The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHuntington Beach Sports Complex Presentation - Submitted by �NTINGT 2000 Main Street, `, o , 0ti� Huntington Beach,CA 92648 City of Huntington Beach ITEM NOT PRESENTED — ` . +s ,, COVERED IN THE CITY `ccoUNry cP��F~ MANAGER'S REPORT STUDY SESSION - ITEM #18 (26-715) File #: 26-723 MEETING DATE: 8/18/2026 Subject: Item Submitted by Councilman Chad Williams - Huntington Beach Sports Complex Presentation Recommended Action: Receive a presentation from Dave Chennault regarding the Huntington Beach Sports Complex proposed improvements. Attachment(s): 1. Huntington Beah Sports Complex - Williams Memo 2. HB Sports Complex Presentation 3. Audit of the Complex Request 4. HB Sports Complex Landfill Gas System Analysis City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/14/2026 powered by LegistarT. City Council/Public Financing ACTION AGENDA August 18,2026 Authority Approved 7-0 COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS NEW 26 723 - Submitted by Councilman Chad Williams - Huntington Beach Sports Complex Presentation Recommended Action: Receive a presentation from Dave Chennault regarding the Huntington Beach Sports Complex proposed improvements. Item not considered—covered at City Manager's Report Study Session Item#18. ADJOURNMENT- 10:09 PM The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council/Public Financing Authority is Tuesday, September 1, 2026, in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California Page 11 of 10 t",(,,\` :; era CITY OF o;_r� N HUNTINGTON BEACH ; 'fi0 UNTY Ceti City Council Meeting - Council Member Items Report To: City Council From: Councilman Chad Williams Date: August 18, 2026 Subject: Huntington Beach Sports Complex Presentation ISSUE STATEMENT The Huntington Beach Sports Complex is a significant City asset and is the subject of discussions regarding future operations and capital improvements to the facility. The Finance Commission has reviewed issues related to the Sports Complex and has developed recommendations for consideration by the City Council.The Commission's recommendations are intended to assist the City Council in evaluating the financial, operational, contractual, and other considerations associated with the future of the Sports Complex. Commissioner Dave Chennault will deliver a presentation that will provide information and background that should be considered by City Council when considering the proposed improvements. RECOMMENDED ACTION Receive a presentation from Dave Chennault regarding the Huntington Beach Sports Complex proposed improvements. ATTACHMENTS 1. HB Sports Complex Presentation 2. Audit of the Complex Request 3. HB Sports Complex Landfill Gas System Analysis 2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,CA 92648 I www.huntingtonbeachca.gov City HB Sports Complex Finance Commission City of Huntington Beach 8/12/26 Sports Complex History and Financiais 56 825 324 24 2 404 1025 14 3 10 256 1251 17.52 1526 12985 74. 1844 7377 585 Ibc ze F 0 31 3 35 4 3.5 11 8 0 05 0 u , 0 0 21 2 7 $3 332 2 3$ s-3 22 05 2 5944 91:.478 S:Gt' r .;S,y,.; _:3 _s.�f 1'123853 59 ?02N 14594 211.1$ 5, r -0,,,t..... . „...... .99 k. 13498 249. Ayr 11pe 1.+,. ,_ 0:1 N 1335977 14018.75 5-- a- 12$::1-, __, ' 21)05 129411 42581 123245 048.6 1152.$.2 7310.15 215028 2100 59)81 2940 29 145859 21 34.X 2952.12 3779.39 5 32 3003 34083 44502 ,.91.75 141.9 4091 623 4.34 696.1 89;185 112329 328'5 515491 42141; 448L35 :'9835 6062 157555 185925 ->912 .',. WOO 22;8.69 .165.45 2480-1 911 7 880 27 =35 972,51 841.5.4 :067.62 ..1183.01 1107: 482.48 561 - 83 373.73 'mot t45 15 549 589.1 41947 39096 r 453.72 44373 329 7, 367.56 3131 57.72 506 4` 36 35.56 74 9528 561 1 24 059 1 0 1 076: _...' ^ 1179 370 "��$ 0 2 19588 311 0' S4 :_ y^,710.8 79402 7381 17381 = r 03 - 153.71 11941 121! 02 7 019 0 7. 30.8 1855 2b,{..,^ 3025 2831 45.7 281 20.3 15.4 3593 M.29 3899 44.92 88_. History of Sp orts Comp lex — Brownfield Rehab • 1940's -1960's — 30-acre site was operated as an unlined municipal solid waste landfill • Millions of cubic yards of commercial and household waste were buried up to 35 feet deep • 1960's Dump Closed • When landfill operations ceased in the 1960s, the site was capped with a soil layer varying from 4 to 25 feet thick—partially composed of silty sand dredged from the Santa Ana River. Without engineered bottom liners, subterranean anaerobic decomposition naturally began generating significant quantities of landfill gas (primarily methane and carbon dioxide), along with volatile organic compounds (VOCs). • Present Day • The buried organic waste has matured, the landfill gas generation rate has naturally decayed. Current operational data indicates the system extracts roughly 40 standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM) of gas at a methane concentration of around 30%. • A complex Gas Recovery and management system is in place . The system remains under strict quarterly surface emission and perimeter probe monitoring regulated by SCAQMD, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Orange County Waste and Recycling agency. • Mushroom Farm — The site also housed the Ocean View mushroom farm — closed in the 1980's il a g , i. 1 -Is.) d' - s Sports Complex Approved by Voters in 1996 - Measure L • 1996 - Ballot Measure L narrowly approved by voters in general election for $1.5 Million in Spending to build the Sports Complex — passed by 284 votes • In Favor — 34,604 • Opposed - 34,320 • Total Votes — 68, 924 • City issued bond in 2001 for $31,360,000 for several projects. $18,420,000 was earmarked for Sports Complex Construction after voters approved $1.5 million to build it — additional spend after contractor went bankrupt Shall the City of H un an Bed at a cost of Yes + j 61.5 zillion =stud. k hared soccer and ft, tell f'°,ds, a rcaer Way and snack bar con. No + cession, parking, testro m , end telal d R iripnnvernenis in en undeveloped portionof Huntington Central . s Per4 southot Talbeft Avenue and east of addenvoest Street on p erty that Iva fan ray a ranciffil and rnushr tan? 3 Bonds - Total Cost of Bond Payments and interest in Net Present Value — $ 36 Million to date ( should be checked ) and will likely end near $40 million • Nominal bond values supplied by city finance department ( Amount shown is portion of bond that can be allocated to the sports complex) Sports Complex Principal Interest Total Paid 2001 Series A 3,794,426.02 7,862,886.27 11,657,312.29 2011 Series A 8,285,473.34 3,502,672.73 11,788,146.07 2020 Series B 3,741,566.55 298,912.25 4,040,478.80 15,821,465.90 11,664,471.25 27,485,937.15 • Net Present Value using National CPI — About $36 million a • More still to pay — Approx $2 Million ® Remaining 2020 Series B — Approx $2 Million FY 27, FY 28, FY 29 - Approx $640,000 per year FY 2030 — Approx $144,000 The total cost to build the Sports Complexpaid by the city in Net Present Value — $ 38 - $40 Million - — ,,,, ,,,,,„7-1,,ts?„-i- • Approximately $38 - $40 Million to date to build the � — ti Sports Complex in present day dollars ate e • This does not include the annual expenses like water E' ...,_ ' )A 4Y 7- electric, landscaping, maintenance, bathroom , cleaning, capital costs associated with the concession ,,,„ , � buildings, sewer, tree trimming, trash collection .. . a�x • This also does not include capital expenses like � . parking lot repairs, methane collection replacement, � . LED lights, driveway, batting cages ongoing Capital Expenses • There are ongoing capital expenses associated with the Sports Complex including lights, electrical, parking lot . .. . • These are estimated around $3 - $4 Million or more in the next few years ' -' .:':Yee' ,- a.,.... .1.,,,z,f,. .7.{, v I ;VI' • 1 ) . , , , ,..,, , `' 4 , -1 t • / ' is #a . : .. -.,‘'. i 1, . 444): „„ ## iy C5 yY� � ia�. � ongoing - Gas Extraction and Monitoring . . , . . r v �n�. �lI f rr. . . 3 IA. "4 • • • • '.t--? • ''''''''4. r -, • a ..':i1 °• 'A.,.i Y.... ® W 1 . . ..9l Z� ..»� (@f�c3COfl ..1 POINTS w Basic Description of Landfill Gas Monitoring/Extraction System System Architecture & Components 34 vertical gas extraction wells distributed across the site footprint. A 10-horsepower gas extraction blower facility to pull sub-slab methane and landfill gases. Activated carbon canister scrubbers and filtration units to fitter emissions prior to release/venting, compliant with South Coast AQMD Rule 1150.1 standards. Main header piping connecting into the local landfill gas collection grid. Monitoring Extraction and MonitoringLayout Diagram of Landfill Gas Monitoring/Extraction System `r 1, - - y� at r . ` Y' ,»� ` ✓ t 1 i s$ . i: gY?1311191 ( C 311 1313' i,. <, M ;rl _ I ih, L ,,,,,,... _,,,, ILL , ".„ ,,4—, .---- --- ' '- "" -r-ray-S-1-, rt4 fr 3- z ✓ ..... l� s ,�` . .. Monitoring Extraction and Mo nitoring Layout kir/ • 'Lola" P o.,at • • t.. ►�i • ti•.•5 .t.,»,y • Iri,,,-,2a •a t't ♦ �` .a C1P tai - t a ` . fix, i_` r` •fir• *6''"� '�Ar-�S ` It.'OA .ts { �� ; - . r� •• • ,' s =i° 11 t f,• 1 ,.,.,44f t • i3,+•6 • • b'A-A '�a rt, * .,_ T.1.-.. �"6'w"7 ....t.;,+0,4 • 8311,4 . *: a �, +r»e +6,+ u«axru b aft 644.461 . • - ON+. a i� •01.4.1, ♦ t Is s .ire"a � ' »s• , n,ft TUMOR ,, 3 Sr.- , ♦ . 2 1 fCET 4 elkeEriEia •.A 4 4 � : . ^w xwan6 maao t - *CO K..ins il7c,.�A i *I»ti a, _.i« •.♦` ,._4..L_ „„----�a ....- 'r � WTI POttlT l Mier- WTI R �H, ..... ,� * soot wars , SEA,..›,RMRTT3C0mPLEA Aging System That Will Need Replacement Full.System Infrastructure Replacement fl - $800,000+) P ($350, fl0 • If the entire extraction infrastructure across the Sports Complex footprint required full replacement (re-drilling extraction wells, relaying headers, replacing sub-slab vapor barriers, and updating the blower/treatment skid): Battpa r • Well Field Work(34 Extraction Wells): Drilling, well screens, heads, and piping run roughly$8,000 to $15,000 Estimate of per well ($270,000-$500,000+total). ReplaReplacement • Collection Piping&Trenching: High-density polyethylene cement (HDPE) header piping across the park grounds adds $50,000 to $150,000+depending on surface restoration COStS requirements (pavement, turf, or hardscape). • Blower Skid & Controls: $50,000-$100,000+. • Engineering, CEQA/Permitting& Construction Management: Soft costs typically add 20%to 30%to the Ap total capital outlay. Financial Highlights of Current Operations • Net loss of around $1 million a year to city • Annual rent approximately $900 - $950K a year • $725K in Parking (this raised significantly when city raised parking from $1 to $10) • $200K in Rent from operations • Annual costs to city approximately $2 million a year • $650K in Bond Payments • $625K Operating Expenses • $500K to $750K a year average ( LED lights, driveway & parking lot, switches) • Major Capital projects on horizon include methane systems, parking lot, irrigation system • Details on next slide • Note — 40% of parking revenue is allocated for Capital Improvements in Sports Complex HB Sports Complex Revenue Share Fy22/23 FY 23/24 Fy24/25 FY 25/26 FY 26/27** FY 27/28** **Estimated Parking $ 130,160.73 $ 203,176.83 $ 729,126.00 $ 713,081.00 $ 713,081.00 $ 713,081.00 Revenue Share $ 127,214.85 $ 160,006.16 $ 201,139.00 $ 227,109.00 $ 227,109.00 $ 227,109.00 Total Revenue $ 257,375.58 $ 363,182.99 $ 930,265.00 $ 940,190.00 $ 940,190.00 $ 940,190.00 'Expenses Fy22/23 FY 23/24 Fy24/25 FY 25/26 FY 26/27** IFY 27/28** Water $ 88,000.00 $ 88,000.00 $ 88,000.00 $ 88,000.00 Electricity $ 110,000.00 $ 110,000.00 $ 107,099.00 $ 117,758.00 Methane Mitigation $ 231,000.00 $ 231,000.00 $ 231,000.00 $ 231,000.00 Field&Landscape Maintenance $ 135,000.00 $ 135,000.00 $ 135,000.00 $ 135,000.00 Restroom&Janitorial Maintenance $ 38,400.00 $ 38,400.00 $ 39,600.00 $ 39,600.00 Restroom Paper/Cleaning Supplies $ 9,600.00 $ 9,600.00 $ 9,600.00 $ 9,600.00 Equipment Replacement $ 6,390.00 $ 182,689.00 Tree Maintenance $ 83,879.20 Natural Turf Replacement $ 17,000.00 $ 17,000.00 $ 17,000.00 $ 17,000.00 Total Operating Expenses $ 629,000.00 $ 629,000,00 $ 634,793.00 $ 821,751.00 $ 629,000.00 $ 629,000,00 Total FY 22/26 Revenue-Expenses ineesu�♦ Revenue less Expenses $ (371,624.42) $ (265,817.01) $ 295,472.00 $ 118,438.00 $ 118,438.00 $ 118,438.00 $ (223,531.43) Fy22/23 FY 23/24 Fy24/25 FY 25/26 FY 26/27** FY 27/28** FY 28•FY 30** 'Bond Payments 1 $ 717,270.97 $ 694,756.00 $ 681,553.32 $ 671,340.54 $ 660,626.91 $ 661,745.10 $ 784,000.00 Capital Improvements Fy22/23 FY 23/24 Fy24/25 FY 25/26 FY 26/27** FY 27/28** LED Lights $ 442,644.00 $ 335,000.00 $ 560,000.00 Sports Turf $ 181,840.00 $ 62,020.00 Switching $ 300,000.00 Pump $ 90,971.00 Driveway Repair $ 400,000.00 Batting Cage $ 330,000.00 Total Capital $ 624,484.00 $ 62,020.00 $ 300,000.00 $ 490,971.00 $ 665,000.00 S 560,000.00 116"111�, 'Total Annual FY Cost Paid By City ' $ 1,970,754.97 I $ 1,385,776.00 I $1,616,346.32 I $ 1,984,062.54( $ 1,954,626.91 $1,850,745.10 Total Cost to City FY 22/26 Net Cost To City After Revenue Share&Parking $(1,713,379.39) $(1,022,593.01) $ (686,081.32) $(1,043,872.54)0 $(1,014,436.91) $ (910,555.3.0) $ (6,390,918.27) Per Robert Szilagyi The current 2020 Lease Revenue Bonds,Series B,require annual debt service payments of approximately$1.6 million annually through FY27-29 with the final payment declining to approximately$360,000 in Fiscal Year 2029-3a **The Sports complex is 40.32 pct of the bond V CU W FL— (1.) OD co x W E O U 4_, ,_ (i) 0 DecliningUsage DuringHBSC Partners Management Roughly1/3 of Usage by Local Residents only • Attendance is Declining • This is based upon data reported by city staff • City Supplied Data Set — • Usage Data Provided from city owned Placer.Al tracking software FY Totals Total Unique Resident Non-Resident PCT of Resident to July 1- June 30 Total Visits Visitors Visitors* Visitors* Non Resident 22-23 830,900 438,400 158,100 280,300 36% 23-24 767,900 421,100 138,392 282,708 33% 24-25 705,000 392,900 122,600 270,300 31% 25-26 676,700 383,900 129,276 272,786 32% City Supplied Data Set - Usage Data Provided from city owned Placer.Al tracking software Trends • Total Visits - Declining each year: Three-year cumulative decline: -154,200 (-18.6%) • -63,000 (-7.6%)from 22-23 - 23-24 • -62,900 (-8.2%)from 23-24- 24-25 • -28,300 (-4.0%)from 24-25 -* 25-26 • Unique Visitors -Also declining, but at a slightly slower rate: Three-year cumulative decline: -54,500 (-12.4%) • -17,300 (-3.9%) • -28,200 (-6.7%) • -9,000 (-2.3%) • Resident Visitors -Sharp drop in first two years, slight rebound more adult league games played during the week at Sports Complex: Net three-year change: -28,824 (-18.2%) • -19,708 (-12.5%) • -15,792 (-11.4%) • +6,676 (+5.4%) • Non-Resident Visitors - Very stable compared to residents: Net three-year change: -7,514 (-2.7%) • +2,408 (+0.9%) • -12,408 (-4.4%) • +2,486 (+0.9%) • Resident Share of Total Visitors - 36% - 33% - 31% -> 32% • I believe the slight uptick in 25-26 is driven by the resident rebound due to additional games during the week of adult leagues . How Does Placer. Al determine the " Home" of a Visitor of the SSports Complex •City Owned Tracking Software — Placer-Al •Uses anonymous location signals from mobile apps with location permission •Identifies where a device spends most nights (9 PM-6 AM) over multiple weeks •Assigns that nighttime location to a Census Block Group (neighborhood-level, not an address) •No personal data is used — no names, phone numbers, area codes, or exact addresses •"Home" = inferred nighttime pattern, not the user's actual residence Nearly all teens have access to a smartphone at home 'c a/1J.5. teens ayes rg It) t who say they have or have access the following devices at home Link to 2025 Pew Research Study Smartphone i0 95 Desktop/Laptop n $ Nearly all teens have access to a smartphone at home computer I Pew Research Center c.. Gaming console Gice 83 Tablet computer 70 Note:Those who did nut give ar:answer are not shown. Source:Survey of U.S.teens conducted Sept.18 Oct.10,20211. 'teens.Social Media and 1 echnalcgy 2024' PEW RESEARCH CENTER HBSC Prop o s al Update a nd Recom m e n d a tio n s.< ,, , .... . ' . ;. - . ..',-, .,.__: _- , . „ . ;..„.., /:7,1k'",..', 'i,,,..N.S. ,'",% '.k,.. I ;It- y t Update on HBSC Partners Proposal • All comments as of 8/4/26 • Verbal description of project ( does not match the PowerPoint that was presented to City Council) • 20 Year Agreement • Soar Academy (enclosed cross training facility) • 23 Acres of Sports Turf • Completely enclose Sports Complex to create gates where admission is required for entry • Double parking rates with 73% of parking revenue flowing to over 20 year period • No outside food allowed in sports complex • Complete control of all aspects including all maintenance • Expense covered by HBSC — unclear, different versions of proposed expense coverage given verbally • Challenges • No written proposal or financial projections submitted by HBSC Partners available to public • Significant legal and environmental challenges • CEQA and EIR required for Soar Academy due to methane remediation issues • CEQA and EIR likely to be required for Sports Turf • No formal Resident input • Ongoing issues with Current HBSC Partner agreements — especially concessions lease and batting cages Sports Complex Recommendations — Strategic Drivers . Operational Performance — The Sports Complex is heavily used but under-optimized for revenue generation for both the City and operators. • Facility Upgrades — Modernized fields, amenities and alternate uses may expand revenue opportunities and potentially reduce long-term maintenance costs. Resident Benefit — The City should evaluate options that increase offerings, benefits, and access for Huntington Beach residents. ▪ Revenue Generation for the City — The sports complex relies heavily on parking revenue - 80% of total revenue that flows to the city - and is costing city around $1 million a year 7 47 ~ 4 Recommendations — Passed 6-0 by Finance commission • Recommendation 1 — CEQA First, No Agreements Until Complete • Background • HBSC Proposed Changes — HBSC Partners has proposed significant upgrades and operational changes. • CEQA Requirements — Because the Sports Complex sits atop a former county landfill with an aging methane management system, it is expected most proposed changes will require CEQA review. • CEQA Timeline — CEQA can take 3 months to over a year, or longer. • City Oversight — Jennifer Villa-Senor team, with C&L and Legal, is leading the CEQA process. • Recommendation • Do not execute any agreements, contracts, or MOUs until CEQA is fully completed and the City understands what is permissible and at what cost. • HBSC Partners should fund all CEQA-related costs (scope, studies, environmental services), not the City. • Recommendation 2 — Issue an RFI to Maximize Value and Resident Benefit • Background • Upgrade Potential — The City recognizes there are significant opportunities for expanded uses and upgrades. • Resident & Revenue Goals — The City seeks increased resident benefit and increased revenue. • Operator Market — Many qualified operators would be interested in managing the Sports Complex. • Recommendation • Issue an RFI immediately to ensure the City receives the best possible suggested upgrades, alternative usage options, improved operational and revenue performance, and enhanced value that improves revenue to the city and usage by, and value to residents. • Require a formal response by HBSC Partners so the city has a formal proposal from them • Responses should be evaluated by C&L, Legal, Environmental, Finance, the C&L Commission, and the Finance Commission to determine whether continuing with HBSC Partners beyond 9/7/27 is in the City's best interest. Recommendations • Recommendation 3 — All Upgrades Must Follow City Procurement Rules • Background • City Ownership — The Sports Complex is a City-owned public asset. • Major Upgrades — Proposed upgrades are multimillion-dollar capital improvements. • Recommendation • All approved upgrades must follow City procurement processes, ensuring transparency, competitive bidding, and compliance with City code and charter. • Recommendation 4 — Establish Minimum Base Rent + Revenue Share • Background • Current Financial Burden — The Sports Complex currently costs the City roughly $1 million per year. • No Minimum Rent — The existing agreement does not include a minimum monthly rent. • Recommendation • Create a new agreement requiring a guaranteed minimum base rent to ensure positive cashflow. • Add a revenue-sharing structure above the base rent to reward strong operator performance. Recommendations • Recommendation 5 — Modernize Parking & Field Use Rates • Background • Rate Restrictions — Operators must adhere to fixed parking and field-use rates. • Market Flexibility — Operators believe significant additional revenue is possible with market-based pricing. • Recommendation • Consider removing rate restrictions and direct staff and the Finance Commission to develop new market-aligned rates for parking and field use. • Determine equitable revenue split between the city and operator • Finance Commission works with staff to create an agreement framework that is enforceable and in the City and resident's best interest. • Recommendation 6 — Independent Audit of HBSC Partners' Three Agreements • Background • HBSC Partners currently holds three agreements: • Sports Complex Operations • Concessions Lease • Outer Field Maintenance • The Finance Commission has noted non-compliance concerns. • Self-reported revenue has never been independently validated, despite rent being based on revenue percentages. • Recommendation • Conduct an independent audit of financial reporting and operational compliance across all three agreements. • Audit should be directed by the Finance Commission with assistance from City staff. • Refer any breaches to Legal for remediation, termination, or recovery of funds as appropriate. • Audit recommendation attached as separate document Recommendations • Recommendation 7 — Move Agreement Oversight to Treasury / Legal Engagement • Background • Enforcement Issues — Current agreements have not been consistently enforced. • Staff Limitations — Weekly meetings occur, but enforcement actions have not been taken or escalated. • Recommendation • Move management of HBSC agreements to Bill Krill's team and Legal. • Also move oversight of Equestrian Center, Meadowlark, and Yacht Club agreements under the same structure. • Place Bill Krill's team under Treasury leadership for stronger financial oversight. • Recommendation 8 — Public Engagement Before Any Facility Changes • Background • Lack of Public Review — HBSC Partners has worked with staff for two years on proposed upgrades without public review. • Recommendation • Engage an independent facilitator to conduct public meetings on all proposed changes. • No changes to facilities or operations should proceed until public feedback is collected. • Findings should be reported to City Council, Finance Commission, and C&L staff and commission. AI r� =o Requested Actions • Do not execute any agreements until CEQA(s) completed • HBSC Partners to pay for all CEQA costs if they decide to move forward • Direct staff to develop and issue RFI immediately • Require a formal written proposal • Do not renew current agreement with HBSC Partners on 9/7/27 and instead, create a new, more favorable agreement based upon recommendations in this presentation • Immediately authorize an audit on all current agreements with HBSC Partners • Move oversite and management of Sports Complex under Treasury • Engage Public for direction and support Audit of City-Owned Sports Complex (Huntington Beach, CA) Title: Motion Directing the City Manager to Conduct a Comprehensive Operational and Financial Audit of the City-Owned Sports Complex Motion: The Finance Commission moves to ask the City Council direct the City Manager to initiate a comprehensive audit of the City-owned sports complex located in Huntington Beach, including but not limited to its operational practices,financial management, maintenance procedures,staffing structure, contract administration, and revenue-generation activities. The audit will include review of 3 agreements with the city for all of the items listed below • Sports Complex Operation Agreement • Concessions Lease • Outer Field Maintenance Agreement for 6ba11 fields in the city parks service agreement The audit shall include the following components: 1. Operational Review o Evaluation of facility management practices,scheduling systems, maintenance protocols,safety compliance,staffing levels,and adherence to city policies. o Assessment of whether current operations meet community needs, industry standards,and cost-efficiency expectations. o Review of Alcohol licensing and practices and compliance with Conditional Use Permit requirements o Assessment of compliance with operational obligations in the agreement with the city 2. Financial Review o Full analysis of revenues,expenditures,fee structures,vendor contracts, concession agreements, and capital improvement costs including onsite and online. o Verification of financial controls,accounting accuracy, and compliance with municipal financial policies. o Compliance with revenue share percentage and rent payments including timeliness and amount o Identification of any inefficiencies, losses,or opportunities for improved revenue capture. 3. Contract and Vendor Assessment o Review of all third-party agreements, including maintenance,concessions, event hosting, and sports programming. o Evaluation of procurement processes,contract performance, and compliance with city requirements. 4. Community Benefit and Utilization Analysis o Examination of facility usage rates,accessibility, community programming,and alignment with public expectations. o Assessment of whether the complex is meeting its intended public purpose. 5. Recommendations and Reporting o The City Manager shall present a written report of findings and recommendations to the City Council within 90 days, including any proposed operational improvements,financial reforms,or policy changes. Purpose:This audit is intended to ensure transparency,accountability,and optimal performance of a major public asset, and to confirm that the sports complex is being operated in a manner that maximizes community benefit and responsible stewardship of public funds. The following additional components of the audit include • Performance benchmark requirement: "The audit shall compare the facility's performance to similar municipal sports complexes in Orange County and statewide." • Public transparency requirement: "All audit findings shall be made publicly available on the City's website within 10 days of presentation to the Council." • Follow-up action: "Staff shall return with an implementation plan for all recommended improvements within 60 days of the audit's acceptance by the city." Oversight of the Audit While city staff will be involved in the contracting, payment,facilitation, and gathering of information for the audit, overall direction and guidance—including scope and deliverables as well as the final report review and presentation to council and the public—will be the responsibility of the Finance Commission. Deliverables The selected auditing firm will conduct an independent review of the operational and financial management of the City-owned Sports Complex and any other businesses or organizations operating within the city owned facility or associated with the city-owned facility including facilities, parking lot,and operations. Deliverables will include: • A comprehensive assessment of operational practices, including compliance with all terms and performance obligations outlined in the management or lease agreement or concession agreement. • An evaluation of financial controls, reporting accuracy, revenue collection, expense management,and adherence to approved budgets and financial requirements. • A review of rent payments, invoices,and revenue reports from the vendor for accuracy and timeliness and calculation of any late penalty or missed or deficient rent payments to the city • Review and detailed statement of revenue whether online or in-person sales • Identification of any discounts or"free" products or services or any write-offs and their impact on the revenue, profit,and amount of rent paid • Detailed reporting of expenses and a detailed Income statement and balance sheet for the last 5 years from 2021 through 2025 CY and all of CY 2026 that is available • Headcount of fulltime, part time, and volunteer staff and payroll for each category by position and estimate of annual hours worked • Identification of any deficiencies, risks, or non-compliance issues,along with recommended corrective actions. • Identification of any assets claimed to be owned by the operator that are located within the boundary of the city asset • A final written report summarizing findings,supporting documentation,and actionable recommendations for all of the items listed above with the intention of improving transparency, accountability,operational effectiveness, and revenue generation. • Recommendations to improve operation to deliver more value to residents and increased revenue to the city • Review of agreements and compliance with city requirements not limited to council approval, insurance requirements, and review by the city legal team. Timeline • Audit will commence within 30 days of approval of audit by city council and complete and delivered to the finance commission within 6 months from the date the audit is requested by the city council. HB Sport s .0 C o m p lex ,* :.„,........:, ,, , , .. , „„ Landfill Gas Monitorin /Extraction system An sis ,, , , , . . ., EE :,, , g v v Public Works Dept. 1 -....,„._ �.„ July 29, 2026 �EE� .• F L i3 k. f ox � �Nt" �: , . • Basic Description of Landfill Gas §. #;.i.. £ a .may • • s , : T , , , .p Monitoring/Extraction System * $':1:1 :1 ,.' I i: 1., ; ''' i, ''' t' ,I: '''; 2:1: '::: _ g 4. . - • System Architecture & Components 34 vertical gas extraction wells distributed across the site footprint. sl �,;} �� ' A 10-horsepower gas extraction blower facility to pull sub-slab methane and � landfill gases. s Activated carbon canister scrubbers and filtration units to filter emissions prior to releaselventing, compliant with South CoastAQMD Rule 1150.1 standards. Main header piping connecting into the local landfill gas collection grid. • The Operational Era (1940s - 1970s) • Unlined Municipal Dumping: Long before the sports complex was built, the 30-acre site was operated as an unlined municipal solid waste landfill (often referenced alongside the broader Gothard Street / Central Park landfill footprint). • Refuse Accumulation: Millions of cubic yards of History commercial and household waste were buried up to 35 feet CSC deep. Ba c k ro u n d • Closure & Dredged Cover: When landfill operations ceased in the 1960s, the site was capped with a soil layer varying from 4 to 25 feet thick—partially composed of silty sand dredged from the Santa Ana River. Without engineered bottom liners, subterranean anaerobic decomposition naturally began generating significant quantities of landfill gas (primarily methane and carbon dioxide), along with volatile organic compounds (VOCs). • Grand Opening & Continuous Operation (2000s - Present) • Sports Complex Opening (2003): The $16 million+, 45- acre Huntington Beach Sports Complex officially opened, serving as a model for brownfield redevelopment. • Gas Production & System Output: Over the decades, as QQ� • the buried organic waste has matured, the landfill gas CSC History generation rate has naturally decayed. Current operational data indicates the system extracts roughly 40 standard Background cubic feet per minute (SCFM) of gas at a methane o concentration of around 30%. • Ongoing Regulatory Oversight: The system remains under strict quarterly surface emission and perimeter probe monitoring regulated by SCAQMD, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Orange County Waste and Recycling agency. r fF FE • 0442 S 4INV.:(10 r '1 x iii i�. du ash - _ _ _ - -" A f i 1� I I I---� 9_• a' I • r �7' 1 , c' .A, ? ? �t I fall ZZ F u.titt - �x"Oa Qzal� �`zm'�p I N l%ZjU4 4 LG f „ + - -1 Y � V ii....„,1,71., T *. .,,A - - 1 i v. ' L ._ _. I� V , - I\C - .' "- !la § 1 * 4 6 . P ' ''''INi _... a3+,is asarnxapx+0 a g 7LStI if pg r' � � .. m, ' '7. `, r it . II aUs' ._ Diagram of Landfill Gas Monitoring/Extraction System _ • r...._ ...._ _-.•ut 0.. •• • ti7 iF' 11 2 Y•� ", ) _ '' t— Sa42 dt9Ya a Sat r463E «+.•"A`1' .. •w�''. "‹..•,. f. 024 210 b022.70 wit n:aa �� 21 ( r ".'L.' J� ≤._--X. a' 2742 2 4725,9J 0014 ,9 �t � !�t S 1 41! r ?' a r ;_ 2µa 232,30 23n2 00124,a' 5. ;� 4� .. 1 l x •la sx:v iz. in.�',w 0°arti<°..�Atu .! �'� - s~1:91� �/ 27.10 2J5104„t I I W2412 204 j \ * 4.. i l , �+ 7M\ trc SO2.1 II 0/1911443/ 4, y}� .A . 4�2t..,.„,.,c k. l f'` 1 { lid 22030,115 40VM 20 ., }}".y „ _.. -�AX" t 1 +it <�' Y r ra22 t xavl „5 25.42,50,n7 rn `1L, $ a₹0i 2200.9.07 20220,..4].(3 "s 1 •_ ce 'l'' 1kt • , . • •1 ` 'W,''''''..,•'''' "y��, '\ - { kN? TA10651 tEY b072'24 30 r t d✓ kliA: r, ,.^.�I `` g32b ITD041R73 ,,,,x,%$.,,,,-3 l r l�� ,Y �{." 1; 1 { s„ `,,r�' r' r 22su 12,45 or 1 Prz ut 71 2212 .212.2025,2,45�� .. +'1. ! \I1„�"' 1 , 7t 'iYy�'" \ _. .,..._ i !` Ms 4Y40..101d 41 W2'224441 �8 02,2 I �: '+�: i l 0147 MM...., 2010215 .. j�fe t ti ��-} ..r 4� �� .ls.''�_1_. .._.a._._• �'I ;1,�7' 'L + _.? .( .kr,,i._.........-p.,..� 0 14 zrai ii:, s 5000020 OAP a1 { ► �, ••••\ ;"tvr' tors cc 3 '— S 7 ^»p :xw t„1 21 eaa t,r i% ---" 7... ,„ e .P , '' 1 ifs z.2422 ≥044 I a sI 210125;421 3,2 -.y ..-4,,,,-,,.:, w w�"_'. ----y-.—" .o.a 2,i. �.__.._�.. �� a4r.++ i n4.x 24+'2 li Je --.1`.� A ...2 " :R+9 2.23 aal a02r0.M3Y i .�.� ) J^ �I j?wi E ' / 3k4s 22.9/23 R1 fx3ZrY 21 xe aa ~ � j 1 1.4,--3•—,- -.. ! EE(p1 2 a2YAlO0 00x'770301 ' iit. /,t i .. 3143 1,003594 .Y.A2 B302� _ -1_,!...„,d f M y}je 289 2)dAiF77B jj { \ i am, 2 221 63• ` 75 { {... __ • \ ..^fit... ....... lY�.i. 12"12 M.21 d:3i�..! 20`2 F 02186'53, �B2. XI„... i ..__._._ -,.�.✓°• mm 66"11 66.11 2..50 Oa 000 S52)AS(361' . t ! ,----1, 1 w \._� 5 Mil i0 • t C.t ..e. I ^'"�`+ "^`. - i 3 32 SWS-H 4044442_2! ' :....._: — _,. � _.........1 0 }.. '^1'/`�.. e >ra6 MI nIW2n 0'19 tJ0 7!0? WOJBr 1 ` .....� ..,. ,�+S_Y . 262 20034, A 01 0al1466(- ! �.j6 22O6Y (. 0020 i4r rf Y Ij{ 0 222^ t9 L0..4/Y� I'\ R �rt 11152J1 B991 •4 ��r` G f .21 40 201215241 19 3. M20i3.4 0020.-A0:7 . .. f. "`� .. y _ iT TT .U , 2835 2MiZn31a3 .rA2.311N - C-- _,.�' r,.,yr7 ,.r oO�'.'1 ' (:.. i rs+aaa�aa �a2n1ng f t ! } YPa?R J?AJStt 13 441:4,71394 3. :\ _ s -.— ••• ^ "2 2230 2202704 40 0Z0+45.A! 22 -.� •r^' + ,R0r9 2207411.,if lI1tN1l2Yt .` ,...."� � YxIO 25424211.14W^9it9.72 I 0202554,121 r0274754 12 ' ..,. � } tpY" a�0.f aZObrarl.aa en^use0if 2 /' _ 1 ?.w l ? 7Wt W24"223"J?? SBJktiB.1�Q• 4/, --r 2 y `. Md. 2.£0.2.0422 62 402.2202,02 0026 79 U ry" 2 .00-0! 25'.L.r9h.iP� 4024272 la t + '�, • 1B4rF F2U7Mn1[+4i Mi20.19.83 t it ....._ a 020. *auto 22224;33.1.! �g 2011, al.",7 livrALaue--- t " ARFTHA NE" GAS AS--,'51111.r '1" .._ 7_..... s`. rly ,g,p S -InI"4,3Fnn 66t.ace, (enrrn2 ?lr$:... "",1'I 1.r..:".r -.......�.. �. r.... r .....�_....:...:....:. For c. _µo— $..,,,,... _...._! trrrlte^ wrest. IBYL -;2 2,1"21R 2hR3 f m?rr hia g 1 2 1 k ii gg ; ii •4. , ,� _ , to ' g i 1 . .:• _ . 's i V„ ■ is �4. co • 04 0. h I • 1 ♦ lim • ii: I i a AM ♦P + + 45 { «5 • " • 0 . a ♦- -`♦ • • rr'`, r LI day t ♦ itt�, _ L .- x • Ai • C6 . j � ♦3 ^♦ o ' �• 4 j a • • • �. 41, _ „( • • 4 • tat T •t fi • ell •73 . M 3 i a - i = t7 ♦ W - .f ♦ , 7 tr ♦ co 9 4 o' • _ .•• k on 1. Ai ♦ `� +.' 4. - r M -leVe , s • ..ttd.:F.:T.'VMKC'1 • • • n Full System Infrastructure Replacement ($350,000 - $800,000+) • If the entire extraction infrastructure across the Sports Complex footprint required full replacement (re-drilling extraction wells, relaying headers, replacing sub-slab vapor barriers, and updating the blower/treatment skid): Ballpark • Well Field Work (34 Extraction Wells): Drilling, well screens, heads, and piping run roughly $8,000 to $15,000 E sti m ate of per well ($270,000 - $500,000+ total). Replacement • Collection Piping & Trenching: High-density polyethylene (HDPE) header piping across the park grounds adds Costs $50,000 to $150,000+ depending on surface restoration requirements (pavement, turf, or hardscape). • Blower Skid & Controls: $50,000 - $100,000+. • Engineering, CEQA/Permitting & Construction Management: Soft costs typically add 20% to 30% to the total capital outlay.