Budget concerns delay decision on pool site

Although City of Sidney council members were scheduled to make a decision on the location site for the new swimming pool at their meeting Tuesday night, it was apparent that there are many additional steps before a site can be confirmed.

Mayor Wendall Gaston told council members that the suggested site from the pool committee appeared to be site C, but that the pool consultants needed to be given direction on what to present to the council.

The consultants proposed three different sites during their February visits and site A is considered the existing pool site, site B a pool site adjacent to the existing community center, and site C a new open plot of land next to the t-ball fields.

“We have $3.2 to $3.5 million. We need to know if they’re going to have services to help us raise money or how we are going to go about approaching to meet our budget, because that’s all we will have,” said Gaston.

City manager, Gary Person, said that he had talked to one of the consultants that day and they expressed their understanding of the need for additional patience on the project to get details fully hammered out.

“Obviously they would like to get on with the project but they understand that there are some big decisions that have to be made,” said Person. “Like figuring out the scope of the project, and how much the expenditure and tolerance level is. They’re willing to work with us on the time frame needed.”

Person said that the consultants never specifically talked about ways to raise the extra money for the project, but that they most likely network with people who could help the cause. He said that coming up with those plans however were “out of the scope of service they were hired to supply.”

Council member Joe Arterburn inquired as to how close the committee was to making an official site selection.

“If we put it next to the community center that pretty much land-locks the community center for long term,” said Gaston.

Michael Namuth, director of the Cheyenne County Community Center, said that the community center board recently met with Gaston and council member Roger Gallaway.

“The community center board is not opposed to site B,” said Namuth.

“We just feel that that is not the right solution for us long term because if we attach something to our building that’s not even going to be ours ownership wise, that basically takes everything away for any future development of that building.

“We just felt that site C was the better site for future growth, and for the future of Sidney just because it has a lot of potential,” he continued.

Namuth said that even though site C was the more costly site proposed, the community center board felt that is was the best site because of the future opportunities offered for the community there.

The director said that the board had not had fundraising discussions yet but that they were waiting for the council, “Sidney’s leaders,” to make a decision on which route to take and try so that cost estimates could be produced.

“That will tell us what we need to do,” he said.

Arterburn asked Namuth whether or not the board had plans as to how they would proceed if pool site B was chosen.

“Plans for that would be an additional gymnasium and possible future fitness sites,’ responded Namuth.

“We have two proposed expansions drawn up. One is expanding the north side of the building - which we have that ready to go and to bid.

“The second site is on the east side and that is where we had it drawn up because of the talk with the pool being attached. We really would have no future expansion of anything,” he said.

Namuth noted that the timeline for community center expansion was three years ago.

With that plan the council members discussed that parking for the community center would be moved to where the current pool stands and would be a farther walk for center users.

“I fully support that we need an amenity like this for a pool, but I’m struggling to figure out how to move forward here because we have a $3 million budget and an $8 million project thrown in front of us,” said council member Mark Nienhueser.

“The committee has not brought back to us a plan as to how to fund this.

“I don’t know how to pick a site,” he continued. “It’s like building a bridge to nowhere. We don’t have a budget to pay for it but we have to pick a sight – I don’t know what to do.”

Nienhueser continued that the council needed to know what kind of deficit they were getting themselves into before proceeding with any decision.

“We don’t know how to fund it or what it is going to cost to operate it,” he said.

“We probably need to establish a target amount of what we think the project should be and out of that amount how much we expect to fund and then try to come up with the means planned for coming up with the difference,” said Gallaway.

Arterburn asked what staffing situations would be like at the different site options and was told that community center staff would help at the indoor pool unless it was at site C.

Arterburn said that those costs also would be a factor in the decision.

Gaston said that the next plan should be going back to the engineers with the $3.2 million budget and see what is produced.

He said that with the budget it looks like both an indoor and outdoor pool would be out of the question, but that it would be nice to see the price of each separate pool design.

“All of the concepts have total different components as to how much it is going to cost to operate,” said Person. “That’s the problem; you’re going to have them put together five different plans.”

He continued that the budget was never meant to be an all-inclusive restriction to how much that could be spent and that some other sources of revenue could help – private funds or other.

With the budget it was discussed that the plans would probably lean towards an outdoor pool with limited amenities.

“There are advantages to the city for site C because it give the community center more options for expansion and it would give us more options of expansion and to add future amenities,” said Gallaway.

The council members decided operational cost figures were needed before making a decision as well.

Namuth said that he was under the understanding that operational costs would be identified after a proposed site was picked.

“I have never in my life moved a project forward without knowing what the budget is,” said Nienhueser.

“Aren’t you funding a 30-year asset with essentially some 10-year money? That seems a little off-kilter to me,” said council member Chris Gay.

Gaston said it would be a good idea to go back to the engineers and see under the circumstances of site B with the pool attached, what the indoor and outdoor pieces would cost and what the operational costs would be.

“The outdoor probably won’t change much from site A, B, or C,” he said.

Gaston said that in the plans, the outdoor pool designs were pretty much the same at each different site.

He said that the council could ask the consultants what $3.2 million could give them for an outdoor pool.

Gallaway said that the fundraising question should also be fully addressed before making a decision.

Gaston said that he heard from the committee and community members that both an indoor and outdoor pool was most ideal.

Nienhueser responded, “That’s like having champagne based on a beer budget.”

“What do they expect us to do? Solve a $5 million problem?” he asked.

“I don’t think they wanted you to solve the problem,” said Namuth. “I think the thing was to get a project out there and knowing the city has $3.2 million to it to see what it is going to cost.”

Namuth continued that the pool committee said they would help raise the additional funds as best as they could.

Gaston also said that the consultants found some issues with the current pool construction and status of the current diving boards.

He said that the consultants notified City of Sidney Public Services Director John Hehnke that the diving boards were not up to current requirements and that he was advised to take them out of the pool and not to use them this year.

Nienhueser asked for a second opinion from the city’s insurance carrier.

“They’ve been there for 30 years and nobody has got hurt,” he said. “We’d do this just because a consultant comes down who is promoting a new pool and says it’s out of compliance?”

Gallaway said that he had heard of some cities taking the boards out for insurance reasons.

It was decided that a second opinion will be made by the insurance carrier.