Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Soccer club asks city to reopen Osborne covered area; council flags safety, maintenance and long‑term plans
Summary
Leavenworth Soccer Club proposed converting the fenced Osborne covered area to an artificial turf, multiuse practice field. Council and staff raised safety (steel uprights, snow shedding), security and maintenance questions and recommended more detailed cost, maintenance and multiuse options before approving reopening.
Get email alerts on the Parks Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dan Frija, president of the Leavenworth Soccer Club, presented the club’s proposal to repurpose the fenced Osborne covered area as a multiuse turf field for youth and select soccer practices and small-sided games. He told council the Cascade School District has roughly 840 K–8 students and the club expects strong demand in winter months when outdoor fields are unusable.
Frija said the club would research costs and fundraising and was not asking the city to pay for the turf outright: “We’re not asking the city to pay for it necessarily. We just wanna be able to leverage that space,” he told council.
Council and staff pressed several implementation questions: who would maintain the turf, whether the parks crew would be responsible, how to secure windows and entry points to prevent vandalism, and how to address the roof’s snow-shedding and known leaks. Andy Zontek Baxter, the city’s public works director, recommended adding lighting and cameras and said any long-term maintenance responsibility should be clarified in a written agreement: “My recommendation would be that we would have some sort of agreement with the soccer club if they're the ones providing the turf or maintaining the turf,” he said.
Cost estimates discussed in the meeting were preliminary and inconsistent: the club cited turf-material figures that council members interpreted as roughly $50,000–$60,000 for the surface material, while the club also used the term “250” in a separate ballpark reference (discussants flagged that number as unclear). Council asked the club to provide two concrete scenarios — a lower-cost, multiuse hard-surface option and a turf option — with itemized costs for installation, safety padding for steel uprights, fencing, security cameras, and ongoing maintenance.
Council also raised compatibility with longer-term Osborne redevelopment plans (library/pool/community center). Staff noted reopening could be short-term and cautioned against large, permanent investments if the facility will be reconstructed under public-facilities district plans within a few years.
Why it matters: Reopening the Osborne covered area could expand winter recreation options for hundreds of youth and residents but carries upkeep, security and capital-cost implications for the city. Council asked for clearer cost proposals, a maintenance and security plan, and an explanation of how the proposal dovetails with planned redevelopment work before committing city resources.
Next steps: Council directed the soccer club to return with detailed cost estimates, maintenance agreements and multiuse-floor options for further evaluation; staff will coordinate required safety and code reviews and report back to council.

