APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING

MINUTES

April 9, 2002

APPROVED – April 16, 2002

 

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGAINCE

 

PRESENT:

Mr. Greg Farris, Mr. Hal Lynde, Mr. William McDevitt, Mr. Jean-Guy Bergeron, Mr. Richard Derby

 

Also present:

 

ABSENT:

Mr. Pat MacQueen, Interim Town Administrator, members of the press and general public.

 

 None.

              

Chairman Farris opened the meeting at approximately 6:30 pm. 

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

April 2, 2002

 

MOTION:

(Derby/Bergeron) To approve the April 2, 2002 minutes as amended.

 

VOTE:

 

(5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

April 3, 2002

 

MOTION:

(Derby/Bergeron) To approve the April 3, 2002 minutes as written.

 

VOTE:

 

(5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

OPEN FORUM

 

None.

 

APPOINTMENTS

 

Council on Aging - Member Appointments

 

Ms. Sue Hovling came before the Selectmen with the proposed member appointment list.  She read the candidates names aloud.

 

MOTION:

(Bergeron/Lynde) To accept the sixteen names as presented.

 

VOTE:

 

(5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC SESSION

 

MOTION:

(Lynde/McDevitt) Request for a non-public session per RSA 91-A:3,II,e (litigation).

 

ROLL CALL:

 

Mr. Farris-Yes; Mr. Lynde; Mr. McDevitt-Yes; Mr. Bergeron-Yes; Mr. Derby-Yes

 

The Board entered into a non-public session at approximately 6:42 pm.  Also present was Mr. MacQueen.

 

The Board returned to public session at approximately  7:15pm.

 

Grant request, Police Chief Evan Haglund

 

Police Chief, Evan Haglund came forward with a request he had received from Project Graduation.  He said that there was a $750 grant available through the state for chemical-free nights.  He said that after the commencement ceremony of the High School graduation the students usually go to Cedardale and spend the night in a health club type location.  He said the students had been going for quite a few years.  He said that Project Graduation had asked him to seek permission from the Selectmen to apply for the grant.  He said that the grant would basically cover the rental of the facility. 

 

MOTION:

(McDevitt/Bergeron) To authorize Police Chief Haglund to apply for the New Hampshire Highway Safety grant in the amount of $750.

 

VOTE:

 

(5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Chief Haglund noted that Master Patrolman Owens and K-9 Duke had placed first, of sixteen for the narcotic certification trials.  He said the Department was very proud of the team.

 

Bread Loaf Corporation

 

Mr. Jim Barret, John Ellick, Bert and Jan Becker of Bread Loaf Corporation met with the Selectmen to discuss and answer questions regarding the design contract and the construction management contract.  Also present was Town Council Attorney Gordon Graham. 

 

Mr. Ellick provided a description of Bread Loaf Corporation.  He said the company was thirty-five years old.  He informed that they were planners, architects and builders and when projects were engaged, they offered all services.  He said the integrated approach offered pricing insurance and competitive bids. 

 

Mr. Ellick discussed how Bread Loaf determined costs by putting jobs out to bid.  He noted that the agreement with the Town would have a specified amount and there would be no change orders.  He said that Attorney Graham negotiated language that would preclude Bread Loaf from asking for additional money within the total contract and the specified scope of work.  He discussed how the bidding process worked.  Attorney Graham noted that unit prices (which often lead to change orders) were not included in the contract.  He said that the construction documents phase of the contract would be completed before the phase two of the contract would be signed. 

 

Mr. Ellick said that other firms performed the same type of services, but felt that Bread Loaf offered competitive rates.  He said that their percentage would be 4.75% of bids and explained that once bids came in, the Selectmen would have the opportunity to approve the bids. 

 

Mr. MacQueen discussed the differences between hiring Bread Loaf and hiring a general contractor.  He drew a diagram to better explain how Bread Loaf would handle the project and be responsible for designing the project, developing the bid specification, putting it out to bid, receiving the bids, accepting the bids (with the Town), managing the project and inspecting the project for the Town. 

 

Attorney Graham discussed the complexity of the contract and recommended that the Town consider having the Building Inspector and CLD (Town Engineer) review the contract at certain times and intervals for a checks and balance system. 

 

Mr. Ellick said when Bread Loaf is contracted for both the design (first phase) and construction (second phase) and a problem occurred, it would be up to Bread Loaf to work out the situation with the subcontractor.  He said there was a team performing due diligence to ensure that bidders were qualified for the job.  He said the contract unequivocally guaranteed that corrective work and the associated costs were not the Town’s concern.  Attorney Graham said the America Institute of Architects created the contract and he made changes to the document.  He explained the changes he had requested to the contract and why he believed the changes were necessary.  Mr. Ellick discussed the budgets created and noted they contained a contingency.  He said they still had investigation to do and hoped that a great share of unknowns would be worked out so that the contingency would shrink.  He said contract provided language that stated a cap on the dollar amount to be spent. 

 

Mr. Ellick discussed the bid process.  He said that Bread Loaf would engage in a solicitation of interest and would publish, accumulate and review qualifications of perspective persons.  He said that the Town could be engaged in the process of including qualified people onto the bid list.  Persons should contact Mr. MacQueen if interested in being included as a perspective bidder.  It was noted that the Selectmen would inform when people should begin contacting Mr. MacQueen.  Mr. MacQueen discussed the bidding process recently adopted by the Selectmen. 

 

There was a brief discussion regarding Senate Bill Two and if it could affect the project funding.  Attorney Graham felt it would be prudent to build contingency language into the contract regarding the availability of financing for the project.  He gave a summary of the case and anticipated a decision from the first circuit within 30-days and the plaintiffs would have 90-days to appeal to the Supreme Court.  Attorney Graham said the Town could investigate alternatives to the issuance of bonds, such as the issuance of notes.  He felt that, in principal, until money was on the way there should be provisions in the contract that work would not start until the Town gives written authorization.  He believed that in working with bond counsel, and the architects, some of the design work could begin so the project would not be delayed.  He explained the difference between bonds and notes and believed the Town had flexibility because there were banks that would loan the amount of money needed for the project. 

 

Mr. Farris suggested contacting Citizen’s Bank to discuss alternatives so the project could proceed.  Attorney Graham believed that there would be a clear indication from the first circuit within the next 30-days.  He didn’t feel there would be a problem discussing alternatives with banks.  Mr. Lynde wanted to know what risks were related to proceeding with phase one.  Attorney Graham said that if there were substantial delays, the cost of phase two could be effected as a result of the market.  Mr. Ellick said phase one was constructed so that the owner (at its sole discretion) could terminate the design contract with the only obligation being the expenditures occurred to date.  There was a brief discussion regarding either holding off or proceeding forward with the contracts. 

 

Mr. Farris summarized and said a final draft of the design management contract was needed as well as any comments relating to the construction management contract.  Attorney Graham said that he could have an initial draft of the design management contract (phase one) and an initial draft of the phase two contract by the next Selectmen meeting.  He said he could include ‘notice to proceed’ language so that conversation could be had with Citizen’s Bank.  Attorney Graham and Mr. MacQueen will discuss having a note versus a bond.  Bread Loaf was hopeful that the design process for the whole process would go through July, so that the bidding process could happen and construction could begin in August. 

 

Mr. Farris asked that any questions regarding the project management be directed to Mr. MacQueen, who in turn would direct the question to Attorney Graham. 

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

Selectmen Assignments

 

Mr. Farris noted that the Selectmen assignments had been handed out and if there were any questions, they should be directed to Mr. MacQueen.  He asked that the Selectmen inform the committees of their appointment as representative.  He said that any questions the committees had could be either answered or directed to Mr. MacQueen.  He asked that budgets for the upcoming year be submitted by mid June.

 

In the event that Mr. McDevitt is not able to attend a Budget Committee meeting as a Selectmen’s Representative the position will be open to any Selectmen to attend.

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Adelphia Agreement

 

Mr. Farris noted that the second extension of the Adelphia agreement would end April 30, 2002.  He said Attorney Epstein had returned a redlined copy of the amended agreement received from Adelphia.  He said that Attorney Epstein had since received an e-mail from Adelphia asking that negotiations continue between CTAC and Adelphia’s Chief non-attorney negotiator.  Attorney Epstein is not interested in discussing the agreement with a non-attorney since the agreement is a legal document.  Mr. Farris said that CTAC had questioned Adelphia for the change in negotiators and awaited an answer.  He said there would probably be a request for a 90-day extension. 

 

Mr. Farris said the rebuild completion had been moved up to the second week in May and would be up and running by mid June.  He said finalities would be discussed at a later date.  There was a brief discussion regarding providing cable for later installation of new buildings.  Mr. MacQueen asked that a clear map and plan be provided for coverage areas.  Mr. Farris said a final map had been requested.  He said that they would also be notified, per the regulations when grounds were open in new subdivision so Adelphia could lay additional wiring. 

 

TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT/SELECTMEN’S REPORT

 

Mr. MacQueen said the Highway Department had put out proposals (partly joint with Windham) regarding the Castle Hill Bridge.  He said also included in the RFP was the Tallant Road Bridge.  He informed that the GEOD report (traffic analysis) had been received and could be discussed at the next meeting.  He asked that comments to the codification summaries be submitted to him.  Mr. MacQueen informed that a rabies clinic would be held at the Fire Station April 27, 2002 between 9am-12 noon for cats and dogs only.  The animals should be either leashed or in carriers. 

 

Mr. Bergeron informed that the Solid Waste Facility had now installed a grappel bucket onto the little Bobcat so that loading items into the container would be easier.  He said two wall openings from the old incinerators that had been previously framed, now were reinforced by steel.  He ended by informing that the two new full-time employees were now on duty. 

 

Mr. Lynde, Mr. Derby and Mr. McDevitt had nothing to report at this time. 

 

Mr. Farris reminded the Selectmen to inform Department Heads that they were the Selectmen Representatives.  He asked that the departments notify CIP of any projects they wanted done.  Mr. Farris ended by saying the Travel Basketball Program held and end of season banquet.  He thanked the coaches, the children and the dedication of the parents.  He hoped that the people stay involved to promote Town spirit.

 

REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC SESSION

 

MOTION:

(McDevitt/Lynde) Request for a non-public session per RSA 91-A:3,II,a & e (personnel & legal).

 

ROLL CALL:

 

Mr. Farris-Yes; Mr. Lynde; Mr. McDevitt-Yes; Mr. Bergeron-Yes; Mr. Derby-Yes

 

Mr. Farris noted that when the Board returned, after the non-public session, the Board would not take any other action publicly, except to seal the minutes of the non-public session and to adjourn the meeting.  The Board entered into a non-public session at approximately 9:20 pm.  Also present was Mr. MacQueen.

 

The Board returned to public session at approximately     pm.

 

MOTION:

 

(    ) To seal the minutes of the non-public session indefinitely.

 

VOTE:

 

(  - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

MOTION:           (              ) To adjourn the meeting.

 

VOTE:                 (  - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

The meeting was adjourned at approximately    pm.

 

                                                                                          Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                                          Charity A. L. Willis

                                                                                          Recording Secretary