Loading...
051893RANDOLPH COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS May 18, 1993 Minutes The Randolph County Board of Commissioners met in special session at 6:30 p.m. on May 18, 1993 at 725 McDowell Road, Asheboro, NC. Commissioners Frye, Kemp, Langley, and Petty were present. Commissioner Comer was absent. Landfill Operation Contract Ed Gavin, County Attorney, reviewed the dispute which arose at the May 3 meeting over licensing requirements for this contract. He said this is a contract for service, not construction, and that it may be negotiated; moreover, the County was not legally required to advertise for bidders. He said the County does not have to accept the lowest proposal; it may consider many factors. The Commissioners reserve the right to refuse or reject any proposal. He advised that in a letter to Bill Ivey, attorney for one of the proposers, the Secretary to the North Carolina State Board of Contractors said that some areas of service to be performed under this contract fall under licensing requirements. Mr. Gavin said that in the past no license was required by the County for the operation of the landfill. He recommended that the County reject all proposals and readvertise, with clarification of all requirements in the new request for proposals. George McArthur, Public Works Director, stated that, based on the two top proposers, areas of work falling under licensing requirements total slightly less than $250,000. He said each proposer should determine whether he is appropriately licensed, based on his individual costs for those items requiring licensing. Commissioner Kemp asked about the possibility of the County hiring its own employees to run the landfill. Mr. McArthur said that 92 counties in North Carolina run their own. Steve Schmidley, attorney for proposer Jimmy Hamlet, contended that since portions of the contract require licensing, it becomes a construction contract, subject to competitive bidding. He said that the request for proposals say that proposals may be rejected pursuant to G.S. 143-129, which is the construction contract statute. He said Mr. Hamlet is the low bidder and is sufficiently licensed. Bill Ivey, attorney for proposer Wayne Wright, stated that Mr. Wright is the low bidder and that if the construction contract statute is used, none of the proposers qualify because none deposited a 5% bid bond. He stated that since the licensing requirements are still unclear, the Board should require an unlimited license, which Mr. Wright has. Mr. Schmidley said that bond requirements may be waived and that since the request for proposals did not require a bond, it was considered waived. Mr. Gavin that the word "proposal" was used throughout the request for proposals rather than the word "bid," except in the reference to G.S. 143-129, which was just standard language used in all such requests. He said he would still recommend all proposals be rejected. page 2 On motion of Kemp, seconded by Petty, the Board rejected all proposals . received and instructed that a new proposal be written.with clarifying language on licensing requirements and proposed costs. Proposed Program Changes in Plans for New Jail The Commissioners met in a work session with the Jail Study Advisory Committee to review the changes made by Dudley Lacy (O'Brien/Atkins) to the Carter Goble Architectural Program for a new jail. Jail Committee members Wade Powell, Allen McNeill, Evan Minier, and Robbie Davis were present. Mr. Lacy stated that his changes were based on the assumption that the jail would be built on the McDowell site, would be direct supervision, would meet state standards, and that the target budget was $6.9 million, with a bed count of 168-172. Changes in Core The square footage was reduced by 16,000 -square feet. Changes in Housing Housing units were reconfigured, as follows: (a) males, 18 and older - 2 dorm units totaling 80 beds (minimum security), 48.dry cells (medium security), and 12 wet cells (maximum security); (b) males, 16 and 17 - 16 wet cells; (c) females - 12 double bunk cells, totaling 24 beds. All housing units total 180 beds for Phase I. Totals for Phase I Phase I, as changed, does not include a law enforcement center. The revised total cost, including all O'Brien/Atkins changes, is $6,946,501. This total includes construction, contingency, furnishings, professional fees, inspection fees, and soil borings. This plan expanded to 380.beds (Phase I, II, and III), would cost $10,900,000; 240 beds, as the original plan called for, would cost $9,230,000. Discussion on Proposed Changes Chairman Frye noted that the Jail Committee's total cost of $6.9 million for a new jail did not include contingency fees, furnishings, fees, soil testing, etc. Mr. Minier said he thought the law enforcement center should be included in Phase I, not Phase II. Mr. Lacy said this would be around $1,000,000. Mr. Minier said that he and Major McNeill had, in an earlier report, found several cutbacks in the cost of a new law enforcement center. Mr. Lacy said he has been concentrating on cutbacks for the jail and has not worked on the law enforcement center as intensely, but that he feels he can find additional cutbacks. Mr. Lacy said his design allows the inmate to remain in the housing unit for almost everything to cut down on transporting. Mr. Powell recommended that the law enforcement center -be included in Phase page 3 I. Mr. McNeill said that the newspaper article giving the $6.9 million cost for a new jail did not make it clear that this cost was for construction only and did not include contingency, etc. Mr. Powell said cutting the three phases to two would cut down on administrative costs. Mr. Lacy said the conceptual master plan should be completed for all phases up front. Mr. Kemp asked how HIV inmates would be treated. Mr. Lacy said HIV inmates would probably be placed in maximum security, but that it could vary. Chairman Frye asked Mr. Lacy to work with the Sheriff_ to see how much more they can reduce cost for a law enforcement center. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.