Advertisement
$6.5M-$9.25M for rec center
by Gregory R. Norfleet · News · September 11, 2014


A daylong meeting hammered out two possible floor plans for a new recreation center, but city leaders think they may need to trim back the project to fit their budget plans.


FEH Architects collected public input throughout the 12-hour, Sept. 4 “charrette,” moving or adding doorways and rooms, making areas larger or smaller and even narrowing down possible designs for the front of the building.

However, when architect Kevin Eipperle said the 38,000-square-foot version could run $6.5 to $7 million and the 49,000-square-foot version could run $8.75 to $9.25 million, city leaders expressed concern.

And, if the city wanted to build everything at once — including a new city hall, library and pool — that could mean a total price tag of about $20 million.

“Wow,” Mayor Mark Worrell said. “That’s the only word I’ve got — wow.”

Architect Denny Sharp said City Administrator Matt Muckler said the city would like to keep the project around $5 million.

“If we still need to, we can reduce more,” Sharp said.

The city plans to ask voters to approve a bond referendum to pay for the Pedersen Valley project, but state law limits its borrowing power and the city does not want to use it all in case an emergency should arise.

The drawings at the end of the Sept. 4 meeting already cut some recreation center amenities out, Muckler said. The indoor running track was shortened from 200 meters to either 165 or 175 meters, a third basketball court was removed, and a racquetball court was left out.

Both versions still build a two-story structure with the indoor track, two gymnasiums, meeting rooms, a kitchen/concession stand, locker rooms, weight rooms, cardiovascular exercise rooms and spin exercise rooms, as well as storage space. The larger version adds 11,000 square feet to make some areas larger, and also adds things like a teen room and council chambers.

“It’s really all a matter of money,” Sharp said.

Eipperle’s cost estimates do not include purchasing new equipment or paying engineers. Muckler said engineering fees could add 10 to 15 percent.

Sharp noted that the city could cut costs with less-expensive building materials.

“I like both plans,” resident Roger Laughlin said. “I wish we could do the bigger one.”

City Council member Mary Beth Stevenson asked about building to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification standards to make the building more energy-efficient, sustainable and environmentally friendly. She even wondered if the building could have a “green roof” that covers the building in vegetation for insulation, water absorption and wildlife habitation. Architect Cory Sharp said most of the exterior building designs could handle such request, but Eipperle said “sometimes green roofs are not totally sustainable” and he would suggest solar panels instead.

Some 15 residents, a few council members, city staff and the architects also discussed including translucent materials to maximize natural light in the gymnasium while minimizing glare and the necessity of electric light.

Worrell suggested building a basement — raised to keep it out of the flood plain — under the east side of the building which could be developed later into useable space. Eipperle said that could add $800,000 to the cost.