Despite several years
’ worth of planning, workshops, surveys and meetings, the indoor
recreation center’s direction was questioned by some city council
members Wednesday.
Despite several years’ worth of planning, workshops, surveys and meetings, the indoor recreation center’s direction was questioned by some city council members Wednesday.
Calling up visions of champagne tastes on beer budgets, Councilman Steve Tate decried the loss of a climbing wall and juice bar, treasured by youth of all ages in many surveys. Both were removed from plans – possibly temporarily – when the center’s budget was cut from $32 million plus land costs to its current $26 million.
The council voted 4-1 to move forward to design development with Tate voting no.
Mori Struve, deputy directory of Public Works, and architect Janet Tam, of Noll and Tam, reported to the council on the center’s tentative room arrangement, its mostly definite footprint and tricky budget. They were looking for a ‘go’ to move from the indefinite schematic drawings to the more concrete design development drawings.
Instead, Tate said he thought the project should be put on hold until council receives more input from youth and seniors and the public about what they really want in the center.
“We need to put the brakes on this right now,” Tate said. “We need to have workshops. I don’t know that the youth are excited about this. Our $26 million program is the most expensive thing we’re doing. I want to get it there as quick as possible but don’t want to get the wrong thing.”
Councilman Greg Sellers, who is on the recreation center’s planning subcommittee, said programming began seven or eight years ago.
Beginning with the visioning committees, he said, set up to discover what taxpayers wanted done with Redevelopment Agency funds, the city has run a series of meetings designed to find out exactly what should go into an indoor recreation center.
“This was fairly exhaustive,” Sellers said. “The architects spent a lot of time figuring out programming,” he said, “talking with staff, the senior and youth advisory committees (and the public) and all of us felt fairly comfortable that the decisions that are still to be made can be made without delaying the process tonight.”
Councilman Larry Carr said that focus groups’ top choices did not make it into current plans.
“I don’t understand how those meetings are built into this plan,” Carr said. “ Youth asked for a climbing wall and a juice bar. In this latest revision, they are both out.”
The problem is money. As originally planned the center, to be built next to Community Park on Edmundson Avenue, would have cost $32 million or more, not including land purchase costs. The council asked for the center to be scaled back to save money and some things had to go, including the ever-popular but expensive and space-hogging climbing wall.
Construction costs are now $16 million, not including land costs, professional and design, furniture and equipment and contingency costs, all together adding up to $26,197,337.
“Every part a bit smaller than originally planned,” Sellers said.
Originally, the center was to include 65,000 square-feet – now reduced to 52,000 square-feet – but the architectural firm has tried to squeeze as much into that space as possible, Tam told the council.
Tam said the climbing wall might fit during a future expansion or even be added to the lobby. Mayor Dennis Kennedy was particularly interested in expansion, especially on the end with the multi-purpose room where seniors will have their lunch program early in the day.
“We need flexibility on west end,” Kennedy said, actually asking that expansion be designed into the next phase of planning.
Tam said the firm could do that if that was council’s direction.
There was some discussion at a previous council meeting over leaving the lunch program at the Friendly Inn on Crest Avenue or moving it to the new center when the available space will remain the same. Council voted 3-2 to move the program to the new center with Carr and Councilwoman Hedy Chang voting no.
Not all seniors are pleased with having to move from the Friendly Inn to the new center. As an example, the Inn offers aerobics at no cost; in the new center, seniors will have to pay for the classes.
Recreation manager Julie Spier said Monday that the current aerobics classes are subsidized by the city part of the $75,000 package the city pays for the nutritional program. She said she was aware of the senior’s worries about losing this free activity and is planning to propose alternatives to the City Council.
“Possibly seniors could take aerobics classes at the new center between the hours of 8 a.m. and 2 p.m., if they present a card,” Spier said. The alternatives are not yet set and approval will have to come from the council.
Struve told the council at a previous meeting that the project was $800,000 over budget. Wednesday he announced that $700,000 in savings had been found. The subcommittee, Struve said, identified 12 areas that might reduce the total cost; staff refined the 12 down to three significant areas.
“We can pull the outlying areas back so they are not so densely landscaped,” Struve said, “a savings of $155,000. We could reduce the exterior wall heights and reduce the design contingency by 1 percent – a savings of $270,000.” Nine other reductions take $65,000 or less out of the bottom line, he said.
“We found savings substantial enough to move forward,” Struve said.
Another area where some cost savings might be found, he said, is in the LEEDS certification (Leadership in Energy and Efficiency Design). The building can be constructed as “green”, accruing savings in operation and maintenance, but save money by not submitting the documents for actual certification.
The center is designed with two wings and a central lobby. The east wing is reserved for programmed activities: a gymnasium, pool and fitness rooms. The west wing will be shared by youth and seniors as dedicated centers; sharing is said to work because seniors generally appear during the morning hours and youth later on in the day.
Tam said the project may have to ask the city for a height variance since, at its tallest point, the building’s curved roof will reach 45-feet; building codes stipulate heights of no more than 35-feet, an issue faced earlier in the year by county courthouse designers.
The building will be concrete mixed with block, very durable, Tam said, with lots of glass and a deep overhang to protect from the sun. She said architects had changed the drop off point near the senior rooms so the distance from curb to door is only eight feet.
“There will be lush landscape around the building,” Tam said. “The parking lot will be shaded as well.”
Struve said the Parks and Recreation Commission was pleased with the plans.
Senior Joan Harkness, who was in the audience and closely following the discussion, pronounced herself pleased too and said the plans did indeed show public input.
“It’s wonderful,” Harkness said. “They’ve taken into consideration the things we are looking for.”
Struve said he and his staff would try to secure more public involvement before returning to the council in December.
ca****@*************es.com
