HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-10-29 Board of Public Works MinutesBoard of Public Works Meeting of October 29, 1984 Pane 1
A meeting of the Board of Public Works convened in Room 16,
M!.!nicinal. Building at 7;30 P.M. Present were Chairman Barker. Secretary
Hampson, Board Member Griffin; Supt. Anthony V. Fletcher, and Asst.
Supt.'s Edward D- McIntire, Jr. and William A. Redford.
It was moved, seconded and voted 3:0 to accent the minutes of the
Board of Public Works Meeting of October 1. 1984 as amended.
The Board next discussed the continued Pole Hearing petition from
N. E. T. & T. at 7: SO P. M.
Present from the phone company was Mr. George Cooley.
Supt. Fletcher stated Mr. Cooley and I have spoken with Mr.
DiCi.cco, owner of Wayside Bazaar. The phone company has come up with a
revised plan acceptable to Mr. Di.Cicc_o. He stated he spoke with Mr.
DiCicco directly and he is in accord with the change. The change involved
reversing a west pole to an east pole and placing the terminal in front of
the middle of the building. Supt. Fletcher stated the Department
recommends this he approved.
It was moved, seconded and voted 3:0 to close the hearing at 7;55
P. M.
It was moved, seconded and voted 3:0 to grant the petition from
N.E.T. & T. for the relocation of poles and the placement of a telephone
terminal as outlined in their Petition No. 4-3759A dated October 24. 1984.
It was moved, seconded and voted 3:0 to accept the minutes of the
Board of Public Works meeting of October IS, 1984 as amended.
It was moved, seconded and voted 3:0 to accept the minutes of the
Board of Survey Meeting of October 15; 1984 as amended.
Under the Superintendent's Report;
Supt_ Fletcher stated each Board Member and myself were served
with a preliminary injunction and a summons regarding the John Street.
Landfill project. Part of this is a restraining order and the second is
Board of Public Works Meeting of October 29, 19£14 Page ?
a request to the court to stop construction of the John Street Facility..
We did stop work and on Friday morning Bill, Ted; myself and Charlie
Costello spent most of the day with Town Counsel; Ted Cohen, discussing
this situation, 7anni was also served as our contractor, wrongfully.
Ted Cohen feels the stop order was unfairly given in that the
judge dial not ask anything of us and also feels the charges are
unsubstantiated. Tt is not necessary for any Board ?ember to go into
court and we do feel the injunction will he lifted on Wednesday. He
stated we have never, at any time, had any complaints from anyone
regarding noise or air pollution caused by this project. We have also lost
$8,000.00 worth of free services from the National. Guard.
The Supt. stated Atty. Cohen is in full agreement with the 2/1
provision of the sewer permit granting process. As far as he is
concerned, you can implement this jest the way the Supt, wrote it. He
suggested the Board approve this as soon as possible as we have an
outstanding sewer permit about to come in from TASC,
Under Chairman's comments;
Chairman Barker read into the minutes a tribute to William
McCauley thanking him for his service to the Town as follows:
This Friday, Gill McCauley will leave town employ after 13 years
of dedicated service. Gill., presently a Senior Civil Engineer in the
Engineering Division has been a credit to the Puhl.i.c Works Department„ His
many fine accomplishments have included:
Excellent coordination of contract work
Excellent construction cost estimating
Solid training of new employees.
Bill's knowledge and dedication to his work will be missed. The Board
The of
Public Works takes this opportunity to thank him for his past efforts and
wi...h him ..he ..est of luck in his new career.
Board of Public Works Meeting of October ?9, 1984 Page 3
It was moved- seconded and voted 3;0 that a copy be sent to Mr.
McCauley.
Mr. Griffin stated as the restrictions in salary and benefits
become more evident, the exodus of your well.-trained, we!)-developed, more
experienced personnel will continue.
The Board next discussed the letter from Bradford GMC Truck
Company regarding the two used diamond Ren Crump Trucks.
Supt- Fletcher stated Bradford is requesting not to have to nay
the original bid price of $3,000..00 because they feel the value has gone
down considerably because of the delay from 1./30/84 to 10/10:`94 in
allowing them to pick up these units. Supt. Fletcher recommended their
request be denied. On February 10, 1984 Ted sent them an award letter.
Mrs. Wood joined the meeting at 8;20 P.M.
S"pt. Fletcher stated the only option you have is to rebid these
used dump trucks.
You can not negotiate the price with them.
Mr. Griffin stated the judgement regarding any conversation made
is critical..
Supt„ Fletcher stated l would he inclined to ask that he withdraw
his bid completely.
It was moved, seconded and voted 4,0 to rescind the award of the
bid for two used 1.970 Diamond Reo Trucks in the amount of $3,000.00 to
Bradford Auto Co~
Mr. Gri.ffi.n asked that the Department come back to the Board with
a prise value on these trucks,
The Board next had a discussion on the ? 1/2 Override Referendum
question.
Board of Public Works Meeting of October 297 1984 Page 4
Mr. Griffin asked that the board take a voting position on this
referendum issue. Tt is his opinion that the projected shortfall may
occur. One way to avoid this is to vote in favor of the referendum, with
the recognition this is confined to two projects. T duly acknowledge and
accredit those who uphold the opposing view,
Mr., Hampson stated T would be supportive of this if it were
specifically for the cost of two projects minus the land sales. However, i
don't think the townspeople are going to bury this-
Mr, Griffin stated T quite agree with you, however, Town Meeting
has directed these projects and minimally fended them.
Mr. Hampson stated the oponents are saying there is more land in
this Town for sale.
Mr. Griffin stated it is likely therm could in fact be a
significant shortfall to do with this Department. As elected members who
are supposed to anticipate an impact on this Department which is negative,
there is a referendum question that may in fact offer us an .alternative.
Frank Gorgone of the Finance Committee stated we are saying the
amounts from the sale of properties is what should be used to fund any
large projects, mindful also we have a Fire Station coming up. There has
been poor planning on the part of Town Officials. Tt has been mandated by
Town Meeting that the Library/Town Hall complex be done over, Finance
Committee will present to Town meeting our financial position. Our
responsibility is to act as an advisory Board only,
Mr. Griffin stated T still contend there is always the
possibility of a case arising where an expedient may be of value. This is
my recommendation to the Board.
Mrs, Wood stated the Treasurer has always said that bonding in a
State that has a mandated tax increase is a risky business. T do have
reservations in many respects of the townspeople voting for this, T feel,
Board of Public Works Meeting of October 29, 1984 Page S
in general, the Town is run very efficiently. People have to real.i?e you
can not have extra services and Prop. 2 1/2 also. Almost a year after the
Finance Committee supported the sale of John Street land to TASC, they are
now saying "stay within your means". I would like the financial members
of this Town to consider alternative funding, for these projects and other
future projects.
Mr. Gorgone stated you must realize there is significant turnover
of the Finance Committee.
Mr. Hampson stated you can't override decisions previously made.
Does the Finance Committee take issue with our construction costs?
Mr. Gorgone replied the Space Leeds Committee has not come before
Finance Committee asking for us to move on a certain appropriation. At
that time, the sense of the Finance Committee will be made known.
It was moved, seconded and voted 1:0:3 (Mr. Barker, Mrs. Wood and
Mr. Hampson abstaining) that the Board vote to adopt in principle to
support Referendum Question #2 for the exemption of the two facilities
from Proposition 2 i./?.
it was moved, seconded and voted 4:0 to reconsider.
Mfr. Griffin again moved the original motion. The motion was
defeated 1:1:2 (Mr. Hampson opposed and Mfr. Barker and Mrs. Wood
abstaining).
The Board next discussed the McGurn property at 80 Willow Street.
William Wagner, Attorney from Latham & Latham, P.C. was also in
attendance.
Mr. Wagner stated the evidence that had been submitted showed no
evidence of wetlands. The By-Law under which they are applying indicates
that no new construction shall take place in the Flood Plain. He felt any
water would pass finder this porch. He presented the Board with a map
depicting the area and showing a porch directly beside it which is into
Board of Public Works Meeting of October 29, 1984 Page b
the Flood Plain. He also brought the Boards' attention to the affadavits
written by ter. & dirs. Anthony Guarciariel.io.
Supt. Fletcher stated the purpose for the restriction of
construction in the Flood Plain is that any structure sloes not change the
capacity of the Flood Plain. The Department finds no displacement
calculable in this particular case.
Mfrs. Wood stated I do have a problem with this porch construction
in that we had several hearings on house construction in the same Flood
Plain last year.
Mr. Griffin stated my question here is with procedure. The
burden of hardship placed upon this Board is really not our responsibility
at all,
Atty. Wagner stated unfortunately dir. Enos retained our firm to
represent the McGurns, Mr. Enos built the porch and then went for a
permit. The permit was denied by Mfr. Stamatis.
Mr. Griffin stated I am really addressing the issue about how
does one vote against a neighbor who has paid $10,000 for a porch.
Chairman Barker stated no matter where this type of building
takes place; people must he made to understand that the law is the law.
Mfrs. Wood stated in the past we have looked for more back-up than
from Just two people regarding a. flooding situation. T am looking for
something that is a little more definitive.
It was moved, seconded and voted 3:1 (Mrs. Wood opposed) to
reconsider the previous vote regarding 80 Willow Street, Reading, Ufa,.
Mr. Griffin moved that we notify the Board of Appeals that there
is no evidencp that the Flood Plain will be disturbed as the result of
construction of a porch at 80 Willow Street. The motion was seconded.
Mr. Hampson ampnded the motion that if we had the evidence, three
tally columns 4" square would not detract from the storage capacity of
Board of Public Works Meeting of October 29, 1984
Page 7
the Flood Plain. The motion was seconded.
The motion as amended was defeated 0:4 (all opposed).
Chairman Barker asked the Superintendent advise the Board of
Appeals the conr.ensus of the Boards decision in a separate letter.
Under Old & New Business:
The Board discussed the Gavin Circle Petition.
Chairman Barker stated he went up there and feels the people have
some legitimate complaints. He felt the developer should he put on
immediate notice that he has some work to do before the construction
season ends, particularly at 12S Franklin Street- He also noticed water
being pumped out into the street next to House No. 29 going northerly.
Chairman Barker asked the Department to prepare a response to the
Planning Canard regarding our concerns ahout the General. Tire development
project impact on water supply and demand as well as hazardous waste.
The Board next discussed the first draft of the FY86 Budget.
After a short general discussion, it was derided that more input
could be given at a later time after discussion with the Finance
Committee,
The Board signed the Payroll and the Billroll for the period
ending October 26, 1984„
The meeting adjourned at 10:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Sec ret v