My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/25/2011 BOARD OF HEALTH Executive Session
>
05/25/2011 BOARD OF HEALTH Executive Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/28/2021 4:57:12 PM
Creation date
7/28/2021 4:57:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Mashpee_Meeting Documents
Board
BOARD OF HEALTH
Meeting Document Type
Executive Session
Meeting Date
05/25/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Town of Mashpee <br /> <br /> 16 Great Neck Road North <br /> Mashpee, Massachusetts 02649 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />BOARD OF HEALTH – EXECUTIVE SESSION <br />Mashpee Town Hall – Conference Room 3 <br /> <br /> <br />Minutes of the Meeting of Wednesday, May 25, 2011 <br /> <br />Board Members Present: Also Present: <br />Kalliope Egloff, Chairman Glen Harrington, Health Agent <br />Lucy Burton, Co-Chairman <br />Burton Kaplan, Clerk <br /> <br />The Executive Session of the Board of Health was convened at 8:45 PM with discussion <br />regarding the FY 2012 Landfill Monitoring contract bids. <br /> <br />Glen Harrington commented that Weston & Sampson had been asked by the Energy <br />Committee to be the town’s consultant in preparing the solar project RFP. Weston & Sampson <br />declined the request, stating that they wanted to be able to partner with the developer and bid <br />for the project. The town hired Weston & Sampson the last time because it was believed that <br />the town was going to be doing the solar project with them as our consultant, and now they <br />have opted not to be our consultant in favor of going for the contract. Where we used their <br />loyalty and knowledge of the landfill as the justification for hiring them the last time, Glen stated <br />his feeling that this no longer holds true. Burton Kaplan agreed that if they do partner with the <br />developer, it will reap them a lot more than a $15,000 consultant fee. <br /> <br />Regarding the Green Seal proposal, Burton Kaplan noted that there is no breakdown of costs of <br />the landwork. Glen stated that this is within their rights, and is what all three companies have <br />done. Burton Kaplan noted that the agreement states have the right to terminate the agreement <br />with no notice. The Board members agreed that it might be possible to modify the agreement. <br />Burton Kaplan was concerned with the statement in the agreement that Green Seal may need <br />to go to the State if the client cannot be reached, if hazardous waste or oil spill are detected at <br />the site. Glen stated that if groundwater gets impacted from chemicals from the landfill, then it <br />would be necessary to contact the client or the state, and that this is a boiler plate statement <br />included in all agreements. <br /> <br />Regarding the Horsley Witten Group proposal, Burton Kaplan stated he had no problem with it. <br />Glen stated that right now the FY 2012 budget has been approved for $15,150, which is what <br />Weston & Sampson bid. Green Seal’s bid was $11,800, and the Horsley Witten Group bid was <br />$13,250. <br /> <br />Glen Harrington stated that he has had no prior experience in working with Green Seal and has <br />no direct knowledge of their work. Burton Kaplan voiced concern about the fact that Green <br />Seal’s bid of $11,800 was offered as an estimate. Kalliope Egloff stated that she has no <br /> 1 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.