Recreation Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2024 09 23

Home Browse Search

City Louisville Parks & Recreation September 16, 2024 To: Recreation Advisory Board From: Bryon Weber, PROS Project Manager Advisory Board Memorandum Re: Draft Request for Proposal — PROS Department Long Range Plan Enclosed is a draft RFP for the PROS Department's Long Range Plan. We'd like to get your feedback on the overall planning approach and framework as staff finalize the document. We currently plan for Advisory Board reviews at the September (OSAB, RAB) and October (PPLAB) meetings in hopes of getting Board feedback incorporated into the RFP so that Council can review it in late October and staff can publish it for bidding in November. A couple thoughts when reviewing the draft document: 1) A reminder that the PROS Department Long Range Plan will remain at a high level and establish the Department's direction and objectives for the next 10 years. For instance, the long range plan might identify the need to develop a weed management plan on open space properties within a certain timeframe, but not get into details of which types of weeds need to be treated by which methods. 2) The suggested planning approach is structured in hopes of providing specific attention to each PROS Division (Parks, Recreation & Senior Center, Open Space, and Golf) as well an overview/executive summary for the Department itself. To do so, a common framework of topics is outlined with the intention of systematically exploring each topic division by division. We've tried to make the list of topics comprehensive but consolidated knowing that more topics will result in a higher consulting fee and a more complicated planning effort. 3) The approach includes both the Trails plan and Cottonwood/Lake Park plan as optional bid alternates. The hope is to better isolate the scope and fees associated with each of the planning efforts while also allowing staff more procurement flexibility to ensure consultants have appropriate subject matter expertise. 4) PROS Staff are currently reviewing this document and the version provided incorporates Open Space staff feedback. Other input from Open Space staff for on -going discussion is noted below. 5) Note that items in RED text below and within the RFP itself are simply placeholders which require future modification. Feedback that would be most helpful: 1) Does the division by division approach make sense? Is it confusing or need more explanation? Rec Staff Feedback: Yes, the approach is supported. RAB Feedback: <board to provide input here>