Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

City of Revelstoke

Council Report
File No.: 6240-01

To:

His Worship Mayor McKee and Members of City Council

From:

Laurie Donato, Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture

Date:

December 7th, 2015

Subject:

Request to Construct Splash Park at Farwell Park

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.

Flow through system vs. Recycled system


Farwell Park vs. Other parks.

Financial / Risk Implications:


There are no financial implications with respect to the recommendation put forward in this
report. Financial implications associated with construction of the splash park will be dependent
on the type of water management option chosen.
Capital costs can range anywhere from $ 370,000 to $ 615,000. The Revy Splash Park group is
proposing to fundraise to build this project and as such capital costs for this project are not
included in the 2016 - 2020 financial plan.
Operating costs can range anywhere from $ 4,000 to $ 20,000 per year and will include the
following:

Maintenance costs (annual, weekly, daily);


Servicing costs (electrical and water costs);
Annual permitting costs;
Staffing requirements (i.e. routine inspections, water sampling); and
Component maintenance and replacement program.

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,

Laurie Donato, Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture

2015
Splash Park Options Report

Laurie Donato
City of Revelstoke
12/7/2015

Splash Park Options Report September 16th, 2015

Assumptions in this report:


The following assumptions have been made in this report:

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 Citys Integrated Community Sustainability Plan provides a long term


perspective for the communitys continuing movement towards sustainability. In
this document the City has committed to water conservation and future water
use should be consistent with the principles of sustainable development.

Option 1 - Recirculating Water System:


A recirculating system operates more like a pool, with chemicals, filters and pumps.
With this type of system, water is sent to the pad from a tank roughly four to five times
1

Splash Park Options Report September 16th, 2015

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

Splash Park Options Report September 16th, 2015

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.

IHA annual operating permit


Certified pool operator to
manage system (water testing 2-3 times /
day)
General maintenance program
Daily inspection of equipment
Daily inspection for garbage, broken glass
etc
Waxing of Components at min. once / year
Winterizing of equipment
Commissioning in the summer
Electrical costs
Municipal water costs
Chemical costs
Maintenance due to power outages
Equipment / component
Replacement costs

Recirculation
System

Certification
required

Flow Through
System

Does not require


certification

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

Splash Park Options Report September 16th, 2015

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.

Splash Park Options Report September 16th, 2015

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

Option 2 Spray park features


Installation

$ 75,000.00
$ 85,000.00(cost varies depending on water management option chosen.)
$ 160,000.00

Option 3 Spray park features


Installation

$ 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

Capital Cost Lifespan Estimated Annual


Operating Cost

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

Splash Park Options Report September 16th, 2015

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

10. Policy and Practice in Other Municipalities:


Consultations with other municipalities have found that the majority of communities
have constructed a splash park facility with a flow-through system. The number one
reason being the cost of the water recirculation system. The majority of these projects
were initiated and funded by main sponsors with a modest capital contribution from
the municipality (Attachment D).
11. Summary
The project scope has many variables that are ultimately driven by available funds.
Since bringing this project forward, the Revy Splash Group has decided to form a
society so that they begin fundraising for this project. The group would like the Citys
commitment that park space will be made available for this project. Should the project
move forward, council direction on a preferred water management option is required as
whichever option is chosen will have a significant impact on the proposed budget for
the project. In making their decision, Council must consider capital and operating cost
implications associated with each option as well as the conservation of resources versus
cost savings. Council direction on the Citys role in this project should also be clarified.

ATTACHMENT B Summary of Water Management Options

Water Management
Options

Description

Pros

Potable, drain to waste


systems

Water is used to feed the


features in the park and
water is drained to the
storm / waste water
system.

Water treatment /
recirculating system

Retain and reuse systems:

Water is drained into a


holding tank, treated and
then reused in the park.
Size and cost of a treated
water system will vary
depending on the size of
the spary park, number of
features, and their
relative water flow rates.
Usage expectations for
the park and the type of
disinfection required (i.e.
chlorine only, chlorine
plus ultraviolet light) also
play a factor in the cost.
Greywater is collected
and utilized for other
applications such as
irrigation and washroom
facilities.

Cons

Low cost option for small


parks with low water
usage.
System is exempt from the
operating
permit
requirements.
No staff required.
Best solution for larger
parks or areas with strict
water policies.
Supports the principles /
strategies
of
water
conservation.
Environmentally
friendly
option.

Supports the principles /


strategies
of
water
conservation.

Inefficient use of water.

Total Project Costs


(Estimates)
Capital Costs:

$ 378,000

Estimated Operating Costs:


Approximately $ 22,000 / year

Capital Costs: $ 615,000


Most expensive option.
Must adhere to pool
Estimated Operating Costs:
regulation guidelines.
Requires
annual Approximately $ 10,000 / year
operating permit.
Requires
daily
maintenance by certified
pool operator.
Additional staffing and
on-going maintenance
costs.

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.

ATTACHMENT C Site Evaluation Criteria


Selection Criteria
Notes:

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

ATTACHMENT D - Splash Park Comparisons


Municipality

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

Recycled system was too


much money.

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

Success by Six raising


the money through
grants and local
fundraising. City
donating land.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen