I have a couple of questions about the survey: 1) No doubt, no names were
required on the survey, so how did you ensure that people didn't submit
more than one, since these were presented at more than one event? This
could be a real flaw in the democratic process. 2) Did the survey
completely spell out the economic implications -- that taxpapers would be
paying for months of months of an idle facility if they affirmed the
selection of the "less expensive" outdoor pool?
How are you going to counter the Sam Scripters and myself who have lived
through decades of consistently rainy and cold Junes, totally unpredictable
Julys and Augusts, and pretty consistent Indian Summer Septembers, when the
pool is closed down because school has resumed! In spite of all findings
by consultants, there will be those who, like me, won't read all of the
studies and won't find them necessarily relevant to Moscow weather if they
did, and intuitively object to paying year-round for a pool that provides
for recreation benefits that are equally erratic as the weather.
I'm not an economist type, but I know that I don't want to shell out the
cost per day of keeping an idle outdoor poolwhen another facility will
provide for year-round activity for families and youth when the cost can
also be used to meet requests for more youth- and family-attractive
activities and activities that help counteract the contribution idle time
contributes to drug-use and destructive mischief, even crime.
The UI pools do NOT meet family needs. Little ones cannot stand up even in
the shallow pool until of an advanced age. Further, one parent or other
caretaker with two or more pre-schoolers cannot have them in the pool at
the same time, for the most part, because the depth prevents them from
splashing about in the water unassisted. Finally, the UI pools,
understandably, are only accessible to the public during VERY limited
hours. A recreational facility with "family leisure pools" such as you
describe for the proposed outdoor pools could, I would guess, be well-used
by all kinds of day-care, seniors, and after-school groups year-round. And
the water depths that would accommodate the older kids with other play
activities even besides swim meets (water polo? pool frisbee? what other
team sports?) would help take care of families that want more opportunities
for after-school and weekend alternatives to "latch-key" gaps in parental
supervision.
This may be a pipe dream, but I envision a sheltered pool, but not
necessarily an exclusively indoor pool -- a permanent roof, perhaps, but
removable doors that allow people to wander outside on great sunny days and
yet make dependable plans for rainy days as well. If you have ever been to
Frankfurt, Germany, you may have used the facility there. As I remember it
(13 years ago, so it's probably not a totally accurate memory), it is a
large, irregularly shaped pool with shallow, wading and splashing parts for
the very young, one end of glass doors allowing access to the outside AND a
mezzanine surrounding it with tables for having picnics and several food
vendors as well. The "coolest" thing about it was that periodically there
were about 5-10 minutes (? again, I'm not sure of that time) of simulated
ocean-wave activity, which the kids just loved and eagerly awaited.
Maybe an extension of the mayor's timeline is needed. Let's take time to
make so sure the pool reflects a true consensus of community needs and
values and is such a good buy that we won't have to waste money and time
both asking voters more than once for approval, because it's approval based
on community buy-in, not the consultants' guidance alone.
I want to emphasize I applaud the use of consultants and the efficiency
they provide in the research process. But they could also be part of the
community consensus building by facilitating consensus building.
If I and the other voices of current dissent are "all wet" and truly, with
more education and extension of deadlines, a consensus could be reached on
the outdoor pool as proposed, then at least the resurrection of this topic
will have served a very constructive purpose.
Kathleen Warren
At 01:58 PM 3/23/98 -0800, you wrote:
>I am a member of the Moscow Swimming Pool Selection Committee and have
>followed the discussions that have been posted on the vision 2020 website
>regarding the pool. There have been a number of misconceptions and false
>accusations recently that I feel should be addressed.
>
>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
>***************************************
>
>
>