Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 08/26/1968BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING AUGUST 26, 1968 The South Burlington Board of Selectmen held a special meeting at the WJOY Building on Joy Drive on Monday, August 26, 1968 at 7:30 P.M. Mr. D'Acuti, Chairman, called the meeting to order. MEMBERS PRESENT Vincent J. D'Acuti, Chairman; Charles H. Behney and Augustus T. Stannard. MEMBERS ABSENT Robert K. Ashley and Walter Nardelli OTHERS PRESENT Henry LeClair, Town Manager; John T. Ewing, Town Attorney, William Szymanski, Town Engineer, Philip Doherty, Joel Bilodeau and Robert Tucker from Webster=Martin, Inc.; Randall Munson and Donald Rich from Munson's Earth Moving Company; Philip Koolvard, Attorney; James Harvel, Engineer; and Howard Cranwell, Contractor and Developer. A list of names of residents also in attendance is filled with these minutes. COMMENTS AND COMPLAINTS from RESIDENTS IN REGARD TO SEWER CONSTRUCTION Mr. D'Acuti opened the meeting for discussion from the floor, explaining that the Board would consider the items brought up later on during an Executive Session to be held with the Contractor, Mr. Munson. Among the people expressing their opinions and asking questions were the following: Mrs. Rose Billado, 4 Cottage Grove Avenue: All markers or posts on my two lots have been removed. Munson's truck broke up the cement in front of my garage. Who is going to pay for the cost of having my lots surveyed. Mr. I. R. Morgan, 31 Victoria Drive: Unacceptable replacement of lawn. Mrs. N. E. Bartlett, 23 Elsom Parkway: Are they (the contractors) waiting for the Dumont project to be completed before Mayfair Park sewer system can be completed? SEWER CONSTRUCTION – COMMENTS AND COMPLAINTS, CONTINUED Unidentified Mayfair Park Resident: Why has all work stopped in our area? Why can't we hook on to the house connection and cap it until line is ready for use? Why are the roads left in such terrible condition? Senator John J. O'Brien, 33 Hayden Parkway: The contractor used my lawn for a highway. I gave the town easement rights, not the contractor. Why do we have to hire lawyers to protect our property? Mr. Munson is trespassing when he uses private property for a highway. My wire fence in the back yard is torn down? Who is going to repair or replace it? Mr. Robert M. Woodbury, 1381 Williston Road: My easement is signed by Mr. Douglas. The contractor goes all over my property outside the easement lines. Albert Whitney, 43 Suburban Square: Am entirely dissatisfied with the construction. When I was doing construction work with Mr. O'Brien, contractor, in Suburban Square the town was very strict, streets had to be completely in order, etc. Why do you let this contractor do such sloppy work? Mr. O'Brien, contractor, wants it pointed out that the Helen Street extension from Victory Drive to Williston Road is being trespassed on by Mr. Munson's equipment. Shirley Baxter, 82 Davis Parkway: There is a lot of water draining into the street. Are catch basins included in the drainage system? Water situation is terrible after every rain. Why are they paving the cross streets and not the main streets? Mr. Michael D. Flaherty, 99 Suburban Square: Does the town periodically inspect the work as it is being done? If so, why don't they have it cleaned up right away? Mrs. Francis J. Murtie: Our utility wires have all been disturbed, pulled out of the ground. Mr. Munson is supposed to replace them. When will this be done? SEWER CONSTRUCTION – COMMENTS AND COMPLAINTS, CONTINUED Mr. Charles Amblo, 31 Mills Avenue: I think the whole problem here is public relations, which are very poor. The public doesn't know anything. Why don't we hear from you guys from time to time. How did he get the contract? Did Munson bite off too much - I am paying for a septic tank because I am not hooked up. Mr. Robert M. Woodbury, 1381 Williston Road: Where does one go with complaints - I started with the Town Manager and was referred to Webster-Martin, Inc. Someone should be the watch dog of this project. Trucks turn around in my back yard. Unidentified man: You say the contract should be completed by Nov. 8, 1968? Mr. Robert Woodbury, 1381 Williston Road: When do we find out what you hear from the contractor tonight? Mrs. John Dwyer, 29 Gilbert Street: What happens in November if the contract is not completed? Mrs. Shirley Baxter, 82 Davis Parkway: Can we hook on before the line is completed? Mr. Charles Amblo, 31 Mills Avenue: Can I call and find out when I can hook on? The Chairman told those present that the town does have a performance bond for the sewer project and a percentage of the payment is held up till the town accepts the work in its entirety. He explained that Webster-Martin, Inc. was the engineering firm for the project and that contracts were awarded to the lowest bidders. He said that this was the first big sewer project the town has ever had and that future contracts may have to be much stricter than they have been. He then thanked those present for coming before the Board, and explained that the Selectmen were going into executive session with the contractor at this time to review the complaints with him and to resolve other matters. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. D'Acuti, Chairman pointed out that the purpose of this Executive Session was primarily to consider bills presented by Munson Earthmoving Company for the cost of waiting time and additional work caused by changes in the plans of the project located on the Elsom Parkway line and also for unexpected additional cost of installing the Hinesburg Road-Kennedy Drive intersection line. Mr. Bilodeau of Webster-Martin, Inc. passed out copies of the bills in question. Copies of the itemized bills are filed with these minutes. Dates and amounts are as follows: January 2, 1968 (Elsom Parkway line)$1,800.00 May 3, 1968 " " "$2,726.97 July 2, 1968 (Hines. Rd.-Kennedy Dr.)2,017.00 $6,613.98 Mr. Doherty of Webster-Martin, Inc. said that legally the January 2 and May 3 charges do not fall in the framework of the contract, but his firm does concurr that they reflect the cost of delays, waiting period, etc. on the Elsom Parkway Section and morally they could be considered for payment. The July 7, 1968 bill for $2017.00 was reviewed and Mr. Doherty said his firm questioned items amounting to $1351.00, leaving a balance of $666 for the Selectmen's consideration of this additional cost for the Hinesburg Road-Kennedy Drive project. Mr. Behney read from the minutes of December 19, 1967, relating to cost of this project in which both Mr. Pizzagalli and Mr. Munson agreed to do the job at the original contract price of $15,210.00. EXECUTIVE SESSION, CONTINUED Mr. Munson said he felt the $15,210.00 was an informal price. Mr. Doherty then presented to the Board an additional bill for $4398.85 dated simply August, 1968, which he said was given to him on the day of the meeting, August 26, 1968 by Mr. Munson. This also reflected additional costs for the Hinesburg Road-Kennedy Drive section and on Elsom Parkway. Mr. Doherty said Webster-Martin, Inc. had not had an opportunity to study the items, but would do so and report their opinion to the Board at the meeting of September 9, 1968. In discussing the charges for Elsom Parkway Mr. Bilodeau said that under the contract Mr. Dumont was to have filled in his own property, the right-of-way acquisition delayed the work, clearing and embankment work was necessary, etc. Mr. Koolvard, Attorney for Mr. Munson, explained he was there to discuss payment of the bills as presented. He recapped the reasons that generated the extra charges saying the general impression was that Mr. Munson would build the sewer line in the new location in anticipation of receiving a work order. The Chairman question the amount for moving a line just 10 feet south of the original plan. The Selectmen then asked Mr. Munson when he could complete the Mayfair Park link. Mr. Munson said it could be completed in two weeks. The Selectmen instructed the Webster-Martin, Inc. personnel to prepare a work order to extend the Elsom Parkway line 10 feet beyond the end of the street, to call the Town Manager and inform him of the cost, he in turn would call the Selectmen for approval to give Mr. Munson the green light to proceed. EXECUTIVE SESSION, CONTINUED Mr. Munson and Mr. Koolvard questioned the Board members as to when they could expect payment for the additional work. The Chairman said that as only three Board members were present, they would be considered as a subcommittee of three, and would make a recommendation to the full Board, adding that each item would be considered and a decision made at the meeting of September 9, 1968. Mr. Doherty said that Webster-Martin, Inc. wanted a completion schedule, in writing, on the paving schedule. Mr. Munson said paving is scheduled for September 15 on the first half of the project and on September 30 on the second half. Mr. Doherty then asked Mr. Munson to have his paving contractor forward a letter to Webster-Martin, Inc. setting forth the paving dates. Mr. Munson asked for an indication of the Board's feelings on payment of the bills as presented. He was again told that the full Board would consider the bills on September 9, 1968. There was a general discussion on sewer matters, a review of the complaints and comments made at the early part of the regular meeting, and the Executive Session was recessed and the Board resumed the regular meeting. HOWARD CRANWELL - REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF PERFORMANCE BOND Mr. Cranwell, Developer, asked the Board to consider releasing 50% of the $45,000 performance bond being held by the town for completion of construction of Laurel Hill South streets. Mr. LeClair said he understood that the Bonding Company is responsible for reducing the bond and Mr. Cranwell said if the Board considers the bond to be in line for reduction, it must notify the bonding company before this is done. HOWARD CRANWELL - LAUREL HILL SOUTH, CONTINUED Mr. Harvell, Engineer for Mr. Cranwell, read from a list of items, prepared by our Town Engineer, to be completed before the town could accept the streets, noting what had already been done, what was left do, and also what items he considered not the fault of Mr. Cranwell as developer. There was a general discussion having to do with drainage, catch basins, storm and sanitary sewer requirements, survey markers that are missing, a sewer line that is 30' short, necessity of concrete under driveways, etc. Mr. Cranwell remarked that there have been 30 or 40 builders in Laurel Hill South and he did not feel responsible for some of their construction errors. The Town Attorney stated he did not think the drainage problem on Sebring Road should affect Mr. Cranwell's bond. The Town Engineer said when paving is installed correctly some of the drainage problems will be corrected. It was agreed that the drainage problem caused by the U. V. M. property should be the responsibility of the three property owners affected. The Board instructed the Town Engineer to check on the corrective work as it is being done and asked the Town Manager to get legal opinions from the Attorney as to the responsibility of some of the items. The Town Manager, Attorney, and Engineer were instructed to report their findings at the September 9, 1969 meeting. Mr. Cranwell said that as soon as the Town Engineer o kays the items as being to town requirements he would advise the town in writing as to the dates of the paving of the streets. GEORGE SILVER, TOWN ASSESSOR Mr. D'Acuti told Mr. Silver that he felt the Selectmen should take another look at the assessor's department, and asked about time schedules for the town mapping and revaluation. Mr. Silver said to get into the appraisal, he would have to get out of zoning, which is now taking up most of his time. He said he felt he has wasted a year as far as appraising went, and stated that the town's assessment program is in poor shape. He went on to say that he would like to start appraising on September 1, 1968 and would need a full-time experienced person and one leg man besides himself to do this, as the quicker a revaluation is completed the more accurate it is. The Chairman said the Board of Civil Authority had discussed the revaluation and had made several suggestions, among them the feasibility of having the state do the work. Mr. D'Acuti said the Board's first intention had been to have the town revaluation completed in two years, as enough money was not budgeted for the work in one year. The Board agreed that the town should have a full-time zoning administrator and building inspector as well as a full-time assistant appraiser. Mr. Silver was told to check around to see if he could find anyone interested in the job of assistant appraiser. WILLIAM J. SZYMANSKI, TOWN ENGINEER The Board members agreed the time had come to have Mr. Szymanski work only for the town, Highway, and Sewer Departments. Mr. Szymanski remarked that he spent a lot of time with Highway Department matters as we do not have a Highway road foreman, and explained why a road foreman should be hired. After a discussion about the work-load, need for an assistant engineer, etc., the Board voted unanimously to notify the Water Department that Mr. Szymanski would have to leave as part-time engineer for their department and give them a 90 day notice. SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION The Board members discussed the fact that because not enough money was budgeted for sidewalk construction this year, construction was halted part- way up Patchen Road. After a discussion as to method of payment, etc., the Board voted unanimously to instruct Mr. Szymanski to have the Willis Construction Company complete the sidewalk construction on Patchen Road. Miscellaneous The Board asked Mr. Szymanski for explanations on the use of excess fill from the sewer construction and he explained how it was being used and instances where he felt there could be some question as to the method of use. The meeting adjourned at 12 midnight. APPROVED Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.