The conceptual site design for the new indoor recreation center
raised concerns when presented to the City Council Wednesday
evening.
The conceptual site design for the new indoor recreation center raised concerns when presented to the City Council Wednesday evening.
The indoor recreation center is an estimated $26.2 million multi-sport facility scheduled for Edmundson Avenue next to Community Park. The center is scheduled to open in May 2006.
Lack of a computer room, possibility of competition with the city’s aquatic center and the project schedule were the largest issues raised by council members as they reviewed the plan.
According to the staff report, some spaces included in the original “community wish list,” including the computer room, a climbing wall and additional activity/classroom spaces, were not included in the current plan due to “limited budget, higher priority spaces and the requirement for cost recovery spaces.”
“I was devastated by the removal of the computer room (from the design),” said Councilman Steve Tate. “The whole concept of a multi-generational center has been trashed.”
In the proposed site design, there are dedicated senior spaces, activity spaces (including a gym, a fitness room and an aerobics studio), dedicated teen spaces, and an indoor leisure pool, as well as support spaces such as locker rooms and a childcare room and administrative office spaces.
Tate said he had envisioned the computer room at the center as a place where young and old and in-between could use the computer for more recreational purposes, interacting together, as opposed to the more academic uses of the computer room at the proposed library.
“We have one opportunity to make it a multi-generational center … if we have separate facilities, how is that accomplishing the purpose?” said Tate.
Architect Chuck Davis with Noll & Tam Architects said that there is the possibility for adding other items later.
“We can also look at wiring a senior space or perhaps a wall in the gym for computers,” he said.
Tate was not the only council member with concerns.
Councilman Larry Tate said the idea of a “leisure” pool was not what he thought the vision for the center included. He said he was under the impression that the aquatic center would provide pools for leisure activities, while the indoor pool at the rec center would be used for water exercise classes and rehabilitation, as well as lap swimming and swim lessons.
“I think we need to consider this program-wise,” he said. “It’s important that we not position this in competition with our other facilities.”
Tate said the indoor pool could be used for the purposes Carr listed, but it would also be available during the months of the year when the outdoor pools at the aquatic center could not be used.
The proposed pool is a warm water pool with “interactive play features,” including a water slide and a lazy river. There are also three lap lanes adjacent to the main pool.
Councilman Greg Sellers said he could see both points of view.
“We need to continue to talk about how to integrate these facilities,” he said. “There are significant reasons why we need an aquatic facility in the indoor rec center as well as the aquatic center.”
Mayor Dennis Kennedy agreed that the two facilities could complement one another, but was concerned about other aspects of the design. He questioned the length of the schedule, asking if the architects would be able to cut four months from the project timetable.
“I don’t buy the argument personally that a slower schedule is a less costly schedule,” he said. “There is an optimum schedule.”
City Manager Ed Tewes reminded the council that the issue of scheduling had been discussed and the council had approved it.
Davis said it would be difficult to cut four months from the schedule; when pressed, he said it might be possible to cut 1.5 months.
There has been no decision made regarding the operation of the center. The YMCA is interesting in running the center, and a committee is considering all options.
