Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> f <br /> 9. Regional Benefit <br /> Ms. Laurent-Highly Advantageous-Would provide a local option for salt purpose <br /> Mr. Jack- Highly Advantageous-Provide a localized Cape area salt benefit and allow <br /> continued use of the CDL facility <br /> Mr. Tilton-Iffighly Advantageous-Reliability and quick deliveries <br /> Mr. Segura-Highly Advantageous-Same reasons <br /> Mr. Barrett-I-E hly Advantageous <br /> o. Summary Composite Rating <br /> Ms. Laurent-Advantageous <br /> Mr. Jack- Advantageous/Highly Advantageous-Not all areas contained sane weight, <br /> traffic was important. Met/exceededminimum requirements. Allowed CIL and shared use of <br /> facility for MSW or rail. Local availability of salt would be critical public safety component. <br /> Mr. Tilton-Highly Advantageous-Major benefit to the towns if properly permitted, with <br /> the reliability of salt on Cape during the winter to offset any Ikon-Advantageous issues. <br /> Mr. Segura- Advantageous-provide valuable need of salt to the Cape <br /> 11r. Barrett- Advantageous-Permitting concerns <br /> Mr. Jack described for the audience the challenges faced a few years ago when there was <br /> difficulty transporting much needed salt to the Cape. The public inquired about the use of rail or <br /> trucks. Mr. Pearson responded that rail would be the preferred method to transport salt due to <br /> the reduccd cost and reduced traffic. However, salt could be trached and he had been in <br /> conversation with a reliable trucking vendor. W. Tilton explained to the public that the intent of <br /> the RFP was to utilize the rail, but there was no requirement. W. Tilton added that mitigation <br /> was needed if rail was not used. <br /> W eare <br /> Mr. Tilton noted that the proposal was not as detailed as the other proposals. Mr. Tilton <br /> described their proposed use of the site. <br /> 1. Minimum Evaluation Criteria <br /> Ms. Laurent-Complete-No specifics on schedule because no specific use identified. <br /> Proposal was vague. <br /> Mr. Tilton-No signed letter, no financial statement, provided upon request. No schedule <br /> of implementation. Mr. Costello indicated that the Board should review the financial statement, <br /> since it was a criteria to review financial soundness. Ms. Laurent indicated that a cover letter <br /> signed by the Chief operating Officer was submitted which Mr. Costello felt would be <br /> acceptable, lir. Segura referenced the completeness of the proposal and minor informalities <br /> waived. Mr. Costello responded that the Board would make the determination for meeting the <br /> minimumm requirement criteria. Mr. Costello added that the Board could provide the opportunity <br /> for proposers to submit an addendum, otherwise they would be non-compliant with the basic <br /> criteria. <br /> W. Segura-Questioned completeness <br /> Mr. Barrett-Lack of plan <br /> Mr. Jack-No comment <br /> 4 <br />