Dear City Council Members,

I am writing because I am out of town and cannot attend tonight’s council meeting in person. As a resident and as Vice Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission, I want to voice my support for the award of the recommended planning contract for Burgess gym. I would also like to request that in approving the award of the contract, the council set certain guidelines with respect to how the project should be carried out in order to insure that the results meet the long term needs of the community.

The renovation and expansion of the Burgess Gym will have been under formal discussion for over a decade before a single spade of dirt is ever moved. Numerous public meetings have been held that led to the development of the 1999 Parks and Recreation Master Plan and the Measure T Bond Initiative. In December 2006 and January 2007 the Parks and Recreation Commission facilitated a series of public meetings on this topic and the public again voiced its support for expanding our indoor sports facilities, especially for gymnastics and basketball, but also for volleyball, dance, aerobics, and other indoor sports.

The planning contractor that is being recommended by staff tonight was selected with inputs from the Parks and Recreation Commission, is well qualified and has a successful track record. HOWEVER, in order to have them produce the best result it is important that the council set clear expectations.

FIRST: The proposed contract stipulates that the contractor should generate three options that can be built within the Measure T construction budget of approximately $6 million. The Parks and Recreation Commission has been told by staff that building costs have risen dramatically and that $6 million is not likely to enable the type of gym expansion that was envisioned in the 1999 Master Plan, much less enable some of the other options that have been suggested since then. At the same time, we have heard from the community that we should be planning for a sports complex to address Menlo Park’s needs for at least the next 30 years (as the old gym has served the community for even longer than that).

Prior to starting this planning project, council should discuss whether expanding the Burgess sports complex is a priority and if so if it is willing to allocate additional resources from the general fund reserve, rec-in-lieu fund, private donations, or other sources in order to fully fund the needs that have been articulated time and again by the sports community. Assuming that the sports complex is a priority for the community, the contractor should be directed to generate options that meet the community’s long term needs and to provide realistic estimates of what they will cost in 2009-2010 when construction is expected to be completed. Once the full magnitude of the incremental costs are known, the various funding alternatives can be considered by Council.

Knowing that the project is probably under funded by at least $2M, Council might even consider setting aside the funds previously earmarked for the Park Theater to be used for capital improvements at Burgess.

SECOND: The proposed contract stipulates that the contractor consider A) a renovation without expansion, B) a renovation with expansion, and C) a tear-down and rebuild on the same site. Staff has told the Parks and Recreation Commission that any of these options will close the gym for at least 18-24 months.

Given the fact that a primary need is to provide more space for simultaneous gymnastics classes and youth basketball, exploring a major renovation without expansion seems pointless.

As an alternative to developing the renovation only option, the council should relax the constraint that any expansion or rebuilding take place within the existing gym footprint and have the contractor consider relocating some or all of the current gym programming to another site at Burgess. While some of these options may have been considered in the 1999 plan, numerous assumptions have changed since then (i.e. relocated child care center, elimination of the plans for a performing arts center, addition of a skate park and outdoor basketball, reconfiguration of the sports fields, changes to the pool design, and realization that renovation/expansion cannot take place while any parts of the gym remain in use) making it worthwhile to reconsider elements of that plan. For example, there is a site in the master plan that was originally reserved for a multi-story performing arts center that could possibly be utilized for a dedicated gymnastics/dance/aerobics facility, allowing the old gym to be renovated for court sports and relieving some of the pressure on the existing dance and aerobics facilities at the Burgess Recreation Center. Such an approach or some variation on it, might also allow for a phased construction, although limiting loss of gym time should be secondary to getting the right solution for the next 30 years.

Council might be concerned that considering a broader range of options could increase the scope of the planning contract or that other options, if selected, could require an Environmental Impact Revue. To this I would respond that the initial planning phase is not the time to be limiting our options. Once we have seen all of the alternatives and evaluated their relative costs and merits, then the community can decide which one is worth pursuing.

As a side note, the playing field study that is also before council tonight should be closely coordinated with sports center design study as any reconfiguration of the buildings could impact plans to reconfigure the fields or visa versa.

IN CONCLUSION: We have the opportunity and responsibility to design a sports facility that will meet the needs of our community for the next 30-40 years. Now is not the time to be limiting the scope of the project either by some historical budget or by a 1999 site plan that has not been updated to reflect recent developments. After waiting a decade, potentially enduring two years without youth basketball or gymnastics, and probably spending in excess of $8 million on planning and construction, we should make sure that we have a result that exceeds the needs and expectations of the community.

Thank you.

Nick Naclerio Received on Tue Nov 27 12:29:36 2007