Aquatic Center Proposal

Citizens interested in Huber Heights City Council

Succeeding in Huber Heights

Aquatic Center Proposal

analysis by Tom McMasters Prepared prior to Council’s May 9th vote

Huber Heights City council desires to construct a Recreational complex on the north side of the city around the current YMCA facility. On Monday they will present the projects Master Plan to the public and then take a vote to adopt the master plan. They will also take a vote to authorize the city manager to enter into an Architect Agreement for development of the complex.

The city council has had this project on a fast track and currently hopes to open by Memorial Day 2012. If council does not pass the resolutions on the agenda for May 9th the project will probably not meet that date. I’ve attended most of the council meetings and a few of the committee meetings concerning this project. I summarize what I know here and I present the questions about the project I think are relevant. This will give you the opportunity to judge my decision making process to see if I am someone you believe is capable of representing your interests on city council. Additionally, if you believe any of the points I bring up are so important the current council should address them before they decide to proceed then I encourage you to let them know before the vote on Monday. Based on the information I’ve found in the public domain I would be asking for more information and looking for other fiscal assurances or else my vote on Monday would hinder meeting the proposed opening date. (More on my conclusion)

Here are my questions and thoughts:

How much would a yes vote Monday cost the city if they decide not to build the complex? According to the resolution the architect gets 8% of the expected construction cost. How much of this do they get if they complete the drawings but the project never gets built? More on this.

The council will be voting to adopt the Huber Heights Recreational Activity Center Master Plan. This has also been referred to as the feasibility study. As a master plan I would like to see better development of the expected operating plan. In public sessions council has mentioned they intend to hire the YMCA to administer the new complex. What exactly does this mean? Is it possible Y membership will reduce admission fees? The master plan mentions possible fee schedules but the developer has gone out of their way to say these are still up to the city (more on operations). If this were a feasibility study I would expect it to contain more information about the comparable projects. For instance; how much did the comparables cost to build, how much do they cost to operate, how much revenue do they produce, how large are the facilities? (More on comparable case studies).

The feasibility analysis that was done concludes that we should expect a peak hour usage demand of about 1300 people. In the case studies they show that their estimates were less than the actual demand. Then they recommend we build a complex capable of handling 900 people. Who has looked at the alternatives? How much extra does it cost to build the larger facility from the start? How much extra afterward? Is the site even large enough for a larger site? (More on Site Development)

What is the expected cost for the project? The cost for the land is not covered by the TIF money. There is sewer work that will be paid for from the sewer fund. They will be borrowing money in the forms of bonds. How will these finance cost be paid? Is this a $6 million, $8 million or $10 million dollar project? (More on cost of the project)

What is the opportunity cost of the project? The mayor has stated publicly that this project would not cost tax payers money. His logic is that TIF money isn’t really tax money. But this money could be used to pay for road or sewer construction in the TIF area. Or it could be used to offset other capital improvements normally paid for by regular tax money. So we have the opportunity for better roads, lower water rates or lower taxes. (more on opportunity costs).

Executive Summary: Follow links for further background

As of 7 May 2010