Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cathedral City reviews community center feasibility study, examines Walmart and Burlington sites and a potential Salvation Army partnership
Summary
City staff and Group for Architecture presented a final feasibility study analyzing nine sites (four prioritized), program options, cost scenarios, Measure W funding limits and partnership opportunities with the Desert Recreation District and the Salvation Army; council asked staff to pursue financing analysis and continued coordination.
Cathedral City council received a final feasibility presentation on a proposed community center and directed staff to pursue next steps on financing and partnerships.
Don Merks of Group for Architecture summarized the feasibility study, outlining program ranges (community spaces 4,500–25,500 sq ft; community centers typically 20,000–35,000 sq ft with gyms adding about 10,000 sq ft). The consultant presented nine candidate sites and highlighted four that warranted further study: the old Walmart site (over 12 acres, an existing ~117,000 sq ft building), the old Burlington site (~80,000 sq ft), the city‑owned library site (strong fit but parking constraints), and a city‑owned parcel adjacent to the Salvation Army. Merks cautioned that big‑box structural grids can complicate gymnasium conversions and increase renovation costs.
Staff reported recent meetings with Cynthia from the Desert Recreation District (DRD) and Salvation Army leadership about interim or shared space usage. The Salvation Army facility was described as already containing a gymnasium, multipurpose room, kitchen and classrooms; staff estimated its gym could be 8,000–9,000 sq ft and noted the city’s earlier 6,000 sq ft assumption may be low. DRD expressed interest in consistent programming times and potential office space at the Salvation Army facility as an interim approach while the city advances site selection.
On funding, consultants summarized ownership and renovation cost components (construction/renovation, contractor overhead, furniture/fixtures/equipment, design/engineering and site costs) and presented example cost ranges used in pro forma analysis. Merks and staff noted Measure W can contribute but would not fully fund a larger (45–50k sq ft) facility; staff said financing options to be explored include revenue bonds, developer lease‑back, grants, philanthropy and public‑private partnerships. Staff said they had met with a financial consultant and will return with more detailed financing scenarios after council direction; no firm timeline for that analysis was set.
In public comment, Shelley Kaplan supported DRD and Salvation Army collaboration as an interim measure; Alan Carmal raised concerns about potential optics of partnering with a faith‑based organization and read that the Salvation Army states it serves all individuals, including those who are LGBTQ. Council members acknowledged the concern and said staff are mindful of inclusion as discussions continue. The council received and filed the feasibility study and asked staff to continue work on financing analysis and partnership options.
