March 31, 2026 — Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:07] As outlined in the packet, tonight is all about three of our rec centers, and the fact that they are aging and require significant investment to maintain current levels of service. What staff is bringing forward tonight is not a recommendation. But a framework for trade-offs and understanding. We're being asked to think carefully about levels of service, community priorities, and what it means to invest in a system that is financially sustainable over the long term. So tonight, our role is to ask thoughtful questions and provide clear guidance on priorities, particularly around what levels of service matter most to the community, and where we see the greatest need for investment. With that, I'll turn it over to staff, to Allie, to go over the agenda, and then I will be back shortly to talk through how we will moderate the discussion tonight for the most effective conversation. Thank you, Madam Chair. Folks, my name is Allie Rhodes, and I serve as the Director of Parks and Recreation for the City of Boulder. And I just want to start by thanking both the members of the Parks and Rec Advisory Board, and I know we have community members listening, either live now with us or later. This is a very important conversation, and we're really grateful to be having it.

[1:17] Sorry, tip. interrupt real quick, can I get a formal call to order to begin the meeting here? Thank you for that, Chris. Sure, I will, do we want to make a motion to call the meeting to order? You don't need a motion. Okay, then we'll just… I'll call the meeting to order. Thanks for that step, Jenny. I was just gonna say, this conversation is so important, and we know for folks it feels long overdue. It was in the fall of 24. that we asked people in the community to be patient while we did the work outlined in the long-term financial strategy, and to set us up for a citywide facility investment scenario. And in the time since then, we know that interest and concern around this conversation has grown. We've seen so much community support and interest in our rec centers, and we know all three facilities play an important role in the community, and we are so eager to identify a plan for the next

[2:10] 50 years. So I am going to start with, some information, and then hand it back to Jenny, just briefly about our conversation tonight. I think you all are seeing my screen. Yes? Yes. Okay, great. Start just… I have to get to the right screen, there we go. Just, we really have two key goals tonight. We do want to build awareness, both with the Prabh and with our community, awareness about the choices and trade-offs associated with the needs associated to the rec centers. And then next, and Most importantly, probably, is that we really need input from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on indoor recreation levels of service with the intent to inform next steps in evaluation and upcoming City Council conversations.

[3:01] And so, as it relates to this conversation, the City Charter outlines the role of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. So, if there's any spending from the Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund, the PRAB must approve that spending. And then later this year, the PRAB, along with other advisory boards and commissions, will see the City Manager's recommended 2027 budget. That includes the operating budget and the capital budget. And Prabh must make a recommendation to City Council regarding that recommended budget. And so, as it relates to tonight's conversation, this falls under the staff may consult with the advisory board, and we are asking for your input on these facility funding scenarios. You're not providing direction tonight in a study session. Your feedback will be shared with City Council. And so, through… at the end of the meeting, we will… I… Missed a slide. Sorry. Just, so here is the agenda. We have a staff presentation. There are two points during the presentation where we'll answer questions to help support understanding, and then we'll finish with three questions shared with the PRAB in your memo where we would like your input.

[4:09] One is we would like to know, based upon your understanding of community feedback and the data from various city plans, what questions do you have about the facility alternatives and their impacts on communities' levels of service? Next, we'll ask what are… recognizing that there are significant funding gaps, both for capital and operating investments, what feedback does the members of the PRAB have on the potential of reducing or simply maintaining levels of service? And then finally, we'd like to know if the board supports our recommendation to keep studying these options so we can determine the feasibility of major investments in all three recreation centers. And so now I'll hand it back to Jenny to talk about how she'll be facilitating this study session. Great, thank you, Allie. Since this is not our normal way of meeting, on Zoom, we thought we would put together a, just a kind of a… an idea of how we think it'd be best to moderate. So, for me tonight, since we have no board action.

[5:10] As mentioned, the purpose of this study session is, information sharing and for PRAB to provide staff input on the facility investment scenarios. So the item is scheduled for 2 hours, and as Allie said, we're going to start with a staff presentation, and then during that presentation, there'll be two opportunities for members for the PRAB to ask clarifying questions, and then we can kind of dive into giving feedback. Once those questions are… once we wrap up all the questions. And then we'll watch the time, and I can… I will help manage the feedback to ensure that we get through all the questions so that everybody has a chance to respond. Let's see, I will moderate the discussion to ensure that there is fair opportunity for everybody to, provide feedback and ask questions.

[6:02] And, when we get to the opportunities for questions and feedback, please use the raise hand function in Zoom in order to speak, just to make it a little bit more seamless, nobody's talking over anybody, and then I will call on you. The raise hand function is at the bottom of the Zoom. You can just click that, and then when you're done speaking, you can unclick that raised hand. And then when you're recognized by me, you will have your turn to ask questions or share a comment. I'll determine the order of speakers, so if everybody raises their hand at the same time, I'll just call the order of how the questions can ask. Can be asked. And we'll want to speak one at a time. Please try to keep your remarks brief and on topic as much as we can, just so we can make sure that we have the most effective conversation. We want to make sure everybody has a chance to contribute. I may call on quieter members, just to make sure that everybody has a chance. Don't feel like you have to respond if I…

[7:00] mention, you know, your name, you can say, you know, I'm all good, but I just want to make sure that everybody has a chance to speak. And, then at the end of the discussion, I'll work to… summarize all of the feedback that we give, and we will go ahead and work on areas of agreement based on that… based on all the feedback that we'll provide to Council. We can kind of go through at that point areas where there might be varying viewpoints or concerns or questions that are raised. With all of that in mind, that was a lot of information about meeting facilitation. Does anybody have any questions about how we're going to run the meeting tonight? No? All right. Well, then I think we're all set to go, so I'll pass it back to staff to start our presentation. Thank you so much, Jenny. one of the things is we just… we want to start with the reminder, and folks have seen this slide before, it's been one we've shared as we talk about the future of rec centers. We have been listening carefully at all the public comment. We want to let folks know that we… we also value our three recreation centers.

[8:05] Boulder aspires and has made it clear we want to be a healthy and socially thriving community, and our public recreation centers are critical to achieving a community where every member's health and well-being is built on high-quality parks and facilities. We know that our recreation centers are important hubs for connecting, for physical and mental well-being. And we have been listening and loving the stories people have shared, and we know there are a lot of deep connections to our facilities. I'll just share, I personally could share a lot of those same stories. My kids took their first swimming lessons at our recreation centers. I have been to our Halloween Carnival at the South Boulder Rec Center and the Sweethearts Dance at the North Boulder Recreation Center, and spent hours in our lap lanes and our classes. In addition to our personal feelings, the research is really clear that rec centers contribute in a significant way to community well-being, to economic vitality, and to quality of life, and more. And the conversations ahead are not intended to negate these truths. They're intended to couple with them the reality that our facilities are aging, and we must invest in them, and we must be responsible stewards of community resources.

[9:12] Our facilities require significant investment to maintain, and require significant funding every single year to operate in service to the community. And so our conversation in, in, along with the the feelings, there are facts that we just want to remind people that we are grounded in. One is this one I just mentioned, that our rec centers are critical to being a healthy and socially thriving community. That all three require significant investment just to maintain our current levels of service. Our current operating budgets are not sufficient to meet the current level of service. We will be talking, we've mentioned this before, it's been covered at the PRAB, and other stories, we will be talking about service reductions. Unfortunately, the trend we've seen since 2014, where the pace of our expenses is rising faster than the pace of our revenues.

[10:02] All of our facilities must meet the city's building and energy code. And finally, as we've been talking about, and I mentioned at the start, our recreation centers are part of a citywide portfolio of buildings that serve our community. There are 75 total buildings, 15 of them are in critical condition, including all 3 recreation centers. I want to remind folks of the significant planning support that are informing these conversations. All were utilized in considering alternatives and developing scenarios, and that means we considered the engagement in developing these plans, the data that supported them, and the recommendations. I also want to remind folks, there is no one single plan, study, or sentence that informs our decision making. We're also relying on significant expertise operating and maintaining the buildings. I want to recognize also that you will hear from myself and Michelle Crane, our Chief Architect, tonight, but we are representing an amazing staff team, and I need to just highlight two opportunities, here. One is that Megan Lohman has served our department for 14 years.

[11:09] She started, I believe, as a seasonal in our summer camps, and then was a program coordinator, and she will be moving on to a new role with the City of Golden as a Deputy Director in two weeks, and so she… her support in leading our recreation centers in this conversation, we're very grateful for. I also just want you all to know that if you hear from Jackson Haidt tonight, he is joining us on his birthday. He was given the opportunity to spend it another way. And recognizes the importance of this conversation. So just thanks to our entire team, and a special shout out to both Jackson and Megan. And so with that, I am going to introduce… you all met last month our Chief Architect, Michelle Crane, and I'm so grateful she's here again tonight. Thank you, Allie, and good evening. I'm grateful to be here and be able to share what I can to help support this, like Allie said, really important conversation. what I want to start with is just talking a little bit really high level about one of the key plans that Ali just started to mention, that there's so many plans that guide what we're doing, but our facilities plan that was the first of its kind in 2021, to really look holistically across our city buildings, is

[12:15] A key guiding plan in this discussion as we think about our recreation centers. They are buildings, and this is really a policy document, this, our facilities plan. around our buildings. And it's rooted mostly in these three pillars of good asset management. These are standards across the industry, and they're also very much in line with our own city values. So environmental sustainability. Our social responsibility, and our financial stewardship. When we look at buildings, and in the rec centers, each building that we care for requires kind of a unique balance of these considerations, and that's what we're doing all the time. But we're really… it is our goals across all of our buildings to achieve the goals and a lot of the indicators that have been reflected in this plan. And so that's a lens that we're looking through.

[13:02] Our assessment of the rec centers, and how that measures in our entire portfolio, this is a key document for us on that. The next slide. So I want to talk really quickly a little bit about some of our accomplishments under this plan, and then Allie, you know, to talk a little bit about the Parks and Rec accomplishments with our city buildings. But really, our facilities plan has been a long journey in coming, and it's more than a decade in the making there, really even thinking about formally this plan. And these projects, the Western City Campus and the consolidation and our new Fire Station 3, they were really born out of other city goals and other city plans that were put together, but they really actually helped shape much of what we put into our facilities plan, and now they represent early achievements of that facilities plan.

[14:00] Specifically, our Western City Campus, we have been talking about this project for more than a decade. It was an action by City Council to purchase that property back in 2015, and one of the goals was to accommodate and to address the growing need to place city staff. Today, we are able to unify our services and our staff from across 11 different buildings, into this one place to really better serve our community. And it has offered an opportunity with those 11 buildings to actually address those in our building portfolio to take away those liabilities, because those are failing buildings right now, and now we're able to take those 11 buildings and either… in some cases, we're taking them down because they're in the high hazard flood zone, and in other cases. We're looking at potentially generating revenue from them through the sale of those properties to help support more capital projects. And that last piece about the sale of the properties, this is another key goal that this particular project is helping to accomplish.

[15:06] Years ago, in 2015, we had a civic area plan that has essentially been stalled, as we have not been able to make movement on what we call the East Bookend. And with the consolidation of the Western City Campus, we can move staff off that east bookend and really start to reimagine this entire area as a new project. And so it's exciting to be able to accomplish a lot of goals, and a lot of goals that have been a long time in the making. The new Fire Station 3 is very similar. It has been more than a decade in the planning, and most, fundamentally, it's served to move our first responders out of the high-hazard flood zone, so that they could support the safety of our community. It has also achieved a number of other goals in all three of those pillars. This is an all-electric building, highly sustainable and efficient. It also achieves a lot of social values that are represented in the fire rescue plan. And so, these are early accomplishments, and we're excited about continuing this trajectory with rec centers and other buildings in the portfolio.

[16:05] Yeah, and on that note, I just wanted to highlight that, with our last department plan in 2014, we developed a capital investment strategy that prioritized Parks and Recreation capital on the assets in the worst condition at that time, which in 2014 or 2015, it was the main building at the Boulder Reservoir, the main customer service building at Flatirons Golf Course, and Scott Carpenter Pool. And since then, we have been able to address those. The Boulder Reservoir Beach House was facing closure. Flatirons Golf Course had been destroyed by the 2013 floods. The building was supported by portable restrooms. Now both have been revitalized in a way that supports the community, and we hope generate more More support for community benefit programming across the recreation. Scott Carpenter Pool was built in 1963, and before the renovation and the way folks know the pool today, it was facing closure. It had significant leaks.

[17:01] It was just a 6-lane lap pool, and we were able to build a capital stack that included Parks and Recreation dollars, CCRS funds. an impact fee money to build a new facility that folks know today that is a full Olympic lap pool, the family-friendly amenities, and the revitalized bathhouse that now is accessible to many people, which the previous one had not. And we think that's a great example for how we hope to approach the recreation centers, where we build a capital stack and we can invest In all three. But addressing the recreation centers, I just have to clarify, would never be possible with Parks and Recreation capital alone. We would not be able… we would have to stop every other investment replacing play areas, investing in irrigation systems across… we would have to stop that for in excess of 10 years just to support one recreation center. So it does require this citywide conversation, and I'm so glad that this moment is here so that we can. And we're gonna dive in. So Michelle's going to start with just a brief condition assessment for each building. We did this in February, but this is intended to just ground tonight's conversation a little bit, in the condition of each facility.

[18:13] Yeah, so starting with the current state, this is where we want to start with, with everything we look at in the portfolio and how we are going to move forward and achieve goals. And so, looking here at South Boulder Recreation Center, it was built in 1972. It has had major, investments or renovation in 1999. But as we've been talking about for a while, this has been a building that has been in decline. Like many, it has seen some failing infrastructure, we have not kept up with replacements in that building. And this building became more and more concerning to us in the past few years, as we were experiencing more decline, and that shows up in service requests in our department to go out and fix things. So, in the last few years, between 23 and 25, we actually have made significant investments in this building, really to improve where it is today, and, you know, you can see some of those before and after pictures.

[19:09] Had different kinds of degradation in different, areas, and we have made investments in improvement. that have now really lowered the risk of any kind of imminent building failures. And this is now not the building of most concern. It still needs investment. But it's not the billing that we would say is keeping us up at night. We have put that money in there, and it gives us time to consider really good options and really think about what the future of this needs to be. One piece I do want to share is that, as we did share last month at the board meeting and outlined in the memo, we are not considering major renovation at this facility. We do not believe it is a good candidate for renovation. We have a lot of experience. It is our goal to look at that. We have done many, many renovations in our city buildings. We've done a lot of major adaptive reuse, and so…

[20:05] We have a lot of experience with this, and this is just not a very good candidate for that. We believe a new replacement building would be more appropriate. And so the options that you're going to see as we move forward all presume a replacement building at the South Border Recreation Center. Michelle, as I flip to the next stage, I wanted to call out, and I'm sorry, we weren't in an all-Zoom environment for 3 years, but it's been a little bit, and I just wanted to remind, so for… and I see the note in the chat, for members of the community, unfortunately, community engagement is not a part of study sessions, and so questions, comments, I saw someone managing that. And then for members of the board, we do need your questions to be shared out loud so that they can be a part of the public record, and so we I saw your question about square footage. If you could hold that until we get to the questions portion of this section, that would be great, but we'll answer that. And so, for all the members of the board, if you have questions during this portion to understand the content, please do hold those, and we'll come back to them.

[21:02] Thank you so much. And then, let's move on to East, then. Hey, East Boulder Community Center, So this was built in 1993, and it has not seen a major, investment, like, a major renovation since that time. This building is the one that is actually of most concern to us right now, and that little chart that you're seeing in the right is a snapshot of our service requests that come in. The Public Safety Building sort of tops the charts in our total building portfolio, but East Boulder Community Center is right behind that, with the number of service requests and the number of time our staff are going out to try to repair and replace and really improve infrastructure. And so, this is the building that we feel is most poised for Major investment. We've been noting that for a long time. The project was approved, through the 2024 budget process to receive major investment for these very reasons, and for the fact that it does need a modernization.

[22:05] And so, through our community engagement and the early design work we've done, we have identified a need for some additional funding to realize a preferred scope of work, and those will be shared in the options moving forward. And so there are conversations, obviously, that we're having this spring that really help inform the feasibility of adding a little bit more to this project to really realize the fullness of what we heard from the community. But we need to make investments right now, because we have failing infrastructure. So we have broken this project into two phases. And the first phase is really focused on dealing with some urgent needs. We actually have to close certain areas of the building periodically, because these… Pieces of equipment that you're looking at on the screen are failing, and they stop working, and we have to go back out and fix them, and so we need to move forward with some early implementation. This early phase will address infrastructure. It will also bring the, the east side of…

[23:05] the west side, the age well side of the building, into full compliance. We don't want to keep going back and invading, sort of, spaces through renovations, and so that side of the building will actually see kind of a full improvement, and then we will move into a Phase 2 after we have some more policy direction through these conversations. And then, so, we have North Boulder Recreation Center, built in 1973. It has received a major renovation in 2001. But it also is now at a state where it is in urgent need of some infrastructure repairs. Not quite as imminent as East, but within the next few years, within our CIP period, and we have a 6-year CIP period. We do need to address a number of pieces of equipment that are up for replacement, that need to be replaced. And we also have some major concerns, with some of the walls that you're kind of looking at right here on the screen, that are… have moisture issues.

[24:15] These are areas of the building that we test every year, we go and evaluate and ensure their structural integrity, but we do know that they will need to be repaired, and that's a major investment that will have to happen, in the near future. We've estimated these kind of near-term needs in the neighborhood of $2 to $5 million, just to maintain service levels. They are currently unfunded, and these are things that we're going to be including in the package of things that we're trying to fund investments on. So let's spend just a brief moment on this. This is an image or graphic that was from our facilities plan, and it kind of represents where we're at with all three of these rec centers right now, and why they need major investment. And really.

[25:00] This is really meant to represent and help us understand kind of simply that assets are very expensive. They have a high capital cost when we first purchased them, and over time, they decline. They kind of go down in value, they go down in the way they operate. And almost directly proportionally, is a new asset takes very little maintenance, but as it declines, that maintenance cost starts to escalate, and it becomes more and more, and that piece of equipment, or that entire building, demands more ongoing routine maintenance, and the costs start to escalate. There is a moment that we call this inflection point, where we either need to make the new investment in that piece of equipment, or what that is, to drive back down that maintenance cost and ensure that the building continues to operate Or, when we kind of move past that, as we've done with many of these buildings. We now start to see such a number of pieces of decline in that asset that, really, we need to make major investments to really bring the entire system, if you will, back up into compliance, to get it back on a path of what we like to call maintain well.

[26:16] And so, I'll just connect the dots, then, with the investment and approval of funding for EAST, we said, our rec centers are a system. And we should take this opportunity to make sure the community… meeting the community's needs, both today and for the future. And so, this is a graphic, this was the, live graphic from game night, but it's just a lovely summary, I think, of feedback we heard from the community. And when the community was asked about what amenities are most important across the system, you see the feedback. We all know folks want more lap lanes. better spaces for cardiovascular and weightlifting strength exercise, improved spaces for children. Those were… and expanding the gymnasiums, those were feedback we heard across.

[27:05] And then other amenities where it could be considered on an individual center basis. Sometimes people are willing to travel for a service, so there's lower demand, or it's something you may just have one of. And we use the gymnastics center at the North Boulder Recreation Center as an example. That's a magnet service that supports that facility and serves the entire community. We also heard feedback for specific, locations. At East, really, this top need was around accessible warm water, and I don't think we've spent a lot of time talking about this one. Folks who've been in the community for a while will remember the concern when Boulder Community Health closed the public therapeutic pool at their Mapleton campus, and at that time, we said, that's not our role, we're not going to be providing a therapeutic pool, that's a hospital pool, but we did do the aquatics feasibility plan and herd engagement. And in this project, that warm water that is the right temperature, so therapeutic is 90… 92 to 94 degrees and above.

[28:06] We're talking about 88 to 90 degrees, similar to what's at East and North now, where people can do warm water exercise, where we can do swim lessons, warmer water is better, and then also for people recovering And so that's one of the needs we're trying to achieve. People also expressed interest, this is across the engagement, I just want to be clear, not just that one game night, various surveys, but, interest in an indoor track, connecting with nature, expanding classrooms, we heard across both. We did hear interest in, considering indoor field sports, expanding fitness classrooms. And again, at North also, people wanted us to expand not just the lap plains, but, but accessible warm water. And so that's just a very… those two slides. are highlights from significant work, right? So there's… there's a whole lot more behind that, but I would love to pause here, and just if there's questions on the foundation for this work or the building needs.

[29:08] If you have questions, please raise your hand. I'll go back. Yvonne had asked in the chat. We've got some hands raised. Okay. We'll start… let's just, in case there's multiple questions, let's do this. Everyone, if you have more than one question, if you could do two at a time, and then we'll come back around. I think that would be equitable. So, why don't we start with Yvonne? Yeah, so we're not… we're not, at this point in time, asking questions about the… the South and the East, all the options and the scenarios, right? I just want to make sure I'm not… Correct. There'll be another opportunity. Okay, just on what we've talked about so far, right? Okay, cool. So, yeah, one question was just square footage for South. I haven't been able to find the square footage. Yeah, the gross square footage of the South Boulder Rec Center is 27,300.

[30:04] Okay, and then if you could go back to that last slide, I had a question about that. So, the… the one that Michelle was presenting on, the little graphic. There you go. Oh, sorry, not that one. Yeah, there you go. That, no, sorry, the one you just did. I'm sorry, I was confusing you. Right there, sorry. Yeah, so, are you saying that South didn't have, because in the game night, when I've spoken to community members. people who attended the game night said indoor field sports was definitely not a contender for top, so there's some either miscommunication or whatever, but that was not the experience at all for South. And the other thing for South was warm water, and for some reason, warm water isn't listed here, but it is.

[31:00] for North. So, can you… and it is listed also for East, but yet, we heard from many, many members of the community, at least in the South Boulder area, that they want warm water for therapy and for Older citizens. And so, can you address those two? Yeah, I'm gonna tap Megan to add to this, but what I just wanted to add is that a reminder that these… these elements at the top on this slide were for all three recreation centers. This, then, is in addition to, and not just from game night. We had multiple and multiple. Megan, I'll let you take over from here. Megann Lohman (she/her): Yeah, so this is… this is an accumulation of all of the different engagements, and so if you actually go back to the previous… the image, so this… Megann Lohman (she/her): image, that was generated from game night was actually brought out to all the recreation centers, and then across everything, we did dot voting. So, the dot voting, not just at the South Bull Direct Center, but also at the North Bowl Direct Center, and also at the East Boulder Community Center, would have gotten a lot of dots at that specific one.

[32:06] Megann Lohman (she/her): which would have been one of the inputs that might have helped move it up the list. But I also think it's just important to note, that when we talk about the accumulation of all of our needs assessment inputs. Megann Lohman (she/her): This needs assessment was system-wide focused, and we always knew that we would need additional input or data to inform more specific options at sites other than East. Megann Lohman (she/her): And so I just think that's a good thing to note, is Megann Lohman (she/her): this is what we heard during these engagements, and we didn't ask the community specifically about what needs to just happen at East. That type of engagement would happen as we approach a project for the South Pole Direct Center, for instance. But if this is going to be sent to Council, and it says South, the top desire was considering an indoor field sports, that… that doesn't misrep… that misrepresents what the community actually said, because the community actually said in South that they wanted warm water.

[33:03] Megann Lohman (she/her): Sorry, Yvonne, actually, the community feedback, when it's all put together across all of the locations, the dot voting in addition to the game night, in addition to everything. Megann Lohman (she/her): it had a lot of dots on field sports, and that's what got it brought up to the top priority across the entire system, outside of the core offerings. So you gotta remember, this is in addition to what people had said for all of the locations that they would hope for, or that we would want a lot of across the system, which would have already included Megann Lohman (she/her): Lap pool lanes, for instance, or other things, like… the basketball gyms. Yeah, I'll offer one more clarifying point, because, Yvonne, I hear the concern is that this might be presented, and it… you know, City Council does not have the deep context that the PRAB does. And I don't know that they'll read, you know, all 80 pages or whatever it is of the indoor recreation assessment. This slide will not be part of the City Council conversation. We will not be talking about specific amenities with them.

[34:00] To Megan's point, when a project is South as funded, that's when we would determine specific amenities. We'll talk more about that when we talk about South Scenario A. Okay, then let's move on to Mike, and Yvonne, if you have further questions, feel free to re-raise your hand, but let's move on to Mike. Thank you. I just have a clarifying question. When we were looking at North Boulder Rec, I think the… it was, like, $2 to $5 million to make the service levels. Just, to make… to maintain the current service levels. For how long of a period of time would it maintain those service levels? So, it's a great question. It is, it's challenging to know and to look into the crystal ball exactly how long, but typically, when we make those kinds of investments, particularly in infrastructure, those lifespans are for 10 years. So if we replace a rooftop unit, we would expect at least 10 years out of that, that particular unit. So, it does prolong things for…

[35:04] some period of time, 5 to 10 years. I think that's what we're looking at. The challenge that we're up against is. we're, trying to be, both clear on a need just to maintain things, and conservative in a cost, and sort of balance those things. There are then other things that could occur in that time period that need to be addressed as well, if that makes sense. So. Our hope is that we would be able to… to put some significant life back into just those systems, that would get us that 5 to 10 years. But there could be the other things that crop up. Thanks, Michelle. That's all I had. Thank you. Okay, Kira. So I actually had a very similar question. So just kind of, like, zooming into all three of the recreation centers, I'd love to just get an understanding of, At what point, would we see, like, a drastic reduction in services, or maybe even need to close those rec centers, if we did not

[36:10] put in, like, major money towards those renovation scenarios. So, I'm not talking about, the immediate need at North, the… in the $2 to $5 million range, but let's say we were able to do that. but not able to do a fuller investment? What would be sort of, like, that lifespan that we'd be looking at for each of the three? centers. Yeah, that's also a great question. That we're trying to wrap our heads on a good way to answer, honestly. So, to be clear, a building doesn't just all of a sudden Stop. It would almost be easier if that was the case. It's not. they decline, and when we don't invest, there are lots of things that start to show age, and most notable and easy to experience is, again, like, if one of those units on our roof stops providing heat, and that's been happening at East. We have to… we can't open the spaces.

[37:08] that need heat in the winter. And so then we have to stop programs for some period of time until we can make a replacement or fix that piece of equipment. But what also happens in a building that is sort of less noticeable in the immediate, but happens is the paint starts to peel, the rugs start to peel up, there's just… there is a decline, and I think the gap between what you experience in other communities That may be where they are refreshing or renewing, and they're modernizing their buildings. the gap between what is there, and people are experiencing elsewhere, and what we're experiencing in our buildings just starts to widen. And that experience starts to degrade. So there's a lot of that, and that goes even to things like our accessibility codes. So, there's folks, you know, in wheelchairs, or who are blind, or, you know, have different kinds of abilities.

[38:00] Their experience is better in other buildings where they've been brought up to modern standards that really accommodate people with better ramps or access or turning radiuses and more space. when our buildings are constrained and we don't make those improvements, that experience is wildly degraded, in addition to the infrastructure piece. So, it's hard to know. It is just this sort of slow. stepping away from meeting, really, any of our goals. It's hard to pinpoint, but I… does that help with… I mean, that's kind of the state we're in right now, is we're just, like, got these buildings on life support, but we're not improving the experience of them in any way. Yeah, I mean, I definitely hear that, especially the experience for people with disabilities that they must experience in all of our rec centers, and some of the, you know, the consequences of not investing earlier. So, correct me if I'm wrong, I guess what I'm hearing you say is that, for all three of the locations, there's not any more urgency for one versus another, just in terms of making those major renovations.

[39:12] Well… there is in that, for instance, with East, we actually have pieces of equipment that have failed. We have an entire roof that has been patched so many times, we have to replace the whole thing. So there is an urgency. They're all at the top. They're all of concern. They are all our priority buildings, and when we talk with Council next week, and as we're pointing out, they are a priority for investment, all three. And it's, you know, in granular degrees to, you know, how much one is above the other. But right now at East, we're closing certain areas of the building because we can't keep certain systems operating. But things like those walls at North. We're watching them closely. You know, we know we're going to have to take care of those in the next, you know, 5, 10 years is really pushing it.

[40:04] Thanks, that's really helpful. Okay, seeing no other hands for questions at this point, I think we can move on to the next section. All right, thank you. So now we are going to dive into the options and scenarios. We have shaped these using that blended report approach that you all have seen multiple times. We're trying to blend so many different inputs. The community input. the research and the city policy, and I want to affirm again, I just see a lot of the community chatter. We have not made design decisions for indoor recreation at any recreation center. That work is coming, and to fulfill our responsibilities in good governments. governance, This is such an important conversation, y'all. I can barely talk, so thanks for your patience with me. I'm so glad we're here. We are considering how the scenario meets indoor recreation needs, what are the capital costs? What are the ongoing operating costs? What does it do for energy consumption, and how does it meet other citywide goals?

[41:13] And so, this is just, you know, a graphic of some of those outcomes from the City's Sustainability, Equity, and Resilience Framework. Oh, Michelle, this is you. Yeah, but yes, I will… right off that, this is exactly what that is, and really, so what we want to underpin is, is Allie does go through each one of these scenarios. Every one of them, is going to… the costs and what we're thinking about and what will go into those buildings will include meeting our goals. And our codes. And what has, been an interesting evolution after the past several years is the gap, again, between what we have goals around and what the codes require us to do are coming closer and closer. So, our goals are for safety, and our codes require us to bring buildings up to meet modern life standards, or life safety codes, and improve our fire protection systems.

[42:08] the point here is we want to do those things. We actually want to meet our codes. They are responsibly governing our buildings. They are responsible in the way we take care of our buildings. And so, in each of these areas, Our goals match the codes and the things that we want to do in our buildings. So just context as we go into each one of these scenarios. Thanks for that, Michelle. So, I am gonna, talk about each scenario, and then we'll talk about the ways that we've combined them. So, South Scenario A is a community facility of 35,000 to 40,000 square feet that would have, and it… I saw, again, one of the rumors, there are zero decisions. This goes to the other question about what this would be. That would require other conversations with the community, because there would be trade-offs. There still could be a gymnasium. There still would be classroom space. There could be an indoor track, or other things not served elsewhere, such as space for indoor space. There is not a decision for a field house, and it is false to say so.

[43:13] And in this scenario, there is no pool, and I want to just… for the people who are saying, how on earth could you propose that? I understand. And folks feel like, weren't you listening? Haven't you been listening to us? We have. And, the reason to propose this is because of the significant savings in annual operating budgets. For South, it would be over $500,000 a year. As I've shared, we are facing a future where, without additional funding, we are reducing service levels. We have done everything we can, as we've shared, to increase revenue, to reduce expenses, and we're just running out of creative ideas and need to face deep and narrow cuts to continue to provide other services to the community. That is the only reason we would propose that scenario. In Scenario B, there is a pool, there is a gymnasium, there are fitness areas that match current service levels. This would be a brand new building of 40,000 to 55,000 square feet. I love this picture because it just shows a way that you could include a pool that also has family-friendly, young people-friendly amenities.

[44:16] And so in this scenario, we would maintain our levels of service for swimming, I'll move over to East. So, and I guess I'll just back up. For each building, we said this in the memo, but for community members listening, Scenario A is more about maintaining levels of service, and Scenario B is how might we serve the community better and for the next 50 years? And so, Scenario A at East, we see updated spaces and finishes, but there is just one pool. We actually do see a reduction in service levels here, because to meet code, which is city goal, we have less space in the natatorium, and you cannot achieve, the two pool areas. And I want to just point out that we have spent significant resources exploring how to modernize this building. And yes, we could do like-for-like replacements and not trigger code compliance. Those happen all the time.

[45:10] The clarifying point is that we are not trying to avoid aligning with the code. As Michelle shared, we want our public buildings to advance city standards, advancing life safety, improving energy efficiency. This is better for the building, it is better for the community. And so, in this scenario, to renovate the current natatorium would result in a reduced space to meet code for very similar costs as building a new natatorium. This scenario outlines the outcome if we don't do that, if we simply renovate the current space. We can brighten and enlarge fitness spaces, supporting well-being for all ages. We can improve and expand the lap pool, or we can improve and expand the warm water pool. But we cannot do both, and that's Scenario A. In Scenario B, we improve upon levels for swimming with additional cold water lanes and space for warm water wellness.

[46:02] We would transform and improve the exercise spaces and other benefits aligned with the Phase 1 investments in the AgeWell wing. There's some of these pictures, I believe the Louisville Rec Center had an old and dark pool. One pool, and in their addition, they have those two pools with new fun and amenities, lots of natural light, and a warm water, area with great indoor-outdoor space. So, shifting to North, in Scenario A, we see updated spaces and finishes, maintain both pools, but possible improvements to the weight room at North, like, all three facilities, it's undersized, it's dark, and our hope for outcome is that it will be brighter and bigger to support demand. And then North Scenario B, this is where we would do a facility renovation to add square footage and co-locate. So, when you hear the facilities team talk about city buildings in critical condition, the HWell West building is one of them. If you're not familiar, that building is on the corner of Arapahoe and 9th Street in the Civic area.

[47:07] And, it… it needs to be, it needs to… what's the… what's the word we use? It needs to be, We need to get out of that building. It is… it is no longer a candidate for renovation. It was, there's a whole lot there that is not, but so if we were to co-locate at the North Boulder Rec Center, we could abandon that old and failing building. Our interior spaces would see improvements, And so these pictures are just showing some of the current AgeWell services of that AgeWell building, what a new, more modern spaces look like. And this generally, I think these bottom pictures are just great examples of what would look like when we would be able to update the finishes and experiences at all three rec centers. And so, to the point, while the scenarios are not developed enough to allow for a full quantitative analysis, we did try and apply them to citywide goals to see how they compared to current state, and we just scored each scenario to see, does it improve or not upon the current state?

[48:06] And so, we took the outcomes under healthy and socially thriving, livable, accessible, and good governance, and, then partnered these three options that are outlined in their memo. So if you choose the second scenario for each building, where we try and address unmet community needs. and improve the buildings and align with code. That's… that's this. That is option one. It is scenario for B, every building. This is where we have the most significant benefit on community outcomes. You might see a sparkle in my eye. It's… it's very exciting, and it is the most significant impact on capital and operating costs. And this is where we would be able to plan for changes to come in our community, met many community priorities, and end up with 3 pretty impressive and impactful community facilities. The cost is significant. And option 2, east and north are enhanced, and South is a brand new building that supports the community, but does not have a pool.

[49:07] And I just… I want to offer again, we don't offer this lightly. We are very aware of the significant interest in swimming in our community, and this… this option is simply responsive to the financial challenges we are facing, and the recognition that three full-service recreation centers is challenging to maintain and fund. In option 3, the lap lanes at East are reduced so that we can address the warm water needs at that site and maintain the pool at the South Boulder Rec Center. Again, we know the reduction in lap lanes is not desirable, and this scenario is offered in light of our funding challenges. So this chart summarizes the funding need for each option. You'll see that we have significant unfunded levels, and there is more work to be done to understand what is even feasible, or in a future South, what even is included in the facility. And that is why we are not asking for your input tonight on preference, or feasibility, or funding, and we really need your thoughts on levels of service.

[50:07] and community impacts. And I'll just end this by framing this in this citywide conversation in a reminder that to be good stewards of our financial resources and avoid ad hoc decision-making, we are working so hard to support a community conversation with City Council where we consider recreation needs along with others citywide. This building on the left, our public safety center, is critical for ensuring that our community is safe. You saw in a graph earlier that is the number one recipient of work orders and investments. And it is going to be very costly. We have a funding gap to maintain service levels for indoor recreation and across the urban park system. We have other aging buildings, including public safety, the H. Well West building. We also have unmet operational needs across the city. And that is why that is not a funding conversation with you all next.

[51:00] So what is coming next is citywide, sorry, next Thursday night. City Council's gonna hear a whole lot of expertise from Michelle about our citywide portfolio, and they're gonna provide input on our facility investment strategy. In May and June, they're gonna finalize our 2026 ballot measures, and then later this year, we'll finalize a 20-year financial plan for our buildings. In that, and based on information. And based upon what happens in November, we'd be able to outline years of construction for each building. We just want to remind folks that from the time a project is funded. It's about 5 years to ribbon cutting, because there's funding, and then design, and permitting, and construction, and all of that is being factored into the scenarios that facilities will show City Council next week. They marry these timelines with funding capacity across Many citywide funds. And so, here are just those dates in one slide. April 9th is that study session. For members of the community listening, just like this one, actually, this study session was facilitated just how City Council facilitates study sessions. Jenny, thank you for your support.

[52:11] In May, on May 14th, will be the City Council discussion on 2026 ballot measures. There will be polling in the summer, and they will finalize ballots in July, ballot language, and then we'll have the election in November. And so with that, we are back to questions before we go into getting your feedback. All right, and hands up for questions. Mike, first. And we'll do the same thing, two questions, and then if you have others, if you could hold them, we'll keep going around. I feel like I'm in Jeopardy, and I raise my hand first. You did. So, just a clarification, for the scenario A and B for East Boulder.

[53:03] community center. Does the, does the funding… for example, for A, it was between $7 and $17 million. Does that include the $53 million that's already been allocated? Correct. Okay. Thank you, that's helpful. And then, With… and this question you might not be able to answer, or, you know, it's way too hypothetical, but… With respect to North Boulder, there was talk about maybe consolidating the, the age well from the west building. Is that building going to be sold or repurposed some way, and would, in that event, would those funds be transferred with AgeWell to North Boulder if that were to happen? Michelle, can you help us with that one? Yeah, sure, Ken, that's a good question. So yes, that is… the goal is to, ultimately be able to leverage the value of that property to help support city infrastructure. Exactly what it gets attached to, that's not, been determined, but I think the hope would be that it is helping to fund all these infrastructure needs

[54:16] like moving up and putting that building up there. I think that is part of the conversation, is this whole blend and this capital stack, like Allie talked about. Like, there's a lot of work to figure out what supports what, but short answer is yes, we would be looking to leverage the val… that site is very valuable, and that building is in really terrible condition. And so we would want to leverage that to help support other citywide needs. Okay, and this question may also not be capable of being answered, or may not even be relevant, but were there other alternatives considered regarding South Boulder Rec Center that included a pool, but not necessarily You know, a gymnasium, or a track, or something else that maybe… maybe just was an auditorium, and that was it.

[55:05] Allie, I can take part of that. Sure, yeah, thanks. I think, we haven't gotten to that granular level of detail, really. And so, I think that is, you know, two of the points that have been made earlier by Megan and Allie about, you know, when we ever… when we do get funding to go forward with any specific project, or even the development of a project. we get into a lot more detail about the programs. The reason why, in these scenarios, it's really kind of pool or no pool, is because in the overall cost of a center, a pool is significant. It's an entirely different cost per square foot than anything else that you conceive of in the center. So it could be any blend of things, so I think it could be a consideration. But that's kind of why a lot of these scenarios are with pool or without a pool. It's just that that… Order of magnitude cost difference. Great, that's really helpful, Michelle, I appreciate it, and I don't have any more questions. Thank you.

[56:04] Thank you. Alright, let's go to Yvonne. And then Kira, and then me. Okay, so I have 3 pages of questions, so I'm going to try to, you know, do what I can to answer is… or ask questions in, you know… Let's go three at a time. Yeah, that's fine. Okay. I just wanted to warn you that I definitely have a lot of questions. So, just kind of building on Michael's question, maybe I didn't understand the answer, but we've been told that on… let's just focus on ease for a second. We've been told that $53 million is already allocated to this project. And Scenario A is going to require an additional $7 to $17 million. Can staff explain what is included in the $53 million tranche? What work is already going to be covered in that piece, and what specifically would be included in the $7 to $17 million that's needed in addition?

[57:05] That's one question. Yeah. Michelle, can you answer that for us? Yeah, so, really what is in the, kind of, the 53, if you will, is enhancements, modernization of the facility. Again, we have not gone to the level of You know, how many yoga rooms versus a weight room, but that blend of base recreation center amenities and a pool, a body of water, whether that is a lap pool or a warm water pool. The 7 to 17 million delta is reflecting a second body of water. That is, again, the major difference. And the large degree of, swing in that number is really just accounting for… we have not designed those things yet. And when we really get into the details of how you accommodate that second pool.

[58:01] And when it actually gets constructed, because escalation's a very real thing, we want to make sure that people are not shocked by it if it's at the higher end of that. So, but it's really the second body of water that you're seeing reflected in that number. Megann Lohman (she/her): Michelle, I think, actually, I think that scenario A is with the one pool, and that's the… that's the 7 to 17 million gap, even for the one pool. Megann Lohman (she/her): In that scenario. Sorry, my apologies on that one. Megann Lohman (she/her): The gap with two pools is 17 to 27. So, two pulls would be… yeah, because when you look at A and B… well, okay, that's fine, so, sorry. So, 17… can you say that again, Megan? Sorry, 17 to 27? Megann Lohman (she/her): Scenario A, which includes only one pool at East. Megann Lohman (she/her): Has a $7 million to $17 million gap just to have one pool. Right. And then the… if… to add another pool, it's going to be $17 to $27 million.

[59:01] Megann Lohman (she/her): To maintain a second pool. Megann Lohman (she/her): Because there's two pools there now, it's an additional $17 to $27 million. Got it. Okay, thank you. And I know I'm limited, so I'll ask one more question, and then I have others, but, so the other thing, just sticking with East, I want to understand the value the community is getting for, this level investment that we're talking about for EAST. So at East, we're talking about spending $70 to $80 million. And from what I can see, that largely is involving replacing, or not replacing, but rebuilding existing pools, so rebuilding, you know, a new pool for lap lanes, and the programming for that. And then it's essentially just digging a hole on the other side of the property for lap lanes and for warm water for another $80 million, and we might be able to add two more lanes. So I just want to make sure it's… I'm clear on that, because the public needs to know we're talking about taxpayer dollars up to $80 million.

[60:03] And the net benefit to the community, if I'm understanding this, is two additional lap lanes, because we're just rebuilding pools, basically, and modernizing, as Michelle said. So is that correct? It's not. The net benefit is in the expanded lap lanes and the expanded warm water fitness. So the current warm water fitness pool at East is not sufficient to meet all of the needs. It is limited from the warm water wellness perspective because of its depth and because of its size. And so this is outlined in several of the plans. The community goal is a larger warm water pool. that would allow for sufficient classroom space for warm water exercise and swim lessons, and potentially warm water lap lanes. So it would be a net add of amenities not currently available in the system. So, 80 minutes… I just want to clarify also, because I think we're going to… in Scenario B at East, Scenario A reduces A to one pool that would either be a lap pool or that warm water wellness pool. So in Scenario A, we can provide one.

[61:13] Right, and for… for the scenario A, the cost was… was it $65 million or $70 million, I think? I know it's less. Hang on, I can look at it. So for East. Yeah, scenario A is 60 to 70 million, so let's just go right in the middle. So, $65 million for… essentially, the rec center that exists today, and I'm talking about programming for the community. Programming for the community, keep it basically the same, for $65 million. And, in fact, reducing… taking away either the swim lanes. And just expanding the warm water, or just having swim lanes and taking away the warm water, right?

[62:07] For FaceTime. is an oversimplification, I believe, because Michelle, and feel free to chime in here, but it would do… It would address all the infrastructure issues, it would address code compliance across all spaces, it would modernize all of the spaces. We are making the age-well wing better resilient for sheltering, which is an increasing need. So it's… to say it's just is really an oversimplification. Well, I mean. From the community standpoint, they're… you know, they're not gonna… no, not all of us are, you know, as deep in the weeds as the people here on screen. So, from the community standpoint, I just want to make sure that they understand we are considering, in Scenario A for East, spending around $65 million And we're going to be reducing programming, at least aquatics programming, because we're going to either have to pick the warm water, and make that nicer, and modernize, as you said, modernize the facilities, but in terms of programming, we're reducing aquatics programming with the $65 million.

[63:17] Let's let Michelle… I don't think… I don't think the community cares much about whether they're in a building that is modernized with new code changes. I mean, it's great to have… I, I will disagree with that, just, but, let's let Michelle respond to that, and then we're gonna move on to Kira for, for question, for questions as well. I'll be brief, but actually, we've actually found quite the opposite, that the community cares quite a bit about the modernization, and I think there's an awful lot packed into that one term, modernized, because some aspect of it deals with infrastructure, and no, people don't kind of inherently walk in and experience that, although they are more comfortable. than they are very much today, and we get complaints about those things all the time. But people do care that they can use the facilities well. So what that actually includes is much better shower rooms, shower rooms that can accommodate people in, again, in wheelchairs, or who have different disabilities, who have families. None of that is being accommodated today. So those scenarios, when we talk about modernizing the buildings.

[64:19] We are talking about greatly enhancing the experience people have in those buildings. And so, yes, it is the same program space. But it is enhanced. The experience, when people go in for their jazzercise class, or for their yoga class. they are having a much improved experience using that building. So I just… there… there is, an improvement, and a real quality investment in those, in addition to not letting the buildings just to continue to decline, because as we were talking about earlier, not investing will also just continue to degrade, and buildings are expensive. They… they just are. So that is… that is the trade-off, and that is what we… what we grapple with all the time, is to just achieve a certain level of quality experience that people expect. It costs a lot of money. But it is a quality experience that we are looking to provide.

[65:15] Okay, and then Yvonne, we'll come back to you for your questions. I'm gonna let Kira ask them, and then I have some also. So I know, Bernie is not with us today, but he is with us in spirit, and he also, gave me a couple of questions to ask. So, can I have two questions, and then can I do Bernie's two questions? Yes, and I have, like, 4 questions from Bernie also, but I think most of them have been answered, so we can go through those too. Yeah, we could also just do two questions for me, and then sort of. Yep, bro. around again. Perfect. So we could do two from you and two from Bernie, that's fine. Yeah, okay, great. So, starting, with, North Boulder Rec Center, so my understanding is, like, today, the cardio room is just very oversubscribed,

[66:00] You know, there's not enough equipment to go around, not enough space for everyone to put down their yoga mats, and also have, all the equipment be in use. Under, Scenario A and Scenario B, what would the, sort of, like, the cardio experience look like? So again, those are the fundamental things in all the scenarios, so that very first slide that I, you know, that we started this part with. It is improving all these spaces to meet kind of modern codes, which really actually include enhanced space, more space. So it is expanding those spaces, it's improving the quality of light, trying to look for opportunities to kind of rearrange spaces internally to do better to improve that experience. I think there's a discussion about… increased level of service, that's a different thing, but in all these scenarios, we're looking to enhance and improve those spaces significantly in order to, you know, again,

[67:03] Just the code compliance is more space, it is… it is more access to… to light and to good amenities. I mean, it seems pretty incredible that you'd be able to get a lot more use out of the cardio space without expanding the cardio space specifically. Or, like, without expanding the building square footage to include additional cardio space. So it sounds like, if I'm hearing you correctly, it's, being smarter about the space is actually going to increase the space. Yes, and this is where we have done… well, we do a lot of building, kind of, assessment. around costs and square footages, and so, yes, part of it is being smarter. We're doing that in a lot of places, about how we utilize space, where there's wasted space versus, you know, how can we recapture space. This, you know, and we will probably have to assume some addition. We're going to look for opportunities. Are there some places? These costs cover some range of improvement in some kind of envelope.

[68:09] of small to larger. We haven't really programmed the exact building, to Ali's point. We haven't made decisions, we haven't dove into programming. They're giving us a good sense, a very… a grounded sense of rough order of magnitude costs. I must… I was going to offer just a simple, maybe… sometimes for me I'm visual and giving examples helps. So I, you know, know the North Boulder Rec Center best because of where I lived and because I was manager there 5 years. There is a lot of hallway and lobby space, because the building was designed before drop-in fitness was a thing, and you had The idea was there's a registered hallway, and there's a, you know, a fitness club hallway where you go to the weight room and the pool. And in reality, it would be better served, and there'd be better security if there was one hallway, and that lobby space looked different. There's space that could be better utilized and capture additional cardio and fitness space.

[69:03] Yes, I think the visual is helpful, because now I'm picturing the lobby, too, and yet it is quite a large lobby. And even that hallway down to the gymnastics wing, you could expand the weight room into that and have everybody go down one hallway, which is better for control and supporting a safe experience. Okay, great. So my other question was around North Boulder and, the, AgeWell services. So just wanted to hear a little bit more about the AgeWell services. center, sort of some of the benefits of co-locating it in North Boulder Rec Center, and were there some other alternatives explored? Just, you know, if we were going to expand the building, were there other, you know, alternatives for what we would do with an expanded space? Allie, I might look to you if you want to talk. I know you know a lot about the benefits. I'm happy to talk about the expansion, the physical things that we've explored.

[70:03] I see Megan popping in, it looks like she's ready to support. Megann Lohman (she/her): Sure. I do think that part of this is we haven't… we don't have specific designs for these buildings yet, and we would do additional engagement. I think that when we talk about why collate with… co-locate with AgeWell, I think it hits a lot of our needs, right? And that's Megann Lohman (she/her): one, there's an opportunity. We have an aging building that is in a similar area of town where we could maybe better serve the community. We also have the desire to, Megann Lohman (she/her): you know, co-locate some of these services, because having older adults exercise and work out in the same space as young kids and families, like, there's a lot of community benefit in that. And so I think part of it is driven by opportunity, which is an aging building elsewhere, and potential where it could be here. Now, with that said, right, like, what happens at the North Boulder Rec Center, and is there an opportunity for other specific

[71:01] Megann Lohman (she/her): services, beyond the basics that we know for all of our centers through the needs assessment, right? We don't have the specifics of what else that might be. I think that if we were to renovate and do a large-scale renovation of the North Bull Direct Center, if we had funding for that, right? We'd have to do additional engagement to see what exactly what that looks like. So… Megann Lohman (she/her): This is kind of that first step to get us some funding and ideas, and the co-location is going to help us, hopefully, with that funding, and it supports a lot of our citywide and department goals. And I just want to quickly double on what Megan was saying, is… there is an efficiency, a huge efficiency, when you co-locate and when you combine buildings. We found that, actually, with the Western City Campus, we are taking a total square footage across 11 buildings, and we're putting staff into less square footage, because we can be more efficient with the way we use bathrooms and hallways and, you know, and entries and everything, and so I think those same

[72:00] efficiencies exist when we co-locate. So, when we get to a place to really explore what are the right programs, I think there will be opportunities with that funding to do more, in total. Just to… just to check in on the timing here, we probably have about… 8 minutes left for questions, and then we're gonna move on to feedback. So, if we wanted to ask… Kira, if you want to do another question, and then I'll ask one, and then if we can… maybe the best way to do it would be just to kind of form questions into feedback to make sure that those big points, are… are… get out there, so everybody gets a chance to say what they think. Okay, so I just wanted to say that. Sounds good. I think some of Bernie's questions are kind of borderline, right? They are more clarifying and also feedback, so I could save those, and would you like to go, Jenny? Sure, thanks. First, I want to just kind of acknowledge, Yvonne's original point about the programming. I completely understand where you're coming from on that one.

[73:07] the way that the community will look at it, and I hope the way that the communities look at it is… is that, like a… like a shiny new building, you know, for lack of a better way to say it. One of the things that's frustrating to me, and this is… this is part of my feedback, but one of the things that frustrates me about it is the cost of what the deep energy retrofits are going to cost. But I realize at this point. that I… it is just what the city requires, so… I just wanted to kind of say that I understand where… where that pain point is coming from, with the way that such a large amount of dollars is being allocated for what may be reduced programming, but there is other stuff attached to it, so I just wanted to make that point. And then, really quickly, Bernie's questions, I just… for his, he asks about North Boulder Rec, why can't we just address pressing maintenance and needs,

[74:02] on the… for the $5 million, and I think that that was answered, and that that has come up a level in, you know, the way that the… prioritization goes, so we're looking really at that whole $50 to $85 million for North Boulder. If I'm wrong, you can let me know that, but I think that would be the answer to that question. He mentioned that, South… Scenario A for South Boulder Rec does not include a gym, but I think it does. It could. It could, okay. And then he had mentioned the field house, but we've determined that that's not something that we're actually discussing, is any sort of a field house. Is that correct? What we've said is that what if Scenario A were to be what gets funded down the road, there would be… need to be a prioritization with the community about what amenities get included in that facility. It might be that the preference is to keep a gymnasium and fitness space. It might be that there's a stronger preference to provide services that are not available elsewhere in the community.

[75:01] Okay. All right, and then, he asked about dollar figures and how it would be understandable to taxpayers. He was asking what the tax impact would be to the owner of a $600,000 home if we went with the options A, but I don't think that's answerable until Council decides what direction they're going to go with ballot… tax ballot measures. Okay. I know that when they have those conversations, they will share. Like, I've seen, even in the most recent conversation, there's some math on for a million dollar home, this is what every increase in one mil of property tax does, this is how sales tax can impact people. Okay. Because they were talking about possibly doing, some further ability to create debt or a new tax, so we just, we just don't know what that is yet. Okay. Right. That'll be that May 14th conversation. Okay. So, City Council gave staff direction at their

[76:00] Last, financial study session that was, I believe, at the end of… I don't remember the date now. It's been a very busy month. It was at the end of February. They had their first, input on that conversation. They gave some feedback to staff. Staff are doing more work and analysis. It will come back to City Council on May 14th. Great. And then, realistic timelines for implementing the scenarios. From what you said, I would say that would be from 5 years, right? From funded to… you said it earlier, just… From when the funding is allocated in the budget. So… gosh, I get… I was gonna… so, let's, you know, when… oh, Jackson, just look at that. Chime in. Thank you, birthday boy. Yep. Hi everyone, my name's Jackson Haidt, Senior Manager of our Business Services team. We go through the budget development process beginning in March, and Council adopts the budget in, October. So generally, that's when the funds would be allocated, and then the funding would become available the next year. So currently, if funds were to be allocated through the budget development process this year, they would be available starting on January 1st of 2027.

[77:09] Going back to the 5 years for the timeline, that would be 5 years from that date moving forward, so, I think, best case scenario, we would be looking at, any budget development going into the 28 budget, based on timeline, of needing voters to approve anything this November. And then 5 years after that would then be the 2031, calendar year. Okay. And is there a possibility of doing… All of these at the same time? I don't think we would recommend it. Okay, that's good. All right. Is there a need? I mean, I think that's part of the conversation, and what will… the scenarios that City Council looks at citywide. We can't do them all at once, nor do we need to. We just need a plan, because otherwise we're going to be in a position where we have 3 buildings that are… that are seeing a loss of service because we didn't have one, and because we didn't make investments.

[78:06] Okay. The other thing a long-term plan allows us to do is strategically do the short-term repairs. Okay. All right, and then I have some feedback that I'll save for… for feedback. Yvonne, you don't have your hand up? Yep, you do. Okay, let's go back to Yvonne. Oh, you're on mute. How much time do we have tonight? Because I assumed we were going to 9. Is that true, or am I confused? No, yeah, we had noted in the agenda that when we finalized it, we would update the appointment, and I'm sorry we missed that. Normally, I mean, City Council study sessions, they talk about their topics in 90 minutes. We thought we would need a little bit more time, because we don't do this very often, and that we could do this in 2 hours. Well, I would ask for more time, because for months now, I've been generating questions and been told that I need to wait until we get to this meeting. So I want to get through this meeting and ask all of my questions so I feel satisfied that I at least got a chance to ask questions. I will try to be brief, but I have a lot of questions.

[79:11] months of questions have been generating, so I would ask that we have more time. This is very important, as you said, Allie. This is really important. This is the only time we have to talk about this before City Council talks through this, so… I would ask… Can I propose that we add… I mean, I'm fine, I don't know how anybody else's time is tonight. I'm okay keeping it an additional half hour, but I want to be respectful of staff's time as well. Yeah, I think what I hear you saying is you'd like to add, additional half an hour, so what I would love to make sure is that we get the feedback that we need for Council, and so, if you all want to talk out loud about an agenda, and I see hands went up for you all to talk about, I think we certainly can support it.

[80:01] Okay, Mike, do you have an opinion? Reluctantly, I would be okay with 15 to 20 minutes more, but what I really would object to is argument with staff about whether or not their answer is right, or wrong, or whatever. I mean, if it's just, I need data. as opposed to questioning the data, I'm fine with that. But I think there's been plenty of time to ask these questions. There's all kinds of documentation that's been referred to repeatedly. You know, the master plan update of 2022, the Facilities Master Plan of 2021, a lot of this information's already contained in there, so… I'm fine if we're not arguing with staff about the veracity of their data, if we add another 20 minutes, most a half an hour. I hadn't planned… I had planned on 2 hours, so… Whatever the majority's decision is, I'll go with. Okay, I'm… I would like to extend it. Kira, are you okay extending?

[81:01] Yep, that works for me. Yeah, I'll second Michael's comments, too. Let's make sure we make it productive. Okay. I think we can all do that. So let's, we've agreed to extend, and so Yvonne, why don't you go ahead with some more questions? Sure. So, back to… oh, thank you. So, back to what we were talking before about East. So, we're talking about… I guess what I'm asking is, can staff help me understand why we would be spending $80 million, 70 to 80 million on East to rebuild pools. Which puts us back to where we are today, but they would be brand new pools on the other side of the property. instead of just using the south rebuild, which we've been told, you know, that has to be the direction of travel, right? We've heard over and over, we cannot renovate south, it's just not cost-efficient, so we have to rebuild it. And so, if we're going to start from scratch. then why… why wouldn't we more cost-effectively build in aquatics capacity itself, rather than… I just don't understand why we would…

[82:11] tear down the pools at east and spend up to $80 million to rebuild them on the other side of the property, when, from a cost efficiency standpoint. it's just… everybody knows in the construction industry that you can build that capacity into a project that you're already having to start from the ground up. So, how… how are you… how is staff thinking about that? So… I feel like… the heart of your question is, why east before south? Is that… No. the student crowd. What… no. Why would we spend… potentially up to $80 million to rebuild pools at South. Essentially putting the public in the same position after $80 million, with maybe 2 more lanes and an expanded pool of warm water, for $80 million, instead of just incorporating some of those needs at the South Boulder rebuild. Because once you dig a hole at South.

[83:09] That's when you can expand pool capacity for the whole system. You can add, you know, it can be 10 lanes at South, because you're already having to rebuild a pool. So, from a cost standpoint, why isn't that being thought about, rather than spending $80 million to rebuild pools at ease? clear, it's not a full $80 million for just the pools. The $80 million is to renovate, as well, a 55,000 square foot building, which is twice the size of South. The pool costs are actually the same, essentially, between South and East. So, that's an apples-to-apples in general, and it's also why we've, when we've investigated, trying to renovate the pool in place. it actually made more sense. So, I won't speak to the exact lap lanes and the determination about how many lanes where, but just to be clear, the costs per square foot of pool, essentially, whether you place that at east or whether you place that at south.

[84:12] is essentially the same. The total scope of the project at East is $80 million. It's not just the pools. It's all the other things that are going to be improved in that square footage that is double the size of South. So I just want to make that point of clarification. Okay, okay, next question, And I'm still sticking with East at this point. So, Scenario A says it reduces emissions through electrification. Can staff explain, in simple terms, what is actually being changed, what systems are being electrified, and how does that reduce emissions? Yeah, so right now, all of our rooftop units, all the things that supply, heating and cooling to the building are gas-fired equipment.

[85:00] When we meet our building codes and when we electrify buildings, we turn that gas-fired equipment to electric equipment. So electric boilers instead of gas-fired boilers. the energy reductions really come because of Excel's greening of the grid over time. We start to see that that turns into clean energy. So that's why the city moves towards electrification, is because it's a path to a clean energy source. Okay, and I'm trying to understand the environmental logic around, some of these options on East. So, in Scenario B for East. We're potentially building new aquatic capacity, demolishing the existing pool and building in new pools on the other side of the property, and that's being described as environmentally sustainable, but at South. Removing the pool in Scenario A is being presented as environmentally beneficial because it reduces emissions. So how can building new pools be considered environmentally sustainable in one location, but removing them is considered environmentally beneficial in another location?

[86:11] I'm looking… you're referring to the prioritization matrix that was. No, I'm looking at the scenarios that were outlined for East. and the scenarios that were outlined for South. So if you look at the scenarios for South in A, it says… let's… if we get rid of the pool for South, it is significantly going to reduce energy and greenhouse gas emissions over time by eliminating the pool and electrifying the building. But for some reason, we're saying at East. Demolishing the existing pool and building brand new pools on the other side of the property is better for the environment. Well, I, I don't… I think it says that. I'm just looking at the words to see where you're saying that for… and you're looking at page 13 of the packet, just to… I want to make sure that we're…

[87:01] Yeah, East Boulder Community Center, it says. So it doesn't say that it's better for the environment. It says it reduces greenhouse gas emissions through electrification and improves spaces used for emergency sheltering. It's silent on the comments that you're making. So, it has nothing to do with the pool. That, that Scenario A. Is what you're saying, is that right? I'm just asking. East Scenario A? Base Scenario A, when you say it's environmentally sustainable because it reduces greenhouse gas emissions over time, that's just because electrification has nothing to do with the pool. So fresh. And I also think there's maybe a confusion here. When we say, like, healthy and socially thriving, colon, and then list how it aligns, or livable, and list how it aligns. The comments fall… environmentally sustainable is a category of the SARE framework. What follows it is, how does this project contribute to that goal? You… I feel that you're… you offered things that were not listed there, so we did not say that the pools here contribute to it being environmentally sustainable.

[88:08] Okay, thanks for the clarification on that. And then, let's see, keep going here. So, going back to South… Okay, So, we're talking about spending $45 to $65 million at South, this is for the rebuild, and Scenario B says it does not meet the additional needs identified in the needs assessment. So, I'm struggling, again, to understand, if we're going to be already investing tens of millions at South, at that level, up, you know, $65 million potentially, why aren't we using that opportunity to include things that the community has clearly asked for, like warm water programming, more spaces for classes. making it a true community hub. Were those ideas evaluated? Because I know at a couple of board meetings, I had talked about co-location of library services. We've got the George Reynolds Library that the City of Boulder, I'm assuming, has an investment and spends money on it in some way.

[89:09] And I've offered that idea about, well, just like you're talking about with AgeWealth Services, co-locating is huge efficiencies. I think those were your words. Why wouldn't we consider, or have we considered, because I've offered that as an idea. Co-locating library services within, the South Boulder Rec Center, and potentially medical services, other things, that, you know, is consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, to make it a true hub, make it a draw, save the city on having to operate two separate buildings. And maybe save money because we're co-locating services. So was that ever considered, or was the architecture firm asked to consider that? Or… and other things? So I just want to clarify that in the City of Boulder, an effective, I believe in 2024, the library is not part of the City of Boulder, it's a separate library district, and I have consulted with them, and they are not interested in co-locating at that location, so that idea has been explored at a very high level.

[90:11] As to other opportunities for partnership, the great time to have that conversation is when you have a funded project and to look for opportunities to leverage dollars and explore partnership. We're not there for South. Megan, did you want to add something, please? Okay, I'm confused. Megann Lohman (she/her): I was also just gonna offer, I think that in those scenarios, right, the big price difference becomes the pool. So I don't think when we talk about Scenario B for South having a pool, that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't have anything else. It's the dry square footage versus the wet square footage of a pool that are the real big price differences. So it is possible when we go into engagement and figure out what else the Megann Lohman (she/her): community wants at South, if the community were to fund a Scenario B with a pool at South, that it might also have other things that are really great that were included elsewhere.

[91:04] Megann Lohman (she/her): We just haven't gotten that far yet. Okay, that's fair. Okay, if I'm just gonna keep going. Let me, I'm gonna jump in real quick. I just wanted to reiterate that this conversation, you know, getting too far into the details, or, you know, we do have In the beginning of the conversation, Yvonne, you had mentioned that, there was a lot of priorities that you would heard from the city that weren't necessarily incorporated into some of this work, and I think that the staff has definitely said many times that, during this conversation, that we're just not there yet, so a lot of these conversations, to these very specific details… I mean, at the end of the day, in my opinion, all of these rec centers are going to have to get rebuilt. We're going to have to figure out a way to do it. And so, when those conversations are happening, we'll be able to dig down into exactly what we include at each location, but I don't think staff is in a position tonight to answer some of the questions about, some of the very specific questions about, exactly what will be there, or why something's there, or why something's not there. We just…

[92:08] We just don't have those answers yet, so I just wanted to maybe try to reframe the conversation into more of a productive, what do we want to make sure that the staff can take back to Council so they know what the community wants. So, Yvonne, I know you, like I, have gotten a lot of feedback from the community about what they're really looking for. So maybe we can try to frame the conversation, and I'm sure that Kira and Mike have received the same conversations, and that's kind of when we get into our feedback, but I just want to be careful that we're not asking the same questions, over and over that staff just really can't answer at this time. Because we don't know what the funding mechanism will be, we don't know what we're going to build, and so right now, we just want to inform them as to what we know the community wants. So I just wanted to maybe try to reframe. Yeah, and I agree with that. I'm not trying to ask questions that they can't answer, but it's just confusing to me because… for some reason, we don't have the funding for North, but we are thinking creatively and innovatively about how to co-locate services, how to improve programming, but it's just, when you look at this, and I try to really look at this in an unbiased way, and I look at what is being discussed creatively for

[93:18] for how to make North better, how to make East better, and I support all of that. But then when you look at South, it's like, the offer, the option for B, and it's upsetting because we hear from the community, I hear from the community. When you look at option B, B says. We're gonna spend up to $65 million on Rebuilding South. We're not going to be able to do any of the… meet any of the expectations that the community wanted. So, the warm water, you know, these innovative ideas of incorporating, you know, co-location services. that kind of stuff, that we're doing it east and north, but we're for some reason not being innovative here. We're saying we're going to spend $65 million to just rebuild south as is.

[94:04] It just… to me, that's a lot of money that the community is going to say, well, wait a second, we're spending $65 million of our dollars, do make it better. And so, anyway, I agree with you. So, here's one more question on the pool at South. So, if the pool is removed. from south, and I know that's an option that's realistic. people who would ordinarily swim at South are going to need to go somewhere else, right? They're going to have to get into their vehicles and drive to east or drive to north, and so my question is, Was there some evaluation on increased vehicle trips and emissions accounted for when users are shifting to east and north? And when traffic, or the foot traffic increases at east and north. Did you all account for the fact that those two facilities are going to have way more energy requirements because there's going to be more people swimming and more energy requirements? So, how did you, you know, from an environmental sustainability, how did the staff analyze and quantify vehicle emissions and, you know, increased, energy requirements at North and South without a pool at… or sorry.

[95:20] Increased energy requirements at East and North. Without a pull, it's out. I am… I'm not going to be able to talk about the vehicle miles, but I will speak to the pools. they have to be brought up to a certain temperature regardless of how many bodies swim in that pool. So, I don't think that we are anticipating that there would be, actually, a large energy increase just driven by the sheer volume of folks. And I think that, you know, I would look to Megan and Allie to talk about, you know, exactly the utilization across all these pools and how that's been assessed.

[96:03] But just from a strict energy standpoint, it just… it just costs energy to bring it up to a temperature, and then to maintain a temperature, regardless of the number of people who are in that pool. So, there's not a correlation between the number of folks Using a pool, and… and a wild increase in energy in that way. But people are going to be using, you know, if there's more people there, they're going to be showering more, using the toilets, the showers, the water. The energy… there'll be more people in the building, so that's going to impact energy. I'm just curious, it doesn't sound like anybody was thinking about that, though. No, here's what I would love to say, because I think that the level of specificity being asked at this point is just, again, it's early. I think that if… This city were to choose to reduce the level of service for aquatics, it comes with significant trade-offs. And, and I, I hope that… that folks hear that very clearly. It comes with trade-offs to convenience for people, it comes with trade-offs to levels of service, it comes with all sorts of trade-offs that should be further studied if that is the direction.

[97:14] And I think that that is good. That would be where feedback needs to be placed, because I agree that I've received a lot of questions about energy and vehicle miles traveled, so I would like to… I will be including that in my feedback, as something that I would hope that the city would explore a little bit more. But I understand you can't answer it right now. There's just… and I think… but to acknowledge that, yes, there's a very thoughtful analysis. It's not gonna be… what we are showing in these scenarios are incredibly high level and simplified, and certainly to spend millions of dollars requires more work. To reduce levels of service also requires more work. Okay, so let's… questions, just a couple more, if I could. Yeah, let's give, Yvonne, why don't we do… we're gonna… we'll do… does Mike or Kira, do you guys have any other questions?

[98:05] Okay, so let's… let's do 10 more minutes of questions, and then we'll go into feedback. Thank you. Alright, so now I'm going to focus on North for a minute. So I want to understand the scope and cost for Scenario A and North. This is the scenario that is described as minimum renovations, in quotes, just bringing the building up to code, and maintaining existing operations, and then, quote, without addressing unmet needs. And the estimated cost for that is going to be $50 to $70 million. So can staff explain what specifically is driving that level of cost? And how we get that number for what is being described as minimal scope of work. I… I wanna… I think this… this answers, and I know Michelle will chime in, it's very similar to the answer of East. I think we… we did a disservice, perhaps, with the words in the memo saying it's minimum required renovations, and we actually tried to improve upon that with… with the PowerPoint in North.

[99:08] Similar to East, there is significant cost to update equipment and infrastructure. You would see, the community would experience updated spaces and finishes throughout. You would see improved maintenance of the building infrastructure issues. You would see improvements to the lap and leisure pools. You would see more light and a larger cardio space. And the community would experience… I'll just note what we hear as staff from… from… what we hear as staff anecdotally, especially as there's a greater reliance on user fees, is… gosh, it's hard, it's hard, your facilities are old, they don't feel… new and bright and welcoming, and it's hard. So we do hear community feedback about the age and date of the facilities, and there would be a significantly different experience in North Scenario A. Michelle, I don't know if you wanted to add anything, but actually, it's similar to how we answered this question for East. There would be a… the community would feel and see a difference in North Scenario A.

[100:12] So, but, but so we're talking about the community gets to field a different experience for up to $70 million at North. But it costs $65 million to rebuild South, like, from the ground up. So, there's just some disparity here. It doesn't… the numbers don't make sense to me, and I can imagine the community might raise their eyebrows to say, wait a second, we're investing $70 million to make the experience better at North, and I'd question whether taxpayers would want that, because everybody wants a better experience. I'm not questioning that. Everybody wants a great experience. But $70 million to make the experience better at North, and it's $65 million to start over at South, so the numbers just don't work. There's something wrong there. Can you explain that?

[101:00] I think that I… when you say the numbers don't work, I think that what… I think the gap is, and I think we experience it ourselves, that there is a lack of understanding of how expensive it is to, one, take care of the buildings, and I'll go back to that graphic of the inflection point. They are all 30, if not many more years old, and require significant investment. to make them last another 50 years. I understand that's not exciting, and it may not feel compelling to the community. It's like when you, you know, I give it knowledge, but we all have expenses for our homes that are less exciting than others. It's much more fun to paint your house and have it feel new and interesting than it is to replace the boiler or the roof. Those expenses are significant. The other thing I'll point out, that North is twice the size of South. And so, just renovating the building is very expensive. And building a new building is… is very expensive. Michelle, did you have anything you wanted to add there?

[102:01] No, you hit it with the… this… it's a size consideration as well. I mean, again, north is our largest building, and so what also has to be factored into that math is The number and pieces of equipment that it takes to replace is part of what contributes to that difference that you're seeing in costs. So, it's a size, issue. Okay, I think those are… those are my questions, and I appreciate very much that you gave me a little extra time to ask questions. I'll have some feedback later, in the… as we move into that kind of phase of this meeting. Thank you very much. All right, I'm looking to see if I had any other… Questions… Alright, well, then I think that we're good on questions. Why don't we go to start with some feedback?

[103:03] So the feedback will be for staff to take to Council next week, and, we want to make sure that as a group, we're… working together in order to make that feedback concise. So I'll be kind of recording the feedback, and then we'll lay it out, once it's all put together, and, then kind of consolidate it and let staff take it from there. So. talk a little bit about what would be most helpful in terms of feedback? Like, what are we looking for, especially considering the different scenarios? So I'll refer, and I think they're in the chat so that we can look at them. I think it's better for people to see faces at this point, and so we didn't want to have the PowerPoint up with the questions, but really what we're… you all are the, you know, appointed representatives of the community. You know so much more than City Council will be able to in a 90-minute study session that is 90% about many other city buildings, right? And so, think about what you think they should know about

[104:06] Levels of service and these alternatives. as they're faced with significant investment required in the recreation center. So the first question is about just… actually, it's more questions about the facility alternatives and impacts on levels of service. So, really, you know, what feedback do you have on this potential of reducing or simply maintaining levels of service? that feedback and your perspectives on that, based on what you know would be really helpful, because it's an additional perspective and input for Council. So we could start with that one. Does anybody want to go first? Any… anybody want to raise their hand on this one? Mike! Yeah, I won Jeopardy again. So, you know, with respect to question number one, I mean, the one thing I struggle with is that, is it really realistic

[105:05] To, provide any kind of meaningful feedback when we have no idea as to what, if any, funding we're gonna get. And even if any, funding. So, I mean, obviously, what I'm hearing from the community is, you know, at a minimum, we need to maintain minimum levels of service. But I hear that mostly from North Boulder Rec, where, you know, I spend most of my time. And I also understand that, you know, South Boulder is past the inflection point. And so it needs to be, completely… it needs to have a new building in order to be functional. And I've spent some time at South Boulder Rec, too, and it's, you know, I can understand why it's past the inflection point. It's the way that it's, the layout of it is very difficult. It's, from my understanding and the experience that I've had with ADA issues.

[106:00] It's not ADA compliant, which is very difficult when you try to meet the needs of the community. And so, you know, it… Given the lack of information we have about whether it's realistic to expect any funding, from City Council. The best that I think we can do is to try to maintain minimum levels of existing service, and that may mean putting the band-aid on it for that 5 to 10 years, recognizing that we may end up getting rid of all of these rec centers at some point in time, or, you know. Trying our hardest to get some public-private partnerships, or maybe even exploring things like, You know, like a taxing district, a special services district. Among all the rec centers, you know, like… and to do it in a way that doesn't appear to be divisive, and doesn't pit community against community, which… which I seem…

[107:01] from my review of the comments and my understanding of, you know, the things that Prabh has been getting in, you know, the messages, it does appear to be committing, or, you know, pitting community against community, South Boulder against North, or why is East getting this money when South should get this money? And, and, and or even some of the comments even misrepresent what the, what the, position, actual position is. Like, we're getting rid of a gymnasium. Well, that's not, you know, that's not in any of these proposals, so… What I'd like to do is to kind of take the rhetoric down a little bit, recognize that we have We may have unrealistic expectations as to what financing we're going to get, and at a minimum, specifically with respect to this question number one, I think we need to plan to have just the basic minimum Maintain the minimum services at each rec center for as long as we can, understanding that, you know, we don't have much time for any or all three of those.

[108:06] So, that's my, feedback on number one. Thank you. Mike, can I ask a clarifying question? When you say maintain the minimum level of service for each facility, do you mean the current level of service? Yes. Okay, thank you. Yeah, and with the understanding, Ellie, that, you know, that may only be 2 years for South Boulder, and that may be 5 years for North, or, you know, we already have the money allocated for East, at least, through Phase 2, with a funding gap. Of, what, 7 million, maybe? Up to 7 million. So, you know, maybe that's all we get. Which would really be sad, but if we can… I think we've got to plan for the worst-case scenario and hope for the best.

[109:00] Thank you, Mike. Alright, kira, do you want to go next? Sure. So, yeah, I think I agree with what Michael said. I'll just say it in slightly different words, but I think what we've heard from the community is what they're looking for is to maintain and even increase service levels. And they're, you know, through the needs assessment and all the other data that you presented, there's a couple of things that they're looking for, and it would be absolutely amazing if we were able to provide that, like, the… Warm water experience, expanded, cardio experience, all of the modernization that would just improve, you know, every day going into these rec centers and participating in those, different services. But we… we don't know whether, this need that we've… we've clearly heard across the community that they want to maintain and they want to increase service levels at all three rec centers, we don't know, once we get into the next phase and start putting together ballot measures, whether the community will support those financially. So I think that's… that's the big unknown.

[110:16] We're hearing from them, it's really clear what the needs are. And also, like, let's take a look at, you know, what's, potentially the population growth over, like, the next 50 years. Boulder is going to become more populated, there's going to be more people, that's going to be an increased stress on the system, and there's also going to be a bit of an aging population, too. And we know that they have unique needs, across, you know, parks and recreation. So I think it's very clear what the community is looking for, and all we can do is move into the next phase and really get a little bit more data and understanding around whether we'll actually be able to fund these scenarios. Wonderful, thank you. I'm sorry, I just realized I was off mute and I was typing. I apologize if you could hear my click-clacking.

[111:05] Okay, Yvonne, thank you so much, Kira. Yeah, so I think in terms of feedback, first of all, I would, I would push back on Michael's comments that were… that somehow this… process is pitting communities, or the rhetoric is pitting communities against each other, because I don't think that's the case. At least, that's not what I've heard at South whatsoever. And I live in South Boulder, so I know kind of what people are saying. I think people… what we're… what we're hearing… in North and South communities, I haven't really spoken to many people on the east side, but what we're hearing is… we just want equity, right? We want… we're a system. Our recreation centers are a system that service the entire community. And what I think we need to just…

[112:01] advise counsel on is we shouldn't be making these massive investments without considering system-wide needs. And that really goes to the heart of the questions I've been asking today. And I know maybe you all don't like the way I ask questions, but what I'm trying to get to the bottom of is we've got to manage our physical assets in a way that's holistic. What my sense is in reading the packet that was shared and the options is that we're looking at spending… Up to 80 million, to do, or, you know, the East stuff, we're… it's just… that's a lot of money for, what I cannot tell is really any major programmatic expansions for the community. Yes, we all want modern facilities, but in this economic climate. Where we really have to tighten our belts financially.

[113:02] We've got to think about, okay, what can we do with this pot of money. To improve all of the facilities. and expand capacity, aquatics, pickleball, the tennis community. I mean, there is so much need, and there are… in the construction industry, there are… ways to do this that's more cost-effective. And what concerns me and other community members is we're talking about spending upwards of $80 million to renovate East. But renovate doesn't really make sense. It's not a renovation, it's a new build. When you look at what you're talking about doing at East, you're talking about building new pools on the other side of the property. Okay, maybe we're getting some more expansion of the water, warm water, maybe we're adding two more lanes, but for $80 million, that doesn't really make a lot of sense. And I understand we are modernizing the facility, bringing up to code, we have to do that, I get it, but we don't need to spend $80 million there if we can address some of the challenges with system-wide need.

[114:09] at South. South could potentially, given the fact that we're completely rebuilding, we could add courts for the tennis community, which they desperately need. We could enhance the pickleball courts and make it indoor, so that's an attractive thing for the entire system of Boulder. We could have added aquatics capacity at South, again, because we have been… We are being told we cannot renovate it. So if we're not… if we can't renovate it, and that's the paradigm we're dealing with. then why not really focus on South and say. use this as an opportunity to build in all the needs that we've heard last… what was it, last Monday, from multiple constituencies saying they're not happy about pickleball, they're not happy about tennis, they're not happy about aquatics. Why wouldn't we do that at South? It's just much more cost-effective. And I think scrutiny is going to be super high on Council. If they're listening to this meeting, politically.

[115:10] That is a very dangerous situation if you are somehow supporting ineffective use of taxpayer dollars. So, that's one big thing, I would say. We're not pitting communities against each other, we're trying to think holistically, we're trying to use our capital dollars as efficiently as possible. And then, on the second thing, I would say, I would ask staff to give us more specificity on the scope of what these, projects are, because what I heard today is you can't answer certain questions. Well, I agree with Michael. We can't guide you if we don't have a little bit more specificity, so we need more specificity so that we can counsel on some of these decisions. And then the final thing is. policy priorities. I don't believe, personally, we should be letting funding drive our policy decisions. As a body, we are here to decide, after we've heard feedback from the community, what's most important.

[116:09] System-wide, not just in South, system-wide. What's most important? We've heard that over and over, through studies, through outreach, through game nights, etc. We know what they want. So now we, as a body, should say, alright, our decision is we want to at least have the future needs met, based on what we have today. We don't want to cut back on services. So how do we do that, and how do we enhance it as optimally as possible across all three buildings? Thank you. Okay, thank you, Yvonne. All right, for me, I would say… for feedback. I think that we have to…

[117:02] focus on taking care of what we have. That's something that we have… I have talked about in the past. I realize we're… past that inflection point on a lot of these, but, you know, I would like to make sure that that is part of the conversation moving forward. I realize that the energy retrofits and the sustainability that's going into these buildings should, in theory, make that easier over time, which is why some of these costs are so high to get the buildings to a point where they do a better job of taking care of themselves, versus needing a lot of maintenance, hopefully. I'm frustrated with the… I understand, and I'm watching it happen at the Western Campus renovation. I understand Boulder's need to follow its own regulation and code in order to get down to the deep energy retrofit and to be a leader in the community, for green, initiatives. I get frustrated at

[118:07] the cost to the community for that. And I realize, as we're talking about these huge numbers, that that is something that we are grappling with, that as a board here, we don't have a lot of control over. I just get concerned, and I would just like to make the point publicly that, although I think that being a leader in any community for green energy and deep energy retrofit is important, I just am concerned as, again, at what cost to the community are we doing this? And if it comes at the cost of losing an entire rec center, then that's not okay with me, as a resident, or… As a PREM member, although, again, I realize that this is something that we don't have a lot of control over. I also think that it seems like aquatics is kind of the lever here. We want to control operating costs, but we have to make decisions as to where the water lives in the system. With that in mind, like I said, I received a lot of emails about, you know, if we take pools away from one and give it to another, then we're not reaching the energy goals that

[119:09] That, the city is constantly focused on, because we're having people drive far to different locations, in order to, to, have the services that they… that they might need, or, you know, the entire Fairview swim team having to go to East Boulder Rec, again, doesn't seem like the most climate-friendly, way to handle it either. So, what do those trade-offs look like? If we're talking about being a real climate-friendly city, yet we have to move because of our own regulations, we have to have people in cars driving everywhere. It looks like we're just canceling that out. So, I want to make sure that we're focusing on some of that as we, move forward. And then, you know, I think we've kind of come to the conclusion that South Boulder will need to be rebuilt, so that's where I believe we should focus our attention on that. I know a lot, a lot of people in the community have reached out about

[120:02] And Yvonne has been asking questions in the past about trying to renovate South Boulder Rec, and I think based on the conversation tonight, and the experience that staff has, I just want to make sure that, we… the community understands, and that, you know, the board understands that the next step there, based on staff's expertise, is that that will be a rebuild. And then to Mike's point about, funding, yes, that conversation is extremely important, and… We are a little hamstrung in, talking about, you know. you know, $250 million in renovations if we don't have the funding for it. So, I think that there's a lot of conversations to come. I do think that as a community, we're responsible to provide these services, based on, to provide the basic level of services. So I hope that we can work out a way to maintain current levels of services. Again, like was said earlier, hope for the best, but plan for the worst. Make sure that all of these aspirational plans, if we don't find a way to do them, that we figure out a way to maintain current services.

[121:19] I, you know, earlier, I think it was Michelle that said that the buildings are on life support, and we're not improving them in any way, and I really… I think that that's a good… metaphor, or analogy, for, how these buildings are being managed right now. And in addition to the options that we looked at tonight, I think it might be… if it's something for staff to look at, possibly, you know, we have options A and B, but again, what happens if we don't have any more funding? What does that look like for our capital, and what does that look like for our operating budgets on parks to do our best to maintain the buildings as we currently have them, so people have a place to recreate in our city? So those are just my general…

[122:06] feedback and thoughts, and, you know, I realize that we're dealing with huge numbers here, and I think staff has done a great job over the last months and months. Kind of trying to explain that, you know. numbers are crazy. I mean, we have in my community, my little community, we have a pool. It's just a little pool, and we have, like, a 4,000-foot, pool deck, and just to replace that pool deck, it's gonna be $190,000. I mean, costs of things these days are absolutely insane, and so dealing with chemical costs on the pools, and construction costs, and lumber costs, and steel costs, and tariffs, and all that. things. You know, unfortunately, when we're talking about these big numbers, they're just big numbers. And it's unfortunate, but it also reflects a lot of years of underinvestment, and as we move forward with these plans for these buildings, I think we just have to make sure that we're taking care of them in a different way, and making sure that we just continue to take care of what we have as best as we can for now.

[123:14] Is there any other feedback or questions or comments from staff based on that feedback or clarifications that you're looking for, as we… take… as you take all of this back to Councilor, is there any way we can help with that conversation next week? Well, let me summarize some of the themes I've heard so far. One is I… I hear a real… that we need to do a better job explaining what these tens of millions of dollars would do in Scenario A. And I appreciate, the questions around, you know, and it's the way we worded it, right? But, like, it's minimum renovations. It doesn't feel like a compelling reason for our community to invest tens of million dollars in a building. And I really appreciate that feedback to do a better job explaining. So that was one thing that I heard as a key theme in your conversation.

[124:05] I also heard mol… I think all of you say it is critical to maintain the current level of service. Excuse me. And so I think maybe that, you know, there are potentials in several scenarios to reduce levels of service, and I didn't… I didn't hear support for that. Yes, I agree with you. I heard, and I appreciate. I'd like to… when I talk about, you know, the way we've described these scenarios, this is… the first time we've done this, and you've given us helpful feedback. The way South has described, it undersells what the community would get out of a brand new building, and it misses explaining that there is a lot of opportunity for a vibrant community hub that does so much better about embracing the park there, providing opportunities for connection and gathering, for meeting unmet needs, and so I think that that's super helpful feedback, and we can do better there.

[125:10] I heard… I guess maybe it was just Jenny, so I don't know a theme, but I think maybe it's wrapped into some of Yvonne's comments, so please tell me if I'm capturing this wrong, but just concern about the cost. You know, we… we are not using the term deep energy retrofit anymore, because when these projects were… since these projects at East were proposed in 2021, the city has adopted new building and energy codes, and so these projects are… they're not deep energy retrofits just to be the best in the country. They are simply aligning with current code for building and energies. And that's just… I think it's an important distinction because it's… to Jenny, to your point, this is the cost of… of doing the business the way we expect the private sector and the community to operate. So, So I just took a shot at summarizing some of the themes I heard. Did I…

[126:00] I would say, I would also say that, the funding part of the conversation is important, and if Council can help us get more data and information as they are working through the, ballot measure conversations, I think we would appreciate it, so we kind of know what we're dealing with and can better communicate with the community, specifically towards, Recreation, that would be really helpful. I would also say that aquatics is probably one of the levers that we want to make sure that we're touching on as a… as a real pain point for the community, something that, obviously, we all know, but, Council should probably be made clear on a little bit, and I wanted to also mention that, what Kira had mentioned, too, like. Are we making… do these renovations account for growing population? And how do we then,

[127:03] Also take care of our aging population. And one thing that I would prefer not to hear from Council, not that I have any control of that, is, well, if somebody, you know, about the driving, you know, like, how are we looking at this from a system-wide perspective, like Yvonne was talking about? And if you… if you tell us, you know, well, just take the bus to East Boulder for the pool, that to me is, you know, that's… that's… too much. That's… that's getting too… down in the nitty-gritty in people's everyday lives. I mean, you're talking about young kids who can't drive, who need parents to take them. You're talking about an aging population that are, you know, the RTD might not be something that's super accessible for them, and definitely not a bike, and so I just, you know, I want to be careful with that conversation about transportation. I don't want it to turn into a get on a bike or use a bus sort of conversation as a trade-off. Other than that, is there anything else that anybody spoke about that you would like to,

[128:04] make sure that Allie takes back with her. I think, you know, Yvonne was very focused on, is more programming, you know, for those big dollars, if there's anything we can do to offer more programming. That would help… If the budget conver- or if the ballot measure conversation is focused on specifically rec centers. it would be… the community will want to hear more than just a shiny new rec center, so, you know, that might be a messaging way to explain kind of how these things might work. And then the breakdown of funds, which I think you already brought up. Is that… Yvonne, is that a new hand? Yes. Go ahead, sorry. No, no worries. So, a question, Ali, you said, you know, I think you said, you were interested in, you know, rethinking South Boulder as a community hub. One of the things I forgot to ask earlier was.

[129:08] In the earlier pages of this packet. It says in 2025, the city spent $1.55 million to operate the building. SBRC operated at 48% cost recovery. I just wanted to make sure that it reflected that the pool in 2025 was closed for 16 weeks. And the building itself, I think, had been closed for about a month or so. Did those numbers account for… the… the cost recovery for 2025, did it account for that? Because I know me, personally, I went to East to swim during that period, so the numbers at East increased. So, did you all level that out when you… when you looked at cost recovery? I see Jackson and Megan chiming in. Megan, I'll let you take this.

[130:00] Megann Lohman (she/her): Okay, yeah. So those are just one piece of data and numbers, right? And so, the cost recovery at the South Boulder Rec Center, is… is… yes, it takes that into consideration. It doesn't adjust it, it's just one data point. Megann Lohman (she/her): So, actually, the year before, the cost recovery was better when the pool was closed longer, which is unfortunate, right? So that's not necessarily what you want to hear, but when that building has closures, the cost recovery actually improves there rather than decreases. Megann Lohman (she/her): But all to say, this is just one data point, is that cost recovery. The usage of that center, actually, in 2025 was higher than it has been, since Megann Lohman (she/her): at least since we've been capturing data, we've continually made thoughtful investments in that building that have improved usage. So that usage was the highest amount of usage we've had since… as long as we've been tracking it, back to before 2019.

[131:03] Megan, that was perfect. Can I… I'd like to add one… Yvonne, I hear you have a follow-up. I just want to note also. There's a con… I'm just gonna… I'm gonna name this. There's a… there's a… inference and cherry-picking of data that concerns me, and I want to just point out that as we offered this data, the way it's framed on page 4 of the memo, there is no analysis of it. Had we offered analysis, we would have pointed out South is half the size of East and North. We would have added a lot more information, and so I just… I want to… because I see, you know, different community comments and people telling stories and thinking what it means, we didn't add analysis. This is simply data to help frame the conversation, and so I can understand that these questions. And just hope would folks understand that it is simply data. It does not include analysis. There's a whole lot more to the story. Yeah, and I appreciate that. It's just that I think there's concern from the community that if these numbers get sent to Council as justification for not investing in South.

[132:01] then, you know, that's a concern, because there's so much more behind this. I know you've heard from the community about well, you know, the numbers have gone down at South because there's no more childcare anymore. They used to have childcare, they used to have a lot more programming that's not available anymore. So, I, you know, I think what, you know, just as I think Michelle had said, we are reimagining the Western Campus. That is what the community in South Boulder is saying. Why can't we reimagine South Boulder? The cost recovery numbers can be extraordinarily different if we actually made it a community hub with co-located services, with childcare so parents can go work out and drop their kids off. I mean, there's just so many things. I know Sunny, at one point, and still to this day, has been talking about what a wonderful place, given the view of the lake and the view of the Flatirons. wonderful place to incorporate a small cafe, not a large kitchen or anything like that, but a small cafe where you can have people go play pickleball, go sit and have a cup of coffee, all-season type cafe, you can close it off. But those are the kinds of things that if we reimagine South Boulder, the numbers aren't… don't have to be a 48% cost recovery, so I just… the story behind it is super important.

[133:20] And I want to make sure we're not framing that to Council as. South is not worth investing in because the cost recovery is low. Do you see what I'm saying? I just want to make sure that… I do, and what I think… what I think the facts are, and what we have said, is that South should be invested in so that it can better serve the community, and so that it can be more financially viable. Again, I can't… I can't address every rumor and misinformation that I see in all the emails, but it's problematic and contributes to the challenges. We are not trying to make a case, because behind all of those stories is that city staff are making a case to not invest in the South Boulder Recreation Center, when the opposite is true. We have said for a very… for quite some time now, and since the fall of 24,

[134:02] we want to invest in recreation in South Boulder. And so it's just… it's distracting from the conversation, and it's just a bummer. I wish I… I wish I could wave a magic wand and fix it. We are getting to our overtime at this point, so I think that we'll probably start to wrap it up here. Again, Allie, is there anything else that we can provide, or anything we can do to help with your conversation next week? Well, I think, yeah, I mean, our third question was really just around Is there anything about the options that we're considering? I mean, do you support the recommendation that we keep studying these options to determine what is most feasible? I think your conversation is highlighted on the fact that there's so much more work to be done. Is there anything that, you know, and, happy to continue receiving emails about things that give you pause. I appreciate, again, that, you know, the themes I heard about better explaining to the community what these

[135:01] millions of dollars investments in the recreation centers would do for being a healthy and socially thriving community. It's not just new boilers and paint, right? There's so much more that we would get. We would have world… three world-class recreation centers. And we need to do a better job explaining that. But I guess that's really the key question, is are there… are there concerns about the approach we've outlined in Next Steps? Do you support the Next Steps as we've outlined them? I… I think that we could… unless anybody has a comment, if you support the next steps, we can just raise our hand. Wait, can we clarify what are next steps, just to make sure? Sure, go ahead. Allie, do you want to just clarify what those next steps are? Yep, just for us, we will keep working with the facilities team on outlining the scenarios and the investments needed, and better communication about them. I really appreciated that feedback tonight. City Council will have a study session next week. To talk about the citywide investment, scenarios.

[136:01] to inform their May conversation on ballots, and we're gonna be… we're gonna be pencils down that whole time, trying to fill in some of these gaps in information that would inform a funding request. And so it's the timeline that I laid out, that slide of April 9th, City Council study session, May 14th, conversation on ballot measures, summer polling with the community, leading to a November 2026 election. Are the… but are these options that are outlined in the packet When you say, we're going to continue to work on it. Are you… are we making a decision today that, you know, option A… of them. We want to keep exploring all of it. Okay. It's not tied to funding yet, because. So… Yeah, I hope the mic can go up. I think he was, he was saying yes, right? The easy answer is yes, for me. Okay. Yes, for me. So I'll just… I'll say yes, and I'll just add on that I hope that all of us having this conversation can emphasize two key points. One is that all three recreation centers need a ton of investment if they're going to last the next 50 years. All three of them.

[137:14] At the same time, I mean, that sounds a little bit boring and dire, but I think that's part of the conversation. The other half of the conversation is aspirational. We can do so many cool things. Like, just even imagine what a brand new facility is going to look like at Southrec. I mean, I would go from where I live. I would, you know, bike over there for a half hour every day to go to a brand new facility. It's gonna be amazing. So I really think it's both of those things. And hopefully we can get the community's full support behind this, but if not, we're gonna have to make some really, really tough choices, in the coming years. Well said. Okay, so I think we're… Yvonne, you're good with the moving forward with that, okay? So I think, you got yeses across the board for question 3.

[138:09] Okay, I'm just doing a quick check with the team to see if we got the feedback we need. And I think so, Michelle, when you think about… Michelle's really going to be leading next week's conversation. Is there anything else? Any follow-up? Okay, I see, good. Okay. Alright, I wanna just appreciate, you know, one of the things that… I was reminded of last week is that you all are often held accountable as volunteers who serve on the Prabh by the community for things that are beyond your control, or for things that are just… these are… these are hard conversations. I thank you always for your volunteerism and for spending time to… to… help us with this. I do think your comments tonight have made the work better, and I appreciated the feedback on how we're communicating, how we're developing the scenarios. I don't know how… if we're going to be able to get there in time for the Council memo, but certainly with the City Council presentation, you've given us some… some thoughtful insight around those themes that I summarized earlier.

[139:08] Okay, thank you. And I just wanted to say thank you to staff for, working with us on this, all of these hard conversations. putting together the packet, you know, it really does lay out the reality of what we're facing here. And what stands out to me is that it isn't a matter of whether we invest, but how we invest, and what level of service we're willing to stand behind. So, as a board, I think that we just need to continue to push that message forward, and be clear with Council about, you know, how we feel about it, and prioritize a system that's Both financially and environmentally responsible. So I appreciate the opportunity for letting… allowing us all as Prabs weigh in. I think it's really important, and to continuing the conversation as we move forward. And thanks to everybody for all of your thoughtful conversation and questions and feedback and insight tonight. It's really important for the community, so thank you so much.

[140:03] Thanks, everyone. We appreciate your time. Okay. Well, it's 825, so we made it before the half hour time, so thanks, everybody, for standing on extra. Thanks to staff, thanks to Prabh, we really appreciate it, and let us know if there's anything else we can do to help before our next meeting. Yeah, thank you, everybody, I really appreciate it. One thing I'll clarify as a next step, we're going to send City Council a brief summary from staff, some of it you heard in our things, and we're going to try and get it to them, before their next meeting, because we expect there will be some conversation and community interest. Thank you. Thank you all very much. I really appreciate it. Sure. I'm taking that as a motion to adjourn that was supported unanimously at 8.26 PM.