CCR1996235COMMON COUNCIL - CITY OF MUSKEG0
RESOLUTION #235-96
Muskego/Wind Lake Canal Dredging Project
Rejection of Bid
WHEREAS, the City of Muskego adopted Resolution #226-96 on
Muskego/Wind Lake Canal Dredging Project contingent upon the
September 26, 1996 concerning the awarding of bid for the
review and approval of the City Engineers and further subject to
certain other approvals and receipt of certain grant monies; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineers have not approved of the award of
said bid and have recommended that all bids be rejected.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Common Council Of the
City of Muskego does hereby reject all bids for the Muskego/Wind
Lake Canal Dredging Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and Clerk-Treasurer are
authorized to take any action necessary to finalize rejection of
said bid.
DATED THIS 8th DAY OF OCTOBER , 1996.
SPONSORED BY:
Mayor David L. De Angelis
This is to certify that this is a true and accurate copy of
Resolution X235-96 which was adopted by the Common Council of the
City of Muskego.
10/96 jmb
Ruekert ;Mielke
October 3. 1996
Mavor David L. De heelis
CiG of Muskego
W182 S8200 Racine Avenue
-
Post Office Box 90;
Muskego, WI 53 150
RE: MuskegoiWind Lake Canal
Dredging Project
Dear Mayor De Angelis:
the plans and specifications and bidding documents for the Muskego/Wind L&e Cand
As directed per the Common Council in Resolution Z76-96, we have reviewed
Dredging Project. Th~s review has tumed up both engineering and legal concerns Liar
should be dealt with. This her addresses the engineering concerns. Also ahached is a
letter from City Attorney Molter hat addresses the legal concerns.
e In summary, .Attorney Molter and I are in agreement that the bids should be
rejected. There are just too many issues that are unciear or unsolved to make an award.
The following is a list of our concerns divided into three pms a) bidding
documents; b) plans and specifications: c) permits, approvals and access.
a) Bidding Documents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
There is a question whether this project shouid have a DILHR wege
scale. We wouid suggest that the City apply for one and inciude ir ir;
the bid pack3ge if DILHR determines that one is required.
The bid pzckage should require a bidder's proof of responsibility
Normally. this is sent with the bid package as a prequalification form.
This will allow the Cip to review the financiai stabiliry 2nd
experience oithe bidders prior to award.
The bid form is not clear. The units for the due: bid items are cot
provided. .Alsol it is not specified on whar combination of items andor criteea rhe projec: will be awarded.
There are a number of different dates nored for both the srarting date
and substantial completion dates. Tnis couid lead to difficulry in
enforcing any liquidated damage clause and gives the conuactor too
much flexjbility
The insurance requirements should be reviewed by your insurance
advisor.
IVhelke
Mayor David L. De Angelis
City of Muskego
October 3, 1996
Page 2
6. There was one agreement form provided \\ith the original bid package
that lists a quantity of "in excess of 10.000 cubic yards." There is a
contains a quantity of 12.000 cubic yards plus a number of other
second agreement which has been drafied since bids were opened that
makes the proposed contract differem than what the bidders saw
conditions and clarifications that were not in the bid package. This
which presents legal problems.
b) Plans and Specifications
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The measurement and payment specification for how dredging
material will be paid for is KO[ clear
Erosion controls and restoretion reqcirements and responsibilities are
not clear.
The project plans should be labeled TO more clearly define project
limits. the project work and cross sec:icn iocations.
There should be a clex summap of :he entire work project
estabiishing the work to be performed by the Contractor, the City and
the DNR.
The project specifications need to be organized and numbered and
included in one section.
We believe he plans musi be stamped by a registered professional
engineer.
c) Permits, Approvals and Access.
1. The spoil site agreement must be coapieted and signed by all parties.
2. Normally, access agecaents are arranged prior to bids so that the
contractor is not delayed. !fan agreement can not be manged, the
conuactor may be prevented from performing the work.
3. It is not clear if adjacent riparian owners have been notified or if the
creek is on their propeny in whch case hey would have to co-sign
the DNR permit and agree IO grant access.
4. The Town of Norway ana County of Racine should be notified and
permits obrained if required such as erosion control, land filling, and
shorelandwetland permits.
Mayor David L. De Angelis
City of Muskego
October 3, 1996
Page 3
5. The Public Works Com,inee re:om!ended rhar the DXR review and
approve iloocplain imczcts pi+or io awzc.
Because of these issues and the reizrea legai issxs: xe u-ouid recommend that he
bids be re-iecred.
As you requested, a separate letter wil! follow 3-nici cutlines the esrimzred work
effon to prepare the projecr for rebidding.
Please contacr CUT office wirh any qsesrions rcgx:rg this mane: ..
\ [FJI! yam.
AMENDED
APPROVAL OF A CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP CREATING A
RESOLUTION-#P.C. 194-96
THREE (3) LOT LAND DIVISION BY ROBIN RADTKE AT
THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 17
(TAX KEY NO. 2227.989.004)
WHEREAS, A Certified Survey Map was submitted on September
20, 1996, to create a three (3) lot land division located in
the SW 1/4 of Section 17, and
Resolution #P.C. 188-96, and
WHEREAS, A Sketch was approved by the Plan Commission under
be placed on the Certified Survey Map that parcels 1 and 3 not
be further divided and that the outbuildings on lots 2 and 3 be
removed within 60 days after the City of Muskego Common Council
grants approval, and
WHEREAS, Conditions of sketch approval were that a note must
WHEREAS, The property is zoned RS-2 20,000 square foot
Single Family Suburban Residence and Agricultural 120,000 square
foot District, and
WHEREAS, The current configuration of said lot meet the RS-2
and Agricultural zoning district requirements, and
municipal sewer, and
WHEREAS, All three parcels are proposed to be serviced by
WHEREAS, The parcels will have access from Woods Road.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Plan Commission approve
the Certified Survey Map for a three (3) lot land division in
the SW 1/4 of Section 17 of the Radtke Property and recommend
approval to the Common Council subject to resolution of
technical discrepancies as identified by the City Planning
Department and City Engineers, and payment of all applicable
fees in Section 18.14(3) of the Land Division Ordinance.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That no building permits will be
the time frame has been extended from 60 to 90 days for removal
issued for any buildings outside of 400 feet from Woods Road;
of foundation and buildings; and field delineation of SEWRPC
wetlands is required prior to issuance of permits for areas
beyond 400 feet from Woods Road on lots 1 and 3.
Plan Department
City of Muskego m Adopted 10-1-96
Defeated
BADGER
BLUEPRINT
(414) 542-8200
COMPANY. INC.
FORM BBC-IO1
CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP NO.
Being a redivision of parcel 4 of Certified Survey Map 7109 being a part
of the SW 114 of the SW 114 of Section of 17, T 5 N, R 20 E, in the City
of Muskego, Waukesha County, Wisconsin.
\SW CORNER sw 1/4 17-5-20
N 328,590.96
W/BRASS CAP
? E 2,490,589.48
CONC MONUMENT
~.. "" ~~. "" C.S.M. NO. 1194
PARCEL 2
43.997 S.F.
1.010 ACRES
m
0 -DENOTES I"xZ4" IRON PIPE 1.13 LBS. DwLt. >
PER LINEAL FOOT SET AT ALL LOT
CORNERS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
BEARINGS REFER TO THE WISCONSIN
STA TE PLANE CO-ORDINA TE SYSTEM
SOUTH ZONE.
IF AT SOME TIME A BUILDING PERMIT IS REOUESTED
WITHIN THE WESTERLY 400 FEET OF PARCEL I.
THE WETLAND LIMITS SHALL BE FIELD DELINEATED,
3 "" WOODS 330.00 ROA Di? S 07 "04'07)' E
.~~~... ~~~...~......~~---- 7""-
I
,I
A GRADING a DRAINAGE PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED a APPROVED BY PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE PRIOR
I FOR PAXCELS 2 a 31
~~
4 .. 3 .. 2 I CSM: .@Q.
~~~~......~~~
..
C.S. M. NO 6828 37-57
TO THE iSSUANCE OF 1 BUILDING PEA'MIT, -1 \Im
SCALE: 1" = 200'
1 I
~ I [WOODS 'I ROAD -1; ,/ 'q
. - 2000' "_
100' VICINITY SKETCH
SW 1/4 SEC, 17-5-20
SHEET 1 OF 3