Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recreation Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City board weighs three costly options to upgrade Coyote Ridge ball field; Excel easement adds uncertainty
Summary
Board members debated four schematic options for the single Coyote Ridge ball field, with costs ranging roughly from $1.11 million to $1.87 million; a regulation-size option may require coordination or land acquisition from utility owner Excel, which could add substantial unknown costs and delay.
HCM staff presented four schematic options for the Coyote Ridge ball field and updated cost estimates at the Aug. 21 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting. "To get a regulation size ball field in there, it's gonna expand that footprint quite a bit," Kyle Davis said, describing options that either move the field within city property (requiring an approximately 11-foot retaining wall in one layout) or attempt to keep a regulation layout by encroaching on adjacent Excel-owned property.
Davis provided updated cost figures: Option 1a (move-and-grade to create regulation size with retaining wall) was listed at about $1,446,002.49; Option 1b (expanded amenities) at roughly $1,867,003.48; Option 2 (uses Excel property to reduce earthwork) at about $1,471,801; and Option 3 (retain current footprint with upgrades but not regulation size) at approximately $1,110,974. Board members focused on the trade-offs between field usability, neighborhood impacts and cost: an 11-foot retaining wall drew aesthetic and engineering concerns, while reliance on Excel for land access generated major unknowns.
Board members repeatedly raised the risk of negotiating with Excel. Marcus Graves and HCM said coordination is in progress but the utility's response and potential requirements are unpredictable: "They typically would request that you purchase the property in order to make the improvements," one presenter said of Excel, and staff warned the process could easily add "an additional $200,000" or be more costly. Because board members were not comfortable forwarding a firm recommendation to council without a clearer cost breakdown and rental-revenue data, the chair tabled the recommendation for a future meeting with requested analyses on 10-year cost-effectiveness, rental income and a detailed cost breakdown for each option.
