Agenda - 04-19-2005-9c - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

REVISED 04/18/05 The options identified at that time were: 2 A.. No-build: Look for other land and potential economies of scale B. Re-bid with Refinements and Build: Re-bid the project as based an refinements with the low-bidder, with the hope of achieving new bids in the range of $200,000-215,000 (please see note below) C. Public-Private Partnership: Re-bid and build field same as B above, but ask Orange County Soccer Alliance or other organization(s) to participate in funding portions of the project (such as irrigation and landscaping) D. Award Matching Grant and Let Others Build -Forego the project as a County project, but consider awarding a grant from the Soccer Superfund for part of the funding needed to an organization(s) willing to build the field. The organization(s) would then work with the Maple View owners regarding the field construction. This option may require amendment to the lease In the year that has transpired, the landscape has changed somewhat regarding the larger picture of soccer fields in the County. Southern Park, a Town of Chapel Hill park funded b,y Orange County, is in the midst of permit approval and would construct for three new soccer fields south of Chapel Hill projected to open in 2007-08. A revised Master Plan for Twin Creeks Park has been developed that shows 4 soccer fields, and two would likely be proposed for Phase I of the park (currently projected for 2009), And, in 2004, work was undertaken of the West Ten Soccer Center, located adjacent to the new Orange County Middle School #3 on West Ten Road. The site has been graded and, consistent with the site plan, would acrommodafe 6 soccer fields at some point in the future. As such, 13 new soccer fields are now further along in the process since the Maple View Field was originally conceived, Staff that worked on the March 2004 staff report reconvened last week to review the project, and would note that - in addition to the new frelds being proposed above -some other factors have changed: • As regards Option B above, it is likely that the cost of constructing the field as designed will be higher now (perhaps considerably so) than the bid received in 2003 ($214-251,000), due fo passage of time and increased construction costs; • The maintenance of an isolated soccer field poses some operation and maintenance issues in terms of staff time and maintenance costs; • With the pre-grading work already done at the West Ten Soccer Center, it may be possible to place a field or two in service at that site for the same cost as construction of this field; • While the possibility for public-private partnerships and matching grants were options in 2004, there is no recent discussion of the potential for these options, and substantial changes are taking place within soccer organizations at this time. The now-adopted Soccer Superfund guidelines may also preclude investment of those funds in this facility, unless this project is considered to be "grandfathered" (it was under consideration prior to these guidelines being adopted); and • However, the potential for another entity fo work with the Nutter Family on a field remains a possibility.