Transcript

I believe from the administration, we also have some financial information that is going to be presented.

Is that also part of Jack's presentation or Chuck? Is that something you were Cindy are presenting?

Part of that as well. Okay, great. Well, I believe that Jack is going to kick this off first, so-

A point of information since is probably the information is voluminous and we have a

three-minute time limit. I assume that we're going to forego that.

Yes, for this special meeting, we are not doing the three-minute work session for the

people that have been asked to provide presentation. Thank you for that point of clarity.

Okay, so without further ado, I believe we are ready for the first portion.

Jack, is your microphone on? Yeah, so the people at home can hear you too.

All right, thank you. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor. Chuck, members of council.

Again, my name is Jack Castle, I'm the Parks and Recreation Director, and I'm excited to come here

and talk about this tonight, this topic. I feel like this conversation is long overdue and it's

helping advance our community, so I'm excited to provide some information as much as I can.

A couple of weeks ago, administration asked me to just give an overview of where we stand now

with some operational highlights and a current pro forma as we see it now. So this is a draft

and in order to do the draft, based on some of the financials that have been presented in a

couple of the last council meetings, we know that where we left off Pizzuti had an 188,000 square

feet facility and we realized that we couldn't afford all that, so I think we dialed it down

to about 120 to 130,000 square feet facility, so I had to make some key assumptions as we do

a pro forma for that. So some of the assumptions, facility assumptions are that it would be a 120,000

square foot community center. It would have fitness and wellness components along with indoor

aquatics. There would be community program in classroom space, senior and youth program space.

Some of the operating assumptions would be that it was for the purpose of this discussion tonight

from my end would be city owned and operated with a target cost recovery in the range of 70 to 80 percent

and the revenue would be generated from memberships, programs and rentals. Pro's consulting

did a feasibility study for us a while back and they presented a pro forma. That was their

pro forma. Today I'm going to present sort of our growth city model of a pro forma. So we'd

jump right into personnel cost. This is based on full full time salaries of 12 positions

this pro forma. You can see that correlates to about $929,500 that includes benefits.

Part time staffing of a little bit over 1.3 million total and giving us a total personnel cost

would be 2.24. As we look at this there's some things I want to point out about the personnel cost.

First off we did a standalone staffing model. That means all 12 of these individuals would

be working in the facility and be operating the facility. However it's important to note out

that we are currently building our staff towards that right now. So six of those positions are

actually on our staff right now that would be expected to take on capacity of different roles within

the community center. So from an incremental staff that would be needed six new additional

full time positions would be needed at the time that we get ready to open this facility.

This is a great picture of our current staff. You know two years ago we had 13 authorized

full time positions. Administration and council has increased that. We are now up to 23 full time

positions. What is amazing about this and I don't know that everybody realizes and I want to take

an opportunity to really brag about our staff. We did an assessment of their experience.

And of these 23 individuals we average over 15 years of experience in programming and managing

facilities. That's important to note. So we're not just starting from scratch when we talk about

a city owned and operated model. We are building towards that. We have confidence in our staff. In

fact you know our newest one of our newest members who's been here for a little over two months.

Deputy director Brianna Ross if you could wave so everybody knows who you are. She just came from

a previous role that she managed staffing budgets, standard operating procedures,

troubleshooting over 28 community centers at one time. So we do have the experience and we're

building our staff around that model to be able to take this on. So manual operating costs are

listed here. You'll find that these are a little bit more aggressive than what was in the

pros consulting. A lot of this is based on a square footage of the facility. So this was

had to be updated and dialed back from 188,000 square feet to what we're making the assumption

on today. So a little bit over 1.7 million comes through annual operating costs.

So our total expenditures with this new assumption of the smaller size facility

will be a little over $4 million. That's what we're anticipating. And again these are based on

assumptions that we're putting in the in the community center. So just to give you an example,

some of this changes if we take out one element that I'm assuming is in there and we put in a rock

climbing wall. Well that changes how you staff that. It changes how you do part time dollars.

If you take out a lap lanes and put in a competitive pool that changes how you staff that and what

that looks like in terms of operating overall operating costs. So once we narrow down all the amenities

that are going to be in a community center, then we can start to get specific on a pro forma.

So go ahead. We have we have six positions now that are that deal with facilities in one

way, shape, or form. And so that includes everything. The additional so that this is a pro forma

from scratch. It's a standalone model. So all 12 positions that are included in this model.

No, no. So I did the pro forma. It's hard to separate people or put might get complicated if we do

30% of their time is coming towards this or 70% going to that. So I just put all 12 positions in

this model. So we can we can do some quick math and get those six positions the total salaries

and benefits with those positions. Yes, absolutely. It it it does. You're absolutely right. So the

incremental cost can be really dialed in once we know what all the amenities are going to be in

there. Right now, I don't know if people realize we have 117 staff members including our full

and part time staff members right now today. So that's a big deal. As we go through this,

we'll talk about what part time looks like in this facility. Based on hours and we're looking

at anywhere from 60 to 75 additional part time positions that would be included in this facility.

Revenue model. This is important to note. So what would go on in a community center and how would

we gain revenue? Use sports leagues, adult sports leagues, fitness classes, aquatic lessons and

different types of programs within that, senior programs, rentals, specialty classes and workshops,

birthday parties, community meetings, special events, day passes and there's more that would go on.

Memberships I listed last year because I want you to realize that this is more than just a

membership model community center. This would have public spaces that we'd be bringing in people

and we would do our sports programs in here. So the facility is going to be heavily used

regardless if our membership numbers are lower than expected or higher than expected.

Year one revenue projections. This is based on memberships of around 3,800 memberships.

What did you base that off of? We'll get to that next screen or two here about the US monthly

membership rates. We'll get to that next screen or two. Programming a net outcome because again

there's incremental costs with this. For example right now we staff five different facilities

for basketball because we use Southwestern facilities and so we have to have members at each

facility when we came into if we come into a community center we're not going to have that same

staffing model. We'll have less staff right there supervising one facility. Aquatic programs,

facility rentals and then even day passes would be included in revenue. So we have revenue projection

of about 2.8 million dollars. Monthly membership price tolerance. I want to talk about the tolerance

first. Pros consulting did did break this down for us of what our community members would be

willing to pay. And what you see here is where the majority of the percentages fell. So adults

would be willing to pay anywhere from 20 to 34 dollars per month, 60 percent of the adults

responded in favor of that price range. Seniors, 14 to 19 dollars, 51 percent of seniors said they

would be willing to pay that monthly fee for this for this. And then a family of four which is

important 50 to 74 dollars is the price range and 60 percent came in from our community said that

they would be willing to pay that. So that price tolerance is important as we look at what we're

actually going to be charging. So in this first column here on this screen you'll see a growth city

range. We wanted to give a low end to a high end of what we possibly could charge. So that's what

you'll see in there. In the next few columns you'll see Westerville, Hillier, Upper Arlington,

and then of course the Grove City YMCA. These are all just represent published numbers on their

websites. So we just pull these off of there. So you can see in that price range

most of these these ranges are right in line with with what our community said they would be

willing to pay as well. Question? Yeah, Jack. And then there's further stratification of membership

charges. I think we've discussed like if you're Grove City resident versus Jackson Township

resident. Yes. And then there would be day passes which you did mention. So multiple layers of

membership based on where you're at and things like that. Absolutely. This is that's a great point.

For this for the purpose of this pro forma we looked at Jackson Township and Grove City as one

as one resident fee and we're looking at resident fees. I also want you to know we talk about

memberships here. We talk about adult seniors, family member of four. There's a number of

additional ones that we can get as complicated as we want. Somebody just wants to go do laps

swimming only. We can have a membership for that. Somebody has a family of six. We can add

you know five or ten bucks a month to the to the fee on top of family of four. So there's a number

of membership models. I tried to keep this as basic as possible for for comprehension for tonight.

Yeah. So I want to move on to this slide here. So a number of memberships the first column.

This is a conservative number of what we could expect in year one. 3,800 memberships. Again,

I broke it down into high level memberships of family, adult, and seniors. And I use the bare

minimum you would call our price range went from minimum lowest amount to the highest amount that

we would charge. I'm using the lowest amount here to represent this pro forma. So a family of four

is 70 bucks a month or $840 for the entire year. An adult, a single adult could pay $30 a month

or $360 for the year. And a senior could be $15 a month or $180 for the year. This allows full

access. That's a question that comes up. This is full access to the facility. So not only the fitness

wellness aquatic areas, but the other areas as well. You don't have to have a separate pickable

membership to go play pickleball or move throughout the facility. So based on this, and I want,

and I do want to add that 3,800. I'm sorry. Do you have a question to keep going, please?

3,800 members is quite conservative. We try to be very conservative on our revenues and then we

try to be a little bit higher on our expenses for this pro forma. So 3,800 is a low number to give

you reference to that. The City of Hilliard, which just opened up their community center is right

around and their first year, right around 7,000 members. And Upper Arlington City, Upper Arlington,

their community centers right around 11,000 members right now. Can you say those numbers again, please?

So City of Hilliard is right around 7,000 memberships in their first year. And Upper Arlington is right

around 11,000. And those are memberships, not just individual, like if it's a family of three, it's

counting as one for a membership of those 7,000. And same with the 3,800. So these 2,000 for families,

it's not just 2,000 people in average of a family of three. We're looking at 6,000 people. But you're

counting this as membership numbers. Okay, thank you. And then a question here, I would,

I would imagine that we as a city, administration and council as we review the budget every single year

would have opportunity. We would see these numbers. We would see how the year played out,

making decisions for that cost recovery throughout the budgeting season and continuing to be able to

ebb and flow of all memberships and understand the things that we need. Is that correct?

That is correct. So, you know, there's not just the capital cost to build the facility. There's

also the monthly membership and the subsidy amount. So those are three different financial buckets

and they would all have to be evaluated on a yearly basis. Okay, thank you.

Chairman. Yes, question. Just for the record, the cost that he's putting into these numbers in

a pro forma does not amortize capital. Unlike a private enterprise, when you're having to amortize

the appreciation, in other words, this becomes a gift and it's non-amortizable. But that's just

something that's in the back of your mind that there are costs involved financing the debt and

the capital expenditure. Thank you. So that takes us to our cost recovery look at the whole model.

You see our annual operating, our total revenue that's projected and the subsidy amount would be

a little bit over 1.1 million. This brings us in right here at a 71% cost recovery. Well,

within our target, but we'd like to shoot for that 75% but anywhere between 70 and 80 is really good.

Most cities, when they build a community center, they typically try to be right around that rate,

that 70 to 80%. As you will recall, from looking at the pros consulting feasibility study,

they actually did a pro forma that had as reaching 100% cost recovery. That's something that can be

done, but that has to be a decision from administration and counsel. This effort here was to keep

it between 70 and 80% keep it subsidy and keep the monthly membership rates as low as possible.

So a closer look at this is good. Jack, just going back to this page cost recovery,

the word subsidy to you means that's 1.1 million out of the general fund to help supplement.

Correct. So I think that's important for the community to know that there's 1.1 million dollars

or 1.2 million dollars that we're going to have to identify where it's coming from.

So a closer look at this, in the model that I'm giving you, 48% of our revenues coming from

membership fees. So again, it's not just a membership model. We have additional revenue coming from

other sources that are listed here. So I want to make that clear, membership growth forecast.

Again, this is conservative numbers, year 138 is what we base the pro forma off of,

but year two we'd be at 4500 and then year three plus we'd be at 5,000.

So looking at taking that and expanding that out, you can see how our cost recovery actually

grows over that first three year time period with those. This has taken into account increases

in expenses and revenues as time goes on. You would, I think going out three years is really

strong because then now we have time to adjust. We have data that we can make some data driven

decisions on how to adjust our programming, our membership model or rates and stuff like that

to figure out where we need to go. One question that comes up and I think this is a great question

is how big is the universe? So just wanted to show some of these numbers here with Grove City.

Our population right now is around 43,000. The pros consulting feasibility study showed is projected

as at 48,000 in 2033. There's the number of households that increase a little bit.

It's typically assumed that about 30% of all households will participate and this gives us a

potential recreation participants of about 13,000 in today numbers and about 14,000 a little over 14,000

in 2033. Yes. Jack, I'm just a question. We talk sometimes about having a not-for-profit

consume space in the community center whether that's we have to build more space or

you know make it bigger but then they would pay rent. This would be something like a mountain

car mall or some other hospital taking up 20,000 square foot or whatever. Does that impact the

numbers overall or is that pretty much designed as a break-even situation? Chuck, maybe you can

help me with that? Yes, I think the model would be that we'd break even in terms of their rent

that they would pay would cover that debt service and the example that Mr. Holt gave is in

Upper Erlington. They have 165,000 square foot facility. OSU rents 33,000 square feet. In Hillier,

they have 111,000 square foot facilities. OSU rents 25,000. So our model would be that certainly

they would pay that additional debt service that would incorporate whatever square footage that they

would need. So it allows you to build a larger space that can be occupied but it doesn't really

impact the profitability numbers one way or another much other than creating more people there.

That's correct. And again in Arlington's model what their thought process was is that their

lease is for 15 years. They figure in 15 years they would need to expand that facility. Well,

the OSU lease would be out. They would move out and the recreation department would take over that

33,000 square feet. Okay, thank you. So they're not that extra square footage is not in this

in this particular kind. So this question, sorry, go ahead. We could go back to the last slide.

How big is the universe? I just want to verify. We were talking about Jackson Township a minute ago

with kind of the potential with membership fees. Is this population, we said within the

Grove City limit? So it's not including Jackson Township? I think that's a great question.

And I'd have to refer back to the pros. It's only Grove City. It's Grove City. It's the population

point. Okay. Jackson about 50,600 maybe. Jackson Township is about 50,000. Okay. Thank you.

Appreciate that. Thanks. So this next slide speaks directly to recreation providers.

You see these in a lot of cities. These are very similar. One of the things that recreation

sort of brings is competition. It's natural. If we have a police department, you're not going to

see other police departments pop up within the same city competing with one. In recreation,

it's a little different. You have a recreation ecosystem where there's a lot of providers

doing recreational opportunities. So here you see YMCA, church-based youth leagues,

community organizations, fitness gyms, boutique fitness studios, dance and gymnastic studios,

youth sports training. We deal with all this right now today and what we provide currently.

And all this would still exist in a future setting. The effects of a community center,

I think it's important to talk about. So the source of this information is from industry benchmarks

for an N.R.P.A. National Parks and Recreation Association and other comparable organizations

that do feasibility studies, like pros consulting and berry done and et cetera. These are standards

and percentages that they use on the effects of bringing in a new community center on that

recreation ecosystem that already exists in your city. So this is important to talk about. Now,

I want to jump to the middle column first. Transferred from existing providers. So that previous

slide that we showed you, go back to it real quick, that all these entities that are providing

recreational opportunities. We could expect on the low end anywhere from 25% to 40%,

I picked the number 30% for this for this pro forma. So you can expect about 1,500

transfers from other entities that are providing recreation right now to come into the community center.

That's good. But the really outstanding number here is new recreation. And I want to talk about

that for a second. New recreation is maybe they're doing recreation at home on their own,

or maybe they're not part of our parks and rec entity right now in any shape way or form.

But if we have community space and we're doing different types of programs in the community center,

they come and they join and they participate in that. So you can actually expect anywhere from

the low end of 40% to the high end, depending on your community and the other providers in your

community of upwards to 60% being new members, new to recreation. And I think that's outstanding.

Previously inactive is also important. It's also an important number. This is going to be the

lowest number that's in here. But you can expect about conservatively 26% of people who are not

familiar with recreation and not participating in any way shape or form right now to get up and come

join the facility and start working out. So I think this speaks to the ability to expand and grow

with even with our current providers and bringing out new members. And I think it's representative

of a healthy and active community, which I think is something that we all want. So again,

it's more than a membership model. We're doing community classes, fitness, arts and entertainment,

youth development in here, youth and adult sports, facilities, rentals, community use,

aquatics and wellness. This all, we're not relying on just memberships to keep the facility going

and sustainable. That's important. That gives us flexibility. And flexibility is the most

important piece about having a city owned and operated facility that we can adjust to the needs

of the community, recreation trends. Let me give you an example. Probably 15 years ago,

nobody was, or very few people were playing pickleball. There wasn't a demand for pickleball courts,

indoor or outdoors. And those that did play just started playing and sharing on tennis courts.

And now we've evolved into a different trend where there's pickleball specific courts and

no matter how many you put in a community, there's always the demand for more. We always hear

that voice. We want more and more and more. So trends change, recreational trends change. We have

to be ready for that and be flexible enough to adapt and change to it. So as we look at next steps,

I think the big decision here is, and what we want to provide is as much information to

administration and counsel so that we can determine what our operational model is going to be,

which would lead into a site selection as well. Once we have a site selection, I think then we

can start to issue RFPs for a third-party vendor and also start to complete a conceptual design,

which means that now we know what amenities are going to be in the facility. Once we know what

amenities are going to be actually in the facility and not just making assumptions, then we can

determine and develop a detail, not only capital costs, but also refine the operating

pro forma. And I think that brings me to the conclusion tonight of my presentation. I'm available for

any questions that you guys might have additional questions. Yeah, I do. And I'm sure others will have

lots of questions to talk through. And I think as we go through tonight and go through the next

presentation, we're certainly going to have more questions, Jack, that we'll probably call you

back up. But I think what I wanted to talk about for a second more than a membership model,

the slide right before this, talking about our community classes, our youth and adult sports,

our facility rentals. I think just how I want to round out more of a statement is through these

last few years of the work sessions and the conversations we've had, I think we've truly identified

that as a whole, we as a city need more space for our programming needs. And I think you can

continue to articulate that. For instance, you mentioned here, we don't own spaces to be able to

program youth rec basketball, youth rec volleyball, or pick a ball. Is that correct? And now to the

precipice of having indoor, yeah, thank you. Thank you very much for that clarification of indoor,

because we do know we have worked to get outdoor spaces for pick a ball. So for basketball and volleyball,

for instance, we utilize space from our Southwestern schools and that partnership. We do pay for

those facilities to be able to operate our programming there. We do sometimes find face barriers where

if, for instance, a school, maybe the person who was on staff who would be there to open the school

needed to could not be there and that school had to close for that evening, our youth rec program

might be without a space, whether it's even, you know, known 24 hours ahead of time or sometimes

known that evening. So is that something that is even happening today? Am I articulating that

correctly? That's really a spot on, yes, it happens today. Okay. And I think we've also seen it

with a lot of the conversations around Brook Park and the requests to council last year to be able

to put a little bit of funding into Brook Park to start programming there to not only fulfill some

of the programs that we have had to do shout outs, I guess, wait less weren't, wouldn't be able

to be fulfilled through our current Kingston and the programming there. Are you seeing a huge

increase with the programming that is now happening at Brook Park? I've certainly seen lots of new

things and some splatter paint classes and things that I've seen on social and through funds that

have shared that. Are you getting to a point where you're even almost outgrowing the programming

that you've started to operate there and continue to see such a great need that we as a city need

more space? So our staff has widely embraced this challenge of offering new classes to our community

and so they're really striving. As you recall, this council just gave us an opportunity to move forward

on Brook Park. I think late November of last year and so we did our best to rush and get classes

set for January, but we're growing. We had a staff meeting the other day where it looks like in

fall. Every room space that is allotted to us will be actively programmed in Brook Park in

starting in the fall. Okay. That's what I have for now, but please. I tend to be a number

skies. I'm looking at the numbers. Great job here. Just initially assuming that everything that

you put down here is correct, which I assume. I think that your subsidy number is high. I think with

the your current staff and applying that to the personnel, you should be able to pick up 300 grand

there somewhere. Okay. And then I think that from the historical memberships from surrounding

communities, that's probably low. So I think between the two, this is just me 50,000 foot level looking

at financials all the time that I did through my life. I think you're probably below well below a

million, probably eight, 50 somewhere around there. So that's a good thing. Yeah, so that's very

positive at least for me. The one thing that isn't in there is the amortization of the debt

service for the structure itself, which I don't know we probably will be able to come up with an

idea of what that is. And as a side note, I think that when we have third parties utilizing the

facility, which would be a brand new facility, I think that there's a great opportunity there,

and that's going to be a net neutral, because that allows at the price of that, but are the cost

of that excuse me. So anyway, good job. Helping out a lot. Mr. McLean, please.

One thing that interests me about the community center is that we've had lots of discussions

about just like the aquatics. And now there's a shortage of schoolastic aquatic locations.

And looking at the entire ecosystem of Grove City, if we were able to partner with

Southwestern and some other schools and have schoolastic events for swimming in Grove City,

that creates a destination now for Grove City, which then supports businesses, hotels,

all those kinds of things. I mean, we have something to go to in Grove City, you know, with a big

event. That could be Peckleball Tournament indoor, outdoor. So I'm always looking for the big picture

and being able to have that. It supports lots of Grove City. And that's a byproduct of this,

or at least that's what I hope. Absolutely. Please. Oh, thank you, Jack, so much. This is a great

detail and good data. So just a couple of questions, just quick notes, nothing too complicated.

You mentioned really still have classes at like Brook Park and Kingston. Do you see those

continuing to have classes of those locations even if we had a new community center? How would

that look? Or we would try to centralize for staffing and office space? That's a great question.

So we believe in offering programs wherever we can. You know, in Columbus, they had a program called

Center Without Walls. We've even been talking and Heather Brokall, who is our event supervisor,

is here tonight, has even been programming different activities pop-up park events and trying to

rotate around into different parks. But in terms of our community classes that we offer,

we feel like our understanding as Brook Park is a short-term solution. So we would anticipate moving

those classes to the new community center. Okay. And so then that some of those costs would then

go away? Cost at Brook Park, or Kingston, or whatever, right. Okay. How in here you included

600 senior memberships? How many memberships do we currently have at our FN Senior Center?

So it's just for clarification, it's not really an apples to apples, but we have over 700 members,

I believe. Yeah. Okay. I just think it's interesting. I could see that number even increasing more.

Absolutely. 600. Absolutely. And then how big is the universe? Households participating, 30%.

Obviously, that is, you mentioned a lot of other recreational providers, the YMCA,

the church-based youth leagues, fitness gyms, 30%. That's a good amount of the residents

considering all the other providers that we have. So I was happy to see them, but I can see

that also continue to grow as well. Yeah. I think the impact of community centers coming in to

brand new community centers coming into a community shows that the numbers actually increase

in participation. Thank you. That was the only questions I have at this time.

Please. So, yeah, this is great information. Thank you so much for this.

And I have no doubt that the Parks Department can do this on their own. Absolutely.

It certainly is an option that certainly can stand on its own. I did Parks and Rec, when I was a kid,

we all know what a great job everybody does. My questions have been mainly on the physical side,

on the cost side of things, really in a couple different areas. So, first is the capital,

the upfront cost. The last time we had a presentation from the finances, and actually in some

of the materials that were published on the website, which thank you for that. That was very,

very helpful. Mr. Stern, do you have your microphone turned on? It is, but it's over there. Is that

better? All right. It's trying to. Sharing tonight. All right. So, with the capital cost,

in the last financial thing, presentation that we got the last time we were talking about this,

and again, some of the materials that were posted out there, which again, that website is great,

I'm glad that that's all out there now. There definitely was a gap between the

monies, because in the last council, there was the tip that was past that was extended,

the pinnacle theft that was extended, and it would generate approximately $70 million,

but the estimated cost of the facility that we're talking about doing is around 120.

And I got that from the numbers that are out there, so we've got a gap of around,

and from anywhere from $20 to $50 million. So, that, of course, is the first question is,

what's going to fill that gap? I don't want to mortgage the city, and risk the city itself on

that. So, that's one question is, what fills that gap? On the operating side, as we've been talking

about, whether it's a million, maybe a little less, up to 1.5, I think, was at one point what the

number was coming in. As it was stated, that would come from the general funds, but that would

have to be identified where that's coming from as well. There's memberships that people would have

to pay, which is funny because, well, it's not funny, but I've had many people come up to me and say,

wait a minute, I thought it was a community center, wouldn't that be free? Like, well, no, it's not

free. It's not like the little rascals way back when, where it's a community center and you just

walk in. It actually is a membership type model, but then they get even more confused when I've

said, and there's a proposed income tax increase along with that on top of that. So, I got to pay

a membership and I'm getting my taxes increased at the same time. So, there's several gaps, and again,

I don't know what the answer is. I'm pretty agnostic either way. Whatever the right thing to do is

is the right thing to do for the city, but what I've been asking for is kind of a side-by-side

comparison, which, again, based on the numbers that are out there, I did it myself, but I'd much

rather have the professionals doing it and actually do a comparison of what would it look like on

our own, what would it look like if we did some sort of a collaboration, and then on top of all that

would be the governance model, because I think we all agree that this thing has to be city

controlled. It has to be under the control of the city, overall. But what would that look like in

the nitty-gritty details, if there were to be a collaboration struck, and how could that be done?

If it even could be done. So, those are some of the questions that I'm still looking for answers on,

and I hope as we can continue tonight, we can start following in some of these gaps.

Yeah. I just might say, in terms of, I think you said there's a $50 million gap in terms of

the construction cost. That's not accurate. In terms of city council extended the tax increment

financing district of the pinnacle for 15 years to 2050 from 2035. That revenue will generate

approximately $120 million. A facility that will be built for $130,000 square feet at $550,

a square foot is $72 million. That other revenue from that source actually goes to pay interest.

So, there's no gap in terms of building and financing the facility itself.

The actual construction. That's correct. A $72 million structure would be financed through the

pinnacle tax increment financing. All right. All right. Great. Thank you for that clarification,

because the documentation I saw there didn't seem to read that way, but that's good. Thank you.

And in terms of the income tax you mentioned, certainly that's correct. There may be an increase

in people's property income tax. The majority of people, more than 50 percent, work in the city of

Columbus. They have a tax of 2.5 percent. We give full credit for that. So anybody that lives in

Grove City and works in the city of Columbus, it won't cost them one cent more. But we give credit.

We don't tax on pensions. So, again, I think it's a much larger subject in terms of increased

revenue that we need that every city is running into. But if you look at the tax makeup of the

cities in central Ohio, and that's just to give you example, what's already at 2 percent. If you

live in the city of Columbus and work in Grove City, you pay us 2 percent, but you pay Columbus

the other half a percent. If we had 2 and a half, we would keep it all. So in 2009,

city of Columbus went to 2.5 percent. 2010, Grandview Heights, Worlington went to 2.5 percent. 2011,

Whitehall went to 2.5 percent. 2012, Bexley went to 2.5. Up early to Novitz went to it in 2015,

Rennelsberg, 2017, Johanna, 2019, Hillier, 2022. And again, in terms of revenue of this municipality

doing not only a potential subsidy to the rec center, I think there's a need for other capital

improvements. We haven't had a tax increase in this community over three decades. Think about that.

Three decades. Property taxes in Grove City have not went up or income tax. So it's a little

to snapshot of where we're at. Be happy to answer any further questions.

I have a couple questions on that, if that's okay. Thank you for adding a lot of that clarity.

And I think you mentioned about 50 percent of people do work in the city of Columbus. I believe

you and our director of finance in previous years that likely only about one third of our Grove

City residents would be impacted in the difference in their income tax with this income tax.

I think that's a good estimate. Yes. So one third. So two thirds of our residents would still vote

on it, but they would not see as I think you said a difference in a dime of their paycheck. That's

correct. Okay, I think that's a good clarifying point. And I think, and I just have one more on

top of that. We mentioned about one million as a potential subsidy, and I appreciate Mr. Halinga

kind of even recognizing that that is a very conservative number, and maybe it would be less than

that. And I think another piece that we've talked about, but certainly we haven't dove into

enough, and maybe we need a work session about this income tax piece, is other things that,

you know, as you even mentioned, Chuck, the need for tax increases. We know that our

police funding continues to increase, and I think it's a big piece of the budget there.

That's one thing I can rattle off on the top of my head. Again, maybe this is a work session,

but I think that just to shed some light on some of the other pieces within that income tax that

think last work session or two, we said this would be an $11 million amount that would come

into the city, and we're talking one million or less potential for this subsidy based on these

numbers, this performer right now, and there's so many other things that would potentially be included

in that. Mr. Allen, please help. I have a question for either Chuck or the Mayor as a banker.

On a facility like this, what is the standard amortization time on a commercial facility?

Oh, you can go up to 30. Okay. Okay, but it will go as high as 30. I did some book numbers here.

I used 20, but okay.

As Anderson, speaking on behalf of the third that will end up paying the income tax like myself,

because I work in gross city. But I do think when we get further down the road with this,

we need to give benefit back to those that actually paid through membership. Maybe they get a

deduction on joining or something because I think that would be only fair. I mean, they're the

ones flipping the bill, so it would be only fair for that. I've got other comments later, but I

know we want to get to the Y. Just throw a quick on behalf of the two-thirds that don't have to pay

it. Thank you, Ted. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Again, this is math. I was even thinking some of the numbers

you had for the memberships. You've got some pretty decent membership numbers there. Maybe

bump up the membership cost a little bit that we don't have to do the tax increase. But again,

that sounds like the tax stuff is... I think it's great that we haven't raised tax in 30 years.

I don't think that's a bad thing at all. I think that's awesome.

Chuck, you didn't happen to bring your tax slide, did you? Total tax. You sleep with it.

All the communities. If you want to move on, I can find it. I can try to find it after.

Well, I just think it's worth maybe Chuck just discussing that since we're on the tax.

I often hear group city has the highest taxes. I can't believe our taxes are so high.

So what Chuck has done, and this is available to anyone, all we've got to do is get it to you.

I was hoping to have it by now, but we'll have it by the next couple of months.

It lists every city surrounding in group city. What all the tax rates are,

and then what the net tax is on a standard house. Further, it then shows how much goes to

group city out of your taxes. And so, it won't steal your thunder there, Chuck, but what's our numbers?

This particular chart that I'm looking at has 18 jurisdictions within Central Hile communities.

Out of those 18 in terms of property tax, growth city is the fourth lowest. On a $350,000 home,

you would pay the living growth city $6,222. If you wanted to pay less than that,

you could move to urban crest and pay $50, $900 a year, the city of Whitehall, $6,000 a year,

or the city of Columbus, $6,097. Now, the highest, remember, $350,000 house in growth city.

And that includes taxes for all the church schools, libraries, county, township,

622 dollars in growth city. On that $350,000 house, move the hill yard, and it will cost you $9,019.69.

Plus, you're going to have a 2.5% income tax. And there's other variations in here,

for example, the city of Bexley, the city of Reynoldsburg. They have income tax for school districts

in addition to their property tax rates. So out of the 300, out of that money that you're

paying in growth city, the $6,222, growth city receives a whopping $428. The rest goes to school

township, libraries, counties. So I just think that's an eye-opener for most people. They think

growth city taxes are so high compared to everybody else. The fact is, they're not. They're

almost the lowest. And of all that money that you pay in taxes, only $400 of that goes to the

city of growth city for programs like these and all the other stuff we have.

Thank you.

And I'll just make one final statement because I make it every time. If you want contemporary

facilities and contemporary amenities, you probably need, you know, we probably need to have

contemporary tax rates. And I'm not saying that we're going to go to Hillier taxes or any of that,

but then reference to the 2% to 1.5%. You know, it produces enough money to do everything we're

talking about here, having pocket parks, paying for the rest of this police that's going up

every year. And I think it's just a necessary, healthy thing for the budget process moving forward.

Orxtend to extend this tax base. Orxtend the tax base. Yeah. Well, yeah.

Like we're doing out there with Gateway. I know we have the mayor wants to speak in

I know we just want to make one comment because I don't want to mislead anybody and I'm not saying

Jack or anybody else is, but on the Brook Park situation, there's no windfall there. I mean,

what we pay is utility to $25,000 here and very little other expenses. So,

and what's happened is Brook Park has now become a transitionary training

situation. And that will lead us into the community center, but it's not a windfall of

saving from, and the other thing is in the current program for the community center, we do not have

a theater. And at Brook Park, we have a theater, so there might be continued use no matter what.

I just want to make that clarity. Thank you. Mr. Omar, please.

Yes. Thank you so much for being here putting this together. I just wanted to talk a little bit about

the affordability and access standpoint. And I appreciate the side-by-side comparison.

You know, as I've been doing my research on a city-owned and operated and a potential

partnership, one thing that the Y offers is quite unique is financial assistance, right? For families

that might not be able to afford college students, is that built-in to this plan or idea? And how

could that impact the numbers that you presented today? So, I think those numbers are not reflected

in here, but we are certainly we have our own scholarship program that we have. We want to make

that more robust. You know, coming from a parks and rec perspective, we need to be open for all

and remove barriers wherever we can. So that would be, you know, I tell this to our team quite often,

but we never want to turn away a child or a senior for financial reasons, for any reason. And the

same philosophy would hold true here. And I think the Y would hold that same philosophy as well.

And then I just wanted to echo what Mayor stage said about Brook Park. I definitely

we should not give up on Brook Park. As we talk about potential sites and, you know, with

pinnacle kind of being the topic of discussion now, I think it's important that we focus on the

communities that might not be able to access pinnacle on a day-to-day basis. And Brook Park

it might not be in the greatest condition and I understand that there's concerns regarding

the current property and the condition of it. But I definitely think it's a city we should explore

a potential long-term lease with the school districts. I know purchasing based on the emails that

we have received is just not an option at the moment, but we should definitely should not give

up on Brook Park. I mean, the infrastructure is there. The big splashes are already located there,

a lot of families are already familiar with that location. It's in walking distance. So I'm

1,000% in support of talking some more about Brook Park and not giving up on that idea.

And once again, I appreciate you for being here. Thank you.

All right. Yes, thank you very much, Jack. Thank you for being here. And like I said,

I'm sure as we'll continue the conversation through the night, we'll call you back up.

Absolutely. Thank you. All right. So next we do have a presentation from the YMCA.

And I am not sure who's speaking on it. Thank you. So please introduce yourself as you come up

when you're up there. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for allowing me to be here,

Council President Barry. Members of Council, City Administration, appreciate the ability to speak

tonight. I want to, before I get started, though, I want to thank all the folks in behind me who are

Grove City residents and members of the Y who have been showing up at the Y and showing up for

the Y. Speaking here, emailing, calling all the things, speaking to us as much as they spoke to you,

is it not close enough? I've never been said that I'm quiet. I'm going to do my best to address all

the points that you discussed at the March 2nd meeting. Tonight I will leave time for questions

at the ends for the ones I missed. I've also invited our partners at EMC Research to join me tonight

to address any questions you might have about the June 2025 survey of Grove City voters. On behalf

of our members, our volunteers, and our leaders at the Grove City Y and our Grove City team,

I'm here once again to urge the Grove City Community, the Grove City Council, the Administration,

to take a collaborative approach and create a Grove City Community Recreation Center with the YMCA,

with in collaboration. We have greatly valued Grove City community support over the decades,

both as a foundational component of the Grove City Y's inception, as well as the support you

provided for our impact over the last 23 years. I will include tonight elements of the collaboration

that have been asked about here in these meetings recently by Council, including are we in alignment

with Grove City voters? In other words, does the community want a collaboration? That's been asked.

Is the Y willing to collaborate and collaborate on different types of models? How much money would

the Y bring to the table? And why not both? All questions that I'll try to attempt to answer today.

Before I get started, I want to mention something that was asked earlier about the fact that are

the city and the Y aligned with the same vision and vision? And the fact is, we are separate

organizations, like other nonprofits that operate here in Grove City, the middle-high-of-food collective,

life-care alliance, we are a nonprofit with our own mission, vision, and values. You are a city

government. The one thing I can commit to, though, is that we are completely aligned almost 100%

in providing recreation, health and wellness opportunities, and youth development opportunities for

everyone in Grove City. Since our initial agreement in 2002, we've served the city of Grove City by

providing a community recreation center and programs for the residents of Grove City. Our mission,

vision, and values are how we show up every day. It's how we serve those 14,000 Grove City area

community members, including about 7,500 Grove City residents. The YMCA, I like to say it often,

we're the original social enterprise. We come to the table as a 501C3, and because of that we

can generate revenue through donations, grants, program and membership fees, and help fund the

initiatives that help build strong communities. The YMCA has been and is a cornerstone of the

Grove City community serving five generations every day. We began this partnership actually before

the center was even open. 36 years ago, we had a presence in Grove City in the Southwestern

City school district with a long-standing partnership of high-quality, affordable childcare,

also known for those folks who don't know it as the Y Club. The Y Club is a partnership that

presents today in 13 schools in the district. During the 24-25 school year, YMCA staff secured

$2 million for programs and serving Southwestern City schools, ensuring access for all families.

For 23 years, we've been in Friar Park. Over the past two decades, we built something special

with the Grove City Y. Thanks in leadership to the Grove City volunteers behind me, the Grove City

staff team and the support of the passionate Grove City volunteers, members and community partners.

If you walk away with one thing out of all this conversation, it's the member who came here

two meetings ago and spoke about his story. He talked about that we're not just a rec center,

we're a trusted community for families, seniors, teens and kids. As you've heard from many residents,

we're not just building but a center for the community, a center of the community. Our services

extend beyond fitness and the walls of our center, the Grove City YMCA reflects the heart of

Grove City growing, inclusive and connected. One in seven Grove City residents belong to the YMCA

for community, connection and improved health. We'd like to say four all and by all. In fact,

I've been hearing about Grove City staff members. In fact, 54 of our 85 employees at the Grove

City YMCA are Grove City residents. So, in fact, our why is operated and led by our Grove City

community. As shown in the photo, a Grove City YMCA was recently awarded in February with the 2025

Heart of the Chamber award by the Grove City Area Chamber of Commerce. It's an honor to receive

this recognition for our service to our community. It's an honor to be ingrained with a pivotal

Grove City organization like the Chamber of Commerce. Our services are accessible, affordable

because we are a nonprofit. We do pursue those funding sources, as mentioned earlier,

where we're able to make sure that no family, no child, nobody has turned away, just like Jack

and mentioned. We make sure that we go out in Grove City individuals, companies, members,

and staff donate every year to make sure that's the case. In fact, over the years that we've been

here, $4.2 million has gone back to the community and making sure that people have access to every

program and every every and every time they need the facility. In fact, if you took that number,

I talked to the mayor the other day about this. If you took that number, you added in the capital

investment that we put into the why over the last few years and in the construction. You add in

the salaries of the staff and the income tax. We've invested over $10 million in the Grove City

in the last 23 years, $10 million. The Grove City YMCA is proud to serve all Grove City residents

in surrounding neighbors with 45.5% of our Grove City YMCA members living in the City limits.

That's 3,200 households. In fact, our members and program participants live in all five

words of Grove City bringing together the entire community. As you can see, our membership extends

beyond the boundaries of Grove City and goes into Jackson Township. While I know this council is

focused on Grove City residents, it's important to know that expanding that membership and being

inclusive helps keep our prices lower. Our prices lower, in fact, when you look across central

Ohio and our prices compared to most community recreation centers, we're at equal or in the

proximity of those center costs in terms of our membership and fees. And there is no subsidy,

no tax subsidy. Also benefit of the Grove City YMCA membership is that a member here has access to

our wise and 13 communities. So if they work in another community, they have access to those

wise. And when they're traveling, they have access to those wise across the country. In fact,

because of a new partnership that we're entering into with Columbus State, every full-time Columbus

State student who lives in Grove City will now have eligibility to become a Grove City YMCA member.

So that's an added benefit that we've been able to bring to the community.

Now that we've discussed, I've talked about who we are and what we do. I want to provide some

context based on the past conversations the Y has had both internally and with city leaders

over the last couple of years about expanding and connecting and collaborating as a Grove City

Community Center YMCA. I just want to start with a little bit of context. It's important to

remember that back in 1998, a quarter percent income tax failed in this community and the mayor

of this community that time was Cheryl Grossman came to the Y and asked if the Y would consider

building a center at that time. It was in the city of Grove City. The Y agreed, jumped in all hands

in and the community kicked off for fundraising campaign to raise money to build that Y. In fact,

then Mayor Cheryl Grossman and Ronnie Malino, Grove City residents, led that campaign,

individuals, corporations, and even the city of Grove City contributed to the infrastructure

to build the YMCA at the future fire park. In 2002, we entered into a lease with Grove City

to provide for those services. In fact, the lease says the city provided the land to the YMCA

with the desire to have the YMCA construct a community recreation center for the primary

purpose of providing recreational and fitness opportunities for the citizens of Grove City.

Throughout the time we knew, in fact, when we built the building, we knew when it needed to be

expanded opportunities would come available. In 2016, we paid a consultant to come in and look

at potential expansion opportunities and collaboration opportunities. In 2019, then

Finance Chair of the Council of Christine Howe invited me to a capital meeting, Mayor Stage

and Christine Howe hosted the meeting to talk about what a potential collaboration could be

between the city and the Parks and Recreation Department and the YMCA. As you can understand,

in March of 2020, those discussions stopped, and everything was put on hold. In 2022,

we were asked to come back to the table to talk again with Council Member Roby and Council Member

and Mayor Stage about a potential collaboration and partnership with the City Parks and Rec Department

and the YMCA here in the community. Again, all in very interested in that collaboration. In 23,

pros consulting came on board to help do the conference of master plan, and of course you know

conducted the survey in 23 of the Grove City community members, and that survey has been

referred to a couple of times, so I want to point out something. See, there we go. The 2023

survey included the following highlighted question which I'm sharing here because it pertains to

what's happening now in the present day conversations. It's been referenced by Council a number of

times as an argument the city's pursuit of an independent city community center. The survey

question as you can see says do you believe in new multi-generational community centers should be

operated by Grove City Parks and Rec, the YMCA, the city and the YMCA partnership, right? 68%

of the respondents said Grove City Parks and Recration. Absolutely. 28% answered the city and YMCA

partnership, but I wonder now, after looking back at that question, I wonder if the residents were

provided with the cost estimates of the city's plan to go alone, would they have answered it the same

way? If the residents were informed that it may require an income tax, whether or not the income

taxes just for the center or not, would they have gone the same way? If the residents were informed

about the differences between a city owned and operated facility in comparison to a partnership,

would it have gone the same way? Through 2025, in the beginning of 2025, we had the opportunity to

sit down with Jack and his team and the mayor's team and start to work on what a collaboration could

look like. We were so excited. We brought in a consultant, paid a consultant, Moody Nolan,

who's known for the Recreation Center work, and had them sit down and help develop what a

combined collaborative center could look like. Grove City Parks and Recreation on one side,

the YMCA Central High on the other side, working together in collaboration. Those talks, of course,

were stopped in March when a resolution was passed, whether it was a resolution or an ordinance,

it stopped all the discussion because council asked the administration not to work with

anybody outside of the city staff. So we weren't able to continue those conversations and carry forward

that opportunity. The YMCA, finally, after listening to our members and the community leaders speak

up, we decided to hear from the voters ourselves, to hear from Grove City ourselves, and we commissioned

EMC, a well-known firm here in Central Ohio, to go to the voters and ask what the voters had to say,

because maybe we didn't understand it. In fact, we did understand it, and what we were being told

by our members was true. I've been asked here, I've heard it's been asked in this room,

are we in alignment with the voters of Grove City? Do they want a collaboration? In fact,

Grove City voters told us clearly in 2025, they want a collaboration between the city and

Grove City. In fact, 68 percent do not approve of a city-owned community center that may harm existing

businesses, clubs, or other rec centers. Going on, like much of Ohio, the voters in Grove City

feel differently today about supporting tax increases that they did in 2023. 62 percent did not

believe it was vitally important for Grove City to have a new community center if it meant

raising taxes. By the way, I'm providing three of these slides, again, the full slide deck is

available in the rest of the presentation. When provided a brief description about what a

collaboration could be, 75 percent of Grove City voters support a collaboration with the YMCA.

I want to point out the last two lines on the right-hand side of the chart where the circle is.

While 40 percent of the voters initially supported a new community center, that number grew to

84 percent when respondents were provided additional brief description about a collaboration.

Also, 69 percent of voters were initially opposed to a new center, so only 30 percent supported,

but after a brief description about a collaboration opportunity, the support grew to 69 percent.

It's very clear. Time went on and we listened and have attended and listened to our members as they

communicated to us and we shared this information with members of council. We shared it publicly,

as you all know, as council passed the tiff in December, the tiff extension in December,

we continue to share the voice of our YMCA members and community residents.

What we know now is in February, as we heard, the city plans to pass a resolution of $68

million construction and design contract with Pizzuti, which are essentially secure this path

of city-owned city-operated at Pinnacle Park. I know we've talked about how it's operated versus

what it's going to be, and we know that that construction contract is for a new site at Pinnacle Park,

city-owned and city-operated. Next, I'd like to just talk a little bit about the collaboration models,

because this has been brought up a few times in how they would work in practice in Grove City.

I'm going to try to speak to some of the financial, programmatic and logical logistics aspects

of how that could look. Knowing that the Fire Park location is listed as one of the preferred sites,

we have been asked, is the why willing to work on a collaborative approach? I think you've heard

me loudly today. The answer is yes. The Grove City Y has heard loud and clear from Grove City

residents, our members, that they want a collaboration with the city to create an updated,

expanded Grove City Community Center YMCA. I'm sorry, my page is done. I've also been asked

with the why consider different models of operation and a collaborative effort with the city

in the Grove City Parks and Recreation Department. The answer again is yes. We're open to conversations

about different models. However, I want to be clear, neither the city or the why are able to stand

here tonight and commit to one model without understanding all the details. And I heard that earlier,

there's a lot in the details. I want to be a part of and share part of that discussion that

we've had with the Grove City Community members and team members about what those models look like.

So this is a side-by-side comparison of the models that we've discussed at this point. Models one

through three. To save time, I'm not going to go through all of them, but I want to call out some

key areas. As I've stated, we continue to advocate for a collaboration with Grove City that brings

these additional program amenities updated contemporary models centers to the Grove City residents.

Through our partnerships and local governments around the region, we leverage our long-standing

expertise, proven models, and a national network of resources with the expertise of the city leaders

in our communities who know their communities and constituents the best.

YMCA partnerships and collaborations are intentionally flexible and design the

unique needs of each community we're in. Across central Ohio, our partnerships with local

municipalities take different forms shaped by different and local priorities and they may vary.

Every model is grounded in shared values and a commitment to serving the residents of that

community. For example, in Delaware, local government officials are on our board. In Liberty

Township, we have members from the city and the township on our board. Each community is different

based on how that works for that community. I spoke with Mayor Beggini from Reynoldsburg

last week and he offered that he'd be happy to come and speak to any leader here in Grove City

about how the success of that collaboration partnership has impacted his city and how he's

a big fan. This approach because it enables municipalities to expand services and community

access while minimizing the operational burden, the operational and the financial exposure

supported by a trusted nonprofit partner with deep regional experience. We've been here

for 170 years in central Ohio. That's hard to believe. Across the United States, there's three

different types of city YMCA partnerships that we've been able to look for. Two of them are

most common and you see them at the top. Models 1 and 2. Both are city-owned, city-controlled,

but YMCA operated. Both models are similarly structurally but the YMCA provides the operating

capital funding and model 2 if that makes sense. Model 3, I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it

because it is very unique. As we looked throughout the country, we could not find a model that

resembled model 3. But I want to speak to models 1 and 2 and talk about the structure briefly.

The city builds the facility and owns the facility. The YMCA typically signs a long-term agreement

often 20 to 30 years. The YMCA manages the staffing program memberships and daily operations

for the YMCA part of the program. The city, Parks and Rec, or the other partners manage their

components. Very similar to what you were talking about with a partnership with a health system

like Ohio State. Often in model 1 or 2, the city will operate their own programs and operations

in their spaces. So let me give you two examples. One example includes a facility with divided spaces.

There's a Y in Dayton that I've shared that has a community college connected to the Y on one side

and a dedicated Parks and Rec senior center on the other side. Divided spaces, the resident show up

can in go into any door, but the programs are operated completely separated. Another example

is a facility in Lake County, Ohio, where attached to a high school, the YMCA has a court facility

that one court is operated by the Parks and Rec senior center, one corporate is operated by

the high school, and one court is operated by the YMCA. True collaboration, true impact for

the community. The city contributes to the land of the body, owns the asset, provides the oversight

to the partnership agreement, and sets expectations to the city for the city and the collaboration,

and they operate their own components of the facility. The Y raises philanthropic capital,

operates our side of the facility, provides recreation, health, youth development,

community programs, and maintains the building and often manages our own capital reserves. That's

the difference I mentioned earlier. Some of the benefits I just want to mention about these types

of operations. Obviously, I mentioned already the access nonprofit funding, the more program capacity

that the YMCA brings to the table based on our local and national models. There's no additional

municipal staffing or operating costs beyond what they operate, and the YMCA has the specialized

recreation center experience. When you look at Model 3, the challenge that we have seen is there's

higher staffing costs, operating costs overall as compared to when you split and collaborate.

Time is spent dealing with day-to-day logistics and facility concerns versus serving residents

and other meaningful ways that the city knows best like public service and on. Only taxpayer

resources are available in this model and that Model 3 versus bringing, I mean, some philanthropic

sources are going to be available, but not to the level that a standing nonprofit has the ability

to bring in. Programming can sometimes be narrower and or slower to scale, but I know you have a

very strong department here as well. Because of our conversation models are city-owned and YMCA

operated, because what we are sorry, conventional models are city-owned and YMCA operated,

I want to be clear that YMCA has the operational control of the facilities that we're currently in,

you see two examples there. We still operate and make decisions alongside the city leadership,

highly valuing and integrating their expertise, input, and collaborative decision-making.

The success of a city and YMCA partnership depends on very clear roles. This clarity reduces

operational burden on the city and while ensuring professional management of a complex and a

multi-use facility. So we talked about costs and I've been asked what dollars would the city or

would the YMCA bring to the table. Council member, I tried to do a side-by-side comparison using

the data that was available on the website as well. I do, I will say that some of the data is

different than today than it was that I had seen. Let's first start when we talk about the

why, the dollars that the Y is bringing to the table. Let's first start with the savings. A collaborative

option would save roughly half of its current city capital proposal costs. Our early estimates when

we sat with the administration and worked on a program together with a parks and rec facility and

combined collaboration were $54 million compared to the latest projections of $80 million and

sometimes up to 100 million. In addition, the Y collaboration would save a million dollars in

tax funded operating subsidy every year. I've heard tonight that that changes a little bit variation.

I will say that in our research, when we checked with every recreation center across central

Ohio, they are all max of million dollars subsidy sum at 1.25, sum at 1.5. All the way up to,

we found one community that's been subsidizing $8 million over the last two years for their

community center. And that is in addition to the membership rates. I would also remind everybody

that it's important to remember that the subsidy required, as you all mentioned, potentially going

to growth city voters for an income tax increase. And finally, yes, we would include projected,

we would bring to the table fundraise dollars for capital as well. Project this size for the

operating size that we would, it's typically about $2 million that we would fundraise for this type

of project. We have examples like this in Reynoldsburg, Whitehall, and our upcoming project in

Columbus State. For 20 years, I worked in local government, I sat in person recreation seats

in here in central Ohio. My guess is the savings that are up there on that sheet can be used very

well to help out the city with economic development and job creation, public safety issues, and public

infrastructure all around growth city. So I've been asked, finally, I've been asked, what about

both? Why can't both exist? If you vote to move forward, you're asking a community led non-profit

organization to compete against a government that has unlimited taxpayer resources.

Where according to your feasibility study, what showed up today on the screen,

the current proposed center would be very similar to the features and offerings of our YMCA

and counting on the same group of customers, the same number of households. Both will end up

suffering, resulting in long-term sustainability challenges for the growth city Y and an increased

subsidy needed to operate the proposed center. There's only so many rooftops, even though our

communities are growing. There's only so many rooftops to split up between two different centers.

I believe this was shared once during a meeting that the Y has limited program capacity. I want to

be clear that I assure you there's no end to the scope of programming possible through the YMCA.

Not only in the YMCA of Central Ohio, but our network throughout the country that helps provide

opportunities. What's important to know is that the programs you see here now today are focused

based on what the growth city volunteer leadership in growth city has said are the priorities of this

community. We build each Y, as I said before, you've seen one Y, you've seen one Y, because this

programings offered here are what the growth city residents have told us are there priority.

I wanted to share this slide. I'm trying to cut it short because I'm getting done here, but I

wanted to share this slide because this is an example because some folks say what does a collaboration

look like? Is it shared spaces? It can be both. It can be shared spaces and separate spaces.

This is the design that the consultant worked with the administration and us on separate spaces

that the growth city parks and rec staff would operate and separate spaces that the growth city YMCA

could operate with one single door. The impact of the growth city parks and recreation department

and the growth city Y would magnify with a collaborative effort. The calls and letters you've received

from the members represent thousands of other people whose lives have been impacted by the

growth city YMCA over the last 23 years. And it's with those voices of our members and our

growth city residents that I stand here today asking you to consider this collaboration with the YMCA.

And this is why we're here because the YMCA is committed to growth city. We have been

for years, for decades, for strong communities, for all people to reach their full potential

and dedicated to our mission of a healthy spirit, mind, and body for everyone.

Grand through that spoke really fast, that's why I stayed on notes, happy to answer any questions.

Yes, thank you so much being here and running us through that presentation. We would like to start

some questions. That's please, I think Mr. Halinga did you?

Yeah, a couple of quick points. This is a point of reference. The existing facility

is the cost of only able to raise to fundraising and how did you finance the budget?

So the question was, I heard somebody say microphone, council member.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, the construction, the original construction, and back in 2002.

I would have to pull up those numbers. I want to say it was around 11 million for each of those

centers. We built four of them in a four-year time. Okay. I believe six million

was raised in fundraising. There was partnership contribution from the Ohio State Medical Center

because we didn't in fact have a partnership at that time. There's some other dollars,

but I would need to get you the details on that that was so long ago. So roughly half?

Say it again. Oh yeah, the prices to build were a lot less bad. Oh yeah, I know, but from a

financing standpoint, half were contributions the other half had to be mortgaged.

Yes, that's accurate. Okay, that's accurate. And we've carried that operational expense

every year and continue to pay that. In addition to additional operating costs, those types of

things. Is the building paid off? No, not yet. Okay. Is it a 30-year mortgage? Do you recall?

You know, I would have to go back and look at it. I'm looking at the banker here, but I know

we've refinanced at least once. I'd have to go back and look at what our terms are. That's all.

Thank you. Yeah, the debt we have is all four. We built three. We actually built four

whys in that four-year time period. All summer, Hillier, Grove City, Gehanna, and Liberty Township

of Powell. So our debt is all for all four of those whys. Okay, great. That's the only question.

Thanks. Well, thank you. Yeah, please, Mr.

Emery. Thank you so much for being here. I'm putting together this presentation. I was

one of the council members that asked the why to come in. I think it's good to be able to hear

from you all directly and for us to be able to ask questions. You talk about the potential

partnership with the YMCA. I think I'm just trying to better understand

what the responsibility would look like on a day-to-day basis and the impact that would have on

the why and the city. So when it comes to day-to-day operations, for one, let's just start with

what would those operations look like on a day-to-day basis? So each, again, each model is different.

So it's hard to narrow that down. Let me give you the example of the conceptual plan that we

started to work on that's on the screen and that's in your packet. In this example, if you can see

the lower build, the lower picture shows a dark gray and a white section. The dark gray is the

existing facility. White would be the additional. If you look up at the top, you can see facilities

large indoor court spaces, community meeting rooms, art classrooms, pickleball courts, a lot

of the things that Jack mentioned earlier. So those spaces, in this vision, in this concept,

you would come in and that would be operated by the Grove City Parks and Recreation Department.

So there would be staff there operating and providing whatever services and programs

and access that is priority to them. If you turned right, if you went left, you would experience

that. If you turned right in this model, you would scan into the why and you would come in and

be able to provide, you know, go to the wellness floor, do the swing pool, do the programming

there for my slides move around. And that, of course, in that case, the YMCA staff would be

operating those programs. We already have had a history of working with the Grove City Parks and

Recreation Department and collaborating programmatically. So we sit down, we try to sit down routinely

and talk about, hey, what programs are you offering, what programs are we offering? Let's not compete,

let's work together so that we can provide more services for the residents. That would be the same

model here. How can we collaborate together? We're not going to try to compete with you. And that

could be, for example, you talked about use sports activities. We might offer the toddler use sports

and Grove City Parks and Rec might offer the elementary school and middle school, right? It depends

on what works best in Grove City and that model changes in every community that we're in.

So what members of the community be paying one membership fee to access both the Y and

Grove City programs? So we never got to that detail. That's been a question that's brought up a

couple of times. I'm not sure how that would work, but it's something that we started to talk

about and never got to finish. I think that would provide some clarity for me.

Because if it's a partnership in a sense of the Y is operating in this building and the

Parks and Rec department is operating, I mean that's no different than the Y being located on

this side of town and us being at Pinnacle. You know what I'm saying? So it's a little confusing

to me because I would need to know what the partnership would look like in detail, whether that's

day to day, month of whatever it might be. I think I'm just a little lost.

Yeah, I understand. It's hard and that's why we tried to do visuals because it's hard to imagine

the concept sometimes, especially if you haven't seen them. I've had the privilege and opportunity

to tour wise across the country, community centers across the country where there's collaborations

and buildings are connected together. And what I would say is just let's say we had two separate

memberships or two separate entry ways. You still are gaining the synergy of the cost savings

in the capital. First off, that's foremost, there's huge savings in building together versus trying to

do something separately. So now you've got two separate cost savings. Then you have synergies

in operating costs. Now there's going to be direct cost to direct programs that Parks and Rec

offers and direct cost of things that we offer, but there are some synergies of being at one location.

And then to the resident, they get to show up seeing that they have all these amenities to choose from

as a benefit to the Grove City being a resident of Grove City and a one-stop shop.

So that's just some basic. That's a little bit different from how it is over in Reynoldsburg.

That's right. In Reynoldsburg, it's a different model. It's the section number one that I had showed

earlier where the city paid the bill, the building, and we operate it completely as a community center

YMCA, but I want to be clear that we invite the Parks and Recreation Department into that space as

well. And to be transparent, that's gone up and down. We've had good years, that that's worked

really well, and we've had years that it hasn't worked really well. But Mayor Bigney is still very,

very proud of that partnership and would like to see us figure out how to expand some day,

plan for expansion. That's what I would say. Thank you so much. I just have one last question.

Could we go back to the third side?

You're controlling. I think second. So one thing that

who we are. Sorry. You're getting there. Right here.

So I think, you know, inclusivity is very important to me, right? And one that stands out to me is

the mission mentions Christian principles. And that's built into who the why is today.

Absolutely. So with us talking about a potential partnership. How does that align with the city?

Yeah, that's a great question. What I would suggest to you, if you look at those principles,

those are principles shared by many faiths, right? And those same principles show up in our values,

honesty, caring, respect, responsibility. We live those values in how we work, how we show up

every day to serve the community, and how our programs are built. It's a part of our curriculum.

So those values are shared. And what you can find when you look at our membership,

you can walk in the Hillyard Y and you can see a prayer room. You can walk in our North YMCA

and you see the diversity. What I love about the Y is the diversity of the community that comes

together. One of my favorite stories I heard once from a senior member at our Hillyard Y

talked about how she grew up in Hilliards. That's what it was called back then in Hilliards.

And never left the city. And her best friend is a woman from Pakistan who they get up every

morning at 5.30 a.m. and they're on the treadmill together right next to each other.

So we make sure our staff are trained. We are diligent about making sure that we are for all

by all, because we want everyone to feel to feel welcome in our eyes.

Thank you. I appreciate you for sharing that. I just, from a public standpoint,

you know, I think it's great. I get asked. I go to the Y. You know, I love the experience.

So I just thank you here that. Thank you so much.

Please. And then I have some questions here. Follow up one.

ETC is here, right? That's right. I think you said EMC is here.

Yes, sorry. OTC was pros. EMC is EMC. Okay.

You currently have 30, if I remember correctly, 3,100 members. No, we have 14,000 members.

We have 7,500 that are in our Grove City residents.

Okay. So I mentioned the number of 3,200 households that are Grove City residents.

You heard that number before. I think Council Member Anderson mentioned it.

You know, a unit for us could be four people in a family or one person in a family.

So 3,200 households are residents of Grove City, which is actually 7,500 people.

It's 14,800 members at the Grove City Y.

Okay. I guess the question I have, there's a universal potential members for both.

That's right. And if we're, if Jack is projecting 3,800,

what has been the experience of any in areas where there are a

city owned and a YMCA, do they impact one another? It's sort of like so many people buy hamburgers.

If you have two hamburgers stands, there's only certain number of people who buy hamburgers.

So will that really negatively affect the Y and or affect the potential for a city owned

if they're both there? Yeah. The answer is yes. And I think Jack mentioned that in his

presentation as well. You saw the number of folks that would potentially leave the YMCA to join

a newer updated community center. And that's real. I appreciate the fact that he brought

that research data forward. Our data in YMCA is between 15 and 25%. Folks will will will

sometimes you can see that delineation or decrease in membership. I will tell you that we've

already started to see the impact of the well-opening in Hilliard on our Hilliard YMCA.

And like I said in my comments is that what ends up happening is it affects both of us.

And it affects the ability for the the Grocery Community Center to hit its potential

projections. And it affects the long-term economics and sustainability of the Y. So yes.

Thank you for addressing that. I have some questions. I'll pivot off that first question.

I wasn't going to start here, but you you did mention kind of the experience with Hilliard.

How long has the well been opened? Well, that's a great question. I think it's a year. I don't know.

Six months. Six months. Thank you. Thank you.

Would you say that it's probably too soon to really be comparing those numbers? If you're already seeing

are you seeing put are you seeing an exact decline? Are you seeing steady? Because I'd also say that

there could be the the adverse of trans transverse to the Y, right? I think similar to brands brands

launch new products. It doesn't always mean that product is the exact one that's going to go out and

be bought. But then I think it just puts things in consumer's minds of hey, there's something new

out there. But let me still check out what the the the other ecosystem is. And I would think

similarly there might be and I don't have this data from the Hilliard, right? But I'd be curious

to know how many new memberships then that you got while the Hilliard Recreation Center was being

built, right? That people start seeing things happening or and other data that we don't know.

What are the other gyms that are in Hilliard? Is there a lifetime fitness, a planet fitness? What are

the other community type engagements that people see something happening there? Then it kind of

engages them in their mind of like I'm ready now. I want to go do something now. I can't wait for

that. Maybe I'll join it in the future. Maybe I'll go join the Y now because it's open and they're

kind of sparked to do that. So I think it is really hard to look at something and and not think that

there would be still transfers that could come to the Y or to think of it in such a fear, you know,

space that it would hurt both or hurt. I think there is some truth to this ecosystem that

can support all even with the burgers. We continue to see lots of new restaurants and things pop up.

So yeah, I appreciate that perspective. I will tell you that I did not bring kill your data

for intentionally because you're right, it's six months in. And we we don't know what I can tell

you is that our membership is flat year over year earlier than it's actually declined in terms of

new memberships grown. So I know that data to be true. And I also can tell you that the national YMCA

YUSA tells us that to expect a 15 based on their research and performance over all the years

and all the communities in the country. The YMCA is can expect a 15 to 25 percent decline

when a community recreation center or usually more of like a lifetime fitness model moves in

the community because it's more similar to a full-out community center versus a planet fitness

tends to be a fitness floor. And so it's a different model and a different customer expectation.

So there is national data. I think Jack presented Parks and NRPA's data and some other research

base that actually demonstrates that people do actually leave and it's a split customer base.

The delta that I would offer that might be comparable to what you're saying is if the community

exponentially grew and you got to 50, 60,000 residents and there's still the same two buildings.

But the question is is can the Y sustain or you'll be able to sustain because you have tax dollars

but can the community driven organization be able to sustain in that time period?

That's yeah I appreciate that and that segway is actually into what really a couple of my questions

were and I'll point to Mr. Boso and the mayor. Do we have the data on what our resident population was

in 2002 when the Y first was engaged to open? The former mayor is here. Do you remember Cheryl?

Talk about putting somebody on the spot. I think it was around 30,000 if I remember right but

I wouldn't want to nail too. There you go 29, 315. Google saves it.

29,315. Okay. Just interesting to kind of know the population then and kind of to your point of

as you see populations exponentially grow. I'd also like to know and I don't think we have this data

today but I would like to know the comparison of what is the Reynoldsburg city population,

what is the Delaware population, what is the Hilliard population I think as we look at other

communities around Central Ohio who have done partnerships and collaborations who have done

their own models. I think it is interesting to just at least look at what their population is

to you know we don't know all the ins and outs of the decisions that their city leadership made

but certainly putting it off of data in terms of populations the buildings that were the size

of the buildings that were built. I think that would be an interesting point we should try and

get to. So sorry that was a statement that wasn't a question for you. I did have a couple of things.

So if we could go to a point of the timeline in the slide that says 2025 and it talks about

at the top you'll see resolution stops conversations and then it talks about the EMC research

maybe one more and the next one. One more. I think it was before this. Please keep going.

Right here. Oh, oh maybe go up. It's this one. So it's right after this graph. There it is.

Graph here it is. Thank you. I just want to make a point of clarity since this is going into a

public record. So I'm looking at the third one over 2025 April through December because this is

a very direct statement stating that the YMCA is bombed month to month and a presentation never occurs

in regards to presenting to the park board. I am the liaison to the park board. We do have a

couple park board members here. I know there's been great collaboration. Dolly I know the

director of the current YMCA, YMCA Grove City Center attends park board meetings on a monthly

basis. I believe in 2025, I recall conversations where park board was informed that the presentation

was coming and then maybe through scheduling or something the Y was not able to attend or was not

able to present that month. So I just think we should be cautious about if this is what you want

to put into a public record or the accuracy of this versus why the presentations didn't occur.

Okay council member, I appreciate your comment and obviously I can't speak from your perspective

but from the YMCA perspective we were working with Jack Castle to get scheduled a number of times

and weren't ever able to be scheduled. We were bumped a number of times. That is in fact a fact.

Whether or not there was a miscommunication or as you're explaining it it happened differently.

Dolly does attend the meetings and I understand she has the opportunity for comment in the first three

minutes but to have a collaborative conversation and a presentation and discussion about how we

could work together in the future was able to be scheduled. Okay and I do believe our chair of the

park board did send an email at some point I want to say it was probably earlier this year asking

if Dolly wanted to come in and present in the answer was no. So I just again if we need to kind of

pull some information out or maybe there were some misunderstandings but I just want to be cautious

as we continue to put things in a public record there's a lot of information out there and I

appreciate it. I think we just maybe see it from different sides. Yes I want to agree to disagree

on that one. Okay so I did want to go back to the beginning and kind of add on to what Mr. Omar

was talking about with the studio question and I do appreciate how you kind of approach that

but that still does create barriers for people and how do you navigate to the people who maybe have

expressed that they are not wanting to join a why because of that again we are a city of

40,000,000 members I can appreciate that there are values within that that you do try and hold

to be the center for all but that still does create a very specific ideology that does create

barriers for people. Yeah I would represent you that it does not. In fact one in seven member

residents of Grove City are a member of the why so they haven't had a barrier to joining whether

it's a belief in the values system that we show up for every day or it's the economics we make

sure that we are for all by all and one in seven residents of Grove City are participants of

that. In fact when you look at our 13 community centers around central Ohio where we

ensure that we're for all by all we had over 170,000 members at all of our centers so we

make sure that we work every day to make sure we're inclusive and welcoming and I will tell you

I've been I grew up at the why I started when I was 12 years old I started working 30 years ago

in the why I've never had somebody say that they don't come to the why because of our name or

our mission. I have had people say oh well it's too expensive at the why and I have an answer

for that we never turned anyone away as you've heard multiple times today. I've also heard geographically

it's too far I think we just showed you that there's residents in all five year awards not a single

person has a barrier to joining our why so I don't know that that's ever come up in the 30 years I've

been doing this and across here in Grove City across central Ohio. Okay thank you and then just a

couple of other things talking about transparency so I kind of also a little bit of what Mr. Omar

said with the kind of different models and it's hard to really see and understand without having

some real numbers as you know especially looking at model number two I'm not sure how much is the

city bringing how much is the why bringing I know that you did reference two million dollars

in another part of the presentation and I believe that was part of the conversation

to another time when we did have the opportunity to meet and and philanthropy being able to bring in

two million dollars and I think that it was discussed that that likely covers a lot of the

soft costs internally a lot of the equipment and things like that can you speak to that that

for a minute or do we have even more numbers as to what the why would truly bring in that model too?

Well you know let me first say about the detail of the numbers it's hard to do when you don't have

an exact model just like Jack told you you have to start with a basis and for us we weren't able to

start with a basis because we haven't been able to talk to anybody since March but I would tell you

that in the model number two case I'll give you the example of a Reynoldsburg or a Delaware where

we currently are we do raise money every year that goes into the operational costs of the why also

like I said make sure that no child or family or seniors ever turned away but we also raise money

through grants programs donations for capital improvements recently we just received a gift

for a capital improvement at our camp up in Belfast in Ohio we received another capital gift

just recently for our North YMCA we were able to bring in 1.5 million dollars from the federal

government to the little brand new playground at our award YMCA so it's operating capital as well

and that could be anything from a facility improvement fix or an extra added amenity that serves

the community so that's operating and then from a capital perspective in terms of construction

we do comprehensive capital campaigns like we did when we opened the building where we get the

community to contribute whether it's again individual donors companies all the partners that we can

bring to the table we're in the beginning stage of preparation for a comprehensive campaign in

central Ohio and in that case we bring money to the table for the construction and you mentioned

we use the term FFNE which is furniture fixtures and equipment now typically what the city

permits the in the cities we've worked in and before for example Reynoldsburg they want to own

the building the structure the facility we bring in the equipment all the things that takes to

operate the building so that that's our initial commitment that's what we did in Reynoldsburg

what we did in Whitehall and what we also are planning to do at the Columbus State Community Center

project that number again is an addition to the operating capital because we have to raise money

for everything we do including pool packs and HVAC systems all the things thank you and so aside

from the build costs aside from the ongoing operation costs that we've talked through I believe in

a past conversation we had talked about future capital improvements as you were just discussing

and doing fundraising and doing grants for that I believe it was shared that you've worked on

with Reynoldsburg and Delaware and you can correct me to which ones but that in those kind of

operating agreements that the why I did with those cities there was not a fund going forward for

operational excuse me capital improvements for instance something starts to wear down five years

and and those are big capital improvement costs and funds that need to come about I know that

you had just spoke to there'd be potentials for grant potential for philanthropy philanthropy

but even as you're looking at this as a central Ohio right type campaign that you're all working on

I'm sure that you have to look at does Delaware need this money now does Reynoldsburg need this

money now would would grow city get this money now right so let's talk five ten years out in the

kind of call it model one or model two for instance can you speak to that I I know that it was

mentioned previously that there would have to be some rethought and into those type of operating

agreements that the why might actually be seeking from the city a fund for those capital

improvements and I think that would be something that we need to think about because that's an

addition to the any kind of subsidies are operating costs going forward well I appreciate that

question that's a great question you're going way back to the meeting we had back in I think 20 24

let me let me see if I can explain it clearly so there is operating capital that's needed

with a short-term and long-term right so treadmill goes down short-term costs pull pack goes down you

gotta fix it a pump or whatever it would be then there's also the long-term things like the roof

parking lots things like that currently today primarily the majority of those costs are paid

for out of our operating dollars so a why makes a certain amount of money and that money goes back

into the people in the facilities to help continue to serve right so that that is what we do today

and and our current operations in Delaware Reynoldsburg Whitehall that's the model everything we make

at those buildings goes back into the facilities and the people that operate the building

and what I mentioned in that early meeting is if I would love in the future and this would be a

part of the collaboration I mentioned this to the mayor I mentioned it to Jack is a a partnership

that's a matching that has a matching capital fund so in set so in your in your example in the

with the partial direct department building a standalone facility when a roof goes down you're

going to take that out of your capital budget it's going to have to be planned in future capital

right when a pull pack goes down it's going to come out of the capital budget just like you do with

the pool now or any other facility that you operate what and what I would suggest is a hybrid fund if

we were to collaborate together on a singular building what I would suggest is we put in money

and the city matches that money so that it's not just solely on our hands to take care of the capital

building capital costs and anybody who's been in construction and business understands capital

costs of the inflation is grown exponentially every project that the city does I know costs more

than it did five years ago so it's hard to provide enough net when we don't have a subsidy when

we're trying to operate on business on a business principle it's hard to raise the dollars without

overpricing your membership raise the dollars the need to plan for that roof to plan for that parking

on so it would be great to have a partner that would help match those costs so yes it would be

an additional ask and discuss in the planning of the partnership it's by no means like you said

it's not in any of our current partnerships but I again would argue that it's still a savings when

you look long term because otherwise the city is going to have a hundred percent of those costs

and we're going to have a hundred percent of those costs so now we're both paying for two separate

roofs two separate parking lots serving the same community okay and then yeah please I'll come back

mayor oh thank you minister two things from the administration standpoint we would not

recommend to counsel a model that has multiple memberships our recommendation is you got one

card you pay one fee and you get in both the facilities and these kind of things get worked out

by agreements the mechanics can be worked on and so forth so just from the administration

standpoint we're more than willing to make that statement that that's not the kind of model

that we would endorse at all the second one is it's it's pretty interesting that you go back to

March of 31st of 2020 when president Christine how put together the financial review committee

task force and in the task force recommendation again this is in 2020 is a paragraph that goes through

recommendations of a number of things but what I'm wise I explore public private partnership

opportunities for both development and operations operations work with YMCA to understand a document

their gross strategy and in partnership with other city or their operators benefit both the city

and YMCA now this this particular chore was assigned to the park board and this was 20 and of

course we know what was going on in 20 so six years ago this was recognized as we ought to do

more research to do some more due diligence so we really appreciate the YB in here to share

that and we've been very unkind and not introducing our former mayor and state rep Cheryl Grossman.

Thank you Mr. Barry. So I'm kind of you know I'm looking at you know it seems like the council's you

know the majority or what I keep hearing is is that the city wants to own and operate the facility

so I'm going to ask the question whether or not so you know because the Y is important to us

whether you know the mayor mentioned it a little while ago about pricing you know if these two

facilities are side by side a conversation between Jack and your your group regarding programs

of what is compete and non-compete and things like that would be an interesting conversation as well

as you know the mayor mentions you know do you do we have one price that you know for for both or

do we have a price with a writer for the other one I don't know what that is that takes more

conversation than than here today but if we go down that road to me that sustains both you know

we can build we could if the council decides build next to it or build it pinnacle doesn't matter

and and you know have both of them you know have some you know have value and not be hurt by this

by the by each other so I'm just kind of looking for collaborative things to do I know you know

for example the pools you guys do a lot of a lot of you know teaching swimming and things like

that and you have senior programs for that you also have daycare you've got all these things

that you do and everything like that you know a pool for us for the city I believe would be more

for you know the community and competitions and things like that throughout the throughout the

state that would come in and use it for swim meets and things like that so I do think that there's

a lot of room for working together here it could be through pricing it could be through a whole

litany of other things and that everybody can peacefully coexist and everything so I'm

I'm kind of to the point of you know if there is room for collaboration if both parties agree to

somehow collaborate on program programs and things like that and also figure out a pricing

structure so the why is not hurt and everything maybe that's the way to go I'm just throwing that out

as far as a potential solution to you know to have everybody peacefully coexist here I know that

wasn't a question but can I respond the two things yeah councilmember it wasn't a question hey I know

the two things you said struck me one is we talk about collaboration absolutely we always want

to collaborate with our local communities and no matter where we are whether it's today or tomorrow

in collaborative facilities so yes that's always on the table to talk about I would argue that

that same conversations happened in other communities and you still see the 15 to 20 for

percent five percent impact it it's just the reality of the research it just it's just there

Jack presented it I presented it from different sources so I don't know if that will solve for that

I it could I don't know well I just think you offer a you offer a niche that is very important I mean

you know for seniors and for for youth and things like that but there's also a very large niche

that's out there of people that aren't using the why people that are going other places because either

it's an age bracket thing it's a club thing it's competition it's a whole litany of other things

that having a community center draws people into so I just think having having two healthy

organizations with one pricing structure and you know and work towards collaborative programs

that you know that maybe of course you're offering senior sneakers do we have we that's something

I think would be you know settled with you I don't know what all those things are that's something

you guys have to talk about but at the same point in time you know I look at it this way we've kept

saying that it has to be city owned and city operated and everything so moving forward from

that how do we get there so we can do pricing structures that help you guys attract people to

that attract people to the why and also they can use the other facility I mean it's I think there's

a whole harmless thing here that if it's worked out you know it's it's not it's not going to happen

today and it's going to happen with you know you guys sitting down with Jack and things and saying okay

how do we hold the why harmless on some of this stuff so they're not hurt and so they are

enhanced and everything so I'm open to those dialogues but I do believe that this needs to be

city owned and operated but I'm very open to pricing structures or programmatic things are

those questions more that you're putting to the why I just want to make sure that if we have

questions that are directed to the why right versus things that we want to have as open conversation

amongst council I do have I do have another question just I kind of said this earlier

during the city's presentation talking about transparency and talking about financials we know

that as a city we look at our budget yearly and city owned city operated no collaborations we would

certainly be talking about the revenue and the subsidy on a yearly basis so with the why is

collaboration specific to say Reynoldsburg or Delaware and you said you are collaborating with

the city leaders I know that like for instance the why is 990 is out there publicly but other than

that is your P&L do you share your P&L with the public if if I did a records request for it you don't

have to do a records request happy to share the we actually in Delaware the example in Delaware

we report our monthly financials to the city we give them that we have the park sport we have a

parking right director on our board we meet with the city administrator on a routine basis and every

time we have those meetings there's a component of the agenda that is all financials and we go

through the financials in that case we have a 1 3 5 and 10 year plan for capital we we put we paid

for the commissioning of the building we walked through it with outside consultants a third-party

consultant so that the city doesn't think we're skewing anything and we all have the same set of

data that we're looking at when it comes to the facility upkeep we prioritize that based on

the city's input and then we chop off those things one every year based on that collaboration so

we are completely transparent for anybody who is interested so citizens can do public records

request through the city and you we don't we don't in this oh in Delaware um yeah

any of them actually because they're contracted with the city I believe the city attorney would

tell you that any agency contracted with a government is as subject to the public records request

but again if they called our executive director up there and asked for the budget I'm sure he'd be

willing to share it okay so we're we're I worked for 20 years in local government I'm all about

transparency thank you so do we have more questions for the why yes one one thing I understand

what mr. Berria saying but I think coming out of this mean tonight we have to get some substance to

this $54 million difference in what they modeled if we collaborated in building a building so if

there's one thing that's a takeaway from the administration standpoint we got to sit down with the

why to find out the dynamics of that $54 million and it's a huge number mayor stage I'd also like to

you know point out those are details of course that we worked with the the city team on but you know

uh councilmember Berria mentioned uh swim competitions earlier and and full-size pools I think

councilmember Holt might have mentioned it as well please know and I know Jack would attest to

the same thing an Olympic size or competitive pool is much different than what is offered at most

recreation centers when you look at the Delaware Community Center YMCA that we operate there's two

pools when you look at the Dublin Rec Center there's two pools those additional costs I don't know

that I don't know what estimates are included in either side of that so that would definitely need

to be accounted for yeah exactly yeah thank you because I was kind of wondering where this number

was coming from um that is creating this kind of wow it's so much less so in this model pool just as

one example your model is not a competition pool at that $54 million cost correct but I believe the

city's performer was so so we have a pool already that we host competitions we that we that we can

only host certain competitions we can't host USA swimming because you only have 25 meter pool right

we only have a 25 meter pool so we can only host certain competitions we do host high school swim

teams we host our own swim team all those types of things but it's not a USA swimming size pool we have

that in Delaware they're much larger what I want to be clear is that that number came from the

estimates based off of Moody Nolands and we checked with multiple consultants on $650 a square

foot and a good number to use this construction cost based on these facilities when you look at these

facilities are there that list came from the prioritization from the Grove City Parks and Recreation

Master Plan so so the top elements of that plan are included in that design so then we price that out

based on that now there are things in there there's a really large wellness floor it's larger than

most of the wellness floors we have today we might reduce that so that we may be able to add more

aquatic space all of that is fungible because to the point we haven't had a chance to sit down since

March and be able to talk to each other about how those numbers may work out including added aquatic

space additional amenities whatever those are this model that we worked with the team on included a

renovation of the existing Y space some expansion of the existing Y space and adding over 40,000 square

feet in dedicated parks and recreation space and then of course the joint lobby and entry and entry

features so that was again basics before March when we were not allowed to speak to the department

anymore does anyone have yeah please so I got I have several so I'm a little confused the 54

million is the price if we if they donate the current building is that what that 54 million is

I know are you asking yeah so the 54 million included are building as a part of the project a

renovation of the existing building like I said a minor expansion and then expansion adding

on parks and recreation facilities you have the money now to expand do we have 54 million

dollars no that's why we've in checked with you since 2016 how much do you bring to the table for

the community center so I mentioned that when I went through the savings would you like me to go

through that again no just I'm talking I went through the savings as well as the two million

dollars that we bring in FF&E so it's a couple million right I mean you're basically it's just

a couple million right you're donating the building and then we're going to add on to the building

and then we're going to share the staff costs and they'll be separate so there really isn't any

savings in it cost what it costs to operate you're going to pay for years and we're going to pay for

ours so there's really not savings there and operational it takes what it takes to operate the

complex whether that's you or us Councillor I just disagree with that I don't know if that's a

question or a statement but I disagree that there is savings well I think there might be savings

in receptionists and things like that but Grove City's still going to put 12 employees into the new

space that we talked about earlier and I was just saying if you have if you have them demand and you

have the money why aren't you expanding the why today what's the what's in it for you

so I thought I led that pretty strongly that we want to continue serving in Grove City we've

been here for 23 years serving you want all investment in you to make your place bigger and we

can share the naming on the building we would like I said before we would collaborate and operating

in two separate spaces and one one stop shop as I've mentioned before I appreciate your your

take on it I would like to remind you the millions that we have brought to the table up to this

point and continue to serve the community it's disappointing when a council member sits at a

dius and doesn't recognize that I recognize it you've been in business for 23 years I get it

there's lots of people there it's a you know this is capitalism if there wasn't room for another

moomo car wash we wouldn't have three I would ask would the government build a commomo car wash to

compete with moomo I don't know that's capitalism in that case capitalism when it's supported by the

government the reason is built by the government is so it can be cheaper to the residents and provide

all access and we have the capability of investing that kind of money that the single businesses may not

do you could make the same argument with Starbucks and all those things so I'm not worried about the

cannibalization of members from one to the other in fact I'm happy you know a lot of a lot of

resident notes that come in to me they're ill informed they're like why are you why are you

going to do away with the why we're not going to do away with the why the why can exist where it is

and there'll be a growth city community center and it's my continued desire to have people in

there wearing growth city shirts and they know it's a growth city resident kind of place and if they

have a problem they're calling growth city because they will anyway if it's a YMCA growth city and

somebody has a problem they're going to be calling me and I just want something that the community

can be proud of and they can say that's theirs and you know I don't get hung up in the might

cost 10% less to run it if if we outsource running it to the YMCA I think that's peanuts

and whether it cost 20 or 30 million dollars to add on versus 70 or 80 I think we've got that covered

right now we have other questions for the why or do we want to kind of move towards some council

discussion on this I just want to yeah I have a couple questions thank you there's a lot of

information from Jack and from you and conversations ahead and meeting I wanted to go back to the

research survey that was that happened and I was a little confused on some of the your remarks

it was to the voters the residents but were they why members no these are voters in growth city and

I have EMC here if you'd like them to speak to the research okay that would be great thank you

so the the research was conducted among all voters it was not only among Grove City

why members it was all voters so when we asked did you have a specific question beyond I'm just kind

of curious yeah I mean yes it was a survey of 300 voters across the city it was last June from

about the 16th to the 22nd 300 voters 300 voters randomly picked pardon if a random a random

sample so what we do when we did this poll was drew a random sample of voters in the the city

and then they were randomly contacted by a combination of live telephone interviews as well as

email and text invitations to take the survey online so it was a random sample and we completed

oh I'm not sure what's happening with the slide oh okay thank you so here uh got it

here's the full methodology so it was you know a combination like I said of phone and online

interviews and you know a random sampling of voters so that we have confidence that it's representative

of you know the population as a whole okay that's just I was just wanted more information

on how because it was very limited scope that we had received and then my other question was in

regards to walking in the door and there's the wide of one side and a Grove City to the other side

and we don't know if there's two memberships or one membership again the hypotheticals

absolutely um how we already talked about if it's city ran constructed operated staffed that

we are looking at the small percentage of potential tax increase income tax increase to subsidize

that if it was operated by the why how would you subsidize the difference in the operating cost

so when we operate the current YMCA we operate it in a way that it pays for its cost so there is no

subsidy okay that would be our intention going forward with any part of the partnership that we

would operate but I do want to be clear that we still haven't had a chance to sit down with the

team that was stopped in March to sit down and work out those details that you were talking about

that were vague I understand their vague we weren't able to complete yeah because it seems like

that you know we based the subsidy um in the performance based on a low interest interest entry

rate for the membership um why might have to be a higher membership to not have this subsidy

I mean hypothetically yeah I would have to look at our numbers it's potential that your numbers

are lower than our numbers in terms of membership fees uh and you know those those change year to year

whether it's a community center or YMCA based on what the operational needs are I know um I don't

want to I can't cite the exact dates and numbers but I do remember uh that when the Hilleard well

opened up uh the rates were projected to be something and when after it opened up they they were

different than what the original projections were I don't know the logic behind it I wasn't in

their meetings or anything like that uh similarly we look at rate increases when when uh uh or

I guess least often as we possibly can but we do have uh our members understand that those

those increases generate the dollars to pay for the bills yeah I understand that too I guess

as an un nonprofit yeah you have to cover your cost that's right where is the city own and operated

we have the ability again in our budget to use taxes subsidize that yes um and then you mentioned

that in your Reynoldsburg collaboration the city build it and you operate it and you have up and

down years I mean that's also um concerning it's financially the financial picture budget as

Miss Anderson talked about um you also have a collaboration what in Dublin you said Delaware

Delaware Delaware Whitehall uh Palo Liberty Township and um Reynoldsburg okay do you have

those those are all very different models I mean there's variations on each one yes that are

unique to the community that we're in uh I'm not sure the question in terms of the the business

flow you know yeah you have a number of years that you're up in uh margin and some years you're down

in margin uh but that's the benefit of being a part of an association we work together to make sure

that all lies uh continue to grow and are you able to sustain in the communities that are in

I guess I would but goes back to the data we talked about in the comparison and I still think

there's a lot of data missing in comparison it's a that's a very vague um representation

in comparison so I guess I'm still looking for more information to better understand

sure what it could look like yeah absolutely I guess that's my final comment on that

I I do have another question a couple questions for your research if you wouldn't mind just to kind

of tag on to Miss Burroughs and I think what I want to be cautious about right is bringing you up

here and giving you this opportunity to answer these questions right and and we also did a survey

through ETC so I just want to be very um clarifying for our members that through the work of the

park board through the work of past members in 2023 ETC institute also did a survey of

row city community members and again this is what drove a lot of the conversation towards a city

own city operated large multi generational community center in this one of the biggest pieces

that we continue to talk about which I know Tony was um definitely wanting to speak to is that 68

percent of the rest of the survey respondents to this survey want a community center that is

city own and city operated so I just want to call that out that there is another survey by ETC

and it's different than what the why sanctioned EMC to do this survey yes ETC and ETC thank you

EMC so with the survey done previously um they were hoping 300 um people would respond they had

respondents 664 respondents they know it was a statistically sound survey so across different

demographics um can you speak to that was yours a statistically sound survey yes absolutely

through combination of the random selection of participants as well as measures that we take

during the fielding we track the demographics of the community and look and compare those each day

as we complete those interviews to make sure that we are gathering interviews from a representative

portion so if there are 55 percent of the community or men we make sure that as we're collecting those

interviews 55 percent of our interviews are just to match the demographics that we know in the

community and then we take measures after we complete data collection to wait any demographics

that are out of line to make sure that when we present these results um you know the demographics

in our sample match the demographics that we know to be true of all voters in the city okay

thank you I think it's also hard to compare because the questions are so different the answers are

different but the questions are completely different as well um I guess can you just confirm it was the

why the why leadership that definitely presented all the questions for this AMC research survey

the the questionnaire itself was drafted in collaboration with with the why yes we you know we

work with them and and talk through um you know and try to design it in a way that's not

biasing either you know as a as an independent research firm we you know we take pains and

we work to to draft it ourselves and work in collaboration with the why to make sure that we're

not misrepresenting to the best of our abilities and you know with the information that we had at the

time some of those questions definitely do feel biased and a little bit leading I will just say and

maybe that's my perspective but does anybody have any other follow up questions yeah one of the

questions are you a why member yes we did have that in the survey um if I scroll there's one uh

section on this slide you can see we had uh you know and this is a mix it's combined but a mix

of current and past members of the Grove City why that made up about 59% of our survey we had

another you know 41% who said they've never been a member of the why that's that's a very interesting

percentage yes yeah I mean it might lead to some bias thank you in the results yeah question

about the research or do we want to do council discussion I I want to recognize Mr. Sturm

yeah well let me let me about the research number one I mean I think it's a little disingenuous to

claim potential bias and you could say the city's original would be the same way the question

where it was what a 68 69% said city operated if I had gotten that question on a survey which I

did not I was not one of them but if I did if I read that question it's vague enough that I would

have said yeah sure of course I went to city to run it that doesn't mean I do not want a

collaboration with somebody else and I think the fact that we're we're leaning on that one question

is um could be seen as bias in and of itself well just to be clear wasn't the question about that it

was the question of who all all all of those and we're probably we're probably okay because this

we're talking about that yeah to be clear that's from the ETC yeah that no that's that's what that's

what that's what I'm saying if I would have gotten the that that that that question I might have

answered it that way too not necessarily meaning we got to keep keep the why or whoever you know out

of it so that that question in my opinion was was fairly vague to begin with well I just want to be

clear we weren't we didn't just ask the question what was the what was the the the the sampling what

what is the statistics sampling on that one was it was it voters was it residents well it was

residents it was a statistically sound survey and 664 responded and if I mean if we want to

um voters as a part of voters yeah or voters are residents all right so we've got two different

samples and if we want to unpack it totally different questions so how do you even compare this

that's comparing apples and oranges yeah do you have a question for the research I just want to

be cognizant to let the gentlemen sit down and we continue with council conversation or do you

have a question I don't have a question for my just just a statement thank you thank you thank you

and I do want to thank the why as well for their presentation again as I mentioned to um Jack

I'm we're going to continue our discussion we know that we will call you up for conversation

just as much as we might you know call in the city as well so thank you very much so for a person

that has done polymetrics a long time you know samples are only as good as the time they're taken

obviously and unless the questions are exactly the same over the time period like we do our

community survey you're not really going to see a trend so I mean what I mean once we come up with

something if we want to go out and do a quick survey we can do that and do our own but I mean you

know what happened last year with the economy obviously has a could affect things what happened

three years before two years before and three years before could obviously affect things so again

polling is only as good as the time it's taken and the questions that are answered so let's get

back to where we need to be please if we come up with a I'm back to the financing and whether we

can afford it or not comes back to the issue of taxation okay and that's probably the best

polling you can get because if people say you know up just a small portion of a tax increase

goes toward the community building would they say yes or would they say no I have no idea

but Mr. Holingo this is only a small fraction you know because we have a police problem

I get it in the city of Grove City we've got we we're short police officers we're going to need

to expand the police we're going to need to do a whole bunch of things and this is only a very very

very very small pie of the larger need and our first need is public safety right so that's

that's I totally agree with that I thought it was clear with that it's just a small portion of it

but the per if I may the the perception has been that the tax increase was for the community center

we we have not justly addressed that yeah right and maybe we need a work session to talk about

an income tax piece we haven't gotten to that that was a recommendation that came out of the finance

committee of the the committees for the community center and I think they're you know

there needs to be a larger educational conversation around all of the things to help with that

misconception so you know since I'm new on council council as we all know so I was I was asking a

lot of questions from the very beginning and you know council member Omar and I are in total

agreement you know we were looking for more information from more details about all this and

a lot of the conversation that's gone on here in the questions tonight have have actually even

spearhead of this I feel like we're a year behind almost because of the last councils passing

to this resolution that said stop talking to the why and as a result we're asking questions

here tonight that may have been able to have been flushed out over the last year and we could have

had this information that's what I've been asking all along it's showing me aside by side comparison

of of all these different different different options I mean I think it was Mr. Clark I think

was last time you talk about why not both and actually I found it interesting that the this

mock-up actually that's exactly what it was it was both on one site I that's a possibility so it's

an it's unfortunate that we've been in this place where everything stopped last March because of

this resolution and I would love to see the administration mayor not to put you on the spot but I

would love to see the administration create do really drill down on the financials of both

if not three different options that we've been talking about here tonight and literally show us

side by side what they would look like and we would then have that information and that detailed

of information you know one membership versus two that's a great question

for over a year yeah this resolution is still an effect as we sit here today and to get them to

do that we would either need to rescind this resolution pass a new resolution or reaffirm this

resolution I think it would be so if you'd like to reaffirm this you could take a vote to reaffirm it

if you got four votes it stays in place if you don't get four votes can't talk and I think it

would be a disservice to the residents to not explore these options I mean you Mr. we all were asking

questions here tonight I certainly hear you again I just want to share the perspective of so many

of the past years of work that have has already gone into this and I I can certainly appreciate

as a new member and trying to get up to speed as fast as you can um that resolution was put in

place because that was the thought process and that was the work done by the park board um the

feasibility that was done in 2023 and I think Ted you had mentioned you you feel that studies

change often I I probably disagree there was a feasibility study done also by the city I don't

exactly recall the year I want to say it was around 2014 and and a lot of the information didn't

change and I think what we are also up against is the precipice of and and I think Mr. Holt you

kind of alluded to this is this the time that um we should be making a decision to fund millions

and millions of dollars into a third party 5013c or is this the time as we've been talking about

as council as part of our goals the amenities that we want to bring to our community I think when

we started our goals session at the beginning of this year in January of 2024 with all the new

council members we didn't really get to fully dive into goals but we did have a presentation from

Saperstein that has showed that trends and the favorability of Grove City has has declined over

the years it was a public work session and the notes are are there it was our first uh I want to

say it was January but don't quote me on that we can certainly um say what it was but uh we have

been talking as a council about the amenities that we want to bring to our community the amenities

that we want to stand for that helps continue to drive our economic development I think we can

certainly understand the communities that have continued their collaborations with the why but we

can also look at communities around central Ohio um and and and look at the differences in their

economic development um that have their own city own city operated community centers and I think

that's what the conversation has been about it's not a us versus them or um and I think when

the comment was made about both existing I don't think it was really in the same building I think it

was more of uh separate entities can exist in this ecosystem that we have um but it just

continues to build on the amenities that our city that Grove City can have and and can stand for and I

think um that's the feedback that I continue to get from residents that's the feedback I get from

the park board that's the um the reason of that resolution and I'm I'm in favor of affirming that

resolution and continuing down the path that we've been on for so long to drive looking at a city

own city operated at a standalone facility um and what that looks like so if that can clarify so

again I would like to see a side-by-side comparison just so we have side-by-side and can make a

decision based on the information and now everybody everybody sitting up here has been asking questions

tonight I got a question we don't have that I got a question for you what are the parameters of

that is this are we working off still as a city owned and operated and then look at the

these collaborations is that what you're saying it needs to be city controlled I think everybody's

done right so yeah it's everybody agree that the facility should be city controlled

I think that's yeah I thought we agreed to that okay yeah right does everybody agree that our

part of the facility should be operated by the city I think when you say it like that our part

of the facility that's already starting to feel like you're driving down a mixed use building and

again I think the resolution work that's been done has been a standalone multi-genital my thing is

is if they're connected you know they're connected but I mean I just want to I just want to

gotten to that decision though I think that is leading decision versus what I'm trying to do

missy though is understand where people are on this on this deus are you one at city owned and

operated I heard we wanted city owned do we want it city operated because in order to move down

that do it likes Alan wants to have these side by sides that question needs to be answered so I

thought we answered the last meeting okay we want a city owned city operated okay is everybody

agreed and we ruled out in that same meeting that we were not going to go to the earth property and

we're not going to go to to several other properties it's fire park or pinnacle I thought we

already made those decisions okay is that an agreement to everybody do you say about pinnacle sorry

the two that we had we're going to go and fry our part okay so the comparison as far as

I would suggest because you're going to have to speak to the taxpayers as to why you're

forfeiting at the low end $16 million of construction cost only construction or up to $30 million

in construction cost I mean that we're going to have to tell the taxpayers why we're not willing

to do those saving until we prove it and we got to prove that those are the real numbers

so sticking with the capital the asset we got to drill that down and make sure we get their

numbers and make sure we understand what the nomenclature is yeah but that's what I'm looking

for is a side by side comparison so that we can make an informed decision and be able to go back

to the to the residents to the taxpayers and say this is why we decide that right that's what I said

at the very beginning you know a couple months ago when we the first meeting we started talking

about this I said why why did we decide not to work with the why and I never I never have gotten

an answer other than that's what we wanted but Alan when you say work with the why are you talking

about collaborative programs that's what need that right that's what we should have talking about

for the last year okay I have a quick question so at what point are we going to go back to talking

about locations outside of pinnacle and the why because ultimately that's it will play a big factor

my decision for me if pinnacle is still the top location that changes my perspective on the

why partnership if we start exploring different locations and that changes my part my view on

the partnership with the YMCA so are we setting stone on we're going to explore pinnacle and we're

going to explore the YMCA partnership are we still considering other locations as well

I I would say that based on the feedback from the site selection committee and the recommendation

just as much as the feedback and the recommendation from the finance committee was expand the tiff

and do an income tax increase and we were marching in those directions taking that feedback from

the finance committee I would also be a proponent of taking the feedback from the site selection

committee that identified top sites out of 18 sites through very critical 52 you know peace data

and I think we continue to drive forth that recommendation really at the top being pinnacle

park because again I just want to clarify and I think we should for a point of clarity bring back

the where the why was originally excuse me where fire park was originally when the site selection

committee first evaluated the criteria fire park was not in the top it was only brought to the top

if the why was no longer in in the picture and I think that's a very dangerous conversation but

that's the only reason it put fire park up there so what would you guys the report that came out

last summer actually didn't say exactly that I believe I don't have it with me but I believe what

it actually said is we should reconsider fire and reconsider working with the why I'm I'm paraphrasing

that was not that yeah that did not say consider working with the why okay so kick the why out

and we could use for okay let if we're if we're going and I think the what the mayor said is

accurate we're at pinnacle and fire park in one of the other and then this this working out these

numbers on the site side by side comparisons of city on and operated and how that meshes with the

why could either put it at fire park or leave it at pinnacle so I think the next thing is is to

iron out those numbers and figure out why there's a discrepancy between the two and so who can

who can do that who can put who can put who can put together a side by side with actual numbers

sorry higher positivity to go back and regard to take those numbers and working with the why and

working with jack and what we already have scheduled as to what the most ideal community centers should

look like so so to summarize where we're going here we've got two locations up in the air based on

side by side comparisons of city on and operated okay so how long does it take you to how long

is it going to take you guys to come back to us because if we're going to do something I mean we've

got a police department to worry about here and we've got a whole bunch of other stuff to worry about

with three weeks three weeks all right so we're definitely going to have to have a meeting on mayor

and Chuck on on these upcoming budget shortfalls regarding you know parks and recreation and also

the police department and economic development we need to have a separate meeting on that because

again this is only a small fraction of what that increase is needed because we need more cops on

the streets we need that type of thing so are we conclusion that that's what we're going to do

is wait on the administration to get this side by side comparison on a city owned and operated

facility is that okay white what type of collaboration are you identifying if it's city owned

and city operated what type of collaboration are you but are you are we putting out clarifiers that

they're coming back with I guess I just really understand asking in a collaboration city owned

city operated and I'll use a term lease to the YMCA for whatever portion that they made operate

but it's a city owned city operated if you know the difference with you or anything like that

who hires staff for the pool we do who hires all staff we do but you got a lease in there

that can dictate how the rest of the whatever the amenities are that would be left to the Y

but those are the kind of details that we've got to put on the table and make sure we get some

understanding it's just like I mentioned tonight one card one membership fee I don't we don't

want to think less I'd put that right with city owned city operated one card one fee is that

change the programming then that the Y would currently offer oh boy that aspect oh boy

so is just all the members understand where we're at now the the other thing I might mention

Mr. Barry your point about the the income tax and the other components that we need to finance

what we've got that and what we what we say two buckets or three buckets in terms of

earmarking the yeah I mean you could ear market a percentage for capital improvement you could

earmark a percentage for safety earmark a percentage for parks and recreation there's a

dynamic development you can do yeah but we we don't see you going to the voters and voting

police pension no no no it's all it would be buckets and we would pro-rate or break up the

we'll have a special meeting on that with our finance chairman right right so

Jody you shaking your head what questions do you have before we leave well I just think there's

a lot of clarification around what come what the comparisons what are we comparing

and what location I mean I mean so we compare a city owned and operated 100 percent

no third party are on pinnacle park location or are we comparing a collaboration partnership

on the only the fire I think both so we would bring build something on pinnacle park potentially

and also have the well I look at this way I don't see that working I think there's so much duplicates

of efforts and well Jody what I what I look at is is if we're going to have the side by side

comparison with the why and in a city owned city operated facility that there will dictate whether

we want to go that direction or we want to go separate which would be pinnacle so but you know

as Alan said we at least will have the numbers altogether you know side by side with you know

what this what does the collaboration look like with the why on these things is a side by side

only done at fire park is there a side by side effort done at pinnacle park because I now we're

mentioning a lease opportunity and I'm also thinking there's the health care entities that are

out there that are looking into least opportunities so it and I'm not even sure that that is what the

why came in with when they presented model one model two model three we're now saying that you can

have 50,000 square feet of least you can do your programming there parks and rack will do their

own programming no you're right it isn't what they brought in but that's a nice thing about being

a local government we can figure out what the different components are and and I would say you

know as far as sight goes the biggest variable on a site are the utilities because it costs the

lands neutral and you you put in a a fudge number as to what the cost of the utilities would be

if you go offside I mean it's not a big percentage of the total cost if we're truly looking at having

a third party that we're interested in doing a side by side can we do a comparison with lifetime

fitness as well as an operator I know that they have gone into communities and operated and should

we should we go down that path as well can we get a point of yeah please we're trying to please

allow us to converse here I just want again I'm taking this standpoint of funding millions

and millions of dollars into something and I think I'm I'm I'm hearing now a little bit of a

difference of an entity would be able to lease some square footage we know that that has been

successful with other models around in upper Arlington for instance with healthcare partners who

want to lease that space right I'm really just trying to understand I don't know that that's

what the the comparison is I know it would be the why because lifetime fitness doesn't own the

building and that's the thing that has happened in other city mob it might be but what I'm saying

is to do the comparison we know the owner building we know what's in the building it's got to be

more analysis done with it where you have another third party is a lifetime fitness I mean they

can maybe operate 10,000 square feet of their own but I think the comparison that we have in

front of us is why and a standalone and the why again for clarity so that we aren't surprised

when we come back so you're saying the why at Fryer Park now only leasing a portion of that

right the city takes over Fryer Park expands it and the why then leases say 50,000 square feet

I think that's the only way you can do what I'd call an honest evaluation on it and then

the same at Pinnacle Park. Pinnacle would be a standalone and it would be a standalone at Pinnacle

because the analysis we do is if they only add it if we add it on to the why at Fryer and they

stand alone at Pinnacle with no why. With no why correct. What about other entities like healthcare

entities that would have looked to partner with Grove City similar to. Those are neutral though.

Those are neutral. Yeah. So you're saying that that would that could also. That's either one

place or the other is a given. Well you hope it's a given. All right our next council meeting is

when Tammy. April. Our next regular meeting is April 6th. Have you made any? So Mary you need

three weeks to get this done. Yes. All right. Have another meeting. Do you need to make a motion

for some some direction this evening or no? Yeah I think you need that. I mean I would be of I hear

what council new council members are asking for. Again I'm going to continue to drive the topic

that we have been driving for how many years now. So my motion would be to affirm our current

legislation and drive forward in what we thought we would get to is just seeing one entity

in a separate location from the why so not at Fryer Park. So I would I would want to affirm our

current legislation. That that prevents the creation of the side by side comparison.

Yes again I'm saying that I'm driving the conversation and and the goals that have been

driving over the past few years. I'm going to ask the same thing I've asked before then. Where is

the side by side comparison that led us to that conclusion in the first place a year ago.

I think you're articulating or trying to assume that there wasn't a lot of thought put into this.

Not at all because you're wanting it to be a side by side comparison and I hear you on that

but there's been lots and lots of research done and collaborations and conversations and things

that council members have heard. I've read everything that's been published. Work has been done

regardless of I think I personally think the side by side comparisons needed just for total

I just chime in experiencing for everybody. Absolutely. I think for me since I was one of the

council members along with councilman Stern who had requested for the why to come in.

A part of my concern was that I didn't feel like I had all the pieces to the puzzle right I was

jumping in and these big decisions are being made and it kind of just felt all fast to me so I was

requesting that the why comes in and speaks to us giving us a chance to at least ask those

questions that the public might also have or might not have been privy to if there were conversations

happening. Now that the why has come in my understanding and I might be wrong is that we've given the

the why and opportunities to come in and speak to council we've asked our questions at one point

are we deciding if we're going to continue with the city on an operated method or if we're going to

go with our partnership well that's that's kind of what my mindset was when I was requesting the

why to come in they've come in we've asked I think where we're at is what what was stated is is that

we're going to allow a positivity to do it to do a side by side study on on a city owned and

operated facility all right and that with with the why being a collaborator. My question is why

is that extra mile being taken when we have the opportunity tonight to ask those questions to the

why I'm seeing no no no no we're a financial study is what we're talking about but I also hear

what mr. Omar is saying I think the the question to answer is do we really need to move forward

with that or just make the decision that we are moving forward with a city operated city own and

we don't need those collaborations and I think with that to to piggyback off that I just again driving

this forward um that I I can't help but continue to do on behalf of the park board and the work

that has been done for so many years I don't believe that it is for government to fulfill the mission

of another organization and therefore I hear you on one side by sides but I think we as a city

have to look at what is right for our city what is right for our residents it is bringing amenities

here and that's not necessarily expansion of something that's been in existence that hasn't expanded

over the years but it is bringing a brand new amenity that is city owned city operated doesn't have

a collaboration isn't isn't muddying the waters it is a new amenity for our community members

and that's what I will continue to drive well if I could chime in I mean I don't disagree that we

beyond a lot of discussion here but we still have a chart in front of us that shows a disparity of

16 million to 40 some million which chart is that the why chart or why chart so you're going off

the why is information for this yes that's we had them come in for this reason that's my point

we don't know so we don't we don't know this until we know it but sitting that additional work

be done after the decision is made right can we now vote if we're going to save yeah so another

thing to take into consideration is we're getting we'll call it donated 50,000 square feet of

facility that's 25 years old and I could build that same 50,000 brand new in the new community

center for about the same price we just we're talking about gifting with the with the why

well we heard the same argument I broke about broke part yeah I still support that argument yeah

well we got almost the rooms that were allocated to us all full a gem this full and the theater is

going to be used so you that analysis doesn't necessarily stand up because we don't know

when when the why put this 54 million dollars together they obviously had an engineer

and a construction company do some analysis we don't know what all that analysis is well I think

we're at an impasse here because if you want the administration to proceed with that side by side

they'll be running against CR0825 so we either have to vote that and rescind it

or or we can vote to if we don't rescind it then that means it's in place

and it continues in place okay I'll make a motion to rescind it to get the information

do I have a second second there's a second hold on so your motion is to rescind resolution

CR0825 yep to get the research yep and mr. Sturm is the second mr. Amar point of clarification

which way yes you should make a point of clarification if this fails I just want to wait

you're saying if this fails if the rescindment fails motion fails motion fails the legislation stands

and then we are only looking at a city owned and city operated can we spell that out please

at what does a no vote mean on this rescindment and what does a guest vote mean please we can't talk

to the line yeah right at this point in time to to recent to recent okay look if I if I can

just take some extra time my motion CR825 said section one the city this council fully supports

the park boards a vision of a large multi-generational city operated community center the city

administration is requested to prioritize the exploration of this facility by initiating

necessary research planning planning and funding strategies this council supports the director

of parks and recreation in the creation and further work of a site selection committee and a finance

committee to assist with the research and planning efforts for the proposed city operated community

center the city administration is requested to provide periodic updates not less than by monthly

to the city council on progress funding efforts and proposed next steps the city administration

is requested to not expend any financial or staff resources towards other options without approval

of city council there it is can you please just I think for the plan of clarity those are the

those are the conditions in this resolution do you want to maintain these statements or do you

want to rescind all of these statements for the law director can you please just very clearly what does

know what is a note how do we know are we voting no or yes because this is not an affirming this is

a rescinding and sometimes with that language it gets a little tricky yes well first of all let

me address at least one question that I have because I'm just confused at this point in time

along with I think most of the people in this room the why did do a presentation or at least part

of what they talked about was partnering with we would still own and operate so if you when you read

this it would they would still meet all of those criteria do you know what I mean I have conversations

yes so I don't know that whether you were sending this or affirm it I think that still makes the

answer as clear as mud because I think that the city could still talk to the why about a

partnership where we own and operate it and they do something else so I think if you're trying to

get clarity I don't know that this is going to get you there I agree well if I couldn't it says

without approval the council so we could we could still approve with council and still have

this resolution in place yes staff resources but what this was this resolution says

see administration question is not to spend any finance or staff resources without if you want

to rescind it should be item number five and we're back to where you know we can attend I don't

think you have to rescind it I think you could just give approval that still meets the statements

in the resolution I don't agree is there I think mr. Omar said this as well too thank you for

rescinding that motion right now mr. Barry I think you were wanting to drive forth in a decision

really in more of are we looking at just one single city operated city owned with no

collaborations I think that's what you were trying to drive to a decision of you're just making a

decision us to if we're going to look at a single option or continue working on this potential

partnership and if the vote tonight is that we are no longer going to pursue that then start talking

about locations for and I know pittacles at the top of most of your list but talking about locations

and what that would look like for a city owned and operated single community center please

a couple comments on that first inform us I being a being a being a member of the site selection

committee the only reason that pinnacle park landed where it did there seems to be like some bias

against because it's got pinnacle the name is because of the 77 criteria objectively that we

waited and one of the and again we waited it Pursuiti took it away they did another magic and came

back to us a lot of us considering also some people that are on the park were did not want that site to

be a part location for the community center it's because we own the land and that weighted heavier and

that's why it fell that way my perspective to that would be looking at the list of the top five

locations fire park wasn't in the top five and here we are today talking about a YMCA partnership

so why not talk about other locations as well I'm not I'm just I'm not against that I'm just

letting you know why that number three kind of fell into place I think it was more I think it was

so to answer your question right mr. Omar again recommendations were made by the finance committee

to extend the tiff and consider an income tax on the next ballot direction has been moving forward

in that whereas council at the end of 2025 made a motion to extend the tiff so we are following

through with recommendations and the recommendation that came out of the site selection committee

was to take this weighted criteria and move forward and we knew we knew having a top five that

sites were going to fall off and they certainly did it wasn't a recommendation to just keep bringing

in more and bringing in more and then and then what I think you know this has been a great work

session I do want to again thank everybody who has come out and thank the presentations that have

been in front of us I would make a motion I would like to make a motion that we move forward

and continue to only look at the one city-owned city operated no collaborations type model no third

parties coming in I don't want to say a health care partner but nobody else to do programming

that would be in in this vein and that probably should be better with my wording like I'm

making a motion that we are just driving forward with a city-owned city operated we don't need a

side-by-side model let's pick a site and let's see what that looks like is there a second to that

motion second we have discussion yes thank you so hardy not that so it's taxpayers money we have

to figure out what the best thing is for okay I'm sorry we have a motion on the floor is there a

discussion about the motion itself to move forward with a city-owned and operated model with no

third-party collaborations yes on its operation is that correct third-party collaboration

yes for operations I just want to clarify how we got to this

why we got to why we decided to do that resolution or the decision to move forward is because

we put some we need we didn't want to spend a lot of time in resources and money

going down different paths of different locations and different operating models because we

put in the budget for this year I think eight million dollars to design because that was going to

help us drive what the actual costs in these numbers going to be is that's what I recall

mm-hmm yeah miss burrows do you have a question about the motion on the floor I've just discussion

a discussion about the motion correct okay moving forward with where we the motion on the floor as far

as driving forward with a low city-owned and operated yes I thought that was clear the mayor has a

question yes there's a making a difference that the mayor supports his resolution because he will

come on okay for the record I like to make a way we've come clear down this road already and to not do

a comparison is not is not being a good steward of the taxpayers money period so I want city-owned

and operated I want those things but at the same point in time I want to I want to know why these

numbers are so far apart you know I want to I mean we owe it to the citizens to know why the numbers

are so far apart so that's why I'm voting now I'm in agreement I I want to see a side-by-side

comparison I've been asking for that since beginning and we still have an hat we still have it I

don't feel like I make an informed decision I don't feel like I would have an adequate response to

somebody ask me why we went the way we did even if it ends up being a way that I don't agree with I

want to have still I want I still want to have an answer want to have rationale as to why we went the

way we did and I thought we were supposed to get that information tonight I mean get we had to

we had two comparisons of presentations so any other discussion on this I have to be convinced

that the decision that we make is based on factual information so that whatever direction we take

I can say this is why I voted for it this makes sense and anything other than that I would feel

that I'm abdicating my responsibility is to the people that voted for me and for the citizens of

the community discussion this is definitely a tough decision now I've been able to talk to people in

the community hear feedback I have expressed my concerns with the pinnacle location and I know

that you all have shared that it's at the top of the slight selection communities recommendation

but I do believe that with the growth and growth city that we can have multiple areas within our

community where people can go and find recreation we can have a YMCA we can have a community

recreation center but we could also have Brook Park so I don't want to limit ourselves and

I appreciate parks and wrecks for coming out and presenting tonight tonight I also appreciate

the YMCA for taking the time to prepare a presentation I know it was short turnaround but

thank you for answering all of our questions this again this is not about location this is simply

about getting more information that's all we're asking for as Mr. Chairman Mr. Chairman

you have a motion on the floor you we are so far away from the motion on the floor so I'm

going to ask you to come back to the motion which is moving forward with a city-owned

and operated model with no third party for operations and that doesn't as a point of clarity that

statement does not take away from the table a health care entity coming into lease

or wanting to bring that in the future this is for operation that's what you said that's what I'm

clarifying any kind of operational okay partnership collaboration is there any other question

about the motion on the floor are we ready for a vote so yes is city only a yes

collaboration yes vote would say we are moving forward with a city-owned and operated facility

with no third party operations of that facility and a no vote means that we can get a no vote means

that you're not moving forward with that model afterward yeah we might end up there anyway that's

that's the point yeah that's what that's for later are we ready are we ready for the question are

we ready to call the vote so yes is the what we vote yes the wise out no more discussion right

this why would the why would be out for operational

prices of the community center that's not the intent of the motion that's not the intent of the motion

what is he in I think that's why that is the intent of the motion

it's the intent miss Anderson would you please restate your motion it's what you said

and that is the intent of the motion it's what you said okay thank you you want to restate it

you wrote it down so you so I am going to call the vote well do we need Stephen to clear up the

language so that it is clear that that's I thanks the why out I why don't we pass it so it takes the

why out um they have to specifically name them yeah I think you do I mean if that is your intent

and that's what you want to vote on by not including this we're creating another pile of mud that

you can't figure out so if the intent is to not work with the why further or go down the road of

getting additional information from the why frankly the motion should say that and right now

it's city owned and operated model with no third party operation I mean

yeah just I'm a lawyer I could probably drive a truck through something like that it's just not

clear I mean it's it's and if we want clarity then you know we should be clear on it that's my

two cents I think it drives forward the conversation that's been happening in a lot of the research

that's been done over so many years to say let's let's continue down the recommendations from the

site selection committee and the finance committee we need to talk about the income tax we need

to talk about the site and let's say um in my letter oh yeah let's say let's say the additional

information was gathered how soon can we get that three weeks there you have three weeks three

weeks is going to kill kill everything I don't know I don't think so all right I call the question

let's add I would add amendment to add the why I want to continue to drive forward the work

that's been done on behalf of the park board hey we have to add the why if this is about the why

you should say and not work with the why I think it's also I mean I had put it out there about

other third parties if we really wanted to look at that let's look at lifetime fitness so I'm

I'm taking that off the table too with this motion I don't think we should directly name

just because one entity came forward so far I think again it's driving this large

conversation that we've been having towards a city-owned city operated nobody else coming in to

operate the pool or operate the spin machines or operate a yoga class it is city-owned city

operated on a standalone site okay I'm calling a vote a guest vote would affirm the motion

to move forward with a city-owned and operated model with no third third-party operators

no that's a yes vote would would mean that we would be moving forward with a city-owned and

operated for model with no third-party operators yes in no vote would say that we are not going

to move forward with a city-owned and operated model with no third-party operators is that correct

Okay, I'm not confused. Sorry. Yes, vote is the YMCA or no YMCA? Yes, vote is no third-party

operators. And you're not getting any more information in terms of comparison.

Is there another motion? Yeah, I'll make a motion that the administration comes back to us in

three weeks with a side comparison so we know where we're at with costs and with cost analysis with

a Y. That's my motion. They have three weeks to do it. I'll second that. Okay, with a cost analysis

for what? With a cost analysis side-by-side comparison of what collaborations would be and also

why there's such a discrepancy between what our numbers are in their numbers. Let me get a second

first. I'm sorry. I'm just a little confused. Can you please repeat your motion for me? So I

make sure I have it clear. Make a motion that the administration come back to us in three weeks with

a study by Pizzuti that outlines the cost differences between the YMCA and what the cities

projections are as well as look at collaborative programs and pricing. There's a second.

It was a second earlier with Mr. Storm, too. Which one you're quoting? So conversation on that,

a point of clarity. I just really want to be clear on what we mean by collaboration because I'm

hearing collaboration. I'm seeing what the Y put in their Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 and I'm hearing

that the Y would just lease space. That's correct. These are very different. There could be programmatic,

Jesus can lay points as well, where maybe there's programs and things like that that could be utilized

and things like that was Silver Sneaker's other programs. I don't know what they are. I'm just

asking them to come back in three weeks with some solutions. They got one chance to come back.

Side by side comparison.

Point of information. No one knows what they're doing. They built many of these facilities.

It'd be very easy to get that particular breakdown of what the cost are by item. Okay, so

that would shortcut what needs to be. I would say pros consulting as well and I can't speak to that.

Okay. Well, we got a motion to do this. We can't dictate to the administration who they choose.

Okay, so we have a motion and a second to call for a vote. So I have a motion by Barry and a second by

Mr. Sturm. I'd like to. I'd like to amend it.

Do you know what it says right now? Because I'm not sure I do and I just want to make sure.

It goes on the end. I'd like the like administrative chair of council to review the request from

Pazuti. It was another week request from Pazuti. Okay, that's all second that you're going to

meet with Pazuti and tell them to go figure out these numbers. I want to make sure that what they

tell them to go figure out is not a leading question. I'll second that amendment. Yeah, that's fine.

Administrative chair needs to be a part of the conversation. I will tell you that is not how our

form of government works. I mean, honestly, no, you can make a motion and that's a request.

Yeah, it is. It's not a request. We're not mandating it. This whole motion is a request. We're not

putting this into a, this is a, this is a, this is a wish coming out of this work session.

So we've got a, I'll second that or missing. So we'll call for a vote adding the administration

to the. Now we're voting on the amendment. Correct, but I wanted to go back to the main motion

because there, there was no mention of who had to do the survey of just the administration.

The administration would come back in three weeks with an outline of the cost differences

between the city and the Y and Sherry side by side comparison on a collaboration with the Y

or not. Or a standalone. No, this is going to be standalone and city operated. We're looking for

the differences in the costs between what the Y presented and what the city has presented.

We're also looking for collateral potential collaborations and what the Y would offer to us.

President Berry, in all fairness, we don't know what that model would even look like because

there's so many different models. Well, we're trying to tell them they've got three weeks to work

together to come to, to come to some conclusion. Some, some model. Yes, some model. You've got one

chance. You've got three weeks. So the amendment to the motion would be that the council administrative

chair will be part of, will be part of that work. Yes. Is that what, is that basically what you want?

Yes, correct. All right. We've got a second. Let's vote. What would we vote on now?

The amendment. So motion on the floor is whether to amend the main motion to include the

language that the, that council's administrative chair shall be part of the conversation,

part of the work to bring the collaboration back to council. Right. You, you, to be clear,

you're wanting to review what the request, I want to see the written request and then the product

and all that. Yeah, that's fine. When we haven't worded, we involved that way.

Yeah, I mean, the problem is, as I indicated, when you use the word shall, that's not a request.

May, may, may. There would be good. We encourage. Okay. We encourage the chair of the

administration committee. It's why we pay you guys the big bucks over there.

Would you want to say it on that? All right. We ready to vote.

These people want to go home. They want to eat. So this is not a vote on the original motion.

This is just a vote on the amended language. Yes. So for the amended language.

To include council's chair of administrative administration. Yes. Let's vote.

Anderson. Yes. Alinga. Yes. Erie. Yes. Alt. Yes. Sturm. Yes. Eros. Yes. Omar. Yes.

Okay. The main motion is the administration. We'll come back to council in three weeks with an

outline of the cost differences between the cities, plan and the YMCA plan from this evening.

And provide a side-by-side comparison on collaborations with what the Y could offer

with the council's administrative chair being a part of that work.

I can, I ask one clarification. Three weeks puts us kind of in no man's land because we have

an extra week this month because next week. So our next council meeting would be either

two weeks or four weeks. Or if you're going to do a special council on the week off,

it would be three weeks, but I just want to say by it. Do you want to say by April 20th?

Yeah, let's just say by April 20th. That would be the second council meeting in April.

Yeah. That's fine. April 20th. And hopefully, they'll have it done before then

that they can share it with us. I think that's going to be active. So is that your

main motion? Mr. Stern, is that a second to the main motion?

Yes. We have clarified the length of the words.

Administrational come back on 420 with this outline and with this collaboration with the

lie of any. Okay. Mr. Halinga? Yes. Erie? Yes. Holt? Yes.

Sturm? Yes. Eros? It's Omar? Yes. Anderson? No. All right. All right.

I think that's all I have for the chair of the parks committee. I'll pass it back to the president.

All right. We are our next meeting. Tammy is when? April 6th? April 6th. And we are adjourned.