Story by Shaunna Boyd

FAIR OAKS, CA (MPG) - The Measure J Bond Oversight Committee (BOC) met on December 7 to hear updates about planned improvement projects in the Fair Oaks Recreation and Park District (FORPD).

In addition to the $29.5 million in Measure J funds, FORPD has applied for various county, state, and federal grants to supplement the amount of funding available for District improvement projects.  In total, over $1 million in additional grant funding has been approved, with $10.1 million in requests still pending.

FORPD is eligible to apply for California’s Prop. 68 Grant Program (California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018) to increase park space. The District’s $5.9 million application in Round 3 was rejected, but they have reapplied for the same amount for Round 4 funding, and that application is still pending. And the District was approved for $250,000 in Prop. 68 Recreational Infrastructure Revenue Enhancement (RIRE) funding and $172,952 in Prop. 68 Per Capita funding. Another $560,929 was approved through the federal House Community Project Funding. Still pending is another application for $4.2 million in Congressionally Directed Spending.

A recent local application for funding through Sacramento County’s Electric Vehicle Incentive Project was approved, and the District will be awarded $85,000 as reimbursement for the cost of installing charging stations for electric vehicles in seven parking spaces in the Village. Those charging stations are required by the County, and the parking spaces will be exclusively for use by electric vehicles. The District is still determining the guidelines for those spaces, but Aho said it is likely that the District will decide to put a time limit on the spaces, and that additional time will incur a fee paid to the District.

BOC member Barbara Sestito pointed out that there are limited parking spaces available in the Village and asked how the time limits would impact theatre attendees, because shows would likely run beyond the free parking limit. FORPD Administrative Assistant Paula Lucas explained that the District can impose whatever guidelines they choose, so they could pause the fee collection on show dates.

The BOC also heard an overview of the permit fees paid to Sacramento County during the design review process for the Village improvement projects, with an approximate total of almost $95,000 in fees. “Those keep piling up,” said Aho, “and they just keep coming and keep coming and keep coming.”

Aho said that they have reached out to District 3 County Supervisor Rich Desmond about how costly these fees are, but Aho explained that the County Board of Supervisors votes to approve these fee schedules, so it’s not possible to get any special treatment for the District. “We can share our frustrations with this, which we have, and they may or may not address it over time,” said Aho. “We’re keeping a fair record of things, and we’ll eventually go compile all this back and give it to Rich and say, ‘Hey this is a substantial amount of money that we’ve paid for fees.’”

But he explained that in a way, the review process and associated fees can save the District some money in the long run, because the process can uncover errors that cost them more to fix later. For example, in the fire district plan review, they found that the planned water pressure for overhead sprinklers on the amphitheatre stage was lower than required for that location. “If plan review had not caught that, then we wouldn’t have gotten an occupancy permit, and the cost to re-do that after we’d put it in would have been much higher,” said Aho. “So, did we get anything out of it? Yes and no.”

When issues are discovered, the District’s architects have to make adjustments to the plan, which is an additional cost to the District, and then the plan has to be resubmitted to the County for another review, which incurs another fee. To plan for these costs, 33% is added for soft costs on top of the total project cost, but Aho said they are currently a little above that percentage.

BOC Member Keith Walter said, “Obviously surprises occur, unexpected discoveries occur, but we hired a set of professionals who have done these kinds of projects before, built in a certain amount of contingency—if we’re running above those, is it because there’s something unique about Sacramento County, something unique about the project? Where did the process break down?”

Aho said, “It really comes down to our project.” He gave examples of a retaining wall and a sink hole above the Community Clubhouse and an unknown septic tank under the salon building. “We have a park that was built without plans, without design, that was built by volunteers and just kind of a hodge-podge type of group for the last 75 years. It has never gone through this kind of renovation before, so you’re finding all kinds of things in there,” said Aho. “When you’ve got a park like that, I don’t know what to do. We’re not done yet.” They are increasing the contingency for contractors from 15% to 20%, because Aho believes many more issues will be discovered once they start digging.

The project may end up taking longer than expected, but 18 months from the start of construction is still the approximate timeline right now. Aho said he can’t offer a better answer until the construction crews actually get in there and start the work, because who knows what they will find. With the scale of the project and the age of the buildings, Aho said, “Honestly, this is one of the most frustrating projects in my career. … I think it’s just that sheer volume, to me, is what makes it harder than anything else. It’s not a small project, it’s an $18 million dollar project” and there are a lot of unknowns.

Construction bids for the Village improvements will be requested in January, and the District plans to offer an extended deadline of 45 days to allow more contractors time to submit. Aho estimates the contract will be awarded sometime in March.

During this last meeting of 2021, BOC members submitted their expenditure reviews, fulfilling that annual requirement to oversee the Measure J funds spent in the last year. And they closed the meeting with a vote to continue holding virtual meetings through the winter. They plan to revisit the question of in-person meetings in the spring. The next meeting is scheduled for January 4, 2022.