Loading...
RFP-river swimming assessment and design-WF12.07.20201 | Page   Request for Proposals River Swimming Assessment and Design (Horizontal Design Services) Proposals due 3:00 PM Friday January 8, 2021 Submit in electronic form (no hard copies) to Wayne Feiden WFeiden@NorthamptonMA.gov Questions to Wayne Feiden at the above email or at (413) 587-1265 Northampton is seeking a professional engineer and other qualified designer to support the assessment and design of improved river swimming opportunities. The design team will: Evaluate five informal swimming areas on the Mill River light touch improvements 1. Exploration of the area that the City and its partners might want to have under their site control 2. Light touch improvements might, for example, include access improvements, waterfront improvements, trash, and sanitary facilities 3. Consider the limits of on-going City resources (e.g., staffing and other) in recommendations, especially assuming that the City does not want to charge for the use of these areas 4. Consider possible partnerships with other management groups Evaluate the informal swimming area at the City’s Connecticut River Greenway for potentially greater capital improvements 1. Explore the conservation, recreation, and general city owned portions of this greenway 2. Consider both light touch and capital intensive improvements, with any sanitary facilities most likely waterless (the site is not served by water or sewer) 3. Consider the lack of resources and the uncertainty of whether the city will charge for these areas 4. Ensure accessibility for people with disabilities Work with the City to test concepts 1. Assist with City organized focus groups, stakeholder interviews and community forums 2. Work the City’s design/project management team for City’s selection of options to proceed with Design final improvements 1. Create engineered drawing of any selected design to a minimum of 25% design stage (necessary to apply for relevant grants such as Land and Water Conservation Fund, PARC grant, LAND grant, Recreation Trail Grants) 2. Create construction cost estimates for selected designs 3. Because of mixed city agency management, designs and cost estimates will need to be separated by area and management agency, even as the city wants to coordinate all planning 2 | Page   The proposal shall include: 1. Qualifications for this work 2. Design principles to be applied to this work 3. Scope of services (at a minimum, to include all of the work outlined on Page 1) 4. Proposed time line (In an ideal world we would apply for the next round of grants in early Summer 2021, but we understand this may not be possible) 5. Fixed fee for the work outlined on Page 1 6. Fixed fee, fee estimate, or other ways to understand the full fee of taking the design to 100% plans, specifications, estimates, bid package, and construction administration.  The City has received a Community Preservation Act of $65,000 for this work.  At a minimum, the fixed fee portion of this work may not exceed this amount.  Ideally, there will also be funds to allow the City to go beyond the 25% design level. Background: There is a clear demonstrated demand for more swimming opportunities, both at informal and managed swimming areas.  Heavy recreation use at informal swimming areas demonstrate strong user needs of desire lines.  Recreational use has increased dramatically, driven by increasing periods of summer heat, by word-of- mouth and social media awareness of these swimming opportunities, and, in 2020, with Covid-19 restrictions on alternative recreation opportunities.  Sites are being loved to death, with trash, human waste, noise, and traffic problems.  Neighborhood complaints and conflicts have increased dramatically with increased use and abuse.  Private property owners, where some of these swimming areas are located, are unable to address all of the issues.  The City has limited resources to manage existing recreation and conservation areas and resources to support increased use and new recreation needs are limited.  Public or private enforcement (nuisance, parking, trash, waste, and noise) cannot extinguish desire lines or address all issues.  Because recreation users are disproportionately populations of color, enforcement actions would disproportionately affect populations of color.  The City and the community needs to explore improving formal or informal swimming and whether resources (from grant funds, user fees, other public funds, and/or other sources) can be made available to address these needs  Immediate operational changes for private landowners and public agencies may be needed. Increased recreation opportunities, however, will take multiple years. 3 | Page   Existing Formal Swimming Areas FOR BACKGROUND ONLY- NOT PART OF PROJECT SCOPE Summary: All five of the existing public and quasi-public area are popular and serve the public well. There are limited opportunities for expansion. These sites cannot fully meet the desire lines seen at informal recreation on the Connecticut River for low cost, outdoor swimming and picnicking areas. Opportunities: The clearest opportunity is to identify funding to underwrite memberships, parking, and picnic fees. Area Ownership Management YMCA pool Massasoit St. YMCA Day use and membership Northampton Country Club pool Spring St. Country Club Membership only Aquatic Center pool at JFK Bridge Rd. City Day use and membership Musante Beach Reservoir Rd. City Day use only (pre-covid-membership) Look Park Spray Pool North Main St Look Park/ City Fee for parking and picnic tables. Entry is free      4 | Page   Informal Swimming Areas with Opportunities for Improvement FOCUS OF THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Summary: All six of these sites are heavily used for swimming, meet a very strong public need. All of these sites, however, also have overuse and abuse challenges. Opportunities: There are opportunities to: 1. Reduce abuse and reduce use at some sites 2. Make modest physical and management improvements at some sites. 3. Make significant physical (e.g., sanitary facilities) and management improvements at a key site(s). Grants funds are probably available for physical improvements at public sites, but addressing long term management needs will not be grant covered and resources must be identified. Any area actively managed by the City needs City ownership, easement, or lease. All sites need to address noise, trash, parking, and user conflicts. Management models can include: 1. Free access, with a part-time or work-study river steward coordinating management. 2. User fee or significant funding staffing. This allows better self-sustaining management but makes it harder to either keep sites affordable. 3. Parking fees (or residents-only parking with paid parking non-residents) to cover management costs. 4. Privately run sites or partnerships. 5. AREA FOR HEAVY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Conn. Riverfront Greenway Damon Road City owned (mixed recreation, conservation, and general City 1. Heavily used 2. No water/sewer 3. Swift currents AREAS FOR LIGHT TOUCH IMPROVEMENTS Mill River, Maines Field Riverside Drive (two beaches) City recreation 1. Heavily used 2. Available parking and controllable entrance 3. Bathroom needs to be upgraded 4. Flood prone Mill River, Nonotuck Dam Cross St. & Pine St Private Could accommodate small improvements 1. Heavily used 2. Majority is private property 3. Unsafe dam 4. Neighborhood conflicts 5. Very limited or no water, and sewer 6. Water quality and need for testing 7. City maintenance resources limited Mill River, upriver Cook Dam Spring Street City conservation and private Mill River, Cook Dam Spring St City Look Park and private Mill River, Orange Dam Florence St/Mulberry Private    5 | Page        Sites Infeasible to Provide New Swimming Opportunities FOR BACKGROUND ONLY- NOT PART OF PROJECT SCOPE Summary: Other sites that area either desirable for swimming, were previously used for swimming, or have small dipping pockets are not feasible for expansion. Limits: These sites either have legal and health limits (e.g., public water supply), no longer are feasible (e.g., Clear Falls), or will continue to serve as areas to get wet but don’t have the capacity to serve swimming and recreation at increased rates.   Area Ownership Issues Mill River at Paradise Pond, Northampton State Hospital, and Look Park State City Private Very small wading or dipping areas and difficult access. River steward could monitor but not room for swimming Manhan River, Clear Falls Drury Lane Private Historic swimming area closed. Environmental and physical limits would prevent full restoration, although small dipping areas remain. Conn. River Greenway at Elwell Island and at Rainbow Beach City Very heavily used but only accessible by boat. Vehicle access is no viable. Storm devastated beach at Elwell Island Conn. River Greenway Rainbow Beach City Only accessible by boat. Road access would be extremely difficult. Fitzgerald Lake, N. Farms City Mucky bottom, not desirable except for swimming from boat. Building sandy beach is not viable Water Supply Reservoirs City Water supply- not viable 6 | Page   Recreation User Interviews (August 2020 at Nonutuck Mills, Cooks Dam, and Orange Dam) Questions asked of recreation users Responses (summaries) How do you use this area (e.g., swimming, picnic, play, and barbecue)? Family fun, recreation, cooling off, swimming, relaxing, picnic, read (when there’s not a lot of noise), morning prayer, meet up with friends. What other areas did you consider using (e.g., your backyard, Look Park, Musante Beach, parks in other towns) None this year, Huntington because they have bathrooms and trash barrels, not a lot of other places to choose from, many parks and public pools are closed, beach (but it is far), Cape Cod, Orange Dam, Cooks Dam, Pufton pond, Connecticut river, Chapel Brook. Why didn't use other recreation areas? No free parking, this is closer, live nearby, many places are closed to the public, not as fun for the kids, don’t know a lot of places (new to the area), this one is my favorite. Many expressed frustration that other options are not open. Where do you live? Northampton, Holyoke, Springfield, Worcester (one group at Cooks Dam), Florence, Easthampton, Westfield. (From random sample majority came from nearby towns.) How did you learn about this site Friends, grew up here, family, word of mouth Would you use the site if that required following rules (e.g., carry out trash, user fees)? Yes, just about everywhere you go you have to carry your own trash out, It’s common sense, That would work, We would pay to enter, Need restrooms, Need trash receptacles, Parking, Not really…we’ve been coming here all of our lives – we don’t want to pay a fee now, We keep it clean when we come, Yes of course! Who would influence your use of the site (e.g., signs, group norms, enforcement, friends, family, a river steward)? River steward would be nice, opening and closing hours to alleviate traffic / noise for neighbors, signs, family, friends, more structure and facilities, My girlfriend. Many people expressed frustration with the amount of trash left behind. Where do people go relieve themselves? Woods, river, wait to get home, don’t go except at home Do you worry about Covid? Yes, no because we’re outside, I try to wear a mask around other people, a little bit, not really. Are you aware that you’re supposed to wear a mask when in large crowds or in the bike trail? Yes, no, didn’t know about the bike trail mask rule, I am aware and I try to.