HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-06-05 Finance Committee MinutesFinance Committee
June 5, 1995
Minutes
Committee Members Present P. Blanchette, Acting Chair, G. Baldacci
(thru Agenda Item 2), M. Frankel, C.
Popper, J. Tyler, T. Woodcock (on from
Agenda Item 3)
Staff Present F. Barrett, D. Cyr, E. Stumpfel, M.
Chalila, B. Ziegelaar, D. Pellegrino, J.
Ring, A. SCOckuS, T. Corbett
Others Present Roxanne Saucier, SUN, Harry Johnson, Pat
Strauch and Don Mahar Sawyer Environmental
Services
Meeting was called to Order at 5:02 P.M.
1. Executive Session:
Hardship Abatement Requeats.
C. Popper moved to go
into executive session t0 discuss a
hardship
abatement request Seconded by J. Tyler. Passed.
INTO Executive Session at 5:02 p.m.
OUT of Executive Session at 5:08 P.M.
J. Tyler moved to grant hardship abatement request. Seconded by M
Frankel. Passed 3 - 0 (Frankel, Popper, Tyler).
E. Barrett asked that item 3 of the agenda be taken outoforder .
3. Update Flu Vaccine Purchase
M. Chalila explained that the flu season is unpredictable. This year the
City will be doing additional clinics given by the immunization
department. It is expected 2,500 doses would be the maximum. The problem
is that if a harsh flu season is predicted it is difficult to obtain
additional doses of vaccine in a timely manner. Currently, the City
Purchases the vaccine and is given a date toreturn by. All unused doses
are returned for a full credit.
M. Frankel moved to accept the information provided by staff as to the
number of vaccines administered in past years as stipulated in the Finance
Committee meeting of May 15, 1995. J. Tyler Seconded. Passed 3- 0
(Frankel, Popper, Tyler).
P. Blanchette moved to go into executive session to discuss a hardship
abatement request. Seconded by J. Tyler. Passed.
INTO Executive Session at 5:15 p.m.
OUT of Executive Session at 5:29 p.m
P. Blanchette moved to go into executive session to discuss a hardship
abatement request. Seconded by J. Tyler. Passed.
INTO Executive Session 5:30 p.m.
OUT of Executive Session 5:34 p.m.
M. Frankel moved to grant hardship abatement request. Seconded by G.
Baldacci. Passed.
2. Background Information Regarding, 'Tractor Bid
D. Pellegrino introduced Marty Johnson owner of Martin S. Johnson
Tractors, Inc who had bid on the four wheel drive tractor the first time.
M. Johnson expressed the following concerns with the bid process; very
expensive and not fairly treated. He went on to state that the only
office that took any interest was purchasing. He felt he had been
unfairly treated by public works and motor pool. In addition during the
first bid process he was low bidder and had over spaced.
P. Blanchette asked if the bids were held up. D. Pellegrino explained
that is why a second bid process was undertaken.
C. Popper asked Mr. Johnson if he was told it would be rebid. M. Johnson
indicated he was made aware of the second bid process but felt he had not
been treated fairly in the first process.
C. Popper asked why M. Johnson's bid was rejected in the first process.
A. Stockus answered that the reason was for specified standard of
quality. He went on to explain that the common way to spec a project is
to utilize a cut sheet from a manufacturer. Also, M. Johnson was given
the same chance to show his tractor as other bidders. The bid asked that
the demonstration consist of the tractor with harrow, which the City had
planned to purchase but had not yet purchased. Both Motor Pool and Public
Works employees stopped by and looked over the equipment. Specific
mechanical details were left t0 Motor Pool. The next day M. Johnson
called F. Hart who indicated that the City was disappointed with the
equipment but no decision had been made. Some of the factors were weight
of the tractor. It had a lot of weight added, front end appeared
manufactured, looked different than rest of tractor, showed up with an oil
leak and the front wheels were smaller than specs, making it difficult to
use on soft ground. The specs had also called for a hydrostatic drive, M.
Johnson's tractor was a standard. At this time M. Johnson raised
questions regarding the bid process and the tractor went out to bid for a
second time.
G. Baldacci asked whether an offer had been made to demonstrate the
tractor. A. Stockus replied that none were demonstrated but all were
brought to City to look over to determine if specs were made. G. Baldacci
added that based on the letter from M. Johnson it appears that he expected
to perform a demonstration. A. Stockus added that he was unsure of how
that understanding was obtained but that it was brought up for visual
inspection.
P. Blanchette asked what size the tires were. M. Johnson answered 11/220
on front specs asked for 13/6
G. Baldacci asked whether other bidders met the specs. A. Stockus
responded yes.
C. Popper asked who other bidders were. A. Stockus answered that they
were Hammond & Tilton and Dorr's Equipment.
E. Barrett went on to explain that when original bid went out, it was
expected to have a demonstration and that the harrow was to be bid
separately. Adding in the purchase of the harrow occurred due to a
concern over the original specifications.
M. Johnson added that there was only 1 item on his tractor that did not
meet specs, hydrostatic drive. But that forward and reverse were straight
up and back from each other. Additional weights on the front end are
common when there is no front end loader. The tires on the tractor were
smaller but they could have been changed. The oil leak was discussed with
City personnel. It was an error on their part, a hose had not been
properly tightened. The difference in appearance of the front end is how
the tractors are manufactured, there bad been no changes made. M. Johnson
indicated he had been contacted at home a couple of times by R. Perry, who
was looking into the bids. R. Perry indicated that the City had been
awarded % number of dollars, and he wanted to obtain the best equipment
possible for the amount of money available. M. Johnson offered to provide
a customer list but it was never asked for.
C. Popper raised his concern that although M. Johnson's letter was
addressed to the Finance Committee and received March 8, he was not aware
of it until this weekend. Also, unless there was other information, he
would expect all bide be rejected and agree that M. Johnson bad not been
treated fairly. D: Pellegrino answered that it was felt all issues in M.
Johnson's letter had been addressed. He had been in communication with M.
Johnson on several occasions and bad been given the opportunity to rebid
the tractor in a second bid process. When the M. Johnson's second bid was
received unopened, it was assumed he wanted nothing more to do with the
City. Felt all concerns had been addressed. This was not a problem with
the bid process but with how a potential vendor was treated by City
employees.
C. Popper asked who decided not to pass M. Johnson's letter on to the
Committee. B. Barrett answered that no one made such a decision. Based
on conversations with M. Johnson and the second bid process, it was felt
that all the concerns had been addressed.
P. Blanchette added that the letter was not forwarded to the Committee
therefore, M. Johnson had not received a reply from the Committee but
hoped that staff had answered him. She indicated she understood why he
would not want to bid in the second process, when he had not been
responded to. D. Pellegrino added that he and B. Farrar had several
discussions with M. Johnson and that he was aware of the City's rebid.
M. Johnson added that he had no problem with D. Pellegrino, his problem
was with the way he was treated by other employees. He felt it was a
waste of money to participate in the rebid process. Also, that if the
second bid was accepted, the equipment would be abused to prove the
employee's point
P. Blanchette added that she was unhappy with the situation but was
unaware hew to rectify it.
J. Tyler asked what t of the market share Belarus tractors held. M.
Johnson stated it was the largest in the world. J. Tyler continued
asking specifically the t in U.S.. M. Johnson added that Belarus share at
end of 1994 was 16$ in Maine. J. Tyler asked about the resale value of a
John Deere v a Belarus. M. Johnson explained that the John Deere
would be higher,, and the cost is higher.
G. Baldacci agreed with P. Blanchette and C. Popper that letter should
have been forwarded to Finance Committee. The Committee should be aware
regardless if staff feels problem has been addressed. Asked whether M.
Johnson was told he would be able to demonstrate the equipment. D.
Pellegrino stated these matters were left to Public works and Motor Pool.
He added there were other circumstances surrounding the review. The
review was moved up a day due to an impending storm and the Motor Pool was
not notified. But he believed the Motor Pool did a thorough review, the
potential users did not try out the equipment or even spend time with the
equipment. This could have been changed. G. Baldacci asked whether the
Belarus met specs. D. Pellegrino responded that the largest variation
from specs was the standard transmission. Be added that there was not a
conscience effort to hide any of this information form the Committee. M.
Johnson's concerns had been addressed based on extensive discussions with
him. Steps have been taken to ensure that it will not happen again.
Also, negative publicity is not wanted. It could tarnish and impugn the
bidding process. It is important to maintain a good reputation to attract
potential vendors.
M. Frankel added that he too was upset that the letter was not forwarded
to the Committee and that it should not happen again.
C. Popper suggested that the bid process could be discussed further at a
later date. But if the bid process was undertaken for a third time how
would it be done and judged fairly. J. Ring noted he was not as familiar
with this situation as others, but indicated that differences in the
expectations of vendors and the cost of putting a bid together are all
part of business. Also the difference in the transmission is important.
Due to the number of people who would be running the tractor, hydrostatic
devices a more forgiving to various degrees of ability. B. Barrett
added that the Belarus proposal could be carried forward and compared to
those received in the second bid process. That way M. Johnson's tractor
could be evaluated against those who rebid in the presence of council
cil
members. M. Johnson indicated at this point he would refuse. Ifthe
Belarus was chosen, he felt it would not receive fair treatment from
employees. He felt he bad spent a lot of money and wanted to make
everyone aware of how he was treated.
C. Popper indicated that M. Johnson's time in appearing before the
Committee was appreciated.
P. Blanchette indicated her hope that M. Johnson did not thick this was
the normal process; there bad been a horrendous number of errors and that
he would consider the City again in the future.
3. Bids
a. Loam Contract
D. Pellegrino presented recommendation to award contract for loam to Lou
Silver, Inc of Orono, the low bidder for $6.55 per cubic yard.
C. Popper moved to award contract for loam to Lou Silver, Inc in the
amount of $6.85 per cubic yard. Seconded by J. Tyler. Passed.
I. Heating System Modifications at Docks 10 & 11
D. Pellegrino presented recommendation to award contract to rehabilitate
and reactivate the floor heating systems at Docks 10 & 11 to Maine Energy,
Inc of Bangor , the low bidder at $125,544.00.
M. Frankel noted he uses the company for personal use and asked whether he
would have a conflict.
The Committee was polled no conflict was noted.
J. Tyler asked what the extent of removing the concrete slab will be
B. Ziegelaar indicated that the current system is 40 - 50 years old and is
made up of a steel system embedded in the concrete, the main problem being
that it is severely rusted. The solution recommended is to insert plastic
tubing into the corroded steel tubing. This would be accomplished by
cutting two trenches along the pipes instead of digging up the whole
floor.
C. Popper asked whether the current system is operational. B. Ziegelaar
responded that nock 11 has not operated for approximately 5 years and Dock
10 has been repaired by drilling holes into the floor. C. Popper asked
what buildings were used for. B. Ziegelaar answered that currently they
are being used for storage, but the Airport is talking with potential
tenants. C. Popper expressed concern with cost of improving something
that is not being used to potential. B. Ziegelaar indicated that the
facilities must be maintained on a piece meal basis, or there would be a
larger cost in the future.
J. Tyler indicated that the hydrosonic slab heat was more efficient than
ceiling fans. It is a moderating and stable form of heat.
J. Tyler moved to recommend to the full Council that the contract for
heating modifications at Docks 10 & 11 be awarded to Maine Energy in the
amount of $125,544.00. Seconded by M. Frankel. Passed.
c. Upgrade Airfield Lighting Control System
D. Pellegrino explained that this upgrade would allow the lights to be
changed in the tower versus manually. It is part of AIP 19 project, which
is funded 90 by FAA, 5% MOT and 5% locally. D. Pellegrino presented
recommendation to award contract to upgrade airfield lighting control
system to Elco electric of Bangor, the low bidder, for $118,922.00
M. Frankel asked if it is currently inconvenient. D. Pellegrino indicated
that currently an individual must go out into the airfield to a bunker to
flip a switch. B. Ziegelaar added that it would be more efficient to
control the lights from the tower than to send someone potentially o
overtime to do it manually. B. Barrett added that this would also be an
improvement for safety reasons.
C. Popper moved to recommend to full Council that the contract to upgrade
airfield lighting control system be awarded to Elco Electric in the amount
of $118,922.00. Seconded by S. Tyler. Passed.
d. Handicap Passenger Lift
D. Pellegrino presented recommendation to award the purchase of a disabled
passenger lift to Torero Aircraft Support, of Cotati, California, the low
bidder, for $19,950.00
C. Popper moved to award the purchase of a disabled passenger lift to
Torero Aircraft Support in the amount of $19,950.00. Seconded by S.
Tyler.. Passed.
4. Contract with Hoyle, Tanner & Associates for AIP 19
D. Pellegrino presented recommendation to award the contract for services
associated with AIP 19 to Hoyle, Tanner A Associates, in the amount of
$49,950.00. This is a consulting firm that has provided the City with
good service over the past 15 - 20 years and this award has already been
approved by the FAA.
E. Barrett added that periodically the City sends out requests for
proposals for Airport services. But specific approval is required as each
AIP project is approved.
S. Tyler moved to award contract for services associated with AIP 19 to
Hoyle, Tanner R Associates, in the amount of $49,950.00. Seconded by C.
Popper. Passed.
S. Appropriate PERC Performance Credit to Reserve for Future Construction
E. Barrett presented recommendation to appropriate $74,509.19 received
from PERC to the General Fund Reserve for Future Construction. The rebate
approximates $2.70 - $2.80 per ton of trash delivered to PERC under
Bangor's contract. The amount of trash deposited at FERC is made up of
approximately 1/3rd residential and 2/3rd commercial. Haulers have
inquired as whether some of the rebate should be returned to them.
Currently, the City is the contracted agent with PERC and private haulers
dispose under the City's contract. In tum, the City pays the PERC bill
and rebills the private haulers. The City is of the legal opinion that
the amounts need not be refunded to private haulers.
J. Tyler indicated he would abstain from voting due to conflict
M. Frankel asked if the City's costs increase do the private haulers pay
more. E. Barrett answered yes.
P. Blanchette added that if the City does not meet minimum tonnage
required to be disposed of, the City is stuck paying the difference.
P. Strauch, General Manager of Sawyer Environmental Services, stated that
any refund to Sawyer would be passed on to the customer. The tipping fee
charged to customers would be adjusted down on a forward basis until the
rebate was realized.
C. Popper raised the question as to whether he had a conflict.
The Committee was polled no conflict was noted.
M. Frankel raised he question as to whether he bad a conflict.
The Committee was polled no conflict was noted.
E. Stumpfel provided some background information that resulted in the
performance credit from PERC. In 1990, Bangor become one of long term
charter communities in PERC. The tipping fees were increased to keep PERC
solvent. In return the charter communities surrendered valuable rights
and agreed to receive upto 1/2 of cumulative excess cash. The agreement
also obligates the City to deliver 27,000 tons of waste to the plant.
Currently, the City delivers 29,000 tons, but should the tonnage fall
short the City would be obligated to pay the difference. The haulers are
not legally obligated to dispose at PERC but there are very few
alternatives. The City is not obligated in any way to refund any rebate
it receives to the private haulers. E. Barrett added that any amount of
the credit not refunded that is appropriated to the capital reserve would
still benefit all the citizens only in a different form.
Don Mahar, Sawyer Environmental Services, also provided some background
information. The revised agreement with PERC and the charter communities
set forth two options for performance credits one being cash back to
charter municipalities the other being credits against future tipping
fees. In hind sight it may have been more equitable to credit tipping
fees. Any credit is a result of the tipping fees being too high,
therefore, everyone paid more than should have.
C. Popper asked why PERC does not decrease their tipping fees.
Don Mahar explained that there is a strict formula governing the
calculation of tipping fees and that there is no mechanism to take credits
into account when the tipping fees are adjusted quarterly.
J. Tyler asked haw much the City receives annually from haulers for
administrative costs.E. Barrett responded approximately $9,000 per year.
C. Popper moved to appropriate the $74,509.19 of PERC performance credits
received to the General Fund Reserve for Future Construction and that a
plan needs to be developed for any future performance credits. Seconded
by
T. Woodcock. Passed 4 -
0, Tyler abstained.
6.
Recommendation Brantner,
Thibodeau & Associates
- Audit
Services
FY95
E. Barrett presented recommendation to award contract for FY95 audit
services to Brantner, Thibodeau A Associates, of Bangor, the fourth year
of afive year contract, in the amount of $40,200.00. B. Barrett added
that there is a 3& increase in price over prior year's cost and that the
e
auditorshaveindicated they a still putting in more time than they are
billing for. It should also be noted that with the advent of the new
computer system there should no little to no increase in coming years.
C. Popper asked how much the audit cast increased in the prior year. D.
Cyr responded $17,000.
M. Frankel asked if the other bids bad been as high. D. Cyr responded
yes. B. Barrett added that staff felt the services were underbid from the
start.
J. Tyler indicated that he felt Brantner, Thibodeau & Associates were
doing a good job in a critical time. To have a new auditor would require
someone else to learn everything again.
J. Tyler moved to award the contract for FY95 audit services to Brantner,
Thibodeau & Associates for the amount of $40,200.00. Seconded by T.
Woodcock. Passed 4 -1, C. Popper against.
It was asked that staff prepare a letter to Brantner, Thibodeau &
Associates to express the concern that future costs should not increase
significantly if at all.
7. Appropriate Unanticipated Revenues to Purchase Bicycle Helmets
J. Tyler moved to recommend to full Council to make appropriation of
certain unanticpated revenues for the purpose of purchasing bicycle
helmets. Seconded by C. Popper. Passed.
8. Appropriate Unanticpated Revenues to Match State Forest Service Grant
M. Frankel moved to recommend to full Council to make appropriation of
certain unanticipatedrevenuesfor the purpose of providing the local
share to match a state forest service grant. Seconded by J. Tyler.
Passed.
9. Acquisition of New Police Cruisers
D. Pellegrino recommended to increase current order for police cruisers
from 4 to 8. Due to a delay in the acquisition of police cruisers the
City has the ability to increase it's order at prior year prices. This
would be advantageous since General Motors will no longer be manufacturing
police cruisers.
E. Barrett added that police cars normally serve for a three year period
which approximates 120,000 miles. The best cars are kept for use as staff
vehicles There have been enough of this type vehicle manufactured e0
adequate parts are available for repair purposes.
C. Popper asked why the additional 4 cruisers would not be placed i
service until June 1996. E. Barrett answered that the current replacement
schedule is 4 vehicles per year. 1£ we replace more in
one year, then in
a subsequent year more than 4 will have to be purchased.
C. Popper moved to increase current order for police cruisers from 4 to
B. Seconded by J. Tyler. Passed.
lo. Bond Underwriter - Fleet Securities
B. Barrett recommended to award contract for bond underwriter to Fleet
Securities. Fleet Securities has done an excellent job in the past and
the City has been getting better rates on open market than with Maine
Municipal Bond Bank.
C. Popper mo ved to award contract for bond underwriter to Fleet
Securities.Seconded by T. Tyler. Passed.
Adjourned 7:09 p.m.
Debbie Cyr
Recording Secretary