HomeMy WebLinkAbout9G - Park Capital Imp. Project
.
~
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FEBRUARY 22, 2000
9G .
PAUL HOKENESS, PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION OO-XX AUTHORIZING'
EXPENDITURES FOR MISCELLANEOUS PARK CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROJECTS AND PARK APPURTENANT EQUIPMENT AS IDENTIFIED IN THE
1999 AND 2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
History
This item originally appeared on the February 22, 2000 agenda but was deferred
until the Referendum Status Report was provided to the City Council (See Agenda
Item 9E).
The Parks and Recreation portion of the Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.)
includes a variety of improvement projects for the parks in Prior Lake. The larger
projects are typically playground equipment and trail construction. We have
identified the playground equipment and trails which are slated for construction in
2000 in Agenda Report #9C.
Though the Council has already approved the 1999 and 2000 C.I. P. staff felt that it
would be a good idea to receive Council approval for the smaller projects and
equipment which don't require formal bidding, but are purchased in compliance
with our purchasing guidelines.
These purchases include project items such as basketball courts, picnic shelters,
and resilient surfacing to make our playground equipment A.D.A. compliant. We
also purchase picnic tables, park benches, players benches, bike racks, and grills
from a variety of vendors. These are new installations as well as replacements
due to wear and tear or possibly vandalism. We are trying to replace some of our
older wooden picnic tables and benches with new permanently mounted vinyl
coated metal tables and benches. Many of our parks and new playgrounds do not
have bike racks or benches and we try to install a few of these each year.
Current Circumstances
The following is a detailed list of items that were identified for purchase in the 1999
and 2000 C.I.P.
PARK lOCATION IMPROVEMENT AMOUNT
Memorial Park Picnic Shelter $10,000
...MemoriafPa.rk...........................Concrete..behfncf"bieiiche.rs....._..............$6~.6o(j"..............
............................................................................................................................................-..............................'1".............
Willows Park Basketball Court $5,000
1 The 2000 Capital Improvement Program includes $10,000 for Basketball courts. In the fall of 1999, $5,000 was
used to complete Oakland Beach Court, which was done pursuant to Council direction fOllowing the storm of 1998.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
K:\PAUL\AGDEN.REP\2000CIP.DOC AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
.
...sancfpoiiii"seach.............................Parking."[ofUg"h"ts............................"$"1t(OOO.............
...Ca.rdiiiai"RI.dge;.................................................................................................-..............................................
Indian Ridge; Resilient surfacing for $8,0002 (1999)
Boudins; Northwood playgrounds $8,000 (2000)
Memorial
...Varlo.us...Parks....................................'Appurtenant"Eq.uipf............._..............................................
(benches, grills. picnic $10,000 (1999)
tables, bike racks, players $10,000 (2000)
benches)
...T6TAC.f99~f&..26oi5"p.R'6p6sE5..EX.PEN5rTiTR.ES...._............$75;0.0.0.............
ALTERNATIVES:
The Issues
We will follow the City purchasing policy guidelines when procuring these items.
Since the Sand Point Beach parking lot lights exceed $15,000.00 we will return to
the Council for final approval.
Conclusion ~'~~,. { (
Funds for this item would be drawn from the Capital Park portion of the Capital
Improvement Program which currently has a balance of ~48,6Si'.ero. The
estimated expenditure for playgrounds and trails as presented in Agenda Item 9G
is $212.750.QO. The expenditure request for this agenda item for small projects
and appurtenant equipment is $75 non on The combined cost for these
improvements is $287,750.00 which would leave a balance 0 ..' the
Capital Park portion of the C.I.P. .7' I S$'].~.r'
1. Approve Resolution DO-XX authorizing expenditures not to exceed $75,000.00
for capital improvements and park appurtenant equipment as identified in the 1999
and 2000 Capital Improvement Program.
2. Table this agenda item.
3. Deny this agenda item.
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
Motion and second to approve Resolution OO-XX authorizing expenditures for
miscellaneous park capital improvement projects and park appurtenant equipment
as identified in the 1 99 and 2000 Capital Improvement Program not to exceed
$7ij'
Frank Ie
REVIEWED BY:
2 The 1999 Capital Improvement Program included $12,000 for resilient surfacing. In 1999, $4,000 of these funds
were used to complete the resilient surfacing at Green Oaks and Willows Park. The $8,000 from 1999 plus the
$8,000 included in the 2000 CIP will complete the resilient surface for the five remaining parks.
K:\PAUL\AGDEN.REP\2000CIP.DOC
.
RESOLUTION OO-XX
AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES NOT TO EXCEED $75,000
FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND PARK APPURTENANT EQUIPMENT
AS IDENTIFIED IN THE 1999 AND 2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
WHEREAS,
The Parks and Recreation portion of the 1999 and 2000 Capital Improvement
Program identifies funding for park improvement projects, and
WHEREAS,
the 1999 and 2000 Capital Improvement Program also includes funds for the
purchase of park appurtenant equipment, and
WHEREAS,
these improvements and equipment are utilized and enjoyed by the community,
and
WHEREAS,
the following list of items is included in the Capital Improvement Program
Park Location
Memorial Park
Memorial Park
Willows Park
Sand Point Beach
Improvement
Picnic Shelter
Concrete behind bleachers
Basketball Court
Parking Lot Lights
Cardinal Ridge,
Indian Ridge,
Boudins, Northwood,
Memorial
Resilient surfacing (1999)
for playgrounds (2000)
Various Parks
Appurtenant Equipment
Benches, Grills,
Picnic Tables, Bike Racks,
Players Benches (1999)
(2000)
10tal1999 and 2000 Proposed Expenditures
,and
WHEREAS,
Amount
$10,000.00
$ 6,000.00
$ 5,000.00
$18,000.00
$ 8,000.00
$ 8,000.00
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
$75,000.00
staff will follow purchasing policy guidelines in procuring the above listed items,
and
CIP9900.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
......--.--.---...--.---....-....-----.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA,
that the City Council authorizes the expenditures for the projects and appurtenant equipment as
identified in an amount not to exceed $75,000.00.
Passed and adopted this 20th day of March, 2000.
Mader Mader
Ericson Ericson
Gundlach Gundlach
Petersen Petersen
Schenck Schenck
YES
NO
{Seal}
City Manager
CIP9900.DOC
I
'"
or
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
* * *
I:'~
~ JoelJ.Jamnik
Andrea McDowell Poehler
Matthew K. Brokl*
John F. Kelly
Matthew J. Foli
Marguerite M. McCarron
George T.alPhenson
.Also uC:t::ft~ \~"is'onsin'
Professional Association
Attorneys at Law
Thomas J. Campbell
Roger N. Knutson
Thomas M. Scott
Elliott B. Knetsch
. Suesan Lea Pace
(612) 452~5000
Fax (612) 452,5550
Writer's Direct Dial:234-6226
Writer's Fax: 452-5550
Of Coun.sel:
Gary G. Fuchs
. . January 22, 1998
David Kenney, Esq.
Office of State Auditor
Suite 400
525 Park Street
St. Paul, MN 55103
Re: City of Prior Lake
Request for Proposals for playgro~nd equipment
Dear Mr. Kenney:
This letter is in response to your telephone call questioning the bidding procedures of the
City of Prior Lake for playground equipment. In this letter, I will (1) summarize the bidding
procedure used by Prior Lake and several other municipalities, (2) identify legal support for the
proposition that a municipality can consider factors other than price in determining the lowest
responsible bidder, (3) address the relevance of W.V. Nelson Construction Co. v. City of
Lindstrom, and (4) defend Prior Lake's RFP and its competitive bidding procedure used in the Fall
of 1997.
To supplement the infonnation contained in this letter, I have enclosed copies of several
documents:
1. Prior Lake's Request foJ;' Competitive Proposals, Playground Equipment;
2. Memorandum dated August 19, 1997, from Chris Esser to Paul Hokeness;
3. RFPs for Savage, Shakopee, Eagan, St. Louis Park, Mendota Heights, Bloomington
(2), .and Burnsville (2);
4. Letter dated July 27, 1997, from Bruce Pudwill to Lydia Andren;
5. Memorandum dated September 18, 1997, from Paul Hokeness to Frank Boyles;
6. Recommendations for Playground Equipment Selection, dated October 14, 1997, from
Jeff Schoenbauer; .
. ~~~e 317 · Eagand~le Office Center · 1380 Corporate Center Curve · Eagan, MN 55121
.--.---.-.... ...__..._-....,......._.._-_.._._-_._...._...~.....__.....
I
D. Kenney
January 22, 1998
Page 2
/"
7. Staff Agenda Report prepared by Paul Hokeness, dated October 20, 1997, and
8. Resolution 97-93, passed and adopted October 20, 1997.
A. Municipalities consistently specify the budget for their playground
equipment projects.
,
Before completing Prior Lake's RFP, City employees surveyed a dozen communities
regarding their procedure for bidding playground equipment. Every one of the municipalities
established a budget for the project, and this amount was part of the information given to
prospective vendors. The City employee who surveyed the municipalities explained:
The resounding opinion on why departments supply vendors with their price tag is
simply to get more for their money. With prospective vendors knowing what you
have to spend, and knowing their competition has the same information, competitive
bidding forces vendors to provide the maximum quality) design) and play elements for
the money with the hope of being awarded the project.
I have attache"d copies of RFPs from several other municipalities. You will note that the
amount of money budgeted for projects in Mendota Heights and Bloomington was greater than
$25)000. Thus, state law required these projects to be competitively bid. Even so, Bloomington's
RFP for the Effa Playlot stated that "Bidders must utilize this price in their bid and strive to provide
the best design, maximum amount of equipment and highest level of quality for this figure." This is
a clear example of how municipalities ensure that taxpayers receive the best bargain for the least
money.
Several municipalities' RFPs provided little to no guidance on the design of the play areas.
Eagan's RFP for Ridgecliff Park states that "The bidder shall be responsible for the design of the
play structure." Other municipalities were very detailed in the type and quantity of equipment to be
provided. Bloomington's RFP for Normandale Hills Elementary School has a detailed play
e<}uipment component list, and uses a certain manufacturer's components as a design example.
Bloomington held open the opportunity for other manufacturers to be approved as an equal.
Attached is a letter from Bruce Pudwill to Mayor Lydia Andren. Pudwill criticized the
City's past use of a specific manufacturer's components as a design example. You will note that
Prior Lake's RFP neither specified a manufacturer nor elaborated on any design features. This
eliminated Pudwill's concern that the named manufacturer received a "definite advantagell.
In summary, all of the municipalities surveyed set the cost of the project, and. several
municipalities expected the vendors to create their own designs, within the budget constraints. In
establishing its own RFP, Prior Lake followed the lead of these other municipalities.
5sn2
_..._~--_._------~-'--"._.>'-
.
D. Kenney
January 22, 1998
Page 3
B. Cost is not the only factor to be considered in determining the
lowest responsible bidder.
You expressed concern that Prior Lake's RFP listed several criteria, in addition to cost, on
which each proposal would be evaluated. I direct your attention to Otter Tail Power Co. v. Village
of Elbow Lake, 40 N.W.2d 197 (Minn. 1951). In that case, the Supreme Court stated:
,
Where more than one bid is received from a responsible bidder on the same '
piece of equipment or equipment of the same kind, the council has no discretion but
to accept the low bid. * * * But where bids are requested on equipment that is not
subject to exact specifications, the council must be allowed some latitude in
considering not only the price but the suitability of the article for the use for which it
is intended.
Id. at 201. The Court went on to quote with approval a learned commentator:
"Where the thing sought to be purchased or contracted for is not entirely subject to
exact specification, as where there are a number of different kinds in the market all
meeting the requirements to a greater or less degree, the officers should consider the
quality and utility of the thing offered, and its adaptability to the purpose for which it
is required. In determining the question as to who is the lowest bidder, the quality of
the commodity to be furnished, as well as the price therefor, is to be taken into
consideration, and a bid which is low in point of price may be rejected if the material
to be furnished is not the best. "
Id., quoting 10 McQuillin, Municipal COlporations (3d. ed.) ~ 29.75.
The City's RFP exactly followed the Supreme Court's intent. Play area equipment is not
subject to exact specifications, unless the City totally designed the play area before sending out the
RFP. I suppose that Prior Lake could have first hired an architect/consultant to design each play
area. But to do so, the architect would have been forced to rely upon the components of a specific
manufacturer, which again invites the claim of favoritism. Instead, the City expects the .
manufacturers to design their own play areas, and thus the City must be allowed to consider the
"quality and utility of the thing offered, and its adaptability to the purpose for which it is required."
A review of the Mendota Heights and Bloomington RFPs shows that other municipalities rely
upon other factors besides cost in their selection criteria, including aesthetic appeal, uniqueness of
components, traffic flow, warranty, and installation.
58722
.....---- .-.--..---,-.-------...--......
I
D. Kenney
January 22, 1998
Page 4
C. Nelson v. City of Lindstrom simply stands for the proposition that a
construction contract at a cost of $290,000 must be competitively
bid.
I have thoroughly reviewed W.V. Nelson Construction Co. v. City of Lindstrom, 565
N.W.2d 434 (Minn. App. 1997). In Nelson, the Court of Appeals determined that the mixed design
services and building construction contract for the municipal liquor store was a contract ~ithin the
meaning of the state competitive bidding statutes. It based this decision on the sole fact that the two
lowest bidders budgeted less than five percent for design services. Id. at 436.
I agree with the underlying reasoning of the Court of Appeals, that a construction contract
estimated.to exceed $25,000 must be competitively bid. And the City of Prior Lake competitively
bid all the contracts for playground equipment. This is true even though only two of nine projects
exceeded the trigger amount of $25,000.
If, however, you mean to imply that Nelson somehow prohibits the listing of the overall cost
of the project, I disagree. There is nothing in the Minnesota competitive bidding statutes that
prohibits a municipality from specifying the budget for a certain project. In fact, as is the case in
practice, a city's consultant will often predetermine a cost estimate for the project. This allows the
city to independently determine if the submitted bids are within an acceptable range.
The Nelson Court, however, did note that competitive bidding statutes are designed to ensure
that taxpayers "receive the best bargain for the least money." Id. at 435, quoting Byrd v.
Independent School District No. 194,495 N.W.2d 226, 232 (Minn. App. 1993), review denied
(Minn. Apr. 20, 1993). As noted above, municipalities identify the project cost specifically to
ensure that the taxpayers receive the best bargain for the least money.
D. There is nothing offensive about either Prior Lake's RFP or its
competitive bidding procedure for playground equipment.
Prior Lake's RFP identified nine play areas at seven parks, and further specified whether the
play area was to be designed for elementary school or pre-school age children. The RFP stated that
"Design, installation and equipment should not exceed the amount budgeted for each play area." In
no way did the RFP limit the potential designs or the potential play area components; the RFP did
not even specify the type of equipment (e.g., two slides, four swings, etc.) or an approved
manufacturer's equipment (e.g., "Play equipment component list based upon Manufacturer X used
as design example"). This eliminated the potential criticism that the City favored Manufacturer X,
or that the City improperly refused to certify Manufacturer Y as an approved equal.
A total of six vendors submitted proposals. The City's Parks Advisory Committee
interviewed each of the vendors, and also made a field inspection of the play equipment associated
58722
._.~.__.-.~-~._.~._.~~--~-_._---~
.
D. Kenney
January 22, 1998
Page 5
with each of the vendors. The Committee specifically relied upon the following factors in selecting
the vendors:
· Design - the design features of the selected play equipment impressed the Committee;
After reviewing all of the submittals, the CoIIimittee simply preferred the ones that
were selected. .
. ,
· Cost/Value - the Committee felt that the play equipment selected offered the'best
value with respect to the overall quality of the play experience within the context of
budget limitations.
· Quality (productlInstallationlService) - the Committee felt that the selected vendors
have a proven history of carrying an excellent product, taking responsibility for
assuring installation was properly done, and had a solid history of service follow- ,
through and standing behind the equipment warranties.
The City Council ultimately passed and adopted Resolution 97-93, awarding the bid for the
purchase and installation of playground equipment to three vendors.
I hope this letter and the enclosed documents are helpful. I look forward to hearing from
you in the near future.
Very truly yours,
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
By:
Suesan Lea Pace
Prior Lake City Attorney
SLP:kgm
cc: Mayor (letter only)
City Councilmembers (letter only)
City Manager (letter only)
Paul Hokeness (letter only)
'58722
- f