Boulder Creek Rec to submit second grant application for community center

On the eve of the July 1 deadline to submit a proposal for a $5 million grant to build a new recreation and community center in Boulder Creek, opposition continues from a vocal group of residents opposed to the placement and scope of the project.
The Boulder Creek Recreation and Park District Board of Directors is working to complete its second shot at a $5 million grant from Proposition 84, The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006.
The grant application will ask for money to build a recreation and community center on South Street in Boulder Creek. The center would have a full-sized gymnasium with basketball hoops, with retrofitted buildings for meeting rooms and offices for the recreation district. No pool is proposed in the first phase of the project.
“The Boulder Creek Specific Plan (1994) calls for a community center — a place where the community can come together for meetings and come together for events,” said Tess Fitzgerald, recreation district board chairwoman.
She said the district must go after funding while it’s available.
“A big, important part of the board’s job is looking for grants and funding opportunities that allow us to grow our district,” Fitzgerald said. “We need to pursue any grant opportunities that come up.”
The first application, completed by a consultant in early 2010, was littered with errors, down to misspellings of localities. The district was awarded nothing when the first round of funding from the competitive grant was awarded. Only 62 of the 435 applications won any money, making the grant a long shot.
However, Director Diane Hamilton, one of the movers behind the successful Garrahan Park remodel, has reworked the application in preparation for the July 1 submission.
“It is similar to what we did before,” Hamilton said. “The mistakes will be cleaned up.”
Hamilton said she’s attended several Proposition 84 grant workshops and has had conversations with the person who handles grant applications at the state level.
She said the district has a willing seller — John Scopazzi, who owns the four parcels on South Street — and qualifies for the grant because there are no parks within a mile of the site.
Opposition remains
Significant opposition to the project comes from The Boulder Creek-Brookdale Coalition of Concerned Citizens, a group of South Street neighbors and others who live in the town. Representatives of the group say they have collected more than 300 signatures in opposition to the planned location and scope of the center.
“Our position is that we are absolutely against that proposal that they are looking at,” said David Turner, the chairman of the group. “We believe it will deeply detract from the character of the neighborhood.”
The group’s members are not against a new community center, they have said, but they think it doesn’t fit on South Street, a quiet neighborhood about a mile from the town core.
They’re also not convinced that Boulder Creek residents are behind it.
Members of the group point to the Boulder Creek Specific Plan, which states that the “South Village” area is residential and has historical significance, while commercial properties should remain in the town core, in downtown Boulder Creek.
“There was a community planning process that designated this as a neighborhood,” Turner said.
Toni Eaton, another coalition member, pointed to the lights, noise and late hours of a community center as reasons to keep it away from the South Street neighborhood.
Funding uncertain
Fitzgerald, who is in her second stint on the board, said the project has been in the works since 2006. Between then and now, the district has looked at about 20 potential sites, and the Scopazzi property seems to be the best, she said.
“The parcels themselves really meet the needs of the district,” Fitzgerald said.
She notes that with a willing seller, the process gets simpler.
As to claims that Scopazzi bought the land in early 2010 to turn it over for a quick buck, Fitzgerald denied it.
“You don’t make money selling property to the government,” she said. “At least, not in Boulder Creek.”
If the district does not win Proposition 84 money, the board plans to explore other ways to fund the project, Fitzgerald said.
She said a bond is a possibility, but it has not been put on the table yet.
“We haven’t really had that discussion,” she said. “We will look at a bond as an option, (but) it isn’t a discussion we’ve had at the board level.”
Hamilton also said the district still needs to figure out a way to pay for the community center if the grant money does not come through.
“We are probably thinking about doing a bond,” Hamilton said. “We have to figure out how to fund something like this.”
The district is also in the midst of hiring a new district manager, after Christina Horvat resigned early this month.
“The director needs to be a key component of this,” Fitzgerald said.
The district will hear the results of the Proposition 84 grant application in the spring.