HomeMy WebLinkAbout15.B.1. Huber Park Additional Design Services
/S6./
,
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
From: Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation & Facilities Director
Meeting Date: June 1, 2004
Subject: Huber Park Additional Design Services
INTRODUCTION
City Council is asked to consider additional design services for Huber Park.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
At the May 4 City Council meeting, Council authorized an agreement with Bonestroo,
Rosene, Anderlik & Associates for final design and construction documents for Huber
Park. At that meeting, we discussed the need for additional design services that were
not requested in the original proposal. Bonestroo submitted the following proposal for
these services:
Item Proposed Fee
Sound Analvsis $5,000
CR101/Sommerville Pedestrian Crossina Analvsis $3,800
Grant Applications for Funding $2,000
Permits $1,500
Electrical Plans for Park Liqhtina $800
3-D Modelinq of Plans $4,500
At that meeting, there seemed to be support for most of the additional services. The one
item discussed in detail was the 3-D modeling of the concept plans. I was not able to
negotiate a better fee for this service.
I believe that the sound analysis, pedestrian crossing, and electrical plans (if park
lighting is determined to be part of the final design) are essential to the final design.
Assisting with grant applications and permits could prove to be very cost effective for the
city. The 3-D modeling would help depict character and function of the three final design
concepts.
Funding for the additional services would come from the park reserve fund as part of the
project budget.
REQUESTED ACTION
City Council is asked to discuss the proposed additional design services for Huber Park
and move to authorize the services you feel are appropriate for the final design.
11I1f1 Bonestroo Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an 'Affirmative ActionjEqlJal OpportlJnity Employer
and Employee Owned
Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo. PE. . Marvin L Sorvala, PE. . Glenn R. Cook, PE. . Robert G. Schunicht. PE. .
Fil LJ Rosene Jerry A. Bourdon. PE. . Mark A. Hanson, PE.
W'J Anderlil< & Senior ConslJltants: Robert W. Rosene. PE. . Joseph C Anderlik, PE. . Richard E. Turner. PE. . Susan M. Eberlin, CP.A.
. ........J Associates Associate Principals: Keith A. Gordon, PE. . Robert R. pfefferle, PE. . Richard W. Foster, P,E. . David O. Loskota, PE. .
Michael T. Rautmann, PE. . Ted K. Field, P.E. . Kenneth P Anderson, PE. . Mark'R. Rolfs, PE. . David A. Bonestroo, M.B.A. .
Engineers & Architects Sidney P Williamson; PE.. LS. . Agnes M. Ring, M.B.A. . Allan Rick Schmidt. PE. . Thomas W. Peterson, PE. .
James R. Maland, PE . Miles B. Jensen, PE . L Phillip Gravel III, PE.' Daniel J, Edgerton, PE. . Ismaei Martinez. PE. .
Thomas A. Syfko, PE. . Sheldon J. Johnson' Dale A. Grove, PE" Thomas A. Roushar, PE" Robert J. Devery, PE
Offices: SI. Paul. 51. Cloud, Rochester and Willmar, MN . Milwaukee. WI . Chicago, IL
Website: www.bonestroo.com
May 13, 2004
Mr. Mark Themig,Park, Recreation & Facilities Director
Shakopee Parks and Recreation
1255 Fuller Street
Shakopee, MN 55379
Re: Huber Park Additional Services Proposal
Dear Mark:
Per our discussions below is a listing of additional tasks and proposed costs for the Huber Park
project.
A. Sound Analysis
SBP Associa.tes,Inc:willprovide consultingservices.related tq nois,econcems and the proposed
stage/perfotinallce~fa.cility: Services will include'" .. '. ... ," > < '.: c
1. Measureineht ofol1~site backgroundnoise,alldth~ iw.p}icationsof the background noise
for expectedpe'rfomiances.<:; ., . "',;; ,.'.., '.
" ':' <,- >. " .., .. ,', -,,-".. .. "'. .,-....' ':-,', .<...-..,.:.....,_..,.-..- .....:". <.~,.~"..,~ .;,:.'(,,-.. .
2. Assistance with the identification of strategies for rriitigating th,tlimpac!'ofbackground
noise (e.g. highway noise) on expected performances: . '..,.. .; ,.,' .
3. Assistance with identifying the potential impact of the' expected perfoimimces on.noise
levels at nearby sensitive receptors.
4. Recommendations on facility design and operations to control the impact of the expected
performances on nearby noise sensitive receptors.
Proposed Fee: $5,000
B. CRIOllSommerville Pedestrian Crossing Analysis
The existing pedestrian crossing is presently thought to be somewhat deficient with regard to
being "pedestrian friendly". ill order that the at-grade crossing of CR 101 at Sommerville can be
made as pedestrian friendly as an at-grade signalized crossing can be, the following tasks would
be performed by Bonestroo:
1. visit the site for purposes of viewing the existing signal crossing conditions including the
signal'equipment, signal timing,' and geol1letric roadwayconditi91).'S th~tmay be
~ontributing to pedestrian safety issues. This would Include pedestrIan' paths/sidewa.lks
from the doWntown area to the1ocatiOl1. of the .c.rossing. >' "".
.'~ . ' ," ,,~..,._'.J- ;'::;".'~~"
Obtaill'asibuiltrecorddrawings,oftheintersection and the traffic signal timing of the
signal in order to aid in the analysis:ofthepeqtlsp:iancro,ssing con~itionsat the signalized
crossing. '. ., .' '.,., ..: ..... :..'
., 3. Prepare improvement recommendations, with preliminary cost estimates, that are deemed
to be appropriate for improving the pedestrian crossing at the intersection. This will
2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, MN 55113. 651-636-4600 · Fax; 651-636-1311
include signal issues as well as geometric issues of the roadway crossing. If it is
concluded that pedestrian approach paths to the intersection could be improved in some
manner, improvement concept(s) will be prepared for consideration.
4. Discuss the improvement concept( s) with appropriate city staff in order to create a
preferred plan.
5. Assist the city, if desired, in discussing the plan with appropriate Scott County
transportation staff.
Proposed Fee: $3,800
C. Grant Applications for Funding
Bonestroo will prepare up to four grant applications on behalf of the City of Shakopee. We
anticipate that these applications would be to the DNR, the Lower Minnesota River Watershed
District, and the Corps of Engineers.
Proposed Fee: $2,000
D.Permits
ill addition to the technical information provided under the services in the base proposal,
Bonestroo will prepare and submit the required permits for the project. We anticipate thatthese
permits will include a DNR Shoreland Permit and a Lower Minnesota River Watershed District
Permit.
Proposed Fee: $1,500
E. Park Trail and Parking Lot Lighting
If directed, Bonestroo will provide additional professional electrical engineering services for the
design of trail and parking lot lighting within Huber Park.
Proposed Fee: $800
F. 3-D Modeling of Plans
If directed, Bonestroo will produce 3-D computer renderings of the proposed design plans to
more accurately depict their character and function. Renderings would be provided tothe City in
bothfull-9olor printouts and electronic forrtlat.
Proposed Fee: $4,500
Please feel free to contact me at 651-604-4861 if you have any questions regarding the additional'
services described above.
Sincerely,
BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Stuart Krahn, RLA
Project Manager
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
From: Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation & Facilities Director
Meeting Date: May 4, 2004
Subject: Selection of Huber Park Design Firm
INTRODUCTION
City Council is asked to authorize appropriate city officials to enter into agreement with
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates for final design and construction documents
for Huber Park.
BACKGROUND
In 2003, City Council authorized staff to issue a Request For Proposal (RFP) for Huber
Park final design and construction documents. We issued the RFP in March of this year
(Attachment A). The RFP asked that firms submit proposals for the following services:
1. Use the approved master plan as a guide to develop final plans for this park.
2. Develop at least three refined plans and cost estimates that shows conceptually how
the entire park area from west of the Hwy 101 bridge to the east end of the park
property line can be developed to its full potential. This includes design
considerations such as:
. What type of performance area should be constructed, and what utilities are
required to serve the performance area.
. How the site can be designed to meet all accessibility standards.
. How the two parking areas can most effectively serve the park.
. What type of riverbank stabilization and beautification can be achieved.
. Where the restroom building and future community playground should be
located, and what options could be considered for play equipment as an
alternative to the community playground. (The final design should include
specifications for optional commercial play equipment, but is not required to have
the final design for the restroom building.)
. How the State trail should be aligned through the park, and how the west parking
area can serve as a trailhead for this park.
. What should be done with the existing restroom building on the west end of the
park.
. What design considerations should be made to protect the park and its amenities
from any potential flooding.
. How the plan can be phased in over several years, if desired by the City,
including the advantages and disadvantages of phasing the project.
3. Meet with residents, downtown business owners, the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board, and City Council to discuss components of the final plan, present options, and
incorporate their feedback.
4. Provide the City with final plans, construction documents, and cost estimates. As
noted previously, the final plans should provide the City the opportunity to phase
construction of the project over several years, if so desired.
Five design teams submitted proposals. Due to the unique nature and complexity of the
project with riverbank stabilization and floodplain issues, all of the proposals involved a
team-based approach. Under this scenario, one firm would be the project lead and other
firms would provide specialized services like hydrology, geotechnical expertise, and
architecture.
The five proposals were as follows:
Firm Proposal Cost
HTPO $ 85,150
Bonestoo Rosene Anderlik & Associates $108,192
WSB $124,080*
Sanders Wacker and Bergly $132,750*
SRF $138,800*
*Rates were adjusted (lowered) from their original proposal to better reflect the services
being requested.
An evaluation team consisting of Mike Hullander, Mark McQuillan, Bruce Loney, Tracy
Schaefer and I reviewed the proposals and interviewed all five firms. Following the
interview, we ranked the firms based on the following criteria:
. Resources and qualifications in park planning and design
. Resources and qualifications in riverbank stabilization
. Proposer's understanding of the project
. Experience with similar projects
· Ability to meet project requirements and services
Although the proposed fee was important, we felt that the initial ranking without factoring
in fees would help ensure that we selected the firm that could truly provide the best
service to the city for this project.
DISCUSSION
Evaluation Panel Recommendation
All five firms submitted excellent proposals. After ranking the teams, there was clear
consensus from the evaluation panel that Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates had
the best understanding of the project, most innovative approach to the critical issues of
the park design and riverbank stabilization, and would provide the best service to the
City.
As you can see, Bonestroo's rate is not the lowest. The evaluation panel believes that
Bonestroo'sabilities and past experience exceed those of other proposers that have
both lower and higher fees. I have also checked with other cities that have used
Bonestroo in the past (Rochester, Minneapolis, Apple Valley) and they were very
satisfied with their services. Two specifically commented that Bonestroo's cost
estimating is very accurate - an important component in developing the final design for
Huber Park.
Additional Services
I need to make Council aware of other services that weren't requested in the RFP but
should be considered during the final design. Although these are additional costs, it is
important that we address these now to ensure we have a quality design. I asked
Bonestroo to provide what fees they would charge to provide each of these services.
They were able to respond to all of them in time for this memo except the sound
analysis. I hope to have that information for your meeting.
. Sound Analysis
On April 14, I attended a meeting at the City of Shoreview where they are looking at
the feasibility of constructing a performance area adjacent to County Road 96. One
of the firms they retained was a firm that specializes in sound. As I understand, not
only will noise cause issues with the audience, but some performers will not play if
there is an unacceptable amount of noise entering the performance area.
Given the proximity of County Road 101 in Shakopee, we discussed the need for
some type of sound study with each of the design teams. There was consensus from
all firms that we need to get some idea of how noise from County Road 101 will
impact the performance area, and what design techniques can be used to mitigate
sound issues.
Proposed Fee: To be determined
. CR101/SommeNille Pedestrian Crossing Analysis
At the Walkable Communities workshop on April 22, we studied the CR101/
Sommerville pedestrian crossing. In the short time we were there, it was evident that
this crossing is not pedestrian friendly. There needs to be further analysis of traffic
issues and road design to determine if it is feasible to provide a safe pedestrian
entrance to the park.
Proposed Fee: $2,000-$4,000
. Grant Applications for Funding
Each of the design teams commented on potential funding sources for this project,
and different agencies that they work with that has funding. In order to expedite
application of these grants using their contacts, it would be beneficial for Bonestroo
to submit these applications on behalf of the city.
Proposed Fee: $2,000 for four grant applications
. Permits
The RFP indicated that staff would prepare and submit the required permits for this
project and the design firm would provide technical information. In order to expedite
the application process, it would again be beneficial for Bonestroo to submit these
applications on behalf of the city due to their contacts with various regulatory
agencies.
Proposed Fee: $1,500 for all permits
. Electrical Plans for Park Lighting
In the RFP, plans for lighting was only requested for the performance area. If the
final design for the park identifies other park lighting such as along the trails or
parking areas, additional electrical engineering services would be needed.
Proposed Fee: $800
. 3-D Modeling of Plans
The ability to present the concept and final plans for the park using 3-D modeling
may be very helpful for residents and other groups to experience how the proposed
designs would look and function. This is the same technology that Scott County used
to present their jail plans.
Proposed Fee: $4,500
Total cost for these additional services (excluding the sound study) would be $12,800. I
believe that this would be a valuable investment to help ensure that this park is
developed to its best potential.
BUDGET IMPACT
The CIP provides $1.489 million in 2004 and 2005 for Huber Park development. Of this
amount, we estimated $114,000 for design and project administration services. Since
the proposed fees including additional services would exceed this amount, additional
funding could come from the Park Reserve fund. The Park Reserve Fund balance is
currently $2.832 million.
RECOMMENDATION
I am recommending that the city enter into agreement with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik
and Associates for final design and construction documents for Huber Park. The
evaluation panel and I believe that they will provide the best service for the city in
developing a quality design that will maximize the potential for Huber Park. I also would
recommend that we obtain the additional services described above.
In discussing the timeline with all the design teams, they acknowledged that the timeline
proposed in the RFP was aggressive. In discussing further with Bonestroo, they propose
a two-phase approach to the project. The first phase would develop overall park design
concepts with construction plans specifically for the riverbank stabilization this summer.
The riverbank work could potentially be bid this year and completed during the fall and/or
over the winter. The second phase would involve the final design and construction plans
for the remaining park improvements, which could be bid during the winter for
construction in 2005.
REQUESTED ACTION
If City Council concurs, move to authorize appropriate city officials to enter into
agreement with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates for final design and
construction documents for Huber Park.
Mark Themig
Parks, Recreation & Facilities Director