Recreation Commission asks for senior-center staffing and utilization data before finalizing community center size

At its May 12 meeting, the Recreation Commission heard architect Bridal Hill present a draft needs assessment for a proposed community center and deferred any final decisions on room counts or square footage until the commission can review utilization and staffing plans for the existing senior center.

Bridal Hill, the project's architect, said the commission should define program needs before imposing a budget. “One of the ways to approach a project is to back into a number,” he said, warning that approach forces cuts to program priorities. He urged the commission to “look at the needs” first and then use a matrix of local organizations and meeting hours to decide how many multipurpose rooms are required.

Bridal Hill warned the commission about total project costs rising above construction alone, giving the meeting an example: “The way we’re telling our clients to anticipate cost is it’s 1,000 dollars a square foot by the time you’re done with the total project,” he said, adding typical construction cost might be about $800 per square foot with soft costs and contingency pushing the total higher.

Commissioners repeatedly returned to the question of duplication. Several members said the senior center and other municipal buildings already offer meeting rooms and that building identical spaces in a new community center could harm public support for the project. One commissioner said the key question is whether the senior center can be open later or expand staffing so town groups can use its rooms in the evenings and weekends.

The commission agreed on immediate next steps: meet the senior-center director Brenda, tour the senior center to confirm room sizes and occupancies, and compile a master calendar and a room-usage matrix that lists local civic and nonprofit users and the hours they meet. Commission members said that documentation will let them show the community why selected rooms are included or omitted from the town’s design.

Members also discussed partnership options to reduce the town’s square-footage burden. A participant who said they were representing the Y described one common model: childcare and membership revenue typically subsidize large amenities, and a full-service Y could require a substantially larger building (a 40,000-square-foot box including a 75-foot pool was discussed as an example). Commissioners said a partnership that shifted a pool or wellness facilities to an outside partner could reduce the town’s required scope to core items such as a gym and walking track.

Operational issues flagged for further study included hours of operation, fee structures, janitorial staffing, audiovisual capability for meetings, and access control. Bridal Hill recommended a single main entry with controlled internal circulation to keep some areas restricted when staffing is limited.

Bridal Hill said he has enough information to proceed with the draft needs analysis for core elements (gym, walking track, offices, cafe/lobby and primary meeting spaces) but asked the commission to confirm staffing and utilization assumptions before he produces site layouts and floor plans. He said the draft will remain “a draft” until commissioners formally endorse it and authorize the next design phase, including a site evaluation that will determine whether a single-story or multi-story box is appropriate.

The commission closed by agreeing to place the senior-center meeting and a facility tour on the next meetings’ agenda so staff and the board can supply utilization rates and a proposed staffing/hour plan. With those items outstanding, the commission moved to adjourn.