Recreation/Senior Center and Aquatic Center Expansion Task Force Agenda and Packet 2016 05 07 SUB

Home Browse Search

• Gender, age, and income demographics in the region support the need for more and varying facilities. Consumer demand is for "state of the art" facilities. Comparisons with Similar Facilities in Other Communities The project study included comparing similar facilities in the northwest Metropolitan Denver area, Boulder and northern Colorado. The purpose of this comparative analysis is to give the City a better understanding of the types of community centers that exist in the region and how they operate. In order to get a complete picture of the options for potential components, there must be an understanding of what the regional market will bear for fees and charges, the amount of funding it takes to operate and maintain similar facilities, and the costs to staff a facility. For this comparison, other park and recreation agencies were contacted to provide specific information for recreation centers that would be similar to an expanded Louisville facility. Louisville staff and comparison agencies provided and primarily utilized 2014 data; included in Table 3 are Broomfield, Lafayette, Erie, Golden, Longmont. The comparison data listed is for the purpose of providing an overview of budget and operational performance of similar (and un- similar) facilities in the general area. This data is not intended to suggest a particular approach, but rather to give an indication of how diverse facilities are in their performance. Table indicates the difficulty in attempting to compare Louisville with other agencies, many of which have different operating philosophies, cost recovery expectations, building components, and budget methods. Utilities may be handled in different ways, such as not showing an expense for water, and as indicated with Longmont and Louisville, other intra - departmental support services may not be reported as well. The community recreation centers that were studied for this analysis range in size from 48,000 square feet to 85,000 square feet. Common amenities in these centers include leisure pools, multi - purpose rooms, gymnasiums, group fitness areas, weight /cardio rooms, walk /jog tracks, climbing facilities, and childcare rooms. A few less common and unique amenities include competitive swim pool, dedicated senior areas, and racquetball. It should be noted that both revenues and expenses are driven by a wide range of programs, building design, and general philosophy of budgeting. For example, in some cases subsidy support from other departments is not included. Each facility was studied in regards to revenue gained from daily admissions, passes, and programming. Revenues are generally a more reliable comparable than expenditures. Each facility was studied in regards to expenses for operating the facility (including staffing, utilities, and operations, where reported). An analysis of the ratio of revenue to expenses illustrates that the cost recovery of these facilities varies greatly from 63 to 140+ percent. Care should be taken with using this information without a thorough understanding of the discrepancies in the comparability. 10 Recreation & Senior Center Expansion Feasibility Study 11