Recreation/Senior Center and Aquatic Center Expansion Task Force Agenda and Packet 2016 06 29

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 in the fall of 2015 to provide specific full year 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 for comparison. In looking at even higher admission rates,Aspen's daily admissions are likely to be the highest in the state at $18.25 for adults and $16.25 for youth. GreenPlay is not aware of any agencies using daily admissions to cover 100%of expenses, including debt service. In considering the Financial Policy of Louisville, such an exercise would entail spreading the expense over every individual that enters the facility for any use (admission or program) and to a lesser degree youth and seniors.This would likely produce and admission rate that exceeds the daily admission shared for Aspen. 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 3 indicates the difficulty in attempting to compare Louisville with other agencies, many of which have different operating philosophies, 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 reported subsidy of these facilities varies greatly. 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 14