New Merriam Community Center Design

Explanation of 'NO' Vote
- Aquatics Design -
City Council Meeting - July 23, 2018

by David Neal, Merriam City Council

July 24, 2018
Last Updated September 24, 2018

As a member of the City Council, I believe it is one of the duties of all elected officials to provide oversight and thoughtful judgment concerning activities that the City is undertaking. When something doesn't seem right, as an elected official you should ask questions and try to understand to the best of your ability any discrepancies between the information that has raised your concerns and any other factual information you can develop. The purpose of this series of posts is to discuss issues that have been raised about the new Merriam Community Center and Aquatics Center project.

Disclaimer: Within this post are images I have adapted to demonstrate ideas that I am attempting to communicate to the public. Some of these images have been derived from other images that have been presented to the public as part of the Merriam Community Center design process and may appear to have been documents produced as part of the City's design process. Rather then being official city documents, they were produced using available software tools as derivations from original documents. They are included as part of the discussion since I did not have direct participation in the City's design process that produced the original documents, I did not have access to the design software used, or to the outside design consultants directly. I was forced to use the public documents and add overlays or other modification for illustrative purposes as part of my discussion with the public. Despite the possible presence of company logos on some derived images, these adaptations were prepared by me alone.

Overview

As a result of a design audit I undertook when a disturbingly inadequate design for outdoor aquatics was first presented to the City Council for approval on July 9, 2018, I have discovered and compiled detailed evidence in this report showing that:

• The outdoor aquatics proposed design continues to be insufficient to meet the expectations of Merriam residents.
• The design process has been seriously flawed, conducted by city staff alone without feedback or consultation during the critical early decisions with either the Community Center Design Committee set up for that purpose, or with the City Council which is the only body answerable to voters.
• Actual funding for the design produced does not fit within the $30 million budget brought before voters in September 2017.
• When confronted with public resistance to the significant design flaws discovered when the major elements of staff-decided design were actually first revealed to the public and Governing Body five months after starting work, the internal staff-led design team and city leadership appeared unwilling to review or re-think their choices beyond a few minor concessions provided at a significant additional cost.
• The real cost numbers to deliver the promises made to Merriam residents in the 2017 Facilities Master Plan are proving to be higher, so outdoor aquatics has been significantly downgraded in the design for the new community center to cover the shortfall..

The design alternatives produced by a 4-5 month closed internal process all assumed the acceptance of a major site/building design flaw that probably is the result of wanting to cater to/ induce the Johnson County Library to locate the future replacement for the Antioch Library to Merriam's Community Center Campus.

This inclusion of a huge entry courtyard with a 90' ft maximum width significantly increased the east-west footprint of the community center building. This extended building footprint crowds out critical site space that was to be used for the outdoor aquatics basins in the 2017 Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan.

Instead of being able to design a main pool with an east-west longitudinal orientation, the crowding caused by the courtyard means that the main pool must be oriented north to south, prohibiting design options for including a separate diving well and outdoor slide plunge pool at an economical cost.

Here are the staff-directed designs that have been considered:

As an point of size reference, you could actually build the entire original outdoor pool design (pool and zero-depth entry area) within the entry courtyard!

The City Council did not approve the original staff recommendation. Instead in a 6-2 vote, on July 23, 2018 facing intense pressure from staff to decide on an aquatics design lest the 2020 summer outdoor pool season opening of the new outdoor pool be delayed, the City Council approved an additional $1.6 million for a slightly larger pool design, but still containing the diving well integrated within the main small swimming pool.

I was one of the 'no' votes. I believed then as now that there are so many problems with the design of the facility, with the design process, and with the manipulation of information, that the project needs a pause in order to sort things out. We can and should do better for the residents of Merriam.

Despite the process-violating 4-5 month design feedback mechanism blackout, after the serious questions were raised in July after the design was first revealed, there were remedial design options I would have liked to have seen discussed. These ideas were selected to provide as minimal an impact on the design work already done as possible.

Here are three remedial designs that should have been considered:

Turn the orientation of the main 25 meter outdoor pool east to west and move the diving well into an additional northern basin extension off the side of the main pool. A similar basin extension on the south for a plunge pool could facilitate using the southern steep slope as a usable part of the site for outdoor water slide placement.

This design provides an economical way to separate the dive well from the main swimming area of the 60' x 82' (25 meter 8-lane) pool. The pool design is less expensive (for the features provided) because the dive well remains part of the same basin (eliminating the need for its own filtration and chemical system) by using a connected extension to house the diving area. The design does require the long side of the pool to run east to west like the Master Plan envisioned.

This main pool orientation change would likely require adjustments to the building design, not a wholesale project redesign. To get the extra site space necessary to re-orient the direction of the main pool, we would need to move the building 10' east and shrink the width of the courtyard by 20 ft. Specifically in the concept shown immediately above and below, the width of the courtyard was reduced from 90' to 70' and the building was also moved 10' east on the site as can be permitted without zoning problems. The internal design of the building would require some minor reconfiguration. This could potentially be done by redesigning the staff office space and building out into the NE notch shown in the current design. The lobby area would also be 22% smaller east to west, but could be extended south to compensate. There is about 135' of length to the entry courtyard that could easily be shortened by a few feet to accommodate the change.

Another possible option would have been to move the building south (to the right on the site plan) on the site, keeping the current layout including the giant courtyard. There is likely enough room for the library and parking structure although it would require an internal ramp. By doing these things, the city's investment in a generally sound existing Merriam Aquatics Center could be maintained with relatively moderate costs to renovate our current outdoor aquatics rather than build a new significantly inferior outdoor pool at this time. The location currently slated for the new aquatics west of the building could instead be used for a playground or a garden and serve as a detention area.

This design idea could provide an economical way to both separate the dive well from the main swimming area of the 60' x 82' (25 meter 8-lane) pool and also provide for outdoor water slides with a second notch-out to the south. The outdoor slide could take advantage of the natural slope south of the outdoor aquatics site area.

This design idea could provide a way to keep using the existing Merriam Aquatic Center while still building the new community center with indoor aquatics, the library and the parking structure. The 90' width of the entry courtyard in the current design could be maintained. Essentially this idea involves moving the building location and would potentially require adjustments based on steeper topography or alternatively some additional site preparation costs. The parking structure would also need to feature a ramp. Also surface parking east (top left of plat) of the existing Merriam Aquatic Center would be retained. A nice bonus is that the area directly west of the community center where the outdoor aquatics was originally supposed to go could be instead used as a children's playground or a garden.

There are other design ideas that could be considered, particularly if the Antioch library was not relocated to the site. I have seen no evidence despite repeated asks, that multiple concept designs were prepared in the early stages of design. If there were such alternatives, they never made it past staff. No credible feedback process involving Merriam stakeholders was conducted during the first 5 months when the design was set by the City staff team and the design team working under the McCarthy design-build contract. Staff may have been pre-occupied trying to woo the Johnson County Library to our site in order to free up the valuable commercial land along Shawnee Mission Parkway for private development.

In response to the obvious flaws in the design revealed on July 9th, if these remedial design suggestions had been considered in July instead of cajoling the City Council to pick one of the expensive alternative aquatics designs the 'design team' came up with on July 23rd, we could have possibly fixed the major problems with this project.

By refusing to consider options which might have remediated the outdoor aquatics site constraints that the courtyard choice introduced, the City Administrator effectively vetoed any serious solutions. During the July 16th Council Work Session I recall the City Administrator saying something to the effect, "I'm not going to move the building." This remark was clearly stating that he was not going to allow a look at any adjustments that might "move" a building that only exists only in a virtual model.

Building a suitable new community center with indoor and outdoor aquatics at the anticipated project cost with the project attributes documented in the 2017 Park and Recreation Facilities Master Plan now appears highly questionable. Therefore, the current project design should be reviewed/audited thoroughly before demolition of existing facilities or construction of the new community center proceeds.

Major design flaws, particularly in outdoor aquatics

In my role as a member of the Merriam City Council, I bring to the table a set of skills and expertise that are relevant during this time in Merriam's history when we are designing our new community center.

Recognizing that the design of the new Merriam Community Center is probably the most important decision that I will ever be part of as a city council member, since early July my review of the design process and the results to date have made it clear that the project has likely become significantly off track.

July 9, 2018 staff-recommended outdoor aquatics design featured a shockingly tiny 25-yard long main pool with most area taken by a dive well. Colored outline overlays show the proposed Merriam pool compared to the current smallest primary municipal pool in Johnson County, the Mission pool.

Please note: In the municipal outdoor pool size comparisons in this write-up, I am referring to the size of the largest outdoor municipal pool that a city operates, since some Johnson County municipalities operate multiple outdoor pools. Some secondary pools may be smaller than the primary pool that I am comparing the new Merriam pool designs with. I have also not fully evaluated the Spring Hill facility yet. I am also not including indoor pools that some cities also have in addition to their outdoor pools.

Not understanding how/why such an unreasonable design would be the work product recommended to the City Council by the professional team that the City will pay more than $3 million dollars to for professional services, I started investigating and tried to get City staff to reconsider its design approach and other Council Members to recognize the problems that my research was uncovering.

July 23, 2018 $1.6 million 'over-budget' outdoor aquatics design featured a slightly wider tiny 25 yard long main pool with most area taken by a dive well. The City Council had to approve an additional $1.6 million ostensibly to make this small pool size improvement.

The July discussion showed clearly that the project as designed was short of money. Staff kept saying to the City Council, "We'll change it but what do you want to eliminate from the building?" Council could not answer so they voted to find more money.

When I asked about using TIF fund money to pay for the site costs for the Community Center project, thereby freeing up dollars that could be reapplied back the the outdoor aquatics budget, the City Administrator indicated such a strategy was already reflected in the $5 million TIF-funded parking structure budget. This was indicated because the answer was a rhetorical question similar to, "Do you really think we are building a $5 million parking structure?"

My review of the design process indicates the the first 4-5 months of design – conducted entirely at the direction of the internal staff 'design team' – indicated that the team had designed a building with an approximately 11,500 sf entry courtyard, increasing the building's perimeter by 36%.

As a construction professional, it is easy to see that this 36% of additional building perimeter adds significantly to the cost of the structure because exterior cladding (term for exterior wall construction and finish) and glazing (term for glass window assemblies) are much more expensive than equivalent interior walls supporting the same square footage size building without a cutout courtyard.

An August 27, 2018 further modification to $1.6 million 'over-budget' outdoor aquatics design featured a slightly wider and slightly longer, but still-small, 25 meter long main pool. One major problem making this pool design unreasonably "small" is still that much of the pool area will taken by an integrated restricted-use dive well.

What we have now at the MAC (Merriam Aquatic Center

Despite the City's marketing effort for a NEW community center with aquatics that apparently grossly inflated (by 450%) the cost to renovate the Merriam Aquatic Center, the engineering study commissioned by the City shows that the Merriam Aquatic Center could be renovated for less than $1 million and continue to be operated normally for years to come.

For comparison, Consider the features of the current Merriam Aquatics Center (MAC):

Details – Introduction

In my role as a member of the Merriam City Council, I bring to the table a set of skills and expertise that should be relevant during this time in Merriam's history when we are designing our new community center.

With an engineering academic background, and more than a decade of active management of a construction company, and holding an active Class A Commercial General Contractor's License in Johnson County for the past decade and a half, I have become extremely concerned about the project management and design process that has been undertaken over the past nine months for the new Merriam Community Center project.

That design process, conducted almost entirely in secret by an internal staff 'team' of 2 to 3 people (none of whom have construction-related backgrounds) has yielded a design result that in my estimation is way off track and does not reflect the promises made to Merriam voters during the September 2017 special election to increase sales taxes in order to fund this project.

Despite my professional background, I was not asked to serve in any manner in regards to providing any input whatsoever during the design process. I initially attributed that to the fact that I am the newest member of the City Council. I believed that by being on the Council, I would be able to appropriately contribute my knowledge and expertise to the process.

I was wrong. The entire City Council was cut out of major policy changes made by the staff under unknown direction being received from somewhere. More troubling, no one with any real knowledge of aquatics was included on any of the project-related committees and teams that were supposed to provide oversight of the process.

Despite the formation of a Community Center Design Committee appointed by the Mayor and brought to the City Council on March 5, 2018, no one with any expertise or interest in aquatics was included on the Design Committee until a few days before the aquatics design was revealed in July 2018. At the same time, there were two members representing the interests of the Community Center Foundation seated from the beginning. A single City Council member was included.

Even with the non-representative composition of the Community Center Design Committee, members were not actually consulted in any of the major decisions made by the internal staff design team throughout the spring and most of the summer.

The recent community center time line

The September 15, 2017 special election featured a ballot question which permits the city to raise $24 million of the projected $30 million cost for a new community center by issuing general obligation municipal bonds which are to be paid back using an increased sales tax.

In the first quarter of 2018, the bond sale was held and new restrictions and obligations have been imposed on the city based on the terms under which the bonds were sold.

At the time of the Special Election, voters were told that the tax increase was necessary to fund the community center project envisioned by the January 2017 Master Facilities Plan for the Merriam Parks and Recreation Department. That plan called for a $30 million facility that included both an indoor and outdoor aquatics component. As part of the project the existing Merriam Aquatic Center would be demolished and replaced with a "newer, better" pool.

Specifically the plan envisioned spending just over $10 million in total on aquatics. Of that $10 million, $4.4 million was designated for the outdoor pool and amenities. This $4.4 million outdoor aquatics budget was supposed to provide an updated replacement for the existing Merriam Aquatics Center.

On July 9th the City Council was presented with a "recommended" design for the outdoor aquatics portion of the project that was 1/3 the size of the current pool and provides about 1/5th the recreational swimming area that the current pool does. The outdoor slides and high dive have also been eliminated.

The July 9th design is still the only choice presented to the City Council that is supposedly within the original $30 million budget. The $4.4 million in the Master Plan sure didn't seem to buy much outdoor aquatics with this "recommended" design. A red flag went up in my mind immediately.

After a City Council Work Session on July 16 scheduled in response to the Council's unhappiness with the initial 'on-budget' outdoor aquatics 'recommendation,' the Council was still not in agreement with the new outdoor aquatics options presented by staff. All enhanced design options featured a significant over-budget cost increase and still did not provide enough of the outdoor pool experience that residents would be expecting based on the Master Plan. More options and prices were requested including finding a way to have the diving well not be integrated into the main pool's limited swimming area.

During a contentious City Council meeting on July 23rd, The City Council approved what had been the $1.4 million 'over-budget' 8-lane 25 yard pool option with a large zero-depth entry fan during the Work Session one week before. The price on July 23rd was now presented to Council as $1.6 million. Some more deck space may have been added, but I am not sure what the reason was for the additional $200K difference a week later. Council was told by staff that absolutely no more than $1.6 million additional funds could be found.

For our additional $1.6 million investment, it does not seem like we are getting much of an improvement in terms of increasing the outdoor pool size.

Is this a serious design?

The aquatics design consultant selected by the staff core design 'team' and McCarthy is the Aquatics Design Group based in Carlsbad, CA.

A review of the aquatics projects designed by Aquatics Design Group in Kansas City area reveals their involvement with the Summit Waves at Harris Park project in Lees Summit, MO. The outdoor facility includes a 25 meter pool, with an integrated dive well.

As can be seen in the photo, with an integrated dive well, much of the pool area is restricted from recreational swimming use. The smaller area beyond the rope boundary is available for recreational swimming in this 25 meter pool featuring an integrated dive well. I would call this area the general 'recreational use' area of the pool.

For comparison, the 'on-budget' design for the Merriam outdoor pool presented July 9th features an even shorter 25 yard pool length (versus 25 meters) with a similar-sized portion of the pool area taken up by the integrated dive well. The recreational area past the rope would be 7 ft smaller in the new Merriam pool than what is shown in the Harris Park pool image.

The Harris Park pool design shown in the picture is essentially same design as the 'recommended' outdoor aquatics design presented by the city staff design 'team' to the City Council on July 9th. The Merriam design however is seven feet smaller in critical pool length and features a combined single basin for the pool and zero-depth kids area (which increases the operating cost – see here.)

July 9th, 2018

The PowerPoint slide showing the 'staff recommended' (now "Design Committee recommended") outdoor pool design was presented by staff to the Merriam City Council on July 9, 2018. This was the first time any aquatics design information was presented to the City Council. The Community Center Design Committee had first seen the aquatics designs only two hours earlier.

During that meeting, design committee members were virtually forced to pick one of three "options" that were essentially the same minimal outdoor aquatics design that had been secretly prepared by the aquatics design consultant at the direction of senior staff at least as early as March, 2017.

The 6-lane 25 yard pool was just wrapped in different color bows for the July 9 Design Committee meeting. One token 25 yard pool design included 8-lanes but omitted any kids' area at all.

The 6-lane 25 yard pool which staff expected to be selected by the Community Center Design Committee (and approved by the City Council) on July 9th was 'Option 2' which had a small zero-depth entry fan, roughly about half the size of the existing Merriam Aquatic Center's zero-depth entry kids pool.

Interestingly the City Administrator knew which design the Design Committee would pick even before they were shown it.

How do I know this?

The City Administrator told me in a meeting earlier that afternoon before the committee meeting that the design committee would almost certainly be picking Option 2!

I found that troubling. This premonition by the City Administrator suggested a confident management of the process by staff. I was immediately concerned after hearing this. Please note, this unease with the process happened even before I had seen the ridiculous tiny pool designs for the outdoor aquatics myself.

The 6-lane 25 yard pool which staff presented as 'Option 3' was literally the exact same minimal outdoor pool design as was circulating among city staff back in mid March 2018. The other two options were very minor upgrades to that base design. None of the designs were anything like the outdoor aquatics design envisioned in the 2017 Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan

The outdoor pool design circulating among senior city staff in mid-March 2018 featuring a design for a minimalist outdoor aquatics offering to the residents of Merriam was not simply a mistake by the designer. This was the direction that must have already been decided by senior city staff. Someone in city staff must have directed the professional design consultants on the general size criteria to use when preparing this early design for the outdoor pool. This single tiny 6-lane 25 yard pool outdoor pool design option was accompanied by three options for the indoor aquatics.

In fact, that is exactly the same pool size that was 'recommended' to the Community Center Design Committee and then the City Council five months later on July 9th when the 'aquatics design' was put forward for approval by the staff/McCarthy design 'team.'

No picture that would give an indication of the tiny size was shown in the PowerPoint presentation that was used to introduce the 'design' to Council members. No information was provided on why the aquatics design was so minimal. Staff's message, "Just hurry up and approve the design."

Not even a legend scale was available to understand how small the useable area of this pool design would be. However, with my engineering and construction experience in visualizing space and distance, I immediately knew how incredibly tiny the proposed pool was going to be.

July 23rd, 2018

After I and a couple of other Council members raised strong objection to approving such a design that night, the vote was postponed. After a further two weeks of intense lobbying on the part of city staff and some members of the governing body, a vote was taken on July 23rd to approve an alternate design with a slightly larger outdoor pool at an 'over-budget' cost of an additional $1.6 million.

In order to visualize how small the design favored by staff really is, it may be helpful to provide a comparison of the 'on-budget' staff recommendation for the new outdoor Merriam Community Center pool with our neighbor Mission's pool, which itself is widely criticized for being way too small by patrons.

After resistance by most of the City Council (specifically those not living in a neighborhood having its own private neighborhood association outdoor pool) to the ridiculous size of the 'staff-recommended' outdoor pool design, staff then presented a new option on July 16 and then again on July 23rd that is 'over-budget.' On July 16th this 8-lane, 25 yard pool was listed with an additional price tag of $1.4 million. A week later, the same design was presented with a $200K higher additional cost of $1.6 million by staff.

After being informed by the City Administrator that there was no realistic way to 'find' any more than $1 million of additional funding for the community center project budget that could be used to enhance the outdoor aquatics design, the Council selected the $1.6 million 'over-budget' option after an indication that perhaps an additional $600K could in fact be found.

The 'over-budget' option is shown overlaid on an aerial image of the current Merriam Aquatic Center. In addition to a slight increase in pool width, the $1.6 million increases the area of the zero-depth entry feature so it is approximately the size of the current kids pool at the Merriam Aquatic Center.

The Merriam 'on-budget' and $1.6 million 'over-budget' designs are even smaller than Mission's outdoor pool. In fact, the Merriam pool would be the smallest outdoor public pool in Johnson County, under either of these designs, even with the additional $1.6 million.

In the earlier discussion of the Lee's Summit Harris Park pool, only the restricted area for the integrated diving well was discussed. Merriam Director of Parks and Recreation has assured members of the public that there would be lap lanes available in the outdoor pool. The Mission pool has both an integrated diving well and two lap lanes that are restricted access areas.

Providing such features at the new miniature Merriam outdoor pool will essentially limit the recreational use areas to such a small space as to be practically useless as a place to experience the summer outdoor community pool experience. The community just won't fit.

Something is seriously wrong.

August 27th, 2018

During the August 27, 2018 City Council meeting the Community Center project was not on the agenda. Instead a City Council Work Session was scheduled to discuss the design of the interior of the Community Center building. During this work session the outdoor aquatics design was brought up. During that discussion after a suggestion by a Council member to extend the pool to a 25 meter length and reduce the size of the zero-depth entry fan feature as a financial offset, the Mayor suggested that would be a modification he could accept. The Council members informally agreed that that change should be made.

This modification essentially will no longer make the new main outdoor pool in Merriam the smallest main outdoor municipal swimming pool in NE Johnson County because Merriam will now share that distinction with Mission since both pools will be the same size.

This most recent minor design modification on $1.6 million 'over-budget' outdoor aquatics design features a slightly wider and slightly longer (now 25 meter), but still-small main pool. One major design problem still making this pool 'small' is that much of the pool area will still be taken by an integrated restricted-use dive well.