Mayor says plant is best location for rec center
Published 10:29 am Friday, January 22, 2016
The downtown power plant is one possible option for the Vision 2020 Community Recreation Center Committee’s new rec center, though some oppose losing the historical building. Herald file photo
Though a Change.org petition and call to save the downtown Austin Municipal Plant ignited community discussion, Austin’s mayor and Vision 2020 officials say the rec center is likely the only option moving forward for the former plant.
But that’s not deterring those calling to reconsider development plans.
Mayor Tom Stiehm says Vision 2020’s plan to acquire the former downtown plant to be the future home of the Community Recreation Center is likely the only realistic option for the site moving forward.
In a perfect world, Stiehm said he’d prefer to find a way to build the rec center at the Austin Post Office and a few surrounding blocks while developers came forward with plans for the plant.
“None of those things are happening,” he said. “It’s not a perfect world.”
Discussion about the downtown plant and rec center sparked as Vision 2020’s Community Recreation Center Committee nears a purchase agreement with Austin Utilities to acquire the plant for the rec center.
But Quin Brunner and Austin City Council member Janet Anderson formed a Facebook group, penned a letter and started a Change.org petition to call for the parties involved to slow down and give the community more time to discuss potential uses for the downtown plant and potential locations for the rec center.
But Stiehm said a lot of “What Ifs” surround the site, but making those ideas a reality is another story.
Along with a lack of developers interested in the plant, Stiehm said the cost of acquiring properties for the post office site made him change his mind.
He said he wouldn’t support the estimated $3.5 million the city would need to spend to acquire properties to make room for the rec center.
“The best bang for the buck right now is putting it in the utility site,” Stiehm said.
“We’re not going to pay for building this thing,” he added.
But Brunner, who briefly filled in as Vision 2020’s interim coordinator last year, said the cost is misleading. He said the estimated cost for Vision 2020 to acquire the plant is about $2 million along with an estimated $1 million cost to restore and preserve the Turbine Room which will reportedly remain at the site; however, Austin Utilities and Vision 2020 have not confirmed the numbers.
To Brunner, there should be more consideration since there’s only an estimated difference of about $500,000 between the two sites.
While The Hormel Foundation is expected to pay the acquisition costs at the plant site, Brunner, Stiehm and others have said The Foundation is unlikely to fund acquisitions at the post office site.
Mayor Tom Stiehm
Vision 2020 Community Recreation Center Committee co-chair Matt Cano noted they did look at other sites, like the Austin Post Office area, but it required acquisition of houses and businesses and he nor other project backers favored displacing any homes or businesses and added it’s “not where we want to build.”
Challenges for developers
Vision 2020 Utilities Building Committee started investigating development plans at the site and started early work to enter at least parts of the building on the National Register of Historic Places, according to Anderson and Brunner, and funding sources were available for possible restoration and rehabilitation projects.
But the plans were ultimately scrapped, as was the utilities building committee in 2014.
Now Brunner and Anderson are calling for Vision 2020 to re-form the power plant committee to continue exploring opportunities for the site, while the rec center considers other sites.
But Stiehm also said asbestos and other issues at the plant site have produced challenges and high costs at the site that have deterred developers from showing much interest.
“We just don’t see it happening,” Stiehm said of more developers coming forward.
Brunner argued developers haven’t had enough opportunity to come forward with options for the site since the Vision 2020 Utilities Building Committee was disbanded.
“Developers have expressed interest in the past and we hope to reach out to them and begin to explore options for redevelopment as soon as the threat of demolition is removed,” Brunner wrote in an email to the Herald.
However, Vision 2020 Director Greg Siems said the ideas for such plant development were tabled after three years of feasibility, environmental and housing studies found it “just wasn’t a viable option.”
“These are the economic realities we have to deal with, and we want to be sure we can create something instead of having a liability just sit there,” he said. “We respect other people’s opinions and wanting to have a conversation, but based on the evidence that Vision 2020 has seen and parts of the previous studies utilities has done, it’s just not a possibility.”
Siems said opening the site up to developers “just wasn’t a viable option.” Siems added the issue wasn’t historic preservation versus a rec center, “it’s more of an issue of the community gets something or nothing.”
“That’s what it really feels like,” he added. “The utility site is the best option for the rec center itself but it’s also the best option for the utility building. There’s really nothing else on the table,” Siems said. “We’ve spent a lot of time and money. There’s only so much time or money that you can invest into planning and research that it’s time to do something.”
The downtown plant remains Vision 2020’s top and largely its only choice for the rec center’s future home. Committee members like the site because it’s a centralized, downtown location, which is what was expressed in a community survey at Vision 2020’s start.
“That is our preferred site,” Cano said. “It really gives us a nice centralized location for the downtown for the town. It brings some synergy with the senior center, the two arenas, the library, that Fourth Avenue corridor, the bike trails, the waterways. It really is a nice central location.”
Once Austin Utilities and Vision 2020 finalize a purchase agreement, the utilities board and the Austin City Council both still need to vote on the sale before work can move forward. Votes are not yet scheduled but could happen as soon as this spring, according to Utilities General Manager Mark Nibaur.
As the votes approach, Stiehm said public input will be key.
“We need to get people’s input, this will give us some time for that,” said Stiehm, who noted people should contact Austin City Council members.
Anderson and Brunner are continuing to call for more discussion before a purchase agreement is approved.
“Why not give it a little time when time is not going to jeopardize that community rec center plan,” Anderson said.
As of Friday morning, 114 people had signed the Change.org petition to save the power plant; however, Anderson noted she’s heard opinions from both sides.
Now, Tanya Medgaarden, who co-chairs the rec center committee with Cano, said Vision 2020 is looking forward to reaching an agreement to secure the rec center site after years of studies and discussion.
“We’ve been working at this for a number of years with our committee who’s all full of very dedicated, hardworking people who have spent a lot of time on the project, so it’s exciting that we’re getting to that point,” she said.
But Brunner said he believes many in the community support he and Anderson’s push to redevelop the plant and seek other rec center sites.
“Right now our community is saying we want to see the Utilities Building revitalized and that a rec center could better serve us somewhere else,” Brunner wrote in an email. “I am confident both entities will recognize that what we’re saying matters, and act and vote accordingly.”
For more, visit these links:
www.change.org/p/austin-city-council-save-the-austin-municipal-power-plant
