Read the Nov. 19 update: Residents organize to save the South Boulder Recreation Center
Update: This story was updated at 11:30 a.m. on Oct. 16 to include additional comments from the city regarding a potential ballot measure.
The South Boulder Recreation Center, which opened in 1974, has been deteriorating for years and is nearing the end of its life, according to city officials. The pool is leaking, and the boiler that heats it failed in 2021, flooding the gym. The boiler still needs to be replaced, and if it fails again, the pool will permanently close. Issues with the sewer system could cause it to fail, preventing wastewater from leaving the building and forcing the immediate closure of the rec center.
Now, the city is deciding how — or if — to replace the aging South Boulder rec center. Replacement is estimated to cost at least $21 million, according to city planning documents, though it could be much more. This is money the city doesn’t have.
This financial dilemma has created uncertainty about one of the city’s three rec centers where people can swim laps, play tennis, lift weights and attend fitness classes. As the building continues to deteriorate, levels of service are expected to decline, leaving many South Boulder residents frustrated and in the dark. Some fear their local rec center is about to close, according to emails sent to city officials. One option is to expand services at the other two rec centers, though many believe this would inadequately replace their walkable rec center.
In response to community concerns, officials have offered little solace.
Last month, Ali Rhodes, director of the city’s Parks and Recreation Department, told city council that while there are “no imminent plans” to close it, the center’s age and condition make major repairs and renovations “not feasible.” A 2016 assessment projected the center would reach the end of its life by 2026.
“The metaphor we’ve been using is how you don’t put a new engine in a very old car,” department spokesperson Jonathan Thornton told Boulder Reporting Lab. He said the city plans to keep the center operational through routine maintenance until it becomes inoperable.
What is clear is that it won’t be around much longer. Before deciding whether to move programs or invest in a new building, the city has sought community input on which indoor activities are most important. Officials will use that feedback to estimate the cost of replacing those services at the North and East Boulder rec centers, or by developing a new South Boulder facility. One option to fund construction could be pursuing ballot measures in 2025 or 2026.
“It’s still early in the process for us to start putting together a ballot measure,” Thornton said. “One could be collaboratively drafted by the city and the community in the future, and be reviewed by city council. If this is the direction the community, PRAB [Parks and Recreation Advisory] and council want to go, then we will pursue that.”
Deferred maintenance reaches tens of millions, creating a much larger problem
The failing South Boulder rec center highlights a much larger conundrum: how to maintain the city’s aging buildings and infrastructure amid budget constraints caused by rising costs and flattening sales tax revenues.
According to the 2021 Facilities Plan Guiding Principles Assessment, the average building operated by the City of Boulder is 47 years old, and maintenance costs rise significantly after 25 to 30 years. In 2021, the deferred maintenance cost for all city facilities was $55 million, a figure projected to more than double by 2030.
“Costs to maintain this portfolio of buildings will soon spiral out of control,” the report states.
At nearly 50 years old, the South Boulder recreation center received a D rating in the 2021 facilities plan. Its low grade reflects the high cost to maintain it, its failure to meet accessibility goals, and its lack of alignment with sustainability plans. The rec center received its highest grade, a C, for resilience, which refers to its ability to withstand disasters like floods and wildfires that are increasing due to climate change.
The center’s maintenance issues date back years. Thornton noted that if the pool had been renovated 15 years ago, the facility might not face closure or replacement today. However, the 2008 financial crisis prevented that renovation. And the money simply isn’t there.
The city allocates maintenance funding across all rec centers. Any project exceeding $100,000 must draw from the Capital Improvement Program, but currently, no funds are earmarked for the South Boulder rec center. If major repairs are needed, the Parks and Recreation and Facilities Departments will consult the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the city council on whether to proceed.
Public feedback on the Future of Recreation Centers project closed last month, and discussions on the South Boulder center’s future will go before city council in spring 2025 as part of a broader review of the city’s long-term financial strategy.
To stay informed about updates on the South Boulder facility and other city rec centers, officials recommend signing up for email notifications.
Perhaps the city should rethink the unwanted/poorly planned Iris Ave. project and direct that amount of funding to replace/repair the boiler. If I’m remembering correctly, the Iris project had a 5 million dollar price tag.
Perfect, Linda!
Putting a price tag on safety of pedestrians and cyclists is certainly a take. Not a good one, but if we can convert one horrible traffic artery into something safer, it’s worth it. As for other costs, suburban maintenance is pretty well known to bleed municipalities dry. See Strong Towns “How Suburban Infrastructure Got More Expensive Over Time.”
How did a much smaller Boulder afford to build three Rec Centers and now cannot afford to replace one?
Some additional context: Both South and North were built from funds from a $1.6M recreation bond in the early 1970s, according to city officials. That’s the equivalent of about $12 million today, if adjusted for inflation.
I’ve never understood why amazing structures and infrastructure could be built, but there was not any long range planning on how to maintain anything. How was it that in the 1950s an entire interstate highway system was created across the U.S, but now it’s a major undertaking to build a bike lane on two mile stretch or road in a relatively wealthy mid-size city like Boulder? How is it we have large numbers of people living on the streets in all of our major cities and this has become the new normal? Doesn’t seem like this is not going to get any better. If local governments’ only solution is to keep finding new ways to jolt the economy to higher levels of production and consumption in order to increase city revenues, that creates even greater wealth disparities as the AMI continues to climb along with the cost of living.
“…laws and decisions have made it much easier for citizens to contest infrastructure projects, driving up their cost and delaying their implementation and completion.” See an article titled “Why Does American Infrastructure Cost More and Take Longer To Build Than It Used To?”
They won’t replace it. CC and Staff tell us that WE have to replace it ourselves. We have to groundswell a bond issue and convince the whole city to support it. These types of things can take years, and the rec center could close tomorrow according to Ali. Meanwhile, they’ll soon ask us for 500M (maybe 1B by the time they get around to it) to build staff and CC spanking new offices at Alpine and Broadway. You think this will be the first asset they forfeit via their own negligence? The backsliding of Boulder continues, and staff and CC are to blame.
So strange. A few city councils ago they were complaining nonstop about how they couldn’t afford the property taxes on Alpine Balsam and needed to sell it asap. This renovation project has been slow walked ever since. They should just hand it over to Habitat for Humanity and call it a day. We need more nonprofit developers in the mix.
This is the counterintuitive policy of Boulder at work. Build population in Boulder without the infrastructure like rec. centers to support it. And this is NOT about affordability of housing needed. It’s a saturated market. There are always 10 high end units for every affordable one in Boulder. Which further drive up the cost from property tax value in the cycle of despair.
Excellent reporting! The city of Boulder still thinks it has funding for things like the electricity takeover, closing the airport and suing the FAA, buying the old hospital to knock it down, etc while not maintaining existing assets. Wastewater seems like a similar issue where the city was not doing adequate maintenance and now we’re paying big fees every month to catch up. How can you run a rec center for fifty years and not plan for replacement of major systems? Is this the plan for every city service? Libraries, parks, police, fire, streets, water? It feels like the city is far over-extended with big idea projects but can’t keep up with the basic needs of running the city.
What a wasted opportunity! A replacement facility could be a great income generator (I will gladly pay a gym membership to join a NEW gym with updated equipment and somewhere to recreate during winter months). Where will the students train for swim team?! How about an awesome space that students want to meet up or hang out in after school (and stay out of trouble?) that they can walk or bike to? Let’s increase car traffic instead by shuttling them elsewhere across Boulder County. Why did we build a brand new high school that looks like a jail facility (New Vista) when school enrollment has been trending down?! Let’s build a restaurant on the reservoir (is this used AT ALL) or improve a golf facility (what?!) but there is NO plan for this community rec center?! Don’t understand the incompetence of the people making these decisions. Lease the land to someone with some business acumen and hire people with proper planning backgrounds.
When I moved here almost 20 years ago, the problems of the South Boulder Recreation Center were discussed. Huge funds were appropriated for two projects that are only open a few months out of the year, Scott Carpenter and Boulder Reservoir. Last year I had to vote for more funds to renovate EBCC and just heard that they are no firm plans for that renovation. Isn’t it about time that funds are allocated for our South Boulder community? Here is the mission statement put out by Parks and Rec: “The Parks and Recreation Department promotes the health and well-being of the entire Boulder community by collaboratively providing high-quality parks, facilities, and programs. This mission will be accomplished through sustainable practices, partnerships, continuous improvement and a focus on the common good, service excellence and with health at the core of all we do.” Parks and Rec has never fulfilled this mission for our South Boulder high school, middle schools, and elementary schools and our wonderful community. Isn’t it about time?
“entire” seems to have slipped by them!
How is it we are informed in a detailed way about how many decades they have known about the obvious need to allocate maintenance and refurbishment funds, yet there are zero dollars available? It’s clear to me they plan to bulldoze it at the first opportunity. “Drive somewhere else”, says the CC. Huh? Contradict much?
Eric I agree, BUT the municipalization was and will be a very positive move for putting money in the pockets of the local Boulder stakeholders, not Xcel’s shareholders. The profitability business model is wrong.
Roxanne , we held Alpine/Balsam so long, now there will be a lot less affordable’s.
North and South Rec Centers are similar. Can you help us understand how they compare?
1. Have they been fairly/proportionately invested in and treated equally?
2. If South falls to become something other or less than a desirable rec center, and North is roughly the same age, are we setting a precedent for North without realizing it?
3. Or does aiming low for South then fund North, and by acquiescing we just sacrificed South?
4. How does this impact high schools that use it for swim teams?
North and South are not similar because North has more amenities for families with young children. This is includes a large splash pool and the state of the art gymnastics facility. South was closed because of the life guard shortage so the Fairview HS swim team had to practice at East. This was a disaster because the public transportation got them to practice an hour late and many of the swimmers just quit the team. Money somehow seems to be available for North and East but not for South. Money also seems to be available for facilities that are only open in the summer. Some how large amounts of money was available for Scott Carpenter and Boulder Reservoir rebuilds. The question is why is money never available to even adequately maintain the South Boulder Recreation Center?
South was closed because the pool closed? I used the weight room almost exclusively, and most of my friends did not use the pool either. I hardly knew anyone who used the racket courts, and the gym was too large to break into smaller groups where it may have been used more because I rarely saw anyone there either to play basketball. The tiny yoga room, I’ll call it, I also used for exactly that. Frankly, I saw more women there than men on most days The space could be better utilized, perhaps and I do think the pool is important, but I am a little shocked that the entire place closed down because of that.
You are correct. The pool was closed, but the center was open except on weekends. They have now added limited hours on the weekends. The racket courts are very busy all of the time because of pickleball. The gym can be divided into two courts and is used for volley ball games. Right now the pool is full most of the hours that it is open. I know because I swim there and spoke to the lifeguard. There are yoga classes and barre classes in the dance room. On Thursdays there are classes scheduled from 6:30am until 1:30pm.
So it sounds like it’s picked up. That’s great! I think it’s tough to offer what everyone wants when it’s not meant to be a big place. I hope SBRC stays and gets the work done it needs.
Sound like there’s a j/h imbalance issue finding lifeguards to commute in for lower pay than they can justify living in Boulder, among misallocation of funds and developer subsidies that don’t include impact fees for city services.
Respectfully, no one is traveling into Boulder for a lifeguard position or using this vocation as a life sustaining opportunity. My neighbor in South Boulder was a student at Fairview and on the swim team there and also Mesa swim team growing up. She became a lifeguard, it’s one of the jobs teens can even apply for. She said the community she built via Mesa and swimming is one of the longest lasting ones she has had in Boulder. She’s now a college graduate and teaching abroad for the time being. So I don’t think the city understands the community and connections they will be negatively disrupting and preventing for future generations by their neglect. We need these services.
Thanks Jess for clarifying that it is the city’s failure to utilize our own resources! Fabulous.
Adaptive reuse. Have a creative challenge. Sounds to me there’s a lot to save. Remake the pool into something and dig a new pool. Give incentives to residents to offer community use on personal pools.
But mostly, let the developer pay and close the wealth divide.
I find the “age of the facilities argument” unconvincing as the city actually contemplates as one option getting rid of services the local community values. This is the gradual third-worldization of America, reflected in diminishing amenities even in a relatively affluent community. Private wealth, public squalor. What kind of management is this?
One suspects a hidden intent hidden these new proposals. I don’t want to think that the paranoid right-wing trope about the deep state is at work in our city. The figures I have looked at suggest that the Boulder government is a bloated one, compared to college towns this size, like Madison. Are monies going to support the over-compensated bureaucratic class at the expense of ordinary citizens and their facilities? Maybe we should put in ballot measures to radically reduce the size of the Boulder government to the norm elsewhere, and cultivate a trim, effective institution that actually improves the lives of existing residents. I find distressing the use of seemingly progressive slogans in our institutions while serving very narrow group identity and economic interests. How could facilities that once served a less affluent community decades ago be subject to “repurposing” when the community has become more affluent and are paying higher taxes of all sorts. Let’s have true progressivism. No effort must be spared to continue providing South Boulder with its existing amenities. Is one asking too much to request the repair of the fourth world road in my area, and I dare say, to enhance what we have, as all vibrant communities and their leaders do.