East Haddam School
Building Committee Meeting
September 28, 2005
Adopted October
26, 2005
The meeting was called to order by Todd Moss at 7:04 p.m. at the Nathan Hale High School – Room 117.
Todd Moss- departed 8:37 p.m.
Craig Parker
Kerri Willis Budzik
Melissa Ziobron
Denise Gable
Dana Barnes
Mary Beth Mordecai
John Gibson
Member absent:
David LaFemina
Others present:
Whitney Talcott, KBA
Brad Parker, Board of Selectman
Holly Barnes, KBA
Stephen R. McDonnell, WMC Consulting Engineers
Bob Carroll, Board of Education
Josh Mrozinsk, Middletown Press
Allan D. Burr, resident
Motion by Dana Barnes to approve the minutes of September 14, 2005
meeting amended as follows:
8th page under motion, strike “Opposed: Ziobron” and insert “abstained Ziobron”.
6th page, under Review and Approval of Schematic Plan 9th line from bottom after $15,00, insert “cost of hiring a third party for an estimate”.
3rd page, 9th line, after Manager, strike “at risk” insert “process”.
4th page, 1st paragraph, 19th line, strike “due near September 21st / 22nd” and replace with “September 28th”.
3rd page, 10th line, strike “reiterated” and replace with “clarified”.
4th page, 1st paragraph, 16th line, strike “It was responded, no, based on the criteria and clauses within the RFP” and replace with “The response was no, based on the language in the RFP the Committee has the flexibility to make a selection based on qualifications and price”.
8th page, under Authorization to Pay Pre-referendum Services to KBA, end of the paragraph, insert “It was noted that copies of the invoices, excluding the $20,000, were distributed to Committee Members at a previous meeting and redistributed prior to the vote. Mrs. Ziobron stated that it was received 2 minutes before the vote”.
Seconded by Mary Beth Mordecai and carried
by unanimous vote.
Audience of Citizens
Allan Burr introduced himself as an adjacent property owner interested in the project. Committee Members thanked him for attending and encouraged his participation. Josh Mrozinsk introduced himself as a reporter for the Middletown Press.
Architect Report
Whitney Talcott reviewed a revised schematic design. He informed the Committee Members that KBA had a meeting last week with the Athletic Director and Principal of the Middle School. He stated that the basketball area had been moved; hopscotch and swings had been added. He informed the Committee that the driveway had been slightly changed for the possibility of future expansion and that a bikeway/walkway was being added down near Clark Gates road. Mr. Moss questioned why the play area had been moved and expressed concern with the 4th and 5th graders being near the 6th, 7th and 8th graders and that they should be separated. Committee Member’s agreed. Bob Carroll replied that the Administration had agreed to the configuration and that it was specifically requested to be moved because it was outside the classrooms which could be a distraction to students trying to study. Committee Member’s discussed the shift use in the cafeteria of the different grades. It was stated that the 6th, 7th and 8th graders do not have recess.
Stephen McDonnell from WMC discussed the septic DEP process with the Committee Members. He stated that the DEP must approve septic systems which use over 5,000 gallons a day and that the approval is a multi-step process. He informed the Committee that Planning and Zoning would require DEP approval, but that the DEP approval does not come until after the project has been completed. He informed the Committee that the first step is to submit a conceptual drawing with a 25 – 30 page report, covering the design calculations. Once the DEP approves the conceptual packet, a formal application is submitted. He stated this process takes several months to get approved by the DEP. He stated once approved; the DEP goes through a process called a Notice of Tentative Determination, which is a notice that is put into the paper stating that the Commissioner of the DEP intends to issue a permit for a subsurface disposal unit for this site. He informed the Committee that at this point, the DEP is on the side of the Building Committee and will aid in defending the decision. He informed the Committee that following the 30 day notice period in the paper, the DEP will actually review the design plans and specifications to build the system which takes several months, at which time they will submit a notice allowing the building of the septic system. He informed the Committee that following the construction of the system, WMC provides over site during construction and submits the as-built drawing showing the exact specifications of the system. He explained that the as-built drawing goes to the DEP and once they agree with it, the actual permit of discharge gets given to the Town which is the only permit which the Town will receive. He reiterated that the permit of discharge is not received until the construction is completed. He stated that most Towns agree that the Notice of Tentative Determination is usually enough of a DEP approval to bring the septic to Planning and Zoning.
Mr. McDonnell informed the Committee that the site’s soil conditions are good although not ideal, meaning sandy and very permeable which allows for quick water flow. He stated that the land has good slope and wetland area. He informed the Committee that the DEP wants to see an open point for discharge and that WMC proposes a conventional septic with leaching fields. The leaching fields would be below the playing fields, would require fill to make them level and would be approximately 800 feet long. He informed the Committee that it would be a highly controlled fill with certain permeability. He informed the Committee that one of the key issues with the project is to avoid treatment because it is a relatively expensive proposition, short term for construction and long term for maintenance. He explained that the key is to dilute the nitrogen down to acceptable levels. Nitrogen is diluted from rainwater and detention basins would aid in dilution. He informed the Committee of the importance of drainage from the site for proper dilution. Mr. McDonnell confirmed of his confidence in the proposed system meeting DEP requirements, eliminating a treatment type system.
Ms. Mordecai questioned if the report submitted Monday showed the collection of the rainwater. Mr. McDonnell responded affirmatively and that is also exhibited the site plan, leaching system and calculations of how much rainwater would be used for dilution purposes. Ms. Mordecai questioned, if the DEP disagrees with the proposal, would the next option be treatment. Mr. McDonnell responded yes and that if the Committee has to go with treatment, the construction fill quantity (which is costly) could be reduced dramatically, almost in half. He informed the Committee that usually the treatment plant cost is offset by the cost of the reduced construction fill. He stated that it would not be a large extra cost to build a treatment plant; however, there is long term maintenance costs involved with a treatment plant.
Mrs. Ziobron questioned if the septic plan takes into consideration the expansion areas of the school of extra students in the future. Mr. McDonnell replied he was using the current student population of 620. He informed the Committee of the difficulty to look at expansion in terms of the future. He stated that they are pretty much maxed out with the current system considering rainfall dilution to the area. He informed the Committee that the number typically used for per student flow according to the DEP is high. He stated the nitrogen in the waste water could be different then projected and that a high level of nitrogen needs to be predicted but that once the school is operational, it can be tested to determine the actual level. He stated that most of the time it is lower, which would allow for the capacity for extra expansion to the system. Mrs. Ziobron questioned if he could build it with the ability to add on in the future. He responded it is difficult because a longer or deeper leaching system would be needed. John Gibson questioned if the Committee could choose a treated and then expand in the future. Mr. McDonnell replied that a conventional treatment system (septic tank) consists of perforated pipes and stone around it or other leaching structures that get the water into the ground. A treatment system has a pressurized distribution system with a water system which pumps the waste water under pressure into the leaching system. It requires a bed configuration which is a solid stone bed instead of individual leaching trenches, with small diameter perforated pipe within the bed. They are different leaching systems once you go to treatment. He replied that you could easily replace the conventional with the treatment system. Mr. Gibson stated this answered his question that it was feasible to make the changes to the septic for future expansion of the school. Mr. McDonnell replied that the septic could support minor expansion to the school, but that major expansion would most likely require a change to a treatment system.
Mr. Barnes requested the septic to be designed to cover the 2 expansion areas on the school plan, for approximately an additional 360 students. Mr. McDonnell replied that he would look at it and get the information. Mr. Barnes questioned if the Committee decides to go from untreated to treated, if it would be expensive. Mr. McDonnell responded that it would not be cost prohibitive, but that he would highly recommend if treatment is need it should be chosen now. He informed the Committee that paying for operating costs on a system that is not needed now, but in the future could end up costing more than making the appropriate changes at a later date. Ms. Budzik asked if it wouldn’t behoove the Committee to choose a treatment system now monetarily. Mr. McDonnell stated no that a regular septic system would be best at this time.
Mrs. Ziobron stated that Planning and Zoning is going to see that the septic can handle the proposed expansion areas on the school, to at least have the possibility in the future to support the expansion. Mr. McDonnell stated that in order to support the expansion area, the Committee would need to decide most definitely to choose the treatment system. Mrs. Budzik stated that the cost is not this Committee’s issue at this point of time, but it needs to be known that it is feasible in the future. Craig Parker informed the Committee that 12 gallons per student could change. He stated that the way the Town would implement the expansion is not something that this Committee is responsible for. Craig Parker stated that the Committee is responsible to show room for expansion potential, but not to determine the future costs for it. Denise Gable stated that the Committee just needs confirmation that it is feasible. Mr. McDonnell stated yes, it is feasible.
Mrs. Ziobron questioned the DEP approval process and if residents have 30 days to make questions, why wouldn’t the Committee just go to Public Hearing. Mr. McDonnell stated that a Public Hearing will delay the project by 6 to 9 months at a minimum. He replied that the Committee couldn’t just go to Public Hearing, it would have to be petitioned by people and they must possess professional technical evidence as to why the septic should not be placed on the land. He stated this would be a formal Public Hearing with the DEP and involves Attorneys. Public Hearings could be performed and is encouraged as a method of informing citizen’s of the town.
Mr. McDonnell informed the Committee that the Department of Health’s process is more complicated than the DPH. He stated it is a multi-step process. The first being phase 1A, sending in the drawing of the sight locating the location of drinking water wells, which gives a phase 1A approval, allowing authorization to drill for the well. He stated as a Committee it is a question of if the wells should be drilled now, or to wait until a Construction Manager comes on board. The advantage of drilling the wells now, is it allows for the knowledge if there is water, as there is no guarantee that there will be adequate water. He informed the Committee that the downside is that Town likes to put costs off until the Construction phase of the project letting the Contractor drill the well as part of his project. He stated that the 2nd part of phase 1B is called the pump and water quality test. The wells are pumped simultaneously for 72 hours at the maximum rate the wells can be pumped to make sure there is adequate water for the school facility. Water quality tests are also performed for providing proof of uncontaminated water. He stated that the Department of Health is a very complicated system. He informed the Committee that there are people who specialize in water supply systems and that WMC has worked very closely with KBA with a special consultant that guides thru the process with the department of health. He stated that the cost is relatively minimal and having someone on board relatively early, helps to speed up the process. He stated that based on his experience, with a slightly larger project the cost was approximately $10,000. He informed the Committee that they would proceed with the phase 1A approval while the Committee decides if they would like to hire a specialist.
Mrs. Ziobron questioned Mr. McDonnell why he could not perform the process of going through the DEH. He replied, he could do it, but to be honest they are not as good at it. That it has become such a convoluted process it’s beneficial to have a specialists on board. Mrs. Budzik requested if there were any other specialists which do it. He responded, a few. He highly recommended a consultant whom he has worked with in other projects with a great reputation and fair prices. Mr. Gibson requested when the decision would need to be made. He responded sometime in the next few months. Mr. McDonnell informed the Committee that his experience has been that sometimes contractors drop the ball, not completing the work in a reasonable time and valuable time is lost in this area. He stated that Committee would pay for this type of person anyway thru the contractor and choosing an independent consultant would be in the Committee’s best interest. Brad Parker agreed that through his experience with the Senior Center building project a consultant would have expedited the project.
Ms. Mordecai questioned how much time would be saved by hiring a consultant. He replied many months. He responded that the consultant which he has used is RJ Black and Company and they know daily what paperwork needs to be filled out as well as changes to the DEH policy.
Mr. Moss informed the Committee that KBA is responsible for the Geotechnical Borings and that $15,000 was the allowance allocated. He informed the Committee that KBA solicited for firms and only got 2 back with the low apparent low bidder being $25,000. He stated of the importance of the borings for the foundation. The apparent low bidder is $10,000 over the allocated allowance. Mrs. Ziobron questioned why. Mr. Talcott responded it is a large project. Mrs. Ziobron questioned when the best time to do the work would be. He responded, Fall. Mr. Barnes questioned Mr. Talcott if he had any other bidding up to this point which has come under budget. It was responded, no not up to this point. Mrs. Ziobron questioned Selectman Parker who had done the work at the current high school. He responded that he believed it to be GZA. It was stated that Clarence Welti would be doing the work on the project. His credentials and quality of work were discussed.
Motion by Mr. Barnes to authorize an additional $10,000 to KBA so they
can begin the Geotechnical Survey of the site to come out of the contingency. Seconded
by Ms. Mordecai and unanimously passed.
Mrs. Budzik questioned Mr. Talcott if he were to re-solicit, in a few weeks, would he get more responses. He responded no. He stated that they had modified the program to include less borings then originally requested in an effort to keep costs down and there was not a significant difference in the price. Ms. Mordecai stated that if fall is the best time to do borings that it is reasonable to assume that the bidders get busier. Mr. Barnes stated that the project could not be moved ahead without the borings work being completed. Mrs. Budzik stated of her concern that there is a precedent, that every time the Committee needs to bid something out that they are going to need to spend more than was anticipated. Mr. Moss stated that he shared her concern, but that the borings need to be completed soon. Committee Members discussed the Traffic Study as an example of bidding out and ending up paying more. Mrs. Budzik questioned Mr. Talcott if 4 bidding on the project are common. He responded yes.
Mrs. Ziobron stated that there is nothing to report because the Board of Education has not met.
Construction Management Services Solicitation
Mr. Moss stated that BL had started the traffic study. Mr. Moss distributed and discussed the following documentation:
· A copy of the signed proposal for the Traffic Engineering Services as agreed to by BL Companies and the Town of East Haddam, dated September 23, 2005.
· Document from Chairman Todd Moss to Maryjane Plude, Director of Finance requesting the payment of $102,231.25 for schematic design services. Included are copies of the invoices that represent the amount to be paid. It also states that the Committee did not agree o pay the amount of $1,880.25 for reimbursable expenses included in the June 20, 2005 Invoice.
· Documents from various companies working in the construction industry indicating a rise in construction costs due to increased gas prices, escalation of raw material and energy costs, aftershock of hurricane Katrina and it’s implications for construction, the economy and real estate.
Mr. Moss informed the Committee that he would be attending the Board of Finance meeting on Monday to give them an update on the project and of his concern about the construction market and increased prices. He informed the Committee that he would share his concerns with the Board of Selectman and the Board of Finance. Mr. Barnes stated that he suggested the Committee not get ahead of themselves with speculations, that there would be cost over runs on some items and savings on others and not to try to predict the future. He stated that the Committee’s budget has a contingency as well as an escalation percentage added per year. Mrs. Ziobron stated that she agreed with Mr. Barnes, that it is best to present the numbers to the Board of Finance and not present speculation.
Ms. Mordecai stated that she believes that the un-audited 1.2 Million surplus maybe something that could be discussed with the Board of Finance as an option if needed. She stated that the taxpayers need to know that the project might be more expensive. She questioned Selectman Parker about the surplus. Selectman Parker responded that the Board of Selectman is requesting to meet with the Board of Finance for further discussions about it and that the Town needed to get the legal opinions from the Town Attorney. He responded that there is nothing in the current statue which specifies that money can be sent back to the tax payers in a form of refund and that it could be absorbed in next years budget, offset spike in taxes or provide for other projects in Town which have been put on hold due to lack of funds. He informed the Committee that the Board of Selectman needs to research how to deal with the surplus. Mrs. Budzik asked Selectman Parker if it had been audited. He replied it would be complete at the end of October.
Determination of Next Meeting
Motion by Ms. Mordecai to have the next scheduled meeting on October 5th at 6:30 at the Hale Ray High School, Room 117. Seconded by Craig Parker and unanimously passed.
The next scheduled meeting will be October 5th, 2005 at 6:30p.m. at the Hale Ray High School, room 117.
Committee Members had no other discussion.
Motion by Mrs. Ziobron at 8:47 p.m. to adjourn. Seconded by Mr. Gibson and unanimously
passed.
Filed at Selectman’s office
Attendance
A copy of the signed proposal for the Traffic Engineering Services
Document from Chairman Todd Moss to Maryjane Plude
Documents from various companies working in the construction industry