HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1989 0607 CC REG ITEM 11O MOORPARK
ITEM 11 . 0.
ELOISE BROWN vPPK �4�,� STEVEN KUENY
Mayor 0 4�9 City Manager
BERNARDO M. PEREZ CHERYL J. KANE
F
Mayor Pro Tem PIPr
City Attorney
`
CLINT HARPER, Ph. D. PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P.
Councilmember o • Director of
PAUL LAWRASON 0 / y Community Development
Councilmember T�� .," R. DENNIS DELZEIT
SCOTT MONTGOMERY City Engineer
Councilmember JOHN V. GILLESPIE
RICHARD T. HARE Chief of Police
City Treasurer
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Philip Newhouse, Director of Community Services
DATE: May 25, 1989 ftri
SUBJECT: Consider Request for Proposal for Neighborhood
Recreation Center
BACKGROUND:
Within the adopted City budget for FY 1988/89, funds in the amount of
$5,000.00 were appropriated in Fund 05, Park Improvements, Account
#1147-903-006, Griffin Park, for a building feasibility study.
At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Parks and Recreation
Commission, the need of a recreation building in the Campus Park area
was discussed. The basis of this need was centered around three
factors: 1) the geographical location of the area in relationship to
the community; 2) the growth of the area which will have a full build
out population of approximately 5,000 people; and 3) State Highway 118
presents a physical and navigable barrier, at times, to get to core of
the community.
Additionally discussed was the future potential development of a
Community Center building at Arroyo Vista Community Park. Although a
community building may be built, the Commission felt the service area
would be for residents south of Highway 118.
DISCUSSION:
As monies have been budgeted for a building feasibility study at
Griffin Park, the Commission felt the money can be better utilized.
The need for a recreation building exists now.
Currently, the Community Center building plays a dual role in serving
the community. The building is utilized for recreation programs and
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864
REC/CNTR.MEM/PRAGENDA
activities and City government business. As the community grows, the
need for expanded uses for both services grows. Use of the building
must carefully reflect the greatest need it can provide in serving the
community. Decisions made at various government meetings reflect upon
the City' s recreation program and other services provided to the
community. As the government business of the City grows, the need for
additional meetings and space to hold those meetings must be provided.
With our primary facility, the Community Center, recreation uses must
give way to City government needs.
For the reasons outlined previously, the Commission requests the
opportunity to explore costs related to a recreational building at
Griffin Park. Attached is a Request for Proposal (REP) for a
Neighborhood Recreation Center. There are no costs related to the RFP,
merely an opportunity to solicit bids to draft a master plan for a
proposed recreation building. Should the proposals submitted result in
a reasonable cost to prepare a draft master plan, the Commission
requests the City Council to redesignate the funds appropriated for a
building feasibility study to be used for hiring a consultant to
prepare a draft master plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously recommends to the City
Council :
1. The attached Request for Proposal for a Neighborhood
Recreation Center be circulated to solicit bids for a draft
master plan.
2. The previously appropriated $5,000. 00 for a building
feasibility study in Account 05-1147-903-006 be redesignated
for the possibility of hiring a consultant for developing a
Neighborhood Recreation Center building at Griffin Park.
PEN:db MOORPARK, CALIFORNfA
Attachment: Draft RFP
City Council Me t t
6 - 7- XV itE«L . }
off ix.c .27 198
ACTION;
REC/CNTR.MEM/PRAGENDA
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
NEIGHBORHOOD RECREATION CENTER
I. INTRODUCTION:
The proposed Recreation Center site is to be located in Griffin
Park which is located at the corner of College View Avenue and
Campus Park Drive in the northeast section of Moorpark. Proposed
size to be 5,000 sq. ft.
Development of the Recreation Center will be the City' s first
building constructed exclusively for recreational uses. The
building should be functionally designed to reflect a varied
program of activities for all ages. A safe, healthful and
attractive atmosphere should be provided in which every person in
the community has the opportunity to enjoy his leisure by
participation in activities of a social , inspirational , cultural
or physical nature.
The Recreation Center is to be developed into a multi-functional
facility with emphasis on providing recreation opportunities at
the neighborhood level . The project is to result in alternatives
and recommendations for: (1) design to ensure maximum utilization
of the building; (2) design theme to encompass accepted aesthetic
qualities that relate harmoniously to the surroundings; and (3)
implementation procedures including possible financing mechanisms.
II. SCOPE OF WORK:
The project is divided into two parts: Part A - selecting desired
improvements and preliminary study; Part B - design and phasing.
A. Preliminary Study:
1. Perform field investigations as required to recommend
proposed methods of conducting work.
2. Meet with City staff as needed to complete work.
3. Conduct two public meetings to receive public input on
the proposed design. Public meetings will be held in
conjunction with a regularly scheduled Parks &
Recreation Commission meeting. Conduct three City
review meetings; two to be completed with the Parks &
Recreation Commission and one to be completed with the
City Council .
4. Provide preliminary development cost estimates,
narrative and schematic design proposals as needed
during development of conceptual plan.
5. Conduct preliminary lighting, noise and traffic impact
analysis for siting of facility.
REC/CNTR. RFP/PARKS
6. Analysis of parking needs including possible locations
of parking lots.
7. Conduct mapping and field survey to identify the
location of utility poles, trees, roads, right-of-ways
(easements) and other structures within the proposed
site area.
B. Phasing and Financing Alternatives
1. Discussion of development phasing alternatives and the
financing alternatives associated with each phasing
alternative.
2. Discussion of the costs for each phasing alternative.
3. Manpower analysis on the operational and maintenance
costs.
4. Utility and water analysis for operational and
maintenance of the structure.
5. Assist in the completion of appropriate environmental
documents for the adoption of the conceptual plan.
Possible facilities to be included in the facility:
1. Multipurpose room or rooms;
2. Arts and Crafts room;
3. Game room;
4. Kitchen;
5. Restrooms;
6. Lounge and lobby;
7. Office;
8. Large storage areas;
9. Security lighting;
10. Landscape theme for area surrounding facility;
11. Walkways, including accessibility for handicapped;
12. Location of future gymnasium and shower/locker rooms.
III. PROPOSAL FORMAT:
Your proposal shall include the following:
1. The firm' s approach to the design of this facility with
special attention to creativity, low maintenance, sensitivity
to the historic and natural beauty aspects of the park,
safety, aesthetics and adequate public participation in the
design process.
2. The scope of work with estimated time schedule by work
element.
REC/CNTR.RFP/PARKS
3. Resumes of the project manager and all other individuals to
be involved in the project and a bar chart indicating the
degree to which each will be directly involved in any or all
aspects of the project.
4. Professional fees and services rendered designated not to
exceed a lump sum A and not to exceed on lump sum B. Fees
are to include the five (5) meetings as described and include
the costs for any additional meetings.
5. A reference section which describes the consultant' s
resources to perform the work, including, but not limited
to: Consultant' s prior experience on similar projects,
experience with the public participation as part of the
design process, ability to produce projects within budget and
five references.
6. List of similar projects designed during last five (5) years.
7. List firm(s) to perform lighting, noise and traffic analysis.
8. Affirmative action plan assurances of compliance with State
and Federal equal employment opportunity requirements.
9. A time line for completion of each part of the project as
designated.
10. Provide up to three preliminary (colored) schematic plans
based upon public and staff meetings (1-20' scale) for
Commission review, and one proposed colored master plan
(1-20' scale) for presentation at City Council meeting, and
one final colored master plan (1-20' scale) with transparent
phasing overlays based upon City Council meeting.
11. Prepare and submit fifteen (15) copies of draft master plan
proposal and twenty-two (22) copies of final draft master
plan proposal .
IV. SELECTION CRITERIA:
The following criteria, in addition to cost estimate
consideration, shall be used in determining the firm that will
prepare the preliminary studies and final working drawing for this
project.
A. Ability of the consultants to perform the specific tasks
outlined in the RFP.
B. Qualifications of the specific individuals who will work on
the project.
C. Amount and quality of the time key personnel will be involved
in their respective portions of the project.
REC/CNTR.RFP/PARKS
D. Reasonableness of the fee requested to do the work.
E. Demonstrated record of success by the consultant on similar
work.
V. CONTRACT CONDITIONS:
The selected consultant will enter into a contract with the City
of Moorpark which shall include the following condition:
The firm selected for the project will be required to sign
the appropriate City contract outlining and detailing the
project services and requirements.
VI. SUBMITTAL OF PROPOSAL:
Ten (10) copies of the Proposal shall be accepted by the City
Manager, City of Moorpark, 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark,
California 93021 by 5:00 p.m. on July 7, 1989.
REC/CNTR.RFP/PARKS