Hi everyone,
Jean asked me to post this info on the contractor quotations that we have received so far concerning the ground cover at the dog park. The question was asked at the general meeting as to the status of the ground cover.
Please keep in mind that these are not decisions and only Jean's opinion of the different contractors to this point.
Monachino is my first choice. ($9,800.00) He’s done a lot of work for local contractors and I’ve never heard anything but good about him. He is a dog owner and seemed to have a genuine interest in the project. He spent almost two hours testing the dirt, discussing the project with me, and asked the most (and most intelligent) questions of any of the contractors. Also his bid reads that if more gravel is needed than was stated in the bid it would be at no extra cost to us for the gravel or the labor.
Cooley is my second choice. ($10,115.75) He also showed a genuine interest in the project and said that he would work with us (some) with the bid price. He seemed to be competent and knowledgeable, but I don’t know anyone who has used his company.
Chagrin Enterprises is my third choice. ($15,850.00) His company has a good reputation but it’s a subcontract company and his price is way high. Usually subcontract companies have to give a portion of their profit to the main company.
SEVCO is my fourth choice. ($10,900.00) Sevco is the main company, but the work would be done by an independent contractor. The bidder (who would be the actual contractor) was very nice but didn’t seem to have much experience with this type of project.
We will keep everyone in the loop as the project goes along.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Since fundraising hasn't reached the level of any of these bids, a better avenue to consider would be expanding the dog park to give the grass a fighting chance. Fencing is cheap. The current size is dictated by the old tennis courts footprint, but the dog park doesn't need to expand in units of contiguous tennis court rectangles. The fences could be pushed to the current setback limits on three sides, enclosing some more treed areas, and, at current use levels, that would let the grass survive. Dogs were meant to run on grass.
It would be great if we could increase the size of the dog park. The east side of the park will have a new cell tower built not too far from the fence. The north and south sides are both hilly and the west side has about 10-12 feet before it hits the trees. It is pretty much shoehorned into the space it occupies. Since the city owns the property the dog park sits on, we have to go with what the city allows us to use.
Regarding ground cover - wasn't someone going to look into the City doing the job?
Good question,
The way it works will be (and this is according to the city) FIDO determines what type of ground cover is best for the dog park, gets quotes from contractors, raises the funds for the ground cover , then the board of directors turns the information over to the city, and they will arrange with the contractor (either one we decide on or the city will decide on, and the city will run the project from there. The city oversees the work along with any permits and inspections needed. When the work is completed, the city will debit the funds from the FIDO account.
I hope this helps.
The north and south sides are both hilly and the west side has about 10-12 feet before it hits the trees.
So what? Fences can be erected on hills, and there's no reason the trees can't be enclosed within the park. Fences are allowed to come within their own height of the sidewalk (i.e. a 5 foot fence requires a 5 foot setback.) There's room for at least 25 feet on the south side and 30 on the west side. That would increas the park area by 20-30%. Cellular companies are very sensitive to PR when siting towers - has anyone asked if there could be an accommodation? Perhaps the tower could be moved north or south so as to only cut a corner off an expanded park.
Since the city owns the property the dog park sits on, we have to go with what the city allows us to use.
The city simply put the fence where the old tennis court fence had been, because it was simpler. Has anyone approached them to discuss expansion? It seems no one is willing to ask the city to do anything for what constitutes a sizable group of taxpayers. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Thank you for your comments about expanding the size of the dog park. You bring up some very viable ideas.
Since the issue was brought up in the quarterly meeting, we have assigned the city liaison with contacting the city to look into the possibility of expansion.
We very much appreciate your input and hope that you will come to one of our meetings and help us continue to improve the dog park.
We thank you very much for your comments
Post a Comment