Richfield officials and consultants presented a scope, schedule and budget for a renovation of the city’s outdoor pool during the July 22 work session, proposing a base project intended to “reset the life” of the facility and extend service for roughly another 10–20 years while listing alternates for additional amenities and mechanical upgrades.

The project team — represented by JLG Architects (Adam Barnett and Zach Finstrom), pool specialist Nick Owoski and construction‑management advisor Will from Loeffler — described a base construction estimate for structural and finish work and a total project budget currently set near $4.2 million. “The project goal is really to kind of reset the life on your pool, so that you can get another 20 out of it,” Adam Barnett said.

Nut graf: The base scope prioritizes a new plaster finish for the main lap pool, waterproofing and repairs, refinishing the water slide, replacing aging diving towers with one new tower and limited bathhouse upgrades; major mechanical and filter equipment replacements were identified as desirable but exceed the current budget and were scoped as alternates or future capital projects.

Key budget and schedule details presented by the consultants included a construction‑cost estimate of roughly $3,738,000 (base construction), soft costs and contingency bringing the total target budget to about $4.2 million, and alternate items priced separately (rough alternates total ~ $1.5 million; a full set of all alternates would push the project toward about $5.3 million). The pool team said they can finalize documents and pursue bidding in September with construction in the off‑season to have work completed before the next pool season.

Scope highlights in the base bid: replastering the lap pool with ceramic tile accents and waterproofing the overflow gutter; minor concrete repairs where spalling is found; removal of an end‑of‑life drop slide and replacement or reduction of diving towers to a single usable tower; gel‑coat refurbishment of the fiberglass water slide; and targeted upgrades to bathhouse finishes (epoxy floor coating, ADA partition adjustments, LED lighting and exhaust upgrades).

Alternates and future‑wish list: the team placed several items outside the base budget for council prioritization, including replastering the kiddie (zero‑depth) pool, replacing or refurbishing the aquatic play unit, replacing the bridge over the slide, ornamental perimeter fencing, expanded shade structures, landscape islands and a full equipment‑room renovation (new pumps, filters and mechanical systems). Team members noted that equipment‑room renovations trigger electrical and code work that can significantly increase cost, so many mechanical upgrades were scoped as a separate project or negotiated procurement.

Council questions and direction: Councilmembers asked for clearer price tags and condition assessments for each alternate. Several councilmembers urged prioritizing alternates that reduce ongoing operating costs — for example, more efficient pumps, regenerative media filters that reduce backwash volume and energy‑efficient concessions equipment — and requested a simple prioritization matrix weighing cost, condition and operating savings. Councilmember Walter and others asked about filtration options and whether lower‑chlorine systems or newer filter media could reduce operating costs; consultants said filtration upgrades (regenerative media) can improve water clarity and reduce backwash water and energy use but add notable upfront cost and are more cost‑effective for year‑round indoor pools than short outdoor seasons.

On mechanical piping and leaks: consultants said the pool structure itself is in good condition and that prior targeted repairs (for example, a lined main drain) reduced water‑loss issues. The team advised that replacing all buried piping is usually not cost‑effective unless full replacement of the pool is planned; instead, repairs to failed segments are typical maintenance practice.

Next steps: the consultants agreed to provide the council staff with a priced alternate list, condition notes and a short rationale for each alternate (e.g., cosmetic vs. operational savings), and to align alternates to the council’s target budget (the council indicated a funding target of roughly $4.25 million tied to sales‑tax funding). Staff and consultants expect to finalize bid documents in August, release bids in September and pursue construction in the off‑season, subject to final scope decisions.

Ending: Councilmembers asked staff to return with the priced alternates and operational‑savings estimates and encouraged prioritizing energy and operating‑cost improvements alongside visible, public‑facing items.