Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4.A 01/09/20064.A CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFOI January 9, 2006 MEMORANDUM Parks and Recreation Department' 320 No. McDoiveU Blvd, Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 7784380 Fax (707) 778-4473 DATE: January 3, 2006 TO: Mike Bierman, City Manager FROM: Jim Carr, Director of Parks and Recreatio SUBJECT: Status Report on the Redwood Sportspl (RESA) Project The following is offered as background information in order to give a status report on the RESA athletic complex planned for East Washington Street. Background: Developer Marty Hronec of the Redwood Empire Sportsplex, started negotiating with the City of Petaluma in 1989 for a lease of property on the eastside of Petaluma to construct a sports complex. A lease with the City was signed on April 11, 2003 authorizing the use of city property on East Washington Street, adjacent to the back nine of the Rooster Run Golf Course. To be included in the complex are six lighted softball fields, clubhouse / restaurant, a tot lot, volleyball courts, batting cages, two satellite snack bars, video game room, pro shop, and parking. Per the lease, arrangements had been made for youth soccer and softball to use the fields during weekdays for practice and some games. Some initial grading and installation of a well has taken place, but due to financial problems, the project has been stalled. Per the lease with the City, improvement plans (plans and specifications, and improvements required by conditions of approval on CEQA requirements) have not been submitted to the City. RESA must fulfill these requirements by April 11, 2006, or they will be in default of the agreement and the City can terminate the lease. In October of this year Mr. Hronec submitted a proposal to alter the existing approved project. He has been meeting with representatives of the Petaluma Youth Soccer League (PYSL) and the outcome of those meetings was a proposal to change the scope of work of the approved RESA project. The proposal was to replace one softball field and small soccer field with three synthetic soccer fields. One of the synthetic soccer fields would also have a backstop, allowing it to be used as a softball field. The other features of the complex would remain as approved. The proposed change of project scope would reduce the cost of construction for RESA while creating three year- round venues for soccer games / practice. RESA would maintain a master calendar for all fields, with the assumption being that PYSL would be guaranteed blocks of time on the soccer fields. The increased costs for this change in the project scope were estimated to be approximately $1.5 million. PYSL was suggesting that there be three sources of funding for this proposed addition to the RESA project. The three sources were envisioned to be PYSL, the City of Petaluma, and "Grants." The proposed change of project scope includes portions of City property that are currently under lease to the Rooster Run Golf Course. This would require additional negotiations with golf course representatives. As part of ongoing discussions with PYSL and RESA at the October and November Commission meetings, PYSL indicated they have people ready to start fundraising, and they wanted to go to the public in order to start a fundraising campaign. I counseled against starting any fundraising since there are too many unknown questions that needed to be answered before the City Council could be approached regarding the project. Issues that I raised that I felt must be answered include: a. Before Mr. Hronec can proceed, as a condition of a small business loan he is pursuing, he must receive a 5 -year extension to his current lease. I had indicated that due to current delays, the City Council would want to know who the project investors are by name and their financial resources, before they would consider any extension. b. The estimated costs figures provided by PYSL are $1.5 million, for the soccer fields. The Lucchesi Soccer Field cost $700,000. My staff and I seriously question if the estimated costs are realistic. My staff has spoken to Field Turf and the impression my staff received is that costs are still somewhat in the range of what we paid for at Lucchesi. In addition, '/2 the cost of the project is for a subterranean drainage system which is subject to the whims of the local market, since it is designed and constructed by local engineers and contractors. Considering some economy of scale, a price tag in the neighborhood of $2,000,000 seems more realistic. c. PYSL and RESA were discussing a fundraising campaign of three sources for the soccer fields: PYSL, the City and Grants. I have no doubt that PYSL may be able to raise their third of a construction budget. But in the case of the City is would come down to what projects does the City not want to do. In addition, in my discussions with the State Parks and Recreation Department, they have no further grants at this time. And I am not aware of any other grants of the size required, that would meet the required amount. d. As mentioned above, in the proposal suggested by RESA and PYSL, additional lands which are part of the Rooster Run lease would be required. During a recent discussion I had with Rich Coombs of Rooster Run, he indicated that they would not be interested in discussing or renegotiating their lease in any way. Following the October and November Recreation, Music and Parks Commission meetings, Mr. Hronec was to set a meeting with me and provide additional information to answer the questions above. To date that meeting has not been held. Despite Mr. Hronec's best intentions, there are too many unanswered questions regarding his ability to financially undertake this project. As mentioned, he has a deadline of April 11, 2006 to provide approved plans and specifications, and meet certain CEQA required obligations. Without an extension provided by the City Council, he will be in default and the City can terminate the lease. Considering how much time has transpired since the original lease was approved, and without any realistic and concrete data, I question any reason to extend the lease. Possibly the City Council can provide direction as we approach the April deadline. Three options come to mind. 1. Extend the lease and hope that the appropriate and sufficient funding materializes. 2. Terminate the lease, re -look at the needs of the Petaluma Community and re -prioritize the City's capital program. 3. Terminate the lease, re -look at the needs of the Petaluma Community, and work with the community to raise needed funds including partnerships with local youth sports organizations, community donors and some form of bonding. The lease hold property in question is approximately 26 acres, which is not quite twice the size of Prince Park, and could provide several sports amenities. There is no question regarding the need for more sports fields, the question is available land, how to pay for the capital and maintenance costs.