amanda photo Looking for the Amanda for Portland 2008 campaign site? Click HERE Amanda is a Registered Nurse, mother of three, and community leader in Portland, Oregon. She was the first candidate ever to qualify for Portland's Public Campaign Financing in her run for City Council in 2006, and first again in 2008. All photographs on the blog are by Steve Fritz (Amanda's husband), unless otherwise noted. navigationNavigationFavorite links:***************** Coalition for a Livable Future
syndication |
Next Up at City Council, 7/18/2007Submitted by Amanda Fritz on July 14, 2007 - 3:50pm.
There is nothing on the Agenda anyone with a job requiring your presence during the day on Wednesday would be interested in. It says so, right at the end: DUE TO LACK OF AN AGENDA THERE WILL BE NO MEETING" See? Nothing you might be concerned about. Should I even continue to review what's on for Wednesday morning? I suppose we should all take a peek, to see what doesn't matter to us, right? Well, the two Communications are about "the persistent contrails in the skies over Portland". As a matter of fact, I'm not worried about them. Should I be? Here's something that sounds like a fine idea: 853 TIME CERTAIN: 9:30 AM – Bureau Innovation Project 12, improve maintenance delivery systems. Ditto the other Time Certain, 854 TIME CERTAIN: 10:00 AM – Metro Drive Less/Save More Campaign. Improving systems, saving more - who could be opposed to those concepts? The documents are available on the Agenda link above, so you can see what they really mean if you're interested. If I get a burst of enthusiasm and chunk of free time this weekend, I may look them up and give you my report. Naomi Harris and Bradley Perkins are being appointed to to the Housing and Community Development Commission (aka "HCDC"), and Tony Jones is being reappointed. I mention their names to thank them for volunteering considerable amounts of their time. Yada yada yada, contracts, contracts.... here's one that piques my interest: 864 Authorize an Intergovernmental Agreement with Metropolitan Water District of Southern California for the evaluation of capital project delivery efficiency (Second Reading Agenda 816) Are we buying something from a government in Southern California, or are they purchasing from us? I think I'll check....[clicks on "Item 864" on right sidebar of agenda. Thinks, "Wow, this new agenda with easy-to-find links is a huge improvement. Thanks again, Karla Moore-Love. Oh great, it's one of the City's gigunda pdf files which takes forever to download. Cue Jeopardy music in head. Tralalalala. Ah, here we go...."] Turns out we are paying an outfit in Southern California $10,000 to participate in and get the results of their study which "focuses on increasing the number of projects in a performance database, utilizing case studies to pass knowledge from workshop attendees to their own organizations, developing Best Management Practices, evaluating efficiency of project delivery, and encouraging information sharing among the phase three participants." For the Water Bureau. So now we know. It's a second reading, so we missed our opportunity to testify about it two weeks ago, before the July 4 break. Moving on.... Wait! The next-but-one item is a similar thing, only with Australia! 866 Authorize a memorandum of agreement with Water Services Association of Australia for the 2007 International Water Association-Water Services Association of Australia Customer Services Process Benchmarking Project (Second Reading Agenda 818). OK, I'll bite, how much are we paying them? [Repeat process above for Item 866] Wow, this one is for $51,100. "This Agreement will assist in establishing credible cost and service performance indicators and benchmarks, identify cost saving opportunities, understanding best practices and how they relate to improving performance." Y'know, for that kind of money, I sure hope the information purchased is going to be made available to the public in some way. At the very least, there should be a report to Council (presented at a hearing, on cable so citizens can see and learn) to tell everyone what savings and improved practices were outcomes of the collaboration and expenditure. One further contract note: both the above contain the standard clause that payment may increase by 25% without further authorization from Council. I sure don't manage our family budget with 25% contingencies. Do most businesses operate with this kind of built-in inflation in agreed payments? The Consent Agenda carries about $8m in contracts for affordable housing. On the Regular Agenda, here's one my colleagues living near Mount Tabor will doubtless be all over: 884 Authorize a contract with Slayden Construction Group, Inc. for construction services for the Mt.Tabor and Washington Park Interim Security and Deferred Maintenance Project (Purchasing Report – RFP No. 105058) The report gives the cost as $23,238,377.00. It says, "The purpose of the project is to construct security and deferred maintenance improvements which will enable the Portland Water Bureau to better secure the open reservoirs with cameras and electronic security devices and permit the isolation of the reservoirs with remotely controllable valves and other maintenance items." I don't understand it, though. The report says the construction estimate in May 2006 was $9m. Why is the total reimbursible cost now $23m? Oh, wait, the report continues, "The Portland Water Bureau negotiated a Guaranteed Maximum Price with Slayden Construction Group, Inc. The GMP includes the original work, the enhanced security measures for opening Washington Park to pedestrians, relocation of sewer lines affected by the project and possible construction of Green Streets on SE 59th Avenue." "Possible construction of Green Streets"? Are they in the contract, or not? It seems to me more details are needed, to justify more than doubling the estimated project cost from last year. I sure hope Council members received more information than is in the report linked on the Agenda. The last item on the Agenda is one for East Portland neighbors to cheer: 889 Authorize a contract with 2KG Contractors for $929,087 for the Combined Pool Improvements to Matt Dishman, Mount Scott and Southwest Community Centers and Pier Pools (Second Reading Agenda 848). See? The Council is only spending a little over 32 million dollars this Wednesday, just in the items I've outlined here (likely much more in the sewer contracts I didn't highlight). Why would any of that need to be on an evening agenda, so citizens could see and understand where all their tax money goes, and perhaps ask questions if they had concerns? Amanda, I apologize for the lateness in getting this information to you and your readers. I received it from staff late this evening while I was out at the main break at 64th and Powell. The information was prepared by Mary Ellen Collentine the Sr. Engineer in charge of the construction project. I have simply cut and pasted her response to me into this response. These projects have been thoroughly reviewed in the last two budget cycles by our citizen review committe (a group of citizenn stakeholders including members of the Friends of the Reservoirs organization, Mt. Tabor residents, and water bureau employees) and through a number of public meetings in the Washington park and Mt. Tabor neighborhoods. David Shaff, Administrator Here is some information regarding the project costs and changes. I know it is a lot of detail, but it is also a big project that is not easy to condense down into a few sentences. The original budget for the project was estimated at $9M to $11M when we went out for the RFP for the construction contract in May 2006. This was the same budget established about 2 years prior after the Independent Review Process for Mt Tabor burial was completed. The engineering design was not complete and we did not have an updated construction cost estimate at the time we went out for the RFP for construction services. This is fairly typical for the Construction Manager/General Contractor procurement process. Once the CM/GC is on board, the design is refined with contractor input, and the Guaranteed Maximum Price is developed based on approximately 90% plans, with cost estimating by both the contractor and cost engineers from the design consultant as a reality check. Since the time we negotiated the GMP a few months ago we have continued to finalize the design drawings, and we have been doing additional value engineering to reduce costs. The original budget included security and deferred maintenance improvements at both Mt. Tabor and Washington Park. I have included a list below of the original work for the $9-$11 M. that is included in Slayden's GMP: Building security and camera improvements at Mt. Tabor (MT) and Washington Park (WP), including card key access at buildings Communications and video improvements at Tabor, including modifications to Gatehouse 5 interior for security guards Communications and video improvements at Washington Park Sensors on ornamental fences at all 5 reservoirs Microwave perimeter detection at WP outer fence, small area where camera coverage is not feasible Install ornamental gates at upper and lower ends Madison Trail at Washington Park for vehicle control Upgrade security gate at Reservoir 3 (WP) Replace sliding gate at Reservoir 4 (WP) Install new electric sliding gates at SE Lincoln and SE Salmon (MT) Install new baseline water quality monitors at MT and WP Pressure Reducing Valve Vault and piping to allow us to bypass Reservoir 6 (MT) in case of an emergency Electric controls on valves at WP to allow remote operation Electric controls on existing valves and new valves at MT to allow remote operation Sidewalk repairs at all reservoir sites During the design process, we made changes and additions to the work based on public input and requests, including work to open Washington Park to public access. We also encountered facilities that needed more work than we had originally anticipated because of age, or work we needed to add because of other conditions encountered during design, such as the dewatering that is potentially needed on SE 59th. Additions to the project that are included in the GMP: Replacing a substantial amount of sewer in the vicinity of SE 59th, SE 60th, SE Hawthorne, and SE Lincoln that is failing. We are partnering with BES on this and will be reimbursed. (MT) Potential Green Street Improvement on SE 59th. We are partnering with BES and PDOT on this and will be reimbursed for part of this work. (MT) Replacing a 1923 8-inch water main on SE 59th, so we don't have to go in for any repair work after a green street installed (MT) Traffic control and sequencing requirements on SE 60th (MT) Generator Building and generator (MT) Dewatering of excavation on SE 59th . (MT) New valves, piping and vaults not included in the original (driven by existing valves that we found are not working, MT) Sleeve valve and vault on bypass piping to allow better operating control (MT) Additional pavement restoration (MT) Repainting of historical fence at Reservoir 1 (MT) Fiber optic line to Reservoir 7, old communications line is failing (MT) Replace approximately two thirds of chain link fence with ornamental fence (WP) Improvements to safely open and use Grand Staircase (WP), including access point at upper end and trail improvements outside fence Additional camera and security improvements for public access (WP) Contractor contingency, controlled by WB. He can't use it without our approval. Contractor Management Fee The CM/GC is an open book process during construction. The contractor must submit monthly verification of hours worked and materials installed prior to our making payment. He is only paid for the work he actually does, up to a maximum, which is the GMP amount. It is our mutual intent to deliver a project that is less than this amount, while enhancing and improving the water system and adding the amenities requested by the public. We have jointly identified potential areas to save, and will continue to do this during the life of the project. Thank you for the information, David and Mary Ellen. |
I live near Tabor and was wondering about that $14+ million cost increase. I read through 889 and couldn't find a clear explanation for the two figures. At least there was no mention of capping the reservoirs.