Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Skate Park Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves SWT Design contract for skate‑park design after debate over fees and grant accounting
Summary
The board approved a contract with SWT Design for park design work contingent on attorney sign‑off and a cost‑sharing agreement; members pressed staff about a $36,000–$48,000 increase tied to cultural‑resource monitoring and reallocation of grant line items.
The Board of Aldermen approved a resolution May 20 authorizing the mayor to enter a contract with SWT Design Inc. for skate‑park design services, subject to city‑attorney review and an executed cost‑sharing agreement.
The item generated extended discussion. Aldermen and staff reviewed a packet that showed design costs had increased from earlier estimates (an earlier line in the packet showed design estimated at about $47,000 and later documents showed design estimates rising toward $83,000). Council members identified cultural‑resource monitoring fees and other permit‑related items as a major driver of the increase. Staff said the team had discussed shifting some budgeted construction work to in‑kind public‑works contributions so that the grant award and allowable budget shifts would cover the design overrun.
City staff said Land Water Conservation (the grant administrator referenced in the packet) allowed a budget shift and that the project remained within the allowed tolerance; staff cited an allowable shift “to 48,000” and said the package remained on track with Land Water Conservation’s requirements, subject to their final approval. Aldermen asked that Attorney Jones and the city engineer review contract language; Jones said he would redline the contract and return it to SWT.
Board members also asked whether the construction cost estimates were reliable. Staff replied the construction numbers were developed in consultation with a skate‑park builder (American Ramp Company) and reviewed by SWT; staff said SWT was “confident” the construction estimates remained within an acceptable range, though the design fee overrun was “pretty significant.”
Alderman Hoven moved to approve the resolution as amended to require the cost‑sharing agreement and city‑attorney approval before final signature; the motion carried. The board directed staff to provide a Word version of the contract for attorney review and to continue coordination with Land Water Conservation.
No final construction contract was approved at the meeting; Nor was a final construction bid package released until Land Water Conservation gives final approvals and the design contract language is finalized.
