Pool Committee Presents Potential Aquatic Facility Location

Committee Presented Eight Locations to Common Council on Tuesday

At the May 23 meeting of the City of Marshfield Common Council, the Pool Committee presented on site selection.

Formed in June 2016, working with Ayers and Associates, 13 committee members evaluated the current pool situation, then in January 2017 presented results of their pool study. Council then directed them to look at various sites around town that would be appropriate for a new aquatic facility.

“We picked sites that we thought might work, as well as took suggestions from everybody and anybody that might offer a spot,” explained Chairman Ben Lee at the meeting.

The committee evaluated 20 initial proposed sites, and then narrowed the list down to the 8 sites presented at Tuesday’s meeting. Twelve sites were eliminated for various reasons, including incongruence with the City’s Master Plan, space restrictions, Development Services’ comments, location in the City, aesthetics, and location on wetlands/floodplain.

“Through those items, we were able to drop it down to our top 8 contenders,” said Lee.

These locations are:

  • Braem Park
  • Felker Brothers property
  • Street Department property
  • First Presbyterian adjacent
  • Former United Rental site
  • North of Griese Park
  • South of Griese Park
  • Current Hefko Pool location

Sites were evaluated based on several criteria, with a various weight value applied to each.

LEARN MORE ABOUT PREPPING HEFKO POOL FOR SUMMER – CLICK HERE.

“We decided we needed an objective matrix, a way to score all of the sites,” said Lee.

These evaluations were based on the following, with each item given a different weight in the matrix:

  • Space/Acreage – Weight=5
    (total amount of acreage needed to build an aquatic facility)
  • Cost of Land – W5
    (amount of money needed to pay for land acquisition and/or displacement of existing property owners)
  • Timeline – W5
    (how long would it take to acquire or develop the site and relocation of the current property owners)
  • Safe Access/Traffic – W4
    (ability of visitors to easily travel to the site
  • Aesthetics/Neighborhood – W4
    (overall beauty of the surrounding buildings, vegetation, streets, power lines, etc…)
  • Location near Trail System – W3
    (how close the site is to the City’s bicycle/pedestrian trail system)
  • Benefits to Other Park Facilities -W3
    (the improvement the aquatic facility might have on an adjoining park and its facilities
  • Infrastructure/Utilities – W3
    (the existing service already in place)
  • Expansion of other Recreation Possibilities -W3
    (an aquatic facility’s opportunity to develop additional recreation facilities based on community’s needs)
  • Buildable – W3
    (the site’s natural geological features and manmade features)
  • Population Density – W2
    (the site location geographically in the City and whether is located near or away from residential housing)
  • Economic Impact – W2
    (the aquatic facility’s ability to improve neighboring businesses)
  • Demographic W1
    (the site’s close proximity near young families)

“All 13 of us worked through our matrix, put our score on each one of the items, each one of the sites got a different weight, and in the end ending up with the score on the right side,” said Lee. “Our top contender was the Hefko Pool site.”

Final action is planned for the June 13 meeting of the Common Council.

Facebook Comments