Hundreds of residents oppose Flowers/City Park RFP; council and staff outline review steps

An RFP the city issued for redevelopment of Flowers/City Park — framed by staff as a mechanism to address stormwater challenges and to explore a public‑private partnership for recreation upgrades — drew intense opposition during the meeting—s public comment period. Dozens of residents, youth coaches and local organizers said the RFP risks privatizing a long‑used public recreation area, could restrict access or add costs for local teams and families, and that the city issued the RFP with insufficient public engagement.

Council member Albert Tarantino raised concerns at the start of the session about community outreach by a prospective proposer (named in public comments as Bob Young) prior to any award and asked the city manager to convene meetings so councilors and key stakeholders could see materials. City staff described the staged process: a technical review committee (TRC) has been convened to vet proposals; the proposer has been asked to present and staff proposed dates for presentations (Nov. 25, Dec. 1, Dec. 3); if the TRC recommends a proposer, the city would enter a 90‑day exclusive negotiation period (an MOU exclusivity window) during which the city and proposer would negotiate terms and conduct concurrent public engagement. City staff said the proposal and full project materials would be posted or released once a formal award or recommendation is made.

Residents— concerns and claims Speakers and written commenters pressed multiple themes: lack of transparency in issuing the RFP; only one bidder "on file" and allegations the solicitation was targeted; fears that the RFP—s language about eminent domain signals potential acquisition of nearby private properties; the possibility that a private partner would charge for use or prioritize profitable events over neighborhood access; and the contention that the stormwater rationale does not justify a wholesale redevelopment. Several speakers recalled previous contested projects and urged the council to withdraw the RFP. "If you privatize the park, you take that away," said Laura Trotta, a lifelong resident. Former and current youth coaches described the park as an irreplaceable, low‑cost place for children across the city to play.

City staff response and next steps City staff told the council the TRC has the proposer materials and will schedule presentations; the first public briefings for council and stakeholders were proposed before the TRC finalizes a recommendation. If the TRC recommends moving forward, staff said a 90‑day exclusivity period would begin for negotiation of an MOU; staff said public engagement would be extensive during that MOU phase as contract details are developed. The city manager said materials and a process visual would be made publicly available.

What residents are asking for Speakers urged the council to rescind the RFP, commit to an open public process that starts with a full explanation of the "why" (stormwater mitigation needs and options), publish environmental and fiscal analyses, and make any developer presentations public before negotiations.

Quotes "Flowers Park is a place where every child has the same chances to grow, play, and belong. If you privatize the park, you take that away," Laura Trotta told the council during citizens to be heard.

"How do you protect the use of the fields for local sports?" asked Greg Varian, an attorney who said he represents both developers and neighborhood groups.

Provenance and transparency City staff said the TRC will post materials and that any award or recommendation would be followed by a public MOU and formal council action prior to finalizing any agreement. Multiple council members asked staff to ensure early council briefings and stakeholder meetings so the governing body can evaluate the proposal and the public can review the rationale and details before any exclusivity or contract is finalized.