Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Community garden project wins low bid but faces $404,135 shortfall; council weighs trimming items
Summary
Phase 1 of Thelma Avenue Community Gardens received a low bid of $836,415 (Green Giant Landscaping) plus two additive bids (privacy screening $30,000; public art $70,000). With available funds of $635,000 and a 20% contingency proposed, staff reported a funding shortfall of $404,135 and council discussed excluding lighting and phasing art to close the gap.
Thelma Avenue Community Gardens Phase 1 drew three bids; staff recommended awarding the base bid and a privacy‑screening additive but noted a budget shortfall that could exceed $400,000 if a 20% contingency is included.
Norm Ray said the low bidder was Green Giant Landscaping of La Habra with a base bid of $836,415. Additive Bid A (privacy screening) totaled $30,000 and a public art feature was bid at $70,000 as an additive item. Staff said available funds total about $635,000; with the recommended base plus privacy screening ($866,415) and a 20% contingency, the project would exceed $1 million and create a $404,135 funding gap.
Public commenter Nancy, a long‑time resident, urged completion and asked the city to maintain the gardens after construction. Council members praised the community’s engagement — the gardens are fully occupied — and debated ways to reduce cost: options included postponing or removing lighting (staff said Edison limits occupancy to dawn‑to‑dusk and that the low bidder’s electrical line item totaling about $144,000 includes both gates and lighting), making the privacy screening in smaller segments to ease graffiti abatement, deferring the $70,000 public‑art element to a later phase, and trimming concrete paving at the gates (bid item $56,400).
Staff noted it could reconfigure the additive scope, request a revised bid that excludes lighting or reprice items, or reject bids and rebid in a later fiscal year. Council indicated support for moving forward with base work and privacy screening while excluding or postponing lighting and said staff should return with a budget‑amendment proposal; staff said the undesignated general fund could be a potential funding source if council chooses to proceed this fiscal year.
No final contract award was executed at the meeting; council directed staff to return with a detailed budget amendment and reduced contingency approach for consideration.
