The parliamentary maneuvering on the park's consultant request for proposal are almost as interesting as the actually item. However, the item itself deserves some scrutiny.
A request for proposal (RFP) is basically a call to take bids on a given project. Generally if a bidder comes in that is acceptable and within the estimate, an approval for an RFP is tantamount toward approving such an item. The city staff estimates the cost for this consultant on parks will be approximately $50,000 to $75,000 and the stipulation is that the project will not exceed the $75,000 (unless the council approves such a bid).
Everyone loves parks, so this is not a knock on parks, this is an argument about the allocation of very scarce city resources.
The main argument for this project is that the parks' master plan is well out of date. I do not disagree with that. Nor do I disagree that it needs updating. However, Mayor Sue Greenwald made a very important argument that we are in the process (and just beginning that process) of updating the General Plan. The General Plan update will take a considerable amount of time. Once the new general plan is approved, we will have a good idea about where the new growth will occur and the new developments that will take place.
So why would you expend money on a parks' master plan when we do not know where the new growth will be and what the future usage will require?
Secondly, if we look at the list of the items that this will include--there will be data collection. What will be included in that collection? Site maps of all parks. Park and facilities inventories. For these types of things, we need an outside consultant? A major part of this expenditure will be a community survey.
I understand that the master plan needs updating. But I think we need to prioritize the expenditure of scarce resources.
Let me put it to people this way: would you rather the city staff and city council pay $25,000 for a community survey or use that money to fix existing problems and upgrade or repair existing infrastructure?
City staff and the majority of the city council want to spend money on demographic trends and analysis before they update their master plan.
On page three of the city staff report they list a number of either unbuilt amenities. City staff makes the argument that the consultant will need to include analysis of unbuilt or unfinished facilities to determine if they are still needed. Again, this begs the question--do we need a consultant to figure that out and can we not put some of this money toward just building the facilities rather than toward a consultant to make a determination as to whether to build the facilities?
The city has scarce financial resources and we need to really scrutinize some of these expenditures that seem to pile up piece mail.
We all favor parks, the question is what is best for the parks--consultants or construction. Let us do the new general plan and in the meantime complete the unfinished projects that are determined by staff to be needed.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
A request for proposal (RFP) is basically a call to take bids on a given project. Generally if a bidder comes in that is acceptable and within the estimate, an approval for an RFP is tantamount toward approving such an item. The city staff estimates the cost for this consultant on parks will be approximately $50,000 to $75,000 and the stipulation is that the project will not exceed the $75,000 (unless the council approves such a bid).
Everyone loves parks, so this is not a knock on parks, this is an argument about the allocation of very scarce city resources.
The main argument for this project is that the parks' master plan is well out of date. I do not disagree with that. Nor do I disagree that it needs updating. However, Mayor Sue Greenwald made a very important argument that we are in the process (and just beginning that process) of updating the General Plan. The General Plan update will take a considerable amount of time. Once the new general plan is approved, we will have a good idea about where the new growth will occur and the new developments that will take place.
So why would you expend money on a parks' master plan when we do not know where the new growth will be and what the future usage will require?
Secondly, if we look at the list of the items that this will include--there will be data collection. What will be included in that collection? Site maps of all parks. Park and facilities inventories. For these types of things, we need an outside consultant? A major part of this expenditure will be a community survey.
I understand that the master plan needs updating. But I think we need to prioritize the expenditure of scarce resources.
Let me put it to people this way: would you rather the city staff and city council pay $25,000 for a community survey or use that money to fix existing problems and upgrade or repair existing infrastructure?
City staff and the majority of the city council want to spend money on demographic trends and analysis before they update their master plan.
On page three of the city staff report they list a number of either unbuilt amenities. City staff makes the argument that the consultant will need to include analysis of unbuilt or unfinished facilities to determine if they are still needed. Again, this begs the question--do we need a consultant to figure that out and can we not put some of this money toward just building the facilities rather than toward a consultant to make a determination as to whether to build the facilities?
The city has scarce financial resources and we need to really scrutinize some of these expenditures that seem to pile up piece mail.
We all favor parks, the question is what is best for the parks--consultants or construction. Let us do the new general plan and in the meantime complete the unfinished projects that are determined by staff to be needed.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
