Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Aquatic Center Pool topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council allows staff to pursue design‑build approach for outdoor pool; RF(S)Q timeline set
Summary
After public comment and debate about design‑build vs. design‑only procurement, Lake Havasu City Council directed staff to proceed with a request for statement of qualifications (RFSQ) for a 25‑yard outdoor pool and to prioritize design‑build if qualified teams respond; timeline included June advertising and July 22 contract consideration.
Council authorized staff to pursue a qualifications‑based procurement with flexibility for a design‑build team for the proposed outdoor pool at the Lake Havasu City Aquatic Center.
City project manager Jason Hart presented design parameters for a proposed 25‑yard, 8‑lane pool sited adjacent to the existing indoor pool at the aquatic center and described a planned RFSQ schedule: advertise June 4, accept statements through June 25, conduct interviews the week of June 30, and present a negotiated design contract for council consideration on July 22. Hart said the proposed pool dimensions are 25 yards (75 feet) by 20 yards (60 feet), a surface area of about 4,500 square feet, a capacity of roughly 197,000 gallons and a design budget target of $2,500,000.
Why it matters: council members and community speakers debated whether to require a separate design consultant or to favor a design‑build team that could both design and construct the pool. Councilmember Nancy Campbell and others argued that a design‑build approach could keep projects within budget and provide continuity between design and construction; Campbell said she wanted a process that lets a local contractor “be the one that does the pool as well.”
Local builder input: Steve Reid of Sandcastle Pools, a local pool contractor who addressed the council during public comment, urged the city to allow design‑build teams and offered a cost benchmark: “A reasonable design cost for this swimming pool is about 25 to $30,000,” he said, describing that fee as sufficient for hydraulic calculations, 3‑D renderings and permit‑ready plans. Reid and other speakers encouraged giving qualified local builders a chance to submit under the RFSQ process.
Budget and operations concerns: resident Emilio Alatorre asked whether Parks & Recreation had budgeted additional lifeguard and operating costs for a second outdoor pool; staff responded that operating costs had been considered and that the site’s staffing synergies made the location feasible. Councilmembers also discussed add‑alternates (10 lanes vs. 8 lanes, scoreboards, timing equipment) so the project could be scaled to available funds.
Procurement and timeline: staff and the city attorney explained that state procurement rules require a qualifications‑based selection process for design services; staff said the RFSQ can nevertheless favor firms capable of design‑build delivery if the qualifications reflect that capability. Council signaled consensus for a design‑build‑friendly RFSQ and to proceed with the schedule Hart presented.
Next steps: staff will advertise the RFSQ on June 4, evaluate submissions, interview selected firms the week of June 30, negotiate a contract and return to council with a recommendation on July 22. If the negotiated design‑build proposal is not available or cost‑effective, staff said they will fall back to a design‑only contract and subsequently bid construction.
Ending: Council gave staff direction to proceed with the RFSQ and to prioritize design‑build teams if they meet qualification criteria; no contract was awarded at the May 27 meeting.
