A new engineering firm is up for City Council consideration, at a tab not to exceed $90,000 for 2016.
If approved at the March 14 regular meeting, Pennoni Associates would succeed Remington & Vernick as city engineers. Terms include a maximum of eight office hours per week as needed, at $160 per hour. The firm would be responsible for plan review, budget preparation for capital improvements, grant applications, equipment and services specifications, mapping and signing off on documents, among other tasks. The engineer would also attend meetings as required by Public Works director Eric Watson or his designee.
Up until about 10 years ago, the city had a full-time in-house engineer, but later outsourced the duties. One of the major concerns has been a road repair program that began as a five-year project in 2005, but morphed into "phases" after the schedule fell behind.
For several years, the engineer assigned from Remington & Vernick was Jacqueline Foushee, who developed an exhaustive knowledge of city infrastructure and a congenial working relationship with city staff and land use agencies. Foushee left the company in 2014 to become the first female African American Public Works director in Trenton, shortly after former Plainfield Public Works Director Eric Jackson was elected mayor of Trenton.
Another engineer was assigned to Plainfield, but apparently did not have the same affinity for the city.
The contract with Pennoni Associates, if approved by the governing body, runs to Dec. 31.
Also on Monday's agenda is a $2.3 million bond ordinance for capital improvements described as:
"Providing for various capital acquisitions and improvements within the City
including, but not limited to, the improvements to Seidler Field, Municipal
Lots 6 and 8, Department of Public Works salt and sand storage silo,
Department of Public Works City yard and Police Headquarters, the
acquisition of vehicles for the Department of Public Works, the acquisition
of police vehicles and the acquisition of a fire engine pumper, and the
purchase of property."
The bond ordinance will be up for first reading on March 14 and if passed, will be up for second reading and final passage on April 11.
Other items include a lien for $114,000 to be placed on 117-125 North Avenue for the March 21, 2015 demolition that went wrong and destroyed a neighboring restaurant. The owner is not identified.
Click the link to view or print your own copy of the Monday, March 7 agenda.
--Bernice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
$90,000 is the point of departure! It will be interesting to see the final annualized cost for this service. The failure of the Administration and Council to understand the economic benefit of having a full time City employed engineer, given the conspicuous enormous consistent recorded costs of using an outside engineering consultant over the last several years, is difficult to comprehend. The reasoning is commensurate with the thought process that recently was involved when it was proposed an outside Consultant replace the Planning Department. Can anyone explain the rationale? Bill Kruse
ReplyDeleteThey had a good thing going with the demolition until they left it in the hands of newly minted PW&UD director Eric Watson and his sidekick, Inspections chief Phil Izzo. Developer Frank Cretella was foreclosing on the property and no one would have known any better. But Watson cut too many corners doling out the work to the unqualified, and not informing state Historic Preservation authorities, so the whole thing came crashing down. Now we're probably talking funny money with the liens because the amount owed is way beyond the economic value of the property. As with the other demolition further down North Avenue, the City may never collect and the lots will sit empty. The City Council, with some members looking to protect the Mayor while others sought to protect Watson, punted on a much needed investigation, turning the taxpayers into the real losers.
ReplyDeleteThis commentary again raises the question, among many others, as to what amount Yates, the initial Demolition Contractor, was paid? There is also a question as to whether he should have been paid anything?
ReplyDeleteYates submitted a bill, shortly after the City terminated his contract for cause, in the amount of about $75,000. Absent any further work being performed Yates subsequently , and without having dome more work, submitted a revised bill for about $129,000. Notwithstanding the conspicuous irregularity the Council announced that they intended to pay the second, larger amount, in order to avoid costly litigation. It is hard to believe that Yates would litigate given all of the "irregularities" attendant to the award, and conduct of the work. It is more likely that the rush to payment was merely to get the embarrassing matter closed and permit time to obscure this travesty. Bill Kruse