For East Grand Forks pool, options risk being too costly or too blah
November 20, 2012 at 3:35 pm in Grand Forks Herald
East Grand Forks City Council members Tuesday narrowed their pool options from five to two, one that might cost too much and another that might offer too little. On the low end, repairing the pool could cost $1.5 million. On the high end, building a new one could cost $4.3 million. Continue Reading
“zero-depth entry pool, water slides and other play features. ”
Skill-free wastes of time. What’s the point of having a swimming pool if there’s no emphasis on teaching kids swimming/diving skills?
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
24
A pool for east grand forks adds to “quality of life” for those residents. The same as a school addition in Thompson. It is fine if residents vote against these things, but your comments never bring anything constructive to the table. Grand Forks, East Grand Forks, Thompson are trying to be progressive, not regressive. Its amenities, schools, etc that bring people to the area. Affordable housing also helps with that which is a big concern.
Having a negative attitude across the board is not constructive. Many people would like to see improvements to the community and have very good ideas, some that cost alot, some that cost little. The bottom line is they are constructive, unlike your posts.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
10
My thoughts exactly.
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
10
Schurkey, do you honestly think that all the features of all the options were listed in the article? Of course swimming and swimming lessons are a big part of all the options. In 4 out of the 5 options, there is an entire pool dedicated to laps and swimming lessons. The zero depth entry is an ADA requirement, so please don’t talk out of left field when referring to specifics of this project.
I would have loved to have seen you at the public meetings that were held on the pool so you could have had some input, but also so you could see the whole picture. If you send me your e-mail, I will put you on the Save Our Pool mailing list so you can get the correct info on what is happening with the pool.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
11
“What’s the point of having a swimming pool if there’s no emphasis on teaching kids swimming/diving skills?”
“Of course swimming and swimming lessons are a big part of all the options.”
I notice a complete lack of emphasis on diving.
Were I an EGF resident, that would be enough to turn me away from a pool remodel.
Since I am not an EGF resident–but attended that pool as a paying customer thousands of years ago–I’m satisfied with leaving EGF to deal with their own infrastructure; other than to point out the way that “skill-free” designs are infecting Society; with kids as the major victims–who then grow up to be scaredy-cat parents of the next generation of even less-skilled kids.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
Has this alternative been studied? 360 degree zero entry sand beach style, 1.75 acre pool, max depth 6 ft., bath house, large permanent umbrellas. Could it be the cheapest alternative. There are quite a few of these in MSP metro. Shakopee, Minnetrista Regional Park, Maple Grove.
http://twincities.metromix.com/other/recreation_facilities/lake-minnetonka-swimming-pond-southwest-suburbs/1896915/content
Like or Dislike:
15 
3
As I understand it the base is lined with a heavy gauge rubber fabric like on a building roof & overlaid with a foot or so of sand. It is filtered & chlorinated like a regular concrete pool.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
Interesting. I have not seen an option like that, however, the council may have studied it prior to SOP coming on board.
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
Spearman, is this the type of pond that spread e-coli last summer? Not sure we want to get into that!
Like or Dislike:
8 
5
No, it’s not.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
Spearman and J.K., I did a little research and found the 2010 Report the the Minnesota Legislature on Swimming Ponds. The following is a quote:
In Minnesota, these ponds developed outside of the regulatory framework for public pools and cannot comply with Minnesota public pool statutory and rule requirements such as water clarity and cleanability issues. Minnesota Rule, Chapter 4717 does not allow for the construction of a new swimming pond.
No other ponds are allowed to be built as of 2011. I have not found current information to see if this was overturned in 2011. The reasoning is quoted below:
To regulate swimming ponds would require additional funding to develop and administer the program. The department would have to develop and adopt rules and fees for swimming ponds, license and then inspect each pond yearly and respond to complaints. The cost of the program would have to be paid for by the swimming ponds through a yearly license fee.
Those 12 ponds in existence in Minnesota will be allowed to remain open, however, no others will be built.
Recommendations by Minnesota Dept. of Health:
The continued operation of the existing 12 swimming ponds and allow maintenance will be allowed.
Clarify the status of swimming ponds by amending Minnesota Statutes, Section 144.1222, Subd. 5 by striking “(d) This subdivision expires June 30, 2011.”
MDH will not regulate these existing swimming ponds as swimming pools. MDH will retain its statutory authority to investigate water borne outbreaks at existing swimming ponds. (Minnesota Statutes, Section 144.05 and also see Minnesota Rules 4605.7500.).
Although MDH will not regulate the 12 existing swimming ponds, we will revisit this issue during the review and revision of the state pool code within the next five years.
Like or Dislike:
8 
4
I’d like to see a proposal that would have the city 100% fund the bare-bones project to, say, $1.8 million and a 2/3-1/3 or 50/50 for the more deluxe options. There are lift options that meet the ADA issues, but I’ve waded with my 3-yr old granddaughter into one of these gradual slopes and it’s pretty cool. For me, I’d like to see EGF get the biggest option, but these economic times might dictate just being thankful that the city finally sees the need to take care of what they have. If the city could get a $1 million corporate sponsor for the zero depth and other additions, that would put a pretty good exclamation point on these discussions. Bottom line, the city should cover the first $1.8 million.
Like or Dislike:
13 
4
In my opinion, Alvin, you are right about the zero depth entry. They are really cool and they are great in getting toddlers in the water and teaching them to swim. However, they are not just cool, they also provide compliance with ADA. We learned at the meeting that a pool the size of the current EGF pool must have two ADA accessible options. We already have a lift chair that has been ordered according to the Parks and Rec. Supt.
Like or Dislike:
11 
8
Thanks for the info. Why do people dislike your comment? I don’t get it.
Like or Dislike:
8 
5
Alvin, I’m not sure why my comment got so many “dislikes”. You would think someone would comment as to why they don’t like it….
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
Quite simple actually. Some are opposed to spending anything for a new pool so since you’re trying to get something going anything you say will automatically get dislikes by those people….I bet a lot of them just hit dislike without reading what was written….Just you name is enough. I get dislikes for some of my political opinions the same way. So sometimes I get dislikes on things that really are not items that should be liked or disliked. Like asking for a clarification on something…Why should that be either liked or disliked? They see my Tundrabeast and click because they just know it must be something they wont like
Like or Dislike:
8 
5
Tundra: someone checked dislike….funny.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
Tundra, I agree. It’s strange, though, since our group – SOP- is not for raising taxes to fix the pool. Like you said, people apparently don’t read before they make the decision to “like” or “dislike” a comment. I guess they would have been happier just letting the pool close. Sad….
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
I like the solution where EGF takes a bus to GF. You can’t afford a pool so stop trying to force irresponsible spending
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
The residents want a pool and are trying to find an affordable way to fund one. No one is trying to “force irresponsible spending”.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
Toots a few residents want a pool. Don’t imply they all do. As of yet this hasn’t been put to a vote. There is a real possibility the majority of the EGF residents don’t want this. Until then you cannot state “the residents want a pool”.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
I understand you may not agree with Katie, but do not condescend to anyone on these threads by calling them “Toots” unless it is the actually name they have asked to be called.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
Sarge and None: Why on Earth do you always think projects should be completely funded by the government? Have you not heard of private entities sponsoring such projects? And yes, the city should be responsible for chipping in and running it since the pool DOES belong to the city. I think there are many people in this city who can put this together and make it happen without putting this to a vote to raise taxes. SOP is not for raising taxes.
. Apparently either None and Sarge don’t read the posts, or they are against people donating private money to a project that will only enhance the community. As I stated before…sad.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
Unless you plan on funding every dime of this project I want the residents to vote on it. You aren’t going to push this through without the approval of the EGF residents. Save your hysterics. It’s wasted on me.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6
I certainly won’t waste anything on spite and negativity. For the rest of the folks out there, our goal is to help raise private funds and write grants so our taxes will not be raised. If you want information, please send an email to sop.egf@gmail.com.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
Oh Sargy….I can see it now…You just love sitting on your porch waiting for the first kid to put a toe on your lawn so you can bark, “GET THE HELL OFF MY LAWN PUNK” Kids….Who needs the little buggers around and guys like you having to pay taxes on things like schools and pools that just might be good for the community…….There’s a name for that…..Oh ya….Cheap Old Grouch
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
If you don’t think this should be voted on by the residents of EGF then you have been hanging around the women folk for too long. Women make a man weak. I can see it now. The men are outside drinking a cold beer and you’re in the kitchen with the old ladies drinking tea. Pitiful.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
By the by…I’m not a resident over there, but we have your type here that never want to spend on anything and want everything up for a vote…..Sure there’s some things that should be voted on, but if you start voting on everything you’ll never get anything accomplished. Maybe a pool, rec center, ice rink, libraries, or over priced event centers should be voted on by the public because it’s not so crucial of an expense like say a fire department and equipment. However; Sometimes things like pools, parks, and other public facilities are important to the growth and over all well being of a city and that’s part of what we hope elected officials are taking into consideration when trying to make decisions that effect our communities. The idea of the public voting on everything has been tried in CA and turned out with nobody being happy about so much not getting accomplished.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Why not vote on this if taxpayer money is used in any way? I’m sure there are an equal amount of people in EGF that would like to see $1.5 million spent on the civic center which is in need of repairs as well.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
You just have a good ol’ time hanging with the guys…….I don’t mind hanging with the ladies one bit…..But you and the boys just enjoy yourselves out there. Where I come from….most guys don’t have a problem hanging with the ladies….In fact it’s usually preferable. You can shoot the bull with guys all night long and at the end you end up full od BS….But spend time with the ladies, and life just might get quite interesting by the end of the night
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Like I stated above Mr Wilson….You can vote on such things, but to what end? Should you vote one every thing that needs repair since it all comes from general funds at some point? Do you set an amount and anything over that amount goes to the public? This is where a fine balancing act is required. On one hand everyone votes on everything until eventually the general public gets bored with voting for everything and those who have no personal benifit for something comes out to vote against something….Eventually very little gets passed…..You need to put some faith in who you elect, and if you disagree with some proposal then speak up at council meetings and maybe it will come down to a vote. Our democracy works in stages……And thankfully it does because if we all had to vote on every decision all the time….Well if you think things get messed up now….This would be a walk in the park compared to that…
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
I could care less about you trying to raise money. I honestly don’t think you’ll ever raise enough though.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
We’re all assuming you meant “couldn’t” care less. Otherwise, your comment makes no sense.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Tundrabeast I couldn’t disagree with you more if I tried. Street repairs fine but a luxury such as a hockey arena or a swimming pool should be put to a vote if they involve taxpayer money.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That’s not how it works in Mn, Mr. Wilson. The law specifically dictates what needs to be put before the voters. Whether you like it or not, your local unit of government only goes to the voters when the law requires and allows it to do so. City councils in Mn also cannot legally put questions to the voters without specific authority. Sorry to interject facts to this otherwise fruitless dialog.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0