Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-05-07 Finance Committee Minutes FINANCE COMMITTEE May 7, 2007 Minutes Councilors: Stone, Hawes, D’Errico, Gratwick, Farrington Staff: Hamer, Cyr, Barrett, Ring, Jellison, Dawes, Little 1. Consent Agenda A motion was made and seconded to approve passage of the Consent Agenda by a 5-0. a. Quitclaim Deed – Cochran – 323 Essex Street b. Quitclaim Deed – Fritz – 438 Finson Road c. Quitclaim Deed – State Wide Floor Wax – 33 Cumberland St d. Workout Agreement – Shalhoob – 28 William Street e. Update on Used Vehicle Purchase 2. Bids/Purchasing a. Concrete and Steel Repairs – WWTP – Copia Specialty Contractors - $25,888 Cyr said staff has identified seven repairs needed at the Treatment Plant recognizing a limited budget and that some are expensive projects. Items 1, 2 and 5 only are recommended to be awarded to Copia, the lower bidder. The projects involve the hypochlorite secondary containment, bisulfite secondary containment and exterior tank walls-upper horizontal surface cracks. The bid document specified that the bid could be awarded in part or in whole. Ring said that in specialty work there are sometimes instances that certain elements of the work are more in the expertise of certain bidders. By reserving the right to divide the project, the City can secure better pricing. Responding to Gratwick, Cyr said that to date no treatment plant project has been funded from the General Fund. It is always funded through the Plant’s operational budget. Responding to Farrington, Jellison said the remaining projects need to be completed in approximately three-four years. The work is part of the Plant’s regular maintenance program. A motion was made and seconded to approve staff’s recommendation by a 5-0 vote. b. Request for Qualifications - Engineering Services – City Wide Cyr said the City’s practice has been to maintain an open-ended contract with three local engineering firms. During the year, there are a number of projects (renovations of structures, mechanical or electrical systems) without in-house engineering staff capacity. The current contracts expired this spring. RFP’s were requested. A committee comprised of appropriate City staff reviewed the responses and recommended the City enter into open- ended contracts with Ames A/E, Carpenter Associates and James W. Sewell Company for projects of less than $500,000. Cyr noted that as the CSO project winds down that it will free up some time of Engineering Department staff so the amount of outside services would decrease. Larger projects are bid out for engineering services. Stone and Cyr talked about a reserve and proforma. D’Errico talked about FAA projects requiring a third party review. Cyr said this item does not include airport projects. Barrett said that Edwards and Kelcey does the airport project reviews and Dick Cattelle is the third party. Barrett said staff would check to see if the airport qualifies for the subject engineering services contract. Cyr also pointed out that specialty type projects, such as environmental areas, have different engineering service contracts and they are bid separately. Responding to Farrington, Cyr said the services are on-call and the services are paid for as performed. Responding to Stone, Barrett said he has spoken to the Fire Chief regarding design/build for the fire station 6. Responding to Gratwick, Barrett said station 6 was evaluated sometime ago. There have been consistent water infiltration problems since the day the building was opened. Gratwick asked if engineering data is available. Cyr said yes but did not know to what extent. Gratwick asked that the data be made available when the time comes to make the replacement decision. Ring talked about station six and his review. The basic problem with the structure is that it was built with shortcuts in construction due to the timeframe and need. The types of issues at the station are not easily fixable. A motion was made and seconded to approve staff recommendation by a 5-0. 3. Ordinance, Amending the Code of Ethics to Expand the Definition of Family Hamer indicated that the Ethics Board recently met and discussed the definition of immediate family. This is in the context of when a Councilor/Board/Committee member needs to excuse himself/herself from a discussion of an item. The current definition includes the person’s spouse, children, parents, brothers/sisters living in the household. The Board discussed the narrowness of the definition and recommended that definition be expended to include children, parents, siblings, including step and half relations, regardless of whether they reside in the household, and domestic partners. The reporting requirements would remain as current. The ‘must live in the house’ restriction is being removed. The proposed definition reads: spouse, children, parents, siblings, including half, step and in-law relations and domestic partners. Farrington spoke of his daughter and son-in-law’s business and the fact that he has excused himself from previous council/committee discussions. Barrett said this is an area wherein the Council has not been consistent. The proposed amendment clarifies this type of situation. Hamer clarified that this applies to Council, boards, commissions and school committee. Hamer said, responding to Farrington, that the Council votes on whether there is a conflict, which is based on the Ordinance. Farrington stated that if the Council does not have authority that it should be clearly spelled out. Barrett and Farrington discussed instances of financial interest or special interest. There is leeway when a special interest exists and that is when the Council could make a judgment. Responding to Gratwick, Hamer said that the term domestic partner includes people who are living together without being married but with marriage-like characteristics, both same and opposite sex. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval to full Council for its action. 4. Executive Session – Hardship Abatement 36 MRSA Section 841 (2) A motion was made and seconded to go into executive session. 5. Open Session – Hardship Abatement Decision A motion was made and seconded to approve the hardship abatement by a 5-0 vote.