2022 12 20 City Council Agenda Packet

Machine-read OCR text; verify every number, name, and layout against the original page.

PUBLIC WORKS

their role in the project. Additionally, this final rough draft was approved by all parties which allowed us
to begin full design plans to be used for bidding the project.

In January of 2022, City staff began to focus particularly on kennel design as it had now been
determined modular kennels would be the best option for the facility. This process included contacting
several kennel! manufacturers to develop specific layout options, construction types, construction
timeframe, and cost. Staff was also working on finding a suitable floor covering for the facility. The
kennel designs continued to change over time as other information regarding the existing building
limitations and areas available for use changed as the overall floorplan evolved. Therefore, the kennels
which are to be acquired from Mason Company were one of the last items to be finalized.

Once the Public Works Building was demolished, several personnel relocated to the shelter building on a
temporary basis. During this time, the City learned the sanitary sewer lines coming out of the building
did not work properly. Therefore, it was eventually decided all new lines would be needed rather than

installing lines just for newly added facilities.

On May 20°, we received what was intended to be a final set of plans to be used for bidding the project.
These were distributed to City staff and MRHS representatives for review. The architect wanted to
proceed to bidding the same month with the thought we could issue a bid addendum for anything we
found during final review which needed to be corrected. Based upon our experience with the Public
Works Building where several pieces of contradictory or missing information led to multiple change
orders, Ben and | felt a detailed review was needed before we put the project out to bid. We felt a
similarly rushed schedule on the Public Works Building bid process was the main contributor to these
issues and we did not want to repeat the same mistakes at this facility. While this review was taking
place, AH began to assemble the bid specifications book.

Our review did indeed identify several similar issues which we corrected before the project was let for
bid. After seeing how much more other projects were bidding at compared to the original projected
budgets, Ben also took this time to remove any items from the scope which were not deemed necessary
as we realized any unnecessary additions would not be financially feasible at this time. Therefore, other
than the alternate items included in the bid documents we believe everything else to be the minimum
scope necessary to meet the needs of the Animal Shelter operations for both intake and adoption
purposes. This information was returned to AH on July 22"4,

The requested changes were returned to us in time to have the item placed on the City Council agenda

for the August meeting. The floorplan was substantially complete and Council authorized staff to
proceed with bidding the project, realizing there could be some minor alterations made throughout the

48