Agenda - 06-18-2013 - 7e - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

3 budget of $250,000. This decision was reflected in the FY2012 -13 Board adopted Capital Investment Plan. The Board also established a placeholder in the FY2014 -15 CIP for a 10,000 square foot community center to be erected in its place in the amount of $2,000,000. This budget was established according to a reasonably up- fitted community center program of $200 per square foot. Information regarding the Capital Investment Plan decision is provided in Attachment 2, "Supplemental Information ", Section D. As a result of this decision, the facility became fully vacant on December 31, 2012, except for the office of the Cedar Grove Park supervisor. All utilities services have been reduced to the level required to preserve the plumbing lines and control humidity. Public Input Process and Results After the decision to invest in a community center, at the direction of the Board, staff engaged the public in a process whose purpose was to 1) facilitate a dialogue regarding the community center project; 2) receive input regarding community needs and desires that could be supported by the community center; and 3) solicit volunteers for an informal resident design advisory group to work with the County staff and its design consultant on integrating these needs and desires into the facility design and operation. Staff held two public meetings to meet these objectives. The first was held over two sessions on March 19, 2012, and the second on September 25, 2012. Both meetings were held in the cafeteria of the Northern Human Services Center. March 19, 2012 Staff solicited participation through a mailed flyer sent to every property owner of parcels within a one mile radius (per County Geographic Information Systems information), retail outlet postings along NC 86 North, and area churches. Individuals who participated in the Cedar Grove park master plan public input sessions held in 2004 and 2005 were also noticed via mail for the meeting. Approximately 30 -40 individuals attended the two sessions. The attendees received an update on the Board's decision to deconstruct the facility, the reasons for the Board's decision, and the Board's intent to construct a community center on the site. Staff also conducted a survey soliciting a desired preference among a series of potential activities and features of the facility, as well as an "intensity of preference" metric (solicited through a "dot" voting exercise) to measure the intensity of those surveyed preferences. Staff collated the comments and opinions of the attendees into three categories: 1) "Mixed Opinions "; 2) Strong Opinions` and 3) Moderate Opinions ". Staff also ranked the intensity of responses from "most intensive" to "least intensive ". A summary of these desires and needs communicated by the group include: Mixed Opinions (1:1 ratio in favor): • Deconstruction of existing facility with appropriate "memorialization" of the original facility, as opposed to adaptive re -use and renovation of the center portion of the facility (cafeteria and gymnasium)