6.e Gorham Cammilleri Comments Park Plan Request for Proposals1
b.stignani
From:k.cammilleri
Sent:Tuesday, May 4, 2021 3:37 PM
To:b.stignani
Subject:Fwd: Park proposal
From: k.cammilleri
Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 9:03:44 AM
To: tcgorham@midco.net <tcgorham@midco.net>
Subject: RE: Park proposal
Terry,
Thanks for the questions. You are correct, I’m not sure $5,000 will cover this. The PRC could decide to scale back the
scope of work. This would probably get us closer to the budgeted amount, but we will need to consider the implications
of that. I was thinking we could at least start the discussion at what we want to accomplish and decide from there. If
we are not ready, financially, it may inform what we choose to do for the CIP.
Yes, I was anticipating PRC to lead the planning process, with periodic check-ins with the City Council. Staff input should
come in at the PRC level, but we may want to bring in the planning commission at some point. This language can be
refined to provide greater clarity on that. I was hoping we could workshop that with the PRC.
As for focusing and priorities, I was definitely leaving that up to you and the PRC. I think your prioritization idea is very
logical. If we want to put this additional detail into the RFP it can be added prior to issuance, or it can be articulated
when the project is launched. You and the PRC can decide all of that.
Yes, I think a long-range outlook would be favorable, too. We may want to consider a time-frame for the plan that
would be able to incorporate these ideas. That’s definitely scope we can refine in the RFP.
I am sure you and the PRC can figure out a good strategy for this project! This RFP is simply a draft. You and the PRC
should feel free to change the scope of work as you desire. This was just intended to be a starting point.
Very best,
Ken
From: tcgorham@midco.net [mailto:tcgorham@midco.net]
Sent: Sunday, May 2, 2021 8:50 AM
To: k.cammilleri <k.cammilleri@ci.scandia.mn.us>
Subject: Park proposal
Hi Ken –
I like the proposal. Nicely done.
2
I do need to read it again more carefully. A couple of thoughts. And we need the rest of the PRC and Patty to provide
input.
Do you think our $5,000 allocation will cover this? Seems like we are asking the right things but it’s a big ask.
Process question: Do we post this or target likely respondents, such as Bolten and Menk?
Good focus on community engagement. Does that implicitly include PRC, council, public works input? I would like to be
part of a committee to work with the consultant on this.
I would like to focus on city center, especially as the water barn project gains momentum. So that would be planning,
priority, and phased implementation at Lilleskogen, community center, heritage water tower site and safe connections
between them. However, of course we can’t ignore Bone Lake, Orwell, and Hay Lake. Other small properties need
reference. Based on my comment re the money we have allocated to the plan, I’d weight the priority 70% community
center, 20% Bone Lake Orwell Hay Lake, and 10% all other. Maybe these are details that happen when we sit down with
them, but, my opinion only of course, that is greatest impact and most noticeable if we want Scandia as more of a
destination as well as meeting community needs.
Needs to include possible very long term ideas such as expanding park property across from Meisters. Recall the SHA
consultant thought a long term acquisition of the homes along that area could be considered.
First thoughts only…anxious to get PRC input. This plan is really needed, thanks for your work on this.
Terry