Loading...
AGENDA - Special General Committee - 20040212TOWN OF AURORA SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE AGENDA WORKING SESSION PROPOSED RECREATION COMPLEX N0.04-05 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2004 7:00 PM ROLLAND ROOM AURORA TOWN HALL PUBLIC RELEASE 11 /02/04 TOWN OF AURORA SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA NO. 04-05 Thursday, February 12, 2004 Mayor Jones in the Chair. I DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST Il APPROVAL OFAGENDA RECOMMENDED: THAT the content of the Agenda as circulated by the Corporate Services Department be approved as presented. Ill ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IV ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 4 Special General Committee Meeting No. 04-05 Thursday, February 12, 2004 AGENDA ITEM 1. LSO4-003 - New Recreation Centre - Space Program Finalization/ (pg. 1) Budget Update RECOMMENDED:_ 1. Presentation of the Project Manager THAT, the presentation by the Project Manager outlining the revisions to the Schematic Building Design and the cost analysis by building component be received; and 2. Overall Facility Components THAT, as previously endorsed by Council, the Committee confirm. the facility is to continue to contain the following major elements: i) An aquatic facility based initially on a 25 metre 6 lane pool; ii) A double pad ice surface and related spectator seating; iii) A double gymnasium,and related space°for programming youth activities; iv) Community space including a canteen; v) Pre-school area; vi) Office space; and 3. Determinations with Respect to Specific Components Options THAT, with respect to Aquatics, the Committee determine whether the Schematic Design is to contain: a) a whirlpool adding approximately 990 square feet of building area adding $180,000 to the estimated capital cost and $15,000 to the annual operating cost; b) a learning pool, adding approximately 2,000 square feet of building area adding $565,000 to the estimated capital cost and $28,500 to the annual operating cost; c) a moveable floor in the lap pool adding approximately $325,000 to the estimated capital cost; d) a six lane main tank configuration with additional depth at the shallow end adding approximately $150,000 to the estimated capital cost and $17,500 in annual operating cost; e) an eight lane main tank configuration adding approximately $587,000 to the estimated capital cost and $59,200 in annual operating cost; f) an eight lane main tank configuration with additional depth adding approximately $637,000 to the estimated capital cost and $100,000 to the annual operating cost. Special General Committee Meeting No. 04-05 Page 3 of 4 Thursday, February 12, 2004 THAT, with respect to Ice Rinks, the Committee determine whether the Schematic Design is to include an additional ice surface adding approximately $4,000,000 to the estimated capital cost. THAT, with respect to the Community Space, the Committee determine whether the Schematic Design is to contain: a) an expansion of the double gym to include an additional half court having about 3,000 square feet of additional area; adding approximately $375,000 to the capital cost and $28,500 in annual operating costs; b) an expansion of the double gym to include <a_stage, having, about 2,000 square feet of additional area, adding approximately $350,000 to the capital cost and $18,800 in annual operating costs. THAT, with respect to Common Areas, the Committee determine whether the Schematic Design is to contain: a) an elevator adding approximately $95,000 in capital cost; b) commercial lease space adding approximately -$350000 in capital cost. 4. Undertakinq of Design Phase THAT, based on the determinations made with respect to the major elements of the building program set out in Recommendation #2 above, and any of the selected optional components set out in Recommendation #3 above, the Project Manager be authorized to complete the Schematic Design Phase, finalize the space program; update the preliminary building budget accordingly and proceed with the process to recruit a Project Architect to undertake final design. 5. Financial Implications, Analysis/Budget Update THAT, Hemson and Associates be immediately retained, in conjunction with their ongoing review of the Town's Development Charge By-law, to update the financial modelling previously undertaken by staff to: a) assess the current and future tax rate impact of the proposed facility in accordance with adjustments made to the building program by the Committee and the budget information available at this time; b) review in detail the cost allocation between the growth and non growth components of the budget to maximize the portions of the facility to be financed by growth; Special General Committee Meeting No. 04-05 Thursday, February 12, 2004 Page 4 of 4 c) make recommendations as to financing strategies to move forward with the project as part of the finalization of the 2004 capital budget process; THAT, the Project Manager concurrently undertake a public process to solicit requests for expressions of interest from the private sector to partner with the Town in the construction of the facility and report back as to the viability of any of the potential arrangements identified through the process; THAT, Council provide general direction as to the overall approach they wish to take with respect to the fundraising component for the project in order that this aspect can be incorporated into the detailed funding analysis to be undertaken. 6. Confirmation of Conditional Consent to Proceed with Desion Phase THAT, the Committee confirm that the authorizations as set out above to proceed with the design stage of the facility as approved in the amended 2003 capital budget is not consent to: proceed withr construction and that the construction stage of the facility continues' to be subject to the approval of the 2004 capital budget; Council's satisfaction with the additional budget information to be provided by the Architect through the design stage; financing information to be provided by:the Consultant from operating and capital perspectives and results of the analysis of the solicitation of potential private sector partners. 2. Memo from Gary Stanhope, Project Manager, (pg. 38) MHPM Project Managers Inc. Re: Costing Options for Aurora Recreation Complex Project RECOMMENDED: THAT the Committee provide direction on this matter. ,WNn of,,, TOWN OF AURORA EXTRACT FROM GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING NO. 04-03 HELD ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2004 2. LSO4-003 - New Recreation Centre - Space Program Finalization/ Budget Update Moved by Councillor Hogg Seconded by Councillor West THAT two working sessions, with Members of Council, staff and consultants in attendance, be convened to discuss, in an informal public setting, all the outstanding issues surrounding the proposed Seniors' Centre and the proposed Recreation Complex. The working session to discuss the Seniors' Centre is to be held on Monday, February 9, 2004 at7:00 p.m. in the Holland Room. The working session to discuss the proposed Recreation Complex is to be held on Thursday, February 12, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Holland Room. tL1:7N1��. Moved by Councillor West Seconded by Councillor Buck THAT the presentation be received and Report LSO4-003 be deferred to the Special General Committee Working Session on Thursday, February 12, 2004. C•7T:7:7Tn7 000001 � _-AGENDA ITEM # TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. LSO4-003 SUBJECT: New Recreation Centre — Space Program Finalization/Budget Update FROM: Allan D. Downey, Director of Leisure_ Services DATE: February 3, 2004 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Presentation of the Proiect Manager THAT, the Presentation by the Project Manager outlining the revisions to the Schematic Building Design and the cost analysis by building component be received; and 2. Overall Facility Components THAT, as previously endorsed by Council, the Committee confirm the facility is to continue to contain the following major elements: i) An aquatic facility based initially on a 25 metre 6 lane pool; ii) A double pad ice surface and related spectator seating; iii) A double gymnasium and related space for programming youth activities; iv) Community space including a canteen; v) Pre-school area; vi) Office space; and 3. Determinations with Respect to Specific Components Options THAT, with respect to Aquatics, the Committee determine whether the Schematic Design is to contain: a) a whirlpool adding approximately 990 square feet of building area adding $180,000 to the estimated capital cost and $15,000 to the annual operating cost; b) a learning pool, adding approximately 2,000 square feet of building area adding $565,000 to the estimated capital cost and $28,500 to the annual operating cost; c) a moveable floor in the lap pool adding approximately $325,000 to the estimated capital cost; d) a six lane main tank configuration with additional depth at the shallow end adding approximately $150,000 to the estimated capital cost and $17,500 in annual operating cost; e) an eight lane main tank configuration adding approximately $587,000 to the estimated capital cost and $59,200 in annual operating cost; f) an eight lane main tank configuration with additional depth adding approximately $637,000 to the estimated capital cost and $100,000 to the annual operating cost. 000002 ....i2 February 3, 2004 - 2 - Report No. LSO4-003 THAT, with respect to Ice Rinks, the Committee determine whether the Schematic Design is to include an additional ice surface adding approximately $4,000,000 to the estimated capital cost. THAT, with respect to the Community Space, the Committee determine whether the Schematic Design is to contain: a) an expansion of the double gym to include an additional half court having about 3,000 square feet of additional area, adding approximately $375,000 to the capital cost and $28,500 in annual operating costs; b) an expansion of the double gym to include a stage having about 2,000 square feet of additional area, adding approximately $350,000 to the capital cost and $18,800 in annual operating costs. THAT, with respect to Common Areas, the Committee determine whether the Schematic Design is to contain: a) an elevator adding approximately $95,000 in capital cost; b) commercial lease space adding approximately $350,000 in capital cost . 4. Undertaking of Design Phase THAT, based on the determinations made with respect to the major elements of the building program set out in Recommendation #2 above, and any of the selected optional components set out in Recommendation #3 above, the Project Manager be authorized to complete the Schematic Design Phase, finalize the space program; update the preliminary building budget accordingly and proceed with the process to recruit a Project Architect to undertake final design. 5. Financia implications. Analysis/Budget Update THAT, Hemson and Associates be immediately retained, in conjunction with their ongoing review of the Town's Development Charge By-law, to update the financial modelling previously undertaken by staff to: a) assess the current and future tax rate impact of the proposed facility in accordance with adjustments made to the building program by the Committee and the budget information available at this time; b) review in detail the cost allocation between the growth and non growth components of the budget to maximize the portions of the facility to be financed by growth; c) make recommendations as to financing strategies to move forward with the project as part of the finalization of the 2004 capital budget process; THAT, the Project Manager concurrently undertake a public process to solicit requests for expressions of interest from the private sector to partner with the Town in the construction of the facility and report back as to the viability of any of the potential arrangements identified through the process; 000003 . . ..'3 February 3, 2004 - 3 - Report No. LSO4-003 THAT, Council provide general direction as to the overall approach they wish to take with respect to the fundraising component for the project in order that this aspect can be incorporated into the detailed funding analysis to be undertaken. 6. Confirmation of Conditional Consent to Proceed with Design Phase THAT, the Committee confirm that the authorizations as set out above to proceed with the design stage of the facility as approved in the amended 2003 capital budget is not consent to proceed with construction and that the construction stage of the facility continues to be subject to the approval of the 2004 capital budget; Council's satisfaction with the additional budget information to be provided by the Architect through the design stage; financing information to be provided by the Consultant from operating and capital perspectives and results of the analysis of the solicitation of potential private sector partners. BACKGROUND The schematic design for the proposed new recreational centre was last considered by Council in October. The following extract sets out the result of the deliberations taking place at that time: THAT Council receive and endorse the Report of MHPM Project Managers including the Schematic Building Program for a Recreation Centre on the Burnett Lands including the following major components: 1) 25 metre 6 lane pool li) Two pad ice surface iii) Youth Centre iv) Community space including a canteen v) Pre-school area vi) Office space; and THAT Council endorse the continued refinement of the Schematic Design through a Public Project Planning Seminar to be hosted by the Project Manager, tentatively scheduled for November 18, 2003; and THAT the Project Manager be authorized to proceed with the Request for Proposals from Architect firms, review and short listing of preferable proponents for a future report to Council in January 2004; and THAT Council receive the Draft Project Timetable for the construction of the facility subject to the approval of the 2004 Capital Budget. AMENDMENT: Upon the question of the adoption of the resolution, it was: THAT component i) be revised to read "25 metre 8lane pool" within the schematic Building Program, for consideration and pricing. CARRIED 000004 . . . ./4 February 3, 2004 - 4 - Report No. LSO4-003 AMENDMENT.- Upon the question of the adoption of the resolution, it was: THAT staff be requested to bring forward a report outlining the costs associated with each of the building components within the schematic Building Program, in January of 2004; and THAT this report include a section to address options for placing the proposed Youth Centre (Double Gym) on the Burnett Lands, or at a more central location within the Town of Aurora, with all estimated associated costs included. CARRIED AMENDMENT. Upon the question of the adoption of the resolution, it was: THAT component iii) be revised to read "Double Gymnasium" within the Schematic Building Program. CARRIED The main motion was CARRIED AS AMENDED As a result, the process to select an Architect was commenced. A report recommending a short list of firms responding to the Request for Proposal was deferred by Council pending consideration of the contents of this Report. As well, the Project Planning Seminar was conducted on November 18th. The comments arising from the session together with submissions arising from previous dialog with the user groups and the public derived from the public open house held in September were either assimilated into the revisions made to the schematic building design or summarized and enumerated as part of the optional components for consideration by Council set out in the third recommendation above. Staff have also, as directed, refined the cost of the building by components, have attached capital and operating estimates to each of the "upgrades" sought by the user groups, particularly in the aquatics area. The Options section of this Report also contains (on a preliminary basis) the options reviewed for the relocation of the double gym to a more central location including commentary with respect to costs, timing and other implications. COMMENTS With the approval of the Culture and Recreation Master Plan by Council on September 23, 2003, staff have proceeded with a number of public and user group meetings to determine the need and desire for new recreation facilities within the Town. Council approved a list of priority facilities and a Ten Year Capital Forecast for the delivery of these facilities in a timely fashion to meet the service level standards approved within the Culture and Recreation Master Plan. Staff have requested that the Project Manager engaged for this facility present to the General Committee the design and construction process necessary to complete the project by September 2005. 000005 ..../5 February 3, 2004 - 5 - Report No. LSO4-003 This is a critical date primarily forthe ice users, who are required to make commitments for ice time on a yearly basis to meet the needs of their membership. Ice allocation in particular must be available at the beginning of their season, a mid season delivery date will not address their increasing demand and growth of their membership. The option selections below staff have provided amenities for the base building and each of the optional requirements in order to assist Council in developing the final facilities fit. OPTIONS The expressed priority of Council through the completion of the Master Plan in 2003 was the provision of additional facilities to serve the needs of the youth, seniors, aquatics and ice users by adding one or two more ice surfaces (April 2003 — tab 2 of the Information Package). With the exception of the seniors needs which are not part of this project and the double gym/community space component which will be addressed in detail below, the revised schematic building design as currently prepared bythe project manager addresses those priorities in a manner consistent with the service level standards approved by Council this past spring. The commentary below summarizes the staff comments with respect to the optional components of the facility set out in recommendation 3 above: Aquatics: In the area of aquatics particularly the written and verbal submissions by the swimming clubs at various stages of the process to date have sought further facility enhancements to make the new pool more versatile and attractive from their perspective. The demand analysis undertaken by staff has determined that the core needs of the residents for the foreseeable future can be met by the six lane 25 metre facility as currently envisaged. Use of the facility by the swim club to accommodate their more specialized activities has been carefully evaluated by staff through discussion with the user groups. In terms of demand, the projected analysis undertaken indicates the new pool will be used as follows: Activity: Year One: Year Three: Year Five: Recreational Use 20% 15% 5% Competitive Use 3% 15% 20% Lessons/Programs 74% 60% 60% Other 3% 10% 15% Thus from staff's perspective, it will be important for Council when making funding decisions to bear in mind the relative proportion of use related to the activities that will take place in proportion to the overall future needs of the community. POOL OPTIONAL COMPONENTS: a) Whirlpool; this is a duplication of an existing amenity at the Leisure Complex. Although relatively inexpensive, it imposes additional operating costs on the facility. It will provide an additional therapeutic component for the competitive and lane swimmers. The existing whirlpool facility is presently not at capacity. On an overall basis, the exclusion of this facility would notjeopardize the viability of the other aquatic components proposed at the new centre. 000006 ..../6 February 3, 2004 - 6 - Report No. LS04-003 b) Learning Pool; this element is expensive both in terms of capital cost and ongoing additional operating obligations. The need forthis element is entirely contingent on the decision with respect to final depth and size of the main tank. Maintaining a shallow main tank will reduce the need of a learning pool, however a decision to deepen the main tank to accommodate the desire to enhance the competitive aspects of the facility will increase the need for the additional tank as doing so reduces the viability of the main tank for lessons. Adding this tank would allow the water to be maintained at a higher temperature for therapeutic uses and would enhance our instructional lessons needs, particularly over the long term. c) Movable Floor; also needs to be considered as a part of the decision to deepen the main tank. An adjustable floor will be required if a deep main tank is approved and if the learning pool is not included in order to conduct lessons at the new facility. An adjustable floor will permit maximum flexibility for programming of the pool. d) 6 Lane Pool with Additional Depth; this will accommodate the Swim Club needs to a greater extent. A deeper pool shallow end will reduce our ability to programme the pool for instructional purposes without either the learning pool or the adjustable floor referred to above, however will increase the bather load capacity during leisure swims. e) 8 Lane Pool; the additional two (2) lanes at a conventional depth will further accommodate the requirement of the Swim Club and provide greater flexibility for long term growth in Town. The additional pool area will increase our ability to accommodate instructional lessons as well as increase bather load. This feature provides alternative programming opportunities such as synchronized swimming and water polo. Of the options set out, the provision of the additional two lanes while measurably increasing the initial capital and operating cost does maximize long term use of the facility. The increased number of lanes while providing excess capacity would to the greatest extent, assist in servicing the Town's population as it approaches our planned build out threshold. f) 8 Lanes with Additional Depth; this element will ultimately accommodate the Swim Club's requirements and provide the most flexibility in terms of expanding diving and water polo programs however will reduce the ability to effectively deliver instructional purposes in relationship to option (e) and should be considered with the options of either the movable floor or the additional learning tank referred to above. This feature with the additional cost implications is the most expensive. Implementation would increase bather capacity for leisure swims and maximize opportunities for alternative programming. ICE RINKS The design concept presented shows the footprint in which an additional ice surface (or two) could be located, bringing the total number of pads to be provided from two to either three or four. As indicated earlier, the service level standards approved by Council are met with the provision of the two additional ice surfaces included in the present design (tab 2 of the Information Package). 000007 ..../7 February 3, 2004 _ _ - 7 - Report No. LSO4-003 At the enhanced delivery rate of 1 per 12,000 population and with 5 surfaces provided the Town is effectively planning for a population of up to 60,000 persons. At this rate, at least one additional ice surface would be required prior to our full population build out and should be considered 10 or so years hence as our population approaches 60,000 (+/- 2013). Based on dialog with the ice user groups, staff anticipates strong demand far use of the additional ice time on the two ice surfaces to be provided. The operating costs predicted will vary dependent upon the extent of the initial usage patterns and rental fees. The user group proponents and dialog from citizens arising at the public meetings held regarding the proposed recreation centre have suggested that the Town should either build additional ice surfaces now to accommodate future demand and/ortake the existing single pad facility at the Aurora Leisure Complex out of service, shifting usage to a third pad to be constructed with this facility. Expansion of the building footprint to this degree to accommodate additional ice rink(s) will require Council to approve construction within the 2C Planning Area atthe northerly limit of the 2B Planning Area, presently not formally designated for development. Pursuing the option of additional ice surfaces would add additional $4,000,000 to the capital cost of the facility per surface. If the single pad at AFLC were taken out of service simultaneously the net additional operating cost for the new facility would diminish' somewhat due to economies of scale, the transfer of existing staff and the benefits to be derived from more efficient mechanical systems. In addition the Town would have an area of 22,000 square feet to reallocate to other community uses which could include the gymnasium space referred to below, the provision of an indoor soccer facility or the expansion of the towns fitness facility, currently shown in the 10 year facility forecast as taking place in 2007. Each of these uses would themselves attract costs to renovate/retrofit the Leisure Complex building and depending on the use determined by Council would also have varying annual operating impacts. Two of the many ways to address this question are expanded upon below: From staff's perspective it is acknowledged that there are a number of drawbacks to continuing to maintain a single ice surface at AFLC both in terms of staffing and certainly with regard to the operating efficiency of the mechanical systems currently in place. The facility and ice plant are 16 years old; generally halfwaythrough a normal life cycle for such equipment they should be able to operate on a reasonably trouble free basis for next decade or so. Knowing we will need at least one more additional surface (for an ultimate total of six), one approach would be to look at either ensuring through the design for the twin surface at the Burnett site that it could accommodate easily two additional surfaces 8 —10 years from now or alternatively we retain sufficient land on the Leslie Street lands to construct a double ice surface there in the same timeframe or sooner if demand necessitates or a private sector partnership proposal is palatable to Council at some future point. If Council was not as concerned about maximizing the public investment already made in the Leisure Complex ice plant, the elimination of the gymnasium component of the proposed new facility and the reuse the AFLC ice surface area for alternative programming is worthy of serious examination. 000008 ..../$ February 3, 2004 - 8 - Report No. LSO4-003 Staff has reviewed this concept and confirms the area could easily accommodate a double gym and associated youth facilities within the existing arena envelope. Staff has estimated the cost of renovations at approximately $100/ft 2 or 2 million dollars and operating costs of $120,000/year. This proposal will address not only the existing but also the future service levels approved for a Youth Centre by Council. The timing of renovations would be delayed until a third pad at the Burnett Lands is completed. Overall, the combined capital cost would increase by approximately $4,200,000 as the cost of adding an additional ice surface and renovating the existing AFLC arena forthe new use would be more than the savings derived from eliminating the community space component from the present design concept. GYMNASIUM and COMMUNITY SPACE The inclusion of the proposed double gym in the final design for the recreation centre would advance its construction to 2004 from the proposed year of 2008 as shown in the ten year facility forecast as adopted by Council last year (tab 3 of the Information Package). It is one of the major reasons enumerated below for the increase in the estimated cost to construct the facility. This component was estimated at $2.5 million in the facility forecast and together with the youth programming area is now estimated to cost $3.2 million to construct. It is important to note that the facility found its way into the conceptual design through the identification of youth needs as a priority item last year by Council and the work undertaken by the Youth Action Committee in 2002 (tab 13 — Information Package). An extensive consultation exercise was conducted by that Committee, 4,000 surveys were circulated to all area schools with a 78% reply rate or 3,114 returns and a number of youth facilities were visited. The recommendations were tabled at the Leisure Services Advisory Committee that year. The analysis undertaken resulted in the determination that the `Aurora Youth Centre should contain at least a double gym with high ceilings, a lounge, computer lab, and a multipurpose room for games." The same report while stressing location as a key factor and advocating for a location in the core did acknowledge another viable scenario "would be that the centre co -exists within a large multipurpose recreational facility with specific activity and program space allocated for youth at all times or at some designated times of the day and week." From staff's perspective, the provision. of the gymnasium and related space described above to be programmed primarily for youth activities within the new recreational facility would be supported as being entirely consistent with the evaluation undertaken by the Youth Committee. This component of the facility would considerably advance the overall programming needs of the municipality as well. Staff currently utilize 65 hours of rented or municipal space per week for our youth programs in 19 different locations. Rental of School gymnasiums represent approximately 26 hours perweek and would not be required if the double gym was constructed. All of these requirements could be fulfilled if there was a municipal facility and programming of that nature provided to the community could be enhanced (tab 13 — Information Package). 000009 /9 February 3, 2004 - 9 - Report No. LSO4-003 The recent consultation with the Youth Advisory Committee related to this component of the proposed recreational facility has resulted in verbal indications there is now a preference for a less structured youth facility, more of a drop in centre approach and a strong desire for a 'walk to' downtown location. Nothing formal from the group outlining the change in approach or the basis for the revisiting of the earlier work undertaken has been received. Such a facility could be accommodated within, for example, the renovation of the old library orthe renovation of the existing seniors centre but would be a change in approach to accommodating youth needs from those currently envisaged. This type of facility would be able to be programmed for games, computer activities etc. and unable to accommodate those types of activities typically undertaken in a gym, including gymnastics, basketball, volleyball, tennis, badminton, floor hockey, soccer, rock climbing, concerts etc. Issues related to the compatibility or shared use of facilities and the lack of structure programming would need to be addressed. The Town will be required to assess the degree of risk of unstructured program opportunities within the youth facility. It is believed that Council should make the fundamental decision as to whether the range of services to be provided to the youth of the community are to be undertaken within the context of a higher level of structure, focusing on programmed events activities and physical/mental education or whether the less structured opportunity for interaction and communication on a more relaxed basis is to be the approach taken. The facility needs will naturally evolve from those determinations. There are not currently any funds budgeted for the renovation of either the old Library or existing Seniors Centre for youth purposes, but Council has allocated $500,000 in the 2003 budget for a youth centre. These funds are currently part of the funding scenario for the new recreational centre but can be reallocated for renovation of an existing facility if Council determines not to proceed to address youth needs at the new centre. Deferral of the timing of construction of the double gym: With regard to the specifics of the inclusion of the gymnasium component of the proposed recreational facility now, the option also exists to defer construction of that component at the present time thereby saving some initial capital cost and creating a two phase project. As indicated above, the provision of the gymnasium was slated for 2008 in the current facility forecast and could be considered as part of the facility design and delivered in that year if the future Council still deemed the construction appropriate. The design of the Centre could take the addition of this subsequent phase into consideration. The Town would continue to use permitted space from the Boards of Education and be somewhat constrained in its ability to expand such programs until the gymnasium was constructed. Alternative locations for the double gym: As directed by Council this past October staff has investigated a number of locations for the construction of a double gym. In addition to the potential to reuse the Leisure Complex ice surface area referred to above there are four other approaches to locating a double gym closer to the central core that could potentially accommodate a double gym and associated youth activities within the same facility. 00010 ..../10 February 3, 2004 -10 - Report No. LSO4-003 1. Library Square; This location is within the central core and is land owned by the Municipality. This location would require the demolition of the former Library and Seniors Centre in order to accommodate the construction of this new facility. The new facility would then be constructed on the site and operated by the Municipality primarily as a Youth Centre with other permitted uses during off hours. The cost of construction would be estimated at $2,400,000 and operating costs estimated at $120,000. This proposal would require the relocation or eviction of the existing users of the former Library and would not be able to proceed until a new Seniors Centre is completed. 2. Town Park; Town Park presently houses the existing armories facility. This facility could be converted to accommodate youth activities then added onto to provide a double gym. An Agreement with the Department of National Defense (DND) would be required to facilitate this proposal. The DND has been seeking potential alternative locations elsewhere in the Town. Although discussions have taken place, the DND have indicated that relocation is not in their immediate plans; therefore the provision of a Youth Centre would be delayed. The cost of this proposal would be dependant upon the renovation costs incurred to the existing facility, which have not been determined at this time. 3. Cousin's Property on Industrial Parkway During our search for serviced land throughout the Town, this parcel was under consideration. The land is serviced and available immediately for sale and construction. The parcel could accommodate a 14,000 square foot facility including a double gym and associated youth activity areas. The estimated cost of this proposal would include land and construction cost of 5 million dollars and an annual operating budget of $120,000. 4. Other Municipal Lands Council may consider the redevelopment of municipal lands located within the proximity of the downtown core. Civic Square Park or the lands presently slated for the Seniors Centre south of Town Hall could accommodate a double gym. Both sites are large enough and proposed construction costs are estimated at 2.5 million dollars with associated operating costs of approximately $120,000 annually. 5. Partnerships with School Boards Several schools are located in the proximity of the downtown core that may have sufficient land to accommodate a double gym and youth facilities. Staff could investigate potential sites and approach the School Board to explore a partnership opportunity. Estimated costs would be dependent on the site selected and the potential to construct a facility. Staff note that a new high school is proposed on Bayview Avenue, likely around 2008. Co -constructing a facility there may also be worthy of examination. 000011 ..../11 February 3, 2004 -11 - Report No. LSO4-003 GYMNASIUM SPACE OPTIONS WITHIN RECREATION CENTRE If the gymnasium remains in the building program for final design purpose, either for delivery now or as part of a second phase there remain optional components shown on the schematic design that require determinations. Staff comments related to each are below. a) Additional 1/2 Court; this feature enhances the quantity of space for recreation programmers. It will provide rental opportunities for local sport organizations and will further decrease or eliminate the need and rental cost of school facilities as the Town's population grows to buildout. b) Additional Stage; the stage will provide additional space for our arts component of our programmes. It will accommodate youth needs, concerts and special events. Staff would prefer additional gym space over a stage area if Council are considering expansion of community space. COMMON AREAS a) Elevator; this element will increase accessibility to the upper seating and mezzanine area in the rink area. b) Commercial Lease Space; this element will provide rental opportunities and encourage "3P" agreements to enhance the services provided at the Centre. CONCLUSIONS The schematic design forthis new recreation centre has evolved from the establishment of priority service areas by Council to the point where a project manager has been engaged, a series of consultations with the public and user groups has been conducted, the needs of the Department considered and analysed, an architect recruitment commenced and schematic building design has been refined. Decisions to finalize the building program including the actual form of components to be delivered and the establishment of the resultant construction budget are now necessary if the desire to commence construction this year is to be achieved. In order to meet this target, a number of processes will have to continue to occur concurrently. A determination that additional review or reflection upon aspects of the program will to varying degrees impact on the previously expressed desire to provide these facilities on a priority basis in general and, in particular likely preclude a September 2005 opening of the additional ice surfaces. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS As part of the update to the Cultural and Recreation Master Plan undertaken by the Leisure Services Advisory Committee last term; the establishment of increased service level standards and the resultant identification of the need by Council to accelerate the provision of facilities a financial model was constructed by staff to demonstrate the tax rate and reserve fund impacts that the construction of a major recreational facility in 2004 would have. 000012 ..../12 February 3, 2004 -12 - Report No. LSO4-003 The analysis prepared looked at both estimated operating and capital costs, was premised upon a sharing of costs between current/future growth (development charges), use of existing municipal reserve funds, temporary borrowing from internal sources, the future sale of municipal lands and a large component of long term debt (a debenture of approximately $10,000,000 with a 10 year term and increasing principle payments annually). The baseline information was also predicated on a facility having a gross capital cost in the range of $17,500,000 (1999 $) excluding land. The results of the modeling work essentially indicated that although our funding was stretched, there were sufficient resources available to proceed with the project provided that Council ultimately approved the debenture and recognized thatthere were to be future internal recoveries based on the sale of other assets (i.e. a portion of the Leslie Street lands 2005 — 2008). The modeling also resulted in the conclusion that, in order to proceed as planned, an annual net tax increase for the ten-year term of the debenture would result. The extent of the additional annual taxpayer obligation varied but was in the range of 2.00 — 2.50 % per year. This, in summary form, was the information available to Council as it approved the Leisure Services Master Plan, confirmed the facility priorities and directed staff to proceed with the property acquisition and engaging a project manager to commence the process leading to the construction of the recreational facility subject of this report. There was also recognition that the particular site chosen would, due to its visibility and overall profile result in the need to upgrade the facility elevations, thus adding somewhat to the overall cost. In the furtherance of the above, the draft 2004 capital budget sheet provided to Council (attached as appendix X') in support of the 2004 construction of the project shows a capital cost of $18,520,000 broken down as follows: Reserve funds (incl. DC) $ 5,520,000 Reserves $ 1,000,000 Growth Supported Debt $ 7,800,000 Tax Supported Debt $ 4,800,000 The work undertaken by the professional staff engaged thus far has produced a preliminary budget for the building program initially sought in the range of $25,000,000 excluding any optional components identified herein that Council may nowwish to include. As pointed out during the presentation, this figure remains an estimate and is not based on detailed review of final design by a cost consultant. Alterations to the building program and time remain significant variables that will continue to affect the final budget amounts. Generally, the revisions to the estimates can be attributed to the following factors: • Advancing of the Gymnasium component estimated as a $2.5 million cost in 2008 • Accommodation for potential soils issues • Footprint in excess of 100,000 square feet • Estimated cost of construction beyond $15Q/ft.2 as identified in D.C.A. • Annual construction cost increase of 4 to 5% per year 000013 ..../13 February 3, 2004 - 13 - Report No. LSO4.003 Notwithstanding the foregoing, this differential clearly necessitates a revisiting of the modeling undertaken previously and a separate report containing detailed analysis of the implications and financial options available to Council which are themselves dependent upon the extent to which it wishes to make alterations to the components of the facility. In orderthat the financial implications can be addressed in a comprehensive and thorough manner it is recommended herein that Hemson and Associates be retained to review the previous modeling, update the analysis using growth related parameters to be derived from their ongoing review of our development charges by-law, assess future planned growth from the perspective of the revenue calculations included in the model, the current reserve and reserve fund forecasts for the coming 10 year term and provide recommendations and options with respect to the financing of the proposed facility in the final form as determined by the Committee tonight. Will be presented by the Project Manager. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Goal "A" speaks to maintaining a well -managed and fiscally responsible municipality. ATTACHMENTS Appendix "A", Draft 2004 Capital Budget Sheet Presentation by Project Manager. PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team Meeting, Wednesday, January 28, 2004. Prepared by. Allan Downey, Director of Leisure Services, Extension 4752 ramV ALLAN D. DOWNE Director of Leisure Services 000014 API TOWN OF AURORA Department Priority: # m, mum 2004 CAPITAL BUDGET LSAC Priority: # ANALYSIS BY PROJECT DEPARTMENT: Leisure Services Department ACCOUNT NO. PROJECT: New Recreation Complex PURPOSE: To construct a new Multi -Use. Recreation Facility (approximately 100,000 square foot facility) to accommodate twin pad ice surfaces, indoor pool, youth centre, general purpose rooms, associated parking and access routes. PERFORMANCE/ACTIVITY MEASURES INCREASE (DECREASE Construction of the facility will achieve desired service level standards approved by Leisure Services Advisory Committee as part of the Culture and Recreation Master Plan update. EFFECT ON FUTURE OPERATING BUDGETS 2004 2005 2006 INCREASE (DECREASE) PROGRAMS - (Operating Expenses Net Cost) $ 0 $ 92,956 $ 171,014 SALARIES - (Operations) $ 0 $ 137,000 $ 274,000 OTHER COSTS - (Operations) $ 0 $ 368,000 $ 736,000 REVENUES $ 0 ($331000) ($830,000� TOTAL $ 2$2S $52 Z PROJECT COST/FINANCING TOTAL PROJECT COST S1S.520.000 15� 0 000 FINANCING: CURRENT LEVY $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 GRANTS $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 RESERVE FUNDS - DCA Reserve Fund $ 3,750,000 $135,000 $ 0 Cash -in -Lieu of Parkland $ 1,770,000 $ 0 $ 0 RESERVES Municipal Capital $ 500,000 $ 0 $ 0 Tax Rate Stabilization $ 500,000 $ 0 $ 0 - Master Plan Reserve $ 0 $ 15,000 $ 0 DEBT FINANCING - Growth Supported $ 7,200,000 $ 0 $ 0 - Tax Supported.. $ 4,800,000. $ 0 $ 0 TOTAL FINANCING 000 1$ 50.000 0 EXPLANATIONS/HIGHLIGHTS: Construction to be Tendered with approval of the Budget and to commence in July with a target �. completion of fall 2005. ■ Building Construction Costs estimated at: $15,569,500 ■ Servicing, Intersections, Grading, Demolition, Soils Contingency: $1,000,000 ■ Consulting Facility Design (approved 2003): $1,450,000 ■ Youth Centre (approved 2003): $500,000 0 2005 Furnishings: $150,000 000015 \- Z le <i \: � » \ ^ \ ?< \ � \ o g \{ § §f® ± $� § & $ < $ I a { / ° q r § a J 7 8 § . ... f . d § IL \ k 2 ] ) .41 � 0 k ) t IL/[�~W LL § § � f�k � k f ] 8�k c k k_5 ( D i\! .o ) 2 )/ k §\\ M ,. LL o 000017 L D CL LL w N d E i M ^0 W Vs E iV^.i. CL A0A, u 0 � A r r C O v N CO cri 0 oO CV L) O L) G O O U) CD L Q c O O 7 V O Val J A N r C O f�..1 N U) M 0 oO r O Z Q 0 L V O CL L E a) co C" r_ 000019 rim 0 M A M 0 0o CN C.i O L CD CL w O / V L O C) c y C V OCL tOl L � •� W V/ E 0 _O ,� V > Cl) d _ •0 .� CL a) A Li. m O L � �L Cn N O O N U O N U O 00 L O >p z O 7 c O c c° o N c O O O O O O � CV N L `' O CD R Q CL .._. > U C C. Cn Cn CO O O Z 0 —�i � 0 C C � Cu N >+ (O Cl O p N N c� 0 O 2 U s i o- E � L O e N N L cu d ff co�'� U E E U c � (D o CO CD o Q U c p rn U c ai a E o rn a o z p- cu Nca 2 a > a c a) E p C o a) E E E6NN Oar,` N O. a) O O NO( o U CL Of L U U 000020 Ln R M O 00 04 0 C. cc V L V/ 0 sU) W O O t�/� L Q� CL CL O .� � d .O m LL. CD LL C�N N LL CD O (n O N (n LO 0 N N -0 Q (n L.0 0 N CDN. -0 (D EL U) LO LO O O O p O N N N N CD O N_ a) N O E = 2 > {Qcu L E CD LL. fn Cn CA Z — I COCo U o c T � � O i U > - c O U a a � U cn Q U o2$ cn U -0 U 3 0 ors > cv �. •F Z �fE cu 0 � O. C. � �... 0 Ucu LL U U V cu U C U U a s (n LL a 0 0 000021 /V! V © a. M U. E CL I�A N ^O W O �, 0 v �E N d d � M O N d ® V- U) � L L a O V c O O O 3 o = a d O E Gf O ® U W A A A A 000022 rl- r@ 6' �yy11 1� �•� n � fir' '� ■ al rJ � i4 i r �1� 0 l" I 1 000025 a oil 9 VI O 0 06 A-+ C/L y) W //� V c rO V N O 0 ca 4.0 Q G9 t� O 0 �Fze N r-1 li .a cc � O � i7L O v � — O LQ O r H9� CD tQ O N 'a � O i m _ •10 LL. V V O CD d cm L � O N v 0 i C) CDO O C O C O O O CD CD CD 00 00 LL O LO r N C N O O O d d � O O x O O .CL LJ 000029 El O t N -�+ E � V V 0 O � fly � O .y..r Q) CL NL) -0 0 L. O .a0+ O V O V W Cc E > tm CC L) C L_ O C G V i I >% qq�r -0 O U) C d' i N p 'a C N i. O O d d > O v N :ir C O d V _ o 'Q N Q O L _ O p CN .ar tm 'O ® 0 v m E Q ® Q .r- E _� A N � v � er > +O+ O 4) a: w a) Qi GD O •C� = I-- A Ir ��+ N CM Z er 000030 h is cr'L c cc 4-1 L O Q wo .E n = .Q N .N tf} N O 7ai � Q) L m O E i E �..r W N O W cc (n n �V c N o c.� N ca C� 0) o c O r- 0 ' O U) a O Mx + E Cc O O Occ _ m E g v 0fz 000031 4-0 U) V O U. L m cu cn CL O �= S a .cu L • U aD z 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 (3> C( ti c M � O O O cn N CEO C 1� C9 =L K w CL V _. a> Z 0 0 0 Lc i 0 0 0 a� c O O O y N C O x w 000032 _ 2 # k O o G © o 2 3 ¥ 2 o 2 ® o & 2 c G ? C CCD o0 0 CCD S 2 \ S R R m r m o c E o ca. a a § c / k k c ƒ . 2 . ., E E E. 2 7 c� / / 7 -0 * -a 7 q / E k k - 2 § \ 2 2 : f n 7 { { { / c g 0 x f / f k / cn / C:) 5 eo$ ƒ � oM k k e E E 7. /E / _� / �_ 2// _R o �k®k®k « » \5 - = q / 2 / CL $ / 0-a) $ / CL $ e /:= c�c�c� �®/§SJ a o M t 3 m§ ¢ 3: ƒ ± « m m @ § 000033 1i C N CL O CD O LO N O co °�-° m o 0 =o 0 CL mo 0 U ti LO 6-} M M U C a c m U W cu (6 � U m c C O N p� "OE cu m m _ e a L a CT C) C O C� O o m o O V C C N dU.Q. T y (D (D cu m :3 � 0 E E c m E iL c,c E V 0�05 G4} C O Q Q O z z o ='oo m o0 0 U cm c c m E U+ W U C a> N Q. L o N Q C, o o c N ,N E E o E o E cu 000 m 00001314 m 4- 0 m ..a ,O v O 0 .® � v O O A-* to O N �® Q. L. O C O 0 N 000035 .'a: N _»_ 2 0 2 cc z c � � x � 0 CL c % o U AGENDA ITEM-# oZ MEMORANDUM To: AL DOWNEY For Action of: From: GARY STANHOPE For Info of: TOWN OF AURORA Respond By: Doc. No.: 81186-3102 Subject: Aurora Recreation Centre Project Schedule Date: February 11, 2004 Further to the request from Council at the February 03 Genera( Committee meeting, MHPM Project Managers Inc, in partnership with Rounthwaite Dick & Hadley Architects and A.W> Hooker Cost Consultants have prepared additional costing information relating to the proposed Recreation Complex. The following has been prepared in order to make our planned meeting for Thursday February 12 as informed as possible so discussion can be constructive for discovering the correct program and associated budget for the Recreation Complex on the Burnet Lands in Aurora. Sketches depicting possible alternate solutions for Soccer and or Tennis programs as well as reduced scope to only Arenas and an Aquatic facility are currently being prepared by our Architect and will be available for review at our meeting on February 12. Attached you will find the costing options and general information requested that should assist us in coming to the most effective solution: Regards, Gary Stanhope Project Manager Toronto 3027 Harvester Road, Suite 101, Burlington, Ontario L7N 3G7 Tel.: (905) 639-2425 Fax: (905) 639-2810 Halifax Ottawa Edmonton Calgary Vancouver Aurora Recreational Complex Separate Estimates: (Not Included in the Class "D" Estimate dated Jan. 7, 2004) Aquatic Centre February 11, 2004 The estimated costs associated with the deletion of the 6 lane lap pool including an approx. - $2,800,000 building GFA of 885 m2, which also includes the deletion of a 3 m strip through the change rooms. Based on the above, the estimated cost of the remaining Aquatic Centre at 1,507 m2 would be $4.8M The estimated costs associated with the deletion of the leisure pool including an approx. $1,500,000 building GFA of 500 m2, which also includes the deletion of a 3 m strip through the change rooms. Based on the above, the estimated cost of the remaining Aquatic Centre at 1,900 m2 would be $6.OM Site Development Pre-engineered building with Indoor soccer fields, approx. 3250 m2 or 35,000 SF $2,300,000 Pre-engineered building with 6 indoor tennis courts, approx. 5000 m2 or 53,800 SF $3,500,000 Senior's Centre The option of locating the proposed Aurora Senior's Centre on the recreational complex site has a number of variables associated with It, and for this reason, has the potential to produce a savings or the same potential to actually add additional cost. Items to be considered with this option. • There is the potential to save street connections for the sanitary and storm sewers for the Senior's Centre " Depending on whether the program spaces in the Senior's Centre could take advantage of similar program space in the Community Centre (ie: multi -purpose rooms, meeting rooms), the overall area of the Senior's Centre could be reduced for savings. " We presume the Senior's Centre would be isolated to some degree on the recreational complex site and linked to the Community and Aquatic Centres. Depending on the extent of the link, this could add significant cost to the combined project. ` The addition of the Senior's Centre to the recreational complex site would displace parking area that is presently close to the complex. If the Senior's Centre Is located adjacent to the Community and Aquatic Centres, then the patrons using the recreational complex would be forced to park further away from the building entrances. `The distinct advantage of co -locating the Senior's Centre and the recreational complex is the ability for the seniors to use the entire facility. 000039 A.W. Hooker Associates Ltd. Project No. 103680 Page 1 of 2 Aurora Recreational Complex February 11, 2004 Separate Estimates: (Not Included in the Class "D" Estimate dated Jan. 7, 2004) Phased Construction The estimated additional costs associated with phasing the Community Centre (at a later date) depend on the following: " The proposed delay of this component of the project. The current construction market is experiencing an average Inflation factor of between 2 and 3% per annum. . The eventual location of the phased community centre component on the recreation complex and the extent of the linkage to the other facilities would increase the combined overall cost. • The phasing of a component of the work would increase the potential for a second general contractor and the potential for overlap of office and site overheads. There would be a savings to have one contractor perform all of the work at one time; therefore, eliminating the overlap of overheads. • The phasing (or delay) of a major component of the project usually adds additional costs to the remaining components due to the implementation of Infrastructuretoaccept the later phase. For example, the Incoming electrical service and head end equipment would be sized to accept the additional capacity requirements at a later date. The site services would also be designed to accept the additional capacities, etc. ' In our experience, the phasing of a large construction project into smaller projects almost always adds additional cost. We have experienced increases that range from 10 to 15% depending the extent of the phasing and the complexity of the project. Given that the budget for the Community Centre component is around $3M, the potential increase due to phase could be in the mage of $300,000 to $450,000. Estimated Cost of the Aquatic Centre and Twin Pad Arena Arena (as per the Class D Estimate dated January 7, 2004) $7,964,000 Aquatic Centre (as per the Class D estimate dated January 7th, 2004) $7,178,000 Street/Lobby Area (assumed to be reduced to 350 m2 x $2,200/m2) $770.000 Subtotal for Building Construction $15,912,000 Estimated Site Development (reduced from $1.91M) $1,600,000 Estimate Hard Construction Cost (excluding GST) $17,512,000 Estimated Cost of the Original Scheme including the above and the Community Centre (as per the Class "D" Estimate dated January 7, 2004) F $2 550,000 Estimated savings to the original scheme to phase (defer) the Community Centre $4,038,000 000040 A.W. Hooker Associates Ltd. Project No. 103680 Page 2 of 2 c 0 0 M (n V O L. CL CL C O 7 //0� > CD .y n i7 ILI W Eli bl I1CA m N Q N p-0 0 N 0 N 0 w0 N E ? z -� O O cV0 -� O O co L Lcl�j O C:) CD L. L E ..Q E a> 2 - o .Q cis C6 CO Q a o > <i U) 0 CO 0 0 z 0 W cu N o` a Q N U a 0 - E o 0 0 O U U L _ c E E E_ 0 u ca E c o co "' O 2 o 0) c U o _ o c o c0 o E cn y css ca is >o' aa) o U L 0 U E_E E cL f N EO co NoCL co, OLm a¢ E C) do) p. Wan p p c) N. n a)00.. mac) W) m 9 � e k ƒ / 2 / k S k 7 g c 0 / ^ § / \ -0 § A / -09 § ci / CN 04 3 / 3 # 04 CDE 3 G \ / ƒ / 2 k 9 R /- e m 3 ± � / A 2 k / \ f § 0 \ O § � cc 7 _ � k k ® CO / / -0/ R ® f 5 _ ± e n \ c CD-E @ ± $ % 0 ƒ a)/ .E g/ a)& & 3 k U ƒ : ƒ 7 ƒ / / / k k I < - N N CD 0 L. 0. U. CD CL O > 0 N E � . co L. R. u- CD ca rs � 0 V «, 0 0) o 0 Q m U (D '0) CD im U L o A A A A Lim I ^0 I�X L V/ O N � O Q ax O CL a E o V E- scVe�`. 4 kal w 0 • 8 0 0 06 AT -A CL 0 C.) a tm 0 •0 CL ti C C:0v C C I Poz=:pcC 2!C0r0t0 0.O »\2, O 6C- M - 0 C O -- icy) GG %C y:my ......... .. LO C> (.0 (Y) �CR 0. "Izt LP �7 (.0 00 cy) rl- C) :m 0') a C14 C\j 60.:: 12 Lo cc) 00 200 co -,zr -�T -0 1,- 1,- CO C) L ; L C\J : L(5 :(0 F4 Cl) 0 0 C) cn 0 LU LO C/) Cf) U); 0 LL 0 C-) CD - U) r- a) o 0 CD- 0 > =3 E a) 0 F- cn i= U) i U) E 'wi c 1 "= cc) :< U) C.) 2 d-1 LL 0 C) kv �s O 'c .� x c8 cU LL- O � v CL c M