Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. MANAGERS REPORT 5/21/02Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS FROM: FORESTRY/GROUNDS SUPERINTENDENT DATE: MAY 15, 2002 SUBJECT: BID RESULTS - WELLER CREEK LANDSCAPE RESTORATION PROJECT BACKGROUND Bids were recently opened for the provision and installation of landscape materials along Weller Creek. This summer the Village will complete a separate stream bank stabilization project along the creek. This Weller Creek Landscape Restoration contract is an attempt to restOre landscaping on adjacent properties lining the creek, after the stabilization work is completed. This project will involve furnishing and planting trees and shrubs on private property (and some public property) along the creek. The project is divided into two reaches; both will be restored during Fall 2002. Reach A will include the area from Route 83 (Elmhurst Rd.) eastward almost to S. Main Street. Reach B will include the area from Emerson Street to School Street. The extent of the project comprises approximately 4600 feet for both reaches. All landscaping will be installed between the top of the creek bank (actually, the rear property lines) and the rear of the homes. The Village is giving adjacent property owners the option to participate in this project. Although some property owners may prefer to receive no landscaping, most are expected to participate. After this bid is awarded, the Village will forward to each property owner a list of approved plants and the installed cost of each. Each property owner will be granted a landscaping allotment, based on the width of their property. Property owners will then be required to Submit a landscape plan whose installed cost does not exceed their landscaping allotment. Additionally, they will need to submit a planting agreement that grants the Village access to their property, and acknowledges that they will accept the plant material and maintain it at their expense in the future. The Village will then forward to the successful bidder an approved landscape plan for each property participating in the project. The successful bidder will install all landscaping along both reaches as per the approved plans by November 30, 2002. It should also be noted that in the bid specifications, bidders were asked to optionally provide a quote for design services for this project, if they have qualified landscape designers/architects on staff. Property owners may elect to design their own landscape plan, or to hire the Village's landscape design contractor. However in the latter case, the cost of preparing the design will be deducted from that property's landscaping allotment. BID RESULTS Sealed bids for this contract were opened on May 9, 2002. Seventeen invitational bids were mailed and a notice to bidders was published in a local newspaper. Four bids were received. er our bid specifications, the bid award would be based on a typical landscape plan for an average 80 foot wide property (see attachment). Bid costs to provide and completely install the plants shown on that plan are as follows: ReiDesigne Landscape Contractors, Inc. $4,044.50 Lundstrom Nursery $4,856.15 Poul's Landscaping $5,797.40 Becan Construction $7,959.66 Optional Bids for Landscape Design Services were received from only two of the four bidders. They were as follows: Lundstrom Nursery $1.50 / linear foot of prope~y Poul's Landscaping $5.00 / linear foot of property DISCUSSION Although we have not previously worked with the Iow bidder, ReiDesigne Landscape Contractors, Inc., we checked with their four provided references. All four were favorable. We also spoke to ReiDesigne's office about the contract and verified where they will be obtaining their plants. This company appears to be qualified to perform this contract. Note that if ReiDesigne's bid is accepted, we propose to offer each property owner a maximum of $50.00 per linear foot for landscape restoration. This allotment was calculated by dividing ReiDesigne's total of $4,044.50 for our typical design by the average lot width of 80 feet. In regards to the Optional Landscape Design Services bid, ReiDesigne's Landscape Contractors did not provide a quote for this. If the main contract is awarded to ReiDesigne, the bid specifications do not allow us to h/re one of the other bidders just for the optional bid. However, we had previously received a quote from Earthtech, Inc. to provide landscape design services along Weller Creek for $4.40 / per linear foot. Earthtech has engineered our creek stabilization contract for several years, including the current project. They have extensive experience in the type of landscape restoration required and we believe their quoted price is reasonable. Therefore, we propose to award a contract for landscape design services for this project to Earthtech, Inc. BID RECOMMENDATION Based on our initial estimates, it appears that total landscape restoration costs will be approximately $230,000.00 (4600 feet x $50.00 per foot). There is a total of $250,000.00 available for landscape restoration in the Weller Creek Improvements account #5907704-690102, on page 293 of the 2002 budget. We are seeking authorization to spend up to the full $250,000.00 in case actual property widths vary slightly from our initial estimates. I recommend awarding a landscape installation contract to ReiDesigne Landscape Contractors, Inc. and a landscape design services contract to Earthtech, Inc. We estimate that the maximum contract amounts will be approximately $235,000.00 to ReiDesigne and $15,000.00 to Earthtech. Total expenditures for both contracts will not exceed $250,000.00. Sandy Clark Iconcur: ~ ~.~~~~ GLEN R. A~DLER Director of?ublic Works A~ached TO: FROM: DATE: SUBYECT: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS STREETS & BUILDINGS SUPERINTENDENT MAY 13, 2002 SEALED BID RESULTS FOR PAVEMENT MARKING 2002 BACKGROUND Annually a contract is let to repaint crosswalks, centeflines, lane dividing lines, parking stalls, and stop bars throughout the village. The village is divided into north and south sections by Central Road. These areas are serviced every other year, with the exception of the downtown area and parking lots, which are done annually. On the state highways we are only responsible for painting some of the crosswalks and stop bars. Pavement markings require repainting and installation of glass beading to maintain their reflectivity after two years of wear. BID RESULTS Sealed bids were opened at 10:00 A.M. on May 7, 2002 for the proposed contract to install pavement markings. The pavement marking work contemplated this year will be for all areas north of Central Road, the downtown business district, Wolf Road, and State Highways. Three invitational bids were mailed, and a bid notice was placed in the local paper~ Three bids were received, and bid results are as follows: Bidder Bid Price Preform Traffic Control System, LTD. Marking Specialists Corp. AC Pavement Striping Co. $46,961.62 $5t,352.25 $82,301.52 X:\USERS/PBURES\WORD STREET~STRPNG20021LEC.DOC age two Sealed Bid Results for Pavement Marking 2002 May 13, 2002 DISCUSSION. Preform Tra~'c Control Systems, LTD. has had Mount Prospect's pavement marking contract from 1997 thru 2001. They completed the work successfully each time. All references checked out satisfactorily. Preform is considered the low qualified bidder. The bids received were based on estimated quantities, which will be adjusted so the total expenditure does not exceed the budgeted mount. Funds for this proposed contract are in the current budget on page 213, account no. 0505104-540535, in the amount of $35,500.00 and on page 219, account no. 6305111-540565, in the amount of $3,000.00. Total budgeted amount for 2002 is $38,500.00. RECOMMENDATION I recommend acceptance of the lowest bid as submitted by Preform Traffic Control Systems, Ltd. for an amount not to exceed $38,500.00. Paul Bures Streets & Buildings Superintendent Glen R. An'dlo~ Director of Public Works PB Director of Public Works Glen Andler Deputy Director of Public Works Sean Dorsey file X:\USERSXPBURES\WORDkSTREET~STRPNG2002 REC.DOC Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect~ Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: BackRround VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER MAY 17, 2002 SOIL BORING CONTRACT The Village Board had given staff direction at the May 2 Village Hall/Parking Deck workshop to proceed with soil boring bids necessary for the design development of the parking deck based on 372 spaces. Staff obtained a sample Request for Proposal (RFP) from Desman Associates, the Village's parking Deck consultant. The RFP was distributed on May 3 to four local soil boring contractors. The responses were received on May 14 and were reviewed with Desman and DLK to confirm all the necessary details were included in the response. RFP Responses Bids were received from all four vendors that the proposal was sent to. The responding vendors included the following. · STS Consultants · Engineering Consulting Services (ECS) · H.H. Holmes (HHH) · Ground Engineering Consultants (GEC) Vendor Borinqs Alternative Borings Pressuremeter Testinq Lab STS $11,650 $8825 $3750 TM ECS $ 6,120 NR $3040 $600 HHH $ 5,988 NR NR NR GEC $12,060 $6374 NR NR Notes: (TM) Time and Materials, (NR) No Response The RFP included a diagram for 11 proposed boring sites, several vendors responded that a reduced number of borings were available as an option if desired by the parking OIL BORING CONTRACT May 17, 2002 Page 2 consultant. Presuremeter testing and lab would be included depending on the results of the borings and considered an additional cost to the actual borings themselves. All responses were sent to Desman and DLK for review and recommendation. Both Desman and DLK recommended ECS based on the cost, scope of the work, and knowledge of past performance. Recommendation I would recommend the Village Board approve a contract for soil boring services with Engineering Consulting Services (ECS) in an amount not to exceed $9760. Funds for this work will come from the capital account for Village Hall construction. The results will be reviewed with DLK and Desman who will also coordinate the information necessary for the design development work underway for the parking deck. If you have any questions, please contact me. David Strahl H:\GEN\Village Hall\Soil Borings RFP Response Memo,doc Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM FROM: ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER i¢, ~"~'~ [('2 ~" DATE: MAY 15, 2002 SUBJECT: PROPOSED LEASE TERMS FOR TV SERVICES RELOCATI( In anticipation of the relocation of TV Services during the construction of the new Village Hall staff has entered into discussions with the Mt. Prospect Park District to utilize unused space at the Central Community Center (CCC) and the cable ready board room. Discussions with the Park District have been very friendly and the Park District is quite interested in assisting the Village wherever possible. Details for the Proposed Lease Aqreement: Attached is a copy of the projected cost schedule for the use of the cable-ready board room at the CCC. You will note that the Mt. Prospect Park District is proposing to charge the Village $25 per hour, or a maximum of $75 per meeting, for Village Board meetings and Planning/Zoning meetings (all televised meetings). The standard charge of $75 would be for a meeting of any length and it is assumed that the time dedicated to meetings will balance out and be very near the typical 3-hour charge. The Park DiStrict must also allow the TV Services personnel access to the room for set-up purposes a minimum of two hours before the scheduled meeting time which effectively keeps the room from being utilized from the late afternoon through the end of a meeting on meeting days. The proposed schedule assumes that there are four meetings per month and does not account for the summer meeting schedule of only three meetings per month. Regardless of the number of meetings, the charge of $75 per meeting does not appear to be unreasonable since the Park District would have to have an employee in the building during all meeting times and such expense is assumed in the proposed cost. The proposed rate is typical for meeting room use. The Park District would also allow the Village to utilize an interior meeting room for closed sessions at no charge. The proposed rates would be for the period of July 2002 to June 2003, with a renewal at conclusion of the period. The Park District did not want to commit to a multi-year agreement with regard to rental cost until some experience was obtained. Park District staff has assured Village staff that the cost will not likely change significantly, if at all, for the PROPOSED LEASE TERMS FOR TV SERVICES RELOCATION May 15, 2002 Page 2 following year(s). Based on the projected number of televised meetings (Village Board projected maximum cost: $3450; Planning/Zoning projected maximum cost: $1800)the maximum projected cost for room rental for televised meetings is $5250. Cable TV Operations Office Space: The use of the currently vacant Cyber Caf6 at the Central Community Center would be an additional cost for TV Services office space. The Village and Park District staffs have tentatively negotiated a lease rate of $9 per square foot for the 864 SF of Cyber Caf6 office space. The lease rate includes the utility costs and the use of the Park District phone system. Using the $9 per square foot cost the Cyber Cafb rent would be projected at $7776 per year. Set-up Costs: Cable Broadcast Costs: Village staff has confirmed with the two cable providers (AT&T and Wide Open West (WOW)) that the CCC will require a fiber cable connection to allow for TV broadcast purposes of meetings and programming. The equipment necessary for broadcast purposes would be relocated to CCC from the Senior Center by the Public Works department, so no additional moving expenses would be incurred. The projected cost for the AT&T connection into the CCC is $6600, this connection would be brought under Central Road into the CCC. The projected cost for the WOW connection into CCC is $13,850. Again this connection would be brought under Central Road, but only after the fiber has been extended some 1000' to the point it can be placed under the street. The projected total expense is $20,450 for both cable providers. These connections would allow for the two Village channels to be broadcast from the CCC site and allow for live public meeting broadcasts of the Village Board and Planning/Zoning Commission. Village and Park District staffs have tentatively agreed that if the Park District were ever to utilize the fiber connection in the future for broadcasting purposes, the Park District would reimburse the Village 50% of the cost of the fiber connection expenses. However, the Park District has no long term plans for utilizing the connection in the future at this time. Cable Broadcast Alternative: Staff also reviewed another option for broadcasting on the two Village channels. The equipment necessary for broadcasting could be relocated into the Village Hall or Police/Fire Building and the programming could originate from one of these sites during the construction process. The cost for the connection into the Village Hall or Police/Fire Building of the necessary fiber was quoted at $2500 from WOW and $1000 from AT&T. However, if the broadcasts originate from the Village Hall or the Police/Fire Building there PROPOSED LEASE TERMS FOR TV SERVICES RELOCATION May 15, 2002 Page 3 will be NO live Village Board and Planning/Zoning meetings, all meetings will be on tape delay. Also with the staff from TV Services operating out of the CCC there would substantial travel required between the two sites for equipment monitoring and programming. Such an arrangement would likely increase the frequency of the station(s) going "dark" because of the limited ability to monitor breakdowns on a timely basis. For example, if there was a programming glitch that caused the system to terminate broadcasts there would be a delay until someone from TV Services could reset the equipment instead of resetting it on the fly, if they were on site. This same situation currently exists during the weekends, if the system needed to be reset. Computer Data Link Cost: MIS Coordinator Joan Middleton has reseamhed the equipment necessary to allow the staff from TV Services to continue to utilize the Village computer and e-mail systems. The equipment and installation cost has been quoted at $1629. this cost would be a one-time expenditure and would operate the entire period that the TV Services staff were operating out of the CCC. Cost Summary: Proposed Televised Board Room Rental Cost: $ 5250 Proposed Office Space Rental Cost: $ 7776 Proposed Set-up Costs: $20,450* Proposed Computer Connection: $ 1629 Total: $35,105 *Proposed price assumes the connection at the Central Community Center (CCC)instead of the Village Hall. If the connection were made at the Village Hall the total cost would be reduced to $18,155 instead of $35,105. Bud.qet Issues: The 2002 Budget includes $22,300 for TV Services relocation. It is estimated that the relocation expenses for Human Services will come in below the 2002 budgeted amount of $130,000, so the balance of the expense necessary for the TV Services relocation can be absorbed into the savings anticipated by the Human Services relocation. The lease and set-up expenses for the relocation of Human Services is expected to be concluded within the next 30 days. Once there is a tentative lease agreement and quotes on other set-up costs staff will come before the Village Board for approval. ROPOSED LEASE TERMS FOR TV SERVICES RELOCATION May 15, 2002 Page 4 Recommendation: Staff would recommend Village Board approval to enter into a lease with the Mt. Prospect Park District to rent the board room for broadcast purposes at a maximum cost of $5250 for the period of July 1,2002 th rough June 30, 2003. The lease would be renewed as needed until the Village Hall construction is completed. Staff would recommend Village Board approval to enter into a lease with the Mt. Prospect Park District for 864 square feet (Cyber Cafe) at a cost of $7776 for the period of July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003. The lease would be renewed as needed until the Village Hall construction is completed. Staff would recommend Village Board approval to contract with AT&T to make the necessary fiber connections into the Central Community Center for channel broadcast purposes for an amount not to exceed $6600. Staff would recommend Village Board approval to contract with Wide Open West (WOW) to make the necessary fiber connections into the Central Community Center for channel broadcast purposes for an amount not to exceed $13,850. Staff would recommend Village Board approval to contract with Bartlett-Bishop Enterprises to purchase and install the necessary computer communication equipment in the Central Community Center in an amount not to exceed $1629 to allow TV Services personnel to utilize the Village computer system. If you have any questions, please contact me. David Strahl c: Cable Production Coordinator Ross Rowe H:\GEN\Village hall\'fV Service Relocation MPPD Proposal,doc Mt., Prospect Park District ,, 1000 W. Central Road · Mt. Prospect, IL 60056-2223 · (847) 255-5380 · Fax (847) 255-1438 Mt. Prospect Park District Board Room Rental at Park Affiliated Rates is $25.00 per hour. Village Trustee Meetings - 4 (3 during sunm~er) Tuesdays per month July 3 meetings ~ 3 hours each @$25/hr. z $75/mtg $225.00 August 3 meetings ~ 3 hours each ~$25/hr. - $75/mtg $225.00 September 4 meetings @ 3 hours each @$25/hr. - $75/mtg $300.00 October 4 meetings @ 3 hours each ~$25/hr. - $75/mtg $300.00 November 4 meetings ~ 3 hours each ~$25/hr. - $75/mtg $300.00 December 4 meetings @ 3 hours each ~$25/hr. - $75/mtg $300.00 January 4 meetings ~ 3 hours each @$25/hr. - $75/mtg $300.00 February 4 meetings ~ 3 hours each ~$25/hr. - $75/mtg $300.00 March 4 meetings~ 3 hours each @$25/hr. - $75/mtg $300.00 April 4 meetings ~ 3 hours each ~$25/hr. - $75/mtg $300.00 May 4 meetings ~ 3 hours each ~$25/hr. - $75/mtg $300.00 June 4 meetings ~ 3 hours each ~$25/hr. - $75/mtg $300.00 Village Trustee Meetings Total $3,45O.O0 Village Zoning Board Meetings - 2 Thursdays per month July 2 meeting ~ 3 hours each @$25/hr - $75/mtg $150.00 August 2 meeting ~ 3 hours each ~$25/hr ~ $75/mtg $150.00 September 2 meeting ~ 3 hours each @$25/hr - $75/mtg $150.00 October 2 meeting ~ 3 hours each @$25/ltr - $75/mtg $150.00 November 2 meeting ~ 3 hours each @$25/hr - $75/mtg $150.00 December 2 meeting ~ 3 hours each ~$25/hr - $75/mtg . . $150.00 January 2 meeting ~ 3 hours each @$25/hr - $75/mtg $150.00 February 2 meeting ~ 3 hours each ~$25/hr - $75/mtg $150.00 March 2 meeting ~ 3 hours each ~$25/hr - $75/mtg $150.00 April 2 meeting.~ 3 hours each @$25/hr - $75/mtg $150~.00 May 2 meeting ~ 3 'hours each ~$25/hr - $75/mtg $150.00 'June 2-meeting ~ 3 hours each @$25/hr - $75/mtg $150.00 Village Zoning Board Meetings Total $1,800.00 GRAND TOTAL $5,250.00 Serving Portions of Mt. Prospect ,, Des Plaines * Arlington Heights · Elk Grove Village Patrick A. Lueansky E. Kenneth Friker Gerard Il. Dempsey Terrence M. Bamiele Bruce A. Zolna James P. Barfley Richard T. Wimmer Michael J. Duggau Thomas p. Bayer LA W OFFICES ICLEIN~ THORPE AND JENKINS, LTD. Suite I660 20 North Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606-2903 Telephone (312) 9844400 Facsimile (312) 984-6444 (312) 606-7077 Orland Park Office 15010 S. Ravlnia Avenue, Suite 17 Orland Parle, IL 60462-3162 Telephone (708) 349-3888 Faeslmile (708) 349-1506 Wfiter=s Direct Dial (312) 984-6420 Wdter=s E-Mail emhill(~ktinet.eom Rinda y. Allison Thomas M. Melody Lance C, Mallna Kathleen T. Hemno John IL Wiktor George A. Wagnem James G. Wargo Sttzanne M. Fitch Michael A. Mans TO: FROM: DATE: MEMORANDUM Michael E. Janonis, Village Manager Village of Mount Prospect Everette M. Hill, Jr. May 14, 2002 RE: RJN Settlement In 1993, the Village awarded a contract to RJN Engineering for the design of a stormwater relief sewer. The design was completed and the bid award for the installation was made to Gana Excavation. Gana began the installation and discovered that the RJN design failed to take into account an MWRD Sanitary Sewer that intersected our proposed relief sewer at precisely the same level. In order to achieve the gravity system for which we had contracted, we were forced to hire a new engineering design firm and completely redesign and reroute our relief sewer. Our theory of the case was that we were entitled to the difference between what the installation would have cost if the design firm had done its due diligence and discovered the MWRD pipe and designed the system accordingly and what we actually ended up paying for work on both the misdesigned system and our final product. We figured our damages at $565,000. We tried the case in July of 1997 over a period of about six days. The trial court agreed with us and awarded us $565,000. RJN appealed and argued that, under their contract, they were explicitly not held to be cost guarantors and that they had known about the MWRD sewer, they might have designed the system precisely as it ended up being installed. In other words, irrespective of the cost, Mount Prospect got what it bargained for. They argued that if they were liable at all, it was only for reengineering fees. Mr. Michael E. Janonis May '14, 2002 Page 2 The Appellate Court wrote an unintelligible opinion and sent the case back to be retried according to the mandates of that opinion. Our original judge is now on the Appellate Court and the two successive trial judges that have dealt with the case have pulled their hair out trying to decipher the Appellate Court opinion. I think that the only thing that is clear from the opinion is that the upper limit of what we might be awarded after a new trial is about $425,000. It could be as little as $60,000. After much badgering by the new trial judge, RJN has agreed to pay $180,000 in settlement. Even ifwe win at the trial level, RJN will reappeal. Given the cost of rehiring our expert witnesses, retrying the case and then prosecuting or defending appeals, I am recommending that we accept the trial court recommendation of a $180,000 settlement.