Transcript Slide 1

PIERRE & FORT PIERRE
COMMUNITY
MOPTF
(MAYOR’S OUTDOOR POOL TASK FORCE)
June 4, 2008
MOPTF COMMITTEE
“The mission of the Mayor’s Outdoor Pool Task Force is to assess the current conditions and demand for an
outdoor pool facility in the City’s of Pierre and Fort Pierre, explore options for future development, including
one shared outdoor facility, and make recommendations to both municipal governments to guide future
outdoor pool investments.”





REPRESENTING PIERRE
ROSS PETERSEN, CHAIRMAN
JUDY WEGNER
KENT HUCKINS
J.J. LINN





REPRESENTING FORT PIERRE
KRISTIE MAHER, VICE - CHAIRMAN
LINDA BROWN
KATHY HEISS
MISTY HOFTIEZER




SUPPORT STAFF
Leon Schochenmaier, Pierre City Administrator
Tom Farnsworth, Pierre Parks and Recreation Director
David Page, Fort Pierre Finance Officer
Andy Lueth, Pierre Recreation Superintendent
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?







PIERRE – OUTDOOR POOL
Deteriorating Bathhouse
Gutter System needs to be replaced
Bowl of the pool needs to be replaced
Continued replacement of decking
Yearly Operation and Maintenance cost will continue to
increase
Liability issues will force closure in 2 to 3 years
Core Samples - 2002
Core #4 Taken from the NW corner of the Pool.
Note: Algae Present between layers!
Note: Difference in concrete aggregate.
Hahn Engineering Structural Inspection and Evaluation of Griffin Park Pool
(December 27, 2002)
Hahn Engineering Opinions & Recommendations: #8 (It is our opinion the pool has far
exceeded its functional life. The original concrete has deteriorated to the point of little remaining
strength. The gunite layer is not structural and can not adequately support the design loads. It is
our opinion the bowl has already failed and removal and/or replacement should be
considered.)
GUTTER SYSTEM
Yearly Operating Expenses & Revenues

Pierre
Expenses

Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Revenues

Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Personnel
31,678.00
29,968.00
27,538.00
29,729.00
40,008.80
Concessions
1,914.00
2,288.00
3,036.00
3,866.00
5,991.00
Total Tax Base Support
2003 - $104,797.60
2004 - $43,887.90
2005 - $40,831.00
Expenses
80,017.20
21,431.00
21,289.00
15,265.00
21,331.00
Capital Outlay
2,173.80
0.0
1,620.00
0.0
3,500.00
Swim Fees
7,157.00
5,223.00
6,580.00
9,442.00
9,047.00
2006 - $31,686.00
2007 - $49,781.90
Total
113,869.00
51,399.00
50,447.00
44,994.00
64,839.80
Total
9,071.00
7,511.00
9,616.00
13,308.00
15,038.00
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?

FORT PIERRE – OUTDOOR POOL

Bowl is cracking and will need to be replaced
Leaking significant amount of water
Decking needs to be replaced (significant cost)
Bath House is deteriorating
Pipes under decking need to be replaced (significant
cost)
Several of the water jets do not function and need to be
repaired
4 to 7 years of life left in pool






Major Cracks in Bowl
Decking Needs to be Replaced
Yearly Operating Expenses & Revenues

Fort Pierre
Expenses

Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Revenues

Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Personnel
27,355.20
34,227.00
31,419.30
34,303.10
25,745.40
Concessions
1,934.10
2,375.90
2,786.70
3,647.60
3,092.60
Total Tax Base Support
2003 - $32,960.10
2004 - $43,170.70
2005 - $40,977.70
Expenses
12,059.00
15,026.00
17,247.00
19,383.00
20,298.00
Capital Outlay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Swim Fees
7,523.20
3,706.50
4,901.20
6,545.70
5,231.60
2006 - $43,493.20
2007 - $37,718.80
Total
39,414.20
49,253.00
48,666.30
53,686.10
46,043.40
Total
9,457.30
6,082.50
7,687.90
10,193.20
8,231.60
Total Tax Base Support
Pierre & Fort Pierre
Year





Pierre
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
$104,797.60
$43,887.90
$40,831.00
$31,686.00
$49,781.90
Fort Pierre
$32,960.10
$43,170.70
$40,977.70
$43,493.20
$37,718.80
Total
$137,757.70
$87,058.60
$81,808.70
$75,179.20
$87,500.70
$140,000.00
$120,000.00
$100,000.00
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
$80,000.00
$60,000.00
$40,000.00
$20,000.00
$0.00
Pierre
Fort
Pierre
Total
Yearly Attendance Totals
14000
12000
10000
8000
2005
2006
2007
6000
4000
2000
0
Pierre
Fort Pierre
Pierre
Fort Pierre
2005 – 12,134
2005 – 5,913
2006 – 8,643
2006 – 8,352
2007 – 9,549
2007 – 4,187
What are the Options!

Option 1 – Do Nothing (Continue to operate both pools as they
are currently run!)



Pierre Pool expected to operate 2-3 more years then it will close.
(Note: Pool is past the point in which patch repairs could be
made and the entire pool would have to be replaced)
Do not replace Outdoor Pool and use Aquatic Center.
Fort Pierre Pool expected to operate 4-7 more years then it will
close unless major repairs are done. (Note: Significant cost for
future repairs are needed to keep the pool open.)
What are the Options?

Option 2 – Replace existing Pools in each
community with similar structures.
Pierre – 2.5 to 3.5 Million Dollar Cost to replace existing pool and bath
house with same structure and features.
• Note: New pool will continue to have same Operation costs.



Yearly Debt Service Payment
Yearly O & M Cost after revenues
Yearly Tax Base Support
$278,000.00
$50,000.00
$328,000.00
Fort Pierre – 1.5 to 2.5 Million Dollar Cost to replace existing pool and
bath house with same structure and features.
• Note: New pool will continue to have same Operation costs.




Yearly Debt Service Payment
Yearly O & M cost after revenues
Yearly Tax Base Support
$198,000.00
$45,000.00
$243,000.00
Total costs to replace both pools is $4-6 million with no
new pool amenities.
Note: Debt Service based on 5% interest X 20 yrs
Option 2A

Option 2A – Repair pools so they can continue to operate.


Pierre – not an option for the Pierre Outdoor Pool. The pool is past the point of
patch repairs. The entire pool will need to be replaced.
Fort Pierre – Minimum repairs could be done for the next 5-7 yrs and then the pool
would have to be replaced or the following would need to be done in order to keep
the pool open any years after that time. The following would need to be addressed.
• Replace Decking and Find Leak in Piping
• Several of the water jets do not function and
would need to be repaired.
• Bath House is not accessible and is poorly laid
out with differences in elevation in the excess of ADAG.
• If significant repairs are done to the decking the diving boards
may have to be removed.
• Chemical Room would have to be replaced
What are the Options?
3 – Build One Community Family
Outdoor Aquatic Facility.
 Option

Bring both communities together to build one facility.

Find general location to accommodate both communities.

SD Communities that have built Family Outdoor Aquatic Facilities
or will be building Facilities in the future.






Brookings
Watertown
Mitchell
Aberdeen
Madison
Spearfish
Sioux Falls
Each community saw an increase in attendance by 300%
In Cities with family outdoor aquatic facilities, operational costs
are nearly covered by revenues.
Option 3 – Cont.
What is a Family Outdoor Aquatic Facility?







New trend in Outdoor Aquatics
Include zero depth entrance with play structures
Include water slides, drop slides, and lazy rivers
Include expanded concessions
Include lap pool for lessons and competitions
Includes every amenity as a Water Park for half
the cost.
Attract a wider demographic compared to the 50
year old pool style.
Brookings
Mitchell
Aberdeen
Membership Comparison
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
Brookings
Brookings
2005 – 534
2006 – 1,845
2007 – 1,963
Mitchell
Mitchell
2005 – 300
2006 – 1,000
2007 – 952
Watertown
Watertown
2005 – 398
2006 – 1,188
2007 – 1,198
Aberdeen
Aberdeen
2005 – 603 (2 pools)
2007 – 1,152 (only
open for 67 days)
Daily Admissions
30000
25000
20000
2004/05
15000
2006
10000
2007
5000
0
Brookings
Mitchell
Watertown
Aberdeen
Brookings
Mitchell
Watertown
Aberdeen
2005 – 16,251
2004 – 4,118
2004 – 6,544
2005 – 11,241
2006 – 20,770
2006 – 11,783
2006 – 17,443
2006 – 0 (Closed)
2007 – 18,878
2007 – 9,698
2007 – 17,143
2007 – 28,874
Yearly Attendance Totals
80000
70000
60000
50000
2004/05
2006
2007
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
Brookings
Mitchell
Watertown
Aberdeen
Brookings
Mitchell
Watertown
Aberdeen
2005 – 32,405
2004 – 18,000
2004 – 17,476
2005 – 27,251
2006 – 75,000
2006 – 54,000
2006 – 64,352
2006 – 0 (Closed)
2007 – 73,450
2007 – 53,220
2007 – 65,356
2007 – 54,666
Five Potential Sites Evaluated in Pierre to Locate a New Pool
Concentric Circles are 660 feet (1/8 mile) apart
Pros and Cons of Pierre Potential Sites

P1 – Steamboat Park – Pros – 5.5 acres, good visibility & access, near bike
trail, City owned, draw tourists, visible to both Cities & central location for
both Cities, good parking, near Chamber, Discovery Center and hotels.
Cons – removes green space, lots of trees, low water table, may need to
close Dakota avenue off bridge.

P2 – West of Ramkota Inn – Pros – City owned, visible from both Cities &
centrally located for both Cities, near hotels, on bike trail, Cons – Congested
parking, access to Highway poor, smaller than Steamboat, lots of trees,
removes green space.

P3 – Skateboard Park – Pros – City owned, near trails, walking distance for
Boys and Girls Club, near other recreation. Cons – relocate skatepark &
safety town, off major thorough fair, not visible or centrally located for Ft.
Pierre, limited parking, lose green space to parking.

P4 – West of Griffin Park – Pros - City owned, on trail, near other recreation.
Cons – Removes green space, no parking, reduces residential visibility to
river, limited space.

P5 – Garfield & 4th Street – Pros – Near shopping, no water table issue.
Cons – hills, private land, not central location, far from hotels, no other
recreation nearby,
Six Potential
Sites
Evaluated in
Ft. Pierre to
Locate a New
Pool (sites
are shaded in
blue – circles
are ¼ mile
apart)
Pros & Cons of Ft. Pierre Potential Sites

FP 1 – Existing Pool Site - Pros – Can see from Highway 83, adjacent to
CYI-School. Cons – Lack of parking.

FP 2 – Marina Drive US CORP buy out land – Pros – Can be seen from
main highway, only have to buy one house out. Land vacancy.
Cons – CORP owns property (may be gifted), high traffic in residential,
compete with boat traffic.

FP 3 – South of Teton Island - Pros – Good access.
Cons – Expensive, high traffic, commercial parking.

FP 4 – Schimkat Property - Pros – Visible, access, on trail.
Cons – High water table, Very expensive land.

FP 5 – Vacant Property North of Town - Pros – County land, good visibility
from dam, land in great shape.
Cons – County land, isolated, large distance for kids to travel.

FP 6 – City Park Block North of Town - Pros – City owned, flat ground, good
access, by Wakpa SIca, on trail, near golf course.
Cons – large distance from both cities.
Please Give Us Your Comments

Your comments on the information presented,
various options, locations, etc. will assist the
Task Force in developing a recommendation to
be delivered to both City Commissions this fall.

To comment go to www.ci.pierre.sd.us or
www.fortpierre.com/Parks.aspx You may also
contact any of the Task Force members.

Thank you for helping shape the future of
Outdoor Pools in Fort Pierre and Pierre.