Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Parks Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council approves Benevento Family Park master plan; bids will include three ad alternates

Folsom City Council · April 29, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After extended public comment and debate over amenities and contingencies, the City Council approved the Benevento Family Park master plan and directed staff to include three bid alternates (basketball lighting, two lighted sand volleyball courts, fishing dock) priced separately so the council can decide once bids return.

Parks planning manager Brad Nelson presented the Benevento Family Park master development plan on April 28, describing a process that included multiple community workshops, a March survey with 545 responses and additional outreach within a half‑mile radius. The updated plan calls for roughly 8 acres of development on a 19‑acre site and balances active recreation (pickleball, basketball, a multi‑use turf field) with passive areas and habitat protection around an existing pond.

Nelson detailed constraints and costs: a base construction estimate of about $6,000,000 (including a 10% construction contingency), design/engineering of about $800,000, permitting and administration, and a project contingency of roughly $760,000 that brings the programmatic budget to about $7.9 million. He described geotechnical conditions on the terraced site (undocumented fill requiring over‑excavation, shallow volcanic bedrock, large boulders) as a primary cost risk.

The staff recommendation presented a base plan and three ad alternates to be fully designed and bid separately: 1) lighting for the lower basketball court (~$68,000), 2) two lighted sand volleyball courts with a 15‑foot fence adjacent to Broadstone Parkway (~$250,000), and 3) an accessible fishing dock and path (~$419,000). Nelson noted the ad alternates would add roughly $74,000 in design costs and that that design expense would not be recoverable if the council later opted not to build the alternates.

More than a dozen residents spoke in favor of moving the park forward and for including active amenities (volleyball, pickleball, lighting); speakers also urged transparency on contingencies and cost increases. Some residents and council members urged caution about long‑term maintenance and the effect of adding amenities that could increase operating costs.

Councilmember Aquino moved to approve the master plan option that reflects the community‑preferred, more active upper terrace (design 2) and to include the three elements as bid alternates; the motion was seconded and carried unanimously. Council directed staff to proceed with final design and prepare bid documents that include the ad alternates so the council can make a funding decision after bids are received.

Nelson and staff will return with design contracts and, after bids, will present cost comparisons so the council can choose which alternates, if any, to add without exhausting the project contingency.