If Holland’s tentative decision stands, the city of Tracy will have to forgo the $10 million and 16 acres The Surland Cos. was set to contribute toward a water park as part of the agreement.
That could spell the end of water park plans for the foreseeable future.
“The future of that project is tied to (Ellis),” said Mayor Brent Ives. “Absent that $10 million, there’s not enough money to create a viable swim center.”
Estimates put the price tag of the center’s first phase at $15.7 million, and the cost for a complete swim center was guessed at $30.8 million.
Without Surland’s money, the city has $3.24 million set aside for an aquatics center, according to a staff report presented to the City Council in January.
That money is set to pay for $1.3 million worth of designs for the park — designs the council ordered finished in full at the same January meeting.
When Holland’s decision came down, the plans were 20 percent done and on track to be finished by July, according to Rod Buchanan, director of the city’s Parks and Recreation Department. But that ruling — which stripped the majority of the swim center’s anticipated budget and land from the city — is a game-changer.
“We’re still trying to figure out the best course of action to not spend extra money in the design process,” Buchanan said.
He added that the city doesn’t yet know what would be the easiest and most cost-effective option: finishing the plans now and altering them later if needed, or putting them on hold until there’s more surety about the water park’s future.
Also, the plans are site-specific, according to Buchanan, and it’s unknown what part of them could be used if the aquatics center were built somewhere else.
For now, he said, he and the park are in wait-and-see mode, just like those with hopes for the proposed Ellis swim center.
“A lot of this hinges on what the next steps are,” he said.
What is a city DA?
"Why in the he%# do we need a aquatic park?"
We don't need one in Feburary. Wait till June.
What they should do is put a stop to the current designs for the park, go back to the drawing board and try to figure out what other capital priorities the $3.24 million can be used for.
Oh but wait... That probably makes to much sense!
I can't say why there were only a few who showed up at those meetings opposed to the water park. Maybe those against thought it wouldn't be built or were just lackadaisically hoping it wouldn't be built. Whatever the reason, the deal between the city and Surland has been deemed invalid by a judge. This judgement clearly shows that the city, and Surland, had made a bad deal. Did the city DA know this beforehand? Who knows. You would think so now, wouldn't you?
But if you put the shoe on the other foot, it appears the alleged backroom dealings were actually between city and developer.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm all for the water park or anything that will showcase the city of Tracy. I just don't think now is the appropriate time.
There were only one or two who oppossed it but I never understood why. I don't think they ever fully explained what they were opposing.
It actually looked the oposite. Surland was brought out into the center of the city council meeting, to answer questions.
I NEVER really heard the oppisition answer ANY questions. If you had been there it looked like the opposite of what you said.
To me, at the time, I thought it looked more like the opposition was being done with some sort of backroom deal?
Sorry, but having watched the city council meetings, I feel the shoe is on the other foot.
I would like to think that animosity isn't a factor in those concerned with declaring the water park for homes program illegal. I'm not privvy to any of their communications so can't say for sure who's correct but I have my opinions re: the water park/homes merger and feel there are underlying motives for both the city and Surland in pursuing this deal. The fact that a deal was agreed upon without much input by the public only solidifies my thinking that Ives and Surland went behind the backs of the voters. It's obvious Ives has had this water park agenda on his mind for quite some time.
At this time, I do not believe building a water park is in the best interest of the city. Perhaps another time when the economy is better. I believe building the water park, now, is something the city cannot afford to do and certainly cannot afford to maintain.
It's also a piss poor attempt at lobbying against the swim center.
Tell me exactly how would you suggest we squirrel the money away on your "novel idea"?
The swim center was a bait and switch for the Mayor and Surland.
So you feel the obstructionists may be doing it to get back at someone?
If I were on the city council I would recommend we shut down the airport after 2012, so that TRAQ has no further interest in Tracy."
I have a better idea. Why not vote out of office everyone except Abercrombie & Rickman in 2012 "so that TRAQ has no further interest in Tracy". HAHAHAHA
@dcose, straight from "Clyde"