Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1968_02_14 Town Board Minutes 5 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK, HELD FEBRUARY 14, 1968, IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR, TOWN OF MAMARONECK OFFICES, 158 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK. CALL TO ORDER The Supervisor called the meeting to order at 6 :45 p. m. pursuant to Notice thereof issued in accordance with Section 62 of the Town Law. ROLL CALL Present: Supervisor Kane Councilwoman Helwig Councilman Chalif Councilman Faiola Councilman Nagel Absent; None Also Present: Mr. Gronberg - Town Clerk Mr. Johnston - Town Attorney Mrs. Brewer - Deputy Clerk Mr. Altieri - Comptroller ORDER OF BUSINESS The Board, in agreement with the Supervisor ' s request, took up Item 2 on the agenda set forth in said Notice, as the first order of business. Item 2 - Adoption of Local Law to amend State Highway Law so as to allow for con- struction of sidewalks adjoining State highways. At the Supervisor ' s request, the Attorney briefed the Board on the construction of sidewalks adjacent to County roads and State highways, referring to his Opinion of February 14, 1968 addressed to Councilwoman Helwig in reply to her request, and an Opinion he had addressed to Councilman Chalif on November 8, 1967 with respect to the Town' s authority to construct such sidewalks. He pointed out that there were two routes involved in such authorization - first, if the construction were to be a General Town charge, by adoption of a local law; and second, if it were to be a Part Town charge, through obtaining the required enabling legislation in Albany. He therefore inquired the Board' s determination thereon. Councilman Chalif in reply stated that since the walk would be used by all persons, it seemed to him that it should be a General Town charge, with which thinking -1- 5 the Board concurred. The Attorney thereupon advised that the adoption of a Local Law was necessary to authorize this construction; that such adoption was subject to a public hearing which could be called on three-days notice, and therefore inquired the Board' s pleasure on the date of the hearing. Whereupon, in agreement with Councilman Chalif ' s sugges- tion that said hearing be held at as early a date as pos- sible and on his motion, seconded by Councilman Nagel, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that a public hearing be held before this Board as required by law on the adoption of a Local Law to allow the construction of sidewalks adjacent to County roads and State highways within the Town of Mamaroneck, at the first regular meeting of this Board in March on Wednesday evening, March 6, 1968, at 8:15 p. m. in the Council Room of the Weaver Street Fire- house, Weaver Street, Town of Mamaroneck, and that the Town Clerk be and he hereby is authoriz- ed to publish Notice of such hearing in the offi- cial newspaper of the Town of Mamaroneck, The Daily Times, as required by law. In reply to a question by Councilman Faiola as to whether such Local Law would obtain in construction of sidewalks along the Boston Post Road in front of the Pancake House, Larchmont Motel, etc. , the Attorney stated that it would since it applied to such construction along any County road or State highway within the Town. Item 3 - Engaging Real Estate Appraiser to ap- praise lands to be acquired for construc- tion of sidewalk along Weaver Street between Palmer Avenue and the Boston Post Road Pursuant to the Attorney' s request, Item 3 on the agenda was then taken under consideration by common consent of the Board. The Attorney advised that concurrent action was requested to obtain necessary appraisals of the lands to be acquir- ed for the proposed construction and therefore requested authorization to engage an expert appraiser. Whereupon, on motion by Councilwoman Helwig, seconded by Councilman Nagel, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Town Attorney be and he hereby is authorized to engage the services of an expert Real Estate Appraiser to appraise the privately-owned lands necessary to be ac- quired by the Town for the construction of a sidewalk along the westerly side of Weaver Street, a State highway, between Palmer Avenue and the Boston Post Road. -2- 57 Councilman Nagel raised the question of whether it would be better to engage more than one appraiser, to which Councilman Chalif replied that since each appraiser would be different, in his judgment it would be better to engage the services of only one with which the Board agreed. Item 1 - Insurance The Board then turned its attention to Item 1 on the Agenda and Councilman Chalif introduced Mr. Sidney E. Clark, one of the two Registered Insurance Consul- tants engaged by him pursuant to resolution of this Board adopted on February 7, 1968, to review the Insurance bids received pursuant to a Notice for pub- lic bids for all of the Town ' s insurance needs and submit a recommendation looking towards award of one or more contracts for said insurance needs. The Clerk presented the written report on the review of bids dated February 12, 1968 as submitted under the signatures of Messrs. Clark and Joseph F. E. Higgins, the Consultants,tcgether with a critique of individual bids, which were ordered received and filed for the record. Also presented were two communications addressed to the Board by Owen A. Mandeville, Jr. of Mandeville Asso- ciates, Inc. , and Stephen G. Gibbons of Stephen Gibbons, C. L. U. , which were also herewith ordered received and filed. Councilman Chalif stated that in view of the four iden- tical low bids, it would be necessary to find fine differences if the Board were to make its award. For this reason, he pointed out, Mr. Clark was here this evening to answer questions he knew the Town Attorney had, along with any the Board might have. Then, if the Board were satisfied, it was hoped that the award could be made. The following questions on the specifications were then addressed to Mr. Clark by the Attorney, to which he replied as noted. 1. page 1 - (b) - - "members of the Town Council, Chief of Police, Chief of Fire Department, Official Town and Police Surgeon, members of supervisory and adminis- trative staff, and other employees as additional insureds; " Question - - Does this include members of Boards, Commissions, etc. ? -" Answer - - No. -3- 2. page 2 - (f) - - "Protection and Indemnity Insurance to the extent indicated elsewhere in these specifications and extended to include liability arising out of the operation of the U. S. Harbor Workers and Longshoremen Act or the Jones Act or any other applicable imposition of liability by Federal Law; " Question - - What is the need of this? Answer - = Not needed - covered by Workmens Compensation. 3. page 2 - (g) - - "the obligations imposed upon the named insured by Section 205 and Section 209 of the Municipal Law of the State of New York and all - laws amendatory thereof or supple- mentary thereto which are or may become effective during the policy period. " Question - - Should these (Section 205 and Sec- tion 209) not be the Volunteer Firemens Act since they have been out of date since 1957? Answer - - Will have to check - accepted the specifications as written, simply checked bids against them - - after checking, answer was yes. 4. page 2 (first sentence of last paragraph) - - "A list of all locations owned or- used by the Town and other gene- ral liability exposure data is set forth in Exhibit No. 1. " Question - - Is this information contained in Exhibit No. 1? Answer - - No. 5. page 3 under Note 2nd sentence - - "In bidding this section alternate quotations as to limit of liability for the underlying policy and limit of indemnity for the excess or "umbrella" policy are acceptable. " Question - - Was this done and who did it? Answer - - No - no one did it. -4- 59 6. page 4 - third line from top - "Proposals must include a statement of the blanket average fire, EC, VMM and SL rates used to develop the premium quoted for this insurance. " Question - - Did the bids comply with this? Answer - - No. 7. page 4 - last sentence under Note - "A bid on an "All Risk" basis shall, therefore preclude a bid under Section F. " Question - - Shouldn't "F" be "E"? Answer - - Yes. Question - - Since I have not seen the bids, I must ask whether in your opinion, Mr. Clark, anyone would pick this up? Answer - - Might - but think it would be taken as a typing error. 8. page 4-D. (a) - "Employee Dishonesty insurance on a form at least as broad as the Public Employee Honesty Blanket Position Bond form providing a limit of liability of $50, 000. per employee; Question - - Is a list of the positions needed for above and was it furnished? Answer - - It is needed - was not furnished. 9. page 4-D (c) - "Public official bonds as per the sche- dule attached. " Question - - Was such schedule attached? Answer - - No. 10. page 5-E - "Difference-in-Conditions insurance on all real and personal property at locations des- cribed in Exhibit No. 2 - Statement of Pro- perty Values. " Question - - Were these described as stated? Answer - - No. 11. page 5-E - 2nd paragraph - "Proposals for this insur- ance must stipulate the basis for adjusting -5- 0 the quoted premium for increase in the total values at risk due to new construction or additions at the same or other locations in the Town. " Question -- Did they? Answer -- No, they did not - - none of them. 12. page 6-B - "A proposal for all of the insurance speci- fied in Section I may be submitted provided the premium and basis for determining the same for each form is stated separately. " Question -- Was this done? Answer -- No. 13. page 6-C - "Departures, if any, should be clearly stipulated and the reasons for such devia- tions noted. " Question -- Was this done? Answer -- No. 14. page 6-C - "The proposals also should include pro forma copies of all policies and endorsements to be used in providing the insurance and set forth the rates which will be used to determine all premiums subject to adjustment on audit. Question -- Shouldn' t these premiums be subject to payroll audit and experience modifications at end of year? Answer -- Yes. 15. page 6-D - "Notwithstanding foregoing paragraph "C" alternate proposals may be presented for con- sideration provided (1) they are in addition to proposals which conform to the specifica- tions and (2) the final premiums thereunder are not contingent on the volume of incurred losses. " Question -- Was this done? Answer -- No. The Attorney then asked Mr. Clark what provisions had been made for cancellation re length of Notice - asking -6- 1 whether it would be possible, in his opinion, for the Town to get 60 days. Answer - - No - did not think possible - 15 or at most 30 days. In view of these questions and answers, he then asked Mr. Clark if he knew how the bidders had come up with the premiums submitted. Mr. Clark replied that he did not. Question - Taking into consideration your expertise and your knowledge of insurance specifications and your general knowledge of insurance, would you say these specifications were so drawn that any one carrier would be preferred as to others? Answer - - Uh - no. Question - Would you so state under oath? No answer. The four identical low bids and respective brokers sub- mitting each were then discussed individually at length and in detail. During this discussion, it was ascertain- ed that bidders had been supplied with additional infor- mation as added to the specifications and further that each had been given any information requested to the best of the Town' s ability to furnish same. The Attorney also pointed out that Royal Globe was the proposed carrier on all four low bids and that the Town' s experience with this company had been very poor in the past, reciting in detail --' the specific reasons for his statement. The urgency of the insurance time-table was also brought to the Board' s attention since its largest policy expired at midnight on February 15th, with question as to what the Town' s position would be if no award were made this even- ing. In reply, it was pointed out that if no award were made this evening and the present coverage were to be con- tinued, it must be renewed during the business day of the 15th. At this point Councilman Chalif reminded the Board that if no award were made, the Town would not have certain high- ly desirable additional coverages afforded under the new proposal at a very minimal cost, urging in view of this, that most serious consideration be given to making the award this evening to one of the four low bidders. Councilman Nagel asked - "Which one?" To Jack Coughlin, Councilman Chalif replied, stating that he would like to speak further as to his reasons for this recommendation. He then stated that of the four low bidders Barney Epstein, the present broker who had been handling the Town' s insurance for some years, certainly might be subject to question as to his service to the -7- Town, particularly during recent years ; that Steve Gibbons, another of the low bidders, lived in the Village of Larch- mont, worked in the City of White Plains and was, he had been given to understand, primarily a Life Insurance man; and that Dinolfo and Wilson, while reputed to be a very fine firm, was in the Village of Mamaroneck and City of White Plains versus the unincorporated area of the Town. For these reasons, he continued, he favored Jack Coughlin who both lived and worked in the unincorporated area. He would prefer, he said in conclusion, with all things be- -- ing equal to make the award to a local agent — Jack Coughlin. Councilman Nagel, with apologies to the Chair, asked to be excused at this time in order to attend a meeting of the Joint Economies Study Committee which had been called by him, and thence left the meeting. Councilwoman Helwig then said that she would like to be clear on one thing and asked Councilman Chalif whether this was a personal recommendation. She added that she would like to hear the recommendation of Mr. Johnston and Mr. Altieri, the other two members of the Committee to which the bids had been referred as she knew both went over bids most carefully in all instances, sometimes ex- amining the bidders. Whereas in this instance she stated that it was her understanding that neither Mr. Johnston nor Mr. Altieri had had the opportunity to view the bids. Councilman Chalif advised that he had not been aware of the necessity to have the Attorney and--Comptroller re- view the bids along with the experts -- and asked why he _ had not been so informed. The Supervisor replied that he of course assumed that the usual practice, namely for the entire Committee to which the bids had been referred, to review and examine them together and then work together with an expert if the need for same were indicated, was being followed. Mr. Johnston then reported that he could only recommend rejection of all bids for the following reasons : 1. That he did not favor Royal Globe as a carrier as he had previously stated and explained; 2. That there were questions as to the bids ' conformance with the specifications ; 3. That there was no specific recommendation for award to any one low bidder made by the two Insurance Ex- perts engaged to examine all bids and so recommend. Mr. Altieri then stated that he, too, in agreement with the Attorney must recommend rejection of all bids since he had not been given any opportunity to examine them nor to check them arithmetically, etc. The discussion was then resumed with many questions ad- dressed by the members of the Board to both Mr. Clark and the Town Attorney on matters such as the value and -8- 3 importance of the broker ' s service in handling and obtain- ing the best possible disposition of claims ; the likeli- hood of being able to obtain coverage at other than excess premium rates in view of poor experience ratings; whether Royal Globe would be more acceptable as a carrier if cov- erage were written by a different broker, etc. In summarizing, Councilman Chalif stated that the question before the Board now seemed to be whether all bids should be accepted or whether they should be rejected, and ac- cordingly, offered the following motion, which was sec- onded by Councilman Faiola: RESOLVED, that all bids be not rejected by this Board. The Supervisor requested the Clerk to call the roll there- on with the vote being as follows : Councilman Faiola - Aye Councilman Chalif - Aye Councilwoman Helwig - Before casting her ballot, Councilwoman Helwig said that she did not like to reject all bids at this time since she would like to have the full recommendations of the Committee to which the bids had been referred. She said, however, that at this point she would vote to reject all of the bids if the five members of the Board were present. Mr. Altieri then asked whether it would be possible for the Town to get a 30-day extension of its present policy and Councilman Chalif answered "yes" - but probably only at excess cost. The Supervisor then asked the Attorney whether the Board could recess until the next day. "Yes" , replied the Attorney offering to be at the Town Office all of the next day commencing at 8:00 a.m. so that the Comptroller and he could question individually any or all of the bidders as might seem desirable or necessary upon their examination of the bids. Councilman Faiola rejected this proposal, and Councilman Chalif also rejected it since he would not be present un- til after 5 p.m. on the 15th. Councilwoman Helwig then asked the Attorney whether it would be legal to request Councilman Nagel to return to this meeting and if he could do so, whether it would be -- legal for him to vote on the motion still on the floor under roll call. The Attorney replied in the affirmative and the Deputy Clerk was directed to call Mr. Nagel requesting his return, which she did. -9- 4 Councilman Nagel returned. The Clerk asked him whether he wished a review of the discussion which had taken place during his absence before he recited the motion now before the Board which was RESOLVED, that all bids be not rejected by this Board. Councilman Nagel replied that he did not and that he was ready to vote now, whereupon the Clerk resumed calling the role as follows : Councilman Nagel - No for the following reasons which he requested be recorded in the minutes of this meeting: 1. That none of the bids conformed with the specifications ; 2. . That the Committee appointed to review the bids recommended that all bids be rejected by a vote of 2 to 1; 3. That the Town' s experience with Royal Globe was so disappointing that in his opinion coverage should not continue nor be increased. Councilwoman Helwig — No Supervisor Kane - No The resolution was therefore lost by a vote of 3 noes and two ayes. The Board then directed that the present coverage be re- newed at 9 :00 a. m. on February 15th with confirmation thereof to the Town, and Councilman Chalif recommended that the present specifications be discarded; that a new expert be retained to prepare new specifications which should be put out for bid at as early a date as possible. The Supervisor then brought up the possibility of the Town and Villages getting together on the matter of in- surance coverage, advising that he would immediately pursue this prospect with the Mayors of the Villages in the light of the happenings this evening if this met with the Board' s pleasure which it did and thereupon so directed. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the meeting, on motion duly made and seconded, it was declared adjourned — at 9:50 p. m. T Cl k -:10-