The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/06/1980 r,,. _. � � CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PARIC COPIMITTEE MINUTES riay 6, 19 80 PRESF.NT: C:iiair�i�an i��.�s (:Gi.L11tt�'2 :iei:iu��'3 �`.li"�t:1.11_°lg� i;3c:T;c'_i3.� :;OG.T��t10S and Hollenbeck; �'ar�: a i:2creatiun :jirector, �iik:: Bassatt; t;ou�icilm�fn��r Over�ard; iiarold Skjeioa5taci, InterT��si�,z, Inc. ; iivai"t� l3axtri, �3arLn lievelopme�_it :;or�. ; 'ierr�, u�iivc.�rs-rty o.f iIi�irceso�a student S��1YC�11L"1C2. x;ES�.:1`P: �c�mmittee �Ieitiuers :�liller a�id Itilos Caai.rnan Be�.l callec� tli� zn�ating �o order at 7:07 P.i�. runutes of :iare:i IE, la�J anii �ia-rcii 25, 19�� ta�re a�aaroveci as t�rit��n. FJ�'.;:5'1' Pti�L' i;��TE:VSIO:J ;�ua�ie �artrl �ra.s ��rese:it to o�tain t.ie Commit�ee's reaction to a one-year extension for deeding par�.land in Forest Park. The Committee wished to be :assured 'the City would be protected if Barth defaulted on his Letter of ' Creuit with the bank and Bell asked T•iike Bassett if he knew of the` City � Attorney's view. Bassett indicated in the past the City had accepted ', an extension and it seemed to be a recogniZed way of doing business; he , ' oeliev�cl tne �ity C�u.icil Fti�oulcl �:iav� a r�cc�i:in�;�dat2�a t��ieii it was presented ', - �.assett wi11 present it to the City Couneil on Tliursday, May 8th. i � ' AiOTZON: of Sterling, seconded by Nae�eli, to xecommend the City Cou�cil ' { approve an extension to deed the parkland in Forest �'ark from � May 1, 1980, to 2�lay 1, 1981; subject to a�proval of the Letter. of Czedit t�y Jirn Sheldon, City Attorney. VOTE: Unanimously approved. REVIF.W OF BTDS FOR PARK DEVELOP:�ZENT r�a.YOi� .�i.3E?ituOSt�ucj iTOI;l IL1�E'.Yl)Gsl�;il� TY1C. � LIc^.S �1"E'_SGP_t tQ o1,VE'_ $Tl OVE.'�VleW � of the bidding on park development work (proposal attached) , He belieued the corresponding bid figures as compared to budgete3 figures for Proposal A (Grading and Underground Utilities, Proposal :6 (Tennis Caurts} and Proposal �, (Irrigation) ��ere acceptable, ho�vever, he noted Proposal G (P1ay Equipment) and Proposal D (Lig�ting) came in high. S=ja1'_»�tad i��t; R t:ie �roulern �rit�e �roposal C as being mobilization as a result of the many � different locations and suggested a t�,so-or three-*aa� s�lit �e��re �ut�.�� it cv reuius--;�it:ier uy�.ag iTFrc, or ciir;e clii{�r��t contractorsy vr Jea�;rap:�i- C3�I.�T� S11C1 .-^S �'<i2.5Lii1�; u�1C� Ilf-.tid �c�..'".: iccat-;o;:r=;; or reI"t22;�3 t0 dSS?`;ZL L'•£i:L_ � price� for �artieu�Gr pi�ce� of e�,ui�.�r�:u�lt. � (t�oil��uec�c arrived at 8:�.5 �'.t�,� ! i t � i . � • Park Commi ttee h1i nutes � May 6, 1980 I Page. 2 I Skjelbostad indicated the t�•io contractors who bid proposal C are historically high and several smaller contractors taok plans ta bid but seemed to be ' ' "put off" uy t��e number of sites in the project; he believed a rebid conference would help to eliminate fears and generate interest of several smaller contractors to rebid if the praposal were split. The Park Committee reviewed the content of each proposal in depth. �d�,eg�1i sug��s�ce�f �uttii�o the proposal to rebid as is and Skjslbostad indicated that i t was hi s experi ence that thi s tvas i neffecti ve--i� there �,rzre no cr�ang�s or l��odifications in the plans , the contractors simpTy assign �he same prices. Rodrigues expressed concern tivith continuity if the proposal were split into different areas of work, ��aegeli was concerned ��rith the timetable and if we could still make construction this year; t3e11 resp�nde� �hac possi�ly it could be ready by July, Bell also stressed tnat to be � paiiticaliy feasible, the Committee should use caution when cutting back or deleting in order to adhere to the terms of the bond issue. r _ (Overgard arrived at 8:15 �'.��. ) _ : i�OTIO�J; ut t?U�31^1gueS, SeCOitded 5y St�Y'll!"tg, to reco��trend to the City Council that Proposal A (Grading and Underground Utilities) • �and Proposal B ETennis Courts) be accepted at 1ow bid. VOTE: Unanimously approved. h10TI0N:- of Rodrigues , seconded by Sterling, to recommend rejection .. - _ of Proposal C (P1ay Equipment� and to request author�zation � to divide the proposa� into two or more sections and submit to rebid. . ; t�otion withdrawn. Discussion: Considerable discussion occurred on the best method to use to pare costs. Sterling expressed concern with deleting certa�in pieces of equipment or cutting back on specific parks and Bel] indicated deleting pieces would not resolve the problem of exorbitant prices for specific pieees. The Committee discussed splitting the proposal into different areas of tivork by various contrac�ors (i .e. several dif;erent contractars would be responsible for specific a�ork in all parks). Skjelbos�iad believed this would �resQnt a mightmare as :far as coordination was � concerned. The Committee a�reed it ivould probably be best to obtain permission to rebid Proposai C without. restrictions for more flexibility ` on rebi ddi ng. _ ! ttOTIQ"f: of Rodrigues , seconded by Sterling, to reco�nmend rejectian of Proposai C (Play Equipment) and to request au�horiza�ion to submit it to �ebid without restrictions. � I _ � � - � � The Park Cammittee May 6, 1980 Page 3 SNELTER BUILDIIdGS Bassett indicated that $45,000 had been set aside far sheTter buildings. InterDesign had reeeived a cost estimate ot' between $60,000 to �Sfl,000 and Bob Locker was reworking the design to pare costs. Skjelbostad said tucking the building underground required expensive roof materials _ for support. Naegeli believed the additianal costs involved as a result of requiring redesign tvark should be borne by InterDesign_, as they were av,w.re of the pri ce restri cti on ; Pdaegel i fe7 t t'�ie�'Commi ttee shoul d have had �' better �ounsell�ing. Bell suggested that Skjelbnstad check on their contractural abi�gation and Skjelbostad said he would and he will repart back to the Committee at the next meeting. OTNER ITEPIS: Park Director, Mike Bassett, advised the Committee of the City Couneil 's inquiry concerning progress on community trails system; he belieyed the Park Committee had little time to addres� this and suggested turning it aver to the Planning Commission. The Committee agreed; however, Sterling would like to obtain minutes of the Planning Commission meetings on this subject and Beil agreed the Committee would like to be kept informed of : their progress. . _ .- Ch�irman Bell noted that Ellen Milos intends to resic�n and asked the � Commit�ee _for suggestions to replace her seat on the Park Cortunitte�. _ Bell- sugr�ested one meeting per month be set aside this summer to oversee construction progress; Sterling agreed and thought perhaps they could meet earlier for that particular meeting. Chairman Bell reminded the Committee members tQ notify City Hall the day before a scheduled meeting if they were not able to attend to be certain : there was� a quarum prese.nt to conduct business. _ PM1QTIOiV: of Bell , seconded by Hollenbeck, to begin regular Committee meetings at 7:30 P.M. Discussion: Naegeii suggested meeting earlier if the Committee plans to go out to check construction progress and Sterling cancurred. Bell noted that perhaps beginning the regular meeting at 7:30 P.M. and cf�ecking progress at every third meeting might be adequate. VOTE: Yes - 4, No - l (P�aegeli opposed) Ni0TI0N; of Sterling, seconded by Bell to adjourn the meeting: VOTE: Carried unanimously. Mee�ing adjourned a� 9:45 P.M. i . � � � Park Commi ttee h1i nutes � May 6 , 1980 � Page 3 VOTE: Approved unanimously. Naegeli asked Skjelbostad if Proposal D was within reason and he replied it was slightly over--not terribly unreasonable. The Committee discussed sp;itting this bid in an effort to pare costs. MOTIQN: of Sterling, seconded by Naegeli , to recommend .rejection of Proposal D (Lighting) and request authorization to submit it to rebid in two' parts--one bid for Hayes Field lighting and one bid for hockey lightin�. hiotian t�tithdrawn. Discussion : Bassett suggested obtaining additional bids against Alladin and Rodrigues questioned if others could be encouraged to bid. Skjelbostad said he believed they would if InterDesign advertised. Bassett suggested the City purchase fixtures and rebid for installation � only; he offered to obtain prices on fixtures. Skjelbostad suggested rebidding in two parts : 1 : bid for Hayes Fie-1d lighting and installation 2. purchase fixtures `�'or hockey lighting and include i�nstallation for same in Proposal C. In that way he believed if the bid came in too high, Hayes F��ld could be dropped as it vras not included in the bond issue. , Naageli was opposed �o any cuts in Hayes fie.ld lighting; he said .this - was an o�portuni ty to provi de recreati on .for adul ts i n �the area whi ch . he be7ieved was a need. _ - - . MOTION: of Sterling, seconded by Hollenbeck, to recommend rejection of Proposal D (Lighting) and to rebid lighting fixtures.and : installation for Hayes Field ar�d obtain a second bid for . hockey lighting--installation only--to be included in Proposal C ti•�ith purchase of fix�ures •by the .City. - VOTE: Approved unanimously. Basset�: indicated irrigation was a �eed and the Comrnittee aqreed that this seemed to be �� opportune year to get it done because af dry N�eather conditions. Sterling noted that irrigation has to be done b�fore play equipment work could proceed. VOTION: of Naegeli , seconded by Rodr�igues, to recornmend to the City � , Cauncil that Proposal E (Irrigation) be accepted at l�v,� bid. � - , i VOTE: Approved unanimously. ` Discussion: Qell inquired as to what fields ufould be availab'ie for � r°creation when irrigation ��ork begins ar�d Bassett said he spoke to Bob Langren and explained the prob7em--he ti�iil check with V.A.A. people. Bassett also invited the Corr�nittee to attend the City Council m�eting 'on hiay 8th, at tivhich time the Council would review their recommendations. �