Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners weigh $1.76 million transfer-station bid and ARPA deadline as equipment costs loom
Summary
Engineers recommended awarding the transfer-station contract to the low bidder, Cone Construction Services ($1,765,595.58), but commissioners pressed for a full funding plan after staff warned of additional inspection, equipment and cell-expansion costs and an ARPA obligation deadline at year-end.
Kaw Valley engineers recommended the county accept the low bid from Cone Construction Services of the Kansas City area for a new transfer station and tipping floor, citing a low bid of $1,765,595.58 compared with the engineer’s June estimate of $1,630,000.00. Chad McCullough of Kaw Valley told commissioners the low bidder had asked thorough questions during the bidding process and that references checked out.
The commission’s discussion quickly shifted from procurement to total project cost. Sean West, public works administrator, told the board that construction inspection and materials testing — an owner responsibility not included in the contractor bid — could cost roughly $91,250 if the county retains third-party inspection to have an on-site inspector during construction. Kaw Valley and staff also flagged unbudgeted equipment needs (trailers, a backhoe, compactors and other specialized machinery) that would be required to operate the new facility after construction.
Chastity, a county administrator, warned the commission that Southeast Kansas Regional Planning Commission officials said ARPA funds that the county planned to apply to the project must be obligated by Dec. 31 and spent by Dec. 31 of the following year. She reported the county’s most recent ARPA balance at about $812,000 and said administrators need a written commitment to reserve the grant funds.
Several commissioners said they were uncomfortable approving a large capital contract without a consolidated, updated cost estimate that included contractor change-order risk, inspection fees, and equipment purchases. One commissioner asked Kaw Valley to update the earlier feasibility study’s equipment list and to present a single total that combines contractor price, inspection/testing, equipment purchases and contingency figures.
Kaw Valley agreed to compile the detailed totals and return next week with a plan A/B showing how the county could (1) proceed with the low bid while covering additional costs from contingency or capital outlay, or (2) defer and identify alternative ARPA-eligible projects. No formal contract award was recorded at the meeting; Kaw Valley’s recommendation was placed on the table pending additional fiscal detail.
What happens next: County staff and Kaw Valley will bring consolidated equipment and funding figures to the commission at the next meeting and advise whether ARPA funds can be committed in time to meet the stated deadline.
