The Revelstoke splash park group is asking council to give support to its plan to build the facility in a city park — hopefully Farwell Park.
“We definitely want Farwell,” said Amanda Hathorn, the head of the Revelstoke Splash Park group. “It’s well known to the community as a water play area. To bring the park back to that prior usage would be great.”
A recommendation is going to council on Tuesday, Jan. 12, to support in-principle the group’s efforts to build the splash park.
Approval would be conditional on the splash park group holding an open house and seeking public input on the design and location of the park. The group is forming a society in order to fundraise to build the park, however the operating and maintenance costs would be borne by the city.
Council has expressed support for the park in the past, so the recommendation is likely to go forward. The difficult part will be deciding what type of water system would be used, and what park it should be located in.
A report by Laurie Donato, the city’s director of parks, recreation & culture, outlines the various costs associated with building the park.
The biggest questions is what kind of water system is used.
The first option is a recirculating water system that would see the water sent to the splash pad from a water tank, where the water would be filtered and treated. This is similar to what is used in a swimming pool. It would use 4,000 gallons of water per year at a cost of $26.50, but there would also be costs associated with managing the system, Donato writes. It would cost $615,000 to install and $8,000 per year to run, based on a 25-year lifespan.
The second option is a flow-through system, which would see city water pumped onto the pad, then drained into the storm sewer. It would be substantially cheaper to install, at $378,000, but would cost more than twice as much to run — $22,000 per year — due to much higher water consumption, which is estimated at 24,000 gallons per day.
A third option, for which no costing was provided, is a retain-and-reuse system, that would see grey water collected and used for things like irrigation and washroom facilities.
Hathorn said she will try to convince council to chose the flow-through option due to the lower initial cost.
“I would like to see it happen in two to three years versus six to 10 years. If it’s a $600,000 project, it’s not going to happen for some time,” she said. “I think financially it makes the most sense but we’ll have to see what council says and what the public says.”
She will be making a presentation to council about the project on Tuesday, Jan. 12. She said she worked at a splash park before and the flow-through systems are generally easier to manage, though she is conscious of the added water use.
There would also be costs associated with the various play features, ranging from $55,000 to $105,000 depending on how many are installed.
“Should the project move forward, council direction on a preferred water management option is required as whichever option is chosen will have a significant impact on the proposed budget for the project,” writes Donato in her report. “In making their decision, Council must consider capital and operating cost implications associated with each option as well as the conservation of resources versus cost savings.”
You can read Donato’s report below. To find out more about the Revelstoke Splash Park Group, visit their Facebook page.