Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 10/10/2001

Home

July 21, 2000. Bids were received from five contractors and ranged from $418,300 to $466,4.55. Infinity Builders Corporation out of Maple Plain, ~IN provided the low bid and were issued a notice of award for $503,300 due to the addition of a generator that was bid as an alternate last year. Once it was discovered that the land was not available, staff felt that it was not prudent to enter into the contract until the land acquisition was complete. Tb.e land for the construction of the wel]house has been obta/ned and staff has written a letter to the low bidder ~o ask if they are still willing to perform the work under the bid submitted last year. Infinity Builders responded that they would complete the project for additional $42,000, which amounts to a 8.5 percent increase in the project price. Since the bids between the low and second Iow bidder were so competitive (-$7,000) staff recommended rejecting all bids and readvertising the project. Councilmember Zimmerrnan inquired if that would incur any liability. City Attorney Goodrich replied that the City had not entered into a contract with Infinity Builders. City. Engineer Olson noted that Infinity Builders does feel the City has an obligation to them because they did award the contract. It is possible that they might asked to be reimbursed for the cost of the performance bond they incurred. City Attorney Goodrich stated that the City has more liability with the bids they rejected if they continue with Infinity Builders. He stated that the City's best legal option is to reject all bids. Motion by Councilmember Zimmerman, seconded by Mayor Gamec, to reject all bids for Wellhouse No. 3 Lmprovement Project #00-29 and authorize staffto re-bid the project. Motion carried, Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Zimmerman, Anderson, Hendriksen, and Kurak. Voting No: None. Councilmember Zimmerman requested that in the future staff makes certain that they do have title to property, before doing any projects or bidding projects. Case #3: Introduce Proposed Ordinance to Amend Regulations Relating to the Keeping of Animals Community Development Director Frolik stated that on June 12, 2001, the City Council referred the proposed ordinances back to the Horse Care Board for farther consideration. The Council expressed concern with eliminating the reference to 'enclosed roarmng area' and increasing the acreage requirement for additional horses, on a parcel from ½ to one full acre. The response of the Horse Care Board is that the current ordinance does not require the additional acreage to be 'enclosed roaming area'; therefore, nothing was eliminated and there is nothing to put back into the ordinance. [f increasing the requirement for additional horses from 9'~ acre to one presents a problem fbr a property, owner, they can apply tbr a conditional use permit. On June 12, 2001 the City Council/August 14, 2001 Page 8 of 13