Speaker 1: Thank you all for for being here for this discussion. Okay. We are moving then to six.
Speaker 2: B recommendation to receive an update and provide direction on a new city.
Speaker 1: Just one minute. Could I ask audience members, could I ask you please to hold your conversation till you're outside? Because we really do need to move into this next item. Thank you all. Good night. Okay. So. I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Recommendation to receive an update and provide direction on a new city aquatic facility.
Speaker 6: Good evening, Mayor and Council Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director and Interim Assistant City Manager. To give you a very brief background, I don't have a presentation tonight, but I'm going to. You have a lot of materials in your packet and I'm going to give you some overview and some points for discussion. So for a brief background, since February, the school district and the city have been working collaboratively to address immediate short term repairs to the Emma Hood Swim Center at Alameda High School and also concurrently develop a long term plan for a new city aquatic center. We have the ad hoc pool pool ad hoc committee that's been meeting weekly with members from both, as well as community members who have been listening back to an alliance made up of a wide range of members of the aquatic community. And update and I haven't even most recent as of Friday update on the short term repairs and the alum and the response from the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health. They're the ones that will be red tagging and closing. Emma Hood Swim Center.
Speaker 1: Could we just get the door to be closed, please? Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 6: So as you know, this body approved $250,000 for short term repairs. Since then, the Board of of Education has approved 105,000 for short term repairs. So we have enough funding for that to happen. The Alameda County Health confirmed that our original repair scope of work was approved. They didn't end up expanding it so that we know that that is a good amount of funds to make that happen. The school district staff is already moving towards making that happen. So we're confident that those repairs, excuse me, can happen this summer so the pool can then reopen for the fall season. So that's a good milestone. We also received extension from the county so that the the long term plan is due to them by June with milestones by June 30th. So we have a little bit of time to get that done as well. The county health also affirmed in their letter that they they affirmed that these repairs are we're doing our interim they're short term, that we're all recognizing that with the goal to replace or completely renovate and fix the pools at Emma Hood and start construction by May 2022. If we don't get under construction by May 2022, they would then permanently close the facility. In regards to planning for a long term city aquatic center. The school district board met in closed session last week and they are interested in a land agreement. We will continue to further discussions about that and that agreement is for discussions for the site at Alameda High School with a slightly lower than almost doubled expanded footprint. They have it agenda for further closed session at their meeting next Tuesday. In your packet, you have a financial analysis. It's approximately a very rough estimate of $2,012 million to construct this facility. That's not necessarily an indoor facility. That's mostly based on estimates both that we essentially built up from the cost of the existing the recently built internal high school swim center and also costs for recent similar type facilities such as in Vacaville. In terms of ongoing maintenance, we're estimating with revenues and higher expenditures approximately $200,000 net per year. It's important to note that we are already spending about $125,000 a year already budgeted. It's also important to note that that's only about 60% cost recovery. Those costs could go up, as many of you know, from my previous work with Sweeney Sweeney Park and other projects. I really like to emphasize the ongoing cost of projects. It's not just the construction capital cost, but there will be ongoing costs and that with any kind of aquatic center, 60% cost recovery is on a good day . It could some in some places is 20 or 30% cost recovery. So they are not ever going to be 100% or even close to a cost recovering venture. We also into I anticipate that once an aquatic center, city center is built, we would not have a need any longer for city use and programing events and all high school. So that's part of the equation as well because currently we're paying for half of the maintenance of that facility. Certainly the community organizations would still be paying rent and wouldn't would still very much be using that facility as well as hopefully the new City Aquatic Center for Direction. At the last meeting, I included in your packet some city owned sites that could be alternatives for the Alameda High School site that we've been considering. One is at Lincoln Park that essentially and what I did is I took the same square footage and kind of roughly put it laid it on on a Google overlay at Lincoln Park. It includes the existing swim center, existing pool. I want to be clear, we've not talked to the Alameda Swimming Pool Association about this yet.
Speaker 1: I think you just did.
Speaker 6: I think I just did. You know, it's been moving so quickly that they were trying to keep people going, but they also are aware of all of the conversations and they're part of the Alameda Aquatic Alliance. So I know they're aware of it, but we've not been in any specific conversations with them. And they are the organization that that operates and maintains and pays all costs for both the Lincoln and Franklin pools, just to be clear. So it would take over that site the way it was laid out, and it would expand in toward High Street, because otherwise you're hitting into the parking lot. And so some of the pros of that site, it is very centrally located, fairly centrally located, somewhat. There is existing utilities, there's existing meter, water meter for the pool. So the basic infrastructure is there. There's extremely limited parking. If you've ever tried to park at Lincoln Park when there's a baseball game going on, forget about it. And so there's very, very limited parking. So that would have to be that was not considered in my footprint in terms of adding a parking lot. There's not great public transportation in that location. Plus, neighbors live immediately, very immediately adjacent to that. And there'd would be a new high impact use for those neighbors in terms of lighting and noise. What it also does is expanding toward High Street would take out that whole grove of very mature trees. The other site that is in your packet is the club, what we call the old pool site, where there used to be an abandoned pool is now just a weedy lot that's fenced in. There is available some of the pros. It is there is available public transit and parking in that area. There's not as much infrastructure, but it is right off Main Street. So would not be that difficult to pull infrastructure from directly from there. There is no immediate impacts on neighbors from lighting and noise. But it's important to note that in future Alameda Point development, that is in a residential area, but that would most likely come after a poor aquatics center was built. There's plenty of space in that area, especially if we use old tennis courts. And there's definitely room to maneuver to to provide for the components that we're looking for in a new facility. It's not centrally located, so it would be less accessible to folks on the East End and on Bay Farm. And so and with the newer swim center and Sol High School, it would be kind of aquatic center heavy on that side of the island, so to speak. It also is too far to serve Alameda High School students. Lincoln could feasibly serve Alameda High School students. It's a decent walk, but it can be done. And but this would be too far to serve them unless they're hopping in cars and busses. Are there any questions so far? Maybe I should kind of I'm wondering if I should kind of break this up for questions, because what I was planning to jump into is kind of talking about the property use and fees that we're proposing for Alameda High School and Draft MSU High Level. And I think this might be a good time to pause any questions.
Speaker 1: Comment about the staff report questions, council about the staff report.
Speaker 0: Okay. No.
Speaker 1: Carry on. Thank you.
Speaker 6: So in terms of the recommendations, we are recommending that Alameda High School aquatic teams receive first priority for use. That's over city facilities or city programs with their usage equivalent to their current hours of usage for practices, games and weekends, tournaments plus P.E.. If they choose to add it during the day, we would expect to have our own city programs during the day, but with the planned two pools, we feel like that could be easily be done with concurrent uses following in terms of prior to use outside of their existing parameters of use. Anything additional to that in the future would then be subject to the city's the Recreation Park Apartments, athletic facility allocation policy, its policy. It could change in the future, but currently it's city programs first and then Alameda schools and then Alameda Youth nonprofit organizations is the order. In terms of fees, we are recommending that all field all fees are waived for Alameda High School teams and aquatic teams for their games, all games and practices, plus one weekend tournament per team per season. How we came to that is it made sense that we would weigh fees for all our games and practices there current currently they're holding two tournaments essentially on average two tournaments per team per season. However, one of those is hosted and run by the team in the school. The other one is paid for and managed by the league. And so we would essentially, if we waive that, those are fees paid by the league anyway, not by the school district . And so there's really no reason for us to lose out on those fees. We've also included in the fee recommendation that any other revenue generating tournaments, fundraisers, things like that would pay fees because if they're generating revenue, then we want them to pay their fair share to help with the operations. We also I also recommend that the city retains all concession fees. Its planned for this too to have a concession booth. That's always a good revenue source for any facility and would be a key revenue source for us. It's not something that's currently done by Alameda High Teams, so it's not something that would be a loss to them and how they're currently operating. So I think this recommendation is something that's fair and reasonable. What the goal is to be a good partner with the school district and recognize that this would be the primary facility for the high school aquatic teams, but also help balance the city revenues and expenditures for this facility. What you also have in your packet is a draft memorandum of understanding. It's not fully fleshed out and details, but it's pretty high level but gives you a pretty good sense of what we're looking to include in the memo. You. This is something we'd like to get approved by both this council as well as the board by the end of June to be able to then provide to the county and. What we've done is also I want to point out, we've also tentatively scheduled on June 18th a joint school board and city council meeting from 4 to 5:30 p.m. before the city council meeting. So that, you know, we'd like to continue to have each jurisdiction work toward approving that. MRU And then this would be one last opportunity if there's further discussion to be had for those for you both to communicate. I also want to. Go. Kind of give you a high level of the draft milestones that we are looking at. What's nice about very helpful about the response that the county just gave us is that they're only going to hold us to the May 2022 deadline that you have to start construction by then. They're not going to hold us. They'd like to see our milestone, and that will be part of what we present to them. But they're not going to hold us to every single milestone that, you know, if you don't do this and the pool closes if you don't do that. So that gives us more flexibility. But it's really important for us to still hold to these timelines, because if we start slipping, we won't make it to our end goal of the May 2022 deadline. So it's really important for us to have this framework. So the the first milestone is the MRU by June 30th. The next would be having some type of land transfer agreement, whatever. That mechanism will be completely done and signed and authorized by both by no later than December 2019. Having development of a conceptual design essentially starting this summer and having a public meeting in which we can start talking about that. It was in the budget request that we talked about last week to have some funds for an architect to do some conceptual designs. So the thought is that we get, you know, we have some ideas of of components that the community would like to see. And I think we can have further discussion about that. And then we incorporate that into some conceptual designs and then have one more round of really looking at those designs to see what this community is interested in. Once we have a design solidified, then we can go out for funding and start at well and actually concurrently we'll be looking at funding mechanisms, will be looking at things like the infrastructure bond, looking at I'm already talking to folks about a potential capital campaign and part of of the budget request is to do a feasibility study for capital campaign to see how much money we could raise privately to match any public dollars. So by next July 2020, we would need to really be confirming what our funding mechanisms are. Have a good idea at that point how feasible and have some momentum at that point, hopefully on a capital campaign as well as that would be getting to the point where the council, if there's a if it chooses to do a infrastructure bond for the November 2020 ballot, would need to be starting to make decisions on that as well. If the bond is chosen as a as an infrastructure mechanism, then certainly that would be a milestone for November 2020. If that's approved and we have the funds to move forward this facility, then we would be starting with design, detailed design, and that can take about a year, year and a half, and then toward construction. And the only last thing I want to mention is that the primary components of the aquatic center that have been discussed so far at the ad hoc committee level and with the Alameda Aquatic Alliance is one main competition pool that's a 30 meter pool, one main, one practice and recreational pool. It's a 25 yard pool. It would have zero depth entry. It could have other play components, outdoor lighting, recreational components, locker rooms, showers, bleacher seating area, open lawn, a multi-use room and concession area. And there's still I was even looking today options that I think we've discussed in the past in terms of enclosing the the the practice swim recreational pool with with a retractable enclosure. So there's a lot of different options that ultimately we would need to vet through through design but but are certainly options that have been done and are out there with that. That concludes my report and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 1: So questions, comments, council Councilmember de so two.
Speaker 4: Sets of questions. First question is in the paragraph, first paragraph under the section fees and Alameda high usage, is there enough flexibility to account for a possibility where something happens to the is in a high school pool and it's not high school students and swimming teams have two or even water polo teams have to use the pool . I mean, because the the paragraph really seems to be not just a USD generally, but Alameda High School specifically, which I understand because it is right next Alameda High. But I just want to know if there's enough flexibility to deal with a, you know, unplanned situation where each pool closes.
Speaker 6: Sure. I would say yes. And we will always we can certainly work to. We have not worked out language in yet to the memo you we could work out something like that. The thing I have always since I've been here appreciated about the aquatic community is they work together better than really any other athletic community on this island to share. And so much there's so much cross crossing between the kids that are playing on different teams in the community and the high schools. And so there's really an energy and effort there behind making it work. So certainly if if it had to close for a period of time, it ends on high school because of construction and major whatever it is, we would make it work between the pools.
Speaker 4: The second question out of the two questions, that is. I noticed that that section again going to the fees and Alameda high usage is kind of kind of heavy on Alameda high which is understandable and mind you this is because I'm from it's an ally and I just want to make sure I'm listening. Also, former class president and student body president.
Speaker 1: Do you want to sit here?
Speaker 4: It's so it's not just because of that. But but if we can at least at some point in time, kind of kind of like further articulate the community benefits because this is a community pool as well. So I'm not saying that we have to do so now, but you know how many swimming time at some point in time, you know, in the future, if we can make sure to hammer that the community benefit aspect. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Velarde.
Speaker 0: When comment.
Speaker 3: I thank you for your work on providing the alternatives. I think that's helpful. Um, I like to have contingency plans and I also appreciate the work that went into kind of the outline for the MRU. My question is really for the city attorney's office and and whether or not he thinks that there's a you know, that we've given ourselves enough leeway in that kind of outline to address the concerns that we might have.
Speaker 5: I believe so, Councilman.
Speaker 3: Okay. And not that I don't trust this will, Rich, but I always want to make sure that we're we're thinking about that. I think Councilmember Desai makes a fair point about highlighting the community benefits. I think we've put a lot of focus on providing for the Alameda High School program. But I think the, the, uh, the upshot of this partnership in terms of from a city aspect is also that we're going to have a number of community benefits through our Parks and rec department and access to swimming and aquatics programing for everybody citywide. And I think that that's certainly something that should be highlighted. And as we move forward and we're looking at the designs and things like that. Obviously another aspect of the conversation that I'm sure will happen and I look forward to that.
Speaker 1: Um, Councilmember.
Speaker 9: Sure. Just a quick question. So at what point do we have to finalize the location?
Speaker 6: By December 2019 is when we need a final land agreement.
Speaker 9: Okay. So if there's.
Speaker 6: So I would say several months prior to that, we need to have a pretty good idea of where the location is so we can work out the legal documents to to finalize that.
Speaker 9: Okay. So you're not.
Speaker 6: So right like September.
Speaker 9: You're not asking us today to give you our opinion on that.
Speaker 6: Right. I welcome any input today.
Speaker 9: Okay. Well, I'll give like short input. I do think the best place for it is at HUD. I mean, if it's somewhere else, then the. Resulting use of that area of Alameda High, I think will not be something that will be happy with. So, I mean, it could be a charter school that goes there, which, you know, I'm not sure I'd be happy with that idea, you know, or some developer getting some property smack dab in the middle of our downtown. So or just being like derelict and vacant. So I appreciate all of the hard work that went in on this. MRU I'm very happy with the terms that you guys came up with and you know, as long as it's, in my view, that is in alignment with with these bullet points, you know, I'm happy to support it even when it comes back to us. All right.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'm sorry. Did you have any comments?
Speaker 5: No. I mean, as a member of the subcommittee, I think I've had more than my more than my say. I'm glad to hear just from my colleagues.
Speaker 1: So I'm a member of the subcommittee now. But I'll just say and I do want to thank our it's a great subcommittee. And I do think that it was brilliant to include the representatives of the different aquatic communities in the city and the representatives, of course, of the school district in the city. And we really ironed out a lot of details, I think, and I think it bodes well.
Speaker 6: For.
Speaker 1: Future discussion. So just one concern that I want to highlight is and it it was raised at the ad hoc committee meeting, maybe the last one we didn't meet today because we were meeting tonight, but it has to do with the fee proposal. And so I understand, you know, wanting to make the use of the pool available much of the time at no cost for the Alameda High School teams and activities. Because it is I'm assuming it would be there at that location. And I'm, I'm persuaded that that is, uh, is a very good location. But I'm also mindful of the fact that the city does need to assuming that the city is going to build, maintain and repair a pool, that we do need sufficient revenue stream. Because if you stop and think about it, the dilemma that we're in with the current manhood pool harkens back to the fact that there weren't sufficient. Revenues are a funding stream and a lot of deferred maintenance added up. And just like in our homes, the longer you put something off, the the more costly the repair becomes. And then you add in an entity like County Environmental Health, and there is there's even more implications. So while we certainly want to be generous and magnanimous and all those good things, nothing is free. So I think I think the proposal that was suggested when fees would kick in is a reasonable one. So I just want people to to bear that in mind when we are discussing fees charged for the pool. And with that I think everyone for the good work on this committee. Okay. So anything further or shall we give a C? Are you looking for. You're looking for direction, but we don't need to be running to vote on anything, correct?
Speaker 6: Nope. I was looking for feedback and direction and it seems like there's general consensus. Thank you very much. And I'll be bringing back to you a more formalized memo, you four, and hopefully more. Input on a potential land agreement as it as it comes to me from the board.
Speaker 1: That sounds great. Thank you so much. Ms. WOOLDRIDGE.
Speaker 6: Great, thank you.
Speaker 1: And with that counsel, it's been one hour since we took our last break, so I'm going to call it.
Speaker 0: Oh.
Speaker 1: Well, it's not you that I'm looking to. It's. Are you okay? Okay. Maybe I won't call a break. Is that if that's okay with you? Okay. All right, then we will move on. Thanks, everyone. You're doing a great job of moving this meeting along.
Recommendation to Receive an Update and Provide Direction on a New City Aquatic Facility.  (Recreation 280)