Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rec Center Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Takoma Park weighs four options, including leaseback, for New Hampshire Avenue rec center
Summary
Staff outlined four options — repair ($500k–$1.1M), substantial renovation (cost TBD), demolition/new build ($17–$20M), or a focused RFP with land deeded to a developer and a long-term leaseback — and recommended a feasibility study funded by an existing $160k allocation before releasing an RFP.
Takoma Park staff told the City Council on Feb. 23 they will pursue a feasibility study this spring to clarify options for the New Hampshire Avenue recreation center, a site the council has sought to redevelop for more than a decade.
Seb McNally of the Housing & Community Development Department summarized background work that includes a 2022 RFP with no viable respondents, a capital-needs assessment identifying roughly $500,000 of 10-year repairs to keep the existing facility serviceable, and site constraints (under 2 acres and adjacent to a forest-conservation easement). Staff outlined four options:
• Status quo: limited repairs to extend the existing facility’s life at an estimated $500,000–$1.1 million.
• Substantial renovation: gut-and-rebuild of the existing structure; the cost is unknown and requires feasibility and architectural study.
• Demolition and new construction: full replacement estimated at $17–$20 million, which staff said would create debt-service obligations likely above what staff consider financially healthy for the city.
• Focused RFP/leaseback: deed the land to a mixed-use developer willing to provide a new recreation center as part of a housing-enabled project and sign a long-term leaseback; the city’s upfront contribution would be the land value, and annual lease payments would replace debt-service but would relinquish parcel control.
Staff recommended using $160,000 already allocated to pay for feasibility analysis and to return with clearer costs and trade-offs later in 2026, then consider a narrowly scoped RFP if feasible. Council members pressed for an appraisal of land value, minimum rec-center footprint (staff said studies have suggested around 17,000 sq ft is desirable vs. the existing ~10–12k sq ft), parking needs (roughly 50 spaces cited as a planning figure), and potential county partners (Montgomery County, Prince George’s County, or regional developers). Several council members stressed urgency for improved programs now and asked staff to identify modest short-term upgrades that can enhance daily operations while the long-term options are studied.
