Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004.05.19 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY OF REXBURG May 19, 2004 7:30 P.M. STATE OF IDAHO ) : ss. County of Madison ) Present were the following: Mayor: Mayor Shawn Larsen Council Members: Paul Pugmire Donna Benfield Nyle Fullmer Rex Erickson G. Farrell Young Garth R. Oakey Financial Officer Richard Horner P&Z Administrator: Kurt Hibbert City Clerk: Blair D. Kay PFC: John Millar City Attorney: Stephen Zollinger Pledge to the Flag Mayor Larsen welcomed the scouts to the meeting and he welcomed Senator Brent Hill to the meeting. Roll Call of Council Members: All members were present except Council Member Fullmer, who will be arriving later. Consent Calendar: The consent calendar includes items which require formal City Council action, however they are typically routine or not of great controversy. Individual Council members may ask that any specific item be removed from the consent calendar for discussion in greater detail. Explanatory information is included in the City Council’s agenda packet regarding these items. A. Minutes from the May 05, 2004 meeting B. Approve the City of Rexburg Bills 1 Council Member Pugmire moved to approve the Consent Calendar; Council Member The motion carried. Young seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. Public Comment: on issues not scheduled on the agenda (limit 3 minutes) – None New Business: A. Final Plat for the Meadows Condominiums “Phase 1” – Robert Lamoreaux and Design Intelligence – Scott Spaulding nd Kurt Rowland from Schiess & Associates at 310 North 2 East, representing Robert Lamoreaux reviewed the Final Plat for the Meadows Condominiums on the overhead screen. Eight of the buildings have been constructed in Phase I. There will be an additional eight buildings planned for this Phase. Council Member Erickson reviewed the history of the approvals that were given in the Planning and Zoning meeting. The Council referred to a previous Council discussion on this project that required an additional road for the project for future phases. They discussed Phase 1 and Phase 2 being combined into Phase 1 for the Final Plat. Council Member Erickson moved to approve the Final Plat for Phase 1 of the Meadows Condominium Subdivision; Council Member Pugmire seconded the motion; all voted aye, The motion carried. none opposed. B. Final Plat for the Valley View Estates Division #5 – Schiess & Associates nd Kurt Rowland from Schiess & Associates at 310 North 2 East, representing Bart Stevens reviewed the Final Plat for the Valley View Estates Division #5 on the overhead screen. Phase 1 is completed on this Subdivision. This Plat is located by the City water nd tower on 2 East. There are 21 lots in this Subdivision. The final Plat was approved by Planning and Zoning. Council Member Pugmire moved to approve the Final Plat for Valley View Estates Division #5; Council Member Erickson seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. C. Final Plat for the Rexburg Business Park Phase II - Staff John Millar reviewed the Plat for the Rexburg Business Park Phase II on the overhead screen. It was brought into compliance with current City codes and standards. The street widths are at 68 feet and there will be sidewalks and a Parkway at the request of the owner. Planning and Zoning approved the Plat without and stipulations. The Plat was changed from the Preliminary Plat to make two lots out of three lots for a prospective buyer. 2 Council Member Erickson moved to approve the Final Plat for the Rexburg Business Park Phase II; Council Member Benfield seconded the motion; The Council discussed the The sidewalks that will be added as the buildings are built. All voted aye, none opposed. motion carried. Public Hearings: None Old Business: A. BILL No. 915 (First Reading) ADDING A NEW SECTION ZONING ORDINANCE 725 TO THEFOR CELLULAR TOWERS ENTITLED "WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND ANTENNAS". Mayor Larsen asked for John Millar’s review and comments. John mentioned that the Ordinance requires clustering of the cell towers; similar to those by the City water nd tower on South 2 East. Due to the City’s topography, they can not all be located in this area. This Ordinance will decrease the number of sites for the location of these structures. John indicated that there are still some required modifications to the Ordinance before it gets to the third reading. Council Member Pugmire moved to consider the bill No. 915 for the Wireless Telecommunications Towers and Antennas as first read; Council Member Young seconded the motion; Discussion: Council Member Oakey reviewed the need to have minimum clearances between each receiver on a structure. He indicated that this would require taller towers. John mentioned that more than one receiver can be placed on an antenna. John did not have the clearance numbers for the meeting. Council Member Erickson mentioned that in a prior meeting the applicant for a Cell Council Member Benfield Tower required a 20 foot separation for the Antennas. asked about the origin of the Ordinance. “Did we take this Ordinance from another City”? City Attorney Zollinger indicated that the Ordinance was taken from Federal Regulations. “There is no original thought occurring among attorneys” per Attorney The motion carried. Zollinger. All voted aye, none opposed. B. Swimming Pool/Recreation Center Discussion ? Ohlsen & Lavoie (feasibility Study overview) - Citizen’s Recreation Committee represented by Jill Anderson – 419 Morgan Drive reviewed an Executive Summary from Ohlsen & Lavoie. She thanked the Council for allowing her and others to share their opinions and feelings on the recreational issues that has been on their minds for a very long time. Their Committee of concerned citizens is not appointed by the City. They are a group of concerned citizens seeking a pool and Community Center for the past three years. Some of their information came from other Committees doing research four to six years prior to the existence of the Citizen’s Committee. She reviewed the Committee’s information that they would like to provide the City on this subject as follows: 3 1) The need for a Community Center (a meeting place used by members of the Community for social, cultural, or recreational purposes). 2) The need to have a year around facility, since the University’s facilities are not Community accessible. In the past, the following subsidized recreation facilities have been utilized by the Community. a)The school system facilities b)LDS meeting house facilities c)The former Ricks College, now BYU-I 3) The social benefit from using these facilities can not continue as evidenced by the current excess demand over the past years. 4) A swimming pool is one form of recreation which many desire to have again in the Community. The Committee would prefer to have a year around pool. 5) Other forms of recreation are quilting, dancing, fencing, pool, ping pong, bingo, music, lifting weights, playing in McDonald’s colorful balls, and other activities. 6)The City requested a feasibility study two years ago due to this need in the Community. A plan was presented to the City including an indoor aquatic area and outdoor water features. The study did not include any of the BYU-I population and the deficit was too high. Thus, many have concluded that the City will never do it. 7)There are other options available to the City to achieve the goal of a City Pool. Jill mentioned several options that could be considered in building a City Community Center and a City pool. A)Outdoor pool or an Indoor pool B)In Porter Park or else where C)Community Center or not D)Build the facility all at once or in phases E)Never build the facility F)Finance the facility with investors G)Raise money with food sales H)Do nothing Jill reiterated the fact that the proposed plan can be changed to any number of options. Don’t get stuck on the original document for a Recreational Center. Let’s pick a plan for a safe harbor for the entire City and the surrounding Community. She commended the Mayor for looking at all the options at this meeting. 4 Mayor Larsen explained that last fall the City gave a charge to the Parks and Recreation Committee to look at an outdoor pool facility and compare the costs for it to the indoor pool facility. The City Council was provided those numbers in their packets. The Mayor asked Brad Smith to go over the outdoor pool report. ? Ohlsen & Lavoie (feasibility Study overview) – Cost estimates for an outdoor Chairman Brad pool – The Parks and Recreation Committee represented by Smith – 262 Cornell Avenue, reviewed the scope of the Parks and Recreation Committee. The Committee was organized in December 2002 to look at a lot of different issues. Their duties include identify and recommend priorities for Parks and Recreation facilities, review programs, identify sources of funding, and program improvements within the CITY OF REXBURG. They are a sub- committee of the City Council. Last September the Committee was given the charge to get the comparative number for an indoor pool verses an outdoor pool Ohlsen & Lavoie with just an aquatic center. They askedto take the comparative items and update the comparative numbers for the two choices with Ballard King. They found that the dehumidification process for an indoor pool was a major cost. He mentioned that the costs would be 3.9 million for an outdoor pool with the same features (wave pool, lazy river, slides and other basic features) that were given to the City for an indoor pool, except the items required for dehumidification of an indoor pool. The operating costs were estimated to be $242,000 for 75 to 78 days of usage during the summer for this outdoor pool. The profit was about $6,000 for a season on this comparison. The 75 to 78 days are the days that the children are out of school in the summer. The breakdown of the operating costs indicates that $112,000 of that expense is for payroll. The facility would require about 27 part time employees paying $6.50 to $9.00 per hour for the summer months. Generally outdoor facilities operate at a profit. The population numbers were based on the 2000 census. The City has grown since that census and the need is greater for a pool at this time. They identified some significant problems. The Parks and Recreation Committee came up with some issues that the City Council needs to address: 1. The City needs some kind of pool facility 2. The major concerns from the Committee was the need to provide a facility to the two fastest growing segments of the City’s population; namely, the seniors and those with young children. Brad noted that spouses and children of students at BYU-Idaho can not participate in the University recreational programs. 3.Elderly people and young families have asked the City to provide walking paths in the City parks for walking and pushing strollers. The Committee recommends that the Council provides some recreation facilities for these two groups. He mentioned that an aquatic center and a community center were needed for these 5 two groups. Brad mentioned his personal feelings for the need for a phased in approach for an Aquatic Center and a Community Center. Last fall the Standard Journal conducted a discussion during the election. Brad referred to the election of 2003 comment of “pools or schools” in a political forum at the Tabernacle. In that meeting Council Member Erickson indicated that both options were possible. Brad indicated the need to have a facility that would be near to a self funding facility. Brad thanked the Council for the opportunity to bring this discussion to the Council. ? Public Input (5 minute limit) Mayor Larsen invited public input on the swimming pool issue. The purpose of this meeting is to get everything on the table. Then let the Council make a decision on how to proceed. th David Allen – 370 South 5 East, reviewed a facility in Toole, Utah, that is an outstanding facility. It costs 3.3 Million dollars and it is next to the High School. It is an outstanding year around facility and he recommended that a similar indoor facility be built in Rexburg next to the High School, Middle School or Junior High. He recommended a different price structure for residents of the City verses out of town people. He reviewed some financing options and indicated that the expense for an indoor pool is not that great. He read in the Standard Journal that if he borrowed a $1,000,000 his payment would be $6,437 per month. That means if he borrowed 3.5 Million, his payment would be $22,000 per month. He thought that was an affordable payment for the residents of Rexburg. David asked the Council to approve an indoor pool. James (Jason) Stark – 1160 North 4000 West, was agreeable to have either an indoor or an outdoor pool. “If you are going to make a pool, don’t go for the cheapest one”. “The best is not always the lowest bidder”. He asked the Council to build a pretty nice pool. “We need one”. He mentioned that the Madison High School and Junior High swim team student’s travel to Idaho Falls to practice every week for the swim team practices and competitions. He was opposed to traveling out of town for swimming events. Jason is on the Mayor’s Youth Advisory Board. Mayor Larsen mentioned that Jason is on the Youth Advisory Board. They are the coordinators of the up-coming Pride Days activity to help beautify the City by planting nd flowers on the 22 of May. The group will meet at the Tabernacle to start the days planting activities. It is the second Rexburg Pride Days in a series of four different days that are designed to help make the City more attractive. Mayor Larsen asked the public to get involved with the Pride Day activities. Jim Morris – 60 North Millhollow Road, indicated that there is no question that Rexburg needs a swimming pool. “We all know this”. Jim has heard comments from 6 the average Joe on the street about their willingness to support an outdoor pool for a price of about 1.5 to 2 Million dollars in the same location of the old Porter Park pool. The same location in Porter Park would require the addition of parking being located on the south side of the current ball diamond. The ball diamond could be turned into a couple of soccer fields. It would be close to the shelters, the tennis courts and the carrousel. If this were the case, people would vote to support that much for funding. It is a start; however, it will not cure all of the City’s recreational problems. “It gives us a foothold to build from there”. He mentioned that maybe some day someone would come to town and build a Recreation Center. Private enterprise is wonderful. Although an outdoor pool would not satisfy all of the Community’s needs, it would not break the bank. He asked for a design that would accommodate the youth (small children) as well as the more adventurous facilities with swim lanes, small slide and sun tanning areas. He would vote for that type of facility. The average resident will not come to the meeting and express their desires; however, they know what the Community needs and they would support a smaller facility. Bryce Thatcher – 239 Mohawk, manager of the Sports and Fitness Club indicated that the Club has a swim team that was started by Ben Crouch and Jenny Davidson along with the help of Susan Hammond. They have about 50 participants in this Community swim team. He pictured the Club as a Community Center. Next week the Club is booked every night for High School Seniors lock in night. Bonneville, North Fremont, South Fremont, and Rigby High Schools have booked the Club for their students as a Community Recreational Center. Bryce indicated that “We have a Recreational Center”; however, it may not be the biggest one out there. On the pool issue, they think there needs to be an outdoor pool. If a Community Recreation Center was built with all the amenities with weights, indoor track, and racket ball courts, it would put the Fitness Club out of business. They would oppose an indoor facility. He asked “why would we, as an organization try to put a business out of business” considering the Downtown Revitalization endeavor. They would support an outdoor pool. They would oppose an indoor Recreation Center. nd Kim England -346 West 2 South is an Americor volunteer in the City. They hosted a Youth Search Conference just over a month ago. At the conference, the youth were invited to bring up a subject of their choice. They brought up the topics of both a swimming pool and a Recreational Center along with other issues. The top vote getter in the priority vote was the Recreational Center over the swimming pool. The Recreational Center had over twice the votes as the swimming pool. Mayor Larsen was at that the Conference. Concerning the “Pools or Schools” discussion in that Conference, one student said that he could learn in an old school but he could not swim in dirt. The Mayor mentioned the recent opening of the Smithsonian Exhibit at the University. In preparation for his speech at this event, he reviewed the minutes for the City while his grandfather was the Mayor of Rexburg. He mentioned in his review of the City’s historical items that were discussed under the topic of “Yesterday’s Tomorrows” in Rexburg, that the City Pool was being discussed 7 in 1969. The Lions Club had decided to build a pool for the City. They had just finished the golf course and the wanted another project. The same issues concerning a City Pool in 1969 are being discussed at this meeting. Where is the pool going to be located? How is the City Pool going to be funded? The Lions Club had raised a lot of money to get the pool in place. They told the City it would take an additional 3 to 4 years to fund the entire project. The Council by a split vote of 4 to 2 put the City Pool in Porter Park over the top of a softball diamond. It was the only split vote for the Council that year. The Community passed a bond for the City Pool for $28,000. The first year after the bond, the pool was completed and the City had 33,000 admissions to the pool. A year later the Council voted to put in a $900.00 slide for the pool. Ken Hart – Rexburg, mentioned that it would be a shame to price the elderly and the young out of the pool due to the price of admissions. He would rather see a break even price or subsidized price for their fees to allow these two groups to use the facility. Many in this Community are eligible for subsidized lunches at the Schools and can not afford as much as the other groups. Sherie Smith – 262 Cornell Avenue, mentioned that the old Porter Park pool location would take green space out of the Park. Sherie thought that it would be a shame to loose the green space. She would like to see a spray garden in Porter Park instead of a pool and a parking lot. She thought that the Community would be willing to raise the money and put it in this summer. They believe that people would be willing to step up to the plate and support an indoor year around facility with money, time and effort. Roy Huff – 476 Morgan Drive, recommended a free enterprise approach to the pool project. He thought that competition would be stimulating to the Community. As the City grows and we have more competition, it will keep the Community vibrant. Steve Oakey – 25 South 3rd East, mentioned that the City should not be in competition with private industry. Idaho Falls recently voted down a similar proposal for a Community Pool. He was torn about competing with an established business. ? Apple Athletic Club – Steve Voucavich Council Member Pugmire indicated that Steve is the Owner operator of the Apple Athletic Club. In visiting with Steve, Paul indicated that Steve’s ideas are worth discussion with public and private cooperation. Steve Voucavich – 1133 Londonerry Avenue, Idaho Falls, indicated that he was the founder of Apple Athletic Club. There are now four owners of the Idaho Falls facility. He reviewed some of the recreational holdings of the owners in other Communities. They have five different health clubs in those Communities. They would like to expand their operation in 2005. They would like to have 8 to 10 facilities in the next five to 10 years. They made an offer to the City of Idaho Falls a joint facility to increase the size of their 8 facility at the private owner’s expense to help Idaho Falls get a Recreation Center. The City of Idaho Falls declined the offer so the private owners went ahead with their own facility in Idaho Falls. He mentioned that there are several options for having a facility in Rexburg if they buy the Fitness Club. A joint type effort with the City may be feasible. They feel it is worth discussing if there is interest in the Community. He mentioned the possible expansion of the Fitness Club with the partnership of the City. They would do a major upgrade of the facility. He mentioned an outdoor pool and added gym space to the current Fitness Club facility. He did not have a set proposal at this time. They are willing to explore the options with the City of Rexburg. He has been asked if joint operations have been done in other places. He mentioned that Alaska may have some joint facilities. Council Member Erickson asked about the acquisition of the Fitness Club if the City built an outdoor pool. He asked if they would still pursue the purchase of the Fitness Club. Steve said that it would be a concern due to the size of the City and the payback of the project. The success would be higher with a joint venture with the City. Competition with a municipal swimming pool would be a problem because it would be subsidized. Council Member Erickson mentioned that the young people and the seniors would not be able to afford admission in a private recreational facility. The City could facilitate admissions for those people in an outdoor swimming pool facility much more readily and cost effective than what a private club could facilitate. Council Member Erickson indicated that the City would probably have to partially subsidize those two groups. He did not think that those two groups would be customers of a private facility. Steve said they substantially subsidize their seniors and students for thousands of dollars each year in Idaho Falls. Steve mentioned that not all seniors are destitute. He had a problem subsidizing the able bodied poor. They could work at the public pool. Steve mentioned that people have to make choices between health facility expense and cable TV expense. Many people cancel memberships at his club each year; however, they do not shut off their cable TV. Council Member Oakey a sked Steve to identify the type of subsidy he would be asking the City to provide to a joint facility. Would they want free water, tax relief, etc.? Steve mentioned that some support would be helpful from the City. It could be building a joint gym and locker rooms for an outdoor pool. Joint use of the existing facilities would have to be separated off and treated separately. Council Member Oakey asked if there were City subsidies, would the Club mitigate admission prices for some sectors of the population. Steve mentioned the YMCA does not provide new equipment for the poor. Jointly, they could serve the entire population. They allow for the public to buy daily passes for their facilities. Steve mentioned that Communities typically build health clubs instead of Community Centers for doing other activities. Joint use of existing space in the Fitness Club could be used for Community events. Property tax relief would be helpful. Council Member Erickson liked the idea of having private enterprise take on this project. “It is a breath of fresh air”; he would prefer a private operation to oversee the 9 facility because they are working for a profit. Mayor Larsen indicated that this discussion is very preliminary. It gives the Council some discussion points. Steve Voucavich mentioned that the expansion proposal for the Fitness Club would be next to a County parking lot to the east of the Fitness Club. Council Member Pugmire mentioned that the City Golf Course operates for a profit. ? Waters Edge – David Schwartz Mayor Larsen explained that he and the some of the Council Members met David Schwartz at a National League of Cities Conference (NLC Conference) in Tennessee. He was gracious enough to come to Rexburg about a month ago to look at the needs of the Community for a swimming pool. David has brought some possible swimming pool layouts to the meeting for discussion. The Mayor thanked David for coming to the City. David is providing this information to the City of Rexburg without any fees. David Schwartz indicated that they design pool facilities throughout the Country. This proposal is being done without fees. They have projects in 13 States. He brought information for indoor and outdoor pools. Successful pools need Community support. He mentioned that Communities want to reduce their operating subsidy. Some Communities will make a profit on a pool facility; however, Steve indicated that it was an unrealistic goal to have a facility that makes a profit. It goes against a lot of the comments that have been given tonight that the Community wants to support the recreational opportunities without making a profit. Outdoor pools are more capable of making a profit than an indoor pool. David mentioned that the City will want to serve the entire Community, whatever definition is used for a Community. It is important to be as diverse and serve as many recreational needs as possible. The City will want to maintain good positive programs that help the Community. Family fun is always an appropriate goal. Community pride follows a successful project. Improvement of the quality of life is the phrase that David hears over and over again in Communities where ever he travels. He mentioned that “That is a goal; that is what people want to do”. David Schwartz reviewed an outdoor facility on the overhead screen. A larger pool with plenty of swallow water would draw patrons from outside of the Community. Water slides are a must for City pools. The pools should last over 40 years. A lazy river feature is very fun and desired in a pool. June, July, and August are the best months for outdoor pools. There are about 85 days budgeted for the use of outdoor facilities (Memorial Day to Labor Day). They typically operate 7 days a week. The cost per person ranges from $1.00 to $6.00 per person. Season passes are preferable for the customers which could be 10 under 50 cents per visit for a family of four. The City would need to do a market study to develop a price structure for the proposed pool. All of his examples were municipal projects. The several plans for outdoor pools that David displayed on the overhead screen took between 8 to 15 acres of land to have an outdoor pool, lazy river, and other pool amenities. The size of the outdoor pool facility depends on the Communities’ population Regional Pool and the goals of the Community. A that is attempting to make a profit will Community Pool seek to draw customers beyond a 30 mile radius from the facility. A will serve your Community and maybe 15 to 30 from the facility, depending on people’s ability and willingness to travel to the pool. The features of the pool and the price Neighborhood Pool structure will influence that decision. A will be smaller in size. It will strictly serve your Community and will rarely draw people from outside the Regional Community. The features of the pool will dictate whether it is considered a Pool, a Community Pool, or a Neighborhood Pool. The Communities goals will determine what the features will be for the Community Pool. The profitability of the facility will follow the goals set by the Community. David mentioned that water slides, (all shapes and sizes) are at the top of the amenities list for pools. They generally size the landing area for slides (plunge pool) to accommodate two, three, or four different slides. He recommended that the City should think for the long term and have a variety of options for pool slides that can be added in the future. These pool slides are scalable to the size of the pools. He mentioned that the lazy river feature is the most requested amenity for a swimming pool. David reviewed several pool options that cost from $261.00 to $314.00 per square foot of water to build. They were Community pools that were funded by bonding or sales tax revenue. David mentioned that the availability of life guards control when the season for the pool starts and when the season ends. David Schwartz reviewed an option for one of the outdoor plans for a 6,000 square foot pool that could be located in Porter Park without disturbing the current tree population. It would add a parking lot to the Park with the pool facility. Two soccer fields would remain on the north side of the park where the baseball field is currently located. The cost for this facility would be about $2,000,000. The life guards would be paid $8.00 to $9.00 dollars per hour with this proposal. The pool would have a six lane 25 yard lap area with a one meter diving board with an adjacent drop slide into the deep water. This plan would include a 10 foot family slide and an open tub slide. There would be an interactive play structure included in this project. There would be a spray area under an umbrella shaded area and a shaded concessions area. An office area with dressing rooms would locate close to the street. It is a reasonable small pool plan. If you take out the tennis courts the plan could accommodate a lazy river area with three slides going into the pool. That pool would be about twice the size of the smaller pool and it would include a wading pool. 11 The Council discussed the plan to develop the pool on other properties like the Louisiana Pacific Property. There have been some funding requests on the Federal level to do ball fields at that location. Council Member Erickson indicated that the Porter Park was used as an example given the property would be less costly to develop for the pool complex. It is just one person giving an opinion on one piece of property. David Schwartz mentioned that when a Community replaces a pool, the question is always asked: Why didn’t the previous site get evaluated for the new pool or what can be located in the previous pool location. “What can fit there?” Council Member Pugmire indicated that he asked David in Tennessee to show what could be located at Porter Park; however, he has a very negative visual reaction to putting something in Porter Park. He does think that it should be looked at as a possible location. He recommended having everything on the table for discussion. David Schwartz indicated that it would take an additional $300,000 to $500,000 for roads to be developed in the Louisiana Pacific Property. It would take two accesses to the property and provide for the development of the property in the flood plain. The Council discussed the possible options for a pool and the breakeven possibilities for the several options that David presented to the Council and the Community. David mentioned that the smaller pool he recently discussed would have a harder time breaking even than a larger pool with the lazy river option. Even though the larger pool’s operating costs are twice as much as the smaller pool, the added features will draw more people to the facility and make it more cost effective. The small pool fits with the Neighborhood Pool option verses a Community or Regional Pool option that would draw more people to the facilities. David indicated that there is not a right design or a wrong design; the question is what the right design is for your Community. “Don’t let a consultant talk you into something”. The water capacity is usually 20 to 25 square feet per person in the water at a given time. The larger pool’s options that were displayed would facilitate about 800 to 1,000 people on a single day. David did not recommend a wave pool because of the additional cost ($80,000 to $100,000 for the wave generation equipment). David Schwartz gave an example of a town near Des Moines, Iowa, with 13,000 residents that built a 15,000 square foot pool. The project cost was about 4.5 million to build the pool from scratch. They had not owned a pool in the past. It was located on bare Park ground. Storm water detention, all utilities, parking, roads, and excavation were included in that cost. The first year they had almost 78,000 people use the facility. The average day 837 people used the pool facility. They had peak days over 1,200 people 12 use the facilities. Their operating expenses were almost $14,000 per month. The revenue was $483,000 for the season. Their ticket prices were $2.00, $3.00, and $4.00 with a seasonal family pass for five at $120.00. They were profitable with this pool. There are five pools in the surrounding area in adjoining Communities. People in the area had multiple choices for pool activities. David recommended planning the project on a break even approach as you go. He commented on the costs of labor as the main operating expense for an outdoor facility because they do not have the dehumidification costs associated with an indoor pool. Sometimes the labor ranges from 50 to 60 percent of the operating costs for an outdoor project. There are not any operating costs for an outdoor pool when it closes for the season. David Schwartz discussed the cost difference between an indoor facility and an outdoor facility. An indoor facility has year around dehumidification costs for a humidity factory of 50 to 60 percent. An outdoor pool does have a heater with a gas boiler to be used on a temporary basis. An indoor facility must have marketed programs to maintain a revenue stream. It is a challenge to keep a revenue stream for an indoor facility. He reviewed several indoor facilities that do not have a positive revenue stream. Partnering with other entities (schools, hospitals, sales taxes, etc.) is needed to help with the costs of an indoor pool. David Schwartz gave an example of a 90,000 square foot combined Pool and Community Center (dry facility) at a cost of $14,000,000. The pool portion of this project is about $3,000,000. The Community must look at what is important to the children of the Community and the families of the Community. Talk to the City about what the bonding capacity is for the City. Who is going to operate this facility? Does the City have the Staff to take care of a facility? Talk to and partner with the Schools in the Community. David recommended that the City take advantage of existing facilities like the school gyms and the Fitness Center. David mentioned that most Communities default to some kind of outdoor facility. Those Communities that bypass an outdoor facility and build an indoor facility regret the fact that they do not have an outdoor pool. They wish that they could have both an indoor pool and an outdoor pool. He recommended taking stock of the many items the City has in their inventory. What do you have? What can you use? What are the gaps you need to fill? David mentioned that phased in projects are a challenge. The voters don’t like to revisit the same project request a second time. Council Member Erickson mentioned that David would rather build an indoor facility for profit; however, he indicated that the decision must be something that the City could afford and it must be profitable. He recommended a small bond election. A school bond may restrict the pool bond. He can not support deficit spending. 13 Council Member Oakey indicated that phasing would be one approach to a facility. He asked Richard to explain what the City could afford for a pool. The second phase could be to put a covering over the pool. Richard Horner explained that the answer is based on priorities. The issue is pretty nebulous at this point. The City must set some priorities before allocation funds for a pool. “How much do you want to afford?” He thought the City could subsidize $50,000 to $150,000 per year for pool operating expenses. The City is currently subsidizing recreation in the City by about $60,000. The old pool in Porter Park was subsidized at about $40,000 to $50,000 per year at its peak subsidy. Other priorities need to be weighed against this proposed expenditure. It is the Council’s decision. There are other needs in the City to address. Council Member Oakey asked if there was contingency money immediately available for the pool. Richard mentioned that $500,000 to $1,000,000 taken out of reserves would take the fund to zero. It would cost each household a $1.00 per month per million in a bond. A house valued at $150,000 with a home owner’s exemption of $50,000 would be bonded at $100,000 in value. A $10,000,000 bond would cost that home owner $10.00 per month or $120.00 per year for a $10,000,000 dollar bond. A $125,000 home with a home owner’s exemption would cost about $90.00 per year for the bond on a $10,000,000 building project. The less expensive homes could cost about $60.00 per year for the bond. The bonding would take a 2/3 majority vote of the public to pass the bond. A $700,000 business could cost about $600 per year for the bond. Jill Anderson asked about the other options for a Community Center and the costs less the aquatic center. David was not an expert in the dry side for a Community Center. He thought the dry side could be closer to making a profit. There was some discussion on the money making portion of a fitness center. The memberships for a fitness center make the money. The pool helps sell memberships. Steve Voucavich indicated that the pool is the sizzle not necessarily the steak. He indicated that indoor pools are quite costly. David Schwartz mentioned that sales tax or property tax is the source of most funding. They are designers of pools, they rely on local contactors for the construction of pool facilities to keep the costs down. Mayor Larsen David Schwartz closed the discussion and thanked for his input. It gives the City a starting point. 14 Council Member Oakey asked about possible funding sources or donations from the Citizens Pool Committee. Dr. Gary Lovell asked the Council to provide political leadership before going to people and asking for funding donations. He respects the costs issues and asked for consideration from the Council to have a Community facility. Council Member Erickson indicated the need to step up to plate for a good outdoor pool. He (as an independent businessman) applauded Steve for his efforts to enhance the indoor facility at the Fitness Center. He was not in favor of an indoor facility that would be run by the City. He does support the outdoor pool proposal for 75 to 90 days per year. Council Member Erickson indicated that the City could have both enterprises in the City. He wanted private industry to take over the indoor facility project. Dr. Gary Lovell reviewed the recommendations of the two Citizen’s Committees. He mentioned Tiny Grant’s Citizen’s Committee and the Citizens Committee represented by Jill Anderson. There is adequate summer time activity in this area. The City is lacking winter time recreational facilities. Dr. Lovell asked why the City Council was ignoring the recommendations of these two Committees. Council Member Erickson responded that the voters changed the Administration of the City because of the direction they were heading with the Recreational Facilities for the City. Council Member Erickson did not feel that the Community would support an 8 or 9 million dollar bond. Dr. Lovell indicated that the Community needs a Community facility for the winter months. Council Member Erickson mentioned that the school funding for a new High School is competition to this proposal for a new pool or Community Center. Dr. Lovell mentioned that the Community must decide what it wants and prioritize the issues. Council Member Benfield mentioned her conversations with constituents during the recent election. The majority of people wanted an outdoor pool because of the price. She was excited about the different options that were discussed tonight. She wanted to include private enterprise in the process. She believes the first step for a Recreational Facility would be an outdoor pool. Maybe the Community could build on the outdoor pool at a later date. She would support a combination approach of having both private and public support for the recreational facilities in Rexburg. She indicated that a mill levy in the 2 to 3 million dollar range would be passed by the voters. She thought the David Schwartz presentation by Mr. was very fair and balanced. She did not think that he was trying to sell the City any particular project. 15 Council Member Benfield indicated that the discussion on the joint venture between the City and the Fitness Club’s indoor facility was also a “win” “win” situation. She mentioned that direct competition with private enterprise was difficult. Council Member Benfield was willing to allow private enterprise to explore options to grow the indoor facility at the Fitness Club with some City and County participation with parking lots and other unexplored options. Council Member Oakey mentioned that increased property taxes would be difficult for seniors and young families. Too much bonding would be restrictive to those residents. The family size in Rexburg is an average of 3.4 children per household verses the national average of 1.2 children per family. Those families can not afford an increase in property taxes. He would support a lower bond that the citizens would support. Mayor Larsen recommended an outdoor pool for the Community. He felt strongly that the Community would do well with an outdoor pool. He wanted a pool for his family in the next few years. He indicated that an indoor pool bond would fail. He was willing to measure the wants verses the ability to pay for the Community. The City Council has various options to consider for the Community. Dr. Gary Lovell was concerned for the Community’s recreational needs for the entire year. He mentioned a previous City Council meeting where the focus of the meeting was concerning the need for a Community Center in Rexburg. Mayor Larsen indicated that the discussion Gary was referring to was a discussion on downtown revitalization and creating a drawing place for the downtown area. Mayor Larsen indicated that the Porter Park area is a good location for a gathering place for the Porter Park Area and to draw people into the Community. Dr. Gary Lovell reiterated his concerns for the Community to have a year around facility for Community recreation and other activities. Mayor Larsen referred to other options for the Community. The private development option is one of those options. The School District may leave a vacant building in the downtown area if they build outside of the Community. The Mayor indicated that there are other options verses a City developed recreational facility. The Mayor would like to look at all of the options, weigh all of the different options and let the Council go forward and be united with the Community. Council Member Pugmire suggested continuing this discussion on the next meeting. 16 Mayor Larsen asked to have the Council discuss the options and look at the different possibilities at the next meeting, June 02, 2004. Council Member Pugmire asked for the discussion to conclude with the Council at the next meeting. Dr. Gary Lovell asked for the Junior High building location to be included in the discussion on June 02. He would like to know if that is a feasible site for a Community Center. Brad Smith mentioned that there is a need to plan for the future recreational needs of the Community. If we are planning a facility for the current population, then we are short changing our future. We don’t need to build huge; however, we do need to build for the future of the Community at a site that can be expanded. Council Member Pugmire reminded Jill Anderson of a meeting at the Tabernacle where the Citizens Committee asked the Council to wait on a 9 million dollar bond recommendation from a consultant, Chuck Musgrave. Jill Anderson indicated that the Committee did not want to put anyone in financial straights. They were gathering information for a facility and they wanted to be flexible; however, the Committee was looking for much more in a facility that just a pool. She mentioned that everyone will be impacted by a bond, whether they are elderly or another segment of the Community. Jill was not recommending a 9 million dollar facility. The Committee planned to be flexible on a Community Center to accommodate the needs of the Community. They are not sold on any price, any size. They are concerned with the long term planning of the facility. Council Member Pugmire mentioned that he had a letter in the packet encouraging support for a full fledged Community Center with an indoor aquatic facility. That has been, and remained Council Member Pugmire’s preference. The struggle is getting it done financially. He was in harmony with Council Member Oakey, in that if you go to the public and lose, you materially damage the issue for a long time. It comes down to what number can you get the voters to approve. He referred to a vote in 1977 that would have relocated the airport. The Council decided to leave the airport in its current location. He indicated that it is a decision that the City Council lives with every day. There was some discussion on an open meeting forum that could spend more time on the issue instead of having a decision from the Council after a short discussion in a meeting. 17 Council Member Oakey expressed a desire to have discussions with the School Board David Schwartz on the Junior High property. He asked if could take a look at that property and see what possibilities are at that location. It is an option that the Council has not looked at real thoroughly, and it would not hurt to look at it. The open meeting law was discussed and the fact that the City Council can not discuss the way they would vote on an issue or they can not discuss any material subject concerning a vote on an issue with another Council Member. They can not make a decision amongst themselves. The Council decisions must be made in an open public meeting. Mayor Larsen indicated that the Council will discuss the pool issue in a public meeting on June 02, 2004. There was some concern expressed that some of the Council had already made up their minds on the pool issue. The hope was expressed in the meeting that the Council would not ignore the indoor pool discussion at the next meeting. Council Member Young indicated that he expressed his views at the last Council meeting and it was “plastered all over the front page of the paper”. He did not express any views at this meeting. Mayor Larsen mentioned that Government is messy. It is done with public input and the public check book. He indicated that each Council Member is doing their due diligents on what is best for the Community. Council Member Erickson reiterated the comments from the meeting concerning the lack of long range planning and that the Council has already made their minds up concerning the pool issue. He indicated that both could be true or neither one could be true. Council Member Erickson foresees the time when the City will not have soccer or ball fields on the west side of Porter Park. The City has no reason to have them on Porter Park. He mentioned the property over by the High School that is only good for outdoor fields. There is an old landfill located at that site. He proposed to use more of Porter Park for a Community Center in the future when the citizens can afford the facility. The Council is looking at this issue realistically not idealistically. There is already a need to use some of Porter Park for a parking lot. The Council discussed contacting the School Board on their plans for expansion. The City Council would like to be involved with the School Board’s expansion decision. Council Member Fullmer joined the meeting at 10:35 p.m. 18 Gordon Thatcher mentioned that there is a meeting at the Middle School at 7:00 p.m. tomorrow night for the School Committee. The Council was invited to attend. Council Member Pugmire mentioned to Gordon that he would like to hear from the elected official on the issues of expansion. City Council Report: Council Member Young A. – Nothing to report Council Member Pugmire – B.Thanked Council Member Benfield for a super job on the Parade. He reviewed the market adjustment sheets for the Police Department payroll. Most of the officers will receive raises from 4% and 12%. The budget will be adjusted for this change and the budget will be approved for 2005 at the public hearing later this fall. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that the Council has already approved the raises if they do not go above the market survey. Council Member Benfield C.– Thank everyone who participated in the Armed Forces Parade last Saturday. It was a wonderful event. It showed a lot of Community support. She mentioned the Traffic Safety Committee meeting minutes. If there are any questions on the meeting, please review the minutes. The Beatification Committee is coming together. The Committee will meet nd every 2 Friday at 8:00 a.m. at City Hall. She has had requests to supply lighting th for the Community Park on 5 West by Park Street. There is some curfew problems at the same Park. The neighborhood has requested lighting and monitoring of the curfew hours for the Park. It is called the Park Street Park. Council Member Fullmer D. – Mentioned some door repairs for the Tabernacle. There is a contractor that will rebuild the doors. There have been some significant donations made for lighting at the Tabernacle. There will be more details on the lighting in the near future. Council Member Erickson E. – Nothing to report Council Member Oakey F. – The Museum Board did not meet. He waited last night; however, no one showed for the meeting. He mentioned that the Parks and Recreation Committee had a meeting. He asked about the Department meetings for budget reviews. The Mayor asked Council Member Oakey to meet with Richard Horner and the Mayor to review the Department budgets at his convenience. Mayor’s Report: 19 ndnd Mayor Larsen discussed the 2 upcoming Pride Days activity on the 22of May. There will be flowers planted on Main Street and other locations. Jack Bowman has been approached by a vendor to refurbish the snow shack at the water slide and sell concessions. Council Member Erickson was favorable to the request if they would fix up the building. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that the Council could approve the lease of the snow shack and then Jack would have to put the item out to a public bid. The Council discussed the costs to put an item out for bid. Advertising would be one of the costs. They reviewed the process that the Golf Board has followed for bidding the concessions at the Teton Lakes Golf Course. City Attorney Zollinger indicated that it would be a bid situation. The cost to bidding and fixing up the stand would be involved. The Council approved Jack Bowman to send the request to bid. Jack Bowman reviewed the number of Marathon runners that have signed up for the Teton Dam Marathon. There will be six runners per team. The Mayor, Council Member’s Benfield and Oakey, Jack and Holly Allen will be on one of the teams. After the race, their will be a party at Smith Park. Mayor Larsenrexburg.org. announced a new web site for the City which is The site was reviewed on the overhead screen for the Council. It is a work in progress. The financial information, GIS mapping, City Committees, City Council, City calendars, and other information for the City will be on the site. The Mayor mentioned the upcoming Association of Idaho Cities meeting in Boise. The th meeting will cover the weapons of mass destruction on Tuesday June 15. The regular thth Conference runs from the 16 to the 18 of June. Report on Projects & Quick Wins: John Millar mentioned that the banner will be installed tomorrow for Rexburg Pride Days. The painting of the City water tower is being bid. There are two FAA projects at the airport that are being bid after FAA approval. The new building for equipment storage and a maintenance area for the Street Department project is being designed. After the building is completed, the City will do more of their own maintenance. The pathway in Smith Park will have the base material installed Friday. It is scheduled to be paved next week. The summer street projects will be out to bid in June. The basketball hoops for Smith Park will be installed in the near future. John mentioned that there will be a railing placed above the blocks on the incline area on the south end of the Park. There is a conduit buried around the perimeter of the trail for lighting in the future, if needed. The Council discussed the use of skate boards on the pathway and the possibility of 20 painting a strip down the middle to separate the skateboarders from the walkers. Mayor Larsen reminded the Council of a Ribbon Cutting for the Smith Park pathway. th The Council decided to have the Ribbon Cutting for the pathway at 6:00 on June 09. Tabled requests: a.Commercial Design Standards (tabled) (Commercial Design Standards (draft) Ordinance 907 second reading) b.Proposed Ordinance 911 for booting cars (tabled) Adjournment 21