City staff and councilmembers on July 17 discussed options to replace Alice Hall, a frequently rented community facility that staff and an architect have flagged as beyond its useful life.

Gail, a city staff member, said an architect’s review recommended tearing down Alice Hall and that staff has discussed relocating a modern community center to Shepherd’s Park. “If you want to remain, keep the name of Alice Hall. You know, we'll just move Alice,” Gail said, noting the council would decide the final location.

Councilmembers raised concerns about flood history, access and visibility at Shepherd’s Park and suggested broader public discussion before any demolition. One councilmember said Shepherd’s Park flooded in the past and described the area as “the most run down part of our city,” urging caution about siting a new center there.

What staff presented and what’s at stake

- Condition and recommendation: Staff said an architect’s assessment indicated Alice Hall has reached the end of its useful life and suggested demolition paired with a replacement facility. Staff described Alice Hall as well maintained but aging.

- Potential sites: Shepherd’s Park was discussed as a candidate because of available space for parking (including recently acquired CRA lots) and easier access, but some councilmembers objected because of past flooding there. The field north of the tennis courts and nearby CRA‑owned parcels also were mentioned as possible redevelopment or site candidates.

- Size and design options: City staff said the lot north of the tennis courts is “just under an acre” (roughly 140 by 300 feet) and not obviously large enough for a single‑story community center unless a multi‑story building is considered.

- Public process and timeline: Councilmembers repeatedly said they want community input and a plan before removing Alice Hall. One councilmember warned the city will face public pushback if it demolishes the facility without an agreed replacement.

Budget context and related parcels

Staff noted the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) previously purchased a “Hopper property” near the park for future redevelopment once the park work is complete. The recently acquired lots across the street were described as additional options for parking or supporting uses.

Ending

Councilmembers asked staff to include the community in decisions about a replacement and to return options and cost estimates. No binding decision or formal vote was taken on July 17; staff described the recommendation as a discussion item for future council action.