Design & Planning





Oregon Coast Aquatic Park Conceptual Representations

Conceptual Drawings


The Oregon Coast Aquatic Park Board is pleased to unveil the first architectural concept drawing of the proposed South Beach aquatic park. Architect Milica Dedijer and her associate Glen Small have captured the essence of the project with a dramatic and dynamic structure.

Click on the image above to see the full-sized conceptual drawing and floor plans.

  • History of Planning and Design Study

    On Thursday, May 26, 2005 the Newport Swimming Pool Friends (now Friends of the Newport Aquatic Park) met and discussed options for the current swimming pool. A group agreed to visit other pools and Aquatic Parks to learn what was currently happening in Oregon.

    On Monday, June 20, 2005, Paul Reed and Claudia L. Webster, gave a brief presentation to the Newport City Council meeting.

    At the Thursday, June 23, 2005 meeting of the Newport Swimming Pool Friends. there was discussion about whether it would be necessary to conduct a feasibility study to upgrade the existing pool or build a new facility. It was decided that feasibility study was needed to support and inform the community of the need and the costs involved to upgrade the current pool or to build a new facility.

    At the Thursday, July 21, 2005 meeting, agreement was reached that we needed consultation from an experienced architect.

    Carl Sherwood of Robertson/Sherwood Architects from Eugene agreed to do a courtesy visit to Newport on August 18, 2005 to tour the existing facility and to hold an informational meeting that evening from 5:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m.

    Using the chart and timeline as presented by Mr. Sherwood, it was decided to raise money for a Planning and Design Study which would be much more comprehensive that a basic feasibility study. We voted to raise $35,000. We also voted to change the name to Friends of the Newport Aquatic Park and to become a 501©(3) Nonprofit.

    We designed the Planning and Design Study to provide the community with:

    • An assessment for refurbishing the existing pool for another 40 years, including operating costs.
    • An assessment for the planning, design and construction of a new Aquatic Park.
    • Results of community surveys indicating the desires of resident of Newport and the surrounding area for a pool or Aquatic Park.
    • The establishment of needs and goals.
    • A conceptual design and construction estimate based on the above information.
    • An estimate of projected annual cost for staff, programs and utilities.
    • An estimate of maintenance cost for a 30-40 year time frame.

    We continued to raise money with donations from the community. Lincoln County Commissioners were the first government agency to grant $5,000 for the Planning and Design Study. An additional $5,000 was included in the Newport Parks and Recreation Budget. On June, 14, 2006 and July 26, 2006, Jeff Bertuleit, Jim Protiva and Claudia Webster gave presentations to the Urban Renewal Commissioners and were granted $25,000 for the Planning and Design Study.

    Two major fundraisers were held on behalf of the Friends of the Newport Aquatic Park: Dive Into Jazz Brunch hosted by Stone Crest Cellars on Sunday, September 10, 2006 and Knights of Columbus “Last Gasp of Summer” Golf Tournament.

    When we were assured that we had the $35,000 for the Planning and Design Study, a Request for Proposal was written by Jeff Bertuleit and Claudia Webster with assistance from Pete Gintner’s law firm. We had gathered several RFP’s to use as models. The Request for Proposal was mailed out to five firms on August 22, 2006 with a due date of September 22, 2006. Four Proposals were received.

    On September 26, 2006 a committee met to evaluate the proposals. This committee consisted of: Jeff Bertuleit, Jim Protiva, Katherine Pedersen, Pete Gintner and Claudia Webster. Three of the proposals were exceptionally good. Our committee talked with Carl Sherwood to clarify the proposal and requested that WaterTechnology be included as a consultant. More discussion with just the committee followed and ultimately Robertson/Sherwood/ Architects pc were chosen.

    We contacted Carl Sherwood regarding our choice and asked that he send a contract to Pete Gintner, attorney. Pete read and approved the contract, Claudia L. Webster as president of Friends of the Newport Aquatic Park signed the contract for $35,000.

    On October 16, 2006 a media release was sent out announcing the “Planning and Design Contract Signed”.

    On October 26, 2006 Carl Sherwood met with the board to refine the Work Plan. One outcome of this revision is to hold four community meetings. Times are being worked out for these meetings which will be held in: Newport, Waldport, Yachats, and Siletz/Toledo. The first is scheduled in Newport on December 14.

    On Thursday, November 16, 2006, an architect and engineers from Robertson/Sherwood conducted an assessment of the current Newport Municipal Swimming Pool.

    On Thursday, December 14, the first of four community meetings will be held at the Newport Parks and Recreation Building from 5:30-7:30pm. Public is encouraged to attend and participate in this important planning process. Snacks will be served.

    Let’s Go Swimming!

  • Preliminary Planning and Design Study Report

    Mr. Carl Sherwood, Robertson/Sherwood/Architects, PC and Mr. Doug Whiteaker, Water Technology, Inc. were present to share with us their preliminary report. Highlights follow. If you would like to review the report, please contact one of the Friends.

    STUDY GOALS: (Mr. Sherwood explained that some of these occur concurrently and that some have not been completed to date)

    • Evaluate existing facilities/use patterns
    • Analyze the market - how do we compare
    • Identify needs - ask the community
    • Survey level of support
    • Define the solution
    • Develop funding support

    FACILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

    • Functionally at capacity
    • Small site - limitation to expansion/parking
    • Aged systems - many need replacement
    • Solid structure* - need lateral force analysis
    • Code compliance Issues
    • Major renovation needed - $1-1.5 Million*
    • Renovation and Expansion $2.-2.5 Million*

    *Both consultants concluded that at the conclusion of either of these processes, we would have a "completely renovated 1967 flat-water pool.

    MARKET ASSESSMENT FINDINGS

    • Newport has 10,000 residents and 4,000 households
    • Coast sub area has 37,000 residents and 16,000 households
    • High proportion of older adults
    • Lower proportion of school age families
    • Incomes relatively low
    • Tourist/Seasonal residences and potential users **
    • Existing facilities small and lack amenities

    ** Lincoln City used a 30,000 population figure for their renovation because of weekend influx

    HIDDEN COSTS:

    City subsidies versus aquatic district; $207,400 does not include other costs hidden in other budgets
    Mr. Whiteaker and Mr. Sherwood made a power point presentation showing the differences between water parks and family Aquatic Parks

  • Architect Gives Presentation on Proposed Aquatic Park
    November 21, 2007
    By Steve Card of the News-Times

    A proposed Aquatic Park that would serve residents and visitors in Newport and the surrounding area was a topic of discussion at a meeting last week in Newport Architect Carl Sherwood, of Robertson Sherwood Architects in Eugene, was hired about a year ago to conduct a planning and design study, the goal of which was to explore the feasibility of building an Aquatic Park. As part of the study, public meetings were held around the county - with the exception of the Lincoln City area - to gather input and gauge support for this project.

    A draft version of the final study was presented by Sherwood during the monthly meeting of the Friends of the Newport Aquatic Park, held on Thursday, Nov. 15 at the Newport Recreation Center. Elements of the study include facility assessment, market assessment, facility programs, site recommendations, concept design and other recommendations. Sherwood said they began the study with a number of goals, which included evaluating existing facilities, analyzing the market, identifying the needs, surveying the level of support, defining the "solution," and developing funding support.

    "We kind of got hung up in site selection," Sherwood said, "so we didn't spend as much time on defining the site solution. You can't really design a site or be specific about costs until you have a site selected. "About a half dozen possible locations were looked at, but nothing has been selected as yet. Even though no final decision has been made, they have been able to establish the criteria for what is needed in a site, as well as the approximate size it will have to be. Sherwood gave a rundown on what was learned over the last year.

    During the facility assessment phase, they studied the Newport Swimming Pool. That facility is functionally at capacity, is on a fairly small site, and has old systems that are continually in need of maintenance. Although the structure itself is solid, any renovation would require that it be brought up to code in terms of ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) accessibility. A major renovation of the current swimming pool would run between $1 and $1.5 million, said Sherwood, and a renovation plus expansion would be $2 to $2.5 million. But even when spending $2.5 million on the pool, "you would have essentially the same programs you have today," Sherwood said.

    "You would have an improved, longer-lasting facility, but it would not meet the needs of the greater community. "As a result of the public meetings held earlier this year, a number of features desired in a new Aquatic Park were identified. People would like to have a 25-yard, 8-lane pool. They would also like a multi-use pool, which could cater to non-swimmers wanting to use the facility. This would include things like a zero-depth entry and warmer, shallower water. A "double flow rider" is also something identified as a desirable feature, Sherwood said. A relatively new phenomenon, this is a "high draw" for young adults and teens.

    "Basically it's a flowing chute of water that you surf on," he said. A therapy pool is another feature people would like to see. This type of pool would be able to incorporate a broad range of programs. And a water slide is "a key recreational element in aquatic facilities," said Sherwood. "People expect to see these." Other desirable features in a facility include a snack bar/cafe, sauna and steam room, and meeting lease/rental spaces. The center would also need to incorporate changing spaces and support spaces. Altogether, the Aquatic Park would need around 46,000 square feet of space, said Sherwood, which is about half the size of the Newport Recreation Center.

    There would also need to be parking for around 150 vehicles. With those requirements in mind, the ideal site would be a minimum of 3 to 3.5 acres. That doesn't rule out a smaller site, added Sherwood, but that would require "stacking" some components, resulting in higher development costs .Even without a specific site in mind, Sherwood was able to develop a generic design plan, incorporating the various elements that people want to see in the facility. "It gives us an example of what would be there and how the elements would fit," he said.

    Using this generic design, and factoring in known costs for building similar projects in Oregon and Washington, Sherwood was able to come up with an estimated project budget of $15 to $16.5 million. This allows for about two years worth of inflation, assuming the project won't go to bid until about two years down the road. These figures don't include the cost of acquiring the site, said Sherwood. In addition to construction costs, Sherwood has analyzed the potential operating costs of a new facility. Based on data from other facilities, an Aquatic Park of this nature would generate revenue covering about 57 percent of its operating costs.

    The current swimming pool recovers about 25 percent of operating costs, he said. But running a state-of-the-art Aquatic Park will be more expensive than operating the Newport Swimming Pool, so even with the higher use, the anticipated annual subsidy needed for operations will about double from its current level - from $155,000 to around $300,000. Sherwood added, however, that this estimated level of use "depends on a site that is well located.

    "Recommendations coming out of the study include developing a year-round, family Aquatic Park capable of accommodating the anticipated population growth of the area for the next 50 years; providing a regional facility, not just one for the City of Newport; offering broad-based programs featuring numerous aquatic activities; providing related revenue activities; and locating it on an appropriate site. This would also be a publicly owned and operated facility, but this doesn't necessarily mean it would be operated by the City of Newport. It could be done through formation of a special district.

    Determining what entity will own and operate the facility is a task yet to be accomplished and something that will be addressed in a strategic plan. The site selection also needs to be finalized, sooner rather than later, Sherwood said, "so it can help bolster support for the project and allow us to move forward with the design." And once the design is finalized, the budget costs can be updated and refined. Sherwood was asked if there are grants available for developing a project like this. He said there are, as well as the possibility of securing private donations. And the Friends of the Newport Aquatic Park are in a much better position to go after this funding than is a public entity such as the City of Newport.

    Sherwood was also asked about energy saving concepts for an Aquatic Park. "The goals of sustainable design are built into this, but the specific details are not at this point. The goals are to a more green and sustainable design." He added grant applications will likely be viewed more favorably if using sustainable design elements. "There are a lot of energy saving features available for facilities of this type," said Sherwood. The upfront costs may be higher, but the savings are there in the long run.

    The study document provided by Sherwood is essentially a tool that can be used as the project moves forward. Kat Pedersen, president of the Friends of the Newport Aquatic Park, said Sherwood's report "is pretty positive considering the number of issues that came up while we were doing this. We've done a lot of work, (and) this is a good jumping-off place.

    "Steve Card is assistant editor for the News-Times.
    He can be reached at 265-8571 ext. 224, or stevecard@newportnewstimes.com.




Close

Log In

Enter Remind password

Type your e-mail address and we'll send you new password

Submit