The URL can be used to link to this page

Resolution No. 2546RESOLUTION NO. 2546 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS, ADOPTING THE BAYTOWN RECREATION CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF. ****************************************************************************** BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas, hereby adopts the Baytown Recreation Center Feasibility Study. A copy of the report is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein for all intents and purposes. Section 2: This resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage by the City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas. _ INTRODUCED, READ and PASSED by the City Council of e City of Baytown this the 25th day of October, 2018. t ATTE T :: '- &L, L TICIA BRYSCH, Ci Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: *NANIO� RAMIREZ, S ., ity Attorney H. DONCARLOS, Mayor `•.cobfs0l\legal\Karen\Files�City CouncitResolutions\2018`•.October 25\AdoptRecreation Center Feasibility Report.doc Exhibit "AI .. BAYTOWN RECREATION CENTER - FEASIBILITY STUDY PXJ -. ---I 1.1� OCTOBER 25, 2018 V ®r WIWI Mw I 17 of M4 .7 . mw�, Produced by: hiBURDITT Land Place City of Baytown Recreation Center Feasibility Study Ire 1 BAYTOWN - RecreatIon Cenrer Feasibility Study PREPARED BY: `OBURDITT Land Place fRIMmV Li i, Eia ELJ'8.&= S RN AI VO M CEMITHR HHASUBOLOry SWUM City Council Steering Committee Stephen DonCarlos, Mayor Billy Barnett Laura Alvarado, District 1 Michelle Bitterly Chris Presley, District 2 Connie Tilton Charles R. Johnson, District 3 Charles Johnson Heather Betancourth, District 4 Bernie Mulvaney Robert C. Hoskins, District 5 Christy Lucas David Himsel, District 6 David Weber Thesiona "Tess" Graham Mike Wilson City Staff Rick Davis, City Manager Ron Bottoms, Deputy City Manager Surditt Consultants Kevin Troller, Assistant City Manager Design Team Scott Johnson, Director of Parks and Recreation Eric Geppelt Dustin Schubert, Superintendent of Parks Courtney Brinegar Clifford Hatch, Superintendent of Recreation Charles Burditf Paul Cranford, Park Planner Jordy Matas Claudia Walker Ana Duran Parks and Recreation Advisory Board J. Shane Howard Billy Barnett, Chairman Paul Howard Carmen Torres, Vice Chair and Board Member John Ross Kevin Jones, Board Member Erica Kelley Michelle Bitterly, Board Member Shirley Li Agustin Loredo, Board Member Ben Mengden Gregory Griffin, Board Member Laura Howard Howard Hunt, Board Member City Staff grat (idly acknowledge the many attendees and participants who worked to i? form its about our great community from their diverse perspectives. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study + Ralr-�� mi W, INTRODUCTION Vision Executive Summary PROJECT SUMMARY Document Review Market Analysis Analysis of Recommended Site Stakeholder/ Public Input Sustainability Strategies Cost Recovery Model DESIGN PROCESS Project Understanding Early Massing Diagrams & Site Circulation Design Process Preliminary Site Development Concepts Programming Process Interior Program Adjacency Study BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study VISION CONCEPT Introduction Illustrative Master Plan Overview Pre -Schematic Floorplans Key Concepts of the Facility Pre -Schematic Diagrams Pre -Schematic Exterior& Interior Illustrations Opinion of Probable Cost 05 ENHAN ED ANALYSIS Cost Recovery Model Market Analysis Stakeholder/Public Input Public Outreach Site Selection Analysis of Recommended Site Analysis of Alternative Sites Analysis of Building Code APPENDICES Hardy Native Plant List Citations of Sources Ol �ntroduction Vision Executive Summary BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 0 U D 0 0 z Vision The City of Baytown is an ever-growing, diverse, and dynamic community. Like many suburban cities, the needs of Baytown's residents often outpace the city's available capacity and required infrastructure. Baytown's growth and associated citizens' needs and demands for community and recreational programs brought to light the need for a facility that could accommodate a broad-spectrum of services and reach more of Baytown's seniors, adults, youth, and children while simultaneously creating an opportunity for a true community -wide facility. This study is the culmination of the City's commitment to establish a basis for fostering an effective decision on the potential construction of a new Recreation Center. Four key factors identified in this study included: 1. A flexible and intentional facility which provides expansion of program offerings and growth. 2. Secure, safe facility that is admired by the community with economical access options. 3. A place that achieves longevity with durable design features and adaptable spaces. 4. The inclusion of programmed amenities that appease multiple user groups of various ages and level of activity intensity. As part of the study, a Steering Committee was organized representing several stakeholder groups from the community, including the Goose Creek Independent School District among other key interests. The study team met extensively with various interest groups including the following: • Parks & Recreation Staff • Steering Committee • Stakeholder groups • Parks & Recreation Board • General public BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study The public was invited to two townhalls and had the opportunityto complete an online survey to voice their opinions, al! available with Spanish communication options. In addition to the feedback received directly from interest groups during meetings, Burditt Consultants opted to assess lifestyle and market trends and thus further understand demand and capacity. This study represents a truly community -led document capturing the needs, desires, feedback, recommendations, and goals of a large cross-section of Baytown. These needs were tested against the data evaluated in an accompanying market analysis. The City is in the unique position of being able to provide important social and community infrastructure where it currently doesn't exist or where existing private capacity is inadequate to serve residents completely as their needs require. A new Recreation Center is feasible and highly recommended. If added to the community's current facilities, it will address the growing gap in senior and multi-purpose residency demands in Baytown. t rnofo Of llistJfeenng COMMI#ee meeting K Hlw AWN of Executive Summary The fundamental question surrounding the basis for this study was to ascertain the feasibility of constructing a new Recreation Center for the City of Baytown. The facility would provide a variety of indoor recreation spaces as well as community - focused social spaces that as a whole promote the importance of wellness, social cohesion, and quality of life. The study process involved key exercises affecting the feasibility outcomes including: • Assessment of potential sites • Stakeholder Engagement • Market Analysis • Programming • Master Planning • Pre -Schematic Design • Cost Recovery Model • Ancillary Research Site Assessment Burditt Consultants was directed to analyze three potential sites for the recreation center as identified by Baytown Parks and Recreation staff. The three sites were the Gene & Loretta Russell Park, the parcel by Kroger, and Evergreen Point Park. Burditt Consultants visited all three sites, including their periphery neighborhoods, to thoroughly evaluate their context for accommodating a recreation center. The analysis of the potential sites presented in this report is based upon important attributes for a successful recreation center development: walkability, nearby amenities, site potential for development, & ability to be a real estate catalyst. Through this analysis Burditt delineates one site as preferred and the others as alternatives. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study Stakeholder Engagement Outreach efforts captured input from a wide range of sources including Parks and Recreation department staff, the Project Steering Committee, local YMCA representatives, a representative of the library, Pirates Bay senior and junior staff, and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. When Burditt Consultants met with these various stakeholders they discussed ideal program amenities and preferred site location for a recreation center in Baytown. An initial townhall meeting and an online public survey confirmed these findings. Universal support was expressed for developing a recreation center with a variety of amenities. Programs geared at various age groups and abilities, the incorporation of indoor swimming, and community enhancement were key points of interest. Market Analysis Facility and program capacity of existing facilities were examined within a 30 -minute drive time around Baytown. Private and public facilities with amenities and programs similarto that of a potential Recreation Center were evaluated for accessibility, location, and value to users (e.g. presence of childcare). Demographic analysis was also conducted with a focus on lifestyle attributes related to income, healthcare commitment, exercise, and mobility. Finally, a comparison was made of sister community facilities in Mont Belvieu, Pearland, and Lo Porte. Baytown residents would substantially benefit from the presence of a recreation center and indications are that such a facility would be highly utilized. Programming Information gathered was organized into relevant program spaces for an appropriately sized and appropriately priced facility for the City of Baytown. The program was reviewed and refined with project leadership throughout the study. Ultimately, rooms, features, spaces, and uses were identified. Multiple expectations were assessed including the need for flexibility and durability. Through an iterative process, each of the program attributes were refined, prioritized, and addressed in association with the Master Plan and Pre -Schematic Design. 4 Master Planning The Master Plan focuses on situating the recreation center appropriately on the site, site development requirements, providing an appropriate amount of parking for the facility, and allowing room for expansion/further development within the recommended site, the 9 acre vacant lot by Kroger on N Alexander Dr. Pre -Schematic Design The design team went through several iterations of proposed programs to include and possible building and site layouts to work with the recommended site. To prepare for a pre -schematic design phase, Burditt Consultants worked with the Stakeholder groups, particularly the Steering Committee and Parks & Recreation staff, to narrow down all possible program amenities to what is absolutely needed and desired for Baytown's first public recreation center. Operating Budget & Cost Recovery Model A model operating budget for the proposed center anticipates a maximum of $1.21 million in annual operating costs. Reasonable fees on patron usage and space rental could yield between at least $233,984 in revenues to as high as $935,934 depending on usage and other factors. If half of the operating hours are half -occupied throughout the year (25% activity -space utilization), the recreation center could ensure annual General Fund subsides of less than $215,000. Likewise, recovery 60% of costs occurs between 40 and 50% of maximum capacity. Ancillary Research Several evaluation exercises were executed, including review of comparable facilities, a preliminary building code review of the new Recreation Center, a review of existing community planning and infrastructure efforts, and a native plant inventory of the Baytown area. The collected data was incorporated into the feasibility study along with observations and associated recommendations. ,. J- W. t U L .� i'j - ', M: K �'V� •r �� -�. 44 Aluslraled Master Plan BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 5 BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 02 Project Summary Document Review Market Analysis Analysis of Recommended Site Stakeholder/ Public Input Sustainability Strategies Cost Recovery Model BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 7 Document Review BAYTOWN 2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE The Baytown 2025 Comprehensive Plan is the most recent and updated plan for al/plans in the city. The new Comprehensive Plan re-examined the previous 2020 Comprehensive Plan key goals to verify alignment with Baytown's long term development in regards to Economic Opportunity, Quality of Life, and Community Character. As the community continues to provide an attractive environment for new business investment, and invests in quality of life amenities, such as a destination recreation center, these amenities will appeal to young professionals employed by targeted industries and companies. Additionally, by ensuring the facility is located in a manner which efficiently maximizes public benefits of connectivity, greenway development, neighborhood/school connectivity and enhances the community image, the public investment of a new Recreation Center, can strengthen the community identity, community image, and enhance the live -able environment within Baytown. The following were specific values identified from the Baytown 2025 Comprehensive Plan Update wh;ch directly correlate with opportunities rea'ized through the development of a Recreation Center Economic Opportunity oThe City offers a place for residents to live, play, and Ce work; it is a more appealing place to live for young 'professionals and individuals employed by target industry companies. Quality of Life A system of well-mainta'ned parks, open spaces, trails, recreation areas, and public facilities to accommodate the needs of Baytown's current and future residents. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 8-11 2025 i Cot•erol9OJS('mm��,ohanc.�m P/ „ An interconnected network of greenways that are multi-purpose, accessible, and convenient, which provides pedestrian and bicycle connections among neighborhoods, parks, schools, workplaces, and community focal points. An enhanced community image that reflects Baytown's unique historical, cultural, and natural assets and promotes the community as a desirable place to live, work, and visit. Community Character Improve the appearance of properties utilized by the City of Baytown to set an example of attractive, high- quality development. E3 PLAYBOOK 2020 1 STRATEGIC PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN The Baytown Playbook 2020, Strategic Parks and Recreation Master Plan, was drafted in 2010 as a 10 year plan for the city's Parks and Recreation. Within the executive summary of the document, 17 goals are stated for the Parks and Recreation Masterplan and are summarized below: 1. Accessibility 2. Well funded projects 3. Prioritize core services 4. Extraordinary and timeless spaces 5. Community focal point 6. Connectivity and linkage 7. Value and preserve open space 8. Detention should be eco -friendly 9. Integrate sustainability into projects 10. Reduce maintenance needs Also stated in the Executive Summary are the top 15 actions to be undertaken over the next ten years (2010-2020) which # 11 was plan for and construct a state-of-the-art Indoor Recreation Center. The reason for this being, Baytown currently lacks a City - operated attractive indoor recreation center that can be used for fitness, exercise, and programming. The plan proposed an indoor recreation center which would range in size from 45, 000 to 70, 000 square feet in size. It could offer amenities such as gymnasiums for basketball and volleyball, fitness and cardio equipment room, walking track, meeting rooms, arts and crafts room, dance studio, locker and changing rooms, racquet ball courts, climbing wall, and multi-purpose rooms for programs. P/aybook 2020 The Strategic Packs and Recreation Master Plan For the City of Nylon Texas I� j Cover ofP/ayhook 2020 "This is intended to be a multi -generational facility and should also have programs and space specifically marketed towards seniors and teens. A potential future phase that includes on indoor aquatic component for lap swimming should be developed as the plan for the Center is created. As part of the plan for indoor recreation, include funding for enhancements to the Baytown Community Center so that is continues to function as part of the indoor recreation palette in the City. " These goals and stated attributes of the Strategic Plan are some of the defining attributes included into the design approach of the proposed recreation center for the City of Baytown. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 9 Market Analysis This market analysis examined a 30 -minute drive - time radius around the City of Baytown (Study Area). Using a Business Model Canvas template, the study looked to understand how Key Resources and relevant Key Activities connect with targeted and relevant Customer Segments to create a Value Proposition for a potential new Community recreation center. Key Resources include the unique offering of space, size, and location of the recreation center. The recreation center will certainly fill a unique role in the area currently unmatched in the marketplace. Key Activities include those common activities usually found in recreation centers across the nation. Finally, an assessment of key demographic groups and activity trends in the Study Area provide insight into which specific Customer Segments could find value in a new, proximately located, well -programmed Community recreation center. The study found 64 programs and/or facilities in the study area hosting the 10 activities examined in this study linked to recreat-on centers. 4 of these activities captured the bulk of the findings: • Aerobics/cardio • Basketball • Gym/Weightlifting • Tennis Even where market capacity was the greatest, substantial gaps exist due to Accessibility through financial barriers, Capacity, and Mobility through transportation or connectivity barriers. Furthermore, opportunities abound for Complementing the existing marketplace with more variety, and Substitution through an increase in choices in the market. The study area comprises nearly 236,000 people. Baytown has a very young population compared to many communities. Economic diversity is broad with a large portion of the population financially stressed but able and willing to pay nominal amounts for wellness, recreation, and fitness. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study This provides substantial opportunity for cost recapture through the implementation of paid programs and rental space as well as partnerships with key program providers while still be able to provide programs to low to moderate income residents and mitigating pervasive access issues which currently prevent full participation in the current offerings provided area -wide. Finally, a broad cross section of residents across the study area, regardless of age group or income, have demonstrable commitment to their health, overall wellness, self actualized lifestyles, and recreation. A new Community recreation center focused on these target customer segments would be highly utilized and fill a substantial access, capacity, and variety gap currently enduring across the area: • Fitness and recreation space for low -moderate income families located largely in the surrounding neighborhoods of a potential recreation center • Fitness space and equipment and high activity play targeted to all market segments • Meeting, classroom space for small to medium sized groups of all types • Senior activities and social space, programming for all economic segments of 55-79 year olds 10 Analysis of Recommended Site SITE DESCRIPTION The recommended site for the future recreation center is the city -owned 9 acre site by the existing Kroger Grocery store on N Alexander Dr. The property is near the intersection of N Alexander Dr. and Ward Rd. in the geographical original center of Baytown, south of highway TX -146. This property is considered the recommended site based upon its superior results for walkability, nearby amenities, site potential, and being a real estate catalyst-- the four criterias established to evaluate the three proposed sites. Walkability Promoting walkability in urban areas is essential for a healthy sustainable community as defined by the current design philosophy of Walkable Urbanism. This site possesses the following attributes: • Adjacent to residential neighborhoods • Property is bordered by existing sidewalks • Nearby vehicular traffic of the boulevard is steady but no rapid speeds Nearby Amenities The presence of a multitude and variety of amenities near the development create density, diversity, and interconnectivity. Within a half -mile radius from the property are the following amenities: • Grocery store, pharmacy, a religious institute, a school, restaurants, a bowling alley, and residential neighborhoods. Site Potential The site was evaluated on its development potential including the following amenities: • Nearby utility connections • Fairly large size property • Site is already cleared Real Estate catalyst For the overall well being of the city's future, Burditt Consultants also evaluated the larger implications of the recreation center's development and how it could create positive change including: Revitalization of an existing dense area Inspire like -kind new developments along N Alexander Dr. Prompt local business owners to remodel their existing facilities aarX -1 a�ocen�grocery s/ore BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 11 ,, Stakeholder/Public Input Burditt Consultants engaged stakeholder and public input through the Problem -Seeking Method to derive a program statement. A Program Statement is an essential step in the architectural design process. It clarifies intent and requirements, while identifying restraints and boundaries. It provides the "recipe" for a design, including objectives, instructions, expectations, desired outcomes, and controls required to achieve both satisfactory and intended results. It involves several key efforts, including: • Staff meetings • Public engagement efforts • Web -based public survey • Market analysis • Site analysis • Programming interviews Establishing a Program Statement is a discovery process to identify and make clear the Facts, Goals, Concepts, and Needs of the project. This includes clarifying, during initial meetings, the expectations and desired outcomes of key stakeholders and community members for the building and site. Facts include understanding current market demand, program services of the Baytown Parks and Recreation Department, City/staff needs, key stakeholders, relevant regulatory/current building code requirements, challenges to services operations, and analysis of the future site. Goals consider relevant objectives within the current Baytown 2025 Comprehensive Plan and Playbook } 2020 Strategic Parks and Recreation Master Plan. As part of the interview process, goals are clarified for specific focus groups, patron/user experience, VI and functional/operational targets. U w 00 Concepts embrace a representative notion, idea of the expectations or desired outcome. It is not limited to proposed building and site attributes. The intent is to represent, through design, a preferred result, activity, or experience. Needs are clarified by recognizing and acknowledging current requirements and future demand. The "gap" between these two forces is also explored. This process is actualized through interviews, public engagement, surveys, and market analysis to effectively pinpoint the opportunities and challenges that exist for each project and determine reasonable solutions that align with the facts, goals, and concepts of the Project. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study meering. /Y 1'oe �F 12 The findings from the Problem -Seeking Method are summarized below in the categories of function, form, economy, and time: FUNCTION • Consider a range of recreational, community, and wellness opportunities. • Consider access and program for all individuals in the community. • Connect to the local community and corridor development. • Incorporate best practices regarding building and site performance. • Consider safety throughout the site. FORM ry I • Since the project should be inspirational with places to socialize; the proposed design should include active and passive spaces • Incorporate building form that resonates with the site and community. • Include an iconic, eye-catching entry. • Create a significant facility that is both current and comfortable in its design. • Integrate deep overhangs for shade and outdoor socializing, BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 13 2 D U W O a Sustainability Strategies Respect for natural resources and sustainable development is a essential part of the Master Plan and Pre -Schematic Design of a Recreation Center built for longevity. Sustainable Development is one Burditt Consultants' services and remains a strong mandate for our continued practice. A balanced definition of sustainable development includes a planning and design approach that considers impacts to the environment, economics, and people. "... Development that meets the ecological, economic, and social needs of the present without compromising the future". Key sustainable development goals for the feasibility study of the Baytown's Recreational Center future potential site include: Goal #1 - Keep the existing trees a'ong Town Cir. and only add new vegetation to s;te that is native to the region and thus will help preserve the local ecosystems and slow down storm water runoff during intense rains. Goal #2 - As a supplement to natural vegetation, the site can be designed to handle stormwater with a combination of permeable paving, rain gardens, and below -parking lot catchment/detention system. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study Goal #3 - Promote multi -modal access with adjacent residences and institutions, including a local church. Local patrons can access the facility and site using sidewalks, nature trails, and bike paths. Goal #4 - Minimize the footprint of the building (and thus impact on the environment) by stacking the building into two stories. A smaller developed footprint contributes to an overall increase in permeable surface to manage stormwater as well as reduction in heat island effect. Goal #5 - Utilize daylighting strategies to reduce the electrical demand for light. The exterior facade can be designed to allow natural daylight with a curtain wall system strategically placed around the building perimeter. Goal #6 - Create energy optimization with efficient MEP and building envelope systems and use of renewable energy sources such as solar panels on elevated surfaces. Goal #7 - Develop healthy interiors by implementing low/zero-emitting VOC products and acoustically absorptive materials. 14 FO 2 ISSUES [AREA OF FOCUS SMARDSHIP Social Spaces Public Connection On-site spaces to accommodate and engender public interaction by promoting relationship building. Foster involvement and use of space with local public initiatives. Adaptability Develop built spaces that can accommodate for multiple activities and integrate Construction flexibility for expansion/ RESOURCES change of use. Resourcefulness Reuse local materials and products, align synergies with local establishments to share staff, programs and spaces. Nature Selection of native drought -tolerant plants + Efficient irrigation system with recycled water + a visible and physical connection HEALTH to nature for occupants. Materials Materials can improve Indoor Air Quality with reduced air pollutants and Low-VOC materials. Materials can be cost effective + low maintenance if the appropriate durable products are selected.. Site Low impact development + Passive/Natural pre-treatment of storm -water + Natural filtration + Infiltration (Vegetation/Soil) TECHNOLQGY + Storage/Reuse systems + Rainwater collection. Energy Energy use can be reduced by utilizing passive heating and cooling. Low-energy appliances, Natural daylight, Efficient lighting, High -efficiency climate control, and meeting Tree canopy requirements. Place Create a sense of place with Local environment, Regional architecture, Outdoor/Indoor interaction, and Outdoor Program EXPERIENCE spaces. + Vitality Enhance vitality by clustering density and activity at core, connection to trails and common areas to serve as focal points for interaction, and available interactive/educational events. The new proposed Recreation Center and site has integrated sustainable development attributes into its design at all scales from the beginning of its conception and maintains the ability to integrate more best practices in more depth when further design work is completed. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study is 02 Q U LU 0 R a. Cost Recovery Model The financial performance of a potential recreation center is a vital aspect of feasibility. A model Operating Budget was developed for the facility's proposed program reflective of Baytown's current budgeting methodologies and through comparison to similar facilities. Cost recovery targets were also developed to ascertain the necessary activity levels and pricing required to achieve cost recovery goals. Maximum Operating Costs of just over $1.21 million annually are anticipated based on the size of the facility and proposed program. Overall, the budget is fairly conservative to the high end of the cost spectrum. Operating costs are primarily driven by Personnel and Services expenditures. These costs may be lower in actuality depending on staffing and 3rd party services choices made by City staff upon opening of the facility. Operating costs also fluctuate directly with activity levels. Cost recovery modelling assists with setting activity utilization capacities and necessary price rates to be charged to patrons. Costs were allocated across the various program spaces based on proportional square footage. Cost recovery goals were created based on the level of social benefit provided by the various program spaces. For example, Child and Youth play spaces impar, for more public and social benefit compared to Social meeting room spaces which largely have an individual benefit. Consequently, each program space was assigned a cost recovery goal between 20% and 75%. The resultant net cost recovery goal is just over 60% of annual costs. Finally, targets of 50% of maximum activity capacity were established as the utilization rate at which to meet these cost recovery goals. These targets yield a price rate for each type of program space. These price rates are formulated based on Patron -Hours or Renta -Hours and are a function of allocated cost and targeted activity levels to reach attainment. The resultant pricing reflects a highly competitive and affordable facility that can achieve cost recovery goals at utilization rates based on half of program operating hours and capacity. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study Activity levels at 50% of maximum capacity (235 patron -hours per day) at an average charges of $5.87 per patron -hour achieves 117% of cost recovery goals in the model and results in a General Fund subsidy of approximately $204,000 annually. At each of the potential activity and cost levels, the overall General Fund subsidy ranges from $185,259 to $214,494. Several variables associated with activity levels, program choices, marketing, and other factors can substantially affect these potential outcomes positively or negatively. Cost recovery goals could certainly be met at a lower threshold with higher pricing than in the model without negatively affecting accessibility. Net positive revenues are possible with higher levels of activity and effective programming mix between memberships and individual day passes. Furthermore, it will be important for the City to clarify cost recovery goals in the facility in order to refine and develop pricing rates which achieve optimal financial performance. However, as the model shows, achieving reasonable cost recovery goals with modest pricing reflective of market cond tions in the Baytown area is possible with consistent yet modest activity utilization. 16 Summary Master Budget Cd_) Various Activity A Cost Levels Activity Levels @ % of Max Capacity - 25-YA MOA ZMA o Activity Level Individual $20 Youth (Patrons or Rental Hrs) Patrons 57,81 78,709 1 18,063 157,418 Rental Hrs 48 $97 1,45 1,943 Revenues Usage Fees $207,449 $414,898 $622,34 $829,79 Rentals $26,534 $53,069 $79,603 $106,138 Total Revenues $233,984 $467,967 $701,951 $935,93 $3 Track $3 $2 Racquetball Total Costs $448,4 $672,71 $896,95 $1,121,19 Net Revenue $(214,494) $(204,749) $(195,004) $(185,259 Cost Recovery Target $266,092 $399,137 $532,183 $665,22 % of Cost Recovery Goal 88% 117% 132% 141% Pricing Table Active Program Space ctivity Day Passes & Pool Individual $20 Youth $13 Family $45 embership Passes (Annual) Individual Membership $252 Couples' Membership $403 Family Membership $604 Ingle -Use Day Passes (per Hr) Individual Youlh Courts $13 $7 Pool $6 $3 Track $3 $2 Racquetball $1 $5 Weight & Cardio Room $ $3 Exercise Rooms $ $3 Multi -Purpose Rooms $ N/A Senior Rooms $1 N/A Child/Youth Rooms N/ $2 Full Room Rentals Indoor Court (Multi -Use) #1 per Hr $79 Indoor Court (Multi -Use) #2 $79 Racquet Ball Courts $27 Weight & Cardlo Equip Room $121 Group Exercise Room $67 Group Exercise (Dance) $12 Indoor Track $58 Teen Game Room $19 Childcare $15 Pool - Child & Adult $72 Pool - Multi -Purpose Room $5 Structured Play $21 Multi -Purpose Room _ _ $45 Senior's Game Room $16 BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 17 BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 18 03 Des*�gn Process Project Understanding Early Massing Diagrams & Site Circulation Design Process Preliminary Site Development Concepts Programming Process Interior Program Adjacency Study BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 19 V) V) LU U 0 a_ a (7 w BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study VII D kr'G4c-q (AIM IqK) a AA4:. ��144 PEI Project Understanding This study represents the culmination of approximately six months of analysis, programming, community and stakeholder input, architectural and landscape design, financial analysis, and market analysis in developing the City of Baytown's Feasibility Study for a newly envisioned Baytown Recreational Center. The facility is located on the recommended 9 acre site by the existing Kroger on N Alexander Dr. Feasibility studies are integral to city decision making by providing not only need assessment for the community but also identifying the competitive opportunities generally available to users within a specific region. The resulting document provides the analysis and assessment, concept development, and financial impact study for the City's new Recreation Center. The study was conducted in such a way as to connect architects and planners with community stakeholders as well as officials, advisory boards, and staff to understand and articulate the needs, capacity, and resources which must coalesceto create a meaningful and useful feasibility study. Developing consensus through relevant programming, design concepts, market analysis, capital investment, and operational budgeting, the report strives to effectively execute all components of the City's project goals and objectives. Additionally, the site has been evaluated in a comprehensive manner to ensure that green infrastructure and site sustainability are treated as vital attributes to the City's vision for a recreational facility meant to last 50 years. Every initiative throughout the project assignment has been conducted in an effort to provide the City a means to effectively understand the need for a recreation center with both active and social areas, and establish a premise for the resulting design recommendations. To accomplish these goals, robust public engagement was conducted along with intensive staff interviews, market analysis, and practical cost recovery modeling. Sde LocolorMop BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 21 V) N W U O a z cD N W Early Massing Diagrams & Site Circulation Burditt Consultants originally proposed locating the recreational center on the Kroger lot at N Alexander Dr and Ward Rd. by either rehabilitating the existing Kroger grocery store to be a recreation center or to work with -the adjacent empty lot (the recommended site) to develop a new facility. Below is a summary of those studies: V) Scenario 2: This concept shows how the U existing vacant lot behind the retail facility o could developed into a recreation center zcampus. Site entrance is provided along Ro Alexander Drive. Street trees, complimentary Lu to those along Alexander, line the streets at Alexander, creating a park -like environment at the street, which screens parking and recreation from the street. The Recreation Center is massed on one side of the site, with outdoor aquatics to the rear of the property. Opportunities for connection including public transportation, adjoining neighborhoods, and schools would be accommodated. Conclusion: The team supported this approach of new development since it allowed more flexibility for what amenities could be included and in various configurations. Scenario 1: This concept depicts the possibility of redeveloping an existing retail facility to be recreation center with its associated parking and on-site outdoor recreation areas. This layout includes two egress/ingress connections to the Alexander and Ward corridors to minimize curb cuts along this primary corridor. This concept converts some of the pavement on site to greenspace which could be programmed for active and passive open play. Parking is broken up into smaller footprints with vegetative screening, creating more of a park -like environment. Conclusion: Due to the complications of rehabilitating an aging grocery store with limited ceiling height to be a state -of -the art recreation center, this approach was not recommended. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 22 Design Process The design process which led to the development of the master plan and consequentially the schematic design of the facility was highly informed by establishing the programmed spaces to be included in the project. Below is a diagram that depicts the chronological order of meetings, events, and entry of input that led to the refinement of the programmed spaces and thus the layout and design for the facility and its site. May 4th Project Kick-off (Establish Input) ____________________________________- May 9th Online Survey Opened _ --------------------------------------- May 23rd Library Staff Input _______________________ Steering Committee Input -------------------------------- YMCA -______________________ __ YMCA Input --------------------------------------- Pirates Bay Input May 31st Townhall Meeting Input _____________________. June 15th Online Survey Closed June 27th Draft Program Statement _ _ _ _ .. _ with Burditt Research and Analysis July 16th Steering Committee Input . - _ _ _ .. _ _ _ U O Z July 26th Conceptual Site Plan W lNX v � August 16th Programming Adjacencies _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ '/0 August 29th Schematic Building Design BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 23 m Preliminary Site Development Concepts Once all the input was received for desired recreat•on center programs, Burditt Consultants went through a master planning exercise to layout a facility and exter or amenities that best aligned with all the requests. Below are the results presented as Concept A, B, C, and a comparable facility for context. Conceptual Option A IZ�a �I , j,_f Concept A includes: This conceptual masterplan is the most dense option but accommodates the most amount of requested interior and ot! exterior recreation amenities. The parking garage was added to help increase parking capacity without encroaching on � all the available exteriorsace. ra P .J� a • 150,000sf 3 -story facility > �' • 100,000sf 3 -story parking garage J• 330 parking spaces (504 spaces �p would be required) h �� • Opinion of Probable Cost (OPC): $74M - $98M Conceptual Option B u .% ,`:.. Concept B includes: �f This conceptual masterplan is a hybrid �,: �� :r •.:,,, option of keeping all the interior o.,/� 3 ' program spaces but more of the exterior program spaces are reduced to allow f for more surface parking. No parking =� garage is added but there are parking spaces provided underthe building's s Al,a �• cantilever. % 4 -La ,;;, �, • 150,000sf 2 -story facility - - • 188 parking spaces (504 spaces g would be � required) ,�r • Opinion of Probable Cost (OPC): .- $68M - $80M 44 t.BA N - Recreation Center Feasi ility Study 24 Conceptual Option C 117 1 VFW - AV r �I I• , 6 Concept _C_ includes: This conceptual masterplan is the least dense option. The interior program spaces are reduced as a compromise to keep of the exterior program spaces. No parking garage is proposed since ample parking can be achieved with surface parking lots. • 50,OOOsf 2-storyfacility • 214 parking spaces (170 spaces would be required) • Opinion of Probable Cost (OPC): $36M - $50M Comparable Facility The Parks & Recreation Staff N Uj suggested an overlay of a known existing facility, the Mont Belvieu o Eagle Pointe Recreation Complex, 6 N Lu on the recommended site to show a sense of scale. Seeing the 67,OOOsf facility in context of the site helped the staff decide on an appropriately sized building. 25 V) U 0 CL CL Z C� N LJ 0 Programming Process The program for the proposed Recreation Center was established by first collecting as much input as possible from various user groups. This process and the documentation of the input received is depicted in Stakeholder/ Public Input within Section 5: Research & Data of this document. Once a master list of desired indoor and outdoor amenities was created, Burditt Consultants went through a refinement process of working with Baytown Parks & Recreation staff and the Steering Committee to prioritize what spaces should be included and what would create a recreation center that's appropriate in size and cost for the City of Baytown. The previously prepared Preliminary Si±e Concepts helped accelerate decisions and create a sense of context for why and where provided spaces should be limited. Below is a diagram summarizing the suggested program spaces that were included in the proposed recreation center and the suggested program spaces that were excluded (either due to extreme specialty of space, expense of maintenance, or lack of popular support). The exhibit on thefollowing sheetshows a more detailed list of the proposed program spaces, their corresponding areas, type of activity, and which stakeholder group expressed interest/support for the programmed space. ENTRY Lobby Reception Cafe Ch•,d Watch Structured Play FPROPOSED BUILDING PROGRAM r J PUBLIC USE Teen Room Senior's Room Multi -Purpose Rooms Public Restrooms MEMBER'S ONLY Indoor Courts Locker Courts Elevated Track Group Fitness Rooms Racket Ball Courts Strength/Card o Equip. Rooms Recreationa' Indoor Pool Adult Aerob'c Indoor Pool SUGGESTED BUT NOT INCLUDED STAFF ONLY Offices Open Workstations Conference Room Administration Utility Rooms Laundry Room Indoor Food Court/ Plaza Pool Multi -Purpose Rooms Consessions Heated Group Exercise Sauna & Steam Room Conference Warming Kitchen Pool Restrooms Free Range Play Reading/ Study Rooms IndoorTennis Court Executive Offices Roller Skating Room Satellite Public Library Dedicated Public Event Space Kitchen C:assrooms Bowling Alley Rock Climbing Wall Bingo Hall Conference Rooms Ice Skating Rank Lap Pool BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 26 M Interior Program LOBBY Man mbanm 1 1,001 SF 1001 SF RECEPTION SIepW Gtlb nPewa end haXW V9nb 1 158 SF IN SF CAFE W6 se .kea— mlln •aprnw mwrasa amooNbr 1 858 SF 888 SF PUBLIC RESTROOM Reah•anu lu pubicad nanvnarn0ara 2 92 SF 1M SF Y TEEN GAME ROOM Wu a- eb had•Y. phg Pug, "—oaiebns a1c 1 7]0 IF 720 SF r ' CHILDCARE 1— shahena I.. d.,*N.W;n bN aleapeg 1 W9 5F 619 IF Y r "•`-� STRUCTURED PLAY Ndau plaY9nrnd: mshkm 8o g high ca npa 1 1.01+ IF 1017 IF RESTROOM CHILDREN pdvXle nabpoms l>UtlaN WdvntrT 2 fib IF 13S IF MULWURPOSE ROOM mupWa•, kd IOW sale rtk"ddpe. moYb GVNna 21.890 IF 3,380 SF Y SENIO" GAME ROOM pigponp V�LIS, rad,shits. b—.. atuapa 1 995 IF 995 SF INDOORCOIIRT(BULTI415E) NN and he—can6Pea' db ..Lw Yw 2 7999 IF 15.998 IF _ Y 1 �1 1 y '••-7." CO -BLEACHERS ROOUR URT 1•bampap MaaNnslu apactelon 1 1272 SF 1.272 5F ROOORCWRT•BTORAGE Wpes pemun webs MpWm W•gWWn If wW 1 499 IF 499 IF Y A' INDOOR COURT. COACHES ROOM plxe lu wdxa, ralereaa to mad 1 120 IF 120 SF POUL•CN7lD AAOUL.T en0y dddenl pad —iatluB kRNSUonw pod t 4.2W SF 1.262 SF Y r - POGL-STORAGE F 170 SF i POOL -OBSERVATION DECKnmrdlml maeuauan Oatl dpodaO _ 1 582 SF 582 IF Y POOL-ACTNITYROOM n..PWpase nom wdh wlAne13• 1 288 IF 206 SF LOCKER ROOMS hide.: bulla' Ynwan: ww•Slonts. asks 2 1N0 SF 2.860 IF Y C� v L Y WEIGHT A CARDIO EOUP ROOM —V0, gWW-1, hee+wlghD. badwes 1 7300 5F 7.300 IF Y _ GROUP EXERCISE ROOM spall Aou'Irieda opebiiba, 2 2,150 SF 6.300 5F Y r * Y GROUP EXERCISESTORAGE slcnpa brBNan dna ogWpmed: •Ywed between rooms 2280 IF 520 IF GROUPEXER03 DANCE) dwe Boar meeu cyMYba. 1 121 IF 721 IF Y i� r r Y GROUP EXERCISE)OANCE) STORAGE abnpa lu nln•a•daaa •gupn.d; •nand b•Iwnnrmna 82 SF Be IF RACGUETBALLCOURTS 600 5F 1.600 5= Y — FRSTA®ITRA0IFA aahnaO: •aamkulbn bnN:Yd Ygllpng: 1 269 SF No IF Y UPSTAIRS RESTROOYS shgb utll iaiva nabddms Iv ups'aha 2 150 SF ]IIS 5F STAFF -OFFICES nmsad al6cawlNfa . 2 120 5F 240 SF Y CONFERENCEROOM uerlm,e mdbb. roFv ah W. media mpabIWa; basad, 1 277 S277 IF Y STAFF• OPEN WORKSTATIONS opm wukwbwaFSYOm•nrp leak area 1 477 SF 437 IF Y STAFF LAUNDRY L.m ,nom lu 1—h ate. 1 200 SF 200 IF Y DATAIELECCLOSET 1 120 11 20 IF MECHAMICALCLOSET - 1 415 IF 4.6 IF RISER ROOM - 1 51 SF 51 IF INDOOR TRACK I/I6 rdM apwlnbo. •h.w a6ow avurbLabr 1 aloe SF 11. SF Y >ad!.tbHl<I. WLaGRA0S7 _ .. _. - INDOOR FOOD COURTIPLAZA bods•rvtu woes ertl bschaplauaa spec• 1-2.21R) SF 2,250 SF ._.. ..._. r VENORO VESTIBULE vandup mecnMa 1 225 SF225 SF GROUP EXERCISE INFATEO) mpetad lbm mpeMa al Mlamgretuna 1 2000 IF 2.000 SF LOCKER ROOM -SAUNA ASTEAY uuw erW weem nun wdNn sed brier raven 2 1713 IF 340 SF CONCESSIONS bad,&M pep •M dUNWBon wtlmaahNea 1 240 IF 240 IF V OFFICE WORKROOM m mer pl— Papa supply 1 600 IF 100 SF Y OFFICE EXECUTIVE upPadedolrmwOhdealc tluva 1 160 IF 160 SF Y CONFEREHCEWANM KITCHEN w.m, w'�en W.4md.—rmn 1 4013 IF 41 SF Y FREEiRANGE PLAY I— pg. obtda uane pN 1 0.000 IF 8000 SF Y ^ PUSuCuRRARYEVEHTSPACE mi8lpYmae aP•v for a-YI." a pro9renaad•dhNea 1 10013 IF 1.000 SF v STIIOYINEARNG AREA lade•. — W..,mmfaMOb disva; law bbb•. aarp•I. 1 2,025 IF 2.025 SF STORAGE -UTILITY - ] 100 IF 300 SF STGRAGESMALL - 4 100 SF 4SO SF RDOORTENNISCOURT 2 2,808 SF 5818 SF ROLLERBNATR0 RINK 1 5,000 SF 5000 SF BOWLING ALLEY 41-4 210 SF 810 SF ICE SKATING RINK 1 17 ON SF 11000 SF y EQUIPMENT REHTALS 1 600 SFMSF POOL -LAPS ISM hng.8 Lsrioa whb 10 R deep rrdi 0 fi70 SF S ]58 SF Y r Y Y — POOL •YULTHURPOSEROOM rmwgrpose nam 0UI kit . 1 WI IF 075 SF POOL-YANAGEROFFICE oMm dediraadbmwpu 9lnWbhm 1 120 SF 120 IF POOL-STAFFOFRCE umMay aSin MalaObshen wVh employes hicks. 120 5F 120 IF POOL-UNLSEXRESTROOMS 2 100 SF 200 SF POD L -SHOWER RRSE padad•aeoweru0 nae 3 12 SF 37 5F POOL • SPECTATORISLEACHERS spddu u-, la Pad -M... 4 210 IF 010 SF POOL• RESTROOMS LARGE Reabooms br Urge evens O.s bem•meds pndW _) 2 1 O 5F 7000 IF CLASSROOM KITCHEN amdwd wwhan epptlancea. loud pnpsnbn uWd 390 IF 400 SF Y PUBLIC LIBRARY SATELLITE kbak lu bmkreuen'pidwp bmkshehea lu 1— r 100 5F 100 SF r CONFERENCE SMALL. a 1nam, pbsa door udda I, i... -u- 159 SF 150 5F Y STAFF -SREAKICGPY ROOM modus anaep. alnk, nbdpentr ulbM dduba, mads 1 4]0 SF 4]0 SF STAFF• RESTROOMS aNpb om t P..*uruwa; wet•rdn•t: tYA 100 IF 100 SF Y ROCK CLIMBING WALL _n wwwI—af ft spema 1 2,398 IF 2]9e 6F Y ® "y �Sgna shown as brrquggedad (W Ma arwrnadX N aa6aA'va Ibf nawwd of Md 513x d5npsflAaN wM1a '•'Amxdtln bad as hq?pbrsymatla N 2020 Baybwn 58ahpn Nan BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 17 M Adjacency Study With feedback on a paired -down scope of programmed spaces and more rigid parameters for the recreation center's ultimate size, Burditt Consultants worked through an adjacency matrix that highlighted spaces that needed to be near each other from a range of "absolutely essential" to "undesirable'. These proximity relationships [ended itself to a simplistic room proximity layout representing how potentially level 1 and level 2 of the facility could be grouped and organized as exhibited below. w.S.ffu,a X StaffR.— M aatuaan M,,h N R. n,m muLI WRI-Noon G' w/1 .aun/n•pm�emm�crr olhowdehnedproynm spires rou/dba o �omred m p/ n nei. 1—/ / - —Iu p nsc bi— alba.. d r edp-g—, rpnres -1,1b. bu oyu nrnd rn p/nn ,jpw 1*1 WE w.S.ffu,a X StaffR.— M aatuaan M,,h N R. n,m muLI WRI-Noon G' w/1 .aun/n•pm�emm�crr olhowdehnedproynm spires rou/dba o �omred m p/ n nei. 1—/ / - —Iu p nsc bi— alba.. d r edp-g—, rpnres -1,1b. bu oyu nrnd rn p/nn ,jpw 04 Vis*Mn Concept Introduction Illustrative Master Plan Overview Pre -Schematic Floorplans Key Concepts of the Facility Pre -Schematic Diagrams Pre -Schematic Exterior & Interior Illustrations Opinion of Probable Cost BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 29 LU U Z O U 0 N Introduction The Vision Concept for the 9 acre site, includes a new Recreation Center, surface parking lots with a grandiose entry drive and water feature, space allocated for site detention, and exterior amenities such as an outdoor plaza, walking trail with workout stations, an open lawn, tennis courts, pavilions, playground, horseshoe pits, and a meditation garden. The Recreation Center if built out to its entirety (including the expansions) is approximately 82,000 square feet in area, comprising of two stories for both public and membership -based activities and spaces. The site design concept is meant to be functional and yet grand in its gesture to engage the interests of those passing by and to create a noticeable presence since the recreation center will be located behind two existing facilities already along N Alexander Dr. Texas Accessibility Standards (TAS) is an essential parameter in the design and development of the new Recreation Center and adioin.ng improvements. Accessibility to facilities, structures, and trails, as well as within play spaces, for all patrons regardless of potential barriers. The outdoor playscape would incorporate an inclusive playground creating opportunities for children and parents of all abilities to be included in activities. Stormwater Management Site permeability and water -runoff strategies are indicative in the design concept for this site. With the recent memory of the Hurricane Harvey effects, it is very important that the site be designed to manage heavy intakes of water. In addition to the large detention pond shown in the site plan, supplemental stormwater management strategies that can be incorporating into the site design include: • Stacking the building into two stories instead of spreading out as a one-story building creates a smaller building footprint and thus reduces the amount of mpermeable surfaces. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study • A below -pavement catchment system partnered with permeable surfaces can mitigate rainfall impact and increase the availability of land for program use. • Stored stormwater may be used for site irrigation, allowing for the reduction of potable water usage. The use of hardy native plants (reference Section 05: Research & Data in this report for list of native hardy plants) will also allow for the reduction of potable water use. • Rain gardens along the perimeters of the parking lots and within the parking lot medians will provide a filter to the stormwater prior to releasing to the streams (as shown below). _o .PI -ft -ah curbside rain garden�': °°�� r and p.nuNnl. a•.alaw mnlrcl.nu[Iur. f �r ��'/�' y' O.a^I P'Pa a0.aus.s.a j 230%L e 700]Olt rts.n � pal.mbd Pw .enirclHa ,c 6asn a.lnom avlki Inlet nom M=knlryel t.mWi IbaCaa, MAl.luy 1plhe Pa:4rq ilal ,•t. 2Ynl:lgf Wflow �erttle ,� r� 30 _ 1d3DIJODNORA auk r � ` ..� r _ fes.• �/ ' . - .//•.frrJJl�`L��_ ISI '7:.�--- � � �� :� n.''4 fC ai T ^ (O - .a vo . A a J J ///usMaled klob///ly Plan Zvi/h AddA/leinole /// cpp/ied/ Similar to the parking layout shown in Concept C of the Preliminary Site Concepts, 214 parking spaces have been included which exceeds the 204 parking spaces delineated by the City of Baytown Ordinance requirements based upon building square footage. Given this particular site location, vehicle access to the site will mostly be from the thoroughfare, N Alexander Dr. This will be the location of the main vehicular entry in addition to a secondary entry/exist tying into Danubina St. that would have to be constructed. Also, the shape of the 9 acre site provides more land mass further back into the property and thus it makes sense to locate the building and its future expansions towards the back of the property and keep vehicular traffic towards the front. r a f � ' • "��A1:f:+f3aktt „Gia: 'C 2 Legend Proposed Vehicular Circulation Emergency Access Proposed Pedestrian Walks CLCL Proposed Trail u z o` Existing City Roads u 0 In > BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 33 The main concept for the new facility is focused on controlled access for members/non-members and providing multi -use spaces. Both active and non-active spaces are provided for those looking for intense physical activity or those looking for more social/communal interactions. There are also dedicated areas for individuals of various age groups ranging from Child Watch to a Senior's Game Room. The building is organized and grouped by similar activity zones. On level 1, the main entry comprises of mostly social public areas that are welcoming to visitors and the general public. Directly behind the main entry and the featured double staircase are two indoor mulfi-use courts, the largest space and heart of the facility. From there, member -only spaces are accessed through the west wing (including an indoor pool) and public social -based spaces are accessed through the east wing. Dedicated staff work spaces distributed on both sides of the building. Level 2 consists of member -only spaces associated with h'gh activity such as the elevated indoor running track, fitness classrooms, racquet -ball courts, and ca-dio/ weight room. All the shown spaces in the foor plans can be categorized as follows-. • Active (indoor courts, locker rooms, fitness classrooms, racquet -ball courts: strength/cardio equipment room, etc.) • Children (child watch, structured play, etc.) • Circulation (corridors, elevator, stairs, etc. • Indoor Pool (adult and recreational poo:, lifeguard room, activity room, etc.) • Social (lobby, reception, cafe, multi-purpose rooms, senior's room, teen room, etc.) • Staff (offices, workstations, laundry room, etc.) • Utilities (electrical/IT, mechanical, fire riser, etc.) BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study Within this chapter of the feasibility report, four (4) implementation scenarios are presented that include a detail review of improvements and associated Opinions of Probable Cost (OPC). The OPC is an earty order of magnitude projection of value to execute the project. It provides a range of potentia! costs and gives a high level overview of required investment. The Initial kick-off of development begins with overall site development, minimal landscaping, infrastructure, a new Recreation Center, surface parking lots and driveways, and a dedicated detention pond. In addition to the primary recreation center development, the Natatorium can be expanded to add competitive lap pools. In addition to the primary recreation center development, the indoor courts can be doubled in size to create a gym large enough to host indoor soccer. In addition to the primary recreation center development, the exterior site can be enhanced to include more landscape features and outdoor recreational spaces. 34 Pre -Schematic Floorplans Floorplan with Department Legend BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 35 c 0 idDNO7 MOISIA ®®® i -col EW% SNA KM � E, p f -M Bog � �° G"d EW mea C � P °E`er +m fm *0 m m 33 111 213 El M Im ddd -k -k 113 m M M3 -0 :M M3 M IM rs IIm 1 f L r i 3L r Key Concepts of the Facility Throughout the programming and design process of a feasible recreation center for the city of Baytown, key concepts/needs were expressed by the staff to be included. Burditt Consultants also created architectural solutions to the needs and goals stated by the Parks and Recreation Staff that addressed and in general create a successful building that would be embraced by the community. The following concepts were strongly embraced by the proposed recreation center's architecture and are illustrated further in the following diagrams. The organization of the facility's floorplan is sensitive to how and where visitors enter the building and circulate it. There is one main entrance and exit to the facility with a separate secondary entrance/exit to the cafe directly. There is one other secondary exit at the end of the corridor by the social gathering rooms so visitors can exit from there once their event is over. All other exterior doors shown are for emergency exiting. This will help the staff managing the operations of the recreation center to monitor who enters and exits the facility. In addition to strategic entry/exits, the spaces in the facility are group by members -only and open to the public. This ensures that anyone visiting as a non-member knows which area of the building is available for their access and staff can more easily monitor those accessing the members -only areas have checked in. Given that the proposed facility is designed to be two stories, Burditt Consultants sought to create interconnectivity throughout the building to create a sense of openness, connection to what's happening throughout the facility, and passive opportunities to showcase its various amenities and programs. The recreation center is more than a place for individuals who want to be physically active. It is a place where people can be social, either intentionally by going to the cafe to meet someone, going to a meeting in the multi-purpose room, or to congregate with friends in one of the social spaces... or unintentionally by bumping into someone in the corridor or seeing someone/something they know through the interior spaces designed to be transparent and interconnected. The intention of the recreation center is to provide a variety of activity options for a variety of potential users-- despite their physical abilities, interest, or age group they associate with. There are spaces provided that are specific to different age groups but in general many of the spaces can be used for a variety of activities by a variety of individuals. With the inclusion of an elevator in the facility, people with limited physical abilities can access the second floor as well. Flexible use of space was one of the main goals stated by the Parks and Recreation staff for the recreation center. Having multi -use spaces allows the facility to maximize its utilization to serve various interest groups and also helps with the longevity of the facility to be adaptable for unknown demands needed in the future. The development of a future recreation center is more than a development of one building, it is the development of an attractive amenity for the community that will initiate adjacent development and revitalization along N Alexander Drive. Oncethe recreation becomes a popular destination, drawing a larger crowd and higher traffic volume to the area, it will likely inspire like-minded developments in its vicinity who will want to appeal to the clientele. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 39 LU U Z 0 U 0 N_ i LU U Z O U z O V) Diagram - Controlled Access BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study Emergency Exits Ovvvvvv �F' - r-' General Public Open Access Members Only Access 40 44 S= T1- -nm N" F -- CL W U Z O U z O 1 Diagram - Social Hub N Q vvvv rn O vvvvvv vvvvvv O vvvvvvv vvvvvvv Q vvvvvvv vvvvvvv vvvvvvv BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 42 Diagram - Diversity Children Teens Adults Seniors Child Watch Teen Room Multi -Purpose Room Structured Play Cafe Instructional Pool Recreational Pool Open Courts Open Courts Indoor Track IndoorTrack Fitness Classes Strength/Cardio Racquetball Courts Senior Game Room Instructional Pool Open Courts IndoorTrack Fitness Class Room Strength/Cardio Racquet Ball courts d Less Active Games Walking Strength Swimming Running Racquetball More Active More Social Less Social BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 43 LU U 7 O U z O L LU U O U 0 V) Diagram - Multi -Use The indoor courts are collegiate - size and would provide enough space for two games to happen simultaneously. The indoor courts can be divided into half courts that would allow four games to happen simultaneously. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 44 �4 I I i i ] The indoor courts are collegiate - size and would provide enough space for two games to happen simultaneously. The indoor courts can be divided into half courts that would allow four games to happen simultaneously. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 44 I BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 9. Volleyball courts can be setup within the indoor courts that would provide enough space for two games to happen simultaneously. Pickleball courts can be setup within the indoor courts that would provide enough space for four games to happen simultaneously. 45 LU U z 0 U Z 0 N_ Diagram - A Larger Purpose View of Existing Condition of N Alexander Dr. LU U Z 0 u These images capture how the development of the Recreation Center can Q be a catalyst for development along the N Alexander Dr. and throughout > the community. The three images show a hypothetical progression of how the existing state of the underdeveloped corridor can transition into being a pedestrian -friendly destination with extensive street -front development that enhances the experience of the space. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study View of N Alexander Dr right after the 46 recreation center is developed View of N Alexander Dr with further development/beautification of the corridor 0 BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 47 L ULLJ Z 0 U 0 ..- Xi' 0101-0 BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study MEMIt- j 48 i 1_ v i ,-is —= Ate: r; F- CL LL U Z O U z 0 Pre -Schematic Exterior & Interior Illustrations PRIMARY RECREATION CENTER DEVELOPMENT: EXTERIOR The proposed design aesthetic for the facility is modern Miami -style, volumous in proportions to evoke the n&,v age of development 'n the vibrant coastal city of Baytown. There is an integration of large expanses of glass contrasted with thick frames of solid material to create a sense of openness that is solid and durable. ..I—1 -1"1..1— ii viii It IU vc1c11v1. «fUIIUI VICPW, IUL_ Ing un me wesr wing of me tacNity where the indoor pool will be. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feas'bTty Study 50 F- CLLU U Z 0 U 0 PRIMARY RECREATION CENTER DEVELOPMENT: INTERIOR The interior spaces are illuminated naturally from the surrounding curtain wall exposure. Much of the building has no finished ceiling which exposes the ductwork and structure as an economical solution that also creates a comfortable informal atmosphere. Surfaces are durable and simple with strategic color accents to help with wayfinding and identity of the building's different areas. Tall rooms and wide hallways help to bring a comfortable, spac ous feeling. There are both grand entry and concealed egress stairs, along with an elevator to help with vertical circulation between the two floors. Main entrance looking toward the reception desk and point of check-in for child watch. l view rrom me inaoor eievarea running track circulating the two multi -use courts below. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 52 I U z O U z O Opinion of Probable Cost: Primary Development Al ,r� .i'.+� tom• � t ,a -Sty The above image (colored) graphically represents the Primary Recreation Center Development. Amenities and related site improvements include the following. • Recreation Center (62,000 SF approx.) • Concrete Driveways and Parking • Sidewalks • Lighting • Detention Pond • Minimal Landscaping/Irrigation Cost Category General Requirements (5%) Main Facility Parking & Sidewalks Minimal Landscape Detention GC Overhead & Profit (25%) Contingency (5%) Total Cost Low $857,590 $15,610,800 $1,024,000 $452,000 $65,000 $4,502,348 $1,125,587 Med $1,020,973 $18,732,960 $1,034,000 $577,500 $75,000 $5,360,108 $1,340,027 High $1,183,656 $21,855,- 20 $1,054,000 $679,000 $85,000 $6,214,194 $1,553,549 $23,637,324 $28,140,568 $32,624,519 BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 54 I f J i``�� "'•fir r�.� �• f Fp5"� +� �. f The above image (colored) graphically represents the Primary Recreation Center Development. Amenities and related site improvements include the following. • Recreation Center (62,000 SF approx.) • Concrete Driveways and Parking • Sidewalks • Lighting • Detention Pond • Minimal Landscaping/Irrigation Cost Category General Requirements (5%) Main Facility Parking & Sidewalks Minimal Landscape Detention GC Overhead & Profit (25%) Contingency (5%) Total Cost Low $857,590 $15,610,800 $1,024,000 $452,000 $65,000 $4,502,348 $1,125,587 Med $1,020,973 $18,732,960 $1,034,000 $577,500 $75,000 $5,360,108 $1,340,027 High $1,183,656 $21,855,- 20 $1,054,000 $679,000 $85,000 $6,214,194 $1,553,549 $23,637,324 $28,140,568 $32,624,519 BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 54 I Opinion of Probable Cost: Optional Additions ...- ' �X' The above image (colored) graphically represents the optional additions to the Primary Recreation Center Development. Amenities and related site improvements include the following: - Natatorium Expansion • Competitive lap pool • Spectator seating • Supporting spaces - Gym Expansion • Add two more multi -use indoor courts (expands space to be large enough for indoor soccer) - Site Enhancement • Further enhance exterior landscaping •Add water fountain feature • Add walking trails with workout stations • Add playground equipment • Add 2 Tennis courts • Add meditation garden • Add 2 pavilions Cost Category Low Med Expansion of Natatorium $3,563,163 $4,275,795 Expansion of Indoor Courts $3,937,500 $4,725,000 Exterior Site Upgrades $3,638,218 $4,559,495 High $4,988,428 $5,512,500 $5,764,623 BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 55 u O U z 0 N f, The above image (colored) graphically represents the optional additions to the Primary Recreation Center Development. Amenities and related site improvements include the following: - Natatorium Expansion • Competitive lap pool • Spectator seating • Supporting spaces - Gym Expansion • Add two more multi -use indoor courts (expands space to be large enough for indoor soccer) - Site Enhancement • Further enhance exterior landscaping •Add water fountain feature • Add walking trails with workout stations • Add playground equipment • Add 2 Tennis courts • Add meditation garden • Add 2 pavilions Cost Category Low Med Expansion of Natatorium $3,563,163 $4,275,795 Expansion of Indoor Courts $3,937,500 $4,725,000 Exterior Site Upgrades $3,638,218 $4,559,495 High $4,988,428 $5,512,500 $5,764,623 BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 55 u O U z 0 N BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 56 05 Enhanced Ana�ysis Cost Recovery Model Market Analysis Stakeholder/Public Input Public Outreach Site Selection Analysis of Recommended Site Analysis of Alternative Sites Analysis of Building Code BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 57 Cost Recovery Model A projected Operating Budget for the Recreation Center was developed based on the proposed program. This budget utilizes assumptions of cost originating from existing Baytown budget methodologies and study of similar facilities. Several factors influence the various spending projections but represent the higher end of a conservative est'mate of costs. Finance costs are not currently included in the estimate as there is uncertainty as to what method and sources of funds the City intends to use for funding construction. OPERATING COSTS & ALLOCATION TO PROGRAM SPACE Methodology The cost section of the Operating Budget consists of 4 steps: • Space Allocation • Total Cost Development ° Cost Allocation by Program Space and Category 11 Category -Level Cost Budget Space Allocation summarizes various program space from the room list shown in the overall floor plan by assigning each room to relevant Programs and their larger Categories. For example, the program for Pool includes all the square footage related to the operation and support for Pool operations. These Program Spaces are further cross-sectioned and aggregated into larger Categories along with calculating the share of total Recreation Center space each category represents. This budget breaks program spaces into 4 separate Categories with their associated programs: Category Program Space Basketball Courts Indoor Track Act ve Racquetball Courts Weight & Cardio Room Exercise Rooms Pool Pool Pool Multi -Purpose Room Socia: Multi -Purpose Rooms Senior Game Room Teen Game Room Child/Youth Childcare Structured Play Maximum levels of Total Costs are derived from estimating potential total spending for the Recreation Center and its various programs. This model uses Baytown's current account -level definitions and assumptions based on similar facilities with similar programs. The Cost Allocation step then divides these costs across each Category based on the share of total space each represents. Administrative and Facility floor space is allocated across the 4 Program Categories so that all available space is captured in the operating programs of the Recreation Center. These allocations then form the basis for a Category - Level Cost Budget with each set of programs illustrating their allocated cost. These allocations also form the basis for program pricing developed later in the Cost Recovery section of this report. BAYTOWN - Recreation Ce- er Feasib:, ty Stud, 58 Outcomes The proposed Recreation Center includes 68,678 Square Feet (SF) of total area. Based on the expected programming of this space, approximately 76% is dedicated to Active programs, 10% to Pool programs, 10% to Social space programs, and 5% to Child/Youth space programming (See Table 1). Table 1 Space Types - Quantities by Program & Category Area (SF) Recreation & Fitness Courts $19,198 # of Rooms 1 Activ 19,198 Pool SaSjW C 19,198 Pool $5,813 2 5,813 5,813 Track $6,235 0 6,235 6,235 Racquetball $1,920 1 1,92 1,920 Weight & Cardio Room $8,760 1 8,76 8,760 Exercise Rooms $6,649 3 6,64 6,649 Administrative/Other Admin/OH 1,145 3 1,145 1,145 Public -Use Rooms Multi -Purpose Rooms 4,399 2 343 4,056 4,399 Child/Youth Rooms 2,875 3 2,875 2,875 Senior Rooms 1,194 1 1,194 1,194 Cafe/Kitchen 1,066 1 1,0661 1,066 Common & Support Areas Restrooms 744 3 163 581 744 Locker Rooms 3,456 1 3,45 3,456 Common Area 2,915 3 1,526 1,388 2,915 Support 2,310 91 1,162 20 944 2,310 68,678 3 48,90 6,360 6,31 3,038 4,058 68,67 With Admin/Facility Allocated to Program Space 51,977 6,759 6,712 3,229 Share of Total Allocated Space 76% 10% 10% 5% Note: Denotes Program Space A maximum Total Cost Development examined potential spending for operation of the proposed programs and space. The City's current account -level structure was used to summarize these various costs. For purposes of this report, the following accounts were used: 7100 Personnel 7200 Supplies 7300 Maintenance 7400 Services 7500 Sundry Charges 8000 Capital Outlays 9000 Financing Outlays BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 59 EQ Q z a 0 W U z a Personnel costs assumed a maximum 8 full-time FTEs will be needed for center management and program coordination. An additional 18,200 part-time hours (equivalent to 8.8 FTEs) were estimated for various program and event labor needs throughout the year at capacity levels. These part-time hours are certainly flexible and contingent on many factors including specific recreational program offerings, supervised activities, etc. However, this model assumes a higher level of part-time help to foster a more conservative and credible potential operating budget. Table 2 depicts the anticipated break down of staffing needs for the Center at capacity. Salary and benefits costs were modelled off of pay/cost rates currently seen in the Parks and Recreation budget trends for Baytown. Table 2 Maximum Staffina Levels (FTF1 - Full R v.,.6 T'. -- tino Supervisor oRa, l $ _doQl Child/Yout Admin 1. Coordinator 1,4.Specialist Salaries & Benefits (7100) 254,95 Supplies (7200) $86,278 $165,118 $11,22 1.�18. 82,559 $5,360 585,193 $114,00 Maintenance (7300) $31,78 $4,13 $4,105 Secretary10Facility $42,000 Services (7400) $245,211 $31,889 $31,66 $15,234 Laborer10Full-Time FTE's 2. PT-Hrs 5,209 Part -Time FTE's 2.51 Sundry (7500) $18,164 $2,362 $2,346 $1,128 $24,00 Subtotal Operational Costs $636,396 $214,723 $131,817 2. $1,089,193 5,200 2,60C 2,600 2,600 18,20 2.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 g, Total maximum annual costs are estimated to be approximately $1.12 million (See Table 3). The largest cost drivers are Personnel and Services. As previously discussed, staffing levels, particularly at the part-time level, are highly variable and depend on several decision factors that are difficult to anticipate until the City develops specific program plans for operations. Likewise, Services costs are driven primarily by 3rd party service contracts. model sought to develop a fairly high but reasonable estimate of services costs reflective of potential needs related to program delivery, maintenance, marketing, etc. Financing Outlays are not included in this model as funding sources and methods have yet to be determined by the City. Table 3 is a summary of major account -level costs. Individual estimates for each sub -account level are available in Appendix Table 1. Table 3 aummary or maximum Gosts by Category AC� oRa, l $ _doQl Child/Yout 19191 Operations Costs Salaries & Benefits (7100) 254,95 Supplies (7200) $86,278 $165,118 $11,22 82,55 $11,142 82,559 $5,360 585,193 $114,00 Maintenance (7300) $31,78 $4,13 $4,105 $1,975 $42,000 Services (7400) $245,211 $31,889 $31,66 $15,234 $324,00 Sundry (7500) $18,164 $2,362 $2,346 $1,128 $24,00 Subtotal Operational Costs $636,396 $214,723 $131,817 $106,257 $1,089,193 Capital Outlays (8000) $24,218 $3,14 $3,128 $1,505 $32,00 Financing Outlays 9000; $$ $ $ $ $217,87 $134,945 $107,76 $1,121,19 Total Costs $660,615 BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 60 OPERATING COSTS & ALLOCATION TO PROGRAM SPACE Methodologi, This model uses a Capacity -to -Activity construct to estimate pricing for space and patron usage and resultant potential operating revenues. Many feasibility studies use predictive models with predetermined levels of assumed activity without regard for space/program capacity or impacts of variations from the underlying assumptions. While these models are fairly easy to develop, they are also limited in utility to the project owner in setting goals for cost recovery or estimating the impact of various activity levels that deviate from published assumptions. In contrast, a Capacity -to -Activity model avoids predicting activity levels and instead starts by setting upper limits on the revenue -generating capabilities of the facility based on a combination of time and space constraints. This empowers model users to calculate the impact of deviations from these maximum activity and space capacities thereby creating a realistic picture of facility performance while avoiding the prediction game of simply declaring a set level of activity. Obviously, the probability of 100% capacity usage is unrealistic so the "sliding scale" effect helps users anticipate what -if scenarios for revenue planning. Several factors are developed and used to establish a reliable Capacity -to -Activity model. The first and most important factors are Space and Time. Space provides constraints on patron loads. For example, the Indoor Track can realistically hold about 25 patrons per operating hour. If the track is open for 1,943 hours a year (about 38 hours/week or 5-6 hours/day) then a maximum of 45,586 Patron - Hours are available for use annually. If one wishes to measure the activity impact of the track being utilized by half of the total number of potential users for half of the available operating time (or 25% of the maximum capacity) that means the track can expect 12,146 Patron -Hours of usage (i.e. approximately 11 patrons using the track each hour for just under 3 hours a day, or about 33 patrons a day). Once maximum capacity is determined, Cost Recovery Targets are established. Cost Recovery modelling is a means to estimate how much of a public facility and its programs' costs should be subsidized by the General Fund and how much should be recovered in fee or rental revenues from users. Most cost recovery policies also set various cost recovery goals for different types of users. Many communities seek only to recover direct costs associated with programs and charge different rates to different users based on the level of benefit derived. Based on this concept, a youth program participant would be charged less (high social and public benefit, therefore higher public subsidy) than a commercial entity renting meeting space in that same facility (high individual benefit, therefore low to zero public subsidy). The concept varies from facility to facility and community to community. In essence, Cost Recovery is simply a measure to determine, 1) how much of program costs are to be substantiated by revenues and how much is to be subsidized, 2) at what activity levels revenues meet that goal, and 3) what will be charged to various types of users consistent with the public-private benefit spectrum. Users and programs with high social and public benefit are more heavily subsidized while users and programs with high individual benefit are less subsidized, if at all. Baytown does not currently have a Cost Recovery policy in place so a goal of recovering 55-65% of total costs was used in this specific model by setting individual program space cost recovery goals. Additionally, total costs will fluctuate based on activity levels. As a result, Total Costs are anticipated to vary as follows: % of Maximum % of Maximum Anticipated Capacity Costs Cost 25% Activity Level 40% of Maximum $448,477 50% Activity Level 60% of Maximum $672,716 75% Activity Level 80% of Maximum $896,955 MaximumActivity Level Level 100% of Maximum $1,121,193 BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 61 Relevant factors include: Targeted Cost Recovery Targeted Activity Level for Cost Recovery Targeted Cost Recovery — this factor refers simply to the portion of cost the City wishes to recover through user revenues. Targeted Activity Levels — this factor represents at what portion of maximum activity capacity the City wishes to meet the cost recovery goal. This model, for example, assumes that 50% of the Courts costs should be covered by revenues. It also assumes that revenues to meet these costs should be achieved at 50% of maximum activity capacity. Higher utilization and activity levels obviously yield higher revenues. Combined together, these two factors establish a cost per unit hour (i.e. Patron -Hours, Rental -Hours, etc) which is essentially the price rate charged to a user for a particular space or program. 'f activity usage meets the Targeted Activity Level at these developed price rates, the facility should meet its Targeted Cost Recovery goal. Outcomes Program Peak Hours were set for each of the Program Spaces in the proposed recreation center (See Table 4). Generally, typical program peak hours are estimated to be from 3:00 PM to 8:00 PM on weekdays. Saturdays peak hours are from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM and Sundays from Noon to 5:00 PM. 6 holidays are anticipated for facility closure. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 62 Table 4 Peak Program Hours 6Holidays/Closed Days # 6 Weekday Saturday Sunday Total -Operating Hours Detailed a Close O Open Close I Mont Courts 03:00 PM 08:00 P $C 06:00 PM 12:00 P 05:00 PM 1,94 38 1 Pool 03:00 P 08:00 P $ 06.00 P 12:00 P 05:00 PM 1194 38 1 N Track 03:00 P 08:00 P $ 06:00 P 12:00 P 05:00 P 1,94 38 1 a Racquetball 03:00 P 08:00 P $ 06:00 P 12:00 P 05:00 P 1,94 38 1 Q Weight & Cardio Room 03:00 P 08:00 P $ 06:00 P 12:00 P 05:00 P 1,94 38 1 0 v Exercise Rooms 03:00 P 08:00 P 10:00 06.00 P 12:00 P 05:00 P 1,94 38 1 z = 7 Multi -Purpose Rooms 03:00 P 08.00 P 10:00 06:00 P 12:00 P 05:00 P 1,94 38 1 W Senior Rooms 03:00 P 08:00 P 10:00 A 06:00 P 12:00 P 05.00 P 1,94 38 1 Child/Youth Rooms 03:00 P 08:00 P 10:00 06:00 P 12:00 P 05:00 PM 1,94 38 1 Total Program Operating Hours 17,4911 334 1.4 BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 62 Program space loading measures estimated how many patrons or rental uses each space can accommodate on an hourly basis. When combined with Program Hours (based on Peak Hours) the model yields a level of unit -hours at varying levels of activity. As seen in Table 5, 20 patrons using the Pool space for a total of 486 hours a year yields 9,717 Patron -Hours of pool usage annually, or about 25% of the maximum capacity for the Pool. This equates to about 186 people using the pool each week or 27 people each day for an hour each. Similarly, the Multi -Purpose Rooms available for rent can accommodate 1 rental per hour meaning a 25% activity level yields 486 hours of rental of this particular space annually. These factors create a maximum potential usage capacity which then allows planners to model varying levels of activity for their impact. These factors create a maximum potential usage capacity which then allows planners to model varying levels of activity for their impact. Table 5 Program Space Capacity (Unit -Hours) Activity Drivers Max Load Detailed Program pace (per gram Hrl Courts 20 Patrons Pool 20 Patrons 0 7,774 Patron/Rental Hrs based on Activity Levels 041 10-OkUnit-Hr 15,547 $23,321 31,095 Patron-Hrs 25% $486 _ $486 59 -DA 972 75% 1,458 100% 1,943 23 -OA 9,717 o(s 19,434 U0A 29,151 1000 Units 38,869 Patron -Hr 38,869 Patron -Hr 972 1,458 1,943 9,717 19,434 29,151 Track 25 Patrons $486 972 1,458 1,943 12,146 24,293 36,439 48,586 Patron -Hr Racquetball Weight & Cardio Room 4Patrons $486 972 1,458 1,943 1,943 1,943 14,576 3,887 5,830 7,774 Patron -Hr 58,303 Patron -Hr 30 Patrons $486 972 1,458 29,151 43,727 Exercise Rooms 1 Rental $486 972 1,458 1,943 486 972 1,458 1,943 Rental -Hr Multi -Purpose Rooms 1 Rental 486 972 1,458 1,943 486 972 1,458 1,943 Rental -Hr Senior Rooms 15 Patrons 486 972 1,458 1,943 7,288 14,576 21,864 29,151 Patron -Hr Child/Youth Rooms 30Patrons Total Program HrM 486 972 1,458 1 1,943 1 14,576 1 29,151 43,727 58,303 Patron -Hr 4,37M 8,745l 13,11 17,49 When all the detailed Program Spaces are combined into their respective Categories, the Patron/Rental Hours capacity picture comes more into focus. Table 6 illustrates the combined program activity levels based on increments of maximum capacity. Note that the Active category includes the detailed Program Spaces of Courts, Track, Racquet -ball, the Weight/Cardio Room, and Exercise Rooms. These activity levels were averaged across all 5 programs to capture the capacity levels for the entire Active category which provides a more realistic estimate of user activity based on the full suite of Active program spaces. Table 6 Usage at Various Capacity Levels Active 0 7,774 Patron/Rental Hrs based on Activity Levels 041 10-OkUnit-Hr 15,547 $23,321 31,095 Patron-Hrs Pool 9,717 19,434 $29,151 38,869 Patron-Hrs Social 486 97 $1,458 1,943 Rental-Hrs Child/Youth 14,57 29,151 $43,721 58,3031Patron-Hrs Seniors 7,2881 14,576l $21,86 29,151 Patron-Hrs BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 63 N N Y Q 7 a 0 U z a z W Cost Recovery Targets were set for each Program Space (See Table 7, Targeted Cost Recovery column). These targets were determined by the type of space and the specific customer base the program is meant to serve. Table 7 Cost Recovery & Activity Targets Targeted Detailed a Courts Cos! 50% Targeted Activity Lyl 50% Pool 75% 50% Track 50% 50% Racquetball 750/ 500/ Weight & Cardio Room 75% 50% Exercise Rooms 75% 50% Multi -Purpose Rooms 750/ 50% Senior Rooms 250/ 500/ Child/Youth Rooms 200/ 500/ Services 75% 50% For example, Chi!d/Youth spaces cost recovery goals were established at only 20% of the allocated cost for those spaces due to the overarching social and public benefit derived from the use of those rooms. On the other hand, Social spaces such as the Multi -Purpose Rooms available for rent used a recovery target of 75% of their allocated cost since these rooms are primarily for individual benefit with limited public value and having little need for public subsidy. Targeted Activity Levels were also established for each Program Space. These activ:ty targets determine what level of activity is required to achieve the targeted cost recovery goal for each (See Table 7, Targeted Activity Lvl column). In total, approximately $266,000 of costs are anticipated for recovery at 25% activity levels up to $665,229 at maximum activity levels (just under 61%) based on the aggregated individual cost recovery goals for each Program Space (See Table 8, Cost Recovery column). Base Unit Costs represent the minimum necessary rate to charge per Patron or Rental Hour, Square Foot (SF), or SF -Hour depending on the type of usage to be charged (See Base Unit Cost column in Table 8). The Targeted Unit Cost columns illustrate the individual program space pricing adjusted for cost recovery goals determined earlier in Table 7. Table 8 Cost Recovery Allocations (Maximum) Program Space Cost Courts Recovery Targe Per $148,288 Base Unit Cost (@ max Activity Capacity) Operating H Per SF -H Per - $7 $ $0.004 $3.82 $15 Target Unit Cost $15 $0.00 Per Unit -Hr $B Patron-Hrs Pool $163,40 $6 $28 $0.014 $4.20 $16 $5 $0.02 $8 Patron-Hrs Track $48,163 $25 $8 $0.00 $0.99 $5 $15 $0.00 $2 Patron-Hrs Racquetball $22,24 $11 $T2 $0.00 $2.86 $2 $2 $0.01 $61atron-Hrs Weight & Cardio Room $101,498 $52 $12 $0.006 $1.74 $10 $2 $0.01 $3Potron-Hrs Exerclse Rooms $77,041 $4 $1 $0.00 $39.6 $7 $2 $0.01 A $79Rental-Hrs Multi -Purpose Rooms $53,06 $2 $12 $0.006 $27.31 $5 $2 $0.01 2l $55 Rental-Hrs Senior Rooms $14,40 $7— $12 $0.00 $0.49 $15-$2 $0.012[$1 Patron-Hrs Child/Youth Rooms $53,881 $28 $T $0.01 q $0.92 $55 $3 $0.01 $2 Patron-Hrs BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 64 When these Unit Costs are summarized into their assigned categories and multiplied times their respective activity levels found in Table 6, the following rate schedule and anticipated revenues are produced (See Table 9). Note that all rates are rounded to the nearest dollar resulting in small impacts on Revenue projections Table 9 Potential Revenues at Varying Activity Levels Rate per Hour Patro Renta Active -Pool $2 Patron/Rental Revenues based on Activity Levels 0 0 01000 $173,307 $346,614 $519,921 $693,228 Social $55 $26,534 $53,069 $79,603 $106,138 Child/Youth $2 $26,940 $53,881 $80,821 $107,762 Seniors $1 Total RevenueM $7,2021 $14,40 1$21,601 $28,80 $233,98 $467,9681 $701,95 $935,935 Example #1 — 19,434 Patrons using the Active and pool program spaces at $20 per person results in over $346,614,000 in revenues for that specific space. This activity level of 25% is the equivalent of only 57 patrons using the Active program spaces each day Monday through Saturday. Example #2 - Social program space such as the Multi -Purpose Rooms rented for 18-19 hours per week at $55 per hour yield over $53,000 in revenues annually. Detailed pricing tables for Activity Day Passes, Membership Passes, Single -Use Day Passes, and Room Rental Rates are included in Appendix Table 2. The overall budget develops in Table 10 depicting targeted Cost Recovery occurring just below 50% of activity capacity. This equates to program space being used by half of the patron capacity limits at the rates shown in Table 9 to achieve both targeted Cost Recovery. Anticipated General Fund subsidies based on this model are between $185,259 and $214,494 annually. Ln Additional programming of the remaining operating hours can assist with substantially improving revenues. a The mix of membership and day -use patrons is crucial to meeting these model revenue targets, so diverse Q and relevant programming coupled with sound relevant and consistent marketing is a necessity for facility Lu P 9 9 p 9 tY tY u managers. Finally, controlling costs to match commensurate activity levels is imperative to ensuring any General Fund subsidies remain manageable. w BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 65 Table 10 Summary Master Budget @ Various Activity & Cost Levels Activity Levels @ % of Max Capacity - 2LOA 5040 75%IN-OA 118,063 Activity Level 100,817 300,000 Revenues $701,951 $1,975,500 (Patrons or Rental Hrs) patrons 57,817] 78,709 118:063 157,418 Rental Hrs 486; $972. 1,458 1,943 Revenues Usage Fees g $207,449 $414,898 $622,348 $829,79 Rentals $26,534 $53,069 $79,603 $106,138 Total Revenues $233,984 $467,967 $701,951 $935,93 Total Costs $448,47 $672,71 $896,955 $1,121,19 Net Revenue $(214,494) $(204,749) $(195,004) $(185,259) Cost Recovery Target $266,092 $399,137 $532,183 $665,229 % of Cost Recovery Goal 88% 117%1 132% 141% When compared to peer facilities in surrounding commun''ies, activity levels of 75% of maximum capacity and at competitive or superior pricing for patrons yields comparatively positive finai cial performance (See Table 11). Cost structures for these facilities also differ primarily because of program focus and scale. For example, Mont Belvieu spends over $1.2 million on Personnel costs operating the Eagle Pointe facility. However, it also charges significantly more than a Baytown recreation center would necessarily charge. Transfers of over $580,000 subsidize the operation of the Eagle Pointe facility. Detailed budget data for Pearland's Recreation Center has been difficult to obtain but estimated usage and cost data indicate a high capacity, high cost facility with substantial subsidy effect for patrons. Table 11 Comparison to Cohorts Annual Patrols 5°/n ActiviW MontIv' Port p earlan 118,063 200,057 100,817 300,000 Revenues $701,951 $1,975,500 $553,180 $1,200,00 Total Costs $896,955 $2,848,794 $954,016 $2,102,125 $(873,294) $(400,836) $(902,125 Net Revenue $(195,004) Detailed budgets for each activity and cost level are 'ncl-uded n Appendix Tables 3a -3d. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 66 Table AT -1 Detailed Costs 7100Personnel 121,011 Personnel - Wages 71002 Regular Wages 71003 PT Wages 71009 OT Wages Subtotal - Personnel Wages onnel - HR OH 4,245 71021 Health Insurance 71022 TMRS 71023 FICA $60,949 Workers 71028 Compensation 71041 Allowances 9,161 Subtotal - HR OH SubTotal - Personnel Services (7100) 7200Supplies 5,159 72001 Office Supplies 72002 Postage Supplies 72004 Printing Supplies 72007 Wearing Apparel 72019 Supplies for Resale 72021 Minor Tools 546 Cleaning/Janitorial 72026 Supplies 72031 Chemical Supplies 72032 Medical Supplies $21,61 Educational 72041 Supplies $82,559 Computer 72045 Software SubTotal - Supplies (7200) 7300Maintenance 282 73001 Land Maintenance 394 Building 73011 Maintenance 3,784 Recreation 489 Equipment 73013 Maintenance 197 Streets/Sidewalks/ 73025 Curbs 73027 HVAC Maintenance 195 Electrical 73028 Maintenance 984 Furniture/Fixtures 73041 Maintenance Active Psol Social $252,86A 121,011 65,927 32,963 32,963 $159,479 55,492 51,994 25,997 25,99 12,200 4,245 3,978 1,989 1,989 $424,544 $180,747 $121,898 $60,949 $60,94 70,271 33,629 18,321 9,161 9,161 39,573 18,938 10,318 5,159 5,159 31,225 13,294 8,966 4,483 4,483 18,328 7,803 5,262 2,631 2,631 1,253 546 354 177 177 $160,650 $74,210 $43,220 $21,610 $21,61 $585,193 $254,957 $165,118 $82,559 $82,55 6,000 4,541 591 586 282 4,000 3,027 394 391 188 5,000 3,784 492 489 235 2,000 1,514 197 195 94 2,000 1,514 197 195 9 10,000 7,568 984 977 47 75,000 56,762 7,382 7,330 3,526 2,000 1,514 197 195 9 6,000 4,541 591 586 282 2,00 1,514 197 195 9 $114,00$86,278 $11,220 $11,142 $5,360 6,000 4,541 591 586 282 12,000 9,082 1,181 1,173 564 BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 4,541 591 586 282 4,541 591 586 282 2,270 295 293 141 2,270 295 293 141 2,270 295 293 141 67 V) J z 0 U z W r Category Item Description Total Active Pool Social Machinery; Equlpment 73042 Maintenance 3,00 2,270 295 293 141 SubTotal -Maintenance (7300) $42,00 $31,787 $4,134 $4,105 $1,975 7400 Services 74001 Communication 12,000 9,082 1,181 1,173 564 74002 Electric Service 100,000 75,682 9,842 9,773 4,702 74005 Natural Gas 18,000 13,623 1,772 1,759 846 74011 Equipment Rental 6,000 4,541 591 586 282 74021 Special Services 170,000 128,660 16,732 16,615 7,993 74036 Advertising 6,000 4,541 591 586 282 Education & 74042 Training 6,000 4,541 591 586 282 74071 Association Dues 6,OOC 4,541 591 586 282 74123 Instructor Fees SubTotal - Services (7400) $324,OOC $245,211 $31,889 $31,666 $15,234 7500Sundry Charges 75001 24,000 18,164 2,362 2,346 1,128 75002 _ 75003 SubTotal - Sundry Charges (7500) $24,004 $18,164 $2,362 $2,346 $1,128 Total - Operating Expenditures $1,089,1931 $636,396 $214,723 $131,817 $106,25 8000 Capital Outlays Furniture/ Equipment 80001 <$5,000 5,000 3,784 492 489 235 Furniture/ Equipment 8000X1 >$5,000 5,000 3,784 492 489 235 Other 83039 Improvements 20,000 15,136 1,968 1,955 940 Machinery & 84042 Equipment 2,000 1,514 197 195 94 SubTotal - Capital Outlays (8000) 32,00 24,218 3,149 3,128 1,505 Financing 90000utlays 900X1 900X2 SubTotal - Financing Outlays (9000) $ $ $_ Total - Non -Recurring Expenditures $32,000 $24,218 $3,149 $3,128 $1,505 Total - Maximum Annual Expenditures $1,121,193 $660,615 $217,872 $134,945 $107,76 Low Range $448,477 $264,246 $87,149 $53,978 $43,105 $396,369 $130,723 $80,967 $64,65 Low -Mid Range $672,716 $528,492 $174,298 $107,956 $86,209 High -Mid Range $896,955 $660,615 $217,872 $734,945 $107,762 High Range $1,121,193 BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 68 Table AT -2 Pricing Table BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study Active & Pool Program Space Activity Day Passes Individual $20 Youth $13 Family $45 Membership Passes (Annual) Individual Membership $252 Couples' Membership $403 Family Membership $604 Single -Use Day Passes (per Hr) Individual Youth Courts $13 $7 Pool $6 $3 Track $3 $2 Racquetball $10 $5 Weight & Cardio Room $6 $3 Exercise Rooms $ $3 Multi -Purpose Rooms $4 N/A Senior Rooms $1 N/A Child/Youth Rooms N/ $2 Full Room Rentals per Hr Indoor Court (Multi -Use) #1 $79 Indoor Court (Multi -Use) #2 $79 Racquet Ball Courts $27 Weight & Cardio Equip Room $121 Group Exercise Room $67 Group Exercise (Dance) $12 Indoor Track $58 Teen Game Room $19 Childcare $15 Pool - Child & Adult $72 Pool - Multi -Purpose Room $5 Structured Play $21 Multi -Purpose Room ..__.. ....................._................................................................................... $45 _ .. . Senior's Game Room $16 BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study Table AT -3a Master Budget Detail (25% of Capacity, 40% of Max Costs) Table AT -3b Master Budget Detail (50% of Capacity, 60% of Max Costs) Patron or Rental Hours Active -Pool Social Chi Y Total Revenues @ 50% Max Activity Patron or Rental Hours 17,491 1 4861 21,864 39,84 Total Revenues @ 25% Max Activity $173,30 $26,53 $34,14 $233,98 Operations Costs Salaries & Benefits 252,045 $49,535 49,535 Salaries & Benefits 168,03C $33,024 33,024 234,077 Supplies $38,999 $4,457 $2,144 $45,60 Maintenance $14,368 $1,642 $79 $16,80 Services $110,840 $12,666 $6,094 $129,60 Sundry $8,21 C $938 $451 $9,60 $52,727 $42,503 $435,677 Subtotal Operational Costs $340,448 Capital Outlays $10,947 $1,251 $60 $12,80 Financing Outlays $ $ $ $ Total Costs @ 40% of Max Costs 351,3951 53,9781 43,1051 448,47 Net Revenues $(180,478) $(27,898) $3,62 Net Revenues $(178,088) $(27,444) $(8,962) $(214,494) Cost Recovery Target $326,325 $31,841 $40,971 Cost Recovery Target $217,55 $21,228 $27,314 $266,092 Cost Recovery Achieved 80% 125% 1259 88% Table AT -3b Master Budget Detail (50% of Capacity, 60% of Max Costs) Patron or Rental Hours Active Social Child/Youth 34,9821 972: 43,72 TSIw 79,681 Total Revenues @ 50% Max Activity $346,61 $53,06 $68,28 $467,96 Operations Costs Salaries & Benefits 252,045 $49,535 49,535 351,11 Supplies $58,499 $6,685 $3,216 $68,40 Maintenance $21,552 $2,463 $1,185 $25,20 Services $166,260 $19,000 $9,141 $194,40 Sundry $12,3116 $1,40 $67 $14,40 $79,090 $63,754 $653,51 Subtotal Operational Costs $510,671 Capital Outlays $16,421 $1,87 $903 $19,20 Financing Outlays $ $ $ $ Total Costs @ 60% of Max Costs 527,09 80,96 64,65 672,71 Net Revenues $(180,478) $(27,898) $3,62 $(204,749) Cost Recovery Target $326,325 $31,841 $40,971 $399,13 Cost Recovery Achieved 106% 167% 167% 117 BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 70 Table AT -3c Master Budget Detail (75% of Capacity, 80% of Max Costs) Patron or Rental Hours Active 52,4731 Social 1,4581 Child/Youth 65,591 19121 119,521 Total Revenues @ 75% Max Activity $519,921 $79,60 $102,42 $701,951 Operations Costs Salaries & Benefits 336,060 $66,047 66,047 468,155 Supplies $77,998 $8,913 $4,288 $91,200 Maintenance $28,736 $3,284 $1,580 $33,60 Services $221,680 $25,333 $12,187 $259,20 Sundry $16,421 $1,87 $903 $19,200 $105,454 $85,006 $871,355 Subtotal Operational Costs $680,895 Capital Outlays $21,894 $2,502 $1,204 $25,600 Financing Outlays $ $ $ $ Total Costs @ 80% of Max Costs 702,790 107,95 86,20 896,95 Net Revenues $(182,869) $(28,353) $16,21 $(195,004 Cost Recovery Target $435,101 $42,455 $54,62 $532,18 Cost Recovery Achieved 119% 188% 188% 132°/ Table AT -3d Master Budget Detail (100% of Capacity, 100% of Max Costs) Patron or Rental Hours Active 69,963 Social 1,9431 Child/Youth 87,45 IQw 159,361 Total Revenues @ 100% Max Activity $693,2281 $106,138 $136,56 $935,93 Operations Costs Salaries & Benefits 420,075 $82,559 82,559 585,193 Supplies $97,498 $11,142 $5,360 $114,00 Maintenance $35,920 $4,105 $1,975 $42,00 Services $277,100 $31,666 $15,234 $324,00 Sundry $20,526 $2,346 $1,128 $24,000 $131,817 $106,257 $1,089,193 Subtotal Operational Costs $851,119 Capital Outlays $27,368 $3,128 $1,505 $32,000 Financing Outlays $ $ $ $ Total Costs @ 100% of Max Costs 878,48 134,94 107,76 1,121,19 Net Revenues $(185,259) $(28,807) $28,80 $(185,259 Cost Recovery Target $543,876 $53,069 $68,28$665,22 Cost Recovery Achieved 127% 200% 200% 141 BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 71 Ln N z O U 7 z w Market Analysis KEY RESOURCES & ACTIVITIES - The Recreation Center and its programs in the marketplace Key Resources Key Resources refer to the assets which bring value to customers. In this particular case, the recreation center itself is the prime resource and value addition for residents of Baytown. Given that the vast majority of recreation centers are the exclusive domain of public entities, the probability of a recreation center offering coming from any entity other than the city is very low which yields significant opportunity to capture resident demand for space and programs. Other than YMCA/YWCA and some church facilities, municipal recreation centers occupy a unique space in the recreational and social marketplace given their, 1) availability of open, flexible, and usable space, 2) at a scale sufficient to capture a wide variety of programs, and 3) with activity offerings for a broad and diverse audience. The Key Resource in the recreation center business model is certainly the new recreation center's location, design, site, and size. Given the dearth of large-scale, public, and flexible spaces in Baytown, the new recreation center is well-positioned to house relevant and desired programs/activities with little competition related to size or capacity. +tib'. - ,• May olrSO minu/e drive Ai ne rod us - How effectively this space captures programs and activities valued by the public will be essential to the success of the recreation center. As a result, the Resource itself (the new recreation center) must be appropriately flexible and scalable to adequately capture and hold a variety of activities interesting to customers and do so over a relatively long period of time. At its essence, this means the recreation center as a structure is a "Form follows Function" design with the form itself being key to hosting and facilitating those various functions. Several comparable facilities were evaluated as points of comparison with the proposed Baytown recreation center. These facilities vary in size and age but offer similar amenities as those being considered. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 72 Existing Recreation Facilities 10 recreation centers in 5 surrounding communities were evaluated for size, program offerings, pricing, and other attributes. These recreation centers included - Facility city Size (SF) Year Built/Upgraded Pearland Pearland 105,117 2010 Eagle Pointe Mont Belvieu 67,000 1999/2018 Gilruth Fitness Clear Lake 48,000 Unknown Clear Lake City Clear Lake 47,157 1963/1988 La Porte La Porte 35,000 1961 O'Dell Harrison Pasadena 2,800 Unknown Golden Acres Pasadena 2,300 1962 Strawberry Pasadena 1,827 Unknown Peter C. Fogo Pasadena 1,624 1960 Rusk Pasadena 880 Unknown The most relevant comparable facilities are those in Mont Belvieu, Pearland, La Porte, and the Clear Lake City recreation center. Amenities in these facilities include a mix of offerings closely matching the program anticipated for Baytown's potential center. For example, Eagle Pointe in Mont Belvieu has two basketball courts, 2 racquet -ball courts, a lap pool, locker rooms, and banquet/meeting rooms. Pearland offers almost identical amenities plus an elevated indoor track. The Clear Lake City recreation center features two basketball courts and an indoor pool with event rooms and fitness facilities. La Porte's recreation center is also equipped in much the same fashion but on a smaller scale and in an older facility than the other centers. All of these comparable recreation centers offer membership and non-resident pricing for various programs with pricing breakpoints for age, family, resident, and annual vs. single -use customer attributes. The highest cost facility was Eagle Pointe with costs of $640 to $900 annually (offered under 6 -month agreements) or monthly memberships of $65 - $212 per month. The least expensive facility was La Porte but it is also the smallest and oldest of the comparable cohort. Facility city Resident Non -Resident Pearland Pearland $330-$660 $495-$990 Eagle Pointe Mont Belvieu $640-$900 $640-$900 Clear Lake City Clear Lake $104-$456 $130-$570 La Porte La Porte $94-$144 $178-$288 Average $292 -$540 $361 -$687 BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 33 N J Q L Q 0 V Q L w i W jl Eagle Pointe Recreation Complex Location: 12450 Eagle Poinfe Dr, Mont Belvieu, TX City: Mont Belv eu,Texas Population: 5,946 Year Built: 1999, renovated in 2018 Renovation Cost: $10 million Size: 67,000 square foot Membership Rate: $640-$900 Amenities: Indoor • 2 Basketball courts • 2 Racquet -ball courts • 4 Outdoor tennis courts • 1 Heated indoor lap pool 1 Group class room • 1 Cycling room Restaurant • 1 Tanning salon • 2 Locker rooms • Body cryotherapy room 0 2 Locker rooms • 2 Banquet rooms Outdoor 1 Golf course iQ } • 1 Pavilion • Outdoor playground o ° 0.5 mile nature and jogging trail U • 1 Outdoor wave pool _ • 2 Event room in golf course 7 iu WN 74 0 ca U a w LU Pearland Recreation Center & Natatorium Location: 4141 Bailey Rd, Pearland, TX 77584 City: Pearland ,Texas Population: 119,700 Year Built: 2010 Construction Cost: $4,427,368.67 Size: 107,000 square foot Membership Rate: Resident $330-$660/year Non -Resident $495-$990/year Amenities: • 2 Basketball courts 2 Multi-purpose rooms • 1 Kitchen ■ 2 Racquet ball courts ■ 1 Cardio and weight room • 1 Dance & aerobics room • 1 Kids roorn • 1 Competition gym • Elevated indoor track • 1 Meeting room • 1 50 Meter pool • 1 Activity pool with zero depth entry i . `: � - .4 - h 110 75 N N } J Q z a 0 w V z Q w Clear Lake City Recreation Center �ocat:on: 16511 Diana Ln, Houston, TX 77062 City: Clear Lake,Texas Populat'on: 1,194 Year Built: 1963, 1988 Size: 47,157 square foot Membership Rate. Resident $104-$456; year Non -Resident $130-$570/year Amenities: Indoor • 1 Gymnasium • 1 Fitness center e 4 Event rooms (two with kitchens) ■ 1 Heated pool Outdoor • 1 lap pool • 1 Slide pool • 1 Spray pad • 4 Tennis courts how It l- i BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study Gilruth Fitness Center C Location: 16511 Diana Ln, Houston, TX 77062 City: Clear Lake,Texas Population: 1,194 Year Built: 1964, renovated and expanded in 1988 and 2004 Size: 48,000 square foot Membership Rate: Nasa Affiliated $239-$365/year Non-Nasa Affiliate (limited program) $114/year Amenities: Indoor • 1 Gymnasium • 1 Cycling room ■ 1 Multi-purpose room • 1 Fitness center • 1 Exercise studio • 2 Locker rooms • Cafe & food service • ShopNASA retail store Outdoor • 2 Pavilions • 1 Soccer field • 1 Youth baseball field • 3 Softball fields • 1 Discgolf course N•- 1 BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study N N Q Z Q W U 7 Q 7 W La Porte Fitness Center Location: 1322 S Broadway st, La Porte, TX 77571 City: La Porte,Texas Population: 35,086 Year Built: 1961 Size: 34,975 square foot Membership Rate: Resident $94-$144/year Non -Resident $178-$288/year Senior rate available Amenities: • 1 Racquet -ball court • 1 Aerobic/multi-purpose room • 1 Full-size gymnasium • Indoor Heated Lap Pool • Locker Rooms with Shower • 1 Volleyball court e Cardio and weights room a Sauna room BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 78 Golden Acres Recreation Center Location:5001 Oak Pasadena, TX 77503 City: Pasadena,Texas Population: 153,351 Year Built: 1962 Size: 1,551 square foot Rental Rate:$150/4 hours Amenities: Indoor • 1 Multi-purpose room Outdoor ■ Jungle gym • Playground • Picnic shelter ■ Half basketball court • Bike Racks O'Dell Harrison Recreation Center Location:415 Delta St, Pasadena, TX 77506 Year Built. 2012 Size:2,880 square foot Free membership pass for citizens Rental Rate: $250,14 hours Amenities: Indoor • 1 Game roorn • 1 Multi-purpose room Outdoor • 1 Pavilion with picnic area • 2 Baseball backstops • 2 Basketball courts • 1 Swimming pool • 1 Gazebo • Walking and running trail m BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 79 Peter C. Pogo Recreation Center Location:914 Hart St, Pasadena, TX 77506 Year Built: 1960 Size: 1,624 square foot Amenities: Indoor • 1 Computer lab • 1 Game room • 1 Event hall • Outdoor • 1 Swimming pool • 1 Playground • 1 Pavilion • Walking trail Rusk Recreation Center Location: 708 Witter Pasadena, TX 77506 Size: 880 square foot Amenities: Indoor • 1 Multi-purpose room • 1 Game roorn • Outdoor • 1 Playground } • 1 Pavilion Z • Walking trail Q O Strawberry Recreation Center Q w Location: 2900 Lafferty Pasadena, TX 77502 Size. 1,827 square foot Amenities: Indoor • 2 Multi-purpose rooms • Outdoor • 1 Pavilion • 1 Water park • 1 Playground • 15 Tennis courts • 5 Diamond fields • Exercise equipment BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 80 Key Activities and Attributes To understand the broader marketplace for activities and programs in the region, this study examined several activities and programs within a 30 -minute drive -time radius of downtown Baytown. These categories matched interests expressed by City Staff and shared public input, and as found in trends regarding community/recreation center markets generally. The 30 -minute drive -time study radius was determined to be appropriate for several reasons. First, the recreation center will primarily serve current and future residents of Baytown. Second, the 30 -minute drive -time zone captures most potentially relevant community segments both in and around Baytown, as well as facilities in surrounding communities. Finally, this study area ensures that facilities with programs similar to those offered by a potential recreation center are captured in order to fully understand current capacity in the marketplace. Consequently, the study area limits provide a relatively uncluttered and accurately coherent picture of truly competitive program/activity offerings relevant to the new recreation center in Baytown. The following Activities were examined in the study area: • Gym/Weightlifting • Aerobics/Cardio • Tennis • Pickle Ball • Basketball • Indoor Track • Futsal • Indoor Soccer • Rock Climbing & similar activities Each of these Activities also contained an array of attribute metrics to further evaluate the findings for relevance to the study. For example, in the Gym/ weightlifting and Aerobics categories, the study searched for attributes such as ownership type (public, non-profit, private), member -restricted, age targets/restrictions, operating hours, and capacity were evaluated. Findings A total of 89 Activity "hits" were found in 64 total facilities in the defined study area. Obviously, many of the Activities are co -located in the same facilities. For example, all Aerobics/cardio fitness and Gym/ weightlifting program offerings were located in just 38 facilities. The 4 largest Activities included: Activity Category # of Programs in Study Area Aerobics/Cardio 32 Basketball 25 Gym/Weightlifting 21 Tennis 11 All other categories had no more than 1 facility offering any similar or relevant programs in the study area. Half of the facilities found were private commercial enterprises with a mix of gymnastics, martial arts, CrossFit, or paid gym types of businesses. In fact, in the Aerobics/Cardio category, CrossFit clubs made up 9 of the 32 facilities offering this activity. Of the 32 public facilities, the vast majority were either schools, public parks, or existing recreation centers in other communities. Facility Type # in Study Area Public/Private School 9 Public Parks 11 CrossFit 9 Recreation Centers 5 Paid Gyms 10 Aerobics/Yoga Studios 4 Martial Arts Studios 5 Dance/Gymnastics Studios 4 Other 7 BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 8u' N J Q 7 Q W U Z Q w Only basketball and tennis were offered free of charge at any location and these facilities were predominantly public parks. A total of 4 facilities offered any sort of childwatch/childcare services, each with fees associated. Activity Category # of Programs in Study Area Free? Childwatch? Aerobics/Cardio 32 0 4 Basketball 25 8 2 Gym/Weightlifting 21 0 4 Tenn's 11 2 1 Indoor Track 1 0 1 Futsal 1 0 0 -ndoor Soccer 1 0 0 Rock CI'mbing 1 0 0 KEY ACTIVITY FINDINGS SUMMARY: 1. Given the size and diversity of Baytown and its immediate surroundings, there is a shortage of capacity for some of the more beneficial and popular activity categories. 2. Where certain activities were more abundant, almost all of those targets in the study area were private facilities and somewhat inaccessible to lower and middle income families with limited disposab e income. 3. Space for youth, adult learning, and senior activ't'es were very limited outsize o' ex st-ng o ganized programs in schools or churches. 4. Senior activities are limited primarily to living centers and churches. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 82 CUSTOMER SEGMENTS - Who are our customers? Trends in the Study Area This market study altered the study area to a 10 -mile radius to capture the basic demographic and lifestyle behaviors of Baytown residents relevant to a potential recreation center. Certain health attributes were examined on a county -wide basis (Chambers County) as this data is only available by county. The study area radius encompasses 235,869 people of which about 77,000 (32.6%) live in Baytown. This portion of the study focused on a series of basic attributes of potential recreation center patrons based in lifestyle choices, economic status, and a variety of social attributes. While the new recreation center will certainly be available and accessible to all residents of Baytown, each amenity in the recreation center will necessarily cater to a specific set of interests (Customer Segments) unique to a variety of people and proffer a different Value Proposition to each. Using ESRI lifestyle data aggregated from the US Census Bureau, CDC, Department of Health & Human Services, and several other federal and non-profit agencies including the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, we reviewed several attributes of residents in the study area to assess linkage to potential programs and space needs as well as understand the potential market for substitution or complementary offerings to existing lifestyles that add value or reduce risk in residents' lives. A few concepts are important to examine: 1. Substitution opportunities are those offerings which attract a customer or patron from a current channel for behavior to another. An example may be installation of formal walking trails as a substitution for walking on open streets. 2. Complementary opportunities are those which add value or variety to a common behavior. An example may be providing reading spaces in a community garden as a complement to seniors currently engaged in high levels of reading activity 3. Access opportunities are those which provide a customer an opportunity they may not otherwise have due to cost, location, or other roadblocks. The following attribute layers were evaluated to understand what challenges or opportunities exist within the community a recreation center could help alleviate or leverage on behalf of Baytown residents. ESRI Lifestyle Attributes Community Recreation Center Attribute Later Linkage to Community Center Median Income Economic mobility -Ability to pay Disposable Income Economic mobility Ability to pay Health Care Spending Complementary opportunities Risk & cost management Complementary opportunities Child Care Spending Risk & cost management Substitution opportunities Economic mobility Social Vulnerability Index Transportation access Access opportunities Regularly Exercise Complementary opportunities Substitution opportunities BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 83 N N J ¢ z 0 V z z w Each of these lifestyle attributes develop meaning and informational power when used in conjunction with other attributes. The market conclusion from these observations yields an understanding that complementary programs/facilities that add value to familyand individual well-being, reduce costs, or help mitigate health risks, are attractive offerings that the market will generally respond to. Meanwhile, areas of low income and low healthcare spending indicate a need for programs which can help those residents but may bring access and affordability issues into play. Ensuring the Center provides relevant and useful responses to the needs and wants of major customer groups is vital to the Center's long-term success. Findings Trends Summary: 1. The study area includes a varied socio- economic spectrum which inherently creates multiple market segments while simultaneously sharing intersectional attributes related to affordability and ability to pay. This mix illustrates an overall market of residents who are both underserved and yet have the ability to pay nominal amounts for programs and activities while also showing an interest in such opportunities. 2. The study area indicates a broad and strong commitment to fitness and wellness across income brackets. Areas where interest is weakest also happen to be the most underserved in terms of capacity, ability to pay, and mobility for which a new recreation center would provide a door to access not currently available or met by existing facilities. 3 Programs and activities focused on families are in high demand and need across a sufficient volume and diversity of residents. 4. Seniors aged 55+ have substantial needs not currently being met in the marketplace with commensurate opportunities for recreation and wellness programming. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study Access & Ability to Pay Targeted Metric Assess study area residents' financial access to existing fee-based programs as well as their ability to absorb small participation fees in a new recreation center. Findings The study area includes a wide range of economic or workstyle classes. However, Baytown specifically lags cohort communities and Chambers County at large in median household income. The median household income in Baytown is just under $47,000 per year while the county as a whole is over $80,000. Unemployment rates also tend to be higher in Baytown than in surrounding communities and the county. This disparity is readily apparent in the neighborhoods most closely located to the potential recreation center. As expected from income data, poverty rates in Baytown are higher than average at between 16- 17%. However, almost 63% of Baytown residents own their home which is an encouraging counterfact to some of the more troubling data. Importantly, over 29% of Baytown residents are under the age of 18 and 58% of individuals in the study area are under the age of 40. Graduation rates are a 5-7 points lower than other area schools but this is surprisingly small margin given underlying economic conditions. Baytown and many of its surrounding communities are young and possessing lower than average income but home ownership is fairly high and stable with other indicators of health and childcare spending showing positive trends of self actualization and commitment to betterment. Financial access to private gyms and programs are severely limited for a large segment of Baytown. Consequently, a reasonably priced membership and variety of free programming at a potential recreation center would find a market that is not currently being served but readily available to participate. 84 Conclusion. Median and disposable household income attributes positively indicate two major conclusions - 1) income distribution throughout the study area is sufficient to attract paying patrons for select programs that assist with cost re -capture, and 2) families of lower household income are sufficient in number and proximate in location to make the offerings of a robust recreation center very attractive with a high probability of level of substantial usage. The presence of a Community recreation center will definitively create access where it currently does not exist. When combined with population data for the area, we conclude that a recreation center serving all economic segments of the population is highly viable. Program offerings will be a primary factor in driving customer participation. Baytown_Health Baytown - Cl N 2018 USA Adults That Exercise Regularly Tract is 134 - 171 (H!ghest Potential) �] 119-134 r_ 110 - 119 90 - 110 (Average Potential) 81-90 66-81 0 - 66 (Lowest Potential) Fitness and Wellness Targeted Metric Assess study area residents' commitment to general physical health and well-being. Measures of adults who exercise regularly indicates interest in non - organized and formal exercise programs as well as estimate the potential need for safe, accessible, and interesting walking and exercise activities Findings Baytown has an average potential for adult exercise according to ESRI lifestyle data. Some areas to the far west and southeast of the city have lower than average potential and these findings correlate closely with lower economic standing as well as medium to high levels of childcare and healthcare spending. In the overall study area, we find that 5-6% of individuals have participated in regular aerobics or weightlifting activities in the last 12 months with 17% walking, hiking, biking, or running for exercise. Over 49% of households in the study area have walked for exercise in the last 12 months and 27% have jogged for exercise in the same time period. :. We i � ..� ! Hili -• �� V. .. ! r � i City of Houston, Texas Parks & Wildlife, EsH, HERE, Garmin, USGS, NGA, EPA, USDA, NPS I Esri I Esri, GfK MRI BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 85 The majority of the study area indicates average market demand for regular and formal exercise programs compared to the US as a whole. The areas showing the highest demand in the northern sections of the City and study area also happen to be the best served by existing formal fitness programs or facilities as cost and accessibility generally are less of a barrier. Lower income areas represent lower demand but with large segments of these lower middle income households indicating almost average market potential. Conclusion. There are substantial numbers of residents who already indicate interest in fitness and exercise with or without formal fitness programs in place. As discovered in other assessments, the variety of income levels in the region present opportunity for crafting fitness opportunities that complement existing market offerings and provide substitute for programs that currently may be marginal or infrequent in use for some residents due to cost or other barriers. Finally, lack of access to fitness programs/facilities in the heart of Baytown coincide with highly underserved communities who have medium to average levels of market demand for exercise opportunities and match well with the proposed site location of the new recreation center. Family Markets Correlating Healthcare Spending, Median/ Disposable Income, and Childcare Spending attributes provide us deeper and more meaningful insight than would be provided by each snapshot on their own. High levels of Healthcare Spending usually correlate to higher income levels as Healthcare is a normal economic good (i.e. spending increases when income increases). However, when comparative income levels in one area are lower than an adjacent area yet healthcare and childcare spending remains on par between the two, the resulting assessment is that such an area encompasses usually younger, growing families who are working and are insured, but have marginal financial stability. The market behavioral conclusion indicates financially responsible households with an interest in their health and a willingness to spend time, money, and/or energy in maintaining good health. Yet, such families are also financially stressed (compared to higher income cohorts). This phenomenon holds true throughout the study area. Furthermore, a review of the Social Vulnerability Index supports a finding of substantial family markets currently not being served by existing capacity. The SVI examines 4 major socio-economic themes. Mobility is one of the major themes. Areas with notionally high indices of social vulnerability are usually partially defined by transportation or mobility deficits. The presence of a recreation center in close proximity to some of these immobile neighborhood would be extremely beneficial, particularly for youth. Some of the largest concentrations of residents experiencing mobility deficiencies are in the surrounding neighborhoods of the proposed recreation center site Conclusion. A large market exists in the study are for family-oriented activities which is currently underserved by existing capacity in the market. These families are highly stable and self -actualized with strong commitments to health and social well- being. However, access to these activities from a financial, proximity, and mobility standpoint remains a challenge. A new recreation center with robust activity programming located on the southeast side of Baytown would find a large and accessible market. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 86 City of Houston, Texas Parks & Wildlife, Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, NGA, EPA, USDA, NPS I Esri, GfK MR[ I Esn BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 87 Baytown Health Baytown—CI i 2018 USA Child Care + *! Spending Tract $939 - $2,564 $639-$939 $338-$639 $38 -$338 $0-$38 r •..r3 City of Houston, Texas Parks & Wfdiife, Esd, HERE, Garmin, USGS, NGA, EPA, USDA, NPS i Esr:. GfK MRI CDC/ATSOR/Divislon of Toxicology and Human Health Sc,ences/Geospatlal Research, Analysis & Services Program I Esri Senior Market Opportunities Ln The study area consists of 55,360 residents over the age of 55. Just over 10% of Baytown residents are over the tn age of 65. Seniors have few choices outside of churches or living facilities to enjoy social interaction or activity. Q z o rte: w V Q LU BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 88 MARKET SEGMENTATION The use of Market Segments helps digest the available market demand data into usable pieces that focus us on unserved/underserved segments of the study area where the most value can be gained by the creation of a new Community recreation center. This is accomplished by first examining the Total Available Market which comprises entire region. However, as discussed earlier, the 30 -minute drive - time radius study area provides us a much better picture of those actual prospective customers (Serviceable Available Market). Next, development of Market Segments groups potential customers and patrons on the basis of shared attributes relevant to the site location, accessibility to, and programs of, a potential Community recreation center. And finally, specific Market Segments are selected as Target Markets or Customer Segments ideal for assessing the reach and value of a new Community recreation center. Serviceable Available Market The study area represents 235,869 individuals. When grouped together by age, we find are large segment of the area is very young compared to many similar communities. Age Group # of Residents % of Total <20 69,289 29.4% 20-39 67,770 28.8% 40-54 43,450 18.4% 55-79 49,873 21.1% 80+ 5,487 2.3% Total 235,869 Market Segments/Targeted Customer Segments A new recreation center can effectively serve the needs of many demographic cross-sections in the study area. However, it is important to focus on those segments for whom, 1) the most value can be achieved given demand and current market capacity, 2) access is an issue either financially or through other barriers to entry, and 3) are reasonably able to be served without excluding other equally important segments. Meaning, a recreation center will not be able to serve everyone equally well. Conversely, a recreation center can obviously serve many residents extremely well but for different reasons. Some residents are currently well -served by existing capacity and do not represent a market segment demonstrating access issues although they may be underserved due to restricted existing capacity. Likewise, some residents cannot be served well at all due to overarching special needs beyond the scope of a recreation center; aged residents (Age 80+) in the study area are an example of this. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 89 Q z Q 0 LU V z a L w V) V, J Q Z Q 0 U Z a LU The identified Market Segments for a new Community recreation center are as follow: This study sought to break down Market Segments into identifiable groups based on demography and then further assess the targeted market by Key Customer Attributes most closely linked to specific needs and demands. For example, Teens are obviously a major Market Segment. But which teens and for what kind of space and programs? The Key Customer Attributes of relevance to a new recreation center for this major segment would commonly be Access or Mobility. For Young and Middle Adults seeking affordable, appropriately scaled meeting space for clubs/organizations, Capacity is a major attribute driver. Some Customer Segments may share multiple attributes (e.g. Teens - Access & Mobility Challenged). Definitions for Key Customer Attributes include: • Access ChallgnQed - Market segments who may have financial or other social barriers to entry to facilities or programs. Example: low -moderate income families who cannot afford private gym membership or in which childcare is not available. • Mobilijy Challenged - Market segments who may have access issues for lack of transportation, adequate access to transportation, or are physically challenged in accessing facilities or programs. Example: Families with one vehicle . • Complement Seekers - Those Market Segments looking for variety or additional opportunities to enjoy an activity they already engage in or are interested in. Example: CrossFit customers who may want a new amenity or a closer facility. • Substitution Seekers - Market Segments who may want to move from an existing program or facility and adopt something new. Example: Seniors paying for private gym membership who prefer a facility tailored to their specific needs/wants. • Capacity_ Seekers - Those Market Segments requiring a program or foci ity not suffic'ently available �n the current market. Example: Middle Adu is seeking meeting space for small group and organization club gatherings. Major Market Segments Key Customer Attributes Children <15 Access & Mobility Challenged Teens Access & Mobility Challenged Families Complement Seekers & Access Challenged Young Adult Substitution Seekers & Access Challenged Middle Adult Capacity Seekers Seniors Capacity Seekers •BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 90 VALUE PROPOSOTION - What type of space and programs will the recreation center offer that its target customer segments value? Potential Customer Segments for a new recreation center would include a variety of Major Market Segments primarily defined by their Key Customer Attributes coupled to specific Key Activities relevant to a typical Community recreation center inventory of programs. Each of the following Key Activities are matched with the specific Customer Segment and resulting Value Proposition offered by a potential new recreation center. FITNESS The Activity brings value to these markets segments w/ these associated attributes - Access Challenged Mobility Challenged Complement Seekers Substitution Seekers Capacity Seekers Children <15 X X X Teens X X Families X X X X Young Adults X X X Middle Adult X X X X Seniors X X X X X Fitness programs and facilities primarily targeted to currently underserved, low to moderate income people of all ages would be beneficial and meet substantial demand in the study area. Childcare is a must as only 4 facilities in the area currently offer childcare. This would be a highly competitive feature attracting customers from across the Families segment, regardless of income. Specific classes such as yoga, aerobics, Zumba, and other unique programs could add to the attractiveness of fitness activities to currently detached or low- z motivated customer segments and work as a substitute or complement to those already actively engaged in the a current market but looking for new or less costly facilities, w a` A new facility should also offer at least some modern and sufficient volume of fitness equipment suitable to w accommodate a "full gym" for teens and adults with a separate room for seniors. A nominal fee from regular attendees could help support the upkeep of equipment and staff as well as foster a sense of ownership in the membership. Finally, child activity rooms should be ample with a variety of play opportunities that encourage family -play as well as foster fitness habits in youth. Child activity is also essential to providing an environment in which parents are themselves able to participate in activities important to them while knowing their child is safe and also fulfilled with activities. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 91 MEETING AND SOCIAL SPACES The Activity brings value to these markets Access Mobility Complement Substitution Capacity segments w/ these Challenged Challenged Seekers Seekers Seekers associated attributes - Children < 15 Teens X Families X X X X Young Adults X X Middle Adult X X X Seniors X X X X Spaces for events or meet'ngs involv'ng smal to medium s'zed groups presents a capacity challenge across the study area. A new recreation center could easii.y help address these 'ssues by offering a new space serv'ng virtual'y a'I teen 'o senor market segments seeking capacty, new, appropriately scaled, and/or less costy space. Access challenged customer segments would be well -served from an event perspective as the few existing venues are focused on large events to a large market with high prices and not a ways c'ose to many neighborhoods in the study area. Finally, this is a feature that can garner suffic�en' cost recapture w thout jeopardizing the accessibility mission of the recreation center. _�� - •- � P _._�1 d..: ...a.1��1��...-�_�'i�i� �_� _lei ! `- '-.-- - �1;� -'-` _•` - BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 92 CLASS AND PLAY SPACES The Activity brings value to these markets segments w/ these associated attributes - Access Challenged Mobility Challenged Complement Seekers Substitution Seekers Capacity Seekers Children <15 X X X Teens X X X X Families X X X X X Young Adults X X Middle Adult X X X Seniors X X There are very few facilities in the study area offering organized play or creative activities catering to a broad audience and not involving significant cost. The most important factor currently is simply one of capacity. A new recreation center would be able to easily fill such programs through offering of space to collaborative program partners as well as host in-house programs. The market demand cuts across several demographic groups and program relevance would be important to reach each audience. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 93 D t%7 Z Q 0 W V Z Z W Stakeholder/Public Input The following principles represent the road map used to guide the design team and staff in establishing consistent, effective and high quality community engagement across Baytown's many stakeholders. They represent the core principles used during public input portion of the feasibility study. Citizen Partnership Community members have a right to be involved in decisions that affect them. Participants can influence decision-making and receive feedback on how their input was used. The public has the opportunity to recommend design ideas and issues for consideration. Early Involvement Public involvement is an early and integral part of issue and opportunity identification, concept development, design, and implementation of the project. Building Relationships and Community Capacity Public involvement processes invest in and develop long-term, collaborative working relationships and learning opportunities with community partners and stakeholders. Inclusiveness and Equity Public dialogue and decision-making processes identify, reach out to, and encourage participation of the community in its full diversity. Processes respect a range of values and interests and the knowledge of those involved. Historically excluded individuals and groups are included authentically in processes, activities, and decision and policy making. Impacts, including costs and benefits, are identified and distributed fairly. Good Quality Process Design and Implementation Public involvement processes and techniques are well- designed to appropriately fit the scope, character, and impact of a policy or project. Processes adapt to changing needs and issues as they move forward. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study Transparency Public decision-making processes are accessible, open, honest, and understandable. Members of the public receive the information they need, and with enough lead time, to part'cipate effectively. Accountability City leaders and staff are accountable for ensuring meaningful public involvement in the work of city government. The City and project partners will strive to: • Seek partner agency assistance with outreach and engagement. • Build new and ongoing relationships with under -served and non -geographic issue - oriented groups, including cultural groups, faith communities, homeless communities, and single issue advocacy groups. • Continue, and in some cases broaden, involvement with City of Baytown boards, committees and commissions. • Draft plans released for public comment and other outreach material should be available in large print and html-friendly versions at the time of public release. • Continue to coordinate more with venues to advertise events. • Consider the date and time of hearings and workshops and verify that the scheduling does not conflict with the local organizations regularly scheduled meetings. • Engage more people, especially non -geographic communities and first -timers. • Demonstrate to participants how previous input is being incorporated into current materials and proposals. 94 A Stakeholder Involvement Plan is designed to reach all audiences that may be affected or have an interest in the project. It will also be designed to reach out to other groups and individuals—those that may not yet have an interest or be compelled to participate— to encourage their awareness, understanding, and involvement in the process. Among potential target stakeholders the audiences that may be important to contact and engage are: • Community/General Public: Interested people across the community • Neighborhood Associations and Coalitions • Interest -Based Groups: Non-profitorganizations, community and faith -based groups; • Local Businesses: Institutions, large employers and small businesses, business associations, Chamber of Commerce. There will be a range of involvement opportunities and communication tools used to ensure that residents are able to find information and engage in the design process. The community involvement opportunities will be organized to allow people to engage across a spectrum of interest levels: • Inform: Some people are just learning of the project and want to track the process and stay up to date on the latest project news. • Consult: Other people want to be slightly more involved, making sure the plan for each facility broadly addresses the topics they are interested in and is generally going in the right direction. • Collaborate: Another group of people want to be deeply involved in the ongoing work of the concept plans our architects will develop, closely tracking the process and providing thoughtful and meaningful input into the outcomes. Opportunities and tools will be used throughout the process, offering ways to stay informed and affect the project outcomes that facilitate the range of interest levels and meet the needs of diverse audiences. In addition to the opportunities listed below, a variety of outreach methods will be utilized for each phase. For the entry level audience, brochures and other summary information materials may be created; information boards, handouts and discussion materials may be developed for events, and information comprising the basis for decision- making (the "public record") may be made available locally for public review and on the website as appropriate. Involvement Opportunities Key Stakeholder Meetings: A series of meetings will be held with key stakeholder groups in the community to gather targeted feedback regarding facility needs, programs and activities. The meetings will be held, in locations around Baytown designed to allow stakeholders and the public to engage directly in the planning process to learn about the project and provide input that will meaningfully shape project outcomes. Suggested Focus Groups include: • School District Representatives • YMCA • Baytown Library • Neighborhood Associations • Religious Institutions • Parks and Recreation Advisory Board • Recreation Center Steering Committee Public Town Hall: Two (2) town hall meetings were hosted to engage discussion about the opportunities under consideration during the development of the study and subsequent design. The meetings were organized as an interactive workshop rather than a hearing to encourage meaningful input from participants. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 95 PROGRAMMING INTERVIEWS Meeting #1: Programming Session/ Kick -Off Meeting Burditt Consultants met with City of Baytown Parks and Recreation staff to initiate the project on May 4, 2018. The team collectively went over the project schedule, public outreach strategy, content for the online survey, recent comparable facilities toured, and potential site location. City of Baytown helped identify potential focus groups that should be interviewed and who to include on the steering committee. A date was established for the first public townhall meeting to be May 31, 2018. The last half of the meeting incorporated a programming session. The staff's input was as follows: Indoor Spaces • Restrooms • Locker rooms - simple • Gyms {2 to 4) • Pickle Bail • Walking/Running Track • Child care • Weight Room with 24 hour access • Racquet Ball/Wallyball court • Large, dividable room • Group exercise rooms, including spin -type class In • Indoor Soccer Z • Futsal o • Dance rooms (with specialized floor) U • Warming Kitchen • Rock Climbing wall • Natatorium • Kid zone (crafts & classes) with sink and small fridge • Indoor free-range play • Foam pit • Obstacle course • Jungle gym • Parkour • Teen zone • E -gaming • Laundry • Storage • Cafe • Concessions BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study • First Aid • Cooking class room • Virtual trainer space • Admin spaces + conference rooms _Outdoor Spaces • Walking trail with decomposed granite • Jogging trail • Obstacle course (CrossFit-type yard) • Gaga ball pit • Sand volleyball courts (4) • Horse shoe pit • Stretching/meditative garden • Outdoor "hang-out space" • Covered outdoor basketball • Playground • Hopscotch, tetherball, foursquare General Aesthetic of Facility • Open & light • Indoor/outdoor access • Sense of arrival • Grand entrance • Prominent • Gravitas • Campus/sections with gathering/concentrated spaces built within 96 MEETING #2 - #6: FOCUS GROUP MEETINGS On May 23, 2018, Burditt Consultants along with City of Baytown Parks and Recreation staff met with identified user groups in back-to-back meetings to hear feedback. The feedback is summarized below. Meeting #2: Focus Group Meeting with Library Administration Burditt Consultants along with City of Baytown Parks and Recreation staff met with a representative of the local library. The library is interested in partnering up with the rec center by having a satellite location with an emphasis on convenience and quality space for storytelling/interactii-e learning events. The inclusion of computers and business -center type amenities would be dependent on the facility's location. Per the library's representative, a preferred location would be the Gene and Loretta Russell Park since that area is growing and currently underserved. The library representative emphasized that if a library component were included in the rec center, it should be free and open to the public and not require a rec center membership to access. Meeting #3: Focus Group Meeting with Steering Committee Burditt Consultants along with City of Baytown Parks and Recreation staff met with the Steering Committee which comprises of 9 individuals. The Steering Committee members represent various groups throughout the city including sports groups, youth, the school district, city council, YMCA, and seniors. The group gave the following input regarding the desired amenities for the new recreation center: Indoor Spaces • Indoor Pool • Training facility for aquatics during off-season and/or bad weather • Local place for swim clubs • Provide swim classes for the community • Preferred multi -use setup • Provide bulkheads (walkable partitions) • Mix of large and small pools • If Olympic size then triathletes could train there BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study • Racquet -ball • Yoga rooms (specialized hot -yoga rooms) • Rock climbing wall • Multi -use courts • Volleyball • Basketball • Indoor soccer • Current offerings are very expensive • Adjacent storage space/rooms • Could be a place for coaches, referees, or equipment storage • Spectator space • Indoor track • Very different training experience than outdoor track • Spaces for senior activities • Exercise opportunities • Table sports • Hang-out space • Flex -use spaces • Locker rooms with showers • Saunas, steam rooms (provided for each gender) Outdoor Spaces • Pavilions • Trails and running space • Outdoor fire pit as gathering space • More flexible spaces Non-traditional Rec Amenities • Staffed computer room • Gaming space • Not many venue options in area • Is this an activity Baytown wants to encourage? • Smoothie/Cafe/snack bar • Child care/watch center • Provide sleeping area • Senior Citizens could help supervise Acceptance by Community • Suggestion to call it something other than "recreation center" due to limits implied by the name Burditt clarified that the vision and perception of facility needs to be managed by painting the vision properly, and early on 97 Location Options • Really important to select appropriate site, especially if facility is meant to be a destination • Currently the three sites being considered are: vacant lot by Kroger, Gene & Loretta Park, and Evergreen Park Concern Evergreen Park is too for out Opinion expressed that people will go to the facility no matter where it is • What about former San Jacinto Hospital? Access • Access needs to be a paid service, not a free "tax payer right" Will encourage citizen respect of facilities Scott confirms that it needs to have some kind of fee Suggestion to make it have a "country club" feel Concerns about keeping activities affordable for Baytown residents • 24 Hour access – especially for Baytown with plant employee schedules Concepts • Potentially stack gyms vertically on top of one another? – Burditt explained there could be limitations due to very high ceilings required for open gym courts • For multi -use courts, mount fixtures and nets to ceiling and switch them out with button • Need serious consideration for parking and expansion opportunities • Provide alcohol? Desired Events • Volleyball tournaments (4 courts min.) • Basketball tournaments • Cheerleading tournaments • Indoor Track meets • Host the Special Olympics • Academic graduations • Gaming tournaments • Space for homeschool kids to do PE BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study xeenng LO Mnittee meeting Inspiration • "Let's don't under -build, if anything let's over- build– Mike Wilson • To be THE recreation center destination between Houston and Louisiana • Don't want the "Tai Mahal" but would like it to be an attraction for the community - Mike Wilson • Overall need to keep all spaces flexible and multi -use Referenced Facilities • TAMU Rec Center—multi use of aquat'c spaces and varied programs • Fall Creek Water Park—good examp a of outdoor swimming space • MI3 Center in Cypress—successfully hosts basketball and volleyball tournaments • Barber's Hill—indoor track field • UH—indoor track around courts Meeting #4: Focus Group Meeting with YMCA staff Burditt Consultants along with City of Baytown Parks and Recreation staff met with representatives of the YMCA to hear their perspective. Their input is as follows: 98 Existing YMCA • YMCA current membership is 350 to 370 people, was at 1,200 during peak period in 90's • Youth programs have been emphasized lately due to identified need, but the still support other age groups heavily at YMCA • Most YMCAs in communities of 100,000 or less people have these amenities: indoor and outdoor pool, large dividable rooms, and child watch • Lee College is looking for YMCA to take over their pool, needs renovation • YMCA has used programs to retain Young Adult participation such as more social fitness activities • Has conference rooms that are leased out to outside organizations • Has chronic disease prevention program Noticeable Needs • Space for court sports • Indoor pool • Family and youth facilities - heavy need » Child care » Youth sports » Swim lessons » Grandparent and grandchild offerings - flexible space and diverse programs • Small group fitness (i.e. camp gladiator type programs) • Flexible schedules for Oil and Gas employees and plant workers i.e.: 5:00am to 10:00pm minimum • Showers • Youth attractions » Gym » Soccer » Pool » Space to explore » Affordable temporary membership options • Pool • Community space outdoors » Could provide outdoor classroom space for Goose Creek Elementary (which has healthy initiative program) Examples of Success • Tellepsen YMCA - has energy and activity » Location is part of reason for success » Strong architectural design » Staff is trained for an "always on" mentality • Intentional design of facility » Make it "welcoming" » Strong design gives user sense of pride for joining » Continue to be innovative * Looking for new and creative recreation programs and providers Lessons Learned • Baytown YMCA old building was a maintenance issue and wasn't ideally located • More visible activity is better for user experience and more inviting • Garth Road YMCA location is too far for many - 25 minute drive for a 15 minute workout • It's important to ensure that space is always available to community and not all of the spaces are occupied by "outsiders" - i.e,: tournament play etc. • Important to have commercial grade equipment » YMCA has had experiences with lower grade (residential) equipment in past and it became a nuisance Considerations • How do we take care of the daytime population? » Some people work in Baytown, but stay late to avoid traffic before going home to Houston. This is an opportunity to provide recreation for that market too • Potentially offer corporate memberships through local employers • Security » Setup emergency action plan prior to constructing building » Provide transparency in a balanced way » Need safe places for both guests and staff to huddle/hide if needed » Manage entrances » Only one entry but multiple exits » Have members only areas » Provide childcare security BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 99 sn— a z a 0 w U Q Z Lu 05 • If YMCA is to survive then they need to partner with the City » Would like to staff and run programs and are willing to provide furniture and equipment. » Understands Burditt Consultant's study won't be affected but would like to be considered Potential Competitive Facilities • 24 hour fitness » Has indoor pool, not usually busy » Close proximity to residents Key Important Attributes • Location, Visibility, and Marketing Meeting #5: Focus Group Meeting with Pirates Bay Administration Burditt Consultants along with City of Baytown Parks and Recreation staff met with Pirates Bay staff to hear their perspective. Their input is as follows: Current Issues • Kids who can't swim • Need indoor natatorium with ability to teach swim lessons • School districts monopolize pool reservations at Pirate's Bay • City already has two outdoor pools (Calypso Cove and Pirates Bay)—no need for another outdoor pool at rec center • Only one local school, Sterling High School, has a pool • Baytown has lots of classes and programs but they aren't centralized and having a central home would be helpful to support and grow programs Desired Rec Center Amenities • Open gym space • Multi-purpose rooms • Indoor Pool(s) » 25 meter or 50 meter pool * Must have a 12 ft. deep section to allow for Red Cross lifeguard training BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study * 25M would be sufficient for most activities, including water polo • Include a recreation component with play structures for year-round play (reference: Lake Jackson) » Like the zero -depth entry option • Pool could be used for birthday parties, physical therapy, geriatric exercise, and/or special needs • Need dedicated office space next to pool for aquatics staff • Provide adjacent classrooms and multi-purpose meeting rooms with kitchenette • Provide closet for storage • Lockers are not necessary but would be nice amenity • Elevated track • Area for spectators • Hot tubs in locker rooms » Hot rooms might make more sense (reference: First Baptist Central facility) Operation Considerations • If operated by City staff, they can keep more [high-quality] staff employees year-round • Keep pool area well -ventilated » Helps remediate off -gassing from chemicals » Liked garage door concept (similar to ice- houses) • Access management—can use ID card/key fob system Overall Take-aways • Moderation—create healthy blend of amenities. Do not hyper -focus on certain amenities/ attractions. • Preference to keep operations of pool in-house (city staff) Meeting #6: Focus Group Meeting with Pirates Bay Teens & Epic Teen Staff Burditt Consultants along with City of Baytown Parks and Recreation staff met with Pirates Bay teens and Ep'c teen staff. Their input is as follows: 100 Teen group Current Conditions/Issues • Sterling High School's pool, only indoor pool in area, is poorly maintained • Limited availability for high school aquatics • No place locally to swim laps to prepare for military training • All nearby indoor courts require membership or high fees to use • Water park is one of the current popular spots for youth to visit and hang out • Lots of high school kids go to Eagle Point for fun during school year » Wave pool is popular in summer Desired Rec Center Amenities • Group exercise classes • Indoor Tennis and basketball courts » Currently go to Eagle Point • Like idea of multi -sport convertible courts i.e.: basketball/volleyball • Indoor game/pool hall/etc. • Venue for Karaoke • Teen night type activities for a safer, fun environment • Hang out space, movie nights, relaxation • Public study space, get a coffee/smoothie • More soccer fields with artificial turf • Stage/amphitheater or outdoor gathering space • Rock climbing • RC car courts • Go carts • Space for ultimate frisbee with lights on till 10:00pm • Track, either indoor or outdoor • Outdoor trail for running in natural spaces • Soccer tournament play » Currently have to travel to Houston • Flexible place for practice and competition for robotics » Arena and pits (can be disassembled » Spectator space • Gaming tournament space • Basketball tournament opportunities • Paintball/airsoft fields • Outdoor yoga • Dog park • Roller skating • Bowling • Food court/plaza • Ice skating—at Town Square was problem due to melting, may work better indoors Facility Location • Asked about location opportunities around north main • Burditt Consultants explained three options in consideration: vacant lot by Kroger, Gene & Loretta Park, and Evergreen Park )5 Feedback: North Alexander St. location is the most walkable location and ideal for access Benefits • Rec Center could reduce teen violence (a reason to get off the street and stay active) Economic Benefits • Offer swim lessons year-round • Opportunity for year-round lifeguard positions The goal and name of the center should imply multi- purpose. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 101 PUBLIC OUTREACH SUMMARY To engage input from the public, Burditt Consultants solicited feedback through an online survey and a Townhall Meeting. Both events were announced publicly through the City of Baytown's website, social media, and through the local newspaper, The Baytown Sun, ONLINE PUBLIC SURVEY The online survey was a collaboration between Burditt Consultants and the City of Baytown Parks and Recreation Staff. The questions chosen for the survey along with the selection answers were determined by the consultants and staff based upon post community feedback, knowledge of current conditions, and best practices for recreational facility design. Format A series of questions were structured to provide residents an opportunity to anonymously respond to the following: • Indoor recreation programs • Outdoor recreation programs • Supplemental amenities • Outside travel for current recreation activities • Preferred facility location • Current neighborhood of residence Response The online survey opened to the public May 10, 2018 and closed end of day June 15, 2018. A total of 896 people participated in the English- language survey and 11 people participated in the Spanish-language survey. Comparing the number of survey participants to Baytown's population of approximately 75,000+ inhabitants this leads to only a 3% margin of error. The following response summaries reflect the English and Spanish responses combined. Indoor Recreation Programs To assess level of interest in particular program amenities within a recreation center, residents were asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5 with '1' being least likely and '5' being most likely activities that appeal to them and their family. 18 different indoor amenities were listed for residents to vote on. The results are summarized visually in the graph on the following page. The highest quantity of votes for any amenity at any range of preference was 467 votes. Using that number as the overall participation for this question, 15 indoor amenities received a 'Most Likely' vote from at least 50% of the participants. The preferred amenities are Weight Room (70%), Open Gym (68%), Indoor Track (69%), Basketball Court (51 %), Group Exercise Classes (78%), Dance Classes (64%), Rock Climbing (56%), Indoor Swimming Pool (100%), Childcare (65%), Free Range Play (82%), Youth Gaming (64%), Arts & Crafts (66%), Cafe/Smoothie Bar (68%), Lounge Space (58%), and Instructional 'How To' Classes (82%). Outdoor Recreation Programs To assess level of interest in particular outdoor program amenities at a recreation center, residents were asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5 with '1' being least likely and '5' being most likely activities that appeal to them and their family. 14 different outdoor amenities were listed for residents to vote on. The results are summarized visually in the graph on the following page. The highest quantity of votes for any amenity at any range of preference was 555 votes. Using that number as the overall participation for this question, 8 outdoor amenities received a 'Most Likely' vote from at least 50% of the participants. The preferred amenities are Walking Trail (100%), CrossFit-type yard (52%), Covered Basketball (53%), Playground (78%), Ropes Course (59%), Meditative Garden (62%), Hang-out space (67%), and Splash Pad (77%). BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 102 INDOOR PROGRAMS Least Likely Less Likely Neutral Likely Most Likely N/A Instructional "How To" Classes (Cooking, etc) Lounge Space Cafe / Smoothie Bar Arts / Crafts Youth / Gaming Room Free-range Child Play (Foam Pit, Obstacle Course) Child Care JEL 3 Indoor Swimming Pool Rock Climbing Dance Classes - Group Excerise Classess- Racquetball / Wallyball Court Indoor Soccer Indoor Volleyball Basketball Court Indoor Track _._. Open Gym Space Weight Room ---- - 0 100 200 300 400 S00 600 700 B00 Online survey results for indoor programs that would appeal to residents and their families. OUTDOOR PROGRAMS Ili Least Likely Less Likely Neutral Likely E Most Likely N/A Splash Pad Outdoor"Hang Out" Space Streching / Meditative Garden — -- Adventure / Ropes Course Hopscotch, Tetherball, Foursquare Archery - - -- Horse Shoe Pit Playground — Tennis Soccer Basketball (with Covered Court) Sand Volleyball CrossFit - Type Yard WalkingTrail - 0 100 200 300 400 S00 600 700 800 Online survey results for outdoor programs that would appeal to residents and their families. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 900 900 103 !A - Ln J Q Z Q U Q Z w snJ Q L Q 0 U Z w Supplemental Amenities To assess if the public was interested in non-traditional recreation amenities or if there were preferred amenities not listed in the previous questions, 4 possible supplemental amenities were listed along with an 'Other' fill -in -the blank option. Participants were allowed to make unlimited selections and the amenities with greater than a 50% vote were Pavilion (62%) and 24-hour access (61%). Within the 'Other' category, 64 different comments were received which encompasses 7% of all the survey participants. Within the 7% other category, the most common requests were a Baseball Complex and Library Space. Recreational Activities Outside Baytown This question was created to get a sense of what recreational activities local residents enjoy but have to travel outside Baytown to experience. Six activities were listed for participants to select from along with Not Applicable and 'Other' fill -in -the -blank option. The results are as follows: Senior activity and classes (3%), Youth activity and classes (13%), Adult activity and classes (19%), Indoor recreation (24%), Rock climbing (8%), Meetings (10%), Not Applicable (16%), and Other (8%). Within the 'Other' category the most common activities were Wallyball/ Racquet ball, Youth Sports Leagues, and Indoor pool/ swimming. Travel Destinations Outside Baytown For those who travel outside of Baytown for recreational activities, we asked where they were traveling to. Six locations were listed for participants to select from along with Not Applicable and 'Other' fill -in -the -blank option. The results are as follows: Houston Inside the 610 Loop (15%), Houston Outside the 610 Loop (19%), La Porte/Deer Park/Pasadena (17%), Seabrook/ League City/ Kemah (15%), Mont Belvieu (9%), Galveston (3%), Not Applicable (15%), and Other (8%). BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study Preferred Location It was important for the project team to engage the public on their preferred location for a recreation center. The team composed a locator map that showed three potential locations being considered by the Parks & Recreation staff and included an 'Other' fill -in -the -blank option. The results are as follows: Gene and Loretta Russell Park (32%), Vacant Lot by Kroger at the intersection of Alexander and Ward Road (46%), Evergreen Point Park (17%), and Other (5%). Amongst the other options listed, the most common response was 'Center of Baytown' and 'Garth Road'. PREFERRED LOCATION Censer of Baytown Jim Garth Rd. M Other ideas Online survey results for preferred facility location 104 Residence Location To get a sense of what Baytown communities were being represented in the online survey response, the lastquestion asked forthe participants' neighborhood of residence. A list of 75 neighborhoods was given for participants to choose from along with a 'Not Listed' option. The most strongly represented neighborhoods (3% or greater than total survey participants) were East Baytown (3.3%), Eastpoint (3.4%), Eva Maude (4.8%), Lakewood Oaks (6%), Pelly (3.3%), Pinehurst (3.4%), Springfield Estates (5.1%), and 23.8% of respondents indicated their neighborhood was not listed. TOWNHALL MEETINGS On Thursday, May 31, 2018 a Townhall Meeting was hosted at the community center with a total of 29 visitors. Burditt Consultants setup Inspirational Image Boards exhibiting various features for the project which residents were able to "vote" on with stickers to indicate their preferences. The Image Boards presented ideas for the following categories: Centers, Design, Gather, Indoor Recreation, Outdoor Recreation, and Supplemental Amenities. Ideas that received at least a 10% vote are reflected as amenities supported by the Townhall meeting in the Programming Analysis chart. To gather feedback on site preferences, there were posters exhibiting the three different site locations in consideration. The feedback on site preference reflected similar preferences from the online survey, the Vacant Lot by Kroger was the most popular option with 58% votes, next was Gene and Loretta Russell Park at 31 %, and Evergreen Park at 12% votes A follow-up Townhall Meeting was hosted in the same location on September 6, 2018. At this time, Burclitt Consultants shared images of floorplans, renderings, and simple cost estimates of the proposed recreation center. Additional diagrams were created to illustrate how and when data was processed along with the final online survey results to given Townhall attendees a sense of the project's conclusion. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 105 ONLINE PUBLIC SURVEY The following are the results from the online survey, open May 9 - June 15, 2018 �IBURDITT SURVEY WHAT WE'VE HEARD TO DATE 896 Responses If a New Recreation Center were developed, which types of programs appeal to you and your family? Indoor Programs -Ac- } Ac- V) < Z U Z Outdoor Programs 0 BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 106 SURVEY WHAT WE'VE HEARD TO DATE 896 Responses Any other supplemental amenities you would like to see at the New Recreation Center? Open plaza Doe Park/ Obstacle Course 24 -Hour access Baseball Complen I Sceurty I n l00 ?00 300 V Where would you like the New Recreation Center to be located? Vacant Lot by Kroger at Intersection of Alexander and Ward Road Gene and Loretta Russell Park Evergreen Point Park Other (i.e. Close by BRC, Garth Baker. North of I 10, Old Hospital by Library, Eagle Pointe, Spur 330, Kilgore Pkwy) BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 107 J Q a 0 U z Q UJ Site Selection Site Selection Synopsis The City's original RFQ identified the Alexander Drive Corridor as an early candidate for a potential location of a City Recreation Center. Inasmuch, a number of potential locations located along Alexander Drive were evaluated early -on to determine their suitability. During detailed programming sessions with City staff, additional information was provided to the study team during which one primary location along Alexander Drive was identified as a City - owned property. This property, the nearly 9 acre +/- greenfield parcel located adjacent to the existing Krogers grocery store on N Alexander Drive, was selected by staff to be studied in greater detail and ultimately as the Recommended Site. Prior to determining the parcel adjacent to Krogers to be the subject site for consideration, additiona: sites were identified by staff. Each offered a variety of size (acreage), ownerships (City, private, other institutional/government ownership), and proximities throughout the community. Selection criteria ruled out all but three (3) parcels from consideration. These include: • Open park acreage located along E. Wallisville Rd. and N. Main St. at Gene & Loretta Russell Park; • Nine acre greenfield parcel located along N Alexander Drive and adjacent to Krogers Grocery Store; • Former Evergreen Golf Course site located off Evergreen Rd., now known as Evergreen Point Park. To select a site for the proposed recreation center, Burditt Consultants solicited feedback from the Parks and Recreation staff and asked for community input through the online public survey and at the townha l meeting. The study team also evaluated each of the three potential sites with criteria that plays a critical role in a project's success. Each property was evaluated based upon the following features: BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study Vialkability - an essential attribute for a healthy, sustainable community as defined by the current urban design philosophy of Walkable Urbanism. Nearby Amenities - the presence of a multitude and variety of amenities near the development create density, diversity, and interconnectivity. • Site Potential - a site's potential is defined by how easily it can be developed without major expenditures or complicated procedures. • Real Estate Catalyst - This includes the larger implications of the project's site development creating additional growth and improvement beyond its property line. The following pages describe Burditt Consultants observations of all three potential sites and why the 9 acre parcel by Kroger's Grocery store is the recommended site for the location of the Baytown Recreation Center. 108 Gene & Loretta Russell Park ; ,.. r-1 U ! . T46 Vacant Lot by Kroger at intersection of Alex nder and Ward Road r ti". 1i w HWY 99 j..r _ i__ ...Evergreen Point Park Locator map of site options in the Baytown area diol The recommendation of the 9 acre parcel by Krogers on N Alexander Drive is in the context and conditions present during the feasibility study in the year 2018. If the recreation center is realized as an actual project to be constructed, it is advised that the site location be re-evaluated for the condition and needs of the community at that time. There is a possibility several years from now the development culture and density could change throughout Baytown and thus modify how the various sites were evaluated during the feasibility study. The design of the recreation center facility and site could be used at another location but it would require modifications to both its masterplan and building configuration to best match the surrounding area, neighborhood, and micro -culture BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 109 N J Q L Q O w U 7 Q Z w 0 Analysis of Recommended Site Vacant Lot by Kroger The site is a 9+ acre property located on the east alignment of N Alexander Dr. and adjacent to the existing Krogers Grocery Store. The site is generally found just north of the northeast quadrant of N Alexander Dr. and Ward Rd. with an existing CVS Pharmacy, Krogers, Walgreens Pharmacy, Fellowship Community Baptist Church, Solid Rock Pre -School and Early Learning Center, and bowling alley situated within short walking distance. The site is City -owned and provides excellent access with extensive frontage along Alexander Dr. The site is also in close proximity to Bowie Park and a high population base found in surrounding neighborhoods. The commercial corridor along Alexander is active, although, in need of general enhancement and improvements through some form of activation in amenities or employment of other destination strategies. The property is flat and offers easy access to utilities withoutthe need for extensive roadway improvements to reach the site. No trees are found on the site save the north boundary and located along Town Circle road (large Chinese tallow). The site is considered well situated and configured in a manner to easily accommodate the desired facility. The parcel is also situated in a location that serves a large population with no decline in numbers anticipated. Burditt's preliminary site opportunity analysis determined that the property offers excellent walkabOy opportunities, strong adjacency to numerous amenities, and excellent site and real estate catalyst potential. During the feasibility study public meeting session and in on-line survey information collected during the early public engagement phase, the site received approximately 46% of respondent preference for a new recreation center to be located on this site. This was the highest ranked location of all three sites presented to the public. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study llfe$V frOm edge OfeXiSling Kroger/ol veuiay neignoom000 — — -- 110 Nearby CVS at Ward Rd and NAlexander Dr. NAleranderDr corridor IMP Nearby gas slalions with cornerslores A,0ger's grocery slore f - - is �`�R'"�• ,�. t..- �- ac ge of voconl of a yin roger ron/oge of . acanl of on nowflo e onuls or Bring � BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study --A M Analysis of Alternative Sites Eivergreen Point Park Evergreen Golf Course was previously the C'ty's owned and operated golf facility that has now been converted to open green space. The built facilities have been remodeled and converted to community gathering and rental space. An additional privately operated wedding venue is being constructed along the bay and located within the general vicinity. The property is located along Evergreen Rd. in south Baytown and is situated less than a mile from Galveston Bay and Houston Ship Channel. The site is considered low-lying; however, is also contains gently sloping terrain owing to the prior golf course excavation for ponds and mounding. There also existed (at the time of inspections) a diverse mix of mature trees. The site scores well in terms of accessibility to the site; however, similar to Gene & Loretta Russell Park, the location and current population in this southernmost vicinity of Baytown is somewhat isolated from the bulk of the City's population. A new subdivision is being developed to the north end of the former golf course (north of the maintenance facility). This, along with the existing subdivision adjacent to Evergreen Rd. and the former golf course combine to create more In density and increased population in the area. The Qsite; however, does not currently offer greatly as a Q real estate catalyst or for its adjacency to walkability g or other amenities. U z During the feasibility study public meeting session w and in on-line survey information collected during the early public engagement phase, the site received approximately 17% of respondent preference for a new recreation center to be located on this site. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 112 Gene and Loretta Russell Park The property consists of approximately 53 acres +/- located along E. Wallisville (just east of N. Main St.) and near the Goose Creek High School Campus. The property is a former grass farm that was acquired for purposes of constructing a regional park. The site (soils and flood plain proximity) is flat with little drainage, adjacent to the Baytown Youth Fair and Spring Meadows Subdivision, located in close proximity to 1-10 and considered to be an excellent location for future recreation and community gathering facilities. The increased growth of Baytown and planned subdivision development provides strong connectivity to new residents in this northern vicinity of Baytown and north of I-10. The site scores well for suitability in site accessibility, site development, and in complementing long-term plans for the Gene & Loretta Russell Park Master Plan and facilities that will be eventually built on premises. The location, while very good for citizens currently (or in the future) living north of 1-10, does not accommodate a large percentage of the existing Baytown population of approximately 85,000. 1 nterstates and other major roadway systems can often serve to separate populations and create perceived barriers if not physical. During public meeting input and in on-line survey information collected during the early public engagement phase, the site received approximately 32% of respondent preference for the City's new recreation center. This ranked second in preference to the Alexander Dr. site, which collected approximately 46% of respondent preference. Currently, the site does provide broad real estate catalyst opportunity in the future as growth and expansion occurs to the north of 1-10. Walkability from Spring Meadows Subdivision and other future subdivisions has high potential, although presently, only moderately so. Nearby amenities are scarce save to the south along the N- Main and 1-10 corridors. _ 05, ice... z �. 'rwrK�• rii.. rdlJU, BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 113 Analysis of Building Code Applicable Codes 2009 IBC 2012 IFC 2006 IMC 2006 IEC 2006 IPC 2012 TAS (Chap. 3) Use & Occupancy Classification Occupancies: A-3 Assembly, B Business, E Educational • A-3/13 Separation — 1 hr with sprinkler, 2hr with no sprinkler • A -3/E Separation — no separation required • B/E Separation — 1 hr with sprinkler, 2hr with no sprinkler (Chap. 4) Special Detailed Requirements Atriums • Automatic sprinkler system, fire alarm system, and smoke control (if more than 2 stories) required • 1 hr fire barrier separation from adjacent spaces • Interior finishes of walls and ceilings shall not be less than Class B • Exit access travel distance no more than 200 ft in Atrium ,,, (Chap. 5) General Building Heights and r Areas QAllowable height, stories, and area o Construction Type IIA — 85 ft max building height LU Z • A-3: 4 stories, 15,500 sf 7 • B: 6 stories, 37,500 sf w • E: 4 stories, 26,500 sf Construction Type IIB — 75 ft max building height • A-3: 3 stories, 9,500 sf • B: 4 stories, 23,000 sf • E: 3 stories, 14,500 sf (Chap. 6) Types of Construction Construction Type IIA • Primary structural frame — 1 hr • Bearing walls, exterior — 1 hr • Bearing walls, interior — 1 hr • Non-bearing walls, exterior — 1 hr • Non-bearing walls, interior — Ohr • Floor construction and secondary members — 1 hr • Roof construction and secondary members — 1 hr Construction Type IIB • Primary structural frame — Ohr • Bearing walls, exterior — Ohr • Bearing walls, interior — Ohr • Non-bearing walls, exterior — Ohr if fire separation between 10 ft and 30 ft • Non-bearing walls, interior — Ohr • Floor construction and secondary members — Ohr • Roof construction and secondary members — Ohr (Chap. 8) [Interior f=inishes Interior wall and ceiling finish requirements by occupancy (sprinklered) A-3 • Exit elements — B, Corridors — B, Rooms & Enclosed Spaces — C B & E • Exit elements — B, Corridors — C, Rooms & Enclosed Spaces — C (Chap. 10) Means of Egress Section 1005 Means of Egress Sizing: 0.3" x Occupancy Load for stairs and 0.2" x Occupancy Load for other egress components. Table 1016.1 Exit Access Travel Distance Occupancy Group A — 3 & E — 250 ft with sprinkler Occupancy Group B — 300 ft with sprinkler Table 1021.1 Min. Number of Ex;ts For 501 to 1,000 occupants — m'n. of 3 exits BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 114 (Chap. 11) Accessibility Section 1103 Scoping Requirements — Facility and site required to be accessible Section 1 104 Accessible Route — provide at least one connected accessible route to accessible buildings, facilities, elements, and spaces that are on site. Section 1 105 Accessible Entrances — at least 60% of all public entrances shall be accessible Section 1109.2 Toilet and bathing facilities — each toilet room and bathing room shall be accessible and at least one of each type of fixture, element, control or dispenser in each accessible toilet room and bathing room shall be accessible. Section 1109.2.1 Family or assisted -use toilet and bathing rooms — In assembly occupancies, an accessible family or assisted -use toilet room shall be provided where an aggregate of six or more male and female water closets is required. Section 1 109.2.2 Water closet compartment — where combined total water closet compartments and urinals provided in a toilet room is six or more, at least one ambulatory -accessible water closet compartment shall be provided in addition to the wheelchair - accessible compartment. Section 1109.2.3 Lavatories — where lavatories are provided, at least 5% (not less than one) shall be accessible. Section1109.4 Kitchens and kitchenettes — where kitchens and kitchenettes are provided in accessible spaces or rooms, they shall be accessible. (Chap. 29) Plumbing Systems Minimum number of required plumbing fixtures Group A-3: 1 water closet per 125 male occupants, 1 water closet per 65 female occupants, 1 lavatory per 200 occupants, 1 drinking fountain per 500 occupants, 1 service sink Group B: 1 water closet per 25 occupants for first 50 occupants and 1 water closet per 50 occupants for remainder exceeding 50 occupants, 1 lavatory per 40 occupants for the first 80 occupants and 1 lavatory per 80 occupants for the remainder exceeding 80 occupants, 1 drinking fountain per 100 occupants, 1 service sink Group E: 1 water closet per 50 occupants, 1 lavatory per 50 occupants, 1 drinking fountain per 100 occupants, 1 service sink BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 115 BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 116 06 Appen6cel Hardy Native Plant List Citation of Sources BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 117 Hardy Native Plants List The following list of pants are native species that have proven be hardy options for the gulf coast region and climate. These plants can be incorporated into the project's landscape design as cost effective solutions with educed maintenance needs. Trees Baldcypress (Taxodium dstU7um) Black Willow (Sa&,nigro) Eastern Cottonwood (Popu/us de/toides) Eastern Red Cedar (./uniperus virginiano) Green Ash (fraxinuspennsy/vania) Hawthorn (Crateagusspp.) Live Oak (Quercus virginiana) Pecan (Carya i//inoiensis) Red Maple (Acerrubrum) Sh u m a rd Oak ( Quercus shumarodii) Sugarberry (Ce/tis/aevigata) Sweetg u m (Liquidambar styrach1uo) Sycamore (P/atanus occidenta/is) Water Oak (Quercus nigro) Willow Oak (Quercusphejj/os) Winged Elm (U/mus a/atc) Shrub!- American hrub;American Beautyberry (Ca//icarpa americano) Blackberry (Rubes spp.) Eastern baccharis (Baccharis ha/imifoba) Pa' m etto ( Saba/ mino� Rattlebox (Sesbania drummondii) Waxmyrtle (Myrica cen7erc� Ya u pan (//ex vomitorio) Annual Aster (Astersubulatus) Blackberry (Rubes spp.) Boneset (Eupatorium serotinum) Canadian Thistle (Cirsium horridu/um) Crossvine (Bignonia capreolatc) Croton ( Croton capitatus) Dewberry (Rubus spp.) Dogfennel (Eupatorium cappifo/ium) Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia artemesiifo%) Goldenrod (Solidago altissimc) Greenbriar (Smilaxspp.) Marsh Elder (Iva frutescens) Mistflower (Eupatorium coelestinum) Poison Ivy (Rhus radicans) Summer grape ( f/tis aestivolis) Trumpet Creeper (Campsisradicans) Virginia Creeper (Padhenocissus quinquefollb) Bermudagrass (Cynodon dacfy/on) Broomsedge Bluestem (Andropogon vi'Iginicus) Bushy Bluestem (Andropogon glomeratus) Carpetgrass (Axonupus afnis) Green flatsedge (Cyoerus vixens) Low Panicum (Dichanthe/ium) Rushes (Juncus sop.) Sedges (Corexspp.) Vaseygrass (Paspu/um surveil/i) f. 11 a �'• ' f A �., i r • �. F ` ( 1 e. tel. - - YYrr. BAYTOW - ecreation enter easii ity to y I� Citation of Sources Florida, Richard. "Walkability is Good for You." CityLab, 11 Dec. 2014, haps://www.citylob. com/design/2014/12/growing-evidence-shows- walkability-is-good-for-you-and-for-cities/383612. Accessed 24 Sept. 2018. HARC. "Restorative Landscaping: HARC's Native Plant List." HARC Research, 16 May 2017, Web. 24 Sept. 2018. Harris, Charles W. and Nicholas T. Dines. 71me- Saver Standards for Landscape Architecture: Design and Construction Data, Second Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, 1998. BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 120 BAYTOWN - Recreation Center Feasibility Study 121