Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects Bond topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates timing and language of proposed bond for new community center; approves RFP for construction manager
Summary
After a multi-hour debate about schedule, scope and public outreach, Birmingham’s City Commission on Jan. 13 authorized an RFP for construction management services for the proposed community center at 400 E. Lincoln but declined to finalize a May bond question for $32 million, citing a tight timeline for public education.
The Birmingham City Commission spent the longest portion of its Jan. 13 meeting on the proposed new facility at 400 E. Lincoln — the project often described as a senior recreation center — and the financing needed to build it. Commissioners authorized staff to issue a request for proposals for construction management services but declined to finalize ballot language or commit to a May 6 bond election, citing the compressed public-education timeline and the need to refine project scope, operating costs and naming.
City and outside advisors outlined the current plan. Attorney Pat McGough, representing the city on bond-financing, said the maximum bond amount under discussion is $32,000,000 and described filing deadlines to place a question on the May 6, 2025 special election (ballot language must be filed with the city clerk by Feb. 11). McGough said the commission can present a maximum amount to voters and, if approved, later issue bonds for a smaller amount once final construction pricing is available. He recommended a 20‑year bond structure as a standard financing term; Benzinski & Co. financial schedules in the packet estimated a levy roughly in the range of $0.50 per $1,000 of taxable value annually (the packet includes multiple term options and illustrative debt-service tables).
Project development staff and the city’s owner’s representative said the architect, Newman Smith, is completing schematic design and will present a refined program in February; staff said interlocal agreements with NEXT (senior services) and the YMCA are near final. Kramer Management Group recommended bringing a construction manager on board now so the manager can produce schematic-design cost estimates and participate in constructability and budgeting while the design proceeds. Brian Deming of Kramer said an early construction-manager estimate will let the city present a more reliable cost picture to the community.
Commissioners voiced consistent concerns:
- Timing and public education: Multiple commissioners opposed scheduling a May 6 bond vote because absentee and early ballots begin roughly 45 days before the election, limiting the time available to present schematic design, renderings and operating‑cost information to voters. Several commissioners favored an August election to allow more public engagement and donor/philanthropy outreach. Commissioner Therese Long said, “If we rush this and the commission is not educated and the community is not educated... if it fails, we’re dead in the water.”
- Naming and framing: Commissioners urged changing the working label from “senior recreation center” to a name that emphasizes community and multigenerational use. Staff said it is practical to add language such as “community center with dedicated senior programming” in ballot wording while avoiding references to specific partner organizations so that the ballot remains neutral and accurate.
- Operating costs and scale: Commissioners repeatedly requested clearer, market‑based estimates of ongoing operating costs and assumptions about which partner organizations (e.g., YMCA, NEXT) would assume portions of operations and programming before asking voters to approve long-term debt.
After extensive debate the commission approved issuing the construction-manager RFP and to hire a construction manager who can provide schematic-design cost estimates and support later GMP (guaranteed maximum price) work. The RFP passed in a roll-call vote with one dissenting vote; commissioners asked staff to modify the RFP schedule to reflect the commission’s desire to align a possible ballot to a later date (staff agreed to revise language to allow May or later elections). The commission did not adopt final ballot language or vote tonight on placing the $32 million question on the May ballot; members directed staff and the ad hoc senior center committee to refine program details, renderings and operating-cost estimates and to return with an updated schedule and draft ballot language for further consideration.
