Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Park Design topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council delays selection of park design firm to allow all proposers before CDBG deadline

Gunnison City Council · December 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Gunnison City Council postponed choosing a design firm for a proposed park sport-court project tied to a $250,000 CDBG grant and scheduled a special meeting Monday at noon so all three proposers can present before the application is submitted.

Gunnison City Council postponed a decision on which firm will design a proposed sports-court reconstruction at the city park and scheduled a lunch meeting Monday so all three firms that submitted qualifications can present before the city’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application is due. Staff said the CDBG application requires the city to name a preferred professional design firm at the time of submission, even if the full design is completed later.

City staff told the council they solicited professional design services for the $250,000 CDBG grant and sent the solicitation to 10 firms; three firms returned submittals (Jones and Deville, Sunrise Engineering and Northland Engineering). Staff placed scoring sheets in council members’ packets and outlined a qualifications-based scoring rubric that weights general experience, CDBG experience and project-specific work.

"When you solicit professional services, such as engineering or architectural services, you have to do the selection based on their qualifications and experience, not on their cost," said Unidentified Speaker 5, the staff member leading the procurement discussion. That qualifications-first approach is required by federal and state procurement rules for professional services, staff said; price is negotiated later with the preferred firm.

Council members debated whether to hire an engineering firm for design and construction management or to contract directly with sports-court contractors to save fees. Staff provided a March ballpark estimate that included engineering costs under $40,000 and a total project estimate near $490,000; council members noted other local projects that cost less and discussed construction methods (post-tension slab vs. a thicker concrete pad) and potential tree impacts.

Because the CDBG application deadline is approximately 11 days away, council members agreed they must commit to a preferred firm but do not need the final design to submit. To ensure fairness and allow council members to hear directly from each proposer, the council set a posted special meeting for Monday at noon and invited all three firms to give a brief presentation. The council will reconvene that meeting to score submittals and select a preferred firm for the application.

Next steps: the city will host the three firms for presentations Monday at noon and then select a preferred consultant to name in the CDBG submittal. If any firm’s negotiated contract price is unacceptable, staff said the city can decline the negotiation and select another firm.