Fenton delays Budweil Park playground contractor choice after three vendor presentations

Fenton aldermen on May 8 declined to pick a contractor for a planned Budweil Park playground after hearing presentations from three finalists — Playground Consultants (representing Burke playground products), Vernon Jones and AB Creative — saying they needed more time to weigh design, parking and site-access issues.

The board has budgeted about $500,000 for the project; the three firms presented designs and price points that city staff said fall under or near that figure. Dana of The Playground Consultants described a single Burke-based design and said, “My playground design is about a 105 by 50, And, I am the low bidder at 433,000.” Vernon Jones presented five options with a range of roughly $440,000–$490,000, while AB Creative offered three distinct concepts and said it could mix and match manufacturers to meet the city’s needs.

The decision matters because the project combines playground equipment with site work: grading, a retaining wall, a drainage plan and ADA-accessible sidewalks from the existing parking lot. City public-works staff flagged constraints at the Budweil site including a steep slope that will likely require a retaining wall and limited parking (roughly 17 marked spaces). Aldermen and staff emphasized the need for a design that fits the existing site, provides required ADA access and limits off-site impacts.

Most important facts - Budget and bids: The city set a planning budget near $500,000. Playground Consultants quoted $433,000 for its Burke design; Vernon Jones’ five options ran about $440,000–$490,000. Vendors said the safety surfacing option (pour-in-place) and turf are roughly comparable in price, and surfacing choices affect long-term maintenance. - Timeline and lead times: Vernon Jones said manufacturing lead times for playground equipment range commonly from about six to 14 weeks; the firm estimated up to eight weeks to complete site work and installation once the equipment is on site, weather permitting. - Maintenance and warranties: Presenters said poured-in-place surfacing typically carries a 3–5 year maintenance cycle for the wear layer and a five-year warranty on certain systems; artificial turf lines cited a roughly 15-year manufacturer warranty. Vendors also noted periodic parts replacement (awnings, slides) over a 15–20-year equipment lifespan. - Site constraints: The proposed play footprint discussed most often was about 105 by 50 feet. Staff and board members repeatedly raised flood/drainage, slope and tree-removal issues and said a significant retaining wall and fence will likely be required. The park’s parking supply (about 17 spaces) and nearby parking (Budweil Annex, old police station lot) also shaped discussion of expected attendance and access.

What vendors proposed - Playground Consultants (Burke line): Dana presented a single, fully designed Burke playground emphasizing inclusive elements, shade and a poured-in-place surface. She said the proposal was deliberately under the city’s budget to allow options, and highlighted a plan with 13 transfer-accessible events and 22 ground-level events. - Vernon Jones: Ben Brown, director of project development, presented five turnkey design/build options and emphasized Vernon Jones would self-perform much of the site work (concrete, earthwork, drainage). He said the firm performed a field survey and included a scope that covered retaining wall construction, HDPE underdrain, ADA sidewalks, and certified installation to manufacturer standards. - AB Creative: Chris and Nick presented three concept packages sourced from multiple manufacturers (including Berliner and other lines), and said AB Creative would provide in-house design, project management and subcontracted installation. They also recommended turf as a lower-maintenance surfacing option and pointed to past regional installations.

Board concerns and public-staff clarifications Board members asked for clearer, site-specific plans addressing these points before committing to a vendor: - Footprint vs. hill: Several aldermen said the 105-by-50-foot footprint felt large relative to the hillside and native character; vendors said designs can be scaled or customized and emphasized separating 2–5 and 5–12 play areas for age-appropriate play. - Parking and access: Aldermen pressed on how many users the designs claim to accommodate (manufacturers’ user-capacity estimates ranged from roughly 70 to 133). Staff and vendors said user-capacity counts are manufacturer estimates and that the city must ensure ADA sidewalks from the parking lot and, if needed, consider auxiliary parking upgrades at nearby lots. - Drainage and retaining walls: Public-works staff said the site will require careful grading, a rock backfill under drains and a retaining wall; several vendors already accounted for retaining walls and underdrain piping in their proposals. - Maintenance and lifecycle costs: Vendors explained surfacing maintenance cycles (poured-in-place top-layer renewal every 2–3 years; turf 15‑year warranty) and indicated equipment life is commonly 15–20 years with periodic part replacements.

Decision and next steps Alderman Hills moved to continue the procurement and give board members additional time to review proposals; Alderman Wissbrough seconded. The motion carried. The board did not select a contractor or specify a preferred manufacturer at the May 8 meeting.

Staff said the next steps are for aldermen to review the vendor packets, identify desired elements (footprint, surfacing, shade/roof type, bench and amenity counts) and direct staff on whether to negotiate a single preferred vendor or return to a future meeting with a narrowed scope. Vendor representatives said most design elements (color choices, additional benches, alternative surfacing) are customizable in the post‑contract design phase.

Why it matters The project is the city’s largest parks capital build in recent years and affects accessibility, neighborhood parking and ongoing maintenance budgets. The board’s delay allows aldermen to weigh trade-offs between a larger, higher-play-value footprint and a smaller, lower‑impact design that is cheaper to maintain and fits the hillside more tightly.

Ending The parks committee will bring updated information back to the full board; aldermen signaled they want more time to compare the five options, confirm ADA access and drainage plans, and get clearer lifecycle cost estimates before making a final vendor selection.