Titans’ Stadium Cost Increase: $2.4 Million : Cal State Fullerton: Architects’ estimate for on-campus stadium grows 24% to $12.6 million.

Cal State Fullerton’s long-planned on-campus stadium and sports complex will cost an additional $2.4 million, school officials say, bringing the cost of the project to $12.6 million--almost double the original estimate approved two years ago.

Although the additional cost is not expected to cause further delays to groundbreaking, which is scheduled for July, it could force officials to considerably scale back plans for a project that has been marked by financial problems and delays since it was first proposed more than a decade ago.

Just weeks before construction bids were to be sought, the Titan Sports Complex Building Committee was informed at a March 21 meeting that architects had boosted their estimate for the facility from $10.2 million to $12.6 million, a 24% increase.

The original price tag on the project, which includes a 10,000-seat multi-purpose stadium that could be expanded to hold 30,000, a 1,500-seat baseball stadium, a running track and 12 tennis courts, was listed at $6.7 million in July, 1988. Inflation and some revision of project plans raised the estimate to $10.2 million in October, 1989.

The Irvine-based firm of Grillias Pierce Rosier Alves, which is designing the project, submitted a list of 21 reasons for the latest increase, the most prominent of which focused on soil conditions at the site.

According to Glenn Lemon, the school’s director of design and construction, the soil is not as solid as architects originally believed. As a result, Lemon said, the foundation will have to be dug deeper, requiring the use of more materials and labor. Lemon added that none of the other reasons listed were significant in terms of cost.

The news caught building committee members by surprise.

“I think I as well as most members of the committee were astonished, because we hadn’t expected the price to jump this much this late in the stage of design,” said Sal Rinella, vice president for administration at the school. “Now, we’re going to have to cut the project back, but I don’t know where.”

Dick Ackerman, a Fullerton City Council member who is heading up fund-raising efforts for the project, said he will try to make up for the increase by raising more money. Ackerman is presently concentrating on finding one multi-million dollar donor for whom the complex might be named, and said the bulk of fund-raising will begin when ground is broken.

But if the additional funds can’t be raised, Ackerman said the committee must consider cutting back on what he calls “add options,” items that are desired for the complex but not imperative for the opening of the facility.

For instance, Ackerman said, the committee could delay the relocation of the tennis courts, which is expected to cost $400,000. It could hold off on building the tartan track, which would save $500,000. It could delay the building of some press boxes, which could save as much as $800,000.

Locker rooms and weight rooms might not be fully furnished at the complex’s opening, which is targeted for January, 1992. The complex might not be fully landscaped, and there could be other cosmetic deficiencies.

“We’ll have to prioritize these things,” Ackerman said. “But while the price has gone up, I think everyone is still positive and enthusiastic about the project.”

Rinella, however, was not very enthused about the timing of the increase.

“I have some concerns about architectural performance that would reveal this kind of information this late in the process,” Rinella said. “I don’t want to get into a public disagreement with the architect, but he should probably have insisted on having the soil report in hand before giving us any pre-bid estimates.”

The first soil report, performed by the Irvine-based engineering firm of Converse Consultants Orange County, was completed and sent to the architects in April, 1989. However, the firm was under contract with the Cal State University Chancellor’s office, not Cal State Fullerton, to perform the study.

According to Michael Schafer, the Grillias Pierce Rosier Alves architect in charge of the project, it wasn’t until subsequent soil studies performed through December that problems were discovered. Schafer declined further comment on the case.

Lemon said a soil report letter to the chancellor’s office, dated Jan. 4, contained up-to-date information and recommended changes. It took the architectural firm several more weeks to re-adjust its estimate.

Rinella felt there wasn’t enough communication about the soil reports.

“I don’t know how the latest report of January compares with the report of a year ago,” Rinella said. “I’m still trying to sort out who knew what and when.”

While Rinella works on that problem, Ackerman will be looking for alternatives to trimming back the project. One option, he said, might be to re-arrange a payoff deal with the City Redevelopment Agency, which is putting up the money for the entire project.

When the price of the project jumped last October, the agency agreed to put up the additional $3.5 million under the condition that the first $3.5 million generated from fund-raising would go back to the city.

Ackerman said he will recommend to the city council that it waive that requirement, allowing the school to use fund-raising revenue to pay for this most recent, $2.4 million increase.

“We basically want to flip-flop the use of proceeds,” Ackerman said. “I don’t foresee the council having too much of a problem with that.”