CALIFORNIA, Md. — A proposed sports complex near California could cost more than $337 million to build, with plans calling for a massive indoor events center, tournament fields, ball diamonds, pickleball courts and walking trails.
The project has not been approved for construction, and county officials would still need to decide whether to move forward, how to fund it and whether to build it in phases.
The Maryland Stadium Authority presented the preliminary design report to the Commissioners of St. Mary’s County on July 14, 2026. The report covers a potential regional sports complex on county-owned land along St. Andrews Church Road, sometimes referred to as the “St. Mary’s Crossing” site.
The proposed site includes four county-owned parcels totaling about 267 acres near 22405 Johnson Pond Lane. The property has about 495 feet of frontage along St. Andrews Church Road, also known as Maryland Route 4.
The proposal has already drawn public interest and concern, with residents previously raising questions about traffic, access along St. Andrews Church Road, impacts to nearby neighborhoods and whether the county should pursue such a large project at that location. Presenters told commissioners the earlier public meeting was well-attended and showed community support, but the July 14 briefing also brought several major concerns into sharper focus.
The preliminary design includes eight multipurpose tournament-caliber athletic fields, eight baseball or softball diamonds, 12 outdoor pickleball courts and walking and biking trails. Half of the proposed multipurpose fields and half of the ball diamonds would be artificial turf.
The indoor facility is planned at 147,717 gross square feet, with eight full-sized basketball courts that could convert into 16 volleyball courts, 30 pickleball courts or two multi-activity courts for box lacrosse and indoor soccer. The building would also include training space and flexible areas for hospitality and operations.
A presentation slide listed the total base project cost for phases 1 through 3 at $337,429,574. The same presentation showed the cost could drop to about $328.9 million with a 2.5% unphased savings estimate, or about $320.6 million with a 5% unphased savings estimate.
During the meeting, commissioners repeatedly questioned whether a project of that size is affordable for the county. Commissioner Eric Colvin described the proposal as “beautiful,” but said it was also “very expensive” and questioned whether St. Mary’s County could handle such a large investment while also facing needs involving schools, public safety and other county services.
Commissioner Mike Alderson also raised concerns about the scope of the project, the financial side of the proposal. He said the estimated cost was a “staggering number” and asked whether a smaller version of the project could be considered on a different piece of land.
A separate construction-only estimate from Trophy Point listed total project construction at $219,719,578. That estimate does not include several major costs, including soft costs, owner contingency, rock excavation, soil remediation, archaeological resource costs, hazardous materials abatement and other exclusions.
The Stadium Authority reported that the broader project cost estimate adds items such as construction manager costs, bonding, design and engineering, permitting, owner project management, testing, inspection services and overall project contingency.
Presenters told commissioners the project was divided into three phases for estimating purposes, with the cost spread from 2027 through 2032.
- Phase 1 would include four multipurpose fields and four baseball or softball fields.
- Phase 2 would add two multipurpose fields and two baseball or softball fields.
- Phase 3 would include four multipurpose fields, two baseball or softball fields, the indoor sports building, a transportation bridge and main parking.
The preliminary documents also flag several major hurdles.
The Stadium Authority presentation states that 85% of the site is covered by forest or significant vegetation, while 35% is affected by wetlands, streams, flood zones and related buffers. The presentation also notes that the required 1,588 parking spaces may not be feasible without additional disturbance to environmentally sensitive areas, retaining walls and strain on proposed site infrastructure.
During the meeting, presenters acknowledged the site’s wetlands, forests and clearing needs are driving up the project’s cost. One presenter said the site is large enough to fit the program, but it was noted that clearing, grading, avoiding wetlands and preparing the land are major cost factors.
Traffic improvements may also be needed. A preliminary traffic impact analysis found the project would use one access point along MD 4 opposite St. Andrews Lane. The report states improvements may be required at MD 4 and St. Andrews Lane, as well as MD 4 and Indian Bridge Road, with signalization or roundabouts among the options studied.
Traffic concerns were also raised directly by commissioners during the July 14 discussion. Commissioner Scott Ostrow said he would have “very serious concerns” about traffic near Indian Bridge Road and Route 4, calling it a major issue if the project were to move forward.
Environmental documents identified three mapped watercourses within the project study area, including the St. Mary’s River and two unnamed tributaries. The environmental inventory also identified 11 National Wetlands Inventory wetlands and 19 Maryland Department of Natural Resources wetlands within the study area.
A Phase IA archaeological assessment found no previously identified archaeological or architectural resources within the study area, but determined that about 155 acres have high or moderate archaeological sensitivity. The report recommended a Phase IB archaeological survey for those areas before the project advances.
Commissioners also asked about possible funding. Stadium Authority representatives said the agency does not directly provide funding, but local governments often use its studies to seek state funding. Representatives also said the authority can issue bonds if a project moves forward through that process.
Colvin said it sounded like the next discussion would need to be with the county’s state delegation if officials want to move forward. Commissioner Mike Hewitt agreed, noting the county had already invested several hundred thousand dollars into the project and said the next step would be determining what funding is available beyond the county.
The preliminary design report frames the project as both a community recreation facility and a potential sports tourism driver, with youth and amateur tournaments seen as a way to bring overnight visitors to St. Mary’s County. During the meeting, one presenter said the first phase was designed to include enough fields to begin generating revenue that could help support later phases.
During the discussion, Stadium Authority representatives were also asked about return on investment. One representative said the earlier market and economic study estimated roughly $2 million per year in gross tax revenue from the project, though commissioners continued to question whether that would be enough to justify the overall cost.
County officials have explored the sports complex concept for several years. A 2020 market and economic study examined the idea, and in 2024 the county entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Maryland Stadium Authority to manage preliminary design work. Public engagement began in January 2025.
No construction timeline or funding plan has been finalized. Representatives from the Maryland Stadium Authority said their role in this phase of the study is complete unless the county or state asks them to return for additional work.
Potential next steps identified during the presentation include creating a funding plan, exploring public and private partnerships, developing an operating strategy, determining a design and construction timeline, completing a full traffic impact study and conducting additional environmental, archaeological, wetlands, geotechnical, well and septic, zoning and site-design work.
For now, the proposal gives county leaders and residents a clearer look at what a major St. Mary’s County sports complex could include — and the size of the price tag, funding questions and planning challenges that would come with it.
Watch the full Commissioners of St. Mary’s County meeting below:
Got a tip or photo? Text us at 888-871-NEWS (6397) or email news@thebaynet.com.
Join The BayNet Membership for exclusive perks and zero ads.
Don’t miss a story—sign up for our newsletter!
