Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Request To Construct Splash Park at Farwell Park-Dec 2015
Request To Construct Splash Park at Farwell Park-Dec 2015
Council Report
File No.: 6240-01
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Council support in-principle, the Revy Splash Park Groups request to construct a
splash park on City owned parkland subject to conducting an open house to obtain
comment from the general public on the proposed location as well as the design
concept.
CAO Comments:
Approved for Council consideration. AC
Executive Summary:
The following direction from Council is required in order to move forward with finalizing the
project scope:
1. Support in principle so that the Revy Splash Park Group can form a society and begin
their fundraising efforts.
2. Council approval for Staff to host an Open House in conjunction with the Revy Splash
Park Group to present proposed location as well as the design concept to the public.
3. Council direction on preferred water management option. This is required in order to
finalize estimated project cost and annual operating costs.
Background:
At the Council meeting held on May 26th, 2015, Council directed staff to add the Revy Splash
Park Groups proposal to construct a splash park at Farwell Park to the Parks, Recreation &
Culture workplan and that the request to consider approval of the project come forward to
Council when the project scope has been defined and the Splash Group has secured funding
for the project.
On October 14th, 2015, staff presented an options report to the Parks, Recreation & Culture
Committee to assist with clarifying the project scope. The Committee expressed support for the
City of Revelstoke
Council Report
project and recommended that Council support in-principle, the Revy Splash Park Groups
request to construct a splash park on City owned parkland subject to conducting an open house
to obtain comment from the general public on the proposed location as well as the design
concept.
Options / discussion
Staff have prepared a report for Council to assist in the decision making process. The report
outlines design options, construction costs and associated maintenance costs for each option
(Attachment A).
While funding sources for this project have not been confirmed, the Revy Splash Park Group
would like confirmation that Council supports the project and that park space would be made
available. The group is currently completing the paperwork to form a society so that they can
start fundraising.
In order to confirm the project scope Council will need to decide on the preferred water
management option and location.
At this time, these operating costs have not been included in the 2016 2020 financial plan.
Strategic Plan Reference:
2016 Council Objectives:
City of Revelstoke
Council Report
Quality of Life The City of Revelstoke will emphasize quality of life issues including
social, active living, cultural experiences and recreation opportunities.
Others Consulted:
Mike Thomas, Director of Engineering
Darren Komonoski, Operations Manager
Graham Inglis, Director of Finance
Interior Health Authority (IHA)
Attachments:
Attachment A - Splash Park Options Report
Respectfully submitted,
2015
Splash Park Options Report
Laurie Donato
City of Revelstoke
12/7/2015
A variety of interactive play features that promote creativity and imagination are
important for the success and longevity of this park.
The proposal put forward by the Revy Splash group included 9 interactive play
features.
The target market is ages 0 9 years.
The splash park will be located at Farwell Park.
The park will be open during the months of June, July & August
There are three essential elements that a splash park will require:
Water
Electricity
Sufficient drainage
1. Municipal Water Management Options:
Of the three elements noted above, water management is the most costly and
controversial element. Water is well recognized as a resource that should be protected
and effectively managed. Use and disposal of the volume of water that will potentially
be required as a result of the waterplay proposal for Farwell Park should be consistent
with the Citys commitment to water conservation. Of particular relevance to water
management options, Council should note the following:
The Citys Water Regulation Bylaw No. 1643 prohibits the use of water through
an open-ended hose, pipe or other such receptacle or fixture. Approving a flow
through system would therefore be in contravention to the Water Bylaw and as
such would require a Bylaw Amendment.
the systems flow rate. To provide safe use of recycled water at splash parks, staff
experienced in pool operations must be present on a daily basis to monitor, manage and
maintain the water recirculating system. Recirculating systems must meet all
provisions of the Pool Regulation (i.e. would need to function like the Aquatic Centre
Facility).
Option 2 - Flow through system:
In a flow-through system, water from a potable source is pumped onto the pad and
allowed to drain into a municipal storm sewer. This method requires no water
treatment and testing, nor the corresponding expense and staffing expertise. The splash
park features will each have an activator button which turns the water features on when
a user pushes a button and then automatically shuts them off after a certain amount of
time has elapsed (i.e. 30 seconds). This makes the splash pad more interactive for kids
and reduces water waste when the splash pad is not being used.
A flow through system is exempt from the operating permit required of the Pool
Regulation. However, a general maintenance program will still need to be adopted to
maintain the premises in a physically sound and sanitary state, those specific details are
not bound by regulation.
Option 3 Retain and reuse system:
A retain and reuse system is a relatively new concept. With this type of system,
greywater is collected and utilized for other applications such as irrigation and
washroom facilities. Implementation of this system requires advance approval from
IHA.
A summary of the three main water management options is attached to this report
(Attachment B).
2. The Municipal Cost of Water:
The cost of municipal water includes supply, delivery and treatment of water. The
municipality currently pays $ 1.10 / cubic metre to treat and supply municipal water
and 60 cents / cubic metre for the discharge of treated water. Based on the original
design, annual water consumption could reach 24,000 US gallons (91 cubic metres) a
day (a typical household consumes 300 to 400 US gallons per day). If the park were to
be open from June August (approximately 92 days, the annual cost for water
consumption would be $ 14,333 ($ 155.80 / day).
Using a water recirculation system would reduce the water required to approximately
4000 US gallons (15.14 cubic metres). The annual cost for water consumption would be
2
approximately $ 26.50. As long as the water quality is appropriate, we can keep treating
the same water. The tank will need to be drained to a third full for winterization, so the
majority of the water is being replaced each season.
3. Operational Costs:
These costs include the cost of water, electricity, staff, permits, and chemicals required
for the normal operation of the facility. Estimated operating costs associated with each
water management option are included in Attachment B.
Recirculation
System
Certification
required
Flow Through
System
min
4. Capital Costs:
These costs include estimated additional capital and consulting costs and include a 10%
contingency. Capital costs associated with each water management option are outlined
in Attachment B.
5. Health Concerns:
Health concerns associated with a splash park are no different than those associated
with an indoor or outdoor pool.
3
Recirculation systems must adhere to the pool regulation and will be subject to IHA
permitting, water sampling and inspections.
Flow-through systems are not subject to the Pool Regulation and therefore not
inspected by the Interior Health Authority, unless there are reported concerns. It is the
municipalitys responsibility to ensure the healthy and safe operation of the splash park
facility. A general maintenance program will need to be adopted for either system.
6. Site Considerations:
The wading pool at Farwell Park was closed on June 25th, 2013. Since the closure of the
wading pool, there has been discussion amongst the community surrounding the fate of
Farwell Park and the possibility of constructing a splash park at this location. At this
time, other sites have not been explored. Through this exercise, staff has learned that a
splash park is more than just a splash pad with water features; it includes the
surrounding area, amenities provided and the overall environment created by the
design elements. Splash parks in other communities are located within their best parks
away from heavily treed areas and in close proximity to other public amenities (i.e.
picnic areas, pools and community centres). However, it has also been noted that
because splash parks draw a crowd, they can turn an underutilized park into a
gathering place for the community. Consideration should be given as to whether or not
this site is the best location. It should also be noted that servicing costs for the splash
park will vary depending on the site selected and infrastructure availability at the
chosen location.
Should Council wish to explore alternate sites, Staff have attached a matrix outlining
potential sites and criteria that should be considered when evaluating each site
(Attachment C).
7. Phasing Possibilities:
Splash park features have a 25 year warranty. Costs for each component in the splash
park range from $ 2,000 $ 10,000. Phasing the number of interactive play features
could result in cost savings ranging from $ 10,000 - $ 70,000. Savings associated with
phasing the park are marginal because all of the mechanical work that needs to be done
under the pad has to occur in Phase I.
8. Pricing Options:
Option 1 Spray park features
Installation
$ 101,996.30
$ 105,588.00 (cost varies depending on water management option chosen.)
$ 207,584.30
$ 75,000.00
$ 85,000.00(cost varies depending on water management option chosen.)
$ 160,000.00
$ 55,000.00
$ 75,000.00(cost varies depending on water management option chosen.)
$ 130,000.00
(With Option 3, the play value of the park is compromised substantially. This could affect how
well the park is used).
Pricing options noted above are only estimates and only include splash park
features and their installation.
Servicing costs are not included in the above pricing options and will be dependent
on the water management option chosen.
Servicing costs will be anywhere from $ 171,000 for a flow through system to
$ 431,000 for a recirculation system.
9. Life Cycle Cost Analysis:
Current data suggests that capital and operating costs for each system are as follows:
Options
Flow through
$ 378,000
25
$ 22,000
Recirculation
$ 615,000
25
$ 8,000
Over a 25 year life span the difference between the two water management options is
modest as shown by the net present value table below:
5
Discount Rate
2%
2.50%
3%
3.50%
Flow through
$ 807,506
$ 783,328
$ 761,086
$ 740,604
Recirculation
$ 771,184
$ 762,392
$ 754,304
$ 746,856
Difference
$ 36,322
$ 20,936
6,782
6,252
Water Management
Options
Description
Pros
Water treatment /
recirculating system
Cons
$ 378,000
Retain
and
reuse This type of system would need to
systems are relatively be quoted by an Engineer.
new concepts.
Implementation of this
type of system requires
advance approval from
local
public
health
authorities.
Access to Utilities
Access to Washroom
Facility
Central/ Accessible
Location
Foot & Bike Access
Landscaping
Neighbourhood
Support
Parking Availability
Size of Site
Visibility for Safety &
Awareness
Rate
(H/M/L)
Centennial
Park
Kovach
Park
Queen
E. Park
Beruschi
Park
Big Eddy
Park
Moberly
Park
Moose
Park
Farwell
Park
Size
$240,000
Concrete
FlowThrough/Recycled
Water System
Flow-through
$ 320,000
$ 332,000
(does not
include
servicing
costs)
Concrete
Flow-through
Washroom requirement,
funding, location, IHA
Permitting
2,400 sq ft
$250,000$300,000
$271,100
Both
Flow-through
2,162 sq ft
$300,000
$371,200
Concrete
Flow-through but
recommend
recycled
$300,000
Not built
yet
Concrete (possible
rubber coating)
Flow-through
Fundraising, dealing
with Interior Healthpotable water, drain
away system verses a
recirculated system,
location
When the city used
outside contractors vs
RecTec contractorsmiscommunication
occurred on a few items
during install.
Community group
believes it is a waste of
water, raising money.
Golden
800 sq ft
Invermere
8 features
Osoyoos
Salmon Arm
Proposed
Budget
Actual
Cost
Concrete/Rubber
Padding
3,417 sq ft with
overspray area
Kimberly
Undetermined
but will have 8
features
Challenges
Financial
Contributions
Taxation, CBT, Rick
Hansen Foundation &
Local Businesses.
Rotary was main
sponsor ($275K), other
donors include TSN &
Kraft Cda ($25K), RMI,
DOI ($50K) & Build
washroom facility.
Rotary main sponsor,
other corporate
sponsors included
Telus, Fortis, Tim
Hortons and grants
Rotary was main
sponsor. City,
Donations,
Corporate sponsors,
grants, online
fundraising. Rotary will
fund any large
replacement costs.
Clearwater
1,313.24 sq feet
2,615.72 sq feet
with overspray
area
$300,000
Not built
yet.
Concrete
Flow-through