HomeMy WebLinkAboutA006 - Council Action Form dated May 8, 2007, Item 26a-c � s
ITEM # a1P a-C,
DATE May 8, 2007
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO DEVELOPING AN OUTDOOR
AQUATIC CENTER
BACKGROUND:
With the goal of enhancing the City's recreation facilities, on January 23, 2007 the City
Council authorized $17,300 to retain the architectural firm of RDG Planning and Design
to complete a feasibility study for an outdoor aquatic center (Attachment A).
In anticipation of the study being completed in March, the Parks and Recreation
Commission met several times in February and March to determine the best method for
releasing this study to the public and for gaining reaction to the proposal to pursue the
development of an aquatic center.
CONSENSUS BUILDING
PROCESS
Ultimately, the Commission determined that a `consensus building model' would be
implemented to engage the public in this process and that a trained facilitator with ISU's
Extension Services would be retained to coordinate the meeting time. It was determined
that this method would afford the Commission the best opportunity:
1. To educate the public on the overall need for this facility
2. To review two locations (Middle School and 13th Street) and three facility layout
options (A, B, C)
3. To share the implications of voting on this issue in July or November, 2007
4. To receive public input and to assure that support, as well as issues and
concerns, could be openly expressed.
The overarching goal of this consensus-building process was to insure that even though
people may not wholeheartedly agree with the final recommended action they would be
able to say: "I can support it."
To promote public participation in this process, the Commission decided to host four
meetings at four different locations and times. In addition to the traditional public notice
procedures, the Commission mailed postcards to the 5400 individuals who voted in the
1
December 2003 "Rec Plex" bond election, sent flyers home with every elementary
school child in the Ames community School District, and electronically communicated
the meeting announcement to hundreds of residents.
PUBLIC MEETINGS RESULTS / FEEDBACK
The four meetings were tremendously successful with over 225 residents attending.
Each session provided the Commission with needed insight and data. Additionally, a
`straw poll' was taken at each meeting to physically assess if `consensus' was
developing for this project. Those in attendance were also asked to fill out a short form
prior to leaving the meeting to gauge their level of support. Of the 225 people in
attendance, less than a hand full of people stated that they couldn't support the
development of an outdoor aquatic center.
At each meeting the Commission stated that pursuing the outdoor aquatic center
is viewed as phase one of enhancing the community's overall recreation facility
needs. Commissioners reminded those in attendance that gymnasiums, an
indoor recreational pool, and an indoor competitive pool are still needed. They
told the public that the City would continue to assess if partnering opportunities
can develop (City, School District, ISU) to address these critical needs in the
years to come and to develop appropriate proposals to meet the community's
needs for recreational facilities.
The following written feedback from approximately 225 people was collected from the
four public meetings:
Facility Design:
Option A = 67% support (with a 50 meter lap area 19% support)
Option B = 1% support
Option C = 0%
No response = 13%
Location:
13th Street = 59% support
Middle School = 24% support
No response = 17%
Vote Date:
July = 75% support
November = 11% support
No response = 14%
Following the four meetings, on April 30 the Commission held a three-hour workshop to
debrief the data noted above, review hundreds of written comments, and to prepare
their recommendations for City Council action. Additionally the Commission stated
2
that the `values' that drove their ultimate project recommendations included, in priority
order:
1. Sound environmental practices
2. Fiscal responsibility to the tax payer
3. Collaboration with the School District and ISU
4. Sense of urgency to move this project forward
5. A really fun facility
LOCATION and RELATED LAND ISSUES
Recommendation - 13th Street site
Though both sites had pros and cons, at each public meeting it became apparent that
the majority of those in attendance support the facility being located at 13th Street on
land owned by ISU.
Support of the 13th Street included, but was not limited to:
• Its central location
• Children could more easily walk or ride bikes to this site
• Expansion opportunities of the bike trail system from north to south through this
site is attractive
• The overall area could be environmentally enhanced and incorporated into a
central greenway system adjacent Squaw Creek
Concerns with the 13th Street site included; but were not limited to:
• Residents adjacent the site could experience an increase in light, traffic, and
noise that may impact their quality-of-life
• The site is located in the floodplain and the area should remain a green open
space
Support of the Middle School site included, but was not limited to:
• The partnership with the School District, including shared parking
• The potential for community growth to the southwest, suggesting that the facility
may, at some point in time become more centrally located
• In contrast to the 13th Street site, the Middle School is not located in the
floodplain and no one lives immediately adjacent to the site to be impacted by
noise, traffic, or lights
Concerns with the Middle School site included; but were not limited to:
• The site is not centrally located, related to Ames' existing residential population
base
• Lack of confidence for having children walk or ride their bikes from central or
north Ames to the more remote Middle School site
3
The Commission's opinion on the location issue echoed the majority of those in
attendance. They support the 13th Street location and are excited with the University's
offer to extend a long-term lease to the City of Ames for this beautiful parcel.
In addition to its central location and ease of access for children, Commissioners also
envision that this site has the potential to be dramatically enhanced from an
environmental perspective. As an example, the Commission recommends that the
approximate six wetlands sited on the Site Master Plan be included in the base
bid of the project (cost implication estimated at $150,000). This would ensure that
water run-off north from this site would be filtered naturally prior to entering Squaw
Creek. Additionally, the Commission supports incorporating two recommendations
into the base bid at an anticipated cost of $150,000 as submitted from the ISU
Outdoor Teaching Laboratories Committee (Attachment B) as follows:
• Widening the riparian corridor vegetation to a width of 200 to 300 feet with
appropriate native trees, shrubs, and / or grasses and forbs, particularly on the
east side of the stream bank.
• Use state-of-the-art pervious surfaces where possible (e.g., grass block parking
lot) and on-site treatment of run-off from impervious surfaces, including the use
of constructed wetlands.
In addition to its central location, connectivity to the bike trails for all ages, and the
environmental opportunities available at this site, the Commission also supports the 13th
Street location because:
• The School District could use the parking lot for AHS home football games;
• Swimmers would be more protected from the wind at this site compared to the
Middle School site; and
• The perceived negative impact this facility would have on the residents living on
Summit Avenue is opposite from the reality residents living adjacent Carr Pool
have expressed over the years. As an example, prior to voting on the Rec Plex
bond issue in 2003, residents of the Carr Pool neighborhood expressed
enjoyment with having a pool located within their neighborhood.
Related to the Middle School site, Commissioners expressed concern that growth to the
southwest is speculative and that the overall site is more remote from the main
population base.
Floodway/ Floodplain at 13th Street:
At their Commission meeting on May 2"d, an engineer with Snyder and Associates,
Mark Land, provided Commissioners with an educational session entitled:
"Understanding Floodplains". Several years ago the City of Ames had retained Snyder
4
and Associates to assist with updating the City's floodplain regulations coming off flood
events of the 1990's. Mr. Land reviewed how the City increased the regulations
governing the floodplain and that all structures must be elevated a minimum of 3' above
the 100 year flood level. (RDG has taken this requirement into account in locating the
aquatic facility into the southeast corner of this site and stating that 14' of fill will be
required to meet the City's floodplain regulations.)
Mr. Land specifically addressed the impact an aquatic center would have on this site
and provided Commissioners with an estimate related to how much water would be
displaced due to filling a portion of the floodplain. The aquatic center would be located
on the north side of the 13th Street bridge (which structurally restricts the flow of water)
and the facility would be tucked into the southeast corner of the overall site. Given
these two factors, Mr. Land reported that the rise of water would be miniscule. He
explained that the amount of rise would be insignificant and compared this depth
level to the "thickness of a couple of sheets of paper."
Taking this information into account, the Commission is confident that the pool facility
will be three feet above even a hundred year flood, and will not have a significant effect
on the floodplain at this location.
Lease Agreement with Iowa State University:
Subject to City Council approving the Commission's recommended action, City staff
should begin negotiations with ISU officials to secure a long-term lease agreement for
the 13th Street site. These negotiations should incorporate the School District's needs
as called for in the conceptual Site Master Plan.
OPTION A, B, or C
Recommendation — Option A with Environmental Enhancements
Project Budget of $8,488,000
Fun Factor: From the onset, RDG consultants stated that one of the most important
aspects of modern aquatic facilities is to incorporate elements that appeal to all ages
and abilities. Successful facilities, they report, provide play features that attract the
entire family, including older adults, kids, and teens. The public meetings confirmed the
consultant's recommendation. The lazy river, which is an $800,000 feature and an
element only included in Option A, was extremely well received by the public at each
meeting — b young and old alike. Additionally, b including a lazy river with the base
YY 9 Y Y 9 Y
component features it is anticipated that 80,000 people will visit the facility each
summer. In Options B and C, that excluded a lazy river, summer attendance decreased
by 10,000 to 18,000 visitors, respectively.
Lap Area: Recommendation - 25 Yards
In light of the input received, this recommendation was the most difficult for
Commissioners to determine. The Commission would have liked to support expanding
the 25-yard lap area to 50 meters. However, expanding Option A (highest fun factor) to
5
50 meters would increase capital costs by approximately $850,000 and the annual
operational expenses from $40,000 to $75,000. During their discussions it became
apparent that Commissioners g have not forgotten the failed Rec Plex bond issue of
2003. With an over arching desire to present an acceptable project to 60% of those who
will vote in the election, Commissioners came to the realization that if the project were
expanded to 50 meters the bond issue would exceed $9,000,000. They determined this
was not an acceptable amount to present to the public-at-large.
Therefore, the Commission recommends that the base bid be a 25 yard 18 lane lap
area and that a `bid alternate' be included to expand the 25 yards to 25 meters
should funding allow. The consultants estimate that the expansion to 25 meters would
cost around $175,000. Finally, Commissioners recommend that the site be graded
to insure that the lap area can readily be expanded to 50 meters in the future as
resources allow.
Anticipated Annual Tax Implication — 13t" Street site:
For every $100,000 of assessed valuation (12 years @ 4.25%)
$7.8 million $8.2 million $8.5 million $9 million
(Option C— 50 (Option A— (Option A— (Option A—
meter pool basin/ including Lazy including Lazy including Lazy
Class of no Lazy river) River) river and river and
Property environmental environmental
enhancements enhancements
with July with November
election) election)
Residential $19.87 $20.89 $21.91 $22.93
Commercial $43.61 $45.85 $48.09 $50.33
Industrial $43.61 $45.85 $48.09 $50.33
VOTE DATE
Recommendation - July 24, 2007
The public's support to vote in July, versus November, was most evident at each of the
four meetings. Though people expressed the desire to afford the entire ISU student
population the opportunity to vote, the cost ramifications of an added $500,000 due to
inflation and the anticipated one-year delay in opening the facility seemed to convince
nearly all of those in attendance to support a July vote date.
Staff also met with the Student Affairs Commission (SAC) and presented the same
information shared at the four public meetings. Student leadership on SAC stated that
the 10,000 students who reside in Ames during the summer will have an opportunity to
vote on this issue. In addition, it has been emphasized that interested students who are
not in Ames during the July vote, can still participate by submitting a absentee ballot.
While there was no quorum present at the SAC meeting to allow for a formal vote
on this issue, the student leaders in attendance at the meeting supported the vote
6
being held in July. This support is further documented in the attached letter
(Attachment C).
Based on the reaction from the public and from ISU student leadership, the Parks
and Recreation Commission wholeheartedly recommends voting on the issue in
July.
CARR POOL
Recommendation — Close this facility
Between 1995 and 2005, attendance at Carr Pool decreased by 48% from 37,448 to
19,472 swimmers per summer. The annual tax subsidy needed to maintain this facility is
approximately $50,000. Commissioners believe that this pool, open since 1928, has
served the residents of Ames well. However, in light of opening a new and much more
fun facility, the Commission anticipates attendance will continue to decrease and the
need for tax support will increase. Therefore, it is the Commission's
recommendation that, if a new facility becomes a reality, then Carr Pool should be
demolished and transitioned into a passive greenway adjacent the Skunk River.
SUMMARY
Commission's recommended actions
for the May 22, 2007 City Council Meeting
1. Establish Tuesday, July 24 for a special bond referendum election to determine
the public's support for approving $8,488,000 in bonds to pay for the design,
construction, and equipping of an outdoor aquatic center.
2. The facility should be located on 13th Street, east of Squaw Creek.
3. Option A that includes a lazy river, should be built with an 8 lane / 25 yard lap
pool area. A bid alternate should be included to determine the cost of expanding
the 8-lane lap pool area to 25 meters.
4. The overall site should be graded to allow the lap pool to be expanded to 50
meters in the future.
5. The base bid package should include the necessary wetlands, riparian zone, and
natural grasses to insure that the entire site boasts of sustainable environmental
practices. Additionally, as deemed appropriate, bid alternatives should be
incorporated into the bid document to address other identified environmentally
Y
sound principles (grass block parking lot, bio-swales, rain gardens, etc.).
7
6. Staff should begin to negotiate along-term lease agreement with Iowa State
University for property located on 13t" Street for this development. The School
District's sport fields should be incorporated into the Site Master Plan.
7. Upon opening a new facility, Carr Pool should be demolished and the site
transitioned into open green space.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt a resolution accepting the RDG Planning and Design Feasibility Study.
In addition, this alternative includes acknowledgement that the Parks and
Recreation Commission hosted four public meetings and gained significant public
support for, and therefore requests the following:
• Establish, on May 22, 2007, a bond referendum date of July 24, 2007.
• Present voters with the question of approving $8,488,000 in funding to
design, construct and equip a 20,000 square foot outdoor aquatic center.
The facility would include a lazy river (5,000 square feet), a recreational
swim area (10,500 square feet) and a 25-yard / 8 lane lap area (4,500
square feet). In addition, sustainable environmental practices will be
utilized throughout the overall site.
• The facility would be located on University owned land, north of 13t" Street
and east of the Squaw Creek.
• Direct the City Manager to begin negotiating a long-term lease agreement
with Iowa State University for the site that would be anticipated to open
the summer of 2009. These negotiations should include incorporating the
School Districts needs, as indicated on the Site Master Plan.
2. Adopt a resolution accepting the RDG Planning and Design Feasibility Study.
In addition, this alternative includes:
• Establish, on May 22, 2007, a bond referendum date of November 13,
2007.
• Present voters with the question of approving $8,988,000 in public funding
to design, construct and equip a 20,000 square foot outdoor aquatic
center. The facility would include a lazy river (5,000 square feet), a
recreational swim area (10,500 square feet) and a 25-yard / 8 lane lap
area (4,500 square feet). In addition, sustainable environmental practices
will be utilized throughout the overall site.
• The facility would be located on University owned land, north of 13t" Street
and east of the Squaw Creek.
• Direct the City Manager to begin negotiating a long-term lease agreement
with Iowa State University for the site that would be anticipated to open
the summer of 2010. These negotiations should include incorporating the
School Districts needs, as indicated on the Site Master Plan.
8
3. Adopt a resolution accepting the RDG Planning and Design Feasibility Study.
In addition, this alternative includes:
• Establish, on May 22, 2007, a bond election for July 24, 2007.
• Present voters with the question of approving $8,663,000 in public funding
to construct and equip an approximate 20,000 square foot outdoor
aquatic center. The facility would include a lazy river (5,000 square feet), a
recreational swim area (10,000 square feet) and a 25-meter / 8 lane lap
area (5,000 square feet). In addition, sustainable environmental practices
will be utilized throughout the overall site.
• The facility would be located on University owned land, north of 13th Street
and east of the Squaw Creek.
• Direct the City Manager to begin negotiating a long-term lease agreement
with Iowa State University for the site that would be anticipated to open
the summer of 2009. These negotiations should include incorporating the
School Districts needs, as indicated on the Site Master Plan.
4. Adopt a resolution accepting the RDG Planning and Design Feasibility Study.
In addition, this alternative includes:
• Establish, on May 22, 2007, a bond election for July 24, 2007.
• Present voters with the question of approving $9,388,000 in public funding
to construct and equip a 25,000 square foot outdoor aquatic center. The
facility would include a lazy river (5,000 square feet), a recreational swim
area (10,000 square feet) and a 50-meter/ 8 lane lap area (10,000 square
feet). In addition, sustainable environmental practices will be utilized
throughout the overall site.
• The facility would be located on University owned land, north of 13th Street
and east of the Squaw Creek.
• Direct the City Manager to begin negotiating a long-term lease agreement
with Iowa State University for the site that would be anticipated to open
the summer of 2009. These negotiations should include incorporating the
School Districts needs, as indicated on the Site Master Plan.
5. Adopt a resolution accepting the RDG Planning and Design Feasibility Study.
In addition, this alternative includes locating the facility at the Middle School site
and referring the project back to the Parks and Recreation Commission and staff for
further review and a revised recommendation. This alternative will require additional
analysis and discussions regarding the cost sharing between the City and School
District for previously constructed improvements at this site.
6. Adopt a resolution accepting the RDG Planning and Design Feasibility Study.
In addition, this alternative directs staff to obtain capital and operational cost
estimates for a different option than included in the attached Feasibility Study.
9
MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
For over a decade, a top priority for the Mayor and Council has been to enhance the
City's recreational facilities so that we maintain our status as a vibrant place to live. The
components included in the failed $24 million Rec Plex bond issue in 2003 (indoor and
outdoor aquatic centers, multiple gymnasiums, weight and fitness space, etc)
demonstrate the magnitude of our recreation facility needs.
The Mayor and Council, along with leadership from ISU and the School District, should
be commended for their leadership in prompting conversations to occur in 2006, related
to `phasing' recreation facility development and for suggesting that partnering
opportunities could help move this effort forward. This spirit of cooperation must
continue in the months and years ahead.
From these discussions, we have learned that neither the University nor School District
have the need, or desire, to partner with the City on the development of an outdoor
aquatic center. However, "partnerships" can take many forms as is evidenced with this
specific project. The site recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission on
13th Street is owned by ISU and they are offering a long-term lease to the City.
Additionally, the School District has a need for the development of sport fields and a
cross-country course near the High School. These facilities can also be accommodated
at this site.
The Parks and Recreation Commission's efforts during the past month to educate the
community, assess their level of support, and obtain valuable input regarding
development of an outdoor aquatic center proved to be very successful. Although no
meeting process can assure 100% agreement amongst those in attendance, the
consensus building process that the Commission implemented demonstrated
tremendous support and a sense of urgency for constructing an aquatic center. Based
on the information provided by the Commission, the residents that attended
these meetings, not only voiced support for this project being voted on this
summer, but sent a clear message indicating their preference to locate the facility
on the 13th Street Site.
The City Council has worked very hard over the past years to gain input from the ISU
students before initiating any actions that would impact this important segment of our
population. The Student Affairs Commission was created to deal with this type of
critical issue that will impact ISU students. Unfortunately, at the meeting where the
issue of the timing for the bond vote was discussed, no quorum was present to allow for
a formal vote. However, all student leaders in attendance voiced their support for a July
election. Given the fact that the current GSB President, Greek community student
leader, and the present and past student members of the City Council are in
support of a July election, the Council should feel more comfortable with
supporting the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendation regarding
the timing of the vote.
10
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council
adopt Alternative No. 1, thereby accepting the feasibility study submitted by RDG
Planning and Design and;
• Establish, on May 22, 2007, a bond referendum date of July 24, 2007.
• Present voters with the question of approving $8,488,000 in funding to
design, construct and equip a 20,000 square foot outdoor aquatic center.
The facility would include a lazy river (5,000 square feet), a recreational
swim area (10,500 square feet) and a 25-yard / 8 lane lap area (4,500
square feet). In addition, sustainable environmental practices will be
utilized throughout the overall site.
• The facility would be located on University owned land, north of 13th Street
and east of the Squaw Creek.
• Direct the City Manager to begin negotiating a long-term lease agreement
with Iowa State University for the site that would be anticipated to open
the summer of 2009. These negotiations should include incorporating the
School Districts needs, as indicated on the Site Master Plan.
11
n
RDg--
FEASIBILITY STUD",['
Evaluation of Options to Meet City of Ames Outdoor Aquatics Needs
s
P
K! i
y 1
r
v
`N p
�X 1
a ! J`
3 c z
15
x
Y. "'M
b
t-)kl
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i,,,ity of Ames otitcloor Aquatics ,�c rt i .
oi Executive Summary....................................................................................................
02 city of Ames Aquatics Needs..............................................................................................................6
03 Sites Evaluated................................................................................................................................11
04 Revenue/Expenses Analysis...........................................................................................
osExhibits.................................................................
• ��;.; ,,, k��� �ra��sedge
aqua#ae d�s3gi
executive summary
BACKGROUND: The need for improved recreation facilities in Ames,Iowa has been a conversation point for more than
a decade. During that time,the City prepared a series of reports to study how the recreation needs
of its citizens can be met. Most recently(2003),the citizens were given the opportunity to vote on a
$23.6 million indoor recreational pool,gyms,weight equipment,and an outdoor aquatic center. The
bond referendum did not pass.
During 2006,Iowa State University conducted a study of its recreation facility needs and included the
City and School District in those discussions. As a result,it was determined that there may be future
opportunities for the City to partner with ISU or the School District to meet the need for an indoor
recreational pool(City/ISU)and gymnasiums(City/District). Each of these would require further study
to verify if partnering would be successful. However,no partnering opportunities were identified for
the outdoor aquatic center. Therefore,the City authorized this study to assess two facility location
options and to determine the needed facility size,related cost estimates,etc.
POOL size: It was determined that the ideal outdoor pool size for Ames is a bather capacity of 1,200. This will
accommodate the current estimated summer population of 35,000 and allow for 30%growth to
approximately 45,000 residents during the summer months. To accommodate 1,200 swimmers,
approximately 20,000 square feet of water surface area is required.
FUN FACTOR: Outdoor public pools are wonderful community assets. Even older,traditional swimming pools provide
a much needed summer recreation service. However,the reality is newer style aquatic centers
enhance the recreation value within a community by their emphasis on fun and recreation for all ages
and abilities. Therefore,the"fun factor"must not be taken for granted when planning a new facility.
Successful pools provide play features that attract the entire family,including older adults,kids,and
teens. Planning the fun value is the key. Fun at the pool during the summer historically included
diving,splashing and tanning. The fun potential of a well—planned aquatic center far exceeds those
traditional pool activities.
The more amenities that are provided,the greater the attendance increases you can expect. More
and bigger is not always a guarantee for a great pool. A balanced menu of features is the key for
a successful pool operation. That balance means sizing the pool and choosing features that fit the
community and the demographic realities.
As noted above,a balanced menu of features for all age groups,along with passive features(shade,
grass,landscaping,etc)and a few thrill features continues to be the most successful formula for
a public aquatic center. Based on our experience with public pools,we see potential attendance
increases for specific features as follows.
• Water slides added to traditional pools: 100%to over 200%
• Shallow play features and shade:50%to over 100%
• Lazy river:150%to over 200%
• 50 meter pool:0 to 25%
POOL FEATURES: The new standard for public pools includes more shallow water than deep water,zero depth entry,
spray features,interactive play structures,small and large water slides and shade. Diving is still
popular and perhaps the most requested feature is a lazy river. Base amenities could include:
• An interactive play structure with a small slide—children under 8
• A dumping bucket—children under 8
• Spray play area—children under 8
• Zero depth entry—all ages 1809
i
executive summary
City of Atyies Ouitd)oo r, P�gtjatic, Clornp! -<
• One or two raft water slides—youth/adult
• An enhanced or future addition of a specialty slide—youth/adult
• Lazy river—all ages
• Diving,both one and three meter springboards—youth/adult
• One or two drop slides—youth/adult
• Shade structures
• Support structures(bathhouse and filter building)
• Parking for 200 to 250 vehicles
• Site amenities(grass areas,fencing,lighting,landscaping,etc.)
LAZY RIVERS IN IOWA: We recommend considering a lazy river as a key feature for Ames at an estimated cost of$800,000.
Regardless of community size,we constantly hear requests for a lazy river. The Ames project is
appropriate for considering a lazy river because of the available market,the project size,the attraction
value,and the resulting increased attendance. All communities do not necessarily include the lazy
river feature,perhaps due to budget limits,personal preference,or unfamiliarity with the feature.
Ames is large enough to justify a full sized lazy river. It would provide the signature feature needed to
reduce operating subsidy.A few lazy rivers exist in Iowa. A list of municipal locations we are aware of
include:
• Clive
• West Des Moines
• Marshalltown
• Cedar Falls
• Tipton
• Storm Lake
POOL OPTIONS/ESTIMATED CAPITAL To address Ames'need to accommodate 1,200 people in 20,000 square feet of water surface area,
COSTS&ANNUAL TAX SUBSIDY(EXHIBIT f): three
th pool configuration options were tested as follows:
p conguraon
Three pool configuration options were tested. They included:
Option A
• 8—lane,25 yard lap area in 4,500 SF of water,10,500 SF of leisure water with amenities,
and a 500 foot long lazy river totalling 5,000 SF of water.
• Project Cost(13th Street)..........................................................$8,250,000
• Project Cost(Middle School)......................................................$7,925,000
• Anticipated Annual Tax Subsidy.................................................$ 40,000
Option B
• 8—lane,25 yard lap area in 4,500 SF of water,15,500 SF of leisure water with amenities,
and no lazy river.
• Project Cost(13th Street)..........................................................$7,720,000
• Project Cost(Middle School)......................................................$7,395,000
• Anticipated Annual Tax Subsidy.................................................$ 60,000
Option C
• 8—lane,50 meter lap/competition area in 10,000 SF of water,10,000 SF of leisure water
with amenities,and no lazy river.
• Project Cost(13th Street)..........................................................$7,850,000
• Project Cost(Middle School)......................................................$7,525,000
• Anticipated Annual Tax Subsidy.................................................$ 75,000
2 000
�
executive summary
SITE EVALUATION: Six sites(Exhibit A)have been evaluated for the outdoor aquatics center. Two sites(131h Street—
Cochrane land and School District site ut24t'Street)were not available for purchase,Carr Pool is
landlocked between uriver,Moodow|unn Drive and adjacent tof loodp|ain.and the remaining site was
not convenient to citizens and had topography which made development expensive(Gateway Hills
site). This left two sites available for detailed evaluation. They are:
New Middle School Site(Exhibit D)
° This would bou shared site with the School District.
° Site development cost savings occur due to shared infrastructure with the School District
(parking lots,utilities,etm).
° Site is |unQo enough to accommodate the outdoor aquatics center and ufutum indoor
recreational pool and recreation center(0ymo.track,weight equipment,otc).
° Geographic location in southwest Ames io not ux convenient 10 all residents.
13mSbeotoi1o,aostufSquuvvCrueh—uwnndby|ovxaStu1eUnivorui1y(ExhibitE)
° Iowa State University has offered to lease this site to the City and the School District for
their use.
° Increased costs of approximately$325,000 for grading work,site preparation,signalized
intersection,dedicated tum—uno.bus stop and deceleration lane.
° The site would meet the needs of the City and School District.
`City—outdoor aquatics complex
`School District—practice soccer fields,cross country course,and possible
competition girl's softball venue.
° The site is centrally located and convenient to the maximum number of residents.
° Adjacent property owners may notice om increase in noise and traffic.
° Enhanced bike trail connection from south to north Ames
° Enhanced storm water management to Squaw Creek— duumuood omoion, increased
containment removal and increased ground water recharge.
° Sustainable principles would be used to control and filter storm water runoff.This may
include: green roofs,bio—owm|ox.wetlands,riparian buffers,and native grasses.
° The site is part of the green belt(Exhibit Q located in the heart of Ames that includes:
Moore Memorial Park,ISU Veenker Golf Course,Brookside Park,Elwood Pasture,Stuart
Smith Park,ISU recreation fields,Reiman Gardens,and Coldwater Links Golf Course.
COMPARISON WITH oTxsn When sizing an aquatic facility,it is useful to examine other communities with successful facilities
c«mm»w/r/sS: and look at the relationships between population,cost and pool size.The following table provides
comparative data from several Midwest communities. Each community and their pool planning
information are listed in order ofpopulation. The bold entries are for larger communities,suitable for
comparison with Ames.
Attention should bo given on the last two co|umno—uosUporoon and square feet ofpoo|/pnruon.
Both ratios allow comparison with other public pools. Communities shown in bold have spent from
$152 to over$300 per person for a new pool.Respective pool size information ranges from 0.4 �
1u1.O square feet per person. A2O.O0O square foot pool and u4O.00O population target for Ames
provides a population ratio of 0.5 and a cost ratio of$188 per person for an approximate$8
million facility.Both comparisons are well within the parameters of what other communities
have accomplished.
��
s `~ `� ~~
executive summary
City CSC Arne Outdo3,')r kp,atic.s Coon 3j+ex
Please note that the costs shown are"construction costs"versus"project costs".Additionally,costs
were adjusted to 2007 dollars for convenience in comparing projects.
Comparison of Aquatic Facilities
Cost, Population and Pool Size
Pool Size Fool Size/ Construction Cost
City Population Person Adjusted to 2007$
(sq ft) (sq tt 1 person) ($/person)
Glidden,IA 1,253 5,964 4.76 $1,428,937 $1,140
Manson,IA 1,893 5,323 2.81 $1,260,469 $ 666
Garner,IA 2,922 8,829 3.02 $2,911,027 $ 996
Eldora,IA 3,035 6,300 2.08 $2,723,600 $ 897
Shenandoah,IA 4,500 10,054 2.23 **
Winterset,IA 4,768 10,638 2.23 $3,041,975 $ 638
Harlan,IA 5,148 12,350 2.40 *
Iowa Falls,IA 5,435 12,356 2.27
Algona,IA 6,015 12,910 2.15 *"
Charles City,IA 7,800 11,825 1.52 *`
Mount Pleasant,IA 8,000 10,650 1.33 *`
Pella,IA 9,832 19,656 2.00 $4,526,759 $ 460
Indianola,IA 12,300 12,930 1.05 "*
Boone,IA 12,500 8,932 0.71
Clive,IA 12,855 16,027 1.25 $5,892,890 $ 458
Newton,IA 15,000 11,878 0.79 * *
Muscatine,IA 22,697 11,661 0.51 $4,340,371 $ 191
Marshalltown,IA 26,009 15,700 0.60 $5,224,500 $ 201
Mason City,IA 30,000 13,000 0.43 ** ***
Cedar Falls,IA 36,145 17,741 0.49 $6,155,563 $ 170
Ankeny,IA(proposed) 36,161 22,600 0.62 $8,000,000 $ 221
Ames, IA 40,000 20,000 0.50 $7,500,000 $ 188
West Des Moines,IA 469403 35,660 0.77 $13,038,529 $ 281
Notes:
1. Bold entries are relevant for comparison with Ames.
2. Cost index based on 2007 IRS Means data.
3. ***Pools not designed by our firm.
4
executive summary
City (:)f Ames ( it o r Agt.i tics Complex
The anticipated fee schedule for using the facility follows:
Category Da .
Resident / Non—Resident Resident / Non—Resident Resident / Non—Resident
Adult $4.00 $5.00 $30.00 $37.50 $85.00 $106.00
Youth $3.00 $3.75 $22.50 $28.00 $55.00 $69.00
(under 18)
Senior $3.00 $3.75 $22.50 $28.00 $55.00 $69.00
(62+)
Family N/A N/A $170.00 $212.00
5 s
uu
City of Ames aquatics needs
t y.:' C't ,d
OUTDOOR POOL CONCEPT: The following information provides the basis for planning aquatic improvements for the City of Ames,
Iowa. Currently operating one outdoor pool and sharing one indoor pool with the Ames School District,
the City is considering replacing the outdoor pool with a new aquatic center. The overall goal is to
develop a new pool that serves the entire community with aquatic programming and supporting
features for decades to come. An indirect goal is to reduce the current annual pool—operating
subsidy.
POOL SIZE: Population is the first key planning consideration for new pool sizing. Budget goals and program goals
will also impact the pool planning process. First we focus on population.
The 2000 Census population for Ames is 50,731,but the proposed planning population is between
35,000 and 45,000 due to the summer impact of Iowa State University. Students leave campus
during the summer,thus reducing the effective pool market population. The college setting is also an
advantage to the pool,providing a source for lifeguards as well as patrons who remain in Ames during
the summer.
We find that the previous NRPA planning criteria of 3%to 5%of population combined with 15 to 20
square feet of pool area per person provides a good initial basis for sizing a new pool. The following
calculations apply the above criteria to the Ames population range.
Pool size for 35,000 population
• 3%x 35,000 x 15 sf per person=15,750 sf pool
• 5%x 35,000 x 20 sf per person=35,000 sf pool
Pool size for 45,000 population
• 3%x 45,000 x 15 sf per person=20,250 sf pool
• 5%x 45,000 x 20 sf per person=45,000 sf pool
Our experience tells us that the smallest pool size of 15,750 square feet will be too small for the
Ames community. Likewise,the largest pool size of 45,000 square feet would be too large to operate
effectively and is too large for the community during the summer. An average of the two remaining
sizes,35,000 and 20,250 square feet equals 27,265 square feet of pool water. Additional population
criteria will also help refine the pool planning process.
The market area for Ames extends beyond the city proper,perhaps to a 10 to 15 minute drive time.
The Census population for Ames and a 10—mile radius is 68,414. The corresponding population for a
20—mile radius is 125,256. Competing aquatic facilities in Nevada,Boone and Ankeny will continue
to reduce the effective market population for Ames. It is reasonable to consider the market area
population when planning a new pool,but due to the proximity of other pool choices,we recommend
focusing on the Ames community first.
The existing indoor pool will also affect the total pool size planned for Ames. The indoor pool has a
water surface area of 5,675 sf. While the indoor pool is heavily used during the non—summer season,
it is also used for programs during the summer.
A new outdoor pool size of approximately 20,000 square feet plus the existing indoor pool with 5,675
square feet would provide 25,675 square feet of pool water to Ames. We recommend considering a
20,000 square foot outdoor pool based on the above population information.
6 4110101
City of Ames aquatics needs
City cat Ames Outdoor Aquatics C r11 1(::.,)(
POOL CAPACITY: Swimming pools have the ability to serve a number of patrons based on pool size and key features.
The Iowa State Health Department uses specific criteria to rate pool capacities. First we determine
the shallow water area(less than 5 ft deep)and subtract 200 square feet for each slide in the pool
and 300 square feet for slides outside the pool. Using the remaining shallow pool area,we divide by
15 square feet per person to determine shallow capacity. The deep water(deeper than 5 ft)capacity
is determined similarly,deducting 300 square feet for each diving board and drop slide,and then
dividing by 20 square feet per person. Adding the shallow and deep—water capacities gives the total
pool capacity.
A 20,000 square foot pool target,as suggested in the previous pool size discussion,provides a
pool capacity of 1,100 to over 1,200,depending on the number of slides and diving boards. This is
appropriate for the Ames community and provides a feasible operation target for a first class public
aquatic center.
AQUATICS PROGRAMS: Current outdoor programming at the Ames pool includes swim lessons,exercise classes,lap
swimming,pool rentals,competition training and swim meets. Lap swimming and open recreation
are also available. These programs are well supported by the community and a new facility should
allow comparable and perhaps expanded programs.
Lessons and other programs currently provided at the indoor pool will continue,but the new outdoor
pool will allow expanding and improving aquatic programming. Needed programs will become more
available to all the community.
Enhancing key programs such as lessons,classes and competitive swimming are feasible and
appropriate goals that a new pool can help satisfy. The major program that the new aquatic center
will provide is much improved aquatic recreation or fun for the entire family.
FUN FACTOR: Outdoor public pools can be wonderful community assets. Even older,traditional swimming pools
provide a much needed summer recreation service. The reality is that the newer style aquatic centers
enhance the recreation value within a community by their emphasis on family fun and recreation for
all ages and abilities.
Fun at the pool during the summer historically included diving,splashing and tanning. The fun
potential with a well—planned aquatic center far exceeds those traditional pool activities.
When people hear the term"aquatic center"they may envision a wide array of features for a"new
pool". Although successful aquatic centers typically provide a balanced and diverse group of features
and activities,the main focus remains recreation,specifically fun.
The"Fun Factor"must not be taken for granted when planning a new pool. Consider for a moment
the variety of recreation sources available to your community. An outdoor pool has significant
competition from video games,other sports,TV,and the Internet. We see successful pools provide
play features that attract the entire family,not only kids and young teens. Planning the fun value is
the key. The pool becomes a respite or temporary escape from daily demands. It allows each of us to
play with our kids and friends in a pleasant,healthy and safe environment. Is there anything else in
our community that equals an afternoon at the pool?
KEY FEATURES: A traditional outdoor pool from the 1960's through the 1980's included diving,a lap area and very
small shallow play areas or wading pools. During the 1990's,public pools gradually began adding
water slides and zero depth entry,along with increased shallow play areas. Since the mid-1990's,
7 000
City of Ares aquatics reeds
KEY FEATURES: municipal pools are incorporating more and more water play features,some approaching commercial
(CONTINUED) water park configurations.
The new standard for public pools includes more shallow water than deep water,zero depth entry,
spray features,interactive play structures,small and large water slides,and shade. Diving is still
popular. Perhaps the most requested feature is a lazy river. Specialty features such as speed slides,
wave pools,swirl bowl slides or even a Flow Rider(surf in place)receive growing interest.
The feature choices for municipal pools used to be limited to a few basics such as number of diving
boards and short course or long course(50 meter)swimming lanes. Now the number and type of
attractive features usually challenges the budget or site size or both. Ames has a great opportunity
to create a signature aquatic center that will serve the community for decades to come. Real world
constraints such as cost and available site space require priority selection of features for the new
pool. Master planning the chosen site allows phased construction,benefiting the funding process.
Based on the pool size outlined previously(20,000 SF),our experience with successful public pools
regarding feature preferences options include:
• An option with a lazy river 500 feet long
• Diving,both one and three meter springboards
• One or two drop slides(landing in the deep water area adjacent to the boards)
• An interactive play structure with a small slide
• A dumping bucket(500 to 1,000 gallons)
• Zero depth entry
• ADA access
• Spray play area
• One or two raft water slides
• An enhanced or future addition of a specialty slide(speed,swirl bowl,etc.)
• Shade structures
• Support structures(bathhouse and filter building)
• Parking for 200 to 250 vehicles
• Site amenities(grass areas,fencing,lighting,landscaping,etc.)
• Space for future items(Flow Rider,swirl slide,wave pool,etc.)
Aquatic industry data on specific attendance impact for individual features is limited and somewhat
anecdotal. A balanced menu of features for all age groups,along with passive features(shade,grass,
landscaping)and a few thrill features continues to be the most successful formula for a public aquatic
center. Based on our experience with public pools,we see potential attendance increases for specific
features as follows.
• Water slides added to a traditional pool—100%to over 200%
• Shallow play features and shade—50%to over 100%
• Lazy river—150%to over 200%
• 50 meter pool—0 to 25%
The attendance increases listed above are not necessarily cumulative,but they are representative of
what other communities have experienced. The more amenities that are provided,the greater the
attendance increases you can expect. More and bigger is not always a guarantee for a great pool. A
balanced menu of features is the key for a successful pool operation. That balance means sizing the
pool and choosing features that fit the community and the demographic realities.
8 000
City of Ames aquatics needs
City of Aries Outdoor Aquatics ornl)l x
LAZY RIVERS IN IOwA: We recommend considering a lazy river as a key feature for Ames. Regardless of community size,we
constantly hear requests for a lazy river. The Ames project is appropriate for considering a lazy river
because of the available market,the project size,the attraction value,and the resulting increased
attendance. All communities do not necessarily include the lazy river feature,perhaps due to budget
limits,personal preference,or unfamiliarity with the feature. A few lazy rivers exist in Iowa. A list of
the locations we are aware of follow.
• Clive
• West Des Moines
• Marshalltown
• Cedar Falls
• Tipton
• Storm Lake
• Lost Island,Waterloo(private)
• Fun City,Burlington(private)
A smaller and less expensive option to a lazy river is a current channel. More often used with indoor
pools,the current channel is also proving successful at new outdoor pools. Ames is large enough
to justify a full sized lazy river. It would provide the signature feature needed to reduce operating
subsidy.
PLANNING OPTIONS: Several pool options are possible,but the most feasible and appropriate options for Ames are
developed in this document. Three options are described,including a short course pool with a lazy
river,a short course pool with a large leisure or shallow area,and a long course pool. The three
options allow comparison of comparably sized pools with similar amenities,but with different
configurations and each with a different aquatic programs emphasis.
Each option totals 20,000 square feet of water area. A pool less than 20,000 square feet was initially
considered,but would be undersized for the Ames community soon after completion.
A summary of pool options recommended for consideration follows.
Option A—Short course lap area plus amenities and lazy river
• 10,500 square feet of shallow area,2 diving boards,eight 25—yard lanes,sprays,
shade,2 water slides,drop slide,2 toddler slides,interactive play structure,dumping
bucket,floatables,support items and a 500 foot long lazy river
Option B—Short course lap area, 15,500 square feet of shallow area,amenities listed in Option
A,but no lazy river
Option C—50—meter lap area with 8 lanes, 10,000 square foot shallow area,amenities listed in
Option A,but no lazy river
COSTS: Project costs for outdoor public pools have recently ranged from under$400 to over$450 per square
foot of water. Project costs include construction costs,design fees,a contingency,a site survey,
geotechnical testing,and material testing. In general terms,these pools in the three options could
cost from under$8 million to over$9 million.
9 000
City of Ares aquatics needs
City of Ames Outdoor Aquatics Carr) lex
To provide more specific costs to help compare the options,we prepared an itemized cost projection
for each option. The following costs represent our opinion of probable project costs for the Ames
options. The costs include parking for 225 vehicles,excavation for the pools,the bathhouse and
support buildings,and amenities listed with each option.
• Option A $7.35 million 25 yd pool with lazy river
• Option B $6.82 million 25 yd pool with more shallow water
• Option C $6.95 million 50 m pool with reduced shallow water
Additional site development costs may approach$600,000 to$900,000 for site—required earthwork,
street improvements,land purchase and other site considerations.
10 000
sites evaluated
City of Arnes Outdoor qu t:ic:, C or plrx
Exhibit A shows six sites that were evaluated as part of the study. As can be seen,two sites were not
available and the Gateway Hills site was considered to expensive to develop and too inconvenient to
citizens.The Carr Pool site is not feasible due to being adjacent a river,a road,and the floodplain.This
left two sites for conceptual evaluation as follows:
MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE Site constraints and Opportunities
(EXHIBIT D): This site is located adjacent to the new Middle School in the southwest section of Ames. The
advantages of this site include:
• Site would allow for construction of the outdoor aquatics center and a future indoor
recreation center attached to the Middle School.
• Site allows for the city and school district to share costs for site development including:
site grading,parking,site utilities,and street improvements.
• The shared use of the parking allows for less paved area to be constructed.
The disadvantages of this site include:
• Site is not convenient to the majority of Ames citizens.
• Increased traffic around the school in summer.
13 T H STREET SITE Site Constraints and Opportunities
(EXHIBIT E): The site is located immediately north of 13th Street,east of Squaw Creek and south of the Ames High
School Football Complex. The site's proximity to Squaw Creek brings with it development restrictions.
Most of the project site is within the floodplain. This is an area of flat land adjacent to Squaw Creek
that experiences occasional or periodic flooding.It is comprised of a floodway and flood fringe. Nearly
one—third of the project site falls within a delineated floodway. The floodway is a portion of the
Floodplain that cannot be obstructed without causing an increase in the water—surface elevations
resulting from a flood. This delineation severely restricts development in the area delineated as such.
The remaining area of the floodplain on the site is the flood fringe. This delineation also dictates
development in the delineated area. The most important to this project appears to be the necessity
to fill the area of the potential aquatics facility. City of Ames code requires that the structures of the
facility be constructed 3—4'above the 100—year floodplain edge. This requirement will mean that
any siting of the Aquatics Complex,or any other development on this site,will require the developer to
raise the elevation by filling the structured area by as much as 14'.
Other aspects of the site that dictate development will be the recommended 100'riparian buffer along
the east side of Squaw Creek,the 50'minimum buffer to 13th Street and the eastern neighborhood
and the City of Ames requirement that all post development storm water run—off be equal to pre
development levels. The last of these will require the use of storm water management features such
as bio—swales,pervious paving,native grasses and other innovative best management practices. A
goal was established in meetings with the City of Ames staff,representatives of Iowa State University
and Ames High School that the development of this site would need to be Sustainable. This means
that development should be low impact and restorative where possible.
The opportunities of this site are numerous. Its proximity to Brookside Park,Squaw Creek,the Pine
Grove and the Ames High School Prairie provide great aesthetic value. The site also appears to be
located near the geographic center of the City of Ames,making it accessible to a greater number
of potential patrons. Currently,pedestrian trails terminate on the north side of the project site near
Ames High School and on south side of 13th Street in Brookside Park. This site would allow for the
extension/connection of this trail. This connection would allow patrons to travel to and from the
facility on pedestrian trails and would allow others to move north of Brookside Park to AHS without
moving along 13th Street to do so.
11 000
sites evaluated
City of Arnes Ottt o r Aqi,iatics Cori lex
The goal of developing this site in a sustainable manner,its adjacency to Squaw Creek and Brookside
Park and its current state make it ideal for creating a new link in the existing green/parks corridor.
Being restorative by seeding native grasses where possible and planting native trees where necessary
on this site would benefit the immediate site in the form of storm water management,benefit the
existing watershed through enhanced infiltration,create a usable park space and pedestrian corridor
for existing parks and trail users by constructing the trail connection mentioned earlier as a part of the
Aquatics Complex development.
12 606
Csv i asu=s,hnr.
revenue / expenses analysis
City of 7triies Outdoor Aquatics Complex
OPTION OPERATIONAL Ballard"King and Associates has completed an initial assessment of the 3 project options that are
ASSESSMENT: being considered for the Ames Outdoor Pool.
These are very preliminary assessments that are based on a very loose facility program and without
the benefit of a concept plan for the options. It must be recognized that the greatest cost of operation
for an outdoor pool is lifeguards and the layout of the pool and its elements dictate guard numbers.
Without a basic concept plan it is very difficult to accurately determine the number of guards that are
required to operate the pool.
As a result the operational numbers shown below are general estimates that should be used for
comparison purposes between the options only.
Option A
Expenses...........................................$480,000
Revenues...........................................$440,000
Difference.........................................—$40,000
Option B
Expenses...........................................$450,000
Revenues...........................................$385,000
Difference.........................................—$65,000
Option C
Expenses...........................................$430,000
Revenues...........................................$355,000
Difference.........................................—$75,000
The revenue numbers are based on the following projected fee schedule:
f
Category pally ugch'Card001 ` 'x
_
Resident / Non—Resident Resident / Non—Resident Resident / Non—Resident
Adult $4.00 $5.00 $30.00 $37.50 $85.00 $106.00
Youth $3.00 $3.75 $22.50 $28.00 $55.00 $69.00
(under 18)
Senior $3.00 $3.75 $22.50 $28.00 $55.00 $69.00
(62+)
Family N/A N/A 1 $170.00 $212.00
13 0 0 0
F•• dam+ W _! �.
F 67
In
g —
x J�ga
W X OE— am s`
ao gcc z
Q3 5
V z'�• ofavim
-
a
z � �
3
'NO A g er
s
rw
i
�aiAK
5 Y �
s 2
d
Y
n<
Y,XP2 « Yi
< f
$ � y
�i " .
y 5
mC wta f} ~SNrmi
J3F F3� No �msc�
>8 = Cy 33�=
aL
0
W N a �1
In gU
2
w L C
� k
� � k �a Ism f•
b
a
e
aF� �
sL g #
a
a e F
o P� •i -3 r .�.L
$ ?max
§+�� �9 3 'al r� � s s; � 2•
1 J2 yW J
\,�y S J N•
a e
ro Y s oNOW—
dor b1. u •
coo-
f I f
!
l i iZ
F
t �
s. K
.d fk Y .�°f£{.j 4 Yz k�` >9 k✓ 1$ f'k k �E
It
MAU
r
8t
.. !
i
yR
1-3
EAT
J
k ROM
v A
a<_
Clio
O 1
9
'� � �F� S•tt� ey v =' 'OC �`
•
G +J N
N
r _a
t
A
a �S» K
K.
S
�7 N
II . .
Ice r` ' � •
ill
M1
P =�
���• •�� 4 7b 1
r
� � Z
p
g J i
a�
"a
LL �
w
� I
e g a m g
�i • .j',•,.�J64 ...•. . g'
CA
vi J
M �
LD
.Z H LL �
uA
N lull 3 342.
w �
y
V1 H @ ....... .. ....... y
Z
00 6
K
AM1 N fLL/l tLL/l N O O p S O S �£gamLO o
�z a
� ~ N thF 00 w� N £�L`.�"G� � � J�O ��.• uJ�G �� C4J in
r•a
L n pp p
g Z
O 1
ZQ2aC
Uz
g a
uk'1 0
uw
N U5 C am' 0 0 All
S o
C5o8 _
lyd 's11 a ,A
jct
2
c u o
I <j
1 � L
y C A y
1p u
Attachment B
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY College of Apiculture
Department ol'Natural Rcsmuce
Ot SCIL;NCE ANI) 110INOLOGY Lcology<mdManagement
339 Science It
Ames,Iowa 500 1 1-322 1
l A 151_94-7R!4
DATE: 25 April 2007
TO: Ames Park and Recreation Commission
FROM: ISU Outdoor Teaching Laboratories Committee
James Pease, Ph.D., Chair
RE: Use of the 131h Street Site for the Ames Aquatic Center
As a committee appointed by the Provost's Office, our duty is to protect and enhance the natural areas
of ISU property, especially regarding their use as outdoor teaching areas. The 131h street"pasture" is
one such area. Though not under current active concern or management of this committee, it is near
several sites that are, namely the Pohl Prairie Preserve, Haber Road horse pasture, and Brookside
Park. Further,the green space the pasture represents enhances the total green corridor and open
space that benefits the university and the wider Ames community. Because the area is owned by the
university, we feel a responsibility to comment on its future use.
As a committee,we are generally in support of the use of this site for a new Ames Aquatic Center.
While we do not relish the loss of open green space this area represents,we believe it is in the best
interest of the Ames community and, if developed carefully, could actually enhance the riparian corridor
and water quality in the Squaw Creek watershed. We support the development of an aquatic center on
this site if it contains the following elements as part of the development:
1)widening of the riparian corridor vegetation to a width of 200-300 feet with appropriate native
trees, shrubs, and/or grasses and forbs, particularly on the east side of the stream bank;
2) raising of the aquatic center above the floodplain so as to ensure that, in the event of flooding,
no pool chemicals or other materials enter the stream;
3) use of state-of-the-art pervious surfaces where possible(e.g. grass block parking lot)and on-site
treatment of run-off from impervious surfaces, including the use of constructed wetlands;
4)connecting the bike trail the exists on the south side of the football field to under 13th street to the
existing trail on the south side of 13`h street, likely via an underpass system.
As part of both the university community and the Ames area citizenry, we support the community's
desire to"infill"where possible without degrading green open space, thereby helping to alleviate sprawl.
The provisions we have outlined above we believe will fulfill that vision, give Ames citizens a centralized
recreational facility, make it accessible to a broader spectrum of the community, decrease energy
consumption to use it(especially compared to a location near one edge of the city), and enhance the
water quality in the area. Further, it is our firm belief that, as a leading educational institution, ISU and
the Ames community should serve as models of what can be done to enhance water quality, using
current,"green" materials and ideas. We believe that this development might serve as such a model,
both for our students and for other communities to emulate.
To be such a model, though,we reiterate: such a development must include these items as part of the
development, not just planned for some"hopeful"future. Working together, ISU and the City of Ames
can enhance the education of its students, its citizens, and improve both the human and the natural
environments. Should this site be chosen, we look forward to continuing to work with you to help make
it a reality.
r
,t \
Attachment C
5i1ro7 MAY - 4 2007
Dear Mayor and Members of the Council; CITY CLERK
CITY OF AMES,IOWA
This letter is to show the support of the undersigned members of the Student Affairs
Commission for a July vote in regards to the referendum for the new Ames Outdoor
Aquatic Center. While realizing that many ISU students will not be in Ames to vote in
July, we feel this concern is outweighed by the fact that students may vote via absentee
ballot, the fact that approximately 10,000 ISU students will be in Ames over the summer
months, and by the significant financial burdens posed by postponing the referendum
until November.
Sincerely,
Craig a i ttr 11 tn9c Peterson Brian Phillips