I'm afraid the vision for this is too loosely defined and the desires of the citizens are all over the place regarding what the facility could or should be. Additionally, I'm afraid the cost to "do this right" (whatever "this" might be) would require a tax increase beyond what the citizens are willing to accept. So, the choice would be a half-baked "budget" rec center or no center at all. Sadly, I think no city-owned center at all is probably the better choice.

Shouldn't be engaging in these endeavors until public safety is in lock. Our public safety officials are currently the lowest paid in the county.

How are these bonds paid? Property taxes? Yet we constantly hear our politicians crowing about affordable housing? If they want to make housing affordable, stop doing things that increase the demand for property taxes. It's the simplest thing they could do, but they won't.

I want to share my observations on the proposed multipurpose recreation center and where I stand as a candidate for City Council.

Multiple studies have demonstrated clear demand in College Station for a comprehensive recreation facility that would include basketball courts, a gym, pickleball courts, potential pools, children's programming, and other amenities. While the local market has several gyms that offer pieces of this, there is currently no single facility in town that "does it all." There is also a notable gap in programming for active older adults, something St. Joseph's previously offered but has since discontinued.

During previous council discussions, the question of whether to include pools was resolved in favor of including them, allowing the study to move forward. At the most recent meeting on Monday, staff presented potential options for size and location. The council decided to continue internal work on the project with the possibility of placing it on the 2027 bond ballot. (Several members noted they may no longer be on the council by that time.)

My Position

(Full disclosure: I serve as a volunteer on the Board of the Founders Group for the Brazos Valley YMCA. I receive no compensation and am involved because I strongly believe in the Y's mission of ensuring no one is turned away for financial reasons. Their scholarship and program support is exceptional.)

If College Station citizens truly want a facility of this scale, it must be decided by the voters through a bond election. This level of investment requires direct approval from the community.

That said, this cannot and should not be a City of College Station endeavor alone. I would not support the city pursuing this project independently. The Brazos Valley YMCA is an outstanding potential partner. They have deep expertise in this space and are currently building a major facility in partnership with the City of Georgetown. A strong, financially committed partnership with the YMCA would provide significant relief to taxpayers while ensuring excellent programming and operations.

To be clear:
I will be a yes vote if the citizens approve a bond and we secure a committed financial and operational partner such as the YMCA.
I will be a no vote if the city attempts to move forward on its own, without voter approval and or a strong partner.

Finally, on public safety: I fully agree it must remain a top priority. I would strongly oppose diverting any funds that could support our first responders toward a recreation center. I speak with our police, fire, and EMS personnel regularly and am committed to finding better ways to support them. Public safety will always be my #1 priority.

If this goes to vote with a 13% tax increase I guess we will see if the demand is really there. I would guess the bond will fail by 20 points

Some one the Council has been lobbying for a YMCA in CS for a long time. It seems they may want their name on the placque just inside the front door.

My answer & vote will be a resounding "no".

Just a few months ago the City Manager went on the local news and said that the fireman's Union asking for Civil Service and Collective bargaining would cause tax increases, which made it bad.

Now he wants a rec center that will require massive tax increases?

mwm said:

---

Some one the Council has been lobbying for a YMCA in CS for a long time. It seems they may want their name on the placque just inside the front door.

My answer & vote will be a resounding "no".

---

Legacy building is very tempting.
Padding your resume is also very tempting.
Both issues are not for the public good and we should keep vigilant.

My take from watching the meeting, the bright shiny new idea of the Rec Center has worn off now that the rubber is meeting the road. The price tag/lack of solid vision made council kick the can. There are new ideas(baseball), and the looming TerraFab gorilla has shifted focus.

Trying to hand jam a rec center into Macys is a losing idea and I think they know that. We have invested too much time/money into the Rec center idea to kill it completely last night, so kicking it down the road to a bond in 2027 with a different council is the play.

I bet by then the bond committee doesn't even push it forward to the voters.

metroid_84 said:

---

I'd like an indoor city pool. Make up for losing the Thomas Park pool within a year of moving here.

---

You can probably fit an indoor water park into Macy's. Call it "Boondoggles".

As long as we're talking about bad ideas I figured I'd throw that one out there.

Valen said:

---

I want to share my observations on the proposed multipurpose recreation center and where I stand as a candidate for City Council.

Multiple studies have demonstrated clear demand in College Station for a comprehensive recreation facility that would include basketball courts, a gym, pickleball courts, potential pools, children's programming, and other amenities. While the local market has several gyms that offer pieces of this, there is currently no single facility in town that "does it all." There is also a notable gap in programming for active older adults, something St. Joseph's previously offered but has since discontinued.

During previous council discussions, the question of whether to include pools was resolved in favor of including them, allowing the study to move forward. At the most recent meeting on Monday, staff presented potential options for size and location. The council decided to continue internal work on the project with the possibility of placing it on the 2027 bond ballot. (Several members noted they may no longer be on the council by that time.)

My Position

(Full disclosure: I serve as a volunteer on the Board of the Founders Group for the Brazos Valley YMCA. I receive no compensation and am involved because I strongly believe in the Y's mission of ensuring no one is turned away for financial reasons. Their scholarship and program support is exceptional.)

If College Station citizens truly want a facility of this scale, it must be decided by the voters through a bond election. This level of investment requires direct approval from the community.

That said, this cannot and should not be a City of College Station endeavor alone. I would not support the city pursuing this project independently. The Brazos Valley YMCA is an outstanding potential partner. They have deep expertise in this space and are currently building a major facility in partnership with the City of Georgetown. A strong, financially committed partnership with the YMCA would provide significant relief to taxpayers while ensuring excellent programming and operations.

To be clear:
I will be a yes vote if the citizens approve a bond and we secure a committed financial and operational partner such as the YMCA.
I will be a no vote if the city attempts to move forward on its own, without voter approval and or a strong partner.

Finally, on public safety: I fully agree it must remain a top priority. I would strongly oppose diverting any funds that could support our first responders toward a recreation center. I speak with our police, fire, and EMS personnel regularly and am committed to finding better ways to support them. Public safety will always be my #1 priority.

---

So this is YMCA part duo, without the YMCA. The voters have shot this down before, but go ahead and bring it up again, it worked for CSID bond issues.

Boozer92 said:

---

If this goes to vote with a 13% tax increase I guess we will see if the demand is really there. I would guess the bond will fail by 20 points

---

for what the 3rd time now? Residents have been voting this thing down for years

Welcome to another round of city council whack a mole - the city is the best recycler we know

Waiting for someone to tell us what Gemini/Anthropic/ChatGPT/Grok says about rec centers...

Regarding your last paragraph…there is no scenario where the tax burden is reduced if this gets built. If this goes through the best we could hope for is a partner to lessen then impact.

Valen said:

---

While the local market has several gyms that offer pieces of this, there is currently no single facility in town that "does it all." There is also a notable gap in programming for active older adults, something St. Joseph's previously offered but has since discontinued.

---

Don't you think that if the local market demanded something like this, a private entity would have built it already? There's a reason why it hasn't been done. Plus, St. Joe's tried to meet the senior demand, and it failed. Why would a government entity think it can accomplish better?

I will be voting no on such a project, and this City needs to focus on the basic priorities and find ways to lower our property taxes.

Of course.

Instead of:
-Raises for firefighters and police
-Infrastructure
-Securing better water sources
-Increasing our ability to generate electricity for a growing community

They will start another glory-building project that they can ribbon cut and have their names etched onto.

Valen said:

---

I would typically agree with you, as I'm a strong proponent of letting the market determine what a community needs. However, the studies and data I've reviewed show there is genuine interest in these types of amenities.

I'm not familiar with private companies building recreational facilities for communities with zero partnership or connection to the local governing body. This isn't a project we should pursue if it's entirely financially independent from any partners. For that reason, I would vote no in the current scenario.

That said, I believe it would be a disservice not to seriously consider the findings from the feasibility studies. While data can be skewed, I would support moving forward only if all three of the following criteria are met:

The partnership makes strong financial and practical sense

The tax increase is substantially lower than 13%

The public votes yes on a bond

Only then would this be a project worth executing.

---

Do you honestly think this idea is a prudent use of our tax dollars? In this climate with our economy, is this a surefire bet of an idea, because anything less than that should not be considered when it comes to using our public tax dollars.

Now, I have no part of the fitness industry, but don't you think that building this type of facility will ultimately be in direct competition with some of our local fitness centers? I mean, we already have two companies building Pickleball kingdoms. My bet is that only one of those businesses will be here in five years. Do we really need our city government to come in and build something that would compete with that? Think of our tax base and provide the essential services that we need! Stop trying to make things more complicated than they should be.

This has no chance of passing. These council members are so out of touch with what's happening in their own community.

Jbob04 said:

---

This has no chance of passing. These council members are so out of touch with what's happening in their own community.

---

This ^^^^^^^^


And I don't care how many "studies" they commission to back their intentions up

I would love to see amendments to both cities charters/governing documents, that ban the naming of publicly owned property/assets after anyone without a public vote.

double b said:

---

Do you honestly think this idea is a prudent use of our tax dollars? In this climate with our economy, is this a surefire bet of an idea, because anything less than that should not be considered when it comes to using our public tax dollars.

---

Make no mistake, he is a tax and spend politician type. He thinks government knows best how to spend your money. He's just becoming more refined with his angles, after getting blasted in the past.

Valen said:

---

I'm not one of these spineless council members we currently have. I choose to come here and engage because I can take the heat and I actually care about the perspectives this platform brings.

Who else is doing that?

---

You serious Clark?

Bob Yancy on line one.