HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-12 CITY OF LAKEVILLE
• PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY OOMNILT'I'EE
N~NUTFS OF SPECIAL MEETING
OC`T'OBER 12, 1988
Meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM on October 12, 1988. Roll call:
Messinger, McDonald, Larson, Grenz and I~zl.f were present. Park Director
Steve Michaud and Neil Weber, building architect, were also present.
Staff began the meeting discussing several of the options available as
presented in the bidding packet. There was much discussion concerning
the various alternatives available to the coimnittee. Most committee
members felt the added cost for a metal roof at North Park was justified
due to the aesthetics it would create in the immediate area of heavy
growth of residential homes.
McDonald suggested a wood roof would be more conducive for the Foxborough
Park building, which the rest of the committee agreed with.
Architect Neil Weber had made several calls concerning the references of
the general contractor, Penner Development, and found them to have
reputable credentials. Staff was given a number to contact concerning a
a project currently being built in Ramsey County Parks. As of this
writing, staff made contact with Ramsey County and received favorable
commexits concerning Penner Development.
• There was some discussion relative to the time line for completion. The
architect and connnittee suggested that a 120-day completion schedule
seemed more realistic than a 90-day. It was also brought out that the
completion of the Foxborough building as soon as possible was of the
utmost importance due to the need for that building during this year's
winter skating season. It was thought that both buildings' excavation
and foundations could be simultaneously started and from that point on
emphasis could be put on the completion of the Foxborough building.
There was additional discussion relative to other aspects of the
building, budget, and restoration work to be completed in the spring.
88.88 It was then moved by Grenz, seconded by Lulf, to recommend that City
Council awan-T the construction bid, including Alternates Three and Five,
to Penner Development. The alternates represent the construction of both
buildings under the base bid with a metal roof for North Park, a wood
roof for Foxborough Park, aril the addition of two more transom windows
for a total of eight, instead of six, for a total bid amount of
$279,326.00.
Aye: Messinger, Larson, Grenz, Lulf
Nay: McDonald, stating this is not the correct time to be building these
buildings.
Motion passed.
Staff gave a couple brief updates on existing projects.
•
Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee minutes
• October 12,1988
Page -2-
88.89 There being no further business, it was moved by Messinger, seconded by
Lulf, to adjourn.
Motion passed. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeff Larson, Chairman
ATTEST:
Larry Lulf, Secretary
GSM: j r
•
•
TO: STEVE MIC~IAUD, PARK DIREC'IbR
• FROM: KEVIN ILLA, PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY OOtM2ITTEE MEP'IBER
DATE: .OCTOBER 11, 1988
SUBJECT: PARK SHELTER B[JII.DINGS SPECIAL MEETING
I will be unable to attend the special meeting of October 12th due to a
prior commitment. However, I would like to express my opinion on the
recommendation of the bid to council for the park shelter buildings..
The two lowest bidders, C.O. Field Co. and Fenner Development, are close
enough in bid price that other factors, i.e., completion date, references
and credentials, should car2y as much weight as bottarn line cost. With
the information we have available to us, I would feel comfortable with
either contractor and will. defer this decision to you.
Unlike the soft stance I have regarding selection of the general
contractor, I do have very definite opinions regarding the alternative
that were bid.
ALTERNATE.#1 - I do not .feel that the picnic pavilion proposed for
Foxborough Park should be built at this time.. If in the future we see a
need for a picnic area, it would be more feasible to install one similar
• to the gazebos added to some of the parks this swYmier.
ALTERNATES #2, 3 & 4 - I am not in favor of exercising any of these
options. I feel that North Park will become a highly visible part of our
park system in the very near future.. We have an opportunity to enhance
the Lakeville Park System with a building that would be aesthetically and
functionally first class at a reasonable cost. To settle for less would
be detrimental to the development of North Park. The metal roof proposed
will give a modern, progressive look to this building.
ALTERNATE #5 - My understanding from our review of the blueprints
throughout the project was that trarLSOm windows would be used. on both
buildings. This option will provide natural light and add to the decor
both from the interior and exterior.. I would like to have transom windows
added to both. buildings.
KI : j r n
cc: Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee
•