Valen, excuse me for not knowing, but who are you?
City of College Station Rec Center.
4,742 Views |
60 Replies |
Last: 1 hr ago by doubledog
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.
We don't need a private company to build a rec faciity for the community. There are multiple private companies that have built rec facilities for paying customers. Or get a membership at the Rec Center on campus. The city doesn't need to be in the rec facility business.
This at the same time that the SpaceX facility in Grimes County is being discussed. CS is in no way prepared for the impacts of that - road, utilities, water, etc. No way we need to waste money on a rec facility, how about we start with basic essentials to handle the potential growth I keep hearing the current city council say that want. If you want growth then be responsible stewards of the city's resources and plan for it ahead of time.
Great CaesarsGhost said:
Valen, excuse me for not knowing, but who are you?
Valen Cepak (I assume) ran for election to the College Station City Council Place 3. Cepak was on the ballot in the general election on November 5, 2024.
Valen lost to David White
https://ballotpedia.org/Valen_Cepak_(College_Station_City_Council_Place_3,_Texas,_candidate_2024)
I'm sorry but you're posting history is full of support for taxpayer funded pet projects. Only more recently, you've gotten better about saying what people want to hear. I suspect that once elected, you'll fail right in line with the typical tax and spend, pet project, status quo.
I don't have time to dig back and find old posts right now, but I'll be happy to later, if you like.
I don't have time to dig back and find old posts right now, but I'll be happy to later, if you like.
You're welcome to dig into whatever you'd like. If it concerns you that deeply, I'd also be happy to sit down with you for a cup of coffee and talk about it.
Here's the reality: I ran for office once before, and I didn't know then what I know now. I was still learning and forming my positions on many issues. As I've grown in this space, I've continued to learn, evolve, and occasionally shift my perspective. While I've supported certain projects in the past, make no mistake, I have no interest in being part of the status quo.
It's interesting that these questions haven't come up before when I've openly shared the issues I care most about: protecting our water supply, improving pay and retention for our first responders, supporting small businesses, pursuing smart economic growth through tools like 380 agreements to create jobs, and addressing housing needs in our community.
Yes, my views have evolved on some topics and they should. I'd be doing this wrong if I remained stagnant.
That said, I'm still the only person who actively worked to prevent your tax rate from increasing. I'm also the only candidate who consistently shows up to council meetings to learn and understand the issues, so that when elected, I won't waste taxpayer dollars playing catch-up.
Regarding the recreation center: it's a great project if the community wants it. If there's strong public support, it should go to a bond election for the voters to decide. If it doesn't make it onto the ballot, then that's the answer. This isn't about what I personally want, I'm not king. It's about listening to the majority and building a smart, sustainable future for our city.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me or holding me accountable. That said, I'm not entirely sure which past statements you're referring to. If they're from my first campaign, I'd ask that you give me the opportunity to address them directly. I'm not here to tell people what they want to hear, I'm speaking about the things I genuinely care about and believe will make a real difference.
I hope everyone has a wonderful Memorial Day weekend. To all those who have served, or have loved ones who served, thank you, your sacrifice is deeply honored this weekend
Here's the reality: I ran for office once before, and I didn't know then what I know now. I was still learning and forming my positions on many issues. As I've grown in this space, I've continued to learn, evolve, and occasionally shift my perspective. While I've supported certain projects in the past, make no mistake, I have no interest in being part of the status quo.
It's interesting that these questions haven't come up before when I've openly shared the issues I care most about: protecting our water supply, improving pay and retention for our first responders, supporting small businesses, pursuing smart economic growth through tools like 380 agreements to create jobs, and addressing housing needs in our community.
Yes, my views have evolved on some topics and they should. I'd be doing this wrong if I remained stagnant.
That said, I'm still the only person who actively worked to prevent your tax rate from increasing. I'm also the only candidate who consistently shows up to council meetings to learn and understand the issues, so that when elected, I won't waste taxpayer dollars playing catch-up.
Regarding the recreation center: it's a great project if the community wants it. If there's strong public support, it should go to a bond election for the voters to decide. If it doesn't make it onto the ballot, then that's the answer. This isn't about what I personally want, I'm not king. It's about listening to the majority and building a smart, sustainable future for our city.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me or holding me accountable. That said, I'm not entirely sure which past statements you're referring to. If they're from my first campaign, I'd ask that you give me the opportunity to address them directly. I'm not here to tell people what they want to hear, I'm speaking about the things I genuinely care about and believe will make a real difference.
I hope everyone has a wonderful Memorial Day weekend. To all those who have served, or have loved ones who served, thank you, your sacrifice is deeply honored this weekend
He is also pro data center
Valen, I think you may be on the 40 side of an 60/40 issue.
Jbob04 said:
He is also pro data center
As someone who watched the entire data center fiasco, I can vouch that Valen gave an iconic anti data center stance. Even called out councilman Wright.
He has a post on Texags saying he's pro data center but maybe he didn't want the one in town. Probably wanted it in rural areas so it wasn't in his back yard
Ban ALL plaques and signage naming anyone who was elected to ANY office. Let's make that part of the City Charter
TellMeMore said:
Ban ALL plaques and signage naming anyone who was elected to ANY office. Let's make that part of the City Charter
Now if we can do something about resume padding for city staff.
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.
clearly not something the city should be involved in. if adult programming was discontinued there is a reason why. Not enough interest.
Why do we need a facility that does it all. If you want pickle-ball go to a place that has pickle-ball. if you want indoor swimming go to the place with indoor swimming.
If you want a truly all....then join the A&M rec center.
stop wasting our money on these things. Ever look at the Southwood pool or bee creek. hardly used and draining city funds.
I will admit I have not followed the College Station City Council as close as some of the other posters over the last few months but I would like someone to answer the following questions so I can get up to speed. Sorry for the length......
1) Did the City Council propose building a rec center for the stated purpoise of trying to bankrupt the one built in Bryan?
2) Did the City Council propose a rec center that is free to the public or would it charge the users for using the facilty? Wouldn't those useage fees offset some (or most) of the operating costs?
2) Has the person who said the College Station city pools were empty tried to use one on a summer Saturday? Or summer weekday for that matter? The times I have taken my kids to the public pools they seem to be very busy. And the pool at Thomas Park has not been replaced anywhere in town so the total pool capacity is smaller. And where is this indoor pool one poster referred to?
3) If there is a privately owned and operated rec center we can use as an example, can someone please point it out? I have not heard of such a facilty but I will be the first to admit I don't know everything about rec centers. This proposed city owned facility does sound like it will be a competitor to the proposed YMCA but I haven't seen the study that outlines the total recreational needs of the city.
We have not seen the executed agreement for the proposed baseball facility near Costco so I am hesitant to assume all private sector solutions are the best choice even if it satisfies my desire to keep my taxes low. The City Council violated an agreement with the Bombers to begin negotiations on that project which makes me think the City will violate every written agreement they sign.
4) If the private sector is really so much better at operating parks, why doesn't every city turn all parks over to private operators? I know of one such park in NYC but I would hate to use that community as a peer to College Station.
5) Does anyone have any idea what infrastructure will be needed in College Station for the proposed project at Gibbons Creek? Roads, utilities, subdivisions, parks (if we still have them), schools, etc.? Back up a step, do we actually have proof the project will actually happen? Has the land sale already closed? Elon is building his own ciity in Bastrop County... will he do the same in Grimes County? How do we know what to build before we know what that project will be?
6) The last signigicant park investment in College Station was Veterans Park and its later addtions. When did those occur? Has the population of College Station increased since then? We know rhe demand for baseball fields has increased significantly... have other groups and their needs also increased? I know Texas Independece Park didn't turn out as advertised so I am not including it in my questions.
7) Two people posted we should all go to the on campus rec center. Is that even an option for those of us who do not work at or attend TAMU? I know some services on campus are open to the public but I don't know if anyone can get a membership at the Rec. And while using that facility would be great in some situations, I don't know if that solves the desire of our senior citizens to have places to meet and partiicipate in activities or handles all of the City's recreational needs.
The larger question is obviously this: what are the duties of a city to its citizens? I've always been a fan of the local governments assuming the bulk of the responsibilties for the citizens... police, fire, utilities, the collection of taxes, and the adjucation of a legal fraemwork seem to be common actions for good governance. It seems like a lot of posters are completely against any, if not all, other uses. I don't like the Federal or State governments intruding in our lives unnecessairly and it seems like they do that on a daily basis.
Last, there is a lot of vitriol and / or exaggeration in many posts. It seems similar to the opposition to the recent CSISD bond issue where several comments referred to an athletic "Taj Mahal" being constructed. when i reviewed the bond issue the entirety of the improvements to the athletic facilities were repairs or small expansions that fit within the current stadium layouts. Many posts on this forum state they are opposed to facilites being named for city councilmen or mayors. I don't know what facilties have been named for elected officials but I didn't read where the proposed rec center would carry someone's name. Perhaps we can all tone it down until we know what is truly being put forth to the citizens.
I know this is long and I apologize. Thanks.
1) Did the City Council propose building a rec center for the stated purpoise of trying to bankrupt the one built in Bryan?
2) Did the City Council propose a rec center that is free to the public or would it charge the users for using the facilty? Wouldn't those useage fees offset some (or most) of the operating costs?
2) Has the person who said the College Station city pools were empty tried to use one on a summer Saturday? Or summer weekday for that matter? The times I have taken my kids to the public pools they seem to be very busy. And the pool at Thomas Park has not been replaced anywhere in town so the total pool capacity is smaller. And where is this indoor pool one poster referred to?
3) If there is a privately owned and operated rec center we can use as an example, can someone please point it out? I have not heard of such a facilty but I will be the first to admit I don't know everything about rec centers. This proposed city owned facility does sound like it will be a competitor to the proposed YMCA but I haven't seen the study that outlines the total recreational needs of the city.
We have not seen the executed agreement for the proposed baseball facility near Costco so I am hesitant to assume all private sector solutions are the best choice even if it satisfies my desire to keep my taxes low. The City Council violated an agreement with the Bombers to begin negotiations on that project which makes me think the City will violate every written agreement they sign.
4) If the private sector is really so much better at operating parks, why doesn't every city turn all parks over to private operators? I know of one such park in NYC but I would hate to use that community as a peer to College Station.
5) Does anyone have any idea what infrastructure will be needed in College Station for the proposed project at Gibbons Creek? Roads, utilities, subdivisions, parks (if we still have them), schools, etc.? Back up a step, do we actually have proof the project will actually happen? Has the land sale already closed? Elon is building his own ciity in Bastrop County... will he do the same in Grimes County? How do we know what to build before we know what that project will be?
6) The last signigicant park investment in College Station was Veterans Park and its later addtions. When did those occur? Has the population of College Station increased since then? We know rhe demand for baseball fields has increased significantly... have other groups and their needs also increased? I know Texas Independece Park didn't turn out as advertised so I am not including it in my questions.
7) Two people posted we should all go to the on campus rec center. Is that even an option for those of us who do not work at or attend TAMU? I know some services on campus are open to the public but I don't know if anyone can get a membership at the Rec. And while using that facility would be great in some situations, I don't know if that solves the desire of our senior citizens to have places to meet and partiicipate in activities or handles all of the City's recreational needs.
The larger question is obviously this: what are the duties of a city to its citizens? I've always been a fan of the local governments assuming the bulk of the responsibilties for the citizens... police, fire, utilities, the collection of taxes, and the adjucation of a legal fraemwork seem to be common actions for good governance. It seems like a lot of posters are completely against any, if not all, other uses. I don't like the Federal or State governments intruding in our lives unnecessairly and it seems like they do that on a daily basis.
Last, there is a lot of vitriol and / or exaggeration in many posts. It seems similar to the opposition to the recent CSISD bond issue where several comments referred to an athletic "Taj Mahal" being constructed. when i reviewed the bond issue the entirety of the improvements to the athletic facilities were repairs or small expansions that fit within the current stadium layouts. Many posts on this forum state they are opposed to facilites being named for city councilmen or mayors. I don't know what facilties have been named for elected officials but I didn't read where the proposed rec center would carry someone's name. Perhaps we can all tone it down until we know what is truly being put forth to the citizens.
I know this is long and I apologize. Thanks.
https://recsports.tamu.edu/member-services/membership/
Quote:
NON-AFFILIATE MEMBERSHIP ELIGIBILITY
Those who do not meet the eligibility requirements for the Texas A&M Rec Sports Affiliate, Student, or Spouse/Dependent memberships are eligible to sign up for a Texas A&M Rec Sports Non-Affiliate Membership. Below is a list of those who are eligible for the Texas A&M Rec Sports Non-Affiliate Membership.
Texas A&M University Former Students
Siblings of any currently enrolled student at Texas A&M University or a Faculty/Staff member
Non-married partners, roommates, or household members
Bryan/College Station residents with no affiliation to Texas A&M University
Blinn College Students
Students enrolled at any other Texas A&M System School
Students enrolled at the RELLIS campus who are not enrolled in Texas A&M-level courses
Incoming students who have not yet been assessed the Rec Sports Fee
hereford said:
I will admit I have not followed the College Station City Council as close as some of the other posters over the last few months but I would like someone to answer the following questions so I can get up to speed. Sorry for the length......
1) Did the City Council propose building a rec center for the stated purpose of trying to bankrupt the one built in Bryan?
...
I wish the CoCS council would get over this silly competition with Bryan.
I have no idea what Bryan Rec Center is being referred to
Boozer92 said:
I have no idea what Bryan Rec Center is being referred to
Legends Event Center
Which is pretty much nothing like College Station wants you to build
hereford said:
Did the City Council propose a rec center that is free to the public or would it charge the users for using the facilty? Wouldn't those useage fees offset some (or most) of the operating costs?
A membership would be required for all users for the express purpose of offsetting the initial cost and ongoing costs (CS residents would receive lower rates). I don't think the taxpayers would want it any other way. If you wanted to make it free for CS residents, it would REALLY cost a fortune.
hereford said:
Has the person who said the College Station city pools were empty tried to use one on a summer Saturday? Or summer weekday for that matter? The times I have taken my kids to the public pools they seem to be very busy. And the pool at Thomas Park has not been replaced anywhere in town so the total pool capacity is smaller. And where is this indoor pool one poster referred to?
The majority of the pool pushback I heard at the council meeting was with regard to lap swimming. Apparently the 33 laps here in town are fairly under-utilized.
hereford said:
If the private sector is really so much better at operating parks, why doesn't every city turn all parks over to private operators? I know of one such park in NYC but I would hate to use that community as a peer to College Station.
That's a good question. One I don't know the answer to. But speaking of parks, why WOULDN'T a park be a good location for this thing? I for one would rather have indoor rec facilities than all the outdoor parks we have in this town.
hereford said:
Two people posted we should all go to the on campus rec center. Is that even an option for those of us who do not work at or attend TAMU?
Yes, of course.
tu ag said:
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.
A "glory-building project" is easy to manage. Everything else except maybe raises for police and firefighter is a political minefield. Infrastructure? You can hardly get a road built anymore in this town without crying. Bob Yancy helped kill Pebble Creek Road from actually going anywhere useful, and you remember the East Loop people. Securing better water resources? The state had proposed damming the Navasota River, that got shot down as people started to complain about how much land was going to be underwater. Electricity generation? Sure, and then you can have pages of threads about what crummy solar energy is coming to town, how much land it's taking up, whose palms are getting greased, and how much electricity rates are going up for CSU users when they're locked into a contract.
The reason they push pet projects is that they boost their political careers without much resistance.
Carnwellag2 said: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.
clearly not something the city should be involved in. if adult programming was discontinued there is a reason why. Not enough interest.
Why do we need a facility that does it all. If you want pickle-ball go to a place that has pickle-ball. if you want indoor swimming go to the place with indoor swimming.
If you want a truly all....then join the A&M rec center.
stop wasting our money on these things. Ever look at the Southwood pool or bee creek. hardly used and draining city funds.
Quote:
if adult programming was discontinued there is a reason why. Not enough interest.
There have been a lot of efforts over the years to form adult leagues and the main issue was lack of facilities, not lack of interest. Outside of softball and soccer fields, their are no central facilities for adult leagues.
Quote:
Ever look at the Southwood pool or bee creek. hardly used and draining city funds.
Those are seasonal facilities. One of my kids worked at both of those places during some summers and that isn't close to being an accurate statement.
I'm not really for or against a public rec center. But arguments for or against it should be factual.
It's kinda crazy that a has been like Karl is pushing this (forever) on the city council lead by a mayor that's at least 80 yo and a decade older than Mooney. The residents of CS need to think about that as they sign on to debt and operating expenses that will outlive the life of both. I'm not encouraging ageism. But I do think you have to look back at how many times the whole has rejected the idea and how many times people who won't be around for the final bill keep coming back.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
EBrazosAg said:
It's kinda crazy that a has been like Karl is pushing this (forever) on the city council lead by a mayor that's at least 80 yo and a decade older than Mooney. The residents of CS need to think about that as they sign on to debt and operating expenses that will outlive the life of both. I'm not encouraging ageism. But I do think you have to look back at how many times the whole has rejected the idea and how many times people who won't be around for the final bill keep coming back.
But their legacy will continue. If you want your name on something PAY for it out of your pocket. (the TAMU way).
I am all for new things, after we pay off (get rid of... Macys) old things !
EBrazosAg said:
It's kinda crazy that a has been like Karl is pushing this (forever) on the city council lead by a mayor that's at least 80 yo and a decade older than Mooney. The residents of CS need to think about that as they sign on to debt and operating expenses that will outlive the life of both. I'm not encouraging ageism. But I do think you have to look back at how many times the whole has rejected the idea and how many times people who won't be around for the final bill keep coming back.
Certainly not encouraging ageism, especially since I am over half a century myself, but hopefully nobody lets me make long term decisions for the community when I am 70.
This thing and the YMCA have been completely panned by voters for years and the city "leaders" (god I hate that term) keep pushing for it.
Quote:
"One of the penalties of refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
Plato
www.elitellp.net/
I think the city would be smarter to offer a $100 million dollar property tax abatement to a third party operator. No initial cost to the city and no ongoing operating costs. Have a minimum scope that they have to deliver to and have some metric for how membership costs are calculated. If there isn't a third party that would take this deal, there isn't a market for it anyways.
Omperlodge said:
I think the city would be smarter to offer a $100 million dollar property tax abatement to a third party operator. No initial cost to the city and no ongoing operating costs. Have a minimum scope that they have to deliver to and have some metric for how membership costs are calculated. If there isn't a third party that would take this deal, there isn't a market for it anyways.
This is a good idea except
a) The legacy requirement is not fulfilled (I know it is not intentional, but it is always there)
b) The resume building for city staff is significantly curtailed.
Sorry I am so pessimistic. Four decades of observing CoCS politics makes one jaded.