03/20/95 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Sessic~ 1637, Minutes Page 5 Marc~ 20, 1995 H~4AN PARK SPO~ Fr~n LIGHTING The Deputy City Manager said $210,000 was budgeted _ur~e___~ the bond issue for adding lighting to two football fields, two soccer fields, and seven adjacent softball diamor~s. The follc~ing bids w~re received: Maurice Rakers Electric (minority owned company) Asd~nger Electric $355,501 $375,510 Due to lack of funds, each contractor was asked to break down bids into work c~ the north or the south side of the River Des Peres (Maurice Pakers--north: $153,832; south= $201,669). The south side was identified as having a higher priority need for lighting. The project will include relighting two diamonds and one soccer field, and adding light to two softball fields and one foot- ball field. Doing this will allc~ more than half the project to be cc~plet- ed. Approval of Maurice Rakers Electric's bid of $201,669 was Mr. Schc(xnermovedapproval, andMrs. ~nompson secondedthe motion. Mrs. Sdnuman was disappointed that all the work envisioned for this part of the bond issue will not be done, and she wanted to be sure residents under- stood why it ca,not be done. She asked how the decision was made to use the available m~ley ~1 the south, rat_her t/m~n the north, side. Ms. Trombly said there was more demand for lighting on this side of the park, as there are more different types of playing fields and more space. Also, it means each sport will have some lighting. She said they tried to maximize use of the dollars available. Mr. Wagner also was disappointed and asked why there were only two bidders. Ms. ~-cmbly said 10 companies were invited to bid but only two did. She said the bond issue c~,{ttee on recreation researched the lighting needs and es- timated what the cost should be. Mr. COttc~ did not ur~ersta~d how the estimates were so far afield f~-<~ the actual bids, since the cu,,,,{ttee received a great deal of information fr~n city staff. Ms. Trembly said there ~ individuals on the c~t~,,~ttee who had construction experience or contacts in this field, and the costs evolved fk-<~ thoee sources; city staff did not contribute to that part of it. Mr. Cotton said ~il is ultimately responsible to ensure that money is spent in the way the public expects, and he had thought this project would result in sub- stantial improvement in park lighting. He said if the City was aware of cur- rent market prim which did not agree with estimates, it should have inter- vened with that information, and in future, staff should follow up on the in- formation that citizen panels formulate to see that it is realistic. Mrs. Schuman asked if revamping existing lighting is essential. Ms. Trum~ly said current lightin~ is inadequate and t_here are ooncerns about liability.