TOWN OF PROVINCETOWN
BUILDING COMMITTEE
The
following minutes are available on-line as a service and are not the official
record due to changes in formatting for the Internet. The minutes may have
attachments that are not included here in this format. The official, complete
paper copy can be viewed during regular office hours, Monday - Friday: 8 a.m.
to 5 p.m. in the Office of the Town Clerk, 260 Commercial St. Provincetown, MA
02657.
Meeting Minutes of February 26,
2001
Members
Present: Paul
Redlund (Co-Chair), Joyce Guide, Jane Donoghue
Members Absent: Regina Binder(Co-Chair) (excused), Rex McKinsey
Others Present: David Guertin (DPW Director), Rachel Crosby (Recording Secretary)
Call to Order: Co-Chair Paul Redlund called the Meeting to order at 11:00 A.M.
Report by DPW
David Guertin distributed several packets of documents, including:
1. Faxed memo and attached report from FS&T to DPW and David Guertin, dated February 23, 2001, with the subject “MacMillan Pier Rehabilitation”, concerning the new protocol for the test piles. Mr. Bergman has authorized the purchase of 12 of the newly designed piles in order to expedite the process. AGM is reviewing new procedures and protocol. The Committee discussed the configuration of the new piles, with each 12 ¾” pile being 57’ long and each 14” pile being 60’ long. David Guertin confirmed that the welding will be via the full-penetration method using a full arc welder for additional strength. The proposed locations for the new test piles are shown in the report. The plan is to test piles of both diameters and then determine the best method and pile configuration. Piles which fail the load tests will be lifted out and reused in new locations. Once the pile testing is successfully completed, the cost implications of the new piles and tests will be calculated. Assuming all goes well, final approval to proceed with construction will probably not occur until early or mid-summer.
2. David Guertin discussed what had happened at the meeting with the fund grantors on Friday, February 23, 2001, referring to a presentation document entitled “MacMillan Pier, Rebuilding a Multi-User Pier.” Subjects discussed at the meeting included: status of the Project, status of the Pier Corporation, and status of the negotiations with the fishermen. The discussions with the fishermen have focused on the concept of having a specific area of the Pier, defined in a written agreement, set aside exclusively for fishing purposes. Changes in such an area will have financial implications for the Pier Project and will need approval of the Building Committee. The fishermen are also requesting the installation of a cradle in shallow water to be used for boat repairs. The Committee discussed a proposed Memo of Agreement with the fishermen, which will be discussed in a public meeting with the Board of Selectmen. The Committee also discussed proposals to be considered by the Board of Selectmen concerning redefining the composition of the Pier Corporation Board. Also discussed were various other changes that will result from the formation of the Pier Corporation, including how the Marine Department personnel will be defined/assigned. David Guertin distributed copies of the Memo of Understanding with the fishermen.
David Guertin went through the “MacMillan Pier, Rebuilding a Multi-User Pier” document page by page, discussing related subjects. He said that several options for proceeding with the Project had been brought forward at the meeting with the grantors. One option would be to not proceed with the Project until all pile testing and redesign was successfully completed. The other option is to proceed immediately with the work on the Approach Pier (with a modified design) while resolving Main Pier and “T” design issues. The Approach Pier piles do not have to bear as large a load as the piles on the Main Pier and therefore do not have to wait for the new piles tests to be completed.
David Guertin confirmed that immediately proceeding with the Approach Pier would eliminate the option to reverse the Committee’s decision to delete the east side sidewalk. Joyce Guide asked about the risks associated with not proceeding with the Project until after all the pile tests area completed and the Committee discussed in detail these risks, including:
ú Delay damages – AGM is losing income while equipment and workers are sitting idle. AGM will notify the Town in a letter of the amount of such damages.
ú Grantor’s funding issues – some of the organizations have scheduled release of funds this summer based upon the original construction schedule.
David Guertin and the Committee discussed in detail the implications in proceeding, including:
ú Approach Pier will require (per FS&T recommendations) an additional 29 piles, for a new total of 133. Paul Redlund raised the question of whether FS&T could be made liable for the cost of the additional piles based upon the assumption that the firm made an incorrect engineering decision.
ú Mitigating the main body of Delay Damages. AGM has said that if the work can begin soon on the Approach Pier, they will not file for delay damages.
ú Would return Project to original construction phasing schedule.
ú Only float space #11 would get displaced. The dinghy dock will also be affected.
Joyce Guide advised the Committee to consider the possibility of enormously costly change orders in the future. Mr. Guertin reported that AGM has already ordered the piles for the Approach Pier so as to be able to more quickly begin the Approach Pier work. He confirmed that the Parking Department has been informed of the possible change in plans. Paul Redlund suggested eliminating the section of the east side sidewalk closest to the shore as a cost saving measure.
Mr. Guertin said a cost/benefit analysis is underway to determine the financial implications of proceeding with the Approach Pier versus waiting until all tests are completed. The Committee will not have to make a decision for two weeks, however, at which time the cost/benefit analysis will be complete. David Guertin said that the analysis will be completed by he and FS&T, with input from AGM.
The Committee discussed potential public reaction to the current crisis. Joyce Guide suggested having a joint meeting with the Board of Selectmen. David Guertin agreed that a joint meeting was a good idea, especially if it was open to public input. By consensus, the Committee agreed that a joint meeting should be pursued.
In response to a question from Paul Redlund, David Guertin said he felt there were still opportunities to cut costs on the Project.
3. Memo from David Guertin to Mr. Bergman, dated February 15, 2001, with the subject being the February 15, 2001 Meeting with Float Owners. David Guertin reported that the owners had requested that the electrical service to all the floats be the same. Extending the area of dredging was also requested, though the Town is not inclined to agree. Whale Watch boat sewage dumping was a topic, with the possibility discussed of having a place for such boats to discharge waste directly into a Town sewer line.
The Committee discussed the status and progress in redesigning the Courtesy Float for handicapped access. David Guertin said the only alternative option to a mechanized lift was a ramp rider.
Change Orders
ú None
MISCELLANEOUS
ú None
OLD BUSINESS - none
NEW BUSINESS –
none
MINUTES
February 14, 2001 – Joyce Guide moved to approve as submitted, Jane Donoghue seconded and it was so voted, 3-0 .
ADJOURNMENT
Joyce
Guide moved to adjourn at 12:30
P.M. and it was so voted unanimously.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
These minutes were approved by a vote of the Provincetown Building Committee at their meeting on ________________, 200__
Respectfully Submitted:
_____________________________ ________________________
Building Committee Signature Title
Rachel Crosby
Rachel
T. Crosby, On-call secretary