The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6A - Public hearing and consideration of additional funding required to construct the new skateparkDO NOT REMOVE - PRAB File Material CITY OF BOULDEli ~'+ PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM ~..r MEETING DATE: March 27. 2000 (Agenda Item Preparation Date: 3/24/00) AGENDA 'ITTLE: Public Hearing and Consideration of Addit~onal Funding Requued to Construct the New Skatepazk at Scott Carpenter Pazk REQUESTED BY: Chris Dropinski, Duector of Pazks and Recreation Ken Ramsey, Superintendent of Pazks Planning and Construction Teresa Grills and Diana Smith, City Liazson Maureen Spitzer, Landscape Designer ~ ti..- FISCAL IlVIPACT: An increase in funding from $500,000 previously identified for the project to a total potential cost of $869,000, including project construction costs, contingency, and the cost of the partnering/fund-raismg effort PURPO5E Staff requests that the Pazks and Recreation Advisory Boazd (PRAB) consider increasmg the fundmg idenrified for the New Skatepazk at Scott Carpenter Pazk by $369,000 (Attachment A, Cost Summary) BAC'KGROiTND: In April 1999, the PRAB approved the Conceptual Design (Attachment B, Dlustrative Perspective and Layout Design) for a concrete "in-ground" skate facility, wtuch would replace the existing wooden facility at Scott Carpenter Park Because the project was unfunded, the PRAB duected staff in June 1999 to pursue funding for the project by means of a pilot-test effort for the newly adopted Public and Pnvate Partnership policy and approach The partnerslup of Royce Arbour, Inc , and FLOW Consult~ng was hired m August 1999 to function as City Liaison to pursue public/private partnership funding opportumhes The ~oint cost estimate, provided by staff and the design firm for the New Skatepazk, for design, constnxctioq and pursuit of funds was $SOQ000 As soils testing, permitting, and the development of construction documents took place, the total cost estimate increased by $75,000, to an eshmated $575,000, due primarily to increased cost associated with the high watertable identified underneath the concrete .,.~. Skatepark `.. -1- ~_ ! ~y ~ O ~~ 1 l i ~ ` ~ ~'. 1 • ~ • t~1 'f~l A bid package for site prepazation and consuuction of the skatepazk was issued in ~'"*, February 2000, and bids were received from two firms on March 14, 2000 The construction bids came in significantly higher than the estimated budget The low bid for construction was appro~cimately $600,000, or 1 5 times the construction document / pre- bid estimate of about $400,000, w}uch also mcreases the contmgency calculation by $20,000 The high bid was about $33,500 more than the low bid Also, the construchon periods identified in the bids were five to six months, rather than the three months originally projected by the New Skatepark design team ANALYSIS: Cost Analysis: The est~mated project costs increased pnor to bid opening pnmanly because the soils testmg at the site of the New Skatepazk showed that the ground water was excessively high Without an additional drainage system to take the e~ccess water to Boulder Creek, the New Skatepark's concrete bowls were at nsk of "floahng" m groundwater A "French drain" was deemed necessary in addirion to, and sepazate from, the dram system to prevent precipitation from collecting in the Skatepazk bowls The bid costs for Skatepazk construction were substantially higher than the onginal eshmates for several reasons The booming economy currently enjoyed by the Front Range azea has increased competition among "buyers" like the Crty of Boulder for the available construction companies Last year concrete was in short supply dunng the ,e„~ construction season, which affected construchon costs Additionally, the New Skatepark ~ requ~res two lunds of concrete work "shotcrete" for the curved venc~al surFaces and bowls, which requires highly specialized application and finishing techniques that fewer construction companies aze able to perform, as well as the standazd poured concrete for decks and flatwork Staff have reseazched costs and length of time to build for other skatepazks constructed or about to be constructed m the Front Range azea By companng the type of pazk and the cost of the concrete work where it was possible to get these figures, staff concludes that the New Boulder Skatepazk bids are in fact compazable to these other projects Total Cost Time Current Project Locahon Features & CosbSF to Build Size Status Boulder/Scott concrete $792,000 5 months 16,000 SF bids in Carpenter Pazk in-ground $50/SF with bowls estimated Greenwood concrete $500,000 6 months 10,000 SF contract Village/ in-ground $50/SF awarded Cazson Pazk with bowls eshmated •~w. -Z- Total Cost T~me Current Pro~ect ~^ Location Features & Cost/SF to Build Size Status ~- Denver/ S Platte concrete in-ground $1 45 M phased 60,000 SF* design River between with bowl sechons estimated by sections estimate 19~` & 20 `~ Broomfield concrete pad with $12 M 9 months n/a opened 2/00 boxes, ramps, and actual 1 bowl, plus batting (note: costs of non-skatepark cages, equipment, elements not separately rdenhfred) bndge, building *Due to limited information about the Denver project, we are unable to determine what part of the squaze £ootage constirirtes in-ground bowls Options Considered: Staff considered the followmg ophons p~tion D~scussion 1 Continue project Best option due to strong Skatepazk user support, project momentum, youth/teen activrty, crime and nuisance deterrent, alternative sports activity, past PRAB support, use of current construction season, r~ minimizing cost increases, and ava~lability of qualified ~ construction contractor 2 Discontmue pro~ect Although this opt~on would avoid the costs and free resources for use on other projects, the Skatepazk project has been identified as a}ugh PRAB and user priority 3 Phase project Project does not lend itself to phasing decking and "in-ground" structure should be built at one time 4 Build bowls only without Not feasible due to safety issues, funcUonality, surrounding structure, aesthetics, vandalism risk to unfimshed structure, amenities, and maintenance of bowls, plus landscapmg material is landscaping substanhally an in-kind donation to be ~nstalied Iater 5 Delay construction Cold weather ~mpedes concrete construction, need to to a fa112000 date rebid construction conuact with associated cost increase risks, unknown availability of qualified contractor 6 Rebid project Delays construction and opening, bid appears competitive, construction costs expected ~, to continue to rise ~.. -3- Funding Staff recommends that the additional $364,000 be identified from anticipated but m*, unappropriated revenues and that the construction for the New Skatepark groject proceed as quickly as possible The mterest earned from the bond proceeds in 1999 is not currently budgeted It is exceeds the $369,000 needed for the New Skatepark We anticipate being able to access t}us revenue in 2001 when we conclude the bond project. We have a 2000 fund balance that can function as the cash flow until the funds aze available in 2001 The City Liaison agreed to a target of $SOQ000 for the partnering/fund-raising effort Although they will work to e~cceed that amount, that should not be weighed heavily m the Board's dec~sion to increase the funding for the Skatepark project It should be understood that if the City Liazson efforts realize less than the full amount of the $500,000 target, the Neighborhood Pocket Pazk account would be impacted and the Ins Hollow Neighborhood Pazk development would not be able to be scheduled for a start date prior to Fa112001 STAFF REC0IYIlYIENDATION5: Staffrecommends that we continue with the Skatepark project and that the Board approve an additional expenditure of $369,000 for this project from anticipated mterest from the bond proceeds ATTACHMENTS "~" ~ A. Cost Summary B Illustratroe Perspective and Layout Diagram -~w -4- Attachment A City of Boulder Pazks and Recreation Department, Date 3/24/00 New Boulder Skatepazk at Scott Carpenter Park Cost Summary ITEM / DESCRIPTION 1 Design, Engineering, Bidding Process, Soils Report, Wetland and Floodplain Permits 2 Construction Bid 3 Irrigation system, plant matenal, vending shelter with drinking fountain (not bid, substantial in-kind donations with installation bidding to be done later) 4 Construction Inspection and Materials Testing Current Construction Total Estimate 5 10% construction contingency** Current Project Cost Estimate 6 City Liaison contract COST (approaimate) $40,000 $600,000* $60,000 20 000 $720,000 $72,000 $792,000 77 000 Total Cost including partnering effort $869,000 r~ ``"" *Two bids were received The low bid is $597,588 92 and the high bid is $631,078 00 **Although it is not certain that the full contingency amount will be used, experience shows that, especially on new or specialty construction, there may be unanticipated rtems that increase the final cost of the pro~ect City Liaison Revenue Summary Project total, estimate as of 3/24/00 Partnering/Fundraising tazget Cash in hand, includmg BURA Cash pending, verbally promised In-kind contributions Total Contnbnt~ons of m-kmd value-added Total resources secured Actual Amount remaining to be secured Pending and unconfumed contnbutions Potential Amount remaining to be secured ~ ~.. $869,000 $500,000 $48,398 35,300 21.410 $105,108 12 467 I1$ 7.575 -5- $394,892 270 000 $124,892 C~ -.~ C~ ~ -• O ~~ o ~ ~O o C ~r _~ a cn m ~~ C~ Cn 0 _~ 0 ~ ~. m o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, f q ~ ~~~r~ b I f~ i N il^ ~ ~~ k 4 4 ~ 5 ~ C ~ '_'~ ~ ~ ~ m -v m ~ -~o n ~ < rn ~ ~ 0 c ~ v D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ to