Elizabeth Camron, representing residents from Newton Avenue South and Morgan Avenue South, articulated the potential problems stemming from the center’s parking arrangements. She highlighted that the current design does not meet the city’s parking code requirements and warned that peak operational hours could result in parking overflow onto residential streets. This concern was compounded by the anticipated increase in traffic on Newton Avenue, a residential road, which Camron argued was not equipped to handle such a volume of vehicles. She questioned the ability of emergency vehicles to navigate the area during congestion, particularly in winter when snowbanks pose additional challenges. The proximity of railroad tracks and limited eastbound routes during rush hour were also cited as potential obstacles.

Camron voiced worries about noise and light pollution affecting the neighborhood’s quality of life. She described how the parking lot’s location near homes could lead to disturbances from car lights and noise year-round. Safety for children and pets was another concern, especially given the absence of sidewalks on Morgan Avenue and limited pedestrian infrastructure. Additionally, Camron expressed apprehension about a potential rise in crime, questioning the security measures to be implemented at the center. She concluded by urging a pause and reassessment of the project’s planning, citing a lack of clear communication with residents regarding its implications.

Following Camron, Gary Big addressed the council, advocating for the preservation of Creekside as a senior center. While acknowledging the need for a new Community Health and Wellness Center, Big criticized the plan to close Creekside for two years, which he argued would negatively impact seniors relying on its services. He suggested upgrading Creekside at a lower cost instead of demolishing it, and expressed skepticism about the necessity of duplicating existing facilities. Big emphasized the importance of maintaining senior activities within the community without disrupting current services.

The council members responded to these concerns by acknowledging the issues raised and reaffirming their commitment to accommodating senior activities during Creekside’s closure. They assured that most activities would be replicated at other venues, although they recognized potential differences in experience. A council member highlighted the substantial deferred maintenance issues at Creekside, arguing that investing in minor upgrades would be insufficient. The council also aimed to engage the community in the design process of the new center.

The discussion broadened to encompass the needs and services for the senior population, with council members emphasizing the importance of data-driven decision-making. Despite 25,000 seniors residing in the city, only a fraction uses the Creekside Senior Center, raising questions about the feasibility of assuming increased senior participation at the new facility. The council discussed plans for senior activities, such as woodworking classes and transportation to stimulate interest, but noted low past engagement levels. They reiterated the need for the new center to operate cost-neutrally to avoid additional tax burdens on residents.

Public comments later shifted to parking issues, particularly concerning a petition about no parking zones on Fremont Avenue. A resident expressed frustration over parking challenges, including illegal parking and littering. They sought clarity on the process for altering parking regulations, emphasizing the need for community input and clear communication from city staff. The resident voiced concerns about potential increases in parking problems and the urgency of resolving these issues.