Feasibility study: Gaithersburg shows need for multigenerational recreation center; estimated cost about $43 million

A feasibility study presented to the Gaithersburg Mayor and City Council on May 12 concluded the city has demonstrated demand for a multigenerational recreation facility that would combine senior, youth and general recreation spaces. Danny Wilson, a consultant with Barry Dunn, told the council the study found existing facilities "do not fulfill" the combined needs and recommended a single facility designed to serve multiple generations.

The study matters because it ties program demand to capacity shortfalls across the city’s current inventory and lays out preliminary cost and site considerations. The report estimated a total construction cost in the low $40 millions and projected annual operating costs of about $1.6 million against conservative annual revenue of roughly $380,000, figures council members and residents described as “sticker shock.”

Consultants described the study’s scope as: evaluate whether there is community need for a multigenerational facility; identify gaps in current programming and facilities; outline an architectural program and site criteria; and produce a pro forma operating estimate. The team said outreach produced 634 contributions via two stakeholder meetings, three focus groups, a public meeting and an online project site; consultants also reviewed facility inventories and drop-in/registration data. "There is a need for a multigenerational recreational facility," Wilson said during the presentation.

Consultants flagged aquatics, after-school programming and cooking classes as having the highest unmet demand; aquatics showed the largest single unmet percentage at about 28.7 percent based on wait-list and enrollment comparisons presented. The study also noted approximately 1,200 households in the city could be living in multigenerational arrangements and that demographics are projected to shift toward a slightly larger senior population over the next five years.

Architectural partners used five site-selection criteria: minimum parcel size (7.25 acres), permissible zoning, environmental constraints, site access (roads/traffic), and proximity to utilities. Staff-provided properties reviewed included the Robertson Youth Center property and an Addison Park site; consultants said Robertson’s layout made the proposed program difficult to fit, while the Addison concept was feasible. The report estimated either conceptual build would be roughly $42 million to $43 million but did not include detailed site work, traffic analysis or full schematic design.

On operations and finance, the firm provided a conservative pro forma showing about $380,000 in projected annual revenue and roughly $1.6 million in projected annual operating costs given current pricing and staffing assumptions; the consultants noted those numbers would change with different program sizes, pricing, or staffing models. The report also included optional support spaces identified by staff (classrooms, dedicated senior and youth rooms, fitness/weight areas, multipurpose rooms, an instructional kitchen, a sensory room, and a gymnasium with a suspended walking track).

Council members and members of the public raised several recurring points during the question-and-answer session. Councilmember Rob asked for more data on demand relative to nearby facilities (for example, Germantown and other county providers) and for a clearer breakdown of demand by neighborhood. Councilmember Neil and others expressed concern about the total project cost and recommended exploring whether aquatics could be decoupled or delivered separately to lower initial capital needs. Councilmember Lisa and others asked for phasing/options analysis and for potential public-private or county partnership options to reduce the city’s upfront and operating burden.

Speakers from the Senior Advisory Committee urged clearer demographic presentation and questioned some square-footage and staffing assumptions for senior programming. "I was really shocked to hear you say that you only suspect a slight increase in the number of older adults," Jean Dinwiddie, a member of the Senior Advisory Committee, said during public comment. Residents who testified emphasized access and transportation: "Putting the things out on the fringes of the city would be useless to people like me," said Russell Kennedy, a resident of Old Town, who described limited mobility and poor public transit as barriers.

Consultants and staff noted the study met the stated task — determine whether a combined multigenerational facility is needed and whether it is feasible — but several council members said the council now needs more options. Councilmembers asked staff and consultants to supply additional analysis if the council decides to continue: comparables and recent local build costs; a resident vs. nonresident breakdown of wait lists and registrations; alternative configurations that exclude or phase in an aquatic facility; and transportation/walkability data tied to proposed sites. Staff said the report’s timing was intended to support future budget conversations and that any capital proposal would follow the city’s usual Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process.

No formal motion, vote, or direction to adopt a specific course of action was recorded during the meeting. The council and staff agreed to continue the discussion at a future date, with council members requesting follow-up information to evaluate options, costs and siting.

Looking ahead, the study gives the council an initial program and budget baseline to inform CIP planning, community engagement and future schematic design if the council decides to pursue a project. Council members signaled that decoupling aquatics and exploring phased or modular alternatives, plus clearer local comparables and neighborhood-level demand data, will be the next steps before any funding decision is made.