Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fitness Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Workshop presents three options for new fitness center; staff eyes bond vote timing
Summary
City staff presented three upgrade options for the aging fitness center — a focused remodel with a 20,000 sq ft addition, a 90,000 sq ft upgrade, or a 120,000 sq ft rebuild — and told council the decision is whether to ask voters what level of facility the community wants.
Community Services Director Derric Rykert outlined three possible paths to replace or expand the city’s aging fitness center and asked the council to decide how ambitious voters should be asked to fund.
"The question was no longer whether improvements are needed but what level of facility the community wants for the future," Rykert said, framing the discussion around three discrete options staff had modeled: a targeted 'must do' facelift with roughly 20,000 square feet of additional community space; a 'better' option of about 90,000 square feet with pool improvements; and a 'best' option of about 120,000 square feet that would include an indoor pool and larger program spaces.
Rykert said the smallest option would add flexible meeting space, relocate the senior center into easier-to-access space, and provide family-friendly/gender-neutral locker rooms; the large options would add more aquatics capacity and greater community programming space. He warned the council that cost estimates need ongoing verification against current comparables and construction markets.
Assistant City Administrator Camden Bird cited strong survey support for upgrades: "In 2022 ... 72% felt the city should upgrade/expand," and in the most recent survey "58% responded in the affirmative" when asked if the city should place a fitness-center bond on a ballot. Bird summarized that the community survey (864 responses) shows fitness and parks consistently rank among residents’ top capital preferences.
Finance Director Anna Montoya reminded the council any bond placement would be evaluated against the city’s broader fiscal picture, including competing capital needs and the city’s existing debt capacity. No formal motion or vote was taken; staff said they will return with refined cost estimates, sequencing options (bond timing vs. phased improvements), and clearer ballot language for council consideration.
