Golf Manor Village committee members spent the bulk of their July 7 meeting debating two competing proposals to create a parks master plan, weighing a lower-cost engineering firm quote of about $15,000 against a roughly $36,000 design-led proposal and whether either would follow the village’s 02/2023 park survey as the priority.

The committee’s discussion centered on deliverables, cost and alignment with the community survey. Eric (committee member) summarized the practical difference: “we are getting two different levels of service,” and warned members to be sure they were comparing “apples to apples” before selecting a firm. Several other members said the higher-priced proposal appeared to offer more iterative design work, illustrative concept plans and a preliminary planning-level budget, while the lower-cost engineering proposal proposed conceptual plans and a summary memo.

Members repeatedly said they wanted the final plan to reflect the community park survey as the governing priority. One motion put on the floor asked the committee to accept the JMA/TEC proposal while amending its scope so the consultants “prioritize the park survey” and treat the externally created park-feature list as a secondary document. The motion was seconded and members proceeded to a roll call. During roll call, members expressed yes, no and at least one abstention; votes were discussed as split during the meeting and members agreed the vote did not produce a clear, full affirmative majority on awarding the contract at that meeting.

Speakers pressed on specific differences in deliverables. Committee members noted the higher-priced firm proposed two-dimensional plans, programming diagrams, illustrative master plans and a preferred conceptual master plan; the engineering quote emphasized conceptual plans, a walking-path design and a summary memo and — according to members — relied on the village’s existing technical information. One participant pointed to an approximately $20,000 difference between the two proposals and said, “you do what you pay for.” Another member said that if the village lacks funding to build the higher-end designs, spending more on a sophisticated master plan may put the village “in a position” of knowing what it cannot afford.

The committee also discussed overlaps and optional services. Members noted an additional-services line in the engineering proposal for roughly $10,500 and suggested part of that amount might overlap with what JMA/TEC proposed; a $5,000 overlap was mentioned as a potential apples-to-apples comparison point. Committee members sought clarification about whether the design-led proposal would include preliminary cost estimates and observed that some proposals did not include a clear budget breakdown for proposed features.

Because members did not reach a clear, unanimous decision on awarding the work, the committee voted to invite the proposers back to answer questions and present examples. The chair asked staff to try to schedule the firms for the committee’s August 25 meeting and asked committee members to compile questions to email in advance so the firms can respond in writing if they cannot attend. Staff agreed to contact the firms and circulate answers in advance of the next meeting.

Next steps: the committee will ask proposers to clarify deliverables, confirm whether preliminary cost estimates are included, and confirm that the 02/2023 park survey is the priority document. The village staff will attempt to secure firm representatives for the August 25 meeting; if they cannot attend, staff will collect written responses to committee questions and bring those back to committee.