The Leland Township board voted 3-2 to approve the RFP (request for proposal) for Hancock Field designs at a special meeting on May 22 despite pushback from many residents to wait on the decision. Treasurer Shirley Garthe and trustee Mariann Kirch voted against the approval of the RFP.
The RFP for the Hancock Field design was originally brought to the board’s attention as an action item at the township’s regular meeting on May 12, however, board members at the time voted 3-2 to hold off on a decision until its June meeting to allow for more time to look into design plans. The special meeting was held last week though to approve of several action items, which included the RFP and accepting the resignation of Trustee Kirch effective May 31.
The RFP seeks proposals from engineering and planning firms to complete a design plan with attached cost estimates for construction and improvements for a portion of Hancock Field in Leland, a property the township owns. The selected firm would work with the Leland Township supervisor to create a detailed design plan that includes: Additions and improvements to the park, including, but not limited to, “ADA-compliant parking, pickle ball courts, a playground, a basketball court, and a little league baseball/softball field, along with the demolition of a grandstand and dedicated space for an ice rink.” According to the estimated RFP timeline, the township hopes to award the project by July 14, with final adoption of the plan by the board by Sept. 8.
Trustees’ Kirch and Scales previously cited concerns regarding rushing the RFP process without further consulting Leland Public School and their own recent findings of the park. The school approved moving forward with a $21,027 feasibility study in December to analyze capital improvement options to Hancock Field and to explore renovations at the location to create a sports complex for use by students and the community. Three of the school’s Hancock concept designs completed by the engineering firm Fanning Howey are categorized by a scale of “good, better, and best.” Concept A, the “good” design, is anticipated to cost $9,795,908; concept B, the “better” design, is $12,488,352; and concept C, the “best” design, is $13,883,090.
Leland Township parks and recreation board member Leslie Maclin was one of the first to voice her concerns during public comment at the meeting, explaining how the school’s projected RFP design plans would support both its physical education and athletic programs as well as those in the community. Maclin also noted that the township did not receive input from the parks and rec committee for the RFP, saying that it’s “not a good example of transparent, collaborative leadership.”
“I support the full renovation of Hancock, but recommend that the parks and rec commission, the board liaison, the public school, and the community be involved in a transparent and collaborative manner so that more time and money is not wasted,” Maclin said at the meeting.
Leland resident Keith Ashley, another opponent against moving forward with the RFP, also commented at the meeting about the field and the need for transparency through the process.
“The RFP does not reflect the input of the board in full, or any input from the parks and recreation committee,” Ashley said. “It’s an undeserved slap in the face to members of this committee to not even let them know that this RFP was being created… I urge you to once again table this approval to the June meeting until both parties have reviewed and jointly discussed reasonable options. Time is not a factor when taxpayer dollars are at stake.” Following the special meeting last week, township supervisor Clint Mitchell said he met and spoke with Leland Public School Superintendent Stephanie Long to touch base on the matter. Mitchell said the improvements and designs the township had in mind for the field overlay with the school’s “good” option and that he’s confident they can move forward working together.
“I think we’re in a good place now, we kind of agree that not everything has to be done necessarily lock-step together, we have an idea of which portions of the park each of us would like to work on, the different interests that they have for K-12 athletics versus what we have for 0-100 recreation,” Mitchell said. “We can work together to collaborate to make sure that everything kind of pieces together in the end. I think once we have a final framework, then we can present that to the public… As we both make progress, we can kind of check in and say ‘here’s where we are in the process and here’s what it looks like.’”
