By Jennifer Eisenbart
Editor
The City of Burlington Common Council is moving forward with phases 3 and 4 of planning for the community pool, but officials acknowledged Tuesday night that the timeline might be too tight for a November referendum.
After an open discussion with members of the Pool Board, city staff and some City Council members, the topic was officially discussed at the Committee of the Whole meeting.
The council is moving forward with phase 3, which is developing a management plan. Running concurrent with that, according to Blake Theisen of Ayres and Associates – the firm directing the study – will be the design phase of the pool.
A handful of preliminary designs – one that would simply recreate the current pool with three different water areas, and three that would put together a new building with several different water features – were presented, along with different layouts on the current site and parking options.
One of the options, which would have the pool along Amanda Street and a parking lot along the side, was rejected by those at the first meeting Tuesday night.
Looking at costs
The costs the city is looking at could range anywhere from $2.1 million up to $3.9 million. The low end is to recreate the current pool, while the high end would be the new pool. Officials, however, have largely rejected the notion of simply building a replacement pool because it would lack the amenities that could attract a sufficient number of people to make the operation feasible.
That puts the likely cost of the proposal in the $3.5 to $3.9 million range.
The advantage to a single structure pool would be one common water system, versus the three separate tanks at the pool now, explained Theisen. The single-source pool would house a current channel for water aerobics, a zero-depth entry pool area, a diving well, a lap-swimming area, a water slide with plunge pool and a “wet” playground area with slides and the like.
That pool option was presented with two different layouts – one with the water slide stairs along the steep hill where the wading pool currently is, and another option with the lap lanes in that area.
In either scenario, the parking would be expanded, and the pavilion and playground area currently at the north of the pool area would be moved to the south.
Carrico Aquatic Resources would remain involved in helping manage the pool, and the hope with the new building would be to have it open for sledders and possibly skaters, should a skating area be established during the winter.
A tight timeline
However, while the options seemed to fall into place with council expectations, the state-mandated Aug. 23 deadline for presenting the referendum package for Nov. 8 looms.
Several council members expressed concern that the timeline was too tight to get a management plan back – and then to educate the public on the pool, with the intent of passing a referendum for a not-to-exceed amount.
Theisen said Ayres contracted with the city to make the Nov. 8 referendum work, but admitted it would be tight. He added that the company would meet whatever deadline the city desires.
However, Alderman Tom Vos said the city needed a management plan to keep it viable – and therefore, be able to sell the plan to the public.
“It’s easy to build something,” Vos said, “but it’s harder to maintain it.”
Alderman Bob Grandi said he wants to remain “aggressive” with the timeline of Nov. 8. That would place the referendum on the presidential election ballot, which is expected to bring a large turnout.
On that topic, though, Alderman Ed Johnson wondered if unhappiness at the polls might doom the referendum. Alderman John Ekes added that no matter when the referendum goes forth, voters will need as much information as possible.
“This community needs to get the information, understand what’s out there and digest it all before they spend a dime,” Ekes said.
Vos, who said he didn’t mind an aggressive timeline but wanted all the information available, added, “If we don’t have our ducks in a row, there will be just that many more people out there that don’t understand the issue, that are going to vote it down.”
Alderman Jon Schultz also said he wanted the pool accessible to everyone, as passing the referendum would essentially make the entire community “members” by virtue of paying their tax bills.
-
-
-
-
-