PORTSMOUTH WATER AND FIRE DISTRICT
1944 East Main Road, Portsmouth, Rhode Island
Administrative Board Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2010
The Administrative Board Meeting was held at the Portsmouth Water and Fire District’s office.
OPENING BY CHAIRMAN AND ROLL CALL
The Administrative Board Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chairman Michael W. Nott.
Board members present: Gaetano Polselli, Jeffrey Richard, Philip Driscoll, Michael Nott Theodore Czech and Ronald Molleur
Board members absent: William Douglas
Also present: William McGlinn, David F. Fox and Nathan Lister
Moderator Elect Present: Ronald Molleur
Treasurer Elect Present: Joseph A. Magliocco
Guests: NONE
MINUTES OF MEETING
Approve Administrative Board Meeting Minutes of 05/18/10
Approve Administrative Executive Session Meeting Minutes of 05/18/10
Mr. Richard, seconded by Mr. Polselli, made a motion to approve the Administrative Board Meeting Minutes and the Administrative Board Executive Session Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2010.
A vote was taken and the motion passed with Gaetano Polselli, Jeffrey Richard, Philip Driscoll, Michael Nott, Theodore Czech and Ronald Molleur voting in the affirmative.
Approve Special Administrative Board Meeting Minutes
Approve Special Administrative Executive Session Meeting Minutes of 06/01/10
Mr. Richard, seconded by Mr. Driscoll, made a motion to approve the Administrative Board Meeting Minutes and the Administrative Board Executive Session Minutes of June 1, 2010.
Mr. Driscoll noted that Mr. Richard voted in opposition to go into Executive Session and asked him if he realized that the implication would have opened up all those proceedings to Newport Water Department.
Mr. Richard confirmed.
A vote was taken and the motion passed with Gaetano Polselli, Jeffrey Richard, Philip Driscoll, Michael Nott, Theodore Czech and Ronald Molleur voting in the affirmative.
Extend the Period for Public Filing of Minutes Until the Next Meeting for Preparation and Review by the Board
Mr. Driscoll, seconded by Mr. Czech, made a motion to Extend the Period for Public Filing of Minutes Until the Next Meeting for Preparation and Review by the Board
A vote was taken and the motion passed with Gaetano Polselli, Jeffrey Richard, Philip Driscoll, Michael Nott, Theodore Czech and Ronald Molleur voting in the affirmative.
NEW BUSINESS
Approve Payment of Bills Listed
Mr. Polselli, seconded by Mr. Czech, made a motion to approve the payment of bills listed for June 15, 2010 for the amount of $225,812.67.
A vote was taken and the motion passed with Gaetano Polselli, Jeffrey Richard, Philip Driscoll, Michael Nott, Theodore Czech and Ronald Molleur voting in the affirmative.
Approve RI Clean Water Finance Bond Capital Expense Payments for Tanks Project
Mr. Driscoll, seconded by Mr. Molleur, made a motion to approve the RI Clean Water Finance Bond Capital Expense Payments for Tanks Project the amount of $900.00.
A vote was taken and the motion passed with Gaetano Polselli, Jeffrey Richard, Philip Driscoll, Michael Nott, Theodore Czech and Ronald Molleur voting in the affirmative.
CERTIFICATION OF ELECTION RESULTS AND SWEARING IN OF NEW MEMBERS
Mr. Polselli, seconded by Mr. Driscoll, made a motion to Certify the 2010 Election Results as follows:
MODERATOR - Three year term
Robert D. Bledsoe Votes - 128
Ronald L. Molleur Votes - 351 Elected
Incumbent
Write-In
Blank Votes - 1
TREASURER - Three year term
Joseph A. Magliocco Votes - 367 Elected
Edward A. Stoltenberg Votes - 116
Write-In
Robert D. Bledsoe Votes - 1
SUMMARY
Total Ballots Cast - 492
Total Eligible Voters - 12,149
Percent Voting - 4.05%
Certified by Mr. Driscoll, Moderator Pro Tem
Mr. Richard noted that the District only attracted 4% of the total population, and 492 people is much higher than the norm. He questioned why voters aren’t so interested in who gets on the District’s Board.
Mr. Nott expressed his personal theory is that either people feel it is an extremely well run organization or they’re not informed enough to realize the impact that the Board and the administration of this Board has on their rates and they’re not interested.
Mr. Polselli suggested that the District have its election to coincide with the Town’s elections.
Mr. Fox explained that there is a geographical difference between the Town and the District.
A vote was taken and the motion passed with Gaetano Polselli, Jeffrey Richard, Philip Driscoll, Michael Nott, Theodore Czech and Ronald Molleur voting in the affirmative.
Mr. Driscoll, as Moderator Pro Temp, swore in Mr. Magliocco and Mr. Molleur as Treasurer and Moderator, respectively, each for three year terms.
ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN
Mr. Driscoll, seconded by Mr. Molleur, made a motion to elect Mr. Nott as Chairman.
Mr. Nott asked for any other nominations for Chairman, with none given.
A vote was taken and the motion passed with Gaetano Polselli, Jeffrey Richard, Philip Driscoll, Michael Nott, Joseph Magliocco, Theodore Czech, and Ronald Molleur voting in the affirmative.
GUESTS - NONE
CORRESPONDENCE
Letter Dated 6/4/10 from The Trust re: TOPS and Bonus Dividends
Mr. McGlinn explained that the District’s Workers’ Compensation insurer has a program that issues an across-the-board dividend to participating members for a favorable year, and noted that the District will be receiving a dividend of $1,027.40, which will be applied toward the next premium due.
Invitation from ASRWWA – Seminar for Water Board Members - PRESENTED
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Only District Registered Voters Authorized to Sign Election Nomination Papers
Mr. McGlinn noted that at the prior Board meeting Mr. Czech stated that he had a conversation with Mrs. Pencak of the Town’s Canvassing Office, who told him that anybody in the Town, as a registered voter, could sign the papers, which turned out to be incorrect.
He has since cleared that matter up with Mrs. Pencak and noted that for subsequent elections, when an individual picks up nomination papers, a cover letter will be issued clearly explaining who is eligible to sign.
Mr. Nott, at the request of Mr. Richard, asked Mr. McGlinn to present a sample Nomination Package for Board review at the next meeting.
Replacement of Police Details with Staff Trained in Flagging, Except for Extraordinary Instances (J. Richard)
Mr. Richard stated that, as he understands it, the flushing sites automatically include police detail, with a cruiser. He has done research on whether this is the only way the District can do business and questioned whether there is a more effective way in terms of the rate payers.
He provided data to the Board pertaining to a change of laws in Massachusetts, which drew on an analysis provided by the Beacon Hill Institute that showed no safety correlation between flagging people and police officers and cruisers.
It is his opinion that the Board could do the District’s rate payers a service if it decided to only use police detailing in the obvious ways, such as East and West Main Roads or significant job sites, with details not being used for routine off site work. It is recommended that there be an established operating procedure that would instruct the General Manager to not call for police detailing for routine things, and to either contact the Chairman or get Board approval if it is felt that there is a need for a detail.
To reinforce his thought he informed the Board that he watched a flushing procedure, and watched the police officers stand around for a considerable period of time. Very few cars went by and it reinforced his thought that the District’s Operations Department could receive training to become certified flaggers.
He added that he spoke to a Public Works employee, who told him that the police detailing assigned to the Public Works Department was public extortion.
The general sense was that the Public Works Department is not very happy with the fact that the police details are making scads of money and they’re doing all the ground work. I thought that I would ask Mr. McGlinn, but I haven’t asked him to do a poll of our own people who may or may not know how much the police detail costs per hours as opposed to what our guys are making and working. I watched them work. The flushing work is constant and serious, and a cop is standing there doing absolutely bloody nothing- in his opinion – and he doesn’t feel that the Town needs that kind of police force. The District can certainly justify the safety side with training its staff and it was noted that the people in Public Works got four hours of flagging training on station at Public Works.
Mr. Richard, seconded by Mr. Czech, made a motion to instruct the General Manager to restrict the requests for Police Detailing to major events, at his discretion.
Mr. Molleur noted that the idea of a police detail is to have the presence of flashing lights; whereas a flagger, in certain instances, doesn’t cut it. When there’s a huge amount of water coming out of a hydrant, the flashing blue lights are need to slow drivers down.
Mr. Polselli agrees that the call for police detail should be at the General Manager’s discretion, but he questions whether having an Operator trained as a flagger would work.
Mr. Magliocco agreed that if work is being performed on Braman’s Lane or some of the back roads, police details aren’t needed, but if work is being performed on any street where there’s a lot of traffic, people don’t pay attention to a flagger – they pay attention to the blue lights on the police cars.
It was further noted that there is great concern of possible lawsuits as a result of the District using Operation staff members as flaggers instead of police.
Mr. Driscoll is concerned with an undercurrent with the discussions and feels that there shouldn’t be a comparison made between the District and Massachusetts state police.
It was noted that in his 23 years of being a Board member, he has never experienced Mr. McGlinn being indiscriminant in spending, and there is great concern for safety.
Mr. Fox suggested restating the motion for clarification purposes.
Mr. Richard, seconded by Mr. Czech, made a motion to curtail the absolute use of police detailing and cruiser presence for all flushing and work site involvement in the District, and to allow the General Manager the discretion to bring a request to the police department in those extraordinary circumstances where he feels it is necessary, and to substitute the presence of the police department with the training of our own personnel in flagging to ensure that they are aware of the safety concerns with the movement of traffic around worksites.
Mr. McGlinn explained that the Office staff has been dealing with the Tax Sale, Water Receivables and the audit and have not had an opportunity to research the annual cost for details, but he believes it to be minimal.
Referring to a comment made by Mr. Richard at a prior meeting, Mr. McGlinn explained that when the District pays for police details it is for a fee and that’s the end of it – there are no additional pension costs to the Town. Upon speaking with the Town’s Finance Director, it was confirmed to him that there are no police benefits calculated on the police pay earned from the District’s details.
Mr. McGlinn stated that from a practical standpoint – not even looking at the liability and legal issues – when the District has a water main break, there are typically two Operators assigned to the repair. Those two operators are busy on the job – they can’t flag – they’re in the hole fixing things – they’re getting pumps started – they’re running to get parts if needed – they’re moving down the road to shut off gate valves, etc.
There’s only one Operation’s Manager and four staff members. If the District does as proposed, there will be two people assigned to the repair and two people assigned to be flaggers, which will tie up the entire Operation’s department, leaving no one available for anything else that may come up.
Police details are not obtained willy-nilly. They’re used for flushing because there is a lot of water being dumped onto the roadway and there is a potential liability issue. It was further explained that the details are not hired just to protect the District employees, but the motoring public as well. This is a huge liability issue and if there is one motorist or District employee hurt or killed, the money expended for police presence will look like cheap money.
With regard to the proposal to allow details at the General Manager’s discretion, it was noted that the procedure currently in place includes that discretion. To put the District staff in a position where it will be concerned about being second guessed by Mr. Richard or any other Board Member is not right or fair, and there is great concern that someone will err on the side of cost instead of safety.
From a personal standpoint, he has been on construction sites when traffic speeds by and the blue and red lights are what makes drivers slow down.
From a liability standpoint, the District’s insurance rates, both liability and Worker’s Compensation, would go through the roof if even one worker is injured.
Mr. Polselli stated that although the District currently uses the General Manager’s discretion, he feels that it’s a positive thing that these matters are brought up for Board review.
Mr. McGlinn agreed with Mr. Polselli; however it is the oversimplification of the issue that disturbs him because the Board is delving into an area of District Operations that it shouldn’t be. Although he agrees that there is no harm in training the Operators in flagging, he does have issues if the Board expects him to use staff trained flaggers except for extraordinary instances.
Mr. Nott asked Mr. Richard if he disagreed with Mr. McGlinn’s comments.
Mr. Richard responded that if, in the continuing education of Board members, there isn’t this kind of dialogue, then I guess you’ll always run things (this way), but the pension issue, with regard to the police detailing, was a very controversial topic at the Town with it’s unions. The unions wanted the detailing money to be included into the lump sum so that it would become part of their eventual retirement. Of course they didn’t get it and he doesn’t have an issue with that.
He does have an issue with the police department’s details affecting the number of officers actually needed on the force.
Mr. McGlinn asked if that’s a District issue.
Mr. Richard responded that he is philosophically at issue with the way the police have managed the detailing process. The District just happens to be a user in that process and he wants the Board to have some control over the utilization of the Town’s police department. He wants the notion to be in the General Manager’s that he has the discretion to call upon police detailing as required, but it is not always to be used.
He added that he feels allowing the District’s staff to be trained in flagging can only increase the staff’s sense of safety.
Mr. Nott questioned the use of the “extraordinary” being used.
Mr. McGlinn responded that it is the terminology listed on the Agenda and it’s the word Mr. Richard keeps using. What is being asked is to put District staff in a position where it’s going to be second guessed on what’s extraordinary or not and it doesn’t make sense it’s something the Board shouldn’t be doing.
Mr. Fox stated that he requested the motion be repeated because he was unclear as to what the motion was, and Mr. Richard’s restatement of it was rather lengthy and explanatory and it’s hard to say whether or not there’s going to be a change in what your Administrator’s already doing.
Mr. Richard addressed the Chairman with his point of order that Mr. Fox was not elected and he just gave a dissertation.
Mr. Nott responded that he asked him to.
Mr. Richard stated that Mr. Fox did not provide a legal opinion – he gave you an opinion.
Mr. Nott believes it was a legal opinion and referred to Mr. Fox.
Mr. Fox responded that it definitely was a legal opinion.
A vote was taken, the motion failed with Mr. Richard and Mr. Czech voting in affirmation. Mr. Polselli, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Nott, Mr. Magliocco and Mr. Molleur voted in opposition.
NEW BUSINESS
Assignment of Subcommittee Members and Chairmen
Mr. Nott assigned members of the Subcommittees as follows;
Administrative Subcommittee
Mr. Driscoll - Chairman
Mr. Molleur
Mr. Richard
Engineering Subcommittee
Mr. Polselli - Chairman
Mr. Czech
Mr. Magliocco
Assignment of FY-10 Audit Review to Administrative Subcommittee
Mr. Nott assigned the Fiscal Year 2010 Audit Review to the Administrative Subcommittee at a date to be determined.
Fire Hydrant Maintenance, Valve Maintenance and Dead-end Flushing Using Cash Reserves (P. Driscoll)
Mr. Driscoll, seconded by Mr. Molleur, made a motion that the General Manager be directed to begin fire hydrant maintenance, valve maintenance and dead-end Flushing immediately and to pay for that using the District’s cash reserves.
Mr. Driscoll explained that an Insurance Service Office (ISO) Reports are prepared periodically based on various factors, and assign grades to particular items. The maximum credit for a water department is 40 out of 100, with the District receiving 25.58. The Town’s overall score is marked down by 5% for what they call Diversions Factor, which is when one particular portion of the report – the top three items – is too high relative to the others.
It was noted that valves are to be inspected annually and fire hydrants twice a year, which is to include an Operation Test and a Domestic Test, and it appears that the only thing that was marked down for the District was the fire hydrants.
Mr. McGlinn elaborated by stating that they didn’t list all of the fire flow tests that the District performed for them, but they listed the ones they considered deficient by their standards and those impact the fire rating for item #1, package page #44, where they talk about “this item reviews the supply works, the main capacity and the hydrant distribution”. What they’re looking at is out of the 20 or so hydrant flow tests, the District came out 90.9%.
Mr. Driscoll noted that at a previous meeting he mentioned that Newport Water Department had a big break and they couldn’t get to the valve because it was under 9” of 18” of asphalt. When the 102” main broke in the Providence water supply system from Scituate they couldn’t get the valve to work right away. The valve maintenance issue is mentioned in the ISO Study.
It has been his mission to have a valve and hydrant maintenance program instituted, without success.
It is presumed that the hydrants used for flushing work and the hydrants that have meters on them work, but he feels the others within the system should be checked regularly, although he doesn’t agree with doing it twice a year.
The irony of the situation is that the District has unrestricted assets at the end of 2009 of $1,526,000, which is probably estimated at $1,425,000 now because of the clean up of the contaminated soil around the tanks. If the District spends money to clean up contaminated soil it should certainly make sure valves and hydrants work, at least to some sort of satisfaction to the Board.
Mr. Polselli noted that this discussion has taken place on several occasions and the records should dictate whether attention needs to be spent on valves and hydrants. If there is a problem with the hydrants and valves, it is recommended that a contractor be hired to deal with it. It is not felt that the District has the staff to perform anything more than what they’re doing within the frame and time element that you have to do it with.
Mr. Driscoll reiterated that the District does not have a valve schedule or hydrant maintenance schedule currently in place.
Each month the Board is presented a report from the Operations Manager, which may or may not include a listing of hydrants inspected and serviced per the American Water Works Standards. As for valves, he has not seen any valves.
Mr. Nott explained that the District was marked down for not having a hydrant and valve maintenance program in place.
Mr. Nott asked if as part of the yearly procedures of the Operation’s Department is there valve and hydrant maintenance performed on a routine basis.
Mr. McGlinn responded that there is a semi routine schedule is for hydrant maintenance and in his opinion it is adequate.
Approximately four years ago Operations was identifying the valves, numbering them, checking their accessibility, operating them, however, that processes is virtually non-existent now. The man power isn’t there to do that on a regular basis. Nor have we gone through the whole system and gotten the records logged on to software. That’s something Mr. DeMaster would be doing, but there are other priorities in front of that at the moment.
With regard to dead-end flushing, there is no program in effect and it is performed when a complaint is received, a leak is discovered or other event that would require attention.
He and Mr. Driscoll have discussed this matter over the years and he has some confidence that all the hydrants have been serviced once, but they are not all done on an annual basis.
One of the reasons hydrants fail is because the wipers leak on the seat and if they’re leaking water it will undermine the thrust block and the hydrant can literally let go when used. Those types of situations are caught during the flushing program and leak detection.
It was agreed that the hydrant program ought to be better, but with the current staff it is not know how a valve program and dead-ends flushing program can be instituted.
Mr. Molleur asked if there is any way the District could get co-operation from the fire department to assist with the programs, such as test them.
Mr. McGlinn responded that he doesn’t have a problem with the Fire Department assisting when it comes to helping to keep the hydrants accessible, but when it comes to maintaining them that is to be done according to American Water Works Association standards, which the District’s staff is certified to do.
Mr. Richard stated that he would like to share his concern over this issue. It would seem to be logical that if there was an AWWA, versus maintenance procedures manual, for the District’s type of engineering of hydrants that it would employ same on a schedule that would be obvious to all and that would cover all – every inch of the system, whether it be dead-end or hydrant schedules or valve maintenance.
It should all be scheduled and if there is insufficient staff to support that, then the District should create the support staff, without excuse, and the Board should be receiving a report that details exactly what Mr. Driscoll is concerned about. It must be serious to him and I want to support his concern and it can do that relatively easily. Just asking for money isn’t going to get it done.
Mr. Nott stated that what he heard is that Operations doesn’t have the staff, which Mr. Richard responded that it is not an issue to him.
Mr. Nott then asked Mr. Richard how the District is going to achieve that.
Mr. Richard responded that Mr. McGlinn is going to arrange his staff’s ability to work the schedule to reflect the needs of this.
Mr. Nott posed the issue that the staff is already maxed on their responsibilities, duties and work requirements.
Mr. Richard stated that the General Manager would have to present that to the Board, who would make a decision on whether to hire additional staff or to contract out.
Mr. Polselli asked to have the motion amended to have the General Manager come back with a plan to implement the motion that’s been made.
Mr. Polselli, seconded by Mr. Richard, made an amended motion to have the General Manager come up with an operational design and plan for yearly fire hydrant maintenance, vale maintenance, and dead-end flushing within the District’s Operations schedule.
A vote was taken and the motion passed with Mr. Polselli, Mr. Richard, Mr. Nott, Mr. Magliocco and Mr. Czech voting in affirmation. Voting in opposition were Mr. Driscoll and Mr. Molleur.
Mr. Polselli noted that an amended motion takes the place of the main motion. As soon as the amendment passes that becomes the main motion.
Mr. Nott referred to Mr. Fox for confirmation.
Mr. Fox responded that no further action can be taken tonight on Mr. Driscoll’s motion.
Mr. Richard asked Mr. Driscoll why he objected to the amended motion.
Mr. Driscoll responded that although he intends to support the amendment in the spirit of co-operation, but he feels the time for action is now.
Mr. McGlinn stated that he will address the matter, but explained that there is a lot going on at this time and requested six months to devise a schedule.
Mr. Nott stated that he would like a plan that’s been analyzed and realistic. The Board agrees that this is an important issue that doesn’t appear to be being addressed on a routine basis.
Mr. McGlinn explained that the Operation’s Department has had 140 hours cut from its maintenance availability due to the use of a night crew for the flushing program, which equates to 140 hydrants a year. It was noted that there is a possibility of contracting the work out, but, by law, those people that perform the service must be certified to do so.
Mr. Nott offered a compromise and ordered the General Manager to come back to the Board in three months with an Operational Plan on how to implement the plan so the Board can assess that plan – look at the cost of that and see how it can help with the incorporation of it.
Mr. Fox noted that he doesn’t recall Mr. Polselli including a timeframe in his motion, which Mr. Polselli confirmed.
REPORT FROM GENERAL MANAGER
Water Service Application Approvals - PRESENTED
Demand Report - PRESENTED
Operations Report - PRESENTED
WJM – noted that one week of Leak Detection has resulted in five leaks being discovered.
Recommend Grace Period for Payment of Water Bills
Mr. Driscoll, seconded by Mr. Polselli, made a motion to authorize the recommendation to extend a grace period for the 2010 water service bills until the end of business on July 16, 2010.
A vote was taken and the motion passed with Mr. Polselli, Mr. Richard, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Nott, Mr. Magliocco, Mr. Czech and Mr. Molleur voting in the affirmative.
Water Quality – Update
Mr. McGlinn stated that apparently DEM approached the Health Department about their total and maximum daily load program, where they’re interested in contaminants in all water sources because of the Clean Water Act and they were focusing on the drinking water sources.
They looked at Newport’s reservoirs and said that from a quality standpoint the data that’s available would suggest that their reservoirs are more stressed than others and they approached Newport to do some extra testing, which may enable them to get funding in the future and additional assistance from DEM or the Health Department to protect the reservoirs.
The Health Department agreed with DEM’s request and directed Newport to start taking additional sampling in the reservoirs.
Mr. Driscoll stated that it was thought that all this work had been done some time ago – that all the reservoirs had been looked at seasonally. Nonquit, is known to not be used today because it doesn’t meet the quality, but they were informed at some point that it could be treated.
Considering that there was recently a settlement agreement with Newport and asked where the funding is going to come from.
Mr. McGlinn explained that this is an effort by DEM to get better data on the reservoirs and essentially get Newport some help to further protect the reservoirs. Newport has a plan in place, which is the Watershed Protection Plan that requires each community to participate and do certain things. There are several communities that Newport has no control over – Tiverton, Little Compton, Portsmouth and Middletown. This will help get a little more input from DEM to force improvements on the reservoirs over time to protect them.
Tanks Project – Update
Mr. McGlinn stated he will be meeting with the contractor to review the outstanding issues. Additional testing has been performed and it appears that any lead that was left behind by the contractor is within the fence line. The contractor is arguing that the tests he took show that there is no lead. The problems is that on the perimeter of his scaffolding, they left steel shot, which has some lead from the paint imbedded in it and the ultimate resolution here is not a complete remediation. It’s essentially within the fence line of that one tank; the large Quaker Hill tank. Three inches needs to be removed, properly disposed of and new soil brought in to remediate the situation, in all likelihood.
SCADA Project – Update
Mr. McGlinn stated the project is ongoing. The subcontractor has been allotted additional time because they have been involved in the Warwick and Cranston sewer problem caused by recent flooding. Instead of an anticipated on-line timeframe of September-October timeframe, it’s probably going to be November-December.
Office ISDS Update
Mr. McGlinn stated that the plans are expected to be forward to DEM this week.
Legislation – Update
Mr. McGlinn explained the outcome of the various legislation issues.
1) Cross Connection Control – All new connections, no matter what kind they are, have to be considered for cross connection control under the plan. All existing and new commercial and industrial have to have cross connection control. Existing residential is by choice of the water system.
Passed the House and Senate and has been forwarded to the Governor.
2) Hydrant Fees – referred back to Committee for further study.
3) Meter Replacement – plumbers issue. The existing state law in terms of working on water meters, installing them and removing them, exempts water utilities and their personnel from the plumbing regulations. Newport Water hired a contractor, who is not a licensed plumber, for their meter replacement program.
The bill is essentially stalled.
Request Authorization to Solicit Bids from On-Call Contractors for Anthony Road Water Main Loop-in.
Mr. Driscoll, seconded by Mr. Magliocco, made a motion to Authorize the Request to Solicit Bids from On-Call Contractors for Anthony Road Water Main Loop-in.
A vote was taken and the motion passed with Mr. Polselli, Mr. Richard, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Nott, Mr. Magliocco, Mr. Czech and Mr. Molleur voting in the affirmative.
Mr. McGlinn explained that the reasons for using the on-call contractors are because the District knows it will be getting competitive prices from qualified contractors that are pre-approved by the District and the District’s staff is comfortable working with their machine operators, and vice-versa.
Distance Exception for Water Service Line Exceeding 150 feet – 502 Black Point Lane
Mr. Driscoll, seconded by Mr. Richard, made a motion to approve a 12-foot exception to the 150-foot maximum distance requirement for AP 67, Lot 18 as requested by the property owner, since:
· A water main extension is not necessary for looping or to service the customer.
· A main extension is not required to service future customers.
· There is adequate fire protection in the area.
A vote was taken and the motion passed with Mr. Polselli, Mr. Richard, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Nott, Mr. Magliocco, Mr. Czech and Mr. Molleur voting in the affirmative.
REPORT FROM LEGAL COUNSEL - Nothing to Report in Open Session
EXECUTIVE SESSION 42-46-5 (a) (1) (2)
Mr. Magliocco, seconded by Mr. Molleur, made a motion to go into Executive Session to discuss:
1. Job Performance: 42-46-5 (a) (1) - Any persons to be discussed in executive session have been so notified and this statement shall be noted in the minutes of the open meeting.
2. Litigation: 42-46-5 (a) (2)
a. Newport Water Department – PUC Report and Order: Docket #4025
b. Newport Water Department – PUC Application to Change Rates: Docket #4128
c. Newport Water Department – DPUC Complaint re: Emergency Connection Water Use Credit: Docket D-09-108
A vote was taken and the motion passed with Mr. Polselli, Mr. Richard, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Nott, Mr. Magliocco, Mr. Czech and Mr. Molleur voting in the affirmative.
RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
Disclosure of Executive Session Votes and Disposition of Minutes
Mr. Magliocco, seconded by Mr. Molleur, made a motion to seal the Executive Session Minutes of June 15, 2010.
Discussed were:
A. Job Performance: 42-46-5 (a) (1)
B. Newport Water Department – PUC Report and Order: Docket #4025
C. Newport Water Department – PUC Application to Change Rates: Docket #4128
D. Newport Water Department – DPUC Complaint re: Emergency Connection Water Use Credit: Docket D-09-108
One vote was taken to remove Mr. Janelle from probationary status and passed unanimously.
A vote was taken and the motion passed with Mr. Polselli, Mr. Richard, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Nott, Mr. Magliocco, Mr. Czech and Mr. Molleur voting in the affirmative.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Driscoll, seconded by Mr. Richard, made a motion to adjourn.
A vote was taken and the motion passed with Mr. Polselli, Mr. Richard, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Nott, Mr. Magliocco, Mr. Czech and Mr. Molleur voting in the affirmative.
________________________________
Philip T. Driscoll, Clerk