Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10111988 - S.4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Supervisor Tom Torlakson Contra Costa DATE: October 11, 1988 County SUBJECT: ALLOCATION OF PARK DEDICATION FEES, OAKLEY AREA SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMP ENDED ACTION: Direct the Community Development Department to review the recommendation of the Oakley Municipal Advisory Council to allocate monies from the park dedication trust fund as follows: ( 1 ) Allocate an additional $25 ,000 for the purpose of playground equipment for the Oakley school site. ( 2 ) Allocate $6 ,000 to retain the services of William R. Zion, Consultant, to perform a feasibility study for financing parks and providing recreational services in the Oakley area. ( 3 ) Allocate funds for the development of the O'Hara Avenue park and school as described in the project costs estimate attached. Request a report and recommendation from the Community Development staff by October 25 , 1988 . BACKGROUND INFORMATION: I have met several times with the Oakley Parks Committee, a subcommittee of GMAC, and appreciate the progress they have made in developing a quality and progressive parks plan for Oakley. Recreation facilities are greated needed in this growing community ith its large number of young families and children. I strongly support the three recommendations outlined above and urge a speedy processing of the required paperwork to allocate the funds. Please refer to the attached for additional background information. TT:gro CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON October 11, 1988 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS X_ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS /NOON" THE DATE SHOWN. CC: Community Development Director ATTESTED v/ � //. /Q,fr County Administrator Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County AdministraWf M382/7-83 BY DEPUTY LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY D. HUFFAKER JEFFREY D. HUFFAKER TELEPHONE ATTORNEY AT LAW (4151 757.0771 CHERYL L. HAMMERS 1407 "A" STREET LEGAL ASSISTANT SUITE D ANTIOCH. CALIFORNIA 94509 October 4, 1988 Dennis Franzen Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 5th Floor. Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Allocation of Park Dedication Fees Dear Dennis: Please be advised that the Oakley Municipal Advisory Council, at recent meetings, has unanimously voted to recommend that monies from the park dedication trust fund be allocated as follows: I . An additional . sum of $25, 000. 00 to be used to purchase playground equipment for the Oakley school site. As you will recall, the Oakley Municipal Advisory Council has already requested, and I believe the County has released $25, 000. 00, for the construction of playground equipment on the Geheringer Elementary school site. This request is for an additional $25, 000. 00 to complete the construction on both campuses. 2 . For the allocation of $6, 000 . 00, to retain the services of William R. Zion, Consultant, to perform a feasibility study, for financing parks and providing recreational services in the Oakley area. I enclose herein, a copy of his proposal dated September 1 , 1988 , which has been reviewed by the parks & recreation subcommittee, and approved by OMAC. It is OMAC's request that $6, 000. 00 of park dedication fees be allocated to retain Mr. Zion's services, to complete the report outlined in his letter of September 1, 1988 . It is further our recommendation that we opt to retain Mr. Zion's services, for a flat fee of $6, 000. 00, regardless of the amount of work which is necessitated in the preparation of the report. Lastly, we would wish for Mr. Zion's contract to have a completion date of January 15, 1989 , to facilitate implementing any of his recommendations on the June 1989 ballot. r 3 . OMAC has approved the release of park dedication fees, to fund the development of the O'Hara Avenue park and school, as described in the project costs estimate attached to this letter. Dennis Franzen October 4 , 1988 Page Two It is OMAC's recommendation that the release of these funds be pre-approved by the Board of Supervisors, but that the monies be retained in the park dedication fee trust account, subject to the condition that those funds would be released immediately upon receiving from the Oakley Union School District, copies of bids which have been approved to perform the work described in the project costs estimate sheet. Accordingly, please note that the project costs estimate are precisely that, estimates. We hope by following this pre-approval procedure, to facilitate the release of funds in the future. Would you be so kind as to place these matter on the Board's agenda at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation. Sincerely, JEFFREY D. HUFFAKER JDH/ak encl. cc: Tom Torlaksv Frank Hengle PROJECT COST ESTIMATE O'HARA AVENUE PARK & SCHOOL SDC, the Consultant has prepared the following cost estimate of work necessary to complete the proposed park (Phase I) and the school site (non-campus portion) improvements in accordance with the Master Plans as approved in June, 1988 . The quantities and cost estimates are for budget and discussion purposes only and are not intended to be all inclusive or complete as they will vary as construction documents are refined and completed. PARK SITE 1 . GRADING AND SOIL PREPARATION $ 26, 400. 00 a. Finish grading for park site plus the incorporation of soil ammendments and fine grading for planting purposes 2 . DRAINAGE $ 0 a. Installed by state except for small parking lot - included with parking lot estimate 3 . PARKING LOT AND ENTRY DRIVE $ 10, 000. 00 a. Small AC parking area with concrete curbs and 4 ' walk by building for six vehicles b. Catch basin and drain pipe to storm system c. Parking lot striping 4 . IRRIGATION $ 26, 400. 00 a. Automatic irrigation system installed to cover all field and planting areas including future tennis court areas. 5. TURFGRASS $ 13, 000. 00 a. Hydroseeded turfgrass in all areas indicated plus future tennis court, installed on prepared base, including 60 day maintenance 6. LANDSCAPE PLANTING ($ 14 , 000 . 00) a. Groundcovers, trees, and Additive Alternate shrubs planted, including 60 day maintenance 1 7 . HARD SURFACE WALKS $ 14,750. 00 a. 10' wide concrete service vehicle access b. 8' wide concrete primary walks accesible to emergency/maintenance vehicles c. 6' wide concrete pedestrian walks 8 . PARK BUILDING $ 0 a. Building needs work, level of development not resolved until possible uses are defined. Building 2 story about 2600 sq. ft. prox. gross, Nominal allowance should be provided for minor improvement or repair - NOT INCLUDED IN THIS ESTIMATE 9 . FENCING $ 12, 900. 00 a. Chainlink (61 ) along Cypress w/ vinyl coating b. Chainlink (4211) along parking lots and O'Hara Avenue + 30' sliding gate - w/vinyl coating 10 . LIGHTING $ 1, 050.00 a. Conduits installed for future security lightoliers (6) to service panel area, under concrete walks when possible 11 . PLAY AREAS (YOUTH & CHILD) ($ 7 , 400. 00) a. Concrete perimeter curbing Additive Alternate and sand installed minimum of 12" deep for both play areas 12 . YOUTH PLAY EQUIPMENT ($ 25, 000. 00) a. Large scale youth Additive Alternate playsystem plus other activity equipment, installed 13 . CHILD PLAY EQUIPMENT ($ 12 , 400. 00) a. Large scale small child's Additive Alternate playsystem plus other activity equipment, installed 14 . PUBLIC CONVENIENCE FACILITY $ 4 , 000. 00 a. Portable toilet units installed on concrete patio, fenced, w/wood trellis for identity and decoration 2 r 15 . SITE AMMENITIES ($ 23 , 150. 00) a. Picnic tables on concrete Additive Alternate pads incl 3 w/ BBQ grills installed - group BBQ area with 4 tables on concrete pad w/ large grill b. Bollards (set & removable) provided at openings through the security fencing c. Drinking fountain - handicap accessible d. Benches along walk e. Trash recepticles f. Park identification, entry and hours signs 16. BICYCLE STORAGE AREAS ($ 700. 00) a. Paved bicycle storage area Additive Alternate with locking bike rack 17 . TENNIS COURTS $ 0 a. Competition level surfaced tennis courts 2 w/fencing and nets - not including lighting (Not included in Phase I development) SCHOOL SITE (NON-CAMPUS) 1 . SOIL PREPARATION AND FINE GRADING $ 81, 120. 00 a. Clay loam (4yds) and Organic Material (3yds) per 1000 sq. ft. imported and spread per soils lab recommendations b. Incorporate into top 6" and fine grade for planting and turf 676, 500 sq. ft. at .12 2 . IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND PUMP/FILTER STATION a. Pumping facility and piping to $205, 000. 00 draw water from the canal, 80 micron filter and backwash system b. Automatic irrigation control system with remote control capacity, moisture sensor over-ride c. Turf rotors and spray systems required for positive irrigation of all planting areas 3 3 . COMPLETE SOFTBALL INFIELDS (2) $ 56, 000. 00 a. Excavated infield area with clay cinder surfacing, arch backstop, team benches, and curbing installed complete 2 infields complete at 28, 000 each 4 . FENCING $ 25, 400. 00 a. Chainlink (4901 ) 6' vinyl coated along Cypress b. Chainlink (5601 ) 42" vinyl coated around large parking lot w/gate at emergency access c. Chainlink (6401 ) 8' galvanized along east P/L d. Chainlink (8001 ) 6' galvanized and (801 ) 42" galvanized along south P/L w/gate at emergency access 5. LANDSCAPING AND EROSION CONTROL PLANTING a. Groundcovers installed, 46, 500 ($ 31, 900. 00) - sq. ft. Additive Alternate b. Trees installed, 177+ with stakes c. Maintenance (60 days) 6 . TURFGRASS $ 50, 400. 00 a. Lawn hydroseeded 630, 000 sq. ft. b. Maintenance (60 days) ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST FOR O'HARA AVENUE PARK AND SCHOOL Park at Phase I (without additive alternatives) $ 526 , 420 . 00 (with additive alternatives) $ 640 , 970 . 00 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY $ 67, 800. 00 (Based upon 10% of Site Construction Cost and A/E Fees) TOTAL ESTIMATED COST (without additive alternatives) $ 594 , 220 . 00 (with additive alternatives) $ 708 , 770 . 00 4 251 LAFAYETTE CIR WILLIAM R. ZION TEL. 415/283-0442 ROOM 370 CONSULTANT IN LOCAL !AFAYETTE. CA 94549 AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT September 1, 1988 Jeffrey Huffacker 1407 "A" Street , Suite D Antioch , CA 94509 Dear Jeff : I appreciate your invitation , on behalf of the Parks and Recreation Subcommittee of OMAC, to propose a feasibility study of the formation of an entity to provide parks and recreation in Oakley. My work with Bob Heitmeyer and OMAC in preparing the Oakley Park Masterplan provides a useful background for such a study. In fact , the section in that plan on Service Delivery and Fiscal Alternatives , which I did , sought to provide much of the informa- tion OMAC now seeks in the proposed study. For example , LAFCO requires a feasibility study to first establish problems or goals , then consider governmental alternatives for addressing them, and finally look at the feasibility of the preferred alternative . Most of that was encompassed in developing the Masterplan . My current work on the financial feasibility of a park and recreation entity for the entire East County has included data collection and analysis that will also be useful in the proposed study. The potential conflict of interest between these two studies is minimized by the fact the East County study will be completed before the Oakley study begins , and that the latter can view the East County scheme as one alternative for Oakley . In terms of a work scope , I suggest the following : 1. Meet with OMAC representatives to clarify any questions about the details of the study. 2. Agree with LAFCO on the content of the study . 3 . Describe the present park/recreation situation and goals/ changes desired . These would be derived primarily from the Masterplan , and from OMAC input . r' Jeffrey Huffacker -2- September 1, 1988 4. Describe the governmental alternatives and their advantages and disadvantages , including fiscal . This was , I thought , well done in the Masterplan. The alternatives appear to be : - Recreation and Park District - Community Services District - County Service area - Mello-Roos District - Annexation to a reconstituted Brentwood Recreation and Park District - Use of the lands cape district as a temporary measure This analysis would include any significant differences between the alternatives in terms of the five problems noted in your letter , i .e . : 1) economic and financial feasibility ; 2) local staff capability for recreation and maintenance ; 3) insurance and supervision of these operations ; 4) ability to contract for various services ; and 5) degree of local control over locally-generated park and recreation funds . 5. Meet with OMAC to select preferred alternative , and modify if desired . 6 . If needed , refine the feasibility of the preferred alterna- tive . 7. Develop implementation program, including steps needed to get on the June , 1989 , ballot . 8. Prepare and present to OMAC a written final report , summari- zing all of the above , by January 15, 1989 . In terms of costs , at present I estimate $6 , 000 . I prefer a fixed fee , but would work at hourly rates of $50 , with a maximum of $6 , 000. Extra meetings or work would be at hourly rates . I would be happy to provide any additional information . Enclosed is a statement of qualifications . Cordially , jWilliam R. Zion WRZ/cs Enclosure CONSULTING QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE EDUCATION BA and graduate studies in Public Administration, UC Berkeley. CONSULTING EXPERIENCE 30 years involved in problems of local government, specializing in organization, finance and service delivery. Typical assignments, individually or as a consulting team member, include service/fiscal impact analyses, infrastructure financing, city incorporation/annexation feasibility, local agency "spheres of influence" and service expansion, and administrative analysis. Typical clients are cities, counties, local agency formation commissions, special districts, regional and state agencies, civic organizations, and private development firms. TYPICAL RECENT PROTECTS These include public facilities/service/fiscal impacts, as part of general plan or EIR studies, for the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, Nevada, Sierra and Yolo, and the cities of Antioch, Atwater, Brentwood, Clayton, Cupertino, Dixon, Foster City, Grass Valley. Hercules, Livermore, Los Banos, Los Gatos, Manteca, Martinez, Mill Valley, Napa. Pittsburg, Pleasanton, Ripon. San Bruno, San Leandro, Suisun City, Taft, Ukiah, Union City, Vacaville and West Sacramento. City annexation feasibility studies include Antioch, Clayton, Dixon, Grass Valley, Livermore, Los Banos, Manteca, Napa, Ripon, Suisun City, Taft, Ukiah and Vacaville. City incorporation feasibility studies include Dublin, Malaga, Mammoth Lakes, Mendocino. Orinua, Rancho Santa Fe, Sar, Ramon, Truckee, and West Sacramento. Financial studies for special districts include the Bodega Bav Fire District, East Bay Regional Park District, EIK (Mendocino County) County Water District, Malaga (Fresno County) County Water District, and Ukiah Unified School District. Spheres of influence were developed for the local agency formation commissions in Mendocino and Stanislaus Counties. OTHER ACTIVITIES Part-time teaching in the graduate schools of public administration at Golden Gate and John F. Kennedy universities, and UC Extension. Former planning commissioner, City of Lafayette. 251 LAFAYETTE CIR WILLIAM R. ZION TEL,415/283-0442 ROJM 370 CONSULTANT IN LOCAL !AFAYETTE. CA 94549 AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT September 1, 1988 Jeffrey Huffacker 1407 "A" Street , Suite D Antioch , CA 94509 Dear Jeff : I appreciate your invitation , on behalf of the Parks and Recreation Subcommittee of GMAC, to propose a feasibility study of the formation of an entity to provide parks and recreation in Oakley . My work with Bob Heitmeyer and OMAC in preparing the Oakley Park Masterplan provides a useful background for such a study . In fact , the section in that plan on Service Delivery and Fiscal Alternatives , which I did , sought to provide much of the informa- tion OMAC now seeks in the proposed study. For example , LAFCO requires a feasibility study to first establish problems or goals , then consider governmental alternatives for addressing them, and finally look at the feasibility of the preferred alternative . Most of that was encompassed in developing the Masterplan . My current work on the financial feasibility of a park and recreation entity for the entire East County has included data collection and analysis that will also be useful in the proposed study . The potential conflict of interest between these two studies is minimized by the fact the East County study will be completed before the Oakley study begins , and that the latter can view the East County scheme as one alternative for Oakley . In terms of a work scope , I suggest the following : 1. Meet with GMAC representatives to clarify any questions about the details of the study . 2. Agree with LAFCO on the content of the study . 3 . Describe the present park/recreation situation and goals/ changes desired . These would be derived primarily from the Masterplan , and from OMAC input . Jeffrey Huffacker -2- September 1, 1988 4. Describe the governmental alternatives and their advantages and disadvantages , including fiscal . This was , I thought , well done in the Masterplan . The alternatives appear to be : - Recreation and Park District - Community Services District - County Service area - Mello-Roos District - Annexation to a reconstituted Brentwood Recreation and Park District - Use of the lands cape district as a temporary measure This analysis would include any significant differences between the alternatives in terms of the five problems noted in your letter , i .e . : 1) economic and financial feasibility; 2) local staff capability for recreation and maintenance ; 3) insurance and supervision of these operations ; 4) ability to contract for various services ; and 5) degree of local control over locally-generated park and recreation funds . 5. Meet with OMAC to select preferred alternative , and modify if desired . 6. If needed , refine the feasibility of the preferred alterna- tive . 7. Develop implementation program, including steps needed to get on the June , 1989 , ballot . S. Prepare and present to OMAC a written final report , summari- zing all of the above , by January 15, 1989. In terms of costs , at present I estimate $6 , 000 . I prefer a fixed fee , but would work at hourly rates of $50 , with a maximum of $6 , 000. Extra meetings or work would be at hourly rates . I would be happy to provide any additional information . Enclosed is a statement of qualifications . Cordially , William R. Zion / WRZ/c s Enclosure CONSULTING QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE EDUCATION BA and graduate studies in Public Administration, UC Berkeley. CONSULTING EXPERIENCE 30 vears involved in problems of local government, specializing in organization, finance and service delivery. Typical assignments, individually or as a consulting team member, include service/fiscal impact analyses, infrastructure financing, city incorporation/annexation feasibility. local agency "spheres of influence" and service Zxpansion, and administrative analysis. Typical clients are cities, counties, local agency formation commissions, special districts, regional and state agencies, civic organizations, and private development firms. TYPICAL RECENT PROJECTS These include public facilities/service/fiscal impacts, as part of general plan or EIR studies, for the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, Nevada, Sierra and Yolo, and the cities of Antioch, Atwater, Brentwood, Clayton, Cupertino, Dixon, Foster City, Grass Valley, Hercules, Livermore, Los Banos, Los Gatos, Manteca, Martinez, Mill Vallev, Napa. Pittsburg, Pleasanton, Ripon. San Bruno, San Leandro, Suisun Citv, Taft, Ukiah, Union City, Vacaville and West Sacramento. Citv annexation feasibility studies include Antioch, Clavton. Dixon, Grass Valley, Livermore, Los Banos, Manteca, Napa, Ripon, Suisun City. Taft, Ukiah and Vacaville. City incorporation feasibility studies include Dublin. Malaga, Mammoth Lakes, Mendocino. Orinda. Rancho Santa Fe, San Ramon, Truckee, and West Sacramento. Financial studies for special districts include the Bodega Bay Fire District, East Bay Regional Park District, EIK (Mendocino County) County Water District, Malaga (Fresno County) County Water District, and Ukiah Unified School District. Spheres of influence were developed for the local agency formation commissions in Mendocino and Stanislaus Counties. OTHER ACTIVITIES Part-time teaching in the graduate schools of public administration at Golden Gate and John F. Kennedy universities, and UC Extension. Former planning commissioner, City of Lafayette.