Larkspur council directs $3.1M plan for new Piper Park recreation center

The Larkspur City Council on Oct. 15 voted to direct staff to bring back a formal budget amendment to fund a 2,400-square-foot "enhanced" modular recreation facility at Piper Park, with an estimated project cost of $3.1 million. The motion to return with the budget amendment passed on a 3-2 vote.

Council asked staff to present the project as a capital improvement for fiscal year 2025-26. Public Works Director Julian Skinner described multiple options and a six-way cost matrix that compared temporary trailers, basic modular and enhanced modular builds. "The enhanced modular is 3.1 million," Skinner said when outlining the high-quality, longer-life option that he said is designed with steel construction and an expected long service life.

Recreation Director Nick Stone told the council the park is heavily used and that programming needs require a room wider than the city'9s current leased community facility. "This building has the opportunity to be very programmed," Stone said, listing children'9s camps, exercise classes, theater and rentals. He estimated current rental revenue from the existing community room at roughly $5,000 to $7,200 a year and stressed program value over rental income.

Staff recommended including the public restrooms in the new building rather than building a standalone restroom. Skinner presented cost ranges for alternatives: a restroom-only replacement at about $450,000–$650,000, renovation of the existing restroom building for $350,000–$600,000, temporary trailers for about $400,000, and permanent modular options ranging from about $1.8 million (basic, smaller footprint) to $3.1 million (enhanced, 2,400 sq. ft.). He also noted that adding EV-charger electrical work at the same time could save roughly $50,000 versus doing the projects separately but that EV infrastructure is likely to use separate funding and requires additional coordination with PG&E.

Several residents and members of the Parks & Rec Commission urged the council to favor the larger, longer-lived build. "Building for the future," said one commissioner, arguing the park draws heavy use countywide and that a higher-quality building would better serve programming and rentals.

During deliberations, council members weighed trade-offs between the long-term durability and community value of the enhanced option and the city'9s near-term capital priorities, such as seismic and storm-drain needs. City staff reported the capital reserves available for projects but cautioned that the council faces larger infrastructure needs in coming years.

The council'9s motion directs staff to return with a capital-project budget amendment and related materials; staff will come back separately with proposed funding sources and a plan for any EV-charging/electrical upgrades.

The council vote was recorded as 3 in favor and 2 opposed; the motion did not identify sponsorship of specific grant awards or immediate construction funding, only direction to create the capital project and budget amendment for council consideration.