AGENDA #13b

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mayor and Town Council

FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

SUBJECT: Proposed Revisions to the Program for the Homestead Park Aquatics Center

DATE: June 27, 2005

The attached Resolution A would authorize the Manager to revise the program for the Homestead Park Aquatic Center and proceed with a design based on a building of approximately 25,684 square feet.

The attached Resolution B would indicate the Council’s intent to not seek Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design(LEED) certification for the Aquatics Center. The resolution would also authorize the Manager to hire an energy and sustainability expert to assist with the project.

BACKGROUND

In 1996, Town voters approved a $5,000,000 bond referendum which, among other things, was to fund an aquatics center at Homestead Park. Approximately $1,167,000 from that bond authorization has been appropriated for the aquatics center project.

In November 1997, Orange County voters authorized general obligation bonds for Parks. The Board of Orange County Commissioners pledged $1,000,000 from the Parks bond for Homestead Park. Of that amount, $855,000 remains that could be used for the aquatics facility.

The Council established a Homestead Park Aquatic/Community Center Conceptual Plan Committee. The Council considered the Committee’s report and held a public forum on January 29, 2001.

On March 5, 2001, the Council adopted a conceptual plan for the facility. On September 2, 2003, the Board of Orange County Commissioners approved the concept plan.

In November 2001, Orange County voters authorized general obligation bonds for Parks. The Board of Orange County Commissioners pledged $3,500,000 from the Parks bond for the Aquatics Center.

In 2003,the Council and the Board of Orange County Commissioners agreed to a process for developing projects using Orange County bond funds. The process includes use of a Project Planning Committee comprised of two members each of the Council and of the Board of County Commissioners to address both the Southern Community Park and the Homestead Park projects. The Project Planning Committee has been meeting since March 2003.

In February 2004, the Council granted expedited processing for the project. On June 21, 2004 the Council reviewed the Concept Plan. A Special Use Permit modification application was submitted in October 2004.

On April 19, 2005 the Project Planning Committee met and made recommendations related to the building program. On April 15 the Council’s Sustainability, Energy, And Environment committee met and recommended that this project not seek LEED certification.

On May 9, 2005 the Council enacted a new energy ordinance that requires the Town attempt to receive a Silver LEED certification on every new building project.

DISCUSSION

Current Project Description: The current Special Use Permit application is for a building that would consist of about 29,000 square feet of space. Please see Attachment A.

The building program includes a pool that is 25 yards by 25 meters and a family/warm water pool 25 yards by 10 yards with zero depth entry. The larger pool could accommodate competitions and team practice, lap swimming, adult lessons and general swimming. The smaller pool could accommodate three lap lanes, a teaching area suitable for children and individuals with disabilities, and general swim activities for those wanting or needing a higher temperature than would be available in the larger pool.

The program also includes enough deck area to accommodate bleachers; separate locker rooms for men, women, families and disabled swimmers with attendants; reception, office and classroom space; and public toilets.

An important feature of the program and conceptual design is that expansion to the north is possible to provide programming space for other future parks and recreation activities.

PROGRAM AND BUDGETARY ISSUES

The design and permitting process was halted in December of 2004 in order to allow the Project Planning Committee, the Council Committee on Sustainability, Energy, and Environment, and staff to address three issues that had the potential to significantly impact the project. These include construction cost increases, LEED Certification, and possible use of Public Buildings Bonds to supplement the project budget and add certain energy saving enhancements to the project.

Budget Issues: The current budget for this project is $5,513,000. We believe that we would need at least $5,725,000 to build the Homestead Park Aquatics Center as currently proposed. This would result in a current deficit of at least $213,000.

For the past 12-18 months construction costs, particularly for materials such as steel and concrete, have risen significantly. Current inflation in the construction industry is running about 4-6% per year.

LEED Certification: The Town’s design contract is based on the assumption that the Aquatics Center should contain sustainable building features that would reduce energy consumption by 30% as measured against state standard buildings in the same category. This was the requirement of the Town energy ordinance at the time the project was initiated.

The Council now requires that all Town building projects seek a Silver LEED certification. The LEED program is a voluntary “green building” process that should result in buildings that have a higher level of sustainability and lower energy costs than a standard building.

A Silver LEED certificate requires the owner of a new structure to earn at least 33 points in the LEED point system. We have been told that to better assure that this goal is met we should try to earn at least 37 points. This is recommended because it is common for the national certification board to deny some points that the designer and owner believe are earned. With no additional construction expenses we believe the current building program would qualify for about 22 points. This would satisfy the requirements of the previous energy ordinance, but would not earn a LEED certificate as required under the current ordinance.

We explored the costs of seeking a Silver LEED certification for this project and have determined that this approach would add at least $269,000 in additional design and construction costs.

Resolution B would indicate the Council’s intent to not seek LEED certification for the Aquatics Center. The resolution would also authorize the Manager to hire an energy and sustainability expert familiar with LEED issues. The purpose would be to have someone on the design team who may be able to increase the sustainability of the structure without going through the LEED process. We believe that, at most, the cost of hiring such an energy and sustainability expert would be around $20,000.

Possible Use of the Public Buildings Bond: We explored whether or not the 2003 Public Buildings Bond, totaling $500,000, might be a potential source of funds for this project. The bond order states that the funds are to be used “to acquire, construct, equip and install energy efficient facilities in certain existing public buildings, including without limitation the acquisition of lighting, heating, ventilating, air conditioning and related fixtures, machinery and equipment, and to pay the capital costs of such improvements.” We believe that we could not use these funds for the new aquatic center because the bond order language requires that projects be limited to existing buildings.

Other Potential Sustainability Projects: If the Council decides to pursue a two-tank option for the project with the current budget we believe that the following energy saving features could be included in the base budget:

High efficiency motors would be used throughout such a facility.
Light sensors would be used to turn off lights in rooms not being used by the public or staff.
Additional insulation would be installed in the roof and walls.
A reflective roof surface is planned to enhance the ability of the building to divert excess heat.
The design would include an air lock front entry door system.
Thermally efficient glazing systems would be used on windows and doors.
Solar powered parking lot lighting fixtures would be used where required.
The budget could accommodate building and mechanical system preparation for Computer based Energy Management System if desired by the Council.
The budget could accommodate plumbing and piping preparation for a rainwater capture system if desired by the Council.

Features previously discussed but not included in the base budget due to lack of funds are listed below. Some or all of these amenities might be possible if the size of the overall building program is significantly reduced to generate savings that might be used to provide energy sustainability features.

Solar Heater for Pool Water: This system would use solar power to heat up to 40% of the water used by the pools. It would be supplemented by a conventional gas water heater. The system would likely cost around $200,000.
Computer Based Energy Management System: Such a system would enable the Town to better manage mechanical and lighting systems using a PC based technology. The system would likely cost around $110,000.
Geothermal HVAC: Both water-based and ground-based systems are possible. These systems allow ambient ground temperatures to either cool or heat the facility depending on the time of year. We have preliminary costs of around $94,000 for a water based system.
Rainwater Capture System: Rainwater would be captured and used to flush toilets and water landscaping. By using this system we estimate that we might be able to reduce the cost of using OWASA water by at least $3,500 per year. The cost of installation is anticipated to be around $50,000 for a 20,000 gallon system.

Options for Revision to the Project Program: We believe that the building proposed in the Town’s original Special Use Permit modification application cannot be built with the current budget, with or without LEED certification. However, we believe that there are a number of ways to build the Aquatics Center within budget including the following four options:

Revise the Building Size and Location
Delete the warm-water tank from the Homestead Park aquatics center

Delete warm-water, zero-entry pool from new center; provide warm-water, zero-entry or shallow-entry pool at the Community Center
Delete the lap tank from the aquatics center

Option 1 – Revise the Building Size and Location: This is the option that was recommended by the Project Planning Committee; the committee for Sustainability, Energy, and Environment; and the Manager. Please see Attachments B and C.

The proposed 25,684 square feet building would be about 2,500 square feet smaller in size that the one proposed in the Special Use Permit application. However, the building would contain the major program elements approved in the project’s Concept Plan including the competitive pool, a family/warm water pool with zero depth entry, separate family and adult locker rooms, reception area, office, classroom space; and public toilets.

We believe that the proposed smaller facility could be constructed within budget if construction cost inflation does not increase significantly and if construction begins sometime in 2006.

Although this approach would not allow for LEED certification, it would allow the Town to use the LEED checklist and hire a LEED certified expert to make sure that we take advantage of opportunities for sustainability and energy saving.

Major changes to the proposed program would include:

Building Location – The building would be shifted to the north, closer to the property line. This could allow an easy future expansion to the south.
Reduction if Overall Size – The size of the building would be reduced by 2,500 square feet. Most of this reduction would be from loss of storage and maintenance areas.
Building Orientation: The building orientation would be shifted from a north/south axis orientation to an east/west axis to allow for daylighting.
Equipment/Mechanical Systems: The equipment that was originally proposed to be placed under the building would now be placed adjacent to the structure at-grade level.

Potential Advantages:

There would be significant cost savings that would likely allow the Council to build the original program within budget.
Although this approach would not result in LEED certification, it would allow us to use the LEED checklist and hire a LEED certified expert to make sure that we take advantage of opportunities for sustainability and energy saving.

Potential Disadvantages:

There would be 2,500 square feet less room for storage and maintenance areas.
We would not have sufficient funds to pay for large energy efficiency projects such as computer based energy management systems, geothermal HVAC systems, solar water heaters, and rainwater capture systems.

Option 2 – Delete the warm-water tank from the Homestead Park aquatics center: The elimination of the warm-water/zero-entry tank would likely result in savings that would allow us to build the remaining lap tank and provide a number of energy sustainability features.

Potential Advantages:

There would be significant cost savings that would allow the Council to more easily fund additional sustainability features such as computer based energy management systems, geothermal HVAC systems, solar water heaters, and rainwater capture systems.
If the Council chose to eliminate the warm-water tank we could still raise the temperature of the Community Center pool somewhat to address some of the needs expressed by citizens during the public input process.

Potential Disadvantages:

The Town would still not have a zero-entry or shallow-entry pool suitable for use by small children. The shallowest ends of both the Estes Drive and Homestead pools would still be too deep for young children.
The needs of the disabled would not be addressed by this option. Many disabled citizens require a zero-entry pool.

Option 3 – Delete warm-water, zero-entry pool from new center; provide warm-water, zero-entry or shallow-entry pool at the Community Center: With this option we would eliminate the warm-water, zero-entry tank from the new aquatics center. We would make physical changes to the Estes Drive Community Center pool to provide either a zero-entry or shallow-entry feature. We could also adjust new heating and ventilation equipment for the required warmer water temperatures. This work could be accomplished during the renovation of the Community Center.

Potential Advantages:

The community would have both a new full size lap pool and a warm-water pool suitable for use by children, persons with mobility problems, and older swimmers. Currently all Town pools are too deep in the shallow ends for younger children. Water temperature at the Community Center is too cold for children, older adults, and persons who cannot exercise enough to generate sufficient body heat to maintain warmth.
The tank at the Community Center already exists and could likely be modified at a lower cost than constructing a new tank.
The Homestead Aquatics Center building could be reduced in size with a corresponding reduction in the cost of the building.
We believe that this option would result in greater overall use of both buildings with fewer conflicts between user groups.
There would be a total reduction in pool heating systems from 3 to 2.
The environmental systems for the Homestead Park Aquatics Center could be reduced in scope to handle the smaller size and cooler water temperatures of a single lap pool.
The savings might allow some funds to be diverted to additional sustainability features such as computer based energy management systems, geothermal HVAC systems, solar water heaters, and rainwater capture systems.

Potential Disadvantages:

The costs are unknown, especially the cost of modifying the existing tank at the Community Center and associated design costs.
Funds needed to convert the existing tank would have to be shifted from the Homestead Park Aquatics Center to the Community Center pool.

Option 4 – Delete the lap tank from the aquatics center: The elimination of the lap tank would result in savings that we believe would allow us to build the remaining warm-water/zero-entry pool and provide a number of energy sustainability features.

Potential Advantages:

There would be significant cost savings that would allow the Council to more easily fund additional sustainability features such as computer based energy management systems, geothermal HVAC systems, solar water heaters, and rainwater capture systems.
This option would provide the community with a warm-water/zero-entry pool, a type of facility that does not currently exist in Chapel Hill, except for private outdoor pools.
This option would allow us to better serve young children, persons with disabilities, and older adults.

Potential Disadvantages:

The Town would have only three new lap lanes, all of which would be in the warm-water pool. These lanes would be suitable only for slow swimmers. More athletic swimmers would likely not swim laps in this pool because of the higher water temperatures.

SUMMARY

The current budget of $5,513,000 is insufficient to build the Homestead Park Aquatics Center as currently proposed. We recommend that the program be modified to construct a 25,684 square feet building (about 2,500 square feet smaller in size that the one proposed in the Special Use Permit application) with a competitive pool, a family/warm water pool with zero depth entry, separate family and adult locker rooms, reception area, office, classroom space; and public toilets.

The Council now requires that all Town building projects seek a Silver LEED certification. However, we believe that the project is too far along in the design process to qualify for LEED certification. The Town’s design contract is based on the assumption that sustainable building features would reduce energy consumption by 30% as measured against state standard buildings in the same category. This was the requirement of the Town energy ordinance at the time the project was initiated. We also determined that the 2003 Public Buildings Bond could not be used for the new aquatic center because the bond order language requires that projects be limited to existing buildings.

We would take every opportunity that is possible within the limits of the projects budget, to maximize the energy and water sustainability of the building. We would include the improvements already identified in this report in the design and use the services of a LEED expert to identify opportunities that our design team may have overlooked. Once a building design has progressed we intend to report back to the Council with a complete energy and water sustainability program that could be accomplished within budget.

NEXT STEPS

Once the Council has provided direction on the program and energy issues we will resume the design and Special Use Permit process. We would expect to use the following schedule:

Approval of Special Use Permit November 2005

Completion of detailed construction documents February 2006

Issuance of Zoning Compliance Permit May 2006

Complete Bid process July 2006

Selection of Contractor and execution of contract September 2006

Start Construction October 2006

Open Facility January 2008

RECOMMENDATIONS

Parks and Recreation Commission’s Recommendation: The Commission met on February 16, 2005 and voted unanimously (9-0) to support the spirit of the LEED. The Commission expressed concern about the budgetary effects LEED would have on the Homestead Aquatic Facility project. The Commission recommended that the project should proceed as originally designed or assign additional funding to cover all costs associated with meeting new, higher sustainability guidelines. Please see the attached recommendation.

Project Planning Committee’s Recommendation: The Committee met on June 21 and recommended that the Town construct a building that would be approximately 25,684 square feet with a competitive pool, a family/warm water pool with zero depth entry, separate family and adult locker rooms, reception area, office, classroom space; and public toilets. Please see the attached recommendation.

Sustainability, Energy and Environment Committee’s Recommendation: The consensus of the Committee was that the Town not seek LEED certification for the Aquatic Center due to cost and schedule conflicts. The Committee also recommended that the design team include an energy and sustainability expert to assist with the project.

Manager’s Recommendation: That the Council adopt Resolution A, which would authorize the Manager to revise the program for the Homestead Park Aquatic Center and proceed with a design based on the changes discussed in Option 1 of this memorandum.

The Manager also recommends that the Council adopt Resolution B, which would indicate the Council’s intent to not seek LEED certification for the Aquatics Center. The resolution would also authorize the Manager to hire an energy and sustainability expert to assist with the project.

ATTACHMENTS

Schematic drawing of the current building design (p. 12).
Schematic drawing of recommended building design (p. 13).
Preliminary Elevation of the recommended building design (p. 14).
Parks & Recreation Commission recommendations (p. 15).
Project Planning Committee recommendations (p. 16).

RESOLUTION A

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO RESUME PERMITTING AND DESIGN FOR THE HOMESTEAD COMMUNITY PARK AQUATIC CENTER WITH REVISIONS (2005-06-27/R-26a)

WHEREAS, a Special Use Permit modification application has been submitted for review by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, for the Homestead Community Park Aquatic Center; and

WHEREAS, preliminary cost estimates indicate that the project as currently designed cannot be built within budget; and

WHEREAS, the design team has proposed a design that would accomplish the major goals of the Council with a building that is approximately 26,000 square feet in size;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to revise the program for the Homestead Park Aquatic Center and proceed with a design based on a building that would be approximately 26,000 square feet.

This the 27^th day of June, 2005.

RESOLUTION B

A RESOLUTION INDICATING THE COUNCIL’S INTENT TO NOT SEEK LEED CERTIFICATION FOR THE HOMESTEAD PARK AQUATICS CENTER AND AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO HIRE AN ENERGY AND SUSTAINABILITY EXPERT TO ASSIST WITH THE PROJECT (2005-06-27/R-26b)

WHEREAS, a Special Use Permit modification application has been submitted for review by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, for the Homestead Community Park Aquatic Center; and

WHEREAS, the Council has indicated its interest in pursuing LEED certification for Green Buildings whenever possible; and

WHEREAS, the design for the Homestead Park Aquatics Center has progressed too far to qualify for LEED certification without substantial budget and schedule implications;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council indicates its intent to not pursue LEED certification in the case of the Homestead Park Aquatics Center.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the Manager to hire an energy and sustainability expert for the design team who would be familiar with LEED issues and who may be able to increase the sustainability of the structure without going through the LEED process.

This the 27^th day of June, 2005.