REPRESENTATIVE TOWN MEETING
TOWN OF GREENWICH
EXPLANATORY COMMENTS FOR
DECEMBER 2002 MEETING
ITEM NO: 1
DEPARTMENT: Department of Parks and Recreation
CONTACT: Joseph A. Siciliano, Director, Parks and Recreation, 622-6472
Dave D’Andrea, Golf Course Operations Manager, 531-7200
REFERRED TO:
VOTES: Board of Estimate and Taxation: Approved
RESOLVED, the Representative Town Meeting approves and authorizes the expenditure of $1,250,000 in Account Code M-824-984 for irrigation improvements to the Griffith E. Harris Golf Course as approved by the Board of Estimate and Taxation. Funding is appropriated as a non-interest bearing loan of $1,100,000 from the Unreserved Fund Balance of the Reserve Fund for Capital and Non-Recurring Expenditures and an appropriation of $150,000 from the Unreserved Fund Balance of the Griffith E. Harris Golf Course Revolving Fund. Said loan of $1,100,000 will repaid to the Reserve Fund for Capital and Non-Recurring Expenditures from the Griffith E. Harris Golf Course Revolving Fund over a five-year fiscal period, 2003-04 through 2007-08. The annual loan payment shall be made to the Reserve Fund for Capital
Non-Recurring Expenditures prior to the close of the fiscal year on June 30.
EXPLANATORY COMMENTS:
Irrigation System History
The irrigation system at the Griffith E. Harris Golf Course was installed in 1968 when the course was originally built. Two subsequent upgrades of the system have taken place. In 1980 the irrigation system was automated and new sprinkler heads, secondary piping and controller boxes were installed to partially automate the watering system. Following the irrigation system upgrade, the pumping system was upgraded to meet the demands of the automated irrigation system. No further capital dollars have been spent to improve the system since the initial upgrade of both the pumping system and irrigation system.
Need For New Irrigation System
There are many problems when a course is forced to work with an antiquated irrigation system. The system at Griffith E. Harris Golf Course is so old and undependable that night watering is impractical. Heads frequently become clogged with rust which causes poor water distribution. It is common for them not to pop up when activated, or to get stuck on and remain running. Many of the single row heads in fairways are poorly spaced or off center, causing drought stress of turf and hydrophobic soils. An inordinate amount of labor is used to run, maintain and repair the system. The cost of electricity for the pump station is much greater than a modern system because of prime time (daytime) electric fees and inefficiencies in the station itself. Of course, regular daytime irrigation
interferes with golf play. A quality irrigation system can properly apply and distribute water for an 18-hole course during one night. USGA 2002 Report Comment “The inadequate irrigation system is a major weakness at the Griffith E. Harris Golf Course. Lack of dependability and poor watering distribution is limiting some beneficial agronomic practices.”
Funding and Installation Timetable
Application and request to BET, November 18, 2002, loan approval
Resolution to the RTM, December 8, 2002, meeting
Solicit bids, December 15, 2002, through January 15, 2003
Award contract, February 1, 2003
Commence work, approximately March 1, 2003
Irrigation Project Financing
2002-03
Cost of Project: $ 1,250,000
Capital from Golf Course: 150,000
Loan: $ 1,100,000
Loan Payment Schedule:
Payment by Fiscal Years Payment Amount
2003-04 $ 180,000
2004-05 200,000
2005-06 220,000
2006-07 240,000
2007-08 260,000
Payment Total $ 1,100,000
Sources of Funding for Loan Servicing
Reduction operating budget approximately $25,000 for maintenance of current irrigation system
Increase in tournaments and outings to be scheduled over the five year repayment period
Increase in fees/membership revenue scheduled for the following years. Fee increase in FY 03-04, FY 05-06, FY 07-08
ITEM NO: 2
DEPARTMENT: Planning and ZoningDepartment
CONTACT: Diane W. Fox, Town Planner/Zoning Enforcement Coordinator
phone # 622-7894 email address dfox @Greenwichct. org
REFERRED TO: Entered by Town Clerk
VOTES: Board or commission name vote (y/n/a)
RESOLVED, that the 1998 Plan of Conservation and Development, approved by the RTM in 1998, is hereby amended by adding thereto the Open Space Plan, Greenwich Connecticut dated September 27, 2002 as adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 12,2002 and on file in the office of the Town Clerk.
EXPLANATORY COMMENTS
At a meeting on November 12, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Open Space Plan of September 27,2002 as an update to the 25 year old 1977 Open Space Plan and finds that this new Plan is consistent with, and is an amendment to, the town’s 1998 Plan of Conservation and Development which was approved by the RTM in 1998 .
The Commission seeks RTM approval for this 2002 Open Space Plan to comply with the Town Charter and State Statutes. RTM approval will enable public and private groups to implement open space goals, policies and procedures, to protect and preserve existing open space areas of the town, and to provide sufficient open space to meet the Town’s future needs.
Planning and Zoning has revised the Open Space Plan deleting language in the text and maps referring to the adoption of PL490 “Open Space” designation for private properties as a result of the discussion by the RTM on September 17, 2002.
Attachments
No attachments. A separate mailing was done in October by the Planning and Zoning Dept. of the final 2002 Open Space Plan to all the RTM members.
ITEM NO: 3
DEPARTMENT: Petitioners
CONTACT: Alan Small
REFERRED TO: Finance, Land Use Committees
VOTES:
RESOLVED, that given the importance of the character of our Town to the RTM and it’s constituents, it is the Sense of the Meeting that the RTM recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission define the problem that led to the passage of the 1998 FAR regulation, evaluate it’s effectiveness and consider the concerns of Greenwich residents in developing an equitable regulation, through analysis of several alternatives, that protects the property values of all homeowners and minimizes the degree of nonconformity created prior to the enactment of any proposal through appropriate statutory procedures and in a fiscally conservative manner.
EXPLANATORY COMMENTS
Separate enclosure
Pages with signatures on file in Town Clerk’s office
ITEM NO: 4
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Zoning Department
CONTACT: Diane W. Fox, Town Planner/Zoning Enforcement Coordinator
phone # 622-7894 email address dfox @Greenwichct. org
REFERRED TO: Health & Human Services, Land Use Committee
VOTES: Board or commission name vote (y/n/a)
RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission be authorized on behalf of the Town of Greenwich to accept 2 Coastal grants totaling $45,965.00 administered by the Department of Environmental Protection-Office of Long Island Sound and funded by NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management for studies of 1) design specifications for public access to the waterfront, and 2) Upstream Storm Water Pollution sources in Watersheds leading to Long Island Sound,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the sum of $45,965.000 be and the same is hereby appropriated to be added to the Planning and Zoning Account A171-51440 Consulting Research and Surveys.
EXPLANATORY COMMENTS
Planning and Zoning applied for 2 study grants newly created this year by the CT. DEP-Office of Long Island Sound Programs and received notice of both being awarded to us. They are one-time study grants requiring P&Z staff and consultant work beginning in February and completed by June 2003.
Coastal Waterfront Public Access and Design Specifications ( $22,715.00)
This project will identify waterfront areas within the Town of Greenwich that have the potential to provide meaningful public access. This study will focus specifically on areas located within the Waterfront Business (WB) Zone and Town owned waterfront property. Part 1 of this project will provide an evaluation of past attempts to provide public access at a variety of locations and identify potential future sites for public access. Part 2 will focus on the facilities, environments and uses to be considered and lead to design guidelines and design criteria for the preservation or development of these areas in the future. These guidelines may eventually become part of the Plan of Conservation and Development, Town’s Open Space Plan and Building Zone Regulations
Upstream Storm Water Pollution Sources in Watersheds Draining to Long Island Sound. ( $23,250)
Under the NPDES Phase II study currently being undertaken, the impact of discharges directly into the Sound from Town-owned properties will be evaluated. The goal of this proposed study is to identify, wherever possible, upstream point and non-point pollution sources from all properties. This type of comprehensive data is not currently available. The end result would be recommendations for remedial action, where required and developing new polices for the Town as a whole for all properties that drain to Long Island Sound. This will aid in developing the Phase II Storm
Water Drainage regulations, which the Federal and State regulations require localities to adopt by June 2003..
ITEM NO: 5
DEPARTMENT: Public Works 0212PW01
CONTACT: Robert C. Kalm, Deputy Commissioner(203) 622-7740
REFERRED TO: Finance, Public Works Committees
VOTES: To be Approved at December 2, 2002, BET Meeting
Site Plan Approved at Planning & Zoning Meeting of Nov 12,2002
REPRESENTATIVE TOWN MEETING
RESOLUTION INCREASING BY $3,202,000 THE $16,585,000 APPROPRIATION AND BORROWING AUTHORIZATION FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY SEWER LINES AND RELATED PUMP STATIONS AND APPURTENANCES AND RELATED WORK TO SERVICE THE NORTH MIANUS SECTION OF THE TOWN FOR AN AGGREGATE $19,787,000 APPROPRIATION AND BORROWING AUTHORIZATION
RESOLVED,
(a) That a THREE MILLION TWO HUNDRED AND TWO THOUSAND DOLLAR ($3,202,000) increase in the SIXTEEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLAR ($16,585,000) appropriation approved by resolution of the Representative Town Meeting at meeting held June 11, 2001 for the design and construction of sanitary sewer lines and related pump stations and appurtenances and related work to service the North Mianus section of the Town, which increase has been approved by the Board of Estimate and Taxation, is hereby approved, for an aggregate appropriation of NINETEEN MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($19,787,000). The appropriation shall be added to Public Works’ Account No. K361-59650-20004, Sewer Improvement Fund, known as “North Mianus Sewer Line
Design/Construction.”
(b) That the SIXTEEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLAR ($16,585,000) bonds and notes authorized for the project be increased by THREE MILLION TWO HUNDRED AND TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($3,202,000), for a total aggregate bond or note authorization of NINETEEN MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($19787,000), including any bonds already issued for the project.
(c) That the Town hereby declares its official intent under Federal Income Tax Regulation Section 1.150_2 that project costs may be paid from temporary advances of available funds and that the Town reasonably expects to reimburse any such advances from the proceeds of borrowings in an aggregate principal amount not in excess of the amount of borrowing authorized above for the project. The Comptroller is authorized to amend such declaration of official intent as the Comptroller deems necessary or advisable and to bind the Town pursuant to such representations and covenants as the Comptroller deems necessary or advisable in order to maintain the continued exemption from federal income taxation of interest on the bonds or notes authorized by this resolution, if issued on
a tax-exempt basis, including covenants to pay rebates of investment earnings to the United States in future years.
(d) That the area to be benefited by the sewer project is described in Section (a) of the aforesaid resolution, and that the determination of the Board of Estimate and Taxation that the net cost of the sewer project shall be reimbursed 100% from assessments to be levied against properties in the area to be benefited and –0-% from the Town’s General Fund is hereby approved. Pending the collection of assessments, such reimbursement from assessments may be paid from the Sewer Improvement Fund.
(e) That the time for issuing any bonds or notes hereunder shall not be limited and this resolution shall not lapse, but shall remain in full force and effect until the project is completed, all payments made and all borrowings completed.
EXPLANATORY COMMENTS
This is to request an additional appropriation of $3,202,000 to construct sanitary sewers in the North Mianus and Hillcrest Park sections of Greenwich. As you know, Greenwich intends to finance this sewer construction through bonding; and all the costs of study, design and construction will be assessed to the benefiting properties in the area to be sewered. The requirement for additional funding results from construction problems on the west side of the North Mianus project and the subsequent settlement with McNamee Construction, Inc. as described below. The project has been rebid and on September 25, 2002, Rondano Construction, Inc., of Stamford Connecticut, was the low bidder at a construction cost of $7,411,550 thereby requiring this additional appropriation request.
Background
In June 2001, the RTM approved $15,702,000 to construct sewers in the North Mianus section of town. Previously the town had appropriated $90,000 for a study, and then $793,000 for design work totaling $16,585,000. There are failing individual septic systems in this area that pose threats to the environmental quality of Greenwich. The area to be sewered is near the Mianus River. Besides the environmental issues, the Mianus River is viewed as a potential future source of water. Therefore it is prudent to replace existing septic systems in the area that are old and do not generally comply with current codes. North Mianus residents attended public meetings and support construction of sanitary sewers. They have been told that they will be assessed 100% of the costs for the project.
Because of the large size of the project, it was divided into two sections: a west section and an east section. The west section was advertised for competitive bids and on April 25 2001, received six bidders. The low bidder was McNamee Construction Corp. from Lincolndale, New York with a price of $6,871,175. The east section was advertised for competitive bids and on April 23, 2001, received six bidders. The low bidder was Mark IV Construction Company, Inc. from Bridgeport, Connecticut with a price of $3,955,175. Work started on both sections in the fall of 2001.
Although the east section, constructed by Mark IV, has proceeded according to plan, the west section, constructed by McNamee, has encountered difficulties starting with the slow progress of work by the contractor, made worse by gas flare-ups in trenches during blasting that caused safety concerns. Key points follow:
McNamee's Performance: The contractor was behind schedule. Attempts to accelerate the work were unsuccessful. During blasting to remove rock in the excavated trench in various areas, gas pockets flared up causing safety concerns. The town's fire marshal conducted an investigation and, along with a seismic company's testing, determined it was safe to continue blasting with certain safeguards. McNamee balked at this and demanded that the Town of Greenwich remediate the area of subterranean gas before he could safely continue his work effort. His view was that he could not guarantee the safety of his work crew and close by houses without this remediation activity. The Town Of Greenwich disagreed with this position and felt that he could work around the flare-ups that McNamee had documented on videotape.
These flare-ups were very dramatic, but we felt he could safely work around them as he blasted rock. While these issues were under discussion, McNamee was actively submitting delay claims against the Town. At the time of settlement, McNamee had submitted $670,608.73 in claims.
The Town contacted McNamee's Bond Company and attempted to call in the bond for the work. During one of our meetings, the bonding company, The Hartford, indicated that he would order McNamee back to work and that the only way to settle this was to get a judgment against McNamee for failure to comply with the contract. McNamee never abandoned the site—he always kept a minimum work force in the area to avoid the issue of abandonment. The only way to advance the work at a satisfactory pace was to get a court order directing McNamee to follow our directives for blasting and monitoring as specified within the contract. This not only takes a considerable amount of time, (we estimated a minimum of one to two years) and money for legal support, it also predicates a strong Town position to win the case. In this particular instant, we were not arguing (directly) about McNamee’s technical ability to perform, we were arguing a case that it was safe to work and he had to return. His
position was that it was unsafe to work without remediation with an expansive “pre-testing” program to evaluate the presence of gas prior to blasting. Obviously this program would be very expensive and in our view unnecessary. He indicated he was willing to work under these conditions. We felt these were unreasonable and denied this solution. If McNamee won the case, not only would we have the legal costs for the court process, we would also have considerable claims against the Town for lost time and idle equipment. Throughout this entire time, he was working but at a very slow pace placing manholes, etc. He continued to work in the North Mianus area to show his presence on site so as to negate our argument that he had abandoned the site.
The Town Of Greenwich concluded that it was not the right course of action to go to court over the bond issue; hence there was a decision to settle. There was extensive media coverage of the issue. This was taken to the Board of Selectman and the RTM Claims Committee. They both approved this course of action. Going to court on a safety issue is always a precarious position to argue in court. If the Town was taking McNamee to task for performance related activities, perhaps calling the bond may have been the appropriate course of action. The bottom line is that both the Board of Selectman and the RTM Claims Committee concluded that settling for convenience was the correct course of action for the Town Of Greenwich.
Engineering Services: The second issue concerns that engineering costs are high. DPW hired Stearns & Wheler, Inc. under Contract No. 3639 to provide resident engineering services for the North Mianus sewer project. Their oversight of McNamee, first during his slow progress period, later during the trench flare-ups, and later to refute claims made by the contractor, results in additional engineering costs for the project summarized below:
a. The occurrence of a possible claimed hazardous condition (flare-ups in the trenches).
b. A significant amount of defective, neglected, or delayed work by McNamee.
c. Default by the Contractor.
d. Evaluating numerous unreasonable claims by McNamee.
e. The need to provide assistance on resolving claim of a hazardous condition.
f. Services in connection with re-bidding the contract.
All of the above services are listed very clearly in the contract between Stearns & Wheler and the Town as additional services, and payment for those services is not included in the Scope of Services, for which Stearns and Wheler received a lump sum fee. These services for these activities are at cost plus.
Traffic Control Expenses: The budget estimate for traffic control was $75,000. This was a bad estimate. Traffic control costs to date are $421,851. Traffic control is provided by Greenwich Police Officers according to their contract with the town at a premium rate of pay. At this point in time there is no alternate to their traffic control services such as the use of "flagmen."
This is an ongoing area of concern. A policy is being developed for work zone traffic control that may mitigate this expense. The BET is requiring a monthly report on traffic control costs prior to release of funds for this project. With respect to the current Traffic Control Costs, a summary follows:
a. Cost of Traffic Control as of 10/18/02 $ 421,851
b. Total Estimated Cost to Complete Work 985,000
c. Original Estimated Amount in this Line Item 75,000
d. Total Current Request for Traffic Control $ 910,000
(Line 2 – Line 3 of following cost schedule)
Our current Traffic Control estimate is based on the actual average cost per month that is recorded in our pay records. This amount is approximately $31,000 per month. Since the Rondano project is scheduled to take 18 months, (18 X $31,000), we estimate the cost for traffic control to be approximately $560,000. (This amount is the approximate difference of Line 2 – Line 1 of following cost schedule)
The current estimate of $985,000 is approximately 7.7% of the total construction cost. We attempted to benchmark this cost versus DOT costs since they have the legal authority to use flagman. They gave us two completed projects and these two projects traffic control costs were 11% and 7.1% of the construction costs. Although this is a small sample, these two projects provided data that indicated we were within their spend rate percentages.
We too are concerned about any project activity that costs money. Certainly traffic control is a major issue that will be continually monitored to minimize the costs within this line item. Specific measures taken to date include the following:
The Police Department has formalized a “Work Zone Safety Policy” that should provided increased management and oversight of the traffic control requirements at individual projects. The highlights of this policy include: increased pre-planning and liaison between departments; increased weekly/biweekly/monthly meetings to review past practices and anticipated needs for the coming week(s); complete road closures will be explored to reduce the need for traffic control; limiting work areas to minimize the number of officers required will be explored (this may extend the contract time); placing more solid traffic control elements (Jersey Barriers) along work projects to reduce the risk of an accident.
Contractors will be continually briefed on the need to consolidate their work areas to minimize the need for traffic control.
We will continue to include data in our reports to the BET Audit Committee that highlights traffic control costs and issues with respect to traffic control.
We will continue to benchmark other communities for their experiences and efforts to minimize costs for traffic control.
4. Are extensions to the North Mianus Sewer Project being constructed without RTM, P&Z and BET approvals: The quick answer to this question is no! First of all, no sewers have been formally accepted from the contractor, and no letters from DPW authorizing the homeowners to hook-up have been issued. We are close in the Milbrook area, but the North Mianus sewer project is still sometime off. We have submitted to Planning and Zoning a request to revise our approved P&Z site plan to add 22 homes in the north Mianus West area. These homes are as follows:
235, 240, 241 Cognewaugh Road and 3/5 Mimosa Drive
34, 35 36, 37, and 39 Barton Lane
76, 84, 87, 89, 91, 93, 95, and 97, Cognewaugh Road
59, 61, 65, 70, and 74 Dandy Drive
These houses are shown in the revised Stearns & Wheeler maps on sheets:
G-11A, G-20A, G-23A, and G-29A.
The aforementioned site plan for seventeen of these homes was approved at the P&Z’s meeting of November 12, 2002. P&Z also granted Municipal Improvement for an easement required for one home on Barton Lane. The approved homes are included in this project. Five homes were not approved. There is a difference of opinion on the five homes not approved that may be later addressed. However, resolution of the “five homes issue” does not delay the project.
5. New Contractor: As previously mentioned, this project was rebid and the low bidder is Rondano Construction, Inc. This contractor is well know to DPW as they recently completed the sewer line construction project in the Milbrook area of town.
Attached are schedules that itemized the costs of this project. Contracts, plans, specifications, etc., are available in DPW offices for review by interested parties.
Schedule A
Unaudited
Original Budget Revised Budget Cost to Date
Item Description Estimate Estimate Difference Item (09/30/02)
1 Study $ 90,000 $ 90,000 - ~ $ 90,000
2 Design $ 793,000 $ 793,000 - ~ $ 793,000
Sub-Total Pre-Construction $ 883,000 $ 883,000 - ~ $ 883,000
3 Easements $ 63,000 $ 63,000 - ~ $ 63,000
4 Town Costs for Easements $ 30,000 $ 30,000 - ~ $ 16,930
5 Inspection $ 854,000 $ 1,229,000 $ 375,000 A $ 597,800
6 Basic Engineering $ 605,000 $ 905,000 $ 300,000 A $ 417,450
7 Environmental Services $ 28,500 $ 43,500 $ 15,000 A $ 24,510
8 O & M/Rec D $ 17,600 $ 17,600 - ~ -
9 Warrantee $ 17,500 $ 17,500 - ~ -
10 Add/ded Monthly - - - ~ -
11 Pump procurement $ 23,250 $ 23,250 - ~ $ 22,785
12 Seismic $ 455,000 $ 495,000 $ 40,000 E $ 482,918
13 Compaction $ 37,500 $ 60,000 $ 22,500 A $ 52,935
14 Tree Specialist $ 2,000 $ 2,000 - ~ -
15 Town Police $ 75,000 $ 985,000 $ 910,000 C $ 421,851
16 Construction * $ 10,743,850 $ 12,698,470 $ 1,954,620 D $ 3,319,331
16A Error in McNamee Bid * $ 82,500 - $ (82,500) J -
17 Low Pressure Pump Stations $ 1,056,000 $ 1,070,680 $ 14,680 F -
Sub-Total Construction $ 14,090,700 $ 17,640,000 $ 3,549,300 ~ $ 5,419,510
18 Contingency $ 1,409,070 $ 707,400 $ (701,670) G -
19 Administration $ 22,500 $ 22,500 - ~ -
20 Bond Counsel $ 60,000 $ 60,000 - ~ -
21 Financial Advisor $ 20,000 $ 20,000 - ~ -
22 Project Manager $ 100,000 $ 104,000 $ 4,000 H $ 63,845
Project Sub-Total (Rounded) $ 16,585,000 $ 19,437,000 $ 2,851,630 ~ $ 6,366,355
Additional Items Not Included ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
23 Pump Station Bid Package to Kovacs - $ 16,000 $ 16,000 I -
24 Rebid Package for West Sewers - $ 54,000 $ 54,000 I -
25 West Project Sewer Extensions - $ 30,000 $ 30,000 I -
26 McNamee Settlement - $ 250,000 $ 250,000 B $ 250,000
Project Total (Rounded) $ 16,585,000 $ 19,787,000 $ 3,201,630 ~ $ 6,616,355
Additional Funds Required: $ 3,202,000
* The original budget estimate ($ 10,826,350) included $ 82,500 error with McNamee Construction Bid
Price. The error was corrected and reduced prior to contract signing. Contract price $ 10,743,850.
SCHEDULE B
Use item letter for reference with Schedule A
Item Description Net Change
A Engineering Services During Construction $ 712,500
B Contractor Settlement $ 250,000
C Town Police $ 910,000
D Construction Increase $ 1,954,620
E Additional Seismic during McNamee and Mark IV Work $ 40,000
F Additional Low Pressure Pump Stations $ 14,680
G Reduction of Contingency $ (701,670)
H Project Manager $ 4,000
I Engineering Services for Revised Bid Packages $ 100,000
J Error in Original Construction Budget for McNamee $ (82,500)
~
Total $ 3,201,630
SCHEDULE C
Use item letter for reference with Schedule B
Item A Engineering Services During Construction ~
Additional inspection for re-bid construction $ 350,000
Additional inspection for Pump Stations $ 25,000
Additional Basic for re-bid construction $ 300,000
Additional Environmental Services for re-bid construction $ 15,000
Additional Compaction costs for re-bid construction $ 22,500
$ 712,500
Item B Contractor Settlement ~
McNamee Construction Settlement $ 250,000
Item C Town Police ~
Approximately 30 months of construction at $31,000/mo $ 910,000
(Twelve months from current contract and 18 fro re-bid)
Item D Construction Increase
Original Budget Estimate $ 10,743,850
Original Construction Cost $ 10,743,850
Construction Contract Amounts:
East Sewers - Mark IV $ 3,955,175
West Sewers - McNamee $ 435,837
Sheephill and Valley Road Pump Stations - Kovacs $ 895,908
West Sewers Re-Bid - M. Rondano $ 7,411,550
Current Construction Cost $ 12,698,470
Change in Construction Cost $ 1,954,620
Item F Additional Low Pressure Pump Stations
Original Budget for Pump Stations (264 @ $4,000/ea) $ 1,056,000
Current Cost Estimate for Pump Stations (284 @ $3770/ea) $ 1,070,680
Change in Costs $ 14,680
Item G Reduction in Contingency ~
Original Contingency (10% of total project $ 14,090,700) $ 1,409,070
Current Contingency (Reduced based on work remaining)
Remaining work for Mark IV $ 202,825
Kovacs Contract $ 51,877
M. Rondano Contract $ 395,578
Low Pressure Pump Stations $ 57,120
$ 707,400
Change in Contingency $ (701,670)
Item I Engineering Services for Re-Bid Packages
Pump Station Bid Package to Kovacs $ 16,000
Re-Bid Package for West Sewers $ 54,000
West Project Sewer Extensions $ 30,000
Total $ 100,000
Attachments
None
| 
