Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPK PACKET 03112002Parks Commission Minutes Connie Kroeplin BID OPENING FOR PARK BUILDINGS WILL BE AT CITY HALL ON FEBRUARY 18, 2002 AT 2:00 P.M. Parks Commission Members are welcome to attend CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PARKS COMMISSION AGENDA March 11, 2002 7:OOPM Conference Room L CALL TO ORDER. [I. ROLL CALL. II. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 10, 2001 PARKS COMMISSION MINUTES. V. MOLLY OLIVIER (SEH) WILL BE PRESENTING THE FEBRUARY 18, 2002 BID RESULTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BOTH SILVER POINT PARK AND CENTRAL PARK SHELTER BUILDINGS. 1AMMEN ll01"19i A. Community Services B. School Board C. Sports Boosters ✓I. OTHER BUSINESS. ✓II. ADJOURNMENT. Enclosed for your information is the November 2001 Communitv Survey. CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PARKS COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 10, 2001 7:00 p.m. Conference Room I. CALL TO ORDER. Vice Chair Koehntop called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and welcomed everyone in attendance. II. ROLL CALL. Present: Vice Chair Doug Koehntop, Commissioners Daniel Ganley, Julie Gebhardt, Colleen Hallada, Jan Jenson, and George Wagner. Absent: Chair Jindra. Also Present: Mayor Randy Hodson; Public Works Director Jay Hartman; Representative from Community Services Diane Skrivseth; Representative from Sports Boosters George Zurbey; Representative from the School Board Denise Dunn; Independent Contractor Maurie Anderson; Auggie Wong and Bob Kost, BRW; Molly Olivier, SEH. III. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 10, 2001 PARKS COMMISSION MINUTES. Commissioner Koehntop requested a correction to Page 6, Line 6: "Silver Point Park" to read "Central Park". Motion by Commissioner Gebhardt, second by Commissioner Hallada, to approve the October 10, 2001 Parks Commission Meeting Minutes as amended above. Motion carried unanimousiv. IV. UPDATE ON CENTRAL PARK- AUGGIE WONG, BRW. Vice Chair Koehntop asked Wong to update the Commission on the Central Park project. Wong first stated that construction of the project was done for the year. He indicated that the commission needed to come to some consensus on the selection of the playground equipment for Central Park, and explained that the contractor would like to have their decision as soon as possible. Hartman indicated he spoke with Chair Jindra last week regarding the playground equipment, and she indicated that she was waiting to hear from the school on some things. Parks Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2001 Page 2 Commissioner Gebhardt reviewed the data that she and Chair Andra had collected on various companies that construct playground equipment. She indicated that only one of the firms had a swing -set, which she felt was an important component. Hartman asked Commissioner Gebhardt about the school. Commissioner Gebhardt indicated that they were seeking any additional contributions from the school. Skrivseth indicated that she asked the ECFE representative if they were able to make a financial contribution to the playground for Central Park. She indicated that the representative did not think that ECFE could contribute because it was not specifically, nor exclusively for ECFE. Commissioner Gebhardt indicated that her personal favorite was Miracle, the construction firm that had the swing -set option. Wong asked if the Commission could determine which firm they wanted to go with tonight so that he could speed things up. Anderson recommended Minnesota Playground indicating that they would give a bit more equipment for the same price. He stated that Miracle would be the easiest firm with which to work in terms of format and color. He added that any of the three construction firms could provide them with swings, explaining that they would trade another option out for the swings. Anderson referred to the option of building canopies on top of the playground for shade, and stated that he thought they were expensive. He added that, instead, they could add a structure -or two to the playground, and add a canopy later. Hartman pointed out that Miracle provided the equipment for Silver Point Park. Anderson added that they had three good proposals, which was all that they need. Hartman reminded the Commission that Wong needed some consensus from the Commission on which company to go with. Commissioner Ganley asked if the actual construction of the playgrounds was similar. Anderson indicated that they were, as certain standards have to be met. Motion by Commissioner Gebhardt, second by Commissioner Wagner, to hire Miracle Construction Company to provide the playground equipment for Central Park. Motion carried unanimouslv. Parks Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2001 Page 3 Sports Booster representative George Zurbey asked where in the process the project changed. He continued that it was his understanding that all of the fields were to be sand - based. Other Commissioners agreed that they were under the impression that all four fields were to be sand -based. Bob Kost, BRW, indicated that they misunderstood. Kost continued that it wasn't until last year when they needed to make modifications to the practice football field. Zurbey disagreed and referred to the time that representatives from the soccer team came to a Parks Commission meeting, and were told they would have a full-size field. Kost indicated that was untrue. Zurbey stated that he heard that all baseball and hybrid fields are to be sand -based. Commissioner Gebhardt stated that it was her understanding that everything except for the existing football field was to be sand -based. The Commission agreed. Zurbey continued with his conviction. Wong stated that he needed to know what it was that the Commission wanted to do about the misunderstanding. Kost indicated that the field in discussion will be re -graded and will function as a new field when it is complete. Public Works Director Jay Hartman asked about the sprinkler system for the field. Wong stated that it needed to be replaced. Kost stated that in order to keep the field functioning well, it is necessary to aerate twice a year. Independent Contractor Maurie Anderson agreed. Commissioner Ganley believed that the field would hold up, if they use a lot of new topsoil. Vice Chair Koehntop asked for the amount of topsoil that they were planning to use on the field. Wong indicated a couple of inches from the top. Kost stated there would be four inches of topsoil laid down. Zurbey stated that he felt misled, and that he thought that it was part of the project that all four fields would be sand -based. Jenson agreed, referring back to his own notes that he had taken at a previous meeting. Wong stated that the incorrect information did not come from BRW, but from the Parks Commission. Kost apologized for the confusion. He added that they never considered the football field as a new field. Zurbey confirmed that they were widening the field. Kost stated that was true, as it was part of the re -grading process. Parks Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2001 Page 4 Zurbey asked what the status was with the lights for the hockey rink. Wong indicated that they are looking to use existing lighting for the hockey rink, and that it is a work in progress. Zurbey asked if they were going to have a sliding hill for this winter. Hartman indicated that they would not have a sliding hill for the season, as the park is under construction and, technically, closed. Commissioner Ganley asked Wong's impression of how thongs are moving along. Wong indicated that they are about sixty-five percent through with the rough grading. He added that in the initial grading, they have not encountered any environmental problems in the parking lot. Kost added he would consider the project on schedule. Commissioner Gebhardt asked if they anticipated encountering any more environmental problems. Kost indicated that more testing was necessary. Wong indicated that there would be some more testing done in order to understand what the soil profile is. He added that the testing would probably be done in the next month or so. Commissioner Gebhardt asked if they anticipated problems. Wong stated that they were waiting to see until the next tests come through. Kost referred to the fact that the historic record contained nothing of what they found initially, with the paint containers so close to the surface. He added that it all remained to be seen. Zurbey asked what was not to be replaced in Central Park. Wong clearly indicated on the graph what was to stay. Commissioner Ganley asked about planting the seed before it snows. He added that if they do not get seed in there soon, they were endangering the field for the next year for playing. He added that someone needed to be aware that it needs to happen very soon. Hartman indicated that he would talk to Todd Hubmer, WSB, tomorrow. VI. UPDATE ON BUILDINGS FOR CENTRAL AND SILVER POINT PARK- MOLLY OLIVIER, SEH. Silver Point Park Olivier came forward and stated that they are on the road to construction. She indicated that there would be a one-month bidding period because of some complications. Olivier stated that she was there to run through the documents with everyone do that they all have an understanding of where they are at in the process. Parks Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2001 Page 5 Olivier reviewed the first page which included a sheet index, a symbol legend, a material legend, a standard architectural abbreviations, and project directory. Olivier reviewed the following page and the floor plan for Silver Point Park. She indicated that the cement blocks would be filled solid, which meant no mildew, etc. She added that the building would have entrances from the east and west, and concrete benches than run around the exterior and perimeter. Olivier reviewed the restrooms facilities for the Silver Point Park building. She indicated that they would have in -floor heat, instead of a furnace and filters that required changing. Olivier reviewed the flooring. Olivier reviewed the roof plan for Silver Point Park, indicating that it will have similar features as the buildings at Central Park. She added that there would be windows at the top of the building to allow for cross -ventilation. Olivier highlighted some of the features of the interior structure: tongue and groove ceiling, general electrical outlets (not designed to rent out), stainless-steel fixtures, automatic eyes for sink and toilet operations. Zurbey asked what type of windows the building was to have. Olivier indicated that there was no tinting, but a large over -hang. Commissioner Jenson asked who would be operating the windows. Olivier assumed they would be operated by city employees. Zurbey asked about funding for the project. Hartman indicated that it was funded solely by the DNR. The Commission expressed concern over the potential of the DNR not accepting the plans for the project. Olivier stated that they had to make improvements to the features of the building that used to be there. She added that they needed something that will survive flooding. Olivier stated that the cost -estimate was $308,000, and that Hubmer appeared to be okay with that number. She added that experts were in agreement over the cost of the project. Skrivseth asked when they were going to begin the project. Olivier stated that the building would start on April 15, 2002, and was due to be completed by September 1, 2002. During that time, said Olivier, they would fence off the area, in order to not limit T -ball sports activity. Zurbey asked about security cameras. Olivier indicated that they would install conduits. Parks Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2001 Page 6 Central Park Olivier stated that they were hoping for a cohesive surface was what they were hoping for. She added that the size of the building has not changed, and that they have perfected the measurements so that there are no goofy measurements for the bricklayers. Olivier indicated that the floor plan has stayed exactly the same, with the exception of the tweaking they had to do for the corseting. She noted the changes in the restroom: make mechanical space, burnished sealed concrete block, access to the electrical panel outside of the building. Olivier indicated that ninety percent of heating the building was to be done by a furnace. She added that they would run the heat above the warming area. Olivier indicated that all toilets are battery-operated. Olivier indicated that the meeting room and warming house floors would be skate carpet. She added that rubber tile would run through both the restrooms. Olivier stated that the rubber floor was not sealed, so that it can be maintained, and made up of inter -locking tiles. Zurbey asked for clarification on the location of the wet -deck. Olivier reviewed Central Park and the wet -deck. Olivier continued that the roof was built-up asphalt shingle that appears to be more like a shake -shingle. She added that the same truss would run all the way through the project. Anderson referred to the ceiling in the restrooms, (plywood, stained and sealed) and thought that they may be required to be washable. Jenson thanked Olivier for her detail. Olivier stated that she was doing her best, as she learned her lesson earlier on this project. Olivier stated that the chimney only needed a metal stovepipe, which is fairly inexpensive. She added that they will have some sort of flagpole, but uncertain as to what exactly it will be. Olivier stated she felt they really had a lot of nice detail in the buildings, utilizing the resources that are readily available. Olivier stated that the Engineer's Estimate for the project was $418,092. Commissioner Ganley asked for clarification on the fireplace. Olivier stated that it is gas. Anderson suggested motion lighting in the access area. Parks Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2001 Page 7 Olivier stated that the project would go out for bid on January 7, 2002. She stated the bid period would last until February 4, 2002. The Parks Commission thanked Olivier for her presentation. Olivier stated that, contrary to the last three Januaries, this should be a good bidding time. V. REPORTS. A. Community Services. Diane Skrivseth had nothing new to report. B. School Board. Denise Dunn had noting new to report. C. Snorts Boosters. George Zurbey had nothing new to report. VI. OTHER BUSINESS. Hartman stated that the next Parks Commission meeting date was up in the air, and that he would inform everyone when it was scheduled. VII. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Commissioner Wagner, second by Commissioner Hallada, to adjourn the meeting at 8:53 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Courtney Seesz Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 03/01/02 15:05 FAX 320 229 4301 SEH ,®5EN February 27, 2002 RM 1200 25th Avenue South, P.O. BOX 1717, SL Claud, MN 56302-1717 320.229.4300 32022SA301 FAX architecture engineering environmental transportation Mayor and Members of the City Council Attn: Mike Morrison, City Manager City of St. Anthony Village 3301 Silver Lake Road St. Anthony, MN 55418-1699 Dcar Mr. Momson: RE: Village of St. Anthony Park Pavilion and Restroom Buildings SEH No. A-SANTH0102.00 Bids were opened in the St. Anthony City Hall at 2:00 p.m. on Fehr - referenced improvement. The project is to be bid and awarrtc' construct both buildings at Central Park and SilveY " Thompson Homes Inc. for the combined pro;- combined ro"combined construction budget, determ�- The breakdown for the bid included $s and $256,778.10 for the building in Sih will fund the construction of the CentrL building will be provided by the MinnesotL We have reviewed the low bidders' Bid Forn be in order_ We also contacted three referent 0(1work. All three references were favorable an Thompson Homes, Inc. appears to be a respon. contract to Thompson Homes, Inc. The attached sketch shows how the design of Cent Sincerely, Brad Forbrook, AIA. Project Manager sl c: Molly Olivier, NCIDQ n:ua�-nrvn�n�.e�n�a�oau. eky....d s s 04001d•e 1002, for the above - a combined bid to was submitted by of reference, the Park building, f St. Anthony r Point Park O ad them to lstruction Inc. As of this ..rco the community. Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Your Trusted Resource Equal Opportunity Employer Cn b o c Lnh z s �- y O 0 0o 0 C p _ In N O - N G � J iv - O C � r O ' C G C iii ry tQ Z a N 'sl N la W N IJ N J 's ..n W N N � O A J a J O Z n N N x O C N N A O to Z "J. a= 7 a N_ •J Cn b o c Lnh z s �- y O 0 0o 0 C p _ z N O - N G � J iv - O C � r O ' C G C URS To: Jay Hartman, Director of Public Works From: Bob Kost, ASLA Date: August 9, 2001 MEMORANDUM Thresher Square 700 Third Street South Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phone: (612)370-0700 Far: (612)370-1378 Copy: Mike Morrison File: 35185-005 City Manager Subject: Central Park Redevelopment — Re -Bid Results & Budget Summary Summary Bids were opened on August 7, 2001 for the redevelopment of Central Park. 4 general contractors submitted bids: Veit & Company, Jay Brothers, Park Construction and Forest Lake Contracting. The base bids for all items ranged from $1,661,762 to $2,068,641. The Apparent low bidder is Veit & Company. The engineers estimate for the all base bid items was $1,650,000. The low bid is approximately 1% over the engineer's estimate. An add alternate bid for a new automatic irrigation system for the areas surrounding the City Hall/Community Center was also included. Veit & Company's price for this item is $28,100. The total bid price for the base bid and alternate #1 is $1, 689,862. Park Commission Recommendation The Parks Commission discussed the bids in detail at their August 13 meeting. The commission's recommendation is to: Accept the total bid (base bid and alternate #1) from Veit and Company in the amount of $1,689,862 and award Veit & Company a contract for the redevelopment of Central Park and installation of automatic irrigation system at the City Hall/Community Center complex per the plans and specifications. The City Council established a total project budget of $2,300,000 at it's meeting on May 2, 2001. Based on proceeding with the park renovation as recommended the approximate overall, Central Park Project cost is as follows: HARD COST Central Park Redevelopment Construction Cost: $1,661,762 Irrigation System for City Hall/Community Center: $28,100 Central Park Pavilion / Warming House: $286,088 Silver Point Pavilion (DNR Funded) (S314,206) Sub -Total: $1,975,950 SOFT COST URS/BRW Engineering Fees for Central Park Plans, Specification and Construction Administration: $269,050 SHE Architectural Fees: $55,000 Sub -Total: $324,050 Total Project Costs: $2,300,000. MEMORANDUM DATE: March 1, 2002 TO: Mike Morrison, City Manager FROM: Roger Larson, Finance Director ITEM: CENTRAL PARK CONSTUCTION COSTS In May of 2001, the Central Park project was upgraded from $1,600,000 project to $2,300,000. A review of the costs was as follows: Hard Costs: Construction/Pavilion $1,975,950 Soft Costs: Engineering 324,050 $2,300,000 On February 19, 2002, bids were opened for the park shelter buildings. Combined with the construction cost of the park (approved in August) the total costs are at $2,645,100 A summary of the costs is as follows: Hard Costs: Construction/Park Building $2,142,959 Soft Costs: Engineering $ 324,050 Environmental Clean-up: Hard/Soft costs: 178,091 $2,645,100 The enhancement of costs from the original $2.3 million budget includes: 1) the Central Park building came in at $453,097 (increase of $167,009) and; 2) Environmental clean-up costs totaling $178,091 were added to the project. Funding Option: Upon review of the various funding options, it becomes clear that the availability of using reserves without affecting our A-1 credit rating is near its end. However, with some special considerations, funding could be available from the following sources: 1) Designate 2001 Liquor Profits $ 51,300 2) Apache LGA reserves $293,800 Total $345,100 Special Considerations: At this time, the State Legislature is meeting and appears to be close to settling the State's budget crisis. For the past three to six months, we have adopted a "wait and see approach" when considering the use of reserves to fund projects. Using the Apache LGA reserves to fund the Central Park project would eliminate the availability to use these funds for budget shortfalls. Potential changes and/or cuts could occur in the general operating budget as well as capital equipment expenditures could be reduced or delayed till future years. In addition, the Apache LGA was earmarked as a potential funding source for Community Center renovations. Using the funds for Central Park, removes them as a funding source for the Community Center project. Other Considerations: The project is well underway and at this point it seems feasible that we should move ahead on the project. Keep in mind that on a positive note the bids that were rejected last fall total $2.9 Million. However, all concerned should acknowledge that the commitment to use our remaining reserves means the we will have to bond for all major capital expenditures, until such time we can build reserves back to a level that could support capital expenditures. Central Park Improvement Project Hard Costs: $9,520.00 01/31/2002 $9,520.00 Common Borrow $36,988.00 Expenditures Balance Central Park Constuction - Veit $1,661,762.13 $218,619.14 $1,443,142.99 City Hall Irrigation $28,100.00 $0.00 $28,100.00 Park Building $453.096.90 $0.00 $453,096.90 Total $2,142,959.03 $0.00 $1,924,339.89 Soft Costs: $295.00 $0.00 $295.00 URS - Planning & Design $269,050.00 $174,730.00 $94,320.00 SEH - Enginnering/Planning $55,000.00 $51,300.00 $3,700.00 Total $324,050.00 $0.00 $98,020.00 Additional Environmental Costs: Common Excavation $9,520.00 $0.00 $9,520.00 Common Borrow $36,988.00 $0.00 $36,988.00 Contaminated Soil/Disposal $25,153.58 $0.00 $25,153.58 Soccer Goal Posts $3,000.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 Erosion Control Fence $4,674.25 $0.00 $4,674.25 Lab, Testing - Soils Analysis $1,500.00 $0.00 $1,500.00 Environmental Field Supplies $295.00 $0.00 $295.00 Lead/Oil Drum Disposal $3,500.00 $0.00 $3,500.00 Additional Lighting Foundation $30,000.00 $0.00 $30,000.00 Practice Soccer Field $10,000.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 STS Consultants - Soil Borings $6,646.00 $2,520.00 $4,126.00 STS - Constuction Testing $5,000.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 URS - Environmental Services $13,500.00 $0.00 $13,500.00 Bond Issuance $23,881.54 $23,881.54 $0.00 Pollution Control $2,362.50 $2,362.50 $0.00 Advertisement for Bids $390.10 $390.10 $0.00 Maurice Anderson $1,680.00 $1,680.00 $0.00 Total $178,090.97 $147,256.83 Central Park Project - Totals $2,645,100.00 $475,483.28 $2,169,616.72