HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-07-02 Finance Committee Minutes
FINANCE COMMITTEE
July 2, 2007
Minutes
Councilors: Stone, Hawes, D’Errico, Blanchette, Gratwick
Staff: Cyr, Moore, Warren, McNeil, Dawes, Ring, Farrar
Others: Alan Stormann, Don Cooper, George Elliott, Hope Brogunier, Lucy
Quimby
1. Consent Agenda
A motion was made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda items
by a 4-0 vote.
a. Quitclaim Deed – Riley – 15 Royal Road
b. Used Vehicle Purchase
c. Resolve 07-232, Accepting & Appropriating HUD HMIS Grant
2. Bids/Purchasing
a. Clarifier Tank Repairs – WWTP – Copia Specialty Contractors -
$91,114
Cyr indicated that in April of this year a bid had been issued for various
repairs at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The bids came in much
higher than anticipated. At that time, the Committee did approve award
of bid for three of the items. Moore had expressed concern that when the
responders looked at the project that most of the tanks were full. The
clarifier tanks were emptied a couple of weeks ago and Moore asked the
contractors to return to the site and to provide a new quote. Normally,
staff would have gone out for bids again but since the contractors had
provided a price within the last two months staff returned to the two
contractors. Both contractors complied and submitted bids. Staff
recommends that the bid be awarded to Copia Specialty Contractors of
Brewer. Cyr indicated that the other bidder, GS Bolton, was very unhappy.
Bolton was the high bidder on the original bid. Moore and Jellison have
spent time with Bolton discussing the award. Moore said that because of
the contractors being able to see the project without the water it gave a
clearer picture and a lower price. Stone asked about rate increases. As
part of the budget and based on pro formas, Cyr said rate increases were
part of the budget process resulting in a 6% increase in January of 2008
and 6% in July of 2008. Staff is in hopes that there will not be any major
rate increases needed in the near future. The final debt service payment
on the new treatment plant is scheduled for 2014. Cyr said that if the
media in the bio tower should fail, it would be an expensive replacement.
A motion was made and seconded to approve staff’s recommendation.
The vote was 5-0.
b. RFP – WMP Penjajwoc Watershed – BSA - $14,000
Gratwick said that this item comes at the end of a very long process. He
applauded all involved for the progress made to date. He agreed with
Stone that those involved should meet in smaller meetings with the City
Engineer to work out issues. He spoke of the extraordinary cooperation
between the City, the developers and the citizens. He wanted to be
certain that this issue gets resolved in a very gentle manner.
George Elliott is a member of the Marsh/Mall Commission. It is his
understanding that the Commission would be a stakeholder in any
planned development. He hopes that whoever develops the watershed
management plan will meet with the Commission and invite input.
Stone said the intent is not to issue the contract tonight and to have all
interested parties meet/talk with the City Engineer.
Responding to Blanchette, Cyr said that Blanchette was looking at the
group who reviewed the RFP which was to hire a consultant to assist the
City in writing the plan who would be in contact with the local citizens, the
stakeholder groups, and the steering committees. Blanchette said a
number of citizens have been carrying this workload from the get go and
may have questions for the hiring process. She felt at least one person
representing the citizenry should serve to review the RFP process.
Ring provided a project overview. He said that this is a grant and a
project jointly undertaken by the City and DEP approximately two years
ago. The project is to gain a better understand of the Penjajawoc
watershed and ultimately develop a management plan. It will take into
consideration the concern for the environment but goes a bit further and
the end product will be a management plan that will identify specific
measures to be taken to actually improve the water quality. Regarding the
technical work, there has been a steering committee comprised of the City
and DEP members along with IF&W. There has been hydraulic modeling
studies to determine the critical environmental issues. Also a study has
been done by a consultant to determine the types of techniques that can
be used in an urban watershed to improve water quality. Those studies
will be used working with a stakeholder group and a consultant (BSA) but
that consultant process will be brought back at another time after all
parties involved are comfortable. The technical information coupled with
that of the interests of residents, environmental interests, the City, and
stakeholders will be used to write a management plan. Ring and staff feel
it is important to work with a consultant who has experience and strength
in building consensus and working with stakeholders.
Hope Brogunier said she attended the Marsh/Mall Commission meetings
when the stormwater rules were being worked on by the DEP. A large
piece of that was to be public involvement. She understood that a new
building was not to go forward until a plan was in place for stream
rehabilitation. There are now two large buildings, which have been
approved. She hopes there is representation for citizen viewpoint.
Hawes assumed that a group meeting would take place relatively soon.
The item was tabled.
3. Review of Bus Shelter Purchase
Cyr said the process started in early June when the Finance Committee
awarded a contract for the shelter to the lowest bidder. Also the first
reading of the Resolve for the purchase came to the Committee and was
recommended unanimously to Council. At the last Council meeting, the
Council did not approve the item. For background purposes, Cyr said that
the City, as operator of the BAT/Community Connector, is the recipient of
pass-through funding. The funding is awarded to the BAT and then the
Bangor Area Comprehensive Transportation system actually oversees all
funding. On a biannual basis, BACTS in conjunction with Joe McNeil, BAT
Superintendent, put together a transportation improve-
ent plan for two years. The State then makes funding awards based on
the applications received. The City acts as the fiscal agent. The grant in
question was awarded July 1, 2006. It is a $644,000 grant, which comes
in several areas. The operating costs are reimbursed at a 50% rate,
maintenance costs at 80%, then a state portion and a capital portion
which was determined to be support and equipment in this case. Through
BACTS and the process established, it was determined that the University
bus shelter was the need. Prior to the City taking any action, the shelter
was approved by BACTS, State of Maine DOT, and the FTA. It is estimated
to be $21,800. The former shelter supplier is no longer in business. This
shelter is larger – 10’ x 20’ rather than 5’ x 8’. The University has 90,000
riders per year. Costs have risen in the past 3-4 years plus the former
manufacturer is no longer available and used to supply lower prices. The
costs not covered by the Federal and State governments will be borne by
the University. Responding to Stone, Cyr said if the monies are not used
they are lost as of June 30, 2008.
McNeil said he was approached by UMaine several years ago. There was
an issue at the student union whereby students could not see the bus
approaching. They were required to walk a distance and to wait outside.
At that time, Dr. Chapman requested a bus shelter. Since his tenure, an
agreement was reached as to the best location which is at the circle at the
Memorial Union. The shelter needs to be at a certain location and it will
require considerable work by the University and they have agreed to the
work thus their contribution. Originally, when Dr. Chapman approached
the City, he wanted something that could tie into the building that would
be cosmetically pleasing. Staff and the University agreed on a design and
size. The University is expanding and is expanding their bus service.
They are adding a recreation building and a higher level of service so
McNeil foresees dramatic increases to the bus service.
Cooper spoke about the BACTS process in the transportation improvement
program and indicated that funding for this project was included in March
of 2006. McNeil and Cooper put together a proposed budget for the BAT
portion of the TIP funding, which is then adopted by BACTS which is
subject to FTA approval. It is then binding. Changes can be made but it
becomes progressively more difficult to change as the money gets older.
The dollars are lost if not used.
Alan Storman, Assistant Director of Transportation and Parking Services at
the University, addressed the Committee. He has been working to reduce
transportation and green house gases on campus and certain the BAT
assists in that area. He spoke of the approximate 90,000 University
passengers and the future increase in ridership. He referred to a letter
from Vice President of Finance Janet Waldron to the City regarding the
shelter.
Gratwick said he supported the proposed shelter. He asked McNeil where
we stand with other bus shelters; i.e. Texas Avenue near the Hope House.
McNeil said there are actually two additional shelters under consideration
after this project is resolved: one at Eastern Maine Healthcare and one for
the ARC on Texas Avenue. McNeil said he is waiting for the advice of the
consultant to be certain that the bus will be going by the area. There is
money set aside in the current budget for the two other shelters.
Responding to Gratwick, Cooper said although there is a multiple year
document for purposes of planning, the money is awarded only on an
annual basis. There is money in the TIP for a further year which includes
other bus shelters but it is not included in the $21,800 because that is one
particular year’s budget. Cyr said there is another grant that becomes
effective July 1, 2007 that runs through June 30, 2009 and in that new
grant is more support equipment money that has been applied for to be
used for the two shelters which McNeil referred to earlier.
Hawes said she supported the item at a previous Committee and still
supports it. D’Errico agreed with supporting the University shelter.
Responding to D’Errico, McNeil said it is enclosed and lighted and heat
would be available, if the University chose to do so.
Blanchette said she had some concerns with the University shelter.
Responding to her, McNeil said the two proposed Bangor shelters could
have electricity. He noted that the University shelter would be in an area
where constant patrol is available. Regarding a heated unit, he mentioned
a Portland shelter that was installed three years ago at a cost of $60,000.
After one year, the heat was removed. Blanchette asked about the in-
kind services that the University would provide. Storman said the in-kind
would total $15,250. He detailed the work to be done by the University.
Blanchette stated that the ridership in Bangor does have such luxury in
their bus shelters. Blanchette spoke of the University’s presence in
Augusta each year pleading for dollars. She will not support the shelter.
McNeil clarified the shelter has the capability of being heated, as do all
shelters, but there is no intention to do so.
Gratwick asked what type of shelter could be constructed at a lesser sum
of money. McNeil said it would be a smaller, flat roof structure that would
not tie into the other buildings at the University. At the request of
Gratwick, McNeil provided a sketch of the proposed shelter. Cyr said that
the $19,000 is completely federal dollars. D’Errico asked if a local
contractor could duplicate it. Replying to D’Errico, McNeil said the existing
system currently stops at this location 26 times per day. He said there is
a proposal to have the bus stop every 15 minutes. D’Errico said he is
amazed at the cost but would not want to create an impression that the
City would deny shelter to those using the system. Blanchette said there
are not shelters at every stop so people are being denied. She asked for
a ballpark figure on the number of individual using this proposed shelter.
Cooper said he did not know but the BAT system does not have time for
multiple stops all over the campus. McNeil said the two primary stops are
Hauck Auditorium and the hockey arena but the hub is truly the Memorial
Union. Responding to Blanchette, McNeil said there is not a shelter at the
hockey arena. Gratwick talked about the $17,000 low bid asking about
the specs. McNeil said he couldn’t recall what did not meet requirements
but he believes the steel was a lesser quality. The responses were turned
over to the engineers for review. Cyr said the bid was awarded to the
third lowest bidder. Neither one of the first two lower bidders were
dismissed because of lack of a hip roof. Steel was one of the issues and
another was the type of glass. The issues were structural in nature and it
was the Engineering Department that reviewed all of the specifications.
Blanchette asked about the current shelter on Stillwater Avenue and asked
if it was glass. It is plexiglass. The University shelter would have safety
glass. She questions why the University needs glass when other shelters
have plexiglass. McNeil said he believes that plexiglass is more expensive
because it does not shatter.
Stone thanked those involved for attending. He indicated that it appears
the vote for recommendation to the Council will be 4-1. The item will be
first read at the July 9 Council meeting. Staff is asking Council to waive
first reading and take a final vote at that meeting, said Farrar, given the
upcoming construction season. If not, it would appear on the July 23
agenda for second reading and final action. Gratwick said the vote might
be 3-2 because he is not convinced that some other design could be done
more easily. Cyr said the plexiglass is more expensive than glass so there
would be no savings in that area. McNeil said shelters are FTA standard.
Blanchette stated that the amount of $37,500 including the University in-
kind services would be the cost of this shelter. Habitat for Humanity
houses are built for less.
4. Executive Session - Hardship Abatements – 36 MRSA Section
841 (2) – (A), (B), (C)
A motion was made and seconded to move into Executive Session.
5. Open Session – Hardship Abatements Decisions – (A), (B), (C)
A motion was made and seconded to approve staff’s recommendation
for the three hardship abatement requests.