Saline MI
11-18-2025 12:51am

No New Money Identified for Saline Rec Center in Preliminary Talks

Saline City Council received a brief update on what will be happening to sustain the Saline Rec Center over the next six months. City Manager Dan Swallow made the report to council during Monday's council meeting.

Swallow said the Rec Center has engaged in cost-cutting measures. For example, he said, the Rec Center has eliminated some of its printed brochures in favor of electronic versions.

The city has applied for a grant for new lobby furnishings. The goal is to make the lobby a gathering space. 

Swallow said there are new program offerings as well as enhancements to existing programs, including personal training options at the Rec Center.

On Dec. 14 the Rec Center will begin a membership drive.

"We are trying to get membership levels a little closer to what they were before the pandemic," Swallow said.

A big part of the plan is reaching out to potential partners at Saline Area Schools, Washtenaw County and elsewhere.

"We're trying a regional approach to the center as well as a regional funding of the recreational center," he said. 

He said the city has had preliminary discussions with Pittsfield Township, Washtenaw County and Saline Area Schools. 

"There are no formal financial commitments at this point but I think there was a very good discussion, and there were some new ideas that came out of that," he said.

He said the county indicated it could help the city with financing capital improvements.

Swallow said the "process" of stabilizing the Rec Center's financials could take 6-18 months.

Mayor Brian Marl said he was recommending that city staff update city council on the situation in February.

Councillor Janet Dillon said February may be too late for an update.

"We're in the midst of budgeting right now," she said. "I'd like to have a clearer understanding of the funding sources going into the next fiscal year.  I think that this body needs to have a clearer, more precise understanding of these potential partnerships and what's being brought to the table."

She said it's nice the county offered some financing assistance, but she noted council must have the money to pay the bonds.

And if the city is going to attempt a millage, council needs to understand the details.

Swallow said it was unlikely that the city would have those details until the next fiscal year.

Dillon asked when the city council will discuss what will be cut out of the general budget to compensate for the Rec Center.

"The number just keeps getting higher, and so we're going to have to find offsets," she said. "We've done some minor things and we're doing a membership drive. Every year we talk about a membership drive. I appreciate the efforts, it's just not enough to pay the bills."

Councillor Dean Girbach said he heard feedback that the school district was not supportive of a Rec Center millage. Girbach noted the Rec Center was about "$700,000 in the hole" before a contribution from the fund balance. He said the budget was left with only $98,000 for debt service for next year.

Girbach asked about the printing of 5,000 brochures.

Swallow said some printed brochures are being distributed by the schools.

Recreation Director Sunshine Lambert said the department once printed 14,000 brochures and mailed them through the USPS. Now the Rec Center is using the school district to distribute the program guides from pre-K through sixth-grade at no cost. Hard copies will also be distributed around town.

Council is expected to discuss the recommendations of the Rec Center Task Force at one of its December meetings.

Councillors Jack Ceo and Jenn Harmount were absent.,

More News from Saline
25
I'm interested
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive

Replies

11-18-2025 8:34am

How many times, for how many years can a City Council repeat the same story on the Recreation Center? Wait, don't answer that. If the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result...this certainly qualifies as insane. We are clearly a city, a nation and a culture in decline. God help us!

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
11-18-2025 3:37pm

Another pillow salesman totally out in right field. City budget woes are not a new thing. Equating that to a culture in decline takes a special kind of crazy. Also, what you use to define as insanity, is not the definition of insanity.  

1
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
11-18-2025 6:30pm

Real name or not, what I say is true. And, it’s your website if you think not using a full name to post is a problem, why do you allow it?

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
11-19-2025 5:12pm

Right, because equating the budget woes of a rec center to the decline of a nation isn’t stupid.  I mean, it’s a hallmark of a nation in decline, right?

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
11-20-2025 10:01pm

Oh goodness Tran, I would hope you would know better than to be that careless with statements. The center does not lose $500-700K per year. This year was catastrophic in no small part because of past neglect by Council (though Council members perhaps ten plus years ago were able to find ways to actually support this city asset, there are those today who chose to completely ignore and disparage it). Also find it curious given the single (closed) minded opposition to the facility of one or two Council members in particular that the recent "report" was, shall we say, limited in its findings. A report of this nature if designed to support solutions would typically be much more detailed and inclusive of various alternatives. Rather has to make one wonder just exactly what direction was given at the outset. Based on the end result either the direction was faulty/not solution oriented or the folks conducting the study and preparing the report were not sufficiently experienced in this space. Rather think based on all the facts that it was far more likely the prior.

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
11-19-2025 6:03am

Part of the reason the rec center has been in need of additional funding at the current year level is past neglect by council. There was a very good post from a former council member (several years ago) that well summarized the path solely created by poor decisions over the years to where the center is today. Under recent (maybe last 7-10 years) council membership, representatives such as Girbach, have not viewed or treated the center as the asset it is. While other communities, understanding their value, spend tens of millions to build new facilities Saline has ignored the maintenance needs of a valuable asset leading to costly, catastrophic breakdowns. Was it even considered for inclusion in the recent school/senior center millage to  help fund basic maintenance? Doubtful. We are seniors and belong to both the rec and senior center, as do many. We have not spoken to ONE PERSON we interact with at the Senior Center who thinks the "improvements" there were needed. While all that money is spent on what was already a perfectly good and regionally competitive senior center, the rec center has had to beg for every critically needed cent. Rec Center staff members have been incredibly creative under these circumstances and we are pleased to see the plans to reach out regionally, etc. That said, expectations that there will be immediate change are wholly unrealistic and it would be unfortunate for council to further punish the rec center for historic neglect by some current members and predecessors. We would encourage council to behave and think as if you care, as if you understand the asset the center represents and actually put effort and time into getting the train back on the tracks, as it once was . . . . because a fair amount of the voting public that you represent does in fact care. 

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
11-19-2025 7:57am

How can you say that the city council has not kept up with maintenance?  Millions of tax payer money has been dumped into that money pit. Several new roofs, all kinds of money on mechanical systems. The rec center is a private club that is subsidized by me the taxpayer. Join a private club, there are plenty around, pay the dues and relieve the tax burden on the rest of us. Sell it, lease it, donate to the county but get the burden off of the tax payers. Use the money to fix our water issues. 

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
11-20-2025 8:17am

Interesting view. While other communities have spent millions to build facilities, Saline has ignored the maintenance needs of the rec center resulting in much more costly catastrophic failures. Would much rather see money go to the rec center than the hundreds of thousands being spent on the senior center and the millions on the nice to have (not necessity and/or replacing perfectly good existing) middle school upgrade. That said, it does not have to be a zero sum game. It would be nice if we had council members who seek wins for all. 

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
11-21-2025 11:19pm

How many cities of 10,000 people sustainably shoulder the cost of a full-fledged Rec Center. Few.

So argue against breaking even if you want, but when they don't, few towns of 10,000 or less have to eat the loss.

Do you honestly feel city residents should shoulder this loss? Year after year? Do you honestly think that if we spend more money on construction for a lazy river, etc, the losses will stop?

This is why this issue hasn't gone away for 15 years. Because this fundamental problem has not been solved. 

Some city council members are protesting the money loss as they prolong this situation every chance they get.

Maybe taxpayers have to fund millions in improvements and then give away the Rec Center to a private entity for pennies on the dollar.

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
11-22-2025 6:42am

Super tired of references to the lazy river entering the current discussion, Tran. That proposal was YEARS ago. No one but you and Girbach are talking about it today. Bringing it into the current conversation is simply deflection, wholly inaccurate, and non-productive. The topic at hand is ongoing maintenance, something Council up to about a decade ago was intelligent and creative enough to understand the value of this asset and find creative solutions to support. The present topic before Council TODAY, Tran, is allowing the Center (and City and Council) time to pursue EXACTLY what you say needs to happen, increasing funding sources, helping to return the Center to a nearly net zero cost position as it once was through the support and creativity of management and Council. Better be careful Tran. Open your mind, stop with the negative bias, absorb what is being discussed today, encourage Council to give time for strategy implementation and you may just get what you are asking for - a Center supported on a greater Regional basis. Don't we expect our representatives to be intelligent, creative, and to not seek the "easy" path but rather look for and facilitate the solutions that represent wins for all? I know I do. By the way, many have noted the hundreds of thousands allocated to the Senior Center this year. In fact, an additional $200,000 beyond the hundreds of thousands previously committed was recently approved. Happen to also belong to the Senior Center and can tell you from first-hand discussions that not one person involved in those discussions believes the investment and changes were needed or a good expenditure of funds. It was more than adequate already. Many members there also belong to the Rec Center and would far and above have rather seen the money invested there. Additionally, utilization of the Senior Center is limited to a small percentage of Saline's population. Would also note that unlike the Recreation Center, the Senior Center has virtually zero capital cost as the school they are housed in pays those expenses. From where we sit, the problem is not with the Recreation Center but rather with select current members on Council and their unwillingness to approach this in a creative and productive manner that seeks solutions where everyone "wins".

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
11-22-2025 9:27am

Forgot to mention that the Recreation Center is not a private club. Literally anyone can join, Sal. You may not find exercising, parks, family events, team athletic activities, fitness classes, swimming (their pools are unmatched in the are!), summer kids camp supporting children and working parents, fitness and aqua therapy access for special needs individuals, swim classes, social interaction, and on and on to be meaningful or important and that does not mean that others do not very much value all of those things and more.

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
11-19-2025 1:56pm

That's misleading. Maybe council has been tight with the money in the last few years. But that's because a lot of council was lied to by the previous Rec Center task force.
Instead of studying whether the Rec Center was even feasible, they got a "if you build it they will come" bond proposal.

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
11-20-2025 6:40pm

Back to what?
Pretty obvious some members of council have been delaying a real council-table discussion on the future of the Rec Center for years.
Rec Center sustainability? You think they just magically stop losing money? Especially now with another exepensive line-item (to pay for the new HVAC project) added to the yearly costs?
The last Rec Center task force recommended a two-phase project that would be funded with a bond.
Costs for that have probably doubled since then.
So, we just keep spinning the tires.
Council never has serious deliberations. Decisions never get made.
Money keeps going out the window.

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
11-21-2025 8:26am

Recreation Centers are almost never 100% self-funding. That is a given. There are creative solutions available where everyone wins that are NOW being explored. These options were not even discussed by Council in the past because, again, of the close-minded, singularly focused view of a few members who would rather wash their hands of it rather than seek viable solutions - we prefer creative folks (such as those on Council many years ago). It is quite possible to come up with a solution where everyone wins and discussions around that type of solution are in process. It will not happen overnight. Pretty strong allegation to say someone lied (one could counter that those singularly focused on closing the facility are not being truthful in the picture they paint because it excludes serious evaluation of and effort toward other more citizen focused solutions). Things change over time. And let's stop talking about past proposals to modify the facility because no one is talking about that but you and one Council member at this point - for everyone else that is and has been for some time not part of the discussion and off the table. What we are talking about now is looking for solutions to perform basic maintenance on a, for many, valuable city asset the likes of which would cost tens of millions of dollars to replace. Understand exercise may not be a priority for you and some Council members, that you apparently do not like to attend special events for families, need summer child care their day camp program offers, have a special needs child who benefits significantly from aqua therapy, like to go to the parks, have teenage kids who need constructive outlets after school, want a pool birthday party for your kid, dances, mother to mother and other sales hosted by the facility, movies in the park, or any of the other many things the Recreation Center (really should be called a community center) offers. Ironic that some are just fine with hundreds of thousands (I believe over $400,000 so far this year) being spent on a senior center that something like 30% of the population is eligible to join, a senior center which really did not need any improvements and which has virtually no building maintenance costs (school they are housed in pays for those) - it was already very, very good - but want to stir the pot on a facility that offers so much and is accessible to 100% of the population. By the way, most private clubs do not have a pool.

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
11-23-2025 2:30pm

If we are going to consider city facilities that we do not leverage to be a "waste", then we would like to add to the list, for example, the library. Resident tax dollars represent the largest portion of the library "revenue" (state aid and private donations provide some additional funds). Preferring other sources, we and many others have never set foot in the library and therefore derive no direct benefit. Schools - now there's a whopper. Never had a child in the Saline school system yet pay tax dollars to support it. Talk about a negative balance sheet from the perspective of revenue generated by an entity supported by tax dollars vs. the tax dollars spent on it! Have not been to a park in years. Do not particularly see a lot of value in the new city center, green space project but come it surely will - talk about an "if you build it, they will come" project costing many millions. 

The point is, not everyone singularly benefits from the things tax dollars support BUT it is the whole that makes a community, that defines a town, that as a whole supports all citizens and that attracts others to the community be it to move there (typically supports higher housing prices and resultant higher tax base) or to visit/travel to the community and, while there, support local businesses (stop for a meal, go out with a group after class, detour for some holiday shopping or groceries, gas, etc. To singularly say the Recreation Center and everything it provides and supports, the incredibly creative and wide range of offerings, the family supporting events and programs all matter less than the other things that are supported by tax dollars and not leveraged by every single citizen and that for some reason a handful of folks choose not to question/push back on is to deny the desires of a not insignificant portion of residents who, by the way, pay a lot of money to support many things that others value and utilize.  

I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive