Williston Community Center Task Force Final ReportF506B13C-605B... · 2016-10-11 · Final Report...

Williston Community Center Task Force

Final Report

of 38

Final Report of the Williston Community Center Task Force November 1, 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3

Discussion of Needs and Uses

What is a Community Center? ............................................................................................ 3

What would a Community Center be used for? .................................................................. 4

Does Williston really need a Community Center? ............................................................. 6

What is the best location for a Community Center? ........................................................... 7

How much will a Community Center cost? ........................................................................ 8

How should a Community Center be funded? .................................................................. 10

Task Force Recommendations ....................................................................................... 12

Attachments

Attachment A1 - Task Force Charge ................................................................................ 14

Attachment A2- Task Force Members .............................................................................. 15

Attachment B - Process Followed .................................................................................... 16

Attachment C - Sites Visited............................................................................................. 18

Attachment D - Inventory of Existing Community Spaces .............................................. 19

Attachment E - Solicitation for Community Input ........................................................... 21

Attachment F1 - Town Meeting Day 2007 Survey - Instrument ...................................... 22

Attachment F2 - Results of the Town Meeting Day Survey ............................................. 24

Attachment G - Town Recreation Needs Summary ......................................................... 31

Attachment H - Locations and Partnership Opportunities ................................................ 35

of 38


Introduction The Williston Community Center Task Force was created in October, 2006, by the Williston selectboard to assess the need for a community center, analyze possible locations, develop preliminary cost estimates, and explore possible approaches for funding. A copy of the charge to the task force, and a list of members, appears as Attachment A. Following nearly a year of meetings, testimony, a survey, a public forum, and staff research, the task force has prepared this report as a summary of our findings and recommendations to the Williston selectboard. What is a Community Center? The task force made no initial assumptions about the ‘correct’ form that a community center would take, or the specific needs or populations that should be served. We also kept our discussion of needs and appropriate uses separate from our discussion of necessary or available resources. The task force focused primarily on what type of facility, or facilities, would serve the town best, the best potential locations, and finally, a preliminary estimate of the resources that would be needed to build such a facility and where these resources might come from. Some key principles emerged early in our discussions:

• A community center should be more than a collection of meeting rooms; it should serve as a focal point in Williston and should be a source of civic pride. It would serve an existing need in terms of local organizations, but should also attract the community to participate in new programs or activities and should foster community-centered activity. It is not just a building.

• A new community center should not be redundant with existing or potentially available facilities, regardless of whether those other facilities are town-owned or not. We should not build a community center unless it will be heavily used.

• A community center should be available and accessible to as many members of the community as possible. Partnership opportunities with a business or not-for-profit organization should be considered as long as that partnership does not result in limitations on access (e.g. via membership).

• The costs of programming and use should be kept minimal. To achieve this, it

will most likely be necessary for the town to assume the ongoing operating costs for a community center.

of 38


• The likelihood that taxpayers will be willing to bond for a multimillion dollar

facility in the near future is low. It is likely that the capital costs of a community center would need to come from some source other than taxes.

What would a Community Center be used for? The task force considered various possible needs, and populations, that would be served by a future community center. We solicited formal testimony from key groups and constituencies as well as informal input via direct conversations, a warned public forum, and a survey conducted on town meeting day. Task force meetings were used to distill these suggestions and input into four general areas of need and specific populations that might be served by a community center:

• Senior Citizens: The changing demographics of Vermont are causing a steep increase in the number of seniors involved in community activities. Vermont is among those states that are ‘aging’ most rapidly, due to low birth rates and high emigration of younger residents. We will rank 11th of the 50 states in the fraction of seniors (65 and older) by 2010 and 8th or higher by 2030, when 1 in 4 Vermonters will be 65 or older (cit: U.S. Census Bureau). Nearby towns, including Burlington, South Burlington, Winooski, Colchester and Charlotte have already responded to this trend. The Charlotte Senior Center was discussed at length (and visited) by our task force as a possible example for Williston. We also researched and discussed examples of senior centers in our area that are underutilized or do not function well, and the reasons for their poor utilization. Williston has a vibrant senior community with a number of active senior groups; we already have successful programming for seniors that uses existing facilities of the schools, library, churches, and elsewhere. Typical programming for seniors would require meeting/recreation spaces large (groups of 60 or more) and small (groups of 10-25), kitchen facilities, and dedicated storage space. Seniors also expressed a need for ‘personalized’ space that could be dedicated for their own use if a multifunction or multigenerational facility were created. Accessibility, with a particular focus on adequate nearby parking and access to public transportation, is also extremely important to seniors.

• Teens: We heard from multiple sources, including both the community and

Williston Recreation department staff, that a teen center should be given high priority. Teens need safe and engaging opportunities to socialize outside the home and school environments; many teens do not regularly participate in sports, music or arts programs, church, or other group activities. Previous efforts by the Williston Recreation department to reach this population have been quite successful but were constrained by a lack of dedicated, personalized space and limited staffing. Space would be needed for regular programming, recreation, and unprogrammed meeting areas that would be dedicated explicitly to teens. Kitchen

of 38


facilities and storage were also listed as important, as was access to public transportation and proximity to housing that would allow pedestrian access. Among the members of the committee, and those we interviewed, enthusiasm for the ‘teen center’ concept was uneven; although many are enthusiastic, some believe that the fraction of teens who participate, and high turnover, make the likelihood of success lower than for a senior center. The task force members and most of those we heard from in the community supported the concept of a multigenerational facility that would serve both groups.

• Structured Recreation: A third major need the task force identified was for

additional indoor recreation space. This might include a pool, indoor courts, and multifunction spaces that could be used for a variety of programming (dance, aerobics, martial arts, etc.). Many towns have created community centers that include indoor recreation facilities; some larger communities (e.g. Marlboro Mass., need another example here-ask Randy) have created highly successful ‘rec-plex’ facilities (large, commercial indoor athletic complexes that draw participants regionally). Williston has already identified in our recent 5-year Comprehensive Plan a lack of structured recreational facilities as a serious deficiency that should be given a high priority (we note that among Williston Recreation department staff and the town Recreation committee, a teen center was prioritized over additional structured recreation?). Williston’s existing indoor athletic facilities, including both public and private, are heavily utilized and number far fewer than would normally be considered adequate for a town of Williston’s size (see Attachment G). The ideal location would be close to schools and neighborhoods, and preferably close to existing outdoor recreational fields or parks, with excellent pedestrian access via both sidewalks and the rec path. Potential partnership with the business community, including not-for-profit organizations (e.g. YMCA, Catamount) were investigated by the task force. These are discussed in more detail in Attachment H.

• Cultural Activities: A fourth major area that was discussed by the task force

encompasses cultural activities, in particular the performing arts (music, dance, drama, etc.). The primary physical need would be for an indoor performance venue that could also be used for large meetings, lectures, or other gatherings; studio arts (painting, sculpture, photography, etc.) might also be supported at a cultural center through inclusion of working studio spaces and indoor gallery areas available for shows. The task force gave a cultural center the lowest priority among the 4 major areas we considered, in part because of a lack of enthusiasm for the idea of a publicly-run cultural center. Other successful examples we could identify (e.g. the Flynn Center, Vergennes Opera House) are primarily run as private, not-for-profit entities where the widest possible inclusion and community involvement are not part of their mission. Also, many have been leveraged by the presence of a historic theater, church, or other building that was ripe for restoration; the task force could think of no comparable opportunity in Williston. The task force concluded that the idea of a cultural center would best be pursued as a private or philanthropic venture, rather than a public project.

of 38


The task force recommends that, if a community center is pursued, the focus should be on the needs of 1) seniors and 2) teens—potentially through a multigenerational, multifunction facility. Because of the current demand, probability of heavy utilization, and anticipated increase in future needs due to changing demographics, a senior center was given the highest priority overall. Does Williston really need a Community Center? The task force collected information from direct interviews, informal discussion, a survey, a public hearing, and numerous private conversations with interested citizens. In general, this input can be summarized by saying that many people in Williston would like a Community Center if it was built and did not increase their taxes, but far fewer would be willing to pay for one at the present time. Some feel that, regardless of who pays, it would not be justified yet because of existing, available space. The short answer to this question is: The task force concluded that there is not a pressing need at the present time, but within 5-10 years the town will need to respond—particularly to the needs of senior citizens. Because the planning, fundraising, and construction process may take 3-5 years or more, the task force recommends that the process begin now. An inventory of current community space in Williston for these types of activities (see Attachment D) showed that more space is available than most groups realize, although much of it is not optimal for their needs—no kitchen space, no storage, or uncertain long-term availability. The existing spaces are shared and cannot be personalized, a priority particularly for the teen population but also requested by senior groups. Very few groups we heard from told us that they couldn’t find a space to meet regularly, although most acknowledged the space they are now using is not ideal. Some groups meet in homes, and others meet outside Williston, but many are using the existing space at our schools, churches, the Old Brick Church, the Town Hall, the armory, and other private facilities—for example, the American Cancer Society boardroom at Maple Tree Place. Meeting rooms that have only recently become available at the new fire and police stations are already heavily scheduled, including use by outside organizations, suggesting that high quality, multifunction space in a new community center is likely to be used if it were built. In our discussions, we also discovered that several potential community spaces are underutilized and the owners would be receptive to more regular use for community functions (e.g. the Williston Armory—see Attachment H for more details). We heard about important opportunities for the town that will need to be investigated further, such as a potential partnership focused on structured or outdoor recreation with the Catamount Family Center, and the likely creation of dazzling facilities by the Essex Alliance Church near the Meadow Run development off 2A that would be potentially available for community uses. It was beyond the charge of our task force to determine the full extent, implications and details of either opportunity; later in this report, the task

of 38


force makes specific recommendations for further action by the selectboard to investigate these opportunities. Overall, it was the conclusion of the task force that much of the immediate (1-5 year) need can probably be met by existing community facilities. A historical lack of centralized information, and inconvenient processes for access and scheduling, may be as much or more of a problem in the short term than a lack of actual community facilities. Town staff are now in the process of implementing a web-based reservation system for many facilities that will streamline access at least to the town-operated sites. However, the task force concluded that longer term (5-10 year) needs, particularly among seniors, will not be served adequately without the creation of additional, town-run facilities. The task force also noted that a facility for teens, while a somewhat lower priority for this task force than a facility serving seniors, is today a very high priority for the the Williston Rec Committee, which places a teen center above new structured recreation facilities in their wish list. What is the best location for a Community Center in Williston? The task force was not unanimous on the issue of preferred locations. Our differences mirrored the feedback we received informally from the community, in the warned public hearing, and from town staff. We feel that the primary question is whether a community center should be located in the identifiable historic ‘heart’ of Williston, or instead located nearer to the emerging ‘center of gravity’ and population growth at Tafts Corners. The answer to this question also depends on the type of facility that might be built—for example, while structured recreation might thrive in a partnership with the Catamount Family Center on the northeastern outskirts of the village, most felt that this would not be ideal for a senior or multigenerational center due to the lack of likely future access to public transportation. A variety of specific locations were considered, and further discussion, pros/cons, and details of each of these locations is included in Attachment H. The list of possible sites that received the most discussion included: Village: Lyons Property, behind the Town Hall Town Green, joined with the Dorothy Alling Memorial Library Old Brick Church, either joined to the existing or converted WCS property, near the athletic fields Armory Tafts Corners: Maple Tree Place, town owned land Finney Crossing Other Sites

of 38


Allen Brook School, revising the original ‘bookmatch’ design Catamount Family Center Essex Alliance Church, as proposed for the Brandywine site After much debate, the Task Force concluded that the most appropriate location for a community center would be within the historic Williston village. The benefits of a village location include its proximity to the town’s largest school, the library, town offices, the Old Brick Church, and the police station. The addition of another town facility here would enhance the ‘campus like’ atmosphere of the village and would create opportunities for events or activities that might require several facilities to host them. This location would also support the strong sense of community and ‘place’ that already exists within the village but has yet to be established at Tafts Corners. Furthermore, Williston’s Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the importance of the historic village as a priority location for future community facilities. A number of large neighborhoods have access to the village via sidewalk or the bike path, and the extension of Route 2 bus service would provide public transportation to the village from the west end of town. There are current possibilities for shared parking and adequate infrastructure (sewer/water) exists within the village. When considering the use of a community center by teens, the somewhat ‘sheltered’ environment of the village is a plus from a parental perspective. Finally, the Task Force was persuaded by the intangible notion of the village as the ‘heart’ of the community. How much would a Community Center cost? Based on the conclusions of this report, some form of community center that addresses the needs of senior citizens, and possibly also teens, will be needed in Williston in the near future, perhaps 5 years ahead. Our research into the specific needs of these groups suggests that shared open meeting rooms—large and small—as well as storage, kitchen, and dedicated ‘personalized’ space (as opposed to shared space) for at least the primary population will be needed. By comparing these needs to known facilities in Williston, and comparable centers elsewhere, we estimate that 3000 s.f. would be needed per group; a minimum of 3000 s.f. might be needed for a senior center and up to 6000 s.f. for an optimal multigenerational/multifunction facility—the task force’s preferred solution. A very rough estimate of construction costs from members of the task force familiar with this type of construction suggests that $200-300 per s.f., or at least $600,000 per group, would be needed for construction. This assumes that the overall quality of the facility would be high, and would allow for reasonably attractive finish, landscaping, etc., that would be consistent with the historic village and the concept of an ‘attraction’ rather than just another building. Overall, the task force felt it would be safe to plan on a cost of $1.5 - 2 million if built today. A more accurate cost estimate would depend on variables that cannot be further refined without more specifics about the site, size, and purpose of the center.

of 38


Variables that we can’t predict could have a profound influence on the final cost and timing. If the Lyons property were chosen, for example, the cost of acquiring property would be saved but site development costs would be unpredictable and might be very high due to wetland or other factors that have been a concern with this site for many years. We discussed the possibility of leased space, most likely at a Tafts Corners site, but since the task force eventually agreed on a village location, cost estimates for leasing were not pursued. Redevelopment of the Dorothy Alling Library site was another alternative we discussed, either via lateral expansion or by extending the current library structure to 2 stories (or some combination of both). There was enthusiasm for combining senior and teen center programming with library activities if possible. The task force felt an ideal solution would be a combined initiative that might allow necessary expansion of the library to be done in conjunction with the construction of a new community center—either by combining them at a single location, or by swapping village sites (e.g. building a new, expanded library on the Lyons property, and using the existing library for a community center). A senior engineer on the task force assured us that expansion of the existing library—either outward or upward to accommodate the community center—would be possible for construction costs comparable to those estimated above, noting however that the cost of ALSO expanding library facilities in a single project likely would result in a higher price tag. We liked this option also because one of our key starting assumptions was that the town would need to assume the costs of staffing for a community center to keep it accessible, and a combined central location that included an expanded library might offer operating cost savings for both in the long term. Parking and circulation would be a problem with this location, and a redesign of the green, school parking and circulation might be necessary and would add to the overall cost. Nevertheless, the task force felt that several of those improvements are necessary already and may need to be addressed eventually regardless of whether a community center is built. Of all options and sites considered, an option involving joint expansion of the existing library and creation of a new community center—either on one site or by a swap—was preferred by a majority of task force members. We note that the enthusiasm for this option was based partly on the group’s preference for locating a community center within the village center, but also on the imminent need for future expansion of the library and ‘ideal’ overlap among potential programming and staffing. Had more information been available about the suitability of the Lyons property for development, and town plans for development of that property (e.g. affordable housing), this location might have been given equal or higher priority to the library/green location. The task force was potentially enthusiastic about any combination of these sites, or combination of new construction or renovation to existing facilities, that might address both needs and keep these important resources within the village center. Without more detail—both about the preferred sites, and the proposed construction—it is unlikely that a more accurate estimate of the costs to build a community center can be given. The task force estimates that $1.5 - 2 million should be the target, given the needs and options we considered.

of 38


How should a Community Center be funded? Of the areas we were charged to report on, the task force spent the least time on this topic. Our early discussions led us to the unanimous feeling that Williston taxpayers are unlikely to approve a bond for a community center at this time, given the response to recent construction of the police and fire stations and narrow success in getting school and town budgets passed. This conclusion was confirmed in private conversations and in our public hearing. The task force is unanimous in feeling that the capital construction costs for a community center, if it were built now or in the near future, should not come from taxes. We recognize, however, that the community’s willingness to borrow money to pay for a project of this nature could be quite different in 5 years and should be reassessed at that time any project is begun. The public might also be much more receptive to funding a joint project involving library expansion combined with a community center, or to paying from taxes the remaining costs of a project that was ‘kickstarted’ by a development campaign involving several large personal or corporate contributors. The task force is also unanimous in feeling that the ongoing operating costs of a community center would need to be assumed, or heavily subsidized, by the town. Briefly stated, the costs to users need to be minimal-to-modest or utilization will be low and the center could fail. It was also a key principle for the task force that access should be as broad as possible. For example, we heard that the costs to seniors to take courses or register in programs run now at the Williston library, or by rec staff, are modest and cover primarily the materials used with a minimal allowance to hire the instructor. Overhead for the facility, as well as ongoing staffing costs for scheduling, supervision, custodial services, etc., are not passed back to the participants. We heard also from town staff that the demands of programming and scheduling—for the time being—can be accommodated by existing staff, but a significant increase in staffing would probably be required if a full time senior or teen center were created. Centers that are truly successful—e.g. the Charlotte Senior Center—typically have a dynamic staff person as well as highly committed community volunteers who maintain the high quality of the programs and ‘momentum’ needed for the facility to be an attraction. The task force concluded that the costs of staffing a future Williston community center cannot be fully absorbed by existing budgets and staffing. Some savings might be realized in a combined facility. The task force spent minimal time considering whether raising $1.5 – 2 million for a community center in Williston through donations was feasible. In part, it is impossible to evaluate whether people might support ‘it’ if we aren’t sure what ‘it’ really would be. For example, donors willing to give toward structured recreation, or a cultural center, might not be willing to give toward a senior center. Lead donors (those committing major gifts up front, to kickstart the campaign)—particularly if naming was an option—would almost certainly have strong opinions about what type of center they were

of 38


donating toward. It was beyond the scope of the committee’s time and resources to test whether lead donors or grassroots support would be sufficient in our community. We also solicited the opinion of Andrea Rogers, the Executive Director of the Flynn Center and a seasoned fundraiser in the area. She felt that the key to a successful campaign for a community center in Williston would be a very clear definition of the goal, and a very careful assessment of community support for that goal before any solicitation begins. She advised hiring a development consultant to guide the campaign early on, including the initial assessment of potential and to help clarify and define the goals. Her gut feeling was that, even with lead donors identified and business participation, it would be difficult in a town the size of Williston to raise more than $2M for a community center and that this would require a campaign of 3 years or perhaps more, depending on the size of the lead gifts. She also strongly cautioned that capital costs for a new activity like this typically pale in comparison to long term operating costs, and a successful campaign to raise construction costs would by no means guarantee a successful center—substantial ongoing investment in staffing and programming are needed. No lead donors were identified in our discussions, although most members of the task force felt that the business and private community would be receptive and had not yet been tapped. Finally, the topic of partnering with businesses was discussed at some length by the task force. The task force agreed that partnering a community center with a likeminded organization, and/or an existing space, might serve the following important purposes:

• maximize resources related to initial construction as well as operating expenses and staffing

• increase the odds of a fully utilized facility • capitalize on mutual needs and relationships • minimize the environmental impact of a facility

When and if plans proceed, the task force believes that opportunities for partnerships can be explored at that time. This concept might be more viable, for example, with structured recreation (e.g. with Catamount Family Center) or possibly a teen/youth center (e.g with the YMCA or the Essex Alliance Church). There are obvious drawbacks to some partnerships, notably that if paid membership is required this could be seen to exclude many residents. An obvious concern with a church partnership would be issues of separation of church and government; the task force believes that the latter would best be addressed by the selectboard in direct conversations with Alliance church leaders. Our initial discussion with Mr. Jeff Kolok from the Alliance church suggest that the church members and leadership are eager to support their community, are well aware of the town’s concerns about possible conflicts, and may be very open minded in these discussions. Based on our interviews, some possible business or not-for-profit partners that might be considered in the future are described in Attachment H.

of 38


What are the specific Recommendations of the Task Force? The following is a summary of the primary conclusions and recommendations of the Williston Community Center task force:

• The task force recommends that, if a community center is pursued, the focus should be on the needs of 1) seniors and 2) teens—potentially through a multigenerational, multifunction facility. Because of the current demand, probability of heavy utilization, and anticipated increase in future needs due to changing demographics, a senior center was given the highest priority overall.

• It was the conclusion of the task force that much of the immediate (1-5 year)

need can probably be met by existing community facilities. However, the task force concluded that longer term (5-10 year) needs, particularly among seniors, will not be served adequately without the creation of additional, town-run facilities. The task force recommends that the selectboard plan accordingly.

• The task force concluded that the most appropriate location for a community center would be within the historic Williston village. Acceptable sites include the town green/library, the Lyons property, the Old Brick Church, or near the WCS athletic fields. Further specifics of options we discussed for these sites are presented later in this report.

• The task force also agreed that if a cost-effective opportunity becomes available, it would be preferable to use/renovate/revitalize/conserve an existing structure rather than create an entirely new one. For example, the armory is an ideal location and adequate structure--this was not felt to be a realistic option at this time, but would have been given a very high priority if the potential barriers to acquisition of this site were smaller.

• The solution preferred by a majority of task force members would involve—perhaps starting 3-5 years from today—some combination of library expansion, redesign of the green, and construction of a community center utilizing either the current Dorothy Alling library site, or a combination also involving the Lyons property.

• The task force recommends that, if a community center is built to serve seniors, teens, or as a multigenerational center, it should be between 3000 s.f. and 6000 s.f. We should assume this facility would cost between $1.5 - 2 million if built today.

• The task force unanimously feels that the capital construction costs for a community center, if it were built now or in the near future, should not come

of 38


from taxes. This might change in as few as 3-5 years. If a fundraising campaign is initiated, we advise that the town hire an appropriate development consultant to help clarify goals and guide the campaign.

• The task force is also unanimous in feeling that the ongoing operating costs of a community center would need to be assumed, or heavily subsidized, by the town.

• The task force concluded that the costs of operating and staffing a future Williston community center cannot be fully absorbed by existing budgets and staffing. Some savings might be realized in a combined facility (e.g. a multi-level library/community center).

• The task force recommends that structured recreation should be pursued independently and not conjoined with the Community Center concept. Opportunities for the town to partner in this regard with the Catamount Family Center should be explored by the Selectboard or its designees (e.g. planning staff).

• The task force also recommends that the Selectboard meet directly with representatives of the Essex Alliance Church to explore possible community uses of the facilities they expect to build, and to proactively discuss concerns or conflicts that could arise from this public-private partnership.

• We also recommend that town staff explore further use of the Williston Armory. This space is ideal for many community activities, appears to be underutilized, and those in charge of the facility indicate they are receptive to greater use by the community.

of 38


Attachment A1 – Task Force Charge

Charge to the Williston Community Center Task Force

Purpose: To assess the need for a community center, analyze potential locations, develop preliminary cost estimates and evaluate the potential for private contributions. Background: In a Recreation Needs Summary, most of the needs identified in the Summary, are met in part with the existing town facilities. One type of facility identified as a need in Williston, is a place for teens and seniors to meet and participate in programs. Anecdotally many people have spoken about the need for some form of indoor community center that can serve a range of community functions. There are some indications that private financing might be available to fund a portion of the project costs. Membership: Membership on the Community Center Task Force shall consist of the following to be appointed by the Williston Selectboard:

1 member from the Selectboard 3 representatives from the community at large 1 representative from the Recreation Committee

The Town Manager and staff will provide support to the Task Force, as needed.

Charge: The Community Center Task Force is charged with the task of conducting a needs assessment for a community center. This assessment should address the following issues: research facilities available in other communities, check with local community groups to assess interest, identify potential uses, estimate the potential size of a building, identify potential private sources for contributions, identify potential grant resources, estimate potential costs and identify potential sites. Once the Task Force has completed its assessment, a written report shall be presented to the Selectboard for their review and consideration. This report should be provided to the Selectboard by June 2007. Approved by Selectboard: November 20, 2006

of 38


Attachment A2 – Task Force Members Terry Macaig, Chair Selectboard Kevin Finnegan Recreation Committee Kerry Castano Community Member Neil Boyden Public Works Carroll Lawes Community Member Mike Healey Community Member Rick McGuire Town Manager David Yandell Planning Commission

of 38


Attachment B – Process Followed The data gathering and outreach activities of the Task Force included the following efforts. 1. Persons Interviewed: The Task Force met with Andy Bishop from the Catamount Family Center, Marti Fiske Director of the Dorothy Alling Memorial Library, Lt. Colonel Robert Gingras of the Vermont National Guard/Armory, Sharon Gutwin owner of the Rehab Gym, Jeff Kolok of the Essex Alliance Church, Town Planner Lee Nellis, Principal John Turko of the Allen Brook School, and Tim Rollings and Mary Burns of the YMCA. Andrea Rogers, the Executive Director of the Flynn Center for the Performing Arts, was interviewed by phone. 2. Places Visited: Neil Boyden and Kevin Finnegan visited the Charlotte Senior Center, the Williston Woods Community Center, the Colchester Senior Center, and the Champlain Senior Center (McClure Multi-Generational Center). They gathered data on each centers’ size, amenities, activities, finances, etc. (See Attachment D – Places Visited). 3. Informal Exchanges: Task Force members had informal conversations with representatives of various community groups, town residents, professional colleagues, and individuals affiliated with community centers locally and regionally. 4. Town Meeting Day Survey: As part of a University of Vermont math class, Williston resident, Karla Karstens, and her students designed and conducted a Williston Community Center Survey (See Attachment F – Town Meeting Day Survey) to assess support for, and possible uses of, a community center. On March 5 and 6, 2007, the students were able to convince 261 people from the pool of 1,664 voters to complete a survey. The majority of those surveyed, 85%, were in favor of building a multi-purpose community center. However, the class noted that many people declined to participate in the survey because they didn’t support further construction and expressed tax-related concerns. 5. Task Force Survey: The Task Force developed a survey to assess the space needs of Williston Community groups (See Attachment E). The survey was announced by way of a letter to the editor in the Williston Observer, and was available on-line, by phone, through the Williston Recreation Department, and at the Dorothy Alling Memorial Library. There were no respondents to the survey. 6. Open Forum: On May 9, the Task Force held an open forum at the Town Hall inviting comment from individuals and groups. Approximately 15 individuals attended the

of 38


forum. Those who spoke expressed support for the concept, and offered ideas about what amenities a community center might provide. 7. Inventory of Existing Community Spaces: Kevin Finnegan completed an inventory of existing community spaces, noting amenities, fees, suitability, accessibility, availability and square footage. This inventory appears as Attachment D. 8. Recreation Needs Summary: This was taken from the current Williston Comprehensive Plan and appears as Attachment G. 9. Meetings. The Task force met 15 times over a 12-month period from the time the group was first charged in late 2006 until preparation of the final report in October 2007.

of 38


Attachment C – Sites Visited Charlotte Senior Center Williston Woods Community Center Colchester Senior Center Champlain Senior Center (McClure Multi-Generational Center) Richmond Library/Community Center VYCC headquarters/Richmond Monitor Barn

of 38


Attachment D – Inventory of Existing Community Spaces

Kevin Finnegan completed an inventory of existing community spaces, noting amenities, fees, suitability, accessibility, availability and square footage.

Facility Type Fee Permanent /

shared Suitability / versatility

Storage Handicap accessible

Availability SQ FT Notes

Town Hall

Meeting space no shared Limited (mtg / class)

no yes Limited / time dependent

800

Library


no yes Limited / high usage

300

Old Brick Church

Meeting space “performance”

kitchen

Not for local

groups

shared Limited (mtg / class /

perform)

no no Available often 400

WCS

Meeting space / gyms /

classrooms

yes shared adequate no yes Limited / high usage

No daytime

Multi (400 – 5000)

ABS


classrooms


No daytime

Multi (400 – 5000)

CVU


classrooms


No daytime

Multi (400 – 5000)

S & F Edge Athletic facilities

yes shared Limited (athletic)

no yes Limited / high usage

26,000 (field house)

Federated Church


no yes Limited / time dependent

800

of 38


Armory

Meeting space / gym

yes shared Limited (athletic /

class)

no yes Available often 5000

Fire Station


no yes undetermined 950

Police Station


no yes undetermined 800

Taft Farms

Meeting space n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Not available 600

Williston Woods

Meeting space kitchen

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Not available 1000

Whitney Hill

Meeting space kitchen

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Not available 800

of 38


Attachment E – Solicitation of Community Input

An open forum for community input was held on May 9, 2007. Task force members met with community members to hear and discuss their ideas and to take testimony on their concerns, needs, and preferences. The meeting was attended by approximately 12-15 community members. Public solicitation for this meeting was done through a letter in the Williston Observer as well as word of mouth from task force members and town staff. The letter from the task force was published in the Williston Observer approximately 2 weeks before, describing the process and soliciting participation and input.

of 38


Attachment F1 – Town Meeting Day 2007 Survey - Instrument

Assistance designing and implementing this survey, and all analysis and summarization of data, was done under the supervision of Prof. Karla Karstens of the UVM mathematics department as part of a UVM mathematics and statistics class she teaches. Karla enlisted the help of UVM students taking her class in conducting the survey, which was offered to people as they exited the Williston polling facility on town meeting day. Participation was voluntary, and was limited to those who showed up to vote that day, so may not be completely representative of overall public opinion. However the task force felt this was nevertheless very valuable. We sincerely appreciate Karla’s help and would like to thank her and the UVM students who participated for their efforts.

--------------------------------------------------------------

WILLISTON COMMUNITY CENTER SURVEY PLEASE COMPLETE ONLY ONE SURVEY PER HOUSEHOLD

1. If a Williston Multi-Purpose Community Center could be built and maintained with a combination of public and private funds, would you support this idea? ______ a. Yes ______b. No 2. Please rank each of the following needs for a possible Multi-Purpose Community Center on a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 meaning not necessary, to 4 meaning very necessary. 1 2 3 4 Not Somewhat Necessary Very Necessary Necessary Necessary __________a. Space & Programs for Seniors __________b. Space & Programs for Teens __________c. Space & Programs for Families with Young Children __________d. General Community Meeting Space __________e. Stage/Auditorium/Performance Space __________f. Gym & Exercise Space & Programs __________g. Pool & Aquatics Programs __________h. Other 3. Please list Community Center programs that might be of most interest to members of your household (Ex. playgroups, internet access, photography, basketball, open mic, book clubs, yoga, arts & crafts, volleyball, etc.):

of 38


4. What is your preferred location for a Community Center? _____a. Town Hall area _____b. Allen Brook School area _____c. Taft Corners area _____d. Other ___________ Demographic Information: 5. __________ Do you rent or own your home? 6. Do you have children? a. No b. Yes If yes, what are the ages of your children? ________________________________ 7. What is your age? a. 18 – 25 years b. 26 – 35 years c. 36 – 45 years d. 46 – 59 years e. 60+ years 8. How many members of your household might use a Community Center? ___________

of 38


Attachment F2 – Results of Town Meeting Day Survey

WILLISTON COMMUNITY CENTER SURVEY FINAL REPORT On March 5 and 6, 2007 Williston residents were surveyed by University of Vermont students to determine their interest in a Multi-Purpose Community Center. The survey also assessed interest in potential uses of the Community Center. The surveying was done in conjunction with Town Meeting and the voting on town and school budgets. Also on the ballot that day was a question on instituting a town ambulance service. While the town and CVU budget passed, the ambulance service and the local Williston school budget did not. The mood of many voters seemed to be one of fiscal responsibility and no new initiatives that would increase taxes. The students were able to convince 261 people, out of 1,664 voters that day, to fill out a survey and share their thoughts on the Community Center. It should be noted, however, that many people who did not fill out the survey declined because they didn’t think the town needed any new buildings, especially ones that would increase taxes. This observation should be considered when looking at the survey results. Highlights of the survey responses:

• The majority of those surveyed, 85%, are in favor of building a Multi-Purpose Community Center.

• Those who own their homes and families with children were more likely to be in favor of the Community Center.

• Space for Seniors and Teens were considered the most necessary use for the Community Center.

• The age group most represented by the survey is those residents 46 – 59 years old.

of 38


ny

Category

Pie Chart of Build

WILLISTON COMMUNITY CENTER SURVEY PLEASE COMPLETE ONLY ONE SURVEY PER HOUSEHOLD

1. If a Williston Multi-Purpose Community Center could built and maintained with a combination of public and private funds, would you support this idea? _____a. Yes _____b. No Build Count Percent n 40 15.33 y 221 84.67 N= 261

2. Please rank each of the following needs for a possible Multi-Purpose Community Center on a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 meaning not necessary, to 4 meaning very necessary. 1 2 3 4 Not Somewhat Necessary Very Necessary Necessary Necessary _____a. Space & Programs for Seniors _____b. Space & Programs for Teens _____c. Space & Programs for Families with Young Children _____d. General Community Meeting Space _____e. Stage/Auditorium/Performance Space _____f. Gym & Exercise Space & Programs _____g. Pool & Aquatics Program _____h. Other

of 38


Location

Coun

t

dcba

100

80

60

40

20

0

Chart of Location

Responses: Variable N Mean StDev Minimum Q1 Median Q3 Maximum Seniors 256 2.8125 0.9559 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000 4.0000 Teens 260 3.0385 0.9856 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000 4.0000 Families 258 2.5736 1.0458 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 3.0000 4.0000 Meeting 258 2.4264 1.0752 1.0000 1.7500 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000 Stage 256 2.0898 0.9841 1.0000 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000 Gym 255 2.3804 1.1049 1.0000 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000 Pool 255 2.2000 1.1685 1.0000 1.0000 2.0000 3.0000 4.0000

Dat

a

PoolGymStageMeetingFamiliesTeensSeniors

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

Boxplot of Seniors, Teens, Families, Meeting, Stage, Gym, Pool

3. Please list Community Center programs that might be of interest to members of your household (Ex. Playgroups, internet access, photography, basketball, open mic, book clubs, yoga, arts & crafts, volleyball, etc.) See Appendix. 4. What is your preferred location for a Community Center? _____a. Town Hall Area _____b. Allen Brook School Area _____c. Taft Corners Area _____d. Other _____ Location Count Percent a 99 42.86 b 54 23.38 c 54 23.38 d 24 10.39 N= 231 *= 30

of 38


abcde

Category

Pie Chart of Age

Demographic Information: 5. _____ Do you rent or own your home? Home Count Percent o 242 93.08 r 18 6.92 N= 260

Rows: Build Columns: Home o r All n 38 2 40 y 204 16 220 All 242 18 260

6. Do you have children? a. No b. Yes If yes, what are the ages of your children? _______________ Children Count Percent n 71 27.73 y 185 72.27 N= 256

Rows: Build Columns: Children n y All n 13 24 37 y 58 161 219 All 71 185 256

7. What is your age? a. 18 – 25 years b. 26 – 35 years c. 36 – 45 years d. 46 – 59 years e. 60+ years Age Count Percent a 7 2.71 b 17 6.59 c 66 25.58 d 104 40.31 e 64 24.81 N= 258 *= 3

of 38


Rows: Build Columns: Age a b c d e All n 3 0 13 13 9 38 y 4 17 53 91 55 220 All 7 17 66 104 64 258

8. How many members of your household might use a Community Center? __________ C17 Count Percent 1 28 12.84 2 81 37.16 3 34 15.60 4 54 24.77 5 19 8.72 6 2 0.92 N= 218 *= 43

of 38


Williston Community Center Programs A+C, yoga, internet access, open mic exercise center for teens All of the above exercise program, walking, track all of the above exercise, teen center all of the above exercise,dance class all sports fitness any fitness, recreational leagues, enrichment activities art fitness, yoga, karaoke, art general intrest arts and crafts gym arts and crafts gym arts and crafts gym arts/crafts gym athletic space and meeting space for various groups such as scouts, etc gym, swimming, clubs, basketball, spinning, squash basketball hiking basketball ice hockey basketball, book club, lectures, gen. sports ice skating basketball, pool indoor track, volleyball, gym basketball, summer camps, activities Inside recreation during winter months basketball, volleyball internet access basketball, volleyball internet access, book club basketball, yoga, swimming, play groups, rec programs internet access, photography, book club, excersize space basketball, yoga, volleyball internet access, software classes book club, open mic, music, yoga, art internet, book clubs, yoga, arts & crafts book clubs meeting hall book clubs, basketball meeting hall book clubs, children programs, place to schedule meetings and gatherings meeting space, internet access, athletics book clubs, discussion groups tai chi none book clubs, volleyball, yoga none book clubs, yoga none at this time book clubs, yoga, arts and crafts open mic book clubs, yoga, arts and crafts, gardening seminars, swimming outdoor pool, soccer, volleyball classes photgraphy, book clubs, yoga, arts and crafts, gardening Classes through recreation program for all ages photo crafts, get togethers, potlucks photography crafts, senior activities photography excersise, NO TV photography, art, teen activities Exercise photography, arts & crafts photography, basketball, art and crafts, volleyball yoga photography, book club yoga, art, meetings, lectures, sports photography, lectures yoga, arts & crafts, music-vocal play goups and arts and crafts yoga, arts and crafts

of 38

rmcguire

Text Box

Appendix - Comments from Survey - Question 3 Perceived need for programming Williston Community Center Programs


play groups, group sports, arts yoga, arts and crafts play groups, sports yoga, arts and crafts, swimming play/meeting groups yoga, board game nights, music playgroups, basketball, book clubs, yoga yoga, dance Playgroups, basketball, family sports, swimming yoga, discussions playgroups, exercise, flyfishing instruction yoga, exercise classes playgroups, indoor sports, exercise yoga, openmike playgroups, internet access, photography, basketball, open mic, book clubs, yoga, arts and crafts, volleyball, etc. yoga, playgrounds Playgroups, yoga yoga, volleyball, family physical games pool youth hangout area, video games pool pool pool, exercise pool, fitness Programs public pool recreation facilities, ropes course, climbing wall, community help programs eg AA, Alateen etc

senior activities Senior center for luncheons, exercise senior exercise/activities, yoga senior's activities, exercise, exercise classes SKATING PARK, yoga sports sports, arts & crafts, basketball swimming, children's programs swimming, dancing for teens swimming, yoga, open mic, photography, art swimming, yoga, open mic, photography, art swimming, yoga, open mic, photography, art teen activites, movies teen activities, self-defense, dog obedience Teen center teen nights, neighborhood annual meetings, scouts

tennis, racquet ball unneccessary volleyball, clubs, band volleyball, pool, craft center yoga Yoga

of 38


Attachment G – Town Recreation Needs Summary

RECREATION NEEDS DETAIL Based on standards in Comp Plan and Impact Fee Analyses Standard Current Status 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Proposed Solution

Need Facilities per 1,000 Existing Population 8,207 8,366 8,520 8,674 8,828 9,019 9,208 9,398 9,588 6.5 53.3 54.4 55.4 56.4 57.4 58.6 59.9 61.1 62.3 Community Recreation Area acres 37.4 -17.0 -18.0 -19.0 -20.0 -21.2 -22.5 -23.7 -24.9 Mahan Project 0.7 5.7 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.6 6.7 Multi-Purpose Path miles 5.3 -0.6 -0.7 -0.8 -0.9 -1.0 -1.1 -1.3 -1.4 2004 Bond 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.8 Multi-Purpose Field 0.6 3 -2.0 -2.1 -2.2 -2.3 -2.4 -2.5 -2.6 -2.8 Mahan Project 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 Baseball Diamond 0.2 1 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8 -0.9 -0.9 Mahan Project 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.8 Little League/Softball Diamond 0.4 4 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 Mahan Project 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 Basketball Court 0.5 3 -1.183 -1.26 -1.337 -1.414 -1.5095 -1.604 -1.699 -1.794 ◄ N/A 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 Tennis Court 0.5 4 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6 -0.7 -0.8 ◄ N/A 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 Vollleyball Court 0.5 2 -2.2 -2.3 -2.3 -2.4 -2.5 -2.6 -2.7 -2.8 ◄ N/A 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Swimming Area 0.05 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 ◄ N/A 16.4 16.7 17.0 17.3 17.7 18.0 18.4 18.8 19.2 Picnic Site 2 14 -2.7 -3.0 -3.3 -3.7 -4.0 -4.4 -4.8 -5.2 Community Park Phase III

of 38


0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 Picnic Shelter 0.1 0.0 -0.8 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -1.0 Community Park Phase III 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 Ice Skating Area 0.2 1.0 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8 -0.9 -0.9 Rossignol 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Preschool Center 0.01 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 ◄N.A 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.8 Gymnasium 0.4 3 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.5 -0.6 -0.7 -0.8 -0.8 Allen Brook Expansion 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Swimming Pool 0.05 0 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 ◄N/A 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 Teen Center 0.1 0 -0.8 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -1.0 ◄N/A 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 Senior Center 0.1 0 -0.8 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -1.0 ◄N/A In each cell, the top number is the number of units required to meet the standard, the bottom number is the deficit (need minus existing).

of 38


RECREATION NEEDS SUMMARY

Need Proposed Solution Defined Solution (funded in capital budget)

Outdoor 2 Multi-use fields

Mahan Project Mahan Project

1 Regulation Baseball Diamond


1 Little League / Softball Diamond


1 Regulation Basketball Court

N/A N/A

1 Tennis Court

N/A N/A

1 Volleyball Court

N/A N/A

1 Picnic Site

Community Park N/A

1 Picnic Shelter

Community Park N/A

1 Ice Rink

Rossignol Park Rossignol Park

Indoor 1 Gymnasium

Allen Brook Expansion N/A

Teen Center

N/A N/A

Senior Center

N/A N/A

Preschool Center

N/A N/A

of 38


Williston Recreation Standards From Town of Williston Comprehensive Plan 2006

7.6 Recreation The Town of Williston will continue to provide recreation programs. The town will also begin discussions of the need for an indoor recreation center. Note that parks are covered in Appendix C—Open Space and Working Landscapes Plan. Williston provides numerous recreation programs, outdoor and indoor. A summary of those programs appears in table 7.b. The Parks and Recreation Committee has identified a need for an indoor recreation facility. Such a building (or buildings) could include a gym and multi-purpose space that would provide space for many of the programs listed in table 7.b, and others. An ice skating rink and a swimming pool would be desirable additions to an indoor facility.1 Appendix C - 3.2 Meet the Need for Additional Community Park Development. Williston’s community parks include approximately 38 acres that are developed for recreational use. This amounts to about 4.6 acres per 1,000 population. After considering the local demand for developed park space, the presence of neighborhood parks, the area available for passive recreation in the town’s country parks, the growing system of paths and trail, and the private recreational opportunities that are available, Williston’s Parks and Recreation Committee has set a level of service standard of 6.5 acres per 1,000 persons. this means that: • An additional 15.5 acres of developed park space is needed to serve the existing population • 10–12 more acres of developed park space will be needed to serve the approximately 785 new dwellings that will be added over the next ten years. These figures will be refined in the study called for in 3.4, but the town does have undeveloped land available for development at the Allen brook (including the adjacent Mahan Farm property), Brennan, and Central school parks. The more important question is how that space should be developed. The parks and recreation Committee and planning commission have identified the following needs: 2 multiuse fields; 1 baseball diamond; 1 Little League/softball diamond; 1 full size public basketball court; 1 picnic shelter; a skate park; and a dog park. As noted in the comprehensive plan (see 7.6), the parks and recreation Committee has also identified a need for indoor recreation facilities, including a gym, an ice skating arena, a swimming pool, a teen center, a senior center, and a preschool center.2

1 Town of Williston, Comprehensive Plan 2006, Chapter 7: Public Facilities, section 6: Recreation 2 Town of Williston, Comprehensive Plan 2006, Appendix C: Open Space and Working Landscapes Plan, section 3.2: Meet the Need for Additional Community Park Development

of 38


Attachment H – Location and Partnership Opportunities

A summary of possibilities and deliberations related to potential sites discussed by that task force, and possible partnerships, follows. Allen Brook School: The task force met with Principal John Turko, who shared initial plans relative to an expansion of the Allen Brook School (ABS). He noted the school administration’s perceived need to add approximately eight classrooms to ABS, with a potential bond vote in 2009. Mr. Turko welcomed the possibility of the inclusion of a community center in the ABS expansion. This is an excellent location with reasonable accessibility from both the village neighborhoods as well as the Taft Corners’ region. Its location at the school would almost ensure that it was heavily utilized and, with proper design, multi-generational. The Task Force believes this is a potential worth pursuing if a village location is not possible. The Armory: The Armory’s location and amenities make it an ideal candidate for consideration. Unfortunately, even after a very useful and candid meeting between the task force and a senior member of the Vermont National Guard, much about the future of this facility and its utilization cannot be predicted. Lt. Colonel Robert Gingras met with the task force and explained that the Williston Armory figures prominently in the Vermont National Guard’s (VNG) long-term plans. At minimum, the VNG would need 16 acres and approximately $10,000,000 to build a replacement facility that meets current standards. Even if these resources were available, there are other Vermont armories that are in poorer condition than the Williston Armory, and they would be higher on the VNG’s priority list for replacement. The VNG is unlikely to prioritize replacement of this facility soon, and according to Lt.Col. Gingras, the central location of this facility is very nearly ideal for many purposes. In spite of this, he conceded that other VNG facilities around the state have sometimes reverted to town uses following political pressure. He felt that priorities often change as the VNG’s mission changes and that the changing mission of the national guard is a subject of some discussion. Although the task force was enthusiastic about this location, and felt the armory facility could easily meet the community’s needs in a number of ways, the political entanglements and potentially protracted process that might be required to liberate it from VNG use were a major concern. At this time, the task force does not believe this is an option worth pursuing for a community center, as it would likely involve extensive discussions and would also displace a valuable member of our community (the VNG) from a site it is very happy with. The armory suits the VNG’s needs well, and the VNG has extensive previous experience in being ‘evicted’ or otherwise moved from sites that it has established and maintained for years. However, Lt. Col. Gingras did express a willingness to entertain the notion of hosting particular community events at the armory, and possibly increased levels of community use, so the Recreation Department and other town staff should consider expanding their relationship with our neighbors at the armory.

of 38


One recommendation of the task force is to aggressively pursue these discussions; the VNG is both community-oriented and eager to avoid political pressure to be moved elsewhere. It is very likely that requests for increased utilization of this facility would be met favorably and could lead to a more active relationship with the VNG around community events held at the armory. Catamount Family Center: Andy Bishop shared the Catamount Family Center’s expansion plans with the task force. These plans include a conceptual ‘magic building’ that would be multi-purpose in nature, and might meet the needs of a community center. A Catamount location also offers the benefit of a multitude of outdoor recreational offerings – similar to a more ‘European style’ community center. The drawbacks of a partnership with Catamount include its out-of-the-way location, and the serious expansion hurdles yet to be cleared relative to zoning, and extension of town sewer and water service to the site. The plans are also in the very early stages and subject to many possible changes or pressures in the next few years. The Task Force does not believe this is a potential worth pursuing at this time for a community center, although some level of partnership or sharing should be discussed in terms of future structured recreation needs in Williston. If plans for a community center are shelved for a period of time, however, and the Catamount expansion proceeds, a partnership may well be worth considering in the future. Dorothy Alling Memorial Library: The library is currently functioning as a multi-purpose, multi-generational facility, serving both seniors and teens as well as other community groups. Library Director, Marti Fiske, met with the task force and expressed her desire to expand programming and services, but noted the physical limitations of the current space and her belief that the existing library could not accommodate further expansion. The task force was very impressed with the extent, quality and success of current programming and felt that this is a natural partnership and location if a future senior or teen center were built. Such a partnership could take advantage of library resources, and might leverage increased use and staffing for both entities. Drawing on his significant engineering expertise, Carroll Lawes expressed a belief that the library could be expanded, possibly to include a second story. This possibility was discussed at some length, including the idea of a redesign of circulation, parking, and green space including the WCS, library and town green. The Task Force believes this is a potential worth pursuing; this option was a favorite among several members and by consensus was one of the top 3 possible sites. One recommendation of the task force is that an engineering consultation be sought to determine the cost and suitability of this site, and the library facility, for proposed expansion and redesign. Essex Alliance Church/Williston Site: Jeff Kolok of the Essex Alliance Church met with the task force and shared plans for their proposed Williston site. The proposed facilities are remarkable, and include one major and three modest auditoriums, an industrial kitchen, a gymnasium, multiple classrooms and meeting rooms, generous internet connectivity, an atrium/coffee bar, an outdoor basketball court, and a soccer field. The church has a history of making its facilities available to a variety of community groups, and Mr. Kolok expressed the church’s sincere desire to play a responsible and active role

of 38


within the community of Williston. He also noted that while their facilities are heavily utilized on Sunday, for the balance of the week, the space is relatively unused; the Alliance Church focuses the vast majority of all religious services, classes, youth and teen groups, and other activities on Sunday. Mr. Kolok invited the town to present the church with an articulation of recreational and community needs they might fill and felt that church leaders would be open to discussion of possibilities. Clearly, access to such facilities would be of great benefit to the residents of Williston, and would meet most, if not all of the needs of a community center. However, the committee recognizes that some citizens would question the notion of separation between church and state if such a partnership were to be formed. At the same time, the Task Force also notes the unquestioned use of the Federated Church facility for a number of community activities. The Task Force believes that the review and permitting process relative to the church move forward separate and apart from any conversation related to a potential community center partnership. However, given the remarkable opportunity for Williston residents to take advantage of these impressive facilities, the task force recommends that conversations begin now to establish relationships and lay the foundation for eventual use of the facilities in some form, and at the very least to explore the Church leadership’s response to concerns of separation of church and government. If the approval process moves forward as planned, it is estimated that the facilities will be completed in 2011. The Lyons Property: The Lyons property would be a good, central site for a community center. As already town-owned property, it would reduce the cost of construction somewhat. It would provide easy access for many residents, and opportunities for shared parking and services. A survey and analysis of the land’s soils is currently underway, and more detail in this area is necessary before we can determine whether or not building here is even possible. This site would be high on the list of the task force if more were known about it, as it is nearly an ideal location. This site was not given high priority, however, primarily because of the unknowns of the site and potential for alternative or competing uses (e.g. affordable housing). This was felt to be an ideal location and, if development and site work costs were not excessive, could be an ideal solution to bridge future community center/library needs. Maple Tree Place: The Task Force considered the use of the land the town owns at Maple Tree Place. The retail district of Williston is the area in town that is, perhaps, least conducive to building community among Williston residents. In addition, some task Force members questioned the comfort parents would have leaving teens unsupervised in this area of town. The Task Force did not believe that building a community center at Maple Tree Place was an idea worth pursing, in part because this site may have higher overhead costs and would be more valuable as a site for retail or other central services. However, depending on the restrictions governing the use the land, selling it, and using the proceeds to create a community center is a possibility worth consideration. The Old Brick Church: The Task Force was unanimous in feeling that this site is an ideal location, and that the current building is a major landmark and important town resource that is woefully under-utilized. This building is similar to ones in other towns (e.g. the Richmond Library) that are centrally located and have been converted to modern uses

of 38


without destroying their aesthetic or historic appeal. The task force discussed at some length the various ways that use of this facility might be increased to accommodate various community needs identified in our process. Because of the lack of parking, accessibility, kitchen facilities, storage space, and open ‘multi-use’ space, the building as it sits now is not particularly useful except for small group meetings (basement), and weddings or religious services that use the sanctuary. The task force debated the pros and cons, and engineering challenges,that would be involved in renovating e.g. the basement area to be larger and more accessible, with adequate plumbing and kitchen facilities. It was agreed that this would both a complex engineering project as well as a politically and aesthetically sensitive option due to the historic nature of the building. Removal of pews and conversion of the sanctuary to a more modern multi-function space was not felt to be an attractive option, given that the Brick Church has already undergone period restoration, although this has been done elsewhere very effectively (e.g. Richmond Library). Some task force members felt that, in spite of the sensitivity of this site, discussion of this option should still be explored at least in public forum before this site is discounted as a viable option. Business Community/Rehab Gym: The Task Force met with Sharon Gutwin, owner of the Rehab Gym, to explore her reaction to the general possibilities and considerations of a public/private community center partnership—for example, the idea of a shared pool or other structured recreation created and maintained in partnership with a for-profit business like the Rehab Gym. Ms. Gutwin expressed her support of the concept, despite the fact that the conversations were necessarily preliminary and vague. The Task Force is of the opinion that if a ‘new build’ for a community center is proposed, a public/private partnership that will generate revenue to support the facility deserves consideration in spite of possible conflicts. Businesses whose customers are seniors and/or teens might include physical therapists, optometrists, dentists, and orthodontists. The YMCA: The task force met with Tim Rollings and Mary Burns, who explained that the YMCA is actively seeking an expansion site and has long considered Williston a prime location. While he did not have specific plans for a Williston facility, he shared a representative model. The generic facility shown would meet many of the needs of a community center. However, it is the view of the Task Force that a partnership with the YMCA would be likely to be based on formalized memberships, and would not necessarily support more casual opportunities for community members to come together. That, coupled with the fact that the plans are so conceptual in nature, lead the Task Force to believe that this is not an opportunity worth pursuing at this time. However, if the plans for a community center are shelved for some time, a partnership may well be worth considering in the future.

of 38

Williston Community Center Task Force Final ReportF506B13C-605B... · 2016-10-11 · Final Report...

Documents

Transcript of Williston Community Center Task Force Final ReportF506B13C-605B... · 2016-10-11 · Final Report...