Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2019 0717 REG CCSA ITEM 09ECITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Council Meeting of July 17, 2019 ACTION A pproved Staff Recommendation. BY B.Garza E. Consider the Report, Findings, and Recommendations of the Pool Ad Hoc Committee. Staff Recommendation: Receive and file the Pool Ad Hoc Committee Report dated June, 2019. (Staff: Troy Brown) Item: 9.E. MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Troy Brown, City Manager DATE: 07/17/2019 Regular Meeting SUBJECT: Consider the Report, Findings, and Recommendations of the Pool Ad Hoc Committee DISCUSSION In 2015, an Ad Hoc Committee comprised of Mayor Parvin and Councilmember Mikos and members of the Moorpark Unified School District (MUSD) was formed to discuss the concept of a City/MUSD joint use aquatic facility. Beginning in 2016, the Ad Hoc Committee met five times during a twelve-month period to develop a proposal for a joint use facility, and identified and considered a variety of points related to the creation of such a facility. The attached report of the Pool Ad Hoc Committee details the considerations, findings, and recommendations reached as a result of its efforts. At this time the Committee recommends tabling the concept of construction of a community pool until such time that operational funding, other community partners, and a final location can be determined. FISCAL IMPACT None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and file the Pool Ad Hoc Committee Report dated June, 2019. Attachment: Memorandum to Moorpark Unified School District Board of Education Item: 9.E. 102 City of Moorpark and Moorpark Unified School District Pool Ad Hoc Committee Report June 2019 BACKGROUND It has been a long standing goal of both the City of Moorpark (City) and Moorpark Unified School District (District) to provide an aquatic facility to meet the educational and recreational needs of Moorpark. There was substantial discussion between the two entities from approximately 2000 to mid-2002. At that time, both the City and District expressed concerns with ongoing maintenance costs associated with a pool. On June 2002, the City Council acted to take no further action on the design and construction of an aquatic facility due to cost constraints. As was the case in 2002, the ability to fund construction and maintenance with current revenues remains an issue. In late 2014 the District contacted the City to discuss the concept of a City/District joint use aquatic facility. On January 28, 2015 the City formed an Ad Hoc committee and appointed Mayor Janice Parvin and Councilmember Roseann Mikos to serve on the Ad Hoc Committee; the District appointed then Board President Nathan Sweet and Board member Robert Perez. The following is a report of the City/ District Pool Ad Hoc Committee’s work and its recommendations moving forward. DISCUSSION In 2016 the City/District Pool Ad Hoc Committee (District Board members Perez and Sweet, and City members Parvin and Mikos) met five times over a twelve month period to discuss developing a proposal for a joint use pool facility. The committee discussed potential locations at both Moorpark High School (MHS) and Arroyo Vista Community Park, the objectives of each agency, the District’s expenditure of over $100,000 per year to rent and maintain a private pool for District sports teams, projected pool construction cost of $4.5 million, District limited funds for construction, the City’s inability to sustain maintenance costs for a pool within its current and projected General Fund budgets, and the City’s support for $3 million maximum contribution for construction contingent on certain conditions and requirements. The District/City Pool Ad Hoc Committee discussed the following deal points for consideration of a partnership in developing a pool: 1.The pool would be located at MHS at a specific site as mutually agreed upon. Most likely in a portion of the parking lot entrance from Mountain Trail Street between the stadium, the gymnasium, and the two-story classrooms. The City and District would prepare a Cooperative Agreement to address pool construction, specifications, use, maintenance, and other matters. If the District determines the Jr. Varsity (JV) baseball field needs to be relocated as a result of the pool project, the field may be constructed at the east end of Arroyo Vista Community Park (AVCP) as mutually agreed upon. City and District will prepare a separate use agreement to address construction specifications, use, maintenance and other matters if the baseball field is relocated. 2.Pool specifications to be mutually agreed upon. The pool, as constructed, was projected to accommodate public swimming and swimming lessons, including one or two recreational structures that would be used during public swim and either removed or secured during other times of the year. 3.District, at is sole cost, would manage the pool design process, permit process, including environmental review, bid process and construction. ATTACHMENT 103 4. City would commit $3 million for pool construction. Funds will be paid to District upon Notice to Proceed for construction and confirmation that all required funding is available. District will also fund the cost of construction above City’s contribution. The total project was estimated to be at $4.5 million. 5. District, at is sole cost, would provide maintenance and public use of the pool and receive revenue from public use programs and rentals. 6. For 15 years, District at its sole expense would provide public use of the pool as follows: a. Minimum of 42 hours per week for public swimming between the hours of 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. (no less than 2/3 of that time would be for general public use and no more than 1/3 for specific groups such as teens or seniors) seven days per week for no less than 10 weeks during the months of June, July, August and September generally between last day of school year and start of subsequent school year and on weekends through the Labor Day weekend). b. Use rate (admission would be no more than 10% above the average rates charged by the Rancho Simi and Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park Districts for similar services). c. During the same approximate 10-week period and 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. time period, swim lessons for children and adults are provided at some cost and terms as the 2 above Districts. d. Public use will meet all public health requirements for such public use including, but not limited to: water temperature, shower, changing areas, and restrooms. e. A provision of a proposed Cooperative Agreement would address potential remedies in the event the required public use services are not provided as prescribed in any year of part of a year. 7. City could rent pool at lower of: A) One–half (1/2) public rate; b) Hourly rate given to any District contractor. District and City would agree to use parameters as part of agreement. 8. During the 15-year period public services would be provided, the District would not sell naming rights to the pool for less than $3 million. 9. District and City would agree to verbiage and location of plaque to recognize City and District contributions to pool construction 10. District would grant to City a no fee easement approximately twelve feet wide from Mountain Trail Street to AVCP. At City’s sole cost, it would construct a pedestrian/bike path on the easement. City and District would prepare a separate use agreement to address construction specifications, use, maintenance, and other matters for the proposed path. These points were never formally agreed to by either entity. If agreement had been reached on the aforementioned points, funding for the pool was contemplated to come from a variety of City and District sources. The District contemplated using $1 million in Measure S Bond funds and the District’s portion of construction funding for the pool was to be limited to this amount of bond funds with the remaining construction funds coming from fundraising. City funding, in the amount of $3 million, would be expended from the City’s Endowment Fund. The current balance in the Endowment fund is projected to be approximately $12.5 million at the end of fiscal year 2018/19. The Ad Hoc Subcommittee concurs that the original plan to place a pool at MHS is not feasible. Upon further analysis, obstacles have emerged that would result in tremendous challenges if a pool were to be located on the campus. Parking is already extremely limited, and building a pool over one of the existing parking lots would result in a severe shortage in spaces for the students and staff at MHS. If additional parking spaces were built over the existing JV baseball field, then that field, which houses football and soccer practices, as well as serves as one of the primary physical education spaces, would 104 be lost. If a pool were built over the softball field, the District would likely face Title IX charges if they constructed a new softball field offsite. In addition to these challenges, because of liability and security it is not recommended to share a locker room between students and the public as originally contemplated. If a pool built on the high school campus was used as a community pool (and having to use the school’s locker room and restrooms because the limited space would not allow for construction of a separate locker room and restrooms), the public would be using the locker room and restrooms in conjunction with our student athletes who practice during July and August. Finally, in terms of funding, District priorities in terms of Measure S, are directed at maintaining and improving the district’s aging facilities and providing students with access to updated instructional technology tools. The district has identified needs and a spending plan for the remaining funds of Measure S to address those priorities. The City of Moorpark does have $3 million in available funds in the Moorpark endowment. A number of other funding priorities have surfaced that makes the availability of these funds tenuous. At the moment, the City is in the planning stages of a new Library, which will be funded from the City’s Special Project fund. Once completed, the Special Project fund will have a fund balance of approximately $7 million depending on actual costs of the library. Even though a different fund is being used for the Library, the City ‘s overall fund balance will be significantly decreased leaving only endowment and Special Project fund as available resources to fund future capital projects. There is a high quantity of community projects that have been identified in the City’s Capital Improvement program that require funding. These improvements range from drainage, streets & roads, sidewalks, trail and park improvements, to a variety of recreational amenities such as: BMX/Free style bike parks, disc golf, and gymnasium expansion. In addition, the City Hall building is beyond its useful life and requires substantial investment to either renovate or acquire new municipal facilities. While many of these projects have identified sources of funds to construct them, all do not and the total cost to build the projects identified top $100 million. The City will need to take a thoughtful approach in the short term toward applying funds to those projects which can be funded. Moorpark Community Aquatic Center The Moorpark Community Aquatic Center (MCAC) began in 2016 as a group comprised of parents and community advocates who support the need for an aquatic center in Moorpark. According to a presentation made to the Moorpark City Manager in March 2018, “The goal of the MCAC is to provide unique aquatic opportunities for health, wellness and fitness to all residents and students in Moorpark.” MCAC has been very active in working to build community support and awareness. The group states they “exist to nurture and assist MUSD and the City of Moorpark” toward the goal of constructing a community pool. MCAC’s specific role in assisting the District and the City would be to provide much needed fundraising for a Feasibility Analysis and closing any funding gaps for construction of a community pool. MCAC has been engaged in the community and conducted a number of Informational workshops to raise awareness. One such meeting occurred at Café Firenze on September 11, 2018 where the MCAC shared estimated operating expenses for a two-pool aquatic center. One pool was proposed to be competitive and the second pool was described as a lesson pool which is typically smaller and has different features (such as shallow depth entry, ADA accessibility, and the like). MCAC gathered the estimated costs of operations from USA Swimming, Conejo Recreation and Park District, and the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District. Although unintentional, there have been some instances when information has been relayed that was confusing and not aligned with the principles developed by the Ad Hoc subcommittee. MCAC shared materials to attendees at the Informational meeting of September 11, 2018 and noted: “…on page 1 of the estimated revenues and costs (page 2 of our handout), we 105 bumped up the possible City donation to $5 million. As the $3 million donation originally described in the 2016 documents was only for one medium size pool on the campus, we estimated a higher donation from the City for a 2 pools + splashpad model.” The additional $2 million contribution had not been discussed with the Ad Hoc Subcommittee or the City. After talking with the city, MCAC acknowledged this oversight and revised their informational packets to reflect the original amount of $3 million from the city. MCAC has also communicated that MHS could receive a WASC (Western Accreditation of Schools and Colleges) sanction or finding because the school is not teaching the aquatics portion of the California Physical Education standards due to the absence of a pool on campus. As a number of high schools do not have a pool located on their campuses, such schools do not receive downgrades or sanctions for not teaching aquatic standards in a swimming pool. It is certainly ideal for high school students to have access to a pool to learn aquatics, water safety, life guarding, etc., but schools are not sanctioned or downgraded by the state if they teach “dry aquatics.” Insofar as the Feasibility Analysis, MCAC received proposals from three firms that staff is aware to provide this service. The firms were: • ConsultEcon, Inc. • Counsilman Hunsaker Operations • S.L. Leonard & Associates The baseline costs for the feasibility analysis from the firms ranged in price from $25,000 - $50,000 with additional costs associated with travel expenses and other optional services. To staffs knowledge, MCAC has not reached its fundraising goal to fund the feasibility analysis and recently began lobbying the school district to allocate funding for the feasibility analysis through adoption of its FY 2019/20 budget. MCAC has been an avid supporter of community aquatics; however, their concentrated efforts toward advocacy has not manifested in fundraising to the levels originally anticipated to support the efforts of the City and school district’s. Overall, there are a number of issues that need to be resolved to enable the concept of a community pool/aquatic complex to move forward. A location for a community pool needs to be identified before feasibility analysis can continue. The proposed location at MHS is no longer viable due to the reasons noted above. Further, in 2000 the City commissioned a geotechnical report of existing soil conditions at AVCP. At that time, it was noted that the water table at the park was high (19’-24’) which would require soils remediation to prevent groundwater intrusion into any proposed subterranean improvements. No further analysis has been completed to identify the cost implications for construction of a pool at that location; a community pool was not contemplated as part of the Master Plan for AVCP. Operationally, the District budget is unable to sustain additional funding beyond what is currently being expensed for renting a private pool for ongoing operations of a community pool. The City’s general fund has not gained capacity to support and sustain any ongoing operational costs for a community pool. The City’s budget for fiscal year 2019/20 projects an ending fund balance of $90,000 after meeting all general fund obligations. This amount is insufficient to commit to ongoing funding for a community pool. Further, an independent feasibility analysis needs to be completed to provide a complete picture of the feasibility of constructing and operating a community pool. MCAC had received proposals from firms to complete this work, however has been unsuccessful in raising funds to complete the study. MCAC’s 106 feasibility study was proposed to analyze an aquatics complex with multiple pools and features. That concept is beyond the scope of what is needed to analyze the feasibility of a community pool; financial data is needed before additional recommendations can be formulated. Lastly, a community pool would serve a variety of needs within the city. There may be other non-profit, private, educational, or governmental agencies that could partner with the City and the District in looking at this matter. These other agencies could have financial, property, or other assets to support the citing, construction, and ongoing maintenance of a community pool. There should be an exploration into other agencies that could help support this effort. RECOMMENDATIONS The subcommittee recommends tabling the concept of construction of a community pool until such a time that operational funding, other community partners, and a final location can be determined. 107