Laserfiche WebLink
Agenda Section: 11.b <br /> Illif <br /> Mis REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION <br /> STAFF REPORT 3 Report Number: 94-1�UZC <br /> Report Date: <br /> Council Action: 9—d-941 <br /> September 12, 1994 O Special Order of Business <br /> CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE 0 <br /> Public Hearings <br /> O Consent Agenda <br /> Council Business <br /> Item Description: Consideration of Approval/Recommendation for Park Building Improvements <br /> Administrator's Review/Recommendation: <br /> - No comments to supplement this report <br /> - Comments attached. <br /> Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) <br /> $UMMARY% <br /> q <br /> Three bids were received for the improvements to Groveland and Hillview <br /> Park buildings. Two of the three bids received included costs related <br /> to an addendum which was sent regarding sewer and water installations. <br /> However, the third and lowest bidder did not receive the addendum and <br /> therefore did not include the costs of the addendum in the bid. That <br /> bidder requested that the bid be withdrawn since he did not receive the <br /> addendum. <br /> The three bids received are listed below: <br /> 1 <br /> CM Construction Company - $32, 094 (not including costs of the addendum) <br /> Callahan Construction - $38,469 <br /> Adro Construction, Inc. - $44, 689 <br /> I have discussed the bidding process with City Attorney Jim Thompson who <br /> advised the option of accepting the withdrawal request of the low bid <br /> and consider the second lowest bid which would be Callahan Construction. <br /> The Callahan bid of $38, 469 is a higher cost than the CDBG grant award <br /> of $25, 000 which the City would receive in retroactive payment upon <br /> project completion. I discussed the possibility with the Parks and <br /> Recreation Commission at the August 25 meeting to receive their <br /> recommendation in the circumstance that the bids were higher than the <br /> alloted grant award. It was their recommendation that staff request <br /> Council to consider appropriating the additional monies (which in this <br /> case would be $13 , 469) for the balance of the project cost. An <br /> alternative is to choose only one of the park buildings for <br /> improvements. Hillview is the easiest of the two because of closer <br /> sewer distances and presumably lower water table. Hillview Park is also <br /> more centrally located. Therefore Hillview Park building would be the <br /> recommended choice if onlyonebui ding could be improved. <br /> JECOMMEgit@mOUlar'on, Dir o f Parks, Recreation and Forestry <br />