story by Ryan Saylor
rsaylor@thecitywire.com
Concerns raised earlier this year by members of the Sebastian County Quorum Court that the planned Ben Geren Aquatics Center could come in over budget have been realized after County Judge David Hudson revealed at Tuesday’s (Nov. 12) Quorum Court meeting that designers have estimated the water park to cost almost $11 million should all features requested in public meetings be in included in the design.
The issue of cost estimates was brought up by Justice of the Peace Shawn Looper during a Quorum Court Study Session dealing with the 2014 budget.
"I asked a question - if we had any numbers on the water park," he said. "The only thing we got was the verbal that the preliminary came back at $11 million. He said he would send something (in writing) today, but I haven't seen anything yet."
Fort Smith Deputy City Administrator Jeff Dingman confirmed the figure, as well.
"As I understand it, that's the number. It's not quite $11 million, but it's close enough that it might as well be."
During an interview Monday (Nov. 11), Hudson would not confirm figures to The City Wire.
"I don't know exactly what to tell you on that without these numbers being verified and we should know this week," he said. "I've not given anybody that number in the decision-making role and I would prefer to do that in that fashion rather than release any numbers through the media."
An attempt to contact Hudson Wednesday (Nov. 13) was unsuccessful, though Hudson and Fort Smith City Administrator Ray Gosack did provide requested documentation regarding the aquatics center from the previous month.
A Nov. 1 e-mail from Andy Smith of Larkin Aquatics details changes that would bring the pool back to an original budget between $8 million and $8.8 million, the latter of which would require additional funds be approved by the county. The city's Board of Directors approved the additional funding in March.
"As requested, we modified the pool concept to bring the construction cost in the $8.0 to $8.8M range. We consider the attached plan adequate for cost estimating, but if we choose to move forward this particular concept, there are still some details to be worked out with the pools. We have discussed with Flintco and concluded this concept should fall within the desired budget."
In a memo to Gosack dated today, Hudson himself detailed the reductions included in the revised concept Smith submitted to Gosack, Stubblefield and Fort Smith Parks and Recreation Director Mike Alsup. They include:
• The filtration systems have been reduced from three to two. The slide area has been combined with the lazy river and activity pool;
• The lazy river has been shortened from 600 feet to 400 feet;
• The activity pool is approximately 40% smaller with fewer features;
• Water slides have been revised with the deletion of the raft slide to include all body slides, two speed slides, one open slide and one enclosed body slide;
• The toddler pool area is smaller by 20%, the main structure is smaller, reduced by two structures to one, designed as a modular component that could be installed in phases;
• There is no dive well; and
• Bath house redesign is in process that could save approximately $300,000.
Final revisions should be ready within two weeks, Hudson noted.
A Nov. 4 e-mail responding to a preliminary summary of the now-confirmed revised concept included a request from Gosack for a joint meeting of the Fort Smith Board of Directors and the Sebastian County Quorum Court.
"It seems like we’ll need fundamental design decisions made by next month if we hope to begin construction in spring 2014," he writes.
As for what will happen with the project, there is a lot of uncertainty. Hudson said in his memo to Gosack that both bodies could either allocate additional funding or could build the smaller facility.
Looper, who has never been a proponent of the project, said he feels it is time to pull the plug on the aquatics center.
"I think they need to pull out if they can't do the project right. (Hudson's) statement (Tuesday night) was they instructed the construction manager to tell them what they can build for $8 million," he said, adding that he asked about the project last night because it was a major financial obligation yet Hudson was not being forthcoming with numbers.
"I don't know how you get from the $8 million to $11 million. I don't know where we'd get that money. Delaying (the opening) to 2015 is what's allowing us to get that $4 million. You'd have to delay the project (again) to get the sales tax proceeds to pay for that (additional amount). That's why I initially brought it up. If you have a larger figure out there, we need to know it because it affects the 2014 budget," Looper said. "If you reduce the project back down and you build a smaller water park, how does that affect the users? It affects the (attendance) projections. It's complicated and it needs to be included in the 2014 budget."
Looper said he was also upset that the cost overruns have been known by Hudson and others for nearly two weeks before being brought to light on Tuesday.
"I'm always upset that we don't get timely information," he said. "It's important that we get timely information. The more you know, the better information you have. …That bothers me (that Hudson did not disclose the cost overrun earlier). To me, that should have been presented with the budget. I see nothing gained by holding it. …Yeah, I didn't know he got it two weeks ago. Yeah, that bothers me."
As for how the city is reacting to the projected higher budget, Dingman said it was a disappointment.
"There's a lot of disappointment on the part of both the city and the county," he said. "We have a finite amount of dollars. The concepts that were shown and talked about and the amenities that people thought they would get for that (when Fort Smith voters approved a sales tax paying for the park) – it simply won't be enough to get everything that we want."
No date has yet been set for a joint meeting of the Board of Directors and the Quorum Court.