Council clashes over cost of Ioki soccer fields Play

Two weeks ago, the Malibu City Council approved building two soccer fields at the vacant City Civic Center land that goes by the name of Ioki Park.

Monday night one city councilmember wanted to take that back and revisit the issue of whether a permanent pair of soccer fields would be the same price as putting in two temporary ones.

There was visible anger on the City Council as a result.

Councilmember Steve Uhring said he voted for a design for permanent soccer fields because the cost estimate that putting in temporary fields would be just about as much as the permanent ones.

“There is nobody on the City Council that I'm aware of who is not in favor of trying to find some additional athletic support facilities for the kids,” Uhring said.

“Last City Council meeting we voted for permanent sports fields, and I voted for them for one particular reason: I was told that there was no cost difference between a temporary sports field and a permanent sports field.”

Monday night Uhring said he didn't have the financial data in front of him two weeks ago, and the actual cost difference between temporary fields and permanent fields is substantial.

“I got a new cost analysis that says here's what it would cost to do a permanent field and here's the difference of what it would cost to do a temporary field,” Uhring said. “And the difference is close to two to three million dollars.”

Haylynn Conrad and Marianne Riggins were the two City Council subcommittee members who had recommended the permanent soccer field plan over the temporary idea.

Monday night they said that the cost of the temporary fields would be about $1.8 million versus $4 million for the permanent installation.

But it was not clear of that data was made available to council members before the meeting two weeks ago. Uhring said it was his understanding two weeks ago, that the cost difference was negligible. and council member Steve Uhring indicated he agreed with that assessment.

Monday night Conrad and Riggins were visibly angry.

Conrad: “Temporary fields, we heard loud and clear, were still expensive. You have to grade on a hill or the soccer balls will go down the slope. It's not a flat lot.”

Uhring: “I remember, and I could be getting old, okay, but I remember the temporary fields and the permanent fields were the same cost.”

Conrad: “I don't remember saying that they were the same cost.”

Riggins: “I don't either. We said that the cost was expensive for the temporary fields, and the permanent fields were not going to be a significant difference more.”

Uhring: “Three million dollars more?”

Riggins: “No, 1.8 million dollars for temporary fields and four million for permanent.”

Councilman Doug Stewart tried to find middle ground: “Look, I'm comfortable with the decision that we made, but obviously we have two council members that are not, and I think at the end of the review it's going to come out to be the same thing — that we're going to put the permanent fields in.”

Mayor Bruce Silverstein counted the votes — three city council members still in favor of the permanent option. No need to reverse the decision, said he, at least not yet, he said.

“We'll see where the election goes. I suspect the same people may be up here, but if they're not, then we can talk about whether to reconsider with different composition," he said.

"But these five people are not going to make a different decision next week than we made two weeks ago, so I'm not going to support bringing it backwards. It's going to waste the public's time.”

In the end, the city council decided not to officially bring back the soccer fields issue, at least not until after the election.

But that left Marianne Riggins very unhappy: “This is exactly why Bluffs Park looks the way it does, with porta-potties and rusted-out storage containers and a substandard makeshift snack shack that we've got up there, that we're, you know, finally hopefully going to be bringing forward to actually have approval to replace those things.

"Why do we think our residents do not deserve to have quality recreation facilities right out the gate?”

The above quotes were transcribed by a computer and are reasonably believed to be accurate.