HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-10-1998 Playfield Agenda and Minutes \;~__._ r fos ze; t7a~~
F -t08 7.87 0165
E be..tls <?'thebealsgroup r
Meeting
•
Agenda ~`__.•/~
h
t
ebealsgroup fwoNorth Market, Fifth Fig
Meeting Type: City, School Districts, User Groups ~ ~ say, Jose. caufornia ~s1, .
Meeting Date: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 t_icense Number ts3a
Time Allotment: 4:00-6:OOpm Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Devel.
Meeting Location: City Offices Project Ref. No.: 98-12
Facilitator: Jay Beals
Recorder: Jeff Kreps
Time Keeper: Jeff Kreps
Meeting Context: Preliminary meetings with School District representatives, City staff, and User
Group representatives have been completed and feedback on design
proposal has been received. Public meetings have been held for each site to
gather information from neighbors regarding their concerns. Proposal is close
to being finalized, but we now have to work out the details of the lease and
maintenance agreements for each site.
Meeting Purpose: 1) Review design proposals and associated costs
2) Discuss elements of the draft lease/maintenance agreements for each site
Intended Results: 1) An understanding of each design proposal and associated costs
2) Agreement to the general terms and specific responsibilities outlined in the
draft lease/maintenance agreements
INTRODUCTION
A. Welcome (2 min.--Jay Beals)
B. Recap of Public Meetings
II. SITE REVIEW-FOOTHILL ELEMENTARY (10 min.--Jay Beals)
A. Review of the design proposal (including additional items arising out of the Public
Meeting) and associated costs
III. DISCUSS LEASE/MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-FOOTHILL ELEMENTARY(45 min.)
A. Presentation of draft agreement outline for review
B. Discussion on "deal points" leading to consensus for agreement on specific items in
the draft agreement outline
IV. SITE REVIEW-MARSHALL LANE ELEMENTARY (10 min.--Jay Beals)
A. Review of the design proposal (including additional items arising out of the Public
Meeting) and associated costs
V. DISCUSS LEASE/MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-MARSHALL LANE ELEM. (45 MIN.)
A. Presentation of the draft agreement outline for review
B. Discussion on "deal points" leading to consensus for agreement on specific items in
the draft agreement outline
F:Wobs98198-12 Saratoga ConsuRinglMeeting ttemslMtgAgenda11.10.98.doc
Meeting Agenda For: City, School Districts, Users Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Dev.
Meeting Date: Tuesday, Nov. 10, 1998 Project Ref. No.: 98-12
Meeting Location: Saratoga City Offices
VI. REVIEW OF PROJECT SCHEDULE
A. Presentation of tentative project milestones
VII. NEXT STEPS
A. To be undertaken before the next meeting:
1. thebealsgroup will
a. provide meeting minutes
b. provide a brief summary of agreement highlights
c. contact parties, individually, as needed for clarification
d. provide a revised and confirmed meeting schedule
VIII. MEETING SCHEDULE
A. Public Meeting at Blue Hills Elementary-Thursday, November 19, 6:30-8:OOpm
End of Agenda
F:Wobs98198-12 Saratoga ConsukinglMeeting Items\MtgAgenda11.10.98.doc 2
~ Meeting Report
Date:
11.11.98
-~~
~~ T 30.3.'H l~C
i '`' F ~lUt1 ?di O1h5
~~ -_-.-~ F n~~,~l:;~~nthenn,~lsyrr~up .
~r
thebealsgroup Two North Market. Fifth F'
S~3n Jose. California 9511'
License N~.imber 153a
Meeting Type: City, Sch. Dist., Users Project Name: City of Saratoga Park Devel.
Meeting Date: 11.10.98 Project Ref. No.: 98-12
Meeting Time: 4:00-6:OOpm
Meeting Location: City Offices
From: Jeff Kreps Attendees: Irene Jacobs, City of Stga.
Ellen Tipton, Stga USD
Paul Tipton, Stga USD
Gerry Jensen, Campbell USD
Copy to: ®All Attendees
User Group Representatives
This report, if not corrected within seven (7) days after receipt by any party in attendance, shall be
acknowledged as an accurate report of the events that took place at this meeting.
Meeting Context: Preliminary meetings with School District representatives, City staff, and User
Group representatives have been completed and feedback on design
proposal has been received. Public meetings have been held for each site to
gather information from neighbors regarding their concerns. Proposal is close
to being finalized, but we now have to work out the details of the lease and
maintenance agreements for each site.
Meeting Purpose: 1) Review design proposals and associated costs
2) Discuss elements of the draft lease/maintenance agreements for each site
Intended Results: 1) An understanding of each design proposal and associated costs
2) Agreement to the general terms and specific responsibilities outlined in the
draft leaselmaintenance agreements
Note: Action items resulting from Phis meeting are listed at the end of this report.
INTRODUCTION
A. The meeting was opened with a welcome from Jay and a brief recap of information
received at the public meetings at Foothill and Marshall Lane Elementary Schools.
II. SITE REVIEW-FOOTHILL ELEMENTARY
A. The Foothill Elementary School Site was reviewed based on the priority list of needs
generated by the primary user group--Los Gatos/Saratoga Girls Softball--and
included modifications to reflect input received from the neighbors who attended the
public meeting (please see the enclosed diagram. The primary additions to the
proposal were to remove the diseased and dying trees along the south fence-line,
and to replace this "screen" with new trees or with a combination of trees and
netting. The netting would be installed--if the trees were removed and the upper
• diamond stayed in its current location--to help protect the neighboring property from
errant balls, etc. If the field was to be shifted to the north--as the neighbors
F:1Jobs98198-12 Saratoga ConsuRinglMeeting ItemslMtgReport11.11.98.doc
Meeting Minutes for: City, SD's, Users-Foothill, Marshall Project Name: City of Stga Park Devel.
Meeting Date: Tuesday, Nov. 10, 1998 Project Ref. No.: 98-12
Meeting Location: City Offices
• requested--there would be no need for this netting, though the vegetative screen
would still be replaced.
Preliminary costs for the proposal were also reviewed, and detailed cost estimates
were provided. (see enclosed)
III. DISCUSS LEASE/MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT OUTLINE-FOOTHILL ELEMENTARY
A. The majority of the allotted time for this site was spent discussing the various
components of the lease/maintenance agreement outline. The emphasis was
clearly on the ways that the various groups could work together to share the
financial and/or physical maintenance burden such that the children using the fields
for either education or athletic activities would have the safest possible site.
An example of the partnering potential lies in the issue of the trees along the south
property line. All agreed that these trees will have to come down, but it was
proposed that, maybe, the School District could pay for the trees to be cut down and
removed, and the City could pay for the installation of the new trees, netting, etc. In
this way, the District can ensure compliance with necessary safety codes, and the
City can expend its energy toward bringing the site up to "park" standards.
Another example is in the expected maintenance costs, especially if the
maintenance routine is desired to be increased to maintain a higher quality playing
surface. (please see the enclosed description of maintenance routines and
• associated costs.) For example, if the School District is going to be providing "level
A" service anyway--as standard maintenance routines--then any increase in costs
required to maintain the fields at "level B" would have to be borne by either the City
or the User Groups.
A third opportunity to partner concerns the irrigation system. Since the School
District needs to install a separate meter and backflow prevention device for the
irrigation system, they would be willing to pick up this substantial cost provided that
the City or User Groups were willing to absorb the cost of the irrigation lines and/or
the connections to the sewer and water lines.
A number of questions and suggestions arose as the finer points of a potential
agreement were fleshed out:
• Who would maintain a permanent restroom facility?
• Who would monitor all the agreements?
• A lengthy contract agreement (say, 5 years) would help to ensure the
long-term viability and stability of the agreement in the face of rapid
personnel changes within the User Group organizations.
• The School District said they would be happy to turn the permitting over
to someone else, so long as it was understood that the schools had the
top priority for use.
• Perhaps a master schedule for the facility could be posted on the field, so
that there was no confusion over who had the use on a given day/time.
• Jay mentioned that the current trend is for cities to take over all the
• permitting for school and park sites.
• Irene Jacobs stated that the City might be willing to take over the
F:Uobs9819&12 Saratoga ConsuMinglMeeting ItemslMtgReport11.11.98.doc 2
Meeting Minutes for: City, SD's, Users-Foothill, Marshall Project Name: City of Stga Park Devel.
Meeting Date: Tuesday, Nov. 10, 1998 Project Ref. No.: 98-12
Meeting Location: City Offices
• permitting and scheduling if they could get the money to support the
position, but that the ideal situation would be a "third party."
• Everyone agreed that the bottom line consisted of three things: (1)
Tasks-What are the things that need to be done; (2) What is the cost
for each of those tasks; and (3) Who is going to take responsibility for
each item?
• Somehow, a degree of flexibility regarding specified maintenance
routines would need to be provided to account for limitations or special
situations that vary from site to site. For example, Gerry Jensen noted
that spraying of weeds at Marshall Lane is, essentially, impossible
because of the concerns of parents and neighbors over pesticide use.
• Another item to be included would be a "financial increase" clause which
would account for the natural increase in costs--due to inflation, etc.--that
will undoubtedly occur. All parties signing the agreement will understand
that from year to year costs for use and maintenance will probably go up.
• There was also some concern on the part of the School District regarding
building permanent restroom facilities on their property--esp. Campbell.
Past experience with user groups who, effectively, "locked the School out
of the facility" have made the School District leery of similar
arrangements. This related to the point that the Schools have to have
the priority use. However, once the schedule is set, then everyone,
including the School District must abide by it. No one will have the right
to interfere with someone else's use of the facility if that group holds a
valid permit and is on the schedule.
IV. SITE REVIEW-MARSHALL LANE ELEMENTARY
A. The design proposal for Marshall Lane was presented, and concerns of the
neighbors which emerged from the public meeting were highlighted. It was noted
that the neighbors' major concern is traffic, but that an official traffic study would not
be undertaken by the City until the proposal had been approved by City Council for
further action.
From a design standpoint, Gerry Jensen said that the northeast corner would need
to be left open for the possibility of future modular classrooms, and that perhaps the
relocated basketball court could be lowered down and rotated. (This was done, and
the revised plan is included in this packet.)
Preliminary costs for the project were also presented, and there was some concern
that the proposed costs for the sewer and electric hook-ups might be a little low.
(See the enclosed cost estimate for detailed breakdown.)
V. DISCUSS LEASE/MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT OUTLINE-MARSHALL LANE
A. As above, the finer points of a potential agreement were discussed. Concerns from
the School District can be found in the bulleted list of items shown above.
VI. SUMMARY
A. As the draft lease/maintenance outline for each site was reviewed (please see the
. enclosed outlines), additions were made to try to make each a totally comprehensive
document. They are intended to be substantial and binding, but it was agreed that
F:Wobs98198-12 Saratoga ConsultinglMeeting ItemslMtgReportl l 11.98.doc 3
Meeting Minutes for: City, SD's, Users--Foothill, Marshall Project Name: City of Stga Park Devet.
Meeting Date: Tuesday, Nov. 10, 1998 Project Ref. No.: 98-12
Meeting Location: City Offices
this is the only way to effectively manage such an important resource. By having
thorough agreement not only on what needs to be done, but also on who will do it
and what the specific costs will be, confusion will be avoided, and long-term
planning becomes possible.
It is hoped that as you read through the documents you will make note of any
missing items and/or any items that you feel are ambiguous or inappropriate. Once
we have received more feedback on the finer points of this agreement we can turn it
over to each group's legal counsel to be fully developed.
Additionally, it is hoped that you will take the time to read through the enclosed
maintenance information and make any additions, deletions, or comments and send
them to us. These are primary components of the agreement, and the only way to
make sure the fields stay safe and well-maintained is to agree upon exactly what is
to be done.
VII. REVIEW OF THE PROJECT SCHEDULE
A. The tentative future project schedule was reviewed and it was clear that final
presentation to the City Council will not occur before February of 1999. Regarding
the final Task Force Meeting, we hope to have a date in place before the Christmas
Holidays. A confirmed schedule will be forthcoming.
VIII. MEETING SCHEDULE
. A. Public Meeting at Blue Hills Elementary--Thursday, November 19, 6:30-8:OOpm.
IX. NEXT STEPS
A. To be undertaken before the next meeting:
Item Action Responsible Party
1. Schedule Confirm dates and mail thebeals rou
2. Campbell USD Set up an "informal" meeting with School District & thebealsgroup,
Cit to discuss lease/maintenance Cit , 8~ SD
3. Agreements Contact parties for clarification on information All
contained in a reements--as needed
•
End of Report
F:Wobs98\98-12 Saratoga ConsuAinglMeeting ItemslMtgReport11.11.98.doc 4
~~;~
~ T tOt3 "?87 1202
~ Jt+
',
~~~ ~~~.~-' f= 108 ?8 % 0165
E b~~als«~`thebealsgroup r,oi:
I
~ Addendum thebealsgroup
Two North Market, Fifth Fio~
Date: 11.23.98 San Jose. California 9511;;
License Number 153
To: Irene Jacobs From: Jeff Kreps
Ellen Tipton
Paul Tipton
Gerry Jensen
Subject: Meeting Minute Corrections Project Name: City Of Saratoga Park Devel.
CC: Jay Beals Project Ref. No.: 98-12
To all meeting attendees:
It was brought to my attention that there were two issues in the meeting report I sent out -
regarding the meeting held at the City of Saratoga Offices on Tuesday, November 10, and
attended by those listed above-which were in need of clarification. This addendum is to
serve as the correction and/or clarification of those points, and will be considered the "final
version," unless I am otherwise contacted.
• 1. In the previous minutes, it was indicated that the "School District" was willing to turn
over permitting the use of its facilities to a "third party" in order to ease its current
burden. It should be made clear that this statement applies to the Saratoga Union
School District only-Campbell Union School District would like to reserve the right to
do their own permitting for use of Marshall Lane Elementary.
2. It also needs to be made clear that Campbell Union School District would like to have
exclusive use of the fields whenever they need them and that, after their needs had
been met, they would consider scheduling other users. (This holds true for all the
Districts-their needs come first, and any other accommodations come after-which
would include reserving the right to use, and/or limit access to, the fields during summer
months.)
I hope this makes clear any ambiguities contained in the previous minutes. If there are any
additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to give me a call.
Sincerely,
J Kreps
End of Memorandum
•
F:Wobs98198-12 Saratoga ConsuttinglMeeting ItemslPubic Meelings~Addendum11.23.98.doo
/ 3
,C~ ~ rE
Draft Outline of Issues to be Considered in:
• Lease and Maintenance A reement
g s between the City of Saratoga,
the Cupertino Union School District, AYSO, and CYSA:
I. Summary of Intent: The purpose of this outline is to begin to understand in specific terms the
details of a lease/maintenance agreement between various parties concerned with athletic field use
and development at Blue Hills Elementary. Examples--at the most basic level--of items to be
covered are:
•Who are the "permitted" users?
•Who provides the land?
•Who are the various parties accountable to?
•Who will oversee the agreement?
•What are the consequences of non-compliance with the agreement?
•Who provides the funding for maintenance?
•Who actually performs the maintenance routines? , ,
II. Location: Blue Hills Elementary School / Azule Park
III. Size: Work area: School = 4.25 acres /Park = 4.0 acres
IV. Users:
A. Use of the athletic facilities will be restricted to school activities and to groups
• holding valid permits. (Table format to facilitate understanding) Permits are obtained
through the School District ,City of Saratoga , or other "3rd party" (ex. 501-
c(3) .Fee for use has been determined to be $ .This fee is for the following
duration: ,and is based on agreement to the lease/maintenance terms below,
beginning with number V.
B. Permit Application Process: Including the provision of proof of acceptable insurance
C. Payment of fees is in accordance with the following:
1. It is understood that operating costs will increase from year to year and that the
agencv granting the permit has the right to adjust the fee schedule in accordance with,
for instance, the Consumer Price Index. The proper fee adjustment will be part of the
agreement for use.
2. Payment in full, prior to the start of the season or requested date.
D. Penalty for default on payment is:
1. 1st occurrence =warning
2. 2nd occurrence =fine--late charge
3. 3rd occurrence =permit suspended
E. A system will be put in place to accommodate schedule changes:
Users tivill be subject to a svstem whereby they are required to notify the permitting agency of a
change in schedule within a given amount of time before the scheduled use. The agencv will bear
[he responsibility of posting notice at the site ojthe change in schedule. Note: the creation of a
website to accommodate all of the scheduling information and changes might be very effective.
/n this si[uation. users simply need log on to the website to obtain the most recent scheduling
information. The maintenance ojsuch a website would be the responsibility of the permitting
agencv--which throughout this project has been suggested to be a centralized, third party.
F:~lobs98198-12 Saratoga Consulting~DraftBlueHills11.11.98.doc
C7
•
•
User
Facilit
Duration Time of use
Pur ose
1. Blue Hills Athletic Fields Year-round Days: School activities
Elementary Time(s):
School
2. Saratoga Athletic Fields-- August xx -- Days: Soccer practice/games
AYSO Blue Hills and December xx Time(s):
Azule Park
3. CYSA Athletic Fields-- February xx -- June Days: Soccer practice/games
Blue Hills and xx Time(s):
Azule Park
4. Little Athletic fields-- xxxxxx Days: Baseball practice
Lea ue same xxxxxx Time(s):
The above table is to serve as the "backbone" of the scheduling and use portion of this agreement.
/t is understood that various parties will need the use of the facilities on specifrc days and at
specific times not covered in the above table. Therefore, within each of the "seasons" the
schedule will need to be broken down into smaller segments so that all parties are aware of the
needs and requests of the other parties. The complexity of such a scheduling system points out
the benefit of having a "third parry" handle the negotiations. Note: It is to be understood by all
. parties that the Elementary School has priority use of the site al! year-round. However, every
- effort will be made to schedule the School's uses well in advance, and once set, the School will be
subject to the same requirements as any other group.
V. Maintenance issues to be addressed by all parties:
It should be noted that the School District and the City have the right to approve
any maintenance performed on "their land" by parties other than their respective
staffs. Likewise, each User has the right to determine a suitable level of
acceptability for the playing surfaces and the other facilities. Exactly how this
level might be met is the primary thrust of this agreement.
Financial responsibility and the method of accountability are also discussed for each maintenance
level.
A. Maintenance of the athletic facilities can be broken down into several categories outlined
below. The "base" level of maintenance is "LEVEL A" and is the maintenance regime the
School District and City currently use-and will continue to use-on their non-athletic
fields. (Additional maintenance responsibilities are outlined in "LEVELS B-E" below.)
LEVEL "A": Turf Maintenance Regimes-Non-Athletic: City SD
$.0125/sf = $544.5/acre/mo, _ $6,534/acre/yr
1. Mowing--1 time per week, 46-48 weeks per year
2. Fertilization--2 times per year-
3. Broadleaf weed control (pre &post-emergent)--1-2 times per year
4. Aeration--2 times per year
~. Renovation (aerate, amend soil, seed, top dressing)--1 time per year
6. Filling in of holes--as needed
7. Irrigation/drainage system repairs--as needed
8. Water costs
9. Watering schedule as it relates to the game and practice schedule (see the enclosed
maintenance list for a more detailed list of possible maintenance qualifications).
lD. Tur% irrigation system maintenance
F:Uobs98\98-12 Saratoga Consulting\DraftBlueHills11.11.98.doc
2
l !. Required "rest" season for each field (maybe summer a[ schools, though the
School District would slit! have the right to use the field during the rest period.)
I '. ,t/inimum off-season requirements of the "maintaining" party
8. The maintenance regimes required for "LEVEL B" are for athletic turf and are in addition
to those outlined above in "LEVEL A." The costs incurred to provide this level of
maintenance would have to be paid for by the User Groups. Alternatively, these additional
maintenance responsibilities would be performed by the User Group itself (under the
approval of the School District), or by an outside contractor paid for by the User Group.
LEVEL "B": Athletic Turf Maintenance Re imes-Soccer:
$.0225/sf = $980/acre/mo, _ $11,760/acre/yr.
1.
2.
3.
4
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
• ~ 11.
12.
Mowing--2 times per week during peak season, 1 time/week during winter months
Irrigation--3-4 days per week in peak season, two days/week at other times
Fertilization--4 times per year (February, May, August, November), high
potassium
Aeration & Thatching--2 times per year minimum, remove thatch any time > 1 /4"
Over-seeding--as needed to entire field; wait 4 weeks before playing, sod goal
mouths
Slit-seeding--at least once per year
Weed Control--pre-emergent 2 times/year; herbicides--as needed
FungicidelInsecticide--as needed
Re-paint field markings
InstalUremove goals (if permanent); rotate goal mouth areas if possible.
Inigation/drainage system repairs as needed
Water management, re: user schedules
C. The third and fourth levels of maintenance are "LEVELS C & D" which cover
maintenance of infield areas for baseball and softball facilities. The costs for maintenance
of these areas is to be borne by the User Groups, or is to be performed by them to the
satisfaction of the Owner (City of Saratoga or School District).
LEVEL "C": Skinned Infield Maintenance Regimes-BasebalUSoftball:
$ 03/sf = $1 300/acre/mo = $ 15,600/acre/yr
Responsibility
1. Infield edge: re-cut, power broom, power wash, etc. CS , SD , UG^
2. Drag infield "fine" area
3. Level infield & replace infield fines
4. Re-chalk field markings
5. Infield drainage system repairs as needed
LEVEL "D"• Turf [nfield Maintenance Regimes-Baseball:
$ 03/sf = $1300/acre/mo = $15.600/acreLyr
Responsibility
1. Over-seed infield turf area(s) CS , SD , UG^
2. Re-build pitcher's mound
3. Infield irrigation and drainage system repairs as needed
4. Re-cut infield turf area edges (or power broom, power wash)
F:Uobs98~98-12 Saratoga Consulting~DraftBlueHills11.11.98.doc 3
5. Aerate, de-thatch infield turf area(s)
6. Level infield and replace infield tines.
7. Drag infield "tine area"
8. Repairs to hardware and furnishings
D. The final maintenance level is a "catch-all" to account for a number of miscellaneous tasks
not directly related to field maintenance, but which are necessary nonetheless. The costs
associated with these items are to be the responsibility of one or more of the parties in the
agreement. Such "LEVEL E" maintenance items would include:
LEVEL "E": General maintenance re>;imes at all sites-
Responsibility:
1. Litter clean up and trash removal. CS , SD , UG
2. Edging and Trimming CS , SD , UG
3. Pruning of trees and shrubs CS , SD , UG
4. Repairs and maintenance to concessions-
restroom facilities (if applicable)
5. Equipment repairs--as needed CS , SD , UG
6. Other CS , SD , UG
Additional questions to be answered include:
• Who will monitor each of the groups who are performing the tasks?
VI. Penalties and defaults:
A. If any party outlined above fails to fulfill all or part of its obligation, either financial or
"physical," that party will be subject to one or more of the following penalties:
1. Failure to provide required funds:
a.
2. Failure t~ fulfill maintenance obligation to the satisfaction of the monitoring party:
a. City has what recourse?
b. School District has what recourse?
c. User Group(s) has/have what recourse?
d. First occurrence:
e. Second occurrence:
f. Third/Final occurrence:
B. Re-application process: In the event a permit is suspended, a re-application process must
be in place to accommodate these requests in such a way that the overall schedule is not
impacted, and in such a way as to secure absolute agreement to the terms of the lease.
VII. Creation of a "Third Party" Monitoring Agency
A. To facilitate the relationships between all the members of this agreement, and
to help ensure the safety of all the children who use this (and other) site(s), it is
recommended that an "outside," third-party monitoring agency be established to objectively
measure compliance to the stipulations of the contract. Such an agency would be
comprised of representatives from each of the parties named in this contract and in the
• contracts for the other sites in this project.
F:1Jobs98198-12 Saratoga Consulting~DrakBlueHills11.11.98.doc 4
• Terms for compliance will have been set forth in the above contract and wilt relate
specifically to financial and physical responsibility for the site in question.
It is proposed that this "agency" be anot-for-profit 501-c(3) organization. [n addition to
serving as "monitor" at all the sites, this agency will also have the obligation and
responsibility to generate funding as it sees fit to help offset costs incurred by the various
member parties. The ability of this agency to seek outside funding for desired projects will
provide needed flexibility to acquire necessary funds for items such as additional future
improvements and increases in maintenance costs (materials, manpower, etc.).
In addition, such as objective agency could be charged with the responsibility of ensuring
compliance with the terms of each contract, and with the burden of scheduling use of each
of the sites within the agency's "jurisdiction." As mentioned in earlier discussions, proper
"centralized" scheduling can help maintain safe playing surfaces, and can help eliminate
disputes over who has "rights" to a given field at a given time.
Contract compliance will go a long way toward providing opportunities for safe play, and
toward facilitating communication and continued positive relationships between all
interested parties. In this vein, an important additional responsibility of this "agency"
would be to act as liaison between the various user groups and the neighbors surrounding
the playing field sites. Further, this agency would be responsible for maintaining parity
among the various users, particularly when the users are sharing a site. In this instance,
responsibilities will need to be relative to each group's size and recorded/anticipated use of
the facility.
B. Parties which might be included in this organization are:
1. Saratoga AYSO
2. Saratoga Little League
3. Los Gatos/Saratoga Girls Softball League
4. CYSA
5. Pony League
6. Quito Little League
7. Cupertino American Little League
8. Saratoga Recreation Dept.
9. School District representative(s)
A. Saratoga USD
B. Campbell USD
C. Cupertino USD
10. City of Saratoga Representative(s)
C
F:Wobs98198-12 Saratoga Consuking~DraftBlueHills11.11.98.doc 5
City of Saratoga
Park Development Project
Preliminary Statement of Probable Construction Costs
•
November 13, 1998
BLAi Ref. No. 98-12
BLUE HILLS ELEMENTARY/AZULE PARK -Preliminary Plan #1
Item
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Base Estimate
1 Fields $615,400.00
Blue Hills $212,300.00
Azule $403,100.00
2 Relocation of Modular Classrooms ;0.00
3 Parking Lot Extension ~ ;201,200.00
;,
4 Restroom/Concessions Bld /Area '~;~ ;225,000.00
~^', `~
5 Paths/Play Area/Picnic ;93,000.00
r„\ \_ ,,
r. ,;
SUBTOTAL ~~ ~ • ; $1,134,600.00
Contingencies
Design Modifications - 15% $170,190.00
Plans, Specifications and Engineering - 10% $113,460.00
Construction Contingency - 10% $113,460.00
TOTAL $1,531,710.00
Note:
1) Design Modification Contingency is for further development of design, modifications by the Owner,
and compensates for unknown elements. We will eliminate as we move to Bid Documents.
2) Construction Contingency is provided to cover for site conditions and additional work not
anticipated for upgrades.
3) In Providing opinions of probable construction cost, the Client understands that the Landscape Architect
has no control over costs or the price of labor, equipment or materials, or over the Contractor's method of
pricing, and that the opinions of probable construction costs provided herein are to be made on the basis
of the Landscape Architect's qualifications and experience. This estimate is based on September 1998
pricing availability costs. The Landscape Architect makes no warranty, expressed or implied,
as to the accuracy of such opinions as compared to bid or actual costs.
~`, ,
f.
~. , .
v'v -.
v
F PRJl9&121Costsl Bhi-MP1-11-12-98 xS
City of Saratoga November 13, 1998
BLAi Ref. No. 98-12
Park Development Project
Preliminary Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
• ~"
•
BLUE HILLS ELEMENTARY/AZULE PARK -Preliminary Plan`#9
ftem Quantity Unit Unit Cost Base Estimate
1 Fields
Blue Hills
Demolition
Tree Removal 30 ea $500.00 $15,000.00
Clear and Grub 48,125 sf $0.10 $4,812.50
Sawcut AC Paving 170 If $20.00 $3,400.00
AC Paving 3,000 sf $1.50 $4,500.00
Hardscape
Asphalt Paving 17,250 sf $3.00 $51,750.00
Softscape
Turf Area -renovation of turt
Fill Low Areas for Positive Drainage 3 ac $1,500.00 $4,800.00
Turt/Irrigation Renovation 137,475 sf $0.60 $82,485.00
Turf Area -new
Fill Low Areas for Positive Drainage 1 ac $1,500.00 $1,650.00
Finish Grading 48,125 sf $0.08 $3,850.00
Soil Preparation 48,125
~ sf $0.15 $7,218.75
Seeded Turt -• 48,125 sf $0.10 $4,812.50
Irrigation ~;? '~j 48,125 sf $0.50 $24,062.50
Trees C`, U 23 ea $125.00 $2,875.00
Total -Blue Hills ~\ \'~ $211,216.25
Azule ,~
Demolition ~
Tree Removal 75 ea $500.00 $37,500.00
Clear and Grub 185,000 sf $0.10 $18,500.00
Rough Grading 185,000 sf $0.25 $46,250.00
Turf/Irrigation Renovation 185,000 sf $0.60 $111,000.00
Drainage
Drainage System 1 Is $30,000.00 $30,000.00
Softscape
Turf Area
Fill Low Areas for Positive Drainage 4 ac $1,500.00 $6,300.00
Finish Grading 185,000 sf $0.08 $14,800.00
Soil Preparation 185,000 sf $0.15 $27,750.00
Seeded Turf 185,000 sf $0.10 $18,500.00
Irrigation 185,000 sf $0.50 $92,500.00
Total - Azule $403,100.00
Total -Both Sites $614,316.25
2 Relocation of Modular Classrooms
Relocate Classrooms 1 Is $0.00 $0.00
Utilities 1 Is $0.00 $0-00
Total $0.00
F PRJ198.121ConstnictionEshmates\ BH-MP1--11-12-98.xts
City of Saratoga
Park Development Project
Preliminary Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
•
n
Design Modificafions - 15%
Plans, Specificafions and Engineering - 10%
Construcfion ConSngency - 10%
$169,839.64
$113,226.43
$113,226.43
TOTAL $1,528,556.74
F PRJ198.121CanstnictimEstimates\_BH-MPt-11-11-98.xk
3 Parkins Lot Extension
November 13, 1998
BLAi Ref. No. 98-12
Demolition
Clear and Grub 30,000 sf $0.05 $1,500.00
Sawcut AC Paving 130 If $20.00 $2,600.00
AC Paving 30,000 sf $1.50 $45,000.00
Existing Maintenance Shack 1 Is $10,000.00 $10,000.00
Hardscape
Finish Grading 30,000 sf $0.08 $2,400.00
Concrete Curb 1,150 If $15.00 $17,250.00
Asphalt Paving 30,000 sf $3.00 $90,000.00
Resurface Existing Parking Lot 24,000 sf $1.00 $24,000.00
Softscape
Finish Grading 6,600 sf $0.08 $528.00
Soil Preparation 6,600 sf $0.15 $990.00
Trees 26 ea $125.00 $3,250.00
Mulch 6,600 sf $0.05 $330.00
Irrigation 6,600 sf $0.50 $3,300.00
Total $201,148.00
4 Restroom/Concessions BIdgJArea
Building 1,600 sf $100.00 $160,000.00
Concrete Paving 3,600 sf $5.00 $18,000.00
Utilities
Water 600 If $20.00 $12,000.00
Sewer 600 If $30.00 $18,000.00
Electrical 1 Is $15,000.00 $15,000.00
Softscape
Trees 14 ea $125.00 ~ $1,750.00
Total $224,750.00
5 PathslPlav Area/Picnic
Hardscape -paths
Redwood Header 4,240 If $4.50 $19,080.00
Decomposed Granite 12,720 sf $3.00 $38,160.00
Softscape -
Mulch ~ 8,000 sf $0.05 $400.00
Play Area ~~' - 1 is $30,000.00 $30,000.00
Picnic Area
Redwood Header ~ ; " 180 If $4.50 $810.00
Decomposed Granite 1,200 sf $3.00 $3,600.00
Total $92,050.00
SU
•
City of Saratoga
Park Development Project
Preliminary Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
November 13, 1998
BLAi Ref. No. 98-12
Note:
1) Design Modification Contingency is for further development of design, modifications by the Owner,
and compensates for unknown elements. We wi{I eliminate as we move to Bid Documents.
2) Construction Contingency is provided to cover for site conditions and additional work not
anticipated for upgrades.
3) In Providing opinions of probable construction cost, the Client understands that the Landscape Architect
has no control over costs or the price of labor, equipment or materials, or over the Contractor's method of
pricing, and that the opinions of probable construction costs provided herein are to be made on the basis
of the Landscape Architect's qualifications and experience. This estimate is based on September 1998
pricing availability costs. The Landscape Architect makes no warranty, expressed or implied,
as to the accuracy of such opinions as compared to bid or actual costs.
•
F PRJ~9B-}2}ConstructiaiEstim~esl BH-MP1-11-}2-98.x1s
City of Saratoga•~~ November 10, 1998
Park D~ elo~nenf Project BLAi Ref. No. 98-12
Preti>`rin\'s~imate of Probable Construction Costs
•~ \' ~~
Marshall Lane Elementary--Preliminary Plan
Note: Item numbers correspond to plan notes.
Item Quantity Und Unit Cost Base Estimate
1A Two backstop facilities, with cut infields, batting and pitching cages, covered dugouts.
Fill low areas for positive drainage 0.73 ac $1,500.00 $1,095.00
Hardscape
Concrete paving behind backstop 6,658 sf $5.00 $33,290.00
Infield
Finish Grading 25,310 sf $0.08 $2,024.80
Shovel cut edge 400 If $4.00 $1,600.00
Infield Fines 470 cy $40.00 $18,800.00
Site Furnishings
Backstop 2 ea $20,000.00 $40,000.00
Batting/Pitching Cages 4 ea $10,000.00 $40,000.00
Covered Dugouts 4 ea $3,500.00 $14,000.00
Bleachers 4 ea $4,000.00 $16,000.00
Bases with anchors 2 set $265.00 $530.00
Pitching rubber 2 ea $125.00 $250.00
Homeplate 2 ea $125.00 $250.00
Total $167,839.80
1 B Restroom facility with concession area and storage
Utilities
Water Line 400 If $20.00 $8,000.00
Electricity 1 Is $15,000.00 $15,000.00
Sanitary Sewer 400 If $30.00 $12,000.00
Building 400 sf $100.00 $40,000.00
Shade Structure 1 Is $10,000.00 $10,000.00
Total $85,000.00
1C Drinking Fountains
Utilities
Water Line 50 If $25.00 $1,250.00
Drinking Fountain 2 ea $3,500.00 _ $7,000.00
Total $8,250.00
1 D Renovation of Turf Areas, including irrigation system.
Fill low areas for positive drainage 3.30 ac $1,500.00 $4,950.00
Finish Grading 142,518 sf $0.08 $11,401.44
Irrigation and Turf Renovation 140,118 sf $0.60 $84,070.80
Controller 1 ea $4,500.00 $4,500.00
Controller Enclosure on Concrete Pad 1 ea $2,500.00 $2,500.00
Tree Planting
Soil Preparation 2,400 sf $0.15 $360.00
15 Gallon Trees 25 ea $125.00 $3,125.00 ~?
Mulch 2,400 sf $0.05 $120. \\v
Total $111,0~7~ 2
~--
F:PRJl9&12lConstructbnEstimatesl ML-MP--11-10.xts ` ,
City of Saratoga November 10, 1998
Park Developmeflf Project BLAi Ref. No. 98-12
Preliminary Esti~,nat~ of Probable Construction Costs
. ,.
-'
,._.
1 E .Relocation of school hardcourt area impacted by field
Sawcut existing paving 60 If $20.00 $1,200.00
Remove/demolish existing paving 875 sf $2.00 $1,750.00
Fill low areas for positive drainage 0.40 ac $1,500.00 $600.00
Finish grading 18,025 sf $0.08 $1,442.00
Asphalt Paving 14,750 sf $4.50 $66,375.00
Planting
Irrigation 3,275 sf $0.50 $1,637.50
Soil Preparation 3,275 sf $0.15 $491.25
Seeded Turf 875 sf $0.10 $87.50
15 Gallon Trees 28 ea $125.00 $3,500.00
Mulch 2,400 sf $0.05 $120.00
Total $77,203.25
2A Possible relocation of play area
Relocate play area 1 Is $10,000.00 $10,000.00
Replace area with turf
Finish grading 1,050 sf $0.10 $105.00
Soil Preparation 1,050 sf $0.20 $210.00
Seeded Turf 1,050 sf $0.15 $157.50
Adjust existing irrigation 1,050 sf $0.75 $787.50
. Total $11,260.00
SUBTOTAL $460,580.29
Contingencies
Design Modifications - 15% $69,087.04
Plans, Specifications and Engineering - 10% $+6,058.03
Construction Contingency- 10% $46,058.03
TOTAL $621,783.39
Note:
1) Design Modification Contingency is for further development of design, modifications by the Owner,
and compensates for unknown elements. We will eliminate as we move to Bid Documents.
2) Construction Contingency is provided to cover for site conditions and additional work not
anticipated for upgrades.
3) In Providing opinions of probable construction cost, the Client understands that the Landscape Architect
has no control over costs or the price of labor, equipment or materials, or over the Contractor's method of
pricing, and that the opinions of probable construction costs provided herein are to be made on the basis
of the Landscape Architect's qualifications and experience. This estimate is based on November 1998
pricing availability costs. The Landscape Architect makes no warranty, expressed or implied,
as to the accuracy of such opinions as compared to bid or actual costs. ~'=
~,
~ .-
F:PRJ198-121ConstruclionEstimatesl ML-MP-11-10.xts
City of Saratoga November 10, 1998
Park Develop nt Project
P
li i
rj
-E
i ` BLAi Ref. No. 98-12
re
c
ria
st
to of Probable Construction Costs
~..
Foothill Elementary--Preliminary Plan
Note: Item numbers correspond to plan notes.
Item Quantity Und Unit Cost Base Estimate
1A Restroom facility with concession area and storage
Utilities
Water Line 50 If $20.00 $1,000.00
Electricity 1 Is $15,000.00 $15,000.00
Sanitary Sewer 450 If $30.00 $13,500.00
Building 600 sf $100.00 $60,000.00
Concrete paving 2,000 sf $5.00 $10,000.00
Total $99,500.00
1 B Drinking Fountains
Utilities
Water Line 400 If $20.00 $8,000.00
Drinking Fountain 2 ea $3,500.00 $7,000.00
Concrete pads 50 sf $5.00 $250.00
Total $15,250.00
1 C Covered Dugouts
Finish Grading 3,700 sf $0.08 $296.00
Dugouts 2 ea $3,500.00 $7,000.00
Total $7,296.00
1 D Batting/Pitching Cages
Finish Grading 1,650 sf $0.08 $132.00
Infield Fines 31 cy $40.00 $1,240.00
Batting/Pitching cages 2 ea $10,000.00 $20,000.00
Total $21,372.00
1 E Repairs to existing backstops and amenities
T~
C7
exi
Is $5,
2A Re-cut infields and replace fines
Fill low areas for positive drainage 0.73 ac $1,500.00 $1,095.00
Finish Grading 38,614 sf $0.00 $0.00
Infield fines (includes topdress of existing areas) 336 cy $40.00 $13,440.00
Total $14,535.00
2B Renovation of Turf Areas, including irrigation system.
Fill low areas for positive drainage 1.50 ac $1,500.00 $2,250.00
Finish Grading 67,241 sf $0.08 $5,379.28
Irrigation and Turf Renovation 67,241 sf $0.60 $40,344.60
Controller 1 ea $4,500.00 $4,50 0~
Controller Enclosure on Concrete Pad 1 _ ea _ $2,500.00 $2~50~
T
F:PRJ19&121ConstructbnEstimatesl FH-MP-•11•t0.xk
~, $54;s
\~
Ci~~S~atoga November 10, 1998
^a~velopment Project BIAi Ref. No. 98-12
n
~,,,'~~ I~r~liminary Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
•
3A Redesign area behind backstop
Area improvements 1 Is $30,000.00 $30,000.00
Tota I $30,000.00
3B Remove and replace trees; install netting at S. Property line
Tree removal 35 ea $500.00 $17,500.00
Tree planting
Fill low areas for positive drainage 0.13 ac $1,500.00 $195.00
Finish grading 5,800 sf $0.08 $464.00
Irrigation 5,800 sf $0.50 $2,900.00
Soil preparation 5,800 sf $0.15 $870.00
15 gallon trees 30 ea $125.00 $3,750.00
Mulch 5,800 sf $0.05 $290.00
Install 30' tall netted chain link fence 150 If $90.00 $13,500.00
Total $39,469.00
3C Move western-most diamond north 40 feet.
Demolish existing backstop 1 Is $2,000.00 $2,000.00
Rough grading 27,500 sf $0.25 $6,875.00
Fill low areas for positive drainage 0.63 ac $1,500.00 $945.00
Infield
Finish Grading 12,972 sf $0.08 $1,037.76
Shovel cut edge 180 If $4.00 $720.00
Infield Fines 240 cy $40.00 $9,600.00
Site Furnishings
Backstop -practice 1 ea $10,000.00 $10,000.00
Covered Dugouts 2 ea $3,500.00 $7,000.00
Bases with anchors 1 set $265.00 $265.00
Pitching rubber 1 ea $125.00 $125.00
Homeplate 1 ea $125.00 $125.00
Subtract cost of netted fence ($13,500.00)
Total $25,192.76
SUBTOTAL $312,588.64
Contingencies
Design Modifications - 15% $46,888.30
Plans, Specifications and Engineering - 10% $31,258.86
Construction Contingency- 10% $31,258.86
TOTAL $421,994.66
Note: ~^
1) Design Modification Contingency is for further development of design, modifications by t e C;(W er; ,`,
and compensates for unknown elements. We wil- eliminate as we move to Bid Docu nt ~ ~ \~ ~'
2) Construction Contingency is provided to cover for site conditions and additio ~~ ~o ~%
• anttctpated for upgrades.
F:PRJ19&121ConstructbnEstimatesl FH-MP-11-10.x1s
C o ra ga November 10, 1998
ellopment Project BLAi Ref. No. 98-12
re iminary Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
3) In Providing opinions of probable construction cost, the Client understands that the Landscape Architect
has no control over costs or the price of labor, equipment or materials, or over the Contractor's method of
pricing, and that the opinions of probable construction costs provided herein are to be made on the basis
of the Landscape Architect's qualifications and experience. This estimate is based on November 1998
pricing availability costs. The Landscape Architect makes no warranty, expressed or implied,
as to the accuracy of such opinions as compared to bid or actual costs.
•
•
f:PRJ19&121ConstructionEstimatesl FH-MP-11-10.x1s
•
•
City of Saratoga
Park Development Project
Preliminary Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
November 13, 1998
BLAi Ref. No. 98-12
CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK -Preliminary Plan #1
Item
1 Fields
Demolition
Demolish Existing Fence
Site Frunishings (Per request of Little League)
30' Foul Ball Fence
Replace Player Benches
Repair Permanent Backstops
Repair Portable Backstop
Install Code-Compliant Bleachers
Install gates on the dugouts
Install pedestrian gates
8' Chain Link Fence
Quantity Und UnR Cost Base Estimate
100 If $0.00 $0.00
If
8 ea
Is
Is
ea
ea
ea
85 If $0.00 $0.00
Softscape
Turf Area -renovation of turf
Fill Low Areas for Positive Drainage 5.80 ac $1,500.00 $8,700.00
Turf/Irrigation Renovation 254,000 sf $0.60 $152,400.00
Turf Area -new
Finish Grading 2,250 sf $0.08 $180.00
Soil Preparation 2,250 sf $0.15 $337.50
Seeded Turf 2,250 sf $0.10 $225.00
Irrigation ~ 2,250 sf $0.50 $1125.00
SUBTOTAL J ~ - ~~ ,~ $162,967.50
Contingencies
Design Modifications - 15%
Plans, Specificafions and Engineering - 10%
ConstrucSon Confingency - 10%
$24,445.13
$16,296.75
$16,296.75
TOTAL X220,006.13
Note:
1) Design Modification Contingency is for further development of design, modifications by the Owner,
and compensates for unknown elements. We will eliminate as we move to Bid Documents.
2) Construction Contingency is provided to cover for site conditions and additional work not
anticipated for upgrades.
3) In Providing opinions of probable construction cost, the Client understands that the Landscape Architect
has no control over costs or the price of labor, equipment or materials, or over the Contractor's method of
pricing, and that the opinions of probable construction costs provided herein are to be made on the basis
of the Landscape Architect's qualifications and experience. This estimate is based on September 1998
pricing availability costs. The Landscape Architect makes no warranty, expressed or implied,
as to the accuracy of such opinions as compared to bid or actual costs.
F PRJ198-121wnstnrctanEstimatesl_CSPnngs-MP 1--11.12-98 x!s
November 11, 1998
•
CITY OF SARATOGA PARK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES BY "LEVEL"
LEVEL "A": Turf Maintenance Regimes-Non-Athletic:
$.0125/sf = $544.5/acre/mo, _ $6,534/acre/yr
1. Mowing--1 time per week, 46-48 weeks per year
2. Fertilization--2 times per year-
3. Broadleaf weed control (pre &post-emergent)--1-2 times per year
4. Aeration--2 times per year
5. Renovation (aerate, amend soil, seed, top dressing)--1 time per year
6. Filling in of holes--as needed
7. Irrigation/drainage system repairs--as needed
8. Water costs
LEVEL "B"• Athletic Turf Maintenance Regimes-Soccer:
$.0225/sf = $980/acre/mo, _ $11,760/acre/yr.
1. Mowing--2 times per week during peak season, 1 time/week during winter months
2. Irrigation--3-4 days per week in peak season, two days/week at other times
3. Fertilization--4 times per year (February, May, August, November), high potassium
4. Aeration & Thatching--2 times per year minimum, remove thatch any time >1/4"
5. Over-seeding--as needed to entire field; wait 4 weeks before playing, sod goal mouths
6. Slit-seeding--at least once per year
7. Weed Control--pre-emergent 2 times/year; herbicides--as needed
8. Fungicide/Insecticide--as needed
9. Re-paint field markings
10. Install/remove goals (if permanent); rotate goal mouth areas if possible.
11. Irrigation/drainage system repairs as needed
12. Water management, re: user schedules
LEVEL "C"• Skinned Infield Maintenance Regimes-Baseball/Softball:
$.03/sf = $1 300/acre/mo, _ $15,600/acre/yr
1. Infield edge: re-cut, power broom, power wash, etc.
2. Drag infield "fine" area
3. Level infield & replace infield fines
4. Re-chalk field markings
5. Infield drainage system repairs as needed
LEVEL "D"• Turf Infield Maintenance Regimes-Baseball:
$.03/sf = $1300/acre/mo, _ $15,600/acre/yr
1. Over-seed infield turf area(s)
2. Re-build pitcher's mound
3. Infield irrigation and drainage system repairs as needed
4. Re-cut infield turf area edges (or power broom, power wash)
5. Aerate, de-thatch infield turf area(s)
6. Level infield and replace infield fines.
7. Drag infield "fine area"
8. Repairs to hardware and furnishings
~; ~,
~ ~ ~7'-/ ~
lt-~. ,~ ` -~,
`=
~~~
/~/
y~
~~ser~erlvrgeds61~S99~Be-~ z Saratoga c«~suronq~n~arrt.le~elsl ts.se.aoc
November 11, 1998
LEVEL "E": General maintenance regimes at all sites-
. 1. Litter clean up and trash removal.
2. Edging and Trimming
3. Pruning of trees and shrubs
4. Repairs and maintenance to concessions/restroom facilities (if applicable)
5. Equipment repairs-as needed
•
•
nser~erla~a;eciswotss8lse-, z saaooga ca~sulti~glMamt.lauds„ s.~.ax
Ongoing, "standard" turf maintenance issues:
. I. General turf maintenance
A. Mowing
1. How often do you mow the turf?
2. How high is the turf after cutting: Winter ,Spring ,Summer ,Fall ?
3. Do you change directions on alternate mowing?
4. How soon after fertilizing and/or watering is it appropriate to mow?
5. How often do you sharpen and clean the blades on the mower?
6. After mowing, do you remove the clippings? Why or why not?
7. Mowing frequency by season: Winter ,Spring ,Summer ,Fall ?
8. What are the differences, if any, in seasonal maintenance routines?
B. Fertilization
1. How often do you fertilize (per field-use type)?
2. 'What is the fertilizer mix?
3. What is the rate of application?
4. Does the mix or application rate shift seasonally? Regionally?
C. Aerate/Thatch
1. How often do you aerate/de-thatch?
2. How deep do you core?
3. Does core depth vary with season or intended field use?
4. After aeration, do you remove the cores? Why or why not?
5. How often do you add sand to the turf areas?
6. At what rate do you add the sand?
D. Seedi ng
• 1.
2. How often do you seed?
What time of year do you seed?
3. What is the seed mix, and rate of application?
4. How do you add the seed (slit seeder, other equip)?
5. What is watering and fertilizer schedule after seeding?
6. When you repair low/worn spots in the field, what type of soil mix/seed/sod is used?
E. Herbic?de/Fungicides
1. How often do you apply herbicides for weed control?
2. What type of herbicide is used (pre-emergent, other)?
3. What is the rate of application?
4. How often do you apply fungicides? ,
5. What is rate of application?
F. Turf " rest" and reestablishment
1. Do you let the field rest after each season?
2. If so, for how long is the optimum rest period?
3. Is there a less impactive use for a resting site?
G. Equipment
1. What kind/size of equipment do you use for mowing, seeding, aerating, fertilizing,
etc.?
2. For multi-use fields, are the outfield fences in sleeves, or freestanding?
3. Are soccer goals free-standing or in sleeves?
4. How often are field lines re-painted?
II. Baseball-related questions (turf or fines infield)-
• A. Drainage
1. For baseball, what is optimum drainage direction/setup?
11SERVERIPROJECTSWobs98198-12 Saratoga ConsultinglRevisedMaint~s.doc
B. Turf infields
1. What is optimum seed mix for infields?
• 2. What is the sub-surface composition and cross-section?
3. How often do you re-seed the infield areas, if necessary?
C. Infield fines
1. What is the recommended infield mix?
2. What is sub-surface composition and cross-section?
3. How often do you re-cut infield lines?
4. What tools do you use to cut it?
5. How often is the infield "dragged"?
6. What type of device is used to drag the infield?
7. How often is the pitcher's mound re-built?
8. How often do you re-do the infields (replace fines, etc.)?
III. ~ Irri gation issues related to the above:
A. Water
1. How often do you water?
2. What time of day do you water?
3. To what depth do you water (how much... acre/ft, inches/hour, inches/week)?
B. Equipment
1. What type of irrigation system is in place?
2. What are the head types and spacing?
3. What~type of controller is used?
C. Drainage
1. Why is the drainage system for the field?
. 2. Does drainage system depend on field use, regional location, or both?
Questions to be considered when constructing new athletic fields:
I. Turf-related questions-
A. Turf/seed
1. Do you use a certain kind of turf for a particular field use?
2. What is the recommended soil/subsurface composition/cross section?
3. What is the difference in timing if sod is used instead of seed?
B. Mowing
1. How soon before first mowing of newly planted seed?
2. How many Y14owil~gs before a field is ready for play?
C. Fertilizer
1. What is fertilizer mix for newly planted seed?
2. How often is fertilizer applied on new seed?
3. What is the rate of application?
4. What is the fertilizer mix?
5. Do you water more directly after fertilizing, or does water rate stay the same?
D. Drainage
1. What is the optimum compaction level for a field used for a particular activity?
2. What percent is the field crowned at?
3. What is the optimum sub-surface drainage system for athletic fields?
•
11SERVERIPROJECTSWobs98198-12 Saratoga ConsultinglRevisedMaintos.doc 2
E. Amendments
1. In this region, are there any amendments that need to be added to the soil to bring
• it up to an acceptable standard?
2. If so, what is the recommended amendment mix?
3. How deep is the necessary subsurface preparation for "new" turf?
4. What is standard soil preparation routine for new fields?
F. Use/R otation
1. Do new fields need to be rested more than "old" fields after each season?
2. How often should game field locations be switched (if possible to shift them)?
G. Maintenance
1. What is the expected "time 'til next renovation" for new turf?
2. How long can a new field be maintained in the "standard" manner before it requires
a complete renovation?
H. Scheduling
~~ 1. Now soon before newly planted field is playable?
2. How long from groundbreaking until a new field is ready for play?
II. Baseball-specific questions-
A. Drainage
1. For baseball, what is optimum infield drainage direction/setup?
A. Turf infields
1. What is the recommended seed mix for turf infields?
2. What~is the optimum sub-surface cross-section?
B. Infield fines
1. What is the recommended infield mix?
2.
3. What is the sub-surface composition and cross-section?
How often do you re-do the infields (replace fines, etc.)?
4. How often do you re-cut infield lines?
5. What tools do you use to cut it?
6. What is the procedure to "level" the lip at the turf/infield border? .
7. What are the specifics of building a pitcher's mound?
8. How often is the infield "dragged"?
9. What type of device is used to drag the infield?
III. Irrigation questions for construction of new athletic fields:
A. Drainage ..
1. What is the optimum subsurface drainage system?
2. At what percent is the optimum crown for an athletic area?
3. What is the^'~rptirt~um compaction level for a field used for a particular activity?
B. Watering schedule
1. How soon after planting can watering begin?
2. What is the watering rate?
3. What is optimum watering schedule?
4. Do you water more directly after fertilizing, or does water rate stay the same?
C. Equipment
1. What type/size of irrigation pipe is recommended?
2. What is the recommended sprinkler head type for infield vs. outfield?
3. What is the optimum spacing for each?
IISERVERIPROJECTSIJobs98198-12 Saratoga ConsultinglRevisedMaintos.doc 3
Issues to be considered when renovating/maintaining a field currently in use:
I. Turf-related questions to be answered:
A. Turf
1. How often are the fields re-seeded during the game season?
2. How soon after re-seeding is it "safe" to play on the fields?
3. If you have to repair low spots in the field, what type of soil mix/seed is used?
B. Wateri ng
1. How soon before and after playing is it appropriate and beneficial to start/finish
watering?
C. Mowing
1. During the game season, how often are the fields mowed?
2. To what height are the fields mowed?
3. Is this different from the turf height maintained during non-game months?
4. 'How soon before a scheduled game is it appropriate to mow?
D. Aeration/Thatching
1. What is the aeration/de-thatching schedule during the season?
2. How often is sand added to the fields?
3. At what rate is the sand added during the game season?
4. How soon after sand is added is it OK to play?
5. Following topical renovation, how long before the turf is playable?
6. How long will the field be out of service if topically renovated during the season?
E. Maintenance
1. Are~oal mouths moved, and if so, how often?
2. If goal mouths are not moved, is damage to turf repaired during the season?
• 3. 1f yes, to #8, how is goal mouth repaired (re-seeding, sod)?
F. Fertilizer
1. What is the fertilizing schedule during the season?
2. Does the fertilizer rate and/or mix change during the season? To what?
II. Baseball-related questions-
A. Turf/Fine infields
1. How often is infield leveled during the season?
2. Does infield need to "rest",after leveling before play resumes? How long?
3. How and how often is the infield line cut?
4. How is the turf/infield edge maintained to be level (power-broom, power wash)?
5. How often does the pitcher's mound need to be re-built?
6. How soon before a game is it appropriate to re-build the mound?
7. What is th~''I~ptimum composition of the mound?
B. Maintenance
1. How often does the field need to be re-marked?
2. Assuming an infield built to specifications, how long between total renovations?
3. How long will the field be out of service to replace the infield?
4. What is optimum compaction rate to be maintained during the season?
•
IISERVERIPROJECTSWobs98198-12 Saratoga ConsultinglRevisedMaintQs.doc 4