A proposed outdoor swimming pool and water park in Litchfield would cost about $2.5 million.

Now, supporters and City Council members just have to figure out if the city can afford it.

Litchfield Swimming Pool Steering Committee members and representatives of USAquatics Inc. presented their Aquatic Facility Feasibility Study to the City Council March 17.

The City Council did not act on the report, instead responding to it with questions — about cost, availability of lifeguards, and whether it should be an indoor or outdoor facility.

“(There) isn’t a plan to pay for it,” Mayor Vern Madson said following the report. “Do you have a plan?”
Committee member Rose Lendt said the group developed no financing plan, in part because they were not aware of all the options. However, she pledged the steering committee’s help in whatever ways necessary to move the proposal ahead.

The committee “wanted to come to you for some guidance and assistance, because we’re not sure what way to go,” Lendt said. “We’re ready to work with the project to the end. Whatever work we need to do, we’re willing to be there for it.”

The 10-member swimming pool committee has been meeting for about a year to study the idea.

The group first appeared before the City Council in October to ask for the city’s backing. Specifically, they asked the city to pay for the $10,000 feasibility study that would be undertaken by USAquatics. The City Council agreed, which set off a number of meetings between the committee and USAquatics, a Delano-based designer of swimming pools and water parks.

Tom ******, chief executive officer of USAquatics explained that the committee started with a list of 11 possible sites for the aquatic center. Of those, four were eliminated almost immediately, because they were deemed too small. The remaining list of seven was whittled to three finalists, all of which were presented to the council Monday.

The three final sites include: land north of Litchfield Civic Arena, between the high school football practice field and baseball field; land east of Prairie Park, which at the time is privately owned; and a triangular-shaped piece of property just south of Memorial Park near Lake Ripley. The committee did not recommend any of the three finalists as its top choice, although the Civic Arena spot earned the highest ranking in a point system established by the committee.

Along with site review, the feasibility study included a proposed facility layout, construction budget and operating cost and revenue projections.

While the $2.5 million construction cost brought some questions from City Council members, the operating costs were just as big an issue for some members.

Using census information and past experience with aquatic centers it has constructed in similar-sized cities, USAquatics estimated that the pool would generate about $115,788 during a 13-week season. It also estimated that party rentals and swimming lessons at the center could generate an additional $5,500 per season, for a total revenue projection of $121,288. Operating costs for the center would be $139,749, making an $18,461 city operating subsidy a necessity.

In answer to other questions, ****** said:

— The committee looked at but quickly dismissed the idea of an indoor facility, because most communities have a difficult time subsidizing a year-around facility. While they generate more revenue, they also carry significantly higher operating costs.

— Concern about a lifeguard shortage is misplaced. The facility proposed for Litchfield would require about 30 lifeguards, ****** said, but in other communities in which USAquatics has built aquatic centers filling lifeguard jobs has not been an issue. “What we’ve seen is that (the center) becomes the fun, new place to work,” said Aaron Hunter, aquatics consultant with USAquatics. “An indoor facility (operating year-around) is very different from a brand new outdoor facility, which is a summer job.”

— The proposed facility would require 6 to 7 acres to house the swimming pool, as well as changing areas, concession stands, and a parking lot.

— The facility would include three water areas — a pool with lap lanes that would include a diving well to accommodate 1- and 3-meter diving and a “plunge pool” for two water slides, and a splash pool with a zero-depth entry to make it useable by families with young children.