The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHTTF v2 TSM updatesSite Action Parcel Address Size (Acres) Size (Site) sq ft Size (Aquatic Center) sq ft Capital Revenue Timber Revenue Grants (potential) National Park Service/RCO USDA/RCO USDA Spring '26 WA Commerce Pacific Northwest Swimmin Local Projects( State) RCO Est Total Grants Taxes Est Total Taxes Philanthropy Est Total Capital Costs DCW Base Option Subtotal Subtotal w esc Soft Costs Alternate Amenities Rough Total Low Rough Total High Operating Budget Revenue Fees Daily Admissions 10 Visit Passes Month to Month Annual Group/Corporate Aquatic Rentals Gen Facility Rentals Total Programs Aquatic Programs Fitness/General Total Other Resale Items Special Events Child Watch Vending Hospital Lease Total Total Revenue Expenses Category Personnel Full-Time Part Time Total Commodities Contractual Utilities Water/Sewer Insurance Communications Contract Services Rental Equipment Advertising Training Conference Trash Pickup Dues/Subscriptions Bank Charges Other Total Cap Rep Fund Total Operating Profit $10k/acre Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Grants Program (requires match) Rural Community Development Inititave Grants Community Facilities Direct Loan and Grant Program WA Commerce - Youth Recreational Facilities Building Communities Direct Appropriations WA Commerce - Community Outdoor Athletic Facilities Lodging Tax PFD MPD Land Stormwater Foundations Superstructure Exterior Enclosure Roofing Interior Construction Interior Finishes Plumbing Systems HVAC Fire Protection Electrical/Comms Equipment Furnishings Special Construction Site Work (w soils removal) Septic/LOSS Glazing Pool vessel Pool equipment (filters, pumping, piping) Escalation to Q2 '25 33% Markup Permits, fees Insurance, bonds Gymnasium Gym + Cardio Room Parking Lot Splash Pad Pickle Ball Courts 69885 11750 332504 181522 5000 48700 7360 656721 89499 60996 150495 6250 1000 0 2000 0 9250 816466 Base 369260 571182 940442 84500 99750 19000 15000 4000 38000 3000 10000 3000 2000 3000 1000 23365 2500 223615 20000 1268557 -452091 ? ? Chimacum Park Base Build 963000101 Rhody Drive, Port Hadlock 98339 15+ 29700 50000 500000 $300,000-$2000000 1200000 up to 25% 1200000 300000 5000000 0 150000 813149 1976550 1642286 1247255 874568 441886 576528 2216440 186855 2645874 30000 41500 4127825 1500000 1000000 18470716 0.0825 19994550.07 26592751.5931 5161962 6502137 1108822 726382 440408 158962 34588 729717 399348 9000 48700 22360 1402675 89499 190087 279586 12500 6000 8000 5000 0 31500 1713761 Full Build Out 603100 947494 1550594 162500 136500 27000 20000 5000 47000 3000 15000 5500 3000 3500 2750 48489 4500 321239 50000 2084333 -370572 Taj Mahal 40200 50000 500000 $300,000-$2000000 1200000 up to 25% 1200000 3000000 0 150000 813149 1976550 1642286 1247255 874568 441886 576528 2216440 186855 2645874 30000 41500 4127825 1500000 1000000 18470716 0.0825 19994550.07 26592751.5931 6502137 1108822 726382 34930092.5931 Sprung (per March proposal including JTS) 29700 50000 500000 $300,000-$2000000 1200000 up to 25% 1200000 300000 4000000 0 150000 752612 2124545 0 0 195730 0 40500 942975 0 894726 30000 41500 4127825 1500000 1000000 83363 11883776 0.0825 12864187.52 0 5161962 6502137 1108822 726382 440408 Outdoor 20000 50000 15000000 500000 $300,000-$2000000 1200000 up to 25% 1200000 17900000 300000 3000000 0 150000 813149 500000 500000 200000 874568 441886 576528 750000 75000 1000000 30000 41500 4127825 1500000 1000000 11580456 0.0825 12535843.62 16672672.0146 5161962 6502137 1108822 726382 440408 6 Month Outdoor 50000 7000 150000 100000 5000 South Whidbey 24000 50000 500000 $300,000-$2000000 1200000 up to 25% 1700000 Assumptions Building work Base Size Building Sitework $/SF 822.78 18.24 Square Feet (SF) 29700 193025 Mountain View New Pool 949817901 1925 Blaine St, Port Townsend 98368 3.9 2026 deadline 2026 deadline 10000000 0 5000000 0 2500000 813149 1976550 1642286 1247255 874568 441886 576528 2216440 186855 2645874 30000 41500 4127825 3520578 22841294 0.0825 24725700.755 32885182.0041 5161962 6502137 1108822 726382 440408 36344250 41000000 Renovate 5000000 5000000 10000000 0 2000000 0 0 21029600 Rebuild 5000000 5000000 0 10000000 0 1000000 0 0 5000000 7000000 Downtown Hadlock New Pool 901024008 Masonic Hall Rd, Port Hadlock, 98339 7.72 5000000 5000000 10000000 300000 5000000 500000 150000 813149 1976550 1642286 1247255 874568 441886 576528 2216440 186855 2645874 30000 41500 4127825 1500000 18970716 0.0825 20535800.07 27312614.0931 5161962 6502137 1108822 726382 440408 Sprung 5000000 5000000 10000000 300000 4000000 500000 150000 813149 1336500 750000 750000 874568 441886 576528 2216440 186855 2645874 30000 41500 4127825 1500000 16941125 0.0825 18338767.8125 24390561.1906 5161962 6502137 1108822 726382 440408 Outdoor 5000000 5000000 2000000 12000000 300000 3000000 500000 150000 813149 500000 500000 200000 874568 441886 576528 750000 75000 1000000 30000 41500 4127825 1500000 12080456 0.0825 13077093.62 17392534.5146 5161962 6502137 1108822 726382 440408 Chimacum Schools New Pool 901023010 313 Ness' Corner Road, Port Hadlock, 98339 2* (10.76) 5000000 5000000 10000000 300000 5000000 375000 150000 813149 1976550 1642286 1247255 874568 441886 576528 2216440 186855 2645874 30000 41500 4127825 1500000 18845716 0.0825 20400487.57 27132648.4681 0 0 1108822 726382 440408 Sprung/Myrtha 5000000 5000000 10000000 300000 4000000 375000 150000 813149 1336500 750000 750000 874568 441886 576528 2216440 186855 2645874 30000 41500 4127825 1500000 16816125 0.0825 18203455.3125 24210595.5656 0 0 1108822 726382 440408 Outdoor 5000000 5000000 2000000 12000000 300000 3000000 375000 150000 813149 500000 500000 200000 874568 441886 576528 750000 75000 1000000 30000 41500 4127825 1500000 11955456 0.0825 12941781.12 17212568.8896 0 0 1108822 726382 440408 1. Comparison of Sprung all-in cost on the Idaho project of $19M (with overages) vs DCW estimate of $31M. Is it worth tracking the details with DCW, or just move forward with Sprung? 2. Confirm the follow up doc from Sprung attached to 6/18 email does not include the JTS detail shown at the meeting (screen shot from meeting below) 3. In Greg's presentation on available grants / subsidies, it looks like the totals do not include the 25% WA Commerce Grant values. See blue cell highlights in "Aquatic facility" worksheet. 4. Some agenda items I would like to include for discussion going forward: a. Review approach to developing findings / recommendations and associated communication with the public. Provide a progress report / press release from the Task Force? b. Demographic and associated revenue comparisons Port Angeles / Sequim facilities vs Port Townsend / Port Hadlock. c. Review of impacts of doing a County-only facility (no Mt View upgrades): Discuss differences between V2 lines 10-12 and V2 TSM lines 10-21 i. YMCA memberships in Sequim. ii. Shore facility memberships vs expectations / needs for Port Hadlock. iii. Other funding / revenue options in addition to memberships i. Should "lowest cost" option development be pursued by the Task Force? This works with comment from 6/5 meeting: ii. City funding loss iii. Impacts to YMCA Mt View operations 1. Day care and camp programs 2. Public service organizations (Olycap, Port of PT, other?) 3. Public / private partnerships 4. B&O / lodging taxes allocations 5. Sale of public property, timber sales, etc. Possible Findings: 1. Questions and requests from the community to address Opsis report: 2. Line-item assessment fees and cost estimates are not provided for a “lowest cost” option in the Opsis report. That would consist of upgrading the existing facility without any increase to facility size or service. eeded to develop a full overview and better level of risk assessment include: i. ii. iii. iv. "Lowest Cost" renovation of existing MV Pool 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3. While rehabbing the existing pool has merits, it also raises other considerations: a. Consideration of additional design and location options. b. Collaboration and coordination between City and County agencies, staff and elected representatives. c. Equitable access and benefits for community members outside of Port Townsend. d. More detailed level of determination of feasibility, costs and risks for stormwater system and utility impacts with the base option. e. Broader pursuit of possible types, amounts, methodology and timelines for grants, subsidies and cost sharing among all residents / facility users. a. Seismic retrofit b. ADA compliance upgrades c. Vessel destructive testing (to confirm replacement scope feasibility) d. Plumbing, electrical and HVAC upgrades e. Review for possible impacts to opportunities with other parts of the campus infrastructure or space needs such as supplemental HVAC / electrical as part of design scope development. Roof, refurbish and mechanical support areas Pool systems and vessel replacement Destructive testing to confirm vesel replacement scope Plumbing, electrical and HVAC assessment fees Plumbing, electrical and HVAC improvement costs Seismic assessment fees Seismic improvement costs ADA assessment fees ADA improvement costs Utilities improvements assessment fees Stormwater improvements assessment fees Other? a. The DCW Study provides an “Existing Pool Building Renovation” section that is the closest to this option, It includes a 3,400 SF extension to the footprint at the North wall to accommodate a new entry lobby and flex space, constructing a competition pool and upgrades to locker rooms, MEP systems, parking. The current estimate for that option is below. b. Operations and Maintenance: We would expect the “lowest cost” option O&M expenses and revenues to align most closely with those for the existing facility provided by the YMCA. For calendar year 2023: i. Line item cost and revenue estimates to be further evaluated include: a) Utilities (electrical / propane, water, sewer or stormwater) which may need to be broken out of the campus billing. b) Insurance (part of YMCA Admin?) ii. Actual O&M Expenses and Revenues should be compared with the Ballard King Market Analysis for the City’s Base Plan Option For more detail on the differences for these estimates (BK Market Analysis pages 43-57). The context and assumptions associated with these figures include: · The operations analysis was completed based on general information and a basic understanding of the project with a preliminary program and concept plan for the center. As a result, there are many variables that affect such estimates that either cannot be accurately measured or are not consistent in their influence on the budgetary process. · This option includes a 6-lane lap pool, 3,000 SF leisure pool with lazy river, spa, sauna and party room. There is also a hospital wellness room. Approximate SF – 29,700. · The center will be managed by a public agency. · A reasonably aggressive estimate of revenues generated from admission fees and passes has been utilized for each of the options. · There will be a high level of aquatic and other programming in the center. Most all programs and services will be offered by center staff on an hourly or contract basis. · No partnerships with other organizations has been shown in this operations plan other than Jefferson Healthcare for the wellness space. a. Would a 2-facility program better serve the community as a whole? If so, what would timeline for each project be (2 years for City, 5 years for County?) b. How would City pool revenues likely change from current levels during and after transition? Renovation subtotal Expenses Wages and Benefits Supplies Admin Overhead Allocation Total Expense Revenues City of PT Contract Contributions Membership Dues Day Use, Punch Cards Member Subsidy Total Revenue Net Operating Income Amount due City of PT i. Competition size pool for enhanced recreational experience and school programming. ii. County amenity that could help attract new residents and visitors. iii. Incorporation of additional services / amenities for greater benefit and revenue generation (day care, yoga, physical therapy, low income services) iv. Inclusion of for-profit component to help anchor the facility. i. Increase in support for City functions to offset longer term membership changes Total 286326 18214 74650 -11592 367600 276000 800 80760 62631 -12861 417604 50004 25000 1. Sustaining members (donations, estate-planning, endowments) 2. Grants and state / federal government funds 3. City support subsidy 4. JeffCo Health physical therapy 5. K-3 school programs 6. Tourism support (LTAC funding) 7. Low income services (Olycap funding) 8. Port of PT economic development assistance 9. Private business 21029600 With pool chemicals and maint YMCA costs – includes insurance? Confirm details $400k per Opsis? Les Schwab, JeffCo Health with $402 merchandise sales Confirm details Cost Basis (2023) 536000 3500000 Cost w escalation (2 years) 589600 3850000 4439600 CG Engineering report w roof estimates WTI Option 2 - includes some piping and air flow improvements Not included in CG Eng, WTI or DCW reports Not included in CG Eng, WTI or DCW reports Not included in CG Eng, WTI or DCW reports Not included in CG Eng, WTI or DCW reports 0.05 annual inflation Revisit contingency, O&P, taxes Comparison of project / program delivery methods. Descriptions are here: https://www.procore.com/library/construction-project-delivery-methods 1. Design / Bid / Build (DBB): Also called “traditional project delivery,” it involves a design team and a general contractor working directly for the owner under separate contracts a. Advantages b. Disadvantages 2. Design / Build (DB): The owner provides a contract to a single firm that handles both the design and construction aspects of a project. a. Advantages b. Disadvantages Recently, a new design-build delivery method has emerged to address the risks of design build: Progressive design-build. Progressive design-build is a two-stage approach to design-build contracts that can effectively mitigate risk to both owners and contractors alike by giving them an “off-ramp” if they fail to reach an agreement during the design phase. 3. General Contractor / Construction Manager / CMAR: The construction manager acts as a representative for the owner during the design and construction phases, and the CM takes on project risk (usually with a contract that has a guaranteed maximum price). a. Advantages b. Disadvantages As with traditional project delivery, the CMAR method separates the design and building processes. The construction manager is involved from the beginning with the design process , mainly as a cost controller, and also oversees construction in a similar way to a general contractor. However, the CMAR accepts the risk for meeting the project deadline and owner’s cost requirements, which are usually expressed as a guaranteed maximum price. 4. Construction Management Multi-Prime (CMMP): The owner acts as the general contractor and establishes contracts with the design team as well as the major subcontractors on the project. a. Advantages b. Disadvantages 5. Public Private Partnership (PPP / P3): A private company and government entity collaborate on a project, typically funded by the government entity and managed by the private company. a. Advantages b. Disadvantages Depending on who plays what role in the project, there are two facets of these partnerships that contractors and suppliers need to be aware of: whether it’s subject to prevailing wage provisions and how each party can protect its payment rights. Publicly funded projects are subject to federal or state prevailing wage regulations. Privately funded projects are usually not. 6. Integrated Project Delivery (IPD):Everyone involved in the project is on a single contract that is predetermined before the design phase begins, spreading risk and responsibility equally among all stakeholders. a. Advantages b. Disadvantages IPD is gaining popularity because everyone shares the risk on the project equally. Also, this method creates the most innovative and collaborative approaches to projects. When combined with other construction methods, such as lean construction, they can greatly improve the efficiency of construction methods and shorten project timelines significantly Deciding which construction project delivery method is best for a project relies a lot on the type of project, how much control over the project and risk the owner wants, the project timeline, and the budget. Each method provides a different amount of control and ties the parties together contractually in a different way. Every project is different, so you’ll need to choose the right method on a case-by-case basis. Type of project Different types of projects lend themselves to choosing certain project delivery methods. Projects involving repeatable infrastructure work will require a different approach to design and collaboration than projects with new designs, for example. The project delivery method should maximize the benefits to the quality of the final product and the considerations below. Control over the project and risk The owner’s control over the project will be more important on certain project types than others. Nobody wants to take on risk if they can pass it on to someone else — but an experienced contractor may be able to take on more risk in exchange for a higher reward if they’ve had several successful similar projects. Project timeline The considerations for the project timeline for choosing a project delivery method are a cross between competitive needs and project efficiency. Some methods cut out a layer of communication that may slow things down unnecessarily. Some projects may benefit from separating project roles to avoid conflicts of interest or mix and match expertise. Payment schedules may come into play as well, depending on how cash hungry each involved party is. Payments may also be a factor in the last section. Budget The budget may be fixed with a guaranteed maximum price, or be a consideration in assembling competitive bids, both of which can be best approached with different project delivery methods. Poor cash flow coming from the timeline may result in poor financial choices and budget overruns as well. All of these elements need to be considered together to make the right choice based on the expertise of all companies involved and the distinct characteristics of the project at hand. i. May result in a lower-cost project due to the competitive nature of the bidding process ii. Separating the design team from the construction team can potentially reduce conflicts of interest i. The design phase can require the owner to spend a lot of cash before getting a firm price on the actual construction project. ii. Depending on the quality of the design, the owner may be vulnerable to change orders, delays, and additional costs initiated by the contractor, who isn’t able to provide feedback before construction begins. i. May be more efficient and less costly due to the improved collaboration between the design and construction teams ii. Owners experience simplified communication and financial commitments since there’s a single contract i. Potential conflicts of interest between the contractor, who wants to keep costs low, and owners, who want a high-quality product ii. May be added liability for general contractors, who could require additional errors and omissions insurance i. Potentially helps keep costs under control ii. Improves communication between the owner and the design team or general contractor i. A single point of failure exists in the CMAR, who can make or break a project ii. The CMAR must actively guide and control the project or faces serious financial burdens from cost overruns i. Subcontractors have a direct contractual relationship with the owner, potentially reducing payment problems ii. Owners with significant construction experience are able to guide their projects more directly i. Owners without sufficient experience can struggle to effectively guide projects ii. The lack of a dedicated general contractor may lead to difficulties in managing problems as they arise on site i. The public benefits from government funding as well as private-sector expertise in construction ii. Projects are typically protected by bonds, which ensure that everyone working on the project will be paid i. Projects can be delayed or impacted by changes in the priorities of the governmental agency ii. Bond claims, if available, can be difficult to manage for contractors who aren’t paid for their work i. Risk is shared equally among all stakeholders on the project ii. Collaboration may be improved by gathering all parties from the project’s outset i. Can be difficult to make adjustments as the project goes on ii. Requires a high degree of planning in the very early stages of a project 1. As a new facility option in Port Hadlock (or other County-owned property), building and operational costs are considered as follow: a. The program and cost information from the Shore Aquatic Center is instructive as the size and level of service is similar to what we might consider (30,000 SF, multi-vessel). Total construction for the facility, completed in late 2020, was $17,154,742, including design, soft costs, contingency, demolition, sales tax, change orders and retainage. From AIA Washington website: Through a GC/CM delivery method, the 30,700-square foot facility was completed in October 2020 and now — in addition to the original competition pool and diving tank — provides community members with three new pool tank types. Other additions include a multipurpose space, universal changing hall and locker rooms, classrooms for youth programs, and support spaces for patrons and staff. Contractor involvement included full pre-construction services and played a critical role in responding to the architectural and engineering complexities of the project. Several rounds of value engineering helped bring the project within the $16 million budget. https://aiawa.org/portfolio/shore-aquatic-center/#:~:text=Through%20a%20GC%2FCM%20delivery,three%20new%20pool%20tank%20types As with our proposed facility, it is located on public property. During our site visit we learned that the outdoor playground area for children and adjacent flex rooms for such uses as the day care center and senior yoga sessions are highly used and a source of additional revenue. Noting details from Trish Drew (DCW) may 24 email based on DCW participation in the project, we will need to agree on appropriate escalation for similar costs today: ” There has been significant escalation being the Q1 of 2021 to current exceeding 24% and continuing at 1.1% per month. We are watching this carefully because things change. For example steel prices increased from $7000 per ton installed to $15,000 per TN. And now it is back to ~$8000. You will want to look for opportunities in the market to manage costs.” d. Operations and Maintenance discussion: It would be useful to address the line items included in the Shore Aquatic Center Financials spreadsheet as a basis for developing more detailed expense and revenue expectations. A summary of the 2023 budget, based on 2018,2021 and 2022 actuals, shows the following: Expenses Salary and wages total Supplies Services Debt Service Total Expenses Revenue Total Operational Revenue Non-operational Revenue County shared Revenues Total Revenue 1101050 164485 492160 601023 2478718 961800 1850000 107000 2918900 With benefits With food service, summer program and pool supplies With $67k B&O/sales tax, $70k professional services, $158k utilities, $90k insurance, $63k equipment maint. Various bonds With after school and summer camp revenues of $254k Property tax (assume through MPD) Incld timber sales $50k and interest earnings $40k Site Evaluation Criteria Location Supports County Participation Accommodates Building & Parking Proximity to Compatible Amenities Community Synergy Timing of Site Decision with this Study Enhances Adjacent Context Site Avoids Controversy Minimizes Impact to Pool Operations Prominent Frontage and Visibility Cost Recovery Potential Convenient Access to Bike Routes Convenient Access to Bus Routes Impacts to Existing Site Amenities Land Cost Mountain View Pool Chimacum Creek Elementary Downtown Hadlock Chimacum Park Good Fair Poor PFD Funding/LTAC Countywide Assumption of .2% Sales Tax Revenue .2% Sales Tax Lodging Tax 4% Total Expenses Debt Service Admin Total Bond $20m at 5.5% for 30 yrs Final Value (FV) of bond Bond at $10m for 5.5% for 30 yrs Annual Payment FV Annual 1610000 500000 2110000 1400000 100000 1500000 20347243.2396 101409669.1591 688053.8968 49839512.884 Metropolitan Park Districts Tax per $1000 of Prop Value Interest Rate Annual cost to a house worth MPD Mountain View Pool Property Value Annual Revenue Could borrow Years 20 0.25 0.055 300000 Port Townsend 2966126077 741531.5193 25855956.8284 20 yr max $.5 &$.25 75 MPD Tri Area Pool 1500000000 375000 13075619.2541 JeffCo MPD 9062855819 2265713.9548 45314279.095 Capital Revenue Total Expenses Total Operational Revenue Total Expenses Total Total PFD Vote State Grants Federal Grants Donations subsidy operations DCW Base Option MVP 22100000 5000000 5000000 5000000 37100000 37100000 430000 840000 1270000 1270000 0 Chimacum Schools (CS) DCW Base Option CS Sprung and Myrtha DCW Base Option Repair MVP 400000 2nd Phase 1 Sewer Location CS Outdoor CG Estimate Non-Structural Repairs Mechanical Access Tunnels Mech Room Housekeeping Pad Reroof Seismic Eval ADA Retrofit Stain Removal Extras 10000 9000 5000 300000 9000 333000 203463 536463 WTI Estimate Option 1 Pool vesssel Pool piping pool mechanical equipment Total including soft costs Option 2 Pool Pool deck associated pool systems Pool mechanical systems Total including soft costs 2875000 3500000 DCW Cost Comparison Renovation of existing New Construction Sprung 21029600 36344250 30909307 Findings Recommendations Location Selection Options Construction Cost Options Potential Revenue O&M PFD The Port Hadlock UGA, where the new sewer is being installed, enjoys a significant construction cost advantage over the Mountain View site. Amenities Needs of the community Daycare