The proposed Mountain View Recreation Center renovation will move forward through the creation of a request for proposal for architects and engineers to consider despite a contentious debate among the Recreation Center of Sun City board of directors.

The measure to solicit the proposals passed on a 7-2 vote during the board’s general meeting Feb. 29.

“We’ve been thinking about what to do at Mountain View for years. At some point, we need to move forward,” said Board Member Preston Kise.

The board previously approved a motion 8-1 on Jan. 25 to seek an architect and engineer design team to put concept into reality at Mountain View. However, RCSC policy is to require a second reading of the motion and approval before any action is taken.

The Feb. 29 vote allows the management staff to begin work on the RFP stating the board’s desires and seeking architects and engineers to submit project proposals. The renovation is projected to cost approximately $25 million.

RCSC board member John Fast objected to the motion’s second reading and called Feb. 29 the actual first reading of the motion.

“The motion said we approved the elements. We’ve changed the elements,” he said. “It’s a reading for the first time of these elements... We are, in my view, in violation of our bylaws.”

Kise did not agree the elements — or details of what the project proposed to do — had changed and said they were the same as what was posted on the RCSC website.

The board voted 7-2 to deny Fast’s motion and continue with the second reading of the motion that passed Jan. 25.

Later in the meeting, when it was time for comment, several residents expressed that, although they questioned several elements of the proposal, it was time to move forward and they approved of the motion.

“I favor going forward with the elements, but we need to have transparency and clarity,” said David Clawson.

“I think what the members wanted was to see us debate and not just the results of that debate,” Fast said.

That opportunity occurred a few minutes later.

“We can’t make decisions at this point until we get some answers,” said Board Member Anita Borski, “This isn’t chiseled in stone.”

“We do know what’s going to come back. It’s what’s in the elements,” Fast quipped.

He said architects don’t determine what to include in a project, they design what they’re told.

Board Member Connie Jo Richtmyre said she worked with architect and design teams for 25 years and there would be meetings during the design process to guide them.

“We have to give them a rough idea of what we want ... to give them a starting point,” she said.

When the board called the motion to vote, Board Member Jean Totten noted she was not given the opportunity to speak, prompting another vote by the board to give her the opportunity to comment. Board Member Steve Collins was the only dissenting vote.

Totten questioned several points in the proposal regarding vague wording about the potential location of the PAC, or its exclusion in several points, among other issues. Board President Kat Fimmel responded to each point with reminders of previous discussions on those topics. Totten informed her she didn’t have to answer each point.

“I am not in favor of moving forward with this motion,” a dissatisfied Totten said.

She suggested the board stop all building projects until a long-range plan exists. The management staff is currently developing that plan. She pointed out Lakeview Recreation Center was also projected to need an update in a few years and the Mountain View project may impact that project.

Totten and Fast were the two dissenting votes on the motion.