Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - January 4, 2011 SSLODI CITY COUNCIL SHIRTSLEEVE SESSION CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET TUESDAY, JANUARY 4, 2011 A. Roll Call by City Clerk An Informal Informational Meeting ("Shirtsleeve" Session) of the Lodi City Council was held Tuesday, January 4, 2011, commencing at 7:00 a.m. Present: Council Member Hansen, Council Member Katzakian, Council Member Nakanishi, and Mayor Johnson Absent: Mayor Pro Tempore Mounce Also Present: City Manager Bartlam, City Attorney Schwabauer, and City Clerk Johl B. Topic(s) B-1 Present and Discuss Grape Bowl Improvement Alternatives (PW) City Manager Bartlam briefly introduced the subject matter of the Grape Bowl Americans with Disabilities (ADA) alternatives. Deputy Public Works Director Charlie Swimley and Interim Parks and Recreation Director Jim Rodems provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding the Grape Bowl ADA improvement alternatives. Specific topics of discussion included a presentation overview, recent improvements, expenditures to date, next steps, Options 1 to 3, phases of options, pros and cons of phases, summary of costs associated with each of the options, and staff recommendation. In response to Mayor Johnson, Mr. Swimley stated a lift station would be installed to address the restroom ADA improvements because of the need to elevate the water from the street. In response to Mayor Johnson, Mr. Swimley stated the path of travel has to be paved and there are ADA exiting requirements from the top level that must be met. In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Rodems reviewed the location of the two proposed practice fields with Option 2, stating Option 1 has only one practice field. Mr. Swimley stated the details associated with the practice fields would be worked out later as to whether they will be grass or artificial turf. In response to Mayor Johnson, Mr. Rodems stated the practice fields will be challenging with respect to multi -use of the facility but additional costs could be borne by production. In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Rodems stated that, while there may be some access to the field during the improvements, there will be scheduling issues that will need to be addressed. In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Rodems stated the Stockton Street widening is not addressed in the initial phase of Option 3. In response to Mayor Johnson, Mr. Rodems stated Public Works suggested the Stockton Street width be considered because of the current traffic and pedestrian use of the street and the ability to provide additional ADA parking. In response to Mayor Johnson, Mr. Rodems stated the seating capacity in Option 3 is about Continued January 4, 2011 5,500, the initial target was 10,000, and the 3,000 number may have come from the fact that maximum attendance has not exceeded that amount. In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Rodems stated the playoff attendance for the Lodi High game was approximately 2,600. In response to Council Member Nakanishi, Mr. Rodems stated the funds already spent on the project came from park impact fees and Community Development Block Grant funds. In response to Council Member Nakanishi, Mr. Rodems and Mr. Bartlam stated the Waste Management donation of $1 million will be received over a period of seven years. In response to Council Member Nakanishi, Mr. Bartlam stated it is feasible that Phase 1 could run for several years and could stand alone so that if only Phase 1 is accomplished the facility would still be significantly improved. In response to Council Member Katzakian, Mr. Rodems stated the facility could be a revenue generator but he is not sure to what extent, which is dependent upon use as an event facility versus a recreation facility. In response to Council Member Nakanishi, Mr. Rodems stated the maintenance cost on the old field was approximately $50,000 to $60,000 and the new field maintenance will be approximately one half of that amount, although there are some additional costs in the transitional costs with restrooms. In response to Mayor Johnson, City Attorney Schwabauer provided an overview of the ADA regulations and specifically discussed reasonable retrofitting requirements and the need to improve an area to ADA standards once it is touched. In response to Mayor Johnson, Mr. Bartlam stated the transition plan does not require all ADA improvements to be completed at once, staff is focusing on the south side based on current patronage, and the entire facility must be addressed in the plan. In response to Council Member Hansen, Mr. Rodems stated there has been previous discussion about naming the facility and a marquis will be good for marketing and visibility purposes. Council Member Hansen provided general direction in favor of Option 3, stating he would like the restrooms addressed first based on Mr. Fiore's comments. Mayor Johnson asked that staff look into the numbers provided to the Council in 2007 in relation to improving the facility and compare the current options accordingly. Ed Miller spoke in regard to his concerns about what is necessary for ADA compliance and what improvements are being made to enhance the facility based on a general renovation or remodeling. In response to Mr. Miller, Mr. Bartlam stated all of the proposed improvements illustrated in red on the chart, with the exception of the top level ramp that is necessary for exiting, are ADA improvements. Jack Fiore spoke in regard to scaling down Option 3 to do the visible improvements, such as the restrooms and concessions, as soon as possible instead of waiting several years. Ann Cerney spoke in regard to her concerns about public awareness of the project and related costs and transparency. N Continued January 4, 2011 None. Comments by Public on Non -Agenda Items Adjournment No action was taken by the City Council. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 a.m. ATTEST: Randi Johl City Clerk AGENDA ITEM �t CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA TITLE: Present and Discuss Grape Bowl I m prove ment Alternatives MEETING DATE: January 4, 2011 (Shirtsleeve Session) PREPARED BY: Public Works Director RECOMMENDED ACTION: Present and discuss Grape Bowl improvement alternatives. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Over the past year, the Grape Bowl has undergone significant improvements that include the demolition of the existing restrooms and concession buildings, installation of a new all-weather playing surface, replacement of the old lighting fixtures and the installation of Americans with DisabilitiesAct (ADA) access improvements. The cost of these improvements was approximately $2,500,000 and achieved only partial ADA compliance. Additional improvements are needed to bring the facility to full compliance. In order to develop a plan for the phased construction of the remaining ADA facilities, staff needs Council direction on a facilities master plan for the Grape Bowl. Staff will provide the Council with various alternative plans for restroom and concession area locations and ADA access improvements at the facility. The benefits, drawbacks, and estimated costs of each proposed alternativewill be presented. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not applicable. ka Ou Ja&k�� F. Wally q!ndelin Public Works Director Prepared by Charles E. Swimley, Jr., Deputy Public Works Director- Utilities FWS/CES/pmf F-11 ZI ZI 060 :191 radt Bartlam. City Manager K:\WP\PROJECTS\PARKS\GrapeBowl\C ImpAlternatives_010411 .doc 12/16/2010 The City of Lodi Public Works Grape Bowl ADA Improvement Alternatives January 4, 2011 Shirtsleeve Presentation Presentation Overview • Recent improvements • Expenditures • Next steps • Funding • Alternatives • Recommendations Recent Improvements • Phase 1 ADA Improvements • Parking stalls • Ramps • Seating • Path of Travel • Exiting compliance • All weather field • Stadium Lighting Expenditures • Phase 1 • All Weather Surface • Stadium Lighting • TOTAL $ 583,460 $1,689,455 $ 199,315 $2,472,230 Next Steps • ADA Transition Plan — Modeled from Council preferred Option — Phase 1 also modeled from preferred Option • Potential funding ($1.5M) — $1.0 M from Waste Management ( over 7yrs.) — $250K from Friends of the Grape Bowl — $250K ± from " other" funding (CDBG/PARKS) Option 1 (Phase 1) Option 1 (Pros vs. Cons) PROS 1. Least expensive option 2. Allows for full size restroom and concession in Phase 1 3. Better utilizes existing parking CONS 1. Limits Venue Flexibility 2. Relegates facility primarily to sports 3. Difficult to get around 4. Limits options for expanding facility 5. Requires additional utilities for operations TOTAL COST. $6,690,000 �,�R1N OPTION 2 r r-- �,�R1N OPTION 2 Option 2 (Phase 1) Option 2 (Pros vs. Cons) PROS CONS 1. Establishes separate 1. Difficult on ADA patrons restrooms and 2. Practice fields limit concessions multipurpose goal 2. Adds additional ADA 3. Facility elements seating hamper management of multipurpose venues 4. Most expensive TOTAL COST: $6,315,000 Option 3 (Phase 1) Option 3 (Pros vs. Cons) PROS 1. Gives facility an updated look 2. Better public access 3. Manageable and centrally located restrooms, concessions and box office 4. Events more easily managed CONS 1. Temporary reduction in seating (phase 1 only) 2. Practice fields limit multipurpose goal Summary of Costs Option Phase 1 Cost Total Cost 1 $1,574,000 $4,830,000 2 $1,554,000 $6,690,000 3 $1,680,000 $6,315,000 Recommendation • Staff Recommends Option 3 — Most convenience for ADA patrons — More useful design for both short term and long term goals — Provides a "Marquee front door" • Council to establish preferred Option • Adopt the ADA Transition Plan early 2011 Questions? r � • 5 ::stir r Americans with Disabilities Act ADA Title III Technical Assistance Manual Covering Public Accommodations (section III, 3.0000-3.4300 only) 111-3.0000 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Regulato7)� references: 28 CFR 36.201-36.213. 111-3.1000 General. A public accommodation may not discriminate against an individual with a disability in the operation of aplace ofpublic accommodation. Individuals with disabilitiesmay not be denied full and equal enjoyment of the "goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations" offeredby a place of public accommodation. The phrase "goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations" applies to whatever type of good or service a public accommodationprovides to its customers or clients. In other words, a public accommodation must ensure equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities. Several broad principles underlie the nondiscrimination requirements of title III. These include -- 1) Equal opportunity to participate; 2) Equal opportunity to benefit; and 3) Receipt of benefits in the most integrated setting appropriate. The specific requirements discussed below in 1114.0000 are all designed to effectuate the general requirements. The specific provisions famish guidance on how apublic accomniodation can meet its obligations in particular situations and establish standards for determining when the general requirement has been violated. Where a specific requirement applies, it controls over the general requirement. 111-3.2000 Denial of participation. The ADA prohibits discriminatory denial of services or benefits to individuals with disabilities. Just as tinder the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a restaurant cannot refuse to admit an individual because of his or her race under the ADA, it cannot refuse to admit an individual merely because he or she has a disability. ILLUSTRATION: A theater cannot refuse to admit an individual with mental retardation to a perfonnance merely because of the individual's mental disability. III -3.3000 Equality in participation/benefits. The ADA mandates an equal opportunity to participate in or benefit from the ;goods and services offered bX awp"lace _q accommodation, but does not guarantee that an Of achievement, as ILLUSTRATION 1: Persons with disabilities must not be limited to certain performances at a theater: ILLUSTRATION 2: A n individual who uses a wheelchair may not be excluded from an exercise class at a health club because he or she cannot do all of the exercises and derive the same result from the class as persons without disabilities. 111-3.4000 Separate benefit/integrated setting. A primary goal of the ADA is the equal participation of individuals with disabilities in the "mainstream" of American society. The major principles of niainstreaming include the following: 1) Individuals with disabilities must be integrated to the maximum extent appropriate. 2) Separate programs are permitted where necessary to ensure equal opportunity. A separate program must be appropriate to the particular individual. 3) Individuals with disabilities cannot be excluded from the regular program, or required to accept special services or benefits. III -3.4100 Separate programs. A public accommodation may offer separate or special programs necessary to provide individuals with disabilities an equal opportunityto benefit from the programs. Such programs must, however, be specifically designed to meet the needs of the individuals with disabilities for whom they are provided. ILLUSTRATION 1: Museums generally do not allow visitors to touch exhibits because handling can cause damage to the objects. A municipal museum may offer a special tour for individuals with vision impairments during which they are permitted to touch and handle specific objects on a limited basis. (It cannot, however, exclude a blind person from the standard museum tour.) ILLUSTRATION 2: A private athletic facility may sponsor a separate basketball league for individuals who use wheelchairs. III -3.4200 Right to participate in the regular program. Even if a separate or specialprogram for individuals with disabilities is offered, apublic accommodation cannot deny an individual with a disability participation in its regular program, unless some other limitation on the obligation to provide services applies. See, e.g., III - 3.8000 (directthreat); 111-4. 1000 (eligibility criteria). ILLUSTRATION: An individual who uses a wheelchair maybe excluded from playing in a basketball league, if the recreation center can demonstrate that the exclusion is necessary for safe operation. Individuals with disabilities are entitled to participate in regular programs, even if the public accommodation could reasonably believe that they cannot benefit from the regular program. ILLUSTRATION: A museum cannot exclude a person who is blind from a tour because of assumptions about his or her inability to appreciate and benefit from the tour experience. Similarly, a deafperson may not be excluded from a museum concert because of a belief that deaf persons cannot enjoy the music. The fact that apublic accommodation offers specialprograms does not affect the right of an individual with a disability to participate in regular programs. The requirements for providing access to the regular program still apply. ILLUSTRATION: A public accommodation cannot exclude a person who is blind from a standard museum tour, where touching objects is not permitted, if he or she prefers the standard tour. Individuals with disabilities may not be required to accept special "benefits" if they choose not to do so. ILLUSTRATION: ABC theater offers reduced rate tickets for individuals with disabilities and requires appropriate documentation for eligibility for the reduced rates. ABC cannot require an individual who qualifies for the reduced rate to present documentation or accept the reduced rate, if he or she chooses to pay the full price. 111-3.4300 Modifications in the regular program. When a public accommodation offers a special program for individuals with a particular disability, but an individual with that disability elects to participate in the regular program rather than in the separate program, the public accommodation may still have obligations to provide an opportunity for that individual to benefit from the regular program. The fact that a separate program is offered may be a factor in determining the extent of the obligations under the regular program, but o n I if the separate program is appropriate to the needs of the particular individual with a disability. ILLUSTRATION: If a museum provides a sign language interpreter for one of its regularly scheduled tours, the availability of the signed tour may b e a factor in determining whether it would be an undue burden to provide an interpreter for a deafperson who wants to take the tour at a different time. BUT: The availability of the signed tour would not affect the museum's obligation to provide an interpreter for a different tour, or the museum's obligation to provide a different auxiliary aid, such as an assistive listening device, for an individual with impaired hearing who does not use sign language. For the full ADA Title III Technical Assistance Manual text go to: littn://www.usdoi.gov/cl-t/ada/taman3.1-itiiil#III-3.1 000 Description of Work Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost 1. Plans and Specification—Phasel (Architecture and Engineering Fees) $225,000.00 2. Clearing & Grubbing Site Preparation 3. Restroom, Elevator, Ticket Office Bldg 5. Concrete Stairs 6. Elevator 7. Plaza Area 8. Concrete Walkways 9. Railing/Handrails 10. Lighting 5800 CY 8.62 500 SF 400.00 2600 SF 125.00 1120 SF 25.00 1 EA, . 120,000 12,000 SF 8.00 2500 SF LS 20,000 LS 70,000 Construction Sub -Total: 25% Contingency: Estimated Construction Total: *Note: Estimates do not includefield improvements $50,000.00 $10011000.00 C�25,00___ 0.00 $28,000.00 $120,000.00 $180,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $70,000.00 $1,23 8,000.00 309,500.00 $1,547,500.00