Huntingburg Park Board makes third request for splash park cost analysis

The Huntingburg Park Board voted unanimously to contract with Benchmark Engineering to have an “apples to apples” comparison completed on the two sites being considered for the Huntingburg Splash/Spray Park. This is the third time this year the Park Board has requested the Parks Director have the cost analysis completed.

Director Jim Rueger was instructed to have a cost analysis completed on both sites during the January meeting. In February, City Engineer Brian Small presented the board with a cost analysis of the north site and no other information (story here).

In March, the board again instructed Rueger to seek out an engineering firm to complete a cost analysis as recommended by Mayor Denny Spinner. Rueger stated he would talk to Benchmark Services Engineer Ralph Wollam (story here).

At Monday’s Park Board meeting, although Wollam did not present any prepared plans or cost analysis to the board, he gave his recommendations based on a set of criteria he was furnished;

• Safety
• Available use from all age groups
• Size (60 x 40 feet)
• Number of toys
• Shade
• Room to expand if needed
• Hours of availability to the public

His opinion as an engineer was based on two of the criteria, safety and the ability to expand the site, but he also considered the cost. He stated the site located on the south side of the pool towards the basketball courts would be easier to work with due to the accessibility of city utilities and the land being fairly level.

Wallam then stated he considered the site on the north side of the pool to be too costly to prepare. He cited the slope of the land on that side would require a retaining wall and dirt to level. He told the board the 60 foot long by 40 foot wide area on the north side was too constricted to use machinery in and would require a “lot of hand work”.

He also explained utilities, namely a sanitary-sewer line, were not readily available from that site, although he recommended both sites tap into the sanitary-sewer line that runs adjacent to Cherry Street.

He then went on to explain that he felt the north site was less safe due to kids throwing cans and bottles from passing cars as they entered Huntingburg Park and drove past the pool. “It’s just my opinion on that, but I know how kids are,” he said.

An audience member, Jon Bohnenkemper, told the board that he had heard all the extra cost associated with the prep work for the north site but had yet to hear anyone address the cost of adding sidewalks and safety fencing for the south side location.

Bohnenkemper stated he and another Huntingburg citizen, Tim Wehr, had interviewed patrons of the Huntingburg Pool to solicit opinions on where the spray park should be located. The patrons they spoke to unanimously supported the north site for safety and closeness to the kiddie pool area.

“One thing I will ask before you do this,” Bohnenkemper said, “go down there (pool) on a Saturday and interview the parents. It’s their kids and, realistically, their tax dollars that is building this thing.”

Another audience member, Jeff Summers, pointed out the decision had already been made to build the spray park on the north side. He then told the board, if cost was a problem on the north side, he would personally pay to have the site preparation work completed and volunteer the manpower to do it.

Board member Jason Lange stated he had requested an “apples to apples” comparison in January of this year and the board had yet to see that comparison. “I wanted to see comparative costs down to the last penny,” he said, “and I thought that we would get those and it would be public information the; of what kind of difference (cost) we would be looking at.”

Lange stated with the current information he was inclined to put it on the south site but he would still like to see the comparison completed. “I would like to see an itemized list, and I haven’t seen it,” he said. “I know we have it budgeted but just cause your mom gives you $20 doesn’t mean you need to spend it all in one place.”

Board member Mande Keusch agreed and Secretary Joyce Fleck stated she didn’t know why they hadn’t received one yet. “I don’t understand why we couldn’t get those costs before now,” Fleck said.

Rueger stated he felt the lack of specifics had slowed the process.

The board asked Wollam how long it would take to get a cost analysis completed on the two sites and Wollam stated he could have one completed in two weeks.

Rueger stated although it wasn’t specified in the meeting, he felt Wollam would be able to provide the cost analysis by the July 9 Park Board meeting.

The fund for the spray park has been tapped for $1278.40 to pay for the incomplete comparison conducted by the city engineer and now must pay Wollam for his time in addition to the cost analysis they have instructed him to complete.

Here are the two sites being considered. The sizes rectangles are to show the area the spray park would be located and do not reflect the size of the spray park.

View Locations of Splash Park in a larger map