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