Columbia City park board reviews competing fence quotes for proposed dog park, will revisit vote next month

At its Jan. 26 meeting, the Columbia City Park Board discussed competing contractor quotes to build the proposed dog-park fence and agreed to gather more installation details before holding a vote.

Staff member presented three written quotes from AeroFence, R and C Fencing and local contractor Bechtel Construction and said she had also contacted Randy Vanderford but had not received a response. The packet included a separate Arrow quote from Fort Wayne that did not specify linear feet, prompting questions about whether the bids were strictly apples-to-apples.

Committee members pressed staff on technical details. One committee member asked whether corner posts would be set in concrete or driven and whether a tension wire or pipe would be run along the bottom to stop dogs from digging; another noted use of 9-gauge chain link for heavy-duty installations. Staff said some bids specified fully set posts while others indicated driven posts with corner posts concreted.

Staff member described variations in recommended fence heights, noting one bid used 5- and 6-foot heights for small and large dog areas while another included an 8-foot section. "8 foot would be more like a penitentiary," Staff member said, arguing that 6 feet was the practical standard for the park. Board members discussed tradeoffs: taller fencing can better contain large dogs but costs more and can look imposing.

Cost comparisons on the record were ambiguous: the transcript records quoted figures of "75" for one vendor and "50" for another, but units or whether those numbers represent thousands of dollars were not specified in the materials presented. The board asked staff to confirm gauge, linear feet, concrete requirements, gate fabrication and any warranty or reference checks before making a selection.

The board directed staff to arrange a site visit with Mister Bechtel and with interested vendors, and to report back with clarified written specifications and price comparisons at the next meeting so members can vote. No formal procurement decision was made at the Jan. 26 meeting.