In the past month, a great deal of commotion has been caused by one ARD Board member regarding an ARD project to renovate the Gymnasium Locker Rooms and Sierra Pool Multipurpose Building at Recreation Park. While I believe it is a small minority of individuals who truly don’t understand what has and will occur with this project, it is evident that all the facts, within the context of the project need to be presented for the public’s edification.

These facilities are approximately 50 years old. While some ongoing maintenance and updating has occurred, for the most part the facilities have languished in varying levels of disrepair for at least 20 years. The District has been aware of the need to renovate these facilities but the estimated cost were beyond their financial capabilities. With the implementation of some very structured fiscal policies in the last three years and through prudent management of these funds, the District has been able to accumulate sufficient reserves to proceed with this project.

Approximately one year ago, the Board of Directors started the process of evaluating this project and determining the amount of reserves that would be used. The project was vetted through Board Committees and Work Shops, the Staff, and through several community professional who donated their time to help ARD determine what course should be taken to achieve the District's goals. Ultimately the Board of Directors voted to approve Phase 1 of the project last month.

For the record, it should be noted that ARD and its contracting procedures are strictly regulated by California State Law (Public Contract Code) and District Policy. A few of the requirements and prohibitions are summarized as follows:

• All purchases, with few exceptions, in excess of $25,000 must be competed.

• All purchases between $5,000 - $25,000 require that more than one informal bid be received to insure the lowest price is obtained.

• For Professional Services, the evaluation is based on the documented capabilities of the company as evaluated by a panel of professionals.

• The “splitting” of requirements is prohibited if the purpose is to circumvent the Public Contract Code.

• In all formally competed purchases, complete sets of specifications and drawings (if applicable) are required to insure that all bidders are bidding on the same requirements.

• In order to obtain the required permits to perform the work, certified, stamped drawing are required.

The District Staff issued a Request For Proposal (RFP) for the design of this project in December. Seven companies requested copies of the RFP and four of those firms submitted proposals. Evaluations were made of each of the firms by a panel consisting of ARD Staff and two additional professionals (one from the City of Auburn's staff and one from Placer County’s staff). Upon the completion of these evaluations, a firm was chosen to perform Phase 1 of this project. ARD’s Staff is currently negotiating the fee the District will pay for their services. While the estimated cost of Phase 1 was $100,000, it appears the actual award will equate to far less than that amount.

Attention has been focused on ARD’s method of handling this project and the estimated cost. ARD does not have the expertise on staff to design or administer projects such as this. That is not unusual for small agencies and consequently ARD must contract for that expertise so as to insure that they receive a complete, well documented product, signed, certified and stamped by a professional. While it has been “claimed” that we were offered these services at no charge, that is not true.

Because of the "claims" and assertions made by one of our Board members, and as a courtesy to everyone involved, the firm identified in these "claims" was called and asked to meet with staff to clarify and document what they proposed to donate and how they felt the project could better be handled. As documented in two pages consisting of limited detail, the firm offered to donate 10 hours of “knowledgeable” advice. Specification and drawings were not included in this offer. They also indicated that there were ways to “divide” this project into smaller pieces which seemingly is in conflict with the Public Contract Code. Their suggestion of a “ragtag patchwork” solution for the accomplishment of this project was considered and determined to be inadvisable.

In consideration of the controversy created by our errant Board member, the Staff decided to seek the advice of legal council regarding the assertions of this Board member. After a full and complete review of the project and the process used in choosing a firm to perform Phase 1, legal council completely agreed with the District’s decisions as documented in a letter forwarded to ARD.

Prior to the January Board meeting, each Board member including the Board member “championing” the “ragtag patchwork” method, was provided documentation of everything that had occurred to this point in time.

During the January Board meeting, each Board member was given an equal chance to question the Staff regarding the advocacy of the process that was recommended to the Board. The public was then afforded the opportunity to state their opinion of the project and the Staffs recommendation. Of the small number of individuals choosing to speak, the majority supported varying versions of the “ragtag patchwork” method of accomplishing the project. In my opinion, these comments were not substantive. Some may say that they did not have time to prepare more, but this project was publicly announced and under consideration for approximately two months.

After the public had been afforded the opportunity to speak, each Board member was given ample opportunity (twice) to express their opinions and thoughts on the proposed project and the methods the District intended to use. Thereafter a motion was made to approve the Staffs recommendation. The vote was 3 in favor, 1 opposed and 1 abstention based on a perceived technicality not having to do with the project itself. We then moved on to the next item on the agenda.

The Board had been advised of an extremely tight schedule that was dictated by facility usage. The District had less than two weeks to move forward with the contract after Board approval if they hoped to have the renovations completed and the facilities reopened in time for the 2010 swim season. To have waited a month or longer to consider information that would have been of marginal use, was not prudent and did not offer any tangible benefits.

The Staff and Board have proceed diligently and in accordance with California State Law. As a group we have acted professionally even if one of our members has not. We have checked and rechecked our actions each step of the way. I suggest that anyone that feels they can besmirch or malign these actions is acting out of ignorance or has another agenda. The District stands behind each and every action and welcomes the scrutiny of any sensible review. All documentation mentioned here is available for public scrutiny.

Thank you for taking the time to read this document.

Curt Smith

Director, Auburn Parks and Recreation District