Fairfield City Council Agenda Item 20

Resolution Authorizing RSAs for Sports Complex Design
November 15, 2005

 

Analysis - Questions and Concerns
Friends of Allan Witt Park

www.allanwittpark.org

Contents



Questions and Concerns about the Process and Funding

  1. Agenda item 20 represents a commitment not only to preliminary design, but to selection of Big League Dreams as the sports complex operator, and a commitment to additional costs ($600,000 startup, and $3,000,000 to $5,000,000 additional construction costs) implicit in these agreements. This is premature when all that is needed is a design and cost estimate. It is foolish to commit $1,129,000 when the design and cost estimate can be done for less than 1/3 that amount.
  2. What do we really need to make the decision? A favorable EIR, a preliminary design, cost estimates for the sports complex, Caltrans relocation and AWP redesign, and an appraisal of the land to be sold. Why are all these agreements needed? The request seems to be for more than is required at this stage.
  3. It would seem prudent and fiscally responsible to see at least the draft EIR before committing over $1,000 000 to this project.
  4. When will the Sports Complex elements be defined? When will the community be asked what it wants at the complex? When will the community be asked what it wants at AWP? See Visalia Sports Park Workshop # 1 for a good outline of how to conduct this process.
  5. Has Anheuser-Busch been approached for a donation for the Sports Complex? AB advertises in ball parks and are a big presence in Fairfield and near the proposed sports complex location. Have the Hilton and other hotels been approached as these will benefit from the expected tourism associated with tournaments? What other corporate funding has been explored? This so-called public-private partnership appears to be just a commitment of public lands and funds for a private enterprise. What land, materials, services or funds are coming from private sources?
  6. Why are we not proposing to fund and build the Sports Complex in phases as money becomes available through AB1600 and other conventional sources rather than selling community assets to pay for it? There is $12 million in the AB1600 Parks and Recreation fund (263) right now, and $4 million added each year. There is $7.5 million in the Bedroom Tax fund (062), with $2M added each year. That will provide plenty of money for the sports complex over a few years.
  7. How much money are the city and the council willing to commit to the project and still make an objective decision about the proposal when the time comes?
  8. The Friends of Allan Witt Park should contact consulting firm and operator candidates and ask for their feedback on the RFP, the evaluation process, contact with Fairfield city staff, and their thoughts on the selections of Purkiss Rose and BLD.
  9. The Friends of Allan Witt Park should contact other cities with sports complexes (Visalia 559-713-4365, Folsom 916-355-7285, Moreno Valley 951-413-3280, Novato 415-899-8200, Turlock 209-239-8470, Huntington Beach 714-536-5486 Cerritos 562-916-8590). How was the complex funded? How is it being operated and maintained? What do they think of BLD? Has the sports complex delivered all that was expected? Would they have done anything differently? Have they any suggestions for the city or the community?

Page numbers below refer to the online City Council Agenda Packet available here

Agenda Item 20a. Purkiss Rose Agreement (pg 269)

  1. Provide “prime consulting services for the preliminary design services” for the proposed sports complex.
  2. 9 responded to RFP, 5 rejected, 4 interviewed.
  3. CSA identifies Swinerton as Project Management consultant.
  4. Draft preliminary design and cost estimate (4 alternatives): 85 days, $190K
  5. Final preliminary design and cost estimate (4 alternatives?): 75 days, $165K
  6. Purkiss Rose has worked with BLD on at least 4 complexes (including Redding) and 2 in progress http://www.purkiss-rose-rsi.com/Parks/index.html

Contact: Steven Lang (714) 871-3638

  1. Rejected: Carducci & Assoc http://www.carducciassociates.com/parks.php

415-674-0990 - 81ac Hamilton Park (Novato), 26ac Dublin Sports Grounds

  1. Rejected: Hirsch & Assoc http://www.hha-landarch.com/pages/Sports.html

714-776-4340 - Cerritos Sports Complex (562-916-1254), Sunnymead Park (Moreno Valley)

  1. Rejected: HLA Group The HLA Group - Parks and Recreation Planning

916-447-7400 - 83ac Visalia Sports Complex, 30ac John Kemp Community Park (Folsom), 23ac Livermore Community Park (Folsom)

 

What was the lowest bid, why was Purkiss Rose selected, and how does this justify the additional cost over the lowest bid?

 

The Purkiss Rose agreement seems to be a coordination role only, but is subordinate to the project management consultant (Swinerton). What is the city’s role supposed to be, if not to manage the project and not to coordinate the work? And how many layers of management do we need? There are sub-consultants, prime consultants, project management consultants and city staff.

 

What is the magnitude of the cost advantage in working with Purkiss Rose and its sub-consultants because of their prior BLD projects?

 

Is the prime consultant subject to the same restrictions in selecting sub-consultants that the city must observe (such as section XII. PROHIBITED INTERESTS)

 

Resolution 2005-342 Language Concerns:

These phrases continue to appear in the resolutions which are inaccurate, untrue or unsupported:

  1. Resolutions describe housing to be added by the project as “needed housing”. Need has not been established, and the Park Crossing units across the street remain 80% vacant.
  2. “introduces housing and commercial development on underutilized parcels along West Texas Street, Woolner Avenue and portions of Allan Witt Park to eliminate blight…”. No part of Allan Witt Park is blighted, and neither the Caltrans lot nor Allan Witt Park is underutilized.
  3. “revenues … will be used to … relocate the CalTrans maintenance yard to a city-owned site…” - We need to be very clear on the costs for Caltrans and consider the option of not moving the yard if it is too expensive; nobody is willing to subsidize the Caltrans part of the project by sacrificing acres of the park.
  4. Sports complex “provides for an increase in the amount of community parkland” – Sports Complex is not Community Park as this language asserts.

 

Purkiss Rose CSA Questions and Concerns:

Agreement:

  1. The city expects to pay $2M to $3M for infrastructure (“offsite”) improvements for the Sports Complex. What is the source of these funds (AB1600 Street Fees)?
  2. Purkiss Rose will select and pay for sub-consultants for important design elements. What assurance does the city have that this will result in a better design or lower costs than if the city selects and coordinates these consultants?
  3. II. E. CITY will arrange for reciprocal coordination of [cities] consultants and the Project Team through a Project Management consultant contracted directly with the city – If Purkiss Rose is coordinating sub-consultants, what other organizations need to be coordinated for the purposes of designing the Sports Complex?
  4. CSA designates Swinerton Management and Consulting as the CITY’s Project Manager to receive monthly invoices.

Scope of work – B. Preliminary Design Phase:

  1. Kickoff meeting: “Proposed Operator” will attend – Represents a commitment to a construction and operation decision beyond what is warranted at this time. Some references omit “Proposed”.
  2. Consultant is to provide 4 draft designs and cost estimates within 50 calendar days, finalized within 85 calendar days – will the draft EIR be completed within that period?
  3. What factors are expected to differ between the four designs (such as configuration, features, cost)?

Scope of work – C. Final Preliminary Design Phase:

  1. How many Final Preliminary Design configurations will be prepared (the 4 preliminary designs, or only 1?)

Agenda Item 20b. Big League Dreams Agreement (pg 298)

  1. Agreement is for $540,000 to BLD to assist the CITY in the planning of the development of a first-class multi-sports complex…
  2. Term is through June 30, 2007.
  3. Contact Global Sports and Entertainment (916) 608-0800 (Folsom)

Operates Twin Creeks complex in Sunnyvale

  1. Contact SportsPlex USA (858) 679-4000

Operates SportsPlex, USA sports complex in San Diego

  1. Contact Sportsplex Operators and Developers Association for sources and information on financial expectations, longevity, pitfalls, other public-private operations in CA?

 

Authorization of the CSA with BLD commits payment of $30,000/month to BLD for the next 18 months (that is $1,000/day for a year and a half) without BLD having to deliver much tangible work beyond 4 sets of cash-flow projections during the preliminary design phase. Language in the discussion asserts that the city will pay BLD $90,000 to negotiate agreements that will be presented to the council at a future date. All payments should be covered under those future contracts and not paid before negotiations take place. The License agreement will cover use of intellectual property, and the Operation and Maintenance agreement will cover terms and conditions of BLD’s tenancy at the Sports Complex. Purkiss Rose, having worked on BLD complexes previously, is already familiar with the BLD design concept. If intellectual property elements are required, a License agreement should be negotiated FIRST, before design starts. When is the last time the city paid a consultant such outrageous fees for such a long period?

 

By authorizing this CSA, the city guarantees it will spend a minimum of $90,000 and up to $225,000 of funds reserved for parks capital projects (AB1600 Parks funds) with no assurance of receiving any value in return. It is unclear whether this agreement requires BLD to do anything at all. This definitely does not demonstrate financial responsibility, one of the five Project Goals.

 

When and by who was it decided that the sports complex should be privately operated, and what justification was used?

 

When was RFQ sent out and how many potential operators was it sent to (three responded)?

 

How did operating terms and arrangements with the host cities, as well as operating parameters such as fees, hours, services, types of amenities and facilities, etc. of the three operators differ at the sites visited?

 

What were the reasons for selecting BLD over the other operators?

How much is it estimated of the amount that selection of BLD will add to the overall cost of the project, and what is the justification for the additional cost?

 

The discussion asserts “BLD has committed to operate our sports complex…” Unless agreements have been made outside the public process, there can be no such commitment except an unenforceable verbal agreement. The proper sequence would be to construct a facility under a competitive bidding process and identify and operator using the same competitive bidding process. Why is a commitment being made for operations before the complex has been designed?

 

How does the design change if the BLD agreement is not authorized, and what is the impact on the project other than reducing the cost of design by over half a million dollars and potential construction by $3 to $5 million?

 

The discussion asserts that “should the… Allan Witt Project… be approved, BLD would assist the city in design development, construction documentation and construction management”. This is a duplication of the work expected of Purkiss Rose in the previous agreement.

 

Resolution 2005-343 Language Concerns:

These phrases continue to appear in all the resolutions.

  1. “revenues … will be used to … relocate the CalTrans maintenance yard to a city-owned site…” - We need to be very clear on the costs for Caltrans and consider the option of not moving the yard if it is too expensive; nobody is willing to subsidize the Caltrans part of the project by sacrificing acres of the park.
  2. Sports complex “provides for an increase in the amount of community parkland” – Sports Complex is not Community Park as this language asserts.

 

Big League Dreams CSA Questions and Concerns:

Exhibit A-1 – Scope of work:

  1. Preliminary Design and Final Preliminary design - Required tasks appear to be to attend meetings, and “provide input and advice”, and prepare cash flow projections. The value of these contributions does not seem to justify the payment of $30,000 per month during the 6 months of Preliminary Design.
  2. Design Development and Construction Documents, Construction Observation and Administration, Post-Occupancy - It is premature, unnecessary and unwise to authorize services for these phases, which are beyond what is required for due diligence to prepare a recommendation for the Council.

Exhibit A-2 – Schedule of Submittals:

  1. Project plans for other public facilities such as Redding’s BLD complex are public records. Should the city pay BLD to get copies of these?
  2. The other deliverables amount to 12 cash flow projections (in 50 days) and a subsequent update to each (in 85 days), which is about $7,500 per projection.

Exhibit B – General Provisions:

  1. (9) Cancellation of Agreement - The agreement should provide for immediate termination of receipt of written notice, or immediately following the council’s decision, should the AWP project not be approved. Why is payment guaranteed for the first 3 payments ($90,000)? Why is 30-days notice (costing $30,000) required for cancellation instead of becoming effective on the date of receipt of notice?

Agenda Item 20c. Swinerton Management and Consulting Agreement (pg 319)

  1. Agenda item is for two CSAs totaling $209,825 to Swinerton Management and Consulting to “Provide Project Management Services for the proposed Multi-Sports Complex and …for the Proposed CalTrans Maintenance Yard at Red Top Road”
  2. Sports Complex agreement for $106,815 (2005-344, pg 321) Term is through December 31, 2006.
  3. CalTrans agreement for $103,010 (RA2005-45, pg 332) Term is through December 31, 2006.
  4. RFP responses were received from 4 firms; all were interviewed

 

What was the lowest bid for each project and which company submitted it?

 

What similar projects has the Concord office of Swinerton completed?

 

Why is the Caltrans relocation agreement (resolution RA2005-45) with the Redevelopment Agency and not with the City like the other agreements? What is the source of funds for this agreement?

 

Resolution 2005-344 Language Concerns:

These phrases continue to appear in the resolutions which are inaccurate, untrue or unsupported:

  1. Resolutions describe housing to be added by the project as “needed housing”. Need has not been established, and the Park Crossing units across the street remain 80% vacant.
  2. “introduces housing and commercial development on underutilized parcels along West Texas Street, Woolner Avenue and portions of Allan Witt Park to eliminate blight…”. No part of Allan Witt Park is blighted, and neither the Caltrans lot nor Allan Witt Park is underutilized.
  3. “revenues … will be used to … relocate the CalTrans maintenance yard to a city-owned site…” - We need to be very clear on the costs for Caltrans and consider the option of not moving the yard if it is too expensive; nobody is willing to subsidize the Caltrans part of the project by sacrificing acres of the park.
  4. Sports complex “provides for an increase in the amount of community parkland” – Sports Complex is not Community Park as this language asserts.

 

Swinerton CSA (2005-344) Questions and Concerns:

  1. Swinerton is to provide a wide range of services to coordinate and manage the project. It is unclear what role city staff would play in overseeing the project. Is it typical that city staff does not take on any active project management responsibility? Isn’t that the city’s job?
  2. What is the difference between Swinerton’s design team coordination role and Purkiss Rose prime consultant role? What additional value does Swinerton add?

 

Resolution RA2005-45 Language Concerns:

These phrases continue to appear in the resolutions which are inaccurate, untrue or unsupported:

  1. Section 2 of the resolution findings states “The Agency hereby finds and determines that the relocation of the CalTrans Maintenance Yard … is a vital component of the Allan Witt Project” This is not true, and further, seems to be an effort to artificially bind the CalTrans part of the project together with the community recreation parts of the project to avoid examining costs separately or considering alternatives that do not include it.
  2. Resolutions describe housing to be added by the project as “needed housing”. Need has not been established, and the Park Crossing units across the street remain 80% vacant.
  3. “introduces housing and commercial development on underutilized parcels along West Texas Street, Woolner Avenue and portions of Allan Witt Park to eliminate blight…”. No part of Allan Witt Park is blighted, and neither the Caltrans lot nor Allan Witt Park is underutilized.
  4. “revenues … will be used to … relocate the CalTrans maintenance yard to a city-owned site…” - We need to be very clear on the costs for Caltrans and consider the option of not moving the yard if it is too expensive; nobody is willing to subsidize the Caltrans part of the project by sacrificing acres of the park.
  5. Sports complex “provides for an increase in the amount of community parkland” – Sports Complex is not Community Park as this language asserts.

 

Swinerton CSA (RA2005-45) Questions and Concerns:

Exhibit A-1 Scope of work:

  1. Why are Coordination of the design team ($26,180) and Project and Design Team meetings and prepare minutes ($23,660) exactly duplicated on both resolutions? (are these items to be handled by different teams on a separate meeting schedule and never discussed at the same meeting?)
  2. Task 5 to “prepare a Critical Path schedule for the overall project” duplicates task 5 on the agreement under resolution 2005-344. It should be removed from one of the two agreements along with the $5,390 to “Prepare and maintain a master timeline”.
  3. Why should the city pay Swinerton to prepare an RFQ and select a Design Prime Consultant for the CalTrans sub-project (Task 8)? Didn’t the city prepare the RFQ for the Design Prime Consultant for the Sports Complex project, and if so why can’t the city prepare this one?

Agenda Item 20d. Communication Advantage Agreement (pg 343)

  1. Agreement is with the Redevelopment Agency for $25,000 to be paid to Communication Advantage
  2. Term is through September 30, 2006
  3. Funding is from Highway 12 Redevelopment Project Area funds

 

The description of work to be performed under this agreement is very unclear. It is difficult even to relate the Scope of Work to prior work performed by the consultant facilitating the group that came to be called the AWP Community Advisory Committee.

 

Specifically what work is to be performed and what is to be delivered?

 

What is the schedule of submissions?

 

Resolution RA2005-46 Language Concerns:

These phrases continue to appear in the resolutions which are inaccurate, untrue or unsupported:

  1. Resolutions describe housing to be added by the project as “needed housing”. Need has not been established, and the Park Crossing units across the street remain 80% vacant.
  2. “introduces housing and commercial development on underutilized parcels along West Texas Street, Woolner Avenue and portions of Allan Witt Park to eliminate blight…”. No part of Allan Witt Park is blighted, and neither the Caltrans lot nor Allan Witt Park is underutilized.
  3. “revenues … will be used to … relocate the CalTrans maintenance yard to a city-owned site…” - We need to be very clear on the costs for Caltrans and consider the option of not moving the yard if it is too expensive; nobody is willing to subsidize the Caltrans part of the project by sacrificing acres of the park.
  4. Sports complex “provides for an increase in the amount of community parkland” – Sports Complex is not Community Park as this language asserts.

 

Communication Advantage CSA Questions and Concerns:

Exhibit A-1 Scope of work:

  1. The scope of work does not appear to have been revised from its original August 19, 2004 version.
  2. The tasks to be performed are not clearly specified and deliverables are not identified. What is this agreement to accomplish?

Other Concerns

  1. Wind study will be critical – If the complex is built and gains a reputation for high winds, it will not attract tournaments as anticipated.
  2. Specific written Significance Thresholds cannot be found to determine which EIR findings represent significant impacts. Thresholds must be determined and published prior to completion of the draft EIR.

Recommendation

  1. Decide whether the design is to follow the BLD template, and negotiate an agreement with BLD for design to proceed (by Purkiss Rose, or whichever firm is selected).

 

  1. Defer authorization of any of the CSA’s until Recommendation 1 has been completed.


This may save several hundreds of thousands of dollars for duplicate services and eliminate the BLD agreement under 20b entirely. It may also provide time for the newly-elected council members who will be voting on the AWP proposal to participate in the process.