Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
West Sacramento council directs staff to pursue full Bright Park buildout after funding review
Summary
City staff presented a 24-acre Bright Park (Bridal/Bright) master plan, three financing options and a projected operating cost; following public testimony and council discussion the council gave direction to pursue Option 1 — build the full park — and return with bid documents and financing details.
City Councilmembers reviewed a 100% design for the 24-acre Bright Park master plan and directed staff to pursue full construction of the park, City Parks Director Kate Smith said at the Aug. 6 workshop. The presentation included design renderings, grant and financing updates and an operational analysis.
The plan calls for an aquatic facility with a six-lane lap pool and zero-entry area, a splash pad, amphitheater, dog park, tennis and basketball courts, multiple ball fields (natural turf) and one secured synthetic turf field, a maintenance yard and enlarged parking. Jay Traholl, director of capital projects, said design and prior work have attracted more than $20 million in grant funding, including a federal ORLIP grant that awarded $15 million nationally and is a core funding piece of the project.
Why it matters: the council’s direction affects whether the city keeps the large ORLIP grant intact, how soon the city can acquire park land from Washington Unified School District, and how the city will budget operations for a major new park asset.
Key project numbers and funding options presented by staff: - Estimated hard construction cost: $49.2 million; total project cost including soft costs and land acquisition: $64.3 million. - Land acquisition estimate submitted with the grant: $2.2 million (city share 50% per the grant assumption); final appraisal underway. - ORLIP grant: $15,000,000 (federal); many park elements are tied to the grant and require city ownership of the land in perpetuity. - Funding gap scenarios presented: Option 1 (build full park) gap ~$36.8 million; Option 2 (omit ball fields initially) gap ~$31.0 million; Option 3 (exclude aquatic facility) gap ~$31.5 million (Option 3 would likely forfeit the ORLIP grant and require re‑scoring for federal funding).
Staff recommended pursuing the full build (Option 1) and said the city can pursue an iBank loan (IBank) and other local sources to cover debt service. Finance Director Roberta Babor said an example financing of roughly $40 million at 5% over 30 years would cost about $2.6 million per year; reducing financed principal by $5 million changes annual debt service by under $300,000 in the scenarios presented.
Operations and life-cycle costs: Parks staff estimated annual operating expenses for the full built park at about $2.1 million with projected revenues of roughly $220,000, producing an annual subsidy of about $1.5 million above the $320,000 the city currently spends on the existing park. Design consultant Verde provided a 30-year life-cycle estimate recommending an annual set-aside of about $638,828 for repair and replacement.
Timing and next steps: staff said design is complete and they will prepare bid documents if the council confirms direction. The city must complete a land acquisition and execute the ORLIP grant agreement before construction; staff said they expect to receive the grant award agreement in November and aim to go to bid in October–November (subject to timing of the appraisal and school-district surplus/transfer process). Construction was estimated at roughly three years with possible phasing to reopen play fields before pool/buildings are finished.
Public comment and council direction: speakers including Rhonda Pope Flores, Alicia Gutierrez and others urged the council to approve Option 1 and warned that removing the aquatic facility could jeopardize the ORLIP grant and future grant eligibility. After discussion about debt-service sources and operations, councilmembers expressed support for Option 1. Kate Smith said staff had sufficient direction to move forward to bid and financing steps.
Council direction: staff were told to pursue the full project (Option 1), proceed with bid-document preparation and return with specifics on financing and implementation.
Staff and consultants on the record for the presentation included Kate Smith, director of parks and recreation; Jay Traholl, director of capital projects; and Roberta Babor, director of finance. Public commenters supporting the full build included Rhonda Pope Flores and Alicia Gutierrez.
