Parks and Recreation Planning
The Plan’s purpose is to identify a vision for Battle Ground’s park, open space, and trail system over a 20-year planning horizon and to present recommendations for achieving that vision.
PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE PLAN UPDATE
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
The City of Battle Ground is seeking to identify a qualified firm with demonstrated professional experience in parks planning to complete an update of the Battle Ground Comprehensive Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan. Battle Ground is a rapidly growing community in central Clark County, Washington. Battle Ground’s Parks Plan was created in 2008, and minimally updated in 2015. The Parks Plan provides a detailed planning framework to help meet the park related needs associated with the community’s growth. The Plan’s purpose is to identify a vision for Battle Ground’s park, open space, and trail system over a 20-year planning horizon and to present recommendations for achieving that vision. The Plan inventories and evaluates existing park and recreation areas; assesses the need for additional park land, greenways, trails and recreation facilities; establishes direction for operations and maintenance; and offers specific policies and recommendations to achieve the goals and objectives. The project timeline is from July 2021 to July 2022.
Proposals are due by June 4, 2021
Questions and requests for additional information from the City will be posted here on this site, for everyone to view.
Please direct correspondence to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Is the park impact fee update intended to occur after the plan is adopted?
The consultant should plan to draft recommended park impact fees that staff will take through the legislative process. This may happen concurrently or after the plan is adopted.
Are there maps and figures associated with the 2015 Parks Plan Update available for review?
- 2015 Parks Plan Update
- 2015 Parks Plan Update - Marked Edits
- Figure 4.1 Existing Facilities Map
- Service Area Map
In the RFP, under the heading Contract, it states that the City’s proposed contract, with the terms and conditions including insurance and indemnification requirements, is attached to this RFP as Attachment “A”. There does not seem to be an Attachment “A” included or available for download on the City’s website. Can you please provide a copy for review?
Is there a page limit for proposals? I didn’t see an explicit mention of that.
There is not. Brevity is appreciated though, depending on the number of proposals that need to be reviewed.
Given COVID-19, do you anticipate public engagement to be virtual for some/most of the project?
There will need to be some public engagement and if COVID guidelines allow we would ideally have both in person and virtual public engagement. We would expect at minimum a citizen survey, which we have had success with on other projects. In the past we have used utility bill inserts and social media outlets as ways to advertise these surveys. In some ways, we’ve seen better success with virtual open houses or online “story maps” while in the pandemic, than some sparsely attended open houses prior to the pandemic.
What role do you see for the Parks & Community Engagement Advisory Board in the project?
They will serve as the primary steering committee for this project. We may ask for some additional volunteers to join them with an interest in parks planning.
Should the scope also include a SEPA checklist (non-project)?
Staff will do the SEPA checklist – we might ask the consultant to review the draft SEPA prior to issuance if they can build that into their scope.
Will the new plan also act as the City's parks and recreation element for the Comp Plan, or would like this project to include the development of a stand-alone (refined) Comp Plan element?
We’d like the Plan to be a stand-alone document and for the Comp Plan to adopt it by reference. The Parks Element will be a refined version of the Parks Plan.
Will this project include review/approval by the Planning Commission?
We are still working through this question ourselves, but we are inclined to have the Parks & Community Engagement Board serve at the recommending body of the Draft Plan, and then for it to go to City Council for final review adoption. I’m sure some Planning Commissioners will have some interest in this work, so we might consider a joint workshop with the PACE board.