4. City Hall ExpansionJUN -06 -96 THU 11:00 AMCON CORP
z. L AMCO/V CM
P. 01
4
ftft
200 'Adw.' pry; :Wtry
VpiCd C+'?�: i!JCJ Ci�f'i;?
June 6, 1996
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Attention: Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager
Dear Don:
' 24. Mechanical: The Romark Mechanical bid was originally indicated as the low
bid. Their bid was received by the City at two minutes after the 1:00 PM bid
opening had started. While it may be permissible to accept that bid, we
recommend going to the second low bid, Grendahl Mechanical for two reasons.
' First, Romark has indicated that their bid did not include the fire sprinkler
system as it should have. Second, Grendahl Mechanical has indicated that they
would contest the award to Romark because it was late.
We recommend that the City award the contracts to the listed low bidders in all
categories except 22. Toilet Compartments and Accessories (The bids in that category
are not comparable and we may buy some of those Items from each of two different
FAX NO, 6128900064
Please find attached (sent under separate cover) ten copies of the final bid analysis for
'
the public safety addition. The report summarizes the bids In each of the bid categories
and also includes a copy of the low bid in each category. From the previous preliminary
report, there are changes In four bid categories resulting in a net increase to the total
'
amount of contracts of $10,755. 1 will briefly summarize those changes below:
5. Landscaping: Upon our final review, we noticed that the Landead bid did not
'
include the seeding and sodding as specified. They had listed it as an added
amount to their base bid. Hartman is therefore the low bidder.
'
11. Steel Erection: Because the Western bid is for less than $10,000, we have
not included the performance and payment bond in their contract amount.
'
This results in a savings of $350 for the City.
20. Carpet /Resilient Flooring: The apparent low bidder did not provide a bid
bond and therefore should be rejected. The second lowest bid should be .
'
accepted as the lowest "responsible" bidder.
' 24. Mechanical: The Romark Mechanical bid was originally indicated as the low
bid. Their bid was received by the City at two minutes after the 1:00 PM bid
opening had started. While it may be permissible to accept that bid, we
recommend going to the second low bid, Grendahl Mechanical for two reasons.
' First, Romark has indicated that their bid did not include the fire sprinkler
system as it should have. Second, Grendahl Mechanical has indicated that they
would contest the award to Romark because it was late.
We recommend that the City award the contracts to the listed low bidders in all
categories except 22. Toilet Compartments and Accessories (The bids in that category
are not comparable and we may buy some of those Items from each of two different
FAX NO, 6128900064
JUN -06 -96 THU 11:00 AHCON CORP FAX NO. 6128900064 P.02
bidders.) The award should be subject to final review and negotiation of minor
price modifications as a result of a pending post -bid addendum. The items to
be included in the post -bid addendum are a result of permit review items and owner
initiated changes. We anticipate these items to be minor and in many cases no cost
change at all, however, we do suggest the above clause in awarding the contracts to give
us better flexibility In negotiating these changes with the low bidders in each category.
Also, there was a missing line in the specification that would limit mark ups for
overhead and profit on change orders to no more than 150 of the direct cost of the
change. t would suggest that the contract award also be contingent upon acceptance of that
limitation by each of the Contractors.
I have had further meetings with firm which bid the pile driving system which was
specified for the support of the west wall of the existing courtyard. It looks as though we
should be able to use a different system which will not only save about $6,000 from the
system as designed, it should allow the other contractors' work to progress more
efficiently and eliminate the disruption of driving piles next to the building.
In summary, assuming all bids are awarded as recommended, the total cost of
construction will be $905,000. This compares to a construction budget of $905,000.
Both the City Manager and myself recommend awarding the bids as included in the
attached "Contractor Bid Analysis" dated May 29, 1996.
I will be at the City Council meeting to answer any questions regarding the bids or any
other aspects of the project. Please let me know if there is any other information I can
provide prior to the meeting.
Sincerely,
Dr9'T0i
o_&
Todd Christopherson, P. E.
President
TC:kw
City Manager's Comments and Recommendation to City Council:
I
k
.
1
1
1
1
1
F
I
L
I
I
1
Mr. Chmiel,
5122 b4
My mane is Steve Arundel and I am writing to you as a follow -up to last night's
city council meeting. Hopefully you'll remember that I was the property owner seeking
permission to subdivide a large lot at the end of a cul -de -sac at 3531 Maplewood Circle.
I have only attended four or five city council meetings in my fife, (this was my first
one in Chanhassen), but it always is interesting to me to see how the various issues that
come up are dealt with. I must admit to being impressed by the way that each of you
seemed to be able to get beyond any personal opinions and discuss and deal with each issue
from the standpoint of what is best for the community.
The main purpose of my writing you today, however, is to give you some more
information on why this subdivision is being sought.
Gerry Wenkus was the first person to speak last night on behalf of the subdivision
project. In the late 1970's Gerry built the house on the lot at 3531 Maplewood Circle.
Gerry, by profession, is a residential home builder. Ile has lived there with his wife Sue
since the house was built. They have two teenage boys that have been raised there and
have called this place home their entire life. I have known Gerry for six years. We met
through a youth hockey association. When the home construction business fell on hard
times a couple of years ago, Gerry also had some financial problems. His mortgage was
foreclosed due to this and he finally lost the house to the bank in late 1995. A third party
who knows both of us informed me of Gerry's situation and I offered to help out. A few
inonths ago I put up $120,000.00 out of my savings to buy the house from the bank just
before it went to the real estate division for sale and eviction of tenant. I have allowed
Geir_v to remain in the house.
Gerry's one chance to recoup some equity here and solve some of his financial
problems is to himself build a spec house on the new lot and make the profit on the sale.
1 l would then be able to use the profit as the down payment and get new financing to buy
back the house from me and stay in the neighborhood.
I didn't want to disclose this information last night at the meeting because it
would've been uncomfortable for Gerry to have his financial problems exposed in such a
public manner.
One of the council members said it would be a way to get a quick influx of equity
out of the property. If one really looks at the costs: $2,000.00 for surveying, $9,500.00 to
bring the waste sewer to the lot, $20,000.00 loss of equity on the front lot(3531
Maplewood Circle), $1,500.00 for PARK and REC, $2,500.00 to bring water and sewer
ih o a new house, $1,500.00 for drainage easement, $800.00 for new trees, and $4,000.00
real estate fees to sell the lot, there is hardly any equity to gain at all. Subtracting those
easily identifiable costs of $41,800.00 from a potential sale of $40- 45,000.00 one can
readily see that this is not a great equity producer.
In summary, I wanted you to know what really is driving this project. It is my
attempt to help a man stay in his neighborhood with his family. This seems to be his only
chance to pull the financial aspect of his life back together.
Finally, I must respond to the issue of whether or not this changes the `flavor" of
tie neighborhood. The two neighbors most directly affected would be the lots on either
side of the existing house at 3531 Maplewood Circle. The man to the west purchased a 42
foot long motor home and parks it permanently in his driveway. The man to the east is
currently constructing a huge stand alone two and one half car extra tall garage to support
his business of buying, restoring and selling used cars. He routinely has several cars, in
various states of repair, in his driveway for all of us to deal with. These two situations
unquestionably affect the "flavor of the neighborhood ", but apparently are neither unlawful
nor in violation of current city ordinances.
If my understanding of city government is correct, the goal is to ensure that the
laws and ordinances are being followed. In our request we don't break any laws or violate
any ordinances. Nor are we hying to do anything that sets any precedent. In the words of
one of the council members last night, "it's not the job of the council to be spiteful," yet
the very same member was the first to criticize our proposal as "not smelling right."
Please feel free to share this information with other council members if you deem it
appropriate. My address and phone numbers are below if you need them for anything. I
look forward to the next meeting.
Sincerely, n
Steve Arundel
6256 Harborough Court
Eden Prarie, MN 55346
(H)937 -0504
(1)476 -6700