Council rejects single bid for Town Center Park potable well, directs staff to rebid drilling on relaxed schedule

The Heath City Council directed staff July 22 to reject the lone responsive bid for Water Well Number 1 at Town Center Park and to rebid the project on a relaxed schedule focused on drilling-only as the base bid and electrical and treatment work as alternates.

Engineers from Kimley-Horn presented project history, the June 24 bid opening results and three recommended paths. Tanner Henson of Kimley-Horn described the well design: a potable water well with a design output of 4,700 gallons per minute and a drilled depth of about 3,420 feet. The June bid produced a single responsive proposal; with the lower-voltage alternate included the bid total was reported as $8,635,000. Kimley-Horn said the drilling portion appeared competitively priced while electrical and instrumentation prices were significantly higher than expected, likely driven in part by an aggressive schedule and long lead times for electrical equipment.

Kimley-Horn presented three options: (1) rebid Well 1 with a drilling-only base bid and electrical and treatment work as alternates, on an extended schedule that engineers estimated would complete the well by July 2027; (2) rebid Well 1 together with future wells to capture scale economies, extending the timeline; or (3) accept the existing bid and award to Hydro Resources for an accelerated schedule (council was shown that schedule and cost). Staff and engineers explained tradeoffs: accepting the lone accelerated bid would produce a well faster (roughly July 2026 in the presentation) but likely at a premium; rebidding could attract additional bidders but would delay completion.

Council members pressed staff and engineers on why only one bidder responded, how many drillers were solicited (staff said four qualified deep-drilling firms were contacted), the drivers of cost inflation (engineers estimated electrical/instrumentation items were 25%–50% higher than expected), and operations/maintenance expectations (pumps and motors estimated to require significant maintenance within roughly 10–15 years; warranty/maintenance bonds included in the bid). Council also discussed whether temporary irrigation alternatives could support park plant establishment if the well is delayed; landscape staff said irrigation from the park pond and staged planting could reduce peak potable-water needs and that establishing much of the park without the well was feasible but would require potable supply to supplement the pond while plants establish.

The council first considered a motion to award Well Number 1 to Hydro Resources on the bidder’s accelerated schedule; that motion failed. Council then voted to reject the current bid from Hydro Resources and directed staff to rebid the project with a drilling-only base bid, separated electrical alternates, and an option for an expedited schedule so bidders could show costs for both relaxed and compressed timelines. The rejection and rebid motion passed.

Engineers provided cost estimates presented in the meeting: drilling-only probable construction cost $4.5 million–$5.0 million; total probable construction cost for the potable well (including electrical and associated site work) estimated at $7.0 million–$8.6 million; treatment facilities that were not included in the June bid were estimated at $400,000–$600,000. The one responsive bid (with the lower-voltage alternate) was reported as $8,635,000.

Council instructed staff to pursue an expedited rebid aimed at attracting more deep-well drillers and to return with updated bids and schedules. The council record shows debate over time-versus-cost tradeoffs and the city’s broader water-bridge planning (multiple potable wells, storage tanks, wholesale supplies), and that the council wants to balance park opening needs against fiscal prudence.