Larry; The streets for sure would add up to more dollar value than maybe our parks. The point is that Parks and Recreation not only maintains a vast system of parks, cuts grass, fixes fountains, pools, but also runs a gigantic system of programs from arts to sports.
You are correct on the point of is my mind made up on the topic. Yes, I voted for it twice before Tuesday. If you count Tuesday that would make it three times. I have already explained the logic.
What I plan on attempting at this point is to go for a ballot option. We define the scope of the project. The scope was the real root of the commotion over the project. The commission essentially hit the reset button last week and brought the whole project back to square one.
It is time to evaluate where we actually are in regards to the Parks and Recreation Offices and the Auditorium. What we have is an auditorium/gym that does not have AC that has a damaged roof and has a deteriorating stage/fixed seating area. We also have a Parks and Recreation Staff that is located in a 20 year old plus garage, a totally substandard working environment.
The scope of any project must be evaluated/determined and appropriate cost estimates applied. What items should or should not be considered under the scope of work? Here is a possible list:
1. New Parks and Recreation Offices.
2. Offices for P&R to be collocated with City Hall.
3. AC for the Current Auditorium/Gym.
4. Repair of the roof for the Auditorium/Gym.
5. Addition of a Basketball Court.
6. Repair/Renovation of the Stage.
7. Repair/Renovation of the fixed seating area.
8. Maintaining the current building footprint.
9. Not maintain the current building footprint.
10. Not collocating P&R with City Hall
11. Retain the memorial plaque and rededicate building at end of project.
Any cost estimates would have to be based on each of the eleven items listed above. The proposal that was stopped last Tuesday was based on the cost of doing item 1, 2, 3, 4 and 11. The cost for item 6 and 7 has not been calculated. Renovation cost for the stage and seating may be well in excess of six figures.
Item nine concerns moving walls and using green space to make City Hall bigger, going outside the foot print will be expensive.
Item two and ten are related. Elimination of two Parks and Recreation positions is envisioned under item two. The cost savings over ten years helps to fund the building. If option ten is used the cost is higher.
We can take the criterion or scope – 10 items and come up with a few options.
A. Build it all. Everything is done except item 8 – the footprint is not maintained. This will be the most costly option. But it takes care of everyone. Provided the people are willing to fund 4 to 6 million in bonds to pay for it.
B. Renovate Parks and Recreation at its current location and renovate the Stage and Fixed Seating. This would be of medium cost 1-2 million in bonding would be required. No savings from consolidation of customer service.
C. Collocate Parks and Recreation in City Hall, remove stage and seating and add a basketball court. This would be the least expensive – would not require a bond.
D. Do nothing.
(of course more options can be devised like nothing for Parks and Recreation and everything for the stage)
What I would like to do is simply put these options on the Ballot for November 2014. Each option would have a cost associated in terms of a city bond issue. A = big bond, B= smaller bond, C= no bond, but expenditure of current funds and D= no cost, but eventual deterioration of both the old Parks and Rec office and the stage/seating.
Let the people vote on it. It makes sense; the determination to build the building was done by popular vote. So why not resolve the disagreement on what should be done the same way?