NORTHSHORE PRSA

Public Meeting #1

7:00 p.m., September 10, 2003

Northshore Senior Center

 

Meeting Notes

 

This meeting was attended by 34 Northshore PRSA residents and a variety of City, PRSA and consultant team members.  Participants represented a variety of community interests and populations.  Toddlers, seniors, teens, families and persons with disabilities were about equally represented, each having 8-10 persons in the audience representing those interests (note that some people represented more than one group).  There were also representatives of the fitness swimmers and warm water pool users.  About half of the group indicated they were interested in general recreational swimming.  Competitive swimmers were represented by about 7 participants.

 

The purpose of the meeting was to describe the project that is underway, outline the project schedule, provide examples of facilities in other areas that have been constructed according to specific community interests, and obtain participants’ feedback.  Examples of lap, thermal, multi-purpose, participatory play, zero depth entry, lazy river, slide, floatable walk, wave, and fountain/spray/geyser pools were shown.

 

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:

Responses to the following questions asked at the meeting can be found on the web site or will be provided in the final report and/or, to the extent feasible, earlier in the Frequently Asked Questions section of the project web site.

PRSA

·        What is the PRSA?

·        Can the PRSA tax?

·        What is the population in the PRSA?

·        What is the population of the PRSA residing in unincorporated areas?

Aquatics Facilities

·        Does Mountlake Terrace charge to park at the pool?

·        What is the size of the Mountlake Terrace pool?

·        What aquatics options are offered at Mountlake Terrace?

·        What was the cost of renovating the Mountlake Terrace pool?

·        What does “spa” mean?

·        Are all of the examples of other communities’ aquatic facilities publicly owned?

·        Is this project private or public?

·        Which is more expensive to maintain:  brand new pools vs renovated aged facilities?

·        Is there a facility that can be donated?

·        Does St. Edward have enough space, especially including parking needs?

·        What is a rough estimate of the land requirements, including parking?

·        How do you meet all of these needs in one facility?

·        What is the difference between a water park and a leisure pool?

·        What is the next project milestone?

·        Will you do a broad-based community survey?

·        How much did it cost to renovate Mountlake Terrace and/or Shoreline pools?

·        What are the current operating costs of the pools in the Northshore area?

·        What is the relationship of the pool fee revenues to the pool operating costs?

 

Suggestions for the Project:

·        Look at some 50 meter facilities (e.g., Kitsap High School); consider their revenue-generating potential because of the larger swimmer base

·        Consider a removable roof facility

·        Check on the pool in Snohomish

·        Consider energy conservation and compare heat pumps/heat exchangers, etc.

·        The package should include a combination; include different solutions for each existing pool

·        Have new developments include water parks [this refers to new mall developments]

·        Renovate St. Edward; make an “L”; it’s a beautiful place

·        Look at what the City of Bainbridge has

 

Other issues and comments:

·        It costs $20 for a family to swim at St. Edward; this is prohibitive

·        Some parts of an aquatic facility can generate revenue to support other parts of the facility

·        There is a great need in this area for a facility for kids ages 5-18

·        There is a great need for lap pools; there are too many kids for the summer meets

·        The County needs at least two more 50-meter pools

·        A multi-generational facility would enhance the community

·        The examples shown are a kids’ Christmas wish list; no one has the funding for these kinds of facilities

·        Needs should be met in a complementary manner

·        Affordability is an issue

·        Consider that not everyone has their own vehicle; need to accommodate public transportation and consider driving times

·        Neighborhood pools would make some transportation easier

·        Current facilities (especially St. Edward) are not currently maximized; fees drive people away

·        Competitive swimmers drive daily to Federal Way or West Seattle; these swimmers will take anything

·        No long term funding for pools is available from the Cities; this study is expected to recommend what should be done

·        There are not enough lap pools

·        There are more recreational than lap swimmers

 

Site suggestions:

·        Thrasher Corner, Bothell

·        Locate near the High Schools