Submitted by: TOWN OF PHIPPSBURG Approved by Selectmen: SELECTMEN'S MEETING

Transcription

1 Submitted by: TOWN OF PHIPPSBURG Approved by Selectmen: SELECTMEN'S MEETING John M. Young MINUTES Administrator August 6, 2014 Regular meeting convened at 6:00 p.m. at the Town Hall with Selectman House, Selectman Read, and Selectman Perkins present. Administrator Young was on vacation. I. New Business 1. Meet with Rob Prue from Pine Tree Engineering for an update on the Parker Head Road and Basin Road projects. This will include consideration of the purchase of culverts for the Basin Road and application for a grant to replace the culvert at Egret Point. Present for Discussion: Rob Prue (Pine Tree Engineering), Curtis Doughty (Road Commissioner), Les Smith (Road Committee Chair), Ashley Thayer (citizen) and Mark Hawkes (citizen). Summary for the Basin Road: Mr. Prue explained that the Basin Road rebuild project bids were due on August 19 th and action on them would occur at the Selectmen s meeting on August 20 th. Mr. Prue, in consultation with Mr. Doughty and Mr. Smith, decided to get estimates for the purchase of the box culvert from three vendors rather than putting it out to bid due to the short time frame for the project (the stream crossing needed to be completed by October 1 st ). He explained the design of the box culvert and added that it was a federal mandate and required due to the new stream crossing rules the Army Corps of Engineers and Maine DEP are enforcing. These new rules apply to salmon habitat which includes protection of the food that salmon prey on. Some towns are being required to build arches or bridges which are more expensive but since there is a stone dam behind the school which blocks fish passage from Center Pond the Town can install a less expensive box culvert. He added that the Town can purchase the box culvert ahead of time and prevent a contractor markup on the price. If the Selectmen approve the purchase of the box culvert it will be ordered tomorrow and delivered by Sept 17 th. This will allow 13 days for installation and it is a three day process. The culvert section of the Basin Road could be closed for up to one week and emergency services would be notified of the exact dates Mr. Prue requested quotes from three companies which were Precast Concrete who were too overbooked to provide a culvert, American Concrete who would provide one for $23,490, and George Roberts Concrete who would provide one for $29,170. He had no concerns with American Concrete s much lower bid because they have made many box culverts over the years. Selectman House asked what the price difference would be between the required box culvert and a normal culvert and Mr. Prue replied about $20,000 and added that the days of installing round pipes in streams are gone. Mr. Hawkes asked if the extra 20% buried below the stream surface would fill with sand and Mr. Prue answered that that would indeed happen which allows for the box culvert to have the required natural bottom. Selectman Perkins asked if Mr. Doughty and Mr. Smith had reviewed the bids which 1 of 7

2 they had. He asked why the details of the project requirements were more detailed in the George Roberts quote then the American Concrete quote. Mr. Prue explained that the specifications were in the RFP that he sent out and that American Concrete just didn t regurgitate them back like George Roberts did. He added that the product would be the same and that he has done business with American Concrete before but not George Roberts Concrete. Vote for the Basin Road Box Culvert: Selectman Perkins made a motion to purchase the box culvert from American Concrete for the price of $23,490. The motion was seconded by Selectman Read and passed by a vote of 3-0. Summary for the Parker Head Road: Mr. Prue reported that the Parker Head Road project was ahead of schedule because the contractor was allowed to work through the summer as requested by the road abutters. He expected the completion date to be September 19 th. He added that the neighbors have been good to work with and traffic has not been a problem mainly due to the signs. Mr. Prue explained that the second phase of the Parker Head Road project was the replacement of the three foot culvert in the vicinity of Egret Point with a larger box culvert and raising the road 18 inches to 2 feet higher to keep it from flooding. Because this is a wading birds wildlife habitat area there is a grant program through the Maine Natural Resources Conservation Program to help restore wetlands. The Army Corps of Engineers had recommended that Phippsburg apply. The funds are administered through The Nature Conservancy. A letter of intent was sent in and now Phippsburg has been asked to complete a full application which needs submission approval from the Selectmen and would be due by September 8 th. If approved the grant would provide $40,000 towards the project and Town would provide a cost share of $10,000. This is not a case of fish passage but wetland restoration because the wetlands in the project area do not drain completely and the culvert replacement will provide a full flush. If the grant is approved it will also streamline the permit process. Selectman Read asked Mr. Smith if the Road Committee had reviewed this project and asked if it was necessary. Mr. Smith replied that the culvert has to be replaced and confirmed that the Road Committee is on board with the project. The $10,000 match would be taken out of the $100,000 raised and appropriated for the Road Capital account at the May 2014 Town Meeting Ashley Thayer asked if the beaver dam to the south would be affected. Mr. Prue replied that it would only be affected the day of the culvert replacement. Vote: Selectman Read made a motion to go forward with the grant process. The motion was seconded by Selectman Perkins and passed by a vote of Meet with Mark Hawkes to discuss his concerns with Meadowbrook Landing. Present for Discussion: Planning Board members Marie Varian (Chair), Mark Hawkes, Tip Newell, Bob Smith and Steve Thayer. Also Nick Nichols (Town Landings Committee Chair). Summary: Mr. Hawkes asked if the Selectmen had looked at the Meadowbrook Landing float system at high and low tide and they had not. He understood that the float system was fast tracked because of safety issues with using the landing without floats and that the last float was supposed to be floating at low tide according to the scope of work. He had received a call from a person who had come back at low tide with a handicapped 2 of 7

3 person on his boat and found the low tide mark four or five feet beyond the last float. The boat owner had to call for help to get the handicapped person out of the boat. Mr. Hawkes had reviewed the March and May 2014 Planning Board meeting minutes and found that there were many parts of the project that were in conflict of with the scope of work and sketches prepared by Chesterfield Associates which were presented to the Planning Board and included with the contract. These included: (1) the last float not being afloat even on an average 9 foot tide which causes access problems he had expected the float system to be installed from the high water mark to the low water mark so that the last float would be afloat at low water; (2) floats being connected with pins and snap clips instead of rods and eyes which would allow a vandal to simply pull a pin to allow the floats to detach; (3) the use of plastic forms instead of prefab concrete forms which he did not feel rocks could be packed around as efficiently and (4) the use of 16 foot floats rather than 12 foot floats which he didn t have a problem with. He also had a safety concern with the shore ramp ending up on a pile of 8 inch rocks which could roll when walked on causing a tripping hazard. He added that he had heard third person that the owner of Chesterfield Associates was on site a couple of days ago and had commented that the DEP Permit by Rule would not allow them to install a post further down below the low water mark. Mr. Hawkes expected that with the tides running from 8.5 feet to 12 feet that we should be somewhere in the middle of that range with the last float afloat so that someone can come alongside to get a boat in or out of the water. He saw no reason that the whole float system couldn t be slid down another 15 feet or so. The Selectmen had approved the construction and already paid for it and in his opinion the end product has caused a greater safety issue than existed before. He provided photos of the project to the Selectmen. Selectman House confirmed with Mr. Hawkes that the float system built at Meadowbrook Landing was not what was approved by the Planning Board. Ms. Varian explained that the Planning Board Permit was issued at the May meeting and that through the Planning Board s discussion with the contractor, questions asked, and diagram reviewed they had an idea of what the float system would look like and would do. The quote given by the contractor was to install the float system from the high water mark to the low water mark with the last float afloat at low tide. She added that the permit was for earth moving over 10 cubic yards not for the actual construction of the float system. She further explained that the Planning Board approves construction of year round float systems but not seasonal systems. Seasonal systems are approved by the Code Enforcement Officer. She added that the State DEP had already given a Permit by Rule based on the conceptual design. The Planning Board thought they knew how the float system was going to be built, what is was going to do, what is was going to look like and what it was going to serve so they were surprised when it was not constructed as presented. She has no clue as to why and is not placing blame. However, it is not safe even if just walking from the pavement to the ramp due to the jagged and uneven rocks. She had inspected the site about 1 ½ hours after the tide was coming in and it was easy to see that the last float would not be afloat at low tide. She provided photos of the project to the Selectmen. Mr. Newell stated that the float system was unusable two hours prior to and after high tide. Selectman Read wanted to confirm that the permit for the structure itself should have gone through the Code Enforcement Officer. Ms. Varian replied that the permit for the 3 of 7

4 seasonal floats would come from the Code Enforcement Officer, however since the posts are year round she would need to contact DEP to see if they would consider them permanent structures requiring further permitting. Mr. Nichols stated that the DEP permit had been granted on the basis of a conceptual drawing and that the final plans would be completed by whoever won the bid. The reason there was not another 16 foot float past the low water mark was because the DEP Permit by Rule prohibited excavation below the low water mark. He is also prohibited from installing another vertical post under the Permit by Rule it would require a full NRPA permit which would take about a year. If the contractor had added another post he would have been in violation of the permit. The last float was out as far as it could be in accordance with the contract and he started at high water with the ramp and floats. He has scheduled a meeting of the Town landing Committee next week to discuss this situation. Mr. Hawkes asked Mr. Nichols what he based the low water mark on and he replied the mean low water mark which is 9 foot below mean high water. Mr. Hawkes said his photos were taken on 9 foot tide and the last float was not floating and the water is actually 4 feet further down the ramp then the post. Selectman Read asked if the contractor had requested a work order change because the contract stated that the last float would be afloat at low tide. He added that this is a safety issue now and is the responsibility of the Selectmen. Mr. Nichols replied that that is why the Town Landing Committee is meeting next week to see how to fix it. Selectman Read replied that the problem is that based on Mr. Nichol s report at the last meeting that the float system was built correctly to specifications the Selectmen did not impose a late penalty and paid the bill. Last week he had recommended postponing payment until the Selectmen could talk to Administrator Young and that did not happen. The contract should have been complied with to a T before the Selectmen signed off on it and paid the contractor. Mr. Nichols said that they did not us the concrete blocks for support of the uprights because there was not enough rip rap for support. If they dug away a large enough area for the box it would have hollowed out the area under the concrete planks which they did not want to do. The contractor has used the four foot planks elsewhere on projects with success. Selectman House asked if this was another change in work order. Mr. Nichols replied that the contractor had discussed it with him and he in turn did not discuss it with the Selectmen because it was a decision made on site. Selectman Read had a concern that Mr. Nichols had changed a contract that should have been followed without bringing the changes to the Selectmen. If these changes are not brought before the Selectmen then they don t have the information available and end up signing off on a payment without penalty because the work order changes are based on Mr. Nichols approval. Then it all falls back on the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Hawkes and Mr. Nichols discussed the clay bottom, rip rap and the plastic culvert sections and had different opinions on what should have been used. While Mr. Nichols had a concern with undermining the planks Mr. Hawkes recommended approval of more rip rap. Mr. Nichols added that he went with the plastic culvert sections because that was what was recommended by the contractor. Selectman House stated that Chesterfield Associates had took it upon themselves to make changes based on Mr. Nichols approval. Mr. Nichols added that he had also 4 of 7

5 supported the use of clips vs. eye rings because that was standard in the construction of the float systems. He said that the contractor was not at fault because he told them to use their best judgment. Selectman Read told Mr. Nichols that he should have come before the Selectmen and asked if these changes were OK and that Chesterfield Associates should have been aware that the Selectmen discuss what happens with the contract because they were present for the extension discussion. Selectman Read asked Mr. Nichols if he had discussed all this with the Town Landings Committee. He replied yes, but not through a meeting. Selectman Read also asked him if he had informed Administrator Young of the work order changes to which he replied no. Selectman House asked Mr. Nichols if the Planning Board had approved an application which was misrepresented. Mr. Nichols admitted that the plans were changed without the Selectmen s approval. Mr. Hawkes asked the Selectmen to explain the reason that they granted the extension to the contractor. He added that this issue had come before the Selectmen because he had a concern that the project was supposed to be completed within 30 days and almost three months had gone by and it still wasn t completed. He understood that the reason was because the concrete planks were not available at the time but he called American Concrete Company two weeks ago and asked if he ordered some planks what the time frame for delivery would be and he was told 2 to 3 weeks. Selectman Read replied that the Selectmen did not grant an extension, but were holding off to see when the planks would be available. Mr. Nichols added that at the time they were informed of the delay there was a shortage of the size and type of planks needed and that everyone was building the longer planks. Selectman House stated that when they talked to the Chesterfield Associates representative at a May Selectmen s meeting they were informed that the planks were backordered. Selectman Read added that this was all explained at the May meeting and the Selectmen followed the recommendation of the Town Landing Committee at that time. Ms. Varian reiterated that regardless of anything, what the town got for a finished product is not acceptable. She doesn t know about fallback on the contractor, but both ends of the float system need to be fixed. Selectman Read agreed that the number one concerns are the safety issues and he has not had time to look at the project yet. Mr. Smith recommended that ¾ inch stone be used to fill in the rip rap at the beginning of ramp to alleviate that safety problem. Selectman House is going to contact Road Commissioner Doughty to see if he might be able to fill in the rip rap. Selectman Perkins stated that the overview and work specifications were quite clear and Mr. Nichols knew last week that the project was not completed according to the contract and it was a major malfunction all the way up through. He asked Mr. Nichols to go back to his committee and brainstorm this and see how to fix it. He also asked Mr. Nichols to explain to the contractor that he did not have prior approval from the Selectmen for the changes, that the project was not completed in accordance with contract specifications, that they did follow the plans they presented to the Planning Board and that the Selectmen did not impose a penalty. He added that the Planning Board needs to be ready to mobilize should additional permits be required. Mr. Newell stated that he has heard the argument many times that an extra float can t 5 of 7

6 be added because of the need for an additional pole. However there are many floats along the Phippsburg shoreline that are 1/3 the length of the entire float project which do not have any poles. There are other ways to add a float without having to install another pole. Also, the concrete boat launching pads are completely uncovered at a low-low tide and you could dig a hole on the right tide. Selectman Read asked Mr. Nichols if he got a permit from Code Enforcement Officer Rainey. Mr. Nichols replied that he had and then clarified the statement to reflect that Mr. Rainey had told him that if he had a DEP permit that he didn t need one from the Town which was the same thing he was told concerning the permit for Cat Cove. Mr. Smith disagreed and opined that the Code Enforcement Officer still needed to issue a permit. Ms. Varian stated that a Permit by Rule is automatically approved if there is no word from DEP within 14 days and Mr. Rainey gets a copy of it for his files. A full permit is different. In this case the Planning Board issued an earth moving permit and neither the DEP Permit by Rule nor the Planning board permit override the other both are required. As for the Code Enforcement Officer s permit - if it is required it would now be an after the fact permit with a double fee payment. Selectman House asked Mr. Hawkes if he was all set. Mr. Hawkes replied that he was not set at all because the Selectmen should have considered this information last week. Vote: Selectman Read made a motion to table the discussion with Mr. Nichols and the Town Landing Committee until after they meet at which time they will bring back recommendations to the Board of Selectmen. The motion was seconded by Selectman Perkins and passed by a vote of Town Landings Committee Chairman Nick Nichols requested that the Selectmen enter into executive session with him to discuss a personnel matter. Vote: At 7:04 Selectman Read made a motion to enter executive session as per 1 M.R.S.A A. to discuss a personnel matter. The motion was seconded by Selectman Perkins and passed by a vote of 3-0. At 7:20 the Selectmen came out of executive session. No further action was taken. 4. Review the July 2014 Monthly Treasurer s Report. Summary: The Selectmen reviewed and initialed the report. IV. Selectmen/Administrator Comments and Announcements 1. Selectman Perkins Summary: Selectman Perkins recommended that a representative from the RSU #1 Board of Directors attend the August 20 th Selectmen s meeting and provide a briefing on RSU #1 activities to include an update on the Harriman Facilities Study and the West Bath legal case. The Selectmen decided to send an invite to both Phippsburg Representatives (D-5 and D-7). 6 of 7

7 V. Review and/or Sign: 1. Accounts payable and payroll warrants. Vote: Selectman Perkins made a motion to approve and sign all the above. The motion was seconded by Selectman Read and passed by a vote of 3-0. VI. Executive Sessions 1. Enter into executive session under section 1 M.R.S.A A. to conduct interviews for the position of Transfer Station Attendant. Vote: At 7:25 Selectman Perkins made a motion to enter executive session as per 1 M.R.S.A A. to conduct interviews for the position of Transfer Station Attendant. He explained that the camera operator would be dismissed and if the Selectmen came out of executive session and there was a decision to be made they would turn the camera back on. The motion was seconded by Selectman Read and passed by a vote of 3-0. At 8:25 the Selectmen came out of executive session. The camera was turned back on. VII. Consider the hire of a Transfer Station Attendant. Vote: Selectman Perkins made a motion to hire candidate Andrew Thomas as a Transfer Station Attendant. Selectman House explained that the hire is to fill the permanent part-time (Assistant) position. The motion was seconded by Selectman Read and passed by a vote of 3-0. Selectman House will inform Mr. Thomas of the decision and have him contact Treasurer Wallace to complete the required paperwork. VIII. Adjournment Vote: At 8:26 p.m. Selectman Read made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Selectman Perkins and passed by a vote of of 7