Five Islands Wharf Study, Georgetown, Maine

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

FIVE ISIANDS VdIARF STUDY
GEORGETOWN, @UAINE/
June. 7,1990

COASTAL ZONE

INFORMATION CENTER

TC
357
15 8
1990
K niba-
-c- - I-- ia-

0
W- FIVE ISLANDS INHARF STUDY
Cr
too GEORGETOWN, MAINE/

June 7, 1990

TEPHEN
C
DEMN K
@C 9
No 232
-vs@, ,
Ifies IS
AW

Prepared for: Town Owned Property Management Board
Georgetown, Maine

Prepared by: KIMBAlL CHASE COMPANY, INC.

Stepfien C- DeWick P.E.
Project Manager -
;OO,--e- of@,
David 13. Kinney
Project Engineer

Kimball
Chase

53 Front Street
Bath
June 6, 1990 Maine
04530
(207) 443-1361
Mr. Carroll Plummer, Chairman FAX (207) 442-702.9
Town Owned Property Management Board
Town Office
Georgetown, Maine 04548

Subject: Five Islands Wharf Study 89-2783
Final Report

Dear Mr. Plummer:

In accordance with our agreement, dated October 18, 1989, we are pleased to submit our
report on the Five Islands Wharf.

The data upon which this study and its recommendations, have been based are the most
current available. The advice and participation by the Board and members of your
community have been appreciated while conducting this study.

Thank you for selecting Kimball Chase to assist you with this study.

Very truly yours,

Kimball Chase Company, Inc.

Stephen C. DeWick, P.E.
Project Manager

SCD/sla
Enclosures

cc: Kirk Schlummer, DECD (7 copies)

PROJECT CREDITS

This project has been sponsored by the Town of Georgetown, Maine. Administration of
the Project has been under the direction of the Town Owned Property Management Board.
Members of the Board included:

Carroll Plummer, Chairman
Ken MaIsch
Frank Sarcione

"Financial assistance for preparation of this document was provided by a Grant from
MAINE'S COASTAL PROGRAM, through funding provided by U.S. Department of
Commerce, Office of Coastal Zone Management, under the Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972, as amended."

The cooperation and assistance of the people responding to the questionnaire is
appreciated.

'-vabl,.-- . of Conternts

Section Page

1 Summary & Findings ...................... 1
2 Introduction ............................ 3
3 Survey Techniques/Condition Survey .......... 5
4 Wharf Maintenance Options ............... is
5 Rebuilt Wharf ......................... 23
6 Conceptual Plan ........................ 27

List of Tables
Table PaF,,,e

I Life of Wood Members .................... 18
2 Option I Maintenance .................... 19
3 Wharf Upgrade Costs ................... 20
4 Option 2 Maintenance ..................... 21
5 Rebuilt Wharf ......................... 23
6 Rebuilt Wharf Annual Maintenance .......... 24
7 Conceptual Plan Costs ................... 27

List of Figares
Figgr Page

I Project Location ......................... 4
2 Project Photos .......................... @ 7
3 Project Photos ................... 8
4 Project Photos ................... 9
5 Project Photos .......................... 10
6 Project Photos ............... * .......... 11
7 Project Photos .......................... 12
8 Project Photos ........................... 13
9 Project Photos ......................... 14
10 Project Photos .......................... 15
11 Project Photos .......................... 16
12 Project Photos .......................... 17
13 Wharf Plan ............................ 25
14 Wharf Elevation ......................... 26
15 Conceptual Plan ........................... 28

Appendix

A-1 Scope of Services ....................... A-1

SECHON I

SUNfMARY & FINDINGS

Summ

Inspections of the Five Islands Wharf were made by the proj ect team on October 18, and
26, 1989. The wharf was also thoroughly inspected with the Town Owned Property
Management Board (TOPMB) on October 21, 1989. During these visits, detailed
measurements of the wharf were made, penetrations and probings of wooden members were
conducted and records prepared of the wharf s overall condition.

Findings

Based upon the investigations described above, the following findings have been made:

1) The wharf, which was reconstructed in 1978, is in moderately good condition.

2) The wharf decking has been partially replaced with new decking since 1978.
Much of the remaining deck will require replacement over the next five years.

3) The support timbers under the decking are arranged in an orderly fashion,
except for those under the south side, and those next to the Cooker/Cooler
building. Wooden blocking bias been used to achieve the correct support
height over some of the shorter piles.

4) Many of the piles resting upon ledge are pinned. Evidence of anchor ties,
which were also pinned, are still visible but are not in use.

5) The wharf s general structural integrity is achieved through numerous cross
braces which are arranged in an orderly fashion and are generally in good
condition.

6) The piles are arranged in a fashion to take advantage of the ledge conditions
and with limited surficial material available at the outer eastern end. Most
piles seem to be in good condition, with the exception of 5 piles on the south
side.

7) The Love Nest, which is the oldest building at the wharf, is in fair condition.
The original hand hewn beams, are visible in most of the structure. Much of
the wiring, plumbing, and more recent improvements do not comply with the
latest building codes.

8) The Shrimp Building, which was built in 1970, is in good condition and is
comprised of a concrete floor. The reinforcing arrangement in the concrete
floor is unknown. Floor drains located at convenient spots within the floor
discharge directly on to many of the piles and cross members. The electrical
wiring system beneath the building does not comply with existing codes.

9) The Cooker/Cooler Building, which contains the bait shed and the steam
cooker for lobsters, clams, and corn is in a state of disrepair. Much of the
concrete floor, especially in the bait shed, is broken and structural integrity
of the decking beneath it is questionable. The addition to the north of this
building is of no use in its current state.

10) A public nuisance condition exists most of the time beneath the Bait Shed,
the Love Nest, and a portion of the Shrimp Building. This is caused by bait,
wash water, and other waste materials discharging untreated to a pocket in
the ledge. This pocket drains slowly and generally filled with wastewater
which emanates a significant odor.

SECITON 2

INTRODUCITON

The Five Islands Wharf is located in the Village of Five Islands, on the eastern shore of
Georgetown, Maine. The Village name originates from the five islands located near the
Village, which include Crow, Malden, Hen, Mink, and Wood Islands (see Figure 1). The
wharf is located on town-owned property and serves the purposes of local fishermen and
the general public. The history of the wharf dates back to 1753, as discussed in the
publication "Preserving An Inheritance" by Martha Oaks, 1982. In its early days, the wharf
served as a facility associated with steamboat lines. The wharf was reconstructed in 1877
for H.G. Rowe & Company.

During the hurricane of 1978, the wharf was ractically demolished. It was replaced at that
time in its current state, which is the subject of this study. Demands for the wharfs use
have increased, particularly as it relates to public access. The wharf s future ability to serve
both the needs of the local fishermen and the general public will be one of the challenges
the TOPMB will have to meet.

This study is being funded jointly by the Town of Georgetown and by a Coastal Zone
Management Grant from the Department of'Economic and Community Development. This
initial study is the first phase in a long-range program to upgrade the wharf facilities at Five
Islands.

3 Q'
i7@
h
mj rk.!sland
11 @fk I Ce
r
r7@,
d
ree
N
41

36 0

64
px lslar'@"
icl_
10 b
.7

B lip
B Dogfi Head

13
IM Fu r 0
@sl a n 0@@
9
PROJECT LOCATION

1/0

5
53
I 7L 4!1'
Her
7 7- idn k@
:! -@ I I ,9@d
m

65
en Isl
X/ @a_v d.
j"
0 all
t

7j
45
r

135 60,", /1 Z7

93
94
243

1 95
-y
pt
V@
/so
jj

2,
80- Dry"
X;9 V/
ul
Ledge. I
<
115

83
@jh "Little
Ai'

108
37)
J 'Good Harbor
N FEET).
GURE1
F1
e000
LOCATION MAP
e ),/-

CONDITION SURVEY KiMball
FIVE ISLANDS WHARF Cbase
GEORGETOWN, MAINE

SECTION 3

SURVE-Y TECHNIQUESICONDITION SU RVEY

After reviewing the scope of services (see Appendix A) agreed to by the TOPMB and
Kimball Chase Company, atwo-man team of engineering technicians inspected the Five
Islands Wharf. Inspections by the team took place on October 18, and 26, 1989. The first
inspection was scheduled to correspond with low tide which occurred at 7:50 a.m., while the
second inspection was scheduled to occur at high tide at 8:34 a.m. Inspections at these
different tide stages allowed detailed investigations of the lower portion of the piles secured
to ledge, as well as pile condition directly beneath the timber supports and decking.

During both inspections, detailed measurements were made of the decking, the piles,
support timbers, cross bracing, and the three, buildings situated on the wharf. From these
measurements, plans were prepared. The total area of the wharf's deck is 6,460 square
feet. The Cooker/Cooler Building measures 695 � square feet, the shrimp building
measures 720 � square feet and the Love Nest is 525 � square feet.

The elevation of the wharf is 11.2 feet above mean sea level (15.7 feet above low tide).

All members of the wharf, including the deck support timbers, piles and cross bracing were
tested for structural integrity. Ice pick penetrations ranged from 1/2 to 1 inch in the deck,
1/2 to 2 inches in the support timbers, and 1/4 to 5/8 inches in the piles and cross bracing.
Moist conditions and rot were evident under the decking and under some of the support
timber, particularly toward the south side.

A survey of the building was conducted to determine the general structural condition,
exterior condition and the adequacy of the utilities.

Photographs taken during the survey show:

Figure No. Desgdption

2A Rusted hinge under float ramp badly in need of repair
2B Typical pile, beam and rafter

3A South end of dock showing rotting of decking and beam
3B Overall view of south end of dock

4A Typical piles and cross me-mbers,
4B Typical cross beam design, built to gei desired elevation

Figige No. Descri.ption

5A Typical piles and cross bracing towards front of dock
5B Typical blocking used for elevation desired
6A Deteriorated deckng out by town float
6B Photo showing decking towards front of dock

7A Severe rotting of beam atsouth end of dock
7B South end of dock showing pipes & wires not to standard codes

8A Typical cross bracing towards front of dock
8B Double row of piles in front of dock

9A Piles and lower unused deck north of Cooker
9B Typical failed beam on lower deck from above, north of Cooker

10A Typical cross bracing under Cook House
10B North end of dock looking, towards Cook House

11A Typical photo showing roving rafters under Cook House
11B Typical rotting decking and beams

12A Town float, some beams showing signs of decay
12B Checking for rot at rafter

--"::6*.@".@ - @Wzo@i;

. . .... .....

E:3.. @ii @li. @N@n

Kk-

N-H,

rusted hinge under float ramp badly in need of repair.

@ii i zz
.............

........... 5
B

Typ. pile, bea-m an(J rafter. FIGURE 2

Kimball
C2)ase

..........

.. ... ... ... .

WPM.
-.0 $g
M",

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

South end of dock showing rotting of decking and beams.

.. .............. . .......
. ......... .......

Overall view of south end of dock.
FIGURE 3

Kimball
Chase

-Vk

"N:

. . .........
14

'gw
NO
pow

Typ. piles and cross members.

4 'MM@
...... ... ...

. ...... .

Ak:

2 sw

Typ. cr oss beam design, built to get desired elevation.- FIGUR
Ki
Chase

-b's.6
A.0

N,
'A,
AN Wk
@,M
AN

W-

Typ. piles and cross bracing towards front of dock.

F
. .. ... .......

@N4

4V
. ... . ..........

Typ. blocking used for elevation desired. FIGURE 5

Ki
10 Chase

UP
... . ... .
....... ..... .. .........

,zi

AIR . ......

@,OAMI
A:s,

Deteriorated decking out by town float.

MIA

W,
................0

-Z

W". v,;
IR
MIS

......... .

OEM

Photo showing decking towards front of dock.
FIGURE 6
K,
Chase

Al
M rT;

Severe rotting of b.eam at south end of dock.

........ . . ....... .

-4
"M7 . .... ......
V '71
.. . .... .

NO.

South end of dock showing pipes and wires not to standard codes.
FIGURE 7

Kimball
MChase
12

A-1.

Typ. cross bracing towards front of dock.

;4@

_Op
'A

Double row of piles in front of dock.
FIGURE 8
Ki
13 Chase

.: . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Piles and lower unused deck north of Cooker.

g,@

ip-g.

. .........

Typ- failed beams on lower deck from above, north of Cooker.
FIGURE 9
Ki
"Chase
.14

n
k,f

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

...........

Typ. cross bracinp, under Cook house.

Xt.

North end of dock looking towards Cook house.
FIGURE.10

Kimball
15 PmCbase

.... ...... .. -W

.IMIn
I NO

;MM,
M., "K

. . . . . . . . . .

Typ. photo showing rotting rafters under Cook house.

4M
. . . ........

W$v

.. ...... .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .....
. . . . . . . . . .

Typ. rotting decking and beams.
FIGURE 11

Ki
16 se

'4010

. .. .......... .
IMP

Town float, some beams showing signs of decay.

w7l

..................
21-E

Checking for rot at rafter. FIGURE 12

Ki
17 Clime

SECTION 4

WHARF MAINTENANCE OPTIONS

The condition survey shows much of the Five Islands Wharf to.be in good condition. Parts
of the wharf which are not in good condition, include:

0 The Cooker/Cooler Building
0 The North Side of the Wharf Behind the Cooker/Cooler Building
0 The Commercial Gangway and Float
0 Electrical Wiring
0 Building Floor Drains

The expected useful life of wood material in a marine environment is listed below:

Table I
Life of Wood Members

Wharf Members Years

Support Piles
Untreated Softwood 10-15
Treated Softwood 20+
Untreated Oak w/Bark 20+
Pile Caps
Untreated 10-15
Treated 20+
Stringers & Cross Bracing
Untreated 5- 10
Treated 10-15
Deck
Untreated 5
Treated 10 - 15

Qption 1 Repair as needed

Maintenance costs for the existing facility, based upon its size, age and general condition,
would include expenses for the replacement. of decking and stringers, repaired on an as-
needed basis, float and gangway repair and hoist maintenance. The following table presents
the expected yearly maintenance costs for the existing wharf anticipating reconstruction in
2003 when pile replacement will be necessary.

118

Table 2
Option I RQairs As Needed
Maintenance Matrix (Building New Wharf in

Item 19-90 19-91 19-92 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Decking 510 638 765 893 1020 1148 1275 1403 1530 1658 1785 1913 2040
StrinPrs & 226 620 846 1070 1297 1522 1748
Bracing

Pile Caps 312 468 624 624 624 624

Gangways 100 100 2050 50 2025 25 50 50 75 75 100 100 100
(Replaced 1992 & 1994)
Railing 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 '150

Hoist 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Float Repair 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240

Keeper Chains, 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
Fittings, &
Float Hdwre.

Subtotal $1,626 $1,840 $4,225 $2,201 $4,681 $2,587 $3,185 $2,867 $3,692 $3,147 $4,197 $3,427 $4,678
Contingency 1 210 425 24 469 263 315 283 358 303 403 323 1,472
TOTAL $1,800 $2,050 $@,-650 $2,450 $5,150 $2,850 $3,500 $3,150 $4,050 $3,450 $4,600 $3,750 $5,150

Option 2 Repair as needed after wharf upgrade

After an initial upgrade of the wharf with some new piles and some spliced piles, a system
of pile caps, stringers, and deck would be constructed. Table 3 below presents the
approximate costs of wharf upgrade. The Table 4 on the following page shows the annual
maintenance costs after upgrade.

Table 3
Wharf )g[ade Costs

Demolition 4,250 s.f. @ $10/s.f. $42,500

Cost of Upgrade (Untreated)
65 new piles 21,450
65 spliced piles 11,000

New Pile Caps 15,600

New Stringers 21,900

New Deck 25,500
Subtotal $137,950
Contingency 13P800
Engineering 25,000
Survey 2,500
Boring 0
TOTAL $179,250

Table 4
OPTION 2 (PARTIAL UPGRADE)
ANNUAL COST FOR WHARF MAINTENANCE

Item 1992-1997 1997-2002 2002-2007* 2007-2012 2012-2017

Decking $ 255 $ 510 $5,100 $ 255 $ 510
Stringers & Bracing 325 325 6,430 325 325
Pilecaps - - 312 312
Gangways & Crate Slide 240 240 240 240 240
Railing - 150 150 150 150
Hoist 100 100 100 100 100

Floats 240 240 240 240 240
Keeper Chains, Fittings, - 300 300 300 300
& Float Hardware

Subtotal 1,160 1,865 12,560 1,922 2,177
Contingency 140 185 1,240 138 223
TOTAL $ 1,300/yr $ 2,050/yr $13,800/yr $ 2,100/yr @2,400/yr

Entire deck replaced between 2002 and 2007.

MARTMNANCE PROGRAM

A detailed maintenance program contains three (3) specific parts. These are:

1. Condition Survey
2. Preventative Maintenance
3. Restoration/Replacement

Detailed maintenance programs should be instituted regardless of the wharf s material, age,
or condition. What may vary between programs will be the money spent to maintain the
facility. The program proposed for the Five. Islands Wharf should include the following:

Frequen@y
Annual 2 Years 5 Years
1. Condition Survey
A. Inspection of deck X
B. Inspection of timber supports X
and pile caps
C. Inspection of cross-bracing X
D. Inspection of piles X
E. Inspection of gangways X
F. Inspection of chains and moorings X
G. Inspection of building exteriors X
and roofs
H. Inspection of floats X
2. Preventative Maintenance
A. Weather treatment applied to deckin! X
B. Weather treatment applied to pile caps X
and timbers
C. Weather protection applied to gangways X
D. Painting of building exterior X
E. Rust removal and painting of chains X
and metal hinges on gangways
F. Lubrication of wheels and hinges X
on gangways
3. Restoration/Replacement
A. Replacement of deck planking X
B. Replacement of pile caps X
and support timbers
C. Replacement of planks and gangways X
D. Repair or replacement of chains X
E. Replacement of planking on float decks X
F. General repair to building exteriors X

SECTION 5

REBUILT VVHARF

The cost to rebuild the wharf to its existing configuration, with minor changes in elevation,
would be approximately $590,609. A detailed breakdown of costs associated with the
reconstruction of the wharf is shown in Table 5. Yearly maintenance costs of this option
are presented on the following page.

Table 5
New Wharf Constructed to Existing Dimensions

Desgdption Cost

Piles $75,570
Pile Caps 21,408
Stringers 26,884
X-Bracing 18,000
Decking 36,046
Handrail 1)000
Floats 8,000
Gangways 5,500
2 Hoists
(1) Relocated 750
(1) New 5,000
ower 10,000
Demolition 64,500
Building Removal & Reset (Love Nest & Shrimp Building) 35,000
Sitework at Shore 7,080
New Cooker/Cooler Building 32,000
Subtotal: $346,738
Contractor's Oveirbead & Profit: 52,010
Contractoes Bond: 10,402
Mobilization: 17.33
$426,487
Contingency: 106,622
Borings: 0
Topo Survey: 2,500
Permits: 5,000
Engineering: 50,
TOTAL $590,609

m m mow== mm.m M@M'

Table 6
Rebuilt Wharf Annual Maintenance Cos

Item 1992-1997 1997 2002-2007* 2007-201 2012-201
Decking $ 186 $ 372 $7,440 $ 372 $ 744
Stringers & Bracing 230 460 9,200 460 920
Pilecaps - - - 456 456
Gangways & Crate Slide 240 240 240 240
Railing - 150 150 150 150
Hoist 200 200 200 200 200
Floats 120 240 240 240 240
Keeper Chains, Fittings, - 300 300 300 300
&Float Hardware

Subtotal 736 1,962 17,770 2,418 3,250
Contingency 64 188 1.78 232 350
TOTAL $ 800/yr $ 2,150/yr $19,550/yr $ 2,650/yr F3,600/yr

Entire deck replaced betweeli 2002 and 2007.

'I T

--7i F

14,

SCALE: 1/8
MI

I'M s7

Sou7H
ILO

SECTION 6

CONCEPTUAL PLAN

The conceptual plan, shown in Figure 15, would allow for increased access to all areas of
the Five Islands Wharf and would also expand the berthing area. The approximate costs
associated with constructing the conceptual plan are as follows:

Table 7
Con=tual Plan Costs

Piles $53,460
Pile Caps 11,448
Stringers 14,071
X-Bracing; 8,640
Decking 20,124
Handrail 1,800
Floats, Moorings, & Chain 51,300
Gangways 4,320
Cooker/Cooler Building 32,000
Subtotal: $197,163
Contractor's Overhead & Profit: 29,575
Contractor's Bonds: 5,915
Mobilization: 9,858
$242,511
Contingency: 60,689
Borings: 2,500
Topo Survey: 2,500
Perrniis: 5,000
Engineeirig: 25.000
TOTAI-- $338,200

.27

....... .......

...............................

.............

95HRIMP
OUILVINC3

............................

. . . . . . . . . .......
............

. . . . . . . . . . . . . ....

... ... ...... .....
... ..... .

. . .... ..... . .

..... ..... .....
L-OVE NrECE>T
ROME
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

-------------- .......

. . ........ ............

--------------

S-C- A L E: 1/16'= 1
ooooor@

....... .....
$t'l

I
I
I
I
I
I APPEISM]EX A
I SCOPE OF SERVICES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

SCOPE OF SERVICES

The tasks needed to evaluate the condition of the Five Islands wharf and to prepare the
engineering study are outlined below.

TASK 1 CONDITION SURVEY

A condition survey of the Five Islands wharf will be conducted by a civil
engineer and a structural engineering technician. Detailed measurements of
the wharf and pile support system will be made in order to prepare
preliminary plans. Penetration, probings of wooden members will be
conducted at selected locations to determincstructural integrity. A detailed
list of items and their conditions will be prepared for the wharf.

TASK 2 WHARF MAINTE-NANCE OPTIONS

Based upon the results of Task 1, a detailed evaluation of maintenance options
will be presented. Addressed by each option will be the present condition of
the wharf, particularly. as they relate to safety. The following sub-tasks will
be conducted:

Task2.A An evaluationwill be made assuming no investment and
maintenance other than those repairs needed to ensure
safety of persons using the facility. This may be limited
to replacement of deck planks, and some of the support
timbers.

Task 2.B Ile second option will evaluate a higher level of
maintenance associated with sister piles, splicing of
existing piles, and other temporary repairs to prolong the
life of the structure and to maintain its existing level of
use.

Task 2.C If the condition survey indicates the wharf can be used
at its current level with on-going maintenance, a detail
preventive maintenance program will be developed.

M
Kimball
Cha'

TASK 3 REBUff-T WHARF

An evaluation will be made to determine the requirements of demolishing and
rebuilding the wharf to the existing dimensions, and to the level of use for
which it was originally intended. Prepared as part of this task will be the
following sub-tasks:

Task 3A The expected life of a new wharf, which has been totally
rebuilt, Nvill be prepared. A program of basic
maintenance will be developed and the costs associated
with such maintenance included.

Task 33 This silb-task will detail the items of preventive
maintenance which must be undertaken to maximize the
service life of the new wharf.

TASK 4 NEW PIER EXP)kNSION

Based upon discussions with the Town Owned Management Board and various
users of the existing wharf, preliminary plans for a new expanded facility will
be developed. Included in this evaluation will be details concerning the ways
and means to accommodate, a larger number of people based. upon the
expected increase in use over the useful life of the facility. Also addressed
under this task will be those requiremeiAs to permit such tacilities by the
Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. A construction cost estimate will be prepared, which will also show
other project costs such as engineering, borings, soundings, permits, and
construction supervision.

TASK 5 ViR=N REPORT

'All of the findings and results from the above tasks wi 11 be included in a
written report, presented to the Town Owned Property Management Board.
Included in the report will be a summary and clear recommendations for
future actions. Also included will be detailed cost estimates in today's dollars,
a project implementation schedule along with information concerning possible
grants for future phases and construction. Twelve (12) copies of the final
report will be presented to the town upon completionof the project.

TASK 6 MEETINGS

The successful undertaking of this evaluation will include a number of
meetings with the Town Owned Property Management Board and others.
Mectinas which are anticipated will include, but not be limited to the
following:

Kirnba 11
Chase

i
I
i
i
i
i
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
F T . I
I - I
I
JUN 0 8 9 0
1
1

Initial Project: Meeting to verify scope of work and the
requirements of the study.
2. Progress Meeting at 50% completion to review findings of
condition survey and details of evaluated options.

3. Final Review will be conducted at the 90% complete stage to
0
verify that the scope of services and requirements of the project
have been met. A draft of the final report will be presented at
this meeting.

4. Final Meeting - Once the draft of the report has been accepted
by the Town Owned Property Management Board, the results
of it will be presented at a public meeting. The study will be
discussed and -the recommendations will be presented.

Komball
Chase

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7-1- 1
i
JUN 0 8 9 0 1
I I

@ 11111111iffill
i
668 14102 7 mill
1 36 187