Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 UTT SPTFLD LGHTNG 10-21-02AGENDA REPORT NO. 17 '10-2'1-02 730-90 ~ MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 21,2002 R = 7 ~ TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER PATRICK SANCHEZ, DIRECTOR, PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES MODIFICATION TO THE PARKS SEVEN-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO ADJUST THE UTT MIDDLE SCHOOL SPORTFIELD LIGHTING PROJECT RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve a supplemental appropriation of $25,000 from the unappropriated reserves of the Park Development Fund to increase the total project budget for the Utt Middle School Sportsfield Lighting from $55,000 to $80,000, with no expenditure or transfer of funds to the District until plans for the project are approved by the District and the modified joint use agreement for facilities at Utt middle School is approved and executed by the City and the School District. . Direct staff to modify the proposed agreement for improvements to the Utt Middle School Sportsfield Lighting Project with the Tustin Unified School District to provide for the City's reimbursement of not to exceed $80,000 to pay for Tustin's portion of the cost of improvements and to modify Section 1 of the proposed agreement to allow for the completion and installation of the sportsfield lighting to be extended to June 1,2003. SUMMARY: The Tustin Eastern Little League is requesting modifications to the Parks Seven-Year Capital Improvement Program and changes to the proposed joint use agreement with the Tustin Unified School District to provide for additional funding and changes to extend the completion date for the Sportsfield Lighting at Utt Middle School. FISCAL IMPACT: An additional appropriation of $25,000 would provide for additional costs associated with the scope of work requested by the City, Tustin Eastern Little League and the Parks and Recreation Commission. The additional $25,000 would be provided by the Park Development Fund with no further delay or elimination of other park projects. Review of the Composite Revenue Estimates for all fund sources of the Park Development Fund found that there is a current balance of $6,050,278.00, and with this additional appropriation there would be a projected ending Fund balance of $863,341.00 in FY 2008-09 (the end of the Seven-Year Capital Improvement Program). DISCUSSION: In August 2002 the City Council adopted the City's Budget and Annual Capital Improvement Program. The Utt Middle School Sportsfield Lighting Project and the Centennial Park Restroom Renovation Project, were included in the 2002-03 FY Capital Improvement Program. The original request for the Sportsfield Lighting project provided for entering into a joint use agreement with the Tustin Unified School District to provide a reimbursement up to $55,000. The adoption of the Budget Resolution provided for reimbursement for the cost of the improvements, request for a certain time frame for completion, amortization schedules, indemnification and joint use provisions. This Resolution was conditional upon the adoption of a joint use agreement with the Tustin Unified School District. The option of providing additional funding would cover the increased cost of the project as a result of additional engineering, Department of State Architecture review and Southern California Edison utility requirements. The proposed joint use agreement requests the Tustin Unified School District include a scope of work that provides for additional multi-purpose sportsfield lighting behind the existing Little League diamond. The additional cost of providing for multi-use sportsfield lighting a t U tt Middle School i s outlined i n paragraph o ne, p age four o f t he attached correspondence provided by Tustin Eastern Little League. While the recommended option is to provide for an additional appropriation and modify the joint use agreement to revise the terms and conditions, the City Council may wish to review other alternatives: ! Maintain the existing level of funding as outlined in the adoption of the Budget in August 2002 and continue to request the terms and conditions as provided in the original proposed joint use agreement, which defines the multi-use and additional backfield lighting. , Remove the condition of backfield lighting, maintain the existing level of budgetary support, and modify the joint use agreement to remove the backfield lighting terms and conditions. This alternative may not significantly reduce the total cost of the project. It has yet to be determined if the removal of the condition would have an effect on the timing of installation. The Environmental Determination for this project has yet to be completed by the lead agency, the Tustin Unified School District. Therefore, removing the backlighting condition as an additional impact has yet to be defined. 3. The Council may wish to modify the joint use agreement to remove this condition from its immediate installation and request that backfield lighting be installed at a later date. The additional cost for lighting after the initial installation would be significantly higher if it were not included in the first phase of construction. If the Council wishes that this multi-use condition continue, the joint use agreement would need to provide for terms to guarantee that such installation would go forward in a time certain manner. By adopting the recommendation to modify the Parks Seven-Year Capital Improvement Program to adjust the appropriation and modify the joint use agreement with terms and conditions, you would be requesting the Tustin Unified School District to: 1. Proceed to revise the existing and approved plans 2. Obtain additional approvals from the Department of State Architecture 3. Draft environmental documentation to make an environmental determination 4. Resolve to adopt this as a Capital Project 5. Request TUSD, the property owner, adopt and execute the joint use agreement for the improvements 6. Complete the project in compliance with the terms and conditions outlined in the joint use agreement. During the review of all Park Capital Improvement Projects, the Parks and Recreation Commission determined that the lack of sportsfield lighting in our community minimized the accessibility for youth sports to our residents. They indicated in their recommendation to the Council as part of the Capital Improvement Program review, that any opportunity to provide for multi-use sportsfield lighting should be aggressively pursued. The Tustin Eastern Little League has provided the initiative to work closely with the two agencies t o provide for additional service h ours for youth s ports playfield availability. The Tustin Unified School District, as the property owner of Utt Middle School, has the responsibility to execute the joint use agreement to allow for the funding allocation. The School District also has the responsibility to make an environmental determination and act as the project manager to complete the capital improvement. Respectfully submitted, Director, Parks and Recreation Services Attachments Tustin Eastern Little League John W. Cochrane, Member, Board of Directors c/o Razer gSA LLC 16200-A Carmenita Road, Cerritos CA 90703 October 13, 2002 Mr. Patrick Sanchez City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Re: Installation of Lights at Utt Middle School Dear Mr. Sanchez: At your request, the purpose of this letter is to support the request of Tustin Eastern Little League to the Tustin City Council to make certain modifications to the existing Resolution authorizing the expenditure of certain City funds toward the installation of sports field lighting at Utt Middle School. The City's willingness to support this important community capital improvement project is indeed welcome and appreciated; at this juncture, some "fine tuning" is requested in order to best accommodate the many interests affected by this project. Based upon discussions with you and our overriding desire to have lights installed in time to be available to our league in its upcoming 2003 season, Tustin Eastern Little League respectfully suggests that the City's existing resolution (which allocated funds in the amount of $55,000) be increased to $80,000 to accommodate the additional scope of lighting which the City's resolution has required of the installation. Given such financial assistance, we believe it will be feasible to complete the installation in a timely manner, subject, of course, to receiving appropriate approvals from the Tustin Unified School District's Board and the consummation of a Joint Use Agreement mutually agreeable to the City and the School District. In order to place this suggestion in appropriate context, the following summarizes the intention of Tustin Eastern Little League in proposing this project for the City's participation, the history of the project to date, and the timing and procedural steps remaining before success can be achieved. The project initially was conceived by the Board of Directors of Tustin Eastern Little League, a non-profit volunteer organization which serves approximately 700 children per year. TELL's geographic boundaries include significant portions of older Tustin and, also, the rapidly-growing area of Tustin Ranch; enrollment in TELL's Little League program has been increasing by roughly 11% per year in each of the past five years. TELL plays its Majors Division games on Phillips Field, a fully-fenced baseball diamond located at the comer of Browning and San Juan streets on the athletic fields of Utt Middle School. The field's 60-foot basepaths and short outfield fences effectively preclude "adult" usage of the facility, and TELL is permitted for our use by the Tustin Unified School District, which owns the property. TELL maintains this field at its own expense, and also maintains other fields at Utt, using volunteer labor and an annual maintenance budget in the thousands of dollars, entirely self-funded. Phillips Field is the league's showcase facility and is the "pinnacle" of the Little League experience for most of our players. Preliminary consultations with the leading sports lighting experts, Musco Lighting, Inc., suggested that a first class lighting installation at the Phillips Field site could be expected to cost approximately $86,000. A preliminary description prepared by Musco, dated November 30, 2001, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Please note that the project has not been formally "bid", as that must await approval of the Tustin Unified School District Board subsequent to that body's consideration and approval of the project as a whole. Before approaching either the School Board or the City, TELL sought and obtained the support of AYSO for an installation which, as proposed, would encompass only the baseball diamond area of Phillips Field. As the concept was presented to AYSO, "backlighting" would not be included, which would keep the cost lower and because it was anticipated that potential residential concerns or opposition could be minimized or avoided by an installation which intentionally pursued the minimum amount of lighting at the site. This was discussed extensively and the AYSO Board agreed that they would support such a proposal. The AYSO Board has never wavered from that fundamental support. Based upon AYSO's expressions of consent and support, as well as indications of support from members of the City Council and an unanimous authorization from the School Board to proceed with preparations to submit a formal request to install lights at Phillips Field, TELL's Board commissioned Reedcorp Engineering, Inc. to draw the appropriate plans and obtain approval from the Division of the State Architect to proceed with an installation. TELL has paid Reedcorp $7,000 to prepare such discrete plans, which were completed in March of 2002 and which were in fact approved by DSA in June of 2002. On the "funding" front, TELL initially anticipated a cost of roughly $86,000 for the installation, as noted above. We believed, and believe, that a capital improvement of this nature is an appropriate one for consideration by the City Council and formulated a request for $55,000 to supplement an anticipated TELL contribution of $35,000 to install the lighting as proposed. Therefore, TELL's request made of the City Council was for $55,000 to help defray the cost of lighting the baseball diamond area at Utt Middle School. -6063 56.27 3 5-6087 What emerged from the City, however, was not $55,000 toward the project that TELL had proposed. What emerged, instead, was a resolution authorizing $55,000 but conditioned upon certain factors, most notably a requirement for expanding the scope of the project to include "backlighting" beyond the left field fence. This was made known to us in early July of 2002. A requirement of expanding the scope of the project would necessarily require not only the expenditure of additional hardware and installation funds, but would also require a redrafting/revision of the architectural plans and resubmission/approval by the Division of State Architect. Such matters being recognized as exceeding the scope of what TELL had anticipated or proposed -- and being, in essence, primarily beneficial to AYSO -- discussions ensued with the City and AYSO concerning that group's willingness to contribute financially to such an expanded installation. After two months of discussions, in early September the Board of AYSO voted not to contribute financially but, instead, to reaffirm its previous expressions of support for the installation of lighting at Utt Middle School. As a result, in mid-September we were back where we had been in January. Upon being advised that AYSO did not wish to participate in the project, we at TELL felt that the most expeditious way to complete the project quickly enough to have lights in place for the 2003 Little League season would be to ask the City to modify its funding resolution to reduce the scope of the project by eliminating the backlighting requirement. If this was done, there would be no need to revise the existing and approved plans, no need to return to DSA for approvals of modifications, and it would not be necessary to expand the scope of environmental analyses undertaken in connection with the District's need to consider the potential impact of the installation under CEQA. This is what we therefore proposed to the City in communication with you, Mr. Sanchez. In late September, TELL was advised that the recommendation of the City staff to the City Council would be to continue to require installation of backlighting and to recommend that the City increase its funding allocation to accommodate the financial impact of so expanding the project (in the absence of other sources of funding, such as AYSO). Thus, at the present time, you have requested that TELL write to you and set out the parameters of what we believe would constitute appropriate options for the Council's consideration. The goal of TELL is to achieve lighting at the site for the benefit of the kids; we have no objection to- and indeed would welcome- as much additional lighting as can be put in place, subject to our overriding goals (1) to have the baseball field lighted and (2) to have it lighted when the 2003 Little League season starts, approximately March 1. At our request, Musco has created revised "light overspill" projections predicated upon an expanded/backlit installation and, as those indicate that virtually no "additional" overspill would be experienced at adjoining properties, we are following your lead, Mr. Sanchez, and seeking to figure out a way to proceed with an expanded proposal. (7f,1.273-08 , First, the estimated cost of the physical components of an increased installation is projected, by Musco Lighting, to be roughly $6-to $8,000. Reedcorp Engineering has provided us with a bid to revise the existing plans and obtain DSA approval of them, which is another $3,500. It is not clear to us, at this juncture (as the installation cannot be put out to bid until School Board approval is obtained), what the impact upon installation costs will be, but it is reasonable to assume $2000 more than would otherwise be incurred. We also now anticipate that there may be additional expenses attendant to the review of the CEQA documentation, as we had prepared and submitted a draft to the School Board's legal counsel for review and, upon being advised of the necessity to revise the documentation to reflect the considerations attendant to an expanded project, may incur some cost in obtaining further legal review by the Board's counsel. Finally, as you know, there has been one "new" cost revealed as the project has proceeded: it will be necessary to add a new source of electrical power at the specific site, as the load of the installation will greatly exceed the minimal electrical capacity presently mn to the baseball diamond. We have discussed this matter extensively with Southern California Edison, which can and will provide separately-metered power to a new point at the comer of Browning and San Juan streets; it is estimated that this will cost between $13-18,000. This cost was not anticipated or factored into the initial $86,000 rough estimate which has been the basis for TELL's initial funding decisions and requests. We request that the City's funding be increased to help TELL defray this additional, unanticipated but necessary expense. Accordingly, TELL suggests that the City increase its allocated funding to an amount not to exceed $80,000, with TELL responsible for the balance of the cost of the installation. We further request that this authorization include the ability to disperse $10,000 toward up front expenses that must be incurred, subject to your discretion, Mr. Sanchez - expenses such as the cost of revising the electrical drawings and dealing with Edison, and the like. Finally, we would ask that the resolution be revised to extend the time beyond the February 2003 date we understand was targeted back in June when the resolution was passed. This would be to support an expanded installation that would include backlighting as has been approved by the City Council. The alternative, which we describe at your request and for your consideration and that of the Council, would be to revise the existing Resolution to excise the requirement of backlighting. The effect of such a revision would be to permit the process to proceed without need to revise existing and approved plans, without need to obtain additional or supplemental approvals from DSA, and without need to redraft environmental documentation. Such things may well affect the timing considerations of achieving installation in time for the 2003 season. On the other hand, we at TELL are cognizant of the fact that the "overspill" calculations prepared by Musco Lighting with respect to a "backlit" facility are materially identical to those generated with respect to a "field only" installation and, accordingly, that there really is no material difference, ?~ ['562,1 $,5-6063 ~ ['56.2) 3,5-6087 4 (7I,).273-08 , from a light perspective, between the two altemative installations. You have advised us that the City would favorably comment upon proposed environmental review documentation to be submitted for ultimate disposition by the School Board (as Lead Agency under CEQA). Accordingly, assuming no material difference in the environmental approval process between the two proposed alternatives, we at TELL do not object to trying to achieve the result desired by the City's staffhere. Finally, a word on timing constraints. We are seeking to have lights installed in time for the 2003 Little League season. To achieve that, we anticipate needing to have contracts signed with Musco and with an installation contractor by early January. That means having School Board approvals by the end of November. That, in turn, counsels us to have an understanding of the City's position as soon as possible. We appreciate your efforts to expedite the Council's consideration of these circumstances, and look forward to achieving the goal of increasing the available recreational resources for kids in Tustin through the lighting of Phillips Field. Thank you for your consideration and courtesy. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. V ly y$)urs,//~ ~/; W. Cochrane cc: Jill Arthur Barbara Brown, President, TELL $,5-6087 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECI': November 30, 2001 John Cochrane Michael Marchetti Cost Estimate Musco Sports Lighting, LLC _. . '_ ~. -~'_~?__-~'.,_ !.J West Region Pho~: 714/540-933,5 80(g659-0! 17 toll fTee COST ESTIMATE ~,,,: 714/540-9344 3151 Nrway Avenue [4uildi~ G-1 Costa Mesa. CA 92626 wv/w.mu~o.com Tustin Eastern Little league The following is our preliminary Cost Estimate for the project mentioned above. POI,ES: 4 Pole Option Two (2) LS2 - 60A - 4P Two (2) LS2 - 80A - 9P 6 Pole Option Two (2) 1,$2- 60A - 3P Two (2) LS2 - 60A - 5P Two (2)'I~;2 - 60A - 4P Includes - Galvanized steel tapered pole sections; pole top assembly with galvanized tubular steel cross arms factory welded to the pole tops; wire harness with plug-in connections h'om the top of the pole to thc eh:ctrical enclosure [x)x located down the pole; electrical enclosure box pre- wired and pre-assembled'with ballasts, capacitors, fuses, terminal block, landing lugs and safety disconnect. Includes the pre-stressed concrete column bases with handhole access. All pole structural calculations and footing design are provided and included for submittal purposed verified by a California licensed structural engineer, includes DSA drawings Soils survey to be provided by others, if necessary. FIXTURES: 4 Pole Op~tion Twenty.siX (26) 6 Po~ UPtiu. Twenty-four (24) Musco~rLC Glare Control 1500 watt metal halide luminaire assemblies complete with factory wiring through thc cross arms and factory pre-aiming. Includes lamps. Warranty - 10-Club service includes all materials and labor to maintain operation of the system m the original design criteria for ten (I0) yem's. The service includes regular monitoring of the system, toll-~e access to Musco s mamten~ce Depanmen, and an'insurance poli~ that guarantees the full ten (10) ~ars of service. Lamps are, group ~placed on or ~fore ~e lamps. exceed/heir useful life and/or at the end of 10"' year. Individual lamp outages ~u:e repaired as t~Ilows: 1, When more than 10% of the lamps a~ .out on any one field. 2. When lamp outages materially impact the usage of any Page 2 Exclusions are vandalism, major storms or lightning, failure of owner's electrical service, or unauthorized alterations. Based on 300 hours of annual usage. Electrical. To be provided by others. Light Performance - Musco assumes all responsibility for field light level requirements and the off-site glare-spill light control requirements per the project plans and specifications. Please see the enclosed computer models for the recommended field light levels. Specifications. Includes providing all of the lighting performance specifications, as well as, the structural design. (Pole structural calculations and footing design stamped by a licen~d L:alllornia :structural P~ngineer. 'rechnical Consultation - Musco will provide technical on site assisiance as required by the City or Installing Contractor. All fine tune aiming, if necessary, will be Musco's responsibility. This service is provided as a courtesy. ,COST EST!M..ATE: Poles and Fixtures - Includes all the aforementioned products and services. COST: 4 Pole Potion 6 Pole Option $40,891.00 $40,592.00 Installation - Includes complete installation of poles, fixtures, and footings; conduit, wire, and switch-gear (assumes there is an existing electrical power source that is adequate). ESTIMATED COST: 4 Pole Op.t. ion $30,00O.O0 6 Pole Optionl $30,O00.O0 Electrical Engineering and DSA Fees - Includes complete electrical engineering design fees and engineer of record fees throughout the DSA approval process. Includes all fees associated with the DSA approval process (plan check fees, fabrication inspection fees, etc.) ESTIMATED COST: 4 Pole Option $12,000.00 6 Pole Option $12,000.00 ESTIMATED PROJECT TOTAl, (applicable taxes are not included): 4 Pole, Option $82,891.00 6 Pole Option $82,592.00 If you have any questions or conccrns, please feel free to contact me. I will be happy to meet w~m you at your convemcnce. I nan~ you ~or your interest in Musco Lighting.