Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Brownfields Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clay County board approves Montrose to oversee asbestos removal under Brownfields grant
Summary
The Clay County School Board approved hiring Montrose Environmental Solutions to oversee asbestos-containing materials removal at the old gymnasium and boiler room as part of a Brownfields remediation grant, noting prior work by Montrose on earlier phases and that the project is grant-funded.
The Clay County School Board on Oct. 16 approved hiring Montrose Environmental Solutions to serve as the environmental engineer overseeing removal of asbestos-containing materials and coal residue from the district's old gymnasium and boiler room, work funded through a Brownfields remediation grant.
Board members discussed two quotes for the project and agreed Montrose's familiarity with phase one of the remediation was likely to lower overall project costs despite some higher hourly rates. "Even though some of their hourly rates are a little bit higher, they are very familiar with the project because they did work on phase 1 of this project," a board presenter said. The presenter also said state-level Brownfields staff reviewed that reasoning and understood the expected overall cost savings.
The board received two bids, from Montrose Environmental Solutions and from Penson (listed in the meeting materials as the other bidder). The motion to select Montrose was made and seconded; the board voted "Aye" and the motion passed. The presenter stated the removal work is grant-funded.
Board members did not provide a detailed numeric vote tally in the public record, and no implementation schedule or contract value was presented during the discussion. The item packet contained the two quotes and background on the Brownfields grant.
The board's action directs staff to proceed with contracting Montrose for the asbestos and coal residue removal work under the Brownfields remediation framework; the board did not specify start or completion dates during the meeting.
Contacts in the meeting noted Montrose's prior involvement in the project as the principal justification for the selection; no objections or abstentions were recorded during the on-the-record vote.
The board approved the contract selection at the Oct. 16 meeting; additional procurement documents and contractor agreements were not read aloud at the meeting and are not included in the public discussion record.
