Stark County takes livestock building bids under advisement pending building-code review

The Stark County Parks Board opened competitive bids for a proposed livestock building at the county fairgrounds and agreed to take the bids under advisement until a building-code review is complete.

Board members also heard that a planned-unit development (PUD) adopted in 2016 likely already allows the proposed building, and discussed whether to carve the fairgrounds out of Dickinson’s extraterritorial jurisdiction so the county would control future planning on that parcel.

The PUD issue was raised during the board’s old-business update. Neil (board member) summarized an exchange with a county planning official who initially recommended a PUD revision but later determined the livestock building “follows within the compliance of the original PUD that was developed in 2016.” Neil said the board discussed asking the city’s plan review committee to consider carving that parcel out of Dickinson’s extraterritorial zoning (ETZ) and returning planning authority to the county because the property is county-owned.

At a later agenda item, staff opened sealed construction bids. The board recorded these bids (base and alternate totals as read at the meeting): Shetler’s Construction LLC — base $1,204,576; alternate (PVC conduit deduction) $1,203,576; Colling & Colling Inc. — base $1,234,100; alternate $1,232,300; Twos Construction Inc. — base $1,140,240 (no alternate listed).

Staff explained the alternate was an electrical-conduit option offered in the addendum: the base bid specified metal EMT conduit and dustproof connections; the alternate specified glued PVC conduit to reduce corrosion risks in a high-humidity livestock environment. The board discussed the tradeoffs and the fact that bidders priced the alternate accordingly.

Board members and the state’s attorney discussed how to proceed while a contracted code reviewer (referred to as GT in the meeting) completes a formal code review of the project’s proposed use and occupancy. Staff and the state’s attorney advised caution: because the project is “subject to the code review,” a review that requires material changes could force rebidding. The state’s attorney recommended taking time to review the bids and then holding a short special meeting to award the contract, or rejecting and rebidding if revisions are significant.

The board voted to take the bids under advisement and call a special meeting once the code review is available. The board noted that the code reviewer had estimated up to six weeks but that an accelerated review might be possible. Staff said bidders were on notice that the project was subject to the pending code review and that $7,500 in the bid package would cover the review cost; if the county did not proceed with the building, the county would still be liable for that review fee.

Next steps recorded at the meeting: the county will await the written code review, schedule a special meeting if the review is returned promptly, and then decide whether to award a contract to the lowest responsible bidder or reject all bids if the review requires substantial design changes.

Quotes from meeting participants are accurate verbatim as spoken during the meeting.