1/4/2017 UPPER CAPE REGIONAL TRANSFER STATION BOARD OF MANAGERS Minutes

Home Browse Search

On page 11, 2,01 x Mr. Segura referenced a possible need for additional criteria for termination,. also referenced on page 15, such as non-compliance or non-payment. Mr. Richard responded that he would add the wording, noting that further clarification was also highlighted in Article 9. On page 12, 3.02, Mr. Segura inquired about environmental issues and W. Richards responded that he would add appropriate wording. Additionally, Mr. Segura inquired at what point the Environmental Office would be contacted. On page 13, regarding the Extraterritorial Clause, the Chair suggested it should remain in case a certain proposal was submitted. TW, Scipione clarified that the clause was needed only for a ocher traveling out of state, adding that it would be the concern of the contractor and not the Board. The Board agreed to leave the wording in place. On page 14, paragraph 9, Ms, Laurent noted the tern of the contract plus three years after. Mr, Tilton referenced the Price Proposal suggesting that the wording was vague regarding the performance based fee and its thresholds. Mr. Scipione suggested removing the statement and there was agreement, Returning to page 8 and Traffic Control, there was discussion regarding how the Board would address controls for local traffic increases. Mr. Jack suggested the use of"may"' to allow greater latitude during review. Mr. Scipione suggested that proposals that may increase local traffic without proper mitigation would be Non Advantageous while proposals that may increase traffic and properly mitigated would be Advantageous. Highly Advantageous would be proposals with no impact to surrounding communities and bridges unless properly mitigated. There was discussion regarding a definition of traffic. Traffic projections should be submitted as past of the proposal The Board allowed public comment to be considered. Jay Zavala of Cavossa Disposal Corp. suggested an editorial comment to page 11, 2.08, after `unrestricted access" add "to the property.'' In 2.07, Mr. Zavala recommended adding`yin the presence with the contractor and continuing at any tine"' after the"word property."} There was consensus from the Board that they would access the property without notification should there be a need. Mr. Cavossa stated his concern that there would then be access to proprietary information. IIS-. Jack stated that it was property owned by the UCRTS. Mr. Cavossa stated that it would be a legal challenge if the building was entered without the contractor. There was further discussion regarding access. Mr. cipione recommended that the contractor make personnel available within a reasonable timeframe to access the site. Specifies would be outlined to the contract. John Pearson of Saltine Warrior referenced the proposal bond and recommended that in addition to the $10,000 security bond that a cash deposit or certlfted bank cheep also be accepted. Regarding traffic control, Mr. Pearson asked that the Board consider the seasonality of traffic adding that a road salt operation would be operating off season. Mr. Scipione suggested that it could be taken into consideration during the evaluation of proposals. 3