HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/23/2018 - Workshop Agenda Packet - City CouncilCity Council Workshop
College Station, TX
Meeting Agenda - Final
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
City Hall Council Chambers4:00 PMThursday, August 23, 2018
1. Call meeting to order.
2. Executive Session will be held in the Administrative Conference Room.
Consultation with Attorney {Gov’t Code Section 551.071};
Possible action. The City Council may seek advice from its attorney regarding a pending or
contemplated litigation subject or settlement offer or attorney -client privileged information .
Litigation is an ongoing process and questions may arise as to a litigation tactic or
settlement offer, which needs to be discussed with the City Council. Upon occasion the City
Council may need information from its attorney as to the status of a pending or
contemplated litigation subject or settlement offer or attorney -client privileged information .
After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. The
following subject(s) may be discussed:
Legal Advice
a. Legal advice regarding conditional zoning.
Litigation
a. Kathryn A. Stever-Harper as Executrix for the Estate of John Wesley Harper v. City of
College Station and Judy Meeks; No. 15,977-PC in the County Court No. 1, Brazos
County, Texas
b. McCrory Investments II, LLC d /b/a Southwest Stor Mor v. City of College Station; Cause
No. 17-000914-CV-361; In the 361st District Court, Brazos County, Texas
c. City of College Station v. Gerry Saum, Individually, and as Independent Executrix of the
Estate of Susan M. Wood, Deceased; Cause No. 17-002742-CV-361; In the 361st District
Court, Brazos County, Texas
d. Maura Juarez Garcia v. Andres Garcia and City of College Station; Cause No .
18-000419-CV-85; In the 85th District Court, Brazos County, Texas
Personnel {Gov’t Code Section 551.074};
Possible action. The City Council may deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation,
reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer. After executive session
discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. The following public officer (s)
may be discussed:
Page 1 College Station, TX Printed on 8/17/2018
August 23, 2018City Council Workshop Meeting Agenda - Final
a. Council Self Evaluation
b. City Manager
5:00 p.m.
3. Take action, if any, on Executive Session.
4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on items listed on the consent agenda.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Thomas
Swimming Pool facility options.
18-05375.
Sponsors:Schmitz
Thomas Park Pool AuditAttachments:
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding exclusive
bicycle facilities such as the Veloway in Austin, TX.
18-05396.
Sponsors:Garza
7. Council Calendar - Council may discuss upcoming events.
8. Discussion, review, and possible action regarding the following meetings: Animal
Shelter Board, Annexation Task Force, Arts Council of Brazos Valley, Architectural
Advisory Committee, Arts Council Sub -committee, Audit Committee, Bicycle, Pedestrian,
and Greenways Advisory Board, Bio -Corridor Board of Adjustments, Blinn College Brazos
Valley Advisory Committee, Brazos County Health Dept ., Brazos Valley Council of
Governments, Brazos Valley Economic Development Corporation, Bryan /College Station
Chamber of Commerce, Budget and Finance Committee, BVSWMA, BVWACS,
Compensation and Benefits Committee, Experience Bryan -College Station, Design Review
Board, Economic Development Committee, FBT /Texas Aggies Go to War, Gulf Coast
Strategic Highway Coalition, Historic Preservation Committee, Interfaith Dialogue
Association, Intergovernmental Committee, Joint Relief Funding Review Committee,
Landmark Commission, Library Board, Metropolitan Planning Organization, Parks and
Recreation Board, Planning and Zoning Commission, Research Valley Technology Council,
Regional Transportation Committee for Council of Governments, Sister Cities Association,
Transportation and Mobility Committee, TAMU Economic Development, TAMU Student
Senate, Texas Municipal League, Twin City Endowment, Walk with the Mayor, YMCA,
Youth Advisory Council, Zoning Board of Adjustments, (Notice of Agendas posted on City
Hall bulletin board).
9. Adjourn.
The City Council may adjourn into Executive Session to consider any item listed on this
agenda if a matter is raised that is appropriate for Executive Session discussion. An
announcement will be made of the basis for the Executive Session discussion.
Page 2 College Station, TX Printed on 8/17/2018
August 23, 2018City Council Workshop Meeting Agenda - Final
I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted at College Station City Hall, 1101
Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, on August 17, 2018 at 5:00 p.m.
_____________________
City Secretary
This building is wheelchair accessible. Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this
meeting and who may need accommodations, auxiliary aids, or services such as
interpreters, readers, or large print are asked to contact the City Secretary’s Office at (979)
764-3541, TDD at 1-800-735-2989, or email adaassistance@cstx.gov at least two business
days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. If the City does
not receive notification at least two business days prior to the meeting, the City will make a
reasonable attempt to provide the necessary accommodations.
Penal Code § 30.07. Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handgun.
"Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (Trespass by License Holder with an Openly
Carried Handgun) A Person Licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (Handgun Licensing Law), may not enter this Property with a
Handgun that is Carried Openly."
Codigo Penal § 30.07. Traspasar Portando Armas de Mano al Aire Libre con Licencia.
“Conforme a la Seccion 30.07 del codigo penal (traspasar portando armas de mano
al aire libre con licencia), personas con licencia bajo del Sub-Capitulo H, Capitulo
411, Codigo de Gobierno (Ley de licencias de arma de mano), no deben entrar a esta
propiedad portando arma de mano al aire libre.”
Page 3 College Station, TX Printed on 8/17/2018
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
College Station, TX
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:218-0537 Name:Thomas Park Pool
Status:Type:Presentation Agenda Ready
File created:In control:8/8/2018 City Council Workshop
On agenda:Final action:8/23/2018
Title:Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Thomas Swimming Pool facility options.
Sponsors:David Schmitz
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Thomas Park Pool Audit
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding Thomas Swimming Pool facility options.
Relationship to Strategic Goals:
1. Providing Core Services and Infrastructure
2. Neighborhood Integrity
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends approval of support for the community needs assessment.
Summary: Staff commissioned a consultant to investigate the depth of repairs, general conditions,
possible noncompliance with code and opinion of probable costs for Thomas Pool. On June 12,
these findings were presented to the Parks and Recreation Board. At that time the board voted 4-3
to seek design and construction of a new pool (one option presented within the audt).
Budget & Financial Summary:Funding source and availability would vary with the option Council
chooses. Pending the option, funding could come through savings from O&M of Thomas Pool.
Reviewed and Approved by Legal: No
Attachments:
•Kimley-Horn Audit of Thomas Pool
College Station, TX Printed on 8/17/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
THOMAS PARK POOL AUDIT
March 2018
With
Thomas Park Pool Audit 1
Table of Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Thomas Park Pool Commentary ..................................................................................................... 3
General Site ..................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Applicable Codes Referenced .................................................................................... 4
1.2 Site Data .................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Parking Lot ................................................................................................................. 5
1.4 Pool Deck ................................................................................................................... 6
1.5 Pool Enclosure ........................................................................................................... 7
1.6 Hose Bibs ................................................................................................................... 8
Pool Bathhouse ............................................................................................................................... 8
1.1 General ...................................................................................................................... 8
1.2 Exterior Building Condition ....................................................................................... 9
1.3 Interior Building Condition ........................................................................................ 9
1.4 Fire Safety Systems .................................................................................................. 10
1.5 Mechanical Systems ................................................................................................ 10
1.6 Electrical Systems .................................................................................................... 10
1.7 Plumbing .................................................................................................................. 10
1.8 Accessibility ............................................................................................................. 11
1.9 Building Function ..................................................................................................... 14
1.10 Feasibility of Building Upgrades .............................................................................. 15
Pool and Mechanical Systems ...................................................................................................... 16
A. POOL ITEMS ............................................................................................................. 16
1.1 General Pool Information ........................................................................................ 16
1.2 Perimeter Overflow System .................................................................................... 17
1.3 Structure and Finish ................................................................................................ 18
1.4 Main Drains ............................................................................................................. 20
1.5 Inlets ........................................................................................................................ 21
1.6 Warning Signs and Depth Markings ........................................................................ 22
1.7 Ingress and Egress ................................................................................................... 22
Thomas Park Pool Audit 2
1.8 Underwater Lights ................................................................................................... 23
B. DECK EQUIPMENT AND STRUCTURES ..................................................................... 24
2.1 Waterslide ............................................................................................................... 24
2.2 Deck, Maintenance, and Safety Equipment ............................................................ 25
C. POOL MECHANICAL ITEMS ...................................................................................... 26
3.1 Piping and Valves ..................................................................................................... 26
3.2 Pumps ...................................................................................................................... 28
3.3 Filtration System ...................................................................................................... 29
3.4 Chemical Treatment System .................................................................................... 29
3.5 UV System ................................................................................................................. 30
Summary of Opinion of Probably Costs ........................................................................................ 33
Conclusion and Final Recommendations ...................................................................................... 34
Thomas Park Pool Audit 3
Introduction
The City of College Station commissioned Kimley-Horn, Counsilman-Hunsaker and
Arkitex Studio to provide a swimming pool and bathhouse audit at the Thomas Park
Pool on March 26, 2018. The pool is approximately 38 years old and has undergone
major renovations since its original construction in 1979. The City of College Station
commissioned this audit to assist in identifying items that are substandard, not
meeting current department of health requirements, or not operating as designed,
to assist in defining a course of action regarding the future of the pool. Visual
observations, staff interviews and record drawings were used to prepare this audit.
An Opinion of Probable Cost is given for each section to illustrate the construction
costs associated with bringing the pools up to current department of health
requirements. Some items that are listed to be repaired may only need to be
repaired if further examination has determined that such repair is necessary. The
Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or over the
Contractor's methods of determining prices or over competitive bidding or market
conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information
known to Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a
design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and
does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary
from its opinions of probable costs.
Thomas Park Pool Commentary
Thomas Park Pool was constructed
in 1979 and included the following
amenities: a recreational/training
swimming area, a 5-lane advanced
swimming area and a diving well
with two 1-meter diving boards. A
separate enclosed children’s wading
pool was also designed to the west
of the main pool. A major
renovation took place in 1993 which
required repairs to the pool and the
installation of a new filtration
system. Another renovation in 2002 added a shade structure, renovated pool deck,
re-plastered the pool and renovated the surge tank area.
Thomas Park Pool Audit 4
The site was observed on March 26, 2018 when the facility was closed for the off-
season. Staff reported a higher than normal rate of water loss which increases the
chemical usage due to a higher water usage. There are concerns of leakage at the
pool joints and/or the main drain. The current bather load per the Texas
Administrative Code is approximately 252 bathers. It was reported that outside of
day camps, less than twenty people visit the site per day. The cost of admission is $3
per day.
The condition of the pool is not unusual for pools this age. As with other pools of
similar age, the pool is facing physical obsolescence. Swimming pools are built to
satisfy the existing standards at the time of construction or renovation. The Texas
Department of Health standards have changed over the years. The items identified
in this report refer to items that do not meet the current Texas Department of State
Health Services requirements for pools built today. It is believed that when the pool
was built or renovated, the construction was to current code at the time. The items
identified as not meeting the current code do not indicate that the city has been
operating the pools that are not to code. Pools are required to meet current codes
when they are newly constructed or renovated and until such time may be
considered “grandfathered”. Thus, the issues do not necessarily indicate that the
City has been operating the pools in an unsafe manner. It is also assumed that these
pools are monitored by the local department of health, and the pools are considered
satisfactory to operate safely.
General Site
1.1 Applicable Codes Referenced
Applicable Texas Codes:
Texas Administrative Code:
TITLE 25 HEALTH SERVICES
PART 1 DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES
CHAPTER 265 GENERAL SANITATION
SUBCHAPTER L STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC POOLS AND SPAS
Texas Accessibility Standards 2012
Thomas Park Pool Audit 5
Applicable Federal Code Section:
Americans with Disabilities Act Access Guidelines (ADAAG)
2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design
2010 Standards: Titles II and II
Approved September 15, 2010
National Spa and Pool Institute (NSPI)
American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
American National Standard for Public Swimming Pools
ANSI/NSPI -1 2003
Approved March 10, 2003
Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act (VGB)
ASME/ANSI A112.19.81
Signed into Law on December 19, 2007
CPSC Staff Interpretation of Section 1404 issued on June 18, 2008
The administrative code requirements must be satisfied if a major modification of
the pool is undertaken or if a particular item or piece of equipment is in need of
repair. The recommended repairs address all administrative code items identified
in this report.
1.2 Site Data
Total Parking Spaces – 19 (including 1 space designated as an accessible space)
Pool Deck Area – Approximately 8,665 SF
1.3 Parking Lot
The current space marked as an
accessible space does not meet
Section 206 of the 2012 Texas
Accessibility Standards that require
an accessible route from the parking
area to the building entrance. The
parking space also fails to meet
Section 502 of the Texas Accessibility
Standards which also requires a 60”
minimum marked access aisle that
connects to the accessible route.
Thomas Park Pool Audit 6
To meet the 2012 TAS standards, the parking lot would require restriping, a curb cut
and accessible ramp needs to be provided and the entire path to the entry should be
less than 2% cross slope.
Opinion of probable cost: $15,000
1.4 Pool Deck
The current pool deck is generally in good condition. There is very little vertical
movement that would generate accessibility issues. There appears to be adequate
deck drains to ensure positive drainage limiting standing water on the pool deck.
There is one area that is holding water due to an apparent leak in the pool gutter
system.
However, access around the pool
does not meet Section 265.186 of
the Texas Administrative Code near
the old diving board platform. The
platform creates a structure that
could potentially be used as a diving
platform and restricts emergency
access around the south side of the
pool. The pool deck should have a
minimum width of 6 feet to meet
post 10/01/99 pools.
Area drains are located in the pool
deck, evenly spaced and offset
approximately 6 ft. behind the pool
edge and two locations within the
pool deck at shade structure
location. There are numerous deck
drains that have sunk where the
drain grate cover is below the
surface of the deck concrete. These
areas are outlined in red and pose a
risk as a tripping hazard. In addition,
there is concern of a potential
failure of drainage piping under the pool deck.
Thomas Park Pool Audit 7
Pool deck replacement is recommended to allow for removal of the old diving board
platform and additional replacement needed for any pool piping and gutter repairs.
Replacement of joint sealant is also recommended for long term maintenance.
Re-caulk all deck expansion joints.
Opinion of probable cost: $3,000
Remove the 1-Meter dive stand. Verify with a structural engineer that removal of
stand does not impact the structural slab for the pool piping tunnel below. Replace
pool deck in the demolition area.
Opinion of probable cost: $12,000
Pressure test pool deck drainage piping. If leaks are found, replace all deck drainage
piping and pool decks.
Opinion of probable cost: $100,000
1.5 Pool Enclosure
The pool enclosure is approximately
8 feet tall and the material is chain-
link. Section 265.200 of the Texas
Admirative Code requires the
enclosure to be a minimum of 6 feet
tall for this type of facility, be
designed so that it is not readily
climbed and have no openings in
the enclosure of which a 4-inch
sphere can pass.
The height and material of the fence meets the intent of the current code, however
there are several sections that include a mid-rail which could potentially be used to
climb the fence. There are also areas located on the bottom of the fence that show
greater than 4” openings.
Thomas Park Pool Audit 8
Closing the 4” openings and removing the mid-rails on the chain-link fence is
recommended to comply with the intent of Section 265.200 of the Texas
Administrative Code.
Opinion of probable cost: $3,000
1.6 Hose Bibs
Post 10/01/99 pools require an adequate number of hose bibs and adequate hoses
to be provided for washing down all areas of the deck. Only one hose bib accessible
to the deck was observed during the site visit.
Providing water service hose bibs around the deck should be a consideration for
deck washing purposes.
Opinion of probable cost: $3,000*
*Cost could vary depending on location and number of hose bibs provided as well as
the location of the nearest potable water source.
Pool Bathhouse
1.1 General
The existing building is approximately 943 square feet and was built in 1980. The
building is constructed of the following materials:
Foundation:
· concrete slab-on-grade (foundation system unknown)
Exterior walls:
· single-wythe concrete masonry with cementitious coating
· wood framing with wood siding
Interior walls:
· concrete masonry
Roofing system:
· asphalt shingle on plywood decking; Harditrim fascia and eaves
Windows:
· vinyl windows (recently replaced)
Thomas Park Pool Audit 9
1.2 Exterior Building Condition
The exterior walls of the building
show signs of movement. This is
evidenced in the appearance of
cracking along the mortar joints of
the concrete masonry. The exterior
cementitious skim coating of the
building is showing signs of aging,
including this cracking and
discoloration and water infiltration
along the cracking. The siding
portions of the exterior are in
reasonable condition, though one
hole was observed on the south side. The eave trim is in good condition. The roof
shingles appear to be relatively new; however, roofing granules were observed on
the ground around the building, which may be a sign of damage caused by the
recent hail storm. Confirmation of this would be required by a roofing inspector.
1.3 Interior Building Condition
As the building is constructed of single-wythe
concrete masonry walls, the cracking that is
apparent on the exterior is also seen at
locations at the interior. Cracking in the slab
was not observed (the slab recently received a
new resinous floor coating which may be
concealing hairline cracking.) No signs of roof
leaks were observed.
Interior doors are in poor condition and are
not holding up well to the wet environment.
Wood doors are delaminating; restroom entry
doors are showing signs of corrosion.
Thomas Park Pool Audit 10
1.4 Fire Safety Systems
The building does not have a fire protection (sprinkler) system, nor does it have a
fire alarm system. Based on the size of the building, neither is required by code. A
fire extinguisher was observed in the guard room.
1.5 Mechanical Systems
The building is naturally ventilated and does not have a central heating and cooling
system. Unit heaters were observed in the restrooms, likely on a thermostat to help
prevent pipe freezing in the winter. It is not known if the heaters are in working
condition, but staff noted that there were problems with freezing of piping during
this past winter.
1.6 Electrical Systems
This review did not include an assessment of
concealed wiring systems but only items
observed on building exposed surfaces. No
power outlets were observed in either restroom
or shower area. In the area of the water
fountain, an outlet was observed below the
fountain and adjacent to a hose bib. This outlet
is not a ground-fault interrupter and is thus not
compliant with code, as it is within 5 feet of a
water source. Electrical panels are located
within a closet off the guard room and appear to
have appropriate clearances. Building lighting is
working and is adequate for the room functions.
However, no exit signs or emergency lighting are present.
1.7 Plumbing
Plumbing fixtures appear to be original to the building. City staff noted that there
are ongoing issues with clogged drains, leaks, and faucet handle failure. Trench
drains in the restrooms are present, but the grates are non-removable thus making
it quite difficult to clean out the trench or unclog the drain. Most notably it was
observed that the number of plumbing fixtures is small. Based on the occupancy
and current code requirements, there should be 3 water closets provided for the
Thomas Park Pool Audit 11
women’s room (per Texas Administrative Code, based on 250 pool occupants);
however, there are only 2. Current code requires 2 fixtures for the men’s room, and
there are 2 fixtures. Concerning lavatories, per Texas Administrative Code for pools,
there should be 2 sinks per gender. However, there is only 1 in each restroom area.
The 2 showers in each restroom are 36” x 36” each. Based on the pool occupancy, 2
showers per gender is adequate.
A water cooler is present. See below for accessibility compliance comments.
Code requires a janitor’s sink; none is present.
A water heater was observed; it was not seen if this water heater has an anti-scald
mechanism required by Section 265.201 of the Texas Administrative Code.
1.8 Accessibility
Based on visual observation of the current conditions, the following items pose an
accessibility problem:
1. The admission window is
not accessible.
Thomas Park Pool Audit 12
2. Curbs within the building
cause the guard room
and shower areas to be
inaccessible
3. There is no toilet stall
in either restroom
that complies with
accessibility
requirements.
4. Though shower stall size
could comply, the
showers are missing the
appropriate plumbing
arrangement and fixtures
as well as seating that is
required for accessibility.
Thomas Park Pool Audit 13
5. Showers are missing the
necessary clear floor area
in front of the showers
for wheelchair access.
6. Doors to the restrooms
do not meet the
necessary push and pull
clearances.
Thomas Park Pool Audit 14
7. Restrooms signage is not
compliant in graphics,
placement, and is missing
the required Braille.
8. The water fountain is
required to accommodate
high-low access by having
2 units; only one unit is
provided.
1.9 Building Function
There are several concerns with building that may impact function and safety:
1. The entry is visually separate from the interior area of the pool and
building. This can be a problem for the staff, as staff may not see if
there is a problem at the entry.
2. Sight lines from the guard room are limited. It is not possible to
maintain a constant view of those who enter the restrooms.
Thomas Park Pool Audit 15
3. Having no lobby or central desk area prevents the staff from being
able to monitor activity of multiple areas of the facility at the same
time.
4. The doors to the storage area block access to the restroom when
opened.
5. Small windows at the guard room, with wall in between, prevent clear
view of the pool and deck occupants.
6. No private dressing areas are provided.
1.10 Feasibility of Building Upgrades
Given the construction systems used and the layout of this building, improvements
to address concerns noted above would be challenging. To improve the plumbing
and accessibility deficiencies, significant structural modifications will be required, as
the current area does not offer enough space to make these improvements within
the existing area. An addition would be required. Also, given the masonry walls,
plumbing improvements to this building will be very invasive and costly to
implement.
Given the age and current state of this building, the cost of an addition and
renovations to the existing facility could be estimated as follows:
Building addition 500sf x $300= $150,000
Building renovation 943sf x $125= $117,875
Total $267,875*
*Square foot estimate figures are based on a general knowledge of
construction costs and trends in our area and are intended to provide an
approximate scale of cost. Figures provided are not an actual construction
cost.
Though the cost of a new building would be more than this, this figure represents a
number perhaps exceeding 50 percent of the value of a new building, without
offering the same functional improvements that a new building would offer. It
perhaps would be a better long-term investment of public funds to build in a new
facility than modifying this building with its inherent challenges.
Thomas Park Pool Audit 16
Pool and Mechanical Systems
If the owner wants to continue using the Thomas Park Pool, Counsilman-Hunsaker
recommends the immediate action of a structural assessment and the replacement of
the under-pool recirculation piping to meet applicable health and safety codes.
Depending on the results of these assessments, multiple outcomes have been studied.
Pool Structure - The structural assessment shall include the following:
· Drain the pool of all water.
· Plug all pool piping and isolate the pool shell.
· Remove any debris and current plaster finish the bare pool finish and/or
structure.
· Visually inspect the structure for any visible cracks or deformities.
· Repair all cracks and deformities as needed and perform a water tightness
test for the pool shell in accordance with ACI (American Concrete Institute)
requirements.
· If the pool shell does not pass a water tightness test, consult a structural
engineer to conduct further investigation including but not limited to
taking core samples of concrete structures, using ground penetrating radar
to locate potential voids on the pool structure and providing
recommendations for additional repair and/or waterproofing methods.
Pool Structure Options: If the pool shell is in need of replacement, two (2) plans of
action are suggested as detailed below.
· The first provided option is to repair the areas identified by the structural
engineer.
· The second provided option would be to replace the existing pool. This can
be accomplished by either demolishing the existing pool and replacing it with
a new code compliant pool or spray pad, or to construct a new pool inside
the existing pool.
A. POOL ITEMS
1.1 General Pool Information
General Pool Information – Outdoor Lap/Recreation Pool
· Built in 1979 (per provided information)
· Renovated in 1993 and 2002 (per provided information)
· Surface Area = (4,637 SF) Measured
· Perimeter = (334 FT) Measured
Thomas Park Pool Audit 17
· Dimensions = (82’-1” x 41’’-9”) Lap Area
· Dimensions = (44’-8” x 26’’-9”) Shallow Area
· Depth Range = (2’-6” to 12’-8”) Posted
· Volume = Approximately 166,000 gallons (calculated per site visit
measurements)
· Flow rate = 700 gpm (based on pump ID tag)
1.2 Perimeter Overflow System
The Lap/Recreation Pool perimeter overflow system is a fully recessed stainless-steel
gutter system with an integral pressure tube for return water. The stainless-steel gutter
was retrofitted into this pool in 2002 along with updates to the pool concrete, main
drains, filter room piping and pool finishes.
Due to the excessive daily water loss and consistent wet spots on the pool deck, its
logical to assume that a portion of the water loss is due to leaks in the pool gutter. The
likely location is the pressure tube providing filtered and chemically treated water back
to the pool. Typically, leaks in stainless steel gutters can be found at weld joints, change
of direction locations and flange locations.
At the time of my review, water level in the pool was approximately 1 ½” to 2” below
rim overflow condition.
Thomas Park Pool Audit 18
Recommendations
Immediate:
The gutter pressure tube and all connecting piping (suction and pressure) should be
pressure tested to confirm all leak locations. Deck removal will likely need to occur to
repair leak points. Any welding repair to the stainless-steel gutter should be performed
by a qualified welder experienced with stainless steel pool gutters
Opinion of probable cost: $25,000 (does not included deck replacement)
1.3 Structure and Finish
The original pool shell was constructed in 1979 and renovated in in 1993 & 2002. It
should be noted that the current life expectancy of a concrete pool shell is
approximately 30 to 40 years. The pool was full of untreated water at the time of my
visit. Therefore, my inspection of the pool shell and finish was minimal. Pool staff
reported that the pool loses an estimated 200,000 to 225,000 gallons of water a month.
This calculates to 6,700 to 7,500 gallons a day or 5+ gallons a minute.
Pool drawings provided by city staff indicate that the pool experienced extensive
concrete crack and joint repair in 1993. Additionally, the pool was originally designed
with floor inlets. All floor inlets were “capped and abandoned” in 2002.
Pool staff also relayed that the pool expansion joints have been a concern for pool
leakage.
Thomas Park Pool Audit 19
The pool finish could not be observed since the pool was full of water. Staff relayed that
the plaster finish is questionable and needs to be replaced. Typically, plaster finishes for
outdoor pools last 8 to 10 years based upon water quality and proper chemical balance.
Recommendations
Immediate:
Due to the age and current condition of the existing pool structure, Counsilman-
Hunsaker recommends draining the pool, remove the plaster finish to the bare concrete
pool structure (methods may include sandblasting, hydro-blasting, or other mechanical
abrasive means) and consult a structural engineer to inspect the structural integrity of
the pool. Hammer testing or borings may be required to determine potential voids
under the pool shell.
Opinion of probable cost: $5,000 (Structural Inspection)
$50,000+ (Epoxy injection/crack repair & mud jacking)
Future:
Due to the age and current condition of the existing pool structure and the lengthy list
of issues, it is recommended to provide a new reinforced concrete pool structure if not
initially required by the structural engineering assessment.
Opinion of probable cost: $1,224,000 (To replace the existing pool with a pool of
equal size and depth)
Thomas Park Pool Audit 20
1.4 Main Drains
The main drains in the Lap/Recreation Pool could not be inspected due to the pool being
full of untreated water. The drain covers appear to be the Hayward SP-1033 installed as
part of the 2002 renovation. Please note, these main drain covers are not VGB (Virginia
Graeme Baker) compliant. All pool main drains in public pools are to be compliant per
the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act (VGB) ASME/ANSI A112.19.81 signed
into Law on December 19, 2007.
The main drain replacement detail shown below taken from the 2002 renovation
drawings does not show water stop at the concrete cold joint. Unless this was addressed
during construction, this could be contributing to the loss of water the pool is
experiencing.
Recommendations
Immediate:
After plaster coating is removed, use a high-pressure epoxy injection system to seal the
concrete cold joints.
Opinion of probable cost: $3,800
Install VGB compliant main drain covers.
Opinion of probable cost: $2,800
Thomas Park Pool Audit 21
1.5 Inlets
The Lap/Recreation pool water is treated and returned to the pool through a pressure
tube integral to the pool gutter system. The pressure tube consists of multiple 5/16”
holes around the perimeter of the pool at the base of the gutter introducing treated
water back to the pool. This limits treated water distribution to areas near the pool
gutter often starving the center of the pool of chemically treated water, particularly
during high bather load. Pool staff noted that a wet area on the pool deck was related
to a leak in the pressure tube on the stainless-steel gutter system.
Pool drawings provided by city staff note that all floor inlets were “capped and
abandoned” in 2002. It is not indicated how these inlets were capped and verified as
“water tight”, to avoid future leakage. The original piping was cast-iron and the
potential exists that this piping has now corroded to the extent that is has collapsed and
created leak points and/or voids under the pool slab.
Recommendations
Immediate:
Pressure test stainless-steel gutter pressure tube system to pinpoint leak locations.
Typically, leaks occur where the gutter changes direction, weld joints, and flange
locations.
Opinion of probable cost: $3,500 (Leak Detection)
$12,000+ (Leak Repair)
Thomas Park Pool Audit 22
1.6 Warning Signs and Depth Markings
Horizontal depth markers are 6” x 6” tiles with 4” lettering located on the pool deck
behind the recesses gutter. No diving markers are located on the pool deck at depths of
5’-0” and less. Vertical depth markers are located on the face of the stainless-steel
gutter.
Recommendations
No action needed. Current depth markers meet all code and safety requirement.
1.7 Ingress and Egress
The Lap/Recreation Pool is equipped with four (4) sets of grab rails and one stair
location with two entry rails. Pool Ladders and rails were removed and stored at the
time of my review.
The only means of ADA compliance was a hydraulic handicap lift that was stored at the
time of my review. Per the ADA requirements, any pool with a perimeter length more
than 300 Linear Feet must have two (2) means of access. This can be accomplished by
adding a third rail to the entry steps, adding a second pool lift or a portable stair.
Thomas Park Pool Audit 23
Recommendations
Immediate:
Install a 3rd rail to the pool stair entry that meets ADA dimensional requirements.
Opinion of probable cost: $2,400
Optional: Add a second pool lift to meet ADA accessibility requirements
Opinion of probable cost: $7,200
1.8 Underwater Lights
The Lap/Recreation Pool is equipped with one underwater light located at the deep end
of the pool. The light is a dry-niche style light located within the filter room pump and
piping pit. The view port for the light is watertight with no visible leaks. The light swing
arm is operational and functions as designed. Pool staff relayed that the light is
operational and is used occasionally.
Rule 265.192 (o) of the Texas Administrative Code Notes the following:
Electrical safety of underwater lights in post-10/01/99 and pre-10/01/99 pools and
spas. Underwater lights are not required in post-10/01/99 and pre-10/01/99 pools and
spas. If the lights have no epoxy insulation, have cracked insulation, have spliced
connection cords, or have been modified in violation of an applicable electrical code,
they shall be replaced with lights complying with this section.
Thomas Park Pool Audit 24
Recommendations
Immediate:
Confirm underwater light are properly bonded as per NEC 680.
B. DECK EQUIPMENT AND STRUCTURES
2.1 Waterslide
The Lap/Recreation pool is equipped with one (1) small closed flume waterslide. This
waterslide is in the shallow area (4’-0”) of the pool. The waterslide appears to be in
good condition. Water is supplied to the slide via a pressure hose tapped into the
stainless-steel gutter pressure tube supply system. The slide steel is required to be
grounded per NEC 680. No grounding wire was visible.
Thomas Park Pool Audit 25
Recommendations
Immediate:
Verify that waterslide is bonded to an electrical grid as required by NEC 680. “All metal
objects in a pool or within 5 ft. of the pool must be bonded.
Opinion of probable cost: $1,500
2.2 Deck, Maintenance, and Safety Equipment
At the time of my review, all deck, maintenance, and safety equipment had been stored
for the winter season in the bathhouse and the pool mechanical spaces.
Recommendations
Immediate:
The aquatic safety protocol was not discussed at the time of the site visit. It is
recommended to take inventory of the present equipment to ensure compliance with
all local and state codes. The following safety equipment items should be found
throughout the facility and its support spaces.
According to the Texas Administrative Code, If the pool has between 2,000 and 4,000
square feet of water surface area, an additional reaching pole and throwing rope with
Thomas Park Pool Audit 26
ring buoy, as described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph shall be provided.
If the pool has over 4,000 square feet of water surface area, an additional reaching pole
and throwing rope with ring buoy as described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this
paragraph shall be provided for each 6,000 square feet of water surface area or portion
thereof over 4,000 square feet. All such lifesaving equipment shall be mounted in
conspicuous places around the pool deck within 20 feet of the pool. All lifesaving
equipment shall be kept in good repair and ready condition.
(2) Backboards at post-10/01/99 and pre-10/01/99 pools. Post-10/01/99 and pre-
10/01/99 Class A and B pools and Class C pools that have a diving board, slide, or
lifeguard shall have one or more backboards with a minimum of 3 tie down straps and
head immobilizer for back and neck injuries. (3) First aid kits at post-10/01/99 and pre-
10/01/99 pools. Post-10/01/99 and pre-10/01/99 Class A and B pools and other pools
with lifeguards shall be equipped with a first aid kit meeting OSHA requirements. First
aid kits shall be a standard 24-unit kit and housed in a durable weather resistant
container and kept filled and ready for use (including disease transmission barriers and
cleansing kits that meet OSHA standards.
C. POOL MECHANICAL ITEMS
3.1 Piping and Valves
The visible piping in the mechanical/filter area was observed to be in fair condition. It is
assumed this piping was placed in 2002 during the renovation. There are numerous
locations where the piping has been compromised with drilled holes chemical
monitoring and injection. Drilled holes generally lead to leaks over time. Additionally,
there are multiple locations where repair couplings have been used. Repair couplings
are designed to be a temporary fix until permanent pipe replacement can be installed.
The piping in the mechanical/filter area was not color coded and did not have
directional flow arrows. Per Texas Administrative Code, “The piping system shall have
direction of flow arrows indicated on the pipes.”
Overall, the filter room valves appear to be in working condition. There is one valve on
the filter face piping that requires a new handle. Additionally, all valve hardware is
corroding and replacement is recommended. Hardware on the repair couplings also
need to be replaced.
Thomas Park Pool Audit 27
Recommendations
Immediate:
Replace all valve, flange and repair coupling hardware with stainless steel hardware.
Opinion of probable cost: $3,200
Future:
Replace valves as needed.
Opinion of probable cost: $800 (per valve)
Thomas Park Pool Audit 28
3.2 Pumps
The filtration area is equipped with one (1), 1750 RPM, 208/460 Volt, 3 phase, 700 GPM,
70 TDH 20 HP recirculation pump. The pool pump motor was running warm, which is
normal for a TEFC pool pump. No vacuum gauge was present on the intake side of the
pump. The pump has a bonding wire wrapped around the electrical conduit mounted to
the pump electrical box. Pool pumps are required to be bonded per NEC 680.
Recommendations
Immediate:
Continue to monitor pump flow and pressure. Install a vacuum gauge on the suction
side of the pump. Verify that the pump system is properly bonded as per NEC 680.
With the replacement of a new recirculation pump, it is recommended to provide a
variable frequency drive (VFD) to the pump to increase pump efficiency and provide
energy savings. A VFD should be a product manufactured for the commercial aquatics
industry like a Pentair Acu-Drive (Danfoss) or a H20-Technologies Smart Pump Control
System (SPCS).
Opinion of probable cost: $7,000
Thomas Park Pool Audit 29
3.3 Filtration System
Currently, the filtration system consists of two (2) 48x84 horizontal high rate sand filters
originally manufactured by Stark and now supported and produced by Paragon. The
filters appear to be in good condition and according to pool staff, operate as designed.
Pool staff was uncertain as to when the filtration sand was last replaced. Typically, filter
sand is replaced every 10 years.
Recommendations
Immediate:
If the filter sand is older than 10 years, it is recommended to replace the sand. After
filter sand is removed, carefully inspect the filter laterals to confirm no cracks or
material failures. It is also removed to replace the manway gaskets at the same time the
sand is replaced.
Opinion of probable cost: $4,000
3.4 Chemical Treatment System
Currently, the pool sanitizer is Calcium Hypochlorite (dry chlorine) that is fed with a new
Accu-Tab Model 3150 Chlorination System. The pH is controlled with muriatic acid that
is pumped with two peristaltic pumps located next to the chemical controller. The
chemical controller is a Chemtrol PC2000 which appears to be working as required.
Thomas Park Pool Audit 30
Recommendations
Immediate:
Maintain probe life by cleaning with a soft tooth brush and dish detergent. It is also
recommended to have extra probes in preparation of eventual probe failure.
Install a Y-Strainer on the intake side of the flow sensor to avoid getting dirt clogged in
the flow sensor.
Opinion of probable cost: $150
3.5 UV System
The pool UV system was not functioning at the time of my review. Pool staff reported
that the UV system is not operational and has not been functional in recent years.
Thomas Park Pool Audit 31
Recommendations
Immediate:
Replace UV System as a second means of disinfection.
Opinion of probable cost: $53,000
Summary of Recommendations and Costs
The following cost estimate addresses the items identified in this report needing repair,
replacement, or renovation. The estimate addresses the deficiencies of the aquatic
center and swimming pool, safety related items for the facility, and code related items
that are required by local governing agencies.
Each cost estimate item has a priority ranking, “Short-Term / Immediate” being the
highest priority items that need immediate attention, are safety issues, code and
regulation issues, or tasks done in conjunction with another “Short-Term / Immediate”
item and should be completed immediately. Priority “Long-Term / Future” items are
items that are functioning presently but may need to be addressed soon or should be
included with the renovation work at this time. Priority “Anytime” items are items that
present energy saving opportunities that do not have to be added due to any code
requirements.
Thomas Park Pool Audit 32
The opinion of probable costs provided for all the options listed are strictly “ball park”
numbers and are meant as a starting point for budgetary and planning purposes to
schedule repairs in the future. Counsilman-Hunsaker highly recommends soliciting
multiple bid quotes for each item prior to contracting any work to ensure the most
competitive and up to date bid numbers.
Long-term considerations of possible pool replacement: Counsilman-Hunsaker can offer
multiple services to assist with designing a new pool or an entire new facility to fit the
needs to the College Station community.
Immediate Recommendations
1 Pressure test and repair stainless steel gutter system which
may include deck replacement
$40,500.00
2 Repair pool structural issues including structural inspection, crack
and expansion joint repairs
$55,000.00
3 Replace main drains with VGB compliant main drain sumps and
Covers and seal main drain sumps
$ 6,600.00
4 Install a second means of egress for ADA accessibility $ 2,400.00
5 Ground pool slide per NEC 690 $ 1,500.00
6 Replace pool piping hangers, supports and flange hardware $ 3.200.00
7 Install new VFD for pool pump $ 7,000.00
8 Replace filter sand $ 4,000.00
9 Install new Y-strainer for chemical controller $ 150.00
10 Install new UV system $53,000.00
Total $173,350.00
20% Contingency $ 34,670.00
Total (2018 USD) $208,020.00
Long Term/Future Recommendations
1 Replace Lap/Recreation Pool* $1,063,920.00
Total $1,063,920.00
20% Contingency $ 212,784.00
Total (2018 USD) $1,276,704.00
*This item is for the pool only. It does not include any deck replacement, drainage
piping, etc.
Thomas Park Pool Audit 33
Summary of Opinion of Probably Costs
Summary of Opinion of Probable Costs
1 General Site
2 Parking Lot $ 15,000.00
3 Pool Deck $ 3,000.00
4 Pool Enclosure $ 12,000.00
5 Hose Bibs $100,000.00
6 Bathhouse $267,875.00
7 Pool and Pool Mechanical
8 Pressure test and repair stainless steel gutter system which
may include deck replacement
$40,500.00
9 Repair pool structural issues including structural inspection,
crack and expansion joint repairs
$55,000.00
10 Replace main drains with VGB compliant main drain sumps
and covers and seal main drain sumps
$ 6,600.00
11 Install a second means of egress for ADA accessibility $ 2,400.00
12 Ground pool slide per NEC 690 $ 1,500.00
13 Replace pool piping hangers, supports and flange hardware $ 3,200.00
14 Install new VFD for pool pump $ 7,000.00
15 Replace filter sand $ 4,000.00
16 Install new Y-strainer for chemical controller $ 150.00
17 Install new UV system $ 53,000.00
18 Total $571,225.00
19 20% Contingency $114,245.00
20 Total (2018 USD) $685,470.00
Thomas Park Pool Audit 34
Conclusion and Final Recommendations
The items and observations in this report reflect only the observable conditions during
the site visit. Renovation costs to bring this facility up to code will exceed $600,000 and
potentially more as there are some unknown conditions regarding the pool shell. It is
recommended to perform further structural tests on the pool shell to determine if the
structure needs repair. It is also suggested that the report be amended and/or expanded
as necessary by individuals that have been involved with the day-to-day operation of the
facility. Their experience and knowledge of the pool's history is vital in preparing a
comprehensive appraisal of the facilities shortcomings and specific defects.
The observations during the audit at Thomas Park Pool were in line with many same
aged facilities studied across the state and the country. Factors such as weather, years
of physical use, and maintenance practices can attribute to the facilities reaching the
end of their life cycles in 30 to 50 years.
While the facility has reached its physical obsolescence, the functionality of the facility
has also reached obsolescence. Most traditional style pools across the country have
seen a decline in annual attendance as trends in the aquatic industry have been leaning
toward providing more recreational value in aquatic facilities. Features such as lazy
rivers, water slides and children’s play structures have been incorporated adding value
while increasing attendance numbers and helping to offset operations costs.
The decision to make the necessary repairs to this facility depends on the overall goals
of the City. Rehabilitating a facility that has such low functionality relative to today’s
aquatic trends will not increase the attendance of the facility, thus limiting any increase
in revenue. Operations costs may improve slightly by reducing the amount of water loss
and corresponding chemical use. If the aquatic programming needs of the citizens are
being met by other facilities in the City, it may be more cost effective to better utilize
the site by providing different aquatic programming elements, such as a spray ground or
splash pad.
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
College Station, TX
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:118-0539 Name:Exclusive Bike Facilities
Status:Type:Presentation Agenda Ready
File created:In control:8/9/2018 City Council Workshop
On agenda:Final action:8/23/2018
Title:Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding exclusive bicycle facilities such as the
Veloway in Austin, TX.
Sponsors:Venessa Garza
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding exclusive bicycle facilities such as the
Veloway in Austin, TX.
Relationship to Strategic Goals:
·Good Governance
·Financially Sustainable City
·Core Services and Infrastructure
·Improving Mobility
·Diverse Growing Economy
·Sustainable City
Recommendation(s): Receive staff’s presentation and provide feedback and direction as desired.
This item was discussed at the July 16, 2018 Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Advisory Board
meeting and the July 19, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. There was general
consensus in support of the concept but agreed that projects identified in the Bicycle, Pedestrian and
Greenways Master Plan were a higher priority.
Summary: City Council requested this item at their June 14, 2018 meeting after hearing from citizens
who were interested in a safer way to ride their bikes for recreation that is separate from vehicles,
pedestrians, and pets. Staff will provide an overview of the types of bicycle facilities that could meet
their needs and share examples such as the Veloway in Austin, Texas.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments: N/A
College Station, TX Printed on 8/17/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™