Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
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