Lawrence Activity and Wellness Center Overview Where weve been - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

lawrence activity and wellness center overview where we
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Lawrence Activity and Wellness Center Overview Where weve been - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Lawrence Parks & Recreation Department Lawrence Activity and Wellness Center Overview Where weve been Sales tax passed in 1994 to fund, in part, parks and recreation facilities and programming Major improvements Lawrence


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Lawrence Parks & Recreation Department

Lawrence Activity and Wellness Center Overview

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Where we’ve been

  • Sales tax passed in 1994

to fund, in part, parks and recreation facilities and programming

  • Major improvements

– Lawrence Aquatics Center – Softball and baseball – East Lawrence Center – Holcom Recreation Center

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Where we’ve been

  • Additions

– Prairie Park Nature Center – Eagle Bend – Bike paths – Trails – Indoor Aquatic Center

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Where we are

  • Last new recreation center, Holcom, was built

in 1988 – nearly 25 years ago

  • Population has grown 32% - 29,000 people –

since that time

  • Facilities shortage

– About 20 fewer gyms than needed for a community this size to meet programming needs

slide-5
SLIDE 5
  • In 2006, the PLAY study was commissioned by

the City of Lawrence, Lawrence School District, Douglas County and the Lawrence Chamber to identify recreation needs in the community

slide-6
SLIDE 6
  • Five Recommendations

– The construction of an indoor fieldhouse – A school district sports complex – Upgrades to the YSI complex – Upgrades to Free State High School – Upgrades to Lawrence High School

slide-7
SLIDE 7
  • The only need from that study not

yet addressed is the fieldhouse

  • Gym space situation has worsened

since the study was completed.

– Have lost access to 6 ½ gyms and have reduced access to others

  • Closing of Sport 2 Sport
  • No access to Robinson Gymnasium at KU
  • Conversion of small gym at East for

gymnastics

  • Reduced access to school district facilities

– Increased enrollment in LPRD indoor programming

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Where we’re going…

  • Beyond the 2006 study, LPRD has

continued to seek public input regarding addressing this need

  • In 2009, LPRD hosted public

meetings and conducted additional surveys, which garnered more than 1,000 responses

  • Gym space was confirmed as the

City’s primary recreational need

slide-9
SLIDE 9

We need gyms, but where?

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Continuing progress

  • In October 2011, the City Commission hosted a

study session and reviewed the feasibility of moving forward with recreation facility in the northwest quadrant of the city

  • Preliminary site was city-owned property near

Overland and Wakarusa, west of Free State High School

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Fundraising and architecture

  • In October/November 2011, the City interviewed

fundraising firms to assist with raising additional dollars to enhance the project and architectural firms to begin preliminary plans

  • The City Commission tabled plans to hire firms

from those interviews due to a new opportunity that was presented at the Nov. 8 City Commission meeting

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Donation of Land

  • Duane and Steve Schwada proposed the donation of 50 acres
  • f land at the intersection of 6th Street and K-10 as a potential

site for the recreation center

Proposed site

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Donation of Land

  • In comparison, area outside here – Bauer

Farms and area around 6th & Wakarusa is 40 acres.

  • This is a BIG donation of developable land
slide-14
SLIDE 14

Ongoing Negotiations

  • The City also was approached

by another local developer who shared the Schwadas’ vision for a larger, multi-purpose facility and who envisioned a partnership with KU to fulfill their need for an outdoor track and field venue

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Great potential

  • All the parties involved began extensive

research into other recreation projects

– New Century Fieldhouse in Gardner – New recreation facility in Olathe – Comparisons of other facilities in Topeka and Kansas City – Frisco, Texas Fieldhouse

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Win, win, win

  • The collaboration among the City, multiple

developers and KU is resulting in a site plan that would create a tremendous community asset that none of the partners could achieve independently

– Addresses pressing need for additional gym space – Tournaments create economic development potential – At this point, KU is a very likely partner with the City and the builder

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Conceptual site plan

(very preliminary and subject to change)

slide-18
SLIDE 18

What’s inside

  • Tentative plans

– Eight full courts, with no less than 12 cross-courts at a minimum of 50 x 70 – Indoor turf area – Walking track – Wellness Center

  • Lawrence Memorial Hospital is interested in partnering in

this aspect of the facility

– Community space for cardio and weights – Potential for gymnastics and/or multi-purpose areas

  • Would like your input during tonight’s Q&A
slide-19
SLIDE 19

What it will cost

  • Initial plan for the facility at Overland/Wakarusa was

around $14 to $15 million

– This money is coming from existing sales tax funds, using availability created as aquatic center bonds are paid off

  • Assists Foundation still participating in discussions
  • City would put in additional funding for infrastructure

and site improvements

  • KDOT beginning study of intersection improvements
  • Both of those items would need to be addressed over

time with or without this project. Pooling everyone’s resources as part of an overall project reduces costs and

  • ptimizes use of combined funds
slide-20
SLIDE 20

What else is happening

  • Annexation of the property has been

completed

  • Awaiting a recommendation by the Planning

Commission for rezoning of the property

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Tonight’s agenda

  • Video of the Frisco, Texas

Fieldhouse

  • Bob Sanner, Lawrence

Convention & Visitors Bureau

  • Q&A Session
  • Input regarding what to include in the project
  • Discussion of user fees and access availability
  • General questions about the project
  • Public hearing format
  • Each speaker allowed 3 minutes