The city deserves better than this rehashed plan

from: Newton White <NWhite0@cfl.rr.com>2:56 PM

Attached are the agenda item from 1/15/13 and the current drawing from the RFP given to the A&B board this month that is apparently what the current RFP is being based on.
They are nearly identical.  the final pages of the 1/15 document show drawings that appear the same as the current. The descriptions included in the 1/15 item and the costs are questionable. At that time they were seeking 2 million or better and now down to 1.2 million not considering the R&R funds (500K+/-) not directly mentioned in either plan.
Why the drop in price for the same drawing?
Reading the description in the 1/15 agenda item and comparing the drawings phase1 of the 1/15 and the new RFP eerything seems to match.
In the text the weight room is to be included in the new 4042sqft wellness area  in the current floorplan wellness occupies 3674sqft and 1605sqft for the weight room. That is a 1237sqft reduction in weight training and wellness (nautilus machines, treadmills, bikes, etc.).
One of the stated goals was to expand the very often congested wellness area. How is this being accomplished by reducing overall space between wellness machines and free weights by 1237sqft?
Aside from the large additions in social spaces the only gains in space are the aerobic studios which grow by 1626sqft and the cycling which grows from 331sqft to 1624sqft  both of which are needed expansions should usage/attendance levels remain the same or grow.
Other concerns include:

• lack of details for renovation of locker rooms, restrooms and meeting current ADA standards
• is an “outdoor” yoga garden a wise investment or invitation for a change order or future needed project
• the new wellness area is built over an utility line(s) if memory serves me correctly concern for cost of relocation
• the doors for the mechanical water heaters and apparatus for the steam rooms are shown to open into the wellness area. concerns for non useable space to have access or fire code
• ease of access to the building from the parking areas
• the general flow of traffic and parking in front of the building concerns for safety given the nature of stop and drop for handicap service (votran gold, med shuttle) and parents with children in day programs
• access for emergency vehicles fire and EVAC making the sharp corner to come to the front of the building.
• most of what is labeled as new parking is already being used by persons parking in unauthorized locations

I cannot see this as a good plan to improve the facility as it does not achieve more room for the wellness and free weights and has concerns on cost of construction and ease of use that are not addressed. I fear that the cost will be inflated with change orders or revisions to address the above issues and more. We should see more than one proposal and have more options before spending this much money. The city deserves better than this rehashed plan that appears to have been hastily conceived to meet a deadline or timetable.

---