|
|
|
Uploaded: Wednesday, September 19, 2012, 7:59 AM
Updated: Friday, September 21, 2012, 6:38 AM
Council OKs $15-million Bernal Community Park project
New fees, reserves, East Bay Park District seen as major sources of funds for new sports fields, wooded enclave
|
|
by Jeb Bing
Pleasanton Weekly Staff
The good times are back, or so it seems in Pleasanton.
The City Council Tuesday night approved a plan to add more sports fields and create a wooded area to be called Oak Woodland on Bernal Community Park, a 318-acre mostly barren parcel where a lighted baseball field was built two years ago.
The project, when completed, will cost an estimated $15.8 million and is the first major capital improvement program since a city freeze went into effect after the Firehouse Arts Center was completed.
Part of the funding will come from a Bernal Community Park Reserve that the city government has maintained during the recent recession when sales and property tax revenue tapered off. Another $810,000 would be available from a Capital Improvement Program reserve, also maintained by the city.
City Manager Nelson Fialho said he expects to receive another $3.2 million from the East Bay Regional Park District through funds approved by voters when they passed the district's Measure W bond issue.
That would still leave a funding gap of more than $5 million which could be raised through a combination of fee assessments for users of the sports fields, contributions from sports organizations, corporate sponsors and a community fundraiser similar to the one that raised more than $1 million for the Firehouse Arts Center.
Mayor Jennifer Hosterman endorsed the project, which would be completed by 2015, and said it will serve as a legacy for the current City Council where she and two others are termed out and will leave their posts on Dec. 4 after voters select their replacements n the Nov. 6 municipal election.
Besides Hosterman, council members Cindy McGovern and Matt Sullivan also will be stepping down after serving eight years on the council.
"The three of us who are leaving the City Council shortly have a huge interest in this project," Hosterman said. "It's a great opportunity for our community."
Although Matt Sullivan also supported the Bernal park plan, he urged those sitting on the next council to review the plans carefully when they come back for a more detailed review next year to make sure the city can still afford it.
With regard to the economy, Sullivan added, "I don't think we're out of the woods yet."
"This is kind of thing politicians love to do, but moving forward I ask the future City Council to look at this in 2013 and look at what economy looks like," he added. "If we can't make up the $5-million shortfall, I'd be concerned about going forward."
But Councilman Jerry Thorne urged the council to approve the plan.
"Due to lack of space here, I've found that some of our sports teams have to use fields in neighboring cities," he said. "There's really a need in our community for this project."
Susan Andrade-Wax, director of community services, told the council that the planned expansion on the Bernal Park would closely adhere to the overall master plan prepared by San Francisco landscape architect Michael Fotheringham in 2004. Phase 1 of that plan, the lighted baseball field with parking, a restroom and children's play area, has been completed and those facilities are now in use.
The new plan would add three lighted multi-purpose fields in the same section of the park and, eventually, another lighted baseball field, outdoor amphitheater, a cultural arts center and a park maintenance facility.
The multi-use fields will be designed to accommodate soccer, lacrosse, rugby and football, she said.
The Oak Woodland, which will cost $4.2 million, will offer a new open space amenity to Bernal Park, she said.
When fully expanded, the new sports fields, with parking and other public facilities, will comprise 50 acres of the 318-acre Bernal Park. By comparison, Pleasanton Sports Park, one of the largest in the area, occupies 100 acres.
Assistant City Manager Steve Bocian, who described the financing plan for building the new project, told the council that the most controversial part of proposed fund measures might be a plan to have sports groups assess a fee as one of the components of their registration fee that would then be pledged over a number of years to reimburse the city for any "upfront" money used to meet park construction costs. With those pledges in place, the city would then loan funds from its various reserves to meet immediate park construction needs.
Potential sponsorships from local corporations also could be solicited in return for "minimal" posting of their support of the park improvements, Bocian added. A specific field could even be named in recognition of a corporate contributor.
That brought a complaint from Sullivan who said he didn't like the idea of corporate sponsors.
"I certainly don't want to see a 'JPMorgan Chase' field in the community park," he said.
With the council's approval, Bocian said he and Andrade-Wax will finalize their strategies for moving the Bernal project forward at a council meeting in December, return again in January with design development plans, and then work to start construction next fall.
They hope to open the park in 2015, he said.Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by YAY!!!, a resident of the Carlton Oaks neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 8:50 am HOORAY!!! good to see that money saved off the backs of the employees who serve this community can pay for yet ANOTHER park...
|
|
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Bonde Ranch neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 9:27 am Why have more fields built if when it rains the kids cant use them?
|
|
Posted by A Neighbor, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 9:40 am Maybe I am not remembering this correctly, but wasn't there supposed to be a teen center also built on the Bernal site?
|
|
Posted by GX, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 9:48 am Pleasanton citizens deserve this addition to our sports facilities as we have been over-suscribed for years and teams are constantly scrambling for places to play.
It is too bad that personnel/pension costs continue to crowd out our general budget which makes the financing of this project iffy as Sullivan alludes to. Not only must we dip into our reserves but they are also considering charging organizations usage fees - a first.
Seems like the Council is desperately trying to make this their final impression/legacy to Pleasanton residents rather than the $176M pension deficit gift they are leaving us.
|
|
Posted by Common Sense, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 10:34 am How about this ingenious idea? - Try SAVING the money so it can be used for more necessary things like making our cemetary halfway descent or repairing rough roads. Nice to have so many good people buried in a mostly NEGLECTED piece of dirt we call the cemetary. C'mon Jennifer, this would be a lasting legacy you could do for us. We don't need another sports facility to accomodate hyper active parents who think kids should be busy all the time - Let kids be kids.
|
|
Posted by wow, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 10:39 am Seriously, I love parks, but we have loads and don't we need to be saving money now as a community? I doubt fundraisers are going to work that well when we're dealing with underfunded schools and huge class sizes and requests for money non-stop.
|
|
Posted by An idea, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 10:51 am Maybe we could get all those retired city employees with multi-million dollar pensions to volunteer their time to fix up the graveyard as it is their pensions that are starving the city of much need fundeds.
It's not like they retired at extremely old ages. Many of them are in their 50s.
|
|
Posted by Common Sense, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 11:04 am You know, the more I think about this waste of multi millions I'm getting more disgusted! Let's start something here while we have a chance to steer OUR money where it needs to be spent.I suggest that people take another look & drive by our cemetary to see my point. It's THAT BAD! Some type of local movement is what should be done to make our point. NO MORE WASTE.
|
|
Posted by GX, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 11:08 am What you consider a "waste" may be an important resource for other families.
The true underlying issue here is that public employee compensation/pensions have been bleeding the city budget dry for many years now. This is why there is not enough money to service the community resources as they deserve.
Solve the underlying problem and then there will be more money for our various priorities.
|
|
Posted by Res, a resident of the Foothill Farms neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 11:14 am like the park on Foothill Road..why did we need that I never see anyone there and I live across from the place.
|
|
Posted by TBD, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 12:23 pm start with the sports fields, don't spend money on the woodlands area, eliminate the outdor amphitheater, and cultural arts center. Figures the council's only real concern is thier legacy...who cares execpt for Hosteman and Sullivan.
|
|
Posted by Jill, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 12:38 pm The cemetery looks great for being a pioneer cemetery. It was never intended to be a manicured place since the people who purchased the plots paid the price of a pioneer and knew what that entailed. Those who bought there would need to pay a lot more in order to pay for the maintenance of a manicured place. Nicely manicured cemetery's have a much greater cost since the cost is supposed to provide an annuity to pay for the ongoing maintenance. I think the cemetery looks good now after it has been fixed up by the City, Scouts, and Rotary groups. I think it looks better than the cemetery next store that is all paved. Personally, I don't want to subsidize those who bought cheap knowing what they would get.
|
|
Posted by local, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 12:41 pm The City used to spend surpluses on capital projects like parks; that was how the capital projects were mainly financed. Since the increase in wages and pensions, and retiree medical from 2002 decisions, there is no more money for capital projects and we have a huge unfunded liability. The council at that time decided that pensions for employees was more important to Pleasanton than parks and facilities.
|
|
Posted by LaxDad3, a member of the Foothill High School community, on Sep 19, 2012 at 12:41 pm
LaxDad3 is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com Great News! Anyone who plays, or whose kids play, on a field sport knows that Pleasanton is very short on all-weather fields. One rain shower and the grass fields are closed down for a couple days. Currently, the only turf fields are at the two high schools and they are booked solid by high school teams.
This will bring Pleasanton's fields to the same level as the surrounding communities.
|
|
Posted by AvFan, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 1:57 pm Do we know for a fact that these fields will be turf, not grass? There will be serious competition for these fields if they are all-weather, year-round capable.
We spent enough on the cultural stuff for awhile - The Firehouse Center in particular, so we should be sure the fields get first funding...the woodland area should be last, if priorities need to be set.
|
|
Posted by Anonymous Parent, a resident of the Ruby Hill neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 2:04 pm but no teen center for kids who are not into sports... how many sports parks does this city need. really sad.
|
|
Posted by FieldMonitor, a resident of the Val Vista neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 2:08 pm It would be great if the new fields would be turf we definitely need more since these other sports parks are no use to us during rainy season. I hated that year after year I paid for my children to play soccer, Football or Lacrosse and when it rained the games were cancelled but we never had all those games made up and we never got reimbursed for the money we paid for them to play.
The money that was spent on these soccer fields behind my house, hilarious because they dont get used as much as they should, it is beautiful but come on we paid for those fields to be used not looked at.
|
|
Posted by LaxDad3, a member of the Foothill High School community, on Sep 19, 2012 at 2:13 pm
LaxDad3 is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com On the City of Pleasanton website, the City Council Agenda Report from last night states they will be "all weather lighted synthetic fields"
|
|
Posted by Mmm hmmm., a resident of the Jensen Tract neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 3:48 pm Yup. Sure looks like the pensions are bleeding us dry. LOL.
|
|
Posted by GX, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 7:48 pm I suggest you read a bit more carefully ... this project is only partially paid for, draws down city reserves and is predicated on charging user fees. All of this is a direct result of the significant crowding out of the budget by employee personnel and pension costs.
In fact, personnel cost over runs these past 10 years have sucked out tens of millions of dollars out of this community. If personnel/pension costs were in fact what city management had projected, we could have paid for this and other projects many times over.
I suspect that the city council voted in this partially funded project to save face, obfuscate the fiscal predicament we are in, and fool the uninformed public. And I can see from the above comment that it is working for some.
|
|
Posted by Arnold, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 8:07 pm Posted by Mmm hmmm." Yup. Sure looks like the pensions are bleeding us dry. LOL"
Not yet because we are only paying a fraction of the cost (just what CalPERS says the mimimum payment is - kind of like the minimum payment on a credit card). The problem is that while we continue to make the minimum payment the balance has gone from ZERO in 2002 to about 180 million today. That is a very scary velocity. And I'm not LOL.
But, in defense of your position, the city council and management seem to share your lack of concerm.
|
|
Posted by Nomad, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 8:17 pm Mr. Sullivan - get off the tired horse you have been riding all these years. For $1M this city should welcome a JP Morgan Chase field.
|
|
Posted by Arnold, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 8:30 pm I'll send several links in a little bit. Here I just want to note that banking science indicates that saving whatever surplus tax revenues are available will add immeasurably to the city's coffers. The interest rates the city garners alone should be able to get us past the first tsunamic waves; and we can continue to push for salary and pension cuts for our overpaid (public) servants. We don't need additional parks, and we don't need to let our servants off the hook. It is their greed which has brought the walled crescendo of water crashing down upon us and our easily drenched existing sports fields.
|
|
Posted by Arnold, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 8:55 pm b, why don't you post under your own name?
"I'll send several links in a little bit. Here I just want to note that banking science indicates that saving whatever surplus tax revenues are available will add immeasurably to the city's coffers. The interest rates the city garners alone should be able to get us past the first tsunamic waves; and we can continue to push for salary and pension cuts for our overpaid (public) servants. We don't need additional parks, and we don't need to let our servants off the hook. It is their greed which has brought the walled crescendo of water crashing down upon us and our easily drenched existing sports fields."
If that is what you think you should own it. While I'm flattered that you continually use my name to post your twisted logic, I do think it would also be appropriate for you to use your own name when you post. If you believe what you say (nothing really) you should stand up and own it.
|
|
Posted by Victor, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 9:08 pm Boys, let's not fight. To Jill who commented on the cemetery, methinks you're confusing the conditions between the Catholic side of the cemetery, and that owned and operated by the City. At about $10,000 per plot (for two), I'm not sure if that's cheap or expensive. But it should be enough to plan for (eventually) some horticulture improvements.
My kids are grown so I can't comment on the sports field issue, but frankly, it does seem we have enough. The fields near the water reclamation plant and the Dunlon school SEEM under used for example. But hey, it gives jobs and does make the place look nice.
|
|
Posted by Arnold, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2012 at 10:07 pm The other Arnold seems to think he's the only Arnold from some unspecified neighborhood in Pleasanton. Talks about name ownership. Wonder how much it cost him to have the name Arnold as his property and his property alone. Does he address the issues I raise? No, of course not. Is he capable of thinking about ANYthing without attaching ownership and property rights to it? Methinks this qualifies as a fetishistic personality -- i.e., a tendency to fetishize the very idea of ownership over all other life needs and values, such as love, community, justice, health, well being, to name only a few. Must be difficult navigating various fields of meaning while under the spell of fetishistic obsessiveness. Wow, what a cocktail party conversationalist he must be. Nice chatting with you, Arnold, oh!, gads!, I have to go check the air in my car tires outside!
|
|
Posted by Nomo Loons, a resident of the Carlton Oaks neighborhood, on Sep 20, 2012 at 6:58 pm I'm POed that Pleasanton is not doing the necessary maintenance on our streets, supposedly because the city does not have the money, and now they say they are going to build all this stuff on Bernal? That really ticks me off. If Hosterman and Sullivan want a legacy, we will erect an outhouse on the Bernal property and name it The Matt Sullivan and Hippy Mayor Memorial Outhouse. Vote wisely in November. We've got to get the left wing-nuts off the Council.
|
|
Posted by steve, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on Sep 21, 2012 at 8:20 am I like your suggestion Nomo. I'd like to make a contribution towards the legacy outhouse for our outgoing looney lefties, but i have to go out for Mexican food first.
|
|
Posted by ?, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 23, 2012 at 5:20 pm Why does PW keep reposting repeat stories like this one and the Cook-Calio one?
Is it to bury and the critical comments/questions?
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
