HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1987 0729 CC ADJ ITEM 11X //, /i
MOORPA
CUNT HARPER,Ph.D. STEVEN KUENY
Mayor City Manager
ELOISE BROWN oPPK "�� CHERYL J.KANE
Mayor Pro Tem F°��/��t City Attorney
THOMAS C.FERGUSON � PATRICK RICHAROS,A.I.C.P.
Councilmember ������ Director of
JOHN GALLOWAY i`we'V Community Development
Councilmember ov R.DENNIS DELZEIT
JOHN PATRICK LANE �`tEa �,+" City Engineer
Councilmember JOHN V.GILLESPIE
MAUREEN W.WALL Chief of Police
City Clerk THOMAS P.GENOVESE
MEMORANDUM City Treasurer
TO : The Honorable City Council
FROM : Steven Kueny, City Manager
DATE : July 28, 1987
SUBJECT : Award of Contract and appropriation of Funds for the
Redevelopment Feasibility Study
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The City recently received four (4) proposals in response to its
request for proposals (RFP) to conduct a financial feasibility analysis
for redevelopment activities . Two (2) firms , Urban Futures and
Municipal Services, Inc. (MSI) , were selected for interviews based
upon their proposed costs , adherence to the RFP and their firms
prior experience in redevelopment. During the course of the initial
interviews conducted by the Council' s Public Works Committee (Mayor
Harper and Councilmember Galloway) it was determined that the scope
of work should also include preparation of the redevelopment plan
and related Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . This would also
allow a more timely adoption of the plan and use of 1987-88 tax
roll as the base year for future allocation of tax increment. Both
firms were requested to revise their submittals accordingly. They
were subsequently interviewed a second time by the Committee.
The firm of Urban Futures is recommended to prepare the redevelopment
study and related documents . Their base proposal of $48, 000. 00
was less than the final quote from MSI even after factoring in the
estimated cost for preparation of the legal description necessary
for the final project area. Other reasons include the relevant
experience of the principal project manager with similar projects
especially in dealing with public participation and negotiation
with the Fiscal Review Committee (county and other taxing agencies) .
A check of their references indicated satisfaction from previous
and current clients and a successful track record. Copies of the
J
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864
City' s RFP and the initial and final proposal from Urban Futures
are included. In addition, the contract will include provisions :
1 . ) To allow the termination of the contract after completion
of the economic feasibility portion at a cost not to exceed
$15 , 000 . 00 .
2 . ) Attendance at 48 meetings for various purposes . This will
include public participation meetings . Any meetings not
utilized would result in a reduction of the contract price.
The amount per meeting will be determined and included
in the final contract document.
3. ) Finalization of their work products to allow adoption of
the plan and EIR between March and June 1988.
In addition to the scope of work proposed for the contract, other
costs to complete the redevelopment plan include preparation of
the legal description for the project area, mailing costs , printing
costs for the reports , legal fees and any addition meetings above
the total of 48 allocated in the contract. At this time I am rec-
ommending an additional $7000 . 00 for these items for a total ap-
propriation of $55 , 000. 00 .
During preparation of the redevelopment survey area the City utilized
the assistance of an adhoc committee. Redevelopment law requires
the ultimate appointment of a Project Area Committee (PAC) to insure
public participation. It' s a general consensus of those involved
in redevelopment that early and continuing public participation
is important to the success of any redevelopment program. The Urban
Futures has suggested and would implement a general information
meeting during the initial phase of their assignment. The PAC should
probably not be designated until the final project area is determined.
Until the feasibility portion of the work is completed there may
not be a need for a designated advisory group.
The redevelopment study should be commissioned by the Moorpark Re-
development Agency. To finance this cost the City may loan the
necessary funds to the Agency. The costs would be repaid if and
when the Agency implements the Redevelopment Plan and receives tax
increment or other revenue.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1 . ) Appropriate $55 , 000 . 00 from the General Fund Reserve and loan
these funds to Moorpark Redevelopment Agency to complete the
feasibility analysis , redevelopment plan environmental impact
report for the plan and related engineering, legal and other
costs .
2 . ) Direct staff to call a meeting of the Moorpark Redevelopment
Agency for August 5 , 1987 to:
A. ) accept loan of $55 , 000 . 00 from the City.
B. ) formally award contract to Urban Futures at a cost
not to exceed $48, 000. 00 to conduct the redevelop-
ment activities as previously described.
3. ) Determine means of providing for public participation.
MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
City Council Meeting
of 7-029-198 7
ACTT ON: du
By .iikt€