Loading...
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.