Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-29-2001sp SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 29, 2001 5:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS AUBURN COMMUNITY CENTER WORKSHOP MINUTES I. Call to Order At 5:11 PM, Mayor Booth called to order the special meeting of the Auburn City Council to discuss the proposed Auburn Community Center. He then led those in attendance in the Pledge of Allegiance. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers located in Auburn City Hall. Mayor Charles A. Booth and the following Councilmembers were present: Jeanne Barber, Trish Borden, Pete Lewis, Sue Singer, Rich Wagner, and Fred Poe. Councilmember Stacey Brothers arrived at 5:21 PM. Staff members present included: Planning and Community Development Director Paul Krauss, Parks and Recreation Director Dick Deal, Recreation Coordinator Sharon LaVigne, Finance Director Shelley Coleman, Recreation Manager Brian Petty, Senior Center Supervisor Cheryl Sallee, Contract Employee Marjorie Rommel, and Deputy City Clerk Cathy Richardson. Also present were consultants, Donald A. Lachman and Colleen Laing with Lachman & Laing, LLC. Auburn Community Center Advisory Group members present included: Co-chair Lynn Norman, Co-chair Gary Masterjohn, AI Rossi, Doug Carr, Jean Asplund, Facilities Inventory Subcommittee Chair Heidi Wood, Deanna Briese, Anne Baunach, Public Involvement Subcommittee Chair Bill Peloza, Kevin Chapman, Deanna Keiser, Steve Schoos, Gene Cerino, Rosie Johanns, and Roger Thordarson. II. Introduction Mayor Booth welcomed the Auburn Community Center Advisory Group and thanked them for the many hours they committed in connection with the community center study. Mayor Booth explained that the purpose of this evenings meeting is to receive a final report and recommendations from the Auburn Community Center Advisory Group and introduced facilitator Donald A. Lachman of Lachman & Laing LLC. Special City Council Meeting Minutes October 29, 2001 Page 2 III. Background and Context of Work Mr. Lachman explained that the Auburn Community Center Advisory Group was appointed by Mayor Booth for the purpose of determining whether a community center facility was needed within the city of Auburn and if so, the type of facility and amenities required to meet the needs of the citizens. Mr. Lachman invited Co-chair Lynn Norman to explain the mission of the Advisory Group. IV. Charge and Mission Ms. Norman referred to an overhead display and reported that the mission of the Advisory Group included assessing the need, viability, and community support for a community center. The study used an open process and included significant public involvement. The Advisory Group examined a variety of models and concepts of community centers. Ms. Norman commended the Advisory Group members on their open-mindedness and diligent work. Mr. Lachman stressed that the purpose of the Advisory Group is to bring forward facts, findings, and recommendations and invited Advisory Group members to introduce themselves to Council. Mayor Booth clarified that the citizens appointed to the Auburn Community Center Advisory Group were appointed from a list of nominees from Councilmembers. V. Additional Guidance Mr. Lachman explained that, with additional guidance from Council, the Advisory Group set goals to focus on input from Auburn residents, prepare an inventory of existing facilities with an analysis of Auburn residents' interests and needs, secure equitable value for public funds, consider opportunities to maximize services, and implement a fair and open process for public participation. The Advisory Group took into consideration current and future needs of the City of Auburn. Mr. Lachman pointed out that responsibilities did not include identifying and recommending a facility design and program based on a set of financial parameters, identifying financing plans, or recommendations of partnering with a specific entity. Planning and Community Development Director Paul Krauss reviewed current demographics and noted the changing facade of Auburn as the city grows and the dramatic changes expected in future population growth. It is anticipated that Special City Council Meeting Minutes October 29, 2001 Page 3 the population will increase to approximately 70,000 to 80,000. The Auburn community has many long-time residents as well as many new residents moving into the area, The City is becoming more affluent than in the past and residents are coming to expect more amenities. Auburn's orientation has always been a family community and the City will endeavor to retain that spirit. Auburn is becoming more culturally and ethnically diverse, as are many surrounding areas. Director Krauss stated that changes have occurred regarding the age distribution within the community and referenced an overhead graph depicting changes that have occurred from 1990 to 2000. VI. Achieving the Work Groups Charge and Mission Mr. Lachman stated that the Advisory Group achieved their charge through regularly scheduled open meetings and work sessions, site visits, community surveys, guest presenters, existing facilities and partnerships research, statistical surveys, community information forums, inventory of other community facilities, and media articles. Mr. Lachman explained that the Advisory Group Co-chairs organized two sub- committees dealing with public involvement and facilities inventory. The Advisory Group work plan objectives included gathering information on current recreation programs and facilities, examining partnership interest, gathering design and operating funding information on regional community centers and facilities, soliciting input and promoting participation from Auburn citizens, examining promising practices in community center funding and operating models, and providing findings and recommendations to the Mayor and City Council. Mr. Lachman reported that the Advisory Group had an opportunity to make a number of site visits of both private/non-profit and municipal facilities. Mr. Lachman invited comments from Advisory Group members regarding the site visits and referred Councilmembers to the overhead displays depicting each site. Issaquah Facility. Jean Asplund stated that she was very impressed with the indoor suspended track and the amphitheater at the Issaquah facility. One drawback that she noted was that the facility did not have separate meeting rooms. Steve Schoos stated that he was impressed with the multi-usage of the Issaquah facility. The main gymnasium floor was divided into three areas and included simultaneous usage for various age groups. The suspended track was also being used. Mr. Schoos pointed out that one disadvantage was that the facility was very loud which might make it difficult to concentrate. Special City Council Meeting Minutes October 29, 2001 Page 4 In response to questions from Councilmember Brothers regarding the Amphitheater, Mr. Lachman stated that the structure is removable and essentially covered a stage area with seating on a sloping hillside similar to the amphitheater at Les Gove Park in Auburn. Roger Thordamon stated that the Issaquah facility had a very well planned teen center. Mr. Lachman stated that the driving force for the development of the Issaquah Community Center was a local developer and various local youth groups. Tukwila Facility Deanna Briese reported that Tukwila had a very beautiful facility with a lot of versatility for the usage. It contained meeting rooms that were used for a variety of purposes. It was divided into two areas, one for adult and senior citizen activities and one for youth activities. The facility also included two banquet rooms and a kitchen facility. Ms. Briese stated that the facilities had many amenities, but the length of the structure made it inconvenient for staff. The facility had several large meeting rooms. Bill Peloza pointed out that any non-profit organization could use the facility free of charge. Mr. Lachman stated that the Tukwila facility was very well used, although it lacked security due to the layout of the facility. Mr. Lachman reported that all the facilities that the Advisory Group visited, both private and municipal, were well supported by the community and had strong partnerships with philanthropists, local foundations, and corporations. There are many opportunities for various types of funding sources. Mr. Peloza stated that the Renton facility received $1 million from private fund raising and $1.5 million from the Boeing Company. They received the balance of approximately $2 million from bonds. Ms. Norman reported that the Advisory Group noted a "gathering place for the community" theme among the facilities they visited and also among the public input phase of the process, even though it was not a specific question on the public survey. Citizens are interested in a multi-purpose facility with many uses for a variety of purposes and varying group sizes, Mr. Lachman stated that the Advisory Group observed great flexibility of usage of the facilities among the various facility site visits. The Advisory Group findings yielded continuous messages from the community of the need for some sort of Special City Council Meeting Minutes October 29, 2001 Page 5 banquet or event facility. Some facilities used flexibility in the design of their gymnasium for a variety of uses for large and small groups and athletic events. In response to questions from Councilmember Borden regarding room size, Mr. Lachman responded that the survey findings revealed the desire of the community for a facility that would serve an approximate occupancy of 400-500, Heidi Wood pointed out that the Auburn Senior Center facility does not have any rooms large enough to accommodate a group of 400-500 people. A large portion of the community is unable to use church facilities that might accommodate a group of that size. Many church facilities are for the use of parishioners only. Ms. Asplund noted that the Advisory Group received comments from the business community regarding the need for a facility that might accommodate trade shows and conferences. Councilmember Singer shared problems she encountered while planning a large event at the Auburn Senior Center for a professional women's event. The event is using a set-up similar to that used for a trade-show. They had to scale back their event due to lack of room to accommodate their needs. Mr. Lachman stated that facilities that can accommodate large events draw groups from around the region, which brings benefits to the community and surrounding businesses. Ms. Briese stated that the Advisory Group received a clear message from the Chamber of Commerce that the City of Auburn has had to turn groups away for lack of facilities of a sufficient size for large events. Consultant Colleen Laing reported that, during three of the site visits, the facility directors spoke of the need for a room that would accommodate a very large group. Renton Facility Ms. Norman and Mr. Schoos spoke regarding some of the amenities at the Renton facility, including room dividers and glass garage-type doors on one end that could accommodate a car show or other large equipment. The glass doors provided a lot of light and were very attractive. Mr. Lachman explained that cardiovascular equipment and fitness areas bring in users and membership. The demand is very great for this type of equipment. Special City Council Meeting Minutes October 29, 2001 Page 6 Bellevue Facility Mr. Schoos stated that the fitness equipment and pool was being used to the maximum capacity during the site visit at the Bellevue facility. The Bellevue facility lacked sufficient parking and had no meeting rooms. In response to questions from Councilmember Wagner, Mr. Schoos stated that the age distribution of the users at the Bellevue facility was well spread. Mr. Lachman noted that the Bellevue facility has partnership agreements with local school districts and the senior center, so the facility is well used. The partnerships are beneficial to the facility and the community. A number of cities have attempted to create a campus atmosphere by locating facilities in one general area. Mr. Peloza pointed out that many of the facilities experienced problems with parking, especially if there was more than one event taking place, and urged Council to consider a sufficient amount of parking. Mr. Lachman explained that the City of Issaquah entered into an agreement with a nearby to augment parking at their facility and installed additional lighting in surrounding neighborhoods to encourage off-site parking. Ms. Norman stated that the campus idea is beneficial to any community and would promote convenient public transportation. Mr. Lachman reported that, according to the Advisory Group survey, an aquatic facility received more community interest than a traditional lap pool. Parks and Recreation Director Dick Deal referred to an overhead display of the YMCA aquatic facility in the Grays Harbor area, which was designed by Bob Bignold. Director Deal stated that the community originally planned a traditional lap pool, but further discussion disclosed that the community desired something more. They now have two pools, a traditional lap pool and a family pool. A family pool has many elements that allow concurrent entertainment for a variety of age groups. Some benefits of a family pool of this nature include zero depth from one inch, wave making capabilities, a water slide with an outside tower and slide which disperses into approximately one foot of water, two whirlpools, one for children and a deeper whirlpool for adults, fountains in the children's area, and jets creating a figure eight float. Grays Harbor has received tremendous response from the community and they expressed their satisfaction in the decision to add the family pool. It receives much more use than anticipated. Mr. Lachman stated that other partnerships have been made with local hospitals and senior centers regarding the Grays Harbor aquatic facilities, especially for Special City Council Meeting Minutes October 29, 2001 Page 7 the use of the whirlpools. Research regarding liability insurance for an aquatic facility proved to be no greater for a lap pool than a family pool. The insurance carrier takes into consideration the physical construction and design of the pool, how it will be used, and the protocol and practices of staff training. VII. Best Practices in Facility and Program Partnerships Ms. Laing reported that internet research and research of cities around the country indicated that cooperative ownership and operating agreements exist, but did not reveal any cooperative joint operation agreements. Most cases indicated that a facility was generally owned by a city and operated by another entity, such as a YMCA. Other cases involved a city giving funds for an organization to build and operate a facility and received considerations such as subsidized membership for city residents, or review of fees by Council. While there were a variety of means to build a facility, operations usually involved one organization. Ms. Asplund cautioned against installing current fads, and referenced a facility that regretted installing a kiln for ceramics. Ms. Wood stated that discussion with an architect indicated that the return on a family pool could be extraordinary and long-term usage is anticipated. A pool could be rented and could provide an additional source of revenue. Councilmember Wagner inquired if any community center models exist that provide significant day care services. AI Rossi stated that a private Puyallup YMCA provides a significant child care facility. The City of Auburn has ongoing facilities that provide childcare services such as the YMCA, Auburn schools, and the Boy's Club. The needs and available resources and revenue differ with each community. Private organizations such as the YMCA reach a broader range of members outside a specific community. It is important to fulfill the needs of Auburn constituents. In response to questions from Councilmember Wagner, Ms. Briese reported that the Puyallup YMCA facility only offered childcare services for parents while they were using the facility. It is not a community based childcare facility. This practice is typical of most facilities. Mr. Schoos praised the high security measures used at the Bellevue childcare facility. Ms. Wood commented that, due to the high usage of the day care facility, the Puyallup YMCA day care indicated that a larger facility is needed. Special City Council Meeting Minutes October 29, 2001 Page 8 Ms. Wood referred to Appendix "D" of the Auburn Community Center Advisory Group report. The list is comprised of public facilities located in the City of Auburn and includes sixteen indoor activity facilities, twenty-five park facilities, and three banquet rooms. Ms. Wood reported that the Advisory Group determined that the number of facilities does not meet current or future community needs. Due to heavy usage, Auburn School District facilities must be reserved well in advance, so they provide only limited access and availability. The School District requires that liability insurance be provided. It is difficult for the general public to meet this type of requirement. Parking is limited at many facilities and the City has a shortage of gymnasiums and other athletic facilities. Director Deal stated that although the City of Auburn has a good facilities inventory, there are not enough facilities to fulfill the needs of the community. VIII. Public Involvement Mr. Peloza reported that the Advisory Group survey consisted of eight questions. The Survey Sub-committee included Bill Kyle, Anne Baunach, Joan Mason, Doug Carr, and himself. The first Sub-committee meeting was April 25, 2001 and the Sub-committee met prior to each Advisory Group meeting. The Sub- committee presented the first draft survey to the Advisory Group on May 9, 2001 and presented the final survey on June 6, 2001. The survey proceeded on June 15, 2001. The Sub-committee began the survey at Fulmer Field and surveyed citizens at Brannon Park, Game Farm Park, King County Library, Fred Meyer, Les Gore Park, and many service clubs. The Sub-committee collected over six hundred surveys and presented statistical data to the Advisory Group by the end of July. In response to questions from Councilmember Wagner, Mr. Lachman stated that the survey revealed that the activity and program needs of the teenage age group was predominate, followed by adult, elementary age, pre-school, and senior age groups. Comments from seniors indicated that they felt their needs were being met since the completion of the new senior center. IX. Facilities Inventory Mr. Lachman explained that programs and services dictate facility design. Ms. Norman reported that the survey indicated that the overwhelming favorite activity in all age groups was swimming. The supporting facility elements include a family aquatic center with adequate locker rooms and showers. Lap pools were not as popular as family aquatic centers. Fitness was also a high priority and facility elements would include gymnasiums, multi-purpose recreational use Special City Council Meeting Minutes October 29, 2001 Page 9 for youths, and a walking track. These facilities would also support youth and teen after school programs. Mr. Masterjohn stated that, out of the top six selections chosen from the activities on the survey, swimming, fitness, and youth and teen activities were all high priorities. The survey indicated a significant variety of interest in the remaining activity selections. X. Findings, Community Service and Facilities Priorities Mr, Lachman explained that the Advisory Group attempted to survey a wide cross-section of citizens. Rosie Johanns stated that she collected surveys from a variety of interest groups of varying ages, such as at the Auburn Skate Park, Auburn Garden Club, and a 50's Plus Club. All age and interest groups overwhelmingly selected swimming and fitness activities. The community is very supportive of youth activities. Mr. Peloza stated that the media was helpful with regard to informing the community about the upcoming survey. Mr. Lachman pointed out that the Advisory Group created information packets to distribute to the community, which included invitations to the public meetings and where to send electronic and written communications. XI. Reports, General Recommendations Mr. Lachman reported that the Advisory Group was able to identify successful operational models with partnerships, but did not identify a model with equal ownership and control of a shared facility. Kevin Chapman stated that the general recommendation of the Advisory Group is that the City of Auburn construct and operate its own community center facility. Mr. Lachman explained that the community is in favor of the idea of a community campus. The Advisory Group recommends Les Gove Park as the site for a community center, whether solely owned by the City or in partnership with another entity. Mr. Masterjohn concurred with Mr. Lachman regarding the location of .a facility and added that a split facility in two locations at Les Gove Park was also acceptable. Mr. Lachman stated that the second general recommendation of Advisory Group is to include a multi-purpose room that could be used as banquet and event facilities. The Advisory Group also discussed phasing of construction. Special City Council Meeting Minutes October 29, 2001 Page 10 Ms. Norman stated that some discussion regarding phasing of construction included concern with unforeseen problems that could occur in the future which might prevent the ability to complete the total project. The Advisory Group recommends completing as much as possible from the onset. Mr. Masterjohn added that if construction phasing did occur, the Advisory Group recommends constructing the building and infrastructure first and add additional amenities in the future. Mr. Lachman stated that the Advisory Group recommends the City of Auburn continue existing operational partnerships in the community, such as with the YMCA, the Auburn School District, and various service organizations. The addition of a community center would create an opportunity to support and enhance existing and future relationships. Ms. Laing explained that there are many opportunities for a partnership that would not compete with one another and it would be a great opportunity to coordinate services in a central location. Mr. Lachman stated that observations revealed that all successful facilities had a strong supportive partnership with local business, corporations, and philanthropic individuals and foundations, which played a key role in funding sources. There are many foundations whose mission is to advance these types of services and facilities to the community. Councilmember Singer inquired as to the nature of the contributions. Mr. Lachman explained that the contributions consisted of capital funding, program specific donations, private one-time donations, and fund raising events and activities. Mr. Masterjohn stated that the McCaw Foundation was instrumental in funding the Grays Harbor facility. In response to questions from Councilmember Lewis, Mr. Lachman stated that many charitable foundation donations focus on a particular area, but criteria can change as the needs of the community and region change. In response to questions from Councilmember Wagner, Mr. Cerino stated that most of the senior citizens surveyed were in favor of a community center, with the exception of some residents living within senior only communities. There was a strong sentiment of support from the senior community. It was the consensus of the Advisory Group that they, as private citizens, would support a community center and the means to finance it. The Advisory Group Special City Council Meeting Minutes October 29, 2001 Page 11 also indicated that it was also the overwhelming consensus of the Auburn community to support and pay for a community center. Members stressed that personal opinion of the Advisory Group was not a factor in determining results of the public survey and urged Council to move forward with the project. XII. Technical Discussion on Facility Programs and Designs Mr. Lachman invited Bob Bignold to speak to Council regarding aquatic centers and thanked Mr. Bignold for his assistance to the Advisory Group. Mr. Bignold reported that lap pools are generally designed for competitive use. The depth and width of a lap pool are designed for competitive and lap swimming. Mr. Bignold stated that lap pools are usually meant for use by older children and are not conducive to recreational or instructional use for small children. Shallow depth pools began to be designed in the 1970's and are very good for instructional purposes. Mr. Bignold explained that zero depth leisure pools are ideal for instructional use, aerobics, exercise, and recreational use. Zero depth pools receive slightly more than twice the usage as conventional lap pools for the same water area. The types of amenities in a zero depth pool, such as those at the Grays Harbor facility, bring in users from around the region as well as the community, which increases revenues. Councilmember Wagner inquired as to the maintenance for a family aquatic pool versus a lap pool. Mr. Bignold stated that maintenance and operational costs for a wade pool are slightly higher than a lap pool due to the additional pumps required. Usage is also higher which often balances out the costs. Many citizens outside the community use the Grays Harbor facility. In response to questions from Councilmembers Wagner and Borden, Mr. Bignold explained that the Grays Harbor facility contains extensive aquatic facilities but is a very basic structure. The facility contains the aquatic center, exercise and aerobics room, gymnasium, two racquetball courts, teen center, computer lab and library, and three meeting rooms. From an estimated population of 30,000, there are approximately 7,500 family memberships at their facility. Family membership fees are approximately $40 per month. The facility earns approximately $20,000 to $30,000 per month in membership fees. The biggest attraction is the water slide and moving water features. Councilmember Lewis inquired as to financing methods used for the Grays Harbor facility. Special City Council Meeting Minutes October 29, 2001 Page 12 Mr. Bignold reported that financing consisted of community donations, fundraisers and a grant from a local Bishop Foundation for $4.5 million, $2 million of which was transferred into a maintenance fund for the wade pool. The project contractor, who is a local resident, contributed $200,000 of his profit. The project received tremendous community support and effort. In response to questions from Councilmember Wagner, Mr. Bignold explained that the water slide can be used by anyone meeting the height requirements, whether they can swim or not. The water slide empties into a run-out shoot approximately one foot deep, rather than into the pool area. The water slide tower cost approximately $200,000 and receives about one-third of the use. The cost of a wade pool is approximately $300,000 to $400,000 more than a standard lap pool, but it draws in twice as many users. The wave machine and moving water features are very popular. In response to questions from Mr. Lachman regarding phasing of a project and methods used for determining facility size, Mr. Bignold reported that the City of Deer Park is planning a $7 million facility. In the event they are unable to fund the project, it is being designed so that the gymnasium and other features can be added at a later date. Mr. Bignold cautioned that the most expensive features, such as the infrastructure and mechanical systems, generally need to be installed first. Most phased projects are seldom completed. Mr. Bignold stated that the population of a community, the population of those communities within approximately twenty minutes of the community, and any other large communities nearby are generally used to determine the approximate facility size needed. Community surveys also help to determine estimated usage. In response to questions from Councilmember Wagner, Mr. Bignold stated that the Municipal Water Park at Moses Lake was originally voted down by the community. The Moses Lake City Council built the project with revenue bonds. The project has been very successful and is well used by the community and the eastern Washington area. Mr. Bignold stated that creating a community campus at Les Gove Park would be very practical. The parking situation at Les Gove Park is advantageous to the type of usage that a community center in that area would experience. XIII. Ownership Scenarios Mr. Lachman directed the Council to page 10 of the Advisory Group report. Mr. Schoos reported that the following ownership scenarios are recommended by the Advisory Group, in order of preference: Special City Council Meeting Minutes October 29, 2001 Page 13 1) Full ownership by the City of Auburn. City operates all programs and sen/ices of facility · City operates a portion and subcontracts a portion of programs and sen/ices of facility · City subcontracts out all programs and sen/ices of facility Mr. Schoos pointed out that there are many organizations in the Auburn area that are qualified to operate the programs. 2) Shared Ownership/Partnership with a facilitator to operate programs with each entity owning and operating its own section of the facility Mr. Schoos stated that Scenario No. 2 would work well for the City also. 3) Equitable Partnership with each entity jointly owning and operating a facility Mr. Schoos stated that it would be difficult to find an equitable partnership. Scenario No. 3 was the least acceptable scenario of the Advisory Group. Mr. Lachman pointed out that Scenario No. I and No. 2 were very closely rated by the Advisory Group. Ms. Norman commented that this was the most difficult part of the process. The Advisory Group discussed programs and facilities that currently exist within the community and programs and facilities residents would like to see added, Scenario No. 2 could provide the pieces that are currently missing from existing programs and facilities. Mr. Thordarson stated that operational and maintenance costs would be reduced with a shared facility. In response to questions from Councilmember Borden, Mr, Lachman stated that the Advisory Group did not find a model partnership facility. The Advisory Group consistently saw ownership by one entity. Mr. Cerino stated that there is a YMCA in Sherwood, Oregon that is a city owned facility that is operated by the YMCA. Ms, Laing stated that there is a partnership facility in Boise, Idaho. The city built an aquatic center and gave it to the YMCA. The YMCA then built the rest of the facility and takes care of operations as well. The city received considerations, such as Council setting rates for the aquatic center for city residents. The Sherwood, Oregon facility was built entirely by the city and given to YMCA. Special City Council Meeting Minutes October 29, 2001 Page 14 XIV. Conclusions Mr. Masterjohn stressed that the Advisory Group envisions a facility that represents the City of Auburn. If a partnership was developed with the YMCA, a facility with two entrances or separate facilities would be desirable. Mr. Laing thanked Co-chairs and Advisory Group members for their time and effort with regard to the community center study and report. XV. Review of Charge and Next Steps Mayor Booth expressed appreciation to the Advisory Group for their participation and diligence in completing the study and report for a community center. Mayor Booth stated that Council would determine a strategy for proceeding to the next stage with regard to a community center. XVI. Adjournment There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 7:41 PM. APPROVEDTHIS/~%/4f ~,//.j,~j~ "*" DAY OF ,2001. Charles A. Booth, Mayor ~ardson, Deputy City Clerk f:/clerk/council/2001/2001 al 0-29specialCommunityCenter