PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 1984
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 1984, AT 5:00 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER EARL F. HARDWICK.
Council Chairperson Ronald Whitehead presided at and conducted this meeting.
Deputy City Attorney Walter R. Miller was also present.
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
#1. RE: UDAG participation in the Hiller Industries Project.
Councilmember Mabey pointed out that two hearings are needed and that there is an April 30, 1984 deadline for submittal of the UDAG application. He indicated that Hiller will be moving to a new building at 2340 West 1500 South and expects to hire seventy local, unskilled employees.
Without objection, Councilmember Whitehead scheduled public hearings for April 24, 1984 at 5:00 p.m. and April 26, 1984 at 5:00 p.m. in Room 211, City and County Building to discuss UDAG participation in the Hiller Industries Expansion Project.
(T 84-8)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: Consider and adopt a resolution rejecting the current bids for the Main Street Beautification Project No. 38-728 and authorizing the rebidding, with bids to be opened before the City Council in their meeting of Tuesday, May 8, 1984. Richard A. Johnston, deputy city engineer, addressed the Council. He said that there was a shortfall of approximately $500,000 of available funds. He said there are two questions: (1) is it possible to request additional funding from Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) to meet the low hid and complete the entire project? (2) is it legal from UMTA’s standpoint to eliminate $500,000 worth of items and proceed with award of the contract to the low bidder? He said that they had contacted UMTA regarding the second question and they indicated that this was not legal. Mr. Johnston said that the UMTA funds for this project do not come directly to Salt Lake City, but go directly to UTA. It is not a matter of the City applying for additional funds. This is a grant that UTA receives. Mr. Johnston said that he was informed that UMTA related transit funds are very tight. He said that there is a set amount of money allocated each year and that there are more applications throughout the country than there are funds. He said he doubts additional funding will be approved. Mr. Johnston said this project was initially estimated to be a three and one half million dollar project. He said that UMTA had supplied some money for design work, however, they had not given a grant for construction. He said that after the preliminary design a new estimate was 2.9 million dollars. About $500,000 of that was allocated for engineering activities, design and construction inspection. The remaining 2.4 million was allocated for construction.
Councilmember Shearer asked if the entire $500,000 was spent for engineering and Mr. Johnston said it had not and would not all he spent. He said that engineering funds cannot be used for construction because they are two separate grants. Mike Allegra, representing UMTA, said that UMTA could petition UMTA to shift the funds from engineering to construction, however, this was not standard operating procedure and this request would probably be denied. Mr. Johnston said that Paul Barber of the Mayor’s Office, called UMTA in Washington regarding additional funding. He was told that it would be very difficult to receive any additional money.
Mr. Johnston said that the UMTA legal staff in Denver had verbally responded that they would not approve a contract with $500,000 worth of deletions, even though the deletions are unit price amounts. He indicated that this was not an official response. Additional funding could be officially requested but this would take two to three weeks. Mr. Johnston distributed copies of the deletion list. He said that the deletions would mean that the project would still be done, however, some minor things would be left out. These deletions would allow for rebidding and with the additive alternates would meet the budget.
Councilmember Shearer asked about the contingency. Mr. Johnston said that with a project like this they would feel very uncomfortable beginning construction with less than $200,000 in contingency. He said that there is potential for extra work orders on this project, and by having additive alternatives, the bid would be worded in such a way that toward the end of the construction, money left in contingency could be used for the alternatives.
Councilmember Fonnesheck asked if there were other alternatives to rebidding. Mr. Johnston said that the other alternative would be not to rebid and request a formal response from UMTA regarding the legalities of awarding to Oakland with the deletions. Councilmembers had concerns about the fairness of rebidding since the bids are now public. Mr. Beesley, attorney representing Okland, said that he would not be so concerned if the project were being redesigned. Councilmember Shearer indicated that Okland and Gibbons & Reed had spent time and money to put the bids together and now other companies could take advantage of the work that had already been done. Mr. Beesley indicated that the City’s specifications provide that any items may be increased or entirely eliminated as the interests of the City shall appear, and the City has the right to reject any or all bids. He said that the City’s own bid documents allow the City to delete specific bid items. He said that UMTA regulations state that there cannot be negotiations with the contractors once it has been let for bid. He suggested that specific bid items be eliminated and then a determination made as to who is the low bidder at that point.
Wally Miller, deputy city attorney, said that the City could legally either rebid or line item delete. Mr. Miller outlined two options: either rebid the project or request an answer from UMTA regarding additional funding or line item deletions. Mr. Johnston said that it would be up to UTA to request additional money from UMTA and that they would have to sacrifice other projects. Mr. Allegra said that in addition to the Main Street project they are purchasing replacement buses with the grant. In order to allocate more money to Main Street the number of buses would have to be reduced.
Councilmember Shearer moved and Councilmember Davis seconded to award the contract to Okland on the basis of the deletion list and petition UTA Board to restructure their grant to pick up the deletions, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(Q 84-2)
This meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m.