1994 10 10 PRC
,. .
~of~Q~
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
AGENDA
La Quinta Civic Center Study Session Room
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
October 10, 1994
7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TOORDER
A. Roll Call
II. PLEDGE .OF ALLEGIANCE
III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
Corrections, additions, deletions or reorganization of the agenda
IV . APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of minutes of September 12, 1994.
V. ANNOUNCEMENTS
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
The Parks and Recreation Commission reserves the right to limit discussion
on any topic to five minutes or less.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIALS
VIII. STAFF REPORTS
A. Commission Business Cards, Name Badges, and Name Plaques
B. Aquatics Programming and Fritz Burns Park
PRCAGN 1
..
.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. Discussion of CSC Work Plan
B. Discussion of Parks and Recreation Master Plan and
La Quinta Demographics
C. Commission Involvement in Holiday Events
X. COMMISSION COMMENT
XII. NEXT MEETING DATE, TIME AND TOPIC
NOVEMBER 14, 1994 7:00 PM
La Quinta Civic Center Study Session Room
XII. ADJOURNMENT
PRCAGN 2
.
.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
September 12, 1994
Minutes
I. CALL TO ORDER
The Parks and Recreation Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. at the La Quinta
Civic Center Study Session Room. Commissioner Lawrence Best presided over the
meeting.
ROLL CALL:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Commissioner Norris Bernard
Commissioner Lawrence Best
Commissioner Stacey Mullen
Commissioner Kathryn Pedersen
Commissioner B. J. Seaton
Commissioner Hal Summers
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Commissioner Michael Davis
STAFF PRESENT:
Clint Bohlen, Parks and Recreation Director
Commissioner Bernard noted that the Pledge of Allegiance needs to be added to future'
Agendas.
II. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
Staff requested that the attendance record of Commissioner Davis be added to the
Commission's business. It was added.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A correction to the minutes of August 8, 1994 was suggested by Commission Seaton.
She pointed out a double negative on page one, final paragraph and asked that it be
corrected in the minutes. It was noted by staff.
It was moved by Commissioner Seaton and seconded by Commissioner Bernard to
approve the minutes as amended. Unanimous. .
.
.
IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Commissioner Seaton announced the Heart Association Walk-a-thon, and requested that
the Commission consider participating on Saturday, October 29 at 8:30 a.m. at Indian
Palms Country Club; it is a pledge event. The Commissioners agreed to contact Ms.
Seaton regarding their interest.
V. PUBLIC COMMENT
No public comment.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIALS
Staff distributed a letter from Office of Criminal Justice Planning regarding a grant
proposal the City had submitted, but the proposal was not funded; Kidsline data sheets
were distributed; the fall '94 Parks and Recreation brochure was reviewed, and existing
registration level for activities was reviewed for the Commission. Commissioner Bernard
asked a question regarding the scheduling of facilities of the high school, and staff
responded that the school district rather than the City would be scheduling facilities.
Commissioner Mullen congratulated staff on a job well done on the brochure.
VII. STAFF REPORTS
A. Urban Forestry Program
. Staff explained the Urban Forestry grant of $256,000 for a tree planting program along
the bikepath on the Bear Creek Channel. Commissioner Best inquired as to the species of
. trees to be planted. Staff stated that 3,000 trees from three species (Red River Gum, Blue
Palo Verdes, and perhaps Mexican fan palms) would be planted. .
Commissioner Seaton indicated that the Lions Club had expressed a willingness to assist
in the planting. Staff stated that the Lions would be contacted to assist after the grant
award is approved by Council. Commissioner Best asked regarding the budgeting of the
program. Staff responded that the program would be budgeted under Public Works.
B. Community School Designation
Staff explained the partnership with the School District, and the cost savings realized by
the City, and the security and support advantages to the District. Commissioner Pedersen
stated that Diane Cardinelli is the new principal at Adams-Truman, and .they are excited
about the Community School concept.
.
.
VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. Election of Officers
Chairperson discussion and nominations were considered first. Commissioner Seaton
indicated her interest in the position. Commissioner Bernard nominated Commissioner
Seaton. Unanimous.
Vice Chairperson discussions and nominations were considered. Commissioner Seaton
nominated Commissioner Best. Unanimous. .
B. Agenda Item Discussion
Vice Chair Best recommended that we continue to use the process of reviewing items for
the following meeting at the conclusion of the present meeting. Staff suggested that the
Commissioners simply introduce new items during Confirmation of Agenda.
Commissioner Bernard moved that all agenda items in the future be given directly to staff
rather than referred to the Chair. Seconded by Chairperson Seaton. Unanimous.
C. Selection of October Meeting Date
October 10 was established as the next meeting date.
D. Commissioner Davis' Attendance
It was suggested that staff prepare a letter to Commissioner Davis requesting that he
contact the Commission as to his intent to continue his Commission membership.
Commissioner Best suggested a letter be sent under the signature of the Chair explaining
the ordinance attendance requirements and removal from the Commission.
Chairperson Seaton moved that we send a letter; seconded by Commissioner Pedersen.
Unanimous.
(NOTE: Commissioner Davis called staff approximately September 15 and indicated that
he had been on an extended leave, and would attend the next meeting.)
.
.
IX. COMMISSION COMMENT
. Commissioner Bernard desired to discuss updating the Parks and Recreation Master Plan
on the November ~genda. He would like to see the demographics for the City, and
particularly the north area. Chairperson Seaton suggested we critically review the
priorities of the Master Plan.
Vice Chair Best suggested we add the Work Plan to the October Agenda, and
Commissioner Mullen asked that we add the holiday events to the agenda to discuss the
Commissions' involvement.
Commissioner Pedersen requested information on the Brown Act; Chairperson Seaton
volunteered assistance to Ms. Pedersen in understanding the Act, and it was suggested
that Ms. Pedersen contact the City Attorney with any specific questions.
Commissioner Mullen asked if we could get business cards, name tags, and name plates.
Staff stated that we would be ordering name badges and name plates. Staff will present a
report at the next meeting regarding these items.
Commissioner Bernard was happy.to see the Commission recognized in the brochure.
Chairperson Seaton suggested that the Parks and Recreation Department contact the COD
speakers bureau to discuss programs offered by the City.
Vice Chair Best suggested that we consider sending those Commissioners who have not
attended a CPRS conference to the March, 1995 event in San Jose. He also suggested we
offer computer classes next spring.
Commissioner Pedersen indicated that she would like to review the aquatics programs
proposed for Fritz Bums Park.
October Items:
Davis Letter (Staff/Seaton)
Review of CSC Work Plan (Best)
Review of Parks and Recreation Master Plan (Bernard)
Commission Involvement in Holiday Events (Mullen)
Identification Materials and Business Cards (Staff/Mullen)
Update of Aquatics Programs for Fritz Burns Park and Programs '(Staff/Pedersen)
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Pedersen, seconded by Commissioner Mullen. Unanimous.
. .
~ of 4a.~
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
Subj:
Parks and Recreation Commission
Clint Bohlen, Parks and Recreation Director
October 10, 1994
Commission Business Cards, Name Badges, and Name Plaques
BACKGROUND:
Staff was requested to investigate ordering identification for the Commissioners.
Specifically, Commissioner Mullen requested business cards, and Commissioner Bernard
requested name badges.
Name badges will be distributed at the meeting, and business cards will be delivered to
the City by Friday, October 21. .
. RECOMMENDATION:
The Staff recommends the Commission utilize the badges and business cards as they are
delivered.
..7.few.7!lI.. A.
. .
~of4a.~
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
Subj:
Parks and Recreation Commission
Clint Bohlen, Parks and Recreation Director
October 10, 1994
Aquatics Programming and Fritz Burns Park
BACKGROUND:
Staff was requested to present proposed aquatics programming for next year's opening of
the Fritz Burns Park. Attached are staff reports recently presented to the City Council by
Public Works staff and Parks and Recreation staff proposed programming alternatives for
the pool, and construction and bid information.
RECOMMENDA nON:
The Staff recommends the Commission review the materials for the meeting, and staff
will be prepared to answer questions.
Attached:
September 20, 1994 Aquatics Programming Staff Report
October 4, 1994 Fritz Burns Park Phase One Invitation to Bid Staff Report
L7e....5l1J[ /3 .
,~-"'
........"., -~
. .
~of4a.~
~OUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE:
September 20, 1994-
TEM TInE:
Discussion of Aquatic Programming
Services for Fritz Burns Park
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
-
CONSENT CALENDAR:
STUDY SESSION:
-L
PUBLIC HEARING:
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council review the information contained in this report, and
provide staff direction.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None at this time.
The anticipated and budgeted expenditures for the proposed City operations and maintenance of
the Fritz Burns Community Park Aquatics Center for FY 1994-95. are $128,015; anticipated
revenue is $30,470 for FY94-95. .
The anticipated annual expenditure for programs, operations, maintenance. and equipment for
FY 1995-96 $260,586.86; anticipated revenue is $86,890. The General Fund would assume
approximately $130,000 of the total anticipated expenditures; the remaining approximately
$130,000 would be funded from the Lighting and Landscaping District.
The net effect on the General Fund would be $43,403 if projected revenues are realized; if only
half of revenues are realized. the net effect would be $.B6,843.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
The Fritz Burns Community Park Aquatics Center is scheduled for construction this fall, and is
expected to be completed in January or February of 1995. The schedule for Phase One
development of Fritz Burns Community Park dictates that the City decide on a management
approach for operating the pool facility.
The Parks and Recreation staff has budgeted for pool operations and maintenance by City staff
in the General Fund and Lighting and Landscaping District. The intent of the Parks and
Recreation Department was to operate and maintain the pool through the addition of City staff
(temporary, part-time). This approach for pool operations and maintenance was utilized for the
preparation of the 1994/95 budget.
CC#.031
~
During the preliminary bult review by City Council, it was tggested that Parks and
Recreation staff consider the possibility of contracting the pool operations and maintenance.
Staff was directed to review other aquatics programs to determine the advisability and feasibility
of contracting out pool operations and possibly maintenance as well.
......:... --
-,,,
Staff specifically contacted the following agencies for information regarding their respective
aquatics program:
City of Mission Viejo
City of Carlsbad
City of La Mesa
Coachella Valley Recreation & Park District
City of Palm Springs
City of Temecula
Public Pool Cost Recovery:
Function of Program Emphasis and Pricing
There is significant variation in the cost recovery for the various agencies. The discrepancies
are due largely to the types of programs presented by each agency, and the relative cost and
revenues derived from such programming emphasis.
Of the referenced cities, La Mesa and Carlsbad represent cities which are achieving a substantial
cost recovery for pool operations. These cities were used for cost recovery and program
emphasis analysis purposes in this report because of they have a regional reputation for cost
recovery.. Both cities recover 52% of total costs (operations, maintenance, and programs).
However, there are several reasons why their cost recovery percentage is notable; the largest
contributing factor is the low percentage of program emphasis and budget dollars on what is
commonly known as "recreation swim" programs.
As is evident in Attachment 1, "Contrast of ServiceS' and Expenditures", the percentage of cost
recovery decreases as the percentage of the program budget expended on recreation swim
increases. The reason is that recreation swim programs are heavily subsidized (entry fee is
typically $1-2 per person; actual fee would have to be $6-8 per person to recover costs).
Traditionally, learn-to-swim instructional programs, water recreation leagues, and special interest
classes and programs meet or can exceed expenditures.
Consequently, as La Quinta reflects a 33% cost recovery rate, it also reflects a recreation swim
emphasis. Conversely, Carlsbad has a 52% cost recovery ratio, but provides 14% of its
program budget to recreation swim. The recreation or open swim emphasis will usually lead to
a lower cost recovery percentage, as indicated in the Palm Springs 26% cost recovery
percentage.
In Palm Springs, the percentage of program revenues derived from recreation swim as a
percentage of total pool revenues is 35%; instructional and other aquatic class/lessons
represents 16%. Clearly, in the Palm Springs model, the bulk of programming emphasis is in
the area of subsidized, recreation or open swim.
Either emphasis may have substantive effects not related to budgeting practices and cost
recovery. A recreation swim emphasis certainly requires greater subsidization, but opens the
facility to more members of the community, and community wellness and satisfaction may be
increased.
CC#..031
2
. .
On the other hand, an instructional emphasis better prepares children, youth, adults, and seniors
for safe water use, and consequently protects children from their number one cause of death in
California: drowning. The negative side of this approach to programming emphasis is that the
costs of staff time and program materials are included in the registration fee, making these
classes relatively expensive ($30-35 for a two week, 1/2 hour per day session). If fees are
subsidized, the General Fund serves as the source of the subsidy; as the General Fund subsidies
increase, the cost recovery decreases.
Staff has planned the opening aquatics season for March-June '95 (Attachment 2) which
includes an emphasis on recreation or open swim programs. The bulk of the programming will
begin on March 20, with the more intense scheduling occurring in April of 1995. An option the
Council may want to consider would be to contract the facility to another agency for operation.
Contracted Pool Operations
In the February, 1992 issue of League of California Cities Western Cities Maaazine, Charles
Abbott of Charles Abbott Associates, Inc. wrote an article regarding privatization, and listed the
advantages and disadvantages of privatizing public services.
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
1.
2.
3.
No capital costs to initiate, expand or maintain services.
Improved control of activities, costs, and quality of services.
Variety of skills available based on wor,k load demand & talent
required. .
Agency pays only for services used; no'need to meet short term needs
with permanent staffing.
4.
1.
2.
3.
-- '
Sources of competent contractors may,' not be available.
Possible need to discharge current City employees.
Contractors may not be willing to adopt their operations to agency
needs.
Agency may be vulnerable if contingency resources are not present.
City will still have to incur sh~rt and long ter.m maintenance costs, as
well as capital replacement and repairs.
4.
5.
In the field of aquatics and pool operations, contracting facilities. and programming responsibility
does occur, but is not common. In researching agencies which contract out their 'facilities, staff
identified two agencies: Mission Viejo and Grass Valley.
Mission Viejo has operated on a contractual basis for the provision of many of its public
services, including: building and safety, engineering, maintenance, public safety, and parks and
recreation facilities and services. In discussing the Mission Viejo contract experience with
Community Services Superintendent Renee Raff, she indicated that they have had a "fair"
relationship and experience with their existing contractor, but are currently considering
contracting with another agency to manage Mission Viejo's aquatic facilities. Mission Viejo
staff stated that a lack of responsiveness was their major concern regarding the contract
method of operations.
CC#.031
3
^ -
"he following information" ascertained through both persottl meetings with City of ~iSSiO;
liejo staff, and in reviewing contract documents, publicity information, and budget data:
1. Mission Viejo expends $279,614. The Mission Viejo Aquatics Complex is operated
by Sports Leisure Group, Inc. (SLG). The Mission Viejo Natadors swim club also
provides learn to swim programs at the facility.
2. The contract calls for the City to receive a percentage of the -Recreation Center
program revenues, though the programs operated by SLG have not to date
provided revenues. The City does realize $14,400 through their agreement with
the Natadors. Minus revenue, Mission Viejo expends $265,214 via contract.
The Contractor sells Recreation Center passes entitling the holders to use of all of
the Center's equipment and facilities; consequently, the pool revenues are
not/cannot be broken out to consider cost recovery percentages or income directly
attributable to aquatics programming by the Contractor, but only estimated based
on Mission Viejo contract documents.
3. Mission Viejo has contracted with SLG, Inc. since the City acquired the facilities
from the Mission Viejo Company in December, 1992, and the City seems likely to
continue operating the pool facilities by contract in the future.
4. As reflected on Attachment B, although Mission Viejo's costs are comparative to
the City of La Quinta's, the cost per program hour is substantially higher than La
Quinta's proposed in-house operation, and the number of program hours is
substantially less as well.
5. The key to successful contracting for _aquatic facilities management is clear,
concise, and unassailable contract language with regard to duties, tasks, and.
authority. The contract process (RFP to selection of contractor) takes 90 days.
~alph Cryder, Long Beach Director of Parks, Recreation, and Marine, and a 31 year'veteran of
Jarks and recreation, indicated that anyone seeking to _contract out public parks and recreation
iervices should do so on a pilot basis. and to closely monitor public satisfaction with service
evels, contractor responsiveness, and agency satisfaction. Mr. Cryder suggests an initial
:ontract with a short fuse.
The City of Grass Valley has only recently contracted with a local youth swim team to operate
its pool (May 21, 19941. and little information is available. The City is responsible for
maintenance and utilities, and the Contractor operates the facility, including all programs and
9vents offered at the facility. No opinion other than initial support for the agreement was
9xpressed by City staff. The City of Grass Valley receives no revenues.
CC#.031
4
. .
Following a more in depth study to determine that it is in fact more advantageous to the City to
contract out pool operations, staff would need to conduct a process as indicated below to
proceed with a contract basis for operating the pool at Fritz Burns Park:
1. Develop a description of the scope of work to be provided by the Contractor.
2. Clarify/restructure the budget to accommodate the contracting process.
3. Evaluate and determine possible effects on City's tort liability and address as
appropriate. _ - .
4. Develop a list of qualified providers, and develop a RFP; develop schedule for
selection. .
5. Assemble Selection Committee for evaluation of proposals.
6. Establish City liaison for Contractor/City relations.
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES:
As reflected in Attachment 1, "Contrast of Services and Expenditures", CO!1tracting for pool
operations may not be the most advisable method of operating a facility. The City of Mission
Viejo expends $279,614 annually, and receives $14,400 in revenue; a 7% return. Additionally,
on Attachment 1, it is evident that, although a city may buy off the operational "headaches"of
operating an aquatics facility, the level of services can be negatively affected, and the cost of
operating the facility per hour can increase significantly.
It should be noted that on Attachments 3, "Estimated Annual Aquatics Program Costs", the
proposed annual program costs ($114,250.50) for operating Fritz Burns Park are directly tied to
the programs proposed, as is the estimated revenue; if minimum registration levels are not met
for classes and activities (except the open swims for families and youth). the programs will not
be conducted and funds will not be expended. If t.he Council proceeds with construction of the
pool at Fritz Burns Park, the probable fixed costs for operating the facility, whether contracted
or operated in house, is $89,904 (see breakdown of annual costs on Attachment 4, "Annual
Personnel, Maintenance, Operations, and Equipment Costs"). The fixed cost could be
substantially higher, however, based on Mission Viejo's experience.
Staff is requesting that the Council consider the in-hou~e operations and contracting options,
and provide staff with direction. If the Council desires to further explore contracting out pool
operations, staff could be directed to conduct research nationally to determine whether
contracting pool operations does serve the City both from financial and service perspectives;
staff's intitial impression is that the net effect is not significant from the financial standpoint.
Staff's main concern at this juncture with regard to contructing a pool at Fritz Burns Park is the
cost of operating the pool at the proposed program levels, and the uncertainty of General Fund
revenues available to meet the operating expenses. An option that was not available to the
Council one year ago, but may be worth Council consideration is the fact that La Quinta High
School has constructed a pool, and is willing to discuss City operations of the facility.
City use of the High School pool would be affected significantly due to school use, and City use
would be restricted with regard to program hours, facility availability, and community use. The
use of the high school pool could be viewed as an interim measure, and may be a viable option
to constructing a pool (but still building the park facility) at Fritz Burns Park at this time.
CC#.031
5
If the high school pool wetto be utilized, the City would be towed to measure actual '~rogr~-m
use and demand trends in La Quinta, and assess whether a pool facility is actually warranted at
Fritz Burns Park.
Staff is requesting that the Council discuss the following issues:
1. If the City proceeds with construction of a pool facility at Fritz Burns Park, does the
Council want to see an emphasis on recreation use (realizing this implies a lower rate of
cost recovery); instruction, leagues, and special events (implies a higher rate of cost
recovery); or an even mix? '
2. Does the Council see any merit or reason for delaying construction of the pool facility at
Fritz Burns Park (but proceeding with other park improvements), and operating the high
school pool for the provision of aquatics services for at least a year to assess demand
and use trends in La Quinta?
'3. Would Council like to further explore contracting out Fritz Burns Park pool?
()~L-
LINT sp 11 LEN
P CREATION DIRECTOR
.-._-
CC#.031
6
. .
~4 4a.~
AGENDA CATEGORY:
BUSINESS SESSION:
1..
:OUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE:
October 4, 1994
CONSENT CALENDAR:
STUDY SESSION:
PUBLIC HEARING:
rEM TITLE:
Consideration of Authorizing Staff to Receive
Bids For The Fritz Burns Park Project - Phase I
RECOMMENDATION:
*
Approve Plans; Specifications and Engineer's Estimate for the Fritz Burns Community Park
Project - Phase 1. .
*
Authorize staff to advertise and receive bids for the Project
FISCAL IMPLICA nONS:
The recommendations made will not result in a direct fiscal impact to the City. Once bids have been
received, final construction costs can be determined. Prior to awarding the contract to the lowest
responsible bidder, final project funding will be submitted to the CO,uncil for consideration.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
General
On May 17, 1994, theCity Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with T. 1. Maloney,
Inc. for the preparation of Plans, Specifications and Engineer's Estimate for the Fritz Burns Community
Park Project - Phase 1. A Notice to Proceed was issued to T. 1. Maloney, Inc. on May 18, 1994 to
begin preparation of Plans, Specifications and Engineer's Estimate (PS&E's). Final PS&E's were
submitted to staff on September 30, 1994. A set of the PS&E'sare currently on review in the office
of the City Clerk. The proposed bid opening date is November 1, 1994 at 2:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers. The Engineer's Estimate for construction of the Fritz Burns Community Park Project -
Phase I is $2,026,159. The original estimate for construction of this project, as presented to the
Council on May 17, 1994 was $2,900,000.
Design
Staff used the approved Fritz Burns Community Park Master Plan as the master reference source in
preparing the final design for this project. However, because of physical and/or cost constraints, some
components of the Project design varied from the approved Master Plan. Attachment 1 provides a list
of the components and the reasons for the changes. None of the changes have a significant affect.on
the facility's ability to provide the services identified in the Master Plan. Attachment 2 provides a more
e:IIop~~IOlNII
.
.
- detailed description of the major features of this project.
Project Plan Review
To avoid costly construction change orders, the Public Works Department instituted an extensive review
program by other City Departments and outside agencies. T. 1. Maloney, Inc. and Public Works staff
worked closely with the Parks and Recreation Department throughout the entire design of the project
to incorporate their needs and ideas for a more effective facility, especially in the layout of the Aquatic
building and pool operations. An independent pool consultant, Aquatic Consulting Services, reviewed .
and critiqued the design, especially in the areas of equipment and facility adequacy, ADA compliance,
safety features, compliance with federal, state and local bathing codes, appropriations of facility usage,
common and accepted practices of the aquatics industry and common design errors. Comments received
from Aquatic Consulting Services were incorporated into the plans and specifications. The plans and
specifications have been reviewed and approved by the Riverside County Environmental Heath Services
Department, the Fire District, the Coachella Valley Water District and the City of La Quinta Building
and Safety Department. In addition to this review process, the Maintenance and Operations Division
of Public Works reviewed the plans and specifications. Changes were requested and incorporated into
the PS&E's that will reduce annual costs for maintenance and operation of the facility. It is anticipated
that through this process, change orders and excessive maintenance/operational costs will be avoided.
Schedule .
Based upon a bid opening date of November t, 1994, it is anticipated that construction will begin by
December 15, 1994 and be completed by March 31, 1995. This is approximately 3 months behind the
schedule reviewed by Council on May 17, 1994. The delay is in large part due to the time needed by
the various Departments and outside agencies to review and provide comments that could be
incorporated into the Plans and Specifications. Attachment 3 provides a comparison of the May 17,
1994 schedule and the latest proposed schedule.
Project Costs
The Engineer's Estimate to construct this project is $2,026,000. The Engineer's Estimate does not
include any contingencies. Included in the Engineer's Estimate are Additive Alternatives for the
following items:
1. Arts Package (Estimated Cost = $15,000)
2. Overhead Shade Structures and Picnic Tables (Estimated Cost = $134,000)
3. Mist Fogging System (Estimated Cost = $12,500)
4. All Street Improvements (Estimated Cost = $31,100)
5. One Year Landscape Maintenance (Estimated Cost = $18,000)
By requiring bidders to bid on these items separately, the City Council can choose to delete one or more
of the Additive Alternatives should the bids come in higher than the Engineer's Estimate and additional
funding sources are unavailable.. These Additive Alternatives were selected because they are not
essential components to the operation of the pool and could be eliminated without adversely affecting
-..-
.
.
the facility's ability to provide the services and meet the needs contemplated in the Fritz Burns
Community Park Master Plan.
The total cost for this project is approximately $2,744,300, as outlined in Attachment 4. It is estimated
that the City will save $874,000 in construction costs and $815,263 in overall project costs through the
"Incentive Agreement" with T. 1. Maloney, Inc. for the design of this project.
Project Funding
To date, approximately $1,540,000 (Attachment 5) in project funding of the $2,744,300 in estimated
project costs have been approved. Therefore, an additional $1,200,000 in project funding may be
necessary. The exact amount of additional funding cannot be determined until bids have been opened
and evaluated (November 1, 1994). The funding source for the additional project costs will not be
known until the Cash Flow Analysis (CFA) Report is completed. The CFA Report will be completed
prior to the Award of Contract by Council for this project (November 15, 1994). On November 15,
1994, staff will present funding options for the Council to consider as part of the Award of Contract
report for this project.. The City Council will also consider whether to delete one (1) or more of the
five (5) Additive Alternatives for this project.
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the PS&E's and authorize staff to advertise and receive bids, as recommended. This
recommendation would not fiscally impact the City at this time. Once final bid results have been
determined, the City Council may have to consider additional project funding and the deletion of one
(1) or more of the five (5) Additive Alternatives prior to the Award of Contract.
2. Direct staff to reconsider design features and possibly eliminate certain features to reduce the overall
project costs. Based upon the latest design attempt, there is not much more reduction in costs that could
be expected without eliminating major design features, such as the wllter slide, the aquatic building and
so on. Elimination of these features will jeopardize the facility's ability to provide the services
contemplated in the Fritz Burns Community Park Master Plan.
3. Shelf the project to a later date. The decision to authorize staff to receive bids for this project can
be dela ed to some future date. The design of the project is complete. Delaying the decision will not
af ct the com leted PS&E's.
David M. Cosper, Directol'-Of-PUblic Works/City Engineer
e:IIopI..allJlUOll4