Woodburn_doc_f5c3ed62d5 - Public Records Archive

Full Text

WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS Woodburn, Oregon Feasibility Study for a Recreation Center and an Arts & Cultural Community Center – November 2007 – CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE PC Architecture Planning & Development 322 nw 8th avenue, portland, oregon t:[PHONE REDACTED] f:[PHONE REDACTED] www.chapc.com Woodburn Memorial Aquatic Center, site of the proposed Recreation Center Legion Park soccer ﬁ eld, the proposed site for the Arts & Cultural Community Center ---PAGE BREAK--- WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS Project Team City of Woodburn John Brown, City Administrator Kathy Figley, Mayor Steve Patt erson, Recreation Services Manager Jim Row, Community Services Department Director Debbie Wadleigh, Aquatics Center Manager Kathy Willcox, Aquatics Center Assistant Manager Naomi Zwerdling, Planning Department Carleton Hart Architecture Bill Hart, Principal-in-charge Julie Proksch, Project Manager Paul Falsett o, Project Designer Kristen Godkin, Community Outreach ---PAGE BREAK--- WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 2.0 BACKGROUND Project Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Project Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 3.0 SITE SELECTION – ARTS & CULTURAL COMMUNITY CENTER Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Tally Sheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 4.0 EXISTING FACILITY ASSESSMENT – AQUATICS CENTER Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Architectural Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Structural Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Mechanical Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 Electrical Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.11 5.0 FACILITY PROGRAM Recreation Center Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Program Space Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Final Building Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Projected Programming Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Graphic Version of Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Arts & Cultural Community Center Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 Program Space Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 Final Building Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9 Projected Programming Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.11 Graphic Version of Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.12 ---PAGE BREAK--- WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS Table of Contents, continued 6.0 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN Recreation Center Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Scheme Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Design Drawings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inserts Arts & Cultural Community Center Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Design Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Design Drawings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inserts 7.0 COST ANALYSIS Recreation Center Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Project Cost Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Arts and Cultural Community Center Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Project Cost Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 8.0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS & FUNDING OPTIONS Financial Analysis – Recreation Center Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 Forecasted Operating Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 Forecasted Operating Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 Financial Analysis – Arts & Cultural Community Center Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 Forecasted Operating Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 Forecasted Operating Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 Funding Options Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.10 Grant Funding Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.10 Non-Grant Funding Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.12 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.14 APPENDIX A. Conceptual Construction Cost Estimate – Recreation Center B. Conceptual Construction Cost Estimate – Arts & Cultural Community Center C. PGE Energy Eﬃ ciency Scoping for Aquatics Center D. PowerPoint show (in notes form) E. Review of Similar Type Facilities ---PAGE BREAK--- WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ---PAGE BREAK--- – page left intentionally blank – CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE ---PAGE BREAK--- WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 1.0 Executive Summary OVERVIEW The City of Woodburn has commissioned Carleton Hart Architecture to complete a feasibility study to explore the costs and opportunities for developing two community centers, an Arts & Cultural Community Center and a Recreation Center. This feasibility study is a compilation of earlier eﬀ orts spanning ten years, which documented the programmatic needs, community support and location opportunities for the centers. The evaluated and selected a site for a new Arts & Cultural Community Center and evaluated the existing Aquatic Center for expansion into a complete Recreation Center. Taking the work that has previously been documented, this feasibility study includes building designs for both Centers, as well as construction cost estimates and operating proformas. The City had, previous to the commencement of this feasibility study, determined that it needs to provide both an inclusive Recreation Center and an Arts & Cultural Community Center to satisfy the needs of its growing population. The City of Woodburn is a community that has witnessed 50% growth since 1990, and anticipates equal or greater population growth over the next twenty years. This growth has also diversiﬁ ed the City, and Woodburn considers itself a place where people of all ages and cultures are encouraged to celebrate their diﬀ erences and share their unique heritage. Currently, the only indoor recreation center operated by the City of Woodburn’s Park Depart- ment is an Aquatic Center originally constructed in 1995. The Aquatic Center does not ad- equately fulﬁ ll the growing community needs for such programs. The City must lease space from the already overcrowded school gymnasiums in the area to accommodate its various in- door sports programs. The demand for these spaces is increasing to the point where the City’s park programs are being limited simply because there is not enough space. The City does not have dedicated space to run such programs as basketball, volleyball, yoga, aerobics, etc. The City also does not have a Community Center that can accommodate art classes, parenting classes or dance classes. Additionally, the City would like to accommodate a Teen Program and programs for its senior population. The City also does not have any large assembly space that can accommodate a wide variety of functions including a senior meals program, wedding space, exhibition space and conference space. The Woodburn Community Centers Feasibility Study is the culmination of a process that included signiﬁ cant research and public outreach, goal sett ing and prioritizing, visioning, analysis and evaluation. The process was interactive with the larger community and key stakeholder representatives within the City of Woodburn. MEANS The Consultant Team utilized a collaborative approach that included City of Woodburn leadership, Parks Department managers, the community at large and professional consultants. The duration of the planning study was from October 2006 through May 2007. Our investiga- tion during that time included the following: • Kick-oﬀ meeting to conﬁ rm Steering Committ ee, identify stakeholders and review project scope and schedule. • Goal Sett ing Workshop with Steering Committ ee and Woodburn Community to conﬁ rm project goals and program priorities. • Project Goals Statement in terms of ﬁ nancial, sustainable and programmatic success. ---PAGE BREAK--- CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.2 1.0 • Architectural Program for Recreation Center and Arts & Cultural Community Center out- lining rooms, sizes, adjacencies and special requirements. • List of potential sites for locating new Arts & Cultural Community Center. Develop site criteria by which the potential sites are evaluated. • The review and evaluation of potential sites, identifying the site that best meets the needs for the new Arts & Cultural Center. • Evaluation of the existing Aquatic Center reviewing structural, mechanical and electrical systems. Review facility for expansion capabilities, ability to meet programmatic goals and condition of weather envelope. • Conceptual design including site plans, building plans and building elevations for both the new Arts & Cultural Community Center and the expanded Recreation Center. • Construction cost estimate for both facilities, including hard and soft costs. • Operating pro-forma for both facilities including expenditures and potential revenues. Operating is based on a potential schedule for operations. • Identiﬁ cation of grant opportunities for funding the construction of the two facilities. • Present ﬁ ndings at a public Community Meeting. FINDINGS The Woodburn community has a tremendous need for spaces that the two Community Cen- ters oﬀ er. The City is rich in cultural and age diversity that lends itself well to hosting a wide range of functions accommodating a variety of users. The existing Aquatic Center, though only constructed in 1995, is in need of signiﬁ cant repairs to its envelope and does not satisfy its staﬃ ng or programmatic needs. The total square foot- age for the existing building is 21,685 sf, which includes a 15,352 natatorium (including cor- responding service spaces), a 1,094 square foot second ﬂ oor (used as storage and utility space) and about 5,239 sf of locker rooms, staﬀ spaces and front lobby/reception area. Due to the need for larger locker rooms and an expanded front lobby, it was determined that the second ﬂ oor space, locker rooms, staﬀ spaces and front lobby/reception area (totaling around 6,300 sf) should be demolished and a new 25,000 sf facility be constructed abutt ing the existing nata- torium to the east. The addition will include a full gymnasium (with limited bleacher seat- ing), a ﬁ tness/dance room, a weight room, a youth activity room, a multi-purpose classroom, expanded locker facilities and expanded staﬀ spaces. The existing Aquatic Center is located in the west corner of Sett lemeier Park. Additional parking will be developed to accommodate the larger facility and the existing tennis courts will need to be relocated to another area of the park. It appears that the park can accommo- date the expansion of the facility and parking as well as the relocation of the tennis courts. The new Arts & Cultural Community Center would be most appropriately sited at the City- owned Legion Park, in an area currently occupied by a soccer ﬁ eld. The City anticipates reconﬁ guring the park to accommodate its changing population and has embarked on a City-wide parks master plan process to capture these changes. The site is appropriate due to its topography, appropriate zoning and location within the community. The proposed build- ing will accommodate a large (7,500 sf) assembly space, a commercial grade kitchen, a senior lounge, two multi-purpose classrooms, a youth room and a dance studio. Gallery space and the ability to add onto the building have also been incorporated into the design of the facility. The total square footage of the building is just under 30,000 sf. ---PAGE BREAK--- WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.3 1.0 The total construction cost, including hard and soft costs, for the Recreation Center is esti- mated at $8.2 million and for the Arts & Cultural Center at $8.8 million. The ﬁ nancial analysis of the two centers indicates that there would be some construction money available through grants and other public sources. However, due to the limited reach and competitive nature of these funds, it will be a challenge to fund the construction of one or both facilities without some level of public money. NEXT STEPS Based on these ﬁ ndings the City of Woodburn is now preparing to determine if one or both or a combination of the two buildings should be developed. The resulting decision will need to be based on an initial fundraising eﬀ ort necessary to identify the available funds for construc- tion. ---PAGE BREAK--- CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.4 1.0 – page left intentionally blank – ---PAGE BREAK--- WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 2.0 BACKGROUND ---PAGE BREAK--- – page left intentionally blank – CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE ---PAGE BREAK--- BACKGROUND WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 2.1 2.0 Background PROJECT STATEMENT The City of Woodburn commissioned an exploration into the development of two diﬀ erent fa- cilities designed to provide unique community services. An expansion of the existing Aquatics Center would result in a new Recreation Center, with athletic facilities such as a weight room and full gymnasium. A new Arts and Cultural Community Center would provide a high-ca- pacity assembly space, classrooms and gathering areas, all designed to support and encour- age a variety of artistic endeavors. Both these facilities are anticipated to provide a forum for interaction, understanding and enrichment of the many diverse groups of citizens that live in and around Woodburn. This study builds upon ten years of previous work that explored various options for a com- munity center. For instance, an option that combines the Recreation Center and Arts & Cul- tural Community Center functions had previously been explored, and it was decided that separate sites were required. Prior to this project the various general functions and program- matic elements for both centers had been determined. The purpose of this study is to explore the elements to be housed in the two facilities, identify an appropriate site for the Arts & Cultural Community Center, develop a conceptual design on their respective selected sites, and generate ﬁ nancial data that would help determine po- tential funding sources. ---PAGE BREAK--- BACKGROUND CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 2.2 2.0 METHODOLOGY The methodology for this study involved six distinct phases: research, facility program, site selection for the Arts & Cultural Community Center, evaluation of the Aquatics Center, devel- opment of conceptual designs, and a ﬁ nancial analysis. Work completed during these phase are described below. Research Information was gathered from previous eﬀ orts and studies, along with site visits to similar facilities. A detailed discussion with Aquatic Center management helped to determine current and future needs. A public Goal Sett ing Workshop was conducted to discuss the community’s vision for the facilities, along with ﬁ nancial, sustainable and management issues. Input from the general public was provided via two open meetings. The ﬁ rst meeting started early in the project, and reviewed and reﬁ ned the project goals, prioritized program elements and their adjacent relationships. The second meeting came at the conclusion of the project, with a presentation of the conceptual site and building designs for both facilities, along with their estimated project costs. Facility Program Space requirement information developed for a previous report was used as a starting frame- work for facility programs for each building. A program matrix was developed and reviewed, listing all elements needed and associated square footages. A diagram was produced that illustrate in relative scale the various program spaces and important adjacencies. Site Selection for Arts & Cultural Community Center The site selection phase consisted of compiling a list of acceptable sites for the Center, which were systematically analyzed through the use of a Site Criteria Matrix. The criteria, weighted by level of importance, included topics such as ownership, parking, zoning, size, and acces- sibility. Evaluation of the Aquatics Center Carleton Hart Architecture and their engineering team evaluated the current condition of the Aquatic Center in terms of its exterior envelope, structural capacity, heating and cooling equipment, electrical systems, and interior ﬁ nishes. The team also examined the facility’s abil- ity to expand into a Recreational Center. Development of Conceptual Designs During the Conceptual Design Phase a number of design alternatives for each facility were de- veloped for the Task Force’s review. The selected design alternative received further develop- ment to a level that allowed a fairly detailed construction cost estimate. Site plans, ﬂ oor plans, and elevations of each facility were produced and displayed at a community-wide presenta- tion. Financial Analysis A ﬁ nancial analysis was developed to relate project costs with available funding options, such as grants and foundation sources. ---PAGE BREAK--- BACKGROUND WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 2.3 2.0 PROJECT GOALS The Project Task Force participated in a Goals Sett ing Workshop to conﬁ rm and document both short and long term goals for the Woodburn Community Centers Project. Project goals and objectives address the rationale and need for the project and relates to both speciﬁ c servic- es and the Project’s place within the Woodburn community. They address what this particular project hopes to accomplish. The goals are as follows: • The Woodburn Community Centers project will include the planning and conceptual design which will ultimately result in the completion of an addition and renovation to the Aquatic Center – to be known at the Recreation Center – and the new construction of an Arts & Cultural Community Center. The facilities will support the greater Woodburn com- munity service area. • The Recreation Center and Arts & Cultural Community Center will provide recreation and gathering space for people of all ages, incomes, cultures, and abilities to participate in recreational, educational, cultural and community-oriented activities. • The Recreation Center will continue its focus on providing space and equipment for recre- ation and athletic activities. • The Arts & Cultural Community Center will be both an indoor and outdoor community gathering space for residents to participate in social, educational and artistic activities as well as oﬃ ce space for related administration. The new facility will endeavor to bring people together respecting and celebrating the cultural identity of a diverse community. • The new Arts & Cultural Community Center will strive to become a landmark within the Woodburn area. It will be centrally located and easily accessed by pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles. • Project ﬁ nancing will avoid going to residents for funding through the bond process. Con- struction funding will be secured through appropriate grants and foundations. The project team will work collaboratively in producing appropriate documentation and materials to secure alternative funding options. • The Recreation Center and Arts & Cultural Community Center will make every eﬀ ort to embrace the highest standards of green building practices. The Arts & Cultural Community Center site and building designs will pursue LEED Gold Certiﬁ cation. • The Recreation Center and Arts & Cultural Community Center will encourage and main- tain low operating and maintenance costs and continue its commitment toward subsidizing children’s programs. The project goals are intended to be visionary and encompassing rather than focusing on spe- ciﬁ c building program and building needs. They will guide the process and will be used as a reference for decision making throughout the Community Centers project development. ---PAGE BREAK--- BACKGROUND CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 2.4 2.0 – page left intentionally blank – ---PAGE BREAK--- WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 3.0 SITE SELECTION – ARTS & CULTURAL COMMUNITY CENTER ---PAGE BREAK--- – page left intentionally blank – CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE ---PAGE BREAK--- SITE SELECTION WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 3.1 3.0 Site Selection – Arts & Cultural Community Center OVERVIEW The Task Force established the following site selection criteria for the Arts & Cultural Commu- nity Center, against which each site was to be evaluated. The criteria was weighted depending on its relative priority level. Six sites were identiﬁ ed by the Task Force as potential areas to locate the new facility, and were reviewed and evaluated. The site with the highest number of points was the Legion Park area at the old soccer ﬁ eld. The ten criteria used to evaluate the sites and their relative weighting are presented below. The ﬁ nal tally for each site under consideration are included in the following pages. CRITERIA Cost/Ownership (5 points) The desired site would be one currently owned by the City of Woodburn. Size (4 points) The site needs to accommodate 48,000 sf buildable land (1.1 acres; including parking and outdoor areas). Room for Future Growth (4 points) The site would ideally have expansion room for a potential 18,000 sf Performing Arts Facility (1.4 acres; including parking and outdoor areas). Outdoor Spaces (4 points) There should be the ability to develop public gathering spaces, such as a plaza, play area, etc. Automobile Access (3 points) There should be direct automobile access from a primary street, or the ability for clear and distinct signage. Pedestrian/Bike Access (3 points) Easy access onto the site is desired for pedestrians and bicyclists. Street frontage could be improved as needed with sidewalks. Close proximity to the Greenway is considered positive. Solar Access (2 points) Southern exposure for the building and its outdoor spaces is desirable. Location (2 points) The site should be located along commercial streets and close to residential cores. Visibility (2 points) The new building should have street frontage or could provide landmark cues directing users to the building. Zoning (1 point) The site should have the appropriate zoning to allow for the desired use. ---PAGE BREAK--- SITE SELECTION CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 3.2 3.0 SITE SELECTION TALLY SHEETS ---PAGE BREAK--- SITE SELECTION WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 3.3 3.0 SITE SELECTION TALLY SHEETS (CONTINUED) THE CHOSEN SITE ---PAGE BREAK--- SITE SELECTION CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 3.4 3.0 L E G I O N P A R K the chosen building site Vicinity aerial Site aerial The chosen site for the Arts & Cultural Community Center. ---PAGE BREAK--- WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 4.0 EXISTING FACILITY ASSESSMENT – AQUATICS CENTER ---PAGE BREAK--- – page left intentionally blank – CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE ---PAGE BREAK--- EXISTING FACILITY ASSESSMENT WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 4.1 4.0 Existing Facility Assessment – Woodburn Memorial Aquatic Center OVERVIEW Carleton Hart Architecture was hired by the City of Woodburn to conduct an assessment of the Woodburn Memorial Aquatic Center. This assessment was to describe the current condition of the building and its systems, and to recommend the changes necessary to expand the Aquatic Center into a new Recreation Center, with a gymnasium and ﬁ tness rooms. Engineering consultants on this project included KPFF (structural) and Interface (mechanical and electrical). Overall, the twelve-year old building was found to be in fair shape, with noticeable points of degradation found within the corrosive environment of the natatorium. The single- ply rooﬁ ng membrane used over the natatorium has experienced leaking at various locations, and will require closer inspection by a rooﬁ ng professional to determine its life expectancy. A new roof could be coupled with the addition of skylights and greater insulation. The mechanical systems, especially those located on the exterior, are suﬀ ering from a high level of corrosion, and will require replacement soon. Systems providing the highest energy eﬃ ciency should be selected, and should be protected from destructive elements both in the interior and exterior of the building. An expanded complex will also require greater parking capacity, along with a careful re-work- ing of the site east and south of the Center. This will need to be coordinated with the overall plan for Sett lemier Park, and will most likely involve the relocation of the existing tennis courts. ARCHITECTURAL EVALUATION – CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE General Information Building Name Woodburn Memorial Aquatic Center Location 190 Oak Street Owner City of Woodburn Constructed 1995 Architect Lawrence E. Matson (Bellevue, WA) Occupancy Classiﬁ cation A2.1 Construction Type Type V – 1 hour Gross building footprint 20,599 sf Composition One-story structure with a small second ﬂ oor (1,094 sf) currently used for storage and mechanicals. The natatorium and its service spaces comprise 15,572 sf of the building total, and is fronted by the Center’s lobby, oﬃ ce, dressing rooms, and other miscella- neous support spaces. Exterior view, with main entry at right ---PAGE BREAK--- CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 4.2 4.0 EXISTING FACILITY ASSESSMENT Site Description and Recommendations The Woodburn Memorial Aquatic Center is located within Sett lemier Park, immediately west of Front Street. The rectangular building is sited approximately 30 degrees clockwise from true north, and parallel to Oak Street. It is bordered by a soft ball ﬁ eld to the south, and to the north by a residential lot and an open ﬁ eld. Parking is provided east of the building on an asphalt lot containing forty-two spaces, four of which are designated for ADA use. Service access to the natatorium mechanical spaces is from the north at 2nd Street, with a limited parking area. The site topography falls oﬀ steeply towards the soft ball ﬁ eld to the south, and more gen- tly to the east, with the parking lot acting as a plateau before the grade dips further down to the tennis courts. The area north of the site is relatively ﬂ at. The landscaping is comprised primarily of planting areas with junipers, and mowed lawn, along with intermitt ent evergreen and deciduous trees. An expansion of the Center would occur on available land to the north and east, requir- ing the removal of two evergreen trees of moderate size. As the Center expands east- ward, the grade change on site would need to be addressed as any expansion should match the existing ﬁ nish ﬂ oor height. The addition of sidewalks along Oak Street should accompany this expansion, and located being mindful of the large trees street trees planted there. An increase in parking spaces would be required with an addition, and could potentially include a new lot arranged parallel to Front Street and extending southward into an adjacent open area. Appar- ently sanitary sewer pipes are located in this area, and will need to be considered when this area receives develop- ment. The existing tennis courts might need to be relo- cated to a location determined by the Park’s master plan. Stormwater issues caused by an increase in impervious surface area will also need to be considered. Possible remediation methods include bioswales, previous paving, retention areas, and possibly even “green roofs” on the addition. Site plan West facade, showing the large volume of the natatorium extending to the right. The area in foreground is potential expansion space. ---PAGE BREAK--- EXISTING FACILITY ASSESSMENT WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 4.3 4.0 Exterior Construction Description and Recommendations The building is constructed principally of re- inforced concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls, painted, with accent areas of brick, glass block, and metal panel. The walls of the natatorium are of 12-inch CMU, and the walls of the support and service spaces (lobby, changing rooms, staﬀ areas) are of 8-inch CMU. The roof over the natatorium is a single-ply membrane atop plywood decking, which is supported by a series of trusses. A sloped standing seam metal roof covers the support and service spaces on either side of the natatorium. The building rests on a concrete slab-on-grade founda- tion. Overall, the exterior walls are in fair condition. The most apparent area of concern is the rust stains visible just below the metal facia across the top of the wall of the natatorium. Corrosion is obviously taking place behind the skirting, and likely caused by the deterioration of the metal fasteners. This system should receive further examination to determine the exact cause, and a so- lution proposed. The stains on the CMU walls and glass block should then be removed. Certain individual units of the glass block wall surrounding the spa and the glass block windows have been cracked, chipped and even broken through to the point of compromising the stability of the entire system. Broken units should be re- placed, and the grouting throughout evaluated and repointed and cleaned as required. The glass block wall at the spa extends down to grade and even below grade, presenting a less than optimal condi- tion. Creating a concrete patio at this location (as the original construction drawings show was intended) would help alleviate this situation. Probably a bett er long-range solution is to create a concrete curb at the base of this wall, which would also help address issues found at the interior and described further in this report. The single-ply membrane roof is now over twelve years old and has had a number of patches ap- plied to address water inﬁ ltration. Ponding was evident, and the roof deck felt bouncy/spongy in certain locations. Algae buildup has occurred along the inside of the south parapet wall. By the time an anticipated expansion of the Center actually takes place, the condition of this roof should be closely evaluated. If the roof requires replacement, it might oﬀ er the opportunity to cut in skylights to introduce daylight into the natatorium, or possibly employ some natural ventilation strategies. The storefront system at the north side of at natato- rium at either side of the spa appears to be in decent condition, with some cleaning required. The storefront system at the main entrance is in good condition. Rust visible below facia on natatorium Exterior glass block at spa location Evidence of ponding and algae at natatorium roof ---PAGE BREAK--- CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 4.4 4.0 EXISTING FACILITY ASSESSMENT Interior Construction Description and Recommendations Natatorium The CMU walls surrounding the natatorium are framed in with metal studs, insulated with a vapor barrier, and ﬁ n- ished with Portland Cement plaster. The walls show quite a bit of cracking, principally along the edges of the horizontal and vertical reveals. The crack openings are large enough at points to cause moisture to inﬁ ltrate into the wall, exacerbat- ing the issue. It is recommended that these cracks be ﬁ lled with a ﬂ exible sealant and covered with a coat of paint. There is no base molding at the intersection between the wall and ﬂ oor, and the bott om of the wall shows signs of corro- sion and decay from constant contact with moisture. These areas will require repair and sealant applied at the wall/ﬂ oor intersection. The application of a base molding will also help protect this exposed and susceptible area. The base of the glass block wall at the spa area is showing signs of distress caused by a number of factors. The block extends down to the ﬂ oor, and constant moisture has caused some degradation of the grout. Also, the glass block units immediate behind the steel columns are cracked, possibly due to stress caused by the expansion and contraction of the steel. Other base units are cracked as well, suggesting a more endemic condition. Although this issue does not require an immedi- ate solution, it should be monitored for further degradation and probable causes. As previ- ously mentioned, one possible long-term solution would be to create an 8-inch concrete curb where the wall meets the ﬂ oor, raising the glass block above the problem area. Metal in the moist and chlorine-laden environment of the natatorium is highly susceptible to corro- sion. Although steel elements are usually primed and painted with a coating designed to withstand this environment, oxidization will occur over time. This is particularly true with moving elements, metal edges and corners such as those found on the metal doors and door frames. Corrosion on these elements will need to be removed and the aﬀ ected area primed and painted. Regular maintenance will help keep this perpetual issue in check. The concrete ﬂ oor and pool decking contains a number of cracks, and though somewhat discon- Cracks visible in natatorium wall plaster Damage at wall/ﬂ oor intersection Existing ﬂ oor plan of the Aquatics Center N a t a t o r i u m ---PAGE BREAK--- EXISTING FACILITY ASSESSMENT WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 4.5 4.0 certing, they do not seem to require any immedi- ate response. They should be monitored, and any cracks of signiﬁ cant width and depth should be patched. It was noticed that the ﬁ re extinguishers are too large for their cabinets, and the glass pane in the door has been removed to accommodate them. To protect the extinguishers from the corrosive envi- ronment and from unintended use, a new cabinet type that fully encloses the entire extinguisher should be installed. Staﬀ Area, Exercise Room and Lobby The walls in these areas are a mix of painted CMU, painted gypsum board, quarry tile, and a storefront system with metal spandrels. Upon visual inspection, these ﬁ nishes appear to be holding up well. The ceilings are of painted gypsum board or a suspended acoustical tile system, and also appear to be in good condition. The ﬂ ooring consists of quarry tile in the lobby with a tile base, carpet in the ﬁ tness area, and exposed concrete elsewhere. A few light cracks were visible in the concrete, on par with what has been seen elsewhere in the building. The only recommendations in these areas would be to perform basic maintenance as required. Changing Rooms The walls of the changing rooms consist of painted CMU and plaster over metal stud. There are fairly intense cracks in the plaster at the plumbing chase wall, which should be patched and painted. The plaster ceilings and concrete ﬂ oors appear to be in good condition. The plumbing ﬁ xtures in the men’s changing area include three toilets, three urinals, and three sinks. The women’s changing area contains ﬁ ve changing areas and three sinks. These ﬁ xtures are in fair-to-good condition, though if the Center was expanded, additional ﬁ xtures will need to be added, which could prompt a complete replacement of all existing ﬁ xtures. There were complaints about the inconsis- tent water temperature in the showers, and a bett er plumb- ing strategy should be employed if the Center expands and more showers are required. A sauna has been provided in each changing area, though there have been issues with acts of vandalism and the in- ability to monitor activities. It has been suggested by staﬀ that if the Center expands, the saunas get combined into one space located at the pool deck. A certain number of lockers have been damaged and no longer operate properly. More lockers will be required dur- ing an expansion and the entire system should be upgraded to withstand intense use. Interior glass block wall at spa location Evidence of corrosion within natatorium Fire extinguishers no longer contained within their cabinets ---PAGE BREAK--- CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 4.6 4.0 EXISTING FACILITY ASSESSMENT STRUCTURAL EVALUATION – KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS Introduction The purpose of the structural evaluation was to assess the structural condition of the building and evaluate the structural systems conformance to current building code requirements. The evaluation included a review of existing structural drawings dated September 26, 1994 and observations made during a walk-through of the building. Structural Systems The Woodburn Aquatic Center is a one-story structure with a mezzanine level over the oﬃ ce and workout area. The natatorium is separated from the buildings support functions by an interior reinforced CMU wall. The structural system for the natatorium consists of premanufactured wood roof trusses at 4-feet on center clear-spanning the 98-feet width of the building. The trusses are supported by 12-inch solid grouted reinforced CMU walls. The walls have multiple high window open- ings in them with reinforced CMU headers spanning the opening. The pitched top chord, ﬂ at bott om chord, trusses are 4-feet deep at the ends and 8-feet deep at the mid-span roof ridge. The roof sheathing over the natatorium consists of 1-1/8 inch plywood sheathing spanning between the trusses. The roof over east portion of the building housing changing rooms, lobby, oﬃ ces, and work- out area consists of premanufactured wood trusses and I-joists at 2-feet on center. The trusses and joists span to wood girder trusses and glulam beams as well as to the perimeter and three interior fully grouted reinforced CMU walls. Tube steel columns support the glulam beams and girder trusses. Portion of the roof is also supported by a metal stud wall from the mezza- nine level. ½-inch plywood sheathing spans between the wood trusses and I-joists. The structural system for the mezzanine level consists of 16-inch deep wood I-joists at 16- inches on center spanning to CMU walls and glulam beams. The glulam beams are supported by the tube steel columns which also support the roof. The ﬂ oor sheathing consists of ¾-inch plywood sheathing. The roof over the mechanical room is framed with 18-inch deep wood I-joists at 2-feet on cen- ter. The I-joists span to perimeter CMU walls and hip-framed glulam beams. ½-inch plywood sheathing span between the joists. The foundation system consists of continuous reinforced concrete strip footings under the CMU walls and individual spread footings under the tube steel columns. The ﬂ oor slab for the oﬃ ce and locker rooms is a 5-inch thick slab-on-grade with #3 reinforcing bars at 15-inches on center each way. The slab for the pool deck and mechanical room is a 6-inch thick slab on grade with #3 reinforcing bars at 15-inches on center. Lateral wind and seismic loads are resisted by the concrete masonry walls. The CMU walls are reinforced and grouted solid. Structural Condition and Assessment The structural condition of the Woodburn Aquatic Center appears to be very good, in general, with no signs of obvious distress or sett lement. Based on recent observations, the building ap- peared to match the layout of the structural drawings. The one concern that was noticed in the natatorium appeared to be local areas of rott ing of the roof sheathing and 2x blocking. Conversations with pool staﬀ conﬁ rmed that there have been problems with roof leaks. Corrosion was also noticed on numerous metal straps that are part of the roof connections. While natatoriums have a naturally moist and corrosive environment, the amount noted was signiﬁ cantly more than would normally be expected for similar facility ---PAGE BREAK--- EXISTING FACILITY ASSESSMENT WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 4.7 4.0 of this age. The noted rust and rott ing does not appear to be an immediate concern, but would need to be further investigated and addressed in upcoming renovations and/or building main- tenance plans. The oﬃ ce and locker room portion of the building is covered with architectural ﬁ nishes. The ﬂ oor sheathing of the mezzanine was exposed and nail spacing indicated that joist spacing match the layout shown on the drawings. According to the existing drawings, the roofs were designed for a snow load of 25 psf plus drift as required by code. This is consistent with current code requirements. The design live load for the mezzanine is not indicated on the drawings. The seismic design criteria used was Seismic Zone 3 of the 1991 Uniform Building Code. Seismic code requirements have changed substantially since then. However, the building ap- pears to be well reinforced and detailed at the time it was designed. The building likely does not conform to current code in all design aspects, but will probably perform well in an earth- quake. Proposed Addition A proposed addition to the facility will extend to the east and south of the existing natatori- um, and appears structurally feasible without requiring extensive work to the existing struc- ture. It can likely be tied directly to the existing CMU walls without the need of a seismic joint. The addition of individual skylights in the natatorium roof between the trusses has been pro- posed. With careful coordination of the skylight quantity and layout this appears structurally feasible without signiﬁ cantly impacting the existing roof diaphragm. Recommendations Overall, the buildings appear to be in very good structural condition. The following are our recommendations for structural upgrades or repairs: • Further investigate roof structure for local areas of rott ing. Aﬀ ected areas will need to be repaired from both a structural aspect, but also to help avoid a reoccurrence of water dam- age. • It is recommended that all metal that is part of the structural frame, including connections, be treated against corrosion. A corrosion protective paint system may work well aft er exist- ing rust has been removed. • The proposed skylights in the existing natatorium roof will need to be carefully coordinat- ed so the existing roof diaphragm is not signiﬁ cantly impacted. • The proposed addition appears feasible from a structural standpoint without requiring signiﬁ cant work to the existing facility beyond items noted above. ---PAGE BREAK--- CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 4.8 4.0 EXISTING FACILITY ASSESSMENT MECHANICAL EVALUATION – INTERFACE ENGINEERING Systems Description and Recommendations The existing public entry spaces, oﬃ ces and lockers are served by three small condensing fur- naces with remote condensing units for cooling. The outside air is ducted directly to the units, though without isolation dampers. One of the units has been recently replaced and should be a good candidate for reuse if the building is to be expanded. Exhaust fans from the changing areas run continuously, yet do not appear to provide good air changes to the changing areas and should be replaced. Water heating is by three natural-draft , 199 MBH input water heaters. These units are nearing the end of their useful life and it is recommended to replace them with newer, high-eﬃ ciency units. In a discussion with George Vistica from the City’s Facilities Department, it was understood that all outside mechanical elements are corroding and failing, requiring replacement. Some interior HVAC ducting is corroding as well, due to the pervasive moist environment in the natatorium. Proposed Systems for an Expanded Center Most all of the mechanical systems would be replaced in the new expanded Center, though main piping runs and some underground pipe should be reused or reconnected. Under the most current plan, about 5,000 square feet of existing space will be remodeled with 14,500 square feet of new space. A description of the proposed new systems follows. HVAC An exhaust and make-up air system for the changing rooms is proposed that would control humidity in these locations and keep the spaces at a positive pressure leading into to the main pool. This will keep odors and humidity out of the public spaces, and can run continually while minimizing overall energy use. The exhausted air will pass through a heat exchanger and used to precondition the outdoor air coming into the system. A furnace and cooling coil with remote condensing unit will be used to control the temperature of the air going into the changing rooms. The newest furnace currently in uses at the Aquatic Center may be reused here. The proposed classroom, lobby, staﬀ area, weight room, and ﬁ tness room would all have their own packaged, self-contained, high-eﬃ ciency heat pump rooft op units. These would provide local, independent temperature control and high-eﬃ ciency operation. Supplemental fans are recommended in the ﬁ tness and weight room, as extra air movement is necessary to make oc- cupants comfortable while exercising. The unisex toilet rooms would have an exhaust fan interlocked with the lights and a time-oﬀ delay. A heating/ventilation unit is proposed for the gymnasium, due to this space’s overall size and type of use. It would be designed to provide night ventilation/cooling of the space and high exhaust during warmer months. This system requires a high amount of building mass, prefer- ably concrete walls with exterior insulation. An evaporative cooler could be added to supple- ment cooling on the warmest days. During winter, a gas heater within the unit and recircu- lated air will be used to condition the space, with a high supply source and a low return grill. Minimum outside air would be introduced to the space during heating season. ---PAGE BREAK--- EXISTING FACILITY ASSESSMENT WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 4.9 4.0 Plumbing Three new condensing water heaters in the mezzanine will re-feed the hot water for show- ers and lavatories. This could provide two energy beneﬁ ts: the direct-vented units are more energy eﬃ cient than the natural draft units (10 percent or greater), and the units do not need to have a combustion air vent. The showers, lavatories, and water closets in the lockers are older and some pieces might be salvaged. For the most part, though, keeping the ﬁ xtures in good condition through the demo- lition and construction process may prove diﬃ cult – it should be expected that the plumbing ﬁ xtures would most likely be replaced. Showers could employ push butt on operation (tempered water, no local temperature control) and low ﬂ ow heads. The lavatories will be low ﬂ ow with infrared sensors for operation. The toilets and urinals will have infrared sensor ﬂ ush valves; urinals will be of an ultra-low ﬂ ow type. The total number of ﬁ xtures expected is estimated at about 56, and include new drinking fountains, a staﬀ restroom, a sink at the concession desk and one in the party room, and a jani- tor closet. Outdoor Leisure Pool The existing indoor pool would operate independently from a proposed new outdoor leisure pool; however, the chemical feed for the new pool may be most economically run from the existing chemical storage. There may be a limiting factor on the length of run for the chemi- cal feed lines, but there appears to be a routing path from the storage shed to the proposed mechanical equipment room. Mechanical services to the pool would include a makeup water feed to the pool, a natural gas line for the pool heater (preferably a condensing heater with a water-to-water heat exchanger to provide minimum 93% eﬃ ciency versus 82% for a noncondensing unit), a mechanical room ventilator, and possibly a pumping system for a set of solar collectors mounted on the roof of the gymnasium. The pool would also require a surge tank, ﬁ ltration system, and separate pumping system for water features (sprays, slides, etc., that may be added to the outdoor pool) provided by the pool contractor. Deck drainage needs to be plumbed directly to the sanitary sewer system, and should be a trench type with stainless steel cover. Cost Opinions Estimated costs are as follows: HVAC: $218,000 Plumbing: $149,000 Pool Mechanical/Plumbing: $52,000 Total: $419,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 4.10 4.0 EXISTING FACILITY ASSESSMENT Sustainable Measures Most of the HVAC and plumbing described above already includes a number of sustainable measures, such as the highest-eﬃ ciency equipment for HVAC and water heating, low ﬂ ow ﬁ xtures, and so on. One of the best ways to improve the HVAC system performance is to reduce the amount of energy required to heat and cool the building. Lighting and building construction ﬁ nishes will provide some of the most sustainable impacts on the HVAC system by reducing the loading demands. Descriptions of additional features are as follows: • High mass walls for the gym: the walls should have a concrete/concrete block construction with exterior insulation if possible; interior walls will not need insulation. This assembly system allows for night cooling of the space and the elimination of space cooling. • Solar heating for the new pool: if roof surfaces with southern orientation can support the weight (such as on the new gymnasium), it might be possible to use a solar heating system for the outdoor pool. A black plastic type that can be laid directly on a roof surface and can circulate pool water directly without additional heat exchangers. • Additional insulation for existing pool enclosure: the heat losses are dramatic, since the pool enclosure has to be kept much warmer than a typical occupancy, and the heating must work year-round. Additional insulation when the rooﬁ ng is replaced would have a sub- stantial payback. • Heat recovery from the main pool air handler: the dehumidiﬁ cation unit could possibly be modiﬁ ed to recover the energy from the dehumidiﬁ cation process to heat the pool water. This could have a very quick payback if the unit could be retroﬁ t by the manufacturer. ---PAGE BREAK--- EXISTING FACILITY ASSESSMENT WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 4.11 4.0 ELECTRICAL EVALUATION – INTERFACE ENGINEERING Systems Description and Recommendations The Aquatic Center was served by a 600-amp, 480Y/277-volt, 3-phase, 4-wire switchboard (panel containing ﬁ ve circuit breakers as service disconnects. Due to extensive corro- sion from the chlorinated air of the pool room, panel was replaced in March 2007 with an 800-amp panel, located outside of the pool area. Panel is served by a 300 kVA padmount utility transformer, with an estimated peak demand of 200kVA. Feeders to branch panels are aluminum while branch circuit wiring is copper, type THWN. It is recommended that these feeders be tested for insulation integrity to insure that their reli- ability has not been compromised by corrosion from the pool environment. Step-down dry- type transformers are rated for 150C rise temperature and are typically in good conditions; a notable exception is a transformer in the mechanical room adjoining the pool area, exhibiting extensive rust. Switches and receptacles are ivory ﬁ nish with type 302 stainless steel faceplates and appear in good condition. Building-mounted exterior lighting is based on high pressure sodium lamp sources. Pool lighting is based on 18 indirect, 1000-watt metal halide ﬂ oodlights, and 500-watt incandescent underwater luminaires along the pool perimeter. Fift een individual switches in the oﬃ ce area control this lighting. Remaining building lighting is based on T8 ﬂ uorescent lamps with elec- tronic ballasts. Many ﬂ uorescent luminaires, other than those in staﬀ areas, exhibit yellowed and/or shatt ered lenses. Exterior lighting appears directly controlled by photocell, while interior lighting is controlled by local switches. Beyond that, there appears to be no automatic lighting controls. Emergency lighting consists of local batt ery backup for white polycarbonate exit signs with two indepen- dent tungsten lamps. The ﬁ re alarm system is a four-zone conventional system with two zones in use: manual pull stations and duct-mounted smoke detectors. In the past, the duct-mounted smoke detectors have been prone to false alarms. Notiﬁ cation appliances include strobes and speaker/strobes connected through a voice-evacuation system. Phone/data network is limited to a ﬁ ve-pair incoming phone line. The main telecom room serves up to eight data jacks via an Ethernet switch in the mechanical room above the staﬀ area. The building has a defunct eight-zone Dukane paging system that appears to have just one working speaker in the pool area; output from the speaker is too distorted for intelligible speech. Proposed Systems for an Expanded Center Based on a 14,500 square foot expansion, plus pool equipment for the addition of an outdoor leisure pool, an added load of 160kVA is estimated. Together with the existing peak demand of 200kVA, this adds to roughly 683-amps of total load, easily ﬁ tt ing on the new 800 amp service. The expansion area would be fed by two sets of panels: the existing 150-amp, 480Y/277V panel P3, 45kVA transformer X4 and 150-amp, 208Y/120-volt panel P4; a new 200-amp panel P5, 45kVA transformer X6 and 150-amp, 208Y/120-volt panel P6. Panels P3/P4 could remain in the mechanical room above the lobby, while panels P5/P6 would be located either in the same mechanical room, or preferably in a storage area between the new gym and outdoor leisure pool. For consistency with the existing building, new feeders would be compressed stranded alumi- num and branch circuits copper THWN-2. New wiring devices would be 20-amp, ivory ﬁ nish, with type 302 stainless steel faceplates. Two possible cost savings measures include use of MC ---PAGE BREAK--- CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 4.12 4.0 EXISTING FACILITY ASSESSMENT cable in areas with suspended ceiling with accessible ceiling space above, and/or ENT conduit in similar areas with nonmetallic wall boxes. Connections for mechanical units include: • Rooft op make-up air unit for gym. • Heat pumps dedicated to each classroom, ﬁ tness area, etc. • Exhaust fans for changing rooms. • Gas-ﬁ red water heaters and furnaces. • Infrared sensors on urinals, lavatories and toilets. • Hand dryers and swim suit dryers in each locker area. Luminaires and lamps would include the following: • Lamps: Linear ﬂ uorescent would be premium eﬃ ciency T8-lamps with minimum 24,000-hr lamp life, >85CRI and 3500K. Compact ﬂ uorescent lamps would be chosen to minimum number of diﬀ erent lamp types in building. • Gym: impact resistant, multilamp linear ﬂ uorescent-based luminaires. • Staﬀ Areas: linear direct or indirect/direct ﬂ uorescent luminaires. • Changing Areas: gasketed, lensed, impact-resistant linear ﬂ uorescent luminaires. • Lobby: ﬂ uorescent and/or compact-ﬂ uorescent based luminaires chosen for aesthetics and durability. • Classroom/Party Room/Weight/Fitness Rooms: ﬂ uorescent-based luminaires chosen for aesthetics and durability. • Building Exterior: wall sconces chosen to match existing high pressure sodium lighting. Lighting controls would include the following measures: • Reduce the 15 switches for the pool area to four (natatorium, spa (X2), underwater light- ing). • Add occupancy sensor controls in individual room spaces. • Add lighting relay panel for scheduled control of lobby lighting, gym lighting. • Add slider dimmer control with electronic ballasts (100 to 10 percent dimming) in class- room and party room spaces for room ﬂ exibility. Upgrade ﬁ re alarm system to analog addressable system for code-required coverage of build- ing, including pull stations, duct-mounted smoke detectors, and strobes and speaker/strobes. Pre-alarm sett ings would allow troubleshooting of duct-mounted smoke detectors before building went into full alarm. New system would also have voice evacuation system for build- ing. Wiring would be routed in threaded conduit in the pool areas. Public address system to be upgraded for full speaker coverage of pool area and other public areas in the addition including lockers. Two output zones are proposed: one for the pool area and one for the rest of the building. All-page would be provided through the phone system connected to the public address system. A wireless GPS clock system is recommended for public areas, Primex or approved, with one clock per room space (exception: two 16-inch diameter clocks in the gym and pool area). The phone/data system is recommended to be upgraded to category 6e wiring, with one 3 jack outlet per staﬀ workstation area and two such outlets per public room space. The ﬁ tness room would include one CATV jack connection through a wall or ﬂ oor outlet to cardio equipment for integral LCD displays. ---PAGE BREAK--- EXISTING FACILITY ASSESSMENT WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 4.13 4.0 For security purposes, contacts should be added on exterior doors, keypad entry at the front and staﬀ entrances, and motion sensors in hallways and lobby area that do not already have occupancy sensors. CCTV cameras may be considered in the lobby area and along building exterior as a deterrent. Cost Opinions Based on the 2007 Electrical Means guide and adjusted for current market conditions, estimat- ed costs for the building addition and remodel is as follows: Power Distribution: $192,000 (including wiring devices, new panels/feeders) Lighting: $90,000 Fire Alarm: $22,500 Paging: $15,000 Wireless Clock: $4,500 Phone/Data: $20,000 Total: $344,000 Sustainable Measures The following additional design measures could be considered for energy savings and/or reduced maintenance. Estimated costs are given with each line item, together with estimated payback: • Dimmable Gym Lighting: 10 to 100% dimmable electronic ballasts tied to daylighting con- trols would save energy, increase lamp life, and add controllability in the gym for evening functions. • Upgrade existing transformers to NEMA TP-1 rating: this would save energy from reduced losses in transformer windings, and also bring the building up to current Oregon Energy Code. • Add dimmable daylighting controls to lobby area: this would save energy, increase lamp life, and make a public statement on sustainability. Interpretive signage could be added to explain to the public the beneﬁ ts of this building feature. • Retroﬁ t exterior lighting from high pressure sodium to compact ﬂ uorescent: this would im- prove color rendering aiding in building security as it would work well with exterior CCTV cameras. • Retroﬁ t switched daylighting controls to pool area: this could be done in concert with relocating the switches for the pool area, so that the eighteen 1000-watt metal halide ﬂ ood lights are shut down during the brightest times of the day. ---PAGE BREAK--- CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 4.14 4.0 EXISTING FACILITY ASSESSMENT – page left intentionally blank – ---PAGE BREAK--- WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 5.0 FACILITY PROGRAM ---PAGE BREAK--- – page left intentionally blank – CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE ---PAGE BREAK--- FACILITY PROGRAM WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 5.1 5.0 Facility Program – Recreation Center OVERVIEW The facility program identiﬁ es the general space requirements for the project, comprised of the designated individual uses and their associated square footages. Elements necessary to convert the existing Aquatics Center into a new Recreation Center include athletic areas such as a weight room, a ﬁ tness room and a full gymnasium. These pri- mary program elements will need to be supported by larger changing rooms, staﬀ areas, and lobby space. To expand the uses of the Recreation Center, other programmed spaces such as a multipurpose classroom and an activity room have been proposed. Below is a description of all spaces accommodated in the building design, followed by a graphic version of the program showing relative sizes. PROGRAM SPACE DESCRIPTIONS • Front Entry Entrance – provides a weather lock and a place to pause, wait for ride or put together a stroller; accessible to all abilities and ages. Lobby – a space that is translucent and welcoming; serves as the hub for entering and circu- lating throughout the building; provides space for a reception desk, a concession stand/snack area, a seating area/lounge and space to sell retail goods. Reception – has views to all activity areas for security, with clear access to the receptionist for those entering and using the building; portion of the reception desk is used for program registration, orientation, etc. Concession Area – located immediately adjacent to the reception desk and provides a serv- ing counter and display shelving for a variety of snacks. Retail Sales Area – adjacent to the reception desk and concession area and provides shelving for athletic ware. Storage – provide shelving for the concession desk and the retail area. • Athletic Areas Weight Room – accommodates free weights, weight machines, cardio equipment (tread mills etc); should have visual access from the Reception desk. Fitness Classroom – room that could be used for martial arts, yoga, aerobics, dance, etc. Basketball Gym – a full court basketball gym with two cross court courts and limited seating. • Pools All existing pools to remain. An area should be allocated for an outdoor leisure pool to be developed in the future. • Changing Rooms Modify existing changing rooms to accommodate growth of facility, including the addition of multiple family changing rooms. Look at feasibility of modifying, relocating or deleting saunas. ---PAGE BREAK--- FACILITY PROGRAM CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 5.2 5.0 • Programmed Spaces Multipurpose Classroom – a room that is ﬂ exible to accommodate a wide range of uses, and located so it can operate independently of other Recreation Center functions. Activity Room – a space accommodating multiple uses, such as parties, child care, teen gath- ering, etc. • Recreation Center Staﬀ Area Director’s Oﬃ ce – a private oﬃ ce that is publicly accessible from the reception desk; large enough to accommodate small meetings. Assistant Director’s Oﬃ ce – a private oﬃ ce adjacent to Director’s Oﬃ ce. Program Staﬀ Oﬃ ce – an open oﬃ ce with workstations for four; exterior views are desirable. Work Area – a room with a work counter and oﬃ ce supply shelving; could be open to the Program Staﬀ Oﬃ ce. Staﬀ Lounge – containing a kitchenett e with a sink, refrigerator and microwave; near to a seating area and metal lockers for staﬀ to store personal possessions; exterior views are desir- able. Staﬀ Shower Room – one uni-sex, ADA shower room with toilet, lavatory and changing area. First Aid Station – a private oﬃ ce to administer ﬁ rst aid with a sink, counter and cabinet for ﬁ rst aid storage. • Building Services Laundry Janitor’s Closet / Housekeeping Mechanical Room Electrical Room Building Storage Maintenance Room ---PAGE BREAK--- FACILITY PROGRAM WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 5.3 5.0 FINAL BUILDING PROGRAM – RECREATION CENTER ---PAGE BREAK--- FACILITY PROGRAM CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 5.4 5.0 ---PAGE BREAK--- FACILITY PROGRAM WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 5.5 5.0 PROJECTED PROGRAMMING SCHEDULE ---PAGE BREAK--- FACILITY PROGRAM CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 5.6 5.0 GRAPHIC VERSION OF RECREATION CENTER PROGRAM (preliminary program, used for design purposes) ---PAGE BREAK--- FACILITY PROGRAM WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 5.7 5.0 Facility Program – Arts & Cultural Community Center OVERVIEW The facility program identiﬁ es the general space requirements for the project, comprised of the designated individual uses and their associated square footages. The program for the Arts & Cultural Community Center was developed to address a variety of needs evident in the Woodburn Community. For instance, an assembly hall large enough to handle high school graduations, proms, and other large gatherings within Woodburn prop- er has been desired for some time. Along with satisfying this condition, this community center would have a cultural emphasis, with spaces for the creation of art and places to display it. All ages would be accommodated, with emphasis on teens and seniors. Below is a description of all spaces accommodated in the building design, followed by a graphic version of the program showing relative sizes. PROGRAM SPACE DESCRIPTIONS • Outside Public Gathering Spaces Entry plaza and community garden • Front Entry Entrance – provides a weather lock and a place to pause, wait for ride or put together a stroller; accessible to all abilities and ages. Lobby – a space that is translucent and welcoming; serves as the hub for everybody entering and circulating throughout the building; provides space for the receptionist, a coﬀ ee bar and a seating area/lounge. Reception – has views to all activity areas for security, with clear access to the receptionist for those entering and using the building; a portion of the reception desk is used for program registration, orientation, etc. Coat Room – closet for temporary storage of coats by facility users. • Classroom/Activity Rooms Multipurpose Classroom – a room dividable into two smaller spaces that is ﬂ exible to ac- commodate a wide range of uses. Teen Room – designed for teens and accommodates a variety of activities including pool tables, foosball and/or karaoke; teens have the ability to ‘own’ the space, while still being supervised. Dance Room – a room designed for a ﬂ exibility of users but primarily for use by dance classes. Senior Lounge – a room designated for seniors with a table, chairs and shelving; provide locked storage closet for supplies. Gallery – ﬂ exible art display space. • Assembly Center Assembly Hall – accommodating 500 occupants and small scale performance arts, the room can serve a variety of uses and can be dividable into three smaller spaces. Commercial Kitchen – provides space for senior meals prep and banquet catering. ---PAGE BREAK--- FACILITY PROGRAM CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 5.8 5.0 A/V Storage – lockable area for storage of projectors, VCR, sound equipment. General Storage – for tables and chairs, movable stage, etc. Janitor’s Closet – immediately accessible to the Commercial Kitchen. Changing Rooms/Rest Rooms – two changing rooms near to the Assembly Hall. • Oﬃ ces Director’s Oﬃ ce – a private oﬃ ce that is publicly accessible and is adjacent to the reception desk; can accommodate small meetings. Work Room – an open multi-purpose space for oﬃ ce and meetings; can accommodate about 4-6 work stations used by program staﬀ as well as visiting instructors; storage lockers for visiting instructors to store personal belongings and classroom supplies. Conference Room – a private conference room that seats a minimum of twelve. Storage Room – for storage of oﬃ ce and classroom supplies. • Building Services Public Restrooms Staﬀ Restroom Janitor’s Closet Mechanical Room Electrical Room Building Storage Maintenance Room ---PAGE BREAK--- FACILITY PROGRAM WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 5.9 5.0 FINAL BUILDING PROGRAM – ARTS & CULTURAL COMMUNITY CENTER ---PAGE BREAK--- FACILITY PROGRAM CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 5.10 5.0 ---PAGE BREAK--- FACILITY PROGRAM WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 5.11 5.0 PROJECTED PROGRAMMING SCHEDULE ---PAGE BREAK--- FACILITY PROGRAM CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 5.12 5.0 GRAPHIC VERSION OF ARTS & CULTURAL COMMUNITY CENTER PROGRAM (preliminary program, used for design purposes) ---PAGE BREAK--- WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 6.0 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ---PAGE BREAK--- – page left intentionally blank – CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE ---PAGE BREAK--- CONCEPTUAL DESIGN WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 6.1 6.0 Conceptual Design – Recreation Center OVERVIEW The conceptual design for a proposed Woodburn Recreation Center was explored through two related options: Scheme and Scheme Scheme B fulﬁ lls the intent of the facility pro- gram, with all the elements required for the fully-envisioned Recreation Center. Scheme A is a reduced version of that program, including core elements at the smallest size considered func- tional. For both schemes, it was assumed that the required repairs for the natatorium would be handled under a separate project, thus, that scope of work was not addressed here. Both schemes replace the existing lobby/oﬃ ce/changing area with similar (but larger) program ele- ments, and add athletic functions that convert an aquatics center into a true recreation center. SCHEME DESIGN DESCRIPTION This scheme proposes 18,662 sf of programmed space to be added east of the natatorium. General park- ing is accommodated across Oak Street, with ADA and service parking located along a driveway east of the addition. Additional parking could be provided along Front Street. In this scheme the tennis courts are retained. The main entry to the building would be from Oak Street, leading into a lobby area that connects to a cor- ridor extending southward through the addition. SCHEME DESIGN DESCRIPTION This scheme proposes 25,855 sf of programmed space, also added east of the natatorium. All parking and loading is accommodated east of the addition, extend- ing southwest along Front Street. The tennis courts would be removed and replaced elsewhere in Sett le- meier Park. The main entry to the building would be from the east, and connected to Oak Street via a walkway. A lobby area connects to intersecting corridors that ac- cess the main activity spaces in the building. Floor plan, elevation, and section drawings are presented on the following pages. Please note that Scheme A was devel- oped in ﬂ oor plan only, with the assumption that its eleva- tions would be similar in tone and material to those devel- oped for Scheme B. Existing site plan Scheme A site plan Scheme B site plan ---PAGE BREAK--- CONCEPTUAL DESIGN CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 6.2 6.0 – page left intentionally blank – ---PAGE BREAK--- CONCEPTUAL DESIGN WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 6.3 6.0 Conceptual Design – Arts & Cultural Community Center OVERVIEW It is proposed to locate the Arts & Cultural Community Center within the eastern edge of Legion Park, and sited at the current location of the soccer ﬁ eld. A connector road into the Park would be placed perpendicular to Park Avenue, forming a northern border to the build- ing site. A conceptual Master Plan has been developed for Legion Park that places a number of program areas in its center, and shows the soccer ﬁ eld relocated to the north parcel, next to the new Police Station. It is undecided at this time if the soccer ﬁ eld would be relocated in this parcel, or moved elsewhere within the city. The site selected for the Center provides it with direct access from a neighborhood arterial (Park Avenue) along with room for adequate parking and future growth. That growth could take the form of a building addition and additional parking or landscape area. DESIGN DESCRIPTION The Arts & Cultural Community Center was positioned along Park Avenue, somewhat centered on its site. Immediately north is a parking lot with over one hundred spaces, a drop oﬀ area, and a load- ing area. Two main entries access the building and connect both to the parking lot and to the public right-of-way at Park Avenue. In regards to its operation, the Center can be divided into two wings. The Assembly Complex wing houses the Assembly Hall and its support facilities (kitchen, storage, etc.). Its long elevations face the parking lot to the north, and an outdoor gathering space to the south. The arts & culture wing contains meet- ing spaces and classrooms, the Center oﬃ ces and a display gal- lery. It is two stories in height and is oriented with its long elevation facing Park Avenue. The ﬁ rst ﬂ oor contains 22,934 sf and the second ﬂ oor 6,908 sf, for a total building area of 29,842 sf. Floor plans and elevation drawings are presented on the following pages. Site plan – existing Site plan – proposed ---PAGE BREAK--- CONCEPTUAL DESIGN CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 6.4 6.0 – page left intentionally blank – ---PAGE BREAK--- WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 7.0 COST ANALYSIS ---PAGE BREAK--- – page left intentionally blank – CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE ---PAGE BREAK--- COST ANALYSIS WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 7.1 7.0 Cost Analysis – Recreation Center OVERVIEW Costs were generated for the Recreation Center based upon Scheme which adds over 25,000 square feet to the natatorium. These costs reﬂ ect only work for the addition, and do not include repair or remodel work on the existing natatorium. The costs have been divided into “construction costs,” which include the actions directly related to the construction of the building, and “soft costs,” which comprise other related and necessary costs. An outline of these costs are presented below, and their sum produces a total project cost of $8,282,441.45. The detailed Direct Construction Cost Estimate for the Recreation Center can be found in the Appendix. It is important to note that these costs are indexed to a construction start of April, 2008. PROJECT COST SUMMARY ---PAGE BREAK--- COST ANALYSIS CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 7.2 7.0 – page left intentionally blank – ---PAGE BREAK--- COST ANALYSIS WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 7.3 7.0 PROJECT COST SUMMARY Cost Analysis – Arts & Cultural Community Center OVERVIEW Costs were generated for the Arts & Cultural Community Center, and have been divided into “construction costs,” which include the actions directly related to the construction of the building, and “soft costs,” which comprise other related and necessary costs. An outline of these costs are presented below, and their sum produces a total project cost of $8,848,816.55. The detailed Direct Construction Cost Estimate for the Arts & Cultural Community Center can be found in the Appendix. It is important to note that these costs are indexed to a con- struction start of April, 2008. ---PAGE BREAK--- COST ANALYSIS CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 7.4 7.0 – page left intentionally blank – ---PAGE BREAK--- WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 8.0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS & FUNDING OPTIONS ---PAGE BREAK--- – page left intentionally blank – CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE ---PAGE BREAK--- FINANCIAL ANALYSIS & FUNDING OPTIONS WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 8.1 8.0 Table 1: Forecasted Operating Cost Expense Item Amount Notes Labor $290,385 See Note # 1 Supplies & Services $230,009 See Note # 2 Repair/Maintenance $13,000 See Note # 3 Utilities $129,000 See Note # 4 Telephone $3,500 See Note # 5 Travel $2,000 See Note # 6 Advertising $1,000 See Note # 7 Insurance $76,791 See Note # 8 Legal Fees $3,500 See Note # 9 Special Start-up Costs $5,000 See Note # 10 Building Reserve $5,848 See Note # 11 Miscellaneous Costs $46,023 See Note # 12 IS Support $7,800 See Note # 13 Security $12,000 See Note # 14 Total Expenses $825,856 Financial Analysis – Recreation Center OVERVIEW The following analysis is for the proposed expansion of the Woodburn Aquatic Center into a full service Recreation Center. The expanded center will contain an existing 15,400 square foot natatorium and a 25,800 sf addition, with a 1,500 sf second ﬂ oor utility area. Total area for the expanded facility, including the natatorium, is 42,745 square feet of ﬂ oor area. Forty two parking spaces are proposed with these site improvements. For the purposes of this ﬁ nancial analysis, the operating costs and revenues of the natatorium have been excluded. Overall management and operations of the facility will be by City of Woodburn staﬀ . Key programming features will include: - ﬁ tness classroom - gymnasium - weight room - staﬀ oﬃ ces and support areas - concessions A more detailed description of the program for the center is found earlier in the report. FORECASTED OPERATING COST Total cost to operate the Recreation Center is estimated at $825,856 (see Table This cost estimate is focused on the new Recreation Center addition, but there would be some antici- pated overlap with the operating cost of the existing Aquatics Center. Revenues are forecasted at $312,000 (see Table which is 38% of the operating expense. This results in an operating deﬁ cit of $513,856 requiring a subsidy of 62% to meet operating costs. This analysis is primar- ily based on the experiences of other public recreation centers. - multi-purpose classrooms - youth activity room - inviting lobby - outdoor play/picnic area - family changing rooms ---PAGE BREAK--- FINANCIAL ANALYSIS & FUNDING OPTIONS CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 8.2 8.0 Note 1: Labor Cost Assumptions Note: Full time beneﬁ ts @ 25%; part time beneﬁ ts @ 15%. Management: - Aquatic Manager – 0.3 FTE @ $15,000/yr + beneﬁ ts $ 18,750 - Administrative Assist. – 1.0 FTE @ $25,000 + beneﬁ ts $ 31,250 - Front Desk (part time: $16/hr; 2/sft ) – 114 hrs/wk @ 15% + beneﬁ ts $109,075 - Recreation Programmer – 1.0 FTE @ $36,420/yr + beneﬁ ts $ 50,000 Maintenance Staﬀ : - Maintenance Worker – 1.0 FTE @ $35,000/yr + beneﬁ ts $ 43,750 - Custodian – $12,000 + beneﬁ ts $ 16,560 - Custodial supplies and services $ 21,000 Total Labor $290,385 Hours of Operation Monday – Friday: 5:30 am – 9:00 pm Saturday & Sunday: 8:00 am – 9:00 pm Note 2: Supply & Services Cost Assumptions - Estimate developed by City of Woodburn staﬀ from the 2006-07 Adopted Budget. Note 3: Repair/Maintenance Cost Assumptions - Estimate developed by City of Woodburn staﬀ . Note 4: Utilities Cost Assumptions - Estimate based on $5.00/sq. ft . of addition building area (25,800 sq. ft and includes gas and electricity costs. Note 5: Telephone Cost Assumptions - Estimate in addition to the amount identiﬁ ed in the 2006-07 Adopted Budget. Note 6: Travel Cost Assumptions - Allowance based on comparables with similar-type facilities. Note 7: Advertising Cost Assumptions - Estimate in addition to the amount identiﬁ ed in the 2006-07 Adopted Budget. Note 8: Insurance Cost Assumptions - Property Insurance: Using $1.05 per $100 of value of a new building. Property insurance premium will be an additional $75,810 annually. - Liability Insurance: Using the liability rate of 0.038 per square foot. The additional liability insurance premium will be $981 annually. Note 9: Legal Fees - Allowance based on comparables with similar-type facilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINANCIAL ANALYSIS & FUNDING OPTIONS WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 8.3 8.0 Note 10: Special Start-up Costs - Allowance; costs for grand opening; deposits, etc. Note 11: Building Reserve - Based on 1% of the budget being designated for the Building Reserve Fund. Note 12: Miscellaneous Costs - Based on using the unit cost from Renton’s Community Center of $1.35/ square foot of total building area (34,091 sq. ft Miscellaneous costs include professional development costs; exclud- ing travel; concessions start up costs; overhead administrative costs; maintenance service contracts; and contracting services. Note 13: Information Systems Support Costs - Estimate developed by City of Woodburn staﬀ . Note 14: Security Costs - Allowance based on comparables to other community centers, Friendly House Community Center. FORECASTED OPERATING REVENUE Table 2: Forecasted Operating Revenue Revenue Item Amount Notes Rentals $4,000 See Note # 1 Fitness Classes $25,000 See Note # 2 Weight Room Memberships $20,000 See Note # 3 Concession $5,000 See Note # 4 General Rec. Programs $258,000 See Note # 5 Total Revenue $312,000 Note 1: Rental Income Assumptions - Rental income at the Renton Community Center is about $2.94/square foot. It is assumed that rentals for events and group gatherings will be in demand at Woodburn, and will be accommodated at the Classroom and Activity Room (each at 1,000 sf) Overall rental income will be largely dependent upon how well the facility is marketed in terms of in- creased membership. For this study the revenue generation for the two rooms is $2.00 per square foot. Note 2: Fitness Classroom Revenue Assumptions - Revenue generating potential is dependent on the mission or the operating philosophy of the operator. Income from the Renton Community Center, for example, was $34.47/sq. ft . last year, generating $103,400. Based on a 1,250 sq. ft . of ﬂ oor area and revenue of $20/ square foot, about $25,000 can be estimated to be generated. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINANCIAL ANALYSIS & FUNDING OPTIONS CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 8.4 8.0 Note 3: Weight Room Revenue Assumptions - Revenue generating potential is dependent on the mission or the operating philosophy of the operator. Agreements with personal trainers or out sourced rentals should be explored. Again, based on the Renton Community Center, income was $34.47/sq. ft . last year, gener- ating $103,400. Based on a 1,000 sq. ft . of ﬂ oor area and revenue of $20/square foot, about $20,000 can be potentially generated. Note 4: Concessions Area - An opportunity for a revenue generating resource, however, this is subject to the values of the operator. Allowance based on comparables with other similar centers. Note 5: Genaral Recreation Programs - It is assumed that the Center staﬀ will conduct some programs and contract out for oth- ers. The Rec. Programmer position should generate enough direct revenue to pay for its position plus extra. It is anticipated that the Center should receive 10-15% of the revenue generated from contracted programs - The Renton Community Center received $820,000 or $21.03/ square foot from recreation programs. However most programs are conducted by staﬀ and they have a large program staﬀ . Conservatively, it is assumed that the Woodburn Recreation Center will generate about $10.00 per square foot. Only the 25,800 sf addition was used in this estimate, exclud- ing the natatorium as the City can already account for its income. - Please note that this is a very general estimate, and there may be some overlap between the estimated recreation program revenue and those accounted for above. A more detailed study would be necessary to more precisely account for all revenue sources. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINANCIAL ANALYSIS & FUNDING OPTIONS WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 8.5 8.0 Financial Analysis – Arts & Cultural Community Center OVERVIEW The following analysis is for the proposed Woodburn Arts & Cultural Community Center, which is intended to cultivate connections within the community. The ﬁ rst ﬂ oor contains 22,900 square feet of ﬂ oor area, and the second ﬂ oor 6,900 square feet, for a total facility area of 29,800 square feet. One hundred and eleven parking spaces are proposed with these site improvements. Overall management and operation of the facility will be the City of Woodburn. Key program- ming features will include: - large ﬂ exible assembly area - teen room as a lounge for teens - dance room for the pursuit of movement - art gallery for displays of artistic talents - senior lounge for a gathering place A more detailed description of the program for the center is found earlier in the report. FORECASTED OPERATING COST Total cost to operate the Arts & Cultural Community Center is estimated at $689,782 (see Table Revenues are forecasted at $242,854 (see Table which is 35% of the operating expense. This results in an operating deﬁ cit of $446,928 requiring a subsidy of 65% to meet operating costs. This analysis is primarily based on the experiences of other public recreation centers. - exterior courtyard for programmed use - inviting lobby - commercial kitchen - classrooms - att ractive conference room Table 3: Forecasted Operating Cost Expense Item Amount Notes Labor $328,906 See Note # 1 Supplies & Services $22,083 See Note # 2 Repair/Maintenance $36,407 See Note # 3 Utilities $119,368 See Note # 4 Telephone $5,600 See Note # 5 Travel $2,000 See Note # 6 Advertising $2,500 See Note # 7 Insurance $75,684 See Note # 8 Legal Fees $3,500 See Note # 9 Special Start-up Costs $12,000 See Note # 10 Building Reserve $6,048 See Note # 11 Miscellaneous Costs $40,286 See Note # 12 IS Support $23,400 See Note # 13 Security $12,000 See Note # 14 Total Expenses $689,782 ---PAGE BREAK--- FINANCIAL ANALYSIS & FUNDING OPTIONS CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 8.6 8.0 Note 1: Labor Cost Assumptions Note: Full time beneﬁ ts @ 25%; part time beneﬁ ts @ 15%. Management Staﬀ : - Center Manager; 1.0 FTE @ $55,000/yr + beneﬁ ts $ 80,339 - Administrative Assist. 1.0 FTE @ $32,000 + beneﬁ ts $ 40,000 - Front Desk (part time: $18/hr; 2/sft 98 hrs/wk @ 15% + beneﬁ ts $105,487 - Recreation Programmer; 1.0 FTE @ $36,420/yr + beneﬁ ts $ 50,000 Maintenance Staﬀ : - Custodian – $16,000 + beneﬁ ts $ 22,080 - Custodial supplies and services $ 31,000 Total Labor $328,906 Note: A similar center in Renton, Washington, the Renton Community Center, has a total labor costs of $15.51/ square foot. The another study for a similar study estimated labor costs for the Zimmerman Community Center at approx. $15.95/square foot. We anticipate the labor costs for the Woodburn Arts & Cultural Center will be approx. $16.00/square foot of total building area. Labor costs identiﬁ ed above are $7.12 however the City of Woodburn contracts to private contractors for their maintenance services through the Dept. of Public Works. Hours of Operation Monday – Friday: 9:00 am – 9:00 pm Saturday & Sunday: 8:00 am –9:00 pm Note 2: Supply & Services Cost Assumptions - Based on Renton Community Center’s cost of $0.74/square foot of total building area (29,842 sq. ft Note 3: Repair/Maintenance Cost Assumptions - Based on using the unit cost Renton Community Center of $1.22/ square foot of total build- ing area (29,842 sq. ft Note 4: Utilities Cost Assumptions - Based on using the unit cost from Friendly House Community Center of $4.00/square foot of total building area (29,842 sq. ft and includes gas, electricity, garbage, sewer and water. Note 5: Telephone Cost Assumptions - Estimated amount developed by City of Woodburn staﬀ . Note 6: Travel Cost Assumptions - Allowance based on comparables with other community centers. Note 7: Advertising Cost Assumptions - Allowance based on comparables with other community centers. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINANCIAL ANALYSIS & FUNDING OPTIONS WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 8.7 8.0 Note 8: Insurance Cost Assumptions - Property Insurance: Estimating $1.05 per $100 of value of a new building, property insur- ance premium will be $74,550 annually. - Liability Insurance: Using a liability rate of 0.038 per square foot, liability insurance pre- mium will be $1,134 annually. Note 9: Legal Fees - Allowance based on comparables with other community centers. Note 10: Special Start-up Costs - Allowance; costs for grand opening; deposits, etc. Note 11: Building Reserve - Based on 1% of the annual budget being designated for the Building Reserve Fund. Note 12: Miscellaneous Costs - Based on using the unit cost from Renton Community Center of $1.35/ square foot of total building area (29,842 sq. ft Miscellaneous costs include professional development costs; excluding travel; concessions start up costs; overhead administrative costs; maintenance service contracts; and contracting services. Note 13: Information Systems Support - Estimated amount developed by City of Woodburn staﬀ . Note 14: Security - Allowance based on comparables to other community centers. For example, Friendly House Community Center is approx. $12,000/year. FORECASTED OPERATING REVENUE Table 4: Forecasted Operating Revenue Revenue Item Amount Notes Rentals $89,526 See Note # 1 Teen Room $6,000 See Note # 2 Dance Room $18,000 See Note # 3 Vending Area $2,500 See Note # 4 Arts & Cultural Programs $126,828 See Note # 5 Total Revenue $242,854 ---PAGE BREAK--- FINANCIAL ANALYSIS & FUNDING OPTIONS CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 8.8 8.0 Note 1: Rental Income Assumptions - It is assumed that rentals for receptions, weddings, cultural events, and other large-group gatherings will be in demand. The large space oﬀ ers an area that can rented for small trade shows and other similar activities or gatherings. Overall rental income will be largely de- pendent upon how well the facility is marketed. Rental income from the Renton Commu- nity Center is about $2.94/square foot of total building area. It is assumed that the revenue generation for the Arts & Cultural Community Center is based on $3.00/square foot of total building area. Note 2: Teen Room Revenue Assumptions - Revenue generating potential is dependent on the mission or the operating philosophy of the operator. However, if an eﬀ ort is made by staﬀ to program activities in the Teen Room, it can be estimated that the 1,200 sf area can generate revenue through potential member- ships, classes, activities, and rentals. Note 3: Dance Room Revenue Assumptions - Revenue generating potential is dependent on the mission or the operating philosophy of the operator. Income last year from the Renton Community Center was $34.47/sq. ft generating $103,400. Based on about 1,000 square feet of ﬂ oor area and revenue of $20/ square foot, about $18,000 can be generated. It is anticipated that revenue will be generated through dance and exercise classes and other physical activities that are programmed by staﬀ or outsourced by the community. Note 4: Vending Area - Allowance based on comparables with other community centers. Note 5: Recreational / Arts & Cultural Programs - It is assumed that the Center staﬀ will conduct some programs and contract out for others. The Recreation Programmer position should generate enough direct revenue to pay for its position. The Center should receive 10-15% of the revenue generated from contracted programs. - The Renton Community Center received $820,000 or $21.03/ square foot from recreation programs. However most programs are conducted by staﬀ and they have a large program staﬀ . For the Arts & Cultural Community Center, it was assumed that the facility will gen- erate about $4.25 per square foot of area. Background on the Renton Community Center The Renton Community Center was used for comparison purposes because of many similari- ties. The Center is a public facility owned and managed by the City, and contains about 39,000 square feet of area on one ﬂ oor. The major activity spaces of the Renton Center include: - Two large gymnasiums (the two gyms used extensively for trade shows and other large group gatherings) - Two classrooms - A warming kitchen - Control center and large space for staﬀ - A large (3,500 sq. ft . area) multi-purpose room dividable into three smaller spaces. This has an outdoor patio and is used extensively for receptions and other large group gatherings. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINANCIAL ANALYSIS & FUNDING OPTIONS WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 8.9 8.0 - A large teen activity room. - Three racquetball/Wallyball courts. These three courts only generate about $8,000 per year and are oft en used for other activities. - A large health and ﬁ tness center. This space generates about $100,000 per year. - Small shower/dressing rooms. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINANCIAL ANALYSIS & FUNDING OPTIONS CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 8.10 8.0 Funding Options OVERVIEW Funding sources reviewed for the Woodburn Community Center projects include government and foundation grants, loans, and other revenue-generating mechanisms that may be avail- able to fund part or all of the community center. Private foundations are a possible funding source for the two projects, though it is not the mission of many foundations to fund capital projects that construct government oﬃ ces. These sources, however, could contribute to total project costs. Of the non-granting funding sources, loans sources are the most common av- enue for funding public facilities, though they may not be the most att ractive option as they most typically require increased taxes or fees to meet payments. Described below are the various funding options, with corresponding tables listing speciﬁ c guidelines and possible funding amounts. GRANT FUNDING OPTIONS Five foundations are identiﬁ ed in the following chart that have given funds to projects simi- lar in nature to the Woodburn projects (e.g. a community center or library). This list includes the largest Oregon foundations, but is not exhaustive. The largest donation suggested was around $200,000 by the Murdoch Charitable Trust. Foundations generally want to be one of many project contributors – a ﬁ nancing strategy that incorporates both debt and grants would secure funds from a variety of grant sources. Some foundations will award funding on a con- ditioned or leveraged basis, meaning that funding is made available aft er the community has raised a prescribed amount from other sources. The ﬁ ve foundations listed by the chart on the next page could, in a best case scenario, con- tribute in the range of $500,000 – $600,000 for each project, or around 15% of the total project cost. Please note that if both projects move forward within the same time frame, foundations will most likely support only one of the projects in the eﬀ ort to more equally distribute fund- ing throughout the region. Also, those building components that focus on community services are the ones most likely to att ract foundation support. Securing foundation support for the project would require establishing a track record of com- munity support for this project. Community eﬀ orts to raise awareness as well as funds will improve the project’s chance of success. Involving a local family interested in established a philanthropic legacy represents a good avenue to both demonstrate community backing and increase total grant funds available to the project. Many foundations also want submitt ers to demonstrate that land ownership and possibly also building and environmental permits are in hand. In general, the further that the City of Wood- burn can take this project – both in terms of planning and generating the necessary ﬁ nancial resources – the more att ractive the project will be to foundations. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINANCIAL ANALYSIS & FUNDING OPTIONS WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 8.11 8.0 ---PAGE BREAK--- FINANCIAL ANALYSIS & FUNDING OPTIONS CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 8.12 8.0 NON-GRANT FUNDING OPTIONS Taxes & Bonds Funding municipal capital projects is oft en enabled by levying taxes, and in Oregon this takes the form of: • Permanent property tax rate • Local option (short-term debt option: up to ﬁ ve years for operating levies, 10 years for capi- tal levies) • General obligation bonds (10 years or longer for capital projects), can be paid for through bond exempt property tax levy Based on previous discussions with City of Woodburn staﬀ , this funding mechanism is not considered a desired option . Other Loan Sources Two public sources of low-interest loans have been identiﬁ ed and are discussed below. Special Public Works Fund, Oregon Economic and Community Development Department This program is funded with lott ery dollars and provides low interest loans. Loans are ap- proved on a ﬁ rst come ﬁ rst serve basis with the only criteria that the building be publicly owned and that the jurisdiction have suﬃ cient revenue to repay the loan. The current interest rate is 3.47%. Terms are 20-25 years of the life of the facility, if less than that time frame. Loan cap is well above anticipated project costs at $15 million. Funds are allocated every biennium, with a new allocation in July 2007 (or possibly another date set by the legislature). Program parameters are subject to change through the legislative process, if the City is interested in this route it should ensure that this program description remains accurate aft er the close of this legislative session. OECDD also administers Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds available for capital projects; a distinct set of CDBG funds than those targeting housing (administered by the state Department of Human Services). CBDG funds are unfortunately limited to projects for which the area served is 51% or greater low and moderate-income households. USDA Rural Development The USDA (Department of Agriculture) Rural Utilities Program represents the primary source of government funding that targets community facilities capital funding. USDA looks for proj- ects with additional sponsors for which communities have developed sound ﬁ scal plans. This is a ﬂ exible fund and will cover a variety of project components. Woodburn might not be considered a high priority, as its population is well above the smaller community sizes this program targets (5,000 or less). However, the City might qualify for a loan at what the program terms an ‘intermediate’ ﬁ xed rate (currently around 4.38%, lower than may be available through bond ﬁ nancing). Statewide, the program has around $7.5 mil- lion in loan money to allocate annually and will loan an amount for which a community can demonstrate ability to service. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINANCIAL ANALYSIS & FUNDING OPTIONS WOODBURN COMMUNITY CENTERS 8.13 8.0 ---PAGE BREAK--- FINANCIAL ANALYSIS & FUNDING OPTIONS CARLETON HART ARCHITECTURE 8.14 8.0 CONCLUSIONS Funding community centers can be challenging for small communities with a limited tax base. Woodburn qualiﬁ es for some federal and state grant funding options, and the most successful route will likely be comprised of numerous sources, including some level local community funding. Grant money from the foundations identiﬁ ed within this memo could contribute a maximum of $500,000 – $600,000 of the construction cost associated with either of the project’s commu- nity centers. Obtaining funding for this center will necessitate a well-laid strategy likely targeting multiple funding sources. Building and demonstrating community support is a key item, particularly for foundation grants.

Document Woodburn_doc_f5c3ed62d5

Full Text