WS Item 3A City of Southlake
Project Briefing
1400 Main St
Southlake, TX 76092
www.cityofsouthiake.com
Multipurpose Facility
January 20, 2011
14 a
Contents
Project Briefing Purpose 3
History 3
Funding Considerations 8
Public /Private Partnership 9
Next Steps 10
Summary 10
Project Briefing Purpose
The purpose of this briefing is to
review the history of the actions
behind bringing the multipurpose
facility project to fruition, the
current considerations associated
with the facility, and the next steps
involved with the project.
History
City Council established a
Multipurpose Facility as a priority
during a discussion of facility
needs at the June Retreat on June
23, 2008. This prioritization was
reflected in the Capital
Improvements Program (CIP) for
FY 2009, where $2,000,000 was
used to establish a project
account for the construction of a
recreational center, library, and
senior center. Per the CIP
description, the facility was to
include "significant areas of
training, recreational class
offerings, gymnasium space, and
other amenities associated with a
Recreation Center. [The] project
was listed as the highest priority in
FY 2009 per Parks System Master
Plan, and [utilizes] a potential
campus style setting with Library
and Senior Center allowing
opportunities for shared space
and infrastructure."
Following the priority designation
of this project, several questions
arose:
1. Should the City renovate an
existing facility such as the
Gateway Church and how much
would that cost?
2. Would new construction be a
better option?
3. If the City chose to construct a
facility, where would it be or
where could it be located?
4. What types of uses would the
facility include?
5. Would those uses change based
on whether or not the facility is in
a renovated building or in a
newly- constructed building?
6. How much would it cost to
operate such a facility?
7. Could we partner with a private
entity on the operations?
In order to answer some of these
questions, efforts commenced in
October 2008 to examine the
feasibility of buying and renovating
the Gateway Church facility, located
at 2121 E. Southlake Boulevard.
Gateway had outgrown the space,
was constructing a new location
elsewhere and the facility would
soon be available for purchase. At
that time, the City commissioned
Integra Realty Resources to
conduct a market value appraisal of
the Gateway facility who reported
an appraised value of $10,500,000.
A follow -up market value appraisal
was conducted in March 2009,
which listed the appraised value of
the facility at $9,800,000.
Examination of the Gateway facility
continued in May 2009, when the
City hired Telios Corporation to
perform a Mechanical, Electrical,
and Plumbing (MEP) Survey, which
revealed approximately $1.75
million in recommended
improvements to the building's
heating and cooling systems.
Additionally, the Apex Arts League
conducted an analysis of the
building in June 2009 to determine
the extent of the Audio, Video and
Lighting (AVL) equipment in the
facility. This assessment placed
the estimated dollar value of the
AVL equipment in the range of
$1.6 million to $2.4 million, with
the installation value of the
equipment priced at $500,000.
This means that if the City were to
purchase the equipment for a new
facility, it would cost an estimated
half a million dollars to install that
equipment. The assessment also
noted that additional trained staff
would be necessary to operate the
AVL equipment. Figure 1 below
presents a table of appraisals and
assessments conducted on the
Gateway Facility.
fteport
10/27/2008 Appraisal $10,500,000
3/5/2009 Appraisal $9,800,000
5/28/2009 Improvements $1,750,000
6/17/2009 AVL $1,600,000 to
Valuation $2,400,000
Figure 1: Gateway Church
Facility Appraisals and
Assessments
Based on new considerations,
including significant changes in
the commercial real estate market
between October 2008 and March
2009, the second appraisal is
likely more accurate; therefore, at a
minimum, the purchase (assuming
the facility could be purchased at
the appraised value) including the
MEP improvements for this facility
would cost the City $11
However, these numbers do not
include costs associated with
renovating to accommodate the
change in use.
In addition to the option of
purchasing and renovating an
existing facility, questions remained
about the feasibility of constructing
a new facility. One site that was
considered at the outset was the
city -owned property located off of
Byron Nelson, adjacent to the
Senior Center. Some
considerations that were discussed
with this site:
• No costs associated with
purchase of the land
• Adjacent to current city -use
• Drainage issues with the site
• Location possibly not feasible
due to neighborhood setting
In tandem with these construction
and design - related inquiries,
discussions were also held
regarding the feasibility of
public /private partnerships for this
type of facility. Possibilities for this
type of partnership are explored
later in this briefing.
By late 2009, the City had some
information related to costs
associated with the Gateway facility.
However, as discussions about the
project continued, it became clear
that there were still many lingering
questions.
4
On August 3, 2009, the
multipurpose facility was listed as
the number one CIP priority during
a joint City Council, Parks and
Recreation Board, and Southlake
Parks and Development
Corporation meeting. Following
this designation, discussions
centered around the best way to
answer some of those lingering
questions and move the project
forward. The decision was made
in late 2009 to utilize a portion of
the project funding to commission
a feasibility study for the project.
In October 2009, the City issued a
request for qualifications to solicit
firms to conduct the study.
Thirteen proposals were received
and scored by staff, with the top
three selected for interviews in
January 2010. A committee of
staff (Ken Baker, Jim Blagg,
Alison Ortowski, Bob Price, Chris
Tribble) and City Council (Mayor
John Terrell, Councilmember
Virginia Muzyka and
Councilmember Laura Hill)
recommended Barker Rinker
Seacat (BRS) from the field of
interviewees and that firm was
selected to conduct a study to
analyze the feasibility, associated
costs and potential uses for both
the Gateway site and a to -be-
determined greenfield site. The
scope of services included:
• Identification of site
opportunities and constraints
• Identification of building
opportunities and constraints
• An inventory of existing facility
assets such as mechanical
equipment, furniture, stage
equipment, HVAC, parking lot
condition, fountain condition,
lighting, etc, and a
recommendation on whether
these assets should continue in
use, be repaired or replaced
• A structural analysis,
geotechnical investigation and
report, environmental
assessment, and traffic analysis
• Recommendation of possible
use scenarios for the facility and
site, including expansion and the
pros and cons of each scenario
developed
• Preparation of a cost benefit
analysis for each scenario,
including all costs associated
(building improvements, new
construction, site improvements,
operational, maintenance, ADA
requirements, parking
requirements, etc.)
• A recommendation on the best
use or uses for the building and
site and preparation of a
generalized floor plan showing
the location of uses
• Preparation of a project cost
estimate for recommended
building uses, including building
costs, construction, FF &E,
indirect costs and project
contingency
• A comparison of new
construction to renovation of
existing facility /site
• A recommendation on whether
the City should construct a new
5
facility or purchase and
renovate the existing
facility /site
• Preparation of a project time
line for both options
In addition to the scope of
services listed above, BRS was
also asked to conduct both a
market analysis and a citizen
survey so that the scope of the
project could be tailored to what
the market could support as well
as what the City's residents would
want in such a facility.
The market analysis looked at a
number of local indicators
including Southlake's population
(27,000) and the population of the
secondary service area (87,500).
Each of these populations were
analyzed in terms of age
distribution and median household
income. The analysis also
quantified the number of private
and non - profit providers in the
service area who offer similar
services. The summary in the
analysis notes, "The population of
the City of Southlake... is
adequate to support a
comprehensive indoor recreation
facility."
Along with the market analysis, a
citizen survey was conducted in
April / May 2010. This survey was
designed to both inform the City
about multipurpose facility
preferences and serve as the
recreation survey that would later
be used for the 2030 update of the
Parks and Recreation Master
Plan.
Surveys were randomly mailed to
1500 households and 499 surveys
were completed and returned. See
Attachment A for results.
To highlight, Question 12 in the
survey asked residents to identify
the two most important facilities for
inclusion in a multipurpose facility,
with 68% identifying a recreation
center, 52% identifying an
expanded library, 42% identifying a
cultural arts center, and 16%
identifying a senior center as the
most important or second most
important choice. These results are
reflected in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Multipurpose
Community Facility Citizen
Survey Results
Senior Facility 16%
Cultural Arts Most
Facility 42% Important
2nd Most
Expanded Library 52% Important
Recreation
Center 68%
0 100
Number Chosen
Public input was another large
component of the commissioned
feasibility study. BRS conducted
many meetings with Council, staff,
6
community stakeholders, and
citizens. The first of these
meetings took place on March 2,
2010, where BRS and City staff
met with seven groups
representing youth, arts, senior,
and recreation interests. This
meeting allowed these groups to
specify their desires in a
multipurpose facility.
Meetings continued
on July 20,
2010 and July 21,
2010, where
BRS held a number
of meetings
and workshops with
various City
officials and
public
representatives.
At these
meetings, the BRS team
presented the findings
from the
citizen survey and
the market
analysis, took comments from the
individuals present,
and then
engaged in a card exercise where
the groups chose
the different
components of
their ideal
community center.
A SPIN meeting on July 21, 2010
concluded these meetings, where
BRS gave a presentation, took
comments, and then had the
citizens in attendance play a
"dotocracy" game, where each
person placed seven dots
(representing votes) on the seven
of 22 possible components to the
center which they most desired.
The top selections were
community rooms (14 votes),
indoor track (13 votes), an Indoor
leisure pool (13 votes), a
gymnasium (12 votes), a theater
(11 votes), and a medium library
(11 votes). The results of this
exercise are reflected in the chart
in Figure 3.
Figure 3: July 21, 2010 SPIN
Meeting
Citizen Participation Results
Library 11
Theater 11
Gym 12
Indoor Pool 13
I
Indoor Track 13
Community Rooms E 14
0 5 10 15
Based on the feedback received at
the various public meetings, BRS
prepared possible plans for a
multipurpose center and presented
them to City Council at a workshop
in August. These plans included
proposals for both the purchase and
renovation of the Gateway Church
building and the construction of a
new campus entirely. City Council
asked BRS to make some changes
to the plans presented and return
with a revised plan.
Following the August 2010 meeting
and additional discussions in
October, BRS is scheduled to
present their draft report on the
feasibility study at the January 25,
2011 City Council Meeting.
7
City Council will be asked to
consider the report as presented
and discuss options to proceed.
Funding Considerations
Once the feasibility study is
completed, City Council will have
a good indication of the amount of
funding that will be needed for the
project. To date, City Council has
approved $4,500,000 in funding
for the project. This funding was
allocated in the FY 2009 CIP
($2,000,000) and the FY 2011 CIP
($2,500,000).
In addition to $4,500,000 already
set aside, the FY 2011 CIP 5 -year
plan shows that $10,700,000
should be available by 2015 after
contributions from the General
Fund (GF) and Southlake Parks
Development Corporation (SPDC)
Fund. A breakdown of total
funding is available in Figure 4.
Fiscal
Year
FY 2009
Source
G F
•
$2,000,000
FY 2011
G F
$2,500,000
FY 2012*
G F
$3,500,000
FY 2013*
SPDC
$ 700,000
FY 2014*
SPDC
$1,000,000
FY 2015*
SPDC
$1,000,000
Total:*
$10,700,000
*Planned Funding
Figure 4: Multipurpose Facility
Capital Improvements Program
Funding
Though there is CIP funding
allocated toward the project, many
surveys have taken place to
gauge the willingness of citizens to
pay additional taxes to support the
multipurpose facility. As part of the
survey conducted by BRS, 71% of
respondents replied that they would
be willing to pay more in property
taxes to construct a Multipurpose
Facility, whereas 29% would prefer
not to pay more in property taxes to
construct the facility. A graphical
representation of these numbers is
seen in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Maximum
monthly amount
households would pay in
property taxes to build a
Multipurpose Facility
Nothing
19% 29% $1 -$2
8% $3 -$4
$5 -$6
21% 11%
12% $7 -$8
$9-$10
These results are supported by the
conclusions found in the 2009 city-
wide citizen survey, where 61.3% of
responses favored increased
property taxes in trade for a
multipurpose facility. This question,
along with the response
percentages is available in Figure 6
(next page).
8
Public /Private Partnership
Recreation C enter 51.3%
Larger library 34.9%
Performing arts center 34.2%
Other
New Senior Center
20.4%
19%
In addition to construction funding,
operational funding will also be
needed. In the BRS Citizen
Survey, 51% of respondents felt
that the operations cost of the new
facility should be borne by user
fees, whereas 28% believed that
operations should be financed
using tax dollars. Figure 7 shows
a graphical representation of the
results of that survey.
Figure 7: How respondents
feel Multipurpose Facility
operating costs should be
funded
Mostly User
fees
16% Mostly
5 % Taxes
51%
100% Taxes
28%
Don't Know
As mentioned earlier, discussions
have been ongoing regarding the
possibility of entering into a
public /private partnership to
manage the operations of this type
of facility. The City could choose to
pursue this type of partnership in
order to offset some of the costs of
operation. In this scenario, the City
enters into a partnership with
another entity to construct and /or
operate the facility. Research
suggests that most partnerships see
the City picking up most or the
entire tab for constructing the
facility, and the private entity taking
responsibility for operating the
facility. This is not a steadfast rule,
however, and the specifics of each
partnership vary greatly depending
on the type of facility, and the
arrangement in place. Such
agreements typically dictate the
benefits that the City is entitled to,
when the City can reserve the
facility, and discounts for residents,
though this is negotiable in each
instance.
Examples of these types of
arrangements could include a
partnership with an entity such as
the YMCA to operate a recreational
facility, or a partnership with an arts -
related group to operate a
performing arts type facility. These
partnerships do not need to be
mutually exclusive, however, as the
City could partner with an
organization to operate a
recreationally -based facility while
partnering with an entity such as the
Carroll Independent School district
to utilize their theater to provide
Q
Multipurpose Facility 61.3%
(Performing arts center,
library, recreation center,
senior center)
arts -based events for the
community as well. See
Attachment B for a matrix outlining
other public /private partnerships
across the state and the nation.
Next Steps
A draft
of the BRS Feasibility
Study
will be presented on
January
25, 2011 at the City
Council
Work Session. The
purpose
of this briefing will be to
aid Council
in their decision as to
how to
move forward with the
facility.
The draft report should provide
information so that Council can
begin to answer some of those
key questions that have
surrounded the project from its
inception:
1. Should the City renovate an
existing facility such as the
Gateway Church and how
much would that cost?
2. Would new construction be a
better option?
3. If the City chose to construct a
facility, where would it be or
where could it be located?
4. What types of uses would the
facility include?
5. Would those uses change
based on whether or not the
facility is in a renovated
building or in a newly -
constructed building?
6. How much would it cost to
operate such a facility?
7. Could we partner with a private
entity on the operations?
Summary
Council identified the Multipurpose
Facility as a priority in June 2008.
Many studies have taken place to
determine the best direction for the
Multipurpose Facility, and a draft of
the BRS Feasibility Study will be
presented to Council on January 25,
2011. To date, $4,500,000 in
funding has been approved for this
project, and $10,700,000 in total
funding is planned in the CIP
through FY 2015.
10
Attachment A
BRS Survey Results
Community Survey for the City of Southlake
Q1. Demographics: Ages of People in Household
by percentage of household occupants
10 -14 years
12%
15 -19 years
10%
5 -9 years
20 -24 years
11 %
4%
25 -34 years
Under 5 years
4%
7%
65+ years
4%
35 -44 years
20%
55 -64 years
11%
45 -54 years
18%
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (May 2010)
Q2. Are You or Other Members of Your Household Currently
Using Any Indoor Recreation, Sports, Fitness, Aquatic,
Cultural Arts or Library Facilities?
by percentage of respondents
Yes
84%
No
16%
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Instihrte (May2010)
Leisure Vision /ETC Institute 1
Community Survey for the City of Southlake
Q2. Are You or Other Members of Your Household Currently
Using Any Indoor Recreation, Sports, Fitness, Aquatic,
Cultural Arts or Library Facilities?
by percentage of respondents
No
16%
Q2a. Indoor Facilities That
Households Currently Use
multiple choices could be made
Yes Southlake Public Library 721r
84% Private fitness clubs 66
i
Churches 44%
Recreation facilities in schools i39%
Homeowners association 34%
Other public recreation centers 23
Indoor facilities in neighboring cities 22
College or university facilities 10 %i
Southlake Senior Center 2 9 %
Other 11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (May 2010)
Q2. Are You or Other Members of Your Household Currently
Using Any Indoor Recreation, Sports, Fitness, Aquatic,
Cultural Arts or Library Facilities?
by percentage of respondents
Q21b. How Well Indoor Recreation, Sports,
Fitness, Aquatic, Cultural Arts and Library
Facilities That Household Are Currently
Using Meets Their Needs
Meets all needs
39%
No Yes
16% 84% Doesn't meet any needs
2%
Meets some needs
59%
Source: Leismue Vision/ETC Institirte (May2010)
Leisure Vision /ETC Institute 2
Community Survey for the City of Southlake
Q3. Level of Need for Various
Cultural Arts Features
by percentage of respondents
Theater (music, plays, etc.)
Exhibitions of art, history, etc.
Black Box (small performance space)
Studios for an instruction
Studios for music /dance institution
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Strongly Needed MSomewhat Needed MNot Needed ODon't Know
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (May 2010)
Q4. Cultural Arts Features That
Households Would Use the Most
by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top two choices
Theater (music, plays, etc.) 6 69%
Exhibitions of art, history, etc. 34 %�
i
Black Box (small performance space) 2
Studios for music /dance institution 1 �%
Studios for an instruction 16%
Other 5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Use Most DUse 2nd Most
Source: Leismue Vision/ETC Instihrte (May2010)
Leisure Vision /ETC Institute 3
7%
44%
31%
9%
42%
31%
13%
41%
10%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Strongly Needed MSomewhat Needed MNot Needed ODon't Know
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (May 2010)
Q4. Cultural Arts Features That
Households Would Use the Most
by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top two choices
Theater (music, plays, etc.) 6 69%
Exhibitions of art, history, etc. 34 %�
i
Black Box (small performance space) 2
Studios for music /dance institution 1 �%
Studios for an instruction 16%
Other 5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Use Most DUse 2nd Most
Source: Leismue Vision/ETC Instihrte (May2010)
Leisure Vision /ETC Institute 3
Community Survey for the City of Southlake
Q5. Level of Need for Various Features That
Could Be Included in a Senior Facility
by percentage of respondents
Fitness and exercise area
Community room for classes, events, etc.
Games/activity room
Arts and crafts room
Computer room
Indoor swimming: therapy/wellness
Indoor swimming: lap
Indoor swimming: leisure
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Strongly Needed [ Needed oNot Needed oDon't Know
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (May 2010)
Q6. Features That Households Would
Use the Most at a Senior Facility
by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top two choices
Fitness and exercise area 27%
Community room for classes, events, etc. 19%
Indoor swimming: leisure 13%
Indoor swimming: therapy /wellness%
Games/activity room 8%
Indoor swimming: lap 7 %'
Computer room 5%
Arts and crafts room 4%
Other 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Use Most DUse 2nd Most
Source: Leismue Vision/ETC Instihrte (May2010)
Leisure Vision /ETC Institute 4
18% 9%
23% 9%
12%
14%
28%
10%
13%
35%
12%
14%
30%
16%
16%
31%
19%
14%
32%
28%
18%
3.
22%
42 %
18
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Strongly Needed [ Needed oNot Needed oDon't Know
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (May 2010)
Q6. Features That Households Would
Use the Most at a Senior Facility
by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top two choices
Fitness and exercise area 27%
Community room for classes, events, etc. 19%
Indoor swimming: leisure 13%
Indoor swimming: therapy /wellness%
Games/activity room 8%
Indoor swimming: lap 7 %'
Computer room 5%
Arts and crafts room 4%
Other 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Use Most DUse 2nd Most
Source: Leismue Vision/ETC Instihrte (May2010)
Leisure Vision /ETC Institute 4
Community Survey for the City of Southlake
Q7. Level of Need for Various Recreation Features
That Could Be Included in a Recreation Center
by percentage of respondents
Aerobics /group exercise spac
Gymnasiums for basketball, volleyball, et
Indoor running /walking trac
Cardiovascular equipment are
Weight machines arcs
Free weights are
Childcare area for children of parents usini
Multipurpose recreational programming spac
Racquetball /handball court.
Arts and crafts room.
Children's indoor playgroun
Indoor swimming: lal
Indoor swimming: therapy /wellness (warmerwatei
Indoor swimming: leisur
Cafe /juice be
Preschool program space (0 -5 years
Rock climbing wa
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Strongly Needed OSomewhat Needed ONot Needed ODon't Know
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (May 2010)
Q8. Recreation Features That Households
Would Use the Most at a Recreation Center
by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top five choices
Indoor running /walking track 47
Cardiovascular equipment area 45 %i
Weight machines area 39
Gymnasiums for basketball, volleyball, etc 36
Aerobics /group exercise space 34
Indoor swimming: leisure I 1 1 1 1 33 %
Free weights area 20
Children's indoor playground 19
Indoor swimming: lap 18%
Arts and crafts rooms 1$%
Racquetball /handball courts _ 1� %
Childcare area for children of parents using 15% 1 1 1
Multipurpose recreational programming space 13
Indoor swimming: therapy /wellness (warmer water) 13
Rock climbing wall 12
Cafe /juice bar 10
Preschool program space (0 -5 years) 6%
Other 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Use Most OUse 2nd Most OUse 3rd Most MUse 4th Most MUse 5th Most
Source: Leismue Vision/ETC Instihrte (May2010)
Leisure Vision /ETC Institute 5
13% °
27% 16% °
26% 16% °
32% 19%
31%
36%
1 19% 10%
38%
1 22% 7
42%
1 32%
22% 8%
29%
31
35%
31% 6%
28%
34
38%
33 % 7
34%
1 30% 11%
1 30% 1
41% 8%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Strongly Needed OSomewhat Needed ONot Needed ODon't Know
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (May 2010)
Q8. Recreation Features That Households
Would Use the Most at a Recreation Center
by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top five choices
Indoor running /walking track 47
Cardiovascular equipment area 45 %i
Weight machines area 39
Gymnasiums for basketball, volleyball, etc 36
Aerobics /group exercise space 34
Indoor swimming: leisure I 1 1 1 1 33 %
Free weights area 20
Children's indoor playground 19
Indoor swimming: lap 18%
Arts and crafts rooms 1$%
Racquetball /handball courts _ 1� %
Childcare area for children of parents using 15% 1 1 1
Multipurpose recreational programming space 13
Indoor swimming: therapy /wellness (warmer water) 13
Rock climbing wall 12
Cafe /juice bar 10
Preschool program space (0 -5 years) 6%
Other 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Use Most OUse 2nd Most OUse 3rd Most MUse 4th Most MUse 5th Most
Source: Leismue Vision/ETC Instihrte (May2010)
Leisure Vision /ETC Institute 5
Community Survey for the City of Southlake
Q9. Level of Need for Various Features That
Could Be Included in an Expanded Library
31%
by percentage of respondents
Reading lounge 39%
•�'
Children story time area
19%
Drive -up book return
Quiet study room
Public access to computers
36%
Preschool area
10%
Conference room (20 -30 persons) T
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
100%
Strongly Needed OSomewhat Needed MNot Needed ODon't Know
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (May 2010)
Q1O. Features That Households Would
Use the Most in an Expanded Library
by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top three choices
Drive -up book return 62%
Reading lounge 4 ?%
Quiet study room X39%
Children story time area 25 °/d
Public access to computers 17%
Conference room (20 -30 persons) 14 %,
Preschool area 14 %,
Other 5 %'
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Use Most MUse 2nd Most OUse 3rd Most
Source: Leismue Vision/ETC Instihrte (May2010)
Leisure Vision /ETC Institute 6
31%
•�'
19%
36%
14%
10%
34%
20 %
7
38%
16%
12%
28 %
14
Leisure Vision /ETC Institute 6
Community Survey for the City of Southlake
Q11. Facilities That Respondents Would Use if They
Included the Types of Features That Are
Most Important to Their Household
by percentage of respondents (multiple choices could be made)
Recreation center 81%
Expanded library 7^
Cultural arts facility 64
Senior facility 20%
None 6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (May 2010)
Q12. Facilities That Are Most Important
for the City of Southlake to Develop
by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top two choices
Recreation center 68%
Expanded library 52%
�
Cultural arts facility 42%
Senior facility 11
0% 20% 40% 60%
Most Important 02nd Most Important
Source: Leismue Vision/ETC Instihrte (May2010)
Leisure Vision /ETC Institute 7
Community Survey for the City of Southlake
Q13. Directions Respondents Would Most Prefer the
City Take in Planning Future Library Services
by percentage of respondents
Develop a new free standing
library in its own building
33%
Develop a new library space
incorporated into a multipurpose
community facilities complex
Keep the library at Town Hall
- tha library does not need to
,� be expanded
7%
the library at Town Hall
u� a satellite location and
develop a new library building
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (May 2010)
Q14. How Often Households Would Visit a New
Recreation Center if it Had the Features They Most Prefer
by percentage of respondents
Several times per week
48%
Never
8%
Once per week
20% Less than once a month
Monthly 7%
Few times per month 5 %
12%
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Instihrte (May2010)
Leisure Vision /ETC Institute 8
Community Survey for the City of Southlake
Q15. Maximum Amount Households Would Pay Per Month
for a Family Membership to Use a New Recreation Center
if it Had the Features They Most Prefers
by percentage of respondents
$55 - $64 per month
24%
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (May 2010)
$75 or more per month
11%
Q16. Maximum Amount Households Would Pay Per Month
for an Individual Membership to Use a New Recreation Center
if it Had the Features They Most Prefers
by percentage of respondents
$30 - $34 per month
14%
$25 - $29 per month
33%
40%
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Instihrte (May2010)
$35 or more per month
13%
$65 - $74 per month
12%
Leisure Vision /ETC Institute 9
Less than $55 a month
53%
Community Survey for the City of Southlake
Q17. How Respondents Feel the Costs for Operating
a New Recreation Center Should Be Funded
by percentage of respondents
Mostly from taxes
28%
5% 100% through
property taxes
Mostly from user fees Don't Know
51% 16%
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (May 2010)
Q18. Maximum Amount Households Would Pay Per Month
in Additional Property Taxes to Build and Operate a New
Multipurpose Community Facilities Complex if it
Had the Features Most Preferred
by percentage of respondents
$7 - $8 per month
8%
$5 - $6 per month
21% $9 - $10 per month
19%
$3 - $4 per month
12%
$1 - $2 per month Nothing
1 29%
1%
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Instihrte (May2010)
Leisure Vision /ETC Institute 10
Community Survey for the City of Southlake
Q19. Types of Activities That Households
Participate in When They Go to a Park
by percentage of respondents (multiple choices could be made)
Walking /hiking 62%
Take kids to play 54 %'
Ride bikes 47%
Picnic 46%
Running or jogging 43%
Organized sports 42%
Walking animals 41%
Non - organized sports 40%
Other 3%
None 9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (May 2010)
Q20. Level of Satisfaction with Various Aspects of Parks
and Other Recreational Facilities in the City of Southlake
by percentage of respondents (excluding "don't know" responses)
Maintenance of parks 9% 1
Safety of parks 14%1 6
Overall quality of parks 10% 7
Parks conveniently located for people in all areas 18% 8% '
Safety of athletic fields 23
Maintenance of athletic fields 18% 9% '
Quality of athletic fields ' , 20 % 8
Amount of passive parkland or open space 19% 1 13% '
Availability of athletic fields 22% "UZA/
Quality of recreational programs offered 32
Quality of special events offered -33% 17 '
Amount of athletic fields 25% 1 13% r'
Number of soccer fields 30% 9% "
Number of baseball fields 29% 1 8% '
Variety of special events offered 30% 1 11% '
Variety of recreational programs offered 30% 11% "
Number of softball fields 34% 8% il
Number of football fields 32% 1 10% •'
Safety of hike and bike trails 38% 9%
Maintenance of hike and bike trails 37% 1 12%
Number of lacrosse fields 42% 9%
Quality of hike and bike trails 32% 19
Availability of hike and bike trails R.Y 24% /
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Extremely Satisfied ®Satisfied oNeither Satisfied or Dissatisfied ®Dissatisfied MExtremely Dissatisfied
Source: Leismue Vision/ETC Instihrte (May2010)
Leisure Vision /ETC Institute 11
Community Survey for the City of Southlake
Q21. Number of Times Per Year Household Members Use
the City of Southlake Parks and Recreation Facilities
Listed in Question #20
by percentage of respondents
1 -9 times
23%
10 -19 times
16%
Haven't used
10%
20 -29 times
12%
100+ times
17%
30 -49 times
8 % 50 -99 times
14%
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (May 2010)
Q22. Types of Parks and Recreation Facilities
That the City of Southlake Needs
by percentage of respondents (multiple choices could be made)
Pathways 61%
i
Natural areas 56
Active park space 42%
Passive park space 40%
Athletic fields 34%
Other 14%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Source: Leisure Vision ETC Institirte (May 2010)
Leisure Vision /ETC Institute 12
Community Survey for the City of Southlake
Q23. Level of Satisfaction with the Quality of Existing
Parks and Recreation Facilities in the City of Southlake
by percentage of respondents
Satisfied
52%
Extremely Satisfied
13%
Don't Know
3%
Very Disatisfied
2%
Dissatisfied
21% 9%
Neither Satisfied
or Dissatisfied
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (May 2010)
Q24. Demographics: Ages of Respondents
by percentage of respondents
35 -44 years
38%
Under 35
6%
65+ years
6%
45 -54 years
33% 55 -64 years
17%
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Instihrte (May2010)
Leisure Vision /ETC Institute 13
Community Survey for the City of Southlake
Q25. Demographics: Gender
by percentage of respondents
Male
40%
Female
60%
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (May 2010)
Q26. Demographics: Number of Years Lived
in the City of Southlake
by percentage of respondents
Under 3 years
37%
3 to 5 years
28% 16 + years
6%
11 to 15 years
10%
6 to 10 years
19%
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Instihrte (May2010)
Leisure Vision /ETC Institute 14
Community Survey for the City of Southlake
Q27. Demographics: Total Annual Household Income
by percentage of respondents
$150,000 to $199,999
21%
$200,000 to $249,999
15%
$100,000 to $149,999
14%
$50,000 to $99,999
4%
Under $50,000
2%
Not provided
$250,000 or more 3 %
41%
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (May 2010)
Leisure Vision /ETC Institute 15
Attachment B
Public / Private Partnerships Matrix
12
Public /Private Partnerships in Texas
Facility
City
Private
Type of Faciltiy
New
Costs of
Construction Costs
Who
Operations
Land
Facility
Misc City Benefits
Misc Benefits for
Facility
City
Organization
Type of Faciltiy
Building?
Construction
Paid by City ($/ /°)
Operates?
Costs to City
Ownership
Ownership
Misc City Benefits
City Residents
10% of facility
YMCA of North
Recreational Facility
°
Structral
City expects $13 m in
free to access,
Austin
Austin
YMCA
(30,000 ft')
Yes
$10.4 mil
$8.9 mil (85.6%)
YMCA
Repairs*
City
YMCA
savings/20 yrs
does not require
Morgan Hill
Morgan
YMCA
Recreational Facility
Yes
$27.6 mil
$27.6 mil
Both
aquatics, teen
City
City
%. loss, city
60 /°.
YMCA
YMCA
Hill, CA
(100 %) *, **
center, and
° net
pays 60 0/o
Membership
Rabb Family
Round
YMCA
Swimming Pool
Yes
$6 mil
$2 mil (33 %)*
YMCA
n /a*
City
YMCA
Gets to reserve facility
n/a
Natatorium
Rock
(14,000 ft)
facility.
for 10 days every year.
Boise City
Boise, ID
El Paso
2,000 Seat theater;
Yes
$13.6 mil
$5 mil (37 %)*
YMCA
n /a*
City
City
City estimates that it
n/a
Plaza Theater
El Paso
Community
small theatre;
No
$44 mil
$17.6 mil (40 %)
EPCF
n/a
City
City
n/a
n/a
Smith Center
Las
Foundation
community center
Laredo Art
as,
Laredo Arts
Multipurpose Facility
Yes
$470 mil
°
$170 mil (36 /o)
Laredo Arts
Pays facility
City
City, then
Paid $9,000 a month by
n/a
Cetner
Laredo
Center
for Visual and
No
$.05 mil
n/a
Center
water bill
City
City
LAC for rent
n/a
Arts
Foundation
Performing Arts
The Arts of
Cities
Cities
City in revenue - sharing
Collin County:
Frisco,
ACC; Hunt
Large Performance
$57 mil (86.6 %)
$1.6 mil /yr
(Frisco,
(Frisco,
agreement, receives
n/a
Performance
Allen, and
Construction
Hall; Small theatre;
Yes
$66.1 mil
( +3 mil from Collin
ACC
(annual budget
Allen, and
Allen, and
n/a
n/a
Hall and Arts
Plano
iSports Centers
art park
lYes
$22 mil
County grant)
IASC
deficit)
Plano)
Plano)
Park
Public /Private Partnerships Out-of-State
Private
New
Costs of
Construction Costs
Who
Operations
Land
Facility
Misc Benefits
Facility
City
Organization
9
Type of Faciltiy
Building?
9
Construction
Paid b City $/%
Y Y( )
Operates?
p
Costs to City
Y
Ownership
p
Ownership
p
Misc City Benefits
Specifically for
City Residents
Varies; city
operates
If gain, city takes
Discount on
Morgan Hill
Morgan
YMCA
Recreational Facility
Yes
$27.6 mil
$27.6 mil
Both
aquatics, teen
City
City
%. loss, city
60 /°.
membership fees,
YMCA
Hill, CA
(100 %) *, **
center, and
° net
pays 60 0/o
ranges from $4 -6
back end of
a month.
facility.
Boise City
Boise, ID
YMCA
Aquatic Center
Yes
$13.6 mil
$5 mil (37 %)*
YMCA
n /a*
City
City
City estimates that it
n/a
Aquatic Center
saves $200,000 /yr
Smith Center
Las
Las Vegas
for the
as,
Performing
Performing Arts
Yes
$470 mil
°
$170 mil (36 /o)
LVPACF
n/a
City
City, then
n/a
n/a
Performing
NV
Arts Center
Center
Center
Arts
Foundation
City in revenue - sharing
American
City
City
agreement, receives
n/a
Sports Center
S
Avondale,
American
$300,000 anually
of Avondale
IAZ
iSports Centers
1 Recreational Facility
lYes
$22 mil
$22 mil (100 %)
IASC
lNone
Public /Private Partnerships Out-of-State
Facility
City
Private
Organization
9
Type of Faciltiy
New
Building?
9
Costs of
Construction
Construction Costs
Paid b City $/%
Y Y( )
Who
Operates?
p
Operations
Costs to City
Y
Land
Ownership
p
Facility
Ownership
p
Misc City Benefits
Misc Benefits
Specifically for
City Residents
Leasing rights to
City guaranteed
City of Victoria
Victoria,
High- capacity
operate to RG on 30
2,000 hours of
Multipurpose
C
RG Properties
multipurpose
Yes
$30 mil
$30 mil (100%) o
)
RG
n/a
City
City
year term; will make
Community Hours
Facility
(Canada)
(
Sportsfacility
Properties
$2.75 mil annually for
(chosen and
(7500 +)
first 10 years, 1 mil a
manages by the
year follwing that
city).
Orleans Town
City paid $9 mil for land
Shenkman
Ottowa,
Center
Visual and
$27.8 mil in 30
by OTCP; city does not
Arts Center
ON
Partnership
Performing Arts
Yes
$36.8 mil
year loan to OTCP
OTCP
n/a
OTCP
OTCP
get to charge taxes or
n/a
(Canada)
(OTCP)
Center
(75.5 %)
fees from center or land
it sits on.
*From the YMCA: Every public /private partnership is different * *Morgan Hill entered the partnership with the
and independentally created between the city and the YMCA YMCA near the end of the construction of the
chapter. Various cities come to different agreemens based on building.
the desired facility and private fundraising in their area, and
thus contribute different amounts to the construction costs.