stanislaus county, california · the board ofsupervisors ofthe county of stanislaus action agenda...

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUSACTION AGENDA SUMMARY

DEPT: PARKS AND RECREATION KUJJ BOARD AGENDA # __*~B--,1,",",5 _

Urgent Routi ne X AGENDA DATE July 30, 2002

CEO Concurs with Recommendation YES~NO__ 4/5 Vote Required YES NO~(Inf~ion Attached)

SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE REGIONAL SPORTS FACILITYSTUDYFINALDRAFTACTIONPLANREPORT.

STAFFRECOMMENDATIONS: 1. ACCEPT THE REGIONAL SPORTS FACILITYSTUDYFINALDRAFTACTION

PLANREPORT; AND

FISCALIMPACT:

2. DIRECT STAFF TO INCORPORATE THE STUDY'S FINDINGS INTOFUTURE SPORTS FACILITY PLANNING.

The RegionalSports Facility StudyFinalDraftActionPlanReport is a programdocument to be used as a guide for planning future regional sports facilities in StanislausCounty. The Study, in and of itself, has no immediate fiscal impact. However, the Studyhas identified a countywide need for the development of about 500 acres ofland to beused solely for sports facilities in the next 20 years. The total cost of the development ofthe 500 acres, not including land acquisition, is expected to be just over $120 million,with an annual maintenance cost of approximately $8 million. (Continued on Page 2)

BOARD ACTION No. 2002-579

On motion of Supervisor ~@'!:JL ,Seconded by Supervisor Cg..rJ.l~.9 _

and approved by the following vote, .Ayes: Supervisors:J=a.ul...61Qrn._SiroQD...QaQ.lli.Q,-,aod_CbairroaDJ~I'.rodLeJ~L _Noes:Supervisors:_~.9D~ _Excused or Absent: supervisors.Neue, --------------------------------Abstaining: supervlscn.None, ----------------------------------------

1) X Approved as recommended -

2) Denied3) Approved as amendedMOTION:

ATTEST: CHRISTINE FERRAROTALLMAN, Clerk By: Deputy File No.

1010-08L

CONSIDERATION OF THE REGIONAL SPORTS FACILITY STUDYFINAL DRAFTACTIONPLANREPORT

FISCALIMPACTContinued:

DISCUSSION:

Board of Supervisors' approval would be obtained before any project isinitiated. The Study states that if a fee representing the average park andrecreation fee currently charged in the County ($1,360) was implementedcountywide and charged to all new residential development (estimated at5,843 units per year), over five years a total of$39.7 million in fees could becollected. The Study cost $134,895, ofwhich Stanislaus County paid$50,000.

In 1999, the City ofModesto, in partnership with Stanislaus County (theCounty contributed $50,000 towards the cost of the project), contracted withBeals Group Consultants to do a Regional Sports Facility Study. Theconsultants prepared a RegionalSportsFacilityStudyFinal DraftActionPlan Report, dated March 2002 (the "Study"). A copy ofthe Study wasprovided to each member of the Board of Supervisors shortly after theconsultants issued it.

On Monday, March 25,2002, the consultants presented their findings to theBoard of Supervisors and the City Council during an evening workshop atModesto Centre Plaza. The workshop was informational in nature, andneither the Board nor the Council took action at the workshop. Theconsultants addressed questions from the Board, the Council, and thecommunity.

According to the consultants, the purpose of the Study is "to examine theexisting uses, programs, facilities, demographics, and financial resourcesassociated with sports within Stanislaus County." The Study surveyed andquantified the sports programs that utilized public facilities throughout theCounty. It quantified the sports program participation levels and facilitytypes, and determined the number ofgame and practice fields available.Based on population growth projections, and existing available sportsfacilities, the Study determined current (zero to five years out) practice andgame fields needs, as well as the short-term (5 to 10 years out) and long-term(10 to 20 years out) needs. It should be noted that the Study reported on theneeds of organized athletic programs only. Park needs, such as recreationalopen space, are not covered in the Study.

A Modesto City staff report dated March 26 is attached. It providesbackground information about the Study. That staff report summarized theStudy's findings as follows:

"A quick review of the results of the study shows that a significant number ofsports facilities are needed to meet current program demand throughout thecounty. Overall, the communities in Stanislaus County have a need to

CONSIDERATION OF THE REGIONAL SPORTS FACILITY STUDYFINAL DRAFTACTIONPLANREPORT

purchase and develop approximately 500 acres ofland to be used solely forsports facilities in the next twenty years. The total cost of the development ofthe 500 acres, not including land acquisition, is expected to be just over $120million, with an annual maintenance cost of almost $8 million. The reportshows that there is a significant need for Youth Baseball, Youth Softball andYouth Soccer fields throughout Stanislaus County and to a lesser degree aneed for Adult Baseball, Adult Soccer, Football, and Swimming facilities.The report also discusses various funding opportunities that are available tothe County and local agencies to fund this development and the maintenanceof it. General Obligation Bonds, Community Facilities Districts or ParcelTaxes, Sales Tax increases, and User Fees are some of the fundingmechanisms discussed and recommended in the report for regional facilities.Each city and community throughout the county has been discussed, in detail,in the Master Plan section of the report. Recommendations on the quantityand type of sports facilities required to meet the needs of each community inthe next twenty years are addressed, along with the cost to maintain them."

The unincorporated urban areas ofEmpire, Salida and Keyes were identifiedas having a need for Youth Baseball and Youth Softball fields because thesecommunities have organized baseball and softball programs. Overall, thiswould require acquisition and development of almost 20 acres. Developmentof such acreage would cost about $4.6 million (not including acquisition),and have a yearly operations and maintenance cost of approximately$664,000.

The Parks and Recreation Department requests the Board of Supervisors toaccept the Regional Sports Facility Study Final Draft Action Plan Report.Staffwould use the Study in conjunction with the Stanislaus County ParksMaster Plan as an informational tool for future sports facility planning. If theStudy is approved, the Parks and Recreation Department plans to beginimplementing the results of the Study in future facility planning. Staff planson using the results to plan the development ofEmpire Park and the proposedSalida sports park project.

POLICYISSUE:

STAFFINGIMPACT:

The Board should decide whether to accept the Regional Sports FacilityStudy Final Draft Action Plan Report with or without revisions, or to notaccept the Study. The Board should decide if acceptance of the Study isconsistent with its priority of ensuring a safe and healthy community.

.b.~'J,~~v·

There is no staffing impact associated with acceptance of the report. s:,,,~~~~~~'\~~~\)i' .

-

.-

RegionalSports

FacilityStudy

Stanislaus CountyCity of Modesto

FinalAction Plan ReportApril2002

CeresDenairEmpireHickmanHughsonKeyesModestoNewmanOakdalePattersonRiverbankSalidaTurlockWaterford

-============================1Regional Sports Facility Study

Table of Contents

-

-

-

Acknowledgments 2

Introduction 3

Study Overview 4Time frameProcess ExplanationRegion Breakdown

Environmental Scan 9Introduction and OverviewSurvey Process and ResultsFacilityAssessmentProgram AssessmentFinancial Findings

Analysis, Needs, and Visioning 19IntroductionSample Field CalculationsVisioningProgram Options

Facility Prototypes 28Facility Spatial NeedsFacility Types

Financing Strategy 35IntroductionFinancing PrinciplesFacility Phasing and CostEvaluation ofFunding OptionsKey Funding Recommendations

Master Plan 46Facility RecommendationsPhasingCostsCurrent Facilities

the beals group

Appendix (Separate Report)

Sec. I. SurveyField UseFinancialSchool FacilityPark Facility

Sec. II. Environmental ScanSouthwestCentralSoutheastNortheast

Sec. III. CalculationsSouthwest Practice and GameCentral Practice and GameSoutheast Practice and GameNortheast Practice and Game

Sec. IV. RecommendationsFacilitiesArealLandDevelopment Costs

Sec. V. Financial Survey Results

Sec. VI. Community Outreach Meeting Minutes

Page: 1

..

-

Regional Sports Facility Study I

Acknowledgements

Technical Advisory Committee

Stanislaus County Staff

• Kevin Williams• Rosendo Verduzco• Steve Brodie

City ofModesto Staff

• James Niskanen• FredAllen• Nathan Houx

Task Force Members

• Randy Hatch, Ceres• Cambria Pollinger, Ceres• Dennis Hartman, Denair• Michelle Hillerman, Denair• Wanda Bollinger, Empire• Matt Woods, Hickman• Denise Palecek, Hughson• David Whiteside, Hughson• Josie Garcia, Keyes• Sam Dickerson, Modesto• Doug Lemcke, Modesto• Mike Perez, Newman• Ed Christiansen, Oakdale• Adrienne Chaney, Patterson• Sue Fitzpatrick, Riverbank• Lynda Rodriguez, Salida• Mark Crivelli, Turlock• Charles Deschenes, Waterford

Page: 2

Consultant Team

the beals group

• Jay Beals, Principal• Derek McKee, Principal• Todd Bronk, Job Captain• Jesse Markman, Designer

SportsPlan Studio

• Pam Scott, President

Economic Planning Systems

• Jason Moody, Vice President

April 2002

-IRegional Sports Facility Study

Introduction

The communities involved in this process were:

Within Stanislaus County there are several levels ofsports delivery systems. These include recreationalleagues, competitive leagues, school programs, andpickup games. This study surveyed only thoseprogramswhich utilize public facilities. We have quantified theprograms, participation, and facility type, and havedetermined the amount of game and practice fieldscurrently available.

The purpose ofthe Regional Sports Facility Study is toexamine the existing uses, programs, facilities,demographics, and financial resources associated withsports within Stanislaus County. Understanding thecurrent cirumstancesallowed for the projectionofsportsfacility needs per community within Stanislaus County,over the next twenty years. Using these projections,recommendations were created, aiming to meet theseneeds spacially and monetarily for the region as well asthe individualcommunities.

Once the quantification of the existing facilities andprograms was determined, the study utilizeddemographic growth expectations to project game andpractice needs. Facility usage was then compared tothe existing quantities ofavailable fields and facilities.This developed into a quantification of needs basedupon current needs (zero to five years out), short termneeds (five to ten years out) and long term needs (tento twenty years out). Recommendations were thenmade for each region within the county, which werethen broken down into recommendations for each ofthe individualcommunities involved.

Secondly, Stanislaus County is projected to growsubstantially within the next twenty years and a generalplan needed to be established to identify the currentand future needs for athletic facilities and programs.Pulling resources together to develop a study and list ofrecommendations could only be accomplished bylooking at the entire county and then providingrecommendations for each community to meet the needsoftomorrow.

Understanding and utilizing the information for thefuture of sports delivery systems within StanislausCounty is important. Much of the data contained inthis report and appendix can be adapted and modifiedas new information becomes available. This enablesthe communities and the county to periodically updatethe numbers, thus generating a more accurate depictionofwhat each community needs. Specific athletic facilitydevelopments will need validation and additionalcommunity involvement as new facilities are planned.

resulting in facility overuse and dilapidation. In orderto get an accurate picture of the usage patterns for thecounty, the study relied on input from the communities.

Thirdly, the support offered by Stanislaus County tohelp fund and develop the facilities and support therecreational programs within the entire county was amotivating factor. Many communities will depend onthis funding support in order to meet their needs for thefuture. This report and its recommendations present aclear direction for sports facility development, basedon the communities' needs, for Stanislaus County.

Each community should utilize the recommendationsand findings to plan for the future development offacilities, support of the athletic programs and theirgrowth, and ways in which to fund the developments.It will be important for adjacent communities tocollaborate in the development ofnew facilities, in orderto make the best use of space, usage, and availablefunds.

DenairHickmanKeyesNewmanPattersonSalidaWaterford

CeresEmpireHughsonModestoOakdaleRiverbankTurlock

This project was created for several reasons. First,within Stanilaus County many of the sports facilitiesare shared by programs from adjacent communities,

Budget information and use area needs are identified toassist in the development of capital budgets, landpurchasing, and generating funds for construction.

the beals group Page: 3

IRegional Sports Facility Study

1 Study Overview

the beals group

-

Study Process Overview

Time Frame

The City ofModesto and Stanislaus County contractedthe beals group team in December of 1999 to beginwork on the Regional Sports Facility Study. The bealsgroup team included Economic & Planning Services,SportsPlan Studio and thebealsgroup, inc. Thecollaboration of these companies made it possible tocombine knowledge and experience in order toapproach the study in the most effective method toprovide accurate recommendations.

This project also included a Technical AdvisoryCommittee and a Task Force. The Technical AdvisoryCommittee (TAC) included representatives fromStanislaus County and City ofModesto. They assistedin periodical reviews, input of the process, andcoordinated the study with the Task Force and eachcommunity involved. The County of Stanislaus andthe City ofModesto were an integral part ofthe projectteam and were necessary for successful data collection.The Task Force was represented by one or twocommunity representatives. Periodic meetings wereheld with the TAC and Task Force to review overallplanning and process understanding as well as refinematerials and data collection.

TheRegionalSports Facility Study projectscopeevolvedas the project progressed, and the final phase oftheproject was completed at the end of2001.

Process Explanation

The Regional Sports Facility Project was broken upinto five phases. Each phase was designed toencompass a specific area of the study and lay thegroundwork for the proceeding phases.

Phase I - Project Pre-planning

The first phase, Project Pre-planning, laid thegroundwork for the entire project. It was recognizedfrom the beginning that an incredible amount of dataneeded to be collected to clearly and accuratelyunderstand the sports needs ofStanislaus County. Thegoals and objectives ofthe project needed to be clearly

the beals group


defined,stated,understoodand agreeduponby allpartiesinvolved in the project prior to the study starting.

Following the project's start-up, Task Force Meetingswereheld to helpcreateand explainthe following projectgoals and objectives:

• Reviewthe roles and responsibilitiesof theTaskForce

• The planning process• Visionsetting• Method ofcommunity input• Establish a dialogue between the communities

within the region.

Included in the Project Pre-planning phase weredocument reviews and the development ofthe Survey.The Survey was designed to be the primary source ofinformation gathering for the entire project. The qualityofthe informationprovideddirectlyinfluencedthequalityof the final products and the extent of the long-termbenefits for all parties involved.

Phase II - Environmental Scan

In order to accurately collect and understand the data,the Environmental Scan Phase was developed. TheEnvironmental Scan identified the existing sportsprograms and facilities, trends and patterns, physicalresources, and fiscal environment through surveys sentout amongst the communities. The results of theEnvironmental Scan provided the foundation for thestudy and the infrastructure for future phases. Inaddition, the environmental scan also included facility,program, and financial assessments, along with

Page: 5

continued Technical Advisory Committee and TaskForce meetings.

Phase II was extended as it became evident that thequantificationneeded to be verified for existingfacilities,programs, participation and financial input. Althoughmany of the communities of Stanislaus Countysubmitted extensive data for survey, others had somedifficulties in being able to quantify the participation insports programs. More time was allotted to revisit thesurvey and update numbers that had been changed, notfound initially, or were recalculated utilizing differentmethodology.

Phase III - Analysis, Needs, and Visioning

Project Visioning was the long-range planning stagewhich utilized the environmental scan information todevelop broad conceptual ideas for the designand masterplan recommendations. During this phase multiplevision plans were developed and designed as the guidingmechanisms for the project design phase.

Phase IV - Design

The Project Design includes the initial design for thedelivery ofthe sports facilities to satisfy the current andprojected needs ofsports programs in StanislausCounty.Community Workshops, TechnicalAdvisory CommitteeMeetings, and TaskForce Meetings were held to exploreand decide upon the design options. During this phasethree sports facility delivery options were created andpresented to the community.

Phase V - Master Plan

The final phase analyzed the quantitative results fromthe environmental scan and created recommendationsbased on the sports delivery option chosen. The facilityrecommendations included the quantity of facilitiesneeded, the design and categorization ofvarious typesand sizes of facilities, what each type offacility couldinclude,withinwhich community they shouldbe located,

Page: 6

how much land each community would need to satisfytheir needs, and an estimation as to what the facilitieswould cost.The final product ofthis phase, and the culmination ofthe project, was the creation of the Master Plan. Thisreport serves many purposes for this project: It is asummary of the project, describing the findings fromall phases, showing facility types and recommendations,providing potential funding mechanisms, and developinga preliminary master plan for development based onthe projections offuture demand and funding availability.

Although this project technically ends with thecompletion of Phase V, the results and report willcontinue to be a useful tool for Stanislaus County. Notonly will the report enable the communities tounderstand their sports facility needs, but they will alsobe able to continually update their needs as participationand trends in sports programs change or as facilities arebuilt and updated.

April 2002

-

-,Region Breakdown

Stanislaus County is located roughly sixty miles east ofSan Jose, in the San Joaquin Valley. Highway 99 runsthrough the center ofStanislaus County from north tosouth, and Highway 132 splits the area from east towest (see road map below). Interstate 5 further splitsthe western portion ofStanislaus County north to south.

Due to the vast size of Stanislaus County, there was aneed to break down the region into smaller sub-regions,so that the analysis ofthe sports programs and facilitieswould be more manageable, and accurate numberscould be recovered in the survey process. Highway

the beals group


99 was used to mark central Stanislaus County, withthe other regions based on this central region. In lookingat the orientation ofthe major cities within the counties,both to each other and to major highways, it was decidedto use the urban corridors created by highways 99 and132 to break Stanislaus County into four regions.

II JMap provided by AAA

Page: 7


The communities were placed in each region accordingto their geographic location within Stanislaus Countydefined by roadways, as well as their locality to adjacentcommunities.

Southwest RegionNewman

• Patterson

Southeast RegionDenair

• Hughson• Keyes• Turlock

The geographic area breakdowns allowed for themanageable collection,organization, and analysis ofdataso that quantitative comparisons by region and city couldbe generated and assist with the recommendations.

The four regions and the respective communities withineach region can be seen below. The included local areamap can be used to understand the placement of eachcommunity within the regions.

Central Region Northeast Region

Ceres • Hickman• Empire • Oakdale '~

• Modesto • Riverbank• Salida • Waterford

Page: 8 April 2002

-

-

-

-

-


2 Environmental Scan

the beals group

-Regional Sports Facility Study1=============================

Environmental Scan

-

Introduction

In order t~ develop an understanding of the existingsports delivery system for the County of Stanislaus,theentireregionalathletic facilities and programs neededto be reviewed. The foundation ofthe study, thereforeis embodied in the Environmental Scan, which includesinformationprovided by the participating groups throughsurveys and involvement in workshops, communityoutreach programs, visits to facility sites and facilityuse pattern information.

The purpose ofthe Environmental Scan was to identifyan~ ~~scribe existing athletic conditions, includingfacilities, programs, and financial standings. Morespecifically, it involves the assessment ofthe programdelivery system relative to the physical resourcesavailable. Identification oftrends and patterns affectingprogramming and required facilities is necessary toanticipate recreational and sports facility needs of thefuture. In order to calculate many ofthe future programneeds, demographic studies and projections were madebased on the 2000 National Census Study. The resultingassessmentassists in defining opportunities to maximizeall resources, as well as recognizing the challenges tothis objective.

Survey Process and Results

Surveys were developed to gain information on thecurrent facilities, programs and financial conditionsrelated to athletics. The surveys were divided into threecategories: facilities, programs and finance. Surveyswere then refined for questions specifically geared toschool districts, municipalities and athletic programorganizersand submitted to each ofthose entities withinthe listed communities.

Facilities at parks, as well as schools, were includedin the survey. The quantity of fields of the varioustypes throughout the county is tabulated for each regionand each activity. They are categorized by park orschool properties, as well as dedicated for a singleactivity or shared with other activity uses.

April 2002

High school sports facilities were identified in theenvironmental scan (refer to the community inventoriesAppendix Section 2), but were counted in the existingfield quantities as half a field each, due to the overlapof use typical of high school facilites. The fact thatthey are not available on a consistent enough basis toprovide for consistent public recreation led to theseprogramming recommendations. However, wellorganized programs could utilize high school facilitiesto handle additional program capacity needs during timesofthe year when schools are not utilizing their facilities.

Survey Information

The following is a breakdown of the informationgathered in the survey. Survey examples can be foundinAppendix 1.

1. Field Usage Survey - Filled out by agencies orgroups using the facilities.

Activities, events offered or occurring at thefacility

• Participants at each level of play using thefacility

• General informationconcerning field use,unmetdemand, maintenance, and field conditions.

• Questions regarding seasonal play, practice, andgame times

2. Facility Assessment Survey - A database wasdeveloped for both schools and parks.

Overall field size and dimensions• Ownership

Public availabilityType of facility, field, or court.Parking availability and necessary amenities(ADA, restrooms, and concessions)

3. Financial Survey - Filled out per city by the directorofpublic works or finance.• Revenue and expenditures - Expenditures and

funding sourcesCapital Improvements - Expenditures andfunding sources

With the initial survey process complete, each facilityand program was then assessed and categorized.

Page: 10

Survey & Facility Assessment

Table 2.1. Standard Field Dimensions

Facility Condition

A summary tabulation of the existing facilities in thecounty is shown in Table 2.2 which includes facilities.

Field Size

SoccE3r{LJ6:.LJ?JS()C;C;~r (LJ19 -LJ12L

Softball

)'out.~~port~

Baseball «9).Baseball

Adult Sports Field Size

Baseball 90' B with 350' OFFootball / ~lJgby 150' x 360'

Soccer 210' x 330'..' "--, "_ _---~.-

Women's Softball 65' B with 200' OF

.g2~EL?oft!:>.9.!!_ ~Q' E;!_~!b_~~Q'_Qf- ..Men's Softball 65' B with 300' OF

_._.••...•0' __ "." .'.' _

Basketball 50' x 94'.1::f2C;_~E3Y_ _.?QO'.~_85'

Swimming.. 150' x50'Tennis 78' x 36'....._._.. ._....._..._.,_. . .. ··._·_,_.·.~_·._m

Track 600' x 270'Y211~Yl>ClII 30' x 60'

The facilities identified for each community are tabulatedseparately in Appendix Section II, Facility Inventory.For each location facilities were identified by the typeand number of facilities and whether they were fullsize game level fields or courts; or ifthey were smaller,they were deemed suitable only for practice. In orderto identify existing facilities, a standardized definitionfor each type of facility had to be created (Table 2.1).This enabled specific types of fields for various levelsand ages ofplay within sports programs to be accountedfor and brought into the analysis for recommendations.

Although there are many reasonably well-designed andmaintained outdoor facilities, such as Pedretti Park inTurlock, Kerr Park in Oakdale and most of the City

Numerous facility surveys were incomplete and theinformation was verified in the final stages of theenvironmental scan. Information continued to begathered and verified, through multiple site walks andvisits, during the Community Outreach Phase of thestudy, provided by the Technical Advisory Committee.Standard field and court sizes for tournament level playwere used initially to determine if facilities would fitwithin the size parameters needed in game typesituations. Field amenities such as goalposts, backstops,bleachers, etc. were looked at to determine ifa facilitycould be used for game or practice situations.

Determination for a facility being a game or practicelevel facility was made through multiple equations andassessments based on the reported facility size,condition, adjacent amenities, and availability for publicuse. The size assessment utilized for the inventory offields was based generally on the officiallyrecommendedfield sizes for baseball, soccer, etc., as indicated incurrent athletic standards. As most of the fields wereunmarked, the assumed dimensions are approximate.As fields are built or renovated, they should complywith a standardized "official" size for the organizationsto be using the facilitiesatpractice andtournament levels.

Survey information denoted the classification of thefacilities being used in a dedicated situation or beingshared between multiple sport and recreational uses.Fields that were not dedicated or multiuse were countedas a "halffield" within the quantities ofexistingfields.Due to the multiuse aspect, fields are often over usedand over reported. Counting these facilities as a "halffield" compensated for a contingency ofmultiple surveysreporting the same field in various use categories.

The facility inventory and assessment began withprocessing the surveys. The surveys denoted individualsports facilities by location, type, size, use type, andthe quality ofexisting conditions. Initially, the surveyinformation was processed and divided into subgroupsby community. These subgroups denoted whether thefacility was dedicated or shared and ifthe facility couldbe used for practice or game type situations.

Page: 11 the beals group

-Regional Sports Facility Study1============================

Parks in Modesto, virtually all ofthe school fields andmany of the park facilities would require significantimprovements to provide adequate drainage, consistentgrade integrity, reduced surface hardness, maintainedturf cover, and reasonable player safety. Aside fromthe City of Modesto parks, there do not appear to beany significant turfmaintenance programs at facilities,especially elementary or junior high schools throughoutthe county. Player safety is greatly enhanced if thesports facility is well-designed and maintained. Thecondition ofmost ofthe outdoor school facilities wouldrequire significant upgrade to achieve even minimalsafety standards.

Program Assessment

Program participation information was initially gatheredthrough the primary survey and information was addedduring the community workshops and outreach phaseof the study. Coaching staff, team organizers, andindividuals within the organizations provided theinformation for program participation. After the initial

Table 2.2. Existing Field Summary

study was complete, the county was divided intogeographical regions to simplify the presentation oftheinformation to the community.

All ofthe detailed breakdowns, city by city, have beenprovided in Appendix Section 2.

In addition to identifying the numbers of participantscurrently in available programs, an estimate ofcurrentunmet demand was considered. This allowed theassessment of needs to be more reflective of currentconditions. The assumptions for these numbers aredescribed and the results outlined in Table 2.3, AthleticOrganizations.

Use Patterns

An analysis of the use patterns and seasonal overlapclearly supported the results of the CommunityWorkshops relating to overuse and inadequateavailabilityoffacilities for all types ofactivities. FacilityUse Schedules includes schedules for many of thefacilities that are the most abused. The Seasonal Use

S M=.l!.. ... ClI til- ,.Q

ii :;;= ii CIl >. (5til ,.Q ... ... 0,.Q ii ,.Q ClI ,.Q ClI Cl CIl Q.

CIl ,.Q CIl,.Q CIlal ~CIl UUtil = til = til ...

~ U o ii ClClI 0 ClI 0 ClI- o 0 ii caI all/) aI ~ I/) ,.Q ii 'j§I/)

£~ii I/) ... ,.Q

,.Q til.... ,.Q ... s: ~ >. 'c ~ ESouthwest...... ... '3 'S .! "C U~ ~ ~- 0 til (5

C C ClI .~0 0 o~ 0 "C 0 ClI ClI CIl ...Region >->- >-~ II. <I: >- aI > ::J: l- I- I/)

1.0 1.5 10.0 9.0 0.0 8.0

0.5

April 2002 Page: 12


Table 2.3 Athletic OrganizationsRegion One- j Football!Southwest Baseball Rugt>Y Soccer Softball GYm ~wilTll11ing Tennis Track

y~J .. t t- I2

I I 1 T f_....

2 2 12 2 2 1 0 0

Misc.

10Region Two- Football!Central Baseball .Rugby Soccer Softball Gym SwilTllTling Tennis Track

~r t 1

J2 2 3

I1

I1 j t--

11 8 3 4 6 5 111 9 5 6 9 6 2

Misc.

22

Football! .Rugby

.Region Three Southeast

22 t

Soccer Softball

123

Gym

224

Swimming

134

Tennis Track

IMisc.

o21

Region Four - Football!Northeast Baseball Rugby Soccer Softball Gym Swimming Tennis Track

·~r 2 I 2 r I 2

I I I2 2 2 0 0 0

, . ;,.~> .. ;" "'''''

Totil Athletic Organizations

Misc.

I9

91

Chart (Table 2.4) illustrates the difficulty in schedulingsoccer and softball fields. Gymnasium space is alsolackingduring thepeakbasketball and volleyball seasons.Additional indoor sports, such as gymnastics, indoorsoccer, etc. must be scheduled during the summer andearly fall, if there is an opportunity to offer theseprograms at all.

Many ofthe months show use by each sport almost allyear-round. Current trends are moving towardsproviding recreationalopportunities for all levels ofsportsthroughout the year (Table 2.4). This is especially truefor sports played in California,where the weather permitsyear round play. Many adult and youth leagues areoften played two to three seasons a year, whichdramatically increases the demand for facility space.For organized activity groups, which seem to have themost critical need, the dedicated fields are mostdesirable. However,dedicated fields and facilities shouldbe given respites between seasons or in the off seasonto allow for turfrecovery as well as give maintenance

Page: 13

crews the time to rehabilitate other parts ofthe facilities,as necessary. This is a critical maintenance issue, as itis difficult to maintain facilities when games or practicesare utilizing the fields year round.

Program and Facility Assessment

Data strongly indicated that the development ofsignificant numbers of dedicated fields for each sportare needed. The most immediate means ofsolving theexisting shortage is to improve and carefully reconfigurethe existingfacilities to maximize the potential numberof fields on current sites. Vacation of the softball andbaseball facilities by the soccer programs wouldsignificantly increase available facilities for softball andbaseball. Reconfiguration ofexisting school sites andparks could significantly increase field inventory andavailable resources. The fields require significantattention with respect to appropriate design, layout, andmaintenance. Upgrading the school facilities wouldimprove the appearance ofthe school properties, expand

the beals group

-Regional Sports Facility Study I

Table 2.4. Seasonal Overlap

Modesto Jan. Feb. March June Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.Soccer • • • • • • • • • • • •Baseball • • • • • • • • •Softball • • • • • • • • • •Rugby • • • •Football • • • • • •Basketball • • • • • • • • • • • •Volleyball • • • • • •

their use by the broader community, and mostimportantly, improve the safety for the users, duringschool and afterward. Strong consideration should begiven to lighting the sports fields to increase theiravailability foruse, although overuseand energywastingshould be avoided. A defined rest period should beincorporated into the schedule for each soccer andfootball/rugby fieldto maximize maintenanceto providequality fields that are long lasting. Such improvementscould be made by city or county entities, the schooldistricts, a separate "sports or recreation authority," orjointly by any combination ofthese entities.

In addition, maximizing available resources shouldinclude development of new facilities, especially forbaseball, softball, soccer, and indoor court sports.Indoor sports programs appear to take place almostexclusively at school gymnasiums. This is not unusualfor smaller communities; however, cities the size ofModesto and Turlock, as well as those growing withBay Area commuters such as Salida, Patterson,Riverbank and Oakdale, should consider developmentof multiple use community centers. These facilitiesshould includemulti-courtgymnasiums,fitnessfacilities,leisure and instructional swimming facilities, and otherfamily recreational activities as determined by the localresidents. The significant number ofparticipants in therecreational swimming programs, as well as the absenceof community facilities for basketball and volleyball,strongly support the provision of such facilities, fororganized sports as well as for open or drop-inrecreation. Locating these facilities within or nearfacilities with athletic fields promotes the concept offamily-oriented recreation.

The Environmental Scan assessment clearly supportsApril 2002 I

the need. for expanding and improving recreationalopportunities in Stanislaus County. While thecommunityworkshops, surveys and facility assessmentshave focused on the organized sports programs in thecommunities included, it is also clear that opportunitiesfor informal recreation are extremely limited. Theinadequate space available for the sports programsincreases the pressure on the facilities needed to provideinformal recreational opportunities. The strategiesoutlined, when considered in combination, provide theopportunity to accommodate each of theseconstituencies. Further, need for in-line and ice skatingfacilities, as well as other activities that do not includeas many participants as soccer, baseball, softball, courtsports and swimming, can more easily be included inthe planning.

It is critical that maintenance programs be incorporatedinto the planning to ensure level grade, acceptable levelsof surface hardness, turf coverage and pest control.Proper grading and field design provides the basis forfunctional and maintainable fields. The program couldbe internal, provided by the city or municipality, by thecounty, or it could be outsourced to a firm specializingin sports turfand facility maintenance. Three differentlevels ofmaintenance that could be outsourced, two ofwhich would require complementary programs by themunicipality or other entity, should be considered. Thethird option represents full program outsourcing. Acarefulanalysisofthe cost ofproviding turfmaintenancewith the county, municipality, or school district forcesand equipment is strongly recommended. The level ofexpertise available, the quantity and quality ofequipment,availablepersonnel, and the number oftasksrequired for well-maintained sports turf should all be

Page: 14

considered fully.

Financial Findings

There are opportunities to expand the range offinancingtechniques currently utilized by Stanislaus County andits communities in order to increase the amount ofrevenue received for parks and recreational developmentprograms and facilities. A review of existing budgetallocations suggests that most ofthe cities in StanislausCounty currently provide a slightly lower level offinancial support for parks and recreation than theav~rage city in California. In addition, there is a heavyreliance on General Fund revenues with rather limitedutilization of a variety of other potential fundingmechanisms.

Stanislaus County and the cities ofModesto and Turlockcurrently account for roughly 88 percentof the parksand recreation funding, with Modesto being the largest


spender. On a per capita basis Modesto and Oakdalerank the highest, followed by Turlock. The datagenerally reflects the regional distribution ofpopulationcenters, with Turlock and Modesto serving a broadermetropolitan region and Oakdale acting as a distinct,self-supporting municipality. The County's largerpopulation centers with larger parks and recreationbudgets also draw upon a wider cross section offundingsources.

Current opportunities to expand or implement newfinancing mechanisms include: (1) voter approval ofageneral obligation bond or Mello-Roos CommunityFacilities District (CFD), (2) passage ofa County-widedevelopment impact fee ordinance, (3) expansion ofuser fees, concessions, and lease revenues, (4) continuedleverage of joint use programs and agreements withlocal school and college districts, (5) an aggressive,regionally-coordinated campaign for external fundingsources such as state and federal grants and privateendowments, and (6) formation of a Regional Sports

Table 2.5. Existing Park and Recreation Funding Amounts

.JI"'.Q~~!»~Q"."._..'_,---""----,,---.'-

Turlock- - •.. _._ _.._._..-

Oakdale

~~~~_ .. - ._-_._--_._. _.. -

55%....._..._._._--, .... -•.. _.." '" """".'.",.-

11%

RhtE!r!>~nk

Patterson

Newman-_..,--"-"-_._---'._. _.

20[0_. '.. -~ ... ------.

1%

0%

0%

0%


-

Facility District receiving a portion of property taxrevenue.

By way ofexample, a County-wide general obligationbond or a CFD could generate between $114 and $227million for constructionofa regional sports facilitywhilea County-wide impact fee could generate between $16and $49 million over ten years for this purpose. Interms of facility operating and maintenance costs, aRegional Sports Facility District could generate between$4.4 and $16.5 million per year, while a CFD couldgenerate between $1.7 and $3.5 million per year,respectively.

Summary ofExisting Financing

The development of a regional sports facility inStanislaus County would likely require the expansionof existing County parks and recreation financingmechanisms as well as the creation ofnew ones. This

section describes the type and amount of financialresources currently used to fund parks and recreationactivities in the County.

Amount ofFinancing provided

Information regarding the total parks and recreationoperating and capital expenditures in the County forthe most recent fiscal year is provided in Table 2.5. Asshown, the total operating expenditures by the Countyand its nine municipalities amounts to roughly $15.5million per year. Modesto accounts for over half ofthis amount, with Stanislaus County and Turlock beingthe second and third largest spenders, respectively.Together, these three jurisdictions account for about 88percent oftotal park and recreation related expendituresin the County. On a per capita basis, Modesto andOakdale rank the highest. The data generally reflectsthe regional distribution of population centers, withTurlock and Modesto serving a broader metropolitan

City by Population Group

Table 2.6. Comparison ofParks & Recreation Budget for Select Cities in California*Parks & Ree (1), (2) Statewide

Population Budget1997-98 Per Person Avg. By Size

Population of 100,001-250,000Modesto

P()pulation of 50,001-100,000Turlock

Population of 25,001::50,()00Ceres

P()PLlla~J()I1()f 1(), 9()()::~!?,()00RiverbankOakdale

Population of Ul1der 10,000NewmanPatterson

182,660 $7,339,413 $40.18 $41.31

50,884 $1,299,502 $25.54 $49.90

32,241 $889,306 $27.58 $51.40

14,302 $430,657 $30.11 $53.58

1~,.~14 ._$4?~,§~?._ ~~~:Q~ ,"" ..__._,_.•..~_.....• __....

.!:),862 .~191&~!t __ $32.73 $84.08 ..---_._,_.~-_._,-_...._----_ .._-"_.,-_... ._-_.,-".•.....•_..".--

9,924 $202,518 $20.41

• Budget data from State of California Cities Annual Report 1997-98 and Counties Annual Report 1997-98

i~j_!~~J~de~:~~d~~!e~_~rTl(,~~t~_foL~ark~_~_r~~r~~!i()~_~~d._sp'o~s f~~i!~t~e_s.·~..<?~~:n~ti.~~Lu.9_e .9.~~f_C:i.u~~~.:..•(2)c:;itieslJ\lithfunding from additional sourcel) or no budget were not included.

:~_~~!:.e:~:~!~tti_~f. ~~lif~r~i~Cjti~~~IJ~ijaL~~~~,!!q~ijij?~~~3.~'!!Jai R.~JJ()~.;§~()~O.rTliC:. ~Pla~~i~ii~Ys.t.~lT1s,__lne:...

April 2002 Page: 16


Table 2.7. Summary ofCentral Valley County Level ofService for Parks & Recreation

County........ -'_._ ..._.. . __....._. u. . ._. Parks& Recreation Budget, 1997-98(1)

Population· City Totals(2). County Total Total·_~·L; Person

Merced County

TUlar~g()~.I1ty

.f\t1ad~r9_C;0LJnty (3L

_$()ICin() (;()Ul1ty _3~3,§?Q _ $~,1!2,211 $§18,886 $34,791,097 $90.69" ... " .... ". , --',_..._....._,,"_._,. ~"."...._-_._.."_._---_._._-.,,

,_~n~tE:3Y C()~n!i . ._l.~,~~_$.1~!~?.1'~Q~..._~!§~'.?Q~.. J1~!~?!~~J. .$?9--=-~._

:Santa Barbara C;ounty 4Q§,.?Q?_ $1~,85§!§§?: .. J§.,4?4,479 $.1~.,~~~!J4?_.~!.67

,Sonoma County 437,115 $14,782,?25, _$4,913,731 . $19,696,056 $45.06

Er~:;I1()c;()lJl1ty . _§§?!4~Q $498,192$??,?96,495 $40.89

LSta.!l!~I~~§.C;()lJ!lty.._..370,5~2 ... $1Q!?Q§.!~Z4._._J?!_:t4§&~§.113'§)§?.LQ§9_ _j~!&~_i- .. ----.. - ---- -'_~.!l~~Clg~LI1_(;()!J_rl.ty __ .. 4?~§?.§_; __._$1.4,§5?A?? $2Ai:4!~§?_~1?!.1?§.,--~80 .1?!:l:.l34 ..

-§~~rClrTiE;I1!~¢.OlJl1ty _ 1~6~Ii1·9 $2~A5~,.§~~$8!?§0,.§?§)_ .$3§,Z9~,_?12 $35.26.._._,_._-_.- "-'''~' .,.....•._.'._-"_.._--_ ...,----_.._- •...- " .--_.__.,_ ...._ ---- ,.' ._ .._..,,' --_ __._..,- . -.-- ..- .-~" ---..-.'-"..---_._' _----- __._" .' -_ •..... _.. . _._- __.._ _._-

KernC;oul1ty §~~,z~8 $9,609,Q9§ $7,604,916 $17,214,Q12 $26.91- -- _... ---•...._- .~_ ..._~ ....._...--_..._........--~---_ .. _._-

178,403 $3,801,675 $89§,797 $4,698,472 $26.34

~§'Q!~§?H,§~11?§4.. $1)29~~~__ .$_?,~~.§-,§'Q7 ~1§~§1~_.__ ._----~ --~- - _ __ __ -

._~~Q§)OJ1,4QQ,~? _ .... _.__~_1AQ_Q,.~~. $15.90 .

(1) iBudget amounts includ~ parks & recreationoperating expenses and sportS.~a..Ci~i!¥.~~ting~~I1c:!i!lJ~~:._._._._-i------·T50es iiOtinciude iiOif~ourses~-~-- ~--~. .. -..~. . . .. .. '~2j.~()rT1e cities are~fundedbyapublicorprivate entity, or sEmAces-are not pr()\1~ed.bi!tie_C::itX.

:1~L ..... Madera.(;()u.n!!'~~~_m) ~~crea!~?~:<J.esi!Jna..t~bud!Jet:. _ .... '

,:Sciurce:sfaleOt Califoinia CitiesAnnual Report/Counties AnnualReport; Economic &Planninl:j S!,sterns,ll1c:

region and Oakdale acting as a distinct, self-supportingmunicipality.

On the capital side, total annual expenditures in theCounty amount to $4.7 million based on most recentbudget estimates. However, given the high variabilityin annual capital requirements, it is not clear whetherthe amounts shown are indicative of average annualcapital spending patterns.

Stanislaus County municipalities was lower than theaverage for California cities with comparablepopulations. In Modesto per capita spending was$40.18,compared with the average $41.31 for all citieswith populations between 100,001 and 250,000.However, the smaller cities in Stanislaus county spentconsiderably less per capita than comparable Californiacities.'

To determine how the municipalitiesofStanislauscountycompared with other municipalities in the state, EPScompared the parks and recreation 1997-98 operatingbudgets for California cities ranging from under 10,000to 250,000 in population. As shown in Table 2.6, withthe exception of Modesto, the per capita spending by

Page: 17

A per capita comparison of City park and recreationspending can be misleading since residents also benefitfrom servicesand facilitiesprovided at the County level.Table 2.7 compares total city and county per capitaexpenditures in Stanislaus County with other selectedCalifornia counties in 1997-98. As shown, StanislausCounty ranks in about the middle of those countiesselected with total expenditures of about $37.66 per

the beals group

-

-.

Table 2.8. Type ofFinancing Techniques Currently Employed

Gifts Impact Special Local Joint-Use Mechanisms

I Cntribtns Fees Assessments Bonds. Funds Used

-. ItemGeneral

Fund Special User

Revenue Taxes Fees

Federal

I State

Grants

Concession

Revenue

Private #of

-

-

CityModesto

Turlock

Oakdale

Ceres

Riverbank

Patterson

Newman

Hughson

Waterford

x X X X

X X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

8

6

6

5

3

5

2

1

Stanislaus County X X X X X 5

% of Jurisdictions 80% 0% 70% 60% 40% 20% 70% 30% 0% 30% 41%

Source: Financial Assessment Survey;City Budgets, Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

person; Solano County had the highest per capita parkand recreation expenditures among those countiessurveyed at $90.69.

Type ofFinancing Mechanisms Employed

Information on the variety of financing mechanismscurrently used to fund parks and recreation programsand facilities in Stanislaus County is provided in Table2.8. The data suggest a heavy reliance on GeneralFundrevenue sources and limitedutilization ofa varietyof other potential funding mechanisms. Overall, theCountyand nine citiesmake use of only about 41 percentof the identified parks and recreation fundingmechanisms. For example, only 60 percent of thejurisdictions report receiving federal or state grants, 20

April 2002

percent obtain private gifts and contributions, and 70percent collect user fees. There are currently no localbond measures in the County that provide funding forparks and recreation activities. In general, the County'slarger population centerswith larger parks and recreationbudgets draw upon a wider cross section of fundingsources.

Page: 18


Analysis, Needs-

3 & Visioning

the beals group


Analysis, Needs & Visioning

Once the Environmental Scan was completed, the nextphase was to analyze the collected information and dataand derive quantifiable numbers that accuratelyrepresented the sport facility needs for StanislausCounty.

Collecting data from each major city within the fourregions made it possible to look at the sports facilityneeds as they pertained to individual communities.Combining the needs regionally allowed a county-wideperspective ofwhat each region needed and helped todevelop an overall visioning plan.

Field Calculations

The field need calculations were utilized to helpdetermine the existing and future sport facility needs ineach of the regions. The survey reported the needs,programs, and facilities for each community and thecalculations used these factors along with variablesinherent to each individual sports program. A reportingcontingency was also used to account for programs notrepresented or those that did not accurately reportparticipants in the survey.

The variables used in the calculations included time,field capacity, and availability for a given week. Timefactors took into account the average number ofhoursper week a team or individual would use the facility.This number, multiplied by the number of programparticipants, gave the total hours needed to satisfy thecurrent participation demand. The field capacity wasthen determined, varying on the sport type, andcombined with the total hours of use per day that thefacility could handle. The difference between thesetwo numbers provided the total time stillneeded to meetthe program demand. This time was then divided intothe facility capacity to determine the numberoffacilitiesneeded to meet the current program participationdemand.

Results of the calculations determined the total needrequired for participation. The existing facilities werethen subtracted from the current need to calculate thecurrent unmet facility demand for the community.Projections were then made based on demographics

April 2002

and anticipated program growth to develop a ten andtwenty-year demand for facility development.

The variables that were included in each of thecalculations were based on the specific type ofprogramand facilityrequiredto hold tournament-levelplay. Timefactorswere calculated for practice and game situationsduring an average daytime use schedule. The fieldcapacity varied on the number ofplayers per team andwas based on two teams using the facility in a gametype situation with a standard complement ofbackupparticipants. Availability in a given week was based ontypical evening and weekend play times in conjunctionwith the average length of a practice or game typesituation. The following is a breakdown, program byprogram, ofhow the facility needs were calculated anda general definition ofthe variables used.

YouthBaseball «9)12 players per team2 games at 1.5 hours per weekAvailability ofsingle field per week - 18 hours

Page: 20

==============================1Regional Sports Facility Study

The number ofplayers per team is an average and takesinto consideration the age and a conservative numberof players needed on a team for additional pitchers,pinch hitters and runners, and substitutions. Duringthe regular season, we assume that two games at aduration ofone and one-halfhours each as a result ofastandard seven inning game for the age group. Theavailability of a single field per week is based on theaveragetimes games are played after school and/or workday periods.

Youth Baseball (9-12) & Youth Softball12 players per team2 game at 2 hours per weekAvailability ofsingle field per week - 18 hours

The number ofplayers per team is an average and takesinto consideration the younger age and a conservativenumber of players on a team needed for additionalpitchers, pinch hitters and runners, and substitutions.During the regular season, we assume that two gamesat a duration oftwo hours each could be played by twoteams. The availability of a single field per week isbasedon the averagetimes games are played after schooland/or work days.

Adult Softball15 players per team1 game at 2 hours per weekAvailability ofsingle field per week - 18 hours

The number ofplayers per team is an average and takes

Page: 21

into consideration the ability of the players and aconservative number ofplayers on a team needed foradditional pitchers, pinch hitters and runners, andsubstitutions. During the regular season, we assumethat one game at a duration oftwo hours couldbe playedby two teams. The availability of a single field perweek is based on the average times games are playedafter school and/or work day periods.

Football40 players per team1 game at 2 hours per weekAvailability ofsingle field per week - 9 hours

The number ofplayers per team is based on offensiveand defensive players and includes multiple substitutionand special teams. During the regular season, weassume that one game at a duration oftwo hours couldbe played by two teams. The availability of a singlefield per week is based on traditional weekend gameplay.

Rugby30 players per teamI game at 2 hours per weekAvailability ofsingle field per week - 8 hours

The number ofplayers per team is based on offensiveand defensiveplayers and includes multiple substitution.During the regular season, we assume that one gameat a duration of two hours could be played by twoteams. The availability of a single field per week isbased on traditional weekend game play.

the beals group

--Regional Sports Facility Study 1=============================

outdoor court. The availability of a single court perweek is based on indoor facilities and weekend andnight time use ofoutdoor facilities.

Youth Soccer13 players per team1 game at 1.5 hours per weekAvailability ofsingle field per week - 8 hours

The number ofplayers per team is based on regulationplayers and includes substitution. During the regularseason, we assume that one game at a duration of twohours could be played by two teams. The availabilityof a single field per week is based on weekend gameplay.

Adult Soccer15 players per team1 game at 2 hours per weekAvailability ofsingle field per week - 8 hours

The number ofplayers per team is based on regulationplayers with additional substitutions. During the regularseason, we assume that one game at a duration of twohours could be played by two teams. The availabilityof a single field per week is based on weekend gameplay.

Basketball8 players per team2 games at 2 hours per weekAvailabilityofsingle court per week - 32 hours

The number ofplayers per team is based on regulationplayers with multiple substitutions. During the regularseason, we assume that two games at a duration oftwohours could be played by two teams on an indoor or

April 2002

Tennis2 players per team2 games at 1.5 hours per weekAvailability ofsingle court per week - 23 hours

The number of players per team is based on singlesplay. During the regular season, we assume that twogames at a duration ofone and one-halfhours could beplayed by two teams on outdoor courts. The availabilityofa single court per week is based on typical weeknightplay and weekend tournament situations.

Volleyball8 players per team2 games at 1.5 hours per weekAvailability ofsingle court per week - 15hours

The number ofplayers per team is based on six playersper court with substitutions. During the regular season,we assume that two games at a duration of one andone-halfhours could be played by two teams on indooror outdoor courts. The availability ofa single court perweek is based on typical weeknight play in leagues.

SwimmingRecreational calculations based on:3 hours swimming per swimmer per weekCapacity ofpools for swimming - 70Availability ofa pool for recreation perweek - 3920 user hours (capacity multipliedby total hours ofpool availability per week)

Competitive calculations based on:10 hours swimming per swimmer per weekCapacity ofpools for swimming - 30Availability ofa pool for competitive perweek - 600 user hours (capacity multiplied bytotal hours ofpool availability per week)

The number of swimmers per week is based on thetypical habit ofrecreational and competitive swimmers,respectively. During the peak season, we assume thata recreational pool is available for 8 hours per day,

Page: 22

Table3.1. Field Assesment Worksheet- Central Region

Adult Soccer Game Field Needs.~occer PI<:lY~~l;" 1,4~5

Reporting ContinQency 110%Total Playersini3Jjvtfn ~~ek 1645-

.elC3y~rsfT"e.C'l1!l 15Total Number of Teams 110

2 teamsper Qall1e 55Assume 1.Qame at 2 hoursPElr week 2

Total Hours of Games 110

Assume 8 - 4 Sat. or Sun. 8Availability of a Single Field Per Week 8

Total Fields Required for 14

Current Participation

E:xis;til1g Qualltity of GameFields 7

AdjLJstment for LighteclFields 1

Total Quantity of GameFields 8

Current UnmetProgram Demand 6-"Tobe bUi~ 1-5yearsout

Anticipated Growth 2010 1719,Required# of fields to be built5-10years out 2

Anticipated Grov"th20.20 1921ReqUired # OffiEllds tobElbuilt10~20.years out 2

seven days a week; whereas a competitive pool is usedfour hours a day, five days a week by a competitiveswimmer. The capacity for pools is based on theaverage number of people that could use a standard25M pool at a single time; 70 for recreational and 30competitive pools, respectively. The availability of apool is derived by multiplying the number ofuser hoursa pool can be used per week by the pool capacity (differsforrecreation and competitive swimming).

Table 3.1 is an example ofone ofthe calculations usedto determine the number of adult soccer game fieldsfor the Central Region ofthe Regional Study.

Page: 23


The first line in the calculation shows the number ofparticipants that were reported in the programparticipation summary table (1,495). A reportingcontingency of 10% was added to the participationnumber to come up with the Total Players in a givenweek (1,645). The Total Players in a given week wasthen divided by the number ofPlayers per team (15 insoccer) to equal the Total Number of Teams thatparticipate in the Central Region (110). The calculationthen takes the number of teams per game for theparticular sport (2) and multiplies times the assumedgame time in a given week (2) to get the Total NumberofGame Hours (110). The Total Hours ofGames in agiven week was then divided by the Availability ofaSingle Field per Week (8) which was derived by addingall the available time throughout the week that this sportcould be played with respect to the age group and gametime factors. The outcome of the calculation was theTotal Fields Required for Current Participation (14).

The Current Un-met Program Demand to be built 15 years out (6) was calculated by subtracting theExisting Quantity of Game Fields (7) from the TotalFields for Current Participation (14) and adjustingfor existing lighted fields (1). The final step was todetermine the field needs for the 10 and 20 year growthpatterns. This was calculated by taking the growthfactor for the region (2000 census) and multiplying thecurrent number ofparticipants to obtain the Anticipatedgrowth for 2010 (1,719) and Anticipated growth for2020 (1,921). The anticipated growth numbers werethen applied to the entire calculation to determine theRequired Number ofFields to be built 5-10 years out(2) and the Required Number ofFields to be built 1020 years out (2).

This calculation process was applied to all programsand varies slightly depending on the type ofprogram,facility, and participation variables stated previously.The next step in the calculation process was tosummarize all of the facility needs by regions todetermine the overall geographic need in the county.Table 3.2 is a summary showing the field quantity needsfor each region, broken up into the current, 5-10 year,and 10-20 year development phases.

the beals group

-Regional Sports Facility Study 1============================

-Table 3.2. Field Quantity Needs - Region Summary

tilCee

Clc:EE

~

'tla;u::CIlot;~lU... c:Q.O

...~ol/)

.c: CIl'$ Eo lU>el

0.701.641.483.82

...fl..,~_CIl:iE'tllU<eel

-0.81-0.57-0.360.00

CIlElUel

fti.c'0oLL

0.210.510.461.18

1.160.580.522.26

15.01 -1.28 13.78 2.75 6.20 20.55 -17.77".'-

5.58 0.41 6.70 1.56 2.06 8.08 -4.545.02 1.52 6.03 1.41 1.85 7.27 7.38

25.61 1.92 26.50 5.72 10.11 35.90 7.38;;/~::..:','i';,'::j

8.02 4.68 6.39 14.29 0.33 3.18 -1.80 1.014.73 2.22 3.96 11.77 1.47 1.66 -1.10 -0.104.25 1.99 3.57 10.60 1.32 1.49 -0.46 0.2017.00 8.89 13.92 36.66 3.12 6.33 0.00 1.21

,..,. "'4

~: :, 'i'

2.57 -0.751.47 -0.231.32 0.245.35 0.24

South\\,e~tRegion

Current Need5-10 Years

10-20 Years~":":-+~':'-t-:-:-':-"--t--'::-:':':'-+-:::":"-'--'--t--'=:=:+~~-:::=+-~=-+~~~=-1-~=':--t--'==-+...:...:.:.;;:...+-...::::..::~Total

N0r:th4:l':lslRegiol1 ....JCurrent Need

5-10 Ye§r~.

10-20 Yearsl-:.:";':"'+'::":";':'-t--"-':~+-:'':'-'':''::+-:-:-:-:-t--:'~+~~...:.:~~~-+~~~::.:::,:,+-,:..:.:.;;:...+-,~,--+--:=:=?-+-~,:,Total

Central ,Region

Current Need-.---_...- " "."","

5-10 Years

10.:20 Ye§lr~t-=::-:::=:+-:-:.:::=-t-=-===-+-::77':+-7:=-t-:=:--:=+-='::'c'-I--"-':=C-+-:'~:+~~I-:.~+--::=':::-:-+--'C'-'-:'-+-:=:-::=+-=='-=-::=Total

Southeast ~egi()n .1Current Need- . . ,_ '..

5-10 Years--" """ ._, ._, •......_... ,,,

10-20 Yearst-:::.:::::+-::-:==-t--=~+-::~=-+--:::-:~t-::'-::-=+"'::-:7-I----=":7'-+:'::=:=+"::-:-::7-t---::~+-7'::::=--I--':-=-::-::-+-7==-+--::=::::=Total

With the total number of regional needs defined,calculations based on population and participationadjusted the community need basis to provide acommunity by community breakdown of the regionalparticipation requirements in the Master Planrecommendations.

Visioning

The visioning phase ofthe project began to take an indepth look at the existing facilities in each region alongwith the projected needs and develop conceptual optionsto solve the projected facility needs. Field needs,financial association, travel times, and geographicinfluence were also taken into consideration in theconceptual development. The general calculation results

and environmental scan products were used to developthe initial visioning stage process.

Field Needs

The existing programs identified as needing additionalfacilities also need to update the state of the existingfacilities in order to meet today's tournament playstandards and safety regulations. Another generalinfluence that will assist with the needs is the lighting ofthe fields. Whether existing or proposed fields, lightingwill add to the amount of use time per field and alsoallow for additional weekday use oflarger facilities.

Schools in some communities have limited the use oftheir existing facilities, which has created unnecessaryfacility duplication for similar programs in the

April 2002 Page: 24

community. If school and park facilities were used inconjunction with one another, facilities would be moreefficient and could be funded by multiple entities formaintenance and upgrades. Many cities in Californiahave set examples of working side by side with theschool districts to help create larger and better-fundedpark and school facilities.

Travel

Conceptual visioning for new facilities needs to taketravel distance and time into consideration. Practicefacilities need to remain close to the majority of theprogram participants in order for them to be usedeffectively. Many participants will travel for gamesituations, but rarely for common everyday practicesessions. For local and youth games, travel is limitedto shorter distances. Parents and youths will generallyparticipate in game type situations in close proximity totheir home. This proximity and travel range generallyincreases with age and competitive level of theparticipants. Regional competitions involving stateandnational travel, which are common in the highlycompetitiveathleticprograms,necessitate teamstravelinglonger distances to compete with other teams ofsimilarplay levels.

Other related items factored into the conceptualvisioning includepublictransportation, parkingsolutions,program diversity, community center locations, limitedpools and outdoor facilities, and ice hockey and skatepark locations. Items such as a hockey rink or skatepark tend to serve the entire county.

Taking into account the visioning elements andcommunity input through workshops, three conceptualdevelopment options were developed and proposed forthe final Master Plan recommendations. The conceptualdevelopment options outlined potential solutionsto theneeds developed in the calculations and analysis.

Page: 25


Conceptual Program Options

Stanislaus County is in critical need of new andredesigned sports programs and facilities toaccommodate the existing and projected demand. Toexplore solutions, three options were created for sportsdelivery systems that would aim to satisfy the currentand projected demand for the calculated sport facilitiesand programs in Stanislaus County.

Option 1

Option one proposed one massive sports complex thatwould satisfy all of the region's sports facility andprogram needs. This concept would be practical forsaving space and money, in that the construction ofthenew facilities would be centralized. However, thedemand for sports facilities in Stanislaus County is solarge and diverse that building a large enough facility toaccommodate this demand would be impractical. Theland required for such a facility alone could be enoughto prove this option unrealistic. In addition, thecongestion ofpeople, traffic, and noise in the generalvicinity of a sports complex of this nature could be amajor disturbance to the surrounding residential andindustrial areas.

the beals group

-

-Regional Sports Facility Study 1============================

Option 2

Option two proposed many small sports facilitiesscattered throughout the cities of Stanislaus County.This option in theory could work; however, the sheernumber ofsmall facilities needed to accommodate theregion's needs would be startling. The number ofplotsof land needed for a plan of this type might not beavailable. In addition, if land plots of various sizeswere available, it would be a major design limitation tobe restricted to one general size offacility, regardless ofthe site's size and shape.

Combining programs and facilities, such as in optionone, not only centralizes sports facilities and programs,but also increases community interaction and is morecost efficient. Separating facilities to the extent ofbuildinga myriadofsmall facilities,suchas in thisoption,could create a disassociation of the athletic programswithin the region. Separating facilities would also bethe most maintenance intensive option, as there wouldnot be space to station maintenance crews andequipment at small facilities; rather they would have tobe brought in to each facility regularly to maintain them.

April 2002

Option 3

Option three proposed creating a delivery system thatcombined options one and two. This option entailedcreating many facilities, although less than the numberneeded for option two, ofvarying sizes. Some ofthesefacilities would be very large, up to 150 acres and bemajor regional facilities, while others would be smallfacilities, down to roughly 5 acres, such as parks andschools. However, a majority of the recommendedfacilities would be somewhere in between, varying insize from 5 to 20 acres.

This option ensures that the needed facilities would bedistributed more evenly and efficiently throughout theregion, meeting the specific needs of individualcommunities. This option would also allow for moreefficient planning for tournaments, programcentralization,cost distribution, and facility distributionwithin the communities.

Page: 26

Recommendation

After analyzing and discussing the three options, Optionthree was determined to be the most viable option. Itposes to distribute the sports facilities most evenly andefficiently throughout the region so that the communitymembers and the various sports programs have easieraccess to them. It also enables a more thoroughevaluation and distribution of the various facilities tocities and communities in relation to their independentand individual needs. Furthermore, this option wouldbe the most efficient solution to utilizing the availableland and customizing the facilities to the specific sitethat they are to be located on.

Option three would place large facilities in cities wherethere is the demand for them and on plots of land largeenough to accommodate such developments, andsmaller facilities in cities and communities where thedemand is less.

Option three enables Stanislaus County to customizespecific sports facility development plans for eachindividual community. This option allows for creatingthe most efficient program, land, and monetary usesolutions to meet the demands ofthe communities andthe region.

Page: 27


the beals group

-

,..

/


4 Facility Prototypes

the beals group

-.

,-


Facility Prototypes

Facility Spatial Needs

-Facility spatial needs were based primarily on the sizesofthe athletic fields/courts and the supporting facilitiesrequired to participate in safe and competitive level play.The facility spatial needs varied depending on whetherit was a practice or game field, both of which requiresupportive facilities. The following is a listof supportiveelements used to determine the spatial needs fortournament level game facilities:

Competition level field size• Safety and warm up areas• Spectator areas• Concession/restroom facilities• Storage space/buildings• Parking

After reviewing the facilityelements,a spacecontingencywas added into the spatial needs calculations. Thisfigure was an adjustment for land in a given parcel thatmay be unsuitable for development, underenvironmental protection, or shaped in such a way thatwould inhibit land use maximization and efficiency.

Table 4.1. Field Size and Use Needs

Field sports such as soccer, baseball, and softball havea variety of facility sizes, depending on the level andage ofplay. The remaining fields, courts, and aquaticfacilities require similar spatial needs but the play areaneeds remain constant for tournament play at all levelsfor these sports.

For tournament level play, the facility size needs werebroken down for each program and the associated levelof play that would occur on the field. The numbersshown in the chart below represent a single field withthe necessary supportive elements. As multiple fieldsaregrouped together in multi-program facilities,the fieldsizes hold true and the spatial needs for the supportingelements could potentially be combined.

Safety &Adult Sports" , Fieldl>~~. , Field Ar~a Warm-Up Spectator Concessions

~a~ball.9<l'!'L~thl5.Q:"'QF 11Q,~99 13,QQO~,5.QO , 100Football I Rll9by 1§()'x 360' 85,000 13,500 2,500 100

§l.<>cc:..er , ., :210' x_3~Q' , 69,300 18,000 2,500 100Women's §lof!l>aIlElO' B_wilt1~OO'.OF 39,740 7,532 2,500 100

Coed§lQftl:>aU 60' B with)50' OF 59,400 7,532 2,500 100Men'sSoftball 65' B with 300' OF 82,900 7,532 2,500 100

Ba.5J<e:u;8li; - .. 50' x 94; , 4700 4320 0Hockey.. 290'x85'. ,.17,000 11,2QO 2,500

Swimming. 150' x50' 7500 10000 4500. fennis;7/l')(36' 2808 2640 400

Track, 400 m 95000 15000 6000,.yolle}'.baU~O' x 60' ..1800 ,1800~qo

_ _ __~ ,d{~w: 12 ~ "-"':;';h;;; ;,;~ ~', .~~'~-:;;;:>.'i I,'-~' :~<:' ~\f.'~: ~ '"':itJ},~{}£j~

Safety &Youth Sports •., '... " Field Size ..Fi,el.d f"1~a. W!lrm-Up ,SJJectator, Concessions

Base~E~)@:!l.~th?QO' OF 39,740 . ?,532 " 2.,500BasebaUJ9:13) .60'Bwith.225'9F ,49,062.. 7,5.32 2,500

Soccer (UG·l.J8). ,.. 150' x210' 31,500 13,5002,500Soccer (U10 - U.12). .180' x 27'0'. 48,60Q. .. 13.5QQ. I ..,.,,,,,_.

, .. . Softball 55' B with 220' OF 30,000 7,450;{g;~~ L~.~:8- ':~~S~;/r"'")',,,

Storage

.100.100100100100100o

SpaceParking .., Contingency

, .. 6,Q(JQ ~~,§:2.?

6,000 32,1606,000 28,8006,0()0 16,7926,000 .22,690

. 6,000. 29,740.4470 4,04:7.

Total SF

lJse Nlllld,m,IE..1.3l:l.3~Q..12:4,/lQQ.n,7§,!~8,~~2

1?M??.17,537

TotalAcreage

Need

3.93.22.91.72.33.00.41.21.5

Total Use,Need



FacilityTypes

In order to create a structured facility delivery system,five types offacilities have been created to standardizethe way in which sports facilities can be grouped anddesigned. Size and field capacity, as well as amount ofdedicated usage, designate the five types offacilities.

Type A Facility

The Type A Facility is a major year-round joint sportsfacility complex that consumes 20 to 150 acres ofland.Facilities ofthis type would satisfy local and regionalneeds for a myriad of sports activities for both games,practices, and drop-in recreation. It could also serve tohost regional, state, and national tournaments.

The programing for a Type A facility would be designedaround a central community center, complete withmeeting rooms, classrooms, and offices for employees.

The elements surrounding the community center wouldbe dedicated fields and courts for sports such as football,track and field, softball, soccer, and tennis. There wouldalso be additional indoor facilities in such a complex,such as a multiuse gymnasium, a pool and diving facility,handball, basketball and volleyball courts, and evenplay areas for younger children.

Fresno Sports Complex - Master Plan

Page: 30

Gilroy Sports Complex - Master Plan

Because ofits size and capacity, a Type A facility wouldrequire a significant amount of maintenance. An onsite maintenance yard would be present, as there wouldneed to be space for tractors and other equipment, aswell as building, irrigation, and plant supplies.

Concessions, restrooms, and storage would be locatednext to service program areas.

Parking areas would be designed to handle local andregional facility needs for all programs. In the event ofa tournament, parking needs would be met with thecombined use ofthe individual parking areas.

April 2002

.....

Because a Type A facility would be such a largecomplex, there would be an early need to find a suitablepiece ofland to accommodate it. Although it could bedesignedto fit withinmany differentlyshapedproperties,the ideal space would be somewhat circular torectangular in shape so that a community center couldbe centralizedand the componentsofthe complex wouldsurround it in a well organized, easy to navigate design.

Funding a facility of this size could be challenging,although the draw of such a facility could easily helppay for its development, as well as operating andmaintenance cost. The many tournaments andcommunity events that could potentially be held at aTypeAfacilitywould help to financethe facility throughentry fees, membership fees, etc.

Due to the huge cost and size of Type A facilities, itwould be practical to design a Type A facility as thecohesion of several Type B facilities. The B facilitieswould be built in adjacent areas as the money became

Gilroy Sports Park - Phasing Plan

the beals group


Tennis Center

Page: 31


available, as they could individually be built fairlyquickly. As program demands grew and monetarysources became readily available, additional Type Bfacilities would be developed. Eventually, as the TypeB facilities were completed, they could be combinedwith various elements, such as paths, play areas,parkinglots, community centers, etc., to form a type A facility.This process would require detailed planning so thatthe land, funding sources, and needs were met to createa well-planned TypeA complex.

Type B F'acility

A Type B facility is defined as a ten to twenty-acrespecialty sports park that is a single or multiuse sportsfacility with dedicated fields capable of holdingcompetitive matches as well as practices and drop-inrecreation. TypeB facilities are defined by their overallsize. The components and number of fields in a Bfacility would depend entirely on the sports program(s)and supportive facilities designed to be housed there.

Santa Clara Soccer Complex

For instance, an adult baseball field needs an averageofthree acres per field, so a twenty-acre facility couldhold a maximum of six fields. However, the sametwenty acres could also house eight adult or twelveyouth soccer fields. There could also be a mixture ofprograms within a B facility; for instance, two adultsoftball and six adult soccer fields could be created onthe appropriate twenty-acre plot.

Page: 32

Fresno Softball Complex

A Type B facility would require a significant amountofmaintenance, and thus an on-site maintenance yardwould be included in such facilities. These facilitieswould also have amenities such as concessions,restrooms, enough parking to handle the facility at fullcapacity,a small community building, and even tot playareas for spectators' and participants' children orsiblings.

In order to make the best use ofspace, a Type B facilitywould be best suited on a rectangular plot ofland. Thiswould allow for the maximum number of fields withthe least wasted space. Uneven pieces of land couldbe utilized as well, although they would most likely

A Typical Maintenance Yard

April 2002

-=============================1Regional Sports Facility Study

-

have to be larger than necessary, due to the space thatwould be unusable if it were a challenging shape todesign with.

Type C Facility

TypeC facilities aremulti-use sports fields located withincity and county parks. Typically, Type C facilities are5 to 20 acres in size and are not necessarily dedicatedto one particular age group or even to one sport. Forinstance, a park setting could house multiple baseballfields that serve several to many age groups, and whoseoutfields are lined as soccer fields for weekend games.

Ifno TypeA facility were planned in the community orin a nearby community, an aquatic center or communitycenter could be added to a Type C facility to broaden

Cardoza Park - A Type C Facility

the beals group

its use. A Type C facility would have concessions andrestrooms, as well as adequate parking for the localcommunity and other members ofthe region.

A Competitive Basejield Field

The county or city responsible for the park wouldmaintain the facilities, and the incurred costs of fieldusage could be offset with league fees. These facilitieshave a moderate amount of maintenance involved inkeeping them in shape, so a dedicated maintenancefacility would not be necessary, although a regularmaintenance program would have to be included tomaintain the facility.

Type D Facility

Type D facilities are classified as neighborhood parksand school facilities. They are anywhere from 2 to 8

Cupertino Jr. High School

Page: 33


acres in size and are oriented toward youth sportsprograms and practice facilities. These facilities wouldattempt to maximize public space by combining schoolsand parks with sports facilities.

The fields at these facilities would be non-dedicatedand maintained by the school district or county or city,if it is a park setting. There would typically not be

Ortega School

concessions or restrooms,althoughpermanent restroomsand limited parking might be necessary.

Type D facilities would be oriented toward communityand neighborhood use.

Type E Facility

Type E facilities are renovations ofparks and schools.

This includes projects of turf renovation, grading,irrigation, new site furnishings, or even reprogrammingthe facility to house different sports. Along with therenovations, additional programs could be added toaccommodate more users or to fulfill specific needs.Worn out or practice facilities are examples ofpotentialfacilities to consider as Type E.

The maintenance on E facilities is dependent on thetype of facility it is and would be taken care of bywhoever is responsible for the property.

TypeE facilitiescould be developed into TypeB facilitiesif they are large enough in their existing state or havethe potential to be expanded.

- . • ~!iI:01'j:c'c'i

Santa Clara High School Track Renovation

Page: 34Selma GUnderPark Renovation Project

April 2002


5 Financing Strategy

the beals group


Financing Strategy

1. The designation and approval of specificsports facility projects by relevantjurisdictions and governing bodies, as wellas the completion of required land use andenvironmental documents.

This section presents a preliminary financing strategyfor funding the Regional Sports Facility Study MasterPlan. The strategy is designed to guide future actionsregarding the sources and uses of funds, as well as toestablish feasible financing for both capital facilitiesand on-going operations. The overall logic of thefinancing strategy articulated here will need to befurther considered and tested to ensure that it is soundand feasible given the perspective of the variousstakeholders involved. The actual construction ofsportfacilities will depend on a number of issues that havenot yet been fully resolved at this time. These include:

2.

3.

4.

Finalization of facility cost and phasingestimates based on specific project-byproject information, including aconsideration of facility design and sitecharacteristics.

Establishment and approval of specificsports facility financing mechanisms,including voter approval if necessary.

Success in securing State, federal, andprivate funding sources.

The improvement program that is ultimately adoptedmust befinancially feasible; i.e.,junding sources mustbe identified and quantified that match programmedexpenditures.

Given the significant cost associated with the sportsfacility projects identified here, it will be important todevelop a strategic approach to project financing andprioritization. This principle may mean scaling backor more slowly phasing the improvement programcurrently being contemplated. It may not be possibleto obtain funding to cover the full cost ofthe facilitiesrecommended over the next ten years, especially whenconsidering the program, maintenance, and operatingexpenses. However, funding mechanisms andprograms should be established early on so as to buildup reserve accounts which will grow over time.

Innovative ways ofmeeting sportsfacility needs shouldbe pursued.

The large costs of achieving sports facility needssuggest that existing sources and standard techniqueswill need to be leveraged and expanded in a numberof ways. The existing collaboration with the schooldistricts is an example of such innovation, but otheropportunities for public-public and public-privatepartnerships should be explored. This will include anaggressive pursuit of state and federal sources as wellas the potential for voter approved financing sources.Ultimately, political support at the local, state, andfederal level will be critical for success.

The financing strategy presented here, while notresolving the issues described above, provides aframework that will support subsequent decisions byproject stakeholders regarding facility investments, theformation offinancing mechanisms, and prioritizationof state and federal funding opportunities.

Financing Strategy Principles

The financing strategy should be guided by thefollowing principles.

April 2002

Maintenance, operations, and depreciation must beconsidered prior to facility development.

The commitment to construct a capital facility leadsto additional operations and maintenance costs. Evenwell-maintained sports facilities wear out and need tobe renovated and replaced on a regular cycle. Sportsfacilities typically have operations, maintenance, andreplacement costs that rival or even exceed, on apresent-value basis, the initial capital investment.Thus, capital investment must be matched withincreased operating revenues, either as commitmentsof existing funding or increased funding from newsources. In addition, since capital funding sources are

Page: 36


often more available than operating and maintenancesources (O&M), attempts to reduce O&M coststhrough sustainable facility design should be pursued.

Sports facility projects should be phased in over timewith new development paying its fair share ofimprovement costs.

Funding mechanism should be linked to facility type.

The type of funding mechanism or source pursuedshould be linked to the type and purpose of the sportsfacility project for which funding is sought. In general, .smaller, local serving sports facilities will be fundedat the municipal level while larger, regional servingfacilities willbe funded regionally, by a coalition ofcities or the County as a whole, for example. Thus,for the larger facilities, regional planning andagreements will need to be established. In some casesvoter approved funding mechanisms may be necessary,especially for regional, "big-ticket" items.

The amount, timing, and type of sports facilitiesdeveloped will be linked to population growth. Impactfees, exactions, park land dedications, and othercharges to new development are effective mechanismsfor building up reserve accounts for future facilitycapital costs. Thus, not only is phasing necessary froma financial feasibility perspective, it also provides anincentive for new developments to pay a fair share offacility costs.

Table 5.1. Capital and Operating & Maintenance Costs

Onll-!il11ll CapitalFacility C~sts ..... _ _ ()lIglJil1g.Q~IIIIGc:>sts (cul1llTlullitive).Q.nEltoFive.:Vel!r~ . _TElnYllars:_TweJ1tY'f'llar~. ..()r14~ toFivEl'f'lllIrl>__TElI1Years .. IVVEllltY'f'ears

$()$281,:344~,m

$59,168

$1,()26,~6

$2,033,8Q:3$Q'

_$241,8:33'

$0"

. $141,(J9.Q$0

.$34,.636..

$1,602,172. ..'$1 ,230;990 _

.. .. ._ . $0$.182,341

~1,57.o.,Q15

$395,5.97

.1Q$116,~:39.

$2,~4<l,Q!4..

$75,626. $~~?,§9Y

. $3.8,?,673$12,8.<15,0.11

__ ~O

$951,B70

$514,498.•·~13:36~:i8~T.··.

$0:$1,il57:~:34.

$i:t·_. _~i,~~"~?4§:~ .--- - -- --------$0

. $392,~07

$0._- _. ,$.I.~~i~~-;3~~_'._

... ~O_~1§1 ,670 ..

$25,120,246_ . $6,329,55L

._.$0 _$1,859,830

Gel1tr.aI.~El9iC:>11

AFacili~es

B Facilities" "-_..._.._~-_.._~--...-.----... -

C Facilities- '=c-,O(;rHClcllities

,l)c:>!J!I1\YEl~!J~El9iC11l _A Facilities

- - . ---,,-,,------, ..,._",--,--- ------

...._ !3.E_Cl(;iUti~_ .C FaCilitiesC,..[)ore:FacilitiEls .

,l)c:>utIlElll~tRegion.A FacilitiesB FacilitiesC Facilitiesg, [)or. E: FClCiliti~

$15,562,254

. . __ .---- _$0$740,757,$~85,.486

$2,628,790$'1,930,1~1' ._

$662,501:. ~1 ,4~3,74.6J ...

$1,212,422$4,437,127$3,971;2-13 '.'

$1,:3QM!'iL

$972,641~O

$46,297

_m,8'I:3.

$1.136,940$308,134

·_$87;704 .. . .jl1()M~?,._ ..

"""" !$1,212,717;

$585,454'.. _ :$335.904:$!§8,!§1'

[Nl)r:!I1VVEl!i! REl9i(Jn ....A FacilitiesB Facilities

-'.---_ ..'.'--.'-_.--'_.- .-

CFCI<:ilitiesg, [) C1rEFacilities

"i",

i..

$0$1,613,~~7

$2.1g8.183.$2,85Q,484

$0$2,002,930'$2.227.405:$2,752.031' .

$0$1,8Q~,6:3?

$2.134.048$~,E)!'i?,916

_$0.$100,830,

$134.886$178.:155 ..

$0$226,014

- -S?74:09.Q·

i3!'iQ,1!'i!'.

. $0_ $338,678

$407,477,_ $51§,?77'

.. $3,5E3:M?1

l)tal1i!;la!J!i_GlJl,Il1!YIC:>!1I1 .A FacilitiesB Facilities

- -'._-----'.".' ..._-_.'-". CFacilities

•.... _ g,().(Jr.E:f=Clc:iliti~

!Total

$40,682,500$8.295,025$2.898,940 .$5,1?7,470 ....

~!3,?\!6~129

$3,143,289!$22,204,601:

$2,889,906i .

_ ~!'i.~~!'i,9.1.llc

.. ~3~,86~,713 '

$1,598,094 $2,542,656$21,328,849 .$51a.,~:3l:l._$6,180,887~ _.-;---- $181,184

... $?,3()3,~51 L . $3.22,34.2.

.$:3<l,~QMl}6

$2,739,112$1.z:906,.227'

$361,803..$§J:3,.9§2L

~5,681,1Q3

.... '$2,838:993

.~i~~~~:~~i$!,OOJi,~!'il:l'

$7):l3.1.!3:3Qi

!(1lgapi~IClrl~o~rCltirl9c:()Sts for s'Ni11llTli119j:)()()!s,irldC1<Jrfacilities•buLdil19f; a.rl~.Ianda9lJisilion are .notincllJded,.



Facility Phasing and Cost

The facility financing strategy will be directly linkedto facility cost and phasing. The facility cost andphasing assumptions developed as part of this studyare presented in Table 5.1. The phasing scheduleshown is based on future community needs, asdescribed in early chapters of this report, at five, ten,and twenty years into the future. These phasingassumptions may ultimately need to be refined toreflect the availability of financing, suitable sites, andother considerations.

The capital cost estimates are based on industrystandards and represent an average of $240,000 peracre. These costs may be further refined based onrecommendationsfor "value engineering." This wouldallow the transfer of maintenance costs to capitalthroughthe constructionoffacilities with maintenancesaving features. These featurescould include syntheticturf, increased hardscaping, and low-maintenancelandscaping in order to minimize operating expenses.

Table 5.2. Funding Options

Funding Type

The operation and maintenance cost estimates arebased on an average annual cost of$15,000 per acre.Again, these costs could be reduced throughmaintenance-saving facility design.

Evaluation of Funding Options

An overview of potential funding sources andmechanisms for Stanislaus County sports facilities isprovided in Table5.2. As shown, differentmechanismsare more appropriate for O&M or capital expenditures,respectively. Although a number of financingmechanisms may be appropriate for either O&M orcapital financing, it is unlikely that any will be suitablefor both simultaneously; e.g., the revenues receivedare not likely to be used interchangeably. The possibleexception is a sales tax increase, a portion of whichcould be dedicated to secure bonded indebtedness withremaining revenues directed toward operation andmaintenance.

R~.9!Jl!El~. ..f.o~__Q~_n.,. __ .£.C)r.9!!pi~J.

Cost Cost

Existing Local Sourcesc;ity!9ouTlty ~neral j='und

•Loc§llmpactFeesUserEees/Concessions.Lease Revenue

..Special Assessments

NewL.0caI/RElgionlil SC)urces•Re9ion~lIlrnp?(;tF~e .....

.. <:.en~ral()bli9l:ltion !30nejiSales TaxIncrease

_JP.rilJClt~G()ntrib~ti()ns

,Mello-Roos CFD-'-'''--'--'''''-' ---- --"---"'~'-""-'--'"

i[)El~l()p~_n!,A.gree~nts.

.JointFundingAgree~ntsRedeveloPlTlElnt ,A.gency Funds

.... ~Q~rti~iTlqR~~I1l,l.ElS

~tCJte/Federal Sourcesi Propgl)iti0111?JS!§tel..:P!.Q~l)iti.()I1.~QJ~!::l!~) ..... _iI"cll1ej/lJlJa!ElrG()l1serVt3~on. (Feejer§l)j~:?1JEEl<JElr?D ..:l.Jr~l:ln. Park?11c:1 RecrEl?ti0.ni REl(;Q"El!y~r.ogr_?rn ...

April 2002

NoNoNoNo

Yes

NoYesYes

NoYes

NoNoNo.No

NoNoNo

No.NoNo

YesYes

NoNo

Yes,Yes,

, •....•.- "---'."'-" ....

No.····.·.···0·.·."_·..,",,--_.

No;.(\Jo;

No:

NoYesNo.

YesYes

YesYes

Yes,YesYes:YesYesYes

YesYesYesYes,YesYes'

Page: 38

In addition, many of the options in Table 5.2 alsorequire voter approval. It is likely that the County mayhave an opportunity to successfully adopt a voterapproved measure to provide large-scale financing forsports facility development. However, if a Countywide general obligation bond is approved by the voters,it is unlikely that a community facilities district (CFD)or sales tax increase would also be approvedsubsequently. Similarly, a county-wide measure maylimit the opportunities for an individual jurisdictionto raise local funds for recreation facilities throughvoter- approved measures in the future.

The political and fiscal constraints ofvoter-approvedmeasures should also be considered with regard tofinancing later phases of development. Specifically,ifa large bond is approved to finance development forneeded facilities in years one through five, it may bedifficult to obtain voter support for a subsequent bondto finance facility needs in year ten.

Selected Capital Cost Funding Sources

Several capital funding sources have been selected forfurther discussion because oftheir potential to financethe large, "lumpy" investments that will be requiredto construct needed sports facilities. Funds generated.by the mechanisms discussed below could be used tofinance regional facilities (Type A and B) as well assmaller, more local-serving facilities (Type C, D, andE). However, because of the much greater capitalinvestment associated with Type A and B facilities, itis assumed that the majority of funds discussed belowwould be directed to regional facilities. An overviewof revenue estimates from selected funding sources isprovided in Table 5.3.

Voter-Approved Debt

Voter-approved debt in the form ofa general obligationbond is one mechanism that has been used successfullyby numerous communities throughout the state tofinance parks and recreation projects. For example,the residents of San Jose recently approved MeasureP, which raised over $228 million for parks andrecreational sports facilities. A bond measure requirestwo-thirds voter approval and typically results in the

Page: 39


creation ofa new, dedicated revenue source that is usedto pay the debt obligation.

A successful bond measure could generate significantfunds for capital investment in regional sports facilities.For example, if voters approved an annual perhousehold tax of $20 per household to fund Phase 1development, as much as $41 million dollars could begenerated (see Table 3). This sum would be enough toprovide funding for roughly halfthe cost ofdevelopingthe sports facilities that are needed.

It is important to point out that over time opportunitiesto issue additional bonds may be limited by waningvoter support. For example, if voters approve a $41million bond to finance facilities needed in Phase 1,they will be less likely to support another measure tofinance the second phase of development. If bondmeasures are used for later phases ofdevelopment (e.g.,Phase 2 or 3) instead, potentially more debt could beissued due to the expected increases in number ofhouseholds. However, a later bond issue would meandeferring facility construction to a time whencumulative needs are greater.

Community Facilities District or Parcel Tax

Avoter-approved special tax, such as the one generatedby a Community Facilities District (CFD) or a Countywide parcel tax, is another mechanism that couldgenerate significant funds for capital improvements.The special tax would provide a dedicated revenuestream that could be used to issue bonds. A Countywide special tax bond devoted to facility constructionwould have revenue potential similar to a GO bond.Therefore, if an annual tax of$20 per household wereapproved by a two-thirds majority vote for Phase 1,approximately $41 million could be raised to fundfacility construction.

The advantage to using a CFD is that the district couldbe defined to include only selected areas ofthe Countythat most strongly support the measure. A specialparcel tax would also require two-thirds majorityapproval in a County-wide election. 1 A CFD could beused to fund operating and maintenance expenses, asdiscussed further in the following section.

the beals group

-Regional Sports Facility Study 1=============================

Dedicated Sales Tax Increase Impact Fees

Impact fees are charged to new development and aretypically collected when building permits are issued.As described earlier, many communities, includingeight cities in Stanislaus County, have enacted parkand recreation fees to help pay for the acquisition ofland and capital projects (current fees in the Countyrange from roughly $450 to $2,200 per new residentialunit). Potentially these fees could be implemented inthe remaining areas of the County and dedicated tothe construction of regional sports facilities. Forexample, ifa fee representing the average fee currentlycharged in the County ($1,360) were implementedCounty-wide and charged to all new residentialdevelopment (estimated at 5,843 units per year), overfive years, a total of $39.7 million in fees could becollected (see Table 5.3).

Impact fees do not require voter approval; however,they must bear a "rational nexus" between costs andthe benefit received (or demand created) by the new

Revenue Estimatesfor Selected Financing Mechanisms *Phase1 (2005) Phase2 (2010) Phase3 (2020)Mechanism

A sales tax increase would also be appropriate forfunding operations and maintenance, and possiblyoffers enough flexibility to be used for both capitalfinancing andoperations and maintenance. Forexample, a portion ofsales tax revenues could be usedto secure bonded indebtedness (and required reserves)and the remaining revenues could be used for facilityoperations and maintenance.

Table 5.3.

A voter-approved, County-wide sales tax increasecould provide a dedicated revenue stream to securedebt financing (bonds) for capital costs associated withdeveloping new regional sports facilities.' Forexample, taxable sales in Stanislaus County averaged$11,769 per capita in year 2000. If per capita salesand population remained constant into the future, asales tax increase ofone-quarter ofone percent wouldgenerate enough revenue to support a bond issue ofroughly $86 million dollars (see Table 5.3 for keyassumptions).'

CaRital Funding(3()Bond (1)

CFD or Parcel TaxBond (1)

SalesTax IncreiilseBond (2) .

Impact Fees (culTllTllJlative) (3)

$40,831,299

$40,831,299

$86,400,000

$39,732,400

$49,007,729

$49,007,729.

$103,248,717

$79,464,800

$61,891,365

$61,891,365

$130,391,759

$158,929,600

Operating & MaintenanceTournament Fees (4) $3,002,000 $4,275,000 $5,339,000

SalesTax(5) $15,404,385 $18,489,099 $23,349,696

CFD or Parcel Tax(6) . $868,543 $1,042,468 $1,316,523

• Population-i:lased calculationS incorporateCalifornia Dept.of Financepopulation estimatesf()r the iilssociatedtirneperiod (i.e. 2005,2010,2020).(1)p,gglJrnes alllxincrElase of $20 per year appliedto projectedtl()u~eh()Id~County:lNide anda!i,sPElrcent bond interestrate, ~umes 10percentof proceedswill be usedfor administrative fees,(?)p,gglJrne~~~IEls Illx incre.aseof .0025cel1tapplied to iil"E!rageper capita ta.xabl.esalesof $11,769. Only 50 percentof tax revenues is assumed available for debtservice.Assumes10 percent of bondproceedswillbe usedfor adminstrative fees.(3) Assumesan averageimpactfee of $900per newresidentialunit andthat5,843 unitsaredeveloped per year.: . :(~LAsSurne~ EliilctlE"gional soccer/i:laUfield generates roughly $19.000<lflflu",lly, ..Se" Tabie6 For d""'i1s.(5) Assurnes<l .002~ cent salestaxincrease appliedtoa"E!ragElper capitasalesof $11,769,(6) Assumeseach household oavs $5 specialtaxannually.

April 2002 Page: 40

development. They do not provide a guaranteed levelof funding because fee collection will depend onfluctuations in future residential development.Although impact fees could be used to fund regionalfacilities, it may be more appropriate to assume thatthese fees will be adopted at the local level to financelocal-serving facilities.

Joint Funding

The County and cities should continue to maximizeopportunities for facility sharing and joint funding,especially with local school and college districts. Forexample, State programs offer 50 percent matchingfunds for gymnasiums and other multipurpose facilitiesthat are built on school district land. The local matchcan corne from a variety of sources, including impactfees, developer contributions, or City and DistrictGeneral Fund revenues. Indeed, any source the Cityor County might seek for sports facility funding couldbe used as part of the local 50 percent match. Inaddition,severaldistricts may be willing to help financean off-site sports facility that supports their athleticprograms using money derived from local sources,(e.g., a school facility General Obligation bond).

State, Federal, and Private Grants

There are a variety of grant programs and fundingsources for parks and recreation services and facilitiesavailable at the State and Federal level. Several citiesin the County have been successful at attractingfundingfromthese sources,but a more concertedregional effortmay be required for a regional sports facility. At theState level, the voters recently passed Proposition 12,a Park Bond Act that makes capital funds available tolocal jurisdictions based upon categorical allocationsand competitivegrant applications. Proposition 13alsooffers opportunities for parks and recreation capitalfunding.At the federal level, CommunityDevelopmentBlock Grants have been utilized effectively by anumber of localities for parks and recreation projectfunding.

Private gifts and contributions represent anotherfunding option that is not currently heavily utilized inStanislausCounty. These can range fromprivate grants

Page: 41


and endowments to major sponsorships anddedications. For example, many "deep pocket"companies are willing to contribute substantial fundsfor the naming rights of sports facilities (e.g., PacBelland 3-Com Parks in San Francisco). Again, the revenuepotential will depend on the type and quality ofprogramming and facilities offered. A summary ofkeystate, federal, and private funding sources is providedin the Appendix, section V .

Selected O&M Funding Options

When planning for new sports facilities, it is criticalto identify dedicated future revenue sources that canbe used for operating and maintenance costs (O&M).There is typically little funding available at the federalor state level for operating expenses, and the range ofpublic finance tools that can be used for this purposeis limited. As a result, securing on-going revenues forparks and recreation can often be more difficult thanobtaining capital funds.

Primary Funding Options

Tournament Revenues

Tournament revenues currently provide funding forexisting facilities in various jurisdictions throughoutthe County. As part of this analysis, EPS gatheredinformation on current user volume and fees fortournaments and practice play in several communities(the results of this survey are summarized in theAppendix, section V). Tournaments can be regularlyscheduled league games (for example soccer andsoftball league games scheduled for seasonalweekends) or special annual events that draw playersand spectators from beyond the region. Althoughvarious coriununities define tournaments differently,in general, the term indicates two full days ofplay.

Based on current fee levels and user demand, it isestimated that soccer and softball fields can generateroughly $19,000 per field annually as calculated inTable 5.4. There are 94 soccer and softballlbaseballfields (adult and youth) programmed in Type A and Bfacilities for Phase I (one to five years). If each ofthese fields collects an average of $19,000 in

the beals group

-Regional Sports Facility Study1=============================

tournament fees, approximately $1.8 million couldbe generated in year five. This revenue is estimated tocover about 65 percent of O&M costs for Type A andB facilities in that year. Tournament revenues (as wellas O&M costs) will increase at each phase ofdevelopment to correspond with the increased numberof fields in operation (see Table 5.3).

It has been assumed that other types of facilities (e.g.,basketball and volleyball courts) will not generaterevenue from tournament user fees because currentlythere is little precedent for these fees in the County.However, it may be possible in the future to increaserevenues through fees for classes, community centerfacility rentals, parking and admissions, merchandise,food and beverage sales, and advertising.

Sales Tax

A voter-approved sales tax increase restricted tosupporting O&M for recreation facilities wouldprovide a substantial amount offunding that could becollected County-wide and distributed to facilitiesthroughout the County. For example, taxable sales inthe County in 2000 were $11,769 per capita. If thislevel ofper capita taxable is achieved in the future, asales tax increase of one quarter of one percent couldgenerate roughly $15 million in 2005 alone. Annualrevenues from a sales tax increase are estimated toexceed the total annual costs associated with operatingall the proposed facilities throughout the County ateach phase of development (see Table 5.3 for keyassumptions).

The sales tax increase would have to be voter approved;therefore, passing a sales tax increase for recreationfacilities could limit County ability to use thismechanism for other funding needs in the future.

Community Facilities District or Parcel Tax

A community facilities district (CFD) or parcel taxcould be approved as a means of funding on-goingoperations of recreation facilities; both require twothirds majority approval by affected voters. A MelloRoos CFD offers the flexibility to design the districtto include only areas that are most supportive of themeasure, whereas a parcel tax would probably beproposed at the County level and would need approvalof two thirds ofvoters in a County-wide election.

The amount ofrevenue that could be generated from aCounty-wideCFD or parcel tax depends on the amountof additional tax that is approved. For example, if anadditional tax of $5 per year per household isauthorized, roughly $900,000 could be generated in2005 (see Table 6.3 for key assumptions). This annualtotal would grow as the number of households in theCounty increases."

Aswas mentioned previously, a special tax can be usedeither for operating expenses or for capitalimprovements (through bonded indebtedness).However, in order to be used for both purposes, twoseparate taxes would have to be created and approvedby voters.

Table 5.4. Sports Facility Income ProformaFacility Average Average Daily

\l\leekgay Tourl1arnentRental rate Rental Rate

AvailableWeekdays

(1)

AvailableWeekend

Days

-

VVeekdayIncome

Tournament· Total AnnualIncome (2) Income

per Field

Soccer/Softball $50 $240 113 55 $5.677 $13,326 ~19,OOO

(1) Assumes facility is open April~. November, and.is in use at full-price 65%of weekdays. 80%of weekends.(2) Tournament is defined as l1No full days of play.

Source: Economic & Planning Systems. Inc.

April 2002 Page: 42


City/County General Fund

By definition, General Fund revenues are used for awide range ofgeneral governmental purposes such aspublic safety, social services, road maintenance, andparks and recreation. Because these funds competewith other programs, the amount that will potentiallybe available for a regional sport facility will fluctuatefrom year to year, depending on the county or city'sfiscal health and public policy priorities. In addition,cities and counties can only levy general taxesspecifically authorized by the State legislature, suchas sales, property, utility user, and transient occupancytaxes, or property transfer tax. Although these revenueswill grow as the region's population and economygrow, the demands for services will also increase.These demands will limit the ability to dedicate orallocate General Fund revenues to a regional sportsfacility.

Stanislaus County and its nine cities currently relyheavily on General Fund revenues for parks andrecreation funding. However, none of thesejurisdictions currently has a formal policy regardingregular funding by the General Fund for parks andrecreation in general or a regional sports facility inparticular. The establishment of such a policy,especially on a County-wide basis, could help solidifyfuture funding. The disadvantage of this approach isthat it would divert funds from other county and citydepartments and programs.

'.J

Table 5.5. Recommended Strategy Options for RegionalFacility Financing: Selected Funding Sources

'Item Phase 1 (2005) i Phase 2 (2010)

'CAPITAL IMPROVEPJiENTS (A&~B I=.acilities Qnly)

.Phase 3 (2020)

Page: 43

- . --Total Facility Costs (1):

!Revenue Options:GO Bond----_.--_._•...~.....,--"'.,,--_•..-Percent of Cost

- ". __ n'. ~

..C;F[) or parcel Taxl30ndPercent of Cost

Sales Tax Increase Bond.'.---,--" "" --"•....• " ,"',_.... , .._-..' .....'.

Percent of Cost

Total O&M Costs (1): .

Revenue Qptions:.Tournament Fees_ ..,., ..._--,._'" .._,-, ...._------,--Percent of Cost

1

Sales Tax-Percentofcosi"······· ...

CFD or Parcel Tax, Percent ()ieast . .

$48,977,525

.MQ,~31,?~9...83%

$40,83J ,?~9 '83%

$~6,-4QQ,000.

176%

~:3,961,()95

~J,772..,79058%

... ...~~~,,!(),!,~~§ ...503%

$868,543.28";[,

$25,347,889

not recommended

not recommended--,"",-",.,,-,,-, '."'-""-"",,, .,. __ .

not recommended.._------. ,,-- - "

.$2,642,~()() .57%

-.'-_.',.. --,'.

..~1.!l,~g,Qil~ .398%

$1,042,468 .22%

$22,926,944.

not recommended.- '. _..", _._-_ ..__ .,_.._."."._.,., .

.n()t rec()rn~l1dEld

not recommended

..$3,482,70057%

$23,349,696····_··········384%~

$1,316,52322%

the beals group

-

--

Regional Sports Facility Study 1=============================

Key Funding Recommendations

Based on the analysis presented above BPS hasoutlined a number ofkey recommendations for fundingbot? capital construction and operating andmamtenance costs for regional facilities. Assummarized in Table 5.5, these funding options arebased on a comparison oftotal costs for Facility TypesA and B only, by phase with potential funding by phase.The primary financing strategy recommendations arediscussed further below.

Implement a voter-approved measure County-wide tofinance capital costs associated with Phase Idevelopment ofType A and B facilities.

A voter-approved measure should be used to securefunding for part or all of the capital costs associatedwith Phase 1. Of the options discussed above, a onequarter cent sales tax increase would provide thehighest level of funding: annual tax revenues could beused to support bonded indebtedness of as much as$86.4 million dollars. This exceeds the total cost ofconstructing Phase 1 regional facilities byapproximately 76 percent (see Table 5.5). A sales taxincrease may be perceived by voters as more equitablethan a special tax, since it targets all County residentsas well as non-residents rather than just Countyproperty owners. The political feasibility of securinga sales tax increase should be analyzed further.

Alternatively, a GO or CFD bond would generateroughly 83 percent of the funds needed to constructregional facilities (Type A and B) to meet Phase 1needs. The shortfall could be bridged through Federaland State funding programs as well as throughdonations from private organizations and/orindividuals. The advantage to a CFD bond over a GObond or sales tax increase is that the facilities districtcould be created to include only the areas ofthe Countywhere there is strong support for publicly financedregional sports facilities. Therefore, there may be agreater chance for achieving the two-thirds votermajority required. However, if the CFD does notinclude the entire County, the amount of bondedindebtedness that can be supported may decrease.

April 2002

It is important to note that it probably will not bepolitically feasible to issue voter-approved debt to payfor the construction of regional sports facilities morethan once. Therefore if a bond is approved to pay forPhase 1 improvements, it should not be expected thatfuture bond measures will be approved for constructionof Phase 2 or 3.

Impact fees should be used to fund local-servingfacilities.

Im~ac~ fe~s ~ave already been adopted by the majorityof jurisdictions in the County. Therefore, it isrecommended that fees continue to be used at the locallevel to support the development of local-servingrecreation facilities.

Secure dedicated revenues to cover O&M costs.

The options for securing a dedicated revenue sourcesfor O&M are limited, particularly ifthe County passesa voter-approved measure to fund capital costs. Theoptions that are available include:

1. Increase tournament fees, other user fees,and advertising revenues to levels that moreclosely match projected operating costs.

2. If a sales tax increase is approved to fundcapital costs, use any annual revenues inexcess of the amount needed for debt serviceforO&M.

3. Create a CFD for facility maintenance. Thisoption will be difficult for political reasonsbut could be used in conjunction with a GOor CFD bond measure issued for capitalfinancing.

Use County and city generalfund revenues to supportlocal-serving facilities.

It is recommended that local general fund revenuescontinue to be used for existing as well as new localsports facilities (Types C, D, and B). For politicalreasons~ local general fund revenues are not likely tobe a reliable source of revenue for regional facilities.

Page: 44

In addition, given the significant expansion needs forlocal as well as regional facilities, local fundingobligations will continue to remain high. Thus, locallygenerated revenues should be reserved for localfacilities and regional revenue sources for regionalfacilities.

I Acity,county, orspecialdistrict canplacea taxproposalbeforethevotersto provide funding for

specialpurposes. The proposalcan also he placed on the hallotby voter initiative.

2 It is possiblethatthevotingpublicwouldhave to approvethebond issueatthetimethesales tax

increase is approved or in a subsequent election.

3 Dueto thelikelihoodofhigh reserverequirements, thisestimate assumesthatonlyfiftypercent of

expected tax revenueswouldbe availablefordebt service.

4 Itshouldbe notedthatrevenues willbe less if the CFDdoesnotincludetheentire County.

Page: 45


the beals group

-

--

-

6 Master Plan

the beals group



Master Plan for Development

iij iij iij .. Gl ...,Q ,Q ,Q:; iij E ... GlGl GlS: Gl"C .c III Gl oII) 11) .. 11)< C> e e ClIII III :::s III _ ¢:: u 0 iij iij s:::m mo- m ;:::;. iij 0 0 tn ,Q iij ·es:>-iij tn iij tn .. ,Q

II)s: - s:co,Q .. ,Q .. Gl s: Gl Gl >- .c ·2 .ll::"<"I .. _.c ...... Gl :; .. :; E 'S E .ll:: ~ "C o E:::s .... :::s--¢:: :::s I II) 0 II) s::: e ·io I 00) 0 OM III "C 0 "C III o III III '0 III Gl

III

>-e. >- ~tn...

>- :::.m < u. <C> >-C> m > J: l- I- tn

Southwest 0.4 1.2 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2._,..,._._ ....._.._-,_ .•..-

Central 5.7 10.1 35.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7.. ,,,.. ,,.......-.._._,...-

Southeast 0.0 1.0 26.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0Northeast 0.2 4.6 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6

7.2 15.7 75.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5

Table 6.1 Regional Summary ofFacility Needs

-

This section looks at each individualcommunity withinStanislaus County and presents a detailedrecommendation for the development ofsports facilitiesover the next twenty years.

Facility Recommendations

The facility recommendations are a direct result ofthecalculations and analysis developed in the study andsurvey process. The final step in this study was tocompile all of the data and quantitatively organize it.Combining the calculations derived from the programparticipation (Appendix II), facility distribution(Appendix IV), and the cost and area needs per field!court type (Appendix IV) enabled the creation anddesign ofthe facility recommendations; thus the MasterPlan for Development. Other factorstaken into accountin the recommendations include community input atmeetings and workshops, "Pick up" or "Drop in"recreation, and the separation ofsports with the abilityto be played in an indoor or outdoor facility.

Input received from the community workshops wasinfluentialin final facility recommendations. Communitymeetings helped confirm and provide additional inputinto the environmental scan process which aided inrefining the field inventory and program participationsurvey. Community input was also valuable in the

community outreach portion ofthe environmental scan.These individual community meetings were used as thefinal confirmation for the survey process (see Appendix6). These numbers were then used to complete thecalculations and master plan recommendations.

"Drop in" or "pick up" recreation occurs at facilitiesthat accommodate athletic programs such as soccer,basketball,tennis, swimming,volleyball, and track. Thistype of recreation occurs in every community. Thechallenge lies in measuring the number ofparticipantsand providing the necessary facilities for their demand.Where applicable, the recommendations took "drop in"recreation into account and placed these needs withinType C, D, and E facilities. The larger "drop in"recreational facilities, such as track and swimming, arerecommended as elements in Type A facilities.

Sportsthat can occur withinindoor andoutdoor facilities,such as basketball and volleyball, were combined intoone program category for all facility types. Manytournaments and league play for these sports occurindoors with recreational and "pick up" games playedat outdoor locations. However, outdoor tournamentsand league play do exist. These tournaments andrecreational play can occur at C, D, or E type facilitiesor in temporary locations for larger events. Therecommendations for the facilities shown in the master



With the needs for each community calculated,recommendations were developed based on thesenumbers utilizing the facility types described in chapterfour. Along with the numbers and types of facilitiesneeded, a financial projection for each recommendedfacility within the community was also generated.

Implementation

The facility recommendations are broken down intothe one- to five-year (current), five- to ten-year, andten to twenty-year demand. The Master Planrecommendations include facility planning, area needs,

consider this and account for these additional types ofinformal recreational needs.

The final step in the calculation process was to developa summary of each community's needs in order tosatisfy their current and future program needs. Usingthe regional calculations, individual community needswere determined utilizing the particular community'spercent participation within a specific sport, multipliedby the overall region's facility needs and subtractingthe number of existing fields. Table 6.1 shows asummary ofeach region's need. Individual communityneeds are covered in the following pages, in therecommendations for each individual community.

Community Needs Summary

11.3 28.3

Total UseNeed

7.4 9.6

Central

R~~i~m__ ··

Ceres:l;r.!1piE~ __

Table 6.2 Summary ofArea Needs by Community

____1~§'(ea!!!I __ 1QX~!l:l) __~I!X~~_~~(ill acre~) .• (in acres) (in acres) ...

!Southwesi i .. .... 1Total Use

Re~io!, _. Need~~n 4.0

Patterson..... _---' ,.-

plan address the need for facilities as a whole and locatethese facilities in either A, B, C, D, or E type athleticfacilities (refer to chapter 4, facility prototypes).

It should be noted that the Master PlanRecommendations are for the organized athleticprograms covered in this study only. Park needs, suchas recreational open space, are not covered in this study.The individual cities ofStanislaus County will need to

Page: 48 April 2002

"-:

-,

financial needs, and other elements specific percommunity. The implementation of the Master Planrecommendations can be incorporated at the proposedtime needed and/or phased in over a series of years,taking into consideration land acquisition, site masterplanning, financialplanning, and constructionprocesses.Many ofthe recommendations include several Type Bfacilities that, if located in close proximity, could bephased into a TypeA facility over the twenty-yearperiod.

For area and budget needs, refer to Table 6.2 in orderto determine the amount of acreage needed in eachcommunity. Table 6.3 summarizes a rough estimate


of development costs for the entire county based on a$200,000 per acre cost, plus a 20% design contingencyfee. These figures are based on the area need for eachprogram and the costs (based on 2002 prices) associatedwith the design and construction processes. Buildings,Aquatic Centers, and Recreation Centers were notincluded in the costs due to the wide range ofpossiblecosts. Land acquisition costs were also not projectedfor these recommendations due to changing economiesand fluctuations in property value.

Master Plan Recommendations

SouthwestRegion One to Five Vears

Newman $738,076Patterson $1,037,975

$1,776,051

CentralRegion

Ceres _ $4,675,031ErTlJire $1,175,072

Modesto $26,515,642sanda $943,882

Southeast'

Ten Vears

$969,408$1,328,347

$2,297,755

$2,020,435$521,073

$11,947,128$449,778

,., .....~

$14,938,414

Twenty Vears

$1,154,205 1$1,558,003

$2,712,207

$1'818'3921

$468,988$11,490,398

$404,800

$14,182,555

$°1$651,135$182,579

$10,068,419

$10,902,133 ,

$2'792'3~11$2,368,043$1,434,256

$6,594,601

Total EstimatedCost Need

$2,861,689 1$3,924,325

$6,786,014


$8'513'8581

,.$.2,,16.•. 5•• ,11. 2•••.$49,953,168$1,798,459

$62,430,597


$2$~ro:~~I', . ~34,41 0,485

$37,135,808


$01$8,8.33.,9.• 5••9$6,89(),194$4,474,768

$20,198,920

The master plan recommendations show a communityby-community breakdown within Stanislaus County ofthe sports facilities needed, the supporting landacquisitionneeds,and general financial information. Thefinancial projections for facility development are basedon an average per acre cost for facility construction.Operations and maintenance (0 & M) costs are givenas annual, cumulative costs. The one to five year 0 &M costs are for one year ofmaintenance for all facilitieslisted in that particular time period. The ten year 0 &M costs are the previous time period's annual 0 & Mcosts (as the facilities are assumed to be in use) plus theadditional 0 & M costs associated with the newlydeveloped faciities during the ten year time period. Thetwenty year 0 & M cost projection includes the 0 &M costs for the two previous time periods, plus thecosts to operate and maintain the newly developedfacilitiesduring this period.

Total RegionNeed

i9" fee included

$58,296,129 $33,863,713 $34,391,496 $126,551,338

Table 6.3 Summary ofMonetary Needs by Community



Newman

-!iii =-g~I/)¢::III 0mtn.c.c.. ..;:, ;:,o 0»

__ .g!!~!E:!nt ~~ 11. _5-10Years 0.8.. _.__.._--,,---"-_.- ._.__ ..

10-20Years 0.7Total

iii =.&l IIIC1).&lI/) CI)ell I/)

m&l.c .... -;:, ;:,0"0><e

CI)

Eelle

Table 6.4 Facility Needs for Newman

Recommendation Summary

In order to satisfy the current sports facility needs, aType B facility is needed to accommodate the youthbaseball«9)/youth softball, youth baseball (13-18)/adultbaseball, and the youth soccer programs in Newman.

Looking at the long-term development plan, Newmanneeds one Type B Facility (or several C, D or Efacilities), one Type D and one Type C facility. Intwenty years, Newman needs to secure 9.8 acres and$2.4 million to accommodate these facilities.

1-5 yearso 1 Type B

Facility Needs

5-10 yearso ExpandBo 1 Type D

10-20 yearso ExpandBo 1 TypeC

to accommodate the demand for a swimming facility inthe adjacent community ofPatterson, if it arises.

Area Needs

In order to accommodate these facilities, a significantamount ofland needs to be secured and designated forsports facility development. The one- to five-yearfacility demand in Newman would require 3.1 acres.The five- to ten-year demand would require anadditional4.0 acres and the ten- to twenty-year demandwould need another 4.8 acres in order to provide enoughspace to develop the recommended facilities. In total,9.8 acres are needed in Newman to satisfy the twentyyear plan ofsports facility development.

Costs

To satisfy the facility needs in the five- to ten-year timeframe the B facility should continue to be developed, ifnot already complete. There will also be a need for a Dfacility to accommodate the football demand.

For the ten- to twenty-year plan, the B facility wouldbe completed, satisfying the demand for youth baseball(9-12), youth baseball «9)/youth softball, youthbaseball (13-18)/adult baseball, and youth soccerfacilities. A Type C facility would be needed for theswimmingneed. This swimming facility could also serve

Page: 50

Not only must the land be secured to develop thenecessary sports facilities, but the money to build thefacilities must be generated as well. The followingpreliminary cost estimations are for the development ofthe sports facilities only and do not include the purchaseprice ofthe land. In order to finance the current demandfor sports facilities, $738,000 dollars must becomeavailable. The five to ten and ten to twenty year facilitydemands will need $969,000 and $1.2 million,respectively, in addition to the monetary need for current

April 2002

=============================1Regional Sports Facility Study

development demand. The monetary needs for eachindividual facility can be seen in Table 6.5. In total,Newman needs $2.3 million dollarsover the next twentyyears in order to develop the facilities to satisfy theirsports facility demand.

Other Program Needs

The programs listed in these recommendations are theathletic programs that were recorded and analyzed bythis study and were shown to have a demand. However,there are additional sports programs that currently existbut were not included in the calculations due to theparticipation numbers. Many ofthese programs cannot

be calculated because of the low and/or unreportedparticipation and lack ofexisting facilities.

Programs such as basketball were found to not haveenough program participation to necessitate facilitydevelopment, but we would recommend facilities to bebuilt. Basketball and swimming could be planned intoone facility, with an indoor or outdoor pool with agymnasium for the basketball. Itwould also be possibleto combine this demand with neighboring communities,such as Patterson, in order to satisfy both cities' needswith a combined facility.

Individual Facility Type

B (All Baseball and Soccer)C (Swimming)

D or E (Football)

TotalNeeded for City

OperCltions and.Maintenance Costs

Oneto Five Years

$683,961$0

$54,115

$738,076

$13,793

Ten Years

$838,024$0

$131,~83

$969,408

$74,381

Twenty Years

$947,195$75,626

$131,383

$1,154,205

$146,519

$2,469,181$75,626

$316,882

$2,861,689

Table 6.5 Facility Cost Projections for Newman



Patterson

Q)

EIII

C)

Q)

EIIIC)

Q)

EIII

C)

Cle·eE.j

U'J

Table 6.6 Facility Needsfor Patterson


Looking at the long-term development plan, Pattersonneeds one Type B Facility (or several C, D, or Efacilities), and one Type C or D facility. In twentyyears, Patterson needs to secure 13.2 acres and $3.2million to accommodate these facilities.

would be slowly developed and would accommodateall of the currently identified athletic needs. It wouldalsoallowforthe inclusionofother,currentlyunidentifiedprograms, such as swimming, hockey, etc.

Area Needs

It would also be possible to combine all ofthe facilityneeds in Patterson into a Type A facility. This facility

In order to satisfy the current sports facility needs, youthbaseball «9)/youth softball and youth soccer shouldbe incorporated into a Type B facility.

For the ten to twenty year plan, the B facility would befurther expanded and completed. No additional facilitieswould be needed unless new facility demands werefound.

To satisfy the facility needs in the five- to ten-year timeframe, the Type B facility should be further developedto incorporate the youth baseball 9-12 as well as theyouth baseball «9)/youth softball. The football needcould be addressed in a school facility, in either a TypeD or E facility.

Costs

Not only must the land be secured to develop thenecessary sports facilities, but the money to build thefacilities must be generated as well. The followingpreliminary cost estimations are for the developmentof the sports facilities only and do not include thepurchase price of the land. In order to finance thecurrent demand for sports facilities recommended here,$1.0 million must become available. The five- to tenand ten- to twenty-year facility demands will need $1.3million and $1.6 million respectively, in addition to the

In order to be able to build these facilities, a significantamount ofland needs to be secured and designated forsports facility development. The one- to five-yearfacility demand in Patterson would require 4.3 acres.The five- to ten-year demand would require anadditional 5.5 acres and the ten to twenty year demandwould need another 6.5 acres in order to provide enoughspace to develop the necessary facilities. In total, 13.2acres are needed in Patterson to satisfy the twenty yearplan ofsports facility development.

5-10 years 10-20 years• Expand B • Expand B• 1 Type D, or E

1-5 years• I Type B

Facility Needs

Page: 52 April 2002


monetary need for current development demand. Intotal, Patterson will need $3.2 million dollars over thenext twenty-years to develop these facilities. Refer toTable 6.7 to assess the individual facility costs.

were found not to have a significant enough programparticipation to necessitate new facility development.We would recommend development ofthese facilitieswithin the next twenty-year period.

$930,421$107,554

$1,037,975

$18,323

Programs such as swimming, track, tennis, and archery

The programs listed in these recommendations are theathletic programs that were recorded and analyzed bythis study and were shown to have a demand. However,there are other sports programs that currently exist butwere not included in the calculations. Many of theseprograms cannot be calculated due to low and/orunreported participation and lack ofexisting facilities. Although there is no need for a pool, based on the

participation numbers, we would recommend thatPatterson plan to develop a pool facility within the nexttwenty years.

Ten Years Twenty Years Total

~~!2~,523

$629,802

$3,924,325

$1,?~6!~7~

$261,124

$1,558,003

~1~8,720

$1,Q67,22~

$261,124

$1,3213,347

$101,345

To satisfy the possible future needs for programs suchas these, development of an A facility should beconsidered. Programs such as archery could beincorporated into a C, D, or E type facility as a closedcourse system. This demand could be combined witha neighboring community, such as Newman, to satisfyboth communities' needs with a combined facility.

One to Five YearsIndividualFacility Type

B (All Bas.eball and Soccer)D or E (Football)

Total Needed for City

()p~ratJons and Maintenarlce.Costs

Other Program Needs

Table 6.7 Facility Cost Projections for Patterson



Ceres

-QO:::::.. .... Q)I Q)Cl) M E E:!. z, IIIIII C)

iii iii = iii = Q) C) ....Q .Q III .Q III iii E ... Q)Q) Q).Q Q).Q .Q III

Q)UUIII 1Il~ III Q)

13 C) u UIII III 0 III III 0

m~ 0m men en en en.c - .c.c .c_ .c-N -- -- -::l .... ::l ::l ::l ::l ::lo I 0 0 0" 0>-e. >->- >-<C >-

Table 6.8 Facility Needsfor Ceres


Creating a long-term development plan, Ceres needstwo B facilities, which would eventually be combinedand developed into one Type A Facility. In twentyyears, Ceres needs to secure 35.0 acres and $8.5 millionto accommodate these facilities.

1-5 yearse 2 Type B

5-10 years-Expand Bs

10-20 years-Merge B

facilitiesinto oneType Afacility

For the ten- to twenty-year time frame, the B facilitieswould continue to be developed, and if on adjacentland plots, could form a larger Type A facility.

Because of the fairly large need for sports facilities,Ceres should consider combining the two B facilitiesinto an A facility. Both B facilities are needed withinthe one- to five-year time frame, but if both weredeveloped as individual facilities on the same land aspart ofa master plan, the fields could be built first andused as the rest ofthe facility was coming on-line.

Area NeedsFacility Needs

In order to satisfy the current sports facilityneeds, youthbaseball (9-12), youth baseball «9)/youth softball, andadult baseball should be incorporated into a B facility.An additional B facility is also needed for the youthand adult soccer programs in Ceres.

To satisfy the facility needs in the five- to ten-year timeframe, the B facilities should be further developed. Thefootball need could be addressed at this point, or as theA facility comeson-line, as a central football/adult soccerstadium field.

Page: 54

In order to be able to build these facilities, a significantamount ofland needs to be secured and designated fordevelopment. The one to five year facility demand inCeres would require 19.5 acres. The five- to ten-yeardemand would require an additional 8.4 acres, and theten- to twenty-year demand would need another 7.6acres in order to provide enough space to develop thenecessary facilities. In total, 35 acres are needed inCeres to satisfy the twenty-year plan of sports facilitydevelopment.

April 2002

'y:

=============================1Regional Sports Facility Study

Costs Other program needs

-Not only must the land be secured to develop thenecessary sports facilities, but the money to build thefacilities must be generated as well. The followingpreliminary cost estimations are for the development ofthe sports facilities only and do not include the purchaseprice of the necessary land. In order to finance thecurrent demand for sports facilities recommended, $4.7million must become available. The five- to ten- andten- to twenty-year facility demands will need $2.0 and$1.8 million dollars, respectively, in addition to themonetary need for current development. In total, Ceresneeds $8.5 million dollars over the next twenty years.Table 6.9 shows the recommended facilities and theprograms each will satisfy, as well as the cost for thefacilities for each time period.

The programs listed in these recommendations are theathletic programs that were recorded and analyzed bythis study and were shown to have a demand. It ispossible that there is a need for additional programs,but the lack offacilities limitsand even inhibitsprogramsfrom starting or growing. These additional programsmay be noticed in the future and can be incorporatedinto the A facility recommended for Ceres.

Although there is no need shown in the calculations fora pool, we would recommend that Ceres plan to developa swimming facility within the next twenty years.

Many ofCeres' residents participate in Modesto sportsleagues and programs. If facilities were created forthese programs in Ceres, the program participationfigures would significantly increase. At this point, morefacilities may be needed to meet the shift in demand.

8,513,858

128,486745,827944,079

1,818,392 . $

532,116

Twenty Years

142,763 . $828,696 $.

1,048,976

2,02Q,435. $

418,467 $

Ten YearsOne to Five Years

A J~1+ 82 + Football)* $81 (AU Sc>ccer. pr()grC1IT1~) $

IndiviciualFacility Type

251,0462,121,3552,302,631

__T()~L~~~!l~.ct.fQr_C~y_ . 4,675,031 ~.-

Operations CllldMaintenance Costs $ 292,189 $'Note: Type A facility only lists rnonetaryneeds for Football facility, as B1 and B2 are listed separately

Table 6.9 Facility Cost Projections for Ceres


Empire

-CiO::::.. ....

CDI CD0) M E~ ~ E

co co

iii iii iii CD C) C)

,Q ,Q iii ,Q iii iii E ..CD CD ,Q CD

,Q,Q co CD

~CD to)

l/l l/l l/l l/l ¢: C) to)co co co co 0 0OJ OJ en OJ OJ en en.c .c .c --- -"5:J :J :J0~

0 "0>- >- <C

(::N-;;';-~:-~:---':: -f.-'-·'-,-,;,

Table 6.10 Facility Needsfor Empire

Recommendation Summary Area Needs

Looking at the long-term facility development planEmpire needs one B type facility and one D or E facility.In twenty years, Empire needs to secure 9.0 acres and$2.2 millionin ordertoaccommodatethesetwo facilities.

1-5 years• 1 B type

Facility Needs

5-10 years 10-20 years• 1 D or E type • None

In order to be able to build these recommended facilities,a specific amount of land needs to be secured anddesignated for the development ofthese sports facilities.The one- to five-year facility demand in Empire wouldrequire 4.9 acres. The five- to ten-year demand wouldrequire 2.2 additional acres, and the ten- to twentyyear facility demand would require 1.9 acres. In total,9.0 acres are needed in Empire to satisfy the twentyyear plan for sports facility development.

CostsThe current sport facility demand in Empire, that ofyouth baseball (9-12) and youth baseball «9)/ youthsoftball could be met with one B sports facility.

The five- to ten-year time frame would require thedevelopment of a Type D or E facility in order toaccommodate the football need.

All facility needs in Empire would be met with thedevelopment of these two facilities and could beaccomplished within ten years.

Ifnot all facilities arebuilt, the ten- to twenty-year timeframe would require the development ofthe additionalbaseball fields within the B facility.

Page: 56

Not only must the land be secured to develop thenecessary sports facilities, but the money to build thefacilities must be generated as well. The followingpreliminary cost estimations are for the developmentof the sports facilities only and do not include thepurchase price ofthe necessary land on which to buildthem on. In order to finance the current demand, $1.2million is needed and the five- to ten-year and ten- totwenty-year plan would demand an additional $521,000and 469,000, respectively. The total monetary needfor the sports facilities recommended here is $2.2million.Refer to Table 6.11 for a detailed breakdown offacilityelements and the cost for the individual facilities overtime.

April 2002

-IRegional Sports Faci~ity Study

Other program needs

The programs listed in these recommendations are theathletic programs that were recorded and analyzed bythis study and shown to have a demand. However,there may be other sports programs that currently existbut were not uncovered by this study.

Additional programs such as cheerleadingwere identifiedin Empire; however, they did not have a significantenough program participation to necessitate facilitydevelopment. Furthermore, the facility demand for thistype ofactivity is not clear. Most likely, cheerleadingcould be handled by local school facilities, type D, andmajor events would need to be held in neighboring citieswhere larger, dedicated facilities existed.

()p~ratiol1l>ancl~irtten~nCEl Costs $

Table 6.11 Facility Cost Projections/or Empire

106,009 1$73,442

One to FiveIndividual facility Type:-~-- " -;;.

... f3jX:()LJ!hI3.~~~~aIL~ncl):'()LJth.§°fttl~ll .D E (Football)


Modesto

:::::..00

:::::.. .....Ien M

~ ~

ii ii= ii=.c .c III .c IIIQ) Q).c Q).Ql/l l/l¢;: l/l Q)III I'll 0 I'll l/l

£D £Den £D&!

Q)

EI'llC)

Q)

EI'llC)...Q)uooen.."5't'<C

Q)

EIIIC)...Q)ouoen

.:::...:s~

Table 6.12 Facility Needsfor Modesto

In Modesto, there is a significant unmet demand forsports facilities. Demographic studies (Census 2000)suggest that the population will continue to increase inModesto; paralleling this population growth will be thedemand for sports facility development.

ofthe city or county. This strategy would enable largelocal, regional, and national level tournaments to beheld at either or both facilities concurrently, thuslightening the traffic load and use on each. Additionally,two type D or E facilities are needed to accommodatethe football demand in Modesto.


Looking at the long-term development plan, Modestoneeds two Type A Facilities, five Type B Facilities, andseveral ofeach C, D, and E facilities. In twenty years,Modesto needs to secure 208 acres and $50.0 millionto accommodate these facilities.

1-5 years• 2 TypeA• 2 Type DIE

5-10 years 10-20 years• 3 Type B ·2 Type B• 1 Type DIE • 1 Type DIE

To satisfy the facility needs in the five- to ten-year timeframe, youth baseball (9-12) and youth baseball «9)1youth softball need a Type B facility. Another B facilitywould- be needed to accommodate the adult baseballand adult softball demand. A third B facility would beneeded to support the youth and adult soccer programs.The football need could be satisfied in either a D or Etype facility. Additionally, the A facilities would continueto be developed, and a swim center could be added toone ofthem, ifnot already constructed.

Facility Needs

In order to satisfy their current sports facility needs,Modesto needs to develop two mixed use Type Afacilities. Both of these facilities would house youthbaseball (9-12), youth baseball «9)/youth softball, youthbaseball (13-l8)/adult baseball, youth and adult soccer,and swimming. The number ofathletic fields and poolfacilitiesneeded should be (relatively) evenly distributedbetween the two Type A facilities. This would allowModesto to place these two facilities in different parts

Page: 58

In looking at the additional facilities needed for the tento twenty-year time frame, a pool would be needed inthe second A facility, if not already constructed. Asecond B facility would be needed for youth baseball(9-12) and youth baseball «9)/youth softball. The adultbaseball and adult softball facility would need furtherdevelopment ifnot already complete. An additional Bfacility would be needed for youth and adult soccer.The football demand could be met with another D or Efacility.

The final calculations for Modesto reflect manyparticipants from adjacent communities that currently

April 2002

--

do not have the facilities to handle their existingprograms. This factor will influence the growth rate ofthe program participation in Modesto.

Area Needs

In order to be able to build these facilities, a significantamount ofland needs to be secured and designated forsports facility development. The one- to five-yearfacility demand in Modesto would require 110.5 acres.The five- to ten-year demand would require anadditional 49.8 acres and the ten- to twenty-yeardemand would need another 47.9 acres in order toprovide enough space to develop thenecessaryfacilities.In total, 208 acres are needed in Modesto to satisfy thetwenty-year plan ofsports facility development.

Costs

Not only must the land be secured to develop thenecessary sports facilities, but the money to build thefacilities must be generated as well. The followingpreliminary cost estimations are for the development ofthe sports facilities only and do not include thepurchaseprice of the necessary land. In order to finance thecurrent demand for sports facilities using therecommendations, $26.5 million dollars must becomeavailable. The five to ten and ten to twenty year facilitydemands willneed $11.9 and $11.5million,respectively,in addition to the monetary need for the currentdevelopment demand. In total, Modesto needs $49.9million over the next twenty years. Refer to Table 6.13for a breakdown ofeach individual facility, itsrespective

,6.{E3~~tJaIlL~()c<:Elr, 8.§v.irnrniI19fv1ixedF:acility) ...~A(E3a~l.>?II,_§Cl<:<:El~8.§v.irnrni_n9t1t1iJ<E!<l Fl:lcility} ..~

EH'!'().ll!I1_E3a~l.>l:lIlJ~1~).8. «9.))._ _ .I:3Jy..Q~.E3asebl:!iL(9-1~_8.J«:9.)J_ ..

..._______._ ....__~!,6.cj..l:l!!~l:l.~l.>l:lJI_8. §()~JI)

._E3JY.9lJ.tt:!.8..Mult§.e><:<:Elrl)

.~J'!'().!:ItI1.8._A(jul!§e><:.c:Elrl)J:) ()r.~(f()()tI:>?lI) ~.

[).orf::(F()()tI:>?ll) $ ...[)()r EJF=()()t!:>l:l.II)D E (FQ()tball)j

I<>tal ~eedecl ~orc:ity

Operati()l1sandNiaintenancl:) Cost!)

Table 6.13 Facility Cost Projections/or Modesto

the beals group


sports program(s) and how much each facility will costover the time.

Other Program Needs

The programs listed in these recommendations are theathletic programs that were recorded and analyzed bythis study and shown to have a demand. However,there are other sports programs that currently exist butwere not included in the calculations due to theparticipation numbers. Many ofthese programs cannotbe calculateddue to low and/or unrecorded participationand lack ofexisting facilities.

Programs such as rugby, basketball, volleyball, track,ice hockey, gymnastics, skateboarding, in-line skating,BMX biking, and various types of camps wereidentified and analyzed in the study processes but werefound to not have a significant enough programparticipation to necessitate facility development. Werecommend including these programs throughout thevarious facilities in the next twenty years.

Indoor facilities should be considered and included intoType A Facilities, when possible. Ice hockey, in-lineskating, hockey, basketball, and volleyball could allutilize and share indoor gymnasium facilities. Forprograms such as skateboarding or BMX, independentpark facilities could be created or they could beincorporated into C or E facilities. This could be donewith the cooperationofneighboring communities, whichwould lighten the monetary and spacial needs for thesetypes ofrecreational facilities.

$$ 2?7.1.86 ..~

~.9~3.679 $....._.__..... +--,:-.- ..-c...:..:-c.... :_:=.-t_l__._. .3-'-567!~1L _£__.~.567.31 L

_:2!QQ.~.§4? .!___~,.6.J.8.6~~__i 4.~?~.'?Jl'§'_

~,67'1.?133. .~ ~&!1.z13~_

.$. .l .~,-2~&~_823,22082~,2~0

9~~,2tl5

Page: 59


Salida

::::::. I CIl CIlen M "iii E Ev ....III- - .c III C)

"iii CIl CIl C)"iii "iii I/)

"iii E ... ....c .c III CIl CIlCIl .c CIl m .c III U UI/) i5 I/) - ;:: C) U u "iiiIII III :i 0 0 0 .c "iii "iiim tn m

"Cl tn "iii tn tn - .c .c I/)CIl >-.c .c .c « - .c :!:: .c~ ~ "Cl "2-- - :i - -== =- 0 = = I/)

"5c c

0 0 0 co "Cl 0 "Cl 0 III III CIl>- >- >- .... « LL <C >- m > :I: I-._. . .."•.. ~...,

;:;/;~~:~ .... - ,;/. '::';~ L~L~

Current Need- _ __._ _._ " _..-

5-10Years"_··,,w., _ •..•_ •.~.• ,__ .•• , •._

10-20Yearsl-~:...-I-~~I-~-J---C~+~~~~+~~+-:-:-:-+~=-r:-:-=--t-='-=-t-~-r-::-~Total

n •• • .- ••• ..- ••••• - t.e?;;,;.,·";;';;;?," '8',:."·"t'·. ;;;£".:

'Salida

Table 6.14 Facility Needsfor Salida


Looking at the long-term developmentplan, Salida needsone Type B Facility and one D or E facility. In twentyyears, Salida needs to secure 7.5 acres and $1.8 millionto acconunodate the facility demand.

1-5 years• 1 C type

5-10 years 10-20 years• 1 D or E type • None

In order to be able to build these facilities Salida needsto acquire 3.9 acres to meet the one to five year demandand 1.9 acres to meet the five- to ten-year demand.No additional area is needed in the ten- to twenty-yeartime frame. The total area needed by Salida is 7.5acres.

Costs

Facility Needs

To meet the current facility needs, Salida needs todevelop one Type C mixed use baseball/softball facilityto acconunodate youth baseball (9-12), youth baseball«9)/youth softball, and youth baseball (13-18)/adultbaseball.

For the five- to ten- year time frame, the single footballfield could easily be incorporated into a D or E typefacility" '

There would be no sports facility needs in the ten- totwenty-year outlook if the above facilities were built,and no additional facility needs are uncovered.

Not only must the land be secured to develop thenecessary sports facilities, but the money to build thefacilities must be generated as well. The preliminarycost estimation for the recommended facilitydevelopment in Salida is for the development of thesports facility only and does not include the purchaseprice ofthe land. In order to finance the current demandfor sports facilities $944,000 is needed for the currentneed. An additional $450,000 and $404 thousand isneeded for the five- to ten-year and ten- to twenty-yearoutlook, respectively. In total, Salida needs $1.8 millionto satisfy their sports facility development needs. Referto Table 6.15 for a breakdown ofthe individual facilitycosts and components broken down by time frame.

Page: 60 April 2002

-

Other program needs

The programs listed in these recommendations are theathletic programs that were recorded and analyzed bythis study and were shown to have a demand. However,programs such as soccer and basketball were identifiedand analyzed in the study process but were not foundto not have a significant enough program participationto necessitate additional facility development. Thisdemand may change over time and create a moresubstantial demand for additional facilities in the future.The growth of such programs should be followed toassess whether a significant need develops in the future.


Individual Facility Type

B (AU Baseball andSoftball}C,D,orE (Football)

Iotal Needed for City

Operations &Maintenance Costs

Table 6.15 Facility Cost Projections for Salida

the beals group

Oneto Five Years

$835,095$108,786

$943,882

$58,993

$449,778

$87,104

TwentyYear~

$404,800

$112,404

Total

$1,572,131$226,328

$1,798,459

Page: 61


Denair

Denair

:gQ)I/)ellm.c -N~ ...o I>e

... iii-.0=0>ell I/).0 ello>m1/)_ell-m~

.c"C_<C~0->~

0>Eell

C)

iii.0'0ou.

Table 6.16 Facility Needsfor Denair

Recommendations

Due to the lack of sufficient data reported (namelyparticipation numbers and existing facilities ), Denairhas no measurable demand for sports facilities at thistime. However, it is likely that as participation numbersare found and reported, facility needs in Denair willbecome evident.

This database created by this study is designed to beupdated should additional informationbe gathered. Thiswill make it feasible to analyze Denair's needs whenadditional survey information is recorded and enteredinto the database.

Because there are no facilities being recommended atthis time, no money or land is needed for facilitydevelopment. Land acquisition should not bedisregarded, but rather considered for the future, asDenair will likely need facilities at some point, thus theneed for land and money will become a consideration.

Page: 62 April 2002

v

-.


Hughson

M iij....--- .Q

iii iii iiiCD CD1/1 ...

.Q .Q .Q III iii E ... CDCD CD CD m .Q III CD (,)1/1 1/1 .c 1/1 C>

(,) (,)III III - III - ¢: (,)

0 iij C):::l OS 0 0 iii s::

a:I m 0 m m .Q iii>- iii 'tl m iii m - .Q 1/1 'Es: N s: .Q .c <t - .Q :: CD .c CD CD >- .Q 'c ~- -::=:..¢: - OS - E - E ~ ~ 'tl E

:::l .... :::l :::l - 0 :::l :::l 1/1 s:: s:: o0 I 0 en 0 0 co 'tl 0 'tl III 0 III III '0 III CD III 'i

Hughson >- en >- ~m >- <t LL <t C> >- C> a:I > ::t...- .... l- I- m'~., '.,. ',":".','.

Current Need 0.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °=15-10Years 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.110-20 Years 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2

Total 1.2 2.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3

Table 6.17 Facility Needsfor Hughson


Looking at the long-term development plan, Hughsonneeds one Type C facility. In twenty years, Hughsonneeds to secure 8.6 acres and $2.1 million toaccommodate these facilities.

1-5 years- 1 Type C

5-10 years-None

10-20 years-None

In order to be able to build this facility,Hughson wouldrequire 8.6 acres for the C facility, or 3.1 acres for thecurrent demand, 2.8 acres for the five- to ten-yeardemand, and an additional 2.7 acres for the ten- totwenty-year plan, if the sports fields were dispersed.In total, 8.6 acres are needed in Hughson to satisfy thetwenty-year plan for sports facility development.

CostsFacility Needs

In order to satisfy the current sports facility needs,Hughson needs to develop one Type C sports facilityto house youth baseball (9-12), youth baseball «9)/youth softball, youth baseball (13-18)/adult baseball,and swimming. The swimming demand could be metwith a swim center in this C facility, or as a separate,independent swim center elsewhere in Hughson.

If a Type C facility were built, there would be noadditional facility demand for the five- to ten-year timeframe nor for the ten- to twenty-year time frame.

the beals group

Not only must the land be secured to develop thenecessary sports facilities, but the money to build thefacilities must be generated as well. The followingpreliminary cost estimations are for the development ofthe sports facilities only and do not include the purchaseprice ofthe necessary land on which to build them on.In orderto finance the current demand for sports facilitiesand those recommended here, $740,000 dollars mustbecome available. The five to ten and ten to twentyyear facility demands will need an additional $866,000and $399,000, respectively, in addition to the monetaryneed for current development demand. In total,Hughsonneeds $2.1million dollarsover the next twentyyears. Refer to Table 6.18 to see the breakdown ofthemonetary needs over the twenty-year period ..

Page: 63


Other program needs

The programs listed in these recommendations are theathletic programs that were recorded and analyzed bythis study. However, there are other sports programsthat currently exist and were covered by this study butdid not show a demand due to the lack of, or low,participation numbers.

Football was the only additionalprogram identified. Thisprogram should be incorporated into Type D or Efacilities within the next twenty years.

.Operations &Maintenance Costs ..... $46,297 $87,704 $1~8,400

Table 6.18 Facility Cost Projections for Hughson

Page: 64 April 2002

IRegional Sports Faci~ity Study

Keyes•M=.... ctI-.c

iij iij iij CIl CIlIII ...c .c .c ctI iij E .. CIlCIl CIl.c CIlm .c ctI CIl (J(JIII 1Il_ 1Il_ = C) (J (J

iijC)

ctI ctI :;, ctI- 0 iij .5£0 £00= £0:;' 0 0 t/) .c iij.c>-ctI .c"C tJ) iij tJ) - .c .c .!!! E

.c - _c( :!:: .c _CIl .cCll CIl » ~ E-N__ .c - :iE :iE ~ ~ "C C (J:;, .... :;,-= :;,- :;, 0 III C c 'io • o en 0 0- "C 0 'tlctl octl ctI "0 ctI CIl ctI

>-~..

Keyes >-S!?. >- ~t/) c( u, C(C) >-0 £0 > :I: l- I- t/)

Current f\eed 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0. _..••....._..........--..-."..._-5-10 Years 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

- _'0 • __ • __._ ••.••_ ••

10-20 Years 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total 0.6 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Table 6.19 Facility Needsfor KeyesRecommendation Summary

Looking at the long-termdevelopment plan, Keyesneedsone Type D facility. In twenty years, Keyes needs tosecure 2.8 acres and $691,000 to accommodate thesefacilities.

D facility. No additional land would be needled.

Costs

In order to satisfy the current sports facility needs Keyesshould plan to develop one D facility for youth baseball(9-12), youth baseball «9) / youth softball, and youthbaseball (13-18)/ adult baseball.

1-5 years- 1 Type D

Facility Needs

5-10 years-None

10-20 years-None

Not only must the land be secured to develop thenecessary sports facilities, but the money to build thefacilities must be generated as well. The followingpreliminary cost estimations are for the development ofthe sports facilities only and do not include the purchaseprice ofthe necessary land on which to build them. Inorder to finance the demand for D facilityrecommended, $691 thousand must become available.Refer to Table 6.20 for a breakdown of the facility'scost over time.

There would be no further facility demand for the fiveto ten-year time frame nor for the ten- to twenty-yeartime frame ifthe D facility were built to accommodateall ofthe facility needs in Keyes.

Area Needs

In order to be able to satisfy their sports facility demand,Keyes needs a total of2.8 acres for the recommended

Other program needs

The programs listed in these recommendations are theathletic programs that were recorded and analyzed bythis study and showed a demand. However, there areother sports programs that currently exist but were notrecognized or covered by this study. There were noadditional programs asked for by the community ofKeyes in this study.

Individual FacilityType

I?1'j(A~:B~l>eban and Softball~/_Lotal ~eed..ed for CitL .. _

_Operatic:ms & Maintenance Costs

One to FiveYears Ten Years

J:::j~~$17,843 $30,522 $41,933 .

Table 6.20 Facility Cost Projections for Keyes



Thrlock

GlEI'llC)...Gle(,)oen.c-::s~

GlEIIIC)...e(,)(,)o

tJ)

eEI'll

C)

•M=.... I'll-,c= GlI'll III,c I'llGla!11I_1'1I-m ::s.c'C_<C::so->-~

_0" -.i-_,-c

0.31.21.12.6

-0)~

:;j=.c I'llGl.cIII~I'll 0men.c.c--::s ::s~~

- - ".'."-

4.93.12.710.7

7.24.23.815.2---.- .""

'Turlock

Current Need..... - ...."." ..._.....

5-10 Years

10-20 Yearsl--=-f_-=.:..;~-+----:..:~-+-.......:.:..,--..-..::.:..::....-+-...=..:..:~--::.:..::....-+.....::..:..=......tr---::.:.::....+-=-+.....::.:..::..-f---'':'::''''+-'''='':'':'-Total

Table 6.21 Facility Needsfor Turlock


To satisfy the facility needs in the five- to ten-year timeframe, youthbaseball (9-12) will need a Type B facility;as will youth soccer. A Type D facility will also beneeded for youth baseball «9) / youth softball.

Looking at the long-term development plan, Turlockneeds one Type A facility, two Type B facilities, oneType C facility, and one D facility. In twenty years,Turlock needs to secure 143.4 acres and $34.4 millionto accommodate these facilities.

In order to satisfy the current sports facility needs inTurlock, a Type A facility needs to be developed tohouse youth baseball (9-12), youth baseball «9)/youthsoftball, youth baseball (13-18)/ adult baseball, adultsoftball, adult and youth soccer, and swimming.

Costs

Not only must the land be secured to develop thenecessary sports facilities, but the money to build thefacilities must be generated as well. The followingpreliminary cost estimations are for the development ofthe sports facilities only and do not include the purchase

In order to be able to build these facilities, a significantamount ofland needs to be secured and designated forsports facility development. The one- to five-yearfacility demand in Turlock will require 64.8 acres. Thefive- to ten-year demand will require an additional 36.6acres, and the ten- to twenty-year demand will needanother 41.0 acres in order to provide enough space todevelop the necessary facilities. In total, 143.4 acresare needed in Turlock to satisfy the twenty-year planfor sports facility development.

Within twenty years, the Type A facility could bedeveloped in stages and could include facilities forvolleyball and tennis, as well as a community center.

Area Needs

In looking at the additional facilities needed for the tento twenty-year time frame, the B facilities for youthbaseball (9-12) and youth soccer will need to becompleted, ifnot already constructed. ATypeC facilitywould be needed at this time to satisfy the demand foradult softball.

10-20 years• 1 Type C

5-10 years• 2 Type B• 1 Type D

1-5 years• 1 Type A

Facility Needs

Turlock's facility needs to satisfy the existing andprojected demand for sports programs are quite largein comparison to the rest of the Southeast Region.There is a significantunmet demand for sports facilities,and demographic studies (Census 2000) suggest thatthere will continue to be alarge increase in populationin Turlock and thus in sports facility demand.

Page: 66 April 2002

price ofthe necessary land on which to build them. Inorder to finance the current demand for sports facilitiesand those recommended here, $15.6 million mustbecome available. The five- to ten- and ten- to twentyyear facility demands will need $8.8 and $10.0 million,respectively, in addition to the monetary need for currentdevelopment demand. In total, Turlock needs $34.4million over the next twenty years. Refer to table 6.22for a breakdown ofthe individual facilities, and whichsports programs are included in each, as well as howmuch each will cost.

Other program needs

The programs listed in these recommendations are theathletic programs that were recorded and analyzed bythis study and showed a demand. However, there areother sports programs that currently exist but were notincluded in the calculations due to the participationnumbers.


Programs such as basketball, football, cheerleading,and track were identified and analyzed in the studyprocess but were found to not have a significant enoughprogram participation to necessitate facilitydevelopment.

To satisfy the future needs for some ofthese programs,should the participation increase, indoor facilitiesshouldbe considered when developing the Type A facility.Programs such as basketball and volleyball could sharean indoor gymnasium facility. A track facility could beincluded in the development oftheA facility. Additionalprograms such as football and cheerleading could besatisfied in a D or E facility, ifthe need arises.

Individual FacilityType

A (Youth Baseball 9-12 +Youth Baseball «9) I Youth Softball +YouthE39sebaU (13::18)/ AdultBasebali +Adult Softball + Adult & Youth Soccer+S"";mCenterB (YouthBaseball 9-12)B (Youth Soccer)C (Adult Softball)D(Y()~thB~sebali «9) I Youth SoftbaU)

TotalNel!ded for City

One to Five Years

$15,562,254

$15,562,254

$972,641

Ten Years

$2,628,790

$1,976,439$2,953,702

$8,77!),?12

T\III8nty Years

$1,212,422

$1,778,795$2,658,332$3,:3?(),0!!.

. $1(),068,419

$?,150,655

Total.

$19,403,466

$3,755,234$5,612,033$3,320,077

$34,410,485

Table 6.22 Facility Cost Projections for Turlock


Regional Sports Facility Study 1=============================ffickman

G)

ca E ...G).c co u

4:: e o0 0

CJ) CJ)-"5"0<C

Table 6.23 Facility Needs for Hickman

Recommendations

Hickman has no measurable demand for sports facilitiesat this time. However, it is likely that as this communitygrows and participation numbers are found andreported, facilityneeds in Hickman will become evident.

This database created by this study is designed to beupdated should additional information be gathered. Thiswill make it feasible to analyze Hickman's needs whenadditional survey information is recorded and enteredinto the database.

Because there are no facilities being recommended atthis time, no money or land is needed for facilitydevelopment. Land acquisition should not bedisregarded, but rather considered for the future, asHickman will likely need facilities at some point, thusthe need for land and money will become aconsideration.

Page: 68 April 2002

-

-============================1Regional Sports Fac~ity Study

Oakdale

M=.... 111--.c

iij iij = Gl Gl111 11/ ....c .c .c 111 iij E ... GlGl Gl.c Glm .c 111 Gl U11/ 11/'" 11/ ... = (!) o o Cle iij111 111 :::I 111- 0 0 0 iij cm mo- m :::I tf) .c iij 'E.c>-iij ;;:¥ tf) iij m ... .c .c 11/... .c ... .c Gl >- 'c ..Il: E., ........ .c 'S ... 'S ... ..Il: .! "C U:::1-= :::1- 0 :::I 11/ C C 'jo en 0 0- "C 0 "C 0 111 (5 111 Gl 111

Oakdale >- :!.. m >-~...<t LL <t >- m > :I: l- t- m

._".

Current Need 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.005-10 Years 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.00--- .>----,,_..._- •• _----,.-

10·20 Years 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.02Total 0.0 0.1 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0

Table 6.24 Facility Needs for Oakdale


Looking at the long-term development plan, Oakdaleneeds two Type B Facilities and three D or E Typefacilities. In twenty years, Oakdale needs 36.8 acresand $8.8 million to accommodate these facilities.

1-5 years-2 TypeB-2 Type D

Facility Needs

5-10years-Continuedfacilitydevelopment

10-20 years-I D or E

In order to be able to build these facilities, a significantamount ofland needs to be secured and!designated forsports facility development. The one- to five-yearfacility demand in Oakdale will require 12.5 acres. Thefive- to ten-year demand would require an additional12.7 acres and the ten- to twenty-year demand wouldneed another 11.7 acres in order to provide enoughspace to develop the necessary facilities. In total, 36.8acres are needed in Oakdale to satisfy the twenty-yearplan for sports facility development.

CostsIn order to satisfy the current sports facility needs, youthsoccer needs a Type B facility. A second B facility willbe needed for youth baseball (9-12), youth baseball(13-18)/adult baseball. Two Type D facilities are neededfor youth baseball «9) /youth softball.

In the five- to ten-year time frame development oftheBand D facilities will be needed to accommodate theadditional demand, ifnot already accounted for.

In the ten- to twenty- year time frame Oakdale willneed to satisfy the football demand in either a D or Efacility.

the beals group

Not only must the land be secured to develop thenecessary sports facilities, but the money to build thefacilities must be generated as well. The followingpreliminary cost estimations are for the development ofthe sports facilities only and do not include the purchaseprice ofthe necessary land on which to build them. Inorder to finance the current demand for sports facilitiesand those recommended here, $3.0! million mustbecome available. The five- to ten- and 'ten- to twentyyear facility demands will need $3.0 and $2.8 million,respectively, in addition to the monetary need for currentdevelopment demand. In total, Oakdale needs $8.8million over the next twenty years. Table 6.24 shows abreakdown ofeach individual facility, what programs itincludes, and what the cost to develop them will be.

Page: 69


Other Program Needs

The programs listed in these recommendations are theathletic programs that were recorded and analyzed bythis study and showed a demand. However, othersports programs may currently exist in Oakdalebut werenot included in the calculations due to the participationnumbers. Manyofthese programs cannot be calculateddue to low participation or lack ofexisting facilities.

Programs such as basketball, tennis, volleyball,swimming, and track were identified and analyzed inthe study process in Oakdale but were found to nothave a significant enough program participation tonecessitate additional facility development.

To satisfy the future needs for some ofthese programs,should the participation increase, indoor facilities shouldbe considered for basketball and volleyball, as well asan indoor swim center. These could be satisfied ineither C or D facilities. A football and track demandcould be satisfied in the future through building a trackfacility around a central football field. This could bedeveloped into a C, D, or E facility. Tennis demandcould be satisfied with a C or D facility.

Although there is no need shown for a pool facility inOakdale, we would reommend that a pool facility beplanned for development within the next twenty years.

Total

~~,6§Q~§30

.~1~I§?1~~~.J1.{l?~.531~1.f3~.3.§~1

..... $<lt3.044

_. ~_8.?3~.f:l59

TenYears

$1.332.051_~§IlL?J!} __ .J§23.12~ ..

.l5?.3.1?3

Five Years

E:l ('(()uth$occer)~r,,-ou~~.::121~_(.!?_~J~Lt:!r:tC!~Q!!I! B<:l~~~.a.IIL

1).(y()utl1El~~E3bi3JL{<:9)/Yguth..$()ftI:>all)I).lY()lJtI1 ~~~_all (<:~)0'()lJth_ §()ft!?~II).

D E

$187.030 $377.604 ~552.122

Table 6.25 Facility Cost Projections for Oakdale

Page: 70 April 2002

0'1e'E

~ E(,)III 'i..I- Cf)

0.0 0.00.0 0.10.0 0.50.0 0.6

Riverbank

I

M=.... CU-.e

iti iti =CI) CI)CUI/I E .. ....e .e .ecu iti CI)Q) CI),c Cl)m .e CU Q) (,)(,)1/1 1/1- 1/1_ ;:: C) o o itiIII Ill:::l cu- 0 itim m O- m:::l 0 0 Cf) .e

,c>-cu ,c'tJ Cf) iti so - .e~ .e ~

,c CI) >.__ .e -« - - ~ ~:::l-;:: :::l- :::l 0 :::l :::l 1/1 (500)0 0- 'tJ 0 'tJ 0 CU>- ::f.,Cf) >-~ « LL « >- m >

1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0..... ......_- "."--

1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

\;

Table 6.26 Facility Needs for Riverbank


Looking at the long-term development plan, Riverbankneeds two Type C facilities, and several D facilities. Intwenty years, Riverbank needs 28.7 acres and $6.9million to accommodate these facilities.

1-5 years-2 Type C-2 Type D

5-10 years- Facility

development

10-20 years-I Type DIE

In order to be able to build these facilities, the one- tofive- year facility demand in Riverbank would require9.1 acres. The five- to ten- year demand would requirean additional 9.8 acres and the ten- tp twenty-yeardemand would need 9.9 acres in order to provide enoughspace to develop the necessary facilities. In total, 28.7acres are needed in Riverbank to satisfy the twentyyear plan for sports facility development,

Facility Needs

In order to satisfy the current sports facility needs,Riverbank needs a Type C facility to accommodate theadult soccer demand as well as the swimming demand.This facility could be a mixed use park with adult soccerfields and an adjacent aquatic center. A second Type Cfacility will be needed for youth baseball «9)/youthsoftball. A Type D facility will be needed for youthbaseball (9-12), as will a second D facility for youthbaseball (13-18)/adult baseball.

To satisfy the facility needs in the five- to ten-year timeframe, completion ofabove discussed facilities will benecessary, ifthey are not already complete.

For the ten- to twenty-year time frame Riverbank willneed to satisfy the football demand with either a D or Efacility.


Costs

Not only must the land be secured to develop thenecessary sports facilities, but the money to build thefacilities must be generated as well. The followingpreliminary cost estimations are for the development ofthe sports facilities only and do not include the purchaseprice of the necessary land. In order to finance thecurrent demand for sports facilities recommended here,$2.1 million must become available. The five- to tenand ten- to twenty-year facility demands will need $2.4and$2.4million, respectively, in additionto themonetaryneed for current development demand. In total,Riverbank needs $6.9 million over the next twentyyears. Refer to Table 6.26 for a breakdown of theindividual facilities and what they will cost over time.

Other program needs

The programs listed in these recommendations are theathletic programs that were recorded and analyzed bythis study and showed a demand. However, othersports programs may currently exist in Riverbank butwere not included in the calculations due to lowparticipation numbers or lackofexisting facilities.

c: (Adlllt§()ccer& §VJirnc:erlter)

_c:JYoutt:!J?~~~~~_(:::~)!_Y()lltt:!~gf!J?11

QiY()lltb_~~~b_?1I~1~L _..Q..LYouth BasebaJ!~:!~Lf.-'Jll!~.I:!~~~~.§~L __

E

- .__ .,.._"'._,-,-,.._-...._~_ ..---_.,,"-"..~.- .'..-.--_. _.'" ."-

,()p~ri.lti()r1lil~lIIIl:lillt~r1anc~G()sts _

Table 6.27 Facility Cost Projections for Riverbank

Page: 72

Programs such as youth soccer, basketball, gymnastics,and swimming were identified and analyzed in the studyprocess in Riverbank but were found to not have asignificant enough program participation to necessitateadditional facility development.

Indoor facilities should be considered for basketball andgymnastics in either C, D, or E type facilities. Theyouth soccer reported should be further scrutinized; itis likely that there is currently or will be a demand foradditional facilities at some point in the future. Theyouth soccer fields could be incorporated into the Cfacility developed for adult soccer, although this wouldlikely necessitate increasing the facility to a Type Bstatus.

April 2002

IRegional Sports Faci~ity Study

-

Waterford

M=..- III

-'"iii iii = GI GIIII 1II ..'" '" '" III iii E .. GIGI GlJ::. Glm III GI o1II 1II- 1II_ '" <!l o o ClIII III ::J Ill- =: o 0 iii iii em mo- m ::J 0

iii0 t/) '" iii 'EJ::.>-iii "C t/) t/) - '" '" IIIJ::.- --'" ;< .... '" - J::. GI >.

"C 'c ,:;t E-N :; - :; .... ,:;t .9! (,)::J..- ::J-=: ::J- 0 ::J 1II C e 'io • o en 0 0- "C 0 "C 0 III (5 III GI IIIWaterford >-~ >- ::.... t/) >-~

..< u. < >- m > :I: l- I- t/)

Current Need 0.3 1.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.05-10 Years 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0

10-20 Years 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0Total 1.4 2.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0

Table 6.28 Facility Needsfor Waterford


Area Needs

In order to be able to build these facilities, the one- tofive-year facility demand in Waterford will require 6.0acres. The five- to ten-year demand will require an

No additional facilities will be needed in the five- toten-year time frame, nor the ten- to twenty-year timeframe, as long as all facility demands are met with theabove recommended two facilities.

Looking at the long-term development plan, Waterfordneeds two Type C or D facilities. In twenty years,Waterford needs 18.6 acres and $4.5 million toaccommodate these facilities.

additional 6.6 acres and the ten- to twenty-yeardemandwould need an additional 6.0 acres in order to provideenough space to develop the necessary facilities. Intotal, 18.6 acres are needed in Waterford to satisfy thetwenty-year plan for sports facility development,

Not only must the land be secured tp develop thenecessary sports facilities, but the money to build thefacilities must be generated as well. [l'he followingpreliminary cost estimations are for the developmentofthe sports facilities only and do not include the purchaseprice ofthe necessary land on which to build them. Inorder to finance the current demand for ~ports facilitiesand those recommended here, $1.5 i million mustbecome available. The five- to ten- andten- to twentyyear facility demands will need $1.6 million and $1.4million, respectively, in addition to the monetary needfor current development demand. In total, Waterfordneeds $4.5 million over the next twenty years. Referto Table 6.28 for a breakdown of the facilities, whichprograms they include, and how much th¢developmentswill cost over the next twenty years.

Costs10-20 years-None

5-10 years<None

1-5 years- 1 Type C- 1 Type C or D

Facility Needs

In order to satisfy the current sports facility needs aType C facility will be needed for youth soccer. Asecond facility, either a C or D, will be needed toaccommodate all baseball and softball facility demands.


Regional Sports Facility StudyI

Otherprogram needs

The programs listed in these recommendations are theathletic programs that were recorded and analyzed bythis study and showed a demand. However, othersports programs may currently exist in Waterford butwere not included in the calculations due to lowparticipation numbers or lack ofexisting facilities.

Programs such as basketball, volleyball, and gymnasticswere identified and analyzed in the study process inWaterford but were found not to have a significantenough program participation to necessitate additionalfacility development.

An Indoor facility should be considered for basketball,volleyball, and gymnastics in either a C, D, or E typefacility. These programs will have to be monitored inthe future to recognize the need should it arise.

Although no need is shown in the calculations for apool, we would recommend that Waterford develop aswimming facility within the next twenty years.

One to Five Years,. _•.. ,.. Individual Facility Type

C (Youth Soccer)C or D Baseball & Softball)

T()tal Needed for c:ity

Operations and rv'Iail1tenanceCosts

Table 6.29 Facility Cost Projections/or Waterford

$397,470$1,049,424

$1,446,894

$90,431

Ten Years

$472,878$1,120,740

$1,593,618

$190,032

.$42!j,59()$1,008,666

$1,434,256

$279,673

Total....._.,.._.$1,295,93,8$3,178,829

$4,474,768

Page: 74 April 2002

stanislaus county, california · the board ofsupervisors ofthe county of stanislaus action agenda...

Documents