Related sites:

Click here for more information on the Alex G. Spanos Sports and Recreation Complex

A committee created to review earlier design elements and forge ahead with the planning of the recreation wellness and events center discussed why the decision was made to split the project into four phases and looked at possible project revisions during its first meeting.

Some of the possibilities presented to the committee included a suggestion that the bowling center may prove too costly and a proposal to add a 2,500-seat arena in the recreation and wellness center since the lack of funds leaves the events center timeline undetermined.

The nine-member committee met on April 19 and is made up of three student representatives, and six faculty, administrative and staff members. The committee is set to review the decisions of the 2004-05 steering committee, said Leslie Davis, director of the University Union.

The committee will consider project elements over three meetings and will present Sacramento State President Alexander Gonzalez with final project recommendations, including input from the architectural firm Ellerbe Becket, following its May 15 meeting.

“Time is of the essence, we hope to wrap this up in three meetings ?” the whole idea is to get the design started,” said Ron Richardson, associate vice president of Facilities Services.

John Davis, design architect with Ellerbe Becket, said the four phases of the project include the estimated $8.9 million Broad Athletic Facility set to be built by February 2008; the estimated $55-60 million recreation and wellness center set to open during spring of 2010; and the events center and stadium renovations which have undetermined costs and timelines.

Project designer Stephen Sefton said the project ?” now named the Alex G. Spanos Sports and Recreation Complex ?” was originally one connected building, and was divided as a result of two elements: the need for future growth and the desire to keep the practice track intact.

With approximately 80,000 square feet of expansion space, John Davis said the project would now have a chance to grow to include amenities that don’t make it in this time around.

In spring 2005, the issue to divide the project was identified and three possible plans were presented to the steering committee, Leslie Davis said.

Of the three plans, the plan to separate the phases was chosen because it met the two elements and “it really allowed that area to breathe,” Sefton said. “It gives it a dynamic energy.”

Some of the main project elements likely to be included in the recreation center are four gym courts, a 15,000-square-foot cardio and weights facility, climbing wall, a basketball court and locker rooms, John Davis said. The wellness center should feature a nutrition office, massage therapy facility, and educational and psychological services.

But one change proposed by architects entails postponing or eliminating the idea of a bowling center.

“It (the bowling alley) is fairly limited with the 5,000 square feet allocated in the program,” John Davis said. “It requires high ceiling, wood flooring and is less flexible for different use.”

John Davis said bowling alleys are not being built at universities anymore because it’s a “shrink sport.”

Ken Morton, recreational sports coordinator, said most bowling alleys are housed in university unions and that “glow bowling,” or bowling while drinking alcohol, would not be permitted at this facility ?” something that may turn student interest away.

Morton also said that since the University Student Union ?” the 2004-05 committee composed of two ASI members, two University Union board members and two recreational sports members ?” had asked the university to include either an aquatics center, a movie theater or a bowling alley, the university should try to accommodate at least one of the requests.

“And we kind of chose the cheaper of the three,” Morton said.

Tony Moayed, construction manager for TMCS Inc., said if the bowling idea wasn’t taken up, the university could make a deal with a local bowling center for student discount nights. Moayed said the university should ask the students whether they feel the operating costs of the bowling center would be worth it to them.

Another key question brought to the committee’s attention is whether an additional arena should be built inside the recreation and wellness center.

“Should we be thinking about a smaller arena with the events center pending?” Sefton asked. He said if so, the committee would have to make cuts to other proposed facilities.

Sefton said the arena proposal is in response to the feedback from the university.

Cynthia Collins, administrative analyst for the College of Natural Science and Mathematics, asked if the 2500-seat arena could be mixed-use and provide a revenue stream for the recreation and wellness center. Other committee members agreed this would be a necessary component of the new facility.

“I don’t think it would ever compete with the events center ?” it’s a different animal,” Sefton said.

Scott Model, professor of kinesiology and health science, said he would like to see the proposed arena built as a flexible recreation space.

“If it only focused on athletics then it wouldn’t answer the question of where the events center went,” Model said.

Also during the meeting, faculty representatives pushed administrators for answers on whether the $25 million raised by Gonzalez will be pledged to the construction of the Broad Athletic Facility.

Stephen Perez, associate professor of economics, asked the committee whether the total cost of the project will include the new athletic facility and was told it was undetermined which pot of money will be used.

“I think you should be prepared to answer questions,” Perez said. “If I am sitting here as a representative for faculty, then I feel it is my job to bring the questions faculty are talking about.”

Moayed said he would get back to Perez regarding his questions.

Model said the answer is important to students who don’t want to see a fee assessed for something they hadn’t voted for in the referendum. Model was the stand-in for committee member Joyce Harris, director of the Health Center.

The student fees, which include a $56 summer fee and a $110 fall fee and were set begin in June, are now put off indefinitely because there are many uncertainties surrounding the project, said Gonzalez at the April 19 Associated Students Inc. board meeting.

Leslie Davis said although the referendum doesn’t specifically refer to new athletic facility, its replacement was discussed throughout the University Union campaign preceding the election.

As the committee moves forward, John Davis said its important that members take a look at all programs, check off components and be prepared to discuss them.

Jessica Weidling can be reached at [email protected]