Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rodeo committee and council debate arena expansion, seating and whether to hire construction managers
Summary
Council and the rodeo committee reviewed conceptual arena renderings and debated whether to hire professional construction managers or rely primarily on volunteer labor, with council urging a phased master plan to protect views, accessibility and city infrastructure.
Oakley City Council and the rodeo committee spent substantial time reviewing renderings and a feasibility discussion about a potential rodeo arena and bleacher expansion.
Presenters showed conceptual renderings that would enlarge the seating footprint and add amenities beneath bleachers, with possible premium plaza seating, vendor space and restrooms. The committee described goals of increasing attendance and enhancing the “experience” for attendees while preserving the rodeo’s western character and the views that many residents value.
Council and committee members debated several tradeoffs:
- Seating and ambiance: Committee members described goals to add seats and premium sponsor seating. Several councilmembers warned that adding large, stadium‑style seating risks losing the arena’s openness and the surrounding views that are part of Oakley’s appeal.
- Phasing and costs: Presenters and staff recommended a phased approach (small initial seat increases, then later phases) to match demand and reduce the risk of unsold seats. Councilmembers suggested starting conservatively and evaluating ticket sales before committing to larger phases.
- Accessibility and production needs: Council discussion covered ADA seating requirements, companion seats, restroom locations, and backstage/production infrastructure (sound, jumbotrons, vendor and parking impacts). Staff flagged that the site has buried utilities, limited three‑phase power and other “as‑built” uncertainties that make accurate cost estimating harder without additional engineering work.
- Who should lead construction: The rodeo committee proposed using local volunteers and committee members to perform much of the work to save costs. City staff and several councilmembers countered that hiring an experienced design/ construction‑management firm can prevent costly mistakes, identify site constraints (for example sewer lines under stalls), produce as‑built documentation, and plan civil engineering, traffic and parking solutions. Councilmembers urged a collaborative approach: solicit professional planning and cost estimates, keep the rodeo committee closely involved, and avoid rushing into construction without a firm plan.
Council and staff repeatedly emphasized the need for a written, phased master plan and for clearly defined roles: the city would ultimately approve plans and financing, while the rodeo committee would advise on production and usability. The council discussed funding sources, including rodeo fund balances and a county restaurant‑tax award dedicated for prize money that staff said could free other funds for capital planning.
No construction contract or final design was approved; council directed staff to proceed with planning steps, including producing a scope and RFP for professional services (architect/engineer) to support a phased plan, and to keep the rodeo committee engaged in design choices and fundraising.
