Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-06-11 Board of Public Works MinutesBoard of Public Works Meeting of June 11, 1984 Page 1 R meeting of the Board of Public Works convened in Room 16, Municipal Building at 7:00 P.M. Present were Chairman Barker, Board Members Wood, Polychrones and Griffin and Superintendent A.U. Fletcher, P.E. It was moved, seconded and voted 3:0:1 (Mr. Polychrones abstaining) to accept the minutes of the Board of Public Works meeting of May 21, 1984 as amended. It was moved, seconded and voted 3:0:1 (Mr. Polychrones abstaining) to accept the minutes of the Board of Public Works Executive Session Meeting of May 21, 1984 as written and that they remain in private privy. Under the Superintendent's Report: Superintendent Fletcher reported on the Water Treatment Plant. He stated we are starting to run the plant at a more rapid rate. We have in the heat wave been switching over to the generator. This has been operating well under load. Chairman Barker asked what is the prognosis on the lime system. Superintendent Fletcher replied I would assume by the end of this week the system will be back on line. The "valve system" split, through no fault of operation or wear and tear. We have had some leaks in the lime tank which have been repaired. The problem seems to be that the ball valves do not "seat" properly. CDM feels a redesigning and remachining will bring this back on line. He stated his experience with lime systems this small is not good, the smaller the unit, the more complex it is. He stated this will be an on-going report from him. Mr. Griffin stated I would like for you to emphasize what you just stated. The failures at the treatment plant are mechanical. When Board of Public Works Meeting of June 11, 1984 Page 2 the lime system is tried the next time, if one word is stated about operations I would like to request you request in writing the cause in operations and where in the 0&M Manual this is. If they can not produce this I would expect an apology. Superintendent Fletcher stated they were already instructed to do this in writing. Mr. Griffin asked at what point would it be advisable in your mind to sit down and review with representatives of CDM, the conditions at the plant since the last meeting with them? Superintendent Fletcher replied I have been doing this all along. I suggested very strongly that when this thing is put back together we are going to watch this demonstration. I absolutely will not have any of our people touch this until it has worked for one complete week. Chairman Barker asked will you recommend to us a date that the Board should sit with CDM? Superintendent Fletcher replied yes. Regarding the John Street Facility: Superintendent Fletcher showed the Board a plan of the dump closure which was submitted to the DEOE. The Superintendent sent several copies of this plan to the Industrial Development Committee. He stated there will be a report from Whitman & Howards geologist, Jonathan Bridge, next week. The Superintendent explained a great deal of the material at the landfill was incinerated, the dump had to have had very good management. About 30% of what we found was earth which meant the landfill was being covered in a good manner, therefore, we will have a good compaction. The back portion of the site will be filled in and graded about three feet Board of Public Works Meeting of June 11, 1984 Page 3 higher than it now is and will be pitched with a slow gradient down to the front. He stated we have been unable to contact anyone at DEGE since we submitted this closure plan three weeks ago. Gretchen Latowsky and two additional representatives from the Hazardous Waste Committee joined the meeting at 7;35 P.M. Superintendent Fletcher stated he thought the floor of the landfill was somewhere near the elevation of 80. However, it is determined at 75 now. He stated he will make a location map showing where each test pit was made. The original closure plan was accepted in 1478. The Superintendent stated he and Ted McIntire met with the four of the 13 architectural firms that submitted proposals. Mr. Griffin asked does the regrading account for the moving of the trash from the front of the site? Superintendent Fletcher replied yes, because of rearrangement. We have made the area in back bigger with grading to look more attractive. We will accelerate the actual closing of the dump by doing this. Mrs. Wood asked will the pitch of the extra three feet affect drainage into the apartment building? Superintendent Fletcher replied it does not affect the speed or the direction of the flow. Roc O'Connell of the Industrial Development Committee joined the meeting at 7:50 P.M. Gretchen Latowsky asked what kind of testing do you plan to do ? Superintendent Fletcher replied an outside geologist and our staff are in agreement with the results of the test pits. We propose to Hoard of Public Works Meeting of June 11, 1984 Page 4 have the geologist take samples at his random. We have not had any communication with DEGE since we submitted this plan. I suspect strongly that they will have someone monitoring the removal efforts, but they feel there is no need to hold a public hearing regarding this. Gretchen Latowsky asked will you apply a temporary cover at the end of the trash moving day to help with the odor problem? Superintendent Fletcher replied if we run into real trouble we will use a stand-by lime system. It would be cost-prohibitive to cover this with earth every night. Chairman Barker stated we understand your concerns, but until DEQE gets back to us, we will deal with these issues. Superintendent Fletcher stated I will send both committees a copy of the geologists report. Roc O'Connell of the IDC asked what is the schedule for moving the trash? Superintendent Fletcher replied the moving of this material is scheduled for the third week in September. The Board next decided to schedule the Architectural and Engineering reviews for June 18 and June 20 beginning at 7;15 P.M. to be held at the Public Library. Both the IDC and HWC will be invited. The Board next met with Town Counsel, H. Theodore Cohen, to discuss the Vining Disposal Co. rubbish pick-up and disposal contract. Two representatives from Vining Disposal were also present. Chairman Barker stated we need to come to a reasonable agreement on the issues of "delays" and fuel cost adjustments. Board of Public Works Meeting of June 11, 1984 Page 5 Attorney Cohen stated he was brought up to date on this last Friday by Supt. Fletcher. The adjustments are in regard to a fuel adjustment and a provision to allow for additional payment to Vining in the event of delays encountered. Atty. Cohen in turn contacted Atty. Gary Banks who represents Vining, and explained the Town was upset at this. Atty. Banks advised Atty. Cohen that this was not intended as a threat to cut off the time for the signing of the contract. At Atty. Cohen's request, he delivered a letter extending the time for signing the contract until 5;00 P.M. on June 19th. If there was agreement with Finance Committee, Atty. Banks and Cohen could have a week to work it out and the Board could vote on it next Monday. Atty. Cohen discussed with Atty. Banks the possibility of a fuel adjustment and he thinks that is his primary point. We agreed this would be based on the highest price of fuel available as of June 1st. If the cost should go up over the life of the contract the first 20% would be borne by Vining. Above that, the Town would pay all or a portion above that 20% level. He stated he has not reached an agreement with Mr. Banks on money at this point. The second point discussed was the issue of delays at RESCQ. Atty. Cohen told him we could not agree to a blanket decision. Atty. Cohen stated that some delay must have been written into the original bid. There must be some period of time they anticipated to be the turn around time. We agreed an hour as a minimum had to be reasonable. Beyond that he did not feel capable to quantify this and it was left that the Supt. and Vining would have a discussion on what is a Board of Public Yorks Meeting of June 11, 1984 Page b reasonable time of delay. That is where we stand at this point and we put it back into the Board's hands. Chairman Barker stated I know there has been a lot of opinion and some tempers flared. He stated he would like to hear from the Board of Public Yorks as to their initial reactions as to direction and then would like to come to an agreement as to a meeting time for tomorrow. Mr. Polychrones stated my thoughts are this. I feel this should have been discussed long before this. This should have been in the contract originally and I do not believe we should go along with this. I feel we should rebid this contract. Mrs. Wood stated on the fuel adjustment charge, my question is, is this not part of the CPI Index? Atty. Cohen replied the CFI is made up of various factors of which fuel may be one of them. Mrs. Wood stated then this matter is an addition to that escalation clause. Part of my problem is past experience with problems of fuel adjustments. I find it hard to say that this should be added in twice. As far as the delays are concerned, not only do you have turn-around time anywhere, the more chance you have of having delays in traffic. My problem is with the time of delays. Mr. Griffin stated I see these as two separate items. The second item of "delay" is interpretational. When definitions are supplied, I don't think this will represent much of a hurdle. Part of this can be resolved in the contract with RESCQ. I do not recommend rebidding on that basis. I have serious reservations about the fuel adjustment. The mileage to Saugus is a lot less. Logic indicates to me that a fuel adjustment clause asked for in the original contract to Plainville makes a lot more sense. Board of Public Works Meeting of June 11, 1984 Page 7 He stated he is not going to make a decision about rebidding at this time until he hears form all parties concerned. Chairman Barker stated I recommend the attornies and principals of both parties meet and work out written language which addresses both of these points. Michael Vining stated these are two separate entities. We are looking to be compensated for an extreme delay. Delay would be interpreted as when we arrive at RESCO's property. Because of a 4 hour delay Vining would be incapable of coming back and servicing Reading for the rest of the day which would then have a mushrooming effect and trick-down effect into Saturday. That would put us into a time-and-a-half position with our men. We would call this an unforseeable delay. Atty. Cohen stated we have not worked out this language. If a four hour delay is very infrequent this would not have understandably been written into Vining's contract. Superintendent Fletcher stated you can't define "delay" in terms of the letter I received from Atty. Banks. Mr. Hampson joined the meeting at 0;40 P.M. Superintendent Fletcher stated the RESCO contract provides for reimbursement to the community for unacceptable wastes. I have no problem with giving Vining the right to be the injured party, but I do have problems with a lot of the definitions. Mrs. Wood stated you must have an estimated time to leave the Town of Reading. Does RESCO have a closing time? Mr. Vining replied this would vary but we would estimate first load 11;30 and second load 2;30. RESCO closes at 5;00 P.M. They have a posted closing of 5;00 P.M., but if they are waiting for residential trash, they will keep it open if we are still in line. Board of Public Yorks Meeting of June 11, 1984 Page 8 Mr. Hampson stated I agree that delay should be defined. Mr. Vining stated my cap is 4 or more hours of delay. Atty. Cohen stated my udnerstanding is that the original bid by Vining was premised upon delivering the trash to Plainville. It seems to me that if you had a problem, you should have figured in your additional delay costs. Mr. Polychrones asked why did you wait until now? Mr. Vining replied my attorney did not get a chance to look at this. The Town should have signed with RESCO a few months ago. I have $40,000 already spent on this contract. I am not here to play games with the Town. Mrs. Wood stated when the Board asked for a figure from Vining in the beginning and we started talking about RESCO, we asked for a price to go to RESCO. How do we add on to that when you knew we were talking about RESCO and you did not add in any adjustment. Mr. Vining replied the figure of $319,000 was given to Bill Bergeron. The Board voted on a price of $312,500. He stated since that time the price of fuel has gone sky high, we would be losing money. Supt. Fletcher stated your CPI would have to be modified by the increase in gasoline. You would be getting an increase twice. Mr. Vining stated if fuel jumps between now and December, when would we be covered for this new price. When we rewrite this that would have to be taken into account. We understand what you are saying. We would have to put a cap on the CPI. Atty. Cohen stated we can write any of this language into the agreement. t Board of Public Works Meeting of June 11, 1984 Page 9 Chairman Barker stated why don't we set a tentative date for 1:00 P.M. in Boston tomorrow. Atty. Cohen should contact Ted McIntire. I would like to emphasize that on behalf of the Board that if a signed agreement can not be worked out by 5:00 P.M. on Thursday, that some other avenue will have to be taken by the Board of Public Works to collect rubbish in the Town of Reading. Mr. Vining stated this should be able to be worked out tomorrow. Atty. Cohen stated if we reach agreement we will at least have it verbally. Chairman Barker stated I would like this in writing. Mrs. Wood stated this is a major change to the contract. They should have known this when it was bid. I think if you start with add-ons you will have an open-ended contract. Town Counsel should be asked if in fact this would be a different type of contract. Chairman Barker asked would you be agreeable to having an upset limit apply to each of the amendments? Mrs. Wood stated I as not in favor in any case of the fuel adjustment. I am not sure on the delays. Mr. Polychrones asked can this be rebid in time? Supt. Fletcher replied yes, tomorrow. Mr. Hampson asked can we expect lower bids? Supt. Fletcher replied no. Mr. Hampson stated I am not totally opposed to the fuel c adjustments, but don't understand your rationale for the CPI. Supt. Fletcher stated we need to take care of the language, I don't have a problem with the mechanics. Chairman Barker stated it is my intent to see if there is a majority of the Board who want to rebid the contract. Board of Public Works Meeting of June 11, 1984 Page 10 L It was moved and seconded to immediately reject the contract and rebid it. The motion was defeated 0:3:2 (Mr. Polychrones, Mr. Hampson and Mr. Barker opposed, Mr. Griffin and Mrs. Wood abstaining). Mr. Griffin amended the motion that pending legal counsel's review of our right to do so and our right to alter the original contract as it stands and is pending between Vining and this Board at this time and/or the right to revise it legally at this time or to renegotiate the contract as it stands now. The motion was seconded and voted 2:2:1 (Mr. Hampson and Mr. Barker opposed and Mr. Polychrones abstaining). It was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 to direct the Department to E meet with Ted Cohen, Gary Banks an dthe principals to hammer out an agreement before tomorrow evening. Peg Russell stated as far as the deadline is concerned, you need to have for the Finance Committee the potential costs involved. We can look at the two proposals and quantify it. You do not need to come to a final agreement by 5:00 P.M. tomorrow night. Mrs. Wood stated I want to see the original contract language on both amendments. Mr. Griffin stated I would like to see a fuel adjustment clause that can go up or down. He stated he would also like to see the legality of entering into a bid contract at Point R with a modification at Point B while all other bidders have been excluded at Point B which may in fact have some bearing on whether this meeting can take place in the first place. Mr. Hampson stated he would like language for the delay included in the contract. Board of Public Works Meeting of June 11, 1984 Page 11 Chairman Barker stated I would be in favor of trying to dollarize both areas and quantify them for the Finance Committee meeting tomorrow night. Regarding the RESCO contract Superintendent Fletcher stated Town Counsel and I went through the whole contract and discussed there was no indemnification. We should have those pages ready to execute this week. The Board next discussed the Drinkwater development in North Reading. Superintendent Fletcher stated last Thursday we met with Spaulding & Slye who are now custodians of that property. Wilmington has already issued Conditions and we have until this Friday to dispute those. We suggested to Mr. Rousseau of Spaulding & Slye that he request North Reading delay their Order of Conditions 30 days, he agreed with us. Spaulding & Slye have come to an agreement with North Reading and they will not issue an Order of Conditions until we sit down with them. He stated he would like to talk with Ted tomorrow and file an automatic protest to those conditions. We can withdraw this appeal at any time. These conditions do not at all address our concerns. It was moved, seconded and voted 5,0 to give permission to the Supt. to file on behalf of the Board of Public Works a protest against the Town of Wilmington Order of Conditions. Chairman Barker read into the minutes a letter from the Conservation Commission regarding the Drinkwater property and recommending the hire of a consulting hydrogeologist. Supt. Fletcher stated I would recommend strongly this Board ask for a joint meeting with the Conservation Commission and Planning Board. We very definitely need some hydrogeological expertise on this matter. I feel we should get together with these Boards to discuss this. Hoard of Public Works Meeting of June 11, 1984 Rage 12 I We made an agreement today finally to drop two more 2" wells on the North Reading side. Mr. Hampson will set up the joint Boards meeting on this subject. It was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 to award Contract 84-11 "Lawn Construction" to T&M Landscape Nurseries, Inc. in the amount not to exceed $60,192.50. It was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 to sponsor Article 9 on the Special Town Meeting Warrant that deals with funding a contract with RESCO. Under Old and New Business; The Board discussed Public Works Evaluations - Engineering Division. Superintendent Fletcher stated I would like to discuss the Board's feeling as to whether the Engineering Division is overstaffed or understaffed. It was moved, seconded and voted 3:1:1 (Mr. Griffin abstaining) to table the discussion about the Engineering Division evaluations. Chairman Barker instructed that the memo regarding the job descriptions to be part of this future discussion. Chairman Barker stated this has to be discussed before budget season. Under the budget review, Chairman Barker stated the Board of Public Works should be reviewing periodically the overall financial status of the accounts. He recommended the Department prepare a list of accounts to be encumbered and a carry-over of projects still pending with a projection of funds to be returned to the Town and that this report be available for the June 25th meeting. Board of Public Works Meeting of June 11, 1984 Page 13 The Board individually questioned various accounts in the budget, the answers to which were supplied by Mr. McIntire. The Board next reviewed the memo and outline of the Superintendents objectives for 1984. Mrs. Wood stated I don't know how to view this. Chairman Barker stated in order to have a better way to view his performance I attempted to sit down and follow a format used at my place of employment and look at the entire scope of this job and what are some of the things I would like a new Superintendent to be doing over and above the job as it goes from day to day. He asked what kind of direction do we want to give our Superintendent? Mr. Griffin stated I think production objectives can be verified but I do have problems with evaluating the Superintendent by objectives because, frankly, they could "snow" me. I don't think establishing a list is a good idea, but I don't have another alternative. I saw this in operation and I personally did not feel this was successful. Mr. Polychrones stated I think Tony is doing a great job and we should leave him alone and later evaluate him. Mr. Hampson stated the concept is good, but we are asking him to do too much in one year. We should trim this down to be manageable. Mr. Griffin stated he would inquire of the School Department how this type of program has worked out for them. Supt. Fletcher stated it doesn't make any difference to me how you do this. I operate this way on my own anyway. An MBQ office system for all supervisors would not work in this municipal business. Chairman Barker stated I would like to see the Supervisors involved in more of the planning and budget process. n Board of Public Works Meeting of June 11, 1904 Page 14 Superintendent Fletcher replied that is being done and will be done. It was decided to lay this on the table until dir. Griffin comes back with a response from the School Department. The Board signed the Payroll and the Billroll for the period ending June 7, 1904. The meeting adjourned at 11;45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ec retar C