By Chris Munzing
Is it time to replace the recreation building, or is a new center an unrealistic pipe dream?
The Recreation Center is in the process of being renovated, particularly the pool facility, which upon its completion in October will feature new wheelchair access, a new roof, a new ceiling and lighting, and a new north wall facing the parking lot.
"They'll have complete access to the pool facility," said Robert Carroll, superintendent of recreation, of disabled users. The current project is being called Phase 1 of what is hoped will be a three-phase renovation.
The second phase, for which no plans have yet been drawn up, is expected to involve the expansion of the building onto the property's edge on Magnolia Boulevard, according to Carroll. An expanded weight room and offices would be the main focus of this phase. Carroll is hopeful that the eventual completion of Phase 2 will lead to further, upward expansion to include a possible second floor. However, the renovations aren't doing enough for some.
"It's a shell of a building," said City Councilman Denis Kelly, a strong proponent of razing the current facility and building a new, more modern building. Kelly has repeatedly voted against spending money on repair and renovation work, voicing a minority view that the city should put that cash toward a complete reconstruction of the Rec. The councilman, who estimates the cost of a new facility to be more than $5 million, feels that there is no time like the present to commit to a new facility.
"Money has never been as cheap as it is today," Kelly said, referring to record low interest rates. Carroll, however, believes that a new facility would cost more in the $6 million-to-$8 million range, adding that the current rehabilitation of the pool facility is costing the city between $600,000 and $700,000.
It is the councilman's hope that in an expanding community that is growing progressively younger and more active, there will be a recreation building worthy of the city's image. "[We are] a city of 35,000 which considers itself a healthy city, and we conduct our exercise activities out of that dump?" Kelly said. "Our city's value would only be enhanced" by a new Rec Center.
"He's got a great idea," Carroll said of Kelly's hopes. "[But] can the taxpayers afford to do that? Can the city afford to do that?"
Cost-effective construction?
It has been the policy of the Long Beach City Council majority that a gradual renovation of the facility is more cost-effective and beneficial to the community. The council has said that a new facility would mean a suspension of activities for at least a year and a half, and that most community members would be against losing the facility for that long. As Carroll points out, the city would also lose the revenue the Rec brings in.
"Not only wouldn't we have the facilities while they're doing it, but we wouldn't have the revenue involved there," Carroll said. "There are too many negatives."
The piecemeal renovation plan is something that Kelly feels is never going to be fully completed and will leave the community hanging. "I haven't seen or heard any detailed talk of what Phase 2 is," he said. "You're never going to get what's needed and deserved with the current plan they're doing."
Kelly, however, believes that through careful construction and in cooperation with other facilities, including the vacant Jewish War Veterans building that the city owns, there would be no activities lost. Any minor inconvenience would be accepted by the public in exchange for a new building, he believes.
In addition, the new facility would feature more activities, equipment and space than before, something Kelly believes the community would welcome. "Whatever you can give them in a Rec should be there," he said.
Fellow councilman Leonard Remo, however, believes that a loss of services would be inevitable, as would negative economic effects on the city. "You would end up losing jobs, losing services and losing revenue," Remo said. "That's my biggest concern, the loss of services for two, three, four years. I think it would be counterproductive to do it in one shot."
Remo agreed with Kelly that now is a great time to borrow money, but he also believes that with an unstable economy and an uncertain future, borrowing such a large amount is a tremendous risk. "I don't know, financially, where we're going to be in the future," he said. "I think the step-by-step plan makes a whole lot of sense."
Councilman Scott Nigro agreed with Remo that a phased renovation is the way to go. "I suggest anybody who's looking at this to look at the issues that arise in knocking down the building and building another one," said Nigro, who believes a new facility would take at least two years to build. With the current plan, Nigro is confident, he said, that "we can maintain the revenue stream through the construction."
Councilwoman Gina Guma is concerned that the children who use the facility will be the ones who suffer the most. "There's an enormous amount of children who rely on those services," she said. "We don't need to paralyze services."
Guma doesn't feel that a total reconstruction is needed. "I wouldn't tear a school down to rebuild an auditorium," she said.
Guma and Nigro can expect to hear a dissenting view from their opponents in the upcoming November city council election. GOP candidate Tom Sofield said, "That Rec Center is a disgrace." Sofield expressed support for a new facility, and believes the public would put up with any short-term loss for the sake of a new Rec Center.
"If people knew we were getting a state-of-the-art facility, they'd tolerate it," he said.
While Carroll admits that renovations will not create such a facility, the improved Rec Center will, he says, be a "class A facility."
Commission calls to rebuild
In September 2000, the city retained the LiRo Group to assess the facility and submit a recommendation on how to continue with upgrades and renovations. LiRo concluded in February 2001 that any necessary repairs, improvements and upgrades, as suggested by the group, would cost approximately $5.2 million.
The suggested plan called for a two-phase project featuring expansion and upgrading of the pool facility, which is already being done, and expansion of the East Complex, which includes offices, storage and ice arena access. The report, however, was merely one suggestion by an independent party.
The chorus to rebuild the entire center is joined by some members of the Recreation Commission, an advisory board of appointed citizens. "I'm in favor of Denis Kelly's proposal, but I'm happy that something is being done strongly," said Stanley Fleishman, head of the commission. The commission, he said, is in favor of a new facility, but it will welcome any renovations it can get.
"Any money they spend is not going to waste," said Fleishman. "The administration is not turning their back on recreation, they're just doing it in a way they think they can afford."
Some have raised the issue of a public referendum, but Carroll says voters would likely come to the same conclusion as the City Council majority once they see the costs involved. When the Recreation Commission began exploring the city's options a few years ago, Carroll said it came back with a rebuilding figure as high as $10 million to $15 million.
"I think if you brought that to the general public, that would scare them off," Carroll said. He emphasized that current repairs are being done with state grant money. "When taxpayers don't have to pay, they're with you 100 percent. Cost-wise, I think a referendum would go down."
Carroll said that in the next fiscal year the city would begin the design and planning of a hoped-for Phase 2. Currently there are four or five different options for a Phase 2 expansion of the building, he said. Funding, though, will be the primary question. As one official commented, the only reason Phase I is being seen through is because the city secured state money. But despite cash questions for Phase 2 or beyond, Carroll believes the renovations will continue moving forward.
"I'd say we'd be rolling by this time next year," he said.
Keith Grant contributed to this article.
