Winnetka Park District

Transcription

1 Winnetka Park District Outdoor Aquatic Feasibility Study 2010 Prepared by Terry G. Schwartz, Executive Director

2 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 6 Methodology 6 Project Scope 6 SECTION 2: DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS 7 Option 1: 9,177 sq. ft. Outdoor Leisure Pool & Six Lane 25-Yard Competition Pool 7 Option 2: 8,124 sq. ft. Outdoor Leisure Pool & Four Lane 25-Yard Lap Pool 9 Option 3: 6,876 sq. ft. Six Lane 25-Yard Competition Pool & Sprayground 11 SECTION 3: AREA PROVIDER ANALYSIS 13 Existing Public Sector Pools 13 Existing Private Sector Pools 22 NRPA Standard 24 SECTION 4: POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS 26 Population 27 Weather 28 SECTION 5: OPERATIONS 29 Opinion of Revenue 29 Opinion of Probable Expenses 37 APPENDIX: 46 I. AQUATIC PROGRAMMING TRENDS 46 Specific User Groups Lessons and Fitness 46 Specific User Groups Aquatic Therapy 48 Specific User Groups Recreation 50 Specific User Groups Competitive 52 2

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Winnetka Park District Outdoor Pool Study Historical Perspective of Aquatic Studies in Winnetka History Survey information from 2006 Features and amenities Location Other pools studied Attendance Feasibility Study Purpose To understand the following principles: Utilize the schematics of three outdoor aquatic facility options so there is a best guess understanding of what such a facility would cost. Identify the history of operating costs of facilities within the region to determine the potential of an aquatic facility to recover operating costs in real time experiences. Understand the infrastructure challenges that might be required of a facility if it were placed in a Skokie Playfields location. This report will provide the Winnetka Park District Board with an understanding of the aquatics business and attempt to interpret the costs to create a facility with resulting operational costs once opened. History A public pool in the Village of Winnetka has been a subject of interest since 1988 when the first aquatic study was conducted. In 1997 and 2000, a caucus survey recommended that the Winnetka Park District investigate an outdoor pool. In 1999, the Winnetka Park District created the Outdoor Pool Advisory Group (OPAG), whose mission was to plan a pool designed to serve the diverse recreational needs of the community for citizens of all ages and backgrounds. The group recommended to the Winnetka Park District Board that a pool be constructed at Skokie Playfield. The Winnetka Park District Board voted down the recommendation due to the impact that an outdoor pool would have on the neighborhood, current facilities, and the park in terms of traffic, congestion, and loss of open space. A 2000 referendum for the construction of a recreation center was defeated by a 53% - 47% margin. A 2001 referendum for the construction of a recreation center with an indoor swimming pool was defeated by 54% - 45%. The second question on the ballot for the construction of an outdoor pool, to be located on Willow Road (Duke Child Field) owned by New Trier High School, was defeated 67% - 32%. More recently ( ), an Outdoor Pool Task Force (OPTF) was created by the Winnetka Park District Board. The OPTF was assigned the responsibility to once again explore the feasibility of creating an outdoor pool. Significant research of OPTF explored a resident survey, pool design and features that would best met the community needs, identification of a pool location, cost estimates for construction and operation of a pool, and recommendations as to how a pool could be financed. Other items that were studied include other area pools, and possible attendance. Resident Survey A 2006 resident survey conducted by Leisure Visions revealed 49% community support for an outdoor pool. 3

4 Pool Features and Amenities In 1999, the OPAG agreed on an outdoor six lane 25-meter pool integrated with a 10 6 deep-water area, a non-integrated zero-depth area with limited spray features, and a concession area. This configuration will need to be modified as the deep water for diving wells needs to be 12 feet. The PowerPoint report completed by the OPTF did not identify the space desires of the task force; however it addressed a presentation by PHN Architects of Wheaton, IL on outdoor pool design and feature options, bather load requirements, land requirements and parking along with environmental concerns to be addressed. The results of this presentation were not available for this report. Recommendations and costs for preparing the site for a pool dated November 5, 2007 are identified in the Appendix of this report. Pool Location Evaluated sites over 4.5 acres included: Crow Island Lloyd Park Tower Road Beach Skokie Playfield Morrow Property Skokie Playfield North along Western border of Skokie Skokie Playfield Driving Range Skokie Playfield Pony Field Site evaluations included space, current usage, neighborhood impact (lights, noise, and traffic), green impact (loss of trees and green space), construction feasibility, and relative costs. After site evaluations, the OPTF agreed that the pool be located at Skokie Playfield south of the ice arena. While the Master Planning study for Skokie Playfields, led by The Lakota Group, several locations for an aquatics component have been tested from a site massing/physical relationship standpoint. Through this approach, locating the pool west of the tennis center created some beneficial interrelationships between uses, and alleviated concerns of noise and visual impacts on Willow Road and neighbors to the east. This determination was made resulting from many discussions with community members, LAKOTA Group analysis of the entire site, and how each site amenity fits into the overall context of the playfields in larger scheme development. The Winnetka Park District Board agreed before the Lakota study was initiated that the facility could physically fit into the Skokie Playfields south of the ice arena or the Pony Field behind the administration building. However, the majority of the Winnetka Park District Board felt there were too many issues concerning storm water management, potential poor soil and flood plain, compensatory storage issues, and undetermined costs associated with reconstructing parts of the golf course, driving range, ball fields, and tennis courts, which would be impacted by the construction of the outdoor pool in this area. This study is being completed to gain an understanding of the economic operational impact of placing a pool on the Skokie Playfields and does not imply that the Lakota Group work is finalized. Other Area Pools The OPTF explored outdoor pools in the area (Glenview Park District s Roosevelt Pool, Splash Landing, Highland Park s Hidden Creek, Northbrook s Sports Center Pool, Buffalo Grove Park District Pool and Pools managed by the Skokie Park District). Their findings determined that where there is good weather, outdoor pools can generate enough revenue to cover operating expenses. This report includes those sites to provide some operational perspective. 4

5 Possible Attendance PHN Architects, an aquatics and facility architectural firm retained to provide professional advice toward aquatic facility placement, informed that the capacity of the pool could be determined by using a percentage of the population (3% to 5%). The Winnetka Park District serves approximately 15,000 residents; therefore 3% would be 450 swimmers, and the pool would be limited to a capacity of 600.The OPTF determined that a strong sale of early memberships could negate bad weather when it comes to overall revenues generated by an outdoor pool. The idea was raised for packaging a program that would be appealing to golfers, tennis players, and swimmers. This concept is not advisable given the enterprising philosophy of those facilities. To incorporate a packaging of the various sites will complicate the revenue and expense streams of those facilities. It is best to keep the facilities to understand accountability of each entity. Cost estimates for construction and operation of a pool, and recommendations as to how a pool could be financed were not provided in the studies completed by PHN Architects. Feasibility Study The purpose of this feasibility study is to understand the following principles: Utilize the schematics of three outdoor aquatic facility options so there is a best guess understanding of what such a facility would cost. This part of the study is important to understand the size of the space required for the placement of the facility and to provide guidance to the Winnetka Park District Board regarding the economics of the operational potential of such a facility. Identify the history of operating costs of facilities within the region to determine the potential of an aquatic facility to recover operating costs in real time experiences. These data will also be used as comparisons with a facility in the Village of Winnetka to understand how a like facility would perform. Understand the infrastructure challenges that might be required of a facility if it were placed in a Skokie Playfields location. The importance of compensatory storage and operating in a water management designated site are critical considerations when looking at the potential of placing a facility at the Skokie Playfields. One of two locations at the Skokie Playfields has been determined by the OPTF to be the most ideal location for such a facility. Keep in mind that there are other issues and opportunities that affect placement of the pool including shared resource opportunities, environmental impacts, the physical character of the site, site lines and visibility of the facility, noise impacts, and access/linkages. These items have not been addressed as a part of this report. This report will provide the Winnetka Park District Board with an understanding of the aquatics business and attempt to interpret the costs to create a facility with resulting operational costs once opened. While an actual experience of operating an aquatic facility in the Village of Winnetka is not available, the tools that were used to assist with accurate financial and operational data include contributions from other local comparable park district operations, the experience of Counsilman-Hunsaker who has conducted over 1,000 similar aquatic studies nationwide, and the Winnetka Park District Staff. Page 5

6 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION Methodology Project Scope The notion of creating an aquatics facility has been reviewed on several occasions by two task forces, committees, the Winnetka Park District Board, and the Winnetka Park District Staff. This study has been developed by the Winnetka Park District Staff with technical assistance from Counsilman-Hunsaker. The purpose of the report is to provide aquatic facility analysis that would help the Winnetka Park District Board make an educated decision of the likely operational influence of managing such a facility if created. It is important to most accurately communicate with the Winnetka Park District Board the operational expectation of such a facility so the Board can determine how to communicate these obligations to the community in a survey if so desired. If the questions were placed in a survey, the respondents to the survey would help inform the Winnetka Park District Board as to their needs and desires prior to the determination of moving forward with creating and operating a new aquatic facility. Methodology This plan is based on research through the following processes: Reviewed previous studies and meeting minutes of the Outdoor Swimming Pool Advisory Group from 1999 and the OPTF from Utilized input from the 2006 Leisure Visions Survey. Analyzed studies completed by the LAKOTA Group related to space availability for a potential aquatic facility. Investigated several area park districts that are aquatic providers to understand the programs, operations, and fees of those facilities. Identified potential user groups through demographics of the market area. Provided trends in aquatic recreation, fitness, therapy, and competition to determine amenities and programs. Reviewed construction costs and labor costs in the local area. Developed a cash flow analysis of two aquatic options for the Winnetka Park District. Usage and weather analysis Analysis of local private, public and club operations Project Scope The scope of the project is to: 1. Identify options that represent aquatic facilities that will meet current and future community needs for enjoyment, health, and safety. A third option was also provided to reflect responses from recent (2010) interviews that were conducted with community members. 2. Determine how the facilities will be programmed and staffed. 3. Provide projections regarding project costs. 4. Develop an opinion of financial pro forma. 5. Understand operational experiences of other like facilities within the region. 6. Offer recommendations to the Winnetka Park District Board as to ways they might proceed with aquatic considerations in the future. 6

7 SECTION 2: DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS Option 1: 9,177 sq. ft. Outdoor Leisure Pool with a Six Lane 25-Yard Competition Pool Option 2: 8,124 sq. ft. Outdoor Leisure Pool with a Four Lane 25-Yard Lap Pool Option 3: 6,876 sq. ft. Six Lane 25-Yard Competition Pool & Sprayground When developing concepts, initially, two options were selected to offer programming diversity, entertainment value, and the best potential to generate revenues to cover the operating costs necessary to gain positive cash flow in the facility. These options were communicated with the OPTF prior to development. Option 3 reflects desires expressed in a memo to the Board from the former director of Parks and Recreation, Liza McElroy and Supt. of Recreation Lee Volpe dated June 19, Option 1: 9,177 sq. ft. Outdoor Leisure Pool & Six Lane 25-Yard Competition Pool Occupancy of 342/870 per day $7,680,000 Option 1 includes a 9,177 sq. ft. outdoor leisure pool with play features and a six lane 25-yard competition pool. Guests wishing to soak up the summer sun can laze away in the zero-depth entry or work off energy in the current channel by water walking against the current. The participatory play feature for children is located in the shallow water. A run-out waterslide and a drop slide into the deep end of the diving well offer older children, teens, and daring adults the excitement of the waterslide experience. A water vortex creates a play area where the imagination determines the swirling adventure or when the vortex pump is turned off an excellent instruction space is created. Lap lanes and competition swimming is offered in the six lane 25-yard competition pool. Five shade structures scattered throughout provide a cool break from the summer sun. OPTION 1: CONCEPTUAL ONLY Page 7

8 OPTION 1 OPINION OF PROJECT COST O P I N I O N O F P R O J E C T C O S T : O p tio n 1 D e s c rip tio n U n it A m o u n t O p in io n o f C o s t D e m o litio n $0 B a th h o u s e 4,4 4 5 $ 1,3 2 1,2 0 5 E n tra n c e S q. F t. 140 M a n a g e rs O ffic e S q. F t. 100 G u a rd R o o m / F irs t A id S q. F t. 125 P o o l M e c h a n ic a l S q. F t. 1,1 2 0 B u ild in g M e c h a n ic a l S q. F t. 300 S to ra g e S q. F t. 350 L o c k e r R o o m s S q. F t. 1,2 0 0 F a m ily C h a n g in g R o o m (2 ) S q. F t. 260 V e n d in g / C o n c e s s io n s S q. F t. 270 E ffic ie n c y S q. F t. 580 A q u a tic s 9,1 7 7 $ 3,3 7 1,4 7 5 F itn e s s P o o l S q. F t. 5,3 7 6 $ 1,6 9 0,7 5 2 W a te rs lid e w ith R u n o u t Q u a n titiy 1 $ 1 6 5,0 0 0 D ro p S lid e Q u a n titiy 1 S p rin g b o a rd D iv in g Q u a n titiy 1 F a m ily P o o l S q. F t. 3,8 0 1 $ 1,2 2 7,7 2 3 C u rre n t C h a n n e l A d d. C o s t. 1 $ 1 0,0 0 0 V o rte x A d d. C o s t. 1 $ 1 0,0 0 0 P a rtic ip a to ry P la y F e a tu re A llo w a n c e 1 P o o l H e a te r Q u a n titiy 2 S u p p o rt $ 5 2 3,3 6 6 O u td o o r D e c k S q. F t. 1 3,7 6 6 F e n c e L in e a r F t. 600 O v e rh e a d L ig h tin g S q. F t. 2 2,9 4 3 E q u ip m e n t A llo w a n c e 1 S h a d e S tru c tu re s Q u a n tity 5 U n it S q. F t. O p in io n o f C o s t T o ta l B u ild in g C o n s tr u c tio n C o s ts 5,2 1 6,0 4 6 S ite C o n s tru c tio n C o s ts (p a rk in g lo t, la n d s c a p in g, u tilitie s, w a lk s ) $ 5 4 7,7 4 5 S u b to ta l $ 5,7 6 3, In fla tio n ( 2 ye a r) % $ 5 7 6,3 7 9 C o n tin g e n c y % $ 6 3 4,0 1 7 In d ire c t C o s ts % $ 6 9 7,4 1 9 O p in io n o f P ro je c t C o s ts $ 7,6 7 1,6 1 0 S a y $ 7,6 8 0,0 0 0 S o u rc e : C o u n s ilm a n -H u n s a k e r 8

9 Option 2: 8,124 sq. ft. Outdoor Leisure Pool & Four Lane 25-Yard Lap Pool Occupancy of 308/781 per day $7,090,000 Option 2 includes an 8,124 sq. ft. outdoor leisure pool with play features and a four lane 25-yard lap pool. Guests wishing to soak up the summer sun can laze away in the zero-depth entry or work off energy in the smaller current channel by water walking against the current. The participatory play feature for children is located in the shallow water that also offers a mushroom water spray feature. A run-out waterslide, a drop slide into the deep end of the diving well, and a shorter waterslide offer older children, teens, and daring adults the excitement of the waterslide experience. A water vortex creates a play area where the imagination determines the swirling adventure. When the vortex pump is turned off this space becomes an excellent instruction space. Four adjacent lap lanes offer adults and seniors an area for fitness lap swimming. Five shade structures scattered throughout provide a cool break from the summer heat. OPTION 2: CONCEPTUAL ONLY Page 9

10 OPTION 2 OPINION OF PROJECT COST O P I N I O N O F P R O J E C T C O S T : O p tio n 2 D e s c rip tio n U n it A m o u n t O p in io n o f C o s t D e m o litio n $0 B a th h o u s e 4,4 4 5 $ 1,3 2 1,2 0 5 E n tra n c e S q. F t. 140 M a n a g e rs O ffic e S q. F t. 100 G u a rd R o o m / F irs t A id S q. F t. 125 P o o l M e c h a n ic a l S q. F t. 1,1 2 0 B u ild in g M e c h a n ic a l S q. F t. 300 S to ra g e S q. F t. 350 L o c k e r R o o m s S q. F t. 1,2 0 0 F a m ily C h a n g in g R o o m (2 ) S q. F t. 260 V e n d in g / C o n c e s s io n s S q. F t. 270 E ffic ie n c y S q. F t. 580 A q u a tic s 8,1 2 4 $ 3,0 1 8,2 7 8 M u lti-p u rp o s e P o o l S q. F t. 7,7 1 7 $ 2,4 9 2,5 9 1 D ro p S lid e Q u a n titiy 1 S p rin g b o a rd D iv in g Q u a n titiy 1 C u rre n t C h a n n e l A d d. C o s t. 1 $ 1 0,0 0 0 V o rte x A d d. C o s t. 1 $ 1 0,0 0 0 P a rtic ip a to ry P la y F e a tu re A llo w a n c e 1 P lu n g e P o o l S q. F t. 406 $ 1 2 7,6 8 7 W a te rs lid e Q u a n titiy 1 P o o l H e a te r Q u a n titiy 1 S u p p o rt $ 4 9 1,1 4 4 O u td o o r D e c k S q. F t. 1 2,1 8 6 F e n c e L in e a r F t. 600 O v e rh e a d L ig h tin g S q. F t. 2 0,3 1 0 E q u ip m e n t A llo w a n c e 1 S h a d e S tru c tu re s Q u a n tity 5 U n it S q. F t. O p in io n o f C o s t T o ta l B u ild in g C o n s tr u c tio n C o s ts 4,8 3 0,6 2 7 S ite C o n s tru c tio n C o s ts (p a rk in g lo t, la n d s c a p in g, u tilitie s, w a lk s ) $ 4 9 5,0 9 5 S u b to ta l $ 5,3 2 5, In fla tio n ( 2 y e a r) % $ 5 3 2,5 7 2 C o n tin g e n c y % $ 5 8 5,8 2 9 In d ire c t C o s ts % $ 6 4 4,4 1 2 O p in io n o f P ro je c t C o s ts $ 7,0 8 8,5 4 0 S a y $ 7,0 9 0,0 0 0 S o u rc e : C o u n s ilm a n -H u n s a k e r 10

11 Option 3: 6,876 sq. ft. Six Lane 25-Yard Competition Pool & Sprayground Occupancy of 274/700 per day $5,730,000 Option 3 includes a 6,876 sq. ft. outdoor with a six lane 25-yard competition pool with a diving well that also serves patrons who wish to swim laps. The children s sprayground will include a variety of play features. There was a desire to have a concession area incorporated with the bathhouse. Four shade structures scattered throughout provide a cool break from the summer sun. OPTION 3: CONCEPTUAL ONLY 11 OPINION OF PROJECT COST: Option 3 Description Unit Amount Opinion of Cost Demolition $0 Bathhouse 4,445 $1,321,205 Entrance Sq. Ft. 140 Managers Office Sq. Ft. 100 Guard Room / First Aid Sq. Ft. 125 Pool Mechanical Sq. Ft. 1,120 Building Mechanical Sq. Ft. 300 Storage Sq. Ft. 350 Locker Rooms Sq. Ft. 1,200 Family Changing Room (2) Sq. Ft. 260 Vending / Concessions Sq. Ft. 270 Efficiency Sq. Ft. 580 Aquatics 6,876 $2,091,252 Fitness Pool Sq. Ft. 5,376 $1,690,752 Springboard Diving Quantitiy 2 Sprayground Sq. Ft. 1,500 $229,500 Spray Features Allowance 1 Pool Heater Quantitiy 1

12 Support $452,956 Outdoor Deck Sq. Ft. 10,314 Fence Linear Ft. 600 Overhead Lighting Sq. Ft. 17,190 Equipment Allowance 1 Shade Structures Quantity 5 Unit Sq. Ft. Opinion of Cost Total Building Construction Costs 3,865,413 Site Construction Costs (parking lot, landscaping, utilities, walks) $432,695. Subtotal $4,298,108 Inflation ( 2 year) 10.0% $429,811 Contingency 10.0% $472,792 Indirect Costs 10.0% $520,071 Opinion of Project Costs $5,720,790 Say $5,730,000 Source: Counsilman-Hunsaker Section 2 Summary Aquatic facilities of the region were mimicked in Option 1 and Option 2 to help understand a logical comparison if the Winnetka Park District was to create a facility for the residents. After conducting interviews with individuals in the community it was determined to create a third option that would be similar to the Old Willow swim facility. The purpose of preparing this additional option was to illustrate how such a facility would compare with the performance of the first two options. Since the introduction of Leisure Pools, traditional pool facilities similar to the illustration in Option 3 have been an unsuccessful model. Similar designs have not been created in recent years for several reasons: the lack of the pool s ability to sustain a high capacity rate; the pool is not comparable to other pool facilities that aquatic users have become accustomed to in other parts of the North Shore; and, there is little left to the imagination of the users. Flat water pools simply are not as high a performer economically as the other two facilities that are illustrated. Certainly a moderation of the first two designs is possible to create a project that might work best for the community but also may not recover operational costs.

13 SECTION 3: AREA PROVIDER ANALYSIS Existing Public Sector Pools Existing Private Sector Pools Private Aquatic Facilities Private Resident Pools Beach Facilities NRPA Standard In order to assess performance in the North Shore market, reported here are various public sector aquatic facilities and other swimming options available in private clubs, country clubs and beaches within the region. The intent of this facility analysis with the public sector facilities is to provide a capsule of financial information for each operation to assist in determining direction for the Winnetka Park District. Existing Public Sector Pools 1. Deerfield Park District Aquatic Facilities D e e rf ie ld - M itc h e ll R e v e n u e s * P a s s e s $ 8 6,8 7 6 $ 7 8,8 7 4 $ 7 2,4 7 4 C o u p o n A d m i s s i o n s $ 4,5 0 8 $ 6,8 2 1 $ 5,3 3 0 D a i l y $ 1 2,9 1 7 $ 1 0,8 3 3 $ 1 0,6 0 3 P a re n t T o t R a te $ 3,2 4 7 $ 2,6 5 0 $ 1,3 4 2 A d u l t La p $ 885 $ 924 $ 648 La te A f te rn o o n $ 5,7 3 1 $ 5,4 6 6 $ 4,9 6 2 S a tu rd a y N i g h t $ - $ - $ - P ro g ra m s $ - $ - $ - R e n ta l s $ 1 1,6 2 5 $ 1 1,0 3 0 $ 1 1,4 8 5 R e i m b u rs e m e n ts $ 4,4 3 9 $ 3,9 4 7 $ 3,3 2 9 To tal $ 1 3 0,2 2 8 $ 1 2 0,5 4 5 $ 1 1 0,1 7 3 E x p e n s e s * S a l a ri e s a n d W a g e s $ 1 2 2,3 4 7 $ 1 1 8,0 7 4 $ 1 1 6,6 8 9 C o m m o d i ti e s $ 1 7,9 3 0 $ 2 3,2 8 1 $ 1 9,8 8 9 C o n tra ctu a l S e rv i ce s $ 1 1,0 4 3 $ 1 1,3 0 4 $ 1 1,4 3 2 U tilitie s $ 33,008 $ 4 4,0 4 2 $ 4 0,9 8 3 $ 1 8 4,3 2 8 $ 1 9 6,7 0 1 $ 1 8 8,9 9 3 G e n e ra l & A d m i n. $ 3 1,8 1 6 $ 3 2,7 5 7 $ 3 1,8 7 7 G & A % O f E x p e n s e 17% 17% 17% The Deerfield Park District sells season passes and coupon booklets, which are good at both of their pools, or customers, may opt to pay a daily fee that includes the use of all amenities. Swimming lessons are offered during the summer as well as a number of special events. Mitchell Pool is located at 951 Wilmot Road (and Hazel). It is a "Z" shaped pool ranging in depth from two and one half feet at its shallow end to five feet at its deepest end. The diving bay is 12 feet deep. Children four years old and younger enjoy the zero depth wading pool. When reviewing the operating pro-forma of Mitchell Pool over a three year period, there is significant subsidy by the park district to keeping the facility open to the community. T o ta l E x p e n s e s $ 2 1 6,1 4 4 $ 2 2 9,4 5 8 $ 2 2 0,8 7 0 N e t B e f o re C a p ita l $ ( 8 5,9 1 6 ) $ ( 1 0 8,9 1 3 ) $ ( 1 1 0,6 9 7 ) C a p ita l E x p e n s e s $ 1 4,8 7 0 $ 1 3,2 4 9 $ 5,6 3 5 N e t a f te r C a p ita l $ ( 1 0 0,7 8 6 ) $ ( 1 2 2,1 6 2 ) $ ( 1 1 6,3 3 2 ) C o n c e s s io n s N e t $ - $ 108 $ 110 O p e ra tio n a l N e t $ ( 1 0 0,7 8 6 ) $ ( 1 2 2,0 5 4 ) $ ( 1 1 6,2 2 2 ) 13 * E s tim a te d

14 Deerspring Pool, located at 200 Deerfield Road, underwent renovation in It is an "L" shaped Olympic-size pool ranging from three feet to five feet at its deeper end. The diving bay is 11.6 feet deep with a 1-meter diving board and a new drop slide. Features include a waterslide in the shallow end, a new sprayground, and zero-depth wading pool. Operating pro-forma at the Deerspring Pool has been similar to the operations of Mitchell Pool. The Deerfield Park District has determined through this analysis the willingness to subsidize pools an average deficit of ($85,000) per year. D e e rf ie ld - D e e rs p rin g R e v e n u e s * P a s s e s $ 8 6,876 $ 7 8,874 $ 72,474 C o u p o n A d m i s s i o n s $ 9 5,523 $ 6,821 $ 5,330 D a i l y $ 2 2,157 $ 2 3,898 $ 18,174 P a re n t T o t R a te $ 4,625 $ 3,672 $ 3,017 A d u l t L a p $ 270 $ 258 $ 156 L a te A f te rn o o n $ 4,875 $ 5,202 $ 6,402 S a tu rd a y N i g h t $ 52 $ 30 $ - P ro g ra m s $ - $ - $ - R e n ta l s $ 1 9,850 $ 1 8,951 $ 19,340 R e i m b u rs e m e n ts $ 4,755 $ 5,099 $ 3,891 To tal $ 2 3 8,983 $ 1 4 2,805 $ 1 28,784 E x p e n s e s * S a l a ri e s a n d W a g e s $ 1 3 9,917 $ 1 2 6,574 $ 1 34,537 C o m m o d i ti e s $ 1 7,614 $ 2 3,157 $ 20,899 C o n tra ctu a l S e rv i ce s $ 1 2,262 $ 1 5,991 $ 13,831 U tilitie s $ 22,427 $ 2 4,297 $ 19,629 $ 1 9 2,220 $ 1 9 0,019 $ 1 88,896 G e n e ra l & A d m i n. $ 3 1,816 $ 3 2,757 $ 31,877 G & A % O f E x p e n s e 17% 17% 17% T o ta l E x p e n s e s $ 2 2 4,036 $ 2 2 2,776 $ 2 20,773 N e t B e f o re C a p ita l $ 1 4,9 4 7 $ ( 7 9,9 7 1 ) $ ( 91,989) C a p ita l E x p e n s e s $ 5,188 $ 5,188 $ 5,188 N e t a f te r C a p ita l $ 9,7 5 9 $ ( 8 5,1 5 9 ) $ ( 97,177) C o n c e s s io n s N e t $ - $ $ O p e ra tio n a l N e t $ 9,7 5 9 $ ( 8 4,8 5 9 ) $ ( 96,877) * E s tim a te d

15 2. Buffalo Grove Park District Aquatics Willow Stream pool is an older flat water pool that offers very little in the form of amenities. Significant capital funds were expended recently to improve the pool shell and the mechanical systems. This will do little to improve the operational performance given the amenities available to the users. Buffalo Grove does not assess a General & Administration (G&A) cost to the pools and still experiences a negative cash flow. All lesson programs are conducted at the indoor facility due to the lack of enrollment at the outdoor facility. One aquatic facility that is very successful in Buffalo Grove is Spray 'N Play, one of the largest facilities of its kind, which features over 20 water toys, sprays and fountains, plus a picnic area. It s completely interactive and a great place for birthday parties, corporate parties, family reunions, and special events. This facility generates over $20,000 in positive revenue during the summer. 15

16 3. Park District of Highland Park Aquatics The Hidden Creek Aquatics facility offers waterslides, a water playground, zero-depth entry, six lane lap pool, a sand area, plenty of room for deck space used for sun bathing with lounge chairs, and lawn areas with shaded areas. As with the Deerfield Park District Facilities, the Park District of Highland Park subsidizes the operational costs of this facility by an average deficit of ($115,361). H ig h la n d P a rk - H id d e n C re e k R e v e n u e s * P a s s e s $ 2 0 6,997 $ 2 2 0,982 $ 1 69,587 C o u p o n A d m i s s i o n s $ - $ - $ - D a i l y $ 2 4 6,788 $ 2 4 5,213 $ 2 13,815 P a re n t T o t R a te $ - $ - $ - A d u l t L a p $ - $ - $ - L a te A f te rn o o n $ - $ - $ - S a tu rd a y N i g h t $ - $ - $ - P ro g ra m s $ - $ - $ - R e n ta l s $ 8,605 $ 7,524 $ 7,922 R e i m b u rs e m e n ts $ - $ - $ - To tal $ 4 6 2,390 $ 4 7 3,719 $ 3 91,324 E x p e n s e s * S a l a ri e s a n d W a g e s $ 3 1 1,934 $ 2 9 3,847 $ 2 92,136 C o m m o d i ti e s $ 3 2,690 $ 3 5,070 $ 32,892 C o n tra ctu a l S e rv i ce s $ 7 2,841 $ 8 8,542 $ 89,880 U tilitie s $ 97,077 $ 9 2,003 $ 78,928 $ 5 1 4,542 $ 5 0 9,462 $ 4 93,836 G e n e ra l & A d m i n. $ 4 2,277 $ 4 4,454 $ 45,357 G & A % O f E x p e n s e 8% 9% 9% T o ta l E x p e n s e s $ 5 5 6,819 $ 5 5 3,916 $ 5 39,193 N e t B e f o re C a p ita l $ ( 9 4,4 2 9 ) $ ( 8 0,1 9 7 ) $ ( 1 47,869) C a p ita l E x p e n s e s $ 1 7,361 $ 3 6,515 $ 4,573 N e t a f te r C a p ita l $ ( 1 1 1,7 9 0 ) $ ( 1 1 6,7 1 2 ) $ ( 1 52,442) C o n c e s s io n s N e t $ 9,800 $ 1 0,061 $ 15,000 O p e ra tio n a l N e t $ ( 1 0 1,9 9 0 ) $ ( 1 0 6,6 5 1 ) $ ( 1 37,442) * E s tim a te d

17 4. Northbrook Park District Aquatics N o rth b ro o k - S p o rts C e n te r a n d M e a d o w h ill R e v e n u e s * P a s s e s $ 206,805 $ 201,100 $ 190,885 C o u p o n A d m i s s i o n s $ - $ - $ - D a i l y $ 61,705 $ 67,132 $ 68,288 P a re n t T o t R a te $ - $ - $ - A d u l t La p $ - $ - $ - La te A f te rn o o n $ - $ - $ - S a tu rd a y N i g h t $ - $ - $ - P ro g ra m s $ 44,549 $ 47,444 $ 39,717 R e n ta l s $ 8,489 $ 9,008 $ 9,114 R e i m b u rs e m e n ts $ - $ - $ - To tal $ 321,548 $ 324,684 $ 308,004 E x p e n s e s * S a l a ri e s a n d W a g e s $ 204,247 $ 224,881 $ 218,180 C o m m o d i ti e s $ 62,815 $ 37,373 $ 47,872 C o n tra ctu a l S e rv i ce s $ 28,154 $ 35,895 $ 30,657 U tilitie s $ 98,893 $ 73,641 $ 60,271 $ 394,109 $ 371,790 $ 356,980 G e n e ra l & A d m i n. $ - $ - $ - G & A % O f E x p e n s e 0% 0% 0% There are two pools in Northbrook and records are combined to reflect aquatic operations managed by the park district. Sports Center offers a 1-meter board and a five lane 50-meter long course pool. This pool offers a drop slide, a kiddie slide, and a sprayground. Meadowhill has been recently restored and offers two 1-meter boards and one 3-meter diving board. There is a six lane lap pool, a leisure pool with a drop slide, a kiddie slide, and a sprayground. Similarly to Deerfield and Highland Park, Northbrook also subsidizes the aquatic operations an average deficit of ($30,090) per site. This number reflects low as they do not assess a G&A cost to the pool operations. Most all of the other districts assess an average G&A cost of 15-17% or $78,000. T o ta l E x p e n s e s $ 394,109 $ 371,790 $ 356,980 N e t B e f o re C a p ita l $ ( 72,561) $ ( 47,106) $ ( 48,976) C a p ita l E x p e n s e s $ 2,750 $ 8,588 $ 575 N e t a f te r C a p ita l $ ( 75,311) $ ( 55,694) $ ( 49,551) C o n c e s s io n s N e t $ - $ - $ - O p e ra tio n a l N e t $ ( 75,311) $ ( 55,694) $ ( 49,551) * E s tim a te d 17

18 5. Wilmette Park District Aquatics The Wilmette Park District Centennial Aquatics Park offers a 50-meter pool with eight lanes, a leisure pool with zero-depth edge, and waterslides. There is also a wading pool with tot slide and a diving pool with two boards and two drop slides. This facility is experiencing operational success with an average positive annual cash flow of $33,203. It must be noted that this average number has declined over the last two years. W ilm e tte - C e n te n n ia l R e v e n u e s * P a s s e s $ 573,987 $ 601, 257 $ 585, 845 C o u p o n A d m i s s i o n s $ - $ - $ - D a i l y $ 131,897 $ 133, 852 $ 131, 306 P a re n t T o t R a te $ - $ - $ - A d u l t La p $ - $ - $ - La te A f te rn o o n $ - $ - $ - S a tu rd a y N i g h t $ - $ - $ - P ro g ra m s $ 129,675 $ 128, 932 $ 122, 985 R e n ta l s $ 22,025 $ 25, 098 $ 26, 026 R e i m b u rs e m e n ts $ - $ - $ - T o ta l $ 857,584 $ 889, 139 $ 866, 162 E x p e n s e s * S a l a ri e s a n d W a g e s $ 393,512 $ 417, 370 $ 486, 670 C o m m o d i ti e s $ 28,783 $ 39, 017 $ 55, 700 C o n tra ctu a l S e rv i ce s $ 83,164 $ 87, 663 $ 84, 411 U ti l i ti e s $ 77,011 $ 111, 091 $ 116, 711 $ 582, 470 $ 655, 141 $ 743, 492 G e n e ra l & A d m i n. $ 149,216 $ 156, 043 $ 161, 784 G & A % O f E x p e n s e 26% 24% 22% T o ta l E x p e n s e s $ 731,686 $ 811, 184 $ 905, 276 N e t B e f o re C a p ita l $ 125,898 $ 77,955 $ ( 39,114) C a p ita l E x p e n s e s $ 61,750 $ 61, 750 $ - N e t a f te r C a p ita l $ 64,148 $ 16,205 $ ( 39,114) C o n c e s s io n s N e t $ 24,366 $ 14, 005 $ 20, 000 O p e ra tio n a l N e t $ 88,514 $ 30,210 $ ( 19,114) * E s tim a te d

19 6. Glenview Park District Aquatics Flick Pool is another facility that is able to recover cash flow against operations. This facility generates an average of $17,898 annually. This positive number is due to the success of the concession operations. However, those revenues are diminishing due to two influences: 1) the insistence that each of the service windows are open at all times that the pool is in operation and 2) the attempt to serve healthy choices of food products, which do not sell very well, resulting in spoilage being discarded. All lesson programs are conducted at the indoor facility due to the lack of enrollment at the outdoor facility. 19

20 Roosevelt Pool experiences a significantly different picture than Flick Pool. The financial pro-forma indicates that the average loss is ($15,271). It must be noted that the last two years of operations have experienced significant losses in the facility. We have been advised that management operational costs are going to begin to be covered by the indoor facility beginning next year.

21 7. Skokie Park District Aquatics Devonshire Aquatics Center The Devonshire Aquatic Center features a zero depth pool (similar to beach entry) with play equipment, including a water play structure, a drop slide and a diving board. The pool also has lanes for lap swimming, a locker room and shower area, a concession stand, turf, and a suntan area. 21

22 Skokie Water Playground Facility This facility includes three slides, a zero depth pool--similar to beach entry--with play equipment including a water play structure with large bucket. The pool also has lanes for lap swim, a locker and shower area and lifeguard facilities, concession stand, turf and suntan area. Existing Private Sector Pools Limited information is available to us to understand the memberships at each of these private clubs. They are very protective of their membership roles. 1. North Shore Country Club 2. Skokie Country Club 1340 Glenview Road 500 Washington Ave. Glenview, IL Glencoe, IL Indian Hill Country Club 4. Lakeshore Country Club 1 Indian Hill Rd Sheridan Road Winnetka, IL Glencoe, Il Sunset Ridge Country Club 6. Westmoreland Country Club 2100 Sunset Ridge Road 2061 Old Glenview Road Northfield, IL Wilmette, IL Glenview Country Club 800 Shermer Rd Glenview, IL 60025

23 Private Aquatic Facilities 1. Five Seasons 1300 Techny Rd. Northbrook, IL Offers an 8 lane 25-meter swimming pool, a diving well, and wading pools for tots. 2. Old Willow Club 2750 Old Willow Rd. Northbrook, IL Offers an L-shaped five lane 25-yard competitive pool with a diving well. There are 236 members at the club of which 160 are from Winnetka. 3. Lifetime Fitness 5300 Old Orchard Road Skokie, IL Offers two waterslides, a three lane lap pool, and zero depth entry. 4. Country Day School 310 Green Bay Road Winnetka, IL Six lane 25 yard pool. We reviewed the potential of working with this organization to provide opportunities to participate in swim lessons offered by the Park District. We were informed that they teach lessons daily after day camps during the summer. Winnetka community members are welcome to register for these programs. When asked if they have an interest in a partnership relationship with the Park District, they felt they could not due to their programming during the summer. Private Residence Pools A total of 191 private pools were observed through a visual count of the homes in the Winnetka Park District. These pools were identified through observations using Google Earth (2007 images). It is our estimation that the margin of error is perhaps 5% given the number of pools that may have been counted that are not in the district, pools that were protected by winter covers, or indoor pools that were undetected. Beaches The Winnetka Park District is blessed with the opportunity to operate three beach facilities for swimming and beach related activity. When interviewing community members, they indicate that the beaches we offer is one of many reasons they decided to move to Winnetka. Recent history of the use of these facilities is as follows. Beach passes cost $45 for the first family member and $5 for each additional family member. Number of Beach Passes sold for the summer of o Family res o Family Non Resident-56 o Resident Individual-92 includes free senior citizen pass o Non Res Individual- 6 Attendance at Beaches for 2009, June 12 through the Labor Day weekend. 23

24 B e a ch U s e 2009 Lo ca tio n P a s s A tte n d a n ce D a ily F e e A tte n d a n ce T o w e r B e a ch 10,574 2,828 M a p l e B e a ch 1, E l d e r B e a ch 2, T o ta l 14,119 3,823 T o ta l A tte n d a n ce 17,942 Although beach use would likely be influenced if an aquatics facility is created, this chart is not provided to imply all beach users would migrate to a pool. Beaches happen to be another aquatic option that community members have access to during the summer. NRPA Standard In 1990 the National Recreation and Parks Association published a recommendation for the number of public pools needed in any U.S. community based on population alone: one pool for every 20,000 population. This benchmark never became the national standard due to variables such as other providers, area income levels, different types of pools, and desired programming by various age groups. Section 3 Summary Public Sector Pool Facilities When reviewing the performance of other operations with similar pool features as indicated in Options 1 and 2 we can determine that few operate with the idea that revenues will recover the costs of operations. Most all of the organizations studied have come to the conclusion that the aquatics offerings are a service to the community. A review of the 2007, 08 and 09 seasons of pool operations at each of the eleven pools determine that seven of the 33 seasons have been operated with a positive cash flow before Concession Revenue and Capital expenses. Skokie being the most successful with five of their six years reported as successful in their two pool operations. It can be surmised that this is due to the significant population size (63,348) and diversity when compared with Winnetka. The Executive Director of the Park District indicated there are two distinct reasons for the positive cash flow. The first is the significant non-resident use of the pools from Chicago and the high cost for admission to non-residents. (5-visit passes are $32/res and $60/non-res. 10-visit passes are $60/res and $100/non-res). Size of the Villages being compared and the large difference in income are significant. The Skokie Park District also offers swimming opportunities to a larger market at a reasonable price to the resident. POPULATION CHARACTERISTIC COMPARISONS Skokie Winnetka 63,348 Percentage Number 12,419 Percentage Number Under 18 23% 14,570 Under 19 36% 4, % 4, % % 15, % 2, % 16, % 3, and Over 20% 12, and Over 13% 1,613 Subtotal 100.1% 63,411 Subtotal 100% 12,419 Median Age

25 This is important information to report so the Park Board can develop a philosophical economic position toward offering aquatic programs in the community. If the reality of creating a pool is that it has the potential for losing money on an annual basis, the Board will need to take the position to support such an operation with general fund revenues to cover the operating costs that exceed the revenue generated in any given year and possibly on an annual basis. It is fair to question the level of use a new facility would draw given the number of other aquatic options that are offered in the community through private country club pools, private clubs and organizations, personal back yard pools and beaches. Another consideration is the ratio of dollars spent to create the asset against the number of days the facility would be operated in any given year. 25

26 N Washington St N Washington St Greenwood Rd Greenwood Rd Landwehr Rd Landwehr Rd Pfingsten Rd Pfingsten Rd SECTION 4: POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS Population Age Distribution Weather The population base for the Winnetka Park District is projected to remain flat between now and 2012 due to the inability to annex new property or grow due to the lack of developable land. Younger age groups are more likely to engage in competitive and recreational activities. The numbers represented here indicate the beginning of a slide in the enrollment of school aged children in the public and private schools in Winnetka. Weather patterns in Winnetka will likely inhibit participation in seasonal aquatics in areas such as morning lesson programs and wellness programs for older populations. Sanders Sanders Sanders Sanders Sanders Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Factors that influence attendance of aquatic centers include projections for growth/decline of population as well as age groups. Market studies are used to predict how relevant products, services, and fees are to residents. The primary market area for the Winnetka Park District is defined as a 1-3 mile radius from the site of 540 Hibbard Road. To further define this market area, the facility s service area is assumed as a 3- mile radius around the project site. A service area is defined by the distance a patron will travel on a regular basis to a given activity. Distance From Site 0 to 1 Mile Lake Cook Rd Lake Cook Rd 1 to 3 Miles Deerfield Lake Cook Rd Lake Cook Rd Green Green Green Green Green Bay Bay Bay Bay Bay Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd County Line Rd 68 Landwehr Rd Pfingsten Rd 68 Western Ave Northbrook Lee Rd Sunset Ridge Rd Dundee Rd Dundee Rd Glencoe South Ave Voltz Rd rport Techny Rd Willow Rd Willow Rd 294 Pfingsten Rd Pfingsten Rd Techny Rd Shermer Rd Patriot Blvd Founders Founders Founders Founders Founders Dr Dr Dr Dr Dr E Willow Rd Illinois E Willow Rd 43 Winnetka Rd Wagner Rd Happ Happ Happ Happ Happ Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Northfield Willow Rd Green Green Green Green Green Bay Bay Bay Bay Bay Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Hill Rd Pine St Pine St Winnetka Pine St Ridge Ridge Ridge Ridge Rd Rd Rd Rd N Sheridan Sheridan Sheridan Sheridan Sheridan Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd W Lake Ave Chestnut Ave Illinois Rd Ridge Rd Kenilworth d entral Rd Central Rd N N N East East East River River River Rd Rd Rd 21 Central 21 Rd Greenwood Ave Glenview Shermer Shermer Shermer Shermer Shermer Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Central Rd Central Rd Harlem Ave Golf Rd E Lake Ave Wagner Rd Glenview Rd Golf Old Orchard Rd Golf Rd Central Central Central Central Central Ave Ave Ave Ave Ave Lake Ave Glenview Rd 41 Lake Ave Hunter Rd Old Orchard Rd Gross Gross Gross Gross Gross Point Point Point Point Point Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Wilmette Sterling Ln Golf Rd Green Green Green Green Green Bay Bay Bay Bay Bay Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Lake Ave Elgin Rd Isabella St Central St Sheridan Sheridan Sheridan Sheridan Sheridan Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd McCormick Blvd Sheridan Sheridan Sheridan Sheridan Sheridan Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd

27 Population The following table presents a summary of market area population for the Village of Winnetka. The 2000 Census was used to estimate the population for 2009 and projections for The population base for the Winnetka Park District is projected to remain flat between now and 2012 due to the inability to annex new property or grow due to the lack of developable land. P O P U L A T IO N B Y D IS T A N C E A ve ra ge A nnua l C ha nge N um b e r P e rc e nt N um b e r P e rc e nt N um b e r P e rc e nt N um b e r N um b e r S E C T O R S (0 0 0 's) o f T o ta l (0 0 0 's) o f T o ta l (0 0 0 's) o f T o ta l (0 0 0 's) P e rc e nt (0 0 0 's) P e rc e nt 0 to 1 M ile s % % % % % 1 to 3 M ile s % % % % % T o ta l % % % % % D e m o gra p hic s N o w Age Distribution Age distribution is another population characteristic used to determine the type and level of use of a program and future projections of entry level aquatics users. Research has shown that younger age groups are more likely to engage in competitive and recreational activities, while middle-aged and older patrons enjoy wellness and fitness programming. The following table provides the number of residents and the percentage of total population for each age group compared to the U.S. column, which identifies national averages for each age group. The first three columns in the chart represent population projections of the Park District from 540 Hibbard Road provided by census data. The next five columns represent actual enrollment numbers of the schools in the Village. This calculation was done to verify the accuracy of the census projections. Census totals for school aged children (2,647) include children not in school. The school age calculations (2606) do not include pre-school children. The numbers represented here are accurate enough to understand the school aged populations that might support an aquatics facility. They also indicate the beginning of a slide in the enrollment of school aged children in the public and private schools in Winnetka. 27

28 Weather Given the sensitivity of water sports to weather conditions, it is appropriate to include an assessment of local weather patterns in the market analysis. These factors are used when determining user days in the financial models. T e m p e ra tu re s W in n e tk a, I L P re c ip ita tio n P re c ip ita tio n M o n th A v e ra g e H ig h L o w In c h e s D a y s J a n u a ry F e b ru a ry M a rc h A p ril M a y J u n e J u ly A u g u s t S e p te m b e r O c to b e r N o v e m b e r D e c e m b e r S o u rc e : W e a th e rb a s e The weather patterns in Winnetka suggested in the chart above will likely inhibit participation in seasonal aquatics in areas such as morning lesson programs and wellness programs for older populations. The past several years of cooler summers have adversely affected the use of aquatics facilities in the North Shore suburbs as those organizations that have the ability are transferring lessons to indoor environments to avoid the complications that accompany cold weather conditions and unhappy participants. High average temperatures hovering in the middle 70 s during the summer season will not promote use at outdoor pools. Lake effect temperatures at night and in the morning, while pleasant for other non-aquatic activities, tend to distract use during the evening and early morning.

29 SECTION 5: OPERATIONS Opinion of Revenue Opinion of Expenses Cash Flow Analysis Opinion of Revenue Estimating revenue is first determined by understanding facility capacity based on square footage. These calculations also contribute to decisions associated with parking. Projected attendance by option is based on local population trends. Recreation programming revenue is based on user groups and local programming and fees that might be conducted in the facility. Fee structures used in this study are based on income and other providers to project per capita income that would be generated per visit. Revenue is estimated, taking into account recommended fee schedules. The Opinion of Revenue table is a summary of all revenue assumptions by option. This is calculated by multiplying attendance, per capita, and adding spending for program participation (Special User Group Spending). Facility Capacity Types of spaces and associated capacity determine the degree to which the facility will be used. Generally, recreation swimmers prefer shallow water of four feet or less, allowing participation in a variety of water-related activities while still touching the pool bottom. When estimating capacity for recreational use, a maximum density of 25 square feet per person is assumed. Based on a length of stay of two to three hours, turnover in-house attendance is two and a half times per day for the recreation swimmer. For deep water, the maximum density is assumed to be 100 square feet per person. Based on a length of stay of two to three hours, turnover in-house attendance is three times per day. Additional spaces not listed such as office space and locker rooms have no impact on programming; therefore, market penetration has not been included in this analysis. Capacity of spaces is directly correlated to attendance. The following table is one way to view the contribution the available capacity has to the projected attendance. It is necessary to use the descriptive above to project how many people can be accommodated in any given space using the per square foot guideline. The PHN report of 2008 reflects the bather load to be 659 with a diving well. Given the spaces in the options illustrated as a part of this report, the number of people allowed in each area based on the size of the area and the square foot per person, it is felt the capacity of the pools at any one time will be 342 in Option 1, 308 in Option 2 and 274 in Option 3. When one considers the potential turnover rate with each option of 2.5 times the daily holding capacity is 780 in Option 1, 721 in Option 2 and 610 in Option 3. 29

30 CAPACITY ANALYSIS Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 WET-SIDE CAPACITY Training (Available 25-Yard Lanes) Outdoor Leisure Outdoor Lap Total Estimated Training Holding Capacity Daily Training Capacity Recreation (Surface Area Sq. Ft.) Outdoor Leisure 3, Outdoor Lap 5,376 7,717 5,376 Outdoor Sprayground 0 0 1,500 Total 9,177 8,123 6,876 Shallow Water 7,342 6,905 5,845 Deep Water 1,835 1,218 1,031 Estimated Recreation Holding Capacity Daily Recreation Holding Capacity Total Holding Capacity Total Daily Facility Capacity Counsilman-Hunsaker Parking On-site parking must provide for easy drop-off and pick-up of patrons. The parking requirement for the concepts assumes that, on average, three participants will arrive in each car. The final design must also provide safe access from the parking area to the main entrance and service vehicle access to the mechanical areas. While it is believed that many, perhaps most patrons will walk or ride bicycles these parking requirements are projected high. The PHN report indicates an additional 50 spaces will be necessary to accommodate additional parking needs of a pool facility. This parking requirement would be provided on the space south of the ice rink. Site size is larger than the recommendations provided by PHN of 3.76 acres, however, illustrations show that the facility could fit in the Pony Field example. The facility would also fit on the site south of the ice rink if desired. PARKING ANALYSIS Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Parking Parking Sq. Ft. 45,000 41,000 36,000 Impervious Structure 27,387 24,755 21,635 Total Program Sq. Ft. 72,387 65,755 57,635 Total Sq. Ft. with Efficiency 144, , ,270 Minimum Site Size Requirements (acres) Recommended Site Size (acres) Counsilman-Hunsaker

31 Projected Attendance Based on the preceding methodology, the following attendance numbers are projected for each of the Options. It has been well documented that attendance increases significantly as amenities become more diverse and exciting. Attendance is projected to decrease, however, during the five-year span due to aging or decreasing levels of population in the area. For this analysis, 2012 is considered the first year of operation. The further into the future projections are made, the more limited the accuracy of the data becomes. Attendance Option 1 30,143 29,912 29,680 29,449 29,218 Option 2 28,708 28,487 28,267 28,047 27,827 Option 3 13,412 13,307 13,203 13,098 12,993 Program Revenue Program revenue projections include age-group competitive swimming, swim lessons, birthday parties and private rentals. It is assumed that these user groups, because of their high volume of use, will pay a lower fee per person admission. Programming will need to be scheduled so as not to significantly impact community recreation programming. The following tables summarize projected recreation program use timelines, demand, per capita spending, and revenue potential for the new aquatic center. The table assumes that the cost of the program has been deducted from generated fees and shows the net program revenue. For example, the revenue projected for swimming lessons is after the instructor cost. Visits per Program Day: This refers to the number of participants in a particular activity per day. Swim team rental refers to one swim meet on a particular day. Programming Days: This refers to the number of days that each activity will be programmed during the summer season. Per Capita Spending: This refers to the revenue generated per participant per day of activity after related costs are paid, for instance, the $5.00 assumed for each swim lesson participant per day is after the instructors are paid. Opinion of Revenue (Net): This refers to the resulting revenue generated by each activity. (Visits per Program Day) multiplied by (Programming Days) multiplied by (Per Capita Spending) = Opinion of Revenue (Net). Programming of the facility will be, in part, driven by the temperature of the water. If the water is under 80 degrees, competitive and lap swimmers will be attracted to the experience. Temperatures over 83 will be conducive to play experiences and lesson programs. 31

32 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Visits per Program Day Swim Meets Summer Swim Lessons USA Swim Rentals PD Swim Team Masters Swim Aquanastics Group Exercise Other Team Events Private Parties Total Demand Programming Days Swim Meets Summer Swim Lessons USA Swim Rentals PD Swim Team Masters Swim Aquanastics Group Exercise Other Team Events Private Parties Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Per Capita Spending (Net) Swim Meets $1, $1, $1, Summer Swim Lessons USA Swim Rentals PD Swim Team Masters Swim Aquanastics Group Exercise Other Team Events Private Rental Opinion of Revenue (Net) Swim Meets $ 5,250 $ 2,400 $ 5,250 Summer Swim Lessons 17,500 17,500 10,500 USA Swim Rentals 36,750 21,000 36,750 PD Swim Team 6,188 6,188 6,188 Masters Swim 1,600 1,600 1,600 Aquanastics 1,400 1,400 1,400 Group Exercise 1,400 1,400 1,400 Other Team Events 2,400 2,400 2,400 User Group Revenue $72,488 $53,888 $65,488

33 Fee Structure In order to project revenue, fee schedules are established. Three philosophical approaches to evaluating the fee structure and the operations of an aquatic center include: 1. Maximize revenue by charging what the market will support. Programs and facilities operate with positive cash flow. If excess funds are available at season s end, they can be used to support under-funded programs or future capital expenses. 2. Break-even in the operation of the facility. This approach is increasing in popularity as funding is becoming limited to organizations. Capital funds are used to create the facility; operational funds are generated from the user on a break-even basis. 3. Subsidy pricing, which in recent years, a policy many community facilities have been trying to get away from supporting the operations with general fund revenue. A critical component of an enterprise fund management protocol is the revenue and pricing policy. The following tables are samples of the fee structures of the local providers studied and were instructive when determining a fee structure that makes sense in Winnetka. Fees and Charges 2009 Location Regular Rate Season Pass Ind-Res Season Pass - Ind- NR Season Pass - 4 Res Season Pass - 4 N Res Deerfield $7 $81-$122 $ $ $ Deerfield $7 $81-$122 $ $ $ Buffalo Grove $5 $74 $123 Highland Park $7 res./$12 non-res. $123 $165 $204 $276 Child & Senior- Youth-$85/Adult- Youth-$125/Adult- Northbrook $6/Adult-$7 $99/Senior-$79 $149/Senior-$119 $215 $259 Northbrook Child & Senior- $6/Adult-$7 Youth-$85/Adult- $99/Senior-$79 Youth-$125/Adult- $149/Senior-$119 $215 $259 Wilmette res $7.50 NR $13.75 $64 $152 $138 $322 Glenview $7 $93 $116 Skokie Child -$6/Adult-$7 Non-Res 13 Per Capita Income Per capita income is the projection of revenues that will be generated from increases in projected annual attendance. The formula reflects the category for admission, the rate of each category, and the percentage of attendance that might be expected from that category. 33

34 Opinion of Revenue The following table takes into consideration the revenue streams from Attendance, Per Cap Revenue, and Special Program Spending resulting in an Opinion of Revenue. These variables will change over time and in doing so, will affect the revenue produced by the facility. The further into the future projections are made, the less confident the assumptions will be, operating environment stability, and resulting performance. The Revenue is calculated by multiplying the Attendance (daily admissions and projected season ticket sales) by the Per Capita Spending and adding the Special User Group Spending (Program Income) for each year. For instance, Option 1 Revenue for 2012 is equal to (30,143) x ($5.11) + ($72,488) = $226,518. Opinion of Revenue Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Attendance ,143 28,708 13, ,912 28,487 13, ,680 28,267 13, ,449 28,047 13, ,218 27,827 12,993 Per Capita Spending (Moderate growth each y Program Income $ 72,488 $ 53,888 $ 65,488 Revenue 2012 $ 226,518 $ 200,585 $ 219, $ 227,198 $ 201,791 $ 220, $ 227,879 $ 202,396 $ 221, $ 228,563 $ 203,003 $ 221, $ 229,249 $ 203,612 $ 222,510 Another way to determine attendance that might be more closely aligned with what can be anticipated in Winnetka, it was necessary to understand the likely per capita attendance ratio of a facility. The exercise used to arrive at this assumption was to divide the annual attendance of a facility by the population of the community over a five year period from 2005 through While Deerfield is closest in population size to Winnetka, the per capita ratio for Deerfield is determined to be.92. Initially, that factor was used to determine the projected attendance at an aquatics facility if created. Assumption of Attendance Name of Facility Location Population 2005 PC 2006 Total PC Ave. PC* Potential Attendance Deerspring Pool Deerfield 18,420 20, , ,028 Mitchell Pool Deerfield 18,420 20, , ,371 Sports Center Northbrook 34,688 51, , ,803 Flick Glenview 52,705 62, , ,348 Roosevelt Glenview 52,705 32, , ,210 Projected Attendance Winnetka 14, ,340 When considering the per capita pool ratios for several pools to determine potential attendance, the differential was 6,593 participants (19,803 in Northbrook as the high and Deerfield is low with 13,371).

35 Since Deerfield and Glenview has two pools, another calculation was completed to examine attendance alternatives if a pool were to be created in Winnetka. The Per Capita calculation was considered if only one pool existed in each community. The new projected attendance increased by nearly 30% from 13,340 to 18,686. In the interest of being cautious about the tendency for managers to project high with attendance/revenues, a conservative approach was selected. It is best to project low with the idea that if the facility were to be created as it is best to be pleasantly surprised if the facility is successful than to find reasons why it may not have been as successful if initial projections were too high. While this study is not intended to be an exact accounting of how the economics will play out, it will provide the community with an informed understanding of aquatic operations. If used, the higher number would reflect a positive cash flow however, given the performance of other facilities in the region, it is prudent to show cash flow relative to those experiences. Assumption of Attendance Pool Combined Name of Facility Location Population 2005 PC 2006 PC 2009 PC Total PC Ave. PC* Potential Attendance Deerspring Pool Deerfield 18,420 16, , , ,408 Mitchell Pool Deerfield 18,420 20, , , ,986 Deerfield Combined 18,420 37, , , ,500 Flick Glenview 52,705 62, , , ,348 Roosevelt Glenview 52,705 32, , , ,210 Glenview Combined 52,705 95, , , ,559 Projected Attendance Winnetka 14, ,686 Per Capita Income for Option 3 After hearing comments from community members regarding their threshold of spending for an annual membership at an aquatics facility located in Winnetka, a second review was conducted for the purposes of understanding what the new Per Capita Model will reflect in terms of revenues. This model uses a costing that resembles the fees that members pay at the Old Willow Club, however are not as severe. There are 236 family memberships at the club and 160 families are from the Village of Winnetka. They pay a fee of $2,000 per year after the initiation fee of $3,000. Many Winnetka residents also expressed the daily fees to non-residents be priced higher than resident rates and similar to or higher than fees charged in other communities. The following per capita rates reflect those assumptions. Category Rate of Visits Unit Residents Non-Residents Season Pass Residents Non-Residents Adult (18 & Older) $ % $ 0.70 Children (3-17) $ % $ 0.85 Adult (18 & Older) $ % $ 0.42 Children (3-17) $ % $ 1.00 Individual $ % $ 1.60 Family $ 1, % $ 3.50 Individual $ % $ 1.40 Family $ 2, % $ 0.40 Subtotal/ Average 100% $ Food / Merchandise 0.05 Per Capita Total $ 9.92

36 With this number we are making the following assumptions: 1. That existing members of the Willow Club will leave and become members of a facility created in Winnetka. Currently there 236 members at the Old Willow Club and 130 of those members are from Winnetka. 2. This membership would be willing to pay up to $1,000 in fees per year to join the facility 3. No other site options would be incorporated into the membership. Membership and use of adjacent facilities would require an additional fee. Cap Rate Opinion of Revenue Option 3 The following table takes into consideration the revenue streams from Attendance using the Per Cap Attendance Ratio discussed on page 34, Per Cap Spending illustrated above and Group Program Spending resulting in an Opinion of Revenue. These variables will change over time and in doing so, will affect the revenue produced by the facility. The Revenue is calculated by multiplying the Attendance (daily admissions and projected season ticket sales) by the Per Capita Spending and adding the Special User Group Spending (Program Income) for each year. For instance, Option 1 Revenue for 2012 is equal to (13,412) x ($9.92) + ($65,488) = $198,535. Opinion of Revenue Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Attendance ,143 28,708 13, ,912 28,487 13, ,680 28,267 13, ,449 28,047 13, ,218 27,827 12,993 Per Capita Spending (Moderate growth each y Program Income $ 72,488 $ 53,888 $ 65,488 Revenue 2012 $ 226,518 $ 200,585 $ 198, $ 227,198 $ 201,791 $ 199, $ 227,879 $ 202,396 $ 199, $ 228,563 $ 203,003 $ 200, $ 229,249 $ 203,612 $ 200,928

37 P e rs o n n e l C o s t E x te n d e d C o s t p e r D a y Pay Rate 95% T o ta l 1 0 :0 0 P M 9 :0 0 P M 8 :0 0 P M 7 :0 0 P M 6 :0 0 P M 5 :0 0 P M 4 :0 0 P M 3 :0 0 P M 2 :0 0 P M 1 :0 0 P M 1 2 :0 0 P M 1 1 :0 0 A M 1 0 :0 0 A M 9 :0 0 A M 8 :0 0 A M 7 :0 0 A M Opinion of Probable Expenses This plan recommends an expense model for estimating probable expenses for major areas of labor, contractual services, commodities, and utilities. User projections are made based on programming. Expenses are estimated, taking into account hours of operation, attendance projections, local weather patterns, local utility rates, and other key items. Operating data from other facilities are reviewed and taken into account to form projections. Facility Staff Projected annual payroll expenses are listed by full-time and part-time classifications reflecting benefits and taxes. Scheduling employees is determined by programming demand and management procedure. Wherever possible, pay rates were determined using existing city job classifications and wage scales. Cost for swim instructors and other employees associated with program income are factored in the following table as cost against net programming revenue. The Space Use Allocation Chart reflects when the facility would be in use and when staff will be required to implement the schedule that is suggested. S a m p l e L a b o r S c h e d u l e Adminis trative R e c r e ati on S u pe r - A q. 0 0 P ool Manag er $ $ 140 $ 13,285 As s is t. P ool Manag er $ $ 105 $ 9,964 Full Time Coordinator - Maintenance $ $ 9 $ 958 P ar t T i m e Cas hier $ $ 98 $ 9,341 Lifeg uards $ $ 1,224 $ 1 1 6,242 37

38

39 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Hourly Rate Rate with overhead Indoor Outdoor Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Hours Per Day LABOR ANALYSIS Cost Per Hour Days per Season Total Employer Expense Job Description Summer Cashier $ $7, $7, $7, Pool Manager $ $12, $12, $12, Assist. Pool Manager $ $9, $9, $9, Lifeguard $ $110, $106, $78, Coordinator - Maintenance $ $7, $7, $7, Summer Total $146, $142, $115, Winter Cashier $ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Pool Manager $ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Assist. Pool Manager $ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Lifeguard $ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Coordinator - Maintenance $ $ $ $ Winter Total $ $ $ Annual Labor Expense $147,422 $143,489 $115,958 Counsilman-Hunsaker Repairs and Maintenance The manufacturers of some types of mechanical equipment recommend annual maintenance programs to ensure proper performance of their equipment. Much of this work will be performed by outside contractors. In addition, for daily operation of the facilities, miscellaneous items will need to be repaired by outside firms. Commodities Commodities are day-to-day products used to operate aquatic facilities. Office supplies, program supplies, custodial supplies, repair supplies and chemicals are included. In determining annual chemical expense, chemical treatment assumes the use of calcium hypochlorite and muriatic acid (ph buffer). Chemical use can depend upon bather load and chemical balance of the water. In estimating annual costs, medium bather load figures are assumed. In the preceding marketing strategy section, mass-marketing and direct-marketing strategies are discussed. Heating In determining utility costs, current energy costs assessed the park district for other amenities were used. Total costs include energy, energy demand and delivery charges. Electricity The calculations below are based on 2012 utility rate information of the park district. A figure of $0.068 cents per kwh was estimated, including both demand and energy costs. The table conveys the estimated electricity costs for all options. ELECTRIC ANALYSIS Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Motors $ 10,660 $ 9,259 $ 6,825 Lighting $ 5,561 $ 5,320 $ 5,034 Total Electric Costs $ 16,221 $ 14,579 $ 11,859 39

40 Miscellaneous Electric Use Miscellaneous electric use includes chemical feeders, blow dryers, office equipment, etc. Water and Sewer Water and sewer services will be needed for domestic use and compensation for evaporation and backwashing purposes. Backwash water and domestic water will be released to the sanitary system. This does not include landscape irrigation. Expenses The following table reflects a summary of all operating expenses, assumptions and estimates detailed by the expense category. Capital Replacement Fund This fund is one that builds over time so any capital replacement costs are saved should they be needed. Facility Staff Summer Employment Pre/Post Season Empl Training Total Labor Opinion of Revenue Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 146, , , ,000 2,000 2,000 $ 149,422 $ 145,489 $ 117,958 Contractual Services Insurance Repair and Maintenance Total Labor 43,265 40,185 32,477 19,200 17,800 14,400 $ 62,465 $ 57,985 $ 46,877 Commodities Operating Supplies Chemicals Total Commodities 11,520 10,680 8,640 11,563 11,368 8,909 $ 23,083 $ 22,048 $ 17,549 Utilities HVAC 6,934 6,934 6,934 Electricity 16,221 14,579 11,859 Pool Heating 13,650 11,760 8,960 Trash Service 2,880 2,880 2,880 Telephone Water and Sewer 7,994 7,553 4,759 Total Utilities $ 48,399 $ 44,426 $ 36,112 Total Operating Expenses $ 283,369 $ 269,948 $ 218,496 Capital Replacement Fund $ 12,300 $ 12,608 $ 12,923 Total Expense $ 295,669 $ 282,556 $ 231,419

41 Cash Flow The following table represents projections of gross operating performance for all options based on revenue projections and expense estimates. These projections do not consider Debt Service as it is unclear of how such a facility, if desired by the community would be funded. OPINION OF CASHFLOW Option 1 Project Cost $ 7,680,000 Attendance 30,143 Revenue 226, , , , ,249 Expense 283, , , , ,786 Operating Cashflow $ (56,851) $ (56,171) $ (69,835) $ (76,594) $ (83,537) Recapture Rate 69% Capital Replacement $12,300 $12,608 $12,923 $13,246 $13,577 Cashflow $ (69,151) $ (68,779) $ (82,757) $ (89,840) $ (97,114) Option 2 Project Cost $ 7,090,000 Attendance 28,700 Revenue 200, , , , ,612 Expense 269, , , , ,972 Operating Cashflow $ (69,363) $ (74,905) $ (81,218) $ (87,701) $ (94,360) Recapture Rate 70% 68% 67% 69% 64% Capital Replacement $12,300 $12,608 $12,923 $13,246 $13,577 Cashflow $ (81,663) $ (87,513) $ (94,141) $ (100,946) $ (107,937) Option 3 Project Cost $ 5,730,000 Attendance 13,412 Revenue 198, , , , ,928 Expense 218, , , , ,179 Operating Cashflow ($19,961) ($24,828) ($29,830) ($34,970) ($40,251) Recapture Rate 91% 89% 87% 85% 83% Capital Replacement $12,300 $12,608 $12,923 $13,246 $13,577 41

42 Findings The purpose of this feasibility study was to: Utilize the schematics of three outdoor aquatic facility options so there is a best guess understanding of what such a facility would cost to create and operate. Identify the history of operating costs of facilities within the region to determine the potential of an aquatic facility to recover operating costs in real time experiences. Although this will be difficult as there are few comparable sized communities and facilities that can be used that are similar. Understand the infrastructure challenges that might be required of a facility if it were placed in a Skokie Playfields location. Offer recommendations to the Winnetka Park District Board as to ways they might proceed with aquatic considerations in the future. Facility Design The study was initiated with the idea that two options would be explored. After interviewing people in the community it was determined that a third pool needed to be included in the study to mimic the Old Willow facility. This was done to draw comparisons with current aquatic experiences for the residents who are members of that facility. Findings The Facility 1. The facility size and cost play a major role in determining the pool design if it is determined that a pool can be created in Winnetka. Given the disinterest in attracting non-residents to the facility the size of the aquatic facility could be moderated. If after the results of a community survey indicates need, a facility that best meets the needs of the community can be created from a committee of residents. 2. Facility design must incorporate the interests of several user groups in order to remain useful and current to today s aquatic standards. 3. Cost of the facility will be between $5 and $8 million to create after site preparation Operational Costs 1. A thorough analysis of other operations reveals that there are few aquatic facilities that generate positive Cashflow in any given operating season. 2. Studies were completed with three years (2007, 2008, 2009) of history among several facilities providing the study with 33 years of operational history. Few of those years demonstrated positive Cashflow. 3. The one community (Skokie Park District) with five years of positive Cashflow has a demographic profile that is dissimilar to Winnetka. When meeting with the Executive Director of the Skokie Park District he indicated they have a significant attendance at the facilities from non-residents. 4. It is fair to question the level of use a new facility would draw given the number of other aquatic options that are offered in the community through private country club pools, private clubs and organizations, personal back yard pools and beaches. 5. Another consideration is the ratio of dollars spent to create the asset against the number of days the facility would be operated in any given year.

43 Infrastructure Challenges 1 1. The difficulty we will face when placing a pool at the Skokie Playfields is the consideration for compensatory storage and water management when managing our flood plain effectively. 2. Any proposed fill in the flood plain needs to be offset by an equal amount of compensatory storage. This considers any structure, earth or other material that occupies volume at or below the base flood elevation. 3. Its height is measured from the existing grade up to its finished grade or to the base flood elevation, whichever is less, and multiplied by its area. Subsurface construction is not considered fill, but should be designed to withstand the hydrostatic pressures it will experience. 4. Any auxiliary buildings, portions of the pool/deck area that will be elevated above existing grade, or any additional surfaces which will be elevated above existing grade (driveway, patios ) would need to be accounted for in the compensatory storage calculations. Compensatory storage must be freely draining without the use of a pump, and must be provided within the limits of the flood plain. 5. If the auxiliary structures (bathhouse) are attached to the primary structure (tennis facility), then the total cost of the improvements must be less than 50% of the current market value of the structure, excluding the land value, and must be constructed in accordance with the Flood Plain Ordinance requirements, as well. 6. As long as the tennis facility was built prior to 1980, the finished floor elevation of the attached structures does not need to be elevated to 1 above the base flood elevation (BFE), though it is recommended. 7. Based upon an appraisal of the structure performed in 1990, and updated in 1998, the appraised value of the structure was $4,031, % of this value was $2,015,841. As this appraisal is 12 years old, consideration should be given as to obtaining a current market value of the structure only. However, if this 50% value is still adequate for the current proposal, it may be used. 8. If the total cost of the improvements to the structure is equal to or greater than 50% of the market value of the structure, it would be considered a substantial improvement, and the entire structure (including the tennis facility) would need to be brought into compliance with the Flood Ordinance. This would mean that the lowest level of the existing structure and improvements would need to be elevated to a minimum of 12 above the BFE. Basically, this would mean the possible jacking up of the first floor of the structure, as well as elevating the attendant utilities to a minimum elevation. 9. If the auxiliary structure is not attached to the primary structure, then the auxiliary structure must be built in compliance with the flood ordinance, Section The structure must either be constructed on a clay fill pad ( E.1), such that its lowest floor elevation is at least 1 above the base flood elevation (BFE), with its fill designed in accordance with that section; or the building can be elevated ( E.2) on a crawlspace, stilts, piles or other foundation that is permanently open to flood waters, and comply with the noted section. The decks and walks must 1 Contributions to the section are provided by Gewalt Hamilton Associates and Gary Wiss, Engineer. 43

44 relate to the building floor elevation, which means that a substantial portion of the outdoor facilities will also necessarily be elevated above the existing grade. The estimated cost of placing the fill material would be approximately $150, The fill placed in flood plain to elevate these structures will displace flood plain storage volume, and flood plain regulations require that the displaced volume be compensated for elsewhere within the ownership parcel. Accomplishing this will present some problems. 11. The entire parcel is below the regulatory flood elevation, except for a few isolated areas such as elevated golf tees. This means that the compensatory volume must be provided by excavating below the existing ground surface and hauling the excavated material to an offsite disposal area. (Note: Some of the excavated material may be suitable for use as fill within the project area). In addition, gravity drainage facilities must be provided for the basin, otherwise it would fill with water and become a permanent pond. 12. The cost of the compensatory storage facility, including hauling, drainage and landscape restoration, is difficult to estimate at this stage of the planning process; however, projects of similar scope conclude that it will be on the order of $150, Finding a suitable location for the facility will be challenging, given the intensive development on the property, as well as the need to be in proximity to a storm sewer or other suitable discharge point for the drainage system. The area occupied by the facility would be between 1.6 acre feet and 2.0 acre feet, of volume required depending on the depth that can be achieved. 14. Storm Water detention will be required to be provided for 100% of the proposed impermeable surface area. Detention shall be calculated for the 100-year storm event and a 3-year release rate. Village of Winnetka and Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD) ordinances require that the post-construction runoff rate not exceed the pre-construction rate. The impact of this requirement is that stormwater detention must be provided. 15. A surface storage basin would be constructed in essentially the same way as the compensatory storage basin. In fact, the two facilities could be combined into one larger basin. Again, costs are difficult to establish at this stage, but we would estimate them to be in the range of $40, at this time. The area occupied by the basin would be between 0.15 acre feet and 0.26 acre feet of detention, depending on the depth that can be achieved. A second opinion indicates that there is a need for approximately 1.4 to 1.9 acre feet of detention required for this single improvement. When combined with the size required the area would need to be six feet deep detention area which is only logical if a vault were to be created. The size would be equivalent to the Winnetka Park District s Northfield Park. We are still attempting to verify if the expanse of the driving range can be used for the storage. 16. An underground storage vault would not displace other uses on the ground surface; however, there is a significantly higher cost to this approach. For purposes of this discussion, a concrete vault, of either modular or cast-in-place construction would be assumed to cost approximately $400, As with the construction of surface basins, the excavated material must be disposed of at an offsite location. The depth of an underground vault would likely dictate that it be drained by pumps rather than through a gravity drain.

45 This study focuses completely on the aquatics center, not taking into account the site master plan. When the project is approached as a whole, the land impact and cost implications of both the compensatory storage and stormwater management are examined on a larger scale, gaining efficiency. If the storage and management issues are to be considered on a larger scale one of two items will need to be completed. The athletic fields would need to be completed with other developments in order to take advantage of the full potential of the water management program. The question to ask is how do we identify the funding to accomplish both a pool, considering all of the economic issues illustrated in this report, and the athletic fields? While the Village is evaluating stormwater impacts and a potential facility associated with the Skokie and Duke Childs play fields, the plan to provide such a facility is on a longer path of resolution. While they would like to tie those solutions in with the Willow Road improvements, many conversations need to take place before planning to those solutions can be applied to immediate plans for the playfields. Recommendations The desire to have an aquatics facility in the community located at Skokie Playfields How a facility that has the potential cost of $5-$8 million dollars should be funded? A scale of membership and daily admission fees the resident would be willing to pay for the facility A list of amenities that community members would desire if the facility is created To what degree should the Park District support the facility annual operating costs with General Fund revenues if facility revenues fall short? 45

46 APPENDIX: I. AQUATIC PROGRAMMING TRENDS Potential User Groups Lessons and Fitness Aquatic Therapy Recreation Competitive While the Village of Winnetka has not had the experience of operating a public pool, there is benefit to discuss traditional uses and trends in aquatic programs. With that notion in mind it is useful to define current aquatic experiences typically found in aquatic environments so that everyone is using the same vocabulary when discussing aquatic activity and later when discussing aquatic features. Depending on the makeup and design of the amenities within a facility, aquatic centers incorporate a variety of types of competitive, recreation swimming, and wellness pools to diversify the potential for generating revenues. Contemporary aquatic centers are fully ADA accessible where everyone can benefit from activities associated with the use of water. With recreation and competitive aquatic activities, the water has become the preferred diagnosis by physicians for fitness, rehabilitation for injured, the obese, diabetic, and aging patients. Successful multi-generational aquatic centers intend to include use by the entire community. Trends evolve in the aquatic industry as swimming expectations evolve. Free-form leisure pools invite recreation with wide, irregularly shaped expanses of water with ample amenities for participation. Multigenerational facilities provide bodies of water for lessons, fitness and wellness needs, competitive needs, and family leisure needs with separate spaces designed for use by different age groups. The old theory of building a rectangular pool and expecting everyone to use the same pool is unrealistic for tiny tots, families, the ADA population, and seniors. Often, multiple bodies of water are necessary to accommodate greater representation from the community. The following describes trends for four aquatic user groups: lessons and fitness, therapy, recreation swimmers, and competitive swimmers. The descriptions make evident very different requirements for each of these aquatic user groups, facility capabilities, and amenities essential to accommodate needs when planning and designing facilities. Specific User Groups Lessons and Fitness Swim Lessons When more than one body of water in an aquatic center is available, lessons can be maximized. Ideal water depth and temperature for instruction is necessary to accommodate young participants wishing to stand comfortably in the water. Pools with zero depth entry easily provide this preference as there are multiple depths that can accommodate various ages of lesson users. While a well-run lesson program is an important ingredient when introducing young swimmers to safe aquatic skills that can be used throughout their lives, many of the pools

47 studied offer their lessons in one of three ways: the traditional weekday morning sessions offered three times per summer for two weeks per session (10 day schedule); due to the cold weather and the negative influences the cold brings for children, lessons are taught indoor when that opportunity is available. By offering the community a comfortable, controlled aquatic environment, swimming and diving lessons can become an enjoyable learning experience. Some facilities do not offer lesson programs through classes; however, they are offered through the day camps as an added benefit to being in the camp. Advanced water safety lessons teach children how to survive in adverse water conditions. From small water craft instruction to drown-proofing, water safety is an integral part of a quality aquatics program. Many will go on to formal competitive aquatic programs in school or age-group swimming programs. Some will excel when competing at advanced levels of competition. Lifeguarding and CPR Water rescue skills and CPR are typically taught to all lifeguards. However, teaching water rescue and CPR skills are integral to the community as families are the true lifeguards of each other, whether at the beach or a backyard pool. These programs are typically offered by NASCO, the Red Cross, and other providers of safety training. Water Craft Instruction With our desires to increase the use of the lakefront beaches and small water craft opportunities currently offered by the Winnetka Park District, water craft instruction in a controlled environment is beneficial prior to introducing students to open water. Aquatic Group Fitness The industry has responded to the continued popularity of aquatic fitness by creating a wide range of activities with related devices and equipment for a greater diversity of water-based aqua exercise options. Aerobic dancing, walking, and running in shallow and deep-water environments are just a few of the choices available to people wishing to add less stressful elements of a cross-training regimen. Some people use aqua aerobics for their entire fitness program. Data taken from the U.S. Census Bureau shows lifetime expectancy is up almost 30 years since The older adult market now spans four generations from the Depression Era , Silent Gens , Mature Boomers , to Young Boomers These age groups can be willing participants in water fitness, wellness programming, and other recreational opportunities. LIFETIME EXPECTANCY Year Male Female Source: US Census Bureau 47

48 Water Fitness Trends Aquatic programming accommodates beginner lessons and programs with higher levels of intensity and skill. The following provides a snapshot of aquatic fitness programs. Walking and Jogging in Shallow and Deep Water: 30 minutes of aqua jogging is equal to 80 minutes of jogging on land ( Finning: Requires training fins or flippers and utilizes the fitness lap lanes of a pool. The kicking and pulling enhances conditioning and toning. The Liquid Gym and Navy Seals: These aqua training workouts can be as intense as desired. Water Yoga: Warm water, as in a therapy pool, enhances asanas (stretching poses) to relax muscles and increase range of motion and balance. Pan flute music and dim lights deepen the experience. yogaafloat.com. Water Aerobics: Remaining one of the fastest growing segments of the adult fitness industry, fat is burned at a higher percentage than land aerobics. Water Weight Workouts: A water workout with foam water weights or water-proof plastic weights. Deep H2O Training: A muscular endurance workout in deep water that consists of simulated running in the deep end of the pool aided by a flotation device (vest or belt) that maintains the head above the water or where the participant is held in one location by a tether cord, essentially running in place. Boot Camp: Amphibious program that incorporates land and water fitness to add variety to training regimens. Scuba and Snorkeling: These lessons are growing in popularity and typically start in swimming pools. Underwater Hockey: Fast moving no contact sport played on the bottom of a pool by two teams of six. Scoring depends on teamwork as players must go to the surface to take breaths. Games are two 15 minute halves and can have up to four substitutes who can enter on the fly. Aqua-lympics: Includes skills such as water volleyball, inner tube water polo, and the waterslide speed challenge. Aquatic Personal Training: Trainers design personalized aquatic programs to help participants achieve fitness goals. Triathlons: Increasing as successful aquatic skills play a major role in competitions. Kayak and Canoe Clubs: Growing due to the popularity of Extreme Sports. Swim lessons, lap swimming, water jogging, deep-water aerobics, life saving instruction, diving lessons, survival swimming, synchronized swimming, water polo, underwater hockey and scuba instruction can take place in a competitive/lesson pool, which frees up the leisure pool for swimmers who want to use the play features. Fitness classes are usually offered in the morning, at lunchtime, and in the early evening. Instructor information and/or training can be acquired through organizations such as the Arthritis Foundation; Red Cross; Aquatic Exercise Association; American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD), and United States Water Fitness. Specific User Groups Aquatic Therapy Aquatic therapy is rehabilitation performed in warm water and involves physical activity of exercise and motion in the presence of an aquatic therapist. Warm water may increase the dynamics of blood pressure and blood and lymph circulation as well as decreasing swelling in skin and other tissues. Participation in an aquatic therapy program offers improvement in: overall health and fitness

49 stretching capacity range of motion movement capabilities coordination physical stamina and endurance swimming skills, safety, and abilities Though many people who use aquatic therapy are enthusiasts of meditation or massage, some are looking for rehabilitating or improving a certain level of health. The Arthritis Foundation certifies instructors to teach arthritis aquatics. Many participants in these programs report reduced arthritis symptoms, including increased mobility, reduced pain, and decreased inflammation. New studies suggest that the management of diabetes can be facilitated by water exercise. When moderate exercise is recommended for obese patients, the low-gravity qualities of aquatic therapy can be very appealing to this user group. Water Wellness Seekers According to Physicians and Sports Medicine, water exercise programs have multiplied in health clubs, pain clinics, and hospitals. Users include: Injured Athletes: Athletic trainers and sports medicine physicians are prescribing aquatic therapy as a rehabilitative/preventive fitness program. Post Operative Patients and Disabled (permanent and temporary): Includes patients with physical ramifications such as spinal dysfunctions, post-operative muscle toning, injuries, and arthritis. Arthritis Sufferers: The Arthritis Foundation certifies instructors to teach arthritis exercises such as Rusty Hinges and Joint Effort. Diabetics: Though still in the theoretical stages, studies suggest that water exercise and therapy, when applied to diabetics as a regular program, can reduce diabetes symptoms and assist insulin level management. Aging Baby Boomers: Some 70 million strong, boomers invented the fitness movement and show no sign of abandoning it as they age, especially in warm water environments. Obese Populations: More doctors are prescribing water wellness for weight issues. Pregnant Women: Soothing effects of the low resistance of water exercise is enjoyable to this user group. Meditation Enthusiast: Fans of mind and body movements enjoy immersing in warm water environments to complete the tranquil state. Key components for an aquatic therapy wellness facility include: Warm water capability with faster pool turnovers. High-quality water chemical treatment systems, including dual sanitization methods and an appropriately designed HVAC/DH system. Easy access from the parking lot to the locker/changing rooms, pool deck, and into the pool. Ample space in locker rooms and wider pool deck for wheelchairs, walkers, dry and wet equipment, and dry-side therapy. In-water amenities such as perimeter railings, aerobic steppers, treadmills, underwater benches, and ramps. Flexible pool depths for multiple programmatic needs. Aesthetically pleasing and calm light-filled private spaces. 49

50 Specific User Groups Recreation Successful aquatic centers merge the best features of a community pool and creative water play areas for various age groups in a safe, friendly atmosphere. While aquatic recreation has become much more age-defined, attractions have age limitations and appropriateness due to elements of thrill and capabilities. Tots enjoy shallow pools with gentle water features and play areas tucked securely out of the way of the more active areas. Once children grow out of the tot stage they can romp in zero-depth leisure pools and enjoy participatory play features with just-their-size waterslides. Older children speed down flume and drop slides and enjoy larger water play structures. Teens enjoy deep water pools and extreme features. The following table identifies the age groups and associated play features typically utilized by those participants. Age Group Age 0-3 Age 4-7 Age 8-11 Age Age Age Age 45+ Recreational Age-Group National Trends Tot Pool, Tot Slides, Gentle Spray Features Water Sprayground, Zero-Depth Pool, Participatory Play Features, Sand Play Water Walks, Large Play Structures, Full-Size Waterslides, Open Water Water Walks, Large Waterslides, Open Water, Diving, Lazy River, Gathering Places, Sand Volleyball, Mat Racer Action Island, Bowl Slide, Flow Rider, Mat Racer, Climbing Wall, Open Water, Sand Volleyball Zero-Depth Pool (to be w/children), Open Water, Spa, Sun Deck, Lap Lanes, Lazy River, Waterslides Spa, Sun Deck, Lap Lanes, Lazy River Source: Counsilman-Hunsaker Following are brief descriptions of the various types of aquatic features found in pools. Leisure Pools The free-form leisure pool provides an inviting atmosphere with plenty of shallow water from zero-depth to four feet, allowing adults and children to interact for hours of splash and play entertainment. With opportunity for many different sizes and designs, the leisure pool is a desirable amenity for all age and skill levels. Lap Lanes Fitness lap swimming and water walking are important to many adults and seniors. Opportunities for limited practice and training exist in a two, three or four lane 25-yard lap pool adjacent to the leisure pool. Additionally, programming can be incorporated for lessons and activities.

51 Zero-Depth Entry Users enjoy easy access into leisure pools where the pool bottom slopes gradually toward the deeper water like an ocean beach. Instead of jumping or climbing into the pool, patrons simply walk in. Lounging in the zerodepth is a pleasant way to enjoy the water and sun while watching their children play in the shallow water. Participatory Play Feature Located within the shallow body of the leisure pool, participatory play features are multi-level, interactive structures where children can scamper through spraying water, climb across bridges, scurry over and under tunnels, and slide down just-their-size waterslides. As children manipulate valves and chains, they control where and when the water sprays will occur. Waterslides Very popular with children, teens, and adventurous adults, waterslides add excitement to pools. The thrill of climbing the stairs to the exhilaration of sliding down into the waiting water below makes waterslides one of the most desired attractions of recreational aquatic features. Current Channel Part of the leisure pool, a current channel is usually 6-8 feet wide with water traveling at approximately two and a half miles per hour. The channel provides a similar experience as a lazy river found in larger waterparks, but at a more moderate cost. The current channel is popular as a water walking setting, both for fitness classes and adults seeking nonprogrammed exercise, by walking with or against the current. Sprayground/Splashpad An array of visual sights and sounds of children interacting with water, a water sprayground features interactive play elements located in standing water or on a concrete slab (splashpad). Spraygrounds can be manipulated by children, a programmable computer, or turned on and off with timers. Spraygrounds can be a cost-effective addition for all types of parks, aquatic facilities or recreation centers. Water Vortex Water jets propel water in a circular motion in a water vortex. Children of all ages enjoy swimming in the swirling water where their imaginations determine the escapades. Depending on the size of the vortex, when the pump for the vortex is turned off, this area can provide an instruction space for lesson programming and other activities. Deep Water Diving A 1- or 3-meter springboard provides experienced swimmers the challenge of diving. Deep water can also be programmed for advanced swim lessons, 51

52 lifeguard training, water safety, water polo, scuba, synchronized swimming lessons, and fitness classes. Tumble Buckets Cone-shaped cylinders that fill with water from individual spouts from above create suspense and anticipation the children never know which tumble bucket will splash down next! Spray Features A variety of refreshing surprises from dribbling trickles to gushing torrents, spray features include spray bars, bubblers and water arches that create water wonderland effects to aquatic facilities. Shade Structures Ten or 20 feet in diameter, fabric shade structures can be placed on the deck or in the pool providing necessary shade from UV rays. The wide range of colors lends a festive atmosphere that can be lowered in times of stormy weather or when not needed. Specific User Groups Competitive Special Olympics and the Northern Suburban Special Recreation Association Creating positive and enduring changes in the lives of people with disabilities, their families, friends, coaches, volunteers, and all who support them on is the goal of Special Olympics and the NSSRA. With the Olympic program, individual events usually take place in 25-meter pools. Relay events mirror those offered in other international swimming competitions. Special Olympic athletes are involved in aquatics that include: Freestyle Events: 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1,500 Meter Backstroke, Breaststroke and Butterfly Events: 25 Meter (Breaststroke, Butterfly), 50, 100, and 200 Meter Individual Medley Events: 200 and 400 Meter Freestyle and Medley Relay Events: 4 x 25, 4 x 50 and 4 x 100 Meter 4 x 200 Meter Freestyle Relay Unified Sports Relay Events: Freestyle: 4 x 100 and 4 x 200 Meter Medley: 4 x 25, 4 x 50 and 4 x 100 Meter The following aquatic events provide competition for athletes with lower ability levels: 25 Meter Freestyle and Backstroke 15 Meter Walk 15 and 25 Meter Floatation Race 10 Meter Assisted Swim 15 Meter Unassisted Swim USA Swimming USA swimming is accommodated by the New Trier Club. US Masters Swimming United States Masters Swimming (USMS) is a national organization that provides organized aquatic workouts, competitions, clinics, and workshops