The committee was formed in September 1997 and has expended countless hours of
volunteer time researching all aspects of this facility for Moscow. I have
been impressed by the commitment of each committe member to objectively
consider all viewpoints as important and to work together in designing a pool
facility that will best met the needs of the Moscow community.
When we first met last fall, we discovered that there were a wide diversity of
viewpoints and opinions within the committee itself. Some members favored an
indoor pool, some an outdoor, and some a combination of the two. However, we
all wanted a new pool in Moscow and were willing to put aside our own personal
desires to develop a design that would met the needs of most residents and
user groups in Moscow!
We researched information from past swimming pool committees and quickly
realized a significant difference from the situations past committees dealt
with--Ghormley Pool was no longer functional and it needed replacement! The
band-aid repairs were no longer an option and the development of a new
facility design was the direction we received from the mayor. When committees
met previously, the community had a functioning swimming pool (albeit barely
at times!) and these groups came to the conclusion that Moscow would not
support a new facility as long as there was an operating pool in town. That
situation had changed with the demise of Ghormley Pool.
The timeframe given us by Mayor Agidius and the City Council outlined
developing a pool design and location such that the facility could be
constructed and available for public use by 1999. While we were not directed
to address funding options (that responsibility was given to the fianance
committee), financial considerations were indirectly incorporated into our
charge as we were to determine a facility to would best meet the needs of the
community AND also be supported by the public in a possible bond election.
Very early in the process we enlisted the assistance of Bob Bignold and the
ORB consulting firm. ORB is a highly respected architecture and engineering
firm that has worked with communities throughout the Northwest US and southern
Canada for over 30 years. The information we received from Bob was invaluable
and throughout all our meetings, he remained objective in providing
information from pools in similar communities and developed designs that would
be practical considering Moscow's population, climate, etc.
To determine what kind of pool would best serve the needs of Moscow, we looked
at two different questions: 1) What type of pool would residents PREFER? and
2) What type of pool would residents be willing to PAY FOR. The answers we
received in our information gathering process showed that there was a dramatic
difference between what individuals wanted and what they were willing to pay
for.
Due to time constraints we did not develop a random sampling design to gather
public opinion on pool design. Instead, we used a self-selected respondant
method where we made presentations at a large number of events (mall, swim
meet, library, etc.) to determine what type of pool the community wanted. In
a self-selected sampling method, respondants usually have fairly strong
opinions on the issue since they go out of their way to stop at the booth,
table, or whatever venue the information is presented. Respondants to this
survey were strongly weighted by individuals who were ACTUALLY swimmers or had
family members who swam.
Through this process we were able to gather valuable information regarding the
type of facility the actual pool USERS wanted. However, all community members
do not swim, and will never use a pool facility, regardless of whether it is
an indoor, outdoor, or a combined facility. Some of the non-swimming
residents acknowledge that there are benefits to the community whether they
personally swim or not (such as providing activities for youth, reduced crime.
etc.), but are not willing to have their taxes increased significantly to do
so. Because of these reasons, we felt it was equally important to gauge the
level of support for a pool from the non-swimming component of the community
since they would be paying for the construction of the facility as well as
pool users.
We discovered in our research process that there are many different user
groups for a pool in the Moscow area, ranging from swim team members to
recreational lap swimmers (like myself) to swim lesson groups to teen-agers
wanting to sun on the decks and visit with their friends. All users groups
are legitimate and we attempted to consider all of their needs in designing
our recommended facility.
As the process unfolded we realistically determined that financial costs
needed to be considered in the decision for the recommended pool. A $20
million facility with indoor/outdoor pools (3 indoor and 2 outdoor) like the
one I visited near Carson City, NV over Christmas was wonderful and would meet
ALL the possible swimming needs of the Moscow Area! However, that facility,
even with it's much larger surrounding population base, runs a deficit of more
than $450,000 per year. While the Moscow pool committee has never felt it was
essential to design a swim facility that would operate in the black given the
other intangible benefits of a pool (Ghormley had been running a deficit of
approximately $30,000/year), but a deficit of that magnitude would far exceed
the current Recreation budget in Moscow.
As part of our information research process, managers of over 40 pool
facilities (primarily in the Northwest) were contacted and questioned
regarding type of facility (indoor, outdoor, both), operating costs/revenues,
attendance, construction costs, desired changes, and any other comments that
might be useful for our committee. From this process, we learned what has
worked for other communities, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHAT HAS NOT.
We discovered than none of the indoor pool facilities broke even with the
average deficit being $200,000/year. Conventional outdoor pools lost lesser
amounts, averaging about $50,000/year and the combined facilities
(indoor/outdoor) lost and average of $300,000/year. The only type of facility
that consistently appears to cover operating costs on an annual basis were the
family leisure pools, such as the one at Moses Lake where attendance went from
30,000 swims/year to 160,000/year after it was reconstructed as a leisure
pool. Several pool managers of these facilities strongly encouraged us to
build a family leisure pool rather than a conventional pool since they draw in
far more people.
If finances were unlimited, it would be easy to please ALL the people ALL the
time in the swimming pool issue. I work for the Forest Service and we hope we
can at least please SOME of the people SOME of the time with our activities.
The Forest Service usually hears from individuals and groups from both end of
the spectrum, but rarely hear from the 80-90% of the public in the middle.
Working on the pool committee has been a similar experience for me. We have
heard from many groups and individuals about the type of pool that they would
PREFER. We have also heard from a number of people that say they don't want
ANY pool at all and will vote against it in a bond election. Encouragingly,
we have heard from quite a few individuals that said while they prefer an
indoor pool, they would be willing to pay for an outdoor facility. A much
lower percentage of people who prefer an outdoor pool are willing to pay for
an indoor facility.
Well, I think I've rambled on long enough! I hope my discussion has
supplanted any idea that the pool committee made a hasty, ill-informed
recommendation based on limited information. I assure you that any of the
committee members would be happy to discuss the process with you and all the
information we gathered is available for your perusal. I would challenge
anyone to gather a more complete set of pool information than we have obtained
over the past six months. I also feel that the pool committee has attempted
to address the needs of ALL user groups in developing the what we still feel
is the best pool design for the Moscow facility.
It has been a privilege for me to work with the committe members for the past
six months and any accusations of ulterior motives on their parts are without
substance. Please feel free to contact me via phone (882-5138) or this
website if you have have further questions or comments.
*Jim*
***************************************
Jim Mital
Forest Soil Scientist/Ecologist
Clearwater National Forest
phone: (208) 476-8348
fax: (208) 476-8329
email: jmital/r1_clearwater@fs.fed.us
***************************************