1982-09-20 RM Exhibits
I.
"
CJ 4~&'z ~3
/'().; j , 'I..'-Y t2 1 . Tffl. . ~o . f!rC!-!
~l P-F-~ J-~~ 9/~o
'!:'
\',
, -;7
i~ .,.
(
MINUTES OF BUDGET HEARING, MAY 17, 1982
,
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met on Monday, May 17, 1982, at
12:07 o'clock p. m. in the Assembly Room, New Hanover County Administration Building,
Wilmington, North Carolina, to consider budget funding requests for Fiscal Year
1982/83.
Members present were Commissioners Howard L. Armistead, Jr.; Jonathan Barfield, Sr.;
Karen E. Gottovi; Claud O'Shields, Jr.; Chairman Donald P. Blake; County Manager
G. Felix Cooper; and Clerk to the Board Alyce B. Rusmisell. No members were absent.
Chm. Elake called the meeting to order.
EXPLANATION ON BUDGET FORMAT AND BUDGET HEARING SCHEDULE
County Manager Cooper and Asst. County Manager Gary Cannon explained the format
used for the budget notebooks and presented the Commissioners with a proposed schedule
of budget hearing dates.
APPROVAL OF CAPE FEAR TECHNICAL INSTITUTE BUDGET REQUEST
Mr. Richard Burnett, Chairman of Cape Fear Tech Board of Trustees, Mr. M.J. McLeod,
President, and Mr. S. C. Coleman, Dean of Fiscal Affairs, of Cape Fear Tech, appeared
before the Board to formally present their budget request for Fiscal year 1982/83 and
answer questions from the Commissioners. Mr. Coleman pointed out the recommendation
the Commissioners had received earlier was in the amount of $531,364 and it should have
been $538,364.
The Commissioners and County Manager discussed the cost of living increments.
Comm. Armistead MOVED, SECONDED by Comm. O'Shields, to approve the Cape Fear
Tech budget request of $538,364 with the exception of the cost of living increase
and at the end of the budget process the Commissioners should take a look at everybody's
cost of living and see how it could be applied uniformly. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF CLERK OF COURT BUDGET REQUEST
Clerk of Superior Court Louise Rehder appeared before the Board to answer
questions from the Commissioners on her budget request.
County Manager Cooper reported that the funding for the part-time Law Librarian
and the subscriptions for the Law Library had been taken out of the Clerk of Court
budget and transferred to the Public Library to be maintained along with the other
Library functions.
Mrs. Rehder commented on the problems that could be encountered during the
transition period.
Comm. Armistead MOVED, SECONDED by Comm. Gottovi, to approve the Clerk of
Superior Court budget recommendation in the amount of $9300.00. Upon vote, the
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT OPERATIONAL BUDGET
Sheriff T. A. Radewicz, Lt. Vallender, Capt. Spell and Capt. Evans appeared
before the Board to explain and answer questions on the budget requests for the
Sherift" s Department.
.~
,.
r
MINUTES OF BUDGET HEARING, MAY 17, 1982 (CONTINUED)
I
'-
/I
APPROVAL OF SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT OPERATIONAL BUDGET (CONTINUED)
Comm. Gottovi MOVED, SECONDED by Comm. Armistead, to approve the Sheriff's
Department Operating Budget in the total amount of $2,028,721 as recommended.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 911 SYSTEM BUDGET
Sheriff T. A. Radewicz, Lt. Vallender and Capt. Evans explained and answered
questions from the Commissioners on the 911 system budget request.
County Manager Cooper commented.
Comm. O'Shields MOVED, SECONDED by Comm. Barfield, to approve the 911 system
budget request with the uniform allowance at $4,250 for a total of $356,258 and
for them to go back through this year's budget to see if they could find funds to
buy the repeater they had requested. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT JAIL BUDGET
County Manager Cooper reported that he had no problem with the Jail budget
and had recommended exactly what they had requested.
Upon MOTION by Comm. Armistead, SECONDED by Comm. Barfield, the Jail budget
was UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED as recommended in the amount of $502,408.
APPROVAL OF CORONER'S BUDGET REQUEST
County Manager Cooper reported that the Coroner had indicated that he would
accept the Manager's recommended amount for his budget.
Upon MOTION by Comm. Barfield, SECONDED by Comm. Armistead, the Coroner's
budget request was UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED as recommended in the amount of $34,417.
ADJOURNMENT
The budget meeting was adjourned at 2:10 o'clock p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
~,6.A~G
Alyce B. Rusmisell, Clerk
.'
MINUTES OF BUDGET HEARING, JUNE la, 1982
~ I3tL.~, ~ ~2> r!.-f- q~g,<g'7 y~
~4;~~d q/~(;J
"
*'.J.~
"
(
:I
ASSEMBLY
The New Hanover County Board of County Commissioners met on
June 10, 1982, at 8:00 a. m. in the Assembly Room, New Hanover
County Administration Building, Wilmington, N. C. to discuss budget
funding requests for fiscal year 1982/83.
Members present were Commissioners Howard L. Armistead, Jr.;
Jonathan Barfield, Sr.; Karen E. Gottovi; Claud O'Shields, Jr.;
Chairman Donald P. Blake; County Manager G. Felix Cooper; County
Attorney Robert W. Pope and Clerk to the Board Alyce B. Brown. No
members were absent.
Chairman Blake called the meeting to order at 8:10 0' clock a. m.
APPROVAL OF PUBLIC SCHOOL BUDGET REQUEST
The following members of the Board of Education and Public Schools
Administration staff were present to discuss and answer questions on
the Public Schools budget request:
Dr. Carl Unsicker, Chairman of the Board of Education
Mrs. Mary Elizabeth Hood
Mrs. Lucille Schaffer
Ms. Dorothy Johnson
Dr. Jerry partrick
Dr. Richard Flynn
Dr. Unsicker and Dr. Flynn commented on the sch001s' budget
and requested that the budget be approved as submitted to the
County Manager.
County Manager Cooper commented on his reason for cutting
the schools' budget.
Comm. Armistead MOVED, SECONDED by Comm. Gottovi, that the
budget be approved as submitted by the school board with the
understanding that the appropriated fund balance would be increased
by $120,000 and that any additional revenues that carne to the school
system would automatically acc~mulate back into the fund balance to
cover that. Upon vote the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
UPDATE ON NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION
Dr. Flynn updated the Commissioners on the progress of construction
of a new school in the southern part of the County and reported that
the school should be ready for opening in the fall of 1983.
FURTHER DISCUSSION ON SCHOOLS' BUDGET
County Manager Cooper reported that the schools' budget capital
outlay account would be reduced by $7,760 to bring the balance of
the cost of the Laney/Trask School well in line with what the bids
were.
BREAK
Chm. Blake recessed the meeting for a break from 8:35 o'~lock a. m.
until 8:43 o'clock a.m.
APPROVAL OF HEALTH DEPARTMENT BUDGET REQUEST
Miss Roma Lee Hall, Vice-Chairman of the Board of Health,
MINUTES OF~BUDGET HEARING, JUNE 10, 1982 (CONTINUED)
(
APPROVAL OF HEALTH DEPARTMENT BUDGET REQUEST (CONTINUED)
Page 2
Mr. James Brown, Health Administrator and Mr. Jim McMahan, Assistant
Administrator/Consultant appeared before the Board to answer questions
on the Health Department budget request.
County Manager Cooper commented on the TB program and requested
that account #11-5152-421 which was budgeted as $17,974 be reduced
by $4,700 due to those funds being spent for supplies during the
current fiscal year.
County Manager Cooper also pointed out that in the Horne Health
Homemaker budget account #5175, the budget amount exceeded the budgeted
revenues by $12,605 and recommended that the $22,620 budgeted be reduced
by that amount.
Finance Officer Andy Atkinson pointed out that in the TB budget
the $4,700 needed to be deducted from the $11,974 instead of $17,974.
Health Administrator Jim Brown requested that some of the County
Manager's recommended cuts be reconsidered.
Comm. Armistead MOVED, SECONDED by Comm. Barfield to approve the
Health budget as recommended by the County Manager with the adjustments
he had pointed out in the meeting this morning. Upon vote the MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
DENIAL OF INFORMATION AND REFERRAL FUNDING REQUEST
Mr. Julian Bradberry, Chairman of the Voluntary Action Committee;
Mr. Bill Hobbs, and Mr. Bob Kulinski representing United Way and
Ms. Carolyn Gurelle, the Executive Director of VAC appeared before the
Board to answer questions and explain their request for funding from
the County in the amount of $15,000 for the information and referral
program.
Comm. Gottovi MOVED, SECONDED by Comm. Barfield, to fund I & R
according to the proposed 1983/84 schedule which means that the County
would corne up with $7,500 and ask the united Way to find the rest of
the funds. Upon vote the MOTION WAS DEFEATED AS FOLLOWS:
Voting Aye: Commissioners Barfield and Gottovi.
Voting Noe: Commissioners Armistead, O'Shields and Chm. Blake.
BREAK
Chm. Blake recessed the meeting for a break from 9:33 o'clock a. m.
until 9:44 o'clock a. m.
APPROVAL OF VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT FUNDING REQUESTS
County Manager Cooper commented on the need for radios at each
Volunteer Fire Department in order to take advantage of the 911 system.
He reported that he had included 8 radios at $800 each in the budget
changes that he had handed out to the Commissioners to purchase the
radios for the fire departments.
..
'!.
MINUTES OF BUDGET HEARING, JUNE 10, 1982 (CONTINUED)I
Page 3
APPROVAL OF VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT FUNDING REQUESTS (CONTINUED)
Comm. Armistead MOVED, SECONDED by Comm. Gottovi, to approve the
Volunteer Fire Departments' budget as recommended by the County
Manager with the addition of $6,400 for the radios. Upon vote, the
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF FUNDING FOR PLEASURE ISLAND VOLUNTEER RESCUE SQUAD
Ms. Sheila Davis, spokesman, and other members of the Pleasure
Island Volunteer Re~cue Squad appeared before the Board to answer
questions and explain their budget request for $133,823 and the need
for that amount to be funded in order to build a building and purchase
an ambulance.
Mr. C. R. Smith commented.
County Manager Cooper commented.
Comm. Armistead MOVED, SECONDED by Chm. Blake, to approve the
County Manager's recommendation forfundinginthe amount of $56,198
and add $45,000 to that for the new ambulance and base station with a
little extra left over. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
DENIAL OF FUNDING REQUEST FROM OIC
Mr. Sherman Davis, Executive Director of OIC, appeared before
the Board to explain and answer questions on the OIC budget request
in the amount of $10,000.
Comm. Barfield MOVED to grant OIC $5,000 on a one-time basis.
The MOTION DIED for lack of a second.
After much discussion Comm. Armistead MOVED, SECONDED by
Comm. Gottovi not to fund OIC but that the County Manager try to
work out some help for them through the efforts and other things
discussed during this meeting. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED AS
FOLLOWS:
Voting Aye: Comm. Armistead, Gottovi, O'Shields and Chm. Blake.
Voting Noe: Comm. Barfield.
BREAK
Chm. Blake recessed the meeting for a break from 10:55 o'clock
a. m. until 11:10 o'clock a. m.
APPROVAL OF OFFENDER AID AND RESTORATION FUNDING REQUEST
Mr. J . R. Fullwood, Chairman, Mr. -'Meares Harris, Board Member,
and Mrs. Barbara Graham, Executive Director of OAR, appeared before
the Commissioners to present and explain their budget request.
Comm. Armistead MOVED, SECONDED by Comm. O'Shields to approve
the County Manager's recommendation in the budget for OAR in the
amount of $63,502. Upon vote the MOTION CARRIED AS FOLLOWS:
Voting Aye: Commissioners Armistead, Barfield, Gottovi and
O'Shields.
<0
MINUTES OF BUDGET HEARING, JUNE 10, 1982 (CONTINUED)
Page 4
I .
APPROVAL OF OFFENDER AID AND RESTORATION FUNDING REQUEST (CONTINUED)
Voting Noe: Chm. Blake.
APPROVAL OF FUNDING FOR OAR EARN-IT PROGRAM
County Manager Cooper commented on the Earn-It Program and
reported that he recommended the County support this program in the
amount of $7,500.
Comm. Gottovi MOVED, SECONDED by Comm. Barfield to approve
funding as recommended by the County Manager for the OAR Earn-It
Program in the amount of $7,500. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF FUNDING FOR ELDERHAUS
Ms. Sheila Davis and Ms. Linda Pearce appeared before the Board
to explain and answer questions on the Elderhaus budget request in
the amount of $30,295.
Comm. Armistead MOVED, SECONDED by Comm. O'Shields to take
$9,480 out of the General Assistance budget in Social Services to
even out the funding for Elderhaus with these funds to be paid quarterly
to Elderhaus. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF MODIFIED BUDGET
County Manager Cooper handed out a list of the changes that had
been made in the proposed budget since he had presented it to the
Commissioners. He also recommended that consideration be given to
hiring a full-time human services coordinator to provide recommendations
to the County Manager on funding of Human Services agencies.
Comm. Gottovi MOVED, to establish a Human Services Administrator
position in the County Manager's Office. It was agreed by consensus
that the position would be established and the job description would
be drawn up and brouqht back to the Commissioners for approval at a
later time.
Comm. O'Shields MOVED, SECONDED by Comm. Armistead, to ADOPT THE
BUDGET as recommended and modified and instruct the Finance Officer
to prepare the Budget Ordinance for approval at the June 21 meeting.
Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADJOURNMENT
Chm. Blake adjourned the meeting at 12:08 o'clock p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
~4.~'
Alyce B. Brown, Clerk
..
...
~ ,8L.JZ; f~~o
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
LARRY J. POWELL
Tax Administrator
OFFICE OF THE TAX ADMINISTRATOR
320 CHESTNUT STREET
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28401-4090
Telephone (919) 763-0991
NEW HANOVER COUNTY TAX COLLECTIONS
Collections thru August 31, 1982
1982
1981
Charged Per Scroll
Discoveries Added
$17,199,745.99
761,603.70
$17,961,349.69
.00
$17,961,349.69
40,944.73
$17,920,404.96
.23%
$16,411,131.85
501,957.57
$16,913,089.42
.00
$16,913,089.42
43,736.82
$16,869,352.60
.26%
Less Abatements
Total Taxes Due
Collections to Date
Outstanding Balance
Percehtage Collected
Back Taxes
Real Estate Taxes $ 579,115.02 $ 475,767.69
Less Abatements .00 82.06
Collections to Date 54,660.70 56,051. 91
Outstanding Balance $ 524,454.32 $ 419,633.72
Percentage Collected 9.44% 11.78%
Personal Property Taxes $ 767,006.68 $ 637,438.18
Less Abatements 1,988.35 406.75
Collections to Date 23,915.96 20,571. 21
Outstanding Balance $ 741,102.37 $ 616,460.22
Percentage Collected 3.13% 3.23%
Total money processed through Collection Office for New Hanover County, City
of Wilmington, Carolina Beach, Kure Beach and Wrightsville Beach to date -
$169,419.72.
This report is for fiscal year beginning July 1, 1982.
Respectfully submitted,
2~f1 a~or fl<(r'6V
Collector of Revenue
PJR: nfb
............
.....'liiio.
........ MEMBER
IAAD INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ASSESSING OFFICERS
.-.-
.......
........"
,:
~ U,1X: 1- ct6
'"
f,
.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. G. Felix Cooper
County Manager
FROM: Larry J. powell~l1
Tax Administrator If
DATE: September 13, 1982
SUBJECT: Abatements and Refunds
Request the following taxes be released as the taxpayers
reported incorrect or incomplete information at the time
of listing:
l. Crowley, Kenneth M. $ 19.20
2. Fundora, Josie H. 6.19
3. Hudson, Wayne Wm. Linda V. 20.43 (refund - 1981)
4. Johnson, Annie Nixon 11.93
5. Kalnen, Elizabeth M. 2.86
6. Kelker, David R. 26.73
7. Rawls, Dorothy 1. 30
8. Tyler, David Sr. 156,99 (1981 )
9. Velez, Israel Jr. Puchan 33.80
10, Wohlnick, Martha 181.00
Request the following taxes be released as they are double-
charged:
1. Ganey, Lois Clements
2. Newton, John R. Barbara Neal
3. R. S. Smith & Son
4. Rivenbark, Henry Ray
5. Sessions, Iris Collins
6. Silva, Daynie Lavaun
7. Skipper, Dolores Nicholls
8. Todd, Donna Bennett
9. Todd, Wilbur Gene
10. Utley, Raford Jr.
11. Watkins, J. A. Jr, Joyce
12. Wright, Thomas Henry III
39.73 (1981)
43.65
46.30 (1981)
63.71
56.33
.95
97.40
69.88
5.98
11. 05 (1981)
13,51
100.46
Request the following taxes be released as the personal property
is not located within the city or town limits:
1. Cement Products Co.
2. Lewis, J. E. Gertie Lee
3. Port City Trading Post Inc,
4. Robinson, Gaylord Jr.
5. Rock~, John Mjchael
487.69
28.13
863.17
40.55
22.47 .(1979)
..
,~
~
Mr. G. Fel~x Cooper
Page 2
September 13, 1982
6. Smith, Judy L.
7. Viney~rd, Merriwell W.
8. Ward, Norman Earl III
I
$ 173.19
8.36
44.65
The following taxpayers request the listing penalties be released
as they certiJy the' li,stings were placed in the mail during the
month of January or they were ill during January and unable to
make the listing:
1. Grainger, Willie Sr.
2. Marsh_. Howard Kenneth Etux
3. Mobley, John Wm.
4. Mobley, Mary' O.
84.33
44.17
16.80
20.70
Request the Xollowt~g taxes be released as these oharges are due
to clerical er~ors oX inco~rect encoding, not allowing qualifying
Senior Citizens' Exclusion and person~L exclus;i\)D, :'.misp~iced \T~hicJ,.es,
and misp~iced land and buildings:
1. ABC Development Co.
2. Farmer, Margaret B.
3. Fisk, James M. Donna K.
4. Heinisch, Robert L. Etux
5. Lowder, Marshall L. Janie
6. Morris, Daniel E. Sandra K.
7. Shiftlet, Harvey Dr. Mary V,
8. Spivey, Velma
9. Walker, Curtis J. Etux
10. Walker, Elease
11. Wescott, Clyde Warren
12. Wright, Horner Neel III
13. Yopp, Esther Naomi
14. Yow, Cicero P. ,Etal Cabell W
15. Yow, Cicero P. Anthony B. Akers Trust.
343.92
149.33
2.84
80.41
208.69 (1981, 179.04 Refune
2.92
451.99
24.96
153.85
131.59
98,56 (1981)
32.13
165.98
3,776.52
375,39
Request these items be placed on the consent agenda for the County
Commissioner's meeting on Sept_ember) 20 />1982. 'I';recomrriendapproval
of these abatements as the Commissioners have approved these types
of releases in the past.
LJP:sw
Copy: Mrs. Alyce Brown
Clerk to the Board
Mr. Robert Pope
County Attorney
'tJ~ Iil~/CF':;>'-v /- L,L
TIA.- ~Y\-5 t 1'-- ~
NEW HANOVER C20lJNTY V~~
ENGINEERING AND FACILITIES DEPARTMENT q jlAJ 1~1
320 CHESTNUT STREET
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28401
Telephone (919) 762-1831
C. ED HILTON.JR..P.E.
Director
September 2, 1982
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Felix Cooper
Ed Hi! ton e-~
FROM:
RE:
Renovations of 922 Front Street
Bids
On Wednesday, August 18, 1982 at 2;00 p.m., bids were opened for the referenced
project. Attached is a tabulation of the bids received.
Under the HVAC bid section, Southeastern Refrigerator has requested that under
the provisions of G.S. 143-129.1 that their bid be allowed to be withdrawn. I
attach a copy of the statute for your information. A copy of the letter from
the architect recommending approval of the withdrawal is attached. I concur
with the recommendation and recommend the Commissioners approve the withdrawal.
Based on 'the bid tabulations and with the approval of the above withdrawal, the
following represents the low bidders;
General Contractor ~ Reagan Construction
Plumbing - Williams Plumbing
HV AC - Blanton and Company, Inc.
Electrical - Watson Electrical
Co. $ 63,400
7,598
17,208
21,773
$109,979
There is a possibility that add-alternative #2 under HVAC will need to be in-
cluded in the project. This involves the replacement of a 15 ton condensing
unit. The bid for this alternate is $4,900.
We have also taken out of the bids certain work involved in developing the
office area of the building. The bids to do this work totals $6,148. I rec-
ommend that sufficient funds be included in the budget transfer in the con-
struction line item to do this work providing that the replacement of the
condensing unit referred to in the preceding paragraph is not necessary.
Attached is the budget transfer that provides for the necessary funds to do
the project as outlined above.
Assuming that this information is acceptable to you and the Commissioners, I
recommend the Commissioners do the following;
September 2, 1982
Mr. Felix Cooper
Page 2
1. Approve the ~ithdrawal of the bid by Southeastern Refr{gerat~on.
2. Award the contracts as presented in this memorandum and authorize the
Chairman's signature.
3. Approve the budget transfer and authorize the Chairman's signature.
4. Authorize the Director Engineering and Facilities to activate the
HVAC alternate if necessary or the office development work if the
HVAC alternate is not necessary.
If you need additional information, I will be pleased to provide it.
EH/pw
attachment
113
NYL
RENOVATION OF 922 NORTH FRONT STREET
_cu_ ....... -
ALTERNATE III ALTERNATE II 2 ALTERNATE
RAL BID DELETE INTERIOR DELETE BENCHES & DELETE VI
RACTORS NAME LICENSE BOND BASE BID PART.,DRS,FR,HDWE PLANTERS ASBESTOS
~
- . . .
GENE
CONT
-
576
$ 4
000
$ .89
5%
179.8
INC.
28472
A.G. CARTER, JR
P.O. Box 468
Whiteville, N.C
9.86
$
029
$
96
FARLOW-POLLARD & CO.
3912 Shipyard Blvd.
Wilmington, N.C. 28l
950
500
.....---.-.......-,
3
200
000
950
500
3
5
300
565
73
76
5%
5%
2
4934
03
HARNETT CONSTRUCTION
P.O. Box 3867
Wilmington, N.C.28406
-....--,-.. ,-....-~.._......
500
4
4
9
74
5%
7003
KAY BUILDERS
P.O. Box 3580
Wilmington, N.C. 28402
----..-..
806
387
2
00
088
291
4
426
72
5%
1782
F.R. KING CONSTRUCTION CO.
1221 Floral Pkwy.
Wilmington, N.C. 28403
--...'~ -_....
089
2
715
02
5%
7875
HATED
Ave.
28403
-.,
MASSENGILL INCORPO
5007 Wrightsville
Wilmington, N.C.
739
2
650
f**f*
Bidding ********
************** Nqt
CONSTRUCTION CO
. MORRIS
Box 4185
, N
WM.
P.O.
Wilmington
R
...
28406
C
CO.
CONSTRUCTION
65
N.C.
REAGAN
P.O. Box 31
Wilmington,
~_...~.,--.-.,",,",-,.........,,---
896
37
748
5
48
69
5%
3359
800
00
2
700
6
900
82
5%
962
LUTHER T. ROGERS, INC.
1012 South 17th Street
Wilmington, N.C. 28406
760
3
2
560
282
4
000
99
5%
9000
INC
28405
s,
L.W. SLOAN BUILDEr
~'5~2 ~cenic Circle
Wllmlngton, N.C.
....--....-....--....
.. A. ....,.l"lI.LLJJl~ l"vDuvlV0 ____..I
SMITH CONSTRUCTION
P.O. Box 100 3620 5% $ 87,350 $ 5,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,850
Whiteville, N.C. 28472
. .,.,-.-
WALDKIRCK & SAUNDERS -
1157 North Kerr Ave. 13792 5% 96,470 5,960 1,160 1,870
Wilmington, N.C. 28405
.
-~ - ---............-.
--,"'-'-_.....~."....,- - .....__.__.~._"
-- -- _.._.._.,.........~
-- - - -
"'
._"6,~
~
Page two
RENOVATION OF 922 NORTH FRONT STREET
ALTERNATE II 1 ALTERNATE H 2 ALTERNATE #3
GENERAL BID DELETE INTERIOR DELETE BENCHES & DELETE VINYL
CONTRACTORS NAME LICENSE BOND BASE BID PART,DRS,FR,HDWE PLANTERS ASBESTOS
-
I I , .
-
,-... 1 --....-
CHADWICK PLUMBING COMPANY
207 Londonerry Dr. 4063 5% $ 8,778.34
Scotts Hill, N.C. , ....-.--
".... ~ -,
GOODYEAR PLU~ffiING CO.
1001 South Kerr Ave. 8579 5% 11,400 -
Wilmington, N.C. 28403 -
-. ,- ,,,, -
M & M PLUMBING CO., INC. .
1309 Masonboro Loop Road 7547 5% , 8,856
Wilmington, N.C. 28403
-.- ,. .....-.,...--,
WILLIA~~ PLUMBING
3910 Peachtree Street 4318 5% 7,598
Wilmington, N.C.
--..-- ~ _.'.....,~~;~. ----.. ~....
WiITEVILLE MECHANICAL CON.
5094 5% 11,940
-.-:- '-- -........ --~-~--
-.
--........-..
:
~
~-,- - ......-----. ..
~
..
,.--.- --
....-.
,
.L-______ ~._~.,.._.._.-....__.... ,-_...-_.,~_..' -..--..-...
.
RENOVATION Of 922 NORTH FRONT STREET
, J
PLUMBING BID
CONTRACTORS NAME LICENSE BOND BASE BID
-
r . .
.
RENOVATION OF q22 NORTH FRONT STREET
I
ALTERNATE II 1 ALTERNATE 112
HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING BID AM!. TO COMPLETE AHU 2. REPLACEMENT 15 TON
CONTRACTOR ANME LICENSE BOND BASE BOND & 3 SYSTEM FR. EXISTING I CONDENSING UNIT
H___
J -"""..... I .
$
$ 25,000
5%
644
INC
HENRY BAKER HEATING CO.
P.O. 1):>')( 3405
Wilson, N.C. 27893
$ 6,000
000
2
208
7
5%
6924
CO., INC.
2113
N.C. 28402
P.O.
Wilmington,
BLANTON &
Bcoc
900
4
456
3
5%
3062
CANNON HEATING & AC, INC.
P.O. Box 3221
Wilmington, N.C. 28406
--..----- t
47
......,----~----_..__.-.......,-_.
4
63
2
570
720
9
22
5%
2555
T.R. DRISCOLL SHEETMETAL WORK~
P.O. Drawer 1549
Lumberton, N.C. 28358
-,
230
5
7
o
5
938
9
5%
418
INC
HANOVER IRON WORKS,
1851 Dawson Street
Wilmington, N.C. 2840
234
5
2,200
********1******
Not Bidd~ng
********~I**
*
1
---
AC
HERITAGE HEATING &
6506 Market Street
Wilmington, NC 28405
,~,._,
C.
462
C
/I
9866 H3
SOUTHEASTERN REFRIGERATION
5003 Wrightsville Ave.
Wilmington~~~__-,
58
36
5
43
11
2
o
9
3
16
09l,
455
11
25
5%
2108
SOUTHERN PIPING
1908 Baldree Road
Wilson, NC 27893
6,216
********~*****
ng
Biddj
Not
*~*********~**
-
TRAINGLE MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR
1405 Mechanical Blvd.
Garner, NC 27529
---..-.
300
5
900
13
300
22
5%
8579
28403
GOODYEAR PLUMBING
1001 South
Wilmington
~<"
Kerr'
N.C
RNATE 112
TE RECEPTICALS &
. OUTLETS IN "F'''
_. _._.,,-_.~
RENOVATION OF 922 NORTH FRONT STREET
--,--
ALTERNATE /11 AL
ELECTRICAL BID DELETE AC4 & AHU2 & 3, DE
CONTRACTORS NAME LICENSE BOND BASE BID I ADD HP2 & 3,AHU2A & 28 TEL
.,
~...... -. ~..._--~---
-------1
$ 1, 100
.-......-.-..',.-
155
572
641
810
---
300
1,200
- -
400
-
._-"
$
296
$ 29
5%
4470U
INC
CAPE FEAR ELECTRIC
P.O. Box 3095
Wilmington, N. C.
o
398
9
2
10
400
33
5%
3869U
28406
-,
INC.
DARDENS ELECTRIC CO.,
P.O. Box 1358
Goldsboro, N.C. 27530
740
2
775
29
5%
3006U
---..!
GRAVES ELECTRIC COMPANY
3414 Wrightsville Ave.
Wilmington, N.C. 28403
"'-'
700
2
985
3
5%
3276U
HODGES ELECTRIC COMPANY
3911 Wrightsville Ave.
Wilmington, N.C. 28403
439
7
650
25
5%
4023U
MASSENGIL ELECTRIC, INC.
5007 Wrightsville Ave.
Wilmington, N.C. 28403
__c
500
25
C.
275
C
II
8003U
REAGAN ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS
5022 Wrightsville Ave.
Wilmington, N.C. 28403
2,000
950
2
895
3
5%
7954U
INC.
28429
CO.
SIMON ELECTRIC
Rt. 2, Box 341
Castle Hayne, N.C
"'-- --.---,
600
173
22
5%
3U
2
WATSON ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTIO
P.O. Box 449
Wilmington, N.C.
Not Biddin~ **************
.***********
28402
CO. OF WILM.
28406
HARRIS ELECTRIC
P.O. Box 4487
Wilmington, N.C.
John Sawyer AlA
Architect
211 Princess Street
Po. Box 176
Wilmington,N.C. 28402
August 25, 1982
Mr. Ed Hilton, P.E.
New Hanover County Engineer
320 Chestnut Street
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Re: Electronic Labs & Classrooms
Southeastern Refrigeration
Bid Withdrawal
Dear Ed:
I am enclosing Southeastern Refrigerations letter and work sheets substant-.
iating their request to withdraw their Bid. G.S.143-129.1 addresses this
situation, a copy of the statue is enclosed. The work sheets are somewhat
confusing, and I think the Contractor would avoid errors if he were better
organized. Never the less, the heat pump equipment price including labor
and markup is shown on the third worksheet, and was not carried forward to
the second sheet where the total bid was tabulated. The adding machine
tapes are my check of the totals. The first sheet is included as evidence
of the net cost of the heat pump equipment left out of the Bid. It is
apparent to me that the error falls within the scope of G.S.143-129.1. I
would like to reach a decision on this before awarding the HVAC Contract.
Please call if I can assist in any way.
RECE\\fED
rAU6 2 5 '982
. . r. & fad:ties Oept.
EnZH1':!cni\:,
Very truly yours,
JS/jlw
Enclosures
Phone (919) 762.0892
GENERAL STATUTES, CONTRACTS
governmental unit or agency thereof within the
United States, and may authorize such officer ar
employee to make any partial or down payment
or payment in full that may be ,equired by regula-
tions of the government or agency disposing of
such property.
143-129.1. Withdrawal of bid. - A public
agency may allow 0 bidder submitting a bid pur-
suant to North Carolina G.S. 143-129 for can-
s'ruc'ion or repair work to withd,aw his bid from
consideration after the bid, opening withaut for-
feiture of his bid security if the price bid was
based upon a mistake, which constituted a sub-
stantial error, provided the bid was submitted in
good faith. and the bidder submits credible evi-
dence that the mistake was clerical in nature as
opposed to 0 judgment error, and wos octually
due to on unintentional and substontial arithmetic
error or an unintentional omission of a substantial
quantity of work, lobar, material or services mode
directly in the compilation of the bid, which un.
intentional arithmetic error or unintentional omis-
sion can be clearly shown by objective evidence
drown from inspection of the original work papers,
documents or materials used in the preparation
of the bid sought to be withdrawn. A request to
withdraw a bid must be made in writing to the
public agency which invited the proposals for the
work prior to the award of the contract, but not
later than 72 hours after the opening of bids.
If 0 request to withdraw 0 bid has been made
in accordance with the p,ovisions of this section,
42
i;
I
t
GENERAL STATUTES, CONTRACTS
ti
..
~
I!
f:
I
I
,.
:1
;1
actian on the remaining bids shall be considered,
in accordance with North Carolina G.S. 143-129,
os though said bid had not been ,eceived. Not-
withstanding the foregoing, such bid shall be
deemed to hove been received for the purpose of
complying with the requirements of G.S, 143-132.
Provided, however, in the event the work is relet
for bids, under nc circumstances sholl thl:: bidder
who has filed 0 request to withdraw be permitted
to rebid the work.
If a bidder files 0 request to withdraw his bid.
the agency shall promptly hold 0 heoring the,eon.
The agency sholl give to the withdrawing bidder
reasonable notice of the time and place of any
such hearing. The bidder, either in pe,son or
through counsel, may appear at the hearing and
present any additional facts and arguments in
support of his request to withdraw his bid. The
ogency shall issue a written ruling alklwing or
denying the request to withdraw within five days
after the hearing. If the agency finds that the
price bid was based upon a mistake of the type
described in the first paragraph af this section,
then the agency sholl issue a ruling permitting the
bidder to withdraw without forfeiture af the bid-
der's security. If the agency finds that the price
bid was based upon a mistake not af the type
described in the first paragraph of this section,
then the agency shall issue 0 ruling denying the
request to withdraw and requiring the forfeiture
of the bidder's security. A denial by the agency
of the request to withdraw a bid shall hove the
some effect os if on award had been mode to
J
~
1
.:r
1
a
it
~.
f::~
.'
r
~
,
1
4
)f
J
?
~
1
43
GENERAL STATUTES, CONTRACTS
the bidder and 0 refusal by the bidder to accept
hod been mode, or os if there hod been 0 refusal
to enter into the cont,act, and the bidder's bid
deposit or bid bond sholl be forfeited.
In the event said ruling denies the request to
withdraw the bid, the bidder sholl hove the ,ight,
within 20 days after receipt of said ruling, to
contest the matter by the filing of 0 civil action
in any court of ccmpetent jurisdiction of the State
of North Carolina. The procedure sholl be the
some os in 011 civil actions except 011 issues of
low and fact and every other issue sholl be tried
de novo by the judge without jury; provided that
the matter may be referred in the instances. and
in the manner provided for by North Carolina
G.S. 1 A-I, Rule 53, os amended. Notwithstand-
ing the foregoing, if the public agency involved is
the Deportment of Administration, it may follow
its normal rules and regulations with respect to
contested matters, os opposed to following the ad-
ministrative procedures set forth herein. If it is
finally determined that the bidder did not hove
the right to withdraw his bid pursuant to the pro-
visions of this section, the bidder's security sholl
be forfeited. Every bid bond or bid depOSit given
by 0 bidder to 0 public agency pursuant to' G.S.
143- 129 sholl be conclusively presumed to hove
been given in accordance with this $ection, whether
or not it be so drown os to conform to this sec-
tion. This section sholl be conclusively presumed
to ,hove been written into every bid bond given
pursuant to G.S. 143.129.
44
,.
li
r:
"
,.~
!r
'I
~I
t.
~I
to
U
."1
!i
i.
\i
GENERAL STATUTES, CONTRACTS
JI
'i
1
I
Neither the agency nor any elected or appointed
official, employee, representative 0' agent of such
agency sholl incur any liability or surcharge, in
the absence of fraud or collusion, by permitting
the withdrawal of 0 bid pursuont to the provisions
of this section.
No withdrawal of the bid which would result
in the owa,d of the controct on another bid of
the some bidder, his portner, or to 0 corporation
or business venture owned by or in which he has
on interest sholl be permitted. No bidder who is
permitted to withdraw 0 bid sholl supply any ma-
terial or lobar to, or perform any subcontract or
work agreement for, any person to whom 0 con-
tract or subcontract is aworded in the pedo'm-
once of the contract for which the withdrawn
bid was submitted, without the pria, written ap-
proval of the agency. Whoever violotes the pro-
visions of the foregoing sentence sholl be guilty of
o misdemeanor.
143-130. Allowance for Convict Labar Must be
Specified. - In cases where the board or govern-
ing body of 0 State agency or of any political
subdivision of the State may furnish convict or
other labor to the contractor, manufactu,er, .ar
others entering into contracts for the performance
of construction work, installotion of apparatus,
supplies, mate,ials or equipment, the specifications
covering such projects sholl corry full information
os to what wages sholl be paid for such labor or
the amount of allowance for some.
I
I
~
:~
1
45
-
Finance
Office
PAPER
PRODUCTS CO
0-80 500
317
-
U7L
APPROVED
County Manager's Signature
Date
Date-Commissioners'
Approva
if
necessary)
~
-
Expl
anation
--
-
1:;L-3qtl -9:J.t
V -77t1}-3)j
.!/.:< -!:LliL;)-:-hdL)
/2A'~/~ , ~ ~
IJ/I. C H, {- J;-N /
6u /'/ ell ~i ..I-- Lu
4'1tLJA~
301 ouO
1. 5'OD
/5: OO()
4J .17tJ~ ~3[) 'J? eNDVdi rrn5
/1.:<- 9i@-9// LJ,.,+IAi4-PflJ:::Lef
Amount
( CREDIT)
,--
9'~ / S'oo
2,ooe)
Departmentl Account Name
. (!o/e 1-f!.4~ 'J; (' A
TRANSFER FROM (OR) INCREASE
Account Name
Depa rtment Hel~slignature)
C. ed "~
TRANSFER TO (OR) DECREASE
Account Name
Amount
( DEBIT)
Account
No.
-
Acceunt
No.
LLi~
I
-i~
N~EVENUE
-~
N
Number
J
REVENUE
Date
q--2
_gL
TO
COUNTY
MANAGER
BUDGET
NEW
AMENDMENT REQUEST
HANOVER COUNTY
'f
~ ~} -]!X; j/, ;2-0
(1 L
--"
~
' ". / r
L~~:yt~ Y(latJ
u
..;'
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
I
I
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
JAMES M. BROWN, MPH
Health Director
2029 South 17th Street · Post Office Box 3785
WI LM I NGTON, NO RTH CAROL! NA 28406
Phone: (919) 763-2931
MEMORANDUM
To: Felix Cooper, County Manager
From:
Larry Neal,
.p ,<\JL~
Chairman, Fee Policy Cormni ttee oL-~ -yY\ If-
New Hanover County Board of Health .~
Date: September 13, 1982
Re: Proposed Fee Policy and Fee Schedule for New Hanover
County Health Department
We are enclosing six copies of the proposed fee policy and
fee schedule which was prepared by Planning and Design Asso-
ciates and adopted by the Board of Health at their regular
meeting on September 8, 1982. According to GS l30-17(e),
"Fees shall be based upon a plan recommended by the local
Health Director and approved by the local Board of Health
and the appropriate board or boards of County Commissioners.
Please place this item on the agenda for the meeting of the
County Commissioners on September 20, 1982.
Thank you very much.
LN:p
, '
PlANNING & DESIGN ASSOCIATES, P.A.
3515 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh. North Carolina 27612
(919)781-9004
Terry W Allord, MAP, AlA
Rex H. Todd. MAP
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Lrry Neal. DDS
Chairman. Fee Policy Committee ~
James M. Brown. MPH
Director, Health Department tt.
~~
Nancy M. Lane. MA
Consultant
FROM:
DATE:
September 1. 1982
RE:
Proposed Fee Policy and Fee' Schedule for
New Hanover Health Department
Attached is the fee policy, sliding fee scale. and recommended fees
for New Hanover County Health Department that were recommended for approval
by the Fee Policy Committee at its meeting on August 31, 1982.,
This report has been developed in accordance
particularly those outlined in G.S. 130-11.
practices and limitations set by third-party
and Medicare.'
with State requirements,
It also considers local charging
payors. particularly Medicaid
This document provides a solid basis for a fee program. It includes all
existing charges. modifications recommended by Health Department staff in
Spring 1982. and limitations set by the third-party payors in the Memorandum of
Agreement signed between the Department and'the North Carolina Division of
Health Services in 1980. It provides for a uniform billing and charging
program that could be coordinated by a single staff person and carried
out by clerical staff at four locations: Animal Control. Environmental
Health, Home Health and the Clinic.
Attachments
NML/jr
~~~-#".,.....,.).~
""'~::ii'''''
:~
NEW "ANOVER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT FE~ PLAN
Wilmington, N.C.
1. Rationale
In response to continued inflation and reductions in federal and state subsidies,
New Hanover County Health Department has been forced to seek ways to assure that
its limited resources are focussed on those activities that provide the maximum
public benefit. Public interest is best served by assuring that all legally
mandated services are available to all County residents. Some non-voluntary
services , such as communicable disease control, must be available without
any barriers such as charges that would deter use of the service. Other
voluntary services, such as animal licenses, benefit a limited number of
people, who should share in the cost to provide the service.
In recent years, the health depa~tment has been requested to provide additional
personal and environmental health services for public benefit. The Department
,can best serve the community by continuing to make these services available to
citizens with the greatest need and the least access to alternatives.
User fees provide a means to distribute services to County citizens on the
basis of demand. Combined with a sliding fee scale, these fees can also
distribute the burden of payment on the basis of ability to pay. Selectively
applied, they distribute the cost of services to those who gain unique and
particular benefits for themselves.
Fees for public health department services are authorized under North Carolina
General Statute 130-17, provided that: 1) the fees are in accordance with a
plan recommended by the Health Director and approved by the Board of Health and
the County Commissioners; and 2) the fees are not otherwise prohibited by law.
Fees have been charged and collected by New Hanover County Health Department
for several years. This revision of those formal and informal fee plans superceeds
all preceding plans.
II. Goals and Philosophy
It is the intent of the New Hanover County Board of Health and the County
Commissioners to insure that the New Hanover County Health Department :
1. Provides its medical care services free of charge to indigent people.
2. Charges people and their third-party payors, who can afford to pay,
competitive private rates for comparable medical services. ~
"
3. Charges uniform fees for voluntarily procured non-medical services,
such as animal control and environmental services, where permitted
by state law.
9/82
,~_ r. '........,..,.,....._.,.~.)'__ . . _ .
.';' .., .:,.,'.!lII"k'.~': "'-""'.~~;':- . I ,. ~,~ ~..,-:I-~....'... . ';-n'';i'~''P
Fees
p.2
4. Sets fees that will insure that certain services in the health
department can become as nearly financially self-sufficient as
poss ib le.
III. Affected Services
Fees will be charged for specified serv1ces provided by the New Hanover County
Health Department, in the Personal Health, Environmental Health, Animal
Control, Family Planning, Home Health, Nutrition, Laboratory. and Pharmacy Division.
Mandated public health services, community health. epidemiologic investigation
and control, health education, tuberculasis conttol, venereal disease control,
and immunization and sanitation inspections may be excluded. Vaccines provided
to the health department at no cost will be provided without charge. Fees pro-
hibited by law will not be imposed.
Separate fees may be charged for laboratory, x-ray, and other technological
serv1ces when these are not included as part of another comprehensive service.
Fees may be charged for educational services provided to individuals or groups,
such as orientation, preceptorship, or field training.
IV. Fee Schedule
Insofar as possible, fees for certain medical and laboratory services may be'
based upon reasonable prevailing rates. Fees for other services will be
based upon budgetary costs to the health department, plus a county overhead
fee.
Where budgetary costs cannot be allocated with preC1S10n, nominal fees may be
established in amounts related to known costs. Where Medicaid. other third
party or program contract fee amounts are established on the basis of statewide
average or other costs, the health department fee may be set equal to that amount.
Fees will be adjusted at least annually by the Board of Health upon recommendation
from the Health Director. to reflect budgetary and third party constraints.
V. Medically Indigent Sliding Fee Scale
Individuals will be charged for clinical services on the basis of ability to pay.
Families with annual incomes that exceed current federal Poverty Income guidelines
or other income guidelines which must be employed for other federal or state
funded programs will be charged full rates. Others will be offered reduced
rates based upon family income.
The reduced rate, sliding fee scale, will be maintained a8 uniformly a8 possible
J
among health department programs.
Eligibility for reduced rates will be determined by clerical personnel prior to
service. Verbal statements of patients, their parents or guardians, may be ac-
cepted. Signed statements may also be required for certain programs. Enrollment
9/82
Fees
p.3
under Social Security Titles XVIII, XIX, XX, or other third party coverage will
be determined where applicable. Individuals who are identified as possibly eli-
gible will be referred to appropriate agencies for eligibility determination.
Once eligibility for reduced rates is determined, it will be continued for a
period of one year. unless -otherwise requested by a patient. Third party
coverage will be verified on each visit.
Fees for environmental health and animal control serv~ces will not be adjusted
by the sliding scale.
VI. Collection
Fees will be collected at the time service 1S rendered, by trained clerical per-
sonnel at central bookkeeping stations. In certain cases, fees will be collected
at the point of service by the professional rendering services. Responsible audit
trails will be maintained for all fee collections.
Individuals who pay at the time of service will be provided with itemized receipts.
Itemized bills will be sent to others,monthly. Enrollment in a third party pay-
ment plan may be presumed to consti'tute full payment for that service.
Failure to pay a proper charge for services rendered will constitute a debt for
reasonable collection. Unpaid accounts will be billed monthly. Balance due
of less than five dollars ($5.00) will be billed again. Balances of $5.00
to $25.00 will be billed three times. Balances in excess of $2S.00will be
billed four times. Third and fourth bills will be stamped "Account Past Due,
Service May be Withheld Pending Payment." Balances less than $2.00 will
not be billed.
Arrangements may be made for deferred or extended payment. when necessary for good
causes.
Once a year, the Health Director, or his designated representative, will review
bad debts outstanding six months after the last bill has been rendered as described.
At that time he or she will authorize write off of such amounts for accounting pur-
poses. Payments received later for bad debts will be accepted and credited to
appropriate accounts. However, no further collection efforts will be applied to
these accounts.
VII. Delinquent Accounts
No individual will be denied services at the New Hanover County Health Department
because of inability to pay, as determined by the Sliding Fee Scale.
With the exception of Family Planning. patients. individuals with unpaid balances
may be denied subsequent optional services, pending demonstration of a good faith
effort to make payment. J
Attachments: Eligibility Scale
Fee Schedule
9/82
seA l E
FEE
N G
I
~,
P L A,,'N
l Y
I
F A M
~
Poverty
Federa
to 200%
125%
Income
Gross
.
Patient Fee Category--Annual
tle XX
i
T
150%
Reference
Figure
$ 7.020
fami ly
Size
1
Full Pa~
80%
60X
-
40%
20%
Eli
0,
J
,
1"
360
.SI?,440
$15.520
,
S 9
$ 8,484- 9,359
276-12,439
068-15.519
$11
$14
$ 7,606- 8.483
$10,109-11.275
$12.612-14.067
7.605
942-10.108
156-12,611
$ 6.728-
$ 8
$11
6.727
$ 7.775- 8,941
$ 9.700-11.155
$5.850-
$0-$ 5.849
$0-$ 7.774
$0-$ 9.699
$ 9,330
$11. 640'
2
3
$18.600
$16.860-18.599
115-16.859
$15
114
$13,370-15
625-13.369
$11
624
$0-$11
$13.950
4
5
680
$24,760
$27.840
$21
679
$22.441-24.759
$25.233-27.839
$19.649-21
$17.616-19.648
$20.119-22.4.40
$22.622-25.232
$15.583-17.615
118
621
$17.797-20
$20.011-22
$13.550-15.582
$15.475-17 .796
$17.400-20,010
$0-$13.549
$0-$15,474
$0-$17 ,399
$16.260
$18,570
$20,880
$23.190
$25,500
$27.810
$19.325-22.224
324
$30.920
$28.025-30.919
.
$25.125-28.024
124
$22.225-25
$21
249
$34.000
$30.814-33.999
$27.626-30.813
$24.438-27.625
250-24,437
$0-$19
$0-$21
$0-$23
6
7
8
9
10
o I
;,:.
'.ii
~:
.
-
$37.080
$40.160
$4.3.240
$33.606-37.079
398-40.159
190-43.239
$36
$39
129-33.605
$32.632-36.397
$35.135-39.189
$30
128
631
134
$26.652-30
$28.866-32
$31,080-35
175-26.651
$25,100-28.865
$27.025-31.079
$23
.174
$0-$25.099
$0-$27.024
120
430
$30
$32
11
12
.
"
:.\
.?:
.,
~~
L
3.080
$62.74
+
$50.19
$37.64
$23.30
$12.55
64
04
$18
$10.
$13 . 98
$25.10
$ 9.32
$ 5.02
$12.55
$ 4.66
$ 2.51
+ 1.92~
(Complete Physical)
I
or Annual
tial
i
n
th Pelvic Exam
w
t
s
v
Hedica
0"
..
thout Pelvic Exam
t w
s
v
Medica
(BO%
S 7.53
or whole dollar. For example $10.04
$2.51 may be rounded to $2.75 etc
~ to the nearest quarter, half,
c Exam) may be' rounded to $10.25.
~ be rounded
t without Pelv
Odd-cent charges
pay, Medical Vis
Family Planning Branch
7/1/82
Note
'.
,~~
f
SERVICE
NEW HANOVER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE
FISCAL YEAR 1983
Animal Control
County Dog Tag
Impounded Dog Redemption
Adoption
Citations
Shelter Fee
Adult Health Screening
CPT-4 Initial & Annual Visit, consists of:
71010
98592
98600
98609
98588
88150
90720
90000
82270
82947
,85021
81000
98609
82270
82947
87205
71010
98588
98592
88150
EPSDT
9/82
Chest X-Ray
Visual acuity exam
Glaucoma exam
Height, Weight, Blood pressure check
Cancer screen - oral exam, neck and axillary
nodes, thyroid nodule palpation; breast .
exam, teaching self breast examination, vagina
and cervix visual exam, nutritional assessment,
pap smear
Diptheria - Tetanus shot
. Follow-up personal record review and call-back
Laboratory tests:
Hemocult
Routine blood sugar
Coulter hematology (WEC, RBC, Hgb. Hct., MCV)
~outine Urinalysis
Follow up Visit may consist of one or more of
Weigpt and blood pressure
Nutritional Counseling
Nursing Counseling, intermediate visit (15.30 min.)
Hemocult
Routine blood sugar monitoring
Wet Smear for Trichinosis and Yeast
Nurse Counseling, brief, [15 min.
Chest X-Ray
Cancer Screen
Visual Acuity Exam
Pap Smear
1
Child Health Screen
FULL CHARGE
3.00 per year
17.00/ 25 dogs
25.00 (1st two times/yr.)
+3.00/day lodging
Pending will include
Spay Neuter Charges
'$25.00 for each law
violated up to County
maximum (subject to County
ceiling)
3.00 per animal per day
54.00
following:
5.00.
9.00
8.00
4.00
5.00
3.75
4.00
20.00
17.75
10.00
5.00
J
21.96
N. H. Fee schedule'
Page 2
Environmental Health
septic Tank Permit
Soil Evaluation
Unrestricted Septic Tank Installer License Fee
5.00
20.00
100.00 per calendar year
50.00 per last 6 mos.
10.00 per job
15.00
1. 50 per lb.
35.00
70.00 (overtime)
42.50
.85.00 (overtime)
Restricted Septic Tank Installer Licnese Fee
Well Permit, including sample analysis
Rat Bait
Ship Inspections - Wilmington
Ship Inspections - Sunny Point
Water Samples:
Coliform bacteria analysis
Sample Collection and filing fee
Repeat Water Samples (includes analysis)
Non-Community Water Samples
10.00
5.00
8.00
Environmental Health
Pending Charge;
Proposed changes pending approval of septic tank ordinance
Septic tank permit
Septic tank approval
Soil evaluation - Residential
15.00
Soil evaluation - Non-Residential
35.00
5.00
35.00
to 3 bedrooms
per additional bedroom
first 1,000 gallons
per day
each additional 500
gallons per day
5.00
1. Charge may be determined by established program policy, medicaid
or other program policy, e.g. State family planning grant, EPSDT.
2. Pending approval of County Septic Tank Ordinance.
.J
9/82
"
99000
9072
82947
85021
82270
87177
85031
82996
88150
87060
87086
81002
81000
86592
87205
87086
9/82
Fee Policy NH
page 3 .
SERVICE
Epidemiology
Supplies
1
Family Planning
Limited Service / Pregnancy Test
Intermediate Service wo pelvic
Extended Service w pelvic
Comprehensive Service. Initial or Annual
Visual Exam, speculum evaluation
Condeloma painting
Collect Specimen in Office
1
Home Health Agency
Public Health Nurse Visit
Physical Therapy Service
Home Health Aide Visit
Speech Therapy Service'
1
Immunization
Innoculation
Ingredients
Flu
Yellow Fever
Pneumonia
Laboratory
Acid fast culture and smear
Blood glucose
Cholesterol test
Choliform bact. in water
Coulter hematology (WBC,RBC,Hgb.Hct,MCV)
Feces for occult blood ( hemocult)
'Milk Analysis - routine
Milk analysis- buttermilk. sr. cream, yougurt
Ova and parasite test
Pinworm prep
Platelet count
Pregnancy test
Pap Smear
Sedimentation rate
Throat culture
Urine culture and sensitivity
Urinalysis, complete
Urinalysis, routine
VDRL for employment physical
Wet smear for trich and yeast
Wound culture
Mail-off fee
Differential count
FULL CHARGE
cost + 10%
5.00
12.55
23.30
62.74
4.00
5.00
3.00
Self pay Medicare Medicaid
7.00
8.00/hr
6.00
NA
3.00
cost
3.00
7.50
6.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
7.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
7.00
4.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
.3.75
10.00
10.00
4.00
3.00
5.00
3.75
10.00
5.00
3.50
19.60
22.40
16.80
19.11
21.84
16.38
J
" ,-f
Fee Policy NH
page 4,
SERVICE
FULL CHARGE
..
Laboratory cont.
Stool culture
7.00
Nutrition
Nutritional Counseling
( includes materials )
8.00 per session
Pharmacy
Dispensing
Ingredients
Unclassifiedl
2.00
cost
Authorized record copies
Education/ training per student day
Group education per staff hour
2.00
10.00
10.00
X-ray
With physician interpretation
Without physician interpretation
20.00
9.00
1. Charge may be determined by established program policy, e.g. Medicaid
or other state grant such as family planning.
Vaccines received by the department without cost will be provided without
charge
.J
9/82
,,,,
~ 15~,.~ P~D
'.
~ CAMPBELL 0
A ASSOCIATES. INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
701 EAST FOUKIH STREIT
CHATIANOOGA. TN 37403
615'267.9718
JOHN F. GERM, P.E.
PRESI[UIT
, PAUL R. MITCHELL. P.E.
VICE - PRESlllENT
FRED E. KFJTI-I. P.E.
SECRET^RY
RONAlD G SHUTTLE, P.E.
I'IlO.JEcr IMNAaR
August 3, 1982
Mr. G. Felix Cooper
County ~lanager
New Hanover County
320 Chestnut Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
Dear Felix:
SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE ENERGY RECOVERY FACILITY FOR
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Proposals on the above subject project were accepted in our office at 2:00 p.m.
EDT, July 1, 1982 in accordance with the Invitation to Bid. As the result of
there being only two (2) companies who submitted proposals, i.e., Southeastern
Waste Control Company, Inc., and Clark-Kenith, Inc. the bids were not opened
and a re-advertising took place with the new proposals being accepted on
July 12, 1982 in our office. At that time, we had proposals again only from
Southeastern Waste Control Company, Inc., and Clark-Kenith, Inc. The Southeastern
Waste Control Company, Inc. bid was $12,501,697. The Clark-Kenith, Inc. bid was
$13,399,000.
Even though it would appear that Southeastern Waste Control Company, Inc. was
the apparent low bidder, the figures are not directly comparable. First the
Southeastern Waste Control Company's bid excluded sales tax on their base bid
proposal, as was noted on their Proposal Form. The notation on the Proposal
Form is "North Carolina sales tax has not been figured in this proposal. If
sales tax is applicable, prices must be adjusted to reflect same." l~hen
questioned on this matter, they indicated that their base bid did include
appropriate sales taxes on the metal building, the building materials, and
items associated with the construction phase of the project requiring North
Carolina sales tax. They further indi~ated in the answer to our question,
that sales tax and use tax on the machinery which they offered in their
proposal did not have sales tax figured; however, they were willing to state
that the additional charge for sales tax "would not exceed $25,000 for the
project as offered." Ide personally fi nd thi s very hard to bel i eve in that the
machinery portion (that machinery and equipment as furnished by Consumat, Inc.)
probably has a value in the vicinity of $4 to 4.5 million. Assuming the $4
million price, it would appear to us that the sales tax would be in the vicinity
of $160,000. This would only cover the sales tax on the equipment as we
estimate it; however, the proposal did indicate that no sales tax had been
figured. This, therefore, creates an ambiguity in the fact that they stated in
their letter of July 30, in response to our letter of July 21, that sales tax
was included with the exception of $25,000. The Clark-Kenith proposal
included $205,000 for sales tax. Southeastern Waste Control's price also
included pedistal cranes as opposed to bridge cranes which were called for
August 3) 1982
Mr. G. Felix Cooper
Re: New Hanover Solid Waste
Page 2
in the specifications. Although the bridge cranes would cost approximately
$330)000 more than the pedistal cranes, they will provide a much more reliable
and efficient system in that they would be able to cover the entire tipping
floor, or pit area, whereas a pedistal crane would only cover the area between
the two (2) boilers as it would have a 30-foot span in accordance with their
technical submission. If a pedistal crane failed, the only available
method of loading the incinerators would be with the use of Bobcats (front-end
loaders). The bridge cranes require only one operator per shift to handle
waste, whereas the system proposed by Southeastern Waste Control Company would
require 4 to 6 people per shift. The specifications also requested proposals
utilizing a pit-type of construction so that waste would not be piled into a
tipping floor area. It is our opinion that the pits would increase the cost
of their proposal approximately $150,000 over that of the tipping floor, which
is what Southeastern Waste Control proposed in their base bid. The Southeastern
Waste Control proposal also offered only a deionizer on the water treatment, as
opposed to a deionizer and softener. It is our opinion that both the deionizer
and softener system will be required on this project. This would increase their
construction cost approximately $50,000.
Southeastern Waste Control Company further proposed in their base bid, the use
of an air soot blower, versus the steam soot blower as specified. In response
to our questions concerning this item, they indicated that if a steam soot
blower were to be utilized, they would have to add $42,000 to their base bid.
This also would affect the steam guarantee and warranty as is noted on Page 9
of their response to our questions. What they are saying is that the guarantee
on the steam would be lessened, since steam would have to be used for the soot
blower. The Clark-Kenith proposal did include a steam soot blower. Southeastern
Waste Control Company's proposal indicated a sloped roof with a standard metal
building and parapets to hide the sloping and stated that this was a much more
economical system. Their letter also indicates, in response to our Question
#23, that they would have to add an additional $50,000 to their bid price to
provide for thebuilt-uproof. They further indicated in their answer to our
questions, that the roof guarantee would go from 20 years to 2 years for a
built-up roof. The guarantee obviously is only as good as the company providing
such guarantee, and if a rubberized roof was utilized, which is available
at approximately the same cost, we could receive a warranty on the roof versus
a guarantee. The warranty would be much more preferable.
The Invitation to Bid clearly states that, "Bids shall be accompanied by a Bid
Bond in the amount of not less than 5% (five percent) of the base bid." The
Bid Bond submitted by Southeastern Waste Control Company states, "This bid
bond excludes and does not cover any design) installation, perfcr~&nce or
payment involving energy-from-waste equipment to be supplied by Consumat
Systems) Inc., Richmond, Virginia." This is a definite violation of the
bidding intent and is further indication that there could be bonding problems
concerning the job not only from the bid bond standpoint, but also from the
payment and performance bond) which is also required in accordance with the
August 3, 1982
Mr. G. Felix Cooper
Re: New Hanover Solid Waste
Page 3
contract documents. Normally, the payment and performance bond and bid bond
are obtained from the same company and the bid bond price is part of the
payment and performance bond on a project. Since their bid bond had an
exclusion in it, we questioned them concerning this matter, and also concerning
the matter of the full performance bond. Southeastern Waste Control indicated
the bond cost was included in their base bid. They did not respond to our
question concerning whether or not this performance bond on the entire facility
could be provided. At the pre-bid conference, they indicated that both a bid
bond and performance bond could be obtained. We do not know what the value of
that bonding requirement is since they do indicate in their response that it
was included. Utilizing the numbers as outlined above, their bid, instead of
being $12,501,679 would be approximately $13,283,679 to $13,328,679.
The Clark-Kenith bid of $13,399,000 is in accordance with the plans and specifi-
cations with the exception of the insulated metal siding as called for in the
specifications. They would have to add $73,000 to their price so that we
would be looking at comparable bids. This would make their comparable price
$13,472,000. By comparing these adjusted figures, the cost differential
between the two bids would be approximately $188,321, or $143,321 if the
$205,000 were used for sales tax, with Southeastern Waste Control Company
having the low financial proposal.
While it might appear that from the financial standpoint, the Southeastern
Waste Control Company proposal is the low proposal, there are several other
items which must be considered. One of the major concerns was the request for
payments, substantial completion requirements, and the date of commercial
operation. In response to our inquiries, while several exceptions were taken
in the proposal concerning payments and substantial completion, they have
indicated that they would abide by the specifications on these items. They
did, however, state that commercial operation would be defined as, "Having
been obtained when the facility is able to process at least 80% of the
nominal rated capacity over any 5-day period with attendant steam production.
Upon establishment of commercial operation, we expect to be paid on a per-ton
basis for waste processed according to proposed operating contract pricing
schedule." They indicated that a single substantial completion date was
acceptable with a retainage level not in excess of 5% of the contract price at
that time. They also indicated that, "When the facility establishes commercial
operation levels, we expect to be paid our proposed commercial operations
fee. We have in our construction fee, the cost of shake-down training. The
County will not be charged until the plant reaches commercial operatimn levels
as defined in the proposal." Their definition would require that yoU' would .
begin paying at the time the plant reached the 80% capacity in any 5-day period.
This is not in accordance with the contract specifications and could result in
substantial cost to the County. It would also obviously, affect the steam
guarantee in that if Southeastern Waste Control Company ;s only abletro
produce 80% of the guarantee, this would reduce their steam guaranteec from
320,000,000 pounds per year to 256,000,000 pounds per year, not deducti.ng
for other in-house steam usage which has not been clarified to us at this
time.
August 3, 1982
Mr. G. Felix Cooper
Re: New Hanover Solid Waste
Page 4
The following evaluations are made concerning the technical proposals as
submitted by Southeastern Waste Control Company, Inc. and Clark-Kenith, Inc.
To our knowledge, Consumat Systems has never built an 80-ton per day incinerator.
The largest plants using Consumat equipment are 200 tons per day plants
consisting of four 50-ton per day units. Throughout the technical proposal,
Southeastern Waste Control Company indicated the equipment as being "custom
designed", "special", "custom adapted", etc. relating to ash systems, ash
removal systems, boilers, etc. In response to questions concerning this
matter, they indicated that the system was primarily desi gned and manufactured
by Consumat Systems of Richmond, Virginia which would provide a single source
of parts and replacements necessary for the system. That is good in that
there is a single source, however, if that single source were no longer in
business, there would be no source of supply. To cover that, Southeastern
Waste Control Company indicated that most of the fabricated parts could be
easily obtained from other custom fabricators with the as-built drawings to
be provided by Consumat with the facility. They further indicated that many of
the operating parts were by major manufacturers, and have comparable alternatives
available from several sources. That mayor may not be a problem in the
future; however, it should be pointed out at this time that it could be a
potential problem.
Southeastern Waste Control Company did not include a heat or mass balance
diagram with their proposal as required by the specifications. They included
a set of tables and calculations, which did not include the auxiliary fuel that
is required for the operation of their proposed system. This would make the
process energy blance calculations incorrect in Table 4. The operating
assumptions included with the Southeastern Waste Control Company proposal
asGumes the use of 1.25 therms of gas per ton which is equivalent to 1.04 x
10 BTU per hour. This would then indicate an input from waste and natural gas
of 84.34 x 106 BTU per hour which would indicate a less efficient operation
than is shown in their submittal. Historically, the controlled air incineration
units have required auxiliary fuel in the secondary chamber to maintain
temperature.
In the Southeastern Waste Control Company submittal, allowance for operating
the turbine driven boiler feedwater pump which requires 3,000 pounds per hour
of steam was not included.
The energy systems calculations (Table 6 of the Southeastern Waste Control
proposal) would indicate net heat available of 46.1 x 106 BTU per hour with
the corrected heat release of 84.34 x 106 BTU per hour or an efficiency of
54%. S.A. Hathaway, a recognized authority on this type of incinerator with
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, says that the efficiencies of these machines
ranges from 40 to 60%. He also cited that, "Despite claims by manufacturers
and vendors, the controlled air incinerator has yet to demonstrate full load
continuous 24-hour operation over more than 7 days. Therefore, it is probably
imprudentto plan on full unit availability for even short-term use."
August 3, 1982
Mr. G. Felix Cooper
Re: New Hanover Solid Waste
Page 5
Richard Hopper, with Battelle Columbus Labs in a new report, says that the
starved air units (controlled air and starved air are the same) have an
availability of 75% each unit (not overall plant) and require two days each
week for boiler tube cleaning.
Using this data, two days each week for boiler tube cleaning gives an availability
of 71% for each unit. In order for Southeastern Waste Control Company to meet
their steam guarantee of 36,530 pounds per hour, all three boilers would have
to be in operation. The Southeastern Waste Control Company proposal indicates
that the rated maximum steam flow from each boiler at 450 psig, 650oF. is
18,000 pounds per hour. Therefore, the three boilers would have a maximum
rated steam flow of 54,000 pounds per hour or actual production of 16,197
pounds per hour per boiler, or a total of 48,592 pounds per hour (Table 6).
If one unit must be down two days each week, or available 71% of the time,
the average steam flow would be 34,500 pounds per hour. Assuming maximum
utilization and the energy system calculations as shown in Table 6, 3,000
pounds per hour for the feedwater pump, an average of 2,000 pounds per hour for
steam soot blowers, the maximum steam available would be 35,581 pounds per hour,
or if the above availability was considered, 29,500 pounds per hour. This is
consistent with the data furnished by Southeastern Waste Control in their
qualifying information, on the Portsmouth, New Hampshire plant which processes
200 tons per day producing 30,000 pounds per hour a~ 360 psig with no superheat.
The above data would indicate the maximum steam production for export of
approximately 35,581 pounds per hour and 312 million pounds per year for
73,000 tons of solid waste in lieu of that indicated of 36,530 pounds per hour,
320,000,000 pounds per year for 73,000 tons of solid waste. The definition of
commercial operation given in the Southeastern Waste Control Company proposal,
80%'of rated capacity, would give 256,000,000 pounds per year which equates to
29,000 pounds per hour. This is consistent with our findings based on the
above data that on an average, 29,500 pounds per hour would be available.
In our revenue calculations which follow, we will use the 29,000 pounds per
hour as indicated in their proposal.
Southeastern Waste Control Company proposed a demineralizer with carbon filter
and no water softener. They proposed to drill a well on the site and provide
all water needs from this well. The water treatment equipment Southeastern
Waste Control proposed was a Culligan system, but data on equipment, etc. was
not submitted. The Culligan representative was contacted to determine the
technical data for the equipment proposed. He stated the proposed equipment
had 72 cubic feet of cation resin and 78 cubic feet of anion resin. Treating
the well water to the quality stated in the specifications would require
regeneration after 66,000 gallons of water. The system would use 173,493
gallons per day and therefore, the water treatment cost would be $394 per day
or an annual cost of $143,810. This high water treatment cost would affect
the operating cost adversely. With the high solids concentration in the water,
the water treatment people say that the continuous blowdown of 3% stated is
far too low; 10-15% would be more correct. This higher blowdown would further
August 3. 1982
Mr. G. Felix Cooper
Re: New Hanover Solid Waste
Page 6
reduce available steam output from that indicated in their calculations.
This further reduction was not considered in our economic evaluation.
The Clark-Kenith proposal indicated a guaranteed steam output of 46,000 pounds
per hour of steam, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week with a guaranteed
availability of 75%. These numbers are consistent with our calculations using
data supplied with the proposal and with the audited reports from NASA on the
Hampton, Virginia plant. That facility has had an overall availability of
greater than 75% since its commercial operation started more than two years ago.
It should be noted that in the more than two years of operation of the existing
plant in Hampton, Virginia, both boilers have not been out of service at the
same time except for intentional shutdowns. Since one of these boilers can
supply all of the steam (34.000 pounds per hour) dePoortere requires, this
would reduce greatly the need for auxiliary fuel to fire dePoortere's boilers.
Clark-Kenith provided an analysis of energy production in their proposal.
For average operation, supplying 34,000 pounds per hour of steam to dePoortere,
Kenith would generate 1,720 KW of electric power.
The projected revenue from the facility proposed by Clark-Kenith would be
$2.084,880 from steam sales assuming 34.000 pounds per hour for 8,760 hours at
$7.00 per 1,000 pounds, and $629,623.20 x .75 (availability factor) =
$472,217 from electric power sales (using CP & L rate structures) for a total
revenue from sale of steam and electricity of $2,557,097 per year.
The projected revenue from a plant as proposed by Southeastern Wate Control
Company would be $2,084.880 from steam sales assuming 34,000 pounds per hour
for 8,760 hours at $7.00 per 1,000 pounds. This system. however, cannot supply
the 34.000 pounds per hour and would depend upon the standby boiler for 5.000
pounds per hour. This increased cost would be $6.12 per 1,000 pounds x 5 x
8.760, or $268,056 for natural gas to fire the standby boiler. The revenue
derived from the electric power sales would be limited. in this average
case, to power generated by the backpressure turbine, 29,000 pounds per hour.
107 pounds per KW - 271 KW. This would produce $99,228.62 x .75 = $74,421.46.
The total revenue would be $1,891,249.
~ ..~
It should be pointed out that these revenue projections are idealized in an
effort to provide an equitable picture of the revenue potential from the
facilities proposed by each bidder. The difference in revenue between the
two systems is $665,848 with the Clark-Kenith system producing the greatest
revenue.
We also evaluated the operation proposals from both Southeastern Waste Control
Company, Inc. and Clark-Kenith, Inc. that was presented with their bids as
part of their proposal.
Southeastern Waste Control Company's original proposal was quoted as $775,836
with the additional requirement that the County would pay for a Weigh Clerk
August 3. 1982
Mr. G. Felix Cooper
Re: ew Hanover Solid Waste
Page 7
which would be on the County payroll, however, be under the supervlslon of
Southeastern Waste Control. In addition, Southeastern ~~aste Control would
require $8.00 per ton for any waste over 200 tons per day (73,000 tons per
year) and their price did not include any major "repairs, refurbishing, or
replacement in excess of $5,000." In evaluating the proposals, we asked
them to respond by completing the proposal form which was included in the
specifications. When completing the form and answering other questions.
their price was changed from $775,836 to $907,836, plus the same $8.00 per
ton for all waste processed over 200 tons per day. It should also be noted
that they have requested that this would be handled on a monthly basis. and
therefore, would not allow for seasonal fluctuation. It could mean that during
the peak seasons where you would be processing more than 200 tons per day, you
would be paying for that at the rate of $8.00 per ton over the 200 tons
per day, whereas on lighter months where you would not be processing the 200
tons per day, you would still be paying the same operational costs for that
minimum 200 ton per day processing. It would be better if this was handled on
a per year basis, than on a per day basis, and paid on a monthly basis. The
Clark-Kenith proposal did not list any additional processing fee.
A comparison of the operating proposals was made in order to try to get as even
a comparison as possible for the operational costs.
SOUTHEASTERN WASTE CONTROL
CLARK-KENITH
Base Bid
Water Treatment
Per sonne 1 (21)
Equipment Replacement
Insurance
$907,836
+143,810
-297,660
- 97,500
- 4,000
$652,486
Gas
$1,880,660
-336.000
-578,550
-340,000
- 37,500
$ 588,610
From the above tabulation. it can be seen that in trying to make an equitable
comparison. we deducted the personnel costs from both proposals in the same
amount that they had presented. It is our opinion that since both presented
21 people, that those persons could be hired for the same amount, regardless of
which operator was operating the plant. We also deducted equipment replacement
from both bids in the same amount of money as they had appropriated. The
Southeastern Waste Control Company proposal indicates $1.25 per ton as the
normal procedure whereas, industry standards seems to be 2-1/2% of capital cost.
In order to make equitable comparisons, we deducted only the amount included in
each bidderls proposal. The other item which we deducted out was the insurance
requirements. It is obvious that from the proposals, that the parties cannot
be bidding equitably on insurance. especially when one price is $4.000 and
the other price is $37,500. By deducting these insurance amounts and then
getting firm bids on exact coverages, these two items should approach each other.
We further added to Southeastern Waste Control IS operating price. $143,810,
August 3, 1982
Mr. G. Felix Cooper
Re: New Hanover Solid Waste
Page 8
which in our oplnlon, is what would be necessary in order to cover water
treatment since they proposed to use well water. This is explained in the
technical evaluation preceding. We also deducted from C1ark-Kenith1s proposal
$336,000, which they had indicated was for gas in order to maintain dePoorteres
boilers. They do not need any gas in order to maintain their system during
normal operations.
We feel with these deductions and additions, this in fact, makes the two
operating proposals comparable. With this comparison, the C1ark-Kenith
proposal would be adjusted to $588,610 per year, where the Southeastern Waste
Control proposal would be $652,486 per year. This does not include any costs
for gas for Southeastern Waste Control Company's steam guarantee over the
$15,000 which was included in their proposal. From our calculations, as
indicated above, it is our opinion that this would be in the vicinity of
$268,056 versus the $15,000 as they have.indicated in their proposal; however,
since calculations are idealistic, we did not include the additional fuel
cost in this particular comparison.
In summary, the Southeastern Waste Control Company proposal would result in
an initial construction cost savings of $143,321 to $188,321. The plant, as
pr.oposed by C1ark-Kenith, Inc. would generate $665,848 per year more in
revenues and the C1ark-Kenith operations proposal would save the County
approximately $63,876 per year.
Based on our evaluation of the proposals as submitted, the answers to questions,
data gathered, and the information as presented, it is our recommendation that
the County enter into contract negotiations with C1ark-Kenith, Inc.
Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to
contact us. We are willing to meet with you and the Commission at any time
to discuss this.
Very truly yours,
CAMPBELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
~~~-
~ John F. Germ, P. E.
~~;J?6
Stanton M. Peters, P. E.
JFG-SMP/db
:::
. @ CAMPBELL 6
A ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
701 EASf FOUlITH STREET
CHAlTAl'lOOGA. TN 37403
615.267.9718
JOHN F. GERM, P.E.
PRESJOENr
. PAUL R. MITCHEll.. P,E.
VICE-I'RF.5Il,HIT
FRED E. KEITH, P.E.
5ECRETARY
IlONAlD G SHUTI1.E, P.E.
PllOlECr MAwa:R
September 17, 1982
Mr. G. Felix Cooper
County Manager
New Hanover County
320 Chestnut Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
Dear Fe 1 i x:
SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE ENERGY RECOVERY FACILITY FOR
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
As a result of our evaluation dated August 3, 1982, covering the proposals on
the above subject project and questions raised by one of the proposing
companies, a meeting was held on Friday, September 10, 1982 in Charlotte,
North Carolina where repre$entatives of Southeastern Waste Control, Consumat,
Inc., New Hanover County, and Campbell & Associates were present to discuss
out evaluation.
During the meeting, it was pointed out that the steam supply data which was
tabulated in the technical evaluation sheets, which were submitted with the
proposal, were incorrect. This would make a difference in our evaluation.
Several other items were pointed out and clarification was asked for during
the meeting.
The attached Technical Evaluation is a result of the new data and information
which was obtained during that meeting.
Should you have any questions concerning 'this matter, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Very truly yours,
~erm~. ~/LJ
CAMPBELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
JFG/db
Encl.
<,'
SOLID WASTE ENERGY RECOVERY FACILITY
FOR
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TECHNICAL EVALUATION
Proposals on the above subject project were accepted in our office at 2:00 p.m.,
EDT, July 1, 1982 in accordance with the Invitation to Bid. As the result of
there being only two (2) companies who submitted proposals, i.e., Southeastern
Waste Control Company, Inc., ann C1ark-Kenith, Inc. the bids were not opened
and a re~advertising took place with the new proposals beihg accepted on
July 12, 1982 in our office. At that time, we had proposals again only from
Southeastern Waste Control Company, Inc., and Clark-Kenith, Inc. The
Southeastern Waste Control Company, Inc. bid was $12,501,697. The C1ark-
Kenith, Inc. bid was $13,399,000.
Even though it would appear that Southeastern Waste Control Company, Inc. was
the apparent low bidder, the figures are not directly comparable. First, the
Southeastern Waste Control Company's bid excluded sales tax on their Base Bid
proposal, as was noted on their Proposal Form. The notation on the Proposal
Form is "North Carolina sales tax has not been figured in this proposal. If
sales tax is applicable, prices must be adjusted to reflect same." When
questioned on this matter, they indicated that their base bid did include
appropriate sales tax on the metal building, the building materials, and
items associated with the construction phase of the project requiring North
Carolina sales tax. They further indicated in the answer to our question,
that sales tax and use tax on the machinery which they offered in their
proposal did not have sales tax figured; however, they were willing to state
that the additional charge for sales tax, "would not exceed $25,000 for the
project as offered." This, therefore, creates an ambiguity in the fact that
they stated in their letter of July 30, in response to our letter of July 21,
that sales tax was included with the exception of $25,000. The Clark-Kenith
proposal included $205,000 for sales tax. Southeastern Waste Control's price
also included pedistal cranes as opposed to bridge cranes which were called for
in the specifications. Although the bridge cranes would cost approximately
$330,000 more than the pedistal cranes, they will provide a much more reliable
and efficient system in that they would be able to cover the entire tipping
floor, or pit area, whereas a pedista1 crane would only cover the area between
the two (2) boilers as it would have a 30-foot span in accordance with their
technical submission. If a pedista1 crane failed, the only available method
of loading the incinerators would be with the use of "Bobcats" (front-end
loaders). The bridge cranes require only one (l) operator per shift to handle
waste, whereas, the system proposed by Southeastern Waste Control Company would
require four to six (4-6) people per shift. The specifications also requested
proposals utilizing a pit-type of construction so that waste would not be
piled into a tipping floor area. It is our opinion that the pits would increase
the cost of their proposal approximately $150,000 over that of the tipping
floor, which is what Southeastern Waste Control proposed in their Base Bid.
The Southeastern Waste Control proposal also offered only a deiontzer on the
water treatment, as opposed to a deionizer and softener. Clark-Kenith included
the cost of the softener system which was $50,000.
Technical Evaluation
Page 2
Southeastern Waste Control Company further proposed in their Base Bid, the use
of an air soot blower, versus the steam soot blower as specified. In response
to our questions concerning this item, they indicated that if a steam soot
blower were to be utilized, they would have to add $42,000 to their Base Bid.
This also would affect the steam guarantee and warranty as is noted on Page 9
of their response to our questions. What they are saying is that the guarantee
on the steam would be lessened, since steam would have to be used for the soot
blower. The Clark-Kenith proposal did include a steam soot blower.
Southeastern Waste Control Company's proposal indicated a sloped roof with a
standard metal building and parapets to hide the sloping and stated that this
was a much more economical system. Their letter also indicates, in response
to our Question #23, that they would have to add an additional $50,000 to their
Bid price to provide for the built-up roof. They further indicated in their
answer to our questions that the roof guarantee would go from 20 years to 2
years for a built-up roof. The guarantee obviously is only as good as the
company providing such guarantee, and if a rubberized roof was utilized, which
is available at approximately the same cost, we could receive a warranty on the
roof versus a guarantee. The warranty would be much more preferable.
The Invitation to Bid clearly states that, "Bids shall be accompanied by a Bid
Bond in the amount of not less than 5% (five percent) of the Base Bid." The
Bid Bond submitted by Southeastern Waste Control Company states, "This Bid
Bond exlcludes and does not cover any design, installation, performance or
payment involving energy-from-waste equipment to be supplied by Consumat
Systems, Inc., Richmond, Virginia." This is a definite violation of the
bidding intent and is further indication that there could be bonding problems
concerning the job, not only from the Bid Bond standpoint, but also from the
Payment and Performance Bond, which is also required in accordance with the
contract documents. Normally, the Payment and Performance Bond and Bid Bond
are obtained from the same company and the Bid Bond price is part of the
Payment and Performance Bond on a project. Since their Bid Bond had an
exclusion in it, we questioned them concerning this matter, and also concerning
the matter of the full Performance Bond. Southeastern Waste Control indicated
the Bond cost was included in their Base Bid. They did not respond to our
question concerning whether or not this Performance Bond on the entire facility
could be provided. At the Pre-Bid Conference, they indicated that both a Bid
Bond and Performance Bond could be obtained. We do not know what the value of
that bonding requirement is since they do indicate in their response that it
was included. Utilizing the numbers as outlined above, their bid, instead of
being $12,501,679 would be approximately $13,073,679.
The Clark-Kenith bid of $13,399,000 is in accordance with the plans and specifi-
cations with the exception of the insulated metal siding as called for in the
specifications. They would have to add $73,000 to their price so that we
would be looking at comparable bids. In addition, to make the bids comparable,
the~05,OOO tax and $50,000 for the softener should be subtracted from the
Clark-Kenith bid. This would make their comparable price $13,217,000. By
comparing these adjusted figures, the cost differential between the two bids
would be approximately $143,321 with Southeastern Waste Control Company having
the low financial proposal.
While it might appear that from the financial standpoint, the Southeastern
Waste Control Company proposal is the low proposal, there are several other
Technical Evaluation
Page 3
Items which must be considered. One of the major concerns was the request for
payments, substantial completion requirements, and the date of commercial
operation. In response to our' inquiries, while several exceptions were taken
in the proposal concerning payments and substantial completion, they have
indicated that they would abide by the specifications on these items. They
did, however, state that commercial operation would be defined as, "Having
been obtained when the facility is able to process at least 80% of the
nominal rated capacity over any 5-day period with attendant steam production.
Upon establishment of commercial operation, we expect to be paid on a per-ton
basis for waste processed according to proposed operating contract pricing
schedule." They indicated that a single substantial completion date was
acceptable with a retainage level not in excess of 5% of the contract price at
that time. They also indicated that, "When the facility establishes commercial
operation levels, we expect to be paid our proposed commercial operations
fee. We have in our construction fee, the cost of shake-down training. The
County will not be charged until the plant reaches commercial operation levels
as defined in the proposal." Their definition would require that you would
begin paying at the time the plant reached the 80% capacity in any 5-day period.
This is not in accordance with the contract specifications and could result in
substantial cost to the County. It would also, obviously, affect the steam
guarantee in that if Southeastern Waste Control Company is only able to produce
80% of the guarantee, this would reduce their steam guarantee from 320,000,000
pounds per year to 256,000,000 pounds per year, not deducting for other in-house
steam usage which has not been clarified to us at this time.
The following evaluations are made concerning the technical proposals as
submitted by Southeastern Waste Control Company, Inc. and Clark-Kenith, Inc.
To our knowledge, Consumat Systems has never built an 80-ton per day incinerator.
The largest plants using Consumat equipment are 200 ton per day plants con-
sisting of four 50-ton per day units. Throughout the technical proposal,
Southeastern Waste Control Company indicated the equipment as being "custom
designed", "special", "custom adapted", etc. relating to ash systems, ash
ash removal systems, boilers, etc. In response to questions concerning this
matter, they indicated that the system was primarily designed and manufactured
by Consumat Systems of Richmond, Virginia which would provide a single source
of parts and replacements necessary for the system. That is good in that
there is a single source, however, if that single source were no longer in
business, there would be no source of supply. To cover that, Southeastern
Waste Control Company indicated that most of the fabricated parts could be
easily obtained from other custom fabricators with the as-built drawings to
be provided by Consumat with the facility. They further indicated that many
of the operating parts were by major manufacturers, and have comparable
alternatives available from several sources. That mayor may not be a
problem in the future; however, it would be pointed out at this time that
it could be a potential problem.
Southeastern Waste Control Company did not include a heat or mass balance diagram
with their proposal as required by the specifications. They included a set of
tables and calculations. Their calculations were made without the use of
auxiliary fuel. Historically, the controlled air incineration units have required
auxiliary fuel in the secondary chamber to maintain temperature.
Technical Evaluation
Page 4
'.
In the Southeastern Waste Control Company submittal, allowance for operating
the turbine driven boiler feedwater pump, which requires up to 3,000 pounds
per hour of steam, was not included.
The energy systems calculations (Table 6 of the Southeastern Waste Control
Company proposal) would indicate net heat available of 46.1 x 106 BTU per hour
with the corrected heat release of 84.34 x 106 BTU per hour, or an efficiency
of 54%.
Information from several sources and the operating histories of Consumat plants
indicate that all of the existing plants are 5-day operations. We were informed
at a later meeting, that a small (50 TPD) plant in South Carolina, which
commenced operations in 1981 and a new 200 TPD plant which started in July 1982,
are 7-day per week, 24 hours per day operations. However, these systems have
not proven that 80 TPD systems can operate successfully 24 hours per day, 7
days per week over a long period of time, especially with the history of the
type of boilers used in the Consumat systems requiring shutdowns for cleaning
each week.
In a meeting with SEWC after the proposals had been reviewed, they stated that
the maximum steam flow would be approximately 25,000 pounds per hour, per boiler.
Assuming this information is correct, then Southeastern Waste Control would,
in fact, be able to meet their steam guarantees with only two boilers in
operation if all three of their incinerator systems were operational. If,
as their data showed, the boilers had only a 18,000 pounds per hour capacity,
then they would have to have all three boilers in operation in order to meet
the steam guarantees. It should be pointed out that no Consumat system to
date has given a steam guarantee as high as the proposal submitted on this
project. They have built two plants with 200 TPD capacities; one has a
guarantee of 30,000 pounds per hour at 360 PSIG saturated, and the other
30,000 pounds per hour at 300 PSIG with a modest amount of superheat. The
latter plant is a 5-day per week operation. Also, Consumat systems has never
built a plant which had the superheat required for efficient steam turbine
generator operation, which is an essential requirement for this project.
The above data would indicate the maximum steam production for export of
approximately 35,581 pounds per hour and 312 million pounds per year for
73,000 tons of solid waste in lieu of that indicated of 36,530 pounds per hour,
320,000,000 pounds per year for 73,000 tons of solid waste. The definition of
IIcommercial operationll given in the Southeastern Waste Control Company proposal,
80% of rated capacity, would give 256,000,000 pounds per year which equates to
29,000 pounds per hour. This is closer to the guarantees on the other 200
TPD Consumat plants than their guarantee for this project.
Southeastern Waste Control Company proposed a demineralizer with carbon filter
and no water softener. They proposed to drill a well on the site and provide
all water needs from this well. The water treatment equipment Southeastern
Waste Control proposed was a Culligan system, but data on equipment, etc. was
not submitted. The Culligan representative was contacted to determine the
technical data for the equipment proposed. He stated the proposed equipment
had 72 cubic feet of cation resin and 78 cubic feet of anion resin. Treating
the well water to the quality stated in the specifications would require
Techanical Evaluation
Page 5
~
regeration after 66,000 gallons of water. The system would use 116,240 gallons
per day and therefore, the water treatment cost would be $264 per day or an
annual cost of $96,352. This high water treatment cost would affect the
operating cost adversely. With the high solids concentration in the water,
the water treatment pepople say that the continuous blowdown of 3% stated is
far too low; 10-15% would be more correct. This higher blowdown would further
reduce available steam output from that indicated in their calculations.
This further reduction was not considered in our economic evaluation.
The Clark-Kenith proposal indicated a guaranteed steam output of 46,000 pounds
per hour of steam, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week with a guaranteed
availability of 75%. These numbers are consistent with our calculations using
data supplied with the proposal and with the audited reports from NASA on the
Hampton, Virginia plant. That facility has had an overall availability of
greater than 75% since its commercial operation stated more than two years ago.
It should be noted that in the more than 2 years of operation of the existing
plant in Hampton, Virginia, both boilers have not been out of service at the
same time except for intentional shutdowns. Since one of these boilers can
supply all of the steam (34,000 pounds per hour) dePoortere requires, this
would reduce greatly the need for auxiliary fuel to fire dePoortere's boilers.
The Clark-Kenith system, when providing 34,000 pounds of steam per hour to
dePoortere, would have 12,000 pounds per hour of steam available for the
condensing turbine, which would produce 750 KW and the backpressure turbine
would produce 350 KW for a total of 1,100 KW.
The projected revenue from the facility proposed by Clark-Kenith would be
$2,084,880 from steam sales, assuming 34,000 pounds per hour for 8,760 hours
at $7.00 per 1,000 pounds, and $447,032.47 x .75 (availability factor) =
$335,Z74 from electric power sales (using CP & L rate structures) for a total
revenue from sales of steam and electricity of $2,420,154.
The projected revenue from a plant as proposed by Southeastern Waste Control
Company would be $2,084,880 from steam sales assuming 34,000 pounds per hour
for 8,760 hours at $7.00 per 1,000 pounds. The revenue derived from the
electric power sales would be limited, in this average cost, to power generated
by the backpressure turbine, 29,000 pounds per hour ~ 107 pounds per KW - 271 KW.
This would produce $99,228.62 x .75 = $74,421,46. The total revenue would be
$2,159,305.
It should be pointed out that these revenue projections are idealized in an
effort to provide an equitable picture of the revenue potential from the
facilities proposed by each bidder. The difference in revenue between the
two systems is $260,849 with the Clark-Kenith system producing the greatest
revenue.
In summary, the Southeastern Waste Control Company proposal would result in an
initial construction cost savings of $143,321. The plant, as proposed by
Clark-Kenith, Inc. would generate $260,849 more in revenues each year.
Based on our evaluation of the proposals as submitted, the answers to questions,
data gathered, and the information as presented, it is our recommendation that
the County enter into contract with Clark-Kenith, Inc.
~
SOLID WASTE ENERGY RECOVERY FACILITY
FOR
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
OPERATION EVALUATION
We also evaluated the operation proposals from both Southeastern Waste Control
Company, Inc. and C1ark-Kenith, Inc. that was presented with their bids as
part of their proposal.
Southeastern Waste Control Company's original proposal was quoted as $775,836
with the additional requirement that the County would pay for a Weigh Clerk
who would be on the County payroll, however, be under the supervision of
Southeastern Waste Control. In addition, Southeastern Waste Control would
require $8.00 per ton for any waste over 200 tons per day (73,000 tons per
year) and their price did not include any major "repairs, refurbishing, or
replacement in excess of $5,000." In evaluating the proposals, we asked
them to respond by completing the proposal form which was included in the
specifications. When completing the form and answering other questions,
their price was changed from $775,836 to $907,836, plus the same $8.00 per
ton for all waste processed over 200 tons per day. It should also be noted
that they have requested that this would be handled on a monthly basis, and
therefore, would not allow for seasonal fluctuation. It could mean that during
the peak seasons where you would be processing more than 200 tons per day, you
would be paying for that at the rate of $8.00 per ton over the 200 tons per
day, whereas, on lighter months where you would not be processing the 200 tons
per day, you would still be paying the same operational costs for that minimum
200 ton per day processing. It would be better if this was handled on a per
year basis, than on a per day basis, and paid on a monthly basis. The C1ark-
Kenith proposal did not list any additional processing fee.
A comparison of the operating proposals was made in order to try to get as even
a comparison as possible for the operational costs.
Base Bid
Water Treatment
Personne 1 (21)
Equipment Replacement
Insurance
SOUTHEASTERN WASTE CONTROL
$907,836
+96,352
-297,660
- 97,500
- 4,000
$605,028
CLARK-KENITH
$1,880,660
Gas -336,000
-578,550
-340,000
- 37,500
$ 588,610
From the above tabulation, it can be seen that in trying to make an equitable
comparison, we deducted the personnel costs from both proposals in the same
amount that they ~a9 presented. It is our opinion that since both presented
21 people, that those persons could be hired for the same amount,'regardless of
which operator was operating the plant. We also deducted equipment replacement
Operation Evaluation
Page 2
}.
from both bids in the same amount of money as they had appropriated. The
Southeastern Waste Control Company proposal indicates $1.25 per ton as the
normal procedure whereas, industry standards seems to be 2-1/2% of capital
cost. In order to make equitable comparisons, we deducted only the amount
included in each bidder's proposal. The other item which we deducted was the
insurance requirements. It is obvious that from the proposals, that the parties
cannot be bidding equitably on insurance, especially when one price is $4,000
and the other price is $37,500. By deducting these insurance amounts and then
getting firm bids on exact coverages, these two items should approach each other.
We further added to Southeastern Waste Control's operating price $96,352 which,
in our opinion, is what would be necessary in order to cover water treatment
since they proposed to use well water. This is explained in the technical
evaluation preceding. We also deducted from Clark-Kenith's proposal $336,000,
which they had indicated was for gas in order to maintain dePoortere's boilers.
They do not need any gas in order to maintain their system during normal
operations.
We feel with these deductions and additions this, in fact, makes the two
operating proposals comparable. With this comparison, the Clark-Kenith
proposal would be adjusted to $588,610 per year, where the Southeastern Waste
Control proposal would be $605,028 per year. Since questions were raised
concerning the deductions and additions as outlined above, we have contacted
plants, and to the best of our ability, tried to establish a realistic
operating cost. We believe the following to be a realistic approach.
Sumner County, Tennessee
Administration]
20 people
Plant Salaries]
Insurance
Maintenance
Vehicles
Electric
Water
Other
$ 52,171
369,041
27,500
96,000
35,484
130,000
50,500
54,132
$814,828
The above obtained from plant records based on August 1982 expenditures and
budget.
Hampton, Virginia
(27 people)
Administrative Cost
Labor
Miscellaneous
Insurance
Util iti es
Maintenance
$ 65,730
483,203 '
48,536
32,000
76,827
150,000
$856,296
Operation Evaluation
Page 3
'i-
City of Hampton, Virginia
Pay Scales
Tit 1 e
Manager (Ml7)
Chief Assistant (M15)
Administrative Clerk (M04)
Shift Supervisor (M13)
Operator (T15)
Assistant Operator (Tl0)
Crane Operator (T12)
Maintenance Supervisor (T13)
Maintenance Mechanic (T15)
Material Control (Cll)
Pay Scale
$23,613 - $34,475
$21,026 - $30,278
$10,182 - $13,848
$18,747 - $26,621
$14,431 - $20,182
$11 ,31 7 - $15, 168
$12,489 - $17,034
$18,747 - $26,621
$14,431 -$20,182
$11,228 - $15,157
City of Salem, Virginia
12 People
100-ton per day plant, 5-day operation
Salaries
Fringe Benefits
Maint. of Auto Equip.
Mai~t. of Facility
Ash Removal
Telephone Services
Electric, Water & Sewer
Fuel
General Liability Insurance
Office Supplies
Materi a 1 s
Uniforms
Safety Equipment
Travel & Training
Miscellaneous
Lease of Equipment
$199,053.59
36,570.64
27,741.41
108,459.69
6,437.15
1,337.04
58,164.21
23,280.97
3,591.91
1 , 1 94. 1 5
11 ,941.70
529.16
1,604.40
0.00
5,998.51
4,331.90
$490,236.00
.
Operation Evaluation
Page 4
'"
Nashville Thermal Transfer Corp.
800-ton per day
7 days per week, 24 hours per day
Production
Distribution
Accounting, Collection, etc.
Administration & General
$2,395,670
35,359
6,500
338,353
$2,775,882
From the above, it is our recommendation that New Hanover County give strong
consideration to operating this facility with their own personnel.
~