Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-12-12 Special Meeting MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1988, ( CONTINUED) " :347 MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING, DECEMBER 12, 1988 I ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners met in Special Session on Monday, December 12, 1988, at 9:00 A.M. in the 5th Floor Conference Room of the New Hanover County Administration Building, 320 Chestnut Street, Wilmington, North Carolina. Members present were: Commissioners W. Albert Corbett, Jr.; E. L. Mathews, Jr.; Vice Chairman, Nolan O'Neal; Chairman, Fred Retchin; County Manager, G. Felix Cooper; County Attorney, Robert W. Pope; and Clerk to the Board, Lucie F. Harrell. Commissioner Barfield was absent due to illness. Chairman Retchin called the meeting to order stating the purpose of the Special Session was to hear presentations from consultants for a third-party review of the concept and financial plan for expansion of the Steam Plant. I Director of Engineering & Facilities, Ed Hilton, presented a brief overview of the proposed expansion stating in the Spring of 1987, the Solid Waste Task Force, after six months of study and review, recommended expansion of the existing Steam Plant. Dr. Stanton Peters was hired to perform a feasibility study and in the winter of 1987/88, Dr. Peters recommended an expansion of the existing plant. The County pursued the COP's method of financing the project which proved to be unacceptable; therefore, a general obligation bond referendum was held in November 1988 with passage of the proposed expansion by a 2 to 1 vote. Director Hilton stated Bond Counsel has indicated that a third-party review of the financial plan as presented by Stanton M. Peters & Associates, Inc. would be beneficial to the them in working with the bond underwriters for issuance and sale of the general obligation bonds. He stated the Commissioners will be requested to decide if an independent engineering firm should review the financial plan as presented and if so, the firm selected should be informed that the scope of service is limited to the third-party review with no additional services required. PRESENTATION BY STANTON M. PETERS & ASSOCIATES Dr. Stanton M. Peters expressed appreciation to the Board for allowing his firm to present the plan and financial package for expansion of the Steam Plant. The fOllowing key issues were presented and discussed: 1. Project Status 2. Cost Estimate Summary 3. Project Schedule 4. Project Organization 5. Basis of Design 6. Preliminary Drawings I Dr. Peters stated the goal of the project has been to design a state-of-the-art plant which will include the latest technology in the incineration of solid waste to meet present and anticipated environmental regulations by federal, state, and local agencies. Discussion was held on the method of procurement. Dr. Peters stated the method selected for the existing plant and proposed expansion is called the "design build public ownership" method. Under this procurement process, the County is allowed to purchase the maj or equipment installed and erected with full guarantees to the County. Also, under this procurement method a substantial amount of money will be saved since the County can purchase the equipment for the same price as a contractor and eliminate the contractor's markup. ~ 348 MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING, DECEMBER 12, 1988 (CONTINUED) Discussion was held on the cost estimate. summary was presented: General Contract, Building, Concrete etc. Mechanical/Plumbing Electrical Instrumentation Major Equipment Engineering & Contract Administration Estimated Project Cost contingency Total Estimated Project Cost The following $ 3,776,328 1,208,620 800,000 1,100,000 15,170,800 2,300,000 24,568,989 250,000 $24,818,989 Dr. Peters stated he is very comfortable with the projected cost and encouraged the Commissioners to begin construction as soon as possible stating the past six-months delay has cost the County approximately $600,000. He stated the first phase of the project will be to develop an updated weekly schedule containing approximately 500 to 1,000 line items recording time, resources, and cost for each item. The updated schedule will accurately reflect the amount of money and time spent weekly to provide an accurate comparison to budgeted figures. Once major equipment is bid, procurement packages will be developed for each piece of equipment with no issuance of purchase orders until bids have been accepted for major items. He stated the purchase of major equipment represents 60% of the expansion cost; therefore, if figures are accurate at this point the estimated cost should be correct. Dr. Peters stated bids on major equipment will be awarded in June, 1989, which will provide a direct comparison of projected costs. Discussion was held on the importance of a third-party review in order to satisfy Bond Counsel and the Bond Underwriters. County Manager Cooper recommended Dr. Peters appearing before Bond Counsel making a presentation on the cost estimate. After further discussion of the scope limi ted to the review only, County Manager authorizing Dr. Peters to proceed with the work as proposed while the third-party review of services being Cooper recommended preliminary design is being performed. Chairman Retchin thanked Dr. presentation. Peters for an excellent PRESENTATION BY R. W. BECK & ASSOCIATES Mr. Jeffrey F. Clunie, Partner and Director of Solid Waste Management Consulting Services for R. W. Beck & Associates, introduced Mr. Albert B. Malmsjo, III, Executive Engineer of the firm who presented and discussed the following key issues: 1. Introduction to the firm 2. Proposed Scope of Services 3. Schedule and Cost Estimate Mr. Malmsjo stated an independent engineering review will answer the following questions: 1. municipal solid disposal the future? municipal solid waste What are the requirements in --Analysis of generation. --Projection of future quantities. 2. Is the planned expansion adequate, too large, or too small? --Determine County goals/objectives. --Analyze expansion utilization, short and long-term. --Determine impact of municipal solid waste quantity variations, monthly and long-term. --Impact of other programs (recycling, composting) . ~ o n o MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING, DECEMBER 12, 1988 (CONTINUED) 349 ., 3. Is the proposed timing of the addition appropriate? --Life cycle cost comparison of alternate schedule options. I 4. Are estimated costs reasonable? --Review costs considered for interfacing with existing facility. --Ensure all major cost items are included. --Determine if reasonable unit costs have been used. --Evaluate level of contingency. --Determine adequacy of schedule. 5. How does the expansion compare with our alternatives? --Life cycle cost comparison of other practical alternatives. --Integration of alternatives. --Effect of options on landfill life. Mr. Clunie stated the scope of services discussed can be performed within 30 days after receipt of required information from the County. He stated based on a 30-day project schedule, the cost for performing the work is estimated at $30,000 or less. County Manager Cooper asked Mr. Clunie if he was comfortable with performing the review only and not becoming involved with other aspects of the project. Mr. Clunie stated ~as completely satisfied with this procedure. .~ I Mr. Clunie expressed appreciation to the Commissioners for allowing the firm of R. W. Beck & Associates to present their proposal stating the firm is very interested in performing this third-party review for New Hanover County. Chairman Retchin thanked Mr. Clunie and Mr. Malmsjo for an excellent presentation. BREAK Chairman Retchin recessed the meeting for a break from 11:00 o'clock A.M. to 11:09 o'clock A.M. PRESENTATION BY CRS SIRRINE, INC. Mr. Alan G. Smith, Director of Business Development for CRS Sirr ine, Inc. introduced Mr. Tom Johnson, Proj ect Manager; and Mr. Larry Wann, Power Engineer. He expressed appreciation to the Commissioners for-allowing CRS Sirrine to present their proposal and presented slides discussing the following key issues: 1. Introduction of the firm 2. Scope of Services 3. Organization of the firm 4. Experience 5. Compensation 6. Summary of Benefits 'I Mr. Smith commented on the concept of the present plan and recommended utilization of a technical advisor to assist with the project in order to review drawings; verify amount of payments; review schedules; review costs changes; and witness performance tests to ensure that the system is ready to turn over to New Hanover County. Chairman Retchin commented on utilization of a technical advisor stating the County is comfortable with Dr. Peter's ability and background in monitoring the project. County Manager Cooper stated Ed Hilton, Director of Engineering & Facilities, is quite competent in this area and can provide the expertise needed to oversee the project. Mr. Smith stated he was not aware that Mr. Hilton was so highly qualified. He expressed appreciation to ~ 35'0 MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING, DECEMBER 12, 1988 (CONTINUED) the Commissioners for allowing his firm to present their proposal. BREAK Chairman Retchin recessed the meeting for a break from 11:45 o'clock A.M. to 11:50 o'clock A.M. APPROVAL OF THIRD-PARTY REVIEW TO BE PERFORMED BY R. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES After discussion of the benefits of a third-party review, Vice-Chairman O'Neal MOVED, SECONDED by Commissioner Corbett to n award the contract to R. W. Beck and Associates to perform the review as presented within 30 days at a cost not to exceed I,. $30,000, and to authorize Stanton M. Peters & Associates to proceed with development of design plans during the time of review. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED AS FOLLOWS: Voting Aye: Commissioner Corbett Commissioner Mathews Vice-Chairman O'Neal Chairman Retchin Absent: Commissioner Barfield DISCUSSION OF RETREAT Chairman Retchin commented on a proposed retreat stating options have been presented to the Commissioners with reference to dates and places. After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to review the options presented and discuss the retreat at the meeting scheduled for December 19, 1988. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Corbett MOVED, SECONDED by Vice-Chairman O'Neal to adjourn. Upon vote, the MOTION CARRIED AS FOLLOWS: Voting Aye: Commissioner Corbett Commissioner Mathews Vice-Chairman O'Neal Chairman Retchin it L j' Absent: Commissioner Barfield Chairman Retchin adjourned the meeting at 12:20 o'clock P.M. r:3ec~? ;~d. ~. Harrell Clerk to the Board n l ~ \ ',,- -