Commission reviews two schematic test fits for proposed Birmingham Community and Senior Center as bond timing and funding options draw public scrutiny

Architects from Newman Smith presented two schematic “test-fit” layouts March 24 for a proposed Birmingham Community and Senior Center, showing alternate ways to fit a gym, pool, walking track, multipurpose rooms and shared admin space on the YMCA/NEXT site at Edgewood and Lincoln. The commission and the public spent more than an hour probing parking, pool depth and whether the city should seek voter approval for a construction bond this year or later.

Why it matters: The building plan would replace the existing YMCA/NEXT space and is being developed as a city-owned facility intended for mixed use: senior services, recreation programming, meeting rooms and a community pool. That combination raises questions about capital cost, ongoing operating responsibility, who will run the facility and whether the city should seek a bond from voters — and if so, how long the debt should run.

The two test-fit options showed similar program area totals (about 35,000 assignable square feet) and a total gross building size of roughly 50,000 square feet; differences centered on how the gym and pool are sited and whether the team reduced exterior massing by sinking the gym 16 feet to preserve neighborhood scale. Architects said sinking the gym reduces visible wall height on the Lincoln–Edgewood corner from about 36 feet to about 18 feet, which some commissioners and neighbors favored.

Pool and aquatics: The city’s aquatics consultant provided three pool concepts. Options 1 and 2 offered a 25-yard pool with ramp access and therapy features; option 3 included an 8-foot-deep end suitable for diving starts and lifeguard training. Several commissioners and parents representing swim teams pressed for option 3 or a depth sufficient for competitive starts. Architects said they would revise pool depths and confirm requirements for competitive use in later design steps.

Parking and park impacts: The design team counted available parking on and around the site: 74 spaces on YMCA property, 55 in Saint James Park, about 17 parallel spaces on Floyd, roughly 15 on Edgewood and about 23 along Lincoln; property-owner discussions could add another 33 spaces in a bank/dental lot after hours and on weekends. In the test fits, a layout that angled 90 degrees parking plus shared agreements produced roughly 140 spaces on site and up to 103 nearby (for a total near 200). The architects’ site option moves the building footprint up to 42 feet into Saint James Park to gain necessary parking; the team said the ball field would remain usable, but commissioners asked the parks department to study recreational impacts and share options with neighbors.

Operating model, tenants and ballot language: Commissioners repeatedly asked whether the city or outside organizations would operate the pool and facility. City staff and counsel said the bond question should describe the building and its program elements but need not (and typically should not) name private tenant operators in the ballot language because tenants and operating arrangements can change over a 20–25 year financing horizon. Bond counsel noted that when a portion of a publicly financed building will be used by private nonprofits, state law generally requires a public hearing on proposed private use before bonds are sold; that hearing would occur after voter approval and before issuance.

Bond duration, cost and timing: Staff presented two financing options produced with the city’s financial advisor: (a) a 20-year bond and (b) a 25-year bond for a principal amount not to exceed $32 million. Rough estimates included a first-year millage impact range and an average annual millage; a 25-year bond reduces annual levy but increases total interest cost over the life of the bonds. City bond counsel reiterated that the ballot must show the principal amount and the proposed maximum term; interest and total debt service will be determined at sale. Staff recommended further refinement of budget and schematic design before deciding on an election date; commissioners asked whether August (special election) or November (general election) made more sense. Staff warned that delaying to November could add an estimated $395,000 in project escalation and earlier construction cost increases; a special August election would cost the city roughly $35,000–$50,000.

Public reaction and library dispute: The public comment period included substantial testimony from Baldwin Public Library trustees and the library director, who said a recent city administrative-services contract proposed to boost the library’s annual administrative fee from ~$104,000 to ~$219,000 and that any plan to reallocate library millage to support the center would be legally and politically fraught. Library trustees said Baldwin Public Library is established under Public Act 164 and retains authority to set its own millage within legal limits; trustees urged the commission not to reduce library funding or assume library millage can be repurposed without negotiation. Commissioners asked the city manager to pause and seek direct, negotiated options with the library board rather than rushing reallocations.

What’s next: Architects said they will revise the schematic designs to reflect committee and commission feedback (pool depths, NEXT living room entry location, rooftop amenity, circulation, and parking agreements). City staff and the owner’s representative expect a revised schematic and a refined construction cost estimate in April; that estimate will inform whether the commission places a bond question on the ballot and the timing (August versus November).

Ending: Commissioners did not vote on any bond question or on a schematic; the meeting closed with direction for additional outreach, further refinement of the design, and follow-up discussions with the Baldwin Public Library and potential parking partners.