SUBJECT: Report Recommending Approval for the Replacement of Nelson Pool

Transcription

1 Page 1 of Report PR TO: FROM: Community and Corporate Services Committee Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Report Recommending Approval for the Replacement of Nelson Pool Report Number: PR Wards Affected: All File Numbers: Date to Committee: December 8, 2015 Date to Council: December 16, 2015 Recommendation: Endorse the replacement of Nelson Outdoor Pool in keeping with Option #2 as outlined in Report PR Purpose: This report will highlight summer aquatic usage, participation and demonstrated needs of the broader community, for the entire pool inventory. In addition this report will also provide Council with other options to consider. Background: Pool Service Overview The City operates 4 indoor and 2 outdoor swimming pools (6 pools) as well as 1 wading pool. The unexpected closure of Nelson Pool has dropped this level of service to 5 swimming pools as the population and community needs continue to grow. The provision of pools within the community was established through three significant Council endorsed reviews over a number of years: Outdoor Pool Review (1990 s), Indoor Pool Review (2000 s), and the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Assets Master Plan (2009).

2 Page 2 of Report PR Outdoor Pool Review: The outcome of the outdoor pool review recommended the closure of 3 smaller neighbourhood outdoor pools (Hidden Valley, Tyandaga, and Optimist), in favour of investing in the City s 2 large 50-metre outdoor pools (Nelson and Mountainside). Mountainside was built in 1962 and Nelson was built in Council endorsed this strategy and supported the revitalization of Nelson and Mountainside Pools over the years. In 1995, Nelson Pool received various upgrades including a new wading pool with splash features and reduced the depth in the shallow end to enhance this asset as a destination leisure facility for the whole community. In 2010, Nelson Pool received dedicated changerooms with the construction of new changerooms for the arena. Between 2011 and 2014, Mountainside Pool was enhanced with a new splash pad, new filtration system, new concrete deck and complete refurbishment of the changerooms Indoor Pool Review: The opening of Tansley Woods Pool in 1996 caused a shift in customer usage patterns that resulted in the need for an indoor pool service review. Council approved the indoor pool renewal strategy that supported upgrading and revitalizing the 3 indoor collegiate pools (Angela Coughlan, Aldershot, and Burlington Centennial). At this point in time, each of these pools has seen significant revitalization projects bringing them up to current day standards. To date, customers have been pleased with the renovations and added amenities at each of the locations Parks, Recreation and Cultural Assets Master Plan: This master plan focused on all parks and facilities within the Parks and Recreation department. More specifically regarding pools, the approved Master Plan reaffirmed that the current inventory of pools (4 indoor and 2 outdoor) was sufficient to meet the long term needs of the residents. Based on annual usage, the 6 pools continue to meet current demand. Current Situation - Nelson Pool In May 2015, staff informed Council that during an annual preseason inspection, Nelson Pool had suffered significant structural damage. Due to two severe winter seasons back-to-back, the steel structure of the pool had seen an accelerated rate of deterioration and had corroded beyond repair. A structural engineering report deemed the pool unsafe for public use resulting in the unexpected closure. Staff made attempts to see if any short term solutions could be found to keep Nelson Pool in service for the 2015 summer season however, repair measures were too extensive. As a result, staff advised that the pool would not open for the 2015 summer season and began to make

3 Page 3 of Report PR alternate arrangements for pool users. Originally, the tank was scheduled for replacement in After the original notification, Capital Works conducted a peer review to investigate whether there were any corrective measures that would allow the pool to open in Unfortunately no viable solutions could be found. On June 17, 2015 Council was informed a second time that Nelson Pool had reached the end of its service life and must be decommissioned. It was highlighted that at a minimum, the pool would be closed for both 2016 and 2017 seasons. The memo to Council also highlighted that staff would be working on options to be presented to Council for consideration later in This report provides the information to make a decision on the future of Nelson Pool. Discussion: Nelson Pool has served as both a neighborhood pool and a broader community pool for 50 years. The pool has been well used by the community providing a place for residents to participate in recreational swimming, swimming lessons, exercise and competitive swim clubs. This report will provide information on participation and usage, as well as the impact of the 2015 closure including the results of public engagement. Participation & Usage: To provide a level of understanding of overall summer participation at City pools, below highlights participation within three main categories: Swimming Lessons, User Groups (rentals) and Recreational Swimming. Swimming lessons are traditional learn-to-swim and aquatic leadership type programs. User Groups represent our special interest groups like competitive swimming, synchronized swimming and diving. Recreational Swimming represents public swims, all leisure swims and lap/exercise opportunities. As noted in the pie chart below, Recreational Swimming represents the most significant use and need during the summer months (93%).

4 Page 4 of Report PR Summer 2015 Overall Participation/Usage Percentage: Swimming Lessons 4% User Groups 3% Recreational Swimming 93% The following chart provides a historical average of weekly attendance at our pools city- summer of wide for the past 3 summer seasons. To note, the total attendance for the 2015 was 93,513 participants. A weekly average was used as opposed to total summer attendance because each summer over the past three years have had different lengths of time. For example, this summer was a 10-week summer as opposed to the summer of 2014 that was a 9-week summer. Each year shown below has had some level of service interruption as indicated in the bullets under the chart. Interestingly, even with Nelson Pool closed this summer attendance remained strong overall at all the pools. This could be attributed to a number of factors including: Expanded programs at the other open pools to accommodate Nelson s closure, An exceptionally warm summer in 2015 with minimal precipitation (as shown in the chart below), Mountainside Pool s capacity was increased after the renovation allowing more bathers to swim, and An added marketing push to promote safe swimming at our pools including tactics for the community to discover the newly renovated Mountainside location. Most importantly, the strong attendance in 2015 shows that the community is very interested in swimming during the summer months.

5 Page 5 of Report PR Summer Average Weekly Attendance (All Pools) Precipitation Accumulation in mm Notes: In 2013 Centennial Pool was closed for renovations, in 2014 Mountainside was under construction and operating on a shortened summer schedule, and in 2015 Nelson Pool was closed. In summer 2013, 76% of pool attendance was at our outdoor pool locations. In summer 2013, Nelson Pool accommodated 28,802 swimmers, representing 33% of all swimmer attendance across all city pools. Average daily attendance was about 460 swimmers. Impact of Nelson Pool Closure Summer 2015: As previously mentioned, there were three main categories of users highlighted in this report: Swimming Lessons, User Groups (rentals) and Recreational Swimming. Swimming Lessons: The operational indoor and outdoor pools (Aldershot, Coughlan, Centennial, Tansley Woods and Mountainside) added swimming lesson opportunities to accommodate the cancelled program at Nelson. For the most part, all lesson participants were accommodated at the other pools and interest in participating in swimming lessons at indoor locations were positive. User Groups: For the most part, user groups were also accommodated at the other pools due to the closure of Nelson Pool with exception to non-resident user groups that could not be accommodated. The accommodation was heaviest at Mountainside Pool given the interest in the 50-metre pool. A significant event (Tri- Kids) could not be accommodated at the other pools for a variety of factors. The event organizers decided to relocate to a different city but were hopeful for a return to Nelson Pool in the future. All local swim clubs were sufficiently accommodated, however all groups expressed their preference was to swim at Nelson Pool.

6 Page 6 of Report PR Recreational Swimming: Recreational swimming programs (including lap swimming and recreational swimming) experienced the biggest issues as people were more interested in swimming outdoors rather than indoors. Additional recreational swims were scheduled at indoor pools which helped to accommodate some demand, however the added swims showed little participation. Participants chose to swim at Mountainside Pool over indoor locations. Mountainside Pool reached full capacity on 23 days out of 65 days of operation resulting in participants being turned away. As a result, long lines and wait times to get into the facility were the norm at Mountainside Pool this past season. The facility enhancements and upgrades that were made to Mountainside were showcased this summer and very well received by customers, however; the pool was very congested which negatively affected customer satisfaction. Many customers mentioned throughout the summer that their experience at Mountainside was not as positive due to the volume of people at the facility. It should also be noted that there are other outdoor locations residents in Burlington can swim. Bronte Creek Provincial Pool (east of Appleby Line in Oakville), Confederation Park (Hamilton), and the City s natural waterfront, Beachway Park here in Burlington. Other indoor pools like the YMCA and private clubs also offer swimming opportunities for the community. Public Engagement Survey Results: An online survey was conducted to provide feedback on how residents use City pools and to address the closure of Nelson Pool. The survey received 1,795 responses. The strong response rate demonstrates that there is interest in this pool review and the future of Nelson Pool.

7 Page 7 of Report PR The following chart highlights the survey data: Preferred Venue for Swimming Importance of Providing Outdoor Pools Perceived Impact of a Permanent Closure No Preference, 15% Indoor Pools, 6% Someewhat not important, 1% Not important, 1% Minimal impact, 3% No impact, 1% Don t know, 2% Somewhat important, 11% Moderate impact, 20% Outdoor Pools, 79% Very Important, 87% High impact, 74% 79% prefer to swim in outdoor pools during the summer season 87% feel that it is very important for the City to provide outdoor pools 94% feel thatt there would be high to moderate impact on the community if Nelson Pool closed permanently When asked if the City should re-build Nelson Pool, over 90% of respondents indicated the pool should be replaced. 57% felt that replication of the original 50-metre pool was the best option, while 33% felt a smaller lap pool with adjoining leisure pool and amenities such as; splash features and diving board would be preferred. 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 57% 50m pool 33% 25m lap pool with adjacent leisure pool 1% 1% Splash pad only No replacement needed 10% Other At the time the survey was released, staff did not know the costs of the facility development options or how this project would be financed. As such, staff felt that it would be prudent to present a range of options that would have some cost differential. Residents have also voiced their concern through s, letters to the local paper and conversations with staff. To summarize, people have said: that Nelson Pool is a vital and important part of the community

8 Page 8 of Report PR the closure of Nelson Pool would be devastating they feel they are under serviced in recreational facilities in South Burlington that one outdoor pool is not enough for the City the quality of aquatic programs and customer satisfaction suffered this season due to the crowds at Mountainside It is important to note that this survey focused on options to replace the pool at this location and did not consider other recreational opportunities at this location nor did it contemplate alternate recreational facilities that could be implemented across the city for comparable funding. Further, funding to replace the pool was not known at the time. Other Options Considered: Outside of the option of a pool replacement and staying within outdoor recreational assets, below are other options that could be considered instead of the replacement of a pool: Capital Cost Linear Kilometre of Trails: $350,000 Splash Pad: $420,000 Skateboard Park: $770,000 Hard Surface Multi-Use Courts: $140,000 All costing above is all inclusive and is based on most recent projects and pricing and has been rounded to the nearest ten-thousand. Each of these amenities would service other outdoor recreational needs in a drop-in manner, supporting healthy active residents. This approach could also further enhance local neighbourhood development and opportunities. To this point staff has focused on providing background and options to retain an outdoor pool in Nelson Park. With an understanding of this background which now provide a benchmark, a further study of alternate recreation uses at this location or city wide could be conducted at Council s direction. For example, the $4M for Nelson Pool replacement could translate into 9 splash pads or 11 kilometres of trail or 28 hard surface multi-use courts or 5 large skateboard parks. To provide a high level overview and comparator, the following chart provides a comparison of estimated daily participation for assets that could be implemented for $4M.

9 Page 9 of Report PR Asset Estimated Daily Participation Nelson Pool Splash Pads (75/day/pad) 5 Skateboard Parks (150/day/park) 28 Multi-use Courts (25/day/court) Financial Matters: The following section provides Council with various options related to Nelson Pool specifically. In addition, operating costs and funding sources are also addressed within this section of the report. Capital Budget Submission: In anticipation of the capital budget process, staff have elevated the priority of replacing Nelson Pool as part of the proposed capital budget in order to support returning to our prior level of service. As a result, a reprioritization of projects had to occur to accommodate Nelson Pool as per the timeline shown below (2016 & 2017). The following projects have now been moved out to accommodate the replacement of Nelson Pool. These include: Project Originally Budgeted New - Reprioritized Skyway Arena Central Arena The following provides a summary of the capital request for Nelson Pool as part of the 2016 capital budget submission. Funds to support this project as shown within the capital submission are as follows: 2016: Detailed Design, Demolition, and Site Servicing: $ 700, : Construction $3,300,000

10 Page 10 of Report PR Pool Replacement Cost Estimates: Through a design and cost consultant, staff obtained conceptual designs and associated costing for three options as shown below. OPTION 1 Re-build the 50-metre (comparable to original) OPTION 2 Build a 25 metre (smaller version) OPTION 3 Decommission Pool (restore parkland) $4.6 - $5.2 million* $3.7 - $4.3 million* $450, ,000* 8 lane 50-metre pool to meet competitive swimming requirements with an adjacent zero depth entry leisure pool and water play features. Original pool was 7 lanes which is not typical. Approximate swimmer capacity would be lane 25-metre pool with an adjacent zero depth entry leisure pool and water play features. Approximate swimmer capacity would be 350. Permanently decommission the pool and reinstate the site to a basic park level. *A range has been provided as cost estimates are based on conceptual designs. At this time, staff is recommending Option #2. Option #2 was chosen for the following reasons: Retains local opportunity for outdoor swimming at this recreation complex. The majority of current usage can be accommodated in a smaller pool. This includes lap swimming, swimming lessons, recreational swimming, and waterplay leisure activities for young children and short course training for swim clubs. It is a more affordable option that fits the funding allocation that was made available through the capital budget process, albeit, it does not match the standard/service level of the original pool facility. User groups and lap swimmers that require a 50-metre pool for training can still be accommodated at Mountainside Pool although the depth of the shallow end is not sufficient to support competitive events and underwater turns. Staff advises that swim club usage usually occurs only for 6 weeks typically from mid June to the end of July. Attendance for swim club rentals represents only about 2-3% of the City s overall pool attendance during the summer season. The facility should have a lifespan of years with various renewal costs over time based on our experience with our existing pools. Staff feel that option 2 represents good value for the significant seasonal attendance that will be accommodated over the life of the asset and the benefits in terms of supporting healthy and active living and neighbourhood vibrancy.

11 Page 11 of Report PR Annual operating costs would also be somewhat less given the facility is smaller in size. It is important to note that if Council approves the recommendation for Option #2 that the next step of this process would be to go through a detailed design process where broader community input into features and amenities would further be explored. For the purposes of this report and the conceptual design phase of this project, a high level design with associated costing were provided to coincide with the upcoming capital budget process. Moreover, If council wishes to replace Nelson Pool to more of a comparable and substantive 50-metre outdoor pool or further expedite the program to the earliest possible reopening (2017), below highlight two alternatives for consideration: A. While staff are recommending Option #2, should Council support #1 then capital projects would need to be deferred. Depending on the final costing and in consultation with finance and capital works, staff would recommend deferring the following 2016 projects; Arena Revitalization detail design ($685,000). Iroquois Park Revitalization ($298,000) and Palmer Park Improvements ($220,000). Deferral of arena project should not impact 2018 construction as conceptual design is funded through the 2015 prior approved budget and the intent for detail design to be accommodated in B. Should Council wish to expedite construction of the pool into 2016 with a reopening in 2017 to the earliest possible reopening, staff will need to review funding options to determine whether sufficient funds exist for a draw down or temporary borrowing from reserve funds equivalent to $3.3M identified in the proposed capital budget. Project Timeline: The following provides a high level timeline for the project, subject to approval of the capital budget and forecast. Under this scenario, the pool would re-open in Conceptual Design & Costing Detailed Design, Site Servicing & Demo Construction Re-opening 2015 (this report) Summer

12 Page 12 of Report PR Funding Opportunities: At the present time, the majority of the funds requested through the capital budget are funded by the general tax base, with a portion of the funding coming from a reserve account. Once this project is approved to move forward, staff will explore other avenues for funding to help support this project. Below are three examples of other funding opportunities staff will be seeking: Grants: Upper Tier Government Grants: Staff will explore opportunities with any possible infrastructure grant funding that may come down from the province or the federal level. If grant opportunities surface, staff will ensure Council is informed of these opportunities. Sponsorship: Staff will launch a sponsorship program targeting Nelson Pool. Sponsorship opportunity could include naming sponsors, program/service sponsors or even facility sponsors. Sponsorship funds could be used to support the upfront capital costs, long term capital needs or operating expenses. Council will be made aware of all sponsorship opportunities that surface and secure proper approvals before proceeding with such opportunities. User Groups: As previously mentioned, Nelson Pool has been rented by a number of competitive swimming user groups. These groups are: the Burlington Aquatic Devilrays (B.A.D), Golden Horseshoe Aquatic Club (G.H.A.C), Dolphins Swim Club, and the Masters Swim Club, to name a few. All clubs have a significant interest in a 50-metre pool. Their preference would be to have a 50- metre pool that operates year round. On October 27 th, 2015, staff met with this core group of competitive swim user groups to discuss the current situation, the budget process and possible opportunities. Staff asked user groups their interests in contributing towards this project, especially if the interest was more than what the City was able to provide (e.g. smaller recreation focused pool, versus a 50-metre pool designed for swim clubs and the broader community). At this meeting, the group had some interest in coordinating their efforts and needs to develop some sort of partnership between the collective group and the City. Staff will continue to work with the collective competitive swimming user groups throughout At the time of writing this report, no definitive concept has been brought forward by the collective user groups. As a result, the recommendations found within this report will continue to be processed through the upcoming budget process while staff continue to have discussions with the collective group. If a viable partnership opportunity presents itself, staff will ensure Council is well informed.

13 Page 13 of Report PR Other Financial Information: To help support Council s decision on the replacement of Nelson Pool, staff also feel it is prudent to highlight previous capital investments to Nelson Recreation Centre and the annual operating costs of Nelson Pool. Previous Capital Investments: A number of capital investments have been made over the years to enhance Nelson Recreation Centre as a year-round facility for the community to enjoy. The following table highlights some of the key investments made over the years totaling almost $2 million. Year Capital Improvement Amount Development of Outdoor Room to accommodate 02 summer $110,000 camp, pool shade structures, furnishings, minor building repairs. Addition of new arena changerooms and renovation of original $1,050,000 changerooms to function as pool changerooms. New building vestibule, façade improvement, new family changeroom for pool, playground improvement within the pool area $820,000 and skate park. Total $1,980,000 Operating Budget: The Nelson Pool operation involves aquatic programming, facility operations and customer service expenses and revenues. As a reference, the following table provides a summary of the approved 2015 Nelson Pool operating budget. Total Expenditures Total Revenues Net Operating $265,511 ($134,133) $131,378 This budget includes only direct costs and revenues and does not include departmental overhead costs. Public Engagement Matters: Staff notified Council through a memo when staff became aware that Nelson Pool would not be in a position to open for the 2015 summer season. A subsequent memo was also sent to Council in June when staff learned a short term solution could not be found

14 Page 14 of Report PR and the pool could not open in In addition to engagement with Council the following communication strategies were issued: A media release was issued to notify the public of the closure, Staff communicated with user groups and lesson registrants notifying them of the closure and the re-allocation plan for programs and permitted time, Signage was placed outside of Nelson Pool, Closure Notification and Updates were provided through the City s website, Notification was sent through social media, Online surveys were conducted in September, Staff held an information meeting with User Groups. Once the go-forward strategy, as identified in this report, has been approved by Council, staff will then further develop a communication plan which will include on-going notices on the website. In addition, public information sessions will also be held when moving into phase two of the project (detailed design). Conclusion: The unexpected closure of Nelson Pool resulted in the loss of a community asset in Burlington. The remaining outdoor pools were tasked to try and accommodate all pool users. This report provides an assessment of aquatic service delivery, participation, usage trends as well as public comments and recommends Nelson Pool be brought back into service as per option #2. Staff recommends that Council approve the replacement of Nelson Pool subject to budget approval. Respectfully submitted, Rob Axiak, Manager of Recreation Services ext Chris Glenn, Director of Parks and Recreation ext. 7729

15 Page 15 of Report PR Notifications: (after Council decision) Name: Burlington Aquatic Devilrays Dolphins Swim Club Golden Horseshoe Aquatic Club Masters Swim Club Mailing or Address: Approved by: Chris Glenn, Director of Parks and Recreation Joan Ford, Director of Finance Nancy Shea-Nicol, Director of Legal Services and City Solicitor Scott Stewart, General Manager of Development & Infrastructure James Ridge, City Manager