City of
City Council
and Parks and Recreation Board
Joint
Workshop Meeting
Wednesday,
October 26, 2011
The
City Clerk
Jerilee Hopkins called the Joint Workshop Meeting to order.
Roll call
showed present: Councilman Dennis McEnaney, Councilman Todd Piper, Councilman
David Wood, and Mayor Mary Jane Chesley. Councilman
Ron Lash was absent. Also present:
City Manager Ron Neibert, Parks and Recreation Department Director George
Bryant, Parks and Recreation Department Coordinator Wes Plummer, Park Board
Member Bernie Dickneite, Park Board Member Trinda Heitmeyer, Park Board Member
Jerry Harpole, and Park Board Member Donte Moore.
Roger Greenwalt of FGM Architects and Scott Hester of Counsilman-Hunsaker
also attended.
Scott Hester
of Counsilman-Hunsaker made a presentation about the process of developing an
Aquatics Facility Master Plan that would evaluate the options for the future of
aquatics in the Mt. Vernon community.
The team of FGM Architects and Counsilman-Hunsaker has been commissioned
by the City to assist the community in the preparation of the master plan.
Mr. Hester
commented that Counsilman-Hunsaker is already doing several things behind the
scenes as far as looking at the Mt. Vernon market, including demographics,
income levels, age group distribution, community growth, and other area
providers.
In the
feasibility study, they will identify a series of concepts for consideration
based on the programmatic input collected from all the stakeholders’ groups
involved. Collectively, with the Steering Committee, George Bryant, Wes Plummer,
FGM, and Counsilman-Hunsaker, will define the level of options to be analyzed.
At that point a determination will be made as to the capital costs,
operational expenses, as well as the revenue potential.
The
following stakeholders have met with Counsilman-Hunsaker and FGM Architects:
hospitals and health care providers, local school administration, swim team,
City government, the Parks and Recreation Board, and the Steering Committee.
Counsilman-Hunsaker will look at various locations throughout the community to
be considered for the aquatic project.
They will also review the current location of the City pool to determine
if it’s the best site for the new project.
Perhaps other public or private entities may decide to invest in the
project which will also drive the location process.
Counsilman-Hunsaker will compare their findings to national averages and
other facilities comparable across the country to determine acceptable levels of
user fees and what the public is willing to pay for this facility.
The present
facility was built in 1968.
Considering the age and wear and tear on the facility, the City has done a very
good job of maintaining the pool.
Unfortunately, there are leaky pipes, ADA accessibility challenges, and other
functional problems and physical repairs required to bring it up to code.
It is possible that these repairs can amount to several hundred thousand
dollars to one million dollars. In
essence, by repairing the old pool we are creating a brand new 1968 pool.
Counsilman-Hunsaker will assess these factors in the feasibility report.
On the
recreation value side of the existing pool, a renovation can include a slight
reconfiguration of the pool, maybe a zero depth entry, and/or bring in water
slides, etc. There will be site constraints; the present bathhouse is sized to
accommodate the current pool capacity and once you add all the other water and
fixtures (sinks, showers, and toilets), the renovation or functional
improvements are limited based upon the support space.
Ultimately, when dealing with a facility of this age, you’re faced with
replacing the entire facility, including the pool and all support space around
it.
Discussion
was held regarding the community’s expectations as to whether the project is
opportunity driven or economic driven.
On a new seasonal outdoor facility, Mr. Hester estimates that one should
be able to meet or exceed the cost to operate the facility.
In fact, one may be able to generate a slight amount of revenue.
An indoor facility becomes more challenging because it’s operating all
year around, it must be heated and cooled, and a larger number of staff is
required for daily operation. It is
more difficult to recover the operating expenses.
Mr. Hester is not speaking against the indoor facility, but about the
recapture rate. In other words, 100
percent of revenues would be equivalent to the total cost of expenses.
That means you’re at 100 percent recapture rate.
If you’re at 110 percent, then you are 10 percent beyond that.
If you’re at 80 percent, then you’re only recapturing 80 percent of your
expenses. On an indoor recreation
center, common recapture rates are at the 69 percent range.
On an outdoor aquatics facility, you will be at a 95 to 110 percent
recapture rate. City Manager Ron Neibert confirmed that the recapture rate is
based solely on operational costs with no capital costs included.
There are
four different user groups:
1)
Competitive
— includes swimming, diving, water polo and synchronized swimming with specific
depth and lane requirements;
2)
Recreation
and leisure;
3)
Instruction
and lesson programs; and
4)
Wellness and
therapy programs.
The local
swim team meets at the City pool only during the months of June and July. They
are requesting a 25 meter pool with six or eight lanes.
A 50 meter pool is too large for the needs in our community.
There is always the opportunity to include multiple uses in the
competitive pool such as rock climbing, zip lines, water basketball, and water
volleyball and floatable structures.
Recreational
users include all ages and usually shallow water depth from zero entry to three
and one-half to four feet of water depth.
This area of the pool is all about activity, including water slides and
interactive play structures similar to the Salem, Illinois facility.
Instruction and lesson programs include learn to swim classes, lifeguard
training, scuba training, and any sort of instructional activity.
Open water areas at various depths will be needed.
Wellness and
therapy is the fastest growing group in aquatic facilities.
Water aerobics, senior classes, rehabilitation programs are some of the
various activities that can be offered.
Water temperature is important for this category and probably will
require a dedicated, stand-alone pool so that the water can be heated.
Recreational and competitive swimmers like cooler water.
If it’s a seasonal pool, heating the water won’t be an option.
Most pools are not heated in this part of the country.
Mr. Hester
noted that he is originally from Salem and Counsilman-Hunsaker performed the
work on the pool in Salem. They
started their pool project in November 2007.
They also met with various stakeholders in the community as well as the
Steering Committee. Counsilman-Hunsaker drafted a feasibility study for the City
of Salem outlining three different options ranging in cost.
Salem chose to focus on an outdoor pool with an indoor therapy pool
component. They constructed an
eight lane 25 meter pool and one meter and three meter diving boards.
Salem realized a large indoor pool similar to Centralia’s wasn’t
achievable for them because of the cost factor and the close proximity of Salem
to Centralia’s indoor pool. In
November 2008, the voters in Salem passed the referendum and the City Council
adopted a half-cent sales tax increase.
By calculating how much they could generate from the outdoor pool, they
decided the best chance for success was to replace the existing outdoor pool and
make it very, very nice. The indoor therapy pool was not feasible due to the
added cost of $1.5 million.
They applied
for, and received, a $400,000 OSLAD grant from the State of Illinois’ Department
of Natural Resources. In the fall
of 2008, Counsilman-Hunsaker completed the engineering drawings and submitted
them to the Department of Health in February 2009 for their review.
In May 2009, they released the contract for bidding and by June 2009 they
had selected a construction contractor.
They closed the old pool down two weeks early in August 2009 in order to
begin construction. The new
facility was opened in May 2010.
Mr. Hester described the two and one-half year timeline followed by Salem in
order to show the lengthy process needed to finish a new facility.
If the City
of Mt. Vernon followed a similar timeline, a new facility would be ready for
business in May 2014. He noted that
it takes four to six months to complete the design work for an outdoor pool, and
six to eight months to complete the design work on an indoor facility.
Additionally, to complete the construction of an outdoor pool would be at
least nine months and probably one and one-half years for an indoor facility.
Mr. Hester
presented a before and after pictorial of Salem’s Family Aquatic Center.
The total cost of their facility was $4 million, including demolition of
the old facility. Previously, the City of Salem subsidized the pool operations
in the amount of $30,000.00 to $40,000.00 a year.
That is about double the amount the City of Mt. Vernon subsidizes the
park pool. The first year Salem was
in operation they generated about $30,000.00 in positive revenue.
More revenue is generated by the concession stand.
Counsilman-Hunsaker will present a final study report which will be between
75-100 pages including current trends in the industry, analysis of other area
providers, and capital outlay for each option with operational expenses,
suggested user fees and revenues.
Council
Member David Wood left the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Hester
noted that occasionally a city will partner with another city school or YMCA on
the capital costs and will split the costs on a percentage basis by how much the
school or outside agency is utilizing the facility. It’s possible for the city
to fund the construction and the school to fund the operations.
There are situations in which the city funds the project, and the YMCA is
the operator of the facility. In
addition, villages, counties, cities and other public or private entities may
form partnerships to provide an aquatic facility in their community.
Generally, these partnerships are formed for large indoor facilities.
He advised that he will give the City information regarding three
different municipalities in Pennsylvania that formed a recreation cooperative or
district.
The meeting
adjourned at 6:25 p.m.