Laserfiche WebLink
Transfer Station Building Committee <br /> regular monthly meeting <br /> 3 p . m. March 2, 1989 DPW Building Conference Room <br /> Present : Charles Buckingham, David Terry, and Joseph F. <br /> Murphy Jr. Also attending were Michael Hanlon and Michael <br /> Scipione of the firm of Weston & Sampson Engineers Inc . <br /> 1 . Chairman Buckingham opened the meeting at 3 p . m. <br /> 2 . Mr. Terry moved and Mr. Murphy seconded acceptance of the <br /> minutes of the Committee ' s meeting of February 2, 1989 . It <br /> was voted unanimously . <br /> 3 . Following review of Payment Estimate No . 2 in the amount <br /> of $80, 039 . 40 to Wes Construction Co . , Mr. Murphy moved, and <br /> Mr. Terry seconded, approval of the payment . It was so voted <br /> unanimously and Chairman Buckingham executed the approval in <br /> behalf of the Committee . <br /> Mr. Scipione pointed out that the contractor has removed a <br /> total of 1, 400 cubic yards of material in the payment line <br /> item identified as "excavate and remove refuse, below limits <br /> of normal excavation. " Only 100 yards had been estimated . He <br /> noted that this was the result of finding the debris on the <br /> building location where it had not been identified <br /> previously. <br /> 4 . Mr. Hanlon and Mr. Scipione then presented a progress <br /> report on the project . Mr. Scipione said the contractor is <br /> about two weeks behind schedule in the foundation because of <br /> the additional work in excavating the site to move and remove <br /> refuse . The contractor was ahead of schedule on the <br /> utilities . Mr. Hanlon said he was preparing a letter to the <br /> Committee on the additional costs that likely would be <br /> incurred in capping that area found to have trash where it <br /> had not been expected . He explained that since the general <br /> contractor had excavated this material and because it would <br /> have to be covered with the synthetic cover there likely <br /> would be an additional cost . <br /> In response to a question, Mr. Hanlon suggested it would be <br /> difficult to recover this additional cost from a prior <br /> landfill operator because of the difficulty of proofing who <br /> had discarded it . <br /> b . The Committee discussed the decision of the Board of <br /> Selectmen not to purchase the front end loader from the <br /> transfer station construction account, as had been included in <br /> the bond issue and recommended by the Committee . It was noted <br /> that the Selectmen had requested, and the Finance Committee <br /> approved, a transfer from the Reserve Fund to purchase the <br />