This report responds to Council’s request that staff further assess its ability to undertake a study of a joint use pool project with the Fremont Union High School District. Staff is capable of assuming such a study in addition to its current workload. However, this report also identifies various issues warranting Council’s consideration prior to taking action on this matter. As a result, staff does not recommend further study of a joint use pool project with the Fremont Union High School District.

On May 25, 1999, Council requested that staff prepare a review of the Parks and Recreation Department's non-routine workload, in order that Council might determine whether or not there were issues currently being studied by the Department which Council would prefer to drop or defer in order to take advantage of the unplanned opportunity presented by the Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD) with regard to the construction of a new high school pool.

Following Council’s review of staff’s June 8, 1999, Report to Council on this matter, including significant public input and staff response to Council questions, Council requested staff further explore its ability to undertake such a study. This report addresses that request.

Action Statement

Provide, maintain, and operate recreation facilities such as swimming pools, tennis courts, golf courses, athletic fields, trails, parks, arts facilities, community centers, park centers, and other specialized facilities in a safe, high quality, usable condition that will serve and meet the recreational needs of the community.

Staff has reviewed again the impact this study might have on both day-to-day operations of the Parks and Recreation Department, as well as other projects currently underway. The conclusion is that if it is Council's desire to pursue study of a joint use pool project with the Fremont Union High School District, staff will undertake that task. While workload remains a serious concern and is discussed in more detail below, there is little point in Council further analyzing how staff might accomplish this, or in trading off one important study issue for another. Suffice to say, staff would make any number of adjustments and pursue a variety of means of maximizing its capacity to undertake this additional assignment.

Having said that, it is important that Council decide whether it wishes to further explore this study with a clear understanding of related impacts. Following are a few of the more important points to consider:

Based on recent public input, staff feels the need to clarify the subject proposed for study. Council has recently heard from members of the Adult Swim Advisory Group and the City's co-sponsored swim club. These are important constituents with a vested interest in the City's future plans regarding swimming pools. Their desire for a 50-meter pool is well-documented and if it is Council's wish to further explore that specific desire, direction can be given to pursue a joint use 50 meter pool, and the public input process can be streamlined dramatically. There are, however, a great number of residents who would participate in other types of aquatic activities requiring facilities that are not conducive to competition or adult lap swimming. These could include zero depth entry, play features, slides, etc. Therefore, if Council wishes to consider a community pool to serve the broadest needs of the citizenry, direction should be given to further explore a joint use pool of as yet undetermined size and design, and it would be incumbent on staff to perform additional public input sessions and to research what other communities provide in this regard. Such a process might still result in a 50-meter pool, but staff believes it would be a mistake to make that assumption without seeking additional public input.

A critical concern with regard to the pursuit of such a study at this time revolves around financial implications and community expectations. There is little question that beginning a study of this nature will raise public expectations regarding potential service levels without any reasonable assurance on the part of Council or staff with regard to the City's funding capabilities. More specifically, staff would not recommend raising public expectations through further pursuit of this study on the premise that significant on-going operating costs would be raised by the citizenry or donated by the private sector. It is incumbent on staff to advise Council that the best information it has to date -- including those capital and operating estimates provided by the School District--suggest the City is in no position to fund a pool partnership with the District at this time. (Please see Fiscal Impact section below.)

With this in mind, it is important to note that this study does not represent the last window of opportunity for studying the construction of a community pool for the City of Sunnyvale. If, at some later date, Council felt an improved financial climate warranted such a study, opportunities such as the potential redesign of Washington Park’s pool will still exist.

As indicated in the beginning of this report, staff can always assume additional assignments. However, the City's Study Issue Process is designed in part to ensure reasonable workloads for staff. Undertaking this assignment may have negative impacts on staff, its operational effectiveness, and/or the quality of work currently being performed on the Senior Center project in particular. Considerable time has been spent assessing related issues with the Director of Parks and Recreation and the Leisure Services Manager who would assume the lead role in conducting a pool study, and there is good reason for concern in this regard.

It has been suggested that this might be a fairly simple study, and in fact it might be were Council comfortable with the expedited public input process described above, and were it willing to forego a thorough analysis of related issues. However, staff's previous Report to Council on this issue (RTC No. 99-266) identified several steps necessary to conduct a comprehensive study, and acknowledged that the full scope of such an undertaking could not be known until the study were commenced. In fact, in only the short time which has passed since Council last deliberated this issue, staff has raised another important issue which would deserve its attention during the study: what impact might a joint pool partnership with Fremont Union High School have on the City's existing partnerships with other Schools? Might the new partnership reduce the need to partner with Sunnyvale Middle School or Peterson Middle School? How might this affect operating costs, etc.?

Council is reminded that this is a significant departure from accepted City practice in terms of priority setting and its normal Study Issue Process. While the Parks and Recreation Commission is being copied this report, it has not been given the opportunity to advise Council on whether or not this matter should be studied or where it might rank in priority with other studies or service demands.

The Fremont Union High School District has provided preliminary, rough estimates of a capital contribution of one million dollars and an operating contribution of between $60,000 and $125,000 per year from the City. There do not appear to have been any staffing or programmatic costs associated with the operating estimate, and the School District has appropriately identified the need for further project definition in order to develop firm figures. City staff believes a realistic range of annual operating costs paid by the City could rise as high as $200,000.

A copy of this report has been distributed to the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Adult Swim Advisory Group, the Sunnyvale Swim Club, and the Fremont Union High School District. Public notice also occurred through publication and posting of the Council Agenda. All reports are available in the Library and on the City’s Internet home page.

Staff recommends Alternative No. 3.

Prepared by:

Robert S. LaSala
City Manager