This would only benefit people in the Auburn area which is 20-30 minutes form my home. I don't see how my family would be impacted, especially because there are absolutely NO community facilities where is leave (Granite Bay).

Should be built on DeWitt property - do not offer services that compete with small businesses - offer space for clubs and events - pay for with tobacco money - not with increase in taxes. Facilities have been taken away with the demolition of buildings at DeWitt, now County should replace them for public use.

Personally I'm not in need of such a facility at this time in my life.

I'd like to know if there's a demonstrated need before moving ahead. What is the demand? Are private facilities available?

Is North Auburn the ideal location for the population of Placer County? Why not place it where a majority of the population that would use this type of facility, exists.

I just wanted to say that I feel that there should some option between $18 million brand new, and $1 million with a church. We already have a library, and we already have church community events. I do not think that a community center should duplicate either of those. I also do not like the unavoidable entanglement between church and state if the city was to use the church's facilities. I believe that there would be a certain aura of being unwelcome to anyone who was not a church member that the community center could not dispel. There are many under-utilized facilities in and around Auburn. I would very much like to know more about those other possibilities before jumping into an $18 mil project or some relationship with a specific church.

No to this facility in Auburn. North Lake Tahoe needs more love and facilities. Our tax base is huge and resources along with board members do not live or support our greater good in N Lake Tahoe. p.s. A skateboard park is needed here in N Lake.

Many of these properties designed for the public "seem" to be only available to county staff. Perhaps location or roll out is to blame, but I'd rather see a push to invite the public vs county staff using under utilized and tax payer purchased facilities.

Don't build new. Use something that is already in existence. Maybe wait for the next recession and buy some facility that went broke.

I wish The "Eastern portion of Placer County" would be represented since we are contributing a gross amount of money to support programs, facilities and freeways we do not use more than once in a great while. While attending the P.C. Workshop last week in Kings Beach, The Faculty who ran the event, could not name ONE facility or program owned and operated by the County her in Tahoe. Our Animal services even got pimped out to Nevada County because Placer County FAILED to keep there facility safe and maintained. My Question is, "HOW CAN WE TRUST PLACER COUNTY WITH MORE MONEY WHEN THEY DO NOT PROVIDE US IN TAHOE TRUCKEE WITH SERVICES"?

Indoor walking arena and beautiful outdoor flower gardens to walk through. Due to the high crime in this area, security is mandatory especially if you want to encourage seniors and children to utilize the facilities. The homeless shelter needs to be relocated as soon as possible.

N Auburn is not the primary population center in the county, if residents of the area want such a facility then those residents should provide the majority of funds for it, not the entire county.

The choices on the funding were limited: combination of sales tax and donor/sponsor contributions. Any fees for the facility need to be EXTREMELY REASONABLE! Non-profits are being priced out of all spaces - the Auburn Faire grounds has become cost prohibitive. Rates need to be appropriate and even sliding scale. A community center should ENCOURAGE community participation by not making it cost prohibitive for anyone to use the facility (or making it so that only the wealthy can use it).

Partnering with an existing facility would re-purpose unused space making this the most productive and least invasive approach to having a new facility in the area. Please preserve open spaces

Please do not add another property tax to my bill. All funds to pay for this facility should come from sales tax or hotel occupancy taxes.

I would be against the use of over all county funds for use on a facility that wouldn't serve the entire Placer County community. However, I understand the need for some funds to be utilized. In that case, I would support partnering with an existing facility.

Build a new facility for it...make it worthy of taxpayer investment.

The government center is an ideal option for this type of center. A transit orientated development facility would be a huge step for the future of North Auburn and would provide linkage for our younger generation(s) to the community center.

It seems to have already been decided, but my first priority is an indoor and outdoor swimming facility.

I am concerned that this facility would become a homeless hangout given the current problems out at the Dewitt Center. What precautions would be taken to make sure that does not happen and that people feel comfortable to go to the Community Center?

Placer County must look at its priorities. Filling up its jails with few alternative programs is expensive and wasteful. Spend that money on Community Centers. Also, closures and threatened closures of libraries probably means we don't need more of them! What about finishing community facilities like the Meadow Vista community center before adding more? I certainly will not vote for additional property or sales taxes when so few alternatives have been explored for adding community facilities.

Consider what appears to be an underutilized facility in Auburn. ARD's Canyon View Comminity Center on Maidu Drive.

We desperately need a good swimming facility

Fix the roads don't build new facilities!

Consider spending the $1.0M at the Regional Park Facility to upgrade/modify for an interim Community Center (5 yrs) while funds are raised for the construction of the permanent community center off of Bell Rd. I do not support raising taxes (CA taxes are already to high). Instead, earmark funds being generated from all the new revenue from the various Tahoe expansion efforts (NS and Squaw).

It is not likely than many North Lake Tahoe home owners would be using such a facility. Quite frankly, we already feel that our property taxes (on high value properties) help fund parts of the county that we never see and thus would definitely be against any higher property taxes.

is there no other site to put this facility? north auburn has a HUGE homeless and crime problem, I'd hate to build something wonderful and have it ruined.

We need space for big events. Currently the fairgrounds is one of the only options. It is worn out, cold and has no decor. It's a cement facility and the cost is over the top to utilize it. Their tables and chairs are antique.

Use existing facilities

With the increasing need for aquatic uses at reasonable rates within a newer facility, I believe a swimming pool to be of paramount importance!

I live in South Placer county. This facility would be too far from my home to be usable so o certainly don't want to pay additional taxes for it

Again, rent until the public uses it with a consistent amount of people daily. If use is great then build a new facility. Do you have any other type facilities being used ? What other areas have been considered ? Some people will not be able to travel to Auburn.

If it's on the DeWitt campus, provide a gym/pool/workout facility for County Employees as part of their employment package

Not sure why this is at the County level when this seems more a local (Auburn) need or desire. The population base for the county is more toward Roseville, Rocklin and LIncoln. Roseville has a facility like this, and it is at the city level. I live in Rocklin and would go to Auburn for major events, but not really for the things described.

I live in the City of Lincoln and would have virtually no participation or interest in programs in such a facility but answered these questions as if they applied to the City of Lincoln. NO, repeat NO, County taxes should EVER be levied for this locally limited project WHATSOEVER!!!

Would never have a reason or opportunity to use said facility so I don't want one. IF, one were to be forced upon us then I'd only want those in the IMMEDIATE area to fund the entirety of the project., after all they'd be the ones using it let them be the ones to pay for it. Definitely nothing County wide should be considered as a source of funding.

County center is not suitable for a community center as long as the homeless shelter is located in the area. I would not have my family use this facility with the danger of the homeless people hanging around. I have asked my wife to no longer recycle at the county facilities because she has been approached by people hanging around the gazebo area and are very aggressive. The County Supervisors seem to be blind to this issue.

Due to the distance, we probably would not use the facility.

To make a decision on this facility, financial projections should be disclosed and itemized revenue streams. Taking on the new facility doesn't seam feasible at all without a heavy tax burden. Getting a consensus of what can be done to increase the current facility utilization is a better approach. Spending $18 million won't necessarily increase utilization of the facility. the need and the revenue generated from that need should be carefully weighed.

The Church is wrong on so many levels, you could never put an aquatic facility there, ARD could not even get a stage approved. This is in the Flight zone - and subject to so many issues. Funds should be earmarked for this, Mitigation Fees can be used for this, but not if raided for Hidden Falls. a L & L could be set up for specific purpopses - IF Sales Tax is used (the only fair way because City of Auburn and other folks in that would use it may not be able to be taxed. It should be for a limited time only and voter approved