Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multi Generational Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Florence council hears resident debate over $50 million multi‑generational center; staff says demand is insufficient
Summary
Residents and council members debated whether Florence should build a $50 million multi‑generational center. Staff presented a market analysis saying demand is insufficient and recommended halting the project; council signaled consensus to pause next phases and consider smaller, phased or repurposing options.
Residents urged caution on plans for a proposed multi‑generational center while staff said the town lacks the demand to justify immediate construction.
Les Buckner, a resident, told the council the proposed building’s cost was too high. “A 50,000,000 price tag with potentially 2 to 3,000,000 per year in operating costs is not a financially viable solution,” Buckner said, and urged the council to ask staff or a special committee for more realistic alternatives. Vice Chair DeRosa of the Planning and Zoning Commission, who participated in the discussion, urged the council to use the town’s adopted general plan as a guide.
The market analysis and pre‑design work are complete, Paul King, director of community services, told the council. “The result of the study indicates that there is currently insufficient demand for the project in Florence. Therefore, staff is recommending that the council close this project at this time,” King said. King and several council members instead urged smaller, faster steps such as a teen center or repurposing existing town facilities for intergenerational programming.
Several residents and council members pushed for program‑first approaches rather than an expensive new building. Vice Chair DeRosa said the town’s service mix matters: “A multi generational facility is not a building. It is the programs and services that this community offers.” Courtney Ramirez, speaking by phone, and Glenda Turner and Michelle Cortes, in person, all suggested using existing facilities, partnering with organizations such as the Boys & Girls Club or the YMCA, and phasing any new construction.
Council members also discussed short‑term steps: repurposing underused rooms at the aquatic center or library for teen programming, budgeting additional funds for teen events, and pursuing partnerships with school district gyms or outside nonprofits. Multiple councilmembers emphasized better inventory and assessment of town‑owned buildings before committing to new construction.
By the end of the discussion, council expressed appreciation for the study and consultants and signaled a consensus to pause further phases of the multi‑generational project while using the study’s data to inform smaller, faster initiatives and the upcoming budget process. The council did not take a formal vote during the work session; staff will return with options and next steps for council consideration.
Looking ahead, councilmembers asked staff to identify near‑term, lower‑cost program and facility options and to show budget implications in the town’s next fiscal cycle.
