Aquatic Center fans breathed a sigh of relief Wednesday night
when the City Council/Redevelopment Agency reaffirmed its
commitment to the $12,350,000 center.
Aquatic Center fans breathed a sigh of relief Wednesday night when the City Council/Redevelopment Agency reaffirmed its commitment to the $12,350,000 center.
On the other hand, Parks and Recreation Commission members left the workshop less certain of funding for their top priority, an indoor recreation center planned for Edmundson Avenue next to Community Park.
The PRC will, however, have an opportunity to weigh in on the project’s future since the Council/RDA has asked the commission to review the project’s viability and possible changes and report back.
“We are $2.7 million over-allocated,” Ed Tewes, city manager, said about the distribution of $187 million in RDA funds, primarily from added features at the Aquatic Center, now in the design stage. It will be located on Condit Road between Barrett and Tennant Avenues, east of Hwy. 101.
The problem is that, in January 2002 the council set RDA spending priorities for the funds the agency expects to collect through its lifetime. It allotted certain amounts of money for specific public facility projects, economic development, flood control and storm drain work, sewer/water work and street improvements.
Since that time the RDA has discovered that early projects, such as the Community and Cultural Center and the Aquatics Center, are costing more. The Council approved the increased costs but recognized that the money must come from another source. Wednesday’s workshop was to identify those other sources.
The trigger for the workshop was the extra $2.7 million required to build the three-pool/clubhouse Aquatic Center so that it can achieve maximum cost recovery – so user fees will cover as much of the maintenance and operations costs as possible. Otherwise, those costs might be paid from the general fund, which has other duties.
Maintenance and operations costs cannot legally be paid from RDA funds, as can construction costs, even were there money left in the fund to do so.
“I want it to be clear that the $2.7 million was not taken from the Indoor Recreation Center and given to the Aquatic Center,” said Councilman Steve Tate. He explained that, while $2.7 million was given to the center, the Council did not decide where it would come from.
Jump-starting the “thinking outside the box” feel of the evening, Councilwoman Hedy Chang presented a proposal to sell the Gunderson property, which the city just purchased for $5.5 million as as site for the Indoor Recreation Center and a BMX and skateboard park. The vacant property is off Edmundson Avenue near Monterey Road.
Chang said the property could be sold at its current value – $5.5 million – at the moment.
“$2.7 million would go to the swim center,” she said, “and $2.7 million could go to economic development or additional (sports) field construction.”
She then suggested joining the indoor center with the Aquatics Center and the sports fields, on the Condit site where the soccer complex is currently located.
“This would combine the synergy,” Chang said. “We could make the whole area a semi-designated location for sports and youth activities.”
Because it would be located with other sports complexes, Chang said she would expect higher revenues for the center and, in the end, higher sales taxes for the city.
“We are looking at a $300,000 deficit in the operation of the Aquatic Center,” she said. “We have to do better than that in cost recovery.”
“It may be possible to combine operations for the complexes,” she said, “such as a bigger concession stand and shared parking.”
Chang suggested that the indoor center might be configured differently than originally planned. Instead of senior and youth centers, indoor pool, weight and activity rooms and a gymnasium, some components might go elsewhere.
“Pull the seniors out,” she said. “The Friendly Inn (where seniors meet now) could be renovated into a nice place and the seniors could stay there.”
Tate said the top priority should be serving seniors and youth.
“We must meet the needs of youth and seniors,” he said. “We could scale back the indoor recreation center,” referring to the weight room. He said people could easily go to 24-hour Nautilus and other gyms.
Councilman Greg Sellers was concerned that the bus service near the Aquatic Center area is far less prevalent than in the Community Park area and that the Condit site is away from the highly populated west side of town.
“The buses can be re-routed so there is good service,” Chang said.
Sellers pointed out that Sports Management Group, hired to review possibilities and design cost recovery schedules, said that an indoor center without a swimming pool will earn less revenue. The Aquatic Center recreation pool will only be open during the warm months.
However, after the workshop was over, others discussed the possibility of enclosing the outdoor recreational pool with a “winter bubble” as several pools in the county do – including the Santa Clara Swim Center.
Tate praised Chang for “coming up the an alternative plan.”
“I think we can find other ways to get economic development dollars besides using RDA funds,” said Councilman Larry Carr.
Mayor Dennis Kennedy discussed a smaller indoor center on the Gunderson property, with the BMX and skate parks but with the addition of low-income housing as a money-making entity. He also began looking elsewhere for money.
“Could we take $1 million from the flood control project?” he asked.
“We will find a way,” Kennedy said. “Maybe we need other sources of funds, perhaps even using (the unfunded general fund) reserves – after we get through the current economic situation.”
Council members said they did not want to make a definite decision yet and needed more information. The PRC, which spent many hours last year developing a concept for the indoor recreation center, will re-evaluate that concept and all other public facilities on the drawing board – with the single exception of the library – to find the elusive $2.7 million. No date has been set.
City Council will meet again Wednesday, Feb. 5, at 7 p.m., City Hall, 17555 Peak Ave. Details: 779-7271 www.morgan-hill.ca.gov
