03-21-84 Parks Comm MinutesPARKS AND RECREATION of FLATHEAD COUNTY
225 Cemetery Road-- Kalispell, MT 59901
755-5300 862-5036 892-5136 Ext. # 347
March 16, 1984
Kalispell City Council
PO Box 1035
Kalispell, MT 59901
Dear Sirs:
At the March, 1984 Flathead County Park Board Meeting, a discussion
was held between members of the County Park Board and the Columbia
Falls City Council regarding cooperative efforts relating to park
maintenance. The result of this discussion was to call a meeting
of the Flathead County Park Board and the Parks Commissions of the
• three cities in Flathead County.
The main topic of this meeting will be to discuss park maintenance
cost cutting measures,that may result through cooperative efforts.
If your municipality is interested in such a meeting, please send
a representative to the April loth Flathead County Park Board
Meeting. This meeting will be held at 225 Cemetery Road, Kalispell,
Montana. The Park Board meeting will start at 9:30 a.m., however,
the parks maintenance discussion is not scheduled until 10:30 a.m.
If you have any Turther questions please contact me at 755-5300,
extension #347.
Sincerely,
J ry ones
Superintendent
JPJ/dms
• cc: Commissioners
file
March 21, 1984
PARKS COMMITTEE MEETING
•The Parks Committee met on this date at_4:00 P.M. in the Conference Room. Present were
Chairman Pat Springer, Committee members Nystul and Manning, Councilmen Ruiz and
Schindler, Mayor McDowell, Water Supt. and KATZ member Hughes, Parks Supt. Drent, Past
Parks Chairman and Kiwanis member Forrest Daley, Ken Siderius and Gary Rose, School
District #5, Chamber of Commerce Manager Dick Hackendahl, Tom Day, representing both
the Chamber and the Outlaw Inn, Ed Arneston, Lions Club, Ken Kentner, Downtown Lions
and John Franklin, Glacier Lions.
C. Springer stated the reason for the meeting was to put together some alternatives to
present to the public concerning the hoped for pool reconstruction/construction, depend-
ing on what the voters determine. At a previous meeting the City Council authorized
the committee to proceed to put on the ballot the question of whether or not the commu-
nity wanted to authorize expenditure of up to $550,000 for either a new pool or recon-
struction of the existing pool. The ceiling is $550,000 and this may be a highside
figure. Hope to arrive at alternatives to represent consensus of group on ideas from
year around, all enclosed facility down to whatever, within the .dollar amount that is
established.
Ken S. stated that School District #5 just doesn't have the resources to participate
financially. A _ _
Tom Day, asChamberof Commerce President, stated that his organization hasn't acted on
a decision, but feels that they are more in favor of an enclosed, year around facility
tied into the school system. On behalf of the Outlaw Inn, he stated that it was felt
that a good year round sports complex with possibility of swim meets, etc. would be
•better. He asked about earmarking funds now for such a facility rather than pouring
money into a continually bad situation. A facility.is needed and they would support
if voted in.
C. Nystul stated that the decision was not a quick fix to the facility, the contemplated
project with a new bath house is expected to last for 20 years. An outdoor facility for
summer and smaller indoor for year round would be desirable but the city cannot afford
to maintain and operate. The best approach for indoor pool would be thru FVCC.
Discussion followed regarding tri-city area need for gymnasium type facility, having to
go with what the city can afford, consensus from last election was that people want a
facility. If the pool is redone, it cant in the foreseeable future be enclosed. The
pool is used an average of 90 days, with 12,to 14,000 kids average use.
C. Springer stated that the initial motion of the committee was to use the $550,000
figure, using the Smith study but with an amendment not to limit to that study, to look
at other alternatives: type and location. The motion on the ballot is whether people
want a pool and authorize expenditure up to $550,000. Since then it has been discovered
that the figure may not be so high considering salvage from the bath house, getting rid
of existing facility, this much is removed from the study projection. Estimated reduction
of $120,000,
Supt. Drent pointed out that the $550,000 figure came not from Mr. Smith but from a
local architect.
F. Daley commented that we should concentrate on the outdoor pool where it is now, the
•deep end of the pool is alright, the shallow part should be redone with installation of
new bath house and boiler system.
Ratio of costs, building and mechanical were thought to be about 50/50. Maximum of BOR
funding would be $50,000; however we are very low on their list. The County Commissioners
offer of $100,000 must be accepted by June 1. Other groups are looking at it and it is Q
U
Parks Committee Meeting Page 2 March 21, 1984
assumed that the offer will expire; the renovation concept is acceptable to the County.
Supt. Drent stated that according to national standards, a minimum population of 50,000
is required to support a year-round pool. He feels that Kalispell is not yet ready for
a rear round pool. A Polson study indicates that unless a pool is covered and has
classroom instruction, its use is not warranted. At the end of summer, swimmer's in-
terest changes to other activities. Maintaining an outdoor pool requires 20,000 popu-
lation, an average 2J-3% residents use the pool on an regular basis. Based on this,
we would need at least an 8,100 sq. ft. pool. $50p000 would not build a pool large
enough to serve. Figures on the Smith study have not been gone through thoroughly.
Supt. Drent will compile figures for participants to take back to the various boards.
K.Siderius stated that the next school board meeting would be on April 10.
C. Springer stated that a cooperative group proposal is needed before the election.
Maintenance costs should reduce. when the pool is fixed because of water loss, boiler
problems, chlorine loss, etc. according to Supt. Drent. He stressed that the present
design was done by people who were not pool experts: we need people who know pools!
C. Ruiz questioned a KATZ proposal done sometime ago but,was. told that it was.totally
unrealistic.
Supt. Hughes stated that if eventually the college puts in an indoor pool, he felt
that summer use of our outdoor pool would not be diminished.
C. Springer stated that at this point the consensus is that Woodland Park is the wanted
• location. To have the facility available in the shortest amount of town, the most econ-
omical way is to reconstruct the pool we now have, recognizing that we probably won't
have the prospect for recovering it. If people want that facility, the City will not
give alternatives but rather, will come up with a specific proposal. The ballot is
already set, we are tied into the wording of the amended resolution that was passed.
It was felt that the jail issue would get voters out. Also, that the public should be
educated both on what we can and cannot do. Wording can be changed on the proposal to
County Commissioners before April 16. Mayor McDowell will call the Election office to
veridy this date. Solicitation of bids for construction was discussed since the
$550.,000 may not be a realistic figure. Time is a problem. It is doubtful that any
firm in the state has the expertise to reconstruct the pool..
Meeting will be continued on Wednesday, April 11, at 4:00 P.M. This will allow for
time is a special meeting is required. "
Meeting adjourned at 5:00 P. M.
ms