No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-06-03 - Minutes,FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS • DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE • DATE TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAY 28, 1996 PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD DALE D. CLARK, PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR PRAB MEETING ON MONDAY, JUNE 3, 1996 AT 5:30 PM IN ROOM 219 OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ****************************************************************************** Approval of PRAB Minutes - May 6, 1996 GREENSPACE Development: Overcrest Court Engineer Owner: Location: Regular Meeting North of Fairview Cemetary, East of Old Wire Road, South of Elmwood Drive Park District: Northeast Priority: None Total Acres: 12.87 acres Units: 61 Single Family Land Dedication Requirement: 1.53 acres Money in Lieu: $18,300 1990 Needs: 21 - 42 acres 2010 Needs: 25 - 50 acres Existing: 26 acres Outstanding Features: Proposed Trail Plans: None Staff Recommendations: Money in Lieu 511y„aviPg-.wn�A I firi 30o Offer to sale Lot #48 adjoining Horseshoe Subdivision parkland/David Harwood • IV. Report by Facilities Committee on meeting held May 29, 1996 concerning the girls softball complex • Lake Fayetteville South Trail progress report - Dugwyler VI. Other Business General Information Tentative Park Tour dates: June 12th, 5:30 - 8:30 July 4th, Veterans Memorial Park Dedication, 2 hour tour August 14th, 5:30 - 8:00 Attachments: Update on PRAB Member Replacement - Orzek Greenspace Monthly Report - Orzek (la Iggb) • la - e ¶'i sk ��7 aTw++a 'nha.193i • • • PRAB REGULAR MEETING JUNE 3, 1996 The meeting was called to order by Bill Waite at 5:30 pm in room 219 of the City Administration Building. Members Present: Ackerman, Driver, James, Mackey, McCutcheon, Richard, Waite Staff Present: Clark, Dugwyler, Orzek, Nelson Guests Present: Albert Green, PBA, Delvin Nation, PBA Greg House, House, Inc. Russell Ray Media Present: Rusty Garrett - NWA Times BUSINESS: I. MOTION: JAMES/DRIVER The Minutes from the May 6, 1996 PRAB meeting were approved unanimously 5-0. [Ackerman and McCutcheon arrived later]. II. GREENSPACE —0' Development: Overcrest Court Engineer: Owner: Location: North of Fairview Cemetery, East of Old Wire Road, South of Elmwood Drive Park District: Northeast Priority: None Total Acres: 12.87 acres Units: 61 Single Family Land Dedication Requirement: 1.53 acres Money in Lieu: $18,300 1990 Needs: 21 - 42 acres 2010 Needs: 25 - 50 acres Existing: 26 acres Outstanding Features: Proposed Trail Plans: None Staff Recommendations: Money in Lieu DISCUSSION: 1 / June 3, 1996 • • Clark: This is what is called a PUD development. We have Mr. House here, he is the developer. They are required to build in some green space within the development, and we might ask him about that, but based upon the location, the size, and the nature of the development it is the Staff's recommendation that we take money in lieu of the land. If you would, Greg, we will give you an opportunity to speak on behalf of your development and what's included in the green space. House: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'm not sure, but I guess everyone here has gotten a copy of the plat? Is that right? Board: Right. House: What we are planning is a, for want of a better term because it has been banded around so much, kind of a village concept idea for this development. The homes would be located in tight configuration to be built in a southern style much like Savannah or, I have some pictures here of some of the neat things we are talking about, just real traditional columns in sort of a tight layout. And as a result, it will leave us a lot of green space, and we wanted to have that as a use for the property owners and also provide a buffer between this development and the existing home owners. The terrain really lends itself to this because there is a stream on the east end of the development that is perfect for a park area with mature trees that would provide privacy to the existing home owners. On the north end there is a darling little pond that was there from the old farm stead and a tree line as well. The area we are intending to develop is an old field from part of that farm, so we don't have to go in there and bulldoze a lot of existing trees and so forth. It hasn't been brushogged in about 15 years so there are a lot of saplings, but the idea is to try to use what is there without disrupting the natural beauty and leave the old tree areas for the people to use as kind of a trail system and provide an area for them to recreate. In visiting with the people at the Parks Department, while we are not absolutely opposed to having some of this ground being 2 / June 3, 1996 • III Clark. House: Waite: Driver: House: Driver: House: Waite: House: public it seems that maybe, or for what the City has already intended - Parks, money in lieu may be better so that it could go to one that has already been planned nearby or something, we're not real strong one way or another. We're open to suggestions. How much land do you have proposed in the green space? It's about 4.5 acres right now. I think the minimum we can have is 4.1 based on the density we have, but I think we're going to have about 4.5 acres with several little patches. There is an access area that is like a little park near the main road, some of the lots are shaped oddly and we'd probably take corners off to create greenspaces in the right-of-way area. Does anyone have any questions? Okay, thank you very much. I really like the developments you are doing in town. Thank you, Susan. And I really appreciate the close proximity that you have your carpenters working in to save existing trees. You've done a great job. We try. We can't always save them all, but we try. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Thank you. MOTION: JAMES/MACKEY The PRAB accepts the staff recommendation to the Planning Commission to accept money, $18,300, in lieu of land for the green space requirement for Overcrest Court. it 12I3t\% .\,AurakR�'"luvv. � MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY 7-0 OFFER TO SALE LOT #48 ADJOINING HORSESHOE SUBDIVISION PARKLAND/DAVID HARWOOD DISCUSSION: Waite: Okay, Dale, could you explain something about this Lot #48, Horseshoe Subdivision? Clark: Nancy, the person that contacted you to be 3 / June 3, 1996 here... Nancy: They're obviously not here. Clark. In the Horseshoe Subdivision we have a lot with a 20 foot easement which gives us access to it in the Horseshoe addition. Our portion of that land is .22 acres, less than a quarter of an acre to that one lot. That is what we gained when the developer did it. The person who owns the lot closest to us approached me and asked if we would vacate 5 foot of that easement so that they could build a house. I said it really doesn't make a lot of sense if we vacate 5 foot of that easement to our .22 or sixty feet or whatever it is. We don't have much left. They said would you be interested in purchasing our lot, but we can't do much with it. They approached us to see if the Parks Department was interested in purchasing their lot which is approximately the same size as ours. Did they quote you a price, Nancy? Dugwyler: They were supposed to quote a price tonight. Driver: Dale, does this .22 acres adjoin something else or how did we end up with less than a quarter of an acre? Clark: On the back side of it is Lifestyles. There is some open land there we were hoping to provide them with some access to it as well as the people who live in the Horseshoe Subdivision. Driver: Let's table this. Waite Yes, I think it would be best if we table it. We have to hear a more concrete proposal from the person as to alternatives. If there is no objections we will put that on the table. If you're in contact with them again Nancy, try to get them here for the next meeting. Dugwyler: They assured me they would be here tonight. Waite: We are certainly more than willing to discuss it, but we have to have more facts. Okay, we are down to the Girl's Softball Complex. IV. REPORT BY FACILITIES COMMITTEE ON MEETING HELD MAY 29, 1996 CONCERNING THE GIRLS SOFTBALL COMPLEX DISCUSSION: Waite: Let me put this in perspective. We've distributed some stuff to you. Let me try to summarize where we stand; we went over this a 4 / June 3, 1996 • couple of days this week. Usually when we estimate field costs we do it like we did Lake Fayetteville North or a Walker Park or something...we put in an additional field for $100,000 to $150,000 or sometimes a little less than that depending on size. But when you go in like that you already have restroom facilities, concession facilities, and parking facilities. We're breaking into a new area here and starting from scratch. Before we can get the first playable field here we have to have those support facilities in which means that even if we phase four fields and we build the first one it's going to be roughly 3/4 of the total cost of the project because you have to put in the concession stand, restrooms, parking lot, driveways, and etc. Here's where the bids came in. For the total project the low bid came in right at 1 million dollars. Now after going through a lot of details up here and doing some deductions such as phasing in fields and whatnot, we can negotiate some changes and get this down to about $793,000. That would get all of those facilities plus two unlighted fields with some of the work being done towards the next two fields later. The bulk of the cost just gets you two fields. By the time you put in a parking lot, widen the street (which is a burden upon us), add restrooms, and things like that we're looking at quite a bit of money. You can get this out of the handouts given to you [see inserts next 2 pages...Waite Presentation]. What we had budgeted is the $280,000 A&P, $200,000 HMR, $50,000 Greenspace. If you could actually phase the fields, build two and build the next two, you can't do that. That's what we were planning to do, but we have to put in all of the other stuff first. We can't get two fields for that amount of money. Nancy, Dale, and I took a look and asked ourselves if we could do some rebudgeting and come up with this so that we could put in at least two fields for $793,000. This is where it gets tough. It can be done to get to that $263,000. This is what will need to happen if we try to do it this year. If we're going to do it we need to start cutting dirt by July 1. We will postpone the 5 / June 3, 1996 • Waite Presentation GIRLS SOFTBALL COMPLEX Low Bid $ 1,017,000 — Deductive Alternates $ 204,100 — Negotiated Changes $ 91,044 + Contingency $ 35,330 + Fees $ 36,000 Total Cost of Project $ 793,186 ************************** BUDGET A & P Funds $ 280,000 19961-1MR $ 200,000 Greenspace $ 50,000 Negotiated Bid — Budget Shortfall $ 530,000 $ 793,186 $ 530,000 $ 263,186 6 / June 3, 1996 • Waite Presentation • • Projects that would be deferred until 1997 Wilson Park Service Drive Youth Center Drive/Pking Walker Park Parking Lot Park Signs Park Surveys/Fencing Hotz Park Improvements Babe Ruth Survey/Concept Gregory Park Improvements Sports Park Development Wilson Park Castle Renovation $ 18,000 $ 29,000 $ 20,000 $ 35,400 $ 30,000 $ 15,000 $ 35,000 $ 6,000 $ 45,000 $ 30,000 $ 263,400 CIP CIP CIP CIP HMR HMR HMR HMR CIP HMR *a*a******ar***a*arras*** Options #1 - Defer (10) 1996 projects until 1997 $ 263,400 - Build 2 fields and support facilities; no field lighting $ 793,186 - Build remainder of project in 1997 with 1997 HMR funds $ 487,000 #2 - Phase Project 1996 - Phase #1 Street Improvements, parking lot, rough grading (under $500,000) 1997 - Phase #2 Build all 4 fields - complete 1998 - Phase #3 Field lighting 7 / June 3, 1996 • Driver: Waite: Wilson Park service drive, Youth Center drive, Walker Park parking lot, signs, park surveys, Hotz Park, Babe Ruth Park surveys, Gregory Park improvements, and when we really get down into it, the Sports Park development... Where was that money allocated? Sports park? What exactly was that going to be used for? It's the Lake Fayetteville trail money. It's what we had tentatively, but we haven't voted to do it. We'd also have to postpone the Wilson Park Castle Renovation. Now it puts us in a bind...the two new grade schools are also ready for matching funds for playgrounds there (Vandergriff and Holcomb), and it would be difficult to meet. We took a look at it today...to put ourselves in that much of a financial bind with no flexibility may not be such a good idea, and we had some reservations about whether or not we might not be able to go out for rebid and perhaps do a little better than we have. When we take a look at a couple of alternatives here, the first one accomplishes two playable fields by the end of the summer for $793,000. It defers ten 1996 projects until 1997 and completes the ballfields in 1997. The other alternative, neither one of them are totally desirable, but the other alternative is one of which I lean towards a little, is to say that we're not going to get two playable fields this year. But yet we would like to spread the expense over two years. What we would like to do is come in and start with the improvements. We would start with the parking lot and street widening that runs close to $200,000. We could do the rough grading for the entire site for under $500,000. That would not give us playable fields, but in Phase 2 next year, we could put in all four fields without lighting, and in Phase 3 we could light the four fields Depending on how the budget for next year goes we 8 / June 3, 1996 might be able to do Phases 2 and 3 together. It depends upon the priorities for the money. We'd be spending a lot of money this year, and we wouldn't be getting playable fields. We've been talking about a number of things from the low bidder (SSI). They're wanting to do things like come in and cut a foot down from the grade that was already existing. If you've been out there its a swamp. I think we compromise the quality of the facility. It is our recommendation, but this is open to the Board and we've got everyone here including the architects to answer questions. Mackey: I'm really intrigued by this proposal. As long as it contains all of the ground work, I'm talking about the infrastructure, all the clay there for proper drainage for all four fields, and water, sewer, gas, and electricity underground to the point they would need to be when we get to the buildings and the fields themselves. We have to include that. Green: We did not figure surfaces because we're not paving anything other than the parking lot. Everything else is pretty much rough and accessible, so I see no reason to run an electrical service because we don't have anything to service. Waite: I don't think we'd do that until we do the final grading next spring. Mackey: We would just have to dig up what we've laid down and prepared. If we bring in a new grade of clay... Waite: Would clay be put in under this first proposal? Clark: In the first phase of doing it I don't think we have clearly identified the extent in which we could go. Sturman has asked a question, can we go this far? I don't think they've had an opportunity to look at that and we haven't directed them to look at it yet. Waite: We just met this afternoon. Basically the costs of doing things right away and 9 / June 3, 1996 Green: Mackey. Green: Mackey: Waite: Mackey: Waite: McCutcheon: Waite: McCutcheon: Driver: being built this fall will run close to $200,000. What we would like to do is grade the site sufficiently so that we could save time next year. Rough grade and bring up to level this summer. There would be quite a bit of landscaping and tree planting around the parking lot, along the street, and the sidewalk would have to be constructed. Maybe we could take a look at it. One of the big expenses of course is bringing electricity to the site in adequate amps to service four softball fields. That's a lot of electrical work to be installed. That's a big box. Can we get that in there along with the grade? We can get the six foot conduit. They will run the wire to the transformer which is near the concession area. We could get that conduit in there. I hope so...get all we can within our present budget that we're looking at here. I think that's about the best way we can go. It's about the only way we can preserve the grading through there. The unfortunate thing is that it doesn't give us playable fields until probably late next summer. It will also let it settle for one year. It will let it settle and give us a better foundation. The foundation is going to be fairly important. Our prior experience at Lake Fayetteville and Walker Park is that initially they were mud holes in the early stages until they were built up over the years. We're trying to do it here. If we save money and cut a foot off of elevation...I have real reservations of how desirable the facility may be. Are we confident we have the funds for Phase 2 and Phase 3 in 1997 and 1998? We will still have to do some rebudgeting. So we will be eliminating other things? They haven't made a proposal yet for HMR funds for 1997. 10 / June 3, 1996 Dugwyler: In our tentative five year budget we did have $450,000 in there next year to complete the girl's softball field. That is tentatively budgeted for that amount for next year. Waite: We may be $100,000 short over the two year period or we may not be. If we spend the amount we've already budgeted for next year we come pretty close to the original estimate. By phasing the project, we will have to go out for re- bids. We can't adjust the bid we have because it's too far out. We have to bid by phase. James: Bill, that is saying that they are going to put the base in during this grading phase? We want this one foot of clay base? Is that correct? Green: Yes. Putting that foot of base under the infield where we need it would really get a better grass structure. We can define that and re-bid. James: I would not have a problem with this Phase 1 if it did include that base in there as opposed to just scraping the ground and moving some dirt around and letting it sit for a year. Waite: What we would like to do is as much as possible that would not have to be redone next year. The intent is the fields will be up to the original design with subservice. There would be no cutting down elevation which would be risky in that area. James: No one can really predict the future, but it would seem to me that if we did phase the lighting into a Phase 3 that we should have the money there next year to get those four fields in without the lights and there may be enough money to do both. Waite: I think there will be more than enough money to do both. James: I agree with that. Waite: We'll have to see how the money goes. There's always the possibility of what they may run into once they open up the surface. It shouldn't be too bad in that 11 / June 3, 1996 • • • James: Waite: Driver: Waite: James: Waite: Mackey: Waite: Mackey: Waite: Mackey: Waite: area, but there is always that uncertainty. There's a reason for not going with Option 1. If we go with that I don't know what we'd do if we ran into a problem I don't either. There's nothing there to do, so Phase 1 would not have to be rebid? It would have to be rebid. But it wouldn't defer the other projects? No. These will all stand as they are. The only disadvantage of this is that by putting in a full facilities is impossible to split the money in half and build two fields because the facilities — the street widening, the parking lot, the concession stand, the restrooms — are over half the cost of a four field complex. The fields are less than half the cost, and we have to have them all in before we start playing. We're talking about the sidewalks we would have to put in? That would be street improvements, and the screening you are talking about are the trees that will be planted on the perimeter? Along the sidewalk and the parking lot. On Phase 1 I want it to include the clay work, but I'd like to see at least two french drains per field at least as a deductive alternate. That's really helped some of our other fields particularly Legion Field to get rid of some of that quick run off. The difficulty with that Sturman by talking with the other engineers is that we're barely above the swamp down there. After grading we're going to build it up with clay? Rather than taking it underground I think the plan is to try to get the sheet flow on the surface. That would be the best thing. Just as long as it includes the clay work. It depends on how it breaks down best to put out the bids. The clay will not be taken out in other words. 12 / June 3, 1996 • • • Clark. Albert and Delvin are here if you have any questions. Waite: Albert, have I covered everything? Green: Yes, sir. The landscaping was considerable cost. Getting the trees in this year would be a big help. Waite: If we go with this phase the main thing is to make sure we don't have to duplicate anything. What we do this year we want to be sure will not have to be redone next spring when we start putting in the fields. Richard: I'm not in favor of deferring any of these projects until 1997. I think we have equal priority to the girl's softball complex. I think this is a reasonable compromise. Waite: They're lower money but as far as the number of people they impact it's pretty substantial. That's where we get into a bind. Deferring all of those nine or ten projects to have the softball complex would affect a lot of people to which we have commitments. Richard: Deferring some of these maintenance projects could lead to greater costs later on down the road. Waite: The other thing would be Sturman's fear of if we try to shoe horn it in we might compromise the quality of the site by going too low initially. It's not the most attractive solution, but that's what we are recommending. Clark: The staff recommends that we phase this in with the first phase being earthwork, although the funds are there to do it, we hate to put off projects that we've already said we would do. We also have concerns about quantity of the dirt work and everything that we have been quoted prices on to this point. I'm not real comfortable with those. We only got one bid on the lights. There's some squabble between light companies. There is just a number of things that make me want to say let's do it this way because we have some commitments to the rest of the people. We have a commitment to the girl's softball 13 / June 3, 1996 Waite: Clark: Waite: Clark: Dugwyler: Waite: Green: Driver: Dugwyler: Clark: Driver: Green: Driver: Waite: complex, but we also have other commitments. This way I think we can begin to honor all of those commitments. I feel comfortable in suggesting that we proceed in this direction. I think we will get more competitive bids like this because it doesn't span as many areas at one time. I don't think stepping back a year will cost us any more. I think we will do the same or better than the overall estimate. I really wish there was some way to expedite it because we are at the time of year for construction. Construction would be ideal over the next couple of months. If we go this route when does it look like we could get bids out? I think the engineers have a couple of weeks to work and then you have to have two or three weeks to advertise, then it's the time it takes to get the bids in, and to give the City Council the agenda. You're looking at the first of August. You'd be lucky if you could get it in by the 15th of July wouldn't you Nancy? Closer to the first of August. Does that give time to do the parking lot and the street? Obviously fall is the time to plant the trees. I don't think anyone can predict the weather. How closely are the actual HMR collections reflecting the projections? They are real close to last year. There is a slight increase. Susan, I think they are very close to what they have been projected. They may be up 2 to 3 percentage points above projection. It's close. How long would you project Phase 1 to take from beginning to end? I'd say four months for the parking lot. It almost appears to me that there will be continuous progress anyway. It will be very close. It will be shut down during the four cold months and ready to begin the other construction 14 / June 3, 1996 • • • Ackerman: Waite: James: Driver: James: Driver: James: Driver: Clark. Waite: Green: Ackerman: roughly in May. So you would be shutting down in November -December and starting up in May. You don't do work on a site like that in winter anyway. But this first phase will help us stay within our budget parameters of which we're already committed to for the year will it not? Not realizing that it was going to be an overrun we would have had to do something differently anyway. It's really not that much of an overrun of the total amount that was budgeted for this as much as it is the way it's put together. The total amount we had this year and next year is very close to the total amount of the project, but the idea was to get two playable fields and it turned out that almost a 50/50 split just won't do that. We have to go out and waive other projects for $250K it just stripped everything out this year. It seems to me that if we do it like this and we go into Phase 2 almost after the completion of Phase 1 or as soon as they could after the completion of Phase 1, we're still spending monies that are budgeted and projected that we don't have in our pocket. Because of the time period that this Phase 2 would come in would be early in 197 and we'd be just beginning to collect our monies. You'd have five months of HMR revenue for 197 by May. Wouldn't this come in before May? Phase 2? Phase 2. They were saying that they would probably begin Phase 2 in May. I don't think you could do it in winter months. I don't think there is any way. Albert, what would be a good starting time on Phase 2? This year was wet up until April. May is probably as early as they could start. You don't want to tear up what they've started. How much time do we need then to allocate for Phase 2 completion? 15 / June 3, 1996 • • • DISCUSSION: Green: James: Waite: James: Waite: Driver: Six months. We wouldn't be playing on those fields next year? It would be 198 at the earliest? We'd complete them next year, but as far as getting grass on them and getting them real playable it would be late fall. This seems a better way to go than after our meeting the other afternoon. My head was swimming I think with all the deletions we had made and all the monies we were trying to move around. I thought about it all weekend, and the more I thought the less I liked what we were trying to do. One thought I had was let's postpone the entire thing for awhile. I can see that this is a better alternative than that. So I would vote for this phase. I think it would work better and cost less if we spread across a full year instead of trying to get the whole thing in in four months. Do you want to make that a motion? MOTION: JAMES/McCUTCHEON The PRAB accepts staff recommendation to phase the construction of the girls softball complex. MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY 7 - 0. [See Page # for amendment of motion.] James: Nation: Waite: How much rework do we have to do to get ready for Phase 1 as far as writing specs and getting it ready? Do you need the two weeks to do that? Two weeks. They've (the architects) got most of the drawings. It's lust a case of paring down the ones they need and being a little more careful on the amount of dirt needed. V. LAKE FAYETTEVILLE SOUTH TRAIL PROGRESS REPORT 16 / June 3, 1996 • • • DISCUSSION: Dugwyler: Waite: Dugwyler: Waite: Dugwyler: Waite: Dugwyler: Ackerman: Dugwyler: Clark: Ackerman: I have enclosed with your agenda two pieces of correspondence. One is from the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission dated last year but still very relevant. I talked to Mr. Ezelle just last week. The second one is from Tim Ernst and he did sort of a survey of the trail route and these are his ideas. In Mr. Ezelle's letter you can see that he recommends that the minimum height of the bridge over the spillway would be 1259.00'; the old spillway is 1248.00'. So we're talking about 11 feet off the surface of the water which is quite a lot. That is even with the top of the dam? Yes. The minimum spacing for columns would be 20 feet. He really said 30 feet would be better. What's the span across? 188 feet is what he had. His major concern was flood which we have periodically. Logs and debris would pile up on the bridge support. If we do a bridge with columns we would have to install a log boom to intercept logs coming down. After we talked he said it would probably be better if we did an arched bridge that would span that whole area. That way we wouldn't have to worry about logs or any of that. Where we are on this now, you can see that this is a little more involved than what we first talked about. We talked about maybe building it inhouse or some local volunteers. Dale and I have talked about it, and I think that if the Board approves that we think it is time to go out for engineering services. You're talking about an arch of 188 feet? That's what he recommended. Has he been on site? He didn't think that 188 feet was that out of line for pedestrian only bridge. Bill, I can't answer that. I don't know if he's been on site and examined this. The reason I asked Dale, is when you come 17 / June 3, 1996 • • • Clark: Ackerman: Waite: Clark. Dugwyler: Clark: up with a 188 feet span I'd like to know where he is measuring and what point he's crossing. And if you maintain a height of the dam it's a lot further than 188 feet from the top of that dam across to the furthest south bank there. Otherwise there would have to be a lot of fill put in from the dam to the bank of the existing creek for a 188 foot span. I think we need to get some people out on site and have a better understanding exactly of what they are talking about here. Those elevations don't make much sense to me. In the history of the lake there's never been a flood stage there that was any more than a foot or two above the spillway. In the five or six years I've been involved with the project out there I've never seen the water more than a foot above its just average level and that's just for a short period of time. We have such a natural drain there, and a constant drain there, we don't have a lot of water or a flood plain or condition east of us that would create that kind of a flood situation. I agree with Bill. The highest I've seen it is probably two feet. The top of the dam would be some eight to ten feet above that level. It's overkill in my opinion to consider building a bridge that is the same elevation as the top of the dam. What's the procedure here, Dale? If we come up with an engineering plan do we submit it to these people for approval or who approves that? I think the people who manage and control these dams are the people who need to come on site because they have a lot of concern of even letting trees grow on the dam. So they have some concerns about what is permissible and what is not. I think those are the ones who need to tell us, and I'm not sure if it's these people... That's these people. That's these people. I think they need to 18 / June 3, 1996 uor • • • come and visit with staff and maybe our City Engineers and us on site and ask the kind of questions that need to be answered. Waite: I think we need some engineering services there because we need to get some estimates because we're spanning a wide range of costs. Ackerman: I think before we do an engineering study let's get the state's people up here to visit with us and our engineers and determine a game plan and what the parameters are here so we will all know exactly what regulations we are dealing with so we can design something that will work. Waite: We'd like to know precisely who we are going to be submitting the plan to so we can deal directly with them beforehand. Ackerman: I think we can contact the state engineers office in Little Rock, and I think these people probably coordinate these types of activities where it deals with soils and dams in the state. I would suggest that we get the names of the parties involved, maybe have the staff call down there, and try to coordinate a time when someone from their organization can come up and meet with us when time is permissible, and maybe coordinate it with our City's engineers office, the staff, and any board members who would like to meet with those parties. Can we get the players to the table, Dale? Clark: We certainly can try. I think we have an obligation to do this...early this week. Ackerman: That's the main concern and the major construction phase it looks like, however, we do need to deal with some minor crossings on the east end. Waite: It would be nice to do them all at once if we could get this one settled. Ackerman: I think we could probably go ahead and make further advances on the eastern edge of the trail program and not wait on this one. Let's see if we can't press forward with the completion of eastern section. Waite: Are we at a position to go to an 19 / June 3, 1996 • • • Dugwyler: Waite: Driver: Clark: Driver: Clark: Dugwyler: Driver: Waite: Clark: Waite: Ackerman: Waite: Ackerman: engineering plan for the eastern section? We just need to look at all the engineering firms, get together a selection committee, select a firm, and go from there. Do we need a motion on that? Could those minor bridges not be done with volunteer work? You would need to ask them what we need to do to comply. Both of the suggestions on the two eastern bridges that Tim Ernst offers talks about telephone poles and decking and something of that nature which shouldn't require all the expense of engineering. The people may not allow us to do that because of the flood way. I believe Tim was addressing the bridges across the gulleys on the south trail. There's one here about Clear Creek at Hwy. 265. Is Clear Creek the largest crossing on the east end? Yes. I think if we can get a reading from those people early it would certainly be an advantage to separate the bridging on the eastern side from the bridging off the spill way. We wouldn't lump them together as I was initially saying. There's no reason once we meet with the people and find out what we have to do on the eastern side we should be able to start engineering and perhaps construction this summer. Hopefully. That would give us a possibility. We wouldn't be able to loop back to the original point, but the trail would be open effectively from Lake Fayetteville South around to the boat dock. We could go all the way to the dam once we got there. Then there would be some usage of it being there? I think even though the full loop is not completed folks many times are willing to go 2/3 of the way and come back if 20 / June 3, 1996 1 • • • necessary. That's a start. I'd like to see some kind of committee put together to evaluate what our bridge needs might be on the east end and know where we want to cross and evaluate the problem that we are dealing with. It may be quite possible to get that construction work started without a whole lot of additional engineering needs. Dale, I'm surmising, but I don't see it as being a major undertaking personally on the east end. Waite: Johnny you probably have as much or more experience as anyone. James: I don't know if it's a major feat, Bill, but I'm wondering if this isn't where we need to hire an engineer and tell us where to cross at Hwy. 265 instead of taking a layman's view back to an engineer. A professional could tell us the best and cheapest way to do it. Ackerman: Would our city engineer be qualified to help us? I'd like to see that done in lieu of spending money for engineer services. James: Then we'd have a concrete opinion to give to the state people. Waite: Do you want to organize a meeting out there? James: On June 12? We were going to Lake Sequoyah that night. Do we have time for both? Ackerman: Let's try to do this prior to Lake Sequoyah. Then we can report back to the group. JAMES/ACKERMAN/DRIVER/WAITE/CLARK ARRANGE TO ACCOMPANY THE CITY ENGINEER TO LAKE FAYETTEVILLE ON JUNE 12. Clark: Bill, I wasn't real fast on the first phasing of the softball complex. We want to recommend rejecting the bid that came and to re -bid in phases. AMENDMENT MOTION: JAMES/MCCUTCHEON The PRAB rejects bid and accepts phasing Option 2 and expects in two weeks to have the rework for re -bids for 21 / June 3, 1996 • DISCUSSION: • YA. phasing the girls softball complex. Ackerman: Clark: Ackerman: Clark: Ackerman: Clark. Waite: Clark: Dale, can you give us an update on the clearing process that's been going on or that is in the process at this time ? We were dust going to follow the tree line along the open areas of the trail up to the set of trees in the middle of the property on Hwy. 265. Wade Caldwell consulted with Hal Brown of the Environmental Center and told us to stay as close to the perimeter of those trees as possible along Hwy. 265. Wade is marking the area we are supposed to mow. Is that still practical and feasible? Yes So that is ongoing and in progress? Yes. We have a new staff member. John Nelson is working in the Parks office. OTHER BUSINESS Kim Orzek is assigned to track expenditures and income of green space. She will do a monthly report and compare it to City Administration. [See Orzek Presentation on following page]. Ackerman: Dale, do you have any plans in the northeast quadrant for constructing restroom facilities at Lake Sequoyah? Clark: We do not. Ackerman: That facility needs public restrooms desperately. I'd like to see us at some point this year plan developing restroom facilities at that complex. I'd like to see this get on the front burner. Clark: Lake Sequoyah may be an area where we might want to experiment with a unisex restroom. We need to consider options which wouldn't deplete our budget because restroom facilities are expensive. I think I can get information for the Board on that. 22 / June 3, 1996 • Orzek Presenta tion APRIL -1996 GREEN SPACE REPORT NORTHEAST PARK DISTRICT BALANCE YR TO 8E SPENT • $1,069.99 522,324.47 539,677.63 $6,839.22 5623.50 $70,534.81 $907.62 $48,143.00 57,359.00 $13,250.00 1995 (amt is encumbered) 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total 1995 - 1999 -Approved Expenditures: LFS Pavilion(design & engr.) $5,500 orig. LFS Pavilion canstrucuon LFN addtl. boat stalls LF & Sequoyah RR $875.19 Total Unencumbered 1995-1999 NORTHWEST PARK DISTRICT BALANCE $55,894.72 546,481.94 $53,496.16 54,277.60 $160,150.42 311,000.00 $106,781.00 51,040.00 550,000.00 YR TO 8E SPENT 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total 1996 -1999 - Approved Expenditures: Davis Park Playground Lewis Soccer RR/Conc.?? Lewis Soccer Junipers Girls Softball Complex ($8,670.58) Total Unencumbered 1996-1999 SOUTHEAST PARK DISTRICT BALANCE YR TO BE SPENT $10,779.60 520,166.05 $58,005.06 54,202.11 1996 1997 1998 1999 593,152.82 Total 1996 - 1999 - Approved Expenditures: $18,000.00 Jefferson playground equipment $2,000.00 Happy Hollow picnic tables 325,000.00 Sr. Citizens Complex 548,152.82 Total Unencumbered 1996-1999 SOUTHWEST PARK DISTRICT BALANCE YR TO BE SPENT $0.00 50.00 $960.16 $7,025.60 1996 1997 1998 1999 $7,985.76 Total Unencumbered 1996-1999 23 / June 3, 1996 • • • • Driver: Clark. Driver: Clark: Driver: Clark: Driver: Clark. Orzek: Mackey: Clark: You mentioned earlier that both new elementary schools are ready to put in playground equipment and it has been tradition to match those funds. Do we have any funding allocated for that? No, but at some point we did approve it in our green space budget. I don't remember when or at what meeting we committed those funds. We eliminated most of our green space funds, but we have to come up with the money to do it. It's a must within a short period of time. I don't remember taking a vote that said we were committing a promise of green space funds. Try to find the record of that in our meeting so we will know how much we have promised. Do you have a proposal where that funding might come from? In my mind I do. I think I would need to sit down with staff and see what we come up with. Are those schools coming forward to the Parks Board with proposals? Yes. In fact, PTOs have raised their monies. It's time to do something. We're asking for a meeting with school officials. Again, I would like to see if it's on the records that we have committed that promise because both schools have received ample parks money. To expect that the playgrounds be funded from the limited funding that Parks has — there might need to be a reasonable time table with all the other projects. I'd like -6o see a proposal of where that money would come from and to what extent we have already committed. Staff may know where to locate the record. I'll look for it and send it to you as well as put it on the agenda for the next meeting. Do we have written lease agreements that meet the muster of our City Attorney? Those have to be developed. 24 / June 3, 1996 Mackey: Waite: Clark. Mackey: Orzek: Ackerman: Clark: Ackerman: Clark. James: Clark: Driver: Dugwyler: Clark: Driver: Ackerman: I say that should be done before we obligate any funds to any school. We do have lease agreements that are due to run out next year don't we? I think with most of the school sites it's been 20-25 years since leases have been executed. They are due to expire within 1-2 years. I'm talking about Holcomb and Vandergriff. I don't think we have any lease agreements with them. The Facilities Committee brought that up, and they are going to meet with Fred Turrentine. How are we progressing with equipment we've agreed to purchase for the satellite centers at the two new schools? We've been detained getting funding released. We have specs prepared but not in bidder's hands. Are those facilities being used daily? We have a staff at Holcomb and School Kid's Connection at Vandergriff in the afternoons. We haven't done a good job of promoting, but there is some usage by the general public. They are being used at the present time. We are providing cleaning of the gyms, but we need to move forward with the purchasing of the equipment. If the money hasn't been released how is it being paid now? It's coming from the Youth Center. HMR is the portion being delayed. I have a question about beginning work on our proposed budget for 1997, not just CIP but HMR as well. I'll get with the Facilities Committee as soon as I get the proposed CIP budget. CIP is due sometime in July. We need to have the first proposal on CIP then. We need to have a budget committee meeting as soon as you are ready. I have one item which might be of interest. The Fayetteville Jaycees adopted Charles J. Finger Park about four years ago and go out there and clean. They officially go three times per year. 25 / June 3, 1996 They have scheduled another work day on June 15. I think the civic organization should be commended on the work they've done, and I encourage any other civic organization to volunteer. Amanda Johnson coordinates the Jaycees, and they're doing a fine job and we appreciate that. The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 pm. Minutes Approved: 7-/-94 Minutes Taken by: 1/) 72447.2 John Nelson 26 / June 3, 1996 2Asse 11 Pc V fl0.A-i o /1 /7 6704dr th 3)/96 GtehAio 6'8 ft LAM- Tama - 67(8 r ,- • PRAB SPECIAL MEETING - CRYSTAL SPRINGS SOFTBALL FIELDS JUNE 3, 1996 The meeting was called to order at 12:00 noon. PRAB Members Present: Waite Staff Present: Clark, Dugwyler, Nelson Guests Present: James Trimble, Albert Green with Perry L. Butcher & Associates, Architects Butch Green, Spectrum Engineer Tim Harrell, SSI, Inc. Media Present: None. - Attachments from Albert Green and Tim Harrell - ****************************************************************************** Albert Green presented revised proposals for the Crystal Springs Softball Fields including bids for the total project and deductive alternates. Tim Harrell of SSI suggested lowering the grade of dirt work by cutting and moving present soil around without hauling in fill dirt. Harrell: Possibility of shifting grades by shuffling some of the dirt already there. You can save $40,000 on the first set of fields, and save $87,000 on the second set. You will not be hauling in a bunch of dirt, and you will save by lowering standards somewhat. Butch Green: Lowering the grade is really not an option because of sewer manholes and overall drainage. I think we will run into some very severe drainage problems. A question was raised by Dale Clark about the possibily of french draining, but Butch Green replied that there were no place on the field to go with them Trimble: I have a question about the undercutting. Does this mean the $848K figure is likely to be considerably more? Harrell: We won't really know that until we get out there and see how the soil is. After this discussion, Dale Clark made the suggestion of dropping this bid and re -bidding the project in phases such as parking lot construction and rough grading to be completed in Phase 1, construct buildings and fields without lighting in Phase 2, and install lighting in Phase 3 and do this over a period of time. Bill Waite wants something to be completed this year if the project is phased out. • Albert Green and James Trimble said they would work on the phases and present estimates for the phases on the project. • • • • CRYSTAL SPRINGS SOFTBALL FIELDS FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PLBA lob #: 95135 Date: June 3, 1996 2 BALLFIELD PROPOSAL TWO BALLFIELDS, CONDUIT AND POLE BASES FOR SPORTS LIGHTING FOR TWO BALLFIELDS, CONCESSIONS/TOILETS BLDG., PARKING LOT, STREET IMPROVEMENTS BID FOR TOTAL PROJECT $1,017,000.00 1. DEDUCTIVE ALTERNATE NO. 1 - DELETE SPORTS -74,000.00 LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR BALLFIELDS #2 AND #4 Delete the Sports Lighting System for Ballfields #2 and #4. This will delete 4 lighting poles from each ballfield and the lighting fixtures, crossarms, ballasts, fuses, ballast and fuse boxes, and wiring and fittings on those lighting poles, as well as the lighting fixtures from the common poles closest to home plate for the two fields. For the three common poles for Ballfields #2 and #4 the crossarms, ballasts, fuses, ballast and fuse boxes and wiring and fittings for the lighting for the two fields shall be provided in the base bid. Conduit shall be provided in the base bid under all paved areas as necessary for the future wiring of the Sports Lighting of Ballfields # 2 and #4, so that no paving will have to be removed repaired or replaced to light the two ballfields. 2. DEDUCTIVE ALTERNATE NO. 2 - DELETE FENCING PORTIONS OF DUGOUTS, SCOREKEEPERS HUT AND BLEACHERS FOR BALLFIELDS #2 AND #4 Delete the Chain Link Fencing around entire perimeter and Gates around ballfields #2 and #4 and provide a 60' section of chain link fencing with a pair of 16' wide gates at the south east comer of Ballfield #3; the Concrete Masonry Unit Walls and Steel Support columns and Concrete Roof for the Dugouts; the Scorekeeper Hut, and the Bleachers for Ballfields #2 and #4. All concrete and asphalt paving between all ballfields shall be included in the base bid. The concrete slabs for the Dugouts, the Scorekeepers Huts and the Bleachers shall be included in the base bid. All four freestanding water fountains and water piping shall be included in the base bid. Conduits for the Electrical and Audio Systems and Conduits for the Scorekeepers Huts shall be in the base bid. The concrete catch basin and piping for Bailfield #2 shall be included in the base bid. Page 1.of 4 -60,000.00 • 3. DEDUCTIVE ALTERNATE NO. 3 - DELETE PORTIONS -10,100.00 OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR BALLFIELDS #2 AND #4 Delete the Sprinkling System piping and sprinkler heads from Ballfields #2 and #4. The Control and Manifold System and necessary wiring from the Concessions Building to the Sprinkler System Header location and the header taps for future installation of the irrigation system for Ballfields #2 and #4 shall be provided in the base bid 4. DEDUCTIVE ALTERNATE NO.4 - DELETE THE -60,000.00 GRADING AND FILL DIRT FOR BALLFIELDS #2 AND #4 Delete the fine grading and fill dirt necessary to grade ballfields #2 and #4, but provide grading in the base bid necessary to smooth the earth to its natural contours in the areas contained within the fenced area of ballfields #2 and #4, unpaved areas between ballfields #2 and #4, and the unpaved areas between ballfield #2 and the parking lot. Also provide the necessary grading and fill dirt to blend the paved and fine graded areas with areas with are left to\ conform to the natural grade of the site. • Total all Deductive Altemates Project cost taking all Alternates. • Page 2of4 -204,100.00 • -204.100.00 $812,900.00 • • • CRYSTAL SPRINGS SOFTBALL FIELDS FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PLBA job #: 95135 Date. June 3, 1996 2 BALLFIELD PROPOSAL NEGOTIATED CHANGES Delete lighting Ballfields #1 and #3. Delete 800 amp disconnect. Change parking lot lighting poles. Delete pond water pumping system. Change grease trap from cast iron to concrete. Change to window unit type A/C. Total negotiated changes. Project Cost with Deductive Alternates and Negotiated Changes. Contingency Fees Printing Bid Documents• Total Cost of Project Potential savings of $40 742.00 in earthwork. Pagel of 4 -72,000.00 -2,100.00 -2,000.00 -3,900.00 -544.00 -10,500.00 -91,044.00 • -91.044.00 721,856.00 35,330.00 35,000.00 1.000.00 $793 186.00 • • • CRYSTAL SPRINGS SOFTBALL FIELDS FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PLBA job #: 95135 Date'. June 3, 1996 2 BALLFIELD PROPOSAL The following is a summary of what would be built after taking Deductive Alternates #1, #2, #3, and #4, and other negotiated deductions as per list. 1. Street work - 685 feet of curb and gutter and widening street 3 feet. Concrete walk along street, 4 feet wide by 690 feet long. Concrete culverts and end walls for access drive and for walk out to curb at South end of sidewalk. Paved parking lot, lighting for lot concrete walkways from parking into central area around Concession/Toilet Building area. Asphalt paving between the ballfields from the Concessions/Toilet Building out to the dugouts. The 4 remote drinking fountains. 4. The 4 dugouts, the 4 bleachers with concrete slabs under them, the 2 scorekeeper huts for Ballfields #1 and #3. the 4 concrete slabs for the dugouts, the 4 concrete slabs for the bleachers, and the 2 slabs under the scorekeepers huts for Ballfields #2 and #4. 5. The fencing, the earthwork and grading, the grass, the scoreboards, the foundations and conduit for lighting and light poles for Ballfield #1 and #3, and the sprinkler systems for Ballfield #1 and #3 with a water line from the City water main to an irrigation distribution box and headers set up and controls for future irrigation of Ballfield #2 and #4. 6. The landscaping as planned with provision for screening the parking lot, screening of R-1 zoned property at the Northeast comer of project, and tree planting around the parking lot and along Salem Road. PERRY L. BUTCHER & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS Page 4of4 • CRYSTAL SPRINGS SOFTBALL FIELDS FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS • • PLBA job #: 95135 Date: June 3, 1996 4 BALLFIELD PROPOSAL 81D FOR TOTAL PROJECT $1,017,000.00 DEDUCTIVE ALTERNATE NO. 1 -74,000.00 NEGOTIATED CHANGES: Delete lighting Ballfields #1 and #3. -63,000.00 Delete 800 amp disconnect. -2,100.00 Change parking lot lighting poles. -2,000.00 Delete pond water pumping system. -3,900.00 Change grease trap from cast iron to concrete. -544.00 < Change to window unit type A/C. -10,500.00 Delete sprinkler heads 4 fields. -12,000.00 Total deductive alternate and negotiated changes. -168,044.00 -168.044.00 Project Cost with Deductive Altemates and 848,956.00 Negotiated Changes. • Contingency 35,330.00 Fees 35,000.00 Printing Bid Documents 1.000.00 Total Cost of Project $920,286.00 Potential savings of $87,000.00 in earthwork. Page 1 of 2 CRYSTAL SPRINGS SOFTBALL FIELDS • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS • • PLBA job #: 95135 Date: June 3, 1996 4 BALLFIELD PROPOSAL The following is a summary of what would be built after taking Deductive Alternates #1, and other negotiated deductions as per list. 1. Street work - 685 feet of curb and gutter and widening street 3 feet. Concrete walk along street, 4 feet wide by 690 feet long. Concrete culverts and end walls for access drive and for walk out to curb at South end of sidewalk. Paved parking lot, lighting for lot, concrete walkways from parking into central area around Concession/Toilet Building area. • 3. Asphalt paving between the ballfields from the Concessions/Toilet Building out to the dugouts. The 4 remote drinking fountains. The 8 dugouts, the 8 bleachers with concrete slabs under them, the 4 scorekeeper huts for Ballfields #1, #2, #3, and #4. 5. The fencing, the earthwork and grading, the grass, the scoreboards, the foundations and conduit for lighting and light poles for Ballfield #1, #2, #3, and #4, and the sprinkler systemspiping for Ballfield #1, #2, #3, and #4 with a water line from the City water main to an irrigation distribution box and headers set up and controls for future irrigation of all Ballfields when sprinkler heads are installed. 6. The landscaping as planned with provision for screening the parking lot screening of R-1 zoned property at the Northeast corner of project, and tree planting around the parking lot and along Salem Road. PERRY L. BUTCHER & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS Page 2 of 2 GENERAL CONTRACTORS June 3, 1996 • i of N.W. Arknsas' Mr. Albert Green Perry Butcher & Assoc. P.O. Box 1851 Fayetteville, AR 72701 COST SAVINGS BASE BID ALTERNATE #1 ALTERNATE #2 ALTERNATE #3 ALTERNATE #4 DELETE POLES CRYSTAL SPRINGS SOFTBALL FIELD • _ PROPOSAL #1 (TWO'OPERABLE:BALLFIELDS), & WIRING FOR #1 & #3 .DELETE 800 AMP DISCONNECT USE LITHONIA POLES FOR TYPE G:PARKING LIGHTING DELETE DELETE CHANGE CHANGE IRRIGATION PUMP WIRING IRRIGATION PUMP CAST IRON GREASE TRAP TO ,CONCRETE 1i•' • HVAC TO THROUGHGWALL HEAT•PUMPS TOTAL ,i 1,500 cy of fill is estimated to be needed if ,this. proposal is accepted. "In the event less fill 9is required,.!; you may deduct $6.50 per cy. If grading can be ;lowered on: this •proposal. by 1;2.0." plus or minus, a savings of up to $40,000.00 could bei;` realized. $1,017, ($74x. ($60 ($10°, ($60y ($72. ($ .2. ($ 2. 1'f' 00000 000 00 )• doo oO) 00.00) 000 00) t i 000.00) 100.00) 000.00) 4'0006 ) 500.00) 5`44!00),; 500.00°1 856.00 • • : Po t. 1894 WEST SUNSET P.O. BOX 824 SPRINGDALE, ARKANSAS 72765-0824 ' 501/751-3730 °1" • COST SAVINGS PROPOSAL #2 (FOUR OPERABLE BALLFIELDS) BASE BID ALTERNATE #1 - DEDUCT SPORTS LIGHTING AND POLES FOR 1 & 3 (INSTALL POLE BASES AND CONDUIT FOR FUTURE SPORTS LIGHTING) ;Page 2 I . $1,0174000.I00, • i17, H ilk ($74;000.00) ($63,000.00) DELETE 800 AMP DISCONNECT ($'24,10000) 1;J.. USE LITHONIA POLES FOR,TYPE G.PARKING LIGHTS ($ 2;000.00) DELETE IRRIGATION PUMP & WIRING ($:3;900:00) •j i: CHANGE CASE IRON GREASE TRAP.TO•CONCRETE' `' ($544:00).: ($12000:00) ($10;500:.00) $848.956A0 1 and replacing with I.' All:undercut' .• DELETE ALL SPRINKLER HEADS CHANGE HVAC TO THROUGH WALL HEAT PUMPS TOTAL For undercutting unsuitable s compacted engineered fill, e.4# material to be stockpiled on si p p 10,300 cubic yards of fill:;is„ estimated to be ;needed'' in' this proposal. In the event less fill'is "required, you''may deduct 6.50 per cy. If grading can be';lowered on this proposal by 1,'i0" plus or minus, a savings of -up to $87,000:00 could be. realized. All cost savings on dirtwork on these proposals:is conditional on soil conditions at the time of work 'and weather during the work period. If you have any questiohs,,please call me. . Sincerely, a T. othy A. Harrell VICE PRESIDENT SSI Incorporated of Northwest Arkansas TAH/nm pc/file/crystlsp.prc,c SS