Print VersionStay Informed
MAYOR COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - - 4:00 p.m.
A101

Present: Gershman, Glassheim, Hutchinson, McNamara (joined in progress), Christensen (joined in progress), Kreun, Mayor Brown.
Absent: Bakken.

Gershman called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.

Matter of Riverside Pool.

Mark Walker, Asst. City Engineer, introduced Wayne Dietrich and Colin Lovdahl, both from EAPC, and stated that they had been retained by the City to conduct an independent evaluation of the Riverside Pool and provide a proposal as to what would be needed to renovate the pool. He continued that there had been an earlier study conducted by Water Technologies which had projected a cost of $1.6 million to renovate and operate the pool as is, $1.8 million to flood proof and operate without adding any other leisure amenities, $3.2 million to flood proof and add leisure amenities that would improve the pool, and $5.7 million to construct a new pool with appropriate leisure amenities to stimulate usage.

(McNamara joins the meeting.)

Walker continued that the City’s preference if the pool were to be reopened would be the $1.8 million option that would flood proof the facility, but that the cost was higher than we would like to fund. He added that the challenge put to EAPC was to look at the pool and see if there was another way to accomplish what needed to be done and yet keep the cost down to a more palatable amount and that perhaps in tapping the talent of local contractors this could be accomplished. Walker pointed out the list of contractors, who worked on this project with EAPC at no charge, as well as staff and community members, to come up with the information to be presented today. Gershman asked that Mayor Brown send a letter of thanks to those involved on behalf of the City.

Dietrich reviewed the study objectives which were: to fill the basement of the bathhouse and locate all equipment above grade, design to protect equipment and systems to withstand a 100-year flood event, renovate with materials acceptable to a flood event, consider methods to make cleaning the facility easier after a flood event, bring the facility up to the recommended standards for swimming pool operation and design, work with the Public Health Department to create a design that meets their needs, consider the desire of the Historic Preservation Commission in any building design changes, plan to replace or refurbish accessory pool items, provide heated water to the pool and minimize project costs.

(Christensen joins the meeting.)

Dietrich and Lovdahl continued with a review of the existing structure, which is in good condition except for some minor cracks that would be repaired, and noting items that would be undertaken as part of a renovation project. These included redoing the roof, installing new entry doors, rebuilding the entrance overhang, filling the basement and demolishing the stairs, refurbishing the slide, removing the interior wood studs and replacing them with masonry walls, removing the gyp board and general repainting of the interior, separating the piping for the drain of the baby pool from the large swimming pool and relocation of electrical. The plan includes reuse of the existing surge tank. The study does not include construction of a new structure to house equipment, but rather locates that in a currently unused restroom area, which is one area of substantial cost saving. The project would also include reconstruction of the stair area on the south side of the building to accommodate handrails and would provide for handicap accessibility to the pool deck through a separate entrance in the fence to the side of the poolhouse. All projects proposed on the outside were done to maintain the symmetry of the building and its historical nature. The project would construct the interior fixtures so that they could withstand a 100-year flood event, with a plan that would allow the equipment to be removed prior to any higher elevation flood thereby protecting it for reinstallation after the flood event. Lovdahl concluded that all of the work in the study could be completed at a cost of $1,022,762, which is a significant saving from earlier estimates and closer to the cost range that the City had been looking at.

Walker thanked EAPC for their efforts on the study and all the hours that they put in with the contractors to come up with the plan presented. He continued that there are no further breakdowns provided due to the fact that all the contractors provided their expertise at no cost and spent many hours each working on this project, all with the knowledge that if the project goes forward would need to be competitively bid so want to protect their work as consideration for their efforts.

The group discussed the levy lines and storm gate placement relative to the pool. Walker commented that typically development on the wet side of the dike is not allowed, but is allowed for recreational use and this would qualify. The group discussed the number of times flooding in excess of 45’ has occurred and would require cleanup costs to the pool. Walker stated that in the event of a higher level flood there would be costs associated not only with clean-up, but with flood proofing. He added that in 1996 the costs for flood cleanup were about $18,000 and have made some changes but would assume it would net to approximately $20,000, but could be higher or lower depending on the specific requirements. He stated there is not a firm number for the removal and reinstallation of equipment that would be required, nor is any cost included for overall cleanup of the park itself which would be done regardless of whether the pool is operating. Walker stated that also included is an upgrade to the watermain for the pool from the current 2” pipe to a 4” pipe.

The group discussed that there was about $594,000 left from pool purchase and still would leave about $500,000 to come up with from another source to complete the project, plus the annual operating deficit assumed to be about $40,000.

Christensen commented that a big part of the discussion also needs to be who will operate the pool, as the Park District has stated they do not want to operate it, and is it an activity that the City should be involved in. John Staley, Park Director, stated that at this time the Board has expressed that they do not have an interest in operating the pool. Gerhsman commented that at one time the YMCA had been interested in possibly operating it, but some felt they may no longer be interested. Hutchison commented that if the City reopens the pool, then he would see that it should be operated by the Park District.

Glassheim stated that the City needs to decide whether or not they are willing to invest the additional $500,000 for capital improvements, then if we do can move on to operator possibilities. He continued that he would like to see this go to Finance Development Standby Committee to look at funding options for the project, and then if those can be resolved, come back and look at who would operate.
Schisek asked if the $18,000 to cleanup/remove and reinstall would be maximum damage that the pool could have, and if there were a 58’ flood event if there would be any FEMA coverage for any of the damages or if that would become 100% our responsibility. Walker replied that $18,000 is probably the minimum. The group discussed that if a higher level event were anticipated then would have to weigh some choices, for instance it may be that would choose to leave some electrical in place, as it would cost less to replace than to remove and reinstall, but hard to really quote something like that, as there are so many variables.

Christensen commented that it is City funds and should also be a policy discussion on should the City be involved with running a pool, is that our mission, or leave the decision to the Park District that has that specifically as their mission and they do not want to run pool. He continued that he agrees that if the City were to repair the pool, then the Park District should be the entity to operate it. He cautioned that if the City decides to use our remaining betterment dollars for this project, then they will not be available for other items that are on the list so need to be sure that we want this as our priority. He added that betterments are paid for with special assessments and if we decide to give them back rather than spend them it will decrease the amount of the final special assessment that is levied. Christensen continued that the issue of the ongoing annual operating shortfalls and that usage was declining before the flood and has continued to decline at Elks Pool should also be considered.

Hutchison commented that EAPC and the participating contractors did a great job working on the study and commended them for their hard work and asked for highlights of major differences from earlier study. Walker stated that one of the big differences was eliminating the separate free standing equipment building that was to be constructed under the previous study, proposed change in furnishing of the inside, and that this study assumes that plumbing and other infrastructure is o.k. within the building. Walker continued that in regards to some other items in the study, he noted that the only handicap entrance is on the side of the building, as due to grade it was not possible to accommodate it through a ramp on the existing stair.

Hutchison provided some comparative operating information - heating at Elks Pool is approximately $18,000 each year and that pool is about half the size of Riverside. Elks loses about $35,000 per year and that is average for ND outdoor pools, as the box pool is not as popular anymore. He continued that you are dealing with about 60 swim days in the season, with attendance being about 17,000 for Elks last year and 11,000 at the EGF pool, versus the UND spray park that had about 9,000 users last year. He added that there was some talk of the EGF pool closing, but has been told that would happen only if the wellness center proposal were to pass. Hutchison commented that he still believes that the pool does not belong on the wet side of the dike and that consideration needs to be given to the 20,000 walk-ins that Canad had in July and August of last year. He stated that he does not believe that putting $1 million into a pool to loose $40,000 per year is a wise move on the part of the City. He commented that there are residents that would like to retain the pool, but that they also realize they could lose is and just need to make a final decision on this matter for the sake of the residents.

Kreun thanked Hutchison for the attendance information, as that should factor into the decision, and he was wondering what impact the Canad and splash parks had on pool attendance. He commented that in looking at flood heights it appears that about 20-22% of the time the flooding is over 45’ and where we would be looking at additional cost for cleanup.

Peg O’Leary thanked the Council of behalf of the Historic Preservation Commission for their work on this study and their desire to maintain the historic building whatever the final use. She stated that their only concern is that the original layout of the basement be documented prior to the infill and that there be assurance that the infill and lowering of the one floor section would not jeopardize the foundation of the bath house. Lovdahl stated that it would not.

Glassheim inquired what the costs would be to clean up the facility and rehab it for a different use. Walker stated that the original Corps of Engineers plan was to fill in the pool and convert it to sand volleyball courts with a 2003 estimated price of $40 – 60,000, but to just demolish the pool would be less than that. He stated that either case, the building would then be turned over to the Park District to determine the use. Glassheim commented that then no matter what, someone will have to pay to rehab the building.

Glassheim commented that the question is why is the City involved, there are some that feel the Park District made a mistake in not pursuing the pool, and the City now has no water facility on the northside and there is a concern that all the investment is in the South and Southwest corner of the community and the North is left behind, but sometimes it makes sense to invest to protect your other investments. He stated that with the usage of the Greenway, he feels there is a basis to project increased usage of this pool.

Hutchison stated that the Park District had been looking at a large playground and splash park bigger than the one at University Park. He added that Lincoln Drive Park has been very successful and the one thing that people ask for there is a splash park. He continued that he would rather support an addition to the existing Elks Pool to make that a more stimulating pool for youth than to split the users between two outdoor pools. He stated that some other amenities that had also been discussed and have been asked for in the community are Frisbee golf, picnic areas, shelters, and tennis and basketball courts.

McNamara agreed that the City owes the Riverside residents a resolution to this issue and hope that a timeline can be set and get decision made.

Christensen stated that the Council should look at the numbers provided by Hutchison and that this community is not so large that people can’t bike around and all get to one pool. He added that times have changed and expectations of amenities have changed and he agrees that splash parks in Lincoln Drive and maybe Optimist Park would be great additions to the community and would also provide more water amenity for youth. He commented that age 12-14 are not frequenting the box pools now and have other activities that they are involved with. He agreed that we need to make a decision on this issue and move forward.

Gershman stated that he would like to see what the balance of cash flow is in the Greenway fees and if that could provide funds in this area. He also noted that around the country communities are working to refurbish WPA pools, suggested checking into copper tubing on rooftop for water heating to keep cost down. He continued that the older youth may not frequent, but they bring up that there is no diving, and need something that will satisfy their need, and noted that there may be another water project coming which could also impact this issue. He added that it is a tough decision, and need to balance the heart of the project versus being fiscally responsible with City funds. Gershman suggested that if the project does go forward possibly the annual deficit could come from Special Events Funds.

O’Leary commented that more detail should be looked at in the Canad numbers, as they may include birthday parties and such that would not be typical users. She added that the Commissions main concern is that the Riverside area is historic and the bath house is an anchor for that neighborhood and like to see it preserved.

Staley provided a handout from the Water Technologies study which detailed operating costs and projections. He commented that youth today want to have excitement and are not seeing them come to box pools like they used to. He suggested that if the desire is to have a pool in the northend, then perhaps a location on the dry side of the dike should be located and would seem to be a better investment and if smaller size, maybe $1 million cost and then would require less to operate. Gershman asked if there was any thought given to decreasing the size of the existing Riverside Pool to decrease costs. Staley stated that one of the big factors is needing to clean the whole park after a flood event before being able to open and that cuts into operating time as well as if you want to keep the staff you have, need to still pay them or they will quit and take a job somewhere else.

The group discussed the annual projected loss. Glassheim suggested that if the Council decides to make the capital expenditure, then request operating proposals from the Park District and the YMCA and look at whether there is a way to cut that projected loss.

McNamara stated that he would like to see Finance Development discuss it before the Council kills the pool and see if there are any options that can be found. The group discussed what the timeline would be for getting more firm bids and then to get the project done if it was approved. Dietrich stated that they would need about 30-45 days to design and bid the work, then decide where the project goes from there, but unlikely to get the pool open for this summer.

Consensus of the group was for the matter to move to the Finance Development Committee for discussion of funding and staff will work to gather other information as discussed.

Meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sherie Lundmark
Administrative Specialist Senior