My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/02/1993 Meeting Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Minutes
>
1993
>
01/02/1993 Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/16/2014 8:41:04 AM
Creation date
1/9/2014 7:12:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
North Olmsted Legislation
Legislation Date
1/2/1993
Year
1993
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Council Minutes of 3/2/93 <br />e. Ordinance No. 93-20, which is on second reading. This ordinance provides for <br />the adoption of a new and revised Chapter 1309 of the Codified Ordinances <br />entitled "National Electric Code." The Code has been updated., and in order to <br />stay in compliance, this legislation must be passed. The Committee had no <br />objections. <br />Mr. McKay, Chairperson of the Envirors~ntal Control Committee, reported: 1) The <br />Environmental. and Legislative Coinnittees held a joint meeting on Wednesday, <br />February 24. In attendance waere Council M~nbera Babas, Lind, Ns~shar, McKay; <br />Service Director Bohlmarin; City Engineer Deichmann. The following legislation <br />was discussed: <br />a. Ordinance Nos. 93-16 and 93-17 which provide for the entering into contracts <br />with engineering firms to provide services for the Wastewater Treatment Plant. <br />The Ohio Public Works Ccxsmmisson has approved aninterest-free loan of $2,758,204 <br />for this project. The plant is being updated dhe to EPA regulations. Part of the <br />updating involves the ccrostructi.on of an unloading station to separate materials <br />collected by the street sweepers and the Vac Alls that clean out severs. <br />Although Malcolm Pirnie Inc. did not submit the lowest bid, they were dlosen ass <br />the primary engineering firm because of past performsance and knowledge of EPA <br />regulations. The presentation of bids can be misleading because each firm <br />presents their charges in a different mariner. Therefore, Mr. BoY has agreed. <br />to explain the choice of Malcolm Pi.rnie. Mayor Boyle emphasized the fact that <br />due to the variances in presentation of charges, it is possible that Malcolm <br />Picnic's bid could be the lowest. Mr. Bohlmarin stated that Malcolm Pirnie was <br />the best overall engineering firm for the Wastewater Treatment Plant project <br />because of several reasons: <br />a. The R. E. Warner bid did not itemize all costs on the proposal. The <br />geotechnical aryl sub-consulting services were not listed among the basic services <br />but were listed on a separate page of the proposal at a cost +15% with the <br />appearance that this could be an additional cost to the city. <br />b. The city had requested a proposal such that the design would be split into <br />packages so that construction could begin in the Spring of 1993. The R. E. <br />Warner proposal specified construction to begin in July of 1993. This time frame <br />would not meet a condition of the Issue 2 funding. <br />c. Malcolm Pirnie's proposal included a plan to be developed for the contractor <br />to follow so that the Plant would not be put into non-compliance with EFA <br />regulations during construction. <br />d. On the Duane Road project, there was confusion as to whether the road was in <br />the city right-ofway or actually property belonging to Mr. Limpert. R. E. <br />Warner did a title search and assured the city that the road was in the city <br />rightrof way. This information proved to be wrong: Therefore, the Duane Road <br />project crone in at a cost over-run of approximately $60,000. These costs should <br />have been built into the construction package. <br />e. The Selhurst/Silverdale project which was haruiled by R. E. Warner came in at <br />a cost over-run of approximately $16,000, which the city felt could not be <br />completely justified. <br />4 <br />,. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.