 |
AVON TOWN COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 24, 2003
CALL TO ORDER
The special meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Avon Room at Town Hall by Chairman Hines. Members in attendance: Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Carlson, Shea and Woodford.
OLD BUSINESS
02/03-72 M. H. Rhodes Building
Award Bid: Internal Environmental Remediation
The Human Resources Director reported we put the RFP for Internal Environmental Insurance out to bid. Mr. Falcigno of the Falcigno Group and Attorney Platt, our Environmental Attorney, are here to respond to the revised bids that we received. Attorney Platt reported we have projected mediation costs for this property, an insurance policy will help to insure against some of the risks posed on this property, all kinds of risks known and unknown. For the size of the estimated mediation costs that we are talking about, it is relative to the types of cost overrun policies that appear to be out there for any kind of policy. It did not appear to be necessary or prudent to buy a cost cap policy; it does not seem to make sense, given the numbers. It left us looking at other types of coverage, and
comparisons of the two companies of AIG and Seneca.
Chairman Hines reported Mrs. Hornaday was not here last time and we did not take a vote on what we heard, but as Attorney Platt stated, we kind of decided we knew the problems well enough not to have overrun type of insurance coverage. Attorney Platt reported what we are looking for is coverage for bodily injury and property damage relating to the exposure to these elements during the destruction process. Then there is another concept dealing with damage and claims for damage leading to responsibility with environmental issues, ongoing costs and restoration on the outside of the property. What we have to do is – all of the insurance is about insuring loss against the unknown, so where we have these known conditions of the site, we basically have to decide that we have known cleanup costs, and
cleanup costs for migration of elements off site which are unknown costs. Mr. Falcigno reported in addition to that the known problems are the problems that you could theoretically cover with a cost overrun policy. We think it will cost $200,000 to cleanup and we want to have insurance in place in case it goes over that amount, and that is the type of policy that was discussed in some length, and it was decided that the cost of that policy would be appropriate, given the relative mediation costs verses the relatively high deductible that would apply.
Mr. Shea questioned how much money is in the budget, in contingency for unknowns. The Town Manager reported we had $200,000 for environmental and remediation and now we have asbestos costs that we do not know the exact amount of that, until July 1st which can be as much as $50,000. Our Environmental Consultant, Ned Shanahan, has given us estimates that the external remediation work may be somewhere in the neighborhood of $75,000, but is not interested in committing to anything, so we do not know where that stands. We did not budget, per se, for environmental insurance in this. Mr. Shea reported of the $200,000, it appears, at this point in time, the most that we could have exposed is $50,000 to $75,000. Mr. Shanahan reported the $200,000 figure is the high of the estimated range of
investigation and remediation costs, and it includes a $100,000 contingency.
Mr. Woodford questioned whether the Seneca quote included preexisting and new. Mr. Falcigno reported yes it does, they do not quote it separately, their policy anticipates new conditions. The insurance package is different from the contractor’s contract. Attorney Platt reported we included specifications in the RFP for the contractor to include various environmental coverages. Whenever you transfer, there is certain risks involved, you are transferring your exposure to someone else, and there is always the possibility that contractor gives that responsibility to a subcontractor, and that someone else will not be as careful to try to reduce that risk, there is always the possibility of that failing. Therefore you are in need of insuring against it, because even if you are the named
insured on their policy, they have other insurance plans that are available for once they have completed operations, if we buy the new coverage, then we have primary coverage. Mr. Shea reported would it be fair to say that whoever the chosen contractor is if he or she has as much insurance and we would like them to have, and we are the additional insured, and there is a gap and because of the way the building was demolished or because of something that they have done, that there is a gap although we are on the hook, they are on the hook first. Mr. Falcigno reported that is correct. Mr. Shea reported we are paying them to take on the responsibility, we are transferring our risk to them, of taking that building down safely, surely and in a timely fashion. So the contract, he would assume, would be written in such a way where that risk has been – so that if there is a gap, the risk is still theirs, and we know we are still going to be involved.
Chairman Hines reported if we had a performance bond with the contractor, could that include insurance. Mr. Shea reported the performance bond will not include anything for pollution insurance, they would have to have pollution coverage and anybody that is going to put in a bid for this, has done this many times, and will have some type of pollution coverage. My concern is when you are talking about gaps, and we being an additional insured, and understands if we are exposed once they leave, but he is concerned about where you think the gaps might be.
Chairman Hines reported on the deductible, we talked about having $200,000 for the environmental cleanup in our money, can that be counted for the deductible. The Town Attorney reported that money is separate, it is being spent, the deductible is usually for suits for bodily injury or property damage. Chairman Hines reported we must decide how much exposure we want to have. Mr. Falcigno reported we want to compare apples to apples, the $2million or $4million in coverage, for Seneca we are looking at a range of $53,000 to $62,000 depending on the deductible, for the same coverage, depending upon the deductible, under AIG you go from a low of $70,000 to a high of $84,000. Chairman Hines questioned whether that was typical based on that kind of difference in rating. Mr. Shea reported that is A-
versus A++ paper, and is curious as to whether if Seneca had a problem, within the ten year period would there be cut through with some other company. The difference between Seneca and AIG with Seneca cheaper, it is that it is A- versus A++ paper.
Chairman Hines reported we have been given much information for consideration in making a decision, and we need to made an estimate of how severe we think the possibilities are of needing this kind of money, and how big a gamble we want to take on the deductions. When you look at it, there is not a lot of difference in the long term, if we got into a major problem you had a $250,000 versus $500,000, the premiums are not that much different but it is a big penalty for us in our budget if we suddenly had an extra $250,000 we had to pay for in several years.
Mr. Shea reported we have $200,000 already, if we say to the public that we need an additional $100,000 or absorbing an additional up to $250,000, and then arrive at a deductible that we can deal with, or the experts that are appropriate at the time, feel is appropriate. He feels $500,000 is too much and the costs involved with $100,000 is too low, if we can agree on a deductible then what we can do is to get into which coverages we should and should not have. Then we can plot it out and quickly get to the coverage we need, now which company are we most comfortable. The differences in coverage are not there, Seneca is a good company – he would suggest we go with a $250,000 deductible, and strongly suggest we consider AIG as the company we want to go with, then the discussion of coverages is on the
table. He is more conservative and would say that since we are going to spend something, that we buy as much as we can buy, and not just go ahead to save 5% or 10% and not get additional coverages that we may or may not use. Chairman Hines reported he completely agrees. Mr. Woodford reported we should go with the first two AIG coverages with $250,000 deductibles with $1million over $2million for $54,000 and $5,000. Chairman Hines reported he would want to go with the higher coverage of the $2million over $4million, with the $250,000 deductible, to go with the higher coverage if we are going to spend that much money at $75,000 and $7,000. Mr. Shea reported he would lean towards the $1million and $2million coverage being appropriate. Mr. Woodford questioned where the money is coming from. The Town Manager reported in that range, he would not be comfortable taking it out of the project, perhaps just a certain amount of that out of it, or
all out of the project costs then at some point some can come out of surplus or by request for additional funds.
Environmental Insurance
On a motion made by Mr. Carlson, seconded by Mr. Shea, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council award the bid for insurance coverage to AIG, a 10 year Environmental (Pre-existing only) in amount $75,328 premium; and a 5 Year Environmental Additional Premium for New Conditions, Coverages E&F in amount $7,090; both with $2million each incident over $4million Coverage Section Aggregate and Policy Aggregate, each with $250,000 deductibles, the insurance costs to be taken out of the Project Budget.
Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Hines, Carlson, Shea and Woodford voted in favor.
Demolition RFP
The Superintendent of Public Works reported after the last meeting we took some direction and made some changes to the RFP. The schedule was changed as to the date of release of the RFP to June 16, we removed the back filling and anticipated remediation, topsoil placement or seeding until after October when the building demolition and slab removal will be completed, therefore it will be an open construction site until then.
The Town Manager reported the Fire Department would like to address the parking area presently on the property. Chief DiPace reported we use that lot extensively for our driver training, as it is the only open lot in Town that we have been able to mark out for the course of the apparatus, which is of tremendous benefit to the Fire Department and has been used for many years, even when the business was open we were allowed to use it. It also has a great water supply from a hydrant located near the old storage building that will remain in tact, and the department uses for pump operation training. We have never received complaints from the neighbors. We are also looking to be able to use that area for our carnival. Chairman Hines reported that parking area is becoming unusable. The Town
Manager reported it will be problematic in the future, and at some point the Town if it becomes established as a location for those type of things, we are going to be looking at repaving the parking lot or doing some substantial work. Chairman Hines questioned whether the parking area for the rails-to-trails is similar. The Town Manager reported it is essentially the same throughout the parking lot, certain areas are broken up more than others, it needs maintenance. The Superintendent of Public Works reported it was his recommendation to remove it at this point in time, because of the environmental issues and we have the money in place to do the work. We can break up the asphalt and take the gravel and stockpile it at the landfill for Town use, backfill it with topsoil so that we have a graded level grass surface, in order to finish the entire project at once. The parking lot is in bad condition now and it will only get worse without good maintenance. Chairman Hines
questioned whether the Fire Department could practice in the grassed area. Chief DiPace reported driving the apparatus on the grass is difficult and whether the ground could support it is questionable. Chairman Hines reported the grass would be all right for the carnival. Chief DiPace reported yes, but it would be better to have the rides on the pavement. Chairman Hines reported we want to get everything covered now while we do the demolition and the insurance, then make a decision after that knowing what the fire department desires are for training and their carnival. Mr. Shea reported the parking area is not being considered as a pollution area, therefore we could leave a portion of it as it is now. The Superintendent reported whatever we do not do now, we will have to pay for later, if we leave part of it, we will have a parking lot that will (a) need maintenance, (b) is going to have to be removed then remove the sub base to put soil in so that you
can grow grass further down the road. Chairman Hines reported we do not know what we are going to do with that site. We have two problems they want to use the water and they also have a problem with being able to train firemen to drive the trucks. Leaving half of the parking lot would at least allow them to use it, and the distance between that part of the lot and the hydrant would have to be accomplished by longer hoses. Chief DiPace reported we could use half of it. Mrs. Hornaday reported all of a sudden we are making decisions about things that we just heard, and then we are concerned about the money when we go home. Are we going to be able to do this and have it look decent to the residents, to just chunk up half of the parking lot, when it already needs work. Will we be able to take away the asphalt and gravel to use other places, or if it is possible to take it away by our own workers and to put it back in properly so that it does not look
like half of a job. She is concerned about the fire department but just wondering about redoing the whole area, without the major expense. Chairman Hines reported the problem is that it would not be used just for cars, it would have to be strong enough to carry heavy fire trucks. The Superintendent reported we have an agreed upon area, he would probably not remove anything from it, and would top-dress it so that it would look cosmetically better. Mr. Shea reported we need a short-term solution to accommodate the fire department and get as much work done to save some money, to minimize the costs we will incur down the road. Chairman Hines reported we will leave a small section of parking lot, big enough to have training on and accommodate rails-to-trails. The Superintendent reported there will be no need to modify the RFP he will just mark the parking area for the demolition, there are clauses in the document for such things.
On a motion made by Mr. Carlson, seconded by Mr. Shea, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council approve the time schedule and authorize the Town Manager to send out the RFP for Building Demolition and Removal on Town Property at 99 Thompson Road.
Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Hines, Carlson, Shea and Woodford voted in favor.
Chairman Hines questioned where the environmental issues are at this time. The Superintendent reported he did a walk through with one environmental company at the property who expressed interest, and he received two phone calls from companies who stated they were interested, and he is anticipating their responses shortly.
The Superintendent reported the RFP went out for the Senior Center sprinkler system. Chairman Hines questioned whether the contractors recommend certain types of sprinkler systems. The Superintendent reported after the plan for a new sprinkler system was approved, Aztek drew up the technical drawings for the system, and that is the one we are using, it is a combination wet/dry system which the Town Council approved. We will check the bids to see what it is going to cost for that type of system. We left an open ended clause in the RFP, because there were issues regarding renovation within the Senior Center because of finish work having to be done because of the replacement, that contractor would have the option to paint the entire room or do what may be required. Chairman Hines reported a lot
of those ideas may have to be put on the back burner right now. The Superintendent reported we left it open-ended so that we have the ability to move forward at any time in the future.
02/03-112 Review and Discussion: Information Technology Policies for Boards and Commissions.
The Town Manager reported the background information that the Finance Director received from other communities. The Finance Director reported we found that some other communities are supplying lap tops, printers and things of that nature and paying for communication lines for some of their boards, there is a mixed review and how they are being used, some people are choosing not to use them actively, so it really depends upon the individual. Chairman Hines reported that is what we are doing tonight, the Town Manager is suggesting that maybe the Council does not want to get any more hard copies of things, and just continue with e-mails. Then if the only information comes from the computers, then, such as tonight this final copy comes up on our computers, we will spend an awful lot of time going through
that and we may not want to do that. We may want to stay pretty much with the hard paper situation. For example, if you cancelled the meeting tonight, he would much prefer to have a phone call, as he does check his phone messages. Mr. Shea reported they can do both, it is easy to use our e-mail, and then use phone calls for the rest. Chairman Hines reported the other problem is that some people use their e-mail at their office and not their home.
The Town Manager reported we have allowed persons to use items such as file cabinets while they were on a board or commission, then once they left it was returned to the Town, but we do not provide phones for people, they provide their own, but we are in the introductory phase of a new technology and eventually we will all have it, and some do now anyway. What we are talking about is coming up with a policy that allows us, if we feel it is necessary and appropriate and benefits the Town, to take care of a problem within one of the members’ equipment. Mr. Shea questioned who decides what is necessary. The Town Manager reported if it is significant enough, it will come back to the Town Council to decide, but if it is a routine problem whereby there may be some diagnostic work that can be
done remotely or something like that, and we are trying to get something out to someone. Mr. Woodford reported the Town Manager should use his best judgement. Chairman Hines reported his problem is more knowing how to make changes to charts and such, in order to work on them, and if he did that would be more beneficial to the Town employees as well. Mr. Woodford reported there is a limit as to how much technical knowledge we are going to have and be able to do. Mr. Carlson questioned if he called and said he had a problem, there ought to be a person he can ask, we should not directly call anyone but the Town Manager’s office. Chairman Hines reported that is correct.
The Town Manager reported the other policy regards the requests we received regarding the town meeting and budget hearings with people wanting to do power point electronic presentations. Chairman Hines reported the question is whether we want to have such a policy in place, so that people do not come in to present their own power point presentations.
On a motion made by Mrs. Hornaday, seconded by Mr. Carlson, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council approve Town Council Policy #20 entitled Electronic Communications Between Town Staff and Boards or Commissions, dated June 24, 2003, to read as follows:
“TOWN COUNCIL POLICY
Subject: Electronic Communications between Town No. 20
Staff and Boards or Commissions Date: June 24, 2003
Electronic communications between Town staff and Boards or Commissions may be transmitted per the choice of the individual board or commission member, via their personal or business computer systems.
If electronic communication is hampered due to software or hardware issues, and that is the preferred mode of communication, the Town shall provide technical support or software to the individual, if so desired, with Board or Commission Approval. Requests will also require Town Manager’s approval.”
RESOLVED: That the Town Council approve Town Council Policy # 21 entitled Participation in Public Budget Hearings and/or Meetings dated June 24, 2003, to read as follows:
“TOWN COUNCIL POLICY
Subject: Participation in Public Budget No. 21
Hearings and/or Meetings Date: June 24, 2003
Participation in electronic presentations at budget public hearings shall be limited to Town staff or authorized representatives.
Since participants would have to use their own electronic equipment, and due to time restrictions placed on audience participation, logistics prevents electronic communication from the audience. The audience can continue to participate verbally (within the time limit) or provide handouts to the public.”
Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Hines, Carlson, Shea and Woodford voted in favor.
NEW BUSINESS
02/03-115 Supplemental Appropriation: $98,000, CIP Future Roofing Repair, Pine Grove School
The Town Manager reported we received a check for $98,000 as a settlement agreement on the Pine Grove School roof. Mr. Shea questioned how old the roof was. The Town Manager reported it was replaced in 1991, it is regular flat roof, which should have had 20 to 35 years. The Board of Education included the replacement in their 06/07 capital budget at a cost of $363,200; the $98,000 would be used to offset that expense at that time. Mr. Shea reported that would make it scheduled for replacement at 20 years, but when installed there is a contractual guarantee which is built right into the contracts.
The Town Manager reported he is recommending the funds be put into a special Capital Budget Reserved Account for the replacement of the roof.
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Mr. Woodford, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council hereby recommends that the Board of Finance amend the FY02/03 Budget by increasing:
REVENUES
Capital Projects Fund (Facil & Equip), Other Local Revenue, Refunds and Reimbursements, Account #02-0360-43612 in the amount of $98,000 and increasing:
APPROPRIATIONS
Capital Projects Fund (Facil & Equip), Board of Education CIP-Facilities, Roof Repair/Replacement, Account #02-4859-53342 in the amount of $98,000 to record receipt of Johns Mansville settlement check to be used for construction of Pine Grove Elementary School Roof.
Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Hines, Carlson, Shea and Woodford voted in favor.
02/03-116 Supplemental Appropriation: $52,938; Public Works Overtime
The Town Manager reported this is the FEMA grant we received to cover the Public Works overtime. The State was turned down on the first request, but the second time the Governor declared a State of Emergency he was successful in getting this, and we want to apply it to the current year’s Public Works overtime budget. We will remain somewhat over but not anywhere near last years.
On a motion made by Mr. Shea, seconded by Mrs. Hornaday, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council hereby recommends that the Board of Finance amend the FY02/03 Budget by increasing:
REVENUES
General Fund, State and Federal Grants, FEMA Storm Assistance, Account #01-0330-43360 in the amount of $52,938 and increasing:
APPROPRIATIONS
General Fund, Roadways, Overtime, Account #01-3101-51015 in the amount of $52,938 for reimbursement from FEMA for costs incurred for snow removal February 17 and 18, 2003.
Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Hines, Carlson, Shea and Woodford voted in favor.
02/03-117 Avon Water Company Cancellation of Memorandum of Understanding Dated December 18, 2002.
The Town Manager reported the Diversion Permit Application of the Avon Water Company to move ahead with their well site at Fisher Meadows is tied up. The Water Company came in, as part of their negotiations with the neighborhood last fall, in December with a Memorandum of Understanding that they requested that we sign and participate with them in, which we did. Since then things have changed and the memorandum of understanding from their perspective is no longer needed, and they are requesting that the Town formally sign a release, from the previous commitment to perform the duties that were outlined in the MOU. Chairman Hines reported all we were going to do is to allow them to go in Town properties to install water lines. The Town Manager reported we had a broader role than that, which was
basically to act as at the request of either the Water Company or the residents to act in a monitoring capacity, and also potentially implied in that was the mediating role between the neighborhood and the Water Company. Chairman Hines reported we may be glad to be out of it then. The Town Manager reported it was originally suggested by the DEP as a method of having an impartial third party be available, and they suggested the Town, and we were trying to facilitate the whole process between the Water Company and the neighborhood, which was somewhat adversarial and that seemed to be a good role for us.
Mr. Woodford questioned what the status of the project is. The Town Manager reported at the present time, the commitment the Water Company made to the neighborhood was that if they did not file an appeal in the diversion process with the DEP, and that only took twenty-five signatures, they would go ahead and implement the provisions that were outlined in the MOU which included the installation of water mains in several areas including Reverknolls, over about an eight year period, with the first year or two being bringing the water in. Then subsequently committing up to $100,000 a year until the project was completed which they anticipated being in seven to eight years. A good portion of the neighborhood was accepting of that, but with some who were not accepting of it there was a feeling that they needed
to have the water in there much sooner than that, either because of well problems that they had in the area, or fire protection issues. The ultimate result of this was that two petitions were filed, one by people that were not even in the original affected area of the water company, the second one by residents of the Reverknolls area who felt that the water company was not moving along fast enough. That net result is that the Water Company has basically said that they will not participate in this any longer, and will put a water line in through Avonwood on property owned by Mr. McDonald, and bring a hydrant out near Lord Davis so that there will be one hydrant along the water main. Subsequently if the neighborhood wants water they would have to work with the Water Company and pay the fees, that the Water Company was going to pay, to have the water installed. He was approached by the Water Company to see if the Town would act as a go between, similar to what
we did on Deer Run and with Lakeview.
What this cancellation does is basically retracts any relationship between the Town and the Water Company. Chairman Hines questioned whether the drilling of the well at Fisher Meadows is going to continue. The Town Manager reported yes, but now they have to go before the DEP with a full hearing and present the evidence again in a much more formal presentation. The outcome may be the same; the only difference would be that the residents there gave up an opportunity for water to be provided by the Water Company. Chairman Hines reported he tried to work with them to give them some guidance, but they were not in favor any suggestions or resolutions in order to get the water in.
On a motion made by Mr. Carlson, seconded by Mr. Woodford, it was voted:
RESOLVED: That the Town Council authorize the Town Manager to sign on behalf of the Town of
Avon the cancellation of Memorandum of Understanding dated December 18, 2002
with the Avon Water Company, which is no longer needed.
Mrs. Hornaday, Messrs: Hines, Carlson, Shea and Woodford voted in favor.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chairman Hines reported every time we have a referendum or election, the question comes up as to what is the Town Policy on signs, and we did come up with a written document over a year ago which we decided not to adopt, after discussions with the Town Attorney as to what you can do and cannot. It may be good to have that policy available if anyone comes into Town, that this is the unofficial, though never having been a formal policy adopted, this is our general thinking of the Town. Then we all follow that, and do not deviate from it, and do not give them any more or any less. It gets into can signs be on Town property, on their own property, and we do not want to get into that. That policy which was not adopted gave us some guidelines that would work up at the landfill or signs at the Library,
but you cannot do it in the building, do not interfere with operations, do not give campaign literature out, and we try to keep signs off all Town property. We should get this policy or guidelines out again so that you can see it, and go from there. Every time this issue comes up people call and they get the feeling that they are getting different information. Whether that is right or not – we do not know – but he keeps hearing it. Mr. Shea reported they are interpreting it differently, and the information has always been consistent over decades and that it has always been fair and has always been objective. Chairman Hines reported he does not care if someone puts a sign on Town property in front of his or her home, the right of way. He would like to get the town employees out of the middle of this, which is why he would like guidelines. The Town Manager reported we have some evolving additions to that, such as in rights of way,
and we sent the Town Attorney the information for an opinion, but Town property is something different in the sense of what policy we have for that. We could put all of that together in the sense of a guideline, for review.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Attest:
Caroline B. LaMonica
Town Clerk
| |
