJECTED COST RECOVERY 67% - 68% 69% total collected through fees,charges &alt.funds Park and Recreation Department's Cost Recovery is about 19% Kent Commons Cost Recovery is about 49-55% Proforma Indoor Aquatic/Recreation Center Citizen Survey Executive Summary of Citizen Survey Results Overview of the Methodology The City of Kent conducted an Indoor Aquatic/Recreation Center Citizen Survey during August and September of 2005 to establish priorities for the future development of an indoor aquatic recreation center. The survey was designed to obtain statistically valid results from households throughout the City of Kent. The survey was administered by a combination of mail and phone. Leisure Vision worked extensively with City of Kent officials,as well as members of the GreenPlay LLC project team in the development of the survey questionnaire. This work allowed the survey to be tailored to issues of strategic importance to effectively plan the future system. In August 2005 surveys were mailed to a random sample of 2,503 households in the City of Kent. Approximately three days after the surveys were mailed each household that received a survey also received an electronic voice message encouraging them to complete the survey. In addition, about two weeks after the surveys were mailed Leisure Vision began contacting households by phone, either to encourage completion of the mailed survey or to administer the survey by phone. The goal was to obtain at least 400 completed surveys from City of Kent residents. This goal was accomplished with 412 surveys having been completed by City of Kent residents. The results of the random sample of 412 households have a 95% level of confidence with a precision of at least+/-4.8%. The following pages summarize major survey findings based on 412 responses. Executive Summary- 1 Current Use of Indoor Recreation, Sports, Fitness & Aquatic Facilities Respondent households were asked to indicate if they are currently using any indoor recreation, sports, fitness or aquatic facilities. The following summarizes key findings: ■ Forty-two percent (42%) of respondent households are currently using indoor recreation, sports, fitness or aquatic facilities. Q1. Respondent Households that Currently Using Indoor Recreation, Sports, Fitness & Aquatic Facilities by percentage of respondents Yes 42% No 58% Soiuce: Leisme Visiou'ETC Institute(September 2005) Executive Summary-2 Indoor Facilities Respondent Households Currently Use From a list of eight options, respondent households currently using indoor recreation, sports, fitness or aquatic facilities were asked to identify all of the facilities they currently use. The following summarizes key findings: ■ Of the 42% of respondent households that are currently using indoor recreation,sports,fitness or aquatic facilities, 53% are currently using private fitness clubs. The other indoor facilities used by the highest percentage of respondents include: City facilities in Kent (35%), neighboring communities (24%), and recreation programs in schools (23%). Q1. Respondent Households That Are Currently Using Indoor Recreation, Sports, Fitness & Aquatic Facilities by percentage of respondents No Q1a. Indoor Recreation, Sports, Fitness, and Aquatic 58% Facilities That Respondent Households Currently Use Private fitness clubs 53° City facilities in Kent 35% Yes 42% Neighboring communities 24% Recreation programs in schools 2304 'r Churches 14% Employer provided 12% YMCAIYWCA 5°� University/Colleges 50/4 None,do not use indoor facilities 1 Other 12%:: 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Source: Lemure Vi.7wv=Institute(September 2005) Executive Summary- 3 How Well Indoor Facilities Meet the Needs of Respondent Households From a list of three options, respondent households currently using indoor recreation, sports, fitness or aquatic facilities were asked to indicate how well the facilities they are currently using meet their needs. The following summarizes key findings: ■ Of the 42% of respondent households that are currently using indoor recreation,sports,fitness or aquatic facilities,33% indicated that the facilities meet all of their needs. Sixty-four percent (64%) of respondent households indicated that the facilities meet some of their needs, and 1% indicated that the facilities do not meet any of their needs. The remaining 2%of respondents did not provide a response. Q1 . Respondent Households That Are Currently Using Indoor Recreation, Sports, Fitness & Aquatic Facilities by percentage of respondents 01 b. How Indoor Recreation, Sports, Fitness, and Aquatic Facilities That Respondent Households Are Currently Using Are Meeting Their Needs ---------------------- No Yes Meets all needs 58% 42% Meets some needs 33/o 64% -- --- - % No response 1% Does not meet any needs source: Leisme VisioiiETC Institute(.September'-005) Executive Summary-4 Importance of Programming Spaces Serving Various Resident Groups From a list of eight different groups of residents,respondents were asked to indicate how important it is for new aquatic/recreation center programming spaces to serve each group. The following summarizes key findings: ■ Four of the eight groups of residents had at least 60% of respondents indicate that it's very important for new aquatic/recreation center programming spaces to serve them. The groups of residents that received the highest very important ratings include: families (72%), disabled participants(66%),grade school age children(62%),and senior adults(60%). It should also be noted that all eight groups of residents had over 70%of respondents indicate that it is either very important or somewhat important for new aquatic/recreation center programming spaces to serve them. Q2. Importance of the New Aquatic/Recreation Center Programming Spaces Serving Various Groups of Residents by percentage of respondents Families Adults Senior adults % Disabled participants 5% Grade school age children Teenagers �F/O Preschool age children College students Mi 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% every Important •Somewhat Important Mot Important ODon't Know Sotnce: Leisure Vision ETC histihrte(September'_005) Executive Summary-5 Frequency of Use of Potential Aquatic Features From a list of 13 aquatic features that could be incorporated into the design of a new aquatic/recreation center, respondents were asked to indicate how often they and members of their household would use each one. The following summarizes key findings: (Note: The graph below does not show the percentage of respondents who indicated "less than once/month" or "seldom or never".) ■ Five of the 13 features had over 50% of respondents indicate they would use them at least once per month. These five features include: area for water exercise(57%),hot tub area(56%),a warm water area for therapeutic purposes (55%), lap lanes for exercise swimming(55%), and a lazy river that allows you to float on a raft(53%). It should also be noted that lap lanes for exercise swimming (20%) is the feature that the highest percentage of respondent households indicated they would use several times per week. i Q3. How Often Respondent Households Would Use Various Potential Aquatic Features by percentage of respondents(graph does not sha.v"less than once/month"or"seldom or never"responses) I Area for water exercise 17% Hot tub area 19% Warm water area for therapeutic purposes 20% Lap lanes for exercise swimming 1 %% Lazy river that allows you to float on a raft 18% Dry sauna and steam room 16/. Leisure pool with gentle slope entry 11% Outdoor spray pads/playgrounds in parks 12% Area for swim lessons 9% Water sprays with interactive spray features 12% Water slides 13% 25-yard or 50 meter competition pool 13% Diving boards 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Several times per week MA few times per month ClAt least once/month Source: Le ine VinonETr flustitute tSeptembei'Gi»t Executive Summary-6 Aquatic Features Most Likely to Use From the list of 13 aquatic features that could be incorporated into the design of a new aquatic/recreation center, respondents were asked to select the three that they and members of their household would be most likely to use if included in the center. The following summarizes key findings: ■ Lap lanes for exercise swimming(33%) had the highest percentage of respondents select it as one of the three features they would be most likely to use. There are four other aquatic features that at least 25% of respondents selected as one of the three they would be most likely to use, including: area for water exercise (31%), lazy river that allows you to float on a raft (28%), warm water area for therapeutic purposes (26%) and a hot tub area(25%). It should also be noted that lap lanes for exercise swimming and area for swim lessons had the highest percentage of respondents select them as their first choice as the aquatic feature they would be most likely to use. 04. Aquatic Features Respondent Households Would Be Most Likely to Use if Included in a New Aquatic/Recreation Center by percentage of respondents(three choices could be made) Lap lanes for exercise swimming 33% Area for water exercise 31% Lazy river that allows you to float on a raft 28% Warm water area for therapeutic purposes 2604 Hot tub area 25% Dry sauna and steam room 20% Area for swim lessons 18% Water slides 18'D,6 Leisure pool with gentle slope entry 16% Water sprays with interactive spray features 14% Outdoor spray pads/playgrounds in neighborhood par 10% 25-yard or 50 meter competition pool Diving boards 5% Other 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% flMost Likely to Use 111132nd Most Likely to Use 03rd Most Likely to Use Source Lei:iue ViAon=Institute(September 2005) Executive Summary-7 Purposes for Use of an Indoor Aquatic Facility From a list of five options, respondents were asked to select the two purposes for which they and members of their household would use an indoor aquatic facility. The following summarizes key findings: ■ Sixty-seven percent(67%)of respondents selected exercise as one of the two purposes for which they would use an indoor aquatic facility. In addition, 53% of respondents would use an indoor aquatic facility for year round recreation or leisure activities, and 33% would use it for therapeutic purposes. Q5. Purposes for Which Respondent Households Would Use an Indoor Aquatic Facility by percentage of respondents(two choices could be made) Exercise 67% Year round recreation or leisure activities 530r Therapeutic purposes 33% For instructional classes 23% Competition 4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Source: Leisure Vi307VETC!lsti[rte(September 20051', Executive Summary- 8 Frequency of Use of Potential Features From a list of 17 features that could be incorporated into the design of a new aquatic/recreation center, respondents were asked to indicate how often they and members of their household would use each one. The following summarizes key findings: (Note: The graph below does not show the percentage of respondents who indicated "less than once/month" or "seldom or never".) ■ Three of the 17 features had over 40% of respondents indicate they would use them at least once per month. These three features include: indoor running/walking track (59%), weight room/cardiovascular equipment area(55%),and aerobics/fitness/dance space(45%). It should also be noted that an indoor running/walking track (22%) is the feature that the highest percentage of respondent households indicated they would use several times per week. Q6. How Often Respondent Households Would Use Various Potential Recreation Features by percentage of respondents(graph does not show"less than once/month"or"seldom or never'responses) Indoor running/walking track 16% Weight room/cardiovascular equipment area 17% Aerobics/fitness/dance space 16% Arts and crafts studios 18% Interactive playground area for young children 9% Gymnasium for baseketball,volleyball, etc. 1 10% Racquetball/handball/wallyball courts 12% Indoor turf field to support indoor field activiti 10% Rock climbing wall 12% Childcare area for children of parents using recre 6% Teaching kitchen 13% Preschool program space 6% Space for teens 6% Indoor stage/performing arts 11% Small youth/teen satellite facilities at area scho 9% Multipurpose space(with kitchen)for classes, mee 9% Space for developmentally disabled 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% wSeveral Times Per Week MA Few Times Per Month ClAt Least Once/Month Soiree: Leisiue PisionETC Institute(September-'(i0; Executive Summary-9 Features Most Likely to Use From the list of 17 features that could be incorporated into the design of a new aquatic/recreation center, respondents were asked to select the three that they and members of their household would be most likely to use if included in the center. The following summarizes key findings: ■ An indoor running/walking track(52%)had the highest percentage of respondents select it as one of the four features they would be most likely to use. There are two other features that over 30%of respondents selected as one of the three they would be most likely to use, including: weight room/cardiovascular equipment area(44%)and aerobics/fitness/dance space(37%). It should also be noted that an indoor running/walking track had the highest percentage of respondents select it as their first choice as the feature they would be most likely to use. Q7. Recreation Features Respondent Households Are Most Likely to Use if Included in the New Aquatic/Recreation Center by percentage of respondents(four choices could be made) Indoor running/walking track 52% Weight room/cardiovascular equipment area 1 440A Aerobics/fitness/dance space 1 137% Interactive playground area for young children 23%! Gymnasium for baseketball,volleyball, etc. 20% Arts and crafts studios 18% Racquetball/handball/wallyball courts 1�(% Childcare area for children of parents using recre 16% Rock climbing wall 15% Multipurpose space(with kitchen)for classes, mee 15% Indoor turf field to support indoor field activiti 13%E Indoor stage/performing arts 12% Teaching kitchen 11% Preschool program space $% Space for teens 7% Small youth/teen satellite facilities at area scho 6% Space for developmentally disabled 30/0 Other 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% aMost Likely to Use M2nd Most Likely to Use 03rd Most Likely to Use 04th Most Likely to Use Source: Levine Vision ETC InAihue(September Executive Summary- 10 Frequency of Visits to a New Aquatic/Recreation Center Respondents were asked to indicate how often they and members of their household would visit a new aquatic/recreation center if it had the recreation and aquatic features they most prefer. The following summarizes key findings: ■ Seventy-four percent(74%)of respondents indicated they would visit a new aquatic/recreation center at least a few times a month if it had the recreation and aquatic features they most prefer. This group includes 38%who would visit the center several times per week, 15%who would visit it once per week, and 21%who would visit it a few times a month. It should also be noted that only 10% of respondents indicated they would never visit a new aquatic/recreation center. Q8. How Often Respondent Household Members Would Visit a New Aquatic/Recreation Center by percentage of respondents Several times per week 38% Once per week 15% -: Never 10% A few times per month Less than once a month 21% Monthly 9% 7% Sotuce: Leimre Vision/ETC IwAittlte(September 2005) Executive Summary- 11 How Respondents Prefer to Use New Recreation and Aquatic Facilities From a list of four options, respondents were asked to indicate how they would prefer to use new recreation and aquatic facilities. The following summarizes key findings: ■ Thirty-nine percent (39%) of respondents indicated they would prefer to use one large aquatic/recreation center with the recreation and aquatic features most preferred. In addition, 13% would prefer to use one aquatic center and individual facilities such as gyms, meeting rooms, etc., and 33%would use either option. Only 14%of respondents indicated they would not use new recreation and aquatic facilities, and 1% did not provide a response. Q9. How Respondents Would Prefer to Use the New Recreation and Aquatic Facilities by percentage of respondents One large aquatic/recreation center with the recreation and aquatic One aquatic center and features most preferred individual facilities such as 39% gyms, meeting rooms. etc. 13% No Response 1% Neither Either 14% 33% Source: Leisae VisionETC institute(September''-00>) Executive Summary- 12 Distance in Miles Willing to Travel to Use a New Aquatic/Recreation Center From a list of four options, respondents were asked to indicate which one best describes the maximum distance in miles they would be willing to travel to use a new aquatic/recreation center if it had the recreation and aquatic features they most prefer. The following summarizes key findings: ■ Fifty percent (50%) of respondents indicated they would travel at least 5 miles to use a new aquatic/recreation center with the features they most prefer. This group includes 34% who would travel 5-7 miles and 16% who would travel more than 7 miles. In addition, 33% of respondents would travel 2-5 miles to use the center,7%would travel less than 2 miles,and only 10% would not use the new aquatic/recreation center. Q10. Maximum Distance in Miles Respondents Would Be Willing to Travel to Use a New Aquatic/Recreation Center by percentage of respondents 5- 7 miles 34% More than 7 miles 16% None,would not use 10% 2 -5 miles Less than 2 miles 33% 7% Sotrce. Leisure VisionETC ULgtiti to(September 3005) Executive Summary- 13 Distance in Minutes Willing to Travel to Use a New Aquatic/Recreation Center From a list of four options, respondents were asked to indicate which one best describes the maximum distance in minutes they would be willing to travel to use a new aquatic/recreation center if it had the recreation and aquatic features they most prefer. The following summarizes key findings: ■ Sixty-four percent(64%)of respondents indicated they would travel at least 10 minutes to use a new aquatic/recreation center with the features they most prefer. This group includes 49%who would travel 10-15 minutes and 15%who would travel more than 15 minutes. In addition, 23%of respondents would travel 5-10 minutes,3%of respondents would travel less than 5 minutes,and only 10%would not use the new aquatic/recreation center. Q11. Maximum Distance in Minutes Respondents Would Be Willing to Travel to Use a New Aquatic/Recreation Center by percentage of respondents 10- 15 minutes 49% More than 15 minutes 15% _None,would not use 10% Less than 5 minutes 3% 5- 10 minutes 23% source: Leisme Visim!ETC Institute(September 2005) Executive Summary- 14 Likelihood of Traveling to Various Locations to Use Aquatic/Recreation Center Respondents were asked to indicate how likely they would be to travel to East Hill,West Hill, and Kent Valley to use a new aquatic/recreation center if it had the recreation and aquatic features they most prefer. The following summarizes key findings: ■ Fifty-three percent (53%) of respondents indicated they would be very likely to use a new aquatic/recreation center in East Hill. In addition,45%of respondents would be very likely to use a new aquatic/recreation center in Kent Valley, and 24%would be very likely to use a new center in West Hill. Q12. Likelihood of Respondents Traveling to Various Locations to Use a New Aquatic/Recreation Center by percentage of respondents Kent Valley 31% ""o East Hill of Kent 18% West Hill of Kent 11 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% OVery Likely OSomewhat Likely ONot Likely ONot Sure Source: Leisure ViAoni=Hiotihrte(September 2005) Executive Summary- 15 Support for Various Sources of Funding a New Aquatic/Recreation Center From a list of six various sources of revenue,respondents were asked to indicate their level of support for using each revenue source to fund the building of a new aquatic/recreation center. The following summarizes key findings: ■ Three of the six sources of revenue had at least 60% of respondents indicate being very supportive of using them to fund the building of a new aquatic/recreation center. These three revenue sources include: grants(67%), private fund-raising revenues (61%), and fees from users of the aquatic/recreation center(60%). It should also be noted that five of the six revenue sources had over 70%of respondents indicate being either very supportive or somewhat supportive of using them to fund the building of a new aquatic/recreation center. Q13. Support for Potential Sources to Fund the Building of a New Aquatic/Recreation Center by percentage of respondents Fees from users of the aquatic/recreation center •�'• 30% ° Grants 19°e 7% Private fund-raising revenues 24% 8% Partnership with local hospital/health care provid 37% 10% Partnership with private recreation provider 10% i Property taxes/bond issue 9°l° 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% every Supportive ®Somewhat Supportive MNot Supportive ONot Sure Somce: Leisme VisioniETC Imctitute(September 200i) Executive Summary- 16 Cost for Operating a New Aquatic/Recreation Center From a list of five statements,respondents were asked to indicate which one best describes how the cost for operating a new aquatic/recreation center should be paid for. The following summarizes key findings: ■ Thirty-five percent (35%) of respondents indicated that the cost for operating a new aquatic/recreation center should be paid for by 80% user fees and 20%taxes. In addition, 19% of respondents indicated that cost should be paid for by 50%user fees and 50%taxes, 13%indicated 60%user fees and 40%taxes, 8%indicated 40%user fees and 60%taxes,and 6%indicated 20%user fees and 80% taxes. The remaining 19% of respondents indicated"don't know". Q14. How Respondents Believe the Cost for Operating a New Aquatic/Recreation Center Should Be Paid For by percentage of respondents 60% user fee/40%taxes 80% user fee/20%taxes � 13% 35% 50% user fee/50%taxes 19% 40% user fee/60%taxes Don't know $% 19% 20% user fee/80%taxes 6% Source: Leisure Vihiou=Listihrte(Sevenibei Executive Summary- 17 Voting on a New Aquatic/Recreation Center Respondents were asked to indicate how they would vote in an election to fund the development and operations of a new aquatic/recreation center with the program spaces and revenue sources they most support. The following summarizes key findings: ■ Seventy-three percent(73%)of respondents indicated they would either vote in favor(50%)or might vote in favor (23%) in an election to fund the development and operations of a new aquatic/recreation center. An additional 8%of respondents indicated they would vote against the new aquatic/recreation center and 19% were not sure how they would vote. Q15. How Respondents Would Vote in an Election to Fund the Development and Operations of a New Aquatic/Recreation Center by percentage of respondents Vote in Favor 50% Vote against 8% Might Vote in Favor 23% Not Sure 19% Source: Leisure Vicion;'ETC T Shtute(September'_'005) Executive Summary- 18 Reasons for Being Not Sure or Voting Against an Aquatic/Recreation Center The 27% of households who indicated they were not sure or would vote against the development and operations of a new aquatic/recreation center were asked to indicate the major reason for their response. The following summarizes key findings: ■ Fifty-three percent(53%)of respondents indicated that they need additional information. An additional 25% of respondents don't think there is a need for any additional indoor recreation facilities, 13% indicated a variety of other reasons, and 9% did not provide a response. Q15a. Major Reason Respondents Are Not Sure or Would Vote Against Funding the Development and Operations of a New Aquatic/Recreation Center by percentage of respondents who indicated"not sure"or"vote against"to Question#15 1 need additional information 53% No response - 9% 1 do not think there is a need for any additional indoor 25% Other recreation facilities 13% Source: Leinnue Visiow=JmAitute(September 2005) Executive Summary- 19 Priority for a New Aquatic/Recreation Center Compared to Other Issues Respondents were asked to indicate the level of priority the City of Kent should place on a new aquatic/recreation center compared to other issues in the City. The following summarizes key findings: ■ Seventy-six percent(76%)of respondents indicated that the City of Kent should place at least a medium priority on a new aquatic/recreation center compared to other issues in the City.This group includes 41%who indicated that a new aquatic/recreation center should be a medium priority, 23%who indicated that it should be a high priority, and 12% who indicated that it should be a very high priority. An additional 17% of respondents indicated that it should be a low priority and 7% indicated"don't know". Q16. Priority the City Should Place on a New Aquatic/ Recreation Center Compared to Other Issues in the City of Kent by percentage of respondents High Priority 23% Very High Priority 12% Medium Priority 41% Don't Know 7% Low Priority 17% Source: Leique VisioiuETC Iwtitute(September 2005) Executive Summary-20 Support for Actions to Improve and Expand Parks and Recreation Facilities From a list of 12 actions the City of Kent could take to improve and expand parks and recreation facilities, respondents were asked to indicate their level of support for each one. The following summarizes key findings: ■ Of the 12 actions to improve and expand parks and recreation facilities, there are three that over 40% of respondents are very supportive of. These three include: renovate/develop walking and biking trails(50%),purchase land to be developed for passive usage(45%),and renovate/develop playgrounds/neighborhood parks(44%). It should also be noted that all 12 actions had at least 50% of respondents indicate being either very supportive of somewhat supportive of them. Q17. Support of Actions the City of Kent Could Take to Improve and Expand Parks and Recreation Facilities in Kent by percentage of respondents Walking and biking trails Developed for passive usage 13% Playgrounds/neighborhood parks 12% Improvements to downtown parks 15% Athletic fields for youth sports 15% Picnic areas/shelters 17% Developed for active sports usage 18% Outdoor sports courts 20% Athletic fields for adult sports 19% Outdoor concert area 23% Environmental interpretive center/botanical garden 26% Off leash dog park 260 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Mvery Supportive MSomewhat Supportive ONot Sure MNot Supportive Source: Leisure G isiowETG JhAitute(SepteutuUer'-005) Executive Summary-21 Actions Most Willing to Fund with Tax Dollars From the list of 12 actions the City of Kent could take to improve and expand parks and recreation facilities, respondents were asked to select the four they would be most willing to fund with their tax dollars. The following summarizes key findings: ■ Renovate/develop walking and biking trails (51%)had the highest percentage of respondents select it as one of the four actions they would be most willing to fund with their tax dollars. There are three other actions that over 30%of respondents selected as one of the four they would be most willing to fund with their tax dollars, including: renovate/develop playgrounds/neighborhood parks (43%), purchase land to be developed for passive usage(36%) and renovate/develop athletic fields for youth sports (31%). It should also be noted that walking and biking trails had the highest percentage of respondents select it as their first choice as the action they would be most willing to fund with their tax dollars. Q18. Actions Respondents Are Most Willing to Fund With Their Tax Dollars by percentage of respondents(four choices could be made) Walking and biking trails 51% Playgrounds/neighborhood parks 43%' Developed for passive usage 36% Athletic fields for youth sports 31% Improvements to downtown parks 25°6 Picnic areas/shelters 21% i Developed for active sports usage 21% Outdoor concert area 1 8% Environmental interpretive center/botanical garden 18% Off leash dog park 17% Outdoor sports courts 16% Athletic fields for adult sports 14% Other ^`70 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Most Willing to Fund 11111112nd Most Willing to Fund 03rd Most Willing to Fund ®4th Most Willing to Fund Smuce: Leimne Vision ETC Li.YihIIe(September 2005) Executive Summary-22