Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/10/06 - Agenda Packet AGENDA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call: Alexander , Special Central Park Task Force Meeting October 6, 1998 - 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California A. CALL TO ORDER Biane , Curatalo , Dutton , Williams B. ITEMS OF DISCUSSION APPROVAL OF JULY 8, 1997 MINUTES 2. REVIEW OF THE CENTRAL PARK PROJECT STATUS C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the agenda. The Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. D. ADJOURNMENT I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that · true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on October 1, 1998, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 94954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. July 8, 1997 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Sl~ecial Central Park Task Force Meetin~ A. CALL TO ORDER A special Central Park Task Force meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Tuesday, July 8, 1997, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 5:46 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane (arrived at 6:00 p.m.), James Curatalo, Rex Gutierrez, Diane Williams (arrived at 6:00 p.m.), and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lain, City Manager; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Karen Emery, Associate Park Planner; Sm,~rme Ota, Community Services Manager; Paula Pachon, Management Analyst II; Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst II, and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk B. ITEM OF DISCUSSION 1. DISCUSSION OF MASTER PLAN PHASING PRIORITIES FOR CENTRAL PARK Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, explained the masts plan for Central Park. He stated staff would like to know if the uses outlined are still valid as indicated in the plan. He stated he would like to develop financing options and bring this back to the Council at a future meeting. He stated tonight's meeting is to get direction on the priorities so that the financing can be looked at for discussion at future meetings. Mayor Alexander stated he would like to see some of the questions posed tonight with written answers coming back so that everyone has the information. Councilmember Gutierrez stated his big question is what kind of funding can the City get for this project for next year to two years. He stated he was not sure the City could get the money for the entire grand plan, but hoped they could get the green areas going to be able to enjoy that part of it. He stated he would like to know where and when the money will come from for the library and the other buildings. He stated he liked the library and the aquatics buildings. He liked the cultural arts building and felt this was important and that there is not enough of these types of activities in the City. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated they would like to get the goals or priorities for this project and that then the staff could come back with more f'mancing information for these goals. Councilmember Curatalo asked what the estimate was for the cost of the whole project. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated approximately $100,000,000. Councilmembers Biane and Williams arrived at 6:00 p.m. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting up for public input. Addressing the City Council were: Special Central Park Task Force Minutes July 8, 1997 Page 2 Kathy Peter, Senior Advisory Committee, asked who will establish the priorities or who will make the decision as to what will be built f~t. Mayor Alexander stated they are trying to get the information from all of the people in the community that attend these meetings to help the Council make their decision as to what they would like to see. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, asked her what she would like to see. Ms. Peters stated she would like to see a very fme library. Dan Griffith stated he liked what he sees tonight and asked if there was a precedent in other cities close to our size on ways to get funding for such a project as this. He felt all options for funding should be looked at after the priorities are set. He stated he is excited to see what is going on along Base Line. Councilmember Biane felt each element of the project should have a cost placed on it. Margie Strew stated she is hear to address the aquatic center and is very interested in seeing one built. She knew of a program in Irvine that would help to fund the center and its programs. Councilmember Williams stated they are hoping to have a major aquatics/Olympic size pool. Wendy Femno stated she agrees with the aquatics center and that they currently have to drive to Irvine for these types of activities now. She felt a swimming complex would generate income for the City. Elder Wilkerson, Senior Advisory Committee, stated he was very happy with the improvements that have been done on the tennis courts at Lions Park. Mrs. Elmos stated she liked the idea of a questionnaire to list priorities. She liked the aquatics, library and the cultural arts buildings. She felt the City needed more community centers and felt the City needed a gymnasium for sports programs. She felt the park design was beautiful and would like to see it built. Councilmember Williams stated there will be a gymnasium in the Gemco Center once that project is complete. Philip Hubbard stated he would like to see a strategy developed. He felt the plan done in 1987 is outdated. He felt the environmental impact should be looked at and considered before any construction is done at this site. He felt fees should be looked at and who will be charged and how much. Councilmember Gutierrez talked about the clean up work being done along Base Line at the Central Park site. He stated there will be people cleaning up along the street on Saturday, July 19, from 6:00 to l 1:00 a.m. He felt it would be good to see the task force members and the community working on this date to clean up the location. Eric Vale stated he loves the proposed plan and realizes the cost of it. He felt the community needs everyone to do something. He stated he felt it was hard to set priorities when he does not know what the bank account holds. Councilmember Williams commented that a children's theater could support a performing arts center because of the people it brings to the center for the performances. Special Central Park Task Force Minutes July 8, 1997 Page 3 Mayor Alexander stated they need to be considerate of people living around the park also by what types of activities that take place at the park. Councilmember Gutierrez pointed out they need to look at alternatives how to fund something and whether it is five or ten years. He felt they needed to sit down with the City Manager and City staff on how to fund this so it can be started. Mayor Alexander felt staff should come back with more information on what it would cost to do some of the things mentioned tonight. Councilmember Williams stated when this plan was developed, the people doing this did not want to worry about the cost of it, but instead to think about the needs of the community, She stated it appears that the needs often years ago are still the same. She felt possibly options should be looked at to tr~ to keep the maintenance costs down. Elmer Stevee, Senior Advisory Committee, thanked the Council for the wonderful Senior Center. He felt there should be a Sr. Center at Central Park to be separate from a community center. Alejandro Castro, resident since 1988, stated he has not seen a parking lot in this plan and wondered how many spaces there will be. He stated he would be happy to turn off lights or other volunteer work to keep the cost down. He stated he has not seen any soccer fields in this park. He felt there could be various classes for the community. He stated he is excited to see the trees going in along Base Line. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated there is adequate and overflow parking in this plan and pointed it out for Mr. Stevee. Tammy Farley of Terra Vista, was concerned about the location of the parking lot being near the fence of the residential area and the vandalism that might create. She asked iftbe sports center was to be named after Ralph Lewis. Jack Lain, City Manager, stated there was a room in the center to have the name ofCaryn Dilorio. Don Carroll, Senior Center, commended the Council for what they have done to the existing library buildings and felt it was a t'me thing they have done for the community. Nick Caravitas, Filippi Winery, stated he would like to see the planting of grapevines for the park site until the buildings can be built, and he would be happy to assist with this idea. Mayor Alexander brought up that the City does buy its water from the Cucamonga County Water District, and that it does have to pay residential water rates. He stated the minutes along with questionS and answers asked tonight can come back before the next meeting. Councilmember Williams asked for Rick Gomez to comment on the soccer fields that were brought up earlier in the meeting because she felt it was the thought of the people that developed this plan that this was to be a passive park. She stated this park is not going to have loud games that will disrupt the neighboring people. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated there are other parks in the City that provide for soccer, little league games, etc. Councilmember Biane asked how people were notified of this meeting. Special Central Park Task Force Minutes July 8, 1997 Page 4 Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated they were notified by mail and that a notice was in the newspaper about it. Cynthia Mixon stated she was not notified by mail, but did see it in the newspaper. She wondered if the July 19 service project would be in the paper. Rex Gutierrez felt it should be in The Sun and The Daily Bulleti~ Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, clarified that this is a service project for the Mormon Church and that they are not really asking for everyone to come out with their shovels. The Council concurred that the next meeting will occur near the end of August. .8.*** C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM ~ PUBLIC No communication was made from the public. Do A!XIOURNM!~NT MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Biane to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:19 p.m. .. Respectfully submitted, Approved: * Debra J. Adams, CMC city Cler CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: October 6, 1998 Central Park Task Force FROM: BY: SUBJECT: Rick Gomez, Community Development Director Karen McGuire-Emery, Senior Park Planner REVIEW OF THE CENTRAL PARK PROJECT STATUS RECOMMENDATION City staff, with the support of the Task Force, will be recommending to City Council to proceed with the Request For Proposal process for consultant services to conduct the strategic city-wide survey. BACKGROUND On May 13, 1997, the Central Park Task Force held its first Workshop to review the Central Park Master Plan which was approved in 1987. Approximately 30 residents attended this orientation meeting which included a slide presentation by Bob Mueting of RJM Design Group, as well as a brief overview and a question and answer period conducted by Rick Gomez. At that meeting, notebooks were passed out to all present, which provided a copy and brief description of both the Original Master Plan approved in 1987, as well as the Design Development Plan which was prepared in 1991 information. On July 8, 1997, a second meeting was held with the Task Force. At that meeting, the Task Force asked that a survey be conducted of its members regarding the phasing priorities for Central Park. The results of that limited survey are attached for your review and information. As indicated, there were 19 surveys returned out of approximately 100 surveys mailed. Page 6 of the survey information provides the summary information for the 3 questions asked. The minutes from this meeting are included as a separate item at this evening's meeting for your review and approval. Cost Estimates and Time Frame The Task Force also requested that staff review the scope and financial analysis of Central Park and that they provide specific project estimated capital costs and annual'maintenance costs, options for financing, and a recommended schedule for development. The following Summary of Estimated Capital Costs by Design Options has been developed for the Task Force's review. Chart 1 was prepared showing all major components of each option. The three design options included: Option 1 - Complete Park; Option 2 - Open Space With Lakes; and, Option 3 - Open Space Without Lakes. The estimates were prepared based on the estimated cost of construction, annual maintenance for the park and facilities, and the annual revenue needed for program services. CENTRAL PARK TASK FORCE STAFF REPORT CENTRAL PARK STATUS October 6, 1998 Page 2 Capital Cost Structure The Master Plan for the Central Park project integrates the cultural and organized sports related needs of the community by incorporating three major use areas or elements: the Omni Center, the Sports Complex and the Park and Open Space. The following financial analysis (Chart 1) was prepared showing all major components of the project. Individual amenities of these major components, as well as different combinations of these components could be developed on a phased basis to provide facilities benefitting the public. Chart 1 Central Park Master Plan Summary of Projected Costs by Design Option Capital Cost Estimate (11/96) Off-Sits Improvements Project Contingency (15%) Maintenance Cost Estimate 10% Capital Reserve Start Up Capital Equipment Net Operating Costs* TOTAL ANNUAL ASSESSMENT Complete Park Park Area/Open Space - Park/Open Space including lakes and without lakes Aquatic Center $130,630,314.00 $18~24~86.00 $12.719,646.00 $3,051,901.00 $3,051,901.00 $3,051,901.00 $20,052,332.00 $3,191,518.00 $2,365,732.00 $8,697,773.00 $2,684,427.00 $1,850,988.00 $869,776.00 $268,443.00 $185,099.00 $790,000.00 $400,000.00 $327,000.00 $2,777,890.00 $341,500.00 $186,300.00 $166,869,986.00 $28,162,675.00 $20,686,670.00 $899.00 $132.92 $91.65 * Note: Annual management costs will increase in an amount determined by the ultimate sizing of facilities. The additional insurance costs will only be marginal as compared with other annual operating costs, but should ultimately be factored into any discussion of operating costs for Central Park. Another cost impact will be the incremental cost of law enforcement. Increases in calls for service are inevitable given the size and number of facilities at Central park. Given the size of the park, a Community Service Officer (CSO) should ultimately be stationed full time at this park at one of the constructed facilities. 'Timing of cost impact can only be determined by how much of the Park is to be built and what type of facilities will be in it. Financing Component The Central Park Project will require two financing components; one for capital construction and aid initial start up costs (one time only expenses) and one for annual operations, maintenance and capital reserves (annual expenses for both facilities and programs). Because a bond issue is anticipated, there will be annual costs associated with debt service for the bonds, as well as the annual operations, maintenance and capital reserves needed for the project. CENTRAL PARK TASK FORCE STAFF REPORT CENTRAL PARK STATUS October 6, 1998 Page 3 Staff researched and analyzed methods of assessment and recommended the establishment of a city wide Community Facility District (CFD) as the preferred method of assessment. This recommendation is based on the inability of the General Obligation election and the 1913 Assessment District Act election to facilitate the different types of revenue needed for this project. Desi[m Option Option 1 - Complete Park Option 2 - Park Area / Open Space (Including lake and aquatic center) Option 3 - Park Area / Open Space only Estimated AnnualAssessmentPerParcel $899.00 $132.92 $ 91.65 Proposed Central Park Desitin/Development Schedule The following proposed time line reflects the major design/development milestones from Master Plan design reaffnmation and approval to completion ofconsmmtion. An estimated amount of time has also been included for researching and conducting the ballot measure, as well as completing the environmental review process. Timing will vary depending on the option selected for development. I. Review and Adoption of Master Plan and Development 0 Months Guidelines including the Architectural Theme for the Park II. Identifying the Project Scope (9 Months) 9 Months · Includes Hiring a Market Research Analyst and Determining " Amenities to be provided. IlL Organizing and Conducting Ballot Measure (12 Months) 21 Months IVa. Environmental Review ,. (12 Months) 39 Months IVb. Design Development Phase (48 Months) · Review of Previously Prepared Schematic Plans for the Sports Center and Determination of Modifications for Consultant's Design Development Plan Preparation, culminating in adoption of the Design Development Concept: · Presentation to Workshop · Park and Recreation · Planning Commission · City Council V. Plan Preparation (16 Months) 55Months · Preparation of Plans and Specifications for construction of Phase I · Begin Working Drawings · 1 st Plan Check CENTRAL PARK TASK FORCE STAFF REPORT CENTRAL PARK STATUS October 6, 1998 Page 4 2nd Plan Check 3rd Plan Check Plan Approval and Acceptance Park and Recreation Commission City Council - Acceptance of Plans and Authorization To Advertise For Bids VI. Construction Phase (24 Months) 79 Months · Advertise Project · Bid Opening · City Council Award of Project · 2 Year Construction Project · Completion of Project · Acceptance of Project by City Council · Notice of Completion Filed Consultant Survey With City Council approval and Task Force concurrence, staff will prepare the Request For Proposal for the Central Park public opinion survey. This targeted, city-wide survey will be conducted to determine resident' s opinions on the adopted master plan of facilities, phasing, and financing options for local resident's preferences._ The following is a general outline for conducting this strategic survey: Identify the Targeted Audience - There are many registered voters, but the majority of them do not vote consistently. Based on voter behavior records, it can be determined which voter is likely to cast a vote in an upcoming election. The targeted audience will consist of those voters who are identified as "likely to vote on this issue". Assess the Concerns, Opinions and Attitudes of the Targeted Audience - A careful assessment of the attitudes and opinions of the targeted audience marks the beginning of any successful communication program. Collection methods vary, however, statistics show that the most effective is the telephone survey opinion polling. Through this process, the targeted audiences opinions and priorities on not only parks and recreation issues, as well as other issues needed to craft and communicate an effective message can be discerned. Build a Communication Strategy - Once opinions are measured and categorized, a communication strategy can then be developed to ensure' the appropriate message is delivered timely and effectively to the target audience. Construct and Deliver the Message - Once opinions and concerns are understood and the information has been organized into a communication strategy, messages can be crafted to counter misinformed opinions that will inevitably develop within the community. In addition, messages can also be crafted to address concerns which are tailored to the targeted audience. Monitor Effects of Communications and Message - "Test for Effect" - Monitoring and measuring the effectiveness of the communication program is important to ensure the CENTRAL PARK TASK FORCE STAFF REPORT CENTRAL PARK STATUS October 6, 1998 Page 5 development of desired opinion and minimize the spread of misinformation. This is achieved with follow up polls, which are a series of opinion surveys used to test the effectiveness of the message and allows for the message to be "adjusted for effect". The following proposed dates may be further refined once a consultant has been selected and a final survey methodology is defined. Once the survey and findings have been tabulated and accepted, staff will establish the proposed schedule and work program for the subsequent ballot measure process for City Council review. September - October 1998 Staff preparing RFP and beginning selection process for consultant. Early November 1998 City Council award contract to consultant November 1998 - January 1999 Survey preparation - Consultant will meet with Task Force to review the scope of city-wide survey. Task Force to advise the consultant in developing survey methodology. January 1999 City Council review of survey material January - April 1999 Conduct city-wide survey and forward to Task Force for review April - May 1999 Tabulate results of survey and forward to Task Force for review Respecff~~tted, oqmez Conunu~ D~relopment Director attachments -< o ---t ill Z m m o Z m 7 0 z Z m m r- 0 O~ m -< u> c < m -< I'1'1