Santa Rosa City Council
March 10, 2026

CIP Delivery Strategy
Design-Build RFPs for
Oakmont Pavement Maintenance,
Martin Luther King Jr. Neighborhood Park, and
Bayer Park Natural Play Area Renovation
March 10, 2026
Transportation and Public Works
Dan Hennessey
Director
March 10, 2026 CIP Delivery Strategy for 3 Projects
2 Why Design-Build?
Delivery
• Accelerated schedule
• Clear performance specifications
Costs
• Cost certainty earlier in process (Guaranteed Maximum Price) • Allows phasing if funding requires
Accountability
• Transfers design coordination and constructability risk to one entity • Reduces change orders due to design gaps,
• Minimizes designer/contractor disputes
March 10, 2026
3 MLK Jr. Neighborhood Park
Community Priorities Identified in Master Plan
• Multi-use athletic space
• High durability, year-round playability
• Equity in field access
Planning History
• Evaluated both natural grass and alternative turf
• Reviewed maintenance capacity, expected hours of use, long-term lifecycle costs Planned Use Intensity
• Community drop-in play
• School use
• Youth soccer leagues and events
CIP Delivery Strategy for 3 Projects
March 10, 2026
4 Natural Turf
Advantages
• Lower surface temperature
• No synthetic components
• Lower upfront installation cost
Limitations
• Limited playable hours (typically 600 – 800 hours annually) • Weather vulnerability (rain closures)
• Requires irrigation, potentially fertilizers, pesticides, and/or herbicides • On-going mowing and maintenance labor
• Can become compacted/uneven with heavy use
• Recovery time after heavy play
CIP Delivery Strategy for 3 Projects
March 10, 2026
5 Turf Alternatives
Advantages
• 1,500 – 2,000+ playable hours per year
• All-weather reliability
• No irrigation required
• No fertilizers or pesticides
• Predictable, even playing surface
• Lower annual maintenance labor
Limitations
• Higher upfront cost
• Surface temperature higher in hot weather
• Requires eventual replacement (8 – 12 years typical)
• Material selection must address environmental concerns CIP Delivery Strategy for 3 Projects
March 10, 2026
6 Costs
Estimated Installation
• Natural Turf: $400,000 – $600,000
• Turf Alternatives: $800,000 – $1,200,000
Annual Maintenance
• Natural Turf: $50,000 – $100,000 annually (labor, irrigation, chemicals, repair) • Turf Alternatives : $10,000 – $20,000 annually (brushing, sanitizing, infill top-off) Costs over 10 Years
• Natural Turf: $1,250,000, ~$175 per hour of use
• Turf Alternatives : $1,150,000, ~$65 per hour of use
CIP Delivery Strategy for 3 Projects
March 10, 2026
7 Financial Implications
Capital Improvements
• Turf alternatives eligible for CIP as a major replacement • Predictable, planned expense
• Can be reserved/scheduled in advance
On-going Maintenance (General Fund)
• Competes annually with:
• Police & Fire
• Parks staffing
• Streets & utilities
• Rising personnel costs
• Subject to economic downturns
• Difficult to increase without tax or fee changes
CIP Delivery Strategy for 3 Projects
Why This Matters
Natural Turf
• Requires sustained General Fund support annually
• Labor-intensive
• Irrigation, chemicals, equipment
• Maintenance quality directly tied to budget health
Turf Alternatives
• Lower annual General Fund burden
• Major expense occurs predictably every 8 –12 years
• Replacement can be programmed in CIP
• More stable and manageable fiscally
March 10, 2026
8 Environmental Considerations
PFAS & Material Safety
• City can require PFAS-free turf systems
• Can prohibit crumb rubber infill
• Require third-party lab certification
• Specify organic or engineered infill
• Cork, TPE, coated sand
Heat Island Effect
• Turf can be warmer than grass
• Mitigation strategies:
• Organic infill options
• Irrigation for cooling (if needed)
• Shade trees in park design
• Light-colored backing systems
CIP Delivery Strategy for 3 Projects
Water Runoff
• Modern turf systems are permeable
• Engineered stone base allows infiltration
• Can be designed to meet or exceed stormwater
standards
• Eliminates fertilizer/pesticide runoff
Water Use Comparison
• Natural turf requires irrigation
• Turf alternatives eliminate annual irrigation demand
March 10, 2026
9 Incorporation into Design-Build
Health & Materials
• PFAS-free certification required
• No crumb rubber infill
• Independent third-party safety testing
• Compliance with all state/federal standards
Environmental Performance
• Permeable system meeting stormwater code
• Organic or non-toxic infill options
• Heat mitigation strategies required
• End-of-life recycling plan required
CIP Delivery Strategy for 3 Projects
Transparency
• Material submittals reviewed by City
• Public disclosure of system components
• Performance warranty minimum 8 years
Oversight
• City retains approval of final surface
selection
March 10, 2026
10 Summary
CIP Delivery Strategy for 3 Projects
Turf Alternatives Natural Turf Variable
Higher upfront Lower upfront Installation Cost
Lower Higher Annual Maintenance Cost
8 – 12 year full replacement On-going rehab Lifecycle Replacement CIP-programmable replacement On-going General Fund pressure Funding Alignment 1,500 – 2,500 600 – 800 Playable Hours per Year
Minimal closures Rain-sensitive Weather Closures
Consistent, even surface Variable (wear, compaction) Surface Consistency Comparable overall; certified systems required Comparable overall; field condition matters Injury Research No Yes Irrigation Required
None Typically required Fertilizers/Pesticides
Engineered permeable system Can include nutrient runoff Stormwater Runoff Warmer (mitigation options available) Cooler Heat
Lower labor demand Labor-intensive Maintenance Staffing Designed for high-intensity use Declines with overuse Durability Under Heavy Use High access, year-round use Limited by rest periods Equity of Access Questions?