Item No.

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WINDSOR

Office of the City Treasurer – Finance
MISSION STATEMENT:
“The City of Windsor, with the involvement of its citizens, will deliver effective and responsive municipal services,
and will mobilize innovative community partnerships”

LiveLink Report Number: 15334 Report Date: May 31, 2011

Author’s Name: Andrew Daher Date to Council: June 13, 2011
Author’s Phone: 519 255 6100 ext 6613 Classification #:
Author’s E-mail: adaher@city.windsor.on.ca

To: Mayor and Members of City Council

Subject: New Downtown Aquatic Family Centre & Library Complex

1. RECOMMENDATION: City Wide: X Ward(s): 3

1. THAT the report of the CFO/City Treasurer BE RECEIVED; AND

2. THAT City Council DIRECT Administration to proceed with the steps (outlined in the
recommended process contained within this report) required to construct a Downtown
Aquatic Family Centre and Library Complex: AND

3. THAT Council DIRECT Administration to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) to

engage a Technical Support & Design Consultant(s) to facilitate design, facility planning,
cost estimating, contracted administration services, development of design/build contract
documents, design/build proponent selection and to act as owner’s representative as
compliance architect and provide contract progress payment certification; AND

4. THAT Administration REPORT to City Council the results of the Technical Support &
Design RFP and recommend to council APPROVAL of the successful proponent(s) and
associated costs; AND

5. THAT Administration BE AUTHORIZED to develop an RFP for a Design Build

Constructor with assistance from the Technical Support and Design consultant following
selection as noted above; AND

6. THAT the final conceptual design be reported to City Council for APPROVAL
following which THAT Administration BE AUTHORIZED to issue a fixed price RFP
for design build proposals, with the ability to directly tender various specified
components, for the new Downtown Aquatic Family Centre & Library Complex; AND

1 of 136
 7. THAT Administration BE DIRECTED to bring to Council a report recommending the
chosen proposal, along with final and complete capital and operating budgets once the
successful design build proponent has been selected and the cost proposals have been
analyzed; AND

8. THAT City Council APPROVE the preliminary proposed Downtown Aquatic & Family
Centre & Library Complex project governance structure and timeline and that City
Council APPROVE the member structure of the Steering Committee Composition based
on five City Councillors plus Mayor as ex-officio (as per current practice for standing
committees); AND

9. THAT City Council DIRECT Administration to report back to Council with a detailed
recommended Project Charter (similar in structure to the WFCU Centre Project Charter)
for the Aquatic Centre construction; AND

10. THAT the city’s traffic department BE DIRECTED to identify alternative parking
options for existing users of city parking on the Western Super Anchor site including,
Windsor Police; AND

11. THAT City Council DIRECT Administration to provide recommendations regarding

user fees proposed for the new facility for new users, understanding that the Mayor and
members of City Council are desirous of ensuring the same user fees as are currently in
place for the members of the community; AND

12. THAT City Council DIRECT and AUTHORIZE Administration to explore any
potential partnerships related to the operations of the facility that have the potential to
improve services or decrease the operating costs; AND

13. THAT City Council PROVIDE DIRECTION on the closure/repurposing of the

facilities identified herein; AND

14. THAT City Council RECOMMEND to the Windsor Public Library Board the relocation
of the Central Library branch to the new proposed facility with the closure of the existing
Central Library branch.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Council at the start of the current term developed six key strategic priorities for this term of
Council. The proposed facility is consistent with all the strategies:

• Jobs and Economic Diversification – Significant employment will be created from the
construction of the facility as well as the ongoing operation. It will provide economic
diversification by giving the City a state of the art facility which can give the City a
competitive advantage in the growing sector of sports tourism.
• Regional Cooperation – The facility will open up partnership possibilities with local
institutions and organizations.
• Cultural Capital – The proposed state of the art library facility will add to the City’s
cultural amenities which are a key part of a liveable community and also help attract and
retain businesses.

2 of 136
 • Corporate Opportunities – Integration of facilities, including Library Administration,
will provide opportunities for synergies.
• Downtown Revitalization – The facility would complement the growing list of measures
undertaken by Council to bring people to the downtown which will positively impact the
area’s business establishments.
• Affordable/Attractive City – The proposed facility will help complete the downtown
area and, depending on the options chosen by Council, may maintain or reduce the annual
operating levy requirements.

The preparation of complete and reliable capital and operating budgets for the proposed facility
require Council’s direction on a number of decision points including:
• The size of the facility, especially as it relates to the family recreation and Library
components.
• The type of amenities within the new complex which will, in part, be influenced by
Council’s decision on the consolidation/repurposing of existing facilities.
• The operating model (City run vs. Partnership vs. Fee for Service)
• The fee structure and level of subsidization

Preliminary estimates, pending the noted Council decisions, indicate the following potential
Capital costs:
• Competition Pool Component – Preliminary estimates of $28 - $32 million
• Family Aquatics Recreation – Preliminary per square foot cost in the range of $350 -
$450 per square foot
• Library Component – Preliminary per square foot cost in the range of $230 - $280 per
square foot
• Related General Costs (Short Term Financing, Technical Support, Contingency, etc) –
Preliminary estimates of $9 - $16 million

Preliminary estimates, pending the noted Council decisions, indicate the following potential
Operating costs:
• Gross Expenditures of $2.8 million and net operating costs in the range of $900,000 to
$1,800,000.
The noted operating costs could be partially or totally offset by savings from a number of options
provided to Council relating to the potential closure/repurposing of existing related facilities.
Capital costs related to impacted facilities vary depending upon options chosen.

A governance hierarchy similar to the successful WFCU Centre project which was completed on
time and below budget is recommended. A modified design build process is recommended in
order to meet the very tight timelines that are required (as well as to reduce the City’s risk) in
order to have the facility available for the 2013 International Children’s Games. The traditional
design build process would be modified through the issuance of an RFP that provides specific
allowable parameters for key design specifications (as developed by a recommended Technical
Support & Design Consultant). Additionally, the RFP will be structured as to provide the ability
to directly tender certain specific components by the City of Windsor in order to avoid mark-ups
and reduce overall project costs.

It is understood that City Council, in keeping with its stated goal of downtown revitalization, has
targeted various renewal initiatives within the downtown area. As a result, in order to achieve
this goal, the recommended location for the facility is on City owned land behind the art gallery,
commonly referred to as the Western Super Anchor lands. This site has the available space
3 of 136
required to accommodate the proposed facility and there is significant nearby parking available
to service the facility.

As with any project of this magnitude, there are a number of risks that need to be considered.
These risks, along with mitigating measures, have been identified in Appendix I. This report
focuses largely on the financial aspects of this initiative. A memo (Attached as Appendix B)
prepared by the Community Development & Health Services Commissioner and Executive
Director, Recreation & Culture as well a memo from the CEO of Windsor Public Library
(Appendix C) provides their input on the repurposing options.

2. BACKGROUND:
Community Needs
In order to achieve the objectives of the community in terms of providing recreation facilities and
opportunities to be active, it is important that an inventory of facilities that caters to all age
groups and skill levels be available. Windsor citizens and visitors have the opportunity to
participate or compete in high quality facilities for baseball, soccer, track and field, hockey and
other ice sports, basketball and other court sports, trails, and a variety of field sports.
Comparatively, a significant gap in quality aquatic facilities has been documented over several
years. In particular this gap was noted in the City’s 1989 Recreation and Culture Master Plan
that noted:

“Swimming was cited as the number one summer time leisure activity by 37% of those
responding to the household survey. Interest in and demand for water-based activities is
expected to remain high or increase as the aging population seeks fitness and leisure
opportunities which are less stressful than activities such as jogging or aerobics.”

The study further states:

“Major aquatic groups noted that the lack of a 50 metre indoor facility, with adequate spectator
seating and appropriate support equipment for competitive needs, severely limits training
opportunities. In addition, present facilities do not meet competitive standards for four major
aquatic sports – water polo, diving, synchronized swimming and speed swimming.”

The 1989 Recreation and Culture Master Plan identifies “... the major shortfall in aquatic
facilities is a city-wide/regional scale aquatic centre that would serve the needs of competitive
swim groups as well as the general community for family and leisure swimming.”

These statements and recommendations were reinforced in the “Windsor Aquatic Centre
Feasibility Study” prepared for the City in 1996:

“In summary, the Department cannot provide aquatic services for provincial or regional levels
due to lack of facilities and the design of existing pools. To accommodate competitive interests
and host national events, a 50 metre pool is required. This would be a significant undertaking for
the municipality, but would enhance their ability to meet competitive needs and generally better
serve the community’s aquatic interests.”

The aquatic community has advocated for a 50 metre pool for decades and these documents
highlight the recognition and desire for additional facilities. Currently, the closest 50 metre pool
in Ontario is in London with the closest in physical proximity located across the border in
Michigan. Local athletes in swimming and diving are at a competitive disadvantage due to the
4 of 136
lack of proper training facilities and the community in general is deprived of improved access to
a popular and healthy year-round activity.

As noted, the City of Windsor commissioned the Windsor Aquatic Centre Feasibility Study in
1996. While the study is dated, most of the findings are still applicable. The report identified the
main users of the aquatic facilities to be Parks & Recreation Program users and Organized
Aquatic Club users. This study found that the aquatic facilities in the City did not provide
sufficient capacity for either of these user groups. It was noted that the Parks and Recreation
users were required to rent space from other facilities in order to match the demand for their
programs. It was also noted in the study that the organized club users could use an additional 23
hours per week for their existing programs and 32 hours per week on new weekly programs.

The construction of a new facility will allow for the organized aquatic club programs to operate
from the 50 metre pool facility, thereby creating the necessary space for the Parks and Recreation
Program users.

Furthermore, there are several groups that could also benefit from the facility. The YMCA has
expressed some interest in partnering as well as both the University and College, neither of
which currently has a competitive swimming program. The Greater Essex County District
School Board has closed several of its pools and has indicated a strong interest in the use of this
facility. The Windsor Essex Catholic District School Board has expressed interest as well and
does not currently operate any pools within its schools.

Perhaps the most urgent need for the Centre is for the 2013 International Children’s Games.
These games have been awarded to the City of Windsor and will take place in the summer of
2013. The goal is to have the Centre constructed by this time. However, should the facility not be
built, the swimming portion of the games will have to take place outside of the region,
potentially in Michigan. This will mean a loss of revenue from local spectators and more
importantly, visitors to the region.

The need for improved library resources is also great. Life-long learning, for self-improvement
and employability, is the cornerstone of a knowledge-based society and economy. Windsor’s
government, human service organizations and citizens are working together to reduce the city’s
unemployment level. The community must work at improving literacy levels to reduce poverty
and unemployment and improve the labour market outcomes for new graduates and second
career candidates. Some of these tools to succeed will be in the new library.

The library will provide innovative tools and resources that aren’t currently available and are
necessary in the 21st century. Traditional services, combined with social media and new
technologies, will provide both a global perspective and local conversations to accelerate the
City’s economic rebirth.

Community Benefits
The addition of the Centre to the City offers significant benefits, both to the community in
general as well as economically.
From a community perspective, the Centre would:
• Promote and enable active healthy living for all ages
• Provide a focal point for community activity
• Support community based aquatics clubs and groups
• Build civic pride and community through sport and celebration
5 of 136
 • Celebrate and showcase local athletes and clubs in competition
• Foster the development of elite athletes who then go on to represent the City and region
• Foster opportunities for families to enjoy recreation together

These community benefits address many aspects of the purpose of the Project and will be a real
asset to the City. For example, the development of high performance athletes has a trickle-down
effect on grass roots participation and development. Just as success at the national and
international levels by local hockey players leads to an influx in registrations at the recreational
and minor league levels, success by young athletes in aquatics on the national and international
stage leads to an increase in interest in participation in swimming lessons and skill development.
This has a positive impact in the health and well being of children while learning healthy, active
and safe lifestyle behaviours that will serve them their entire lives.

Trends in aquatic programs have changed over the years as user demographics and demands
have changed. Water safety awareness has increased. In an education effort similar to seat belts
and bike helmets, learning to swim is a safety issue, especially in an area like Windsor with
abundant access to natural water sources. There continues to be an expanding demand to become
water safe at a much younger age. A recreational pool goes beyond the idea of fitness and
instruction. It creates an entire recreation environment that provides children with an
opportunity for an unstructured, open-ended play experience as well as socialization with peers.
Swimming is a life skill activity offering recreation opportunities for all ages. The combination
of an aging population, longer life expectancy, earlier retirement, and increased interest in fitness
is expected to result in steady growth of swimming activity by those over the age of 50. With
older participants, the need for more fitness and therapy classes has become a high priority.
Without the upgrading of facilities, the City will not be able to meet the needs of its populace.

Similarly, a library in the City Centre presents an opportunity to provide Windsor with an
innovative and responsive public library which can play a pivotal role in promoting community
pride, generating a local identity and demonstrating that Windsor is truly an Intelligent
Community. Together with the aquatic centre, the mind and the body of the community will be
nourished and energized.

The Project also offers many benefits economically. A 50 metre pool facility capable of hosting
competitive events enhances sport tourism opportunities and allows for bidding on regional,
provincial, national and international events. The International Children’s Games is a prime
example. These events have far reaching benefits for the community including:
• Economic spin offs for the hospitality and retail sectors
• Volunteer and leadership development
• Sense of pride in place and community
• Positive image and introduction to visitors reaching far beyond the community borders

Strategic Priorities of City Council

City Council at its Strategic sessions at the start of the current term, developed the following key
strategic priorities:

1. Jobs and Economic Diversification

2. Regional Cooperation
3. Cultural Capital
4. Corporate Opportunities

6 of 136
5. Downtown Revitalization
6. Affordable/Attractive City

The proposed initiative is consistent with all of these priorities:

• Jobs and Economic Diversification – Significant employment will be created from the
construction of the facility as well as the ongoing operation. It will provide economic
diversification by giving the City a state of the art facility which can give the City a
competitive advantage in the growing sector of sports tourism.
• Regional Cooperation – The facility will open up partnership possibilities with local
institutions and organizations.
• Cultural Capital – The proposed state of the art library facility will add to the City’s
cultural amenities which are a key part of liveable community and also help attract and
retain businesses.
• Corporate Opportunities – Integration of facilities including Library Administration
will provide opportunities for synergies.
• Downtown Revitalization – The facility would complement the growing list of measures
undertaken by Council to bring people to the downtown which will positively impact the
areas business establishments.
• Affordable/Attractive City – The proposed facility will help complete the downtown
area and depending on the options chosen by Council, may maintain or reduce the annual
operating levy requirements.

Based on these strategic priorities and community goals, a report on an aquatics and library
facility (LiveLink #15173 – See Appendix D) was presented to City Council on April 6, 2011
during the 2011 Capital Budget deliberations.

Through the noted report, Administration sought further direction from Council on this matter.

As a result of that meeting, City Council provided guidance by unanimously passing the
following resolutions:

B20/2011:
That the report of the Community Development and Health Commissioner dated March
28, 2011 entitled “50 Metre Pool/ Family Aquatic Facility” BE RECEIVED; and
further,

That a 50 metre pool/family aquatic facility and possible related facilities consolidation
BE AGREED TO IN PRINCIPLE and to be funded from the unallocated debt reduction
levy funds; and further,

That the 2009 placeholder regarding the Budimir Library renovations in the amount of
$1,381,395-million and the Optimist Community Centre Library expansion in the amount
of $745,000 BE REDIRECTED towards this proposed initiative; and

That up to $150,000 BE APPROVED for consultations regarding this proposed

initiative; and

That a Working Group, similar in structure to that formed for the development and
construction of the WFCU Centre, BE STRUCK, and that this group develop a business

7 of 136
 case for the proposed Aquatic Centre, taking into consideration the present and future
uses of existing city facilities; and

That the Working Group/Task Force BE DIRECTED to chart out a critical path
regarding the various steps required for the proposed initiative, as soon as possible in
order to meet the July 2013 deadline for the Summer Games of the International
Children’s Games (ICG).

B21/2011:

That Administration BE DIRECTED to look at repurposing existing related facilities

that would be affected by a 50 metre pool/family aquatic facility, and that a report BE
PREPARED with options for Council’s consideration.

Further to that date, on the May 3rd, 2011 Council meeting, the following Council Question
was asked:

CQ 37-2011
A report from Parks & Facilities on the feasibility of including a 400 metre indoor
walking track to the proposed aquatics complex, as suggested by constituent Anneke Smit
based on her experience at an aquatic complex in Sherwood Park, Alberta, a suburb of
Edmonton. Anneke reports that seniors in particular are attracted to the walking track,
especially colder weather, and the place is always crawling with people.

It should be noted that in order to respond to B21/2011, memos from the Community
Development & Health Commissioner and the Executive Director Recreation & Culture
(Appendix B) and the CEO of the Windsor Public Library (Appendix C) will focus on the
options for consolidation/repurposing of existing related facilities and the results of the
consultation process.

3. DISCUSSION:

WORKING GROUP ESTABLISHED

Since the April 6th Capital Budget meeting, an interim Administrative Working Group/Task
Force has been established Chaired by the CFO and City Treasurer and including the Community
Development & Health Commissioner, Executive Director of Parks & Facilities, Executive
Director of Recreation & Culture, Manager, Operating Budget Control & Financial
Administration, Deputy Treasurer, and CEO Windsor Public Library. Other internal and external
resources have been consulted as needed.

Outlined in the following sections are key components that have been explored by the Working
Group to date along with the related recommendations.

A. PUBLIC CONSULTATION

A number of public consultation meetings have taken place since the April 6th Council meeting
which approved the project in principle. These meetings focussed on the current and potential
future uses of existing related recreation and library facilities (i.e. Windsor Water World, College
Avenue Community Centre, Adie Knox Herman Complex, Windsor Arena, and the Library

8 of 136
Central Branch). The results and details of these meetings are being presented in memos by the
Community Development & Health Commissioner and the Executive Director Recreation &
Culture (Appendix B) and the CEO of the Windsor Public Library (Appendix C).

B. CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS

The working group has been researching existing facilities with the view to determine the best
solution to meet Council’s vision as expressed in B20/2011. While it is difficult to find an exact
match in terms of size and amenities (50 metre pool, 25 metre pool, dive well, family aquatic
recreation centre, and a Library), various interesting conceptual drawings have been obtained and
one example is attached as APPENDIX E. It should be highly stressed that these renderings are
strictly conceptual in order to see what would fit on the site.

As noted in the background section, CQ37-2011 asks about the feasibility of including a 400
metre indoor walking track for the proposed indoor aquatic complex. The inclusion of this
feature will be explored in consultation with the Technical Support & Design Consultant(s) and
will be reported to Council in due course.

C. LAND REQUIREMENTS

The resolutions arising from the April 6th report did not specify a proposed location for the
facility. Previous studies have indicated the need for an aquatics facility on the east end of the
City. However, given Council’s strategic objective of downtown revitalization, the concentration
of the City’s aquatics facilities in the area that could be repurposed, and that the informal City
Council, media and public discussion and consultation has focused on the downtown and nearby
areas, this report is recommending a downtown location. A usage study has not been repeated
since the previous study was completed.

The following outlines the City-owned lands available for the downtown location. The City of
Windsor owns a number of parcels of land on the western edge of downtown. Most of these
lands have generally been referred to as the Western Super Anchor lands. The details of the
approximate square footage of this site are as follows:

Approximate
Location
Square Footage
Parking Lot south of Pitt Street between Bruce/Church (zoned CD3.7) 93,100
Closure of Chatham Street between Bruce/Church (1) 29,000
Parking Lot South of Chatham between Bruce/Church (2) 43,900
Total Potential Contiguous Lands Available 166,000
(1) Currently there is a combined sewer under most of this section of Chatham Street, which is presumed to have
water and gas as well. Some utilities may need to be relocated however it is expected that these costs, if any, will
not be significant.
(2) Currently District Energy has a “temporary” chiller on the east end of this site. It is under land lease until 2012.
The City does have a 90 day termination clause. Preliminary indications are that sufficient space is available to
retain the facility at its current site.

In summary, the combined site above would be approximately 166,000 square feet (3.81 acres).
The site would have frontage on Pitt Street, Bruce Avenue and Church Street. The site would not
have frontage on University Avenue West as there are privately owned properties along this
frontage. Additional square footage could be available by a closure of Pitt Street, between Bruce
9 of 136
and Church, however this is not being contemplated at this time as it is believed that the noted
166,000 square feet is projected to be sufficient for the type of facility currently being explored
(subject to Council’s final determination on the size of the facility).

A map of the proposed site and surrounding area has been attached as APPENDIX F.

D. PARKING, SITE SERVICING REQUIREMENTS, & PUBLIC ART

Parking

The Transportation Planning Division has prepared the attached Aquatic Centre Parking Analysis
(APPENDIX G) that details the estimated parking demand and supply of the proposed Aquatic
Centre.

The following are the conclusions of this parking analysis:

• The parking demand model developed for the Aquatic Centre indicates that 680 parking
stalls will be needed to adequately cover a situation where there is an event taking place,
without hindering the function of the facility or surrounding neighbouring uses. This is
expected to occur on a Friday afternoon.
• The total combined municipal and private gross supply of parking stalls within the study
area is approximately 2,000.
• On a Friday afternoon, the net available parking supply of 1,100 exceeds the parking
demand projection for the peak time period.
• The proposed Aquatic Centre site is currently being used by approximately 250 existing
parkers (primarily Windsor Police Services staff), which will need to be accommodated
elsewhere.
• It is recommended that Lot 22 containing 124 parking stalls (located at the corner of
Bruce Ave. and Chatham St. W.) be dedicated primarily for hourly parkers to meet the
parking supply for daily facility functions. It is further recommended that the accessible
parking stalls, to meet the needs of this facility, be located within this lot due to its
proximity.

Traffic

Traffic flow and capacity have been reviewed a number of times in the past since 1989 for
developments on these lands and in this area. The closure of Chatham Street West between
Bruce Ave. and Church Street has been consistently recommended.

Based on adequate parking and the previous traffic operations studies, the existing road network
is anticipated to function at a good level of service without any anticipated major transportation
related road works.

The opportunity to close and/or deemphasize Pitt Street West from Bruce Ave. to Church St. to
complement the Vista to Riverside Drive and the waterfront is recommended for further
investigation.

10 of 136
Site Servicing

As for site servicing, the area is serviced for sewers and utilities however there is a requirement
for updating/replacing area infrastructure.

The following components are directly related to the facility and should be included in this
project budget, pending the final capital project budget approval:
• Installation of a sanitary sewer on Bruce Avenue from Riverside to Chatham in order to
accommodate this facility (currently the area is served only by a combined sewer).
• As with any facility of this type, Streetscaping immediately around the complex (from the
curb to the building) will be required. This could include light fixtures, sidewalks,
furniture, etc. consistent with other recent downtown Streetscaping. However, given the
possible significant dollars involved, Council will need to weigh the cost against the
benefits of having these additional aesthetic features. At this time, the estimated budget
for all site servicing costs for the entire project is in the range of $2 million to $3 million.
This includes items such as sewer work, sidewalks, lights, and other basic infrastructure
required for a project of this nature.

Other infrastructure considerations include the following components:

• Need for upgraded watermains on Bruce Avenue, Park and Church around the site.
• Reconstruction of Church & Bruce, from Riverside to University, in addition to Pitt
Street.

These other infrastructure items may not be completely attributable to the proposed facility as
they may have been required now or in the near future, even without the proposed facility.
Further due diligence will be completed to determine what amount, if any, of these other costs
should be included in the final project budget for this project.

Public Art

Consistent with the City’s Public Art Policy, consideration could be given to include a public art
component. The Public Art policy was approved by Council and states as follows:
“The City of Windsor will examine the feasibility of implementing a percentage for
Public Art strategy. Percentage for Public Art is a flat rate of 1% of the total construction
cost of selected capital projects, funded in full or in part by the City...”
The municipal cultural Master Plan reaffirmed Council’s Public Art Policy however did
not identify a specific dollar amount. Based on this information, a decision will have to
be made to decide whether or not any funds for public art would be allocated to this
project as part of the final capital budget. Therefore, should Council decide to include an
amount for Public Art, the budget would be developed consistent with that decision.

E. PROPOSED PROCESS & TIMELINES

Process
Three broad tendering and construction processes were considered for this project. These are
summarized as follows:
1. Stipulated Price Tender – This involves completing the entire detailed design, using the
services of an architectural and engineering firm (hired by the City through an RFP process)

11 of 136
 to administer and inspect the contract throughout the entire project. Following completion of
the design, the city would then issue a tender for stipulated price bids for construction.
The advantages of this method are as follows:
• The exact design and amenities can be customized based on the city’s objectives so that
the final end product is known in advance.
• The final price is essentially known provided that there are no additions or design
changes above the contingency amounts set aside.

The disadvantages with this approach are as follows:

• The process requires a longer time frame to select an architect and then to prepare a final
detailed design prior to undertaking a tender and commencing construction. This option
would push the completion date past the start of the 2013 International Children’s Games.
• The City needs to know exactly what it wants (as any changes to the design or additions
to the project will result in additional costs)
• It also limits the creativity of the proponents and therefore can limit cost saving ideas

In 2002, this method was used in the Western Super Anchor lands where the final tendered
price was higher than anticipated or previously forecasted by the city’s consultants.

2. Construction Project Management (With or without a Guaranteed Maximum Price) – Beyond

hiring a design architect, this involves hiring a construction project manager (usually a
construction company) through RFP. In addition, a dedicated city project manager would be
designated who would still be needed for internal purposes (on all methods). This
management team would coordinate and send out requests for tenders for the project as
required. The City would approve and award each tender. The project manager would then
have to schedule the contractors.
The advantages of this method are as follows:
• This method of construction may speed up the process (the concern with option #1).
• Used in larger scale projects where the owner does not have in house staff to manage it

The disadvantages of this method are as follows:

• Due to limited site boundaries, the difficulties and risks for this option are escalated.
• The full cost will not be known up front in this method.
• Additionally, costs over-runs are more likely given that a fixed price contract at the start
of the process is not an option.
• Requires a separate performance consultant/architect to be engaged to advise the city and
to approve progress draws and clear issues on behalf of the city.

3. Design Build Contractor – This method relies on designing and building during construction
as this process moves forward towards the final promised product. Under this process, the
City would issue a request for proposals to proponents for the design and build of the project.
The RFP would also include an assessment of the proponent’s qualifications prior to allowing
them to advance to the selection process.
The advantages of this method are as follows:
• Usually results in a fixed price contract
• Builder takes on all financial risks of the project
• Allows creativity and flexibility for the proponents of the design to find cost savings.
• A shovel can be put in the ground much quicker than in option #1 above

12 of 136
 The disadvantages of this method are as follows:
• Generally a larger contingency is added to this type of construction bid, as the proponent
assumes all the risk. However the total cost is known up front. Additionally, in order to
mitigate the potentially higher costs, the RFP would be structured in a manner that allows
the City the ability to undertake the direct tendering of certain specific project
components in order to avoid mark-ups and reduce overall project costs.
• The design build submissions can be based on a wide range of specific amenities,
equipment, and quality of finishes. However, in order to mitigate this concern of the
unknown, administration is proposing to retain a Technical Support & Design Consultant
to work with City Administration to include specific recommendations in the RFP aimed
at narrowing and standardizing many of the components of the facility as well as to
approve progress draws of the design build contactor and generally verify work done on
an independent basis.
• Requires a separate performance consultant/architect to be engaged to advise the city and
to approved progress draws and clear issues on behalf of the city.

This is a similar methodology to that used in the recent WFCU center construction project with
the only difference being that a significant portion of the facility layout had already been
determined up front.

Although each of the three methods identified are viable, timing is of the essence for this project
and significant consideration should be given to this fact. Administration's recommended
alternative is the design build method given all the identified factors and taking into
consideration the recent success of the WFCU Centre project using this method. This
recommendation is made based on input from the Heavy Construction Association and various
architects consulted with respect to timelines.

Timelines
Given the need to open the 50 metre pool complex in time for the 2013 International Children’s
Summer Games, the timelines are extremely tight. Therefore, the proposed process has been
chosen in order to expedite the design and construction of the facility.

Factoring in the approximate time it will take to build the pool (approximately 18 – 20 months),
that leaves a balance of approximately 4- 6 months to conduct an RFP process, to select a
Technical Support and Design Consultant, prepare a design-build RFP with the aid of the
Technical Support and Design Consultant, select the successful proponent and award the
contract. Administration, therefore recommends that this work begins immediately after Council
approval of the process. If at any time Council should decide not to proceed with the project for
any reason, work would be stopped immediately, however, it must be noted that, depending upon
the stage this decision is made, a financial expenditure will already have been incurred.

As a key component to this process, Administration recommends that a Technical Support &
Design Team be selected to assist with preparation of the specifications required for a structured
design/build RFP. Some of the assistance would include:

a) Working with City staff, stakeholders, and Council to establish programs and amenities
for the facility aimed at minimizing costs, maximizing revenues and optimizing service to
the public.
b) Assisting Administration in developing specifications for a fixed price design/build RFP
that includes, but is not limited to, developing bridging documents complete with

13 of 136
 schematic drawings and specifications for minimum standards that are to be delivered by
the design/build proponents (to ensure that the submissions are consistent with the City’s
expectations)
c) Assisting Administration with the evaluation of the responses to the design build RFP
d) Supporting Administration by acting as the City’s conformance architects and reviewing
shop drawings, final design and product performance presented by the design/build
proponents and professional certification of the progress draws
e) Overseeing the commissioning of the complex
f) Overseeing the provision of all operating and warranty documents.

Another component of the approved Council Resolution (B20/2011), called for the working
group to chart out a critical path regarding the various steps required for the proposed initiative
in order to meet the Summer 2013 deadline for the International Children’s Summer Games
(ICG). The following preliminary timelines have been included as a high level summary and can
be used for reference purposes for the recommended design build process:

• June 13, 2011 – Council deliberates recommendations within this report

• June 14, 2011 to September 15, 2011 – If current recommendations are approved, retain
Technical Support & Design Team and work to develop building parameters to use in an
RFP for fixed cost design build proposals and issuance of RFP for fixed costs design
build
• September 16, 2011 to October 31, 2011 – RFP proponents develop and submit proposals
• November 1, 2011 – November 25, 2011 – Review proposals and prepare report back to
Council with a recommended proponent and detailed project budget
• November 28, 2011 – Council meeting to approve the award of contract and final project
budget
• December 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011 – Break ground, relocate services, hoarding,
site services, coordination meetings, footing design and installation
• January 1, 2012 to March 31, 2012 – Exterior walls, pool basin excavation, sub surface
plumbing, complete final design
• April 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012 – Construction of facilities to 80% completion
• January 1, 2013 to June 15, 2013 – Completion of interior fit ups, commissioning and
soft opening

Refer to APPENDIX H for the Preliminary Projected Timelines in a chart format.

Use of the Construction Project Management process would result in timelines which are
relatively similar to those of the proposed design build process. However, for the reasons noted
in the disadvantages section above, this methodology is not recommended.

Should Council decide to use a Stipulated Price Tender process, which would be the preferred
process without the time constraints, the following preliminary timelines have been estimated for
reference purposes:
• June 13, 2011 – Council deliberates recommendations within this report
• June 14, 2011 to August 15, 2011 – RFP process to engage the City’s architect
• August 15, 2011 to April 15, 2012 – Architect develops drawings and finalizes the bid/
tender documents (6 to 8 month time frame/ 8 months is used)
• April 15, 2012 to June 15, 2012 – conduct and analyze the bid/tender
• June 15, 2012 to July 15, 2012 – Award the tender / finalize contract / Initially – Letter of
Intent
14 of 136
 • July 16, 2012 to August 31, 2012 – Break ground, relocate services, hoarding, site
services, coordination meetings, footing design and installation
• September 1, 2012 to November 30, 2012 – Exterior walls, pool basin excavation, sub
surface plumbing, complete final design
• December 1, 2012 to August 31, 2013 – Construction of facilities to 80% completion
• September 1, 2013 to February 15, 2014 – Completion of interior fit ups, commissioning
and soft opening

Based on these timelines, the facility would not be available for the Children’s Games in the
summer of 2013.

F. PROPOSED WORKING TEAM STRUCTURE & PROJECT CHARTER

A component of the approved Council Resolution (B20/2011), calls for the establishment of a
Working Group, similar in structure to that formed for the development and construction of the
WFCU Centre. This structure was recommended by the Brodel Management report, which was
conducted for the 400 City Hall Square building project. The review evaluated the planning and
implementation of the project in efforts to determining lessons learned and improvements for
future initiatives. The identified structure below ties to one of the recommendations in that
report. Therefore, it is being recommended that there should be two committees (Steering
Committee & Executive Committee), an Arbitrator, as well as a Working Team dedicated to this
project as outlined below:

1. Steering Committee
Composition (Options for Council Consideration)
• Five City Councillors plus Mayor as ex-officio (as per current practice for standing
committees) OR
• Use one of the existing standing committees of five Councillors OR
• Use Executive Committee

Reporting Relationship of Steering Committee

• Reports directly to City Council

As noted above, there are three options for Council’s consideration as to the composition of the
Steering Committee. However, Administration is recommending the Five City Council Members
plus Mayor as ex-officio structure. The recent success of the governance structure for the WFCU
Centre project is one of the reasons why this is being recommended. This type of dedicated
governance structure also provides enhanced flexibility in scheduling meetings and allows for
immediate feedback to staff as they work on the project. For all these reasons, Administration is
in support of this composition and recommends a dedicated Steering Committee where no other
agenda items will concurrently appear before the members.

2. Arbitrator
Composition
• Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)

3. Executive Committee
Composition
• Project Sponsor/Chair – CFO/City Treasurer
15 of 136
 • Co-Sponsor/Deputy Chair – City Engineer
• City Clerk
• CEO, Windsor Public Library
• Executive Director of Recreation & Culture
• Executive Director of Operations
• Executive Director of Information Technology
• Manager of Facility Operations
• Manager of Purchasing & Risk Management

Non-Voting Resources to the Committee (May also be part of the Working Group)
• Project Manager
• Project Coordinator
• Project Accountant
• Executive Initiatives Coordinator – Public Works
• Marketing & Communications Officer

Reporting Relationship of Executive Committee

• Reports directly to Steering Committee

4. Working Group
Composition*
• Project Manager (Leads the Working Team)**
• Project Coordinator
• Project Accountant***
• Project Legal Resources
• Marketing & Communications Officer
• Project Purchasing/Risk Management Resource
• Information Technology Resource
• Tenant Liaison – Recreation & Library
• Other resources as required
* Names & exact roles to be reported to Council
** This position will be seconded and backfilled from a current City position or an external
individual will be hired on contract. The Project Manager will be responsible for organizing the
project into one or more sub-projects, managing the day-to-day aspects of the project, developing
the detailed work plan, responding to media requests for information, resolving planning and
implementation issues, and monitoring progress and budget. Various functional controls need to
be reviewed and monitored on a regular basis. This includes cost, time, conflict and quality
controls. Specific responsibilities include:
• Call and chair working team meetings
• Present detailed work plan/ timeline for all elements of the project to the Executive
Committee for approval
• Responsibility for the overall execution of the project and co-ordination of all
activities
• Ensure all project components are in compliance with the City of Windsor’s
Purchasing By-law
• Coordinate work on legal agreements
• Plan each phase to ensure project team members work effectively
• Monitor progress to ensure successful completion of each phase and milestone
• Identify and manage project risks and scope and escalate to the Executive Committee
16 of 136
 • Ensure proper communication with project team and external communications
• Establish relationship with vendors and co-ordinate
• Responsible for day to day activities
• Co-approval of change orders or instructions to contractors (with Project Sponsor)
• Co- approval of progress draws for payment release (with project coordinator)
• Co-approval of all project invoices (with project coordinator)
• Liaise with the Technical Support & Design Consultant
*** At least Partial Secondment

Reporting Relationship of the Working Group

• Reports directly to the Executive Committee through the project manager
• All members of working committee will work corporately as a team, providing advice
within their area of expertise to the Project Manager with continued guidance provided by
their regular manager/director and/or appropriate members of the executive committee.

As was done with the WFCU project, the Executive Committee will bring forward to Council
(based on direction of the Steering Committee) a comprehensive detailed Project Charter which,
among other things, would include the finalized governance structure described above, overview
of the project’s goals, objectives, authorized spending limits, use of contingency funds,
anticipated projected project risks, etc.

G. OPERATING COSTS
Two main factors will impact on the ongoing costs and affordability (effectively the business
case) of this project:
1. The net operating cost of the new facility
2. The potential savings arising from consolidation/repurposing of other facilities

The operating cost of the facility will in large part be dependent on the size, amenities and design
of the facility as well as the operating model chosen. The size, amenities and design will be dealt
with during the design phase of the project, always keeping in mind ways of minimizing ongoing
operating costs. The operating model (see next section) will be recommended in a future Council
report.

A critical factor impacting the ongoing affordability of the proposed facility is the ongoing
operational savings that can be generated through the judicious closure/consolidation of older
and less efficient facilities. The additional concurrent goal of City Council to contain property
tax levy increases drives the mandate given to administration to examine the closure/repurposing
other existing facilities. Given Council’s stated goal of holding the line on taxes, simply adding
the operating cost of the new facility on top of the existing facility(s) operating costs, is not a
viable option.

H. OPERATING MODELS TO BE CONSIDERED

For purposes of the financial analysis within this report, it has been assumed that the operations
would be managed and staffed by the Recreation & Culture Department of the City of Windsor.
However many operational models are possible, some of which may be less costly, and can be
pursued once the exact nature of the facility and the amenities within it have been finalized.
Partnerships with non-profit or for profit entities can be considered. Additionally, fee for service
management of the facility can also be considered. If Council wishes to choose a service
management model, an RFP process would have to be carried out. Examples (for reference
17 of 136
purposes only) of some of the possibilities that have been implemented in other jurisdictions
include the following:

There is a joint venture agreement between the City of London and the YMCA to operate a 25
metre pool, gymnasium, meeting rooms and a large workout facility (they sub-lease the space to
the Library, which is part of the facility) on the North side of London. The cost of this facility to
build was approximately $27 million, of which the City paid approximately $20 million and the
remaining $7 million the YMCA was able to fund raise. The City currently owns both the land
and building. The agreement is for 40 years (with some early termination clauses included), that
calls for the tenant (YMCA) to assume full ownership at that time the agreement expires. The
YMCA is responsible for all operating costs and the City of London does not subsidize any
amount for the net operating costs. YMCA also puts money aside annually to fund future capital
expenditures.

The YMCA in Goderich runs a multi-use facility on behalf of the Town which includes a 25-
metre pool, an NHL size ice rink and the regular YMCA programs. The five year operating
agreement calls for the YMCA to run the entire facility (an annual administrative fee is paid to
the YMCA for this service as part of the budget) and all net annual operating surpluses/(deficits)
are returned to/(paid by) the municipality. This facility was built in 2002 for approximately $19
million and was financed by the municipality, with some fundraising money raised through the
community to help offset the capital costs. All capital maintenance and repair costs are the
responsibility of the municipality as well.

There is a similar agreement at the H2O Aquatic & Fitness Centre in Kelowna, BC between the
City and the YMCA. The YMCA is responsible for the operations of the entire facility, with any
surplus or deficit being the responsibility of the City. Not included in the facility’s direct
operating budget, are annual operating costs for utilities, chemicals, and building maintenance
costs that are paid directly by the municipality. The capital construction costs were paid by the
City of Kelowna and therefore the facility is owned by the City.

The WFCU Centre utilizes another type of operating model that could be looked at. It involves a
hybrid model, whereby all programs and recreational activities are run by the City of Windsor
and portions of the facility are contracted out to external entities. An annual management fee is
paid to one of these companies for their services, other companies either pay a percentage of
revenue or they lease space. This type of model could be used to capitalize on the strengths and
expertise of these companies in their respective industries, with the goal of potentially reducing
operating costs while increasing operating efficiencies.

Based on limited research, it appears that the majority of the cities throughout Ontario use
municipal staff to operate aquatic facilities. This is also consistent in Windsor, where all
municipally owned aquatic facilities currently use this type of operating model.

In summary, there are different and unique operating models in many Cities. The method of
operations and recommended options will be the subject of a future Council report. It should be
noted that, similar to the WFCU construction project, it is not intended that the report on the
operation of the new facility be within the scope of the construction project governance team
outlined in this report. Rather, it would be separately reported to city council by the operating
department and city financial management.

The local YMCA has expressed an interest in being a partner (to be defined) in the facility. They
have contacted the CAO and requested that in order for them to consider being a partner, their
18 of 136
preference is to have input upfront on the design, amenities, etc. They also indicated a general
preference for a facility outside the downtown core as is their current operating mandate;
however, they would consider partnership within the downtown area.

In addition, the Mayor has spoken to the Art Gallery and has had preliminary discussions
regarding opportunities for synergies. It is assumed that City Council endorses the continuation
of these discussions with further reporting to Council to follow.

I. OPTIONS FOR CONSOLIDATION/REPURPOSING OF EXISTING RELATED

FACILITIES

Five facilities have been identified as potential opportunities for consolidation/repurposing. They
were chosen based on a combination of proximity to the new location, similarity of programs
offered, cost benefits based on usage, and potential for cost savings. For each of these five
facilities identified, potential options for consideration have been identified. The table below
provides the options. The financial matters section provides budget estimates for the various
options:

(The rest of this page has been intentionally left blank)

19 of 136
EXISTING FACILITIES OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

Status Quo
Current Option
Facility Operating (No Capital Option Option
Costs Costs, No
Operating
Savings)
1 Windsor Water $ 750,250 A. Status Quo B. Close Pool Only & C. Close Facility
World Repurpose
2 Windsor Arena $ 238,022 A. Status Quo B. Close Facility & C. Close Facility (Not
Replace at Adie Knox Replace Ice Pad)

3 College $ 342,560 A. Status Quo B. Close Facility & D. Close Facility & Lease
Avenue Replace at Adie Knox (By Vacant Space/Sell Facility
Community Replacing Pool Area) &
Centre Lease Vacant Space/Sell
Facility
C. Close Facility &
Replace at Adie Knox (By
Constructing an Addition)
& Lease Vacant
Space/Sell Facility

4 Adie Knox $ 636,000 A. Status Quo B. Build Twin Pad Only; E. No Twinning; Close
Herman Rec. Rest of AKH Status Quo Pool Area; Replace Pool
Complex (AKH) with Recreation
(Pool, Arena, & Programming
Community
C. Build Twin Pad; Keep F. No Twinning; Keep
Centre)
Pool Area Open; Pool Area; Construct
Construct Addition for Addition for Recreation
Recreation Programming Programming

D. Build Twin Pad; Close G. No Twinning; Close

Pool Area; Replace Pool Pool Area; Keep Existing
with Recreation Programming at Adie
Programming Knox Complex

5 Windsor Public $ 3,577,245 A. Status Quo B. Maintain & Open for a D. Relocate Library & Use
Library - (Assumes Transitional Period Existing City Space for
Central Branch New Library Admin & Sell 850
* not built) C. Relocate & Lease Ouellette
Admin Space (8,000 sq.
ft.) & Sell/Lease 850
Ouellette to
commerical/MUSH**
sector
* Current operating costs of WPL - Central Branch is based on the current identifiable Central Branch costs plus a 71%
overhead allocation (using building square footage as the cost driver)
** MUSH- Municipalities, Universities, Schools and Hospitals

20 of 136
Detailed commentary about the usage, impacts on the user community, etc. have been included
as separate memos by the Community Development & Health Commissioner and the Executive
Director Recreation & Culture (Appendix B) as well as the CEO of the Windsor Public Library
(Appendix C).

J. HUMAN RESOURCES (POTENTIAL STAFFING IMPLICATIONS)

The potential staffing implications attached to this initiative are largely dependent on three
factors:
• The closure/repurposing of existing City-owned facilities
• The size and amenities of the new facility
• The operating model of the new facility

Of greatest impact on the City’s human capital will be the operating model chosen for the new
facility. If a City run model is chosen, the staff impacts will be relatively minor under most
foreseeable scenarios. This is so because the displaced employees from the existing facilities
would largely be accommodated within the staffing requirements of the new facility. Should the
Windsor Arena be slated for closure, the loss of up to four Local 82 positions will impact the
attrition goals within the solid waste garbage outsourcing model adapted in 2010, to a minor
degree.

Should Council choose to operate the new facility through external staffing, significant staffing
impacts would materialize. A full report on these matters and their cost impacts on the City
administration will be presented to Council once decisions are made on the first two parameters
listed above.

K. POTENTIAL PROJECT RISKS & AND MITIGATING MEASURES

As with any project of this magnitude, there will always be a variety of potential risks. It is
critical to strategize at the approval stage as to what the major risks may be and to identify
appropriate mitigating strategies aimed at reducing the noted risks. This was one of the key
findings of the 400 City Hall Square audit report and is part of an effective project management
process. Therefore, Appendix I includes a preliminary review of project risks and mitigating
measures and should be viewed in the positive proactive context noted above rather than a
negative context.

4. FINANCIAL MATTERS:
In order to complete a final & complete capital and operating budget a number of decisions still
need to be made by Council. These include:
• The size of the facility, especially as it relates to the family recreation and Library
components.
• The type of amenities within the new complex which will, in part, be influenced by
Council’s decision on the consolidation/repurposing of existing facilities.
• The operating model (City run vs. Partnership vs. Fee for Service)
• Fee structure and level of municipal subsidy for programming

21 of 136
Additionally, the potential attraction of key users (i.e. School Boards, University, etc) would
impact revenues and hence the operating budget. Although some interest has been expressed by
these organizations, there is a need to finalize the design of the facility prior to being able to
enter into meaningful discussions.

Finally, the proposed facility (50 metre pool complex, family recreation centre and a library) is
innovative and therefore there aren’t many similar developments that can be used for
comparative purposes. It is expected that both operating and capital synergies can be achieved by
a proper design. Therefore, preparation of conceptual designs by an architectural firm working as
a consultant for the City will allow for much better estimate of final capital costs.

It is therefore proposed that a detailed project capital budget (and final operating budget) be
submitted for Council approval concurrent with the deliberations on the recommended
design/build proponent.

In the interim, the following preliminary comments are offered relating to the potential capital
and operating budgets.

A. PRELIMINARY CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES (NEW FACILITY ONLY)

(i) Competition Pool Facilities

Normally, these facilities include a 50 metre pool, a 25 metre warm up pool and a diving well.

Consideration should be given during the design phase to include 10 lanes into the 50 metre pool.
This would provide the capability to use the 50 metre pool as two 25 metre pools, thus providing
additional community use opportunities. By using this approach, the new facility could be
configured to provide three 25 metre pools when the 50 metre pool is not being used for
competitions. Therefore, even with the potential closure of the Adie Knox Pool and Windsor
Water World pool (one of the many options available to Council), 25 metre pool aquatic
facilities in the City would actually increase.

It is also possible to combine the 25 metre pool with the diving well into one water tank in order
to reduce both capital and operating costs as is done in other facilities. Based on preliminary
research, administration is also recommending this model.

It is expected that the facility would be designed to accommodate approximately 1200 spectators,
with additional retractable seating for athletes. When not required, the athlete’s seating could be
retracted to allow dry land training and other activities on the pool deck. This ultimately
maximizes utility and space within the facility.

The amenities as identified above are consistent with a number of other North American
facilities and therefore the cost estimates are somewhat easier to project than the Family
Aquatics Recreation component. Clearly, the exact design will be based on Council direction and
technical recommendations by the Technical Support & Design Consultant(s).

However, based on the noted general design parameters, preliminary cost estimates for this
component are expected to be in the range of $28,000,000 to $32,000,000. This is the estimate
for a base competition pool facility. Additional costs may be incurred for amenities such as
exercise facilities, lounge area, common rooms, etc.

22 of 136
(ii) Family Aquatics Recreation Facility
This component of the facility could include slides, wave pool, lazy river, surf simulator, bucket
dumps, etc.

Decisions need to be made as to the size and layout of the facility as well as the types of
amenities that would be included. Generally, a larger facility with more amenities will attract
more users. Tourists in particular, will generally seek out larger facilities. Two facilities in the
general vicinity include Zehnder's Water Park in Frankenmuth, Michigan (Water Park
approximately 34,000 square feet) and Kalahari Indoor Water Park & Resort in Sandusky, Ohio
(a regional level facility with a water park of approximately 173,000 square feet). For reference
purposes, the current Windsor Water World facility is approximately 18,000 square feet
(including all aquatic and non-aquatic components).

As indicated above, costs for this component of the complex carries significant variability
depending on the size and type of amenities. However, based on preliminary research it is
expected that capital costs will be in the range of $350 to $450 per square foot.

(iii) Library
The current Central Library Branch has approximately 100,000 square feet of space on three
floors (including the basement). The Central Branch serves as both the main City Library branch
as well as the administrative office for the total Library system. Additionally, the City’s archives
are housed in the basement.

The building is 40 years old and its design and layout is not conducive to the realities of
Libraries of the 21st Century. The requirement is for a smaller, modern building configured to
efficiently disseminate information in today’s digital environment. See comments by the CEO of
the Windsor Public Library (Appendix C) for further details regarding the new proposed site as
well as the findings from their public consultation.

It is envisioned that a Central Library Branch of 30,000 to 50,000 square feet would meet the
requirements for a new user friendly facility (next largest Library facility in Windsor is the
Riverside branch at 14,160 square feet). The administrative space requirements (approximately
8,000 square feet) could be accommodated in other City facilities (depending on decisions made
on overall City space needs requirements).

Additional costs would likely be incurred as the corporation does not currently have 8,000 square
feet of unoccupied office space. This space would therefore have to be leased or be part of other
long term solutions for overall space needs. However, there may be synergies in administrative
costs if the Library’s Administration is housed alongside other City Administrators.

Additionally, the archives (2,156 square feet) located in the basement may be best
accommodated within a new Museum. It should be noted that space synergies should also
materialize given that the new library branch would be part of a larger recreation complex.
Additionally, some synergies may also be possible given the proximity of Art Gallery building
(based on final design choices and further discussions with the Art Gallery).

Current projected costs based on other Library facilities recently built are in the range of $230 -
$280 per square foot. Costs above and beyond that range could be required depending on final
design choices.

(iv) Other Capital Costs (Preliminary Estimates Subject to Additional Due Diligence)
23 of 136
Other capital costs related to the entire complex include
• Short Term Bridge Financing Costs (Range from $2,500,000 - $5,000,000). This is
required due to the fact that the bulk of the permanent funding is not available until
2014/2015
• Site Servicing (Range from $2,000,000 - $3,000,000)
• Technical Support & Design Consultant & Dedicated Administration (preliminary Range
from $1,500,000 - $3,000,000)
• Overall project contingency (Range from $3,000,000 - $5,000,000)

It should be noted that, consistent with the approach taken for the WFCU project, the short term
bridge financing will be from internal sources to the extent allowed by the City’s overall cash
flows over the period to final permanent funding in 2014/2015. However, given the significant
projects that are ongoing, it is possible that external bridge financing may be required. If external
borrowing is required and the term of the borrowing exceeds one year (which may be beneficial
depending on future rate expectations), the interim borrowing may be required to be shown as
temporary long-term debt on the City’s financial statements.

B. OPERATING COST ESTIMATES (NEW FACILITY ONLY)

The Library operating models are fairly standard are not based on significant revenue sources.
Therefore, for this component of the proposed facility, a reasonable operating budget projection
can be made. Based on a 40,000 square foot Library facility, the Executive Director of the
Windsor Public Library has estimated that approximately $400,000 may be saved from the
existing Central Library Branch operating cost. These savings, expected to be achieved through
attrition and efficiencies, are reflected in the Appendix A chart. Although not costed out at this
time nor specifically identified, there are further efficiencies that may result from the City of
Windsor’s corporate shared service review.

However, the preparation of a realistic operating budget for the aquatics component of the
proposed facility requires additional clarity on a number of factors. These include:
• The size of the complex
• The type of amenities (impacted by choices made on consolidation/repurposing of related
facilities)
• The potential attraction of key anchor tenants (School Boards, University, etc)
• The operating model (City run vs. Partnership vs. Fee for Service)
• The decisions on the fee levels (i.e. amount of subsidization)
• Attendance levels (would require a formal market study and is also dependent on
economic and other factors such as potential creative stay and play partnerships with
nearby hotels)
• Potential competition
• Energy efficiencies (LEED Certification, etc)
• Naming Rights revenues

Some of the above noted factors are within the control of Council. However, other components
are dependent on factors outside of its direct control. Therefore, estimating the likely operating
costs of the new facility at this point is extremely difficult and can only be done in general ranges
based on other facilities. Some of the more relevant examples researched by administration are
noted below:

24 of 136
 • Kelowna H20 Centre (Kelowna, BC)
o 50 metre pool, family aquatic recreation amenities, no 25 metre pool or formal
dive tank.
o 2010 net operating costs budgeted at $1,100,000; actual net costs approximately
$750,000.
• Town of Milton 2009 Pan-Am Games Study (Milton, ON)
o 50 metre pool, 25 metre pool with dive tank and some limited aquatic/recreation
facilities
o Projected annual net operating costs of approximately $1,000,000 (Note: Pool
was never built, these numbers provided are study estimates only).
• Malcolm-Knox Aquatic Centre (Pointe Claire, Quebec)
o 50 metre pool, 25 metre pool with dive tank and no aquatic/recreation facilities
o Annual net operating costs of approximately $800,000.
• Etobicoke Olympium (Etobicoke, ON)
o 50 metre pool, dive tower, no 25 metre pool, no aquatic/recreation facilities
o Annual net operating costs of approximately $1,300,000
• 2009 Kingston Aquatic Study (Kingston, ON)
o 50 metre pool, and minor diving and aquatic/recreation facilities
o Projected annual net operating costs of approximately $760,000 (Note: Pool was
never built, these numbers provided are study estimates only).
• National Aquatic Centre (Dublin, Ireland)
o 50 metre, 25 metre pool, and diving tower, with 2500 spectator seating. Also
includes an Aquazone entertainment area for kids (i.e. Flow Rider, Master Blaster,
Wave Pool, etc), a gym/health & fitness club and parking for 375 cars.
o 2010 annual revenues of $6.3 million, annual expenditures of $7.4 million,
resulting in a net operating budget (i.e. state subsidy) of $1,100,000
• Water World (Windsor, ON)
o 25 metre pool, therapy pool, and minor aquatic facilities and recreation facilities
o 2011 annual net operating budget of approximately $750,000 for the entire
facility.

Based on research of other facilities as well as internal analysis by the City’s Recreation &
Culture and Finance Departments, a preliminary zero based expenditure budget has been
prepared in order to estimate the potential expenditure side of the net operating costs of the
facility. As noted, this budget has to be considered preliminary as the actual size, operating
model, fee structure, and amenities of the facilities have not yet been approved by Council.

The estimated gross operating expenditures required to run the proposed facility are currently
estimated at approximately $2,800,000 based on a City run facility. The estimated gross
operating expenditure breakdown is as follows:

Salary & Wages = $1,500,000

Materials, Repairs & Maintenance = $250,000
Utilities & Communication = $900,000
Other Operating Expenses = $150,000

These projections will be refined once the final facility design is approved and an operating
model is approved.

25 of 136
User Fee Policy for New Facility

As indicated elsewhere in this report, one of the critical decisions for this facility is the approach
to be taken to the setting of user fees. There is an existing user fee policy for recreation facilities
(see APPENDIX J). Generally, the policy calls for different level of subsidization for programs
based on type of recreation activity and its perceived positive impacts on the community.

The aquatics programs are considered to be of significant benefit to the community at large and
therefore fall in the highest subsidization category. Following the noted guidelines would allow
the greatest number of people to partake in the activities at the new aquatic complex. However, it
would also result in the higher net operating costs.

Consideration can be given to differentiated levels of fees based on residents versus non-
residents. Consideration could also be given to higher levels of subsidy for people whose income
falls below the low income cut off. Additional considerations could be considered for seniors and
youth.

The foregoing highlights the many decisions that will be required to be made on the new
facility’s fee structure in order to be able to reasonably estimate the projected revenues, which
will be a key determinant of the net operating costs. Obviously, the lower the fees, the higher the
participation rates are likely to be. However, given Council’s stated goal of holding the line on
taxes, consideration may be given to a fee structure which is consistent with that goal.
Administration will provide Council with a future report with options and impact analysis of
various fee structures, acknowledging that no direction to amend the current fees has been
recommended or provided to date. It is administrations understanding that the Mayor and
members of City Council are desirous of maintaining the same user fees as are currently in place
for the members of the community.

Taking into account potential revenues to offset the noted expenditures, and subject to all the
decisions that will need to be made relative to the facility, a very preliminary broad range for the
annual net operating costs of the aquatics component of the facility may be $900,000 to
$1,800,000 (using existing subsidization fee structures among other estimates). It should be
stressed that significant fluctuation may occur depending on the decision made by Council as
well as other factors such as economic conditions, potential regional competition, competition
from existing City facilities, usage levels, and the eventual operating model chosen (City run vs.
other alternatives).

C. OPERATING & CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES

(RE: CONSOLIDATION/REPURPOSING OF EXISTING RELATED FACILITIES)

Council resolution B21/2011, which was unanimously approved, directed Administration to look
at repurposing existing related facilities that would be affected by a nearby 50 metre pool/family
aquatic facility and further directed that options be prepared for Council’s consideration.

Appendix A identifies those options provided for consideration regarding the

consolidation/repurposing of existing related facilities. The chart has a variety of choices that
Council can consider for each facility. These choices range from the status quo to complete
closure, with middle of the road options for complete or partial repurposing.

26 of 136
On the operating side, the annual savings range from $0 for the status quo option to
approximately $2,200,000 (inclusive of the projected Library savings) for closure and/or
repurposing of all the noted facilities. The specific projected savings for each option at each
facility are detailed in the chart in Appendix A. These savings could be used to offset the
projected annual operating costs of the new facility. Depending on the consolidation/repurposing
options chosen, any savings above the projected annual net operating costs to run the new
facility, could be used to reduce property tax levy requirements.

The Windsor Public Library – Central Branch has a net operating budget directly attributed to
that branch of $1,800,000, which includes staff and utility costs. Once system wide costs are
allocated (based on square footage), the Central Branch’s share of this cost is an additional
$1,800,000, bring the total current budget attributable to this branch to $3,600,000. It should be
noted that while the allocation of system wide costs was completed on a square footage basis (i.e.
71% of the total), this may not truly represent actual expenditures and is used for illustrative
purposes.

The WPL’s projected savings of $400,000, by relocating to the new aquatic facility, are largely
the result of savings related to utility costs (assumed to be more energy efficient as well as
smaller space), attrition/redeployment of staff services.

It is noted that the current net operating costs, for all of the facilities being studied for
rationalization/closure is approximately $5.5 million (largely comprised of the Windsor Public
Library). The net operating cost of the new contemplated facility is estimated to be in the range
of $900,000 to $1,800,000.

Depending on the option chosen for each facility, there may also be varying range of capital
costs that will have to be funded in addition to the capital cost noted above for the new facility to
allow the closure and repurposing to occur. The preliminary estimates of the capital costs related
to each option are noted in the chart in Appendix A. Potential revenues may also become
available from the sale/lease of any of these facilities that may become redundant. These
revenues may be used to offset the noted capital or operating costs. Only one of the potential
lease revenues of these facilities (College Avenue Community Centre) has been included in the
chart as there is a bona fide Letter of Intent to Lease related to the facility.

It should be noted that this report is focused on the financial and process aspects of the new
aquatics/library facility as well as the financial aspects of the consolidation/repurposing options.
As previously indicated, Council should also refer to the memo from the Community
Development & Health Services – Recreation & Culture, which takes into consideration
statistical analysis, community consultations, financial implications and community and industry
trends.

Based on these reports, choices will be required to be made with regards to the new facility as
well as the existing facilities. These choices should be made by taking into account financial
constraints (those of Windsor property tax payers, as well those of the Corporation of the City of
Windsor, given Council’s stated goal of holding the line on taxes) and the service benefits that
the existing and proposed facilities provide to the community. The direction and the information
contained herein understandably will present very difficult decisions for City Council in regard
to the rationalization and consolidation of existing facilities.

27 of 136
Analysis of Consolidation Options for Consideration

One of the major reasons for closing/repurposing any of these existing facilities is to help
offset costs of the new facility and to avoid competition from surrounding facilities.
Additionally, considerations include the current and anticipated future and continued use of
each of the facilities, especially in light of a new downtown Aquatic and Family center.
Administration has provided information in this regard. Considerations include community
access and desirability of smaller facilities over the larger newly designed facility
contemplated and the emphasis Council may place on serving targeted communities versus
the broader community of the entire city. Facility rationalization decisions have impact
upon both employees and the communities served.

However, in response to the direction provided and in anticipation that council may wish to make
decisions in this regard, or prepare themselves to make such decisions, administration has
assembled a number of options and provided information to allow council to move forward with
debate in this regard.

It is recognized that from a viewpoint of maximizing service delivery to the customer, a

perspective that no closures should occur may be taken (i.e. Status quo). The cost of this option
reflects an increase in the City’s net operating budget equal to the cost of operating the facility,
(i.e. a range of $900,000 to $1,800,000). Administration is not recommending this.

The management team within Community Development and Health Services have consulted
with the community and provided recommendations contained in Appendix B. These
recommendations have been modeled as option one. Notwithstanding contrary community
input, in consideration of the new facility’s proposed location and existing operating costs and
similarity in features, the recommendations contain cost savings through some facility
rationalization and part or full facility closure, with alternative uses provided to generate
revenue.

Option two is presented to allow a mid range of facility rationalization.

In anticipation that City Council remains committed to a zero tax levy increase, as stated in its
strategic objective of an affordable (and attractive) city, at least one option that allows city
council to maintain a status quo operating budget, has been provided as option three. This
model contains significant change in service delivery and is but one model that will achieve this
objective. This model is presented to demonstrate to members of City Council that, in the
highest net cost scenario, operating the new facility is possible without impacting the tax levy.
The decision to do so in this manner is a difficult one.

There are a number of decisions that have to be made, as identified throughout the report, before
a definitive operating budget for the new facility can be presented. Given that construction will
be undertaken over an approximate 2 year timeframe, and depending upon its goals in
consolidating and rationalizing facilities, if the decisions on closure are solely dependant upon
tax levy considerations and there is a wish to retain some of the facilities indicated for closure in
option three, City Council may wish to defer the decision on closure until such time as they have
more definitive operating cost estimates.

Alternatively, City Council may wish to provide direction on facility rationalization and
repurposing by choosing one of the three models presented or by providing alternative direction.

28 of 136
Administration is generally in agreement that the College Avenue Community Centre, the
Windsor Public Library and the pool at Windsor Water World are facilities recommended for
closure due to age, efficiency, volume of use and proximity considerations outlined in the
appendices to this report. The decision to close Adie Knox pool is more difficult based upon the
adjacent user community (particularly seniors).

As well, closure of Windsor Arena involves a reduced amount of prime ice time as outlined in
Appendix B. Offsetting this, is the knowledge that the closure will still mean that the City will
still have more ice time than it did in 2005, prior to the WFCU Centre construction.

The facilities are important to residents. The level of tax burden that Council may wish to impose
on residents is important as well. City Council faces the challenge and has the opportunity to
upgrade to a new facility, reduce operating costs and continue to provide a high level of service
to the residents of the City.

Option #2 (and Option #3), provides Council with an opportunity to maintain a status quo
operating budget as the City moves forward with this project.

Option #1 – Generally Optimizes Service Levels, while Considering Financial Savings

(Consistent with the memo from Community Development & Health – Recreation & Culture
Department - Appendix B)

This option, as developed by the Community Development & Health – Recreation & Culture
Department, is generally focussed on the provision of key service level priorities. At the high end
of the estimated net operating cost range, these proposed recommendations would result in
additional net operating costs. The following chart summarizes the financial and service impacts:

(Rest of this page below has been intentionally left blank)

29 of 136
 High End Est. Annual Est. Annual
Current Additional
Potential Net Costs/ Costs/
Recommended Option Operating Capital
Operating (Savings) - (Savings) -
Costs Costs
Budget Low End High End

1. Close the Aquatics portion of 750,250 $ 333,250 $ (417,000) $ (417,000) $ 1,100,000

Windsor Water World and repurpose
for Enhanced Community Centre use*
2. Maintain Status Quo at Windsor 238,022 $ 238,022 $ - $ - $ -
Arena (Subject to review within 5
years, including closure and potential
twinning of Adie Knox, based on
projected usage levels and annual
budgets considerations) (2)
3. Close the College Avenue 342,560 $ 12,560 $ (330,000) $ (330,000) $ -
Community Centre*
Note: Potential Lease Revenue from - $ (88,000) $ (88,000) $ (88,000)
College Ave. Community Centre
4. Maintain Status Quo at Adie Knox 636,000 $ 636,000 $ - $ - $ -
Herman Recreation Complex (Subject
to review within 5 years for potential
twinning of Adie Knox Arena, based
on status of Windsor Arena projected
usage levels and annual budgets
considerations) (2)
5. Close the Windsor Public Library – 3,577,245 $ 3,177,245 $ (400,000) $ (400,000) $ -
Central Branch **
(Subject to Library Board approval)
New Aquatics Facility - $ 1,800,000 $ 900,000 $ 1,800,000
Net Total Costs/(Savings) (1) $ 5,544,077 $ 6,109,077 $ (335,000) $ 565,000 $ 1,100,000
(1) As noted in the chart above, net cost of $1.8 million (the high end of the estimated range of $900,000 to
$1,800,000) have been assumed. Based on this assumption, the net operating costs of the combined
facilities inclusive of the new aquatics centre would be $565,000 higher. Conversely, if the low end of the
range of $900,000 net operating cost were achieved, building the proposed aquatic facility would actually
result in savings of approximately $335,000, based on similar repurposing decisions.
(2) Potential Operating Savings ($195,000) and Additional Capital Costs ($7,000,000) could be achieved/incurred in future. Numbers
are subject to inflationary increases.
* The operating savings identified are based on 2011 budgets, actual savings may vary.
** Current operating costs of WPL - Central Branch is based on the current identifiable Central Branch costs plus a 71% overhead
allocation (using building square footage as the cost driver)

Although difficult to quantify at this time, it is expected that if the Adie Knox Pool is kept open,
its net operating cost will increase and the proposed new facilities net operating costs will be
higher than options which include the closure of the Adie Knox Pool. These results are expected
due to the reduced usage of Adie Knox Pool and lower than otherwise projected usage of the new
30 of 136
 aquatics facility. Due to the uncertainty as to the amounts, these likely impacts have not been
reflected in these financial projections.

Option #2– Mid Range of Facility Rationalization

This option is generally focussed on the provision of higher financial savings provided to the
Corporation (when compared to Option #1) while also taking into account some key service level
priorities. Compared to option #3, it provides fewer saving and does not precisely achieve
Council’s mandate of a zero percent tax increase (at the high end of the net operating budget
range) but provides an opportunity to do so with effective cost management. The following chart
summarizes the financial and service impacts:

High End Est. Annual Est. Annual

Current Net Additional
Potential Net Costs/ Costs/
Recommended Option Operating Capital
Operating (Savings) - (Savings) -
Costs Costs
Budget Low End High End

1. Close the Aquatics portion of 750,250 $ 333,250 $ (417,000) $ (417,000) $ 1,100,000

Windsor Water World and repurpose
for Enhanced Community Centre use*
2. Close Windsor Arena* 238,022 $ 13,022 $ (225,000) $ (225,000) $ -
3. Close the College Avenue 342,560 $ 12,560 $ (330,000) $ (330,000) $ -
Community Centre*
Note: Potential Lease Revenue from - $ (88,000) $ (88,000) $ (88,000)
College Ave. Community Centre
4. Close the Aquatics Area at Adie 636,000 $ 516,000 $ (120,000) $ (120,000) $ 1,000,000
Knox Arena & Replace Pool Area with
Recreation Programming*
5. Close the Windsor Public Library – 3,577,245 $ 3,177,245 $ (400,000) $ (400,000) $ -
Central Branch**
(Subject to Library Board approval)
New Aquatics Facility - $ 1,800,000 $ 900,000 $ 1,800,000
Net Total Costs/(Savings) (1) $ 5,544,077 $ 5,764,077 $ (680,000) $ 220,000 $ 2,100,000
(1) As noted in the chart above, net cost of $1.8 million (the high end of the estimated range of $900,000
to $1,800,000) have been assumed. Based on this assumption, the net operating costs of the combined
facilities inclusive of the new aquatics centre would be $220,000 higher. Conversely, if the low end of the
range of $900,000 net operating cost were achieved building the proposed aquatic facility would actually
result in savings of approximately $680,000, based on similar repurposing decisions.

* The operating savings identified are based on 2011 budgets, actual savings may vary.
** Current operating costs of WPL - Central Branch is based on the current identifiable Central Branch costs plus a 71% overhead
allocation (using building square footage as the cost driver)

31 of 136
 Option #3 – No Impact to Municipal Tax Levy (Net Zero)

This option is consistent with Council’s goal of holding the line on taxes. It generally focuses on
the achievement of higher financial savings. Compared to option #1, it provides significantly
higher savings but it does result in the reduction of one arena pad, thus reducing the service to
the skating community, and the repurposing of more facilities. The following chart summarizes
the financial and service impacts of this option:

High End Est. Annual Est. Annual

Current Net Additional
Potential Net Costs/ Costs/
Recommended Option Operating Capital
Operating (Savings) - (Savings) -
Costs Costs
Budget Low End High End

1. Close the Aquatics portion of 750,250 $ 333,250 $ (417,000) $ (417,000) $ 1,100,000

Windsor Water World and repurpose
for Enhanced Community Centre
use*
2. Close Windsor Arena* 238,022 $ 13,022 $ (225,000) $ (225,000) $ -
3. Close the College Avenue 342,560 $ 12,560 $ (330,000) $ (330,000) $ -
Community Centre*
Note: Potential Lease Revenue from - $ (88,000) $ (88,000) $ (88,000)
College Ave. Community Centre

4. Close the Aquatics Area at Adie 636,000 $ 302,000 $ (334,000) $ (334,000) $ 250,000
Knox Arena, Keep Existing
Programming*
5. Close the Windsor Public Library 3,577,245 $ 3,177,245 $ (400,000) $ (400,000) $ -
– Central Branch**
(Subject to Library Board approval)
New Aquatics Facility - $ 1,800,000 $ 900,000 $ 1,800,000
Net Total Costs/(Savings) (1) $ 5,544,077 $ 5,550,077 $ (894,000) $ 6,000 $ 1,350,000
(1) As noted in the chart above, net cost of $1.8 million (the high end of the estimated range of $900,000 to
$1,800,000) have been assumed. Based on this assumption, the net operating costs of the combined
facilities are essentially the same. Conversely, if the low end of the range of $900,00 net operating cost
were achieved, building the proposed aquatic facility would actually result in savings of approximately
$894,000, based on similar repurposing decisions.

* The operating savings identified are based on 2011 budgets, actual savings may vary.
** Current operating costs of WPL - Central Branch is based on the current identifiable Central Branch costs plus a 71% overhead
allocation (using building square footage as the cost driver)

32 of 136
It should be noted that even if both the pools at Windsor Water World and at Adie Knox Herman
Complex are closed, it can be expected that not all current participants at these facilities will use
the new Aquatic facility. Furthermore, from the chart above, additional operating costs will be
incurred (i.e. utilities, minor maintenance) for closed facilities; hence the minor proposed
operating budget estimate amounts.

Other Options Indentified in Appendix A

Options #1 to 3 provide specific possibilities for Council’s future consideration for each of the
five facilities being considered for closure/repurposing. City Council may of course utilize the
costs identified in Appendix A to develop other scenarios by making specific choices for each of
the existing related facilities. The capital costs and net operating costs would depend on the
specific choices made by Council. On the operating side, the range of savings depending on
choices made is from $0 to $2,200,000. It should be noted that at the high end of the range (i.e.
$2,200,000), the savings are sufficient to cover even the highest projected net operating costs of
$1,800,000 of the new aquatics complex. Consideration would also need to be given to capital
costs, which range from $0 to $12,100,000.

It should be noted that the Council approved five year capital plan does not include any
dedicated capital funding for any of the capital costs related to the closure/repurposing of the
existing related facilities. Therefore, any of these capital requirements would need to be satisfied
from use of a portion of the $66.3 million allotted for this initiative in total. Some of the potential
options noted in Appendix A require very significant capital expenditures (i.e. Twinning of Adie
Knox Arena & adding an extension at a cost of approximately $11 million). These significant
costs cannot be funded from the $66.3 million allotment for this initiative and would require a
reprioritization of the approved capital budget.

D. CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDING

City Council had set aside placeholder funding of $66.3 million for this facility in the five year
capital plan. This amount can be broken down as follows:

• $2.1 million - Available from a 2009 capital budget placeholder as reallocated by Council
Resolution B20/2011
• $32.1 million - Will be available in 2014 as part of the Debt Reduction Fund, above and
beyond traditional capital spending (Council Resolution B20/2011)
• $32.1 million - Will be available in 2015 as part of the Debt Reduction Fund, above and
beyond traditional capital spending (Council Resolution B20/2011)

The announcement of an unconditional grant from the Province of Ontario will now free up $15
million (subject to the final Council approved budget for the new facility) of the $66.3 million
already set aside for this initiative. The freed up amount can be redeployed at Council’s
discretion to enhance this facility or to redirect to other priorities.

Issuance of long term debt would impact on annual operating budgets reflective of the required
debt repayments. It should be noted, however, that no long term debt is planned in this project

33 of 136
as the amounts identified above are available from the pay-as-you-go capital funding sources.
Given that construction will be carried out prior to the availability of the bulk of the City’s funds,
some short term interim financing will be required. Financing will be from internal sources as
much as possible. However external short-term bridge financing may be required depending on
cash flow impacts from ongoing and planned capital projects. These financing costs have been
noted in the estimated capital budget section above. In any case, it is planned that the project will
be fully funded by the end of 2015 without the burden of ongoing long-term interest charges.

E. NEW CAPITAL PROJECT (RE: CONSULTATION)

In accordance with Council Resolution B20/2011, capital project #7111005 has been established
with a budget of $150,000 to fund expenditures related to the consultation of this proposed
initiative. To date, up to $10,000 has been committed by the CAO with Council’s concurrence in
order to complete, on a timely and professional basis, the successful grant application for the $15
million that was recently announced by the Province of Ontario. Additionally, $18,600 has been
committed in this project by the Executive Director, Parks & Facility Operations to provide
Geotechnical Investigation and Phase I environmental site assessment for the proposed
downtown site.

5. CONSULTATIONS:
In addition to the signatories to this report, other representatives from the Finance and Recreation
and Culture Departments were consulted for the purpose of this report, including the Deputy
Treasurer Financial Planning, Financial Planning Administrator for Recreation and Culture,
Manager of Community Programming, and the Manager, Arenas and WFCU Centre. In addition,
the City Engineer, Executive Director of Operations, Manager of Contracts & Field Services and
Manager of Purchasing and Risk Management were also consulted. Various external sources
were also consulted.

(Rest of this page below has been intentionally left blank)

34 of 136
6. CONCLUSION:
The proposed Aquatic Family Centre & Library Complex is expected to provide a catalyst for
downtown revitalization and provide a western anchor to balance the casino in the east. It will
allow the City to greatly increase its sports tourism and hosting capabilities while providing an
exciting attraction for local families and tourists. The positive spin-off effects from the
construction and increased traffic in the downtown are significant. The Centre will also provide
an opportunity for the consolidation of some older and less efficient City facilities into a modern
site, which is expected to reduce the need for significant future capital improvements. The City’s
administrative team is prepared to assume the challenge of this project, subject to the direction of
City Council.

Andrew Daher Jan Wilson

Manager Operating Budget Control & Executive Director, Recreation & Culture
Financial Administration

Ronna Warsh Onorio Colucci

Community Development & Health Chief Financial Officer/City Treasurer and
Commissioner and Corporate Leader Corporate Leader Finance & Technology
Social Development, Health, Recreation &
Culture

Helga Reidel Don Sadler

Chief Administrative Officer Executive Director – Parks & Facility
Operations

Mario Sonego George Wilkki

City Engineer and Corporate Leader City Solicitor & Corporate Leader
Environmental Protection & Economic Development & Public Safety
Transportation

35 of 136