LAKE COUNTY, Calif. — A feasibility study on a county recreation and aquatic center has been completed and is being presented to local officials.

The phase one recreation center feasibility study was presented to the Clearlake City Council during a July 15 workshop.

Brian Whitmore, president and chief executive officer of Studio W Architects, and Michael Shellito, president of Shellito Training and Consulting, said it was the first of three presentations to be given to the cities of Clearlake and Lakeport, and the county of Lake. The Lake County Recreation Task Force is a study partner.

The Lakeport City Council will consider the report on Tuesday, Aug. 3, and the Board of Supervisors will get a presentation on Aug. 10.

The version of the plan to be presented to the Lakeport City Council this week is published below. Because of its size, it may take a few minutes to load.

Earlier this year, the cities and county entered into a cost-sharing agreement to cover the study’s first phase.

The process of creating the study began on March 24, with the Lake County Recreation Task Force holding regular meetings and facilitating site tours.

The task force includes the cities of Clearlake and Lakeport, the county of Lake, the Lake County Office of Education, Konocti Unified School District, Lakeport Unified, Upper Lake Unified, Mendocino College, Woodland Community College, First 5 Lake County, Lake Family Resource Center, Lake County Channel Cats, Hope Rising, Westside Park Committee, Redwood Community Services, Sutter Health, Adventist Health and Tribal Health.

The study looked at cost estimates and management structures, funding opportunities and potential project locations.

The group also identified what they want to see included in a recreation center program, including multiuse and racquetball courts, cardio and weight areas, training rooms, game area, restrooms, locker rooms, a lobby/reception area, and areas for custodial, storage and equipment. The space required for those amenities total nearly 15,000 square feet or 0.34 acres.

They presented several options for an aquatic center, based on centers around the state.

Estimated costs for an aquatic center range around $21 million to $22 million, based on configurations.

The options include:

Option one: a 4,880-square-foot pool, with a lap area and teaching peninsula, similar to that in the city of Patterson. Total site area: 24,762 square feet. Parking: 28,530 square feet, or 81 spaces. Estimated cost: $22,376,400.

Option two: a 5,737-square-foot pool, with a wide lap area allowing for 10 lanes, like Yuba City’s Gauche Aquatic Park. Total site area: 23,787 square feet. Parking: 33,600 square feet, or 96 spaces. Estimated cost: $22,801,879.

Option three: a 5,881-square foot pool, with a 9-lane lap area, like one in north Natomas. Total site area: 24,351 square feet. Parking: 34,300 square feet, or 98 spaces. Estimated cost: $22,919,666.

Option four: a 3,575-square-foot pool with a 6-lane lap area. Total site area: 19,784 square feet. Parking: 21,000 square feet, or 60 spaces. Estimated cost: $21,116,673.

All of the aquatic centers also included a 2,000-square-foot sprayground proposal.

In the city of Clearlake, where officials are looking at a recreation center with no pool, the estimated cost is $12.4 million.

The report finds that such facilities could have cost recovery totaling a couple hundred thousand dollars annually.

The management structures the report considered include a joint development and use project such as that used for the Roseville Aquatics Center and the Agoura Hills Calabasas Community Center; the joint use agreement used by the Spath Aquatic Center; and a special district for recreation, like the Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District.

As for potential project locations, they wanted to find locations with community park proximity, shared parking and co-location to libraries, centers, schools and pools.

The presentation didn’t go into a lot of detail, only touching on considered locations including the existing and out-of-commission Westshore Pool, Quail Run Fitness Center — which could be purchased — and Westside Community Park.

In Clearlake, there are existing synergies for the Burns Valley area, where the city in December purchased a 31-acre property it intends to develop. That property is near the Redbud Library, the Highlands Senior Center, parking, and shopping and restaurants on Olympic Drive.

Whitmore and Shellito suggested facilitating a strategic market analysis, narrowing down a location and funding opportunities to provide a map for future facilities.

They also recommended embarking on the next phase of the report, which includes conceptual layout and design of facility, a capital cost estimate based on the concept design, operational analysis based on the concept design and finalizing the report.

Clearlake Mayor Dirk Slooten asked why they didn’t identify any locations in southern Lake County. Whitmore said it was a matter of there not being a high need and the county not being a huge dollar partner.

They also looked at funding opportunities, including community facility districts and bond measures, Quimby Act funds from subdivision developments, state grants, property asset sales, tax assessments, development funding, Prop 68 funding, federal funds such as the American Recovery Act and cannabis industry related funding.

Whitmore said bonds didn’t work well across California in early 2020 but later had a near-record pass rate. He said he thinks they will see a lot of districts pursuing bonds in 2022.

The presentation gave the following recommendations for moving forward:

— Facilitate a strategic market analysis utilizing surveys conducted via social media.
— Narrow down location and funding opportunities to provide a road map for the
future recreation and aquatic facilities.
— Embark on phase two of the report, which includes conceptual layout and design of the facility, capital cost estimate and operational analysis based on the concept design, and finalize the report.

City Manager Alan Flora said the whole process started with the situation in Lakeport, where voters were promised a pool in the Lakeport Unified School District bond but didn’t get one.

“The timing is really good,” Flora said of the project, adding Clearlake is probably in a position to get a new sports complex faster than Lakeport.

He said he’s speaking with the school superintendent and other organizations about a plan for a Clearlake facility. “I really feel like there is interest and probably available funding there for us to do this sooner than expected.”

Flora said the city has redone its Burns Valley Project design to add a recreation center as a central part of the plan.

There is no room for a pool, he said. “Our school district doesn't see as much of a need for that.”

Rather, the district wants after school programs for children.

A pool would be a next phase project somewhere else in the city, Flora said.

Flora asked for — and received — council direction to move forward with phase two.

He said the cities and the county supported the first phase financially. They will need to come up with funding for the next phase. Flora said he plans to seek that money from a large group of partner organizations.

As for funding the city’s Burns Valley project, which includes new ball fields and a recreation center, Flora said the plan is to apply for a State Parks grant in November to cover part of the project.

He said that the process will have a requirement for public meetings, so there will be a lot of opportunities for public input.

Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.