NORTHSHORE PRSA

Public Meeting # 2

7:00 p.m., October 21, 2003

Woodinville City Hall, Council Chambers

 

Meeting Notes

 

This meeting was attended by 52 Northshore PRSA residents and a variety of City, PRSA and consultant team members.  Participants represented a variety of community interests and populations.  Nearly half of the group (42%) represented recreational swimmers, just over a quarter (27%) represented competitive swimmers, and the remainder (15% in each category) represented fitness swimmers and those with warm water needs.  All agreed that their primary interest was in having a good community, and many had swim teaching interests in mind.

 

Of the attendees, all but six live in the Northshore School District (and, therefore, the PRSA).  Nearly half were from Kenmore, with the remainder evenly split among Bothell, Woodinville, unincorporated King County and unincorporated Snohomish County.  One individual was a Seattle resident.

 

The purpose of the meeting was to provide the alternatives the consulting team developed for addressing the aquatics needs of the PRSA area and to get participants’ feedback on those alternatives.  The alternatives ranged from “do nothing” to a first-class comprehensive aquatic facility, with mid-range alternatives that varied in the size of the lap pool and the range of recreational swim facilities, both with and without outdoor pool components.  Construction costs indicated represent the approximate mid-point of an estimated cost range.  Other fees, taxes, expenses, administrative costs, etc. necessary to construct a project are not included in this estimated cost.

 

Possible site locations that were reviewed spanned the Hwy 522 corridor and included the sites at which pools are currently located.  Site alternatives are all hypothetical at this time.

 

Pool alternatives that were discussed included the following:

 

Option 1:  No Cost

  • No money spent on pools beyond operating costs

 

Option 2:  $5.2 million construction + $350,000/ year operations

·        No new pool; renovate existing Northshore and St. Edward Pools

 

Option 3:  $6 million construction + $100,000/ year operations + land.  New pool with

Ø      25-meter, 8-lane indoor lap pool with 1 & 3 meter boards,

Ø      4000 square foot indoor leisure pool and therapy pool;

Ø      No outdoor component

Ø      Includes recreational amenities:  zero-level entry, waterslide, interactive water play structure and other spray features

Ø      225 parking spaces

  • No money spent on existing pools

 

Option 4:  $10 million construction + $80,000/ year operations + land.  New pool with

Ø      25-meter, 8-lane indoor lap pool with 1 & 3 meter boards,

Ø      4000 square foot indoor leisure pool and therapy pool;

Ø      8000 square foot outdoor leisure pool

Ø      Includes Option 3 indoor amenities and additional outdoor recreational amenities:  zero-level entry, 2 waterslides, lazy river, interactive water play structure and other spray features)

Ø      300 parking spaces

  • No money spent on existing pools

 

Option 5:  $18 million construction + $350,000/ year operations + land.  New pool with

Ø      50-meter x 25 yard indoor lap pool with bulkhead, 1 & 3 meter boards, 8000 square foot indoor leisure pool and therapy pool;

Ø      8000 square foot outdoor leisure pool

Ø      Includes indoor and outdoor recreational amenities as noted in options 3 & 4 above)

Ø      400 parking spaces

  • No money spent on existing pools

 

Options 3, 4 and 5 could result in closure of the existing Northshore and/or St. Edward Pools.

 

A straw poll was taken, with the following results:

Option 1                       No votes

Option 2                       13

Option 3                         2

Option 4                       11

Option 5                       26

 

The following is a record of the community residents’ oral questions and input to the project team.  Responses to written feedback sheets provided at the meeting are tallied in a separate document.  Questions are in bold type; responses given are indented and are not in bold type.

 

  • Would Options 3 and 4 have bulkheads to create separate areas for various activities?
    • Bulkheads could be added.

 

  • What is the cost per $1000 assessed valuation of each option?
    • This has not been determined yet but will be provided in the final report.  It could be as low as ten cents per $1000 AV, or $21 per year per $210,000 home to fund a $12 million  project; but no real analysis has yet been done.

 

  • Will the option of rehabilitating the existing pools plus adding a new section be considered?
    • The Northshore Pool and St. Edward Pool sites are among the sites being analyzed for suitability for new pool facilities or expansion.  However, neither one meets the access, visibility or parking space criteria well.
    • The City of Bothell and Northshore School District have formed a task force to review the potential uses of the site on which the Northshore Pool is located and this task force has not yet completed its recommendations.

 

  • Will the lap pool in Option 5 have cold water for competition?
    • The Option does include water temperatures suitable for competition, although probably not “cold” water.

 

  • Which options will include spectator seating?
    • All options will include this for the lap pools.

 

  • Do any of the high schools in the Northshore School District now have pools?
    • No.

 

  • What are the high school swimming programmatic needs?
    • The minimum requirements for high school swim programs include 8 25-meter lap pool lanes with a viewing area.
    • The current problem is in not having enough space for practices.  A single 8-lane, 25-meter pool is not adequate.

 

  • Which option is closest to the one currently under construction in Renton?
    • The pool under construction in Renton is outdoor only, focused on leisure swimming, with a 6-lane 25-meter lap pool component.  All of the indoor lap pool options presented here are larger; the outdoor components of each option (when there is an outdoor component) are leisure focused without lap areas.

 

  • What is the estimated cost/square foot for land acquisition?
    • That estimate has not yet been produced.

 

  • What are the plans for the site where the closed Sorenson Pool is located?  Could that land be sold and the funds used to offset the cost of purchasing land elsewhere for a new pool?
    • The City of Woodinville has long-term plans for development of a civic center at the site where the Sorenson Pool building is currently located.  Therefore, it is unlikely that part of the parcel would be sold.

 

  • What can be done to improve the parking situation at the St. Edward Pool?
    • The Project Team will investigate with the State of Washington what their interests might be in enhancing parking at St. Edward Pool in conjunction with a possible expansion of the pool there.

 

  • What is the operating budget vs operating revenue difference at Northshore and St. Edward Pools?
    • That information is being researched but as of the date of this meeting has not been provided.

 

  • What, in addition to real estate costs, has been excluded from the construction cost estimates provided for each option presented here?
    • “Soft” costs, such as consultant fees, taxes, required site testing and construction inspections, permits, printing, and extraordinary site development costs are not included.

 

  • How can the current situation of failing facilities due to aging and inadequate maintenance be avoided 20 years in the future?
    • Changing needs and trends may be unavoidable, but estimating and properly following good maintenance practices will be critical to assure the facilities last over time.

 

  • Who would manage the pools?
    • This question will be addressed later in the project when the number of alternatives has been narrowed.  There are a variety of approaches that will be analyzed.

 

  • Do the Colorado facilities shown as examples in other communities of facilities similar to these options make any profit?
    •        If capital costs are not included, the facilities that include outdoor leisure pool components do realize a profit when their operating revenues are compared to operating costs.  Those without outdoor leisure pools do not make as much money as they cost to operate.

 

  • How do summer conditions in Colorado and Idaho, where similar facilities are shown, relate to summers here?

o       Although there are some climatic differences across the nation, outdoor pools in most areas operate through the summer months primarily because that is when the students are out of school and seasonal lifeguards are available.

 

  • What will happen to the pools if they get shut down?
    • That decision is up to the property owners.

 

  • Have removable walls and roofs been considered?
    • Yes, however that type of facility detail will be further addressed later in the design process, rather than at the programmatic “bubble diagram” conceptual development process.

 

  • Would Option 6, a combination of Option 5 plus a high school competition pool, be considered?  What about two of Option 3?
    • The Cities’ interests are to reduce the operating deficits.  The operating efficiencies come from consolidating aquatic facilities.  If there were more than one facility, the operating costs would be increased, while the market share of users and revenue would not increase.  Land costs would also increase.  Thus, a dual-facility option is not likely to be considered.

 

  • Will the study include the economic impacts of co-locating the aquatic facility with other types of commercial enterprises?
    • That type of economic impact analysis is outside the scope of this project.

 

  • Will multiple uses on the site (e.g., exercise facility) be considered?  (for example, look at what has been done at Ft. Collins, Colorado)
    • Although that type of multiple use could increase the revenue generation potential of the aquatic facility, it is outside the scope of this study.

 

  • When will the project team ask the aquatics users for their specifications?
    • During the design phase, the architect will develop a facility “program” that includes more detailed specifications.  However, the PRSA should not pay for the design process until funds have been appropriated.

 

  • What “extras” are assumed in the leisure pools?
    • The leisure pool elements that will be considered, with the details to be worked out in the design phase via a community process such as a charette, include zero depth entry, active and passive zones, lazy rivers, interactive participatory play structures, and water slides with both body and tube flumes.

 

  • How much of this will go on the ballot?  Will the voters be able to select among the various options?  What happens if a ballot issue fails?

o       What goes on the ballot is up to the Board of the PRSA.  It is not currently assumed that any option will be presented to the voters for approval.  If the ballot issue fails, the next steps will depend upon the community interests at that time.

 

  • Will transportation impacts be addressed in the final proposal?
    • Access is one of the criteria for site selection, and transportation mitigation would be considered in the site development process.

 

  • Should a Park and Recreation District, rather than the Park and Recreation Service Area, be formed to sponsor this project?  A Park and Recreation District would have a directly elected Board.

o       At present, there is no Park and Recreation District.  The Park and Recreation Service Area is the only relevant and available jurisdiction that can address sub-regional recreation facilities.