HomeMy WebLinkAbout14 - NB-3 - TeWinkle Park Athletic Complex Task - 8/21/2012CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 21, 2012
ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT: TEWINKLE PARK ATHLETIC COMPLEX TASK FORCE —PROJECT UPDATE
DATE: AUGUST 9, 2012
FROM: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION
PRESENTATION BY: ERNESTO MUNOZ, PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FARIBA FAZELI, INTERIM CITY ENGINEER
(714)754-5335
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Review the progress made to date as to the feasibility of entering into an agreement to
upgrade, operate, and maintain the TeWinkle Park Athletic Complex; and
2. Provide additional direction to staff.
BACKGROUND:
The TeWinkle Park Athletic Complex is located at 970 Arlington Drive. The facility was fully
reconstructed in 2006, and features one (1) baseball field, three (3) softball fields, a
restroom/concession building, parking lot, and sports lighting.
On December 6, 2011, City Council appointed the members to the TeWinkle Park Athletic
Complex Task Force which included representatives from the various user groups, Mesa Del
Mar Home Owners Association (MDMHOA) Board, City Council, Parks and Recreation
Commission, and residents at large.
The Task Force met a total of four (4) times and discussed the opportunities and constraints for
the proposed agreement. (Copies of the agendas and minutes are available on the City's
website at http://costamesaca.gov/index.aSPX?nape=1404.) The Task Force also evaluated
three (3) conceptual plans that progressively addressed the concerns brought forth by the Task
Force members.
On April 5, 2012, the Task Force approved Plan "C" (Attachment 1) as a viable concept for the
upgrade of the Athletic Complex, and outlined a number of potential impacts from the upgrade
and operation of the facility which needed to be mitigated.
ANALYSIS:
The members of the Task Force not only collaborated to arrive at what was believed to be an
acceptable compromise for the facility, but also identified a number of items considered to be
important for the successful operation of the facility. A summary of these items is listed below.
Item
Issue
Status
Fiscal Impact
1
The TeWinkle Park Athletic
Staffing levels would need to
Approximately $40,000
Complex is under-utilized
be increased for the site to be
to cover the additional
and the public does not have
open to the public when not
General Aide hours to
access after the fields are
reserved. Staff is also
cover the fields.
prepared for scheduled
reviewing the current facility
games.
rental fee schedule to promote
increased reservations and
looking at additional City -
organized leagues.
2
MDMHOA does not support
Plan "C does not consider
There is no change in
using Presidio Square
Presidio Square parking for
the operation and
parking for the proposed
user parking, but it could be
maintenance of this
artnershi .
used for employee parking.
facility.
3
All (MDMHOA residents,
The proposed plan keeps the
There is no fiscal
user groups, and general
current number of fields.
impact for this item.
public) support keeping the
current number of fields.
4
The proposed field
This upgrade to the facility is
The estimated cost for
improvements (synthetic
being considered. Other
the proposed
infields) are recognized as
improvements that were
improvements,
the most important
included in Plan "C are the
including the upgrade
improvement that will allow
enlargement of the existing
of the infields to
for the most effective
restroom building to allow for a
artificial turf, is $3.5
programming of the facility.
larger concession area and the
million.
construction of a satellite
building for storage and office
space.
5
Residents welcome the
This may be achieved by
See Items 1 and 4
possibility of keeping the
implementing the
above.
fields open until 5:00 p.m. on
recommendations for Items 1
weekdays and whenever
and 4.
possible on weekends and
holidays.
6
Parking and noise are the
Staff has received proposals
The estimated cost to
most important issues to
from qualified consultants to
conduct the studies is
MDMHOA residents.
conduct traffic, parking, and
$20,000; however, the
noise studies. The proposals
cost to mitigate any
have been evaluated and -
deficiencies, if any, is
ranked; and professional
unknown at this time.
services agreements are being
prepared.
7
The current fee structure is
See Item 1 above.
The goal of reducing
believed to be the main
the rental rates is to
reason for a decline in
recover the cost to
reservations and facility use.
maintain and operate
the facility for these
activities; thus, the net
fiscal impact would be
zero.
8
The business model that
The sale of alcohol is one of
The fiscal impact for
was used to develop the
the elements of the business
this item is not known
current plan includes the
model of private firms to
at this time.
sale of alcohol.
increase revenue, offset initial
capital outlay, and to offer a
2
3
higher annual payment to the
City. This is an item that
MDMHOA, user groups, and
NMUSD do not fully support.
Given the proximity of the
facility to Davis School and the
requirements of the youth
leagues currently using the
facility that specifically prohibit
the sale of alcohol when the
children are playing, the
window of time for alcohol
sales is minimal.
9
User groups will consider
Staff will evaluate a
The City's approved
paying/donating funds to
supplemental fee structure for
budget currently
offset the City's estimated
the user groups that qualify for
covers the
unrecovered operation and
no-fee/reduced fee rentals.
unrecovered expenses
maintenance expenses to
Paying $35/hr of field use
to allow these Costa
keep it as a City -run facility.
would generate approximately
Mesa groups to play.
$40,000 in revenue.
Additional revenues
Conversely, these user groups
and/or donations
may opt to fundraise and
would cover the
donate an equivalent amount.
current net subsidy to
maintain and operate
the facility.
10
Does the Grant Deed allow
The sale, lease, or disposal of
The financial impact
the City to enter into an
any of the premises covered by
will not be known until
agreement to improve,
the Grant Deed requires the
an agreement is
operate, and maintain the
written approval of the grantor.
drafted and the grantor
facility?
The City Attorney's office has
renders their decision
contacted the grantor who
on the agreement.
indicated that they would need
to review the proposed
agreement in order to
determine if said agreement
would be considered a change
to the terms of the deed. An
agreement has not yet been
drafted and cannot be
provided.
11
Permit parking as a
Staff implemented a pilot
This is an in-house
mitigation to increased traffic
program prior to the 2012 OC
program that does not
due to intensified use of the
Fair as a result of requests
require additional
facility.
from the MDMHOA residents;
resources.
this has been very successful.
12
MDMHOA supports the
In an effort to enhance,
Staff estimates that
construction of entry
beautify, and discourage entry
neighborhood
monument signage at
to the neighborhood by non-
entryway
Junipero Drive and Presidio
residents, the entryway to the
improvements similar
Drive.
MDMHOA from Junipero Drive
to the ones proposed
is being proposed as a
for other
potential mitigation to the traffic
neighborhoods cost
issues brought up during the
approximately
meetings.
$125,000.
3
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
City Council may direct staff to discontinue all efforts to develop an agreement for the
upgrade, operation, and maintenance of the facility as a result of the issues brought forth
by the Task Force.
2. City Council may direct staff to complete the traffic, parking, and noise studies, and if the
results of the studies indicate that it will require mitigation measures beyond what the
existing improvements can support, discontinue all efforts to develop an agreement for the
upgrade, operation, and maintenance of the facility.
3. City Council may direct staff to complete the traffic, parking, and noise studies and issue
requests for proposals to retain the services of a qualified operator.
FISCAL REVIEW:
The fiscal impact for Alternative 1 continues to be the same as currently budgeted.
The costs to conduct the studies in Alternative 2 are estimated to be approximately $20,000 and
would be funded from the Capital Improvement Fund.
The fiscal impact for Alternative 3 is unknown at this time; however, the costs to conduct the
studies will be the same as Alternative 2.
LEGAL REVIEW:
Alternatives 1 and 2 do not require a legal review. The agreement for Alternative 3 would need to
be prepared by the City Attorney's office.
CONCLUSION:
The TeWinkle Park Athletic Complex Task Force has completed the task of developing a concept
plan for the proposed agreement. However, the approved plan also includes a number of issues
and impacts that will need to be resolved prior to its implementation. Staff requests City Council's
direction as to the next steps to be taken for this project.
ERNErOMU NOZ
Public Services Director
ATTACHMENTS: 1 Plan "C"
DISTRIBUTION: Chief Executive Officer
Nw � D�5s
FARIBA FAZELI
Interim City Engineer
Assistant Chief Executive Officer
City Attorney
City Clerk Division
Staff
File
rd
AnAC
1� .
i