5.1. SR 09-14-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Memo/Ballot Question September 14, 1998 Page 2 options that the city may find desirable. The pool facility may be slightly conservative in terms of size based on the city's growth, but the pool is the quality facility that everyone expects when you talk about an outdoor family aquatic center. Additionally, the cost estimates are believed to be accurate, but as we all know, actual bids could be higher or lower than the estimates, depending on any number of situations. There are numerous family aquatic centers throughout the Twin Cities and I believe that what is contained in the proposal is consistent with what citizens expect. This may be especially true when considering what is down the road in the city of Anoka. Everyone on September 2nd had "sticker shock" regarding the cost of the proposal. Discussion took place regarding constructing a smaller facility, constructing a facility of lower quality (less amenities), constructing the facility in phases and whether or not the city should pursue two separate questions or one question which combined the pool with outdoor recreation improvements. The conclusion of everyone in attendance seemed to be to pursue one large bond referendum question in the amount of $3.95 million. This included $2,835,500 for the family aquatic center, $1,064,500 for outdoor park and recreation improvements and $50,000 for bonding and issuance costs. The city definitely needs to present a complete and quality product to the public if an issue of this magnitude is going to be approved, however, depending on the bids, there may be some very modest phasing of the pool improvements required. The community survey said the citizens wanted an outdoor family aquatic center. Accordingly, if the people want the facility and if they approve it at the polls then the city will construct and manage the project. There is a concern about the chances of success at the polls, as not suprisingly, the survey indicated that most people desired a $3 million facility but only wanted to pay as if the facility costs $1 million. The challenge for the referendum committee will be to get public information out regarding the proposal so that everyone is aware of the issue before the November 3rd election. In retrospect, the city maybe should have started immediately after the defeat last fall, but we still have a solid 6 weeks to conduct a full public information campaign regarding the proposal. The campaign is still in its early stages but will include copies of a three- dimensional rendering of the proposal which should be available in early October. The rendering will identify the general location of the facility in Orono Park and all the components within the project, but its orientation may shift slightly in one direction or another. The campaign will also include a video, informational flyers, newspaper articles and advertisements, along with public informational presentations with consultant Dave Burbach in s:\council\refques.doc