Wesley Chapel council moves to end contract for Wood Park pond work, to rebid after contractor says costs far exceed bid

WESLEY CHAPEL — The village council voted unanimously to begin closing out its contract with the contractor handling sediment removal at Wood Park’s breached pond after the contractor told officials he could not complete the work for his bid price and requested a substantially higher amount.

Council member John Kennery summarized the problem, saying the contractor "can't do it for the money that I bid," and describing a sequence in which work began, deep sediment was encountered, and the contractor halted operations and proposed a change-of-scope that would raise costs dramatically. Kennery said the original contract assumed removal of roughly 700–4,700 cubic yards with an original contract price around $221,000 and an all‑in possibility near $240,000; the contractor’s alternative proposal, as reported to the council, would have pushed the all‑in cost into the mid‑hundreds of thousands.

Why it matters: the project is funded by a state grant (staff reported an available balance of about $246,000). Staying with the current contractor under the newly proposed terms risked returning substantial grant funds to the state; staff presented estimates showing scenarios in which the village could be forced to return roughly $99,000–$135,000 depending on scope and costs. Legal counsel told the council the contractor’s failure to provide a required performance bond before mobilization and missed contract milestones constitutes a material breach.

What the council did: the council voted to have Village legal counsel (George) handle termination and closeout negotiations with the contractor, including any claims for mobilization or site work. Councilors also directed staff to pursue alternate contractors and to have the village engineer, Amy Black, prepare revised, constrained drawings and a new RFP so the village can rebid the work. Several members said they favored a "top‑down" approach (starting at the head of the pond) to reduce the need to repeat work when the dam is repaired; staff will model both top‑down and bottom‑up alternatives in revised plans.

Staff outlined technical and financial tradeoffs: "stay in your lane" narrow scopes that avoid deep pockets would reduce volume but raise per-cubic-yard costs; starting at the head of the pond clears more area and can reduce repeat work once the dam is fixed. Staff also described other practical constraints: trucking costs rise when muck is wetter, and dewatering rates affect overall efficiency.

Immediate related actions: the council approved delegating the contract-closeout and negotiation to legal counsel and instructed the engineer to draft revised plans for rebidding. Council also approved a separate motion to allocate up to $2,000 from the state grant for additional dewatering equipment (pumps and a siphon) to improve drying time and reduce trucking expense.

Next steps: staff will finalize revised plans, work with legal counsel on any termination notices and closeout claims, advertise a new RFP consistent with procurement rules, and schedule a special council meeting to review bids and award a new contract. Staff noted OSBM has indicated options for "encumbrance" of funds or potential statewide deadline extensions, but any extension requires legislative action.

Quotes from the meeting illustrate the council’s position and concerns. Kennery summarized the contractor’s position: "I can't do it for the money that I bid." On the contract breach, staff said counsel advised there is "sufficient cause to terminate." After debate about approach, one council member said, "if you start at the top...it still seems like the better way to go." The motions to delegate termination and to rebid passed unanimously.

Funding and timeline details offered by staff: the original contract capped mobilization and priced cubic yards at roughly $35.86 per yard; staff provided measured depth samples (about 30 points) with a most‑likely removal estimate of roughly 1,700–3,800 cubic yards depending on the approach. Staff estimated some scenarios would leave $40,000–$126,000 of the grant unspent (and therefore returned) unless the village rebid to spend more of the award within procurement and deadline constraints.

The council also discussed logistics left on site by the contractor (timber "mats," piled muck) and directed counsel to negotiate closeout terms including any reasonable compensation for bona fide mobilization costs the contractor can document. After legal closeout preparations are complete staff will issue the revised RFP and set deadlines for sealed bids.