City staff says maintain or upgrade Rockport and Palmer
JANESVILLE — Janesville residents who have been waiting patiently to wade into the pool discussion …
Next month you’ll get your chance.
The Janesville City Council on Wednesday set a public hearing for 7 p.m. Monday, Jan. 28, at the Municipal Building, 18 N. Jackson St, Janesville. The public will get to talk about two recommendations City Manager Steve Sheiffer made to the board Wednesday night:
-- Maintain the existing facilities at Rockport and Palmer pools and Lions Beach.
That option would not require a capital loan. The annual impact on a home assessed at $112,700 would be what it is now—$10.74.
City staff estimated Janesville would spend $2.1 million over 20 years to maintain the pools and beach.
The pros of the maintenance option include a low property tax impact and preservation of Janesville’s historic pool locations, Sheiffer said. Cons include lower attendance and high operation costs.
-- Upgrade Rockport and maintain Palmer pool.
The city would borrow up to $5 million for construction. The annual impact on an average Janesville home would be $13.05.
City staff estimate the 20-year operation and maintenance cost at $537,600.
Pros include a low property tax increase, low operation costs and high cost recovery. Cons include high construction cost and extending the decision on the future of the Palmer Park pool.
Rockport Pool is 27 years old, and the wading pool at Palmer is 70 years old. Both are in need of repairs.
About 15 percent of Janesville residents use the city’s pools. The swimmer capacity between Rockport and Palmer pools and Lions Beach is 1,065.
That’s a momentary snapshot, not a daily use, Sheiffer said.
And it’s not the same as attendance because many go to the pool but don’t get in.
Between 2004 and 2006, the peak daily attendance was 1,042. Attendance on an average day was 624 at both pools and the beach.
Swimmers are split evenly between Rockport and Palmer, Sheiffer said. About 43 percent go to Rockport and 45 percent to Palmer, Sheiffer said.
“It almost begs the question of having only one facility,” he said. “But you’ve got the tradition in Janesville of having multiple facilities because that’s what’s always been open.”
Sheiffer did not recommend an option designed by a resident committee that met for more than a year. The committee recommended a new pool at Palmer Park and the addition of a shallow pool at Rockport as well as six splash pads around the city. Construction for that option would have been $9 million and would have cost the city nearly $12 million over 20 years.
It would have doubled the amount of property taxes for the average homeowner.
What’s next?
After a public hearing, the council would have to vote three times before work could begin—or be shot down—on the pools:
-- A vote to create a building committee.
-- A vote to proceed to the design and development phase of the project to pinpoint costs and put the project to bid.
-- A vote to approve a bid.
If you go
What: Public hearing on whether to maintain or upgrade Rockport Pool, the wading pool and Palmer Park and Lions Beach.
When: 7 p.m. Monday, Jan. 28
Where: City of Janesville Municipal Building, 18 N. Jackson St., Janesville.
What they said
George Brunner: “I look at the upgrade option as something that would be doable, but it would take additional study to bring those costs down.”
Bill Truman: “I’d like to upgrade Rockport and do something different (than new construction) with Palmer. I could never see closing Palmer completely. I think Palmer is a vital park in our city.”
Amy Loasching: “We need to try to keep the costs down but look at upgrading, so we’re not charging tax payers more than we would by maintaining what we have. I would like to know what the difference is between maintaining what we have at Palmer with a fee versus without a fee.”
Russ Steeber: “I don’t think there’s much debate in which direction we really need to go to. If we got the pie in the sky, we’d get new pools. But I think you need to look at upgrading and maintaining what you already had.”
Craig DeGarmo: “I’ve always felt a significant upgrade to Rockport is necessary. I would like to take (a new pool at) Palmer off the table, knowing that in the not too distant future, there may need to be more money put back into Palmer.”
Dec 20, 2007 at 4:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
What I was saying was that with proper maintenance over the years the City might not have to spend as much on it now that it is in a state of disrepair.
Dec 14, 2007 at 7:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
If you drove your car for 20 or 70 years, with screaming kids, leaving it outside in the weather, and filled the interior for chemicals, you might be spending money on a new car today.
I am not a supporter of this new project, but if you are going to post a comment, take a moment to think about what your typing so you don't seem idiotic to the rest of us.
Dec 14, 2007 at 1:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
In the past 27 and 70 years for the Rockport and Palmer park pools respectively why are they in such disrepair. If they had been kept up over the years, one would think that the repairs for both wouldn't add up to $5 million. For example, if I didn't change the oil in my car for the next 4 years I would expect to have to put in a new engine or buy a new vehicle. But if I changed it regularly ... maybe I wouldn't have to get a new engine. Or I could just be wrong.
Dec 13, 2007 at 9:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hoses and sprinklers. Thats what this city really needs. Hand them out on Memorial day to the first 1000!
Dec 13, 2007 at 9:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Let me rephrase that. I agree with the Riverside park comment...I WOULD be nice to save Lions beach, but can you really see that happening? It hasnt been done after all these years. BTW, anyone know when Lions Beach first opened?
Dec 13, 2007 at 9:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
I agree with Long_Time_Gone....I grew up in Janesville and periodically bless janesville with our presence:) A few years ago we went to Riverside Park and noticed how bad it looked. Very disappointed that the wading pool was no longer in operation. The park was overgrown and looked awful. As a kid that was one of my favorite places to fish, wade in the pool, watch waterskiers. Lions beach has always been a "hole", everytime you turn around it was being closed for algae or bacteria or something to that effect. Maybe lions should be torn down since obviously over the years things havent changed for the good. Riverside on the other hand really should be kept up. It can be a beautiful park. Its a shame that it hasnt been kept up. Palmer Park looks great the last time I was there. But maybe instead of spending ALL the money there...spread some over to the other side of town to riverside. Palmer is good for the time being.....But thats my opinion
Dec 13, 2007 at 9:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Long_time_gone, Let's start a "save Lions beach" group! Heck, They got a "friends of Riverside park" group. Maybe let's call ours, "friends of Lions beach". That would put Lions beach back on the map.
Dec 13, 2007 at 3:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
tboufford, that is not 1000 a year it is a daily stat. "Between 2004 and 2006, the peak daily attendance was 1,042. Attendance on an average day was 624 at both pools and the beach."
Dec 13, 2007 at 2:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
You're both off, tboufford and DrTalk. Attendance on an average day at the three existing facilties was estimated at about 624. 15% reflects the percentage of Janesville residents who utilize the facilities each season--it's not the same as attendance, as stated in the recommendations. Yet 15% of the population does not warrant a new facility, and that is what the city recommended, thank goodness.
Dec 13, 2007 at 2:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
tboufford,
The attendance is not 1000; that's the capacity between the 3 swimming facilities. The attendance is 15% of the population. Out of roughly 60,000 that would be about 9,000 people that use them.
But that's not enough to support 3 swimming facilities. Maybe one. To paraphrase Yogi Berra: "If the majority of the people don't want to attend swimming facilities, how are you going to stop them?"
Dec 13, 2007 at 2:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
theyre talking about the attendance of the pools being about 1000 a year. how could we support or even think we could support a large expensive aquatic center? go thing it was axed
Dec 13, 2007 at 1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
what?
Dec 13, 2007 at 1:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
if you read this article outload city councel. you will see no way we could support and aquatic center!!! FIX WHAT WE HAVE!!!!
Dec 13, 2007 at 11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Teeber has it right -
As a kid growing-up in Janesville, we rode our bikes to the beach every day during the summer. It was the sign of real achievement to pass the swim test and be allowed on the high dive. The lifeguards would row alongside swimmers from the high dive to the platform. That was the test and usually, it took several attempts to pass, but what a great feeling to swim out to that platform and look back to the sandy shore.
During the holidays, I make it back to town and make it a point to drive-by Lions Beach. How sad it looks. The fence is gone. That great, cream-color brick building is a treasure, but it looks abandoned. Which, I suppose, it is.
Many cities I have lived have created man-made ponds and ringed the water with sand. Janesville has this wonderful resource, one which many cities envy, and it has become an eyesore. The folks at the Rotary Gardens must close their eyes when they peek over at Lions.
And until today, not once have I read here where Lions Beach was even part of the conversation.
Don't even get me going on Riverside Park - how the city in good conscience close that wading pool and let teh tennis courts and basketball courts go to weeds is beyond me.
that required us to swim from the high-dive to the platform as li
Dec 13, 2007 at 11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
From the article: "Pros include a low property tax increase"
Any property tax increase is not a pro, especially if I don't use what it is they are trying to support with tax dollars. Let the people who use the pools pay for it. If they don't generate enough revenue to run the facility then it should be shut down. Plain and simple. It's not the city's job to provide these services let alone at tax payer expense.
Dec 13, 2007 at 11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Please, Fix up the Lions bech bath house and clean up the water! It is a lovely place and it would be nice to see it as a attraction for city use.
Dec 13, 2007 at 11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
I second sfcm's comment. I attended the meeting last night and thought the council exercised their fudicial responsibilities appropriately.
Dec 13, 2007 at 10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
I watched this meeting on the ol' telly last night and I was quite pleased with the common sense and consideration for the taxpayers in the statements made by the city council. The consultants and administration did an adequate job of presenting the facts including usage and demand of aquatics facilities in the city, while keeping in mind the tax burden of any proposed projects. Way to go, city administration and council! I look forward to the public hearing and other developments.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.