(Published Saturday, August 11, 2007 10:54:19 PM CST)
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
By Brian Reisinger breisinger@gazetteextra.com
Building an aquatic center at Dawson Ball Fields would cost more than building at either Palmer or Rockport parks, initials studies indicate.
Dawson, located on South Main Street, emerged as the only viable central site at the citizen aquatics committee meeting Aug. 2. But the site poses problems the other remaining sites don't, said Mike Williams, city leisure services director.
"We know that this site is going to be more complicated," he said. "We know it's going to cost more."
How much more remains unclear as the city awaits information on soil quality, environmental hazards, possible land acquisition and other development costs.
Committee Chair Shelly Crull-Hanke said the potential for rising costs is a concern but said she couldn't judge whether it would eliminate Dawson.
"I don't know if that would totally rule (Dawson out)," she said.
In February, the committee recommended a 900-swimmer aquatic center at Palmer Park on the city's east side and a smaller 400-swimmer facility at Rockport Park on the west side, costing an estimated $7.5 million.
The city council and other groups had some geographic concerns, and City Manager Steve Sheiffer asked the committee to select a possible central site between Dawson, Traxler Park and The National Guard Armory.
City administration hopes the committee will recommend one large site capable of serving 1,600 swimmers, which could cost between $8 million and $9.5 million, according to the latest estimate.
Williams has said a larger facility would yield more "bang for our buck," but some are concerned about the spending.
"This kind of expenditure should be in a referendum," said Chris Cass of Janesville, who attended the Aug. 2 meeting.
Dawson's potential to spur development and its proximity to city residents scored higher on the committee's site evaluation chart than both Palmer and Rockport.
But Dawson scored poorly in soil conditions, potential for environmental hazards and possible development costs. Those scores could get worse as more information becomes available, Williams and consultant Jim Maland of Bonestroo Sports told the committee.
Each of the low scores will complicate matters and require more money than "the virgin land" of Palmer or Rockport, Williams said.
Poor soil might cause an aquatics center to sink and could require excavation or deeper footings. Contaminated soil-the city knows of one spot at Dawson, but needs to determine how bad it is-could also require excavation or limit design.
A Dawson facility might also involve buying land. The area has enough space for the roughly 8-acre facility, but a storm sewer, power line and high water table mean acquiring more land could be helpful, officials said. City administration is considering a possible confidential deal to do so.
None of these complications could lead to an automatic elimination of Dawson, even if they prove worse than the city hopes, Williams said. Rating Dawson in relation to Palmer and Rockport still will be the committee's task.
The committee will attempt to rate the three sites and decide what sort of facility to recommend at its next meeting Thursday, Aug. 30. The committee probably will present its plan to the city council in October.
View slideshow
» Click here to hear the whistle and feel the splash of being a lifeguard at Rockport Pool in an audio slideshow
