At General Committee this week, there were a few items before Council for discussion but one that stuck out and deserves some discussion – the report about the future gymnasium at the SARC. By way of background, during the 2021 capital project deliberations, Councils approved a budget of 8.2m. As a result staff commenced the design phase of the project by hiring a firm to develop final designs and a class A estimate for a new gymnasium to be added to the SARC and report back to Council for final approval.
During the initial part of the design phase, staff were also tasked to consult with the public and sports organizations to get feedback on their needs – what type of gymnasium do they need for their various activities. During the consultation, users identified a need for a double gym. Specifically “The double gymnasium would allow for more practice play, competitive play and access for the community. A double gymnasium would also be well utilized for Town programming, where multiple activities could be going on at the same time in the space”
Given that users identified a need for a double gym, Staff paused the design work to bring that feedback to Council and obtain direction on appropriate design… Single or double gym….Unfortunately the site has limitations with respect to what can be built. The size of the building footprint needed for a double gym would encroach on Provincially significant wetlands and would require more land to provide additional parking. Given these significant limitations, the option presented and recommended by staff was to continue with the single gym option as was originally directed by Council and move towards final designs.
As I stated at the table, the decision before Council was simple… Do we continue design and cost estimates for the single gym option as originally approved or do we pivot and move to a double gym option. With site limitations the best course of action in my opinion is to continue with work towards final design and true costs for the single gym; then Council will have all the information it needs to determine if there is value for our community in proceeding to tender.
This project is an example of the financial impact of short versus long term planning considerations when it comes to the development of community amenities.
It’s interesting to note the history of this project. When the SARC was being developed and voted on back in 2004 the original plans had included a gymnasium on the south west corner of the building. The cost to add the gym to the project was just under 2 million at that time. Despite a clearly identified need, the gym was removed from the plans. That decision may have “saved” money at that time, but it didn’t eliminate the need for the gym. And now here we are once again considering the building of a gym but the costs are now over 5 times more – closer to 11 million dollars – to build the same gym that was planned in 2004.
As a Council we need to look at current and future needs of our community to ensure we get value for taxpayer dollars. What looks like a savings today can – and usually does – prove costly in the future. I am proud to say that this Council as a whole has been proactive not reactive in its approach to decision making. We have made financially sound decisions for the future of Aurora, ensuring that we are well positioned to meet the needs of our residents today, tomorrow and beyond.
