Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews proposal to sell Route 20 parcel to Game Day Soccer; asks staff to pursue negotiations
Summary
A representative for Game Day Soccer presented a letter of intent to buy about 8–10 acres of city land along Route 20 to expand fields and build indoor facilities; councilors asked questions about parking, utilities and annexation and gave staff direction to negotiate further rather than taking immediate action.
City staff and councilors reviewed a proposal on April 7 to sell roughly 8–10 acres of city-owned land along Route 20 to Tony Cesar, owner of Game Day Soccer, to expand soccer fields and add training and indoor facilities.
City staff introduced the proposal as a letter of intent and said the land would not be available for industrial-park development because utilities would run through the parcel; any sale would be subject to reservations of easements needed to serve the larger industrial park. The city auditor’s valuation provided in staff materials was $6,800 per acre; staff also noted the city originally purchased the Route 20 property at about $11,000 per acre. Mr. Cesar told council his group’s informal offer would be roughly $22,000 per acre for 8 acres (about $176,000), and he asked the city to consider negotiating terms.
Cesar, who described himself as the owner/operator and long‑time coach with about 22 teams and roughly 350 youth participants in his club, said additional land would let Game Day host tournaments, add multiple full-size fields and build an indoor field house. He said the expanded facility could draw visitors who would spend locally on food, fuel and lodging.
Councilors raised operational and neighborhood issues: parking capacity and surfacing, proximity to neighboring commercial uses, septic vs. city sewer and the potential benefits of annexation to obtain city services. Cesar said he has discussed annexation as a future step and that he has had quotes for additions and parking improvements. Councilor New and Councilor McFarland said the proposal would benefit the community by providing year‑round indoor and outdoor space; Councilor Lopez asked about parking and nearby residences; Cesar said additional parking expansions were part of his plan and that adjacent parcels appear commercial.
City staff said they were not seeking a vote that night but asked whether council wanted staff to pursue negotiations. Councilors responded affirmatively (the clerk recorded informal “thumbs‑up” agreement) and staff said they would return with a more detailed proposal and negotiated terms for council consideration.
No sale agreement or ordinance was approved at the April 7 meeting. The council’s instruction was to pursue negotiations and return with a formal recommendation later.
