Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14.F. Purchase of Phase II Expansion Equipment for the Skate Park If. F: CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Andrea Weber, Park and Landscape Designer Meeting Date: February 15, 2005 Subject: Purchase of Phase II Expansion Equipment for the Skate Park INTRODUCTION At the December 28th Park and Recreation Advisory Board meeting, the Advisory Board recommended approval of purchase of additional modular equipment for the skate park. The item was originally planned for an prior meeting, but ongoing conversations with the proposed manufactures over pricing delayed the action. Council is asked to authorize purchase of one of the revised equipment layout options. BACKGROUND In December, staff proposed the addition of equipment as shown on Layout C from True Ride to the Park and Recreation Advisory Board, see attachment A. This option was selected from three different manufacturer's proposals and was the unanimous choice of the skate park user group involved in the expansion design process. One significant change in the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust, the city's insurer, is that ramps in a Tier 1 park like ours can now be up to 4' high. When the original Skate Park was built, the maximum height for Tier 1 was 3' high. New 4' ramps would bring more challenge to the experienced riders in the community and were highly desired by the youth advisory user group that helped design the skate park addition. Staff originally planned to bring this to Council on January 18, 2005, but due to information from the Community Center Task Force that the current site of the Skate Park could be needed for additional parking for an expansion, staff decided to discuss with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board whether we should go ahead with this purchase now, or wait until after the Feasibility Study was complete on February 28, 2005. The Advisory Board considered this issue in their January 24 meeting, and decided that we should go ahead with the purchase and installation this spring, as the exact need for additional parking due to a potential expansion of the Community Center is unknown, and wouldn't be required for at least 1-2 years. We had intended to then bring this forward to Council on February 1, 2005. However discussions with the manufacturer required that we delay this for one meeting while we worked out revised pricing quotes. Our original quote for the addition was $24,922.77 and was valid for 60 days. There were three issues that needed to be resolved with the manufacturer in order to get revised price quotes: 1. Our representative at True Ride left the company for another job. This caused some delay in working with a new sales representative to get the best pricing, as ~ our original sales representative had given us a discount based on prior purchase from True Ride. 2. According to TrueRide, the price of steel and plastics both went up since the original quote. Because of these increases, the company could not honor the original quote, which was over 60 days old. 3. The original quote did not include sales tax, so there was a need to re-work the layout in order to include this cost into the budget. We haveworked with True Ride to develop three different options with current pricing and sales tax included. A discussion of the options and how they compare to the original recommended design follows. REVISED PURCHASE PROPOSAL In order to come in under budget or as close to budget as possible with the increased cost in materials, the three new proposals have two modifications in common: 1. They each have a shortened grind rail, from 16' long originally, to 12' long. I do not feel thatthis change impacts the use of the grind rail significantly. 2. They also each have part of the new center "fun box", (Attraction C), simplified. Originally it had a "planter box" at the top of the box which also sloped down one side of the ramp. As proposed, the new "planter box" would just be located at the top section of the "fun box." Though this does reduce the challenge of the piece, I feel it is a reasonable reduction to bring the equipment back in budget. Given these two modifications, we have three options to consider for purchase. . Option 1, $24,769.12, All Equipment 3' The corner hipped ramp (AttractioF) A) would be 3' high instead of 4' high and one of the two quarter pipes in the/other two corners would be 3' while the other would be 4' high. These are significant changes from the original proposal. I . Option 2, $25,253.44, End Pieces 4', Center Piece 3' Both of the quarter pipe end pieces would be 4' high. The corner hipped ramp in the center would remain 3' high. . Option 3, $27,115.17, All Pieces 4' Both quarter pipe end pieces and the corner hipped ramp would be 4' high. BUDGET IMPACT Option 2 and Option. 3 would require additional funding. We feel that we can fund the additional dollars for Option 2 from our operating budget. This would give two 4' end pieces and 3' center piece. If Council desired to retain all 4" equipment, it would require an additional $2,115.17, and we would suggest an increase in the park reserve fund allocation of. for the additional cost. ~, ALTERNATIVES 1. Proceed with one of the revised equipment options and designate additional funding, if applicable. 2. Direct staff to provide additional information. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that we allocate an additional $2,115.17 from the Park Reserve fund for Option.3. This option provides the highest ramps and best rides. It also adds variety to the existing equipment. REQUESTED ACTION If Council concurs, move to purchase the revised Skate Park Phase II Expansion Equipment fromTrue Ride in the total amount of $27,115.,17.