CR 94-74 Authoriztaion Shady Oak Beach
_.---
"'( y
\ 0
;ca:
- ",. '"
_March 31, 1994 0 P K \ ~ Council Report 94-74
AUTHORIZATION OF PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES FOR SHADY OAK
BEACH REDEVELOPMENT STUDY
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: "Authorize the Mayor and
Ci ty Manaqer to enter into an agreement with Brauer and Associates to
provide professional services for a Shady Oak Beach Redevelopment Study
contingent upon the City of Minnetonka agreeinq to fund two-thirds of the
study cost."
Adoption of this motion and a subsequent funding agreement with the city of
Minnetonka will commit the city of Hopkins to spending approximately
$4,500.00 - $5,000.00 on this study. The motion does not commit the city
to do anything but the study.
Overview.
The cities of Hopkins and Minnetonka have been discussing the possibility
of redeveloping the Shady Oak Beach facilities for over a year now. Four
proposals for studying this potential redevelopment were received three to
four months ago and a subsequent interview of the consultants resulted in
.staff selecting Brauer and Associates as their recommendation to perform
this study. The four proposals that were received for this study were as
follows:
Architect/Engineer Study Fee
Brauer and Associates $13,400.00
Hoisington and Koegler $19,545.00
Westwood Professional Services $23,500.00
David Kirscht Associates $41,600.00
Staff feels that the proposed study fee of Brauer and Associates 1S
competitive and reasonable for the work requested. Brauer has completed
many similar studies for other cities with very good results. Staff is
therefore recommending entering into an agreement with Brauer and
Associates to study the redevelopment of Shady Oak Beach.
Attached is a memo to the city Managers of Hopkins and Minnetonka. The
memo was attached to provide detailed background information, and to
identify the steps that need to occur to get this study underway.
Primary Issues to Consider.
o Why perform a redevelopment study?
o How will the study be funded?
.supportinq Information.
o Analysis of Issues.
o Memo to the City Managers of Hopkins and Minnetonka.
~ d~e/Y\
Lee Gustafson, Public Works Director
-
Council Report 94-74
Page 2
.
Analvsis of Issues.
o Why perform a redevelopment study?
The facilities at Shady Oak Beach were built many years ago, and are
now in need of some very minor repairs and some major renovations.
The Americans with Disabilities Act has also created a need to make
modifications to the site to comply with the mandate of that Act. The
combination of these items has created a need to complete a
redevelopment study of this site to ensure that the improvements made
to the site meet the needs of both cities now, and in the future.
o How will the study be funded?
It is proposed that the study be funded two-thirds by the City of
Minnetonka and one-third by the City of Hopkins.. This cost
participation is the same method that I s currently used in most all
other j oint recreation programs. Hopkins portion of the study,
approximately $4,500.00 - $5,000.00, will be funded out of the Parks
Maintenance Budget.
e
.
. CITY OF HOPKINS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 11, 1994
TO: Dave Childs, Minnetonka city Manager
steve Mielke, Hopkins city Manager
FROM: Lee Gustafson, Hopkins Public Works Directo~
SUBJECT: Shady Oak Beach Redevelopment Study
As both of you are aware, the concept of performing a
redevelopment study of the Shady Oak Beach facilities has
been discussed by various groups since the early part of
last year. The Minnetonka Park Board, Hopkins Park Board,
Joint Recreation Board, and the city Councils of both cities
have all formally or informally discussed this concept.
Staff from both cities have had numerous discussions on this
issue especially within the last six months.
e During the month of January, it was reported to both the
Hopkins Park Board and the Joint Recreation Board that the
city of Hopkins had received four proposals to conduct a
redevelopment study of the Shady Oak Beach facilities. The
proposed fees ranged from $12,900.00 (plus additional
services) to $41,600.00. It was also reported that staff
from both cities narrowed their selection of this group down
to the two low bidders, Brauer and Associates, and the
Hoisington Koegler Group. If no objections were received
from either Board on this selection, interviews were to be
set up with both consultants and the results of those
interviews would be reported back to the Boards.
Both of these consultants were interviewed on January 27,
1994 by an interview team consisting of Paul Ahles, Larry
Blackstad, Curt Briese, David Johnson, Dick Wilson, Ray
Vogtman, and Lee Gustafson. This team unanimously agreed to
recommend that Brauer and Associates be awarded the contract
to perform the study. The recommendation was based on the
fact that the firm is well qualified and that they were the
low bidder.
.
.
March ll, 1994
Page 2
~ During the open discussion period of the interviews it
became obvious to the interview team that the study did not
need to begin until at least April or possibly May. The
team made this determination from the discussions that took
place during the interviews with both firms. The interview
team felt it was critical that the firm performing the
redevelopment study observe the beach in full' operation to
get an honest picture of everything they would be studying.
As such, the completion period for the study changed from a
March - June period to a April - July period.
Another item that became obvious during and after the
interviews was that staff from both cities need to sit down
and jointly review the scope of services in the Brauer and
Associates proposal prior to a contract being executed.
Staff felt this was necessary to ensure the needs of both
cities would be addressed in the study, and during the study
process itself. A meeting such as this would also be
helpful to the consultant so they are fully aware of each
cities expectations.
The study process is basically at a point right now where
firm commitments are needed by both cities in order for it
to continue. I have outlined below the steps that I feel
~ are necessary for this to happen.
1) Both cities need to agree on how this study will be
funded. Throughout most of the last twelve months
discussions have been held regarding the funding that
have indicated the study should be funded similar to
the two-thirdsjone-third method the cities are
accustomed to using in the Recreation program. This
method would result in the City of Minnetonka being
responsible for approximately $10,000.00 of the study,
and the city of Hopkins approximately $5,000.00.
2) If the funding method is approved by both cities, the
city of Minnetonka should indicate this in writing to
the City of Hopkins. The written document would
provide assurance to the Hopkins city Council that the
city of Minnetonka is in full agreement with the entire
study prior to the Hopkins city Council approving a
contract with Brauer and Associates.
3) The Hopkins city council authorize their Mayor and city
Manager to enter into a contract with Brauer and
Associates to perform a redevelopment study on the
Shady Oak Beach facilities in accordance with terms
agreed to between the cities of Minnetonka and Hopkins.
This Council action would probably occur on April 5.
~
,
.
March 11, 1994
Page 3
. 4} A meeting be set up with Brauer and Associates prior to
executing a contract with their firm to discuss in
detail their study process. The meeting would include
the City Managers from both cities and other
appropriate staff members. This meeting would ensure
the consultant is fully aware of both cities needs, and
is considered critical in the success of this study.
As previously mentioned , the above four steps are necessary
in order for the Shady oak Beach redevelopment study to
continue. I would therefore ask that the two of you contact
each other to make certain both cities agree with the
information contained within the four steps. If everything
is adequate, I would then ask that Mr. Childs send Mr.
Mielke a letter agreeing to the funding terms mentioned
above. Mr. Mielke should then pass along a copy of Mr.
Childs letter to me s~ I may include it in my report to the
Hopkins City council.
If either of you have any questions on this matter, please
do not hesitate to contact me. r will be in contact with
both of you if the process continues and a meeting is
scheduled with Brauer and Associates to review the study
process.
.
Attachment:
0 Brauer and Associates Proposal
re