CIP Meeting Minutes 09.11.19

Members Present: Carol Troy, Justin Dohrn, Claire James, Karen Hambleton

Others Present – Steve Hall, Road Agent; Ellen Barselle, Library; Andrew Pinard

Members Absent: Caleb Connor, Jason Allen, Marlene Freyler

Meeting opened at 12:05pm.

Review and Approval of 8.14.19 Meeting Minutes

Carol motioned to approve the 8.14.19 meeting minutes, with the following change:

The sentence reading, “Karen advised that carrying the sidewalk as far as possible….” should be modified to “Karen advised that carrying the sidewalks as far as possible on both sides of the road…”. Karen seconded. Motion carried: 4-0

Claire also pointed out that the minutes from the last meeting indicate “No new projects submitted” for the Fire department. She advised that this may change and that any new projects from this department will be reflected in future meeting minutes once confirmed/submitted.

Departmental Interviews

Library

Digitizing

Ellen advised that she would like to digitize the library’s records. One quote, from Apollo Biblionix was obtained for $2800 (for catalogue enhancement). There is an annual fee of $1200 approximately, but this number may be reduced, as it was obtained using the Newbury Library’s model and this library has more holdings and circulated items as compared to Bradford. Ellen is currently considering two other companies in addition to Apollo Biblionix, which vary in expense. Given the total cost for this item, which does not meet the CIP project expense minimum, Ellen was advised that this item could be incorporated instead into the library’s operating expenses.

Painting

Ellen obtained a very reasonable quote from Ben Ainsley for painting of $2100. This was also below the CIP project expense minimum of $10,000.

Carpet

One quote was obtained from Floorcraft for $9,955. Ellen advised she would like to get additional quotes for comparison. Claire advised per the Town’s purchasing policy, it would be a good idea to get two additional quotes. Karen stated she was not sure if the library would fall under the Town’s purchasing policy, as the expenses are approved by the library trustees, but that it is recommended practice to get additional quotes.

Claire stated that in a previous CIP, the two Library projects (carpet and paint) were combined, and discussed combining the painting and carpet project quotes for the current CIP. This would bring them over the 10K minimum and thus qualify as a CIP expense. Karen stated that it was not the function of the CIP Committee to make that determination, rather the Library’s. Andrew advised that per statute, the Library has authority over the expenditure of their line items. Claire replied that if this is the case, then none of the proposed items fall under the CIP given their individual costs.

Executive Department

Town Hall

Current placeholder amount for this project is $100,000.

BACC Furnace Replacement

Current placeholder amount for this project is $10,000.

Computer Server and Workstations

Karen advised that this is still a work in process and could be treated as a warrant article or something to fold into a 5-year expense under operations. If done in one year, per CCS’s (the vendor’s) recommendation, the cost for the first year would be $35,000, which includes the $12,000 annual maintenance fee. For this amount, a new server, 6 workstations, 1 laptop and customer support (security updates, software upgrades, etc.) would be included. CCS also presented another option, which would include entering into a 5-year agreement with them for $21,000 each year, for the next five years. This option would save approximately $200 and would also lock in the $12,000 annual maintenance/support fee. The Select Board will be deciding between these two options.

Highway Department

Claire gave the total for all Highway department requests for the year 2020, which was in excess of $1,000,000, and advised that the total CIP project requests (for all departments) for the year 2019 was less than $495K.
Updates to the Highway Department project spreadsheet were reviewed by Steve as follows:
- Roads
  - Warner Rd. – Crack seal confirmed for the year 2021.
- Bridges & Culverts
  - Pleasant View Culvert – Was listed as 23K for year 2019. Steve advised that a couple of other engineers looked at this and advised it was necessary but that there is a permitting process to be followed, which would increase the cost by roughly 6-7K. Claire asked if this item could be treated as an “emergency repair” instead. Steve advised that the state would not allow this, because it is not an emergency. (i.e.- Plates were applied, which renders this item “not an emergency”.) Claire asked if the plates had not been applied, then could this item have been treated as an emergency and potentially cost less to repair? Karen replied that the state would probably have questioned this. Steve advised that after December 15, 2019, it is possible a new law could go into effect which could potentially save the town this extra 6-7K. This item is being moved to the year 2020, and the cost may be adjusted depending on the new law being proposed. Currently there is 38K in savings to cover this project.
  - West Meadow Bridge – The cost should be adjusted from 60K to 75K. It’s also a priority, per Steve, especially as it is an alternate route if anything ever happens on Center Road.
  - Johnson Hill Bridge – The cost should be adjusted from 75K to between 100-200K. Carol asked what accounted for the project’s cost increase. Steve advised that there are no concrete abutments present and that it is all stonework. The intent was to expand overlay on the top to have space for a 40’ steel beam as opposed to 30’ and let it sit on top of dirt instead of the abutments but this is not going to work and the process will need to be more involved.
  - Gillingham Drive Culverts – The cost should be adjusted from 40K to closer to 60K. Claire asked why the road is being raised for that portion of Gillingham Dr., as the driveways leading to residents will then be lower than the road. Steve said the existing pipes are 12” pipes and that the rule of thumb is that a 12” pipe requires a 12” clearance for support purposes, which will in turn require raising the road. Claire asked how much (lengthwise) of the road will need to be raised. Steve did not have the exact figure available but estimated it to be about 800-900 ft.
- Other Questions
  - Crack and Seal – Carol questioned using oil for crack and seal, as she thought oil was no longer allowed for environmental reasons. Steve confirmed that it was not oil, but asphalt that is used.
  - 2020 designated roads – Claire asked why the roads slated for repair for this year were more important/urgent than any of the other roads. Steve stated that the cost associated with the roads, the distance of the roads and general road conditions accounted for how they were designated. Traffic studies are currently in process but this data is not available yet. The results of this may or may not affect the priority of repairs for various roads. Karen suggested not (for the purposes of the CIP Committee) to get into the specifics of which road is designated on the plan but rather that emphasis should be placed on a dollar amount to be set aside for roads, based on what the committee thinks the tax base can bear. Steve also advised that the committee should pay more attention to the designation assigned to the roads as opposed to the recommended repair/replacement year.
  - Estimates for Roads – Caleb had a question about how the estimates were derived at a prior meeting. Steve advised the committee regarding generally standard pricing for various items (chip seal – 30K/mi, paving – 80K/mi, oil – 20K/mi, crack sealing – 2500/mi)
  - Road Signs – Carol wanted to know if the 6K covered all of the town’s road signs or just specific signs. Steve clarified that the 6K would cover traffic sign posts, chevrons and any missing signs (e.g. – Bacon Rd. and other roads with no signs), but not every road sign in town.
  - West Main St. – Claire talked about the TAP grant and the fact that Mike Tardiff (Director, CNHRPC) suggested that Bradford would have a better chance of being awarded the grant if it had the required matching funds already in hand. Approximately 50K is still needed to meet the required match.

Additional Comments
- Andrew suggested that he would discourage the committee from adjusting fund amounts for projects (e.g. – reducing the amount allocated in any given year for road construction in favor of allocating more funding for West Main St. sidewalks, just to meet an artificial number. In other words, the committee should not be prioritizing sidewalk needs against a project such as the West Meadow Rd. bridge). He also stated he was not sure that prioritizing one road over another was within the scope of the CIP Committee and was concerned about avoiding the potential for digging too deeply into areas over which the committee has no authority, as well as potential duplication of efforts. The question of designating specific roads resurfaced. Claire responded that in prior years the CIP did in fact include designation for specific roads and that while the committee did not necessarily have to continue to do this, that she was very much for the idea of understanding the projects being presented regardless of whether designations were assigned or not.
- Andrew had a question about people presenting positions of the CIP at town meeting as weighing in on some of the decisions of the Budget Committee and on the priority of different projects. He asked if it was the understanding of the members of the committee that part of their scope is to present such information at town meeting or rather to focus more on long range needs. He pointed out that some of the CIP Committee members are members of the Budget and Planning Committees, which can muddy the waters and make for a lack of confidence in some aspects, in that people may lack an understanding of what the CIP is and how it is best utilized. He also understood the CIP to be more of a “top-level, long range plan as opposed to a yearly tool, per se. Claire responded that it can be both. In general, Andrew wanted to understand more about the processes and role of the committee itself.

Adjournment

Meeting was adjourned at 2:08 pm.

Next meeting date is to be confirmed.

Minutes submitted by Claire James.