MINUTES
LITCHFIELD SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE
LITCHFIELD
INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL LIBRARY
A meeting of the Litchfield School Building Committee was
held on
Present were: Jack Healy, Chairman, Jeff Zullo, Gary Waugh; Bill
Buckley, Mac Bramley, Lynn Chapman, Chris Canfield, Kent Gilyard and Robert
Blazek.
Also Present: Superintendent
Jay Chittum; Peg Perusse, School Business Manager; BOE Members Diane Knox and
Meeting was called to order at
Approval of Minutes
Motion was made by Bill Buckley to accept the minutes of the
Motion Carried. All
votes were in the affirmative except for Lynn Chapman, Mac Bramley, and Jack
Healy, who abstained
Motion was made by Jeff Zullo to accept the minutes of the
Motion Carried. All
votes were in the affirmative except for Lynn Chapman, who abstained
Motion was made by Mac Bramley to accept the minutes of the
Motion Carried. All
votes were in the affirmative except for Lynn Chapman, who abstained
Public Participation - None
Communication
Bob Blazek reported that the BOS had two questions:
Bob Blazek – Can you participate?
Bob Blazek – Is it normal operating when you bring in your
plan that the project is accepted, or are there always corrections?
Bill Buckley – It’s important that the Architect and
Superintendent speak; no one else should say anything unless directly asked.
Jay Chittum – In my experience they usually dismiss the
Superintendent. I haven’t had to stay
the entire day.
Leo Paul – Should I attend?
Jeff Zullo – It may be worth having Leo Paul and the
Superintendent there and someone from this Building Committee. It shows a strong commitment to this
project.
Leo Paul – I am certainly happy to attend.
Jack Healy – When do we send the documents to them?
Gary Waugh – Is it typical that they would have questions of
the Superintendent regarding the schedule and moving students?
Jay Chittum – I don’t recall those types of questions. The questions were focused on code.
Jeff Zullo – The plan is final. You can’t change it at this
point.
Bill Buckley – Any Selectman can come to this meeting and
give input. There will not be any
presentations or changes.
Bill Dranginis –
Jeff Zullo – Detailed Design is complete. There could be changes based on bids but the
design is done.
Leo Paul – Before the plan is presented to the State, will
it be presented to the Building Committee.
Jack Healy – Over the past several meetings we made a bunch
of changes. Tim have never come back and
made one final presentation. Can you
come to the first meeting in March and give a presentation. No changes.
Bill Buckley – I suggest we do that at the March 3RD
meeting. We’ll still be working on Plans
and Specifications. We should invite the
BOS in writing.
Leo Paul – That will answer Kevin’s question.
Bill Dranginis – He asked that Public Participation be after
the presentation.
Mac Bramley – Opening up to Public Participation would be
meaningless. There are no changes.
Jeff Zullo – As part of the presentation we also should have
O & G present an estimate review.
Bill Buckley – There plans are being presented so that
everyone is on the same page. We’re not
changing, but they can certainly show up at the next meeting and comment on the
presentation.
Mac Bramley [to
Jeff Zullo reported from the BOF:
The Town successfully marketed $9.35M of which $8.8M had
been bonded for the project at 2.4%.
Money will be available to the project.
Mac Bramley – Since the money is not being used right away; the
interim interest earned, does that accrue to the Town of
Leo Paul – I believe so.
Mac Bramley – There is a chance that it can be
invested. Will the money earned go back
to this project?
Jeff Zullo – The BOF is to initiate the debt service of this
project in next year’s budget. It is a
forward thinking step by the BOF and it may reduce the amount of the short term
interest expense.
Jeff Zullo – I received an email from
Jeff Zullo – [to Superintendent Jay Chittum] – Do you want
to see if anyone wants to attend this seminar?
Jack Healy – If any BC Member would like to attend, get a hold
of Jay.
Jack Healy – I have been circulating emails through
Jack Healy – I met with David Wedge and discussed
ramifications of having the school project delayed. The reimbursement rate is 40-41% this
year. Nest year is will be 37%. If this project was changed dramatically, we
would have to start again, we would lose our place in line with the State and
we would be subject to a lower reimbursement rate.
Jeff Zullo – I really appreciate the leadership of the first
Selectman and the majority of the BOS to stay the course and make sure the Town
receives the best value.
Jack Healy - We also
spoke about the approval process.
Jay Chittum – David Wedge estimates that plans received in
March, the process is 60 – 65 days out.
Jack Healy – He said we may want to consider a local review.
Jay Chittum – There were also a couple of things we had to
adjust to the State’s regulations.
Gary Waugh – If a local reviewer does the review, do we have
to wait for the State approval or can we proceed right away?
Jack Healy – The review is sent to the State and they okay
it immediately.
Jay Chittum – David Wedge said when the plans submitted,
they will tell you how long it will take.
If we use a local review, the State will wait for the local to be
completed and then they will approve it.
Jack Healy [to Bill Buckley] – You have experience with
this, do you use local reviewers?
Bill Buckley – It’s fifty-fifty, but we use our own people
for a local review.
Jack Healy – We have an opportunity now to do some homework
about local reviews. I did not get a
sense from David Wedge that a local review was a problem, but also 60 – 65 days
for review, we would be better off staying with the State.
Gary Waugh – What is the time frame once the State approves
it and we go to bid?
Bill Buckley – I tend to agree with that. That is a pretty
good schedule.
Finance Sub Committee Update -
Mac Bramley – We have three bills to consider totaling $153,562.32
Haley & Aldrich - $2,824.50 for
completion of their contract.
Herbert S. Newman - $149,217.82 (4
invoices)
Peter C. Herbst - $1,520.00
The Finance Subcommittee requests the BC approve the
payments totaling $153,562.32.
Motion was made by Bill Buckley to approve payments,
seconded by Kent Gilyard.
Motion Carried. All
votes were in the affirmative. There
were no abstentions.
We passed a Motion to deny Plumb Hill Playing Fields (PHPF)
the $75K we committed for the track fence and swap it for a new baseball
diamond. We would like to explore with
the BOS if the $75K could be paid to the Town of
Bill Dranginis – We wanted all the fields to be equal. We are planning all new fields except the
baseball field. We hoped the $75K could
be used to improve the baseball field.
If O & G were going to use the area for staging and equipment, and
in the process damage is done to that field, we thought the $75K can be used to
redo the field.
Mac Bramley – I thought I just heard the $75K should be used
to restore site work. If we could get
rid of the $75K add/alternate and put it in restorative site work, I would be
for it.
Bill Buckley – The concept is nice but we don’t know if
they’ll be using the field for staging or equipment. The fact is the CM has stated that there is
not enough money for site work now. It
would limit us.
Lynn Chapman – Do we have a cost estimate if repairing a
field of that size?
Bob Blazek – How far does are responsibility go to repair
the field?
Greg Oneglia – We haven’t gotten hat far with planning where
the staging would go.
Bill Buckley – At some point there areas will be
identified. In concept if it works and
we have an extra $75K, we can put it in the baseball field. But it’s not enough money. Who knows how much damage maybe done?
Jack Healy – The $75K is something we committed a long time
ago. To start moving it around, I get
uncomfortable doing that. The money was
offered up for new fences.
Motion was made by Jeff Zullo that the Building Committee requests
the Board of Selectmen to fund the fencing for the Playing Fields in the amount
of $75K and utilize funds from this project and reduce the cap of this project
to $32,925,000.00. [Motion was not seconded]
Gary Waugh – You’re right Jack; it gets messy if we start
moving it around. Either keep the original proposal or if there are extra funds
at the end, put it in to site work.
Motion was made by Bill Buckley that the Building Committee
not allocate $75K to the Playing Fields Group for fences and take $75K and put
it into a line items for site work with the understanding when bids come in and
if there is extra funds, use it to improve the baseball field, seconded by Kent
Gilyard.
Jeff Zullo – Supporting that motion is reneging on our
commitment to the Playing Fields.
Bill Buckley – The recommendation of the Finance
Subcommittee was to reject the Playing Field’s request. This motion would eliminate the need to
commit to the fence.
Mac Bramley – The fences are going to be needed prior to the
start of this project. We can not
perform any work until the start of this project.
Bob Blazek – You’re saying if there is money; it is not a commitment. I don’t think it is reneging, we committed
to the fencing and it didn’t work out.
Lynn Chapman – If the $75K is not enough to repair the
field, where are we going to get the money to complete the repairs?
Jeff Zullo – The Playing Fields Group is privately funded
and the Building Committee committed $75K to their group. To me Bill’s motion is a retraction or
reneging of a commitment we made.
Gary Waugh – I think it is the most pragmatic way of dealing
with it. It is not reneging; it’s a good
faith attempt in dealing with it.
Bill Buckley – I don’t think it’s a retraction. I agree that it is a pragmatic solution to an
existing problem. We didn’t decide not
to give this money, but to entertain their request. The Finance Subcommittee is split in
addressing it.
Mac Bramley moved to question, seconded by Bill
Buckley. Questioned moved.
Motion Carried. All
voted were in the affirmative except Jeff Zullo who voted in the negative. There were no abstentions.
Motion was made by Jeff Zullo that the Chairman send a
letter to the Plumb Hill Playing Fields Group stating we’ve retracted our
commitment to fund the fencing, seconded by Bob Blazek.
Bill Buckley – That is not what we voted. I have no problem send the PHPF a copy of the
minutes. We did not renege or rescind.
Gary Waugh – The motion was that the BC was attempting to
comply with their request to repair the baseball field.
Kent Gilyard – The request was for the BC to try to bring
the baseball field up to par instead of paying for the fence. You are changing the heart and soul of the
motion.
Jeff Zullo – All I’m saying is that we communicate that he
BC is not funding the fencing.
Bill Buckley – I think a compromise that the Chairman notify
the PHPF that we took their request under consideration and we will attempt to
redo the baseball field and not fund the fence.
As we get into discussion with HSNP and O & G we can ask them to
consider using the baseball fields as a staging area and the impact on the
students.
Mac Bramley – One big point, the PHPF needs fences prior to
July. We can not fund fences prior to
July. If the PHPF are delayed past July,
I think we should fund the fences and the motion be reconsidered.
Motion Failed. All
votes were in the negative, except Jeff Zullo, who voted in the positive. There were no abstentions.
Technology Update – None
Architect and
Construction Manager Update -
Tim Callahan – I brought a set of documents, which we will
be reviewing on March 3RD.
Bill Buckley – Can you leave a set with Peg Perusse so we
can look at them?
Tim Callahan – I already did.
Mac Bramley – Why is the LIS addition rotated 6° to the
west?
Tim Callahan – We reviewed with O & G. There are trees along the back side of the
area we want to keep and also a view and also the way the building is sited at
that point.
Mac Bramley – Is there a higher cost?
Tim Callahan – I don’t know that. If there is it is not significant.
Mac Bramley – Is the rood still center grade or hip from the
Auditorium wall to slant.
Tim Callahan – They are sloped with drains in the center of
the roof. The drain is where it is
located and it is perfectly appropriate.
We changed the design radically because of the slope toward the
Auditorium. Center drains are used
throughout roofs, it is a common practice.
Bob Blazek – Do these drains tend to back up or ice up?
Tim Callahan – There are baskets.
Bob Blazek – But someone has to clean the baskets. Who is in charge of that?
Peg Perusse – Public Works is now in charge.
Jeff Zullo – I would like to hear more about the
schedule. I don’t think we are anywhere
in June, more like August. That is two
months behind schedule.
Gary Waugh – I agree, but I don’t think there are options.
Jeff Zullo – We need to update the schedule. It throws concrete off and steel off and
pushes us into winter, which adds cost.
Jack Healy – The BC pushed back the PCT from January to
March.
Bill Buckley – We really don’t know if bidding two months
later than anticipated is really going to be more expensive. There is a new system in the State and
contractors have to be pre-qualified.
There are a limited number of contractors right now who a
pre-qualified. There will be more when
we go out to bid. Can Tim and Greg
comment on the new system?
Gary Oneglia – Bill is exactly right. All bidders have to be pre-qualified. The bids on schools we are working on in
Tim Callahan – I want to mention that we did receive
approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Inland/Wetlands and Planning and Zoning will be in March. We heard from the DEP and are updating
drawings. Everything seems to be on
schedule for applications.
Bill Buckley – Are there conditions in the ZBA approvals
that require waivers they’ve granted to be filed on the land records?
Tim Callahan – The Attorney will read the ZBA approval.
Jack Healy – Hopefully we get quick action from the local
boards.
Playing Fields Update
Jeff Zullo – There is a show of cause hearing next
Wednesday, the 9TH. Action
could lead to cease and desist. The DEP
official came and did a site walk and noted changes and requested some other changes. They could pull the permit and stop the
project.
Bill Buckley – If we get beyond this, is the construction
crew ready to move forward?
Jeff Zullo – Yes, the contractor has made a commitment at a
considerable cost to fully sod the complete site this spring and pave and
install the track.
Motion was made by Mac Bramley to adjourn at
Motion Carried. All
votes were in the affirmative. There
were no abstentions.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelli L. Green, Recorder