|
Shields questioned process that selects park designers
by Rick DeClue · News · January 28, 2016
At last week’s meeting, City Council member Tim Shields questioned the process for narrowing down the three finalists to design the initial phase of the city’s proposed park for Pedersen Valley.
The three companies recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission, French-Reneker Associates, Fehr Graham Engineering and Environmental and Bolton & Menk, presented their proposals to the council in a work session before the regular council meeting.
The three were selected from seven submissions that the parks commission then narrowed to five firms before selecting three finalists, as requested by the council.
During the regular council meeting, council member Tim Shields — a former member of the Parks and Rec Commission — asked the council to interview the fourth and fifth firms ranked by the commission. This was based partially on comments Shields received from one of the commission members, as well as his own review of the commission’s meeting and selection process.
While the council had been told in the introduction of the subject that the three finalists had been agreed to unanimously by the commission, Shields said that was true of only two of the three. He also said the commission reviewed and ranked the seven applications, but did not do a formal ranking after the interviews. They also reached a consensus rather than take a voice vote, he said.
Shields told the council that he did not feel there was a clear consensus after the two finalists, and asked that the council resolve any questions by interviewing the remaining two of the top-five firms.
Council member Colton Miller objected to Shields request on the basis that it represented “changing the rules in the middle of the game,” which would be unfair to the three finalists.
Miller was supported by council member Mary Beth Stevenson. They both also said the conducting further interviews would essentially negate the role the council had asked the Parks and Rec Commission to play.
“Why should anybody want to volunteer for a commission if we’re not going to pay any attention to what they do?” Miller asked.
City Administrator Matt Muckler told the council they had the right to choose whomever they wanted, even a firm outside of the three finalists. He would not recommend including the groups eliminated in the first round, but would for the companies that made the top five.
The city council’s discussion grew heated at times.
Mayor Roger Laughlin said he did not object to the additional interviews.
“What’s another 40 or 45 minutes on a major project like this?” he asked. He felt it would simply be a case of the council being thorough.
Members Jordan Ellyson and Brian Pierce said they were not prepared to make a decision.
Muckler reminded the council that this was only a discussion and that the council could not take action that night.
In a hypothetical polling by Laughlin, four of the council members indicated they knew who their choice would be of the three finalists.
Shields said he did not know which firm he would pick.
Parks and Rec Director Melissa Russell confirmed that only two of the three finalists were unanimously supported by the commission.
She also said she thought the commission’s process was good, and that she felt her department could work with any of the firms selected.
After she stepped away from the podium, Russell told City Finance Officer Gordon Edgar, who served as secretary for the commission, she wished the commission had completed the final round of rankings.
After a discussion about whether pushing the question to the Feb. 2 council meeting would disrupt the project schedule, the council decided to revisit the issue next meeting.
The presentations by the engineering finalists agreed on the challenges presented by the site: The topography, storm water runoff from north of the park, the gas pipeline running through the park, floodplain issues and the amount of dirt to be moved. The dirt work represents a third of the estimated $3 million cost for this phase of the park.
All three recommended that the four ball fields be tiered in a way to lessen some of the dirt work, lower costs and perhaps improve drainage. This may also require relocating the concessions “plaza” from its location on preliminary site plans.
Engineering work and construction management for Beranek Park, Wapsi Park and Lion’s Field is being handled under a separate agreement with HBK Engineering, which started that work when the city initially approved the extension of the Local Option Sales Tax for park improvements.
Editor's note: This story was updated Feb. 11 to correct City Administrator Matt Muckler's comment on whom he would and would not recommend the City Council could review outside of the top three designers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
