Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste Transfer Station topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission rejects transfer-station construction contracts after cost estimates rise above earlier studies
Summary
The commission voted to reject construction contracts for a new landfill transfer station after public works staff and the project engineer said total costs — including construction, engineering and equipment — pushed estimates well above prior studies. Commissioners directed staff to prioritize equipment and cell expansion funding instead.
The Linn County Commission voted on Dec. 18 to reject the current contracts for a proposed new transfer station and tipping floor at the county landfill after staff and contractors reported rising cost estimates.
Call Valley, the engineering/contracting firm working on the transfer-station plan, provided updated construction and inspection estimates during the meeting. The contractor representative said the base construction bid was about $1.7 million; staff also cited a project-management and inspection estimate near $91,000 and equipment-cost estimates that ranged from roughly $407,000 at the low end up to higher figures depending on new vs. used equipment. Taken together, staff said the total program estimate for the transfer station was roughly $2.3 million, not including potential change orders. Earlier internal estimates and a Peppercorn study had estimated the project at roughly $1.2 million to $1.45 million.
Concerns raised by commissioners included the size of the price increase over earlier estimates, uncertainty about long-term operational savings, and competing county priorities. County staff and the contractor discussed many line items that drive cost — tall retaining walls up to 16 feet, concrete work, walking-floor trailers, tractors and a semi tractor to haul loaded trailers — and noted certain line items, such as rock, include placement and compaction as well as raw material.
Several commissioners said the county has other, more immediate capital needs, including replacement haul trucks and upgrades to compactor boxes. County staff outlined options to use ARPA funds or equipment reserves for some purchases, and asked the commissioners whether to shift ARPA or other funds toward vertical landfill expansion (cell expansion) and immediate equipment needs instead of the transfer-station construction. Commissioners instructed staff to assemble a prioritized “wish list” of equipment and to identify which previously incurred container and repair costs might be reimbursable from ARPA if allowable.
After discussion, Commissioner made a motion to reject the transfer-station construction contracts; the motion was seconded and the board voted in favor. No formal dollar-for-dollar alternative was adopted; commissioners directed staff to bring back prioritized equipment needs, estimates for cell expansion and options for using ARPA or equipment-reserve dollars.
Ending — The board rejected the contracts and directed staff to prioritize spending on landfill equipment and cell expansion and to return with itemized options and funding sources at the next meeting.
