Agenda:
Why did you come to this meeting?
(Or: What are you interested in / hope to learn more about?)
Attendee responses below:
Alan Grant (building designer) and Greg Cannon (pool designer):
Identified three areas of focus:
Need input from the community to help determine what these focus areas mean;
i.e. what programs will these pools support? Examples given include:
Competition – what size of pool, ideally 50M for competition and revenue generation
Recreational – multiple types of features, slide, lazy river
Therapy - an important District program and significant source of community use
Mechanical focus areas include:
Revenue
Potential to create a Synergistic relationship with other facility components, some of which can raise revenue to support the cost of operating the facility. Examples include:
What would you use the facility for / What would bring you in?
Attendee responses below:
Attendee questions are in bold, answers bulleted under each:
· Site selection; are there only 2 sites that are being looked at?
o We are not looking at any other sites until we have exhausted the analysis of these two because they are sites the school district already owns. District would rather not spend construction money on land acquisition. Downtown Snohomish is the preferred location.
When will the site be selected?
o Need to spend the right amount of time on the site analysis. The District would rather not spend money on property but spend this on the facility. Board will make the final decision on location.
Will there be issues with Riverview and Machias students being temporary located at Freshman Campus if the pool is selected for this site?
o No, there is adequate space on-site to locate the pool and separate the students from construction activity.
Are there community pool models that are breaking even (operationally)?
o There are a few. Pools are typically not a profit-creating facility. The operational staff is a key component in controlling these expenses, and the programming must meet community needs in order to attract users (and revenue) to the facility. Mechanically, the most appropriate and economic system will be designed.
Are there ways to create partnerships to offset operational costs? How hard will it be for other organizations to interface with the District?
o We are able to create a public/private partnership per legal advisement.
What about the skate park at the Hal Moe location?
o The District only owns the “Hal Moe” portion of the site. Land where the skate park and Boys & Girls Club exist is City property.
What should our expectations be on decisions?
o Questions will be answered notes of this and future meetings will be posted to the district’s website. There will be on-going community meetings to update the interested.
Community Member Comment: It is important to create a reputation of a quality, fast pool. This will gain competitive interest in the pool and provide revenue.
Who is on the Design Committee?
o Bill Mester
o Betty Robertson
o Rick Pedack
o Bruce Richards
o Bill Fulton
o Alan Grant
o Greg Cannon
o Ralph Rohwer
o Steven Moore
Talk about indoor air quality and acoustics … what are the areas of concern and plans to address them?
o Indoor air quality is a critical design element; it impacts both the health of pool employees and users and impacts maintenance and operation costs. The designer talked about negative air pressure and the process for incorporating fresh air into the ventilation system.
o “ETFE material” has been used at other pool facilities for acoustical treatment. Will be looking at this and other features to control acoustics.
Water Treatment, what’s better: Ozone vs. Chlorine?
o A “permanent media” filter is the preference. Law requires one of the following in public pools: bromine, iodine or chlorine. All have their positives and negatives but chlorine combined with a UV treatment to control the chloramines is most efficient, especially when used with a computerized system that tracks chemical levels and balances these levels automatically to create a constant and comfortable experience.
Has there been discussion with other pools for do’s and don’ts?
o Yes, Bruce Richards is volunteering many, many hours of research time in addition to the time he is spending on the committee. He has contacted pools across the region and nation with questions and developed a list of concerns/goals.
Alternative energy to heat the pool?
o The heating and pumping costs are a significant cost in the operation of the pool. Solar, geothermal, high efficiency equipment are items we could look at to increase the efficiency of the pool. Each will be evaluated in terms of both construction and ongoing costs.
What can this budget support?
o The budget will need to support several factors; Pool, building and site development. The program is not fully developed to determine the proposed costs. We are interacting with the community to create the program outline so we can delve into conceptual estimates.
Is the target a 50M pool with bulkhead? Moveable floor?
o A 50 meter pool provides the most flexibility of use and therefore the best opportunities for revenue generation. That is the hope, but need to finish the program and estimate the components. A moveable floor is possible but is very cost prohibitive and creates some safety concerns.
Is there opportunity to add “dry land” features?
o These items are on the list that will be evaluated.
What is the City of Snohomish’s participation?
o No formal agreement, but channels of communication are wide open and the city is participating in the design team.
Was there any discussion with City on other locations?
o All would involve land acquisition, which is not desirable, so the initial focus is on the two parcels already discussed (former freshman campus and former pool).
What are your biggest worries?
o Looking at the site constraints and potential site development costs.
o Operation costs and revenue generation
o Also concerned with fulfilling the community and bond expectations.