Campbell council weighs near‑term repairs and $12–13 million pool proposal for community center; city hall roof and HVAC also prioritized

Campbell City Council members on March 3 heard staff lay out near‑term needs and funding options for City Hall and the Campbell Community Center, including a proposal to replace the aging pool and immediate repairs to roofing and HVAC systems at City Hall.

Public Works Director Amy Olay told the council that a 2024 facility condition assessment put the replacement value of the city’s entire portfolio at roughly $230 million and identified about $46 million of likely five‑year priorities. "Tonight we are really just trying to focus spotlight on the community center pools improvements and the needed improvements here at city hall," Olay said, summarizing the staff focus for the meeting.

Staff described the most urgent items as roof and HVAC work at City Hall — including an estimated $300,000 control‑system conversion and about $1.2 million in roof repairs — and a pool facility that staff said is beyond its useful life and often closes because of leaks and equipment failures. For the community center staff presented near‑term figures that staff framed in two ways during the session: about $12 million for a new pool (later described as roughly $10 million for the pool plus about $2 million for locker rooms and a staffed single‑entry building) and a near‑term package of about $13.2 million for the broader community‑center work.

Council members pressed staff on scope and timing. One council member asked whether near‑term repairs would only be a short‑term "plug" before a full replacement; staff said the roof and HVAC work would be immediate fixes but noted replacement or larger renovation would be a separate, more costly undertaking. On the pool, staff said a new pool would be a full replacement rather than a renovation.

Staff presented a menu of funding options and sought council feedback: establish a dedicated facilities fund, allocate Measure K revenue annually, use park dedication funds for pool‑related improvements, tap tenant lease revenue for tenant upgrades and emergency repairs, increase facility fees or nonresident charges for pool use, evaluate general‑fund debt capacity, or pursue a future general‑obligation bond for major capital projects. "We want to have a conversation and feedback from the council of some of the funding strategies that we could be looking at," the city manager said.

Public commenters urged careful planning and prioritized different items. Susan Landry recommended a community‑center master plan, questioned some budget estimates and suggested nonresidents pay higher pool fees; she noted that architectural fees commonly run 12–15% of construction costs. "Non‑residents should be paying more," Landry said. Steve Saunders urged the council to prioritize immediate roof repairs: "Fix the roofs," he told the council.

Council members voiced mixed views about a bond. Some members expressed reluctance to ask voters again soon; others said the city should at least poll residents to test appetite for a future bond. Several members favored using a combination of park funds, tenant revenue and limited debt and emphasized prioritizing employee safety and immediate building repairs in the upcoming CIP and budget process.

Staff said they would incorporate council feedback as they refine CIP and budget proposals. There were no motions or votes taken at the study session; staff will return with further budget and financing details.

The study session concluded with the mayor adjourning the meeting.