MINUTES
GRAY TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
February 17, 2009
STIMSON HALL –7:00 P.M.
6:00 P.M. - Executive Session:
Councilor Hutchins moved; Councilor Sturgis seconded
Ordered, the Gray Town Council will enter into Executive Session, pursuant to Title 1, Chapter 13, Subchapter 1, Section 405, Subsection 6-E: “Consultations between a body or agency and its attorney concerning the legal rights and duties of the body or agency, pending or contemplated litigation, settlement offers and matters where the duties of the public body's counsel to his client pursuant to the code of professional responsibility clearly conflict with this subchapter or where premature general public knowledge would clearly place the State, municipality or other public agency or person at a substantial disadvantage (specifically relative to division of land located off North Shore Road, and Blayn Gray property located at 5 Yarmouth Road).
5 Yes*
* Councilor Scheckel was recused from the executive session before discussion.
The remaining four councilors exited Executive Session at 7:10pm.
Roll Call
Councilors Tracy Scheckel, Margaret Hutchins, Mark Grover, Matt Sturgis, Peter Gellerson
Town Manager Deborah Cabana
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Others present and speaking: Fran Monroe, James Monroe, Paul Driscoll, Francesca Haines, Paul Driscoll, Ed Getty, John Redlon, David Lourie, Ruth Foster, Carol Ann Doucette , Susan Moran, Ralph Wink, Tina Martell, Lloyd Dunn, Blayn Gray, Lew Mancini, Deborah Mancini, Doug Webster.
Minutes from Previous Meetings:
Approval of February 3, 2009, Town Council Minutes
Councilor Scheckel moved; Councilor Sturgis seconded.
Ordered the Gray Town Council approves February 3, 2009 Town Council Minutes as corrected.
Councilor Grover stated that on page 4, bottom paragraph… Councilor Grover commented that in the comprehensive plan there “should be” a landing zone. Should be should be included.
Councilor Scheckel pointed out a typo in her name
Councilor Hutchins stated that on page 2, first sentence, last paragraph, the word “or” should be removed. She also stated that on Page 5 under CM at Risk, 1st paragraph there is an extra word “that”
Szendrei is the correct spelling for John Szendrei who spoke a couple of times at meeting. The recorder stated that his signature on the sign in sheet could not be read.
Councilor Gellerson commented that on page 5 he said: “asked if there is a shortage…”
For item #078-09, the last sentence, there “are” some conditions. “Are” is missing.
And finally, he stated that on page 11, 3rd paragraph- “that needs replacing” should be added.
5 Yes
First Order of Business:
Public Comments of Non-Agenda Items – (limit 3 minutes per person)
Fran Monroe asked if the Town has filed a lawsuit concerning the baler.
Councilor Gellerson stated that it is unresolved and still an executive session item. He stated that at this time there is no lawsuit.
Fran Monroe stated that in the last 13 meetings, there have been 7 executive sessions and that there has
not been any further comments upon exiting the sessions. The public is not getting any updates. She
requested that the issues should be addressed in public.
James Monroe asks that those who will be plowing should not put snow near the yield sign in the village. He stated that the public missed out on a good opportunity with the Saturday department visits. He commented on the metal roof on the new public works building and that snow coming off the roof may be a safety issue. He also commented on the public debt service in the budget. He stated that the
amounts are high. He also commented that sale of the other public buildings is at a bad time given the
economy. He also commented on the dire budget comments stated at the Council workshop.
Second Order of Business:
Reports from the Council Chair:
Councilor Gellerson received a letter from Betty Haymen on the Blayn Gray issue. He commented positively on the Town department visits and commended staff on their efforts.
Reports from the Town Manager:
Town Manager Cabana commented on dog licensing and that dogs must be licensed with the Town.
Ryan Keith, CEO is now fully certified by the state.
Committee Reports:
Councilor Grover discussed Library Trustees and that the Dry Mills School House Committee has been discussing the building condition and requests to present at the March 3rd Council meeting.
Councilor Sturgis commented on the Town Office Committee and that they have brought a comprehensive proposal for discussion at tonight’s meeting.
Council Correspondence:
Councilor Grover commented that he receives many communications and that he may not always respond, but reads all correspondence received.
Third Order of Business:
Public Hearings:
Public comment regarding a proposed amendment to Section 401.11.1C of the Town of Gray’s Subdivision Ordinance, for conditional agreements as a form of performance guarantee.
No Public Comment.
(Limit of 30 minutes) Public comment on the proposed Consent Judgment for the resolution of the Twin Brooks Camping Area, LLC litigation and action by the Town Council on whether to approve, modify or reject the proposed Consent Judgment.
Councilor Gellerson asked those who wish to speak, comment only on the consent judgment.
Paul Driscoll, Town Attorney stated that there is proposed consent judgment draft. There was a subsequent meeting with the Town and TwinBrooks following the draft.
The principal change is that TwinBrooks has agreed to abandon any grandfathered non-conforming lots. There were a number of remedial orders which he gave an overview. The draft included remedial action of a $10,000 fine and suspension of accrued penalties. He indicated that a discussion with Gerry Haines and the terms of the consent judgment are more stringent than originally proposed. The order contemplates that remedial action must begin immediately and be completed by July 15th. He added that access by the CEO for inspections with a 48 hour notice to the document. The remedial orders were issued under the assumption that there would be campgrounds on the site. He believes that since that has changed, these orders are moot.
He read and explained the consent judgment in detail that the order and would be entered into court. There are restrictions on what TwinBrooks is permitted to do and must comply with all codes and ordinances. They included the use of the property, and the cabins on site. He also commented on the remedial actions (itemized A-F in the judgment). Some of these items included septic, power, fencing, fill (removal of fill would cause more problems), removal of recreational vehicles, debris and other materials (IE: picnic tables, decks, fire pits). Originally proposed was a 48 hour notice for the CEO. The time frame was removed. There is a $20,000 fine proposed which is more than the originally proposed. He also commented on the land covenant which is in perpetuity. He stated that he believes that this implements a fair arrangement to resolve this long term problem. The entry of the consent judgment eliminating the campground use would moot any other possible cases on this
issue.
Francesca Haines stated that the draft consent judgment was given to them for comments. She thanked this Council for their efforts to get this resolved. She believes that it is sad that the first four pages of the draft tell TwinBrooks to obey the law. She stated that the Town has made a decision by minimizing expense and bringing closure to this issue. The process, she believes, is a compromise. Mitigation of damages that has taken place due to violations is not addressed in this draft judgment.
Fran Monroe asked about accrued public expense and attorney’s fees. Councilor Gellerson stated that the $20,000 covers the Town’s expenses.
There was a point of order called from the Ed Getty
She commented that the $20,000 portion of the consent judgment has not been given a 7 day public notice and therefore cannot be voted upon.
John Redlon stated that people have not seen the final documents and believes that this cannot be voted upon. He would like to see a copy of the consent judgment.
Councilor Gellerson stated that the motion is on tonight’s agenda
Paul Driscoll stated that the order includes acceptance, revision, etc is a part of this evening’s motion, which has been given public notice.
Councilor Scheckel stated that the 21 complaints will be negated since the campground will not exist and will be mitigated by July 15th.
James Monroe stated that should the vote be passed, no wording can be changed. He hopes this incidence will be a learning lesson for the Town. He asked if the Town has any authority to see that unresolved issue (hazards etc) are settled and would like to know if this is included in the draft with a deadline. He asked what the fines are applied to. He asked whether it is an offset for the legal costs, in reserve for unresolved issues etc.
Paul Driscoll stated that the fine is twice what was proposed. If issues are not resolved, a motion will be made to show cause to require them to resolve this specific issue. There are stated requirements and that the fine is substantial.
Ed Getty stated that he would like to be certain that the CEO has clear, identifiable guidelines for compliance.
David Lourie, Attorney for the current TwinBrooks owner stated that there is a perception of hazards. There are only technical issues to be resolved that was caused by the previous owner. He believes that there has been confusion of issues (real and claimed). He believes that there are a number of violations that cannot be proved and explained why some of these items are not in the agreement. He spoke in favor of the draft judgment.
There was a point of order made by Fran Monroe.
Reginald Ford of Freeport and seasonal camper at TwinBrooks stated that the campground brought a lot of business to the Town. He asks where the violations have been in the last 40 years.
Ruth Foster asked Councilor Gellerson is there is a conflict of interest since he lives on the lake and is a member of the Little Sebago Lake Association. She believes that Councilor Gellerson has a bias on this issue. He stated that he does not have a bias on this issue and would not object to the campground being there. She asked if this consent judgment covers everyone on the lake as there are a number of people who have done things on their property on the lake without a permit. She believes that TwinBrooks is not a fair situation.
Paul Driscoll stated in one instance the Town has addressed other lake residents for violations with significant fines. He recommends that those who have concerns about those who are violating codes and ordinances can go through the same process.
Carol Ann Doucette, Little Sebago Lake Association expressed confusion that the document is only between the Town and TwinBrooks and asked if other parties can change it.
Councilor Gellerson stated that no other parties can change it. She believes it is time to make amends and accept.
Susan Moran, President, Friends of Little Sebago thanked the Council for their efforts. She believes that with some modification and enforcement this consent judgment could be good for the Town. She believes that the problem will be with enforcement. She stated that action should be taken now to protect the lake through enforcement.
Paul Driscoll stated that the perception of the consent judgment creates the impression that the campground is being put out of business, but there is a provision that allows them to go through a process if they wish to be a campground in the future.
The public hearing closed at 8:30pm
Fourth Order of Business: ORDERS
Item #082-09 To review and act upon the proposed consent judgment between the Town of Gray and Twin Brooks Camping Area, LLC.
Councilor Sturgis moved; Councilor Hutchins seconded.
Resolved, the Gray Town Council, upon the recommendation of Paul F. Driscoll, Esq. of the firm of Norman, Hanson & DeTroy, LLC as special counsel to the Town of Gray as to matters associated with the pending litigation between the Town of Gray and Twin Brooks Camping Area, LLC and after hearing comments of the public concerning such litigation, the Town of Gray Town Council hereby approves the form of Consent Judgment annexed hereto as Exhibit A for entry in the matter styled Town of Gray v. Twin Brooks Camping Area, LLC, Docket No. CV-08-1622, presently pending in the District Court of the State of Maine, Division of South Cumberland; and
Be it further resolved that Mr. Driscoll be, and he is hereby, authorized to indicate to the Court in said action that the Town of Gray consents to the entry of the proposed Consent Judgment and that he be instructed to report to the Town Manager concerning the status of the entry of the Consent Judgment as soon as the Court undertakes the matter to resolve this litigation.
Councilor Hutchins asked if anything can really be done at the site, at present, with the snow conditions.
Paul Driscoll stated that action should be taken forthwith subject to weather conditions.
Francesca Haines stated that the original order for a buffer zone by the Zoning Board was for May, and that the July date is a compromise.
Councilor Grover commented on people’s patience and efforts and believes that this is a just agreement.
Councilor Sturgis thanked Paul Driscoll and others for their efforts to bring this to a resolution.
Councilor Gellerson also thanked Paul Driscoll and TwinBrooks for the work in trying to resolve this issue.
Councilor Grover asked if the wording will change after this vote. Paul Driscoll stated that no changes will occur, unless a judge would require a change and should this happen, he would return to the Council.
5 Yes
Item #083-09 To review and act upon awarding a bid for seasonal snow plowing and sanding of specified public easement roads (identified in Contract I – 14.56 miles) for the winter seasons 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and an optional third year 2011-2012.
Councilor Sturgis moved; Councilor Scheckel seconded.
Ordered the Gray Town Council rewards the seasonal snow plowing and sanding of specified public easement roads (identified in Contract 1 – 14.56 miles) for the winter seasons 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and an optional third year 2011-2012 to William L. Stone Excavating of New Gloucester.
Councilor Gellerson asked if the optional year is by the Town. Town Manager Cabana stated that it is for both the Town and the bid recipient.
5 Yes
Item #084-09 To review and act upon awarding a bid for seasonal snow plowing and sanding of specified public easement roads (identified in Contract II – 13.835 miles) for the winter seasons 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and an optional third year 2011-2012.
Councilor Scheckel moved; Councilor Sturgis seconded.
Ordered the Gray Town Council rewards the seasonal snow plowing and sanding of specified public easement roads (identified in Contract II- 13.835 miles) for the winter seasons 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and an optional third year 2011-2012 to Keith Osgood .
Councilor Grover asked if there is any certification that these are public easement roads.
James Monroe asked if there is more than adequate insurance for the plowers. $1 million dollars is low.
Town Manager Cabana stated that the bid proposal has been on the Town’s website. Councilor Hutchins stated that $1 million coverage is industry standard.
5 Yes
Item #085-09 To review and act upon a proposed amendment to the Town of Gray Personnel Policy, Section 2- (Definitions) by adding a new subsection 10 “Good Standing” and a proposed amendment to Section 6 – (Benefits), subsection 4 – “Sick Leave” relative
to benefit upon separation from employment.
Councilor Hutchins moved; Councilor Sturgis seconded.
Ordered the Gray Town Council amends the Town of Gray Personnel Policy, Section 2- (Definitions) by adding a new subsection 10 “Good Standing” and a proposed amendment to Section 6 – (Benefits), subsection 4 – “Sick Leave” relative to benefit upon separation from employment, as outlined above.
Town Manager Cabana gave an overview for those who choose to leave after 5 years with their sick leave, (maximum 45 days) but that the provision of leaving in “good standing” has not been written in.
Councilor Scheckel asked how the rate is calculated for the accrued for sick leave. Town Manager Cabana stated that it is at their current pay rate and is a large expense for the Town. Councilor Scheckel stated that a citizen commented on this issue in discussions with her.
5 Yes
Item #086-09 To review and act upon approving the Request For Qualifications and Request for Proposal, as recommended by the Town Office Building Committee.
Councilor Sturgis moved; Councilor Hutchins seconded.
Ordered the Gray Town Council approves the Request For Qualifications and Request for Proposal, as recommended by the Town Office Building Committee.
Ralph Wink gave a summary on the document presented.
He stated that there are 3 tasks assigned to the committee. One is to create a RFQ followed by an RFP. Conceptually, the group will seek qualifications to match with the work to be done, narrow it down to 3 to 5, and then ask them to create a proposal to be brought to the Council to decide.
Councilor Gellerson stated that the difficult task will be thinning down the requests. He believes more firms will be interested given the economy. He suggests 6-8. Ralph said he believes it is doable.
The committee has only prepared the RFQ and RFP, but nothing further and that the Council will need to give them direction or orders to do further tasks.
James Monroe stated that his comments are meant to assure the smoothness of the project. He commented on page 4- anticipated schedule/scope of work. He believes that there are missing elements in the schedule. He asked when the short list will be decided. He stated that section C should be clearer and that wordsmith work should be done. He stated that a letter of interest only can be requested. He suggests that this should be the first step. He asked how notice will be given to interested parties.
Councilor Gellerson stated that there are services who advertise such items. James Monroe believes that this should be listed on the document. Modifications and methods should be listed. He believes that there should only be one point of contact to prevent issues. He stated that there is no mention as to when the construction manager will come on board.
Councilor Scheckel agrees with Jim on the construction manager dates/timeline. Jim asks what the process and timeline for the CM at Risk is (either from the committee or the Council). He believes that there needs to be some clarification. He believes that the wording is not clear and may not yield proposals.
Councilor Scheckel stated that further questions from those creating a proposal which would make things longer. She also stated that the RFQ is the first step and that following, the RFP would take place. The documents are being presented together and create the impression that they are being submitted together, which they are not.
James Monroe suggests having a third party read it to get feedback. He also asked when is the firm’s price established and when the CM at Risk is being hired.
Councilor Gellerson said that the CM at Risk would be hired after and together with the designer would come up with a maximum price.
Councilor Scheckel reminded the group that CM at Risk has not been determined yet.
Councilor Grover stated that the objective is whether or not the Council is providing feedback and whether or not to postpone tonight’s vote.
Councilor Scheckel believes that the anticipated schedule is aggressive and that the RFP is not clear. She stated that there is standard language that goes in the announcement and recommends that this be reviewed by the Town’s Attorney as there is certain legal wording that needs to be included.
Councilor Hutchins had the same comments as Councilor Scheckel.
There was a discussion on what part is the RFQ and what part is the public notice. Councilor Grover gave his suggested changes which included spelling errors, as well as syntax. He indicated that a statement of purpose should be listed. It was suggested that using the term “pre-bid” be applied. He also stated that more details should be included in the background description/scope. He would like to see the anticipated date of the short list should be included, CM at Risk hire date, start and completion dates. He suggests copies be sent both in hard and electronic copies.
Councilor Scheckel stated that standard process is generally 30 days and that the schedule is a bit aggressive. Councilor Grover agreed.
Councilor Sturgis likes the skeleton of the document as a framework for this process. He supports the aggressive timeline and submittal requirements. He believes that the standard work of proofreading and errors can be easily corrected. He believes that the evaluation criteria is a good one.
Councilor Scheckel believes that the timeframe is aggressive and that it could jeopardize bidding. She suggests speaking to Al Palmer to get a sense if the timeline is appropriate.
Councilor Sturgis suggests changing the timeline by adding 6 months. Councilor Scheckel stated that even adding 6 months is aggressive.
Ralph Wink stated that an existing building that is being restored with minor roof modifications with basic interior work being done is significantly smaller and simpler. He stated that the construction work needs to be done in the summertime. He believes that 6 months is not needed.
Councilor Scheckel stated that limited footprints can be more difficult than a “from scratch” construction.
Councilor Gellerson asked if the RFQ can go out in the next few days. Councilor Scheckel suggested incorporating a more general timeline and have an estimated completion date.
Tina Martell stated that the conceptual design already exists and the CM at Risk process allows the schedule to be tweaked.
Councilor Scheckel stated that an estimated completion date is helpful to those who bid.
Lloyd Dunn asked whether or not the designers can include their availability. Councilor Scheckel stated that it should be discussed in the mandatory meeting.
Councilor Sturgis stated that with the current economy, work is likely to be done sooner and competition under the circumstances is great. He believes that people will work with our timeline.
Councilor Scheckel stated that once the RFQ process is done, a request for a proposed design delivery schedule can be included in the RFP.
Councilor Gellerson asked if the RFQ and legal approve is done whether or not it can be sent on Friday
(Feb. 20th).
There was a discussion on a timeline for the RFQ on Feb. 24th, followed by 2 weeks (March 10th) for the open house/pre bid, followed by the submissions due by March 17th. Reviews/scoring of RFQ to be done by the Town Office committee on March 19th.
James Monroe commented on moving a couple of paragraphs around to be included in the RFQ portion of the document to give a clear sense of the project. (Page 5- architect-engineer section)
Councilor Scheckel stated that the section Jim is referring is already included.
Councilor Scheckel suggests that the committee prepare a document with the review/scoring of the RFQ to bring to the Council.
Councilor Gellerson asked what the committee should be doing in this process.
Blayn Gray asked if an agency can be hired to help this process along. He believes that there are specialists who can make this process go smoother for a minimal amount of money. Councilor Sturgis stated that as this is public money, with a volunteer group, the process moves more slowly.
Councilor Gellerson supports the committee recommending a firm to the Council. Councilor Scheckel would prefer a synopsis of the scoring. Councilor Sturgis supports the committee suggesting 2 or 3 and go through the whole process to help bring recommendations to the committee. Councilor Grover believes that the Council should adopt the minimum schedule (Feb 24th, March 10th and March 17th) and then let the committee establish the interview schedule and recommend their top 3 to the Council. Councilor Hutchins would like the committee to establish an order of preference. Councilor Scheckel believes a hierarchy of who scored the highest would make it easier for the Council to determine how many to interview. Councilor Hutchins agrees with Councilor Scheckel’s process and gets the committee’s feedback.
Councilor Sturgis suggested scheduling this as a Council workshop. Councilor Scheckel stated that the interview be done in a public setting.
Tina Martell does not believe that public input during the meetings would be good. Councilor Hutchins stated that there should be a forum for the public to hear/listen to the interviews.
Councilor Grover can support this provided the anticipated schedule is omitted. Councilor Scheckel stated that a short list decision date should be included. Councilor Sturgis suggests meeting at a workshop on March 30th and the Council would decide at the April 7th, with the notification of those on the short list on April 8th.
Lew Mancini believes that the Council does not want to the committee to create a short list. He believes that this is not the original purpose. Councilor Grover and Gellerson stated that it is as the committee has the opportunity to comment and recommend. Lew believes that this is no longer the original purpose.
There was a discussion on a compromise of the process and to allow committee input and transparency. Councilor Sturgis agrees with Lew Mancini’s comments and they should be allowed to make the recommendations. Councilor Hutchins believes that seeing all the applicants allows it to be out in the open as public record and there is more transparency. Lew Mancini stated that the majority is not being represented.
Tina Martell stated that the RFP process determines and creates a well rounded committee, reviews the applications, and submit recommendations. Councilor Hutchins stated that the workshop on March 30th is to allow the committee to make the recommendations and for the Council to ask questions. Tina Martell stated that she agrees with this process but wants to be allowed to select and why and if the Council wants to select someone else or disagrees, then it is up to them. She asked about the committee’s role (or any representation) in the interview process. It was suggested that the committee sit with the Council for the interviews.
Councilor Grover would like the committee to rank all the respondents (create a spreadsheet) for the Council workshops and make recommendations to the Council. At the next Council meeting the Council would select how many would receive the RFP, following, the process would start again.
Councilor Sturgis believes that there is too much micromanagement. The committee is working very hard and that they are volunteering to help the Council out and the committee should be empowered to make the decision and the Council can disagree with the recommendation.
Tina Martell believes that the committee wants to produce something to be proud of as well.
Deborah Mancini stated that a motion is on the floor and that the conversation has digressed. The committee’s charged has been vague from the beginning. She believes that there needs to be more trust as a whole. There are many firms who are anxious to bid. The committee’s charge should be clear and direct right up to the ribbon cutting. She commented that the committee is made up of citizens who also have a fiduciary responsibility and are stakeholder’s in the process. She implores the Council to vote on the motion.
Councilor Grover stated that there is consensus on the changes of the first 8 pages minus the schedule.
Councilor Scheckel suggests tabling this item until the corrected/edited version is seen.
Councilor Sturgis moved; Councilor Hutchins seconded
Amendment to motion: that an RFQ be sent with amended dates of Feb. 24th for the RFQ to go out, and the open house/pre bid be held on March 10th, with submittals due on March 17th. (see what items are being done) with C-E of the schedule deleted with the addition of letter J of the anticipated delivery schedule with the committee recommendation of a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 on designer by March 30th.
Ralph Wink asked whether or not the Council would like to know how the interview process would happen. He asks if the Council wants them to do the interviews or not. Councilor Scheckel believes that the option of gathering the scoring and then the Council determines how many on the short list for the RFP, then the committee would review these. She believes that the Council should be interviewing or do together with the committee. Ralph stated that the interview will be more about their philosophy and how they view the project. Ralph believes that the final decision is up to the Council. He believes that their view on the top choices should be considered.
Tina Martell believes that the weighting will determine how many to interview.
Councilor Grover stated that he believed that he understood that feedback on the whole document was to be given this evening.
5 Yes
Councilor Sturgis moved; Councilor Grover seconded.
Motion to divide the original motion (the RFQ and RFP items)
5 Yes amended motion
5 Yes
Discussion on the RFP
Councilor Grover commented on a restroom in the heating zone of the council chambers.
Councilor Sturgis asked if these items are too specific. Councilor Scheckel stated that these items would come up in conversation with the designer as there are code issues etc. These items do not belong in the RFP. He mentioned the memorials. He asked about sidewalks. Councilor Sturgis stated that the purpose of the committee is to focus on the building and not make decisions on parking and the like as they are extraneous costs to the project. These items would be part of the Council decision outside of the committee’s charge and they have kept that in their scope of work. Councilor Scheckel stated that there are a number of items that must be required as part of zoning, codes etc. Councilor Grover asked when these things are designed and decided.
Councilor Sturgis stated that the outside sign was the only concession the committee would agree to outside the scope of focusing on the building proper. Councilor Scheckel stated that she wasn’t sure of a floor plan. She suggests including a blank floor plan to give the designer some options.
Tina Martell stated that the floor plan is merely a suggestion. Councilor Sturgis stated that there was a discussion by the committee on the preservation of the façade. He stated that the committee is open to suggestions.
Councilor Grover asked whether or not the respondent is required to attend the various regulatory boards.
Councilor Grover stated that according to this RFP, no computer designing etc is included and that people believe it is not in the scope of the project. He believes it would be to the benefit of the project. Councilor Scheckel believes that hardware and hardwiring should be included.
Councilor Sturgis stated that the committee discussed this issue and that the conduits for this process is included, but not the purchase of computers. Councilor Grover believes that the whole technology needs should be addressed in the project. There was an extensive discussion as to whether or that the infrastructure should be there and whether or planning and design should be included. Councilor Hutchins stated that this appears to be exhibit #10 in the RFP and that the designer will understand that. Councilor Scheckel stated that it might imply that the designer does not need to be responsible for this.
Tina Martell commented that that wording is stated on exhibit #9. Councilor Grover believes that IT engineers should be included in the RFQ.
Councilor Sturgis asked why some believe that this discussion is not supported by exhibit #9 in the RFP wording. He indicated that the SAD 15 IT person stated that the needs for the building are not extensive. The hardwiring is the responsibility of the RFP, but not the hardware. Councilor Scheckel stated that planning for anticipated needs is a good idea. Councilor Sturgis stated that this is already stated in the RFP items. Councilor Grover believes that an assessment of the Town’s needs to be done and he is concerned that this will not be done.
Lew Mancini stated that the committee’s reason was that purchasing computers, for example, is not in the scope of work and that adding this item needs to come from the Council. It is not the committee’s place to make that decision.
Councilor Scheckel commented on the scope of work and she suggests “the following services should be included in the proposed fee” be included. She also commented on page 4 on weekly status updates. It should simply read “…be included in weekly job meetings.”
Councilor Hutchins believes that the IT issue is included in the RFP but also thinks that future assessments may be needed.
The Council suggests postponing this and that at the next Town Office meeting, the committee takes the opportunity to rework the RFP.
Ralph Wink believes that Pennell should have the entire necessary infrastructure for IT needs and that it will be met. He indicated that he understood that Councilor Grover suggested that a town wide assessment be done, but he agrees that this is not in the scope of their work. Councilor Grover believes that a study should be done to assess what the needs will be over the next few years.
Councilor Gellerson suggests bringing the revisions to the March 3rd Council meeting.
Ralph Wink suggested that the more information one provides the designer will help them determine if they want to bid. He asked if a preliminary RFP could be included in the RFQ. Councilor Gellerson suggested that the preliminary RFP be included at the pre bid meeting.
Councilor Grover commented on alcoves and exterior doors but is not mentioned. Councilor Scheckel reminded him that this would come up.
Doug Webster stated that because it is posted on the website, designers have already seen the RFP.
Councilor Grover moved; Councilor Sturgis seconded
Motion to postpone this item until the March 3rd Town Council Meeting
5 Yes
Item #077-09 (Postponed) To consider a request of the Town Building Committee that Construction Management at Risk be the method of delivery to construct the Town Office building at Pennell.
Councilor Sturgis moved; Councilor Grover seconded.
Ordered the Gray Town Council approves Construction Management at Risk to be the method of delivery to construct the Town Office building at Pennell.
Councilor Hutchins supports this. Councilor Scheckel wants to be sure that the Council is involved in the decision making process.
Councilor Grover and Councilor Scheckel both commented that the role of the committee was the reason that this item was postponed.
Councilor Grover believes that if no action is taken, but that charging the committee to make it available to the project leader and to offer guidance is a role for the committee. Councilor Sturgis does not agree that the role of the committee did not impact postponing the CM at Risk for this item and suggests defining their role for the March 3rd meeting.
5Yes
Fifth Order of Business: ORDINANCES:
Item #087-09 (Second Reading) To review and act upon a proposed amendment to Section 401.11.1C of the Town of Gray’s Subdivision Ordinance, for conditional agreements as a form of performance guarantee.
Councilor Sturgis moved; Councilor Scheckel seconded.
Ordered the Gray Town Council approves the proposed amendments to Section 401.11.1C of the Town of Gray’s Subdivision Ordinance, for conditional agreements as a form of performance guarantee.
5 Yes.
Sixth Order of Business:
Council Business:
Seventh Order of Business:
Additions to the Agenda: Dry Mills School House, IT discussion, future role of Town Office committee, postponed RFP motion.
Eighth Order of Business:
Council Action Items, Assignments and Issues Status:
Mobile Vendor License Ordinance Amendment.
Clarify Committee Priorities
Mass Gathering Ordinance
Department Head Goals
Update Personnel Policy/Administrative Code
Ninth Order of Business: Adjournment
Councilor Scheckel moved; Councilor Sturgis seconded.
Motion to Adjourn
The meeting ended at 11:59pm
Minutes approved and accepted March 3rd by its Town Council:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Peter Gellerson, Chair Tracy Scheckel, Vice Chair
______________________________ ___________________________
Mark D. Grover Margaret Hutchins
_____________________________
Matthew Sturgis
* The Town of Gray is an equal opportunity employer and complies with all applicable equal access to public accommodations law. If you are planning to attend a Town Council or Town committee or board meeting and need assistance with a physical disability, please contact the Town Manager’s office at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting to have the Town assist you. 657-3339. TTY 657-3931.
| 
