STERLING – After weeks of watching online community debate, I finally have found answers to the questions of what happened to Sterling’s Lawrence Park Pool and Dixon’s Memorial Pool, and why have their park districts not resurrected them? Today, we take a look at the former Lawrence Park Pool.

How we got here

After decades of operation, Lawrence Park Pool shut its doors forever at the end of the season in 2010. As a Sterling native, I have fond memories of running barefoot along the pool’s concrete edge before drenching helpless sunbathers with a well-timed cannonball into the water.

Since then, the pool has been demolished and filled in, the main pool building’s fate is still being decided and Lawrence Park, on the Avenue G island, still is part of Sterling’s Riverfront Reimagined plans. Sterling Park District Director Larry Schuldt said the decision to close the pool was due, in part, to the facility not meeting existing building codes, mechanical systems that had run their life expectancy and declining attendance.

“The pool complex had a capacity of 924 patrons,” Schuldt said. “During the five years prior to closing, the pool’s attendance averaged only 79 paid patrons a day.”

Schuldt said that while the pool was great for competitive swimming meets in its heyday, over time it did not meet the demands of today’s recreational swimmers who want zero-depth entry, water slides, spray features and more.

“In addition, there were then and are now, many more home pools,” Schuldt said. “Also, Lawrence Park may have been a good location in the ‘early’ years, but because of various safety concerns, very few children were allowed to walk or bike across the Avenue G bridge in the later operational years.”

Despite those challenges, Schuldt said the park district explored various options before ultimately deciding to close the pool.

Weighing the options

In 2003, the park district hired PHN Architects to evaluate the Lawrence Park Pool and Duis Center facilities. At that time, the Duis Center, the park district’s indoor swimming facility, was facing similar structural and mechanical issues and had not had any major infrastructure improvements or upgrades since it was first built in 1969, according to Schuldt. Following their evaluation, PHN provided the park district with the following options:

• Repair Lawrence Pool to current building and swimming pool codes and practices for $2,387,770.
• Repair and improve Lawrence Pool, add a water slide and spray features for $3,448,981.
• Construct a new regional outdoor pool for $7,360,169.
• Renovate Duis with an indoor 50-meter pool plus outdoor spray pad for $9,085,495.
• Renovate Duis with the additions above but add an outdoor slide, deck and concessions: $11,572,097.

PHN’s recommendation was that fixing the Lawrence Park Pool was not a cost-effective long-term solution, as it would only increase its lifespan by another 10 years. Instead, they recommended “that the Sterling Park District plan to replace or abandon this facility.” In 2005, the Park Board appointed a committee made up of staff and community members, Swim Club representatives and one Park Board member to make a decision.

The committee worked with the firm Burbach Aquatics, to review the proposed options from PHN. At first, members decided to abandon Lawrence Park Pool and enlarge the Duis Center to accommodate a 50-meter pool and construct outdoor water features. However, concerns surfaced over the project’s estimated $12 million to $20 million cost.

At first, the committee scaled down the plans to just enlarge Duis with no outdoor water features, but the estimated cost still exceeded $10 million. Schuldt said a cost of that magnitude would have required voter approval for additional funding, as property tax caps limit how much revenue the park district can raise from residents without holding a referendum.

“It was felt with the state of the local and national economy at the time, the successful passage of a referendum would be highly unlikely,” Schuldt said. “Since the condition of the Duis Center could not wait for the economy to improve, it was decided to just repair and address the various infrastructure needs at that facility.”

Schuldt said that, although several reasons contributed to choosing the Duis Center over Lawrence Pool for renovation, the main reason was “the fact that the Duis Center is open 12 months a year and Lawrence Pool was only open two to three months.”

With a limited window for use and operational costs that far exceed revenue, outdoor public pools are a sinking stone for many park districts. Take Freeport for instance.

A losing formula

Berin Jackson, superintendent of recreation for the Freeport Park District, said although the pool at the Read Park Family Aquatic Center accommodates more than 11,000 visitors per year, he still budgets to lose $30,000 to $40,000 per year – a difference paid for with taxpayer dollars.

“We’re at the breaking point with prices just at what our patrons can afford,” Jackson said. “Even if I raised prices on our plans by $30 to $40, I’d still only hope to get close to breaking even, and that’s without repairs.”

Jackson said it cost about $1.6 million to redo the pool in 1993, a project he estimates would now cost between $10 million and $15 million.

“The cost for everything has skyrocketed, especially since Covid,” Jackson said. “Before Covid, we would pay 95 cents per gallon for chlorine. Now, I’m paying around $4 per gallon.”

Jackson said indoor aquatic centers are the preferred alternative in situations similar to Sterling’s, an option the Sterling Park District has considered in the past.

A new hope

In 2016, the park district worked with Williams Aquatics to get updated cost estimates to increase the Duis Center’s pool size from six swimming lanes to eight, while looking to add an indoor spray ground, water slide and leisure pool. Schuldt said the park district even looked at encasing the addition in glass to give an outside appearance, but the estimated cost for the project came in from $6 million to $11 million, putting them back in the same price range as building a new outdoor pool.

Last year, an interested party approached the park district to once again revisit the idea of an outdoor public pool.

“The individual offered to pay for an updated feasibility study, as well as donate and raise a significant portion of the funds needed for construction,” Schuldt said. “The Park Board gave the OK to proceed with a conceptual and business plan part of a study. However, the board indicated that the ending project cost could be no more than what would be raised via donations.”

Additionally, the park district had a few conditions: It would not fund the study or any eventual construction, nor would it seek funding from voter referendums. However, Schuldt said the park district did agree to consider absorbing any additional operational costs, depending on the increase.

“Assuming $8,000,000 is needed to be borrowed to fund the pool’s construction, if a 20-year bond was obtained, the annual payment on the debt would be approximately $600,000 per year,” Schuldt said. “The park district would need to increase its tax levy (through a referendum) by about 20% in order to pay that debt.”

In the end, Schuldt said the interested party decided to explore further options before proceeding with the study.

• Check back Saturday, Aug. 23, for the second installation in this series, which will explore Dixon’s Memorial Pool and the city’s future plans for aquatic fun.