$18 Million Recreation Center Rewind
As a result of the favorable vote last November authorizing the City to spend money for a possible new or rehabilitated recreation center, the City staff determined what was needed and scheduled seven meetings to encourage public input. Residents also received a flyer encouraging participation. So, why didn’t you come and voice your opinion?
I’ll hazard some guesses. The fall survey of residents placed the recreation center and its programs as the least important of all city services. You believed that your input would be negated by the special recreational interests. You have a job, family and other obligations that take precedence. You knew that the ordinance I wrote in late 2004 forcing one vote would again, so you decided to just wait it out.
On February 1st the staff presented the Council with a list of the ailments in the existing building. (The title will take you to the presentation.) They suggested the needed corrective actions and added some familiar improvement from the project defeated on January 18, 2005. Price tag; $18 million. As an alternative they presented the option of a new, relocated building with all the trimmings less a theater for, guess what; $18 million. Check the online presentation given at the February 1st meeting under Council Agendas.
In April the City is going to present the public with a design for a new or rehabilitated recreation center. Dollars to doughnuts, it will be an entirely new building costing just under $18 million, without a theater. The option of only rehabilitating the building is dead as of now. Why? One question has not been a part of the public process thus far and you were not there to ask it, even if it had been allowed.
The flyer you received asked the following questions. How does public recreation add to your quality of life? What are your recreation needs? What recreation amenities are on your “wish list?” And, for current users only, “What do you like? What do you need?” In addition there were two questions for non-users, “Why don’t you use it? What needs to change?” Did you non-users catch the implication that there is something wrong with you?
If you had been at one of the meetings, you would have found that answers to questions were not forthcoming. I asked why the potential cost of $18 million was not disclosed by the session leader, Kae Madden. She said in part that it wasn’t time to discuss it. The focus for now is the needs. The City staff is still getting away with highly structured meetings where you must follow their agenda. When I start wanting something I make a preliminary check of its cost before I start “wanting” it. Don’t you think the City should disclose the costs upfront? I think the City should reveal the fact that it is contemplating an increase in your sales or property taxes to finance the project.
In looking at the presentation you will note in slide 47 that the staff is recommending that a special election be held in August. Why? First, only residents who are involved in city affairs will bother to show up, and that means a positive vote. Second, by obtaining a positive vote then, the City will have time to implement the collection of the additional tax before the first of the year.
I did state at a meeting that I would like to see a ground level senior center that is not attached to a recreation building and, is accessed by a separate entrance and close up parking. I also suggested that the City should consider agreements with our neighboring cities as an alternative to a new rec. building. Let’s avoid the annual one million dollar loss from the present building and the capital costs and debt of a new one by purchasing user rights in existing rec. centers at Colorado and Sheridan Blvds. In the recreation department’s survey of those who participate in their activities, forty-five percent do not live in the city.
I would like to assure you of one thing I know to be a fact. The staff and Council majority has taken your positive vote last November to mean, “The overwhelming majority of the voters want a new or expanded recreation center.” See you in April.
I’ll hazard some guesses. The fall survey of residents placed the recreation center and its programs as the least important of all city services. You believed that your input would be negated by the special recreational interests. You have a job, family and other obligations that take precedence. You knew that the ordinance I wrote in late 2004 forcing one vote would again, so you decided to just wait it out.
On February 1st the staff presented the Council with a list of the ailments in the existing building. (The title will take you to the presentation.) They suggested the needed corrective actions and added some familiar improvement from the project defeated on January 18, 2005. Price tag; $18 million. As an alternative they presented the option of a new, relocated building with all the trimmings less a theater for, guess what; $18 million. Check the online presentation given at the February 1st meeting under Council Agendas.
In April the City is going to present the public with a design for a new or rehabilitated recreation center. Dollars to doughnuts, it will be an entirely new building costing just under $18 million, without a theater. The option of only rehabilitating the building is dead as of now. Why? One question has not been a part of the public process thus far and you were not there to ask it, even if it had been allowed.
The flyer you received asked the following questions. How does public recreation add to your quality of life? What are your recreation needs? What recreation amenities are on your “wish list?” And, for current users only, “What do you like? What do you need?” In addition there were two questions for non-users, “Why don’t you use it? What needs to change?” Did you non-users catch the implication that there is something wrong with you?
If you had been at one of the meetings, you would have found that answers to questions were not forthcoming. I asked why the potential cost of $18 million was not disclosed by the session leader, Kae Madden. She said in part that it wasn’t time to discuss it. The focus for now is the needs. The City staff is still getting away with highly structured meetings where you must follow their agenda. When I start wanting something I make a preliminary check of its cost before I start “wanting” it. Don’t you think the City should disclose the costs upfront? I think the City should reveal the fact that it is contemplating an increase in your sales or property taxes to finance the project.
In looking at the presentation you will note in slide 47 that the staff is recommending that a special election be held in August. Why? First, only residents who are involved in city affairs will bother to show up, and that means a positive vote. Second, by obtaining a positive vote then, the City will have time to implement the collection of the additional tax before the first of the year.
I did state at a meeting that I would like to see a ground level senior center that is not attached to a recreation building and, is accessed by a separate entrance and close up parking. I also suggested that the City should consider agreements with our neighboring cities as an alternative to a new rec. building. Let’s avoid the annual one million dollar loss from the present building and the capital costs and debt of a new one by purchasing user rights in existing rec. centers at Colorado and Sheridan Blvds. In the recreation department’s survey of those who participate in their activities, forty-five percent do not live in the city.
I would like to assure you of one thing I know to be a fact. The staff and Council majority has taken your positive vote last November to mean, “The overwhelming majority of the voters want a new or expanded recreation center.” See you in April.
posted by Gene Wieneke at
6:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home