Farmington Hills studies replacement for aging Costick Center; consultants outline three site and funding paths

Farmington Hills City Council members on June 23 heard a presentation from Sports Facilities Companies outlining options to replace the aging Costick Center with a new roughly 40,000-square-foot activity center after public outreach and a financial review, but made no formal decision at the study session.

The consultant, Evan Eloff of Sports Facilities Companies, said the review builds on work that began in 2022 and synthesizes public listening sessions, an online survey and historic usage data. "We would recommend that maintaining access to your programs, to your physical spaces, to where people recreate and where people gather is critically important," Eloff said, emphasizing that any replacement plan should avoid interrupting services for the 50-and-better population while work proceeds.

Why it matters: City staff and consultants say the Costick Center is nearing the end of its operational viability and that the special services division runs an annual operating gap (described in the presentation as about $4,000,000). The report is intended to give council options that preserve senior services while addressing capital and operating shortfalls.

What the consultant presented: Eloff summarized community input from 586 survey respondents (about 98 percent in the 50-and-better category among those who reported age) and focus groups. Top desired assets were an indoor walking track, group exercise space and indoor aquatics. The team analyzed three site options: - Existing Costick site: retains the "dedicated" senior-center feel many users prefer and benefits from existing utilities and parking. Eloff said about 63,000 people live within a 10-minute drive of that site. A challenge is the smaller immediate market and lower median household income inside that drive shed. Previous studies cited in the presentation estimate capital work of at least $13.5 million would be required to extend the Costick Center's useful life; that work would also likely interrupt service. - The Hawk (co-location): could create operational efficiencies (for example, shared lifeguard staffing) and concentrate recreation services at a well-known hub, but many current Costick users oppose losing a dedicated senior space and additional parking/field impacts would be required. - Oakland Community College (OCC), Orchard Ridge campus: has the largest 10-minute-drive population (about 91,000), a higher median household income in that drive shed, and preliminarily could offer land at low or no cost under a partnership. Eloff and City Manager Gary Mechner confirmed the city has had preliminary conversations with OCC about possible synergies, especially with OCC’s expanding health-education programs.

Recommended facility and scale: Eloff described a proposed facility program that includes approximately 11,000 square feet of multiuse space (convertible for courts or large events), a 25-yard, six-lane lap pool, wet/dry support space, integrated walking track, a commercial kitchen to continue congregate meal programs, administrative space and additional individual changing rooms. The presentation estimated roughly 40,000 square feet total and site needs of about 4.6 acres with approximately 300 parking spaces to accommodate peak-day activity.

Preliminary finances and funding considerations: Eloff presented an institutional-grade pro forma in summary: projected operating revenue roughly $1.0 million in year one growing to about $1.36 million by year five, with cost-of-goods-sold and operating overhead leaving the new facility in a typical municipal pool-and-recreation cost-recovery range (presented as roughly 56 to 68 percent). The consultant recommended establishing a capital-improvement allocation (the presentation used $200,000 per year as an illustrative figure). The analysis noted an existing city parks millage currently at 0.4511 mills and an annual earmark of about $400,000 already directed to activity-center operations; Eloff recommended considering a parks-millage increase to cover debt service if the council chose that path. City staff noted an estimated $4 million annual operating gap for the entire special services division that will need broader strategies beyond any single facility decision.

Council and staff comments: City Manager Gary Mechner described the study as "a comprehensive look" at special services facilities and said the presentation represents phase two of a multi-part evaluation. Mayor Rich and multiple councilmembers repeatedly assured the public that the Costick Center would not be closed while a replacement is developed: "I really don't see any of us up here wanting to close the Costick Center before we have a facility that's going to provide appropriate services," Mayor Rich said.

Public input at the meeting: The council allowed an extended public-comment period. Dozens of residents and stakeholders, including the chair of the Farmington Area Commission on Aging (Dan Fantor) and a national accessibility advocate (Joshua Taylor), urged preserving senior-focused programming and a warm-water therapeutic option, protecting the congregate-meal kitchen, keeping the facility single-story and accessible, and moving quickly. Several speakers urged that the new facility remain primarily dedicated to people 50 and older; others recommended intergenerational or shared uses provided seniors retain priority access.

Next steps and direction to staff: Councilmembers signaled a desire to move more quickly than past study phases and to avoid closing the existing Costick Center before replacement capacity is available. Staff and the consultant said further work remains: detailed site testing, refined cost estimates tied to final design, continued pursuit of partnerships (including further talks with OCC and Rose Senior Living), pursuit of grant and outside funding, and clarity about how the county parks-millage dollars and any federal earmarks would be applied. Councilmembers expressed a preference to avoid an immediate tax increase if possible and asked staff to return with detailed financial scenarios and a recommended timeline for a ballot measure if a millage is required.

No formal vote or binding commitment was taken at the session; the presentation and public comments will be part of follow-up discussions and future agenda items.

Ending: Councilmembers thanked residents for attending and asked staff to return with options and a proposed schedule to advance design and funding work so a final direction can be taken in the coming months.