HomeMy WebLinkAboutWD-19-96} THE CORPORATION OF TH16 MDNICIPALITY OF
REPORT
Meeting: GENERAL PURPO~E AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE File # ~n ,C
Date: MAY 6, 1996 Res.#~~9'~-.~01'~~.
', BY-Law #
Report #: ~~~~ File #: ', D~^ .'~~ ,~.4
Subject: APPROVAL OF E7~PSNDITURES ON CHDRCH STREET, BOWMANVILLS
CONTRACT CL94+13
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose .and
Administration Comuhittee recommend to Council the following:
1. . THAT Report WIb-19-96 be received;
2. THAT Council a¢:prove funding in the amount of $105.,638.20 from
.the Public Woks Lot Levy Reserve Fund to provide for the
balance of the additional expenditures incurred in completing
Church Street lInfrastructure Project, Contract CL94-13.
REPORT
1.0 ATTACHMENTS ~!
No. l: Sumglary of 1995 Public Works Projects with partial
or full financing from the Public Works Lot Levy
Res~rve.Fund
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Accelerated Schedule
As outlined in'Report No. WD-17-94, the "normal" procedure for
the completio#: of the Church Street project could not be
followed as ajresult of the guidelines for funding under the
Canada-Ontarip Infrastructure Works Program. Due to the
accelerated process, many issues that would normally have been
resolved prior to the commencement of construction were not
i
R13PORT NO.: WD-1996
PAG13 2
resolved, res lting in additional works being added to the
contract durix~g the actual progress of the project.
i
2.2 Public Input
Although the Church Street project was to be completed within
a compressed schedule, every effort was made to incorporate
all facets of the "normal" process into the shortened time-
frame. This. included input, through Public Information
Centres and individual consultation, from residents and other
parties affected by the proposed works. The residents and
businesses on Church Street and adjacent streets were very
concerned about the reconstruction and had significant input
in the final design. As a result of the public concern, the
project was redesigned several times to incorporate these
issues, resulting in time delays and increased consulting
fees.
2.3 Unresolved Isst:es
As a result of the accelerated schedule, some design issues
were unresolved prior to the tendering of Contract C194-13.
These issues are briefly described as follows:
• Reduction. of the steep grade, to ensure public safety, at
the parking area in front of Lisa Villa, No. 133 Church
Street, Bowmanville. The delay in final design was due
to ongoing negotiations with the property owner, Mr.
Mario Veltri.
• Utility companies (gas and hydro) were unable to complete
relocation work in advance of construction due to the
redesigns. and a shortened schedule. The utility
companies, were required to work during winter months to
complete their relocation work prior to the general
1~flZ
REPORT NO.: WD-19-96
PAGE 3
contractor, Hard-Co Construction Ltd., recommencing.
operations in the Spring of 1995. This resulted in the
Municipality paying premium labour and equipment rates.
• Specifics of the renovations to the Old Firehall were not
finalized prior to tendering the Municipal contract;
therefore;, costs associated with works to be done at the
Firehall under the Church Street contract could not be
incorporated into the initial contract bid price (i.e.
electrical servicing, water/sanitary servicing
requirements and treatment of the ramp connecting the
building at the basement level).
• Construction of the retaining wall and steps at the east
limit of the Municipal parking lot fronting the west side
of Division Street (south of Church Street) resulting
from public input after tendering the contract. The
retaining wall, for the most part, was outside the
original limits of the contract but was constructed in
conjunction with Contract CL94-13, as it was the most
cost effective time to do so considering the other
retaining wall work being carried out as part of the
contract.. The construction of the wall improved public
safety at this location by eliminating the steep ramp
from the Municipal parking lot level to the Division
Street sidewalk level.
• Subsequent to the award of the tender, the local
residents requested that concrete brick pavers be used
for the boulevard treatment on the north side of Church
Street (east of Division Street) as an alternative to the
sod which was specified in the contract. The precedent
for this was set with the completion of the Liberty
1003
REPORT NO.: WD-
PAGE 4
Street si~ewalk contract which also used concrete brick
pavers fopr boulevard treatment.
Due to time constraints, the design details for the above
noted works were not available prior to tendering and it was
not considered acceptable to include a large lump sum
contingency in the contract to address the inevitable
additional unresolved work.
2.4 Costs of the Unresolved Issues
The final "as constructed" costs for this project were
reviewed and the cost of the unresolved issues, as explained
in section 2.3 of this report, are valued at $105,638.20.
2.5 Public Works P o'ects Financed from the Public Works Lot Le
Reserve Fund Through Aonroved 1995 Capital Budget
Shown on Attachment No. 1 are projects, including Church
Street, that ere financed, fully or partially, from the
Public Works Lit Levy Reserve Fund. Attachment No. 1 also
compares the budgeted costs and the actual costs to be drawn
from the Public Works Lot Levy Reserve Fund. With the
exception of Church Street, all the other 1995 Capital Budget
project costs, which identified Public Works Lot Levy
financing, were on or under budget and resulted in a savings
of approximately $95,210 from the Public Works Lot Levy
Reserve Fund.
2.6 No Provision in 1995 Budget
The money allocated in the 1995 Budget for Contract CL94-13
was based on the tender works carried over into the 1995
construction season and not inclusive of the costs associated
with the unresolved work.
1004
REPORT NO.:
PAGE 5
2.7
It would hav been difficult (and perhaps misleading to
Council) to present individual reports for Council's
consideration following the resolution of each unresolved
issue. Accordingly, it was concluded by Public Works staff to
delay the presentation of these issues to Council until the
total "as constructed" costs scenario for the project were
available.
3.0 RECOMI'~NDATIONS
3.1 It is, therefore, recommended that Council approve the funding
of $105,638.20 from the Public Works Lot Levy Reserve Fund to
cover the additional costs already incurred in completing the
Church Street Contract CL94-13.
Respectfully submitked,
Steph/~ oke~ng.
Director of Public Works
ASC*ph
April 29, 1996
Reviewed by,
W.- Stockwell
A_fChief Administrative Officer
Attachment
1005
O
W
Z
U
2
Q
2
LL
J
J
7
W
Q ~
~Z
J
~LL
F W
2Q
aW
N
=w
H~
3~
~ J
W ~
SN
a~
~O
Q3
J
Um
~~
ma
~ W
a~
0
o°i
W
w
O
,~
V/
o^ o~
N N
o
o ~
~
O 0
0
c ~ yg
{tl ...
l0
m
N N
r y ~ O
O Q N O
U
~
~
>
~ a~
U
Y
Q J
E
0
LL
° °
o o
,
an
p
y .
N y O
O' Q
U d
°
2 a v
a ~ ~
~
rn~
J
7
m
E
0
ti n
N
I
c
o
U N
O ~o
i7 iq I
cn
•c o 0
' ¢ °'
$ c
U m o H
m ~ ti
O U ~
a
7 ~
r
U o
U
U
a
o^ o~ o ~ o~ o~ o L
o a a '~ o ~ o "~ o
~ ~ ~
c
c
N
W ~ c
n
OD v
fA ~ c
O
p 7 a
o
c
O
O 7 o c
r
7
of
~ r~ o n N
~ ~ ~
~tl
m
GO
O o O O
O O
O p
p
d T N ~ °~ N
~ p
t, y
N
~ N
~ ~
O ¢ M ~
U yr ~ cy ~ M
>
io EPr
V ~
Q J
E
0
°o °o °o o °o O
y
>
r
O
q
O
o°
~[I
V
O
a ,
O
o
uj
a
_ w
O N ~ N ~
V ¢
m > ~
m~
7 J
m
E
0
~i
s
y
c m r
c
o
m
m
~ o
c
~ n
E
o
E o w
~ o # m
o L o
° 0 v
0
0
~I « N
~ ~ I ~ I
a v ~ I
> O
•c
y o0
o
~ 00
° o
m~ ao
co ~o
0
-
Ern U~
n
•"m `a°rn ~O rnW o
.' a~ 3N ¢°o ~o ~° H
d N^ :p ^ Q^ C N N
` ~~ ~~ ~ m ~
~
a d .. N ~„ ~ ~
~ ~
N
'a. C
V/ ~
~ ~
~
C
y 7 _
C C
~ ~
Q Q Q Q
w
Q
lO"L
~°
O O1
zl
Z ~
w~
~ I
2
U ~
Q
E
0 0
` U
a .,
N
C •O
c a
U N
Y
•~ m
ay
d..
L C
•• N
O N
c a
0 d
w L
Q- °c
~ o
t• a
U a
m c
R
3 ~
0 0
L J
f/1
+y. Y
y O
U
~ U
a
~a'
a~
7
COL