New Millbrae community center design picked

Choosing the modern design, which is expected to cost roughly $800,000 more than the alternative, arrived as officials are still hashing out a financing plan following voters shooting down a bond proposed to build the replacement center.

For his part, Holober said he was uncomfortable pursuing the more expensive option as officials attempt to put together a piecemeal plan to raise the more then $30 million needed for construction.

“I think the cost is an important consideration. We are trying to cobble together $30 million, give or take, for this project and I’d prefer without having to do another bond measure. And because of that, there have to some areas where we can economize. For that reason, I’m going with the porch option for the cost savings,” he said, according to video of the meeting.

The community porch design which Holober preferred is a traditional look proposed to cost about $30.2 million while the modern, “park lanterns,” proposal was estimated to cost about $31 million.

Councilmembers generally agreed the lanterns design was more attractive, but Papan ultimately sided with Holober in justifying her vote for the less expensive alternative.

“We have to be as fiscally responsible as we can, so I would have to go with the porch,” she said.

Ultimately though their perspective was outweighed by colleagues who favored the more creative design, which some officials suggested could be partially financed through contributions from the community.

Councilwoman Ann Schneider said she felt the design favored by the majority was more iconic, and that it would look better over time than the traditional option.

“It puts us on the map,” said Schneider, of the lanterns design.

To raise the additional money needed to finance the more expensive facility, Schneider said she is confident fundraising opportunities exist which do not include seeking voter support.

“I’m more than willing to go out and figure out how to make up an $800,000 difference that wouldn’t involve go to the taxpayers,” said Schneider.

Councilwoman Anne Oliva too expressed optimism there could be ways to creatively generate the extra money needed to construct the modern design, which was preferred by many community groups, residents and subcommittees too.

“I don’t think it’s going to be that difficult to raise that extra money,” she said.

Selling naming rights, seeking sponsorships and collecting donations were among some of the community fundraising strategies identified by officials looking for contributions.

Officials are reticent to go back to voters to raise money for constructing the facility after a bond measure proposed in the previous election fell short of the supermajority required to pass.

Since the bond’s defeat, officials applied for grant funding, looked to sell city property and considered other innovative means of raising the roughly $30 million needed to rebuild the center without taxpayer money. Insurance money will contribute as well, but the settlement is insufficient to construct a modern facility.

In the wake of the tax failure, officials reconsidered the design and examined a new look for the center. The amenities included in the new preferred design are similar to those in the facility previously sought.

Officials have examined ways to rebuild the center since it was destroyed by arsonists in 2016. A temporary center exists, but officials are hopeful to construct a permanent facility capable of accommodating an evolving and growing community.

With the new direction picked for the preferred design, architects said they would return at an upcoming meeting with more information about operational costs and ways to save money on construction.

For his part, Mayor Wayne Lee lauded the design decision as a pivotal move in the effort to rebuild the center sorely missed by so many residents.

“This is a huge step toward rebuilding our community center,” he said.