Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Park & Rec/City Council Joint Meeting <br />September 2, 1998 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />· parking lot <br />· site amenities: <br />- sun arbors/shelters <br />- veranda <br />- large grass areas <br />- landscaping <br />- bicycle racks and area <br />- single flume waterslide <br /> <br />- sand plan area and apparatus <br />- sand volleyball area <br />- sunning areas and furniture <br />- concession building <br />- 3 water features including 1 pump <br />- public address system <br /> <br />The Council arrived at this time (6:00 p.m.) <br /> <br />Mr. Burbach explained that the study recommends a minimum 10,000 sq. ft. main <br />pool to accommodate a projected daily attendance of 666. He noted the <br />Minnesota Department of Health requires 15 sq. ft. of pool area per patron. Mr. <br />Burbach noted that his projections are very conservative and attendance may <br />actually be higher. He suggested that a second pool could be located east of <br />Highway 169 when the need arose. <br /> <br />Costs outlined on pages 66 and 67 of the report were reviewed. Mr. Burbach <br />indicated the total cost of the pool facility which has been recommended for Elk <br />River is $2,835,500. This figure includes the components noted above, plus <br />construction costs, professional fees and contingency. <br /> <br />Alternative pools were reviewed and discussed. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />(Councilmember Dietz left the meeting at this time - 6:50 p.m.) <br /> <br />Possibilities for reducing costs were also discussed as follows: <br /> <br />- Diving hopper - Reduction of approximately $100,000 - $150,000 <br />- Bathhouse construction of wood, rather than block - Reduction of <br />approximately $100,000 <br />- Bathhouse construction to meet minimal requirements (open roof) - Reduction <br />of approximately $150,000 <br />- Smaller pool with large green areas and sand areas - (Example: 6,000 sq. ft.) <br />- Construction of a wet playground instead of a multi-use pool (Considerable cost <br />reduction but a completely different project) <br /> <br />After discussion, the City Council and Park & Recreation Commissioners reached <br />a consensus on the following issues regarding cuts to the proposal: <br /> <br />- Deletion of the diving hopper would have a dramatic effect on the number of <br />people (especially teenagers) who would use the pool. <br />- A pool smaller than 10,000 sq. ft. would not likely meet the current needs of the <br />community, much less the future needs <br />- Upon passage of the referendum, voters would expect a quality pool facility, <br />not a minimum standard facility <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Council member Thompson felt it was important for residents to know up front the <br />impact the pool would have on their taxes, and also, how much it will cost for <br />them to use the pool (daily entrance fees and season passes). Discussion took <br />