Residents urge San Mateo to set aside $4.5M for King Center pool and resiliency upgrades

Several San Mateo residents urged the City Council Monday to set aside $4.5 million for phase 1 of the King Recreation and Swim (MLK) Center projects, focusing on a new pool, locker rooms and a resiliency "nervous system" so the facility can operate during heat, smoke or power outages.

"I am here to help advocate for the use of $4,500,000 towards the King Center," said Jennifer Plantenberg, a pastor at Community Baptist Church and a longtime Idaho Street resident, during the public-comment period.

Lisa Teeler, executive director of the Bay Area Community Health Advisory Council, thanked the council for a staff recommendation of $4,000,000 and urged an additional $500,000 for repairs. "I hope that you consider it," she said.

Adriana Fernandez Arriaga, a longtime North Central resident who said she learned to swim at the King pool, told the council the center could serve as a resiliency hub for a neighborhood vulnerable to climate impacts and asked council to "set aside the $4,500,000 for the heart of the North Central community." (Transcript contained one instance of an apparent numeric transcription error; staff and other speakers consistently described the community ask as $4,500,000.)

City staff and council described the current funding and staff recommendations. The city manager said the project already has $1,250,000 allocated toward the King resiliency-center project, including roughly $850,000 in federal earmarks. He and other staff said the council directed staff during prior meetings to propose adding $4,000,000 in this CIP cycle, which, combined with existing funds, would yield about $5,250,000 to advance phase 1 work including a new pool, locker rooms and resiliency systems.

"The King Center itself has really strong bones," the city manager said, summarizing facility-assessment findings and recommending phase 1 proceed. Fabry noted staff have hired a project-management team and architect and expect initial community engagement in May and a return to the council with community feedback in August.

Council members expressed support for moving phase 1 ahead but asked clarifying questions: staff and the city manager discussed differing high-level estimates for total costs (comments referenced phase'one estimates ranging from about $8 million to $12 million and a broader $20 million full-project figure), and the council asked how the proposed capital-reserve draw would interact with other capital priorities.

The council did not take a final vote Monday; staff said the CIP and operating budget will return for formal consideration at the June study session and subsequent budget hearings.