My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
091897
ConejoRPD
>
Public Access
>
Archive
>
Board Meetings
>
Minutes
>
1997
>
091897
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2016 5:08:09 PM
Creation date
8/15/2016 5:07:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board
Document Type
Minutes
Date
9/18/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
September 18 1997 <br />Page 2 <br />7. DEFERRED MATTERS <br />None <br />8. NEW ITEMS <br />A. Authorization To Award Contracts For Master Planning Of Conejo Creek <br />Park And McCrea Ranch <br />Referencing the documentation, Sorensen identified and discussed the two <br />sites, the anticipated process of community involvement, the Request For <br />Proposal process, the two proposed landscape architecture firms and their <br />qualifications, and financial considerations. He said that staff recommends <br />that two contracts be awarded, one for $53,000 and one for $30,000, for <br />Conejo Creek and McCrea Ranch respectively. <br />In response to Holt's inquiry, Sorensen said that the two proposed firms were <br />selected on the basis of their professional skills, qualifications, and facilitation <br />experience; their bids were the lowest submitted; the fund source for both <br />projects is the revenue from Conejo Valley Days, Fund 13; and currently <br />about $106,000 is available in the account. <br />Ward clarified the recommendation and said that a significant amount of <br />citizen participation is envisioned. He noted past concept designs on display. <br />Gillette asked if Board members were satisfied with the amount of Board <br />participation expected in the process. Ward stated that, during the <br />community involvement process, important milestones and critical decisions <br />would require significant Board involvement, Board participation on an <br />individual level would be welcome, a formal Board presence, however, would <br />not be the best way to ensure the process, and a schedule of meetings would <br />be provided. <br />Lange stated his approval of the two firms and their approach. <br />Gillette asked about the appropriateness of creating a committee composed <br />of two board members to serve as a liaison. Lange and Jacobsen stated <br />their agreement with the concept. <br />Ward said that the goal of the process is to encourage community <br />participation and he is concerned that Board member attendance at <br />community hearings would possibly skew and impact the process. He urged <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.