"No" on Emeryville Center for Community Life

Edited version of email to residents from Council Member John Fricke (sent March 22, 2009).
RE: The City Council’s plans for the Emeryville Center for Community Life (ECCL), described on the website designed exclusively to promote it, as a place where “schools, community services, arts, and recreation programs are integrated.” The price tag? More than $120 million.

At last Tuesday’s (March 19) meeting, the City Council began the process of hiring an architect to design new community facilities – to be known as the Emeryville Center for Community Life – at the high school site (on San Pablo between 47th and 53rd streets). The architecture fees alone are estimated at $11 million, and would be paid from the city’s redevelopment money. The entire project is estimated to cost $120 million. When completed, the project (“ECCL”) would include new school facilities and city-run services. I voted “no” for a number of reasons.

The city’s redevelopment money could be better spent on less grandiose projects. For example, Emeryville needs a permanent recreation center. In 2006, the city estimated the cost of a new recreation center at $6 million. Instead of preparing to spend $11 million on architects’ fees, the city should provide a new rec center.

The money could also be spent to create more parks and open space. The park soon to be completed at 61st and Hollis cost about $8 million to buy the land, and design and construct the park.

The ECCL plan includes having all grades – kindergarten through 12th grade – at the high school site. Having just completed a $9 million renovation of the existing grammar school, the school district would abandon this school site. ECCL construction is scheduled to begin in 2011.

In these tough economic times, it doesn’t make sense to be planning to spend $120 million on a project, especially since it’s unclear where the money will come from.

Even if the money is found to construct the project, running the facility is going to demand a larger city budget. ECCL proponents argue that the project will actually save money in maintenance costs since a number of current city services and school functions will be consolidated in one location, thus saving operating money by sharing administrative functions. Can the city and school district expand the number of programs while saving money?

ECCL proponents are very ambitious in what programs will be offered: “180,000 square feet of interior space made up of general instruction classrooms, meeting rooms, administrative offices, 2 gymnasiums, multi-purpose areas, art and music studios, dance and fitness studios, space for preschool and before and after school activities, technology centers, teacher work areas, parent and teacher resource areas, library, and a health and wellness center. The outdoor space would include soccer field, football field, baseball field, basketball courts, a year-round swimming pool, a running track, gardens, and green open space.”

The city’s budget is stretched as it is. Sales tax revenue is down, and the city council is debating whether to raise taxes. I support raising taxes if the alternative means cutting back city services. I don’t think this is the best time to be planning for a facility that will likely demand a larger city operating budget.

Finally, nothing has been decided on how the joint facility would be governed. The city’s redevelopment money would be spent for a project on school district property. In places like Chicago and New York, the school superintendent answers to the mayor and the school budget is part of the city budget. In California, school districts are governed by separate, elected boards. Before the city uses its redevelopment agency money for a project on school property, it behooves us to know what governmental body will be ultimately responsible for what goes on at the facility.