Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Long Center Renovation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Long Center natatorium renovation draws council scrutiny; item pulled for further review
Summary
The council on Jan. 13 pulled a proposed guaranteed maximum price and construction‑administration package for the Long Center natatorium renovation after extensive questions about operating costs, the decision to keep the pool enclosed and construction‑phase staffing fees.
At the Jan. 13 City Council meeting, staff presented the Long Center natatorium renovation and a proposed guaranteed maximum price (GMP) and related construction‑administration services. After extensive exchange the council elected to remove the item from consent for additional review.
Jeff Walker, senior professional engineer with Public Works, reviewed design choices approved in 2023 and 2024, and described the scope: reduction of exterior glazing, a new insulated curtain wall, replacement of aging HVAC and dehumidification systems (two new rooftop units, a new TPO roof) and a proposed 1,700‑square‑foot enclosed sundeck addition. Walker said the renovations target persistent condensation, steel corrosion and mechanical shortfalls. Staff said the overall project budget approved in 2024 included funds to modernize mechanical systems and address structural repairs.
Councilmembers raised a range of substantive questions: several asked for the annual operating cost to maintain the indoor pool, noted that many local swimmers prefer outdoor swimming in Florida and questioned whether keeping the facility enclosed was the right long‑term choice. One councilmember said he needs more time to review why the council originally directed an indoor renovation instead of an outdoor conversion. Another member sought clearer justification for paying nearly $300,000 in additional construction administration and design‑phase staffing costs in the GMP package, and questioned potential duplication of services between the construction manager and the architect/engineer during construction.
City staff explained that construction‑phase services cover shop‑drawing review, RFIs, site visits and technical responses that require the architect/engineer of record and that separating those services could increase risk and contingency costs. Councilmembers asked for an item‑by‑item cost breakdown and for staff to provide operating cost estimates and comparative scenarios (e.g., exterior removal versus retrofit). The mayor asked staff to withdraw the item from consent to allow councilmembers time to review the documentation; the item will return to a future agenda with additional financial and operational detail.
