Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1981/02/24 Item 9A '., COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 9,1 Meeting Date 2/24/81 ITEM TITLE: Report on Memorial Park Improvements SUBMITTED BY: Acting Director of Parks and Recreation~~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes___ No~) On December g, 1980, the City Council rejected bids for cons~ruction of improvements in Memorial Park and directed staff as follows: A. Readvertise construction work as four separate projects B. Referred to staff and the Human Relations Commission the question of the location of the Senior Information and Referral Center C. In reevaluating the location of the Senior Information and Referral Center, staff to study the feasibility of moving the Greg Rogers House into Memorial Park for use as a Senior Information and Referral Center and other uses that might be approoriate. O. ~irected that the Mayor's Ad Hoc Historical Structures Committee consider the Greg Rogers House question and submit their input. I have studied the information relating to the location of the Senior Information and Referral Center and, accordingly, it is my RECOMMENDATION: That Council 1. Authorize proceeding with the improvements to Memorial Park as originally contemplated, including remodeling of the taco building 2. Direct staff to continue to investigate the feasibility and cost of expanding Norman Park Center in order to accommodate the information and referral center 3. Determine that Greg Rogers House not be relocated to Memorial Park 4. Adopt resolution awarding the .contract for Memorial Park imorovements BOARDS/COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: Human Relations Commission 1. That the information and referral center and Jobs for Youth activities not be housed together 2. That the space necessary to fill the needs of the information and referral center be a minimum of 1,000 square feet 3. The HRC acknowledges the taco building is acceptable as an information and referral center. However, the Commission would orefer the Norman Park Center so as to consolidate all senior services at one location. continued [Oc{6 '0 Form A-113 (Rev. 11/79) EXHIBITS Agreement_____ Resolution_____ Ordinance_____ Plat_____ Notification List Other ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached Submitted on .. '0 Page 2, Item t1eeting Date 9a L/L4(ET Town Centre Project Area Committee Recommendation The Project Area Committee has never fully supported utilization of the taco building as the information and referral center although would find it more acceptable if the facility could accommodate a downtown information desk. The Committee will be reconsidering their position and information in this regard will be orally provided to the City Council. Mayor's Ad Hoc Historical Buildings Preservation Co~mittee Recommendation 1. Direct staff to determine current cost estimates for moving the ;Greg ROGers House. 2. Direct staff to determine current cost estimates for restoring the house and bringing it up to building code. DISCUSSION: The improvements contemplated for Memorial Park have been under consideration by the City for at least two years. Prior to the time that the City Council approved the schematic plans for this project, a great deal of study by staff and various other committees went into the nature of the intended improvements and particularly the use of the taco building as the location of the Senior Information and Referral Center. It is recognized that the City Council determined several years ago that due to various factors, including limited parking and the somewhat crowded conditions that already exist at the Norman Park Center site, en- largement of that facility did not appear desirable. Despite these earlier determinations, I believe consolidation of senior citizen services, be they informational or more active programs, can be more efficiently and economically administered if they are placed together. The uncertainty of grant funds beina available to continue this program dictates that some advance planning take place so that this program ~ight be able to be continued even if Area Agency on Aging grant funds are not available. The popularity of the Senior Information and Referral Center is reflected in the statistical report attached as Exhibit "A". I believe if the information center can be physically accommodated on the Norman Park site, the service now provided could be handled in a reasonable fa~hi6n 0ith reduced personnel costs by placing supervisory responsibilities for this oroaram under the recreation super- visor currently in charge of Norman Park Center. The recommendation to proceed with remodeling of the taco building and interim use as the information and referral center is considered appropriate for the following reasons: A. Construction of an addition to Norman Park Center, if deemed appropriate, will cost in excess of $55,000 to provide space adequate for the information and referral center. Budgeting of funds in this amount should not be considered except during review of the 1981-82 capital improvement budget. Further, any decision to construct the addi- tional space at Norman Park Center must be preceded by a definitive decision of the City Council that the cost of such a program will be assumed by the City if grant funds are not available to fund the majority of the cost. B. The Director of Building and Housing has estimated the cost of demolishing the taco building at $10,000, while the cost of remodeling the building is also roughly $10,000. If the facility is remodeled and utilized as temporary quarters for the referral center as well as a downtown information point and it is later determined that the senior activitil are to be relocated in the Norman Park Center, the renovated building could continue as an information center for downtown or put to other appropriate use. (oc.{O '2..., continued I, Page 3, Item 9a Meeting Date 2/24/8, C. Demolition of the taco building at this time would require continued use of the Madrona Street property currently under lease throu9h June 30, 1981. Rent for that facility is $300 per month. We do not have assurance that the owner of this property will continue to offer this space to the City, and particularly at what appears to'be a below-market rate. It should also be pointed out that Block Grant Funds may not be used for the payment of rent and even at present the Area Agency on Aging Grant is not sufficient to meet the total cost of this program. Consequently, General Fund monies, in relatively small amounts at present, are required to suoport the center. As stated earlier, further reductions in the amount available under grant funding can reasonably be anticipated. If the taco building is used for this program, total costs would be reduced by the amount of current rent or increased rent that should be anticipated. If the City Council determines that the building should be demolished, award of bids for outdoor lighting, irrigation system, landscaping and earthwork can be let although modifica- tions in the scope of work contemplated will be somewhat reduced. These reductions in contract scope can be handled without rebidding. ~limination of the work contemplated for remodeling of the taco building and trellis work will require new plans for the east end of the park because the continued use of the building was an integral part of the design concept approved by the City Council many months ago. I do not believe redesign of that area will be difficult, extensive or time-consuming. The Mayor's Ad Hoc Committee on Historical Structures believes the concept of having the Greg Rogers House placed in Memorial Park is appropriate. They further state that it is in keeping with the ambience of current redevelopment along Third Avenue and is ideally suited for the many senior citizens residing in the area. I cannot concur with the opinion of the Committee. The architectural style of the building, if that still is intended to be pre- served, is very different from those buildings alon9 Third Avenue. Further, the building, since it is a home, does not lend itse11 well to utilization as a public facility, particularly to serve senior citizens. 'The Committee does go on to express serious reservations about moving the structure at all. It is estimated on a conservative basis that $40,000 would be required to move the building and set it on a foundation, if in fact it can be moved. In addition, the renovation of the structure to bring it up to Code standards required for public occupancy could possibly cost an additional $40,000 or more. One reason for this is that the whole structure would have to be sprinklered to allow public occupancy. Even with all this renovation, I do not believe however that the structure can ever be viewed as one that could be put to major publ ic use such as publ ic offices or other service related activities. Further, while the house has historical significance, having been the residence of one of the first Mayors of Chula Vista, it is a very plain structure with not much architectural appeal, either outside or inside and would not command much public attention unless it were utilized for some public service with an ancillary use as a Chula Vista Historical Museum or a repository for Chula Vista memorabilia. I do not think it is in the best interest of the City to ~xpend this amount of money to preserve the Greg Rogers House. ERA:mab ~, , ~..lt~ , by the City Council of Chula Vista, California Dated j. - ..2 9 .:::..il {0 f.{6 z..- COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM TITLE: Item 9b 2-24-81 Meeting Date_____~ Resolution 1/J~P.2- Accepting bids and awarding four separate contracts for the construction of improvements in Memorial Park and transferring funds SUBmTTED BY: City Enginee~ . i4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoLJ On December 9, 1980, Council rejected bids for construction of, improvements in Memorial Park and directed staff to readvertise the construction work as four separate projects. At 2:00 p.m. on January 14, 1981, bids on the four projects were received by the City Engineer in the Public Services Building. There were no bidders on one of the four projects - Overhead Trellis Structure and Restaurant Remodeling. This project was readvertised with the bid opening on February 10, 1981. A composite of the four low bids results in a total low bid of $210,579.25. This represents a savings of over $100,000 for the same items of work included in the bids rejected by Council on December 9, 1981. It also represents a savings of $51,070.75 or 19.5 percent below the engineer's estimate of $261,650. Accordingly, it is my RECOMMENDATION: That Council: 1. Authorize the transfer of $48,353.25 from account no_ 634-6340-BG84 -"Pavement Overlay" to account no. 634-6340-BG51 - "Memorial Park Improvements" . 2. )"uthorize expenditures for these four projects in the amount of $234,500.00 from the various accounts outlined in the financial statement. 3. Accept bids and award contract to: CONTRACTOR AMOUNT PROJECT A. Johnson & Sons Foothill Electric $ 21,132.00 Outdoor Lighting Standard and Well Lights B. 01 sen-Thompson & Associates $ 36,473.00 Irrigation System and Landscaping D. Helton's Construction Chula Vista $ 23,445,00 Earthwork, Concrete Flatwork and Other Miscellaneous Construction Overhead Trellis Structure and Restaurant Remodeling C. George Wimpey of California, Inc. $129,529.25 BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. continued {tJL{O 7- Form A-113 (Rev. 11/79) EXHIBITS Agreement_____ Resolution--K-- Ordinance_____ Plat_____ Notification List Other ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached Submitted on Page 2, Item Meeting Date 9b 2-24~81 DISCUSSION: Bids on the four advertised projects were received from 21 contractors as follows: 1. Outdoor Lighting Standards and Well Lights: This work includes providing light standard bases, light standards, luminaires, well lights, junction boxes, electrical wiring and service, overhead lighting removal, electric service panel removal, and electric sign removal Johnson & Sons Foothill Electric National City $ 21,132.00 Le ka unas El ec tr ic, Inc. Spring Valley $ 28,750.00 $ 36,864.00 Arrow Electric, Lemon Grove 2. Irrigation-and Landscaping System: This work includes installation of an automated irrigation system, shrubs, lawn and tree planting, and soil preparation. Olsen-Thompson & Associates San Diego $ 36,473.00 C&C Evergreen, Spring valley $ 39,076.00 San te Fe Land scape Co., Inc. Solana Beach $ 42,500.00 Nature's Plan, San Diego $ 42,628.00 Valley Crest Landscape, Inc. San Diego $ 45,625.00 Dyno Construction, Inc. Lemon Grove $ 47,893.00 Hacienda Landscape Co. Lemon Grove $ 48,990.00 C. A. Redden, Co. National City $ 52,434.00 T.B. Penick & Sons, Inc. San Diego $ 58,600.00 3. Earthwork, Concrete Flatwork, and Other Miscellaneous Construction: This work includes removal of existing shrubs, sod removal, A.C. removal, P.C.C. removal, concrete pier removal, structure and foundation removal, chain link fence removal and relocation, chain link fence removal and salvage, relocate chain link gate, concrete ( (Y:[OG Page 3, Item /1eeting Date 9b 2-24 -81 curb removal, stone bridge wing wall removal and reconstruction, P.C.C. paving, ~.C. paving, aggregate base, A.C. berm, interlocking paving stone, sand sub-base, deck drains, drain pipe, concrete benches, concrete planter, foundations for overhead trellis structure, concrete curb, turf block paving, slump block retaining wall, drainage headwall extension, existing drainage headwall gate modification, rubble stone drain aprons, ballast or hand rails, sewer and water service extension, redwood parking lot header, grader and soil import. George Wimpey of Cal ifornia, Inc" San Diego $129,529.25 T. B. Penick & Sons, Inc. San Diego $158.205.10 L. R. Hubbard, Jr. San Diego $158,325.73 Dyno Construction, Inc. Lemon Grove $In3, 821. 40 4. Overhead Trellis Structure and Restaurant Remodeling. This work includes the renovation and remodeling of the existing restaurant building structure, installation of drinking fountains, and construction of overhead trellis structure to be utilized as a senior's information and referral center. Helton's Construction, Chula vista $23,445.00 Rupe and Caster Construction, Inc. Lakeside, CA $29,939.00 vista Sierra Construction, Chula vista $42,434.00 Center Construction, National City $45,771.00 M. Kevin O'Neill Construction Co., Inc. - Coronado, CA $47,900.00 Soltek of San Diego, San Diego, CA $53,616.00 The Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development has reviewed the low bidders' eligibility to participate in a Federally financed block grant program and approves award of the contracts. We recommend that the bids be accepted and that contracts be awarded for these projects. Items not included in the bids, but required as part of the park development are: waste containers, benches, pedestal tables and L ol[b C Page 4, Item Meeting Date 9b 2-24" -81 chairs. It is proposed that these items be purchased by the City's purchasing Agent. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Contract amount for four projects Contingencies (approx. 5%) Engineering/Inspection costs (approx. 3%) Purchase of necessary park items (waste containers, benches, pedestal tables and chairs) by purchasing Agent TOTAL $ 210,579.25 10,528.96 6,391.79 7,000.00 $ 234,500.00 Funds budgeted and available for this project: PROJECT ACCOUNT NO. AMOUNT Memorial Park Improvements 632-6320-BG51 $ 13,146.75 633-6330-BG-51 48,000.00 995-9950-BF03 125,000.00 Memorial Park Improvements Memorial Park Improvements TOTAL $186,146.75 Additional Funds Required 48,353.25 Add i tional fund s avai 1 abl e from Pavement Overlay Project Account No. 634-6340-BG8l $234,500.00 $ 48,353.25 TOTAL Requested authorized transfer from BG81 to BG51 $ 48,353.25 The City's Community Develpment Block Grant program for FYl980-8l has a pavement overlay project which is completed and there are sufficient funds to transfer for construction of this project. The request for authorization to transfer $48,353.25 from the pavement overlay project is consistent with the guidelines for their use as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The amount now requested for transfer from the pavement overlay project represents the inflation of real costs over estimates of construction including materials and labor as reflected in bids received in the project. {@C{00 Page 5, Item 9b Meeting Date 2-24'-81 Also a part of the funds requested other than from Community Developent Block Grant came from proceeds of the Bayfront/ Town Centre Tax Allocation Bond Sale previously authorized by the Redevelopment Agency at the January 1980 meeting in the amount of S125,000. FISCAL IMPACT: Upon completion of the four projects, the City will assume maintenance of the facilities. SLH:AK: fpw ~- by the City Cau ncil of Chula Vista, California ~ '.J.~'.r./ Dated { i:3LfOc.,