Feasibility Study

Composed 7 May 2011

Site Size and Future Development

Aquatic Center Votes
Monday's Cost
Operating Cost
Case Studies
Site Development
Project Costs
Opportunity Cost
Disclaimer
My Conclusion

References
Master Plan
Monday's Agenda
Agenda Page
Web Broadcast
TIF Summary
TIF Map

The feasibility analysis that was done concludes that we should expect a peak hour usage demand of about 1300 people. In the case studies they show that their estimates were less than the actual demand. Then they recommend we build a complex capable of handling 900 people. Who has looked at the alternatives? How much extra does it cost to build the larger facility from the start? How much extra afterward? Is the site even large enough for a larger site?

Developer analysis
The Master Plan Section III does an analysis and determines the optimum facility for Huber Heights would be built so that it can accommodate 1322 people during peak hours. On the last page of this section it notes that if there are cost constraints a smaller facility could be constructed. Their conclusion states it would be acceptable for us to build a facility capable of accommodating 900 people. They did note that some of the 422 people expected during peak hours could use the pool at the Y. Not mentioned was the splash pool at Thomas Cloud which also would reduce some of the demand. However, the recommendation for a 900 person facility seems to be due more to cost constraints than need analysis.

If the 900 recommendation is due to cost constraints then the council should ask for a comparison of the acquisition cost for the a properly sized facility versus this proposal. The council should make sure the facility we are going to build will allow for future expansion and that expansion should also have a cost break-out. The Developmental Budget presented during the May 4th Administration Committee meeting does show 2 phases of development with the initial phase costing about $6 million and the second phase bringing the total up to about $8.8 million. Even though there are about $383,000 of improvements to the aquatic center I do not believe these improvements are meant to raise the capacity from 900 to 1340.

I suspect the reason for the 900 person facility is because there are people that absolutely required the cost look to be below the amount the city expects to get from TIF revenues. However, I believe the council should at least look at the numbers for the larger facility. With the smaller facility the average number of people could not be greater than 900 (the comment in the master plan that 1/2 the patrons will not be in the water is something I'm sure is always considered and was also a factor in the 1322 figure). This would limit the revenue to $347,000. In the Master Plan the larger facility is expected to draw 87,000 patrons. With the expected revenue of $4.83 a visit the revenues of the larger facility would be $420403. $73,403 more per year. It is hard to tell if building the larger facility now would be cost effective without knowing what it would cost now compared to what it would cost once the project was underway.

Let me state again I am not currently a member of council. I am not privilege enough to know what has been discussed in executive session. There is also the possibility the information is available publicly. I welcome you or present council members to point to the public record if there is one available and I will incorporate that knowledge in my assessment and decision making process. All things considered the size of the aquatic center is the least worrisome financial concern. Finding the money for the other development proposed for the site will be more of a challenge.